Able D ete mate wen copie, Fes ms hiimehtennee kate oal aerensiensacn ne ‘ tsi } a3 = SONY meas dion « é 3 ere onan me ele Bates «R-non grgae pat ‘eta he = | 7 inmioanieeae ft mcieratnary tan ss Mees tea 7 VN 1 fe. nal ad ek 2 : ss “yr tae GAe hate Wert} pe eg nae ae pom maven pictewengsctenges str nahin dim tet - z me tu RAN od a NUIDACT A DOM ; Cie Ava Vy 4 t yi f qe -— SEE Oe OU Arte is eh spines (3 1 q ~ ; } ) Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2022 with funding from Princeton Theological Seminary Library httos://archive.org/details/newstandardbibleOOjaco_0 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY » = A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY DESIGNED AS A COMPREHENSIVE HELP TO THE STUDY OF THE SCRIPTURES, THEIR LANGUAGES, LITERARY PROBLEMS, HISTORY, BIOGRAPHY, MANNERS AND CUSTOMS, AND THEIR RELIGIOUS TEACHINGS Ko OF HINGED NOV20 Ree %, EDITED BY SOL 0gIGAL eS MELANCTHON W. JACOBUS, D.D. DEAN, AND HOSMER PROFESSOR OF THE NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS AND CRITICISM, IN HARTFORD THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY EDWARD E. NOURSE, D.D. PROFESSOR OF BIBLICAL THEOLOGY, AND INSTRUCTOR IN NEW TESTAMENT CANONICITY AND TEXTUAL CRITICISM, IN HARTFORD THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY AND ANDREW C. ZENOS, D.D. DEAN, AND PROFESSOR OF BIBLICAL THEOLOGY. IN McCORMICK THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, CHICAGO IN ASSOCIATION WITH AMERICAN, BRITISH, AND GERMAN SCHOLARS COMPLETELY REVISED AND ENLARGED EMBELLISHED WITH MANY ILLUSTRATIONS, PLANS, AND MAPS FUNK & WAGNALLS COMPANY NEW YORK AND LONDON 1926 CopyricutT, 1925, By FUNK & WAGNALLS COMPANY All rights of translation reserved [Printed in the United States of America] Published November, 1925 KEY TO INITIALS OF CONTRIBUTORS | The initials to which an * is affixed are those of contributors to the First Edition who have died, but whose articles have been retained in part, tho revised and brought up to date by the contributor whose initials follow those of the original writer. Psa tet «3.» eeeee Alexander Converse Purdy, Ph.D., Professor of Practical Theology, Hartford Theological Seminary, Hart- ford, Conn. .... Andrew C. Zenos, M.A., D.D., LL.D., Dean and Professor of Biblical The- ology in McCormick Theological Seminary, Chicago, Il. Alfred E. Garvie, M.A., D.D., Principal, Hackney and New College (Divinity School, University of Lon- don), Hampstead, England. Arthur L. Gillett, D.D., Professor of Philosophy of Religion, Hartford Theological Seminary, Hart- ford, Conn. , Alexander Souter, D. Litt., D.D., Regius Professor of Humanity, Uni- versity of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, Scot- land. Augustus Stiles Carrier, D.D., Late Professor of Hebrew and Cog- nate Languages, McCormick Theo- logical Seminary, Chicago, Ill. Arthur Samuel Peake, M.A., D.D., Rylands Professor of Biblical Exe- gesis, Victoria University, Manches- ter, and Tutor in Hartley Primitive Methodist College, Manchester, Eng. Archibald Thomas Robertson, M.A., Pie DD: LL... Professor of New Testament Inter- pretation, Southern Baptist Theo- logical Seminary, Louisville, Ky. Charles Harold Dodd, M.A., Professor of New Testament and Greek Exegesis, Mansfield College, Oxford, England. .C. H. Hawes, A.M., Assistant Director of Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, Mass. .. Charles Snow Thayer, Ph.D., Librarian of Hartford Theological Seminary, Hartford, Conn. Duncan B. Macdonald, M.A., D.D., Professor of Semitic Languages, Hart- ford Theological Seminary, Hartford, Conn. .Elbert Clarence Lane, B.D., D.D., Associate Professor of Hebrew and Greek, and Instructor in Old Testa- ment, Hartford Theological Semi- nary, Hartford, Conn. see eee E. von D..... Go Gewese GaAliiP st. H. A. A. K... Cove eoe Edward E. Nourse, S.T.B., D.D., Professor of Biblical Theology in Hartford Theological Seminary, Hart- ford, Conn. Edwin Knox Mitchell, D.D., Professor of Greco-Roman and East- ern Church History, Hartford Theo- logical Seminary, Hartford, Conn. Ernst von Dobschiitz, D. Theol., Professor of New Testament Exegesis, University of Halle, Germany. George B. Gray, M.A., Hon. D.D., Late Professor of Hebrew and Old Testament Exegesis, Mansfield Col- lege, Oxford, England. George E. Post, M.D., F.L.S., Late Professor in the Syrian Protes- tant College, Beirut, Syria. George L. Robinson, Ph.D., D.D., Professor of Old Testament Litera- ture and Exegesis, McCormick Theo- logical Seminary, Chicago, IIl. .. George Milligan, D.D., Regius Professor of Divinity and Biblical Criticism, Glasgow Univer- sity, Glasgow, Scotland. George Simpson Duncan, Professor of Biblical Criticism, St. Mary’s College, University of St Andrews. Scotland. Harry Angus Alexander Kennedy, D. Sc., D.D., Professor of New Testament Lan- guage, Literature, and Theology, New College, Edmburgh, Scotland. Hermann Guthe, D.D., Professor of Theology, University of Leipzig, Germany. Henry G. Dorman, M.D., Professor of Gynecology, and Dean of the Medical Department, The American University, Beirut, Syria. .... Hugh Ross Mackintosh, M.A., D.Phil., D.D., Professor of Systematic Theology, New College, Edinburgh, Scotiand. Ira Maurice Price,”"Ph.D., LL.D., Professor of Semitic Languages and Literature, University of Chicago, Chicago, III. KEY TO INITIALS OF CONTRIBUTORS LP sake Coe ees ieee Oe iu tine bee" Se eee ea Te Beis cee James A. Kelso, Ph.D., D.D., Professor of Hebrew and Old Testa- ment Literature, Western Theolo- gical Seminary, Allegheny, Pa. J. D.*....... James Denney, D.D., Late Professor of New ‘Testament Language, Literature, and Theology, United Free Church College, Glas- gow, Scotland. ARE ORN GB John Edgar McFadyen, M.A., D.D., Professor of Old Testament Lan- guage, Literature, and Theology, United Free Church College, Glasgow, Scotland. - J. F. McC. .. James F. McCurdy, Ph.D., LL.D., Professor of Oriental Literature, University College, Toronto, Canada. J. H. R...... James Hardy Ropes, A.B., D.D., Bussey Professor of New Testament Criticism and Interpretation, and Dexter Lecturer on Biblical Litera- ture, Harvard University, Cam- bridge, Mass. J. M........James Moffatt, D.D., D.Litt. Hon. M.A. (Oxford), Professor of Church History, United Free Church College, Glasgow, Scot. J. M. P.S...J. M. Powis Smith, Ph.D., Professor of Semitic Languages and Literatures, University of Chicago, Chicago, Ill. 1 Ci es ats John Moore Trout, Ph.D., Pastor of the Central Congregational Church, Chelsea, Mass. J. R. S. S.*.. John R. S. Sterrett, Ph.D., LL.D., Late Professor of Greek, Cornell University, Ithaca, N. Y. Peo oukhs. das 3's James Stevenson Riggs, D.D., Taylor, Seymour, and Ivison Pro- fessor of Biblical Criticism, Auburn Theological Seminary, Auburn, N. Y. J. V. B......J. Vernon Bartlet, M.A., D.D., Professor of Church History, Mans- field College, Oxford, England. bol Bet ear Kirsopp Lake, M.A., Winn Professor of Ecclesiastical His- tory, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. L. Bebe Lewis Bayles Paton, Ph.D., D.D., Nettleton Professor of Old Testament Exegesis and Criticism, Instructor in Assyrian and Cognate Languages, Hartford Theological Seminary, Hart- ford, Conn. GLa Ver Lewis Gaston Leary, Ph.D., Pastor of Huguenot Memorial Church, Pelham Manor, New York. M. W. J.....Melancthon W. Jacobus, D.D., Dean, and Professor of New Testa- ment Literature and Criticism, Hart- ford Theological Seminary, Hartford, Conn, SeAy ees ts Ses vis Ovid R. Sellers, Ph.D., Professor of Hebrew and Old Testa- ment Exegesis, McCormick Theolo- gical Seminary, Chicago, III. Sir Robert A. Falconer, D.D., Principal of Toronto University, To- ronto, Canada. Robert Henry Pfeiffer, S.T.M., Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Biblical .and Cognate Languages, Boston Uni- versity School of Theology, Boston, Mass. ...Robert William Rogers, Ph.D., D.D., Litt.D., LL.D., Professor of Hebrew and Old Testa- ment Exegesis, Drew Theological Seminary, Madison, N. J. .Samuel Angus, Ph.D., D.Lit., D.D., Professor of New Testament and His- torical Theology, St. Andrew’s Col- lege, Sydney, New South Wales. .Samuel Dickey, M.A., Sometime Professor of New Testa- ment Literature and Exegesis, Mc- Cormick Theological Seminary, Chi- cago, Ill. Shailer Mathews, D.D., Professor of Systematic Theology, and Dean of the Divinity School, University of Chicago, Chicago, Ill. S. R. D.*....Samuel R. Driver, D.D., Hon. D.Litt., Wie Se sera Late Regius Professor of Hebrew, and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford, England. ...Wm. D. Mackenzie, D.D., LL.D., President of Hartford Seminary Foundation, and Riley Professor of Christian Theology, Hartford Theo- logical Seminary, Hartford, Conn. W. G. Jordan, D. D., Professor of Hebrew and Old Testa- ment Exegesis, Queen’s University, Kingston, Canada. .. William H. Worrell, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Semitics, Col- lege of Literature, Science and the Arts, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. .. Wilhelm Nowack, Ph.D., Professor of Old Testament Exegesis in the Theological Faculty, Univers- ity of Leipzig, Germany. Wm. Sanday, D.D., LL.D,, D.Sc., Late Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity, and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford, England. Waldo S. Pratt, Mus.D., Professor of Ecclesiastical Music and Hymnology, Hartford Theological Seminary, Hartford, Conn. PREFACE N 1909 there was published by the Funk & Waanatits Company ‘A Standard Bible Dictionary,” under the same editorship as controls the present book. The purpose of that publication was that students of the Bible might have in readily usable form an adequate presentation of the facts regarding the contents of the Bible, based on thorough scholarship and also animated with loyalty to the essential truth of the Gospel. The success of that venture was both immediate and continued. And as the time drew near when the edition was about exhausted, the question arose, not as to the need of a second edition—since that was obvious, but as to its character and contents. It was, of course, evident that in the years which had passed since the first printing, the advance in the criticism and the knowledge of the Bible had been such as to demand a revision of the original articles which would bring them abreast of present scholarship. It was also believed that the addition of several general articles on selected subjects would add to the completeness of the Dictionary’s service to those Bible students whose interests were its chief concern. It was consequently decided that the entire work should be reset, thus giving to the revisers of the original articles as well as to the writers of new articles such freedom as would insure the best results. With a practically new book thus assured, a group of scholars were invited to revise, or rewrite if that seemed preferable, those articles whose authors had died in the inter- vening period, or found it impossible to undertake the revision of their own work. The preparation of the new articles was in each case entrusted to scholars who, in the judg- ment of the Editors, were eminently fitted for the service they were asked to render. Naturally, wherever it was possible, the revision of articles that were to be retained was entrusted to the original authors, altho cases were not infrequent where there was collaboration. The general result of these readjustments has been that the staff of contributors to the Second Edition is materially larger than was that of its predecessor. The problem confronting the Editors in this New Edition of the Dictionary is the same as that with which they were faced when they undertook the preparation of the Original Work. To solve it there must be an understanding of the material with which the Dictionary has to deal, an appreciation of the constituency to which it is to minister, and an intelligent comprehension of the critical position to which its purpose commits it. The material with which an English Bible Dictionary has to deal is, necessarily, the contents of the English Bible. The English Bible, however, is simply a version, and behind its English terminology are the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek originals. As a consequence, the Dictionary, while it reproduces the words and phrases of the English Bible in its titles, must treat them primarily with reference to the Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek terms which underlie them. In brief, its task must include the explication of a terminology drawn in the first place from the English Bible, but not from the point of view of English philology or etymology, but from the point of view of the underlying terminology of the originals. The constituency had in view in such a Dictionary is much wider than the class of scholars who are continually engaged in Bible study, are familiar with Hebrew and Greek, and have a first-hand acquaintance with the field of modern Biblical research. It is made up of the educated ministry, who, while possessed of Biblical scholarship, | Vii vill PREFACE alts lhe SMa a UM Nol es As Sea 11K ea nr tr REE BINT a bd ah er oe cae de have not always the leisure to enter into a discursive presentation of critical research; besides this, it includes the Sunday-school teachers and workers, who in most cases have not had the benefit of a scholarly education in Bible study and yet desire and appreciate all that Biblical scholarship can give them of its results; and, finally, it includes the intelligent laymen interested in Bible study, but not acquainted with Hebrew, or in many cases with Greek. For this widely extended circle of interested Bible students the Dictionary, to be of service, must avoid being too scholastic in its general character. It must be accurate in its presentation of facts, but not so technical as not to be easily understood; it should be up to date in its information, but not so discursive as to burden its pages with the pendantry of undigested facts. What it gives should be given in such a form as not to repel the busy man and woman of to-day, but to help them in their — understanding of the Bible, which they wish to read intelligently and to study with a view to the best results for themselves and others. The critical position to which such a Dictionary is necessarily committed must be one of acceptance of the proved facts of modern scholarship, of open-mindedness toward its still-debated problems, and of conservation of the fundamental truths of the Chris- tianity proclaimed and established in the message and mission of Jesus Christ. The constituency to which the Dictionary appeals is not to be helped by an apologetic method that ignores what a reverent critical scholarship has brought to light regarding the Book of the Christian religion; nor is it to be served by a radical spirit so enamored of novelty and opposed to tradition that it would seek to establish a new religion on the ruins of the historical facts of Christianity. It can be ministered to only by a clear, charitable, uncontroversial presentation of the results which a century and a half of earnest, con- scientious, painstaking, self-denying study of the Bible has secured, to the end that all students and readers of the Book may be led into its more intelligent understanding and its more spiritual use. The problem remaining the same, the Editors found themselves guided in the prepa- ration of the present work essentially by the same principles as before. (1) The text of the American Standard Edition of the Revised Bible has been made the standard English text of the Biblical citations and references. At the same time, it is evident that, the Dictionary being intended for English readers in general, this text could not be adhered to exclusive of any reference to that of the English Revision which occupies in British countries relatively the same position as that held by the American Revision in this country; much less could there be an ignoring of the Authorized Version of 1611, which in all English-speaking countries still maintains, and is certain to continue to maintain for some time to come, a position of great respect and considerable use. In fact, in so far as the Dictionary concerns the English Bible as a version of its original languages, it must, while adopting a standard English text, have constant reference to such varieties of interpretation as the English versions actually in use present. (2) The Concordance to the English Bible has been made the basis of the list of titles. At this point the Editors were confronted with a serious difficulty; for there is as yet no adequate concordance to the American Revised text. The nearest approach to any such work is the elaborate Concordance of James Strong, 8.T.D., LL.D., which indicates the passages in the Authorized Version where changes were made in the Revision of 1881, and which shows these changes in a comparative table, but contains no concordance of them. The recent concordance to the American Revised Version, by Dr. M. C. Hazard (Nelson, 1922), is not arranged according to the Hebrew and Greek originals and therefore, while actually serviceable to a degree, was of less value than was hoped for in the work of checking up the references in the Dictionary. While every effort has been made to PREFACE ix make the list of terms complete and to verify all references, it is more than likely that some terms in the American Revision have been inadvertently omitted. Apart from this, however, it is obvious that this basal relation of the concordance to the list of titles does not mean that all the words in the concordance have been given a place in the list of titles. The purpose of the Dictionary is not to record the contents of the Bible, but to give such information regarding them as may be of service to Bible readers and students. Furthermore, it is clear that not all the contents of the Bible which call for such treatment belong legitimately to a Bible Dictionary; for, again, the purpose of such a Dictionary is not to do the work of an English lexicon or grammar. There are not a few obsolete English words and phrases—especially in the Authorized Version—which are subjects of interesting study in our own language, but are without significance as regards the original text of the Bible. These can safely be omitted, and both the space and the dignity of the Dictionary be conserved. Still further, there are words and phrases which so obviously have little or no significance in the study of the Bible, that there would be no real service rendered the student or the reader in considering them. The Dictionary is not intended to do the work of the general English commentary any more than of the general English lexicon. With these exceptions, however, the effort has been to include in the list of titles every term in the American Revision. (a) This being the working list, it will be found as a matter of fact that its larger part consists of names of persons and places. These resolve themselves into two classes, the more important and the less important. As to the latter class, it has been impossible in many cases to do more than record the Bible statements, there being nothing known beyond them. But even in doing this the endeavor has been to place these statements in the critical connections to which they belong, the purpose of the Dictionary being not simply to gather Bible references, but to present results of scholarship wherever they have been secured. As to the former class, the endeavor has been to treat them not only in regard to the facts of the Bible record, but also and more especially in regard to the relation which they sustain to the progress of the history and the development of the religion contained in and connected with the Bible. This, the Editors believe, will be conspicuously evident in the most important articles in this class—such as those on Assyria, Babylonia, Egypt, Asia Minor, and Palestine on the one hand, and those on Moses, David, Elijah, Jeremiah, John the Baptist, James, Peter, John, and Paul on the other. It will be found at its best in what has been written of the One Supreme Person- ality in all religion. (hb) Closely connected with these person and place articles and necessitated by the historical method employed in their treatment will be found a class of articles presenting in larger compass the general subjects of the History of Israel, The Religion of Israel, Israel’s Social Development, Semitic Religion, Greek and Roman Religions, Ethnography and Ethnology, and the results of Excavation and Exploration, with a specific discussion of the politico-religious parties of the New Testament times, and the Religious Thought and Life and Institutions of the Jewish People. (c) Conversely, in the direction of the details of the people’s civic and domestic life, the reader of the Dictionary will find articles on such subjects as Crimes and Punishments, Law and Legal Practise, Family and Family Law, Marriage and Divorce, Money, Trade and Commerce, Agriculture, Artizan Life, Disease and Medicine, Dress and Ornaments, Burial and Mourning Customs. (d) It is impossible, however, in any study of the Bible to dissociate the history and life of the people from the literature in which the history has been recorded and the life has found expression. Necessarily, therefore, the plan of the Dictionary has included x PREFACE a discussion of the origin, composition, and characteristics of the Bible writings, together with those of the Apocrypha and of the more important writings in the apocalpytic literature. In the treatment of these writings the Editors have been influenced by a consideration of the readers for whom the Dictionary is intended, and have sought, consequently, not so much to enter into the details of the critical problems involved as rather, along with a plain statement of the critical facts which scholarly investigation has brought to light, to unfold the significance of the writings in their connection with the history which they record and the teachings which they present. This will account for the space devoted to the analysis of the contents of the respective books and for the treatment in many of them of their theological position. With a treatment of the Biblical books naturally is connected a treatment of the languages in which they were written, of the text in which they have been preserved, and of their collection into the canons of the Old and New Testaments. (ec) From such a treatment of the Biblical literature it follows that there must be. some specific presentation of the religious teachings of the Bible as a whole. The plan of the Dictionary confessedly did not permit it to enter the field of systematic theology; but equally, it did not admit of its ignoring the Biblical basis on which this science is founded—the point in fact at which the Bible is perhaps most profoundly searched and studied. The Editors, consequently determined upon including articles which presented the teachings of the Scriptures on such fundamental doctrines as Faith, Repentance, Atonement, Sin, Forgiveness, Grace, such presupposed doctrinal facts as God, such doctrinal inferences as Predestination, and such general fields of doctrinal thought as Eschatology. The specific religious teaching characteristic of the individual books and of the leading personalities of the Bible has also been given as thorough a treatment as the space of the Dictionary permitted. In all these varied directions it has been the endeavor of the Editors to maintain, the purpose of the Dictionary to present to the readers and students of the Bible the results of a reverent scholarship, committed to the accepted facts of criticism, open- minded to its unsettled problems, and thoroughly loyal to the basal truths of an evan- gelical Christianity. While this Second Edition has thus preserved, in the problem presented to it and in the principles followed in the solution of the same, the position taken in the original work, nevertheless it will be found by those who use it to be a book different in many important respects from its predecessor. (1) Naturally, mention should be made first of the revision of the original articles referred to above. Since the publication of the First Edition progress in the reverent study of the Bible has continued steadily and searchingly, with the consequent modifying or confirming of the earlier views as new facts have been brought to light. It is this progress of scholarship that has been the first concern in the revising of the articles of the First Edition in order that the readers of this Edition may be served to-day, as they were by the former book, with the facts of the Bible as now understood. This revision has in some cases meant the complete rewriting of articles, particularly where the revision was entrusted to some one other than the original contributor. Different views often obtain with different writers, and the fullest freedom consistent with adequate scholar- ship has been granted to the revisers as was granted to the original writers. However, where new writers have been asked to revise the work of others, they have been selected because of their sympathy with the general position of the original authors. It has also been the constant aim, in the present work, to restrict the contents of the revised articles more narrowly to their connection with the Bible. For example, PREFACE xi since the World War the Near East has undergone a great transformation, but with all this the Bible has nothing to do; and historical or geographical articles in a Bible Diction- ary cannot be expected to deal with modern history or geography. This restriction has resulted in the elimination of some material which was, relatively at least, extraneous to the treatment of the subjects as primarily Biblical. Furthermore, it has been thought wise to omit many references to theories or views so old, or discussions so long outworn, as to be of no service or interest to students of to-day. From the bibliographies attached to articles many old titles have been omitted to give place for attention to be called to the more recent literature. It is certain that this emphasis upon present-day thinking will add freshness to the Dictionary and materially increase its value to those who go to it in their Bible study. This revision has been in every way a thorough one. It has covered every title, even the smallest, and in such a way as to make the book practically a new work. It has, of course, been possible to use without change considerable material in the First Edition, especially the registering of the occurrence and Biblical usage of proper names and technical terms. It was found also that there was little call for change in the treatment of many titles, which, though the subject of more or less discussion during these last fifteen years, were dealt with so thoroughly in the original work as to need only slight alteration in order to bring them up to date. (2) Mention has been made already of the fact that the present book contains a number of new articles on important subjects which, it is believed, greatly enhances its value as a Bible Dictionary. Of these new articles special attention may be called to _ the two that are placed at the threshold of the Dictionary on The Approach to the Bible, by the two distinguished scholars whose initials are attached. Itis felt that a careful reading of these two articles will serve to clear away much of the unfortunate misunder- standing of the Bible that is so wide-spread and interferes so greatly with the true appreciation of its nature and how to study it. The article on Excavation and Explor- ation gives the reader a clear and concise view of what archeological researck is and what it has accomplished toward a better understanding of the Bible. The articles on the History of Israel, the Religion of Israel, and the Social Development of Israel form together an almost complete account of the life of God’s ancient people. The new articles on the Gospels and on the Synoptic Problem serve very materially to complete the Dictionary’s presentation of New Testament subjects and problems. The enlargement of the Dictionary’s scope through these and other added articles is obvious; we believe the competency of the scholarship which has produced them will be as evident. It will be perhaps not too much to say that the Editors have discovered in their experience with the re-editing of such a publication as a Dictionary of the Bible that the second task was even more difficult than the first. In their original effort the very newness of the undertaking gave them an enthusiasm that was born of the adventure upon which they were entering. But, in spite of such success as may have attended their work, the criticisms it invited, the mistakes it involved, the consciousness it brought to them of unattained ideals, made them realize that when again they set their hands to the task, they must make good where they had fallen short and, at least, give evidence of what experience and maturing conviction had enabled them to accomplish in the direction of a better book. They are under no illusion as to the perfection even of this second effort; but they believe that if unremitting labor and unceasing care can add anything to experience and thought, they have made appreciable progress toward their ideal. xi PREFACE It is difficult to measure the help to the editorial work which has come from the sympathetic interest of the contributors to the undertaking. The Editors desire that their appreciation of the assistance which has thus been rendered them shall not be underesti- mated. They would alsc acknowledge the courtesy of the PALESTINE EXPLORATION Funp and the Eayptian ExpLoraTIoN Funp and of the Harvarp UNIvERsiTy Press in permitting the use of cuts which have appeared in their publications. The Editors renew their obligations to the friends named in the Preface to the First Edition, two of whom, Professors StERRET and ANANIKIAN, have passed to their reward. The assistance of Dr. THAYER and his associates of the Case Mrmortiau Lisprary has been as kindly and unsparing in forwarding the work on this Edition as it was with its predecessor. Of others whose aid in one way or another has been greatly appreciated; mention should be made of Rev. Joun RAMAKER, for assisting in working out certain details in the initial stages of the work, of Mrs. WiLLARp Jounson for her careful at- tention to records and statistics, of Prof. Etpert C. Lanes, of the Hartford Theo- logical Seminary, for his invaluable aid in the matter of the pointing, accentuation and transliteration of the Hebrew and Greek terms, of Miss HELEN Nourss for her transcrip- tion of certain maps and plans and of Mr. JosrerH Saron, of the New York office, for his painstaking work in proof-correction. The kindly interest and sympathetic coopera- tion in the whole undertaking on the part of Dr. Franx H. VizeTetity, Managing Editor of the “New Standard Dictionary of the English Language,” is most gratefully acknowledged by the Editors. M. W. Jacosus EK. E. Nourse A. C. ZENos LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS N. B.—In the following list subjects likely to be sought for under various headings are repeated under each heading. Cross-references in this list are to other items in the list, not to articles in the Dic- tionary. PAGE RMN TT IE ETI VOUT GS 101-05 SMe ete ana ae tan td OR a LIND oe Weld Weed wield hess alattl wien oY male be facing 28 RBCS LENT ALIN ESTO ZO COMO! ui eee rr oe Nels, «Yet he Ae es evade lacie GPewebatac ashlsotacie oo 0 ole w ble o's lttbbalececns 590 SE PECTIC ALOR GA CAOLC, SLALOM Le etn ae teeth cle yale, UAE uses kd slice dha bk dee ids sie one ct cee one wads 590 Papuanots, mpecunens of Karly Hebrew and Aramaic... ij.0. 6 see soe ee leew speeccvcccesucvbeta 39 tere SiH LE VO) LJOIMCNS) IDE EASLEY AICSUING o:5 v6 bal evs piss alice sp 43 s sles dlacidelea edie css sdecen@ae 41 Perret elnnie OF, diy) NeDES, Crraund-Puan OF CHEE Oe. igre! bers cacy Sed atl s olvlareiglartisleic’s se asdaueced 892 Seer eE PIRES LESSON LTTT CO TTS POR a ee ic Pee bic bas fe W's ohare Ala ae a FL MWe wie ws ake Ldeeels 191 DIMES MIN plcsl ANGmepro ved WOLDS) 2 sie as sic wdik ee oie ph iaetole bo Ce duh eth icles civise sees 505 Cass SLT UA eRe So a URE Aas RRO Por cetaeet cade en Ra nci polle Se RA 505 SRE NSET tee ME, hd Oe nem Dg) ONS gM eee NS sch Shed Lv id fidelia ARIS Sel in.'o 00d lo: Wage eopl EWER bias Hin sue 805 EGE LOLV A) ATI ANIGUES oe er aac ees wy thas he aot g tall Ae CUE alork Sua.e ug HD ice oe! Uiie.s 6 814-815 I EITIUEICM NY OP HG BINS ISOLRCUC | nn Vegi. Nance as Goes ela he sie toes oH be Micatopes os ole COMMS cele so 4 facing 817 EE UAT ee NUR UL ey oo LARS or i ee RIPE ie thay eet a pe a Gt sla ad eee Waiheke else ose « 192 Sea PEC TICS ART CCL SERIE ELULAT 8 pei oy a atile oc odld f Stsk oS eihiees ed db) oats oe: dite dia! « Oe aka ne ehew/a sini @iece bt 48 EITM UES DCCILOCTISLON otic. eh crete ov oe «ole 6 Woo. ite Uakd ie ee A wai ol » "0 6) Seek oa a BHATIA iv oa Aloleie pti 39 INE TIME REL ETE OTR NRE gL eye fie ct) pees he 5 cdg Ve are Teg RR ko SS Sine 6 ooh Mlle hele wekeida & thy. s 940 erent SEC AGRICULTURAL LMPIAGMENTS:\. «6 so co cb ctvir obit disle cease sjnceceeedaatanieed facing 28 (PTET Wed) TAR aa RS ST hi a eC oR ar facing 798 cok oe PERRI Bt SA ial 2A A tA eA PR Aine ee RR PA og facing 68 SRE LICE SOC LITTER De Sk ey te valet 1 aot oe Neo eed te re eh he be dre ea Ae ree ce hole aie lena’ 12 ee cay RINSE VOC myManta Ree a, Tatas nie ame ee en yk cic lahk p's oa o's Give tegaes ose, She bo Aa eter slovels » 71 Asse back-sagadie for: see ARTICLES USED IN TRAVEL, 34 25.6.--¢scccucscclasiopecssvecsivoaes facing 798 Pero emI Lary cAnGard, with thor lmage Of the GOd. 02 }a sss. ssa c ees sbceveuwnlecntaaceeaderbenns 93 Asshurbanipal and Sennacherib, Map of Nineveh, as Rebuilt by............... cece cece eee eeeees 622 BEsuiTonroal a relace, Archers in: Battle Scene {roms che sik ac asics oe 4 em ed wee ois chcleisie Sarn bina e bis 940 en RTE TEAR COT AAI Rat crcin hha Po erate oS a dye Fo hla joel ches lg a's Rin” soe Oia oe RE VO wy ed c ohele OL ae tances whe 79 Peet ST EPATSpOr line OlORSA LLB eri nas Tate cia te eas We d.o OO CCN aaa ate Sie a cue dd gid Shells 855 SOM CE SREC EC LIDCR Ge ete eee AOMey oe Pe iee as PO eee ak GM Re oto Ak) ofc: Kosta bya" eial eves Wine ohede, cat shee wal eos 822 Bee re Leelee SSO WITT OV DOL Oly e .e ahcas hat a Moiel « octet Sis eae © og gd allele Ploin's a oils mice vec eoete 821 eae, PETS RS, VOL RIAT NIG ves ey OG een RE 2 ve a mgs a EA RD A 822 eet eie: Seen) GRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS). vss cs +s fcc sj Bic cl crcinlee let Gales elegieccl’yscsiaie cee facing 28 Se MET TIN CEC CET ASN Son cee cre whe ie hee elias aie a niet ata Weis Cae We See oe che toe teresa hose wile eidieeiaclwais 820 a aa A Se Ee as 0 A ee SO ald eh le hetero NA Nag ly GeO ear 917 Dpalyione. lan or.as Restored by Nebuchadregzar. 4.8.06 eee acne swe cas ee ceee sense facing 88 Nb GP, ING UO a ae Ss Ae ee ie aa Laide Se neta Seon eee Le facing 89 ee TE aOTOL ENO CTOCS AN 2 Cae oe ele alec eke eet eia sh te ais el- intel o shake, ple ob Seip opto o ciateg’s Bee mints lule'e u/alet ie amynnny nanan 591 Broom: see HOUSEHOLD, UTBNSILB ALT Vs Wee Uaik Gctele oe N'> wisi crea ecetelals MRR OREE A ats /alo bv ne facing 273 Bull, Assyrian Slave-Labor. Transporting a? Colossal... 0... e+ coin gas s oe oe sletaletticl<'sigis'e's op cena 855 Byblus, Coin from, with a Temple and Symbol of Astarte;..............e esp heeene os oe ells » salman 821 Cesar, Tiberitg enarinis Of.sis'\s oie 0 siege O ceth tes ie ad's o.d)t.0 sivie!o 60's (0 plele 9) Mann RIMES (let lees tetas 591 Carebaréea, PIA Ol witk ov oie w vlsle's 0.6.6 cc ccs ibinte Galea Gia db clbig bw b vlese's.o le's bic 6 4:0, e eine etna Olea oan a 120 Camel’s Pack-Saddle: see ARTICLES USED IN TRAVEL. ).. 050). vee ccc cele cee cence sss ce ean facing 798 ——— Saddle ‘Bag: see Anricims USED IN "TRAVEL. . in. vc. be delyeie sce 6 mo oo st teeeeein oe nly eee facing 798 Cart, Ox,'as seen'in’ Palestine, To-dayin. sv. bck cc Wicvslosiese © eiejetelele cls eo © slot patentee any ote tiene aman 125 Carthage,) Basalt Hamman Of). ) esi. foliew elvis she hate lies nw ee te dhe ile el ae 3 os 0 0rd RNIN ete err 820 Cedars of Lebanon, One of the Few Remaining Groves of the...... 0.0.20... ee cceeeeceee cece facing 124 Central Portion ‘of ‘Palestine, Map (TIL) of} ie sir ec. ccs a. oaigie ae c's b WN ila setae ce facing 660 Ceremony, Sacrificial..... lame saw ne Sse Sine WL he Sete pie ier esac cielo eAhe a ples ou leis ele er nee ainas nan 165 Chariot, Hittite War-..... a ibiatelala\e's:s 0%. ¢ 0 erosele ett tuie loys chee aeeh ote d Gelalel aie alte tah 'w "was \e yaaa gine sarin 65 Chest‘for Clothes: see HoussHoLD UTmnsins, IL... oes Cues os sa iathin s eee sale ds va iehn eeam facing 273 Clay Figure of Astarte......... Ae Bie cin Uldu cel ite bare re ahheNe Niche oe lace me eM ie rae ais tae a en een 822 Serre oreo WITH LIOVG. eis'elbit eg blew wie oie cigs ais o elen la fel mieieicteie lara ols ow inodelole eneletale)e.e\s/0 are ain eam eae on 822 Coffes-Mill: (see HousEHOLD:; UTENSILS, ITP 3 on, icteinieina stirs Weigle «oes ohce Vals gate pean facing 273 Coin from Byblus, with the Temple and Symbol (Cone) of Astarte.........00eceee cece ee ceee eens 821 ame OF ‘Alexander Janneus,’ BLONZE. s 2. oc-6 « s'ee vcs sle'ealdans chelviciste ale Pistade Wiehe lo: dtete aie c+ Gleteiet a Eareane aaa 590 —— (of Alexander Jannzus), Bronze, Mite of the New Testament. ........... 0c. eee eeeeceee veces 592 ammenOF TLCTO 1, Coppers sess sence ahi cieis sine s a o/cb 'e srele eieiniers tale migseta io States oVatete ratare tat ain cea nee 38 eros OF JONT ELYTCANUS. « . . 'cja cine caeelec's)a yee d'e.6 os att eInLe Ale ae oom: ein telete win peeteind be ik) ree 38 Of Pontius Pilate, Bronze. oss e'hc ss civie so aicleic'etceele & cepiets ln ee 'd.m'e’sicietele ba ylteleteles tall te taatnatananaana 591 @oms of Darius Hystaspes, Goldogaieic sce oe Sica nin Sake aie eieotg aoe eigre nb ielcdce gi sant incre Cates aan 589 Colossal Bull, ‘Transportation by Assyrian Slave-Labor. 3).0. 0.5.0.4. 0 000s claws ce ccwwcwuiees seeing 855 Conduit from the Virgin’s Fountain to the Pool of Siloam, Course of Underground..............+6- 428 Copper Coin of Herod I...... wij ase tah sepia ats olny 6 fafe oe auure lets icaion Seat oterg te a Chel na irenmane eC Peer Hof. 38 amorm Kotla? see HOUSEHOLD UTmnsins, [1s 2:3). 0c nico sos so oles a's whee ee teeanaa doo ele reuaseiereiaiea facing 273 Course of Underground Conduit from the Virgin’s Fountain to the Pool of Siloam..............+++. 428 Court of the Tabernacle, fo... Si cde eine cee e'eleco ee biclete sine ately cdc »leidraleieiese bictele a mish alee: aa aman 880 @ourts; Plan of Herod’s Temple and. .729.'.0's ods cleo weiccs cls sete ec er as tier ks oe eee ooh Ae 899 Cover, Wicker, for Dough-Bowl: see HOUSEHOLD UTENSIIS, I......... 0c cece ee cceeceeceeces facing 272 Crooks, 'Types'of Shepherds’. 0% 25 0.0.06 0 + oo oon oe ein Ur ece wlplene ce eraiaiellovetarat akan ol oleie ot tie aiettrtet tin aa 839 Cross-Section (E and W) of the Site of Jerusalem, Showing Elevations..............ceeeeceeeccees 424 -—— (N. and S.) Showing Comparative Heights of Different Parts of Jerusalem.............+. 424 Cyprus, Amulets Collected-iniis. sce feiss Pols Calan osha ae ea ee be eal bl ole at aati ete 191 ~~ Model of a Phenician Temple at Idalion...: 3.1... 2s ses se scien sein ome «creleluistaisiotale snag tte 394 ~— Pillars from...... RO ISSIIAE HOD ACh io tom Blokerstio’: Sec celebs dicleot« helt eh hater nanr ame 825 Dance tATGunn A ACTED LL TCOs!. 64 oc'sintce Gelorsisalce Vainne teen ¢ ele od vob b.0 he c.cle selec caesar mies 165 Darics (Gold Coins of Darius Hystaspes)...... ae aco(b een wisn i Colaredetibue a tole mtnata sl oaeana ae SPER PATS 589 Darius Hystaspes, Gold Coins of.,..... eae RAT 7 TE a SER Oke PRGA, we Sioa 589 David’s Capital, Old Wall of —Ophel............ a 's.elojaln's vie oe dteduscieta a Biciobce a net Cana e ee eas facing 429 Denariis of Piberius Casares 6l'ss es eisic aoe alae. sievlg ie nicla alatorecnitaitea ci dtete c lache tate piercala cr onan 591 Dervish’s Tambourine: see MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS. ......c..ccececcccccceccecccescceterces facing 600 Dibon Site Ok, tiers pack vee oo Shiv bse 0 cleo oo elses se 6 a lL tern ulnes Riloans Aree De I Bose 1 Ser Aare nk ee 181 Dolmens (Primitive Alfars) in Eastern Palestine. o... 6062/66 ds coe cece ons cess sit uso cure seein 41 Dough-Bow]: ‘see HovsmHoOLp UTENSITS, 1 5.)5 5 sic eWieieie Ui e'y o's o's. ornle Wits ad (soho s, ote ee facing 272 Drum, ‘Hand: see MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS. «<< 'ccis\c a. # + afelee's eye's wlosle-e om slave vie 010 6.6 bien oh en facing 600 —- Kettle: see Musica INSTRUMENTS.........cccceccccccvecessecve Ja.¢ 0.0: 0\0, oisie.e 6 fe facing 600 Dung-Catcher: see AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS, ......-20ccecccccvcccveees ei hegre ¢ eig » ble e:8 ICU ee Early Babylonian Map, of the World. oc. e\ccis aisicn ss cals cece q0.00' elie 00,00 ole'a engin tein nna . 294 Egypt, Map Of: Siamese soins cielo Sie a tRP eo isa alanine ale boCho'e tae a auele iv ae welalenake eer ys facing 200 —=—, Semitic Traders Bringing ‘Their Wares nto s. 0.60). ws oc on) © ee see oe ne 66 ot niente 377 Elevations, Cross-Section (E. and W.) of the Site of Jerusalem Showing... ..........00ceeeee ee weeee 424 Bphesus, Ruins of ‘Theater in Foreground. «<2... cle o0.- stud a we nis sos the ularehe lle ad een eas facing 216 Exodus; Probabla:Route of the, os sine sama teaasmelemedisis sie eee «os 4 0.0 00 ale.) elute Saba DERM sheen ee . 378 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS XV PAGE PAB SCHL Hr LOMAOLY DADC ANC CODIO Seite soe che Wedbl oe cle w oles niece's a's ale sand oe tee Ate 4 883 MMU Ca ITee ETE OE: LOE A CED TMO, OF Lc Ra a ikl Bote wind nce dss «ie bch anise ae tice boty cue eeeue ees 896 Peet mage SeVARTMOURS USED IN LRAVILay.. .)stsisorcc'etearern’s oleate alasicis o'ele'sleislacdhale se ols dlelcleedete facing 798 NRT RAR OTE LIDIN GIG EIDE © oa Aarne F clcle ch Pov en ai ch atda raved dlaleletite aieteolsg a SRS Meee oe I ae ee 191 Pater ror elormerisoe ARTICLES Usp INGERAVEL. 20.6 20 obais feed hove cca ec bewledccwccccveede facing 798 MP NC UEICAL, LNBTRUMUNT Siu’ pop etriste'sls clk Cale lt List ov aes Meee cs kOe Vilowoashe oee facing 600 PEM IMEL CATAL VISTOUL Sy. fakes wioneee as Cte alae tetaeT AD Nee elald ye Marea's atl hue Ud tele hel. Pao 153 Mepureiove. G00 LLOUSHHOLD. UTHNSIDS U.iiiicic. ci <:cieje(hetare slclcleteldielvaedu at cvscdecetcuececes facing 272 MMM MVOUALCAL ANATRU MEINTAS siatslsi Gers aid «3 ieietal t's abel lela sel alelels'c's'cheletetetabdlialateia'elevee ‘aleve s a es facing 600 MRR IOUT Ce) OC LULL R Savers ea Parco oe He DAN iy Stel oS cuardi o/c Aulaheu Aer eal oles lous es ded eectet deus 192 Fork, Two-Pronged: see AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS.......... 2. cece cec cece ceccceecececees facing 28 ~—— Winnowing, Five-Pronged: see AGRICULTURAL [MPLEMENTS.............0.000eeeceeeeee facing 28 SE IICIEPSTIC OND LICL IN! VW LTR aMm ETE Wiad Pe ey VA hated ec: OU HAY ahi Bo celeb e ld os ae vccwea dels 30 Fountain, Virgin’s, Course of Underground Conduit from the, to the Pool of Siloam................ 428 Front Elevation of the House of the Forest of Lebanon.............. 0.200 cc cece ec eccceccsececues 512 SPEC AT CMNOMON SL ON OM ALCL MUROC sy 4.0) heal calsie'a's Daley Chie aid e's e's sels Voth delle ee dee cdcw Sues 893 Galilee, Sea or...........00 A Oana meige Upre eines kid Wee iiarit seat 0 il eR eg kp She a 282 Se CEREALS Vrn th Ti nn dee aise Siete ais nila ale cutters rc cicte wee ys Atutla a) sled ciate’ o.ha eld Percelohale's. o's 0 le 'e'me 922 Gentiles, Tablet Notifying Them Not to Enter the Court of Israel................. ee He che cca 897 Geography, Map of Hebrew...... Aa Ta Ce sei ih eel, 6 OL AR it) 1 eb be Da A En 2 facing 293 SM REIETSO LS AVY OMMATLS ries cate oe a mh he elate eictahete sin Te a Gre a ats bn ee dd em Mee ois) cioete eee 191 ee Pe TICLES USED IIN L RAVE. a cde c clsice «3s cls rhc on js citiapiecee Ke ee dis eelelstiine solaa aes facing 798 PEA CHICUUTURAL LMPLE MENTS. iae dees sb a8 calt sosgistite Ow sie dledia dase’: selceeeitetedeess facing 28 MEM Pe ATARI ILODFOSe ti Lea tlOLL Os, Galea So's oko (aie sraey sante ey aeivore © 06 seuinie b etgin tale ales alee a qace 826 Goddess Emerging from, or Growing Out of, a Sacred Tree............ cc cece cee cece te eee e cece 821 RISE TUT IAR LL UALR ATION VER air ate vere thick Wiurelts aie Unie tee sev ait Me's Ss. « e'clp sitierielaee Gste aiecelayaice de de « 589 eas VIASAT TS FE LTC byes mutA RS Bb ae eR i et CAR Ol A 590 a orld Batty Cosa apse albet: Bs og 01rd AAT tele GU A ge a A a 192 Goshen,’ Cand of, Showing. Probable Route of the Exodus, 0...) . 20.6... eee e ec etc cece ee seees 378 SORTA TSE E At RTS ie ects Stns Fale ean eae Re SDI a a ATG Bic oleca'e so Sha bistare Ga Gicrd ti a alefa,e aiese facing 29 eee ATE A LOURMHOLD) CTINAILS,. Late ay oto os Wied ed hehalalas a kin, 6.2) aiacs ct daria tales dog's, e's ev facing 272 iarati-sleve: See AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS. 2.06)... sc ese sce cs ers scesdaeecpanescce ses facing 28 EE TEA TEAL TT LUH TS WLLL LYVOMIEIP ca gee hie ae Cetra see thee a’ ole araelcle Giga abcess cave Uie's wiecelacale gt « 580 ieeinder lan O1tue. couse of the Forest of Lebanons oo. isai sje oss el helelae e siele nls pw elec veka edeue pace 512 SET CEPA OR LOO TISONL IAL ETI IE gehen hea ils Pale aisle cults Gecate haa etul field SAP eM cne Clale Soa ee MAGig ale ob beh % oe 892 Paattioes GIDC. OMA NOM ALLL DEDESi nowt tA um mE ruINe. kes eRe il Ephig SPN Cle t,o dale el edie 892 Groves of the Cedars of Lebanon, One of the Few Remaining.................. 0. cece ee eeees facing 124 iarowinor woe City of Jerusalem; Map Showing the. .i.).)e. nec. oe de la ce cece cease siede facing 425 Csnv tine see A.GRICULTURAT LMPLIMENTS, \sce5-ssiecse sc ce ceed escceeesedseedasescoees facing 28 PaO eer) OF MIMON AVACCADCUS sos s;c had cece Saiste sia N ace cPile es Gudiicecsidvwecceseteeses 38 eee ES CEES RAS Nts VE MEAS Ay ON) hn RON ER Uhetl edt Uk HARES Grate tala We wn iGceted eee ae 820 ICN eter tats os Sige! Ong a a's oa hie tito Rae Se ae CANE Saha n dela tte este Sais sielee nd Seas 37 Pe eC ONISICAL, INSTRUMENTS, 16 ioc dal cra v ds dubs ele cele nd'scucceasbisedosscecene facing 600 Hand-Mill for Grinding Flour: see HouSEHOLD UTENSILS, I...........2 00. ce cece eee eee tenes facing 272 ee I CE a TNS a IGT et NM esis an hai AM ch bie eat baste aha @ ciel elele Sacrtje.e oie 79 EE a ATTUEL Aad cne UNS ay Sha Pf ae og atta ATO Paver ahe utes Gia Ai eile a boo perso & A'O Pele oo een ee 191 Hebrew, waryeand Aramaic Alphabets, Specimens Of... 1.0.20 2... es wee dene ccc ae cee eee snees 39 EE TIT sete et AL eo aha YR. wl GW ASG odie eek v's whee wees « facing 293 IIT Se SPE a AEs ea eta ae Tite oe wiyh Rta wie. o ela the wile Gopal e's dnl aise 6 ays ote SRG 922 Hebron, Interior of the Mosque at, The Monuments to the Patriarchs................++++++5- 534-535 Heights of Different Parts of Jerusalem, Cross-Section (N. and 8.) Showing Comparative............ 424 ENE UREN Ser Re aPC Lae i he Lee ko Ree at ila els wie a ecsld welele ajnledbie ele alslg 638 EONS! Gc PTS) EN iy et 2a Raa On Ie 899 High Priest, Diagram Showing Arrangement of Stones on Breastplate of. ...........+s0.e ee seeeees 867 PEmenv At CODSTION, 2~ a0 oe Lae Grid ees ky ae a ie ket) RR ea a fe PE tg do Jip 65 Holy Land, Ezekiel’s Ideal of the Distribution of the People of the...........-.. sees cece ee eee eeee 883 TRE eee WBICAT, INSTRUMENT Maran es oy wile dale bealela sc cee peu enna k cman endear maaedamalans facing 600 Horse, Breast Ornament for: see ARTICLES USED IN TRAVEL.........00 ee cece ee eter erences facing 798 Fetter for: see ARTICLES USED IN TRAVEL... .......cccecc cece eee e etree ee ee er eneeees facing 798 Head Ornament for: see ARTICLES USED IN TRAVEL. ...... 00 esse cece cree eee tt ee eenes facing 798 House of the Forest of Lebanon—Front Elevation. ..........sseescccccccccesesssssessessecesens 512 XVI LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS PAGE House. of the. Forest of Lebanon—Ground-Plan of the.) /2 0 ¢ os. 5085's 0's bo ei siee «o's ese sla tne ese 512 Household Utensila; (loos spre O88 as tsk CVn os 8 HCE bis ory ois bales ha'p eo Se oe facing 272 Hotsehold Uténsils, Tre iret sees ote tate ce ge cle chain's bilalig ox oie Ss ete: hy ny en facing 273 Hyrcanus, Coin of Jobin 2/0.) 2a ers tee cle ay wore 2 ibce SAM bs & are o'cbode ts © ove e aiets canoer: bie ta en 38 Hystaspes,: Gold’ Coins ‘of Darius. Bscriui's «ce h babe ies o's vidisla 9s p'e = 0 cle wisue oidbedialiel» alel site btn 589 Image of ‘the God) Asshur, ‘Military Standard withthe... ......2......6 58 de ects meleealc oe es een 93 Implements, 'Agrigultaraliy Worcs 3), cyt cies ook tat boc: hie o/h. weve ecevale o. 02/0 es loye pe ane ee oD facing 28 Inscription, Mesha: Whines), 24:and 25) co. oe ex ole oll ecm ee co ccsnc ele de 0» Oke hu enc atn we Un 2 36 The SUGRP Ene ow cc woe lap e etereeta eles aisle sce ss lees oon osha ss 6/n oor at ene Ree ee ee ee 36 Instrumentaypeyasical, (oc es. wine oo WM eh ae leiclele oak’ e soos velele We. oa e hve mos Oot a ee facing 600 Interior of the Mosque at Hebron, The Monuments to the Patriarchs...................-.44-. 534-535 Jacoh’s Well (hectional : View) 2.0 3'e cio oc oie sc cc he nies ciate s lintole clans ycevele!s see; MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS... 0.0/0.5 fae cies doe decls Hed dues dupe a tata ee facing 600 Key and lock: 'sée/HoOUsSHHOLD) UTHNSIES, ID... oii. 2 ese sce se ae eieidce eh eee nne en ene facing 273 Key-of a Palestinian Peasant’s House, with Lock. ooo... ic. oes eelec aie dso clesia thus phere nen 364 Knife, Pruning: see AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS. .........ccceccecccecccssceces oats acetate facing 28 Team ps, "ANCIENE Sais OA oss e ea lalerete tats aris wey lea eilalbic steiste ots ebay Sie quale aint clot (0a .etth th en 505 Land of Goshen, Showing the Probable Route of the Exodus................cc cece cccececececeees 378 Taverns Baise witht, - og Git eens ekersdeete « o%s. ose ena Reese! «a olde abe ale teh Strela aor s Sencar 895 Lebanon} House‘of the Forest of, Front Elevation.....0... 6000.0. deb eens ee be cede nee Sennen 512 House ‘of: the ‘Forest of,:Ground=Plan. 50 oi. oe ee ia wale sin eae ee ee 512 One of the Few Remaining Groves of the Cedars of........... 0.000 cece cccccccccceeses facing 124 DA PATIGZAN --EOLLETY esac ou misislcettittece o/c;+ Sie csclayece/eraje dics ee. ayeterule las ete aes ae facing 68 Lalybsetm Sicily, Stele from, /yPo Rises o'«, «ie o's nln calc son See iel ale op ehalerere oaBeahune el Aik sits ie eee ane 820 Tock'and; Key :/see Housmnoup Urensiis; Tt. s.ct oie i oR ee ee ee facing 273 ofa Palestinian Peéasant’s Houses oo... 0. oie eg olere ole on! col olelate| do 4 eke Deere eater a 864 VIED KEY SH! i0/schaln ins oleic) ote'e.o1s sl elsiwlaie eels) gialsln lai c isis slate! cat etaterel siells Mesh Nk tgh Siaiee tet: kt a 364 TOCUSEL PI TRE Oe ona eels eretalelalele'sletale nls ois iale't blelelplarsis, J a:8h ele Sd tee iete es fe 518 (with, Extended! Wings) 225i. is siefisle'gta ete aie coda oe dela ole wicle bo a 0 o.sclale uy a cine taNe teats nn 518 Lodge’in @ Vineyard, A Modern’) Booth ors iris 0. 4.) 2 ieslon bl Saye wal aw’ lal eloty eitaate pale edie 114 Tite: sees USIGAR INSTRUMENTS. 12/.55 5 s10\ len alcfnlelavsie hie! ufeleiatoraferete la ote/erabelg « duete aimee ayant enna facing 600 Lyre? see VL OSICAL INSTR UROGNTS! Nl. ole tecopieisinre 00st ob sibie tieieel ol scowiala'e + d0 dein ae Stee Sse a ane facing 600 Maccabeus,. Simon, Half-Shekel (Copper). of . is. occ 00h clio de cle sabe: a wlslelee cia go ea allele od eiets aie ann 38 Silver Shekel Of le. ie oe Meal as ecg Rt Ge photos ces lg tua\uce @ aoa take Cale ar ee eon 37 Mallet: see: Housenonp- Urmnsine, Tera oie. 8! as recce iw ace vin ale wb ave Ge. a ice eltanalel facing 273 Mandolin:..see Musical: INSTRUMENTS. Jue a ese wien enw ON db bine bow cee « ho ee ee facing 600 Mandrake y(6/ hopper peru or en rata ode a dig Pe yaa satel tay Mal aay oo} o hw Whale calves te er 667 Map. of Ancient Semitic) World. My is Sie 0). 180. te otalecialercsiaie wiki whale 'yiaco sic’ Gini eee !. facing 817 Of; Babylonian gs tcie eg ic Beier cole eee aoe cel dace) dos shel e psiol hon sPas op) 0 didi ok slang oust ct an mannan facing 89 of Central Portion of Palestine (TID) 2. oni oe occ cg clipe cen wks la ky, oul eel eee eee facing 660 OF Bhary pt iirc oe rakes cote in ele patos Rte MT Lebo Pusher cok pes afioti ick nilmbo dn} sian! at = Paice eta ea facing 200 of Hebrew Gedgraphy 2 ).coc:on wictide bie aiela fete eats fied wigs slo eae st wie 4s a ota prdist se facing 293 of Jerusalem; Showing the Growthyof the City... oc). ia. s%.. «sin wlela'e aitie’e o's slain een ae eal facing 425 of ‘Modern Palestine i430 .6 nice he eo «tte hight dea ibidosta (o's 0'4'sbal sett ene facing 678 of Nineveh, as Rebuilt by Sennacherib and Asshurbanipal.............ccccccncececeeeeceees 622 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS XvVli PAGE SR ORerT CLO LE OLIN OL EHICSUMOHL V Sypris «01 hes isle doyle Pain vs vs.3 ce vhs ch aetatie ld Caleee facing 676 SPO LI Capea e G3 fmm EG spt ai Paty o ssiwis, cig P's oe 6 dura vied Cenike Pah between 650-651 PASTEL VEC eae 3). ce PR ee Umer nN eae Dik ak tae i facing 688 ee ee PE NCT TT TEION OF F AIGSLINGRCLE) V2 12). sacl atc led levSie sd ab ke Bia tele od a bw de Oaleels olunlhc ly eae facing 654 REET TICANV CIT ICME ISH. VOTE ee range rite ae Fein a heheh a /d Vir ghe veers ies dibie Updo’ sale a Ridlciceetnt eee eee 294 Showing Topography of Jerusalem and Vicinity, Outline.............. 0... cc cece eee eees facing 426 enteric en LEGUIEL .°. 4 ePmreee i aN ivin det vids ic set esiote le AGN S's QRies b.0'c SiS a ‘bw de oa cedke cater onie 153 Spm IPIRTIOCiertn)CLi1g Ite) Oy Vite pe tye ede acs nis ote cos opts 4 < J Swiss iio diay ve ockeeube ane 580 RPE TSU IU TPO INC 24 ATIC LO) ey ee els) ee A Gintt sieje oS doty nd 814-815 epee MEat a TPEaA TIT 3S, AA TECION) Ure eeetee emt tg oie state a in ane he A Sal's giatei plc's a/aie © olale bie tielle’ > wi éle spa@ wie le «lala 505 Pannier for Water-Bottles: see ARTICLES USED IN TRAVEL...........-0 cee cee cere reer reeeees facing 798 RTI oe. y LY te Oe Tee ENT ee Seats Pcie yk yhoo ge oe ale!eis)ald eles 0 3% gid o'sie Wiebe ho gael 667 Patriarchs, The Monuments to the, Interior of the Mosque at Hebron............---+++eseees 534-535 Se TE TE Ol sc. AA eRe eo cig oa olan wdc s ons e shige ee oe emee oo taheas facing 688 People of the Holy Land, Ezekiel’s Ideal of the Distribution of the... ..........e eee ee ee cree neces 883 Person Worshiping Before thie Macreds Procwee te ates reise he ce owe vices ee tdenialee’s pag v.caip spies e's XViii LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS PAGE Pharaoh with the Crown: of Upper.and LoweriEgypt.% 0.05 oie ease disses ole wie'e ae ge ee amas ns 701 Phenician ‘Temple'at: Idalion Cy prusic': s Cer Heo ele ere oe a nv os So Ce cies os en 894 Pillar, Anointing of a Sacred Stoney sss vines hes coe be gb icles a\ew'e oo bee alele Mimi «oie ely 3 etd 48 Pillars: from Oy prugy sc 7u:5 oes peti sedate eee Mlle Gare, HAN A dia Ne cue! wrelalnit AMEN dhe, os 5 pe nr 825 Pithom; Store City of, andilts: Vicinity ov. ic uiia. sah ee skies ce old ole, a+ sete eels pele kt aaa 715 Plan of Babylon 'as' Restored by Nebuchadreggar:. 3). 02005 6... 5... ements omtaaieeles & was ee ae facing 88 of Cpsarearniin, cw kiaie les. epee te MES in rots Miers atid alls S\ sue oo 2 6 ae naar as RRL, on en 120 of Herod's Temple and'Courtsy 0.2 Weaeakee ve se: PI rf ode 899 Of "Hoyal Buildings ye conics Bee Sheren Shel Gs! S322 5. wie) hse ale) s's oleae an rr 891 Plate, Metal, for Baking Bread: see HouseHOLD UTENSILS, I......:......5¢ccecccsevecdouns facing 272 Plow:\seo;A GRICDLTURAL IMPLEMENTS?!" Gaisce ec eve veces cslee vs oe ats aon eis facing 28 ANd OxPOAd eM yTIAN vos ccd ce We cath aite hee lho cules oie’ sc b'v.0 oie she een at nen ee er 717 Polished ‘Metals Mirror wOfi.s bps phos wie tebe ate aes oid sole Bie des Sie eo c's 6 Sonne 300 Pontius PilateBronze Coin Of; hes he la. see te ee a road slo Sele cleo bce 00s ROMEO gn 591 Pool of Siloam, Course of Underground Conduit from the Virgin’s Fountain to the................. 428 Pot for Hot- Water: see HouspHoOLp UTENSIL, LE. enc) ls enc eke. le Retention ane emnra facing 273 for Making ‘Coffee: isee;HoussHotp Urmnsius, Il. foie.) i... eran eee facing 273 PotterysyArtazan tite, fee ae otters Scie dee ie meets feos ie ieal'e les glesciune'’e.o o\ocg) ORS eure ener facing 68 Anclent-Seals on J&P Andles) i seeded oe cele ccs eb Seis ea wulesie ) ee ade eeine in ne ann 814-815 Pounder, Washing-: see HOUSHHOLD. UTENSIDS, TDs .)o5 oo. ws oe os coc co 30s we 5 ele alpha sige nenamanenG facing 273 Preexilic Seals on Jar Handles Found in Palestine. .............0 0. cc cece cence ene s stp bales 814-815 Vue NR O10 CE ORE PMA Melon 2 Sais op dd ge aed one Atle het OS ARE 632 Procession’ of: the Gods in! Babylonia: 25.5. cals. fs ticles Sac wis ole ss ca be sete Cd oleic le ke CU 827 Priming-Ax:) see AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS)... 05s ce eke ce dee cle vcleecucga cee eel ghaaene facing 28 «Knife: see AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS. foe iise.c eco c sce ees c cde cee ace ose el nataennenans facing 28 Ram’s' Horn, Jewish: ‘see MusicaL INSTRUMENTS. 6660... 0... ee we we toe 6 one ote et ene facing 600 Rea OMe GATE S28 ca cyins bs et REPEAL Ae sedi ene ate etic care ce ve tie 6! ai Sip ak di ota tace- us 20 Cee enc facing 29 Representation of a Procession of the Gods in Babylonia... oo... 2 J... . sds so 0h we cowie ne een 827 OLAVOACTE | LTCO.:. . o viaw wicks Mian tieiatticis apace’ cst lec crate e -Siath. hel bie visis, Sise’ sre atthe wale hea dhorepaate aaah Ate en 821 onthe Sun-God Shamash iis reg en ea peatdie: char's: sia + sleidie ¢ ¢ oitic clara ene amelie 826 LET OST Story sasake > 's tocytre tage acres 5: ccs tele ta aera naeai a tals Ta. sh 5th tik aad tind ak alana Oe nee 191 Road eetional (View: of Romans si scr ciw were we weap wie le ale eles s Cade ead aloha alge cesta eat ae 943 Roman Senate-house and Colonnades, Ruins of old.—Samaria.............. 00. c cece cece eeeveeees 804 Route of the’ Exodus,’ Probable. i sco aictek © ce eovete tious e either isvetece boule tae Pacie’ ceckcle:salh Gate a ier 378 PROP SB ULGIN GS ELAM OF. iccce Slee a yp alah e lares clue Wigs STRROMIRE eee (arches ae qlell cient chy at) al Ree he eh cee Rums of Ephesus-—Theaterinsthe, Foreground? «Gi c.6, wae bees ees ee facing 216 — of old Roman Senate-house and Colonnades.—Samaria........ 00... ce cece ee ee cece eee eeeeee 804 Sacred Stone Pillar, sAnointing of) Joop cos 2. Sea ae elk avs cele olen eae a Tica rite eee ad beet ae 48 dree; Goddess Emerging froma. 4.426 208 ee os ees bce 4s toed alee nile em ae ae 821 —- Person; Worshiping Befores ..scieo0 Se bod ites tensed: ie Sine ak wire ce ae ns Bestest 821 Representation OF. 255 sis, lfc seek code wi al okehs & slalig ellen se gece con. wtp ee trun the etetehe at pit aa ne 821 Sacrificial Ceremony. ois icia/sisic olsls arcie scsiateteteMPete sQeue le ‘eh o @ficlalase el acliebsly ool pbaietllare ote © aiken tet ait eke 165 pacddie:isee ARTICLES USED IN TRAVEL: oy ole 5.08.2 c.. Seen im sis'le s blere a a chee Glee ae eee facing 798 Saddie-Basc; see ARTICLES USED IN ‘TRAVEL. § s/iis cles «pleas oalevels s vases dupe ale eustel ty adel ee facing 798 SAIMATIA, VATICIOTIG a4 foe cid ars told iol n eheda ince, sien e Cobhveteverie ol Sov sale wid alle elo nt elalal oRUstS len evi et RENAE aang 805 Ruins of Old Roman Senate-house and Colonnades......... 04.0040... os ewieae tele sla aes 5 ee 804 LEG OL egeiate ote ile acho los eh eclineas hee WW ale RteRes citrate: Shay ac SuuNGUG A scat owee ARMLES. Bt tenes co an 804 Samaritan erp tse tass on che ccadeew vies heltasior cee ei cnet Ole Pete le eke ta lesa ote act a! clatntehty at ae Raye ten ante ee rr 40 Sandals® Various Forms Of. i245 cic'ebon 5 esis ieteiein ls ois, Beata lei oS OMe ss c's Mialh fee ela eels ld coe et he 190 Scopus, Jerusalem sro 1 as soins Riv a iktgics bates ow ite els mw eiminige es culled wie alc eisediate > owt gn facing 428 Script( Samarrbans . ccc As iss aresescsckeestarap ech chy sale couaiadawiks\ aol ciade.dco ayaelgBl Geta WTA sRoRyS tee tenn Sea Of Galilee sic O7ss wisiekracclocacetete: ori (cavicece caer ies teat Mtcuace ein aoa saste Repasidechavastarecehs.« 2, legs) aesQrtnn 282 Seal of Hananiah, Son of Azariaby cc. oie ele silk sie lese oe jeiete oss Sieleis's s Go so oe ce en 37 of Nethaniah, Son of Obadiah gags eco s ede las 5 ole bares sce vv ae ele ew clea afce 2 een 816 of Shemaiah; Soni Gf Azariah ys eis Oise debe adh sweety es ass. ce ie oseeian 37 Seals on Jar Handles Found:in Palestine, Preexilic...0 3. 0...2..0 0c. ees ews vee Oh 814-815 Section, Natural, at’ Ashkelon 2. 23 o. cites cs siete oso ae btae slob occ outa ele 4b ole tate 72 Section of the Underground Conduit at the Virgin’s Fountain..................0.-+eeeuneeeeseeen 427 Seed Sowing, Tube for: see AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS............ 0. cece ce cececcveveeeees facing 28 Semitic Traders, Bringing Their Wares into Heypt. 0... gin... ss os cece « wine eho annem ae 377 World, Map of ‘Ancient, .. pocrewerr as clomea ids seleccks siobe cs La ele eee tar een facing 811 Senate-House and Colonnades, Ruins of old Roman.—Samaria..........ceeeerceeces ty igs ate rene 804 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS xix PAGE Sennacherib and Asshurbanipal, Map of Nineveh, as Rebuilt by............ 00... ccc eee e eee eee eeee 622 IRRMTEMBENET< (FES) ESEEIMIL | QUUSIC CL ae pt cy inte a tesdas Gracd so cs 9 Jade din bin: chadet a "ole g Were die BLA IaS Ot 380-381 Shamash, Sun-God, Entering Through the Eastern Gate of Heaven.................ccccececscvees 826 REE OGTR ARETON GLI SST OU ery atnlg £4 minleld ere)tiaca\e, o'e < sibcais os acces sete ob damn bc alk s sa eieetea ow adie 826 SMNMRTISENA CAVE LE ITU VATU LIS. occ sche ce eeeRe sib fe as his wield in tacalc diatal a aleve wise a e.s capone ocd cle. oS cereale herd 839 SE ETT REPIVEL IG TIRIVE HEC UGS,” 1) VODcars et Slo fo) etait s ule tec Alate ae a. 6°8 seo woe elu e-ghe Sabewakhe d daa oleh eile 6 37 RE UPR ODET LOE 1INON . MACCADG Us aac, bs ace ¢ viclsis tage aide, occu cies avanca'thaledle Bigledlh sare ofa thin ware dimes 38 eNeTPIS MED cMDILICLIIN.,", iecta, Ce OE ha woes She ais dNieie o- s.5:s.0'0)0'a/a 6,04 pig Su ealaie's sae oiee Veteiels 590 MEM UM or Lie «sesch Ce a LM Rea ieh lake, wo disis als abe ecajetsase's cis de ee God vlakitio’s siala u's weld cpdiere the 37 NEI PGK LY DCS OF oo cee te erae ee Rie Tee ine ater area nial 8 sire Sagi scat AR Meg es cs os tice seen 839 UE RSE OI ITY cS 5g og ets eee ta atejt ol tM Khe as v's steless eos eclag coe tal sigioces ise va lieldche ale 190 EIRP ITLANY INITIO WING | HOLKA ATUL S ale pci ace Sita al atgye oid es clove. c/scaie)e. sf tuh.'s ale wR oie erain's dala'g se digrece 30 Winnowing: see AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS...... Pe oactemricnase: sta 's Sale chink Va Co oMMM EER ohaty ohe'S "oh ke facing 28 COTA GRIT ULTURAL LMPTIMIIN TEC fed gc lareld sid cloueld bias clabeiaie aisles bas cele vineeele's ov se eelads facing 28 SEM OO, FOUR HOLD UI SMNBIIM A Moe ih ein 5 ore k tin kd s's's «leiaieimialee's 60 nhs cued dv atwsie'ale a wetele’s facing 272 Pn ecOG A GRICULT URALMAMPELNMENTS: als ssi.cie'ds ge sientenn See vajeds wewledenaevsasiceeet facing 28 RTD Veet cet 1300 oe Seem te rey eee Se ACTS He ode ernraln's'y Sonia yim seats bis ae, Fins oer 0 doe ace ocd,s eid) shel oles, 6 191 RN RA LSU RCN ED ree 8 rer seme ne aa an Getto Seal el soba se Rhee SEE Seale! elds aie ouerc deel eje chasafe ee 36 Pool of, Course of Underground Conduit from the Virgin’s Fountain to the................+6. 28 Ie er ASLO ESLTIESTY IV) ACS oh Ree oc eh eis ck Finer l ale (ow alee oI aco F's Ca ce slave! chi Bol elulole’d stare 37 RCE SEIT rO ROL COD PEL), OLS ais % vie oc w cists raid Miers blaigia’s aise, s\< a%eeaiely @ ctolisle s sig'e s seca 38 OS OLUINED AUN 95 DGG cas pty RASH BOM A aS RE EE Gaba #218 Mag RA a me A a 37 ME REPIDC SET ee ae teres ons en te eae clans) oc a ta tans a phe ate dG weal s bre ois ae Oe Blelniarh Gaewee seg 71 PAL ISOM ce ere ea Le Ae Se Ld 2h CNY OUI Cae a'delh Gale ee ile ised aces 181 Site of Jerusalem, Cross-Section (EH. and W.) Showing Elevations of the....................2-e0 00s 424 Ta er eet er cette hd te aE te MHD ree MAN: Sidi da,)a yd a. pists Sach wha,la ddate los @ Bie S/b aly ate 804 PueInmeeneiis.,bOtGe OF Water-okins and Other... 2. isa acne alec's eee el els cece ede cb dbs we nore facing 114 Sledge, Threshing: see AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS, ......... 00.0 sc cece cree eeceees Daytona facing 28 REECE Freee ATCC T CLG eee a iy ssh dl cok Chet ey Ae A TPO be, 5) thal Af ga Aliovelavshace acta pievale'e miele sian s 29 OMT LET) D Li TROY ALUN Oia elt ako Wi winie e's aoe aiet vithe Sueiid dekh As wiste d min o's Zale nleis dipaiele semen 891 Remeee oMiple (Alter nce), shront VieW OL. 5.. coc dese e clavels mitts Sas claw dec uiteclasistedces see ctiees 893 Front Elevation, Showing Probable Construction of the Side Chambers.................. 893 Perse EATING MO Aa aN sete dake AT se adie oe cue Rigie i ete a a A gia eee RG Give off apehliria gs. « 892 SRP ETPE Ee etINe Vit I): (LU OL. bi Wh ae ate eee el a hire so cape ins Sones kd biden vem while aubieee digyern Wanc's cle atsreis facing 654. Specimens of Early Hebrew and Aramaic Alphabets. ............ 0... cece cece sec e cece eet e ec eeees 39 tay. Sep RTICLER ORD INU URAVED hike so cilan eicioid ee ds clehe «OS qalaiede Gala 6 alae dled facing 798 Pnteeihn thee minccwor tie Cron ASsnur, MILtAry. 26 cosas stels 4 aAlcle S40 ciclo aiine Gide Pek ce se deca 93 Pn ran ere an (el LO’ TOA L's sic oie sa a oratale ces Sieh aks and, als ielela evince lb elated 2 Ae ee ce 590 ee RR MIP ED ESPNS SICILY aioe Oo atate Bis ot oPal ocr ela cVedscalcke Sos tel oieke's be bien sisi ei vicisje ein divin a ciah e'sle slows «ten 820 META DRMM TMSTI ADC A sNCTOC ore se. ciciisctai eles cic oe ole e teak here eo, wie Cold eek aun a Rich o whee Wists aia tua a o's 48 TEAMED UOU TONSILS L Lees odie a o.s 6 hin cne siaicic elem ob steals Cs eee Fictsele seb be aie aele eles facing 273 SE IIIEME AKIRSTATICLEORVIEINILY 7s «store efits tc fats hess ners wn eee aes eve HE'S bln a sh diehnla pls og o'e'e lee. 715 Sun-God Shamash Entering Through the Eastern Gate of Heaven............cccccccccsscccevvees 826 Speen SNAMIAG shepresentation Of. the, os..5. 6 te cee ee wes ss tice cece cece cscs cecces Peleeatee s 826 Synagog at Kefr Bir‘im, Galilee, Front Elevation, Partially Restored. .............escecscceescecs 871 a Se PE TOUT ee ATHY re oss athe takes is cater ete Nee les eicles og Gals alviees bc Dee gece arte TAL nena MUSEATULA US ICELE DIP IIT) cst als(sisis cla.sicdin sip aise sie claieie 0,0 iute'vin ahwiels 4 vec sSecdvedesslee 871 Syrian Plow and Ox-goad......... Bale aay nn 8 seta tth het ae aia ke OP el | Pe ea a 717 ESRI te torch gar ao & oics «Pied vinlicis's ale Geis sss eicele (eles vepectescnrusrees 880 Tablet, Warning Gentiles Not to Enter the Court of Israel......... 2. cece cece ence cccccsccerceees 897 Tabin, or Small Oven, Used in Baking (Under View)...........--scccecccscccesscessevecesccers 272 ee Na rehash Ae SL otig! Gg (alo gis, eisai an tan 9.0\¥.00:e sie ble slale sweps scene es nese soctaieeis 665 Tambourine, Dervish’s: see MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS. ......ccceccoccceccccsccvccvcceeeesers facing 600 Pmerarese rel COUELS GE Aly OL PLOTOO S.cy cis kein ses cie bo ce eesieis ccc ole bes cawine voce soetedesveenacy 899 Temple and Symbol of Astarte, Coin from Byblus Showing. ............¢2cee eee ee ec eeereceeeeces 821 — at Idalion, Cyprus, Model of a Phenician................ ce cece ce ee cree ence et ee eeaeseeenes 894 p= OLeAMON At Lhebes,.GrounG-Plan Of... ..cscc secs ccces ces cccsscccecccccccecesenccseroneess 892 —— of Hzekiel’s Vision, Ground-Plan of. ..........cccccccsc secs sr acccncecnceccensssscececccocs 896 of Solomon (After Stade), Front View ofs.........cccccsccccccccccccecssnsocccssessesese- 893 REMCATOUTOSE LAN Of tGs ces mee aly heise + oi Wain sqelaie She asic soe elsitm a wle see gasses cals bee gin wile 892 —— Showing Probable Construction of the Side Chambers, Front Elevation of................ 893 IRE bela ain, oh oh Ge CR NTRS oe De? Gig adc eo a Wiles bene @ a ore dane ee ai wie Selee qmines 665 Matradrachm, -Pyrian Shekel oF: ....2ssscteossnccecertecnsveceerrearccssasretsesvecsereesesin 590 XX LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS PAGE Theater in Foreground, Ruins of) Wphesual (5 fo igvs celebs eouls dcle's\s's «Sie Migiolals a vis = es olelaiem facing 216 Thebes, Ground-Plan of the Temple of Amon at... .. 2.0.02... cecccc screens ceccrnecsevensescoucs 892 Threshing-Sledge: see AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS. .........0 cece cece ee eeedeccecectveceeee facing 28 (Under Side)i iin pases ten Carcaiee ce aeiele's wela « ou Meats oof Sul 0 ie PRemMERDLOR. oe lai s (sea aan am Tiamat,. Marduk's' Bight withies oy ce aa a ae eal Sake) «eo ew ches Die be ls een Legler o) ele|e oleae anna 153 Tiberius' Cesan,. Denarius of) is ieee es cua Aa ces Rebels slabs coy gies obese e:'o'e klele PAM Esa lass lol -« opetiee aa 591 Too-Rings, Foot with: Anklet andr Parson Veta cs ce Cake 6 cing sc 4 ics + as lo oes a RP TUMEROLOS: Ste labeled green 192 Tower of Babee ts oo ric colk leer Oe cle tebe Cath gaia die alee: so 0 aaa o 00) gehen) tira 'ae ite, eran 917 Traders, Semitic, Bringing Their. Wares into, Maynt, . 8.0. 6 ood. es ela ern unr ere bele ell els « of neaans 377 Transportation of a Colossal Bull by Assyrian Slave-Labor. ............ cece cee c cece eter ee ec rcees 855 Travel, Asticlas Used in. Sec war wets dat da deen tae cease ee eyed yee olan gin ae ann ee facing 798 Tray and Standssee Anvictms Usnn Bik ERAVEE Ve 6 os occ caine coqevchaielon eg MMMM Ci ey ita facing 798 Free, Dance Aroind's Sanred: occ eahic en eit wine hs Gels <0 0d aiglelle swidle die'a + a Sule UII piste) ae gaa aa 165 Tube for Sowing Seed: see AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS. .......e cece cece cece cece eee ceeeeers facing 28 Types of Shepherds’ Crooks...... Waray, aie win ks SRMESIG Grable eece din gaia Ais g Ohke' eo 8 er UCR mn isnt me te oan ea 839 Peran mhekelor Lotradrachen i s'< ne esa vent carey UN UN TY ot AAT Cea e.y ooo UM Cnne yl tale elie Risa 590 Underground Conduit from the Virgin’s Fountain to the Pool of Siloam, Course of................. 428 Utensils, Household, I.......... Cia el Din Danaea We alate ute Gaal gle elgg aa) ile: staan eal tala facing 272 REUSED, yrunc end ei Uta te Ce vate Peete ens CET EEN Tee PEP ETERS facing 273 ——., Skin, Bottle or Water—Skins and Other........ Sarena cia tethTatalePeaaia eset sed St del erate gta aaa facing 114 Vineyard, A..Modern Booth or Godge ins. oc abicecateceectcccacccccacseddeuds: (ca canine ae 114 Virgin’s Fountain, Course of Underground Conduit from the, to the Pool of Siloam................. 428 Wall of Old Jebusite City.—Ophel....... cas o's Gh Cetaatain be alle h GLa A cco Te acAtoeal CTI: ee a facing 429 , Old, of David’s Capital—Ophel.......... eee PE AO AL iA hee ea T'S facing 429 War, Ghariot, Hittite: : 2s 5 ce dake ve eae Wag he ate Ma Canton oe ieuie rice nce nr ae nn ray owly elke eae 65 Warning Tablet Notifying Gentiles Not to Enter the Court of Israel..............26 cece eceeceees 897 Washing-Pounder: see. HousEHoLp Urmnsins, IDs. cocci. 5 bd ce de teins tclen swiss nue aide oan facing 273 Water-Bottle; see Anticums USED IN TRAVEDex 60.4 cas feo ets ties ce esc ose lea mialels ae nea facing 798 Water-Skinsy Bottle or) and Other Skin’ Utensils). 3. so. « 60/0040 0 ana ois 0 ole cles a atuleta sananay ane facing 114 Well: Jacob’s (Sectional. View). 0... si sc usw ete ccs suv ehletls Guls cn dnle we g's u-Ggtelsimiaht iiss etn tan 408 MOUtH VOL JAG hss 2's asda cies Cob ee ROL ACC DCO © hoa neta a san PPR ee 408 Wicker Cover for Dough-Bowl: see HoUSEHOLD UTENSILS............0cececcccvcscececevees facing 272 Winnowing-Fork, Five-Pronged: see AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS. ........- +e cecececececceces facing 28 Winnowing, Forks and Shovel: Used iin. . 2, 6. cece oie 5 0.0 dwells role ales lau ble puePie eee) saan 30 Winnowing-Shovel: see AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS. .........0cccccceccccccsccccccecsceess facing 28 Woman's Girdle with Belle... 600 5s eco 0 bs ve cen tee Osa © pee 4 0 wel clele ole v0 renee aan 191 Wonien: Grinding Meal ‘witha: Millke acs ceca tes cc cw ce wea a ccs e oe sha ue cane) ena ine lene 580 World, Marly Babylonian Map of:thew. 00. o.0.5 ec on cc cc acacia oe claccle w/cltie ot calanecann nte=nn aan 294 Map of Ancient: Semitic, 2 is d5o iss sviele os s/a's,cs'e bie wlesce ws weiniere Mee onal eins etna facing 817 mens Map Of Pauling. icv gs o's € b a.sja'g 0'ic slotele one tale © lurelele oie: sholevonslets he atehciatet oie tai ete aan naane facing 688 Yoke for Threshing-Animals: see AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS............- 3 Tis See eee facing 28 Zither: see MustcaL INSTRUMENTS........-.200. hate ck cate alate ee o clele’ es ete w ston 1a en eee mae facing 600 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS (Self-evident abbreviations, particularly those used in the bibliographies, are not included here.) &, *,8,>,°, AB DE HLP, ete.—Symbols by which the various N T Gr. MSS. of the uncial type are designated. The * signifies the first hand or writer of the MS.; the superior letters (*, >, °, ete.) indicate later revisers or correctors. See New TESTAMENT TEXT. AJA : AJSL AJT . Am.PEFSt. . AOF - ARV 3 - ARVMg: | /< Asc. Mos. * AVi. AVmg., RVmg. BDB Bell. Jud. or BJ. . Bib. Sacr. Bib. Theol. Lex. dh ty a0. « BRP oi is Bul ASOR ome tout) CH. Ch. Quar. Rev. Chron. Pasch. CIG or CIG*. CIL. : , CIS or CISem. Cod. Ham. (07-7) Mie! US op eae Cont. Ap. . COT . - “ D . ° DB ., ' 3 DCB : r DCG % : EB . Z EBrit Lage Einl. e Ep., Epp. a ° American Journal of Archaeology. American Journal of Semitic Literature. American Journal of Theology. American Palestine Exploration Fund, Statement. Josephus, Antiquities. Hugo Winckler, Altorientalische schungen. American Standard Revised Version. American Revised Version, margin. Ascension of Moses. Authorized Version (i.¢e., King James’s Version of 1611). Authorized Version, Version, margin. For- margin. Revised Same as Ozf. Heb. Lez. (see below). Josephus, Jewish War (with Rome). Bibliotheca Sacra. Cremer, Biblico-theological Lexi-on of the New Testament. Josephus, Jewish War (with Rome). Robinson, Biblical Researches in Palestine. Bulletin of the American Society of Ori- ental Research. Byzantinische Zeitung. Code of Hammurabi. Church Quarterly Review. Chronicon Paschale, Corpus Inscriptionum Grecarum. Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum. Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum. Code of Hammurabi. Codex or Codices Veteris Testamentt. Josephus, Against Apion. Schrader, Cuneiform Inscriptions and the O T, Eng. transl. by Whitehouse. Deuteronomy (in its original form, or the code in Dt). Also, in a few instances D is the symbol for the N T Manuscript Codex Bezae (5th or 6th Cent.). Smith’s or Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible. Wace, Dictionary of Christian Biography. Hastings, Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels. The Elohist Document; see HExAaTEUCH. Encyclopedia Biblica. Encyclopedia Britannica, 9th ed. Einleitung. Epistle, Epistles. ERV ERVmg. Ee ‘ Kih. En. . EV or EVV Expos. . ‘ GAP . Lid Fo ee Heb. . Hebr. Arch. HGHL HGP Hist. Nat. or HN , HJP Hor. Heb. H.P.M.orHPM . ADS ie cites HTK IGSicil. . Int. Crit. Com. or ICC Jae ee Jee Mae k's JBL or JBLE JE. : ERIRP): JHS Jos. . Kethibh . XXi English (or British) Revised Version of 1881. English (or British) Revised Version of 1881, margin. Expository Times. Ethiopic Enoch, English Versions of the Bible (AV, ERV, and ARV). Expositor. F. Buhl, Geographie des alten Palistina. KE. Schiirer, Geschichte des Jiidischen Volkes, 3d ed. (4 = 4th ed.) Greek, B. Stade, Geschichte des Volkes Israel. Holiness Code; § 23. Drege Dictionary of the Bible (4 vol. ed.). Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica. Hebrew. Hebraische Archdologie. G. A. Smith, Historical Geography of the Holy Land. Same as HGHL. Pliny, Historia Naturalis (Natural His- tory). Schiirer, History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ, Eng. transl. of GJV, 2d ed. J. Lightfoot, Hore Hebraice. McCurdy, History, Prophecy and the Monuments. Driver, Notes on the Heb. Text of the Books of Samuel, 2nd ed. (1913). Burney, Notes on the Heb. Text of the Books of Kings (1903). see art. HexaTEUCH, Inscriptiones Grace Siciliane. Iniernational Critical Commentary. The Jahvistic Document; see Hexa- TEUCH. Jehovah. Journal of Biblical Literature and Eze- gesis. Jewish Encyclopedia. See art. HexaTeucn, § 29. Journal of Hellenistic Studies. Josephus. Antiquities. Jewish War. Against Apion. Life. ; Jewish Quarterly Review. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society. Journal of Theological Studies. Schrader, Die Keilinschrifien und das Alte Testament, 3d ed. ; The ordinary Hebrew text of the O T as written. XXxii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS LOT eae LTMorLTJM . Dips eee te NEG Ares ale NT eulyt NTGr. . i On, Onom. or Onom. Sacr. OFT ee Oxf. Heb. Lez. P . ° Pal. . 3 POE: PEF 5 : PEFQ, PEFQS, or PEFSt. . PRE: Proleg. . é Qeri or Qeré RE. RV. 5 5 RVmg. a e e Driver, Introduction to the Literature of the O T, 6th or later edd. Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, The Septuagint Version of the O T. Neue Kirchliche Zeitung. New Testament. Novum Testamentum Grecum. Eusebius, Onomasticon (also Jerome's ed. of the same). Old Testament. Oxford Hebrew Lexicon, by Briggs, Brown & Driver. Priest’s Code §§ 21 ff. Robinson, Biblical Researches in Pales- line. Same as P. Palestine Exploration Fund. see art. HeErxaTEucH: Palestine Ezploration Fund Quarterly Statement, Realencyklopddie fiir protestantische The- ologie und Kirche, 3d ed. Prolegomena, The Hebrew text of the O T as it should be read according to the Massoretic scholars. Realencyklopddie. (Same as PRE?.) Revised Version. (Generally, the Ameri- can Revised Version is intended by this abbreviation.) Revised Version, margin. SDOT lee E Sib. Or. . : Slav. En. 3 SWP : Syr. . ‘ TLZ . TR . . * ver. ; Vit. e ae ; vs. . : Vulg. WH WZKM. . ZATW ZDMG ZDPV ZNTW . ; ZW ives Sacred Books of the O T (The Polychrome Bible.) Sibylline Oracles. Slavonic Enoch. Survey of Western Palestine. Syriac Version. Targum. Theologische Literaturzeitung. Textus Receptus (of the N T). (See New Tsst. Text, § 2.) verse. Josephus, Life. verses. versus, Vulgate (Jerome’s ed. Bible, 390-405 a.p.). of the Latin Westcott and Hort’s ed. of the N T in Greek. Wiener Zeitschrift fiir die Kunde des Morgenlandes. Zeitschrift fiir die alttestamentliche Wis- senschaft. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenldnd- ischen Gesellschaft. Zeitschrift des Vereins. Deutschen Paldstina- Zeitschrift fiir neutestamentliche Wissen- schaft. Zeitschrift fiir wissenschaftliche Theologie, HELPFUL HINTS FOR THE GUIDANCE OF THE READER Sections: The larger articles will be found to be divided into sections numbered consecutively, no matter how large the article may be or how it may be divided otherwise. This is done to facilitate easy cross-reference. Wherever any reference is made to these longer articles, the number of the section is given, so that it may be turned to and found instantly. When the section to which reference is made is a long one and the term referred to itis treated only there, this term is printed in heavy- faced type. In this way it is believed the value of the Dictionary as a ready-reference book will be greatly enhanced. For example, the term KEY is not discussed by itself, but is referred to HOUSE, § 6 (1), where it is found printed in heavy-faced type and its Biblical usage is explained. Proper Names: In the case of proper names, thewmeanings have been given wherever they are known or can be ascertained with a fair degree of probability. Ina great manyyases this is not possible, and consequently no meanings have been assigned. Transliteration: In the transliteration of the Hebrew the aim has been to enable the English reader, who may be unfamiliar with Hebrew, to understand, as easily as possible, how the Hebrew words should be pronounced, and also to avoid the unnecessary printing of large numbers of Hebrew words. The system used is slightly different from that in general use, a few modifications hav- ing been made for the sake of greater simplicity. In particular, the older transliteration (as in the Englishman’s Concordance) of ¥ by ts has been retained, although the almost universal usage today is to represent ¥ by $. In regard to the vowels, no distinction has been made between the natural-long and tone-long, both alike being marked as long by a — over the vowel letter. The hafephs are indicated by an inverted caret, thus, 4, 8,6, Vowels with no mark are short. The indistinct shewas are indicated by small superior letters, nearly always ¢ or °. The following table indicates how the vowels are to be pronounced; a— 4 long, as in father, -z ashort, asinfat, -— 4 very short eNO es TOIT ttn DECY, wah OPAC Nttangh inet, act O (Sy We Of aot eaten LAVIN, eet Liew htc DIN, for —-5 “* “ * tone, ao OE EO Meret ee DOG has 1Oyacwe 1 en P ORD So ere 5 saute, =u a Canute -| 2# — #, &, °, merely a breathing—not a full vowel sound. In pronouncing a transliterated Hebrew word the following general rules will be of service; There are as many syllables as there are vowels, and every syllable must begin with a consonant (N=’ and y=‘ are con- sonants). As a rule, a consonant with the vowel following forms a syllable. Wher two consonants, or a double one, occur between two vowels, the first consonant unites with the preceding vowel to form or complete a syllable, while the second consonant takes the vowel following it. A final consonant belongs with the sylla- ble of the vowel preceding it. Hebrew words are, as a rule, accented on the last syllable, but if both vowels of the last two syllables are short the accent will . generally be placed on the syllable next before the last. The transliteration of the Hebrew consonants is exhibited in the following table. The letters 5, 3, 3, 9, BD, M, have each two sounds, a hard and a soft. When pointed with a daghesh, e.g., 4, these letters have a hard sound; when without a daghesh, a soft sound. With the exception of }, these two sounds are easily represented in English by b and bh (= »), d and dh, k and kh, p and ph, t and th. Altho gh does not well respresent the sound of undagheshed }, it has seemed best to make the same distinction in regard to this letter, L XXIV HELPFUL HINTS FOR THE GUIDANCE OF THE READER Hebrew words are transliterated according to the following table: HEBREW N=’ 3=b, J=bh (i.e., v) i=g, J=gh “T=d, T=dh (t.e., th as in the) m=h l=w [Pj ane ~ ae ig 9 es Os aN ll =] =m =n 8 (emphatic s) * (a guttural, gasping sound) w ] Me Tez M=h (t.e., a gut- tural h) O=+ (palatal t) = J=k, 5, ]=kh (like a Scotch ch) KU uu co S. I ABBREVIATIONS OF NAMES OF THE BOOKS OF THE BIBLE AND OF THE O T APOCRYPHA 1. BOOKS OF THE O T CEN Cy CARER pa ae Genesis TE Che iseesce II Chronicles NBD nisin Fab chibi ecnr Daniel PER kts ais o's: Exodus DOA de nies te nate ee Ezra Hos soMceecers Hosea vers eer. ce esc Leviticus Neh it Sacdanee Nehemiah SL rote eters see eres Joel INU ateVeiel ss _s¢++Numbers Hate, Aeterna Esther Ame sds dence Amos 1 Ba op SAA ae Pan ..- -Deuteronomy JOD. ce eee Job Oberon eae Obadiah A OB aes aicteicdsatace Joshua DS seen ence Psalms VOD oe fatnete ote Jonah eee alotere’s Judges Pri eee ee Proverbs Mic: se. vue Micah TRAD hey Sere eae” Ruth Boe eat esa Ecclesiastes Nahi aiice ¢etaee Nahum. LO ee iec a) dageree I Samuel Dong un see Song of Solomon Habstsees eee Habakkuk TUS sees keepers II Samuel Tai es aie eon Isaiah Zep, ss scecewts Zephaniah | y Rid CL He I Kings JOP ee ae Jeremiah Haggis etic Haggai Dire ny cme II Kings Davi sssk ace Lamentations LOG Lee mee oat Zechariah | DASH eee en e's I Chronicles Bike te. aoe Ezekiel Males! occa cee Malachi 2. BOOKS OF THE N T IV Gott eieters svete Matthew Bphe saree Ephesians Hexivat taeee Hebrews IK Seer eieretn see Mark Pheer oe Philippians DHSS, TOCA ee James Likstakiessh oe cee Luke LO) Rix ida ads Colossians LP er aieeee I Peter Abr byselsnrc serrate John bBo tne I Thessalonians bP LIE Pa Le II Peter ING Iie Worcieteiehenakes The Acts bd Bi elena oh Alo II Thessalonians Fodnee shad see I John RO sk tie cterntereiete Romans 1 iS Oe erate Sale Ai oe I Timothy EX nace II John TCOGs at areas I Corinthians DG el ty By eA II Timothy PETIA aon Os ces III John TDCos sero II Corinthians Tits aoe Peta dee Titus : JUG). cueinaee se Jude Galigacic ste Galatians Phra couse Philemon Rey. i o5.ccce pee Revelation : T Hai ecw ieee I Esdras thea he hoe ace ot Judith Ad: Estic ava Additions to Esther TEs tits donk II Esdras TEC cs see ais s Song of the Three Wiss sc hoe eee Wisdom PURE cote sah ete Sirach,or Ecclesiasticus Children Pr; Mans saeen Prayer of Manasses DADS 5 oes ie Baruch Bison te gies lest = Susanna I Mac. ee I Maccabces Ors at Sree eae OULE Bel..... «..+.-Bel and the Dragon IDWMaat, svsacee II Maccebees A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY THE APPROACH TO THE BIBLE 1. THE APPROACH TO THE OLD TESTAMENT. I. Tue Lirerary APPROACH. N He 11 the OT is regarded by implication as a‘word of God.’ In it‘God has spoken.’ He spoke, however, ‘by divers portions and in divers manners,’ because He spoke through men, who necessarily varied in their circumstances, character, and capacities. The O T is therefore a word of man, or of men, as surely as it is a word of God, and it is best to begin by approaching it thus. This is the literary, as distinguished from the re- ligious, approach. For whatever else the Spirit of God did or did not do, it assuredly did not suppress the individuality of the men whom it used. Many kinds of literature and many points of view are represented in the O T. The historical and legal portions (cf. Lv) are in prose; Ps, Pr, Job, Song, Lam, and most of the Prophets, are in poetry. This obvious but important distinction often affects interpretation. For example, the miracle which men used to see in Jos 10 12 f. disappears the moment we remember that the incident is related in a book of poetry (10 13) and must therefore be treated according to the canons of poetry and not of bald annalistic prose. The prose portions (Gn—Est) are historical in form, but their contents stretch far back into periods for which there is nothing like contemporary evidence. Hence we have to remember that for the period, say, between Abraham and Moses, we are dealing with tradition, which nevertheless may doubtless have a real historical kernel, while the period before Abraham (Gn 1-11) is practically prehistoric, and what we have in those earlier chapters of Gn is not a record of historical fact, but rather the Hebrew answer to the problems raised by the universe and by human life—whence came the world, man, woman, sin, sorrow, pain, death, etc.? Thusin O T prose there is myth, legend, tradition, as well as annals, tales, biography and history. An even greater variety characterizes the poetry. There are war-ballads (Ex 15, Jg 5), dirges for the dead (II S 1 19-27), love poetry (Song), gnomic poetry (Pr), dramatic (Job), lyric (many of the Ps), ecstatic (Is 21), hortatory (everywhere in the prophets): the Psalms alone exhibit a wide variety of style and theme —processional songs (24), hymns for pilgrims (120-134), songs whose theme is nature (8, 104), history (78, 105 f.), worship (84), the riddle of life (49, 73), etc. The outlook and personalities of the writers are refreshingly diverse. The grim Amos with his passion for justice—how unlike his younger contemporary Hosea with his appeal for love (6 6)! Or could any contrast be greater than that between the glowing exuber- ance, alike in message and style, of Deutero-Isaiah (Is 40-55) and the meager jejune prose of Haggai; or between Jeremiah who cared less than nothing for ritual and Ezekiel to whom it was almost the all in all? The O T becomes a book of fascinating interest when we begin to appreciate the differences, sometimes important, sometimes unimportant, be- tween its various writers. Job, for example, is in essence a protest against the prevailing doctrine of O T (cf. Dt, Ezk, Pr, Chr) that men receive in this world exactly what they deserve. Isaiah announces that Jerusalem will be divinely protected (37 35), Micah that it will be destroyed (3 12). The attitude to foreigners is sometimes friendly to the point of generosity, as in Ruth and Jonah; sometimes it is aggressively and fanatically hostile, as in Esther. Ecclesiastes denies the contemporary Hebrew faith in four fundamental points: (a) that the world is good (Gn 1 31); (b) the law of retribution (Ezk 18 4); (c) im- mortality (Ps 73 24; Dn 12 2); (d) the Messianic hope—the thing that hath been is that which shall be (Ec 1 9), and the world, which is bad now, will never be any better. The most pervasive and fundamental contrast, however, is that between the prophet and the priest. Amos at the beginning and Malachi at the end of the prophetic succession are diametrically opposed—Amos maintaining that J”1 demands not sacrifice and offerings but righteousness only (5 24f.), and Malachi declaring that the people have 1 This is the symbol commonly used to designate the proper name Yahweh, or, as it is spelled in the AmRYV, Jehovah, the covenant name of the God of Israel. 3 ‘The Approach tothe OT A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 4 ee Ts ass robbed God and brought His vengeance upon themselves by withholding the tithes and presenting blemished and inadequate offerings (1 14 3 8-12). Jeremiah is the champion of a religion of the spirit, asserting that J” had given no command concerning sacrifice (7 22) and that in the glorious future the law that would regulate human life would be the law written on the heart (81 33); Ezekiel, on the other hand, his younger contempor- ary, sees that future regulated by an elaborate ceremonial system (chs. 40-48), and believes that such a system alone can guarantee the presence of J” (48 35). The development of religious history and thought in the O T is, at least in part, a struggle between these two conceptions, and it is most instructive to watch the great protagonists of those ideas in their conflict with one another—a conflict most vividly epitomized in the clash between Amos and Amaziah in Am ch. 7. By the literary approach we are brought face to face with the vivid personalities of the writers—their experiences, problems, temperaments, idiosyncrasies. The O T is not - a quarry out of which texts may be dug in proof or support of doctrines; it is the literary reflection of experience, and we have not begun to enter into its real meaning or power until, by sympathetic imagination, we have passed through and beyond the words inte the souls of its writers whose experiences those words record. This is conspicuously true of the Psalms, which can only be adequately interpreted through an imaginative sympathy which reconstructs, so far as is possible, the original situation within and without the soul of the Psalmists; but it is scarcely less true of the historical and prophetical books. Be- hind these books, too, are men with a living faith which interprets for them God’s ways in history, and His demands upon men and nations. A literary study of this kind is, or should be, a real communion of souls. Il. Tue Historicat APPROACH. Iris of profound significance that nearly all the prophetical books begin with a chron- ological statement relative to the period during which the prophecies were delivered (cf. Am, Hos, Is, Mic, Jer, Ezk, Hag, Zec). This implies that only within these periods are their messages fully intelligible, and this simple fact imposes upon the student of prophecy the obligation to acquaint himself as fully as possible with the social and politi- cal facts of the times in which the prophets lived. Certain isolated passages may lend themselves to edification without a knowledge of those times, but without some such knowledge the bulk of prophecy is as good as unintelligible. When one prophet begins his message with ‘Comfort ye my people’ (Is 40 1), or another with ‘O Jehovah, how long shall I cry and Thou wilt not hear?’ (Hab 1 2), we must, in order to understand it, be able to visualize the public sorrow which called for comfort, or the oppression which seemed to imply that J” was indifferent. The prophecies were addressed primarily to Israel or Judah, not to us; to the 8th, 7th, 6th, or 5th century B. C., not to the 20th century A. D. Often the necessary knowledge is but very scantily supplied by the historical books of the O T itself (Kings, Ezr, Neh), and we have to draw heavily upon the records of Assyria, Babylon, and other extraneous sources; but from the prophets themselves we derive our fullest information about the social and religious conditions of the people they addressed (cf. Am 6 4-6; Hos 4 11-14; Jer 2 27 f., etc.). When this is understood, it will be seen how idle and inept is the attempt to interpret individual isolated passages, and more particularly the so called Messianic prophecies, as predictions of events in the life of Jesus or of other events hundreds of years later still. A promise like that of Dt 18 15 or of the child to be born in Is 7 14 finds its true and primary meaning in relation to the gen- eration in which it was uttered. This is the historical approach, and it delivers us from much fantastic and inconclusive interpretation. From such interpretation the book of Daniel has long suffered. But when we learn that it was issued in the second century in the midst of the great Maccabean struggle, not to enlighten later generations about the end of the world, but to comfort and sustain faithful Hebrews in their desperate struggle with heathendom, and to assure them of the ultimate triumph of the Kingdom of God, we begin to understand something of its amazing insight, faith, and power. But every book of the O T, and not the prophets alone, can best be understood in the light of the contemporary situation. Why does Chronicles, for example, when traversing the same ground as Kings, so persistently emphasize ritual, as is very evident from a comparison of their respective accounts of the reigns of Hezekiah (II K 18, II Ch 29-31) A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY The Approach to the O T a or Josiah (II K 23 21-23, II Ch 35 1-19)? Simply because the ritual interest was predomi- nant, as it is in Ezra, in the century, whether 4th or 3rd, B.c., when the book was com- posed. Whatever be its historical value for the times it describes, it is of great and un- questionable value as a reflection of the type of piety prevalent in the postexilic com- munity. So the book of Job, with its passionate protest against the traditional theodicy, and Ecclesiastes, with its melancholy verdict upon the futility of life, are best appreciated when seen in relation to the popular doctrines which they challenge, and against the back- ground of a world filled with the misery of upheavals (Job 12 17-21) and oppressions (Ee 316,41). Perhaps poetry—the Psalter, e.g.—has least to gain from a discovery of the historical background, tho, could we recover that completely, many things would be luminous that now are dark. The principle that literature is always a witness to the period which gives it birth is also true of the early historical books—of the sections, for example, in Gn dealing with patriarchal times. In ch. 22 Abraham prepares to sacrifice his son in obedience to a call which he believes to be divine; in ch. 28 Jacob erects as a sacred pillar at Bethel the stone on which he had slept and had his heavenly vision. These traditions go back to so hoary an antiquity that we can never know how much historical truth they may ultimately contain. But to remember that the passages were written in the 9th or 8th century B.c., when Bethel was a very popular and celebrated sanctuary (Am 5 5, 7 13) and the practise of child sacrifice, altho not prevalent, was occasional (II K 16 3), is to hold in our hands the key that unlocks their contemporary significance. Gn ch. 28 gratifies the Bethel worshipers and glorifies the sanctuary by tracing it back to their great and ancient father Jacob, while ch. 22 is a sermon, in narrative form, against child sacrifice, a prophetic protest of the same sort as, and only perhaps a few years earlier than, the protest in Mic 67. Prophet and historian alike were working for the same end, the puri- fication of contemporary religion. The full appreciation of the sequence of O T history and the development of Hebrew thought is only possible on the basis of such a rearrangement of O T material as has been wonbythe patient toil of generations of critical scholars. To begin with Gn ch.1 or to regard the book of Lv as a witness to the mind of Moses would be to vitiate our conception of the sequence and development, as these belong to the latest and postexilic stratum of the historical books. In view of the composite nature of these books it is not easy to say where a beginning might be most wisely made—possibly with the book of Judges, where social and religious life is, so to speak, in the raw. In any case the student should make use of some of the many helps to the appreciation of the literary sources and the chrono- logical understanding of the O T. Of these the most elaborate is Prof. C. F. Kent’s Student’s Old Testament, Logically and Chronologically Arranged and Translated, and one of the simplest Prof. I. G. Matthews’ Old Testament Life and Literature, where the syn- chronisms of the History and the Literature are tabulated in parallel columns. Ill. Tue Critica APPROACH. CRITICISM is inevitable. The problems with which it deals are created by the facts, such facts, e. g., as discrepancies and contradictions. Without some explanation or solution of these the intellect remains unsatisfied, and it is no mark of reverence to ignore or deny them. Let us single out some of the more salient and significant. According to Ex 3 13-16 and 6 3 the name of J” was unknown before the time of Moses. It is he who first proclaims it. But according to Gn 4 26 it is already known to the earliest genera- ‘tions of the world. The perplexity occasioned by this contradiction diminishes when we discover that in accounts, which look like duplicates, of the same event, for example, Abraham’s denial of Sarah, the name of the deity is in the one J” (Gn 12 10-20), in the other Elohim, 7. e., God (Gn ch. 20). In other words there appear to be two literary sources, distinguished by different views of the origin of the name J”; and this conclusion, verified in numberless other ways, has thrown a flood of light upon the com- position of the Pentateuch and upon early historical writing among the Hebrews. Or take again the quite incidental word of Gn 207 that Abraham is ‘a prophet,’ and com- pare it with the statement in IS 9 9 that the man who in Samuel’s day began to be called prophet had formerly been known as seer. The inevitable inference from the latter pas- The ApproachtotheOT A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 6 sage is that the prophet in the former is an anachronism, and that Gn ch. 20 can not have been written before the time of Samuel, is indeed in all probability considerably later, and belongs to the time when the prophet had become an important figure—a valuable clue being thus furnished to the date of the document in which it stands. Consider, again, the divergence in the two conceptions of the monarchy implicit in the story of its origin. One of the sources regards it as aiblessing and a gift of J’; the first king is anointed by divine commission ‘to be prince over My people Israel, and he shall save My people out of the hands of the Philistines’ (I S 9 16); the other regards the popular request for a king as a rejection of J”, and the monarchy as destined to prove a vexation, if not a curse (IS 87, 11#.). Is it unreasonable to regard this second source as the later reflection of an unhappy experience of monarchy, a criticism of the kind we have in Hos 8 4, 18 11? But by far the most flagrant divergence of all is that between Samuel and Kings on the one hand and Chronicles on the other. From the latter everything is omitted that would tell against the great David, while chapter after chapter is devoted to a description of the elaborate preparations he is said to have made for the building of the Temple and the organization of its officers (I Ch chs. 22—29); and minor discrepancies between the booksabound. The divergencies become very intelligible when we remember the late date of the Chronicler and the ritual and theological motives by which his presentation of the history is governed. The most momentous contradiction in the O T occurs in connection with the origin of the Hebrew sacrificial system. Amos (5 25), still more explicitly Jeremiah (7 22) and by implication Micah (6 6-8), maintain that J” had given no commandment con- cerning sacrifice. His demand was for a moraliservice. But how is it possible to reconcile this with the book of Leviticus which, almost from end to end, is an elaborate regulation of the sacrificial and other ritual, prescribed and issued by Moses at the command and with the authority of J” Himself? Criticism resolves this contradiction by putting the law, as expressed in Lv and the cognate sections of the Pentateuch, later than the prophets. The true chronological order is not the law and the prophets, but the prophets and the law; and this is one of the most vital and illuminating discoveries of criticism. The prophetical books present problems of another kind. The historical implications of one section may be so utterly inconsistent with those of another within the same book that the only possible conclusion is that they come from different periods. Why is it now universally believed that Is chs. 40-55 was written, not by Isaiah, but by an anonymous exilic prophet a century and a half after Isaiah was in his grave? Simply because the background is indisputably Babylonian,—it is Babylon’s gods that are mocked (46 1) and her empire that is doomed (ch. 47). But most decisive of all is the definite mention of Cyrus as the agent of J”’s purpose (44 28, 451); he is not predicted, he is already on the field of history, sweeping victoriously across it (412 1.). This simple fact obliges us to find for the prophecy a date within the period 549 B. c. when the Median empire fell before him and 538 B. c., when he captured Babylon. The aim of all true criticism is constructive, and its broad result is to make it abund- antly clear that revelation was progressive. In detail it has shown that, apart from Dt., three documents are represented in the Pentateuch—two preexilic and prophetic (known as J and E) and one postexilic and priestly (P); that Dt was published in 621 B. c. in the reign of Josiah (II K 22 f.) and written perhaps only a few decades before; that the material of Judges—Kings was redacted so as to drive home Dt’s lesson of the ruinous foily of idolatry; that in the literature (cf. P, Chron.) as in the life (cf. Ezra) of the post- exilic age, priestly interests predominated. This predominance has left its mark deep on Ot bane and, perhaps to an undue extent, has determined some types of Christian thought. IV. Tue Rewuicious APPROACH. ' TuE OT is, first and last, relzgious literature. It is the religion that has preserved the literature; and to fail to take account of the religion that created and lives in it, or to forget that a religious literature demands a religious approach, is to commit even a scientific blun- der of the first magnitude. The O T is a real unity: the variety dealt with in The Literary Approach is held together by the idea of God. ‘In the beginning God,’ and all the way through to the end. Every book of it is a testimony to its writer’s grasp of God and faith 7 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY fhe Approach to the O T in Him. The historians reveal Him as the Controller of history, through even the mys- terious places of which His purpose runs: prophets plead with their fellows to return to Him in whose name they speak and to whose service they are called, interpreting His will for them as a demand for a deeper purity, justice and compassion in their relations with one another. The psalmists pour out their passionate hearts before Him. Always He is there, a Presence as real and almost as palpable as that of the men who speak for Him or to Him. Their peculiar intimacy with God is seen in its intensest form in the three prophets who have described the strange experience in which their call to service came (Is 6, Jer 1, Ezk 1), but to all the writers—we may well believe—God, altho appre- hended less vividly, was the great Reality. It is always a religious purpose that inspires their writing. They never write for effect, or merely to convey information: they write to justify the ways or expound the will of God to men, to express their own faith and to inspire others with a faith like their own. This purpose, which is implicit throughout all the historical narrative, is sometimes powerfully and elaborately suggested, if not directly expressed—notably in Jg 2 11-23, before the historian launches on the story of the early struggles in Palestine, and in IT K 17 7-23, when he has just brought to its melancholy conclusion the story of the fall of the northern kingdom. Altho couched in the form of narrative, these passages have all the ring of asermon. They look like a quiet exposition of the ways of God with Israel; they are in reality a passionate exhortation to the readers to remember the God whose inexor- able laws control history and to avoid the sins of the fathers. Less immediately obvious but equally certain is the religious purpose underlying the glorious descriptions of the omnipotent majesty and wisdom of God revealed in the wonder of His universe, such, e. g., as we find in Is 40 or in Job 38 f. They are not mere descriptions, they are in- stinct with a religious purpose: they are designed, the one to comfort a despondent and disconsolate people by reminding them of the infinite power of the God who they think has forsaken or forgotten them (Is 40 27), the other to answer the doubts of God’s justice that had risen in the heart of a tortured man, by pointing to the wisdom and love at the heart of the universe (Job 38 26, 39). To one who understands that Daniel was written at the time when Antiochus Epiphanes was making his implacable assault upon the Jewish religion and its adherents, the purpose of the book is transparently to encourage and strengthen the faithful in their resistance to heathen demands, and to inspire them with the assurance that the kingdoms of this world, based upon brute force, would in the end be succeeded by the humane kingdom of God (Dn ch.7). It is this passionate convic- tion of God and His purpose, this persuasion of His presence in the individual life and in history, this delight in His law and His love, that binds the multifarious books of the O T into so singularly impressive a unity. Without some real affinity of spirit with those ancient men of God it is impossible to enter into the innermost heart of that wonderful literature, for at the heart of it is God. _ JoHN E. McFapyeEn. 2. THE APPROACH TO THE NEW TESTAMENT, EARLY a hundred years ago Thomas Carlyle wrote a letter upon religion to John Stuart Mill, exhorting his friend to study the Bible. ‘I advise you,’ he said, ‘to persevere in reading the Bible (in seeing it, through all distances and disguises).’ The distance between us and the Bible is great; it is probably about 1800 years since the latest of the N T books was composed. But this is a minor difficulty; an ancient classic reaches across centuries to those who appreciate it. The real distance between us and the Bible is moral. What prevents, for example, the N T from being understood, what makes it seem often a foreign book to us, is not so much its Oriental shape and color as that we are out of touch and sympathy with its religious spirit. Only those who are prepared to be receptive, can enter into its meaning and message. This does not imply that we are called upon to believe exactly as men in the first century believed about the world and nature; their mental environment and outlook has long passed, and the more we recover it by antiquarian study, the more do we realize that it would be unreal for us to put ourselves back into their attitude of mind toward miracles, for example. What is essential is the faculty of entering into the religious faith which took this form at this period. And this faculty is aided by the fact that the faith has never ceased to live and move within this world, assuming various forms, but always true somehow and somewhere to its funda- mental principles. To belong to the Christian church or fellowship is to possess a certain clew to the understanding of the N T, such as no outsider, with the best of intentions in the world, can secure. The N T was written by and for members of the Christian Church. It is literature of a community. The Church has sometimes misunderstood it, sometimes neglected it for long, and sometimes depreciated it. Nevertheless the ethos of the Church is the atmosphere of the N T, and, however acute and earnest outsiders like Carlyle and Mill may be, however much the interpretation of the N T owes to scholars and thinkers who have seen and illustrated some of its truths vividly from a detached position, the best focus for observing it lies in the Christian community, where life depends for its mean- ing upon a living Lord. | I. THe ProsieM INVOLVED IN THE LANGUAGE, TEXT, AND CANONICITY OF THE N T Books. Tus does not imply, however, that pious feeling and devout aims can afford to do without technical scholarship. To overcome the [distances and disguises of the N T, historical imagination is required—that 1s, imagination as the vision of realities. The real- ities in question come before us in a collection of small books written in a foreign lan- guage and in an Oriental country, centuries ago. This collection has been translated into various languages, and it has passed through all the vicissitudes of a literary work exposed to the successive phases of circulation and editing which apply to any similar collection of books. The first concern of a reader is to know what exactly it means, or rather what exactly it meant. For this purpose investigation has to call upon the dif- ferent methods of historical and literary inquiry, with the best available resources of pure scholarship. By their help, and by their help alone, the disguises that hide the N T or, at any rate, that obscure it can be removed, till it stands out clear and commanding. The first (a) problem is the language. Here the study of the N T is simpler than the study of the Old. While a small part of the latter is in Aramaic, the N T is all in one lan- guage, the Hellenistic Greek which formed the medium of intercourse throughout the Roman Empire at the period of its composition. The exact study of this language, of its vocabulary and grammar, has been transformed within the last half century.1 We are now in a position to judge with fair accuracy how far the new religion created a language of its own, how far it stamped new meanings on old terms, and how far it simply carried on its inheritance in this respect. There are variations of style in the writers; some are highly cultured, like Luke and the writer of Hebrews, and one at least, the author of Second Peter, tends to be florid. But the general level of the N T Greek is that of a 1 See article GREEK LANGUAGE. 8 9 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY The Approach to the N T language popular, flexible, and effective. How far it reflects its Semitic soil, is not yet clear. Most of its writers thought in Semitic; some translated Semitic sources. The outstanding problems to-day in this connection are those of the Fourth Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles, perhaps also of the book of Revelation. But the epistles were origi- nally written in Greek; there is no probability that any one of them represents a transla- tion. And even in the case of those books which may be held to represent a Greek version, in whole or part, of some Hebrew or Aramaic source, the general sense is not often rendered ambiguous, altho here and there the discovery of the Semitic original may re- veal a fresh accent or new meaning. Substantially, the religious message of the N T may be made out in all its outlines from the existing Greek text. And (6b) the text of the N T is in a far better state of preservation than the text of the O T. On the large majority of controverted readings there is a fair consensus of authorities for some one reading, whereas in many places of the O T the original text can only be guessed at. The huge mass of variants which swell a critical edition of the N T may seem formidable, but they are often merely secondary. Now and then early errors have crept into the text, but in the main it may be argued that these do not affect the cardinal facts and truths enshrined in the book. The problems of the text have been largely reset and elucidated during the past hundred years. They still form a delicate branch of research, but criticism has answered more questions than it has left open in this department, and there is a large measure of agreement upon the essential text. With any good modern edition of the Greek text in his hands, supplemented by an adequate modern English version, the reader need have little hesitation in believing that he is as near as can be, or need be, to the position of those who first read these documents in their original form. (c) Another point at which the problem of the N T is simpler than that of the O T, is in the question of the Canon. While all the books in the N T were written within a hundred years after the crucifixion of Jesus, it took several centuries before the Church finaliy fixed the Canon, that is, the list of the books which were to be regarded as inspired. Some were once read which were afterward ejected; others were left out or admitted with hesitation, which eventually won their foothold inside the collection. But once the N T Canon was fixed, as it was by the end of the fourth century, the uncanonical or apocryphal books, which had once competed for a place, were dropped. They were widely read still. Some of them helped to develop superstitions which entered into medieval theology, and many influenced medieval art and legend. But, apart from this, they were never ranked near the N T, whereas several books of the later Judaism clung to the O T Canon and, if not regarded as equal in doctrinal value, were read as edifying. Hence, there is a dif- ference between the Reformed Church and the Roman Church on the precise limits of the O T Canon, whereas, whatever be the differences between these churches, there is none upon the exact number of the original books in the N T. The N T Canon has no penumbra as the O:T Canon has, no fringe of deuterocanonical documents like the books of Ecclesiasticus and the Maccabees. Il Tur PrRosBLteEM INVOLVED IN THE RELATION OF THE N T AND THE FAITH . IT EXPRESSES TO THE O T AND ITs FAITH. TuEsE differences, however, only serve to bring out the unity and continuity be- tween the O T and the N T. The N T reflects a final phase in the revelation of God to His People. The primitive Christians were intensely conscious of the new, supreme revelation which had been made in Jesus Christ, but they claimed as their inheritance the traditions of Israel; their belief was that God had now fulfilled the ancient promises and realized His age-long purpose. The O T, with all its hopes and history, was theirs, under- stood for the first time in the light of Jesus Christ. This. was fundamental to Chris- tianity. But it raised difficulties for the Church, as it still raises difficulties. Some, like Marcion, stressed the new revelation in Christ so sharply that they repudiated the OT. It was to them not simply the record of an earlier and inferior stage in God’s revela- tion, but an incompatible entity, from which the new and true religion of Jesus Christ must shake itself clear. Against this exaggeration the main body of the Church, by a proper instinct, protested. Guided, as we may believe, by the Spirit of God, the Church held to the O T. But not always forright reasons, nor always along right lines. Historical ‘The Approach tothe NT A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 10% criticism was hardly in existence, and as a rule the only way of conserving the O T was to allegorize it. As a witness to. monotheism, as a moral code, and as a proof of God’s past dealings in history with His People or Church, it was thus preserved. But, once historical criticism asserted itself, the relation of the O T to the New became at once clearer and more difficult to define. In our own day, the argument from prophecy has been reset, for example. It is no longer possible to expect a literal fulfilment of some O T prophecies about the rehabilitation of Israel as a Messianic community ruling the world from Jerusalem, or to treat the Messianic anticipations of the O T as literally fulfilled in Jesus. What appeals to us is rather the religious experience and ideals of the O T, and in the N T we recognize that the primitive Church read its O T under the limita- tions of a time-view which we can no longer fully share. Their belief that God’s purpose and plan of redemption culminated in Jesus Christ, we share heartily. But not always for their reasons and not always by their arguments. We too recognize in the O T. history an essential preparation for the N T, but not an allegorical or obscure anticipa- tion of its truths. We see in the O T differences of level which were generally hidden from the eyes of the early Christians, and even as we penetrate to its unity of revealing purpose we estimate its contents more carefully and critically. Instead of a mechanical uniformity between the two Testaments, we note a historical development of revelation, which makes the connection between the two organic and vital. All this involves special problems, such as the determination of the text of the O T used by the writers of the New, their conception of O T inspiration and authority, and their use of special O T books. But the outcome of these discussions is to recapture the permanent relation between the two and to restate it in terms of modern historical research. Ill. Tur Propiuems RAISED BY THE CRITICAL STUDY OF THE N T ItsEnr. THIS opens up in turn the problems raised by the criticism of the N T itself. No religion ever survives in any healthy form if it allows itself to fall below the level of contemporary intelligence in any age. This does not mean that religion is bound to accept the dicta or dogmas of contemporary science, either in philosophy or in history. These have their vogue, and yield to others, or suffer modification as research proceeds. But it does mean that religion can not afford to ignore or to defy the methods of the purest and most exacting research as applied to its sacred books. What it ought to do is to welcome and employ these fearlessly, conscious that its message has nothing to lose and everything to gain from a fair examination at the hands of critical methods, and that the ordeal will only serve to bring out the fundamental truths at stake. To permit criticism only so far as it bears out some preconceived dogmatic conclusions, or to deny criticism any rights at all in this region, is as futile as to maintain airily that real faith and histori- cal criticism move on quite different planes and that the inner evidence of faith may dispense with any proof that the gospels, for example, are historically reliable. Some critical methods and conclusions would idealize Jesus into a symbol. It is idle to pretend that the acceptance of such theories would not impair the security of Christian truth. The Christian revelation has been made in and through history, and no mystical or idealistic reconstruction can survive apart from the historical reality to which the N T in its own way witnesses. But it is imperative that the record of the revelation be tested, thoroughly, fairly, and persistently. This is a commonplace which requires wisdom and courage to practise, especially in the study of the N T. The controlling principle is to realize what the N T really is. As its very name indi- cates, it is a collection of books held together by one religious conviction. ‘Testament? is the equivalent of ‘covenant,’ which means a gracious purpose of God for His People, a purpose entering into history. In Jesus Christ God created a new relationship between man and Himself, an inward, spiritual fellowship, which superseded the older ‘covenant’ in the days of Israel, and which was never to be superseded. The People of God were to be now not one nation but a church or fellowship drawn from all nations; the basis of the ‘covenant’ was to be faith on the part of men, faith elicited by the revelation of God in Christ. In earlier days, after some deliverance, the People would say: ‘Lo, this is our God; we have waited for him, and he will save us: this is the Lord; we have waited for him, we will be glad and rejoice in his salvation’ (Is 25 9). So, the primitive Church 11 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY The Approach to the N T at the advent of Jesus, said, ‘This is our God, the Lord.’ One of the notes that thrill through the N T is a note of relief: ‘At last!’ People felt that a long-expected revela- tion had been made, which indeed transcended all expectations. The realization of God’s gracious purpose in the person of Jesus Christ was the answer to many a hope and the fulfilment of many a promise and prediction. The redeeming power of God, in forgive- ness and fellowship, was at last operative fully through Jesus Christ, whose place in history was decisive, marking the action of God as a God of love moving freely within the history of His People. The N T books are the record of this experience. They were written in the first flush of this supreme revelation, and they eventually acquired their common title on account of their religious content. Modern criticism has emphasized the variety of outlook in the different books; it has revealed a growth of thought and experience, and it has made clear the fact that none of the books was consciously written for a place in the N T, since in that age no one dreamt of any ‘New Testament,’ the Bible of the Church being the O T. But all this stress upon various types and phases has also revealed the fact that there is a natural coherence in the N T. Independent and divergent as the individual writers may be, they witness to an underlying unity of in- terest and aim. They are not of equal importance; no one, for example, would claim that the Epistle of Jude is as vital as the Gospel of John, or that the Second Epistle of Peter is on the same religious level as the Epistle to the Romans, or that the Second and Third Epistles of John mean as much as the Synoptic gospels. Neither are they always in unison; the divergences in the four Gospels show a varying attitude to cer- tain facts and features in the tradition about Jesus. Nevertheless the books of the N T are not in the collection by accident. We might almost say that ‘they gravitated toward each other in the course of the first century of the Church’s life, and imposed their unity on the Christian mind. That they are at one in some essential respects is obvious. They have at least unity of subject: they are all concerned with Jesus Christ, and with the manifestation of God’s redeeming love to men in Him’ (Denney, The Death of Christ, Chi). This is the focus from which we may estimate the N T as a whole. It witnesses to a historical revelation of God, culminating in Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ as divine. The most common expression for this belief in Christ is that He was ‘the Son of God,’ a Semitic expression which requires careful study. What it involves, for the birth of Jesus, for His miracles, and for His resurrection, is one of the central problems set by the study of the N T. But it is indubitable that the writers were convinced that He was in some sense the ‘Son of God,’ in a sense indeed in which no other being was or could be. One of the acutest problems is to determine, in this connection, how far such a con- sciousness was present to the mind of Jesus Himself. It has been argued that the N T really contains two religions, a religion of Jesus and a religion about Jesus; in other words, that Paul and the early Church made a redemptive religion out of the simple, ethical gospel preached by Jesus. The weight of evidence rather tends in the opposite direction. There was in Jesus Christ, when He was on earth, a consciousness of God which involved the faith afterward held by the early Church. Explain it as we may, there is a vital continuity between Jesus and Paul, between our Lord’s life and the subsequent faith of this Church. Apart from a redemptive, unique element in the person of Jesus, the development of the apostolic Church and its theology is inexplicable. It is not unfair to hold that the critical study of the N T, as it does justice to the idiosyncrasies of the in- dividual writers and to the differences of outlook which characterize their minds, suc- ceeds in bringing out with newemphasis the fundamental religious unity and interest of their belief in Jesus Christ. IV. Tue ProBLem INVOLVED IN THE Fact THAT THE N T Writines BELONG, AS TO THEIR DATE, TO A PARTICULAR AGE WITH ITS OWN SPECIAL CHARACTER. Tue revelation in Jesus Christ, which produced the N T, or rather which produced the Christian Church in which and for which the N T books were written, was made at a certain age, and its record bears water-marks of its origin. The outlook upon the universe, the psychology, the conception of history, and the attitude toward social problems, which are reflected in the N T, are no longer ours. There are elements in its message which are not permanent. Also, there are questions upon which it The Approach tothe NT A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 12 | nen A CE NL LD throws no light; it is not a text-book for ecclesiastical or for ethical practise, and one of the responsibilities laid upon the Church in every generation is to recover its principles and ideals, without attempting to make it a code. One extreme position is to assert the literal validity of every word in it as inspired and authoritative. ‘The opposite extreme is to manipulate it in order to suit the prejudices of the age—a tendency which Mr. William de Morgan, the English novelist, satirically describes in his sketch of a Positivist solicitor (in Joseph Vance), who ‘was an example of a Christian who had endeavored to strain off the teachings of Jesus the Nazarene from the scum and the dregs of the world and the churches, and had never been able to decide on the mesh of his strainer.’ Now, the mesh of the strainer is not constant. But a mesh there must be, and a mesh which does not allow the fundamental reality of the divine Sonship of Jesus to slip through as an accretion. The study of the N T, which is to be religious and criti- cal, must be alive at all points to the historical and literary environment of the first cen- tury A. D. This is the beginning of wisdom in its interpretation, and much real progress has been made in this direction. We may say that the problems of literary origin and structure have been placed in a fairly clear light, even tho they are not yet solved. The outstanding questions to-day relate to (a) the original language of the Gospels, in- cluding the Fourth Gospel, and (6) the relation of Paul’s theology to contemporary cults in the sphere of pagan religion. The former is important, as it suggests the possibility that here and there the passage of the tradition from Aramaic or Hebrew into Greek may have altered the sense of a saying. But, upon the whole, it is not likely that investiga- tions in this field will affect materially the main outlines of early Christian belief. And, so far as questions of a literary nature are concerned, they are mostly secondary. Whether or not Paul wrote Ephesians or the Pastoral Epistles, whether Peter wrote First Peter, or the Apostle John the Fourth Gospel, are matters which, altho profoundly interesting, do not essentially alter the religious message of these documents. The determining issue is the primary conviction about the significance of Jesus Christ, and the main interest to-day is to evaluate the forms in which this was conveyed to the first generation of Christians. The N T is dominated by the impression of the redeeming realities of the Gospel. Jesus Christ’s person and work are the supreme subject and object of all the N T books, and it is by the standards of this revelation that they are ultimately to be weighed. These standards are not to be picked up by a superficial reading even of the Gospels. For the Gospels themselves witness to a variety and a development in their inter- pretation, and they present the difficult problem, for example, of determining how far the eschatological horizon affects the outlook of Jesus as well as of the Early Church upon duty. But, for the honest and fruitful study of the N T, which seeks to be free from bondage to literalism and traditionalism, and at the same time to recognize the moral and spiritual authority of the N T asa religious classic, the following points may be noted: (a) As literature of revelation, that is, as literature which conveys the immediate im- pression of God’s revelation in the life of Jesus Christ, the N T possesses the twofold quality of being intelligible to the age for which it was written and also of containing more than the original recipients could understand; it is meant for more than its first audience. Had the literature failed to express the significance of the revelation to the first century readers, it would have missed its aim. On the other hand, it was not under- stood absolutely and purely by that age; its meaning and message were not exhausted in the contemporary life of the Church. For revelation is a continuous process of God’s Spirit, and, while the N T is an indispensable record of the revelation in Christ, it is capable of fresh reinterpretation by the Church under the guidance of the Spirit. Over and again the life of Christianity has been revived by fresh contact with the N T, after conventional traditions of the Church have dulled the meaning of its sacred books. The N T is the record of a supreme religious experience and also of the interpretations of that experience. The latter are often couched in temporary and transitional forms, which lie open to historical criticism; but the religious experience does not depend necessarily upon the interpretations. The living Spirit of God maintains the life of the Christian fellowship, which penetrates again and again to the reality of the creative force of the revelation in Jesus Christ. (b) This record of the Christian revelation is more than a mere record; through it similar religious experience is generated, that is, religious experience similar to that of the first Christians. It is true to speak of ‘the sacrament 13 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY _ The Approach to the N T of the Bible,’ or; more specifically, of the ‘sacrament of the New Testament,’ for it has always had sacramental value for the Church, by putting its readers into direct touch with the presence of God, and thereby acting as a means of grace. The N T is not shut up in the first century. Historical study finds it there, rooted in its soil and breath- ing its air. But the more thoroughly this study is carried on, the more does the N T enable readers of a later generation to have a direct and personal experience of the revelation which it enshrines. It is in this sense that we may even call the N T ‘the Word of God.’ Not only does it contain God’s word, that is, the revelation of His saving mind and pur- pose in Jesus Christ, but, as Rothe observes (Zur Dogmaitzk, p. 155), it is such an original record ‘as is itself an integral element in the revelation which it records,’ charged with vitalizing power—not in any mechanical sense, as if the mere letter operated like a medie- val sacrament, but in the contact between the living God and the living faith of His Peo- ple who seek to know and do His will. For (c) the revelation with which the N T is charged is not a fixed deposit of dogma, supernaturally conveyed, but a Life generated by the Spirit of Jesus Christ. This Life implies no doubt certain truths or doctrines, which have to be retained and from time to time restated. But they are only tenable in and through participation in the Life itself. What enforces them is not any dogma of Church- tradition, not any arbitrary hypothesis of verbal infallibility, but the authority with which life speaks to life. When Erasmus broke through the tradition of the medieval Church and dared to present the N T, in as pure and direct a form as he knew, to the people of his day, he declared that this was the end and object of all N T scholarship and study, to allow Jesus Christ to become more visible. The pages of the N T, he wrote, ‘will give you Christ Himself, talking, healing, dying, rising, the whole Christ in a word; they will give Him to you in an intimacy so close that He would be less visible to you if He stood before your eyes.’ This realization of Jesus is the end of all N T study, just because it is the object of the N T itself. It demands more than a merely emotional or devotional attitude on the one hand, and on the other hand an approach which is wider than that which technical scholarship provides. For truth requires all our facul- ties, if we are to grasp it, and the larger the truth, the wider the demand upon intelli- gence and emotion. The revelation of God in the Life and Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ, which is enshrined in the N T, requires a personal verification from all who claim to accept it, a verification involving mental as well as moral honesty, humility, candor, perseverance, and a readiness to give up prejudices; most of all, perhaps, it requires a disposition to admit that the truth of this revelation is larger than any one age can grasp. Many, who are free from either animosity or indifference toward the N T, would find their appreciation of its meaning redoubled, were they to open their minds to the fact that this is the literature of a Life which disturbs whatever is lifeless and which remains more or less a secret to the self-conceit which is the besetting temptation of all mental research. It is through such disguises and distances, as we saw above, that the genuine student must pass, if he is to touch the Life which alone gives meaning to the Lirerature: A selected list of standard books is provided in B. W. Bacon’s The Making of the New Testa- ment (Home University Library). From subsequent literature on the subject the following may be selected: G. H. Gilbert, The Interpretation of the Bible (New York, 1908); A. S. Peake, The Bible, its Origin, Significance and Abiding Worth; E. Griffith-Jones in Peake’s One Volume Commentary on the Bible (1919); F. C. Conybeare, History of New Testament Criticism (London, 1910); A. Nairne, The Faith of the New Testament (London, 1920); S. H. Mellone, The New Testament and Modern Life (London, 1921); J. Moffatt, The Approach to the New Testament (London, 1921); E. F. Scott, The New Testament Today (New York, 1921); G. W. Wade, New Testament History (London, 1922); J. H. Snowden, The Making and Meaning of the New Testament (New York, 1923). JAMES MOFFATT © KEY TO PRONUNCIATION The pronunciation given immediately after the titles, when these are Hebrew proper names, is that preferred by Funk & Waanatts New Standard Deion a of the English Language. A comparison of this pronunciation with the transliteration of these names will show the difference between the modern English pronunciation of such names and the Hebrew pronunciation. Throughout this book the Revised Scientific Alphabet, devised by the American Philological Associa- tion, the Modern Language Association of America, and the National Education Association by joint action in Committee, and used to indicate pronunciation in the New Standard Dictionary of the English Language has been employed for the same purpose. Its essential principle is that one symbol only is used for each sound, no matter what letters or combinations of letters are used in spelling to indicate that cound. For examples of these combinations, see below. Where two pronunciations are given the first i is preferred. The pronunciations of simple title-words have been omitted as unnecessary. The basic principle of the alphabet used to indicate pronunciation—namely, the use of the fundamental vowels and their original Roman values—has been used to indicate pronunciation in dictionaries for more than fifty years. This principle was adopted by the United States Geographic Board, the Royal Geograph- ical Society of England and the other learned bodies named above. In its treatment of pronunciation, this dictionary aims to reflect the best usage of the English-speaking world, but it should be remembered that the English-speaking world is now so vast in extent and the varia- tions of perfectly respectable utterance so numerous, that no authority can be final and no treatment of pronunciation exhaustive. a as in artistic, cartoon. k as in kin, cat, back, ache, pique, quit. a as in art, cart, alms, father. g as in go, dog, egg, ghost, guard. a as in add, fat, man, lap, baffle. 4) as In sing, long, ringing, link. a as in air, fare, pear, heir, there. th as in thin, bath, faith, ether, Luther. a as in ask, chant, dance, fast. th as in this, with, breathe, rather, either. e as in get, bell, says, leopard, said, dead, Ss as in so, house, this, missing, cent, scene, bury, added. psychology. é as in prey, wait, fame, great, neighbor. Z as in zest, lazy, buzz, was, houses. i as in hit, tin, miss, cyst, physic. éh as in chin, rich, church, watch. i as in police, mete, greet, sea. hw(wh)as in what, where, which, who, why. re) as in obey, window, photo. j as in jet, gin, gist, judge, pigeon. ) as in go, note, glory, blow, soul, goat, sh asin ship, dish, issue, nation, ocean, beau. function, machine. ° as in not, odd, what, was. 3 as in azure, seizure, leisure, vision. 6 as in or, north, all, haul, walk, door. a as in about, final, sofa, over, separate, u as in full, push, could, stood. mystery,’guttural, martyrdom (always it as in rule, true, food, who, lose. unstressed). U as in but, under, son, other. 1 as in habit, senate, surfeit, biscuit, min’- o as in burn, cur, earn, whirl, myrrh. ute, menace, average, privilege, valley, al as in aisle, pine, sign, light, type, height. Sunday, cities, renew (always un-~ au as in sauerkraut, out, now. stressed). iu as in duration, futility. H as in loch (Scotch), ach, mich (German). it as in feud, tube, pupil, beauty. ii as in Liibeck (German), Dumas French). ei as in ot], coin, boy, oyster, loyal. | n as in bon (French), 14 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY AARON, ar’an (]778, ’ahdrdn): Son of Amram and Jochebed, descendant of Levi through Kohath, and three years older than his brother Moses (Ex 6 16 ff.; Nu 38 39). 1. The Historical Aspect. The Biblical represen- tation of his character is negative and shadowy as compared with that of Moses. A clue to the seem- ingly contradictory delineations of A. is found in the documentary analysis (see Hmexarrucn). (a) The account of E. EH, with the point of view of N. Israel, where the tribe of Levi had no vested rights (cf. I K 12 31), does not represent A. as a sacrosanct priest. He comes to meet Moses (Ex. 4 14), supports him in war (Ex 17 12) and jurisprudence (Ex 24 14). He yields to the people and makes the calf (Ex ch. 32), and with Miriam mutinies against Moses (Nu ch. 12). He is present at the sacrificial covenant meal between Israel and the Kenites (Ex 18 12). The ac- count of his death in Dt 10 6 (from E) is different from that in Nu 20 22 #. (P). According to Dt it oc- curred at Moserah, seven stations from Mt. Hor (cf. Nu 33 30 ff.), in the early months of the wandering because of the sin of the golden calf. In E Joshua, instead of A., serves in the Tent (Ex 33 11). (b) The account of J. J records only the covenant meal on Sinai (Ex 241, 2, 9-11) and the vague charge that Aaron ‘let the people loose’ (Ex 32 25). Aaron seems to be an afterthought in J’s plague narrative (ef. Ex 8 25). In both J and P Moses is the vicegerent of deity and Aaron is Moses’ prophet (Ex 4 16, J; dehy (c) The view of the Law of Holiness and of Ezekiel. In Lv chs. 17-26 A. appears only in redac- tional passages connecting the Law of Holiness with its present context. In Ezk chs. 40-48 Zadok, not A., is the eponym of the priestly line (44 15, etc.). (d) View of P. The Priestly Document (see Hrxa- TEUCH § 27) seeks te place A. more nearly on a parity with Moses. He is joint-performer with M. of the wonders done before Pharoah. Naturally P. could not deny the real leadership of M. which was so firmly fixed in tradition. But as P. viewed the priestly-sacrificial system as the supreme element of the revelation at Sinai it was natural that he should consider A, the first high priest, as but little inferior to Moses. 2. The Official Aspect. In Ex chs. 25-30 and 35-40, and in Ly and Nu Aaron’s name occurs frequently, evidently to impress upon the people the importance of the priesthood (cf. the usage in Ezk). What was done to and for Aaron was what should be done with A any high priest. The ceremonial enduement pre- scribed in Ex chs. 28, 29 and Lv ch. 8 is a manual for the sanctuary ritual. That A. was Moses’ brother and that he was the ancestor of a priestly family may rest on valid tradition, but we must recognize that the prominence of his name in Ex and Nu reveals the necessity felt for prescriptive rights for the later ‘Aaronic’ priesthood. See PrresrHoop. A. 8. C.*—O. R. S. AARONITES. Only in AV of 1 Ch 12 27, 27 17; ef. . RV and Prissruoop, §§ 6-9. AARON’S ROD. In two places in P. particular reference is made to Aaron’s rod (i.e., staff). In the first (Ex 7 9-12, 19 f., 85, etc.) it is Aaron’s (not Moses’, as in HE. at Ex 4 17 and 14 16) rod with which the miracles and plagues are wrought before Pharaoh. In the second (Nuch. 17) A.’s rod, representing the tribe of Levi, alone of the thirteen rods left in the Taber- nacle overnight buds, blossoms, and bears fruit. This story was intended to teach and prove the Divine choice of Levi as the priestly tribe. It perhaps indi- cates that the exclusive claims of the Levites were once challenged and so understood the basis of the story may date back into the preexilic age (see PriestHoopD, § 4, end). The older tradition said that this rod was laid up before the Ark (Nu 1710, cf. 1K 89). Later it was said to have been within the Ark (He 9 4). HE. E. N. AB, ab: The fifth month of the Jewish year. See Time, §3. For the syllable ‘Ab’ in proper names see ABI. ABADDON, a-bad’n (j!7238, ’dbhaddén), only in Rev 9 11 as the Hebrew original of Apollyon, ‘De- stroyer’. In the OT, however, A. is not a person, but simply the process of decay, destruction or loss (Job 26 6, 28 22, 3112; Pr 1511; Ps 88 11; also Wis 18 22, 25). By synecdoche the word is made the name of Sheol; by personification acts are attributed to Sheol, thus arises the later identification of A., with an angel of destruction (Apollyon,q.v.). See also Escuaro.oery, § 18. A. C. Z. ABAGTHA, a-bag’fhe (SDIAN8, ’dbhaghtha’): A chamberlain who served in the presence of Ahasue- rus. See CHAMBERLAINS, THE SEVEN. ABANAH, ab’e-na (7338, ’dbhanah, Abana AV; see II K 512): A cold swift stream rising in Mt. Anti- Lebanon. Breaking out into the plain a few miles W. of Damascus, it divides into seven streams whose waters irrigate the plain and supply the city. It Abarim Abimelech A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 16 loses itself in the swampy Meadow Lakes 20 m. E. of Damascus on the edge of the desert. Its right name was probably Amana (RV mg.). The modern name is Barada. See also DAMascwus. HK. E. N. ABARIM, ab’a-rim (8°73, ‘abharim), ‘those-on- the-other-side’: The name of the mountain range in NW. part of Moab. (The term, however, according to G. A. Smith (HG HL. p. 548; EB. I 4) is applica- ble to the whole E. Jordan range.) Mt. Nebo is the best-known summit, and Abarim is used by metony- my for Nebo (Nu 27 12; Dt 32 49). In Jer 22 20 (‘pas- sages’ AV) Abarim is a more exact synonym of Bashan. The Heb. text of Ezk 39 11 also contains the word Abarim, but it is more literally translated ‘they that pass by.’ A. C, Z. ABBA, ab’a (’AGG4=8 98): Aramaic for ‘Father,’ transliterated into Greek and thence into English. It occurs three times in the NT (Mk 14 36; Ro 8 15; Gal 46). From the fact that it is invariably followed by the explanatory addition ‘father’ it has been argued that it had come to be regarded as one of the proper names of God. For this there is no direct evidence. More probably it was used as a familiar liturgical expression, which Jesus and Paul adopted with particular emphasis on its essential content, de- veloping into rich suggestiveness. A. C. Z. ABDA, ab’da (N72¥, ‘abhda’), ‘servant (of J’’?)’: 1. The father of Adoniram, Solomon’s tribute-master (1K 46). 2. The son of Shammua (Neh 11 17, called Obadiah in I Ch 9 16). ABDEEL, ab’d1-el (287Aay, ‘abhd’ él), ‘servant of God’: The father of Shelemiah (Jer 36 28). ABDI, ab’dai (12Y, ‘abhdi), ‘servant (of J’’)’: 1. The father of Kishi or Kish (I Ch 6 44; II Ch 2912, or Kushaiah in I Ch 1517). 2. One of the ‘sons of Elam’ (Ezr 10 26). ABDIEL, ab’di-el (?8"12Y, ‘abhdi’al), ‘servant of God’: A Gadite (I Ch 5 15). ABDON, ab’den (]172¥, ‘abhdén), ‘servant’: I. 1. One of the minor judges of Israel, son of Hillel (Jg 12 13, 15). See also Bepan. 2. A son of Shashak (I Ch 8 23). 3. A son of Jeiel, father of Gibeon (I Ch 8 30, 9 36). 4. A son of Micah (II Ch 34 20, called Achbor in II K 22 12). Il. A Levitical city in Asher (Jos 21 30; 1 Ch 6 74) called Ebron (Hebron AV) in Jos 19 28. Map IV,E6. ABEDNEGO, a-bed’ni-g6 (13) 12Y, ‘abhédh neghd), from Abed- Nebo, ‘servant of Nebo’: The Babylonian name of Azariah, one of Daniel’s three companions (Dan 17, 2 49, etc.). ABEL, é’bel (227, hebhel), formerly thought to mean ‘breath’, later translated ‘son’, possibly ‘leader of a herd’: Adam’s second son, a shepherd, murdered by Cain (Gn ch. 4). Why the sacrifice of A. was more pleasing to J” than Cain’s is not stated; the implication may be that Cain’s bloodless offering, like that of the agricultural Canaanites to their Baals, displeased J’, who [preferred pastoral life. In the N T A. is pictured as a martyr for right- eousness (Mt 23 35; He 11 4; I Jn 312). In He 12 24 the blood of Jesus, which meant salvation, is said to speak better than that of A., which cried only for vengeance (Gn 4 10). O. R. S. ABEL, é’bel (723%, ’abhél), ‘meadow’ (II S 20 14-18): 1. See A. of Bera-Maacan. 2. According to the Heb. text of 1S 6 18, followed by AV, the name of a locality near Beth-shemesh. The LXX. reads instead ‘stone,’ which is followed by RV. E. E. N. ABELCHERAMIM, é”bel-ker’a-mim (9°22 #8 ’abhél kerdémim, A.-Keramim AV), ‘meadow of vine- yards’: A locality in Ammon (Jg 1133), probably near Rabbah of Ammon (later called Philadelphia). Map III, K 5. A. 8S. C.*—O. R. 8. ABEL-MAIM, é’’bel-mé’im (9°) “8, ’abhél mayim) ‘meadow of waters’: A variant, or text-corruption, for Abel-beth-maacah (II Ch 16 4). ABEL-MEHOLAH, @”bel-mi-ho’la (7bIND os, ’Gbhél meholah), ‘meadow of dancing’: A city with its surrounding district possibly on the headland lying just N. of the lower course of the Wdady Farah (Map III, D 3), the ordinary identification (Map III, H 3) being improbable. It was Elisha’s residence (I K 19 16). The ‘lip’ of A. (Jg 7 22) has been identified as modern el Mahruk near the junction of Waédy Farah with the Jordan. Oe Ss: ABEL-MIZRAIM, @bel-miz’ra-im (O8°717%5 /S ’abhél mitsrayim), ‘meadow of Egypt’: The stopping- place of Jacob’s funeral cortége (Gn 5011). Probably ’Gbhél is a mistake for ’ébhel (Pay) and the meaning of the name is ‘Egyptians’ lament’. On the location, see ATAD. A. 8S. C.*—O. R. S. ABEL OF BETH-MAACAH, é’bel ov befh-mé’a-ke or ka (19¥H0 3 Pay, ’abhél béth hamma‘akhah) ‘Abel of Beth-Maacah’: A fortified city in N. Pales- tine, probably modern Adil el Kamh (White Abel), W. of Dan; the stronghold of Sheba’s insurrection (II S 20 14-22). In II S 20 14 we should read ‘Abel of Beth-Maacah’, as in v. 15, altho here and in II K 15 29 LXX. takes Abel and Beth-Maacah as two different places. It was besieged by Ben-hadad (I K 15 20) and Tiglath-Pileser ITI (II K 15 29). Map IV, E4. See Bera-MAAcAH. OnKe Ss: ABEL-SHITTIM, ébel-shit’im ((°O80 “S, ’abhal hashshittim), ‘acacia-meadow’: A locality in the low- lands of Moab (Nu 83 49; cf. Mic 65). Map ITI, H 5. ABEZ, é’bez. See Esnz. ABI, @’bi (28, ’Gbh7), ‘father’: Compound per- sonal names in which ‘Abi’ (often shortened to ‘Ab’) forms the first element are of two general classes: (a) In which the second part is a noun, generally the name of a deity; (6) in which it is an adjective or a verb. In cases under (a) Abi is generally the predi- cate, as Abi-jah, 7.e., ‘Jah (=Jehovah) is father.’ In cases under (b) it is the subject, as Abinadab, 7.e., ‘the father (=God) gives.’ The ‘i’ of Abi is probably not the pronominal suffix ‘my,’ but an old ending serving merely as a connective. The syllable ‘ab’ at the end of a proper name has the same significance; e.g. Eliab is the same as Abiel (each means ‘God is father’), Joab is the same as Abijah (each means ‘J’” is father). The number and variety of these compounds in which ‘Ab’ or ‘Abi’ means the divine father show that the conception of God as father goes back to very early times in Israel. At first the idea may have been of a physical fatherhood, or of OO — 17 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Abarim Abimelech deity as the father of the tribe or people as a whole. Later it was refined into something more individual and spiritual. See G. B. Gray, Heb. Prop. Names, pp. 22-34 and 75-86). E. EB. N. ABI, é’bai (in IIT K 18 2). Shortened from Abijah. See ABisauH, 7. | ABIA, a-bai’a, ABIAH, a-bai’d. See Apryaug. ABIALBON, é’’bi-al’ben (ia2v7AaN, abhi ‘albhén): One of David’s heroes (IIS 23 31, Abiel in I Ch 11 32). ABIASAPH, a-bai’sa-saf. See EBIASAPH. ABIATHAR, o-bai’a-fhir (OIA8, ’ebhyathar), ‘father of abundance’: A son of Ahimelech, priest at Nob. When Saul massacred Ahimelech and his household for harboring the fugitive David (I S 22 11-20), A. escaped and joined David at Keilah, reporting to him what Saul had done. As he also brought the ephod with him, David appointed him to be the priest of his company, and consulted J” through him (I$ 307). Thenceforward Abiathar re- mained with David, and, when the latter became king, was associated in the priesthood with Zadok (IIS 15 24, 20 25). He survived David, and by Solo- mon was deposed and banished to Anathoth for abetting and assisting in Adonijah’s plot to wrest the kingdom from him (I K 17, 19, 25, 2 22, 26, 27). A. C. Z. ABIB, é’bib (2°38, ’abhibh): The ‘earing’ month of the old Hebrew year. See Tima, § 3. ABIDA, a-bai’da (VTA, ’dbhidhad‘, Abidah AV), ‘the father (God) knows’: The ancestral head of a clan of Midian (Gn 25 4; I Ch 1 33). ABIDAN, ab’i-dan (]T3¥, ’dbhidhdn), ‘the father (God) is judge’: A prince of Benjamin (Nu i 1, 2 22, 7 60, 65, 10 24). ABIEL, é’bi-el (28°28, ’abhi’él), ‘the father is God’: 1. Grandfather of Saul and Abner (I S 91, 1451). 2. One of David’s heroes (I Ch 11 32, Abialbon in II § 23 31). ABIEZER, é@”bi-i’zar (YAS, ’dbhi‘ezer), ‘the father (God) is help’: 1. The clan of Abiezrites of Ma- nasseh, to which Gideon belonged (Jg 611 ff., 8 2, 32), reckoned genealogically to Machir through Gilead (Jos 17 2; I Ch 718; Nu 26 30, where the form is Iezer, Tezerite [Jeezer, Jeezerite AV]). 2. An Anathothite, one of David’s heroes (II S 23 27; I Ch 11 28, 27 12). K. E. N. ABIEZRITE, 6’’bi-ez’rait. See ABrEzErR, § 1. ABIGAIL, ab‘i-gél (7°P28, ‘dbhighayil) ‘father (God?) is rejoicing’: 1. The wife of Nabal, later of David (I S 25 3, 42), mother of Chileab (or Daniel, ICh31), David’s second son (IIS 33). 2. David’s sister, the wife of Jether and mother of Amasa (I Ch 2 16); in II S 17 25 called Abigal the daughter of Nahash, but ‘daughter of Nahash’ is probably a gloss from ver. 27. A. S. C.*—O. R. S. ABIHAIL, ab’1-he'il (7728, ’dbhthayil), ‘the father (God) is strength’: 1. The father of Zuriel (Nu 3 35). 2. The wife of Abishur (I Ch 2 29). 3. A Gadite (I Ch 514). 4. Niece of David, and mother-in- law of Rehoboam (II Ch 11 18). 5. The father of Esther (Est 2 15, 9 29). ABIHU, a-bai‘hidi (NITAN, ’dbhthw’), ‘the father is He’: Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu are mentioned to- gether as summoned to come up to Mt. Sinai with Moses (Ex 24 10., 9; but the || 19 24 mentions Aaron only). In P Abihu and Nadab are sons of Aaron (Ex 6 23; Nu 3 2, etc.), later made priests (Ex 281) but afterwards slain for offering ‘strange’ fire (Lev 101f.; Nu 3 4, 26 61; I Ch 24 2). E. E. N. ABIHUD, a-bai’hid (T7738, ’dbhihudh), ‘the father (God) is glory’: A son of Bela (I Ch 8 3). ABIJAH, a-bai’ja (MAS, WNAR, 'abhiyyah, ’dbhiy- yGhi), ‘J’’ is my father’: 1. King of Judah, the son of Rehoboam, and Maacah, the daughter of Absalom. In I K 14 31, 151 ff., the name is spelled Abijam (an error). During his reign of three years he waged continual war with Jeroboam. The story in I K pro- duces the impression of a prolonged campaign, while the Chronicler [in his characteristic way (see CHRON- ICLES, Books or, § 4)] records only a single decisive battle (II Ch ch. 12). With 400,000 troops he met Jero- boam with 800,000 at Mt. Zemaraim. He upbraided Jeroboam and Israel for rebellion against the Davidie dynasty, for apostasy, and the expulsion of the priests and Levites. Caught at a disadvantage, the men of Judah prayed to Jehovah, who granted them a signal victory. Huis character was not exemplary, for he walked in the sins of his father, and his heart was not perfect with Jehovah. 2. A son of Jeroboam I. He died in fulfilment of Ahijah’s prediction (I K 141 #.). 3. A son of Samuel (1S 8 2, Abiah AV). 4. The an- cestral head of the eighth course of priests, to which Zacharias, the father of John the Baptist, belonged (Lk 15 [Abia AV]; I Ch 24 10, 26 20; Neh 107, 12 4). 5. A son of Becher (1 Ch 78, Abiah AV). 6. The wife of Hezron (I Ch 2 24, Abiah AV). 7. The wife of Ahaz and mother of Hezekiah (II Ch 29 1). JVALUBS ABIJAM, a-bai’jam. See Anrisag, 1. ABILENE, ab’’1-li’ni (AG:tAnya, ’ABetAnvn, WH.): The tetrarchy of Lysanias (Lk 3 1) in the Anti-Leb- anon. Abila. 18 Roman m. NW. of Damascus on the Abanah River, was its chief city, and has been iden- tified with the ruins at Suk Wddy Baradd. Josephus (Ant. XX, 71) speaks of a tetrarchy of Lysanias, and in XIX, 51 of ‘Abila of Lysanias.’ See Lysantas. OssrT; ABIMAEL, o-bim’s-el (P8238, ’abhima’él), ‘the father is God’: One of the descendants of Joktan (Gn 10 28). See ErHnoaraPHy AND ErHnowoey, §$ 13. ABIMELECH, 0-bim’1-lek (122°2%, ’dbhimelekh), ‘my father is Melech (Molech)’: 1. A Philistine king of Gerar, a locality near Gaza. Struck by the beauty of Sarah, and being deceived by Abraham as to her true relationship, he took her to wife. Obedient to a warning from God in a dream, he returned Sarah to her husband with costly gifts, at the same time pleading hisintegrity and upbraiding Abraham for his deception (Gn 201-18, E.). Later, their quarrel over the possession of a well was finally settled by the making of a covenant at Beer-Sheba (Gn 21 22-34, J and E). A similar story combining both incidents is related of Abimelech and Isaac (Gn 26 7-11, 26-33, J). Critical scholarship looks upon these accounts as doublets. Abinadab Abronah 2. A son of Gideon by a woman of Shechem. He made the first attempt to found a monarchy in Is- rael. The Shechemites made him king after he had murdered all of Gideon’s sons but Jotham. His reign of three years ended in a revolt. Abimelech took Shechem, and burned it with its citadel and temple. Later, at the siege of the citadel at Thebez, his skull was fractured by a millstone thrown from the wall by a woman. His armor-bearer thrust him through at his own request (Jg 8 31, ch. 9). 3. A Philistine king (Ps 34: ttle—probably an error for Achish, cf. IS 2110). On the error in I Ch 18 16 see AHIMELECH, § 1 J. A. K. ABINADAB, o0-bin’a-dab (AWWA, 'dbhinaddhabh), ‘my father is generous’: 1. A man of Kiriath-Jearim, to whose house the Ark was brought from Beth- Shemesh (IS 71), where it remained until David car- ried it to Jerusalem (IIS 63f.;1 Ch 137). 2. The second son of Jesse (I S 16 8), who followed Saul against the Philistines (IS 1713; I Ch 213). 3. Ason of Saul, perhaps also called Ishvi (IS 14 49), slain by the Philistines in the great battle of Mt. Gilboa (IS 31 2; I Ch 8 33, 9 390, 10 2). 4. See Ben-ABINADAB. CS. ds ABINOAM, o-bin’o-am (OVI AS, ’dbhind‘am), ‘the father (God) is pleasantness’: Father of Barak (Jg 4 6, 12, 5 1, 12). ABIRAM, oa-bai‘ram (O7A8, ’dbhirdm), ‘the father is the High One’: 1. A Reubenite (Nu 161 ff., etc.). See Daruan. 2. Eldest son of Hiel of Bethel (I K 16 34). See also H1Et. ABISHAG, ab/’1-Shag 2W’38, ’dbhishagh): A young Shunammite woman, nurse of David in his old age (I K 13,15). Adonijah’s request for her after David’s death led to his execution (I K 2 17 f.). ABISHAI, a-bi’shai ("W’38, ’dbhishay; in Ch "W38, "abhshay): One of the ruthless sons of Zeruiah. He was Joab’s elder brother, chief of staff during David’s outlaw period and the leader of the Thirty (I S 26 6 ff.; II S 23 18 #.). His great exploits were the slaughter of 300 Philistines, the rescue of David from Ishbi-benob (II § 21 17), and the subjugation of Edom (I Ch 18 12, but cf. IIS 813). Without the cal- | culating ferocity of Joab, he is consistently por- trayed as the inciter of David to acts of fierce reprisal (IS 268; IIS 169). He disappears from his- tory shortly after Absalom’s rebellion. A. 8. C.*—O. R. S. ABISHALOM, 2a-bish’sa-lem. See ABsatom. ABISHUA, oa-bish’u-2 (YIW'AN, 'dbhishiia‘), ‘the father (God) is noble?’: 1. A priest, son of Phinehas (I Ch 6 4£., 50; Ezr 75). 2. The ancestor of a Benja- mite clan (I Ch 8 4). | ABISHUR, o0-bish’Gr (WAN, ’dbhishir), ‘the father (God) is a wall’: A son of Shammai (I Ch 2 28 f.). ABITAL, ab’i-tal (9°28, ’abhital), ‘the father (God) is dew’: A wife of David (II S 3 4; I Ch3 3). ABITUB, ab’1-tob (2WAN, ’abhitabh), ‘the father aN is good’: A son of Shaharaim by Hushim (I Ch 11). A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 18 ABIUD, a-bai’od (A@r0d8): A son of Zerubbabel (only in Mt 1 13). ABJECTS (9°), ‘smitten ones’ Ps 3515): The RV margin ‘smiters’ 02) gives better sense, but is incor- rect. Some would read 8°72) ‘strangers’ (impious Israelites). The Hebrew term occurs only here and is of uncertain meaning. E. E. N. ABNER, ab’nar (1238, ’abhnér; or, as in TS 14 50, “VAR, ’dbhinér), ‘the (divine?) father is a lamp’: Son of Ner the brother of Kish the father of King Saul. SoIS 14 50f. The text of I Ch 8 33, 9 39 is probably faulty (cf. 9 36). Abner seems to have been the leader of Saul’s adherents (I 8 17 57, 20 25, 26 5, 14, 15). At - Saul’s death he espoused the cause of Ishbosheth (Eshbaal), Saul’s son. After his defeat at Gibeon he was pursued by Asahel, whom he slew, thus starting the feud with Joab and Abishai, Asahel’s brothers (IIS 28 f.). When Ishbosheth accused A. of miscon- duct with Rizpah, Saul’s concubine, A. entered nego-~ tiations with David. After A. had gone Joab called him back to Hebron and there murdered him. David | mourned publicly the death of A. and later had the head of the murdered Ishbosheth buried in his grave (WIS36#.,412). InI K 25f., David is represented as having assumed the duty of blood revenge, which was carried out by Solomon. OURS: ABOMINATION renders Heb. terms as follows: (1) t0’ébhah, broadly that which gives offense either to God or to men, possibly because of inherent repul- siveness (e.g., Gn 46 34; Lv 18 22), or a violation of established customs (e.g., Pr 6 16, 111). (2) shiqqiits, that which is hated as a religious offense. The term is frequently applied in contempt of the idols of the heathen (I K 11 5; Jer 13 27, etc.). (8) shegets, 1.e., ‘taboo,’ used only in Lv 11 10-42. (4) piggdl, sacrificial flesh which has become stale and hence loathsome and unfit for food (Lv 718, etc.). In general, these terms, especially the first, are used for any object which J” abhors because it is opposed to His law of righteousness or to the ritual He prescribes for His worship. (The Greek term [used in LXX.] Bdékuyua is generic, and means approximately the — same as the English ‘abomination.’) A.C. ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION (Td 63é- Avypa tHS éenudcews) only in Dn (9 27, 11 31, 12 11; ‘that maketh desolate,’ AV; ‘astonisheth,’ AVmg.) and in the ‘Apocalypse of Jesus’ (Mt 2415; Mk 1814). | The latter, however, is a direct reference to the former. The original in Dn may mean ‘the abomina- tion that desolates’ or ‘the abomination that appalls’ (cf. Oxf. Heb. Lex. s.v. 0%). The term, moreover, which is translated ‘abomination’ (shigqqits) strictly means ‘image of a false god’ (cf. I K 115; II K 2313). What the author of Dn had in mind was the setting up in the Temple of a heathen idol, the presence of which there struck the devout Israelite dumb with amazement and at the same time profaned the sacred precincts, and was the signal of a terrible distress. This distress is conceived of as laying waste the country (éefquwors, ‘desolation,’ Dn 9 26; Lk 21 21). The conception of Dn seems to have created an apocalyptic figure about which is centered all enmity against the true God and His will. The figure 19 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Abinadab Abronah is used under different names in subsequent apoca- lyptic compositions. It is probable that the ‘Man of Sin’ in jthe ‘Little Apocalypse’ (II Th 2 1-12) is one of these. The fact that Jesus points to the appear- ance of this figure as a sign by which His followers should recognize the definite beginning of the final stage of the Messianic era has led many persons to identify the abomination of desolation with some historic person, event, or thing, e.g. the Roman army (B. Weiss), desecration by zealots (Bleek and Al- ford), astatute of Caligula, the Roman standard with the figure of the eagle, etc. But such identifications are futile, inasmuch as apocalyptic figures are em- bodiments of ideas whose concrete appearance in the form of historical facts or personages is not neces- sarily bound to individuals, but occurs with every realization of the idea. The abomination of desola- tion is actualized whenever its conception as above defined becomes an objective fact. A. C. Z. ABRAHAM, @’bra-ham (017738, ’abhraham): The meaning and derivation of the word are uncertain. For Abram (0°38, 2.e., Abiram [?]), ef. analogies in Abimelech, etc. Abé-ramw occurs on contract- tablets prior to Hammurabi (c. 21008.c.) andtheform Aba-raham occurs in A.’s time. ‘Father is a lofty one’ (or ‘exalted father’) is a probable translation. Abra- ham is perhaps an amplified form, and 917) an other- wise unused variant of 539 (Ozf. Heb. Lex.), altho a connection with 817), love, is possible (Int. Stand. Bib. Enc.). ‘Father of a multitude’ (Gn 17 5) is a word-play between O7 and i077, A. holds a prominent place in the thought of both the O T and the N T. His name occurs repeatedly in the formulas of inheritance (Dt 18; II K 13 23), and in the assertion of the continuity of the religion (Ex 3 15; I K 18 36). By the prophets he is seldom men- tioned, perhaps never in a preexilic passage, but this is hardly significant, considering the clear na- tional consciousness. The prophets assume his personality; he is God’s ‘friend’ (Is 41 8; cf. IZ Ch 20 7); he was ‘one’ (Is 51 2; Ezk 33 24; possibly Mal 215); Abraham and Sarah are progenitors (Is 51 2; cf. also Is 29 22, 63 16; Jer 33 26; Mic 7 20). The N T recognizes A. as a race-father (Mt 39; Jn 8 33, 37, 39), but it is more deeply conscious of his profound sig- nificance as a hero of faith (He 11 8-11), his intimacy with God (Jn 8 56), and his spiritual fatherhood (Lk 16 22; Ro 4 11 ff.). The present form of the narrative in Gn is due to the writer’s desire to picture an ideal figure, em- bodying supreme religious conceptions. The follow- ing is the analysis: (1) Gn chs. 12-14, A.’s character and greatness. (2) Gn 15 1-22 19, the trials through - which character was achieved. (3) Gn 23 1-258, the final acts of a well-rounded life. The thought of the covenant is ever dominant, but first is shown how exalted the hero was. He marches across the ancient world from the Euphrates to the Nile, his possess- ions increase in Canaan, he is able to overthrow the army of a world-conqueror. The offering of Isaac, the crowning test of his faith, taught positively the need of a consummate sacrifice for the final ratification of the covenant, and negatively, that J’’ did not desire human sacrifice. The site could hardly have been the Temple-mount, because (1) Jerusalem seems to have been already occupied (Gn 14 18) and (2) is much less than three days’ journey (Gn 22 4) from Beer-sheba. While some maintain the absolute historicity of the entire Abrahamic narrative, others treat it as a myth, personalized tribal history, or the outgrowth of religious reflection. For A.’s actual existence, the persistent national tradition is a witness. On the other hand, the narrative is so artistic as to indicate idealization. The minute particularizations (e.g., Gnch.18) seem hardly consistent with literal history, and we should distinguish between the present form and the original substratum. Probably under the name of A. are preserved traditions of great tribal movements which began in Arabia, followed the Euphrates, crossed to Haran, and ended for the time in Canaan. The leader may well have been named Abraham, but the clan was originally the concrete reality. While his name nowhere occurs as a clan title, on an inscription of Shishak the ‘field of Abram’ is mentioned (PEHFQ, Jan., 1905, p. 7); cf. ‘field of Moab’ (Nu 21 20). For a theory of the two names Abram and Abraham, see Paton, arly History of Syria and Palestine, pp. 25-46. It is now the general consensus that the names of the four kings (Gn ch. 14) are historical, but all have not been identified with certainty. Gunkel argues for the historicity of Melchizedek also. The forms, how- ever, of the Elamite and Babylonian names have suffered much in transmission. The synchronism with Hammurabi (Amraphel) postulates a date earlier than was formerly assigned to A. (But see AMRAPHEL.) The chapter forms the fitting conclu- sion to the picture of Abraham’s greatness. LivTERATURE: Comm. on Genesis, by Delitzsch, Gunkel, Driver, Skinner, Ryle; Kittel, Hist. of the Hebrews, especially the 5th- 6th German Ed. (1922); Kent, Beginnings of Heb. History; Orr, Problem of the O T; Clay, Orig. of Bib. Trad., Empire of the Amorites; Cambridge Anc. History, Vols. I and II. A. 8. C.*—O. R. 8. ABRAHAM’S BOSOM. See Escuatouoey, § 38. ABRAM. See ABRAHAM. ABRECH, @’brek (112%, ’abhrékh): The Hebrew original of ‘bow the knee’ in Gn 41 43. The meaning of the term is uncertain. The Greek and Old Latin versions translated ‘herald’ and made it the subject of ‘cried before him.’ The Targums and Syriac translated ‘father and ruler.’ Only Aquila among the ancient translators conjectured that the word was derived from Heb. baérakh, ‘bend the knee,’ from which comes the translation of the Vulgate and EVV. This is now universally rejected as impossible. Friedrich Delitzsch and Sayce have suggested that this is the Babylonian word abarakku, the title of a high official; but, in spite of the Tell-el-Amarna letters, we should hardly expect an Egyptian officer to receive a Babylonian title. Numerous Egyptian etymologies of the term have been suggested, the best of which is that of Spiegelberg, who thinks that it represents Egypt. ’b r-k, ‘Thy heart to thee,’ a cry of attention. Ba Bee: ABRONAK, a-brd’na (7972Y, ‘abhrénah, Ebronah AV): A station on the wilderness journey (Nu 33 34f.). Site unknown. Absalom Acts of the Apostles A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 20 ABSALOM, ab’so-lom (BI¥Y3%, ’aébhshalom, Abi- shalom in I K 15 2, 10), ‘the (divine?) father is peace,’ perhaps so named as a good omen of David’s growing power: David’s third son, born at Hebron of Maacah, daughter of Talmai, king of Geshur (II 8 3 3). His character is delineated consistently throughout as fierce, revengeful, and treacherous. Evidently he inherited his traits from his mother’s wild mountain ancestry. His first outbreak follows Amnon’s outrage of Tamar (II S ch. 13), and self-exiled, he appears to wait in Geshur a vindication of his act. Joab’s ruse to bring him back (II S ch. 14) seems to embody an attempt to secure the abrogation of the right of private blood-revenge. Absalom’s recall was, there- fore, equivalent to a legal enactment on the subject (II S 1411). But his confinement thereafter to his own quarters was an affront which his untamed spirit could not brook, and which precipitated the insur- rection wherein he perished (II S$ 18 14). The narra- tive (II S chs. 138-19) is intended to show how the folly of each of the presumptive heirs to the throne wrought their ruin and thus cleared the path for the youthful Solomon. Abijam (I K 15 2; but cf. II Ch. 13 2) and Asa (I K 15 10) were Absalom’s descendants through his daughter Maacah. A. 8. C.*—O. R. 8S. ABYSS (&@vcc0s), ‘a place of great depth’: The word occurs frequently in the LXX. as the transla- tion of the Hebrew t*hém, ‘deep’. It is found in the Grk. of the Book of Enoch 21 7, etc., and in magical papyri. In Enoch it refers to the place of fiery pun- ishment. In the N T it is the name of Hades, the place of the dead (Ro 107; Lk 8 31; Rev 91, 2, 11, 178, 201, 3. In AV of Rev, it is always rendered ‘the bottomless pit’). See also EscuatroLtoay, § 48. A. C. Z. ACACIA. See Patestine, § 21. ACCAD, ak’ad (128, ’akkadh): One of the four cities which, according to Gn 1010, were the starting- point of the dominion of Nimrod in Babylonia. In the inscriptions the same word-form usually desig- nates not a city but the division of the country lying N. of the district about Babylon. The form Agade, however, is written as the name of a very ancient city, also in N. Babylonia, and supreme over the whole country about 2800 B.C. This is doubtless the same name as Accad, the g of Sumerian being regu- larly represented in proper names by k (c) in Semitic Babylonian. Accad was the chief center of the Semites in Babylonia, hence their language, which resembled Hebrew, was known as Accadian. Sumer, or S. Babylonia, remained in the hands of the primitive non-Semitic inhabitants, who for this reason are known as Sumerians, and their language as Sumerian. Down to Assyrian times Accad and Sumer continued to be the names of N. and S. Babylonia respec- tively. 02, 2B oP: ACCO, ak’o (13¥, ‘akkd, Accho AV; in Acts 217 called Ptolemais; Arabic, ‘akka): A Canaanite city in the territory ‘of the tribe of Asher (Jg 1 31), whose in- habitants were not driven out by Israel. Fortified and situated on the seacoast at the N. end of the Bay of Acre, and on the main road along the coast, it was important for controlling the roads inland to the fertile plain of Esdraelon and to lower Galilee. From the earliest times down to the Crusades its possession was considered of great strategic value, altho politically it was inferior to Tyre and Sidon. (See Panusrine, § 4.) At the close of the 3d cent. B. C. its name was changed to Ptolemais. Map IV, B 6. C.S0n8, ACCURSED: The RV translation of mop (Dt 21 23) and y) 2?) (Is 65 20), from the root qélal, mean- ing ‘to esteem lightly.’ The AV has ‘accursed’ in most O T passages, where the RV has ‘devoted’ or ‘devoted thing.’ In the place of the AV ‘accursed’ the RV in N T reads ‘anathema,’ the transliteration of the Greek word. See ANATHEMA; DEvoTED; and CURSE. Crs. TT. ACCUSATION. See SuPERSCRIPTION. ACELDAMA. See AKELDAMA. ACHATA, a-ké’ya (’Axata): In Homer the country inhabited by the Achzans, that is, all Greece. In the classical period only a narrow strip of coastland along the 8. of the Gulf of Corinth. The Romans (after 27 B.c.) adopted the Homeric usage, and their Provincia Achaia (capital, Corinth) included all Greece along with Thessaly, Acarnania, A®tolia, Eubcea, and the Cyclades. This is N T usage, e.g. ‘Gallio, Proconsul of Achaia’ (Ac 18 12; cf. also 18 27; Ro 15 26, etc.). J. R. 8. 8.4—J. M. T. ACHAICUS, a-ké’i-kus (Ayaixéds): Mentioned in I Co 16 17 with Stephanos (q.v.) and Fortunatus (q.v.). From the exhortation in ver. 16 we infer that A. and the others mentioned occupied some im- portant position in the Corinthian Church. They brought communications from Corinth and may have been the bearers of the present I Co to Paul in Ephesus (see Zahn, Int. N. T. Vol. I p. 268, n. 8.) Their attitude of friendliness relieved Paul’s anxiety (ver. 18) particularly in view of the shortcomings of the church (ver. 17b). a as, aed ACHAN, é’kan (129, ‘akhan, called Achar, I Ch 27): A member of the tribe of Judah, who appro- priated treasure from the spoils of Jericho, thus vio- lating the law of the ban (herem) (see Cursz, § 2), according to which spoils of war were sacred to J’’.. This sin brought defeat on Israel at Ai. By lot Joshua discovered Achan to be the offender. In the valley of Achor he and his family were stoned to death, while all his property was burned (Jos 7 1-26). J. A. K. ACHAZ, (‘Axas, Mt 19,'Gr. for M$). See Anaz, 1. ACHBOR, ak’bér (7122Y, ‘akhbér), ‘mouse’: 1. The father of Baal-hanan, a king of Edom (Gn 36 38 f.; I Ch 1 49). 2. An official under Josiah and Jehoiakim (II K 22 12-14 [but cf. II Ch 34 20]; Jer 26 22° 36'12). mas ACHIM, é’kim (Ayely.): An ancestor of Joseph (Mt 1 14). ACHISH, @’kish (W’28, ’Gkhish): The Philistine king of Gath who befriended David (I S 21 10 #.) and later gave him Ziklag. He demanded David’s aid against Saul, but yielded to the objections of the Philistine princes (IS chs. 27-29). He was still king 21 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Absalom Acts of the Apostles at Solomon’s accession, according toI K 2 39, but this creates a difficulty in view of David’s conquest of Gath (II § 81; ef. I Ch 181), and of the lapse of time involved. E. E. N. ACHMETHA, ak’mi-fho (SONS, ’ahmetha’): A royal city in Media where the roll was found con- taining a copy of Cyrus’ decree permitting the return of the Jews (Ezr 6 2). The word is the Aramaic equivalent of the Pers. Hagmatana or Ecbatana, as the Greeks spelled it. The site of the city mentioned in Ezra is somewhat uncertain, but Ecbatana, now called Hamadan, used by the Persian kings as a summer residence, was probably the city meant in Ezr 6 2and To 65. See A. V. W. Jackson, Persia, Past and Present (1906), pp. 144-174. EH. E.N. ACHOR, é’kér, VALLEY OF (1129 PdDY, ‘eémeq ‘akhor), ‘valley of trouble’: The valley near Jericho where Achan was stoned (Jos 7 24-26). Identification with the Wddy-el- Kelt is unsatisfactory. Jos 157 implies a more southern, Is 65 10 a more spacious valley. Hos 2 15 plays on the meaning of the term. E. E. N. ACHSAH, ak’sa (192Y, ‘akhsah, Achsa AV), ‘an- klet’: A daughter of Caleb (perhaps in reality a clan) given to Othniel for conquering Kiriath-sepher. The springs mentioned lay a few miles north of Debir (Jos 15 16 #.; Jg 112 #.; I Ch 2 49). E. E. N. ACHSHAPH, ak’shaf (1¥28, ’akhsha@ph), ‘sor- cery’: Atownon the border of Asher (Jos 19 25) whose king was confederate with Jabin of Hazor against Joshua (Jos 111, 12 20). Site uncertain, as possibly there were two towns of the same name. E. E. N. ACHZIB, ak’zib (27I28, ’akhzibh), ‘winter tor- rent’ (?): 1. One of the 22 towns of the tribe of Asher (Jos 19 29) on the seacoast 8. of Tyre; the in- habitants were not driven out by Israel (Jg 1 31). Map IV, B 5. 2. A town in the Shephelah of Judah, mentioned with Keilah and Mareshah (Jos 15 44), with Mareshah and Adullam (Mic 1 14); the same as Cozeba (I Ch 4 22) and Chezib (Gn 88 5). Map II, D1. Gi Sa TL; ACRE. See Wetcuts anp Mrasurgss, §2. ACTS OF THE APOSTLES, THE: 1. Introduc- tory. The book of Acts is unique. Without it any consecutive knowledge of the Apostolic Age could not be attained, even with the aid of the Pauline letters. With it as background, all other data fall into order and unity in a way which speaks loudly for its historic worth. As, then, our hopes of con- structing a sure picture of primitive Christianity depend largely on Ac, it is essential to form a correct idea as to its historicity. How far does it satisfy modern requirements? One thing must be borne in mind: its author, alone of N T writers, claims to write history (xaOeEj>s yekvat), and to have satisfied the conditions of accurate inquiry (xa0dc . dxetBGs) necessary to give the reader a sense of se- curity (tva émyv@o ... thy dopkAetav) touching the matters of Christian faith (tév xexAneogoer- wévwy év Quiv cozypdétwyv). Such is the claim of the preface (Lk 11-4) to his work in two parts, of which Ac is the second. It was meant as serious history, occasioned too by the consciousness that existing narratives dealing with the same class of facts were not satisfactory in this very respect, as a basis of ra- tional historic assurance. But, it will be said, there is history and history. We need to know how far Ac is an objective record of objective facts. As to the objectivity of its author’s attitude, Ramsay is probably right in claiming for Ac a place among histories of the first rank, in which nothing is allowed consciously to deflect the historian from stating things as they really occurred. Only this does not mean the dead, superficial fidelity of a photograph, giving no guid- ance to the beholder by light and relief. Our author gives an interpretation of the story, particularly of its religious meaning, in order to aid one seeking in his own day for religious truth, so far as this can find expression in history. But this need not make him inaccurate, or ready to suppress facts material to the line of exposition selected, in keeping with the total effect of all known to the writer, altho much can not be brought in for reasons of space and perspective. Whether all that reached him as ‘facts,’ or even all that he recorded as himself an eye-witness, were really objective facts—at least as we should inter- pret them to-day—is another question. This can not here be discussed, save as regards the probability that our author was himself really witness of a large number of them—and these often, as Harnack points out, of the same ‘supernatural’ order as those which he records on the evidence of others. Approach, however, to all such problems lies through a con- sideration of the general drift of Ac, and of its verisi- militude or otherwise. The question of its Scope will lead on to those of its Sources, Aims, Occasion and Provenance, Date, and Authorship. The final test here, as in all history, will be coherence in our theory as the simplest way of unifying an immense complex of phenomena, literary and psychological. 2. Scope and Plan. Ac sets forth in orderly se- quence (xafeEjs) how the Divine Society constituted by the Gospel spread, in ever-widening circles, from its native home in Jerusalem even unto Rome, the dis- tant capital of the world. This appears from the commission (1 8) given at the final interview between Jesus and those who as ‘witnesses’ were to continue His ministry, and who, as so commissioned, were ‘apostles’ in the wider sense, as distinct from the Twelve (see 1 6, 14f., 21; Lk 24 33 ff., and I Co 157, tote &mostéAots macy). We gather that their horizon was still confined to a Messianic Kingdom for Israel (1 6); and, in fact, down to ch. 15 we find traced, with a care implying a very primitive standpoint (for a.p. 70 effaced such shades of distinction), the gradual steps by which they accepted the logic of Divine facts, even when running counter to preconceived theory, in the annulling of Jewish restrictions upon membership in God’s Kingdom. The one secret of this triumph of the Divine over human limitations— as of all those triumphs which constitute the moral of the book and its high argument—lay in the power of the Holy Spirit upon and through the Lord’s wit- nesses. This is surely true to life. Here, too, lay the continuity between our author’s two books: the same Spirit qualified the Master and His disciples (Lk 4 14, Acts of the Apostles A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 22 24 49; Ac 11£., 8, 2 33, cf. 167, ‘the spirit of Jesus’) both to do and endure; for the pathway of ‘glory through suffering’ was God’s counsel for both (Lk 24 26, 46; Ac 14 22, cf. 5 41). The traditional Jewish forms of thought touching the mode of the King- dom’s consummation within the generation then living (Lk 21 32, cf. 9 27; Ac 1 11, 3 20 £.), and the natural assumption that Jewish forms of worship and ritual still held good, did not suddenly fall away. The Gospel did not ‘destroy’ save through being seen to ‘fulfil.’ These things simply faded away in the growing light which spread from the new luminary of the spiritual world; and the subjective power to ap- propriate all in Him turned on the Messianic gift, the ‘Spirit of the Lord’ in new form and fulness, which constituted the New Israel out of the Old in spite of its wonted stiff-necked resistance to the Holy Spirit (7 51). Israel was then a ‘crooked generation,’ from which ‘salvation’ was needful (2 40, 4 12, cf. 13 26-41). Accordingly, the Messianic outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost holds the same determinative place in Ac as the coming of the Holy Spirit to Jesus Himself in the Gospel, as unfolded in the discourse in the synagog at Nazareth (Lk 3 21f., 414-30). The Anointed himself becomes the Anointer of God’s new People (2 33), through whom He continues ‘to do and teach’ (1 1, 8) on earth; and the living link between them is that ‘holy Spirit’ wherewith it is His prerogative to baptize His own (1 5, 2 4, 33, 38, 10 44-47). The parallel is all the closer in that in both cases rejection by Judaism follows, because the conditions of the Kingdom are presented as purely spiritual, so that birth confers nothing but prior opportunity. Thus Ac depicts, first, the Divine power and spirituality of life manifest in the nucleus of the coming King- dom, the new and true Congregation (Ecclesia) of God’s People; while Judaism passes self-judgment upon itself, step by step, by hardness of heart to the Spirit’s appeal (chs. 3-5). Anon we are shown a certain differentiation within the Ecclesia itself, between the less and the more progressive types— those strictly ‘Hebrews,’ and those in fuller sym- pathy with Israel’s wider heritage owing to exper- ience of the Greek world, the ‘Hellenists.’ The spokesman of the latter is Stephen, whose speech before the official representatives of Judaism indi- cates the principles at issue, and foreshadows the line of development for the Ecclesia. Then the shak- ing of persecution (chs. 6, 7) providentially spreads the true seed beyond Jerusalem, in various soils more and more remote from those heretofore held fit for the reception of God’s word. Thus the Samari- tans respond to Philip the Evangelist, and are solemnly adjudged by God worthy of the Messianic gift, through the agency of Peter and John—most authoritative of ‘apostles’: an imperfect proselyte (a eunuch) is by special Divine action admitted, less publicly, through Philip: there follow proofs of God’s hand with His new Ecclesia, in the conversion and early ministry of Saul, the leader of the recent persecution, and next in typical incidents taken from Peter’s missionary work in Judea; and then the latter is led to sanction the admission of a group of proselytes—in sheer deference to God’s manifest will in the gift of the Spirit. This case is made the more significant by being challenged at Jerusalem and successfully vindicated by Peter, on the ground that God had acted and could not be gainsaid. Thus ‘to the Gentiles had God given repentance unto life’ (11 18). This occurred at Cesarea, just beyond the borders of the Holy Land of Judea proper (1219), and might not have been tolerated nearer to Jerusalem. Fur- ther it affected but few in the first instance, and was probably not expected to extend very far numeri- cally. But in both respects God was already on the way to transcend Jewish-Christian thought even more signally. Yet here too progress was gradual, and no sharp breach was actually caused with the Palestinian Ecclesia. This, so far, had conceived of itself as ‘the Ecclesia,’ made up of ‘the saints’ proper (9 13, 32, 41; 26 10; also I Co 161; Ro 15 25), while non- Jewish adherents were Messianic proselytes on the skirts of Israel (as with orthodox Judaism). Such a conception would be helped by the sense that all was still provisional. ‘The Lord was at hand,’ and He would perfect allin His Ecclesia. But the conception was menaced as soon as membership in the Ecclesia extended far beyond Palestine, and included large masses of persons hitherto assumed to be exceptions by special Divine bounty. This is what happened at Antioch, which therefore is treated as the second home of the Gospel, and then as the starting-point of the Gentile Mission proper. According to the con- trast demanded by 11 19 f., the ‘great number’ who there hastened to believe were ‘Greeks’ (not ‘Hel- lenists’ and therefore Jews of a kind, cf. 61). So great a change in relative proportions would in itself war- rant the sending of some one to examine and report; and appropriately Barnabas, himself a ‘Hellenist,’ or Jew of Greek culture, born among Gentiles in Cyprus (4 36), like some of the preachers, was chosen, not Peter and John (as for Samaria). The extension to Antioch, standing midway between the Jewish and Greek spheres, was a mo- mentous step; and there, significantly, the disciples of Jesus first obtained the name distinguishing them from Jews proper, ‘Christians.’ There too begins the association of Saul with Barnabas, which marks the next stage of advance—still without loss of touch with the old center, Judea (11 27-30). But before leaving the fortunes of the Gospel in its first home, we are shown how attempts to harm it ever turned, ' by God’s grace, to the confusion of its foes (ch. 12): then, with a verse reestablishing sequence with ch. 11, we pass on to the beginnings of the rea Gentile mission, with its base at Antioch. And now Saul—who at the psychological moment (13 9) is given his Gentile name, Paul—comes out in his true réle as the main agent of the Divine counsel in the wider destiny of the Gospel, as surely as Peter had been the pioneer in its more restricted field. The ‘turning to the Gentiles’ is narrated very emphati- cally in 13 46-48; while the moral of the whole mission is pointed in 14 27, ‘how that He (God) had opened a door of faith unto the Gentiles.’ It was seemingly the news of this great extension of Gentile Chris- - tianity on principle that drove the more reactionary wing of the Jerusalem church (now including Phari- 23 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Acts of the Apostles sees, 155) to action in Antioch, where it was felt that the issue had to be fought out (see 8 below, and GALATIANS, § 3). With the Jerusalem Concordat, which settled it for the time, 7.e. as it arose in Antioch and its province, Syria-Cilicia, where the Jewish element side by side with the Gentile was large, the story, as so far told, reaches its natural conclusion (15 35). Hitherto it has been treated in the main from the Jewish standpoint, from which the conditions of intercourse in the Ecclesia between Jew and Gentile set forth in 15 20, 29, seemed to be mini- mum concessions (taita tz éxdvayxes) to unity on the part of the latter (see 8 below). Hereafter, how- ever, the horizon widens enormously; new interests and conditions arise; the old platform becomes too narrow in practise, where Gentiles more and more outnumber Jewish converts in typically Gentile regions. Antioch and its associations are largely left behind; and the history gathers round the career of the Apostle of the Gentiles, whose personal commis- sion determines his conduct in regions to which, in his judgment, the Jerusalem compact was inap- plicable. 3. Sources of Acts. At this point the sources of the narrative in Ac demand notice. The subject has been much discussed and is still far from settled . (see Foakes-Jackson and Lake, The Beginnings of Christianity, II, pp. 121-175). As regards what pre- cedes, it is clear that something more than oral tradition must lie behind our Ac; for both in the forms of thought and phrasing and in matters of pure style chs. 1-12 and 15 are more Jewish-Chris- tian than can be due merely to the author of Ac asa whole. Many scholars distinguish at least two written sources, one Judean, the other Antiochene, in origin, as of primary interest. But really there is very little serious linguistic difference between the various sections of Ac 1-15 (op. cit. p. 128), a fact to which C. C. Torrey’s recent theory (untenable as it seems itself to be) strongly testifies, when he con- tends that ‘Ac chs. 1-15 is the careful . . . transla- tion . . . of an Aramaic document.’ Linguistically, then, the use of one Hellentistic source embodying oral Aramaic traditions would account for the bulk of the first half of Ac; but some of its contents require a less obvious explanation. No theory, indeed, at present commands general assent. Yet a method combining the study of form and content in a living way pro- mises ere long a real solution of the problem. The best approach is through the author’s own hints in his Preface to his continuous work in two books (Lk 1!~4). ‘Inas- much as a number of persons have essayed to draw up an account of the assured facts of our religion, on the basis of the traditions passed on to us by the original eye-witnesses who became also ministers of the Message; it seemed good to me, too, as one who had traced all the story, from its very start, with care, to write it for you in order, most excellent Theophilus, so as to let you know, as touching what you have been taught, the certain truth.’ This surely suggests special personal con- tact with those who were in a position to give him virtually eye-witness information, as his main advantage over others; and this would hold good in proportion as the story comes nearer to his own day. That is, he virtually passes on what he had received, and as he had received it, from selected and trust- worthy informants. Part of this tradition, perhaps the greater part, some ‘minister of the message’ may have already written down himself or, more probably, dictated to our author at his request as he sought to ‘trace the course’ of things ‘from the first.’ Such a consecutive written source seems to underlie alike the special elerment in the Lucan Gospel and the account in Ac of the early Jerusalem and Judean activity of the apostolic circle of ‘witnesses,’ esp. Peter and John (ef. Lk 22 7); and its real author may well have been Philip ‘the Evangelist’ or Preacher of the Gospel (Ac 21 8), whom Luke met at Caesarea. But further, Luke had probably taken down from his lips, or from those of others, detached notes of other incidents; and these he would have at hand as supplemental material for his continuous narrative, when later on he thought of writing it to meet the needs of the time. This he did on the basis of the primary written source (in more or less connected form) just mentioned, supplementing it as he was thus able, and carrying on the story of the Church’s origin and growth yet further. When the primary source ended, as it probably did where ‘the Word’ finally goes beyond Judea, it was already overlapping with his own personal knowledge of the Antiochene stage (11 19-80, 12 %-13 8, 14 26-15) and of the developments starting afresh therefrom (chs. 13-14 and 16 ff.). For the early Judean days (ch. 1-5) Luke’s other impressions derived, e.g., from informants in Antioch (cf. 131) and Ephesus, ran parallel in part with matter in his chief Cesarean (or Philip) source. They seem also to have included an account of the Day of Pentecost which, as current at a distance of place and time, contained a mistaken view (25: 6b-11) of the ‘speaking with other (different) tongues’ (2 4), as if this meant foreign languages; whereas both the scoffing remark in v. 13 and Peter’s reply there- to, as also the references to this spiritual phenomenon in 10 47, 11 45f., imply that it was a special ecstatic form of emotional utterance (see I1Co14). Intheuse of his written materials, in- cluding the more consecutive Cesarean source—to which Luke adheres closely in the Gospel (even when it differs from Mark’s narrative), and so probably in Ac also—our author naturally adapts the wording, particularly at the beginning and end of each section, to the needs of the new setting as meant for “Theo- philus.’ Similar dovetailing of Palestinian with Antiochene materials recurs in what follows chs. 1-5, where the ‘Hellenists’ —more liberal or Grecizing Jews—come on the scene, first in 6 18 40 (Stephen and Philip) and later in 11 19-80 (Antioch), while in between come the conversion and early ministry of Saul (9 1-80), preparatory to the latter or Antiochene events. Attached to 6 1-8 4 are some Palestinian episodes (8 5°), where Philip, the Hellenist colleague of Stephen, appears as an actor (and probable informant, cf. ‘Peter and John’ in 8 % with 3 1, 4 13,19), Similarly in 9 82-11 18 we have a long Petrine section— probably from the main Czsarean written source—on which fol- lows the first Antiochene episode (11 196). The sections on Herod as persecutor (12 1-19, perhaps gathered from Mark, see 12 f.) and the Divine judgment on him (12 20-23) bring the story back to Cesarea. Finally Luke’s Cesarean memorandum, which included in its interests the extension of the Gospel beyond Judaism, seems to have gone on (after 11 *) to describe the climax of that process in the Concordat between Jerusalem and Antioch (cf. Ac 15 1-33), The intervening matter seems to come from other sources. The story of Peter’s imprisonment by Herod and his escape points (12 13, the maid’s name, Rhoda) to Mark as its ultimate witness; while chs. 13 and 14 suggest, alike in their subject-matter and their vivid detail, the eye-witness of the latter part of Acts (in 14 2 we get even a ‘we’ passage), who was probably Luke himself, the author of Ac as a whole. The above suggestions may be summed up roughly as follows: (1) Luke’s main or continuous written source (largely Cesarean tradition), as in the Gospel; covering broadly 1-11 26, 12 1-24, 151-33. (2) De- tached episodes in Luke’s note book and memory, mainly obtained at Antioch; e.g. 2 5, 6b-11, 11 25-30, 12-14, 15 35. The author’s editorial hand through- out has to be allowed for in various ways, especially in (2). For the latter part of Ac all is due to Luke’s memory or notes, as the case may be; nor is the absence of ‘we’ any sure disproof of his presence, as its occasional occurrence may have merely a psycho- logical or emotional significance. 4. Aims. The motifs underlying the narrative, and causing selection from a larger mass of materials, are varied. The central one, the universal spirit of Hebrew religion, and its Divine origin—in spite of Jewish blindness and hardness of heart, now as in Acts of the Apostles Adah A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 24 former days (cf. Stephen’s Speech)—persists from first to last, with its climax at Rome (28 17-28). But with it blends more and more another idea, its counterpart, viz., the witness borne by the attitude of typical representatives of the Gentile world, the Roman Empire in the widest sense, that the hostility of actual Judaism was vexatious and groundless. Further, so far as Judaism might try to crush its rival by suggesting that it was an element of disorder and even of disloyalty in the Empire, the early history of the Christian Church and its relations to the Roman State, and its law and order, refuted the charges. Such troubles as had arisen were in fact due to Jewish jealousy. All these lines of thought meet in Paul himself, and in his attitude, whether to his national religion or to Roman citizenship. To both he was essentially loyal. This explains the long and at first sight unduly prolix story of Paul’s last visit to Jerusalem and its issues, particularly the repeated speeches of defense. Paul, indeed, was the embodied apologia of the Church in the Roman Empire, over against all its traducers (cf. Von Soden, Early Christian Literature [1906], pp. 230 ff.). The occasion of Ac, then, like that of all N T writings, is practical. It is determined by pressing religious needs, not by abstract or scientific interests. It is an apology for the religion of Jesus, addressed primarily to men of faith, yet a faith distressed both by bitter opposition and by some perplexities of thought, not as yet quite at home with the deeper ideas of the new religion—as one of power shown through suffering, not through prosperity (the no- tion of ancient religion generally). But while pri- marily meant for actual faith, Luke’s writings, per- haps alone in the N T, look also to potential faith outside, in ‘men of good-will’ who need only to know the facts in all the impressiveness of their true order —so that their real meaning jumps to the eye—in order to believe in the ‘Kingdom of God.’ 5. Provenance. Where, then, was such a work likely to arise? Internal evidence suggests that the region in which its first readers were most interested was the Roman province of Asia (note references to Paul’s abortive wish to visit it and Bithynia in 16 6f.), where the concrete narrative becomes most detailed and the topography most minute (18 24-211; contrast the verses given to the last visit to Greece, 20 2-5). Note in particular the forecast (20 26-36) of future dangers at Ephesus. Observe too the allusiveness of the reference to ‘the School of Tyrannus’ (‘a certain’ was soon added to soften it) in 19 9, as tho self-explanatory for ‘Theophilus’ and his circle (cf. the abrupt reference to ‘Alexander’ in 19 33); also the triviality of the itinerary in 20 13-15, save for those familiar with the coast between Troas and Ephesus. Here reference may be made to some of the most striking of the readings in Codex Bezx, etc. A whole series of them betray special acquaintance with Asia Minor (Ramsay); and these are among the oldest of the so called ‘Western’ or 6 text. But they are never more than intelligent glosses, showing that Ac was read with more than usual interest in the region (cf. the 6 gloss in 11 28 due to local interest in Antioch). Finally, consider the correspondence between this environment and the motifs of Ac, as already de- scribed: the numbers and influence of the Jews in Asia (referred to in 21 27, 24 19 as prime causes of Paul’s arrest); the bitterness of their hostility to the Christians in the later Apostolic age (Rev 29 f.); the interest for this region of the modus vivendi of Ac 15 20, 29, in the light especially of Rev 2 6, 14f., 20; and the problem of the true relations of Judaism and Christianity there as late as Ignatius’ day. These things constitute strong cumulative evidence for Asia, and Ephesus in particular, as the original home of Ac. Dr. B. H. Streeter, The Four Gospels, has recently argued for Rome as the home of Luke’s Gospel and Ac. But he has not discussed Ephesus, especially as to Ac; and the above evidence for it seem stronger than any he adduces for Rome. 6. Date. If this be granted, it will add also to our evidence for date, in so far as the tone of Ac is optimistic touching Rome’s attitude to Christians, apart from Jewish envy and slander. It assumes that Rome may continue its old policy of treating Chris- tianity as a form, the most legitimate form, of Israel’s religion, and as sharing its status as a religio licitta. When exactly the course of events in Asia, the center of fanatical Czsar-worship, rendered such hopes untenable, it is hard to say; but rela- tively early, we may be sure, apart even from the evidence of Rev, the date of which is itself an open question. Harnack thinks a date about 80 A. D. most probable: the present writer inclines to a date earlier in the Vespasian era, as better suiting the words of the Gospel (21 32, cf. 9 26 f.) touching the fulfilment of ‘all things’ before the passing of the original generation of Christ’s hearers. The ex- periences of the era of the siege and fall of Jerusalem seem clearly implied in the wording of Luke 21; but the ‘times of the Gentiles’ have yet to run out (21 24, 28). Still ‘redemption draweth nigh,’ and some of Christ’s generation will see it. The argument for a date about 100 a.p. derived from parailels with Josephus’ Aniiquities is quite ‘in the air’ (Harnack, op. cit., p. 18). It does not account for the divergences in the case either of Theudas (5 %, e.g., the number 400)—whatever be made of the account in Ac—or of Herod (12 2° ff-). On the other hand, it is unsafe to argue, as has been done afresh quite recent- ly, from the point at which Ac ends (61-62 a.p.). For (1) the author’s own reiteration of Paul’s words at Miletus (20 25. %) to the effect that he would not again visit his Asian churches, con- tains the hint that his course was nearly run (see TimorHy and Tirus, ErrsTues To); (2) the narrative has reached its natural climax when the Gospel is preached by Paulin Rome. Paulus Romez apex Evangelit. Nothing of equal significance could be added. The heroic age, in which the Divine power working in Christ’s witnesses was most manifest, was already well-nigh over. 7. Authorship. Finally, a date between 75 and 80 a.D. best suits the most probable theory as to authorship, viz., that the whole work, as distinct from a supposed Travel-diary—cropping out here and there between chs. 16 and 28—comes from Luke, ‘the beloved physician,’ companion and helper in the Gospel to Paul, who is the hero of the book’s most moving sections (see “The Case for the Tradition,’ in Beg. of Christianity, II, pp. 265-297). Harnack has accepted and restated in Luke the Physician the ar- guments used by scientific defenders of the tradi- | tional authorship,! such as Hobart in The Medical 1This is supported, for Luke’s Gospel, by very early and wide-spread evidence, going back as far as Marcion (c. 140 a.p.). Such is natural, if Harnack be right in saying that a work witha Prolog must from the first have had its author’s name in the title. Evidence of the use of Acis probable (so Holtzmann) in Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp of Smyrna, c. 115 a.D., and perhaps even earlier in Clement of Rome (xviii, 1, cf. Ac 13%), 25 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Sopra mesuee ah Language of St. Luke (1882), and Sir J. C. Hawkins in Hore Synoptice (1899), as regards the stylistic unity of Ac generally (see J Th S. XXIV, p. 361 ff. for a recent vindication of this argument). At pres- ent, then, as far as linguistic evidence goes, this view may be said to hold the field. The weakness of the counter view, which assigns Ac to about 100 a.p. (see ‘The Case against the Tradition,’ op. cit., pp. 298-348), is seen in the paradox to which it is driven, in order to account for certain Hellenistic features in the warp and woof of the book, that its final author was a ‘Hellenistic Jew’ (so Wendt and B. W. Bacon). The form of the preface to both works, and their whole feeling when dealing with Greco-Roman matters (cf. Ramsay), make this most unlikely. Luke, however, altho born a Gentile (whether Syrian or Greek in race), would naturally have much of the Hellenist in his training—he may have been a Jewish proselyte to begin with—which suits the complex conditions of the problem, both of styleand thought, completely. Early tradition touching him is well summed up in the Monarchian Prolog to Luke’s Gospel: ‘Luke, a Syrian by race, an Antiochene,? by profession a physician, . . . departed this life at the age of seventy-four, in Bithynia.’ The latter statements, in no way suspicious in themselves, agree well in all respects with the foregoing theory. 8. Relation to the Pauline Letters. One confirmation of Luke’s authorship lies in the apparent non-use of the Pauline letters, which any one save a companion of Paul’s would eagerly study for data. Particularly striking is the case as regards the Epistle to the Galatians, which runs parallel to much in Ac, and the absence of exact harmony with which is by some made a prime reason for denying Lucan authorship. As this case is crucial for the historicity of Ac, we must deal with it some- what fully, instead of trying to discuss minor problems of like order, Some still regard Ac 15 and Gal 2 10 as both historically trustworthy versions of the same incident, in spite of their marked differences. Such differences are, e.g., (1) their osten- sible occasion; (2) the privacy implied in Gal ® (where it was important for the purpose of Paul’s argument to emphasize the public vindication of his own Gospel, if it had then occurred); (3) the practical conditions laid down for keeping the two separate missions in sufficient touch with each other—as to which Paul’s language in Gal 2, ‘only,’ ete., formally excludes any other terms than those he specifies; (4) the clear implica- tion both of Paul’s logic (which does not leave him free to pass over any visit between Gal 1 4 and 2! without explanation) and of the statement that he remained still unknown by face to the churches of Judea (1 22 1-), to the effect that no visit to Jerusalem fell between those in Gal 1 % and 21, whereas Ac 11 27 ff- records a relief visit to Judea after Gal 118; (5) the contrast between the attitude of Peter, and yet more of Barnabas (after his Gentile experiences in Ac chs. 13-14), in Gal 2 ff-, with what we should gather of them in Ac ch. 15 (esp. %-%). Those who see their way through these differences must be allowed to take their own course; but they can not fairly cite Lightfoot’s authority since the ‘South-Galatian’ theory, which makes Paul in Galatians address a totally different body of readers from that contem- plated by him, has become so widely accepted, even by de- fenders of Ac ch. 15=Gal 2 1-10, This changes the whole perspec- tive. In particular it makes the natural assumption that Paul is defending the independent authority of his Gospel as proved prior to his ‘begetting’ his readers by its agency—an assump- tion involved by Lightfoot’s ‘North-Galatian’ theory—tell heavily against Ac ch. 15=Gal 2 119 on the current theory. Turning, then, to those who agree in regarding the forego- ing historical equation impossible, we have two types of the- 2Note.the intimate knowledge of the Antiochene Church shown in Ac 11 %, 13 1, cf. 6 5 fin. 8At best, Paul’s account could apply only to a private con- ference at the time of Ac ch. 15, but not there recorded; while yet Paul lays all the stress on it (but see GALATIANS, § 3). ory. The one frankly denies any real historicity to Ac 15, and in most cases performs a critical operation on its organic unity, separating the conditions contemplated in 15 ™. 29, cf. 21 %, from the narrative as a whole, and relegating them to some later occasion, real or supposed. This leaves Ac thor- oughly discredited, and its Lucan authorship out of the question. Here Harnack’s present position is untenable. as Schirer pressed home in the 7'LZ (1906, cols. 406 f.). He must unify his literary and histurical results somehow. The other theory challenges the traditional dogma that Ac ch. 15 must be meant to refer to the same visit as Gal 2 !~0, and sets about finding an earlier stage in the story of the Gospel’s extension in Ac with which it may be correlated. Thus there is no reason why a@ private conference should not have taken place between the Antiochene and Jerusalem leaders touching their respective missions’—with a view to anticipate public difficulties such as @ Paul would readily foresee (cf. Gal 2 2)—prior to the emer- gence of public occasion‘ for the deputation of Ac 15 2 (‘and certain others’). Distinguite tempora. As yet the problem was not one present to the rank and file at all, only to Paul himself in the first instance—leading him up ‘by revelation,’ to make sure of the ‘pillar’ apostles. On this occasion these devout fol- lowers of the finger of God (cf. Ac 11 1”, and later 15 8 12-1”) felt the unity of the Divine working visible in both types of mission, and simply requested that Paul should see to it that he and his converts ‘should remember the poor,’ in keeping with the best traditions of Jewish piety (cf. Acts 2 “ ff.)\—a principle for which Paul was himself already zealous. It is just here that the second theory divides into alternative forms. Ramsay, followed by V. Weber and others, sees in the wording of Gal 2 10 a reference to Paul’s being in Jerusalem for the very purpose of showing the Antiochene mindfulness of the poor saints in Judea (Ac 11 ©). But the present writer considers this identification exegetically forced, and views that Relief visit rather as an early proof® of Paul’s zeal for the principle agreed on in Gal 210, It is simplest and best to assume, as we are free to do—since the account in Ac isso far from professing to be a complete narrative—that the visit of Gal 2 1 is an otherwise unrecorded visit (perhaps due to the ‘revelation’ of II Cor 12 1+, cf. Gal 2 2), preparing the way privately for that other and public concordat which was occasioned by overt con- troversy in Antioch some years later (but see GALATIANS, § 3). Thus there is no necessary clash between Ac 15 and Gal 2 1700; and, with similar allowance for different perspective, we may say the same for Ac 9 and Gal 1 16-21, touching Paul’s move- ments in the first years after his conversion. Lirerature: The full literature on Ac will be found in Knowling’s Comm. in the Ezpositor’s Greek Test. (1900), C. Clemen, Paulus (1904), i. 162-330, Moffatt’s Introd. to the Lit. of the N. T. (1911 and later), and Goguel, Introd. on N T, III (Paris, 1922), which is perhaps the best recent critical comm. (reviewed in Rev. d’ Histoire et de Philos. relig. (Strass- bourg), for Sept.-Oct., 1922). Commentaries: Smaller; Bartlet (Century Bible, 1901), Lanchester (Camb. Bible), Menzies (in Peake’s Comm. on the Bible, 1919), Blunt (1922): on the Greek Text; Page (1886). Larger; Rackham (Westminster Comm., 1901), Knowling (Expo. Gk. Text, 1900). Special Studies: Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller (1896), Pauline and Other Studies (1906); Har- nack, The Acts of the Apostles (1909); Foakes-Jackson and Lake, The Beginnings of Christianity, II (1920-22); Streeter, The Four Gospels (1924), ch. xviii. Jay oD. ADADAH, ad’a-da (WW T¥, ‘adh‘Gdhah): A town on the S. border of Judah (Jos 15 22). Probably the Aroer (q.v.) of I'S 30 28. ADAH, é’da (‘11¥, ‘adhah), ‘beauty’: 1. A wife of Lamech (Gn 4 19 #f.). 2. The Hittite wife of Esau (Gn 36 2 ff.). 4I see no such occasion in Gal 24f- There is no suggestion such as Paul’s readers could be expected to follow, that the ‘false brethren’ were ‘brought in’ at Antioch, rather than at the private conference in Jerusalem mentioned just before. 8See Expositor (Oct., 1899), p. 268: cf. O. Holtzmann in ZNTW (1905), pp. 102 ff.: ‘But then the journey to the Apos- tolic conference and the first Collection-journey fall in the period immediately after Ac 11 **; one must assume that both journeys followed one another quickly, as Gal 2 1° leta one suppose.” Adaiah Adria A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 26 tl Leet i ne NR htt ADAIAH, a-dé’ya or -ya (TY, ‘ddhdyah), ‘J’ has adorned’: 1. The maternal grandfather of King Josiah, of Bozkath in the Shephelah of Judah (II K 221). 2. A Levite of the sons of the Kohathites (I Ch 6 41). 3. A Benjamite of the family of Shimei (Shema ver. 13), (I Ch 8 21) of Jerusalem. 4. A priest dwelling in Jerusalem (I Ch 912). 5. The father of Maaseiah (II Ch 231, here spelled #7778). 6. A man of the family of Bani of the postexilic Jewish com- munity who had married a foreign wife (Er 10 29). 7, Another of same family and guilty of same offense (Ezr 10 39). 8. A descendant of Perez, son of Judah (Neh 115). 9. A priest, son of Jeroham, in the post- exilic list of the inhabitants of Jerusalem; probably the same as 4 (Neh 11 12). CUS ET: ADALIA, ad’o-lai’a (82218, ‘ddhalya’): One of Haman’s ten sons (Est 9 8). ADAM, ad’am ®'78, ’ddhdm, from root O18, ‘to build,’ ‘produce’?): I. According to the creation story of Genesis the name of the first man of the race. The Hebrew word used without the article is the name of the first man (Gn 4 25, 51, 3-5; I Ch 11; also Gn 2 20, 3 17, 21?); with the article, it should be translated ‘the man,’ as it is in most instances in RV, where AV has ‘Adam.’ It is used as the name of the first man where it is necessary to distinguish him from his descendants. In the N T the Greek transliteration ’Addy. is used as the name of the first man (Jude ver. 14), who is looked upon as the father of the whole human race, so closely connected with all men that he involved all in his acts (Ro 5 14a; I Co 15 45a; 1 Ti, 2134.). In Ro 514b (512f.), I Co 15 22 Paul brings out the historical connection of Adam with humanity, in representing him as being the author of sin and death for all by his one act of diso- bedience; in this he is a type—tho by contrast in result—-of Christ, who by His one act of obedience is the conqueror of sin and death. In I Co 15 45 Paul _ seems to go from the influence exerted historically to nature, 7.e., to the relation in which they stand to humanity; Adam the first sensuous, earthly man, Christ the second and last, the ‘pein and heav- enly man. II. The name of a city in the J Seah, valley, near the mouth of the Jabbok, where the waters were dammed up when Joshua led Israel into Canaan (Jos 316). Map III, H 4. GESait. ADAM, THE BOOKS OF: This general title is given to a number of apocryphal and apocalyptic productions (by Christian hands on the basis of Jewish originals), embodying semi-religious ro- mances in which Adam and Eve figured as the chief characters and the story of Gn ch. 3 is supplemented and embellished by legendary or mythical accretions. The exact titles and contents of these documents can not be definitely identified at this stage of the investigation. It appears most probable, however, that the Adam literature is traceable to two original Jewish works, viz., (1) The Apocalypse of Adam (called by some The Testament of Adam and The Penitence of Adam) and (2) The Life of Adam and Eve (Latin, Vita Adae et Evae, or The Narrative of the Citizenship of Adam and Eve, ed. Tischendorf, 1867). The data are scattered over a large number | lifted up his spear.’ of patristic writings. But see M. R. James, The Lost Apocrypha of the O. T., (1920), p. 8; also Charles, Apocr. and Pseudep. of the O. T., vol. II, (1918). Av On, *adhaimah): A city of The identification, Map IV, ADAMAH, ad’a-ma (778, Naphtali (Jos 19 36). G 7, is uncertain. ADAMANT. See Stonszs, Precious, § 3. ADAMI-NEKEB, ad’a-mai-nek’eb (APRi7 “DTS, ‘adhami hannegebh): A town on the NW. border of Naphtali (Jos 19 33). Its site is uncertain. ADAR. See Tims, §3, and Appar II. ADBEEL, ad’bi-el (ANATE, ’adhb’él): A ‘son’ of Ishmael (Gn 25 13; I Ch 1 29). Idiba’il near Egypt is mentioned in the Assyrian inscriptions. ADDAN, ad’dan (118, ’addén): The Babylonian home of certain exiles who were unable to prove their genealogy (Ezr 2 59). Called Addon in Neh 7 61 ff. Site unknown. ADDAR, ad’dar (718, Benjamite clan (I Ch 8 3). Cf. Ard in Gn 46 21; Nu 26 40. II. A town on the S. border of Judah, site unknown (Jos 15 3 Adar, AV). In Nu 384 4 it is com- bined with Hezron into Hazar-Addar. HE. HE. N. ADDER. See Pauesting, § 26. ADDI, ad’dai (’Addet): An ancestor of Christ (Lk 3 28). ADDON. See ApDAN. ADER. See Epmr. ADIEL, @’di-el (2812, ‘ddh7’l): 1. A Simeonite chieftain (I Ch 4 36-40). 2. A priest (I Ch 9 12). 3. Father of Azmaveth (I Ch 27 25). ADIN, é’din (1"1¥, ‘ddhin): The ancestral head of a large postexilic family (Kzr 2 15, 8 6; Neh 7 20, 10 16). ADINA, a-dai’na (821Y, ‘ddhind’), ‘delightful’: A Reubenite chieftain in David’s army (I Ch 11 42). ADINO, a-dai’no (7 1Y, ‘ddhind): II S 23 8 reads ‘Adino the Eznite’ as a second name of David’s mightiest hero. The text is doubtless corrupt; the true reading is perhaps preserved in I Ch 11 11 ‘he EH. E. N. ADITHAIM, ad’i-fhé’im (8°0"12, ‘ddhithayim): A city of Judah in the Shephelah (Jos 15 36). Site unknown. ADJURE. See Oatu. ADLAI, ad'lé-ai (27Y phat (I Ch 27 29). ADMAGH, ad’ma (2°18, ’adhmdh): One of the cities near the Dead Sea that rebelled against Chedorlaomer (Gn 10 19, 14 2, 8). A. with Zeboim was destroyed (Hos 11 8), according to Dt 29 22 at the same time with Sodom and Gomorrah. Nothing is known of its site. EK. E. N. ADMATHA. See Princes, THE SEVEN. ADNA, ad’na (837¥, ‘adhna’), ‘pleasure’: 1. One of the ‘sons of Pahath-moab’ (Ezr 10 30). 2. A priest (Neh 12 15). , ‘adhlay): Father of Sha- An Arabian tribe > ’addadr): I. Ancestor of a ~ 27 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Adaiah Adria ADNAH, ad’na (77279, ‘adhnah): 1. A Manassite who deserted Saul for David (I Ch 12 20). 2. A captain under Jehoshaphat (II Ch 17 14). ADONIBEZEK, 0a-dd’nai-bi’zek (P!3°218, ‘ddho- ni-bhezeq), ‘lord of Bezek’: A Canaaniteking defeated by Judah and Simeon at Bezek. He escaped, but was pursued, captured, and mutilated. He died after- ward in Jerusalem (Jg 1 5-7). Ae OZ. ADONIJAH, ad’o-nai’ja (T2718, ’ddhdniyyah), ‘my Lord is J’”: 1. The fourth son of David. His mother was Haggith (II S 3 4). Near the close of David’s reign he assumed royal state, hoping to become his father’s successor. Joab and Abiathar were his active supporters. He made a feast at the Stone of Zoheleth, near Jerusalem, and invited all the king’s sons and nobility, except Solomon and his partizans, Benaiah, Zadok, and Nathan. Here he disclosed his plot for seizing the throne. At this critical juncture Nathan advised Bath-sheba to remind David of his promise to appoint Solomon as his successor. David acted with characteristic energy, commanding Solomon to ride on his own mule to Gihon, there to be anointed by Zadok and proclaimed king under the protection of the body- guard. A. and his guests heard the acclamations of the populace, and Jonathan, the son of Abiathar, informed them of the coronation. A. took refuge at the altar, but Solomon graciously pardoned him. Later, he preferred a request to Solomon through Bath-sheba for Abishag, David’s concubine. As the harem of a king belonged to his successor, Solomon rightly considered this an act of treason, and had him put to death (I K chs. 1 and 2). 2. A Levite (II Ch 17 8). 3. Ancestral head of a family of Levites (Neh 10 16) called Adonikam (q.v.) in Ezr 2 13, ete. JuAS Ks: ADONIKAM, ad”o-nai’‘kom (OP'708, ’ddhdni- gam), ‘the Lord is risen up’: Ancestor of a large post- exilic family (Ezr 213, 813; Neh 718). Called Adoni- jah in Neh 10 16. ADONIRAM, ad’o-nai’ram (O 728,’ ddhdniram), ‘the Lord is high’ (abbreviated (?) into Adoram and Hadoram): Overseer of the men forced to work on public works under David and Solomon (II S 20 24; I K 46, 514). He was stoned to death in N. Israel (I K 12 18; II Ch 1018). EK. E. N. ADONIS, PLANTINGS OF. The ERV meg. at Is 17 10 for ‘pleasant plants’ in AV and ARV. If the Hebrew word na‘dmdanim is a proper name, the equivalent of the more usual Tammuz, the Greek Adonis, the reference is to the so called ‘baskets of Adonis’ 7.e., baskets or pots planted with quick- growing plants which, subjected to a forced growth for eight days, symbolized the life-giving power of Adonis. Isaiah implies that this form of nature-wor- ship was practised in N. Israel. He emphasized the weakness inherent in such forced growth as indica- tive of the lack of any real power or help in these strange deities and their cults. Cf. The New Cen- tury Bible or The Cambridge Bible on Is 17 10. See also TAMMUZ. EK. E. N. ADONIZEDEK, 0-d6’nai-zi’dek (PI¥°Y8, ’dd- héni tsedheg), ‘lord of righteousness’: King of Jerusalem when Joshua conquered Ai; he entered into a league with four other Canaanite kings to fight against the inhabitants of Gibeon, which had made peace with Israel. He was defeated and put to death by hanging (Jos 101, 3, 26). Perhaps the same as Adoni-bezek (Jg 1 5). (ree Ls ADOPTION (vioGecte: A legal term appropriated by theology. Its Biblical usage is limited to the Pauline epistles (Ro 8 15, 23, 9 4; Gal 4.5; Eph 1 5). Here it signifies the act by which the privileges of a child of God are conferred upon the believer in Jesus Christ. In the Roman judicial system a place was made for a formal act of adoption. In Israelite his- tory cases of adoption also occur. Esther was adopt- ed by Mordecai (Est 27, cf. also the cases of Moses, Ex 29, and of Genubath, I K 11 20). But no formal act is mentioned. According to the Roman law, on the other hand, the person to be adopted was pub- licly sold to the prospective parent before witnesses, and thenceforth became a member of the latter’s family, exactly as if he had been born into it. The Apostle’s use of the Roman legal term is designed to show that the redeemed saint not only is changed inwardly but also secures the privileges of a child of God. But it may be that the act is the im- portant thing in the Apostle’s mind; in such a case adoption is a separate and distinct stage of redemp- tion. A. C. Z. ADORAIM, ad"o-ré’im (O28, ’ddhdrayim): A city of Judah fortified by Rehoboam, about 6 m. W. of Hebron (II Ch 11 9). Map II, E 2. ADORAM. See ADONIRAM. ADRAMMELECH, oa-dram‘-lek (122718, ’édh- rammelekh): 1. One of the gods of Sepharvaim (II K 17 31), or Sippar in Assyria, possibly Adar (Adrammelech = Adar-King); but a god Adar is un- known in the Assyrian pantheon. 2. One of the two sons of Sennacherib, who murdered their father on his return from the unsuccessful campaign against Jerusalem (Is 37 38; II K 19 37; in the latter passage, however, the word ‘son’ does not occur). A. C. Z. ADRAMYTTIUM, ad”ra-mit’i-om (Ateapictoy and ’Adspaudctov): A city of Mysia in the Roman province of Asia, situated at the head of the Gulf of Adramyttium and at the base of Mt. Ida. There is no authentic record of its foundation, but it was reputed to have been founded by Adramys, brother of Croesus. It may have been originally an Athenian settlement. Under the Romansit attained the rank of a metropolis and was the seat of an Assize (conventus juridicus). The modern village of Edremid stands some miles inland in the center of an olive and vineyard district, and exports raisins, olive-oil, and timber from Mt. Ida. In Ac 27 2 reference is made to ‘a ship of Adramyttium.’ ADRIA, @’dri-a (Ac 27 27), Gr. ’Adplac, Lat. Hadria, Hadriaticum mare: The name may have been derived from the town of Adria, or Atria, near the mouth of the Po, and was ordinarily applied to the gulf between Italy and Illyria. But geographers contemporary with the N T extended it to include Adriel Agriculture A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY not only the Ionian Gulf, but also the section of sea between Crete and Sicily. Strabo, e.g. (§ 123), says that the older name was used for ‘part of what is now called Adrias’ under which he includes the Ionian Gulf and the Sicilian Sea. Ptolemy dis- tinguishes the Adriatic Sea from the Adriatic Gulf, and Pausanias applies the name to the sea between Sicily, Malta, and Crete. Lukeconforms to this later usage—possibly, as Ramsay suggests, following the sailor’s nomenclature—in using the term ‘the Adria’ for the sea in which Paul’s company drifted west- ward for fourteen days. R. A. F.—E. C. L. ADRIEL, é’dri-el (Oey, ‘adhrvél) ‘God is my helper’(?): A Meholathite who married Saul’s daughter Merab, already promised to David (IS 1819). His five sons were given up to the Gibeonites (II S 21 8 [Michal here by mistake for Merab)). E. E. N. ADULLAM, o-dol’am (0?7Y, ‘édhullam): The ancient tradition concerning Adullam (Gn ch. 38) is to the effect that in early times clans or families of Judah consolidated with Canaanitish clans (Adul- lamites) near Adullam. The statement in Jos 12 15 that the city and its king were conquered by Joshua is late and conflicts with the earlier accounts of the conquest. From the notices in Jos 15 35; Mic 1 15; Neh 11 30, its general location is made certain (Map II, E 2).. David frequently used its stronghold or citadel as his headquarters (I S 221; II S 2313, where the true reading is ‘stronghold,’ not ‘cave’; cf. ver. 14 and 517). Rehoboam strengthened its fortifications (II Ch 11 7). It was reoccupied by Jews early in postexilic times (Neh 11 30). (See G. A. Smith, AHGHL, p. 229.) E. E. N. ADULTERY. See Marriace anv Divorce, § 4. ADUMMIM, a-dum’/im, THE ASCENT OF (MOT 12YD, ma‘dlzh ’ddhummim, thus named, perhaps, on account of the red-colored stone in the pass): It lay on the road most traveled between Jerusalem and Jericho, and on the boundary-line be- tween Judah and Benjamin (Jos 157, 1817). Ona height NE. of the pass was the Chastel Rouge of the Crusaders. Map II, G1. Gis Ra Be ADVERSARY: In the O T the term most often used to designate opponent in general (tsar); but in I § 1 6 this signifies the rival wife. In Nu 22 22; 1S 294,118 19 22;1K 54, 1114, 23, 25, it is the trans- lation of the noun and in Ps 71 13, 109 20, 29 of the verb from the root ]0 (‘satan’), meaning to ‘accuse’ or ‘oppose.’ In Job 31 35 it means an opponent in a case at law. In the N T it often designates the gen- eral idea of opponent, but in Mt 5 25; Lk 12 58, 18 3; I P 58, that of legal opponent. Siders tip dk ADVOCATE (xap&xAntos), t.¢., ‘pleader’ or ‘in- tercessor,’ applied to Jesus explicitly only inI Jn 21, but cf. Jn 14 16; Ro 8 34; Heb 7 23. See also Hoty SPIRIT. AENEAS, i-né’as (Alvéac, Eneas AV): A paralytic at Lydda healed by Peter (Ac 9 33-34). ZENON, i’nen (Alvay, ‘springs’): A place near Salim (Jn 3 23). Neither site is certainly identified. According to Eusebius and Jerome (Onom. 245, 91; 134, 25) Ainon was eight Roman miles S. of Béth- shean (Scythopolis). But Conder’s identification (Tent Work, Vol. I, p. 57 f.) with the springs be- tween Salim (Map III, F 3) and’ Aindn in the Wddy Far’ah (Map III, G 8) is more probable. J.-M. T. AGABUS, ag’a-bus ("AyeGoc): A Christian pro- phet (Ac 11 27 £.) who came down from Jerusalem to Antioch and predicted ‘a great famine over all the world’ (probably the famine in the reign of Claudius c. 46-48 a.p.). In the diary source Ac 2110 f. A. ap- pears in Cesarea and predicts Paul’s arrest and deliverance to the Gentiles (see CuurcH LirEz AND ORGANIZATION, § 6; also Propuet, § 14.). BP. Bares be AGAG, é’gag (US, ’dghagh): King of an Amale- kite tribe. Samuel commissioned Saul utterly to ex- terminate the tribe with their king, because of past hostility to Israel (cf. Ex 178-16), thus putting Agag under the ban (herem). See Cursz, § 2. But Saul saved the king and also much booty. Samuel, highly displeased at this disobedience, carried out the Divine commission by hewing Agag topieces (IS ch. 15). In Nu 247read Og or Gog for Agag. J. A. K. AGAGITE. See Haman. AGAR. See Haaar. AGATE. See Srongs, Precious, §§ 2 and 3. AGE, AGES. See Escuatrotoey, § 27; and Apo- CALYpPTIC LITERATURE, § 1 (6). AGED. See Wispom, WISE Men, $1. AGEE, é’gi (S28, ’Gghé@’): A Hararite, father of Shammah (II § 23 11). AGRICULTURE: 1. Israelites Originally not Agriculturists. The Israelites first learned agricul- ture in Palestine. According to the patriarchal legends their ancestors were essentially nomadic, and became agriculturists only incidentally, as in the course of their wanderings they came upon land adapted to farming purposes (Gn 26 12, 377; cf. 3014). Gn 4 20, with its peculiar appreciation of the nomadic life, is not the only thing which reminds us of the fact that the Israelites were once nomads; the Rechabites also, who tried to retain artificially the old conditions which had long since disappeared, bear witness to the fact that the nomadic life was for them the genuine Israelitic life (Jer 35 7). See Nomaopic Lire. 2. Transition to Agriculture After the Conquest. The nomadic situation, however, changed after Israel had settled in the W. Jordan country. Here the conditions demanded that they take up a settled life the chief employment of which was farming—an art they learned from the Canaanites; for Canaan had been a well-cultivated country long before Israel settled there. The lowlands especially had from very ancient times been tilled, tho the cultiva- tion of the hillsides was also old, in spite of the fact that the house of Joseph are bidden to clear the hill- tops of their forests (Jos 17 15-18). The importance which agriculture had for Israel from the very begin- ning of its settlement in Canaan is seen not only in the close connection in which agriculture and religion stood in the earliest times, but also in the fact that it is the background for all the legislation of Israel— “ ‘ a (Aivulddesy [BOLsO[OOYL, PLOJJIBVH{ UL UOTJoo[ [OD UO}JV_ UOSTABC BIANG 94} Wo) “xe-sSulunid “yysaysy °ST ‘1loYo}eo-suNp ‘vyNY gS “‘paens wae ‘pypynjy *ST “S[VULLUL-SULYSoIY} AOJ VYOL ‘yO LT “LT “QAOIS-ULBIS “QDQUNYD *L ‘ojyluy-sutunad ‘wpysurjypy "FL “OP YOIS “poluryy “OT ‘pooS SUIMOS OJ 9qny ‘yng ‘OLOIS “olurypy “Eg *peos ‘spssayy °6 ‘JPAOYS-SULMOUTIM ‘aysnfuryy * ‘YAOF-SULMOUUIM poSuoid-vay AApapnyy “fF G “YLOF posuoid-oM} ‘upiyig “E ‘ISP9[S-dULYSIIY} “SYLp-pe YUNT °S li “mold ‘ayyry SLNOWAHIdWNI IVYOLINODINDV Sn i Se inapecarioe NIVUN ONIGVAY 209 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Adriel Agriculture even the oldest. After the tribe had by’ conquest secured a place of habitation for itself, every family probably received a certain piece of land, which was marked off definitely, generally by stones, the re- moval of which was subjected to curse (Hos 5 10; Dt 1914, 2717; Pr 22 28). The land was measured ac- cording to ‘acres, literally ‘yokes,’ tsemedh: 7.e., the unit of measurement was as much ground as one yoke of oxen could plow in a day (IS 1414; Is 5 10), as it is to-day with the fellahin, whose measure is the feddan (t.e., literally, ‘yoke of oxen’). According to Lev 27 16, land § was also appraised at times by the quantity of seed used in sowing (cf. I K 18 32). 3. The Soil. In Es. ‘ (EL, Dt 1110f., as an Bees ee SS ae or rst) especial advan- tage over against Egypt, the point is emphasized that Israel is not com- pelled to irrigate the land, but that Jehovah pours out upon it rain and dew; as in other ways the brooks, springs, and lakes were esteemed for their importance with ref- erence to fertility (Dt 87). There must have been, therefore, in early times, as to-day, very little irri- gated land. Thorough manuring of the soil was unknown. In II K 9 37; Jer 9 22, 16 4, reference is made merely to the excrement of animals, especially of the oxen and asses used in plowing, which lay upon the fields; and such passages as Dt 2313 f.; I K 1410; cf. Ex 29 14, show the practise of thorough fertilization to have been most unlikely. Moreover, manure was dried and often used as fuel (Ezk 415). This custom is still prevalent among the fellahin of Palestine (cf. ZDPV, IX, 29). Instead of manure the people em- ployed for fertilization straw and stubble, which like thorns and thistles were burned (cf. Ex 157; Is 5 24, 47 14). Of significance for the fertility of the land is the regulation in Ex 23 10 f. that farms, vineyards, and olive orchards were to lie fallow in the seventh year. This hardly indicates that there was a fixed fallow- ing year for the whole country—a requirement which could not have been carried out in the earlier days except with the greatest hardship to the people—but each field had its own definite fallowing year, as was formerly the custom in Germany. 4. Tillage. In the tilling of the soil it was neces- sary to wait till autumn, when the early rains, mdreh —termed early because the old civil year began in autumn—softened the ground which had grown dry and hard as stone in the summer sun. As the soil to-day in certain localities is worked with the mat- tock (q.v.), so it was perhaps, here and there, in early times (I S 13 20; Is 7 25); but the ordinary way was to use the plow (q.v.); and very likely the prac- A Threshing-Sledge, Showing Under-Side. tise then, as now in Judea, was not to plow till after the sowing. The sower scatters the seed rather thinly over the fields, and it is then through the plowing turned under and covered to a depth of about three to four inches. Furrows (Job 39 10; Ps 65 10; I S 14 14) can not be understood of a deep trench as in Western agriculture. The plow does not do much more than break up the surface of the ground; so that it is not sufficiently freed of weeds. For example, in the fertile plain of Philistia there are weed-roots as thick as _ one’s finger, spreading out a yardormore in all directions, and at a depth that can not be reached by the plow. The ox was <= . 7Ma. by. yma. wo. mpd. WN. OAXNN. 197. map: INID). TON. FON). ONNDD. ADIN. [DIAXNT. WN. bs. RIN. 1D. DDN by. 95.72). 77. 0ON. Tue Srroam Inscription, See JERUSALEM, § 34. : tress (To 14 10, 11; Sir 29 12, 40 24). The treatment of the subject by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount (Mt 6 1-4) is characteristic. He does not denounce almsgiving as futile in the search for right standing with God, but attempts to plant it upon the right motive of love to the heavenly Father. A. C. Z. based on such passages as Is 41 4,44 6, 48 12;°Ps 90 2. The same formula is found in rabbinical literature, using the first and last letters of the Heb. alphabet. It means ‘the Eternal One,’ being in OT an attribute of J’’, the source and end of existence, with whom the writer of Revelation associates Christ in divine life- 37 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Alms, Almsgiving Alphabet giving power. In early Christian literature (Tert. Clem. Alex.) it denotes Christ as the fountain and consummation of all things, and is common in Christian art as a monogram for the eternal Divine Son. R. A. F.—E. C. L. ALPHABET: The hieroglyphic signs of Egypt and the cuneiform characters of Babylonia had been used in writing for centuries before the alphabet was invented. It is first found in use among North Sem- itic peoples, and altho it may not have originated with them, it was developed by a Semitic people, and became the source from which almost all systems of alphabets can be derived. Petrie (The Formation of the Alphabet, 1912) would modify somewhat this view that all alphabets come from an original Phoenician alphabet by deriving the latter and all others from a ‘very widespread body of signs—or signary—in more or less general use’ by a process of selection. From the Tell el-Amarna letters, discov- ered in 1887-88 and dating from about 1400 B.c., it is evident that the Babylonian characters and language were then in usein Canaan. By 1000B.c., however, they had been displaced by Semitic alpha- bets and languages, which had developed with the growth of the more or less independent national life of the various Semitic peoples. In each people both alphabet and language, altho having an origin in common with that of all the others, became changed and thus adapted to its individual needs. 1. Date of Alphabet. The material for the study of the development of the Semitic alphabet is found in a few inscriptions, principally on stones, seals, and coins. Perhaps the earliest inscription is that on a bronze bowl of Pheenician origin. It is dedicated to Baal-Lebanon by a servant of Hiram, King of the Sidonians, and may date from about 1000 B.c. From the middle of the 9th cent. comes the inscription of Mesha, King of Moab, called the Mesha Stone (see illustration). An early Hebrew inscription was found in the Siloam tunnel, built prob- ably by Hezekiah, and therefore dating from the end of the 8th cent. (see illustration), but even earlier may be an inscription on a small tablet, found by R. A.S. Macalister at Gezer in 1908. It seems to be some kind of agri- cultural calendar cut in lime- stone perhaps by a simple peas- ant. Lidzbarski, G. B. Gray, and others (PHFQ, 1909) ascribe it to a date not much later than the Mesha Stone. To these may be added inscriptions on seals from the 4th to the 1st cent. (see illustra- tions), and on coins from the Maccabzan era and later (see illustrations). The important Aramaic inscriptions are from Zinjirli in N. Syria (8th cent.), Nerab, SE. of Aleppo (7th cent.) and others (8th to 3d cent. B.c.) (see cols. 6, 7, 8 of Plate). Comparison reveals a common origin, and also a period of development in the individual alphabets covering several centuries, which were, however, slight. The earliest forms of the Greek {alphabet, especially where the writing is from right to left as is the case with the Semitic alphabet, show that these Seal of Hananiah, Son of Azariah. The Hebrew inscrip- tion reads: Wary ya wand = to Hanany&ahii ben ‘Azaryaht. also were derived from the same source. It is therefore evident that the original alphabet must have come into use some centuries earlier than the dates of the inscriptions cited, certainly by 1200 B.c. 2. Origin of Alphabet. At- ; tempts have repeatedly been made to find the source of the Semitic letters in the Egyptian or Babylonian characters. J. Halévy (Revue sémitique, 1896, pp. 47-65; 1901, pp. 356-370) de- rives the forms directly from the monumental hieroglyphs; whereas E. de Rougé (Mémoire sur Vorigine égyptienne de Val- phabet phénicien 1874) obtains them from the early hieratic characters through a cursive development of the hieroglyphs. Isaac Taylor (The Alphabet, Vol. I) accepts this view. On the other hand, W. Deecke (Z DMG, xxxi. 102 ff.) and Hommel (Gesch. Babyloniens u. Assyriens, p. 50 ff.) contend that the forms of the Semitic alphabet were derived from certain cuneiform characters. Fr. Delitzsch (Die Entstehung des dltesten Schrift-Sys- tems, p. 221 ff.), however, contents himself with the attempt to prove only a free dependence of the Semitic letters on the Babylonian writing. H. Schafer (“Die Vokalosigkeit des phénizischen Alphabets,” in Zeitschrift fiir d. dgyptische Sprache, Seal of Shemaiah, Son of Azariah. The Hebrew inscrip- tion reads: ’ pay ja wrynws =to Shema‘y&hii ben ‘Azaryahi. : B. Silver Shekel of Simon Maccabzeus. > The Hebrew inscription reads: A. beep b pw = Shekel of Israel. B. mvp o> pi}? = Jerusalem the Holy. Above the cup is the letter F (8), 7.e., the numeral one— probably indicating the first year of Simon’s reign. LII, 1915, 95 f.) ascribes an Egyptian origin to the Phcenician alphabet as both Egyptian picture-writing and Semitic writing using the alphabet lack vowels, whereas all other forms of writing found it necessary to provide vowels. The lack of vowels would not be felt by one accustomed to picture-writing in which the grammatical form must be determined from the context by the reader. A. H. Gardiner (‘The Egyptian origin of the Semitic Alphabet,” in Journal of Egyptian Arch., III, 1916, 1 f.) also urges in favor of Egyptian influence the alphabetic and non- vocalic character of Semitic writing. Whereas the Babylonian and Mediterranean (Cypriote) scripts were syllabic and non-alphabetic, ‘the Egyptian hieroglyphic system eschews vowels and comprises a full alphabet of consonants besides biliteral and triliteral signs.’ Gardiner also points out the affinities of the curious Sinai script with Egyptian writing, and giving the Sinai script an early date makes it the progenitor of the Phceenician. J. H. Alphabet A NEW STANDARD Breasted (The physical processes of writing in the early Orient and their relation to the origin of the alphabet, in AJSL, XXXII, 1916, 2380 f., [see also his History of Ancient Egypt, 1908, p. 337]) bases an argument in favor of the Egyptian origin of the alphabet on the fact that the ‘pen-ink-and-paper’ method of writing, introduced into Asia from Egypt, was spreading in the very region where the alphabet was appearing and coming into common use, and A. B. Half-Shekel (Copper) of Simon Maccabeeus. The Hebrew inscription reads: A. °XM YAN niw=Fourth year: One-half (shekel). B. | nosd —or the freedom (independence) of Zion. this system of writing was the only one which pos- sessed an alphabet and was written without vowels. Neither system can as yet be proved to be the direct source of all the letters of the Semitic alphabet. Petrie (op. cit.) finds beginnings of an alphabet in signs which in his opinion pre-date pictographic writing, and Evans (Scripta Minoa, 1909) empha- sizes the influence of Crete through the Philistines on Pheenician civilization and claims that the alpha- bet was largely dependent upon Cretan sources. Evans and also F. Melian Stawell (AJA, 1924, 120 f.) allow for Babylonian and Egyptian influences in the choice of the letters and their forms. The Egyptian influence was felt directly in the civiliza- tion of Crete, and some of its signs depend upon Egyptian sources. The acrophonetic element of the later Egyptian characters, however, may have sug- gested the alphabet to its inventor, for a letter is represented in its earliest form by the picture of the object, the name of which begins with the letter represented. The inscription reads: John the High Priest and the Council of the Jews. 3. Names and Origin of Individual Letters. At present it is impossible to give the etymological explanation of all signs used in the Semitic alphabet, but several are certain: among them are the following (consult Plate): 3 (a) ‘ox-head,’ Heb. ’eleph; 3 (b) ‘house,’ Heb. bayith; 5 (1) ‘ox-goad,’ malmadh (Lidzbarski, Ephemeris, Vol. I, p. 263, gives, as the name of 5, a Hebrew word beginning with 9, prefixed to a stem which begins with 5; in use this initial pn was dropped); » (m) ‘water,’ mayim; y (i) ‘eye,’ ‘ayin; B (p) ‘mouth,’ peh; » (r) ‘head,’ 7’dsh; v (s, sh) BIBLE DICTIONARY 38 ‘row of teeth,’ shén; nm (t) ‘sign,’ t@w. Néldeke (Beitrége zur sem. Sprachwissenschaft, 1904, pp. 124- 186) and Lidzbarski (Ephemeris, Vol. II, Heft 2, 1906) have published interesting contributions on this point. A study of the Greek names, which evi- dently were derived from the original Semitic forms, may assist in this investigation. Stawell (op. cit. 123 f.) suggests that the names of the letters which have no Semitic meaning are derived from Cretan (Greek) prototypes, and that possibly the names of other letters are more closely connected with Cretan words than with Semitic. The Aramaic form of the names of the Hebrew alphabet may point to an Aramaic origin of the alphabet. It is almost certain that a few names were given after the original sig- nificance of the character had been forgotten and without the use of the principle of acrophony, further than that the name should begin with the letter designated. Perhaps certain letters were developed out of other letters, as e.g., nh from 7, D from t, » from n, the last-named by enclosing the original form, a cross, in a circle. There is, however, no evidence to prove that the North Semitic alpha- bet ever had less than the 22 characters used in the inscriptions. All the letters were originally conso- nants, but », 7, 1, and § came to represent vowels in Hebrew. The Greek alphabet used some of its forms Copper Coin of Herod I. The Greek inscription: BactAéws ‘Hewddou (of King Herod). for vowels and added three new signs. The phonetic demands of the South Semitic peoples led to the pro- duction of many additional forms, some at least derived from older characters. 4. Order of Letters. The names of the letters show that the characters were derived from parts of the human body, from animals, and things with which people had most to do. The arrangement of these letters in the alphabet may have been due in part to the tendency to place together things related, e.g., >=hand, 5=bent hand, y =eye, 5=mouth, and to other mnemonic motives. Luckenbill (‘Possible Babylonian Contributions to the So-called Phenician Alphabet,” in AJSL, XXXTV, 1919-20, 27 f.) bases the order of the letters in part on the order in Syl- labary A of Babylonian signs. Petrie (op. cit.) as- cribes the order to a system whereby the letters of the alphabet were grouped according to their nature in columns on a sort of hornbook in the order of vowels, labials, gutturals, and dentals, the liquids being placed on a possible handle. Then in reading across the columns the order of the letters in the alphabet would be given. We know the order of the Hebrew alphabet from that of the Greek, from the numerical value of each letter, and also from the initial letters of the verses in the alphabetic Psalms (111, 112, 119; Pr. 3110 #., and La 1). 39 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Alphabet 5. Alphabet Used by the Specimens or Earty Hesrew AND ARAMAIC ALPHABETS, Hebrews. Apart from the | ao : origin of the Semitic alpha- bet, the changes in the al- phabet used bythe Hebrews § Seals, are of especial interest. The * 1700 B.c. | " Mat a letters of the Siloam alpha- | or ab, Sina een. | a bet (Plate, col. 4) show a Ee tendency to a more cursive . character than is found in ; the Mesha Stone (col. 2); 1 % Ve but the letters on the seals (col. 8) and coins (col. 5) retain essentially the forms of the Siloam inscription. The older Hebrew forms were used on the Maccabe- an coins, perhaps to em- phasize the feeling of na- tional independence. 6. Samaritan Writing. The Samaritans continued to use a form of the old Hebrew alphabet which shows its close relation to the origi- nal, and proves that until the separation of the Jews and Samaritans (about 400 B.c.) the older form had maintained itself. The ac- companying illustration re- produces a few lines of a Samaritan MS. (Dt 1 44-46) of the Pentateuch, written in 1219 a.p., but retaining essentially the forms used by the earlier Samaritans. In certain respects the Sa- maritan writing is more cursive, while at the same time the characters are more ornamental, as in a codex. 7. Hebrew Square Char- acters. The Aramaic al- phabet was undergoing a development to the north and east of Palestine (see Plate, cols. 6, 7, 8), and out of it developed the square letters characteristic of the Hebrew alphabet, best known to us from its use in the MSS. of the OT. It ‘was not a development within the Hebrew alpha- bet; but was used by that people, as they had adopted the earlier Aramaic forms, familiar to them from their residence in Babylon. The Aramaic writing did not at once displace the old He- brew alphabet, but both were in use, the Aramaic apd) AA Fee FANIA ye ok DO oe DO aH Sp A Ne = ee Ney ee nue. ts 1% Lie ie a iy ae x P B v 3) i mphauet Altar A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 40 characters finally securing the preference in copies of the books of the O T. Strack (PRE, Vol. 17) gives as explanation for this that the Aramaic characters were considered holy, the Hebrew pro- fane. At the time of Christ we have evidence (Mt 518) that this square alphabet was in use, for ” is the smallest letter. The changes in the forms of the letters were largely due to the attempt to obtain cursive forms, which were as simple as possible and could be made without removing the pen, and also to the similar effort to join the letters of words. This form of writing gave two forms for five letters: final forms, 7, *, ], 0, 7; and forms for use before other letters of a word, 9; and by bending the per- pendicularlines to the left, x, D, 3, >. In other let- & bs AY) SSN AG ters, and in a sim- ilar way, horizon- tal bars have ay v~ 'D arisen out of the vertical lines of 9% B BUA < yrs the primitive forms, cf. 3, D, as “ % > O98 well as 5, 3, BD, ¥; of column 1. By R % B, a9 ay oJ the opening of the Lb upper portion of 7 Bey AY closed loops, and 7S pe) the straightening of zigzags of ear- lier forms, the upper bars of a, Ele tide > aawae ees) ol are obtained. In order to avoid the confusion of characters in other letters the vertical lines were left, cf. > and 7. The form y results from the opening of the upper part of the original circle, and extending the right-hand line toward a following letter. The square Hebrew characters were obtained by isolating each letter from all others in a word, and retaining the form thus resulting. This alphabet, with slight modifica- tions, has been used in all O T manuscripts, the oldest of which dates from the end of the 9th cent. a.p. LITERATURE: Books cited in text, also Lidzbarski, Handbuch der nordsemitischen Epigraphik, 2 vols., 1896-98; JE, Voll: I. Taylor, in HDB: A. A. Bevan, article Writing, in EB, and the bibliographies in the foregoing; C. F. Burney, Judges (1918), pp. 253-263. Cisar: vane ad ALPHUS, al’-fi-us or al-fi’-us (Adoaioc, WH ‘AXgatoc): 1. The father of the second James in the apostolic lists (Mk 318; Mt 103; Lk 615; Ac1i3). A has been identified with Clopas, husband of Mary, mentioned in Jn 19 25 but apparently without sufficient linguistic warrant (see Zahn, Forsch. VI, p. 343, and compare Dimant in Hastings, DCG, vol. 1, p. 45-2). Eusebius (H#, III, 11, 2) quotes Hegesippus to the effect that Clopas was a brother of Joseph, thus making James the son of A. a cousin of Jesus. But in view of the uncertain identification of A. and Clopas no great weight can be given to this statement (see BRETHREN OF THE LorD). 2. The father of Levi (Matthew), (in Mk 214, according to most MSS., but D reads ‘James’ instead of ‘Levi’). J. M. T. SASIRS IIE, DORR! cape -ne 4 8 Arps] core Wy Woy The Samaritan Script. (Dt 1 44-46a) ALTAR: 1. The Primitive Semitic Altar. The term ‘altar’ is the usual rendering of the Heb. miz- béah and the Gr. OBuctactherov, both of which mean ‘place of sacrifice,’ z.e., the place where the sacrificial victim is slain or offered, or both, the primary idea of the root of both terms being that of slaying. The ancient legislation (Ex 20 24) requiring that altars should be of earth, or, if not, of unhewn stone only, seems to indicate that the primitive altar often con- sisted simply of a heap of earth. In any case, there can be no doubt that the earliest altars +ere of the most simple type. The sacred stone (the matstsébhah, ‘pillar’), also, was essentially an altar, in the sense of being a place where some recognition of the presence of deity could be bk &), op oe made (by smear- GG AIST AP ing with oil, cf. Gn 28 18, or blood, TE SA Ay aay Ly cf. I S 14 31-35). This early narra- tive in I 8 14 31 ft. is instructive as to the intimate re- lation between the sacred stone and bag’ the altar. Saul, horrified by the ae news that the people were slay- ing the captured animals and eat- ing them ‘with the blood’ — i.e., without a proper sacrificial disposal of the blood—had a large stone placed before him to which the people were ordered to bring their animals for slaughter. This stone was both a sacred stone, set up in commemoration of Jehovah’s deliverance of His people, and an altar—a mizbéah, ‘sacrifice- (7.e., slaughter-) place.’ The main idea regarding the sacred st sne was that it either was actually the abode of deity or indicaved the near-by presence of deity (cf. Gn 28 16-18). The main idea regarding an altar was that it was the place of sacrifice (7.e., slaughter, since originally every slaughter was a sacrifice) as its Heb. name mizbéah indicates. These two ideas are brought together in the most ancient O T legis- lation regarding altars (Ex 20 24 f.). Wherever J” ‘recorded’ Fis name was a legitimate place for an altar; that is, wherever J’’ manifested His presence, as by a theophany, by a dream, by giving victory to His people, etc. Such conceptions betray themselves in all that is said of altars in the patriarchal stories in Gn and in the stories in Jg and IS. In all these a comparatively simple state of society is presup- posed, and all usages are correspondingly simple. Every Canaanite high place had its altar, and as the main function of the altar was to furnish a place for the proper disposition of the blood, remains of such high-place altars generally show a number of cup-like depressions on the top with one or more drains to collect and carry off the blood (see the reports of excavations at Gezer in PEFQ, 1902-06). The heap of earth, or pile of stones, or even a large % SAA! { single stone, was also used as the fire-hearth (cf. 41 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Ezk 43 15) where the victim (whole or in part) was burned, as was the case with the great majority of animal sacrifices in the O T. For illustrations of ancient Hebrew rock-altars see H. B. Greene in Bib. World, May, 1897, and see also G. L. Robin- son’s account of the Edomite high place of Petra, ibid., Jan., 1901. The Kingdom period with its development of city life and the establishment of royal sanctuaries (e.g., at Jerusalem, Beth-el, and Samaria), with their temples and more elaborate cultus, brought about a corresponding development of the altar probably with more or less extensive adoption of foreign types (Phoenician, Assyrian, etc.). In some Canaanite Western Side Alphabet Altar ently because it was customary for more elaborate altars to have such. The original significance of these is not known. W. R. Smith (Rel. Sem., p. 436) thinks that they were a survival of the practise of actually placing the head (with the horns) of the sacrificial victim on the altar and leaving them there to hang votive offerings, etc.,on. The horns appear to have been thought the most sacred part of an altar (cf. Ex 2912; Lev 1618; I K 150). The altar was doubtless provided with drains, ete., but of these nothing is said. Its location was ‘before Jehovah’ (II K 16 14), 2.e., directly E. of the porch of the Temple. In Solomon’s Temple there was another ‘altar,’ Northern and Southern Longside Pat SiN DoLMENS (PrimiITIVE ALTARS) IN EASTERN PALESTINE. cities altars of elaborate form were in use before the Conquest. One such was found at Taanach by Professor Sellin (July, 1902), with ornamented cor- ners and faces, with horns, a cup for sacrifices, etc. (see PEFQ, Oct., 1902). 2. The Altars of the Temple and Tabernacle. The detailed information regarding altars in the O T concerns mainly those of the Tabernacle and the temples of Solomon and of Ezekiel’s vision. For his Temple Solomon discarded David’s altar and had a new bronze altar constructed. It is probable that this altar was erected on the site of David’s sacrifice on the occasion mentioned in II S 24 16-25 (cf. I Ch 22 1; II Ch 8 1), the place supposed now to be covered by the famous Dome of the Rock (see JERUSALEM, §§ 4, 25). The description of this altar has been omitted in I K, ch. 7 (altho reminiscences oc- cur in 8 64 and 9 25). According to IT Ch 41, it was 20 cubits in length and breadth with a height of 10 cubits. Its general shape was probably like that of the altar of Ezekiel’s vision (Ezk 43 13-17). It ‘rose in terraces, contracting by means of two inlets [ledges] toward the top.’ The altar Ch is describing may be, however, the altar Ahaz had constructed, after the pattern of an altar he saw at Damascus (II K 16 10 #.), which displaced the smaller bronze altar of Solomon. Ahaz’ altar was in use, probably, until the destruction of the Temple in 586 B.c. By some Ezekiel’s (ideal) altar is taken as an exact repro- duction of Solomon’s but the figures given in Ezk seem to make a structure 18 cubits square by 12 cubits high, instead of 20 cubits and 10 cubits (see Davidson’s Com. on Ezk in Camb. Bible). The altar was ascended by a flight of steps on its east side. Its faces were probably ornamented with figures of various kinds. Little is said of its structure in detail. The material is said to have been brass (bronze). Whether this refers to the whole or only to its cover- ing or plating is not known. It had horns, appar- that of the showbread (I K 6 20) made of cedar, over- laid with gold. This is called a ‘table’ in Ezk (41 22). Something similar to this has been found portrayed on the Assyr. monuments. (See the cut in Benzinger, Ist ed., p. 387). In K, Ch, and Ezk there is no specific mention of an altar of incense. When the exiles returned, one of their first acts was to build an altar (Ezr 3 3) probably of unhewn stones (cf. I Mac 4 47) in stricter accord with the old law of Ex 20 25 than the altars of Solomon, Ahaz, or Ezekiel had been. This altar was in use as the altar of the Second Temple until it was desecrated by the command of Antiochus Epiphanes (I Mac 1 54). When the Jews regained possession of Jerusalem they carefully pulled down the desecrated altar, laid away its stone and built a new one, also of unhewn stone (I Mac 4 44-47). It is thus seen that Ezekiel’s plan of a magnificent altar was not followed, altho it is probable that the altar of Herod’s Temple, in which everything was on a much more elaborate scale than before, conformed more nearly to Hzekiel’s plan. The description of the Tabernacle in Ex, chs. 25-31 and 35-40, largely of postexilic date, states ideals rather than facts. It combines the conceptions of Ezekiel with the actual practises of the postexilic Temple in one ideal presentation. According to this description the Tabernacle had three altars: (1) ‘The altar,’ z.e., the altar of burnt offerings, a small porta- ble structure, hollow, of wood overlaid with bronze, 5 cubits square and 3 cubits high. It was furnished with horns and with a bronze grating or network, per- haps intended for carrying away the blood, rather than for the ashes (Ex 271-8). (2) The table for the showbread (Ex 25 23-30). (3) The altar of incense (Ex 30 1 ff.). The account of this last seems to belong to a secondary stratum of the narrative in Ex, chs. 25-31 and, since even Ezekiel says nothing about such an altar, was probably added at a later time in the postexilic period after the altar of incense had been Al-Tashheth Ammon A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 42 added to the furniture of the Second Temple. When that was no one can say, except that it took place before the Maccabeean period (cf. I Mac 4 49). Of the altars of Herod’s reconstructed temple little is definitely known. See also TEMPLE; TABERNACLE; and SACRIFICE. LirpraturRE: Benzinger, Heb. Archdologie (1894, 2d Ed. 1907), pp. 378 ff.; Nowack, Heb. Archdologie (1894), II, pp. 75-85; Addis in EB: Kittel, Studien zur Heb. Becheloaies ( a AL-TASHHETH, al-tash’heth (Al-taschith, al- tas’kith, AV). See Music anp Musicau Insrrvu- MENTS, § 6. ALUSH, é’lush (ordas ’alish): An encampment of Israel (Nu 33 13 f.). Site unknown. ALVAH, al’va; ALVAN, ALIAN. AMAD, é'mad (1Y?¥, ‘am‘adh): A town of. Asher (Jos 19 26). Site uncertain. AMAL, é'mal (?%¥, ‘amal): A son of Helem, an Asherite (I Ch 7 35). AMALEK, am/a-lek (P22, ‘amaléq): The grand- son of Esau (Gn 3612), whose nomad descendants are described in Nu 24 20 as ‘the first of the nations,’ 7.e., the most powerful. The reference in Gn 147 to ‘all the country of the Amalekites’ as smitten by Che- dorlaomer and his allies does not necessarily carry them back in history to the days of Abraham, but rather defines their locality in the time of the author. They are not alluded to in the ‘Table of Nations’ (Gn 10). Geographically, they occupied the desert region S. of Canaan, extending from Beersheba beyond Kadesh-barnea far into the peninsula of Sinai and probably also into northern Arabia. They withstood the Israelites, when the latter under Moses migrated from Goshen to the Promised Land, attacking them in the rear (Dt 25 17-19). At Rephi- dim, in the wilderness of Sinai, they were defeated by Joshua (Ex 17 8-16). When the spies returned they reported that the Amalekites dwelt ‘in the land of the South’ (Nu 13 29). Not long after this they are spoken of as occupying ‘the valley,’ presumably the valley S. of the Dead Sea (Nu 14 25). Altho powerful at the time of Israel’s exodus, they must have become somewhat reduced through the seces- sion of the Kenites (cf. 1S 156). In the time of the Judges, however, they seem to have possessed a foothold in Ephraim (Jg 514, according to the present [uncertain] text) and to have continued their ma- rauding expeditions (Jg 6 3). They were among the inveterate enemies of Israel (Ex 17 14-16; Ps 83 7). Saul was commissioned to exterminate them utterly, but he spared Agag, their king (IS 15). In David’s day Amalekite robbers made a raid upon Ziklag and took it, but they were overtaken by David and so completely decimated that they seem never to have recovered (I S 30). In Hezekiah’s reign ‘the remnant of the Amalekites that escaped’ were smitten by the Simeonites, who dispossessed them of Mount Seir (I Ch 4 43). No trustworthy data concerning them are to be found outside the O T. Neither Assyrian nor Egyptian records allude to them. G. L. R. al’van; See ALIAH, AMAM, @’mam (528, ’dmdam): A city of S. Judah (Jos 15 26). Site unknown. AMANA, G-mda’nG@ (228, ’dm&néh): The south- ern portion, probably, of the Anti-Lebanon mountain range (Song 4 8). AMARIAH, am”s-rai’a (MP8, ’amaryah), ‘J” hath promised’: 1. A son of Meraioth and grand- father of Zadok (I Ch 67£.; Ezr 7 3), 2. The ancestral head of one of the subdivisions of the Kohathite Levites (I Ch 23 19; cf. 24 23). 3. Chief priest in Je- rusalem under Jehoshaphat (I Ch6 11; IT Ch 1911). 4. A Levite assistant to Kore, the porter at the east gate who was over the free-will offerings of God, in the time of Hezekiah (II Ch 81 14 f.). 5. Ancestor of Zephaniah, possibly son of Hezekiah King of Judah (Zeph 11). 6. A man of Judah, one of those who had married foreign wives (Ezr 10 42). 7. One of the priests that sealed the covenant of Nehemiah’s time (Neh 10 3). 8. A Judahite who dwelt in Jerusalem (Neh 11 4). 9. One of the priests of Zerubbabel’s band which returned from Babylon (Neh 12 2, 13). J. Ay K: AMASA, am’a-sa (SY2Y ‘dmasa’): 1. A son of Jether and David’s sister Abigail (I Ch 217). He deserted David for Absalom who appointed him captain of his forces (II 8S 17 25), After David’s victory he gave A. the place held by his cousin Joab (ir S 19 13 ff.), probably in order to allay disaf- fection in Judah. Very soon after this A. was assassinated by Joab (II S 20 4-12; I K 25, 32). 2. An Ephraimite (II Ch 28 12). E. E. N. AMASAI, e-mas’ai (¥)2, ‘dmdsay): 1. A Koha- thite Levite (I Ch 6 25, 35; II Ch 2912). 2. One of David's captains (I Ch 12 16-18, perhaps the same as Amasa, 1). 3. A priest (I Ch 15 24). AMASHSAI, a-magh’sai (2Y2Y, ‘dmashsay, Amashai AV): A priest (Neh 11 13), called Maasai (I Ch 9 12). AMASIAH, am-a-sai’a (0DY, ‘dmasydh), ‘J’ bears’: One of Jehoshaphat’s captains (II Ch 17 16). AMAZIAH, am’a-zai’a (RYOS, ’dmatsyaha), ‘J” strengthens’: 1. Son of Joash and king of Judah, c. 798-790 B.c. Altho he executed his father’s mur- derers he refused to follow custom and spared their children. This action was looked upon as a prece- dent and was probably the origin of the law as for- mulated in Dt 24 16. Having reduced Edom once more to subjection to Judah, he rashly engaged in war with Jehoash of Israel, but was utterly defeated. Jerusalem was captured, its walls partly demolished, while A. retained his throne only through paying a heavy indemnity and giving hostages. Judah was thus reduced practically to the condition of subjec- tion to Israel. After this, disaffection showed itself and, like his father, A. was murdered by con- spirators (II K 12 21, 13 12, 14 1-22;IT Ch ch. 25). A. is said to have reigned twenty-nine years (II K 14 2). This is probably a mistake and he actually reigned but nine years. See Otp Trst. CoronooGy (table). 2. Priest of Beth-el, ‘the royal sanctuary,’ under Jeroboam II., who attempted to prevent Amos from prophesying in Israel (Am 7 10 ff.). 3. One of the 43 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Al-Tasbheth Ammon descendants of Merari (I Ch 4 34). 4. A Levite (I Ch 6 45). E. E. N. AMBASSADOR: In O T the equivalent of (1) mélits (II Ch 32 31). Properly, ‘interpreter’ (cf. Gn 42 23; Is 43 27 [RVmg.]; Job 33 23). (2) mal’akh (II Ch 35 21; Is 30 4, 337; Ezk 17 15), ‘One who has been sent,’ ‘a messenger.’ (8) tsir (root idea ‘to go’), ambassador in a technical sense (Is 18 2, also 57 9; Jer 49 14, ‘messenger’ AV); parallel to ‘messenger’ (Pr 13 17). In Jos 9 4, the Heb. form is verbal, not substantive. In N T only as a rendering of the verbal form moea every (II Co 5 20; Eph 6 20). SME: AMBER, am’bor: This word occurs in the AV of Ezk 1 4, 27, 8 2, as the rendering of the Heb. 2D0N, hashmal. The RV replaces it with the term ‘glowing metal,’ which is as satisfactory a rendering as can be suggested, since the meaning of the term is uncertain. K. E. N. AMBUSH, AMBUSHMENT. See Warrarp, § 4. AMEN, é’’men’ or (Mus.) G@’’men’: The transcrip- tion of a Hebrew word with the root idea of ‘con- firming,’ ‘supporting.’ It is used only as an interjec- tion, ‘so be it,’ ‘soit is.’ (1) In the O T: (a) Initially; in affirmation of a preceding statement, which the speaker solemnly makes his own (I K 1 36; Jer 28 6; | ef. Rev 7 12, 22 20). (b) Detached, as an oath (Nu 5 22; Dt 2715; Neh 513). (c) Liturgical; at the close of public prayer and benediction (I Ch 16 36; Neh 8 6; Ps 106 48). (2) In N T: (a) In the Epistles, commonly a response to public or private prayer (I Co 14 16; Rev 514). (b) In Rev 3 14 (cf. II Co 1 20; Is 65 18; RVmg.) it is used as a proper name—Jesus as the Word affirming the truth of God’s promises. (c) In the Gospels its use is confined to the utterances of Jesus. Luke usually employs instead of it the expres- sions, ‘of a truth,’ ‘truly,’ or ‘I say.’ Jesus uses it not as an answer, but in solemn affirmation. The truth of His utterance must be accepted on His own testimony (cf. ‘Yea’ in Mt 119, 26). In John’s Gos- pel only the double term ‘verily, verily’ (7.e., ‘amen, amen’) occurs. R. A. F.—E. C, L. AMETHYST. See Stonss, Precious, § 2. AMI. émai (’8, ’ami, Amon in Neh 7 59): An- cestral head of a family of ‘Solomon’s servants’ (Ezr 2 57; Neh 7 59). AMINADAB. See AMMINADAB, AMITTAI, a-mit’ai (D8, ’dmitiay): The father of the prophet Jonah (II K 14 25; Jon 11). AMMAH, am’a (198, ’ammah): A hill, II S 2 24, near Giah in the wilderness of Gibeon, where Abner, supporting the claims of Ishbosheth, son of Saul, _ was defeated by Joab, the leader of David’s forces. Coss. AMMI-, am’mai ("2Y, ‘ammi [or 59, ‘am, when at the end of a word]): An element in the composition of proper names, which, since this word may mean ‘kinsman,’ or ‘people,’ may refer to the divine Being (as chief kinsman), or to one’s relatives or people. For illustrations see the significance of the various names compounded with ‘ammi’ (or with the suffix ‘am’). Cf. G. B. Gray, Studies in Hebrew Proper Names, pp. 41-60 and EB, s.v. Names. EK. E. N. AMMI, am/mai (’9Y, ‘ammi), ‘my people’: The designation of Israel as restored to divine favor (Hos 21, 23); the opposite of Lo-ammi, ‘not my people’ (19, 2 23), the symbolic name of Hosea’s third child which was indicative of the separation that had taken place between Israel and J’. E. E. N. AMMIEL, am’mi-el (PNDY, fammvél), ‘God is kinsman’: 1. One of the spies (Nu 13 12). 2. The father of Machir of Lo-debar (II S 9 4£., 17 27). 3. The father of David’s wife Bathshua (I Ch 3 5), the same as Eliam, father of Bath-sheba (II S 11 3). 4. A Levite (I Ch 26 5). AMMIHUD, am-mai’hud (TTSY, ‘ammihtdh), ‘kinsman is glory’: 1. The father of Elishama, prince of Ephraim (Nu 1 10, 2 18, etc.; I Ch 7 26). 2. A Simeonite (Nu 34 20). 3. A Naphtalite (Nu 34 238). 4. A Judahite, the son of Omri (I Ch 9 4). 5. For IIS 13 37 see AMMIHUR. AMMIHOR, am/mi-hor (ViV)Y, ‘ammihir, Am- mihud AV): Father of Talmai, King of Geshur (IS 18 37). AMMINADAB, oa-min’s-dab (31792, ‘amminé- dhabh), ‘the [divine] kinsman gives’: 1. The ances- tral head of a family or clan of Judah (Nu 17, 2 3, etc.; Ru 4 19 f.; I Ch 210). 2. The name of one or more Levites, descendants of Kohath (I Ch 6 22 [elsewhere called Izhar, vs. 2, 18, 38; Ex 6 18, etc.], 1510f.). A., the father of Aaron’s wife (Ex 6 23), was probably a Levite. The reference to Nahshon in both Ex 6 23 and Nu 1 7, etc., may indicate some intermarriage between Levite and Judahite fam- ilies. E. E. N. AMMINADIB, oa-min’a-dib (2° 1V2¥, ‘ammind- dhibh): A name which occurs in the AV of Song 6 12, but RV reads ‘my princely people.’ The Heb. text is obscure and difficult. E. E. N. AMMISHADDAI, am’mi-shad/da-ci ("1’>Y, ‘ammishadday), ‘Shaddai is kinsman’: Father of Ahiezer, prince of Dan (Nu 112, etc.). AMMIZABAD, am-miz’a-bad (13]"2Y, ‘ammiza- bhddh), ‘kinsman has made a gift’: An officer, son of Benaiah, David’s hero (I Ch 27 8). AMMON, am’en (1i2Y, ‘ammén; always ¥ 723, ‘children [sons] of Ammon,’ except in I § 11 11; Ps 83 7). In Assyrian inscriptions bit-ammaénu: The termination ‘on’ (‘om’), seen also in the name of their chief god, Milcom, may be an Ammonite linguistic peculiarity, and Ammon (‘populous’) like Milcom (‘kingly’) a qualitative designation of the divine ancestor, Ben ‘Ammi (‘son of my people’) in Gn 19 30 ff. The Ammonites may have countenanced the union of father and daughter, as did some other Eastern peoples. Dispossessing the Zamzummim (Dt 2 20), they settled E. of the Jordan. Their boundaries were indefinite; the Jordan was claimed as the W. border (Jg 11 13); and to the E. lay the uncharted desert. When Israel entered Palestine the A. lived around the E. end of the Jabbok (Nu 21 24; Dt 316). Rabbah (‘Rabbah of the children of Ammon,’ Dt 3 11), now Ammdan, on the Jabbok, was the capital (see RaBBan). The term ‘children of Ammon’ suggests nomadic characteristics, and while towns are vaguely referred Amnon Ananiah A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 44 to, Rabbah is the only one named. Jg ch. 11 gives the first detailed account of their fortunes; Jephthah repudiated their claims on Gilead and drove them EH. of the Jabbok. When they again attempted to hu- miliate Israel, Saul defeated them (IS ch. 11). David was at first friendly to A., but because of the insult to his ambassadors (IIS 10 1#.), besieged and captured Rabbah, and discrowned Milcom (II S 12 30 mg.); Jotham reduced them to tribute (II Ch 27 5). Later we find them at times in a coalition against Babylon (Jer 27 3), at other times tributary. They once at- tacked Jerusalem (II K 24 2), and later exulted over her fall (Ps 837). The prophets bitterly denounced them (Am 1 13; Jer 491 ff.; Ezk 25 2 ff.; Zeph 2 8 £.). In postexilic days Tobiah the Ammonite (Neh 2 10) was an opponent of Nehemiah. In 164 B.c., under a leader, Timotheus, they were defeated by Judas Maccabeeus (I Mac 5 6-8). The name finally disap- pears in the 3d cent. a.p. Lirerature: Moore on JudgesinZ CC, Ryle (Cam. Bible); and Skinner (I C C) on Gn 19 80 ff, A. S. C.*—O. R. S. AMNON, am’nen (j228, ’amnén): 1. David's eldest son, slain by Absalom for violating his sister Tamar (II S 3 2, 131-39). 2. A descendant of Judah (1 Ch 4 20). AMOK, é'mok (P1¥, ‘améq), ‘deep’: A post- exilic priestly family (Neh 12 7, 20). AMON, é’mon (Ji98, ’amén), ‘master-workman’: 1. King of Judah, son of Manasseh, and father of the godly Josiah. Of his brief reign of two years (641- 639 B.c.) little is known. Like his father he was de- voted to the worship of Assyrian deities. He was assassinated by some of his courtiers, but the people took vengeance upon his assassins. Scholars con- nect these events with a religious struggle between the prophetic and reactionary parties in Judah. The former, having put the king to death, was not strong enough to maintain its position (II K 21 18 #.). 2. The governor of Samaria, under Ahab (I K 22 26). 3. One of Solomon’s temple slaves whose descendants returned from Babylonia with Zerubbabel (Neh 7 59). 4. An Egyptian god, originally a local deity of Thebes, but with the rise of that city to a position of preeminence as the capital, A. became the head of the Egyptian pantheon, the successor of the sun god Ra, and bore the name Amon-Ra (Jer 46 25; cf. Nah 3 8). bo: Sab 6%. AMORITE, am’o-rait (798, ’émori, always sg., from Bab. Amurru): The early inhabitants of Palestine. In the O T the name designates the non- Israelitish inhabitants in general, being practically synonymous with the Canaanites (e.g., Gn 14 7, 13, 15 16, 48 22; Dt 3 8, 10, 4 48, 2017; Jg610; 18 714;1 K 21 26; IT K 21 11); or mountain-dwellers as dis- tinguished from the Canaanites, who lived on the coast and in valleys (Nu 13 29); or the people of a Palestinian state, of which Sihon was king (Nu ch. 21; Dt 14, 4 46; I K 419; Ps 185 11, 136 19). The early history of the Amorites is obscure, but they played a large part in the ancient development of the ‘Fertile Crescent’ (i.e, Tig-Euph. Valley, Syria, and E-Med. coast region). The Bab. Amurru (Sumerian Martu) is the name of (1) a city some 30 miles N. of Beirut, (2) a territory extending from Palestine to Mesopotamia, (3) a god, (4) a Semitic people. In the 3d millenium B.c. the Amorites were so powerful in W. Asia that the Babylonians called Syria and Palestine ‘the land of the Amorites.’ They may have constituted a large, unified state. Near the close of the 3d millennium some Amorites pushed SE. and established in Babylonia the Ist dynasty, of which Hammurabi the lawgiver (by many identified with Amraphel of Gn 14 1) is the most prominent. To him a ‘king of the Amorites’ was subject and there seem to have been several small states ruled by Amorite kings. The Hittites brought an end to Amorite domination. During the X VIIIth Egyptian dynasty the Amorites were vassals to the Pharaoh, as shown by the Amarna Tablets. At the weakening of Egypt they transferred their allegiance to the Hittites. When the ‘Sea-people’ after crushing the Hittites, went through Palestine against Egypt they took the Amorite king with them (see PHILISTINE). They were defeated decisively by Rameses III of the XXth dynasty and the Amorite king was cap- tured (c. 1200 B.c.). The Amorites appear last as a kingdom in the defeat of Sihon by the Israelites. Racially the Amorites were not unified; some were fair and some dark. They are pictured in the monuments with beards and shaved upper lips. The Hebrews undoubtedly possessed Amorite blood (Ez 16 2, 45). LITERATURE: Int. St. Bib. Hnc.; Olmstead, Hist. of Assy- ria (1923); Paton, Early Hist. of Syr. and}Pal. (1901); Clay, Empire of the Amorites (1919); Camb. Anc. History, Vol. I. (1923). O. R. S. AMOS, é’mas (P1Y¥, ’Gmas), ‘bearer’ or ‘borne’ (by God?): 1. The prophet Amos, a tender of sycamores, and a native of Tekoa, south of Bethlehem (Am 1 1, 7 14). That he was also a shepherd, as ndgédh is commonly translated, has been questioned (J BL 35, 280). In the loneliness of his native mountains, as with Elijah (I K 19 12 ff.), God’s voice was more clearly heard and His words more perfectly under- stood. So he was impelled to go to Beth-el to preach against N. Israel his God-given message. His activ- ity may be dated some time about 750 B.c. He repudiated the name ndbhi’, prophet (7 14), but only because of Amaziah’s implication that he prophesied for gain and belonged to a venal gild (712). Yet heis the first of the writing prophets, the originator indeed of a new school of prophecy. The analysis of the Book of Amos, externally, is simple. We may distinguish four sections: I. 1 2-2 16. Indictment of the kindred peoples for sins against common humanity, culminating with Israel, who has broken a holier law. II. 31-614. Oracles in which are reiterated the folly of formalism and the futility of national hopes, while luxury, extravagance, and crime are rampant. To this belongs also 8 4-14, which interrupts its present context. III. 7 1-9 8a. Five visions of judgment with a historical appendix. These visions are climacteric in arrangement, altho the order is broken first by 7 10-17, and second by 8 4-14. First, we have two visions of remediable evils, 7 1-3, 4-6; then the hopeless internal perversity, 7 7-9; and finally the impending consummation, 8 1-3; with earthquake and extermination, 9 1-4. IV. 9 8b-15. Epilog. The picture of a happy future follows ver. 8a abruptly and differs in. phraseology, 45 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Amnon Ananiah conception, and outlook from the rest of the proph- ecy. It can hardly have been the original con- clusion of Amos’s visions of judgment. The five visions seem to be the original kernel of the book, and with them is associated the story of Amaziah’s protest, and the prophet’s probable expulsion (7 12). The other sections, artistically elaborated as they are, may well have been written later by Amos and committed to posterity. Prophecy began a new era with A. Whatever his predecessors may have done, he first wrote for pos- terity the outlines of an ethical theory of the world. The Hebrew term 319, ‘good,’ attained with him a distinct moral significance (5 14; cf. ver. 6). The es- sence of the Law was equity and not sacrifice (5 7, 11, 22-25, 8 4-7). The Day of Jehovah was not to be one of national aggrandizement but of searching judgment (518 ff.). Above all rises the conception of the God of Hosts transcendent in power, inflexible in justice, whose dictates are founded not upon arbitrary will, but upon the very constitution of the world (77 1.). It would, perhaps, be too much to say that Amos had a system. It would be inaccurate to characterize him as a teacher of ethical monothe- ism. He was one upon whom the reality of God had powerfully impressed itself, and to the expression of this, monotheism was but a corollary. If one attri- bute of the divine nature appealed to him with more intensity than another, this enabled him to present with startling clearness the truths that there can be no religion where human rights are not recognized, and that the claims of justice between men find their original counterpart in the nature of God Himself. In his view of the relation of man to man in society, Amos has not been outgrown, nor have his concep- tions of deity become antiquated. See IsrarL, RE- LIGION OF, § 18. 2. An ancestor of Joseph (Lk 3 25). LiTERATURE: G. A. Smith, Book of the Twelve Prophets (1896) in the Expositor’s Bible; Driver, Joel and Amos? (1915) in the Cambridge Bible; Harper, in ICC, (1905); Hiselen, Prophetic Books of the O T (1923). A. 8. C.*—O. R. S. AMOZ, é@’moz (VI, ’amats), ‘strong’: Father of Isaiah (Is 11, etc.). AMPHIPOLIS, am-fip’o-lis: A city of Thrace, in a bend of the river Strymon (duol, r6Atc), and a post on the Via Egnatia. Under the Romans it was a free city and the capital of the first of the four districts into which Macedonia was divided. It is mentioned once in the N T (Ac 17 1). J.R.S. S.*—J. M. T. AMPLIATUS, am”pli-@’tus (Aurdletos, WH ’Auxktatos, Amplias AV [am’pli-as], ’Aurrtac): A Christian greeted in Ro 16 8 as ‘My beloved in the Lord.’ The name, probably that of a slave, occurs in inscriptions. Cf. CIL. 5154. J. M. T. AMRAM, am’ram (9°)Y, ‘amraém): 1. According to the late priestly document, the grandson of Levi, through Kohath, and father of Miriam, Aaron, and Moses (Ex 6 18-20; Nu 26 59). His descendants were the Kohathite Levites called Amramites (Nu 3 27). 2. One of the ‘sons of Bani’ who had taken strange wives (Ezr 10 34; cf. ver. 19). 3. See HEMDAN. K. E. N. AMRAPHEL, am’ro-fel (92728, ’amraphel): The king of Shinar who, with two other kings, in- vaded Palestine under the leadership of Chedorlao- mer, King of Elam (Gn 14). A. has been identified by many with Hammurabi, or Ammurapi, (see BaBYLoniA, § 15), who is known to have been king of Babylon and therefore of Shinar, or Babylonia proper, and to have thrown off the yoke of Elam abtou 2120 B.c. Serious difficulties in the way of the identification are the initial’ instead of ‘ which should correspond to Bab. h, also the J at the end of the Heb. name. Leading Babyloniologists, such as Ki. Meyer, Bezold, Jensen, King, Barton, doubt whether the two names have any connection, F. M. T. Bohl, ZATW, XXXVI, 65 ff., suggests that the name should be read Amur-apil (LXX, ’Auapo&a), that Shin‘ar=Shanhar, a district on the upper Euphrates, and that the episode belongs at the time of the Hittite supremacy ca. 1250 B.c. See Artocn, CHEDORLAOMER, TIDAL. Literature: G. Barton, Archaeology and the Bible, p. 294 fi.; J. Skinner, Genesis,1910, p. 255 ff.; A. Jirku, ZATW, XXXIX, 152. ff. Ta BaP: AMULET. See Dress AND ORNAMENTS, § II, 2. AMZI, am’zai (¥ 28, ’amts7): 1. A Merarite Levite (I Ch 6 46). 2. A priest (Neh 11 10, 12). ANAB, é@’nab (32Y, ‘anabh), ‘grapes’: A town of Judah, eight m. SW. of Hebron (Jos 11 21, 15 50), Map II, D 3. ANAH, an’a ()¥, ‘anah): The ancestor of a Ho- rite clan of the same name (Gn ch. 36; I Ch 1 38-41). In vs. 2 and 14 read ‘Anah the son of Zibeon the Horite’ as is required by vs. 20, 24 ff. _ ANAHARATH, oa-né/ha-rath (NDS, ’dnahd- réth): A city of Issachar (Jos 19 19). Site uncertain. ANAIAH, oa-nai’a (TY, ‘andych), ‘J’ has an- swered’: 1. An assistant of Ezra (Neh 8 4). 2. One of those that sealed the covenant (Neh 10 22). ANAK, é’nak, ANAKIM, an’a-kim (PY, ‘adndq). Anak was the legendary ancestor of the gigantic Anakim of SW. Palestine (Nu 13 22 #.; Dt 2 10f.; Jos 15 12 £.; Jg 1 20, etc.). The references are too vague to be of much historical value. See also PALESTINE, § 27. E. E. N. ANAMIM. See ErsnoGRAPHY AND ETHNOL- oay, § 13. ANAMMELECH, oa-nam’1-lek or [G’ndm-mé’lek (1222Y, ‘dnammelekh): A deity worshiped by the inhabitants of Sepharvaim (Sippara), at times with humen sacrifice (II K 17 31). The text of this passage is somewhat uncertain and A. may be a later gloss. The name A. is explained by King (in FB) as equiva- lent to Anu-malik (‘Anu is the decider or prince’), Anu being the name of one of the principal Baby- lonian deities. See Semiric RELIGION, § 8. EK. E. N. ANAN, @/nan (139, ‘dndén): One of those that sealed the covenant (Neh 10 28). ANANI, a-né’nai or a-na’ni ("¥, ‘dndni). One of the sons of Elioenai (I Ch 3 24). ANANIAH, an’’s-nai’a (NY, ‘dnanyah): ‘J” is a cloud’: I. The father of Maaseiah (Neh 3 23). II. A Ananias Angel | A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 46 ean OT sraEsaTREIBI ETEIIESEETSSRERIT SRSIISIC TEASED SN STAGING AE SSSSE ISSCC ATS iT town in Benjamin mentioned along with Nob and Ramah (Neh 11 32). The common identification, Map II, F 1, is disputed by Albright (Bul. ASOR, Feb., 1923) who favors Bethany, just E. of Jerusa- lem. E. E. N. ANANIAS, an’a-nai’as (‘Avaviac, Heb. 2229), ‘J” hath been gracious’: 1. A member of the early Church, who attempted to enhance his reputation by a show of liberality. Having sold a piece of property he offered to the Church a part of the amount received, pretending that he gave the whole sum. Peter detected the deceit and laid bare the enormity of the sin to the guilty conscience of A., who is repre- sented as having died from the shock (Ac 51-11). 2. A Christian disciple living in Damascus who baptized Paul (Ac 9 10-18, 22 12-18). 3. The high priest before whom Paul was brought by Claudius Lysias (Ac 93 i.; cf. Ac 2418.; Jos., Ant. XX, 62, etc.; BJ 17 6, etc.). Consult Schiirer, GJ V%, Vol. I, p. 219. J. M. T. ANATH, @’noth (WY ‘anath): Father of Sham- gar (Jg 331, 56). Anath is well-known as the name of a goddess worshiped quite widely over the ancient Semitic world. This may indicate that Shamgar was not an Israelite. See SHAMGAR. EK. E. N. ANATHEMA, o-nath’1-mea. See Curse, § 3. ANATHOTH, an’o-fhoth (NIN}Y, ‘anathoth): A name connected with that of the Semitic goddess Anat, I. A city of Benjamin (Jos 21 18) where the priestly family to which Abiathar belonged had its estates (I K 2 26) and the home of two of David’s heroes (II S 23 27, Anethothite AV; I Ch 11 28, 12 3, Anathothite, Antothite AV). It was also the home of Jeremiah where the family had property (Jer 11, 32 6-15). Its inhabitants once threatened the proph- et’s life (Jer 11 21-23). After the exile it was reoc- cupied by the Jews (Ezr 2 23; Neh 7 27, 11 32). Map TT) Bal. II. 1. A Benjamite, the son of Becher (I Ch 7 8). 2. A leader of the men of Anathoth who sealed the covenant (Neh 7 27, 1019). E. E. N. ANCHOR. See Sures anp NAVIGATION, § 2. ANCIENT OF DAYS: The incorrect translation of ‘attig yomin, ‘attig yomayy@ ‘an aged one.’ An apocalyptic name of God, first used in its Aramaic form in Dn (79, 13, 22). It was chosen probably not in order to suggest the eternity of the divine Being, but to show that profound veneration was due Him, and to assure the persecuted righteous that their God was incomparably superior to all others. The figure implies a strongly anthropomorphic concep- tion and was taken up by later apocalyptic usage (cf. Ethiopic Enoch 47 3, 48 2-6). The description of the Son of Man in Rev 1 14 is also probably based upon this figure. AZ, ANCIENTS. See Wispom, Wise Man, § 2; and ELDER. ANDREW (’Ayv3péac, ‘manly’): Son of John, of Bethsaida Julius, brother of Simon Peter, with whom he lived in Capernaum. He was the first called of the disciples of Jesus, to whom he was sent by John the Baptist, and became one of the inner group of four among the Twelve (Mk 138 3). In the lists he is always next before his friend and fellow-townsman Philip, with whom he is also associated on two im- portant occasions in the Fourth Gospel (Jn 6 7, 8, 12 22). After Ac 113 he disappears from view, but tradition has it that he evangelized Scythia (becom- ing thus Russia’s patron saint) and was martyred in Achaia. R. A. F.—E. C. L. ANDRONICUS, an’’dro-nai’kus (’Avdeévixos): A Jew—as is apparent from the term ‘kinsman’—con- verted before Paul, with whom he probably shared imprisonment (Ro 16 7). ' He is referred to as ‘of note among the apostles,’ ¢.e., possibly well-known in the circle of the apostles, tho more probably ‘apostle’ is here used in the wider sense of that term (see AposTLH, and cf. Burton ICC, Galatians, p. 372). R. A. F.—E,. C. L. ANEM, é’nem. See ENGANNIM. ANER, @’nor (139, ‘dnér): I. An Amorite prince, with whom Abraham entered into covenant (Gn 14 13, 24). Since, however, Eschol and Mamre are names associated with localities, it is quite likely that the same is the case with Aner. If so, it may be identical with Neir, a range of hills (or a valley) near Hebron. II. A city west of the Jordan (I Ch 6 70). Site unknown. A.C, Z. ANETHOTHITE, an’1-fheth’ait. See ANATHOTH, I ANGEL: 1. Scope. The scope of this article is determined principally by the English word, which always refers to superhuman beings. The Greek &yyeAos, from which angel isderived, and the Hebrew 1820, mal’aGkh, mean ‘messenger’, without any dis- tinction between human or superhuman messengers except such as may be indicated by the context. Some titles practically equivalent are also noticed here. For other superhuman beings see the articles, CHERUBIM, SERAPHIM, Sons or Gop. 2. Preexilic Period. It was natural that the He- brews should have thought of God as surrounded by a court or retinue, which accounts for the use of the plural pronoun in the creation narratives. The grow- ing idea of monotheism brought the numerous other spirits whose existence was assumed into subordina- tion to the one true God; but there is in these early writings a remarkable degree of restraint in speaking of angels. They are brought into play only when needed in some critical time. They bring instruction and encouragement from God to those for whom He has some special message. They are all nameless; they have no individuality of their own. They are simply God’s agents, the means by which He com- municates with men. It was held that man could not see God himself and live (Ex 33 20). Except in the late writings the appearances of angels are all to be found in the narratives of Abraham and Jacob, the guiding experiences of the Exodus, the stories of Balaam, of Gideon, and of the parents of Samson, the destroying angel in the time of David (II § 24), and in one incident in the life of Elijah (I K 195). In all these places the word is singular except in the revelation to Abraham of the fate of Sodom and 4% A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Ananias Angel Gomorrah, and the appearances to Jacob on his journeys. 3. Angel of Jehovah. There are a large number of passages in which the ‘angel of Jehovah’, or the ‘angel of God’, is spoken of. Is this an appearance of J” himself, or is the angel simply a messenger whose self is so lost in his message that he may properly be identified with the sender of the message? ‘Twice those who see the angel say that they have seen God (Gn 32 30; Jg 13 22). Certainly the writers felt that this angel represented God so fully that in dealing with him they were actually dealing with God. This may be said to be a fore-shadowing of the Incarna- tion in the sense that God was trying to reveal Him- self in an intelligible way. But the idea of some older theologians that the ‘angel of J’” is the second person of the Trinity in distinction from created angels has no basis in the O T. Except for the somewhat doubt- ful references in Ps 148 and Neh 96, the notion that angels were created does not appear until we reach the Book of Enoch. 4, Postexilic Period. When the great prophets come on the scene they are the sole medium of com- munication between God and man. They receive their messages directly in the fellowship of spirit with spirit, and there is no need for angelic appearances. But with the exile there came a growing belief in the transcendence of God. He was too great and too far removed from earth for this personal touch with men, and in some of Hzekiel’s visions angels reap- pear, altho they are termed ‘men.’ In Zechariah there is a special interpreting angel different from the others. Thus we are introduced to the idea of orders and ranks which played so large a part in later angelology. In Dn 4 13, 17, 23, the term watcher is used, and in the same verses as well as Ps 89 5, 7; Job 51, 1515; Zec 14 5, we find the term ‘holy ones’ (AV ‘saints’). The first term is descriptive of function like messenger and the second descriptive of nature, as sharing one of the unique characteristics of deity. . The expressions ‘holy ones’ and ‘host’ I K 22 19; Ps 103 21, 148 2; Is 24 21; Dn 8 10, refer to the court by which God is surrounded, and with these are to be associated the’ seraphim of Is 6 2, which are not angels in the ordinary sense of messengers. They attend upon J” and share in His counsels. They form that great and glorious company whose presence in heaven helps us to conceive of the majesty and royal splendor of God. The later angelology, both in the O T and in the Jewish books of the last two centuries B.c., was in- fluenced by the thought of the Persians in such matters as personality and the divisions into good _ and evil spirits. At first the messengers of evil had been represented as doing God’s will, as in I S 16 14, 23; II S 2416; I K 2219-23. But later there arose a conception of a class of superhuman beings who were essentially evil. The first clear reference to fallen angels is in the Book of Enoch, chs. 6-15, a lengthy account which furnishes the basis of Jude 6 and II P 24. There are some traces of a primitive Semitic demonology in the O T, which comes out particu- larly in the scapegoat ceremony, Lv ch. 16. And the figure of Satan (the ‘accuser’) arising first as one something like a ‘prosecuting attorney’ among the Sons of God, Job 1 6-12; Zech 8 1-5, is finally de- veloped into that of the leader of the hosts of evil, because this furnished a convenient escape from the idea that God was the author of all evil. Compare IIT § 241 with I Ch 211. See Saran. As the angels developed distinct personalities some of them came to have names, and the gods of the heathen nations apparently became the angelic leaders of those nations. Daniel speaks of Gabriel as the revealing angel, and he takes the same role in the first chapter of Luke. Michael is mentioned in Dn as the guardian angel of Judah, and he reappears in Jude 9 (as an Archangel) and Rev 127. The book of Tobit speaks of Raphael (12 15) as one of the seven holy angels which present the prayers of the saints, and the angel who appears to Esdras (II Es 41) is called Uriel. In the apocalyptic literature ‘the imagination ran riot on the rank, classes, and names of angels.’ In Enoch 611 we first have winged angels. In the O T they ap- pear in human form, and are sometimes called men throughout a narrative, even tho recognized as super- natural visitants. On the other hand there was in this period a skeptical tendency with regard to even the existence of angels, which culminates in the attitude of the Sadducees in the N T. 5. Angels in the N T. In the N T the general belief in angels is assumed, but it is significant that many extravagances of the current Jewish literature are set aside. Jesus is substituted for the angels as the intermediary between God and man. The Epistle to the Hebrews lays special emphasis upon the fact that angels are created, and that they are subordinate to Christ. The same thought is ex- pressed in Eph 1 21 and I P 8 22. They are not inferior deities, but fellow servants to man (Rev 19 10, 229) and are therefore not to be worshiped. Paul especially rebukes angel-worship (Col 2 18) which was one of the errors at Colosse and became more widespread in later centuries (see GNOSsTICISM). Paul’s disparaging references to principalities, powers, dominions, thrones, etc., have to do with the speculations about various ranks of angels. The law was thought to have been given through the agency of angels (Ac 7 53; Gal 3 19; He 2 12) and this is one of the reasons advanced by Paul and the author of Hebrews for the superiority of the revela- tion through Christ. The thought is not definitely to be found in the Hebrew O T, but was probably developed from the LXX. of Dt 33 2 which reads, ‘On His right hand angels with Him.’ There was a popular idea that each person had assigned to him a special guardian angel, and it is to this that Jesus refers in Mt 1810. In the story of Peter’s escape from prison (Ac 12 15) is an illustra- tion of the thought that when such guardian angel appeared on earth he took the form of the person guarded. The angels of the seven churches in Asia (Rev 1, 2, 3) have been variously explained. Some think that these are angels in the ordinary sense, as in the rest of the book, some that they are the repre- sentatives or bishops of the churches. It is muchmore likely that they are the personifications of the spir- itual character of each church. This falls into line with the popular beliefs just mentioned, and this conception is found in Persian thought. The Angle Antichrist A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 48 fravashi in the Avesta is the complete spiritual coun- terpart of a nation or community (see HDB iv, 991). LireratuRrE:. Ofthe various Bible Dictionary articles the best are those by G. B. Gray in HB, and A. J. Maclezn in DAC. See also A. C. Knudson, Religious Teachings of the OT, and various works on O T Theology. E. Gy TS ANGLE. The old Eng. rendering of the Heb. hakkéh, ‘hook’ in Is 19 8 and Hab 1 15. ANIAM. oanai’am (29°28, ’dni‘adm): A Manassite clan or family (I Ch 719). ANIM, é’nim (8°3¥, ‘anim): (Jos 15 50). Map II, E38. ANIMALS. See Paestine, §§ 24-26. ANISE. See Pauustine, § 23. ANKLETS, ANKLE-CHAINS. See Dress anp Ornaments, § II, 2. ANNA, an’a ("Avwa): An aged propnetess, aaugh- ter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher, belonging to the circle of the ‘Pious’ (see Stmzon), who hailed the babe Jesus in the Temple as a sign of the coming deliverance of Jerusalem (Lk 2 36-38). R. A. F.—E. C. L. ANNAS, an’as ("Avvac; Heb. 127, ‘merciful,’ in Josephus “Avavos): Appointed high priest by Qui- rinius in 6 a.D., deposed by Valerius, 15 a.p., who later appointed Simon, a son of A. In 18 a.p. his son-in-law Caiaphas (q.v.) was appointed to the office (Jn 18 13; cf. Jos. Ant. XVIII 2 2). As head of the family A. still retained influence, which explains why Jesus was led first to A., probably only for an informal hearing, and then to the high priest (Jn 18 13). For the same reason A. is called the high priest in Ac 4 6 altho the actual high priest at the time must have been Caiaphas, or another of A.’s sons, either Jonathan or Theophilus (Jos. Ant. XVIII, 4 3, 53). 4 Pee" Did be ANOINT (mdshaw, wnence ‘Messiah,’ is employed both literally and figuratively; xoelev [xelora, xetst6c], always of God’s spiritual anointing; the other terms [stikh, &delgetyv, etc.] are used only in the physical sense). 1. Practical. The application of scented oils wus a common toilet operation (Ru 3 3; Ps 104 15; Pr dey 27 9), which was discontinued in time of mourning (II S 14 2; Dn 10 3; cf. Mt 617). It was also‘a mark of welcome to an honored guest (Ps 23 5; Lk 7 46; Jn 12 3). Ointments were frequently applied as reme- dies for sores and wounds (Is 16; Lk 1034). The anointing of the dead (Mk 14 8; Lk 23 56) seems to have been a token of re- spect, rather than an embalming process (cf. Jn 11 39). Oil was rubbed upon the leather of shields to pre- aS them (Is 215; ITS 1 21). See ARMs AND ARMOR, ‘f A town of Judah Anointing of a Sacred Stone Pillar. 2. Symbolical. As a sign of dedication, sometimes with resulting inspiration (IS 1014., 1613), oil being symbolic of the Divine Spirit. Jacob poured oil upon the pillar at Beth-el (Gn 28 18). The Tent and its furniture were sanctified with ‘holy anointing oil’ (Ex 30 22 f.). See OINTMENTS AND PrRFumss, § 1. Priests were consecrated by anointing (Lv 8 12, 30; cf. 4 3; Ps 133 2), and the early kings were thus designated (IS 101, 1613; ITS 1910; TT K 93.) and inaugurated (IIS 2 4, 53; I Ch 29 22). The king was ‘J’’s anointed,’ and thus a sacred status was his which was quite different from that of other men (cf. e.g. 1S 269 #.). Probably the anointing in Mk 613 and Ja 514 was a symbol of consecration prepara- tory to divine healing. 3. Metaphorical. Signifying divine selection and enduement for some particular service. In this figur- ative sense, Cyrus (Is 45 1), and the prophet-pa- triarchs (I Ch 16 22; cf. Gn 207) were said to be ‘anointed.’ Thus also, Israel (?) was Jehovah’s anointed (Hab 313; Ps 89 38; La 4 20), and Christians received the unction of the Holy Spirit (II Co 1 21; I Jn 2 20, 27). For Christ as the Anointed One (Is 61 1 =Lk 4 18; Ac 10 38), see MussiaH, § 7. See also BurRIAL AND Buriat Customs, § 1. L. G. L.—E. C. L. ANT. See Pauestine, § 26. ANTELOPE. See Pauestine, § 24. ANTHOTHIJAH, an’ fho-thai’ja (™OINW, ‘an- thothiyyah, Antothijah AV): A Benjamite (ICh 8 24). ANTICHRIST, THE MAN OF SIN. 1. The Name Antichrist. The actual name Antichrist is first found in the Johannean epistles (I Jn 2 18, 22, 4 3; II Jn 7), but the main idea underlies St. Paul’s de- scription of the ‘Man of Lawlessness’ (‘Man of Sin’ EVV) in II Th 21-12; while, from the manner in which both writers refer to this mysterious figure, it is evident that they had in view an oral tradition current at the time (I Jn 4 3 ‘ye have heard,’ II Th 2 6 ‘ye know’). Any attempt, therefore, to under- stand the doctrine of A. as it meets us in the N T must naturally begin with this tradition, so far as it is now possible to trace it. 2. Possible Connection with Babylonian Myth. Here, according to the latest view, we are carried far back. Bousset, in his elaborate monograph, Der Antichrist (1895, Eng. transl. The Antichrist Legend, 1896), adopting and developing the suggestion of Gunkel in his Schépfung und Chaos (1895), would have us see in the A. legend an anthropo- morphic transformation of the Babylonian Dragon Myth, according to which the monster (T%dmat), who had opposed the Creator at the beginning, would again in the last days rear its head in rebellion, only, however, to be finally crushed. It is impossible to examine here in detail the evidence adducéd in sup- port of this position, but it seems practically certain that this myth had reached Palestine, and may, therefore, have had a share in familiarizing the Jews with the idea of an arch-enemy of God, and of His cause. Beyond this, with the data at our disposal, we can hardly go at present, and we are on surer ground when, for the early history of this b clic, we i f 4 49 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Angle Antichrist LLL COLA LLL LC OL Ss tse turn to the evidence supplied by the Scriptures themselves. 3. Antichrist in Old Testament. In the O T we have ample proof of a general Jewish belief in a fierce attack to be directed against Israel in the end of the days by some hostile person or power, while this attack is frequently so described as to supply later writers with their language and imagery in depicting the last attack of all against God’s people. See, e.g., Psalm 88 (89), many of whose words and phrases are reechoed in II Th chs. 1 and 2 (cf. Borne- mann, Thess. p. 356 f.), or the account of the fierce onslaught by Gog from the land of Magog (Hizk chs. 38, 39; cf. Rev 207 f.). It is, however, in the Book of Daniel (168-165 B.C.) that we find the real starting-point of many of the later descriptions of A., and especially in the picture that is there presented of Antiochus Epiphanes. No other foreign ruler was ever regarded by the Jews with such hatred on account both of his personal impieties and of his bitter persecution of their religion, and, accordingly, he is here portrayed as the very impersonation of all evil. Some of the traits indeed ascribed to him are of such a character (7 8, 11, 20, 21, 25, 11 36-45) that it has been thought the writer had not so much Antiochus as the future Anti- christ directly in view. And, altho this is not exe- getically possible, it is easy to understand how this description influenced the Apostolic writers in their account of the arch-enemy of God and man (ef., e.g., II Th 2 4 with Dn 11 36 f. and Rev 131-8 with Dn 7 8, 20 f., 25, 8 24, 11 28, 30 and see Driver, Daniel, p. xevi f.). With the fall of Antiochus and the rise of the Maccabzan kingdom, the promise of deliverance, with which Daniel had comforted God’s people dur- ing their dark days, received its proximate fulfilment; but, when the nation again fell under a foreign yoke, the old fears were once more revived and received a fresh coloring from the new powers by which the Jewish nation now found itself opposed. 4. In Later Writings of the Jews. In determining the Jewish views regarding A. during this period much difficulty is caused by the uncertainty regard- ing the exact date of some of the relative writings, and the possibility of their having received late- Christian interpolations. The following references however, deserve notice: “In the Pharisaic Psalms of Solomon (48-40 B.c.) Pompey, as the representative of the foreign power that had overthrown Zion, is described as the person- ification of sin (6 &uaptwAdc, 2 1), and even as the dragon (6 dpedxwyv, ver. 29); while in IV Ezr 5 1-6, which, altho belonging to the last decade of the 1st cent. A.D., is a characteristically Jewish work after an enumeration of the signs of the last times and the shaking of the kingdom that is after the third power (t.e., the power of Rome), we read of one who ‘shall rule, whom they that dwell upon the earth look not for’—a mysterious being generally identified with the future A. Compare also the description of the desctruction of the ‘last leader’ of the enemies of Israel in Apoc. Bar. 401 f., where again Pompey may be thought of. In none of these passages, it will be noticed, have we more than a God-opposing being of human origin, but it has recently been pointed out with great co- gency by Dr. Charles (The Ascension of Isaiah, pp. lv ff.) that, in the interval between the O T and the N T, a further development was given to Jewish be- lief in A. through the influence of the Beliar myth. In the O T ‘belial’ is never, strictly speaking, a proper name, but denotes ‘worthlessness,’ ‘wicked- ness, tho, from its frequent occurrences along with another noun in such phrases as ‘sons of Belial’ (Dt 13 13; Jg 19 22, etc., AV), the idea readily lent itself to personification, until in the later pseudepi- graphical literature, the title regularly appears as a synonym for Satan, or one of his lieutenants. _ Thus in the Book of Jubilees (2d cent. B.c.) we read, ‘Let Thy mercy, O Lord, be lifted up upon Thy people, . . . and let not the spirit of Beliar rule over them’ (1 20, ed. Charles), and similar references to Beliar as a Satanic spirit are frequent in the Testa- ments of the Twelve Patriarchs (2d cent. B.c. in part at least), in which see, e.g., Test. Reub. 4, 6. The most interesting passage, however, for our purpose is contained in the third book of the Sibylline Oracles, in a section which in the main goes back to the same early date, where Beliar is depicted as a truly Satanic being, accompanied by all the signs that are elsewhere ascribed to A. (see Orac. Sib. iii, 63 ff., ed. Rzach). And with this there should also be compared Orac. Sib. ii, 167 f., where it is stated that ‘Beliar will come and do many signs to men,’ tho here the originally Jewish origin of the passage is by no means so certain. In the same way it is impossible to lay too much stress in the present connection on the speculations of Rabbinical theology regarding the person of A. in view of the late date of our authorities. But we may accept, as in the main reflecting the views of the Jews about the beginning of the Christian era, the conception of a powerful ruler to be born of the tribe of Dan (cf. Gn 49 17; Dt 33 22; Jer 8 16, and see further Friedlander, Der Antichrist in den vorchristlichen aryidischen Quellen [1901] c, ix) and uniting in himself all enmity against God and hatred against God’s people, but whom the Messiah will finally slay by the breath of His lips (cf. Weber, Jiid. Theologie [1897] p. 365). ~ 5. In Christ’s Teaching. We can at once see how readily this idea would lend itself to the political and materialistic longings of the Jews, and it is only, therefore, what we would expect when we find our Lord, true to His spiritual ideals, saying nothing by which these expectations might be encouraged, but contenting Himself with warning His hearers against false teachers, the ‘false Christs,’ and the ‘false prophets’ who would be ready ‘to lead astray, if possible, even the elect’? (Mt 24 24; Mk 13 22). Even, too, when in the same discourse He seems to refer to a single A., the reference is veiled under the mysterious figure derived from Daniel of the ‘abomi- nation of desolation standing (éotyxét~) where he ought not’? (Mk 13 14; cf. Mt 24 15); while a similar reticence marks His words as recorded in Jn 5 43, if here again, as is most probable, He has A. in view. Slight, however, altho these references in our Lord’s recorded teaching are, we can understand how they would direct the attention of the Apostolic Antichrist Antiochus A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 50 / cen te cS a aE NL CCAR TC EEN ANCE NELLA LLL LLL ALAA LANL LL AALAND ELD writers to the traditional material lying to their hands in their treatment of this mysterious subject, and, asa matter of fact, we have clear evidence of the use of such material in the case of at least two of them. 6. In Pauline Epistles. Thus, apart from his direct reference to the Jewish belief in Beliar in II Co 6 15, Paul has given us in II Th 21-12 a very full description of the working of A., under the name of the ‘Man of Lawlessness,’ in which he draws freely on the language and imagery of the O T and on the speculations of later Judaism. The following are the leading features in his picture: (1) ‘The mystery of lawlessness’ is already at work, altho for the moment held in check by a restraining person, or power, apparently to be identified with the power of law or government, especially as these were embodied at the time in the Roman State. (2) No sooner, however, has this restraining power been removed (cf. II Es 5 4; Apoc. Bar. 39 7) than a general ‘apostasy’ results, finding its consummation in the ‘revelation’ of ‘the man of lawlessness.’ (3) As ‘the opposer’ he ‘exalteth himself against all that is called God’ (cf. Dn 11 36 £.) and actually ‘sitteth in the temple of God, setting himself forth as God’—the description being again modeled on the Danielic account (cf. Dn 8 13, 9 27, 11 31, 12 11); while (4) the ‘lying wonders’ by which his working is distinguished are illustrated by Orac. Sib. iil, 64 f.; Asc. Isaiah 45. (5) And yet, powerful as this in- carnation of wickedness seems, the Lord Jesus at His parousia will ‘slay him with the breath of his mouth,’ the words being a quotation from Is 11 4, a passage which the Targum of Jonathan afterward applied to the destruction of Armilus, the Jewish A., and whose use here Paul may well have drawn from the Jewish tradition of his time (cf. the use of the same passage in Pss. Sol. 17 27, 39; II Es 13 10). The whole description is thus of a very composite character, but, at the same time, is so definite and detailed that it is hardly to be wondered at that there has been a constant endeavor to find its sug- gestion in some historical personage of the writer’s own time. But, altho the sacrilegious conduct of Caligula (ef. Tacit., Hist. v, 9) may have influenced the writer’s language in ver. 4, the real roots of the conception lie elsewhere, and it is rather, as we have seen, in the O T and in current Jewish tradition that its explanation is to be sought. 7. In the Apocalypse. The same may be said, in part at least, of the various evil powers which meet us in the Johannean Apocalypse. The wild Beast of the Seer (Rev chs. 18-20) vividly recalls the horned wild Beast of Dn chs. 7 and 8, and the parallels that can be drawn between the language of John and of Paul (cf. Rev 129, 181. with II Th 29f.; Rev 1354., 1411 with IT Th 2 4, 10 ff.; Rev 13 3 with II Th 29 f.) point to similar sources as lying at the roots of both. On the other hand, the Johannean descriptions have a direct connection with contemporary secular history which was largely wanting in the earlier picture. This is seen noticeably in the changed atti- tude toward the power of Rome. So far from this being regarded any longer as a restraining influence, it is rather the source from which evil is to spring. And we can understand, therefore, how the city of Rome and its imperial house supply John with many of the characteristics under which he describes the working of A. until, at last, he sees all the powers of evil culminate in the Beast of ch. 17, who, accord- ing to the interpretation of Bousset (adopted by James in HDB), is partly representative of an individual ‘who was and is not, etc., that is, Nero redivivus; partly of a polity, namely that of Rome. 8. In Johannean Epistles. There remain only the references in the Johannean Epistles, in which, in keeping with the writer’s main object, the spiritual side of the conception is again predominant. Thus, after indicating some of the main elements in Chris- tian truth, John passes in I 2 18 to the conflict into which, at ‘a last hour,’ truth will be brought with falsehood, and in token of this points to the decisive sign by which this crisis will be known, namely, the ‘coming’ of A.—the absence of the article in the original showing that the word has already come to be used as a technical proper name. Nor does ‘Antichrist’ stand alone. Rather he is to be regarded as ‘the personification of the principle shown in dif- ferent Antichrists’ (Westcott, ad loc.), who, by their denial that ‘Jesus is the Christ,’ deny in like manner the revelation of God as Father (2 22) and, conse- quently, the true union between God and man (4 3). 9. Present Significance of Antichrist. It is, there- fore, into a very different atmosphere that we are introduced after the strange symbolism of the Apoc- alypse, and the scenic representation of the Pauline description. And one likes to think that the last word of Revelation on this mysterious topic is one which leaves it open to every one to apply to the spiritual workings of evil in his own heart, and in the world around him, a truth which has played so large a part in the history of God’s people in the past, and which may still pass through many varying and pro- gressive applications before it reaches its final fulfil- ment in the ‘dispensation of the fulness of the times’ (Eph 1 10). Literature: In addition to the special literature referred to above, see articles on Antichrist by Bousset in ERE, by James (under the title Man of Sin) in HDB, by Ginsburg in JE, and by Sieffert in PRE’, and the Excursuses by Borne- mann and Findlay and Frame (ICC) in their Commentaries on the Thessalonian Epistles; see also E. Wadstein, Die eschatologischeIdeengruppe: Antichrist-W eltsabbat-W eltendeund Weltgericht (1896). The argument of the foregoing paper will be found more fuily stated with the text of the passages re- ferred to in the Additional Note on The Biblical Doctrine of Antichrist in the present writer’s commentary on The Epistles to the Thessalonians (1907) see also Charles, ICC, The Revelation of St. John, Vol. II pp. 76 ff (1920) and Beck- with, The Apocalypse of John pp. 393-411 (1919). G. M.—E. E. N. ANTIOCH, an’ti-ek (Avtiéyex). 1. Pisidian A. (ad Pisidiam), so distinguished from other cities of the same name founded by Seleucus Nicator (301- 280 B.c.), and named in honor of his father. Inscrip- tions show that the surrounding population were Phrygian, against whom and the Pisidian mountain- eers it was a garrison center composed of Greek, Jewish and Anatolian races. On the fall of the Seleucid power Antioch was made a free city by the Romans in 189 B.c.;in 39 B.c. Antioch and the whole of Pisidia were given by Antony to Amyntas of Galatia; in 25 B.c. it was incorporated into the ee ee . ~~ a 51 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Antichrist Antiochus province of Galatia, to which it belonged till at least 198 a.D., if not to 295 a.p. when Diocletian consti- tuted the separate province of Pisidia, of which it became the capital. About 6 B.c. the city was made a Colonia Cesareia Antiocheia by Augustus. Lying on the borders of Phrygia and Pisidia it might be reckoned to either. Thus Strabo describes it as a city of Phrygia toward Pisidia, while the majority of writers speak of it as Pisidian. In Paul’s day it was a city of Galatia in the district of Phrygia. Here he inaugurated the mission to the 8S. Galatian churches (Ac 13 49); and among ‘the churches of Galatia’ (Gal 1 2) Pisidian Antioch is to be included. Cf. also Ac 14 19 ff., 15 36, 16 4 #., 18 23. The ruins in the vicinity of Yalowadj were first identified as ancient Antioch by Arundell (Discoveries in A. M., I, p. 268 ff.). Antioch has furnished rich epigraphical material of considerable importance, for which see e.g. Sterrett, Epigr. Journey in A. M., p. 121 £.; C. I. G., Nos. 3979-81; C. I. L., III, 289 f.; Hphem. Epig., V, 575-80; Le Bas-Waddington, Voyage, III, 1189 ff. 2. Syrian - . ‘5 : . 4 7 | - 4 ~ 7 "ti Cand fie an ty 4 . arnt te £i<5) ~, -e 4 “ | 2 , i . ‘ = ies 6 te é ¢ ' rf ie Le 7 (3 rf iy Pay - ® 69 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY ably developed in the Orient even earlier than that of iron. For all practical purposes, however, it was commonly used with some alloy of tin or zinc (brass, bronze, n*hdsheth, Job 28 2; Ezk 22 18 f.). Brass is enumerated with gold and silver as if re- garded one of the precious metals (II S 8 10; Ezr 8 27; ‘copper’ AV, ‘yellow brass’ AVmg.); but it is not probable that such enumeration indicates any great scarcity, since copper-mines are known to have existed at Sinai from the 8rd dynasty of Egypt down- ward (Petrie, Researches in Sinai, 1906). More- over, the list of articles manufactured from this metal is long, including household utensils such as pots and pans and other implements necessary in the construction of furniture (cf. Ex 25 ff.; see TEMPLE, §§ 18, 19); also weapons of war such as shields, greaves, javelins, and helmets (IS 175 #.; II S 22 35). In N T times the mention of Alexander the Copper- smith (II Ti 414) indicates the specialization of work in this metal. (See also MErazs.) 10(b). Goldsmith. Gold and silver were imported into Palestine by Solomon from Ophir (I K 9 26-28). But the art of working them was introduced from Phenicia. The accom- plished gold-smith, refiner (‘founder,’ tsdréph, Jg 17 4), was one who knew how to separate the pure metal from its alloy (Is 1 25) by melting the ore in the refining pot (Pr 17 3) to purify it of its dross (Pr 25 4, 26 23), and to fashion it into use- ful and ornamental articles. The various ways of working the precious metal are beating (‘turned work’ RV, Ex 2518, 31) with the hammer (hammer- ing), plating, overlaying (Ex 25 11, tsaphah; cf.also I K 6 20 ff.), soldering, debheg, cf. Is 417, ‘the goldsmith and he that smootheth with the hammer, him that smiteth the anvil, saying of the soldering (‘sodering’ AV), it is good.’ Casting, 7.e., forming into a given shape by pouring into a mold the heated liquid, is also implied in such expressions as ‘molten image’ (Nu 33 52; Hos 13 2; cf. the distinction between ‘graven image’ and ‘molten image,’ Nah 1 14; II Ch 34 3, 4). Finally gold was beaten into very thin plates, which were cut into strips, or threads, and these again used in embroidering garments or woven into cloth (Ex 39 3, 28 6). (See also MrrTazs.) II. Orner Inpusrries: 11. Spinning. Of the industries which center about the manufacture of clothing, the first in point of order is that of spinning. The materials used were goat’s hair, wool, and flax; but the process is that familiar elsewhere in the world and the implement the spindle, or distaff (Pr 31 19). Likewise, as among other people, this was work usually done by women at home rather ‘than in public shops by men (Ex 35 25 f.). 12. Weaving. Cloth for use in making garments was imported from Egypt and Damascus (linen from the former, damask from the latter, Ezk 27 7, 18. Babylon too had a reputation for work of superior quality in this class. But Israel was not destitute of its home productions. The Egyptian monuments present the art of weaving with somewhat crude implements. In Palestine these must have been still more primitive. The shuttle is, however, especially mentioned (Job 7 6). The weaver’s beam (I 8 177; II S 21 19), to which Goliath’s spear Artizan Life Arvad is compared in size, was the heavy post of the frame to which the warp of the prospective cloth was fitted in. Cloth was woven in lengths suited for one garment, not in large pieces from which parts might be cut off according to need. When it is said that Samuel’s mother annually made him a robe it is meant that she wove a single piece as above de- scribed (IS 219). See Dress anp ORNAMENTS, § 4. 13. Fuller’s Work. The fuller (kdbhés, II K 18 17; Is 7 3, 36 2, yvagetdc, Mk 9 3) took charge of the cleaning and bleaching of cloth. He washed the material with a preparation of lye, beat or rubbed it and drieditin the sun. For this purpose he must own or have use of an open tract of land ‘fuller’s field’; cf. Is 7 3). From samples of fulling work found in Egyptian graves it is gathered that the art. was highly developed. 14. Needlework: Embroidery. Of the sewing of garments or the modern tailor’s art nothing is said in Scripture. Sewing (é@phar) was probably limited to the repairing (patching) of worn-out or torn apparel (Ec 31; Mk 2 21) and the stitching of one piece to another in case more than one was to be used in making a garment (Ezk 13 18; Gn 37). Needlework (ma‘dséh régém, Ex 26 36, 27 16, etc., ‘work of the embroiderer’ RV; riqgmah Jg 5 30; Ps 45 14, ‘broidered work’ RV) is rather the working in for ornamental purposes of figures in colored thread or of silver and gold strands on a background of woven cloth. 15. Dyeing. The art of dyeing must have been known in Israel; but the only clear mention of it has reference to the coloring of the skins of animals (Ex 25 5, 2614). In AV ‘dyed attire’ (Ezk 23 15) is a mistranslation for ‘flowing turban’ (so RV). The ‘dyed garments’ of the conquering hero in Is 631 are more literally his clothes steeped red in the blood of the foes he had slain (so RVmg. ‘crimsoned’). 16. Tanning. The production of leather from the hides of animals was certainly a common industry in O T times, but the only leather articles explicitly mentioned are girdles (II K 1 8; cf. also Mt 3 4). To these sandals and thongs must be added (Mk 69; Ac 128). Inthe N T the employment appears distinctly in the well-known but unique case of ‘Simona tanner’ (Ac 9 43, 10 6). LITERATURE: Delitzsch, Jewish Artisan Life, etc. (Eng. transl. 1883); S. Meyer, Arbeit u. Handwerk im Talmud (1878); Benzinger, Hebr. Arch, 2nd Ed. 1907, pp. 145 ff.; No- wack, Hebr. Arch. (1894) I, 239 ff., 251 ff., 265 ff.; Grant, The People of Palestine (1921) Ch. VL Gy Z. ARTS, MAGICAL: Ac 19 19, Curious AV. See Maaic anp Divination, § 9. ARUBBOTH, o-riib’both (NAS, ’drubbath): One of Solomon’s provision districts, probably including much of W. Judah (I K 4 10). ARUMAH, oa-ri’ma (728 ’Griimah): near Shechem (Jg 9 41). Map III, F 4. ARVAD, Gr’vad (7)78, ’arwaddh): A Phenician city built on an island in the Med. 125 m. N. of Tyre (modern Ruwdd. The inhabitants (Arvadites, Gn 10 18) are desribed in Ezk 27 8, 11 as skilful seamen as well as good soldiers. The city was in existence as late as the Maccabean age (Aradus, I Mac 15 23). A. C. Z. A town Arza Ashkelon ARZA, Gr’za (S$78, ’artsa’): Palace-overseer of Elah, King of Israeli (I K 169). Possibly an accom- plice in the murder of the king which took place in his house. HE. EK. N. ASA, é’sa (NOS ’asa’) ‘healer’: 1. Third king of Judah (c. 917-876 B.c.), son of Maacah and brother of Abijah. His reforming energy was great, and by bringing sacred articles from other shrines to Jeru- salem (I K 15 15) he enhanced the Temple’s preemi- nence. Fearing Baasha’s blockade (I K 1517 f.), he purchased Aramean aid, thereby incurring prophetic censure (II Ch 16 7), and bequeathing to his suc- cessors a heritage of war. His defensive works were long remembered (Jer 41 9). The account of the invasion of Zerah (q.v.), the Ethiopian (II Ch 14 9-15), is of doubtful historical value. The Chronicler may imply a resort to the Black Art in A.’s final ill- ness (II Ch 1612). 2. A son of Elkanah (see I Ch 9 16). A. 8. C.*—O. R. 8S. ASAHEL, as’a-hel (287YY ‘dsa’él), ‘God does’: 1. A son of Zeruiah, David’s sister (1 Ch 2 18). With his brothers Joab and Abishai he was among the earliest and most valiant of David’s follow- ers (II S 23 24; I Ch 11 26). A. was especially re- nowned for his fleetness (II S 2 18). The statement in I Ch 27 7 that he was the ‘fourth captain for the fourth month’ in David’s army is a mistake, since A. was slain by Abner before David had organ- ized his larger army. The death of A. at the hands of Abner (II S 2 18-23) was an act of self-defense on Abner’s part, but was nevertheless avenged later by Joab (IIS 3 27-30). 2. A Levite under Jehoshaphat (II Ch 178). 3. A Levite under Hezekiah (II Ch 3113). 4. Father of Jonathan (Ezr 1015). EK. E. N. ASATIAH, a-sé’ya (YY, ‘dsaiyah): J” has made (or done)’: 1. A trusted servant of King Josiah (Asahiah AV, II K 22 12, 14=II Ch 34 22). 2. A Le- vite (I Ch 6 30, also 156 and 11?). 3. The ancestral head of a branch of the Simeonites (I Ch 4 36-43). 4. A Shilonite (I Ch 9 5=Maaseiah, Neh 11 5?). ASAPH, é’saf: A Levite repeatedly named by the later historians (Ezr 2 41, 3 10; Neh 7 44, 11 17, 22, 12 35, 46; I Ch 6 39, 9 15, 15 17, 19, 16 5, 7, 37, 25 1, 2, 6, 9 (261?); IT Ch 5 12, 2014, 29 13, 30, 35 15) as originally one of the leaders of the Temple psalmody and the founder of a family or gild of singers. His name appears in the captions of twelve Psalms (50, 73-83). It is not clear what relation this shadowy personage bears to the other Asaphs named (under Hezekiah, II K 18, 18, 37; Is 36 3, 22, and after the Exile, Neh 28). The word (")98, ’asaph) means ‘collector’ and may be a title. See Psaums; and Music. W.S. P. ASAREL, as’a-rel (OSDY, ’dsar’él, Asareel AV, a-se’ri-el): An individual or clan (probably Caleb- ite) of Judah (I Ch 4 18). ASARELAH, as’e-ri‘la. See ASHARAELAH. ASCALON. See AsHKEton. ASCENT: A word applied’ to a natural ascent as from a valley to a hill or mountain (e.g., Nu 34 4; Jos 10 10; II S 15 30, etc). InIK 105 = II Ch94 we should probably read ‘the burnt offerings which he offered’ (RVmg.). E. E. N. A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 70 ASCENTS, SONGS OF. See Psaums, § 4. ASENATH, as’1-nath (228, ’ds*nath): The Egyp- tian wife of Joseph (Gn 41 45, 50, 46 20); the daughter of the priest of On (Heliopolis). Her name is usually explained as As-Netth, favorite of Neith,’ the god- dess of Sais, or Isis- Neith. Ll, Bae ASER, é’ser (’Ache): The AV form in the N T for Asher (q.v.) (Lk 2 36; Rev 7 8). ASH. See Pauestine, § 21. ASHAN, 6é’shan (199, ‘ashan), ‘smoke’: A Levit- ical city (still unidentified) in western Judah (Jos 15 42; I Ch 6 59, called Ain in Jos 21 16). Bor-Ashan (Chor-Ashan AV, I 8S 30 33) probably indicates the same place. - ASHARELAH, agh”o-ri/la (T2870, 'dshar’élah, Asarelah AV, as’’a-ri’li): An ‘Asaphite’ musician (I Ch 25 2). Called Jesharelah in ver. 14. ASHBEA, asgh’bi-a (228, ’ashbéa‘): More cor- rectly, Beth-ashbea (I Ch 4 21). The better transla- tion is the families of the linen-workers of Beth- Ashbea.’ It was situated probably in the Shephelch, but the exact site is unknown. ASHBEL, ash’bel (398, ’ashbél): The ancestral head of the Ashbelites, a clan of Benjamin (Gn 46 21; Nu 26 38; I Ch 81). ASHDOD, ash’dod (718, ’ashdddh): The mod- ern Esdud, located 3 m. from the sea almost mid- way between Joppa and Gaza (Map I, B &). It was one of the five famous cities of the Philistines, and the residence of Anakim (Jos 11 22). The city was assigned to Judah (Jos 15 46f.), but was prob- ably not occupied until King Uzziah broke down its walls (II Ch 26 6). Thither the captured Ark of God was carried by the Philistines and placed in the temple of Dagon (IS 51). About 760 B.c. the prophet Amos denounced its inhabitants (1 8), and in 711 B.c. the Assyrian tartan, or general, of Sargon fought successfully against it (Is 201). According to Herodotus (ii. 157), Psammetichus, King of Egypt, besieged it for 29 years (c. 630 B.c.), only a remnant surviving (Jer 25 20). When Nehemiah, in 445 B.c., attempted to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem, the Ash- dodites were among those who opposed him (Neh 4 7f.). Both Judas Maccabeeus (c. 165 B.c.) and his brother Jonathan (c. 148) sacked the city (I Mac 5, 68, 10 84). It is mentioned also once in the N T by its Greek name Azotus in connection with Philip (Ac 8 44). G.L. R. ASHDOTH-PISGAH, ash’’doth-piz’ga. See Pis- GAH. ASHER (WX, ’ashér), popularly taken to mean ‘happy,’ tho possibly an old deity name: A son of Zilpah, Leah’s handmaid, and one of the tri- bal ancestors of Israel (Gn 30 12f.). See Trius, §4. : ASHERAH, a-shi’ra. See Semitic RELIGIon, 11. ASHES. See Mournina Customs, § 2. ASHHOUR, agh’or (T37Y8, ’ashhir, Ashur AV): A Calebite (clan?), ‘father’ of Tekoa (I Ch'2 24, 45. : ASHIMA, oa-shai’mse. See Semitic RELIGION, 12. Cae f oY SlazyeJy Ul a[BIG <= jisodeg = 09 7, 4004 /04nDN oot 08 eiIpeuy fe ATOM = a [4 Pe) => — w m ao — Oo = > — Oo a fer] e wa pot a Oo =] m oOo a) > ~” aie Ss m con] = SSeS 3 SS =. OD St a +\g 0 7204 Ul e]¥ag 81/04 Bulppsnag oot qyeg [9 qed 100s «50 0 100 ~ JL. Bridle Paths ea omms (Crusading Walls ¥ Red Granite Columns Gray Granite Columns Small Corinthian Capitals Large Corinthian Capitals Roman Statue A B C D E Permission of the Palestine Exploration, Fund R, Byzantine Well A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Arza Ashkelon Crusadings Ruins , Ye hg "vm. Church @ Conorete "C Church ww Scale 100 ‘%~ These Walls are traditionally known as Crusading but a closer Examination and Excavation might prove them to be Arabic WY senate House and 200 - s* ww ay “ ET. Roman 4 Foundations LUMA TTT ES = ‘ ¢ NY as Herod's Cloisters in Feet: 400 600 NOTE: The Crusading Walls are possibly built on an earlier line of Roman Wall ‘now buried by the Sand and show the extent of the City in Roman and Byzantine Times. The inner line of Hatching defines the probable Site of the Philistine City Ashkelon Asia Minor A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY . GQ ASHKELON, ash’k:-len (1i9PY%, ’ashg‘lon): The modern ’Askelan, 12 m. N. of Gaza on the seacoast (Jer 47 7). Excavations show that the site was occupied at a very early period (in the stone age). See illustration of the various strata of occupation revealed by the excavations. The old Canaanite town dating from c. 2000 B.c. was destroyed ec. 1200 B.c. by the Philistines from oversea who made it one of their five principal cities. (MapI,B9). The ay, Mu ORR area be CIRM: ate re ; Ben he sere thn ee Late acd a ee - minaP oth : f=) Deposit Crusading fa en 5 ais T= fie] Burnt Layer Arabic Conquest Ge ig, , “ Byzantine te 4 Late Philistine to Roman Lif 2m Philistine ange oe Burnt Layer . id =} Canaanite Z os Early Canaanite i La Cate Pre-Semitic U,. wv & = Set « re : eg - WY y EN ee a Rock e\e di. wor FE: PS ___&,)_ Sea Level NATURAL SECTION AT ASHKELON Scale in Feet i 0 i 2 3 4 5 i Scaie in Meters 10 6 0 10 be lnchee ted bkrteh teense coer anes city was built on a rocky amphitheater overlooking the sea. Extensive ruins of the town remain. It was the seat of the worship of the fish goddess Derceto, with temple and lake E. of the city. Judah is said to have captured it (Jg 118; cf., however, the LXX reading; also Jos 13 3), but the Philistines still occupied it in the days of Samson (Jg 14 19, may be identified more correctly, however, with Khurbet’ Askalun in Wddy es-Sunt), of Samuel (I S 6 17), and of David (II S 1 22). Three prophets predicted its overthrow (Jer 47 5; Zeph 2 4; Zec 9 5), but it con- tinued to exist as an important city until after the Age of the Crusades. It was captured twice by Jonathan the Maccabee (I Mac 10 86, 11 60), by the Crusaders, and by Saladin. Herod the Great was born there, and built it up (Jos. Wars, I 2111). Its name seems to have been derived from a charac- teristic product, a kind of onion, which grew there, called shallot, or escallot, whence Ashkelon. Its inhabitants were called Ashkelonites (Jos 13 3, Eshkalonites AV). See Bul. ASOR May, 1922, for results of excavations up to that date, and for other details PEFQ, 1913-1924. G. L. R. ASHKENAZ, ash’ki-naz. See ErunograpHy AND Erxno.oey, § 13. ASHNAH, ash’na (7J?8, ’ashnah): The name of ai cities in Judah (Jos 15 33, 43), not yet identi- ed. ASHPENAZ, ash’pi-naz (12Y8, ’ashpenaz): Chief of the eunuchs of Nebuchadrezzar (Dan 1 3). ASHRIEL, ash’ri-el. See AsRIEL. ASHTAROTH, ash’ta-roth (MIINYY, ‘ashtaroth): The plural form of the name of the goddess ‘ASHTART, Ashtoreth. This is found as the name of a city (Jos 9 10, 12 4, 18 12, 31; I Ch 6 71) taken by Israel, before the passage of the Jordan, from Og, King of Bashan. It is possible that the same city is meant by Ashteroth-Karnaim, ‘two-horned Ash- tarts,’ (Gn 14 5), an abode of the Rephaim at the time of the invasion of Palestine by Chedorlaomer of Elam. Eusebius and Jerome speak of two places bearing the latter name, five Roman miles apart, in the Decapolis. One of these may be the modern Tell ‘Ashtarah, 21 m. E. of the Lake of Galilee (see Map I, H 4). There is also a Tell ‘Ashari, 5 m. to the N. of the former. Be-eshterah, probably for Beth-‘Ashtart, ‘house of ‘Ashtart,’ is mentioned in Jos 21 27 as a Levitical city, and apparently . as equivalent to Ashtaroth of I Ch67. In Egypt. inscriptions of the eighteenth dynasty ‘Astiratu is mentioned as a place east of the Jordan, and the same place appears in the Tell el-Amarna letters as Ashtarti. In view of these forms and of the singular Beth-‘Ashtart, the Massoretic vocalization of this name as a plural is very doubtful. The consonants could equally well be read ‘Ashtart. If the plural be correct, it indicates that various forms of the goddess were worshiped here. The epithet Kar- naim, “T'wo-horned,’ has been explained as referring to two peaks in the vicinity of the town, or to the two horns with which the goddess is frequently represented in Canaanite art. In Am 613 for ‘horns’ we should probably read ‘Karnaim,’ the reference being to a capture of K. by Israel. See also Semitic REtiGcion, § 13. J. F. McC.—L. B. P. ASHTERATHITE, agh’ti-rath-ait (OVNYY, ‘ash- t*ratht), ‘man of Ashtroth’: The adjective of place from Ashtaroth, the home of Uzzia, one of David’s heroes (I Ch 11 44). ASHTEROTH-KARNAIM, ash’t1-reth-kdr-né’/im. See ASHTAROTH. ASHTORETH, ash’td-refh. See Sumrric Re- LIGION, § 14. ASHUR, ash’tr. See ASHHUR. ASHURITES, asgh’dr-aits (TS, ’dshir7): In II S 2 9 the Massoretic text reads ‘Ashurites’ in the enumeration of districts subject to Ishbosheth. This is perhaps a textual error for ‘Geshurites’ (so Vulg. and Syr.), Aramean people N. of Gilead, or, more probably, for ‘Asherites’ (so the Targum), z.¢., the Israelites N. of the plain of Esdraelon. In Ezk 27 6 the AV rendering ‘company of Ashurites’ is wrong. The correct Heb. reading bzth’ash- shur?m means ‘in boxwood’ (or some similar wood),as in RV. E. E. N. ASHVATH, ash’vath (MY, ‘ashwath): A de- scendant of Asher (I Ch 7 33). ASIA. See Asta Minor, III, 1. ASIA MINOR: I. Proptes anv,» History. Asia Minor—a term not found in either the O T or N T, but first employed by Orosius in the 5th cent.— is that immense peninsula abutting from Western Asia, bound on the N. by the Black (Euxine) Sea and the Sea of Marmora (Propontis), on the W. by the Agean, and on the S. by the Mediterranean. The E. boundary is indeterminate both geographi- 73 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Ashkelon Asia Minor cally and historically: it may be roughly de- scribed as a line passing from the NE. corner of the gulf of Alexandretta, along the Giaour Dagh, through the Taurus range, touching the Euphrates at Malatia, crossing the Armenian plateau about Erzingan, and ending in the vicinity of Batoum on the W. Caucasus. The extreme length is 720 m. decreasing to about 650; the width varies from 420 m. to under 300 m. The greater part of this peninsula is known to-day as Anatolia (Anadol). It is separated from Europe by the Dardanelles and the Bosporus. Many have been the vast movements of popula- tions across and within A. M. Numerous invasions from E., W., and N. made its territory the scene of incessant conflicts, and the blending place of diverse cultures, races, and religions. Aryan, Mongolian, and Semitic masses were either attracted to A. M. by its wealth or driven thither by the pressure of stronger hordes behind. Beyond the first mention of the Hittites about 2000 B.c. it is not necessary for present purposes to go. For at least twelve centur- ies the history of Asia Minor was practically the history of the powerful Hittites in their rise and de- cline. These non-Aryan (some claim the Hittites as Aryan, esp. in language, Sayce as Mongoloids) inhabitants were not aboriginal. They have left their impressive monuments from Smyrna to the Euphrates and from Pteria (Boghaz-Keui) to Aleppo. For centuries they contended on equality with the powers of the Nile and the Euphrates, and for a thousand years A. M. under their leadership held the balance of power in antiquity. They saved A. M. from being completely Asiaticized so that as a result its history has throughout been bound up with that of Europe as much as, if not more than, with Asia. They carried Oriental—especially Meso- potamian—culture and art Westward. They over- threw the Amorite empire of Babylon; they annihi- lated the Egyptian power in Asia; they held the dreaded Assyrians in check for centuries; they exer- cised an important economic influence by their con- trol of the rich mineral resources of A. M. In the 15th cent. B.c. they engaged the attention of the Pharaohs in several expeditions. In the 14th cent. they attained the zenith of their power in an empire of federated states under the leadership of the Hittites with their capital at Pteria, and important centers at Hamath, Aleppo, Carchemish (Jerablus), Marash, and Malatia. For two centuries they were the dominant power in W. Asia, a position to which they were raised chiefly by Subbi-luliuma. With the coming of the Muski (Phrygians, or akin to later Phrygians) and the downfall of the Hittite rulers the empire was dismembered (in 12th cent.) and the capital or main center removed to Carchemish. During the temporary decline of Assyria and the withdrawal of the Phrygians, or their defeat by the Assyrian Tiglath-Pileser I, the Hittite states re- gained a considerable measure of their former prestige but apparently without the re-establish- ment of the confederacy. But in the 9th cent. the renewed pressure of the Phrygians and the renewal of the struggle with Assyria rendered the decline of the Hittites irrevocable. These Assyrian invasions were maintained until Sargon (721-704) crushed the allied Hittites and Urartians (Vannic power). Carchemish fell in 718 and Marash in 709 B.c. With the destruction of the ancient capital of Pteria by the Lydians under Croesus the Hittite story ends (middle 6th cent.) Other peoples call for briefer mention. The Aryan Muski or Phrygians entered A. M. from Macedonia and Thrace. With them came, or later they were joined by the Thyni, better known as Bithynians. The entry of the Phrygians proved fateful, not only for the Hittites but for Europe, inasmuch as they were to become in later centuries the purveyors of Oriental ideas back to Europe. The remains of the tombs of their kings and their rock palaces are among the most im- pressive of A. M. antiquities. They held sway over NW. and central A. M. during the 9th and 8th cents. In turn the Phrygians capitulated to the invading Assyrians in the campaigns of cir. 718-709 B.c., and in 675 they were overwhelmed by the on- coming Cimmerians (known to the Assyrians as Gimirrai), who had entered the peninsula by the Caucasus from Southern Europe through Armenia. The Cimmerians also assailed Assyria and the Vannic kingdom of Urartu. This upheaval afforded an opportunity for the rise of the first native power known to us in Asia Minor, the Lydian kingdom, under Gyges who established the Mermnad dynasty, 687 B.c. He was obliged to pay tribute to Assur- banipal owing to the pressure of the Cimmerians who overran Lydia; they finally captured Sardis and slew Gyges himself, 652 p.c. Under Alyattes and Croesus Lydia became an empire ernbracing all A.M. to the Halys, except Lycia. Alyattes after a des- perate struggle destroyed the Cimmerians, captured Smyrna and reduced the Greek cities. The Persian Cyrus next appeared on the stage of A. M.: he cap- tured Sardis and Creesus, and divided A. M. into satrapies. Meanwhile by the 8th cent. B.c. Hel- lenic colonies had been planted on the N. and W. coasts of A. M., some of which became founders of other colonies (e.g. Miletus, the mother of 75 col- onies). These Hellenic colonies were destined to bring Europe and Asia into conflict and contact. The Persian empire succumbed before Alexander, 333 B.c. After his death A. M. fell to Seleucus who was unable to hold the peninsula. The Attalid kingdom of Pergamum arose in 283. In 278 the Kelts (Gauls) crossed the Bosporus and Hellespont, and after defeats by Antiochus Soter and Attalus I they became domiciled in the regions to which they gave their name. Rhodes became independent. A native kingdom arose in Cappadocia. Bithynia and Paphlagonia retained their own princes. Be- tween 133 B.c. and 17 a.p. all A. M. to the Euphrates passed under Roman control. II. Reticious Sreniricancr. Despite the fact that none of the great world-religions had its origin in A. M. this peninsula has played a significant role in the history of religion. Geographically the bridge between East and West, it has been the chief med- ium whereby the ideas and religions of Europe and Asia produced their historic reactions. It was from A. M. that Christianity was carried to Europe by a native of Tarsus. It wasin A. M. that Christianity Asia Minor made more rapid progress than elsewhere, which cannot be accounted for as an accident. And it was the preponderance of A. M. that led to the cleavage of Latin and Greek Christianity. The Greek col- onies of Ionia were the cradle of European philoso- phy, which was for centuries the handmaid of theolo- gy, and continues to-day a paramount factor in the interpretation of Christianity. Philosophy was the form into which the genius of the West tended to cast its religious intuitions and reflections, rather than, as in the East, into mythologies and symbol- ism, altho it by no means overlooked these. More- over, this philosophy saved Europe from being Asiaticized at an early stage, and from falling under the yoke of sacerdotalism and from the vagueness of mysticism. From the A. M. mainland literature, art and science were transplanted to Greece, that Greece might become the schoolmistress of Europe A. M. must be reckoned with Syria and Egypt as soil congenial to that type of religion whereby men ap- proached reality by the path of an esoteric Gnosis, which is found in its incipience in e. g. the Ep. to the Colossians, representing the Lycos valley, and in the Fourth Gospel, from the region of Ephesus. See Gnosticism. From time immemorial among the Hittites and the Aryan invaders of A. M. the premier place was given in religion to a great Mother-God- dess, the representative of the powers of reproduc- tion in all nature, with whom was associated a lesser male deity as spouse or son. This goddess was an Earth-Goddess, whose worship was, at least primi- tively, that of a bisexual deity, a goddess-god, who suffered and died, and yet by self-reproduction overs came death in a nature-symbolism which was preg- nant with high hopes for man’s future. This di- vine personage was to make its contribution to the Christian Madonna. The emphasis on the female principle stood in marked contrast to the predom- inance of the male deity in the religion of the Ary- ans, in which Father and Son, rather than Mother and Daughter or Son, were the salient aspects of the divine nature. The respect for the Mother-Goddess in A. M. was accompanied by matriarchate privi- leges in society. Out of this primitive nature-cult was evolved another type of religion of far-reaching importance, the Mystery-Religions with esoteric ritual, a passion drama, and sacramental acts, a step reached by the telluric symbolism of nature, sympathetic-magic taking on the chthonic (under- world) and eschatological character, which deepened curiosity in the world of death. These Anatolian cults were orgiastic and emotional, characterized by self-abandonment and a striving for identification with the divine. On being transplanted to Europe, together with kindred cults from Syria and Egypt, they captured the imagination of the Greeks and the Romans, supplying an important element wholly lacking in either religion. Phrygia was the chief center of such enthusiastic worship, from which the Great Mother accompanied by Attis entered Athens in the 4th cent. B.c., and from which she was wel- comed with wild jubilation to Rome in 205 B.c. to claim her devotees in the Roman world for six cen- turies. It is striking that this land of the Hittite Great Mother gave Christianity the ‘Mother of A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 74. God’ formula at the Council of Ephesus in 4381, at which center also we find the earliest trace of a cult of the Virgin Mother. The Phrygian Sabazius and ’ Cappadocian Men also contributed to the growth of enthusiastic and personal religion in Europe. It was from A. M. that Mithraism was introduced into the Roman empire, for the sovereignty of which it contended with Christianity. Altho the enthusias- tic Dionysiac cult, which revolutionized Greek re- ligion, can not be claimed to be of A. M. or Asiatic origin (but cf. Davis, The Asiatic Dionysus), but rather of Thracian and Macedonian, yet Asiatic influences thereon can hardly be denied, esp. in view of the fact that Thrace and Macedonia were the home-lands of the Phrygian migrations into A. M. Moreover, the Ionian colonies would carry their Eleusinian trinity of Demeter, Dionysus and Persephone to A. M. where it would attract kindred conceptions. It is even suggested that the bisexual goddess and god of Phrygia may have been the prototypes of the Eleusinian deities. That Orphism was influenced by Asiatic, particularly Phrygian, ideas is beyond dispute. A. M. was also the home of the imperial cult, the attitude of Christians to which caused their faith to be proscribed and brought upon themselves bloody persecutions, which raged with greatest severity in A. M. This land was naturally the meeting place of the first great Coun- cils to define Christian doctrine and combat heresy. In addition to fostering Gnosticism A. M. produced Montanism, the most formidable heresy next to Gnosticism. But it gave the Church men like Paul, Basil, and the Gregories. III. Taz Roman Provinczs. 1. Asia. The Provincia Asia (Ac 16 6, 19 10, 22, 26; I Co 16 19, etc.), organized after the death of Attalus III of Pergamum in 133 B.c., comprised Mysia, Lydia (probably Caria also), and: the islands of the seaboard including Astypalea and Amorgos. Phrygia Major, tem- porarily annexed in 116 B.c., was not permanently incorporated until 49 B.c. Sulla reorganized the province in 84 B.c. (the Sullan Era). In imperial times A. belonged to the Senate, and was governed by a proconsul (residence at first Pergamum, then Ephesus). A. was divided into nine judicial dis- tricts and was further divided into 44 regiones (city districts), responsible for the taxes. The procurator Augusti Provincie Asie was the tax commissioner for the whole province. The cities of A. retained their native institutions (usually timocratical). But only citizens had a voice in the éxxAyolat and magistrates alone might introduce bills. The annually elected GBovrn, or council, survived. The yepoucl«, or Senate, had no political significance. The Aoytotat (chosen by the emperor) had charge of the city’s finances. The governor appointed the policemen, from a list sub- mitted by the GovAh. Tribal unions (xétvé) for the worship of the tribal god flourished everywhere; the nxotvoy “Actas (Commune Asie) instituted games and cared especially for the worship of Roma and Augus- tus; its delegates met yearly, wherever there were provincial temples, to offer prayers for the emperor, the Senate, and the Roman people, and to deliberate 75 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Asia Minor on matters affecting the whole province; it might criticize the proconsul and appeal to Rome. A. suffered greatly during the civil wars, especially at the hands of Antony, but recovered rapidly and was immensely wealthy during the first two cen- turies of our era. Her woolen industries and dyeing establishments (rugs and seamless garments) were famous, as also were her banks (cf. Rev. 1-3). 2. Bithynia. The boundaries of Bithynia (Ac 16 7; I P 11) varied much from time to time, but roughly speaking it was separated from Asia on the S. by the Rhyndacus and Sangarius, from Pontus on the E. by the Parthenius. In general mountainous, it has several broad plains and one large river (San- garius). It still abounds in forests. In the Argo- naut myth B. is inhabited by Bebrycians, who were displaced and absorbed by Thynian and Bithynian Thracians at a time unknown to history. The Thracians crossed the Bosporus gradually and maintained their language and customs in their new home. The name Bithynil, alone used in his- torical times, is an expansion of Thynii. The Bithyn- ians appear occasionally in early history as an inde- pendent, warlike, inhospitable people. In Persian times they were still under native chieftains, whose power grew gradually after the death of Alexander. Nicomedes I subdued all B., founded Nicomedia (264 B.c.), and extended his kingdom. Nicomedes III, the last king bequeathed his kingdom to the Romans 74 B.c. B. was organized as a Roman province (65 B.c.) by M. Iuncus, governor of Asia, but after the overthrow of Mithridates by Pompey (66 B.c.) Pontus was an- nexed to B. (Pontus et Bithynia, 62 B.c.). B. was governed in imperial times by a proconsul of pre- torian rank. Both B. and Pontus retained their xotvé&. Besides Priapus, the native god of the Bebrycians, the Bithynians worshiped Zeus on mountain-tops under the name of Papas, the Phrygian Attis, Ares, and the Tracian Bendis. 3. Cappadocia. Cappadocia, an Old Persian word katpa tuka (‘land of Tucha’) applied by Per- sians to the country NE. of the Taurus to the Euxine and from Lake Tatta to the Euphrates. The As- syrians called all C. Tabal. The inhabitants were also called Syrians, or White Syrians, as contradis- tinguished from the darker hued natives of Syria (perhaps a folk etymology). The Cappadocians were Aryans, altho probably there were Semitic set- tlements inC. The Persians divided C. into two satrapies, which ultimately became kingdoms: Cappadocia ad Taurum and Cappadocia ad Pontum (Pontus). C. became a Roman frontier province in 17 a.p. and was united with Armenia Minor in 72. C. became Christian at an early period (I P 1 1). To the Church it furnished Gregory of Nazianzus and St. Basil. The later capital of the Cappadocian priest kings was at Comana Aurea. It was the seat of the worship of Ma. Six thousand priestesses served in her temple. 4. Cilicia. By Cilicia was usually meant a coun- try in south eastern Asia Minor, bounded on the E. by the Amanus range, on the N. and the W. by the Taurus range (Lycaonia, Isauria); but in earliest times C. (Assyrian, Khilaku from which its name was derived) lay N. of the Taurus range, extending N. to beyond the Halys River (Pteria) and E. to the Kuphrates (Melitene). Cilicia proper (“The Plain’) was always intensely fertile, populous, and wealthy. It is well-watered by the rivers Sarus, Pyramus, and Cydnus. The coast is marshy. The climate is intensely hot in summer, very malarious, and deadly to travelers. C. is difficult of access by land: on the N. the Cilician gates (a narrow crevasse-like cleft in Taurus 83 m. long) constitute a dangerous, easily defended passage; on the E. are the Syro Cicilian gates and the Amanic gates, less difficult than the Cilician gates. The marshes pasture great herds of cattle and sheep. Western C., because moun- tainous, was called ‘Rugged Cilicia’ (Teaxetz, Tepax- et@ttc). Its chief river is the Calycadnus, where the Emperor Barbarossa was drowned. After experiencing many vicissitudes C. became with Lycia, a Roman province, 100 B.c. It was reorganized by Pompey, 66 B.c., after his defeat of Mithridates and the pirates whom he settled at Soli (Pompeiopolis). In 22 B.c. it became an im- perial province. Rugged Cilicia was long inde- pendent, under native kings, whose residence was at Olba. Under the Seleucid kings many Greeks set- tled in Tarsus, which became a center of trade and the seat of a school of philosophy. (See Tarsus). 5. Galatia. The Gauls, or Celts, appeared on the Adriatic coast about 300 B.c., and from 280 B.c. dis- tracted the Roman world under Belgius and Brennus After the repulse of Brennus at Thermopyle-Delphi, remnants of the mutinous army under Lutarius and Leonnorius crossed the Hellespont (278 B.c.) at the invitation of Nicomedes I (278-250 B.c.); helped him to subdue Bithynia, then settled in Lydia, Mysia, and Phrygia, whence they harassed west- ern Asia Minor as far as Syria, which paid them trib- ute. They were defeated by Antiochus I (281-261 B.c.). They were afterward defeated by Attalus I (about 235 B.c.), who confined them to a part of Phrygia (from Pessinus to Tavium), thenceforth known as Galatia (from TéAAo, Tadérat). They were divided into three tribes: Tolistobogii (in the Pessinus region), Tectosages (in the Ancrya region), Trocmi (in the Tavium region); each tribe was sub- divided into four tetrarchies. This pasture region— famous for its Angora goats and cats—suited the Gallic pastoral nomads, who prospered, and, altho defeated, were independent and continued to be troublesome. They became amalgamated with na- tives, and adopted the Greek language so rapidly— tho still speaking Celtic in the time of Jerome— that the Romans called them Gallo-Greci. In 65 n.c. the tetrarch Deiotarus, Cicero’s friend, was aided by Pompey in return for services rendered against Mithridates in suppressing the other eleven tetrarchs; Pompey made Deiotarus king of G. He died about 40 B.c., when Antony made Amyntas King of G., Pisidia, and parts of Lycaonia and Pam- phylia in 36 .c. At his death (25 B.c.) G. became a Roman province, with Ancrya as the residence of the pretorian legate. This Provincia Galatia com- prised G. proper and included portions of Phrygia, Lycaonia, Isauria, and western Pisidia to the Pam- phylian frontier. Further territory was annexed Asia Minor A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 76 ee i en ETN, from time to time: the principality of Deiotarus Philadelphus (western Paphlagonia) in 7 B.c., Se- bastopolis in 2 B.c., Comana Pontica (Pontus Ga- laticus) in 385 a.p. All this was the country known by Paul as Galatia. See Gaxatians, Ep. TO THE § 4.). The inhabitants still bear traces in their blue eyes and red hair of their Celtic descent. 6. Lycaonia. Lycaonia was situated on a high table land (3,000 ft.) N. of the Taurus range. Its boundaries fluctuated from time to time according to its varying political fortunes, but in general L. was bounded by Cappadocia, Phrygia, Pisidia, Isauria, and Cilicia. The northern part, in which Iconium is situated, is a vast, treeless, waterless (wells reach water at a depth of 20-30 ft.) plain or steppe (frequent mirages); the rivers that flow into this great land-locked basin disappear gradually and completely; the soil contains much salt and in places is semi-barren, but in general suitable for pasturing vast herds of fat-tailed sheep, of which Amyntas, King of Galatia had 300 herds. The Lycaonians were wild, warlike border-men, who maintained their independence in Persian times, but were conquered by the Macedonians. Their ethnical affinities are unknown. In 35 B.c. Amyntas, King of Galatia, defeated Antipater Derbetes, robber prince of southern L. and annexed his principality to Galatia. After the death of Amyntas (25 B.c.), most of L. passed with the kingdom of Galatia into Roman hands, and along with Galatia proper, parts of Phrygia, and western Pisidia to the Pamphylian frontier, formed the Provincia Galatia. The chief cities of L. were Iconium, Lystra, Derbe, Laodicea Combusta, Laranda, Parlais. ‘The whole region 8. of Iconium abounds in Christian inscrip- tions and ruins of Christian churches. 7. Lycia. Lycia (Ac 27 5) was bounded by Caria, Phrygia, Pisidia, Pamphylia, and the sea. The country is very mountainous. The views from al- pine highlands are the finest in Asia Minor. The mountain valleys: are fertile. There is only one broad valley, that of the Xanthus, distinguished for its fertility and its many cities. The first inhabitants of L., known as Solymi, were famed among the Greeks as builders of Cyclo- pean walls in Greece; they have left proof of their cunning in sculptures and rock-cut tombs which imitate wood construction. It is uncertain when L. became a Roman province. It espoused the cause of Cesar and was conquered by Brutus. L. was given freedom by Antony, but in 43 a.p. it was again a Roman province, under a legate. In Roman times L. had become thoroughly Hellenized in speech and manners, and her people were very prosperous, as the remains of magnificent theaters and other build- ings attest. 8. Lydia. Lydia was named from Lydus, son of the sun-god Attis. In Assyrian the Lydians were called Luddi (660 B.c.). The earliest Greek name was Mzonia. The Greeks assigned two dynasties to L. in mythical times: Attyade and Sandonide, or Heraclide. The Sandonide dynasty reigned for about 450 years, and was supplanted by the Merm- nade in the person of Gyges 687 B.c. Ardys, Gyges’ son, was tributary to Assyria. Alyattes (612- 563 B.c.) expelled the Cimmerians, destroyed the Phrygian Kingdom, and took the Greek cities of the seaboard, allowing them to retain their native in- stitutions, altho they paid tribute. Alyattes’ son Croesus became famous for his wealth (his gifts to Delphi alone aggregated $6,000,000). After ruling 15 years, he was conquered by Cyrus (546 B.c.), who annexed L. to Persia, when Sardis became the western capital of the Persian Empire. The Lyd- ians, who hitherto had been brave and warlike, were made effeminate by the Persians. In 189 B.c. L. was given by the Romans to Eumenes, and at the death of Attalus III of Pergamum (133 B.c.) it was incorporated into the Provincia Asia. The © Lydians were natural merchants, devoted them- selves to commerce, and became business mediaries between Asia and Greece. The ‘Lydian market’ was famous and followed every army. ‘They manu- factured costly garments, rugs (Giérdiz, Ushak,) dyed woolen stuffs (madder, Turkey red), cast bronze, and were the first to coin money by stamp- ing a rude ingot of electrum, which Croesus replaced by gold and silver. They were musicians, and also kept the first inns. They gradually lost their na- tionality and adopted the Greek language. ‘They inherited from the Hittites the nature-worship of Cybele; and the sun-god Attis, the son-husband of Cybele, who mutilated himself and was therefore served by eunuch priests. His death by a boar meant that summer was slain by the boar-tusk of winter. The chief cities of L. were Sardis (the capital and the terminus of the Persian ‘Royal Road’), Phila- delphia, Thyatira, Magnesia ad Sipylum, Hypepa. L. was Christianized at an early period as a result of the labors of Paul and his companions. 9. Mysia. Mysia, a country in the northwestern corner of Asia Minor, whose boundaries fluctuated fromitime to time, but, loosely speaking, it was bound- ed by Lydia (Mt. Temnus), Phrygia, and Bithynia (Mt. Olympus, 6,000 ft.). It was divided into Troas (probably the first settlement of the Briges, or Phrygians, on Asiatic soil), Phrygia Parva on the Propontis (so named because subject to Phrygia when the Greeks were founding colonies), Aolis (Greek colonists), Teuthrania (Pergamum region), and M. proper, which in Lydian and Persian times was confined to the interior. The appellation Mysia was not applied to all this territory until Pergame- nian and Roman times. The Mysians maintained their tribal independence under the Persian kings, altho they were never really an independent nation. Their language was a combination of Phrygian and Lydian. They appear first as allies of Troy. In 133 B.c. M. became a part of the Provincia Asia. The interior of M. is a table-land, stepped by mountains running E. and W. It was once covered by forests, and had but few cities, but the whole sea- board was dotted with cities colonized by Greeks from Elza in AXolis to Cyzicus. The most impor- tant city of the interior was Pergamum; among those on the coast were Cyzicus, Lampsacus; Abydus, Alexandria Troas, Assos, Adramyttium Myrina, Elea. The inhabitants of M. were Phrygians, 77 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Asia Minor Trojans, Aéolian Greeks, and Mysians proper in the interior: the latter were a pastoral folk, who played but a small role in history. 10. Pamphylia. Pamphylia, a name applied originally to the level coastal plain lying between Lycia and Cilicia, S. of the Taurus Mountains (Pisidia). The plain is about 75 m. long by 30 m. wide. Atanearly period Greek colonies were found- ed at Olbia (afterward Attalia) and Side, whose sphere of influence was extended inland to Perga, Sillenus, and Aspendus. The Pamphylians were never independent and never made their mark in history; they seem to have been an admixture of aborigines and Greek colonists; their language and institutions also were partly Greek, partly barbarian. After the defeat of Antiochus ITI, P. was presented by the Romans to Attalus IJ, King of Pergamum, who made Attalia (Olbia) the capital of P. It passed, by the will of Attalus III (133 B.c.), to Rome, and at an uncertain date was united with Cilicia into a Roman province. Cicero was governor of Cilicia- Pamphylia-Cyprus. For a short time P. was a part of the kingdom of Amyntas of Galatia (36-25 B.c.). It formed a procuratorial province from 25 to 50 a.pv. Both Cilicians and Pamphylians were notorious pirates, whose chief center and slave- market was at Side. ‘These pirates were suppressed by Pompey (67 B.c.) and settled at Soli in Cilician territory. In summer the climate is deadly, giving rise to pernicious fever. 11. Phrygia. The original boundaries of Phrygia were vague, but in prehistoric times it included the whole western interior of Asia Minor, extending through Propontis to the Hellespont (Phrygia Parva). The Greeks considered the Phrygians the primeval people, who spoke the original language of man, while her kings were peers of gods. The Phrygian kingdom supplanted a part of the Hittite Empire (the Hittite road, afterward the ‘Royal Road’ of the Persians, passed near ‘Midas-town’). The western part of P. was annexed to Pergamum in 189 (Phrygia Epictetus). It passed, by the will of Attalus III (133), to Rome, and was incorporated into the province of Asia. The Phrygians were akin to the Greeks, who thought them akin to the Armenians. They prob- ably came from Europe via the Hellespont to Asia Minor, tho some may: have come overland via Armenia-Cappadocia. They were most famous in prehistoric times and made a profound impression on the Greek mind (cf. Midas, Gordius, Marsyas, Olympus, the flute). Their chief deities were Cybele (Matar Kubile, the ‘Asiatic Mother,’ asso- ciated with the nature-worship of procreative power in animals and plants) and her son-husband the sun- god Sabazius-Alttis (t.e., Tammuz, the Greek Adonis). His autumnal festivals were sad, accompanied by orgiastic rites and self-mutilations, while in his spring festivals frenzied joy prevailed at the reappear- ance of the god, expressed by orgiastic dances, and bacchanalian wanderings in forest to the music of the flute. There was no real marriage, only tem- porary unions. Women gained dowries by prosti- tution before the deity, without losing caste; there- fore descent was reckoned from the mother. P. was converted to Christianity at an early period (entirely Christian by 300). But their early train- ing in mysticism bore fruits in Montanism, which was strenuously opposed by Abercius, the great Phrygian saint. 12. Pisidia. Pisidia was a district of southern Asia Minor. Its boundaries fluctuated much at different times, especially in the western end. Loose- ly speaking, it was bounded by Isauria, Cilicia, Pamphylia, Lycia, Caria, and Phrygia. The na- tionality of the Pisidians (first mentioned by Xeno- phon) is uncertain. Some regard them as Solymi, but Strabo says that the language of the Pisidians was distinct from that of the Solymi. They were brave, wild, lawless, liberty-loving border-men, who made frequent predatory incursions into neigh- boring territory. They offered a stubborn resis- tance to Alexander and continued to be governed by native dynasts, even when nominally a part of a Roman province. Indeed, up to 189 B.c. part of the western end of P. formed a separate principality (capital Cibyra). It belonged nominally to the Seleucids till 189 (the eastern end till 102). Under the Pergamenian kings it was united with Pamphylia. In 36 B.c. Antony made Amyntas king of Galatia, western Pisidia, and parts of Lycaonia and Pamphyl- ia. At the death of Amyntas (25 B.c.) his kingdom (including western P.) became a Roman province with Ancrya as the residence of a pretorian legate. In 44 a.p. the western end of P. was added to Phryg- ia as part of Asia and in 72 a.p. to Lycia-Pam- phylia. P. is a rugged, impassable, alpine country, con- taining the highest peaks of the Taurus range with thrilling scenery, and a salubrious climate on its elevated table-lands. The memory of Paul’s visit is still preserved in a village named Baulo, on a lofty plateau above the source of the Cestrus. The name was given to the place probably because Paul rested some time in the invigorating climate of Baulo, with its sublime views. P., strangely enough, had many important wealthy cities: Antioch, Sagalassus (on an elevated plateau at the foot of an overhanging mountain), Cremna (on very top of a lofty, inac- cessible crag; streets still clear and distinct), Ter- messus, Selge. Educated Pisidians adopted the Greek language, while the peasantry clung to the native tongue and had but a smattering of Greek. P. contains many magnificent ruins and Greek and Latin inscriptions, chiefly of the Roman period. 13. Pontus. Pontus, is not an ethnic but a ter- ritorial designation, applied after Alexander to the country lying between the River Halys and Colchis, part of which originally belonged to Cappadocia, while the rest remained independent under native dynasts. The real importance of P. begins with the kings of Persian stock named Mithridates (from 337 B.c. on). Mithridates VI (Eupator), the Great, 121-63, reigned over a kingdom which in- cluded most of Asia Minor and extended around the Black Sea to the Cimmarian Bosporus (Tauric Cher- sonesus). Defeated by Pompey in 66, he retreated to Tauric Chersonesus, where, besieged by his son Pharnaces, he committed suicide (63 B.c.), which Asiarch Assyria A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 78 rnc RS ta ee ended the kingdom of P. Nicomedes III of Bithyn- ia bequeathed his kingdom to Rome (74 B.c.), and after the overthrow of Mithridates (66) P. was an- nexed to Bithynia (62), and the combined province was known as Bithynia et Pontus (a senatorial prov- ince in 27 B.c.). The rest of Mithridates’ kingdom was given to native dynasts; Deiotarus received the western interior between the Iris and Halys rivers (Pontus Galaticus). Pontus Polemoniacus received its name because it was given by Antony (36 B.c.) to Polemon Eusebes of Laodicea ad Lycum, part of whose kingdom went with his widow Pythodoris (granddaughter of Antony) to Archelaus of Cappadocia (thenceforth known as Pontus Cappadocius). Polemon II ceded the kingdom to Nero 63 a.p., when P. became a separate province, but in 111 a.p. Pliny was consular legate with proconsular power in Bithynia et Pontus. The people of P. were rude, warlike, barbarous, and known in earliest times by Greeks as ‘white Syrians.’ Amasia was the capital of Mithridates VI and from 7 B.c. the residence of the Roman gov- ernor. Comana Pontica, to distinguish it from Comana Aurea, was a seat of the worship of Ma, and the residence of independent priest-kings (cf. the Amazon myth.) LireraTurRE: Mommsen, Provinces of the Rom. Empire (1885); Ramsay, The Historical Geography of Asia Minor (1890); J. Weiss in PRE}, vol. 10, art. ‘“Kleinasien’”’ (with full bibliog- raphy). S. A. ASIARCH, é@’shi-Grk (’Acthexns) ‘the chief of Asia,’ AV., ‘chief officers of Asia’ RV (Ac 19 31). There is much uncertainty about the exact nature and function of the Asiarchs. Space precludes dis- cussion of the two main views, with diversity of details: (1) The A. were religio-political officials who presided over the annual assembly of civic deputies, the Commune Asie, with which was combined a festival in honor of the reigning em- peror and games (xowdActac). Thus they united ritual and administrative functions. The A. in office would be president of the Diet of Asia. They were iden- tical with the deyxtepets *Actac. They were pro- vincial high-priests of the temples of the imperial cult in Asia (So Mommsen. Marquardt, Light- foot, Ramsay) (2) Brandis (in Pauly-Wissowa RE arts. Asiarches and Archiereus) denies their identity with ‘the high-priests of Asia,’ and reduces the A. from provincial officials to municipal delegates of individual cities to the provincial assembly. We read of similar dignitaries in other provinces, Bithy- niarch, Syriarch, Galatarch, Lyciarch. The term of office was for a year (four years, according to Ramsay). The cost of the festivals was defrayed by the A., and hence only wealthy men were eligible. The dignity was so highly esteemed that it is often mentioned in inscriptions. The multiplication of temples of the cult of Rome and the emperor and the increasing number of these who had a right to the title reduced the A. to mere providors of festivals in honor of the emperor. The function became obsolete in 297 when Diocletian partitioned Asia into seven small provinces. It is significant that Paul had friends among those who, on either of the above views, should at least have been supporters of the imperial cult to which the Lordship of Jesus was an implicit challenge. cf. Mommsen Provinces I p. 344 ff. LirERATURE: Lightfoot, St. Ignatius and Polycarp II p. 987 f.; Ramsay, St. Paul 280 f., Clas. Rev. III p. 174; Brandis, op. Cit. 8. A. ASIEL, @'si-cl (?8°BY, ‘Gs7’él), ‘God is [my] ma- ker’: A Simeonite ‘prince’ (I Ch 4 35). ASKELON, as‘ki-lon. See ASHKELON. ASMODZUS, as’’mo-di’us: An evil spirit men- tioned in To 37 ff. See DemMono.oey, § 3. ASNAH, as’na (398, ’asnah), ‘thornbush’: The ancestral head of one of the families of the Nethinim (Ezr 2 50). ASNAPPER, as-nap’er. See OSNAPPER, ASP. See Patsstine, § 26. ASPATHA, as-pé’fha (80208, ’aspatha’): One of Haman’s ten sons (Est 9 7). ASRIEL, as’ri-el (28°W8, ’asri’él): The ancestor of the Manassite clan of Asrielites in Gilead (Nu 26 31; Jos 17 2). The occurrence of the name in the variant genealogical notice in I Ch 7 14 (Ashriel AV) is probably a scribal error. E. E. N. ASS: The ass was domesticated very early and is mentioned in the earliest literature of the O T as an animal with which the Hebrews were well acquainted and used extensively. The ox and the ass were the two animals that the ordinary Israelite, as a farmer, would be most likely to have (Ex 20 17, etc.). The horse came into use in Israel at a comparatively late period and then only as an animal for riding or for war, not as a work-animal (cf. the figures for the two animals at the Return, Ezr 2 68 f.) The ass, on the other hand, was used both for riding and for work. The O T distinguishes between (1) the hdmér, (so called probably, from its predominantly reddish color) the male animal, the ordinary beast of burden (cf. Gn 42 26 ff., 49 14, etc.), also used for riding, fre- quently by women (cf. Ex 4 20; Jos 15 18; 1S 25 23). (2) The ’Gihdn, the she-ass, a favorite for riding (Nu 22 21 ff.; If K 4 22); white (or nearly so) she-asses were considered especially valuable (Jg 5 10). (8) The ‘ayir or ass’s colt 7.e., probably a young in dis- tinction from an old, worn-out animal, finds frequent mention (Jg 10 4; Is 30 6, 24; cf. Mk 11 2 and ||; Jn 12 15). The possessor of large herds of asses was a rich man (cf. Gn 12 16, 32 15; Job 1 3, etc.). The wild ass, pere’ and ‘arédh, which goes in herds, but also loves solitude (Hos 89), untamable, rejoicing in its freedom (Job 39 5), is at home only in the desert (Job 24 5; Jer 22 4). See also PALESTINE, § 24. HK. E. N. ASSASSINS (‘murderers’ AV): The RV so ren- ders atxkerot, Sicarizt (derived from sica, a curved sword, small enough to be carried under the cloak), meaning strictly ‘daggermen.’ They were a semi- political party in the troubled period that culmin- ated in the war with Rome and were called ‘assass- ins’ from their promptly resorting to murder to ac- complish their ends. A band of such men led by the ‘Egyptian’ into the desert is referred to in Ac 21 38. Jos Ant., XX 85; BJ II, 13 3 f., IV 7 2 ff. ete. A. C. Z. 79 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Asiarch Assyria ASSEMBLY: I. In O T: The rendering of a number of original Heb. and Grk. terms of which (5) and (7) below are the most important. (1) md‘édh, an ‘ap- pointed’ meeting (Ps 74 4; La 115,26). (2) mdshabh, ‘seat’ (Ps 107 32). (8) migra’, convocation (Is 113, 45). (4) sddh, ‘circle of intimate friends’ (Jer 611, 1517). (5) ‘édhah, an ‘appointed’ gathering (the congregation of Israel); in RV only in Pr 5 14. (6) ‘dtsereth, a ‘compulsory’ meeting, generally rendered ‘solemn assembly’ (LV 23 36, ete.) (7) qahal, the ‘assembly’ of Is. as a theocratic unit, frequently used with (5) nearly always rendered ‘assembly’ in RV (Ex 126, 16 3, etc.). A derived word, g¢hilldah, is used in Dt 33 4; Neh 57. Il. In N T: (1) éxxAnola, the concourse in the the- ater (Ac 19 32, 41; cf. ver. 39). (2) cuveywyh, ‘syna- gogue,’ ?. e., church meeting (Ja 22). (3) wavhyvets, a ‘whole assembly’ (Heb 12 23). E. E. N. ASSHUR, ash’tr. See Assyria, §§ 1, 2. ASSHURIM, a-shi’rim. See ErHnoGRAPHY AND Erunouoey, § 13. ASSIDAANS, as’’i-di’anz. See PHarisrEsEs, § 3. ASSIR, as’er (128, ’assir), ‘captive’: 1. The name of two Levites (Ex 6 24=I Ch 6 22 and I Ch 6 23, 37). 2. In I Ch 317, AV (ason of Jeconiah). But RV has the more correct reading, ‘Jeconiah the captive.’ EK. E. N, ASSOS, as’es ("Ascoc, Ac 20 13f.): A town sit- uated on a lofty hill on the southern coast of the Troad, 20 m. from Troas. Its ruins are extensive. The docks at Constantinople were constructed from its ancient buildings. The mole is still extant. It is now called Behram- Kalessi. J.R.S.8.—S. A. ASSYRIA, a-sir’l-o: 1. The Name. Assyria is the Gr. form of Heb. VWS8, Asshur, which designates in O T, for the most part, the Assyrian land and people, and also the extension of the kingdom as embracing the whole Assyrian Empire. In some later writings, the empires succeeding the Assyrian are referred to by the same name, e.g., the later Babylonian (Lam 5 6) and the Persian (Ezr 6 22), the reason being that Assyria was the original compre- hensive type, and therefore a natural representative — of a great Asiatic empire. 2. Earliest History. Asshur was first of all the name of the patron god of a community of Babylo- nian emigrants, who named after him their first permanent settlement, founded on the right bank of the Tigris, north of its junction with the lower Zab. This city remained for a time the principal seat of the new nation and was always the chief frontier station toward the south, the lower Zab being nor- mally the border of Assyria proper. Gradually the colonists moved northward, and passing the upper Zab they established several fortresses between that river, the Tigris itself, and the Zagros chain of mountains to the north. 3. Nineveh and Its Group of Cities. The chief of these walled cities were Calah and Nineveh, which formed the center of the kingdom. This historical process is outlined in Gn 10 10, where Nimrod (cf. ver. 9) represents the eponymous founder (Mic 5 6) of Babylonian and Assyrian civilization and history. ‘Out of that land he went forth into Assyria, and built Nineveh and Rehoboth-Ir and Calah and Resen between Nineveh and Calah.’ In this list Rehoboth- Ir is Ribit Nina, the modern Mosul, and the site of Resen is unknown. No mention is made of the city of Asshur in the O T, perhaps because it had ceased to have any importance by the time when the Hebrew traditions took shape. 4. National Character. The Assyrians, as con- trasted with the Babylonians, were a more hardy, warlike, independent people, with less general intellectual talent and enterprise, but with more political genius than the Babylonian or indeed than any other branch of the Semitic race. Their territory, being almost entirely mountainous or rugged, altho fertile, was not, upon the whole, as productive as the Babylonian. The struggle for existence was made keener by attacks from robber bands of the northern and eastern mountains. Wars on a larger scale with the Guté and the Kasshites, or Cosseans, of the S. and E., and with many tribes and nations of the N., such as the Kurds, who still control the same region as of old, trained them for systematic military opera- tions and gave these Romans of the East a discipline unprecedented among Oriental peoples. 5. Purity of Race. The Assyrians, in contrast with the Babylonians, represented also the idea of Semitic independence and exclusiveness. Their emigration was made either before or at the time of the subjuga- tion of Babylonia by the Elamites. They successfully resisted the attacks of the Cosseans, who later ruled in Babylon for ‘ nearly five centuries. # Their religion, altho essen- tially Babylonian, was less adulterated with foreign elements. Their ancestors in N. Babylonia were of that genuine Semitic stock which has left no trace of ‘Sumerian’ influence either politically or in its oldest literarary monuments. Finally, the numerous sculptured representations of Assyrian faces bear an unmistakable Semitic stamp. 6. Periods of History. The history of Assyria may be divided into three periods marked respec- tively: (1) by dependence upon Babylonia, (2) by a long struggle for supremacy, (3) by the attainment and maintenance of preeminent dominion. I. Periop oF DEPENDENCY. 7. Dependence on Babylonia. The first period may be regarded also as a section of Babylonian history, for not only Assyria but the whole region W. to the Mediterranean was during most of the time under the control of Babylonia. The relations of friendship with the parent country were frequently disturbed, during the centuries between the founding of the colony and the era of the collapse of the old Babylonian world-empire, about 1746 B.c., when Babylonia proper came under the control of the non-Semitic Head of an Assyrian Assyria . A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 80 Cosseans. During this period the supreme rulers were not ‘kings,’ but ‘regents of the god Asshur.’ Such an appellation implies semi-independence of Babylonia, which was wisely permitted under the regime of Hammurabi and his successors. Complete independence and the assumption of kingship on the part of the rulers begins with Puzur-Ashir I, about 2080 B.c. II. Srrua@e_e For Supremacy. 8. Rivalry with Babylonia. ‘The second period (c. 1745-745 B.c.) shows Assyria as a rival of Babylonia and an in- creasingly aggressive power generally. The Cosseans domination in Babylonia gave the Assyrians the opportunity and justification for proclaiming them- selves heirs of the old Babylonian dominion, and the great rulers of Assyria speak of themselves frequently as successors of the famous kings of the oldest dynasties of Babylonia. The inheritance naturally included the right first of all to the Mesopotamian territory through which passed the highways of western traffic. This was secured after several centuries of bitter conflict with the growing Aramean settlements EK. of the Euphrates. Assyria on the whole became continually stronger and Babylonia continually weaker. Already in the 12th cent. B.c., under the great Tiglath-pileser I, Assyria had, in addition to Mesopotamia, subdued the most for- midable nations of the northern and northwestern highlands as far as Cappadocia, and Assyrian armies had overrun Syria as far as the Phenician coast-line. But these efforts could not be repeated; and it was not till the 10th cent. that they were systematically resumed. Meanwhile the Arameans had founded their great settlements W. of the Euphrates, and Palestine had come largely under the control of the Hebrews, while both Assyria and Babylonia were enfeebled and inactive. 9. First Contact with Israel. It was in consequence of another revival of Assyrian power and aggression that Israel first came in contact with the empire of the Tigris in 854 B.c. The situation created in that year was typical. Shalmaneser III (860-824 B.c.), whose annals are engraved on the famous black obelisk in the British Museum, was now king of Assyria. He was repeating and extending the con- quests of his father, the warlike and cruel Asshur- nasirpal (885-860 B.c.). He was approaching Hamath from the N., and a combination of twelve of the western states was formed against him. The lead was taken by Ben-hadad II, the king of Da- mascus, by this time the most powerful nation on the Mediterranean coast-land. Damascus was also normally a bitter enemy of northern Israel; but just in that year the peace of Aphek (I K 20 36) had been concluded, and Israel under Ahab is mentioned by Shalmaneser as contributing a strong contingent to the defensive force. Other peoples represented were Ammonites and Arabians from E. of Palestine, and perhaps more remarkable still was a contingent from Que, the Cilician Plain. The battle which en- sued was indecisive, but Shalmaneser was inter- rupted in his march of conquest. 10. Attempts on the West-land. As a result of subsequent campaigns the Assyrians succeeded in breaking the leadership of Damascus in the W., so that in 842 Jehu, the ursurping king of Israel, found it to his interest to send gifts to Shalmaneser and thus become an Assyrian vassal. Assyria, however, was overstraining herself, and Damascus had a reprieve from attack for forty years, during which time the Syrians were able to exert their strength, especially under Hazael, against both Israel and Judah. But the Aramean capital was at last taken in 797 by Adad-nirari III (807-783) and never again became the seat of a first-class power. The strength of Assyria, however, became exhausted by strenuous attempts at extension in all directions, and for nearly half a century it had enough to do to maintain its hold even upon Mesopotamia. Til. AssyRIA SUPREME IN SovutTHwest ASIA. — 11. Reorganization of the Empire. A series of in- surrections in several important centers was ended in 745 B.c. by the accession to the throne of the most original and far-seeing of Assyrian rulers, Tiglath- pileser III (q.v.), also known in the Bible by his Babylonian name of Pul (II K 1519). His policy was to put all troublesome states under direct Assyrian administration, and to hold the tributaries under a rigid system of probation whereby sedition or intrigue with outside peoples was punished with heavy fines and increase of tribute. Such penalties were usually so severe that insurrection was resorted to for relief, and direct annexation was the almost invariable reprisal. Thus the work of empire- build- ing was reduced to a system for the first time in the world’s history. His military policy was to keep in check the northern and eastern mountain tribes by occupying their territory, a process which involved terrible and frequent wars; to make Assyrian prov- inces of the recalcitrant states; to make tributaries of the rest by virtue of his rightful prerogative, since all of them had at one time or another become vassals or wards of Assyria; to bring Babylonia under Assyrian control; and to make Nineveh the capital of the Semitic world. 12. Achievements or Tiglath-pileser III. By 738 B.c. all northern and middle Syria had been made an integral part of the Assyrian realm. In that year Menahem of Israel bought off Tiglath-pileser with an immense sum of money (II K 15 17-20). In 734 the Assyrians returned to Palestine, where the new king Pekah had formed an alliance against the in- vaders and attempted to coerce Ahaz of Judah into joining the combination (Is ch. 7). Ahaz sought Assyrian protection. Tiglath-pileser, ‘within the next two years, dethroned Pekah and put him to death, made a province of Israel N. of the plain of Jezreel, took the city of Damascus, extorted enormous tributed from the Phenician seaports, and appointed his own creatures to rule over the Philistine cities (II K 15 29 ff.). Hoshea, who was placed over the dismembered kingdom of Israel, kept up tribute-pay:ng till the death of the great Assyrian, but he revolted at the instigation of the Egyptian princes of the Delta in 724, the third year of Shalmaneser V. Samaria was at once invaded and was taken at the close of 722. The principal inhabitants were deported to distant provinces of the empire (II K 17). The fall of Samaria coincided with the death of Shalmaneser 81 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY : Assyria and the accession of Sargon, the founder of the last and greatest Assyrian dynasty. 13. The Work Done by Sargon. The reign of Sargon (722-705 B.c.) was even more important than that of Tiglath-pileser, since he consolidated and confirmed the work of the latter. During his reign the empire assumed permanent shape and substantive existence. The west was carefully watched, and the way to Egypt prepared and guarded. A rebellion in Ashdod was put down in 711 (cf. Is 20), and Judah, now a recognized vassal state, was warned against intriguing with Egypt and the Philistines. More important was the work accomplished in Babylonia. There the priesthood of Babylon had been favorable to Assyrian inter- vention under Tiglath-pileser. But a formidable rival had arisen in the south, by the Gulf, where the Chaldean chiefs were asserting their claims against all intruders (see BaBytonta, § 19). The famous Merodach-baladan (q.v.) had, in fact, made himself king of Babylon, and it was not until the twelfth year of Sargon that he was dislodged. Sargon then made himself regent of the country under the gods of Babylon. 14. Sennacherib. On the death of Sargon and the accession of his son Sennacherib (705-681 B.c.) a great revolt was set on foot. It was headed by Hezekiah of Judah in the west with the cooperation of the Philistines and the backing of Egypt. In 701 Sennacherib invaded the country. The allies of Hezekiah were defeated, Judah itself ravaged up to the gates of Jerusalem, and many of its inhabitants carried into exile, while the capital was saved only after a terrible plague had decimated the Assyrian army when about to invade Egypt (II K 18 13-19 37). It is still not quite certain, but seems probable, that Sennacherib made two attempts to take Jerusalem, the first in 701, the second when he was making a campaign against Arabia and Egypt. It was in this second campaign that the plague occurred to which Herodotus (II, 141) was also making allusion under the figure of a plague of mice invading the Assyrian camp. 15. The Acme of Power. Politically this disaster to Assyria was only a minor incident, and Judah remained a vassal of Assyria until the fall of Nineveh. Esarhaddon (681-688), one of the greatest of the Assyrian kings, enlarged the empire by the annexa- tion of Egypt. Asshurbanipal (668-626) put down revolt in Egypt, but had to relinquish its sovereignty in or about 645 B.c. A great rebellion in Babylonia, headed by Asshurbanipal’s brother as viceroy, was put down with terrible severity, and Elam, which had long opposed the Assyrian advances in Baby- lonia, was finally conquered. 16. Fall of Assyria. This rounded out the achieve- ments of Assyrian empire-building. But the majestic structure soon began to fall apart through internal strain and the assaults of the Scythians of the north; and at last its cornerstone, the mighty fortress of Nineveh, was stormed by the soldiers of the new and virile empire of the Medes. The city was besieged by Cyaxares, with Chaldean assistance, in 614 B.c., and fell by assault in August 612. An Assyrian noble, bearing the historic name of Ashur-uballit escaped and proclaimed himself king of Assyria with Harran as his capital. There he was attacked by Nabo- polassar, and with help of the Medes driven out and his new capital sacked. He later appeared as an ally of Necho II when he invaded Asia, but is soon lost in obscurity. In his person the Assyrian Empire ceased. 17. Importance of the Assyrian Monuments. The resurrected monuments of Assyria, abundant and varied as they are, are perhaps of less importance to the student of civilization than the vast and ever-increasing array of Babylonian antiquities. They do, however, supply great defects and gaps in the Babylonian records, partly because the longer- lived nation had little taste for the chronicling of political and military events, and partly because much of the best Assyrian literature consists of tran- scripts of invaluable Babylonian documents whose originals have not yet been found. On the other hand, the Assyrian inscriptions, and especially the royal annals, are the most valuable material illus- trative of the O T which antiquity has yielded up. By means of them we have obtained a reliable frame- work for Biblical chronology during the most im- portant period of Hebrew history, and the history itself during the same period has been rearranged, readjusted, and made organically intelligible. More important still is the commentary upon O T proph- ecy which they afford. For example, the records of Assyrian warfare explain and vindicate the most powerful exposure and arraignment of imperialistic aggression ever made, and at the same time help us to understand, better perhaps than any modern in- stances, the other declaration of prophecy, that vainglorious national ambition and even inter- national strife have a providential mission of chastening and humiliation. Perhaps most important of all is that we are now shown by the Assyrian annals how prophecy itself was conditioned by and shaped in accordance with the successive movements of Assyria upon the western lands, and the complica- tions that resulted therefrom. 18. Art and Religion. The Assyrian people in the arts of architecture and sculpture alone excelled the contemporary Babylonians. Of more importance to us is their religion, not only because it affected the worship of Israel (II K 2311f.; cf. 16 11 ff.), but also because it stands in such close causal relation with the political and military system of the Assyrians themselves. Just because the empire of the Tigris was a concentrated unit, ever striving to realize itself in action, the cult of Asshur, the patron god of the Assyrians, became more and more emphasized, as contrasted with that of the other gods whom they worshiped in common with the Babylonians, their political and military rivals. It is true that the foundation of their religious system was of Baby- lonian origin, and certain of the gods, such as the theoretical supreme triad, Anu, Bel, and Ea, Shamash the sun-god, Sin the moon-god, Adad the thunder-god, and Ishtar the deification of the female principle, were retained and honored. But their own deity, Asshur, who was not in the Babylonian pan- theon, came to be looked on as the potential possessor of all the moral attributes of the other divinities. Astronomy Athens A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY $2 Asshur was also first and foremost a war-god, be- cause war was the most genuine and spontaneous expression of the national religion. Thus it happened that when Assyria passed away as an empire the cult of Asshur was ipso facto extinguished, while Marduk of Babylon survived the political destruction of Semitism under Cyrus and the Persians. Literature: For the history and civilization: Rogers, His- tory of Babylonia and Assyria, 6th ed. 1915; Olmstead, His- tory of Assyria, 1923, for relations to the Bible: Schrader, Die Keilinschriften und das alte Testament (2d ed. 1883, Engl. tr. by Whitehouse, is referred to as COT; 3d ed., a new work, by Winckler and Zimmern, 1903); McCurdy, History, Proph- ecy, and the Monuments, 1894-1901 (containing also a con- nected political history of the ancient Semites) ; Price The Monuments and the Old Testament, 1900; Pinches, The Old Testament in the Light of the Records of Assyria and Baby- lonia, 1902; Rogers, Cunetform Parallels to the Old Testament 1912. For the general subject the best résumés are Murison, Babylonia and Assyria (Bible Class Primers), 1900, and the articles on ‘‘ Assyria”? and “‘ Babylonia’ in EB by King; and for the religion, Jastrow, Religion of Babylonia and Assyria, 1898. J. F. McC.—R. W. R. ASTRONOMY AND ASTROLOGY: 1. Scope and Nature. In the current cosmology of Biblical times, the earth is not a part of the starry universe, but a flat surface, on which the heavens rest like an inverted bowl. Astronomy does not therefore include an account of the earth, but only of the heavenly bodies. These were thought to be fixed in the firmament, not absolutely, for they move along cer- tain paths in definite periods (Jos 10 12; Is 38 8), and can be detached thence and fall (Mt 24 29; Rev 9 1). The whole view is not animated by scientific interest and therefore can not be called a theory. It takes cognizance of those facts only which have practical bearings. This is true both of the O T and the N T. Winckler’s theory, that the Semitic peoples, including the Hebrews, con- ceived of the world and human history as con- stituted upon and ruled by principles resident in the heavenly bodies (see Winckler, Himmels und Weltenbild der Babylonier, 1901; Die Babylonische Weltschépfung, 1906) finds no support in Biblical data. 2. The Sun and Moon. The sun (shemesh, toc) is the most splendid of God’s works (Ps 19 5-7). Its course is continuous and includes a section under the earth traversed at night (Kc 15). It is the source of heat and light for the earth. Its darkening is the sign and expression of great calamities. Hence, ‘the sun shall be darkened at midday’ may describe the occurrence of an eclipse, always an occasion of superstitious dread among unscientific peoples Is 13 10; Jl 2 10; Am 89; Mt 24 29; Mk 13 24; Rev 6 12). The moon (ydréah, poet., lsbhanadh, seAhvn) is the substitute of the sun for the night period (Gn 1 16; Ps 121 6, 186 9). Eclipses of the moon may be alluded to in the expression the ‘moon turned into blood’ (Jl 2 31; Rev 6 12). 3. The Stars. Of the stars (kdkhdbhim, dotépes) as objects of interest in themselves, no account is made. In a small number of allusions, however, it is possible to detect current astronomical notions. The whole of the starry firmament as a body is called ‘the host of heaven’ (Gn 2 1), altho that phrase does not always convey the same meaning (I K 22 19; IT Ch 18 18). Of individual stars, including planets, Venus is mentioned under the name ‘Day Star’ (‘Lucifer, son of the morning’ AV, Is 1412). Saturn appears under the name of Chiun (Am 5 26; AV and ERV, but ARV, ‘the shrine’). But the fact that the star is alluded to as an object of worship renders the reference to Saturn quite probable (cf. also Ac 7 43, ‘Rephan’, (Gr. Pogay, probably Saturn). 4. Constellations. The grouping of the stars into constellations appears in general (Is 13 10), and in the mention of individual constellations as follows: (1) Orion (k*stl, Am 58 which according to the Semitic conception, represents a slow-witted giant chained to the skies; hence the question in Job 38 31, ‘Canst thou loose the bands of Orion?’ suggesting the impotence of man as compared with the omni- — potence of God (cf. also Job 99). (2) The Great Bear (‘a@sh, Job 9 9, 38 32, Arcturus AV). In the latter passage the sons of the Bear ‘the train’ RV) are the three stars in the tail of the constellation. By some, however, this constellation is identified with the Pleiades, which is compared to a hen with her brood. Schiapparelli argues convincingly (Astr, in O T, 1905, p, 54 ff.) for the Hyades. (3) The Pleiades (kimah, Job 9 9) is identified by its designation as a compact group. From this view we get the expression in Job 388 31, ‘Canst thou bind the cluster (‘chain’ RVmg.) of the Pleiades?’ making the parallelism of the clauses perfect. (4) Mazzaroth (Job 38 32). This seems to be not a constallation (Corona Borealis, Hyades) nor the circle of the zodiac (Job 38 32; AVmg. and RVmg.), with its twelve signs, but the planet Venus or the planets collectively (so II K 23 5, but mg. ‘the twelve signs’). (5) The Chambers of the South (hadhré ihémadn, Job 9 9), probably some constellation of the Southern hemisphere. (6) The Swift Serpent (nadhdsh bériah, Job 2613). There is some uncertainty as to whether this phrase designates a constellation. It is certainly the name of a celestial phenomenon, and, if a con- stellation, it is probably the Dragon located between the Great and the Little Bear. (7) In Job 37 9, though EVV read ‘north,’ and mg. ‘scattering winds,’ there is reason to believe that the Hebrew m¢zadrim designates the two constellations of the northern skies, the Great and the Little Bear (cf. Schiap- parelli, p. 67 ff.). 5. Star of Bethlehem. The Star of Bethlehem (Mt 2 2 ff.) has been sometimes interpreted as a conjunction of planets (Kepler; cf. Munter, Stern d. Weisen, 1827), but was more probably either a comet or a meteor. 6. Symbolic Usage. Metaphorically, a star stands for a guide because stars are so often taken as guides in travel at night, and such expressions as ‘sun of righteousness’ (Mal 4 2), ‘the bright, morning star’ (Rev 22 16) are self-explanatory. The apocalyptic use of astronomical facts includes such instances as the ‘seven stars’ (Rev 1 16 ff.), symbols of the pro- tecting spirit of the Seven Churches; the great star Wormwood (Rev 8 10 ff.), symbol of distress, and the moon subjected to the Church (Rev 121) with others less clear. 7. Religious Interest. That astronomy is in the Bible geocentric has already been intimated. It might better be called theocentric. It views the 83 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Astronomy Athens material heavens as the handiwork of God and the instrument of His pleasure in ministering to men. He created them in the beginning (Gn 1 1, 14f.) in order to be the means of lighting the earth and marking the beginnings and endings of the seasons. They impress the mind by their multitude (Gn 15 5), their brilliancy, their elevation above the earth (Pr 25 3; Jer 31 37; Job 22 12). Poetically, they are con- ceived as personal beings, declaring the glory of God (Ps 148 3). They sing together for joy and in many other ways praise their Creator (Job 38 7). 8. Star Worship. This is in contrast with the ideas of the other peoples of Biblical lands. These in most cases worshiped the heavenly bodies. The contrast is all the more significant because it is cer- tain that the cosmological and astronomical ideas of the Hebrews are vitally connected with those of Babylonia. The faithful Israelite was taught that the heavenly bodies as creatures could receive no homage from men; but lest he should be too dull to perceive that their creaturehood precluded their be- ing worshiped, he was explicitly forbidden to offer it (Dt 4 19). Violations of this law were severely denounced by the prophets and prophetic writers (Jer 1913; Ezk 816; II K 17 16; cf. also Ac 7 43, quoted from Am 5 26, ‘star of the god Rephan’). 9. Astrology. Astrology is the art of interpreting the motions of the heavenly bodies as portents of future events. It was practised probably among the majority, if not all, of the nations mentioned in the Bible; but like star-worship it found no favorable soil in Israel. Astrologers are spoken of as altogether outside of Israel. In Is 47 13 Babylon is challenged to save herself from the doom merited by her sin and invited to resort ‘to the astrologers (‘dividers of the heavens’ RVmg.), the star-gazers, and monthly prognosticators.’ All these terms appear to be Synonymous and, as the words which follow indicate, are different names of men who professed to foretell the future by observing the stars. Jeremiah (10 2) counsels Judah not to be ‘dismayed at the signs of the heavens.’ Astrologers are named also in Dn 1 2, 2 2 AV, but RV renders more correctly ‘enchanters.. The Hebrew word for astrologers (hobhré shaémayim, ‘dividers of the heavens’) sug- gests the method employed, which was the section- ing of the firmament and assigning a particular meaning to each section according to its relation to the object sought to be foreshadowed. LireRATURE: Schiapparelli, Astron. in OT (1906); M. A. Stern, Die Sternbilder in Hiob 38% (in Geiger’s Judische Zeitschrift III, 258 ff.). AiCeZ: ASUPPIM, a-sup’im (0’2D8, ’asuppim): In I Ch 26 15, 17, AV, this word occurs as a proper noun, but it is given more correctly in RV as ‘store- house.’ E. E. N. ASYNCRITUS, oa-sin’kni-tus (Actyxortos): A Christian mentioned in Ro 16 14, to whom Paul sends a salutation, of whom nothing further is known. Jail. ATAD, é@’tad (1981), h@atddh): ‘The [threshing-] floor of Atad’ (Gn 50 11 f.). Apart from the state- ment that it lay ‘beyond (7.e., E. of) the Jordan’ no information is given of its location. But these words are more likely a later addition, since to go from Egypt to Hebron one has no cause to cross the Jordan. E. E. N. ATARAH, at’a-ra (T19Y, ‘atdradh): One of the wives of valance) perhaps a clan-name (I Ch 2 26). ATAROTH, at’a-reth (NINBY, ‘diardth): 1. A city of Moab, NE by Gad (Nu 32 3, 34 and Stone of Mesha, line 10). Map II, J 2. 2. A town on the 8. border of Ephraim (Jos162, in 165 A.-Addar). Map III, E 5. 3. A town on the NE. border of Ephraim (Jos 167). Site unknown. 4. Atroth-beth- Joab, a locality belonging to the Calebites (I Ch 254). 5. Atroth-Shophan, a town of Gad (Nu 82 35). Site unknown. ATER, @’tar (188, ’atér): 1. The ancestral head of the ‘sons’ of Ater of Hezekiah, one of the large families of returned exiles (Ezr 216; Neh 7 21 1017). 2. The ancestor of a family of gate-keepers (Ezr 2 42; Neh 7 45). ATHACH, é’thac (J9¥Y, ‘athakh): A place in S. Judah not yet identified (I S 30 30). ATHAIAH, o0-fhé’ya (MOY, ‘athdyah): A Judah- ite, the son of Uzziah (Neh 11 4). ATHALIAG, ath”e-lai’a (M9DY, ‘dthalyahi, ‘I” is great’: 1. A daughter of Ahab and Jezebel, and wife of Jehoram, King of Judah. She introduced the worship of the Phenician Baal into Judah. After the death of her son Ahaziah (q.v) she ursurped the throne, securing her position by murdering all the seed-royal except Joash, the infant son of Ahaziah, who was kept hidden in the Temple, under the tute- lage of the priests, for six years. Finally Jehoiada, the high priest, taking advantage of the change of the palace guards on a Sabbath, assisted by the guards, proclaimed Joash king and put Athaliah to death (II K 111 ff.). 2. A Benjamite who dwelt in Jerusalem (see I Ch 8 26 and cf. ver. 28). 3. The father of Jeshaiah who went up with Ezra from Babylon (Ezr 87). J. A. K. ATHARIM, afh’a-rim (8°78, ’dthdrim): The only occurrence of this word (Nu 21 1) seems to imply that it was a place-name. Its use with the article, ‘the way of [the] Atharim,’ has led some to think of it as an appellative, e.g., ‘the way of the spies,’ AV (which rests on a wrong reading), or the ‘caravan way’ (Dillmann). Both the meaning of the word and the site remain uncertain. EK. E. N. ATHENS (’A@fjvat): The capital of Attica, first called Cecropia from Cecrops (autochthonous founder). Theseus (semimythical) united the out- lying demes (Panathenza). The Acropolis was the seat of worship of Athene and of the kings. After Codrus the kings were replaced by archons chosen from the family of Codrus, elected for life (1068-752 B.c.); then the archonship was open to Eupatrids chosen for ten years (752-682 B.c.). Later, there were nine annual archons chosen from the Eupa- trids. The chief archon (epdnymos) gave the name to the year; the second (basileus) was chief priest; the third (polemarchos) commanded the forces; the other six were thesmothete (legislators). The Areopa- gus was supreme in religious matters. Draco codified the laws in 621 8.c and Solon instituted the timoc- 4 Athlai Azmaveth A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 84 racy in 594; 6,000 judges, chosen by lot, controlled the officials, and a council of 400 aided the archons, whose presidents were called prytanés. Pisistratus the tyrant (561 B.c.) embellished A., patronized literature and art, built the altar of the Twelve Gods (center of the state), Enneacrounos, began the Olym- pieum, finished the old Hecatompedon and other buildings. Cleisthenes reorganized the tribes in 508 B.c. and introduced ostracism. A. sent twenty ships against Darius in 498 and defeated the Persians at Marathon in 490. Xerxes destroyed A., but was defeated in 480 by Themistocles. As head of the confederacy in 474 under Pericles, A. enjoyed her ‘solden age,’ when the Parthenon, Propylea, Erech- theum, and Odeum were built. The liberties of Greece were crushed by Philip of Macedon at Chezronea in 338 B.c. A. made abject submission to Antipater, regent of Macedonia, in 322 B.c, In 146 B.c. A. was included in the Roman province of Achzea; in 86 B.c. is was sacked by Sulla. The Roman emperors were lavish in their benefactions to the city because of its glorious past. Under Byzantine rule, till 1204, it sank into insignificance. It belonged to the Latin Empire of the East 1204-1458, when it fell into the hands of the Turks under whose rule it remained until the emancipation of Greece in 1833. A. was the great home of literature, art, and science, and has been the school-mistress of Europe. It became in the Roman Empire the great university center which attracted men like Cicero, Horace, Atticus, Libanius, Philo of Alexandria, Julian ‘the Apostate,’ Basil, and Gregory of Nazianzus. The edict of Jus- tinian in 529 put an end to its long career of a thousand years as the teacher of philosophy. Paul’s work was a comparative failure in A., probably due to (1) the fact that this sojourn was not a deliberate arrangement of his mission program, but a result of his forced departure from Bercea (Ac 17 3) and the necessity of awaiting his colleagues (17 15), and (2) A., not being one of the entrepdts of commerce, like Corinth or Ephesus, had not attracted a large Jewish settlement. S. A. ATHLAI, ath’le-ai ('29Y, ‘athlay): An Israelite who had taken a foreign wife (Ezr 10 28). ATONEMENT. See REconciuiaTION AND ATONE- MENT. ATONEMENT, DAY OF. See Fasts anp Feasts, § 9. ATROTH-BETH-JOAB, at’’re th-beth-j6’ab, ATROTH-SHOPHAN, -sh6’fan. See Arsarortu. ATTAI, at’a-ai (DY, ‘attay): 1. A descendant of Judah through Jerachmeel (I Ch 2 35-36). 2. A Gadite (I Ch 1211). 3. A son of Rehoboam (II Ch 11 20.) ATTALIA, at’’a-lai’a (’Act&Aetx): A city on the coast of Pamphylia, founded by Attalus II on the site of Olbia (159-138 B.c.), the metropolis of Pam- phylia. It was an important seaport. Paul and Barnabas embarked here for Antioch on their re- turn from mission work in 8. Galatia (Ac 14 25), but apparently made no long stay in the place. J. R.S. S.+—E. E. N. ATTIRE. See Dress anD ORNAMENTS, AUGURY. See Magic anp Divination, § 3. AUGUSTAN BAND (oxeioa Yebacty) AUGUS- TUS’ BAND, AV: According to Schiirer, GJ V (3d.ed.) I p. 462 the special title of one of the five cohorts of provincial troops stationed in Cesarea (Ac 27 1; cf. Jos Ant. XX, 87; CIL VI, No. 3,508). The Italian Band (Ac 10 1) consisted of native Italian troops (CIL III, Suppl. No. 18,488a). Since the presence of the latter in Syria is not attested before 69 a.p. (Arch. Epig. Mitihetlungen XVII, 218), reference in Ac 10 1 may bean anachronism. But see Ramsay, Was Christ born in Bethlehem? (1898) p. 260 f. Ji Mine AUGUSTUS: 1. The name. The word is cog- nate with augur and applied to sacred objects and the gods. It was conferred upon Caius Octavius, Jan. 16, 27 B.c. (cf. Lk 21). 2. Life. Caius Octavius, the first of the Roman Emperors, commonly called Augustus, was born Sept. 22, 63 B.c. He was re- named Caius Julius Cesar Octavianus when adopted by Cesar (47 B.c.). He was a student in Apollonia when Cesar was killed (44). Altho Cessar’s heir his property was refused him by Antony. He de- feated Antony (Mutina 43); became consul in 48; and forming a triumvirate (with Antony and Le- pidus), defeated Brutus and Cassius at Philippi (42). In the distribution of provinces A. received Italy, and Antony Asia. He defeated Lepidus (86) and Antony at Actium (81). He was now master of the Roman Empire. He organized a standing army of 25 legions (300,000 men), Altho opposed to wars of conquest, he conquered Spain (27-19), the Parthians (20), and the Germans (16-9). His step- sons (mother Livia) were Tiberius and Drusus. He adopted Tiberius (4 A.D.) and died in 14 a.p., at the age of 76, having reigned 44 years. A. was cautious, mild, just, and forbearing, founded colonies, built roads, enacted laws in the interest of religion and morality. His autobiography is given on the Monumentum Ancyranum. On the decree (Lk 2 1) see New Test. Coronotoey. J.R.S.S.*—J.M.T. AUL. See AwL. AVA, é’va, AVIM, é@’vim, AVITE, @’vait. See Avva, ete. AVEN, é’ven (i}8, ’dwen), ‘trouble,’ ‘wickedness’ and then ‘idolatry’: 1. An Egyptian city (Ezk 30 17). Since the LXX reads Heliopolis (‘city of the Sun,’ z.e.,On), Ezekiel probably wrote ]i8 (On, cf. Gn 41 45, 50), which was later changed to Aven because of the idol-worship at On. 2. In Hos 10 8 (ef. ver. 5) high places of Aven’ means probably ‘high places of idolatry’—tho many take it to refer ironi- cally to Bethel as in ver. 5. 3. Am 15, ‘Valley of Aven’ may indicate some place in Syria not yet identified, or the name of a deity. EK. E. N. AVENGER OF BLOOD. See Bioop, AvENGER OF. AVITH, @’vith (MY, ‘dwith): An ancient capital of Edom (Gn 36 35; I Ch 1 46). Site unknown. AVVA, av’va (812, 2, ‘awwah): A city some- where in the Assyrian Empire whence colonists (Avvites) were imported to Samaria (II K 17 24, 31, called Ivvah [Ivah AV] in II K 18 34, 19 13; Is 37 13). E. BE. N, : = ‘ - a ee ee OE ae ee Ss ee 85 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Athlai Azmaveth AVVIM, av’vim, AVVITES, av’vaits (Q'Y, ‘aw- wim): 1. An ancient people dispossessed of their territory by the Caphtorim (Dt 2 23). In Jos 13 3 they are counted with the Philistines. 2. The Av- vim (i.e., ‘the ruins’), a place of Benjamin (Jos 18 23). Site unknown. AWL (2372, mariséa‘, from YS), rdisa‘, ‘to pierce’): A small boring instrument (Ex 21 6; Dt 15 17, aul AV). AWNING. See Suirs anp Nayraarion, § 2. AX,AXE: Therendering in our EV of seven Heb. and one Grk. terms. Of two of these (garzen, Dt 19 5, 20 19;1 K 67; Is 10 15, and gardém, Jg 9 48;18 13 20f.; Ps 74 5; Jer 46 22) ‘ax’ is a satisfactory ren- dering, altho the size and shape and also the material (whether bronze or iron) of the instrument is not certain. It is not likely that by any of the terms a stone implement is meant. Magzérah (II S, 12 31 but ‘saw’ in I Ch 20 3) and m¢ghérah (I Ch 20 3, but ‘saw’ in II § 12 31) both simply indicate a cutting instrument, exactly what is not known. Kashshil (Ps 74 6) is rendered hatchet in ARV. MHerebh (Ezk 26 9) is usually rendered ‘sword.’ In Jer 10 3 and Is 44 12 Ma‘dtsddh is a cutting instrument, but ‘ax’ may not be the exact meaning. See also ArTI- ZAN Lire, § 6. AZAL, @’zal. See Azut II. AZALIAH, az’’a-lai’a GM2xe, *disalyGhi): The father of Shaphan the scribe of Josiah, King of Judah (II K 22 3; II Ch 34 8). AZANIAH, az’’a-nai’a (TIN, father of Jeshua (Neh 10 9). AZAREL, az’a-rel (871, ‘azar’él, Azareel, Aza- rael, AV), ‘God helps’: 1. One of David’s follower (I Ch 126). 2. A musician (I Ch 25 18, Uzziel in ver. 4). 3. One of the sons of Jeroham, a prince of the Danites under David (I Ch 27 22). 4. One of the ‘sons of Bani’ who had taken a foreign wife (Ezr 10 41). 5. A priest who dwelt in Jerusalem (Neh 11 13, 12 36). AZARIAH, ‘az’e-rai’a (WNUY, ‘dzaryahi), ‘J’ hath helped’: 1. King of Judah. See Uzztan. 2.A son of the Kohathites, an ancestor of the prophet Samuel (I Ch 6 36). 3. A son of Zadok, priest under Solomon (I K 42;cf.I Ch69). 4. Son of Nathan, an officer at Solomon’s court (I K 45). 5. A prophet, son of Oded, who met Asa returning from the defeat of Zerah, the Ethiopian, and exhorted him to perse- vere in his religious reforms (II Ch 151-8). 6. A son of Jehoshaphat, massacred by his brother Jehoram (II Ch 21 2ff.). 7. The father of Amariah, high priest under Jehoshaphat (I Ch 610; Ezr 73). 8. A son of Jehoram (II Ch 22 6). But see Anazian, 2. 9. Two captains who assisted Jehoiada (II Ch 231 ff.). 10. A high priest, who withstood Uzziah’s attempt to desecrate the altar of incense (II Ch 2617, 20). 11. An elder of Ephraim, who rebuked Pekah for taking Judzan captives in the Syro-Ephraimitish war (II Ch 28 12 ff.). 12. Two Levites, active under Hezekiah (II Ch 29 12). 13. Chief priest under Hezekiah (II Ch 110,13). 14. Ason of Hilikiah, and grandfather of Ezra (I Ch 613; Ezr 71). 15. A Judean leader who opposed Jeremiah’s counsels (Jer 43 2). 16. Two ’dzanyGh): The persons in the genealogy of Judah (I Ch 2 8, 38 f.). 17. A common name among the exiles who returned (Neh 3 23, 77, 87, 10 2, 12 33). 18. The Hebrew name of Abednego (q.v.) (Dn 1 6). ACOA VG AZAZ, @'zaz ('IY, ‘dzdz): A Reubenite, the son of Shema (or Shemaiah) I Ch 5 8). AZAZEL, a-zé’zel (INT, ‘az@’zel), Scapegoat AV, ‘removal’ RVmg. (Lv 16 8, 10, 26): A name used in connection with one of the goats selected for the service of the Day of Atonement (Lv 23 26 f.). It is not, however, the name of the goat, for that was entitled ‘unto Azazel’ just as the other goat was en- titled ‘unto Jehovah.’ Azazel, must therefore, be the name either of the act of sending the goat away into the wilderness or, preferably, of the person to whom it was sent, possibly a demon in the wilderness. Apart from this ceremony, however, it is not easy to trace the existence of belief in such a person among the Israelites, altho it was common enough among other peoples (Wellhausen, Reste Arab. Heid., pp. 135-140). In Israel it survived as a shadowy vestige of primitive Semitic demonology and was used to express the thought that sin belongs to a power or principle hostile to J’’ and its complete purgation must include its being sent back to its source. dM Gey AA AZAZIAH, az’’a-zai’a (VTNY, ‘dzazyaht), ‘J’ is strong’: 1. A musician (I Ch 15 21). 2. The father of Hoshea, prince of Ephraim, in the reign of David (I Ch 27 20). 3. A Levite overseer of the tithes under Hezekiah (II Ch 31 13). AZBUK, az’bok (P'3!¥, ‘azbiiq): The father of Nehemiah, ruler of part of Beth-zur, who assisted in rebuilding the wall of Jerusalem (Neh 3 16). AZEKAH, oa-zi’ka (PIY, ‘dzéqgah): A town in NW. Judah. It is mentioned with Makkedah (Jos 10 10 f.) as a place to which Joshua pursued the Canaanites at the battle of Gibeon. It is also men- tioned with Socoh (Jos 15 35; I S 17 1), but these references are not clear enough to identify the site, which remains uncertain. A. was fortified by Reho- boam (II Ch 11 9), beseiged by Nebuchadrezzar (Jer 34 7), and reoccupied by the Jews after the Exile (Neh 11 30). E. E. N. AZEL, @’zel (PEN, ’Gtsél): I. A descendant of Jonathan, son of Saul (I Ch 8 37f., 9 43f.). II. A place near Jerusalem (Zech 145; Azal, AV). Perhaps one should read, with Mitchell in ICC ’atslé, ‘the side of it’. KE. KE. N. AZEM, é@’zem. See Ezem. AZGAD, az’gad (Ti!Y, ‘azgadh), ‘Gad is strong’ or ‘fate is strong’: The ancestral head of a large family of postexilic Jews (Ezr 2 12=Neh 7 17; Ezr 8 12= Neh 10 15). AZIEL, @/zi-el (28'1Y, ‘dzi’él), ‘God is (my) ‘strength’: A Levite musician (I Ch 15 20, Jaaziel in ver. 18 and Jeiel in 16 5). AZIZA, a-zai’ze (SPIY, ‘dziza@’), ‘strong’: One of the ‘sons of Zattu’ who had taken a strange wife (Ezr 10 27). AZMAVETH, az-mé’veth (MV2IY, ‘azmaweth), ‘death is strong’: I. 1. One of David’s heroes (II S Azmon Babylon A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 86 23 31; I Ch 11 33). 2. A descendant of Saul (I Ch 8 36,9 42). 3. Apparently the father of certain fol- lowers of David (I Ch 12 3). It is likely, however, that a place-name is here used genealogically. See II, below. 4. One of David’s treasurers (I Ch 27 25). Il. The home of a colony of returned exiles (Ear 2 24; Neh 12 29), called Beth Azmaveth in Neh 7 28. It lay a little N. of Anathoth, Map II, F 1. H. E.N. AZMON, az’men (]!9$¥, ‘atsmén): A town on the S. border of Judah (Nu 34 41.; Jos 15 4) called Ezem (Azem AV) in Jos 15 29, 19 3, I Ch 4 29. Site un- known. AZNOTH-TABOR, az’nofth-té’bér (WAN Niy, ’aznoth tabhér), ‘ears of Tabor’: A place, probably hills, near Mt. Tabor on the border of Naphtali (Jos. 19 34). AZOR, é’zér (’Atae): One of Christ’s ancestors; son of Eliakim (Mt 113). AZOTUS, a-z6’tus. See AsHpop. AZOTUS, MOUNT (’Atatoc): The place where Judas Maccabezeus fell (I Macc 9 15). The exact site is unknown. AZRIEL, az’ri-el (V8"1Y, ‘azri/él), ‘God is (my) help’: 1. A chieftain of the half tribe of Manasseh EH. B BAAL, bé’al or ba’al. I. Significance of the term: The word Ba‘al (?¥4) occurs many times in the Heb. O T with various meanings. 1. In the primary sense of ‘master’ or ‘owner,’ as in Ex 21 28, 34; Jg 19 22; Is 168. 2. In the sense of ‘husband’ as in Ex 21 3; IIS 11 26; see esp. Hos. 216. 3. To denote the inhabitants or men of a town, as in Jg 92 f. 4. To denote one who is skilled in some practise or intimately connected with some particu- lar thing (cf. RVmg. at Gn 3719). 5. As the name of the Semitic deity Baal (see Semrric REiIGIon, §10) 6. In compound personal or place-names. In per- sonal names Baal referred to the deity. Such com- pounds were very common among the Phenicians and Canaanites. In Israelitic personal names com- pounded with Baal the term was often used as the equivalent of Jehovah—.e., Jehovah wascalled Baal. He was the maker, owner, lord. In later times (after the 8th cent.) such compounds were viewed with disfavor. E. g., Ish-baal ‘Man of Baal’ was the name of one of Saul’s sons I (Ch 8 33). InIS 14 49 copyists did not realize that in such a name ‘Baal’ meant Jehovah but thought it meant the pagan Baal and so substituted the word ‘bosheth (‘shame’) for it and wrote the name ‘Ishbosheth.’ Place-names compounded with Baal are ancient and in such ‘Baal’ stood for the local deity. See Gray, Heb. Proper Names pp. 120-136. II. 1. A Reu- benite (I Ch 5 5). 2. A Benjamite (I Ch 8 30= 9 36). III. A town in the S. of Judah, called Bea- loth (Jos 15 24), also Baalath-beer in the list of the cities of Simeon (Jos 198), where it seems to be iden- tified with Ramah of the South. Aside from the 2. The official head of the 3. The of Jordan (I Ch 5 24). tribe of Naphtali under David (I Ch 27 19). father of Seraiah (Jer 36 26). AZRIKAM, az-rai’‘kam (OP, ‘azriqgam): 1. A descendant of David (I Ch 3 23). 2. A descendant of Saul (I Ch 8 38, 9 44). 3. A Levite (I Ch 914; Neh 1115). 4. An officer of Ahaz (II Ch 287). AZUBAH, 0a-zi’ba (T3Y, ‘dzibhah), ‘forsaken’: 1. The wife of Caleb (I Ch 2181.). If A. is a place- name, it may indicate that it was once occupied by Calebites and afterward deserted. 2. The mother of King Jehoshaphat (I K 22 42; II Ch 20 31). | E. E. N. AZUR, e’zur. See Azzur. AZZAH, az’za. See Gaza. AZZAN, az’zan (l!¥, ‘azedn), ‘strong’: The father of Paltiel, prince of Issachar (Nu 34 26). AZZUR, az’zir (N¥Y, ‘azziir, ‘helped’: 1. The father of Hananiah, the prophet of Gibeon (Jer 281, Azur AV). 2. The father of Jaazaniah, a prince of the people (Ezk 111, Azur AV, same asi[?]). 3. One of the signers of the covenant (Neh 1017). fact that it was somewhere on the border of Simeon’s territory (I Ch 4 33) its site is altogether unknown. E. E. N. BAALAH, bé’e-la (7923, ba‘dlah): 1. A city on the N. border of Judah (Jos 159 £.; I Ch 13 6), also called Baale-judah (II S 6 2), Kiriathbaal (Jos 15 60), and Kiriath-jearim (q.v.). 2. A city in the S. of Judah (Jos 15 29), also called Balah (Jos 19 3) and Bilhah (I Ch 4 29), and counted as belonging to Sim- eon. Site unknown. 3. A hill between Ekron and Jabneel (Jos 15 11). For general location see Map III, C5. BAALAH, bé’a-la, BAALATH, bé’al-ath: Variant forms of Baal. See Baat, III. BAALATH-BEER, bé’al-ath-bi’ar. See Baat, ITI. BAAL-BERITH, -bi’rith (N12 2Y3, ba‘al berth), ‘Baal of the covenant’: The name of the Canaan- ite deity of Schechem (Jg 8 33, 9 4), called Elberith in 9 46. What the ‘covenant’ referred to in the name was is uncertain. There is no evidence that it was a covenant between the original (Ca- naanite) inhabitants of Shechem and the Israelites. This Baal had a temple at Shechem, which like most pagan temples, served as the treasury of the com- munity. EK. E. N. BAALE-JUDAH, bé’al-i-jti’da. See Baauan, 1. BAAL-GAD, -gad (731 ?¥3, ba‘al gadh), ‘Baal of good fortune’: A’place in the valley of Lebanon (Jos 11 17, 12 7), ‘under Mt. Hermon’ (13 5). In these passages it marks the N. limit of Israel’s conquest of Canaan. Altho often identified with Dan (Ba- nias) its site is uncertain. 87 : A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY BAAL-HAMON, -hé’men (Ji07 ¥y3, ba‘al hamon): -7 Water at Meribah (cf. Dt 25 17-19), Partly J. 17 &16 War with Amalek. 18 1-1 M. visited by Jethro. 18 27 Appointment of ap- sistant judges (cf. Dt 19- 18) 19 8-9 (JE) 10-11, 13be19 The great theophany. M. leads the people out to meet God, God speaks, 201-7 The Ten Command- ments spoken by God. 20 18-21 The people are afraid and ask M. to go and receive the rest of God’s message. 20 2-226 Religious laws. 211-239 A code of ‘judgments.’ 23 19-19 Religious laws. 23 20-88 Promises and warn- ings. 24 3-8 Ratification of the Covenant by the people at a sacrifice. 24 12-14, 18 M. with Joshua goes up again to the Mount to receive the tables. Stays 40 days and nights. 31 18 M. receives the tables. 32 1 The people make a calf and worship it. 32 1-544 M. with Joshua, on the way down hears the singing, etc., is very angry, breaks the tables, and grinds the calf to powder. 32 30-3 On the morrow M. pleads with J’ to forgive the sin. 33 2 J” promises to send His angel, 33 5ac, 6-11 The people told to take off their ornaments. The tent with Joshua as its minister. (34 1, 4, 23 Fragment; mainly from E’s account of Moses’ final interview with J’ at Horeb.] 6. Differences Between E and J. The main differences (in Exodus) between these two ancient histories relate to these points: (1) In J the name Jehovah is used without explanation (continuing the use in J in Genesis), emphasis being laid on J’’s action rather than on the significance of the name, which, however, is interpreted later in the wonderful passage 345-9. In Ethe name is revealed to Exodus Ezekiel A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 250 Moses andits significance indicated at the bush. (ch.3). (2) In J Aaron plays an important part as Moses’ spokesman to Israel (cf. P). In E Aaron is not given any special prominence, and on one occasion is severely rebuked (82 21). (3) In J the Israelites are conceived of as dwelling mainly in Goshen. In E they seem to be living in the midst of the Egyptians. (4) In J the plagues and wonders are wrought by J” either immediately or by the use of nature forces (such as the wind). In E Moses’ rod plays an im- portant part in thesé matters (cf. P). (5) In J, at the great theophany on Mount Sinai, Moses alone draws near to J’’ to hear His words and later the Covenant is ratified on the Mount by a few chosen individuals representing the people. In E both Moses and the people draw near the Mount to meet God and only later is Moses asked by the people (who are afraid) to go and receive the message alone. The Covenant in E is ratified by the people as a whole after its terms were written in a book. (6) In J the apostasy is more like a mutiny, to be put down in blood, and the loyal Levites receive the priesthood as their reward. Moses is forewarned of of the trouble before he descends, and acts at once as soon as he reaches the gate of the camp. In E the trouble is idolatry and Moses is ignorant of it until he draws near the camp. (7) In J the promise of an angel to guide them does not satisfy Moses, who wants the presence of J’’ Himself. In E the angel is considered the same as J” Himself. 7. Changes in the Order of Events. The editor who combined J with E, or some later editor, often thought it necessary to alter the order of the original documents, so that the combined narrative might read satisfactorily. Minor instances of this are 4 19, which seems out of place; 4 22 f., which seems to belong with 10 26-11 8; 17 2-7, which in part, may have been transferred from Nu 11 4 ff.; 18 1-11, which, in part, may have belonged to an account of a visit of Hobab, presupposed in Nu 10 29 f.; and possibly 18 12-27, which in Dt 1 9-18 comes after the giving of the law. But the most important trans- position affected J’s account of the Covenant. It is evident that at 19 21a there is a break (for vs. 21b-23 are in the main only an editor’s repetition of vs. 12-13) and the continuation is not apparent in the immediate context. What did J’’ speak to Moses when he went up to Him to the top of the Mount? According to E, God spoke the Ten Commandments and also certain fundamental principles as the basis of a covenant (20 1-17, 22-26, 23 10-33). Now, it is remarkable that in J (in 34 10-27) exactly the same ground is covered, and partly in the same words, as in E in 20 22-26, 23 10-33. But in the present arrange- ment this material is placed after the apostasy while in E is comes before it. It is likely, therefore, that in J after 19 21a there followed something similar (10 ‘words,’ possibly, and especially certain covenant terms) to what we have in E; 7.e., the editor simply used E here and transposed the material in J to a later place. If this reconstruction of J is correct, it furnishes an additional proof of the fundamental unity of Israel’s tradition of the Mosaic Age. 8. Comparison of J and E with P. As compared with P the narratives of J and E are marked by a closer touch with the real progress and development of events. In P the interest centers mainly about the cultus, as the most important aspect of Israel’s life. Consequently, the emphasis is placed on Aaron, the Passover ritual, the Sabbath in connection with the manna, and, above all, upon the Tabernacle, as the main thing revealed to Moses at Sinai. In both J and E there is a recognition of the cultus elements of Israel’s ancient religion, but all is of a more simple, undeveloped character. It is also likely that in the original form of J or E more was said about the Ark, the Tent of Meeting, and the Levitical priest- hood than now appears. The final editor preferred P’s account of these things and left only mere frag- ments of the older accounts. But in both J and E the emphasis was placed on the spiritual and moral aspects of the Covenant rather than on the merely formal. 9. The Importance of Exodus. The history con- tained in Exodus is of the highest importance. In J and E we have the oldest and fullest accounts of the Mosaic constitution we possess. Altho these differ in details, they are fundamentally at one in repre- senting this as due to a great spiritual awakening in the soul of one man, who had a vision of God and who was enabled to translate that vision into terms of actual life; who gave the tribes of Israel a principle of unity of unique and far-reaching significance; who brought about the existence of a religion of moral and spiritual import and tendency among men. It is in the basis of fact in the Exodus narrative that we find the explanation of Israel and of Israel’s sub- sequent history. Criticism, by analyzing this narra- tive into its component parts, has only enabled us to get closer to the facts, firmly recorded in Israel’s national traditions, which lay at the basis of the account. LirERATURE: Carpenter-Harford, The Comp. of the Hex.(1902); Moore in EB, II; Driver, LOT, 8th Ed. (1913); and Com. on Exodus in Camb. Bible (1911); A. H. McNeille, The Book of Exodus (1908); A. T. Chapman, Int. to Pent. in Camb. Bible (1911). E. E. EXODUS, THE. See Isrant, History oF, § 3; SocraL DEVELOPMENT oF, § 17; RELIGION oF, §$§ 3 and 4. EXORCISM, EXORCIST. See Macic aAnp Divination, § 9. EXPIATE, EXPIATION. OFFERINGS, § 16. EXPLORATION AND EXCAVATION. under EXCAVATION AND EXPLORATION. EXTORTION, EXTORTIONER. See Crimes AND PUNISHMENTS, § 2, a. . EXTREME BURNING. Mepicine, § 4 (1). EYE: The eye is regarded in the Bible from the point of view of its importance as the chief organ of perception. It is of priceless value (Ps 17 8); but it is the avenue through which allurements reach the soul and sensation is born (Ezk 69; I Jn 2 i6; II P 214). Hence, too, it often denotes the whole man. It is the eye that spares or withholds pity (Is 13 18; Ezk 16 5); mocks (Pr 30 17); is satisfied or not (Pr 27 20). It is the light of the body (Mt 6 22). The See SACRIFICE AND See See DISEASE AND 251 A NEW STANDARD expression ‘evil eye’ is used in a superstitious sense in the modern Orient; but it is questionable whether it is so to be taken in Pr 236 or Mt 2015. A.C. Z. EYE-PAINT: It was, and still is, the custom of Oriental women to stain their eyebrows and eye- lashes with a dark paint (pukh, II K 9 30; Jer 4 30; kahal, Ezk 23 40) usually composed of oil mixed with powder of antimony, which was thought to add to their luster and beauty, especially by making them appear larger. The ointment was kept in small horn-like vases (cf. ‘Keren-happuch,’ ‘horn (i.e., ‘flask’) of eyepaint,’ the name of one of Job’s daughters, Job 42 14). E. E. N. EYE-SALVE, See Diszase AND MEDICINE, § 3. EZBAI, ez’bai (3!8, ’ezbay): Father of Naari (I Ch 11 37; cf. II S 23 35). EZBON, ez’ben (Ji2$8, ’etsbon): 1. A ‘son’ of Gad, ancestor of a Gadite family (Gn 46 16) called Ozni (and the family Oznites in Nu 26 16). 2. The head of a family of the clan of Bela in Benjamin (I Ch W417): EZEKIAS, ez’’1-kai’as. See HEezEKIAn. EZEKIEL, vzi/ki-el ONPIM, ychezqe’l), ‘God strengthens’: Ezekiel, the son of Buzi, known through his prophetical writings as one of the lead- ing Israelites of the early exilic period. 1. Life Before Prophetic Call. Altho there is considerable obscurity as to his birth and early life, the following facts are beyond question: He was of priestly descent, for he calls himself ‘the priest.’ He belonged to the priestly family of Zadok, serving at Jerusalem, for he limits the priesthood to the sons of Zadok (40 46, 43 19). He was born during the reign of Josiah, but the exact year is left in doubt. If the words, ‘in the 30th year,’ with which he introduces the record of his work (1 1) refer to his age, the year of his birth was 627 B.c. But this is by no means fixed. He was married, and his wife died at the _ beginning of the year 587 B.c. It has been con- jectured upon the basis of certain affinities of thought that E. was at one time a pupil of Jeremiah’s. In the circumstances this is highly probable. 2. Prophetic Ministry. The familiar portion of E.’s life begins with his call to the prophetic work, which took place in the 5th year of King Jehoiachin’s captivity, 592 B.c. (1 2). At this time E. was living in one of the Jewish colonies of exiles established at Tel-Abib (probably the Til-abu , ‘hill of deluge,’ of Assyrian inscriptions), on a canal in Babylon called the Chebar (the Nar-kabari, of Babylonian tablets, probably the present Shatt en-Nil; Peters, Nippur II, pp. 106-192). Here he had a house (8 1, 24 1, 18) and was apparently held in high esteem by his fellow Israelites. Their elders were accustomed to visit him for purposes of consultation (141, 201). He frequently uttered public prophetic discourses which were listened to by large and _ eager crowds (33 30-32). The Babylonian authorities were evidently not very rigid in their treatment of the exiles; for both prophet and people enjoyed a reasonable measure of freedom. How long the ministry of E. lasted is not known. It could not, however, have been less than 22 years. The latest Exodus BIBLE DICTIONARY Ezekiel date he mentions is the 27th year of the captivity of Jehoiachin, 570 s.c. (29 17). A late unverifiable tradition has it that he was put to death by a Jewish prince whom he reproved for idolatry. 3. The Book in General. The Book of E. is from the literary and critical view-point in a fair state of preservation. The text is, indeed, full of corrup- tions; but its general smoothness and intelligibility are not seriously impaired, except in a few and unimportant places. The prophet’s dominant idea is that the hope of Israel for the future rests with the exiles. The religious life of Jerusalem after the de- portation under Jehoiachin seems to have been re- duced to a very low state. From this E. looked for a restoration, first through a speedy return of the cap- tives, and afterwards through a reorganization of Israel upon an ideal basis (chs. 40-48). The book may be divided into four parts. I. Chs. 1-24. IL. Chs. 25-32. III. Chs. 33-39. IV. Chs. 40-48. 4. Prophecies Against Judah. Prophecies de- livered before the siege of Jerusalem in 587 B.c. (chs. 1-24). The portraiture of the inaugural vision, with which the whole book opens is more than usually elaborate and also highly symbolical (1 4-28, repeated in 3 23, 8 4, 10 20). Upon the whole, it gives the impression of an apocalyptic rather than an ecstatic experience. Its symbolism is designed to pre- sent God in all His power. The flashing fires evi- dently stand for the forces of nature, while the rain- bow represents the hope of help, and the living creatures, various forms of life, all of which are God’s creatures and ministers. The wings and wheels signify omnipresence and the many eyes omniscience. The blaze of light in which the whole is framed is the glory of God. (See also Guory, § 3). Like the visions of Moses and Isaiah, it is intended to assure the prophet that his ministry is to have the approval and support of J’. The elaborateness of the vision furnished the rabbinical interpreters a favorite sub- ject for speculation, and was put on a par with the story of the Creation, both serving as bases for cabalistic and theosophical mythologizing (Zunz, Die Gottes-Dienstl. Vortr.d. Juden, p. 162). The re- mainder of this portion of the book foreshadows im- pending ruin over Judah and Jerusalem, and justifies this by the exposure of the idolatry and sin of the people (chs. 2-24). Whence E. derived the imagery of his visions is a secondary question; and yet it is not difficult to see that both in the Cherubim of the Temple and in the winged bulls of Babylonia he had the materials for the construction of the sym- bolical chariot of ch. 1. 5. Prophecies Against Heathen Nations. Chs. 25-32. As the prediction of disasters to God’s people might be construed as 4 vindication of the heathen, these are next shown to be under condemnation for their transgressions. Taken in their order, the prophecies against foreign nations are those against: (1) Ammon (25 1-7); (2) Moab (25 8-11); (3) Edom (25 12-14); (4) the Philistines (25 15-17); Tyre (26 1- 2819); (6) Sidon (28 20-26); and (7) Egypt (chs. 29-32). The prophecy against Egypt includes six separate discourses and a funeral dirge, making the sacred number 7. 6. Prophecies of Restoration. Chs. 33-39. Here Ezekiel Ezra and Nehemiah A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 252 the prophet rises out of the contemplation of dis- tress and ruin to a vision of a glorious future. But he first vindicates and characterizes the office of the prophet so clearly brought into view in the fulfil- ment of the foreshadowing of doom for Jerusalem (ch. 33). He then points to the devastation of the flock of Israel because of false shepherds, and pre- dicts the coming of the good shepherd whom he calls David (cf. ch. 34). He foretells doom for Edom (ch. 35) and blessing and renewal for Israel, both plainly (ch. 36) andin thesymbolic vision of the Valley of Dry Bones (ch. 37) and closes with a denunciation of the enemies of God under the names of Gog and Magog (chs. 38-39). 7. Vision of Ideal Israel. The ideally restored Israel (chs. 40-48). This opens with a vision of the ideal temple (chs. 40-43), which is followed by the vision of an ideal priesthood and sacrifice (chs. 44-46), and an ideal legislation for the land (chs. 47, 48). To this, however, is prefixed a vision of the river of life (48 1-12). In this section E. propounds the doctrine of the separateness of the civil from the ecclesiastical power or, at any rate, the independence of the latter, and also gives to his ritual code distinctive features, which place it between Deuteronomy and the Holiness Code (Lv chs. 17-26). 8. Style. The style of E. is marked by love of elaboration. He makes frequent use of vivid imagery and is fond of pursuing a thought to its detailed application. His diction, however, is never obscure, altho it lacks the spontaneity of the earlier prophets, and is more like the style of the literary man than that of the fervent orator, and yet there is neither the coldness of the mere thinker’s method of ex- pression nor the prosaic formality of the professional writer, but rather the fervor and poetic glow of an aggressive, earnest soul. 9. Significance and Permanent Value. Ezekiel’s distinctive contribution to the growth of Israel’s thought is in no respect less than that of his great predecessors. The conditions under which he labored did.not call for a creative spirit like that of Isaiah. Nor did they call for the voice of vehement protest uttered by Jeremiah. They required the conser- vation of the inner values already in possession and the reconstruction of the Chosen People into a new community. And E. was the prophet who in this period of transition helped more than any other to guide Israel. He has been called an ‘epoch maker,’ ‘the father of Judaism,’ and ‘the prophet of reconstruction.’ He deserves all these characterizations because he brought into the foreground the love of God, the necessity of holiness, and the preeminence of the spiritual over the political aspect of communal life for the people of God. See also IsRAEL, RELIGION oF, § 24. LiTeRATuRE: Driver, LOT ® (1899, ch. 5, pp. 278-298); Skinner, Ezekiel, in Expositor’s Bible, 1895. Redpath, H. A. West- minster Commentaries, (1907); Lofthouse, Century Bible, (1907) and The Prophet of Reconstruction, (1920). A EZEL, i’zel (Disa, h@Gzel): The name of a stone according to the ordinary text in I S 20 19. The name is unintelligible. The LXX. reads here and in ver. 41 ‘this Ergab,’ and as Ergab (or Argob) may mean ‘cairn’ or ‘heap of earth,’ this reading is accepted by many scholars, altho not entirely free from difficulty. E. E. N. EZEM, i’zem (9%, ‘etsem, Azem AV): A town in Simeon (Jos 19 3; I Ch 4 29), assigned to Judah in Jos 15 29. Site unknown. EZER, i’zer (1¥8, ’étser): A son of Seir (Gn 36 ai ff.; [ Ch 1 38 #., Ezar AV). EZER, i’zar, (1!Y, ‘ézer), ‘help’: 1. An Ephraimite (I Ch 7 21). 2. A Judahite, the father of Hushah - (I Ch 4 4). 3. A Gadite warrior who joined David at Ziklag (I Ch 129). 4. A son of Jeshua, and one of those who repaired the wall of Jerusalem (Neh 3 i9). 5. A musician who assited at the ceremony of dedi- cating the wall of Jerusalem. (Neh 12 42) EZION-GEBER, i’’z1-on-gi’bar (133 SY, ‘etsyon gebher, E,-gaber AV): A station of the wilderness journey mentioned before Kadesh (Nu 33 35 f.), but reached after Kadesh (Dt 2 8). It was in the Arabah, near Elath (Eloth), the port of Edom, at the head of the Gulf of Akabah, where Solomon and Jehoshaphat built ships for the gold trade with Ophir (I K 9 26, 22 48; If Ch 817, 20 36). The modern ‘Ain el-Ghudyan. CJ So EZNITE, ez’nait. See ADINo. EZRA, ez’ra (STUY, ‘ezra’), ‘help’: 1. See Ezra AND NEHEMIAH. 2. Ezrah RV. See Ezran. 3. The head of a priestly house returning from the Exile with Zerubbabel (Neh 12 1), supposed to be iden- tical with Azariah (Neh 10 2). 4. A priest, contempo- rary with Nehemiah (Neh 12 33). EZRA AND NEHEMIAH, I. Tue Posrerxttic Prriop.—1. The Historical Events of the Period. The Babylonian exile marks a new era in the life of the Jews. We have no exact statistics as to the number of the people, but we know that a great many of the best of them were taken to Babylon and that, of the miserable remnant left in Judea, a number fled to Egypt. Henceforward, until the wider dispersion of later times, the Jews were in- creasingly active in these three regions. At the beginning of the Persian period (538 B.c.) the Jews were free to return to their own land, and the tradition is that there was an important exodus of Babylonian exiles in the reign of Cyrus (538-529 B.c.). In 520 B.c. we find Haggai and Zechariah preaching in Jerusalem, encouraging the people to build the Temple, which is supposed to have been completed some fifteen years later. The Persian rule lasted until 332 B.c., when it was overthrown by Alexander the Great. During the two centuries — of Persian domination the Jewish cordmunity with its center at Jerusalem, in spite of varied hindrances, gained new life. The Jewish Church was founded, the Law codified, the Temple-worship more fully organized, and the work of collecting and arranging the sacred books well begun. According to the chronology accepted until recent times, under the long reign of Artaxerxes I (Longimanus, 465-424 B.c.), the two important events with which we are concerned took place: viz., the mission of Ezra and ‘second return of the Jews’ (458 B.c.), and Nehe- miah’s two visits to Jerusalem (445 and 482 B.c.). The book Ezra-Nehemiah begins with the story of 258 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Ezekiel Ezra and Nehemiah the first return (c. 536 B.c.) and closes with Nehe- miah’s account of the work that he had attempted to do. 2. The Problems of the Period. In a small but careful commentary which shows an independent spirit and discriminating criticism, we read these words:‘ During the last half century more discus- sions have arisen and more books have been written about Ezra and Nehemiah than about any other equal portion of the Old Testament, and we seem as far as ever from finality in the matter. To these dis- cussions British scholars have contributed but little, altho the writings of Sayce, Ryle, Sir Henry Howorth and Cheyne bearing on the subject are worthy of praise. America is represented by the radical and destructive criticism of Torrey, who has found followers in his fellow-countrymen H. P. Smith, C. F. Kent, and perhaps L. W. Batten. The books and articles by Dutch (Kuenen Kosters, etc.), French (van Hoonacker), and especially by German (Bertheau-Ryssel, Sellin, etc) scholars are legion.’ (The New Cent. B.) From L. W. Batten’s elaborate commentary (ICC) it appears that, after years of careful study of the text, altho he believes that the work of Ezra followed that of Nehemiah, he does not accept fully Torrey’s radical criticism. ‘Torrey’s arguments have failed to convince those who have been diligent students of the story of Ezra, and with all regard to his undoubted scholar- ship and industry, I find myself among the number of those who must still take the Ezra story seriously.’ (p. 18). At the beginning of the Persian period we find in Babylon a considerable number of active, intelligent, patriotic Jews, others are in the homeland, and also refugees have found shelter in Egypt. There is no temple in Jerusalem, no walls around the city, very little commercial activity and ecclesiastical organiza- tion. Two hundred and fifty years later the Jewish communities in all these three centers have become more prosperous and vigorous. The Temple of Jerusalem is restored, the city fortified, the Jewish Church placed on a secure foundation. There are priests who minister in the temple and scribes who study and teach the Law. In the criticism of the records that grew out of this movement there is danger of losing the feeling for the facts that really lie behind the stories and are of great significance in the history of the world. The discussions turn largely round the following points. 3. The Return from Babylon (Ezr chs. 1 and 7). The attempts to deny any real return and to show that Judaism grew up again on its native soil has done good in provoking discussion and leading to a re-examination of all the traditions and stimulating research for all available information. But it has not been able to destroy the living connection between Judah and Babylon. If the statistical and genea- logical information offered can not claim scientific accuracy still it is the Oriental way of expressing real facts, and even the exaggerations express the feeling that there is something of great significance. ‘From the land of exile must come those who would arouse the sluggish spirits of the native Judeans, Sheshbazzar, Zerubbabel, and Jeshua, Nehemiah and Ezra, and probably Haggai and Zechariah, were the products of Jewish blood and Babylonian enterprise, and their presence in Jerusalem counted for more than 40,000 ordinary men, who may, indeed, have returned from exile, but in the course of the two centuries of Persian rule, not in one great company’ (Batten, p. 37). 4. The Relation of the Work of Ezra and Nehe- -miah (Ezr chs.-7-10; Neh. chs. 2 ff., 13). The older view, before the records had passed through such severe criticism, was that Ezra came first (458 B.c., ch.7 ff.) and sought to carry out a religious reform; he was distressed at the ignorance of the law that he found and the laxity of life especially as to mixed marriages. (The account of this work closes abruptly in Ezr 10 44 and is resumed in Neh 7 73-10.) Then from various causes, which can only be conjectured, the city fell into distress, and the walls were de- stroyed. It was then that Nehemiah came as governor, restored the walls and brought back the city to a state of comparative peace and prosperity. Ezra, who has no official position, takes part in religious reform, but not until twelve years later was he able to instruct the people in the require- ments of the law. A slightly different view was that he had to leave the city before his work was com- plete. There was a reaction and the work had to be done over again by Nehemiah, Ezra returning to take part in the Dedication of the walls, etc. It is evident that the uncertainty results from the scantiness of the records and from the imperfect, and in some cases, contradictory chronology. Naturally, here, as elsewhere in the Old Testament documents, when modern criticism in its most drastic forms was first applied, it tended to be extremely negative and later a more reasonable criticism began to prevail. Even if old traditions can not be literally defended painful research may find in them much that is of value. We must con- cede that without Nehemiah’s strong, courageous action the religious reforms could not have gained a firm foundation in the life of the community. The final conclusion may be that the scribe and the statesman both played their part. 5. The Samaritan Separation. One important thing that happened in this period, and as a result to some extent of the work of Ezra and Nehemiah, was the institution of a separate religious community in Samaria and the building of a temple on Mt. Gerizim. In NT times we find the Jews and Samaritans bitterly opposed to each other and controversies as to the merits of rival mountains (Jn ch. 4). In Ezr 41-3 we read that ‘the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin’ who were evidently in- habitants of the district known as Samaria wished to assist in the building of the Temple at Jerusalem, but they were rejected by ‘the children of the captivity’ and told that they could have no part in this work (cf. 3 3, 4 4). It is questioned whether the hostility of the Samaritans was shown in any marked degree in the earliest days of the return when the Jewish effort was devoted to the building of the Temple. But there is clear evidence that the hostility of the Samaritans increased during the reign of Artaxerxes (465-425 B.c.), and that it was Ezra and Nehemiah Ezri A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 254 at first political in its nature; they feared that the building of the walls would give security and dominance to Jerusalem (Hizr 4 7-24; Neh 2 19-20). They were aided by disaffection in the city (Neh 6 17, 13 28); at first they succeeded but later the influence of Nehemiah with his pure patriotism and strong will was too much for them. It became clear to the Jews that political strength and religious purity must go together; as the growing influence of the Law welded together the members of the Jewish Church the separation from the Samaritan sect was the inevitable result. The temple on Mt. Gerizim, according to Josephus, was built in the time of Alexander the Great, but it is probable that this is a century too late, and that 432 B.c., in connection with the events recorded in Neh 13 28, is the correct date. It is thought that the Jews took their revenge and destroyed this temple in the time of the Maccabean ascendency. II. Tue Hisroricay LireRATURE. If the views of modern scholars are accepted, this period can not said to be barren in literary enter- prise. There is still power to write the beautiful stories, as may be seen from Jonah and possibly Ruth, poetry reaches some of its noblest flights in Job, powerful sermons (Is chs. 56 ff.) and apoca- lyptic visions (Is chs. 24-27) were not lacking, but the historical literature can not compare with the productions of the preexilic age. 6. I and II Chronicles. The Books of Chronicles are a historical sketch from Adam to the Babylonian Exile. The first chapters consist of long lists of names, and when the author begins actual history, he makes free use of the earlier books, and while possibly using sources that have been lost he pre- sents the material according to the ideas of his own time, when the Priestly Code was beginning to dominate the situation. It was history with a pur- pose, the purpose being to teach the supreme im- portance of the Temple worship. There has been much discussion concerning the closing paragraph of this book (II Ch 36 22-23; Ezr 1 1-3; I Hsd 1 1-5a). ‘They are not the proper close of a history, but the introduction; hence their true place is in Ezra, I and II Chronicles originally formed with Ezra one work, and in the separation this paragraph was allowed to remain either by chance, or as an evi- dence that the two writings were originally one, or, with less probability, it may have been appended to II Chronicles to give a more hopeful close to the book (even as II Kings closes with the notice of the release of Jehoiachim).’ (Curtiss, in ICC., Chronicles). It is very generally accepted that these books which appear as three in the English Bible, Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, formed one large work, altho we have no evidence of their existence as one book. Their compilation must have been a complicated process. There is, however, sufficient evidence that Ezra-Nehemiah was in ancient times treated as one book. This book has many affinities with Chronicles, but students should consider care- fully the differences which are sometimes ignored. (See Davies in New Cent. Bible.) 7. The Ezra Literature. Students beginning to study these books are in danger of being confused by the varying notation. In addition to the later legends that gathered round the name of the great scribe, there are two books outside the Canon that have borne his name. Now we usually refer to the four books as Ezra, Nehemiah, I Esdras (the Latin form of the name), and II Esdras, but some- times the last two are cited as III and IV Esdras. To understand this we must remember that formerly our two books were classed as Ezra (Esdras) I and II, just as Chronicles was divided into I and II, and afterwards the name Nehemiah was applied to Ezra II. Thus the series ran, using the names with which we are most familiar, Ezra I, Ezra II (Nehe- miah), Ezra III (Esdras I), Ezra IV (Esdras IT). The detailed history of the MSS. is more complicated, but this simple arrangement will suit our present purpose. I Esdras, the third of the above series, ‘The Greek Ezra,’ is really another version of Ezra- Nehemiah with additions from Chronicles and other sources (See Espras, Booxs or). Esdras II (or Ezra IV) is an apocalyptic book, probably com- posite, not earlier than 100 a.p. 8. Ezra-Nehemiah (formerly Ezra I and II). The following analysis is given for the purpose of in- dicating the evidences of compilation and the problems that emerge; the discussion of such problems, many of them insoluble, can not be attempted in a brief statement. The First Part of the Book. Ezr 11-5 (I Es 21-5, the decree of Cyrus giving to Jews in Babylon persmission to return to Jerusalem. Ezr 1 6-11 (I Es 2 6-15), the gifts for the temple. Shesh- bazzar (vs. 8, 11) is probably an earlier governor and not to be identified with Zerubbabel. Ezr 2 1-70 = Neh 77 4. (I Es 57 ff.), list of those who returned in 538 B.c. The number of people, when the classes are added, varies in these three lists, but that is often the case in ancient documents. Ezr ch. 3 (I Es 5 47 ff.), the religious life of the nation resumed; the altar built and the foundation of the temple laid. Ezr 4 1-5 (I Es 5 66-73), the Samaritans’ offer of assistance in the building of the Temple is refused (see above). Ear 4 6-23 (I Es 2 15-25), story of the opposition to the building of the city walls. This section is in Aramaic, and may have been extracted from records in that language. It is out of its proper place as it deals with the building of the walls. A better posi- tion would be between Ezr ch. 10 and Neh ch. 1 (Batten treats it in that place). It may refer to the period just before or at the beginning of Nehemiah’s governorship. Ezr. 4 24-6 22 (I Es 2 30b, and chs. 6 and 7). This section also (to 6 18) 1s in the Aramaic dialect. It continues the history, interrupted by 4 6-23, and shows how the rebuilding of the Temple proceeded with the help of the King of Persia. The Second Part of the Book. Ezra’s arrival at Jerusalem and» his work there; based upon Ezra’s own memoirs in chs. 7-10. Some place this section after Neh 13, and then cause it to be followed by Neh chs. 8, 9, and 10. Between Ezra chs. 6 and 7 there is a gap of about 60 years for which we have no Biblical records. There may have been such that have been 255 A NEW STANDARD lost, but certainly hard work must have gone on which manifested its results later in the life of the Jewish Church. Ezr 7 12-26 is in the Aramaic dialect. Ezr 7 1-10 (I Es 8 1-7), introduction to the decree of Artaxerxes. Ezr 7 11-26 (1 Es 8 8-24), the decree. Ezr 8 1-14 (I Es 8 28-40), list of those who returned with Ezra. Ezr 8 15-36 (I Es 8 41-67), the assembling of the party at the River Ahava, the journey and the arrival at Jerusalem. Ezr ch. 9 (I Es 8 68-90), Ezra’s vexation at the mixed marriages and his attempts to put an end to the same. Ezr ch. 10 (I Es 8 91- 9 36), the repentance of the people and judgment upon the offenders, closing with the list of those who had married ‘strange women.’ Neh 7 73b-10 39 (I Es 9 37-55), the religious Reform of Ezra continuing the history of Ezr ch. 10, and based upon Ezra’s memoirs. Neh 11-75, inthe main Nehemiah’s own vivid picturesque description of his first journey from Persia to Jerusalem. Neh 7 6-73a, list of Jews who returned from Babylon, based on Ezr ch. 2. Neh 11 1-12 26, list of laymen, priests, Levites, etc. Neh 12 27-47, dedication of the walls, and organization of the Levites. Neh 131-3, attempt to separate from Israel ‘the mixed multitude.’ Neh 13 4-29, Nehemiah’s second administration, expulsion of Tobiah, care for the sanctity of the Temple, the support of the Levites, observance of the Sabbath and energetic protest against mixed marriages. Neh 13 30-31, his brief summary of the work he had attempted to accomplish. 9. The Question of Historicity. This can not be discussed in any detail. The amount of learning, skill and ingenuity that had been expended upon it during the past generation is enormous. It is one of the most difficult regions of Hebrew history. A brief statement of the contents of the books shows that they bristle with intricate problems, historical, literary, and textual. We can simply record our conviction that a review of the recent work of mod- ern scholars leaves the impression that, while the traditional interpretation can not be completely maintained, the extreme radical criticism has had to be modified. Oriental views of history and their methods of treating it were different from our own, their sources were scanty, it did not appeal to them as their duty to check carefully their own sympathies. The Chronicler and the men of his time are clear examples of the fact that the mission of the histor- ian was to use his material to teach his own creed and glorify the religious institutions of his own age. If there are gaps in the history, difficulties, even con- tradictions, in the chronology, exaggeration in the pumbers, we must nevertheless be thankful that Ezra and Nehemiah Ezri BIBLE DICTIONARY ‘the Chronicler’ and others have given us a picture of the struggle by which Jerusalem was restored and Judaism established, tho it is not as clear and har- monious as we would desire. It was through the self-denying efforts of men, to whom patriotism and religion were supreme, that the continuity and purity of the Church was secured. ‘Those who now claim to possess a knowledge of ‘historical perspective’ should judge soberly the zeal and ‘intolerance’ of -men who were fighting for their lives. Ill. Toe Men And THEIR WoRrK. 10. Ezra was a type of the scribe, a class of men to whom Judaism owed its very existence, and they, rather than the priests saved the books and the religion in the great crises. Even if he were a creation of the Chronicler, the tendencies that he is supposed to represent are features of the historical movement of the time. But it is probable that we have the mem- oirs of a real Jewish scholar and teacher of the Law. Passages such as Ezr 3 11-13, 8 21, 22 have both poetic feeling and spiritual power; they show the faith and emotion that are common to all great religious movements. 11. Nehemiah. With regard to Nehemiah there are no such doubts; he speaks for himself, he im- presses his personality upon the reader; we might almost say that his words are the beginning of real autobiography. His sorrow for the home land, his night visit to the broken walls, the courage with which he faced the enemy and controlled internal discussions, his refusal to seek safety in the hour of danger, his appeal to God and his proud claim that he has done his duty,—these are bright bits of life and literature, coming as part of a chronicle that often seems dry and formal. Such things the world will not willingly allow to die for only by such faith and courage can great victories be won. LireRATURE: Driver’s LOT 9; Ryle in Camb. Bible (1st Ed.); T. W. Crafer (ibid 2d Ed. 1916); T. Witton Davies, New Cent. B.; L. W. Batten, on Ezra-Nehemiah (1913) and EK. C. Curtis on Chronicles (1910) in ICC; Articles in HDB and EB; Esdras I and II by A. Duff, Temple Bible; ak ae Hay, W af After the Exile, 2 vols. (1890). EZRAH, ez’ra (IY, ‘ezrah, Ezra AV), ‘help’: The head of a family of Judah (I Ch 417). EZRAHITE, ez’ra-hait CUTS, ’ezrahi): Ethan in I K 4 31 and Herman in the titles to Pss 88 and 89 are called ‘Ezrahites.’ The word is probably de- rived from Zerah (cf. I Ch 2 6), meaning ‘a descen- dant of Zerah,’ who figured as ancestral head of one of the divisions or clans of Judah. E. E. N. EZRI, ez’rai (WY, ‘ezrz), ‘my help’: One of David’s superintendents (I Ch 27 26). Fable Faith A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY FABLE. In the O T there is one conspicuous example of the fable, Jg 9 8-15 but it is not so desig- nated. This one example would indicate however some acquaintance with the fable in ancient Israel. Fables is found in the N T as the rendering of the plural of the Gr. p.060¢ ‘myth’ inI Til 4,47; II Ti 44; Ti 14; IL P1416. Im all these passages such ‘fables’ are severely condemned, altho some belief in or regard to them was being urged by propagan- dists upon the faith and conduct of Christians. The reference may be to Jewish legendary expansion of Biblical material such as we have in abundance in some of the Apocryphal and Apocalyptic litera- ture (e.g., the Book of Jubilees or the Testaments of the XII Patriarchs) and in the later Jewish litera- ture. Or the reference may be to certain types of essentially Gnostic speculations (see GNOSTICISM). Cf. Locke in JCC on The Pastoral Epistles (1924). E. 4. FACE. See Cosmocony, § 2; Gop, § 2; Rrver- LATION, § 11. FAIR HAVENS: A harbor on the S. coast of the island of Crete, E. of Cape Lithinos, and a few m. W. of Leben, the seaport of Gortyna. The harbor is formed by a bay, open to the E., and sheltered on the SW. by two small islands. During summer this bay gives mariners safe anchorage (Ac 27 8 ff.), and therefore was called Kaot Atuéves, a name which per- sists in the modern Limenes Kali. J. R. S.8.*—E. E. N. FAIRS: In reality, the commodities (‘wares’ RV) bartered in the Oriental bazaars and markets (Ezk 2712-27 AV). Seein general TRapE AND COMMERCE. FAITH. This word must be studied in connec- tion with its great allies, ‘belief’ (‘believe’), and ‘trust.’ All three are used in Scripture to describe a fundamental act or attitude of personal beings toward one another, without which fellowship, either within human relations or between the human and the Divine, would be impossible. 1. Inthe OT. Altho the true nature of faith is first fully discovered in the N T, we find that in the O T the complete fact is prepared for through im- portant stages of experience. It is not a doctrine of faith that we encounter, but examples of it. The three principal Heb. verbs’a@man, (hiph‘tl) ‘to believe’, batah, ‘to trust,’ and hdasah, ‘to take refuge,’ occur oftener than the corresponding nouns. (1) It may be said, as we look back from our Christian vantage- ground, that faith as a conscious religious act was born when the Israelite first began to discover his relations with a personal and moral being, as his God. Apart from the great passage in Gn 15 6, none of these words occurs in any really significant way until we reach the story of Moses and the Exodus. But as soon as the prophet appears to speak for the invisible and living God, the subject of belief or trust appears. At first the question is whether the hearers will believe the prophet (Ex 4 1-9, 31, 19 9; ef. Is 5381; II Ch 20 20). But then to believe the word of the prophet is to believe J”, who speaks through him; and that deeper act be- comes a believing in Him (Ex 14 31; Dt 1 32; IT K 17 14). (2) Thus we pass on to the still deeper fact that God becomes the constant object of the people’s trust, especially in the face of public danger. Then they are said to ‘take refuge’ in Him (hasaéh, IIS 22 3, 31; cf. Dt 32 37; Jg 9 15). tional literature, however, and in the great proph- ets that this act of direct trust in God is most often expressed, and it is there that the ground of that act is found in the faithfulness of God. The three words occur abundantly in the Psalms (27 13, 40 3, 4, 78 22, 89 24, 119 90; 22 4, 25 2, 37 3, 5, 52 8, 84 12; 2 12, 348, 40 4, 711, 141 8), and there they often utter the sense of absolute dependence and joyous confidence in God. We meet them less often in the prophets; but in Jer and Is the circumstances called for a new emphasis on the character as well as on the power of J’’; and that evoked the demand for the act of faith. When Judah’s earthly resources seemed shrunken before the might of a great empire, the question of trust in the Divine Deliverer became supreme (Is 7 9, 28 16, 12 2, 26 1-7, 36 15 [|[II K 18 30]; Jer 7 1-15 [folly of misplaced trust], 17 5-7, 39 18). In the O T, then, this act of faith has not yet become a di- rect object of thought (cf. Is 2816; Hab24). Its vast spiritual significance could appear only when the revelation of the Divine grace on which it is directed had itself been consummated in a spiritual manner. 2. In the Synoptic Teaching of Jesus. When we open the N T we find ourselves in a world where faith has become king among all human acts and ex- periences. Like other great words—Spirit, grace, love, righteousness, life, etc.—this word ‘faith’ be- comes illumined and expanded beyond all its past uses and meanings. The process begins with Christ Himself in His explicit teaching, and His practical demands. (1) He, first of all teachers, made men think directly of faith, as an act of supreme power. Thus He connects His own works of healing on sev- eral occasions with the faith of the patient (Mt 8 13, 9 2, 22, 29; Mk 5 36, 9 23, 24; Lk 1719). Heavows that He has been seeking faith ‘in Israel’ (Mt 8 10; Mk 919). The extraordinary power of faith is set forth in one saying or set of sayings, which appears in different connections and forms, as if, the idea were central in His mind and found various outlets (Mt 17 20; Lk 17 5, 6; Mt 21 21; Mk 11 22-24). He re- bukes His disciples for lack of faith (Mt 14 27, 31; Mk 4 40, 817-21). (2) The demand of Jesus for faith underlies His whole teaching concerning God and concerning His own relation to the kingdom of God. For the injunction that we must approach God as Father (Mt 6 4, 6-15; Mk 11 22-25), that we must repent and seek forgiveness (Mk 1 15, 11 23-25; Lk 7 47-50, 8 12-15, 15 17-19), as the primary condition of right relation with Him, that we must meet all ills and the chances of life as His children (Mt 6 25-32), makes the act of trust the supreme thing. The whole work of Jesus with His disciples, as even the passages above referred to indicate, aimed at creating in them a profound and complete trust in (3) It is in the devo-- 257 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Fable Faith Himself, the Messiah, the head of the kingdom of God and Savior of men. The faith which won healing was first of all faith in His own power and grace (Mk 5 36, 9 22-24). 3. In the Fourth Gospel. It is one of the most remarkable facts of the Fourth Gospel that the verb mtotedety occurs in it not less than 95 times, while the noun xictts does not occur even once. More- over, in I Jn the noun is used only once, in the great saying of 5 4, while the verb occurs nine times. The act of faith is represented in this Gospel as occupying a very prominent place in the discussions of Jesus. It is viewed as the characteristic of the new way and is spoken of absolutely (1 7, 4 48, 53, 6 47, 64, 11 15, 14 29, 20 8). Of course in most cases an object is named, but this freely and variously. Thus, it is God as the Sender of the Christ (5 24, 12 44; cf. 141, 10, 11, 17 8), 2.e., the faith in Christ carries with it and in it faith in God. They are inseparable objects of one act and not objects of two acts in different directions. But, again, Christ Himself is usually described as the object of faith. It may be His name (1 12, 2 23), or His spoken word (2 22, 3 12, 4 21, 50, 5 47, 8 45), or His works (10 38), or the fact that He is the Christ (11 27, 6 69, 8 24, 13 19, 20 31), the one ‘sent’ of God (5 38, 11 42, 16 27-30, 17 8, 21). But most generally it is Christ Himself in the fulness of His Divine authority and power and grace on whom faith is directed (2 11, 3 16, 18, 4 39, 7 5, 31, 38, 9 35-38, 12 42, 141). The results of faith are usually summed up in the words ‘eternal life’ (3 16, 5 24, 6 40, 47, 20 31), but other descriptions occur (1 12, 3 18, 6 35, 12 36, 46). It can not be said that there is any doctrine of faith in this Gospel which is not implicit in the Synoptics. The fuller emphasis is found (a) in the prolog and chapter 20; (b) in the historian’s statements regarding the relations of men to Jesus (2 11, 23, 4 39, 41, 7 5, 11 48, 12 11, 42, 20 8); (c) in the various discussions between Jesus and the educated Jews who opposed Him; (d) in the last conversations with the disciples. There is even here no formal examination of faith in a theo- logical manner. It is not compared with other principles, as in the Epistles. But the abundant use of the verb shows that the author recognizes this as the crucial point in the relation of Christian- ity to Judaism; 7.e., on the human side. Faith is a real knowledge, but it is opposed to sight and to speculation; and the present possession of the boons received in faith is stated emphatically. What Christ is to temple, sacrifice, legal enactment, that faith is to the corresponding human acts which those institutions evoke. This the author seems clearly to see, but he buries it in the substance of his story, without formal defense. 4. In the Pauline Epistles. The words ‘faith’ (xlotts) and ‘believe’ (mtotetetv) occur almost 200 times in the thirteen Pauline Epistles. The verb does not occur in Color Phm. In contrast with the O T and with Jn the noun occurs nearly three times oftener than the verb. The great fact has been at last fully identified, and, altho nowhere defined, is capable of direct comparison with other ethical or Spiritual principles. (1) The object of faith is vari- ously expressed. It may be a rumor (I Co 11 18), a historical fact (I Th 414; Ro 109; cf. Ro 4 17), testi- mony to a fact (I Co 15 2 f.; I Th 213; II Th 1 10; ef. II Th 2 15), the truth (II Th 2 13), the gospel (Ph 1 27), Christ in the propitiatory power of His blood (Ro 3 25). God is the object of faith simply (Ro 4 3, 17; Gal 36; 1 Th 18; Tit 3 8), or as He acts (Ro 4 5, 24; ef. 109, Col 212). Christ is named as the object eighteen times, twice with the verb (I Ti 116, 3 16), but sixteen times with the noun (Ro 8 22; Gal 2 20; Eph 1 15; Ph 1 29, etc.). Pfleiderer says truly that we nowhere read of motetety Xotot@ as we do of mtotedety Oe@; it 1s equally true, and even more significant, that we do not read of xlotts Gecod, as we do of tiotts Xetotod. Faith in God is faith in Him as the Father of Jesus Christ, and in His re- deeming mercy through Christ. Faith in Christ is faith in Him as the complete Redeemer and the ab- solute Lord of human souls. The cross, the atoning act of God in Christ (Ro 8 24, 25, 83, 32; II Co 519f.), so conditions the relations of God and man that henceforth we can neither conceive of God except as the redeeming God, nor of the cross asa mere past event, but as an act through which God so related Himself with sin and righteousness in human nature that righteousness (justification, forgive- ness) became available to mankind. This faith is neither faith in a mere theory of salvation, nor is. it faith in a God who is not a savior in some definite manner. The Pauline faith is fixed on God, who sent His Son as an offering for sin, and on the living Christ, who offered Him- self. The Eternal God, the Creator and Lord of all, is henceforth so conditioned for man’s apprehen- sion and faith. To trust in Him is to trust in the power of that cross; to trust in Christ whose blood covers sin (Ro 3 25) is to trust in God. (2) The effect of faith is the justification (cf. JusTIFICATION) of the believer (Ro 1 17, 3 24-27, 4 1-25, 5 1; Gal 2 16, 3 1-29; Eph 28; Ph 39). This is the gateway to all else, union with Christ (Gal. 2 20), the indwelling Spirit (Eph 3 16, 17), peace (Ro 5 1), sonship (Gal 3 26), etc. This is the heart of Paul’s Gospel, in which the real implications of Christ’s person and teaching and atoning work come to light. As the faith of Abraham was reckoned to him for righteous- ness, when as yet the legal system was not estab- lished, and the promise of God alone stood before him, so in Christ the legal system is surpassed, and the promise of a universal grace confronts the world. He who puts his faith in God-in-Christ as the offerer of mercy is thereby at once in right re- lations (righteousness) toward God. God hence- forth treats him as righteous in holy and loving mercy. This faith is the basis of all further fellow- ship between the believer and God. St. Paul contrasts faith chiefly with legal obedience; in its world nothing statutory has a place. He thus re- pudiates the fancied religious superiority of the Jew. Faith, the opposite of merit, is the new way, an- nounced in Christ, whereby men become right with God. (3) It is natural that faith so potent and sig- nificant should gradually become a term equivalent to the gospel or the Christian religion. It contains an intellectual element. Because through faith man is justified, all that a man apprehends concern- Faith Family and Family Law 258 pn ace aaie sapere SE DSW eee ame Se lesan ar ee D ee PO Da Cunt Pe dE IES on On > SETS SRI aE RNS ES TARE SEE RTE PN ens Pa ing God, Christ, humanity, becomes supremely im- portant. These various elements coalesce more or less definitely into a system of facts, historical and spiritual, which are naturally called his ‘faith’ (I Co 25, 15 1-4, 1613; II Co 1 24; Eph 45; Ph 1 27; Col 1 23; 1 Ti39, 58; Tit 113). From this element in the act of faith theology takes its rise. (4) Finally, the Pauline view of faith includes its nature and power as a creative ethical force which finds a chan- nel in love and hope, joy and peace. It is no mere technicality of an abstract religion. It describes the attitude of person to person, and hence implies both an emotional and a volitional element. It, therefore, determines conduct (Ro 614-23; 141, 2, 22, 23; Gal 2 20, etc.), and the moral quality of that con- duct is itself derived from Him who is the object of faith. He, and not a series of legal prescriptions, molds the ideal, and guides the steps of the Chris- tian man (Ro 7, 8, 14 22, 23; I Co 6 11, 19; Gal 5 6). All Pauline moral exhortations rest on this concep- tion. 5. In the Other Epistles, In the other N T writings we find no such deep grasp of the new principle as in Paul, altho there is nothing incon- sistent with his doctrine of faith. Yet there are characteristic differences of emphasis. The Ep. of James, in the famous passage 2 14-26, seems to correct a false deduction from the Pauline doctrine. James does not deny the latter; but he insists that the principle of faith is not antinomian, since a living faith, as that of Abraham, must issue in works, and so be ‘made perfect,’ or reach its end. And this, in other words, Paul says abundantly. The Ep. to the Hebrews describes faith at length—stressing its moral quality as a Christian virtue—in 11 1-12 6: (1) Faith is defined as that which deals with the future (promised) and the invisible (God, Christ), and this is illustrated. (2) It is proved that faith is the real substance of O T history and also a new thing, not created by but consummated in Christian- ity. (3) But we are commanded to live by faith, not by legal observances, because Jesus has appeared as its ‘author and perfecter.’ As such He has become its object (12 2). Thus it appears that on all sides the N T reveals Christ as the Person who has so appeared from God and acted for God that all other religious instruments fall away; and faith, issuing in obedience, including an eager but patient expecta- tion, becomes the great and universal principle, filling the present with the power of the future, binding man to God. LITERATURE: Inge, Faith and its Psychology (1909); E. W. Meyer, Das christliche Gotivertrauen und der Glaube an Christus (1899); A. Schlatter, Der Glaube im N T (81905); Warfield in HDB, art. ‘Faith,’ B. Weiss, The Religion of the N T, ch. 16 (transl. 1905); A. C. McGiffert, The Apostolic Age (1897), pp. 141-145, 457-460, 473-475, 498; W. H. P. Hatch, The Pauline Idea of Faith; A. B. Bruce, St. Paul’s Conception of Christianity (1894), chs. vii, xiii; E. F. Scott, Epistle to the Hebrews, ch. ix; P. Wernle, The Beginnings of Christianity (transl., 1903), pp. 192-194, 216-223; Herrmann, Communion With God (Eng. transl., 1906); the works on O T theology of H. Schultz and A. B. Davidson; and on N T Theology by B. Weiss, Holtzmann, Weinel, Feine (3d ed. 1919), and Stevens; H. A. A. Kennedy, The The- ology of the Epistles (1919); J. Oman, Grace and Personality (1919), pp. 132-151; commentaries on the Epp. to Galatians, (ICC), Romans, (ICC), James, (Mayor), and Hebrews (ICC). W. D. M.—H. R. M FALCON. See Pauzusrinn, § 25. FALL, See Sin, § 9. FALLOW DEER. Foon, § 10. FALSE WITNESS. See Law anp Leaat PrRaAc- TISE, § 4 (2); and Crimes AND PUNISHMENTS, 2 (b), FAMILIAR FRIEND: In Job 19 14 this expres- sion means ‘acquaintances.’ In Ps 41 9; Jer 20 10 it is a good rendering of ’énésh sh*lémi, ‘man of my peace.’ FAMILIAR SPIRIT: The Heb. 3x, ’6bh, was used generally for ‘the spirit of the departed,’ but the etymology and exact meaning of the word is not known. As certain persons professed or were supposed to harbor, or be in communion with, such spirits, there were said ‘to have familiar spirits’ (Lv 19 31, etc.). See Magic anp Divination, § 3. K. E. N. FAMILY AND FAMILY LAW, 1. Terms De- noting Family. The term ‘family,’ as it occurs in the Eng. Bible, is nearly always the translation of the Heb. word 93¥2, mishpahah, which properly means ‘clan,’ altho it is often used in the narrower sense of ‘family.’ In a few instances 3, bayith, ‘house,’ is rendered ‘family,’ and in a large propor- tion of cases in which ‘house’ is retained the reference is to the household or family. Other terms, such as seed, flesh, etc., are often used figuratively for family. Family relationships, especially the more remote ones, as those of uncle, ‘cousin,’ nephew, etc., are often expressed only generally rather than exactly, the word brother, e.g., being frequently used to cover such relations (cf. Gn 14 14, 24 48; Ly 25 25, etc.). 2. The Significance of the Family in Heb. Society. The words ‘family,’ ‘house,’ ‘household,’ as used in the O T, do not represent exactly the same ideas as these same terms do with us. In Heb. society the mishpaéhdah was the fundamental social unit. It might be composed of a number of ‘families,’ in our more restricted sense of the word. It was the foundation of the clan, often equivalent to it, and as such the main constituent element of the tribe. In the more primitive conditions that lay behind Heb. society, as we find it in the O T, doubtless the ‘family’ was relatively less important than the clan or tribe. But with the development of a more complex type of life in Canaan, tribal and clan relations receded and the family attained to the position of prime im- portance. See IsramL, SoctaL DEVELOPMENT OF, §§ 11 and 26. The Heb. family was made up of several groups, or units, at whose head stood one ‘father,’ or master. There might be several wives, each with her own set of children, also, concubines with children. There might also be a larger or smaller number of servants, male and female. Some of the servants might be married and have children. It was also possible that one or more of the sons of the father might be married and living on the paternal estate still under the father’s care and authority, with wife or wives under the control of the husband’s mother. Within this complex it is impossible to draw the line between the family, in our sense of the term, and the mtshpdhah or bayith See Pauestine, § 24; and uLe 259 A NEW STANDARD of the O T. It is true that our O T evidence relates mainly to the more independent, well-to-do property- owners. Doubtless, there were many small families (husband, one wife, and children) in Israel, but the larger ‘house’ corresponded more nearly with the ideal of the majority, especially in the earlier pre- exilic days. 3. Marriage. The basis of the family was, of course, marriage. We are here concerned only with the facts regarding marriage as we actually find them in the O T. For theories as to the nature of the marriage relation among the primitive Semites see MARRIAGE AND Divorce. In the O T marriage is viewed as a relation in which the husband is master, lord, owner. There may be some traces of & more primitive condition when the wife was more independent (matriarchate) or when polyandry was practised. But these lie beyond the horizon of O T history. See IsraEL, Soctan DEVELOPMENT OF, § 11. In the O T there is no specific word for marriage. The expressions are always concrete and relate to the actual condition. The man is the ba‘al, ‘master,’ ‘owner,’ of his ‘woman’; he ‘takes’ a woman; the wife is be‘uldah, 7.e., ‘under the dominion of a ba‘al’; or she is ‘the woman’ of her ‘man’ (cf. Hos. 2 16). The marriage contract was between the husband (or his father) and the family of the bride, rather than between the two as individuals. The bride was practically purchased, the méhar, dowry, ‘pur- chase-money,’ being paid to the father of the bride. This fact placed a restriction on polygamy. A man could only have as many wives as he could afford to pay for with a mdhar sufficient to satisfy the family of each wife. No disgrace was attached to polyg- amy, or to the concubinage that might exist be- tween a master and his female slaves. Notwith- standing this commercial aspect of marriage, there is abundant evidence in the O T that the love of the young people for each other often played an im- portant part in the preliminaries of a marriage (cf. Jacob and Rachel, Gn ch. 29; David and Michal, IS 18 20; and in general, Song of Solomon). Ancient Heb. society gave more liberty to its women than is the case in the Mohammedan East of to-day. The Law forbade the marriage of two (probably full) sis- ters to the same man (Lv 18 18); but the story of Jacob seems to show that actual practise was often different (or did Rachel and Leah have different mothers?). Marriage between half-brothers and sisters was allowable (Gn 20 12; II S 18 13). For further particulars on this point see MARRIAGE AND Divorce. 4. The House-father. The head of a Heb. house- hold was the chief personage of what was a religious as well as a social institution. The family in primitive Heb. society had a religious significance. Through it the cult of the tribal and family deities was prac- tised and perpetuated. (On the cult of the dead, even in Israel, see Paton, Spiritism in Antiquity, pp. 208 ff. and 248 ff.). The house-father may well be viewed as the priest of the group of which he was the family-head. He was responsible for the religious life of his family and he was also the chief religious functionary. It was he who offered the sacrifices to the family deities, or, as later was Faith BIBLE DICTIONARY Family and Family Law the case, to Jehovah the national deity, on behalf of his family and their interests (cf. the cases of the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Job, etc). This will explain such passages as Gn 31 53, 32 9, and, in part, also the reverence paid to the family sepulcher, for the family with its ancestors constituted a cultus- unit. For an example of such family sacrificial ob- servances see I § 20 6. To the house-father was thus due a reverence that bordered closely on the reverence due to deity (cf. the place in the Decalog of the 5th Command- ment). To dishonor a parent was a crime worthy of death (Ex 21 15, 17). Within his own domain the master’s authority was well-nigh absolute. His wife, or wives, looked up to him as their lord (cf. Gn 18 12). He was the chief, the elder, the father. Even to extreme old age he retained, nominally at least, this authority (cf. the story of Jacob). These house-fathers constituted the elders of the Heb. communities, the ancient men, whose counsel and means were the basis of tribal administration and who maintained their importance long after the tribes had become little more than a convenient fiction. On the father rested the responsibility of training and instructing his household in the tra- ditions of the family, tribe, or nation (Gn 18 19; Ex 12 26, 18 8; Dt 67) and to him the sons looked for their education after coming out from under the tutelage of the mother (Pr I 8, 3 12, 41, 181, etc.). While Heb. law and custom gave such large power to the house-father, the O T is full of evidence that the Heb. families were no strangers to kindness and affection. The fathers loved their children and were loved by them (cf. the stories of Jacob and Joseph, of Jephthah, of David, etc.). Naturally, the po- lygamy that was probably the rule rather than the the exception was the source of much discord and of many evils. But in spite of this, the Heb. family was a nursery of virtue, and often a home of a faith and piety that were a genuine anticipation of the higher ideal realized later in the Christian home. 5. The Wife and Mother. While the wife was really bought and paid for and was thus legally the property of the husband (see § 3 above, and cf. the old form of the 10th Commandment, Ex 20 17, where the wife is a part of the ‘house’), the actual position of a Heb. wife was, at least in many eases, far from that of a mere slave or chattel. Her family, for instance, generally stood ready to avenge any undue ill treatment from her husband. Women of spirit and ability appear to have found no difficulty in maintaining a fairly independent position (e.g., Sarah, Rebekah, Abigail, etc.). In families where there were two or more wives, ‘one beloved and the other hated,’ the lot of the latter was doubtless hard. The Law forbade unjust discrimination against the son of the ‘hated’ wife, if it was the first-born (Dt 21 15), but contained no provision for alleviating the lot of such a woman herself. That was a case belonging to the inner sphere where the husband was supreme. If the husband’s mother was alive, the wife, or wives, were to a certain extent under her dominion even in the royal harem. She was the g*bhirah, ‘queen-mother,’ often mentioned in the notices of the Books of Kings and elsewhere (I K Family and Family Law Fast, Fasting A NEW STANDARD 15 13; II K 1013, etc.). On the wife rested a large re- sponsibility. Much of the manual labor was per- formed by the Heb. women. Grinding the meal, baking, weaving the cloth, churning, etc., all fell to the women to do. Hence the representation of the ideal wife as we find it in Pr 31 10 ff. The restric- tions upon the participation by Heb. women in the social life of their times were not so many, or so severe, as in the case in Syria to-day; tho women did not mingle with men as freely as is allowed in modern Western society. To become a wife and mother was the fond de- sire of every Heb. woman. Not to be married was a disgrace, and to become a childless wife was equally mortifying. On the other hand, to be a mother—especially of a son—was the crowning joy of life (cf. the story of Hannah, 18 1f., or of Rachel; Gn ch. 30). In primitive society, the greater the number of sons the greater the number of spears. The standing of a family depended upon the number of its valiant men. Thus early was fostered the de- sire for sons, and it continued to exist among the Hebrews until the latest times. The high position and honor accorded to the Heb. mother is one of the brighter characteristics of the O T. The mother, as well as the father, was to be honored according to the Law (Ex 20 12, 2115). The children, both boys and girls, were almost entirely under the tutelage of the mother during their earlier years, and the daughters remained so until their marriage (cf. Pr 1 8, etc.). See also MARRIAGE AND Divorce. 6. Children. As with other peoples of com- paratively simple life, childbirth among the Hebrews does not appear to have been viewed as particularly dangerous, tho of course not free from pain (ef. Gn 316; Ex 119). The employment of midwives (q.v.) was common. The term rendered ‘birth-stool’ (Ex 1 16) is no longer clearly understood (but see also DisEASE AND Mepicing#, § 8). This is also the case with the expression to bear ‘upon the knees’ (Gn 30 3, 50 23) of another. As soon as the babe was born, the navel cord was cut; then the child was washed, rubbed with salt (as is still done in Syria), and wrapped in swaddling-clothes (Ezk 16 4). The mother was considered ceremonially unclean for seven days after the birth of a boy, and for fourteen after that of a girl. She was also ‘to continue in the blood of her purifying’ thirty-three additional days after the birth of a boy, and sixty-six after that of a girl (Lv 12 1-5). Names were given, generally at birth, either by the mother (Gn 4 1, 25, 29 32, etc.), or by the father (Gn 5 29, 16 15; Ex 2 22, etc., see Namgss, § 1). The legitimacy of a child was derived from the father, not from the mother, and in case a wife was childless she welcomed the child of her husband by one of her maid-servants as if it were her own (Gn 301-12), and gave it its name. In later times the name appears to have been given a boy on the occasion of his circumcision (Lk 1 59, 2 21), which took place on the eighth day after birth (Gn 17 11 f.; Lv 12 3. See Crrcumcision). Heb. children were generally nursed by their mothers, and were kept at the breast a long period (probably as much as two or even three years, as is the case in Syria to-day). Mother-love among the Hebrews was strong, and BIBLE DICTIONARY 260 altho girls were far less welcome than boys, we hear nothing of the practise of exposure of female infants (except its condemnation as pagan, Ezk 165). The weaning of a child, especially the first-born or heir, was the occasion of festivities (Gn 21 8). The first- born boy was considered sacred to J’’ and could be redeemed from being devoted to Him only by a redemption sacrifice (Ex 13 i1 ff., 22 39, 3419f.). This may have had its roots in a primitive Semitic or Canaanite custom of actually sacrificing all first- born sons to deity. All the children, both boys and girls, were under the tutelage of the women of the house until the boys gradually came to be attached more closely to the men and were taught by them the knowledge of the profession from which the family gained its livelihood (different in different ages, local- ities, and special circumstances). The father and mother were the chief fountains of knowledge and authority (cf. Pr 1 8, etc.). In well-to-do families nurses (cf. II S 4 4) and instructors, or tutors (II K 10 1, 5), were not uncommon (cf. also the case of Nathan and Solomon, II S 12 25). Schools, as such, are not mentioned in the O T. But some means of obtaining ‘higher’ education must have existed. Elementary instruction was imparted largely within the family circle (see Epucation). Ancient Heb. law seems not to haverecognized any period when a boy became ‘of age.’ So long as the father was alive and vigorous the sons were supposed to be subject to him, altho a son who had set up an independent home would not be so completely under the father’s rule as one who remained on the paternal estate. A’ daughter was the property of the father until she was married (Ex 21 7 #.; cf. 22 16 f.; Lv 19 29). A widow or divorced woman might return to her father’s house and again become his property (cf. Gn 38 11). The early code of E (Ex 22 22) and especially Dt (10 18, 16 11, 24 17, 27 19, etc.) enjoined just and kind treatment for the fatherless, both to protect them in their legal rights (of inheritance) and to lay upon the well-to-do the responsibility of caring for such un- fortunates. But the prophetic pleas in behalf of the widow and fatherless (Is 1 17, 23, 9 17, 10 2; Jer 5 28, 7 6, etc.) show that there was a widespread failure in carrying out the injunctions of the Codes. Apparently there was no definite provision com- pelling obedience to the Code. 7. Servants and Dependents. The servants and other dependents of a Heb. house formed no unim- portant element. The servants were the property of the master or his wife (or wives), whose authority over them was nearly absolute. Female servants might be the individual property of one of the wives (e.g., Hagar, Sarah’s maid, Gn 161 ff., or Zilpah and Bilhah, Gn 29 24, 29), who had independent authority over them (Gn 16 6, 21 8 ff.). Certain restrictions were placed upon a too severe exercise of this authority. Six years was the limit of the service of a Heb. slave, unless he chose to become a life-servant (Ex 21 2-5). If married before his term of service, his wife came in and went out free with him; but if his master had given him his wife, she and her children remained the master’s (Ex 21 2-5). Similar provision was made for the rights of 261 A NEW STANDARD the woman who had been sold into slavery (Ex 21 7-11). The Law sought also to protect servants from extreme injury at the hands of the master (Ex 21 20 f., 26f.). Furthermore, they were not to be sent away empty-handed (Dt 15 12-14, 18) and in case a servant ran away and made good his escape, he was not to be returned (Dt 23 15). Heb. servants shared in the family sacrifices and festivals (Dt 16 11, etc.). The lot of non-Heb. slaves (acquired by capture, purchase from foreigners, etc.) was less fortunate. These were more completely under the power of their owners and the Law was not so careful to protect them against abuse. They were servants for life and, as property, could be passed on as a part of the family inheritance (Lv 25 44 ff.). They were obliged to observe the requirements of Israel’s religion. It was expected that male foreign slaves would be cir- cumcised, and thus made capable of eating the Pass- over (Ex 12 44f.). Toward a female captive the Law took a humane and kindly attitude (Dt 2110-14). Be- sides bond-servants, a Heb. householder was likely to have a number of hired servants (see Dt 24 14), and also ‘strangers’—that is, foreigners who, for one reason or another, put themselves under his pro- tection. Toward the latter the Law took a friendly attitude, seeking to guard them from undue oppres- sion (cf. Ex 20 10, 22 21 f.; Dt 1 16, 10 18, 14 21, etc.), tho making a distinction between them and Is- raelites (Dt 151-6, 23 19). See further under SLAVERY. 8. Family Property, That property belonged to the family rather than to the individual appears to have been a fundamental principle of Heb. society, tho the master had undisputed control so long as he lived. The distribution of property after his death was also, at least in early times, made accord- ing to his directions. While the Law directed that the first-born should always possess the birthright, 7.e., the right to a double portion of the property, even tho he were the son of the ‘hated’ wife (Dt 21 15-17), it is likely that in actual practise there were many exceptions to this rule (cf. Ishmael and Isaac, Jacob and Esau, Solomon as David’s chief heir, etc.). One son could not inherit to the exclusion of all the others. All sons of the same father were ‘brothers,’ even tho some of the sons may have been born of harlots (cf. the case of Jephthah, Jg 11 1 f., where might, not right, drove J. away). A special provision for the inheritance of daughters is given In Nu 27 1-11, 36 1-12. Widows, as a rule, appear to ‘have had no special inheritance, but could, if child- less, claim the right of marriage to the husband’s brother (Dt 25 5-10). The family estate or patrimony (Dt 18 8) was considered a sacred possession given by J” of old and as such was to be retained as long as possible as the possession of the same family. To the nearest heirs (kinsmen) belonged the right of redemption (cf. Ru 4 1-12; Jer 32 6 ff.). Even a king could not override this ancient principle (cf I K 21 3f.). The year of jubilee was designed to restore all landed property to the families that originally owned it (Lv 25 8 f.). It is not likely that all the provisions of this law were ever actually carried out. It was due to this strong feeling regarding the family rights and the hereditary privileges of the family that the Jews BIBLE DICTIONARY Family and Family Law Fast, Fasting took such care to preserve the family genealogies, of which we have so many examples, especially in the later literature (Priests’ Code, and Ch, Ezr, Neh). 9. The Family in the N T. No comprehensive attempt is made in the N T to regulate family life. The Jews possessed the highest and purest type of family life known in antiquity. The N T specifica- tions seek only to bring it all more completely under the supreme principle of Christian love. See also BuRIAL AND BuriaL Customs; MARRIAGE AND Divorce; Movurnine Customs; and SLAVERY. LITERATURE: Nowack, 1894, §§ 26-33) and Benzinger (2nd ed. 1907, §§ 21-26) in their books on Heb. Archdologie; also the article by Benzinger in EB. See also articles by Philip Baldensperger, The Immovable East, in PEFQ, 1910-1920. EK. E. N. FAMINE. See Pauzstine, § 20. FAN, FANNER: The Heb. word (zGradh) ren- dered ‘to fan’ (Is 41 16, etc.) means literally ‘to scatter.’ The grain was fanned by throwing it up with the winnowing shovel and allowing the wind to blow away the chaff. The reading ‘fanner’ in Jer 51 2 (AV) is somewhat doubtful, but the AV is to be preferred, cf. RVmg. See also AGRICULTURE, § 7, FAR: In the expressions ‘far from thee,’ ‘far from me,’ ‘far be it,’ the word ‘far’ represents: (1) The Heb. halilah which expresses the idea of religious abhorrence, 7.e., it would be considered a profana- tion to do so and so. In many cases the AV translated the same Heb. expression by ‘God for- bid,’ which the RV has changed (cf. Gn 447, 17; Jos 22 29, 2416; 1 S 12 23, 14 45, 20 2; Job 27 5). (2) The Gr. YAews cor (Mt 16 22), ‘propitious’ or ‘merciful to thee,’ i.e.. ‘God be merciful to thee and avert it.’ See aso Forsip. EK. E. N. FARE. See Suips anp NaviaatIon, § 1. FARE, FAREWELL. See EPISTLE. FARTHING. See Money, II. FASHION: Behind the occurrences of the word in the EV stands a variety of Heb. and Gr. terms. In some cases the rendering ‘fashion,’ while not always literally exact, well represents the sense of the orig- inal term and needs no comment. In the following instances the rendering calls for some explanation: In Ex 26 30, I K 6 38, Ezk 42 11 the idea is that of a ‘plan’ (lit., ‘judgment’). In Lk 9 29 it is the ‘ap- pearance’ that is meant. The word in Ja 1 11 means literally ‘face’; in Mk 2 12 it is simply the adv. ‘thus.’ In I Co 7 31, Ph 28 the Gr. cyqpa is comprehensive; ‘fashion’ only imperfectly expresses its meaning, which is ‘the whole external arrangement,’ ‘the scheme.’ The same word in verbal form occurs in IT Co 11 13, 14, 15, where the RV renders ‘fashion,’ and in I P 114. The RV rendering is to be preferred in I K 518; Job 109; Ps 189 16; Is 22 11, 44 10; Ac 7 44; Ro 12 2; Ph 8 21. E. E. N. FAST, FASTING: In the O T, tstim, ‘to abstain,’ tsdm, ‘abstinence from food,’ are the words com- monly used. In Is 58 3, 5 these are parallel to ‘innah nephesh, ‘to afflict’ or ‘humble the soul.’ The latter expression is the technical term for ‘fasting’ (cf Ps 35 13, where ‘with fasting’ is added). In the N T we have yyotetety, ‘to abstain,’ and vyotela, ‘ab- stinence from food.’ Before special communion Fast, Fasting Fasts and Feasts with J’, Moses (Ex 34 28; Dt 99, 18) and Elijah (I K 19 8) fasted (cf. also what is said of Jesus, Mt 4 2, and of Paul, Ac 99); it may be considered as having been done in preparation for receiving some great revelation. Fasting was also an expression of grief | over the death of friends (e.g., over Saul and Jona- than, I S 31 13; II S 112). Surprize is expressed that David does not fast after the death of his child (II S 12 20 #.). Nehemiah fasted in sorrow for the condition of Jerusalem (Neh 1 4). Here, however, it expressed also the humbling of himself before God, because of sin, as in Lv 16 29, 31; Ps 35 13, 69 10, and Dn 93. This was preparatory to intercession for for- giveness and help, or in hope that God would be made favorable in time of especial need (IS 7 6; Is 58 3, 5; II Ch 203). Ahab humbled himself when Elijah threatened evil, and thus averted it from himself (I K 21 27 f.); Nineveh was similarly saved (Jon 3 5 f.). There is no doubt that men thought that fasting had a certain magical efficacy in warding off evil or in making God favorable. The prophets, however, laid emphasis on repentance and the humbling of the heart, of which fasting was only the outward act or symbol (Jer 14 12; Jl 2 12 £.; Zec 7 5). There is a suggestion in Jer 14 12 that the act was an offering to J’. Fasting also preceded difficult un- dertakings, in order to gain the favor of God (Est 416; Ezr 8 21). Before the Exile the fasting of indi- viduals and nations was for the most part voluntary, in connection with some especial need or calamity. The only command to fast in the Law is in connec- tion with the Day of Atonement (Lv 16 29, 31, 23 27, 29). After the Exile (Zec 8 19, 7 3, 5) four addi- tional yearly fasts were kept on days commemora- ting national disasters. (See Fasts anp Fnuasts, § 2, IV; cf. also Est 9 31, where weeping and fasting are connected with the Purim feast.) In connection with fasting we find the rending of garments (I K 21 27; Jl 2 13), and the use of sackcloth and ashes (Is 58 5). No work was permitted on the appointed fast-days. Ordinarily the fast was from sunrise to sunset (II S 1 12); but the Day of Atonement lasted from evening to evening. If a fast extended over several days, men abstained from food during the day only. Public fasts were proclaimed (I K 21 9; Ezr 8 21) and sanctified (J1 1 14, 215). Fasting was not allowed on the Sabbath and regular feast-days. The near approach of the Messianic era would make fasting unsuitable (Zec 7 3, 5). In the N T there is evidence that fasting was common among the Jews (cf. Lk 18 12). Jesus, like the prophets, laid em- phasis upon the inner meaning of the outward act (Mt 6 16, 18), and recognized that it was a sign of sor- ow (Mt 9 14, 15). In Mk 9 29, Mt 17 21, and I Co75 ‘with fasting’ is a gloss. Cubs FASTS AND FEASTS. 1. Terms Used. The Heb. uses two words for ‘feast,’ hagh (7) and md‘édh (1¥1), often rendered solemn feast. Thelatteristhe more comprehensive, as it conveys the idea of set time, while the former prescribes in a measure the mode of observance. Another later term, holy convocation (YIP SIP), embodies the notion of form and ceremonial. The hagh was a pilgrimage feast; the same word is used in Arabic to-day of the pilgrimage to Mecca. Originally it may have A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 262 described the festal procession, or even the dance, at the shrine, andthe word occurs in this sense in Ps 42 4, tho ‘to observe a hagh’ meant ‘to visit the sanc- tuary (Ex 23 14-17). In early literature no precise dating is given for any of the sacred seasons. This was partly due to the fact tha’ the harvest varied greatly in different parts of the land. The moon also, being the chronometer (cf. Ps 104 19), introduced an inconstant element. 2. The Sacred Calendar. The calendar of sacred seasons, according to the present form of the Penta- teuch, was as follows: I. Weekly and monthly festivals. (1) Sabbaths. (2) New Moons, each with a prescribed and elaborate ritual. II. Annual festivals. (1) Passover (pesah), observed on the 14th of the first month, called Nisan, or earlier, Abib. (2) Unleavened Bread (matstsdth), beginning on the 15th of the month Abib and continuing 7 days (Ex 23 15, 34 18). (3) Weeks, or Harvest (qdisir), or Pentecost. (4) Trumpets, or New-year’s day, ob- served on the Ist of the 7th month, Tishri. (5) The Day of Atonement, observed on the 10th of the 7th month. (6) Tabernacles, or Booths (sukkdth) or Ingathering (’dstph), observed on the 15th of the 7th month, originally a seven-day feast, later ex- tended to eight days, the 8th day being called Sh-- mini ‘dtsereth. The ritual for these seasons is given at length in Ex ch. 12; Lv chs. 16, 23; Nu chs. 28, 29; Dt. ch. 16. III. Cyclic festivals. (1) The Sab- batical year, every 7th year to be observed, land to lie fallow, slaves to go free, debts to be released. (2) Jubilee, wherein country property reverted to the original owners and Hebrew slaves were ipso facto manumitted (Lv ch. 25). IV. Lesser festivals not prescribed in the Law. (1) Purim, celebrated on the 14th and 15th of Adar (March), in memory of the deliverance of the Jews from Haman’s plot (see EstHer, Book or, § 6). (2) The Feast of the Dedication (Jn 10 22), established by Judas Macca- beus on the 25th of Chislev (Dec.-Jan.) 165 B.c., to commemorate the reconsecration of the Temple, desecrated just 3 years before by pagan sacrifices (1 Mac 4 41-61, II Mac 101-8). The Feast was cele- brated 8 days. Ps ch. 30 (cf. the title) was read as a part of the ritual. (3) The Feast of Rejoicing for the Law, on the completion of the annual reading of the 54 Parashahs or ‘Lesson-sections’ of the Penta- teuch, followed Tabernacles on the 28rd of Tishri. (4) Fast-days: (a) for the capture of Jerusalem by the Chaldeans on the 9th of the 4th month (Jer 39 2). (b) For the burning of the city and Temple on the 7th of the 5th month (II K 25 8 f.). The capture of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple by Titus, which occurred in the 4th and 5th months respectively, gave a new significance to these anniversaries. (c) For the assassination of Gedaliah in the 7th month (Jer 411 f.; II K 25 25; Zee 7 5). (d) For the beginning of the siege of Jerusalem on the 10th day of the 10th month (II K 25 1; Jer 52 4; cf. also Zec 8 19). (5) The Feast of Wood-offering, on the 15th of Ab, when wood was brought and stored for the perpetual altar-fires (Jos. BJ, 11 17 6; ef. Neh 10 34, 13 31). (6) Nicanor’s Day, in commemoration of the victory of Judas Macca- beus over Nicanor, 160 B.c., on the 13th of Adar 263 A NEW STANDARD (March) (I Mac 7 49). (7) The Feast of the Re- BIBLE DICTIONARY Fast, Fasting Fasts and Feasts some time must have been added to the year to raise covered City, in memory of the recapture of the Acra on the 23rd of the 2nd month, 141 B.c. (I Mac 13 50-52). Other festivals of a more local or pupular char- acter, like Sheep-shearing (I S 25 4; II S 13 23), were common at different periods. 3. The Festivals in the Codes. The difficulties felt by every reader when studying the festal regula- tions are real and insoluble upon the theory of a nearly simultaneous origin of the entire legislation; but many obscurities disappear with the recognition that 4 (5) law codes of different dates exist in Ex- Di and Ezk. The four Pentateuchal festal rescripts and Ezekiel’s ordinal arranged chronologically are as follows: (1) Ex 34 18 ff. (J) and Ex 23 10-19; cf. 21 2-7 (Book of the Covenant [E]); (2) Dt 151-6, 12-18 and 16; (3) Ly 23 9-11, 14-182, 39-43 (Holiness Code); (4) Ezk 45 18 ff. and portions of 46; (5) Lv 16 1-34, 23 4-8, 21-23, 33-38, 44; Nu chs. 28, 29 (P). Lv. ch. 25 has much material common to (3) and (5). There is a noticeable advance in these five codes from simplicity to elaborateness of ceremonial. 4, The Festivals in the History. Tho bulking so largely in the legislation, the feasts are seldom mentioned in the history. The great feasts of Solomon (I K 8 65), Hezekiah (II Ch 30 23), Josiah (II K 23 21; II Ch ch. 35), Ezra (Ezr 6 19-22), and Nehemiah (Neh ch. 8), when the Law was promulgat- ed, are extraordinary events. The testimony of the prophets is much more impressive. The pilgrimage feasts of N. Israel with their extravagant and tumul- tuous ritual were revolting to Amos. Hosea de- scribes them as a part of the very web of national life, but more a tribute to Baal than to J’’. Isaiah also was acquainted with a gorgeous ritual and a festal cycle (Is chs. 1 and 29). 5. Origin and Development of the Feasts. Legislation was the crystallization of usage, and the finished product in Nu chs. 28, 29 betrays but a few traces of its origin. Yet a comparison of early legislation and practise with various Semitic customs will reveal much of interest. Two cycles, a lunar and a solar, are combined in the Jewish Sacred Year, and two stages of national life are thereby revealed. The moon is the patron of the shepherd, as the sun is of the farmer. The latter has its seasons more ac- curately dated and divided, but the moon is after all the most convenient chronometer. A nomad people -earried their system of New Moon, Sabbaths, and Passover over into Palestine. There they met with festal celebrations of harvest and vintage, which must have varied with locality and climatic condi- tions. These indigenous agricultural festivals were coordinated with the lunar feasts of a conquering race, and the former in time came to be dated accurately in terms of the latter. With this gradual assimilation a change took place in the calendar. The year probably at first was divided roughly into semi- annual periods, each marked by a celebration on its first New Moon, and began with what was after- ward the 7th month, whose Full Moon festival was ‘the feast.’ The Exile introduced many changes. New-year was transferred to the Passover month (conformably to Babylonian custom). Ten days at it from a lunar (3855 days) to a solar year. The old lst month—now become the 7th—was invested with peculiar sacredness, and its New Moon, through the Feast of Trumpets, was the most honored of the 12. Days of Atonement seem once to have existed on the Ist of the Ist and 7th months respectively (Ezk 45 18, 20; in ver. 20 we should read ‘7th month, new moon’). These particular days, by some rec- tification of the calendar, necessitated probably by wrong intercalation in this process of change, fell according to later usage on the 10th; consequently, we find that on the 10th of Nisan a lamb was to be chosen, which became now the Paschal Lamb (Ex ch. 12), and on the 10th of the 7th month occurs the only Day of Atonement recognized by P. On the 10th of the 7th month also, Jubilee was to be proclaimed, a provision hard to understand except on the theory that this was the old New-year’s day. Ezekiel seems to have lived at the time of transition from the old to the new style. The Sabbatical year and Jubilee were but priestly extensions of the festal system, tho doubtless both had some existence in early custom (Ex 21 2-7; Dt 15 1-6; Jer 34 13 £; Ezk 46 17). As ritual develops, feasts originally nomadic, agri- cultural, andastronomicalacquire historical elements. Certain seasons of the Sacred Year require a some- what extended treatment. 6. New Moon and Sabbath. In preexilic litera- ture New Moon and Sabbath regularly are associated (II K 4 23; Is 113; Hos 211; Am 85). By Is and Hos the observance of both days is disparaged. This fact, combined with strong etymological evidence, indicates that the Sabbath was originally the Full Moon, an old Semitic feast, and that both the lunar feasts were accompanied by practises displeasing to the prophets. Near the time of the Exile the name ‘Sabbath’ seems to have been transferred from the Full Moon to the Seventh Day, which already was observed as a rest day (Ex 34 21 [J], 23 12 [E]}). Observance of the weekly Sabbath then became one of the strongest religious features of Judaism. The New Moon, too, continued to be recognized in the religious calendar. Ezekiel provided for New Moon feasts with elaborate sacrifices (Ezk 46 6 ff.). P (Nu 28 11 ff.) gives a precise ordinal and especially distinguishes the New Moon of the 7th month (Nu 291f.). Associated with the Sabbath, the lunar feast survived to N T times (Col 2 16). 7. The Passover. (1) The Name. The root pdsah (NOS) occurs in several passages in the sense of a peculiar limping movement which denotes a festal dance (I K 18 26), or lameness (Gn 32 31), hence pesah (NOP, Gr. n&cya, rendered Easter in Ac 12 4 AV) has been explained as a feast celebrated with peculiar dances; cf. 17, § 1, above; but its derivation from aword cognate with the Assyrian pasahu, ‘to pro- pitiate, is more probable, and weshould seek its ex- planation therefore in the blood-rite of Ex 12 7, 22 f. The later conception and the English trans- lation embody another notion—probably etymo- logically incorrect—that of the passing (leaping) over the houses of the Israelites on the night before the Exodus. Ex 12 23 is sometimes understood to mean that J’ was to pass over the threshold into Fasts and Feast Fear A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 264 the house to protect, but 12 13 evidently implies that J’’ passed by the blood-marked houses. (2) Theories of Origin. P. was strictly a family feast, celebrated in the household (note the exception in Dt 16 5f.). The father presided, and the lamb always possessed a sacrificial character (Nu 97, 13). It pre- served, therefore, the memory of clan and nomad life, and was the festival of a pastoral people. The victim was to be from the flock (or the herd, Dt 16 2; ef. Ezk 45 22). The date in the later legislation is the 14th of Nisan, the day of the full moon. There is no evidence that P. was a sacrifice of firstlings, the regu- lation in Ex 12 5 being that the lamb shall be a year- ling. The firstling law was independent of P. P., New Moon, and Sabbath appear to belong to the same cycle of observances and, like the New Moon, P. is not mentioned in the Book of the Covenant, nor in Ex 34 18-24 (the reference in ver. 25 is incidental). A 7th day rest-period is the only moon-feast definitely recognized in this stratum of the legislation. One phase of the struggle to suppress or reconstruct the feasts of the lunar cycle appears in Dt, where P. is to be celebrated at the central sanctuary and not in the home; but later the old custom was restored (Ex 12 3 ff. [P]), and has been continued ever since. ‘Be- tween the evenings’ (Ex 12 6) has been variously rendered, the usual interpretation being ‘between sunset and dark.’ But, as the feast was nocturnal, the ‘evenings’ may be those of the 14th and 15th, or the phrase may mean in ‘the middle of the night.’ (3) Combination with Unleavened Bread. In all the codes we find somewhat extensive provision for the feast of matstsdth, or Unleavened Bread, ap- pointed for the 15th Abib (z.e., Nisan), and to be kept 7 days. In the Book of the Covenant and in Ex 34 18-21 this feast and not P. is mentioned in the cycle of agricultural observances, and coordinated with the other two harvest feasts. In Dt we find the word ‘Passover’ somewhat loosely applied to the whole period beginning with P. itself. The worshiper returns home on the morning of the 15th Abib, and celebrates Unleavened Bread there. The 7th day of Unleavened Bread is to be kept with a solemn assembly. Here two things seem evident: (a) there has been a concession to popular feeling in giving an ecclesiastical standing to P., and (b) the feast of Unleavened Bread overshadows it. In Ezk 45 21 also, the feast is called ‘Passover.’ It is to begin on the 14th of the month and to continue 7 days with the use of unleavened bread. Sacrifices are provided for each day and a bullock for a sin- offering on the Ist day. This requirement keeps the agrarian idea prominent, while P. has given its name to the entire period. Unleavened Bread celebrated the beginning of the grain harvest. At some point in its progress, which none of the existing data en- ables us to fix, a sheaf of the first-fruits was to be waved before J’”” (Lv 23 11). This took place at the beginning of the period which 50 days later cul- minated in the Feast of Weeks (Pentecost in the N T). The entire 7 weeks was a festal season; prob- ably therefore the 7 days of Unleavened Bread began a festivity which terminated with Pentecost, and this 8th day found a counterpart later in the 8th day of Tabernacles. Ezekiel omits Pentecost from his calendar, which would indicate a tendency to ignore the agrarian origin of the feasts. Undoubtedly since the old agricultural feasts were dated with reference to the moon, namely, at the full moons, P. and Un- leavened Bread were brought together. Yet they are carefully distinguished, and tho the name ‘Passover’ is applied to both, it is quite clear that Unleavened Bread did not begin until the morning of the 15th. Since Unleavened Bread was a festival of first-fruits it suggested a like significance for P.; consequently, the firstling law was closely connected — with that of P. The combined feast is appropriate to the spring month. The legislation calls this double feast a memorial, a ‘night of observances’ (shimmt- rim, Ex 12 42), but this was an added idea which, however, deepened the religious significance of all the rites. (4) The Ordinal. The following passages are given in the generally accepted chronological order of the Codes: Passover, Ex 12, 21-27, 34 25b (J); Dt 16 1-7; Ezk 45 21; Ex 12 1-13. 43-50; Lv 23 5; Nu 9 1-14, 28 16 (P). Unleavened Bread, Ex 13 3-10, 34 18 (J), 23 15 (E) ; Dt 16 3; Ezk 45 21 £.; Lv 23 9-14. (the wave-sheaf), Holiness Code (H); Lv 23 6-8; Ex 12 14-20; Nu 28 17-25 (P). Ex chs. 12 and 13 isa fundamental passage for both feasts. Certain differ- ences in the ordinal should be noticed. (a) The month in the earlier law is called ‘Abib,’ in the later law ‘the first month,’ or ‘Nisan.’ (b) The memorial idea is found as early as the Book of the Covenant. (c) Dt brings in the new provision that P. shall be observed at the central sanctuary, and Un- leavened Bread at home. (d) The Passover animal in Dt is from the flock, or the herd, and is to be boiled; in the later law it is to be from the sheep, or the goats, and must be roasted. Ezk, however, commands the use of a bullock. (e) In H there is no mention whatever of either feast, altho the ceremony of the wave-sheaf may imply an original matstsoth law. (f) In Lev 23 6-8 the double feast has become one of the holy convocations with fire offer- ings to J’’ during the week. In Nu 28 17-25 an elab- orate ritual appears, part of which includes a sin- offering. Thus we see that the old joyous agrarian character of the feast has disappeared, leaving but few traces behind. (5) Historical Celebration. The Samaritans have preserved in many respects the ancient features of the celebration; since it is certain that their present ritual has been kept rigidly pure from later excrescences, retaining even the ancient features of the sprinkling of blood and of eating with signs of haste which were omitted from the later Jewish ritual. In some respects they are nearer the provisions of Dt than of P, for they come together at the appointed time on the summit of Mt. Gerizim, and under the superintendence of the chief priests slay the lambs and eat them in a family meal during the night of the 14th. Their feast fur- nished the most perfect example of an ancient Se- mitic rite. There are other notices of the celebration of P., e.g., that at Gilgal (Jos 5 10 f.), and the one mentioned in Ezr 6 19-22. The greatest celebration in preexilic history occurred in the 18th year of King Josiah, following the discovery of the Book of the Law (II K 23 21 f#.). A most interesting reference to P. and Unleavened Bread has recently come to light 265 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Fasts and Feasts Fear among the Aramaic Papyri discovered at Elephan- tine in Upper Egypt. It is a direction or command, dated in the 5th year of Darius IT (419 s.c.), and in his name to the heads of the Jewish garrison at Elephantine that the P. and Unleavened Bread be observed and according to certain specific directions which are laid down (cf. Cowley, Aram. Pap. of the Fifth Cent. B.C. [1923] pp. xxiv f. and 60 ff.). II Ch ch. 35 expands this account, and is interesting as illus- trating the mode of procedure inthe tiine oftheChron- icler, whose ordinal js noteworthy for being that of Dt rather than of P. In the N T, P.isseveral timesre- ferred to, the name of course applying to the whole period of 7 days. There are some features of the later usage important to notice: At the time of Christ, P. was a family feast, altho the lamb seems to have been slain according to Levitical rules. The drinking of 4 cups of wine seems to have been prescribed. After the first cup, the eldest son asked the meaning of the rite and the father recited the Exodus history, after which Pss 113 and 114 were sung. Then followed another cup, then the feast proper, then a third cup (cf. Lk 22 20), then a fourth, after which Pss 115-118 were sung (Mt 26 30; Mk 14 26). A day of Prepara- tion is mentioned in Mt 27 62; Mk 15 42; Lk 23 54, by which the synoptists seem to mean a preparation for the Sabbath, and it is fair to interpret Jn 19 14 as meaning that it was the preparation for the Passover Sabbath and, therefore, a great day. 8. Tabernacles. The ordinal for the Feast of Tabernacles occurs in Ex 34 22 (J), 23 16 (EK); Dt 16 13-15; Exzk 45 25; Lv 23 39-43 (H), 33-36; Nu 29 12-38 (P). In the Law it is called Ingathering (dstph), and Booths (sukkéth). In H and Ezk it is called ‘the Feast.’ Dt and H prescribe 7 days, P adds an 8th, probably the last great day (cf. Jn 7 37 ff.), with a special ritual. T. is to be kept at the year’s ‘revolution,’ t¢qiuphah, Ex 34 22b), a word peculiar to this feast (cf. Is 29 1), or at the close of the year (Ex 23 16), and the Law was to be read every 7th year (Dt 3110). Its final and definite dating was on the full moon of what was once undoubtedly the Ist month. The oldest attested historical feast of the Jewish year, it is probably described in Jg 9 27 ff., 21 19, and I S ch. 1, and antedated the Israelite occupation. Traces of its observance still survive. Fires are kindled on the slopes of Lebanon at the present day upon a date which approximately cor- responds to this autumn festival. The joyous charac- ter, which in early times must have been almost bacchanalian (Is 9 3; cf. Hos 9 1-5), was never entirely lost, but prophetic and priestly agencies gradually reformed the practise and made T. the greatest of the Hebrew feasts (Zec 14 16). The Temple was dedicated at this season (I K 8 65 £.; II Ch 7 8-10; note the divergencies). Jeroboam insti- tuted a like feast in the 8th month (I K 12 32). The celebration in Neh ch. 8 follows Lv 23 39-43. To the later extracanonical ritual belonged the lighting of candies and water libation (see Jn 7 37 f., 8 12). 9. The Day of Atonement. Much space is given to this fast in Lv 16 1-34, 23 26-32; Nu 297-11. Its germ seems to be found in Ezk 45 18-20, but no public observance can be traced prior to 444 B.c. Neh chs. 8-10 concern the 7th month of that year, but men- tion no such fast. The Day of A. represents, how- ever, the culmination of the Jewish expiatory cere- monial, and the ideal expression of Israel’s religion, and as such supplied the writer of Hebrews with some of his most striking typology. In conclusion, it is important to observe that, under the transforming genius of Israel’s religious teachers, these feasts became the medium of ex- pression for the people’s gratitude to J’’, and the memories of his grace, which quickened their sense of unworthiness. Only a narrow view would insist that a people could put no more into a form of wor- ship than existed in the crude period of inexperienced childhood, for this would deny to growing spiritual consciousness that larger expression which maturity demands. LirERATURE: C. F. Kent, Israel’s Laws and Legal Precedents (1907); Carpenter and Battersby, The Composition of the Hexateuch (1902); Chapman, Int. to the Pentateuch (1911); W. R. Smith, Religion of the Semites (1888-89); H. C. Trumbull, The Blood Covenant (1885), and The Threshold Covenant (1896); on the Sabbath, JBL, 33, 201-212; Driver on Ex (Camb. Bible, 1911) and on Dt (JCC); Gray on Numbers (ICC); G. A. Smith on Dt (Camb. Bible, 1918); and articles in the larger Biblical Encyclopedias and Dictionaries. C.zA—O. R. S FAT. See SacriFice AND OFFERINGS, and VINES AND VINTAGE, § 1. FATHER, FATHERS. See Faminty anp Fam- ry Law, § 4; AB, Api; and ABBA. FATHERLESS. See Famity anv Famity Law, § 6. FATHOM. See WeEicuts AND Mrasurss, § 2. FATLINGS: Cattle fattened for slaughter (cf. Lk 15 23, ‘fatted calf’), especially for sacrifice. InIS 159 the Heb. means literally ‘second’ but is probably a scribal error for the proper word for ‘fatlings’. Cattle were fattened by withdrawing them from the open pasture and keeping them in the stall (cf. Am 6 4). See Foon, § 10. E. E. N. FAVOR: ‘To find favor’ is ‘to please,’ ‘to show favor’ is ‘to be pleased.’ At times the Heb. has the sense of ‘grace,’ in the LXX. often having yéers as its equivalent. In the N T it is 6 times the translation of yéers. 10, hén, and other derivatives of 12) are the Heb. words most frequently translated by ‘favor.’ The noun occurs commonly in the ex- pressions ‘to find’ or ‘to give favor in the eyes of’ some one (of man, Gn 30 27; Ex 11 3; of God, Gn 18 3; Nu 11 11, 15). Eight other Heb. roots, implying ‘kindness,’ ‘acceptance,’ ‘good-will,’ ‘pity,’ are translated by ‘favor.’ |], rdtsén, ‘good-will,’ is used 15 times, and in passages implying perhaps more especially the help of God (Ps 5 12, 30 5, 89 17, 106 4). 0°28, panim, ‘face,’ is used 4 times (Ps 45 12, 119 58; Pr 196 29, 26). The adjectives ‘well’ and ‘ill-favored’ (Gn 29 17, 39 6, 41 2, 4, 18; Dn 1 4), §§ 8, 10; - referring to the personal appearance as pleasing, are translations of yapheh, ’beautiful,’ and ra‘, ‘evil,’ ‘bad.’ ieee FEAR: The term ‘fear’ occurs both in its com- mon signification as a feeling of apprehension and in a narrower religious sense. In the former sense, it is not distinctive. One may fear a fellow man, or he may fear dangers and harmful powers in nature (Ps 31 11, 641; Jer 6 25, 46 5, ‘terror’ RV). Asa re- Feast, Feasting Fire A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 266 a ligious feeling, fear assumes a great variety of forms according to the degree of vividness in which the apprehension of God’s personality enters into it. The very essence of religion is a form of fear produced by the realization of the being and nature of God. ‘The fear of Jehovah is the beginning of wisdom’ (Ps 111 10; Pr 9 10); but this is a form of emotion more properly called ‘awe’ or ‘reverence.’ It grows from the contemplation of what God is, and not of what He may do to one as an individual. Fear is thus tantamount to religion. Jacob swears to Laban by the ‘Fear of his father Isaac’ (Gn 31 53), which would appear to be either a method of avoid- ing the use of the Divine name or a metonymic use of the name of the emotion proper before God for the name of God Himself. To fear God is to wor- ship Him (Job 11); but this noble form of fear may degenerate as the true, nature of God is less and less clearly understood, into a paralyzing sense of terror. This is discouraged and held up as something to be overcome and expelled from the heart (Ezk 2 1; I Jn 4 18). A. C. Z. FEAST, FEASTING. See in general Fasts AND Feasts; and Foop; also see Mra.s, § 3. FEAST, SET. See Fasts anp Feasts, § 1. FEAST, SOLEMN. See Fasts anp Frasts, § 1. FEAST OF THE DEDICATION. See Fasts AND Frasts, § 2, iv. FEATHERS: For the occurrence of the word in Job 39 13 AV, cf. the correct rendering of the RV. For the word as used of God in a figurative sense see Gop, § 2. FEET. See Foor. FEET, DISEASES OF. See DIsrasz aNnpD MEDICINE, § 6. FELIX (®2:&): Antonius Felix, a freedman of the imperial family, brother of Pallas, the favorite of Nero, was appointed procurator of Judea at the re- quest of the high priest Jonathan probably in 52 A.D. Tho a freedman, he was given a procurator- ship with military command, ‘an unheard-of novel- ty.’ Both Josephus and Tacitus imply that Felix exercised some authority in Palestine before his ap- pointment as Cumanus’ successor, but their state- ments do not agree in details. Felix’ predecessor Cumanus by his misgovernment left for Felix a dis- turbed province, which Felix in turn transmitted to Festus in a much worse condition; for ‘with all manner of cruelty and lust he exercised royal func- tions in the spirit of a slave’ (Tacitus). He was married three times, each time to a woman of royal lineage, his last wife being the Jewess Drusilla, daughter of Agrippa I, whom he unscrupulously persuaded to desert her husband and further to defy Jewish law by marrying him, tho he had not become a Jew. Under the severity of his régime disturbances increased; the Zealots became aggres- sive, a band of secret assassins known as the Sicarii terrorized Jerusalem, and a fanatical outbreak, led by an Egyptian Jew (Ac 21 38), was crushed relent- lessly. During the last two years of Felix’ rule, while Paul was a prisoner in Caesarea (Ac 23 24- 24 27), a conflict arose between the Jews and Syrians of that place, which was referred to Rome for deci- sion. Felix was recalled, but was acquitted, perhaps through the influence of Pallas. See Jos. Ant. XX 7 1-2 8 5-8; BJ II 12.8, 13 3-5; Tacitus, Annals XII. 54; History V, 9, Suetonius, Claudius, 28. R.. Av Bown Ee aN, FELLOW: Besides meaning ‘man’ (ish, I S 29 4 AV, and ’énésh, Jg 18 25), ‘fellow’ in the O T rep- resents (1) ‘companion’ (habhér, Ps 45 7), (2) ‘com- patriot’ (‘dmith, Zec 13 7), (8) ‘fellow-countryman,’ ‘friend’ (réa‘, Ex 213; Jg 713 f.;1S 14 20). Inthe N T often for (4) ‘this one’ (ottos, used contemp- tously, e.g., Mt 26 61, AV; Lk 22 59 AV), (5) ‘man’ (avne, e.g., the ‘loafers’ in the market-place, Ac 17 5), (6) ‘partner’ (uétoxoc, He 19 [from Ps 45 7]), (7) ‘comrade’ (&tepoc, Mt 11 16). S. D.—M. W. J. FELLOW-CITIZEN, -HEIR, -MEMBER, -PAR- TAKER. See Kinapom or Gop, § 8f FELLOW - DISCIPLE, -ELDER, -HELPER, -LABORER, -PRISONER, -SERVANT, -SOL- DIER, -WORKER, YOKE-FELLOW. See Cuurcu §§ 2 and 9. FELLOWSHIP: This term represents (1) in Lv 6 2 AV the Heb ¢t¢stimeth yadh, 1.e., ‘something placed in the hands,’ meaning a ‘deposit’ or ‘bargain’ (So RV) (2) ‘joint participation’ (uetoxn, IT Co 6 14), (3) most frequently ‘communion,’ ‘commun- ity of possession’ (xotvwviz), where the emphasis is not so much on the personal relationship as on the sphere of it; 7.e., on the thing which is shared, the object of the common interest (e.g., I Co 19; II Co 8 4; Gal 29; Ph 310; I Jn 13.) See CourcH AND ORGANIZATION, § 2. S. D.—M. W. J. FELLOWSHIP WITH, TO HAVE: This phrase signifies (1) ‘to be joined in alliance with’ (habhar, Ps 94 20), (2) ‘to become partaker with’ (xotvwyd¢ ylvecbar, I Co 10 20), (3) ‘to be joint partaker with’ (cvyxorvwvetv, Eph 5 11; Ph 4 14 ‘communi- cate’ AV; Rev 18 4). See also Communion and CoMMUNICATE. S. D.—M. W. J. FENCED, FENCED CITY. See Cry, § 3. FERRET: One of the list of unclean animals in Lv 11 30 AV. See Pawesring, § 24. FERRY-BOAT: The one occurrence of this word (II S 19 18) rests upon a doubtful Heb. text. It is likely that a verb instead of a noun should be read meaning either ‘and they crossed the ford to bring over the king’ or ‘and they did the service of bringing over the king ’(cf. Bib. Heb. ed. Kittel, in loc.). E. E. N. FESTIVAL. See in general Fasts anp Frasts. FESTUS (@fo10¢): Porcius Festus, a member of the Porcian gens, was appointed by Nero procurator of Judea in succession to Felix. He was apparently a man of good character, but entered on a governor- ship involved in difficulties, largely owing to the mis- management of Felix. Apart from the N T and Josephus nothing is known of him. Owing to his relations with Paul, the date of his accession is im- portant for N T chronology (Ac chs. 25, 26). Some scholars assign Festus’ accession to 55 or 56 A.D., following the Eusebian Chronicle, which, however, is untrustworthy, and relying also on the statement 267 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Feast, Feasting Fire of Josephus that the influence of Pallas with Nero saved his brother Felix when the Jews appealed against him to Rome. The fact that Pallas fell into disfavor early in the reign of Nero appears also to support this date. But he may have recovered his influence, or Josephus may be in error, and thus the way is open for a later date. Albinus succeeded Festus, after a few months’ interval, not later than 62 a.p., and the governorship of Festus was short. On the whole, 58 a.p. seems the most probable date on which his procuratorship began. See New TrEsra- MENT CHRONOLOGY. R. A. F.—E. E. N. FETTER. See Crimes AND PUNISHMENTS, § 3 (b). FEVER. See Dismase AnD MepIcIng, § 4 (1). FIELD: Of the numerous terms rendered ‘field,’ the most commonly used are sddheh and sddhay; which usually designate (a) the wild uncultivated land, in contrast to that which is more thickly in- habited or worked (cf. Gn 25 27, etc.), or (b) the open country, in contrast to the enclosed city or town (cf. Dt 211, etc.) The same term is also used in a more restricted sense for (c) the territory belonging to a particular tribe or people (e.g., Gn 36 35; cf. 147 RVmg., etc.) and (d) particular localities, as ‘the fuller’s field’ (Is 7 3), etc. Other terms more rarely used are :(1) hits,‘a place outside’ (Job 5 10; Pr 8 26); (2) helgah, ‘portion’ or ‘lot’ (II S 14 30); (3) she- dhémah, cultivated portions, as vineyards, etc. (Dt 32 32; Is 16 8; II K 23 4; Jer 31 40; Hab 3 17); (4) bar (Aram.), ‘open country’ (Dn 2 38, 4 12-32); (5) &ye6c (Mt 6 28, etc.), with the same sense as (b) above; (6) xoea (Jn 4 35; Ja 5 4), the same as (8) above; (7) ywetoy (Ac 1 18 f.), like (d) above. See also Acri- CULTURE, §§ 2-4. E. E. N. FIERY HEAT. See Disnass, § 4 (1). FIERY SERPENT: A serpent whose bite was especially painful and poisonous (Nu 21 6). See PALESTINE, § 26; and SrERAPHIM. FIG, FIG-TREE. See Paxsting, § 23; Foon, § 5; and Disnasz AND MepiIcIng, § 8. FIGHT. See WarFARE. FIGURE: In Dt 4 16 the word translated ‘figure’ means a ‘statue’ or ‘image’ of a deity (cf. Driver, ICC in loc.). In I K 6 29 the Heb. word means ‘carvings.’ In Is 44 13 the idea is that of the ‘build’ ofaman. In Ac 7 43, Rom 5 14 the Gr. is tbo, ‘type’, in the first instance, in the sense of image, in the second, used metaphorically. In He 9 9, 11 19 the original is tzpaGoA%, ‘parable,’ 7.e., ‘simili- tude.’ In He 9 24 the Gr. is dvtltuxa, ‘anti-types,’ which occurs also in I P 3 21 (sing). In Lv 261, Nu 33 52, Pr 16, Ac 7 44, RV has substituted ‘figure’ or figured’ for the less accurate renderings of the EK. E. N. FILE: The purely conjectural rendering of two Heb. words 0°) 17X31], happ*tstrah phim in IS 1321. Recently the second word 9”8, pim (perhaps to be pronounced payam) has been discovered in- scribed on a small Heb. weight found near Jerusalem. This has led to a new rendering (by E. J. Pilcher) of the whole difficult passage, I S 13 20 f. (some words being still undetermined) as follows: ‘And all Israel went down to the Philistines to forge every man his plowshare and his '‘éh, his ax and his goad; and the inducement (or payment) was a payam for the plowshares and for the ’éthim and three qill’shén for the axes and to put a point on the goad,’ cf. PEFQ 1914, p.99, and 1916, pp. 77-85. FILLET: A ring or band about the capital of the pillars of the Tabernacle, for ornament, or perhaps of use in hanging curtains. Both the noun hdshigq (Ex 27 10, 11, 36 38, 38 10, etc.) and the verb hdsh- aq (Ex 27 17, 38 17, 28), to ‘furnish with fillets,’ occur. The fillets on the pillars at the door of the Taber- nacle were overlaid with gold, those on the pillars of the court with silver. Some interpret ‘fillet’ to mean ‘connecting-rods,’ joining the tops of pillars, from which curtains were hung. For hut (Jer 52 21, ‘fillet? AV) RV gives ‘line.’ CASaek. FINE. See Crimes AND PUNISHMENTS, § 3 (c); SACRIFICH AND OFFERINGS, § 12; and as applied to the refining of metals see ARTIZAN Lirs, § 10 b. FINE FLOUR. See SacriricE AND OFFERINGS, § 12; and Foon, § 1. FINE LINEN: The words usually rendered ‘fine linen’ are (a) badh, (b) shésh, and (c) buts. Of these (a) means ‘linen,’ as it was the material of cer- tain priestly garments. In regard to (b) and (c) the evidence (archeological especially) favors ‘linen’ rather than ‘cotton’ as the proper rendering; (b) is the older term, (c) the later. In Pr 31 22 AV renders shésh by ‘silk.’ In Pr716 the Heb. term is of uncertain meaning. Cf. RV. See also LINEN. K. E. N. FINGER: As used of God in an anthropomorphic sense, see Gop, § 2. FINING POT. See Arrizan Lirs, § 10 b. FIR, FIR-TREE. See Pauestinge, § 21. FIRE (for this the common Heb. word is ’ésh= xode in the N T. Two other Heb. words, ur and brah, and two Aramaic, nur and y*gédhah [Dn 3 22 £., 7 11] occur a few times): ‘Fire’ was used in both a literal and a figurative sense. (1) Ina literal sense: (a) of its use for domestic purposes in processes of cooking (Ex 12 8, 9; Jn 219), and for warmth (Is 44 16; Jer 36 22; Mk 14 54). (b) of cast- ing (Ex 32 24), working (Is 44 12), and refining (Jer 6 29) metals, and, therefore, a symbol of purification (Mal 3 2; Mk 9 49) and testing of character (Zec 139; Mal 33;1Co313). (c) For burning refuse (Ex 12 10; Lv 8 17, 9 11), and infected garments (Lv 13 52). (d) It is viewed as a destructive agency in the form of lightning (Nu 111, 2, 3; II K 1 10), and in war in the burning of cities or property (Jos 6 24, 7 15; Jg 915; I S 301). Hence it was a figure of war (Is 10 17, 26 11; Jer 17 27). (e) As a means of punishment of grave offenses (Lv 20 14; Jos 7 15). (f) As an important means of offering sacrifices unto J’ (Ex 2918; Lv 19). Fire was to be kept con- tinuously burning on the altar of burnt-offerings (Lv 613), and acceptance of sacrifices was shown by the fire of J’’ consuming the offering (Jg 6 21; 1 K 18 38). It was used in human sacrifice even in Israel (II K 16 3, 17 17), tho forbidden (Dt 18 10). Topheth, in the Valley of Hinnom, was the place of such Firebrand Flood A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 268 sacrifices (Jer 7 31). (2) Symbolic and figurative use: (a) Fire accompanied theophanies (Gn 15 17; Ex 3 2) and was thus a symbol of God’s protecting presence (Ex 13 22; Ps 78 14; Ex 40 38), of His glory (Ex 2417; Dn 79), and of His wrath against sin (Dt 424; Jer 44; Am 56; Ps 89 46). (b) It was a symbol of the Holy Spirit (Mt 311; Lk 316; Ac 23). (c) Of the punishment of the wicked (Ps 68 2; Is 47 14; Jer 51 58; Mt 5 22, 18 50; cf. ‘eternal fire,’ Mt 18 8; Mk 9 48; Jude ver. 7; and ‘lake of fire,’ Rev 19 20). (d) Figuratively, sin, trouble, affliction, etc., are likened to fire, because of its destructive or purifying nature. Cf. also (b) and (d) under (1), above. C.S. T. FIREBRAND: (1) ’uédh, a ‘bent stick’ for stir- ring fire. InAm4u1, Is7 4, Zec 3 2 it is represented as almost consumed. (2) lappidh, a ‘torch,’ made of a stick, with some absorbent material saturated with oil fastened on one end (Jg 15 4, 5). (8) 2éq (in pl.), ‘fire-missiles’ (cf. Pr 2618), or sparks, brands, as ‘leaping,’ or ‘springing forth.’ (4) mégédh, a ‘burning mass’ (Ps 102 3), a figure of J’”’s judgment. LOA. Ril bi FIREPAN. See Tremp.ie, § 16. FIRKIN. A _ liquid measure. AND MEASURES, § 3. FIRMAMENT. See Cosmogony, § 3. FIRST, THE, AND THE LAST. See AupHa AND OMEGA. FIRST BEGOTTEN. See Jesus Curist, §§ 15 and 18. FIRST-BORN. See Famiuy anp Famiuy Lirs, §§ 6, 8; ONLY-BEGOTTEN; and Jesus Curist, §§ 15 and 18. FIRST DAY: In the Priests’ Code the first day of a festal season was considered to be specially sig- nificant (cf. Lv 23 7, 35, 39 f.; Nu 2818). The ‘first day’ of the week in the N T usage (Mk 16 2 and ||s; Ac 207; I Co 16 2) means Sunday, which, as the day of the week on which Jesus rose from the dead, came to have a special significance for Christians, and gradually supplanted the Jewish Sabbath (Satur- day) as the holy day of the Christian Church. As such, it was called ‘the Lord’s Day’ (Rev 1 10; ef. Ac 20 7). E. E. N. FIRST-FRUITS, FIRSTLINGS. See Sacririce 4ND OFFERINGS, § 19. FISH, FISHING: The waters of N. Palestine es- pecially the Sea of Galilee and the streams of the Lebanon region abound in fish and from the earliest times, fishing must have been carried on extensively in those districts and fish must have formed a prin- cipal article of diet. The ‘fish-gate’ of Jerusalem (q.v.) and the fish-pedlers e.g., of Neh 13 16, are sufficient evidence of this. Nevertheless, the refer- ences in the Bible to fish and fishing are comparatively few. Fish, ddégh, daghdh) were taken with nets, or with hooks, or by spearing. The nets used were either the drag-net (mikhméreth, Is 19 8; Hab 1 15; coayyjvn, Mt 13 47) or the casting-net (herem, Ezk 26 5, etc.; dueiBAnotepov, Mk 116). The kind of net indicated by m*tstidhah (Ec 9 12) is unknown, while Sixtuoy, the common term for net in the Gospels, is probably generic in meaning (see also Nar). For See WEIGHTS hooks several terms occur, as hakkah (Job 41 1), tsinnah (Am 4 2), str (Am 4 2, here with the addition dughah, ‘fishing’), and &yxtoteov (Mt 17 27). In Job 417 we have the sole O T reference to the fish-spear, tsiltsal. In the Law distinction was made between clean and unclean fish (Lv 11 9-12; Dt 149f.). For the fish of Palestine, see PALESTINE, § 26. For their use as food, see Foon, § 8. See also TRADE AND CommercgE, § 4. The art. Fish in HB is compre- hensive and valuable. HK. KE. N. - FISHER’S COAT. See Dress AND ORNA- MENTS, § 2 (at the end). FISH-GATE. See JERUSALEM, § 38. FISH-POOL. See HEesHBON. FITCHES: The Heb getsah (Is 28 25-27) appears to mean ‘black cummin,’ Nigella sativa, the black, bitter seeds of which were used as a condiment (see Foon, § 4). In Ezk 49 the RV corrects the AV by reading ‘spelt’ instead of ‘fitches.’ FIVE. See NumBrers, SACRED AND SYMBOLIC, § 7; and CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS, § 3 (c). FLAG. See REED. FLAGON: This is the AV rendering of the Heb. ’ashishah, which means ‘cakes,’ especially cakes of pressed grapes (raisins). These were prized as a refreshing article of diet (II S 6 19; I Ch 16 3; Song 2 5), and were also used in the Canaanite cultus- rites, so attractive to many Israelites (Hos 31). In Is 22 24 the Heb. is nebhel, on which see Borris. E. E. N. FLASK. See ALABASTER. FLAT NOSE. See Disease AND MEDICINE) § 5. FLAX (Heb. pésheth [but usually in the pl. pish- ttm] and pishtah): In the O T the word is used comprehenseively: (1) of the plant (Ex 9 31); (2) of the stalks laid out to dry (Jos 2 6); (8) of the fibers of the stalks from which linen was made (Pr 31 13; Is 19 9; Hos 2 5, 9); (4) of the cords, (Jg 15 14; Ezk 40 3) or wicks (Is 42 3; cf. Mt 12 20) made of flax; and (5) of the finished product, linen, woven from flax, of which a variety of articles was made, as gar- ments (Lv 13 47 ff.; Dt 22 11; Ezk 44 17 f.), or girdles (Jer 13 1). The plant was extensively grown in Palestine (cf. Hos 2 5,9), and the method of working it up into linen were well known. See also PaLys- TINE, § 22; Dress AND ORNAMENTS, § 5; ARTIZAN Lirg, § 11; and Linrn. E. E. N. FLAY, FLAYING. See SacriFIcE AND OFFER- INGs, § 16. FLEA. PALEsTINE, § 26. FLEECE: In Dt 18 4 géz ‘fleece’ means literally ‘shearing,’ and ‘the shearing of the sheep’ means the ‘wool,’ the product of the annual sheep-shearing, the ‘first’ of which was to be given to the priesthood as a part of their means of support. The quantity covered by the term ‘first’? appears to have been left indefinite. See SacririIcE AND OFFERINGS, § 19. FLESH, FLESHLY: The word ‘flesh’ in Bib- lical usage signifies (1) the whole animate creation on earth (e.g., Gn 613). (2) The soft, meaty parts of ig pa rete: 269 an animal or man (e.g., Lv 411). (3) The body, or the surface of the body (e.g., Lv 610; Nu87). (4) Human beings (e.g., Job 34 15), often in contrast to spiritual beings (e.g., Dn 211), and at times, especially in Paul, with emphasis on the moral weakness of man that is so closely connected with his bodily life. (e.g., Ro 6 19, 7 18; Gal 5 17). Neither by the Bible in general nor by Paul in particular is it taught that the flesh is inherently sinful, tho this has been asserted. See also Man. Doctrine or, §§ 6, 7; and Famiy, § 1. K. E. N. FLESH-HOOK (md@zlégh and mizldgh, ‘hook’): A metal hook with one or more (three in I § 2 13) teeth, used for handling large pieces of flesh, espe- cially in connection with sacrifices (I S 2 13 f.; Ex 27 8, 388 3; Nu 414; I Ch 2817; II Ch 416). FLINT: (1) hallaémish, a rocky formation of silica, common in Palestine. It was from a ‘rock of flint’ that water flowed for Israel in the desert (Dt 8 15; Ps 114 8). Olive-trees grew on flinty soil (Dt 3213; cf. Job 296). Used figuratively of firmness (Is 50 7). (2) tsar, tsér, tstir, used figuratively in the same way (Is 5 28; Ezk 39). The last term is found - in Jos 5 2, 3, where we read of ‘knives of flint’ used to perform circumcision. Cos. T! FLOAT (Flotes) AV: The rendering of raphs6- dhéth (II Ch 2 15) from a root meaning ‘to bind,’ and débheroth (I K 59, rafts RV) from ddabhar, ‘to drive.’ What is meant is that the timber was brought by sea from Phenicia to Joppa in the form of logs. FLOCK. See Nomapic AND PASTORAL LIFE. FLOOD. 1. Introduction. The story of a uni- versally destructive deluge in very early times is given in Gn 6 6-9 17, and the cataclysm is alluded to as ‘the waters of Noah’ inIs 549. Inthe N T the flood is regarded as an analog of baptism (I P 3 20 f.). andas anexample of God’sjudgment on sinners (II P 25). In two apocalyptic discourses of the Gospels the history of Noah and the flood is used to illustrate the uncertainty of the Parousia or the coming of the Son of Man (Mt 23 38 ff.; Lk 17 26 f.). 2. Literary Features of the Narrative. There appear to be some contradictions or discrepancies in the narrative, which affect the number of the ani- mals taken into the ark, the duration, and the im- mediate cause of the deluge. In Gn78,9 (J) the dis- tinction between clean and unclean animals is recog- nized, and Noah is commanded to take into the ark one pair of the latter and seven pairs of the former (7 2 [J]). The parallel account makes no such dis- crimination, mentioning only one pair of each spe- cies (6 19, 20, 714 [P]). One set of statements fixes the duration of the flood at 61 days (8 6, 8, 10, 12 [J]); in the parallel account it lasts 365 days (7 11, 13, 14; cf. 8 3 ff. 14 [P]). The deluge is ascribed to rain only in 7 7, 12, 8 2b (J), while in 7 11 and 8 2a (P) it was the bursting forth of the waters under the earth and those above the firmament that brought on the catastrophe. 3. Sources. The explanation of these discrepan- cies is to be found in the composite character of the narrative, which is the result of weaving together two separate documents, the early Judean (J) and the later Priestly (P. See Hexarrucu). Both docu- A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Firebrand Flood ments, however, are at one in all points not men- tioned above, and especially in regard to the great purpose of the deluge: it was the judgment of God upon a depraved race, and formed the watershed between two distinct eras in the history of mankind. 4. Not Meant as a Universal Deluge. The Scriptural phraseology does not imply a universal deluge; altho certain expressions seem to convey that idea. ‘All the high mountains that were under the whole heaven were covered’ (7 19); it was God’s purpose to ‘destroy all flesh wherein is the breath of life’ (6 17); every living thing is to be swept away ‘from off the face of the ground’ (7 4). It is put still more strongly in stating that the effect of the deluge was to destroy ‘every living creature’ (7 21-23). But these expressions are to be understood, partially at least, as instances of hyperbole, in which the Ori- ental delights (cf. Gn 41 57; Dt 2 25; 1 K 10 24; Lk 2 1), while, without exception, they are limited by the writer’s geographical horizon, which was bounded by portions of Asia, Africa, and Europe (cf. Gn 10 and see GEoGRAPHY, $1). If the narrative is approached from the standpoint of strict grammatical and his- torical exegesis, it is clear that the Scriptures them- selves do not teach a universal deluge in our modern sense of the term. Consequently the acrimonious controversy between the theologians and scientists of the 18th cent. over this point was in no sense a debate over, a discrepancy between science and Biblical teaching, but rather a conflict between scientific principles and a dogma incorrectly based upon Scripture. 5. Difficulties involved in the Theory of a Uni- versal Deluge. The difficulties involved in the assumption of a universal deluge are now generally acknowledged by Biblical scholars. Not only would the laws of hydrostatics be violated in the accu- mulation of such a great mass of water, but the climate of the globe would have been changed, making it impossible for animals to exist, even in the ark. To this should be added the practical diffi- culty of bringing animals from distant lands and islands to the valley of the Euphrates, and housing all known species in a vessel of the size of the ark. Nevertheless the Noachian deluge might have covered the area occupied by man. At an early age the genus Homo had a limited distribution, and, as a species, might easily have been swept away. A flood universal in this respect is all that a literal exegesis of the Biblical narrative demands. But the story of such a flood can neither be verified nor disproved his- torically, and consequently its value must lie in the moral and spiritual lessons it is designed to teach. 6. A Geological Diluvion. Sir John Prestwich and Professor G. F. Wright have maintained that the Noachian flood was a geological diluvion, due to the sudden submergence of the earth’s surface. Pro- fessor Wright states his thesis with exteme caution, that ‘since man came into the world there may have been changes of land level of sufficient extent and rapidity to destroy the human race, and fairly to meet the demands of the Biblical narrative when properly interpreted.’ The geological catastrophe occurred at the close of the postglacial period. The piling up of huge Flood Food and Food Utensils A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 270 masses of ice disturbed the equilibrium of the earth’s surface; in consequence there was a sudden sub- mergence. With the disappearance of the ice there followed an upheaval. Prestwich presents other evidence for these geological changes in Europe and North Africa. In 1900 Professor Wright discov- ered similar evidence in Central Asia for the recent submergence of a large part of Asiatic Russia. The proofs of this theory are worthy of careful con- sideration, and should be examined in the literature given below. It is to be noted, however, that some features of the Biblical narrative do not harmonize with the idea of a geological upheaval. The mountains are covered with water and reappear (7 19 ff., 8 4 ff.); as soon as the waters abate the earth assumes its former condition, for the dove brings an olive twig (811). To bring the length of the flood and the date of the Biblical story into harmony with the idea of a geological diluvion seems an impossibility; on the other hand, there are no a priori reasons against the possibility of such a geological catastrophe since the appearance of man on the earth. 7. Ethnic Flood-Legends. Most peoples of an- tiquity had a flood-legend. One notable exception were the Egyptians. Among the Greeks two traditions were current—that of the Ogygian deluge, which inundated Attica, and the story of the flood of Deucalion. The latter was probably the Baby- lonian account in a Hellenic mold, which later was intermixed with elements borrowed from the Biblical narrative. The Indian legend is connected with an incarnation of Brahma and Vishnu. The absence of a flood-legend from Egyptian folk-lore is due to the annual inundation of the Nile, which was viewed as the greatest blessing the land enjoyed. It is now known that flood-legends exist all over the world. but they are unequally distributed. They occur in the German and Scandinavian mythologies, and are found among the Mexicans, the Peru- vians, the Indians of N. and S. America, and the aborigines of the islands of the Pacific. Flood- legends are conspicuously absent in Arabia, in northern and central Asia, in China and Japan, are hardly found anywhere in Europe (except Greece) and Africa. The theory that all these legends are reminiscences of a universal deluge is now generally discarded. Many are modifications and adapta- tions of the Biblical story which has been scattered world-wide by missionaries; others are due to special local causes. F. H. Woods (HDB, s.v.) classifies these legends into three groups with respect to their origin: (1) Those which are connected with cos- mogonic myths, regarding water as a creative ele- ment. (2) Highly colored traditions of some his- torical event, or extraordinary natural phenom- ena, as the subsidence of an island or coast, the creation or destruction of an island by a volcano, a tidal wave, the inundation of a plain by the over- flowing of a river, the formation of a lake, the melting of snow. (8) Flood-stories, which appear to have originated in an attempt to account for some otherwise unexplained fact, as the dispersion of peoples, differences of language, the color of the skin, the existence of fossils and glaciers, 8. The Babylonian Flood-Story. The Babylonian flood-story must be discussed more fully, as it closely resembles the Biblical account and furnishes the key for the interpretation of the latter. The former had long been known in the version of Berosus, but the cuneiform original was discovered 1872 in the library of Asshurbanipal (660 B.c.). The story was reduced to writing at least as early as 2000 B.c. It consti- tutes Canto xi of the Babylonian Gilgamesh epic, in which Utnapishtim, the Babylonian Noah, reveals the secret of immortality to Gilgamesh. The gods having decided to destroy the city of Shurippak by a flood, Ea, the Babylonian Neptune, warns Ut- napishtim to ‘build a ship, to look after life.’ Then follows the description of the ship. Its dimensions are different from those of Noah’s ark, but it was built in 6 stories and pitched within and without with ‘bitumen’ (Heb. and Bab. words are identical). Into this ship Utnapishtim brings his family, his possessions, ‘and all living creatures of all kinds.’ Then is described the storm which terrifies men and sends even the gods to the edge of the heavens cower- ing like dogs. The tempest continues 6 days and nights; on the morning of the 7th a calm broods on the face of the waters, but the ‘race of mortals’ was no more and ‘every voice was hushed’; ‘all mankind had turned to clay.’ The ship grounds on Mt. Nisir and on the 6th day after the Baby- lonian hero, like Noah, sends forth birds—a dove and a swallow which return, and a raven which finds the waters abated. Like the Biblical hero, Utnapishtim offers a sacrifice above which ‘the gods gathered like flies.’ Bel is enraged because Utnapishtim has escaped, but finally being ap- peased, he blesses Utnapishtim and his wife by conferring on them the gift of immortality. The points of similarity between the Bab. and Heb. stories are apparent on the surface, for the Heb. tradition as a whole was derived from Babylonia. But what the reader misses in the former is the lofty moral earnestness and the religious motive of the Biblical story. J’’ sends the deluge because the entire human race has become morally degenerate; in the Bab. account the flood is due to the caprice of the gods. The gross polytheism of the one and the lofty monotheism of the other are evident. Note the chaste anthropomorphism: ‘J’” smelled the sweet savor’ of the sacrifice (8 21) and the offensive- ness of the simile: ‘the gods gathered like flies about the sacrifice.’ Furthermore, the Noachian deluge manifests not only the judgment of God but also His grace (8 20-22; cf. I P 3 20f.). In recent years two fragments of a more ancient Babylonian recension have been dicovered, in which the name of the hero is Atra-hasis. These fragments, however, add nothing to our knowledge of the details of the legend. A Sumerian version has been found at Nippur and has been dated between 2300 and 1200 B.C.; it has many points of contact with the Gilga- mesh Epic. Perhaps the source of the Babylonian story was Sumerian. Both stories, Babylonian and Hebrew, refer to the same event and are different versions of an early Semitic tradition. Two theories have been held by Assyriologists and Biblical scholars as to the relation 271 A NEW STANDARD of the two stories: (1) Both accounts derived the legend from a common fountain head; (2) The He- brews borrowed their legend from the Babylonians. The concensus of modern scholarship favors the latter position. Clay, alone among Assyriologists, denies the Babylonian origin of the flood-story, and claims that the details point to an Amorite source. His own summing up of his case is as follows: ‘The famine story, the force in nature which caused the deluge, the name of the hero, Noah, the mountains, the olive branches—these are not Babylonian, but Amorite. The words mabbil ‘flood’ and tébhah‘ ark’ are not Babylonian’ (Origin of Biblical Tradition, p. 188 [1923]). This theory of an Amorite origin of the Hebrew flood-legend de- mands a thorough investigation before it can be substituted for the older view. The theory propound- ed by Cheyne (#. Brit, s.v.), jointly with Zim- mern (#B, s.v.), that the Babylonian legend is a nature myth has not been generally accepted. An actual, extrordinary inundation of the plain of Babylonia lies at the basis of the story. There was probably an unusual amount of rain, accompanied by a hurricane from the SE., and an earthquake which produced a tidal wave or lowered the surface of the land. Such a combination of natural phe- nomena would be sufficient to produce a great catastrophe in Babylonia. LiteRATURE: Commentaries on Gn by Driver; Ryle (Camb. B.), and Skinner (I C C, 1910); Frazer, Folk-Lore in the O T, I, 104-361 (1918); for the Babylonian story cf. Clay, Origin of Biblical Traditions (1923); Kent, Beginnings of Hebrew History (1904), p. 373; Jastrow, Religion of Babylonia and Assyria (1898); Gordon, Early Traditions of Genesis (1907); Rogers, Cuneiform Parallels to the O T, 80 ff. (1912); for the geological theory: Prestwich, Certain Phenomena Belonging to the Close of the Last Geological Period, and Their Bearing on the Tradition of the Flood (1895); Wright, Scientific Aspects of Christian Evidences, p. 132 ff.; also Bibliotheca Sacra, 1902; Andrée, Die Fluisagen Ethnographisch Betrachtet (1891) JoAnn: FLOOR. Sce Hovuss, § 6 (b). _ Floor, see Acricutrurs, § 7. FLOTES. See Fioar. FLOUR. See Foop, § 1; and Sacririce anp Orrerinas, § 12. FLOWER: While Palestine is noted for the vari- ety and beauty of its flowers, little is said of them in the Bible except by way of reference to them as illustrations of quickly vanishing temporal beauty and glory (Is 281, 4, 406f.; Jali0f.;1 P 124). In Song 212 and Mt 6 28 (|| Lk 12 27) there is an appre- ciation of their beauty. In the carving and em- broidery of the Temple and Tabernacle flowers had an important place, as also in the ornamentation of the metal-work (Ex 25 31 #., 37 17 #.; 1 K 7 26, 49). In Song 5 13 for ‘flowers’ AV, the RV has ‘banks,’ or, more correctly, in the mg., ‘towers.’ The ‘flower of her age’ (Gr. ixépaxuocs) in I Co 7 36 means the age when it was customary for maidens to marry (in Greece about 20 years). In I S 23 the whole expression ‘in the flower of their age’ in the Heb means simply ‘men’ (cf. RVmg.). In Ly 15 24, 33 the Heb. means ‘separation’ and the reference is to the menstrual discharge. See also PaLEsTINE, § 22. K. E. N. For Threshing- Flood Food and Food Utensils BIBLE DICTIONARY FLUTE. MENTS, § 3. FLUX. See Diskase anp Mepicinp, § 5 (2). FLY, FLIES. See PALestinge, § 26; PLaauEs, and Semitic Retiaion, § 15 (3). FODDER: The Heb. b*lil seems to mean ‘mixed food’ (‘grain’) used as provender (so AV in Job 6 5, but ‘fodder’ in both AV and RV in Is 30 24). The denominative verb bdlal occurs in Jg 19 21 (‘gave the asses fodder’ ‘provender’ AV). In Gn 24 25, 32, 42 27, 24; Jg 19 19 mispo’ ‘fodder’ is rendered ‘provender’ in both AV and RV. FOLD. See Nomapic AND PASTORAL Lirs, § 6. FOLK: This word is used in Gn 33 15 and Pr 30 26 to render the common word ‘am, ‘people.’ The RV of Jer 51 58 has the correct rendering. In Ac 5 16 the Gr. means simply ‘sick’; ‘folk’ is an addition of the EV. FOLLY. See Foot. FOOD AND FOOD UTENSILS. I. ARTICLES oF Foop. 1. Vegetable Foods. 1. Grains. The soil of Palestine furnished every- thing the Israelites needed for their sustenance. The effect produced by the climate on the physical con- stitution made the vegetable foods the most im- portant, as it does to-day. First among these were the grains, and especially wheat, hittgh, and barley, s*‘6rdh. The kernels were sometimes roasted or parched, galt (IS 17 17, 2518; IIS 17 28); more rarely the ears were roasted at the fire (cf. Lv 214). The primitive way of grinding the grain was to crush it in a mortar, m¢dhékhah (Nu 118), or makhtésh (Pr 27 22), with a pestle, ‘élz (Pr 27 22), making the bruised grain of Lv 2 14, 16, which was eaten without See Music anp MusicaL INstrRv- t aves ange Baker’s Oven, Showing the Dough Against the Oven Wall. (See § 2, page 272, column 1). further preparation. Probably it is this, or por- ridge made from it, which is denoted by the word ‘arisah (Nu 15 20; Ezk 44 30, ‘dough’ EV). Generally, however, the grain was ground into meal, gemah. In distinction from ordinary meal, sdleth or gemah séleth designated a very fine meal, which in later times was used with sacrifices (Lv 21, etc.). Meal made from Food and Food Utensils A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 272 barley was called, like the grains of which it was made, s°drim (Nu 5 15; Ezk 49). 2. Bread. The dough, bdtség, was kneaded in a kneading-trough, mish’ereth. Leaven, s°’ dr, was usually mixed only with bread that was intended to be taken on a journey. Such bread was called hdméts; unleavened bread was termed matstsah. The loaf was molded by the hand into the form of a disk—from which form it derived its name kikkar (‘circle’)—and was about the thickness of one’s thumb, so that it could easily be broken (cf. Is 587). Bread was baked in a bake-oven, tanntr. The lumps of dough were flattened firmly against the heated wall of the oven or spread on the stone within. At times the loaves were simply placed in the hot ashes or on red-hot stones (I K 19 6, mg.), in which case care had to be taken to turn them at the proper time (cf. Hos 7 8) and see illustrations in column 2. Such loaves, or cakes, were the so called ash-cakes (‘uggah, Hos 7 8, or ‘cakes baken on the coals,’ I K 19 6). Corresponding to our pancakes were the cakes cooked in a pan, marhesheth, well-known to the Bedawin of to-day (cf. Niebuhr, Beschreibung, etc., p. 52). Possibly thesame thing is meant by niqqtdh- im (cracknels AV, IK 143). An especially thin, round cake is evidently meant by rdqgiqg (Ex 29 2, 23) while hallah (Ly 2) refers probably to one somewhat thicker and per- forated. Fre- quently cakes were spread with oil(Lv 2 4; Ezk 16 13), or the dough was mixed with oil (Nu 11 8; cf. Lv 25), or honey (Ex 16 31). In times of famine, bread was also made of beans, pdl, lentils, ‘adashim, millet, ddhan, and spelt, kuss¢mim(Ezk 49). 3. Vegetables. As a relish with bread, vegetables and fruit were used. The leguminous vegetables, yGrdq (Pr 15 17; Dt 11 10), also ‘ésebh (Gn 9 3), such as beans (II S 17 28), lentils (cf. pottage of lentils Gn 25 34), marsh-miilet (Ezk 4 9), cucumbers qishshi’im, melons, ’dbhattihim, and especially garlic shimim (Nu 11 5), onions, betsdlim, and leeks hatsir (Nu 11 5), were all well-known. In times of stress, wild gourds, paqqii‘dth sddheh, prepared with meal, were used in pottage (II K 4 39 £.), also salt- wort, malliah (Job 30 4). 4. Spices. The spices were cummin, kammon, fitches, t.e., black cummin or dill, getsah (Is 28 25; Mt 23 23), mint, 7ddocu0v (Mt 23 23; Lk 11 42), and mustard, ofvantc (Mt 13 31, 17 20). Salt, melah, was always very important. “To eat a man’s salt’? meant to eat of his food (Ezr 414). A ‘covenant of salt’ was unbreakable; it was ratified by a meal seasoned with salt, i.e., of bread and salt, as is the custom to-day (cf. Nu 1819; II Ch 135). 5. Fruits. The fruits, pert (cf. Gn 1 29), known Tabtin, or Small Oven, Used in Bak- ing. (Under View.) and used were: figs, especially the early fig, dik- kairah (Is 28 4; Jer 24 2), and the late fig, t’énah (Jer 813, 2917). The latter were generally dried and pressed into round or square cakes, d*bhélah (I S 25 18; II K 207). Grapes, ‘dndbhim and ’eshkél ‘anabhim (Nu 13 23 f.), were used both fresh and dried, 7.e., as raisins, tsimmigim (I S 25 18, 30 12). They were also, like figs, pressed into cakes, d*bhélim (I S 25 18). It is uncertain whether the Israelites were acquainted with grape-honey, since the Arabic = OS i ee +5 SA Baker’s Oven, Showing the Loaves on Red-hot Stones. dibs, corresponding to the Heb. d*bhash, ‘honey’ EV, is used both for the artificial fruit-honey as well as for the natural product (cf. Gn 43 1; Ezk 27 17). Olives were eaten both raw and prepared, as they are to-day. Besides these may be men- tioned also the pomegranate, rimmén (Dt 8 8; Song 4 3), the fruit of the mulberry-fig, shigmah (sycamore Am 7 14), which was eaten by the poor, the fruit of the date-palm, taémdr, which also was treated in the same manner as figs and grapes, the pistachio nuts, botnim (Gn 43 11), almonds, sh¢gédhim (Gn 43 11), and walnuts, ’éghdz (Song 611). The dried fruit of the carob-tree—the so called St.-John’s- payee a SOATTLL 4 pega (OT? hey ii ‘: iy Ye ZaY itn yy YW td Baker’s Oven, Showing the Loaves on Hot Ashes. bread—xepétioyv, husks EV (only in Lk 15 16), was more fit for swine than for men. The unripe husks were frequently used to give water a pleasant taste. It is a matter of debate as to whether the Israelites were acquainted with the apple. In the Hellenistic period many varieties of produce were imported from other countries—mustard, pumpkins, beans, lentils from Egypt, asparagus, horse-beans, Persian nuts, etc. HOUSEHOLD UTENSILS—I. 6. Tabtéin, small oven. ‘Arsa,’ large oven. 8. Saj, metal plate for baking bread. 9. Kub‘a, small basket for flour, . Khaby, grain-bin. Tahéine, hand-mill for grinding flour, iy noe w Minkhul, flour-sieve. Batye, dough-bowl. Seniyyet el-bdtye, wicker cover for dough-bowl. (From the Suvia Davison Paton Collection in Hartford Theological Seminary.) ow HOUSEHOLD UTENSILS—II, Sandutk, chest for clothes. 9. Ibrik kahwe, pot for making coffee. Kuffe, basket for carrying earth. 10. Tahtinet kahwe, coffee-mill. Sal, basket for fruit or vegetables. itahe Tunjera, copper kettle. Maktdaf, large basket with a handle. 12. Munfah, bellows. Kurmi, stool. 13. Jurn, mortar for grinding coffee. Kartali, basket with handle. 14. Mukense, broom. . Sukkara and Miftah, lock and key. 15. Mudakka, washing-pounder, 8. Tbrtk ma, pot for hot water. 16. Dikmak, mallet. (From the Suvia Davison Paton Collection in Hartford Theological Seminary.) 273 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Food and Food Utensils 2. Animal Foods. 6. Milk. Next to bread and vegetables the most important food was milk, halabh, both of larger and smaller cattle (Dt 32 14), especially goat’s milk (Pr 27 27), which was usually kept in skins, nd’dh (Jg 419). The Bedawin alone used camel’s milk. As a drink the fresh milk, which in a hot climate develops a sour taste soon after milking, is most effective in quenching thirst. Among the peasantry of to-day no meal is served without this sour milk (cf. Gn 18 8). Cream, hem’dh, is mentioned frequently (Gn 18 8; Is 7 22, etc.), but the word means also thick milk, cheese (Pr 30 33), and probably butter. At the present day butter is made by pressing and shaking a goatskin filled with milk and hung between poles. The modern Arabs use a great deal of butter, both fresh and melted. Whether this was also the case with the Israelites in Palestine is doubtful, since they had olive-oil to take its place. It is also probable that they were acquainted with the ‘sweet milk. cheese,’ hdritsé-halabh (1S 1718). The special word for cheese is g*bhinah (Job 10 10), which was in all probability prepared then as at the present. The curdled milk is first drained of its liquid, the curd is then salted and molded into lumps the size of one’s hand and finally placed in the sun to dry. To-day such cheese is often mixed with water and furnishes with its somewhat sour taste a most cooling drink, 7. Honey. By honey, d¢bhash, so often mentioned in connection with milk, not only bee-honey but also fruit-honey is meant. While bee-culture was known to the Israelites, wild bees were abundant, as at the present time (Dt 3213;1S 14 25f.). The liquid honey, ndpheth tsiphim, that drips from the comb, ya‘ar or ya‘rath d¢bhash (1S 14 25, 27), is mentioned many times (Ps 1911; Pr 16 24, etc.), and is still highly prized. Honey was used with pastry (Ex 16 31) and mingled with the drink as well as eaten alone. 8. Fish. There are but few notices concerning fish as an article of diet (cf. Nu 115). In fact, little is said of them at all in the O T (cf. Jer 16 16; Ezk 47 10; Ec 9 12). But they must have been as much relished then as in the days of Jesus (Mt 7 10, 14 17, 15 34; Lk 24 42; Jn 219). The last two references show that they were often broiled and eaten with honey. According to Dt 1410, Lv 119, fish without fins and scales were unclean and not to be eaten. It was in postexilic times that the Jews came to use fish in large quantities. In the neighborhood of the ‘fish-gate’ in Jerusalem there was the fish-market ~ (Zeph 110; Neh 3 3, 12 39; II Ch 3314), where sun- dried or salted fish were sold. According to Neh 13 16 they were imported by Tyrian dealers. Others came from Egypt, where cured fish constituted an important article of export. In later times the salting of fish was extensively carried on in Palestine, tho the industry was learned from foreigners (cf. the ‘name of the town Tarichesx, ‘curing-places,’ from taetyoc, a ‘cured fish,’ at the S. end of the Sea of Galilee). See also Fisu. 9. Reptiles and Locusts. From the prohibition in Ly 11 29 £. it would seem that lizards, tsabh, were occasionally eaten, just as to-day in many districts the Bedawin are fond of the daff, which corresponds to the tsébh, tho the qualifying phrase ‘after its kind’ in the passage cited may be intended to give the word a quite general meaning. According to Ly 11 21 f. it was allowable to eat locusts—the varieties ’arbeh, sol‘dém, hargdl, and hdaghadbh, being ex- pressly mentioned. It is probable that this was a habit surviving from the earlier nomadic times against which Dt 14 19 utters a protest without actually forbidding it. 10. The Use of Meat. Meat has always been more rarely used as food in the Orient than with us: only on the royal table was it an article of daily diet (I K 5 3), and this was probably because of the daily offering (see SACRIFICE AND OFFERINGS). Otherwise animals were slaughtered for food only on festal oc- casions, such as the yearly pilgrimages to the Sanc- tuary, haggim, and the annual festivals of families or relatives, or under special circumstances, such as visits, etc. (cf. Gn 187; II S 12 4). The primitive style of preparing the meat was by roasting. It was not until they lived in Palestine and came under the influence of the Canaanites that the Israelites learned to boil their meat (cf. seethe AV, Ex 23 19; ef. broth, Jg 6 19; I S 2 13), and even then, in the Passover ritual, roasting—the old custom of the nomadic shepherds—was retained. The supply of meat was derived from the cattle-raising industry. Sheep were of greatest importance for this purpose (IS 25 11, 18, etc.). Lambs, karim (Am 6 4), up to three years old were favorites. In addition, fatted calves, mr?’ (Is 1 11), and oxen (I S 14 32) are re- ferred to, also kids, g¢dhi ‘“izzim (Gn 279, etc.). The hindquarters, shéqg (I S 9 24), thighs, y@rékh, and shoulders, kdthéph (Ezk 24 4), were considered the best parts. It is evident from Gn 27 6 ff. that the women of Israel, even in early times, were skilful in preparing meat. The prohibition in Ex 23 19 shows that it was common to boil the young animals in milk, as is the custom among the Arabs to-day. Venison was somewhat rare, but found on the royal table (I K 5 3). This was due to the fact that there was no large extent of wild land, and the Israelites, moreover, were not specially fond of hunting (cf. Gn 25 27). According to Dt 14 3 f. and Lv 111 ff. it was allowable to eat only animals that chew the cud and have cloven hoofs. Dt names, in addition to oxen, sheep, and goats, the hart, ’ayydl, gazel, ts*bhi, fallow deer, yahmir, wild goat, ’aqqd, antelope, dishon, oryx, t’’6, and the zemer, probably a variety of deer or stag. Among the fowl, doves, yéndah, and turtle-doves, tdr, also quail, slaw (Ex 16 12 £.), were eaten, and from Is 10 14, Lk 11 12, it may be inferred that eggs also were an item of food. It was forbidden to eat any animal not duly slaugh- tered, e.g., such as had fallen or was torn—a pro- hibition probably due to the ancient prejudice re- garding the shedding of blood (cf. IS 14 32 #.; Dt 12 16, 23, etc.). 11. The Preparation of Food. Utensils. Cooking was done by men as well as by women. The former indeed considered it their duty only to slaughter and boil or roast the meat, as the Bedawin and Fella- hin do to-day. It was the task of the women to grind the meal, bake the bread and cakes, make the | cheese and butter, prepare the vegetables, etc. (cf. | Gn 18 6; 1S 813). Even women of the royal family Food and Food Utensils Forest of Carmel A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 274 occasionally engaged in such work (cf. 11S 138). It was an exception for a man to prepare vegetables (cf. Gn 25 29; II K 4 38). Cooks, tabbah, m. sing., are mentioned (I S 9 23, ef. 8 13, f. plur.), but were found only in some of the more wealthy homes. Bakemeats, ‘baked food’ (Gn 40 17, RV), refers to delicacies prepared by the cooks of the royal household. There were bakers, ’dphim, only in the larger towns (Hos 7 4). The furnishings of a Hebrew kitchen were very simple. In addition to the hand-mill and bake- oven there were the vessels, kadh, which the women filled with water at the spring or well, and carried home on their shoulders (Gn 24 14). In such ves- sels meal and other similar things were kept (I K 17 12). Meat was boiled in pots of earthenware and of brass. Inasmuch as the manufacture of the latter had been learned from the Phenicians (I K 7 13 f.), they were similar in form to those of Phe- nicia. A number of names of such vessels, or dishes have come down to us, but it is no longer possible to distinguish clearly among them (e.g., kiyydr, didh, qallahath, parir, sir, tsélahah, saph, mizraq, kaph, I K 7 40, 50; 1S 214; II Ch 3513; tedBrArtov, Mk 14 20). For fruits and bakemeats there were baskets of various sorts, of which we know the names, but not their different forms (didh, Jer 24 2; sal, Gn 40 17; tene’, Dt 26 2). The three-pronged forks, mazlégh, of I S 2 13 were used, not for eating, but for drawing the meat out of the pot. Knives, ma’dkheleth, were used only for slaying the animals and cutting the meat for cooking (Gn 22 6, 10). Liquids were kept usually as they are to-day, in goatskin ‘bottles,’ hémeth (Gn 21 15), and nd’dh (Jg 4 19); only in later times, and then rarely, were metal vessels used for this purpose. II. BEVERAGES. 12. Water. The most common beverage, especially in towns, was water (IS 3011; I K 196,8), which was collected mainly in the cistern (bdr) that every well- appointed house possessed (II S 17 18; Jer 38 6). These cisterns were generally made wider at the bot- tom so as to keep the water cooler. The opening was covered with one or more stone slabs, both to prevent accidents and to guard against a too free use of the water by others. Wells, b’ér, furnishing ‘living’ spring water (Gn 26 19; Nu 211 ff.; Jn 411), were rarer and most highly prized. The water of such springs was usually collected in basins that were walled up and covered over, into which one descended by steps. They were the common possession of a clan or community. See WaTErR. 13. Wine, etc. In the heat of the harvest time use was frequently made of a sour drink, hdmets (Ru 2 14), a mixture of water and wine, yayin, or some other strong drink, shékhGr. Wine was in com- mon use, as it was produced in abundance. Both the must, 2.¢e., ‘new wine,’ firdésh, and the wine proper, t.e., after its fermentation, were drunk. Whether it was customary in earlier times to mix the wine with water is questionable, and can not be proved from Is 1 22. In II Mac 15 39, and in the Mishna (Pesah 7 13) there is evidence of such a custom, but it may have been due to Greek and Roman influence. There was, indeed, an old custom of ‘mixing’ wine, but this consisted in adding spices to strengthen it or im- prove its taste (Song 8 2; Is 5 22; Ps 759; Pr95). It was usual to strain, zdqaq, the wine through a cloth in order to free it from dregs and insects. The method of preparing the intoxicating drink, shékhar is unknown. According to Song 8 2 pomegranates, ‘asi rimmonim, were used for the purpose. It is probable that the Israelites were also acquainted with palm-wine, pressed from soaked ripe dates. It is possible also that they were acquainted with the Egyptian barley-wine (cf. Herod. ii. 77; Pliny, HN xiv. 29; Mishna, Pesah 31). In the Mishna cider (Terumoth 11 2) and honey-wine (Shab. 20 2) are mentioned. 14. Changes in Respect to Food. The course of time brought with it changes in respect to the food used by the Israelites. The original simplicity of the nomadic days gradually gave way, especially among the well-to-do, under the influence of a more self- indulgent mode of life, fostered by prosperity and intercourse with the outside world. The example set by the court was not without influence (I K 5 2). The various sorts of fine pastry which are mentioned in the Law (cf. Lv ch. 2) reveal the advance made in the art of cooking. It is likely also that the pains- taking care shown in the preparation of spiced wines was characteristic of the period of the King- dom. After the Exile the Jews learned to import many new varieties of food. When the exiles returned they brought with them hens, and afterwards eggs were a favorite article of food (cf. Lv 1112). From Egypt came pickled fish, taptyn (see § 8, above). Egyptian beer, (060c, mustard, gourds, beans, lentils were also imported from Egypt. Tyrians brought sea fish to the Jerusalem market (Neh 13 16). Finally, the use made by the people generally of Babylonian pulp, Median beer, Bithynian cheese, Persian nuts, asparagus, etc., gives clear evidence of how, with increased prosperity and contact with the outside world, a taste for more delicate foods had manifested itself among the Jews. LiTERATURE: The Archeologies of Benzinger and Nowack; G. Dalman, ‘Butter, Dickmilch und Kase im A.7.,’ Pal. Jahrb. XV (1917), 31-35; E. Herdi, Die Herstellung und Verwerthung von Kdse im griechisch-rémischenAltertum (1918); M. Jastrow, ‘Wine in the Pentateuchal Codes,’ JAOS, XXXIII (1913), 180-192; J. Déller, ‘Der Wein in Bibel und Talmud,’ Biblica, IV (1923), 143 ff., 267 ff. W. N.—L. B. P. FOOL, FOOLISH, FOOLISHNESS, FOLLY: 1. In the O T these words are found mainly in the Widsom Lit. (Job, Pr, Ec). The various original terms express many varieties of meaning which the English words only imperfectly reproduce. (1) nabhal, n*bhalah (rare in the Wisdom Lit.) signify more than mere folly. The verb means to ‘despise,’ ‘contemn’ (cf. Dt 3215). The nabhal, then, is one who is positively bad, despising what is right, and n*bhalah is open, wilful badness (cf. Gn 347; Dt 22 21; Jos 7 15; Jg 19 23, 20 6, 10; II S 3 33, 18 12, 13; Ps 141, 53 1, 74 22; Pr 177, 21, 30 22; Is 32 5, 6 [cf. AV], etc.). (2) ’twweleth, ’éwil, and ya’al mean simply ‘folly,’ ‘fool,’ ‘foolish,’ ‘to be foolish.’ The root idea is thought to be ‘to be thick,’ but this is uncertain. While frequent in Pr (1 7, 5 23, etc.), elsewhere 275 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Food and Food Utensils Forest of Carmel they occur only in Nu 12 11; Job 5 2, 3; Ps 38 5, 69 6, 107 17; Is 19 11, 35 8; Jer 4 22, 5 4, 50 36; Hos 97, 13; Zec 1115. (3) kegel, k¢stl, kestlaith. The root ksl ex- presses the idea of ‘thickness’ and these terms signify ‘intellectual dulness.’ They are the favorite terms in Pr and Ec (cf. Pr 1 22; Ec 2 14, etc.) and are found only in Ps 49 10, 13, 85 8, 92 6, 94.8; Jer 10 8 outside of these books. (4) sakhdl, sekhel, sikhlith, found often in Ee (1 17, 2 19, etc.), mean simply ‘fool,’ ‘foolish,’ ‘folly,’ z.e., ‘lack of moral good sense.’ (5) Of other less used terms, those from the root hélal mean ‘arro- gant’ or even ‘mad’ (Job 12 17; Ps 55, 73 3 (ef. RV), 75 4); those from taéphal mean literally ‘insipid’ (Job 1 22, 2412; Jer 23 13; La 2 14; cf. Job 66). In Job 418 the meaning is ‘error’; on Ps 73 22 cf. RV; in Pr 96 ‘foolish’ means ‘simple.’ The frequency of the men- tion of such terms in Pr and Kc is due to the fact that ‘wisdom’ according to the view of the Wisdom Schools was not a speculative and abstract concept, but a practical one. The wise man understood how to live correctly, while the fool was ignorant, or negligent, or defiant of the rules of correct living. Since these books deal largely with the matter of practical life, setting forth the maxims in obedience to which it may be attained, it was natural that the reverse side—the fool and his foolishness—should often be spoken of by way of illustration or contrast. 2. The N T usage calls for little comment. ‘Fool’ is perhaps too strong a term in Lk 24 25 and Eph 5 15‘(cf. RV). On Ro 1 21, 10 19 also cf. RV. In most other cases in the N T these terms are translations of dvéntos, &pewv, oru.wedc (with their compounds, or derivatives), of which the first two mean literally ‘without wit’ or ‘sense,’ the last ‘dull,’‘ sluggish,’ ‘stupid,’ altho all were used in a more general sense. K. E. N. FOOT: In addition to its literal use in numerous places, because of its position as the lowest part of the human body, ‘foot’ is used in various figures of speech to express: (1) Subjection, from the Oriental custom of placing the foot on the vanquished (Jos 10 24; II S 22 39; Ps 86, 474; Ro 16 20; I Co 15 2%). Humility, in salutation, supplication, or homage (Dt 33 3; II K 4 27; Est 83; Mk 5 22; Rev 1 17), as of a disciple at the feet of his teacher (Lk 10 39; Ac 22 3), or as shown in the act of washing the feet of another (Jn 11 2,135). (2) Poetically, the part of the body in action is used for the man himself (Ps 25 15; Jer 18 22; Lk 179; Ac 59). Washing of feet, customary at the _ end of a journey, or on entering a house, was an act of courtesy to a guest. In AV kén, the ‘base’ of the laver, is rendered ‘foot’ (Ex 3018, etc.). C.S. T. FOOTMAN. See Warrare, § 4. For the weapons of the footman see in general ARMS AND ARMOR. FOOTSTOOL: Twice an exact translation of kebhesh (II Ch 9 18), and of Sxoxédtov (Ja 2 3). It is elsewhere the translation, im Dt, of the late word hadhém, ‘stool,’ and in the N T of dxoxé3:0v, with the addition ‘of the feet.’ Tic footstool is used figura- tively of the earth (Is 661; Mt 5 35; Ac 7 49), of the Temple (La 21), of the Ark (Ps 99 5, 13827; I Ch 28 2), and of enemies, in a metaphor of their conquest by the Messianic King (Ps 1101; Lk 20 43, etc). C.S. T. FORBID (in the expression ‘God [or the Lord] forbid’): In the O T this is the rendering of the Heb. halilah, ‘profanation,’ z.e., in reference to J’’ (IS 24 6, 26 11; I K 21 3; I Ch 1119). For other instances changed by RV see Far. In the N T ‘God forbid’ is the translation of the Gr. pw} yévorto, z.e., ‘et it not be.’ E. E. N. FORCES. See WarrFare, §§ 3, 4. FORD: In the O T a ‘ford,’ or place of crossing, is mentioned in connection with three rivers, the Jabbok (Gn 32 22), the Arnon (Is 16 2), and the Jor- dan (Jos 27; Jg 3 28). In antiquity bridges were almost unknown and fords were therefore of great importance. The Jordan has a large number of fords, some of which are impassable when the river is high. See also PaLEsrInn, § 12 (a) and (b). E. E. N. FORECAST: The word in Dn 11 24 f. AV means ‘to think,’ ‘plan,’ or ‘desire,’ as is indicated in RV. FOREFATHER: This term occurs but once in the O T (Jer 11 10). The same Heb. original (in the sing.) is rendered ‘first father’ in Is 43 27. In the N T xedyovor (II Ti 1 3) means ‘ancestors.’ See also FAMILY AND FamILy Law, §§ 2, 4. E. E. N. FOREHEAD: The forehead is often treated in a somewhat symbolic way, as indicative of the char- acter or personality (e.g., ‘a harlot’s forehead,’ Jer 3 3; cf. Ezk 38 f.). It was on the forehead of the high priest that the golden plate with its inscription ‘Holy to Jehovah’ was placed (Ex 28 38). Marks, or signs, or names are spoken of as placed on the fore- heads of the faithful (Ezk 9 4, where the mark is the Heb. letter n in its old form X or t; Rev 7 3, 9 4, 141, 22 4), or of the servants of the beast (Rev 13 16, 149, 17 5, 20 4) KE. E. N. FOREIGNER. See GENTILES. FOREKNOW, FOREKNOWLEDGE, FORE- ORDAIN. See in general EvLEctTIon. FOREPART: In Ac 27 41, generally for the prow of the ship. See SaHips anD NAVIGATION, § 2. FORERUNNER: The rendering in He 6 20 of xp 63e0u0c, which is applied to Christ, who as eternal High Priest enters in our behalf into the Divine pres- ence, thus insuring our personal access to God. It is used also in the LXX. of Nu 13 (21) 20and Is 28 4 for the first ripe fruits, and in Wis 12 8 for the advance guard of an army. See also Jesus Curist, § 4, and JOHN THE Baptist. M. W. J. FORESAIL, FORESHIP: Technical terms used only in the account of Paul’s voyage (Ac 27 40, 30). See SHips AND NaviaaTIoNn, § 2. FORESKIN. See Circumcision. FOREST. See PALESTINE, § 21. FOREST IN ARABIA (2193 1Y2, ya‘ar ba- ‘Grabh): A forest or thicket, probably a hiding-place for Arabian merchantmen of the tribe of the Dedan- ites (Is 21 13). Site unknown. The second word is translated by many ‘in the steppe’; by others the vowel-pointing is changed to mean ‘in the eve- ning.’ C2Sut: FOREST OF CARMEL. See CarMEt. Forest of Hareth Fringe A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 276 FOREST OF HARETH. See HeReErs. FOREST OF LEBANON. See LesBanon. FORFEIT. See Crimes AND PUNISHMENTS, § 3 (c). FORGER. See Artizan Lirs, § 10; and Tusa Cain. FORGIVE, FORGIVENESS (also in the O T par- don, and in the N T remission): The idea of forgive- ness may occur either in religious or in social rela- tions. In both cases it is the annulling of a ground of estrangement, or offense, by the estranged or offended person. The principles which underlie it are viewed as the same, and the conditions are at least similar, if not absolutely identical, whether it is God’s forgiveness of man or man’s forgiveness of his fellow man (Mt 612). The term is also used of the free cancellation of a debt which is overdue (Mt 18 27). Hence sin is looked upon as a debt (Mt 6 12, 14). In general what is forgiven may be a personal in- dignity or offense, depriving one of his rightful property, or honor (Nu 14 19; Mt 18 21; Lk 17 3); or it may be a violation of moral law, whether viewed as a Divine prescription or an inherent right. The vast majority of cases of forgiveness in the Scrip- tures are of this latter type (Jos 24 19; Ro 4, 7). The conditions of forgiveness are repentance and reparation, or atonement; but they are not mechan- ically conceived, nor presented as equally indis- pensable in every case. In fact, neither seems to have been fulfilled when Jesus on the cross forgave His executioners. The ground for His forgiving was that they knew not what they were doing (Lk 23 34). In the parable of the prodigal son, while repentance is a condition fully met by the conduct of the offender, nothing is said of atonement, or reparation. The same is true in Ps 1031, 8-13. But in the more formal treatment of the subject both atonement and repentance are made conditions (Mk 1 4; Lk 24 47; Ac 2 38), and reparation is prescribed in the law alluded to in He 9 22. The nature of forgiveness is shown in the different forms of its effect. One of the most frequent words in the O T pictures it as the taking off, or away, of that which is forgiven, as if it were a blot, or excres- cence (ndsd@’, Gn 5017). Again, it is the act of cov- ering what is forgiven, as if it were a blemish. This is strictly an O T conception (Ps 78 38), and is related to the sacrificial notion of covering sin with the blood of the expiatory victim. But it is also used in the N T (1 P48; Ja 5 20). A third way of speaking of forgiveness is suggestive of the conferring of a gra- tuity. The underlying thought here is, of course, the canceling of the payment of a debt (Lk 7 43; II Co 27). Still another manner of speaking puts what is forgiven into the class of things cast, or sent away. This is the most frequent, and is designated by the O T term salah (e.g., Ps 103 3) and by the N T dofnur. In a single instance (Ro 4 25) forgiveness is made a passing by or overlooking of sin. The forgiveness of sin is the specific prerogative of God Himself (Mk 2 9); and in the apostolic teaching forgiveness is secured through Jesus Christ (Eph 17; Col 114). The same was anticipated in the words of Jesus claiming the privilege for the Son of Man of forgiving sin (Mk 210). For unpardonable sin, see Sin. See also RECONCILIATION AND ATONEMENT. Aa Solis FORK: The only occurrence of this term inthe EV isinIS 13 21. The Heb. here is sh*lésh (‘three’) gill¢eshén, usually taken to mean ‘a three-pronged fork’ (as the root glsh has in Aramaic the sense of ‘thin’). But the meaning is, after all, obscure. See Driver, Notes on the Heb. Text of the Books of Sam- uel, p. 80. See also AGRIcULTURE, § 7; and Foon, - § 11. K. E. N. FORM: I. The rendering of several Gr. words: (1) poeeh, which occurs only in Ph 2 6f., where it is used by the Apostle of the existence form in which Christ externalizes His essential being. In His pre- existent state 1t is the form in which the Divine Being (@e6¢) externalizes Itself in the world of Spirit; in His incarnate state it is the form in which the crea- ture (S050¢) externalizes itself in the world of mat- ter; (2) el8oc, which in Jn 5 37 (‘shape’ AV) and Lk 3 22 (‘shape’ AV) has reference to the externaliza- tion of the Divine Being to human vision, and in I Th 5 22 (‘appearance’ AV) refers to the outward manifestations of evil, from which the Apostle urges his readers to abstain; (3) uwdepwats, which in Ro 2 20 refers to the essential substance of knowledge (yy@ot¢) and truth (4A78eax) which the Jew pos- sessed in the Law, but which he failed to appreciate and apply; and in II Ti 35 to the form of godliness which the degenerate religionists predicted by the Apostle are to hold externally, but to deny in char- acter and life; (4) térocs, which in Ro 6 17 is used of the special form of gospel truth that had character- ized the Apostle’s preaching, and had been appro- priated by his readers, and in Ac 23 25 (‘manner’ AV), less significantly, of the cast of Claudius Lys- ias’ letter. (5) InII Ti 113 RV has substituted ‘pat- tern’ for ‘form,’ the less accurate AV rendering of StotUTWats. II. See also Gop, § 2; and Man, § 2. M. W. J. FORMER, FORMER THINGS: The expression ‘former things’ occurs frequently in Is chs. 41 ff. It refers to the Divine knowledge of history by which J’’ was able to set forth accurately through His prophets what was to take place. The prophet chal- lenges the representatives of the other religions to show any such knowledge on the part of their gods. On Zec 148, see Easrand Drap Sra. E. E. N. FORNICATOR, FORNICATION. See Crimzs AND PUNISHMENTS, § 2 (c); and MarrIAGE AND Divorce, § 4. FORSWEAR. See CrimMES AND PUNISHMENTS, § 2 (b). FORT, FORTIFY, FORTRESS: Every city in antiquity was fortified (‘fenced,’ often, in AV) by its wall and citadel. See Crry, § 3. For the terms ‘fort,’ fortress’ (AV) the RV gives other renderings in a number of places. In II S 59, Jer 16 19, Ezk 33 27, RV reads ‘stronghold.’ In Is 29 3 it reads ‘siege-works.’ In Is 32 14 it renders the Heb. ‘dphel by ‘hill,’ the reference being probably to the hill on which the palace of David was built. In Is 25 12, RV reads ‘the high fortress of thy walls.’ In — _—— =.’ 277 Mic 7 12 the Heb. is mdétsér, perhaps a textual error for mitsrayim, ‘Egypt,’ as in RV. The ‘forts’ re- ferred to in II K 251, Jer 52 4, Ezk 4 2, etc., were the siege-forts erected by the Chaldean army during its siege of Jerusalem. EH. E. N. FORTIFIED CITY. See Crry, § 3. FORTUNATUS (®optovvétos): One of the mes- sengers of the Corinthian Church at whose presence in Ephesus Paul rejoices, because of the reassur- ance which he brought concerning the attitude of part of the Church toward Paul (I Co 16 17). See also AcHAIcus and STEPHANAS. JMET: FORTUNE: In Is 65 11 a doom is pronounced on those ‘‘that prepare a table unto Fortune [for that troop AV] and that fill up mingled wine unto ‘Destiny’.”” The Heb. term is gadh, which was the name of an Aramaic deity, the god of good fortune (see Semitic Reiaion, § 21 f.) The tribal name Gad was probably due to some ancient (pre-Mosaic) worship of this deity among Israel’s ancestors. EH. E. N. FORTY. See SIGNIFICANT AND SyMBo.ic, § 7. FORUM. See Appius, MARKET oF. FORWARD, FORWARDNESS: In the N T these words occur in AV in several places where RV gives decidedly better renderings. In II Co 88 Gr. oxovdy = ‘zeal,’ ‘earnestness’; 810, 6¢Aetv = ‘to wish,’ ‘to will’; 9 2, mpo6uute = ‘readiness’; Gal 2 10, oxov- 3aCerv= ‘to be earnest’ or ‘zealous.’ EK. E. N. FOUL SPIRIT. See UnNcuEan Spirit. FOUNDATION, FOUNDATIONS: In the O T this term (nearly always the rendering of a verbal form or some derivative of 123, ydsadh ‘to found’ is used (1) of the walls of a building or city, for which the N T equivalent is generally Oeuédto¢g (I K 7 10; Ps 137 7; Lk 6 48, etc.), and (2) of God’s creative act of establishing the earth, for which the N T equiv- alent is xataBoAy (Job 38 4; Mt 13 35). Figurative applications of both of these usages are also found (Pr 10 25; Is 28 16, the principle of faith; Ro 15 20; II Ti 2 19, etc.). In Job 38 6 the Heb. is ’adhan, usually rendered ‘socket,’ but here used of the firmly fixed ‘base’ or ‘pedestal’ on which the ‘pillars’ of the earth rest. In Is 16 7 the RV ‘raisin-cakes’ (idolatrous offerings) is the more probable rendering. In Is 6 4, RV reads ‘foundations’ for ‘posts’ (AV), and in Ps 89 14, 97 2, ‘foundation’ for ‘habitation’ (AV). In the early period the laying of the founda- tions of buildings, walls, etc., was accompanied by the sacrifice of young children, whose bodies were immured in the foundation (cf. Jos 6 25; I K 16 34, and consult the report of the discoveries at Gezer in PEFQS). See also Cosmocony, § 3. E. E. N. FOUNTAIN: I. In metaphorical usage a foun- tain is the emblem of any source of spritual blessing (J13 18), whether issuing in cleansing (Zee 13 1) or in refreshment and revival (Rev 7 17, 21 6). Once Jacob is called a fountain, referring to the peaceful contentment of his condition (Dt 33 28). Preemi- nently, however, God is the fountain of life, z.e., the source of all good (Ps 36 9; Jer 2 13, 17 13). Hence NUMBERS, A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Forest of Hareth Fringe the Ney fae of God is also a fountain of life (Pr 13 14). II. See Patzstine, §§ 14, 20; also En-. AviCr Zs: FOUNTAIN GATE. See JERusALEM, §38. FOUR, FOUR AND TWENTY, FOURTEEN. See NumBers, SIGNIFICANT AND SYMBOLIC, § 7. FOURFOLD. See Crimms AND PUNISHMENTS, § 3 (c). FOWL. See PALEstINnE, § 25. FOWLER. See Hountina. FOX. See Pauustine, § 24. FRANKINCENSE. See SacrIFICE AND OFFER- Ings, § 15; and OINTMENTS AND PERFUMES, § 2 (4). FRAY: This old English word in AV and ERV at Dt 28 26, Jer 7 33, Zec 1 21 means ‘to frighten.’ Cf. ARV. FRECKLED SPOT. See Disease AND MeEDI- CINE, § 4 (3). FREE, FREEDOM, FREEDMAN, FREE- WOMAN. See Suavery; and Liserry, Curis- TIAN FREEWILL-OFFERING. OFFERINGS, § 10. FRET, FRETTING. See Diszasp anp Mept- CINE, § 2, and 4 (2). FRIED. See Sacririck AND OrreRINas, § 16. FRIEND, FRIENDSHIP: The most common words for friend in the O T (réa‘, ré‘eh, méréa‘) indi- cate acquaintanceship and intercourse of varying de- grees of intimacy. In II S 15 37, 16 16; I K 45 the word is used probably in a somewhat technical, 7.e., official sense. Another frequently used term is ’Ohébh (participle of ’Ghabh, ‘to love’), lit. ‘lover,’ like the Gr. 9fkoc (IIS 196 AV; IL Ch 207; Est 5 10, 14, 613; Pr 14 20, 18 24, 27 6; Is 41 8; Jer 20 4, 6; Zec 13 6). The classic example of Biblical friendship, that of David and Jonathan, is spoken of as ‘love’ not friendship (I $ 18 2). In Jer 38 22 the original means ‘men of thy peace’ (cf. 20 10). In Pr 16 28, 17-9 the Heb. term implies the existence of a bond of union, or a confidential relation. ‘To speak friendly (AV in Jg 19 3; Ru 2 13) is literally ‘to speak to the heart’ (‘kindly’ RV). In Job 19 19 ‘inward friend’ (AV) is literally ‘men of my counsel’ (cf. RV). In the NT the word rendered ‘friend,’ except in four instances, is the common Gr. term ¢fAoc. In Mt 20 13, 22 12, 26 50 the Gr. is étatpoc, ‘companion’ or ‘comrade.’ In Ac 12 20 the statement is literally ‘and having persuaded Blastus’—“‘friend’ not being in the original at all. E. E. N. FRINGE, FRINGES: In Dt 22 12 we have an ancient law requiring Israelites to wear ‘fringes’ (g¢dhilim) upon the four corners of their garments In Nu 15 38 f. essentially the same law is given, only here the word rendered ‘fringes’ is ¢stésith, which seems to have taken the place of the older word. ‘Tassels’ is a much more correct rendering than ‘fringes,’ since g*dhilim means something ‘twisted,’ and these were to be attached to the corner, not the hem, of the garment. These tassels were fastened to the outer garment or simlah (see Drxss See SACRIFICE AND Frog Galatians A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 278 AND ORNAMENTS, § 3) by a cord of blue, and worn to remind the wearer of his obligation, as an Israelite, of loyalty to J’’, tho the original purpose, in the time of Dt and earlier, may have been quite different. Much was made of these in later times as distinct badges of Judaism (cf. Zec 8 23). They seem to have been common in N T times (cf. Mt 9 20, 14 36, 23 5). When the Jews adopted Gentile dress, they gradually ceased wearing the tassels as part of their ordinary garb, and confined them, as now, to the tallith (an adaptation of the old stmlah, worn by men at the synagog service, also, in a smaller form, as an article of underwear). E. E. N. FROG. See PA.esTIne, § 26; and in general PLAGUES. FRONTLETS. See PHYLACTERIES. FROWARD: The North Eng. form of the prepo- sition ‘fromward,’ meaning ‘turned from,’ often with the idea of perversity. In AV it is used as adjec- tive, noun, and adverb in the rendering of several Heb. words, which are translated in other passages by ‘perverse,’ ‘crooked,’ ‘false,’ and ‘wayward.’ All these words appear in Pr much oftener than else- where, referring to conduct in private and public life. ARV retains ‘froward’ only in II S 22 27, Ps 18 26, and I P 218. GOSav: FRUIT: In the great majority of instances the words rendered ‘fruit’ are, in the O T, p*ri, and, in the N T x«exéc, both words being of general signifi- cance and applied (1) to the produce of the earth and its plants, (2) to the increase of animals, inclu- ding man, and, (3) figuratively, to the results or con- sequences of human actions, especially in the moral sphere. Other terms rendered ‘fruit’ are: ’ébh, ‘bloom’ or ‘budding’ (Dn 4 12, 14, 21); y¢bhil, ‘result’ (Dt 1117; Hab 3 17; Hag 1 10); yeledh, ‘child’ (Ex 21 22); lehem, ‘bread’ (Jer 11 19); ma’dkhal, ‘eating’ (Neh 9 25, lit. ‘trees of eating’); melé’ah, ‘fulness’ (Dt 22 9); ndbh, nibh, and tenibhah (all from nibh, ‘to grow’), meaning ‘fruit,’ as the result of growth (Jg 9 11; Is 27 6; La 49; Mal 1 12, and, figuratively, Is 57 19); t¢bhi’Gh, ‘increase,’ and often so rendered; zimrah, meaning doubtful (Gn 43 11); kdah, ‘strength’ (Job 31 39); yévnua, ‘product’ (Mk 14 25, and |s; Lk 12 18 [‘grain’ RV]; II Co 9 10), and éxwea, ‘ripe fruit? (Rv 18 14). See also PatmsTINE, § 23; and Foop, § 5. K. E. N. FRYING-PAN: The translation of marhesheth, Lv 27, 79—probably a shallow pan, whether of metal or earthenware is not certain. FUEL: Little is said specifically about fuel in the Bible. It may be inferred that in ancient times, when the country was more abundantly wooded, wood was commonly used as fuel. The references to coals are generally to stones heated red hot, but at times to charcoal, which was burned in a brasier, or pan, of earthenware (Jer 36 22 f.; Zec 12 6), and used for heating rooms, also, probably, in the smelt- ing-furnaces, and in the priestly censers. ‘Coals of juniper,’ 7.e., charcoal made from the broom shrub (used for this purpose to-day), and mentioned in Ps 120 4. For heating pots, thorn bushes of various - kinds furnished a convenient fuel (Ps 58 9; Is 33 12; Ec 7 6). The dung of camels and cattle is used to- day very commonly in Palestine as fuel, but there is only one reference to this in the O T (Ezk 4 15). E. E. N. FUGITIVE: (1) In Gn 4 12, 14, the Heb. means ‘wanderer,’ one who has no fixed abode. (2) In 21 29 RV, Jg 12 4 the idea is that of one who has ‘escaped.’ (3) In II K 25 11 ‘deserters’ are meant. (4) In Is 10 31, 155, 4314; Jer 495; Ezk 17 21, ‘fugitive’ is the proper term. (5) In Is 16 3, 21 14 RV, gives the real sense of the Heb. ‘wanderer(s).’ FULFIL. See Propuecy, $§ 8, 12, 13. FULLER. See ArtizAn Lirs, § 13. FULLER’S FIELD, THE. See JerusauEm, § 11. FULNESS. See Gnosticism 1n N T. FURLONG: A measure of length. See WEIGurTs AND MEASURES, § 2. FURNACE: Several original terms are so ren- dered in the Bible. (1) tanntr (Aram. ’attiéin, Dn 3 6 ff.), properly ‘oven’ (Gn 15 17; Neh 3 i1, 12 38; Ps 219; Is 319; Mal 41); see Foon, § 11. (2) kibh- shan, a ‘kiln’ or ‘smelting-furnace’ (Gn 19 28; Ex 98,10, 1918). (8) kér, a ‘crucible,’ for metal-working, often used figuratively (Pr 17 3; Dt 4 20, etc.). (4) ‘alil (Ps 12 6) is of uncertain meaning. (5) x&utvoc (Mt 18 42, etc.), a term of comprehensive meaning, signifying various kinds of furnaces. EK. KE. N. FURNITURE: In all instances save one the Heb. term rendered ‘furniture’ is keli, a word of general import. In Gn 31 34, ‘furniture’ AV, the Heb. kar is more correctly rendered ‘saddle’ (so RV). A camel’s saddle, or saddle litter, it a basket-lke affair, provided with cushions inside, and covered with an awning. It is used by women when traveling by camels. Such a saddle is to be distinguished from the pack-saddle, used to hold the burdens loaded on camels. K. E. N. FURROW. See AGRICULTURE, § 4. FURY. See Gon, § 2. 279 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Frog Galatians GAAL, g@’al (73, ga‘al): A son of Ebed, who organized a revolt of the Shechemites against Abime- lech (Jg 9 26-41). Whether Gaal was an Israelite or Canaanite (probably the latter), and whether he acted as a patriot or a demagog aiming to set up his own personal authority in the place of that of Abimelech are questions on which the story does not furnish sufficient material for definite answers. A. C. Z. GAASH, gé’ash (VY3, ga‘ash): The name of a hill north of which Joshua was buried (Jos 24 30; Jg 29). The brooks (or ‘brook valleys’) of Gaash are also mentioned (II S 23 30; I Ch 11 32). For location see TIMNATH-SERAH. GABA, gé’ba. See GEBA. GABBAI, gab-bé’ai ('33, gabbay): A prominent Benjamite in postexilic times (Neh 118). GABBATHA, gab’a-fhe. See JERUSALEM, § 44. GABRIEL, gé’bri-el. See ANGEL, § 4. GAD, gad (73, gddh), ‘fortune’: I. 1. A son of Jacob; see Tripus, §§ 2-4. 2. A prophet who ad- vised, or admonished, David, first, when as an out- law he was passing from place to place in his efforts to elude Saul’s search (I S 225), and again, when the king took the census (II § 2411 #.;I Ch 219#.). To- gether with Nathan he further assisted David in the arrangements of the Levitical musical service (II Ch 29 25), and wrote a record of some portion at least of the great king’s reign (I Ch 29 29). II. That there was a form of Canaanitish idolatry adopted by some Hebrews, in which a fortune-god was worshiped under the name of Gad, is attested by Isaiah (65 11); ARVmg. ‘Gad.’ The name of this fortune-god appears also in such compounds as Baal-gad (Jos 11 17, 12 7, 13 5) and Migdal-gad (Jos 15 37). It is probable that in Leah’s naming of her maid’s son ‘Gad’ (Gn 30 11) there is a trace of the worship of this deity. See Semitic Retiaion, § 22. A. C. Z. GAD, VALLEY OF (733 5m}, nahal hag-gadh, ITS 245), ‘torrent valley [wady] of Gad’: The valley of the Arnon, the boundary between Moab and Gad (cf. Dt 2 36; Jos 139). In IIS 245 read, with LXX. (Lucian), Wellhausen, and Driver: ‘And they began from Aroer, from the city . . . toward Gad.’ Cap ai. GADARENES, gad”o-rinz’. See G=RASENES. GADDI, gad’dai (73, gaddi): One of the spies (Nu 13 11). GADDIEL, gad’1-el (OND gaddi’él), ‘Fortune is God’: One of the spies (Nu 13 10). GADI, gé’dai ('73, gadhi): The father of King Menahem (IT K 15 14, 17). GAHAM, gé’ham (073, gaham): Probably an Aramean clan-name, connected genealogically with Nahor (Gn 22 24). GAHAR, gé@’har (193, gahar): The ancestral head of a subdivision of the Nethinim (Ezr 2 47; Neh 7 49), GAI, gé’ai (873, gay’), ‘valley’: The name of a place in Philistia (I S 17 52, ‘the valley’ AV). The true reading is ‘Gath’ (cf. RVmg. and the latter half of the verse). Oe San GAIUS, gé’us (Té&ioc): 1. A traveling companion of Paul mentioned in Ac 19 29. 2. Gaius who in Ac 20 4 is distinguished as ‘from Derbe’ and possibly identi- cal with 1. 3. One of two persons in Corinth whom Paul himself had baptized (ICo 114). 4. The person to whom III Jn is addressed. 5. Gaius, ‘my host? mentioned in Ro 16 23. If Ro ch. 16 was written in Corinth possibly identical with 3. 4 Fool Bid by GALAL, gé’lal (593, galal): The name of two post- exilic Levites (1. I Ch 915. 2. I Ch 916; Neh 11117). GALATIA, ga-lé-shi-a. See Asta Minor, III, 5. GALATIANS, EPISTLE TO THE. 1. Introduc- tory. The Epistle to the Galatians belongs to the group of practically undisputed letters of Paul (see CORINTHIANS, EpiIsTLEs To THE, § 1). In this group it holds a place of special importance because of the peculiarly large autobiographical element it pos- sesses, which brings it into significant relation to the record of the Book of Acts. 2. Circumstances of Writing. It was written on the receipt of unexpected and disturbing news of a threatened defection of the readers from the Gospel preached to them by the Apostle (16 f., 3 1-4, 4 13-16, 5 7-9). This defection, while it was occasioned by teachings which aroused in the readers a spirit of pride and vainglory that stimulated them to feelings of jealousy and hostility within their own circle (5 13, 15, 26; cf. 5 6, 20, 61-5), practically united them in an attack upon the authority of Paul’s apostleship as underlying the Gospel which he preached (1 11-17, 2 6-10), and involved them in beliefs vitally different from those he proclaimed, and consequently fatal to their Christian life (1 6 f., 31, 4 8-11, 19, 51-4). It was apparently written on a journey, and not from a city center (11f.). The information on which it was based bears all the marks of having come to the Apostle not through general rumor, nor through offi- cial correspondence, but througha personal messen- ger. (cf. 1 6-10, 31-5, 4 12-20, 5 1-15, 6 11-13). It was pro- duced under the pressure of strong feeling (cf. 1 6-8, 11-17, 20, 3 1-5, 4 11-16, 19 f., 5 2-4, 11 f., 611 f. Note in contrast to Paul’s other letters the absence from the greeting of any thanksgiving for the readers’ spiritual life). 3. Order of Contents. At the same time, the order of its thought is simple. After the formal address (1 1), in which he seems to forecast the claim he is to make for himself (ver. 1), and the rebuke he is to administer to the churches (ver. 4), the Apostle passes at once to a consideration of the situation (1 bag He states in language the plainness of which can not be mis- understood his astonished disappointment at the unreasonable and alarming course the readers are pursuing (vs. 6, 7a) and his unhesitating anathema upon the false teachers who were responsible for it (vs. 7b-9), justifying the solemnity of his condemnation by the disinterested motive involved in the e (ver. 10). eat oT AANEa takes up the personal element in the con- troversy and presents, in a detailed review of his life from his conversion to the period of the Jerusalem Council, a vindication of his apostolic authority (1 4-22), He begins this vindication Galatians with a solemn statement of the origin of his Gospel—that it had not come from man but from God (11! f-). In proof of this he calls to their mind the bitter zeal of his Jewish life (1 #3 f.), in order that they might understand the significance of the change which had come over him in his conversion—a change which was due to nothing short of a Divine agency, and had for its purpose nothing less than the entrusting to him of this God- given Gospel which he preached (1 }, 16a), To this subjective experience he adds a statement of objective facts, showing not merely his independence of the Jerusalem Apostles subsequent to his conversion (1 1sb-24), but the ac- knowledgment which these same Apostles made of the equality of his apostleship at the time of the Jerusalem Council (2 140)— an equality of which he was conscious enough to rebuke Peter himself, the head of that apostolic circle, for conduct incon- sistent with the principles they all confessed (2 4-4), These facts gave evidence that his Gospel was of Divine and not of human origin, since with a human gospel he would have had no expectation of such action on the part of the other Apostles, and no justification for such action on his own part. The circumstances in which this equality was acknowledged and this rebuke administered were all the more significant for Paul’s argument, because the question before the Jerusalem Council had been the observance of the ceremonial law by the Gentile converts as necessary to their admission into the Christian brotherhood—the very same matter as was being urged by the false teachers in Galatia (214.). As to this question Paul had had a con- ference with the Apostles, most likely just before the gathering of the Council, and had taken strong ground against the compulsion of these converts to such observance (2 3-5), and had won the Apostles to his view (2 3, 6f.,9f.). . Peter’s inconsistency had also to do with this same question. In spite of his acknowledgment of Paul’s position at the Council—that nothing should be required of the Gentiles as a condition of salva- tion and, therefore, of church-membership, beyond faith in Jesus Christ (cf. Ac 15 7b-11), he had not only given up partaking with the Gentiles in the common meal, which doubtless had been instituted as a natural result of the Council’s decision, but had abandoned it in such a spirit as practically to deny the Gentile converts the right of Christian fellow- ship (2 11-13). In his rebuke of this Apostle, which, of course, we do not have here fully reproduced, Paul presents the principle of justifica- tion by faith in such a way as to show that Peter could not be logically true to it and act as he had done (2 15-21), This closes the personal discussion of the situation and leads the way to the more purely doctrinal discussion (chs. 3 and 4). This discussion is opened with a renewed statement of his astonished disappointment at the course the readers are pur- suing (3 1), in which he confronts them with the inconsistency it showed with all their previous experience (vs. 3, 4a), tho he hints at the hope that this experience may yet assert itself (ver. 4b). He then proceeds to place before them the mutually exclusive principles of the Gospel of faith, which they had received and accepted, and the gospel of works, which they were now follow- ing (3 5-481), Hereminds them (1) that Abraham, to whom the false teachers harked back, as the father of circumcision and the representative of the covenant of the Messianic promises, was justified not by works, but by trust in God; so that they who lived by faith were the true children of Abraham, and the real recipients of the promises (3 °-%); for they who live by works must keep the whole Law, and this has never been possible in the sight of God, since the only basis on which God ever justifies man is faith and the Law is not something toward which faith can be exercised (3 10-12), (2) That Christ had redeemed man from the penalty consequent upon his failure to keep the Law, in order that, instead of the fruitlessness of works, man might receivethe promised blessings through faith (3 18 f-). (8) That, if it be claimed that the promises to Abraham were superseded by the Mosaic Law (3 15-17), it must be remembered (a) that the A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 280 promises were of the nature of a covenant (3 45 !-); so that the Law, tho subsequent to them, could not annul them (3 17 f-)—in fact, if it could, it would invalidate the very principle on which they were given, which was one of free promise received in trust, and not of earned reward for obedience to law (3 18) and (b) that the Law was given, not to supersede the promises, but by showing man his inability to keep its commands to bring him, through a consciousness of his spiritual helplessness, to faith in Christ (3 19 f-); so that the Law, far from superseding the promises, makes possible their realization through bringing man to an appreciation of the need of faith (3 219), This presentation of the relation of the principles of faith and works is then illustrated from the position of an heir under the Roman law (41-7), This brings the Apostle to still another statement of his disappointment at the readers’ present course (4 820), in which he recalls to them their enthusiasm for his Gospel, and their personal attachment to himself when he first preached to them (4 18-6), appealing to them, through an alle- gorical presentation of the superiority of the covenant of the promise, to appreciate the blessings which belonged to them through faith (4 21-81) Upon this follows the practical portion of the Epistle, begin- ning with an exhortation to stand fast in their liberty from the bondage of the Law (5 1-12), and then proceeding, through an elaboration of what this idea of liberty should mean to their living (5 18-26), to a group of admonitions regarding their fellow- ship and service within the Christian brotherhood (61-!°), closing with a final restatement of the Apostle’s position (6 4-15), and the benedictory remarks (6 16-18), 4. Composition and Location of the Churches. The churches to which this burning remonstrance was addressed must have had a definite Jewish ele- ment within their membership in order to give the false teachers a point of contact for their ceremonial propaganda; altho the previous nature-religion of the Gentile majority, through its ascetic tendencies, had left them open to the legalism these teachers en- joined (4 8-10). Where in Asia Minor these churches were located has been a question of much debate—the accepted view, up to recent times, being that they, belonged to that northern portion of the large Roman prov- ince of Galatia known as Galatia proper. As long ago, however, as the close of the 18th cent. it was sug- gested that they may have been the churches of Paul’s first mission tour, since those were within the Galatian province. (See Map of the Pauline World.) With the opening of the 20th cent. this suggestion has gained in favor, largely through its strong advo- cacy by Ramsay (1890), and is now the widely ac- cepted opinion of scholars. It has many arguments in its favor—chiefly (1) that it allows one of Paul’s most important letters to go to churches whose founding is given us in detail in Ac, and whose situa- tion near Syria not only opened them to just such a Jewish propaganda as this letter contests, but makes such an agitation almost inevitable, in view of the fact that it was the Gentile success of Paul’s first mission among these churches which caused in Antioch the outbreak of the whole controversy (cf. Ac 1518.). No mention is made in Ac of the found- ing of churches in Galatia proper; while such churches as may have been there in Paul’s time must have been too remote from Syria to be in vital con- tact with any such specifically Jewish movement as this crusade for ceremonialism. (2) That it will account for several references in the letter which otherwise would be obscure, e.g., Paul’s repeated mention of Barnabas (2 1, 9, 13), who had been with him on his first mission tour only (cf. Ac chs. 13, 14, 15 36-41), Paul’s reference to his reception by the 281 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Galatians eee readers as an angel (‘messenger’) of God (4 14; cf. Ac 1411-14), Paul’s complaint that, tho he is charged ’ with preaching circumcision, he is still persecuted by those who advocate this rite (5 11; ef. Ac 16 1-3), the attention Paul calls to the marks of Jesus, which he bears branded on his body (6 17; cf. Ac 14 19 £.). 5. Date. In view of this location of the churches it would seem that the Epistle could not have been written earlier than the latter part of Paul’s second mission tour; since he evidently had visited the readers at least twice before sending them the letter. (Note the necessity of two visits to account for the difference in the attitude of the readers in 4 13-15 and 1g.) It has been assigned, accordingly, to some time within Paul’s second mission tour, either at Corinth, when the Thessalonian Epistles were written (Zahn), or at Antioch in Syria, between his second and third mission tours (Ramsay); also to his third mission © tour, either at Ephesus (Burton), or in Macedonia on his way from Ephesus to Corinth (Von Dob- schiitz). On the other hand, there are those who, holding that 4 13 does not necessarily imply two previous visits, place its composition on the journey from Antioch to Jerusalem just preceding the Council of Ac 15 (Lake); while some, claiming that the second visit is the return half of his first visit to the churches (Ac 14 23), assign its writing to the stay in Antioch after the Council (McGiffert)—in either case making it the earliest of Paul’s letters. Apart, however, from the fact that it was written while the Apostle was on a journey, accompanied by traveling companions, and not while he was in some city center, the guest of the local church (see above, § 2), and that oltw> tayéws (1 6) does not mean ‘how quickly,’ but ‘how rashly’ (cf. I Ti 5 22), it is clear if, when II Co was written, there was in the Corinthian situation any intimation of the Galatian Situation (see CoRINTHIANS, EpisrLEs TO THE, § 12 and above § 2), that the absence of all warning in II Co (especially chs. 10-13) as to the doctrinal possibilities of such a Judaizing movement as may have been present can not be adequately explained if Paul had already experienced the severity of the Galatian defection. It is difficult to account for the light and easy treatment of circumcision in the Corinthian letters, if he had already been taught by the Galatian trouble the fatal significance it would have in the religiouslife. This is confirmed by the fact that, altho there was no Judaizing movement at all in Rome, the Epistle to that church shows that the doctrinal impressions of the Galatian discussion were still strong in Paul’s mind when he wrote that letter. (Note the treat- ment of circumcision in Ro 2 25-29, 49-17, which would be quite natural, if Galatians had just preceded Romans.) It is but reasonable to suppose that these impressions must have been with him when he wrote to the Corinthians, if Gal had preceded the letters to them. Recognizing the fact of development in Paul’s formulating of his doctrinal ideas and the continuity of thought involved in such development, Epistles so similar in doctrinal thought as Ro and Gal are not likely to have been separated by Epistles 80 dissimilar to either as I and II Co. That Paul could not have written to the Galatians after the Council of Ac 15 without mentioning the decrees misses in a singular way the significance of 2 1-10 which was not to remind them of the decrees, of which they already knew, but to inform them of his private conference with the Apostolic leaders, of which being private, they did not know; for it was at this conference that he won the Apostles to his views and brought the Council to the confirmation of his position. Taking all things into consideration, the writing of Gal is best assigned to that part of Paul’s third mission tour covered by his journey from Ephesus to Corinth a portion of which he spent possibly in Epirus (cf. Ro 15 19), after his last letter to the Corinthian church, in other words to the summer, or fall, of 55, or more probably 56 a.p. 6. Bearing of Epistle on Paul’s Work. The early apostolic Church was wholly Jewish in its member- ship. It was, therefore, naturally Jewish in the spirit of its worship and its thought, and Jewish in the purpose of its evangel. It considered the reli- gion of Jesus as the vital outcome of Judaism, to which, in form, it still belonged, and which it aimed simply to reform up to this new standard of the Gospel. Theoretically this was right. Practically, however, it failed to realize that any such reform involved an abandonment of the spirit of the old exclusivism by which all Gentilism was to come into the new religion by way of Judaism. Consequently when Paul appeared with his commission to the Gentiles the Church accepted him, not foreseeing what his work implied (cf. Ac 9 26-29). The startling results of his first mission tour, however, made this vividly real, and the controversy regarding the ad- mission of Gentiles without circumcision became a necessary issue (cf. Ac 14 25-15 1, 3-5). This controversy was joined first at Antioch, car- ried up to Jerusalem for decision, and settled there in full recognition of the principle of salvation by faith tho the racial lines and prejudices of Judaism remained (Ac 15 19-21, 21 17-26). This duality of life and thought inside the Church, however, made further dispute inevitable, and rendered certain that, within the regions near Jerusalem and Syria in which Paul’s Gentile work was being carried on, this dispute would open the way for a Judaizing propaganda against his ministry. It is to contest this propaganda that Gal was written—showing us the first stage in the practical working out of the religious dualism within the Apostolic Church. (See CORINTHIANS, EPISTLES TO THE, § 12). LiterRATURE: Among the introductions accessible in English, Jilicher (Eng. trans. 1904) fairly represents the more ad- vanced criticism, while Zahn (Eng. Trans. 2d ed. 1917) places its unrivaled wealth of learning on the conservative side. Consult also the introductions of Moffatt (1911); Peake (1910); also the Comm. of Ramsay (1900); Rendall, Hz- positor’s Greek Test. (1903); Williams, Camb. Grk. Test. (1910); Adeney, New Cent. Bible (1911); Mackenzie, Westminst, N. T. (1912); Emmet, Readers Com., (1912); Burton, ICC. (1920). For discussion of the South Galatian theory see, besides Zahn, Introduction, § 11; Ramsay, Historical Geography of Asia Minor (1890), Cities of St. Paul (1907). For description of the Galatian situation, see Von Dobschiitz, Christian Life in the Primitive Church (1904); Lake, The Earlier Epistles of Paul (1911); Watkins, Paul’s Fight for Galatia (1914). For significant discussion of teaching in this Epistle and that to the Romans, see Westcott St. Paul and Justify Ai Galbanum Gammadim GALBANUM. See OINTMENTS AND PERFUMES, § 2; and PALESTINE, § 22. GALEED, gal’i-ed (1973, gal‘édn), ‘witness-pile’: The name given by Jacob to a pile of stones, raised as a ‘witness’ to the compact between himself and Laban (Gn 31 47, 48). Apparently intended as an explanation of the word Gilead (cf. the witness-altar of Jos 22 34). OSE. GALILEE, GALILEAN. See Patzsting, § 36. GALILEE, SEA OF (called also Lake Gennesaret [Lk 51, originally Tewnoke; I Mac 11 67], and Sea ° SCALE OF MILES * ‘ 2 ae of Tiberias [Jn 6 1, 21 1]; in the O T Sea of Chin- nereth [Nu 3411; Jos 13 27] and Chinneroth [Jos 12 3]. In I K 15 20 [Cinneroth AV] the term is evidently used of the plain of Gennesaret, and not of the sea): The largest fresh-water lake of Palestine, being 13 m. from N. to S. and 8 m. from E. to W., at its widest part. Its shape is in general that of an irregular pear, its depth less than 200 ft. and its surface 681 ft. below the level of the Mediterranean. The river Jordan enters it at the extreme NE. and issues from A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 282 it at the extreme SW., at a point much lower, as shown by the cataract-like aspect of the water at this point. It constitutes a bright, light-blue body of water, which on account of the low level is gen- erally warmer than similar bodies in other parts of the world. Its temperature ranges from 69° on the surface to 59° at a depth of 65 ft. and lower. It is located in a volcanic region, the mountains on the E. and the country on the N. being full of lava forma- tions and basalt rocks. The hot springs at Tiberias, which always have been and are to the present day famous for their medicinal qualities, and the fre- tin et Tabigha in et-Tin Magdala (/feydel) Kersa or Kersi) Tiberias GALILEE Hot Batis quent earthquakes show that the volcanic forces in this region are not yet exhausted. The scenery about the lake does not lack in variety, as the sky-line never runs on a dead level for any distance, but either rises, as in the E.., with the steep mountains, or sinks to the very level of the shore, as in the NW., where the water imperceptibly passes into the plain of Gennesaret, and the land slopes up to the hills of Galilee. The only feature needed to put it on an equality with the most beau- 283 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Galbanum Gammadim tiful landscape in the world is that of thick woods on at least a portion of the highlands around. The waters of the lake are noted for abundant fish. The industry of fishing was accordingly one of the most stable resources of the country round about. Clear evidences of this are to be found in the names of the cities Bethsaida (‘house of fish’) at the N. end of the lake, and Tarichoea (from tapryedety, ‘to cure for purposes of preservation,’ mod. Kerak) at the S. end. Several varieties of Galilean fish were regarded as choice, and it was claimed that they were the same as those found in the waters of the Nile. See Patestine, § 26. Jesus called His dis- ciples from among those engaged in this industry. He also made use in His parables of the methods of fishermen (Mt 13 47, 48). Another feature of the Sea of Galilee is its suscep- tibility to sudden storms. These are occasioned partly by its lying so much lower than the surround- ing table-land (a fact that creates a difference of temperature and consequent disturbances in the atmosphere), and partly by the rushing of gusts of wind down the Jordan valley from the heights of Hermon. The event recorded in Mt 8 24 is no extra- ordinary case. Those who ply boats on the lake are obliged to exercise great care to avoid peril from such storms. The shores of the Sea of Galilee as well as the lake itself were the scenes of many of the most remark- able events recorded in the Gospels, such as the feed- ing of the 5,000 (Mt 1413 and ||s). Literature: G. A. Smith, HGHL, pp. 437-465. A. C. Z. GALL: Two different conceptions are repre- sented by the words which EV translates ‘gall’ (a) mérorah, or mé*rérah, lit. ‘bitterness’ (Job 13 26; Dt 32 32), is used for the bile (Job 1613), the human gall- bladder (Job 20 25), and the venom of serpents (Job 2014). (b) ré’sh, the name of a quick-growing weed (Hos 10 4, ‘hemlock’), which bore berries (Dt 32 32) and was coupled with wormwood (q. v.), as a type of bitterness (Dt 29 18; La 3 19; Am 6 12). Hence the word is twice used for the ‘poison’ of serpents (Dt 32 33; Job 2016). The plant indicated is probably the poppy, which grows abundantly in Palestine, and whose capsules might well give rise to the name ré’sh (‘head’). The ‘water of gall’ (Jer 8 14, 9 15, 23 15) was apparently a decoction of poppy-heads, rather than the opium drug itself. In the N T, ‘gall’ (xoAn) seems to indicate ré’sh, especially in Mt 27 34, which is influenced by Ps 69 21. Many scholars however, explain yoAy as signifying in Hellenistic usage any kind of bitter liquid, including myrrh (cf. Mk 15 23). L. G. L.—E. E. N. GALLANT SHIP: An expression found in Is 33 21 where the prophet, in comparing the future Jerusa- lem to a great city, naturally used illustrations drawn from the large commercial cities on the Nile or Euphrates with their well-appointed ships and boats (see also Surps AnD Navigation). The Heb. word rendered ‘gallant’ is ’addir, ‘large,’ ‘mighty,’ ‘glorious.’ The word rendered ‘galley’ is the com- mon word (’dnz) for ship. GALLERY: (1) In Song 7 6 this is AV rendering of rahat, a word of uncertain meaning, for which RV gives ‘tresses.’ TEMPLE, §§ 20, 21. GALLEY. See GaLuAnt SuHip; and SuHrrs AND NAVIGATION, § 2. GALLIM, gal’im (0°53, gallim), ‘stone heaps’: A place in Benjamin, the home of Paltiel, Michal’s second husband (I S 25 44), also mentioned in Is 10 30 as not far from Gibeah of Saul. The name may be only a shortened form of Gilgal. Site uncertain. GALLIO, gal’i-o, [aXtwy: The adopted name of Marcus Annzus Novatus, son of M. Annzus Seneca of Cordova in Spain, brother of the philoso- pher L. Annzeus Seneca, and uncle of the poet Lucan. He was a man of fine character and culture, was pro- consul of’ Achaia in the last (7.e., the second) year of Paul’s first visit to Corinth (52 a.p.), and fell a (2) For other occurrences see victim to Nero’s cruelty in 66 a.p. His decision in Acts was significant, because, if Paul’s preaching concerned Jewish religious belief and practise—as Gallio evidently thought it did—it showed that he as Roman governor would not interfere, and that in other respects he saw nothing in it that conflicted with Roman law (Ac 18 12-17). The recent publica- tion of an inscription at Delphi (discovered in 1905) has made it practically certain that Gallio’s procon- sulship was for the years 52-53. Paul was evidently brought before G. soon after G.’s arrival in Corinth. This gives us a ‘fixed point’ for N T chronology. For a translation of the inscription see Barton, Arche- ology and the Bible, p. 439. See also Deissmann, SE. Paul (Eng. Transl. 1912.) R. A. F.—E. E. N. GALLOWS. See Crimes AND PUNISHMENTS, § 3, (a). GAMALIEL, ga-mé'l1-el ( Sd-F gamlvél, Gr. Tayartna), ‘reward of God’: 1. A son of Pedahzur, a prince of Manasseh (Nu 1 10, 2 20, etc.), in charge of a section of the census in the wilderness (Nu 10 23). 2. A rabbi in the Apostolic Age (to be distinguished from a later one of the same name), a grandson of the renowned Hillel, a student of Greek literature and a leader of the liberal school of Pharisees. According to Ac 22 3, Paul was a student under him. G. is also noted for the counsel which moved the Sanhedrin not to molest the first preachers of Christianity (Ac 5 34 ff.). An-untrustworthy Christian tradition (Clem. Recog., I, 65) represents him as a convert to the new faith. By the Jews he was regarded as the first of the seven great ‘Rabbans’ (preeminent rabbis). AcCGvZ: GAMES. The rendering in I Co 9 25 RV of the ptepl. dywvSéuevoc, ‘contending in a struggle or game’ (fr. &y ay, ‘contest,’ cf. I Ti 612; He 121), and in II Ti25 RV of vb. 6 d0Actv (whence our word ‘athletics’). GAMMADIM, gam’a-dim (9°73, gammddhim): The context in Ezk 27 11 seems to require that this word should be interpreted as the name of a people. The ARV ‘valorous men’ has little to commend it. No satisfactory identification has yet been suggested. Evidently a people near Tyre was meant, possibly the Kumidi of the Amarna letters. K. E. N. Gamul Ge-Harashim A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 284 GAMUL, gé’mol (9303, gamil): The ancestral head of the 22d course of priests (I Ch 24 17). GANGRENE. See Diseases anD Mepicinp, § 5. GARDEN. See Epren; and PALestine § 23. GARDENS, THE KINGS’. See JerusaLem, GAREB, gé’reb (23, gdrébh): I. One of David’s chiefs (II S 23 38; I Ch 11 40), said to be a member of the Ithrite family of Kiriath-jearim (cf. I Ch 2 53). It is probable, however, that the Heb. text should be vocalized so as to read ‘the Jattirite,’ 7.e., an inhabi- tant of Jattir (cf. IS 30 27). IL. An unidentified hill near Jerusalem (Jer 31 39). L.G. L.—E. E.N. GARLANDS: The rendering of the Gr. otéupata, which occurs but once in the N T (Ac 1413). The reference is to the wreaths used in heathen sacrifices. They were ordinarily made of the leaves and flowers of such trees or plants as were most acceptable to the divinity to whom the sacrifice was to be offered. If the phrase tateousg xa) otéupate ‘oxen and gar- lands’ isa hendiadys for tabeoug éoteruévouc, ‘oxen adorned with garlands,’ then they are to be under- stood as adorning only the victims; otherwise they may have been intended for the ministering priests and such temporary altars as they may have planned to erect, if, as is probable, the sacrifice was to be offered before the gates of the city, or the house, within which were the acclaimed divinities, and thus apart from the temple building itself. In fact, as the custom was to place them on the statue of the divinity before sacrificing to it, they may have been intended even for the Apostles themselves. See also DRESS AND ORNAMENTS, § 8. M. W. J. GARLIC. See Foon, § 3; and Patusring, § 23. GARMENT. See in general Dress AND ORNA- MENTS; and PRIESTHOOD, § 9b. GARMITE, gar’mait (73, name found only in I Ch 4 19. unknown. GARRISON: The proper Heb. term for ‘garri- son’ is matstsdbh (fem. matstsaébhah, in I S 14 12), which is so rendered in both RV and AV (IS 13 23, 141, 4, 6, 11, 15; IT S 23 14). In other passages, where the Heb. is n¢tstbh, ‘pillar,’ or ‘governor’ (IS 105,13 3f.; ILS 86,14; 1 Ch 11 16, 1813; II Ch 17 2), RV has retained the AV rendering ‘garrison,’ which should be changed, perhaps, to ‘governor’ (except in I Ch 1116). In Ezk 26 11 ‘pillars’ RV, and in II Co 11 32 ‘guarded’ RV, are the correct renderings. H. EK. N. GASHMQ, gash’miu. See GusHEM. GATAM, gé’tam (9993, ga‘tam): A ‘duke,’ 7.e., ‘chief,’ of Edom (Gn 36 11, 16; I Ch 1 36). GATE. See Ciry, § 3; Wise Men; § 6; and JERUSALEM, passim. GATH (Fi, gath), ‘wine-press’; gentilic, Gittite (II S 6 10): One of the five cities of the Philistines (II S 1 20). It is first mentioned as a place where Anakim were still living at the time of Joshua (Jos 11 22). The Ark of the Covenant was held here foratime (IS 58). It is also known as the residence of two Philistines, 7.e., Goliath, the gigantic cham- pion whom David slew (IS 17 4 #.), and Achish, its garmi): A gentilic Its significance is TEMPLE, king, with whom David later took refuge (I S 21 10 f.). Still later, David captured and reduced it to subjection (IIS 81; cf. 1 Ch 181). Rehoboam forti- fied it (II Ch 11 8); but in the days of Uzziah it ap- pears to have regained its status as an independent Philistine city (II Ch 26 6). In the wars of Syria against Judah, it was seized by Hazael as a prelimi- nary step to an attack on Jerusalem (II K 12 17). From Am 6 2 it has been inferred that it was taken by Sargon in 711. Its name is to be recognized as the Gintu Asdudim of that monarch’s inscription (cf. Schrader, COT, II, p. 143). In the Onom. Sac. it is located 5 Roman m. from Eleutheropolis( Beit Jibrin) in the direction of Diospolis (Lydda), which would point to the modern Dikkerin, a village with ancient ruins that might possibly be those of a city like Gath. But according to modern explorers a more probable site is Tell-es Safiyeh, 10 m. SE. of Ekron and 10 m. E. of Ashdod (cf. G. A. Smith, HG HL, pp. 194-195). See Map I, C 9. A. C. Z, GATHERED TO ONE’S FATHERS. See Bur- IAL AND Buriat Customs, §§ 3-6; and EscuaToLoey, ee ee GATH-HEPHER, gafh-hi’fer (1207 "3, gath hahépher): The residence of Jonah, son of Amittai. (Jos 1913; II K 14 25), by mistake made into Gittah- hepher in AV of Jos 1913. The modern site is El- Meshed, about 3 m. NE. of Nazareth and 2 m. SW. of Sepphoris, where a tomb of the prophet Jonah is shown. Map IV, C7. GATH-RIMMON, -rim’an (1157 i, gath rim- mon). 1. A Levitical city situated in the territory of Dan (Jos 19 45, 21 24). Its exact site is not identi- fiable, but it must have lain near and somewhat E. of Joppa. 2. Another Levitical Gath-rimmon is mentioned in Jos 21 25 as in the half-tribe of Manas- seh; but in I Ch 6 69 the corresponding description reads ‘Bileam’ and ‘Gath-rimmon’ and is probably a textual corruption of this form (possibly Ibleam). A. C. Z. GAULANITIS, gél’’a-nai’tis (MaviAavitts, the mod- ern Jaulan): One of the provinces in the tetrarchy of Philip (Lk 31; cf. Jos. Ant. VIII, 1), bounded by the Jordan on the W., the Jarmuk on the S., and the Hermon on the N., with an uncertain line on the E., perhaps the river ’Allan. It is a volcanic region of the nature of a plateau varying in elevation from 3,000 ft. in the N. to 1,000 ft. in the S. extremity. Parts of it are rich and fertile but the greatest portion only yields pasture ground for nomads (cf. G. A. Smith, HG HL, p. 541, and Schumacher, The Jaulan (1888). Map I, F, G, 4, 5. See also Goan). A. C. Z, GAZA, gé’za (TY, ‘azzah), also Azzah (Dt 2 23 AV), gentilic, Gazites and Gazathites (Jos 13 3 AV): The southernmost of the five principal cities of the Philistines (II K 18 8), and in general a conven- tional territorial limit in the S., e.g., of the country of the Canaanites (Gn 10 19 [J]), of the conquest of Joshua (Jos 10 41), of the realm of the Avvim (Dt 2 23) and of the empire of Solomon (I i@ 4 24). Map II, A 2. It was an important city as early as the days of Rameses II, in whose lists its name occurs (Rec. of the Past, 2d ser., VI, pp. 27, 41). In the 285 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Gamul Ge-Harashim distribution of the land by Joshua it was assigned to Judah (Jos 15 47), but never possessed. It was for- tified, for it had gates (Jg 16 3), and possessed a tem- ple of Dagon (Jg 16 21 f.). Its location on the high road between Egypt and Mesopotamia brought it into relations with the Assyrians. Tiglath-pileser III subjugated its king Hanno in 734. It rebelled, but was again conquered by Sennacherib (701) and Esarhaddon (676); cf. Schrader, COT, I, pp. 91, 149, 247. A. C. Z. GAZELLE. See PAuEstine, § 24, and Foon, § 10. GAZER, gé’zar. See Grezer. GAZEZ, gé’zez (13 gdzéz): The name of two indi- viduals, both Calebites (I Ch 2 46), tho there may be a textual error in the verse. GAZZAM, gaz’em (813, gazzém): The ‘sons of Gazzam’ were a subdivision of the Nethinim (Ezr 2 48; Neh 7 51). GEAR. See Sures AnD Navigation, § 2. GEBA, gi’ba (333, gebha‘, in pause gabha‘, whence the AV Gaba), ‘hill’: 1. A Levitical city on the N. border of Benjamin (Jos 21 17; cf. IL K 23 8, ‘from Geba to Beer-sheba’), and on the opposite side of the valley from Michmash (18 145). Itisto be distinguished from the neighboring Gibeah (Is 10 26); but the similarity of the names (without vowel-points gb‘, gb‘h) has caused some confusion in the Heb. text. See Grpean, 2. In IIS 5 25 ‘Geba’ should be ‘Gibeon’ (so LXX., I Ch 14 16, and Is 28 21). Geba is certainly the modern Jeba‘, a small village conspicuously situated on the S. side of the Wady es-Suweinit, opposite Michmash. Map III, F5. 2 (TarQat, Jth 310). Probably Jeba‘, a village 4m. NE. of Samaria. Map III, F3. L. G. L.—E. E. N. GEBAL, gi’bal( 923, gbhal): 1. The Heb. name of the very ancient Phenician city Byblus, now known as Jebeil, situated on the coast 20 m. N. of Beirut. The O T locates the land of the Gebalites, or Giblites, correctly near Lebanon (Jos 13 5). Gebal furnished stone-masons for Solomon. (In- stead of ‘stone-squarers’ AV, read ‘Gebalites’ RV, I K 518.) According to Ezk 27 9 it was the head- quarters of shipbuilders. It was known to the Egyptians of the Ancient Empire as Kepuna, and to Assyrians and Babylonians as Gubal or Gubli. The excavations which the French have conducted since 1919 have brought to light extensive remains, both Egyptian and Phenician. The more important are two ancient shrines, one Egyptian and the other Syrian. In the ruins of the latter were found vases with the names of famous kings of the Ancient Em- pire—Mycerinus, Unas, Pepi I and Pepi II. Near the shrines was the burial ground of the royal family of Byblus; within its precincts several tombs have been discovered. Of these, two are of special interest as they are the sepulchers of two princes, father and son, and have hieroglyphic inscriptions on the lids of the sarcophagi which associate these ancient Phenician rulers with Amenemhat III and Amenemhat IV of the XII dynasty (1849-1792 n.c.). Among the El-Amarna letters there are several from Rib-Adda, ruler of | Jerusalem (Is 10 31). Gebal, who acknowledges the sovereignty of the Egyptian King and protests his loyalty. The close connection between Gebal and Egypt is further attested by Wenamon the Egyptian traveler who mentions his visit to the prince of Gebal (¢ 1100 B.c.). 2. The northern portion of Edom which is now known as Jebdl (Ps 837). J ARK GEBER, gi’bar (143, gebher), ‘man,’ ‘mighty man’: One of twelve officers of Solomon in charge of his commissariat (I K 4 19). His district, E. of the Jordan and S. of those mentioned in vs. 13 and 14, was somewhere between the Jabbok and the Arnon. OR. aay GEBIM, gi’bim (8°33, gébhim), ‘cisterns’: A place between Madmenah and Nob, and not far N. of Not identified. GECKO. See PauzEstIneE, § 26. GEDALIAH, ged’e-lai’a (172273, g*dhalyaha), ‘J’ is great’: 1. A son of Ahikam and grandson of Shaphan, the secretary of King Josiah, appointed by Nebuchadrezzar as governor of those left in the land after the fall of Jerusalem (II K 25 22 f.), and assassinated by Ishmael (Jer 41 18). 2. One of the sons of Jeduthun (I Ch 25 3,9). 3. A son of Hezekiah and grandfather of Zephaniah (Zeph 11). 4. A son of Pashhur, a ruler who consigned Jeremiah to prison (Jer 381). 5. A priest who married a foreign wife (Ezr 10 18). GEDER, gi’der (113, gedher), ‘wall’: A Canaanite royal city, the same as Beth-gader (Jos 1213). Site unknown. Gederite, an inhabitant of Geder (I Ch 1 i GEDERAH, gi-di’ra (177, g*dhérah), ‘a walled place’ (usually ‘a sheepfold’): A town in the low- lands of Judah (Jos 15 36). See Map II, D1. Identi- fication uncertain. The inhabitants were called Gederathites (I Ch 12 4). See also RV at I Ch 4 23. GEDEROTH, g1-di’reth (NIN, gedhéroth), ‘walled places’ (or ‘sheepfolds’): A town of Judah (Jos 15 41; II Ch 28 18). See Map II, C 1. Identification un- certain. GEDEROTHAIM, gi-di’rd-fhé/im (020713, gedhé- rothayim), ‘place of enclosures’: One of 14 towns in the Shephelah of Judah (Jos 15 36). Perhaps an error through dittography for the preceding name Gederah, as there are 14 without it. LXX. trans- lates ‘its enclosures.’ C. 8. T. GEDOR, gi’dér (7173, gedhdr), ‘wall’: I. 1. A Benjamite ancestor of Saul (I Ch 8 31, 9 37). 2. A family in Judah (I Ch 4 4,18. See II, 1). If. 1.A town in Judah, now Jedur (Jos 15.58), Map II, E. 2. 2. The home of Jeroham, in Benjamin (I Ch127), possibly the same as 1. 3. For ‘Gedor’ (I Ch 4 39), read with LXX. ‘Gerar,’ a town of Simeon in the extreme S. of Judah. Map II, A 3. Loa. Bl bs GE-HARASHIM, gi”ha-ré’shim (O°U 7) 82, g@’ hdrdshim), ‘valley of the smiths’; ‘valley of Char- ashim’ (I Ch 414 AV): In Neh 11 35 the same Heb. term is rendered ‘valley of craftsmen.’ The words are not free from suspicion, but as they stand they mean that in a certain valley near Lod and Ono were the works of a gild of smiths. Ey E: N. Gehazi Genealogy, A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 286 GEHAZI, gi-hé’zai (1073, géhdzt), ‘valley of vi- sion’: The servant of the prophet Elisha, II K chs. 4-8. In ch. 4 G. appears in a favorable light, sym- pathetic with the Shunamite woman, because she was childless (ver. 14), and at the same time jealous of his master’s honor (ver. 27). But in ch. 5 he is described as covetous and untruthful, and as pun- ished with the leprosy of Naaman. After this we are surprized to find him, in 8 4f., talking freely with the king of Israel, to whom he is recounting the deeds of Elisha (as tho the prophet were then dead). The stories have evidently been gathered from different sources, and no attempt has been made to render them perfectly harmonious. See also ExisHa. K. BE. N. GEHENNA. See JERUSALEM, § 6; and Escua- TOLOGY, § 30. GELILOTH, gi-lai‘lefh (19°23, gelilath), ‘cir- cles,’ z.e., ‘stone circles’ or, more broadly, ‘districts’: A place in the boundary of Benjamin (Jos 18 17) called Gilgal in 157. It was between Jerusalem and the Jordan, not far from the ascent of Adummim (q.v.), but is still unidentified. GEMALLI, gi-mal’ai C203, g°malli): One of the twelve spies (Nu 13 12). GEMARIAH, gem’’a-rai’a (17793, g¢emaryah), ‘J’’ accomplishes’: 1. A noble of Judah, in the days of Jehoiakim, apparently somewhat favorably dis- posed toward Jeremiah (Jer 36 10-12, 25). 2. A son of Hilkiah, sent to Babylon by Zedekiah and the bearer of a letter from Jeremiah to the Jewish cap- tives there (Jer 29 3). GEMS: This term is found only in Pr 26 8s ERV where the Heb. is ’ebhen, ‘stone.’ While a jewel or precious stone may be meant, and would make good sense, both AV and ARV correctly render the word ‘stone,’ avoiding all inferences. E. E. N. GENEALOGY, OLD TESTAMENT. 1. Reasons for Genealogical Records. Zeal in establishing and recording genealogies is promoted by anything which connects privilege with the establishment of descent. For example, the remarkable genealogical records of the Arabs, which in many respects are a most suggestive parallel study to that of the Jewish genealogies, appear to owe their character and extent to the method introduced by the Calif Omar I of distributing the spoil taken from the infidels so that certain classes of the believers and their children received a larger share than other Arabs. In the circumstances of the Exile and the Return we find a sufficient cause, if not for the creation, yet certainly for great extension of genealogical zeal among the Jews. So long as the Jews were in their own land, actual possession of the patrimony and discharge of the duties connected therewith may frequently have served as sufficient proof of the inclusion of the owners in the Jewish nation; but divorced from their land they needed other proofs of their descent, if, in the Exile, they were to look forward to, or at the Return were to claim with confidence reinstate- ment in what were then to rank as the full privileges of Jews by descent. Thus we find Ezekiel, at the beginning of the Exile, making allusions to written registers, when he says of the false prophets that ‘they shall not be in the council of my [J’”’s] people, or be written in the writing [register, mg.] of the house of Israel, neither shall they enter into the land of Israel’ (Ezk 18 9). And in the list of those who returned from the Exile we find certain families mentioned who were unable to show ‘their fathers’ houses and their pedigrees’ (zar‘am, Neh 7 61). What loss of privilege befell these secular families is not specified, but of certain priestly families in like case it is related that ‘these sought their register among those who were reckoned by genealogy,! but it was not found: therefore were they deemed pol- luted and put from the priesthood. And the gover- nor [“Tirshatha’] said unto them that they should not eat of the most holy things [7.e., exercise the privileges of priests; cf., e.g., Nu 18 9-11] till there stood up a priest with Urim and Thummim’ (Neh 7 64-65), 7.e.,_ till the doubt left by the defectiveness of the family register could be determined by the sacred lot. The exclusive policy of Ezra, involving as it did the ille- gitimacy of marriages between Jews and those who were not Jews, must also have stimulated genealog- ical research and record. This cause, too, or any- thing corresponding to it, was absent in earlier times, for intermarriages had then been recognized and frequent. 2. Genealogical Records Before the Exile. We can scarcely be wrong, then, in concluding that genealogies were kept much more regularly after the Exile than before. Indeed, if we ask how early and how direct is the evidence for genealogies, in particular for uninterrupted genealogies of indi- viduals, recorded in writing before the Exile, it must be admitted that it is relatively late and indirect. The laws of Dt 23 2-8 (7th cent. B.c.) perhaps presup- pose, and would certainly require for their satis- factory fulfilment, such records; while the narrative of the census in II S ch. 24, and such allusions as those in Ex 32 32, Jer 22 30 may point, if not to actual genealogical records, to records from which gen- ealogies might be constructed. A certain form of genealogical knowledge was in any case doubtless prevalent in early Israel. It must be remembered that by their social organiza- tion the Israelites consisted of a number of tribes, these tribes of a number of clans, these clans of a number of houses or families, the family even being a more complex group than the family (in its more re- stricted sense of a man, his wife, and their children) is with us. Thus when we read in a relatively early passage (Jos 7 16, 17 JE) that ‘Joshua brought Israel near by their tribes; and the tribe of Judah was taken. And he brought near the family (‘clan’) of Judah; and he took the family of Zerahites; and he brought near the family of the Zerahites, man by man;and Zabdi was taken: and he brought near his household, man by man; and Achan, the son of Carmi, the son of Zabdi, the son of Zerah, of the 1 The verb rendered ‘reckoned by genealogy’ (hithyahés) and the noun from which it is formed (yahas, Neh 7 5only) are con- fined to the books of Ch, Ezr, and Neh. The origin and primi- tive meaning of these words are obscure and their sense is to be determined largely from the passages where they occur (I Ch 433, 51, 7,17, '75, 7, 9,40 9 1, 22: TT Ch 12 15, 31%, 17, 18, 19: iEar 2 &=Neh 7 &; : Ear 81, a Neh 75). 287 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Gehazi Genealogy tribe of Judah, was taken,’? we can see that Judah was one of many tribes constituting Israel, Zerah one of many clans constituting Judah, Zabdi one of many families constituting Zerah, and Achan, him- self the father of a family, one of many individuals belonging to different families (in our restricted sense of the term) that constituted the family of Zabdi (cf. also IS 10 21). Now we may well believe that in early Israel a man could commonly have given the name of his family, clan, or tribe, and moreover many or all of the families that constituted his clan and of the clans that made up his tribe. And early records of the names of these tribal divisions may well have been kept in records made for various purposes. But this is a very different matter from genealogies of individuals carried upward through many generations. Whatever we may infer as to early periods, it is certain that of the genealogical material preserved in the O T by far the greater part is found in works of postexilic origin—in the Priestly Code (P), in Ch, Ezr, Neh. In preexilic writings it is rare to find an individual identified more closely than by reference to his father: in some cases, especially in the Book of Jeremiah, the name of the grandfather is also given; but it is altogether exceptional (and probably due to the kingly position of the last-named ancestor) that the prophet Zephaniah’s ancestors are given (Zeph 1 1) to the fourth generation before him. Con- trast with this the lengthy genealogies with which Ezra (Ezr 71), Tobit (To 11), and Judith (Jth 8 1) are provided. But tho the genealogical material is found mainly in the later literature, much of it relates to far earlier periods; the genealogies of P end with the Mosaic Age, those of I Ch chs. 1-9 (mainly, if not exclusively, apart from interpolated sections) are apparently intended? not to descend below the age of David (cf. 4 31, 72). If, then, these genealogies are throughout genuine, the custom of carefully registering tribal, clan, and family divisions and, in some cases, lengthy lines of the descent of individuals must have been widely prevalent far earlier than the direct evidence would suggest. There thus emerge important questions: with what degree of trustworthiness should the O T genealogies be credited? Are many or any of them artificial con- structions resting less on fact than on imagination and theory? Or are the genealogies even when genuine and accurate tables of relations, referred to the correct period? 3. Significance of the Terms Used. Before at- tempting to give the very brief answers, which will alone be possible here, to these questions, it will be well to consider the language of the genealogies. For we shall thus see that a number of the O T genealo- gies are not intended to be and consequently must not be criticized as tables showing the descent of individuals; they are modes of describing the rela- tions between tribes, clans, families, and places. It, is not always easy to decide to which type particular genealogies were originally intended to belong; again, it is not improbable that descriptions once 2For text and a more literal translation, see Bennett in SBOT. *Benzinger, Die Biicher der Chronik, p. 1, intended in the one sense came to be taken in the other. But these difficulties will be lessened if we approach the genealogies by a study of certain linguistic usages of the Hebrews, and, in particular, two: (1) Terms of kinship, more particularly the term ‘son,’ are used to cover other relations than those occasioned by physical descent. What we should term membership in a gild is in Hebrew ‘son- ship’; a member of the gild of the perfumers is a ‘son of the apothecaries’ (cf. Neh 3 8s AV; RV paraphras- tically ‘one of the perfumers’) members of prophetic societies, or gilds of porters, are respectively ‘sons of the prophets,’ or ‘children [sons] of the porters’ (Ezr 2 42); the Jews as exiled are termed collectively haggolah, ‘the company of exiles’ (Ezk 11; Jer 28 6; Ezr 10 8, etc.), or bené haggdlah, ‘children of the captivity’ (Ezr 4 1; etc.). Nor is this usage to be explained by the descent of calling, or profession, from father to son; for this would not explain why a single perfumer is a son of the perfumers (plural), nor such a closely allied phrase as ‘sons of the troop’ (‘men of the army,’ II Ch 2513 RV), with which we may compare the expression ‘sons of the caravans’ in the Aramaic of Palmyra, or even the N T ‘sons of the bride-chamber.’ Various other relations are also expressed by the term ‘son’; hostages are ‘sons of pledges’ (II K 14 14), valiant men ‘sons of might’ (II S 27); cf. the N T ‘sons of thunder.’ All these expressions, it must be observed, occur in ordinary prose. ‘Son’ is used also with geographical terms: Ezekiel (16 26, 28, 23 17) terms Egyptians, Assyrians, and Babylonians respectively ‘sons of Egypt,’ ‘sons of Assyria,’ and ‘sons of Babylon.’ Joel (3 6) terms those whose home wa Jerusalem ‘children [sons] of Jerusalem’; ‘children [sons] of the province’ are the exiles who returned and settled in the province of Judah (Ezr 21). So, in poetry it is true, ‘rams of the breed of Bashan’ (Dt 32 14) are in Hebrew idiom ‘sons of Bashan.’ Towns or villages dependent on another are its ‘daughters’ (cf. ‘Heshbon and in all the towns [daughters mg.] thereof,’ Nu 21 25). Is the case different when an ethnographical takes the place of a geographical term? Did the expression ‘sons’ (‘children’ RV) of Esau, Heth, Lot, Manasseh, Israel, etc., mean the actual children or, at least, the lineal descendants of individuals named Esau, Heth, etc.? Certainly in later times the Jews treated their descent from the patriarchs literally enough. This is not the place to examine in detail the validity. of the claim, but it must be pointed out that such an inference can not be safely drawn from the term ‘sons of Israel,’ for this is ambiguous; it may mean persons physically descended from an individual named Israel, or persons belonging to the people so named. That the latter usage occurs is obvious in one case; for we can not sharply distinguish the use of this term ‘sons’ in ‘sons of Manasseh’ and ‘chil- dren [sons] of the half-tribe of Manasseh’ (I Ch 5 23), yet in the latter case ‘sons’ can mean only ’members’ of the half-tribe. (2) The second lin- guistic use needing to be kept in mind is the frequent personification of a whole group of people, so that the whole is spoken of, or represented as speaking, as an individual. As illustrations it may suffice to cite: ‘And the Egyptians [Heb.‘Egypt’] said, Let me flee’ Genealogy A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 288 (Ex 14 25; RV paraphrastically, as often, ‘Let us flee’); ‘and the men of Israel said unto the Hivites, Peradventure ‘ye’ [Heb. ‘thou’] dwell among us’ (Jos 97); ‘The children of Joseph spake unto Joshua, saying, Why hast thou given ‘me’ but one. . . in- heritance, seeing ‘I’ am a great people’ (Jos 17 14; ef. further Nu 20 14-21, 21 1-3; Jg 1 3; Gn 34 30). See also [CC on Numbers, p. 265 f. 4. Geographical and Ethnological Relations Ex- pressed Gene»logically. We may now examine some instances of genealogies which clearly describe geo- graphical and ethnographical relations. And _ first, Gn ch. 10: The RV rather obscures the obvious meaning by transliterating certain names which it elsewhere translates: so ‘Mizraim’ (ver. 6) is regu- larly elsewhere rendered ‘Egypt,’ ‘Cush’ commonly by ‘Ethiopia,’ ‘Asshur’ (ver. 22) by ‘Assyria.’ If we substitute the familiar for these entirely exceptional English equivalents of the Hebrew words, Gn 10 6, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18 runs thus: ‘And the sons of Ham: Ethiopia and Egypt and Put and Canaan. And Egypt begat Ludim, and Anamim, and Lehabim, and Naphtuhim, and Pathrusim, and Casluhim, . and Caphtorim. And Canaan begat Sidon, his first-born, and Heth and the Jebusite and the Amor- ite . . . and the Arvadite and the Zemarite and the Hamathite.’ The meaning of all this is clear; the terms ‘sons’ and ‘to beget’ are used metaphorically; and what is stated is that one of the three great divisions of the inhabitants of the world known to the Hebrews included as its subdivisions Ethiopians, Egyptians, Putites, and Canaanites; and in those subdivisions the inhabitants and subjects of Egypt included Ludites (all the terms in ver. 13 are plurals in Hebrew), the inhabitants of Upper Egypt (Pathros) and Caphtor and others; the Canaanites included the Phenicians (who are intended by Sidon, which being regarded as the most ancient settlement in Canaan, is described metaphorically as Canaan’s ‘first-born’), Hittites, Jebusites, inhabitants of Arvad and Hamath (in N. Syria), and others. The compiler of Gn ch. 10, like the compilers of the Arabic genealogies, may have held the theory, which would, however, conflict no less with the facts of the growth of nations given in the Bible than with the findings of modern historical and scientific research, that each nation consisted exclusively of descen- dants from a common ancestor, and again that all allied nations were descended from another common tho more remote ancestor, but this is not directly stated in the chapter; the genealogy supplies no links between terms so wide as Egypt and Canaan on the one hand and terms so relatively limited as Caphtor and Sidon on the other. The value of the genealogy lies in the light it casts on the geographical distribution and, to some extent, on the political relations of nations at the periods to which its several parts belong. The metaphorical language of Gn ch. 10 is relatively simple; ‘sons’ are obviously subdivisions of the ethnographic groups that rank as ‘fathers.’ Else- where it is often more elaborate and sometimes more ambiguous. For example, in I Ch 218 f., 50-55 we read that Caleb married Azubah, and, after her death, Ephrath; that the first-born of ihe second marriage was Hur and the sons of Hur, Shobal, Salma, and Hareph, were fathers respectively of Kiriath-jearim, Beth-lehem, and Beth-gader, and that the families of Beth-lehem were Ithrites, Putites, and others. The presence of names of well-known districts and towns (Ephrath, Beth-lehem, Kiriath-jearim) at once indi- cate that the terms ‘son,’ ‘father,’ ‘marry,’ ‘beget’ are used metaphorically. In detail there is room for some difference of interpretation, but the general drift of the genealogical statement is clear—the clan Caleb first settled in the district of Azubah and was there subdivided into certain clans (Jesher, Shobab, and Ardon); subsequently Azubah passed out of the possession of the clan which then settled in Ephrath —the district which included Beth-lehem (Mic 5 2; Gn 35 19); during the occupation of Ephrath a main subdivision of the clan was called Hur, and was again subdivided into divisions named Shobal, Salma, and . Hareph, who inhabited the towns Kiriath-jearim, — Beth-lehem, and Beth-gader respectively—the Sho- balites of Beth-lehem being split up into the families of Ithrites, Putites, and others. Here, as in Gn ch. 10, ‘sons,’ ‘grandsons,’ ‘great-grandsons,’ represent the divisions, subdivisions, and further subdivisions of an ethnic group: but here ‘son’ or ‘wife’ may also represent the town or district inhabited. Facts remain facts, and literal descriptions of the same facts, if true, must agree whatever their age or origin; but metaphorical descriptions of the same fact may vary largely according to the taste of the writer. A relation which one may describe as that of father and son, another may prefer to describe as that of husband and wife. Further in the course of the centuries tribal divisions and tribal relations vary. A tribe may increase and it may fall at one time into, say, five, at another into ten main divisions; or the reverse may happen; or, again, a once independent tribe, or clan, through diminution may become in- corporated with another, or a particular subdivi- sion of a tribe may become so important as to form a new independent tribe; or, once more, a clan which occupied a particular district may move to another. Then in the metaphorical language of these genealo- gies it will be said, in the first case, that X (=the tribe) had five sons, but at a later or earlier period, as the case may be, it will be said with equal correct- ness that he had ten; in the next case X and Y will be at one time described as brothers, at another as father and son. The last case may be variously ex- pressed. As above, in the case of Caleb, X being the clan, Y and Z the districts, X may be said first to marry Y and then Z, or at one time X may be father of Y, at another of Z; or again X may be first son of Y and then son of Z. In spite of frequent textual cor- ruption and not infrequent ambiguity of the meta- phorical terms, up to a certain point the geographical and ethnographical genealogies of the O T may be understood, once the general method is appreciated; but if it be disregarded and the names taken to repre- sent individuals and the terms to be literal descrip- tion of fact, then various genealogies being com- pared will simply bristle with contradictions and difficulties. For example, in I Ch 7 6, Benjamin is said to have three, in I Ch 81f., and Nu 26 38 five, and in Gn 46 21 ten sons; in Gn 46 21 Gera is a son of 289 A NEW STANDARD Benjamin and brother of Bela, in I Ch 87a grandson of Benjamin, and a son of Bela; similarly Ard and Naaman are sons of Benjamin in Gn, but of Bela in Nu 26 40. According to Nu 26 29-32 Manasseh’s son, Machir, had by his son Gilead (a district!) six grand- puns—lezer, Helek, Asriel, Shechem, Shemida, and Hepher; but in Jos 17 1, 12 the six grandsons of Machir become sons of Manasseh and younger brothers of Machir. The real difficulty in such cases is to determine the periods to which the several de- scriptions apply; there is seldom reason to doubt that such descriptions are genuine descriptions of fact. The Book of Genesis is articulated by a succession of interrelated genealogies—of heaven and earth, 1-2 4a; of Adam, ch. 5; of Noah, 69 £.; of the sons of Noah, ch. 10; of Shem, 11 10-27; of Terah, 11 27, 32; of Ishmael, 25 12-16; of Isaac, 25 19 £.; of Esau, ch. 36; of Jacob, 35 22b-26, 37 2. The character and value of these must in the main be determined by wider considerations than those that fall under the present subject. However, the first of the foregoing geneal- ogies is obviously metaphorical and so, as we have seen, isthe fourth. On the other hand, in some cases it is clearly the intention of the writer that we should think of individuals; the twelve ‘sons’ of Ishmael are expressly said to be twelve princes (25 16; cf. 17 20). Whether he be right or wrong, the list has value; for 't preserves the names of actual Ishmaelite clans, even tho the ‘sons’ of Ishmael thus named may as individuals be nothing more than an inference from an incorrect theory of the origin of clans and tribes. As the genealogies present twelve ‘sons’ of Ishmael, so they present twelve ‘sons’ of Israel; and these ‘sons’ again, whether they ever had existence as individuals or not, are the twelve tribes of Israel, tho it must be added that the twelve ‘sons’ of Israel, as tribes of Israel, are not an entirely fixed and per- manent quantity; for the twelve sometimes includes and sometimes excludes Levi, sometimes makes of Joseph a single tribe and sometimes two—Ephraim and Manasseh. In Gn ch. 36 there can be little doubt that we are dealing with clans and their relations, and not with individuals. The earlier genealogies of Genesis are, in part, of yet a third type; they tabu- late neither clans nor individual men, but mythical names and matter. 5. The Lists in I Chronicles. Turning to the early chapters of I Ch, we find that the main purpose here also is to present the names of the tribes and their subdivisions at a time when each ‘son’ is a clan numbering many individuals; so most clearly and ex- clusively in the case of Issachar (7 1-5), Manasseh (7 14 f.), Asher (7 30 #.). In these cases the genealo- gies given seldom exceed three or four, and, of course, in no way correspond to the number of generations between an individual common ancestor and the numbers given. But interspersed in these chapters are lengthy genealogies of individuals—of the ancestors of a certain Elishama (2 34-41); of the descendants of David (ch. 3); of the ancestors to the 8th preceding generation of a certain Beerah, de- scribed as contemporary with Tiglath-pileser (8th cent. B.c.) (5 4-6); of certain priests and Levites (ch. 6); of the descendants of Saul to the 12th generation (8 33-40=9 39-44). With these we reach BIBLE DICTIONARY Genealogy the final point to be considered—the trustworthiness of genealogies of preexilic individuals. As already stated, evidence that such genealogies were recorded in early times is scanty. Of the genealogies just enumerated, that of David down to the Exile is certainly genuine, but could, of course, have been compiled at a late period from the books of Kings. It is difficult to prove the authenticity of any of the rest, and some of them contain features which create suspicion. Freest from suspicious features is the genealogy of Saul. On the other hand, the priestly and Levitical genealogies are so full of suspicious features that they may safely be treated as not genuine. They contain, certainly, some names of actual persons gleaned from earlier sources, but also many ‘dummies,’ mere names that represent no actual persons in the periods implied, and as a whole they seek to establish lines of descent that must be regarded as historically unproved and improbable, in some cases even demonstrably wrong. The genealogies of I Ch ch. 6, for example, present a series of features which are known to be characteris- tic of postexilic names, but which are entirely different from those that mark groups of well- attested early names. Thus the same name recurs in the same genealogy, implying the custom of nam- ing children from ancestors, yet this custom, as Jewish, can not be clearly traced beyond the 5th cent. B.c. Names compounded with the Divine name Yah(weh) form a highly suspicious proportion of the whole; the formations of the names are those most frequent in late and least frequent in early times; some of the names are frequent in later, but otherwise unattested in the earlier periods. An indication that these genealogies could not in all cases be, even if real, complete is found in the wide difference in the number of genealogies that separate contemporaries from a common ancestor. 6. The Levitical and Priestly Genealogies. Finally, reasons for the invention of these genealogies are to be found in the history of the priesthood, and particularly in the movement powerfully started by Ezekiel (Ezk 44 10 #.), which illegitimized certain priests and their descendants, and confined the priesthood to a single line, and required all servants of the Temple to be Levites and not, as heretofore, aliens. The basis of fact in the Levitical genealogies, as in the genealogies of the other tribes, is to be found in the names of the Levitical divisions; but from the narratives we can see that the divisions no more re- mained constant in Levi than in other tribes. In Nu 26 58 the primary divisions of Levi are five—the Libnites, the Hebronites, the Mahlites, the Mushites, and the Korahites (gentilics formed from Libnah, Hebron—names of places—and Mahli, Mushi [Moses], and Korah); elsewhere (Nu 26 57; I Ch ch. 6, etc.) they are three—Gershon, Kohath, and Mer- ari, ‘sons’ of Levi, while Mahli and Mushi become ‘sons’ of Merari, Hebron of Kohath, Libni sometimes a ‘son’ of Gershon (Nu 3 18; I Ch 6 17), sometimes of Merari (I Ch 6 29), and Korah, a great-grandson of Levi (Nu 161; I Ch6 37¢.). Worthless as genealogies of individuals, these tables nevertheless contain many valuable clues alike to late Jewish theory and General Genesis A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 290 to the actual origin and history of the priestly and Levitical orders, but it is impossible to follow them further here. LITERATURE: EB s.v. and also the articles on the various Hebrew tribes (full, searching, and careful); HDB; Int. Stand. Bib. Enc.; S. R. Driver, Genesis, especially pp. 112-114 (on Gn ch, 10) and, generally, standard commentaries on Gn, Ch, Ezr, and Neh; G. B. Gray, Studies in Hebrew Proper Names, ch, iii (a detailed examination of the historical character of the names and name-lists in P and Ch) and EHzpos., 1902 (March), pp. 225-240. On the Arabic genealogies, Springer Das Leben u. d. Lehre d. Mohammed, ch. iii, p. exx ff.; W. R. Smith, Kinship and Marriage in ag Arabia, ch. i. G.*-—-O. RAS. GENERAL: This word occurs once (I Ch 27 34 AV) as the rendering of sar, elsewhere generally ren- dered ‘captain’ (q.v.). GENERATION. See Tims, § 5; GENEALOGY, § 4; Genesis, § 2; Cosmocony, § 1; and JEsus Curist, § 19. GENESIS. 1. The Name. The first book of the O T was called by the Jews N'U813, beré’shith (‘in the beginning’), from its first word. The word Genesis is Greek (yévects), meaning ‘generation,’ or ‘origin,’ and was the title given to the book in the Greek version of the O T (the LX X.), whence it passed to the Latin and other versions. 2. Outline. Gn is constructed on a simple tho somewhat artificial outline, being divided into ten unequal parts, each introduced by the formula, ‘These are the generations of.’ The first one of these, now found at 2 4a, probably originally stood before 11. According to these headings the scheme of the book is: (1) The ‘generations’ of the heavens and earth (1 1-4 26). (2) Of Adam (51-68). (38) Of Noah (6 9-9 29). (4) Of the sons of Noah (101-119). (5) Of Shem (11 10-26). (6) Of Terah (Abraham) (11 27-25 11). (7) Of Ishmael (25 11-18). (8) Of Isaac (25 19-35 29). (9) Of Esau (ch. 36). (10) Of Jacob (chs. 37-50). All the material in 11-11 26 may be called the primeval history, and that in 11 27-50 may be termed patriarchal history. The plan of the writer was, evidently, to connect the history of Israel with the larger history of mankind, and the method followed was that of continually passing from a wider to a narrower field, until at last the history of Jacob-Israel was reached. Thus he passed from the Universe (ch. 1) to Mankind (Adam); from Mankind to the line of Noah; from the Sons of Noah to one line, Shem; from all the Shemites to the line of Terah-Abraham; from all of Abraham’s line to that of Isaac; and from the story of Jacob and Esau (the line of Isaac) to that of Jacob alone, for Israel and Jacob were equivalent terms. 3. Critical Analysis. When the contents of Gn are closely examined, it becomes evident that the unity of the book is only superficial. It is in reality com- posite in structure, the result of combining three narratives originally separate and each complete in itself. The evidence for this is given in part in the article HexatTeucu (q.v.). The outline given above (§ 2) is that of P, the latest document, which was adopted by the compiler as the basis for his large composite work (Gn-Jos). An analysis of P in Gn will be found under Hexatzucs, § 27, and need not be repeated here. Of the two older documents (J and E), J began with creation and passed gradually to the story of Israel’s ancestors, a method later imitated by P. Since no certain trace of E is found before ch. 15, it is probable that E began with Abraham. From ch. 20 onward J and E can be traced as parallel narratives dealing with the same ancient traditions, and in much the same way. The narrative of J can be traced with comparatively little difficulty because of its consistent use of the name Jehovah for God and, as far as ch. 20, by means of its easy, flowing narra- tive style. After ch. 20 the analysis is more difficult, not only because there are now three interwoven nar- ratives instead of two, but because, on the one hand, two of these (E and P) use ‘God’ instead of ‘Jehovah,’ and, on the other, the style of Eis much more nearly that of J. The places most difficult to analyze are those where J and EF. are closely interwoven. In such sections the style and contents of the two documents ~ are often so similar and the clues so elusive that a sure analysis is impossible. 4. Contents of J and E. The analysis exhibited below is mainly that of Dr. Driver in LOT 8 (1913). This is but one of many analyses made by careful scholars in modern times. While all agree in the main, some have ventured to distinguish between the documents much more minutely (cf. e.g., the analysis in Carpenter-Harford, The Comp. of the Hezxateuch, p. 509 ff. or Skinner’s in his Com. on Gn in JCC [1910]). In this analysis such passages as should be assigned probably to the various editors of this literature in the long course of its transmis- sion have not been specially designated. 1. Primeval History. J (alone). 1. Creation and Fall (2 4b-3 4), 2. Progress—in the line of Cain (4 1-44), 3. Progress—in the line of Seth (fragments only in 4 # . and 4. The sons of God and the daughters of men (6 1+). 5. The Story of the Flood. (1) Wickedness of men, except Noah (6 5), (2) Noah and the Ark, rain 40 days (7 14, 7-10, 12, 16b, 17b, 22f., 8 2b, 3a, 6-12, 18b, 20-22) . . Thesons of Noah (9 18-19), . Noah and his vintage, Canaan cursed (9 20-27), . Fragments of a genealogical table (10 8-19. 21, #4-80), . The tower of Babel (11 1-°). 2. The History of Abraham. E © CONTI J 1. Genealogical fragments (11 28-80), 2. A.’s call and migration to Canaan. Promise of blessing and of the land (12 1-4, 6-9), 8. A.in Egypt (12 10-20), 4. Returnto Canaan. Sepa- ration from Lot. Second promise of the land (13 1-5, 7-lla, 12b-18), 5. The promise of an heir (15 2a, Sb, 4, 6-11, [12-15] 17-18), 6. A. and Hagar. Ishmael born (16 1», 2, 4-14), 7. The revelation at Mamre, ' (1) When the heir was ; to be born (18 1-15), (2) Of the destruction of Sodom (18 16-8), | The promise of multitudinous seed (15 1, 2b, 8a, 5, 16), General 291 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Genesis The History of Abraham.—Cont. The History of Isaac and Jacob (Israel).—Cont. E J E 8. Thedestructionof Sodom, A. and Sarah at Gerar; Sarah 22. Burial, etc., of Jacob (50 Joseph’s kindness to his 13. 14, . Jacob purchases . Jacob at Haran. . Joseph . Joseph’s rescue of Lot. Origin of Moab and Ammon (ch, 19, except v. 29). . Birth of Isaac (21 18-28), . A.’s tamarisk at Beer- sheba (21 88), . J.’8 promise to A. because he had not withheld his only Son (22 1-18), . Genealogical notice of Nahor’s family (22 20-24) , . A. sends for a wife for Isaac. 24). Rebekah (ch. . A.’s children by Keturah (25 1-6), taken by Abimelech (20 1-18) , Birth of Isaac (fragment) (21 °-7), Hagar and Ishmael driven away (21 8-21), A. and Abimelech make a covenant at Beersheba (21 22-82, 34) The great test of A.’s faith (22 1-14, 19), 3. The History of Isaac and Jacob (Israel). . The birth of Esau and Jacob (25 lb, 21-26), Ksau’s birthright (25 27-54), . Isaac at Gerar, dealings with Abimelech. The well Beersheba (26 1-88), . Jacob, by deceit, gains Isaac’s blessing away from Esau (27 1-45), . Jacob’s flight to Haran, his vision at Bethel (28 10, 18-16, 19), Rachel (29 2-14), . J..8 marriages and sons (29 81-85, 30 Sb-5, 7, 9-16, 20b, 22b, 2), . J. grows wealthy (30 25-43) | . J. flees from Laban (31 1, 3), . Laban pursues; reconcilia- tion (31 46, 48-50) , . J.2s meeting with Esau; the struggle at Peniel (32 8-188, 22, 24-82, 33 1-17), . J. at Shechem; Dinah epi- sode (34 Sbha.e; 0,7, 11. 8,. 19, 25a, 0, 26, 30 f.), J. at Bethel again (35 14). J. at Migdol-eder Reu- ben’s incest (35 21-228), . Joseph envied and sold into Egypt (37 1218, 21, 25-27, 2b, 31-85), . Judah and the Canaanites (ch. 38). in Egypt; im- prisoned and yet hon- ored (39 1-23), . Joseph and his brethren (42 $8-43 (all), 44 (all), 45 10a) , . Jacob moves to Egypt (Goshen) (46 %-34, 47 1-4, 6b), administration (47 18-278, 29-31), . The blessing of Jacob (49 , Ab-%a) a Jacob’s dream and vow at Bethel (28 11 f., 17 £., 20-22) , Jacob’s arrival at the home of Laban (29 }). J.’s marriages and sons (29 15-23, 25-28, 30 Q() 1-3a, 6, 8, 17- 20a, o, 22a, 23) J. flees from Laban (31 2 4- 18a, 19-21) , Laban pursues; he and Jacob agree to respect each other’s right (31 22-45, 47, 51-55), J. at Mahanaim (32 1), J. at Shechem; buys land; erects an altar (33 18b-20) , J. at Bethel (35 1-8), Birth of Benjamin (35 16-29), Joseph’s dreams; his breth- ren sell him to Midianites (37 2-11, 19 f., 22-24, 28a, c, 29 f., 36), Joseph in prison interprets dreams (40 1-25), Pharaoh’s dream; Joseph be- comes chief minister; mar- riage; the famine (41 1-45, 47-87), Joseph and his brethren (42 1-87, 45 1-9, 10b-28), Jacob moves into Egypt (46 1-5), J. cared for by Joseph (47 12). Jacob adopts Joseph’s chil- dren (48 1 f., 8-22), I-11, 14), brethren (50 15-21), Joseph’s charge to his breth- ren; his death (50 22-26), In the foregoing analysis of JE and that of P given in Hexarrucn, § 27, all the material in Gn is accounted for, except ch. 14, which seems to have been a separate composition, found at hand by an editor, or compiler, and inserted in its present po- sition. 5. Comparison of the Documents in Gn. Reading the narratives for the sake of comparison, certain distinctive characteristics of each will become manifest. In P we have a carefully planned, sys- tematic narrative, arranged according to an exact chronological scheme, with a view to the progress of history toward a certain well-defined end. The writer of P was profoundly convinced that the goal of human history was Israel, the theocratic people, with its holy institutions, and in Gn we have that part of P’s history in which the preliminary unfold- ing of that Divine purpose is revealed (cf. Skinner, ICC on Gn, p. lxif.). Thus the Sabbath is founded at creation; commands concerning food are given from the beginning (1 29 f., 9 3 #.); emphasis is placed upon circumcision as the sign of the covenant (ch. 17); God is known to the primeval world as ‘God’ (Hl) simply, to the patriarchs as ‘God Almighty’ (‘El Shadday) (17 1; cf. 28 3, 35 11), to be later known to Israel as Jehovah (see Ex 6 2). In P there is no mention of sacrifice or priesthood in the primeval, or in the patriarchal, world, for these came only later with the founding of Israel’s institutions by Moses. The theological conceptions of P are advanced tho somewhat abstract. God is great, infinite, tran- scendent, and while He reveals Himself, there is no hint of any external means (as by a vision or angel). All that is said is simply, ‘God said unto’ this or that one. Furthermore, there is comparatively little in P that savors of a close touch with popular tradition, or seems to have been drawn from popular story. All is exact, carefully planned and worked out, the result of much thought and even research (cf. the genealogies of Ishmael, or Esau, the geographical material in ch. 10, the table in ch. 5, or the chrono- logical scheme into which the events are fitted). In both J and E, on the other hand, the narrative is of a much more popular character. It shows itself to have been drawn quite directly from the popular tradition. The stories are told in a vivid, realistic way, designed to interest and attract the listener or reader. In these stories there is no connected chronology—in fact, there is no chronology at all, and the combination of P’s chronological arrange- ment with the non-chronological narratives of J and E works havoc with the consistency of the whole (cf. Skinner, pp. lvii ff.). In religious and moral character the material in J and E varies greatly. Much of most ancient and primitive material has been preserved, or still lingers in these stories along with more advanced and refined religious or moral conceptions (e.g., in the stories of paradise, of the visit of the three angels to Abraham, or of Jacob at Peniel). Genesis Geography A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 292 6. Sources of the Material in Gn. In considering the sources whence the writers of the documents in Gn drew their material a distinction must be made between the ultimate origin of the material and its condition when the authors J, E, or P made use of it. In both J and E we have evidently quite a collection of ancient tradition. Close examination of J will reveal the fact that behind the collection, as we find it in that document, there were earlier and smaller collections which were at hand and used by the author of J. It is altogether probable that quite a process of collection, and even editing, is to be posited before the composition of J. The ultimate sources of Gn were separate traditions, legends, or even myths, mainly oral rather than written, each having its specific occasion and independent history before being taken in hand, altered, and adjusted to a place in a group of more or less closely connected traditions. Doubtless the homes of many of these traditions were the various holy places, or sanc- tuaries, which figure in them, as Beersheba, Hebron, Bethel, or Shechem. Some of them may have been originally Canaanite, and later transformed by the Hebrews. Some may have related originally to the movements of tribes, retold later as the experiences of individuals (e.g., chs. 834 and 38). The fragments of ancient poetry (4 24 f., 25 23, 27 27 #., etc.) may well, in some instances at least, be much older than the narrative in which they are embedded, and their original reference may have been to different circum- stances. None of the material in 1 1-11 25 is spe- cifically Israelitic, and its formal elements at least must have been derived by the Israelites from the larger Semitic world of which they were a part, and to which they were very closely related. We now find all this varied material collected, edited, and ar- ranged according to one ruling purpose—a national- religious purpose—to show how Israel originated as the people of J”. It was along these lines that the ancient document J was constructed and, tho dealing exclusively with patriarchal stories, this was also the method followed by the writer of E. As to the sources of P, while it is evident that this work is planned much lang the same lines as J, it is just as evident that the author was not interested especially in merely reproducing popular tradition. His creation and flood stories, his comprehensive chronology, his interest in ceremonial prescriptions, his careful array of facts of a geographical, ethno- logical, and genealogical character, together with his advanced theological conceptions, all reveal reflec- tion, study, and calculation—in other words, the careful working over of ancient material from certain well-defined points of view. Consequently, in regard to P, the question of sources is comparatively unimportant. P presupposes acquaintance on the part of his readers with the general body of popular tradition. It was the purpose of the author, as a scholar and theologian, to use those elements of an- cient tradition to make manifest the lofty, supreme purpose of God, the One Maker of heaven and earth, manifested in the creation of His covenant people Israel. 7. Historical Value of Gn. In the light of modern science and of recent archeological discovery the -what the later elaboration. historical value of Gn chs. 1-11 is no longer an open question. We can not go to Gn ch. 1 for our cosmog; ony, orour geology. Wecan not go to Gn chs. 2-3 for the literal facts of the origin of man, or of evil. Neither can we go to 4 17 ff. for exact knowledge of the origin of early civilization, nor does the story of Babel really account for the origin of the diverse languages. We must judge the material or formal elements of all these narratives precisely as we do the very similar matter found in abundance all over the ancient world. The case is somewhat different with the contents of chs. 12-50. Here, to a large extent, we are dealing with traditions centering for the most part about places in the land actually occupied by Israel and about persons considered to be the actual forefathers of the nation. Such traditions might easily be greatly elaborated and embellished in the course of transmission, until finally committed to writing, and it is exceedingly difficult to determine what is to be considered the historical kernel and That a great part of the substratum of the traditions in Gn is historical seems to be a reasonable position. 8. Religious Value of Gn. The question of the religious value of Gn is, in great measure, distinct from that of its historical value. The Hebrews belonged to a world full of all kinds of mythological legends, and of all grades and varieties of theistic conceptions. It was certainly no small matter that they were able to face that world and make use of many of its theories and yet triumph over its re- ligious deficiencies in the interests of a pure, spiritual, ethical, and monotheistic faith. It is just such a victory of Israel’s religion that we find in Gn, and of that victory the Book of Gn itself is an incontest- able witness. The book is everywhere instinct with this vital faith. Whether the writers are dealing with the ancient Babylonian cosmogony (as in ch. 1) or with the old legend of Jacob wrestling with an angel (the original significance of which must remain unknown), it is the same earnest religious feeling and purpose that are manifested. It is Israel’s religion, the post-Mosaic religion of Israel, that we find in Gn. Speaking broadly, one may say that in the J and E sections we see the best type of the ‘pre- prophetic’ religion of Israel and in the P sections the more formal type of the postexilic period. And it is in what Gn tells us, and seeks to teach, of the character and progress of this religion in that ancient world that we are to find its highest value and may discern its inspiration. Lirerature: The following works will be found helpful: The commentaries of Driver (Wesiminsier Series), Gunkel, 3d ed. (not translated; very valuable), Ryle (Camb. Bible) and Skinner (ICC most excellent). On chs. 1-11, cf. A. R. Gordon, The Early Traditions of Genesis (1907). LiteRATURE under HEXATEUCH. E. GENNESARET, zen-nes’a-ret, LAKE OF. See GALILEE, SEA OF. GENNESARET, LAND OF. See PAatesting, § 10. GENTILES (géy, pl. giyim, and 20voc, pl. 26vn, ‘people,’ nation, nations) : Since the Israelites looked upon themselves as a ‘peculiar people’ (Hx 19 5 AV), the ‘chosen’ (Is 43 20) nation, they considered other nations to be on a lower level and less privileged than themselves. These conceptions are disclosed, in the See also c OF OLauvesy Woz yatq OpnzZu07 “FEP°920000 00000009 cOt * 5 9%000, 4 (S9MnE “LN -'0'E ‘299 YJ9) U0WWwLO;s0y — — ——- —— —— Bat S% (129 UIs) polwag uDtwhissy 000000000000 E hyounuoy Aung +e b+et ete ° OT 8 POMlag jsarjuvgy wt TTT eee TARAS) - % yo 009 =00S =O (Gs cesCiis—“‘i‘éikSSCi O° > $21IW 30 37v08 : AHA VUVOHD MAUMEE int Sra 00 9 909°9 CODES 000 \ + Bos moyRsnsa \* ect Se, reno o® oysaed Shs “Bsus, ON + ore SOE AV snosvumnr(_o oP oes * pogo Cee n ae se ss Roto WVuV pea e pBas ° qyemey aed t 4 2 Vy 2\ : : ke "oy Y Vu3Ht VUSHLAM c¢ ." oe qoor}a pee ss : S eo (e) ° es ; Ki s “ooo cookie OX &- Vaal 293 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Genesis Geography O T, especially in the postexilic writings, and are found frequently in the Apocrypha and Apocalyptic Literature, and in the literature of later Judaism. The term heathen, common in the AV, conveys this idea, but the RV has rightly preferred the more impartial rendering ‘nations.’ In N T times, the Jew divided mankind into three classes, Jews, Greeks (“E)Anyves, made to include Romans, thus meaning the civilized peoples of the Roman Empire, often rendered ‘Gentiles’ AV), and barbarians (the uncivilized, Ac 28 4; Ro 114;I Co 1411). The terms uncircumcised, uncircumcision were also used sometimes with deep meaning, to designate those who had no share or lot with Israel in her peculiar privileges (Gn 17 14; Jg 14 3, 158; 1S 31 4; Gn 3414; Ac 11 3; etc.). Besides these general terms there are several special terms, which show the attitude of Israelites toward foreigners who lived among them Two of these, gér (generally sojourner RV, but stranger AV, once alien, Ex 18 3 AV) and téshabh (also sojourner RV), express the nearer relationship, while zar (stranger) and nékhdr or nokhrt (stranger, strange woman, etc., sometimes alien) designate the more remote. The gér (pl. gérim) or tdshdbh was one who put himself under the protection of Israel and of J’, Israel’s God, who submitted to many of the requirements of Israel’s law, and was entitled to certain privileges not accorded to the ‘stranger’ (zdr or nékhar). In the earliest code the gér was given the benefit of the Sabbath rest, and it was recommended that he be treated kindly (Ex 20 10, 22 21, 23 9, 12). In the Code of Dt the same kindly spirit prevails, the gér being classed with the Levite, the fatherless, and the widow (Dt 14 21, 29, 16 11, 26 11-13), and guar- anteed the same just judgment as was the right of the Israelite himself (24 14, 17, 19-21, 27 19). At the same time Dt 14 21 permits the Israelite to give to a ger meat that he himself was not to eat, because the animal had ‘died of itself.’ In the Holiness Code it is presumed that the gér offered sacrifices to J’’ (Lv 17 8, 22 18); he is required to observe various cere- monial and other requirements (Lv 17 10 #., 18 26, 20 2, 24 16, 22); he is to be treated kindly (19 10; etc.). On the other hand, if a rich gér acquires a Heb. slave by purchase, the latter can be redeemed at once (Lv 25 47). In P, while the gér is supposed to offer sacri- fice to J’ (Nu 15 14 #f.), he must be circumcised in order to partake of the Passover (Ex 12 19, 48 £.; Nu 9 14), by which act he becomes an Israelite. The status of the tdshabh was exactly that of the gér, the two terms being synonymous. The status of the nékhdar (or nokhrt) was based on the idea that he had (or desired) no cultus-fellow- ship with Israel. His real allegiance was to another people and another deity. Hence even the humane Code of Dt does not extend the privileges of the year of release to the nokhri, and permits the exaction of usury from him (Dt 15 3, 23 20). No nokhri could be king (Dt 17 15), and in P he is stringently for- bidden to partake of the Passover (Ex 12 43). In HWizk 44 7-9 he is forbidden to enter the sanctuary. The ‘strange’ wives against whom Ezra and Nehe- miah (Ezr 10 2 f.; Neh 13 26f.) protested and (prob- ably) the ‘strange’ women against whom the wise men warned the heedless (Pr 2 16, etc.) were foreign- ers. The z@r was not necessarily of foreign blood. The term is used at times of class distinctions within Israel, as, e.g., of the non-priestly vs. the priestly (Ex 29 33; Lv 22 12; etc.). In the same way the term is applied to the ‘strange’ woman as one outside the pale of respectable society (Pr 2 16, 5 3; ete.). But it was often used of foreigners as people entirely different from, or even hostile to, Israel (Is 17; Ezk 11 9; etc.). Even in preexilic days some felt that the Gentile world shared with Israel in J’’s care and purpose (hints in Is 2 2-4 or 19 23 £., date uncertain). In the postexilic period, in spite of the dominant exclusive tendency to separation from the Gentile there were those like IT Is (cf. Is 49 6) or the author of the Book of Jonah who had a deep sympathy for the Gentile world and felt that it could share in Israel’s hope. But the main trend was the other way and conse- quently in the postexilic and N T times the distinc- tion between the Israelite and the non-Israelite was emphasized in the scrupulous abstinence on the part of loyal Jews from all familiar, unrestrained fellow- ship with Gentiles, like eating with them, ete. (Ac 11 3; Gal 212). Another striking evidence of the same prejudice was the demarcation of a portion of the Temple court as the ‘court of the Gentiles,’ beyond whose bounds no foreigner could pass with- out incurring the death penalty (see TEMPLE, § 27, and cf. Ac 21 28). Notwithstanding this, the way of entrance into Judaism from without was always open. Proselytes (xpocqAutot) were numerous and zealously sought for (Mt 23 15). These corresponded to the O T gérim who had received circumcision, without the local and political allegiance natural to the O T times. Strictly speaking, there was but one class of proselytes, as the so called ‘proselytes of the gate’ (in the N T, ‘devout’ men, who ‘feared God,’ Ac 10 2; etc.) were not proselytes proper, but merely Gentiles favorably disposed toward the Jewish faith, who attended synagog services, and were willing to impose on themselves some of the Jewish rules of life (cf. Nowack, Heb. Arch., I, p. 339 f.; and Schiirer GV J4, vol. III, pp. 177 f. See also PROSELYTES). The occasional occurrence in the N T of ‘sojourner’ (He 11 9; I P 2 11) or ‘alien’ (He 11 34) is but a figurative echo of O T usage, and not especially significant. See also NrrHINiIM and SLAVERY. E. E. N. GENUBATH, gi-nii’bath (N32, geniibhath): A son of Hadad, the Edomite, and the sister of Tah- penes, the Egyptian queen. He was reared (not ‘weaned’) in the royal palace with the children of the Pharaoh (I K 11 20, text confused). HE. E. N. GEOGRAPHY. 1. Geography in General. The ancient Orient gave no consistent and interested study to the surface of the earth. While the aspect of the heavens attracted the Babylonians, and a considerable amount of correct information was secured, making up a crude science of astronomy, knowledge of places upon the earth was regarded as of secondary importance. Especially is this true of the Hebrews in the earlier stages of their history. Their contact with the world outside of their own territory was not like that of the Phenicians, mo- tived by aggressive commercialism, but occasioned Geography Gerasa A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 294 by initiative from without, and was for the most part indirect. Their knowledge of the world was thus not the same from one age to another, but increased | with each generation. 2. Form and Size of the Earth. Asto the form of the visible earth, the Jews held that it was circular, and surrounded by water, which extended as far as where the dome of heaven, like an inverted bowl, rests on it (Job 26 10; Pr 8 27f.). The surface of the earth was believed to be generally plain, but studded with mountains, and broken by rivers and lakes. It was vast beyond the power of man to measure or com- pute (Job 28 5, 38 18); but yet it was limited within certain bound- aries which were definite- ly known to exist (Dt 28 64; Job 28 24; Jer 10 13; Ps 28). The center of it was the Holy City, Jerusalem (Ezk 5 5; ‘navel of the earth’ LXX.). Around this central point the na- tions of the earth were arranged as described in Gn ch. 10. 3. Points of the Com- pass. Within the circle of the known earth the Hebrews were accus- tomed to distinguish four and only four direc- tions in the horizon (cardinal points), and four winds to correspond with these(Jer 49 36; Ezk 37 9; Zec 6 5; Dn 8 8). The designation of these directions was made ac- cording to three differ- ent systems: (1) The first of these took the rising sun as its fixed point, and by placing the observer face to face with it named the Hast ‘front’ (qedhem), the West ‘behind’ (’ahdrén), the North ‘the left hand’ (s¢mé’l), and the South ‘the right hand’ (yamin, téman) (see also Easr). (2) The second system was based on the daily apparent motion of the sun; hence the East was ‘the rising of the sun’ (mizraéh), the West the ‘going down’ of the sun (m*bhd’ hashshemesh, Ps 50 1; Mal 1 11), the North the regions of darkness (ts@phén), and the South the region of light or brightness (dérém). (8) The third was descriptive of the character of the place relatively to the center of Palestine. The West and South were designated respectively from the fact that the former was limited by the sea (yam, miyyam, yamméh), and the latter was the arid or dry quarter (neghebh, from obs. naghabh). Corresponding terms for North and East are lacking in this system. 4. The Land of Israel. The center of geographical knowledge was the Holy City. About it three 6 KASBU @ city CLEFT M \ ARSH © (0M xuHanpan @ pur 111, WY BABYLON Earty BaByLonrAN Map or THE WoRLD A map of the world as it was known in ‘the late Babylonian period’ (Sayce would substitute ‘early’ for ‘late’) has been published in the 22d vol. of the Cuneiform Texts from Baby- lonian Tablets in the British Museum, Plate 28, and is repro- duced here by permission. It is said to be by a tourist of the age, is accompanied by explanatory text, and throws a flood of light on the subject. Sayce, cf. Exp. Times, Nov., 1906, p. 68 ff. irregular circles might be drawn, indicating geo- graphical knowledge according to its degree of definiteness. The innermost of these would contain the Holy Land. But even of this territory all knowl- edge was predominantly practical, and not distinct enough to leave its traces in the form of maps or minute descriptions.! The name given to the land varies according as it is viewed as the residence of certain peoples—the land of Canaan (Gn 11 31), the land of the Hebrews (Gn 40 15), the land of Israel (I S 13 19); or as possessed of sacred associa- tions—the ‘holy land’ (Zec 2 12), the ‘pleasant land’ (Zec 7 14), the ‘glorious land’ (Dn 11 16), the land of J’” (Hos 9 3), ‘the land which J’ sware to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob’ (Gn 50 24), and ‘the land of promise’ (He 11 9). 5. The Ideal Limits of the Land. The ideal lim- its of this land the Hebrews found in the empire achieved and maintained for a_ brief period under David and Solomon (I K 4 21, 9 26). Roughly speaking, it was bounded on the N. by the range of Lebanon, on the 8. by the wilder- ness of Paran, on the W. by the Mediterranean, and on the E. by the Arabian desert. Its length was designated in the phrase ‘from Dan to Beersheba’ (II S 3 10, 2415; etc.). The subdivi- sion of it among the tribes was probably not a fixed one, tho certain ideal boundaries were held in mind for each tribe, as dating from the Mosaic age (Nu 32 33-42, 34 2-12; Jos chs. 15, 16, 17). 6. Natural Features. Four districts were spe- cifically distinguished (Dt 1 7), as the ‘Arabah,’ or Jordan Valley, the ‘Shephelah,’ or lowland along the western coast, the ‘Negeb,’ or South country, and the seashore. To these the hill-country of Ephraim and the hill-country of Judah might be added (Jos 17 15, 21 11). More particularly, the Valley of Lebanon (Jos 11 17, 12 7, later called Coele-Syria), lying between Lebanon, ‘that goodly mountain’ (Dt 3 25), and the Antilebanon ranges, was the northern section of the land. Mt. Hermon, the southernmost summit in the group, was the most conspicuous of the mountains. Other mountains 8 KASBU @ Lanp oF ASSUR For a popular account by 1Fragments of a remarkable map of Palestine in mosaic work made in the 6th cent. a.p. were discovered in 1897. Cf. Schul- ten, Die Mosaikkarte v. Madaba (1900), and photographs in Libbey and Hoskins, The Jordan Valley and Petra, vol. II. 295 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Geography Gerasa which secured a fixed place in the popular geog- raphy were Mt. Naphtali (Jos 20 7), Mt. Tabor (Jos 19 22; Jg 8 18), Mt Gilboa (I S 311 f.), Mt. Carmel (I K 1819 #.; Is 35 2), Mts. Ebal and Gerizim (Dt ch. 27), and, in the outer rim of the country, the mountains of Bashan (Ps 68 15; Is 2 13), Mt. Gilead (Dt 3 17), Mt. Nebo, and Mt. Pisgah (Abarim, Dt 32 49). 7. Plains and Rivers and Seas. Chief among the lowlands of the country were the Valley of Jezreel (Jos 17 16; Jg 6 33), the Plain of Sharon (Is 33 9), the Lowland (‘Vale’ AV) or Shephelah (Jos 10 40), the Valley of Sorek (Jg 16 4), the Plain of Jordan (Gn 13 10), which is in the vicinity of Jericho, and was also called the Valley of Jericho (Dt 34 3), and its extension beyond the Dead Sea, the Valley of Salt (II S 813). Besides the Mediterranean, called ‘the Sea’ par excellence (Nu 34 5), the Dead Sea (also called the ‘Sea of the Arabah,’ ‘the Salt Sea’ Dt 3 17, and the ‘East Sea’ EXzk 47 18), the Sea of Chinneroth (Jos 12 3), or Chinnereth (Nu 34 11), later called the Lake, or Sea, or Gennesaret, Galilee, or Tiberias, were noted. Of rivers, the principal one was the Jordan, constituting, as it does, the chief line of division between the E. and W. parts of the country. But besides this great river, others were familiar, such as the Shihor-libnath (Jos 19 26), the Kishon (Jg 5 21; I K 18 40), the River of Egypt (Gn 15 18); and on the E. of the Jordan, the Jarmuk, the Jabbok, and the Arnon. 8. Adjacent Foreign Countries. From the earliest days the relations of the Hebrews with the outside world brought them into direct touch with Phenicia, altho mention is made only of its cities Tyre, Sidon, Arvad, etc. To the E. of Phenicia lay the great stretch of land known as Aram (Syria), extending to the Euphrates. The Euphrates itself, together with the Tigris (Hiddegel), was familiar as the territory of Asshur, Nineveh, and Babylon, gradually recog- nized as having an internal unity under the name of Mesopotamia (’Aram-Nahdrayim). 'To the E. and the SE. of the land of Israel lay Moab, with its cities of Kir and Ar (Is 151), the territory of Ammon, and Edom (also called Mt. Seir, together with Mt. Hor [Nu 20 22], one of its conspicuous summits), with Ezion-geber and Elath (I K 9 26; Dt 2 8), its ports, and Bozrah and Sela (Is 34 6), its principal cities. To the W. of Edom the Wilderness of Paran, gradually passing into the Wilderness of Shur (Gn 21 21; Ex 15 23), stretched as far as the border of Egypt. Further S. was the peninsula of Sinai, with the mountain from which it takes its name, tho this mountain is but a single peak in the range called Horeb (Ex 31). Still more remote, and almost lost in the dim distance, was the land of Sheba (I K 101), and Ophir so far away that its exact location has been made the sub- ject of conjectures (Arabia, India, Africa?). 9. Egypt and Africa. In the intermediate zone between the Holy Land and the remoter world the most prominent country to the Israelite’s view was Egypt. Its whole length to Syene (‘from Migdol to Syene,’ ‘Ezk 29 10, 30 6, RVmg.) was more or less familiar ground throughout the whole of the Biblical period. S. of Syene lay Ethiopia (or Cush; cf. IT K 199) and Seba. To the W. of Egypt the whole coast of Africa was comprehended under the one great name of Libya (Jer 46 9, ‘Put,’ q.v.). 10. The Uttermost Parts. To the eye of the Hebrew, at least before the Exile, the circle within which the inhabited earth is fixed was one with a radius of approximately 1,000 miles. The furthest countries known in any sense were: to the E., Persia, Media, Elam (Paras, Mddhay, and ‘Eldm) and Susiana; to the N., Armenia to the Caucasus, and the regions of Asia Minor, as far as the Black Sea (‘Magog,’ “Togarmah,’ ‘Ararat,’ and ‘Gomer’); to the W., Cyprus, the coasts of Greece, the Archi- pelago, Ionia, and Libya (‘Elisha,’ ‘Javan,’ ‘Kittim,’ ‘Caphtor,’ and ‘Lubim’); and to the S., Ethiopia, Yemen, Hadramaut, E. Arabia (‘Cush,’ ‘Phut,’ ‘Seba,’ ‘Hazarmaveth,’ ‘Ophir,’ ‘Raamah’ EV). 11. Growth of Geographical Knowledge. The foregoing stands in general for geographical ideas in the O T asa whole. Naturally, these are not equally full and clear in all the periods of the history. They develop from cruder and vaguer notions. Events such as the wars of David, the commercial enter- prises of Solomon, the Babylonian Exile, and contact with the Greek world vastly enlarged and clarified them. In the N T geographical ideas coalesce with those of Greco-Roman science. Nothing approach- ing a systematic presentation is given anywhere, but the accounts of the missionary journeys of Paul furnish materials for the identification of Biblical ideas with those of the best authorities outside (cf. Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller, 1896). See also Asta Minor, etc., and cf. Francis Brown in EB, article Geography. AM GaZs GEOLOGY OF PALESTINE. See PA.LEsTINnzE, §§ 14-16. GERA, gi’ra (871i, géra’): The ancestral name of one of the clans of Benjamin (Gn 46 21). In the list in I Ch 8 3 ff. one or more Geras are mentioned as subdivisions of the clan of Bela of the tribe Benja- min. The fact that both Ehud (Jg 315) and Shimei (II S 16 5, etc.) are called ‘sons’ of Gera also indi- cates that Gera was one of the ancient clans of Benjamin. EH. E. N. GERAH, gi’ra. See WriGHTs AND MEASURES, § 4. GERAR, gi’rar (173, g*rar): An ancient city S. of Gaza, near the boundary of Canaan (Gn 10 19), visited by Abraham (Gn 201, 2) and Isaac (Gn 26 1, 6). Asa (II Ch 1413 £. destroyed a company of Ethiopians led by Zerah at Gerar. It is commonly identified with Umm el-Jerdr, on the deep torrent- valley Jurf el-Jerdr (Gn 26 17). Map II, A 3. But according to Gn ch. 20, it lay between Kadesh and Shur, and Trumbull (Kadesh-Barnea, p. 61 ff.) identifies it with the Wddy Jerair, W. of ‘Ain Kadesh. The kingdom of the Philistine king may have ex- tended S. into the Negeb, and Gerar may have been the name of a large region. C.§8. T. GERASA, jo-ré’so, GERASENES, ger’a-senz (Te- eacnvol, Mk 51; Lk 8 26, 37; Gergesenes Lk 8 26 mg., Gadarenes Lk 8 26 mg., Mt 8 28. The Revisers’ reading in Mk is undoubtedly correct, being sup- ported by the best MSS., and is adopted by recent editors. That of Lk is more doubtful, but ‘Gera- Gergesenes Gideon A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 296 senes’ is better supported than ‘Gergesenes.’ In Mt ‘Gadarenes’ is to be preferred to the ‘Western’ reading ‘Gerasenes’): Undoubtedly the textual difficulty is complicated by a geographical one. Ac- cording to the narrative the scene is laid on the E. shore of the Lake of Galilee, where a cliff rises abruptly from the Lake. But this will not suit either of the cities which at first sight are suggested by the readings in the Gospels. The Greek city Gerasa, modern Jerdésh, was in Gilead, or Perea, a little N. of the Jabbok, and its ruins to-day are among the most magnificent in Syria. An interest- ing description will be found in Henry Van Dyke’s Out-of-Doors in the Holy Land. More is to be said for the identification of the Gerasa of the Gospels with Gadara, since the ‘country of the Gadarenes’ (} Tadapitts, Jos. BJ, III, 10 10) was a political district extending to the SE. shore of the Lake, with Gadara as its capital. This city was 6 m. from the Lake, finely situated in a fertile region, with beau- tiful views over the Jordan Valley, Galilee, and the Lake. The distance of Gadara from the Lake, how- ever, is too great to allow of any identification. See Decapotis. On the other hand, the identifi- cation of the city mentioned in the Gospels with a place now called Kersa, Gersa, or Kursi, first made by Dr. Thomson, is almost certain. It lies at the mouth of the Wddy Samak, about the middle of the E. shore, where a cliff covered by ruins rises sheer above the beach, with numerous tombs in the vi- cinity. Origen and Eusebius knew of a village on the E. of the Lake, which they called Gergesa. But this is probably the same as Kersa, from which the adjectives Gergesenes and Gerasenes would be derived, the latter form having been suggested per- haps by the similarity in sound to the well-known Gerasa. The reading ‘Gadarenes’ in Mt may have been a gloss by the editor of the Gospel, to whom the reading ‘Gerasenes’ was inexplicable. R. A. F.—E. C. L. GERGESENES, gir’’gi-sinz’. See GmRASA. GERIZIM, MOUNT, ger’i-zim. Mts. Ebal and Gerizim were two mountains lying one on the N. and the other on the S. of the valley in which Shechem was situated (Map III, 3 F). Mt G. was the sacred Mountain of the Samaritans. See SHECHEM; and PALEsTIN#, § 7 (d). GERSHOM, gior’shom (03, gérshdm): 1. A son of Levi (Gershom in I Ch 616 f. and 157 #., but else- where Gershon). His descendants constituted the priestly family of the Gershonites. On account of the disproportionate importance which they are given, both in the description of their service and in the distribution of Levitical cities, it is probable that they were a branch of the priesthood directly descending from Gershon, the son of Moses, and that their ancestor’s name is included among the sons of Levi by a conventional genealogical connec- tion. 2. The eldest son of Moses and Zipporah (Ex 2 22), and the ancestor of Jonathan, the priest of the idolatrous sanctuary at Dan (Jg 18 30). 3. A son of Phinehas, or at least the head of a branch of the priestly family of Phinehas (Ezr 8 2). A. C. Z. GERUTH-CHIMHAM, gi’rith-kim’ham. See CHIMHAM. GESHAN, gi’shan (]?3, géshan; in AV Gesham, except in ed. of 1611): A descendant of Caleb (I Ch 2 47). OFF a ea ek GESHEM, gi’shem (803, geshem, Neh 2 19, 61 £., written Gashmu 6 6): He is called ‘the Arabian.’ He joined with Sanballat and Tobiah in opposing Nehemiah, when rebuilding the wall of Jerusalem. CoBAE: GESHOUR, gi’shor, GESHURITE, gi-shi’rait: 1. See Aram, § 4 (5). 2. Geshur in the S. of Palestine. In Jos 13 2 Geshurites are named in connection with Philistines, and in I S 27 8 (Heb. text) David is said to have warred against the Geshurites, where evi- dently a southern tribe is meant. If the Heb. text of IS 27 8 is correct, we have evidence of a southern Geshur (omitted in LXX. B), of which nothing more is known. Possibly Absalom’s mother was from this Geshur, not from the northern one (in which case the words ‘in Aram,’ II S 15 8 are a later gloss). E. E. N. GETHER, gi’fher. See ErsnoGraPHy AND ErHNoLoay, § 13. GETHSEMANE, geth-sem’a-ni: A garden across the Kidron (Jn 18 1), a resort for Jesus and His disciples (Mk 14 32; Mt 26 36; Lk 22 39). The name means ‘oil-press,’ one probably being in the enclo- sure. The traditional site, if not authentic, is at least near the original place, lying on the W. slope of the Mt. of Olives, about 50 yards beyond the Kidron. R. A. F.—E. E. N. GEUEL, giii’el (Dasa, g?Wél), ‘majesty of God’: One of the spies (Nu 13 15). GEZER, gi’zar (113, gezer), also Gazer AV (Il S 5 25;I Ch 1416), gentilic Girzites (I S 27 8), Gizrites RVmg., Gezrites AV, Gerzites AVimg. (the variants are probably due to textual corruptions): An ancient city of great military importance named in the Amarna tablets (c. 1400 B.c.) as in alliance with Ashkelon, Lachish, and Jerusalem. The account of its destruction by Joshua (Jos 10 33, 12 12) is un- historical. Gezer remained Canaanite until (con- quered by Egypt) it passed into the possession of Solomon, as the dowry of his Egyptian wife (I K 9 16). It was later named as a Levitical city (Jos 21 21). It figures largely in the Maccabeean wars, under the name Gazara (I Mac 4 15, etc.). Its modern site Tell-Jezer (see Map III, D 5) has been more thoroughly excavated and explored than any other Palestinian locality thus far examined. (Cf. Clermont-Ganneau, Arch. Res. in Palestine, II, 257, and Stewart Macalister, Memoirs of the Excavations of Gezer (1912), also in popular form, Bible Lights from the Mound of Gezer (1907). A. C. Z.—E. E. N. GHOST: An old English term, which, apart from the expression ‘Holy Ghost,’ occurs only in the phrase ‘to give up the ghost’ (Job 11 20; Jer 159, etc.), which is used as the equivalent of ‘to die’ (Mt 27 50; Jn 19 30, ‘spirit’? RV). GHOST, HOLY. See Houy Sprrrr. A NEW STANDARD GIAH, gai’a (173, giah): Apparently a place near Gibeon (II S 2 24). GIANT, GIANTS: Four Heb. words are so ren- dered : (1) gibbér (Job 16 14), which means simply a physically strong and courageous man. (2) r¢phd- ‘im (‘Rephaim’ RV), the name of a part of the pre- Canaanite inhabitants of Palestine (Dt 2 11, 20, 3 11, 13; Jos 12 4, 13 12, 15 8, 17 15, 18 16). See RepHarm. (3) raphah, possibly a proper name and, if so, the father of a race of giants in SW. Palestine. The word may, however, mean ‘giant.’ The passages in which it occurs indicate that in historic times certain individuals of extraordinary size were thought of as descended from an imaginary race of gigantic men in SW. Palestine (II S 21 16-22. The || in I Ch 20 4-8 reads rapha@’, which may be a mistake, or it may show that the original reading for both texts was repha’im). See also ANaAxk (and cf. G. A. Smith on Dt 1 28 in Camb. Bible). (4) nephilim, a term of unknown etymology, probably well rendered by ‘giants’ (AV). See Diszase AND Mepicine, § 5; and NEPHILIM. HK. E. N. GIANTS, VALLEY OF. See RepHarm. E. E. N. GIBBAR, gib’ar (133, gibbaGr): A district of Judah (Ezr 2 20). Probably a mistake for Gibeon (cf. Neh 7 25). GIBBETHON, gib’1-fhen ((JiN33, gibbethon), ‘mound,’ ‘height’: A Danite (Jos 19 44) and Levitical city of refuge (Jos 21 23). It was a frontier Philis- tine city toward Ephraim and was besieged by Nadab, who was slain here by his general, Baasha, who conspired against him (I K 15 27). Twenty-five years later it was in the possession of the Philistines, when Omri (I K 16 15 f.) who was besieging the city was made king after Elah had been assassinated by Zimri. Exact site unknown, but see Map III, E 5. ORs iid GIBEA, gib’i-a. See Grsrau. GIBEAH, gib’i-a (7933, gibh‘Gh, and ¥33, gebha‘, Geba EV), ‘hill’: 1. A town of Judah (Jos 15 57; I Ch 2 49). Site unknown. 2. Geba of Benjamin, a town on the N. border of Benjamin. Map III, F 5 (Jos 18 24; Jg 20 43; IS 18 2, i6, 14 2, 5,16; I K 15 22; II K 23 8; I Ch 6 60, 8 6; II Ch 16 6; Neh 7 30, 11 31, 12 29; Is 10 29; Zec 1410). Tho similarity of the spell- ing has led to confusion with Gibeah of Saul, such passages as Jos 18 24, 28 and Is 10 29 clearly show that these two names did not refer to the same place. See GeBa. 3. Gibeah of Saul (Is 11 4). A town a few m. §. of Geba, identified with the ruins TJell-el-fal, about midway between Ramah (Map III, F 5) and Jerusalem. Excavations carried on by the Am. Sch. Or. Research in 1922 show that the site was occupied in the Canaanite period and was strongly fortified in the time of Saul and David. G. was the scene of the shameful deed and its bloody vengeance recorded in Jg chs. 19 and 20 (cf. Hos 99, 109). It was an old sacred site, a ‘hill of God’ (I S 10 5, 10) and here a Philistine garrison was stationed (IS 105, 13 3). It was also the home of Saul and his headquarters while king, and here seven of his sons were executed and exposed to satisfy the vengeance of the Gibeonites Gergesenes Gideon BIBLE DICTIONARY (II S 21 6). It was also the home of Ittai, one of David’s heroes (II S 23 29), and of Micaiah, the mother of Abijah, King of Judah (II Ch 13 2). In IT 8 63¢. read ‘hill’ with RV. See Bul. ASOR, Oct., 1922 and Feb., 1923; also Burney, Judges (1918) on chs. 19-20. HK. E. N. GIBEATH, gib’1-ath, GIBEATHITE, gib’i-ath- ait. See GrBEAH, 2. GIBEON, gib’1-an (11933, gibh‘dn), GIBEONITE gib’1-en-ait: A royal city of the Hivites (Jos 9 3, 17). It was apparently the head of a league or confed- eracy, the other cities being Chephirah, Beeroth, Kiriath-jearim (ver. 17). By a stratagem it secured terms of peace with Israel under Joshua, and per- sisted as a non-Israelitish community as late as the days of David (IIS 212). In spite of the discovery of their ruse, Joshua kept the compact with the Gibeonites. He drove from the gates of the city a group of Amorite kings (Jos 10 10, 12). In the civil war following the death of Saul, Abner and Joab, representing Ishbosheth and David respectively, met with their armies in its neighborhood (by ‘the pool,’ II S$ 2 12), but avoided a battle for a time by selecting twelve champions on each side to settle their differences (cf. HELKATH-HAVVURIM). In this affair mention is made of the Wilderness of G., but such a region can not be identified. Later, the place was the scene of a battle between David and the Philistines (II S 5 25, here ‘Geba,’ but in I Ch 14 16 ‘Gibeon’). Here, too, ‘at the great stone’ Joab slew Amasa (II S 208). Saul rashly put to death many of the Gibeonites; but the survivors were given satisfaction by David through the delivery of seven from among Saul’s descendants into their hands to be put to death (IIS 211ff.). G. was later counted as a priestly city (Jos 21 17). It had a ‘great high place,’ at which Solomon offered his first sacrifice as king (I K 3 4; cf. also I K 92). The notice in I Ch 21 20 that the tabernacle was for a time erected here is hardly historical. It was the residence of Hana- niah the prophet (Jer 28 1). Some of its inhabitants took part in the rebuilding of Jerusalem (Neh 3 7). The Valley of Gibeon (Is 28 21) refers to Geba, where J’ triumphed through David (II S 5 22 #.=I Ch 1413 #.). Mod. El-Jib; Map I, D 8; ITI, F 5 (cf. G. A. Smith, HG HL, p. 250 ff.). A. C. Z. GIBLITE, gib’lait. See GreBat. GIDDALTI, gi-dal’tai (D?U, giddalit): A mu- sician, the ancestral head of the 22d division of the choir of the Second Temple (I Ch 25 4, 29). GIDDEL, gid’el (773, giddél): 1. The ancestral head of one of the subdivisions of the Nethinim (Ezr 2 47; Neh 7 49). 2. The ancestral head of one of the subdivisions of Solomon’s servants (Er 2 56; Neh 7 58). GIDEON, gid’1-on (]i¥73, gidh‘dn), ‘hewer,’ or ‘feller’: A son of Joash, of the Manassite family of Abiezer, also called Jerubbaal (Jg 6 32), and Jerub- besheth (q.v.), a native of Ophrah and one of the Judges of Israel (Jg chs. 6-8). The name Jerubbaal et Baal (z.e. J’, since Baal was often used as the equivalent of J’ in early times) contend’ (i.e., for Gideoni Glass A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 298 His rights) is found only in the secondary strand of the story. The story of G. (Jg chs. 6-8)is the result of com- bining several separate and quite divergent threads of tradition. The main features of one story can be found in 6 2-6a, 11-24, 34, 716-20 (the parts in which pitchers and torches are spoken of), 21, 22b. 8 4-21isa unit, but whether originally a part of this story is uncertain. Another main thread is found in 6 36-40, 7 2-7, 16-20 (the parts in which trumpets are spoken of). Of the other parts of the narrative, some sections as 6 1, 7-10, 8 33-35 are probably editorial. The first story is the simpler and more objective, and gives the more original account of G.’s victory over the Midianite hordes. In this old story great emphasis is laid on G.’s valor (6 12, 14, 8 21, etc.), on his faith in J’’, coupled with bold reliance on his own resources, and on his military skill. There is here no reference to the religious condition as corrupt and disloyal to J’’. In the later forms of the tradition miracle plays a prominent part, and far less is accredited to G.’s own initiative and ability. In all, however, it is J’’ who gives the victory. This signal deliverance from their enemies led the people of central Israel to offer G. a crown, the first recorded movement toward monarchy in Israel. Loyalty to the old tribal constitution led him to re- fuse the honor. His home town became the center of a worship of J’’ which was viewed with disfavor by the later editor. G. lived on a large scale, having an extensive harem and many children. The evil results of this departure from the primitive Israelitic simplicity showed themselves in the career of his son Abimelech (q.v.). See also EpHop and consult Commentaries by Moore (JCC) or Burney (1918). K. HE. N. GIDEONI, gid’1-0’nai_ (3913, gidh‘dni). The father of Abidan (Nu 1 1, 2 22, etc.). GIDOM, gai’dem (8973, gidh‘6m): A place men- tioned in Jg 20 45 (perhaps an error for Geba, cf. Burney, Judges ad loc.). GIER EAGLE. See Pauusrinp, § 25. GIFT: The giving of gifts, or presents, in ancient times was not usually from disinterested motives. Some return, in service or otherwise, was expected, or some obligation was thereby recognized, or con- fessed. Consequently ‘gifts’ played an important part in the ordinary life of the times, and the terms ‘gift,’ or ‘present,’ in the English Bible should not be interpreted exactly according to Western stand- ards. When the Heb. term is minhdh (‘gift,’ or ‘present’ AV) and is used in a political sense, the ARV renders it by ‘tribute.’ The ‘gift’ one gave for a bride was more a purchase price than a present. ‘Gift’ is also used a number of times in the sense of ‘bribe’ (Ex 23 8, etc.). Finally, ‘gift’ is used in the sense of an offering, 7.e., to God, or for His service (cf. Ex 28 38, etc.), or to false gods (Ezk 16 33). In the N T the word is used with few exceptions in a religious sense. Where the Gr. is Sépov, it gen- erally stands for an offering, either a sacrifice (Mt 5 23), or of money (e.g., Lk 211; He 51; cf. also Mk 741, RV); where 86ua is used, the idea is the bestow- ment of benefits because of affection (cf. Mt 7 11; Eph 4 8; Ph 417). In other cases (Gr. weed, or 3Heny.a) it is used of the new life in Christ (Jn 4 10; Ro 5 15, etc.), or more specially of the gift of the Holy Spirit (Ac 2 38, etc.). Finally, the special dis- pensations or graces of the Spirit are called ‘gifts,’ xaplopata, peotowol (eg., Ro 126; ICo124#.; He 24, etc.) See also Sacriricr, §§ 1, 12, 18; Crimes AND PUNISHMENTS, § 2 (b); and Cuurcn, §§ 5-7. E. E. N. GIHON, gai’‘hen. See Engen, and JERUSALEM, § 11. GILALAI, gil’a-lai (°223, gildlay): A postexilic musician (Neh 12 36). GILBOA, gil-bo’a (2 393, gilbéa‘): A collective name for a hilly district (about 1,700 ft. above the sea at its highest point) located in the neighborhood of Shunem, Jezreel, and Bethshean, renowned as the battle-field on which the Israelites pitched their camp in Saul’s last campaign against the Philistines (IS 28 4, 311; ITS 1 21), and as the scene of the death of Saul. MapI, E6. See Paesrine, § 9. A.C. Z. GILEAD, gil’1-od (1973, gil‘adh), ‘hard, firm’ (?): I. 1. A son of Machir and grandson of Manasseh, eponym of a clan (Gileadites, Nu 26 29, 30; Jos 17 1). 2. The father of Jephthah (Jg 111). 3. A son of Michael, a Gadite (I Ch 5 14). II. 1. A city (Jg 10 17) near Mizpan (Hos 6 8). Gileadite (Jg 111) may mean an inhabitant of this city (cf. also JABESH-GILEAD). 2. The name of a somewhat loosely defined district E. of the Jordan. ‘In its largest extent it is identified with the whole country S. of Hermon (Gn 37 25; Jos 229 #.; ITS 29; II K 10 33; Am 1 3; Ezk 4718). In a narrower sense, it is one of the three sections of the E. Jordan coun- try, the other two being Bashan and Moab (Dt 3 10; Jos 13 11; II K 10 33). Ina still narrower sense, G. was bounded on the N. by Bashan and Geshur, or, conventionally, by the river Jarmuk, on the 8. by a line drawn from the N. end of the Dead Sea east- ward just S. of Heshbon (this portion of the district was more anciently called Jazer [q.v.], Nu 321), on the W. naturally by the Jordan, and on the E. by the wilderness (Jos 13 11, 13). The late story of territorial allotment by Joshua assigns G. to the half-tribe of Manasseh and Gad, with a boundary between the two, shifting from the Jabbok (Dt 3 16; Jos 12 2) to a line drawn NE. and SW. from the 8. end of the sea of Chinnereth, through Mahanaim. The N. part of the district was given to Manasseh, and the S. to Gad (but, according to I Ch 5 it, 16, Gad extended as far N. as Bashan). G. is, generally speaking, a mass of low mountains ranging in height from 1,500 to 2,500 ft. above the sea-level. It abounds in beautiful scenery and, tho presenting a rugged and barren aspect from a distance, turns out on nearer approach to be pleasing and measurably fertile. It was famed as the home land of Jephthah (Jg 111), and of Elijah (I K 17 1); also for its rich pasturage (Mic 7 14; I Ch 5 16 mg.), on account of which it was chosen by the tribes to, whom it was assigned (Nu 321). It was also known for its rich balsam (Jer 8 22, 46 11; see BaLM oF GILEAD). See also PALESTINE, § 13 (b). A. C. Z. 299 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Gideoni Glass GILEAD, BALM OF. See Diskase anp MeEp- ICINE, § 3. GILEAD, MOUNT: Strictly speaking, this term signifies the mountain range in the district of Gilead (q.v.) (Gn 31 21 f.), but is applied in Jg 7 3 to a sum- mit which projects into the valley of Jezreel. This may mean: (1) That the same name was somehow given independently to two separate mountainous districts on the two sides of the Jordan; (2) that there was a connection between the E. and W. sides, the possessions of the tribe of Naphtali reaching over to the E. side, thus extending the name over the hills in the neighborhood of Jezreel; (3) that the text was originally different, admitting of the application of the name to the region E. of the Jordan (cf. Moore on Jg 11); or (4) that Mt. Gilead is a textual cor- ruption for some other name, now lost, like Gilboa, or JGlid, the mod. name of the spring of Harod, near by. (See Burney on Judges 7 3). AiG. Le GILGAL, gil’gal (233, gilgal), ‘circle of stones,’ from gélal, ‘to roll’; but Jos 59 f. derives it from the secondary meaning ‘roll away’: A name of places designated by a sacred circle of stones. The Heb. always has the article except in Jos 59,1223. 1. A place E. of Jericho, between that city and the Jordan (Jos 419). Map III, G5. It was the first encamp- ment of Israel W. of the river (Jos 5 10), where they set up 12 stones taken from the river-bed (Jos 4 20). According to Jos 5 2-9 the men of Israel were circum- cised here. Josephus and others identified G. with what is now the modern Tell jeljul, a mound with the ruins of a stone cloister or church. Conder in 1873-75 and 1880 found here the name Birket Jiljuliyeh. Joshua maintained a standing camp at G. during the earlier period of the conquest of Canaan (Jos 9 6, 10 6 #., 14 6; Jg 21; cf. Mic 6 5). Perhaps the ‘quarries,’ or graven images, of Jg 3 19 are to be in some way connected or identified with this Gilgal. It was a religious and military center in the time of Samuel and Saul (IS 108, ll 14 f,, 137 f., 12, 15, 15 12, 21, 33). Judah received David at G. on his return after the death of Absalom (II § 19 15 [16], 40 [41]). At Gilgal was a frequented sanc- tuary in the 8th cent. (Hos 4 15, 9 15, 12 11 [12]; Am 4 4,5 5). Samuel visited a G. with Bethel and Mizpah (I 8 716). The prophets may have referred to the G. in the Jordan Valley, but, as Bethel and Mizpah are on the central range of hills, the Gilgal visited by Samuel was near Bethel and identical with the following. 2. The modern village Jiljilia, on a hill lying between Bethel, Shechem, and Samaria. Map III, F 4. Here there was a school of the prophets (II K 4 38), connected with Elijah and Elisha. ‘The order in II K 2 1-7, Gilgal, Bethel, Jericho, is evidence that this G. is to be found in the hill-country rather than in the Jordan Valley. 3.A place associated with Mt. Gerizim and Mt. Ebal (Dt 11 30), if not the G. of 1, then the Julezjil just E. of Mt. Gerizim. Map III, F3. 4. A place mentioned in Jos 12 23 as in Sharon, unless we are to read, with LXX., ‘Galilee.’ 5. A place on the border between Judah and Benjamin (Jos 157), over against Adummim (cf. Map II, G 1) =Geliloth (Jos 18 17); cf. Beth-gilgal (Neh 12 29), a place near Jerusalem. This last G. may be the same as 1. CEseilene GILOH, gai’ls (773, giloh): A town of Judah (Jos 15 51), the home of Ahithophel, the Gilonite (II S 15 12). The identification on Map II, E 2 is probable, but not certain. GIMZO, gim’zo (1193, gimzd): A town in the NW. of Judah (II Ch 2818). Map III, D 5. GIN. See Huntina. GINATH, gai’nath (N23, ginath): The father of Tibni, the rival of Omari (I K 16 21 £.). GINNETHOI, gin’1-tho’ai (1N2, ginnethoy, Gin- netho AV), and GINNETHON, gin’1-fhon (1933, ginnthon): The head and ancestor of a priestly family in postexilic days (Neh 10 6, 12 4, 18). GIRD, GIRDLE. See Dress anp ORNAMENTS, §§ 1 and 2. GIRGASHITE, gior’ga-shait (°#273, girgashi), also Girgasite (Gn 10 16 AV), generally Girgashites in AV (Gn 15 21; Dt 71; Jos 3 10, 24 11; I Ch 114; Neh 98): One of the tribes, or divisions, of the Canaanites. Of these references, however, only Jos 24 11 gives any intimation regarding the location of the tribe. Its name is included among those opposing the Israelites along with the men of Jericho. Hence they lived west of the Jordan. A.C. Z. GIRZITE, gor’zait. See Guzen. GISHPA, gish’po (82W2, gishpa’, Gispa AV): One of the overseers of the Nethinim (Neh 11 21). GITTAH-HEPHER, git’’a-hi’fer. See Gartu- HEPHER. GITTAIM, git’a-im (8°53, gittayim), ‘two wine- presses’ (?) A town of Benjamin (II S 4 3; Neh 11 33). Site unknown. GITTITE, git’ait. See Gatun. GITTITH, git’1fh. See Music anp INSTRUMENTS, § 3 (4). GIZONITE, gai’zo-nait. See JASHEN. GLAD TIDINGS: To ‘bring glad (or good) ti- dings’ (Lk 2 10) is the rendering of the Greek verb elayyeAtCecOar (used in LXX. for Heb. bdsar in such passages as Is 409, 527, etc.). This verb generally refers to bringing the good tidings of the Gospel message either (1) generally (e.g. Mt 11 5), or (2) in its various phases and is usually translated ‘to preach’ (e.g. Lk 20 1; Gal 1 23; Ac 5 42). See also GosPEL, GOSPELS, § 1. GLASS: The rendering of 2*khikhith (Job 2817 ‘crys- tal’ AV), where the poet compares wisdom in value to gold and glass. In Dt 3319 Zebulun and Issachar are promised ‘the hidden treasures of the sand, possibly an allusion to the manufacture of glass at Akka, on the coast nearby (cf. G. A. Smith Camb. Bible, ad loc.). It is noteworthy that these two tribes were immediate neighbors of the Phenicians who are often regarded as the discoverers of the process of making glass (Pliny, Nat. Hist., XXXVI, 651). But see below. A legend tells of a pavement of glass in the palace of Solomon. Undoubtedly the ancient Hebrews were acquainted with glass, as its manu- facture runs back to an extremely early age. Glass beads of remote antiquity have been discovered in the excavations at Gezer. Small fragments of MusIcAaL Glean Gnosticism A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 300 this material were brought to light at Megiddo in the stratum which is assigned to 2000-1500 B.c. The Egyptians manufactured glass at an early period. We have a lion’s head of opaque blue glass with the name of Nuantef IV, of the 11th dynasty; a bead of glass bearing the name of Queen Ha’t-sepsut; and a green opaque jar of Thothmes IIJ. The Pheni- cians learned the art probably from the Egyptians; they used glass beads for barter- ing with rude African tribes. The Romans executed works of great beauty in this ma- terial, and many specimens of their workmanship have been found in Palestine. In the N T we read of the ‘sea of glass like unto crystal’ (Rev 4 6), and the golden streets of the New Jerusalem are ‘as it were of transparent glass’ (Rev 21 18, 21). The force of the comparison lies in the transparency of the glass. The crystal (Job 28 18 ‘pearls’ AV; Ezk 1 22 ‘ice? RVmg.) is the translucent rock-crystal, which was well known to the ancients. The glass of antiquity was opaque, hence the transparency of it is emphasized when it is compared to crystal. The terms mar’ah (Ex 38 8) and gilldyon (Is 3 23), rendered ‘glass’ AV, refer to mirrors made of polished metal commonly used in antiquity. J. A. K, GLEAN, GLEANING. See Aaricutturn, § 5; and VINES AND VINTAGE, § 2. GLEDE. See Patesrinp, § 25. GLORY: 1. Original Terms. The generic idea in the Heb. and Gr. terms rendered by ‘glory’ glorious, gloriously, glorify is that of ‘excellency,’ ‘height’ or ‘preeminence.’ In some (’addereth, Zec 11 3; hadhar, Ps 90 16, etc.), it is a matter of adornment; in others (hodh, Job 39 20, etc.; ts*bhi, Is 13 19, etc.; pa’ar, iiph’ereth, Is 10 12, etc.; tohar, Ps 89 44 [‘brightness’ RV]) it is ‘beauty’; in a third class the distinctive idea is ‘preciousness,’ or ‘rarity’ (y*qar, Dn 2 37, etc.); in a fourth, and by far the most numerous, class of passages in the O T, the specific thought is that of ‘honor’ (kabhédh, ‘weight,’ Gn 45 13; Ps 81, etc.). In the N T the conception of glory is primarily visual, that of a halo of light (86&«). This conception was moreover taken over from the O T through the LXX. in which 86& is the usual rendering of kabhédh. The Gr. xAé0¢ (I P 2 20) is rather ‘praise’ than ‘glory.’ 2. The More General Use of the Term. These variations blend in two distinct uses, a general and a more specific. The former is the application of the term to human conditions, including the idea of glory as external pomp. The kings and prominent characters of public and social life display such glory in their appearance among men (Is 87; Mt 6 29; Ps 4513). With this is naturally associated intellectual preeminence (Est 511). It includes, further, the con- ception of honor in the esteem of men, hence it is Mirror of Polished Metal. synonymous with reputation (I Ch 16 24; Ps 96 3), or anything for the possession of which one may be proud, or admire and defer to another. Even inani- mate objects are in this sense endowed with glory (cf. ‘the glory of Lebanon,’ Is 35 2, 60 13; ‘the glory of the celestial bodies,’ etc., I Co 15 40, 41). Poet- ically, when glory is attributed to God, speaking of His distinctive character, it may thus become equivalent to the word ‘self’ (Gn 49 6), ‘honor’ AV; Ps 57 8). In this general sense, the term is used in the Pss of God’s glory as the revelation of His preeminence, calling for awe and admiration, whether conceived as external splendor or inward power (Ps 191, ‘the heavens declare the glory of God,’ 66 2, 96 3, 7). 3. Glory of J’; a Physical Appearance. In its specific sense, the glory of J’’ is conceived of as a physical phenomenon accompanying the revelation of His presence. This usage appears uniformly in — Kzk and in the Hexateuch (P). The representations of God’s physical glory found in these two places differ in some respects. The glory of J’’ as seen by Ezekiel (1 27 £., etc.) is a definite shape with color: ‘as .. . the appearance of fire, ... As the ap- pearance of the bow that is in the cloud in the day of rain, so was the appearance of the brightness round about.’ This is associated with a vision. In a true sense the description is apocalyptic. As such, it may be an actual theophany or a literary expedient to express a revelation received by the prophet in a subconscious form. In either case, the reality of the revelation will depend not on its external form, but on the fact that God wished to, and did, make His will known to the prophet. In neither case, how- ever, was the glory visible to the physical eye of any one but the prophet himself. The glory of J’ as described in P is a brightness of undefined form. ‘Devouring fire’ is the nearest approach to a description given (Ex 24 17). This all the people were able to see (Ex 167). It mani- fested itself in the Tent of Meeting (Ex 40 34, 35; Lv 9 23; Nu 1410, 1619, 42, 206) and filled the Temple at its dedication (II Ch 71 f.). There are two pos- sible explanations of the literary relationship of the conceptions of Ezk and P. Hither P describes a theophany in the form of a dazzling light, which served as a basis and preparation for Ezekiel’s more definite vision, or Ezekiel’s vision is an apocalypse, which paved the way for the idea of the more con- stant and broadly perceptible halo implied in P. General critical considerations favor the second alternative. Again, upon the basis of the unity of these two pictures of physical glory (Ezk and P), the question will next arise whether the physical as a whole is older than the general and metaphorical conception. Tho the former may seem more primi- tive, the facts leave practically no ground for this view. The conception of a specific glory in material form could arise much easier after than before the eet and splendor of God had been fully appre- ciated. 4. Glory in Ex 33 is#. An intermediate concep- tion of the glory of J’’ appears in Ex 33 18-22 That here the reference is to something different from the physical glory appears from Moses’ earnest petition 801 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Glean Gnosticism for a vision of God’s glory. He could not have asked for a glimpse of that which he could have seen by visiting the Tent of Meeting. Therefore, in the answer to the petition, the glory is identified with the person of God Himself. ‘It shall come to pass while my glory passeth by’ is explained by ‘until I have passed by’ (Ex 33 22). The terms glorify and glorious, while frequently used in the O T and the N T, occur in their ordinary cognate meanings and involve nothing which has not been covered in the foregoing discussion of the pri- mary term glory. A. C. Z. GNAT. See PAuestTINe, § 26. -GNOSTICISM: Origins of the Gnostic Ideas Current in N T Times. The beginnings of Gnosti- cism can not be traced or ascribed to any one person, place, or time. This much only is clear, that gnostic ‘tendencies’ had been cropping out here and there throughout the Orient long prior to the rise of any definite leader or system. The Gnosticism of the 2d and 3d Centuries A.D. was one of the results of the gradual intermingling of the old faiths and philoso- phies under the tolerant rule of Rome. The move- ment had by that time become positively aggressive and missionary, claiming to give a more profound and truer interpretation of Christianity than that which was given by the orthodox faith. It was then a very diversified movement, expressing itself in a number of different systems or ‘schools’ such as those of Basilides, Valentinus, etc. With this fully developed Gnosticism, which was attacked by Ireneus, Hippolytus, and other Church Fathers, this article is not eoncerned. It is rather with those thought-movements of a ‘gnostic’ character that were already in the world at the advent of Chris- tianity and with which it came in contact, and which are implied as at hand in certain N T pas- sages, that this article has to deal. The beginnings of Gnostic thought go back far beyond the Christian Era. And the directions from which the various streams of incipient ‘Gnostic’ ideas originated were quite divergent. India, Persia, Babylonia, Egypt, Asia Minor (especially Phrygia) have all been ! named as the regions in which gnostic speculations arose and whence they flowed into the common religious life of the Mediterranean world of the first centuries of our era. With the possible exception of India, it is likely that each one of the countries named contributed something to the common fund, but no one of them can be considered as the sole source of Gnostic thought. Judaism as well as Christianity was peculiarly liable to attract to itself those who were inclined to gnostic speculation. It furnished a framework, a fairly complete outline-theory of the universe and God’s relation to it, of man as a subject of redemp- tion, and of a goal or end toward which all things are moving. And it was Judaism that furnished Chris- tianity its fundamental principles of cosmogony and cosmology. It was around Judaism first, and then around Christianity that a great deal of the current gnostic thought gathered, and it seems that the most probable theory of the origin of the great gnostic systems of the 2d cent. A.D. is that the speculations on which they rested were developed first in connec- tion with Judaism and thence they passed on to their contact with Christianity. It was demonstrated by M. Friedlander (Vor- christliche jiid. Gnosticismus, 1898), and subsequent investigations, some of them as yet unpublished, have largely confirmed his views, that in Judaism, both Alexandrian and Palestinian, Gnostic ideas found a fertile soil in which to thrive. These specu- lations were largely of an esoteric nature, carried on by such sects as the Cainites, Melchizedekians, Sethites, etc. But others were of a more open type and even Philo has a distinct ‘Gnostic’ strain in his thought, tho he preserves his orthodoxy by his resort to allegorical interpretation. In Rabbinic circles in Palestine it was forbidden, e.g., to speculate (openly) on such subjects as ‘Bereshith’ (the ‘beginning,’ cf. |} Gn 11) or the ‘Merkaba’ (the ‘Chariot,’ ef. Ezk ch. 1) but it was done nevertheless—an essentially gnostic type of speculation. The extent and ramifications of this ‘pre-Christian’ Jewish Gnosticism we may not be able to determine. It doubtless connected itself with much that was not Jewish, for those early ‘gnostics’ were free lances. In Egypt elements would be taken over from Egyptian thought, in Palestine and Syria from religious specu- lations current in those lands, and in Asia Minor doubtless much was found in the somewhat mystical character of the old Phrygian religion that readily lent itself to new interpretation and connection with elements of Jewish belief. In the numerous Jewish synagogs, probably, in many cases essentially gnostic thought was propagated, in secret and by the less orthodox members, if not openly. When the Christian faith began to make its way it was the synagog that furnished it the point of con- tact with the world at large. The first doctrinal conflicts Christianity experienced were with Juda- ism. It first had to define itself versus Judaism. The first disturbers of the doctrinal peace of the Church were Jewish-Christians. And we believe it can be established that the most, if not all, of the types of ‘error’ combated in the N T are of Jewish rather than pagan origin. Such free-thinking Jews would not hesitate to accept views from any source and use any method in their attempt to demonstrate the superior wisdom or ‘gnosis’ which they claimed to possess. In addition to such efforts to add to or modify Christian doctrine by speculations consciously known to be foreign to its original content, one must allow for a certain amount of indirect appro- priation on the part of the most loyal and devoted Christians of ideas and terms that were essentially ‘enostic’? in character. The very word yvéstc, ‘gnosis, ‘knowledge’ and the verb ytvaoxey ‘to know’ (so frequent in the Johannine literature), to say nothing of terms such as acy, on or ‘age’, 2.e. a world-period, @a0tc, ‘depth,’ tAjewya«, ‘fulness,’ etc., all have more or less of a ‘gnostic’ flavor and came easily into the language of Christianity. Both Paul and John had certain affinities with the better side of gnostic thought, tho they took decided ground against any positive, direct appropriation of such speculations by the Church. 2. Gnostic Contacts with N T Faith. The gnostic Gnosticism God A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 302 movement being of an eclectic, philosophico-mystic nature, drew elements from the current disintegrat- ing systems of religion and philosophy, and at the same time it freely appropriated apostolic teaching and absorbed something of the virile faith and zeal of youthful Christianity. The first definite contact of Christianity with Gnostic claims is found in the story of Simon Magus (Ac 89f.). As the story is told in Ac Simon’s chief claim, it is true, was to the possession of magical power, but such an assumption was not wholly foreign to historic Gnosticism, and besides, in this instance, it seems to have rested back upon premises of a distinctly gnostic character. To what extent Simon had a fully developed gnostic theory is, however, impossible to state (see Simon Maaus). The chief information concerning the contact be- tween Christianity and nascent Gnosticism in N T - times comes to us through five groups of documents: Paul’s Epistle to the Colossians, the Pastorals, II P and Jude, Rev, I, II, and III Jn, and the Epistles of Ignatius and Polycarp. It need not be assumed that some specific form of Gnosticism was present in each or indeed in many of the communities covered by these documents. But gnostic tendencies were everywhere emerging, which foreshadowed the coming struggle. Many of the elements in the future gnostic systems were causing irritation, especially to the churches of Asia Minor, and the Apostles and other leaders recognized them as foreign and even hostile to the Christian faith, and uttered their words of warning. It is possible that reflections of the presence of gnostic influences as disturbing the peace of the churches may also be detected in the Epp. to the Corinthians and Romans, but this would be difficult to prove. It is clear from a study of the Colossian Epistle that the Christian communities of the Lycus valley were being troubled by self-appointed teachers, whose doctrines arose through an intermingling of current Jewish and Christian and even pagan ele- ments. The essentially gnostic notes are found in the pretentious philosophy, angel-worship, and as- cetic requirements referred to in ch. 2. And the emphasis which Paul in this Epistle puts upon the headship of Christ (1 15 ff.) leaves us to infer that this central Christian doctrine was suffering serious reduction, through the medium of some form of the general ‘gnostic’ theory of intermediary powers (principalities, zons, ete.), at the hands of these precocious theologians. Here surely was soil from which the later gnostic systems may easily have sprung. The situation reflected in the Pastorals is still more advanced. From such passages as I Til 3f., 41f., 63f.;I0 Ti 113 f., 214f.,31£.,434.; Tit 1iof., 21f., 39f., it is evident that the Christian communities of Ephe- _ sus and Crete were much perturbed. False teaching of various kinds and degrees was rife among them. Certain men among whom were Hymeneus and Philetus, had crept into the churches and created a crisis. Some of them were of the circumcision and assumed to be teachers of the Law. But many views widely aberrant from the common Jewish and Chris- tian faith were stealthily taught. Here again we ' the synagog of Satan’ (Rev chs. 2 and 3). have a pretentious philosophy, a specious cosmology, a mild docetism, a practical asceticism, and per- haps also libertinism, and a tinge of simony. Most of these are constituent elements in one or another of the later gnostic systems. In Jude and II P there is an advance over the sit- uation described in the Pastorals, in that some of these ‘false teachers’ are entrenched in the churches, or at least in certain Syrian and Asian communions (cf. Jude 1, 3f.; IL P21f.,324.). And they have per- haps also advanced farther in their divergence from the common Christian conception of the unique and central position of Christ. But their teaching is still inchoate, and they are without commanding leadership. Of course these ‘false prophets’ were aberrant from the common faith in varying degrees, some being wholly unconscious of their divergence. There were among them charlatans and rogues, but ~ there were doubtless also those who were seeking for the truth and for the lofty pathway of the Christian life. It is plain that we have here the germs of Gnosticism, which needed only time and occasion to put forth and bud and blossom. The heretical teaching combated in the Johannine writings is of a distinctly gnostic type and is more decidedly self-conscious and antichristian. The churches at Ephesus and Pergamum are commended for having rejected those who claimed to be apostles, and then they are warned against the ‘Nicolaitans,’ who seem to be crystallizing into a sect. In Thyatira the ‘woman Jezebel, who calleth herself a prophet- ess, has secured a following, which professes to ‘know the deep things of Satan,’ and observes and practises things contrary to the Christian faith. In Smyrna and Philadelphia the churches are greatly troubled by those professing to be Jews, ‘but are of It is in I and II Jn, however, that the main advance and divergences are marked. From such passages as I Jn 18, 218 f., 41-3; II Jn7f£., it is plain that the cardinal doctrine of the Christian faith has been called in question. Plainly the crisis has come, the climax has been reached, and the breach must be made. The ‘false prophets who have gone out into the world’ must not be allowed to return and bring back ‘this teaching,’ and lead the brethren astray. The familiar tone of these Epistles indi- cates an intimate knowledge of the inner life of the Christian communions to which they are addressed. The author saw the ‘tendencies’ in the teaching which he so vigorously condemns and repudiates; and he foresaw whereunto it would grow. Evidently the churches were not aware of the great danger which threatened them, else the warning need not have been reiterated again and again. The Ignatian epistles combat two heretical tend- encies. The one was a false conception of the per- son of Christ, which questioned the reality of His earthly physical life, and seems to have been es- pecially rife in Ephesus, Tralles, and Smyrna. The other was a disposition on the part of some in the churches of Magnesia and Philadelphia to relapse into ‘Judaism,’ which meant ‘the keeping of the Law,’ the observance of the Sabbath to the neglect of the Lord’s Day, the exploiting of ‘antiquated 303 A NEW STANDARD fables,’ the living ‘apart from Christ,’ and similar errors. The docetism which Ignatius combats is essentially the same as that denounced so vigorously in the Johannine epistles, and the stress placed upon the reality of the human, physical nature of Christ is likewise the same. Our examination of the five groups of documents, with reference to the origin and progress of Gnos- ticism, leads us to infer: (1) That there was a wide- spread and increasing gnostic tendency, especially in Asia Minor, during the closing decades of the 1st cent.; (2) that gnostic views of religion and life were filtering into the churches, and provoking increasing resentment on the part of the leaders; (3) that these advanced ideas came in the first instance and in large measure from, or through, the Jewish environ- ment of the churches; (4) that the advocates of this fuller Christian gnosis were for the most part un- conscious of any actual departure from the true faith; (5) that they were, however, children of their own age, and had become eclectic in philosophy and religion, and especially in ideas concerning revela- tion and redemption; (6) that the common allegor- ical method and habit of interpreting the Scriptures, whether Jewish or pagan, were responsible for many, if not most, of the gnostic vagaries; (7) that the emphasis upon ‘knowledge’ tended to discount faith, and led to arrogance and want of charity and of brotherly love; (8) that the dualistic philosophy of the day, together with the allegorical method, fairly accounts for the docetic view of the person of Christ, so common to the Gnostics; (9) that the ascetic principles and practises of the Gnostics were the her- itage which they shared with the men of their day; and, finally, (10) that Gnosticism was but a common distemper of the times, which gradually penetrated into the churches, and aroused the leaders to a vig- orous and ofttimes ill-tempered resistance. LireratuRE: Harnack, Hist. of Dogma, vol. II, Bk. 1, ch. 4; Kriiger, in PRE art. Gnosticismus; von Dobschiitz, Christian Life in the Primitive Church, Bk. III, ch. 16; C. W. King, Gnostics and Their Remains (1889); E. F. Scott, in ERE, vol. VI (1914); A. D. Heffern, Apologetic and Polemic in the N T (1922). EK. K. M : GOAD: A long stick about nine feet in length, sharpened at one end, or fitted with a sharp brad, used in urging cattle (Jg 3 31; 1S 13 21 [Ee 1211; Ac 95 AV] 26 14). See plate of AGricuLtrurRAL IMPLE- MENTS, Fig. 9. GOAH, god’a (193, gd‘Gh, Goath AV): An un- known locality near, or in, Jerusalem (Jer 31 39). GOAT. See Foon, §10; Nomapic anD PasroraL Lire, § 4; Pavtesrine, § 24; and SacriFICE AND OrrERiInGs, §5. For Scapegoat, see AZAZEL. os e GOAT: In reference to Daniel’s vision, see DANn- IEL, Book of, § 2. GOATS’ HAIR: This material was used in the making of a coarse cloth (Nu 31 20), for the filling of pillows (I S 19 13), and for tent-cloth (Ex 26 7), which gave it a place on the list of articles acceptable as Offerings for the sanctuary (Ex 25 4, 35 6). GOAT’S SKIN: The skins of goats often served in early times as crude articles of clothing, but at a later period to be reduced to a goat’s skin as a gar- Gnosticism God BIBLE DICTIONARY 0 ment was evidently a sign of great destitution (He 11 37). GOB, gob (34; and 33, gdbh): A place where David had several encounters with the Philistines (II S 21 18 f.), otherwise unknown. The text here may be corrupt, since in I Ch 20 4 (|| II S 21 13) ‘Gezer’ is read and in ver. 5 no town is mentioned. K. E. N. GOBLET. The Heb ’aggdn means a ‘basin’ or ‘bowl’ rather than a ‘goblet’ (Song 7 2). GOD. The fundamental subject of the Bible is God. The first book in the canonical order opens with announcements about God as the Creator of the Universe. The last book closes with words of Him, in and through whom God brings the history of man to its consummation. The Bible is, therefore, regarded by all Christians as containing the record of the revelation of God, and of the duties and the destiny which that revelation necessarily brings to every human being. Before summarizing the doctrine of God in the O T we must recognize some principles and methods which seem to characterize the course of the reve- lation. 1. Pre-Mosaic Beliefs and Practises. The his- toric revelation began with a group of Semitic tribes afterward known as Israel, who already possessed religious beliefs and practises resembling those of cognate tribes. In the midst of these the new religion took shape through Moses, and only gradually and, in some Cases, after long labor succeeded in extruding or correcting them. There is much discussion among scholars on two vital points: (1) The degree of extra- Israelitish approaches to monotheism, and (2) the origin of the name and worship of Yahweh (Jehovah, q.v.) (cf. L. B. Paton in Biblical World, 1906). It is clear that the O T recognizes affinities with earlier conceptions of God, for inter alia we find: (a) the God of whom Moses teaches is the God of their fathers (Ex 3 6, 15, 6 3); (b) Melchizedek was priest of ’Hl ‘Elyén, ‘God Most High’ (Gn 14 18 #.); (c) even J” is known to other tribes before Moses receives his revelation (Ex 318). Recent knowledge of Babylonian and Egyptian religions makes it clear that something more had been attained by some races than a simple monelatry. But it was not true ethical monotheism, and therefore perished. The god was still attached to some astral body (as Sin to the moon), or to some great natural phenome- non (some believe that J’’ may have been the name of a thunder-god). That which distinguishes the movement in Israel may be set forth as follows: (1) Moses had an experience of the presence and power of God deeper and purer than any man before him. (2) This experience, or voice, of God fitted him to become the leader of a group of tribes out of Egyp- tian bondage, in a manner which they ever after recognized as the act of God (Ex 15 13; 20 2; Am 31; Hos 13 4, etc.). (8) The name of J’’ received an interpretation which released it from all mere phy- sical association (Ex 3 13 f.), made it the name of a supreme and living personality and attracted to itself the truth in older names (El, Elohim, El Shaddai [God Almighty], Adonai; cf. article Divine Names, EB, III, 3320-3331). See Names, §§ 6 and God A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 304 7. (4) The covenant between Israel and J’’, founded under Moses, was established by and founded on His righteousness and grace, His good-will. (James Moffatt. The O. T.; A New Translation (1924) translates it ‘compact’). (5) That covenant (see CovENANT, § 3) required of the people complete trust in God and obedience to His will as their only God. Hence the rise of that great system of Law in which the will of God was formally announced (Smend, 41 ff.). All these elements were present in the religion of Israel from the time of Moses, and formed the conditions under which heathen beliefs and practises were gradually cast out and a true monotheism was established. 2. Erroneous Beliefs and Heathen Practises. Tho signs are found, as said above, that some races had lofty conceptions of their gods, yet the Semitic tribes immediately related to Israel, as well as the Canaanites among whom they settled, as a rule practised idolatry of a profuse kind, while some reached what has been called ‘monolatry’ (a tribe owning allegiance to one god as its god). The wor- ship of J’’ was begun under Moses amid such beliefs and practises. From the first, three things stood firm and clear whenever a prophet spoke: (1) That J” is alone Lord of Israel, (2) that He loathes idolatry, and (8) that He has a fixed will (or char- acter) and demands the same of His people. From these vital centers the life and light spread. It is natural to find that in belief and practise Israel continued many things whose inconsistency with the worship of the living God was only gradually and painfully discovered. Students of the O T are laboriously striving to trace out the long and tor- tuous path through racial, political, economic, as well as intellectual and moral, changes, by which from age to age the self-revelation of God was ac- complished. (A) In the matter of belief, for exam- ple, we find that the Israelites long retained the habit of thinking of their God as if He were a human being (anthropomorphism), not only as to the pos- session of moral and intellectual characteristics (e.g., mercy, grace, patience, long-suffering, loving- kindness) and limitations (e.g., His fury, jealousy, hate, vengeance, wrath), but even of physical organs (e.g., His back, face, finger, foot, form, hand, heart, mouth, and voice). See also the poetic expressions ‘pinions’ (feathers AV) and ‘wings’ (Ps 91 4). So gradual and laborious was the removal of these ideas that scholars are in doubt as to when they can be said to have died out. They naturally passed from a literal to a symbolic use, as when even we speak of the heart or the mind of God; and it may well be that for the nobler spirits in Israel this anthropo- morphism in its grosser forms ceased at a much earlier date than for the mass of the people. (B) In the matter of religious practise: (1) Some practises, as idolatry, polytheism, human sacrifice, sensual ceremonies, were utterly condemned from the beginning of the worship of J’. That they survived, or intruded themselves at later periods, in no wise proves that they were not felt to be condemned by the inward nature of J’ worship. It began to make and mark its distinctiveness at the very start, or it could never have done so later. (2) Some practises, as circumcision, sacrifice, feasts, purification, per- haps the Sabbath, which were already in use, or were taken over in Canaan, were gradually changed in form and meaning. Hence we may well expect to find, as we do, that the use and value of these are found to alter from one stage to another, as the grow- ing revelation of God flung its light upon them. (3) Other practises, as the observation of sacred places, stones, trees, animals, etc., continued for a while without explicit condemnation, but were found to be inconsistent with the worship of J”, when His self-revelation had become more familiar to the general thought of the people. 3. Periods and Instruments of Revelation. In the study of the growth of the knowledge of God in Israel, it is necessary to pay attention alike to the main periods of the people’s history and to the instru- ments of revelation. (1) For it was always in con-. nection with their changing economic, social, and political circumstances that the light of that knowl- edge increased. The settlement in Canaan brought contact with more highly civilized peoples, new forms of worship, new customs. And these brought at once stimulus and temptation. The rise of the kingship ushered in a new era in which great strides were made alike in national unity and intelligence, and in the need for that prophetic instruction through which henceforth the knowledge of God grew more definite, more spiritual, more awful. Con- tact with the great empires of the East (Assyria, Babylon, Persia) evoked tremendous changes in which the nation’s life seemed to be utterly quenched. The long and terrible struggle was made the occasion of sublime revelations of God by Amos, Hosea, Isaiah (chs. 1-39), Jeremiah, etc. The Exile was midnight for the nation, but dawn for the Church of Israel. Out of it the people of J’’ came with such clear knowledge of the living God as no human mind had ever possessed (Ezekiel, Isaiah [chs. 40-66], the collection of the Psalms, etc.). (2) The instru- ments of revelation were (a) institutions of religious and political life (the covenant, sacrifice, priesthood, temple, law, the judgeship, kingship, etc.); (b) events in history (famine and poverty, wealth and power, war and victory, defeat and exile). These institu- tions and events were not peculiar to Israel. All peoples, small and great, have had them. That which made them channels and occasions of revela- tion was the work of the prophets (see PROPHECY). Under their teaching, spread over many centuries, the people were held to their faith in J’ and were taught to see in Him the Lord of their life, the faith- ful, merciful, omnipotent, righteous, and invisible King, not of Israel only, but, at last, of all nations. 4. The Resulting Monotheism. The name by which the O T doctrine of God is known is mono- theism. It is nowhere set forth in a formal manner. It is the general view of God, which is gained from a survey of the whole literature. It is implied in the earliest teachings; it is made explicit in the latest. It begins in the conviction of that covenant rela- tionship between J” and Israel; it culminates in the spiritual experience of many psalmists and pre- eminently of Jeremiah and in the Messianic prophe- cies of second Isaiah. When we bring the various 305 elements together we have as a result that doctrine of God out of which the Christian is - historically derived. The following references are given merely as illustrations, for which many parallels are in the O T (1) There is but one God, Jehovah of Israel (Jer 10 6-10; Is 42 8). He alone is the living God (Jer 4 2, 10 10); the idols are dead things (Is 449-17). (2) The living God is the Creator of all things (Gn 11 #.; Is 42 5, 45 18; Ps 104; Pr 8 22-29), Himself eternal (Ps 90 2; Is 44 6, 4812). (3) He is, therefore, the Ruler of all nations, as well as of the universe (Job chs. 38-39; Pss 8, 19; Am 97; Is 19 25, 451-13, 18). He is omnipresent (Ps 1389), omnipotent (Is 43 6, 45 9, 50 2 f., 641-4), omniscient (Job 34 21 #.; Dn 2 20-22; Pr 8 22-31;1S 167). (4) Among the moral attributes of God we find His holiness (see HoLingess and cf. the expression Holy One of Israel, especially fre- quent in Isaiah), supreme and all-inclusive (Ex 15 11; Is 5 16, 57 15; Lv 11 44 f.), His righteousness, which appears in His just dealings with men, rewarding each according to his works (Gn 18 25; Ps 18 25 f.; Is 42 21, 45 24); as righteous, He is also faithful to His covenant word and therefore to His people (Dt 4 30f., 79; Hos 2 18-20; Is 408; and many Pss); from His very righteousness and faithfulness comes His mercy. He is full of compassion, of unlimited kindness (Dt 7 8; Ex 34 6f.; Is 401; Ps 103). (5) One of the most remarkable elements in the monotheism of Israel is that J’’ is God of the future. This religion arose from His promises, which became more won- derful in their scope and character as the national tragedy deepened. The Messianic is an essential ele- ment in monotheism; without it God is not a fully spiritual being and His attributes are shorn of their absolute nature. Hence the Messianic element in all the varied meanings and forms of that great hope is always a reflection of the character, as well as a revelation of the authority, power, and purpose of J”’ before the faith of His people (cf. the spirit of the King in Ps 72 with that of Ps 103, or the spirit of Ts ch. 53 with that of Is ch. 41) (see Mussraq; PROPHECY). 5. Inthe NT. When we pass to the N T we find ourselves in a new world made for us by a new reve- lation. The change is due to the creative personality of Jesus Christ. It was as rapid as it was great, and yet it passed through certain well-defined stages. And, asin the O T, the full N T doctrine of God is not gained from any one stage, not even from the oral teaching of Jesus, but is the effect of the whole revealing process therein described. (1) It began with the appearing of Jesus (identified by John the Baptist, Mk 11-8) as the Messiah. He avoided the title because of its current misinterpretations, but He accepted it (Mt 8 29, 14 33) when His personality and work had opened the eyes of men to the truth. He at once elucidated and fulfilled the true meaning of Messiahship by (a) the energy of His personal will, authority, power (Mk 1 21-28, 3 13, 4 41, 6 1-6, etc.). which overawed the people and even awoke dread among His disciples at certain crises (Mk 5 17, 10 32; Lk 5 8, 26); (b) the sublimity and finality of His teaching about God and man. He spoke with con- vincing and original authority (Mt 7 28 £., 13 54; Mk 1 22, 6 2, 11 18); (c) the emphasis on His rela- A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY God tionship to God as the Son to the Father, especially when compared with His assurances that all men must call God their Father (Mt 5 44 f., 69, 18, 11 25-27; cf. Jn 5 18, 10 24-39). This emphasis was no mere formal claim to His own share in a general human relationship. It was the foundation in His own con- sciousness for the demand that men come to Him, believe in Him, follow Him, obey Him, as the condi- tion of their right relationship with God (Mt 7 21-27, 10 32 f., 37-39, 11 25-30, 12 50, 16 27, 17 5,9, 18 5 £., 10, 21 33-45). It is of course prominent and explicit in the Fourth Gospel; (d) the exercise of His authority to forgive the sins of individual persons (Mk 2 1-12); (e) His description of the kingdom of God (or of heaven) as both present and future, established here and fulfilled there, which may have led His disciples to misunderstand the course of coming events, but made all the more clear and impressive His con- sciousness as Master of life eternal (Mt 5 3, 10 [gorty], 13 37 £.; Lk 17 204.3 Mk 10 17-21, 24-31; cf. Jn, passim); (f) His view of His own death as no mere disaster and close of His active ministry, but as the supreme act whose full personal and, therefore, moral significance must henceforth condition the relations of God and man (Mk 10 45, 14 22-25). In all these self-expressions there moved a consciousness of a new type, not that of prophetism nor of private saintliness, a consciousness which all through seemed to act and speak and reveal itself as if veiled, re- strained, as if only preparing the field and itself for its full scope. (2) All this, as the N T tells the story, would have remained unapprehended and fruitless, save as a baffling and pathetic mystery in one man’s picture of humanity and of the inscrutable Divine, but for (a) the resurrection (Lk 24 5-7, 19-27; Jn 20 8 f.; Ac 1 2-4, 3 26, 13 29-37, 17 31; Ro 1 4; I Co 15 3-8, 20; I P13) and (b) the gift of the Holy Spirit (see Hoty Sprrir). In these events the inner nature, source, and meaning of His consciousness became fully revealed. And through the change which the whole of these facts and events wrought in the relations of those men toward God the human consciousness broke into a new era, a new universe, and a new, sublime, and luminous knowledge of God. For it was God who had sent His Son and His Spirit, and He stood revealed in the whole redeeming work which was thus done before the eyes and upon the hearts of men. 6. Apostolic Theology. Only a brief summary of the main features in the new doctrine of God can be given here. Those Jewish monotheists were sur- prized out of their pure monotheism into a new way of conceiving and worshiping God. (1) We find them rendering worship and ascribing Divine titles and glory to Jesus Christ as Lord (Jn 20 28; I Co 1 2, 16 22-24; II Co 12 8; Rev 1 4f.), and in prayers and ascriptions of praise His name is continually used along with the name of God the Father. And, indeed, as God acts through Christ on man, worship is given to God through Christ (Ro 5 11; Jude ver 25; He 13 20). (2) The supreme blessings of the soul are said to be derived from all three names, Father, Son, and Spirit: grace (Ro 17, 15 15; I Co 15 10, 16 23; II Co 61, 1314), peace (Eph 6 23; Ro 8 6; Gal 5 22), life (Ro 6 23, 8 2; I Jn 5111.), love (Ro 5 5, 8 35, 39; God Good A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 306 — Eph 3 14-19; I Jn 4 10-13). (8) In many passages all three names are used in a coordination and inter- change of powers and attributes which were new and startling to the whole world—both of Jew and Gentile (Mt 28 19; Ro 5 5f., 81-17, 15 30; I Co 2 10-16, 6 19 f.; II Co 13 14; Gal 5 16-24; Ti 3 4-7; Jn 14 16, 26, 15 26; T Jn 3 23 f., 4 IP a Altho i in certain passages the relations of Christ to God and to the universe are discussed, or abruptly stated (Ph 2 5-11; Eph ch. 1; Col ch. 1), we do not find in the N T an elaborated theory or doctrine of the Trinity. What we find is a community of individuals to whom has come the very indwelling of God, whose open conscious fellow- ship with Him has resulted from the person and work of Jesus Christ and the gift of the Spirit of God. This new and highest, and indeed final, type of human experience is realized in their faith, worship, love, and obedience, directed toward the three names Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as three coordinate, living, Divine sources of mercy, righteousness, love, life eternal. And yet they worship and serve one God. Monotheism had evidently passed into a remarkable and new form (I Co 8 4-6; I Ti 1 12-17; II Ti 1 8-10, 14). 7. The Christian Idea of God. Christian men were forced to think out the implications of this whole situation. (1) The redemption wrought by Christ, the revelation of the will, power, wisdom, purpose, holiness, and love of God were now too clear, too glorious, too real, to admit of doubt on the part of those who had passed into life and light. Using every hint in the apostolic records, they gradually worked out various theories regarding the ultimate significance and relations of the three names. The Trinity of historical experience was there, given once for ail in the very origin and nature of the Christian life. Its explanation resulted in various forms of Trinitarian doctrine. This is not the place to re- count them. Sufficient to say that the instinct of the Church has ever been to reject any theory of the Divine nature and the three names which, by re- action, weakens faith in the reality of the Atone- ment, the act of Divine redemption on the Cross; or in the permanent relation of the Fathe: and the Son to the earthly life of man through t' | Spirit; or in the reality of the immediate and personal revela- tion of God the Father in these events, facts, and experiences. Since what we may call realistic Trinitarianism is the essential, or typical, view of God given in the N T, some form of theoretic Trini- tarianism has always characterized the doctrine of the Church as a whole. (2) The N T doctrine of God retains all the highest O T conceptions of Him, as the Creator and Lord of Nature (Mt 5 34 f., 6 26, 30; Ac 7 48-50, 17 24-28; Ro 1 20, 11 33-36; Col 1 15-19; Jn 11-4); holy and righteous (the whole teaching of Jesus rests on the idea that God is of an inflexible justice and holiness, as well as mercy, in His rule and judgment of men) (Mt 5 3-10, 6 33, 11 21-24, 13 41-43, 24 45-51; cf. Ro 1 17, 2 5-16, 3 21-30, Jn 318); almighty and all-wise (Mt 19 26, 25 31-46, 28 18-20; Jn 10 27-29; Ro 11 33; I Co 210 f.; I Ti 117); merciful and gracious (Mt 57, 45, 614f., 7 11, 11 25f., 29f.); but the N T contains the supreme revelation of His character as holy love, for which indeed a noun seems to have been coined or at least baptized into a new and higher sense, a&vann (Mt 5 43-48; Jn 316; I Jn 47-13; Ro 55, 8, 8 35- 39; Eph 2 4, 3 17-19). It is in the fellowship of this God thus revealed as Father of Jesus Christ the Redeemer, and as indwelling Spirit, that those hearts of apostolic men reached a combined fervor of love and moral clearness, in peace and hope and power, which are accepted wherever the gospel goes as the very essence of the Supreme Good itself. LirerRATuRE: Of the immense literature mention may be made of the works on O T Theology by Schultz (translated); Stade; A. B. Davidson; Smend, Alitest. Religionsgeschichte (21899) ; Marti, Geschichte der Isr. Relig. (41906); Baentsch, Meono- theismus (1906); Kautsch, art. The Religion of Israelin HDB, extra volume; art. Names of God in ZB, coll. 3320-3331; Addis, Hebrew Religion; H. Wheeler Robinson, The Religious Ideas of the O T (1913). Works on N T Theology by B. Weiss (translated), W. Beyschlag (translated), H. J. Holtzmann, Stevens; B. Weiss, Religion des N T (1908); Liitgert, Gottes Sohn und Goties Geist (1905); Baldensperger, Das Selbstbewus- stsein Jesu (21892); Forrest, The Christ of History and of Experience (1899); H. J. Holtzmann, D. Messianische Selbst- bewusstsein Jesu (1907); Sanday, in HDB, II, pp. 205-215; Loop, Wer war Jesus Christus (1922); C. Gore, Belief in God (1921); Gwatkin, The Knowledge of God (21908); H. F. Hamil- ton, Discovery and Revolution (1915); O,. Holtzmann, Der Christliche Gottesglaube (1905); C. G. Beckwith, The Idea of God (1923). See also Gitory; GopHEAD; Grace; Hanp; Houinsess; Hoty Spirit; Hosts, Lorp or; Jesus CuHRist; Love; Masesty; Mercy; PRresENCcE; RIGHTEOUSNESS; Sprrit; Srreneru or Isrant. W. D. M.—H GOD, CHILDREN OF. See Gop, Sons Anp DAUGHTERS OF (3). GOD, SON OF. See Jesus Curist, § 15 (b). GOD, SONS AND DAUGHTERS OF: A phrase used in whole or in part with various meanings. (1) In Gn 61, Job 1 6, 2.1 the expression ‘sons of God’ refers to the heavenly spirits who minister about the throne (cf. I K 2219 #.; Is 6 2 ff.) and make up the court of the Supreme Ruler. The passage Gn 6 1 stands practically alone in the O T in its concep- tion of the possibility of union between spiritual beings and the daughters of men. It may be a frag- ment of Semitic mythology, which the writer in Gn (J) saw fit to make use of (see Genusis, § 4 ff.). (2) The expressions ‘my sons’ and ‘my daughters’ in Is 48 6 refer to the exiled Israelites, who are to be restored to their land through Cyrus. This passage (with Hos 1 10) was probably in Paul’s mind in II Co 618, where he uses it of Christians in distinction from unbelievers. (3) In the O T ‘my sons’ (‘children’ in EV) is frequently applied by the prophets in the name of J’ to Israel as the people of J’’ (Is 1 2, etc.). This expression reappears in the N T in the more spiritual sense of those who truly recognize God as their Father and seek to do His will (Mt 59, 45, ete. [utot]; Ro 8 16f., etc. [céxve]). E. E. N. GOD FORBID. See Forsip. GODHEAD: Of the three Greek words repre- sented by this term that in Ac 17 29 (cd Oetov) is more literally rendered ‘the divine’; but in classical usage it is the exact equivalent of ‘God.’ It is therefore chosen by Paul as the more philosophical designation of God in this address, designed to recall to the minds of his hearers a conception more exalted than that associated with their pantheon. The other two terms (Oeécty¢ and Geétys) differ from each other precisely as ‘divinity’ and ‘deity’ in English. In Ro 307 A NEW STANDARD 1 20 (‘divinity’ RV) the Apostle has in mind the quality of God; in Col 2 9 His inner essence or per- sonality. For classical parallels for Ac 17 29 cf. Plato, Phedr. 246 D; for Ro 1 20, cf. Plut. Cur Pythia nune nomeddat, etc., 8; and for Col 29 cf. Plut. De defec. Orac., and Lucian, Icarom., 9. A. C. Z. GODLESS: This word occurs only in RV, ren- dering a Hebrew term (hdnéph), which means ‘pro- fane’ (Job 8 13, 13 16, 15 34, etc.; Pr 11 9; Is 33 14, ‘hypocrite’ AV). The original is derived from a root denoting ‘that which cuts itself off (from God) and is rejected.’ The idea of hypocrisy is attached to the word in later Mishnaic usage. ATOZ GODLINESS: A strictly N T term, its root idea being ‘reverence,’ or more specifically, ‘the loving fear of God’ (I Ti 2 2; II Ti35; II P 311; cf. Eus. Prep. Ev., 1,3). Godly is used in the O T as equiv- alent to ‘merciful’ (Ps 4 3, 32 6), and once to what has a ‘special relation to God’ (‘from God,’ Mal 215). In the N T it renders both the adjective ‘godly’ (edce8q¢) and the general conception of being specifically ‘related to God’ (II Co 112; I Ti 1 4). Hence ‘after a godly sort’ (II Co 79, ‘after a godly manner’ AV) means, strictly, ‘according to the will of God,’ or ‘in a way suitable in relations with God.’ ‘ A. C. Z. GODLY. (1) The rendering of the Heb hdsidh (Ps 43, 121, 32 6) for which ‘pious’ would be more satisfactory. (2) It takes the place of the more literal ‘of God’ (Mal 2 15; II Co 1 12 [ef. RV], 11 2; ITil4[cf. RV]). (3) Inthe N T for the Gr. edceBhe (adj. II P 29) and edceBiic (adv. II Ti 3 12; Tit 2 12) ‘pious,’ ‘piously’ or ‘reverent,’ ‘reverently’ would give the real meaning. (4) In II Co. 79, 10, 11 the Gr. is xat& Oedy, ‘according to God’ for which ‘godly’ is an accurate rendering. (5) On III Jo 6, see RV. GODS. See in general GREEK AND Roman IDoL- ATRY; and Semitic RELIGION. GOG, gog (\3, gogh): A name given to a race or people inhabiting some part of the ‘northern’ region. It I Ch 5 4 ‘Gog’ = Magog of Gen 105. In Ezk 38 and 39 Gog is associated with Meshech, etc. as Magog is in Gen 105, and probably both refer to the same people, who may be the Gagaia of the Amarna Tablets (see JCC. on Gen 10 5), a northern people living in this mountainous region of E. Asia Minor. Ezekiel, followed by the author of the Apocalypse of John (Rev 20 8), uses the terms Gog, etc. symbolic- ally for the world as hostile to God’s people and kingdom. See ErHNOGRAPHY AND ErHNoLoey, § 13, under Magog and Meshech. GOIIM, gei’im. See Trpat. GOING, GOINGS, GOINGS FORTH, or OUT, GOING UP: The verb ‘go’ represents a large num- ber of different words in the Heb. or Gr. originals. In most cases the interpretation involves no diffi- culty. One or two special usages call for remark, ‘Goings forth’ is used frequently of the boundary of a district (Nu 34 5, ete.). ‘Going up’ in the AV is frequently much better rendered in the RV by ‘ascent’ (Jos 157, etc.). E. E. N. GOLAN, gi’len (1213, gaan): A city of refuge (Dt 4 43; Jos 20 8, 21 27in the territory assigned to the God half-tribe of Manasseh. Both a town, Golan, and a district, Gaulanitis (q.v.) were known to Josephus (Ant. XIII, 153; XVII, 81). The latter is called by the Arabs Jauldn. It was one of the provinces in the tetrarchy of Philip, bounded by the Jordan on the W., by the Jarmuk on the S., and by Mt. Hermon on the N. The E. boundary was probably the river ‘Allan (cf. G. A. Smith, HGHL, p. 541, and Schumacher, The Jaulan). Perhaps the name was applied, first, to a city and later to the district round about; etymologically, however, the root, meaning ‘circuit,’ would point to the opposite conclusion. Site uncertain. xt Lok Ey GOLD. See Merats, § 1. GOLDEN CITY: A term applied to Babylon in Is 14 4 (but ef. alternative reading in mg.). GOLDSMITH. See Artizan Lire, § 10 (b). GOLGOTHA. See JERUSALEM, § 45. GOLIATH, go-lai’ath (0773, golyath): A Philistine giant (‘six cubits and a span,’ or between 7 ft. 1 in. and 8 ft. 5in. in height) slain, according toI$ 174 f., by David. In IIS 21 19, however, he is said to have been slain by Elhanan the Bethlehemite in single combat. In I Ch 205, probably to avoid this con- tradiction, the text (taken from II S 21 19) is changed to read that ‘Elhanan slew [not Goliath but] Lachmi, the brother of Goliath.’ A. C. Z.—E. E. N. GOMER, go’mer. See ETHNOGRAPHY AND ErH- NOLOGY, § 13; and Hosna, § 2. GOMORRAH, go-mér’a. See Sopom. GOOD, GOOD WORKS: There is nothing pe- culiar in the use of the term ‘good’ in the Bible. In the O T it nearly always stands for the Heb. tobh (adj.), tabh (subst.), or yatabh (vb. ‘to do good’), all of which are significant of ‘good’ in a comprehensive sense, easily applied (1) to material or physical good, or (2) to moral good. In most cases the Eng- lish reader should have no difficulty in making the distinction. In the N T ‘good’ is in most cases the rendering of the Gr. adjectives éya06c¢ or xaAéc, the former nearly always in a moral or spiritual sense, the latter often in a material or esthetic sense. Both adjectives frequently occur in the expression ‘good works’ with almost equivalent meaning—x«Aé¢ however, generally retaining something of its funda- mental esthetic coloring. The following additional instances call for comment: In Mic 7 2 the word hasidh means ‘full of love,’ ‘kindly’ (godly’ RV). In Ec 5 11 ‘good’ AV = ‘advantage’ RV. In Dt 2 4, 415; Jos 23 11, ‘good’ renders the adv. m* ddh, ‘very,’ ‘very much’; in Jer 13 10 (cf. RV) it renders a verb meaning ‘to succeed,’ and then ‘be fit for.’ In Job 15 3 the Heb. means ‘to be of no profit’; in Jer 18 4 it means ‘as it was right in the eyes of the potter’; in Gn 24 12 ‘send me good success’ stands for ‘cause (it, 1.e., success) to meet (7.e., happen),’ while in Jos 1 8 ‘good success’ means thou shalt ‘deal wisely.’ In I Co 15 33 the Gr. is yenords, lit. ‘useful’ or ‘kind’; here used in a sense akin to ‘morally refined.’ In Gn 46 29 ‘good while’ means ‘again,’ or ‘still more,’ and in Ac 18 18 (AV) it means ‘a (sufficient) number of days.’ In Ro 16 18 ‘good words’ means ‘courteous, pleasant speech calculated to disarm suspicion’ (cf. Sitters A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 308 RV). Practically, ‘the good’ are contrasted with GORE (Ex 21 32). See Crimes AND PounIsH- ‘the evil’ (e.g., Mt 5 45), but nowhere is a strict definition of ‘the good’ given. That which is in harmony with recognized ethical standards or with the spirit and teachings of the gospel is ‘good’ (4ya06g or xaAédg). Good works are the natural fruit of good hearts (Mt 7 17). God alone is abso- lutely good, and only through a true perception of Jesus’ relation to God can one know how to call Him good (Mk 10 18 and ||s). See also Jusririca- TION. HK. BE. N. GOODMAN: In Pr 7 19 the meaning is ‘husband’ (‘the man’ RV). The woman appears purposely to refrain from saying ‘my husband.’ ‘Goodman’ was once frequently used in the sense of ‘head of the house.’ In the N T the Gr. term is oixodecrétys z.e., ‘master, or head of the house’ (Mt 20 11, etc.; cf. RV). K. E. N GOODNESS: In most cases this word is the ac- curate rendering of the original terms. In the O T tobh and tubh are comprehensive. God’s goodness is manifest in the blessings He bestows on His ser- vants, 7.e., the good things of life, and also the more spiritual blessings of forgiveness and love (e.g., Ex 33 19, cf, 346). The word hesedh often‘translated ‘goodness’ in AV (e.g., Ex 34 6) is much better rendered by ‘mercy’ or ‘loving-kindness’ (so RY). In the N T in Ro 2 4, 11 22, the Gr. yenotds, xeno- cétns, signify ‘kindness’ (cf. Eph 27), or ‘benignity,’ not ‘goodness’ in the abstract. See Goop, Goop Works. Es K. E. N. GOOD PLEASURE, GOOD WILL: In the N T e0doxia usually refers to God’s ‘good will,’ either in the sense of His delight or satisfaction (II Th 1 11, ef. RVmg) or of His sovereign purpose or will (cf. Mt 11 26; Eph 1 5, 9; Ph 2 13). occasioned most comment is Lk 214. Here for ‘good will toward men’ (AV) RV reads ‘among men in whom he is well pleased’ (‘men of [His] good will’). The RV is based on the reading eddoxtas (genitive) found in the best MSS. The AV is based on the nominative. ‘The sense is practically the same in either case. eUyorx, in Eph 67, means ‘good disposi- tion’ or ‘intent.’ HK. E. N, GOODS: The EVV use this word to render a variety of Heb. and Gr. terms: (1) ’6n, ‘strength,’ ONY, (Job 20 10 AV); (2) hayil, ‘strength, ’ Vig- r,’ ‘power’ (Nu 31 9); (8) ¢dbh, ‘good’ (in a general aoe (Dt 28 11 AV; Ec D 1); (4) mla’ khah, ‘work,’ ‘business’ (Ex 22 8, 1); (5) niksin, ‘riches’ (Ear 6 8, 7 26); (6) ginydn, ‘acquisition’ (Ezk 3812.1.) (7) rkhush, ‘that which is gathered’ (Gn 14 11-21, 31 18 AV, 46 6; Nu 16 32, 35 3 AV; II Ch 2114 AV; Hier 1 4, 6). The same fon is often rendered ‘substance.’ (8) kebhtiddah, ‘weighty material’ (Jg 18 21); (9) ta aya0&é (Lk 12 18 f.) ; (10) otdcta, ‘substance’ (Lk 1512 AV); (11) t& oxedn, ‘vessels,’ ‘implements’ (Mt 12 29; Mk 3 27; Lk 16 1); (12) cx dn&exyovra, ‘posses- sions’ (Mt 24° 47 AV, 25 14; {Lk 11 21, 161, 19 8; I Co 13 3; He 10 34 AV); (13) 6 bs ‘the means of ligne’ (I Tn 317); (14) Uxapéts, ‘substance’ (Ac 2 45); (15) ta ok, “thy (things)’ (Lk 6 30); (16) xAourety, ‘to be wealthy,’ (Rev 317 AV; cf. RV.). E. EL. N. _GOPHER WOOD. See Patesring, § 21. The passage that has ; MENTS, § 2 (a). GOSHEN, go’shen (j¥3, gdshen): 1. A district in Egypt in which Jacob and his family were placed (Gn 45 10, 46 28, 47 27, 508; Ex 9 26 [all J]). According to J, here the Israelites lived, quite apart from close contact with the Egyptians. In E and P a different view is held. G. was noted for its adaptation to pastoral life and regarded as in general unsuitable for agriculture, perhaps because of its distance from the Nile and the difficulty of irrigation. But that it must have been cultivated to some extent appears from Nu 115. The LXX. renders Gn 45 10 Déseu ’ApaBlac, intimating that G. was located in the nomos (political division) Arabia; and names Hero- opolis (jyemwy zédtc, Gn 46 28) ostensibly as its capital. The site of this city has been identified as the modern J'ell-Mashkita in the Wady Tumalat, and excavated by Naville (The Store City of Pithom, 1888), but, according to the geographer Ptolemzeus, the nomos Arabia had Phacussa for its capital. This would identify G. with Kesem (Egyptian, Pa Sept— ‘home of [the god] Sept’), modern Seft- Henna, which is somewhat NW. of Pithom. Steindorff’s sugges- tion in PRE, art. Gosen, that the capital of the nomos may have been changed from one city to the other, as was frequently the case in the subdivisions of Egypt may be the solution of the difficulty. G. therefore, as a district was undoubtedly in the E. portion of Egypt, and N. of the southern point of the Delta. 2. A district in the Negeb and the Shephelah (Jos 10 41, 11 16); perhaps named from No. 3 follow- ing. 3. A city in Judah (Jos 15 51). Site unknown. A. C, Z.—E. E. N. GOSPEL, GOSPELS. I. GospsEn (cdayyéAtoy, ‘good tidings’; AS, god-spell; OHG, gotspel = ‘God-story’): The N T term for the contents of the message given by Jesus Christ to the world. 1. Usage of the Term. In the statements which Matthew gives of Jesus’ early preaching in Galilee (4 23, 9 35), and in the record which he gives of Jesus’ prediction of the future proclamation of his message (24 14), the phrase ‘gospel of the kingdom’ shows that the term is to be understood in its pri- mary meaning of ‘good tidings’ (as in the RV of Ro 10 16 and Rev 146). The Matthew phrase is an elaboration of the simple term ‘gospel’ which Mark has in the title of his narrative (11), and in his record of Jesus’ initiatory preaching (114 f.) and of His later teaching (8 35, 10 29, 13 10, 149). This term, when used by Mark in connection with the primitive idea of xnetocety (114 f., 13 10, 149), is undoubtedly in- tended to be understood in its primary sense, as by Matthew; but when used in such connections as in 11, 8 35, 10 29 it is presented in its more technical meaning of a ‘formulated message.’ In this Mark shows, as he does elsewhere (e.g., 1 4), a tendency to introduce into his narrative, primitive tho it is, phraseology borrowed from the developed thought of the Apostolic preaching. It is in this technical sense that the term is to be understood in Peter’s council speech (Ac 15 7), and in Paul’s farewell ad- dress at Miletus (20 24)—the only instances in which Lk uses the word in either of his writings. For it he substitutes in his Gospel the cognate verb (etayyeXl- a EE i ee ~< a) o. mn pet ee. ome Z EN le Seed errs —— 4. - mn Mee STS 1 re 309 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Goodman Gospel tecbat, ‘to announce good news’), using it mostly in connections where to his mind the primary idea of heralding the good news is present (e.g., 318, 418, 7 22; cf. Mt ||). Such connections are also clear in certain Acts passages (e.g., 812, 25). At the same time, when the verb is used in connection with objective truths, or distinctive messages, there is an evident tech- nical meaning, which is most apparent in Ac, where it seems to represent the formulated Apostolic preaching (e.g., 5 42, 11 20, 14 15, 17 18). It is quite natural, therefore, that in the Epistles both noun and verb should appear almost constantly in their technical meanings (e.g. [edayyéAtoy], Ro 1 16, 15 16; I Co 9 23; II Co 913, 11 4; Gal 1 6f£., 2.5, 7, 14; Col 15, 23; 11 This; II Ti 18;1 Pe4 17; [edayyertecbat], Ro 115; I Co 9 16, 18; Gal 1, 16, 23; I P 46), and that there should be meanings developed beyond this, as (a) of the distinctively Pauline gospel (e.g. [edayyértov], Ro 2 16, 16 25; II Co 43; Gal1i1, 2 2,7; I Th 15; Il Th 214; 1 Tilsu; IL Ti 2 8; [edayyer- CecOat], [Co 151f.; Gal 1 8f., 11—which throw light on the peculiarly Pauline meaning to be given to such passages as Gal 2 5, 14; Eph 1 13, 3 6, 8, 619; Ph 1 27; Col 1 23); (b) of the general gospel, in the adminis- trative sense of the dispensation, or the service characteristic of gospel times (e.g. [edayyéAtov], Ro 11,9; I Co 912, 14; Ph 15, 7, 12, 16; Phm ver. 13); (c) of the gospel in a written form ([edayyéAtov], Rev 14 6). The solitary passage I Th 3 6 shows how generally in the N T the early literary usage of the word had disappeared. The foregoing induction of the usage of the term ‘gospel’ makes clear the sense in which it is applied to the canonical narratives of the ministry of Jesus, and leads the way to the following consideration of the process by which the message and mission of Jesus came into written form, and the characteriza- tion of Jesus which this form presents. II. GospxE.s. 2. The Process from Oral Tradition to Written Gospels. Behind the written gospel narra- tives stood the oral tradition of Jesus’ life and teachings. This had its origin in the reports which were spread abroad concerning Him, while His ministry was yet in progress, and crystallized into the testimony regarding Him which followed upon that ministry’s completion. The formal expression of this testimony was in the Apostolic preaching, the basis of which was the story of Jesus, as culminating in His death and resurrection (cf. Ac 2 22-32, 10 36-41, 13 23-31, 17 18). Naturally, this oral record of the ministry of Jesus was more or less fragmentary. It did not record all there was to record. It dwelt on certain parts of His life, certain phases of His teaching. This was as true of the formal Apostolic preaching as it was of the informal reminiscences of the disciples. Naturally also, as the gospel generation aged, this oral and fragmentary character of its record was felt to be imperfect, and created the desire to have in more permanent and completed form what it had pre- served of the past. As a result, these oral records came to be committed to writing, at first in frag- mentary form (cf. Lk 11f.), then as more collected, until there were evolved the gospel narratives, as we have them in the N T (cf. Lk 1 2-4). 3. Literary Character and Purpose of the Gospels. In all this development, however, the writing fol- lowed the form of antiquity, which had no idea of biography as we understand it to-day, but was at most a selection of a few great deeds, or sayings, or discoveries, especially at the close of the life; conse- quently, when our Gospels came to be written, their form was that of brief memoirs rather than of formal biographies. It can easily be understood, therefore, that this process was at no time strictly historical. The motive of the disciples in their oral reminiscences, of the Apostles in their formal preach- ing and of the Evangelists in their Gospels was not so much to make a record of the past as to make an impression on the present. Luke’s Gospel is the nearest approach to a conscious historical effort, and yet 1 4 shows that it was written for Theophilus as one who had been favorably impressed with the religion of Jesus and whom Luke wished by his writing to strengthen in his impression; (cf. also Jn 20 3f.). Their motive was primarily evangelistic. In fact, however much their experience of Jesus’ per- sonal self may have made them lovingly retain in their memory the things He had said and done, it was on the future rather than the past that they dwelt; for He had left them with the promise of a personal return to earth to consummate His work. For this return they themselves waited with keen expectancy, and against its coming they sought to win the world to a faith in their Lord (cf. I Thlot.; Ac 17 30f.). Our Gospels are thus not so much the records of history as they are the impressions of experience. That we have four Gospels, therefore, is not due to repeated efforts to give an accurate nar- rative of the life and teaching of Jesus, but to the individual desire with each writer to present Jesus Himself through what He had said and done in a way to meet the special evangelistic needs which con- fronted him individually in his own particular work. Consequently, we are not surprized to find these Gospels differing greatly among themselves. Mat- thew presents the Master from the view-point of fulfilled prophecy, to appeal to Jewish minds. Mark presents Him from the point of the Apostolic preach- ing outside of Jewish circles, to meet the Gentile mind. Luke, more nearly than any of the others, presents Him from the point of investigated facts, to influence the mind of a cultured man of rank. John, most of all, presents Him from the point of a meditated experience, to meet the needs of troubled faith. And yet, in spite of these wide differences, there is a necessary community among the Gospels, from the common subject they present—and es- pecially among the first three Gospels, from the fact that they present this subject in a common way, going over the same portion of the Ministry and with the same general outline of events, so that a com- bined survey of their narratives is necessary in order to secure an understanding of the history (see Jiilicher, N T Introduction, Eng. transl., 1904, p. 293; Milligan, N 7 Documents (1913), p. 182, note). For this reason they are called the Synoptic Gospels. Gospel Grace 4. Outline of Composite Narrative. The composite narrative presented by the four Gospels is briefly as follows: Following the introductory material given by Jn, Mt and Lk (Prolog [Jn 1 1-18]; Genealogies [Mt 1 1-17; Lk 3 23-38], Annunciation and Birth of Baptist and of Jesus [Mt 1 18%; Lk ] 5-3, 57-80, 2 1-20], Karly Years of Jesus [Mt 2 13716, 19-23; Lk 2 3882]) is a pre- liminary narrative, consisting of a description of the ministry of the Baptist, culminating in the induction of Jesus into His public ministry, through His Baptism and Temptation (Mk 1 1-13, and |\s). There then follows a record of Jesus’ presence in Judea in the region of the Baptist’s work, where there came to Him from the following of the Baptist His first disciples (Jn 1 19-51), After this is a note of a short visit to Galilee (Jn 2! f.) from which He returns for this first official visit to Jerusalem (2 13-3 2). There is then noted His retirement to the region of the Baptist’s ministry, where He remains until His departure to Galilee (Jn 3 22-4 45). Then follows the record of His ministry - in Galilee, beginning with a visit to His home in Nazareth from which place He withdraws to Capernaum (Mt 4 18)), where He formally attaches to Himself a discipleship, and makes the place a center from which His work is carried on (Mk 1 164, and lis). As far as this work is represented as following any dis- tinctive method it is that of preaching tours through the sur- rounding country, with a return to the home city. Mk and Lk record such a tour soon after His coming to Capernaum (Mk 1 85-39, and Lk ||; probably Mk 1 4° and Lk 5 12-16 belong to this tour. It was confined, apparently, to the villages of the im- mediate neighborhood and was of short duration, being fol- lowed by a considerable period of activity in Capernaum itself, which excited increasingly the hostility of the Scribes and Pharisees (Mk 2 178 [3 1-6 (?)}, 3 7-12, and |/s). There is given then, in evident preparation for a more extended tour, the formal appointment of the Twelve to their service in His ministry (Mk 3 13719a, and ||s), with its accompanying discourse (the Sermon on the Mount [Mt 51-81, and Lk |l]). This is fol- lowed by one or two selected incidents from the tour (Lk 7 19, and Mt ||s), leading up to the incident of the healing of the blind and dumb demoniac on the return to Capernaum (Mk 3 19b-30, and Mt ||). This is presented as significant in its arousal of popular enthusiasm to an open acclaim of Jesus as the Mes- sianic Son of David and the meeting of this claim by the Scribes and Pharisees with the countercharge of Beelzebul (Mt 12 22-24: Mk 3 22; Lk 11 14 f.), the outcome of which conflict was a tendency among His hearers to separate into receptive and hos- tile groups (Mk 3 41-35, and ||s; Mt 12 38-0, and Lk |]; Lk 11 38, 8 18-21), There is then given an account of a day of parable teach- ing by the seaside at Capernaum (Mk 4 1-*4, and |ls), by which method Jesus is represented as having sought to encourage this grouping tendency of His hearers (Mk 4 1912, and ||s). Follow- ing this is the account of a departure of Jesus and His disciples across the lake, a brief stay in the Gentile region of Gerasa, and a return to further activity at Capernaum and a second visit to Nazareth, where He offended the national pride of the people who attempted to take His life. (Mk 4 %-6 6, and |s [including Lk 4 1680]), A third teaching tour is then recorded, which seems to have issued in a sending out of the Twelve on a more extended mission, while Jesus continued His restricted work (Mk 6 6713, and ||s). Upon the return of the Twelve, Jesus, hearing of the death of the Baptist, departed with them across the lake out of Herod’s territory where they were followed by the multitude, which He miraculously fed (Mk 6 30-46, and ||s, including Jn 6 116), The miracle having roused the nationalism of the multi- tude He returns to Capernaum and in the Synagog confronts the people with the spiritual character of His message and mission, the result of which is a general defection of his Galelean follow- ing (Jn 6 1671), The narrative then brings Jesus to Jerusalem, where a discourse following a Sabbath miracle results in a hostility which threatens His life (Jn ch. 5, 7 5-24, 8 12-20), He is next found with His disciples in the regions of Tyre and Sidon, and the Decapolis, through a period of restricted activity (Mk 6 47-86, 7 4-§ 2% and ||s), toward the close of which He called forth from His disciples a confession of their belief in His spirit- ual Messiahship, on the basis of which He made His first an- nouncement to them of His coming Passion, and, in the company of the three with whom He was most intimate, was transfigured (Mk 8 27-9 38, and ||s). After the account of a short stay at Capernaum the Synoptic Gospels represent Jesus as having finally departed from Galilee for Jerusalem (Mk 10 1, and ||s), Lk recording, in connection with the journey, an extended ministry of teaching (chs. 10-18), The Fourth Gospel discloses this ministry, however, as broken up into at least two visits to Jerusalem—the first occurring at the Feast of Tabernacles, on which occasion Jesus delivered a discourse resulting in a mur- derous attack upon Him causing His retirement from the City A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY rr 310 (Jn 7 1714, 25-52, 8 21-59); the second at the Feast of Dedication where a notable miracle occasioned another discourse which resulted in a renewed hostility that compelled His withdrawal from the City (Jn chs. 9 and 10). From this retirement He re- turns to Bethany, near Jerusalem, on the death of Lazarus, and after raising him withdraws to Ephraim, a city of Judea (Jn 11 1-4), From that place he comes for His final ministry in Jeru- salem (Mk 11 1-14 9, and {|s; Jn 11 "12 5°), culminating in the Passover with His disciples (Mk 14 42-31, and ||s, including Jn 13 1-3) followed by His farewell discourse and prayer (Jn 31 4- 17 76), the Passion in Gethsemane (Mk 14 %2-#, and ||s), the Betrayal by Judas (Mk 14 48-82, and ||s, including Jn 18 1), the Trial before the Sanhedrin and Pilate (Mk 14 5-15 20, and |\s, in- eluding Jn 18 12-19 16a), the Crucifixion and the Resurrection (Mk 15 21-16 8, and ||s, including Jn 19 16-20 18), There is then given an account of Jesus’ appearances to His disciples after His Resurrection, Matthew confining his narrative to those which took place in Galilee (28 16-20), Luke to those in the neigh- borhood of Jerusalem (24 13-48), John notices only his appearance to the disciples in connection with the experience of Thomas (Jn 20 19-29) and to a portion of them at the Sea of Galilee (Jn 21 1%), Mark, his Gospel ending as it does with the 8th verse, giving no account of them. The general narrative is then closed with an account of the Ascension, given alone by Luke (24 44-53), The characterization of Jesus presented by this narrative is one of strong and irresistible impressive- ness. 3 Announced by angels and supernaturally born, He comes into the world bearing upon Himself all the marks of the unseen universe, and tho little is said of His childhood, and we become really ac- quainted with Him only as He enters upon His public work, we realize, from such record as is given, that His consciousness of Himself is of one who stands separate from those around Him in His communion with God, that it is this consciousness of His spiritual isolation among men that brings Him to a conscious- ness of His Divine mission in the world, that it is in this consciousness that He comes to His baptism as the symbol of His public consecration to His work, and that it is to test this consciousness that the Spirit drives Him into the wilderness to His temp- tation. It is on this understanding of Himself and His work that He enters upon His public ministry, and it is because of Himself and His work so understood that He challenges at once the ceremonialism of the Pharisees and Scribes. He takes up from the begin- ning an attitude of judgment with reference to the ceremonial Law—ignoring it when it symbolized and developed separation between man and God and between man and his fellow man, and observing it in full when it symbolized and effected their com- munion—and at the same time directs His ministry toward the ceremonially unchurched, calling to His discipleship the tax-gatherer, and making clear that it was for the sinner that His ministry of help- fulness was intended. Inevitably this confronts Him with a hostility from the Scribes and Pharisees, and sets in motion two tendencies among His hearers— the one of criticism under the influence of this op- position, the other of sympathy under the power of His personality. To encourage this sympathy, and with the necessary accompaniment of strengthening the criticism, He adopts the parable in His teaching and makes an ever-increasingly clear statement of the personal relationships with Himself which His discipleship demanded. In such a consciousness of Himself and His work, —- 311 A NEW STANDARD and in such assertion of them against the material- ism around Him, He carries on in Galilee and the surrounding regions His ministry of healing and of revelation of the sin of man and of the love of God. From the beginning, however, this consciousness of Himself and His work makes clear to Him that His ministry must not only involve hostility from the materialism of Judaism, but an inevitable develop- ment of his hostility into an open persecution of Himself which can only end in His death. As His Galilean work comes to its close under His spiritual confronting an aroused national Messianism with the spiritual character of His ministry, this con- viction of the outcome of His work becomes increas- ingly strong, and under its influence He turns His face toward Jerusalem, where must be brought to final issue the conflict between the ceremonialism of the nation and His spiritual mission to the world. There He casts aside all reserve; face to face with His enemies He makes plain His Messianic claims, and shows with unmistakable clearness the national consequence of their rejection, while He gathers closer to Himself His disciples and, as far as it was possible to their unaroused conceptions, prepares them for the result. With the calmness of this great consciousness of all He was in Himself and of all His mission meant for the world, He comes to His Passion and His death. From the beginning He had shown the personal relations to Himself which His discipleship involved. Increasingly He had laid emphasis upon that faith without which that discipleship could not issue in acceptance with God, and now as the end came in His death it was this same personal relationship between Himself and His disciples that gave it all its significance as the only way to that forgiveness of sin and reforming of life which was the object of all He had come to do. To some conception of His personality and of their personal relation to Himself in their salvation the disciples apparently came during His ministry, more clearly doubtless through the instruction given them by Jesus during the period of His presence with them after the Resurrection, tho it is evident that their final comprehension of it came from that un- derstanding of His redemptive relation to them which gradually resulted from their maturing spiritual experience. This conception of Jesus is what lies before us, then, in these Gospels—the conception of a man among men, possessed of all the qualities of humanity, its frailties of body, its sympathies of heart, its powers of mind, but lacking that one com- mon element of sinfulness, not only in the manifesta- tions of life, but in the consciousness of soul, that marked Him out as separated from them all and gave Him thus the isolated right beyond any mere Messianic meaning to the title ‘Son of God.’ (For the literary interrelation of the Gospels see THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM.) Lirprature: Generally in the larger N T Introductions will be found in connection with the criticism of the Gospels some reference to the need and growth of Gospel writing (see especially Zahn, N 7 Introd. [1917] § 48). But a fuller treat- ment of this process is given in Moffatt’s “‘The Development of N T Literature,” in Peake’s Commentary onthe Bible (1919); also in his Approach to the N T (1921) ch. Il. Cf. Wrede, The Origin of the N T. (1909) and Sanday’s art.‘*The Bible,” in ERE, pp. 574-6. See also APPROACH TO THE BrBxz, II. M.W.J. Gospel Grace BIBLE: DICTIONARY GO TO: An expression, now obsolete, found eleven times in AY. It corresponds to our modern hortatory ‘come,’ which RV gives instead in Gn 11 3-7, 38 16; Ec 21; Ja 413, 51. In other cases RV omits it as an unnecessary addition (Jg 7 3; IT K 55; Jer 18 11; Is 55). GOURD. See Foon, § 3; Patusring, § 23. GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENTS: the term in Is 9 6 means properly ‘princely’ or ‘royal author- ity. On II P 210 cf. RV. On I Co 12 28, and for the organization of the early Church, see Cuurcu, § 7. For the different forms of government in ancient Israel, see ISRAEL. GOVERNOR: In the O T the one word that properly means ‘governor’ is pehah, used chiefly in the documents of the Persian period (Ezr, Neh, Hag, Mal). It signifies (in the Bible) both the ‘satrap,’ or ‘governor,’ of one of the main subdivisions of the Persian Empire (e.g., Ezr 5 3, Tattenai, who was satrap of the region W. of the Euphrates), or the governor of a subdivision of a satrapy (e.g., Judah, of which Nehemiah was pehdah; cf. Neh 514). In both cases the appointment was made directly by the king. The functions of the governors of the smaller provinces were administrative and civil rather than military. The word “Tirshatha’ (Ezr 2°63, etc., AV) is a Persian term, the equivalent of pehah. Other O T terms rendered ‘governor’ are expressive of leadership, or authority, but are not of technical significance. In the N T Pilate is called ‘governor’ of Judea, Felix and Festus of all Palestine, with their head- quarters at Cesarea. The Gr. term is fyepoy, standing for the Latin procurator, 7.e., a governor of a far town, or unruly country, appointed directly by the emperor, and who was only partially subordinate to the Imperial legate of the province, to which his district belonged. Such ‘governors’ were usually of equestrian rank, Felix, a freedman, being an excep- tion to this rule (see Schiirer, I, 1, pp. 43-48). Qui- rinus (‘Cyrenius,’ Lk 2 2) was an Imperial legate,not a procurator, of the large Province of Syria. On II Co 11 32 see AkETAS. On Ja34cf. RV. In Gal 4 2 ‘steward’ (‘governor’ AV) is the overseer of the household. HE. E. N. GOZAN, g6’zan (1!'3, gézan): A district on the river Habor in Mesopotamia. After several revolts it was finally reduced to submission by Asshurdan of Assyria c. 760 B.c. (Schrader, KAT?, p. 48). It was one of the provinces of the Assyrian Empire to which the captives of N. Israel were deported in 722 B.c. (II K 17 6, 1811, 19 12; I Ch 5 26; Is a 12). 3 KH. E. N. GRACE: The rendering of two Heb. (hén, thin- nah) and two Gr. (yéets, edreéxetx) words. I. General: In the main, two leading ideas are repre- sented by the Eng. term: (1) The objective idea of ‘outward grace,’ or ‘beauty,’ and (2) the subjective idea of ‘personal kindness,’ or ‘favor.’ In the O T the former is represented, with two exceptions, in all the passages in which RV retains the term ‘grace,’ the Heb. being hén (Ps 45 2, 8411; Pr 19, 3 22, 49, 22 11; Zec 47, 1210). In the excepted passages (Ezr 98; Pr 8 34) the latter is represented, the Heb. being Grace Greece A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 312 in Ear thinnah, and in Pr hén. In the passages where AV rendered hén by ‘grace,’ RV has substi- tuted ‘favor’ (Gn 6 8, etc.; Ex 338 12, etc.; Nu 32 5; Jg 617; Ru 2 2, 10; 1S 118, etc.; IZ S 14 22; Est 2 17; Jer 312). Inthe N T the term ‘grace’ is abundantly used, both ideas being represented, and the term receiving a large development along the line of the latter. Practically but one Gr. word (xyéets) is em- ployed throughout, the exception being the passage Ja 1 11, where edrpéxere might have been better rendered ‘beauty’ or ‘shapeliness.’ II. Particular: In N T usage we have the objective idea in such passages as Lk 4 22 and Col 46. The subjective idea, in general, is found in Lk 2 52 ‘favor’ EVV; Eph 4 29. This idea is enlarged, however, in the direction of emphasizing the undeserved nature of the kindness, or favor, shown (e.g., Lk 1 30), but more specifically, as characterizing the favor shown by God in His redemptive work (e.g., Ro 4 4, 16, where yaers is contrasted with dgetAnucz, 11 6, where the contrast is with é§ geywy, and Eph 2 8, where the contrast is with ¢& Syev; cf. also II Co 89). Natur- ally, from this Gospel use of the term, we have a further enlargement in the direction of designating the spiritual force exerted by God upon those who are receptive to His work (e.g., Jn 1 16; Ac 11 23; II Co 61, 914, 129; I Ti 114; II Ti 21; He 416), which is further broadened out to include the special gifts of life by which God renders men capable of His service (e.g., Ro 15; Gal 29; I Co1 4, 310; Ph17). The combination of these two usages is seen conspicu- ously in such a passage as I Co 15 10 (cf. also II Co 98). So the word is used of the results of this Divine energizing—generally, as representing the state and condition of spiritual life into which its recipients come (e.g., II P 3 18; cf. also Ro 5 2), or, specifically, as designating some particular phase of spiritual life, brought to manifestation in them (eg., Ac 13 43; II Co 8 1-7, 19). In Col 3 16 the reference may be generally to this state of Christian grace, or, specif- ically, to that phase of it which might be better rendered ‘thankfulness.’ (For the use in the N T of yéers to designate ‘thanks’ cf. Lk 179; I Co 10 30; II Co 9 15.) Viewed in the light of this special Gospel meaning, grace finds its source in God’s love to man. Paul tells the Ephesians in that characteristically soterio- logical letter that ‘God being rich in mercy, because of the great love wherewith He loved us, even when we were dead through our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ,’ and then adds, as a brief summary of that statement, ‘by grace have ye been saved’ (2 4£.; cf. Jn 3 16; Ro 58; II Th 216). Asto its content, it consists in providing for man a plan of salvation with which it is possible for him to fall in. In this same Epistle the Apostle says, ‘By grace have ye been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God’ (2 8), in which he characterizes the way in which they have been redeemed as one not based upon their own righteous- ness, a condition they could never fulfil, but upon the gracious provision of God, made effective, sub- jectively, by that faith in Christ which it was always possible for them to exercise, if they would (Jn 5 40, 6 37). As to its process, it does no violence to the human spirit, but works upon it, negatively, in devitalizing those impulses and forces which make it easy for the will to move away from God and, positively, in vitalizing those which make it easy for the will to move toward God. ‘With fear and trembling,’ Paul wrote to the Philippians, ‘work out the salvation you have received from God, for it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do’ (213; ef. I Co 1510; He 13 21). Naturally, therefore, when it has been admitted by the receptive soul within itself, its energizing establishes a condition of that soul which most properly is termed a state of grace, and which can be increased in its effectiveness by the soul’s own cooperation (II P 3 18), or des- troyed by its resistance (II Co 61). See also Gop, § 2. M. W. J. GRACE, MERCY, AND PEACE. See Epistriez. GRACIOUS: This word is the rendering of (1) the” Heb. noun hén, ‘grace,’ in the construct form, e.g., ‘a woman of grace,’ ‘gracious woman’ (Pr 11 16); ‘words ... of grace’ (He 1012). (2) Of hdnan, in the sense of ‘charming,’ ‘winning’ (Jer 22 23 AV; but ‘to be pitied’ RV, and ‘how wilt thou groan’ ERV- mg.). (3) Generally of haénan and hanniin, ‘gracious,’ always of God, to designate His exercise of mercy. (4) Of tobh, ‘good’ (Hos 14 2 AV; cf. RV). (5) Of xzertos, Gen. of xkers (Lk 4 22 AV, but ‘of grace’ RV). (6) Of xenotés, ‘serviceable,’ ‘useful’ (I P 23). PNAS Oa GRAIN, GRAINS. See Pauzusrina, § 23; Aari- CULTURE, §§ 4-6; and Foon, § 1. GRAPE, GRAPES, WILD GRAPES. general VINES AND VINTAGE. GRASS: The word ‘grass’ is used in a somewhat comprehensive sense in the EVV. It is the render- ing of four Heb. and one Gr. terms. (1) Of deshe’ (e.g., Gn 1 11), the ‘fresh,’ ‘tender grass.’ (2) Of hatsir, apparently of grass when in full growth (I K 18 5, etc.). (3) Of yereq, the ‘green’ grass (Nu 22 4). (4) Of ‘ésebh, which signifies the ‘herb’ that bears seed, t.e., grain (cf. Gn 1 11, 29), but is used in quite a general sense, including grasses, both those that bear grain and those that are suitable only for fod- der, herbs, and vegetables. (5) of yé6etos, which may mean either green grass (Mk 6 39, ete.) or the stalk with the head of grain (cf. Mt 13 26). HK. E. N. See in GRASSHOPPER. See Locust. GRATE, GRATING. See Atrar, § 2. GRAVE, GRAVE-CLOTHES. See Buriat AnD Burrau Cusroms, §§ 1, 5, 6. GRAVE, GRAVEN, GRAVING. Lirg, §§ 3-5; and Mxrrats, § 1. GRAVING TOOL. See Merats, § 1. GREAT OWL. See Pauzstine, § 25. GREAT SEA. See MrEpITERRANEAN SEA. GREAVES. See Arms AND Armor, § 10. GRECIANS, GREEKS. See Greece. GREECE. 1. Natural Features. Adcient Greece was bounded on the N. by Macedonia and Illyria, on the E. by the Aigean Sea, and on the W. by the Ionian Sea. Its greatest length from Mt. Olympus See ARTIZAN 313 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Grace Greece to Cape Matapan was about 250 m., but it varied greatly in width. To this continental Greece must be added many islands in the Aigean and Ionian seas, as well as numerous colonies in Asia Minor, Thrace, the Black Sea region, Sicily, S. Italy, France, and N. Africa, for much of the influence of Greece on the world came through these islands and colonies. The Greeks themselves called their country Hellas— originally a small territory in S. Thessaly—and they spoke of themselves as Hellenes. The name Greeks (Greci) came to us through the Romans, who heard the name Ipatxof in S. Italy, whither it had come from Illyria. See also EranocrapHy AND ETrH- NOLOGY, §§ 6 and 138 under Javan. 2. Influence of the Natural Features on the National Character. G. is so covered by ramifica- tions of mountains that but little of its surface is left for plains and valleys. These mountains are the distinctive features of the inland landscape. The national character was molded in great measure by the mountains. Being mountainous, Greece is also very rocky, and the stones of Greece had a great influence on the national institutions. They not only promoted city life by insuring the safety of the dwellers within the city walls, but, being chiefly marble, they made Greek architecture and sculpture possible. Again, mountains are natural barriers, but since the rivers of Greece were not large enough to serve as means of transit, land traffic between towns and between the land-locked mountain valleys was difficult. Nature herself ordained that Greece should be socially and politically disunited, and it was primarily because of its mountains that Greece never became a united state. But the great extent of the seacoast and the easy accessibility from the sea to any part of the interior counteracted the difficulties of transit by land. The coast-line is deeply indented with bays and inlets, affording safe harbors. Therefore the determining element in Greek geography was, not the mountains, but the sea, which the Greeks thought of as a bridge, or means of passage. All Greek colonies were situated on the sea; intercommunication was by the sea, which was necessary not only for commerce, but for the transmission of ideas and for progress in general. The dwellers in inland cities were conservative, rustic, courageous, full of endurance, sterile of imagination, hostile to innovations, narrow in their sympathies and ideas, tenacious of ancient habits. The dwellers in the sea-towns were progressive, tolerant, active, eager for gain, ready for innovation and revolution, daring at sea, full of imagination, fickle in character, given to pomp and luxury, open to refining influences, delicate in taste and intellec- tual sympathy. As the configuration of Greece kept the country disunited and perpetuated separate autonomy, so the smallest town was an autonomous unit. But still the Greeks were united for social, religious, recreative, intellectual, and esthetical purposes. Their national games brought the conservative of the interior into close touch with the radical of the sea-town, and the meeting stimulated the observant faculties, and the vagaries of both sections were thereby modified. Greece was the meeting-place of the nations. Ideas and movements emanating from the Orient passed through Greece, where they were assimilated and then recast in the Greek mold, ere they were passed on to the West. 3. The Greek Mind. The most striking charac- teristics of the Greek mind—that is, of Hellenism— were: the variety of its aptitudes, its graceful versatility, combined with unique originality, its vivacity and penetrating keenness, its balanced development of diverse faculties, its reason tem- pered with imagination, sentiment with intelli- gence, passion with reflection; it was supple, subtle, astute, wily, adaptable, discursive and analytical. The Greek thought with acuteness, and imagined with brilliancy; his mind was incapable of entertain- ing the vague, the obscure, or the undefined. Yet his conceptions were moderate and within bounds, and hence his gods were not monsters, but anthro- pomorphic. Greek genius was anthropocentrie as opposed to the theocentric nature of Oriental genius. In contrast to the vague symbolism and love of the colossal in the Orient and the realism of Rome, the genius of Greece was essentially idealistic. ,The Greek was social; he sought out his fellow man, both to receive and to give; he was fond of gossip and facile in conversation; he possessed a great experience of life (seen even in the Epos); he was eminently curlous and inquisitive, in the best sense, about the enigmas of the world, and for that reason he pro- pounded all the great problems and inaugurated all the correct methods. The characteristic excellences of Greek literature are plastic neatness of concep- tion, limpidity, transparency, even in abstruse matters, such as metaphysics, and a marvellous restraint (‘nothing too much’) in conjunction with a self-forgetfulness which contrasts sharply with the more personal and self-conscious element in Roman literature. The Greeks copied nothing slavish- ly. They did employ models, but they recast them and put upon them the imprint of their own individuality and liberty. In their temperament the Greeks were youthful and gay, tho ever sensitive to the miseries of life. They fixed their thoughts on the ideals of youth and beauty; the poetry of life characterized their writings, yet the Greeks had no monopoly of optimism. Just in proportion to their keen response to the joys of life and their passionate attachment to ‘youth and bloom and this delightful world’ they were liable to a deep melancholy. No literature contains more pathetic laments over the sorrows of life, the passing of love, the deceitfulness of hope, and the ruthlessness of death. 4. Greece and Christianity. Inestimable have been the services of Greece to Christianity. Greece especially through her colonies in Asia Minor, Magna Grecia, N. Africa, and Gaul, brought the Mediterranean peoples into mutual relations. She educated and civilized the two conquering empires— Macedon and Rome—which unified the world for the Gospel. She supplied the missionaries of the ‘ew Way’ with a common language such as no other religion ever had for its propaganda. Her philosophy, both in its lofty spirituality and idealism and in its arid criticism, prepared the way of the Lord. The Greeks dedicated their matchless genius Greek Language A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 314 to Christ, which gave Christianity an immense advantage over Mithraism and the religion of the Great Mother which never won their loyalty. They were the first metaphysicians and philosophers of Christianity. It is not an accident that the N T is written in Greek, and that for over two centuries the language of primitive Christianity was almost everywhere Greek. It was the Hellenized world which most eagerly embraced the new faith. It was in a Greek atmosphere, and largely under the in- fluence of the Greek spirit, that the first and greatest reinterpretation of Christianity (Fourth Gospel) was penned, giving a timelessness to the revelation of Jesus which no change of environment can anti- quate, and presenting a view of His personality which so raises Him above the accidents of history that He leads the generations on. Moreover, ‘Hellas the nurse of man complete as man’ was the most eloquent witness for Jesus’ ideal of the whole- ness of life with every rational activity, upon which ideal Oriental asceticism encroached from an early date, but toward which modern Christianity is turning again for self-expression. J. R. S. S.*—S. A. GREEK LANGUAGE (HELLENISTIC AND BIBLICAL GREEK): 1. Comparative Philology. The introduction of historical method into the study of the Greek language was due primarily to the discovery of Sanskrit by Sir William Jones in 1786. But it was not until Bopp published his Verglei- chende Gram:-7«tik in 1857 that the full import of the new discovery was seen. Before that time grammar had been based upon abstract theory, and every- thing that did not conform to the rules laid down was treated as an ‘exception.’ But when the data were examined in the light of the kindred tongues, it was seen that there was an orderly historical develop- ment which can be readily understood even if it can not all be brought under grammatical rules. Brugmann and Delbriick brought modern know- ledge to the history of the subject in the five massive volumes entitled Grundriss der Vergleichenden Grammatik der Indogermanischen Sprachen (lst edition, 1886-1900). The late Albert Thumb, one of the most distinguished workers in this fruitful field, revised and enlarged Brugmann’s Grriechische Gram- matik (1918), a book that every teacher of Greek should know. Giles, Short Manual of Comparative Philology (2d edition, 1910) is the best work for the beginner in this subject. The historical and com- parative method of study has made it possible for us to understand and interpret aright the varied uses of case, preposition, voice, mode, and tense. I. Tue Koine. 2. Origin. The age of the dialects ended with the work of Alexander the Great. He carried the Greek language with him in his conquest of Asia and Egypt. As a result Gréek was current over the entire eastern Mediterranean world from 330 B.c. to 330 a.p. 3. Name. The term Koiné, ‘common,’ is now generally accepted as the name for the Greek lan- guage of this period. It means the Greek that was common to the whole Mediterranean world, not merely the Greek of the common people. Greek became the lingua franca of the time, the one lan- guage besides his native tongue that every one would be likely to know. ‘Hellenistic’ is sometimes employed, but that word is naturally applied to the speech of those not native Greeks, or Hellenes, whereas the word Koiné is applicable to the speech of both Hellenes and Hellenists alike. 4. Relation to Dialects. The base of the Koiné is the Attic, tho the other dialects color the Attic . here and there. The Ionic leaves the strongest mark on the Attic base in forms like oneteng and déoréa, absence of the rough breathing, dropping of y: in verbs like 8:86, while the Doric makes distinct con- tributions like Ads, vabs, &péwvtat (the latter being Arcadian and Jonic also). Northwest Greek fur- nishes forms like A€Auxay, tods Aéyovtes, técaxpes for téscapas. Every country had provincial pecu- liarities of its own, but none of sufficient amount to become a special dialect. Such differences as existed were in pronunciation rather than in anything else. There was one Koiné everywhere (cf. Thumb, Die Griechische Sprache im Zeitalter des Hellenismus, p. 200). 5. Vernacular Koiné. There is always a difference between the vernacular and the literary style. We know from the remains of the vernacular Attic preserved in literature and especially in inscriptions that it differed much from the literary Attic. (Meisterhans-Schwyzer, Grammatik der Attischen In- schriften, 3 Aufl. 1900.) The vernacular may be written as well as spoken, and there are many specimens of it in Aristophanes. The vernacular Koiné grew directly out of the vernacular Attic, and the modern Greek vernacular continues the history down to the present day. (Thumb-Angus, Hand- book of the Modern Greek Vernacular, 1912.) 6. Literary Koiné. The literary Koiné is some- thing of a compromise between the older liter- ary style and the contemporary vernacular. It is found chiefly in the works of Polybius, Plutarch, Philo, Diodorus, and Josephus, the latter being rather a self-conscious example. Xenophon and Aristotle exhibit the later Attic on its way toward the Koiné. 7. Atticism. There were some writers like Dionysius of Halicarnassus and Dio Chrysostom who disdained to write the literary Koiné, and consciously imitated the literary Attic. But this was too artificial to last, and the Atticizing gram- marians, Meeris and Phrynichus, labored in vain. 8. The Inscriptions. The inscriptions furnish invaluable instances of the Koiné idiom in various parts of the Greco-Roman world. They show examples of both the vernacular and the literary Koiné, the decrees being usually in the literary style. Many of the inscriptions are in a formal and stilted phraseology, but they have the distinct advantage for our study of being widespread in both place and date. Besides Boeckh’s Corpus Inscrip- tionum Grecarum, there are numerous handbooks, like that of Hicks and Hill, A Manual of Greek Historical Inscriptions, revised edition, 1901. 9. The Papyri and Ostraca. The papyrus plant in Egypt was a common source for making 315 paper for writing. The material was very brittle and perishable, tho numerous specimens have come to light in Herculaneum, preserved under the ashes from the volcano, as shown by Crénert, Memoria Greca Herculanensis (1903). But the rubbish heaps of Egypt, covered by ages of sand from the desert, have preserved papyri in amazing quantities. Some collections of the papyri have been known for a long time, like the Turin Papyri (1826-27); but it was not until Grenfell and Hunt, Flinders-Petrie, Mahaffy, and others began to publish the results of their discoveries at Hibeh, Faytim, Oxyrhynchus, Tebtunis, and elsewhere in Egypt, that the full significance of the new discoveries began to be appreciated. Almost every year since 1898 has seen one or more volumes published out of the great collections of papyri which have been gathered. The bulk of these writings show the vernacular Koiné of Egypt. Among them one finds love letters, marriage contracts, divorce papers, wills, deeds, receipts, business correspondence, anything and everything that made up the life of the people. Here is the real vernacular Koiné, the language of life. There is great variety in the culture seen in these scraps of paper. Some of the writers are quite ig- norant and make many crass blunders in spelling, as the result of careless pronunciation, or of tenden- cies like itacism which blended ot, e, uv, n, p, ¢ into the one sound of «. Hence one is likely to see any one of these forms anywhere. Prof. W. H. Davis, of Louisville, Kentucky, has found three thousand words in the papyri not in any Greek lexicon. Small portions of the New Testament in Greek, written as early as the 3d cent. a.p., have been found | in the papyri. Excellent handbooks of the Greek papyri are those by Lietzmann, Griechische Papyri, 2 Aufl. (1910), and by Milligan, Greek Papyri (1910), Here and There in the Papyrt (1922). There is now a vast and constantly growing litera- ture on the papyri discoveries. For the grammar of the papyri one can be referred to Mayser’s Gram- matik der Griechischen Papyri. (The first volume, published in 1906, covers Phonology and Accidence only. The second volume is promised soon.) Scraps of pottery called ostraca, which are found in Egypt and elsewhere, preserve specimens of the vernacular Greek of the non-literary and poorer classes who could not afford the papyri. Of these 1,624 are given in Wilcken’s Griechische Ostraka aus Aegypten und Nubien (1889). There is therefore a wealth of material for pre- senting the Koiné, and the characteristics of this really great period of the Greek language are now fairly well known. Besides the works of Mayser, Thumb, and Dieterich, a sketch of the Koiné appears in Moulton’s Prolegomena (ch. 2), and Robertson’s large Grammar of the Greek N T (ch. 3). II. THe SEpruaGInr. 10. Relation to the Koiné. There is no ‘Biblical’ Greek, as the older grammarians spoke of it. There is a Greek Bible, but it is written in the current Koiné, as one would have expected. It is true that the Septuagint is translation Greek, and inevitably shows marks of the Hebrew idiom. The work shows varying degrees of merit, because it was A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Greek Language not all done by one man, nor at one time. There are crudities in it, like goouat &3dvar, ‘I shall give,’ Ta 5 15. But in the main the translation is into the vernacular Koiné of Egypt. Most of the pecu- liarities of the vernacular Koiné appear in the Septuagint, as can be seen in Thackeray’s A Gram- mar of the O T' in Greek (Vol. 1, Introduction, Ortho- graphy and Accidence, 1909) and Helbing’s Gram- matik der Septuaginta (Laut- und Wortlehre, 1907). These two volumes enable one to see the relation between the Septuagint and the Koiné. Swete’s Introduction to the O T in Greek (2d ed., 1914) is still exceedingly useful, as his edition of the Septuagint in three volumes (1887-94) is indispensable. The Selections from the Septuagint (1905) by Conybeare and Stock have a grammar that is antiquated in its outlook. The Concordance to the Septuagint by ’ Hatch and Redpath (1897) is very helpful, as is the larger Cambridge edition of the Septuagint. Ott- ley’s Handbook to the Septuagint (1920) is one of the best of the recent monographs. 11. Relation of LXX. tothe N.T. The relation be- tween the Septuagint and the Greek of the N T is brought out from the old standpoint by Hatch (Essays in Biblical Greek, 1889), from the transi- tional standpoint by Kennedy (Sources of N T Greek, 1895), and from the new point of view by Deissmann (Philology of the Greek Bible, 1908) and by Psichari (Hssaz sur le grec de la Septante, 1908). There is no denying the real influence of the Greek of the Septuagint upon the writers of the N T. Over half the quotations in the N T are from that trans- lation. Luke, who was a Greek, used the Septuagint to such an extent that his own style bears marks of its idioms even when he is not using Semitic sources, like roocébeto teftoy néudaer (Lk 20 12). After a knowledge of the ancient Greek is obtained, the best equipment for the study of the Greek N T is reading in the papyri and in the Septuagint. Thus one will get the real linguistic atmosphere that reap- pears in the N T. Il. Toe New TEestaMent. 12. Recent Contributions to Study of the Greek of the N T. Deissmann published his Bvrbel- studien in 1895 and Neue Bibelstudien in 1897. An English translation of these two books in one volume entitled Bible Studies was made by A. Grieve, and published in 1901. Here for the first time was presented definite proof that the Greek of the Bible is the current Koiné, that of the last three centuries B.c. for the Septuagint, of the first cen- tury A.D. for the New Testament. There had been anticipations of this view before, especially by Lightfoot in 1863. But it is Deissmann who has proved the point beyond controversy. In 1908 Deissmann produced Licht vom Osten, Das Neue Testament und die Neuentdeckten Texte der Hellen- istisch-Rémischen Welt, which was translated by Strachan and appeared in 1910 as Light from the Ancient East. By 1923 Deissmann had thoroughly revised this valuable work which appeared in its ‘Vierte, villig neubearbeitete Auflage mit 83 Abbil- dungen im Text.’ The contribution of Deissmann was mainly in the sphere of lexicography. James Hope Moulton was Greek Language A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 316 the first to make detailed application of the new discovery of Deissmann to the grammar of the Greek New Testament. In 1901 he began to publish in The Classical Review and in the Expositor, ‘Gram- matical Notes from the Papyri’ which attracted attention by their freshness and scholarly insight. In the same year appeared Thumb’s Die Griechische Sprache im Zeitalter des Hellenismus which enabled New Testament scholars to make use of the new knowledge of the Koiné. In 1906 appeared Moul- ton’s brilliant Prolegomena, Vol. I of A Grammar of N T Greek, which reached the third edition by 1908. Moulton fell a victim to a submarine attack on his return from India in 1917. However he had nearly finished Vol. II (Accidence), and made a beginning on the syntax. Prof. W. F. Howard is editing and continuing his work. Two parts of the second volume have been published (1919-20), and the third part on word formation is now practically ready. The third volume on syntax is still to appear. In 1911 L. Radermacher published his Neutestamentliche Grammatik, with many fresh illustrations from the papyri and later Greek writers. In 1908 the Short Grammar of the Greek N T by A. T. Robertson appeared (sixth edition, 1923). It has also been translated into four foreign languages (Dutch, French, German, Italian). In 1914 Robertson’s Grammar of the Greek N T in the Light of Historical Research was published. In 1923 the fourth edition appeared, the third having been thoroughly revised and considerably enlarged (LXXXVI, 1454 pages), with statistical tables by H. Scott. These modern grammars give the Greek of the N T as the current Koiné of the 1st century a.p. In 1921 A. Debrunner published the fifth, carefully revised edition of F. Blass’ Grammatik des Neutestamentlichen Griechisch, in which the work of that famous classicist is revised in the light of the papyri without changing the fundamental standpoint. No new English edition of Blass’ Grammar of N T Greek (tr. by Thackeray) has appeared since 1905. 13. The ‘Hebraistic’ Element in N T Greek: (a) The End of the Controversy between Purists and Hebraists. No longer does any scholar hold that the Greek of the New Testament has to be literary Attic. No more can one say it is intensely He- braistic, except in the Apocalypse of John, which Charles, Revelation of St. John, p. exliii, holds to be ‘absolutely unique’: ‘While he writes in Greek, he thinks in Hebrew.’ It is certain that Moulton, Prolegomena, p. 8, underrates the Hebraisms in the Apocalypse of John, but it is equally clear that Charles overrates them. .The explanation of the peculiar phenomena in the Apocalypse lies in the undoubted Hebraisms plus the rough and more or less uncouth vernacular Koiné, as the papyri amply illustrate. But no one claims that the Greek of the New Testament is a peculiar dialect of Greek. In fact, there are many differences of style in the writers, as one would expect. The phrase ‘Biblical Greek’ now only means the Greek of the Biblical books, as one would speak of the Greek of Plato or of Thucydides. It is only just to say that Winer’s Grammatik desneutestamentlichen Sprachidioms (1822. @ Aufl. by Liinemann, 1867), which was translated by W. F. Moulton (8rd ed., 1882), and by Thayer (1869), has served well the generations before the new discoveries. It is now out of date. The late H. Scott, of Birkenhead, insisted that Buttmann’s Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Sprachgebrauchs (1859. Translated by Thayer, A Grammar of the New Testament Greek, 1880) is a better grammar than that of Winer. But it also is out of date. Schmiedel began a revision of Winer’s work, but has published nothing of it since 1894. (b) Some Semitic Influence. Deissmann and Moulton at first admitted such influence only in ‘translation Greek’ from Semitic sources. But this was going too far, as Deissmann in particular soon saw. ‘There is ‘translation Greek’ in the N T be- yond a doubt. We see it in the Hebrew and Aramaic proper names that are transliterated into Greek. The Aramaic words given in Mk like tade0é, xobu in 5 41 are translated also as td xop&ctoy, gyerpe. It is plain that Jesus usually spoke Aramaic when with those who understood it. The Gospels have trans- lated these Aramaic sources and naturally bear some marks of translation. But Jesus also spoke Greek at times, for Palestine was a bilingual country and people who would not understand Aramaic flocked to hear him from Decapolis, Perea, Tyre and Sidon. In Jerusalem Paul spoke both Greek and Aramaic (Ac 21 37, 40). All the writers of the N T were Jews except Luke. They would naturally read Hebrew and often quote from the Hebrew O T, tho usually from the Septuagint translation. But the constant reading of that intensely Hebraistic translation would influence to some extent the style of those who read it. That is seen particularly in the Gospel of Lk, who, tho a Greek and able to write an intro- duction to his Gospel in literary Koiné on a level with the introductions of Thucydides and other Greek writers, yet at once reveals the Semitic influence of his source, whether oral or written, for the Infancy Narratives (1 5-2 52). The same thing is true of the early part of Ac, whether we accept or not C. C. Torrey’s idea of an original Aramaic document for these chapters. But Lk has occa- sional Hebraisms in his free composition, due, probably, to constant reading of the Septuagint (Septuagintisms). A distinction must be made be- tween Aramaisms and Hebraisms (see Robertson’s Grammar, pp. 102-105). 14. Chiefly Vernacular Koiné. There is a literary element in the N T, as Heinrici has shown, (Der literarische Charakter der neutestamentlichen Schrift- en, 1908). Luke himself is a man of scholarship (cf. Robertson, Luke the Historian in the Light of Research, 1920), and is familiar with the literary art of his time. Paul is also a man of culture, whether or not an actual student of the University of Tarsus. The Epistle to the He is more like the literary Koiné throughout than any other book in the N T, tho the Epistle to Ja has a certain literary finish. The Fourth Gospel seems in the Prolog to show knowledge of gnostic teaching, tho Burney, The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel (1922), argues that the book was originally written in Aramaic. But there is no real support for the view of Blass that the N T writers were conscious 317 imitators of the professional rhetoricians with their artificial linguistic devices, (Die Rhythmen der astanischen und rémischen Kunstprosa, 1905). The papyri prove conclusively that the New Testa- ment writers as a rule used the vernacular Koiné of the time. It was dignified language, not the lan- guage of the street, but the speech of men in dead earnest on the highest of themes. There is eloquence in Paul’s Epistles, as in I Co 13 and 15 and Ro 8, but it is not the studied phrasing of Demosthenes or of Lysias, but the rhythm of a soul on fire and in tune with the Infinite God. There is something in the distinction of Deissmann between letters and epistles, the one familiar and free for private use, the other more formal and for public use, Bible Studies, pp. 3-59; Light from the Ancient East, pp. 217-238. But he overdoes the distinction when he insists that even Ro is a letter, not an epistle. It is not too much to say that the Koiné was better suited to be the permanent storehouse of the N T than the ancient Attic or any of the other dialects. Pre- cisely because it was a world speech adapted to people of all races and degrees of culture it is suited for the world to-day. It was written in the language of life and gripped the hearts of men of the first century, as it still holds the heart of the world. (See ch. 4 of Robertson’s large Grammar, ‘The Place of the N T in the Koiné.’) 15. Peculiarities of N T Greek. (a) Individual Peculiarities. It is not necessary to have a special grammar on each of the N T writers, in spite of the good work done by Abbott, Johannine Vocabulary, (1905); Johannine Grammar (1906), which reflects little of the new learning, but shows much careful research. Nageli has begun a study of Paul’s vocabulary, Der Wortschatz des Apostels Paulus (1905), and J. Weiss has a keen discussion in Beitrége zur paulinischen Rhetorik (1897); Vogel also has a good treatment of Luke’s style in his Zur Charakteristik des Lukas nach Sprache und Stil (1899), while Cadbury’s Style and Literary Method of Luke (1920) concerns mainly his vocabulary as bearing on his use of medical terms. But each writer does have his own style, as is true of any group of great writers upon any great theme. They all wrote the language of life. Some were men of the schools, and others were éyedéupator “at (8:atat, ‘unlearned and ignorant’ (Ac 4 13). (b) Latinisms. It is natural that some Latin words should appear in the New Testament, such as proper names, military terms, court procedure, names of officials, and designations of money. There are more of them in the Gospel of Mark than elsewhere, tho not an excessive number there. This book is sometimes called the Roman Gospel. There are a few Latin idioms that reappear in the New Testament, as in the Koiné (see Robertson’s Grammar, p. 109). (c) Christian Contribution. It was once thought that Christianity called for the invention of a vast humber of new words to express the new message. We now know, thanks to the papyri, the inscrip- tions, and a fuller knowledge of current Greek writings, that this is not true. As a rule, the teachers of the Gospel employed the language of their day, A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Greek Language but charged the words with new meanings. Paul and other early Christians took words like xJetoc, gwtye, utd¢ 8c00, used in flattery in the emperor cult, and boldly applied them to Jesus (See Wendland, Hellenistisch-rémische Kultur (3 Aufl., 1912). ‘There are only fifty Greek words in the New Testament not yet found elsewhere. That number will probably be much reduced. But later Christian writers enriched the Greek vocabulary, especially in compounds and new meanings, as one sees in Sophocles’ Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Period (1888), and Goodspeed’s Index Patristicus (1907), and his Index A pologeticus (1912). 16. Need of a New Lexicon. The needs of students have still to be supplied in some respects by the Thayer-Grimm Greek-English Lexicon of the N T (second edition, 1890), which has none of the new lexical help from papyri and inscriptions. Souter’s Pocket Lexicon of the Greek N T (1916) is a handy statement of the results of modern research.’ Abbott- Smith’s Manual Greek Lexicon of the N T (1922) is much fuller and makes careful use of the Septuagint, as well as of the papyri and inscriptions. There is great help to be found in Moulton and Milligan’s Vocabulary of the Greek N T Illustrated from the Papyri and other Non-literary Sources of which five parts (1914, 1915, 1919, 1920, 1924) have appeared. Cremer’s Biblisch-theologisches Worterbuch was re- vised by Kégel (10 Aufl., 1912), but without any great change in standpoint. There are also recent lexicons in German by Preuschen (1910), and by Ebeling (1913). Preuschen’s work is characterized by Deissmann as ‘a regrettable backward step,’ but the inclusion of the primitive Christian literature makes it useful in that direction. The vast and growing literature of the subject has been sufficiently presented in the body of this article. IV. Spectan CHARACTERISTICS OF THE KOINs. 17. Nouns. The dual number has disappeared entirely in both nouns and verbs. There are still five distinct case endings, while modern Greek has only three, but the vocative has already been largely displaced by the nominative, while the prepon- derance of the dative case is due entirely to the excessive use of the preposition é¢v. The use of the accusative has increased. ei¢ is found for éy, as in Jn 118, and we often find reéc¢ ce for cot. The great extension in the use of the genitive absolute is a noteworthy feature. In the papyri it is often used for a series of statements covering several lines, and it occurs in the N T where in classical Greek there would be assimilation to a noun or pronoun in another part of the sentence, as in Mt 81, 9 18. 18. Pronouns. Personal pronouns are used in abundance, as in the colloquial style of all languages, and therefore lose something of their emphasis. The special pronoun of the third person 04, ot, é, plural ogetc, is not used at all. The reflexive éautod, is used frequently in the plural for the first and second persons as well as the third, and in the accusative plural sometimes stands for the reciprocal é\A%- Rous, I Co 67; Col 316. The indefinite relative Sott¢ appears only in the nominative case and the Greek Language Greek Religion A NEW STANDARD accusative neuter, except for the phrase gw¢ érou, but in these forms is frequently used for the simple relative 6s; Mt 7 26; Lk 24; Ac 85, 1210; I Jn 12. The dual interrogative métepo¢ has disappeared with other duals, and ti¢ is used in its stead, Mk 29. 19. Adjectives. In the adjective also the dis- tinction between duality and plurality has largely disappeared, 7.e., in comparisons the comparative and superlative forms have not both maintained themselves, and it is largely the superlative that is lost. The careful footnotes in the R V to such pas- sages as Mt. 181 and I Co 13 13 are a work of super- erogation. There are still examples of the superla- tive in its absolute sense, corresponding to the English ‘very.’ 20. Verb. The process of assimilation had been goingoninthe verb. The yu verbs were passing over gradually into the w class, a process which has been completed in modern Greek. We find for toryut two w forms, that in -~w and a new formation in -avw. Instead of dbvauat, Sbvacat, etc., there often appears Sbvouat, ddvn. In the compounds of tne we have many cases of the w forms. And there are sporadic occurences in many other of the yt verbs. With the second aorist we find increasingly the «, ¢ endings which are proper to the first aorist. The optative mode had always been a luxury, little used in the vernacular, and entirely gone in modern Greek. In the N T it occurs 67 times, but 59 of these occurrences are in two writers, Luke and Paul. The disuse is more marked in the N T than in the Sept. The so called periphrastic tenses, made up of a participle and the present and imperfect forms of eiul, are largely used. In the syntax of the verb perhaps the most striking thing is the development in the use of tvz, which is no longer confined to pur- pose clauses, but is used with great frequency to introduce substantive clauses giving the content of a preceding statement, where in classical Greek there would have been an infinitive. A good illus- tration is Jn 17 3. 21. Prepositions. More and more it came to be felt that prepositions were needed in addition to the case forms in order to make the meaning clear. But there was another tendency—to use each preposition with a fewer number of cases. perk, meef and bx6 are not found with the dative in the N T, and xpé¢ is found rarely with anything but the accusative. éxt is the only preposition which is still thoroughly at home with all the cases. 22. Particles and Connectives. The great wealth of particles which is so characteristic of Attic Greek has been largely lost. The use of paratactic instead of hypotactic construction, so characteristic of the N 'T, was formerly thought to be a Hebraism. Now it is recognized as merely the loose putting together of ideas which is common to the vernacular of all languages. For the use of the negative a fair working rule is that od is used with the indicative and yw with all other parts of the verb; tho od is found with the participle 16 times in the N T. A. T. R. (§§ 1-16, mainly)—E. C. L. (§§ 17-22). GREEK RELIGION . 1. General Characteristics. Greek Religion was the expression, esthetically, morally, and intellectually, of a gifted race, and, BIBLE DICTIONARY 318 like themselves, a fusion of Nordic, Aryan, and Mediterranean cultures. It was marked by freedom from tradition; the absence of sacerdotalism, fanati- cism, and proselytism; by fluidity of dogma; an immense variety of cults, due to local worships and to the failure of the Greeks to attain nationalism, and yet bearing a certain common Hellenic char- acter; by a closer association with art than any other religion ever secured. It abounded in etiological myths, and by means of allegorization, it displayed an extraordinary power of adaptation. It moved between the poles of anthropomorphic polytheism— the strongest religious bias of the Greeks, which made their religion rich in humanized persounalities— and a monistic pantheism, which always fascinated Greek thought. It was on the whole a bright re- ligion, Apollo, the ever-youthful and shining one, being, perhaps, its characteristic divinity. The. Greeks were never a ghost-ridden people, like the neighboring Semites and Romans, until they fell under the spell of Oriental polyd#monism in the Greco-Roman period. Their religious history extends over a period of two thousand years, during which it passed, without violent cataclasms, through an evolution in consonance with the education and refinement of the Greek spirit. This evolution may be thus sketched: 2. Pre-Homeric Period. This comprises mainly the second millenium B.c., during which the Greeks themselves were in the making. The preanthropo- morphic and aniconic (7.e., worship without temple- images, but in fetishistic objects like the tree, tree- trunk, wooden pillar, and detylus or stone-pillar) hardly concerns us. The Aryan invaders entering the Balkan peninsula from the North had already arrived at the conception of some common prominent personal divinities, such as Zeus, Poseidon, and Apollo, when they confronted the Mediterranean stock in Crete and the Agean islands. It is also reasonable to assume that they had, like their Eastern Aryan cousins, evolved one supreme personal Sky-God. And tho female deities, and even the Mother or Earth-goddess, are of Aryan origin, the male deity held premier place among the Aryans when they came into contact with an advanced Minoan-Mycenean culture in which the female deities were prominent, e.g. the ‘Mother’ goddess of Crete, and which probably gave to the invaders Athena, Artemis, Aphrodite. Ritual had already been so specialized as to require priesthoods. This period presents a cruder side in traces of therio- morphism (e.g., Apollo Lykeios of Argos) or even theriolatry, beside anthropomorphism, the practise of magic, polydemonism, or functional-deities, animism, human sacrifices, and of hero-cults which assumed such proportions in later paganism. These more primitive views manifested a wonderful per- sistence. 3. The Homeric Religion, well-known to us in the Homeric poems and works of Hesiod, which repre- sent a religion of the beginning of tne first millen- nium B.c. In it anthropomorphism has ripened into an advanced polytheism: the Gods of the Greek pantheon have become clear concrete individuals in a nominal hierarchy under Zeus (Jupiter), ‘Father of 319 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Greek Language Greek Religion Gods and men,’ with some vague demones and dark underworld powers. They are elevated human be- ings with passions and jealousies. Yet the concep- tion of morality is growing apace, as evidenced in the increasing hesitation to ascribe base conduct or acts of injustice to deity. The relations of men to deity are on lines of reward and retribution, and are on the whole genial. The sacrifice is not a bribe but a ritual act of communion. This classic religion did not dwell on the thought of an afterlife, or continuity of moral existence, except for egregious sinners and heroic saints. The lowliest lot here was preferable to the shadowy existence in the realms of Death. And the divinities of the underworld, such as Demeter, are beneficent vegetation powers. 4. Post-Homeric, 9th to middle of 7th cent., dur- ing which (a) image-worship has definitely super- seded the aniconic cult or fetish agalma, and flowered into a full-blown idolatry intensifying the anthropo- morphic polytheism. (b) The rise of the polis or city-state, with a political religion fostering civic virtues, in which the religious unit was the state rather than the individual, the latter joining in the cult not primarily for the good of his soul but for the health of the state with which were inextricably bound his weal and wo. (c) The coming of Diony- sus-cult from the North, Thrace and Macedonia, which, probably as early as the 10th cent., began to penetrate the peninsula, and later forced its way into Thebes and Athens, and secured the sympathy of the Delphic oracle, was an epoch-making event in Greek religion, not only as the first introduction of the ecstatic and mystic element into the West, with a warmer and emotional faith, but because this cult was the first to offer an eschatology. It was the first sponsor of the idea of sacramental grace to the West and of a revolutionary conception of communion with deity by identification or diviniza- tion; as a corollary it demanded an esoteric worship. It also presented a new idea of divine personality both in its vagueness and in its facility for incarna- tions. In the heart of the ritual stood the birth and passion of the deity,—prophetic of much religious thinking for the coming centuries. The Dionysiac cult was also the harbinger of a non-political religion, which Orphism iater developed. (d) The rise of the Delphic oracle, which, through its priesthood, played a momentous part in that Greek colonization which changed the character of the Mediterranean world, in its coordinating influence on Greek polytheism, in developing to a certain extent a Greek conscious- ness of nationality, in the extension of moral ideas and political justice, in appointing penalties for crime and exacting a katharsis for homicide. By its vacillating policy in the struggle with Persia and the suspicion of ‘Laconizing’ in the Peloponnesian war, the oracle lost its prestige, which it never recovered save for a brief period in the early Chris- tian centuries. (e) The Eleusinian Mysteries, originally a local secret society for agrarian purposes, became part of the Athenian state-religion of the incorporation of Eleusis with Athens in the 8th cent. Through the coming of Demeter, the association of Iacchos and his consequent identification with Dionysus, and the wise policy of the Pisistratids in the 6th cent., these Mysteries became pan-Hellenic and of the loftiest spiritual value. Already in the 7th cent. the Hymn to Demeter indicates their high prestige. In later centuries they became ecumenical, and Eleusis ‘a common sanctuary of the whole world’ (Aristides). They proved to the later Greco- Roman world one of the chief supports of the hope of immortality. ‘Thanks to the lovely Mysteries given us by the gods; Death is for us mortals no longer an evil but a blessing’ is the testimony of an inscription unearthed on the spot. 5. The great Revival of the 7th-6th centuries, as- sociated with the name of the legendary Orpheus. Orphism introduced a note of mysticism which re- sounds to this day in the religion of the West. It proclaimed for the first time in the West the doctrine of a fall, with the stain of original sin, the divine origin of the soul, the duality of man’s nature as compact of Dionysiac or heavenly and Titanic or evil elements, the necessity for purity here in order to escape the cycle of reincarnation, and an awful Purgatory hereafter. The chief services of Orphism were the substitution of personal religion for political religion, and its unambiguous protest against gentile religion—prophetic of the coming era of individual- ism; the consequent founding of those religious guilds which, from the days of Alexander, have been the greatest religious momenta in history, with their voluntary spirit and the duty of self-diffusion; the refining, and adaptation to the Greek mind, of the orgiastic Dionysiac cult; and the strong hope of a blessed hereafter, which appealed to Plato, furnish- ing him with arguments for the eternity of the soul in the Phedrus. 6. The Period of Enlightenment, as it may be termed, overlapping the close of the previous period and extending to the middle of the 4th cent. The cramping authority of the polis provoked the inevit- able reaction. The chief factors of disintegration were the Ionian philosophy in the 6th cent. and the Sophists and the Peloponnesian war in the 5th. An antidote to the mystic spirit of Orphism was sup- plied by the rise of European speculative thought in Tonia, which affected Greek religion by drawing the attention from political to physical science, by ad- umbrating a unitary principle which was to contri- bute to the monistic or pantheistic monotheism of latest Greek thought, and by disputing the regnant anthropomorphism by the juxtaposition of a meta- physical power or spiritual principle. It saved Greece from falling a prey to the sacerdotalism threatened by Orphism, and secured for her the brilliant career in philosophy which the mysticism of Orphism would have rendered impossible. The Sophists questioned all authority, and by their skeptical and eristic doctrines undermined accepted epistemology. By their theory of relativity they were the apostles of that ubiquitous individualism, so marked a feature of later Greco-Roman religious life. Thus they weakened the polis-civilization. Finally, the Peloponnesian war exposed the weak- ness and perils of the city-state with a political religion. The Greek drama of the 5th cent. was one of the potent educative forces of the Greek spirit. #eschylus probed the dark problem of Fate and Greek Religion Guest moral responsibility. Sophocles presented not only the all-seeing justice of the Deity but equally his mercy, and did for the Greeks what the author of Job did for the Jews in demonstrating the moral, and not merely retributive, meaning of human suffer- ing. Euripides was the prophet of a new age of criticism of traditional polytheism, of the demand that the gods should justify their ways to men, of a comprehensive humanitarianism which could feel the agony of captive Trojans, and of a deeper insight into ethical purity. Plato—still one of the unspent spiritual forces of the world—presented a view of the spiritual and ideal world which can never be lost to mankind. For him man is ‘a heavenly plant and not of earth,’ the ‘spectator of all time and all existence,’ for whom the only reality lies in the ideal and hea- venly things, of which the things of earth are but faint copies, and of which the soul, by its divine origin, possesses an innate knowledge, whereby it is ever seeking to detach itself from sense to escape to its homeland. The moral life of man is a gigantic conflict, for ‘fair is the prize, and the hope great, and the venture glorious.’ Touched by the mystic spirit and other worldliness of the Orphic faith Plato made ‘the noblest single offering that human reason has yet laid on the altar of human hope.’ 7. The Greco-Roman Period, which may be dated from Alexander to Plotinus, or to the closing of the schools of Athens by Justinian. (a) Alexander produced as great a revolution in religion as in politics. By his far-sighted policy of the ‘marriage of East and West’ he promoted that active theocrasia or syncretism in religious matters which gave the Oriental religions a firm foothold in the West and proved a potent factor in early Christianity. By making all members of one empire he necessitated the rise of a universal religion. His striking per- sonality gave a fresh impetus to apotheosis and pre- pared the way for the imperial cult which challenged Christianity. By releasing men from the polis- religion he opened wide the way for personal religion, which gave the mightiest impulse to those thiast or religious brotherhoods in which the voluntary prin- ciple of worship has operated to our day. (b) The Oriental Mystery-Religions, some of which had more than a century previously gained a footing on Greek soil, entered upon their long career, in the course of which they imposed on the West a new conception of religion. They banded men together in Thiasi which broke down gentile barriers: they were the precursors of the house-churches of primitive Christianity, and, together with the synagog, they offered the New Society a useful mode of organization. They were also the main exponents of the impulse toward per- sonal religion with its craving for union with God. Synchronously, the Greek Mysteries of Eleusis gained rapidly in influence from the 4th cent., and a more sympathetic hearing was given to the Orphic gospel. (c) The monistic principle gained ground and worked toward an abstract monotheism or at least monistic pantheism. Aristotle had shrewdly remarked that the religion of a state takes its charac- ter from the polity, which held true of the polis- civilization, and holds true also for the empires of Alexander and of the Romans. One visible ruler on A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 320 | | earth rendered inevitable one God in the Universe. Consequently the deities of various pantheons were identified, as ‘One is Zeus, one Serapis, one Mithras,’ or even a §e65 tkvOeog was posited, or a supreme God chosen and the epithet pantheus assigned to him. The highest form of this monotheism found expression in the philosophic idea of one divine principle, the One or All, and in the imposing solar cult so conspicuous in the Christian centuries. (d) The Chthonian deities loomed larger beside the Ouranian or Hea- venly deities owing to the increasing interest in eschatology and the collapse of the polis, which had kept these primitive cults submerged. There are traces of the Chthonian cult in the earliest forms of polytheism, but it is only in later literature that the cult becomes prominent. These Underworld deities were gods of vengeance, to whom sacrifice was a bribe. They are dark nameless powers without the individuality of the Upper-world personalities, and generally addressed in euphemism, as e.g., ‘Gracious Ones.’ In sacrificing to them the head of the victim was bent down over a pit which received the blood from the severed throat, and the offering was en- tirely devoted as a holocaust. For the Olympians (or Heavenly gods) the victim was raised up from the ground on a high altar, his head bent toward the heavens, and thus slain; a portion of the sacrifice was burned to the deities. (e) Closely associated with this resurgence of Chthonic ideas was the increasing vogue of hero-cults, or worship of the dead, the ritual of which was shaped after that of the Chthonians, and which was not without influence on the early Christian attitude toward saints and martyrs. (f) The demonic powers, which in earlier stages had but little terror for the Greek mind, became more tyrannous, causing resort to magic, exorcism, evoca- tion, and similar unspiritual practises. One of the most welcome notes in the Evangel of Jesus to the Greco-Roman age was his conquest over the hier- archy of demons, who had crucified ‘the Lord of Glory’ (I Co 2 8), but whose act proved their own undoing in that God triumphed over them in the Cross (Col 2, 14, 15). (g) Astralism, the religion of Astrology, thoroughly terrified the ancient world, and shackled it in the chains of a determinism which enervated the moral initiative. Escape was sought in communion with the Mystery-gods, in a solar monotheism which astonishes moderns by its religious fervor, in magic, and by many in Jesus from whose love ‘neither the Ascension of the stars, nor their Declinations shall separate’ (Ro 8 39). (h) Mention should be made of the remarkable demand for Savior- or Healing-Gods and the evolu- tion of the idea of a Man-God, both conceptions so relevant to Christian history, and corresponding to the felt need for a divine sympathia and for an epiphany or humanizing of the Divine. This ac- counts for the astonishing fact that the obscure Thessalian earth-demon, Asklepius became the Healer and Savior, the ‘greatest lover of men,’ whose cult contributed to the salvationist terminology of Christianity, and whose figure, perhaps, suggested the model for the gracious 4th or 5th cent. figure of Christ. The Mystery-Gods were likewise Savior- Gods, into the fellowship of whose sufferings the $21 A NEW STANDARD initiate entered by sacrament. (i) Plotinus (3d cent. A.D.) may be taken as representing the last phase of Greek religion: his words on his death-bed at Puteoli—‘I am striving to restore the Divine within us to the Divine in the All,’ as the swan-song of Hellenic religion. It has been given to few to explore so profoundly the spiritual nature of man, to live so consciously in communion with the Unseen, or to recognize more clearly the value of religious ex- perience for philosophy. In his religious thought he draws together many of the syncretistic tendencies of the centuries after Alexander, and expresses the last hope of Greek religion as ‘the flight of the Alone to the Alone.’ 8. Greek Religion and Christianity. Yet Greek religion did not perish. It was disintegrated to reintegrate and bequeath its timeless truth to Christian theology. The Greeks consecrated their unique genius to Christ—an epochal event for our faith, contrasted with the failure of Mithraism to secure Greek loyalty. Platonism has become one of the richest strains in the interpretation of the religion of Jesus, whereby that religion has so per- manently laid hold of the West. Through such Christian writers as Clement, Origen, Augustine, Pseudo-Dionysius, and the Hellenist, Philo of Alexandria, the perennial in the faith of Greece has become ours, especially that idealism which is so consonant with Jesus’ view of human nature; its mystical tendencies; the dynamic conception of the Logos-Christology; and that view of immortality which bulks so largely in historic Christianity beside the realistic Judaistic eschatology. If Augustine has been the most formative of our Western theologians Plotinus was the most formative influence for Augustine, who cites with approbation the words of his master: ‘“‘we must fly to that dear, dear Father- land; there is the Father, there the All . . . to be Godlike.”’ LirERATURE: V. Macchioro, Zagreus, Bari (1920); Orfismo e Cristianesimo, 721; E. Rohde, Psyche, 6th and 7th ed. (1921); Die Religion d. Griechen (1901). Chantepie de la Saussaye, Manuel d’Histoire des Religions, (1904). J. Toutain, Les Culies paiens dans l’ Empire rom., (1911-20); Adam, Religious Teachers of Greece, (1908); E. Caird, The Evolution of Theology in the Greek Philosophers, (1904); L. R. Farnell, Outline Hist. of Greek Religion, (1920); Higher Aspects of Greek Religion, (1912); Art. ‘Greek Religion’ in ERE, Vol. VI, (1914). S. GREEK VERSIONS OF O T. See Versions. GREEN. See Cotors, § 3. GREET, GREETINGS. See Saturs, Satura- TION. GREYHOUND. Sce Patsstine, § 24. GRIEF. See in general Mournina Customs. GRIND, GRINDING. See Mit. GRINDERS: In Ec 12 3 the Heb. term téhdndoth is a fem. participle plural. Women were accustomed to grind the meal in the Hebrew home, often accom- panying their work with song (cf. ver. 4). The ex- pression is used here (probably in a figurative way) for the molar teeth, apt to fall out in old age. K. E. N. GROSS: ‘Waxed gross’ is the translation in Mt 13 15; Ac 28 27 of the Gr. raydvery (‘to make thick’ or Greek Religion BIBLE DICTIONARY Guest ‘fat’). The N T passages are both quotations (after the LXX.) of Is 6 9, where the Heb. has a similar meaning. The same Heb. expression is found else- where in the O T (Dt 3215; Neh 9 25; Jer 5 28), always meaning that prosperity had rendered the people so satisfied that they cared nothing for the higher moral or spiritual ideals. E. E, N. GROUND: In most cases this word renders ’ddhd- mah (generally meaning ‘cultivated ground,’ e.g., Gn 2 5), or ’erets, ‘earth,’ or ya, ‘earth,’ or ‘ground.’ Other terms so rendered are: (1) helqah, ‘portion’ (II S 23 12 AV); (2) hdarish, ‘plowing’ (I S 8 12); (3) ‘aphar, ‘dust,’ or ‘soil’ (Job 14 8); (4) sddheh, ‘open country,’ ‘field’ (Gn 33 19; Jos 24 32; 1S 14 25; I Ch 1113 AV); (5) g3ag0c, ‘bottom,’ ‘base’ (Ac 22 7); (6) ESeatwua, ‘stay,’ ‘support’ (I Ti 3 15); (7) xmea, ‘place’ (Lk 12 16); (8) xwelov, dim. of (7) (Jn 4 5); (9) &yedc, ‘field’ (Lk 1418 AV); (10) yauat, adv., ‘to the ground’ (Jn 9 6, 18 6). In Lk 19 44 ‘ground’ does not represent a separate Gr. word, but is involved in the verb édagitetv, from g8agog; see (5), above. EK. E. N. GROVE. See Semitic Retiaion, § 11. GUARD: The rendering of several Heb. and Gr. terms: (1) fabbah, ‘slaughterer,’ used only of three foreigners (Potiphar in Gn 37 36, etc.; Nebuzaradan in II K 265 8, etc., and Jer 399, etc., and Arioch in Dn 2 14). The Heb. term is perhaps not an exact reproduction of the Egyptian or Babylonian origi- nals, tho the ‘chief of the slayers’ may well have been an official who was entrusted with the duty of guard- ing the royal person and of ‘slaughtering’ any one who attempted the king’s harm. (2) rats, ‘runner,’ used of Hebrews themselves in I and IT K and II Ch. These ‘runners,’ or trusted foot-soldiers, stood close to the king and performed various functions. Their ‘chief’? was doubtless an officer of rank. That they were a ‘body-guard’ in the strictest sense is not cer- tain. David, e.g., had a special guard of foreigners (Cherethites and Pelethites; cf. II S 20 23, 23 23, where mishma‘ath, not riits, is used). (3) mishmdar, ‘watch’ (Neh 4 22 £.; Ezk 387). (4) On Ac 28 16; Ph 1 13, see Prwrortum. (5) The xouctwila, ‘guard’ RV, ‘watch’ AV of Mt 27 65 f., is somewhat difficult to explain. It may refer to the Temple guard that under a Roman officer kept charge of the high-priestly vestments (see Jos. Ant. XV, 11 4). (6) In Mk 6 27 cxexovAdtwe, a Roman military term, means here probably one of the officers at hand ready for any duty the king might demand. E. E. N. GUARDIANS. In Gal 4 2 RV renders éxitpoxor by ‘guardians’ in place of the AV ‘tutors.’ The legal system which Paul had in mind (whether Jewish, Greek, Roman or some other) is not certain, but the general sense of the reference is perfectly clear (cf. Burton in ICC., ad loc.). GUDGODAH, god-gio’da (77973, gudhgddhah): A station on Israel’s march from Kadesh to Moab, probably somewhere in Edom (Dt 107). GUEST, GUEST-CHAMBER: (1) The rendering of the Heb. q*ri’im, ‘invited ones’ in I K 1 41, 49; Pr 9 18; Zeph 17. (2) Present participle of dvaxel- oOat, ‘to recline at table’ (Mt 2210f.). (3) Aor. infin. of xat«Advety, ‘to lodge’ (Lk 197 AV, ‘gone in to Guile Hadad A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 322 Spear nnn nN noe lodge’ RV). (See Hosprrauiry.) The larger houses had a guest-chamber (Mk 14 14; Lk 22 11; 1S 9 22, ‘parlor’ AV). O58.) GUILE: In general this word conveys the same meaning in Biblical usage as elsewhere (Ex 21 14; Ps 3413; Jn 1 47), z.e., the quality, or act, of conceal- ing one’s true intention and producing a misleading impression. It is named as something to be depre- cated and avoided, except in II Co 12 16, where it is used in a good sense. A.C. * GUILT, GUILTINESS, GUILTY: (1) These words in most cases render derivatives of the root ’shm (verb: ‘to be for feel] guilty’; noun: ‘guilt’ [‘guiltiness’ Gn 26 10]; adjective: ‘guilty’). In AV the word ‘trespass’ is frequently used to render these terms, also ‘desolate’ (Is 24 6; Hos 13 186), ‘faulty’ (II S 1413), and ‘offend’ (Jer 2 3). (2) The Heb. rasha‘, ‘wicked,’ ‘godless,’ is also so rendered (Nu 35 31; Ps 1097, ‘condemned’ AV). (3) gvoxos, ‘held in,’ ‘subject to,’ ‘liable’ (Mk 3 29, ‘in danger of? AV, 14 64 and ||, ‘worthy of’ RV; I Co 11 27; Ja 210). (4) On Mt 23 18 and Ro 319 cf. RV. E. E. N. GUILTLESS: This word renders: (1) the Heb. nagqah (vb.) and ndqi (adj.), the root idea being ‘to empty’ (as a vessel, by pouring out its contents), and hence ‘to cleanse,’ or purify (Nu 3 22; Jos 2 19, 20, ‘quit? AV; II S 3 28, 149). (2) dvatttoc, “free from legal blame,’ from the negative a(ay) and atria, ‘legal cause for complaint’ (Mt 12 5, 7, ‘blameless’ AV in v. 5). E. E. N. HAAHASHTARI, hé’s-hash’ta-rai, (YON), ha@’ dhashtari): A descendant of Judah (I Ch 4 6). HABAIAH, hab-é’ya (730, habhadyah), ‘J’’ hides’: The ancestral head of a priestly family whose members could not establish their genealogy (Ezr 2 61, called Hobaiah in Neh 7 63). HABAKKODK, ha-bak’vk or hab a-xok (P1P30, habhagqtiq), either from habag, ‘to embrace,’ or cog- nate with Assyr. hambukiku, the name of a plant (Delitzsch, Proleg. 84): 1. The Prophet. A pro- phet of Judah, probably a resident of Jerusalem. All that is known of him is to be found in the book which bears his name. All other alleged information is valueless. In the aporcyphal story of Bel and the Dragon he is said to have been of the tribe of Levi. One rabbinical legend identifies him with the son of the Shunammite widow whom Elisha restored to life (II K 416), another with the sentinel referred to in Is 21 6. 2. The Book and its Contents. The Book of Habakkuk (‘the burden which Habakkuk the prophet did see’) is mainly concerned with the men- ace to the national existence of Israel presented by the rapid development of the Chaldean power. Its three chapters present the thought of the reality and greatness of this danger and its meaning. In the first, the prophet expresses his personal distress upon realizing the condition of things. The thought is cast into the form of a complaint to J’’ (1 2-4), to GUILT-OFFERING. See SacriricB AND OF- FERING, § 9. GULF. See Escuato.oey, § 38. GUNI, gii’nai ("23, guint): 1. The ancestral head of the clan of Gunites, of the tribe of Naphtali (Gn 46 24; Nu 26 48; I Ch 713). 2. The head of a Gadite family (I Ch 5 15). GUR, gor (713, gir), ASCENT OF: A place near Ibleam where Ahaziah, King of Judah, was wounded (II K 9 27). Site unknown. GUR-BAAL, -bé‘al (793 7%3, gar ba‘al), ‘dwelling of Baal’: An unidentified place, probably somewhere in Edom, inhabited by Arabians (II Ch 267). The true reading may be tar-ba‘al, ‘rock of Baal,’ as sug- gested by MSS. of the LXX. and the Vulgate. ' E. E. N. GUTTER: 1. The word rahat, so translated in Gn 30 38, 41, is much better rendered ‘trough’ as in Ex: 216. The addition ‘in the watering-troughs’ (v. 38) is probably in apposition, 7.e., explanatory of the preceding term. 2. In IIS 58 RV has ‘watercourse’ for ‘gutter’ AV. The text of the verse is corrupt and the sense impossible to make out. It is not known what is meant here by the term tsinnor. Cf. the || text in I Ch 11 6, and consult Driver, HTS?, pp. 259-261, and also PEFQ (1924) on the new light on II S 58 from the recent excavations at Jerusalem. K. EB. N. H which J” is represented as making the reply that the Chaldeans are raised up by Himself (1 5-11). The prophet responds with a declaration of his satisfac- tion; for if this is the case, it can mean no permanent evil, and the explanation of the evil conditions must be found in the sin of Judah, which demands a visi- tation of judgment (1 12-27). The second chapter opens with the preliminaries of a new vision (2 1-3), proceeds to a description of the Chaldean’s greed and violence (2 4-8), records three woes against him because of his ‘evil gain’ (vs. 9-11), because he ‘build- eth a town with blood and establisheth a city by iniquity’ (vs. 12-14), and because he ‘giveth his neighbor drink’ (vs. 15-17), and ends with a denunci- ation of the vanity of his idolatry (2 18-20). The third chapter, entitled ‘A prayer of Habakkuk,’ is a psalm of praise to J’’ and of confidence in His pur- pose to deliver His people (3 1-19). 3. Literary Form. The literary form of Habak- kuk is striking, if not unique, among the prophetic books. The prophet casts his thought into a dra- matic representation, with J’’ and himself as the speakers. And both in conception and expression the result is highly poetic. In ch.3 especially there is a lofty tone and a rhythmic flow quite up to the standard of the best Hebrew poetry. 4. Unity. The question of importance for the proper understanding and use of the Book is that of its unity: (1) Some scholars believe that the three parts belong to three different settings and authors, 323 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Guile Hadad of which only the first is traceable to H. (Kuenen). (2) Others hold that the first and second parts are a single composition by H., but that the third is a later production. And (3) a third group assigns the whole to H. The reasons for dividing the book into three separate sections are not very strong, and its advocates are constrained to admit that they can only establish a high degree of probability. The reasons for detaching ch. 3 and ascribing it to a later date are: the lack of a definite setting for it, such as the rest of the book reflects, and a certain difference of style and temper. In the first two chapters H. addresses God as an individual; in the third he puts a prayer in the mouth of the people. Moreover, in form and content there are strong resemblances be- tween ch. 3 and some exilic psalms, leading to the conclusion that this poem is excerpted from an exilic liturgical collection and attached to the prophecy of H. (Wellhausen, Nowack, Cornill, Cheyne). Of these considerations the last offers the greatest cogency and pertinence. The alleged lack of defin- ite setting is a purely negative condition on which no conclusion can be based. Upon the whole, the reas- ons for doubting the integrity of the book are un- satisfactory and many of the most competent schol- ars (Ewald, Kénig, Sinker, Kirkpatrick, and Von Orelli) believe in its unity, while many others de- clare in favor of the verdict ‘not proven’ (Driver, G. A. Smith). 5. The Text. The condition of the Hebrew text of H. is not satisfactory; in fact, in many places it is hopelessly corrupt 6. The Date. The date of the prophecy has been generally fixed between 625 and 600 B.c. This was the period of the rapid progress of the Babylonians toward supreme power under Nebopolassar and his more illustrious son Nebuchadrezzar. The Chal- deans had captured Nineveh in 612. In 604 they had overwhelmingly defeated the Egyptian army led by Pharaoh Necho at Carchemish (Jer 46 2). From that day onward it was only a question of time as to when they should become complete masters of Western Asia. Altho they did not actually invade Judea until the year 601, it is probable that the prophecy was uttered in in view of the time expec- tation of their coming somewhat before that year. Literature: Duhm, Das Buch Habakkuk (1906); Budde, St. Kr., 1893, LX, p. 383 ff.; and Expositor (1895), p. 372 ff.; G. A. Smith, Ezpositor’s Bible, The Book of the Twelve Prophets (1898), IJ, p. 113 ff; W. H. Ward in ICC (1911); Stonehouse, The Book of Habakkuk (1910); Geof. Gordon, An Interpretation of Habakkuk (1916). Ft Oh HABAZZINIAH, ha”baz-i- or hab’a-zi-nai’a (N3¥30, hdbhatstsinyGh, WHabaziniah AV): A Rechabite (Jer 35 3). HABERGEON, hab’ar-jan or ha-bir’ji-on. ARMS AND ARMoR, § 1. See HABITATION: The rendering of a number of: Heb. and Gr. terms. (1) z*bhdl, ‘dwelling’ (cf. Zebulun, Gn 30 20) (II Ch 6 2; Is 63 15; Hab 3 11; Ps 49 14, ‘dwelling’ AV). (2) tirah, ‘encampment’ (Ps 69 25). (3) shebheth (inf. construct of ydshabh, ‘to seat oneself,’ ‘to dwell’) (I K 8 13; Ps 33 14; Jer 9 6; Ob ver. 3). (4) mdshabh (also from ydshabh) (Gn 36 43; Lv 13 46 AV; Ps 107 4 RV, etc.). (5) makhon (from kin, ‘to be upright,’ ‘firm,’ or ‘fixed’), a ‘place,’ or ‘foundation’ (Ps 89 14, 97 2; cf. RV; Is 45). (6) mkhirah, ‘descent,’ or ‘origin’ (Ezk 2914 AV; cf. RV). (7) mekhérah, of uncertain mean- ing (Gn 49 5 AV, ‘swords’ RV). (8) md‘én and m*- ‘onah, ‘dwelling’ (Dt 26 15; II Ch 30 27, etc.; I Ch 441 AV, ‘Meunim’ RV). (9) shakhan, ‘to dwell,’ and mishkan, ‘dwelling-place’ (Dt 125; II Ch 296, etc.; Ps 132 5 AV, ‘tabernacles’ RV). (10) ndweh (fre- quently in the pl. n’’dth), the feeding- and resting- place of the flocks, hence ‘pastures,’ ‘folds’ and then, of men, ‘dwelling,’ etc. (Ex 15 13, etc.; Job 5 24, and Jer 25 37 AV, ‘fold’ RV; Ps 797, and Pr 24 15, ‘dwell- ing-place’ AV; Jer 9 10, 50 19, and Am 1 2 AV, ‘pas- tures’ RV; Ps 83 12, ‘houses’ AV). On Ex 15 2 ef. RV. (11) éxavrr¢ (Ac 1 20, the Gr. rendering of (2), above). (12) cxyvn, ‘tent,’ Lk 16 9, ‘tabernacles’ RV. (18) xavorxfe (Ac 17 26), olxntjerov (II Co 5 2, ‘house’ AV; Jude ver. 6), xatotxytyeroy (Eph 2 22; Rev 18 2), all derived from oixfa, ‘house.’ (14) oxqyvwua (Ac 7 46 RV; cf. IT P. 113 f.) E. E.N. HABOR, hé’bér (7137, habhor): A tributary of the Euphrates, on whose banks some Israelites, de- ported during the reign of Hoshea, were settled by Sargon (722-705 s.c.) (II K 17 6, 18 11; I Ch 5 26). Others had been taken to the same region by Tiglath- pileser III (745-727). The stream is identified with the Habur of the Assyrians (COT, II, p. 267) and the Chaboras of classic literature (not to be confused with Chebar, q.v.). / Oh BAYA: HACALIAH, hak’e-lai’a (M920, hdkhalyah, Hachaliah AV): The father of Nehemiah (Neh 1 1, 10 1). HACHILAH, ho-kai’la or hak’i-la (7122, hakhi- lah: A hill near the wilderness of Jeshimon, in the wilderness of Ziph (I S 23 19, 261 .). Map II F 3, but the exact location is unknown. HACHMONI, hak-m6’nai or hak’mo-nai (1235, hakhm6ni), ‘the wise’: The father of Jehiel (I Ch PARRY DS HACHMONITE, hak’mo-nait (222, hakhmé6ni): In I Ch 11 11 Jashobeam, one of David’s heroes, is said to be ‘the son of a Hachmonite.’ In the || II S 23 8 the word is ‘Tahchemonite,’ which is prob- ably an error for ‘Hachmonite.’ See JASHOBEAM. KE. E. N. HADAD, hé’dad (715, hddhadh), name of an Aramean god, see Semitic Reuiaion, § 30. 1. A son of Ishmael, also spelled Hddhddh (Gn 25 15; I Ch 1 30). 2. An early king of Edom, son of Bedad (Gn 36 35f.; ICh1 461.), who smote Midian in the field of Moab. His city was Avith. 3. The last in the list of the kings of Edom (I Ch 1 50 f.=Hadar, Gn 36 39). He was perhaps slain with his family by Joab, captain of David’s host (I K 11 15). His city was Pau. 4. An Edomite of royal line, perhaps grandson of 3. He escaped from Joab to Egypt, and received favors from Pharaoh. After the death of Joab and David, and probably toward the end of Solomon’s reign, he returned to Edom and troubled Israel (I K 11 4 ff.). Cosi. Hadadezer Haggai A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY $24 HADADEZER, had”a-di’zar (WYT19, hadhadh- ‘ezer), ‘Hadad is help’: A king of Zobah, near Damascus (II § 8 3-12; I K 11 23=Hadarezer, IIS 10 16, 19; I Ch 18 3 f., 19 16, 19). After his defeat by David, the Syrians of Damascus came to aid him, and were defeated and made tributary. At another time he joined the Ammonites and Syrians against David (II S 10 16), and was defeated at Helam. II S83 and 1015 f. suggest that he was ruler over an extended Aramaic kingdom, but this is uncertain. ASML, HADADRIMMON, hé’dad-rim’an (O75, hd- dhadhrimmén, corapounded of two names of divini- ties, Zech 1211): The name, according to Jerome, of Maximianopolis, the modern Rummédne, near Me- giddo, where Israel lamented the death of King Josiah. Nowack, Handkom. ad. loc, and others find here the name of a god (Adonis?) whose death islamented. Cf. W. R. Smith, Religion of the Sem- ites?, 411. Ga Shs bb HADAR, hé’dar. See Hapap. HADAREZER, had’ar-i’zar. See HAapDADEZER. HADASHAH, ha-dash’a or had’a-sha (TVD, hdadhashah,) ‘new’ (town?): A town of Judah (Jos 15 37). Site unknown. HADASSAH, hoa-das’a. § 6. HADATTAH, ha-dat’a. See Hazor-HADATTAH. HADES, hé’diz. See Escuarouoey, §§ 17-21, 34. HADID, hé’did (71, hddhidh): An ancient site not mentioned in the preexilic books (but found on Egyptian inscriptions of the 16th cent. B.c.), tho recolonized by postexilic Jews (Ezr 2 33=Neh 7 37, 11 34) and later fortified by Simon Maccabeus (I Mac 12 38; here called Adida). See Map III, D 5. EK. E. N. HADLAI, had’lé-ai or had’lé (2°10, hadhlay): The father of Amasa (II Ch 28 12). HADORAM, ho-do’ram (87179, hddhdram), 1. The son of Tou (Toi II S 89 Ff. [here the form is Joram]): King of Hamath, sent to King David by his father on a congratulatory embassy on the occa- sion of his victory over Hadadezer (I Ch 18 10). 2. For H in Gn 10 27, see ErHNOGRAPHY AND Eruno.ocy, § 13. 3. For H. in II Ch 1018, see ADONIRAM. ~ HADRACH, had’rek or hé’drak (JV, hadh- rakh): Only in Zec 91, as the name of a land against which a prophetic burden is declared. The context determines the region to be a portion of Syria and its capital, Damascus. It is associated with Ha- math, Tyre, and Sidon. It was the same as the Assyr. Hatarakka or Hatarakka (cf. COT, II, p. 453). A. C. Z. HAGAB, hé-gab (42, haghabh), ‘grasshopper’: The ancestral head of a subdivision of the N ethinim (Ezr 2 46). HAGABA, HAGABAH, hag’a-ba, hag’a-ba (830, 1230, hdghabha’, haghabhah, variant forms of Ha- gab): The ancestral head of a subdivision of the Nethinim (Ezr 2 45=Neh 7 4s). See Estumr, Boox or, HAGAR, hé’gar (2, haghar, Agar AV, in N T), meaning uncertain; the root means possibly ‘to flee’; cf. the Arab. Hegira, the ‘flight’ of Mo- hammed: The name of Sarai’s handmaid, the mother of Ishmael. The story of H. is told both in J and HE, with some additions in P. The story in J (Gn 16 1b, 2, 4-14) relates how the childless Sarai gave H., her Egyptian (mitsrith) handmaid, to Abram, hoping thereby to obtain children. But the insolence of H. offended Sarai, who treated her so harshly that she fled to the desert. Here an angel appeared to her near a well and comforted her by the promise that her seed should be very numerous, told her to name the child soon to be born Ishmael, and indicated beforehand his character. In gratitude she named the well Beer-lahai-roi (q.v.). In obe- dience to the angel, she returned to Sarai (16 9, which may be editorial, to harmonize J with E). In E (Gn 21 8-21) the story follows much the same fundamental outline. Ishmael, a child still quite young (cf. vs. 14 #f.), playing about on the occasion of the feast celebrating the weaning of Isaac, aroused Sarai’s jealousy, who demanded the expulsion of the ‘bondwoman’ H. and her child. Abraham, loath to consent, does this only in obedience to a Divine command. With a bit of provision H. was sent away the next morning into the wilderness. Here she and the child were saved from dying of thirst by an angel of God, who showed her a well and also promised that her son should be the father of a great nation. The additions of P (Gn 16 1a [?], 3, 15 £.) are chrono- logical notices fitting the stories into P’s chronologi- cal scheme. The two accounts of J and E are so similar in their main points that it seems probable that they are both based upon the same group of legendary or tra- ditional materials connected with early (and now un- known) tribal movements, which resulted in the formation of closely related tribal groups (Isaac, Ishmael). H. is called an ‘Egyptian,’ but the adjective mitsrith may possibly refer to Mutsri—a N. Arabian locality. H. (viewed as a tribe) may also have some connection with the HE. Jordan Hagrites, or Hagarenes (I Ch 5 10, 19-21; Ps 83 6). The story as now found in Gn emphasizes the Divine selection of and special providence over Isaac (Israel), and at the same time reveals a broad sym- pathy for other tribes (Ishmael), for whom there is also a place in the same providential care. Both Jewish and Mohammedan speculations have indulged in many fancies concerning H. (cf. Ryle in HDB s.v.). Even Paul does not hesitate to allegorize (in rabbinical fashion and largely on the basis of a late but incorrect interpretation of the Heb. mé*tsahéq ‘playing’ which was understood as in- dicating ‘mocking’ as in AV, cf. RVmg.) the story for an illustration in his argument in Galatians (4 21-31). See Skinner in JCC. Genesis, ad loc. E. E. N. HAGARENES, hé’ga-rinz or hag’s-rinz. See Haar. HAGGAI, hag-ga’ai (20, haggay), ‘festal’: A prophet by whom, with his fellow-prophet Zech- 325 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Hadadezer Haggai ariah (q.v.) the returned exiles were aroused to the duty of rebuilding the Temple and encouraged in bringing the difficult task to completion. Such is the statement in Ezr 4 24-5 2 (=I Es 5 73b-6 2), the late when the work was begun being the 2nd year f Darius (Darius I), z.e. 520 B.c. Fortunately, this brief mention of H. in Ezr is supplemented and the full significance of H.’s mes- sages made more clear by the small collection of at least some if not all of those messages in the little book known as The Book of Haggai, one of the twelve so called ‘Minor Prophets.’ According to the Book of Haggai the prophet, on the Ist day of the 6th month of the 2nd year of Darius (=some time in Aug.-Sept. of 520 B.c.), de- livered an oracle in the name of J” to Zerubbabel the governor and Joshua the high priest, rebuking the people (‘this people’) for not building J’”s house, and giving this as the reason for the drought and other misfortunes from which the community was suffer- ing. The two leaders were stirred to action and the work was begun. Other messages followed, the last one, the 5th in the entire series, being delivered on the 24th day of the 9th month of the same year (Dec. 520 B.c.). From these messages we may gain a fairly close view of some of the reasons and motives that were operative in the work of building the second Temple. The first message 1 2-11 (6th mo. Ist day) would seem to indicate that the duty of building the Tem- ple had been before the community forsome time but had been neglected, the people having time and means for their own private houses, but letting the house of J’ lieinruins. But when drought and mis- fortune came the prophet found his opportunity to declare that they could not expect J’”’s blessing unless they built His house. Let them start to build and J” will bless them (1 8). The response seems to have been immediate (1 12-14) and the pro- phet cheered Zerubbabel and Joshua with the assur- ance that J’’ was with them as they undertook the difficult task. The next word of the prophet is probably to be found in the misplaced passage 2 15-19, which, with Rothstein, we would connect with the date given in 1 15 (which as the text stands now is a mere date with no message attached). This message, deliv- ered on the 24th day of the 6th month (reading ‘sixth’ instead of ‘ninth’ in 2 18) was one of further encouragement. It was on that day that the foun- dation stone of the new building was laid and the prophet made bold to promise that from that day J’’sblessing was assured. These strong assertions probably imply that some of the community had misgivings as to the success of the undertaking. About a month later (7th mo. 21st day, the last day but one of the Feast of Tabernacles) a still bolder word was uttered by H. (21-9). That house might seem unworthy of comparison with the beautiful Solomonic Temple of preexilic days, but it was des- tined to have a greater glory. J’’s decisive day is soon to come. The ‘nations’ are to be ‘shaken’ and their treasures brought to this house. So let all work that the house may be completed and the great blessing come. The ‘shaking’ of all the nations had some reference probably to the great revolt in the Persian Empire which Darius was engaged in sup- pressing. The work was being pushed as rapidly as possible and soon attracted the attention of the ‘people of the land’ that is the non-Jewish population in the terri- tory of the old Northern Kingdom of Israel. These people, of mixed race, partly old Israelitic stock and partly ‘heathen’ (cf. IIT K 17 24-41; Ezr 4 9b.) pro- fessed to worship J’’ (the ‘God of the land,’ II K 17 26). They now came forward with an offer to help in building the Temple of J” (zr 41-2. The notice here is correct but it 1s out of place, as are other sections in Ezr. It is evident that it was not as ‘adversaries’ but as friends that they made the offer. The author of Ezr calls them ‘adversaries’ (by anticipation). Should the offer be accepted? If it were, the ‘holiness’ of the community would be violated for those people were ‘unclean’ from the strict legalistic point of view (as set forth, e.g. by Ezekiel). On the other hand, to refuse it would be to incur the hostility of these neighbors and place the community in a dangerous situation. The stricter party were for refusal and in this they were supported by Zechariah in his first message (8th month Ist [?] day) cf. Zech 1 1-6, and by H. who on the 24th day of the 9th month uttered what seems to have been the decisive word (2 10-14) in which he declared that ‘this people,’ ‘this nation’ (i.e. those who were making the offer) were unclean and would contaminate the holy community. The offer was therefore refused (cf. Ezr 4 3-5a; 5b gives a wrong date) with the result that the neighbors were turned from being friends into enemies (cf. Ezr 4 4-5. and 53 4.). It was a decisive day, this 24th day of the 9th mo. 520 B.c. and none felt its significance more than H. His faith was equal to the emergency and in his last (recorded) word (2 20-23) he declares that J’’ will ‘overthrow the throne of kingdoms’ and makes bold to add that He will make Zerubbabel ‘a signet’ for ‘I have chosen thee, saith J’ of hosts,’ practically declaring Z. to be the head of the new age or in later terminology, the Messiah. In the revision of the present arrangement of the messages of H. the writer has been guided largely by the investigations of Rothstein (Juden und Samari- taner, 1908). There is no indication that the Book of Haggai was written by H. himself. It is evidently but a collection by some other and probably later person of H.’s messages. The dates attached ap- pear to be correct (except in 218) but through some mistake or accident the message in 2 15-19 got mis- placed and separated from 115, its date-heading. Nowhere else in the O T do we get such an insight into the spirit and motives and hopes that were em- bodied in the great effort of the weak community to build the Second Temple. The narrative in Ezr 3 2-13 fits in admirably between H.’s first and third messages and it is from the Book of Haggai that we get the correct dating for this and other sections in Ezr. The compiler of Ezr was mistaken in thinking that the foundation of the Second Temple was laid immediately after the Return in 536 B.c. It was not until 520 B.c.—16 years after the first exiles Haggi A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Hamonah 326 LL returned—that they set themselves to the task of building the house. This explains the severity of H.’s rebuke in Hag. 1 2 f. It was essentially the Messianic hope that in- spired the building of the second Temple. Only if that house were built could the Jews expect the realization of J’’s promises of glory and prosperity to His people. This was H.’s conviction and it was this his faith that led him to make the promises he did. H. was of the school of Ezekiel. The principle of ‘holiness’ (the ‘holy’ community) and the all-im- portance of the Temple as J’”s house, as formulated by Ezekiel were guiding principles for H. Lirerature: Driver in LOT, Rev. ed. (1916); G. A. Smith in Exp. Bible (1908) ; Rothstein, Juden u. Samaritaner (1908) ; H. G. Mitchell, in ICC (1912). KB. E.N. HAGGI, hag-gai (20, haggt), ‘my feast’: The ancestral head of one of the clans of Gad, the Hag- gites (Gn 46 16; Nu 26 15). HAGGIAH, hag-gai’a (40, haggiyyah), ‘J’ is my feast’: A Levite (I Ch 6 30). HAGGITH, hag’gifh (130, haggith), ‘festive’: The wife of David and mother of Adonijah (II S 3 4, etc.). HAGRI, hag’rai ("137, haghrt): 1. The father of Mibhar, one of David’s heroes (I Ch 11 38, Haggeri AV), but probably more correctly given in II S 23 36 as ‘the Gadite.’ 2. Jaziz, the Hagrite, superin- tendent of David’s flocks (I Ch 27 30, 31, Hagarite AV). Both 1 and 2 may be explained by 3. 3. The Hagrites (I Ch 5 10, 19, 20, Hagarites AV; also Hagarenes, Ps 83 6, but RVmg. ‘Hagrites’), the name of a tribe with which the Reubenites waged war and from which they took spoils. Following the suggestion furnished by the name, the tribe was later derived by Jewish writers from Hagar. A similar, probably cognate, name appears in the list of Tiglath-pileser III (COT, IT, 32), and it is certain that such a tribe flourished in northern Arabia. A. Ged: HAHIROTH, ho-hai’reth. See Pi-HAHrRoTH. HAI, hé’ai. See Ar. HAIL. See Pauestine, § 19; and PLacugs. HAIR: Among the Hebrews black hair was common (Song 41, 511), and a luxuriant growth was considered a mark of beauty. Men wore their hair trimmed (Ezk 44 20), but not shaven, and the beard was carefully dressed. A few had long hair (Ab- salom, II S 14 28), which might be braided (Samson, Jg 1613, 19). Women wore the hair long (Song 41; I Co 11 15), but fastened in some way, often in artistic locks and coils (II K 9 30; Is 3 24). Baldness was a disgrace (II K 2 23; Is 3 24). Shaving the head was a sign of mourning (Jer 7 29; Am 8 10), which was forbidden in later times (Dt 14 1), as were also certain forms of cutting the hair (Ly 19 27; Ezk 44 20). In connection with the Nazirite vow, the hair was allowed to grow until the vow was accomplished (Nu 6 2, 5), when its was cut off and burned (Nu 6 18; cf. Ac 18 18, 21 24). The expression ‘a hairy’ man in II K 1 8 does not refer to the prophet’s person, but to his mantle, which in all likelihood consisted of undressed skin (cf. Gn 25 25; Zech 18 4). Crs. T: HAKKATAN, hak’a-tan (]9P1, haqgdtan), ‘the little one’: The father of Johanan (Ezr 8 12). HAKKOZ, hak’kez (Y1P7, haqgédts), ‘the thorn’ (?): 1. The head of a family of Judah (I Ch 48 Coz AV). 2. The ancestral head of the seventh course of priests (I Ch 24 10; Ezr 2 61; Neh 3 4, 21, 7 63, Koz AV). HAKUPHA, ha-kii’fa (82)P0, hdqipha’): The ancestral head of a subdivision of the Nethinim (Ezr 2 51= Neh 7 53). HALAH, hé’la (120, hdlah): Sargon, after he had captured Samaria, transported the captive Israel- ites to Halah, and to the Habor, the river of Go- zan, and to the cities of the Medes (II K 17 6, 18 11). There are several views as to the location of. Halah. (a) It has been identified with the Calachene of Strabo, a plain of N. Assyria, which lies to the E. of the Tigris. (b) Others regard it as the Hebrew name of Chalkitis in Mesopotamia, near the river Chaboras. A cuneiform inscription mentions a territory, Halahha, near Haran. ‘This points to the same region as Chalkitis. (c) The LXX. regards Halah as the name of a river of Gozan. The second view of its location is the most probable. J. A. K. HALAK, hé/lak (P27 777, hahar hehalag), ‘the smooth (bare) mountain’: In Jos 11 171277 16 is given as the southern limit of Joshua’s conquest. It has been identified with the white cliffs 8 m. S. of the Dead Sea, and also with Jebel Madara, SW. of the pass on the road between Petra and Hebron. GAG fei HALHUL, hal-hol (73920, halhul): A town in the hill-country of Judah (Jos 15 58). It is the modern Halhil, a well-situated village 4 m. N. of Hebron, on a hill just E. of the road to Jerusalem. A spring, rock tombs, and old walls are near at hand. Map II, E 2. Crena: HALI, hé’lai con, halt): A town on the border of Asher (Jos 19 25 ‘ Map IV, C 5. Identification uncertain. HALL. See Houss, § 6 (f); and Prerorium. HALLELUJAH, hal’’1-lu’ya, literally, ‘Praise Jah’: A liturgical ejaculation frequent in the last part of the Psalter. It occurs at the opening of eleven Psalms (106, 111, 112, 113, 117, 135, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150), and at the close of thirteen (104, 105, 106, 113, 115, 116, 117, 135, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150). In all these cases it is probably not an integral part of the Psalms, but rather a traditional accla- mation used with them. From its occurrence the group Pss 113-118 was known as the Hallel (or Egyptian Hallelujah), which was regularly used at the celebration of the Passover, doubtless being the hymn sung at the institution of the Lord’s Supper (Mt 26 30; Mk 14 26). Another Hallel (the Greek or Great Hallelujah) included more or less of the group Pss 146-150, and part of it was sometimes added to the foregoing. Inthe N T the word occurs only in Rev 19 1-6 in the Greek form Alleluia, which has been extensively adopted in Christian liturgies and hymns. We SAP: 327 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Haggi _- Hamonah HALLOHESH, ho-lo’hesh (¥1197, hallohésh, Ha- lohesh AV), ‘the whisperer’: The ancestral head of a postexilic family (Neh 3 12, 10 24). HALLOW, HALLOWED, THINGS: The Heb. terms so rendered are all connected with the root WIP, gadhash, which meant primarily ‘separation’ or ‘placing apart’ and (in its different forms) is most commonly rendered ‘holy,’ be ‘holy,’ ‘holiness,’ etc. A ‘hallowed thing’ was thus something set apart from ordinary to a sacred use. To ‘hallow’ a person or thing was to withdraw him, or it, from common occupations, or uses, to those of a sacred character (cf. Ex 20 11, 291; 1S 21 4, etc.) God’s name is to be ‘hallowed’ in that it is not to be treated as common, but with all due reverence (Mt 69; Lk 112). See also Hoty. K. E. N. HALT. See DisEASE AND MEDICINE, § 6. HAM (81, ham): I. The younger son of Noah (Gn 9 24 RVmg.). The name has been derived from ° chem or keme (Egyptian for ‘black’). Ebers (Aegypten, I, p. 55) makes it refer to the:color of the soil. Others derive it from a Semitic (Late Heb.) root, him, ‘hot,’ relating the patriarch to the peoples of the warm southern countries in general. The later derivation seems better founded (cf. PRE, article Aegypten). See also ETHNOGRAPHY AND EvH- NOLOGY, §§ 5, 7, 12. II. 1. Poetically, Ham denotes Egypt (‘land of Ham,’ Ps 105 23, 27, 106 22, also ‘tents of Ham,’ Ps 78 51 [‘tabernacles’ AV], for the dwellings of the Egyptians). 2. A place where Chedorlaomer is said to have defeated the Zuzim (Gn 14 5); but since these are the same as the Zamzummim, who dwelt in the territory known as Ammon, it is safe to infer that Ham here stands for Ammon. A. C. Z. HAMAN, hé’mon (1217, haman), etymology doubt- ful: The prime minister and favorite of Ahasue- rus (Xerxes, 485-464 B.c.). He is one of the chief personalities in the story of Esther (3 1 ff.), and is represented as the great enemy of the Jews. He is also called an Agagite (Est 3 1, 10, etc.= Amalekite; cf. I S 15 8) in the Hebrew text, but a Bugean (in 9 24,a Macedonian) inthe LXX. There may be a suggestion in this of the enmity of the Macedonians for the Jews in the later age. In the feast of Purim the hanging of an effigy of Haman was a feature. See also Esrner, §6. A.C. Z. HAMATH, HEMATH, hée’math (090, hamath): Perhaps, to be distinguished from ‘Hamath the great’ (q.v.), a district lying on the SW. slope of Hermon, reaching at least as far as the Jordan to the W., and forming the boundary of Palestine and Israel to the NE. (Nu 348;1K 865; II K 14 25; Ezk 4716; Am 614). In the 10th cent. B.c. it was an Aramean kingdom, whose ruler To‘u, altho not joining in the league against Israel, became tributary to David (IIS 89 f.; cf. I Ch 189). As the frontier of a rival people, its control was always aimed at by the powerful kings of Israel (II Ch 8 4; II K 14 28). See Winckler in KAT3, 182, 231 f., and Oriental. Forschungen, III, Heft 3 (1905). The common view is that this Hamath is to be identified with ‘Hamath the great,’ the modern Hama, which at the time of its greatest power controlled the territory as far south as the north border of Israel. See also ARAM, § 4 (4). » J. F. McC.—L. B. P. HAMATH (the Great), HAMATHITE, hé’math, hé’ma-fhait. See ARAM; and ErHNoGRAPHY AND ETHNOLOGY, § 13. HAMATH-ZOBAH, -z0’ba (731% NON, hamath tsdbhah), ‘fortress of Zoba’: A place in Syria con- quered by Solomon (II Ch 8 3), near Hamath and Tadmor. Co ne HAMMATH, ham’ath (N20, hammath), ‘hot spring’: I. The father of the house of Rechab (I Ch 2 55). II. A town of Naphtali (Jos 19 35), probably the well-known hot springs S. of Tiberias, the Gr. Emmaus, the modern Hiimmdm (Jos. Ant. XVIII, 2 3, “Avyalbotcs) =possibly Hammoth-dor (Jos 21 32), and Hammon (I Ch 676 [61]). C.S. T. HAMMEAH, ham’mi-a4, TOWER OF. See JERUSALEM, § 38. HAMMEDATHA, ham’’m1-dé’ tha (89797, ham- m*dhatha’): The father of Haman (Est 3 1, etc.). HAMMELECH, ham’‘i-lek (1227, hammelekh), ‘the king’: So in Jer 36 26, 38 6 (AV), but RV reads simply ‘the king.’ HAMMER: The rendering of several Heb. words. (1) maggebheth, the hammer used by the carpenter or stone-mason (I K 67; Jer 10 4), or the smith (Is 44 12). It is also used of the mallet by which tent-pins were driven into the ground (Jg 4 21). (2) halmith, of uncertain meaning, the instrument used by Jael to slay Sisera (Jg 5 26; cf. Moore in Int. Crit. Com. ad loc.). (3) pattish, the large hammer of the smith (Is 41 7; Jer 23 29), used figuratively of Babylon, or Nebuchadrezzar (Jer 50 23). (4) kélappoth (pl.), probably a cutting implement like an ax, not a hammer (Ps 74 6). Een NS HAMMIPHKAD, ham-mif’ked, GATE OF. See JERUSALEM, § 38. HAMMOLECHETH, hom-mol’i-kefh (02207, hammdlekheth, Hammoleketh AV): Apparently a Manassite clan closely connected with the Gileadites E. of the Jordan (I Ch 7 18). HAMMON, ham’en (1190, hammén), ‘hot spring’: 1. A border town of Asher (Jos 19 28), near Kanah, and therefore not far from Tyre. Unidentified. Evidence of a sanctuary of Baal Hamman has been found in two inscriptions at Khirbet Ummel ‘Amud, S. of Tyre. 2. A Gershonite Levitical city in Naph- tali (I Ch 6 76 [61]) =Hammoth-dor (Jos 21 32), and possibly Hammath (Jos 19 35). Cr, Sake HAMMOTH-DOR, ham’ath-dér’” (I8T An, hammoth do’r): A Levitical city of Naphtali (Jos 21 32), apparently the same as Hammath (Jos 19 35) and Hammon (I Ch 676). Map IV, E 7. See also HAMMATH, HAMMUEL, ham’mu-el (78190, hammudl, Hamuel AV): The ancestral head of a Simeonite clan (I Ch 4 26). HAMONAH, ha-md’na (729, hdmonah, Ham- monah AV), ‘multitude’: The symbolic name for a city near the place where the armies of Gog were Speers A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 328 to meet their fate (Ezk 39 16). It is not likely that | gatekeepers in Jerusalem (Neh 7 2). 3. A chief any actual city is referred to - HAMON-GOG, hé’mon-gog” (3 190, hamon gogh), ‘the multitude of Gog’: the valley, described quite specifically as ‘the valley of them that pass through on the east of the [Dead] sea’ (Ezk 39 11 ff.). It is likely that some actual valley, a thoroughfare between the regions E. and W. of the Jordan, is meant. The prophet uses it symbolically. It is to be filled with the dead bodies (of the hosts of Gog) and passage through it will thereby be blocked. The AV reading in ver. 11, ‘stop the noses,’ has no basis in the Heb. EH. E. N. HAMOR, hé’mér (1100, hdmor), ‘ass’: The name of a Hivite, ‘the father of Shechem,’ who along with his son was slain by the sons of Jacob for the wrong done their sister Dinah (Gn 34 2 #. Emmor in Ac716AV). Some maintain that under the guise of an incident in the life of two families, the story has embalmed an episode in the tribal relations of Israel with a Canaanite tribe, Hamor (a totem-clan, whose symbol was the ass). Another view identifies the sons of Hamor, the Hamorites, with the Amorites. ATG. HAMRAN, ham’/ren. See HEMDAN. HAMUEL, ham’yu-el or hoa-miii’el. MUEL. HAMUL, hé’mol (7191), hamil), ‘pitied’: The an- cestral head of one of the clans of Judah, the Ha- mulites (Gn 46 12; Nu 26 21; I Ch 25). HAMUTAL, hi-mi'tal (70307, hdmatal),‘my hus- band’s father is the dew’?: The wife of Josiah and mother of Jehoahaz and Zedekiah, kings of Judah (II K 23 31, 24 18; Jer 521). HANAMEL, han’s-mel (78220, hanam’al, Hana- ‘meel AV), ‘God is kind’?: The cousin of Jeremiah from whom the prophet purchased an ancestral field, according to the law of redemption (Lv 25 25), in the faith that after God’s judgment had been visited on Jerusalem the land would again be in- habited (Jer 327 #.). The notice of the transfer of the deed is of archeological interest. E. E. N. HANAN, hé’nen (]39, hdndn), ‘gracious’: 1. A. Benjamite chief (I Ch 8 23). 2. A descendant of Saul (I Ch 8 38, 9 44). 3. One of David’s mighty men (I Ch 11 43). 4. The head of a family of the Nethinim, who returned with Zerubbabel (Ezr 2 46; Neh 7 49). 5. One who assisted Ezra in explaining the Law (Neh 87), perhaps the same as Neh 10 10(11). 6. One of the four treasurers in charge of the tithes (Neh 13 13). 7, 8. Two who ‘sealed the covenant’ (Neh 10 22 [23], 26 [27]). 9. A son of Igdaliah, and a ‘man of God’ (prophet), whose sons had a cell in the Temple at Jerusalem (Jer 35 4). Chie i HANANEL, han’s-nel, TOWER OF. See Jerv- SALEM, § 38. HANANI, ha-né’nai (30, hdnanz), ‘gracious’: 1. A seer, father of Jehu (I K 161, 7; II Ch 19 2, 20 34), who rebuked Asa for relying on Syria, and was cast into prison. 2. A ‘brother,’ or kinsman, of Nehemiah, who brought news of the fate of Jeru- salem to Susa (Neh 1 2), and later was over the city See Ham- musician who took part in the dedication of the wall at Jerusalem (Neh 12 36). 4. A priest who had married a foreign wife (Ezr 10 20). 5. A musician, son of Heman, in David’s service (1 Ch 25 4, 25). OF Ne HANANIAH, han’s-nai’a (720, hdnanyaha, M20, hdnanyah), ‘J’’ is gracious’: Fourteen per- sons bearing this name are mentioned in the O T. 1. An officer under Uzziah (II Ch 26 11). 2. The father of Zedekiah, prince of Judah (Jer 36 12). 3. A prophet of the popular party who publicly op- posed Jeremiah’s policy and contradicted his declar- ations regarding the outcome of the siege of Jerusalem. In his reply Jeremiah predicted the speedy death of H. (Jer ch. 28). 4. The grandfather of Irijah (Jer 37 13). 5. One of Daniel’s three companions (Dn 16 f., 217 f.). 6. A Hemanite musician (I Ch. 25 4, 23). 7. A descendant of Banjamin (I Ch 8 24). 8. A descendant of David (I Ch 3 19, 21). 9. One of the ‘sons of Bebai’ who had married a foreign wife (Ezr 10 28). 10. A perfumer of Jerusalem who helped repair the wall (Neh 3 8). 11. A son of Shelemiah who helped repair the wall (Neh 3 30). 12. An officer under Nehemiah (Neh 7 2). 13. A representative of a family of the same name who signed the covenant (Neh 10 23). 14. A priest (Neh 12 12, 41). HAND (7, yaddh) (figurative use): While ‘hand’ is one of the anthropomorphic expressions which abound in the O T, its figurative use is not con- fined to Divine actions and expressions. A lan- guage which possesses few abstract terms is com- pelled to use objective words for the wide range of ideas that come with changed conditions and growing civilization. Even in the Assyrian, idu means ‘strength’ and in the Hebrew, phrases like ‘strengthen the hand’ readily pass into those in which the hand itself is a synonym for power: ‘none of the men of might have found their hands’ (Ps 76 5). In Jos 8 20 ‘power’ is ‘hands’ in the He- brew; cf. also Lv 5 7, 11, where ‘means’ is literally ‘hands.’ It is also rendered ‘dominion’ (II 8 8 3; I Ch 18 3). Closely connected with this use are the phrases in which the Lord’s hand is spoken of; it is ‘heavy’ in chastisement (I S 5 6); it is strong to deliver (Ex 13 3, 14, 16); it is not ‘short’ (Nu 11 23); it is ‘stretched out’ (Is 5 25, etc.); it seizes upon the prophet in inspiration (Is 8 11); even its ‘shadow’ may be spoken of (Is 49 2). Other figurative uses are more akin to its physical meaning, as ‘side’ (I S 4 18), ‘direction’ (‘coast,’ Nu 24 24), special ‘place’ (Dt 23 12; Nu 217). The Heb. word may also mean a ‘monument’ (I § 15 12), a share (Gn 47 24), or parts of objects, like an axletree and supports. Many prepositional phrases occur which are rendered literally into English, like ‘under the hand’ (Gn 41 35). Certain other Heb. words are rendered idiomatically by ‘hand’ in various com- binations in the AV, which are now obsolete or rare. There is also a wide range of emotional experiences in which the hand plays a large part—the hand that is waved in defiance, or pointed in scorn, that is raised in blessing, or extended for an oath, or that is laid upon the neophyte when inducted into his 329 A NEW STANDARD duties, speaks where the voice is unheard, or has ceased forever. The narrative and poetic sections of the O T owe their dramatic power in no small degree to this. ‘A hand upon the throne of Jah’ (Ex 17 16 mg.) has all the significance of a gage of battle, and is as well an appeal that fears not to bring J’’ Himself into the fray. The priest who enters on his functions must have his ‘hands filled,’ Eng. ‘be consecrated’ (Ex 29 9; Jg 17 5)—whether with sacrificial portions, or priestly emblems, or the dignity of the office is uncertain. Washing hands in innocency, real or assumed, was a practised rite (Dt 21 6-8; Mt 27 24), and ministration to a leader could be symbolized by the phrase ‘pour water on the hands’ (II K 3 11). But ‘clean hands’ and a ‘pure heart’ are correlative terms by which the citizen of Zion is distinguished from those who have not shrunk from touching the unclean thing (Ps 24 4). For the late Jewish expression ‘defile the hands’ see O T Canon, §8ff. A.S.C.*—O.R.S. HANDBREATH. SURES, § 2. HANDKERCHIEF: The word so_ rendered, coudéetroyv (Ac 19 12), is a Lat. word, sudarium (from sudor, ‘sweat’), signifying a cloth for wiping off perspiration, or for similar purposes. The same word is rendered ‘napkin’ (Lk 19 20; Jn 11 44, 207). The word rendered aprons (ctutxivOre) in the same passage (Ac 19 12) is also a Lat. word, semicinctium (a ‘half-girdle,’ from semi, ‘half,’ and cingere, ‘to bind’), meaning a ‘small girdle’ and then applied to a cloth worn over the clothing to protect it and fastened, or girded, about the waist. In Gn 37 the Heb. word rendered ‘aprons’ means ‘girdle,’ on which see Dress AND ORNAMENTS, §1. E. E.N. HANDMAID. See Faminy anp Faminy Law, § 7; MarRIAGE AND Divorce, § 3; and SLAVERY, § 2. HANDSTAVES: The Heb word maggél, often rendered ‘staff’ (‘staves’; cf. I S 17 40, 42), is found in Ezk 399 joined with ‘hand,’ magqgél yddh, ‘staff of the hand’ (the sing. for the plural), denoting one of the many kinds of weapons used by the hosts of Gog. Probably the simplest sort of weapon such as clubs, is meant, tho possibly the goads, or sticks, used for driving the animals may be intended (so A. B. Davidson in Camb. Bible, Ezekiel). K. E, N. HANDWRITING (ye:edyeagov): The literal ren- dering (in Col 2 14 AV) of a term used in the sense of a ‘written obligation,’ as a ‘note,’ ‘bond,’ ete. Here Paul uses it of the Law, as if it were a note, or bond, indicative of an infinite debt. E. E. N. HANES, hé’niz (027, hdnés): An Egyptian city, mentioned with Zoan (Is 30 4), giving perhaps the limits of the Egyptian kingdom. If so, it may be Heracleopolis magna (Coptic Hnés, Gr. "Avuatc, Herod. 2 137) in middle Egypt, between the Nile and Fayiim, the ruins Ahnds el Medina. The texts and versions of Is 30 4 f. vary, and the meaning is obscure. Some think that Hanes is for Taphanhes on the NE. frontier of Egypt, near Zoan, which would give two cities near Palestine. C2s.1, See WEIGHTS AND MEas- Hamon-Gog Haran BIBLE DICTIONARY HANG, HANGING. See Crimes AND PUNISH- MENTS, § 3. HANGING, HANGINGS. See TaBEeRNACLB, § 3. HANIEL. See Hannieu. HANNAH, han’a or han’a (730, hannah), ‘grace’: One of the two wives of Elkanah and the mother of Samuel, the prophet. In the rather late narrative (I S chs. 1-2; see Samunn, Booxs or) H. is repre- sented as a pious woman, but unhappy because of her childlessness. Samuel was born in answer to her prayer and devoted by his mother to the service of J’’. Afterward she became the mother of five other children (I S 2 21). In the LXX. the Song is inserted after 1 28a, and after the Song we read at 2 11a, ‘And she left him (Samuel) there before the Lord and returned to Ramathaim.’ This difference between the Heb. and the LXX. shows that the Song is probably a later insertion into the text of IS of a poem that originally had nothing to do with either Hannah or Samuel. See further SAMUEL, Books or, § 3. EK. E. N. HANNATHON, han’no-fhen (JN, hanndathon): A place on the N. border of Zebulon (Jos 19 14); perhaps the modern Kefr ’Andn, a little E. of Ramah, Map IV, D 6. C8e'T: HANNIEL, han’/ni-el (98°30, hanni’al), ‘God is grace,’ or ‘pity’: 1. A ‘prince’ of Manasseh (Nu 34 23). 2. The head of a family of Asher (I Ch 7 39, Haniel AV). HANOCH, hé’nok (4129, hdndkh): 1. The ances- tral head of a clan of Midian (Gn 25 4; I Ch 1 33, Henoch AV) (see ETHNOGRAPHY AND HErTH- NoLoGy, § 13). 2. The ancestral head of a clan of Reuben, the Hanochites (Gn 46 9; Nu 26 5, etc.). HANUN, hé’non (1)30, hanin), ‘pitied’: 1. The son of Nahash, King of Ammon. His insolent treatment of the messengers of David brought on a war in which the Ammonites lost their independ- ence (IIS 101 8.; I Ch 191#.). 2, 3. The name of two persons who assisted in the work on the wall of Jerusalem (Neh 3 13, 30). HAPHARAIM, haf’’a-ré’im (9°190, hapharayim, Haphraim AV): A town on the border of Issachar (Jos 19 19), not yet certainly identified. HAPPIZZEZ, hap’piz-ez (V¥2'7, happitstséts, Aph- ses AV): The ancestral head of the 18th course of priests (I Ch 24 15). HARA, hé’ra (SVJ, hdara’): A section of the Assyrian Kingdom, to which the Israelites from Samaria were deported (I Ch 5 26). The corre- sponding account in II K 17 6, 18 11 reads ‘in the cities of the Medes,’ for which the LXX. has ‘in the mountains of the Medes’ (1) "IJ, hadré maday). The LXX. is to be preferred, and would account for san (I Ch 5 26). CLBat: HARADAH, ha-ré’da or har’s-da (7710, hara- dhah): A station on the wilderness route between Sinai and Kadesh (Nu 33 24). Site unknown. HARAN, hé’ran (17, haraén): 1. A son of Terah and brother of Abraham. He was the father of Haran Hashum A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 330 LD LLL Lot, and of Milcah, the wife of his brother Nahor, and of Iscah. He is represented as dying before his father Terah (Gn 11 26f., 31 [P], 28 £. [J]). Probably behind these individual names tribal or clan rela- tions are signified. 2. A Levite (1 Ch 23 9). E. E. N. HARAN, hé’ran (107, harén, in N T Xapepdy, Charran AV): I. A city of Mesopotamia situated on the Bélikh about 60 m. above its confluence with the Euphrates. It was a junction-point on the great trade-route from Nineveh to Carchemish (see Map of Ancient Semitic World), and was a place of great commercial importance (cf. Ezk 27 23). It was also a chief seat of the worship of the moon-god Sin, and is frequently mentioned in the Assyr. inscrip- tions (cf. II K 19 12; Is 37 12). At H. after the fall of Nineveh in 612 B.c., the remnant of the Assyrian forces made a last stand against the Babylonians and Medes, but were utterly defeated (611-609 3.c.). H. maintained its importance to quite recent times (13th cent.), its ancient paganism continuing until the 11th cent. It was at or near H. that the family of Abram either had their original home (so J, Gn 12 1, 4. Cf. 24 4, 7, 10, etc.), or made their home after their migration from Ur, another great center of moon- worship (so P, Gn 11 28b, 31 f., 15 7, etc.). A range of mounds on both sides of the river is all that remains of the ancient city. Ii. A son of Caleb (I Ch 2 46). E. E.N. HARARITE, hé’ra-rait (17, hararz), ‘the moun- taineer’ (or ‘the man from Harar’?): A designa- tion of two of David’s heroes. 1. Shammah (II S 23 11, 33; I Ch 11 34, where ‘Shagee’ perhaps = Shammah). 2. Ahiam (II § 23 33, Ararite RV; I Ch 11 35). It is possible that in I Ch 11 34 ‘Hararite’ refers to Jonathan. There is much text-confusion in these passages. EH. KE. N. HARBONA, HARBONAH, hiar-bd’na, har-bd’na. See CHAMBERLAINS, THE SEVEN. HARD QUESTION. See PRovERBs. HARDEN (THE HEART): In the O T this ex- pression occurs mainly in the story of the plagues (Ex chs. 7-10), or in reference to the rebellious spirit often manifested by Israel (cf. II K 17 14; Neh 9 16 ff.; Ps 95 8; Jer 7 26). The Heb. terms used are derivatives of three roots differing in meaning: (1) hdzaq, ‘to be stable,’ ‘strong’ (‘to do a thing,’ or ‘to resist,’ etc.), frequently found in the causative form with J”’ as the subject (cf. Ex 4 21, 9 12, 10 20, 27, 1110, 14 4,8, 17; Jos 11 20). Tho the most of such passages belong to the later strands of the narratives, the same idea is found also in the early writers J and E. They did not think of this ‘harden- ing’ as a capricious or arbitrary proceeding on God’s part. It was rather a step in His sovereign process of judgment on those who had already incurred the Divine displeasure by first ‘hardening’ their own hearts (cf. Ex 7 13, 22, 819, 9 35). There is no instance in the Bible of God arbitrarily ‘hardening’ the heart of an innocent man simply to punish him. (2) kabhédh, ‘to be heavy,’ with the idea of ‘stubborn- ness’ most prominent (cf. Ex 7 14, 8 15, 32, 9 7, 34, 101; 1866). (8) gashah, ‘to be (or make) hard,’ figuratively applied to a moral disposition un- responsive to discipline or appeal (cf. Ex 7 3; Dt 2 30, and the reff. in Neh, etc., noted above). (4) ’amats, ‘to be strong’ (Dt 15 7; II Ch 36 13). In the N T we have echoes of the O T expressions, with no specific difference of conception (cf. Mk 8 17; Jn 12 40; Ac 19 9, etc.). Paul’s words (Ro 9 18) are not to be understood as taking absolutely no account of moral responsibility (see Sanday on Romans 9 18 in ICC.). E. E. N. HARE. See Patustine, § 24. HAREPH, hé’ref. See Haripu. HARETH, hé’reth. See Herrera. HARHAIAH, hGr-hé’ya (7070, harhdyéh): The father of Uzziel (Neh 3 8). HARHAS, hor’has (P0795, harhas): The grand- father of Shallum, the husband of Huldah the proph- etess (II K 22 14; Hasrah in II Ch 34 22). HARHOUR, har’hor (1170, harhir), ‘fever’ (?): The ancestral head of a subdivision of the Nethinim (Ezr 2 51; Neh 7 53). HARIM, hé’rim (9°77, and 28°, harim, ‘dedi- cated,’ or ‘devoted’: 1. The ancestral name of a large postexilic family (Ezr 2 32, 10 31; Neh 3 i, 7 35, 10 27). Like other names in the list this may also be the name of the place where these returned Jews lived, tho it is not yet identified. 2. The ances- tral head of the third course of priests (I Ch 24 8), i.e., of the large priestly family called by this name (Ezr 2 39, 10 21; Neh 7, 42, 105). 3. An individual belonging to 1 or 2 (Neh 12 15). EK. E. N. HARIPH, hé’rif (79, hariph, Hareph I Ch 2 51 RV): 1. The ‘father of Beth-gader’ in a Calebite genealogy (I Ch 2 51). The names here are place- names, by which movements. of population are in- dicated, and probably the reference is to the town elsewhere called Haruph (I Ch 125). 2. A postexilic family, or community, apparently living at Haruph, of Hariph (Neh 7 24, 1019). In Ezr 218 Jorah instead of Hariph occurs. E. EL. N. HARLOT: Prostitution was a deeply rooted and widely practised evil in the ancient Semitic world. There was not only common prostitution for hire but religious prostitution, in which the votaries were attached to a temple or shrine, and gave themselves in this way to the service of deity, a practise closely connected with the deification of the reproductive forces of nature. In the O T the technical term for a religious prostitute (WIP, g¢dhéshah) occurs but seldom (Gn 38 21 f.; Dt 23 17; Hos 414). The more general term for common harlotry ("2!, 2a- nah (often rendered in AV by whore, whoredom, etc.) is used in both senses. In the O T legislation there are no specific statutes against common prostitution, except in Lv 19 29, due probably to the somewhat lower standard of morality. Against religious prostitution the attitude was much more positive. Not only were the priestly families to keep clear of such practises (Lv 21 7, 9, 14; Dt 23 18), but the many prohibitions and warnings directly against the practise of the Canaanite religion by Israelites, characterizing it as harlotry, are due, at least in part, 331 A NEW STANDARD to the degrading nature of such worship (cf. Ex 34 15; Hos 1 2, 4 12 #.; Ezk 16 23 f., etc.). In the prophetic period, and later, many voices were raised against the all too-prevalent sexual immorality (cf. Gn 34 31; Am 27; Hos 4 2, 1; Jn 2 208.,368.; Pr 6 26, etc.). Children by such illegitimate connections could be brought up in the father’s house (ef. Jg 111f.). See Crimes AND PuNISHMENTS, § 2 (c); and MarrIAGE AND Divorce, § 4. KH. E.N. HAR-MAGEDON, har’’-ma-ged’an (‘Apuayeday) (Rev 1616, Armageddon AV, Ar-Magedon RVmg): An apocalyptic symbol for the site of the final con- flict between the forces of good and evil. Its ex- planation depends on the form of the underlying Hebrew. Hippolytus is supposed to have read something like ‘Valley of Megiddo,’ with allusion to Zec 12 11 (cf. Lagarde, Analecta, 1858, p. 27, n. 18). Origen’s (Eus. Onom. Sacr. ed. Lagarde, p. 187 reading was ‘Ar-Miggedem (‘the plain before’). Luther’s marginal gloss is based on the N T, but derives the word from herem, ‘curse.’ Gunkel (Schépf. u. Chaos, 1894) elaborates Hommel’s sug- gestion that the Hebrew was har md‘édh (‘mount of congregation’, cf. Is 14 13), and connects it with the Babylonian notion of a world-conflict on some mountain height. But, according to the common- ly accepted view, Har-Magedon is simply a Greek transliteration of the Hebrew for ‘mountain of Megiddo.’ This does not occur in the O T, but the plain of Megiddo{n] was proverbially the scene of decisive contests (Zec 1211; Jg 519; II K 9 27, 23 29), and Gunkel’s theory may be correct in so far as it ac- counts for a change, under Babylonian influence, of ‘the plain of Megiddo’ into ‘a mountain of Megiddo.’ A.C. Z. HARMON. This word is taken as a place-name by RV at Am 4 3, but the reading is uncertain. No such place is known. HARNEPHER, hGr’ni-for (12373, harnepher): A descendant of Asher (I Ch 7 36). HARNESS: The AV rendering of shiryon in I K 22 34 ||II Ch 18 33. See ARMs AND Armor, § 9. HAROD, hé’rod (10, hdrédh): 1. The spring of Harod was the place where Gideon’s army en- camped before his night attack on the Midianites (Jg 71). It is now identified with ‘Ain Jélud, at the foot of Mt. Gilboa, at the W. end of the valley Jezreel (see Map IV, D 8). 2. Shammoth, the Ha- rodite, one of David’s captains (II S 23 25; in I Ch 11 27 Harorite, which is clearly an error). Jo Aste HAROEH, ho-ro’e or har’o-i (M8, hard’eh), ‘the seer’: The name of a small clan or, possibly, of a place, in the genealogy of the Calebites descended from Hur (I Ch 2 52). Perhaps the name here is a mistake for Reaiah (cf. 4 2). BK. E. N. ss HARORITE, hé’ro-rait. See Hanon, 2. HAROSHETH, ho-rd’sheth (NY10, hdrdsheth): The headquarters.of Sisera, the general of Jabin’s forces (Jg 4 2, 13, 16)>It is usually identified with el- Harithiyeh, near the Kishon at the W. end of the Plain of Esdraelon. It is situated at the narrowest w, Haran BIBLE DICTIONARY Hashum point of the defile, commanding the entrance to the plain (see Map IV, B 7). H bg, wat HARP, HARPER. See Music anp Musicau INSTRUMENTS, § 3. HARROW. See Acricuurure, § 4. HARSHA, har’sha (S¥70, harsha’), ‘deaf’: The ancestral head of a subdivision of the Nethinim (Eizr 2 52; Neh 7 54). HARSITH, har’sifth, THE GATE. See Jrrv- SALEM, § 32. HART. See Foon, § 10; and Patestineg, § 24. HARUM, hé’rom (977), hartim): The ancestral head of a family of Judah (I Ch 4 8). HARUMAPH, ha-ri’maf (79390, hdrimaph), ‘with pierced nose’ (?): The father of Jedaiah (Neh 3 10). HARUPHITE, ho-ri’fait (2100, hdriphz): In I Ch 12 5 Shephatiah is called ‘the Haruphite,’ 7.e., he belonged to Haruph. See Harrra. HARUZ, hé’roz (¥1", hdartts): The father of Meshullemeth, wife of King Manasseh (II K 21 19). HARVEST. See AGRIcuLTURE, §§ 6, 7; and PALESTINE, §§ 17-20. HASADIAH, has’’a-dai’i (WIEN, hasadhyah), J” is kind’: A son of Zerubbabel (I Ch 3 20). HASENUAH, has’’1-nii’d. See HassENvAH. HASHABIAH, hasgh’’a-bai’d (TM3VU0, M300, hd- shabhyah[a]), ‘J’’ has taken account’: 1. Two Le- vites of the sons of Merari (I Ch 6 45 [30], 914; Neh 11 15). 2. A son of Jeduthun (I Ch 25 3, 19). 3. A Hebronite (I Ch 26 30). 4. The ruler of the Levites (I Ch 27 17). 5. A chief Levite under King Josiah (II Ch 359). 6. A Levite who returned with Ezra (Ezr 8 19). 7. One of twelve priests entrusted with the holy vessels (Ezr 8 24=Neh 12 24). 8. One who helped repair the wall of Jerusalem (Neh 3 17) and sealed the covenant (10 11 [12], 12 24). 9. A Levite (11 22). 10. A priest (Neh 12 21). Great, HASHABNAH, hosgh-ab’na@ (723¥0, hdshabhnah): The head of a postexilic family (Neh 10 25). HASHABNEIAH, hash”ab-ni-ai’a (TMIAYO, ha- shabhn¢yah, Hashabniah AV), ‘J’’ has thought of me’: 1. The father of Hattush (Neh 310). 2. A Levite (Neh 9 5). HASHBADDANAH, hasgh-bad’a-na = (AYTSVN, hashbaddanah, Hashbadana AY): A scribe or priest (Neh 8 4). HASHEM, hé’shem. See JASHEN. HASHMONAH, hagh-md’/na (70Y0, hashmo- nah): A station on the wilderness route (Nu 33 29 f.), not yet identified. HASHUB, hé’shoub. See HASSHUB. HASHUBAH, ho-shi’ba (7300, hdshtibhah): A son of Zerubbabel (I Ch 3 20) HASHUM, hé’shom (80%, hashiim): 1. The an- cestral head of a large postexilic family, also possi- bly the home of the family, as well as its represent- ative men (Ezr 2 19, 10 33; Neh 7 22, 10 18). 2. A priest or scribe (Neh 8 4). Health A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY / g3e HASHUPHA, ha-shii’fe. See Hasupwa. times considered a part of the Hauran). In the HASIDEANS = has’’1-di’anz or dé’anz. See PHARISEES, § 3. HASMONEANS, has’’mo-ni’enz or -né’anz. See MAcCABEES. HASRAH, haz’ra or has’ra. See Harwas. HASSENAAH, has’’1-né’a (78207, hass¢nd’ah): The ‘sons of H.’ repaired part of the wall of Jeru- salem (Neh 3 3). The name is peculiar, but as yet there is no satisfactory explanation (cf. Cheyne in EBs.v.). See also SENAAH. E. E. N. HASSENUAH, has’1-niii’a (T8200, hass¢nw’ah, Hasenuah and Senuah AV): Apparently a Ben- jamite clan-name (I Ch 97; Neh 119). See Spnaan. HASSHUB, hasgh’ob (23¥0, hashshabh), ‘thought of’ (z.e., by God): 1. Apparently-the ancestral head of a subdivision of Merarite Levites (I Ch 9 14; Neh 11 15, Hashub AV). 2. The name of several in- dividuals (Neh 3 11, 23, 10 23). HASSOPHERETH, has’’o-fi’refth. See SopuHx- RETH. HASTY FRUIT: This expression is found in Is 28 4 AV. For the correct rendering see RV. HASUPHA, ha-sii’fa (SPIVD, hdsipha’, Hashu- pha AV): The ancestral head of a subdivision of the Nethinim (Ezr 2 43=Neh 7 46). HAT: The Aramaic original, 82272, karbela’ (Dn 3 21), is rare and occurs but once in the O T, and while ‘hat’ (AV) conveys a wrong idea of its mean- ing, the RV rendering ‘tunic’ is not certain. ‘Hel- met’ or ‘cap’ (so BDB.) would seem to be nearer the correct meaning. See Dress, §8. E. E. N. HATACH, hé’tak. See Haruacs. HATCHET. See Ax. HATE (OF GOD). See Gop, § 2. HATHACH, hé’thak (100, hdthaékh, Hatach AV): A eunuch at the court of Ahasuerus (Est 4 5 f..). HATHATH, hé’thath (OD, hdthath): A son of Othniel (I Ch 4 13). HATIPHA, ha-tai’fa or hat’i-fa (SB°D0, hdtipha’), ‘snatched away’: The ancestral head of one of the subdivisions of the Nethinim (Ezr 2 54=Neh 7 5s). HATITA, ha-tai’ta or hat’i-ta (8Y’OD, hadtita’): The ancestral head of one of the subdivisions of the porters, or doorkeepers, of the Second Temple (Ezr 2 42=Neh 7 45). HATTIL, hat’il (270n1, hattil): The ancestral head of one of the subdivisions of ‘Solomon’s servants’ (Ezr 2 57=Neh 7 59). HATTUSH, hat’ush (WiUN, hattish): 1. A de- scendant of David (I Ch 3 22). The same person is probably referred to in Ezr 8 2, tho the texts of Ch and Ezr are not quite harmonious. 2. A priest (Neh 10 4, 12 2). 3. One of those who helped in building the wall of Jerusalem (Neh 3 10). HAURAN, hau"ran’ or hé’ren (1710, hawran), ‘hol- low land’: The fertile basin, now practically treeless, about 50 m. square and 2,000 ft. above sea-level, SE. of Mt. Hermon, between Jauldn and the Lejé (some- of the sea and becoming a ‘haven’ for ships. Bible the name is found only in Ezk 47 16, 18 as marking the ideal border of Canaan on the E. The modern Arabs call essentially the same district el-Haurdn. The name occurs also in the ancient inscriptions of Assyria. In Greco-Roman times the same region was known as Auranitis, which was bounded on the N. by Trachonitis, and on the NW. by Gaulantis and Bataneza, all included in the kingdom of Herod the Great. Upon his death they fell to Philip (Lk 31). Troglodytes, doubtless, once occupied the rocky E. portion. G. L. Ri: HAVEN: In the ‘blessing of Jacob’ (Gn 49 13) Zebulon is represented as dwelling at the ‘haven’ The Heb. hodph, however, means no more than ‘shore’ or ‘beach,’ and is so rendered where it occurs else- where (Dt 17; Jos 91; Jg 517 [AV]; Jer 47 7; Ezk . 25 16). It is the proximity of Zebulon to the Medi- terranean coast and to the Pheenicians with their maritime commerce that is implied. In Ps 107 30 the word madhéz may mean ‘city’ rather than ‘haven,’ but this is not certain. On Ac 27 12 see Fair HAVENS. E. E. N. HAVENS, FAIR. See Farr HAvEns. HAVE TO DO WITH: In all instances but one this phrase is the rendering of idiomatic questions which read literally, ‘What is there to you [sing. or pl.] and to me [or some other person],’ 7.e., what community of interest or what relationship can be supposed to exist between the two parties, a negative answer being implied (Jos 22 24; Jg i112; IL S 16 10; I K 1718; Mt 8 29, 27 19; Mk 1 24; Jn 2 4, etc.). In He 4 13 the literal reading is: ‘with whom is our account’ (or reckoning, Aéyos), referring to man’s account- ability to God. EK. E. N. HAVILAH, hav’i-la. See ETHNOGRAPHY AND Erunotoey, § 13. HAVVOTH-JAIR, hé’’voth-jé’ir (V8? NN, haw- woth y@ir): A group of trans-Jordanic towns, or vil- lages (60 in Dt 3 4, 30 in Jg 10 4), conquered by the Manassite clan Jair (Nu 32 41, spoken of as an in- dividual in Jg 10 4). The term hawwé6th, originally signifying a group of Bedawin tents, was later applied even to fortified cities (I K 413). The two traditions, one locating them in Gilead (I K 4 13), the other in Bashan (Dt 3 14), are not mutually exclusive; the former includes the latter. J. Aes HAWK. See Pauestine, § 25. HAY: The terms so rendered (hatsir, Pr 27 25; Is 156 AV, and ydetos I Co 3 12) are very general in meaning, signifying grass or the early blade of grains, such as barley, rye, etc. See also PALEs- TINE, § 22. EK. E. N. HAZAEL, hé’zo-el or haz’o-el (2810, hdza’él), ‘God sees,’ Assyr. Hazailu: A king of Damascus, c. 844-804 p.c. He had been singled out by Elijah to succeed Ben-hadad II, and when sent by that king to Elisha to inquire the issue of a sickness, he was told by the prophet that he would succeed his master and inflict distress on the people of Israel. The next day H. put Ben-haded to death and usurped the 333 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Hashupha Health throne. He was one of the most vigorous: of the kings of Damascus, and in war against Jehu and Jehoahaz (II K 10 32, 33, 13 22) he brought Israel to the brink of destruction. He also successfully resisted the attacks of Shalmaneser III in 842 and 839. A. C. Z.—E. E. N. HAZAIAH, hea-zé’ya (NID, hdzdyah), ‘J’ hath seen’: The head of a postexilic family (Neh 11 5). HAZAR-ADDAR, hé’’zir-ad’dar. See Appar. HAZAR-ENAN, hé’zGr-i’‘nan (]7?¥ 750, hdtsar ‘enan), HAZAR-ENON, -i’nen (117¥ ‘NT, h. ‘Endn), ‘enclosure of the fountains’: The NE. corner of the (ideal) border of the land of Israel in the priestly theory of Israel (Nu 349 f.; Ezk 47 17, 481). Some point near Dan was evidently meant. EK. E.N. HAZAR-GADDAH, hé’’zar-gad’a (771 TSO, ha- tsar gaddah): A city in the S. of Judah (Jos 15 27). Site unknown. HAZAR-HATTICON, hé’’zar-hat’iken. See Ha- ZER-HATTICON. HAZARMAVETH, hé’zar-mé’veth (1)7%7, hatsarmaweth): An Arabian clan, descended from Joktan (Gn 10 26; I Ch 1 20). See ErHnoGrapPHy AND ETHNOLOGY, § 13. HAZAR-SHUAL, hé”zar-shi’al (PY ASD, ha- tsar-sha‘al): A town in the S. of Judah near Beer- sheba (Jos 15 28), assigned also to Simeon (Jos 19 3; I Ch 4 28). It was reoccupied in postexilic days (Neh 11 27). Not yet certainly identified. HAZAR-SUSAH, HAZARSUSIM, hé’zar-si’si, -sii’sim ({0°D1D] MBiID “SN, hdtsar stisah for -im)), ‘village of horses’: A town in SW. Judah occupied by Simeonites (Jos 19 5; I Ch 4 31), also called Sansannah (Jos 15 31). It may have had some con- nection with the commerce in horses carried on by Solomon (I K 10 28 £.). Site unknown. See also Brru-MARCABOTH. KH. E. N. HAZAZON - TAMAR, haz” a - zon - té’ mar (2H 1SS0, hatsdtson tama@r, Hazezon-tamar AV), ‘Hazazon of the palm’: A place identified with En-gedi (q.v.) in II Ch 20 2. But this does not well suit the other notice in Gn 14 7, which seems to demand a location farther 8S. That En-gedi was famous for its palm-trees seems well attested (Jos Ant. IX, 1 2), and the notice in II Ch 20 2 is probably correct. But there may have been another town of the same name, possibly the Tamar in the S. of Judah (cf. Ezk 47 19), to which Gn 147 refers. See TAMAR. HK. E. N. HAZEL. See Pauesting, § 21. HAZELELPONTI, haz’’1-lel-pd’nai. See Hazzr- LELPONI. HAZER - HATTICON, hé’’zar-hat’i-kon (137 }>°N, hatsér hattikhén, Hazar-hatticon AV), ‘the middle village’: A place on the (ideal) N. border of the land of Israel (Ezk 47 16). It is probable that the original reading was Hazar-enon (q.v.). HAZERIM, he-zi’rim (O°7S0, hdtsérim), ‘vil- lages’: This term, found in Dt 2 23 AV (cf. RV), refers to the original inhabitants of the coast region W. of Judah, who were expelled from their rude vil- lages by the Philistine invaders. HAZEROTH, he-zi’reth (NIN¥0, hdtsérdth): One of the encampments of the Israelites between Sinai and Kadesh. In the list of stations it is situated be- tween Kibroth-hattaavah and Rithmah (Nu 3317 £). It has been questionably identified with ‘Ain el-Ha- dra, which lies 40 m. NE. of Jebel Masa, toward the head of the Gulf of ‘Akabah. J: As KS HAZEZON - TAMAR, haz’’-izen-té’mar. See HAZAZON-TAMAR. HAZIEL, hé’zi-el (310, hdazi-él), ‘God sees’: A Gershonite Levite (I Ch 23 9). HAZO, hé’zd (i!9, hdzd): An Aramean clan, counted among the descendants of Nahor (Gn 22 22). | Perhaps the Hazt in N. Arabia of the Assyrian in- scriptions. HAZOR, hé’zér (11S, hatsdr,‘settlement’): 1. The capital of Jabin’s kingdom (Jos 11 1), possibly at Jebel Hadireh W. of the waters of Merom. Map IV, D 5. 2, 3. Two towns in the Negeb of Judah (Jos 15 23, 25). The site of the first is unknown. The second is also called Kerioth-hezron (q.v.). 4. A Benjamite town (Neh 11 33), probably the ruin Hazzur, 4 m. NW. of Jerusalem. Map II, F 1. 5. An unknown locality mentioned in connection with Kedar (Jer 49 28 #.). L. G. L.—L. B. P. HAZOR-HADATTAH, hé’”zér-he-dat’a (VSN M10, hatsor hadhattah, Hazor Hadattah AV), ‘new Hazor’: A place in the 8. of Judah (Jos 15 25). Site unknown. The text here may contain an error. HAZZELELPONI, haz’i-lel-po’nai (21522877, hatstslelp6ni, Hazelelponi AV): The name of a female in the genealogy of Judah (I Ch 4 3). Trae pad Be HEAD: While nearly all the instances in which the word ‘head’ occurs in the Bible are self-explana- tory, a few specimens of idiomatic usage may be noted. (1) ‘Heads’ of ‘fathers’ houses,’ or of the people or of tribes, etc., is a non-technical way of designating chieftains, princes, elders, etc. (2) To say that blood was ‘upon the head’ of any one was to charge him with responsibility for the death of some one (cf. Jos 2 19; IIS 116). (8) To say that any one ‘lifted up’ his head meant that he asserted himself in pride or power etc. (cf. Jg 8 28; Ps 83 2, etc.) (4) To ‘lift up’ another’s head was to exalt him to a station of power, etc. (cf. Gn 40 20; II K 25 27). E. E. N. HEADBAND. See Dress AND ORNAMENTS, § 8. HEADTIRE. See Dress AND ORNAMENTS, 88. HEAL, HEALING. See Disease anv MeEpt- CINE, § 3; and, in general, MIRACLES. HEALING, GIFTS OF. See Cuurcu LIFE AND ORGANIZATION, § 7. HEALTH: This Eng. word once had a much broader meaning than it now has. In the O T we find it representing: (1) ’drakhah (from ’Grakh, ‘to be long’), primarily meaning the new flesh that gradually forms in the case of a wound, then healing, or health (Is 58 8; Jer 8 22, 3017, 33 6). (2) marpé and riph’uth (both from raépha’, ‘to heal’), ‘healing.’ Heap Hebrew Language A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 334 LL LLL LLL (Pr 4 22, 12 18, 13 17, 16 24; Jer 8 15, and Pr 3 8) (3) In Ps 42 11, 43 5, 67 2 the Heb. means ‘salva- tion,’ ‘help,’ or ‘safety,’ and is so rendered in RV. (4) In II S 20 9 the Heb. is shalom, the ordinary salutation (lit. ‘Is there peace?’ or ‘Is it well with you?’ So RV). In Ac 27 34 cf. RV for the correct rendering. KE. E. N. HEAP, HEAPS: (1) In Jg 1516 the Heb. contains a play on words, the terms for ‘ass,’ ‘heap,’ ‘to be red,’ and the verb ‘to heap up’ all being quite alike in sound. The RV rendering of v. 16a is probably not quite correct. Moore would read, ‘With the jaw-bone of an ass I have piled them in heaps. Burney conjectures ‘with a red ass’s jawbone I have reddened them right red.’ (2) The Heb ?F tal, ‘mound’ or hill on which a city was built (cf. Jos 11 13; Jer 31 21) is also rendered ‘heap’ where the reference is the ruins of a city (Dt 13 17; Jos 8 28; Jer 49 2) (3) The Heb °¥, % ‘ruin,’ is also rendered ‘heap’ (pl. ‘heaps’) in Jer 26 18; Mi 1 6, 312; Ps 791; and probably also in Is 17, the original reading was *Y (not ’Y). K. E. N. HEAR, HEARING. See Propuecy, § 6. HEART. See Man, Docrrine or, § 8; and Gop, § 2. HEART, DISEASES OF. See Diszask AND MEDICINE, § 4 (2). HEARTH: A word which occurs in the AV seven times; the RV retains ‘hearth’ in only one of these passages, Is 3014, and uses it in three additional ones. Several Heb. words are thus translated. (1) ’ah (Jer 36 22 f.) is correctly translated in RV brazier, which was used to warm the winter-room. The modern brazier is made of burnt clay, and, filled with coals, is placed in a hollow in the center of the room. When the coals are burned out, a wooden frame is placed over the brazier and on this a rug, to keep in the warmth. (2) kiyyér (Zec 12 6 RY), a pan of fire, for domestic use, perhaps similar to (1). (3) mdgédh (Ps 102 3 [4] RV), ‘firebrand’ (ef. Is 33 14, ‘burnings’). (4) ydqudh (Is 30 14), ‘fire burn- ing on the hearth.’ (5) méq*dhah (Lv 6 9 [2] RV), the hearth (‘place of burning’) on top of the altar, translated by some ‘fire-wood.’ (6) har’aél=’dr7’al (Ezk 43 15 t. RV; cf. Is291f. RVmg.), ‘altar hearth,’ the upper portion of the altar on which the offer- ings were burned. See also ArreLt. Gn 18 6 is correctly translated (RV) ‘make cakes,’ omitting ‘on the hearth.’ GS Re HEAT OF THE DAY. See Timp, § 1. HEATH: There is no heath in Palestine or in the deserts near by. The plant referred to in Jer 17 6, 48 6 is thought to be a variety of juniper, with small scale-like leaves close to the stem, and consequently called ‘ar‘Gr (‘naked’). E. E. N. HEATHEN. See GentTILEs. HEAVE, HEAVE-OFFERING. The Heb teramah (from rim ‘to be high’) meaning ‘something lifted’ or ‘separated’ was applied first in a general way to contributions or offerings, as things ‘set aside’ to J’’, and later more specifically to the share set aside for the Priests or Levites out of the general offerings of the people (cf. Dt 12 6, 11; Ezk 45 6-16, 48 10-21; (here rendered oblation in EV); and esp. Ex 29 27 ¢. Lev 7 34, 1014 .; Nu 15 19 ff. 18 8 ff. etc.). See also SACRIFICE AND OFFERINGS, § 17. HEAVEN (in the O T generally expressed by shamayim; in the N T by odeavéc, pl. -of): 1. Twofold Interest. The Biblical conception of heay- en may be viewed either as a cosmological or as a religious one. These two, however, are closely inter- related. It is because the cosmological notion was what it was that the religious conception was an outgrowth from it. 2. Cosmological Conception. Cosmologically, heaven is either one of the two great divisions of the universe (Gn 11) or one of the three (heaven, earth, and the waters under the earth, Ex 204). The usage is not exact, and the twofold division of the universe, © in the first case, as well as the threefold in the second, is made for the sake of presenting the idea of the universe exhaustively rather than for the sake of showing its parts analytically. A more fixed cos- mological notion is given in the identification of heaven with the firmament, which was conceived in the form of an inverted bowl resting upon the earth and keeping the waters above separated from the waters under the earth. This dome was provided with windows (Windows of Heaven Gn 7 11, 8 2) through which the waters above fell in rains and floods. Besides this function, heaven, or the firma- ment, was viewed as the place in which the sun, the moon, and the stars were fixed (Ezk 32 7 £.; Gn 1 14 ff.; Mt 24 29). In this sense heaven is the sky (Mt 16 2). Whether heaven was thought to be a simple vault with several divisions or stories is a disputed question. As a matter of fact, the concep- tion is not the same through all the stages of Bibli- cal cosmology. There is no clear trace of more than one heaven in the earlier Hebrew thought. By ‘heaven of heavens’ (Dt 10 14; I K 8 27; Ps 148 4) is meant probably ‘the height of heaven.’ The word shémayim is itself a plural form. Yet, as both the Babylonian and Persian cosmologies recognize seven heavens, and as the apocalyptic literature unmistak- ably presents this conception (Slav. Hn.; Asc. Is., etc.), it is no longer doubted that later Biblical thought adopted this idea. Yet there is no evidence of a belief in more than three heavens (cf. Paul’s reference to the ‘third heaven,’ II Co 12 2; also ef. ‘all the heavens,’ Eph 4 10). 3. Religious Conception. The religious concep- tion of heaven is built altogether upon the fact that heaven is above. What is above is higher in dig- nity and worth than what is beneath. Hence heaven was viewed as the abode of God (I K 8 30). The pro- hibition of the making of images of God deepened and intensified this thought, and in the days of the restoration from the Exile the distinctive name of God became ‘God of Heaven’ (Ezr 1 2, 5 11; Neh 14,5). Meanwhile the same feeling which led to the disuse of the proper name Jahweh and the substitu- tion for it of ’4dhéndy, ‘Lord,’ worked toward the exclusion of the word ‘God’ from the language of life and the substitution of ‘heaven’ for it, the LXX. fur- nishing the connecting-link in the transition. At the — a 335 A NEW STANDARD opening of the N T period ‘Kingdom of God’ and ‘Kingdom of Heaven’ were already synonymous and interchangeable (cf. Kinapom or Gop). 4. The Abode of God and other Beings. Besides the person of God, other superhuman beings, such as angels, are thought to dwell in heaven (Mk 12 25; Mt 1810; Lk 213); also the Messiah and all preexis- tent beings, even the Torah and a prototype of the sanctuary are found there (He 9 23). Finally, the redeemed are to be gathered in heaven (II Co ch. 5; Jn1421.; cf. Th416f.). Itis there that Jesus has gone (I P83 22), and it is thence that the Holy Spirit comes (I P 112). Heaven is, therefore, in general, the abode of the blest. But, at least in apocalyptic literature, suffering was not excluded from a certain portion of it. Slav. En. (7 2) represents the second heaven as the place where the fallen angels were held in prison in misery (cf. also Tests. of the Twelve Patr.), and the fifth heaven is inhabited by the Crigsri, who are sad and silent on account of sym- pathy with their fallen brethren in the second heay- en. 5. Spiritual Heaven. In the N T the idea of heaven is very much spiritualized. At times it ap- pears indeed as nothing more than a symbol of the state of ideal perfection (Eph 1 3, 26). When it is called paradise, for instance (Lk 23 43), it is in order to present the innocence of the Garden of Eden as restored in the final sinless condition of true believ- ers. Hence the many characterizations of the heav- enly life as the reward of the believer (Mt 5 12; Col 15;1 P14). Heaven is also regarded as lasting for- ever (Ps 89 29; cf. also Jer 33 25 of the sun and stars as everlasting). But such representations express the thought of the relative permanency of the ce- lestial as compared with the terrestrial. 6. Heavenin Eschatology. In all the eschatologi- cal representations the renovation of the whole cre- ation includes also the passing away of the heavens as they exist and the creation of new heavens (II P 3 10, 13; Rev 211 #.). As they now stand, they are blemished by the moral imperfection of man, and must give place to substitutes which are absolutely free from sin. All these representations of heaven are conventional and pertain to the form rather than to the essence of religious teaching. Hence the per- plexities that sometimes appear in the effort to make a full and consistent picture to the mind of the reali- ties of heaven, either in the cosmological or in the eschatological sphere, must be relegated to the region where the figure is transcended by the reality. A. C. Z. HEAVENS. See Cosmocony, § 3. HEBER, hi’ber (131, hebher), ‘associate’: 1. A Kenite, the husband of Jael who slew Sisera (Jg 411 f.). 2. An Asherite head of a family, the son of Beriah (Gn 4617). 3. The father of Soco, and a son of Ezra (I Ch 4 18). 4. A Benjamite, son of Elpaal (I Ch 817). See also Epmr. HEBREW, HEBREWS. See ErHnoaraPHy AND Erunooey, § 9, and Eber in § 13. HEBREW ARCHEOLOGY. See Isrant, Socrau DEVELOPMENT OF. Heap BIBLE DICTIONARY Hebrew Language HEBREW LANGUAGE: Hebrew is one of the most important members of the Semitic group, closely related both to the Arabic and to the Ara- maic, and emerging upon the field of history long after the Babylonian. 1. Affinities. The name ‘Hebrew’ properly coy- ers the dialects of the group of kindred peoples, Moab, Ammon, Edom, and Israel, as well as the Phoenicians. Hebrew was sometimes called the ‘language of Canaan’ (Is 19 18), which would suggest that it was spoken by the Canaanites, or Amorites, who were dispossessed by Israel. 2. Monuments. Very few inscriptions remain by which the primitive character of the language may be determined. The Siloam inscription (see JERUSALEM, § 34), dating perhaps from Hezekiah’s reign (8th cent. B.c.), is the oldest on Palestinian soil. The Moabite Stone, written in a dialect al- most identical with that of the O T, is about a cen- tury older. There are some forty seal stones con- taining little but Hebrew proper names, some pre- exilic. (See AupHasetr). A large number of in- scriptions on fragments of jars were found at Sa- maria by the Harvard Expedition. Phoenician in- scriptions of various dates are also found, and coins of the Maccabean period exist. The LXX. may be regarded as furnishing some data for the study of early Hebrew. 3. Linguistic Development and Change. The O T Hebrew has been so carefully worked over by the scribes that many of its irregularities have been obliterated. As originally spoken and written, it must have been more irregular than its present written form. It has been rhetorically developed, probably from an early period, as the result of its religious use. The LXX. is a witness to some pro- nunciations and spellings current about 250 B.c., which differ from the present Massoretic text. The Massoretes themselves worked with sedulous care upon the words and forms and have given to us a vocalization which represents the synagog method of reading. This uniformity makes it difficult to distinguish between the form of the language at different periods, but, speaking broadly, there are two main divisions: the golden age of Hebrew liter- ature, which produced the historical books (excluding Ch, Ez, Neh, Est), most of the Prophets, and some of the poetical writings; and the postexilic, in which were written most of the books of the Hagiographa and the latest prophets. The differences in style, while not numerous, consist in a general lack of lucidity. In marked contrast to Chronicles, the Books of Kings are striking examples of simplicity, clearness, and brilliancy. Yet the general likeness is noteworthy in a language whose literary monu- ments cover 1,000 years. 4. Linguistic Structure. Hebrew has much in common with its kindred tongues: the triliterality of its roots, the structure of its verb system, its noun formation, its tendency to coordinate its sentences, together with a sparing use of particles, and the use of suffixed pronominal forms, where Aryan languages use separate pronouns. All these testify to a com- mon origin and a close relationship to the primitive | speech. Word-formation by prefixes, by prefixed Hebrew Language Hebrews, Epistle to the A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 336 words, and by suffixes shows that the Hebrew and its sister tongues occupy a different, if not a lower, stage in linguistic development from the Aryan. (1) Lexical Peculiarities. Almost every Hebrew verb is reducible to three radicals, but there are be- sides a number of monosyllabic words, as well as those built up by means of weak letters, which seem to point to a biliteral stage. The personal pronouns and the numerals do not in all respects fall into the triliteral scheme. But the language has nearly obliterated the traces of the primitive Semitic. Most of the roots are expressions of physical facts and actions, and therefore intellectual and _ relig- ious notions must be rendered figuratively and symbolically. This will account also for the strong anthropomorphisms of the O T. (2) Grammatical Peculiarities. (a) The alphabet. The present character is a development from an older and more rudimentary form, which did not go out of use probably until about 300 B.c., traces remaining on coins even later (see ALPHABET). The alphabet is consonantal and contains a number of sounds difficult to represent by our characters or our vocal organs; prominent among these are the laryngeals, formerly called gutturals. The LXX. recognized at least two laryngeals which are not represented in the present alphabet, but which are current in Arabic, and the letter Résh was evidently doubled in the LXX. period, but not later. The mode of writing from right to left is retained in Hebrew as in most Semitic languages. (b) Orthoepy and Orthography. The vowel system is a late addition to the Hebrew alphabet, the vowel signs being introduced not earlier than the 6th cent. a.p., to represent and preserve the tra- ditional synagog pronunciation. Together with them, some diacritical marks were invented to indi- cate doubling of letters and certain distinctions in sound. Three stages may be noted in the history of the Hebrew text: In the beginning, Hebrew writ- ing must have had no indication of vowels or dia- critical marks. It has been conjectured that the perpendicular line, occurring frequently and called Pasegq, was the first sign introduced by Hebrew copy- ists to guide the reader (cf. James Kennedy, The Note Line in the Hebrew Scriptures). During the second stage, the characters for h (mM), y (°), and w (i) were used to represent the long vowels 4, 7, and a, but at a third and later stage, since these might be ambiguous—y standing for 7 or e, and w for 6 or & respectively—points and marks were added to make clear to the reader which guttural, palatal, or labial vowel was intended. The old letters were retained in many instances in connec- tion with the vowel-points and were called matres lecttonis. A prime peculiarity of Hebrew words is the vowel system and the vowel quantity. A group of vowels, which are called ‘tone long,’ and which occur only in the accented and the adjacent syl- lable, are a unique product of Hebrew vocali- zation. (c) Etymology. The Massoretic reworking has introduced regularity, especially in the books most read, but this ecclesiastical process has not obscured the fundamental principles of the language; it has in a measure accentuated them. The par- ticles are most of them nouns which have undergone processes of denudation and metamorphosis, but they represent the earliest stratum of the language. The noun is to be considered the basis of the lin- guistic structure, and, with pronominal fragments appended or prefixed, it was used to express various phases of verbal action. Hebrew words (aside from pronouns, numerals, particles, and certain mono- syllables) can be divided into two classes: mono- syllabic, those that have one original formative vowel, and which may appear in the simple tri- literal form (‘segholates’), or augmented with pre- fixes or affixes; and dissyllabic, those that have two original formative vowels, which also may be augmented, generally by affixes, or strengthened by lengthened vowels or doubled consonants. This division applies not only to nouns but to verbs. In the former, by augmentations and vowel changes the various abstract, instrumental, local, and similar phases of state or condition may be expressed. In the latter, a language which might seem singularly rigid is given flexibility and life. The Hebrew verb by various modifications of the root is able to express simple, reflexive, causative, and intensive action; while the division into monosyllabic and dissyllabic forms is notably exemplified in the simple stem, where the perfect, infinitive absolute, and the par- ticiple belong to the dissyllabic group, and the in- finitive construct, imperative, and imperfect belong to the monosyllabic. The Hebrew verb lacks the richness of the Aryan in modal and tense development. There are but two so called tenses, the perfect and the imperfect, and these are hardly analogous to the Greek; for the perfect represents a verbal idea as a fact, while the imperfect represents it as action. The time idea inheres in the context, and the perfect may represent a fact as taking place in past, present, or future time (cf. for the last, Is 96). The imperfect is the more flexible of the two; for by it all the shades of meaning of the Greek or Latin imperfect, future, subjunctive, or optative are expressed. Particles and conjunc- tives being the real tense media, the so called Hebrew tenses are more nearly moods. Hebrew syntax is much simpler than Arabic. Noteworthy construc- tions are the construct state, the form which a noun takes when governing a genitive; and, peculiar to the Hebrew (and Moabite), the waw consecutive, 7.e., the conjunction, which, when used with an imper- fect, ‘converts’ it into a perfect, and when used with a perfect ‘converts’ it into an imperfect. 5. Later Developments. Hebrew ceased to be the popular spoken language near the beginning of the Christian era. Aramaic supplanted it, but its literary development continued somewhat longer in the Rabbinic literature. Many variations have developed in the pronunciation of the vowels and, to a less degree, of the consonants in different coun- tries. In the last ten years, largely through the Zionists, there has been a great revival of Hebrew as a spoken tongue. LITERATURE: Gesenius-Kautzsch, Hebrew Grammar, 28th ed., §§ 1-3; articles Heb. Language and Semitic Languages in EB" and JE. A. 8. C.*—O. R. 8. 337 A NEW STANDARD HEBREWS, EPISTLE TO THE: The longest and most significant of the anonymous Epistles of the N T. 1. The Literary Form. In form, it lacks the usual epistolary introduction and, in fact, the readers are not directly addressed in the first two chapters. Moreover the argument of the Epistle is so carefully wrought out as to give it the flavor of a treatise rather than a genuine letter (cf. Wrede, Das literarische Rdtsel des Hebrderbriefs). On the other hand, the earnestness of the author in the ap- plication of his argument (cf. 2 3, 18, 3 12, 41, 10, 12, 13, 16, 6 6,9 etc.) to a group of readers personally known to him (cf. 5 11-14, 6 9-12, 10 32-34) seems to establish the practical as against the theoretical character of Hebrews. ‘The suggestion that the Epistle is an example of a first century sermon cast in the form of a letter, perhaps best explains the literary problem of form and contents. The arrangement of material is homiletical. The argument is interspersed with exhortations as if the author had to reckon with hearers not readers. He seems to take pains to secure attention (cf. 21, 5 11) and himself character- izes his work as a ‘word of exhortation’ in 13 22 (an expression only found elsewhere in Ac 13 15 where it is used of a religious speech in the Synagog). He uses almost exclusively the terms of a speech and not of a writing (cf. 2 5, 69, 511, 81, 95, 11 32). While this may be partly explained as the habit of a public speaker, it seems more probable that at least the framework of the Epistle is a sermon or parts of sermons. This might account for the omission of the epistolary address. The opening sentence of Hebrews is too perfect to make it seem probable that the introduction has been lost, and we do not know any reason for a purposed anonymity; but if the Epistle was sent to be read as a sermon or if it had that form originally, at least in the main, the absence of the epistolary introduction and the pres- ence of a personal conclusion might be thus ex- plained (cf. Burggaller, Z NTW, II 1908). 2. Argument. The view-point of the author is that of a Jewish Christian who holds that in the message given in Jesus Christ God has spoken to us His final word, from which there can be no safe return, even to the best that is in the Divine revelation of the past. This position, which is announced in the thematic statement of the opening verses (1 }: 24), is im- mediately followed by a preliminary argument regarding the Son’s sonship and theocratic relation (1 25-4 18), This is made up of two statements: (1) The superiority of the Son to the angels of the old dispensation (1 2>~2 18), which is first presented (1 4b~4) and proved (1 544), and then followed with an extended resultant exhortation to be attentive to the Divine word of the Son, who, in His mission to earth, went through man’s experience that He might lift man up to His salvation (ch. 2). There is then given (2) the second statement, viz., the superiority of the Son to Moses (3 1-6), upon which follows a warning to be attentive to the Son’s voice (3 7-1), accompanied by a reminder of the limitation of the Divine promises to the present dispensation (418), Then is stated the main argument regarding the superiority of the Son’s priesthood over that of the old dispensation (4 '4-12 2%), which, after a preliminary exhortation to loyalty (4 1416), is opened with a formal dis- cussion of the Son’s perfect fulfillment in Himself of the qualifications for this office (5 !), and, after further ex- hortation (ch. 6), finds its main claim in (a) the statement of the supernatural character of His priesthood (ch. 7), and (b) its ministerial relation to the new and the better covenant of this final dispensation (8 1-10 18). This is then followed by exhortations, warnings, and encouragements directing them toward the holding fast of their Christian profession (10 19-13 17), and these bring the Epistle to its closing words (13 18-25), Hebrew Language BIBLE DICTIONARY Hebrews, Epistle to the 3. Situation of the Readers. The general sit- uation disclosed by this argument is obviously one in which the readers are tempted to drift away from Christianity (cf. 2 1-3, 3 6, 12 f., 41, 11, 6 4-6, 10 26-39). Altho the author addresses them as ‘holy brethren, partakers of a heavenly calling’ (31) he can envisage the possibility of their ‘falling away from the living God’ (3 12) and of their crucifying ‘the Son of God afresh’ (66). There is a decided lack of the boldness and confidence and strong hope which characterized the early Christian temper. They are drifting away from their early moorings (21). They tend to grow dull and sluggish if not sophisticated in their attitude toward the fundamentals of the faith (511 #.). They neglect the assembly (10 25). The author’s repeated exhortations to patience, sted- -fastness, and faith (cf. e.g. 3 6, 14, 41, 14, 10 23 £. 36, 11, 12 13) emphasize the lassitude and feebleness of their Christian stand. Weneed not suppose that the reminder of former heroic days (10 32-34) implies more than that thesame heroic mood is needed now. The total effect of the Epistle is that the readers have been suffering for some time from reproaches, taunts, sneers, ostracism and the like rather than from bodily harm. 4. Readers. Who were these readers and par- ticularly what was their religious background? Recent study of the Epistle has busied itself mainly with this question. The generally accepted answer, until recent times, has been that they were Jewish | Christians tempted to revert to Judaism. On this view Hebrews is an effective argument for the finality of Christianity written to meet their diffi- culties. The author’s use of the Hebrew Scriptures and the Hebrew cultus gets its significance from their racial background. The familiar reference to O T personages, the confident reasoning from O T angelology and Mosaic institutions seem to presup- pose Jewish readers. Recent scholarship, however, has emphasized the positive purpose of Hebrews as being the presenta- tion of the finality of Christianity to those in dan- ger of relapsing, indeed, but not into Judaism. ‘The writer never mentions Jews or Christians. He views his readers without any distinctions of this kind... He never refers to the temple... It is the tabernacle of the Pentateuch which inter- ests him, and all his knowledge of the Jewish ritual is gained from the LXX. and later tradition... The LXX. is for him and his readers the codex of their religion, the appeal to which was cogent for Gentile Christians, in the early church. As Christians his readers accepted the LXX. as their bible . . . (accordingly, the readers) were not specifically Jewish Christians.’ (Moffatt, Hebrews IGC, pi xvi:): A modification of the traditional view to meet the objections raised lies in the suggestion that the read- ers were Jewish Christians inclining toward a specu- lative Judaism more or less influenced by an Alex- andrine type of philosophy and attracted also by ritualistic observances more satisfying religiously than the simple Christian worship. The ob- vious acquaintance of the author with Philo and his use of the allegorical method of interpretation Hebrews, Epistle to the Hebron (ch 7) would have a natural explanation if the Epistle is addressed to such a group of readers. The elaborate use of the O T coupled with the earnestness of the author would also seem to be more naturally explained on this hypothesis. That we do not have direct evidence of such a liberal specula- tive Judaism which would prove attractive to Jew- ish Christians is not fatal to this suggestion in view of the fact that the Epistle was probably sent to a small group who may well have been rather sophisti- cated. Hebrews gained and deserved wider cur- rency however because of its powerful argument for the finality of Christianity, which argument would have weight whatever the racial background of the readers. It is now generally aamitted that the Epistle is written to a definite group of Christians (cf. 5 11 f., 10 32-34, 12 1-5) but the circumstances of the readers are not concretely enough referred to for any be- trayal of their local surroundings. Jerusalem, Rome, Alexandria and parts of Asia Minor have been urged. There are strong arguments against both Jerusalem and Alexandria (see Ayles, Desti- nation, Date and Authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews, 1899). Zahn’s suggestion that the read- ers were ‘part of the whole church of a large city, . a congregation attached to some household,’ meets many of the conditions which the Epistle reveals. On the whole Rome seems the most prob- able destination. 5. Place and Time. The phrase ‘they of Italy’ 13 24 is used more naturally of Italians outside Italy who send greetings to those in the homeland altho grammatically it may be taken the other way. We have nothing more definite as to the place of composition. The Epistle was used by Clement of Rome (96 a.p.). It is not possible to identify the persecutions referred to. Hebrews does not reflect, however, the Jewish-Gentile controversy of the Pauline literature and should accordingly be placed after the Neronic persecution of 64 A.D. The refer- ences to ritual are to the tabernacle and not to the Temple hence it is not required that the date be be- fore 70 A.D. On the other hand, the position that Hebrews was written to those so familiar with the LXX. as to make detailed argument from it effec- tive, irrespective of their race, and the suggestion that the readers are tempted by a liberal Judaism, both call for a relatively late date. Perhaps the years 81 to 85 A.p., when persecution arose under Domitian, best meet all requirements. 6. Author. Paul, Barnabas, Apollos, Silas, Peter, Luke, Clement, Aristion, Philip the Deacon, Pris- cilla and Aquila: This is a partial list of those whose claims to the authorship of the Epistle have been preferred by ancient or modern students. Altho attention is more profitably centered upon a re- examination of the purpose of the Epistle and its relation to N T thought, the problem of the identity bf the author remains of perennial interest. Prot- estant scholarship is practically unanimous in the wegative opinion that Paul can not be thought of as sts author. Tradition is not very favorable to him. The earliest use of Hebrews gives no name and for centuries the west did not know it as A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 338 his. In Alexandria it was accounted as Paul’s but Clement and Origen felt the difficulties. The in- ternal evidence is even more decisive against the Pauline authorship: (1) Paul was accustomed to authenticate his epistles. (2) The style of the Epis- tle is in contrast to Paul’s letters, being slow, mass- ive, studied as against Paul’s rapid brilliant dia- lectic. Vocabulary and Greek style are also in con- trast to Pauline usage. (3) The structure of the Epistle, with each argument issuing immediately in a practical exhortation, differs from Paul’s character- istic division of his letters into two sections, a doc- trinal and a practical. (4) The theology of the Epistle is not Pauline (see below, § 7). (5) Such a verse as 2 3 (ef. Gal. 1 11) is almost of itself decisive against the Pauline authorship. (6) The Alexan- drine cast of thought, including both formal and ma- terial analogies to Philo, sets this Epistle over against Paul. No marked progress has been made, perhaps ever can be made, in postively identifying the author. It is clear that he was a Jewish Chris- tian of decided culture, and one whose culture was of that peculiar character which belonged to Alex- andrianism. He differs fundamentally from Philo in his main position, for the fact of the earthly life of Jesus 2.e. a set of historical facts (note his frequent use of the simple name Jesus 2 9, 3 1, 6 20, 7 22, 10 19, 12 2, 24, 13 12) is determinative for his thought. But he was evidently acquainted with the philosophy of that writer, whose allegorical method of inter- pretation he does not hesitate to use (ch 7), with whose peculiar conception of the typological re- lation between the visible and the invisible world he is in large agreement (cf. 6 5, 8 2, 9 23, 11 10, 16, 12 22-28, 18 14) and to whose phraseology he exhibits often striking similarities (cf. 11 10, 13 14 with pass- ages from Philo cited in Drummond, II, 53; 10 27, 12 29 with II, 17; 85, 9 23 with I, 289; 1 7, 14 with I, 289; 6 20, 7 25 with II, 193,235). Either Apollos (whose name was first given currency by Luther) or Barnabas (whose name was cited by Tertullian as the author of the Epistle and first revived by Cameron, a Scotch critic of the 17th cent.) might satisfy this requirement. Apollos was an Alex- andrian Jew, a man of culture, learned in the scrip- tures (Ac 18 24; cf. I Co passim) and of special power in reasoning with the Jews (Ac 18 25f.). At the same time, as far as we know, he was not specific- ally a disciple of the original Apostles; so that, if 2 3 be taken literally, it militates against his author- ship. Barnabas was a Levite of the island of Cy- prus (Ac 4 36), which would bring him easily within the influence of Alexandrianism, altho we have no positive evidence as in the case of Apollos, that such was the type of his thought. His close connection with the original disciples (Ac 4 36, 9 26 f., 11 22 £.) together with his association with Paul (Ac 11 26, 15 35) might account for the fact that the Epistle deals with some of Paul’s great themes yet not in Paul’s manner (see § 7). His Levitical background fits very well with the theme of the Epistle and its treatment. But our knowledge of both Bar- nabas and Apollos is meager—only in the case of Barnabas is there any supporting tradition—so that their names can only be suggested as of the ~~ = se 339 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Hebrews, Epistle to the Hebron type required. Even less can be said for the other names listed. 7. Relation of Epistle to N T Thought. The abiding value of this Epistle is twofold: a profound argument for the finality of Christianity which altho stated in very technical form as over against Judaism is yet an attempt to show how it meets religious needs; a witness to another way of inter- preting Christianity than the Pauline. Both con- tributions can best be seen by comparing the thought of the Epistle with Paul’s theology. The author deals with Pauline themes: Christianity as superseding Judaism, the death of Christ and its significance, and faith. Yet each of these themes is treated from his own view-point. The Law is for him not a system of commands and prohibitions with the purpose of producing righteousness, but a system of ritual with the purpose of securing access to the Divine presence. Access to God through the veil (6 19, 20), fellowship with Him, satisfying wor- ship—this is the dominant religious need (cf. ch. 4 esp. ver. 16 and 1019 ff.). This need Judaism imper- fectly satisfies (chs. 8, 9, 10) yet foreshadows ‘good things to come’ 101. (Judaism is a stage in an evo- lutionary process, while for Paul the process is revolutionary involving a return to a condition be- fore the Law cf. Gal 36). Perhaps the readers feel that Christianity does not satisfy this need at all. To them the author offers elaborate proof by anal- ogy. Christianity carries to finality that which Judaism initiates in that Christ is superior to angels (ch 1), to Moses (ch 3), to the Levitical priesthood (chs 7-10) in Hisrelation to the Covenant upon which Judaism rests; in that He is fitted to administer the Covenant as a priest (7 11-28) who can alone satis- factorily offer sacrifice (10 1-18); and in that He in- augurates the better Covenant (7 22, 8 6-13) and its ordinances (99f.) which supersedes the imperfect earthly institutions of the old Covenant—the taber- nacle (8 2, 5, 9 1-11, 23 f.), the sacrifices (9 12-14, 25 f.), the ceremonies (9 18-22), the whole cultus (10 1; cf. 12 18-27). In effect he is saying, Think of Christ as priest and you will find that He qualifies and brings men to God once and for all. The death of Christ, while central for this Epistle as for Paul, is also differently viewed, not under the categories of law 7.e., ransom from the curse of the Law, condemna- tion of sin in the flesh, reconciliation to God through the death of His Son, but analogous to the ritual of the Day of Atonement as the inaugural sacrifice of the New Covenant (chs. 9, 10). The author does not explain how the death of Christ brings men to God. Heargues by analogy that if the old cere- monial ensuring right of access into the Divine pres- ence—an access symbolized by the entrance of the high priest with the blood of the sacrifice into the Holy of Holies—was partly satisfying, then Christ, who is the Divine Son, superior to angels, Moses, and the priests yet brought into closest sympathy with human needs (2 10, 18, 4 15,57f.122f.), and who has entered the heavenly sanctuary once for all, has offered a sacrifice which completely satisfies. Ac- cordingly those whose hearts have been cleansed _from an evil conscience (10 22) through His sacrifice may draw near to God with courage and confidence. Faith also is central both for Paul and this Epistle, but Paul’s profound conception of faith as inner union with Christ is lacking here. The author of Hebrews views faith rather as confidence in the reality of the heavenly world, assurance of the heri- tage which God has promised—in a word, loyalty to the Christian position. This is the Epistle to the non-mystic. Paul’s words, ‘it is no longer I that live, but Christ liveth in me’... (Gal 2 20) would be out of place here. The language of He- brews. is rather, “.).).fun ... the race’. .7% looking unto Jesus . . . who hath sat down at the right hand of the throne of God,’ (121-2). But it is not necessarily a lower conception of union with Christ to which the author summons his readers: It is a different approach set forth in terms which his readers will understand and which describe his own attainment of fellowship with Christ. A fol- lowing of Jesus with true loyalty of purpose in afflic- tions and reproaches such as were His lot will bring union with Him. It is noteworthy that this Epis- tle, the most ritualistic and sacramental in its phraseology of the N T writings, is almost totally silent concerning Baptism and the Eucharist. Of three possible references to Baptism, the first (6 2) if it includes Christian Baptism is incidental and does not assign great significance to the rite, the second (9 10) is clearly to O T usages and the third (10 22) if it refers to Christian Baptism does not give it large significance. All possible references to the Eucharist (9 20, 6 4, 13 10) are extremely doubtful. This does not mean that these sacraments were not practised in a section of the early Church to which Hebrews is a witness. That would be an unwar- ranted use of the argument from silence. It rather means that to readers attracted by ‘meats’ and ‘div- ers and strange teachings’ (13 9) to whom, conceiv- ably, the Christian sacraments seemed not very im- posing, the author presents the Christian revelation, especially the life of Jesus, as in its entirety a mag- nificent sacrament. LirERATURE: For Introductions, that of Jiilicher (Eng. transl., 1904) gives an admirable discussion of the Epistle’s thought, as well as of its critical questions; that of Zahn (Eng. transl., 1908) is exhaustive on the newer critical problems. For Commentaries, Rendall (1888); Westcott (1892); Davidson (in Handbooks for Bible Classes); Edwards (in Expositor’s Bible, 1888); Peake in The New Century Bible; Riggenbach in Zahn’s Kommentar z. NT (1913); Windisch in Lietzmann, Handbuch z.N T (1909); Nairne, The Epistle of Priesthood (1918); Scott (1922); Moffatt in TCC (1924). In addition, treatises of Bruce (1899), and Milligan (1899), as also Drum- mond’s two-vol. work on Philo Judzeus (1888), Hort’s Judaistic Christianity (1894), and the articles of Bartlett in the Expositor, 1902, 1903, 1905, should be es HEBRON, hi’bren (]i7A9, hebhron), ‘associa- tion’: I. A city, probably the oldest in Palestine (so Jos. BJ, IV, 97), said by J to have been built seven years before Zoan (Tanis) in Egypt (Nu 13 22). Its early name, Kiriath-arba (q.v.), was apparently revived after the Exile (Gn 23 2; Jos 1415; Neh 11 25). The crusaders called H. ‘The Castle of St. Abraham.’ It is now known as el- Khalil, ‘The Friend,’ 2.e., Abraham (cf. Is 41 8, Ja 2 23). One cycle of the stories of the patriarchs centers about this ancient city (Gn 18 18, 35 27, 3714). According to the early J document, H. was conquered by the tribe of Judah Hebron Hereth A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 340 singly, under the leadership of Caleb (Jg 1 10-15, Jos 15 14). According to the later Deuteronomic editor, it was captured by all Israel, under the leadership of Joshua (Jos 10 36f., 11 21). According to P, H. was made a city of refuge (Jos 207) and con- signed to the Kohathite Levites (Jos 2111). David was twice anointed king in H. (II S 2 4, 5 3), and reigned here as king of Judah alone for seven and a half years (IIS 211). Here six sons were born to him (II S 3 2-5), one of whom, Absolom, later chose his birthplace as headquarters for his re- bellion (II S 15 7, 10). After the time of David, H. is seldom mentioned in Scripture (only II Ch 1110; Neh 11 25). In post- exilic times it came into the possession of the Edomites, from whom it was recovered by Judas Maccabeeus (I Mac 5 65; Jos Ant. XII, 86). It was seized without bloodshed by the rebel Simon bar- Gioras, but was soon recaptured and burned by the Romans (Jos. BJ, IV, 97,9). From the 7th to the 11th cent. A.p., H. was under Moslem rule. It was then taken by the crusaders and, in 1100, was bes- towed as a fief upon Gerhard of Avennes. In 1167 it became the seat of a Latin bishopric; but in 1187 it fell into the hands of Saladin, and has ever since remained in the possession of the Moslems, who reverence it as one of the four sacred cities of the world.! (cf. ‘the vale of Hebron,’ Gn 37 14), which is noted for its vineyards. Map II, E 2. An ancient reser- voir in the lower part of the valley may be the ‘pool’ by which the murderers of Ish-baal (Ish-bosheth) were hanged (IIS 412). The population numbers about 18,000, of whom 1,500 are Jews, the remain- der being Moslems of a fanatical type. facture of glass and of water-skins are important industries. The most conspicuous object in H. is the structure enclosing the traditional cave of Machpelah (q.v.). LirTERATURE: Robinson, BRP (1868), ii, 73-94; Baedeker- | Benzinger, Palestine and Syria (1912), 134-137; Thompson, The Land and the Book (1880), i, 268-286; G. A. Smith, _ HGHLE (1898), p. 317; F. Buhl, Geographie (1896), pp. 160- > 162, with bibliography. IJ, 1. A son of Kohath, the son of Levi, according to P (Ex 6 18), whose family, the Hebronites (Nu 3 27), or ‘sons of Hebron’ (I Ch 159), are frequently mentioned by the Chronicler in enumerations of Levites. In the time of David, according to the Chronicler, the clan was large and powerful (I Ch 26 30-32); but this reflects conditions in the time of the author. 2. In I Ch 2 42¢. H. is probably not the name of a person, but of the Calebite town (cf. I, above). 3. A town of Asher (Jos 19 28 AV); see EBRON. L. G. L.—L. B. P. HEDGE: The rendering of (1) gaddhér, g*dhérah, properly ‘a (stone) wall.’ ARV renders by ‘wall’ lAccording to the Moslems: Mecca, Medina, Jerusalem, Hebron; according to the Jews: Safed, Tiberias, Jerusalem, Hebron. 2A gainst the statement of Benjamin of Tudela (followed by many modern scholars) that ancient Hebron lay on a hill to he NW. of the present site, see Robinson and Thompson, l.c, PLE Sel 316i8,). _ yet been made. The manu- in all cases except Ps 89 40, Jer 49 3, Nah 3 17, and I Ch 4 23, where g*dérah is a proper noun. (2) sikh, m:stikhah, a ‘thorn hedge’ (Pr 1519, etc). (3) gpaypd¢ (Mk 121, etc.), which is used in the LXX. to render (1), but may mean any kind of fence. E. E. N. HEGAI, HEGE, heg’s-ai, hi’gé (720, 827, héghay, héghe’?): A eunuch under Ahasuerus (Est 2 3 ff.). HE-GOAT. See Sacririce AND OFFERINGS, § 8. HEIFER. See SacriFIcE AND OFFERINGS, § 5. HEIR. See Famiuy anp Faminy Law, § 8. HELAH, hi’la (7820, hel’ah), ‘rust? (2): One of the wives of Ashhur (I Ch 4 5, 7). HELAM, hi‘lem (02°0, hélam): A town of Syria E. of the Jordan, where David met and defeated the Syrians whom Hadarezer had asked to aid him No satisfactory identification has © HK. E. N. HELBAH, hel’ba (71370, helbah): An ancient Phenician town (Jg 1 31), probably on the coast between Achzib and Sareptah. Possibly Achlab and Helbah are identical. E. E. N. HELBON, hel’ben (1'221, helbdn): The modern Halbiin, 13 m. N. of Damascus. Its famous wine is mentioned not only in Ezk (27 18) but also on | Assyrian inscriptions. Vine culture is still exten- H. is 19 m. SW. of Jerusalem, with which it is | sively carried on there. now connected by a good automobile road. Theun- | walled city lies about 3,000 ft. above sea-level, and | tretches f NW. to SE. along a fertil lley? | : : Ue re icky i grip esteem Sos eee one of David’s heroes and captain for the twelfth E. E. N. HELDAI, hel’do-ai or hel’dé ("121), helday), ‘en- during’: 1. A son of Baanah, the Netophathite, month (I Ch 27 15; for which I Ch 11 30 has Heled; II S 23 29, Heleb). 2. A Jew who returned from | Babylon to Jerusalem (Zec 6 10; in 6 14 Helem, helem). HELEB, hi’/leb. See Hetpay, 1. HELED, hi’led. See Hepat, 1. HELEK, hi’lek (P2n, héleq), ‘portion’: The an- cestral head of a Manassite clan in Gilead, the Helekites (Nu 26 30; Jos 17 2). HELEM, hi’lem (0277, hélem): 1. The ancestral head of an Asherite clan (I Ch 7 35), apparently the same as Hotham (ver. 32). 2. (helem) See Hexpat, 2. HELEPH, hi'lef (120, héleph): A town on the border of Naphtali (Jos 19 33). Site unknown. HELEZ, hi'lez (72%, helets): 1. One of David’s heroes and an officer in his army, called a ‘Paltite’ in ITS 28 26, z.e., an inhabitant of Beth-pelet in 8. Judah, but a ‘Pelonite’ (I Ch 11 27) and a man of Ephraim in I Ch 27 10. 2. A descendant of Judah (I Ch 2 39). HELI, hi’lai (Het): The father of Joseph, hus- band of Mary (Lk 3 23). HELKAI, hel’ko-ai or hel’ke (RM, helgay): The head of a priestly family (Neh 12 15). HELKATH, hel’koth (nR?n, helqath), ‘portion’: A town assigned to the Levites on the border of Asher (Jos 19 25, 21 31; Hukok in I Cn’ 6 75). See Map IV, C 6, but the identification is uncertain. HELKATH-HAZZURIM, _hel’’kath-haz’ziu-rim (737 ''N, helqath hatststirim), ‘the field of the Goat pi FP OO a 341 A NEW STANDARD sword-edges’: The name given to the place of the conflict mentioned in II S$ 216. Some would emend to read ‘field of the sides’ (cf. Driver H7T'S). E. E. N. HELL. See Escuaroioey, §§ 18-21, 29 f., 38. HELLENISM. See GREECE. HELLENIST, HELLENISTS. See Disprrsion. HELLENISTIC and BIBLICAL GREEK. See GREEK LANGUAGE. HELM. See Suirs anp Naviaation, § 2. HELMET. See Arms anp Armor, § 8. HELON, hi’len (170, halon): The father of Eliab of Zebulon (Nu 19, 27, etc.). HELPS: (1) (dytiAnudes): As used in I Co 12 28 this word (in plural form) has a descriptive rather than a technical significance. It refers to those who, having the ability or means and the opportunity, were moved to aid or succor those in need of help. It is not a term for a distinct church-office. See Cuurcu Lirz, § 7. (2) (Bonerx): A term used in plural form in Ac 27 17). See Snips anp Naviaa- TION, § 3. E. E. N. HEM. See Dress anp ORNAMENTS, § 3. HEMAM, hi’mam (9°), hémam): The ances- tral head of a Seirite family (Gn 36 22; Homam in I Ch 1 39). HEMAN, hi’mon (])"7, héman), 1. A son of Ezrah (Zerah), one of the three wisest men with whom Solomon was compared (I K 4 31). 2. A Kohathite Levite (I Ch 6 33, 15 17) and head of a division of the musicians (I Ch 251, etc.). HEMATH, hi’math. See Hamarn. HEMDAN, hem’don (]12, hemdan): The eldest son of a Horite family (Gn 36 26; Hamran [Amram AV] in I Ch 1 41). HEMLOCK: The rendering of the Heb. ré’sh in Hos 10 4. The same Heb. word is elsewhere ren- dered ‘gall’ or ‘poison’ (Dt 29 17 [cf. RVmg.]; Ps 69 21; La 3 5; Jer 9 14, etc.). In Hos 10 4 it is evident that some troublesome, quick-growing, and probably noxious weed is meant, a fit symbol of the corruption of justice then prevalent in Israel. Its frequent collocation with wormwood (Am 6 12, etc.) shows that it was bitter, and other references in- dicate that it was considered poisonous. See GALL. In Am 6 12 AV, ‘hemlock’ is the rendering of la‘anah, ‘wormwood’ (q.v.). See also PALESTINE, §22. K. HE. N. HEN (10, hén), ‘grace’: This word (in Zec 6 14) | may not be a proper noun (cf. RVmg.), or it may be a mistake for ‘Josiah’; cf. ver. 10. HEN. See Patestine, § 25. HENA. hé’na (¥25, héna‘): A city named with Sepharvaim and others as conquered by the Assyr- ians (II K 18 34, 1913; Is 3713). Site unknown. HENADAD, hen’a-dad (1120, hénddhddh): The ancestral head of a sub-division of the Levites (Ear 39; Neh 3 18, 24, 109). HENNA. See Pauestrine, § 21. HENOCH. See Enocu; and Hanocu. Hebron BIBLE DICTIONARY Hereth HEPHER, hi’fer (190, hépher): I. 1. The an- cestral head of a Manassite clan of Gilead, the Hepherites (Nu 26 32, 271; Jos 17 2 £.). 2. One of David’s heroes (I Ch 11 36). II. 1. A district of Judah in the neighborhood of Socoh, i.e., in S. Judah (I K 410). It is this district, probably, that is called in I Ch 46a ‘son’ of Ashhur. 2. A Canaanite city (Jos 12 17). Site unknown. HEPHZI-BAH, hef’zi-ba ([3°%5), hephtsi-bah), ‘my delight is in her’: 1. The wife of Hezekiah and mother of Manasseh (II K 211). 2. An ideal name for the New Jerusalem of prophecy (Is 62 4). HERALD: Found only once in the Bible (Dn 3 4). The Aramaic original, kéréz, was probably derived from the Gr. xjevé (from xnedtasety, ‘to proclaim’), ‘erier’ or ‘proclaimer.’ K. E. N. HERB: This word renders several Heb. and Gr. terms. (1) The most common is ‘ésebh, which includes both grains and grasses (e.g., Gn 1 11; Ps 106 20), and is often rendered ‘grass.’ (2) deshe’, the ‘fresh,’ ‘young grass’ (II K 19 26, ete.). (8) yaraq, ‘green plants,’ including vegetables (Dt 11 10; I K 21 2; Pr 1517). (4) ’6r, ’Grah, apparently, the ‘bright,’ ‘shining grass,’ tho used in a broader sense (II K 4 30; Is 26 19). (5) In Job 8 12 hétsir evidently refers to tall grass. (6) The two N T terms, Gotévyn (only Heb 67) and A&yavoy, are both of general significance, the former indicating a plant fit for food, the latter a cultivated (vs. a wild) herb or garden vegetable. HK. E. N. HERD. See Nomapic anp Pasrorau LIFE. HERES, hi’riz (971), heres), ‘sun’: 1. Mt. Heres (Jg 1 35), a locality in the territory of Dan, prob- ably the same as Ir Shemesh (q.v.), or Beth She- mesh (q.v.); cf. Jos 19 41; I K 49; II Ch 28 18 (so Moore, on Judges in JCC.). Map II, D1. 2. The Ascent of Heres (Jg 8 13, ‘when the sun was up’ AV) was if the Heb. text is correct a pass near Succoth, E. of the Jordan, but the text is suspicious. See also (on No. 1.) Crry or Destruction; and TIMNATH-SERAH. HERESH, hi’resgh (U1), 9 15). HERESY, ‘division,’ ‘sect’: The Gr. atpests is applied to parties or types of religious thought in N T times. Both the Sadducees and the Pharisees were called ‘heresies’ (EV ‘sect,’ Ac 517, 15 5, 26 5; cf. also Jos. Ant. XIII, 59). The term was early used in designating the Christians (‘the sect [Gr. ‘heresy’] of the Nazarenes,’ EVV ‘sect,’ Ac 24 5, 14, 28 22). In these casesit is the approximate equiva- lent of the modern ‘denomination.’ It is used, how- ever, in the Epistles also of pernicious (but not necessarily doctrinal) divisions or strifes (‘factions’ (I Co 11 19; Gal 5 20; ef. Tit 310; IT P 21). The use of the term ‘heresy’ for a departure from a doc- trinal standard of orthodoxy is not found in the Bible. Ay Orde HERETH, hi’refh (1, hereth, Hareth AV): A forest in Judah which was one of the hiding- places of David (I S 225). The proposed identifica- tion, Map II, E 2, is unsatisfactory phonetically (so Driver HTS.?). heresh): A Levite (I Ch Heritage Herod A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 342 HERITAGE. See Faminy anp Faminy Law, § 8. HERMAS, hor’mss (‘Kepac): One of those saluted in Ro 16 14. From the last clause of the verse, ‘the brethren that are with them,’ we infer that his house was used as a meeting-place for the Christians (cf. Ro 16 4, 15). By Origen (Com. ad Rom., in loc.) H. is identified with the author of ‘The Shepherd,’ but as this is a work of the 2d cent., and since Ro ch. 16 was apparently contained in very early Mss. of the Ep. to the Romans, the identification is impossible. JM, T, HERMES, hior’miz (‘Eeyts): Saluted by Paul in Ro 1614. Confusion between this name and that of Hermas, mentioned in the same verse, appears in some MSS. Me ad be HERMOGENES, har-mej’1-niz (Eepoyévng [‘E-, WH)]): Mentioned only in II Ti 115, where he is said by Paul to have been among those (‘all’) in Asia who ‘turned away from me.’ The special mention of H. and Phygelus would seem to indicate that they were leaders in the movement. Later apocryphal stories concerning H. are found in the Acts of Paul and Thecla, 1 and 4, 11-14. J. M. T. HERMON, har’man (i270, hermdn), ‘sacred [mountain]’: The large mountain that forms the S. potion of the Antilebanon range. As its name indicates, it was probably from ancient times viewed as a sacred locality and, in fact, numerous shrines existed on its slopes, and one even on its summit. In Dt 3 9 we learn that the Phenicians called H. Sirion (cf. also Ps 29 6), while the Amorites called it Senir, which, however, designated probably some adjacent part of the same range (cf. also I Ch 5 23; Song 4 8; Ezk 275). This same name (as Saniru) is given to the mountain in the Assyr. inscriptions, and (as Sanir) to the portion of the range N. of Damascus by the Arabs. A fourth name, Sion, is found in Dt 4 48. H. is a lofty mountain (9,363 ft. high), whose summit, consisting of three peaks (‘the Hermons,’ Ps 42 6, Hermonites AV), is rarely free from snow. The cool heights of H. condense the moisture of the atmosphere so rapidly that mists frequently obstruct the view from its summit, and at night the dew is so heavy as to be almost equal to rain (cf. Ps 42 6, 7, 133 3). The upper part of the mountain is bare, but the slopes are well covered with vegetation. In ancient times it furnished cypress, or fir, for the boat-builders of Phenicia (Ezk 27 5). It was the haunt of wild beasts (Song 4 8), and to-day is the only haunt of the Syrian bear. At present it is the home of the Druses, who have extensive orchards and vineyards on its N. and W. slopes. Its modern name, Jebel esh-Sheikh, ‘mount of the chief,’ is due to the fact that the founder of the sect made his headquarters here (10th cent. .D.). EK. BE. N. HEROD, her’od: Herod (‘Hewdys) is the name of the founder of an Idumzan family which furnished a number of kings and other rulers for Palestine and the adjacent countries during the latter half of the century before Christ and throughout the first century of the Christian era. The father of Herod was Antipater, a man of remarkable ability, whose father was governor of Idumza under Alexander Jannzus and Queen Alexandra. The origin of the family is not known. Possibly it came from Ascalon. Antipater had probably succeeded his father when the civil war broke out between Hyrcanus II and his brother Aristobulus (69 B.c.), and the oppor- tunity was given for him to employ his abilities as the former’s champion and master I. Herop I (rue Great), 37-4 B.c. 1. Herod as Governor of Galilee. Herod, the son of Antipater, was early given office by his father, who had been made procurator of Judea by Cesar, Hyrcanus II, the high priest and ethnarch, being little more than a puppet in the hands of the energetic Idumzan. The first office which Herod held was that of governor of Galilee. He was then a young man of about twenty-five, energetic and athletic. Imme- diately he set about the eradication of the robber bands that infested his district, and soon was able to ~ execute the robber chief Hezekiah and several of his followers. For this he was summoned to Jerusalem by the Sanhedrin, tried and condemned, but with the connivance of Hyrcanus IT he escaped by night. During the disorders following the assassination of Cesar, Herod and Antipater were loyal to Cas- sius, and assisted him in raising money from the towns of Palestine. In 42 8.c. Antipater was assas- sinated by one Malchus, who in turn was killed by assassins sent by Herod. After the defeat of Brutus and Cassius at Philippi, Herod and his brother Phasael were accused by the Jewish aristocracy at least twice before Antony; but in each case Antony showed favor to the brothers and finally appointed them tetrarchs. In 40 B.c. Antigonus, the son of Aristobulus II, attempted to recover the throne by using the Parthians as allies. He succeeded in getting hold of Phasael, who committed suicide in prison, but Herod escaped to the fortress of Massada, whence he was forced to flee with his en- tire family to Petra. -Being refused refuge there, he went to Alexandria and thence to Rome, via Rhodes. 2. As King of Judea. Herod’s purpose in going to Rome seems to have been to obtain the kingship for Aristobulus, the grandson of Hyrcanus II, whose sister Mariamne he was to marry. But on his arrival at Rome, Antony and Octavius appointed him rather than Aristobulus king, and within a few days after his arrival at the capital he returned to Palestine to get possession of his kingdom (39 B.c.). For the next two years he was engaged in fighting the forces of Antigonus, whom he finally defeated, and in 37 B.c. gained possession of Jerusalem. Antigonus was beheaded by Antony at the request of Herod. 2a. Problems of His Reign. As king, Herod con- fronted serious difficulties. The Jews objected to him because of his birth and reputation. The Hasmonean family regarded him as a usurper, notwithstanding the fact that he had married Mariamne. The Pharisees were shocked at his Hellenistic sympathies, as well as at his severe methods of government. On the other hand, the Romans held him responsible for ‘maintaining order in his kingdom, and for the protection of the eastern frontier of the Republic. Herod met these various difficulties with characteristic energy and even cruelty, but generally with cold sagacity. | a 343 A NEW STANDARD Altho he taxed the people severely, in times of famine he remitted their dues, and even sold his plate to get means to buy them food. While he never became actually friendly with the Pharisees, they profited by his hostility to the party of the Hasmoneans, which at the beginning of his reign led to the execution of a number of Sadducees who were members of the Sanhedrin. 2b. Building Activity. The fact that Herod’s kingdom included many Greeks as well as Jews led him to adopt a self-contradictory policy. He favored both parties of his subjects. For the Greeks he built temples in the cities where they lived, as well as in towns outside of his own kingdom. It was this general policy, as well as the example of Augustus, that led Herod to rebuild a number of cities. The most important work of this sort was the refounding of the city of Strato’s Tower, which he named Cesarea (q.v.), and beautified with a temple to Augustus, colonnades, a mole, and many public buildings, making it the chief city of his kingdom. Throughout the Roman period it remained the seat of the Roman governor of Juda. He also rebuilt the city of Samaria (q.v.), renaming it Sebaste in honor of the wife of Augustus. Here also he erected a great pagan temple and other public buildings, the ruins of some of which remain to-day. He built many amphitheaters and theaters at Jerusalem and in other cities, and established games at Cesarea and at Jerusalem. He surrounded himself with Greek scholars, the most prominent among whom was Nicolas of Damascus. For the Jews he re- built the Temple at Jerusalem in great magnificence, making it, with its courts and colonnades, one of the noblest buildings of antiquity. This rebuilding apparently began about 20 B.c.,and was not finally completed until in the time of the procurator Albinus, 62-64 a.p. (cf. Jn 2 20, and see TEMPLE). Altho he removed the high priests at will, Hered was careful to respect the prejudices of the Jews, and did not attempt to introduce statues into the public buildings of Jerusalem, and even omitted images on his coins. 2c. Maintenance of Order. By way of maintaining order, he established citadels throughout the terri- tory, and maintained a strong band of mercenaries. In addition, he established strict police regulations, and maintained a system of spies. Notwithstanding the fact that there were popular disturbances— doubtless to some extent associated with the Messianic movement—Judza was at peace through- out his reign. During his last years, it is true, the people became increasingly uneasy, and there was a threatened revolt under Pharisaic leadership; but the old king crushed this with characteristic severity. 2d. Relations to Rome. As an allied king with Rome, Herod was expected to maintain order on the frontier (see above, 2a). In pursuit of this policy he fought, and was given suzerainty over the Arabians. He annexed and colonized Trachonitis, which had been held by a body of robbers; and he seems to have been able to keep back the wandering tribes of the desert. In fact, it was because of this energetic policing of the frontier, as well as main- tenance of peace within his own dominion, that he Heritage BIBLE DICTIONARY Herod kept the friendship of Augustus. At least twice during his reign this friendship was threatened, but he was able to adjust matters. The conjecture (Ramsay, Was Christ Born at Bethlehem? [1898]) that during the latter half of his reign Judea was more completely under the control of the empire, even to the point of being subject to the census, can hardly be said to be as yet thoroughly estab- lished. Throughout his reign, however, he was never given complete independence, but was sub- ject to the general limitations set allied kings, among them being the restriction of the coinage to copper coins, liability to a certain degree of con- trol from the nearest propretor—in Herod’s case that of Syria—inability to carry on war, except with the consent of the emperor, or to appoint his own successor, except with the imperial approval. 2e. Intrigues of His Reign. It is probably because of the animus of Josephus, as well as the perspective of his narrative, that Herod’s success as an administrator has been considerably obscured by the tragedies within his own family circle. In esti- mating the prejudice which led to the successive execution of the surviving members of the Has- monean house, including his wife Mariamne and their two sons Alexander and Aristobulus, it is to be borne in mind that, like all Oriental kings, Herod was subject to constant plots on the part of his family and the sympathizers with the Hasmonean house. A study of his reign will show that his execu- tions were the outcome of the efforts of his rivals to displace him. The only exception to this was his execution of his wife Mariamne, because of jealousy born of intrigues instigated to a large extent by his sister, who was jealous of the influence of Mariamne and her mother. The execution of his two sons (by Mariamne) was due to a series of plots on their part, and an antiplot on the part of his eldest son, An- tipater, to secure the succession. It can hardly be doubted, further, that during the later years of the old king’s life he was suffering from a disease which made him easily susceptible to suspicion (cf. Mt 2 3-12, 16-19). 2f. Disposition of His Kingdom. At his death (4 B.c.) Herod left a will, according to which his kingdom was to be divided among his three sons. Archelaus was to have Judea, Idumza, and Sa- maria, with the title of king (Mt 2 22); Herod Antipas was to receive Galilee and Perea, with the title of tetrarch; Philip was to come into possession of the trans-Jordan territory, with the title of tetrach (Lk 31). This will was ratified by Augustus, with the exception of the title given Archelaus. II. Sons AND DeEscENDANTS OF HEROD THE Great. 3. Archelaus. Archelaus (4 B.c.-6 A.D.), after the ratification of Herod’s will by Augustus, succeeded to +the rule of Judea, Samaria, and Idumeza, having the title of ethnarch, with the understanding that, if he ruled well, he was to become king. He was, however, highly unpopular with his people, and his reign was marked by dis- turbances and acts of oppression. The situation finally became so intolerable that the Jews appealed to Augustus, and Archelaus was removed and sent into exile. This accounts for the statement in Herod Hexateuch A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY HAA Mt 2 22, and possibly also suggested the point of the parable in Lk 19 12 ff. His territory became a procuratorial province subject to the census. Arche- laus, like all his family, was a builder, among his public works being the establishment of the city Archelais. 4. Herod Antipas. Herod Antipas (4 B.c.-37 A.D.) was the son of Herod I and Malthace, and was a full brother of Archelaus. By the will of his father he was appointed tetrarch of Galilee and Perea in 48.c. His long reign was marked by no serious out- break or disturbance, and Galilee seems to have be- come exceedingly prosperous. Perea also enjoyed prosperity, altho this must have been due in con- siderable measure to the development of the Greek cities within Perean territory belonging to the Decapolis. Herod Antipas was a builder of cities, his most important undertaking being the erection of Tiberias, on the Sea of Galilee (q.v.). The city was built and organized in the Greek style, and was controlled by a castle rising above it. It was built in part over a graveyard, and for some time was regarded as unclean by the Jews. Antipas also rebuilt Sepphoris, and walled the city of Betha- rampha, naming it Livias (or Julias). He also helped the Greek islands, as tablets found in Cos and Delos indicate. His general policy was that of friendship with the Romans, but he was also careful to attend feasts at Jerusalem, and to stamp no image on his coins. He joined in a protest against Pilate for having set up a votive shield in the Temple. He married his niece Herodias (Mk 6 17; Mt 14 3), the wife of his half-brother Herod Philip (not the tetrarch Philip), of Rome. This necessitated the divorcing of his wife, who was the daughter of Aretas, King of Arabia, and involved him in war with that monarch, in which he was defeated. At the time of the Gospel history, however, Galilee was at peace. In 37 a.p. Agrippa, the brother of Herodias, was made king of the former tetrarch of Philip, and Herod was induced by his wife to seek royal honors for himself. Agrippa, however, who had quarreled with his brother-in-law while superintendent of the markets in Tiberias, poisoned the mind of Caligula by charging that Antipas was gathering an army preparatory to revolt. Antipas was in consequence banished (39 a.p.) to Lyons, whither Herodias accompanied him, and where probably he died. This is the ‘Herod’ most frequently mentioned in the N T (Mt 617 f., 8 15; Lk 3 1, 97, 13 31 £.; Ac 4 27, 13 1, etc.). He was the one who imprisoned the Baptist (Mk 6 14-29, and ||s) and the one to whom Pilate sent Jesus (Lk 23 7-15) 5. Herod Philip. Herod Philip, son of Herod I and Cleopatra of Jerusalem (4 B.c.-34a.D.). By the will of his father he was made tetrarch of that section of the Herodian kingdom lying E. and N. of the Sea of Galilee. The region was not strictly Jewish, and was composed of a number of small districts which had been conquered by, or given to, Herod I—Bataneza, Trachonitis, Gaulanitis, Iturea, and Auranitis. He was, on the whole, the most respectable of Herod’s sons. He was fond of building. Banias he rebuilt as a Greek city, with the right of asylum, and named it Cesarea. In order to dis- tinguish it from various other towns of the same name, It was known as Cesarea Philippi (q.v.). He also rebuilt Bethsaida (q.v.), a town a few miles from the entrance of the Jordan into the Sea of Gal- ilee, and named it Julias, in honor of the daughter of Augustus. Furthermore, he built various temples to the heathen gods, and stamped an image on his coins. In general, he seems to have been a good ruler, traveling over his territories, rendering justice to his subjects. He was married to Salome, the daughter of Herodias, and died in 34 a.p. without issue. 6. Herod Agrippa I. Herod Agrippa I, son of Aristobulus, the son of Herod I and Mariamne (37-44 a.p.). He was one of the most interesting characters of the period. After the execution of his father he seems to have gone to Rome and to have acquired the habits of the wealthy young men of the . early empire. At forty he found himself bankrupt, in disfavor with Tiberius, and compelled to leave Rome to escape his creditors. He went to Palestine, and was about to commit suicide when his wife Cypros induced his sister Herodias, at that time the wife of Herod Antipas, to obtain for him the position of superintendent of markets in Tiberias. In a short time he quarreled with Herod Antipas, and became a friend of Flaccus, propretor of Syria. He lost favor with that official by taking bribes from the citizens of Damascus. Reduced to extremities, he went to Italy, where he was imprisoned by Tiberius, because he had been overheard to tell Caius that he desired the death of the emperor. Upon the death of Tiberius he was released from prison by his friend Caius, and made king over the territory which had belonged to his uncle Philip (37 a.p.). He does not seem to have lived much in his kingdom until after the deposition of Herod Antipas. In 39 A.D. he was given the latter’s tetrarchy. During the antisemitic outbreak under Caius (Caligula) he was able to obtain some favors from the emperor, and so won popularity with the Jews. He seems to have had some share in the elevation of Claudius to the empire after the assassination of Caius, and, in consequence, was given the province of Judea (41 a.p.). His kingdom thus became practically co- extensive with that of Herod I. Herod Agrippa was popular with the Jews, because he was careful to regard Pharisaic observances. He had power to appoint the high priest, but he was careful in no way to outrage the feelings of the Jews, and further added to his popularity by using his influence with Claudius for the good of the Jews throughout the empire. According to Ac 121 ff. he persecuted Chris- tians to increase his popularity. He strengthened the fortifications of Jerusalem and apparently began the formation of a confederacy of neighboring kings. This project, however, was nipped in the bud by the legate of Syria. Notwithstanding his regard for Jewish customs, outside of Palestine he was a thoroughgoing Hellenist. In Beirit he built baths and a sumptuous theater. He also erected an amphitheater for gladiatorial games. He was in the midst or games in Caesarea when he was seized with a fatal disease after being saluted by the people as a god (44 a.p.; cf. Ac 12 20-23). 345 A NEW STANDARD 7. Herod Agrippa II. Herod Agrippa II (49-c. 100 a.p.), son of the preceding, was a boy at the death of his father and was not allowed to succeed him. He was, if possible, more friendly to the Jews than his father had been, and maintained also friend- ship with Claudius. In 49 a.p. he was appointed the successor of his uncle Herod, as king of the little kingdom of Chalcis, with which position went also the right to appoint the high priest. In 53 a.p. he exchanged Chalcis for territory that had been a part of the tetrarchy of Philip, to which Nero added por- tions of Perea and Galilee, including the city of Tiberias. At the outbreak of the revolt of 66 a.p. he did all that he could to restore peace, and to per- suade the Jews to give up their mad undertaking. In this, however, he was unsuccessful, and took the side of the Romans against the Jews. He seems to have reigned until his death, which was probably about 100 a.p. It was before this Agrippa and his sister Bernice that Paul was brought by Festus (Ac 25 13-26 32). 8. The Herodian Women Mentioned in the N T. Herod Agrippa I had three daughters. The eldest, Bernice, married her uncle Herod of Chalcis, and subsequently Polemon II, King of Cilicia, and lived as wife on the Palatine with Titus. She is mentioned in the N T as being present at the trial of Paul (Ac 25 13, 23, 26 30). The youngest of the three was Drusilla. After various adventures she became the wife of Felix, procurator of Judea. She was present at the trial of Paul (Ac 24 24). Like her sister Bernice, she gained a reputation not above re- proach. Herodias was the daughter of Aristobulus, son of Herod the Great. It was her unholy relation- ship with Herod Antipas (see § 4 above) that brought her and Antipas under the denunciation of the Baptist, and it was her resentment that led finally to John’s death (Mk 6 17-28). LiteRATURE: Besides Josephus and the Latin historians, the best modern authority is Schiirer, HJ P,(3d-4th Germ. ed., 1901-1909). S. M. HERODIANS, hi-ré’di-anz: The adherents, or partizans, of the Herod dynasty and, as such, well content with Roman overlordship, but desirous of seeing one of this family over Judea in the place of the Roman procurator (Mk 3 6, 12 13 and ||s). The principles of Jesus’ teaching were no more favorable to the Herodian policy and ideals than they were to Pharisaism. The women of the Herodian house were, as arule, devoted to Judaism, which may partly explain the union of Herodian and Pharisee against Jesus. EK. E.N. HERODIAS, hi-rd’di-as. See Heron, § 8. HERODION, hi-rd’dion (‘Hewdtwy): A relative of Paul (Ro 16 11). HERON. See PALESTINE, § 25. HESED, hi’sed. See BEN-HESED. HESHBON, hegh’ben (Ji2¥N, heshbon): A city of Moab, advantageously situated on two hills com- manding an extensive view of the lower Jordan Valley. Map II, J 1. Sihon made H. the capital of his Amorite kingdom (Nu 21 25-34; Dt 1 4; etc.). Taken from Sihon by Israel, it was occupied by the Reubenites and Gadites (Nu 32 3, 37; Jos 13 26 f.; Herod BIBLE DICTIONARY Hexateuch I Ch 8 81; and ef. Mrsua, Moabite Stone, line 10). Later, we find it again in possession of Moab and its overthrow predicted by Isaiah and Jeremiah (Is 15 4, 16 8 f.; Jer 48 2 #., 49 3). The site is one of great fertility, well supplied with water (cf. Song 7 4, where AV reads fish pools instead of ‘pools’). The extensive ruins show that it was a flourishing city in Roman times. E. E.N. HESHMON, hesh’mon (]}0¥M, heshmén): A town of Judah (Jos 15 27). Site unknown. HETH, heth (0, héth): The people of Hebron, in Gn ch. 23, are called ‘children of Heth,’ also in ver. 10 Hittites (MN, hittt). The same usage meets us in Gn 27 46 and 26 34 regarding Esau’s wives (cf. also 49 29 f.). These ‘Hittites,’ as an element of the pre-Israelitic population of S.. Palestine, are referred to a number of times (Gn 15 20; Ex 3 8, 17, 13 5, 23 23, 28; Jos 12 8, etc.). All such terms as Canaanite, Amorite, Hittite are used somewhat loosely in the O T and in different senses by different writers. The question here is: were the Hebron ‘Hittites’ simply Canaanites who were considered as being connected genealogically with a certain Heth, or were they an offshoot or remnant of the great Hittite people who had become separated from the main body and had remained in S. Pales- tine? While the first view is the prevalent one, there are good reasons (cf. Burney, Judges, pp. lxxxiii ff.) for the latter. Ahimelech (I S 26 6) and Uriah (IIS 113 #.) probably belonged to these S. Pales- tine Hittites, and Ezk 16 3, 45is to be explained in the same way. On Gn 10 15 and other references see Hirrrrms. (Cf. also Driver, Com. on Genesis, 1904, and Skinner JCC on Gn 23.) K. E.N. HETHLON, heth'len (171, hethlon): A place on the ideal N. boundary of Israel (Ezk 47 15, 481), not mentioned elsewhere. Perhaps the modern Hetitela (Furrer, ZDPV, VIII, 27), N. of Tripoli. Others make the ideal N. boundary S. of the foot of Hermon, and identify H. with ’Adlin, N. of the mouth of the Kasimiyeh (Litany) river. C.S8. T. HEXATEUCH. IntTRoDuUcTORY, §§ 1-3. I. THe STRUCTURE OF THE HEXATEUCH 18 CompPos- II. ANALYSIS INTO THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS, §§ 10-13. ITE, §§ 4-9. III. History oF THE For- MATION OF THE HExa- TEUCH, §§ 14-30. 1. The Term. The term ‘Hexateuch’ (¢§ and ce0xo<, ‘the six-book treatise’) is used to designate the first siz books of the O T. This term is preferable to the older, Pentateuch, 7.e¢., the first five books, or the Law, since modern study has shown that, Joshua is a part of the same literary production and must be included in any comprehensive study of the Pentatuech. 2. General Outline. The H. presents a general historical account extending from the Creation to Israel’s occupation of Canaan, disposed as follows: (1) The Ancient World, the starting-point of all history (Gn chs. 1-11). (2) The origin of the Coy- enant-People Israel and its history during the patriarchal age (Gn chs. 12-50). (3) The organiza- tion of Israel and the origin of its laws and institu. 'trophe is cosmic rather than local. Hexateuch A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 346 tions (Ex 11-Nu 10 10). (4) The discipline in the desert, ending in the conquest of the East-Jordan region (Nu 10 11-Dt 34 12). (5) Israel’s conquest and occupation of Canaan (Jos). 3. Mosaic Authorship a Late Idea. Not until the Persian period did the Jews think of Moses as the author of the entire Pentateuch. The references in Kings, Joshua, and the Pentateuch itself to a ‘book’ or books, by Moses can not be shown to refer to the Pentateuch in its present form. But from the Greek period it was the general opinion that Moses wrote the Law (i.e., the Pentateuch). Christianity took over this opinion from Judaism, and, until critical methods of study showed it to be untenable, it was the prevalent opinion. I. Tue SrructurE oF THE HExaTEUCH I8 * CoMPOSITE—PROOF. That the H, is of composite structure many facts in the work itself conclusively prove. 4. From Genesis. (1) A comparison of Gn 1 1-2 4, with 2 4b-3 24 discloses two distinct narra- tives. In 1 1-2 42 the word for the deity is God (Heb. ’éldhim), and a cosmic process is described, the order being: the universe, earth, plant and animal life, man. The conceptions are somewhat abstract, and the idea of God is monotheistic and free from anthropomorphism. This section has also a noticeable literary style. But in 2 4b-3 24 the word for deity is Jehovah (Lorp AV) God. Interest is centred, not on the cosmos, but on the earth, especially as the abode of man. The animals are made after man, and for his sake. The conception of God is more anthropomorphic, and the literary style is altogether unlike that of 11-2 44. (2) The Flood narrative, 6 5-9 17, presents the same features. Sections using God alternate with others using Jehovah. The passages 6 5-8, 7 1-5, 8 20-22 are clearly ‘Jehovah’ paragraphs, and on the basis of similarity of style and conception 7 7-10 (in the main), 12, 16 (last clause), 17b, 22, 23, 8 2b, 6-12, 13b are to be classed with them. On the other hand, 6 13-22, 7 6, 11, 13- 16a, 17a, 18-21, 24, 8 1-2a, 3b-5, 18a, 14-19, 9 1-17 make up another narrative in which God is the name for deity. In this, in contrast with the narrative using Jehovah, the conception of deity is more abstract, the style is formal and statistical, and the catas- (3) There are two ancient genealogical tables, 4 1, 16-24 and 5 1-28. In the first, man’s descent is traced through Cain to Lamech; in the second, through Seth to Lamech. Since the two tables are altogether or nearly identical in respect to a number of the names, they may represent but two versions of some very ancient list. In the first Jehovah is used, in the second God, with corresponding differences in style. (4) The story of Abraham’s experience in Egypt, 12 10-20, is parallel, in general outline, to 20 1-18, and in one Jehovah, in the other God, is the name for deity. But now a new phenomenon appears: The style of 20 1-18 is unlike that of the preceding sections which use the same name God. It is the easy, flowing narrative style of the Jehovah passages. The significance of this will be noted later. (5) In ch. 17 God gives Abraham the promise of seed, while in ch. 18 Jehovah makes a similar promise. The sequel of ch. 18 is found in 21 1 (Jehovah); that of ch. 17 in 21 2-6 (God). (6) Ch. 87 contains two stories of Joseph’s transportation to Egypt. In one (vs. 28a, 36), Midianites take him out of the pit and carry him away. In the other (vs. 27, 28b) his brethren sell him to the Jshmaelites. (See Grnzsis). 5. From Exodus. (1) 11-77 there is, on the whole, a triple narrative. (a) 11-5 (with 6 14-27), 7, 13, 14b, 2 23b-25, 6 2-7 7 form a complete account of the initial stages of the Exodous movement. They neither presuppose nor require anything mentioned in the intervening sections. It is also evident that 6 2-3 directly conflicts with those passages in Genesis in which a knowledge of Jehovah in the patriarchal age is assumed (cf. Gn 4 26, 12 8, 13 18, 15 2, 7, 16 5, 22 14, 24 3, 7, 12, 27, 31, 35, 40, 42, 44, 48 and many others. (b) Separating out from Ex 1 1- 7 7 the passages noted under (a), there remains a- series of paragraphs, some using God, others Jehovah, the rest being less distinctive. Naturally, after ch. 3 9b-15, where God reveals His name Jehovah, and to a greater degree after 6 2-3, the name J’” could be used freely by all the writers. But this only makes the alternation of Jehovah and God more significant, and such a passage as 3 2-7 evidently consists of two separate threads of narrative. Using this hint we may tentatively assign 1 15-21, 3 1, 4b, 6, 9b-15, and 4 17, 20b to the document using God, and the remain- ing passages to the one using Jehovah. (2) The plague narrative, 7 8-12 36, is also seen to be composed of several strands. In some passages Moses and Aaron together deal with Pharaoh, Aaron as speaker and performer of the wonders (7 2, 10, 19-20, 8 5, 6, 18, 9 8), while in others Moses acts alone (7 14-15, 81, 20, 9 1, 13, 22, 10 21-29). In some the emphasis is laid on Aaron’s rod (7 9, 19, 8 5, 16), in others on Moses’ rod, or hand (9 22 f., 1012 f., 21 £.; ef. also 14 15 £., 21). 111-3 breaks the connection between 10 28 f. and 11 4-8 by introducing a matter belonging to an entirely different situation, and apparently from another narrative. (3) In 18 13-17 assistant judges are appointed by Moses at Jethro’s suggestion, but in Dt 1 9-18 the same transaction is placed after the giving of the Law, Jethro is not mentioned, and the selection is made by the people, not by Moses. (4) In 19 1-24 18 there are evidently three accounts. a. 19 1-2 and 24 15-18. form a complete altho brief introduction to the great revelation concerning the Sanctuary and its services (Ex chs, 25-31, 35-40; Lv fall]; ete.). b. A closely interwoven double narrative in 19 3-24 14, 15b. Evidence for this is (a) the alternation of God and Jehovah, which is otherwise inexplicable (19 3, 17-20, 20 1); (b) in the Jehovah parts of ch. 19 the people keep away from the mount when Jehovah descends, but in 19 17, 19, 20 1, 18-21 Moses and the people are quite near where God is, and only at the people’s request is the distance between them and God increased; (c) 24 1-2, 9-11 can be interpreted only as describing the rat- ification of a covenant, or a covenant-meal. But essentially the same significance must, be given to 24 3-8; (d) the religious injunctions in 20 22-28, 22 29-30, and 23 10-33 are repeated partly in identical words in 34 10-27, a passage which also is loosely attached to its context. (See Exopus.) B47 A NEW STANDARD 6. From Leviticus. Ex. chs. 25-31, 35-40, the entire Book of Leviticus, and Nu 1 1-10 28 are closely connected, marked by the same general style, deal with the same subject, and are written from the same points of view. In all these respects they are sharply distinguished from the narrative sections that precede and follow them. (See also Leviticus and NuMBERS.) 7. From Numbers. (1) Examining the narrative in Nu from 10 29 on, we find there are two accounts of the expedition of the spies. (a) In 13 17b-20, 22-24, 26b-31, the region about Hebron is the limit reached. (b) In 13 1-173, 21b, the whole land of Canaan is examined. Dt 1 19-25 agrees with (a) rather than with (b). (2) The account of the great rebellion in ch. 16 shows itself to be composite. (a) On, son of Peleth, is mentioned at first as one of the leaders, but nothing more is said of him. (b) The motive of the rebels is twofold. That of Korah is religious— a protest against the exclusive claims of the Levites vs. the rights of the whole people, or a protest against the claims of the priests vs. the whole body of Levites (see NumBerrs, § 2). But Dathan and Abiram are hostile to Moses’ civil authority and declare that he has not fulfilled his promises. (c) The paragraphs alternate, vs. 4-11 dealing with Korah, 12-14 with Dathan and Abiram, 15-19 with Korah, while 20-35 is a composite account of the punishment, which differs in each case. (8) In the Balak and Balaam story (ch. 22) there seem to be two narratives. (a) In ver. 7 the ‘elders of Midian’ go for Balaam, but in ver. 8 it is the ‘princes of Moab.’ (b) In ver. 20 God directs Balaam to go, but in ver. 22 f. He is angry with him for going. (c) In ver. 5a Balaam lives in Pethor by the Eu- phrates, in ver. 5b in ‘the land of the children of his people’ (z.e., according to the probable reading, in the land of Ammon). (d) The form of the oracles in ch. 23 is very different from that in ch. 24. 8. From Deuteronomy. Deuteronomy forms a separate book directly connected neither with Numbers nor with Joshua. Its style is distinct from that of the preceding books. Its introductory narrative traverses briefly the same ground as Exodus and Numbers, but its representation of the events is different (cf. Dt 1 9-18 with Ex 18 13-26; Dt 1 19-40 with Nu ch. 13; Dt 21-8 with Nu 20 14-21). Its code (chs. 12-26, 28) is an amplification of the brief code in Ex chs. 20-23, the additional matter being suitable to a time much later than the Mosaic age. The religious polemic in Dt chs. 4-11 fits the situation in Judah in the 7th cent. as it does no other, while the literary affinities between Dt and other portions of the O T appear only from the 7th cent. onward (e.g., Jeremiah has much in com- mon with Dt., but Hosea, Amos, Micah, and Isaiah {I] practically nothing; see DreurmRoNomy). . 9. From Joshua. The Book of Joshua presents a complex, difficult to disentangle. At some points there are traces of double or threefold narratives, as in other parts of the Hex. (1) In 215 a suitable conclusion of the narrative between Rahab and the spies is reached and vs. 16-21 appear to be part of another account. (2) In 2 15 Rahab’s house is built into, or a part of, the city wall; but in 6 22, after BIBLE DICTIONARY Hexateuch the wall has fallen down flat (6 20), Joshua sends the spies into the city to find the house. Evidently here are two different traditions. A careful study of ch. 6 does, in fact, reveal a twofold narrative of the capture of the city. (3) In 83 4. Joshua sends 30,000 men to lie in hiding behind Ai, while he makes a feigned attack in front. But in 810 ff. the very same plan is described, only the ambushment consists of but 5,000 men. (4) In 10 36-43 Joshua, at the head of all Israel, attacks and utterly destroys, among other places, Hebron, Debir, and the towns in the whole southern country, from Kadesh-barnea to Gaza. But in 14 6-12 the same region is given to Caleb to be conquered by him, and the story of its conquest by Caleb follows in 15 13-19 (cf. Judges 19-21). Similarly in ch. 8 all Israel makes the attack on Bethel and Ai, while in Judges 1 22-26 Bethel is captured by the house of Joseph alone. (5) In 13 1 Joshua, at Gilgal, ‘old and well stricken in years,’ apparently after the main work of conquest is over, is com- manded to divide the land (137). But 1818. breaks into this procedure with another account of an allotment to only seven tribes at Shiloh. In 231 Joshua, again ‘old and well stricken in years,’ gives his farewell charge to Israel (place not mentioned), but in ch. 24 we have another and different farewell at Shechem. Such features indicate the use of originally different narratives. Il. ANALYSIS INTO THE ORIGINAL DocUMENTS. 10. Not Many Fragments, but Several Main Documents. It is, from what has been said, evident that Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, and Joshua are composite, everywhere based upon older and originally separate strands of material. The unity is only apparent, due to editorial adjustment, not to single authorship. The separate strands, which are constantly revealing themslves, are, however, not all independent. The component elements of any given section are related to those of other sections. In other words, the separate strands are but sections of long, comprehensive documents that underlie the whole H. The character of these documents must next be determined. 11. The ‘Priestly’ Document. P or PC. As we have seen, Gn 11-2 4a has a distinct style, vocabulary, and theological point of view. Gn ch. 5 has the same style, vocabulary, and point of view, also 6 9-22, many verses of ch. 7 (especially in vs. 13-24), 8 13-19, 9 1-17, 28-29, 10 1-32, and 11 10-27. In all these we find the same strict monotheism, somewhat transcen- dental, the empahsis on Divine plan rather than on human motives, and long stretches of history covered in a merely statistical way. The writer has an exact and comprehensive chronology. The plan of the history is genealogical—note the ‘genera- tions’ of (1) the heavens and the earth, 2 4a; (2) of Adam, 5 1; (3) of Noah, 6 9; (4) of the sons of Noah, 10 1; (5) of Shem, 11 10; (6) of Terah, 11 27 (cf. the continuation in 25 12, 19, 36 1, 37 1). In 1 29-30, 2 1-3, 9 3-4, 12 we detect an interest in cere- monial usage and symbolism. In fact, we have an originally complete narrative, in which the same style and point of view are consistently maintained. This narrative can be traced by its characteristic marks through the rest of the Pentateuch and on Hexateuch A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 348 LLL LL LLL LL LLL LLL LLL LLL LLL LLL LLL into Joshua (see below, § 28). It is the narrative of the origin of Israel, as the theocracy, and of Israel’s religious institutions. The goal of the national development was reached in the establishment of the Sanctuary, Priesthood, and religious services. It neglected, sometimes contradicted, popular tradition. According to it the patriarchs did not offer sacrifices (as they had no priests or legitimate sanctuaries), nor did they know, or use, the name Jehovah (Ex 6 2-3). Because of its character this document is known as the Priestly narrative (symbol P), and the legislation in it as the Priest’s Code (PC). 12. The J and E Histories. On the same basis of stylistic and other affinities other passages show that they once belonged together. Gn 2 4b-4 26 finds its continuation in 5 29b, 6 1-8, 7 1-5, 7-9, 12, 16b, 17b, 22 f., 8 2b, 6-12, 13b, 20-22, 9 18-27, etc. In all these the name for deity is Jehovah, the style is that of the story, told vividly and realistically. The tone is deeply religious and a profound interest is felt in man as a moral-religious being who is working out his lot in struggle and sorrow. He set forth the diversified character of the ancient world by a genealogical table, fragments of which remain, 10 8-19, 24-29, and 11 28-30, and by the story of the confusion of tongues, 11 1-10. With Abraham, summoned by Jehovah to leave his native land, the real history of Irsael begins. The writer loves to detail the personal experiences of his heroes. His style, marked neither by diffuseness nor brevity, is remarkably attractive. In Gn ch. 20 God is first used in a section of popular, story-telling character. Up to this point such sec- tions use the name Jehovah. The explanation is that there were originally two separate narratives, of this character, one using the name Jehovah throughout, the other using God, until the scene recorded in Ex ch. 3, when the name Jehovah was revealed to Moses. In style and mode of thought these two popular narratives are quite similar. Unlike P, they are not statistical, and have no systematic chronology. It is often difficult, sometimes im- possible, to determine to which one a specific word, sentence, or paragraph is to be assigned. Yet each has its distinctive terminology, more evident in Hebrew than in English, and the frequent occurrence of duplicate accounts is ample proof that two such narratives once existed and were quite similar in plan and content. Like P, both of these narratives can be traced from Genesis on into Joshua. On the basis of their use of the Divine names God (Heb. ’élohim) and Jehovah, these documents are denoted by the letters E and J. 13. The Documents No Longer in Their Original Form. The three histories J, E, and P, with the once separate work Deuteronomy (D), form the docu- mentary basis of the H. They now survive only as combined into one large work, not in their original form. Omissions and other changes were necessary in order to weave them into one. The combination was made, however, in a conservative spirit. In most cases as much as possible of the original documents was preserved. Very different accounts of the same thing could, in some instances, be placed one after the other, as Gn 1 1-2 4a (P), and 2 4b-25 (J). Very similar ones could be inter- woven, as the story of the Flood (J and P), or of the call of Moses in Ex ch. 3 (J and E). In some cases the compiler let differences or contradictions stand (e.g., Ex ch. 3 [JE] and Ex ch. 6 [P]) or changed the order (e.g., Ex 34 10-26 [J]=parts of Ex chs. 20-23 [E], but placed at a different time), or omitted parts of one narrative in favor of the representation in an- other (the account of the organization of the worship by Moses in J and E was mostly omitted in favor of P’s account). This process of editing and combining was long and complex, not all done in one period, by the same persons or always under the same in- fluences. This can be shown most satisfactorily by tracing the history of the H. from its beginning to its final form. Ill. History oF THE FORMATION OF THE HEXATEUCH. 1. The Two Most Ancient Histories J and E. 14. The Sources of J and E. Of the four main documents from which the H. was compiled the oldest were J and E. Each was a complete narrative beginning very early, J with the making of the first man and E at least as far back as Abraham, both concerned mainly with Israel’s origins, and closing (apparently) with the conquest of Canaan by Je- hovah’s Chosen People. It is evident that their authors used such information as was at their dis- posal. They describe events that happened long before their day, and nowhere claim personal knowledge of the facts. Whence, then, did they draw their information? This legitimate question may be answered as follows: (1) They had at hand a limited amount of fixed material, possessing his- torical significance, such as (a) laws already codified and assigned to the period of Moses; e.g., a Decalog, a series of religious regulations (Ex 20 23-26, 22 29-30, 23 10-19; cf. 34 10-26), and a civil code (Ex 21 1-23 9). (b) Ancient poems or songs, believed to have originated on specific occasions; e.g., Lamech’s (Gn 4 23-24), Noah’s (Gn 9 25-27), Isaac’s (Gn 27 27-29), Jacob’s (Gn 49 2-27), the Song of Victory in Ex ch. 15, the curse on Amalek (Ex 17 16), the invocation concerning the Ark (Nu 10 35-36), the fragments in Nu 21 14f., 17 £., 27-30, the Balaam Oracles (Nu chs. 23 and 24), the Blessing of Moses (Dt ch. 33), and the poetic fragment in Jos 10 12-13. (c) Institutions, as to the origin of which tradition was fixed, as the Passover (Ex 12 21-27), the Priesthood (Ex 238 25-27), and the Sanctuary (Ex 33 7-11). (2) They also had access to tradition, which among people of simple culture always holds a most important place. This historical tradition was of two kinds: (a) A general national tradition, much the same everywhere in Israel, to the effect that their forefathers came originally from the Aram, once lived in Canaan, had been delivered by Moses from oppression in Egypt, and had conquered Canaan after receiving from Moses a national and religious organization. Any Israelite historian would have constructed his history on this general basis. (b) There were also many specific, particularly local, traditions varying greatly in quantity and character, according to locality, or according to the tribe in whose midst they were handed down. The tribe of Ephraim, e.g., was partic- 349 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Hexateuch ularly interested in the traditions concerning Joshua the Ephraimite, Judah in those concerning Caleb. Each local sanctuary, as Beersheba, Hebron, Bethel, Gilgal, Shechem, was a center of tradition. Originally these traditions were independent and of different values. Some may have been Israelite transforma- tions of Canaanite originals. The process of amal- gamating these various traditions and building up therefrom a connected story of the patriarchal age began long before the writing of J and E. The ten- dency to embellishment as the stories were repeated from generation to generation must have been strong, and it is no longer easy to get back to the original facts on which they were based. In many cases it is best to admit this frankly and not to insist upon the historical accuracy of details. (3) Finally, there were current in Israel many general views regarding God, man, and the world which Israel shared with the general Semitic world of the day. The presence of these is very noticeable in the early narratives in J. While the historians of Israel used these concep- tions freely, they also modified them in accordance with their own higher ideas of deity, duty, worship, etc. 15. The Spirit in Which J and E Were Written. Such was the general character of the material to which our two historians had access. They used it carefully and conscientiously. Actuated mainly by practical religious motives, they. were not ‘critical’ in the modern sense. But they were not inclined to sacrifice truth in order to glorify the men of the past. Of Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, Moses, Aaron, Miriam, and others, things are told which are not to their credit. A degree of objectivity was actually attained, rare indeed in the annals of the ancient world. 16. Comparison of J with E. Altho of indepen- dent origin, the two histories followed much the same general outline, and frequently related the same events. Each has its own style and other pe- culiarities. J is the richer in the variety of his material, broader in view, more liberal in spirit, and of deeper insight into the motives that actuate human conduct. In E the conception of God is, perhaps, more abstract. In both, the mastery of a chaste narrative style marked by profound pathos and winsomeness is noteworthy. 17. The Authors: Their Date and Place. The questions that center about the authorship of J and EK can be answered only approximately. (1) Who the authors were is unknown, as is the case with most O T books. It may be more correct, especially in regard to J, to think of a ‘school’ rather than an individual author. The designation ‘prophetic’ his- tories, because of alleged harmony with the teaching of such prophets as Amos, Hosea, and Isaiah is somewhat misleading. The harmony is superficial rather than profound and there is no evidence of acquaintance with the most distinctive prophetic teachings. All that can besaid with certainty is that the writers were earnest, sincere Jehovah-wor- shipers, representative of the better type of religious thought apart from the advance made by the great prophets. (2) In regard to the place of com- position, many points of difference between the two histories seem best explained by the theory that J was written in Judah, and E in the Northern Kingdom. And it may be noted that the general agreement of these narratives, written by different hands and in different parts of Israel, is incidental evidence of no small value for the antiquity and essential accuracy of the historical tradition con- tained in them. 18. The Preservation of J and E. The way in which J and E were preserved is a matter of no little importance. Careful study shows that they are not now complete and that both have suffered at the hands of copyists or editors. Since they had no strictly ‘canonical’ character at first, they were easily subject to changes of various kinds. They could be supplemented here and there by additions. A pos- ‘sible case of this is the Flood narrative in J, which does not seem to be anticipated in Gn ch. 4. The pro- cess of copying gave abundant opportunity for many minor changes. It is likely that E was brought into Judah, probably to Jerusalem, about the time of the fall of the Northern Kingdom (722 B.c.). There it was preserved and studied, and furnished, in addition to J, a valuable history of Israel’s origins. Of far greater importance was the fusion of the two histories into one compilation, JE. When this took place, since the two narratives presented many differences, considerable editorial adjustment was necessary. Passages belonging to this editor, or redactor, are denoted by the symbol Rsz. As the author of Deuteronomy (in its original form, which we designate as D) appears to have had some of these RsE passages before him, the combination probably took place before D was written, 7.e., not later than c. 650 B.c. The separate existence of J and E did not cease at once when they were com- bined into JE, but it was only in this form that they attained to a permanent place in Israel’s literature. 2. Deuteronomy (D). 19. The Influence of Deuteronomy. With the details of the origin of D we are not here concerned (see DeuTrERONOMY). Assuming that the original D was composed near 650 B.c. and was, in 621, made the basis of the covenant obligation of IT K ch. 23, it is evident that the book must have become very soon widely known and influential. This ex- plains why the O T literature dating from c. 600 and for a time after is full of Deuteronomic phraseology and is written from a distinctly ‘Deuteronomic’ point of view. When Judah went into exile in 586, they carried D with them as their law-book and JE as the record of their early history. 20. Combination of JE with D. During the Exile these writings were studied with great seriousness, and at last they were combined with D into one work by a ‘Deuteronomic’ editor. This was accomplished by simply wedging D into JE at the place where Moses’ last days were recorded, thus displacing the JE account of Moses’ farewell address. The editor left the record of JE from the beginning to the Mosaic period practically intact. There are no clear signs of his work up to Ex ch. 18. From there on many sentences, or expressions, in Ex and Nu seem to be from him. Into D the editor inserted from JE Dt 25 5-7, 31 14-23 (in part), ch. 33, and 34 1-10 Hexateuch A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 350 (in part). But the narrative of the conquest of Canaan by JE was completely worked over under the influence of a radically different view from that of JE. According to JE, Israel, except the East-Jordan tribes, crossed the Jordan at one time and united in the attack on Jericho, but then divided and con- quered the highland region slowly and with difficulty. Judah and Simeon worked their way southward, conquered Hebron, and thence gradually spread over the whole territory later known as Judah. The house of Joseph conquered the middle highlands under Joshua. The other tribes followed in the wake of the house of Joseph, and gradually con- quered the territory in and north of the Plain of Esdraelon. Dut the Deuteronomic school, forgetful of all this, held that all Israel, including the East- Jordan tribes, marching en masse under Joshua, conquered the whole land in one or two great sweeping campaigns, exterminating the Canaanites, and in many cases destroying their cities. Compare, eg., Jos 14 6 f. and 15 14-19 (JE) with 10 28-43 (Deuteronomic), or Jos 17 11 f£. (JE) with 12 21 (Deuteronomic). The Deuteronomic school held that, since in D Moses had commanded Israel to conquer and utterly destroy (7 2) the Canaanites, and stamp out their worship, and since Joshua had been divinely appointed to carry out this command, it certainly must have been accomplished in just such a way. The more ancient and accurate notices of JE, therefore, while preserved in part, were practically ignored, as not describing the conquest in its true character as God’s signal and complete act of providence for His people (cf. 9 1-5). The combination of JE with D may be exhibited thus: From the Creation to the last NARRATIVE days of Moses. LINE JE (slightly revised by Deu- teronomic editor). JE+D. Rd 3. The ‘Priestly’ Material of the Hexateuch (P and PC). 21. The Priests the Teachers of the Law. When Israel settled in Canaan and the religion of Jehovah became established, its official custodians were the priests of the various sanctuaries. These made known the ‘law,’ or custom, regarding all matters of religious or moral character, and of right procedure in the courts of justice (such as they were). Within priestly circles there grew up gradually an extensive body of such teaching regulative of worship and conduct, supposed or alleged to be based on Moses’ directions, especially as time passed and much of it became very ancient. 22. Codification of Priestly Law. Of the early history of this material we actually know very little. Codifications were made early, as is seen from the code in E (Ex chs. 21-28, in the main). At the more important sanctuaries this body of priestly ‘law’ was preserved with care, and also continuously expanded, with increasing emphasis on ritual, and in view of the constant need of new applications of prin- ciples already formulated. Such legal material as we find in the H., apart from what was recorded in The critical symbol of this combination is Moses’ last days. D and small selections from JE. E, probably represents mainly the work of the priests of the great Sanctuary at Jerusalem—the Temple—and their exilic and postexilic successors. In Jerusalem, in preexilic times, a large body of such ‘law’ was probably in possession of the priests of the Temple, partly written, but much also un- written, consisting either of oral tradition or of well- known ceremonial. On this the author of D must have drawn mainly in constructing his written code (Dt chs. 12-26, 28), which was adopted as the national constitution in 621 B.c. (ef. II K 23 1-3). 23. The Holiness Code (HC). Another example of such codification is the code found embedded in Lv, mainly in chs. 17-26 (see Leviricus). This section, as a whole, presents such striking contrasts to the main portion of the P material in the Hex. that it probably represents the conditions of a time earlier than that to which the main body of P be-- longs. In its present form it has been extensively worked over and altered by later postexilic hands. This code covers the following points (see Carpenter and Harford, Comp. of Hez., p. 428 ff.): 1. Fundamental distinctions: (1) Exclusive loyalty’to Jehovah vs. all ‘Canaanite’ practises, 18 17>, (2) Animals killed to be eaten are sacrifices—regulations as to these, 17 1-16, 9] 26a, 20 25 f. [(3) Distinetions between clean and unclean animals, ch. 11 [?]. 2. The family and sexual purity, 18 6-39, 19 20-21, 90 1-24, 8. Miscellaneous laws, mainly of a ‘civil’ character, chs. 19 and 24 15-22, 4, Priestly holiness, 21 1-22 16. 5. Offerings, 22 17-38, 6. The calendar and related matter, 19 23-25, 231, ch. 25. 7. Hortatory conclusion, ch. 26. Conquest. JE extensively revised. The moral tone of this code is high and its religious spirit earnest and pure. Its emphasis on form, shows the tendency to reduce religion to correct formal practise. Many of the laws of HC were already old when incorporated into the code, and thus afford little evidence for its date. The question as to its date is complicated by the similarities be- tween it and Ezk. Its affinities with D and with Ezk point to a date either a little before or after the Exile. If Ezekiel used HC, it would then be pre- exilic. If HC was influenced by Ezk, its date would then be somewhere near 540 B.c. 24. Ezekiel and the Priestly Legislation. The influence of Ezekiel on the priestly legislation must have been large. In his outline for the organization of the new community (chs. 40-48), when it should once more occupy the Holy Land, holiness to Jehovah was the governing principle, a holiness that was to find expression in every detail of formal worship and community life. The outline deals first with the Sanctuary and its details (chs. 40-43), passes next to the worship (chs. 44-45), and then gives regulations for the holy territory, to be occu- pied exclusively by a holy people (chs. 47-48). In this sketch it is noteworthy how important a place is assigned to the priests. 351 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Hexateuch 25. Interest of the Exiles in the Law. Under such influences many of the Exiles looked forward to the establishment in Palestine of a community life which should perfectly express exclusive devo- tion to Jehovah. In such circles, composed mainly of priests, the work of perfecting an ideal con~ stitution for Israel was undertaken. In addition to the codes in JE, D, and HC, they had doubtless much traditional material. Probably little progress had been made at the time of the Return in 536. The colonists who rebuilt the Temple and restored the worship probably used mainly the codes of D and HC. But those who remained in the land of cap- tivity had an idealistic love for Jerusalem with its Temple, and for the institutions of Israel, and for these they worked assiduously. 26. Ezra’s Law-Book. The result of such work we hear of first in the case of Ezra, who, c. 458 B.c., set out from Babylonia for Jerusalem with ‘the book of the law,’ evidently something new, in his hands, intending to make its contents known to the com- munity there (Ezr 7 6, 10; Neh 8). Just what the contents of this ‘book’ were is a question of great importance, but difficult to decide. 27. Contents of P. The correctness of the prevalent view that it was P can be estimated best after a general survey of the contents of this ancient docu- ment. The material in P comprises two main elements: (1) a historical narrative and (2) a large body of laws. The manner in which these two elements are related to each other is seen in the following summary’ After the example of J the writer began’ with the Creation. From a standpoint of rigid monotheism, in exact, statistical style he unfolded the Divine plan of which Israel, a holy nation was to be the culmination, In ten sections he sketched the Creation (Gn 1 !"2 49), the ten genealogical steps from Adam to Noah (5 178, 80-82), the great universal deluge (6 %22, chs. 7 and 8 [passim], 9 1-17), the descendants of the sons of Noah (10177, 20, 22-23, 30-32), the ‘generations’ of Shem (11 77%), of Terah (=Abraham) (11 27-25 !! [passim]), of Ishmael (25 12718), of Isaac (25 19-35 29 [passim]), of Esau (ch. 36 [in part)], and of Jacob (chs. 37-50 [passim]). In the history of Abraham he gave exact statistics of A.’s age, tells of his separation from his family (11 27. 81 f-, 12 4b, 5), and from Lot (13 6 1b-12a), After relating the birth of Ishmael (16 38, 3, 15 f.) in A.’s eighty- seventh year, he recorded the appearance of God Almighty to A. in his ninety-ninth year, promising to make him a father of many nations, at the same time instituting the rite of circum- cision, and definitely assuring him of the birth of Isaac (ch. 17), who, in due time, was born (21 !. 2b-5), After this Sarah died (ch, 23), and then Abraham (25 78), After a formal notice of Ishmael (25 12-17), a brief account of Isaac follows (25 19-29), Only fragments of P’s narrative of the boys Jacob and Esau remain (25 2b, 26 84-3, 28 1-9), also of Jacob’s experience with Laban (29 34, 2%), The covenant relation of Jacob is clearly indicated (35 %13, 15), Jacob’s sons and his return to Isaac are noted (35 22>-29), After a summary description of Esau’s descendants (36 180, 4043), the history of the line of Jacob is given, preserved only in fragments (37 172, 41 45b, 46a, 46 6-37, 47 5~6a, 7-11, 28), closing with the notices of the adoption of Joseph’s sons (48 **), of the last words of the patriarch (49 1s, 28b-38a), and of his burial (50 12718), The oppression in Egypt is briefly told (Ex 1 1°5, 7, 18, Mb, 2 %8b-25), Then comes the great revelation of God as Jehovah (Ex 6 7-5), with the commission to Moses and Aaron (6 ®-7 13), Four plagues—blood, frogs, lice, boils—follow (7 19-11 1° [passim]), as demonstrations of Jehovah’s supreme power. The Passover is then instituted to be observed on the 14th of the current month, henceforth to be the first month of the year, and its law is given at length (12 1-20 24, 28, 40-51, 13 1-2), The itinerary is narrated briefly, special attention being given to the law concerning the manna (13 ”, 14 [passim], 16 1-3, 5-36, 17 1s, 19 1-2s), ‘Kadesh (20 1s, 2, Sb, 4, 6-8a, 9-18), At Sinai the theocracy was formally organized. Moses ascended the Mount (24 15b-18) and there received the Divine plans concerning the Sanctuary, called in P ‘the dwelling’ (generally rendered ‘Tabernacle’), and its officials and ser- vices (chs, 25-31). Coming down with radiant face (34 29-85) he at once undertook the construction of the Tabernacle and the organization of the worship (Ex chs, 35-40, and Lv [all; see § 23, above]). A census was then taken (Nu chs. 1-4), in which special care was given to the enumeration of the Levites. After several laws (chs. 5-6), the offerings of the ‘princes’ at the dedication of the altar are described (ch. 7); then come regulations on various topics, closing with details regarding the order of the camp (8-10 28). Next comes the story of the spies (13 1-17, 21b, 25-26a, 32, 14 Ia, 2, 5-7, 10, 26-30, 32, 89), Ch, 15 contains legal material and chs. 16-17 record the great rebellion of Korah, in which the divinely appointed prerogatives of the Aaronic priesthood are vindicated (see NumBers). Appropriately, ch. 18 con- tains legislation concerning priestly revenues, and ch. 19 deals with the purification of the ceremonially unclean. In ch. 20 the itinerary is resumed with the story of the rebellion at At Mt. Hor Aaron died, succeeded by Eleazar (20 22-29), Finally the steppes of Moab were reached (21 4s, 10-lla, 22 1), and the Promised Land was in sight. Here Israel fell into grievous sin, in connection with which the zeal of the priest Phinehas, son of Eleazar, was conspicuous (25 *18), A second census was taken, which is recorded with extensive genealogical details (ch. 26). At this place the law of inheritance for heiresses is given (27 1-1), Moses warned that he is soon to die, was now directed to have Joshua consecrated by Eleazar as his successor (27 12-28), Very curiously, we have next a list of the offerings proper to the several calendar seasons (chs. 28-29), followed by a law regulating vows (ch. 30). In this strange place occurs the record of the holy war against Midian (properly belonging after ch, 25), ending with the law concerning division of spoil (ch. 31). Next comes the arrangements made with the East-Jordan tribes (32 1%. 2b, 4, 18, 19, 28-30), An old itinerary, somewhat out of place, follows (33 1-49), Then come directions concerning the allotment of the land (33 50-51, 54, 34) and the Levitical cities (ch. 35) and, once more, the law concerning heiresses (ch. 36). Moses then ascended the mountains of Abarim and died (Dt 32 48-52, 34 5b, 7-9), Fol- lowing this we have the story of the conquest of Canaan by Joshua (Jos 3 4% 8 Mb-16, 4 7%, 18, 15-17, 19, 5 10-12, G 19, 7 1, 9 17-21, 27), and the final establishment of Israel in full possession of its religious institutions in the land (13 15-38, 14 1-5, 15 1-18, 20-62, 16 4-9, 17 1-10, 18 1, 11-28, 19 1-48, 48-51, 90 1-9, 21 1-40, 99 9-84), 28. The Construction of P. In this extended his- tory the relation between the narrative and much of the legal material is so close that they can not be separated. The narrative, evidently, was written largely to furnish a setting for the legal or ceremonial matter. On the other hand, many laws seem to have been inserted irrespective of any connection with the narrative. Furthermore, the code is not entirely homogeneous and self-consistent. The same subject is frequently treated in different places, not always harmoniously. Many sections seem to be supple- mentary additions registering the altered practise of later times (for details, see especially Carpenter and Harford, op. cit., pp. 429-506). The only plausible explanation of such phenomena seems to be that after the main work had been completed, it was afterward and at many different times supplemented by additional material, some of it already well known, as, e.g., HC, and other sections later in date and registering new developments of priestly teach- ing. In this way the old was preserved and the new was incorporated into the body of authoritative law. No serious attempt was made to reconcile differences. It was probably felt that later enact- ments simply superseded earlier ones. Returning to the subject of Ezra’s ‘book of the law’ the question actually is, whether Ezra had in his Hexateuch Hezir A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 352 hand only the original draft of P, without its later supplements, or a later edition, in the ‘editing’ of which he himself may well have been concerned. To the present writer it seems most probable that, while the original draft of P antedated Ezra, the edition Ezra succeeded in getting adopted as the constitu- tion of the community in Palestine was not PC as we have it now, since there are a number of sections that appear to be later than the time of Ezra. 29. The Combination of P with JE+D. It re- mains, finally, to consider the combination of the four main elements of the H. into their present E+D : Ra (see § 20) with P that produced the H. By the time this was done, D had practically assumed its present form, Deuteronomy. The editor who did this took for his basis P’s well-concatenated chronological nar- rative. This was not a difficult matter, since P itself had followed the general outline of JE. To combine JE with P was therefore easy for an editor who was not anxious to smooth away or eliminate all conflicting or contradictory representations (see § 13). His method was simply to insert in P at the proper places the more discursive narratives of J and E. In most places where this was not possible, the representation in P was retained and that of JEomitted. The material of Dt was left practically intact. The whole process required naturally more or less editorial work. The date of this final com- bination is in dispute. At all events, it took place probably in Ezra’s day, or not long after, since the sect of the Samaritans (q.v.), which probably originated not far from ec. 400 B.c., possesses the same Pentateuch as the Jews; that is, they took over the H., and preserved the legal portion (to the death of Moses) practically intact. Of the ‘Joshua’ part they were less careful, and therefore the Samaritan Book of Joshua is not identical with that of the O T. 30. Later Subdivisions. The subsequent division into the Law (Gn-Dt) and Joshua, and the still later subdivision of the Law (Torah) into five parts, called by the Jewish scholars the ‘five-fifths of the Torah,’ were early, probably before 250 B.c., but the details are not known. form. It was the fusion of J LITERATURE: The literature on the H. is voluminous, and a complete bibliography is out of the question here, The English reader will find an exhaustive and satisfactory treat- ment of the whole subject, with analytical tables, etc., in The Composition of the Hexateuch by Carpenter and Harford, London (1902); see also Driver, LOT § (1913); A. T. Chapman An Introd. to the Pentateuch (Camb. Bible) (1911); and the Introduction in Skinner’s Genesis in ICC 9 41H HEZEKI, hez’1-kai. See H1zx1. HEZEKIAH, hez’’1-kai’a (PIN, also INPIN, hizqiyyah (-yahi), ‘J’’ strengtheneth’: 1. King of Judah (II K 18-20, Is 36-39). In view of the diffi- culty in harmonizing the chronological statements in II K 181, 9 and 13 with other data in II K and also with the well ascertained dates of the Assyrian records, it seems best to give 719-691 B.c. as the approximately correct dates for his reign without attempting to give a final solution of the problem. Our sources for the reign of H. are (1) the record in II K chs. 18-20, to most of which Is chs. 36-39 is an exact parallel, and therefore probably only an excerpt from II K. (2) A number of Isaiah’s oracles of different dates and therefore dealing with a number of different situations. (3) The messages of Micah in Mi 1 8-2 11, and 3 1-12. (4) Inscriptions of Sargon, King of Assyria (722-705 B.c.), which throw light on political conditions, altho H. is not mentioned, and of Sennacherib, Sargon’s suecessor (705-681), which give us Sennacherib’s version of his campaign in Palestine against H. and other rebellious vassals. H. came to the throne of Judah in troublous times. His father Ahaz had placed himself under the pro- tection of Assyria when he was threatened by Pekah of Israel and Rezin of Damascus for refusing to join with them against Assyria. This made Judah safe but subservient. Both of the neighboring kingdoms were crushed out of existence by Assyria—Damascus . in 732 and Israel in 722—evidence enough to show the boldest spirit the danger in opposing the over- lordship of Assyria. But the Assyrian yoke was galling to any freedom-loving people. The Assyrian kings were cruel and hard. They had no regard for the interests or feelings of the peoples on whom they imposed their rule. H. was high-spirited and patriotic, and was very unwilling to remain under Assyrian domination. In this he was at one with most of the kings of the many small principalities of the EK. Mediterranean coast-region. The tempta- tion was strong to join hands with such men as Jaubi’di of Hamath, Azuri of Ashdod, Hanno of Gaza, and others in rebellion against Assyria. The first one of such combinations (behind which were the machinations of the new Ethiopian control of Egypt) was promptly put down by Sargon in 720, and in this Hezekiah (who may not yet have begun to reign) had no part. A few years later, in 713 (or 711) Sargon was again compelled to put down a revolt of these E. Med. coast-districts, and in this H. appears to have been.implicated, sympathetically if not directly. ‘The people of Philistia, Judah, Edom, and Moab dwelling by the sea . . who plotted seditions without number and treason, who unto Pharaoh carried presents...’ is the statement in one of Sargon’s inscriptions. In this campaign Sargon defeated and deposed Azuri of Ashdod, took Ashdod, Gath, and other places, and laid heavy tribute on the whole region. H.’s participa- tion in this Anti-Assyrian Confederacy seems to have been directly against the advice of Isaiah, who had no faith in the promised help of Egypt (Is 19 1-17, 20 1-6), and clearly percieved the disastrous effects of resisting Assyria (cf. also Is 21 11-17). H. was not convinced, and when Sargon died in 705 he was more than ready to lend a willing ear to proposals looking to a general uprising against Assyria brought by messengers from Merodach- baladan, a Chaldean chieftain who had usurped the the throne of Babylon, and had held his own against Sargon for 12 years, and altho defeated and driven out by Sargon was now once more master of Baby- lon. It is likely that H. entered into some definite arrangement with Merodach-baladan, according to which H. was to organize the revolt in the West while M-b. engaged Sennacherib, Sargon’s successor, 353 A NEW STANDARD in the East. The prophet Isaiah was closely watch- ing the course of events, and sharply rebuked H. for receiving the messengers (II K 2012-19; Is ch. 39). In spite of Isaiah’s warnings and severe rebukes H. set himself vigorously to carry out his part of the pro- gram. Messengers went back and forth between Jerusalem and Egypt (cf. Is 18 1-7, 30 1-7, 31 1-3). The Philistine cities came into the alliance, H. assisting the anti-Assyrian party in Ekron in de- posing their king Padi who wished to remain loyal to Assyria. Padi was put in fetters and taken to Jerusalem as H.’s prisoner (so Sennacherib’s in- scription). The revolt was widespread, including finally all the coast cities from Sidon southward and the adjacent countries like Edom, Moab, Ammon, ete. In all this H. was a leading spirit. In Judah vigorous preparations for war were carried through (Is 22 8), with improvements in the water- supply and fortifications of Jerusalem as precautions against a possible siege (Is 22 9-11; and see JERU- SALEM, §§ 138, 34, 35). In vain Isaiah protested against the whole policy. The spirit that actuated the court and the nation seemed to the far-seeing prophet-statesman anything but wise. He con- demned the policy and the men who advocated it as utterly opposed to J’’, and accused them of know- ingly disobeying Him (cf. 22, 28 7-29, 29 1-16, 30 8-17, 32 9-14). It is difficult to hold that H. was not condemned as well as his advisers. And when the crisis came, and the Assyrians were ravaging the land, Isaiah did not hesitate to condemn not only the false confidence in religious forms, but the injustice and wrong that were everywhere prevalent under H.’s administration (Is 1 1-23; cf. Mi 3 1-12). In 701 B.c. Sennacherib, after crushing Merodach- baladan, appeared in the West with a large army, defeated the allied rebels at Elteku, took or received the surrender of the Philistine cities, took and plundered 46 cities of Judah, counting out 200,000 captives, and sent to H. demanding an immense indemnity (30 talents of gold, 300 [800 in S.’s in- scription] of silver and many other valuables). H. stripped Temple and palace and emptied his treasury to comply with the demand. He also released Padi (II K 18 13-16; Is 36 6; Insc. of S.). But the great king was not satisfied and sent a second time to H. demanding the surrender of Jerusalem. H. was in despair and might have yielded had it not been for the counsel of Isaiah who, disregarding the previous disobedience of H., encouraged him to refuse the demand of Sennacherib, predicting that the Assyrian would soon be called home by disquieting news and fail in his purpose to take Jerusalem (cf. Is 10 5-34, 14 24-27, 17 12-14, 31 5-9, 30 27-33, 33, 36 1-37 35; II K 18 17-19 34). The narrative in II 18 17-19 34 (with the || in Is) consists of two accounts (1) 18 17-197 and (2) 19 8-34 of which (2) seems to be a later and less accurate story of the same events as are narrated in (1). Sennacherib’s army met with some mis- fortune (pestilence?) as it was advancing toward Egypt (II K 19 35), and this, with rumors of trouble at home, caused him to return to Assyria, taking with him immense booty, but having failed to cap- ture Jerusalem and put an end to the Kingdom of Judah (II K 79 36). H. was saved, but as by fire, Hexateuch BIBLE DICTIONARY Hezir and Judah remained subject to Assyria’s overlord- ship. The sickness of H. related in II K 201-11 seems to have occurred during the crisis of the Assyrian invasion (ver. 6). The impression produced by study of Isaiah’s messages is that H. was intensely anti-Assyrian, and in carrying out this policy he and his advisers deliberately rejected the counsel and warnings of Isaiah. There is nothing in Is to indicate that H. was a docile pupil of the prophet as he is often represented to have been. And also in both Is and Mi the moral conditions prevailing in H.’s day are viewed as very corrupt. On the other hand, the judgment pronounced upon him in II K is extremely favorable. Here (II K 18 2-8, especially vs. 3-7) he is represented as absolutely loyal to J”, as having reformed religious conditions, and as having been greatly prospered in his political policy. As to the last point we know that the statement in II K is quite at variance with the facts, for he brought great disaster on his realm by his rash rebellion against Assyria. Is the representation in II K as to the other two points any more reliable? One may say, yes; but not for the beginning of his reign. The only way the picture drawn in II K 18 3-7 can be saved from flat contradiction with the impression one gains from Is and Mi is on the supposition that H. was brought to his senses by the terrible ex- periences of the Assyrian invasion and while that was in process, and after it had passed, he became a humbled and penitent man. It was then that he gave serious attention to the warnings and rebukes uttered in the name of J” by Isaiah and Micah. He repented (cf. Jer 26 16-19) and also probably did some- thing in the way of reforming conditions at the Temple. The devastation by the Assyrians of most of the cities of Judah except Jerusalem, and the salvation of the latter with the Temple, due it was believed to J’’s special regard for His great Sanc- tuary, must have favored, if it did not originate, the idea that the Temple was the one sanctuary where J’ was really present and where the worship was acceptable to Him. This gives an adequate reason for the removal or prohibition by H. of worship at the ‘high places’ (7.e., sanctuaries other than the Temple), and probably the attempt was made to carry out some such measure., But it could have been only partially successful, as the later reform of Josiah shows. There is no cogent evidence to show that H.’s Temple-reform was suggested or guided by Isaiah. LitERATURE: Consult Commentaries on JI K, Is and Mi; also Kittel, GVI § (1909). 2. A later descendant of the royal line of Judah (I Ch 8 23, Hizkiah RV). 3. The great-great-grand- father of the prophet Zephaniah (Zeph 11), perhaps the same as No. 1. 4. The head of a postexilic family (Ezr 216; Neh 7 21). E. E. N. HEZION, hi’zi-en (1"I, hezyén): The grand- father of Ben-hadad I, and therefore probably one of the first kings of Damascus (I K 15 18). Possibly identical with the Rezon of I K 11 23. HEZIR, hi’zer (VID, hdzir), ‘wild pig’: 1. The ancestral head of the seventeenth course of priests Hezro Hivite A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 354 ___ nce ETN RRR LL LLL LL LLL LLL LLL LAA (I Ch 2415). 2. The head of a family of postexilic Jews (Neh 10 20). HEZRO, hez’ro (i7¥1, hetsrd), and HEZRAI, hez’ra-ai (1, hetsray): One of David’s heroes from Carmel in 8. Judah (II S 23 35; I Ch 11 37). HEZRON, hez’ron (Ji7$9, JOSM hetsrdn): I. 1. An eponymous ancestor of a Reubenite family (Gn 46 9; Ex 614; Nu 266;I Ch 53). 2. A son of Perez, an eponymous ancestor of a family of Judah, the Hezronites (Gn 46 12; Nu 26 21; Ru 4 18, 19; I Ch25.; cf. Mt 13; Lk 3 33, Esrom AV). 1.1. A place on the S. boundary of Judah, W. of Kadesh- barnea (Jos 15 3=Hazar-addar, Nu 34 4). 2. A town in S. Judea (Jos 15 25=Kerioth-hezron, called Hazor, perhaps connected with I, 2). per II, E 3. Oh is Prd We HIDDAI, hid’da-ai or hid’dé (WWJ, hidday): One of David’s heroes, from near Mt. Gaash (II S 23 30), called Hurai in I Ch 11 32. HIDDEKEL, hid’de-kal. See Tiaris. HIEL, hai’al (8°n, hivél), ‘El lives’: A Beth- elite, who rebuilt Jericho in the reign of Ahab (I K 16 34), and brought upon himself the curse of Joshua (Jos 6 26). A building accident may have caused the death of his two sons, or they may have been sacrificed to insure the stability of the founda- tion and wall. Cf. Macalister, Bible Side Lights from the Mound of Gezer (1907), p. 165f. C.S. T. HIERAPOLIS, hai’’1-rap’o-lis (‘Ieee T6206): A Phrygian city between the Meander and Lycus rivers. H. grew up around a shrine of Cybele, the sacred nature of which was enhanced by two natural phenomena: hot mineral (medicinal) springs and the Ploutonium. The water of the springs, charged with carbonate of lime, rapidly forms an incrustation on anything over which it flows (it has raised the ancient level 15-20 ft., and has partially covered many of the ancient buildings). It now falls from numerous pool-basins in cascades (white stalactites) over a precipice 100 ft. high. The site is visible from afar (called ‘Cotton Castle’). The Ploutonium, or ‘Entrance to Hades,’ was a narrow hole in the ground which emitted fumes deadly to all breathing them (eunuch priests of Cybele alone were immune). The former ‘city of the hieron’ (Hieropolis) became under Greek influence Hierapolis, the ‘sacred city.’ The local form of the mother-goddess was Leto; that of the god Lairbenos. The mineral water was efficacious for rheumatism and well adapted to dyeing, hence gilds of dyers flourished here. Chris- tianity was introduced into H. in connection with Paul’s mission work at Ephesus (Ac 19 10. Cf. Col 413 £.). John and Philip labored here. H. was the home of Papias (70-130 a.p.). In 320 a.p. H. was wholly Christian, and the mouth of the Ploutonium was closed. Cybele-worship and the woolen indus- tries made H. wealthy, as attested by its vast ruins, both pagan and Christian. J.R.S. S.*—S. A. HIGGAION, hig-gai’yen: A word of debated meaning that occurs apparently as a rubric, or musical direction, in Ps 9 16 (with selah), but also in the text proper of Ps 19 14 (‘meditation’ RV), 92 3 (‘solemn sound’ RV), and La 3 62 (‘imagination’ RV, better ‘murmuring’ or ‘muttering’). The ver- sions of the LXX. render it in Ps 9 by various words, mostly meaning ‘song’ (84, wéAoc, gboyyh, etc.). Its derivation would favor some meaning like ‘meditative murmur,’ a low, unobtrusive sound, a talking to oneself. WY diScue, HIGH, MOST. See Gop, § 1. HIGH PLACE: This is the literal rendering of the Heb. baémah, which, while often meaning simply ‘heights’ or ‘elevations of land’ (cf. Dt 32 13; IIS 1 19, 25; Am 413; Mic I 3), is most frequently used of places of worship located on such heights (I S 9 12-25, etc.), and then of sanctuaries in general, irrespective of their location. The ancient Semites appear to have looked upon a hilltop as especially suitable for places of worship. When Israel entered Canaan the land was dotted with these ‘high-place’ sanctuaries. The term became the general one for a - local sanctuary, and was used even when the ‘high place’ was not on an elevation. The Israelite con- querors appropriated many of these to their own worship of J’’, altho retaining many of the features common to the old Canaanite worship. Through- out the preprophetic literature there is nothing to indicate that this was considered contrary to Isra- el’s religion. Such a passage as Ex 20 24, in fact, expressly sanctions such sanctuaries, since a place where J’’ recorded His name was likely to become a ‘high place’ (¢.e., a local sanctuary). These local sanctuaries were numerous in ancient Israel. Miz- pah in Gilead (Jg 11 11), Dan (Jg 18 29 #.), Bethel (Gn 12 8, 28 20-22; Jg 20 26f., 21 2;1S8 103; Am713), Mizpah in central Israel (Jg 201; I S 7 6), Gibeon (I K 3 4; note the apology in ver. 2, and the apolo- getic reason given in II Ch 1 3), Ramah (IS 7 17, 9 12 ff., used by Samuel), Gilgal (I S 10 8, 11 15; Am 4 4, 55), Nob (IS 21 2), Bethlehem (I § 20 6; 29), Hebron (II S 51 #., 157), Beersheba (Gn 21 333 Am 5 5)—all these, and doubtless many others, were ‘high places’ whose altars even Elijah held in highest honor (I K 19 10, 14). In the course of time the popular worship at these places degenerated, be- coming more sensual. In the 8th cent. Amos, and especially Hosea, severely condemned it; cf. Am 27,44 f.; Hos 5 12 #.; Jer 2 200 f.,31., ete. The Code of Dt placed all these sanctuaries under the ban by prescribing that only in one place (Jerusalem) should sacrifices be offered (Dt ch. 12), while the hor- tatory sections of Dt severely condemned all Canaanite forms of worship. It was in consequence of the public adoption of Dt in the reform under Josiah (621 B.c.) that these ideas became authorita- tive. The Books of Kings, edited in the spirit of Dt, consequently viewed all high places as illegiti- mate and condemned the kings of Judah who (in all innocence) had not prohibited the worship at their altars. See SANCTUARY. E. E. N. HIGH PRIEST. See PriesrHoop, § 9 (6). HIGHWAY. See Way. HILEN, hai’len. See Honon. HILKIAH, hil-kai’a (MP2, hilgiyyaha), ‘my portion is J’’: 1. A son of Hosah, a Merarite Levite in the reign of David (I Ch 26 11). 2. The father of Eliakim, the steward of Hezekiah (II K 355 A NEW STANDARD 1818 #.). 3. A son of Shallum (I Ch 613), and high priest during the reign of Josiah. He discovered the Book of the Law, which revealed to the king the great need for a reformation (II K 224 7.). 4. A Merarite Levite (I Ch 6 45). 5. A priest residing at Anathoth, and father of Jeremiah the prophet (Jer 11). 6. A priest contemporary of Ezra and Nehemiah (Neh 8 4, 11 11, 127, 21). 7. The father of Gemariah (Jer 29 3), probably the same as 3. HILL, HILL-COUNTRY: In both the AV and RV the Heb. gibh‘ah is always translated by ‘hill,’ when it is not used as the name of a town situ- ated on a hill (Jos 24 33; Jg 1916; 1S 114). Ina few other passages it might be understood as a proper name (cf. Jos 5 3; Jg 71; ILS 2 24). It is the Heb. term for isolated elevations which can not be classed as mountains. In poetical passages, how- ever, it is used as parallel with ‘mountain’ (Is 42 15, 55 12; cf. Gn 49 26; Dt 33 15). The idolatrous rites of the Canaanites, which were adopted in part by Israel, took place on the ‘hills’ (Is 657; Jer 13 27; ef. Dt 12 2; If K 17 10; Hos 4 13, etc.). In the AV (I $ 9 11) ma‘dleh is translated ‘hill.’ RV has it correctly ‘ascent.’ In Is 5 1 geren (‘the horn,’ or ‘top’) is translated ‘hill.’ The RV translates ‘dphel (‘the height’ in a fortified city, and especially the name of an elevation on the SE. portion of the Temple Hill, If Ch 27 3, 3314; Neh 3 26 £.) by ‘hill’ (II K 5 24; Is 3214; Mic 48). Inthe N T ‘hill’ is the translation of Bovvéc (Lk 3 5, 23 30) and de0¢ (Mt 5 14; Lk 4 29, 9 37 AV). In the AV we find ‘hill’ as the translation of har, which is a much more general term than gibh‘Gh. In most instances the RV has more correctly used ‘mountain’ (Ex 24 4; Nu 14 44; I K 117, etc.). The Heb. har means a ‘mountain’ or ‘mountain range,’ and also a ‘mountainous region’; with this last meaning it is translated in the AV (Jos 13 6, 21 11; cf. Lk 1 39, 65) ‘hill-country,’ but elsewhere ‘mound’ or ‘mountains.’ The RV uses ‘hill-country’ more frequently and uniformly for the mountainous tracts of country on both sides of the Jordan (Dt 2 37, 312). From a distance they have the appearance of one mountain. It is used also of the whole mountain range of W. Palestine (Dt 1 7, 19, 20), which is divided into the ‘hill- country of Judah’ (Jos 11 21, 20 7, etc.) and the ‘hill-country of Ephraim’ (Jos 17 15, 18 12; Jg 2 9; I K 12 25, etc.). In Jos 207 the ‘hill-country of Naphtali’ is mentioned. See Pauusrine, §§ 4 ff. Cas ad Be HILLEL, hil’el (9271, nillal), ‘he hath praised’: The father of Abdon (Jg 12 13). E. E. N. HIN. See WreicuHTs AND Mrasurgs, § 3. HIND. See PAuestine, § 24. HINDER PART (of a ship). NAVIGATION, § 2. HINDER SEA. See MrprrerRANEAN SBA. HINGES. See House, § 6 (k). HINNOM, hin’am, VALLEY OF. SALEM, § 6. HIRAH, hai’ra (17%, hirdh): An Adullamite, a friend of Judah (Gn 38 1, 12; cf. Gn 38 20 f.). Oars Le See SHIPS AND See JERU- BIBLE DICTIONARY fecie HIRAM, hai’ram (97'N, hiram), probably from ’ahirdm, ‘exalted brother’; an alternate form in Chronicles is Huram: 1. A king of Tyre whose reign overlapped the last portion of David’s and the first of Solomon’s (II 8 51; I K 51). Josephus (Ant. VIII, 2 6-9, 5 3; cf. Cont. Ap. I, 17 £.) testifies that Hiram was the son of Abibaal and reigned thirty-four years, dying at the age of fifty-three. But II § represents him as offering aid to David toward the building of his palace immediately after the latter’s settlement at Jerusalem, or in the eighth year of his reign, and I K alludes to him as still living in the twentieth year of Solomon, thus giving his reign not less than fifty-two years. The difficulty has been met by the supposition that the order of IIS is not chronological, the help given to David having come at the end of that king’s reign. Others assume a corruption of text in ITS, or a corruption, or error, in Josephus’ account. A better explanation is that the H. of II S is the Abibaal of Josephus. Of the two names, however, that used by Josephus is only an official title. H.’s reign constitutes the Golden Age of the history of Phenicia. For his services in the building of the Temple, Solomon offered him twenty cities in Galilee, which he declined. The relations of H. and Solomon were, on the whole, intimate and friendly. 2. The artificer whom the king of Tyre sent to Solomon to assist in the com- pletion and decoration of the Temple (I K 7 13, 40, 43; IT Ch 2 13, 4 11, 16). He was the offspring of a mixed marriage, his mother being either a Danitess (I K 714) or the widow of a man of Naphtali, and his father a Tyrian. His name is given also as Hiram- abhi (II Ch 213 Heb. text). Axes. HIRELING (or hired servant, s&khir, wtobtos, utcOwrds): The man who works for wages, and not a mere slave (‘servant’). While ordinary day- labor was not unknown in Palestine (cf. Mt 201, 7), probably it was quite usual for men to be hired for stipulated periods (cf. Lv 25 50-55; Is 16 14). The Law protected the rights of such (cf. 19 13, 25 50 f.; Dt 2414¢.). In the N T ef. Lk 15 17, 19; Jn 1012¢. K. E. N. HISTORY. This word is the RV rendering of dibhré, ‘words [of],’ (‘book’ AV), in I Ch 29 29; IT Ch 9 29, 12 15, 30 34, 33 19, where reference is made to writings alleged to have been written by Samuel, Nathan, etc., some of which may have been among the sources used by the Chronicler. None of these can be thought of as genuine. HITTITE, hit’ait (ON, hittz, pl. DAN, hittim, Egyptian heta, Assyr. hatti): For the general history of this people see Asta Mrnor, I; and for the ques- tion as to Hittites in Palestine, see HETH. HIVITE, hai’vait (39, hiwwi): A petty tribe of Canaan, which was conquered by the Israelites. They seem to have inhabited central Palestine, for they are found chiefly at Gibeon (Jos 9 7) and Shechem (Gn 34 2). They scarcely could have pushed their way as far N. as Lebanon (consequent- ly instead of ‘Hivite’ read ‘Hittite’ in II S 24 7). Racially they were closely connected with the Am- orites; in fact the most recent research indicates that the Hivites were a sub-division of this people Hizki Holy Day A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 356 (cf. the LXX. of Is 179). Many take ‘Hivite’ as a descriptive adjective rather than an ethnological term. If this view be correct, it signifies a tent- dweller (Lat. Paganus). In and after the reign of Solomon, the Hivites who had not been assimilated by the Israelites were subjected to forced labor (I K 9 20 £.). See also ErHNoGRAPHY AND ErH- NOLOGY, § 13. J. A. K, HIZKI, hiz’kai (PIM, hizqi): A Benjamite (I Ch 8 17, Hezeki AV). E. E. N. HIZKIAH, hiz-kai’a, HIZKIJAH, _hiz-kai’ja (PIN, hizgiyyGh, usually vocalized to spell Heze- kiah, q.v.): A postexilic descendant of David (I Ch 3 23). See also Hmzexian, 2. HOBAB, ho’bab (234, hdbhabh), ‘beloved’: A man whom Moses pressed into service as the guide of the tribes of Israel through the wilderness (Nu 10 29-32). He was related to Moses by marriage, but the exact nature of this relation remains an un- solved question. According to EVV (Jg 411) he was Moses’ brother-in-law. In Nu 10 29 the same Heb. word is rendered ‘father-in-law.’ But, as in the last-named passage, the word ‘father-in-law’ may with equal propriety be regarded as applying to Reuel, it is more likely that H. was a brother of Zipporah, the wife of Moses. The two passages also differ in that Nu makes him a Midianite and Jg a Kenite. The Kenites, however, may have been a Midianite clan. A. C. Z. HOBAH, ho’ba (731, hdbhah): The place to which Abraham pursued Chedorlaomer and _ his allies. It was on the ‘left hand’ (7.e., N.) of Damascus (Gn 14 15). A spring, Hoba, about 50 m. N. of Damascus, may indicate the locality. HOBAIAH, ho-bé’ya. See Haparan. HOCK (hough AV): A verb meaning to cut the cords of the hock joints of horses in order to render them unfit for use (Jos 11 6,9; ITS 8 4; I Ch 18 4). See Arms AND Armor, § 6; and WaRFARE, § 5. HOD, hed (jn, hédh), ‘glory’: An Asherite (I Ch 7 37). HODAIAH, ho-dé’ya, HODAVIAH, hed’’a-vai'a, HODEVAH, ho’di-va; three variant forms of the same name (771, hddhyaghi), meaning ‘praise J’’: 1. Apparently the name of a clan of Manasseh (I Ch 5 24). 2. A son of Elioenai (I Ch 3 24). 3. A son of Hassenuah (I Ch 97). 4. The ancestral head of a family of Levites (Ezr 2 40=Neh 7 43, called ‘Judah’ in Ezr 3 9). - HODESH, ho’desh (VIN, hadhesh), ‘new moon’ (t.e., ‘born at the new-moon feast’?): The wife of Shaharaim (I Ch 8 9). HODIAQ, ho-dai’a, HODIJAH, ho-dai’ja (71177, hédhiyyah), ‘J’’ is my glory’: 1. The name of a man (as in RV), not of a woman (AV) (I Ch 419). 2. The name of several individuals, or families, in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah (Neh 87, 9 5, 10 10, 13, 18). & HOGLAH, heg’la (7230, hoglah), ‘partridge’: One of the ‘daughters’ of Zelophehad. Probably a Clan- or place-1fame (Nu 26 33, 27 1, 36 11; Jos 17 3). HOHAM, ho‘ham (81717, hoham): The Canaanite king of Hebron, one of the confederates against Gibeon, defeated by Joshua (Jos 10 3 ff.). HOLD: A word frequently used in AV as the rendering of: (1) m*tsddh, m*tstidhah, ‘ a mountain fastness’ or ‘stronghold’ (cf. I S 22 4, etc.). Ina number of these references the cave of Adullam seems to be meant. (2) istriah, the meaning of which is uncertain in Jg 9 46, 49, tho inIS 1386 it evidently means a hiding-place, and is rendered ‘pits.’ In all such instances ARV gives ‘strong- hold.’ (3) thenos (Ac 4 3, ‘ward’ RV), ‘a place of confinement.’ (4) guraxyn (Rev 18 an beer .HLN. HOLINESS: 1. Notion of Tabu. In the O T ‘holiness’ is the rendering of gédhesh (Ex 15 11, etc.); in the N T of datétn¢ (Lk 175; Eph 4 24), ayrorns (II Co 112; He 1210), and a&ytwotvyn (Ro 1 4, etc.); holy, renders gddhésh (Ex 19 6, etc.), also rarely hasidh (Dt 33 8, RV ‘godly,’ etc.; Zytoc (Mt 4 5); teodg (I Co 9 13, RV ‘sacred things’); S8cto¢ (Ac 2 27). Among the ancient Oriental people, including the Semites, the idea of holiness appears to have been at first non-moral. At its root lies the notion of tabu, 7.e., the prohibition of contact with some things from fear of harm, because of a mysterious and supernatural force in them (cf. J. G. Frazer, Golden Bough, 1900, I, 319 f., 387 f.; see Von Orelli, Religionsgeschichte, 1899, pp. 830 #.). But the notion of tabu taken up into Hebrew thought was subjected to a process of spiritualization, culminat- ing in its becoming a unique ruling idea through the OT. 2. Separateness of God. The O T word qgédhesh, is derived from a root kindred to that which means ‘newness’ (hadhdsh, so Dillmann; Delitzsch, however, associates it with the Sumerian kadistu, ‘free from defect,’ putting it into connection with sacrifice). But whatever the origin of the word, its usage is quite fixed; it means ‘separateness’ as the basis of relation to God; God’s separateness, which requires the same in the creature’s relation to Him; and an adequate conception of the notion of holiness, must therefore begin with the definition of it as God’s uniqueness. God is holy, because He is God. His holiness is His divinity. It includes His majesty, His greatness, His exaltation, His matchlessness (‘Who is like to thee, glorious in holiness’ [Ex 15 11]; ‘There is none holy as J’” {I S 2 2]). God swears by His holiness as He swears by Himself (Am 4 2, 6 8; Ps 60 6, 89 35; Is 45 23). 3. The Holy One. The name Holy One (of Israel), used predominantly in the prophetic period, is simply a qualitative equivalent for God (cf. Hos 11 12). This is shown in the parallelisms of expression, where the terms are interchangeable (the ascription of holiness to the deity, however, is not an exclusively Hebrew idea). The Pheenician inscriptions contain the phrase ‘the holy gods.’ According to Ezekiel, God reveals Himself as Jehovah, the God of Israel the mighty and true God, by sanctifying (7.e., mani- festing) Himself in His holiness (20 41f., 28 22, 36 23 38 16, 23, 397). Holiness, therefore, when predicated of J’’, denotes not so much an attribute of His as a 357 A NEW STANDARD the totality of His character. It distinguishes Him from all other beings. 4. Holiness and Moral Purity. When holiness came to be identified with divinity in its breadth, it necessarily placed supreme emphasis on moral excellence (purity), lifting this element to a deter- minative place in the conception. Hence, altho holi- ness and moral purity never seem to coalesce, yet absence of purity from a holy being becomes in- conceivable when it is associated with godhead, for God is supremely pure (Hab 1 12 f.). 5. Holiness a Positive Quality. Furthermore, holiness is not a negative quality; it is not merely the absence of stain or corruption, but rather a positive force. It secures (1) resistance to all that is unholy. No one can come into the presence of God; for His presence is a consuming force (I S 6 20; Is 65; ef. also Ex 35). This is probably the connecting-link between the extra-biblical notion of tabu and _ holi- ness. When the positive energy of God’s holiness was realized to be a force incompatible with the evil of sin, it undoubtedly worked a corresponding fear that creature weakness likewise might perish in His presence, because of its frailty and unworthiness. (2) Self-impartation. What it does not destroy it changes into its own kind. If holiness in God is divinity, holiness in all must be grounded in and measured by its relation to God. Hence, those who are nearest to God are holiest. For this reason, to angels is attributed this characteristic; they are even called ‘holy ones’ (Job 51, 15 15; Dn 8 13), tho this does not mean that they are absolutely pure or perfect, for God finds folly in them (Job 418, 15 15). From this relation to Himself, which justifies their being called holy, they also receive the name of ‘sons of God’ (Job 38 7). 6. Holiness in Man. The holiness of human beings is based on their relation to God. But this relation requires both an outward and an inner character. As far as it is outward its ethical value les simply in association with and serviceableness to God. It may be, therefore, merely formal. Priests are made holy as they are by a special ceremony set apart to the service of J’’ (Ex 291 f.), and are to be distinguished and respected as such (Lv 21 8). Prophets likewise are called ‘holy men of God’ (II K 49; II P 1 21 AV), and become holy by appointment of God (Jer 15). The Nazirite during the days of his separation was to be called holy (Nu 6 5). In this sense the men with David at Nob are called holy (1S 21 5¢.), and the whole nation was holy (Dt 7 6, 14 2). 7. Holiness and Righteousness. Human holiness, as an attribute of character, is by the same reasoning dependent on a true relation to God, but goes deeper into one’s inner being. Its mainspring and controlling principle are the realization of God’s true character (‘ye shall be holy, for I Jehovah your God am holy,’ Lv 191). In this command the so called Law of Holiness is summed up. Such holiness must be attained by perfect conformity to the will of J’, but, in accordance with the whole conception of the O T, this will is expressed in a system of pre- cepts including both moral and ceremonial pre- scriptions. At the heart of the system lies the moral element; and in the purer outbursts of devotional Hizki BIBLE DICTIONARY Holy Day feeling it extricates itself and finds expression in its | simplicity (Ps 15 1-5, 24 3). 8. Holiness of Things. The holiness of impersonal beings is determined by their introduction into the service of religion, or, in general, into relation with God. Heaven as God’s habitation is expressly called holy (Jer 25 30; Zee 2 13). Upon earth the places in which He appears to men are holy ground (Ex 3 5; Jos 5 15). Most naturally the Temple, in which He had His mercy-seat and which is His house, deserves this epithet (Hab 2 20), and to its parts, according to the degree of nearness to His most intimate throne, are ascribed higher degrees of sanctity. So also Mount Zion and the whole city of Jerusalem (Is 11 9, 27 13, 48 2, 521; Dn 9 16, 20, 24; Zeph 3 11), and even the whole country in which God’s people are to dwell, are made sharers in its holiness (Ex 15 13; Zec 213). Further, the articles to be used in His service, such as the showbread (I S 21 6), the incense (Ex 30 35, 37), the oil (Ex 30 25), the sacrifices (Ex 28 38), and the priestly gar- ments (Ezk 42 14) are all declared holy. 9. Holiness and Ceremonial Cleanness. The re- lation of the idea of ceremonial holiness to that of ceremonial cleanness is not simple. In general, these differ in degree or intensity (cf. Purirication). That which is holy may be declared not clean ceremonially, and that which is clean may not be holy. The holy is declared unclean in order that it may not be touched without penalty. The distinc- tion may be put in the convenient formula that the common and permissible stand between the two extremes, unclean and holy, both of which, but for ultimately different and contrary reasons, are pro- hibited. The distinction is illustrated in the rab- binical rule, ‘All holy Scriptures defile the hands’ (Ryle, Canon of O T, 1892, p. 199). 10. Holiness in N T. In the N T the idea of holiness attains its completely spiritual stage. The standard pronounced for it is the sinlessness of Jesus Christ. The etymology of the words employed can not be pressed. The sense of these words is already fixed. They are not chosen for their ety- mological connotations. Accordingly, to give the essence of the N T idea would be simply to repeat that God only is absolutely holy (I P 1 16); all other holiness is derivative. But God is holy because He is morally good. And both impersonal and personal beings become holy by association with and assimila- tion to Him. Those who have entered into the ideal relation with God, as given in the person and teach- ing of Christ, are holy ones (saints). LirERATURE: W. Robertson Smith, The Propheis of Israel, (1882), pp. 224 ff., also Rel. of Semites, (71889), pp. 140 ff.; Schultz, O T Theol., Eng. tr., (1892); Davidson, O T Theol., (1904), pp. 142 ff.; Issel, Der Begriff d. Heiligk. im N T, (1887); Otto, The Idea of the Holy (tr. 1923). A.C. Z HOLM-TREE. See PAuestIne, § 21. HOLON, ho'len (jbh, 319, holon): 1. A town of Judah (Jos 15 51) and a priestly city (Jos 21 15, called Hilen in I Ch 6 58). Site unknown. 2. A city of Moab (Jer 48 21). Site unknown. HOLY. See Houiness. HOLY DAY: In Ps 42 4 the one Heb. word rendered ‘keeping holy day’ means to celebrate a religious festival. On Col 2 16 cf. RV. Holy of Holies Holy Spirit A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 358 HOLY OF HOLIES. See Trmpue, §§ 8, 20; and TABERNACLE, §§ 2, 3. HOLY PLACE. See Tempty, §§ 8, 20; Tanzr- NACLE, §§ 2, 3; and HiegH Puacs. HOLY SPIRIT: The name given in the O T to certain phases of the action of God upon nature and man, and in the N T (Holy Ghost AV) to the inner workings of God upon the human soul, as these were conditioned by the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The name is thus given in Christian theology to the third person of the Trinity. 1. In the O T. The word ‘spirit’? (Heb. 1, riah, Gr. mvedua) originally meant ‘breath.’ In the act of breathing, probably, all primitive peoples have found the seat of life. For when death comes, it is breathing which first seems to stop, and in the last act of expiration the soul departs from the body. Hence most languages have used the same word, both for the breath or the wind, and for the mysterious self or seat of life, even long after the crude first conceptions of the latter had been transcended. The Hebrews with their bold an- thropomorphism applied this term to God Himself, primarily as exerting power, and thus gave it a place of supreme importance in the religion of revela- tion. (1) Thus they conceived of Jehovah as ruling over the powers of the natural world by His Spirit (Gn 1 2; Job 26 13, 37 10; Is 40 7), but the allusions to this sphere of action are not numerous. (2) Much more numerous are those which describe man’s life as due to the power of the Spirit of Jehovah (Gn 27; Job 33 4; Ps 104 291.; Ec 3 18-21; Ezk 37 3-14). In this view, the life of man is more than a mere effect of the Spirit of God. It is that Spirit in a special form and manifestation. The metaphysical problems were not yet in sight. With complete naiveté the individual life was thus pic- tured as a work of the Spirit of God which, when life ceased, returned, not as a human soul, but as the product or creation of the Spirit of God to Him who gave it. (3) A further step is involved where the Spirit of Jehovah is associated with the performance of special feats of strength, valor, or skill, in the service of the theocratic kingdom (Jg 3 10, 6 34, 11 29, 146;1S 116). So far, however, the activities of the Spirit are a mere manifold, and their unity or ethical character is not discerned. (4) This doctrine attains a new and most characteristic form when it is connected with the work of the prophets. True, other religions had their prophets (as the prophets of Baal, I K 18 19), but prophecy in Israel possessed features which are unique and traceable only to the selective will and purpose of God (cf. Briggs, Messianic Prophecy, ch. 1; A. B. Davidson, Old Testament Prophecy, chs. 1, 1X, X). No other people attributed their prophetic prowess to the Spirit of their God. This was peculiar to Israel, and was one of the vital elements in the development of their whole view of God, and His relation to men. At first, as in all else, this feature of Divine revela- tion connects itself with the crude beginnings of what later became distinctive and complete. Prophecy appeared in connection with abnormal excitation, and these states of frenzy and ecstasy were taken as manifest proofs of the Spirit’s presence and power (IS 10 6, 10, 19 9, 20, 23 £.). At times J’ even sent forth a ‘lying spirit? (I K 22 21 #.). But gradually this view gave way to a higher one, according to which the Spirit of J’’ possessed the mind and heart of men, who were not subjects of physical convul- sions, but who were in living communion with Himself (Mic 27, 3 8; Hos 97; Ezk 2 2, 3 12, 14, 24, etc.; Neh 9 30; I Ch 12 18; II Ch 151). This was accompanied by the growth of the conception that the Holy Spirit controlled the history of Israel as a whole (Neh 9 20 #.; Is 63 10-14), and above all was guiding it toward the Messianic Age, in which the Spirit would come upon all God’s people (Ezk 36 26 f., 39 20; Is 4 4, 44 3; Zec 4 6; Jl 2 28 f.). The more direct connection of the work of the Spirit with man’s moral and spiritual experience appears in the directly Messianic prophecies, especially as they gather round the figure of the Servant of Jehovah (cf. Is 11 2, 4, 421, 59 21, 611). (5) Beyond this, passages are not wanting which view the Holy Spirit as connected with the inner experience of the individual (Ps 51 10 f., 189 7, 148 10). It was reserved for a later stage of revelation to bring this into full view. Throughout this O T usage of the words ‘Holy Spirit, or ‘Spirit of Jehovah,’ we do not find any attempt to define these terms. There is in certain passages (Ps 51 10; Is 48 16, 63 10-14; Ezk, passim) a tendency to hypostatize the Spirit. But even there we can not assert that a distinct subsistence 1s at- tributed to it. It may be still either a personifica- tion of an attribute or a periphrastic expression for Jehovah Himself. And yet the persistent, deliberate concentration of thought upon the idea of the Spirit of Jehovah as coming forth to deal with human nature and history has confessedly produced this tendency to use language which at least is not incon- sistent with, and to a later age may even sound like the recognition of distinctions within the Divine nature. This was a stage through which the minds of men were compelled to pass. 2.In the N T. The Gospels. When we enter upon the N T we find the doctrine of the Spirit mar- velously enriched, the main idea involved being still that of power. Professor Wood has pointed out that in the Jewish period (in the apocryphal lit.) the Spirit is used to describe God’s relation to Israel in the past (O T hist.) and in the future (Messianic hope), but that no one claimed the gift of the Spirit for himself or his contemporaries. The spirit of prophecy had ceased. The N T is filled with the fact that the Messianic Age had now arrived and the ancient promise that the Holy Spirit would be no official or esoteric boon, but be poured out upon ‘all flesh’ was now made good (Ac 2 4, 17 f., 33, 38). (1) This age was heralded by the revival of the prophetic gift in the case of John the Baptist (Lk 1 15-17; cf. 1 41, 67, 2 25-27, 36). But he himself claimed it not, conscious of the surpassing glory of the king- dom which was at hand (Mk 1 8, 10; Mt 3 11, 16; Lk 316; Jn 1 32f.). (2) The Messiah Himself, Jesus of Nazareth, stood in relations to the Spirit of God which were all His own, and which yet were the channel through which He entered into His new action upon human history. (a) Even within the a 359 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Holy of Holies Holy Spirit apostolic period accounts had arisen of the new foundations for His very self and nature, some accounts tracing these to the miraculous power of the Holy Spirit (Mt 118, 20; Lk 1 35; cf. Jn 114). (b) All the Gospels affirm the descent of the Spirit upon Him at His baptism (Mk 1 10, 12; Mt 3 16, 41; Lk 3 22, 41,14; Jn 1 32f.). (c) Thus, Jesus asserts that the Messianic prophecy (Is 61 1) is fulfilled in His person (Lk 4 18; cf. Mt. 12 18, 28, 32; Jn 3 34). Without signalizing more than one or two details, the Evan- gelists leave us to infer from the Divine power manifest in His words and deeds, that He was Spirit-filled. And yet, in His own recorded sayings the mention of the Spirit does not occur often. ‘It is significant that in no case does Christ speak of the Spirit as acting upon his followers while he is present with them. He would keep the thought of the disciples fixed upon himself as the revelation of the Father’ (I. H. Wood, ut inf., p. 137; cf. pp. 141- 143). Possibly, too, for Jesus’ mind the idea of His Spirit was included in that of the kingdom as an order of supernatural powers. (d) Apart from Mt 12 28 (cf. Lk 11 20) and Lk 11 13 (cf. Mt 7 11), we have one reference to the prophetic action of the Spirit in the O T (Mt 22 43), one terrible warning that in resisting Him the Jewish leaders were in danger of the supreme sin (Mt 12 31 £.; Mk 3 29), one promise that the Spirit will aid His disciples in future emergencies (Mt 10 20; Mk 13 11; Lk 1212), and the final command to baptize ‘into the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit’ (Mt 28 19). In the Fourth Gospel our Lord is represented as speaking at great length regarding the Spirit with His disciples at their last gathering. His previous references are even more sparse than in the Synoptics (Jn 3 5-8, 6 63), and the Spirit’s coming is declared (by the Evangelist, however, not by Jesus) to be conditioned by Jesus’ being glorified (739). But the last discourses glow with references to the coming of the Spirit, as to the supreme gift of God and the supreme experiences of man. (a) The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of truth, the paraclete, the comforter, without whom even the person and work of Christ in their hearts would not be complete (16 7-132). (b) He will open up to them the truth in its fulness as Jesus taught it (14 26) and as it concerned their destiny (1613). (c) He will not give a new revelation to supersede that of Jesus, but will unfold to their hearts and minds the whole meaning and power of Jesus Himself (15 26, 1614 £.). (d) This Holy Spirit is sent by the Father in Christ’s name (14 26); He is also sent by Christ (167), ‘from the Father’ (15 28), but He also ‘comes’ (167). It seems violent to say that these passages either merely personify a mode of the Divine action, or so identify the Spirit with God that He is in no way distinguished from the Father. While no ontological definition is given, it is not too much to say that an ontological dis- tinction is involved in this mode of speech. 3. Acts and Epistles. Judging by the mere number of our Lord’s references to the Holy Spirit, we should be quite unprepared for the extraordinary phe- nomena disclosed in the remainder of the N T as to His presence and power. (1) In the Book of Acts, we find events which remind us of the O T. The entrance upon the new age is marked by excitements which affect even the physical life (Ac 2 2-4, 15 f., 33, 38). Like phenomena occur repeatedly, not only to Jews (9 17), but to Samaritans (8 15-19) and to Gentiles (10 44, 1115). (2) Among the more striking results were the strange gift of tongues (I Co chs. 12-14), working of miracles (Ac 13 9 ff.; I Co. 12 10, 29; Gal 3 5), prophecy (Ac 11 28, 21 4, 10 £.). (3) In the Epistles of Paul we find abundant references to the Holy Spirit. There are apparently two main points of departure, in addition to his knowledge of the O T and the influence of the Christian community, into whose atmosphere his conversion brought him, viz., his own experiences of the transforming power of the Gospel as the organ of God’s Spirit, and the connection of the Holy Spirit with the person and work of Jesus Christ. (a) The inner power of the Spirit is found in the new con- sciousness of sonship toward God (Gal 4 6; Ro 89, 16), through apprehension of God’s love and mercy (Ro 5 5; Tit 3 4-6). This Spirit is the means of our approach to God (Ro 8 12 £.; Eph 2 18; Ph 21, 3 3); the enlightener of our minds (I Co 2 10-16); the source of our power, as individual Christians (Eph 3 16) and as preachers (Ro 15 19; I Co 2 4); the seal of our acceptance with God and the earnest of our immortal life (Ro 8 15 f.; I Co 6 11; II Co 1 22; Eph 113 f., 4 30); the stimulator of acts of worship (I Co 14 2, 12, 14 £.); the bond of Christian communion (I Co 1213; II Co 1314; Ph 21); the life of the Church, ‘the body of Christ’ (Eph 4 4; I Co 6 19, 20). See Cuurcu Lire AND ORGANIZATION, §§ 5 ff. The Church is founded on the confession of Jesus as Mes- siah, a confession which is due to the Holy Spirit (I Co 12 3; cf. I Jn 4 2 £.); the confessor passes under ‘the law of the Spirit of life? (Ro 8 2), his whole ethical and religious experience flows from that new principle (Ro 8 5-10, 12-14), the new warfare of which he is conscious is the proof of that Spirit’s living presence in him (Gal 516 f.), and his reception of the Spirit means the possession of all the present virtues and joys (Gal 5 22). Paul’s teaching on the effects of the Spirit in human life marks an epoch-making change of emphasis from abnormal phenomena to Christian character, from what is intermittent to what is ethical and permanent. (b) The Holy Spirit is constantly connected with the person and work of Christ. The Spirit without the historical Christ has no grip on intelligent faith, the historical Christ without the inner power of the Spirit has no meaning or relation to the individual will. The Spirit is ‘of Christ’? as well as ‘of God’ (Ro 89); in Him was the Spirit of holiness (Ro 1 4), and it is even said ‘the Lord is the Spirit’ (II Co 3171.). Accordingly, the effects of the Divine grace in the heart are traceable to both (Gal 4.6; Eph 316f.). As was said of the Johannine, so of the Pauline teaching, the Holy Spirit is both distinguished from, and identified with, both Christ and God. No theological explana- tion is attempted. Something greater 1s here, the disclosure in the field of experience through inspired men of the threefold operation of God upon human nature. That the Father, Son, and Spirit, thus re- vealed in relation to man, are described in mutual relations and in a fundamental identity is the con- Homam Hosea A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 360 LLL LED LALLA LLL LLL LL LAD viction which underlies all the historical discussions of the doctrine of the Trinity. Literature: For the Biblical material see A. Lewis Humphries, The Holy Spirit in Faith and Experience (1911); I. H. Wood, The Spirit of God in Biblical Literature (1904); H. Gunkel, Die Wirkungen d. heiligen Geistes, etc. (1899); Weinel, Die Wirkungen des Geistes und der Geister (1899); Dibelius, Die Geisterweli im Glauben des Paulus (1909); H. H. Wendt, Die Begriffe Fleisch und Geist im Biblischen Sprachgebrauch (1878); E. H. Winstanley, The Spirit in the N T (1908); H. Wheeler Robinson, The Christian Doctrine of Man (1911). For the O T, A. B. Davidson, The Theology of the O T (1904); H. Schultz, A T Theologie (Eng. Transl., 1889); J. Koeberle, Natur und Geist nach der Auffassung des Alten Testaments (1901). For the N T, E. F. Scott, The Spirit in the N T (1923); J. Denney, art. “Holy Spirit” in Hastings’ DCG, vol. II (1906); George Stevens, The Theology of the N T (1899); H. J. Holtzmann, Lehrbuch der NT Theologie (21911); B. Weiss, Religion d. N T (1903) (§ 13 “f-). For doctrinal discussion, John Owen, Discourse on the Holy Spirit; Smeaton, The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit (1882); R. C. Moberly, Atone- ment and Personality (1901); J. S. Candlish, The Christian Doctrine of the Holy Spirit; A. Kuyper, The Work of the Holy Spirit (1900); M. Kahler, Angewandte Dogmen (1908); The Spirit, edited by B. H. Streeter (1919); W. T. Davison, in The Indwelling Spirit (1911) gives a sifted bibliography. For practical purposes, H. C. G. Moule, Veni Creator (1890) ; William Arthur, The Tongues of Fire (various edd.); J. M. Campbell, After Pentecost, What? (1897). W. D. M.—H. R. M. HOMAM, ho’mam. See Hemam. HOMER. See Wetcuts anD MrasuRgs, § 3. HONEST: (1) The AV use of this word to trans- late the adjective x«Aés, which means ‘excellent,’ ‘beautiful,’ ‘good’ (originally in an esthetic rather than moral sense), was in accord with the usage of its day (1611). In modern English the word ‘honest’ is of much more restricted meaning. Consequently, in RV ‘honorable,’ ‘honorably’ have been substituted (except in Lk 8 15) as more suitable renderings (cf. Ro 12:17; 1 P 212; etc.). (2) In Ph 48; 1 Ti 22 for ceuvos, ceuvétns (‘grave,’ ‘venerable,’ and ‘gravity,’ ‘dignity’), RV gives ‘honorable’ and ‘gravity.’ (3) In Ro 13 13; I Th 4 12 the Gr. eboxnudyws is exactly rendered ‘becomingly’ in ARV. E. E. N. HONEY. See Foon, § 7; and Patesring, § 26. HOOD. See Dress anp ORNAMENTS, § 8. HOOK: The translation of several Heb. words: (1) waw, a ‘hook,’ or ‘peg,’ of silver fastened on, or in, the posts of the tabernacle to support hangings (Ex 26 32, 38 28, etc.). (2) hah, a ‘hook,’ or ‘ring,’ for the nose, used in reference to captives (II K 19 28; Is 37 29; Ezk 29 4, 38 4. Also Ezk 19 4,9 RV for ‘chains’ AV). (8) hakkah, a ‘fish-hook’ (Job 41 1 [40 25]; Is 19 8; Hab 1 15 ‘angle’ EV). (4)’ aghmin (Job 41 2 [40 26]), ‘hook’ AV, more correctly ‘cord’ RV. (5) héah (Job 41 2 [40 26]), ‘thorn’ AV, ‘hook’ RY. (6) sh*phattayim (Ezk 40 43), ‘hooks’ or ‘pegs’; by some translated ‘their edge.’ (7) tsinnadh (Am 4 2), the ‘hook’ or the ‘barb’ of a fishing-spear. (8) &yxtotpov (Mt 17 27), ‘fish-hook,’ GAS Bs HOOPOE, hii’pd. See Pauestine, § 25. HOPE: Both the elements of the generic idea of hope—.e., expectation and desire for the thing expected—distinctly appear in the Biblical usage. As soon as that which is expected is realized, hope ceases (Ro 8 24). Further, the term sometimes designates the expectation itself, and sometimes the thing expected (Col 1 5 is an instance of the latter usage). Hope and faith are closely related, but whereas faith seizes upon the invisible in general, whether past, present, or future, hope is limited to the realization of future good. Faith as a living principle, however, includes true hope. The hope of the wicked shall come to naught (Pr 11 23, 24 20), but the hope of the righteous is not vain (Ps 115 11, 9 18, 37 5, 40 4). Hence the definition of faith in Heb 111 as ‘the assurance of things hoped for.’ The close association of the three basal elements of Christian experience, faith, hope, and love, is sig- nificantly indicated in such passages as I Th 1 3; Col 14£.; I Co 1313; Ro 51-11. It was a living hope, full of a sense of reality, that was born into the world by Christianity and with which the N T is vibrant throughout (cf. Ro 5 2 f., 8 24f.; I P 1 3). The pagan world was ‘without hope’ (Eph 2 12). A. C. Z.—E. E. N. HOPHNI, hef’nai (327, hophni): One of the two sons of Eli, called ‘base men’ (I § 2 12, ‘sons of Belial’ AV). Hophni and Phineas were priests and through their selfish and arbitrary exercise of the priestly function brought disrepute upon the worship of J’’. For this they were twice rebuked (IS 2 27-36, 311). Both perished in the battle of Aphek, whither they had accompanied the Ark of the Covenant (IS 411 #.). AGE: HOPHRA, hef’ra. See PHARAOH. HOR, hér (1, hdr): 1. A mountain-top on which Aaron died (Nu 20 22 f., 21 4 [P]; Dt 32 50, noted also as one of the stages in the wilderness wanderings, Nu 33 37), not far from Kadesh-barnea, identified with the modern Jebel Nebi Harun, about 50 m. S. of the Dead Sea, near Petra, by a tradition as old as Josephus (Ant. IV, 47) and supported by Jerome (Onom. 303, 144). This mountain is nearly 5,000 ft. in height and crowned by a rugged double peak. But Mount Hor is defined as ‘by the border of the land of Edom’; and this description does not suit the location of Jebel Nebt Harun. H. C. Trumbull (Kadesh Barnea, pp. 128 ff.) probably is right in locating Mount Hor at Jebel Madurah, NW. of Edom (cf. Buhl, Edomiter, p. 22). 2. A peak named as the ideal N. boundary of Canaan in Nu 347, 8 [P]. There is nothing to determine its exact identity. A.C. Z. HORAM, ho’ram (97, horam): A Canaanite king of Gezer who was conquered and slain by Joshua (Jos 10 33, but cf. 16 10; Jg 1 29). HOREB, hod’reb. See Srnat. HOREM, hd’rem (810, hérém), ‘sacred’: A forti- fied city in Naphtali (Jos 19 38). Site unknown. CB. HOR-HAGIDGAD, hér”hea-gid’gad (73730 10, hér haggidhgaddh): A station on the wilderness jour- ney (Nu 33 32f.). The same as Gudgodah (Dt 107), HORI, h6’rai, HORIM, ho’rim, HORITES, ho’- raits (IM, ON, hori, hdrim): The original inhab- itants of Edom or Mt. Seir, who were dispossessed by the Edomites (Gn 14 6, 36 2 [?], 20-29; Dt 2 12, 22; I Ch 1 39). The name is usually held as equivalent 861 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Homam Hosea to ‘cave-dwellers,’ and as the primitive inhabitants of Palestine were of this character, this explanation seems most reasonable. In Edom, in particular, there are many evidences of this. The name was thus probably an epithet given them by their con- querors. The apparent connection between the Heb. hort and the old Egn. term haru for 8.W. Pal. is not certain. HE. E. N. HORMAH, hér’ma (951, hormah), ‘devoted’ (to deity, which could be understood in several senses): A city in the ‘South.’ Here the Israelites were defeated by the Canaanites (Nu 14 45; Dt 1 44), but later, apparently in the same place, won a victory over the Canaanite king of Arad (Nu 21 3). Similarly, Judah and Simeon, ‘devoted’ the Canaan- ites of Zephath to destruction, and then called the place Hormah (Jg 1 17). It is possible that the last two references (also Jos 12 14) are to the same event. H. was counted both to Judah and to Simeon (Jos 15 30, 19 4; cf. IS 30 30; I Ch 4 30). The site is uncertain. E. E. N. HORN (17P, geren, xéoac): 1. Horns of cattle were used as substitutes for bottles, being made into flasks for carrying oil (I S 161; I K 1 39). Long horns (especially of rams) were also used as trumpets (Jos 6 5). 2. Its pointed shape makes the horn the emblem of a peak (Is 51, RVmg.). 3. Since an animal uses its horns as weapons, they are em- blems of power (I K 22 11; Dn 8 3 #.). To ‘exalt the horn’ is either to confirm power or to claim power for oneself (I S 210; Ps 75 4 f., 89 24). 4. The cor- ners of the altar were also called horns (I K 1 50 f.) from the horn-like extensions with which they were finished off (Jos. BJ. V, 56). See also Atrar, § 2; and Music, § 3 (2). A. C. Z. HORNET (YS, tsir‘aGh, from tsdra‘, ‘to strike’): The hornet is named as a pest through which God was to drive out Israel’s enemies from the land of promise (Ex 23 28; Dt 7 20). There is no record of a literal plague of hornets during the period of the conquest, unless Jos 24 12 be taken as such (as it is in Wis 12 8-10). See also PALESTINE, § 26. HORONAIM, her’’o-né’im (Q220N, Oh, hors- nayim), ‘two hollows’: A city in 8. Moab (Jer 48 3, 34; Is 15 5, ‘the way of H.’; Jer 48 5, ‘the descent of H.’), near Zoar. It is mentioned on the Moabite Stone as a city to which one descended. It was probably at the foot of some cliff, and S. of the Arnon. See also Map II, H 1. PEAS aki HORONITE, hér’o-nait (2°07, hahdréni), ‘the Horonite’: A title given to Sanballat, who op- posed Nehemiah (Neh 2 10, 19, 13 28), since he was from Beth-horon. . age end HORSE. The horse was a late-comer into Bible- lands. It was brought into the Tigris-Euphrates Valley by the invading Aryans (c. 2000 B.c.), and was not known in Egypt before the Hyksos invasion (c. 1700 B.c.). It was first used in war, especially with the chariot. When the Israelites conquered Canaan they did not know what to do with the horses of their conquered foes (Jos 119; cf. ITS 8 4). See also PALESTINE, § 24; and WaRFARE, § 4 f. HE. EN. ‘tions is uncertain. HORSE GATE. See Jerusatem, § 32. HORSELEACH: The Heb. term (7P1Y, ‘altiqah) is of uncertain significance, and may mean ‘sucker.’ The reference (Pr 30 15) may be to a variety of leaches, or bloodsuckers, well known in the East and very troublesome to man and beast. Some scholars, however, think that a mythological vam- pire-like creature is referred to. EK. E. N. HORSEMEN. See Warrarg, § 4; (For Ezk 27 14 AV, see ErHNoGRAPHY AND ErHno.oay, § 13, under Togarmah.) HOSAH, ho’sa (19M, hosah): I. A city on the NW. border of Asher, and apparently S. of Tyre (Jos 19 29). Site unknown, as the identification with Usha of the Assyr. and Usu of the Egypt. inscrip- II. The ancestral head of a division of the door-keepers of the Second Temple (I Ch 16 38, 26 10-16). HOSANNA: An acclamation which occurs in the Gospels in the story of the triumphal entry (Mt 21 9, 15; Mk 11 9-10; Jn 1213), being quoted from Ps 118 25. It is the Gr. form of the Heb. hdshi‘ah- na’, ‘Save! we pray.’ The same expression occurs with the plural (of the object) in II K 19 19, and similar ones, without the particle of urgency, fre- quently in the Psalter. W.S. P. HOSEA, ho-zi’a. 1. Personal History. Hosea (YIN, hdshéa‘, also Osee in N T [AV], identical with Hoshea and Joshua in derivation and meaning), the son of Beeri, the first of the minor prophets in the order given in the Hebrew canon. His ministry fell within the Assyrian period, which began with the middle of the 8th cent. B.c., and was located in the Northern Kingdom (Israel). According to the super- scription of the book, he prophesied during the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah (790-690 3B.c.), and Jeroboam, the son of Joash, King of Israel (784-745 B.c.). While this superscription may be by a later hand, there is no doubt that it is in general correct. But it does not definitely fix the length of his prophetic ministry, as it does not indicate how much of the reigns of Uzziah and Hezekiah is to be included. Yet it may be safely inferred that the prophet was in public life not less than ten years and not more than thirty—.e., from about 750 to about 730 B.c. Of his personal life and experiences nothing is known, except what is gathered from incidental allusions in his discourses. He was evidently a native as well as a prophet of the Northern Kingdom. He cherished a living interest in the affairs of his generation. Whether he occu- pied an official position of any sort it is not certain. Some have conjectured that he belonged to the gild of prophets, while others have inferred from his intimate knowledge of the corruptions of the priesthood that he was a priest. It is probable that he was a leading citizen of the realm. 2. Domestic Experience Used as a Parable. H.’s call to the prophetic work came in connection with a sad domestic experience. He married a woman (Gomer) who afterward proved unfaithful to him. When her eldest son was born, H. gave him the symbolical name of Jezreel, ‘God sows (seed),’ as appreciative of the Divine blessing on his marriage / Hosea House A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 362 (1 4). To the next child, a daughter, he gave the name ‘Lo-ruhamah’ (RVmg., ‘shat hath not ob- tained mercy,’ 16). The next son was called ‘Lo- ammi’ (RVmg., ‘not my people,’ 19). After this, Gomer left H., and became the slave concubine of a man who could better satisfy her love of luxurious living (25). But H. persisted in his affection for her, sought her out, and bought her back with the price of a slave. She was thus brought into the new relation of a slave to her husband. That all this is the story of an actual occurrence has been denied by some ancient and some modern scholars. It has been alleged that it would be unthinkable for God to command conduct so contrary to His own moral law; that it must have taken years to bring into view the significance of the Divine command, if the prophet’s experience had been literally lived through; and that during this time the prophet must have endured mental agony on account of the com- pulsory but revolting relationship with an unchaste woman. But these considerations are based upon the supposition that the literal occurrence of the transaction followed the command; or that the state- ment that Hosea was bidden to ‘take a wife of whoredom’ (1 2) means that he was told to deliber- ately marry a harlot. The facts in the case do not bear out such an interpretation. A ‘wife of whore- dom’ is not a prostitute, but a woman who has violated her marriage vow. The case rather stands thus: H., being married, discovered that his wife was unfaithful to him, and, realizing the strength of his own feelings of affection toward her, was led to find in this feeling an illustration of God’s greater love for idolatrous Israel. In his taking back his unfaith- ful wife he was further led naturally to see God’s will- ingness to forgive Israel and restore to 1t His favor. Inasmuch as this experience was manifestly under Divine guidance and control, he construed it as God’s will that he should pass through it as a means of his prophetic equipment, and in the vivid style of the prophet represented it as God’s command. It is certain that Hosea often came into conflict with the priests of his day (49, 51, 69); but he relates nothing like the concrete dispute narrated by Amos out of his own experience (Am 710 ff.). H.’s character is distinguished by fulness of feeling, combined with a keen perception of spiritual truth, and courage in its expression. 3. Contents of Book of H. The Book of H. may be conveniently subdivided into two main parts. Chs. 1-3 are in narrative form and give the allegorization of his tragic domestic experience, as already ex- plained. Chs. 4-14 are a series of denunciations, relieved by pleas in behalf of J’, addressed to the people (exhortations to turn from idolatry and sin). A more minute analysis of this section is not practicable (for an attempted analysis see Harper in ICC., Amos and Hosea, p. elx), partly because of the abrupt breaks and reiterations to which the prophet resorts in his passionate way of preaching his message. In general, however, the theme of the whole section is given in the opening words of 41: “There is no truth, nor goodness, nor knowledge of God in the land. 4. Condition of Text. The text of the book has been: very much tampered with by later hands. A sufficient occasion for this was furnished by the obscurity of H.’s style. His utterances are at times ejaculatory. It is doubtful, however, whether the amount of corruption has not been largely exagger- ated in recent efforts at criticism. Some instances where the text appears to be corrupt may be nothing more than the natural irregularities of the author’s own method of expression, or the consequences of the arrangement of his discourses. These were no doubt at the beginning fragmentary. 5. Religious Message. H.’s religious message is one of the most profound and spiritual in the O T. While his earlier contemporary Amos stood for the righteousness of J’’ and named righteousness of con- duct as the one supreme demand of J’’ (5 24), Hoses, laid the emphasis on J’”’s personality and pleaded for a truer conception of God as a personal being. whose relation to His worshipers 1s that of an ethical personality. This means that man’s response to God’s demand must be in terms of personal devo- tion, with an intelligent appreciation of the Divine personality. J’’ desires ‘knowledge’ of Himself and ‘loving-kindness’ (or ‘goodness’) more than sacrifices and burnt-offerings (Hos 66). For the cultus and the whole physical conception of the Divine nature on which it rested, Hosea had only condemnation. To him the idea at the basis of the whole ceremonial system was fundamentally mistaken. The highest and purest in human nature, Hosea felt, was the true if only partial key to the understanding of the perfect Divine personality. Rightly understood, Hosea is perhaps nearer to Jesus in his teaching than is any other O T prophet. LireraTuRE: Driver, LOT; W. R. Smith in Z. Brit.; Marti in HB; G. A. Smith in Expos. Bible, The Book of the Twelve, 1898, vol. i; Harper in ICC, Am. and Hos., 1905; C. H. Cornill, The Prophets of Israel (1895); Kent-Smith, The Earlier Prophets, pp. 29-49 (1907); M. Scott, The Message of Hosea (1921). J. M. P. Smith, Hosea and Micah, in Bible for Home and School. A. C. Z.—E. E. N. HOSEN: In 16th cent. English ‘hosen’ meant a garment covering the legs and hips much like very tight trousers. In Dn 3 21 RV we read ‘their hosen, their tunics, and their mantles’; the AV reads ‘their coats, their hosen, and their hats.’ The Aramaic gsarbal (‘hosen’ RV, ‘coats’ AV) may perhaps mean ‘mantle,’ tho this is not certain. The word pattish or p*tash (‘tunics’ RV, ‘hosen’ AV) is still more obscure, and no probable meaning can be suggested (cf. Driver in Camb. Bible, Daniel, in loc.). EK. E.N. HOSHAIAH, ho-shé’ya (7227, hédsha‘dyah), ‘J’’ saves’: 1. The father of Jezaniah (or Azariah) (Jer 421, 43 2). 2. A prominent Jew in Nehemiah’s time (Neh 12 32). HOSHAMA, hegh’a-ma (YO¥IN, hdshama‘), a shortened form (or error) for ‘Jehoshama,’ ‘J’’ has heard’: A son of Jehoiachin, King of Judah (I Ch 3 18). HOSHEA, ho-shi’a (Y¥I7, hdshéa‘), ‘salvation’; in Assyr. inscriptions, Aus?’: 1. The son of Elah, and the last king of Israel (733-722 B.c.) (II K 15 30, 171 #.). Having assassinated Pekah, who had been defeated in his rebellion against Tiglath- 368 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Hosea” House pileser III of Assyria, Hoshea was placed on the throne of a greatly, reduced kingdom by the Assyrian king, with the understanding that he would be an obedient vassal. For a few years H. proved loyal to the king of Assyria, and then defaulted the usual tribute and ranged himself with Egypt in an anti- Assyrian movement. Shalmaneser V, 727-722 B.c. invaded his territory and laid siege to Samaria. Sargon, 722-705 B.c., completed the work of Shal- maneser, captured the city, and put an end to the kingdom of Israel. As to H.’s fate nothing is known certainly; probably he was slain or captured before the city of Samaria was taken. 2. The original name of Joshua, the son of Nun (Nu 138 8, Oshea AV; Dt 32 44). 3. A son of Azaziah, an Ephraimite chief under David (I Ch 27 20). 4. A Levite who, with others, set his seal to the covenant (Neh 10 23). A. C. Z.—E. E.N. HOSPITALITY (g:Aogevia), ‘love of strangers’: Hospitality, as the act and habit of entertaining strangers, is not a purely Biblical or Oriental char- acteristic. The Greeks recognized it and sanctioned it by the doctrine of a patron of all travelers and strangers (cf. Zeus-Xenios. Hom. Odyss. LX, 270; XIV, 57). In the O T times the total absence of inns made the exercise of hospitality an indispensable condition of all enterprise, as well as an expression of kindness (cf. Abraham, Gn 18 13; cf. He 13 2; also other cases, Gn 19 2, 24 25; Jz 1916). The Deuter- onomic law expressly provides for the care of strangers (Dt 14 29). The neglect of hospitality was a defect in the perfect man’s character (Job 31 32). In Roman days, inns and taverns had come into existence, but they were notoriously dangerous, and often no more than houses of ill fame. Their keepers were for the most part unscrupulous, and their in- famous practises are alluded to even in legal enact- ments, which were designed to check and correct the evils of the system (Ulpian, Dig. iii, 2, 4, 2, xxil, 2, 43, 1; Tertullian, De Fuga in Persec. 13; Marquardt, Privatl. p. 471, n. 5); hence the injunc- tion to hospitality as a duty in Apostolic and in early Christian times (Ro 1213; ef. I Ti 3 2; Tit 18; IP 49; Clem. Ad Cor. I 10-12, 35) was not intended merely as a means of cultivating or otherwise ex- pressing good-will toward men, but also as a protec- tion of Christian travelers. ADG. Z. HOST: The rendering of (1) hayil, ‘strength,’ ‘force,’ often used of an army (Ex 14 4, 17, 23; IS 14 48, AV, etc.). (2) mahdneh, ‘camp,’ or ‘encamp- ment,’ also used frequently of a great company, or an army (Gn 32 2; Ex 14 24, 1613, AV, etc.). (3) tsibh@ (from the verb tsdbha’, ‘to carry on war’), ‘army’ (Gn 21 22, 32; Jos 514; Jg 4 2; 1S 17 55, etc.). This word is very common in the O T and is some- times used in a broader sense of the whole body of Israel (Ex 12 41), very often of the multitude of the - heavenly bodies, 7.e., the stars (Gn 21; Dt 419, etc.), which were frequently worshiped (Dt 17 3; II K 1716, etc.). The most common occurrence of the term is in the expression ‘Jehovah (Lorp AV) of hosts’ (transliterated as Sabaoth twice in N T, Ro 9 29 and Ja 5 4), which is found a great number of times in the prophets and has been called ‘the prophetical title of Jehovah’ (Driver). The origin of this expres- sion is obscure. It may have meant originally ‘J’, the God who leads the armies of Israel,’ and have been extended later to express the universal sway of J”’ (the prophetic idea). It is less likely to have had the wider meaning (J’’, ruler of the hosts of heaven) from the first (cf. Driver in Camb. Bible, Joel and Amos, p. 231 f.and BDB.s.v. pax, 4). (4) In Lk 213 otpatie means the heavenly angelic beings who worship God, while in Ac 7 42 the same word refers to the stars as objects of worship. (5) xavdoxebc ‘innkeeper’ (Lk 10 35). (6) &évoc, ‘one who shows hospitality’ (Ro 16 23). KH. E. N. HOSTAGE(S). See Warranrzg, § 5. HOST OF HEAVEN. See Semitic Retiaion, § 32. HOSTS, LORD OF. See Host; and Gop, §§ 3, 4. HOTHAM, ho’fhom (O71, hdthdm), ‘seal’: 1. The ancestor of a clan of Asher, I Ch 7 32 (=He- lem in ver. 35?). 2. The father of Shama and Jeiel (I Ch 11 44, Hotham AV). HOTHIR, ho’ther (V7, Adthir): One of the chiefs of the Hemanites, musicians of the Second Temple (I Ch 25 4, 28). HOUGH. See Hock. HOUR. See Tims, § 1. HOUSE. I. Tur Trent or tHe Nomaps. 1. Evi- dence of the Early Use of the Tent. The ‘house’ of the nomad is the tent, ’6hel—even to-day called bait (‘house’) by the Bedawin. For a long period the Israelites, as nomads, dwelt in tents, and even many years after the main body of the nation had settled down in permanent abodes individual clans, like the Kenites (I S 15 6; cf. Jg 417) and the E. Jordan tribes, continued to use tents, because the nature of the land they occupied compelled them to follow the pastoral mode of life. 2. Construction of the Tent. The Heb. idiom preserved a number of survivals from the nomadic days, e.g., nasa‘, ‘to depart,’ lit. ‘to pull out (the tent-pin)’; hadlakh l’ohdlé, ‘to go home,’ lit. ‘to return to his tent.’ The tent was either round and partly conical, or long—something after the form of an inverted ship’s hull. Usually the tent-coverings, y’r7‘dth, were woven from the hair of the black goat (Song 1 5), and stretched over three or five poles, 5 to 6 ft. high. In the roof of the tent were sewed wooden rings, which were connected by tightly drawn cords, méthar, with the tent-pins, ydthédh, driven fast into the ground. By this means the tent was held up- right. If a cord broke or a pin was pulled up, the tent collapsed (cf. Job 4 21, 30 11). Instead of hair- cloth, however, skins were often used for the tent covering. Somewhere about the middle of the tent a support was placed to hold up the roof. In most cases the tent of a Bedawi is divided into two parts, of which the second, or innermost, hedher, is specifically for the women and children, tho also used as kitchen and storehouse. Entrance to this room, in ordinary cases, is forbidden to men. Only one who is pursued may venture to take refuge here, where the real home is (Jg 4 17 ff.). House Hunting A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 364 The booth, or hut, sukkah, constructed of branches or bushes, was used as a merely temporary abode, e.g., of the field-watcher (Is 1 8; cf. II S 11 11; Jn 45#.), or for cattle (Gn 33 19). Il. Tue Houses of THE More Crvinizep PEeriop. 3. Structure Conditioned by Climate. When the Israelites passed from the nomadic to the agri- cultural mode of life they came to erect permanent key (A) lifts, by means of its pegs, three movable wedges in the lock (B), thus loosening the bolt. houses (bayith, sing.) in which work the Canaanites were their teachers. In Palestine, as everywhere, the manner in which houses are constructed is dependent on the character of the climate and land. As far as the former is concerned, inasmuch as the houses were not constructed to protect from the cold, but to furnish covering from sun and rain, there are re- quired, on the one hand, cool cellar-like rooms, and, on the other, a light, airy structure, inasmuch as the climate permits constant abode in the open air. The peasants use houses simply to protect them from the cool of the night while sleeping, or in order to enjoy their meals undisturbed by others, or to entertain friends, etc. It is the same with the towns- men. They love the outdoor life much more than Westerners do. In ancient times artizan work was carried on in houses as little as it is at present. It was conducted either on the street or in special booths, which were situated in definitely fixed quarters in the city, where similar crafts were near one another, as is the case with the Oriental bazaars of to-day. 4. Structure Conditioned by the Material at Hand. The character of the land influenced the style of building to the extent at least of limiting the material to that which the land could furnish. High forests never existed in Palestine; consequently, there was no long timber at hand for building purposes, and in ordinary houses the use of wood was greatly limited. For such woodwork as was indispensable the sycamore, shiqgmah, was used (I K 10 27; Is 99). For large and costly buildings, where long timbers were needed, resort was had to imported lumber, such as cedar, ’erez (I K 7 2£.; Jer 2214); and cypress, brish (I K 9 11 £.). Olive, zayith, was used but seldom, and then only to a limited extent, e.g., for doors, windows, and similar purposes. In a hilly country like Palestine there is no scarcity of good building stone. The white limestone can be quarried easily, and, as it is not hard, can be worked with no difficulty. In the lowlands houses were constructed of sun-dried brick, l*bhéndh, tho occasionally the bricks were burned. 5. Various Kinds of Houses. As the conditions of life in Palestine have remained practically the same for centuries, the method of building houses was not different in ancient times from what it is at present. The prosperous fellahin in the hill- country and in well-situated towns built for them- selves vaulted houses of more or less finely hewn stone. Such buildings are either founded upon the native rock, or the foundation is sunk into the earth to a depth about equal to the height of the building. The violent winter rains would soon make an end of a house not well founded (cf. Mt 7 24-29). The dwellings consist of large rooms, with high ceilings, and surrounded by thick walls. The roof arches rest. upon strong. massive pillars. In case of inability to procure the material for such a vaulted building, a square structure is erected with walls of small stones held together with mortar or clay. ‘These walls are roofed over with poles, branches, and brush, over which is stamped down a layer of soil about a foot thick. The houses in the lowlands, built of soft clay, are naturally very frail and liable to destruction. Even at the present time it can be noticed how quickly whole villages, when deserted, completely disappear, leaving no trace of their former existence. 6. Details of Structure. (a) On the inner side the walls were often plastered or whitewashed, taphél (Ezk 13 10 #., 22 28). Sometimes they were also painted with vermilion, shdshar (Jer 22 14). More expensive buildings were adorned with artistically carved panelings (I K 7 7; cf. ceiled Jer 22 14; Hag 1 4), decorated with ivory (I K 22 39; Am 315), gold, silver, or precious stones (I Ch 29 2 #.). (b) The floor was simply a layer of clay, or plaster, which, in the more costly houses, was overlaid with boards Larger Lock with Key. The key (A) lifts the wooden pegs which it touches, and thus allows the bar (B) below to be moved. (I K 615), or with marble and other expensive stones (Est 16). The floors were covered with rugs, or, in the case of the poor, with mats of straw, on which one might tread only without sandals. (c) The ordinary house of the common people consisted of one large room divided into two parts, ,of which one was somewhat higher than the other. This served as a living-place for the family, while the other was occupied by the animals, which in a sense were counted as a part of the family of the fellahin. In 365 case a man had extensive herds, he had] special stables for them. In the towns also the partition of the dwelling was not usual. (d) The roof of the house, which had to be repaired annually before the beginning of winter, was a favorite resort for pur- poses of evening recreation (cf. II S 11 2), or for private conversation (I S 9 25), or for lamentation (Is 15 3; Jer 48 38). From such frequent use of the roof we get the reason for the common law in Dt 22 8, that roofs should be provided with a battle- ment. But in spite of this, one could easily leap from one roof to another, so that it was possible in this manner to go the length of whole streets (cf. Mk 138 15, and Jos. Ant. XIII, 5 3). Houses of the well-to-do were often provided with a _ super- structure on the roof, ‘dliyyah, used as a sleeping-, guest-, or sick-chamber (Jg 3 20 ff., parlour AV; I K 17 19; II K 410f.). Here also one went for prayer (II K 23 12; Tob 310; Dn 611; cf. Ac 109). The roof usually had two places of exit, one leading to the lower chamber, the other directly to the street (cf. Mk 2 4). (e) Houses of more than one story were certainly very rare. According to I K 7 2 #. Solo- mon’s arsenal (‘house of the forest of Lebanon’), which rested upon four rows of cedar pillars, was of three stories, as were also the side structures of the Temple (IK 654.). (f) In most instances, as is the case to-day, the larger houses were probably four square (Job 119), enclosing a roomy court, «#3Ay (Lk 22 55, ‘hall’ AV), hatsér (II S 17 18; Neh 8 16), sur- rounded with cloisters and galleries, paved, provided with a well (II S 17 18), and planted with trees. This court often served as a guest-chamber, or place for social intercourse. It was protected from the sun’s rays by awnings (cf. Est 15f.,51). (g) Very costly houses were adorned with marble pillars, ‘ammidhim, not only within the court, but also externally (Song 5 15; cf. I K 7 15 #.; II K 25 13). Larger houses had also a special fore-court (Jer 32 2), which served as an ante-chamber. At its door a keeper (sometimes a woman; cf. IT |S 46, LXX.; cf. Ac 12 13) had his station. From this fore-court stairs—often of costly wood (II Ch 9 11)—led to the roof and upper chambers. (h) The rear rooms, hedher (used of the temple-chamber I Ch 28 11, parlors AV), of the larger houses were reserved for the women (Jg 151; Song 1 4, 34). To these noman besides the head of the house had access. Here also were the sleeping-rooms (II § 47, 13 10; II K 11 2). Such a room is evidently referred to by the term ‘inner chamber’ (closet AV), in Mt 66. (i) In the more elegant houses there were both summer and winter rooms, the situation of which was determined by the position of the sun. Winter rooms were heated by means of a brazier, ’ah (Jer 36 22), which to-day is made of fire-brick, and is placed in a depression in the middle of the room. In order to conserve the heat after the fire is burned out, a wooden frame is placed over the brazier and covered with a rug. (j) Windows, which were constructed only of lattice- work, designated by such terms as’eshnabh (Jg 5 28; casement Pr 76 AV) or hallén, ‘side openings’ (Pr 76), also hdrakkim (Song 29) and ’drubbah, ‘openings in the roof’ (Kc 12 8), served also for chimneys; in houses of to-day they are found almost wholly on the inner A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY ‘back from without. House Hunting or court side, because of the dirt of the street. In ancient time, however, this was not the rule (cf. Jg 5 28; Pr 76). (k)Doors were sometimes of stone, as in the buildings in the Hauran, but usually of wood and somewhat low. Occasionally they were plated with bronze or gold (II Ch 49, 22). Such doors were provided above and below with bronze hinge- pivots, tstr (Pr 26 14), which fitted into sockets, pothoth (I K 7 50), in the stone threshold. Large doors had also several folding leaves, ts‘la‘im g¢lilim (I K 6 34). (1) In the door was fastened an iron ring for a knocker (Lk 12 36, 13 25; Ac 12 13), and a wooden bar, min‘al, man‘ul, and b*riah, which was pushed back from within. There were also others that by means of a key, likewise of wood, maphtéah (Jg 3 25; Is 22 22), could be unfastened and pushed (m) According to Dt 6 9 (cf. 11 20) the door-post, m*ztizGh, was adorned with inscriptions, as, for example, Dt 6 4 #f., a custom that has spread all over the Mohammedan East. The same practise was also in vogue in ancient Egypt (see Wilkinson, Manners and Customs, etc., vol. ii, pp. 102, 123). (n) From Ezr 3 10 f.; Job 38 6 it is evident that, in the case of a large building, the laying of the corner-stone (always one well selected for this purpose) was a festal occasion. Similarly, when the headstone was put in position (Zech 4 7), and the house was dedicated (I K 8 63; Ezr 6 16), there was a joyous celebration. Possibly I K 16 34 (cf. Jos 6 26) finds its explanation in some such ceremony. W. N.—L. B. P. HOZAI, h6’zo-ai (IN, hdzay): A word taken as a proper noun by RV in II Ch 3319. Perhaps the true reading is ‘his seers’ (VN). HUKKOK, hok’kek (PPM, hugdq): A town of Naphtali (Jos 19 34), Map I, E 4, tho this identification is not certain. HUKOK, hiti’kek. See HeiKarn. HUL, hol. See ErHnoGRAPHY AND ETHNOLOGY, § 13. HULDAH, hol/da (719M, huldah): A prophetess of repute (II K 22 14; II Ch 34 22), the wife of Shallum, the keeper of the wardrobe. King Josiah sent Hilkiah, the priest, to her to inquire about the law-book which had been found in the Temple. eats bs HUMTAH, hom’ta (79), humtdh): A city of Judah, near Hebron (Jos 1554). Site unknown. HUNTING: The references to hunting are not numerous in the O T. While the Hebrews, in their nomadic period, were doubtless accustomed to the chase (cf. and story of Esau, Gn 25 27, 27 3 #.), after their settlement in Canaan comparatively less atten- tion was given to hunting, either as a profession or as a pastime. No national hero is spoken of as a hunter. Yet this sport was not entirely unknown. The word tsidh (from tsidh, ‘to hunt’ meaning ‘venison’ or ‘game’ in general Gn 27 3), is similar te the term for ‘victuals’ or ‘provision’ in general (Jos 9 5,14; Jz 78; Neh 13 15, etc.), but the etymological connection is doubtful. If the second term also is derived from tstidh, ‘to hunt,’ it would indicate that tstdh, ‘game,’ was once the main supply of food for Hupham A NEW STANDARD [gal ————<—<$< the early Hebrews (see IsranL, SoctaL DEVELOP- MENT OF, § 7). The Law provided that animals taken in hunting should be properly killed (Lv 1713). The wild animals allowed to be eaten in Dt ch. 14, such as the gazel, roebuck, wild goat, etc., could be taken only in the chase, and I K 4 23 shows that wild meat was not unknown on the royal table. The more dangerous pursuits, such as lion- hunting, a favorite pastime of the Assyrian kings, are not mentioned in the O T, tho indirectly the hunting of the hippopotamus may be referred to in Job 41 26-29. The hunter made use not only of ordinary weapons, such as the bow and arrows (Gn 27 3), the sword, spear, and club (Job 41 26 f.), but of nets, snares, and traps of various kinds, with which to catch both birds and quadrupeds. Several kinds of nets are mentioned, as the hérem (Mic 7 2; _ Hab 115), the mikhmar (large enough to catch an antelope, Is 51 20), and the resheth (the nature of which can be inferred from Job 18 8; Ps 9 15, 109, 140 5; Pr 117; Ezk 12 13, etc.). The exact meaning of the terms rendered snare and gin is uncertain; méogésh perhaps means a noose, while pah refers to bird-traps, probably of various kinds (Ps 124 7; Pr 7 23; Am 3 5, etc.). In Job 18 10 hebhel (‘cord’), ren- dered noose in RV, and malkhédheth, trap (from la- khadh, ‘to take’), both refer to some kind of snare. Fowler in Heb. is ydqish (Ps 91 3, 1247; Pr 65; Hos 9 8; and cf. the foregoing mdqésh). Animals were often caught also in pits (cf. II S 23 20; Ps 35 7), which was perhaps the method mainly used for the more dangerous animals. Consult Driver in Camb. Bible, Joel and Amos, p. 157, and A. R. 8. Kennedy in £B, article Fowl. HK. E.N. HUPHAM, hiii’fam, HUPHAMITE, hit’fam-ait. See Huppim. HUPPAH, hop’a (181), huppah): The ancestral head of the thirteenth course of priests (I Ch 24 13). HUPPIM, hop’im (Gin huppim): The ances- tral head of one of the clans of Benjamin (Gn 46 21; I Ch 7 12, 15), the Huphamites (Nu 26 39, where the name is Hupham). HOUR, hor (73n, hr), ‘noble’ (?): 1. An Israelite associated with Aaron in supporting Moses at Rephidim (Ex 17 10, 12) and in the oversight of the people during Moses’ absence in the Mount (Ex 24 14). According to Josephus (Ané. ITI, 2 4, 6, 8 1) he was the husband of Miriam. 2. The father of Caleb (I Ch 2 50; probably I Ch 41 refers to the same). 3..A son of Caleb and the grandfather of Bezaleel (Ex 31 2; I Ch 219). According to Josephus the same as 1. 4. A king of Midian (Nu 31 8; Jos 13 21). 5. An officer under Solomon. See Ben-Hur. (I K 48). 6. The father of Rephaiah, prominent in Jerusalem at the restoration (Neh39). A.C. Z. HURAI, hii’ra-ai or hit’ré. See Hrppat. HURAM, hiii’ram (8°), hiirdm): 1. The ances- tral head of one of the clans of Benjamin (I Ch 85). For 2 and 3 see Hiram. HURI, hiii’rai (1, hirz): A descendant of Gad (I Ch. 5 14), HUSBAND AND WIFE. See Faminy anp Famity Law, § 4 f.; and also under MarriIaGeE AND Divorce. BIBLE DICTIONARY 366 HUSBANDMAN: An old English word mean- ing literally ‘master of the house,’ and used to translate (1) ’zkkar, ‘tiller of the soil’ (II Ch 26 10; Jer 31 24, etc.). From Am 5 16 we would infer that such persons were often asked to take the part of professional mourners. (2) ish ’ddhdéméh, ‘man of the soil’ (Gn 9 20). (8) yeweyéc, ‘cultivator of the ground,’ a term of general significance (Mk 12 1; Jn 151; Il Ti26). In II K 2512 the text is un- certain and in Zec 13 5 RV gives the correct render- ing. E. E.N. HUSBAND’S BROTHER. See MarriaGe AND Drvorce, § 6. HUSHAH, hiti’sha (7M, hiishah) Probably the name of a place in Judah, whence came Sibbecai (q.v.) the Hushathite, one of David’s heroes (I Ch 4 4, ‘Shuhah’ in ver. 11; II S 21 18, 23 27; I Ch 11 29, etc.). HUSHAI,” hit’Sha-ai or hit/shé (WN, hashay): An Archite and loyal friend of David, who used him as a spy in the court of Absalom to defeat the counsel of Ahithophel (II 8S 15 32-17 23; I Ch 27 33). Probably he was the father of Baana (I K 4 16). : CyidieL HUSHAM, hii’sham (03, hasham): of Edom (Gn 36 34 f.). THAIM. HUSHATHITE, hiii’shath-ait. See Huswan. HUSHIM, hiw’shim (VIN, DYN, and ON, hiishim): 1. The ancestral head of a clan of Dan (Gn 46 23, called Shuham [and the clan, Shuhamites] in Nu 26 42). 2. A son of Aher (I Ch 712). 3. A ‘wife’ of Shaharaim in a Benjamite genealogy; prob- ably the name of a clan or place (I Ch 8 8, text un- certain). . HUSKS. See Foon, § 5. HUZZAB, hoz’ab (2311, hutstsabh): A word (Nah 27 [8]) of uncertain derivation and meaning. RV translates ‘it is decreed.’ Many find here the name or title of an Assyrian queen (RVmg.). C.S. T. HYACINTH. See Sronzs, Precious, § 3. HYENA. See Paumustine, § 24. HYMENZUS, hai’’m1-ni’us (‘Ypévatocg): An un- known man (associated in I Ti 1 20 with Alexander and in II Ti 217 with Philetus), who without con- science spoke falsely of the sacred truths of the gospel and ‘made shipwreck of the faith.’ At the time of writing I Ti Paul hoped that excommunica- tion might prove salutary (cf. a similar case in I Co 55), but it did not, for at the time of II Ti Hymenezus still represented a deadly error, probably connected with Gnosticism, that was eating insidiously into the life of the Church. R. A. F.—E. C. L. See HauietusanH; Mosic, § 7; and A king See also CusHAN RISHA- HYMN. PRAISE. HYPOCRITE, HYPOCRISY, HYPOCRITICAL (Gr. terms from dzoxptvonat, lit. ‘to answer,’ then applied to actors on the stage and thus coming to mean ‘dissimulation,’ ‘hypocrisy’): In the O T the RV everywhere changes these terms to ‘profane’ or ‘godless,’ the real meaning of the Heb. hanéph. i ee eS _— — ee a arise 367 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Hupham Igal In the N T the word is always used in a religious sense, of those who make an outward show of being religious, but at heart are not so. Hence the two meanings practically coincide. Most of the N T occurrences of ‘hypocrite’ are in the sayings of Jesus, and have reference to groups of Pharisees who were active in opposing him. R. A. F.—E. C. L. HYSSOP (118, ’ézdbh): A plant described in I K 4 33 as one ‘that springeth out of the wall.’ It was used in the Passover service, a bunch of it being dipped in the blood of the sacrificial animal, and ap- plied to the lintel (Ex 12 22); also in other ceremonials involving purification (Lv 14 6, 48; Nu 19 6; Ps 517; He 919). The precise species of plant meant has been a matter of extensive debate. Of the proposed identifications, two only are worthy of special men- IBHAR, ib’har (1)3?, yibhhar), ‘He [J’’] chooses’: A son of David (IIS 515; I Ch 36, 14 5). IBLEAM, ib’li-am (89 22°, yibhie‘am): An ancient Canaanite town, assigned to either Asher or Issa- char, but actually held by Manasseh, tho not in the earliest period of the Conquest (Jos 17 11; Jg 1 27). In or near Ibleam Ahaziah, King of Judah (II K 9 27), and perhaps also Zechariah, King of Israel (II K 15 10 according to LXX.), were slain. It is called Bileam in I Ch 670. The identification Map IV, D 8 is wrong. See Bileam on Map III, F 2 for the right location. See also Garu-Rimmon. EK. E. N. IBNEIAH, ib-ni’ya or ib’’n1-ai’a (232, yibhneyah), ‘J’’ builds’: The head of a Benjamite family (I Ch 9 8). IBNIJAH, ib-nai’ja (73%, yibhniyyah), ‘I”’ builds’: The ancestor of the preceding Ibneiah (I Ch 9 8). IBRI, ib’rai (72¥, ‘“bhri): A Merarite Levite (I Ch 24 27). IBSAM, ib’sam (0¥32, yibhsém, Jibsam AV): The ancestral head of a family of Issachar (I Ch 7 2). IBZAN, ib’zan (]¥28, ’ibhisdén): A minor judge of Israel from Bethlehem (Jg 12 8, 10) of Zebulun (Jos 19 15), a town 7 m. NW. of Nazareth. He was the head of a large family or clan. Orga e di ICHABOD, ik’a-bed (T3978, ’t khabhddh), ‘no glory’ according to popular etymology. The real meaning is unknown. Cf. Driver, HTS, ad loc. The son of the priest Phineas, born on the occasion of the capture of the Ark (IS 4 21, 14 3). ICONIUM, ai-ko’ni-om (’Ixévov and Hixévtoy): Mentioned by Xenophon as a border-town of Phry- gia, by Cicero as the capital of Lycaonia, which position it retained under the Diadochi and the Romans. It was situated in what is practically an oasis in the great elevated, waterless plain of Ly- caonia (q.v.), surrounded by a country producing excellent crops of wheat and flax. I. owed its im- portance to its situation at the crossing of trade- with the ‘reed’ of the Synoptists. tion. Royale and Tristram regard it as the caper plant, a bright-green creeper, to be found plentifully in Bible lands. The main strength of this identifica- tion is that it explains Jn 19 29, where ‘hyssop’ is used apparently as the equivalent of ‘reed’ in Mt 27 48 and Mk 15 36; for a reed may be secured from the stalk of the caper plant long enough to be used as indicated. The theory, however, is not entirely satisfactory. The caper plant is not suitable for sprinkling. The etymology of the word, too, points to a different source. Hence G. E. Post proposes the Arabic sa‘tar (Origanum maru, L.), which in other respects suits all the descriptions much better. But if this view be adopted, the hyssop of Jn 19 29 must be regarded as the leaves and fruit mixed in pulverized form with the wine, and not identical A.C. Z. routes, and particularly on the highway leading to Ephesus and Rome. The history of Iconium is the same as that of the kingdom and province of Galatia (see Asta Mrnor, III, 5), in which it was situated until after the times of Paul. By the Christian era it was completely Hellenized; later it became a typical Greco-Roman city. The Zizimmene Mother was the local form of the Cybele-cult. Under Hadrian, I. became a Roman colonia. I., with Lystra, was visited by Paul, who made many converts, but the resident nationalist Jews compelled him to leave (Ac 14 1-6), but he returned later (Ac 16 1-5). J. R.S. S.4#—S. A. IDALAH, id’a-la (M287, yidh’dlah): A town of Zebulun (Jos 19 15), about 2 m. S. of Bethiehem of Zebulun. Map IV, C 7. IDBASH, id’bash (V2, yidhbash): The name of a small clan of Judah (I Ch 4 3). IDDO, id’do: The Eng. equivalent of several Heb. names: 1 (NY, ‘“iddd’). (a) The father of Ahinadab (IK 414). (b) A Levite (I Ch 6 21, ‘Adaiah’ in ver. 41), 2. (1793, ye‘dd, and 1Y, ‘“iddo). A prophet, or seer, who wrote accounts of the reigns of Rehoboam, Jeroboam, and Abijah (II Ch 9 29, 12 15, 18 22). 3. (ITY, “iddd, and NITY, “iddo’). (a) The grandfather of the prophet Zechariah (Zec 11, 7; Ezr 51, 6 14). (b) The ancestral head of a postexilic family (Neh 12 4,16). 4. (178, ’iddd). The head of a community of Nethinim at Casiphia (Ezr 817). 5. (172, yidd6). (a) Chief of the Manassites in Gilead under David (I Ch 27 21). (b) One who had taken a foreign wife (Ezr 10 43; Jadau AV). E. E. N. IDOL, IDOLATRY. See Greek RELIciIon; and Semitic Retiacion, § 23. IDUMAA, ai’’diu- or id’”’yu-mi’e. See Epom. IEZER, ai-i’zar. See ABIEZER. IGAL, ai’gal (OND, yigh’al), ‘He redeems’: 1. A son of Joseph of the tribe of Issachar, one of the twelve spies sent by Moses from Paran to Canaan (Nu 13 7). 2. A son of Nathan, one of the thirty Igdaliah Iphtah-el A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 868 heroes of David (II 8S 23 a In I Ch 11 38 Joel, the brother of Nathan. 3. A son of Shemaiah, a the Davidic line (I Ch 3 22; Igeal AV). C. s. abe IGDALIAH, ig’do-lai’a (7.71, yighdalyaha), I” is great’: The father of Hanan (Jer 35 4). IGEAL, ig’1-al or ai’gi-al. See IGAu. IIM, ai’im (8°, “cyytm), ‘ruins’: A town in Judah near Edom (Jos 15 29). Site uncertain. See also [YE-ABARIM. IJE-ABARIM, ai’’ji-ab’e-rim. See IyE-aBario. IJON, ai’jon (1?¥, “iyydn): A town in the extreme N. of Israel, somewhere near Dan and Abel-beth- maacah (I K 15 20; II K 15 29). It was depopulated by Tiglath-pileser, c. 734 (II K 15 29). Site not certainly known. IKKESH, ik’kesh (WRY, ‘iqgésh): The father of Ira, one of David’s heroes (II 8 23 26; I Ch 11 28, 27 9). ILAI, ai‘le-ai or ai’lé C29, ‘tlay): One of David’s heroes (I Ch 11 29, called Zalmon in IT S 23 28). ILLYRICUM, iirickom (TAdverméy): The Ro- man name of the province on the Adriatic, N. of Macedonia and W. of Thrace. Its southern portion was called Dalmatia, a name which during the Apostolic Age was extended to denote the whole province. The province, inhospitable and moun- tainous, ‘separates, rather than connects, Italy and Greece’ (Mommsen). At the same time it con- tained important cities. In Ro 1519 ‘Illyricum’ very probably means the Roman province, but whether Paul evangelized it can not be determined by this verse, some holding that his statement indicates merely the limit up to which his labors. reached. (See ICC, Romans, ad loc.) R.A. F.—E.E.LN. IMAGE. See Greek AND Roman Ipo.atry; Semitic REeiicion, § 238; and Man, Doctrine or, § 3. IMLA, im’ls, IMLAH, im’la (822!, 722°, yimla’, yimlah), ‘he fills’: The father of the Buentioh Mi- caiah (I K 22 81.; II Ch 187tf.). IMMANUEL, i-man’yu-el (Dis WY, “mmani- ’el), ‘God with us’; also Emmanuel, Mt 1 23 AV: The symbolical name given to the child whose birth was promised as a sign of safety to Ahaz by the prophet Isaiah (7 14), and used again in 8 8, 10, not, however, as the name of an individual, but in its literal sense (in 8 8 the text, ‘thy land [71¥ 08], O Immanuel,’ is probably corrupt, the final 7 standing for *9, ‘be- cause’; so emended, the verse should read: ‘And the stretching out of his wings shall fill the breadth of the land because God is with us’). In Mt 1 23, Is 714 1s quoted as a foreshadowing of the virgin birth of Jesus. The question has been raised whether this identification of Immanuel with Jesus was in the mind of Isaiah himself, or made by the evangelist either erroneously, or by way of ap- propriating the words of an ancient oracle as suit- able to his purpose, but not with the intention of committing their original author to his intepreta- tion of them. The difficulties in the way of taking it to be the primary intention of Isaiah to foretell the virgin birth of Jesus are insuperable. The meaning of his phraseology is so palpably fulfilled in the cir- cumstances of his own day that as remote a reference as this to the birth of Jesus seems exegetically im- possible. On the other hand, all interpretations | which find in the reference to Immanuel a double sense, 2.¢€., a first intention to speak of a child that might be born in bis own days and a secondary one to predict the virgin birth of Jesus, are artificial and arbitrary. They have the appearance of ingenious devices to escape a difficulty rather than natural explanations of the facts of the case. The only ad- missible view, as far as the intention of Isaiah is con- cerned, is that he had in mind a child born in his own days, whose birth would be symbolical of the Divine favor displayed in such manifest power as to assure His people that God was with them. But if this was Isaiah’s thought, the use of the passage by Matthew must be either the result of misunderstand- ing of the prophet’s meaning, or the appropriation of - his words as a formula in which the virgin birth of the Savior might felicitously be embodied. If the alternative be drawn sharply between these two views, the second would be by far preferable. But it is quite possible to suppose that the evangelist did see in the birth of the Savior the fulfilment of the hopes roused by the promise of God’s presence with and among His people, and expressed this thought by applying the old oracle to the event he was nar- rating. Such an appropriation altho not correct, judged by standards of modern literary and histori- cal usage, would be in perfect harmony with methods of using the O T at the time. FO OYA IMMER, im/ar (18, ’immér): I. 1. The ancestral head of the sixteenth course of priests, which con- stituted a large priestly family in postexilic days (I Ch 912, 2414; Ezr 2 37, 10 20; Neh 7 40, 1113). 2. A priest, the father of Pashhur (Jer 201). It is quite possible that 1 and 2 are identical. 3. The father of a certain Zadok (Neh 38 29). II. The Babylonian home of a priestly family (Ezr 2 59, 7 61). E. E. N. IMMORTALITY. See Escuaronoey, §§ 37-39, 42 f., 49. IMNA, im’na (Y2>!, yimnd‘): The ancestral head of a family of Asher (I Ch 7 35). IMNAH, im’na (122°, yimnah) ‘right hand,’ 2.e., South (?) perhaps an allusion to the location of the clan: 1. The ancestral head of one of the clans of Asher (Gn 46 17; Jimnah AV; the Imnites, Nu 26 44, Jimnites AV; I Ch 7 30). 14-22, EK. E. N. IMRAH, im’ra (1722, yimradh): A descendant of Asher (I Ch 7 36). IMRI, im’‘rai (8, ’imri): 1. A descendant of Judah (I Ch 94). 2. The father of Zaccur (Neh 8 2). INCARNATION. See Jesus Curist, § 19. INCENSE. See SacriFicE AND OFFERINGS, § 15. wRirct See CrimmsS AND PUNISHMENTS, § 2 ¢). : INDIA, in’di-a (y4, hdddi): The only reference to I. in the Bible is in Est 11, 89, where it figures as one of the extreme limits of the empire over which 2. A Levite (II Ch 31 14). ae 369 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Igdaliah Iphtah-el the Persian king held sway. How much of the modern Indian world was covered by it in this con- nection is unknown. The term Hdéddu was intro- duced into the Semitic languages by way of the Persian Hindoo. It is highly probable, however, that altho the country was not clearly known, its wares were imported and used among the Hebrews in comparatively early days. A. C. Z. INDITE: The word rendered ‘inditing’ in Ps 451 AV is rahash, ‘to be agitated,’ and the idea is, ‘my heart is moved, or stirred, with a good matter’ (cf. RY). EK. E. N. INFIDEL: This word occurs twice in AV as a rendering of &ttotos, for which RV gives ‘unbeliever’ (II Co 615; 1 Ti58). The unbelief Paul had in mind was not atheism, but the rejection of, or disbelief in, Christianity. E. E. N. INFIRMITY. See Distasze anp Mepicing, § 5. INFLAMMATION. See Disease anD MEDICINE, § 4 (1). INGATHERING, FEAST OF. See Fasts anp Frasts, §§ 5, 8. INHERITANCE. See Faminy anp Famity Law, § 8. INK, INKHORN. See Booxs anp Writing, § 4. INLAID. A term used in I Ch 29 2 (‘glistering’ AV) of precious stones. The Heb. 739, pukh, ‘anti- mony’ perhaps refers to color, and hence’ abhné phiikh may mean ‘stones of the hue of antimony.’ INN: (1) The AV rendering of malén in Gn 42 27, 43 21, and Ex 4 24, which is rendered more accurately in RV by ‘lodging-place,’ since the reference is to a mere stopping-place for the night, not to an exten- sive or elaborate khan, or caravanserai. Such ‘lodging-places,’ probably located near springs, and consisting of a rude hut, or shelter of some sort, would be found on the caravan roads through un- inhabited regions. (2) xatké\uua, rendered ‘guest- chamber’ in Mk 14 14 and Lk 22 11, is rendered ‘inn’ in Lk 2 7, altho it is by no means certain that a public lodging-house is meant. Joseph may have relied upon the hospitality of some acquaintance to place his ‘guest-chamber’ at his disposal (cf. Plummer in ICC, ad loc.). (3) mavdoxtov (or navdo- yetov, from nas and déyxec8at, ‘to receive every one’) in Lk 10 34 is properly an ‘inn,’ corresponding to the modern khdn, the innkeeper being called the rav5o- yebs. For an extended description of a modern khan see the articles on Inn in HDB and EB. See also Hospiratiry. HK. E. N. INNER MAN. See Man, Docrrinse or, § 5. INNERMOST PARTS. See Suirs anp Navi- GATION, § 2. INQUIRE. See Maaic anp Drvination, § 3; and REVELATION, § 7. INQUISITION. See Law anp Leaat PRACTISE § 4 (2). INSECTS. See Pauustine, § 26. INSPIRATION. See Propuecy, § 6; and Rreves- LATION, §§ 3-5. INSTRUCT, INSTRUCTION. See Cuurcu Lirr AND ORGANIZATION, § 6; and Epucation, § 5. INSTRUMENT: The Heb. k-li (‘vessel,’ ‘imple- ment,’ etc.) was frequently translated ‘instrument’ in AV in places where a more specific term might have been chosen. In most of such cases RV has given more appropriate renderings (cf. Gn 49 5; Ex 25 9, etc.). In Ro 613 the Gr. éxA« means ‘weapons.’ For musical instruments see Music AND Musica INSTRUMENTS, § 3. HK. E. N. INSTRUMENTS OF WAR. See Arms anp ARMOR. INTERCESSION: In the O T the Heb. 133, pagha'‘ (both gal and hiphil), ‘to meet,’ ‘fall in with,’ is used in the sense of interceding (Jer 7 16, 27 18, 36 25; Is 538 12, 5916). In the N T we have the terms éytuy- yavery (Ro 8 27, 34, 11 2 ‘pleaded’ RV; He 7 25) and inepevtuyxavety (Ro 8 26), and altho these words are not used in the related passages in the LXX., they correspond exactly to the Heb. pdgha‘.‘To meet’? some one for the sake of another is to ‘intercede’ for the latter. K. E. N. INTERDICT. See Decree. INTEREST. See TrapE anp ComMERcE, § 3. INTERPRETATION: The necessity for inter- pretation arises whenever means for the expression of thought either are by nature, or become through lapse of time and through change, clouded and beset by obscurities. The interpreter’s task is to remove the obscurity, and let the thought expressed appear as fully and clearly as originally intended. In Biblical usage interpretation is always mentioned in connection with obscurities naturally inherent, and not with those which arise because of changed con- ditions. Interpretations are needed of utterances in unknown languages (Gn 42 23; II K 18 26, 28; peOcounvedety, Mt 1 23, ete.; cf. Eounveta, I Co 12 10, 30, 14 5, 13, 26-28, of ‘tongues’); of dreams (Gn 40 5, 8, etc.; Dn 2 4 #.), of symbolism in visions (Dn 7 16 f.; ef. 9 20 #.), and of prophecy (II P 1 20). See also Cuyurcu LirE AND ORGANIZATION, §7. A.C. Z. INWARD PART: The rendering of (1) hedher, ‘a secret place or chamber,’ used metaphorically of the human motives or feelings (Pr 20 27, 30, ‘innermost part’ RV). (2) gerebh and %owfey, expressing the idea of ‘being within,’ ‘in the middle,’ or ‘in the midst,’ hence often used of the heart as the seat of emotion and determination (Ps 5 9, 49 11; Is 16 11; Jer 31 33; Lk 11 39; cf. Ps 62 4; Mt 715). The term tahoth (Job 38 36; Ps 51 6) is of uncertain meaning. BK. E. N. INWARDS. See SacrIFICE AND OFFERINGS, §§ 6-10. IOB, yob (ai, ydbh): The ancestral head of one of the clans of Issachar (Gn 46 13, Job AV), called Jashub in Nu 26 24, and I Ch 71. IPHDEIAH, if-di’ya (71?!, ytphd*yah, Iphe- deiah AV), ‘J’ redeems’: A descendant of Benjamin (I Ch 8 25). : IPHTAH, if’ta ("MD!, yiphiah, Jiphtah AV), ‘he opens’: A town of Judah, somewhere near Libnah (Jos 15 43). Site unknown. IPHTAH-EL, if’ta-el” (7879", yiphtal’al, Jiph- tael AV), ‘God opens’: A valley on the boundary Ir A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Isaiah , 370 . Ree a ERS Ee between Zebulun and Asher (Jos 1914, 27). Probably the valley near Jotapata. See Map IV, C 6. IR, ar (19, “Sr, ‘watcher’), IRI, ai’rai (VY, Gri, ‘my watcher’): The ancestral head of a clan of Benjamin (I Ch 7 7, 12). IRA, ai’ra (STY, Za’): 1. A chief minister, or priest, in the time of David (II S 20 26). parallel list (II S 8 18) two sons of David are named in the place of Ira. 2. An Ithrite, one of David’s heroes (II S 23 38; I Ch 11 40). 3. A son of Ikkesh, a , Tekoite, also one of David’s heroes (II S 23 26; I Ch 11 28, 279), and captain for the sixth month. It is possible that 1 is identical with 2 or 3. C.S.T. IRAD, ai’rad (17'¥, Gradh): The son of Enoch, in the genealogical table of J (Gn 4 18); ef. ‘Jared’ in the table of P (516 f.). IRAM, ai’ram (O79, chieftain’) of Edom (Gn 36 43; I Ch 1 54). IRI, ai’rai. See Ir. IRIJAH, ai-rai’ja (MST, yir’tyyah), ‘J’’ sees’: The official who arrested Jeremiah at the time of the siege of Jerusalem (Jer 37 13, 14). IR-NAHASH, ir-né’/hash (W029, Gr nahash), ‘serpent city,’ but Nahash may be a pr. n. and ‘city of N.’ the correct reading: A place referred to in I Ch 412. The text may be corrupt. The passage well illustrates the tendency to personify places by the genealogists. Site unknown. E. E. N. IRON, ai’ren (Ji87?, yir’dn): I. A city of Naph- tali (Jos 19 38). Map IV, D5. II. See Merats, § 4. IR-PEEL, ir’pi-el (9827, yirp’él), ‘God heals’: A city of Benjamin (Jos 18 27). Site uncertain. IR-SHEMESH, ir’-shi’mesh (VOUT), ‘ir she- mesh), ‘city of the sun’: A city of Dan (Jos 19 41). See BerH-SHEMESH. IRV, ai’ru (119, tra): A Calebite clan (I Ch 415). ISAAC, ai’zok (PU¥?, yitshag, PUY, yishag), ‘he laughs,’ so named from the circumstances of his birth (Gn 17 17, 18 12, 21 6) and also, possibly, from two incidents in his life (Gn 21 9, 26 8), where the verb Pl is translated ‘mocking’ and ‘sporting,’ respectively: The only son of Abraham and Sarah and the ‘child of promise,’ through whom the covenant line was to be continued. His weaning- feast was the occasion for the expulsion of Hagar and Ishmael (Gn ch. 21). Abraham’s faith re- ceived its supreme test in the command to sacrifice I. (Gn ch 22). Rebekah was brought from Mesopo- tamia to be his wife (Gn ch. 24). His family life and the dissensions of his sons are told in Gn 25 19- 289. He died at the age of 180 years (so P), and was buried by his sons in the cave on the field of Machpelah (Gn 35 28 £.; cf. 49 29-31). His name as a race-father occurs in oft-recurring patriarchal for- mulas, and by itself in Am 79,16. As if to counter- balance the paucity of the narrative, his character has been highly praised by Jewish and Christian expositors. An analysis of the chapters relating to him reveals two strata of presentation, one of which might be called personal, the other racial. The tendency to In the tram): A ‘duke’ (‘clan resolve the patriarchs into eponymous heroes, or personified tribes, has been overdone, and shows a lack of perspective as great on one side as the defense of absolute historicity involves on the other. The personal narratives are those concerning his sacrifice and the blessings of his sons. Hach is involved with the trials and experiences of greater characters. The former has its dénouement in the triumph of Abra- ham’s faith. The latter explains how Jacob became so great and won the preeminence over his more favored brother. In both instances Isaac is a sub- sidiary figure. The racial stories are those which record the struggles of the Hebrew clans with the neighboring races in the SW.; the strife for pasture land, and the dangers which the women of the tribes might under- go are the moving factors in the life of the Hebrews when Esau and Jacob dwelt together, jealous of one another’s prerogatives, and held to temporary com-— munity of interest by the need of united front when the aborigines shut them out from water rights in the hard-won oases. We see a picture of a land punctuated with wells whose waters are often em- bittered with strife, and yet a ripple of laughter runs through it all—of tribesmen who could stop in the midst of their bickerings to jest with destiny, or to sport even under the eye of the traditional foe. Isaac occupied but a corner of the land, and vanished from that as his more sturdy sons moved away into the rocky fastnesses of the desert, or seized with prescient faith the fertile plains of Palestine. A. S. C.*—O. R. S. ISAIAH, ai-zé’ya or ai-zai’a (INYY?,° yesha‘yaha, ‘J’ is salvation;’ Esaias in AV in the N T: 1. Non- Isaianic Elements in the Book of Isaiah. The Book of Isaiah falls into three divisions (a) chs. 1-85, (b) chs. 36-39, (c) chs. 40-66. The second of these con- sists, apart from the Song of Hezekiah (389-20), of historical narratives derived from II Kings 18 13- 20 19, which need not further concern us. The third division is by common consent not the work of Isaiah. For the conditions in which he lived and worked have been replaced by a wholly different situation. Even had he foreseen the Babylonian Exile, he must have spoken of it in the future tense; whereas in this section the Jews are described as in captivity and in many passages their deliverance is said to be at hand. The situation changes indeed within these 27 chapters, but in none of them is it a state of things which I. could have described as existing in his own time. Babylon is the imperial power which has devastated Judah and shown the Jews no mercy (47 6). The Temple has been burnt, the cities of Judah are a wilderness, Jerusalem a deso- lation (64 10-11), Israel has been abandoned to rob- bers (42 24). The Jews are in exile in Babylon (48 20). But deliverance is at hand. Cyrus has been raised up by God to deliver His people (41 2 f., 25, 44 28, 45 1-7, 4611). Babylon will be overthrown (43 14, 461 £., 47, 4814). The exiles will be set free (48 20), with J” marching at their head they will be led back to Zion (409-11, 41 18-20, 43 19-21, 48 21, 51 11). Cyrus will decree the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the laying of the foundation of the Temple (44 28). Judah’s cities shall be rebuilt and her waste places 4 b f ; j j 2 a nr et 371 be restored (44 26, 61 4). Moreover, the writer seems to affirm that the advent of Cyrus and his victorious career are the fulfilment of earlier pre- dictions, and to base on this fulfilment an argument for the acceptance of the predictions he is himself making (42 9). But if so, the prophet must be writing after Cyrus had appeared; for he could not point to events which had not yet happened as proofs that the prediction of them had been fulfilled, and as thus warranting belief in new predictions. The argument from the historic conditions is cor- roborated by the argument from style and vocab- ulary and the striking differences in theology. But the conclusion that chs. 40-66 can not be the work of I. has important consequences for chs. 1-35. For here too we are confronted with similar phenomena. In ch. 18 we have a prediction of the final overthrow of Babylon by the Medes, which also reflects condi- tions toward the close of the exile; and the same is probably true of 21 1-10. This demonstrates that even in chs. 1-35 there are non-Isaian elements. We are, then, not entitled to insist that inclusion in this section guarantees Isaian authorship; nor even that this must be assumed unless very convincing evi- dence can be urged against it. The presence of so much later matter in the book makes it precarious to insist on too rigorous a test. We must ask rather to what historical situation or stage of religious development any particular section is to be assigned. The generally accepted results may be summarized at this point. 131-14 23, 211-10, chs. 24-27, and 34-35 are non-Isaianic. To this list many scholars would add 11 10-16, and chs. 12, 15-16, 23 and 33. Some scholars go still further. Moreover some oracles which are Isaian in basis are believed to have been expanded by later writers. This has been urged in particular with reference to the happy endings attached {to prophecies of judgment and the de- scriptions of the Messianic King (9 2-7, 11 1-9). Another feature of recent criticism is the tendency of Duhm to relegate considerable sections of this division of the book to the Maccabean period. Marti has carried Duhm’s radicalism still further, while Kennett has also argued for the Maccabean origin of the greater part of chs. 40-66. But these extreme positions have found little acceptance, even among ‘advanced’ critics such as Hélscher and E. Meyer. » 2. Life and Times of Isaiah. Since the call of I. to A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Ir the prophetic office came in early manhood in the . death-year of Uzziah (6 1), which occurred about | 740, we may assume that his birth took place about 760, probably in Jerusalem where he spent his life. His father’s name was Amoz (to be carefully dis- tinguished from Amos the prophet). He seems to have belonged to the upper ranks of society. He was married and his wife may herself have been a prophetess (8 3), altho the title more probably means ‘prophet’s wife.’ He had two sons who, like himself, bore significant names (7 3, 8 3 f., 18). Some would add Immanuel as another son, possibly by a second wife. His own name means ‘Salvation of Yah’ or ‘Yah is Salvation.’ Shortly before the date at which he received his call the international situa- tion had decisively changed. In 745 Tiglath-pileser Isaiah IV swept away the ineffective Government of As- syria and inaugurated the most splendid period of the Empire. The long and glorious reign of Jero- boam II over Israel came to a close a few years later. Israel and Judah had reached great heights of prosperity, but the social evils which aroused the burning indignation of Amos were still rampant in both. When the strong hand of Jeroboam II was removed, revolution after revolution shook the stability of the Northern Kingdom to its founda- tions, while civil wars exhausted its resources in wealth and men and introduced a fatal oscillation into its foreign policy. Judah was more fortunate in the possession of a stable dynasty with less ex- posure to foreign attack and a capital which, altho not impregnable, was exceptionally strong by nature and made stronger still by skilful fortification. The small states in and around Palestine were awaking to the peril from Assyria as in her western move- ment she strained toward Egypt, and Egypt was alert to use them as her pawns in the unequal con- test with her rival. Babylon was restive under the Assyrian yoke. Such then was the political situa- tion in which Isaiah received his call. His earliest prophecies (9 8-10 4, 5 25-29, 17 1-11) seem to have been directed against the internal abuses from which the Northern kingdom was suffering. Possibly 2 6-4 1, 5 1-7 and portions of 5 8-24 may belong to the same period in which case the denunciation and threat of judgment were extended to Judah also. In 735 Syria and Ephraim formed a coalition against Judah (7 1-6). Its object was presumably to force Judah into an alliance against Assyria and to replace Ahaz by the son of Tabeel (76). Ahaz in a panic was planning to save his throne by accepting the suze- rainty of Assyria (II K 167 f.). I. exhorted him to remain quiet and treat the futile attack upon him with the contempt it deserved. He offered to assure him by any sign the king might demand, and when the offer was refused gave him the sign of Immanuel. Ahaz persisted, and committed his country to an entanglement with Assyria which lasted far down in Judah’s history, involved the loss of independent action and the burden of heavy taxation, while it was the seed in the future of ruinous revolt. The prophet wrote on a placard the words ‘For Maher- shalal-hash-baz’ (8 1) which, as chosen witnesses would later attest, expressed his conviction that Damascus and Samaria, would be overthrown by Assyria. To ason born within the following year he gave the name Maher-shalal-hash-baz, which em- bodied his belief that before the child began to talk the overthrow of the coalition would have taken place. Tiglath-pileser captured Damascus in 732 and Syria was incorporated in the Assyrian Empire. Samaria was spared but the northern districts of Israel were annexed and the people carried captive to Assyria (II K. 15 29). Samaria fell in 722. In consequence of the refusal of the king and people to accept his policy, I. seems for a time to have with- drawn from’ public life, committing his teaching to the circle of disciples he had gathered about him (8 16 £.). Meanwhile he and his sons were by their significant names a silent witness of the truths for which he stood (8 18). His warning to Philistia Isaiah A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 372 (14 29-32), that her exultation at the death of an unknown tyrant was premature, may date from 727 when Tiglath-pileser died. 281-4 may belong to the time after Hoshea revolted from Assyria (II K 17 4) and before Shalmaneser IV began the siege of Samaria. But it is very striking that on an event so epoch-making as the Fall of Samaria (722) and the downfall of the Northern Kingdom no oracle of I. should have been preserved. He no doubt saw in it the fulfilment of the doom he had long foretold. But many in Judah may have seen in their own pre- servation a proof of their own superiority and a signal token of the Divine favor, just as the de- generates left in Jerusalem similarly despised the exiles who were deported to Babylon with Jehoia- chin. Possibly others saw in the fate of the sister kingdom a warning to repentance addressed to Judah, and this may have issued in Hezekiah’s refor- mation of the cultus (II K 184). That such a refor- mation ever took place has been doubted, but cf. II K 18 22. Whether I. had any share in it is doubt- ful. See Hnzmxran. It is certain that no reform of the cultus could satisfy him nor, apart from a radical moral change, would he anticipate that judgment would be averted. But with his hatred of idolatry and his knowledge of the corruptions associated with the local sanctuaries, he may have welcomed the movement as securing the suppression of many serious evils. So far as international politics were concerned he seems to have found no occasion for intervention till 713. Judah along with Moab, Edom, and Ashdod had negotiated with Egypt against Assyria. 'To protest against so desperate an enterprise I. walked for three years stripped and barefoot to indicate that so too would Egyptians and Ethiopians be led captive by Assyria. Ashdod was captured in 711; Judah perhaps escaped punish- ment because no rebellion had actually taken place. Sargon died in 705. Judah and Philistia were stirred up by Egypt to revolt. Sennacherib invaded Pales- tine in 701, he captured all the cities of Judah with the exception of Jerusalem, imposed a fabulous tribute, deported a great number of captives, but did not take the city. I. had, of course, disapproved of the revolt but, true to his long-held convictions, he affirmed in the darkest hour that Jerusalem would not be captured and that the Assyrians would be forced to retreat (37 29, 33-35). Whether a large part of Sennacherib’s army was struck down by plague (37 36) or whether he returned in consequence of bad news from Nineveh (37 7), or whether the com- bination of both causes determined his departure is uncertain. It has been held by some scholars that Sennacherib returned to Palestine in 690, and that accounts of the two expeditions have been blended in the Biblical narrative. But at present this is a precarious hypothesis (see Hezex1aH). To this period we should probably refer the Isaian elements in chs. 18, 22, 28-31, and parts of ch. 1. Nothing is known of I.’s later history. The legend that he was sawn asunder by Manasseh is late, and if such an enormity had actually been perpetrated it would scarcely have been omitted from the lurid record of II K 21 1-18 (cf. 23 26, 243 £.; Jer 15 4). 3. The Theology of Isaiah. Any attempt to re- construct the theology of I. should start from his vision. He brought to it no doubt aset of theological ideas and a measure of religious experience; but in his vision everything was heightened and trans- figured and realized with a new intensity. The dominant element in it was his overwhelming im- pression of God, which did not so much convey to him new thoughts about God, but brought home to him by direct insight a crushing realization of the Divine holiness and majesty and with it anew sense of his own impurity and that of his people. But such a collision between the holy God and His un- clean people is intolerable, hence judgment is in- evitable unless the people repent. But from the first he is assured that the message he is sent to proclaim will harden his hearers in their sin; hence he expects a judgment which shall cut off the vast majority of people. According to the original text ~ of ch. 6, the extermination would appear to be complete; yet we have good reason for believing that his conception of the impending judgment was not so drastic as this. For he himself had been cleansed and forgiven, and others might share his experience. Moreover, Zion was the earthly dwelling-place of J’’, and would therefore not be destroyed. A city implies inhabitants, so I. presumably anticipated that some would be spared. And the fact that very soon after his vision he named his son Shearjashub, ‘a remnant shall return’ (7.e., to God) proves that a doctrine of the remnant dated back to his earliest period. But how did he believe that the remnant would be constituted? It is possible that at first, viewing Israel as a whole, he expected that the Northern Kingdom, which is specially prominent in various prophecies, would be destroyed and that Judah would be the remnant. It may have been with this conviction that he met the crisis of 735. Israel has allied itself with Syria, but God will bring their purpose to nought, and Judah will emerge triumphant and unharmed. But if Ahaz obstinately clings to his infatuated plan of invoking the aid of Assyria instead of trusting in God, then, altho Syria and Ephraim will perish, disaster will be brought on Judah by Assyria. When accordingly the fatal step was taken, the doctrine of the rem- nant had to be adjusted to the new situation. Judgment would come on the unbelieving and dis- obedient people of Judah, but there would still be a remnant, and this remnant would consist of the prophet and those who shared his faith. In the obscurity which hangs over the date of some of the oracles and the identity of those against whom they were directed, it is not clear by precisely what instrument the prophet at first anticipated that judgment would be effected. But he mentions attacks on Ephraim by Syria and the Philistines (9 11 £.) and civil war (ver. 20 f.), and closes this oracle with the description of the advance of an unknown foe, no doubt Assyria (5 26-29). For the greater part of his career he thought of Assyria as the instrument of J’’s judgment. If ‘the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria shall be carried away before the king of Assyria’ (8 4), the flood of Assyrian invasion is also to flow on into Judah and imperil the existence of the nation (87f.). Yet EE ee ee Bla eae aeat 373 ‘A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Isaiah when matters seem to be in extremities J” will intervene and save His city and people. And this for two reasons. On the one hand, I. held that Zion was indestructible and that a remnant of Judah would be saved; on the other hand, he saw in Assyria’s blasphemous arrogance a sin which would involve her in utter ruin (10 5-15). For the Assyrian king was but the rod with which God inflicted His chastisement; and when it had served His purpose it would be broken and cast aside. Then the age of blessedness would begin: the Messianic king after smiting his foes in a glorious victory would reign in righteousness and wisdom as a Prince of Peace (9 2-7, 11 1-9). It will be clear that the basis of Isaiah’s teaching was his conception of God. To one who had seen the Lord of Nature and History high and lifted up (61) all earthly powers shrank into insignificance; not even the king of Assyria could overawe one to whom that insight into the ultimate realities had been vouchsafed. And so he anticipates that J’’ will execute His judgment on all that exalts itself in arrogance on earth. And His majesty is matched by His awful purity which reacts with terrible penalties against the obstinate sinner but is gracious to the men of penitence and faith. Yor ‘faith’ is one of the prophet’s chief contributions to religious thought (7 9, 28 16, 30 15). Whoever has once apprehended the might and majesty of God will feel that the greatest human empires are nothing in comparison with Him, and will rest in the assurance of His protection, tho all human forces may combine against Him. Hence I. deprecates all reliance on human alliances, whether with Assyria or with Egypt, or on the clever scheming of the politicians or on material resources and fortifica- tions. 4. Criticism of Isaiah, chs. 40-66. It was natural, when the Seond or Deutero-Isaiah was clearly dis- tinguished from J. of Jerusalem, that he should be regarded as the author of all of the last 27 chapters of the book. Closer inspection revealed evidence that this section was of composite origin, and various analyses were suggested. Since the publication of Duhm’s commentary in 1892, critics generally have acquiesced in his view that the work of the Second Isaiah comes to an end with ch. 55. Some indeed have placed its conclusion at ch. 48, but this is most improbable. It should be added, however, that Duhm, in agreement with several scholars, holds that ‘the Servant Poems’ are not the work of Second Isaiah. He attributes chs. 56-66, apart from later insertions, to a single prophet whom he calls ‘Trito-Isaiah.’ It is improbable, however, that prophecies on such different levels should all be the work of one man, and it is more likely that this section is itself composite; nor perhaps ought the possibility that some of Deutero-Isaiah’s work is to be found in it to be excluded. The date of chs. 40-55 should be fixed toward the close of the Babylonian Exile, certainly so chs. 40-48 and probably chs. 49-55. Chs. 56-66, apart perhaps from 63 7-64 12, may perhaps be most plausibly dated about the middle of the 5th cent. B.c., or possibly somewhat earlier. It is uncertain where the Second Isaiah lived—the most widely accepted view is that he was one of the exiles in Babylon, but some have thought of his home as in Palestine or in Hgypt. 5. The Theology of the Second Isaiah. The situation to which the Second Isaiah addressed him- self was one of hopelessness on the part of the exiles, as it had been in the days of Ezekiel (Ez 37 11). They were complaining that J’’ had for- gotten them (Is 40 27, 49 14). Confronted with the magnificence of Babylonian idolatry and the apparent demonstration of the inferiority of J’ to the gods who had destroyed His city and His Temple and held His people in captivity, they were tempted to abandon their allegiance to Him. Hence his first word to them in their apathetic despair is one of consolation. The dark night is ending, their guilt has been paid off, indeed they have suffered more punishment than their sin deserved (4011.). J’ has not forgotten, can not conceivably forget, His people (49 14-16). He is no weak and defeated deity but the mighty un- conquerable Creator, the everlasting One un- searchable in understanding, who knows the end from the beginning, and before whom the teeming nations are as a drop which hangs from the bucket, or the dust in the scale of which no account is taken (40 12-31, etc.). He is the Lord of history who dis- poses of all its forces with infinite ease and un- erring wisdom. Nor does the author limit himself to this superb and impressive confession of his mono- theistic faith. He demonstrates his conviction by an appeal to the fulfilment of prophecy (41 25-29, 43 10-13, 44 6-9, 45 21, 469-11, 48 3-8). Only He who can control the future is able safely to predict it; the fulfilment of the predictions made by His prophets conclusively demonstrates His sole Divinity. Again and again the heathen gods are challenged to give a similar proof (41 21-24, 26, 447 £., 45 21). Scorn- fully he exposes the folly of idolatry (40 19 £., 41 7, 44 9-20, 46 1-7). In the word J” speaks there is an inherent energy which enables the prophetic utter- ance to achieve its own fulfilment (55 11). Hence as the prophet utters the prediction of Judah’s return he releases forces which will tend to bring it about (cf. Ez 37 4-10). While he recognizes the stern side of J’’s character toward His people (51 17-23, 54 8), he dwells far more on His gentleness and graciousness and his constant theme is the deliverance of His people from exile, His personal conduct of them across the desert with all the difficulties and discomforts of the journey super- naturally removed, their joyful arrival at Zion and their perfect happiness and peace in their own land. Of special importance is the conception of the Servant of J’. The term is frequently applied to the nation in chs. 40-55, but there are four passages (42 1-4, 49 1-6, 50 4-9, 52 13-53 12), commonly called ‘the Servant poems,’ which have excited very keen debate. The interpretations fall into two main groups, the individual and the collective. Undeni- ably in the rest of the prophecy the Servant is Israel and in 49 3 this identification is explicitly made; on the other hand, possibly in the same passage (cf.49 5 £.), but certainly in the present text of 53 8, there is a distinction between the Servant and Israel. Isaiah Ishbosheth A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY: heat 374 Moreover the description, especially in the fourth poem, is so personal in its character that many feel that an individual and not the nation must be in- tended. Numerous suggestions as to the identity of this individual have been made. Sellin, for example, has suggested in turn Zerubbabel, Jehoiachin, and Moses, while Mowinckel has recently argued that the Servant was the prophet himself On the other hand, the general usage in these chapters and the explicit identification with Israel in one of the poems are important. The difficulty of supposing that any individual should be depicted as in the poems and so lofty a réle be assigned to him, and that he should be expected to rise from the dead, make an individual interpretation extremely difhi- cult. The personal traits in the description must not be unduly emphasized. Hebrew goes a long way in using such language in reference to groups. Some who adopt the national interpretation suppose that it is of the ideal rather than the actual nation that the prophet is thinking, but this is not the natural explanation of the term; it rather suggests that the historic nation is meant which had died in the exile and is to be raised again at the return. Two func- tions are attributed to the Servant, he is to reveal the true God to the Gentiles and his sufferings and death have been endured vicariously for the sin of the heathen. If this interpretation is correct, a large part of the Second Isaiah’s message is rightly summed up by Wellhausen: “There is no God but J” and Israel is His prophet.’ But the interpretation placed upon the tragic history and the fate of Israel is also one of his most suggestive contributions to religious thought. 6. Isaiah, chs. 56-66. In view of the rather miscellaneous character of chs. 56-66 it is precarious to construct a connected statement. The general sit- uation is disenchanting, the wretched material con- ditions are traced to the grave sins which are rampant in the community. Most of the social abuses denounced by the older prophets reappear; and there are strong denunciations of idolatry, but this may not have been practised within the com- munity itself. The ethical standard is high, but it is blended with the ceremonial in a manner strange to the older prophets but characteristic of Ezekiel. Of special beauty are the glowing passages de- voted to the splendor of the Temple. And here the stress laid upon it as a place of prayer is to be observed. And it is to be for all nations and not simply for the Jews. Yet the nations are subordinate and tributary to the Jews (60 10-14, 615f.). There is a brilliant but ethically repulsive description of J’’ trampling the Edomites in the wine-press of His wrath till His garments are soaked with their blood (63 1-6). 7. Non-Isaianic Matter in Is. 1-35. Of the non- Isaian sections in chs. 1-35 the most important is chs. 24-27. Here prophecy has taken on a deep eschatological coloring. The main body of the work is an apocalyptic oracle (according to Duhm, ch. 24, 25 6-8, 26 20, and 27 1, 12 f.). It probably dates from the later part of the 4th cent., reflecting the con- ditions of Alexander’s overthrow of the Persian Empire. Its theology is in advance of that in Deutero-Isaiah. Several scholars follow Duhm in the view that a number of lyrical passages have been inserted into the oracle. It may be added that E. Meyer, who also emphatically rejects the view that it or any part of the prophetic literature could have originated later than the middle of the third century, regards the analysis of chs. 24-27 into several fragments as very questionable (Ursprung und Anfdnge des Christentums, vol. II, p. 6). Chs. 34 f. are apparently postexilic and both by the same writer. The curious reference to the book of Yahweh (34 16), z.e., the collection of prophecies in which this oracle is included suggests a late date, as does the association of the overthrow of Edom with the judgment of all nations. Ch. 35 seems to depend on chs. 40-66. Chs. 13 1-14 23 probably belong for the most part to the close of the Exile, altho a few . scholars suppose that the ode on the downfall of an unnamed tyrant (14 4b-21) was written with reference to an Assyrian monarch. More probably the king of Babylon is intended and 14 1-4, apparently connects the two by an editorial link. Ch. 21 1-10 is of the same period and deals with the same subject. It is specially interesting for the insight it gives into the psychology of the prophetic state. The oracle on Tyre (ch. 23) may be by Isaiah, altho the precise reference would still be uncertain; but more probably it is later. Vs. 15-18 seem to be a postexilic appendix; but the oracle itself, while possibly postexilic, may perhaps, if not by I., most suitably be referred to Nebuchadrezzar’s siege. of Tyre (585-577). Questions are also raised about other sections of chs. 1-35, the chief being about chs. 15f., 19, 32 and33. The oracle on Moab (ch. 15 f.) is probably not by I., but it may be an older prophecy quoted and endorsed by him. If postexilic its date is uncertain, but it may belong to the [5th cent. B.c. The oracle on Egypt (ch. 19) may be I.’s, but more probably it is non-Isaian. But its date is quite uncertain. The appendix (vs. 18-25) is also of uncertain origin, it may refer to the temple of ‘Yahw’ at Elephantine. Ch. 32 is probably I.’s. Ch. 33 may well be postexilic, but its date is quite - uncertain. Lirprature: The chief modern landmarks in the exegetical literature are the commentaries by Gesenius (1820-21), Hitzig (1833), Cheyne (1880), Duhm (1892). Duhm’s work, altho extreme, inauguratd so important a new departure alike in criticism and interpretation that the earlier litera- ture was largely antiquated by it. The most comprehensive treatise on the criticism of the Book is Cheyne’s Iniroduciion to the Book of Isaiah (1894). The most useful complete commentary in English is at present the second edition of Skinner (1915, 1917), which may be supplemented by Whitehouse (1905) and Wade (1911). Only the first volume of the ICC has appeared (1912). It is by G. B. Gray, and covers chs. i-xxvii, with great learning and thoroughness. G. A. Smith’s famous volumes in the Ezpositor’s Bible (1888-90) were published before Duhm’s commentary appeared, and should be supplemented and corrected by his article in HDB. The chief German commentaries, in addition to those mentioned, are by Dillmann-Kittel (1898), Marti (1910). In French there is a commentary by Con- damin (1905). Of other literature there may be mentioned Driver in ‘‘Men of the Bible’”’ (1893), Glazebrook, Studies in the Book of Isaiah (1910), Kennett, The Composition of the Book of Isaiah (1910), Gordon, The Faith of Isaiah (n.d.). There are translations by Cheyne in The Sacred Books of the Old Testament (1898), Box (1908), and J. E. McFayden (1918). chs. 40-66, and in particular on the Servant problem. Much There is a large literature on Isaiah . Bi 375 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Isaiah hbosheth valuable material may be found in works on O T Theology or the Religion of Israel, and on the Prophets. See the bibliographies to the articles Renicion or IsragL and PropHecy, PROPHET. A. S. ISAIAH, ASCENSION OF. 1. Isaianic Apoca- lypses. The occasion for the use of the name and personality of Isaiah in apocalyptic writings is to be found probably in the fact that he was introduced in his ministry through the means of a vision. How large this use was is not positively known, but the titles of four Isaianic apocalyptic books are men- tioned by ancient writers. These are: The Martyr- dom of Isaiah (Origen), The Anabatikon (Epiphanius, probably the same as Jerome’s Ascension of Isaiah), The Vision of Isaiah, and The Testament of Heze- kiah. The only work that has survived to modern times, however, is entitled The Ascension of Isaiah. It consists of two parts, including respectively five and six chapters. 2. Contents, Part I. Part I tells of how in the twenty-sixth year of the reign of Hezekiah, Isaiah prophesied that Manasseh under the influence of Satan, would fall away from the worship of the Lord, and when Hezekiah desired to prevent this by put- ting Manasseh to death, the prophet forbade him (ch. 1). His prediction was in due time fulfilled, and after having fled into the wilderness he was seized upon the charge of treason against the Holy City and usurpation of authority higher than that of Moses, and brought back before the king. (2 1-3 12). The real reason, however, for Satan’s hatred of Isaiah was the prediction of the coming of Messiah from the seventh heaven, and of his death, resurrec- tion, ascension, and second coming. The mission of the twelve Apostles, the persecution of the Christians, the coming of Antichrist, and his de- struction were also predicted (8 13-4 22); in 3 13b- 4 18 Charles claims to have discovered the lost “Testament of Hezekiah.’) Manasseh later caused Isaiah to be sawn asunder (ch. 5). 3. Contents, Part II. Part IT gives an account of a vision of the prophet which he saw in the twentieth year of Hezekiah, and told to the king and his counselors (ch. 6). In this vision he was taken up by an angel through the firmament into the seventh heaven, where he saw the patriarchs Adam, Abel, and Enoch, and was ushered into the presence of God Himself. But the chief object of his ascension was to receive the revelation of the Messiah’s advent to earth (chs. 7-10). Being now taken back by the angel to the firmament, he saw in detail the circumstances of the birth, life, sufferings, death, and resurrection of Jesus, and His ascension into the seventh heaven. At this point the angel left him and his soul returned into his body. But because he told this vision to Hezekiah, Manasseh put him to death (ch. 11). 4. Composition, Date, Authorship. It is quite clear from the outline here given that the Ascension of Isaiah is a composite book, consisting of at least two principal works, 7.e., the Martyrdom and the Vision. Each of these is complete, and has probably been enlarged from a briefer original. The Vision was produced in the 2d cent. of the Christian era. The Martyrdom antedates it by a century or more, being, to all appearances, a reduction into literary form of the old tradition regarding the death of the great prophet. The Ascension of Isaiah has been edited in the Ethiopic text discovered by Laurence in 1819, and, as revised upon the basis of two additional MSS., by Dillmann (1877). It has been translated into English, and published in the Lutheran Quarterly Review (1878, pp. 5138 ff.). See also Kautzsch, Pseudepigraphen des Alten Testaments (1900), and Charles, The Ascension of Isaiah (1900), and in O. T. Apocr. and Pseudepigrapha, vol. II, 1913. A. C. Z. ISCAH, iz’ka (7992, yiskah): A daughter of Haran, son of Terah (Gn 11 29). If these verses relate to the amalgamation and relations of tribes instead of individuals, the meaning is that Haran (a tribe) was ‘father’ of not only Milcah, but also of Iscah (a tribe). E. E. N. ISCARIOT, See Jupas Iscarror. ISH- (in compounds): The Heb. U8, ’ish, means ‘man,’ and is used in a few compound proper nouns with this significance. In most proper nouns be- ginning with ‘ish’ (Heb. ¥!, yish), this syllable is but a part of the verbal form contained in the name. E. E. N. ISHBAH, ish’ba (N23, yishbah): The clan, ap- parently, from which Eshtemoa was peopled (I Ch 4 17). ISHBAK, ish’bak. Eruno.oey, § 13. ISHBI-BENOB, ish” bai-bi/neb (212 °AY?, yishbi bhendbh): A name occurring in II S 21 16. The Heb. text of this and the preceding verse is doubt- less corrupt. The original reading probably was, ‘and David and his servants with him went down and dwelt in Gob and fought with the Philistines,’ etc. The name of the gigantic opponent of David has been lost (so Driver, H T'S, ad loc. See also Gos). See ETHNOGRAPHY AND E. E. N. ISHBOSHETH, ish-bo’shefh (NW2 WN, ish bdsheth), ‘man of shame’ (also Eshbaal, ‘man of Baal,’ in I Ch 8 33, RVmg ‘Ishbosheth’): The fourth son of Saul (IIS 28). After the defeat and death of his father and his three elder brothers at the battle of Mt. Gilboa, I. would naturally have fallen heir to the kingdom, but the victory of the Philistines was so overwhelming that for the time being this was impossible. David soon became king over the tribe of Judah, but not of all Israel. After about five years Abner, in loyalty to his master, Saul, caused I. to be proclaimed king at Mahanaim on the east side of the Jordan. The result was a civil war. An effort to avert this by selecting twelve men on each side and allowing the issue to rest with the result of a combat between them proved unsuccess- ful, since all the combatants were mortally wounded. A battle was then fought in which the followers of I. suffered a crushing defeat. He continued to hold out, but when Abner transferred his allegiance to David on account of a rebuke which I. administered to him for unlawful intimacy with his father’s con- cubine, Rizpah, his cause became desperate, and he Ishhod Israel, History of A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 376 was himsclf murdered by two of his captains, a crime which David promptly punished. A. C. Z.—E. E. N. ISHHOD, ish”hed’ (TiNW'X, ’ishhddh, Ishod AV), ‘man of glory’: The ancestral head of a Manassite clan (I Ch 7 18). ISHI, ai’shai or ish’ai (YY?, yish‘t), ‘my help’: I. 1 and 2. Descendants of Judah (I Ch 2 31, 4 20). 3. A descendant of Simeon (I Ch4 42). 4. The head of a family of Manasseh (I Ch 5 24). All are prob- ably clan-names. II. (¥’S, ’ish7) ‘my man.’ Asym- bolic term, expressive of the ideal relation be- tween J’’ and Israel, meaning ‘my husband’ in a higher sense than ba‘ali, ‘my master’ (Ho 2 16). ISHIAH, ai-shai’a. See IssHrau. ISHIJAH, ai-shai’ja. See IssH1au. ISHMA, ish’ma (S2Y?, yishma’): The ancestral head of a clan of Judah (I Ch 4 3). ISHMAEL, ish’mo-el, ish’mé-, or -mé/- (?8Y29", yishma@‘él), ‘God hears’: 1. The son of Abraham and Hagar, Sarah’s maid (Gn 16 11 f.). Isaac, son of Sarah, Abraham’s full wife, supplanted I. as the heir of Abraham, and through Sarah’s jealousy, I. and his mother were expelled from Abraham’s home (Gn 17 18 ff., 21 8-21). Nevertheless, I. was cir- cumcised and thus (according to the late theory of P) viewed as having some real connection with the Covenant (Gn 17 23-26). I. is represented as the ancestor of the Ishmaelites, subdivided according to P, Gn 25 12 #f., into 12 tribes. The names represent ‘the assumed eponymous ancestors of 12 tribes which are here treated as forming a political con- federacy under the name of Ishmael’ (Skinner, ICC on Gn 2512 f.). They were easily confused with the Midianites (cf. Gn 37 25; Jg 8 24). Their wild, warlike character is indicated by the terms applied to I. himself in Gn 1612 (‘a wild ass of a man’) and in 21 20 (an ‘archer’ who dwelt ‘in the wilderness’). Some relationship between the Ishmaelites and the Edomites is implied in Gn 28 9 and ch. 36. 2. A man of Judah in Jehoshaphat’s day (II Ch 19 11). 3. A Benjamite, one of Saul’s descendants (I Ch 8 38, 9 44). 4. An officer who assisted Jehoiada in deposing Athaliah (II Ch 231). 5. The leader of a faction that conspired against and murdered Gedaliah, governor of Judah under Nebuchadrezzar (II K 25 23 f.; Jer 40 8-41 18). 6. A priest (Har 10 22). E. E. N. ISHMAELITE(S), ish’mo-el-ait(s) ((O/P 728990", yishm:é li{m]): The descendants of Ishmael. In Gn 37 25 f. and Jg 8 24 they are introduced into a context which otherwise speaks of Midianites. Evi- dently such passages show different authorship and variant traditions. ‘Midianites’ and ‘Ishmaelites’ could easily be confused, as meaning Arab tribes inhabiting the deserts S. and SE. of Israel. See IsHMAEL and Mip1an. HK. E. N. ISHMAIAH, ish-mé’ya (2YOW, yishma‘yahi) ‘J”’ hears’: 1. One of David’s heroes (I Ch 12 4, Ismaiah AV). 2. The head of the tribe of Zebulon (I Ch 27 19). ISHMEELITE, ish’m1-el-ait. See IsHmMAELire. ISHMERAI, ish’m1-rai or igh’mi-ré (12%, yish- m*ray): A descendant of Benjamin (I Ch 813). ISHOD, ish’ed or ai’shed. See IsuHop. ISHPAH, igh’pa (72¥?, yishpah, Ispah AV): A descendant of Benjamin (I Ch 8 16). ISHPAN, ish’pan (]2¥%, yishpadn): A descendant of Benjamin (I Ch 8 22). ISH-TOB, ish-tob (210 W'S, ’ish tdbh): InII S 10 6-8 AV this occurs as a proper name. RY reads, ‘men of Tob,’ which is probably correct. See Aram, 11. ISHVAH, ish’va, ISHUAH, ish’yu-a (7%, yish- wah), and ISHVI, ish’vai, ISHUI, ish’yu-ai (1%, yishwi): 1. Ishvi (‘Isui,’ also ‘Jesui’. and ‘Ishuai’ AV) was ancestral head of one of the clans of Asher, the Ishvites (Jesuites AV) (Gn 46 17; Nu 26 44; I Ch 7 30). 46 17 and ‘Isuah’ in I Ch 7 30 AV (omitted in Nu 26 44) are probably only duplicates of Ishvi. 2. A son of Saul (IS 14 49), probably the one called else- where Eshbaal, or Ishbosheth. E. E. N. ISLE, ISLAND: These terms render the Heb. 7, pl. ’*< aT iva 5a eT PAY Yu v1? S pant kee La a TP cel Dy a ee eee' YY PAT HERE Foe Bi tet tied J =) es Peel Tee BTS Fans i Lgl i | fetes WAT eis B ee r tine pokes Bp aeat ape! salsa ae pal TE ET GOP Tue Brack OperisK or SHALMANESER. TH, SECOND SERIES Rehoboam (933), during whose reign Pharaoh Shi- } decidedly superior to Judah. Jehoshaphat (875) shak invaded Judah, and perhaps Abijah (917) | made an alliance with Ahab, marrying his son Je- fought against North Israel without success. Al- | horam to Athaliah, Jezebel’s daughter. Jehosha- = rs eesl ih IB te te ris pliner _ 381 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Israel, History of er fleet for trading with S. Arabia sank when | David, with the exception of Jehoash, who was launched (I K 2248). Edom rebelled during the reign | rescued by his aunt, the wife of the chief priest of of Jehoram (851). Ahaziah (844) perished, with | Jerusalem. Six years later, when Jehoash was seven, epaass ats ATES EUR 3 & eR yas sgea my peor Sorat Sr SN Rae, ernment Se ati TAP HE ET SB aS pAiatneg toes y LEXerY pe WT ad te ee aT Ee Tae RYT she whet Tend Te See SIGE Te *| 7 CS a. pee weed eeeaee FG a a tiled Aes tes re eae eS ates ie 5 PoE PA Rew a, wee aa Eee cents a tak Prete eat TEENY Sih Ea TRE SST Fa cee IE [eT ET Sis arte (4a5B, C0, D) eRe THE TRIBUTE Parp By JeHu oF Tatas 7 GT Dae rs aes See, pie ae bt Ge T ie PADIS PORTECRO NT ANY Erbe OPS BSE ee Soars i ss es ere ik: eater, Gani Sas Srree ik Warn TT Nr = Ev Pa rai apy bad MOOSE SFETBI ON Rib 3 Fig te Eo iPox EEE’ = ipeeRTE Tali Te PERT THES BT ESSE Sy sy fail INT Tv Sar = Bot RTCA rR bh OTTO par eye reps EDT OTA THE oe HT Eo LEP we Se ee cae e ie he was proclaimed king by the priests and the soldiers of the guard, and Athaliah was put to death (837). The new king set apart a portion of the Temple’s income for the restora- tion of the sacred edifice and paid tribute to Hazael of Damascus who had invaded Judah. Amaziah (798) fought with success against Edom, but his challenge to Joash of Israel resulted in a disastrous war: the king was captured, the palace was plun- dered, the walls of Jerusalem were dismantled. (b) Azariah to Zedekiah (780-587). Azariah (Uzziah) (780) reconquered Elath, the gateway to the Red Sea, fortified Jerusalem, and profited from the prosperity of Israel under Jeroboam II. When he was smitten with leprosy, his son Jotham (740) acted as regent. Ahaz (735), a faithful vassal of Assyria,was attacked by Rezin of Damascus and Pekah of Israel, ‘two tails of smoking fire- brands’ (Isaiah 7 4). At Damascus, where he joined in the celebration of the Assyrian victory over these two kings and paid tribute to Tig- lath-pileser IV (745-727), he saw an altar of which he set up a copy in Jerusalem. Thus Judah escaped the fate of Samaria in 722. Hezekiah (720) on the contrary made common cause with the enemies of Assyria. He received an embassy of Mero- dach-baladan, Sargon’s Babylonian rival, and openly defied Sennacherib (705-681). But the Assyrian king defeated Judah and its allies at El- tekeh in 701, plundered 46 cities of Hezekiah and, according to his exag- gerated account, carried away 200,150 Judeans; Hezekiah was shut up in Jerusalem ‘like a bird in a cage’ and paid a heavy indemnity. In spite of the deliverance of Jerusalem, which seemed a miraculous confirmation of Isaiah’s promises, Manasseh (692) realized the futility of further resis- tance to Assyria and, in open opposi- tion to the prophets, encouraged the worship of foreign gods. This policy 4) was continued by Amon (639), who y was assassinated after a reign of two years leaving the throne to his son Josiah, eight years old (638). In the 18th year of his reign (621) the party of the priests and prophets won over the young king to their reaction the rest of the descendants of Omri, at the hand ] against Manasseh’s religious practises by producing of Jehu. Athaliah (843), the queen mother, seized | the ‘Law of Moses’ (Deuteronomy, q.v.), found the government after exterminating the house of | in the Temple: the reformation of the worship Israel, History of Israel, Religion of A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY $82 that followed made Judaism, a combination of the prophetic teaching and the Temple worship, the official religion. The way had been cleared for the reformers by the rapid decline of Assyria after the death of Ashurbanipal' (625). The Assyrian régime in Syria came to an end, the Scythian hordes threatened Judah (Jer 4 5-29), Egypt shook off the Assyrian rule, Babylonia became again in- dependent. After the fall of Nineveh (612) Necho II of Egypt attempted the conquest of Syria, de- feated Josiah at Megiddo (607) and, refusing to recognize Jehoahaz (607), placed Eliakim(whom he named Jehoiakim) on the throne (607). But Nebuchadrezzar defeated Necho at Carchemish (605) and Judah became a Babylonian dependency (604). In 598 Jehoiakim rebelled, but escaped, through sudden death, the impending punishment. His son Jehoiachin (597) surrendered himself to the Chaldean king and was carried to Babylon together with the upper classes of his kingdom, among them Ezekiel. Zedekiah (Mattaniah) (597), the third son of Josiah who occupied the throne, was induced by the pro-Egyptian party, against the counsel of Jeremiah, to defy Nebuchadrezzar: in 586 Jerusalem was taken after a siege of one year and a half and burned to the ground. Many Judeans were exiled. The Davidic Kingdom had come to its doom, but Judaism, born in 621, was destined to survive to the present day. Ill. THe Jewish Courcu. 7. The Babylonian Period (586-538). Gedaliah, the grandson of Josiah’s ‘scribe,’ appointed by Nebuchadrezzar as governor of Judah and residing at Mizpah, was murdered by Ishmael, a fanatical descendant of David, acting in connivance with the king of Ammon (586). After avenging their governor, a group of Judeans fled into Egypt forcing the reluctant Jeremiah to follow them. A third deportation took place in 582, bring- ing up the total of the exiles to 4,600 men, perhaps 15 per cent. of the population (cf. however the figures in II K 24 14 #.). Only the poorest of the people remained in the country, truly sheep without a shepherd, pressed between the Edomites (who occupied southern Judah, later known as Idumza) and the Samaritans. Sacrifices were still offered on the Temple hill, but, amidst the pre- vailing gloom and poverty, ancient superstitions and crude religious beliefs flourished anew. The Exiles did not continue to sit weeping by the waters of Babylon, their harps hanging upon the willows (Ps 137). Being the leaders of the nation, they prospered in commerce and progressed in religion. Obedient to the law of Deuteronomy, they reared no temple, they offered no sacrifices. Zealous in prayer, keeping the Sabbath and circumcising their children, preserving and increasing their literature, they were building for the future. Ezekiel was planning anew temple with elaborate ritual, Second Isaiah (Is 40-55) was proclaiming a religion of self- sacrifice, a worship in spirit and in truth. The first of these currents developed into Judaism, the second flowed ultimately into Christianity. 8. The Persian Period (538-333). Babylon fell without a struggle to Cyrus the Persian (538), who gave the Near-East the best government these re- gions had ever known. ‘Tolerant of all gods, he appointed Sheshbazzar governor of Judea and per- mitted the return of the Exiles. A few accompanied Sheshbazzar to the impoverished homeland, among them perhaps Zerubbabel and Joshua. Conditions in Judea did not improve. Twenty years later the appeals of Haggai and Zechariah and the efforts of Joshua, whose authority as high-priest was not un- challenged, induced the Jews to restore the Temple. It was dedicated in 515. The difficulty of the situation was aggravated by the animosity between the returned Exiles, enlightened and intolerant, and the natives, ignorant and superstitious. Nehemiah was sent to Jerusalem in 445. He rebuilt the walls and won the day for the Exiles by enforcing the pre- scriptions of the Law (particularly the prohibition of foreign marriages and the keeping of the Sabbath), and by driving out the leaders of the opposition. Thus he precipitated the Samaritan schism. 9. The Hellenistic-Roman Period (333 B.c.- 70 a.D.). When Alexander conquered the Persian empire, Jerusalem surrendered but Samaria had to be taken by force (832). After his death (323) Palestine remained, with few interruptions, under the control of the Ptolemies of Egypt, until in 198 it became a part of the Seleucid Kingdom of Syria. The flourishing Jewish colony at Alexandria in Egypt adopted the Greek culture and translated the Scriptures into the vernacular (this Greek version, called the Septuagint, became the Bible of the Christian Church). The progress of Hellenism in Jerusalem was slower and confined to the aristocracy. Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175-164), irritated by the opposition of the ‘pious’ (hasidhim) to his plan of Hellenization, declared Judaism illegal (168). A rebellion broke out. Judas Maccabeus after a series of heroic victories forced the abrogation of the decree and in 165 rededicated the Temple. His brothers Jonathan (161) and Simon (143) continued the fight, no longer for religious freedom but for political autonomy (achieved in 141). The new state, owing to the wéakness and dynastic quarrels of the Seleucid, extended its borders under John Hyr- canus (134), Aristobulus I (104), Alexander Janneus (102) and Alexandra (75-67), until the rivalry be- _ tween Aristobulus II and Hyrcanus II invited Roman intervention. Pompey took Jerusalem in 63. Rome ruled at first through vassal princes (like Herod), then through procurators, but failed to gain the friendship of the subjects. The outcome of Jewish discontent and open rebellion was the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus in 70 a.p. De- prived of its Temple, Judaism became henceforth strict Pharisaism, the study and observance of the Law. Rigid exclusivism drove many of the Jews of the Diaspora, and equally their proselytes, into the ranks of the followers of Jesus of Nazareth. LirEratuReE: C. Noyes, The Genius of Israel (1924) is the best treatment of the Preexilic period. The most useful among the recent histories of Israel in English are those of H. P. Smith (1903), Wade (1903), Cornill (4th ed., 1909), I. J. Peritz (1915), Foakes-Jackson (4th ed., 1921). Standard German books are: Wellhausen, JIsraelitische und Jiidische Geschichte (7th ed., 1914); H. Guthe, Geschichte des Volkes Israel (3rd ed., 1914); R. Kittel, Geschichte des Volkes Israel (2 vols., 5th and 6th ed., 1923). R Stem 383 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Israel, History of Israel, Religion of ISRAEL, RELIGION OF OUTLINE _I. Tam Origins oF THE RELIGION 19. Hosea . Antecedents of the Religion 20. Isaiah . Patriarchal Religion V. THe REFORMATION OF JOSIAH AND THE MINISTRY OF The Achievement of Moses JEREMIAH Yahweh and Israel Significance of Yahweh’s Name . The Decalog and the Book of the Covenant . Mosaic Conception of Yahweh . Religion of Israel a Covenant Religion Il. THe TRANSFORMATION OF THE RELIGION IN CANAAN 9, Agriculture and the Baalim 10. The Cultus 11. Politics and Religion IIT. Hesrew Propuzcy FROM SAMUEL TO ELISHA 12. The Early Prophets 13. Elijah and the Baal of Tyre IV. Tae EicutsH Century Propxets 14. The Prophets as Preachers 15. The Prophets and the Future 16. Origin of the Prophetic Eschatology 17. Foreign Perils and Internal Corruption 18. Amos CONAN wWheH I. THe ORIGINS OF THE RELIGION. 1. Antecedents of the Religion. Strictly speaking the religion of Israel was, like the nation, the creation of Moses. But it did not make an absolutely new beginning; such new beginnings in religion are un- known. The Hebrews were a Semitic stock and they brought much of their Semitic heritage with them into the religion of Yahweh. Their antecedents indeed are shrouded in a dim obscurity and wide divergence of opinion prevails even on the main issues. According to their own traditions their ancestors came from Mesopotamia; they lived for a time in Palestine, migrated to Egypt and escaped, under the leadership of Moses, from the forced labor exacted of them into the freedom of the desert. Several kinds of influence had accordingly played upon them and molded and enriched the primitive Semitic type which lay behind it all. On these earlier stages it is unnecessary for our purpose to linger in detail. But since Moses himself was conscious that he proclaimed to his people the God of their fathers under a new name, something must be said of the patriarchs and their religion. 2. Patriarchal Religion. The historicity of the patriarchs has been denied by many scholars. But the attempts to prove that they were originally tribes or nations, or deities who have been degraded into men, or that they are to be fitted into an elaborate astral mythology, have failed to account for all the phenomena. That the narratives as they stand often reflect later ideals and conditions or have been shaped by motifs of great antiquity and wide range may perhaps be true. But that the chief figures of the patriarchal history are themselves historical, even if it can not be definitely proved, seems to be the most probable of the rival inter- pretations. The narratives date from a much later age, but the picture of the patriarchal religion appears to embody authentic elements. In par- ticular it is to be observed how marked a difference there is between the gracious Deity who, while He can inflict severe penalties, is yet mild and benev- olent to His worshipers and the terrible and tem- 21. Deuteronomy and Josiah’s Reformation 22. Jeremiah VI. Tae Exiir, Ezexret anp Sreconp Isarau 23. The Exile and Its Influence on the Religion 24. Ezekiel 25. The Second Isaiah VII. Tar Trrumpex or LeGarism 26. The Priestly Code and the Birth of Judaism VIII. Toe Prosiem or SurreRIna 27. The Problem of Suffering 28. The Book of Job 29. Psalms 49 and 73 30. Ecclesiastes 31. Apocalyptic in the Old Testament. IX. PsALMISTS AND SAGES 32. The Psalter 33. The Book of Proverbs X. SommMary SKETCH OF THE HIsToRY oF THE RELIGION 34. Summary pestuous character of J’’, as He is depicted in the wilderness narratives and not a little of the later history. Whether the name ‘Yahweh’ was known in the patriarchal period is a question on which our authorities differ. J uses it frequently and represents the name as known almost from the origin of the human race (Gn 4 26). Hand P on the contrary avoid it, the latter explicitly stating that it was not known to the patriarchs (Ex 6 3). The solution may be either that J freely carried the name back into a period in which it was not in use, because he identified the God of the patriarchs with J’; or that one section of what was later the composite people of Israel used the name and the other did not. It is probable in any case that it was only from the time of Moses that J’’ was definitely recognized as the God of the whole Hebrew people. 3. The Achievement of Moses. Far more im- portant, however, than the problem of the pre- Mosaic religion is that presented by the career and achievement of Moses. For he was the creator of the religion and the nation alike; yet the most varied views are taken even on the crucial questions. Some scholars (e.g., E. Meyer and Holscher) treat him as a legendary figure. But his historicity is generally admitted and the creative character of his work. Here we must simply assume his historicity and connection with Egypt: the fact that a con- siderable proportion at least of the Hebrews were in Egypt and escaped under his leadership from forced service to the freedom of the desert; that they were saved from the pursuit of the Egyptians by what seemed to them a Divine deliverance; that Moses welded them into a single people in which kindred tribes who had not been in Egypt may have been incorporated; that he did this in the strength of the conviction that J’’ had chosen this people for His own and delivered then first from bondage, and then from impending ruin, by a stupendous display of His might. But it is very difficult to reach any satis- factory conclusion as to the religious beliefs of Moses and the characteristics of the religion he founded. We can not assign any of the Pentateuchal ‘Israel, Religion of A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY sources to him. But the earlier documents may be used with proper precautions, and the value of the tradition they contain should probably be rated higher than they have been by the dominant critical school. Since he, no doubt, drew on earlier religious and legal developments, our knowledge of surrounding peoples may be of service. But it is not easy to draw the right inferences, and no people made even a distant approach to Israel’s achieve- ment. We can not for example safely build on alleged Babylonian monotheism, nor yet on the monotheism of the heretic king of Egypt, Amen- hotep IV. Another line of approach is to work back from the religion as we know it in the 8th cent. prophets and the preprophetic literature and ask what it implies. Such scholars as Kuenen, Well- hausen, Stade, and Duhm have been inclined to regard the ethical monotheism of the 8th cent. prophets as marking an immense advance on the earlier religion. But with this depreciation of pre- prophetic religion the transition to Amos and his successors becomes too abrupt and steep. Only if a higher element than they recognized was present in the religion from the first, does the development in the 8th cent. become explicable. That the religion of Moses was an ethical monotheism it would be very hazardous to assert. But that it was an ethical monolatry, in other words that, while not denying the existence of other deities, it insisted that one alone was to be worshiped and that He was a moral God who demanded morality from His people, may be affirmed with confidence. The problem pre- sented by the history of Israel is to explain why, instead of resting in polytheism or even in monolatry, the Hebrews ultimately attained the belief that there was only one God, and He the God of Israel; and why the great prophets and other outstanding repre- sentatives of the higher religion of Israel attached such importance to morality, while ceremonial, so extravagantly valued by priests and people, was treated as trivial in comparison with it and abhor- rent to Him when offered by evil-doers. 4. Yahweh and Israel. In investigating this problem we may start from Wellhausen’s summary of Mosaic religion: Yahweh is the God of Israel, Israel is the people of Yahweh. This, while repeated by many scholars, has been criticized by E. Meyer as ‘an empty phrase’; and with this much justice that the religion of Moab could be expressed in the same formula with the substitution of Moab for Israel and Chemosh for Yahweh. Yet there may have been differentiating qualities between Israel and Moab, between J’’ and Chemosh, and be- tween the relations of deity and people in the two cases. Theformula may accordingly be of real value. When we consider the later development of the religion, we are struck by the apparent paradox of a monotheism in which the Deity was designated by a proper name, and the further paradox of a recognition of the unity of God combined with belief in a national Divinity. There is only one God, but He is Yahweh the God of Israel. That this conviction goes back to Moses is not probable. Indeed it is easier to understand how Israel’s belief in God came to be formulated as it was, if on an original monolatry in which the national Deity was indicated by a proper name, a monotheistic belief was subsequently superimposed, the name of the national Divinity being still retained when there was no longer any need to distinguish Him from others of His class. But from the first the poten- tialities of the later development must have been latent in the religion. It is doubtful whether we can explain the uniqueness of Israel’s religion by any unique quality in Israel itself. There is no reason to suppose that the nation was differentiated from kindred peoples by any exceptional religious genius. Indeed the difficulty experienced by its religious leaders in detaching it from lower religious beliefs and observances speaks strongly against such an explanation. Nor is the fact that the Deity is the guardian of right as between man and man an adequate cause. For this was not sufficiently . exceptional to originate the uniqueness of the religion. Moreover, the function of the Deity may have been not so much to insist on the punishment of transgressors as to indicate by oracle or lot their identity. Was it then in the conception formed of J’’? To this point we must now turn attention. 5. Significance of Yahweh’s Name. The first question touches the significance of the name Yahweh. Its original meaning may be entirely lost; but even if it is to be explained from Hebrew or a cognate language several interpretations are possible. It is a third person imperfect and the verb may mean ‘to fall,’ or ‘to breathe,’ or ‘blow,’ or ‘to be.’ And it may belong either to the Kal conjunction, which expresses the simple idea of the verb, or to the Hiphil, that is the causative. Thus He may be a God who overthrows cities or armies, or a wind-God, or a God who brings His purpose to pass. But the narrative in which the name is revealed to Moses yields us another interpretation, which of course is post-Mosaic but may be true to the interpretation placed on the name by Moses. According to this ‘Yahweh’ means ‘He will be.’ The explanation ‘I will be what I will be’ (Ex 3 14) is not intended to indicate that J’’ refuses to dis- close His name (cf. Gn 32 29; Jg 13 17), for the whole point of the narrative is that the name is revealed. The formula is suggestive just because it is in- finite. What He will be is not defined, it is left to the future to disclose: history alone is an adequate commentary on it, filling it with ever new and deeper meaning. We may say, indeed, that not time but eternity alone can draw out the fulness of meaning hidden in it. Nevertheless it must be admitted that the name can not be interpreted with certainty and no confident conclusion as to the conception of J” can be drawn from it. 6. The Decalog and the Book of the Covenant. Positive evidence on this point might be given if we had any literary compositions of Moses embedded in the later documents. Some scholars find such sources in the Decalog (Ex 20 1-17, Dt 5 6-21), or the Book of the Covenant (Ex 20 22-23) 33). The Decalog, as it exists in its two versions, has probably been expanded from a much briefer original. The problem of its age and origin is very difficult. It is complicated by the alleged presence of another set 385 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY ‘Israel, Religion of of ten commandments (J’s Decalog) mainly ritual in character which may be disengaged from Ex 34 17-26 (cf. ‘the ten commandments’ in ver. 28). The existence of this Decalog is disputed and it is quite a mistake to suppose that its ritual character speaks for its priority to the Decalog of Ex 20. But the prohibition of images and of work on the Sabbath do place difficulties in the way of assump- tion that the latter is of Mosaic origin. For the former is ignored by worshipers of J’’, as we should not have anticipated if it had been a fundamental principle of the religion from the outset; while the Sabbath rest is more suited for agriculturists than for nomads. Altho some scholars treat these objections as inconclusive, we can not build with any safety on the Mosaic origin of the Decalog. It ought, however, to be pointed out that the ethical standard of the Decalog is on the whole much more rudi- mentary than is often recognized; and its prohibi- tions can be largely paralleled from those found among peoples of the lower culture. Accordingly, even if it were Mosaic, it would not contribute much to the solution of our special problem. The Book of the Covenant incorporates much ancient material, as is shown by a comparison with the Code of Hammurabi, and not a little of it will be far anterior to the time of Moses. But the Book of the Covenant itself seems to have been composed in Palestine as is suggested by the reference to vineyards and olive-yards (Ex 22 5, 23 11). 7. Mosaic Conception of Yahweh. In spite, how- ever, of our inability to point with any confidence to Mosaic documents, we may from the early post- Mosaic sources derive authentic material by which we can reconstruct the Mosaic conception of J’. He is closely associated with terrible elemental phenomena, earthquake, thunderstorm, and fire. These features appear in our earliest literature and are so characteristic that even in late poetry they are prominent in descriptions of a theophany. He is not, however, a mere Nature God. He works mightily in history, causing His people to triumph over their enemies. Indeed He is a God of battles, and war is a sacred vocation. He often pronounces the ban or the decree of extermination which must be carried out to the letter, tho admitting of grades of severity. He is a holy God, by which, in this primitive age, it is not so much His moral purity as His unapproachableness that is intended. He re- acts, at times it would seem almost automatically, against wilful or even incautious approach to Him (Ex 19 21 f., 33 20). This self-regarding quality by which He resents and punishes any violation of His holiness is shown also in His jealousy, His refusal to tolerate any rival or companion in the allegiance of His people. He is thought to possess an external form and a local habitation. He dwells on the Mount of God, altho He is not limited to this. His presence with the Hebrews in their wanderings is mediated by the Ark, perhaps because it contained sacred stones from the sacred mountain, in which He was thought to manifest Himself. It is not im- probable that even as early as the time of Moses He was thought to dwell in Heaven. He demanded righteousness between man and man and strict administration of justice. The poor, the weak and the defenseless were the objects of His compassion. 8. Religion of Israel a Covenant Religion. It still remains to speak of the nature of the relation between J’’ and Israel. It has been argued by some scholars, notably by Budde, that J’”’ was originally the God of the Kenites. The relation between Deity and people would, like that between Chemosh and Moab, be regarded as a natural necessity grounded in the very nature of things. But J’ freely chose the Hebrews to be His people; hence the relation between them rested not on necessity but on free choice, the choice of Israel by J’’, and of J” by Israel, and in this the uniqueness of the religion is thought by Budde to reside. This theory of Kenite origin is dubious; but it is true and very important that the religion of Israel was a covenant religion; the tie which bound God and people to- gether was freely accepted by both. The relation- ship was not natural but ethical. Tradition represents Moses as a law-giver, and the codes in the Pentateuch are ascribed to him. This undoubtedly had a basis in fact. He must have formulated principles of justice, in the discharge of his functions as judge; he must have laid down regulations for the proper worship of J’. In both respects he drew on preexisting law and custom, much of it extremely ancient. (On §§ 3-8 see also IsRAEL, SocIAL DEVELOPMENT oF, § 18.) Il. Tue TRANSFORMATION OF THE RELIGION IN CANAAN. 9. Agriculture and the Baalim. After the death of Moses the Hebrews gained a footing in western Palestine. Moses had fused the tribes together by, firing them with the central conviction of their religion. Thus religion and patriotism were in- separably blended, wherein lay the original strength and ultimate limitation of the religion. In Canaan it seemed as if national disintegration would be inevitable, since the settlers in Canaan fell into isolated groups. But an even deadlier peril threatened the religion through contact with the Canaanites and transformation in the mode of life. The religion was in its origin a desert religion; but more and more the people settled down to till the soil. They learnt from the Canaanites, who were far beyond them in civilization, not only right methods of agriculture but the ways in which the Baalim or local deities were to. be worshiped, since on the favor of these givers of fertility the success of their harvests depended. This cult was probably not regarded as conflicting with the worship of the national Deity. But it led to gross immorality; and at a later time, when J’, who could be quite harm- lessly spoken of by the colorless term ‘Baal’ (i.e., owner or lord), was regarded as the giver of fertility, His worship was degraded by the intrusion of elements of Canaanite ritual. Intermarriage with Canaanites also affected the Hebrew religion, especially when the woman was a Canaanite, owing to her influence on the children. It is not surprizing that the Rechabites repudiated the agricultural life, as involving disloyalty to J”, and remained nomads (Jer ch. 35). The Nazirites may have been influenced by similar motives. The israel, Religion of three agricultural festivals prescribed in the oldest legislation, the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the Feast of Weeks, and the Feast of Tabernacles were all probably borrowed from the Canaanites. 10. The Cultus. There was no centralization of the worship. The home of the Ark naturally en- joyed great prestige; but there were numerous high places or local sanctuaries which were recognized as legitimate. The priesthood was not restricted to the Levites; altho when a Levite could be obtained, preference seems to have been given to him (ef. Jg ch. 17). In addition to the custody of the sanc- tuary and the care of ritual observances and sacri- fices, the priests seem to have been charged with the giving of oracles, the pronouncing of judgment, and moral instruction. Sacrifice was a clan feast in which J” and the worshipers feasted together. The animals offered in it were such as were used for food. Tribute in the form of first-fruits and other vegetable offerings was paid to the Deity for the use of the fertile soil. Human sacrifice was not unknown (Jg 11 30-40), but it was probably rare. 11. Politics and Religion. The political develop- ment was momentous for the history of the religion. The unification of the nation under Samuel, Saul and David stimulated the national sentiment and reacted on the devotion of the people to the national Deity and their estimate of Him. The breaking of the Philistine yoke, and then the rise of the Hebrew empire as the issue of David’s successful wars, fol- lowed by the prosperity and splendor of Solomon’s reign, greatly enhanced the sentiments created by the establishment of the monarchy. The selection of Jerusalem as the home of the Ark, and the erection of the Temple, gave the capital a religious prestige which was later to find expression in the centraliza- tion of the sacrificial worship in the Temple and the exclusive right of its priests to the exercise of priestly functions accorded to them by Ezekiel (Ez 44 10-16). Not only the legislation of Deuteronomy and Ezekiel, but that of the Priestly Code, was the outcome of the policy of David and Solomon. The disruption of the kingdom put an end to imperialist dreams. It saved Israel from a despotism which would have been inimical to its higher religious development. It prevented the Hebrews from be- coming the dominant power in Syria and Palestine; and when the Northern Kingdom was destroyed by Assyria, the Southern Kingdom was left suf- ficiently long to secure that spiritual religion should survive the downfall of the State and the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians. Iii. Hesrew PropHecy rrom SAMUEL TO ELISHA. 12. The Early Prophets. It is at the time of the Philistine oppression and the rise of the monarchy that we meet with the prophets. They seem to have been ecstatics who gathered in bands and roamed about the country, their frenzy stimulated by music, their aim national independence and the more zealous worship of J’ (IS 105 f.). Samuel, himself @ seer, stands in connection with the prophets: and the two classes seem to have coalesced, retaining the name ‘prophets’ to designate the members of this combination. It is significant that Saul, of whom no A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 386 one expected such a development, was himself in- fected with their contagious ecstasy and transformed into a prophet: The continuity of the name which designated also the later illustrious succession of ‘men of God,’ that opened with Amos, points to some continuity between the primitive and the canonical prophets. But the modern student is struck by the wide gulf which separates them. The ecstatic con- dition reappears in the later prophets, altho it is questionable whether it was as characteristic as some scholars suppose. In any case the real greatness of the later prophets is not to be found in these psychical experiences so much as in their penetrating insight into religious and moral truth; their clear discernment of the signs of the times; their power to pierce below the deceptive surface and rightly to divine the real forces which were creating history. But it is best to postpone the further discussion - of prophecy till we meet it in its loftiest manifesta- tions in its golden age from the 8th cent. to the 6th. 13. Elijah and the Baal of Tyre. In such men as Samuel and Nathan we may see the custodians of the higher type of Hebrew religion standing in the succession of Moses and linking him with those later prophets in whom the religion found its classical expression. But with Elijah we reach a new stage in the development. Even if we grant that legend has been busy with his figure, this testifies to the tremendous impression he made on his contem- poraries. Once again it is a political occasion which is responsible for the religious development. Israel had entered into alliance with Tyre and this had been sealed by the marriage of Ahab with Jezebel, a Tyrian princess. And, as was natural in antiquity, the alliance of peoples carried with it the alli- ance of deities. So Melkart, the Baal of Tyre, was placed by the side of Yahweh as the object of Hebrew worship. This was a new development, for the Baal whom Elijah denied to be the rightful object of Israel’s worship was not one of the local Baalim, whose worship might not have seemed to conflict with that of J’. He was himself a national deity, set side by side with J” on equal terms. This violated a fundamental principle of the religion, that J’’ was a jealous God who would tolerate no companion or rival in the allegiance of His people. Ahab and the court, no doubt, regarded the tolera- tion of the Tyrian cult, and even active participa- tion in it, as a matter of State policy, one might even perhaps say as an obligation of courtesy, not to be omitted without violation of good manners. He did not indeed carry all his subjects with him. We read of the seven thousand who will be spared in J’’s terrible judgment because they have doneno homage to the foreign god (I K 1918). We hear of a persecution of the prophets instituted by Jezebel. But Elijah stands as the embodiment of this protest. Whether in his lifetime he achieved a success so signal as our narratives relates has been disputed. But it is not easy to account for his fame unless he had struck the imagination of his people by some unparalleled achievement. While he left his work incomplete, it is to himself that the credit belongs of impressing on his people J’”’s inflexible demand for its undivided allegiance. He also stood in the line in 387 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Israel, Religion of of the higher prophecy in his terrible rebuke to Ahab for the judicial murder of Naboth (I K 21). Indeed the shock given to the popular conscience by this dark deed may, even more than Jezebel’s fanaticism for her god, have prepared the way for Jehu’s revolution. Whether we can speak of Elijah as a monotheist is uncertain. If Moses was a mono- theist, the antecedent probability that Elijah was so would be great. And his mockery of Melkart on Carmel (I K 18 27) suggests that the Phenician god was for him a nonentity. But the phraseology may be that of the narrator; and even if Elijah’s it may not imply denial of Melkart’s existence, but simply his contemptuous repudiation of a god who was an intruder in J’’s domain. His conflict was con- tinued by Elisha, his heir, a figure cast in a far less heroic mold. He set in motion the rebellion of Jehu, — his all-too-zealous and unscrupulous tool, which effected the downfall, in torrents of blood, of Ahab’s dynasty and the extirpation of the worship of Melkart. Another significant antagonist of Ahab was Micaiah the prophet who announced his doom (I K 225-28). He is our earliest example of the true prophet, who speaks without flinching the un- palatable truth as God has revealed it to him, in conflict with the courtier prophets, who speak only what those in authority desire to hear. IV. Tue Erauta Century PRopHEts. 14. The Prophets as Preachers. Before we indi- cate the special contribution of the 8th cent. prophets there are some general questions which call for discussion at this point. The reaction against the traditional view that Old Testament prophecy was mainly prediction and in particular prediction of Christ, went to an extreme, so that the predictive element in prophecy was unduly mini- mized. It was, of course, important to shift the emphasis from the future to the present and to make it clear that the prophets were primarily concerned with the conditions of their own time. The thought of God and His claim on His own people and their loyalty to Him, of righteousness in the government of the State and in the administra- tion of justice, of honesty in commerce, of tender compassion for the defenseless and the weak, such were the main themes of their message. Hatred and indignation for tyranny and cruelty, loathing for vice and disgust at luxury, repudiation of idolatry with its degradation of the Divine and its religious and moral abominations, were prominent in their . message. They had much to say on foreign politics, partly because the entanglement of Israel with foreign states might aggravate those social evils at home which the prophets so deeply deplored; partly because it tended to replace the nation’s trust in God by reliance on the help of foreign nations; partly because political might bring with it religious alliance. 15. The Prophets and the Future. But all this preoccupation with contemporary conditions did not render them indifferent to the future. Their preaching was directed in the first instance against the false religion, the vices, and the follies of their own age. But the great canonical prophets of the period before the Exile did not anticipate that their message would prove effective. They were assured that calamity was coming. Not, be it observed, that they believed it to be in the nature of the case inevitable. On the contrary, hoping against hope, they strove, by pleading and by warning, with their stubborn and infatuated countrymen, urging them to amend their ways and proclaiming the certainty of God’s judgment, however, long delayed, on an apostate and impenitent people. Yet, knowing their own countrymen so well, they were persuaded that their light-hearted optimism would lure them to their ruin. But for the most part at any rate, they did not believe that judgment would be God’s last word with Israel. For after the judgment had been executed the course of history would be reversed, and God would pity and restore His broken people. They would possess their own land, in peace and prosperity, under a righteous king of Davidic stock. 16. Origin of the Prophetic Eschatology. This brings us to the consideration of a topic which has recently attracted much attention. The origin of the prophets’ certainty of judgment has often been regarded as a moral postulate. Assured of the inflexible righteousness of God, they realize that a holy God can not permanently tolerate a sinful people. Hence calamity must come unless there is reform. The people believe that their election is a token of J’’s favor and, altho He may chasten, He will not destroy. The prophets, on the contrary, insist on the supremacy of righteousness to which, if necessary, even the existence of Israel will be sacrificed. Fiat justitia, ruat Israel. Other scholars think rather of a peculiar sensitiveness in the prophets to the drastic intervention of God in his- tory. They enter on their vocation when a crisis is approaching, they are storm-birds giving warning of the tempest which is about to burst. Others again trace their anticipations of the future to a keener insight than their contemporaries possessed into the political situation. But recently another theory has been propounded, that their certainty of disaster followed by restoration was derived from a preexisting eschatological scheme. This scheme, which is believed to have been an integral part of Israel’s religion from a very early period and familiar to the people, is thought by some (Gunkel, Gress- mann, E. Meyer) to have been borrowed from abroad; while another view (Sellin) is that, altho availing itself of foreign imagery for expression, the actual belief grew out of the native principles of Israel’s religion. Accordingly while there has been a tendency on the part of some scholars to regard eschatology, with Wellhausen, as a creation of Ezekiel, and to proceed to even greater extremes than he did in relegating passages of an eschato- logical character to a date after the Exile, those scholars who hold eschatology itself to be early freely recognize the presence of eschatologica pas- sages in preexilic prophecy. The whole question is still in debate and no decided verdict can be given. But the evidence for an Egyptian scheme, which is really parallel with predictions of the prophets, must be pronounced very dubious; and even if it existed, it is not clear Israel, Religion of that it was adopted by Israel in its early period. The anticipation of the future which was current in the pagan scheme and adopted in the popular religion of Israel we should have expected to be reproduced by the lower order of prophets. But it is the canonical prophets in whom the scheme of a terrible judgment followed by a time of blessedness, is to be found. It is their antagonists who are the optimists, who say ‘Peace’ when there is no peace (cf. Mi 35 8 and 11-12; also Jer 28 8 ff.). 17. Foreign Perils and Internal Corruption. We may next consider the situation in which the great prophets of the 8th cent. did their work. Under Jeroboam II the Northern Kingdom had reached the zenith of its fortunes. The pressure from Syria was relieved through its exhaustion by Assyria, then for a time Assyria was itself quiescent and this gave Israel under Joash and Jeroboam II the oppor- tunity to retrieve its disasters. Thus the bounds of the kingdom were extended and wealth enormously increased. But at any time Assyria might resume its movement towards Egypt; and prophecy entered on its great period with the anticipation of Assyria’s election to be the instrument of J’’s judgment on His faithless people. Amos, the earliest of our canonical prophets, had apparently done his work when Tiglath-pileser came to the throne; but he had anticipated the coming of the Assyrians; and it was with the rise of this new dynasty that a new era opened in which the development of the religion was conditioned by its contact with the great empires, first of Assyria and then of Babylon. (See Israsgt, History or, § 5, (c) and (d.) But the internal conditions were equally im- portant. In the long and disastrous conflict with Syria or through calamities at home the peasant proprietors had largely disappeared. The rich acquired extensive estates by taking advantage of the owners’ necessities. These estates were in great measure worked by slaves. Those who did not be- come serfs would be driven to swell the indigent population of the towns. The poor fell into more and more desperate poverty. If they were forced to borrow they were charged a ruinous interest which hopelessly enslaved them in the creditor’s toils. When heavy tribute was imposed by a foreign state or taxation was required by an oppressive government, the greatest sufferers were the poor. They were enslaved for trifling debts or cheated with false weights and measures. The rapacity of the rich and powerful might take the form of high- handed oppression or effect the barefaced robbery of the defenseless under forms of law. The im- pecunious had no chance, the long purse could bribe the judges or hire false witnesses or even keep the case out of the courts altogether. This scandalous maladministration of justice is one of the constant themes of the great preexilic prophets. It was the more heartless that its victims were often the most defenseless classes of the community, the widow, the orphan, and the resident alien. It was the more hateful that the money wrung from the needy was wasted on ostentation, luxury, and vice and that the women were parties to the inhumanity and self- indulgence of the men. Moreover, while no regard A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY was paid to mercy or to justice, they were punc- tilious and lavish in their religious ceremonial. 18. Amos. The date of Amos can not be fixed with certainty: probably it was about 760 B.c. He belonged to Judah but prophesied in the Northern Kingdom, from which he was expelled on the charge of treason (Am 7 10-17). He was the earliest of our literary prophets. Prophecy was still purely oral utterance, but a step of incalculable importance was taken when a written record was made of it. The object of this new departure is uncertain. Amos was silenced and may thus have been led to commit his message to writing; Isaiah seems to have resorted to it that he might vindicate by the event the truth of his predictions which were met with incredulity (Is 8 16 f.). Amos attacked the luxury of the lords and ladies of Israel, but still more the robbery and oppression of the poor by the rich, and the gross maladministration of justice. These sins were the more hateful that they were combined with a splendid worship of J’’, a worship itself stained with foul vices. The nations are condemned for outrage on our common humanity especially cruelty and atrocities. Israel is denounced for sins of the same type, perpetrated not on foreigners but on fellow- countrymen. The flaming indignation with which the prophet denounced inhumanity, oppression, and the perversion of justice had its root in his con- ception of God. He was at one with his people in the conviction that out of all the nations J’ had chosen Israel for His own (8 2). But while the people saw in this election a proof that Israel was J’’s favorite and could reckon on His help if only the cultus was maintained, Amos inferred from it a more exacting standard of conduct and more drastic punishment for their crimes. No sacrifices with their banquets and festal music could win the favor of their God or avert the merited judgment. He loathes their offerings and will not revoke theirdoom. Indeed the judgments from which they have already suffered might have taught them this; but they will have an unexpected climax in the deep gloom of the Day of Yahweh, to which they are looking forward with such misplaced optimism. For J” is the God of Nature and of history, the forces of Nature are under His control, the destinies of nations are molded by His sovereign will. And altho Israel may seek Him and live, the prophet anticipates no radical reform and looks forward to the destruction of the nation, of which apparently not even a remnant is to survive. 19. Hosea. Hosea began his work before the downfall of the dynasty of Jehu; but his book reflects the period of disorder which followed, when one adventurer after another seized the reins of government, and when war and impoverishment made the condition of the people more and more wretched. It has been thought by most modern scholars that the specific contribution of Hosea to to the religion of Israel grew directly out of his own experience. In spite of the reaction on the part of several recent scholars against this view, it still seems the most acceptable solution of a difficult problem. Hosea, acting on what he later came to recognize as a Divine leading, married Gomer, who bore three children, a son, a daughter and a second 389 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY | Israel, Religion of son (Hos 1 2-9). The first he named ‘Jezreel’ as a sign that Jehu’s ruthless slaughter of Ahab’s family would be visited upon his dynasty. The daughter he named ‘Lo-Ruhamah,’ a name which expressed J‘’s ruthlessness toward Israel. The third he named ‘Lo-ammi’ (not my people) as a sign that J” re- pudiated Israel. Apparently at some point between the marriage and the birth of the third child the prophet became aware of his wife’s unfaithfulness. The name of the daughter may express this; but against it is the fact that relations between husband and wife seem to have continued. And her name may may be simply one expressive of judgment like the name of the elder son. But Lo-ammi does strongly suggest that Hosea meant to record in the name the conviction ‘No child of mine!’ Gomer seems to have gone from bad to worse, to have sunk more deeply in degradation, and, deserted by her lovers, to have been on the point of being sold into slavery. Then the prophet intervened and purchased her, took her home and trusted that in seclusion she would repent and reform (ch. 3). At first, then, Hosea was a prophet of judgment, like Amos, and embodied his conviction in the names of the children. But, musing on the dark experience through which he had passed, he saw a principle expressed in it which gave him the key to the character of God and His relations to Israel. For if the spring in his own action had been the unquenchable love which would not abandon the sinner, which refused to yield to despair and steadily worked for her restoration, then how much more must this be true of God, who had won Israel for His bride at the Exodus and whose love had been outraged by her unfaithfulness with the Baalim! He, too, would bring His loved one through painful discipline to repentance because His love, since it was Divine love, and thus far outshone the human love of the prophet, could never rest until it had restored the old happy relations (ch. 2). And thus while Amos proclaimed J’’s inflexible righteousness, Hosea revealed His patient and un- conquerable love. 20. Isaiah. About 740 B.c, Isaiah received his call, and his long ministry of forty years had run nearly half its course when the Northern Kingdom fell. The vision, in which his call came to him, gave him explicitly or implicitly almost all those truths which he applied to internal conditions or foreign relations. The vision of J’ throned in majesty, the song of the seraphim acclaiming His holiness, shatter him to the foundations of his being and bring home to him with crushing intensity of new per- ception the familiar truths of the Divine purity and majesty and the uncleanness and unworthiness alike of himself and his people. He feels himself, as his guilt is revealed in its true character in the white light of God’s awful purity, to be worthy of death. The lips of the deeply penitent man, touched by the living coal from the altar, are cleansed and made fit for the worship of the sanctuary. He overhears J’”’s inquiry for a messenger and, discerning the challenge within it, offers himself for the service. He receives his commission, but is warned that his message will harden the people rather than bring them to repentance, and that judgment will come on the guilty nation. Thus he takes up his task, knowing that his mission will be a failure and that it will be his own fidelity to it which will insure its failure (Is ch. 6).. In his denunciation of the sins of Judah and his exhortations to repentance he followed Amos; but he anticipated that a remnant would be spared to be the nucleus of a new and righteous nation (cf. chs. 2-5). He met the crisis of the Syro- Ephraimitish invasion with unfaltering faith in God, a faith which he embodied in the sign of Immanuel (7 14). For this name would be given to a child shortly to be born as an expression of the mother’s faith that God would be with His people. Therefore he protests against the king’s project of purchasing the aid of Assyria, recognizing that Syria and Ephraim might inflict annoyance on Judah, but had no power for fatal mischief (chs. 7 and 8). But _ when the step had been taken and Judah grew restive under the Assyrian yoke and, lured by brilliant promises of help from Egypt, meditated rebellion, Isaiah threw all his influence against such folly (30 1-5, etc.). For he was assured that Assyria was the rod to execute J’’s anger and that no human power could successfully oppose it. Yet Assyria had failed to recognize that it was but the instrument in J’’s hands and had profanely boasted of its un- conquerable might, even against J’’ Himself; and when it had served His purpose, it would be broken and thrown aside (10 5-34, etc.). And since he was assured that Zion was J’’s earthly dwelling he was firm in the faith that it could not be destroyed; and in the darkest hour, when all hope seemed lost, triumphantly predicted the failure of Assyria (Is 14 24 ff, 30 27 ff, 31 5-9, etc.). Had the fate then befallen the Southern Kingdom, which twenty years earlier had brought the Northern to its end, the consequences for Israel’s religion would have been momentous. For the Northern tribes, so far as they were taken into exile, seem to have lost their racial identity; and when the religion was torn up from the land in which it was rooted, it was apparently too feeble to survive the shock. The respite, which came to Judah in 701, gave it a longer lease of life; and so the ethical and spiritual monotheism of the prophets had time in which to develop and take root in the national consciousness so that the Exile to Babylon failed to destroy it. V. Tue REFORMATION OF JOSIAH AND THE MINISTRY OF JEREMIAH. 21. Deuteronomy and Josiah’s Reformation. The reader is apt to be so impressed with the deliverance of Jerusalem that he may easily fail to recognize the extent of the disaster which had fallen upon Judah. A pillaged and devastated land, prisoners by the hundred thousand, and an almost incredible booty carried to Assyria,— such were the ghastly results of Sennacherib’s campaign. It is not wonderful there- fore that the prophetic religion seems to have fallen into disrepute and that the mighty gods of Assyria claimed the devotion of Manasseh and his people. The worship of the host of heaven and other forms of heathenism became rampant, and also the grue- some custom of infant sacrifice (II K 21 1-9). In these conditions the representatives of the higher Israel, Religion of A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY © 330 es i —— 3 _ religion, unable to make an effective protest, may have turned their hopes toward the future and pre- pared the Law Book on which the Reformation of Josiah was based (II K 22 8 f.). It is, of course, possible that this code was as early as the reign of Hezekiah or as late as the reign of Josiah. For a hundred and twenty years it has been held by practically all critical scholars to be embedded in the Book of. Deuteronomy. Some recent scholars, and notably Hélscher, have denied this and seen in Deuteronomy a much later work. In its most con- sistent form this involves a drastic handling of the story of the Reformation in II K chs. 22 and 23, a very radical criticism of the Book of Jeremiah and, above all and most difficult to accept, the extreme view that the Book of Ezekiel, while containing some portions belonging to that prophet, is as a whole much later than his time. Since the current identifi- cation of Josiah’s Law Book has been the very pivot on which the arrangement of the Pentateuchal Codes has depended, the critical problem here is momentous for the history of the religion. It ought to be said, however, that Hélscher himself, while skeptical in his handling of the history of Ezra, yet recognizes the truth of the Grafian position that the Priestly Code is later than Deuteronomy and the Book of Ezekiel. Whether the attempts to relegate the Deuter- onomic Code to a later period will secure any exten- | sive support the future must determine. But here the generally accepted critical view must be pre- supposed. As a Code of laws the Deuteronomic legislation took up and expanded the Book of the Covenant, infusing into the older regulations a warmer humanitarianism. It was directed against heathen elements in the cultus and in this interest gave a monopoly to one sanctuary, the Temple at Jerusalem being apparently intended, altho not explicitly named. All other sanctuaries were re- garded as illegitimate. By this drastic remedy the heathen practises at the local sanctuaries were to be extirpated and the unity of J’ indelibly engraved on the minds of the people. For there was a danger in the multiplicity of sanctuaries that Yahweh would be differentiated into a number of local Yahwehs; and against this Deuteronomy affirms what has, in a very uncouth but expressive term, been described as ‘mono-Yahwism’: ‘Yahweh our God, Yahweh is one.’ The problem of what was to be done with the priests of the disestablished sanctuaries was not overlooked by the legislator, who in! this, as in other respects, drew some of the more obvious inferences from his fundamental principle of the centralization of worship (cf. Dt 18 6-8). His solution, however, was too idealistic and did not reckon with the probable refusal of the priests at Jerusalem to admit the priests of the high places into the enjoy- ment of their monopoly (cf. II K 239). The problem was solved by Ezekiel, who restricted the priesthood to the clergy at Jerusalem, the sons of Zadok, and deprived the other priests of priestly rights as a penalty for their ministry at the high places, while committing to them the menial duties of the sanc- tuary. The Priestly Code adopts this in principle, but extends the priesthood to all the descendants predecessors. of Aaron and carries back the distinction between priests and Levites to the time of Moses, treating the position of the Levites not as a penal degradation from the priesthood but as an elevation from the ranks of the laity. But while Deuteronomy was the outcome of the labors of priests and lawyers, it was also an outgrowth of the prophetic movement. It inculcated a purified religion, an elevated theology, a just and humanitarian ethic. The centralization of the worship reduced the area of corrupt worship and facilitated effective supervision of the legitimate cultus. Faithful obedience to the requirements of the Law would have raised immeasurably the standard of purity in the service of God, and justice and humanity in men’s relations with their fellows. But the acceptance of a written law carried with it the germs of the later legalism and casuistry, and tended to check the spontaneity and unconsciousness both of religion and of morality. It might induce a feeling of self-satisfaction and so minister to spiritual pride. It is probable that Jeremiah welcomed, and even advocated, the Reformation; but if so he seems to have become dissatisfied with its effects. It had not been sufficiently penetrating, the hurt of the people had been too lightly healed. 22. Jeremiah. Jeremiah’s own contribution to the religion was still more important. This was not so much in the enunciation of new doctrines, but in the deepening of the doctrines already uttered by his The fineness and penetration of his psychological analysis went beyond anything which had been attained before. He is far from indifferent to right conduct, to righteous administration in the government and the law courts, to integrity in international relationships. As sternly as his pre- decessors and even at grave risk of his life, he announces the Divine judgment on the sins of the people. He opposes their infatuated policy of rebellion and obstinate resistance to Babylon. But with all this practical interest and activity, his primary significance lies elsewhere. He put a new emphasis on the inner life. The heart, with all its windings and its mystery, is prominent in his thought. He knew sin and righteousness, as others had not known them, through his prolonged and faithful study of his own heart. And so it was natural that he should become the prophet of the New Covenant. It was in large measure due to the nature of his own experience that his religious genius found this, its loftiest expression. Deprived of a home of his own, excluded from the joys and sorrows of his fellows, the loneliness of spirit to which the rarity of his nature doomed him was an isolation more tragic still. His message was received - with scorn and incredulity or with hatred, persecu- tion and peril of imminent death. And since he has no refuge in man he flies for refuge to God. But when from broken cisterns he turns to the fountain of living waters, they seem to fail him and he won- ders if God Himself will prove a lying brook and waters that fail (Jer 15 18). He is dismayed at the burden imposed upon him, and instead of the healing pity he expects from God he is sharply rebuked and braced by the warning of still sterner conflicts. ‘If thou hast run with the footmen and they have 391 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Israel, Religion of wearied thee; then how wilt thou vie with horses? and if in a land of peace thou fleest, then how wilt thou do in the jungle of Jordan?’ (Jer 12 5). Yet in his weakness and failure, his sense of discourage- ment, his sensitive shrinking from pain, his mourning over the wilfulness and waywardness of his people, his immeasureable sorrow at their suffering, even when God shows him scant sympathy there is no one but God to whom he can turn. And in this intimacy of fellowship with God he makes a new discovery: here in personal fellowship with a personal God he finds the deepest experience which religion can offer. And so in this he discovers the inmost reality of relig- ion. Thus he comes to formulate his great doctrine of the New Covenant which is indeed made with the nation but in which religion becomes an individual experience (Jer 31 31 ff.). For the law is written on the heart, it is no longer a code imposed from the outside, it has become one with the personality. Thus God is revealed to all and His will is woven into the inmost texture of man’s being. So Jeremiah becomes the prophet of individualism in religion. VI. Tar Extte. Ezexieu AND THE SECOND ISAIAH. 23. The Exile and Its Influence on the Religion. The blow Jeremiah had awaited so long fell at last. But the final catastrophe had been foreshadowed in the captivity of Jehoiachin and the flower of the nation in 597 (II K 24 10-16). Since they were en- couraged by the optimistic prophets to anticipate speedy restoration (Jer 29 8 f., 24-32) and, in spite of the warnings of Jeremiah and later of Ezekiel, did not contemplate the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple and the downfall of the Jewish State, they looked on their life in Babylon as purely temporary and provisional. They had not accord- ingly to face the problem of practising their religion with its old supports completely cut from beneath their feet. They were habituated, in the decade which preceded the destruction of Jerusalem, to the practise of their religion in such forms as were possible in an unclean land. Hence, when the final catastrophe came, they were much better prepared to meet it than if in its full magnitude it had burst upon them all at once. The perfidy of the weak Zedekiah in breaking his oath of allegiance to Nebuchadrezzar (Ezk 17 13-21) was expiated by the capture of Jerusalem after an obstinate resistance, the execution of a large number of its dignitaries, the blinding of the king after he had seen his sons slain, the burning of the city and the Temple, the captivity of a large proportion of the people. A remnant including Jeremiah was left in the land under Gedaliah. But the Governor was murdered by treachery; and the remnant, fearing that they might be held responsible, fled to Egypt, in spite of Jeremiah’s remonstrance, forcing the prophet to go with them. Here they relapsed into idolatry, alleging that nothing but calamity had followed their abandonment of the cult of the Queen of Heaven (Jer chs. 39-44). No doubt many of the exiles in Babylon argued in the same way and presumably they were quickly lost to their ancestral religion. The gods of Babylon had triumphed over J’. But others recgonized that the great prophets had been vindicated and that Judah had received at J’”’s hands the due reward of her deeds. Thus the exile sifted the people, and a more spiritual remnant emerged, with the promise of the future. Their racial and religious conscious- ness was intensified, to safeguard them from ab- sorption by their heathen environment. Detached from local limitations and a material structure, religion was set free to take on a more spiritual character. It was forced to devise for itself more spiritual forms of expression. If no place could be sacred in an unclean land, sacred seasons could be observed; and if no sacrifice could be offered on the altar, prayer and sacred song and the reading of the sacred books could take its place. They saved what they could from the wreck. The records of the past were diligently collected and the utterances of the prophets; their laws were brought together and reshaped to meet new conditions. The removal from Palestine broke off the connection with the local sanctuaries and thus made the Deuteronomic in- stitution of a monopolist sanctuary easy to attain when they returned to Palestine. And banishment from their land, whether in Babylonia or in the larger Dispersion, tended to an idealization of Zion which has ever since been characteristic of the Jews. 24. Ezekiel. Two great teachers labored among the exiles, Ezekiel and the Second Isaiah. Ezekiel, like Jeremiah, was a priest, but presumably of the line of Zadok, and attached, before he left Jerusalem in 597, to the Temple. He received his call to Baby- lonia five years later, in a vision of God which crushed him with the sense of the sovereignty and glory of J” (Ezk ch. 1). His theology was dominated by this experience. It was largely a vindication of God’s ways with His people. Israel’s whole history from Egypt onward had been one of unrelieved ingratitude and apostasy. J’’ had again and again been provoked to anger and minded to make Israel a signal example of His wrath. But controlled in all His action by a sensitive tenderness for His own reputation, He had forborne to smite, that He might not be discredited by the heathen as too weak to save His own people. But now the fair fame of J”’ is suffering from Israel’s accumulated sin; so He has resolved to execute the judgment He had so long delayed. But the destruction of the State can not be the end of His relations with Israel. It com- promised Him in the sight of the heathen, hence He must restore Israel, not for Israel’s own sake but because He had pity for His own holy name. The Temple would be restored and there J’ would dwell in the midst of a reunited people, the schism be- tween North and South having been healed. Then, to avenge the insults offered Him by the heathen and to fulfil ancient prophecy, He would lure Gog with his vast hordes from the land of Magog to fall on defenseless Israel, and He would destroy the invaders, Israel needing to strike no blow. Thus He would win renown among the nations and finally demonstrate that not His weakness but Judah’s sin had been responsible for the Exile (Ezk chs. 38 f.). Ezekiel’s care for J’”s honor was also the root of his individualism. It was an answer to the challenge of his contemporaries that the ways of Israel, Religion of A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 392 a ES : iii J’ were unfair and that they were themselves suffering for the sins of their fathers. The prophet denies that punishment can be transferred. ‘The soul that sinneth it (and no other) shall die.’ Each individual bears his own responsibility. The ancient idea of solidarity is abandoned. Indeed the total weight of responsibility is made to rest on the individual’s state at the critical hour when the long-promised judgment comes. Long years of righteousness will not save the man who in that critical hour is found in a state of sin: nor will a long career of iniquity be counted against a man who repents before the judgment breaks upon the world. The prophet’s duty is thus extended from the State to the individual; he must warn the righteous to maintain his righteousness and the wicked that he should turn and live (Ezk 18, 33 1-20). It will be seen that the individualism of Ezekiel differed from that of Jeremiah. For the older prophet the stress lay on personal religion and the conviction was rooted in experience; for the younger it lay on personal responsibility and was an element in his theodicy. Yet Ezekiel also speaks of the Divine cleansing from impurity and idolatry, and of the new heart and the new spirit (36 25-27). It would be difficult to overestimate the influence which Ezekiel exerted on the later development. He has not inaptly been called ‘the father of Judaism.’ The legislation for the returned exiles stands between Deuteronomy and the Priestly Code and to some extent mediates the transition from one to the other. His momentous distinction between priests and Levites and the degradation of the latter from the priesthood has been already mentioned. The ceremonialism and legalism, so characteristic of the later Judaism, were also largely derived from him. It is the more striking since this was the side of religion with which his great predecessors had shown the least sympathy. And that he should have been the junior contemporary of the great prophet of the New Covenant, who had found the essence of religion in the communion of the indi- vidual with God, makes his position more remark- able still. He is the most significant factor in what must from the highest standpoint seem the descent from the climax which prophecy reached in Jere- miah to the legalism which dominated the religion after the Return. Yet in no other way, it may be urged, could a community have been created which would have stood so firm under the assault of Antiochus Epiphanes or resisted dissolution under the subtle influence of Hellenism. 25. The Second Isaiah. The work of the Second Isaiah is probably limited to Is chs. 40-55. The prophet points to the rise of Cyrus as the vindica- tion of earlier predictions; and from the fact that J’’ through His prophets can predict the future he draws the inference that J’’ controls history. He is also the omnipotent Creator, the one and only God. Therefore His people must not be dismayed by the apparent triumph of Babylon and her idols, for already the decree of their destruction is approaching fulfilment. The prophet lays much stress on the gracious aspects of J’’s nature—His gentleness, His tenderness to the weak, His inexhaustible affection for His people. We might indeed say His favoritism, for other nations are sacrificed for the sake of Israel and are destined to be its bond-servants. Yet there is a brighter side to this picture presented in the Servant poems (Is 42 1-4, 49 1-6, 50 4-9, 52 13-58 12). These poems are still the subject of keen debate. Several scholars believe that they are not the work of the Second Isaiah. Still more important is the question of the interpretation. Undeniably the Second Isaiah himself means Israel when he speaks of the Servant of Yahweh. It is also the significance attached to the figure in the present text of the servant passages: ‘ I said, Thou art my servant; Israel in whom I will be glorified’ (49 3). Those who accept the national interpretation are divided, some believing that the actual Israel is intended; others that the author means the ideal Israel; while others insist that the Servant must be an individual, and several identifications have been proposed. The view here taken is that the Servant is Israel in the strict sense of the term, the Israel who had died in the Exile and is to be raised to life by restoration to its own land. The function of the Servant is to be the revealer of the true God to the world and the vicarious sufferer for the sins of the Gentile nations. This is the solution given by the author for the tormenting problem of the suffering of the righteous. VII. Tue TriumpH or LEGALISM. 26. The Priestly Code and the Birth of Judaism. There has been much dispute as to the Return of the Jews from the Exile. It is not improbable that the figures have been exaggerated; but it still seems to be the most acceptable view that a number of Jews availed themselves of the permission of Cyrus to return in 5386. The disenchanting realities chilled their enthusiasm; and it was not merely the hostility of the people of the land which delayed the re- building of the Temple. Their energies were roused by Haggai and Zechariah and the Temple was at last completed. These prophets anticipated the speedy downfall of the heathen empire and the inauguration of the Messianic age with Zerubbabel as Messianic king. The next sixty years are almost a blank to us. But according to the current chronology, Ezra came from Babylon in 458 and ruthlessly dissolved the marriages which Jews had contracted with foreigners. In 444 the Law, whether the Pentateuch or the Priestly Code is disputed, was read and accepted by the people, the reform being strongly supported by Nehemiah. Much skepticism has been expressed about these narratives which are nevertheless probably substantially correct. In any case, at some point in this period the Pentateuch was completed and became the controlling element in Jewish life. And in the Pentateuch the Priestly Code was the dominating factor. According to the generally accepted view of modern critics, this Code represents the final stage in the legal development. It included much that was ancient, not a little in- deed which could never have originated in a highly developed spiritual religion but which the con- servatism of the religious instinct had preserved from a far earlier time. For some features savage religion supplies the best explanation. Yet there are late 393 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Israel, Religion of developments in it, by which its approximate date may be determined. The introduction of the Law and its acceptance by the people marked the birth of Judaism. The Jews were now governed by an elaborate code; but by the activity of the scribes a far more complicated system of laws was gradually built up. The dominance of the Law strangled prophecy of the classical type; apocalyptic more and more took its place. But it is only right to recognize how passionate an enthusiasm the Law was able to evoke and how many martyrs faced torture and death rather than be disloyal to it. VIII. Tue ProBLeM or SurFrERIna. 27. The Problem of Suffering. In a sketch of this compass it is not necessary to linger over the later prophecies, altho at certain points they will engage our attention. But there is one problem that was forced on the Jews by the sufferings which they were compelled to endure. This was the prob- lem why the wicked were rich and triumphant while the godly were doomed to privation and suffering. It was suggested by Jeremiah (121), and in the view of many discussed by one of his contemporaries, Ha- bakkuk. But the Book of Habakkuk presents an extremely difficult critical problem and no conclu- sions can be affirmed with any confidence. The prophet takes comfort in the assurance that tyr- anny has within it the seed of its own ruin and that pride is a sure passport to destruction; but on the other hand righteous Israel shall live by its fidelity to God. Ezekiel, we have already seen, denied the existence of the problem; Divine justice meted out exact retribution. The Servant poems express the pro- found idea that suffering may be vicarious, the suffering of Israel is suffering which the idolatrous Gentiles have deserved. The miseries of the returned exiles, the antagonism of foes at home and the pressure of the foreign yoke, accentuated the prob- lem. Haggai and Zechariah explained their ca- Jamities by their failure to put God before their own interests. If the Temple is rebuilt, then J” will be gracious. After it had been rebuilt, they promised that the Messianic age would supervene on the overthrow of the heathen world. In the scene between J” and the Satan in Zechariah (ch. 3) the suffering of Israel is traced to its sin; but its present misery does not prove that J” is still angry. He rebukes the Satan, who infers its guilt from its miseries, and replies that He has plucked Jeru- salem as a brand from the burning. But conditions were not alleviated; and in the next century Malachi reports the complaint that the service of God brings no profit but the wicked are happy and prosperous. The author rebukes such impiety, but has no positive solution to offer. He looks forward like his predecessors, to the Day of Yahweh when the godly and the evil-doers will alike receive their deserts. The doubts so widely entertained were in truth almost inevitable when religion was con- ceived in so national and legalistic a way. 28. The Book of Job. It is in the Book of Job that the problem received the greatest prominence. The book opens with J’”’s challenge to the Satan to find any flaw in Job. The Satan admits the fact, but denies the disinterested character of Job’s piety. He is permitted accordingly to strip him of all his possessions and his children. Then, when he asserts, unabashed by his failure, that the trial has not touched the sufferer to the quick, J’’ permits him to rack his victim with intolerable disease. Job still maintains his integrity and the Satan’s cynicism is finally refuted. But now the problem emerges, Why has such overwhelming calamity selected Job for its object? The friends who come to condole with him are compelled by their theology to infer grave sin on his part. And the attitude of the sufferer when he curses the day of his birth, and still more when he arraigns the righteousness of Heaven and rates the friends for their sycophancy to the Almighty, deepens their sense of his guilt. For them Job’s suffering was not really a problem; its explanation was only too clear. But for Job himself it was an excruciating problem. He was assured that he had committed no sin which could warrant losses so colossal, bereavement so bitter, torture so agonizing. And it was not only the calamity in itself but what it implied. For it could only mean in the eyes of his fellows that God had stigmatized him as a sinner beyond the common measure of trans- gressors. This then creates the real interest of the book. For its interest does not lie primarily in the problem of suffering and its solution; it lies in the reaction of Job to his sufferings, especially in his relation to God. For, unaware of the suspicion cast on his integrity by the Satan, he traced his suffer- ings to God; and since he was convinced they they were unjust, he felt that they contradicted the righteousness of God. But his primary concern was not with the problem of suffering, or with the righteous government of the world. It was in the first instance an individual question. But in debate he supports the particular by the general; and the injustice he finds in God’s treatment of himself is abundantly illustrated in the prosperity of the wicked and the miseries of the just. On the other hand, his memory of God’s earlier goodness comes back to him; and altho, at the height of his bitter- ness, he sees in it the sinister design of God to lull him into confidence and make his calamity more extreme by contrast with his bliss, yet the other mood, in which he believes in God’s earlier friendliness, is that in which he rests. But this does not obliterate his sense of God’s present hostility, which, he is assured, will not cease on this side of death. Hence Job must die, not in physical pain alone but in moral ig- nominy, branded by such exemplary sufferings as one who had sinned far beyond the common measure. It is this prospect which torments him, even more than his disease. But if even his friends refuse to acquit him, his contemporaries will certainly not right him, nor yet posterity, altho for a moment he dreams of this possibility. And so from earth he turns to Heaven, from God who is now his enemy to God who was once his friend and will be his friend again. Even now his witness is in Heaven, and after Job has died in dishonor, his Vindicator will stand upon his grave and from the apathy of Sheol Job will be wakened to see Him and hear Him pronounce Israel, Religion of A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 394 his justification. Yet strangely he still criticizes the Divine government of the universe, and at the close of the human debate God brings home to him by merciless questioning his incompetence for criticizing what he does not understand. Butitisnot here that the significance of the Divine intervention chiefly lies. It is rather in the mystical sense of God which Job wins through the vision of God that leads him to penitent self-abasement. He needs no explanation of his suffering since he has been lifted above the problem into a mystical certainty of God. This is the chief contribution the book makes to religion, it shows how a mystical solution may be reached, when a speculative solution is unattainable. But while the book gives no positive answer to the problem, it contributes helpful suggestions. It rebukes the dishonest sophistry which in the interests of orthodoxy refuses to face the hard facts of life. It negatives the axiom of the current theology that an inference may be drawn from suffering as an effect to sin as its cause. It shows that suffering may test the reality or improve the quality of a man’s piety, and should be accepted as discipline rather than resented as unjust. Man is reminded of the vastness of the universe and of its many mysteries, that he may learn his incompetence to criticize its govern- ment. He learns also that the human race is not the sole object of God’s concern and still less is any single individual. It must be remembered that when the book was written the higher doctrine of the future life had not been developed. Job suggests the possibility of a return to earth to resume the old happy fellowship with God but sets it aside. There is no return of the shade from Sheol or of the body from the tomb. 29. Psalms 49 and 73. It is, however, to the state after death that the author of Psalm 49 appeals. The fate of the wicked is to be driven down to Sheol, leaving their wealth behind them, while the Psalmist trusts that God will deliver him from Sheol and take him to live with Himself. The author of the seventy-third Psalm was perplexed by the contrast between the prosperity of the wicked and his own sufferings. But he penetrated into God’s secrets and there was disclosed to him the lurid fate of the wicked after death. He, on the contrary, enjoys perfect fellowship with God who guides him through life by His counsel and will then receive him into His glory. In God he possesses his only good in heaven or earth, in a fellowship so deep that death itself can not break it, but which will continue for ever. 30. Ecclesiastes. ‘The problem is viewed from another point in the Book of Ecclesiastes. The writer is oppressed by the aimlessness of life which consists of a cycle of recurring experiences, round which humanity has to march with no possibility of escape, with no hope of anything new. Progress thus becomes impossible. The order of the universe, which is luminous to the Creator, is an insoluble puzzle to man; hence he can not adjust himself to it, or fit his deed to the appropriate season. The author’s own experience had been disenchanting: exhaustive experiments to find satisfaction had ended in disillusion. He was deeply touched by the misery of his fellows as they groaned under the oppression of tyrants; and he counted it an evil in God’s government that the righteous might perish pre- maturely while the wicked grew old in evil-doing. Resignation was best and the fulfilment of the daily task, and such alleviation of the radical evil of existence as may be given by the simple pleasures of life. Of these man should make the most, especially in his youth; for, as his physical powers wither, his capacity for enjoyment will be gone, and in the gloomy underworld the days of darkness will be many. They will be many and without hope, for men are beasts and from the dreary tedium of Sheol and its inactivity there is no escape. 31. Apocalyptic in the Old Testament. The pessimism of Ecclesiastes stands by itself in the Old Testament. The sense of human, or at least of national, misery was acutely felt by the apoca- lyptists; but it drove them for refuge to the certainty © of Divine intervention. Not by development but by sudden catastrophe, not by the evolution of politics, but by the direct and sudden action of God, deliverance was to be attained. On the basis of earlier prophecies, perhaps in conformity with a traditional scheme, they mapped out the course of future history, studied the times and seasons, and calculated the date of the crisis. A rudimentary apocalyptic is to be found in Ezekiel and Zechariah, in Joel and Is 24-27. But for an apocalypse in the full sense of the term we have to go to the Book of Daniel. This book may incorporate earlier material; but in its present form it is a product of the per- secution of Antiochus Epiphanes. As in Is 24 21, and probably Psalms 58 (ver. 1 cf. RVmg.) and 82, behind the human empires stand the angelic princes of the nations. To their misgovernment or hostility to Israel the present miseries are largely due. And between the rival angels the battle is fought in heaven before the victory is won on earth. Antiochus is moving to his des- tined end; and altho the saints pass through a great tribulation deliverance is at hand. The Ancient of Days will come to judge, the bestial powers of evil will be overthrown and the kingdom will be delivered to the saints. A resurrection of the righteous and the annihilation of death had been predicted in Is 25 8, 26 19, and the anticipation is taken up in Dn 12 2. But here, while some are raised to everlasting life, others are brought back to earth to endure reproaches and everlasting abhorrence The author is probably thinking specially of the martyrs and the apostates in the Maccabean period. IX. PSALMISTS AND SAGES. 32. The Psalter. It is not possible in the limits of this article to speak in any detail of one of the most notable portions of the Old Testament, the Book of Psalms. That it contains preexilic elements is probable; but it is in the main a monument of post- exilic piety. Its limitations ought to be frankly recognized, in particular the vindictive bitterness, with which the writers speak of their enemies, and that not merely in the imprecatory Psalms. More- over the Psalmists are not simply pioneers in religious thought. They have behind them for the | q | . 395 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Israel, Religion of most part the great prophets whose original utter- ances they have coined into the language of devo- tion. And in a large measure they have behind them the Law, in whole or in part. They were not without their own originality, but it was in the region of experimental religion. And so Jews and Christians have turned to the Psalter and discovered a classical expression of their deepest religious feelings. Altho we find in the book an enthusiasm for the Law and a passionate attachment to the Temple, the Psalmists do not conceive religion as consisting mainly in external ritual. The deeply spiritual quality of Jewish piety at its best comes to frequent expression in it. And since, unlike the prophets, the Psalmists were concerned less with the circumstances of their own time and more with universal principles and experiences, their language has an immediate appeal and intelligibility to all ages. To present a complete account of its theology would be largely to describe the religion of Judaism. 33. The Book of Proverbs. On the Book of Pro- verbs it is not necessary to linger. As the Psalms express the religion and theology of the prophets in the language of devotion, the Proverbs express in pithy aphorisms the current ethical principles. No doubt the criticism would not be unjustified that the precepts are the offspring of shrewd and self- regarding common sense, untouched by altruism or idealism. But the nobler and more generous attitude is also represented; and the testimony of the book is unflinching against the evils, moral or economic, which destroy the unity or corrupt the purity of social life. The conception of the Divine wisdom, as presented especially in Pr 8 22-31, was of great im- portance in pointing the way to the later recognition of distinctions within the Godhead, which found expression in the doctrine of the Logos and the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. X. SuMMARY SKETCH OF THE HISTORY OF THE RELIGION. 34. Summary. It remains to summarize the development of Hebrew religion in the Old Testa- ment period and indicate the results achieved by the time when the Old Testament was virtually com- plete. It originated in the selection of a tiny people of crude religion and morality, led by a man of outstanding religious genius, administrative capacity and tremendous force of personality, who inspired them with the conviction that they were the chosen people of J’’ who demanded their sole allegiance. He was conceived of as a deity of the wilderness, manifested in hurricane, in thunder and lightning, and in earthquake, congenial expressions of His own stormy temper and that awful Holiness which reacted with swift vengeance against any violation of it, however involuntary. He was implacable to His foes, dooming them often to utter extermination. Yet He was gracious to His obedient people and demanded from them a morality which surpassed the ethical code of their neighbors. The transition from the wilderness to settled life and agriculture profoundly transformed the religion since it involved the intrusion of Canaanite paganism into Hebrew religion, and the assimilation of J’’ to the Canaanite Baalim. But the view that loyalty to J’ involved the rejection of civilization did not finally triumph; the great prophets re- puditated the foul accretions of paganism, while recognizing in J” the giver of bountiful harvests. Meanwhile the broken unity of the nation was slowly reknit, especially under pressure from the Philis- tines; the monarchy was established, David created an empire to which later ages looked back with pride, and a dynasty from which the Messianic King was expected to spring. The disruption of the kingdom shattered imperialist prospects, but left the religion free to develop. Ahab’s marriage with Jezebel and the introduction of the worship of the Tyrian Baal threatened the monopoly of Yahweh in the allegiance of His people; but this was secured by the religious triumph of Elijah and the political triumph of Jehu. The expansion of Israel under Jeroboam II and the menace of Assyria’s advance created the political conditions which brought the great prophets into the field. They advance from the earlier monolatry to a real monotheism; they see in J” the Lord of Nature and the controller of history, who uses the heathen nations, just as He uses Israel, to effect. His righteous purpose. And they insist with tremendous emphasis on the righteousness of God. Amos pro- claims His inexorable justice, altho it demands the annihilation of Israel; Hosea His inexhaustible love, which will secure Israel’s repentance and restora- tion; Isaiah His holiness and majesty, which will abase the proud and root out the sinful; leaving a righteous remnant, that from it a new nation may spring over which the Messiah will rule. But it must not be forgotten that the spiritual and ethical religion of the prophets found far too scanty under- standing among the people and their accepted religious leaders. The formal priestly system went on with unabated vigor. With the destruction of the Northern Kingdom, the future of the religion was committed to Judah. The preeminence of the Temple gave an opportunity for the centralization of the worship, which was effected by Josiah on the basis of the Deuteronomic Law Book. But matters had gone too far for such palliatives and Jeremiah realized that the destruc- tion of the State and the Temple was inevitable. Taught by his own experience he came to realize that in personal fellowship with a personal God the true secret of religion was to be found, and thus replaced the State by the individual as the unit of religion. The Exile defined the alternatives—either J” could not or would not save His people and they were thus absolved from their allegiance to Him, or Yahweh is the holy, omnipotent God who is chasten- ing us for our sins. Ezekiel drives home the moral; the Exile is richly deserved punishment but J” will restore and renew His people, and get Himself glory by destroying the heathen. The prophet is an extreme individualist who puts the stress on personal responsibility; but he realizes the importance of the communal element in religion and makes elaborate provision for the cultus. The Second Isaiah meets the dismay of the exiles at the arrogant triumph of Babylon over J’”’s people and its despondency at J’’s neglect, by the assurance of His incomparable Israel, Religion of Israel, Social Development A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 396 might and inscrutable wisdom, His tender love for Israel and its restoration through Cyrus the con- ‘queror of Babylon. Israel is the Servant of Yahweh declaring the true God to the heathen and suffering vicariously for their sin. The returned exiles were monotheists who had left idolatry behind them. The cultus was centralized at the Temple; confessedly heathen practises had been abandoned, altho much in the ritual had its roots in crude paganism. Sacred seasons, especially the Sabbath, were strictly observed, and after the Law had become complete, legalism gained more and more power. The scribe and the synagog were everywhere, the priest could offer sacrifice only in Jerusalem. Casuistry became more intricate, proph- ecy waned and passed over into apocalyptic. The Jews became more and more conscious of themselves as a chosen people, separate from the heathen and loathing their abominations. Wild outbursts of hate for the oppressor, savage desire for revenge, are to be found in the Psalms, in some of the prophets, and in the Book of Esther. On the other hand, we have the missionary enthusiasm of the Second Isaiah and still more of the Book of Jonah, the care for the stranger and the command to love him which we find in the Law, and the humanistic temper of the Book of Job. Of incalculable im- portance was the conception of a Canon of sacred books containing a history of the chosen people, laws for its government, prophecies of the future, a literature of devotion, a discussion of perplexing problems. Naturally the Canon was not finally fixed till some time after the latest book of the O T was written; but even before the Maccabean period the Law and the Prophets were recognized as LITERATURE: The best and most comprehensive statement for the English reader is probably E. Kautzsch’s article “Religion of Israel” in the Extra Volume of HDB. The Ger- man original of this was published after his death by his son K. Kautzsch under the title Biblische Theologie des alten Testaments (1911). Other works are H. P. Smith, The Religion of Israel (1914); J. P. Peters, The Religion of the Hebrews (1914). Of the earlier works which are still of value, mention may be made of Kuenen’s Religion of Tarael (1874-75); his Hibbert Lectures, National and Universal Religions (1882); C. G. Montefiore’s Hibbert Lectures, Origin and Growth of Religion (1892). Smaller works are R. L. Ottley, The Religion of Israel (1905); K. Marti, The Religion of the Old Testament (1907); A. 8. Peake, The Religion of Israel (1907); G. A. Barton, The Religion of Israel (1918); H. T. Fowler, The Origin and Growth of the Hebrew Religion (1916); Loisy, The Religion of Israel (1910). There are several comprehensive German works: R. Smend, Alttestameniliche Religionsgeschichte (2d ed., 1899); B. Stade, Biblische Theologie des Alten Testaments (1905), second volume by Bertholet (1911); K. Marti, Geschichte der israelitischen Religion (3d ed., 1907); Konig, Geschichte des Reiches Gottes bis auf Jesus Christus (1908), Geschichte der Alittestamentlichen Religion (2d ed., 1915); R. Kittel, Die Religion des Volkes Israel (61922); G. Holscher, Geschichte der israelitischen und jtidischen Religion (1922). Of works dealing with a section of the subject, the following may be mentioned: K. Budde, Religion of Israel to the Exile (1899) (3d ed. of the German, Die Altisraelitische Religion, 1912); T. K. Cheyne, Jewish Religious Life after the Ezile (1898); Addis, Hebrew Religion to the Establishment of Judaism under Ezra (1906); W. Robertson Smith, The Prophets of Israel (2d ed., 1902); W. H. Bennett, The Religion of the Post-Exilic Prophets (1907); Buttenwieser, The Prophets of Israel (1914); T. H. Robinson, Prophecy and the Propheis in Ancient Israel (1923); Welch, Religion of Israel Under the Kingdom (1912). Works on O T Theology frequently include a history of the religion, altho strictly they are specially concerned with the exposition of individual doctrines, or the theology as a whole. We may mention H. Schultz, Old Testament Theology (1892); E. Riehm, Alittestamentliche Theologie (1889); A. Dillmann, Handbuch der Alitestamentliche Theologie (1895); A. B. Davidson, The Theology of the Old Testament (1904); canonical, and large sections of the other books. (1913). H. W. Robinson, The Religious Ideas of the art om ISRAEL, SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT OF. I. INTRODUCTORY i. ee Scope of the Study History of the Discipline OUTLINE Ill. Tue Hesrew Nomanvic Prriop 15. . Origin of Israel . Nomadic Life of Early Israel . The Religion of J” 3. Method of Study 17 18 Il. Tse Semitic Preriop 19 Sources for the Period . The Land of Canaan V. COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL PERIOD . Sources for the Period . Founding of the Monarchy . Break-up of Tribal System . Break-up of Communistic System 4. The Semites 33. The Class of the Rich 5. Arabia, the Home of the IV. THe AGRICULTURAL PERIOD 34. The Class of the Poor Semites 20. Sources for the Agricultural VI. Communistic SoLUTIONS OF PROBLEM 6. Primitive Semitic Occupa- Period 35. The Kenites tions 21. The Conquest of Canaan 36. The Rechabites 7. Food in Arabia 22. Adoption of Agriculture 37. The Nazirites 8. Care of the Body 23. Food in the Agricultural 38. The Earliest Prophets 9. Dress Period VII. Non-Commounistic So.LurTions 10. Dwellings 24. Dress in the Agricultural 39. The Priests 11. Family Organization Period 40. The Wise Men 12. Political Organization 25. Houses 41. The Prophets 13. Economic Organization 26. Family Organization VIII. Tur Postexiric Preriop 14. Religion 27. Economie Organization 42. Loss of National Life 28. Religion of Agricultural 43. Decline of Ethical Religion Period 44. John the Baptist and Jesus I. InrRopUCTORY. 1. Scope of the Study. The aim of this article is to exhibit in outline the social institutions, manners, and customs of ancient Israel. This study was formerly known as Biblical Archeology, and this usage is still retained by the recent German works of Benzinger and Nowack; but the name is unfortunate, since the facts that are investigated are not archeological but literary. The modern name Biblical Sociology is also misleading, since it me that a system of sociology is taught in the ible. ’ 2. History of the Discipline. The story of Israel’s social life was given no attention either in ancient or in medieval times. With the closing years of the 16th cent., however, 397 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY forge, gah Rejision of ocial Development there began to be a decided activity in this depart- ment. Sigonius treated the subject of sacred antiquities in his De Republica Hebraorum (1583), and Arias Montanus discussed the same subject in the Apparatus, Tom. ii, of the Antwerp Polyglot (1593). Biblical geography and natural history received a noticeable impulse from Bochart, Reland, Celsius, and others. Most of the writings which appeared before the middle of the 18th cent. are collected in the Thesaurus Antiquitatum Sacrarum of Blasius Ugolinus, 1744-69 (34 vols., folio). But the most of these works lack true historical method. It was impossible for them to secure the right insight into the subject, because of their adoption of the traditional typology, in accordance with which all ceremonies are to be explained preeminently as types and shadows of Christ. A new impulse, however, was given to archeolog- ical science by Spencer (De Legibus Hebreorum, 1675). To be sure, many of his results are erroneous, his citation of proofs often arbitrary, and his inter- pretation still under the influence of typology. Nevertheless, it must be admitted that he smoothed the way for historical investigation in this field of study, recognizing and stating the problem of the origin of the legislation, and through his free attitude toward the cultus of the O T making a historical solution of the problem possible. The rationalism which prevailed in the 18th cent. exerted a stimulating influence on archeological studies. The effort was now made to understand Israel as one of the Semitic peoples. Under the stimulus of this new conception special attention was given to the study of the private and political life of Israel, and scholars sought to make use of the observations of numerous travelers in the Orient for a better understanding of Israelitic antiquities. Special interest was manifested in the sphere of the geography and topography of Palestine. Men like Hasselquist, Seetzen, Burckhardt, Van der Velde, Robinson and his traveling companion Eli Smith, Tobler, De Luynes, Wetzstein, and others, broke the spell of tradition and cleared the way for an untrammeled investigation in the realm of historical geography and topography. With due regard to the connection between the natural fea- tures of the land and its political history, Ritter the renowned geographer, made good use of all the available material on the geography of Palestine. In more recent years, systematic researches in | Palestine have been undertaken through accurate measurements, excavations, etc. In these enter- prises England (The Palestine Exploration Fund, 1865), America (The Palestine Exploration Society, 1871), and Germany (Deutsche Palaestina-Verein, 1877) have been the principal participants. The first attempt at a purely systematic organiza- tion of the discipline from the historical point of view was undertaken by De Wette. He was, however, sur- passed by Ewald, because the latter not only had a truer appreciation of Israel’s religious character- istics, but also possessed a deeper insight into the religions of Semitic antiquity. Against this historico-critical treatment of arche- ology, a reaction arose in the school of Hengstenberg. It found its appropriate expression in Keil’s Archae- ologie. Hengstenberg, Kurz, Keil, and others all assumed that without symbolism and typology it is not possible to reach a full understanding of the religious institutions of Israel. Through the general acceptance of the modern Pentateuchal criticism, which is associated with the names of Reuss, Graf, and Wellhausen, a powerful impulse was given to archeological research. The altogether different conception of the Priestly Code and its assignment to the postexilic times neces- sitated an entirely new idea of the ritual develop- ment of Israel. In addition, has come the newly awakened interest in the history of religion, with fresh information in the field of Semitics, through the labors of W. R. Smith, Wellhausen, and others, and the material brought to view by the excavations, especially in the Euphrates valley, through which we have secured a clear insight into the collective life of these peoples. We have thus for the first time come to know more accurately the ground from which Israel sprang, and can estimate with approxi- mate correctness the influence which was exercised upon her by other peoples. 3. Method of Study. The old method, which is still followed by Benzinger and Nowack, was topical. Everything relating to occupations, food, dress, clothing, family organization, political organization, or economic conditions, was brought together under a single head. This had the advantage of giving a complete picture of each subject, but it had the dis- advantage of losing historical perspective. Just as in ‘Biblical Theology’ the old topical method lost sight of the evolution of religion; and consequently, has been superseded by the modern ‘History of the Religion’ of Israel’; so also in the investigation of Heb. social life the topical method must be discarded in favor of the genetic study of institutions. In accordance with this method, we shall divide the subject into four periods, Semitic, Nomadic, Agricul- tural, and Commercial; and shall classify the material under each period topically, after the man- ner of the older archeologies. II. Tar Semitic Periop. 4. The Semites. See ErHnoarapHy AnD Ern- NOLOGY, §§ 5, 8-11; and GrnraLoey. 5. Arabia, the Home of the Semites. There is general agreement that Arabia was the center from which the Semitic peoples radiated: (1) because they were evenly distributed about this center; (2) because the earliest inhabitants of this region in the Bab. and Eg. monuments were Semites; (3) because Arabia, on account of its aridity, is just the region from which numerous migrations must have taken place; (4) because the modern Bedawin of Central Arabia are the best representatives of the primitive Semites. 6. Primitive Semitic Occupations. In early times, when Arabia was better watered, and game was more abundant than at present, many tribes subsisted by hunting. The memory of this fact lingered in later tradition. Nimrod was a mighty hunter before J’’ (Gn 109, see Nrimrop), and Esau and his descendants were skin-clad men who lived Israel, Social Development of A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY by the chase (Gn 25 27, 27 3 #f., 39 f.). Some modern Bedawi tribes still depend partly on hunting. The weapons used in the chase were the club, boomerang, sling, bow, knife, and snares and traps of various sorts (see Hunrina; Arms, §§ 1-4; Knirp; and FLINT). Fishing was practised from the earliest times on the coast of Arabia, and the words for fish and fishing are the same in all the Semitic dialects. The imple- ments of the art were hooks, spears, and nets (see Fisu, FISHING). Long before their dispersion the Semites had abandoned for the most part the life of hunters, and had adopted that of pastoral nomads. The native Arab name for such nomads is Bedawt, pl. Bedu. Bedawin (Bedouin) is a regular pl. that is not in common native use. The name is used in contrast to fellahtn, or ‘tillers of the soil.’ The most im- portant domestic animal was the one-humped camel, which was indigenous to Central Arabia, and without which life would have been impossible in that region (see CAMEL; and FurNiTuRE). The ass also was early domesticated (see Ass). From the earliest times the broad-tailed sheep and the black-haired goat have been bred by the inhabitants of Arabia (see Goat; SHEEP; LAMB; and Rop). Large cattle were not found in Arabia proper, but only on the rim of the peninsula where water was more abundant. They belonged to the half-nomads who were begin- ning to adopt agricultural life. Horses also were unknown to ancient Arabia, and are found to-day only among tribes who dwell near the Euphrates or other fertile regions (see Nomanpic Lire). The only agriculture known was the cultivation of the date-palm in oases. Among the ancient Semites, as among the modern Bedawin, the arts were all domestic, except that of the smith. The women molded and fired the few pieces of pottery that were necessary, made baskets of twigs, dressed skins, and spun and wove the cloth of hair or wool out of which tents or garments were made. Only the art of working metals was the trade-secret of a clan that wandered from tribe to tribe in pursuit of theircraft (see WEAVE and WEB). Trade in ancient Arabia was of the simplest sort, and consisted mainly in the direct barter of goods. Comparative philology shows, however, that before their separation the Semites had copper, silver, and gold, which they weighed in scales; and also that they had money-changers and money-lenders. These facts indicate that caravan traffic, even with foreign lands, must have been of early origin. 7. Food in Arabia. Water was the first necessity of life. In the desert springs were rare, and their flow was scanty. In a dry season when the fountains failed, long journeys had to be undertaken in search of other sources, or water had to be bought from more fortunate neighbors (see Foop, § 12; WarTER; and WELL). In the hunting period the ancient Semites lived on wild fruits, particularly dates, insects, par- ticularly locusts, honey, fish, lizards, wild birds and their eggs, and the various wild animals that are indigenous to Arabia, all of which are still eaten by the modern Bedawin. Salt was used as a con- diment from the earliest times (see Foon, §§$ 7-9; Locusts; Manna; and Satur). Fire was known, and cooking was done on a primi- tive hearth of three stones (see Coau; Firu; Fire- BRAND; FuEL; FurNacE; and Hearts). When the camel, the sheep, and the goat were domesticated, milk in its various forms became the principal food of the Semites. The flesh of domestic animals was not eaten, except on sacrificial or festal occasions (see Hat; and Foon, §§ 6-11). Grain did not grow in the desert, but the early Semites could not live without it, any more than the modern Bedawin. Either by barter or by robbery, they obtained from the neighboring fellahin the wheat or the barley out of which they made their bread (see Foon, §§ 1-2; Leaven; and Mri). Coffee and tobacco, which are now found everywhere in the - desert, were of course unknown to antiquity 8. Care of the Body. In regard to primitive nakedness, see NAKED; BAREFooT; MournInaG, § 1; and Burra, § 7). In regard to the treatment of the skin, see PuriricaTion, § 2; Nirer; Soap; O1ntT- MENTS AND PERFUMES; EyeE-Patnt; and Mark. In regard to the dressing of the hair, see Bearp; Harr; and Suave. In regard to sickness and its treatment, see DiszASE AND Mepicine; Leprosy; Mipwirs; Nurse; and SwADDLE). 9. Dress. In the hunting period the only garment was a girdle of leaves, or of the skins of captured animals. In the pastoral period a girdle of wool, or hair-cloth was worn; and out of this was developed the kethéneth, or shirt, which was similar to the t6b of the modern Bedawin, over which was worn the simlah, or coat, which was similar to the modern ‘abaye. The head was uncovered, except for a coil of camel’s hair rope to keep the hair in place; and the feet were bare, except for sandals that were worn on a journey (see Dress AND ORNAMENTS; WOOL and Bag). 10. Dwellings. The earliest dwellings of the Semites in the hunting period were caves, or huts of twigs and branches (see Cave; and Boors). In the pastoral period tents of black goat-hair cloth became their habitual abodes (see Housn, §§ 1-2; HapsiraTion; and Lamp). The tents of a clan were grouped together in an encampment (see VIL- LAGE). 11. Family Organization. The earliest form of Semitic society was matriarchal. Marriage was a temporary union, in which a man left his own clan and joined that of his wife. Under these conditions the children belonged to the mother’s tribe, and descent was reckoned entirely through the mother. The mother also was the head of the clan, and the leader of her people in peace and in war. Subsequently society passed into the fraternal polyandrous stage, in which a group of brothers ~ owned a wife in common. In this system the woman joined the men’s clan permanently; but out of the group of brothers it was impossible to tell which was the father of the child, so that descent was still reckoned through the mother. The mother’s poly- androus husband, who might be either father or uncle, was known by the child as ‘amm., 398 399 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Israel, Social Development of Long before their separation the Semites had reached the patriarchal stage of family organization, in which polygamy took the place of polyandry, the wife became the property of her husband, and the child now knew its father (see Famiiy; and KIn- DRED). Marriage with relatives nearer than a cousin was forbidden by custom; but except for this limitation, it was considered desirable to marry the nearest kin possible, in order to keep property in the family (see MARRIAGE AND Divorcg). Polygamy, concubinage, and prostitution were permitted to the man (see Harwor; and WHORE); but the strictest chastity was required of the woman. The husband was the ba‘al, or ‘owner,’ of the wife. He might divorce her at will, but she might not divorce him (see Woman). The father had absolute power of life and death over his children, and they had no rights over against him, except that of inheritance (see Famiuy, §§ 6, 8). Slavery was a universal Semitic institution, and the position of slaves did not differ greatly from that of children (see SLAVERY; and Master). 12. Political Organization. From the earliest times the Semites organized themselves into small clans for defending the oases on which their water- supply depended. These clans were based on real, or assumed kinship; and were bound together by common interest, custom, and religion (see THov- SAND; KINDRED; KINSMAN; and Nriqausor). The law of the clan was custom (see Law, § 1). This guaranteed rights of life, liberty, property, truth, and kindness to all members of the clan, who re- regarded each other as brothers. The government of the clan was in the hands of elders, who were elected by the free men of the tribe, and who could be deposed at will. There thus existed complete democracy (see ELpprR; and Curer). Kindred clans often bound themselves together in the larger political unity of the Tribe (see Tripn). Toward members of alien clans the attitude was uniformly hostile, and warfare was constant. The institution of blood-revenge was the fundamental law of the desert. It required that if a fellow-clansman were killed, his blood must be avenged by his kinsmen by slaying some member of the clan of the murderer (see BLroop, AVENGER oF). On the other hand, an equally rigorous law required that a stranger or enemy who came as a suppliant to one’s tent door should receive entertainment (see Hosprrat- ITY). 13. Economic Organization. The economic organization of primitive Semitic society, as of the modern Bedawin, was communistic. Land, pasture, water, game, oases of date-palms, and all other ‘public utilities,’ as we should call them, were owned by the clan in common. Only tents with their funiture, clothing, and cattle were private property. Under these conditions no great individual wealth was possible. One man might have a few more camels, goats or sheep than another; but he lived in the same sort of tent, ate the same food, and wore the same clothes as the man who had fewer animals. Economic equality as well as political equality was thus characteristic of primitive Semitic society. 14. Religion. See Semitic Retiaron, §§ 1-9. Ill. Tam Hesrew Nomapic PrErRrop. (Before 1200 B.c.). 15. Sources for the Hebrew Nomadic Period. Our sources for the Nomadic Period of Hebrew his- tory are in the main the documents embedded in the Hexateuch. (See HexatrucHu). These documents are based on oral traditions, and these traditions are of very diverse origin, namely: (1) traditions which did not arise until after the conquest of Canaan; (2) traditions borrowed from Babylonia; (3) traditions borrowed from Egypt; (4) traditions borrowed from the Amorites who preceded {Israel in the land of Canaan, and (5) genuine old Hebrew traditions that have come down from the period prior to the conquest. There is thus only a small portion of the Pentateuchal tradition that can be used as a source for the Hebrew nomadic period, This is supplemented by comparative philology, comparative sociology, and comparative religion, the presumption being that ideas and institutions which later Israel had in common with the other Semites existed already in the nomadic period. 16. The Origin of Israel. See IsrarL, History or, §§ 1-3; Rexiaion or, §§ 1-3; and Hesrew LANGUAGE. 17. Nomadic Life of Early Israel. Hebrew tradition represents the patriarchs as nomads who bred camels, asses, sheep, goats, and large cattle; who lived in tents, who wandered from place to place: in search of water and pasture, and who regarded springs as their most valuable possession (see Nomanpic Lirn, § 2, Water). When they went into Egypt, they dwelt in the land of Goshen, which was desert; and still continued their nomadic life (Gn 45 10, 46 28, 47 27; Ex 8 22, 9 26). At the time of the Exodus they were able to resume the life of desert Bedawin because they had never really abandoned it. Their life in this period, accordingly, must be regarded as substantially identical with the life that we have sketched in the previous Semitic period. While they were in Egypt they were en- slaved by one of the Pharaohs, probably Ramses IT (1292-1225 B.c.). From this peril they were delivered by Moses, who brought them out of Egypt, and restored the communism and the economic equality of primitive Semitic times. 18. The Religion of Yahweh. The chief factor in the emancipation of Israel from the bondage of Egypt was the religion of J”. J’’ was not the ancestral god of Israel (Ex 3 13 f, 6 2). No personal names compounded with J” are found before the time of Moses. J’’ was the god of Sinai, and of the Midianite Kenites who dwelt around that mountain. Moses first came to know Him at Sinai, and was instructed in His religion by his father-in-law, the priest of Midian. From J’ Moses received the commission to bring Israel up out of Egypt, and to bring it into Canaan. This commission involved (1) the moral superiority of J’ to all other gods, and (2) the physical superiority of J’ to all other gods. From these new conceptions of J” flowed the cardinal doctrines of the Mosaic religion: (1) J” alone must be worshiped by Israel; (2) since He took pity upon Israel’s sufferings in Egypt, Israel also should pity all oppressed persons; (3) J” was, Israel, Social Development of A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 400 ee NT aR LLL LLL LLL LLL LLL LAL LLL LLL LEAL Pa a a | hostile to the capitalistic, despotic civilizations of Egypt and of Canaan, and favored the communistic, democratic life of the desert. These ideas were of enormous importance in the later social development of Israel. (See also Israzt, RELIGION oF, §§ 3-8). IV. Toe AcricutturAL Pertop (1200-1000 B.c.). 19. The Land of Canaan. See Pauestine, §§ 4- 26 20. Sources for the Agricultural Period. (See Hexareucn, § 9; and Jupass). These ancient sources are supplemented by survivals of primitive agricultural life among the peasantry of modern Palestine. 21. The Conquest of Canaan. The conquest of Canaan by the Hebrews was a gradual process that extended over a period of perhaps 200 years. According to Jg 1, our oldest account of the invasion, the Leah tribes came first, and afterwards the Rachel tribes. Individual tribes pushed in between centers of Canaanite population, and occupied the rural districts; while the walled cities remained for the most part in the hands of the aborigines until the establishment of the Hebrew monarchy (see IsrRAzEL, History oF, § 3). » 22. Adoption of Agriculture. After the con- quest some tribes continued to lead the pastoral life for a long time, and cattle-breeding always re- mained one of the principal industries; the majority of the nation, however, gradually abandoned the nomadic life, and became agriculturists, as the Canaanites had been before them. The old Bedawi ideal of possessing ‘a land flowing with milk and honey’ now gave place to the fellah ideal of ‘sitting every man under his own vine and fig-tree.’ The leading men of the period of the Judges and the earliest kings were all farmers (see AGRICULTURE; FieLp; STRAW; VINES AND VINTAGE; FLAx; ALMOND}; Marrock; Yoxn; Cart; WHEEL; and BASKET). 23. Food in the Agricultural Period. The ‘adop- tion of agriculture brought with it a large addition to the diet of the desert (see Foon, §§ 1-5, 13, 14; CisTERN; VINEGAR; and Mmats.) 24. Dress in the Agricultural Period. No change was made in the primitive dress of the desert, except in the addition of a sort of coat over the tunic and under the mantle (see Druss, § 4). 25. Houses. In this period tents were abandoned, and houses of stone or of clay took their place (see Hovuss, II; Linret; Brep; Basin; and Portrery). These dwellings were crowded together in villages and cities (see VILLAGE). The walled cities still remained Canaanite. 26. Family Organization. The adoption of agriculture brought no change in the tribal organiza- tion of Israel. The family retained its patriarchal constitution. Members of the same clan settledin the same village, and the sheiks retained their ancient functions of judges and military leaders, only now they were called ‘elders of the town’ instead of ‘elders of the clan.’ Political equality also persisted during the period of the Judges: “There was no king in Israel in’those days, every man did that which was right in his own eyes’ (Jg 21 25). Gideon indignantly declined kingship, when it was offered to him, as unworthy of a free-born Israelite; and Jotham, in the parable of the trees that chose a king, taught that only a worthless Canaanite half- breed like Abimelech would allow himself to be crowned (Jg 8 23, 9 7-21). 27. Economic Organization. The primitive com- munism and economic equality of the desert also continued in this period. Land, water, pasture, and other public utilities were still owned in common, as they had been before the conquest. According to tradition, Canaan was divided by lot. There was no permanent private ownership, but land was frequently redistributed, as in modern Russian village communities. The word ‘lot’ continued to be used as the name for a piece of land (see Ling; Lor; LANDMARK; and Portion). The institution of the sabbatical year seems to have been connected — originally with a redistribution of land every seven years. This communal tenure still exists in many villages of modern Palestine. Only houses and their furniture were individual property, as tents had been in the desert. Money was scarce during this period. Micah, the Ephraimite, hired Manasseh, a grandson of Moses, as his priest at a salary of ten silver shekels, or $6.00 a year (Jg 7 10). For seventy shekels, or $42.00, Abimelech hired a band of ruffians who made him king and served as his bodyguard (Jg 910). There were no rich men, but only a nation of peasant farmers. 28. Religion of the Agricultural Period. The settlement in Canaan brought about far greater changes in the religion of Israel than in the economic or social life. The baals of Canaan were agricultural deities who presided over the planting of the seed and the reaping of crops. Agriculture could not be learned by the Hebrews without learning at the same time the cult of the indigenous divinities. All our early sources agree that Israel in the period of the Judges ‘served the baals’ (Jg 2 10, 13, 35f.), and this testimony is confirmed by the later prophets. Even when J” triumphed nominally over the baals, He Himself was regarded as similar to them; and His religion was permeated with elements derived fromthe baal-cults. Thus the conquest brought with it the practical disappearance of the worship of J’’, the God of the desert (see ISRAEL, RELIGION OF, $§ 9-11; H1aH Puace; and SANcTuArRy). V. Tar ComMeErciAL AND InpDustTRIAL PERIOD (1000-586 B.c.). 29. Sources for the Period. For the times of Samuel, Saul and David the traditions preserved by the J and the E documents in the Books of Samuel have first-class historical value (see SAMUEL, Booxs or). For the time of the divided monarchy the Judean and the Ephraimite documents, and the tales of the prophets incorporated by the editor of the Books of Kings, were written near to the times that they describe, and possess high historical value (see Kines, Booxs or). For the times of the later monarchy we have the books of the prophets of the Assyrian period, Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, Micah and Jeremiah; the law-codes of J, E, D; and the Holiness Code (see Hexatreucn, §§ 14, 23; and Drurmr- 401 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Israel, Social Development ot ONOMY); and the oldest parts of the Book of Proverbs (see PROVERBS, §§ 4-5). 30. Founding of the Monarchy. Through the efforts of Samuel and the Sons of the Prophets Saul founded the first Hebrew monarchy, and this constitution lasted down to the fall of Jerusalem in 586 B.c. (see IsRaAEL, History or, § 4; Kina; and THRONE). The kingdom brought law and order in the land, the conquest of the Canaanite strong- holds and of the neighboring nations by David, and control of the trade-routes which hitherto had not belonged to Israel. This was followed by a great development of commerce (see TRADE AND Com-~ MERCE; Inn; Suips AND NAVIGATION; WEIGHTS AND Mrasores; and Monny). Commerce led in- evitably to a growth of industry. In the days of the kings all the arts of the ancient world became indigenous in Israel. We read of smiths, founders, goldsmiths, silversmiths, stone-cutters, masons, en- gravers of gems, carpenters, image-makers, potters, painters, weavers, fullers, bakers, cooks, barbers, perfumers, apothecaries, and physicians (see ARTI- ZAN Lire; Merrats; HAMMER; CROWN; GuAss; Srones; Cotors; and BarBER). 31. Break-up of the Tribal System. The mon- archy did not affect the patriarchal constitution of the family, but it led to the disintegration of the clans and tribes. The kings were hostile to the independent tribal authorities and favored central- ization of government. The royal standing army gradually displaced the ancient tribal militia. Instead of the tribal elders there now grew up the sdrim, or ‘princes,’ that is, the bureaucracy of favorites ap- pointed by the king. Trade, industry, and city-life also tended to loosen the tribal bonds. By the time of the literary prophets the social organization of the desert had well-nigh disappeared (see Crry; and CITIZENSHIP). 32. Break-up of the Communistic System. Through conquest, commerce, and industry the wealth of Israel in the period of the monarchy was greatly increased. According to I K 10 27, Solomon ‘made silver to be in Jerusalem as stones.’ Hosea represents the Northern Kingdom as saying, ‘Surely I am become rich, I have found me wealth’ (Hos 12 8). Isaiah says, ‘Their land is full of silver and gold, neither is there any end of their treasures’ (Is 27). (See WEALTH.) Simultaneously with this increase of wealth, communal ownership of property disappeared, and private ownership took its place. ‘Jehovah forbid it me that I should sell the inheritance of my fathers unto thee,’ said Naboth to Ahab (I K 211-4). The earliest law-codes, the prophets, and the earliest wisdom-literature, all assume that private ownership of land is an established fact. With private ownership came also the struggle to increase one’s individual wealth by unjust means, such as (1) robbery (Hos 4 2, 69, 71; Jer 77); (2) false weights and measures (Am 8 5; Hos 127; Mic 6 10 f.); (3) lying in trade (Hos 411.; Mic 6 12; Jer 9 3-6, 23 14); (4) breaking contracts (Hos 4 2, 10 4; Jer 4 2, 79); (5) selling inferior goods (Am 8 6 b); (6) corners in grain (Am 8 4f.; Hos 7 14b); (7) taking pledges from the poor (Am 2 82; Mic 2 8; Ezk 18 7, 12, 33 15); (8) exorbitant interest (Am 2 8b, 5 11a; Jer 15 10; Ezk 18 8, 13, 17, 22 12); (9) foreclosing of mortgages (Hos 5 10 f.; Is 5 8£.; Mic 21 f., 9); (10) enslaving of debtors (II K 41; Am 2 6, 8 6); (11) unjust legislation (Is 101 £.; Jer 8 8); (12) oppressive taxation (I K 4 7-19; IS 8 15, 17; Am 5 11, 7 1; see Tax, Tirme); (13) trade monopolies (I K 9 26-28, 10 11 f., 28 £., 20 34); (14) forced labor (I K 9 20f., ef. 5 13, 15 f., 12 1-20; IS 8 11-18; see TasKMASTER)} (15) perversion of justice (Am 5 7, 6 12; Is 1 23; Mic 39 f.; Jer 5 5); (16) taking of bribes (Am 513; Is 5 23; Mic 3 12, 7 3; see Girr); (17) Oppression of the poor (Am 3 10, 41, 8 4; Is 3 13-15, 57; Mic 3 1-3; Zeph 19 b, 3 3; Ezk 34 2-4, 45 8, 4618); (18) deeds of violence (IS 18 11, 191 f., 22 11-23; IT S ch. 11; 1 K ch. 21; Hos 69; Is 1 15 b). 33. The Class of the Rich. The result of the un- just acquisition of wealth was the unequal distribu- tion of wealth. Large fortunes were accumulated by a few capitalists, while the mass of the population was impoverished to an extent unknown in earlier times. The rich lived in senseless and enervating luxury (I K 4 22 f., chs. 5-7, 10 4 f., 10, 11 £., 16-21, 113, 229; Am 3 12b, 15, 5 11b, 6 1-6, 8 10; Hos 2 11, 8 14, 13 15b; Is 59, 11, 14, 22 18, 32 13 f.; Zeph 1 8). The wives of the aristocrats were as pleasure-loving and luxurious as their husbands (Am 4 1; Is 3 16-24, 32 9-11). Drunkenness was frightfully prevalent among the upper classes (Am 41, 5 11 b, 6 6; Hos 4.1, 7 5, 14; Is 5 11, 12, 281, 3, 7-8; Mic 211). Sexual licence also prevailed (Am 27; Hos 4 2, 10f., 13 f., 7 4; Jer 578, 79, 9 2, 23 10, 14, 29 23). 34. The Class of the Poor. Over against the small class of the rich stood the large class of the poor. Excessive exportation of grain by the capitalists made famines frequent (II S 211, 24 13; I K 8 37, 1712, 18 2; I K 6 25, 7 4, 81). There was a constant rise in the price of food, and a constant decline in the purchasing power of money, due to expansion of the circulating medium. In the period of the Judges the salary of a priest for a year was ten shekels (Jg 17 10); but in the reign of Ahab, in a time of exceptional plenty, aseah of fine flour cost ashekel, and two seahs of barley a shekel (II K 71). As a result of these conditions the laboring classes found it increasingly difficult to buy food. In times of war or of famine they were compelled to borrow of the capitalists in order to escape starvation. They were seldom able to repay the principal, then the mortgages on their farms were foreclosed and they themselves were sold into slavery (see Poor, BeGaar; and Hrrevina). Repeated revolutions in the Northern Kingdom were a sign of social unrest (Hos 41, 68, 77, 8 4; Is 31-7, 9 18-21). Such were the alarming social conditions that existed in the times of the prophets. VI. Commounistic SoLurIoNs OF THE SocraL PROBLEM. 35. The Kenites. The Kenites were the primitive worshipers of J’ at Sinai who accompanied Israel into the land of Canaan. They were characterized by intense loyalty to J”, their ancestral god, and hostility to the civilization of Canaan. They would not adopt agriculture or trade, but retained the Israel,Social Development of 4 NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 402 primitive nomadic life and communistic social organization of the desert. Down to the latest times they stood as a protest against the religion and the capitalism of Canaan that Israel had adopted (see KENITE). 36. The Rechabites. The Rechabites were a branch of the Kenites, who like them were en- thusiasts for J’’, the god of the desert, and for the social life of the desert. They dwelt in tents, and rejected agriculture and wine, because wine be- longed to the agricultural civilization of Canaan (see RECHAB). 37. The Nazirites. The Nazirites were a purely Israelite sect, who cherished ideals similar to those of the Kenites and Rechabites. They were devoted to J’, and were hostile to the baals of Canaan. They also refused to drink wine, and they wore their hair long, because that was the custom of the desert (see NAzIRIrE). 38. The Earliest Prophets. The Heb. prophets who preceded Amos seem to have held theories similar to those of the Kenites, Rechabites and Nazirites. They agreed with them in hostility to the baals of Canaan (II K 10 15-17). Samuel, the founder of the Sons of the Prophets, was himself a Nazirite (IS 111). Their battle-cry was ‘Down with the baals, and back to J’’, the god of the desert.’ They sympathized with the poor, and denounced the oppressions of the rich and powerful (I S 8 1-16; II S 7 1-11, 12 1-15, 24 1-19; I K 11 26-31, 14 1-6, 12 91-24, 211-24). They cherished the nomadic ideal (I K 171, 191-13; If K 1 8; Zec 184 £.). They rejected individual wealth (I K 137 f.; II K 5 5, 15 £., 20-27; ef. Mic 3 11; Am 7 12-14), and lived in societies where they seem to have endeavored to restore the primi- tive communism of the desert (I S 19 18 f., 22 £., 201; Il K 2 3, 5, 15 £., 4 38-44, 61-3, 91). They were the prototypes of the Essenes, of John the Baptist, and of Christian Ebionism. The efforts of all these schools left little impression on Heb. society. Communism was possible in a primitive society where the consciousness of tribal unity was highly developed, but it was impossible in a complex civilization where individualism had come to prevail. These little brotherhoods con- tinued to exist, but the nation as a whole made no attempt to return to the communism of the desert. VII. Non-Communistic SOLUTIONS OF THE SocraL _ PROBLEM. 39. The Priests. The priests show no sympathy with nomadic life, and no desire to return to com- munal ownership of land, or other public utilities. Instead of this, their program is wise legislation which will check the evils of the capitalistic system. (1) They forbid theft of real estate (Dt 19 14a, 23 24, f. 27 17; Ex 22 5 f.); (2) theft of personal property (Ex 20 15; Dt 5 19; Lv 19 11 a, 13 a; Ex 21 33-36, 22 1-4, 10-15; Lv 24 18). (8) They guard the buyer against the rapacity of the seller (Dt 25 13-16; Lv 19 1ib, 35 f.). (4) They guard the employee against the injustice of the employer (Dt 24 14 f; Lv 1913b.). (5) They guard the principal against fraud on the part of the agent (Ex 227-9). (6) They protect the debtor against the creditor (Ex 22 25 £.; Dt 23 19 f., 24 6, 10-13; Lv 25 35-37; Ex 21 2-11; Dt 15 1-18; Lv 25 39-43, 46-54; Dt 19 14, 27 17; Lv 25 23-28). (7) They prohibit the abuse of judicial and of executive functions in rulers (Ex 22 22-24, 23 3, 6-8; Dt 1 17, 16 19, 24 17, 28 19, 25; Lv 19 14-16, 32). (8) They condemn the luxury of the rich (Dt 17 16-20). (9) They provide for the relief of poverty (Ex 23 10 f; Dt 14 29, 24 19-22, 2611 £.; Lv 199 f., 23 22, 25 2-7, 14, 20-22). (See Law; Justice; and Crimes AND PUNISHMENT). 40. The Wise Men. The wise men, like the priests, show no sympathy with the nomadic ideal, and propose no return to the communism of the desert. They assume private ownership of property as an established fact, and they regard wealth as a blessing and poverty as a curse (Pr 10 15, 22, 129, 13 8, 14 4, 20, 16 26, 18 11, 23, 19 4-7, 227, 277). Their method of solving the social problem is education. ~ They believe that men are rational beings; and that if they can be got to see the folly of certain kinds of conduct, they will refrain from them. Accord- ingly, they set themselves to point out the dangers of unethical conduct.. (1) They show the peril of overestimating the value of wealth. Rich and poor are alike in the sight of God (Pr 22 2, 2913). Wealth is easily lost (23 5, 27 24). Righteousness is better than riches (11 4, 28, 18 7, 15 16, 16 8, 191, 22, 221, 28 6, 11). Love is better than wealth (15 17, 17 1). (2) They show the folly of seeking to get rich quickly (20 21, 23 4 f., 28 20f., 25), and declare that ill-gotten wealth brings only misery (10 2 f., 27-30, 11 16-21, 12 2 f., 13 11, 23, 14 26 f., 15 8-10, 25-26). (8) They condemn theft (29 24), false weights and measures (111, 1611, 2010, 23), corners in grain (11 26). They demand truth in business dealings (12 17-22, 20 14, 17, 21 6, 26 23-26, 28), and in matters of trust (13 17, 20 6, 25 13, 19). They condemn the taking of interest, and the foreclosing of mortgages (22 28= 24 10 f., 28 8), and all exploiting of the poor (14 31, 17 5, 22 16, 22 f., 28 3). (4) They exhort rulers to be just (16 12, 17.7, 15, 26, 18 5, 20 8, 26, 28, 24 24-26, 25 2-7, 28 15 f., 21, 29 4, 12, 14, 25), and not to take bribes (15 27, 17 8, 23, 18 16). (5) They warn against the drunkenness and gluttony of the rich (201, 21 1, 25 20f., 20f., 28 30-35, 2516, 287). (6) They teach the duty of relieving poverty (11 24 £., 14 21, 19 17, 21 13, 26, 22 9, 24 11 f., 28 29, 297). 41. The Prophets. The prophets seem to show more sympathy with the nomadic ideal than do the priests and the wise men. They praise the days of the wandering in the desert as the ideal time in the national history (Hos 27 b., 15b., 9 10; Jer 2 2-3); but this is not because of the communism that then existed, but because then Israel was loyal to J”. They predict a return to nomadic conditions (Hos 2 3, 6, 7, 9-15, 129; Is 55 £., 9 f., 17; 6 11-13, 7 15, 21-25, 32 13 f.; Mic 1 6, 3 12, 5 10-11); but this is not regarded as a blessing, but as a punishment for national sins. In their picture of the golden age that is coming there is no trace of the communism that charac- terizes Plato’s ideal state and the theories of the Essenes. Private ownership of real and of personal property is to continue, as it has in the past: “They shall sit every man under his vine and under his fig tree’ There is no evidence that the writing 403 A NEW STANDARD prophets shared in the nomadic ideals of the earlier prophets. Nor did the prophets agree with the priests in believing in the efficacy of legislation. They saw that good laws require good men to make and to keep them, and that the best of laws are a dead letter, if the moral sense of the community does not approve them. The prophets differ from the wise’ men in their lack of confidence in the reasonableness of human nature. They see that ethical instruction does good in the case of people whose minds are made up to follow the wise and the right, but that it is worthless in the case of those whose main purpose in life is evil. They perceive that they must go deeper than the intellect, if human nature is to be changed; they must reach the conscience, and work a radical revolution in character. The prophets’ solution of the social problem is individual experience of a holy God. (1) Each of them had an inaugural vision, analogous to the Christian experience of conversion, through which he came to know God as the supreme reality of life (Am 7 1-9, 8 1-9 4; Hos chs. 1-8; Is ch. 6; Mic 3 8; Jer ch. 1; Ezk chs. 1-3). (2) Through these experiences they learned that the essence of J’”’s nature is righteousness (Am 2 6 f., 3 2, 10-12, 4 1-3, 5 5, 10-12; Is 5 16, 6 3, 5, 7, 10 22, 28 17; Mic 6 5, 79; Zeph 3 5a; Jer 9 24b). (3) J’’ demands righteousness of men (Am 514f.; Hos 1112; Mic 68). (4) He does not require sacrifices and holy days (Am 4 4 f.,, 5 21-25; Hos 6 6, 8 13; Is 1 11-17, 22 1-14; Mic 6 6-8; Jer 6 20, 7 21-22). (5) The nation is not bringing J” the righteousness that He requires, but is full of social injustice (Am 2 6; Hos 41, 67, 71f., 13, 8 12; Is 9 4f., 10, 21,3 8f. 5 2, 4, 7, 18, 20,65; Mic 1 5, 3 8; Jer 2 21 f.). (6) Therefore punishment is in- evitable. The rising Assyrian empire shall engulf Israel along with the other little nations of W. Asia (Am 2 6, 13-16, 3 2, 11-15; Hos 1 1-4, 9, 2 9-13, 3 4; Is 1 24-31, 2 10-3 26, 5 5-30, 6 11-13; Mic 1 2-7, 3.12). (7) Out of the catastrophe a remnant shall survive, and it shall repent and become the basis of a new and better nation (Hos 27, 14-17, 515-6 3; Is 7 3, 10 208, 17 7, 33 14). (8) Then the golden age shall come, when oppression, injustice, and strife shall cease, ‘for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of J” as the waters cover the sea’ (Is 1 25-27, 9 7, 11 3-5, 28 16 f., 29 18-21, 32 1-8, 16; Jer 31 31-34, 32 39-40; Ezk 11 18-20, 36 25-27). This religious experience the prophets sought to reproduce in others, in the confidence that only thus could the social problem find a radical solution. VIII. THe Posrexiitic Preriop. 42. Loss of National Life. The Babylonian exile (586 B.c.) brought the national life of Israel to an end. The Jews were gradually scattered throughout the ancient world, and became a religion rather than a nation. The feeble remnant that lingered in Palestine was ruled successively by Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome; and never attained indepen- dence, except for a short time under the Hasmonean priest-kings. ‘The problem of this period was the return of the exiles and the restoration of nationality, rather than the reformation of inner social con- ditions. Israel, Social BIBLE DICTIONARY Development of 43. Decline of Ethical Religion. In this period the priests lost their function as ethical lawgivers, and became merely performers of the ritual. The Priestly Code, which was formulated in Babylonia about 500 B.c. and was promulgated a century later in Palestine by Ezra, is lacking in ethical teaching, and concerns itself entirely with the correct ritual. The ancient teaching function of the priests was now assumed by the scribes, whose aims were to gather the traditions of preexilic practise, to observe them, and to teach others to keep them (Ezr 7 10). The prophets of the postexilic period also lost their ethical message. After the fall of Jerusalem Ezekiel ceased to preach repentance, and concerned himself with the restoration of Judah. In chs. 40- 48 he gave a purely ritual code for the use of the restored Temple. Second Isaiah also (Is 40-55) dropped ethical preaching, and proclaimed only the return from exile. Zechariah’s and Haggai’s message was, ‘Build the Temple, and J” will return to you with favor.’ Malachi had one echo of the old ethical message (3 5), but his main interests were the bringing of the right sort of sacrifices, and the prevention of marriages with Gentile women. Third Isaiah (Is chs. 56-66) has a number of ethical passages (56 1; 10-12, 58 6 f., 59 2-8, 61 8, 64 5-7), but these are offset by more numerous passages in which he emphasizes the importance of the Temple, sacrifice, and fasting. Soon after 500 B.c. prophecy died out, because it no longer had an ethical message; and its place was taken by apocalyptic, which con- cerned itself mainly with the establishment of a Jewish world-empire, and the destruction of Israel’s enemies. The wisdom school survived in this period, and produced the Books of Job, Ecclesiastes, Sirach, Wisdom of Solomon, Pirke Abhoth, and the later additions to Proverbs. These throw new light on the problems of suffering and of immortality, but they add nothing to the social ethics of the older parts of Proverbs. The later tendency is to identify Wisdom with the Law, and the wise men with the scribes. It appears, accordingly, that the postexilic period shows no social progress beyond the pre- exilic period, and that its literature makes no contributions to the solution of the social problems of preexilic times. 44, John the Baptist and Jesus. John the Baptist and Jesus represent a revival of the ethical message of the preexilic prophets. Both came proclaiming, ‘Repent ye, for the kingdom of God is at hand.’ Like the prophets, Jesus believed that the world could not be saved by a return to communism, or by any other change in material conditions. Like them, He held that neither legislation nor education could solve the problem, because they could not change human nature. His method of solving the social problem was the prophets’ method—a change in human nature through personal experience of God. He brought a revelation of the universal fatherhood of God, and a new power to become sons of God. He believed that, when men through faith in Him had been born anew, then they would act toward Issachar Jaazaniah A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 404 God as true children, would treat all men as their brothers, and would strive to realize their own highest possibilities as the children of God. Then the kingdom of God would have come, when God’s will was done on earth as it is done in Heaven. Lirerature: E. C. Bissell, Biblical Antiquities (1888); J. Fenton, Harly Heb. Infe: a Study in Sociology (1888); W. Nowack, Lehrbuch der hebrdischen Archdologie (1894); K. Budde, ‘The Nomadic Ideal in the O T,’ New World, iv, 1895, p. 726 ff.; F. Buhl, Die socialen Verhdlinisse der Tsraeliten (1899); E. Day, The Social Life of the Hebrews (1901); G. A. Barton, Semitic Origins (1902);"°W. R. Smith, Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia (1903); M. Lohr, Sozialismus und Individualismus im A.T. (1906); H. G. Mitchell, Hthics of the O T (1907); I. Benzinger, Hebrdische Archdologie, (21907); S. G. Smith, Religion in the Making, a Study in Biblical Sociology (1910); L. Wallis, Sociological Study of the Bible (1912); C. H. Cornill, The Culture of Ancient Israel (1914); H. Schaeffer, Social Legislation of the Ancient Semites (1915); T. G. Soares, The Social Institutions and Ideals of the Bible (1915); C. F. Kent, The Soctal Teachings of the Prophets and Jesus (1917); C. R. Smith, The Bible Doctrine of Society in its Historical Evolu- tion (1920); J. M. P. Smith, The Moral Life of the Hebrews (1923); A. S. Peake, Brotherhood in the O T weve ISSACHAR, is’a-kar. See Trisx, Trrsus, §§ 2, 4. ISSHIAH, is-shai’a (¥?, yishshiyyah): 1. The head of a family of Issachar (I Ch 7 3, Ishiah AV). 2. The head of a Levite family (I Ch 24 21). 3. The head of a Levite family (I Ch 23 20, Jesaiah AV, 24 25). 4. One of the ‘sons of Harim,’ who had taken a foreign wife (Ezr 10 31, Isshijah RV, Ishijah AV). 5. One of David’s band at Ziklag (I Ch 12 6, Jesaiah AV). ISSHIJAH. See Issuran, 4. ISSUE. See Disease anp Mepicing, § 8. ISUAH, is’yu-a. See IsHvan. ISUI, is-yu-ai. See IsHvaAH. ITALIAN BAND. See Aucusran BaAnp. ITALY: The classical, as it is the modern, name of the European region of which Rome is the center and capital. It is referred to in four N T passages: (1) In Ac 18 2, as the country from which Aquila had come with his wife Priscilla, because of the edict of Claudius expelling all Jews from Rome (see Cuaupivus). (2) In Ac 27 1, as the destination of the company of prisoners, sent from Syria, under charge of the centurion Julius, of which prisoners Paul was one (see Paut, § 16 f.). (3) In He 13 24, as the country where resided the Christian brethren who sent greetings to the readers of the Epistle (for another view, see HeEBREws, Epistie ro THE, § 5). (4) In Ac 101, as the country that gave its name to the legion stationed at Cesarea, of which Cornelius was the centurion (see AUGusTAN Banp). M. W. J. ITCH. See Disease AnD MeEpictng, § 5 (9). ITHAI, ifh’a-ai or ai’thé. See Irrat. ITHAMAR, ith’a-mGr (ED'S, 'ithamar): The youngest son of Aaron and, in late priestly circles, considered the head of one of the two main priestly lines (Ex 6 23; Nu 3 2, 4, 4 28 ff., ete.; I Ch 24 3-6; Ezr 8 2). See also PrimsrHoon, § 10. ITHIEL, ith’-el OMS, ‘zh7el): jamite (Neh 11 7). 1. A Ben- 2. A word of uncertain sig- — nificance in Pr 301. The rendering of the RVmg. altho widely adopted, is not certain. ITHLAH, ith’la (2m, yithlah, Jethlah AV): A town in the old Danite territory (Jos 19 42). Site unknown. ITHMAH, ifh’ma (")™, yithmah): A Moabite, one of David’s heroes (I Ch 11 46). ITHNAN, ith’nan (J, yithnan): A city in the extreme S. of Judah (Jos 15 23). Site unknown. ITHRA, ith’ra. See JETHER. ITHRAN, ifh’ran (J7, yithran), ‘eminent’: 1. The ancestral head of a Horite clan (Gn 36 26; I Ch 1 41). 2. The head of an Asherite family (I Ch 7 37), probably the same as ‘Jether’ in ver. 38. ITHREAM, ifh’ri-am (OY1", yithr*‘am): A son of David (IIS 35; I Ch3 3). ITHRITE, ifh-rait (1M, yithri): 1. The desig- nation of a family of Kiriath-jearim (I Ch 2 53). 2. Two of David’s heroes, Ira and Gareb, are called Ithrites (II S 23 38; I Ch 11 40), perhaps = Jattirites, i.e., from Jattir (q.v.). ITTAH-KAZIN, it’’td-ké’zin. See Ern-Kazin. ITTAI, it’ta-ai, it’é, or it-té’ai COX, 'ittaz; per- haps from NX&, ’éth, ‘with,’ ‘companionable’): 1. A Philistine of Gath, who shortly before Absalom’s rebellion had become one of David’s captains, and who remained loyal to David, accompanying him in his flight (II S 15 19 f.). He was made captain of one-third of David’s forces (II S 18 2 #.). 2. A son of Ribai from Gibeah of Benjamin, one of David’s heroes (II S 23 29 =Ithai [I Ch 11 31]). Gosia ITURAA. ai’’tu-ri’a or it/’yu- (Itovpata): A dis- trict to the NE. of Palestine, beyond the Jordan, in the neighborhood of Jebel Hauran. Thename, derived from Jetur (Gn 25 15), is thought to mean ‘country of the mountaineers.’ The Itureeans were reckoned among the ‘sons’ of Ishmael (Gn 25 15), or desert tribes of N. Arabia; Strabo says they were mixed with Arabs, along with whom they inhabited the mountainous region. In agreement therewith are the inscriptions of the Hauran region, which cover the Ist to the 6th cent. and contain Arabic names of gods and men. The Iturzans were semi- nomads, warlike border-men, and noted archers. For a long period there was no defined territory called I., the ethnic name (Iturzans) alone being used until the 4th cent. a.p. (In Lk 31 the word is an ad- jective.) I. overlapped Trachonitis, and even shifted beyond Trachonitis to the Beka@‘. An in- dependent kingdom of I. is often mentioned in Maccabean times, after its conquest (105 8B.c.) by Aristobulus I, who partially annexed it to Judea. This bordered on, and at one time included, Galilee, and centered in the Anti-Lebanon region (Abilene). Its king, Ptolemeus, resided at Chalcis and harried the whole region until he was crushed by Pompey (66 B.c.), from whom he bought immunity at the price of 1,000 talents. He reigned from about 85 to 40 B.c., and was succeeded by his son Lysanias I, who was executed by Antony, 36 B.c. Antony gave the tetrarchy to Cleopatra (36 B.c.), who leased it to Zenodorus, but as Zenodorus assisted the Arabs 405 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Issachar Jaazaniah in their raids in Trachonitis, the leased tetrarchy was cut up, and part of it (Trachonitis) bestowed on Herod the Great by Augustus (23 B.c.). Zeno- dorus died in 20 B.c., when Augustus gave the rest of his possessions (tetrarchy of Lysanias I) to Herod. After Herod’s death (48.c.) it passed to his son Philip, who held it till his death in 34 a.v. In 37 a.p. Caligula gave the two tetrarchies to Agrippa I, with the title of king, and in 40 a.p. added there- to the tetrarchy of Herod Antipas. Agrippa I was confirmed in its possession by Claudius (41 a.p.), who also gave him the whole kingdom of his grand- father Herod. On his death the tetrarchy was in- corporated into the Provincia Syria, and ad- ministered by procurators. But in 53 a.p. Claudius conferred on Agrippa II the tetrarchy of Philip and that of Lysanias I (Abilene), and they were held by him till his death in 100 a.p. In the reign of Tiberius, as is clear from an inscription found at Abila, Abilene was severed from the kingdom of Chalcis (that of Lysanias I). The tetrarch of this separate Abilene was a Lysanias II, and the name of Lysanias continued to cling to the place (Lk 31 is correct). J.R.S.S.*—S. A. IVAH, ai’va. See Ivvan. IVORY (8°31, shenhabbim, ‘elephant’s tooth,’ or simply ]¥, shén, ‘tooth’; édegdvtrvos, Rev 18 12): Ivory was brought to Palestine both by ship (I K 10 22) and by caravan (Ezk 27 15). It was a type of richness and beauty (Song 5 14; cf. 7 4). Solomon’s throne was of ivory overlaid with gold (I K 10 18), and we read also of benches (Ezk 27 8), beds (Am 6 4), and houses (I K 22 39; Ps 45 8; Am 3 15) which were apparently decorated with ivory inlays. L. G. L.—E. E. N. IVVAH, 1v’va (719, ‘iwwah, Ivah AV): A city probably in Syria and conquered by Sargon as would be inferred from II K 18 34, 19 13, and Is JAAKAN, jé’a-kan (]P¥?, ya‘dgan): An Edomite clan (I Ch 1 42; Akan in Gn 36 27). The ‘wells (Beeroth) of the sons of Jaakan’ are mentioned in Dt 106 as a station on the wilderness journey. Their exact location is unknown. E. E. N. JAAKOBAH, jé’a-k0’ba (TAP, ya‘dgdbhah): The head of a Simeonite family (I Ch 4 36). TAALA, ja-é’la (soy? ya‘al@’), JAALAH, ja-é’la (n?2y 2, ya‘alah): The ancestral head of a subdivision of ‘sons of Solomon’s servants’ (Ezr 2 56=Neh 7 58). JAALAM, ja-é’/lam. See JaLam. JAANAI, jé’a-nai or né. See JANA. JAARE-OREGIM, jé”o-ri-6r’e-jim (O28 7192, ya‘ré ’or¢ghtm): Evidently a textual corruption in IT S 2119 for ya‘tr, Jair, which appears in the parallel passage (I Ch 205). The small résh in ya‘ré (see Hebrew text) indicates that there was inaccurate copying, while ’dr¢ghim, ‘weavers,’ has arisen through a scribe’s error in repeating the word at the end of the verse. See ELHANAN. A. 8. C.*—O. R. S. 37 13. From this city colonists were brought to the conquered cities of Israel in Samaria, if Avvah (}¥, ‘awwah, II K 17 24) is the same place. C. S. T. IYE-ABARIM, ai’’ye-ab’a-rim (DIAL "Y, “iyye ha‘abharim, ‘iyim of the further regions’—namely the highlands of Moab; Ije-abarim AV): A station of Israel on the E. border of Moab (Nu 21 u, 33 44), the same as Tyim (33 45, Iim AV). It is called Iyim of ‘the further regions,’ to distinguish it from Iyim in S. Judah. Ora sid IYIM, ai’yim (lim AV). See Iyr-apanrim. IYYAR, i-yar’: The second month of the Jewish year. See Time, § 3. IZHAR, iz’har (1¥', yitshdr), ‘he shines,’ or ‘oil’: 1. The ancestral head of one of the great sub- divisions of the Kohathite Levites, the Izharites (Ex 6 18; Nu 3 19, etc.). 2. A descendant of Judah (I Ch 47, Jezoar AV). IZLIAH, iz-lai’a (ANPP, yizl’ah, Jezliah AV): A Benjamite (I Ch 8 18). IZRAHIAH, iz’’ra-hai’a (UNI, yizrahyah), ‘3’ is risen’ or ‘shines’: 1. The ancestral head of a family of Asher (I Ch 7 3). 2. A leader of the singers at the dedication of the wall of Jerusalem (Neh 12 42, where the form is Jezrahiah). IZRAHITE, iz’ra-hait, PINVN, yizrah{7]: The gen- tilic of Shamhuth (I Ch 27 8). Perhaps the same as ‘Zerahite’ (ver. 11), but, possibly, a copyist’s mistake. See SHAMHUTH. K. E. N. IZRI, iz’rai (1¥?, yitsrt): A Levite, the leader of the fourth course of musicians (I Ch 25 11, Zeri in ver. 3). IZZIAH, iz-zai’a (3?, yizztyyah, Jeziah AV): One of the ‘sons of Parosh,’ who had taken a foreign wife (Ezr 10 25). JAARESHIAH, jé”a-re-shai’a (YY, ya‘dresh- yah, Jaresiah AV): A descendant of Benjamin (I Ch 8 27). JAASIEL, ja-é’si-el (78°BY?, ya‘ds7’el) ‘God does’: One of David’s heroes, called a Mezobaite, (‘of Zobah’?) (I Ch 11 47, Jasiel AV). Perhaps the same person is referred to in I Ch 27 21. JAASU, jé’a-sti (WY?, ya‘dsaw, Jaasau AV): One who had married a foreign wife (Ezr 10 37). JAAZANIAH, jé-az’’e-nai’a (GIS, TR, ya- dzanyaha, ya’dzanyah), ‘J’ heareth’: 1. A Maacath- ite, captain of some of the guerrillas left in Judah by Nebuchadrezzar (II K 25 23=Jezaniah, Jer 40 8), who came to give allegiance to Gedaliah the gov- ernor. 2. One of the Rechabites whom Jeremiah tempted with wine (Jer 35 3 f.) as an example to Judah. 3. The son of Shaphan, one of seventy elders who were seen in a vision to offer incense (Ezk 8 11) to idols. 4. Son of Azzur, one of the princes against whose counsel Jeremiah was com- manded to prophesy (Ezk 11 1). Cr Sik. Jaazer Jacob A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 406 JAAZER, jé’a-zer. See JazEr. JAAZIAH, jé”’a-zai’a QWNY2, ya‘dziyyahi): I” strengthens’: A Merarite Levite (I Ch 24 26 £.). JAAZIEL, jo-é'zi-el (PIN, ya‘deial), ‘God strengthens’: A Temple musician (I Ch 15 18; ‘Aziel’ in ver. 20 and Jeiel in 16 5). JABAL, jé’bal (32, yabhal): A son of Lamech (Gn 4 20). With his ‘brothers,’ Jubal and Tubal, he is counted as one of the originators of early civilization. The Heb. word for ‘ram’ is very simi- lar to ‘Jabal’ but this may have nothing to do with the statement that he was the ‘father’ of tent- dwellers and cattle-owners, 7.e., of the nomads. ‘Jubal,’ also, is similar to ydbhél, ‘ram,’ or ‘ram’s horn,’ a musical instrument. The original source of this genealogical list is too remote to determine what it actually signified. EK. E. N. JABBOK, jab’bak (P22, yabboqg): A river E. of the Jordan, named as the N. limit of the domain of Sihon, King of the Amorites (Nu 21 24: Jos 12 2; Jg 11 22). It also furnished the N. boundary-line of Ammon (Dt 2 37, 3 16). Its sources are in the vicinity of Rabbath Ammon, whence it flows NW. by N., approaching Gerasa and turning W., and emptying into the Jordan about 25 m. N. of the Dead Sea. It was the scene of Jacob’s struggle with the angel (Gn 32 22 £.). Its modern name, derived from its clear blue aspect, is Nahr ez-Zerka (cf. G. A. Smith, HG HL, p. 534 f.). Map I, F, G, 6-8. AOSD. JABESH, jé’besh (¥3?, yabhésh), ‘dry’: The father of Shallum (II K 15 10). JABESH-GILEAD, jé’besh-gil’-od (7992 22, yabhésh gil‘ddh), ‘the dry [place] of Gilead’ (or Jabesh alone, asin IS 1114., 3111 £.; I Ch 1012): A town of Gilead, mentioned in the late midrash in Jg 21 5 ff. as destroyed and depopulated by the Israelites, four hundred maidens alone being saved to provide wives for the Benjamites. A more his- torical notice records the rescue of the town from the Ammonites by Saul and the loyalty of the in- habitants to his memory (IS 111, 3l11#.; ILS 2 4-7). According to Eusebius, it lay 6 Roman miles S. of Pella, the modern Fahil. The name survives in the Wddy Ydbis, which rises in the mountains of Gilead and enters the Jordan Valley 10 m. below Beth-shean. Merrill rejects Robinson’s earlier identification with ed-Deir (Map IV, H 2), and finds Jabesh in the massive ruins at Miryamim, a few miles NW. of ed-Deir (Am. PEFSt, 1877, p. 80 f.). See also F. Buhl, Geographie, 1896, p. 258, with bibliography. L. G. L.—L. B. P. JABEZ, jé’bez (V3Y?, ya‘béts): I. The head of a family of Judah, who had large possessions (I Ch 49 .). His name is connected with the Heb. root ‘atsabh, ‘sorrow.’ Curtis, ICC, ad loc., suggests that Zobebah (I Ch 4 8) should be read Jabez, as other- wise Jabez v. 9 is abruptly introduced. II. A place in Judah inhabited by the scribes (I Ch 255). They are represented as descendants of the Calebite Hur, and related to the Kenites and Rechabites. (CAH Me JABIN, jé’bin (173), yabhin), ‘intelligent’: 1. A king of Hazor, who headed an unsuccessful alliance against the Israelites under Joshua (Jos 111). Hazor was captured and Jabin put to death (Jos 11 10). 2. Another king of Hazor, probably of the same dynasty. He oppressed Israel during the period of Judges. His army led by Sisera was defeated by Barak (Jg 4 2 .). Possibly the two accounts refer to the same person. A. C. Z. JABNEEL, jab’ni-el (78222, yabhn’él), ‘a god causeth to build’: 1. The westernmost town on the N. border of Judah (Jos 15 11), captured from the Philistines by Uzziah (II Ch 26 6), where it is called Jabneh). It is mentioned in the Apocrypha as Jemnaan (Jth 2 28) and, frequently, as Jamnia (I Mac 4 15; II Mac 12 8, etc.). In the time of the crusades J. had become Ibelin. It is now Yebnah, a village near the left bank of the Nahr Rabin, on the road from Gaza to Jaffa. The site contains ruins dating from the crusades, while the remains of the ancient harbor lie near the mouth of the river, 5 m. to the N.W. Map I, B 8. Like most border cities, J. suffered severely from the vicissi- tudes of war. At the beginning of the Christian era, however, the city was large and prosperous. It was especially famous for its rabbinical learning, and, according to Jewish tradition, the Sanhedrin escaped hither before the destruction of Jerusalem. Here the canon of the O T was established, and the official text of the Sopherim adopted ( O T Text, § 5). J. was later the seat of a Christian bishopric, but was then rapidly declining in wealth and popu- lation. See G. A. Smith, HG HL (1898), p. 193 f.; F. Buhl, Geographie (1896), p. 188, with bibliography. 2. A place of uncertain location, mentioned only as a part of the northern boundary of Naphtali (Jos 19 33). It is called Kaphar Yama in the Talmud, and may be the ruin Yemma, between Mt. Tabor and the Sea of Galilee.: Map IV, E 7. L. G. L.—L. B. P. | JACAN, jé’kon (12¥2, ya‘kdn, Jachan AV): The head of a Gadite family (I Ch 5 13). JACHIN, jé”’kin (19?, yakhin), ‘He establishes’: I. 1. The ancestral head of one of the clans of Simeon (Gn 46 10; Jarib in I Ch 4 24), the Jachinites (Nu 26 12). 2. The ancestral head of the twenty- first course of priests (I Ch 24 17), whose representa- tives are referred to in I Ch 910; Neh 1110. II. One of the brazen pillars of the Temple. See Tempxe, § 14. . JACINTH, jé’sinth. See Sronus, Precious. JACKAL. See PALEstine, § 24. JACOB, jé’kab (APY2, ya‘dqobh), ‘he grasps the heel,’ a meaning attested by Hos 12 3: It has fre- quently been suggested that originally the name was Jacob-el; ef. the Babylonian Ya‘gub-ilu, as well as the Egyptian form Y‘gb’r (= ?8"apy?), on the name-list of Palestinian towns conquered by Thut- mose III, and the scarabs of a Hyksos king witha like name. 1. The Patriarch. The story of Jacob is found in Gn chs. 25-50, tho from ch. 37 on Joseph is the chief figure. In Gn the word, found mostly in passages 407 A NEW STANDARD assigned to JE, refers to the individual, but in the subsequent literature it is generally a synonym for the nation. In Gn the P sections relating to Jacob are very short. The stream of the patriarchal epos runs turbid and broken where it is concerned with Jacob. The pure and lofty unworldliness of Abraham and the quiet innocence of Isaac are entirely wanting in Jacob. Eddies and shoals, treacherous cross-currents and the deep and mighty movements of a great river, hastening to the sea, such are the varying phases of his life. To many the formal division of the narra- tive between J and E (see Grnzsis, § 4) may seem mechanical and forced; but it should be remembered that whoever the writer and whatever the age of our present document, the material and events come down from a remote age. The author of Gn was but the collector of traditions that must have originated in different localities and have had a varied history. Gunkel, in his commentary on Gn, has discerned several groups of traditions, which he designates as the Jacob-Esau, the Jacob-Laban, and the Canaan stories. Each of these has a somewhat composite structure, and each revolves about certain religious centers. Bethel is preeminent in one, She- chem in another, Penuel in a third. In part, these stories explain the origin of religious sym- bols and sanctuaries. As originally told, they were more concerned with the successes and exploits of the national ancestor than with the moral elements. It is manifest to all that the cleverness of Jacob is more emphasized than his moral obliquity. The way Esau despised his birthright is more the sub- ject of reprobation than the cold-hearted craft with which Jacob took advantage of him. The question much discussed at the present day is, How large a part do tribal memories play in the patriarchal narratives? It is evident that tribes often figure as sons of an individual (Gn 25 1 f.), and amalgamations of clans and migrations might easily be associated with the biography of a great ancestor. It seems, however, too artificial and fan- ciful to account for everything upon the theory of a personalized tribe. There must be at least a starting-point and a germ in a true historic existence. Yet personification is a frequent figure of speech, and no one could for an instant assume that wher- ever Jacob is mentioned a man is meant. The beauty of many a prophetic oracle is due to bold personifica- tion. When we ask, however, what elements of the story we should connect with the man Jacob, we are at once involved in uncertainty. Probably the picture is so complex that satisfactory division is impossible. The birth of the twins (Gn 25 24 ff.) is told as if it were a genuine family history, but the oracle (Gn 25 23) relates to nations. The bargaining over the mess of pottage is realistic and personal, but Gn 25 30 recalls the red rocks of Esau’s territory. Rebekah’s incitement of Jacob to impersonate Esau is a very human touch, but the blessing (Gn 27 27 #.) covers the history of races and the tragedy of supremacy won at the sword’s point. The vision at Bethel has all the pathos and intensity of a personal experience; the tender love for Rachel, lasting through the long years of a strenuous life, Jaazer Jacob BIBLE DICTIONARY has little significance as a racial memory; but the names of the sons and the mimetic etymologies appear like the efforts of a later age to account for groupings, antipathies, and characteristics which antedated the historians’ memory. So, too, the struggles with Laban and the nomadic movements in Palestine are a bewildering mixture of personal and racial elements. Originally the stories were doubtless told for the sake of entertainment, but the prophetic pur- pose was edification. The picturesque element was retained and perhaps even heightened, but the prophetic writer of Gn did not care so much to tell how a shrine became sacred as to magnify the moral or spiritual significance of an event transacted there. We find that the question asked during the celebra- tion of the Passover (Ex 12 26) became the occasion for the recital of the old story of deliverance; un- doubtedly the question thus embalmed in that rite was the type of many asked when worshipers gathered at pilgrimage shrines. Curiosity might first have dictated the inquiry, but curiosity became the occasion for teaching and the answer the vehicle for a lesson or a doctrine. So when asked about the pillar at Bethel or the sanctity of Penuel, an answer must be forthcoming. The method at first might have been crude, but in the form we now possess the product is unrivaled. Archeologically it is of intense interest to trace the long past movements of the Jacob-clans and their struggle for a foothold in Canaan, to see them seizing upon advantage whenever a foe was off guard, to observe their appropriation of spots where they first caught glimpses of desirable pasture-lands, or when by a vigil they prepared themselves for a critical encounter; but religiously it is of greater value to see these events as they are interpreted in their bearing upon individual human life. Jacob is preeminently the eponymous patriarch; in him his children’s strength and weakness are mirrored. His name is theirs and each can receive reproof and take courage from his experience. . Hosea, in words which run off into obscurity, discerns this microcosmic analogy (Hos 12 4, 12). In Is chs. 40-66 the name is used in tones of tenderness, recognizing the con- stancy of a relation founded on a covenant. Not all the bitter fruits of deceit and trickery are described in Jacob’s history, but we are told how a lonely man on a barren hillside found God, how in a strange struggle on the borders of the wilderness he discerned dimly the possibilities of greater rewards. He won them at the cost of pain and deformity, yet through the struggle he gained a strength and majesty which make his figure loom up great tho human in every line. The story tells of a man whose aspirations and successes were along the low plane of the material, but who gained step by step a larger outlook and came into a fuller life, whose triumph in the dark hour before the dawn at Penuel was real and lasting. The modern tendency is to see in the two names Jacob and Israel two distinct national elements, the reminiscence of a time when a foreign wave of immigration swept into Palestine and was amalga- mated with earlier indigenous inhabitants. It may Jacob’s Well Jair A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 408 well be that the distant memory of such events survives in the dual name, but it is far from the purpose of the writer of Gn to tell such a story. The man who wrestled at Penuel went into the contest as Jacob—‘he who grasps the heel’—seeking a material victory; when he comes out he is Israel— ‘he who perseveres with God’—and has won by his persistence and his steady courage where before his work had been underhanded and ignoble. Outside of Gn the name is usually national. The locality to which it seems originally to have been confined was the central region—the mountains of Ephraim. This is confirmed by the occurrence of ‘Jacob-el’ in the Thutmose list, where it is asso- ciated with other towns in this geographical area, and also by the fact of the strong centralization of the people’s life in the territory of the Northern Kingdom. Bethel and Shechem were the spots around which religious memories clustered most tenaciously. The father and the best-loved son, with little Benjamin lying to the S., were the great eponyms of the richest portion of the land. It was in the Exile that the deep consciousness of race unity asserted itself and the men of Judah, who were long- ing for the homeland, could be addressed as ‘Jacob my servant,’ whom a career of suffering and trial was to fit for a mission to the world and the in- heritance of long-deferred promises. 2. The father of Joseph, husband of Mary the Mother of Jesus (Mt 116). A.S. C.*—O.R.S. JACOB’S WELL: A well mentioned only in Jn 4 5-12, the general locality of which, however, is easily determined by Gn 33 19 and Jos 24 32 as near Shechem. A constant tradition has identified it with: the well near Mt. Gerizim, where the fruitful plain of Mukhnah turns into the Shechem valley. To the Samaritans, who considered themselves the true descendants of Jacob, the whole region about Shechem was full of sacred associations, all more or less clearly reflected in the woman’s conversation The Mouth of Jacob’s Well (Present Condition). (cf. Gn 33 19, 48 22 [cf. RVmg.]; Dt 27 4, 12 £.; Jos 8 30 f., 24 32). On the SW. of the well rises Mt. Gerizim, the sacred mountain of the Samaritans (4 20), on which were the ruins of their Temple, destroyed by the Jews 128 B.c., and across the valley is Mt. Ebal, on the outer slope of which lies ‘Askar, the Sychar (q.v.) of the gospel story, a little over half a mile N. of the well. At the well the main road from the S. forks, one branch going W. to Shechem, 2 m. distant, and then to Galilee by way of Samaria and Jenin, the other N. past ‘Askar. _B] NECK OF WELL Hh i) J ze e 5 , iD = ioe C—O ~~ oy Se . oo cr Eee ae : UE ag ~ ss TLS Sor aR pe IR = = MASON WORK 7 cy i Sn s Lo ccntiiond — Ss SOR ts Eames reas < 4 Rote St Ean te EEA Raa; yar ‘ 2s —o ms 2 wey) ll ~~ == —_ ‘Ne teach aoe. (Jaffa Gate) Ol Eons gan 2 gains = ~ |ICotner Gate Heérodss Palace i | id Prcetortum I ippicus C. UPPER CITY rome NW tye ee ~*"atilo [Corne ~ S.W. Mies eu P yal N F . } AVID fs entjof Wall Si ’ ye Furnace|Tower oq Fountain\@ate x rau of Wal vere Pobl 3) bar col NX Sta Irs Valley Gate or (\ Harsith Gate oS Ai P. Sy 3 oars ms on» Sey N s es ety Q ng’s Garflen ———— S SN Ane aS enn David's Wall —{-—1I-1—-1— N Solomon’s Wall —?—2—2—2— Hezekiah’s Wall —3-3-3—3— En R n Rogel Manasseh's Wall —4—4—-4-4— S g Agrippa's Wall 425 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Jeroboam Jerusalem JERUSALEM, ji-rii’so-lem OUTLINE. INTRODUCTORY 16. Zion IV. Period of Hezekiah and Manasseh 1. Historical and _ Religious 17. Ophel 33. Interval Between Solomon Importance 18. Moriah and Hezekiah 2. Location and Climate II. History I. ToroGRAPHY 3. Method of Study I. Canaanite Period 19. Jebusite Jerusalem 34. Hezekiah’s Conduit 35. Hezekiah’s Wall 36. Manasseh’s Wall 4. Location of Temple II. Davidic Period V. Persian, Greek, Maccabean, and I. The Valleys of Jerusalem 20. Millo Herodian Periods 5. The Kidron 21. David’s Wall 37. Nehemiah’s Wall 6. Hinnom 22. David’s Palace 38. Gates, etc., in Nehemiah’s 7. Rephaim 23. The Guard-House Wall 8. The Vale of Shaveh 24. David’s Sepulcher 39. Between Nehemiah and N T 9, The Tyropcon III. Solomonic Period Times II. The Springs of Jerusalem 25. The Temple VI. New Testament Period 10. En-rogel 26. The King’s House 40. Extent of the City 11. Gihon 27. The House of Pharaoh’s 41. Jesus’ Visits to Jerusalem III. The Pools of Jerusalem Daughter 42. The Upper Room 12. Bethesda 28. The Porch of Judgment 43. The Palace of Caiaphas 13. Siloam 29. The Porch of Pillars 44, The Pretorium and Pave- IV. The Hills of Jerusalem 30. The House of the Forest of ment 14. Topographical Arrange- Lebanon 45. Golgotha, Calvary ment 31. Solomon’s Wall 46. Akeldama, Potter’s Field 15. The City of David 32. Gates in Solomon’s Wall 47. Synagog of Theodotos INTRODUCTORY. with a stony but fertile soil, in which olives, walnuts, Jerusalem (a 2wI77, yrushalaim; Amarna let- ters, Urusalim; Assyr. Ursalimmu; Syr. Urishlem; Gr. ‘IepovoxAnu, ‘IepocdAuuan; Lat. Hierosolyma; Arab. El-Kuds, ‘The Holy’). 1. Historial and Religious Importance. An an- cient royal city of the Canaanites, captured by David about 1000 B.c., and the capital, first of the united Hebrew monarchy, and then of the king- dom of Judah. It was the site of the Temple of Solomon, and as such became the ‘Holy City’ of Judaism. It was the scene of the activity of all the writing prophets except Amos and Hosea, and in it most of the books of the O T were written. It was destroyed by Nebuchadrezzar in 586 B.c.; but was rebuilt after the Exile, and was invested with ever-increasing sanctity by the Jews during the Persian, Greek, and Roman periods. It was the scene of a considerable part of the ministry of Jesus and of His death, resurrection, and ascension, thus gaining new holiness in the eyes of the Christian Church. It was destroyed by Titus in 70 a.p., but was rebuilt by Hadrian in 136. In 637 a.p. it was conquered by the Calif Omar, was connected with the tradition of the Prophet Mohammed, and soon became the most important holy place of the Moslem world after Mecca and Medina. In 1099 a.p. it was taken by the Crusaders, and in 1517 by the Turks, in whose hands it remained until its occupa- tion in 1917 by the Allied Forces under command of Gen. Allenby. It is now administered by Great Britain under a mandate from the League of Nations. 2. Location and Climate. Descriptions in ancient writers and numerous archeological remains leave no doubt that modern J. stands on substantially the same site as the ancient city. It is situated 33 m. E. of the Mediterranean, 14 m. W. of the Dead Sea, 133 m. SW. of Damascus, on the high central ridge of Judea, at an altitude in its highest parts of 2,500 ft. above the sea. The hills consist of bare white rocks of Eocene limestone and chalk. The lower slopes and the bottoms of the valleys are covered and various fruit-trees, barley, wheat, and vege- tables flourish. The climate is similar to that of northern Italy. The winters are cold and consider- able snow falls, which, however, does not lie long. The temperature drops as low as 35° Fahr. and palms, oranges, and lemons can not be cultivated. The heat of the summer is tempered by the altitude of the city, and the average maximum temperature is not over 86°. The hottest months are May and October, when the sirocco blows. Rain falls only between the months of November and March, with an annual average of 22 in.—about the same as that of London. I. Tur ToroGRAPHY OF JERUSALEM. 3. Method of Study. The problem of the topo- graphy of the ancient city is much complicated by the scantiness of records, the repeated destructions and rebuildings, the absence of inscriptions, and the misleading testimony of Jewish, Christian, and Mohammedan tradition. In a scientific study of the topography of J. legend must be disregarded, and one must go back to the evidence of the Bible and of other ancient writings. The testimony must be arranged in chronological order, and the greatest importance must be attached to the earliest state- ments. Under no conditions should we start with tradition and work backward, endeavoring to twist ancient statements into conformity with it; and where ancient evidence is lacking tradition may be used only with extreme caution. So much for the method in general. In particular, the investigation should proceed from the more certain to the less certain. The most certain thing in the topography of ancient Jerusalem is the location of the Temple. This, therefore, should be the starting-point of our study. Next to this the valleys, springs, and pools of antiquity are most easily identified, and after these the hills and city quarters. These main physical features that remain unchanged down to the present time having been determined, we may then proceed to study in chronological order the buildings, such as palaces, walls, gates, etc., that Jerusalem from time to time have been erected in the city. We take up, then, first the location of the Temple. 4, The Location of the Temple. The Temple is one of the few fixed spots in the topography of an- cient Jerusalem. Solomon’s sanctuary remained undisturbed until its destruction by Nebucha- drezzar in 586 B.c. During the brief period of the Exile its site was not forgotten (cf. Jer 415; Hag 2 3; Ezr 312). It was rebuilt by Zerubbabel in the old place in 516 B.c. (Ezr 615). Herod’s Temple, accord- ing to Josephus (Ant. XV, 11 2; BJ, V, 51), was merely an enlargement and beautification of its predecessor. An unbroken tradition of Jews, Christians, and Mohammedans places it on the site of the Haram esh-Sherif, the ‘Noble Sanctuary,’ or Mosque of Omar. The correctness of this tradi- tion is confirmed at every point by archeology (see TrempLe). From this fixed point we must set out in our study of the ancient city. I. The Valleys of Jerusalem. 5. The Kidron. The one most often named is the nahal, or ‘brook’ Kidron (qidhroén, Gr. Kedpsy). Frequently ‘Kidron’ is omitted and it is called simply ‘the brook’ (II Ch 32 4). This designation suggests that it is to be identified. with Wddy Sitti Maryam, the deep gorge on the E. of Jerusalem, since this is the only one of the valleys that has a perennial flow of water. This identification is con- firmed by all the Biblical references. From II S 15 23, I K 2 37 (cf. IL 8 16 5) it appears that the Kidron lay E. of the city; from I K 15 13=II Ch 15 16; II K 23 4, 6, 12; Jer 31 40; II Ch 29 16, that it was adjacent to the Temple. II Ch 32 4 describes it as flowing through the midst of the land, and as containing much water. Nehemiah on his night-ride around the wall rode down the valley on the W. and S. of the city and then (Neh 2 15) up ‘the brook.’ According to Jn 18 1, Mk 14 26 Jesus crossed the Kidron (Cedron AV) in going from the city to the Mount of Olives, but the location of the Mount of Olives on the E. side of the city is established (cf. Jos. Wars, V, 2 3, 61, 12 2; VI, 3 2). The Valley of Jehoshaphat (‘Yahweh judges’) in Jl 3 12 f. is prob- ably a place invented as a scene for the final judg- ment. Its identification with Wddy Sitti Maryam (the Kidron) is not found before the 4th cent. a.p. and is destitute of authority. 6. Hinnom. ‘The valley of the ‘Son (Sons) of Hinnom’ (hinndm), or simply ‘valley of Hinnom,’ is always called the gay, or ‘broad, open valley,’ in contrast to the nahal, or ‘brook,’ of Kidron. This name suggests that it is to be identified with the modern Wddy er-Rababi, the broad valley that en- closes Jerusalem on the W. and 8. All the O T references favor this identification. According to Jos 15 8, 18 16 Hinnom was the boundary-line be- tween the tribes of Judah and Benjamin; but Jerusalem lay wholly in the tribe of Benjamin (cf. Jer 6 1 and the frequent phrase ‘Judah and Jeru- salem’), hence Hinnom can not be identified either with Wddy Sitti Maryam or with El-W4d, the valley that runs through the heart of the city. The valley gate of Neh 2 13 must have opened upon the Valley of Hinnom, but the excavations of Bliss seem to have A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 426 proved that this gate was situated near the SW. corner of the modern city. The Arabian geographer Idrisi (1154 a.p.) applies the name Jehenndm, that is, Gé-hinndm, or Valley of Hinnom, to Wédy er- Rababi, and in 1838 Robinson found this name still attached to it. This identification is generally accepted by modern topographers, but W. Robert- son Smith, followed by a few others, identifies Hin- nom with the modern El-Wdd. Hinnom was the place where children were sacrificed to the god Melek (Molech) (q.v.), according to Il K 23 10; Jer 2 23, 7 31f., 19 2, 6, 82 35. Later Jewish abhorrence of this practise caused the name Gehenna, or Valley of Hinnom, to be used as a name for Hell. 7. Rephaim. According to Jos 15 8, 18 16, the ‘vale of Rephaim’ lay W. of Hinnom, and formed part of the boundary-line between Judah and Benjamin. It is to be identified with the modern Wady el-Werd through which the railway runs from. Jaffa to Jerusalem. 8. The Vale of Shaveh. In Gn 14 17f. it is stated that Melchizedek, King of Salem, met Abram in the ‘émeq, or ‘enclosed plain,’ ‘of Shaveh (the same is the King’s Vale).’ If Salem be J. (§ 19, below), then Shaveh may be one of the plains near J. In II § 18 18 Absalom is said to have built himself a monument in the ‘king’s dale.’ According to Jos., Ant., VII, 10 3, this monument was two stadia dis- tantfrom J. It,has been conjectured that the Vale of Sheveh is the broad, open headof Wddy er-Rababi (the Hinnom) W. of the city. This isnow known as Wddy el-Més. Through it Abram might naturally have passed in coming from Damascus to Hebron. 9. The Tyropceon. The valley called the Tyro- poeon (% tay tupototmy gkeay&, ‘the valley of the cheesemakers’) is mentioned by Josephus, BJ, V, 41. He says that it divided the Upper City from the Lower City, and that it came out at the Pool of Siloam. Siloam is known to be identical with the modern ‘Ain Silwadn, and consequently the Tyro- - poceon must be identified with some part of Hl-Wad, the valley that runs through the heart of the city. The only dispute is, which of the branches of EIl- Wadd is to be identified with the upper course of the Tyropceon. The common view is that it is the N. branch, which runs under the Damascus Gate. This is most likely, since this is the deeper depres- sion, and since it is the one which the people of modern J. regard as the main valley. A rival theory, first suggested by Robinson, is that the upper course of the Tyropceon is to be found in the W. branch of El-Wad, that comes down from the Jaffa Gate under the modern David Street. Stillanother theory, advocated by Tobler and Mommert, is that the Tyropceon is the slight depression that runs from the SW. corner of the city and joins Hl-Wad at a point a little way above Siloam. Both of these theories identify the Tyropceon with small branches of the city valley such as Josephus would never have selected as a main division between the two hills, and neither of these identifications would ever have been thought of but for erroneous ideag concerning the location of the Lower City. The Tyropceon is perhaps identical with ‘the Maktesh’ (Zeph 1 it ‘mortar’ mg.; cf. § 36). Lief yy RNS WAY bey , \ \ “fyl| iit eal He , = j 7 VIINS ZB wy) yy) wens! \ NY Z LUTIONS ON TEM ONS SS WY yt Z Upygod Si #, <= Za MIN WN. SASS \ “4 . < | i UZ; é Z SS y WSS: Win, \ Topographical Features showing altitude above Mediterranean Sea Ny Yes, \ H} NS NSS \ SY YS \ NK WS \ \\ é w } Y) Wy SS WG if; = Ns", : xy l ji itt a) id Ut} Hl \\ ZL Lif He tt 1 Usp nisi) dH MH HY HH Ht i i} wi / ' Wy, Lyi Uff} WY \ wy » yi) y Hy y Y) Why ihy,, . ‘ r Lf! . : i; Uy -\\: AS MH Z cs Uff / NN OT SSS | Wy Ty 5 . SS : bh Whi. “iff, 4) fff vi HAA wy { 44, y SN Mt. hy 4 UY Uf ETT fj hy L~,. Hs Yj, WU j B \\\ veh }} Nt SSH) \ i \\ S) Ki MV Hint } (| i) AL AMAY} \ i i) i he HiT NSS init Neh Dai Ht LS Zz Hi) i hit Ne : } j MHL VON WISQ i) Ml ) Hii \ .. \ TOA \s \ e \ . MINS : y \ NX £ \ AKON NNN) dl AY ih \ HIN : \i oY ) i SEZ Gi / y ef Dahan) i \ x) Mi ) iy fy ff ) ; At ey: Mv a \ Wi Aize¢ thes hy H 2279 HH) Wi! i AN ; | Wg "yyy iy § i | CG y i AN NS 17 { | Mi NY Hy EP mn | bal Fi WV a7 ; hi ca eee 427 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Jerusalem II. The Springs of Jerusalem. 10. En-rogel. Closely connected with the question of the valleys is the question of the springs and pools. Two springs, En-rogel and Gihon, are men- tioned as near Jerusalem. These can not be identical, because in I K ch. 1 the coronation of Adonijah takes place at En-rogel, while that of Solomon takes place at Gihon. There are only two springs in the neighborhood of the modern city: ‘Ain Um ed- Deraj, ‘Spring of the Mother of Steps,’ as it is called by the Moslems, or ‘Ain Siti Maryam, ‘Spring of the Lady Mary,’ as it is called by the Christians, which lies in the Wddy Sitti Maryam, a short dis- tance from the SW. corner of the city; and Bir ’ Hiytib, ‘Job’s Well,’ which lies in the same valley a short distance below its junction with Wddy er- Rababi. must be identical. The evidence is clear that En- rogel is Bir ’Hiyib. According to Jos 15 7, 18 16, | it was reached by going down the Valley of Hin- | nom. According to IZ S 1717 and I K 19, it was out of sight Cuda ate Ly Yyp vA remote from it: The name may mean ‘Spy’s Spring,’ cer- tainly not ‘Fuller’s Sp faimg Apparently it is the same as the Drag- on’s (jackal’s RV) Well of Neh 2 13. 11. Gihon. If En-rogel is Bir ’ Kiyib, then Gihon must be the other spring of Jerusalem: namely, ‘Ain Sitti Maryam, the Virgin’s Fountain. This is an intermittent spring to which the name of Gihon or ‘gusher,’ is peculiarly appropriate. According to I K 1 33, it was close to Jerusalem and within hearing distance of En-rogel. II Ch 33 14 states that it lay in the nahal or Kidron valley, and II Ch 32 30 con- nects it with the rock-hewn conduit which still leads from the Virgin’s Fountain under the E. hill to ‘Ain Silwan. Other theories which identify Gihon with one or other of the pools on the W. side of the city ignore the fact that it was a spring (cf. Jos., Ant., VII, 145). The sanctity of these two springs which led them to be selected as places of sacrifice and anointing, is noteworthy. Near Gihon, where there was plenty of water, was the fuller’s field (II K 18.17; Is 7 3, 36 2). III. The Pools of Jerusalem. 12. Bethesda. Bethesda (Bethsaida, or Beth- zatha; cf. RVmg.) is mentioned in Jn ch. 5 as the scene of the healing of a lame man by Jesus. Our only clues to the location of this pool are that it was With these springs En-rogel and Gihon | rte ZY y SRA Se ie is Pees J) ff S; = rant ceeeere—— ea , SE PRES We vet te ssi bE Sait aes Sey See ae GaSe OD SECTION OF THE UNDERGROUND CONDUIT AT THE VIRGIN’S FouNTAIN. near to something connected with sheep, that it had five porches large enough to hold a multitude of sick people, that its waters flowed intermittently, and that it lay outside of the city, so that Jesus violated the Jewish Sabbath law in telling the man to carry his mat to his home. On the hypothesis that the reoBattxn was the Sheep Gate in the N. wall of the Temple, Bethesda has been traditionally identified with Birket Isra’il, a large pool N. of the Haram. The excavations of the White Friars near the Church of St. Anne have disclosed a vaulted cistern, which the Crusaders believed to be the Pool of Bethesda. Neither of these sites, however, fulfils all the conditions of the narrative of John. The Gihon, or Virgin’s Fountain, is the only inter- mittent spring in the vicinity of Jerusalem (see § 8, above) and, therefore, this is probably the site of Bethesda, where the waters were periodically troubled. It is true that no remains of porches are to be seen here, but no excavations have been undertaken at this point. In all other respects this identification fulfils the requirements of the Gospel narrative. See Masterman, PHFQ., li (1921), pp. 91 ff. 13. Siloam. The names Shiloah (Shelah, Neh 3 15, Siloah AV) and Siloam are the exact equivalent in Heb. and Gr., respectively, of Silwdn, in the modern Arabic name (‘Ain Silwén) of the pool at the mouth of Hl-Wad. All the an- cient references agree with this iden- tification (cf. Neh 3 15; Jos., BJ, V, At 2° O19 ns MU), oS ae bic ie Lee ry, Entrance to Sprmg 4, 12 2; II, V9 Kidron Valle 4, 16.3 5 Viewene: 85). In spite GY’ of its modern V/ Beis _ designation oes ees, as an ‘ain es eae (‘spring’), (} WEY ‘$, Ae Rais. Cte Siloam is not a spring, but is fed by a tunnel cut through the rock from the Gihon, or Virgin’s Fountain. Before this tunnel was con- structed a channel on the surface of the ground, perhaps constructed by the Jebusites early in the history of the city, and discovered by Schick in 1886, led the water of Gihon to the Old Pool, or Lower Pool, which is identical with the modern Birket el-Hamra, below ‘Ain Silwan, at the mouth of Hl-Wdd. Is 8 6 (reign of Ahaz) probably refers to this when it speaks of ‘the waters of Shiloah that go softly.’ According to IT K 20 20; Is 229, 11; II Ch 32 4, 30, Hezekiah, in anticipation of the coming of Sennacherib, stopped up the channel on the surface of the ground and diverted the water of Gihon from the Old, or Lower Pool, through a subterranean conduit to the New, or Upper Pool, which lay within the fortifications (see § 34, below). This conduit to the Upper Pool is referred to in II K 18 17=Is 36 2, and in Is 7 3. In Neh 2 14 it is called the King’s Pool, either be- cause it was built by {King Hezekiah or because it was adjacent to the King’s Garden (see § 38, below). Jerusalem A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 428 ca a en ne IV. The Hills of Jerusalem. 14. Topographical Arrangement. The two main valleys of Jerusalem, the Kidron and the Hinnom, form a V-shaped plateau that is connected with the table-land of Judea only on the N. This plateau is divided by the Tyropceon, or {central valley, into two unequal divisions, which we may call the W. hill and the E. hill. The W. hill is three times as large as the EH. hill, and at its highest point near the SW. corner of the city rises to a height of 2,550 ft. above sea level, so that it overlooks the Temple mount (about 100 ft. lower). By the arms of the Tyropceon this hill is subdivided into four smaller acete Sebo eed aS CoursE oF UNDER- GROUND ConpDviItT FROM THE VIRGIN’S FounTAIN TO THE Poou or SInoam. Seen pride Meeting Place’ the i ce) ‘ Excavators .,' er Church over the pool A Zz al 0 1 NLiccgtn \ Oem TS 3 ‘. A ° ‘AKO 7 pt OW \c Ce = ‘ “ills, which we may designate for convenience as TW, N, SW, and C (Central). The E. hill, on vhich the Temple stood, is subdivided by branches of the Kidron into three summits, which we may designate as NE, E, and SE. The task now before us is the identification of the hills and city quar- ters of antiquity with the seven summits of the modern city. 15. The City of David. The term ‘city of David’ occurs first in II S 5 6-8=I Ch 115 f. as the name which David gave to the stronghold that he took out of the hand of the Jebusites. ‘This fortress must have been near a water-supply. and the Gihon, or Virgin’s Fountain, is the only spring close to J. This suggests that the City of David lay on SE. ITS 15 23 and I K 1 33 both suggest its nearness to the Kidron and to Gihon. Nowhere is one said to go up fo the City of David; but, on the other hand, one goes up from it to the Temple and to the palace which ad- joined the Temple (cf. I K 81, 9 24). This language is explainable only if it lay on SE, which is con- siderably lower than the Temple hill. Is 291, 2,7 connects the City of David with the Temple in such a way as to show that it must have lain on the HE. ridge. Ezk 43 7 accuses the kings of Judah of defiling the Temple by putting their sepulchers close to it, but according to I K 11 43, 14 31, etc., these were in the city of David. NE. was not built upon until a much later date, consequently the City of David must have lain on SE. Neh 3 15 shows that the City of David lay close to the Pool of Siloam (cf. Neh 12 37). II Ch 32 30 shows that it lay between Gihon and Siloam; II Ch 33 14, that it lay due west of Gihon. According to I Mac 1 33, 7 32 f., 14 36, it was identical with the Akra of the Syrians and was in immediate proximity to the Temple. Jos (Ant. VIII, 3 1-2) also equates the City of David with the Akra of the Syrians. In BJ, I, 1 4; V, 41, 61, he identifies it with the Lower City, and says that it was separated from the Upper City by a deep valley. There is universal agreement that the Upper City of Josephus is SW, but in regard to the identification of the Lower City there has been a great variety of opinions. Brocar- dus, Robinson, Conder, Fergusson, De Saulcy, Pierotti place it on NW; Fallmerayer, Williams, Lewin, De Vogiié, Warren, Merrill, Schick place it on N; Schultz, Kraft, Schafter on NE; Tobler and Mommert on C; von Alten and Thrupp on E; Ols- hausen, Caspari, Menke, Riess, Furrer, von Klaiber, Wilson, Benzinger, Buhl, Guthe, W. R. Smith, G. A. Smith, and most recent authorities on SE. The last theory is the only one that does justice to all the statements of Josephus in BJ, V, 41. SE is lower than SW, the Upper City; it is separated from it by a deep valley, the Tyropceon; it is lower than the Temple hill; and there is no valley at present between it and the Temple, altho the excavations of Guthe and Macalister show that such a valley once existed (cf. Ant. XIV, 16 2; BJ ,II, 17 5; IV, 19 2; VI, 6 3, 7 2). The controversy has re- cently been settled in favor of SE. by the excavations of Parker, Weill, and Macalister on this hill (see LireRATURE). The discovery of scarabs of the XIIth Eg. dynasty and of old Amorite pottery proves that this is the most ancient part of Jeru- salem. The excavations now in process are revealing many interesting facts regarding the old Jebusite city and its fortifications, its capture and the strengthening of its northern wall by David and other details of the past history of this very impor- tant site; see especially PHFQ for 1924). After the destruction of J. the thread of authentic tradition was broken, and the City of David was supposed to have lainon SW., where to-day the tomb of David is shown by the Moslems; but of this tradition there is no trace before the 4th cent. a.p.,"and it is worthless over against the unanimous ancient testi- mony in favor of SE. 16. Zion. In regard to the location of the hill Zion (tstyyén, Gr. tov), theories have been as (ALIO AHL dO HN) SOdOOS WOU WHTVSONgL OPHEL—PORTION OF THE WALL OF THE OLD JEBUSITE CITY The breach in the wall made by David when he captured Jerusalem (IIS. 5 ®®). The replacing of this breach by a new structure was called ‘Millo’ (‘filling’) (from P.#.F.Q. April, 1924. By permission of the Palestine Exploration Fund). OPHEL. PORTION OF THE OLD WALL OF DAVID’S CAPITAL The North Bastion and Tower (from P.E.F.Q. July, 1924. By permission of the Palestine Exploration Fund). oy 429 diverse as they have been in regard to the City of David. The tradition of the Greek and Latin Churches since the 4th cent., followed by Brocardus, Robinson, Williams, and Lewin, places Zion on SW. Aben Ezra, De Lyra, Lightfoot, Fergusson, and Thrupp identify it with NW; Clark, Bucking- ham, and Ritter, with the Hill of ‘Evil Counsel’ 8S. of the city; Caspari, Birch, Weikert, Socin, Guthe, Benzinger, Buhl, G. A. Smith, and most modern investigators, with the entire E. ridge. The argu- ments in support of this last view are as follows: (1) All the early references identify the City of David with Zion in such a way as to show that both must have lain on the same ridge (cf. IIS 57=I Ch 115;1 K 81=II Ch 5 2). (2) The preexilic prophets speak of Zion as in a peculiar sense the abode of J”. This shows that it was the hill on which the Temple stood (cf. Am 1 2; Is 2 3, 45, 8 18, 14 32, 187, 291, 7, 8, 31 4, 9, 33 20; Mic 3 12, 47; Jer 8 19, 31 6, 12). (3) The early prophets mention Zion as the residence of the king and the nobility, but Solomon’s palace is known to have stood on the E. hill near the Temple (cf. Am 61; Is 3 16f., 161, 28 16; Mic 4 8; Song 3 11). (4) The exilic writings connect Zion with the Temple as frequently as do the preexilic writings (cf. La 1 4, 2 6f., 411; Ob ver 17; Is 527 f., 60 14, 64 10 f.; Jer 50 5, 28, 5110). (5) The postexilic prophets in like manner speak of Zion asthe dwelling-place of J’’ (cf. Zech 2 10, 8 2£.; Jl 2 1, 15, 3 16, 17, 21; Is 24 23). (6) In the Psalter, Zion is scarcely ever mentioned except in connection with the Temple and its worship (cf. Ps 20 2, 78 68 £., 87 2, 5, 48 2, 74 2, 76 2, 99 2, 132 13, 146 10, 9 11, 14, 2 6, 53 6, 87 2, 147, 50 2, 110 2, 128 5, 183 3, 1384 3, 5118 f., 651, 847, 137 1, 3, 102 21, 147 12, 1251). (7) In the Apocrypha, Zion is identified with the Temple mount in the same manner as in the earlier literature (cf. I Mac 4 37f., 5 54, 7 32, 14 27; Sir 24 10; I Es 8 81). (8) Josephus never uses the name Zion, but in Ané. I, 13 2 he states that David’s tent for the Ark (on Zion, accord- ing to II S 6 12) was pitched on the same mountain on which the Temple afterward stood. We thus find an unbroken tradition from the earliest times down to about 100 a.p. identifying Zion with the E. hill. In certain poetical passages Zion is used in parallelism with J., as tho it were a name for the whole city, but this is evidently a case of synecdoche. In prose Zion is never anything else than the Temple hill. The modern tradition which identifies Zion with SW is probably derived from the old ‘Zion’ Church that stood in this quarter (see § 42, below). 17. Ophel. The hill of Ophel (‘6phel) is first men- tioned in Mic 4 8 as ‘the hill [‘Ophel’ mg.] of the daughter of Zion.’ Since Zion was the E. ridge, Ophel must have lain on the same ridge. From Neh 3 26f., 11 21; II Ch 27 3, 33 14; Jos., BJ, V, 4 2, 61, it is certain that Ophel was the part of the E. hill immediately S. of the Temple. 18. Moriah. The use of the name ‘Moriah’ for the Temple mount is peculiar to II Ch 31. Gn 22 2, 14 (editorial) seems also to know it, since it ex- plains it as meaning the place where men ought to appear before J’’; that is, the Temple. In all early writings Zion is the name for the Temple mount. Moriah is apparently a late Jewish designation that A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Jerusalem has arisen from the conjecture that the altar on Zion was the scene of Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac (in Gn 22 2 it is described as one of the mountains of the land of Moriah). If this is a real name, it must be supposed to refer to one of the smaller peaks of the E. ridge, or Zion. Moriah will then be the northern summit, Ophel the central, and City of David the southern. ; II. History or JERUSALEM. I. The Canaanite Period. 19. Jebusite Jerusalem. Concerning the origin of the city of Jerusalem we have no information. Even the etymology of the name is uncertain. Ezk 16 3 says of the city: ‘Thy birth and thy nativity is of the land of the Canaanite; the Amorite was thy father, and thy mother was a Hittite.’ In Gn 14 18 it is uncertain whether Salem, the residence of Mel- chizedek, has anything to do with Jerusalem (see SaLeM). The identification first appears in Ps 76 2 and is followed by Jos. Ant. I, 10 2; VII, 3 2. Even if Salem be Jerusalem, the story of Melchizedek is of such uncertain origin that it throws no light upon the early history of the city (see MrLcuizEDEK). In the Tell-el-Amarna tablets (1400 s.c.) the city appears as Urusalim (Winckler, Tell el-Amarna Letters, Nos. 179-185; Knudtzon, Die El-Amarna Tafeln, Nos. 285-290). Its king Abd-hiba appeals to the Pharaoh Amenhotep IV for help against an invading people called the Habiru (Hebrews). J. next appears at the time of the Israelite conquest about 1200 B.c. According to Jos 1 10, its king joined with the kings of Hebron, Jarmuth, Lachish, and Eglon in a confederacy against the Israelites. He was defeated by Joshua, but his city was not taken (cf. Jg 11-7). According to Jos 15 63; Jg 1 21, 19 12, the city remained in the hands of Jebusites. The Jebusites appear in lists of the tribes of Canaan in JE (Gn 10 16, 15 21; Ex 3 8, 17, 33 2, 34 1; Nu 13 29), in D (Ex 18 5, 23 23; Dt 71, 2017), also in Jos 310, 91, 11 3, 12 8, 24 11; Jg 3 6; IK 9 20=I1T Ch 87; Ezr 91; Neh 98. They were doubtless of the same Semitic stock as the other Canaanites. In the light of Urusalim in the Amarna letters it seems likely that Jebus, as a name for the city, is a late formation out of Jebusite. The stronghold of the Jebusites was subsequently called the City of David. It must, therefore, have lain on the S. end of the E. hill, near the spring of Gihon. Whether settlements had also been made on the W. hill we have no means of determining. The possibility that this was the case is suggested by Jg 19 11 £.; Jos 15 8; Jos. Ant. VII, 3 2; BJ, V, 41. II. Davidic Period. 20. Millo. According to IIS 56f.=I Ch 11 4t., David captured the stronghold of Zion, made it his residence, and called it the City of David. Here he undertook the following operations: A structure called ‘Millo’ is mentioned in II S 59; I K 9 15, 24, 11 27; II Ch 32 5. From these passages we gather that it was a fortification of some sort, which was already in existence when David took the city, and it could be successively enlarged by David, !Solo- mon, and Hezekiah; that it lay in the City of David; Jerusalem and that it defended this city on its weakest side. Apparently it was a rampart, which protected the N. end of the SE. hill. The LXX. identifies it with the Akra, a citadel S. of the Temple. The name millo’, ‘filling,’ like Assyr. mula, or tamla, suggests that it was a double wall filled in with earth, such as the excavations have disclosed in the contemporary city of Gezer. (Cf. Macalister’s report in PHFQ., April, 1924). 21. David’s Wall. In II § 59 it is stated that ‘David built round about from Millo.’ This can only refer to a wall enclosing the City of David. It began at the Millo, or embankment, which crossed the S. portion of the E. hill, followed the Kadron at some distance above its bed, encircled the rocky cliff at the 8. end of the hill above Siloam, and then ran up the E. side of the Tryopceon valley to join the Millo once more. Traces of this wall and of the rock scarps that formed its foundation were dis- covered by Bliss on the E. and S. sides of the SE. hill. In this wall perhaps was the Tower of David (Song 4 4). The tower near the Jaffa Gate, known to-day as the Tower of David, is really the tower Phasaélus, built by Herod as a part of his palace. 22. David’s Palace. In IIS 59 (LXX.), 5 11 it is recorded that David built him a house in the City of David. Neh 12 37 indicates that it stood at the N. end of the city. According to II S 5 un, it was erected by Tyrian workmen sent by Hiram. The walls were of stone, and it was roofed with cedar beams from Lebanon (cf. II 8 7 2, 11 8, 9, 27, 15 16, 19 11, 30, 20 3). 23. The Guard-House. Neh 3 16 mentions, as situated in the City of David, the ‘house of the mighty men.’ This seems to have been a dwelling for the men of the body-guard, whose names are recorded in IT § 23 8-39. 24. David’s Sepulcher. I K 2 10 tells us that ‘David slept with his fathers and was buried in the City of David.’ All the other kings of Judah down to Ahaz were buried in this tomb, according to the Book of Kings. Ezk 43 7 speaks of it as adjoining the wall of the Temple. Neh 3 16 mentions it as lying between the Pool of Siloam and the Water Gate on the E. side of the city. These statements are inconsistent with the traditional location of the Tomb of David on the §S. end of the W. hill (cf. Jos. Ant. XIII, 8 4; XVI, 71; Ac 2 29). III. Solomonic Period. 25. The Temple. With Solomon a new building era began in Jerusalem. The following structures are ascribed to him by the Book of Kings: The ‘house,’ or sanctuary proper, stood on the summit of the E. hill a little W. of the sakhra, or ‘Rock’ under the Dome of the Rock, which marks the site of the altar of burnt offering. The name dbhir (‘oracle’) for the Holy of Holies means properly ‘west,’ and shows that it lay at the W. end of the Temple (cf. Ezk 8 16). The Temple proper was sur- rounded with a court, which in I K 6 36 is called the inner court, to distinguish it from the great, or outer court, that enclosed all Solomon’s buildings. In Jer 36 10 it is called the upper court, because it stood on a higher level. Unlike the later Temples of A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 430 Zerubbabel and of Herod, Solomon’s Temple had only one court (see TEMPLE, §§ 6, 24, 27, 31 f.). 26. The King’s House. According to I K 31, 71, 91, 10, 15, 10 4, 5, 12, Solomon built a palace for himself at the same time that he reared the house of J’. This is frequently mentioned in the later history under the name of the ‘king’s house.’ From many passages it is clear that it adjoined the Temple (cf. I K 6 36, 7 8, 12; Is 1 26 f.; Ps 26; II K 12 18, 1414, 168, 18 15, 2413, 259; Jer 3612#.). It can not have adjoined it on the N., because that quarter was not yet enclosed, nor on the E. or W., because there was no room. It must accordingly have lain S. of the Temple. With this agree numerous passages which speak of the palace as higher than the City of David and lower than the Temple (cf. I K 81, 9 24, 10 5; IK 1119; Jer 221, 2610; Mic 48). 27. The House of Pharaoh’s Daughter. Adjacent to Solomon’s palace, probably on the W., was the- house of Pharaoh’s daughter, or the Harem (I K 7 8, 9 24). These two buildings were surrounded with a court spoken of as ‘another court’ (I K 7 8), or the middle court (II K 20 4 mg.), or the court of the guard (Jer 32 2; II K 11 5, 19; If Ch 23 5; Neh 12 39, 3 25). The N. wall of this court was identical with the S. wall of the inner, or Temple court. 28. The Porch of Judgment. According to I K 7 7, S. of the middle, or palace court, stood the ‘porch of judgment.’ It served as the royal audience- chamber, and contained Solomon’s throne of ivory and gold (I K 10 18-20). 29. The Porch of Pillars. A little S. of the porch of Judgment stood the ‘porch of pillars’ (I K 7 6), which measured 50 by 30 cubits. Apparently, it served as an anteroom to the throne-room in which Solomon held audience. 30. The House of the Forest of Lebanon. The most southerly of the buildings on the Temple hill was the ‘house of the forest of Lebanon’ (I K 7 2). Its dimensions were 100 by 50 cubits. Its roof was supported by forty-five pillars of cedar wood in three rows. According to I K 10 16 f., Is 22 8 (ef. 39 2=IT K 2013), it wasused asa royalarmory. Its name was derived from the cedar trunks that formed its pillars. Its proximity to the palace is shown not only by the narrative of I K ch. 7, but also by I K 1016 f., which states that the shields were kept in it that were borne before the king on festal occasions. The last three buildings, as well as the inner and the middle court, were included in the outer, or great court, which surrounded all Solomon’s edifices (I K 7 12). See LEBANON. 31. Solomon’s Wall. According to II S§ 59, David built the wall of the City of David. According to {K 31, 915, Solomon built the wall of J. round about. Jerusalem must be a larger idea than the City of David, and this new wall must have enclosed part at least of the W. hill, which before this time had been undefended. In I K 81=II Ch 5 2; II K 9 28, 14 20; Is 10 12, 32, 22 10, 30 19; Jer 51 35; Zec 1 14; Neh 8 15, 12 37 the City of David, or Zion, is dis- tinguished from J. as a part from the whole. This indicates that even in preexilic times the city had spread to the W. hill. On the N. Solomon’s wall probably coincided with the first, or inner, wall _ 431 A NEW STANDARD described by Jos. BJ, V, 4 2, which ran from the Tower of Hippicus, near the modern Jaffa gate, straight E. to the W. wall of the Temple. On the S. it probably followed the inner line of fortification discovered by Bliss around the S. summit of the W. hill. Not until a later time was it found necessary to enclose the lower S. slopes of the W. hill (see § 35, below). 32. Gates in Solomon’s Wall. The upper gate, or gate of Benjamin, is described in I K 15 33=I Ch 27 3; II Ch 23 20; Jer 20 2, 37 13; Ezk 8 3, 14, 9 2; Zec 14 10 as lying in the N. wall of the Temple court, which was at the same time the N. wall of Solo- mon’s city. The gate of Ephraim, according to II K 14 13=II Ch 25 23; Neh 8 16, 12 39, was situated in the N. wall on the W. hill, 400 cubits from the NW. corner of the city. The corner gate, according to II K 14 13=IT Ch 25 23, 269; Jer 31 38, lay at the NW. corner of Solomon’s city, substantially on the site of the modern Jaffa gate. The valley gate, according to II Ch 269, Neh 2 13-15, 313, opened upon the Valley of Hinnom, and is to be identified with the ancient gate which Bliss excavated on the SW. slope of the W. hill. It was probably the same as the gate Harsith of Jer 19 2. Just beyond this lay the ‘turning of the wall’ (II Ch 269), which corresponds with the bending northward of the inner wall dis- covered by Bliss. The horse gate, according to II K 11 16=IT Ch 23 15; Jer 31 40; Neh 8 28; Jos. Ant. IX, 7 3, lay in the E. wall near the SE. corner of the Temple enclosure. IV. Period of Hezekiah and Manasseh. 33. The Interval between Solomon and Heze- kiah. After the death of Solomon J. does not seem to have received any enlargement for nearly 200 years. It was not until the Northern Kingdom began to decline after the death of Jeroboam IT in 744 B.c. that the fortunes of Judah revived. Uzziah is the first king of whom extensive building opera- tions are recorded (cf. II Ch. ch. 26; Jos. Ant. IX, 11 2). His son Jotham, according to II Ch 27 3, ‘built the upper gate of the house of Jehovah, and on the wall of Ophel he built much’ (cf. Jos. Ant. IX, 11 2). Under Hezekiah (719-691 B.c.) still more extensive public works were undertaken. 34. Hezekiah’s Conduit. II K 20 20, 18 17=Is 36 2; II Ch 32 4, 30; Is 7 3, 229, 11 speak of a new conduit, constructed by Hezekiah in anticipation of Sen- nacherib’s invasion, to bring the waters of Gihon down to the W. side of the City of David. This can only be the rock-hewn tunnel under the E. hill, which leads the waters of the Virgin’s Fountain to the upper pool of Siloam. In this an ancient Heb. inscription has been found, the so called Siloam Inscription, which reads as follows: ‘The tunnel. And this was the history of the tunnel. While still . . . the picks were each over against one another, and while three cubits still [remained to be excavated there was heard] the voice of one calling to the other, for there was a zdh in the rock, toward the south and toward the north. And on the day of the tunnel the quarrymen struck pick against pick, one over against the other. And the waters flowed from the source to the pool, one thousand two hundred BIBLE DICTIONARY Jerusalem cubits. And a hundred cubits was the height of the rock over the head of the quarrymen.’ This was doubtless erected by Hezekiah’s workmen, and is the oldest Israelite inscription of any length that has come down to us. The word mdtsa’ which this inscription uses for ‘source’ is the same one that II Ch 32 30 uses for the ‘spring’ of Gihon (see §§ 11 and 12, above). 35. Hezekiah’s Wall. From II Ch 325; Is 2210¢. it appears that Hezekiah built a new outer wall. Two outer walls are known to archeology, one on the N., the other on the S. From the expression ‘between the two walls,’ which Is 22 10 f. (701 B.c.) uses of the upper pool of Siloam, it appears that Hezekiah’s wall must have been the outer wall on the 8., since the two walls can only have been the wall on the W. side of the E. hill, and the wall on the E. side of the W. hill. This is the wall described by Nehemiah in 3 13-15, 12 31-37; Jos BJ, V, 4 2, and it is the outer line of fortification on the S. excavated by Bliss. It ran in a long loop around the extreme S. end of the W. hill, crossed the Tyropceon above Siloam, and there joined the wall of the City of David. 36. Manasseh’s Wall. According to II Ch 33 14, Manasseh ‘built an outer wall to the city of David, on the west side of Gihon, in the valley, even to the entrance at the fish gate.’ The mention of the fish gate shows that Manasseh’s construction was the second wall on the N., in which the fish gate is known to have been situated (Neh 3 3, 1239). The mishneh, or second quarter, college AV (II K 2214=II Ch 34 22; Zeph 1 10), which lay near the fish gate, is not mentioned before Manasseh. Manasseh and his successors are the first kings who are said to have been buried in J., but not in the City of David (II K 21 18; II Ch 33 20; II K 21 26, 23 30=II Ch 35 24). Apparently, therefore, the mishneh was the new quarter enclosed by Manasseh’s second wall on the N., and in this quarter were the tombs of Manas- seh and his successors. Here also was the makhtésh (Maktesh Zeph 1 11), or ‘the mortar’ (mg.), a region inhabited by Canaanites= ‘traders.’ This outer wall was the one rebuilt by Nehemiah (Neh 8 1-8, 12 39) and described by Jos BJ, V, 4 2. From neither of these descriptions can the course of this wall be traced with certainty, and the evidence of arche- ology is equally obscure. Only one fact is certain, namely that an ancient wall followed the line of the present N. wall from the Jaffa gate to the Damascus gate. Whether this was the second or the third wall described by Josephus (BJ, V, 4 2) is one of the most difficult problems of Jerusalem archeology, in regard to which there is as yet no consensus of opinion. The theory which identifies the present wall with the third wall appeals to the location of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher inside of this wall. Christ was crucified outside of the second wall; hence it is claimed that the present N. wall can not be the second. Unfortunately the genuineness of the Sep- ulcher rests upon too slender historical evidence for its location to be a decisive argument in the case. It is also claimed that remains of the second wall are found inside of the Church of the Sepulcher; but a careful examination of the stones makes it doubtful Jerusalem A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 432 whether any of them ever belonged to a city wall: The wall as laid down by Schick inside of the Sepul- cher follows an inconceivably bad course, running on low ground all the way, and making three rectangular bends without reason. It does not correspond with Josephus’s description of it as ‘circling about,’ and it does not do justice to his statements in regard to the distance between the second and the third wall, the size of the city, and the distance of the third wall from the monument of Helena and from Scopus. We must conclude, accordingly, that the remains along the line of the present N. wall are to be iden- tified with Manasseh’s wall, the second wall of Jo- sephus; and that the third wall built by Agrippa in 43 a.D. is to be sought still further N. in the re- mains described by Robinson in 1838. V. Persian, Greek, Maccabean, and Herodian Periods. 37. Nehemiah’s Wall. Nehemiah rebuilt on the old lines and included all that had been added by the early kings. On the E. and W. his line coincided with that of David and Solomon, on the 8. with that of Hezekiah, and on the N. with that of Manasseh. His account of it is found in Neh 2 2-15, ch. 3, 12 27- 40. This was identical with the wall of Josephus (BJ, V, 42), exclusive of the third, or outer wall on the N. 38. Gates, etc., in Nehemiah’s Wall. From Neh 3 1, 32, 12 39, it appears that the sheep gate was identical with the upper gate, or gate of Benjamin (see § 32, above), and lay on the N. side of the Temple enclosure. A little NW. of this lay the tower of Ham-meah, Meah AV (Neh 31, 12 39). This is identical with the birdh, or castle, which Neh 2 8 describes as ‘the castle which appertaineth to the house (of Jehovah)’ (cf. Neh 7 2). The word is the Assyr. birtu, ‘fortress,’ and is not found in the O T before the Persian period. The castle was the residence of the Persian governor and later of the Hasmonean (Maccabean) priest-kings. Josephus (Ant. XV, 11 4; XVIII, 4 3; BJ, I, 21 1) calls it Baris. It was rebuilt by Herod the Great and was named Antonia in honor of Mark Antony. Josephus gives a detailed description of it in BJ, V, 4 2, 58. From this it appears that it lay on the side of the modern Turkish barracks, ona cliff near the NW. corner of the Temple court. According to BJ, V, 5 8, it was connected with the Temple by a portico. It was garrisoned with a strong force of Roman soldiers, who were ready to rush out in a moment, if there should be any commotion in the Temple (ef. Ac 21 30-40, 23 10, 16, 32). This castle should be carefully distinguished from the Akra, or ‘citadel,’ which lay S. of the Temple (see § 15, above). Still further NW. was the tower of Hananel, Hananeel AV) (Neh 31, 12 39; Jer 31 38; Zec 1410), on the cliff near the present Damascus gate, at the N. corner of the city. Just beyond this was the fish gate (Neh 3 3, 12 39; II Ch 33 14; Zeph 1 10), which is to be identified with the modern Damascus gate. Apparently it was the same as the middle gate (Jr 391-3). The old gate (Neh 36, 12 39; Zec 14 10, read jw’, ‘old,’ instead of jw, ‘first?) is iden- tified by Zec 1410 and by the order in Neh with the corner gate that stood in the NW corner of Solomon’s wall (see § 32, above). The broad wall (Neh 3 8, 12 39) corresponds with the present W. wall of the city 8S. of the Jaffa gate. The tower of the furnaces (Neh 3 11, 12 38) corresponds with the rock-cut foundations of a tower known as Mauds- lay’s Searp in the grounds of Bishop Gobat’s School. The valley gate (Neh 2 13, 3 13, 12 31) we have met already at the SW. corner of Solomon’s wall (see § 32, above). The dung gate (Neh 2 13, 3 13, 12 31) is the ancient gate excavated by Bliss at the extreme S. corner of the city. The fountain gate (Neh 2 14, 3 15, 12 37), as its name implies, lay close to the fountain of Siloam at the point where the wall crossed the Tyropceon valley. It is the same as ‘the gate between the two walls’ (II K 25 4; Jer 39 4, 527). Next came the pool of Siloam (Neh 2 14, 3 15; see § 13, above). The king’s garden (II K 25 4; Jer 89 4, 527; Neh 3 15) was the fertile tract in the mouth of the Tyropceon that was watered by the overflow from Siloam. Here ap- parently were situated the king’s wine-presses (Zec 1410). The stairs of the City of David (Neh 3 15, 12 37) correspond with rock-hewn steps that may still be seen at the 8S. end of the E. hill. The wall described in Neh 8 16-26 followed the line of the one excavated by Bliss and Guthe on the E. side of the E. hill. The ‘tower standing out’ is the tower excavated by Warren S. of the Haram. The water gate (Neh 3 26, 12 37, 81) lay near this tower and gave access to the spring of Gihon. The horse gate (Neh 3 28) we have met already in Solomon’s wall by the SE. corner of the Temple court (see §32, above). The gate of Hammiphkad, ‘the mus- tering’ (Neh 3 31), was identical with the old east gate of the Temple (see TmMpLp, § 8). 39. Between Nehemiah and N T Times. During this interval J. had come to be the religious center of world-wide Judaism. Under the Maccabees and, to a still greater degree, under Herod the Great, its population increased rapidly. The Maccabean princes paid much attention to buildings and fortifica- tions. On the W. hill they erected their palace. On the same hill Herod the Great erected his most mag- nificent palace (Jos. BJ, V, 4 4). Herod greatly strengthened the fortifications of the city, notably by the erection of the three imposing towers, Hippi- cus, Phasaélus, and Mariamme, all in the W. wall. A hippodrome, a gymnasium, and a theater were also features of the J. of Herod. It was under the same king that the Temple underwent a complete re- construction (see TEMPLE, §§ 29-34), involving ex- tensive alterations in the walls and fortifications of the Temple hill. In fact, the J. of the N T times was practically a new city. VI. New Testament Period. 40. Extent of the City. Nehemiah’s wall was the outermost wall in the time of Christ, and there was probably a large extramural population. The third wall on the N. was not built by Agrippa until several years after the Crucifixion. 41. Jesus’ Visits to Jerusalem. Christ’s relation to J. was only that of an occasional visitor. His first three appearances are connected with the Temple (Lk 2 22-39, 41-50; Jn 2 13-22); His fourth, with the 438 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Jerusalem Pool of Bethesda (Jn ch. 5; see § 12, above); His fifth, with the Temple (Jn ch. 7 f.); His sixth, with Siloam (Jn ch. 9; see § 13, above). On His seventh and last visit He made His triumphal entry into the Temple and taught there on Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday of Passion Week (Mk chs. 11-16, and ||s). 42. The Upper Room. On Thursday Jesus ate the Last Supper with His disciples. The scene of this meal was a large upper room (Mk 14 15), prob- ably in the home of Mary, the mother of Mark. This same upper room seems to have been the meeting- place of the infant Church after the Ascension. Epiphanius records (Weights and Measures, ch. 14) that Hadrian, on his visit to J. (135 a.p.), found this -building still standing in spite of the destruction of the city in 70 a.p. This testimony is confirmed by other early evidence, and there seems, accordingly, good reason to believe that the traditional Coena- culum on the S. end of the W. hill (now the Moslem Tomb of David) is the real scene of the Last Supper, of the descent of the Holy Spirit, and of the founding of the first church of Christendom. Adjoining the Ceenaculum a building known as the ‘Church of Zion,’ or ‘Church of the Apostles,’ existed as early as the 4th cent. 43. Palace of Caiaphas. From the Last Supper Christ went to the Garden of Gethsemane on the W. slope of the Mount of Olives (Mk 14 26; Jn 18 1). Here He was apprehended by the officers and taken to the High Priest Annas, and by him sent to Caiaphas (Jn 18 12, 24). A tradition which goes back to the Bordeaux Pilgrim (333 a.p.) places the priestly palace on the W. hill near the Ccenaculum. This is probably correct, since this was the quarter in which the Jewish priestly aristocracy dwelt. 44. The Pretorium and Pavement. From the palace of Caiaphas He was taken to the Pretorium (Gr. nxoattwprov, judgment-hall AV) of Pilate (Jn 18 28). Tradition identifies this with the Castle of Antonia atthe NW. corner of the Temple area, on the site of the modern Turkish barracks (see § 38, above); but it is unlikely that the governor made his residence with the common soldiers in the fortress, and the best recent authorities are agreed that by Pretorium is meant the palace of Herod the Great, on the site of the modern Citadel, near the Jaffa gate. The Jews were unwilling to enter the Pretorium for fear of ceremonial defilement, so Pilate went out to them to a place called Gabbatha, or Pavement (Jn 1913), which was probably the large open court in the center of Herod’s palace, cor- responding with the court in the center of the modern Citadel. Pilate sent Jesus to Herod Antipas, Tetrarch of Galilee, who was probably residing at the old palace of the Hasmoneans on the HE. side of the W. hill opposite the Temple, on the site of the modern Ashkenazi Synagog (cf. Jos. Ant. XIV, fem4a 2013 3 f.; XVIII, 4 3; XX,.8 11; BJ, 1 611, 13 3 f.; II, 16 3, 17 6), and Herod returned him to Pilate. Pilate then sentenced Jesus to death, and He was led out to be crucified. 45. Golgotha, Calvary. The traditional scene of the Crucifixion and entombment is the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in the NW. quarter of the modern city. If the second wall on the N. ran inside of this site, it may be genuine; but if, as is probable (see § 36, above), the second wall corresponds with the present N. wall, from the Jaffa gate to the Damascus gate, then the traditional Sepulcher can not be genuine, for all our authorities agree that Jesus was crucified and buried outside the city wall (Mt 27 32; Mk 15 20; Jn 19 17, 21, 41; He 13 12). Where the real place of crucifixion was must remain a matter of conjecture. Our only clue for its identification is its Aram. name Golgotha, skull (Lat. Calvaria, Eng. Calvary), which can hardly have been given because it was a place of execution, or because of a*tradition connecting it with the skull of Adam, but must have referred to its shape. There is a knoll just out- side of the Damascus gate which bears a singular resemblance to a skull, and many modern travelers have conjectured that this is the real Golgotha. 46. Akeldama, Potter’s Field. ‘Akeldama’ (from the Aram. 89720, hagald¢m@’, ‘field of blood’) was the name of a piece of land near J. that was used for the burial of strangers. According to Mt 27 3-9, it was originally a potter’s field, and received the name Akeldama from the fact that it was bought with the money paid Judas to betray Jesus, and subsequently returned by him to the chief priests. According to Ac 1 18 f. it was called the ‘field of blood’ because Judas here committed suicide. Harmonistic commentators have supposed that Judas bought the field with the price of his treachery, killed himself there, and that then the field was bought by the priests with the money that he had returned. More probably Akeldama is an old name for which Christian tradition has given two indepen- dent interpretations. Since the 7th cent. a place known as Hakk ed-Damm, ‘price of blood,’ on a cliff S. of the Wddy er-Rababi, SW. of Siloam, has been regarded as Akeldama, and its possession as a holy place has been keenly contested by the Christian sects. Whether there is any authority for this identification we do not know. The absence of clay in the neighborhood makes it an unlikely location for a potter’s field. 47. The Synagog of Theodotos. In 1914 remains of a synagog of the early Christian era were dis- covered on the E. hill south of the site of the Temple with an inscription stating that it was erected by Theodotos, son of Vettenos, for the use of strangers coming from outside. This is an interest- ing monument of the Jews of the Diaspora. See PEFQ, LIII (1921), 2 ff., 175 ff. LiTERATURE: General Discussions: Robinson, Biblical Re- searches (1838), and Later Biblical Researches (1852); Guthe, in PRE; Conder, E. W. Wilson, and C. M. Watson, in EB"; Conder, in HDB; Meyer and Gottheil, in JH; Wilson, in Smith, DB?; W. R. Smith, in # Brit.°; Benzinger, in Baedeker’s Palestine (41906); G. A. Smith, Jerusalem, From the Earliest Times to A.D. 70, 2 vols. (1908); Sanday, Sacred Sites of the Gospels (1903); Wilson, Jerusalem, the Holy City (1888); Merrill, Ancient Jerusalem (1908); Paton, Jeru- salem in Bible Times (1908); C. R. Conder, The City of Jerusalem (1909); F. Kirmis, Die Lage der alien Davidsstadt (1919); H. Vincent and F. M. Abel, Jerusalem: Recherches de topographie d’archéologie et d’histoire, 2 vols. (1920-22); G. Dalman, ‘‘Zion,”” Pal. Jahrb., XI (1915). Excavations: Wilson, The Recovery of Jerusalem (1871); War- ren, Underground Jersualem (1876); Warren and Conder, Jerusalem: Work from 1867-1882, Pal. Expl. Fund; Guthe, Ausgrabungen bei Jerusalem, ZDPV (1882); Bliss and Dickie, Excavations at Jerusalem (1898); H. Vincent, Jerue Jerusah Jesus Christ A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 434 salem sous terre (1909); Eng. transl (1911) (on the results of Capt. Parker’s excavations on the E. Hill); R. Weill, La Cité de David (1920); R. A. Macalister, Ezcavations on the E. Hill, PEFQ, (1924-25). On Hezekiah’s Wall: Paton, JBL, (1906), part,i. On the Holy Sepulcher and the second wall: Wilson, PEFQ, (1902-03); Schick, ZDPV, (1885); Pa- ton, JBL, (1905), part ii.; C.W. Wilson, Golgotha and the Holy Sepulchre (1906); G. H. Jefferey, A Brief Description of the Holy Sepulchre (1919); H. T. F. Duckworth, The Church of the Holy Sepulchre (1922); G. Dalman, ‘‘Golgotha,” Pal. Jahrb., xvi, (1921). On Nehemiah’s Wall: Schick, ZDPV, (1891); Mitchell, JBL, (1903), part ii.; Annual, Amer. School in Jer.,i., (1919). On other special topics connected with, Jerusalem see the Index Vol. of the PEFQ, (1869-92); and the Index Vols. of the ZDPYV. Maps: Wilson, Ordnance Survey of Jerusalem (1867-70); Zimmermann, Karten u. Pline z. Topographie des alten Jerusalem (1876); Schick, Karte der weiteren Umgebung von Jerusalem (1897); and the Map in G. A. Smith, Hist. Atlas of the Holy Land (1915). Pa ite, JERUSAH, ji-ru’sa (NYI7?, yerisha’) and JERUSHAH, ji-ru’sha (WI), yrtshah): The mother of Jotham, King of Judah (II K 15 33; IT Ch 27 1). JESAIAH, jji-se’ya (7Y¥?, y*sha‘yah), and JESHAIAH, ji-shé’ya (NYY, yesha‘yahi), ‘J”’ saves’: 1. A descendant of Moses (I Ch 26 25). 2. The ancestral head of one of the courses of musi- cians (I Ch 25 3, 15). 3. A descendant of David (I Ch 3,21). 4. One of the leaders of Ezra’s company (Har 87). 5. A Merarite Levite (Ezr 8 19). 6. A de- scendant of Benjamin (Neh 11 7). JESHANAH, jesh’a-na or ji-shé’na ("}Y?, y*sha- nah)- A town of Ephraim, near Bethel, captured by Ahijah, King of Judah (II Ch 13 19). It has re- cently been located at Burj el Isdneh, a hill about 3,100 ft. high, 5144 m. N. of Bethel (see Bul. ASOR., Feb., 1923). See also SHEN. E. E. N. JESHARELAH, jesh”e-ri’la (T?82W', y*shar- ’élah): The ancestral head of the seventh course of musicians (I Ch 25 14). See also ASHARELAH. JESHEBEAB, ji-sheb’1-ab or ji-shi’bi-ab (3RZV?, yeshebh’abh): The ancestral head of the fourteenth course of priests (I Ch 24 13). JESHER, ji’shor (1W?, yesher): The ‘son’ of Jerioth, ‘wife’ of Caleb (I Ch 2 18). Probably a place-name. JESHIMON, jesh’i-men or ji-shai’mon (110°), y’shtmon), ‘barren desert’: In a few instances this word is regarded as a geographical term. In Nu 21 20 Pisgah is said to look down upon Jeshimon. Some scholars locate the place here referred to in the Jordan Valley, NE. of the Dead Sea. At the same time, however, it is the name of the desert into which David retired before Saul. It was near Ziph and Maon, which lay to the SE. of Hebron, and, con- sequently, designates the E. section of the Judean hills, which stretch toward the Dead Sea. This is an absolutely barren region with many natural fast- nesses, and has ever been the home of the outlaw (I S 23 19, 24, 261, 3). JAK, JESHISHAI, ji-Shai’shai or ji-ghai’shé ((0'0?, y’shishay): A Gadite (I Ch 5 14). JESHOHAIAH, ji’’sho-hé’ya or jesh’o-hé’ya (UMW? yeshohayah): A Simeonite (I Ch 4 36). JESHUA, jesh’u-a (¥9¥2, yéshia‘), ‘J’ is salva- tion’; another form of ‘Joshua’: I. 1. A name used once for Joshua, the son of Nun (q.v.) (Neh 8 17). 2. The name of the 9th of the twenty-four classes of priests (I Ch 24 11, Jeshuah AV). 3. The name of a family of Pahath-moab, which returned with Zerubbabel (Ezr 2 6; Neh 7 11). 4. One of the Levites in charge of the distribution of the tithes (II Ch 3115). 5. The high priest who returned with Zerubbabel (Ezr 2 2; Neh 7 7, called ‘Joshua’ in Hag 11, and Zec 31#.). He helped in rebuilding the altar (Ezr 3 2, 8) and the house of God (Ezr 4 3, 5 2; cf. Ezr 10 18; Neh 12 1, 7, 10, 26). 6. A Levitical family, or its heads, who assisted in rebuilding the Temple (Ezr 39), in expounding the Law (Neh 87), and in sealing the covenant (Neh 10 9 [10]; cf. Ezr 2 40, 8 33; Neh 3 19, 7 43, 9 4, 5, 12 8, 24). II. A postexilic town in the 8. of Judah (Neh 11 26). Conder identifies it with Khirbet Sa‘wi, Map II, D 4. Perhaps it is the same as the Shema of Jos 15 26 (Sheba in Jos 19 2). C. 8. T. JESHURDN, jesh’u-ron (117¥?, yshirin), \‘up- right one’: A poetical name of Israel designating it under its ideal character. In Dt 32 15 it is used in reproach of Israel, which had departed from its ideal; elsewhere it is a title of honor (Dt 33 5, 26; Is 44 2). C. 8. T: JESIAH, ji-sai’a. See IssHran. JESIMIEL, ji-sim’i-el (NW, ysim’él), ‘God places’: A Simeonite (I Ch 4 36). JESSE, jes1 (@, yishay): The grandson of Boaz (Ru 4 22; Mt 15), and, apparently, a prominent inhabitant of Bethlehem. From his descent we should assume that he was the chief man of the village. He is almost always mentioned in con- nection with his youngest son David (IS 161 #., etc.). David, during his pursuit by Saul, sent his parents, who must have been aged, to the king of Moab (IS 22 3f.). So to treat with a neighboring prince indicates the prominence of David and his family. J.’s name appears also in Is 11 1, 10, where the contrast is between small beginnings and future glory, as in Mic 5 2. A.S. C.*—O.R.S. JESUI, jes’iu-ai. See Isavag. JESUS (Inootcs): The Gr. form of ‘Joshua,’ or ‘Jeshua.’ See JosHua. 1. For Joshua (so RV), the son of Nun, in AV (Ac 7 45; He 48). 2. A Jew in Rome called Justus, a fellow worker and comforter of Paul (Col 411). 3. An ancestor of Jesus (Lk 3 29, Jose, AV). 4. Jesus, the Christ, Son of Mary (see next article). ‘ Ses > oe 43bB A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Jerusah Jesus Christ JESUS CHRIST OUTLINE. I. InrTRoDucroRY 1. Sources 2. Chronology 3. Environment Il. Events PRELIMINARY TO MINISTRY 4, The Forerunner 5. The Baptism of Jesus 6. The Temptations Ill. Tae Ministry I. Chronological Arrangement 15. His 7. Opening Events 8. Early Judean Period 9. Galilean Period 10. North Galilean Period THE I. InrrRopucToRY. 1. Sources. The only sources for the life of Christ which need to be considered are the four Gospels. The reference in Tacitus (Ann. XV, 44) merely alludes to Christ as the originator of an exitiabilis superstitio, which in spite of His execution under Pilate succeeded in reaching Rome; that in Josephus (Ant. XVIII, 33) is a Christian interpolation. The later calumnies of the Talmud and the Toledoth Jesu show the relation of Jews to Christians, but have nothing to do with the life of Jesus (cf. Herford’s Christianity in Talmud and Midrash). Even the other writings of the N T add nothing to speak of. In Ac 20 35 we have the one word of Jesus outside of the Gospels which is indubitably authentic; there may be another concealed in I Th 415. The &yeapa, or unwritten sayings of Jesus, have been collected by Resch and sifted by Ropes (Texte u. Untersuchungen, V, 4; XIV, 2), but they do not add to our knowledge of Him; and the same must be said of the apocryphal gospels, not excepting the Gospel of Peter, a large fragment of which was discovered in 1892, and of the Adyta ’Incod (1897), and New Sayings of Jesus (1904), published by Grenfell and Hunt. The interest of religion and of history in Jesus must be satisfied from the canonical Gospels, or not at all. The indubitable Pauline epistles, of course, establish the fact that He lived, and that He made an extraordinary impression on His followers; but they hardly yield any picture of His life. It is im- portant, therefore, to indicate the nature and value of our Gospels. Taking together Mk, Mt, and Lk, there are some points on which scholars are practically agreed. (1) The common framework of the narrative—that is, the general order of the events—is originally due to Mk. Hence in questions of order, Mk, Mt, and Lk, as against John, are not three witnesses, but one. Mk’s narrative, according to the unanimous tradition of the Church, represents the teaching of Peter; but the oldest tradition (Papias’ elder in Kuseb. HE, III, 39) does not claim for it the merit of chronological order. (2) The great mass of words of Jesus, common to Mt and Lk, but not found in Mk, probably came from a document used in a some- what different form by the first and third Evan- gelists; this document in its original form was older than Mk (tho Wellhausen, EHinleitung, S. 73 ff., denies this), and was the work of the Apostle Matthew. (8) Taking into account the space be- 11. Later Perean and Judean Period II. The Work of Jesus 12, The Miracles of Jesus 13. The Teaching of Jesus Re- garding the Kingdom of God—General 14. The Teaching of Jesus Re- garding the Kingdom of God—Specific Teaching Regarding Himself (a) The Christ (b) Son of God (c) Son of Man (d) Son of David (e) Savior (f) His Teaching Con- cerning His Death 16. The Prophetic Teaching of Jesus IIT, Closing Scenes 17. The Last Days of Jesus IV. The Resurrection 18. The Resurrection IV. APPENDED Discussion 19. The Birth of Jesus (The Incarnation) tween the baptism and the death of Jesus, the matter peculiar to Mt belongs to what is historically of least value in his Gospel, that peculiar to Lk to what is of most value in his. (4) The use which a historian can make of John has been and is much disputed. The extremes are represented by Loisy (Le quatri¢me Evangile) or Wrede (Charakter und Tendenz des Johannesevangeliums) on the one hand, who do not regard it as historical at all in comparison with the Synoptics, and by Westcott or Godet on the other. Sanday’s Criticism of the Fourth Gospel (1905) gives a fair survey of the whole question, as also Stanton’s TheGospels as Historical Documents, Part III (1920), The Fourth Gospel. The difficulty arises from the juxtaposition in the Fourth Gospel of what seem irreconcilable things; on the one hand, an element that is either irreducibly historical or, which is an impossible alternative, gratuitous fiction—notes of time, place, personal names, and characters, more vivid and precise than anything in the Synoptics; and on the other, especially in the discourses ascribed to Jesus, something at once systematic and elusive, a mingling in uncertain proportions of tradition, symbol, and doctrine, which makes the page waver as we read, as the colors waver in watered silk, and suggests that what we hear is not so much the voice of Jesus, as He spoke in the fields of Galilee or the streets of Jerusalem, as the voice of the Risen Lord, speaking through His Spirit in the soul of an aged, deeply experienced, and profoundly reflective disciple. This state of the case has simply to be recognized. The notes of time and place in John are of the highest value, especially where they seem intentionally to correct the Synoptic tradition (eg., Jn 3 24, compared with Mt 412); but for the historical form of the teaching of Jesus we must depend mainly on the Synoptics. Garvie in his book, The Beloved Disciple (1922), has sought to discriminate more exactly what is historical testimony and what is theological inter- pretation in the Fourth Gospel. He distinguishes the Synoptic element (the appendix and other passages dealing with the Galilean disciples), the Ephesian element (the Prolog, and other theological explanations), and the contribution of an eye- witness, consisting of his reminiscences after a lapse of many years, and his reflexions on these remi- niscences, for him not distinguishable, but the truth into which the Spirit had guided him in the interpretation of the facts. A new line of investiga- Jesus Christ A NEW STANDARD tion has been opened by C. J. Burney in his book The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel (1922). He regards the Gospel as a Greek translation of an Aramaic original composed in Antioch about a.D. 75-80. His view has not found general acceptance, and the data on which he relies seem to be equally explicable by the assumption that the Greek original was written by one whose mother-tongue was Aramaic. Foakes-Jackson and Kirsopp Lake, in The Beginnings of Christianity, part I, vol. i, set aside the Fourth Gospel entirely, and use only Mark, supplemented by Matthew and Luke; and even as regards these sources exercise a radical criticism, which reduces the historical reality of Jesus to that of a puppet, who proclaimed the coming of the Kingdom of God, and called the people to repentance. At many parts their criticism appears to be arbitrary, and does not command confidence. See also GospELts and THe Synoptic PROBLEM. 2. Chronology. The life of Jesus, so far as it is covered by the apostolic testimony—in other words, so far as we have strictly historical evidence for it— extends from the baptism of John to the Ascension (Ac 1 21). To know the length of this period is more important than to be able to date either its beginning which is elaborately done in Lk 31) or its end. The Synoptics mention only one passover, that at which Jesus died, and leave a prima facie impression that His ministry lasted a year or rather less (Lk 419 was interpreted thus by many of the Fathers and perhaps by the Evangelist); but John corrects this. He mentions at least three passovers (2 13, 6 4— this is shown to be a passover by the ‘much grass’ in ver. 10, even if the words +d x&cya were not originally in the text—and 121); that is, he extends the ministry of Jesus to somewhat over two years. References in the Synoptics yield undesigned and, therefore, strong support to this. Thus the ‘green grass’ in Mk 6 39 suggests the spring season, as in Jn 6 10, and, tho the incident may be misplaced, the same holds of the plucking the ears of corn Mk 2 23. Harlier visits of Jesus to Jerusalem, tho not mentioned by the Synoptics, are suggested not only by Mt 23 37 (‘how often would I have gathered thy children together’), but by Lk 10 38 (the village is Bethany, close by Jerusalem), and by the friends and acquaintances whom Jesus evidently had in the capital (Mk 1413 f., 15 43. Probably ‘the hundred and twenty’ of Ac 1 15 were not all Galileans). Hence we adopt the chronological,which carries with it the geographical, framework of John; and hold that the public life of Jesus extends over two years and some months, and was carried on in Jerusalem and Judea and, even on occasion, in Samaria, as well as in Galilee and Perea. As Jesus comes to fulfil the promises of God in the Old Testament Scriptures concerning the Messiah, it seems not only probable, but even certain that He would offer Him- self to the faith of the Jewish people at the very center of its religious life—Jerusalem—on the occa- slions—the feasts—when the largest numbers of Jews could be reached. The presence of a multi- tude of Galileans at these feasts would afford Him some protection against the hostility of the Jewish BIBLE DICTIONARY 436 rulers, very soon made evident (Jn 2 18; Mk 14 2). It is true that the almost total absence of chrono- logical data within the Synoptics, and the unques- tionable fact that incidents are narrated in them (e.g., in Mk 2 1-3 6) in an order determined not by time, but by some inward affinity, make it im- possible to distribute the matter of the Synoptics with any certainty over the time assumed by John; but this does not affect the truth either of his chronology or of their facts. It only means that we can not draw up a calendar of the life of Jesus. If we look at the date, as opposed to the duration of the ministry, our starting-point must be Lk 3 1. The fifteenth year of Tiberius is from 28-29 a.p., counting from the death of Augustus in 14 a.p. But as Tiberius had been associated in the govern- ment from the end of 11 or the beginning of 12 a.p., Jesus might have appeared as early as 26. Allowing for uncertainties in the counting of parts of years, ~ Luke’s date synchronizes fairly well with that of Jn 2 20. The building of the Temple began in 20- 19 B.c., and forty-six years brings us to 26 or 27 A.D. The most probable result of careful investiga- tion is that the three passovers in the ministry of Jesus were those of 27, 28, and 29 a.p. On the whole of this intricate subject cf. C. H. Turner, Chronology of the N T, in HDB, also Andrews, Life of Our Lord, and Stevens and Burton, Harmony of the Gospels for Historical Study. 3. Environment. When Jesus was born Herod the Great ruled all Palestine under the suzerainty of Rome. On his death his kingdom was divided, and Jesus became politically the subject of his son Herod Antipas—the person who is always meant when Herod is mentioned in the Gospels without any addition (Mk 614#.; Lk 13 31, 238). When He visited Jerusalem, He passed from Herod’s jurisdiction and came directly under that of Rome; for Judea on the death of Archelaus (Mt 2 22), 6 a.p., had been in- corporated in the Roman province of Syria, and was governed by a procurator (éx{teotos, hyewoy, Lk 31; Mt 27 2), who resided at Caesarea and alone had the power of life and death. In internal affairs much was left to the Sanhedrin, or council of elders, chief priests, and scribes, and especially to the high priest. During the whole public life of Jesus, Herod Antipas was tetrarch of Galilee and Perea, Pontius Pilate procurator of Judea, and (Joseph) Caiaphas high priest in Jerusalem. By this political envi- ronment we can not say that Jesus was influenced at all. The one thing He resolutely excluded from His conception of the Kingdom of God was the political and national hope of Jewish patriotism. We might almost say as much of His relations to the religious parties, the characteristics of which are known to us from the Gospels and Josephus. He had attended none of their schools (Jn 7 15). The Sadducees had the center of their power in Jerusa- em. He can have been little in contact with them, and their worldly, rationalizing, unspiritual temper must have been extremely antipathetic to Him. The Pharisees were to be found everywhere They represented the popular conception of religion. Having a zeal for God, tho it was not according to knowledge, they might have been expected to 437 A NEW STANDARD command a certain amount of sympathy from Jesus, and indications have been sought in the Gospels that He tried to form some kind of connection with them (Lk 7 36, 11 37, 141; cf. Mt 23 2£.), but without success. It is not improbable, however, that at the beginning of the ministry the Pharisees sought some understanding with Him. Nicodemus (Jn 3 1-10) does not appear as a solitary, anxious enquirer, but rather as representing the class, and Jesus’ treat- ment of him does correspond with his attitude to this religious type. Jesus never appears in the Gospels except as the critic and eventually the judge of Pharisaism (Mt chs. 5-7, 15, 23). Of the Essenes of Josephus (Bell. Jud. II, 8) there is no trace in the Gospels, not even in connection with John the Baptist. The religious environment of Jesus in His early years was that which we see in Lk chs. 1 and 2. He was brought up among lowly people, dutifully observant of the commandments and ordinances of God, and devoted to the hope of Israel. The religion of obedience and of hope could degenerate, and no doubt it had degenerated in multitudes, and especially in the Pharisaic party, into what may be called legalism and apocalyptic (cf. Holtz- mann, Neut. Theol., I, 30)—a religion which affected in its own strength to fulfil punctiliously all God’s requirements, to put God by doing so under obliga- tion to it, and then to claim from Him, as of right, the fulfilment in a blankly supernatural fashion of the wildest national ambitions. But it could also be saved from degeneration, and doubtless was, in people like Zacharias and Elizabeth, Joseph and Mary, Simeon and Anna, and ‘the poor’ or ‘the meek,’ in the land generally. It was among them that Jesus was brought up, and the purest tradition of Jewish piety was continued in Him. Apart from this the Gospels allow us to see only two forces which counted for much in His life, the O T and John the Baptist. Of the O T Books he makes most frequent refer- ence to Deuteronomy, the Psalms, the second part of Isaiah, and Daniel, but is evidently familiar also with the historical books. To John, as the one contemporary spiritual influence the power of which He amply acknowledged, it is necessary to pay more attention. II. Events PRELIMINARY TO THE MINISTRY. 4. The Forerunner. The relation of John to Jesus, as Jesus Himself understood it (Mt 11 10; Lk 7 27), was that of one who prepared the way for a greater to follow (Mal 31). Itis Jesus who makes the quotation; observe the change from ‘my face’ in Mal to ‘thy face’ in the Gospels, in order to apply the prophecy to Jesus instead of God). It does not follow that John understood this. Jesus knew the Baptist’s significance better than he did himself. When the Jews asked John, ‘Art thou Elijah?’ (Jn 1 21), he said, ‘I am not.’ But Jesus said of him to the people: ‘If ye are willing to receive it, this is Elijah, that is to come’ (Mt 1114). This may partly explain the difference between the Synoptics and the Fourth Gospel in their representation of this subject. In the Synoptics, tho John baptizes Jesus, he bears BIBLE DICTIONARY Jesus Christ no express testimony to Him; the one greater than himself, who comes after him and is to baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire, is never in so many words identified with Jesus. What John does, as Jesus represents it, is to initiate a powerful moral movement associated with Messianic expectations (Mt 1112), which, so far as it does not come to noth- ing through moral relapse (Mt 12 43-45; Jn 5 35), finds its goal and satisfaction in Jesus. The one moral peril the Baptist has to encounter is the possibility of being ‘offended’ in Jesus (Mt 11 6); 7.e., of failing to see that in Jesus the hopes which inspired and had been inspired by his own work were finding their true fulfilment, and, therefore, of turning from Himinunbelief. This is unquestionably the strictly historical view. The réle of forerunner was one which John filled to a large extent unconsciously; when, therefore, the Fourth Gospel represents his functions as summed up in bearing witness to Jesus (Jn 1 6-8, 3 26, 5 35), and includes in his testimony the sublimest doctrines of the Christian faith (1 15, 1 29-34, 3 31), it is putting explicitly into his lips something which was in a way involved in his rela- tion to Jesus, but which he could not have so ex- pressed. The description of Jesus as the Lamb of God in Jn 1 29-34 may, however, be authentic, if at this time Jesus already thought of Himself as ful- filling the part of the Suffering Servant, if before His baptism He had some conversation with John, in which He confessed His hopes and aims, and if for the moment at least, the Baptist was raised above his own conception of the Messiah. Jesus realized it as the truth of John’s relation to Himself, but John could not. The depth of the impression John made on Jesus is seen by Jesus’ frequent references to him, His extraordinary appreciation of his greatness, and the recurrence in His own utterances of impassioned phrases of the Baptist (Mt 11 7-19, and || in Lk; Mt 17 10-13, 21 23-32; 7 19; cf. 3 10; 23 33, cf. 37). Jesus recognized unequivocally the Divine mission of John, and regarded acceptance of his baptism as included in the fulfilment of all righteousness (Mt 3 15; also Jn 3 5). Accordingly He came from Galilee to Jordan to be baptized with the rest. 5. The Baptism of Jesus. The baptism of Jesus was a crisis in His life, and the occasion of a great spiritual experience. The narrative in Mk may be read as tho no one were concerned but Jesus. It is He who sees the heavens rent asunder and the Spirit as a dove descending; it is to Him that the voice comes out of the heavens, “Thou art my beloved Son, in thee I am well pleased’ (Mk 1 9-11). In Jn on the other hand, the occasion is one on which the Baptist receives this same revelation; and the third person (‘This is my son’) in Mt 3 17 and |the ‘bodily form’ in Lk 3 22 suggest that these evangelists also conceived that others as well as Jesus heard and saw. However the literary and historical questions thus raised are to be settled, they do not affect the intention of Jesus nor His experience. The great difficulty in the baptism has always been to under- stand how one whom the Evangelists, like all N T writers, regarded as sinless could submit to a bap- tism of repentance having remission of sins in view. The difficulty was felt by John himself, no doubt Jesus Christ A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 438 = fram = after some intercourse with Jesus (Mt 3 14f.), and it was felt by the author of the Gospel of the Hebrews (cf. Nestle’s N T Grect supplementum, p. 76). There is no answer to it unless we can say that Jesus in pure love identified Himself with His people, made com- mon cause with them as a sinful people, mourn- ing over their sin and repelling it as they did, only with a far deeper sense of what it meant. In doing this He ‘fulfilled all righteousness,’ 7.e., He did justice to all the moral interests of God and man involved in the situation. He exhibited the grace of God to the sinful in an act which showed Him inexorable to sin. It was not a chance that He heard in that hour, and not another, the heavenly voice which declared Him Son of God. The heav- enly voice spoke in O T words, since the Divine as- surance of what He was and was called to be was mediated to Jesus through Ps 27 and Is 421. He was to unite in His own person and work the victorious Messianic King of the Psalm, and the Servant of the Lord, ‘graced with meekness and constancy,’ whom we see in the prophet. This is the revelation of the baptism for us. It shows that Jesus, in His own consciousness, from the very beginning of His ministry, united these two char- acters which His people had never been able to relate to each other. How two ideals, apparently so disparate, came to coalesce in His mind, we can not tell. We know nothing of a growth of the Messianic consciousness, at least not within the period of the public ministry. No doubt it had psychological antecedents and conditions, which prepared for it and made it possible, but we can only conjecture vaguely upon them. (Garvie, in his Studies in the Inner Life of Jesus (1907), has at- tempted as far as the data allow to explore the self- consciousness of Jesus in its development.) How the seemingly inconsistent elements in it were to be fused only His future life would show. But see GosPEL, GOSPELS, § 6. Can we tell, then, what is meant by the Spirit descending and abiding on Him? The Spirit in the O T means God in act, God putting forth His power, and the nearest synonym for spirit here would be one suggesting this. Compare Ac 10 38 and Lk 4 14, and the fact that Jesus did no mighty work till after this time, and referred such works to the Spirit (Mt 12 28). Jesus was from this time on divinely empowered for the work He had to do. Without such ‘accesses’ of Divine excitement as are elsewhere referred to the Spirit (Ac 4 31, 13 9), He had God always with Him in the power His work required— to heal (Lk 5 17), to preach the glad tidings (Lk 4 18), to be gentle and constant till He had achieved victory for God (Mt 12 18), to read men with super- human insight (Jn 2 24 f.). raised here about the personality of the Spirit, or the similarity of the experience of Jesus to that of Christians who received the Spirit after Pentecost (on this last subject, cf. O. Holtzmann, War Jesus Ekstatiker?). Thus divinely assured of His calling and divinely empowered for it, Jesus was prepared to face His life’s work. He never returned to Nazareth to resume the old family and business relations. As the end of an old life and the begin- No question can be | ning of a new, baptism was to Jesus what it was to all who heard John’s summons, but in one important respect it differed. For the others baptism with water and baptism with the Spirit were contrasted, for Him they coincided. Their normal coincidence was to be the rule in the Church (Jn 3 5), and in this sense the baptism of Jesus is the type of Christian baptism. 6. The Temptations. Jesus was now empowered for His work, but He was not to enter on it at random. It was His task, in the Messianic con- sciousness revealed in the heavenly voice, to bring in the Kingdom of God among men; but how? What paths were open to one who was called to win or to exercise ascendency among men for God? This is the problem we see Jesus confronting in the Temptation. The same spirit with which He was anointed drove Him into the desert to face it alone. It was a terrible experience, and in the narratives we find in Mt and Lk He gave His disciples some idea of it. The occasion was probably the remon- strance of Peter at Caesarea Philippi, and the story was told to justify the severity of the rebuke of Peter as Satan (Mt 16 22-23). The ideal of Jesus was opposed to the popular expectations, as shared by the disciples, which rested on prophetic predic- tions of the Messianic Age, taken with prosaic literalness. The form is largely poetic and imagina- tive, the essence is spiritual. The temptations, if we may use such a distinction, are not personal, but official; or rather they are the temptations of Jesus, not in a private capacity (e.g., as a carpenter of Nazareth), but in His new Divine calling as the Son of God and Servant of the Lord. They are tempta- tions all of which throw light on the Kingdom of God, rather than on the moral trials of common hfe. Jesus has in His mind the heavenly voice and the calling which is involved in it, and as He looks on the actual world in which that calling has to be realized, what are the paths which lie open and in- viting to Him? (1) The first is that which suggests that an easy way to win ascendency over men for God is to supply their bodily wants, turn the stones to bread, base the Kingdom on material comfort. This was a real temptation, which Jesus encountered in His work. When He fed the five thousand, they wanted to take Him by force and make Him (Messianic) King (Jn 615). But He resisted it from the beginning, and in spite of His compassion for the destitute, which makes humanity the principle of the last judgment (Mt 25 35-42), He insists on giving a primacy to the spiritual. He says here to Himself what He says to all in Mt 6 33. (2) As the first temptation deals with the nature of the King- dom, so the second deals with the methods to be used in its establishment. To cast Himself down from the pinnacle of the Temple, and, upheld by angels, to alight unhurt, was to appeal to men by a miracle of ostentation; it was to take leave of piety and of moral sanity, and to try by dazzling [men’s senses or dumfounding their understandings to win them for God. This temptation also often came to Jesus. We see it in the characteristic temper of the Jews (I Co 1 22), as again and again they ask a sign from heaven (Mt 12 38, 161; Jn 6 30). Jesus steadily — ——< 439 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Jesus Christ declined it. He always acted within the limits of piety and sanity. His miracles were works of mercy, wrought in and for faith. He was no thaumaturge. He decided from the beginning that, as the Kingdom was spiritual in its nature, only spiritual methods were open to Him in introducing it. He would ‘speak the word’ unto them—that was all. (3) The third Temptation deals with the power at His dis- posal in founding the Kingdom. Any one born to rule, as Jesus was, sees at a glance what enormous power in the world is wielded by evil. It has vast resources at its command, great bribes to offer. Lk 46is a temptation, only because it is true. But can any one who is to carry out the vocation of the Son of God and the Servant of the Lord consent to take help from evil? Can he for the sake of some supposed advantage, present or remote, allow, so to speak, its right to exist? Can he compromise with it, only for the moment of course, till by its help he gets into a position where he can repudiate it? For a man who is in dead earnest to accomplish something in this present evil world, this is the most importunate of temptations, but Jesus discerns and repels it from the first. He repels it with passion (Mt 4 10), as seeing in it the utmost malignity of the Tempter. He can make no compromise with evil; His only re- source must be God. And here again He says to Himself what He says later to all: ‘What doth it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his life (7.e., himself)?? (Mk 8 36). In this spiritual conflict, in which He was sustained by heavenly help (Mk 1 13), Jesus overcame in principle all the kinds of temptations which He encountered in His calling. They recurred continually (Lk 22 28), but once decisively vanquished (Mk 8 27 and ||s), the prince of this world had nothing in Him (Jn 14 30). Ill. Tue Ministry. I. Chronological Arrangement. 7. Opening Events. The ministry of Jesus begins after the Temptation, and in some special sense after the arrest of John (Mk 1 14; Lk 4 14, cf. 3 19 £.; Mt 412). How it was related to the last, except chrono- logically, is not apparent. Even the chronology was not clear to the synoptists; for Jn 3 24 consciously corrects them, and so makes room for a Judean ministry, including at least the events of Jn 1 19-4 45, before the Galilean ministry, as recorded by the synoptists, begins (cf. Tischendorf, Synopsis Evan- gelica, §§ 14 ff.). The two returns of Jesus from Judea to Galilee, mentioned in Jn 1 43 and in 41-3, had somehow ceased to be distinguished in the primitive oral tradition, and with this confusion of perspective the ministry in the Synoptics is shortened by nearly a year (cf. Godet on Jn 3 24). During this period, the work of Jesus is of a preliminary charac- ter; as Godet puts it, He had to act as His own forerunner. After receiving testimony from the Baptist, He attracts His first followers from the Baptist’s circle (Jn 1 29-51), impressing them by the superhuman penetration with which He reads their characters, and wakening from the first the highest hopes in their minds. The miracle at Cana, as the frontispiece to John’s Gospel, represents for him the significance of Jesus, just as Lk 4 16 #. does for the earlier Evangelist, altho what it meant has to be inferred as it is not explicitly stated. Jesus is for John the person who raises religion from a lower to a higher power, transforming the cold baptism of His forerunner into the glowing baptism of the Spirit. How the brief visit to Capernaum (Jn 2 12) is related to the settlement there which made Capernaum His own city (Mt 413) we do not know. 8. Early Judean Period. It was followed by the journey to Jerusalem for the first passover in the ministry (27 a.p.) Here John puts the cleansing of the Temple (2 13 ff.). It is generally maintained that two cleansings of the Temple are inconceivable, and that we must choose between John and the Synoptics. Nevertheless, might not the second be a deliberate repetition at the close of the ministry of the spon- taneous act under the impulse of the Spirit at the beginning? Why could not such an appeal to the Jewish rulers be made twice? If, however, only one cleansing is to be assumed, it is probable that John has placed it rightly. The tradition, preserved in the Synoptics, according to which Jesus visited Jerusalem only once, had really no choice in placing this incident if it was to be recorded at all. Its spontaneity does not deprive it of the character of an appeal to all whose hearts were right with God to rally round Jesus as representing His Father (ver. 16), and the words about the destruction of the Tem- ple and the rebuilding of it in three days have the originality of Jesus in them, and explain, as nothing else does, the charges of the false witnesses in Mt 26 61 and ||. For the rest, John tells little of a ministry which probably extended over three-fourths of a year. The passover was in the spring; the ‘yet’ in Jn 4 35 probably implies December or the January following. It was a ministry including miracles (Jn 2 24), and begetting a kind of faith. Men believed in Jesus, but He did not believe in them (2 25). The chief persons to whom it intro- duces us are Nicodemus and the woman of Samaria. What we learn from the first is the gulf which had to be bridged before a Jew could comprehend Christianity as the Evangelist had come to com- prehend it, and as it was enshrined in the sacrament of the new birth. While in the intention of the evangelist the reference in 3 5 to Christian baptism is indisputable, yet if the saying itself is at all authentic, as Jesus used these words, or words similar, the reference would be to John’s baptism and the baptism of the Spirit, as He Himself had experienced both. The Spirit which regenerates is that which is normally coincident with baptism in the name of Jesus, uplifted on the cross, in a death of atonement for sin (Jn 314f.,1 29). Inthe woman of Samaria we see the thirst of the soul for God in the most unexpected quarter, and the in- credible grace and joy with which it is satisfied by Jesus. That the woman who had had five husbands may to some extent represent the Samaritan people, so that in this or that trait the narrative has a symbolic rather than a literal value, is, in view of many features in John, not improbable (cf. Holtz- mann, Hand-Commentar), altho the assumption that the narrative is substantially historical can not be ruled out altogether. Nevertheless, the work of Jesus Christ A NEW STANDARD Jesus in Samaria is not a reflection into His lifetime of what only took place later; it is a preparation for and anticipation of Ac 8 5. * 9. Galilean Period. The ministry of Jesus in Jerusalem secured for Him a welcome when He returned to Galilee. The Galileans received Him gladly, having seen all that He did at the feast (Jn 4 45). From this point on, we have to dispose of the whole material of the Synoptics (Mk 1 14 f.; Mt 4 12 #f.; Lk 4 14 ff.) as well as the few incidents selected for interpretative comment by John. Any arrangement of the synoptic manner in the Johan- nine framework is precarious, for reasons already stated (see § 7., above). The order of eventsin Mkis often topical, rather than chronological. In Mt the teaching of Jesus is arranged in long discourses (chs. 5-7, 10, 18, 18, 23-25), which, as compositions, are the work of the Evangelist, and unite matter of various dates. Lk also, in the long insertaion (9 51- 18 14), connects with the last journey of Jesus to Jerusalem practically everything which Mk had not located in Galilee, while the topography of this journey itself is in Lk very hard to make out. It is scarcely exaggerating to say that the synoptists have no chronology; they have a certain plan and struc- ture which exhibit their conception of the work of Jesus, and enable us to get a grasp of it as a whole; but there is scarcely another note of time to set beside Mk 9 2, till we come to Passion week. The clearest indication, if not of a precise sequence of events, yet of a certain movement in the life of Jesus, is given in the Gospel of Mt. The whole is broken into two periods marked by the identical phrase, ‘from that time Jesus began’ in 4 17, 16 21. The first was mainly occupied with preaching, the second with teaching; the first was more public, and if the word may be used, evangelistic; the second more private, and devoted to the instruction of the Twelve; the first presents Jesus proclaiming the Kingdom of God, interpreting its laws, and calling men into it; in the second we see Him preoccupied with His own Person and death in their relation to the Kingdom. The healing ministry, as dependent in some way upon the people, is more conspicuous in the first period than in the second; altho Mt, when Jesus toward the close of His life comes again into contact with multitudes, notes that this side of His activity was renewed (19 2, 20 29 f., 2114). Besides this broad distinction it is possible to trace a gradual change within the first period. From 4 17 to 111 we have hardly the sense of a check in the story, tho Pharisaic opposition appears in 9 1-17 (9 34 is probably an anticipation of 12 24). The Evangelist evidently means to suggest that the course of Jesus began with a great and growing promise of success. This is the import of 4 23-25 and of 9 35-38; this is the force, too, of such remarks as 7 28 f., 8 27, 9 33. His work increased upon His hands till He had to share it with the Twelve (Mt 101), whom He had chosen that they might be with Him, and that He might send them forth to preach and to heal (Mk 3 14 ff.). The sending forth of the Twelve on a kind of apprentice mission marks the culminating point of the hopeful activity of Jesus. From this time forward untoward events multiply, and from 11 2 to 16 20 BIBLE DICTIONARY 440 almost every section in Mt might be headed oxéyia- Aoy, or ‘offense.’ For one reason or another, Jesus proved unacceptable to His own people. Super- ficially attracted as they almost always were, they came at last on something in Him to which they could not be reconciled. Thus in 11 2 we hear how the Forerunner hesitated. Jesus was not the Messiah he anticipated, the awful Judge with the ax and the fan. The hostility of the Pharisees was probably stimulated by emissaries from Jerusalem (Mk 7 1). In 12 1-14 we have two of the Sabbath controversies, and words of Jesus in connection with them which so angered the Pharisees that they conspired to kill Him. Later in the same chapter we see Pharisaic antipathy culminate in blasphemy against the Spirit of God at work in Jesus to redeem men from the tyranny of the devil, and even His own kinsfolk fail to appreciate Him (Mt 12 46 f.; Mk 3 21, 31 f..). In the beginning of ch. 13 the parable of the sower is — spoken in the mood of despondency, or pathetic irony, as we see from the quotation of Is 69 f. (Mt 1313 f.), and at the end Jesus is rejected in Nazareth. In ch. 14, when Jesus on the return of the Twelve feeds the 5,000, they want to ‘take him by force and make him a king’ (Jn 6 15), and He has to compel His disciples (Mt 14 22), who are susceptible to the same politically Messianic hopes, to enter the boat and face a storm, while He gets rid of the crowds. It was inevitable that multitudes who found their hopes so inexorably treated should turn away, as the Fourth Gospel tells us (Jn 6 66). 10. North Galilean Period. Finally, in Mt ch. 15 (|| Mk ch. 7) we have a decisive breach between Jesus and the religious authorities of His nation on the subject of tradition—a breach so violent that it led to His retreat into the northern lands beyond Pales- tine, and the practical close of His ministry in Galilee. It is not possible to say more of the course of events in the first part of Jesus’s life than that it had this general character. When it culminated in the conclusive falling away of the people from Him, He turned to devote Himself in private to the education of the men who had become sure in spite of everything that He was the Christ, and that He had ‘words of eternal life’ (Jn 6 68). To trace the sequence of events after Jesus withdrew to the parts of Tyre and Sidon (Mk 7 24) is all the more difficult, as at this point in the synoptic story there is possibly a series of doublets (Mk 6 33-7 37 being in much parallel to, and perhaps another tradition of, Mk 8 1-26). But the confession at Caesarea Philippi marks a decisive moment in the history, and so does the Transfiguration a week later. With it Jerusalem enters the horizon of the synoptists, and tho Jesus seems to bid a kind of farewell visit to His own city (Mk 9 33 f.), He does not wish any one to know of His passing through the country (9 30). His work in Galilee is done. 11. Later Perean and Judean Period. He goes up to Jerusalem via Perea and Jericho. Itis only in the Fourth Gospel that the program of these last months can be more fully traced. From this source we see that Jesus went to Jerusalem at the Feast of Tabernacles 28 a.p. (Jn 7 2), having also paid a brief visit at Pentecost (5 1, ‘a feast of the Jews,’ 441 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Jesus Christ since ch. 5 should probably follow ch. 6), remaining there apparently till the Feast of Dedication in December of the same year (10 22); that He then retired to Perea (10 40), to the district with which He had been familiar in the days of the Baptist, return- ing thence after about three months on hearing of the illness of Lazarus; and that after this last event He withdrew once more to a city called Ephraim, only coming back, about a fortnight later, for the last passover (29 a.p.) and what followed. (For an arrangement of the events lying within the second great period of Jesus’ ministry, see Stevens and Burton’s Harmony, part vi, f.; Gilbert’s Student’s Life of Jesus, pp. 140 ff.). II. The Work of Jesus. Without pursuing the purely historical question further, we may now attempt to give some idea of the teaching of Jesus. We may trace a progress in His teaching, but hardly in His mind; it is for pedagogic reasons that subjects emerge in one order rather than another. Speaking broadly, He may be said to teach, first, about the Kingdom of God; then about Himself, and especially His death; while in all the Gospels this is followed by what may be called prophetic, or eschatological teaching,, dealing either with a spiritual and immediate future, as in Jn (the coming of the Holy Spirit), or with a tran- scendent and to some extent indefinite future, as in the Synoptics (the coming of the Son of Man). This is the outline we shall follow, but as the ministry included healing as well as teaching it will be con- venient here to refer to the miracles. 12. The Miracles of Jesus. All our sources speak of wonderful or mighty works done by Jesus. The usual name for them in the Synoptics is bduvdéuets, ‘deeds of power,’ and in Jn onusia, ‘signs,’ or Zoya, ‘works.’ The Evangelists do not think of defining them, as theologians have sometimes done, by rela- tion to laws of nature, of which they had no concep- tion, and for the religious appreciation of them it is not necessary that we should do so either. The N T interpretation of them is entirely personal and ethical. The wonderful works of Jesus show what God can do and is minded to do through Him for those who need and seek His help, and they show to some extent the conditions on which His help is given. The great mass of them consisted of works of healing. Among diseases specially mentioned are leprosy, fever, paralysis, blindness, deafness and dumbness, epilepsy, and insanity. In addition to disease in its more ordinary or manageable forms there is what is known as ‘possession’ by a demon, or demons (not by ‘the devil’). But besides in- dividual healings narrated in the Gospels, Mk, Mt, and Lk all refer in general terms to the healing ministry of Jesus as a great and characteristic part of His work (Mt 4 23 f., 9 35, cf. 101, where He ex- tends His power to the Twelve, 19 2, 21 14; Mk 1 32 f. Lk 911). Indeed, it has been held that in Mk we have the argument from miracle, as in Mt that from prophecy, that Jesus is the Christ. The healings worked by Jesus were personal, not scien- tific, achievements. He did not use any of the re- sources of medical science; He had no treatment, no regimen, no arts of any description. What we read of in Mk 7 382 ff., 8 23 #.; Jn 9 6 has symbolic or educa- tional significance for the sufferers (whose infirmities made it difficult to communicate with them), but not medical value. The great word in all the wonderful healings is faith (xfotts). The healer must have faith, z.e., such a dependence on God and such an assurance of God’s will and power to help as con- ducts the Divine power to the case before him. While Jesus never failed in this respect (Jn 11 41 £.) His disciples sometimes did (Mt 17 19 £.). But those who were to be healed also required faith, 7.e., such an attitude of the soul to God as recognized and took hold of His saving power present in Christ and operative through Him. Faith in this sense estab- lishes a sympathetic personal relation between Je- sus and those who seek His help, and it is on such a relation that His power to heal ordinarily depends (Mk 65f.). The miracles of healing, therefore, have an essentially spiritual side. They imply a relation to Jesus which has no precise counterpart in the relation of his patients to a modern scientific practi- tioner (altho here also confidence in the physician favors a cure). Much of the interest of the miracle narratives in the Synoptics lies in the picture they present of the struggle of faith to come to birth in the soul, and to maintain itself through trial to triumph. This is so whether the faith is that of the person requiring help, or the ‘vicarious’ faith of friends who seek it for those who are physically or mentally incapable of it (cf. especially Mk 2 5, 5 38, 9 19-24; Mt 9 28 f., 15 21-28). The many memorable words of Jesus about faith—almost all spoken in connection with His miracles and intelligible only in their context—are the strongest evidence that the miracles were actually performed (cf. Bruce, Miraculous Element in the Gospels, p. 104). Among the mighty works of Jesus, those on which the Apostles (Ac 10 38) and He Himself (Mt 12 28; Lk 11 20) laid greatest stress were the cures of demoniacs. Possession by demons was the theory of the time for the explanation of many morbid conditions of the mind and body, but no science, either medical or psychological, has accepted it as a working hypoth- esis in modern times. As Jesus did not come to teach medicine or psychology, but to reveal the Fa- ther in delivering men from all that disabled and ruined life, it does not matter that on the cause of such illnesses He shared the opinions of those around him. What matters is the fact that by the power of God bestowed upon Him He actually delivered men from them. It is hardly possible to argue that out of the many instances of possession recorded in the Gospels those are to be distinguished as truly such in which the possessed recognize Jesus as the Messiah (cf. Gilbert, Student’s Life of Jesus, p. 192; Alexander, Demonic Possession; Weiss, Leben Jesu, I, 436 ff.). Matthew Arnold (Literature and Dogma pp. 143-144, explained the healing miracles by moral therapeutics. Harnack, (Das Wesen des Chris- tentums, p. 18), asserts that the influence of a per- sonality such as Jesus is adequate to account for the cure of certain diseases. Dr. Ryle, (‘“The Neurotic Theory of the Miracles of Healing,” Hibbert Journal, V, p. 585), has endeavored to prove that many Jesus Christ A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 442 of the diseases recorded in the Gospels are not in the present state of medical science amenable to such treatment. More recent experience, however (Baudouin’s Suggestion and Auto-Suggestion, 1923), makes it more difficult to draw a sharp distinction between functional and organic diseases, and to limit the efficacy of psycho-therapy to the one class. The matter is still swb gudice. Even if it should, how- ever, be proved that the cure of all the diseases recorded in the Gospels is in this way explicable, altho that need not at present be conceded, yet what remains certain is that Jesus Himself wrought His miracles in confident reliance on the exercise of Divine power through Him, and that His certainty evoked that assurance of faith in others which was the condition of cure. Neither the Healer nor the healed were consciously relying on a recognized method of medical treatment. If He and they anticipated by their faith in God what medical science is only now discovering, it was not by acci- dent, but of God’s grace, nor must we assume that God is not active as Healer, even when medical science is consciously employed. As this explana- tion, however, can not be applied to the ‘nature miracles’—the feeding of the multitude, the stilling of the storm, the walking on the sea, and the raisings of the dead—these have to be peremptorily ex- cluded, and accordingly in regard to them the trustworthiness of the Gospels cannot be main- tained (Harnack’s aim in advancing this theory). It can only be said here that these things can not be judged alone. All of them are represented in the oldest stratum of apostolic tradition in Mk, and the first in particular is connected, as an event which made an overwhelming impression on the multitudes, with a crisis in the life of Jesus (Jn 615 and ||). When the supreme miracle of the resurrection of Jesus Himself is admitted, there is no @ priori reason for questioning these. In the Fourth Gospel the miracles are the same in kind as in the others, with the exception that no case of possession is mentioned. But the mode in which they are conceived of is dif- ferent. The motive of Jesus in them is not repre- sented as compassion (as in Mk 1 41 and often), but as the manifestation of His own or the Father’s glory (Jn 2 11, 11 4). Where faith is spoken of, it is not so much as the condition of healing, but as a consequence of it (2 11, 4 53, 11 45). Altho faith which had only this basis did not command the confidence or approbation of Jesus (2 23 f., 4 48, 20 29), yet not to be moved to faith by the wonderful works of Jesus is a sin (12 37 f., 14 11, 6 26; cf. Mt 11 20 f.). Another peculiarity in John is that the miracles are all treated as symbols and made texts for discourses of Jesus (ch. 5, on Life and Judgment; ch. 6, on the Bread of Life; chs. 8 and 9, on the Light of the World; ch. 11, on the Resurrection and the Life). Without attempting any chronological outline, we may now try to present the main features of the teaching of Jesus on the basis indicated above. 13. Teaching Regarding the Kingdom of God— General. The Synoptics represent Jesus as beginning His ministry with an announcement of the Kingdom of God (Mk 1 15; Mt 4 17; Lk 4 43). He is sent to preach it as glad tidings, and its near approach (Hy ytxev) is made the ground of appeal for repent- ance and faith. What is meant by the ‘Kingdom of God’? The expression does not occur in the O T, tho the idea is common enough there that God is King and exercises sovereignty. The phrase ‘the King- dom of Heaven’ does not occur in the Apocalypses, except III Bar 11 2, which may possibly be a Christian passage. (See Charles’s index to Apocry- pha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, vol. II, p. 856.) The conception itself, however, was current among Jesus’ contemporaries, and was related in some way both to their history and to the promises of God. It is from the idea of sovereignty, or reign, rather than from that of kingdom that we must start in attempting to grasp the teaching of Jesus. The exercise of royal power by God is primary, not the sphere within which it is exercised, nor the community subject to it, nor the. blessings attendant on its establishment. All these are involved, but the main thing is that God takes to Himself His great power and reigns. In start- ing from this point Jesus started with the O T behind Him and could hope to be understood. Micaiah (I K 22 19) and Isaiah (Is ch. 6) had seen God as a King on His throne surrounded by minister- ing spirits. In many of the Psalms He is celebrated in this character (97 1, 103 19, 145 13). There are O T passages which present this as Israel’s ideal: God its King, and no other (e.g., 1S 87#.). Of all O T passages, however, the most important for the N T idea of the Kingdom is Dn ch. 7. The sover- eignty had belonged to a succession of brutal powers (Dn 7 1-8), but is at last to be transferred by God to humanity. ‘One like unto a son of man’—that is, a human form—is brought before the Ancient of Days, and ‘there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all the peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed’ (7 14). It is the explanation of this when we read (7 27): ‘and the kingdom and the dominion, and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High [i.e., to the faithful Jews]: his kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all nations shall serve and obey him.’ From this time forth, ideas connected with this passage entered into all Jewish thoughts about the Kingdom. It was a Kingdom which in some sense came from heaven; it was set up by the direct interposition and act of God. It was a Kingdom which was at once univer- sal and everlasting. What the precise relation is between this Kingdom and the existing Jewish people is not made manifest. We are not told how the sovereignty of God is to be wielded over Israel, or through it, and in dealing with conceptions so vast and undefined there is nothing of which the human mind is so capable as inconsistency. Men did not believe in a political, or an eschatological, or a spiritual, Kingdom of God. In various moods, of at various times, they believed in varying propor- tions in all three. If instead of politicai we say his- torical, it may even be said that Jesus believed in 4435 A NEW STANDARD all three. He was ‘a minister of the circumcision,’ in the interest of God’s truth, to confirm the promises made to the fathers (Ro 15 8). Tho He utterly renounced the zealot’s idea of a national Kingdom of God, loyalty to which required the repudiation of allegiance to Cesar (Mk 12 13 ff. and ||), it was no part of His purpose to deny Israel’s prerogative. The choice of Twelve as apostles, and the striking promise of Mt 19 28; Lk 22 30 preclude the thought. If Israel actually excluded itself, it was not He who questioned its historical preeminence (Mt 10 5 f., 23, 15 24-26). Excellent illustrations of the ideas which went to constitute ‘the Kingdom of God’ in the popular religious mind are seen in the Benedictus (Lk 1 68-79) and in the famous prophecy Is 2 2-4; Mic 41-5. In the last, especially, we see the min- gling of what might seem inconsistent elements. There is something national, for Jerusalem and Zion are represented as the city of the Great King, to which all nations go on pilgrimage; there is some- thing eschatological, or apocalyptic, in the super- natural elevation of the Temple hill to overtop the highest mountains in the world; but the essential thing is the universal diffusion of the true religion, and the universal peace and felicity consequent upon it. When Jesus speaks of the Kingdom, His range of utterance is not narrower. Sometimes we have the day of judgment in O T colors, the future sovereignty coming gloriously to view; some- times the thought is that of an inner coming of the Kingdom which is already in process, and takes its start from the message of Jesus (cf. Harnack, What is Christianity? p. 34). The relation of the different views is undetermined. Just because His teaching is always practical, never abstract, Jesus speaks in all tones; in one moment possibly meeting hearers, whose minds are not open to us, half-way, using their language, and partly accepting, partly ignoring, partly enlarging or correcting their thoughts; at another giving expression intentionally to what is characteristically new and original in His own view of the Kingdom. This must be remembered in any attempt to systematize His words. 14. Teaching Regarding the Kingdom of God— Specific. The essential truth about the Kingdom is that it is the Kingdom of God; its nature is deter- mined by Him. The various ideas of it have the unity which belongs to the personality and life of Jesus, in whom God is revealed. Jesus did not preach a new God, but He embodied a new revelation of God, and the Kingdom which He preached is specifi- cally the Kingdom of the Father (Mt 6 10, 13 43, 26 29). It is the Father’s good pleasure to give it to His children (Lk 12 32). Those who inherit it at its consummation are the blessed of the Father (Mt 25 34). The fullest idea of what is essential to it may be derived from the study of the Beatitudes, which show the rare and difficult virtues on which its citizens are felicitated; from the Lord’s Prayer, or, as it should rather be called, the disciples’ prayer, which shows the spiritual aspirations of those who are to possess it; and from the healing miracles, as Jesus interprets them in words like Mt 11 5, 12 28, in which its redemptive character is declared. Pro- ceeding empirically, we notice the following points: BIBLE DICTIONARY Jesus Christ (a) Jesus is sure of its coming. When anything is urgently needed and longed for, assurance, ex- pressed in terms of time, becomes imminence. The Kingdom has drawn near. When Jesus speaks of it, He speaks, like all the prophets and like the seer in the Apocalypse, of things which must shortly come to pass (Rev 11, 22 6). The much-discussed question whether the Kingdom is present or future is another form of the question whether it is spiritual or eschatological (transcendent). The answer is that it is both, and that in the perspective of Jesus (cf. Holtzmann, Neut. Theol. I, 215) the difference tends to disappear. The end is near, the dawn is part of the morning, the present time part of the last time. It is perhaps not fanciful to say that on this question the Gospels reflect to some extent the mood of different periods in the life of Jesus. At first, there is confident hope, the Kingdom has drawn near (fyytxev, Mt 417). This rises into as- surance that the Kingdom is actually present, as in His victories over Satan Jesus realizes that the redeeming love of the Father is here and now over- turning the tyranny of the devil and establishing its own sovereignty on earth (Mt 12 28; &0acey ép’ bua fh Bactrela tod Oe0d). At a later stage, when the shadow of the Cross fell on His path, the final coming of the Kingdom withdraws into a future beyond death. The two conceptions of it as present and future, spiritual and eschatological, seem to be combined and indeed organically con- nected in Mk 10 15 #f., ‘Whosoever shall not receive the [present] Kingdom of God as a little child, he shall in no wise enter therein [in its future glory]. For a consistent but paradoxical argument in favor of the exclusively eschatological view of the King- dom, cf. Johannes Weiss, Die Predigt Jesu vom Reiche Gottes. This view has also been maintained by Schweitzer, (The Quest of the Historical Jesus) who asserts that the only alternative is thorough- going scepticism or thoroughgoing eschatology. A brilliant exposition of the idea is given by Loisy, L’ Evangile et ? Eglise, the classic of Roman Catholic Modernism; Father Tyrrell in his posthumous work, Christianity at the Cross Roads, accepts the position. Jackson and Lake, however, maintain that Jesus taught that the Kingdom was both present and future. ‘The preaching of Jesus was directed to impress men with the importance of recognizing the present Sovereignty of God in order that they might live in the Age to Come,’ op. cit., p. 282. (b) It is the supreme good, the sum of all possible blessings. Jesus shows this in various ways. Every- thing else is to be made secondary to it (‘Seek first the Kingdom,’ Mt 6 33; Lk 12 31). No price is too high to pay for it (Mt 13 44-46). Tho it is God’s gift, we have to count the cost of accepting it, and not only to count but to pay (Lk 14 25 #.). The salvation of the Kingdom is not only a gift, but a high calling, and the ethically indispensable con- dition of accepting the calling may be the most painful sacrifice of nature and of natural affections (Mk 9 47; cf. vs. 43 and 45, where Cw is synonymous with the Kingdom of God). The Kingdom is not bought with such sacrifices, as if the paying of them gave men a claim upon God; it is rather a sphere of Jesus Christ A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 444 reality of such a kind that a man must remain permanently alien to it, if he allows any natural good to rival this supernatural and Divine one. It is in this connection that we should have to appreciate the vehement words Jesus speaks about money (Mk 10 23. and ||, and many more). As a permanent possibility of all kinds of power and enjoyment money is infinitely fascinating, and whether as pos- sessed or coveted it is the great foe of the supreme good. The worth of the Kingdom is further shown by the incomparable greatness which belongs to its members. The least in it—the least who has got from God that which Jesus was conscious of possess- ing—is greater than the greatest outside. In some sense he is nearer and dearer to God (Mt 18 10, 11 11. The ‘little ones’ in Mt 18 11 are the children of the Kingdom; see ver. 6). (c) The conditions of membership in the King- dom, or perhaps we should say the ideal of citizen- ship, are illustrated in all the teaching of Jesus, but especially in the Beatitudes, in such discourses as the Sermon on the Mount (Mt chs. 5-7), the teach- ings on humility, forgiveness, and self-denial with a view to avoiding ‘offense,’ either in self or in others (Mt ch. 18), and, by contrast, in the criticism and denunciation of spurious piety (Mt ch. 23), or of pride, ambition, and similar faults in disciples (Mt 20 25 #.). But the great lesson is that which is given in the spirit and life of Jesus Himself. The Kingdom is here in Him, and He is not only its founder, but its ideal citizen. Hence the final im- portance in His teaching of words like Mt 11 29; Jn 1315. To be a genuine citizen or member of the Kingdom is to be in Him (Jn ch. 15). (d) There are ranks, or degrees, in the Kingdom, tho the principles on which they are assigned are not those that prevail in the kingdoms of this world (cf. Mt 5 19, 18 1-4, and especially 20 21 ff.). No one can enter at all except in the uncalculating spirit of the child, who, when Jesus says ‘Come,’ goes to Him with no reserve. No one can be great in it except by service. Even the Son of Man, who sits on its throne, is subject to this law. He attains to the dignity of the throne by a career of unexampled service, not stopping short of the sur- render of His life for others (Mk 10 45). (e) The mysteries of the Kingdom (i.e., the laws of God’s working in it)—once hidden but now an open secret—are revealed in the parables of Jesus, and in the interpretation of them to His disciples (Mt 13 11 #.). Thus it is like a seed, the fortune of which depends on the soil into which it is cast (Mt 13 3 ff., and ||). Like a seed, it has in it an incalculable vitality and power of expansion (Mt 13 31 f#f., and ||). Further, like a seed, it hag an internal law of development—‘first the blade, then the ear, then the full corn in the ear’—which can not be precipitated or reversed by any effort of man (Mk 4 26 f.). It is another mystery of the Kingdom that Jesus anticipates for it in the world a mixed and disappointing history (Mt 13 24 ff., 36 ff., 47 ff.). This, of course, is denied by those who hold an exclusively eschatological view of the Kingdom, and they accordingly assign to the Evangelist, not to Jesus, the heading of such parables as the Tares and the Drag-net. But it is impossible to carry the eschatological view of the Kingdom consistently through the Gospels; and tho the Kingdom is properly an ideal state in which there are no oxdvdaha (‘things that cause stumbling,’ Mt 13 41), no person that works [avout (‘iniquity,’ tbid.), nothing caxpédy (‘bad,’ Mt 13 48), it does not exist as such in history. Even the institutions and persons by whom God is actually represented in this world represent Him very imperfectly and ineffectually, and they get inextricably interwoven with persons and interests which do not represent Him at all. What both the parables teach is that this is not final, but that it lasts as long as time. (f) In the consummated Kingdom Jesus anticipates reunion with His own, and the fulfilment of all longings unsatisfied here (Mt 26 29; Lk 22 16). It is in this connection that life (Mt 7 14, 18 8 f., 19 17), or eternal life (Mt 19 16, 29, 25 46; cf. Mk 10 30,. ‘in the world to come, eternal life’), is used as a synonym for the Kingdom of God. The life of the world, or age, to come, or the life of the consum- mated Kingdom of God, is life in a new mode or order. It is not the restoration of nature with all the natural relations—a conception which is quite unrealizable. To assume that it is would be to discredit the idea of immortality altogether, as the Sadducees tried to do by this very plan (Mt 22 23#.). As Jesus argues against them, ‘the power of God’ (Mt 22 29) is not exhausted in the natural order with which we are familiar. God can sustain being in other modes—in an order, e.g., in which men neither marry nor are given in marriage—in which all relations are spiritual, not physical, and in which the problems raised by the Sadducees simply lapse. It is into such a world that the resurrection of Jesus gives us a glimpse; and the children of God, or the children of the Kingdom, can be ultimately described as children of the resurrection (Lk 20 36). 15. Teaching Regarding Himself. It is assumed in all Jesus’ teaching about the Kingdom of God that He Himself has a relation to the Kingdom and its coming which can be shared by no other. The great cause of God is in some way identified with His per- sonality, and men’s relation to it is determined by their relation to Him. This may be said to be quite explicitly the burden of the Fourth Gospel: ‘If ye believe not that I am’—that is, that Iam the great decisive Personality on whom everything in the relations of God and man turns—‘ye shall die in your sins’ (Jn 8 24); but it is implied throughout the Synoptics. (Jackson and Lake, op. cit., pp. 345-418, subject the Christology of the Synoptics to a learned and searching criticism, and treat most of the utterances about Himself ascribed to Jesus as later developments of the faith of the Church, leaving us but a common prophet, conscious of inspiration, but not a historical reality adequate to be the object of the Christian faith, the founder of the Christian Church, or the explanation of the Christian ex- perience and history. Their criticism, however, rests on an assumption so remote frem the stand- point of Christian scholarship generally, that it is impossible to take account of their conclusions in detail.) Jesus’ consciousness of what He is in 445 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Jesus Christ relation to God and His Kingdom comes out, indeed, more impressively for us in words like ‘for my sake’ (Mt 5 11), or ‘Many shall say unto me in that day’ (Mt 7 22)—the voice of Jesus at the day of Judgment being that on which eternal destiny depends—or ‘He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me’ (Mt 10 37), than in any of the titles used to describe Him, either by Himself or others. What we overhear is more weighty even than what we hear. Yet it is necessary to pass these titles in review, and to apprehend their meaning as far as we can. (a) All the Evangelists call Jesus the Christ (Mt 11; Mk 11; Lk 211; Jn 20 31). ‘Jesus is the Christ’ was the earliest Christian confession (Ac 2 36, 17 3), and in a sense it is the Evangelist’s business to prove that He is. He may appeal to prophecy, as. Matthew does, or to miracles, as Mark virtually does, or he may conduct the argument in a higher sphere like John, but in any case this is his faith. But did Jesus share it? Did He claim to be the Christ, or ask men to accept Him in this character; and if so, what did the term mean for Him? It is quite true to say that Jesus was made the Christ only by His exaltation (Ac 2 36), and that, therefore, while He was on earth He was not so much the Christ as the person who was destined for that dignity; but it does not follow that He did not claim the dignity, or that it was not recognized by the disciples as inherent in Him. It is not fancy which recognizes in the day at Cesarea Philippi a great crisis in the relation of Jesus and His disciples (Mt 16 13 f., and ||); and whether we say, with interpreters generally, that here the Twelve first became convinced of and confessed the Messianic dignity of Jesus, or, with Weiss, that here the Twelve persevered in their belief in His Messianic character, when the mass of His followers gave up the hopes they once had cherished that this was the great deliverer (Jn 6 66) in either case the Messianic consciousness is revealed as present in the mind of Jesus. Not only to others, but to Himself, He bore this character. He was the Christ, the Anointed of the Lord. If the his- toricity of this could be regarded as doubtful, it would be quite impossible to make any use of the Gospels as historical documents. (For an elaborate attack on it see Wrede, Das Messiasgeheimniss in den Evangelien, 1902. Jackson and Lake also deny this. ‘This was the belief of the disciples: it may have been, but probably was not, the belief of Jesus; it was not part of his ‘gospel’ tho it was the center of theirs’ (op. cit., p. 283.) Butitisraised be- yond doubt by its association with such an un- questionable fact as Mt 16 22, by the triumphal entry in which Jesus deliberately acts in the Messianic réle (Mk 119f.), by the accusation before Pilate (Mk 15 2), by the title on the cross (Mk 15 26), and by the consent of all existing evidence. When ‘the Christ’ became a technical or proper name for the expected deliverer of Israel we do not know. It seems to occur first in Psalms of Solomon, 17 36. The essential element in the meaning is that the person so desig- nated is God’s King. He has a’place in the King- dom and in relation to its establishment into which no other can intrude. To call Jesus the Christ is to recognize His unique and incomparable signifi- cance in religion. It is to declare that through Him God’s sovereignty is to be realized, and all God’s promises fulfilled (II Co 1 20). No doubt men might have wrong conceptions of the Kingdom and of the King. They might try to take Jesus by force and make Him a king after their own ideas (Jn 6 15), compelling Him to enlist under their banner, instead of enlisting under His. Such possibilities constrained Jesus to reserve in the use of this title. He did not go about proclaiming Himself the promised King. He silenced the possessed whom Mk represents as knowing Him to be the Christ (1 34, 312). He straitly charged the disciples, even after the confession at Cesarea Philippi, to tell no one of Him (8 30). The sense in which He is the Christ is apprehended only when God reveals it (Mt 16 17) or—which is the same thing—when it is experimentally discovered through intercourse with Jesus. It only leads to confusion to snatch at the word, and suppose that we can fill it with the proper meaning from prejudices or hopes of our own, or even from the letter of theO T. It was to prevent such misconceptions and interruptions of His work by false hopes that Jesus, till close upon the end of His life, avoided Messianic claims. It does not follow, of course, that He was not conscious of His Messianic Kingship from the first. The very reverse was the case (see §5, above). It was for pedagogic reasons that He revealed the nature of the Kingdom before He explicitly put Himself forward as King. (b) Closely connected with the title Christ is that of Son of God. Here it is necessary to distinguish between the direct use of this title by others and the virtual use of it by Jesus. It throws no light on His mind to observe that He is spoken of as Son of God by the demoniacs (Mk 3 11, 57; Mt 8 29), or by the men in the boat when He stilled the storm (Mt 14 33), or by the centurion who saw Him die (27 54). In this last passage, where the speaker may be a pagan, the meaning is indeterminate; in the first, ‘Son of God’ is probably equivalent to ‘Messiah,’ as in Mt 26 63; Jn 1 49. In Mk 11, ‘Son of God’— if the reading is correct—may be used in this Messianic or, as it is sometimes called, ‘official’ sense, or it may be used in the full Pauline sense; in Mt and Lk (cf. Mt 1 22 f£. and Lk 1 34 f.) the Divine sonship is regarded by the Evangelists as dependent on the supernatural birth. But what Jesus meant by the Divine sonship which was attested at His baptism, and in the consciousness of which He lived and died, is another matter. That it included the Messianic vocation is certain from the baptism narrative, but is that all? The present writer can not think so. There are various ways in which Jesus brings out what is involved in His relation to God, and they all point to something more profound, and, if it may be so expressed,more essential. (1) There is the parable in Mt 21 33-46, and ||. Here, all God’s previous messengers to Israel are represented as S000 (‘servants’), while Jesus is vtdc (‘Son’) and xAnpovénoc (‘heir’). This generalizes, so to speak, the earlier saying, ‘A greater than Jonah, than Solomon, than the Temple, Jesus Christ A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 446 is here’ (Mt 12 6, 41 f.). As Son—+.e., as one whose relation to God was distinct from that of all others —Jesus was greater than all. (2) There is the striking saying, ‘Of that day and that hour knoweth no one, not even the angels in heaven, neither the Son but the Father’ (Mk 13 32; Mt 24 36). The limit here put on the knowledge of Jesus shows that this is a genuine word. A later generation would rather have expunged than invented it. It gives Jesus a place above both men and angels, a place in which ‘the Father’ and ‘the Son’ are used in absolute correspondence with each other. We see that there could no more be another who was ‘the Son’ than another who was ‘the Father.’ This is the truth which is covered and secured in the Fourth Gospel, when it calls Jesus the ‘only be- gotten Son’ (Jn 1 14, 18, 3 16, 18; cf. 1 Jn 49). (8) There is the passage Mt 11 25 f., with the || in Lk 10 21 ff. (The authenticity of this passage is challenged by Jackson and Lake. See op. cit., p. 331). Here an important light is thrown on the contents of the relation of the Son to the Father. According to Harnack, what this passage teaches is that the Sonship of Jesus consists in His knowledge of the Father. It is as the person who perfectly knows the Father that He is the Son (What is Christianity? p. 128). But there is more than this. First, there is the idea that sonship implies absolute dependence. ‘All things have been delivered to me of my Father.’ This is the idea which pervades the Fourth Gospel: ‘The Son can do nothing of Himself,’ ‘My teaching is not mine,’ etc. (Jn 5 19, 7 16; etc.). Further, there is the idea that as Son Jesus has absolute competence in His vocation, the power to make all men His debtors for the knowledge of God. The ‘all things’ which have been delivered to Him must, in agreement with the context, refer to the whole contents and administering of God’s revelation; in this work of self-revelation the Father has no organ but Jesus, and in Jesus He has an adequate organ. This is an anticipation of Jn 14 6; but even when we have grasped it, a mystery remains. For Jesus goes on to declare that in His own relation to God there is something which has no parallel else- where: ‘No one knoweth the Son save the Father; neither doth any know the Father save ‘the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal him.’ He is so far from standing on a level with all men as a son or child of God—an expression never applied to Him—that as ‘the Son’ He stands between God and all others, and they can not know God as Father without coming under obligations to Him. (4) One other passage is of importance for the light it casts on the consciousness of Jesus as Son of God, Mt 17 24-27. Here we see that to know God as Father is to be emancipated from the obliga- tions of the ritual law: the Son is not bound to pay a Temple tax. The filial spirit is in such things a law to itself. The Pauline conception of Christian- ity is here traced to its source in the mind of the Son, and the Pauline idea that liberty is to be used only in accordance with a law of love is in harmony with the iact that out of consideration for others (‘Lest we cause them to stuinble,’ ver. 27) Jesus did not exercise the liberty which He claimed. For the connection of sonship and liberty in His thoughts, see also Jn 8 32-36. If we take these passages together, we conclude that, in the mind of Jesus, to be the Christ and to be the Son of God were not identical. The Divine Sonship was His nature; it was primary and essential; the conscious- ness of it stirred in Him (Lk 2 49) long before He entered on His public work; it was the basis on which His unique vocation to be the Christ—.e., to be the Son of God in the historical sense suggested by Ps 27, 89 26; II S 7 14—rested; but it was not exhausted in this. Messiahship was the form which Divine sonship naturally took in the historical situation; but both in Himself and for us Jesus is something more and greater than the Messiah. It should be noted that the Synoptics give no in- stance in which Jesus expressly calls Himself Son of God (yet see Mt 27 43, and the narratives of the Baptism, Temptation, and Transfiguration). He, however, speaks of God as the Father, where the correlative is not sons, but the Son; He says ‘my’ Father and ‘your’ Father, but never unites with others (not even in the Lord’s Prayer, which is indeed rather the disciples’ prayer) to say ‘our’ Father; and He speaks of Himself as ‘the Son,’ simpliciter. This last use—which is found in Mt 11 27, 24 36; Mk 13 32—becomes predominant in Jn. (c) To judge from the Gospel record, the mind of Christ about Himself is expressed most character- istically in the title the Son of Man (4 vids tod avOee- mov). This is found in all the Gospels, and practi- cally from beginning to end (Mt 8 20, 26 64; Mk 2 10, 14 62; Lk 5 24, 22 69; Jn 1 51, 13 31). In all, itis used by Jesus alone. (Here Jackson and Lake also oppose the common opinion, and deny that Jesus openly identified Himself with the Son of Man, op. cit., p. 283). Except in Ac 7 56, it is not found elsewhere in the N T. In Rev 1 13, 14 14 the refer- ence is not to the Gospels, but to Dn 713. Obviously, in the Gospels it is a technical or proper name, and a Greek reader could not without guidance discover what it meant. The catechists, or Evan- gelists, who coined the Gr. phrase 6 utds tod évOemrov and gave it currency must at the same time have explained the sense in which they used it. No doubt it represented something in Aramaic, but the fact that Aramaic scholars find it difficult or impossible to conjecture what the Aramaic original can have been is not a sufficient reason for con- cluding that Jesus did not and could not have used any such title at all. For this paradoxical view, see Lietzmann, Der Menschensohn (1896); Wellhausen, Skizzen und Vorarbeiten, VI, 187. Against it, Fiebig, Der Menschensohn (1901); Dalman, The Words of Jesus (1902), pp. 234ff.; Driver, ‘Son of Man’ inHBD. Assuming that Jesus did use, as a designation of Himself in the third person, Aramaic words which were represented in Gr. by 4 utd¢ tod &vOpaxou, the question remains: What did He mean by this title, and how did it originate? It is natural to think of O T ante- cedents for this as well as for ‘Son of God’ or ‘the Anointed’; and three O T sources have been sug- gested for it. First, there is the frequent use of ‘son of man’ in Ezk (21, 3, 8, etc.; ninety times in 447 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Jesus Christ all), where it contrasts the prophet as a frail human creature with God. But there is no indication in the Gospels that Ezekiel was ever in the Speaker’s mind in His use of the term. Second, there is the notable passage in Ps 8 4, ‘What is man that thou art mindful of him, and the son of man that thou visitest him?’ This passage is messianically in- terpreted in He 2 6, and the application of words from Ps 8 to Christ in I Co 15 27 is evidence that Paul knew of this interpretation, and probably therefore, of ‘the Son of Man’ as a designation of Jesus.While there is no explicit reference in the Gospels to the Psalm, yet the combination in the sayings about the Son of Man of dignity and ‘humility show a marked correspondence of thought. The third possible source has already been referred to in speaking of the Kingdom of God (see above, § 6). It is Dn 7 13 f£.: “There came with the clouds of heaven one like unto a son of man... and there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom.’ There is undoubtedly an allusion to this in passages like Mk 14 62; Mt 16 28, 24 30. The difference is that the indefinite ‘one like unto a son of man’—that is, ‘a human form,’ as contrasted with the brute forms in the earlier visions—has become definite. The description has become a title, the significant common noun—to use the grammatical distinction—has become a meaning- less proper noun, and we are left to discover its import as we can. In Dn, the ‘human form’ repre- sents the people of the saints of the most high; it is a symbol of the faithful Jews, God’s people, as the beasts are of the pagan empires; but in the mind of Jesus it is individualized and definitely identified with Himself. Probably the individualizing inter- pretation had become current in the interval be- tween the writing of Dn and the ministry of Jesus; at all events in that part of the apocalyptic Book of Enoch called “The Book of Similitudes,’ which most scholars allow to be pre-Christian, this change has been effected. There we find a Son of Man, a person existing with God, a person who sits on the throne of glory and has the sum of judgment com- mitted to him. If the Jude who wrote the Ep. of Jude is the same as the Lord’s brother of that name (Mk 6 3), then Jesus may have known the Book of Enoch, for Jude quotes it (ver. 14 f.; see JupE, Epis- TLE OF, § 2). But whether or not, it is clear that He individualized the human form to which the ever- lasting Kingdom is to be given, and that He identi- fied Himself with it (cf. Charles, The Book of Enoch, 1893). In this sense, ‘The Son of Man’ may be said to be a Messianic title. When Jesus used it, He meant to convey the idea that in spite of appearances He was the person who was yet to come in that heavenly glory. It is to be defined by relation to ‘the Kingdom of God’ just as clearly as ‘the Son’ alone is to be defined by relation to ‘the Father.’ It is natural to argue that, if it is a Messianic title, Jesus could use it only after He had been acknowledged as Messiah—i.e., after the day at Caesarea Philippi— and among those whom He allowed to speak of Him in this character—i.e., among the Twelve. This, of course, is not what the Gospels represent. He seems to use it all along, and in any audience. How is this to be explained? We may say either (1) that the term is not so unambiguously Messianic as has been suggested, and that Jesus, using it to veil as well as to reveal His thought, might employ it freely under any circumstances. This may be re- garded as a possible explanation. Or (2) we may say that some of the passages have been chrono- logically displaced, and, tho they come early in our Gospels, are really late in the life of Jesus— e.g.. Mt 10 23. Or (8) we may say that in some passages Jesus has been misunderstood by a trans- lator from the Aramaic, and is represented as saying the ‘Son of Man,’ and speaking of Himself, when He really said ‘man’ and meant something of universal application. This last explanation has been given of the two passages Mk 210, 28, where it is said logic requires ‘man’ generically, not the individual ‘the Son of Man’; and it is pointed out that when these two are disposed of, there are no others in Mk till after Caesarea Philippi. For the application of (2) and (8) with a view to getting rid of all the passages in which the Gospels present the title prematurely, see Wellhausen, as above To investigate the literary question here is im- possible, but the elements of meaning associated with the title must be indicated. (1) It always includes the idea of ultimate triumph. The Son of Man, as reminiscent of Dn 7 13, is never anything less than the destined King in the coming Kingdom of God. It is this which gives the power and pathos to words like Mt 8 20, 20 28. (2) In the express teaching of Jesus, it always includes the idea of the path of suffering which leads to triumph. After the confession at Czsarea Philippi Jesus began to teach the Twelve that the Son of Man must suffer many things (Mk 8 31 and ||, 9 31, 10 33, 14 21, 41). To represent His sufferings and death as those of the Son of Man is to bring them within His vocation as founder of the Kingdom of God, and to give them an essential place in His work. It is to carry through in His mind and life the fusion of the ideals of Ps 2 and Is chs. 42 and 53—the Messianic King and the suffering Servant of the Lord—announced at His baptism: the suffering of the Son of Man, so repellent and unintelligible to the disciples, is a summary formula for this fusion. (3) In the title ‘Son of Man,’ as used in the Synoptics, we may fairly emphasize the idea of humanity, as it is em- phasized in Dn 7 13. It is humanity, however, in the ethical, not metaphysical sense—humanity, not as contrasted with divinity, but as opposed to brutal- ity. The Kingdom which comes with the triumph of Jesus is at the same time the Kingdom in which humanity attains its rights. The reign of inhuman- ity, of violence and wrong, comes to an end. Hence everything in the work of Jesus which is congruous with this—all that is human, sympathetic, redemp- tive, emancipating—is ascribed to Him as the ‘Son of Man.’ See especially Lk 19 10; Mk 10 45; Mt 8 20, and even Mt 11 18 f., where Jesus contrasts Himself with the less human Baptist, who had in a way renounced the society of his kind. But the supreme proof of this is Mt 25 31 # When the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory to judge Jesus Christ all nations, the principle of His judgment is human- ity. It is by this men stand or fall before Him. Inhumanity is to Him the unpardonable sin. ‘I was an hungered and ye gave me no meat’ is the damning accusation. There seems some echo of this in Jn 5 27, but the peculiarity of the Fourth Gospel is that it associates the title with the pre- existence of Jesus in a way to which we have no analogy in the other three (Jn 3 13, 6 27, 62). Apart from this, John throws no further light on Jesus’ consciousness of Himself as thus expressed. But it is clear from all that has been said that Jesus is not merely a son of man, a human being simpliciter, any more than He is only a child of God, a creature with our common relation to the Father. Just as in relation to God He calls himself absolutely the Son, so in relation to the Kingdom of God, which is at the same time the Kingdom of humanity, He is not merely one of our race, but the Son of Man who has the unique vocation of establishing the Kingdom of God through His ministry, His sufferings, and His glory. Both titles, the ‘Son of God’ and he ‘Son of Man,’ have this incomparable character. If we think of Jesus as Jesus thought of Himself, we can not think of anybody else in His place, or fulfilling His function. The titles, however, are not to be contrasted, nor interpreted of a human and a Divine nature. There is no suggestion of such a contrast in the Gospels, not even where some have found it, in Mt 16 13, 16 (‘the Son of Man... the Son of the living God’). To say that He gives us the knowledge of the Father and makes us sons of God, and to say that He makes us men and partakers in the triumph of humanity in His everlasting King- dom, is not to say two things, but one and the same. On the Incarnation cf. § 19, below. (d) In comparison with the ‘Christ,’ the ‘Son of God,’ and the ‘Son of Man,’ small importance attaches to the title the ‘Son of David.’ It was a designation for the Messiah as at once descendant and representative of the great King. The Evan- gelists and the scribes agreed in regarding Davidic descent as a mark of the Christ (Mt 11, 22 42 £.; Ro 1 4; II Ti 2 8), and Jesus was hailed as Messiah under this title at the triumphal entry into Jerusalem (Mt 21 9, 15), and by various persons who sought His help, or saw it rendered (Mt 9 27, 12 23, 15 22, 20 30f.). It has been argued that in Mt 22 42 f£. and || He disclaims Davidie descent, but this is more than doubtful. Probably His descent from David was taken for granted by Himself, as it is throughout the N T, and the aim of His appeal to the Scribes is to show that it is not a relation to David—a relation no doubt shared with others—which is the essential thing in Messiahship, but a relation to God. Not any son of David is Messiah, but only that greater than David to whom the Lord has said, ‘Sit on my right hand.’ The Davidic title, as the one which most easily attracted those political associ- ations of Messiahship which Jesus utterly rejected, would inevitably be attractive to the people, and as inevitably appeal less to Him than ‘Son of God’ or ‘Son of Man.’ (e) The only other title of Jesus found in the Gospels is Savior, and this is not in His own words. A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 448 It occurs in the angelic annunciation of His birth to the shepherds (Lk 2 11), where the meaning is undetermined, and it is implied in Mt 1 21, ‘Thou shalt call his name Jesus, for it is he that shall save his people from their sins.’ The phrase ‘his people’ here probably means Israel, and the salvation is probably conceived of in that half-spiritual, half- national fashion which is so vividly illustrated in Lk 1 68-79. Throughout the ministry of Jesus otety (‘to save’) is mostly used of miracles of healing, or deliverance from bodily danger (eg., Mt 9 21 £., 8 25, 14 30); but, as these were conditioned by faith, which involved a personal and spiritual relation to Jesus, blessings of a higher order were involved, and these are no doubt often included in such expressions as, “Thy faith hath saved thee.’ When we read that the Son of Man came ‘to save that which was lost’ (Lk 19 10), it is the profounder spiritual sense which is in view, and in the Fourth Gospel this preponderates to the practical exclusion of the other (Jn 3 17, 5 34, 109, 12 47). Here also Jesus is expressly characterized as ‘the Savior of the world’ (Jn 4 42). It is His vocation to bring eternal life to all men. (f) In close connection with the revelation of the self-consciousness of Jesus stands His teaching on His death. All the Evangelists represent Him as devoting much attention to this—indeed, making it the main subject on which He instructed the Twelve—during the last period of His life (Mk 8 31, 9 31, 10 33 #., and ||s). It does not follow that He Himself first thought of it or realized it then. The allusion to the suffering Servant of the Lord in the voice at the Baptism, the spiritual conflict in the Temptation in which He renounced all compromise and defied evil to do its worst, beatitudes like Mt 5 10 f., the fate of the prophets and the forerunner and the sense of antagonism in the world around Him, must have suggested the actual issue of His career; and the beautiful and ominous word in Mk 2 19 ff., which evidently belongs to the earlier and more radiant period of the ministry, proves that it was habitually latent in His thoughts long before He spoke of it. The one idea on which stress is laid in the reiterated teaching referred to is the necessity of His death. That it was historically necessary was apparent, if Jesus remained true to God and to Himself; He had irreconcilable enemies who would scruple at nothing to put Him out of the way; the forces were actually at work around Him which could and would kill Him. The problem, humanly speaking, presented to Him was to discern in this historical necessity a Divine necessity; to see that what came upon Him as an inevitable fate was also the will of the Father, to which it was indispensable that He should submit in order to the fulfilment of His vocation. If His death was to be interpreted as a part of His work, it must be not merely endured, but accepted; His passion must become a great ac- tion, in which something infinitely important is done for the establishment of the Kingdom of God. That this was the conviction of Jesus, the whole Christian faith of the N T is the proof, and it is fair to infer from all the evidence at our disposal that He was assisted in giving shape to it by the prophecies of the 449 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Jesus Christ O T and especially of Is ch. 53 (cf. Lk 22 37;Mk 10 45, where the peculiar expression ‘for many,’ in connection with the idea of ‘giving the life’ or ‘the soul,’ is an illusion to Is 53 10-12, where both ideas occur in combination). The two notable sayings of Jesus on the significance of His death (Mk 10 45, and ||, 14 22 #., and ||) can not be fully discussed here. Briefly, it may be said that, ac- cording to the first saying, His death is conceived of as having a liberative power; it is at the cost of it that many are set free; He could not render them the service essential to them at a lesser cost. How the figure here is to be reduced to terms of thought is not expressly said; the circle of ideas in which ‘the mind of Jesus moves is the same which is repre- sented in Ps 49 7-9; Job 33 22-24; Mk 8 36 f. Inthe second saying, His death is represented as the basis of a new covenant, %.e., a new religious relation between God and man. In virtue of that death, somehow, men can enter into this new relation— the new relation, undoubtedly, which is predicted in Jer 31 31-34—a relation in which the law is written on the heart, and all men know God, because He has forgiven their iniquities and remembers their sins no more. Here, again, it may be said, problems are stated rather then solved; but it is important to notice that the connection of the death of Christ with the forgiveness of sins, which is central in apostolic teaching, is explicitly covered by the word of Jesus, in which He describes His blood as covenant blood. In no single utterance is the unique self-consciousness of Jesus more amazingly revealed than in that in which He bases on His own death the establishment for sinful men of the perfect and final relation to God. Within the covenant, God and men form one community; they have a common life and common aims; God enters into the life of men, men are partakers in the eternal life of God, and all this has been made possible through the death of Jesus. For fuller examination of this see Denney’s Death of Christ (1902), pp. 36-60. 16. Prophetic Teaching of Jesus. By this we understand the teaching of Jesus about what lay beyond His death. It is impossible to be certain here that in no respect has the teaching of Jesus been misapprehended by those who reported it, or unconsciously colored by hopes which they did not directly owe to Him, or by ideas and expecta- tions to which His teaching only indirectly gave birth in their minds. But the following points may be regarded as certain: (1) Jesus foretold His own resur- rection. All the three predictions of the passion (see foregoing) end with ‘and after three days’—or ‘on the third day’—‘rise again.’ ‘After three days’ and ‘on the third day’ are in meaning exactly the same (cf. Mt 27 63, 64). Jesus’ prediction of His resurrection was as special as that of His death. Any Jew then could predict His own death and resurrection, as any Christian can now; but it was the resurrection not at the last day (Jn 11 24), but after so brief an interval, that was as incomprehensible tothe disciples as the death (Mk 9 10). (2) Jesus taught that the prophecy of Dn 7 13 would be fulfilled in Him; i.e., He would come again in glory, bringing in the perfected Kingdom of God and humanity Son of Man). The N T Church certainly held this coming to be one in visible splendor, in the clouds of heaven, and quite distinct from the resurrection. (3) Of the time of this coming Jesus expressly de- clared Himself ignorant (Mt 24 36; Mk 13 32) yet He is often represented as speaking of it as certain to occur within the lifetime of those He addressed (Mt 10 23, 16 28; Mk 91). This is not open to question, even if we admit that passages like Mk 13 30 refer not to the Advent but to the destruction of Jerusalem, and it has caused much difficulty. Jesus has not come as the N T Church believed He had promised to do. Was He mistaken, or was He misunderstood? In answering these questions we must remem- ber that almost all the language of Jesus which has given rise to them is apocalyptic, and that it is not quite plain how much in such language is literal, and how much has to be spiritual- ized. If no one takes the four great beasts and the sea literally in Dn ch. 7, is it certain that ‘coming on for with] the clouds of heaven’ is to be taken literally? Peter saw at Pentecost (Ac 2 16-21) the fulfilment of Ji 2 30, tho at Pentecost there was no ‘blood and fire and vapor of smoke.’ Is it not possible that the Early Church took Jesus’ words too prosaically, and cherished and transmitted hopes not really to be traced to Him? We are the more led to ask such questions because in Mt 26 64 and || the final word of Jesus to His accusers repre- sents the exaltation of the Son of Man and His coming on the clouds of heaven as something of which they could be conscious from the moment of His condemnation on. He did come in Divine power, and fill Jerusalem with His presence as it had never been filled while He lived. This, too, in spite of occasional references to ‘the last day’ (Jn 6 39, 44, 54, 11 24, 12 48), and tothe Judgment (5 28), seems to have been the ultimate deposit of truth and meaning which the prophetic teaching of Jesus left with the Apostle John. In his Gospel there is no reference whatever to the coming of the Son of Man on the clouds of heaven; the place of this is taken by the coming of the Spirit, which is the same as the coming of Jesus in the Spirit, to dwell with His people and to be in them forever (Jn chs. 14-16). The tension of perpetual watch- fulness (Mt 24 42, 25 13) finds a moral equivalent in the sense of the perpetual presence of Jesus. The idea of a final Parousia and a spectacular consumma- tion of all things is not excluded by Mt 18 20, 28 20; Jn 14 23; but it is in some sense held in abeyance while yet its motive power is not lost. It is in this way also that we must appreciate much of what is said in pictorial forms about the Judgment accom- panying the Parousia (Mt 16 27, 25 31 ff.) Wherever Christ is, men are judged by Him, (Jn 3 17-19, 9 39); they gather to His side or are repelled from Him, and a day is coming in which it will be apparent that this is so, and that it is final. All the most solemn and inexorable words about judgment and its finality are from the lips of Jesus; it is almost as tho no lips but those of love incarnate were at liberty to say things so tremendous. Jesus Christ A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 450 III. Closing Scenes. 17. The Last Days. Reverting from the teaching of Jesus to the outline of His life (cf. § 7 ff., above), we come now to the closing scenes—the Passion week. For all the Evangelists, this begins with the processional entry into Jerusalem, in which Jesus deliberately acts in the Messianic character. We can not be sure that the controversies and parables with which the week is filled in the Gospels all belong to this visit to Jerusalem, or even to this environment. The important events are the Last Supper, the prophetic discourses of Jesus as_ re- corded in the Synoptics and John respectively, the Agony in the Garden, the Betrayal, Trial, Cruci- fixion, and Resurrection. All Gospel Harmonies and Lives of Jesus show a distribu- tion of the events according to days from Palm Sunday to Easter Sunday. For an examination of the chronological difficulties see Sanday in HDB, II, 633 ff.; Gilbert, Student’s Life, 311 ff.; Andrews, Life of Our Lord, 447 ff. The chief difficulty is that arising out of the fact that Mk, Mt, and Lk clearly regard the Last Supper of Jesus with the Twelve as a passover, while in John the passover as obviously is not celebrated till the next day; cf. Mk 14 14; Lk 22 15; Jn 13 29. 18 28. In other words, John puts the Last Supper and the Crucifixion a day earlier in the month than the synoptists. Yet all four agree in putting the Crucifixion on the same day of the week—Friday (Mk 15 43; Mt 27 62; Lk 23 5; Jn 19 14. 31, 42; ‘preparation’ [mapaoxeunh]=Friday). Of these per- plexing phenomena, which may be due conceivably either to some confusion in the synoptic tradition—which is virtually only one witness—or to some modification of the history in Jn under the influence of a theological motive (e.g., to make Jesus, as our Paschal Lamb, die at the very hour when the Passover was slain), no satisfying, harmonizing explanation has ever been offered. The best, as resting on the fullest knowledge of Jewish customs and possibilities at the time, is that of Chwolson in Das letzte Passahmahl Christi, 1892; see also § 11, above. When Jesus left the upper room, He went to the Mount of Olives and there, in Gethsemane, after the Agony, He was betrayed to His enemies by Judas. According to Jn (18 12) ‘the (Roman) cohort and the tribune’ took part with ‘the servants of the Jews’ in the arrest; but this can hardly be historical. What follows, on to the sentence of Pilate, is usually described as the Trial of Jesus. It has been mi- nutely scrutinized in the light of legal and historical knowledge. For a critical examination of it, see, besides the Lives of Jesus, and Commentaries on the Gospels, Brandt, Kritik der evangelischen Geschichte (1893); Taylor Innes, The Trial of Jesus Christ (1899); Rosadi, Trial and Death of Jesus Christ (Eng. transl., 1905). Jesus was taken first before Annas, the ex-high priest, who retained great in- fluence, and there in the early hours of morning subjected to some formal questioning (Jn 18 19) and insult (ver. 22). A little later He was passed on to the legal high priest, Caiaphas. So John records, while the other evangelists bring Him straight from Gethsemane to the high priest’s (Caiaphas’, Mt 26 57) house. As John connects Peter’s denial with both scenes (18 17 is in Annas’ house, 18 25—after ver. 24—in Caiaphas’; it is probable that there has been some displacement here), it would seem that the two residences were contiguous, and had a court in common. What took place before Caiaphas and such members of the Sanhedrin as could be gathered together so early (Mk 14 53; Mt 26 57) is usually called the Jewish Trial. It ended in the condemna- tion of Jesus to death for blasphemy (Mk 14 63 f.; Mt 26 65 f.). But what was the blasphemy? Ac- cording to Mk and Mt, it was the claim to be the Christ, and especially to be the Son of Man who should come in the clouds of heaven. This also is all that is alluded to by Luke, tho he does not call it blasphemy (22 66-71). Many authorities hold that it was not blasphemy, and that the real blasphemy for which Jesus could be and was con- demned was that of saying He would destroy the Temple and replace it in three days (Mk 14 58; Mt 26 61; cf. Ac 6 11-14). This is the view, e.g., of Well- hausen. But it is impossible to set aside the direct evidence of the synoptic tradition (Mt 26 64 and ||). There were many ways in which the memorable words of Jesus to the high priest could become known to Christians, and there is no difficulty in believing that it was some assertion of His personal claims which His unscrupulous enemies construed as blasphemy (cf. Mt 93and ||). A claim to Messiah- ship is not in itself blasphemy, for there must be one true claim; but such a claim by such a person as Jesus was constructively blasphemy to all whose Messianic hopes were irreconcilable with calling Him King. But those who condemned Him as worthy of death could not carry out their sentence. The Roman governor had the power of life and death in his own hands, and there had to be a fur- ther consultation or conspiracy (Mk 15 1; Mt 27 1) to secure his support. This leads to the Roman trial. The charge of threatening to destroy and rebuild the Temple would have been vain here, and it is certain that in substance the charge made was political. This is apparent from the title on the cross, and from Pilate’s question, ‘Art thou the King of the Jews?’ which appears in all the Evan- gelists (Mk 15 2; Mt 27 11; Lk 23 3; Jn 18 33). Ina sense it was the same charge—that of claiming to be Messiah—on which they themselves had con- demned Him, but with a difference. In reality, Jesus was rejected by His nation and condemned by the Sanhedrin because, tho avowing Himself Mes- siah in some sublime sense, He refused to do any- thing for the national and political ideals which they called Messianic; whereas Pilate was asked to condemn Him on the ground that, as a claimant of the Messianic dignity, He was inevitably a public danger (Lk 23 2; Jn 19 12). Nothing could have been more unscrupulous or insincere, and Pilate saw through it all; but he dreaded an accusation at Rome, and after repeated attempts to get rid of Jesus—by sending Him to Herod (Lk 23 7), by trying to shame the mob into accepting Him, instead of Barabbas, as the subject of amnesty at the feast (Mt 27 15 f. and ||), by emphatically asserting His innocence (Lk 23 22), and even, after the scourging and the mockery by the soldiers, appealing to their compassion (Jn 19 5)—he finally gave way, and delivered Jesus up to their will (Lk 23 25). The execution followed immediately upon the sentence of Pilate. It is told with most tragic simplicity in Mk, which has only one word uttered on the cross (15 34=Ps 22 1), no accompanying marvel but the three hours’ darkness (ver. 33), and no incident of purely spiritual meaning except the rending of the 451 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Jesus Christ Temple veil (ver. 38). In Mt the desire to see proph- ecy fulfilled has modified a historical detail (cf. 27 34; Ps 69 21, with the fact in Mk 15 23), and it is difficult to believe that in 27 52 ff. we are not in the domain of legend. Luke’s Gospel, as usual, has preserved all that was touching and pathetic in the tradition: the daughters of Jerusalem (23 27 f.), the penitent robber and the royal promise of Jesus to him (ver. 39 ff.), and the prayers of Jesus Himself (vs. 34, 46), not to mention the impression made on the multitude (ver. 48). John claims for one incident connected with the death of Jesus, to which he attached great importance (cf. I Jn 5 6), the author- ity of an eye-witness (19 35), and possibly this ex- tends to his whole narrative here. He seems to have attached special significance to fulfilments of prophecy at the cross (19 23 f., 28, 36, 37), and perhaps to correspondences between the death of Jesus and that of the Paschal Lamb; so that 19 36= Ex 12 46, rather than Ps 34 20. All the Evangelists record the burial of Jesus by Joseph of Arimathea, a member of the Sanhedrin, who had not shared in the responsibility for His death. With, him John associates Nicodemus (19 39), combining at the same time embalming and entombment (ver. 40). IV. The Resurrection. 18. The Resurrection. On the third day after He was buried—on the Sunday after the Friday— Jesus appeared to His own, and the Christian Church was born in faith in His Resurrection. The Evangelists are not the oldest nor the most impor- tant witnesses for the Resurrection, nor is the evidence for it sensibly affected by the difficulty of combining their accounts. An older and fuller traditon than they yield is preserved in I Co 15 3-8, and the essential evidence for the Resurrection must always consist of this, and of that which is pointed to by Peter in Ac 33; ‘He hath poured forth this, which ye see and hear.’ On the one hand, the historical testimony of the Apostles—whose function was to be witnesses to the Resurrection (Ac 1 22), as their qualification was to have seen the Lord (I Co 91)— and, on the other hand, the new life, Spirit- quickened, both of which are still with us in the N T as a whole and in the specifically Christian life of the Church, are our assurance that Christ has risen. This assurance is quite independent of any per- plexities which may arise from the study of the Gospel narratives. These narratives were composed at a time when it was no longer possible to recover exactly the notes of place or sequences of time which would have enabled the writers to present a story con- cordant in all its details; and it may not have been their intention to present such a story at all. Their literary or practical purpose may have been quite different. The following points should be noted: (1) All the evangelists represent Jesus as foretelling His Resurrection (see § 16 (1), above). (2) Mk and Mt agree verbally (Mk 14 27 £.; Mt 26 21 £.) in what is virtually a program of the Passion and its sequel: ‘All ye shall be offended in me [this night]; for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered abroad. Howbeit [but], after I am raised up I will go before you (xpoaEw bd, as the shepherd goes before his flock) into Galilee.’ (3) In Mt this program is carried out. The risen Jesus does not appear to His disciples in Jerusalem; on the contrary, first the angel at the tomb (28 7) and then Jesus Himself (28 10) intimates to them through the women that Galilee is the rendezvous. There eventaully they do see Him and receive the great commission (28 16). Appearance to the Eleven in Jerusalem is clearly and intentionally excluded. (4) Mk also, it can hardly be doubted, carried out, like Mt, the program announced in 14 28. It is expressly referred to in 167, and it is to the present writer inconceivable that Mk 167 was not—in the original conclusion of the Gospel—carried out as in Mt ch. 28. The present conclusion of Mk (16 9-20) is secondary, and is based on various passages in Mt ch. 28, Lk ch. 24, Jn ch. 20, and Ac (passim). (5) While Mk and Mt were originally at one in recording only an appearance of Jesus to the Eleven in Galilee, Lk proceeds on quite another line. He omits the Passion and the Resurrection program of Mk 14 271.; Mt 26 31 f. He changes the words spoken to the women at the tomb. Tho Galilee is mentioned, it is not as the place where Jesus has appointed to meet His disciples, but as the place where He was when He spoke of His Death and Resurrection (Lk 246 f.). In conformity with this, Jesus, who has already appeared to Peter and to two disciples on the way to Emmaus, appears also on the Resur- rection Day to the Eleven and their company in Jerusalem (24 36), and after reassuring them as to His identity by such material proofs as Lk is partial to (vs. 39-43, cf. 3 22; Ac 10 41), forbids them to leave the city till they are endued with power from on high. Here appearances in Galilee are clearly and intentionally excluded. The most natural ex- planation of the differences between Mk and Mt on the one hand and Lk on the other is that it was no part of an Evangelist’s conception of his duty to give all the appearances of Jesus, with details of time and place. All the Evangelists must have been familiar with the tradition summarized in I Co 15 3-8, yet all of them ignore it. The idea was rather to give one appearance only of Jesus to the Eleven, and to impart to that one a representative or universal character, by connecting with it, through a great commission, the whole significance of the Resurrec- tion for the apostolic Church. This is what Mk, Mt, and Lk alike do—in substance it is what Jn does also in ch. 20—and the key to their treatment of the Resurrection is, therefore, theological, or literary, rather than historical. As for the divergence be- tween Lk and the other Synoptics as to the scene of this representative appearance, it is clear that, if Jesus appeared in different places—as John shows —the scene must be arbitrarily chosen. The Pe- trine tradition in Mk*and Mt makes it Galilee, as was natural to one who had chiefly associated with Jesus there; Lk as naturally makes it Jerusalem, for to him, a Gentile believer, Jerusalem, and not Galilee, was the native seat of the Christian faith. The literature on this subject is inexhaustible, but not very profitable. When the possibility of the Resurrection is denied, and it is assumed that Jesus Christ Jew A NEW STANDARD apologetic and other impulses produced all that is put forward as fact in the Gospels, from the empty tomb to the Ascension, in which Jesus withdrew in a kind of solemn pomp from His post-resurrection intercourse with His disciples, and when attempts are made to show how this production of facts actually proceeded, the mind has entered a region practically without law, in which its operations cease to interest. For criticism of this whole area cf. Schmiedel in ZB, cols. 4039 ff., and the list of English books and articles appended by Moffatt, ib. col. 4086 f. Add Meyer, Die Auferstehung Christi (1905); Orr, The Resurrection of Jesus (1908), and the admirable summary by Chase in Cambridge Theological Essays (1905), pp. 393 ff., also Jackson and Lake, op. cit., pp, 302-304. IV. APPENDED DISCUSSION. 19. The Birth of Jesus. The Christian religion rests on the testimony of the Apostles to Jesus, and the area covered by that testimony is that of the foregoing paragraphs—‘from the baptism of John unto the day that he was received up’ (Ac 1 22). Into this testimony the birth of Jesus, His childhood and youth, His years as the carpenter of Nazareth, do not enter. They are not part of the Gospel which the Apostles preached; it is not in them that the revela- tion is made which brings redemption to mankind. To say this is not to set aside what is properly called the Incarnation. The Incarnation means the pres- ence of the Divine in the human, and to base our faith in it on the apostolic testimony means that to become conscious of his presence of the Divine in Christ we must look at Christ where, through the apostolic testimony, He offers Himself to our eyes— that is, in the life which He lived among men, and in which He revealed Himself as Son of God, Son of Man, and Savior. The Life, Death, and Resurrec- tion of Jesus, as covered by the apostolic testimony and in particular the mind of Jesus Himself—His consciousness of His own unique relation to God and to the human race—are the original and sufficient basis of Christianity, whether we are, or are not, able to answer questions as to the mode in which this Jesus, the Person in whom we recognize that God is with us, actually came to be—a man among men. Apart from the Gospels of Mt and Lk the N T does not raise such questions. Mt and Lk do, and they agree in representing Jesus as supernaturally born of a virgin. The personality of which they speak owes its origin to an immediate act of God, an act of which we must conceive, not as sexual but as creative. It is this act in virtue of which Jesus is to the Evangelist ‘Son of God’ (Lk 1 34 f£.). God makes the second Adam as truly as He made the first; only, not of the dust of the ground, but of the common stock of humanity already existing. The new humanity, so to speak, is engrafted on the old by the direct interposition of God. The way in which this is put in Mt and Lk is that Jesus had no human father. In the nature of the case there can be no question of historical evidence here, as for the events of Jesus’ life. The impression such a conception as that of the supernatural birth makes on us depends on the impression which has already BIBLE DICTIONARY 452 been made by the life and especially by the self- consciousness of Jesus. If we are sensible to some- thing in Him of which we are compelled to say, ‘It was not nature nor humanity which produced this from its own resources; this is Divine, it is of God and of God only,’ the idea may carry evidence of its truth along with it, otherwise it will fail to impress. The witness of the Evangelists is com- plicated by the fact that, while both teach a super- natural birth, both give genealogies of Jesus which connect Him with David and Abraham, not through Mary—tho Weiss and others interpret Lk’s gene- alogy in this sense—but through Joseph. However, with Joseph He has no connection whatever, and hence the genealogies are quite unreal. It is not unnatural to suppose that they were drawn up by people who wished to demonstrate the Davidic descent of Jesus, and were in the habit of thinking of Him, as His contemporaries did, as the son of Joseph (Mt 13 55; Lk 4 22), and that they were adapted by our Evangelists to their use by the modi- fications in Mt 1 16; Lk 3 23. It readily occurs to one that N T writers, like Paul and John, who believed in the preexistence of Christ, and thought of His coming from heaven to earth, must have conceived of this coming as supernaturally mediated (I Co 86; II Co 89; Ro 8 3; Ph2 5; Jn 8 58, 17 5). The second Adam, the Eternal Word, can not have come into the world in the ordinary course of nature. But two considerations make us pause in appealing to these Apostles to support Mt and Lk. The first is their silence on the subject. John believed in Jesus as the Word Incarnate. But, tho he had seen the Father in the Son—and it is in words like Jn 149 that the true meaning of the incarnation is expressed—he raised, so far as appears, no physical and no metaphysical question as to the mode of His coming. He knew only that we are from beneath, and He is from above; that we are in the world and in our sins, and that He confronts us in the light and life of God for our salvation. How He came to be here in this character he never seems to ask. He does report sayings referring to preexistence (8 58, 17 5). If these are authentic, we must not assume that there was a continuity of consciousness in Jesus; but that, as His claim of Sonship was chal- lenged, He gained intuitively the certainty that His was a relation to God not begun in time. It is the same with Paul—tho one may wonder whether, an intimate friend of Luke could be ignorant of or indifferent to, Lk chs. 1 and 2. He is interested in the motive of Christ’s coming to earth, not in its method (Gore on II Co 8 9). The second consideration is that Mt and Lk do not at all, like Paul and John, conceive of a preexistent Divine person coming into the world, Their Gospels con- tain no hint of the preexistence of Jesus; His super- natural birth is for them the origination of His personality. In this respect the Evangelists have no contact with the Apostles. The most we can say is that as their genealogies connect Jesus with O T history, in Lk with universal human history, and with the Divine purpose in process of achievement there, so the story of the virgin birth connects Him with the creative power of God. In both connec- 453 A NEW STANDARD tions there is a great truth. He does fulfil the Divine purpose in Hebrew and in human history, and He does in some peculiar way come from God; but whether the genealogies are accurate, and whether the peculiar relation to God involves a virgin birth, are questions on which Christian faith is not dependent. One of the weightiest arguments for the virgin birth is found in the diffi- culty of explaining the existence of the story ex- cept on the assumption of its truth. It can not have been produced in the interest of asceticism, to glorify virginity as opposed to marriage. There is no trace of this in Mt or Lk, and Mary had other children (see BRETHREN OF THE Lorp). It can -not have been invented in view of Ps 51 5 to assert the sinlessness of Jesus. Sinlessness is not physical but moral, and there can be no physical guaranty of it. The purity and beauty of the narrative, also, as contrasted with the mythological stories of antiquity, where the gods are invested with the passions of men—stories which have their real parallel in the fall of the angels (Gn 61), not in Mt and Lk—argue for its truth. In particular, the primitive Palestinian character of the hymns, and of the whole scenery, characters, and language in Lk chs. 1 and 2, is in favor of historicity. It seems to exclude Greek influence entirely, and as the idea of a Son of God in the physical sense is as repellent to the Hebrew as to the Moslem mind, and can not have originated spontaneously, the inference is that the narrative is based on fact. It is not against this that it provides a way of expressing the assurance that the life of Christ is throughout Divine. His coming into the world is mediated by His mother’s faith responsive to, and receptive of, the grace of God (Lk 1 30-38). If He was Son of God at all, He did not begin to be so at any given age—at twelve (Lk 2 49), or at the Baptism (Mk 1 11), or at the Transfiguration (9 7), or at the Resurrection (Ac 13 33; Ro 1 4). He never was anything else. It is in harmony with that unique relation to God and man which is of the essence of His consciousness, that there should be something unique in the mode of His entrance into the world as well as in that of His leaving it. The possible points in a line of trans- mission for Lk’s narrative are suggested by Sanday, Expository Times, vol. xiv (1902-3), pp. 296 ff. See also Box in Preuschen’s Zeitschrift (1905); Gore’s Hssay in his Dissertations (1895); Orr, The Virgin Birth of Christ (1905). LirERATURE: For the literary and historical criticism of the Gospels, see Synoptic GospELs. Out of the enormous list of works on the Life and Teach- ing of Jesus the following are selected as fairly representa- tive of different views and as most helpful to the Bible student. Lire or Curist: Sanday, Outlines of the Life of Christ (1905), for its summary character; Holtzmann, O., Leben Jesu (English translation) (1904), and Weiss, Leben Jesu (English translation) (1883), the two best German Lives—Weiss supplementing Holtzmann with an Evangelical attitude; Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (one-volume edition) (1890), for its Jewish background; Garvie, Studies in the Inner Life of Jesus (1907), for its presentation of the mind of Christ; Smith, David, In the Days of His Flesh (1905), for popular presentation of the story; Papini, The Story of Christ (1923), for spiritual appreciation of the story; Headlam, The Life and Teachings of Jesus Christ (1924), the best modern book—tho incomplete as a Life and without considerations of vital problems. Jesus Christ Jew BIBLE DICTIONARY Tue THAcHINGS or Jesus: The relevant sections in the N.T. Theologics, e.g., of B. Weiss (1896), English translation (1883-4); W. Beyschlag (21896), English translation (11895); A. Schlatter (1909): Wernle, Beginnings of Christianity (Tr. 1903); H. Weinel (1911); P. Feine ($1923); G. B. Stevens (1899), Works on the whole or special phases of the Teachings of Jesus; H. Wendt, The Teaching of Jesus (tr. 1892); G. H. Gilbert, The Revelation of Jesus (1889); A. B. Bruce, The Training of the Twelve (1906); A. Harnack, What is Christianity (tr. 1901); W. Bousset, Jesus; T. R. Glover, The Jesus of History (1916); Chas. Gore, Belief in Christ (1923); James Denney, Jesus and the Gospel (1909); F. Peabody, Jesus Christ and the Social Question (1901), and Jesus Christ and Christian Character (1906); S. Mathews, The Social Teaching of Jesus (1897); Simkovitch, Joward the Understanding of Jesus; Jenks and Kent, Jesus’ Principles of Living (1920); Dougall and Emmett, The Lord of Thought (1922); N. Micklem, The Galilean (21921); J. R. Seeley, Ecce Homo (1865), a great work of permanent significance. J. D.*—A. E. G. JETHER, ji’ther (2, yether), ‘abundance’: 1. In Ex 418 for Jethro, father-in-law of Moses (see RVmg.). 2. The first-born son of Gideon, a youth. He feared to draw his sword to slay Zebah and Zalmunna (Jg 8 20). 3. The Ishmaelite husband of Abigail, David’s sister (I Ch 217; in II § 17 25, called ‘Ithra the Israelite,’ a textual error for Ishmaelite) and father of Amasa (I K 2 5, 32). 4, 5. Two men of Indah (I Ch 2 32, 417). 6. A man of Asher (I Ch 7 38). Gisvil. JETHETH, ji’theth (0D), yethéth): A clan-chief- tain of Edom (Gn 36 40; I Ch 1 51). JETHLAH, jeth’la. See IrHuan. JETHRO, jeth’rd or ji’thra (9M, yithrd): A sheik and priest of the Kenites (Jg 1 16), a Midianit- ish tribe among whom Moses found an asylum on his flight from Egypt (Ex 2 15 #.). The Israelitish leader married Zipporah, a daughter of Jethro, and the intimate relationship thus formed brought Jethro to the camp of Israel at Rephidim where he assisted Moses in organizing the tribes for ad- ministrative purposes (Ex ch. 18). There is some confusion as to his name in the O T narrative, for in’ Ex 2 18 and Nu 10 29 he is called Reuel. (See Hosas.) That Jethro and Reuel are names of the same person is an explanation as old as the LXX., the latter being regarded as an official title. UN Re JETUR, ji’tor. See EranocrapHy AND Era- NOLOGY, § 13, and Iruraaa. JEUEL, ji-G’el, jitvel, orFji’u-el (28°92, y*wel): 1. The ancestral head of a clan of Judah (I Ch 9 8). 2. A Levite (II Ch 29 13). 3. A leader of Ezra’s company (Ezr 8 13). 2 and 3=Jeiel AV. JEUSH, ji’ush (W1Y?, y°‘ash), ‘he comes to help’: 1. A son of Esau by Oholibamah (Gn 36, 5, 14 [Kethibh, y°%sh], 36 18; I Ch 1 35). 2. A Benjamite (I Ch 7 10 [Kethibh, y*‘ish]). 3. A Levitical family (I Ch 23 10, 1). 4. A son of Rehoboam (II Ch 11 19). 5. A Benjamite of the family of Saul (I Ch 8 30, Jehush AV). Ore Fil be JEUZ, ji’oz (V'9?, yedts), ‘He counsels’: A Benjamite (I Ch 8 10). JEW (TM, yhidhi, Gr. "Iovdatoc): This word does not occur in O T literature earlier than the period of Jeremiah. It then meant a citizen, or subject, of the kingdom of Judah (II K 25 25; Jewel Job A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 454 Jer 32 12, 349, etc.). In II K 166 it means Judeans in contrast to Syrians (or Edomites?). As early as the days of Hezekiah the language of Judah was called Jewish (MT), yhidhith). The exiles were called Jews because they came from Judah. As these exiles from Judah became the main historical repre- sentatives of ancient Israel, the term ‘Jew’ became equivalent to ‘Israelite,’ and this is its general sense in the later literature (cf. its usage in Ezr-Neh, Est, Dn, the N T, Josephus, etc.). In the N T there is a contrast at times between the Jew (Israelite) and the Gentile (Mk 7 3; Jn 26; Ac 10 28; etc.; cf. also Jewess, Ac 161, 24 24), or the Samaritan (Jn 4 9), and at other times between the Jews and Christ, or Chris- tianity (Jn 218; II Co 11 24, etc.). K. E. N. JEWEL. See Srones, Precious; and also DRESS AND ORNAMENTS, II. JEWESS, THE (WM, yhidhiyyah, Jehudijah AV): The wife of Mered, the Calebite (I Ch 4 18). Her name was Bithiah. She is called ‘the Jewess,’ possibly because of the foreign extraction implied in her designation ‘daughter of Pharaoh.’ E. E. N. JEWRY. A term used three times in AV (Dn 5 13, ‘Judah’ RV; Lk 23 5 and Ju 71, Judea RV). JEZANIAH, jez’’a-nai’a. See JAAZANIAH. JEZEBEL, jez’1-bel (732, ‘izebhel): The daughter of Ethbaal, King of Tyre, and the wife of Ahab (IK 1631). In her own home, she had been educated as a zealous Baal-worshiper. As the queen of Ahab she not only claimed the right of continuing in her ancestral religion, but tried to impose the same upon the people of Israel. She succeeded so far as to induce Ahab to erect a temple to Baal, and import a large retinue of Baal priests (I K 16 32). The movement was unflinchingly resisted by the prophets of J’’, headed by Elijah. When the latter prevailed in the test at Mt. Carmel, she threatened him with death, and thus caused his flight and temporary retirement from public life. Later, she secured Naboth’s vineyard for Ahab by causing its owner to be judicially murdered, and confiscating his property (I K 217 #.). This brought Elijah once more to the front denouncing the crime and pre- dicting the speedy punishment both of J. and Ahab. The prediction was fulfilled when Ahab died from wounds received in battle, and Jehu, after his encounter with Joram and Ahaziah, came to .Jezreel and demanded the life of J. (II K 9 30 &.). The name of Jezebel became in later times the apoc- alyptic symbol of seduction to idolatry (Rev 2 20). A. C. Z. JEZER, ji’zer, JEZERITE, ji’zar-ait (¥2, -TF?, yétser, yitsrt): The name of a clan of Naphtali (Gn 46 24; Nu 26 49; 1 ch 713). See also ABIEZER. JEZIAH, ji-zai’a. See Izzran. JEZIEL, ji’zi-cl (78'N, yrzi’él): One of David's | soldiers (I Ch 12 3). JEZLIAH, jez-lai-a. See Iziran. JEZOAR, ji-zo’ar. See IzHar. JEZRAHIAH, jez’’ra-hai’a. See IzRantan. JEZREEL, jez’ri-el (28D IP, yizre‘e’l), ‘God sow- eth’: I. 1. A descendant of Judah (I Ch 4 3). Per- haps a place-name, cf. No. 1 under II. 2. The name of the first-born of Hosea the prophet (Hos 1 4; see Hossa). II. 1. A place in Judah, near Carmel (Jos 15 56; I S 25 43; probably also I Ch 4 3). David's wife Ahinoam, the Jezreelitess, probably came from this place (I S 27 3, 305; ILS 2 2, etc.). Map II, E 3. 2. A town E. of the great plain of Esdraelon, formerly identified as modern Zer‘in, now considered of doubtful location, Map IV, C 8. The deep vale (valley of Jezreel) that led down from Jezreel to the Jordan was the gateway for the tribes of the desert, attracted by the rich harvests of the plain. Upon such a motley horde, Gideon’s little band fell like a thunderbolt from the heights above Jezreel (Jg 6 33-7 23). There are no certain references to Jezreel as a fortress until Ahab’s day, when with Samaria it was made a royal residence with a palace and strong towers (I K 18 45 f.,211f.). From the E. tower Jehu was seen coming up from the Jordan, and here Jehoram and Jezebel met their death (II K 8 29, 9 10-10 11). The horror at Jehu’s bloody deed was echoed later in the prediction of judgment to come on Jehu’s house (Hos 1 4). A. 8. C.*—O. R. S. JIBSAM, jib’sam. See Ipsam. JIDLAPH, jid‘laf (121, yidhlaph): The ancestral head of a Nahorite clan (Gn 22 22). JIMNA, jim’na, JIMNAH, jim’nd, JIMNITE, jim’nait. See ImMna, Imnaun. JIPHTHAHEL, jif’tha-el’’. See IpHtTarn JIPTAH, jif’ta. See I[ppran. JOAB, jo’ab (ANY, yd’abh), ‘J’ is father’: 1. The son of David’s sister Zeruiah and general-in- chief of David’s armies (II S 20 23). His appear- ance in public life coincides with David’s struggle for the throne against Abner and the forces of Ishbosheth. When Abner transferred his allegiance to David, J. murdered him with his own hand, taking vengeance for the death of his brother Asahel (II S 3 27). J. had charge of David’s military operations and conquered the Syrians (II S 10 13) and the Ammonites (II S 11 1), whose capital, Rabbah, he besieged, but refrained from taking the citadel, in order to afford David himself the glory of storming it. He also conquered the Edomites (I K 11 15). J. was thus one of the chief factors in the creation of David’s empire. When David wished to have Uriah out of the way, that he might marry Bathsheba, it was J. who was entrusted with the task (II S 11 14). In the affair of Absalom’s rebellion, J., altho previously kindly disposed to- ward Absalom, was loyal to David, and afterward dealt with the rebellious son with a strong hand (II S 13 1-18 33). He also met the revolt of Sheba (altho the command in this case had been given to Amasa, whom J. treacherously murdered), and promptly put it down. At the end of David’s reign, J. espoused the cause of Adonijah,who claimed the succession, and was slain by Benaiah at the command of Solomon (I K 2 34). 2. A Judahite, descendant of Caleb (I Ch 254 AV). 3. The son of Seraiah (I Ch 4 14). 4. The founder of a family names of members of which occur in the list of the returned exiles (Ezr 2 6,89; Neh 711). A.C. Z, 455 A NEW STANDARD JOAH, jo’a (M81, yd’ah), ‘J’ is brother’: 1. An officer under Hezekiah (II K 18 18, 26; Is 36 3 f.). 2. A Levite (I Ch 6 21; II Ch 29 12). 3. A door- keeper (I Ch 26 4). 4. An officer under Josiah (II Ch 34 8). JOAHAZ, jo’a-haz (N81, yd’ahdaz), ‘J’ strength- ens’: The father of Joah (II Ch 34 8). See also JEHOAHAZ. JOANAN, jo-an’en (‘Iwavéy, Joanna AV): An ancestor of Jesus (Lk 3 27). JOANNA, jo-an’a (lwéwa): The wife of Chuza, superintendent of the estates and household affairs of Herod Antipas. She became a faithful disciple of Jesus, helped Him with her means, and accom- panied Him from Galilee to Jerusalem. She was also one of the women who went to the tomb in- tending to embalm the body of Jesus, and there re- ceived the message of His resurrection (Lk 8 3, 2410). E. BE. N. JOASH, jo’ash (UNV, YN’, yo’dsh), a shorter form of Jehoash: 1. The father of Gideon (Jg 6 11). The narratives in Jg chs. 6-8 represent J. as a man of rank and influence notwithstanding Gideon’s words (Jg 6 15). He was of the Abiez- rite clan of Manasseh, the owner of a holy tree (Jg 6 11) and proprietor of the altar of Baal in Ophrah (Jg 6 29-31). Jg 6 31 represents him as giving Gideon the name of Jerubbaal. 2. A son of King Ahab, who perhaps represented the king in Samaria, during his absence on the field of battle. Ahab sent the prophet Micaiah, after he had prophesied un- favorably, to J. to be put in prison (I K 22 26 f.; II Ch 18 25). Some are of the opinion that ‘king’s son’ is a title. 3. A descendant of Judah (I Ch 4 22). 4. A Benjamite who joined David at Ziklag (I Ch 12 3). 5. A king of Israel (the third King of the Jehu dynasty), 799-784 B.c. (II K 13 10-25, 148-16), also called Jehoash; J. appears to have had a successful reign. The long conflict with Syria, in which, in the reigns of his father and grandfather, Israel had been brought to the verge of destruction (ef. II K 18 7) turned in Israel’s favor (II K 13 5, 22-25), due to pressure on Syria by Assyria. J. was encouraged in this struggle by the aged prophet Elisha, the friend of the dynasty and foe of Syria (cf. II K 13 14-19). J. also accepted (tho unwillingly) the challenge of Amaziah of Judah and successfully defeated A. and capturing and despoilng Jeru- salem (II K 14 8-14). 6. A King of Judah; see JEHOASH. C.S. T.—E. E.N. JOASH (YY, yd‘dsh), ‘J’ hath aided’ (?): 1. A Benjamite, son of Becher (I Ch 7 8). 2. A man in charge of David’s oil-cellars (I Ch 27 28). C.S. T. JOATHAM, jo’a-tham. See JorHam. « JOB: A pr. n. in Gn 4613 AV. See Ios. JOB, job (28, ’tydbh), meaning unknown. An ancient patriarch, hero of the book bearing his name. 1. The Job of Popular Story. The Book of Job is highly composite, and can be most intelligibly handled by tracing historically its probable origin and growth. (1) The Hebrews had a story of a Job, righteous and holding by God in an evil Jewel Job BIBLE DICTIONARY generation (Ezk 14 14, 20), a prophet (probably) and upright (Sir 49 9), and patient (Ja 511). Later still in legend and comment the same ideas are found attaching to the name. (2) On the evidence of the book itself there existed a prose story of Job, the beginning and end of which form the present Prolog (chs. 1, 2) and Epilog (42 7, end); the middle has been removed. This story told of Job’s trial by God at the instance of the Satan (‘the Accuser’)—how he was tempted by his wife and withstood her—how his friends spoke unseemly things of God, but he did not, remaining patient and upright—how the Lord appeared and rebuked the friends, praised Job for his constancy, and restored unto him double. It had been shown that Job would serve God for naught, and it was sug- gested that the apparently unmerited afflictions of the righteous might all be such trials as this. The evidence for this isin the Epilog with its blame of the friends and praise of Job and its crude restitu- tion, and in the current Hebrew views of Job in (1) above. Of the source of this story there are two possibilities: one that it was a pure folk-tale, of popular origin, for edifying amusement; the other that it was a bit of the Wisdom literature, carefully told by a wise man for a purpose, 7.e., to explain the misfortunes of the righteous. On the first hypothesis it was like the stories of Elijah and Elisha; on the second, like the Book of Jonah. The probabilities are with the second, and it may even have been constructed to suggest an explanation to the people of their misfortunes. It may well be that the Prolog at least had been rewritten by the Poet for his own purposes. In any case a folk-tale lies behind. 2. The Use Made of This Story by the Poet. Chs. 3-31. But the Job of this story was a quite impossibly stolid and wooden figure. No real man could have behaved so. A poet then appeared who took this figure and situation and humanized them. We are no longer to have a puppet representative of the oppressed righteous but a great living tragic figure. The change begins with the friends of Job. They sit now in silent sympathy, but thinking their own thoughts, which are thereafter to make them the ‘Job’s comforters’ of all time. Under their eyes Job, now human, breaks down and curses the day of his birth which brought him to this pass (ch. 3). He is conscious of no sin meriting such punishment and would have recoiled in horror from a God who made such a bargain in flesh and blood with the Satan as had passed in heaven. The God he had known was not such a God, and thus he could not explain what had befallen him. The tragedy is to be his awakening to the real God, and to an indepen- dent sense of right within himself to which he must hold. This is developed in the colloquies with his friends which follow in three cycles, the last incom- plete, of six speeches each, one by each friend with a reply from Job (chs. 4-27). In these the friends, too develop. Their first view is that Job’s suffering is intended to awaken him and lead him away from sin; soon, however, they conclude that it is absolute punishment for gross sin. In Job himself two ideas war—and if the book is a drama this is its ee A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY ase action—the remembrance of his past loving inter- | Nahor, brother of Abraham (Gn 22 21). All the course with God and his idea of justice. He is led to look around on the world, and he sees that there injustice seems to triumph even as in his case. He is driven to the conclusion that the rule of the world is non-moral. If God would only appear and explain; but let Him not come in awful might and in a whirl- wind to crush him (917). So he tries to divide God into Him of the past and Him of the present, and to the first he makes appeal. The details of the long discussion we need not follow. There is much repeti- tion, but also a steady development. We can see two sides to the artist. He was creating a great tragic character and in so doing was working at one of the greatest human problems. But he was a Semitic artist also, and loved brilliant words and pictures for themselves. These, often, are weari- some and do not appeal to us. His problem he did not solve; his tragedy did not reach ‘reconcili- ation.’ Perhaps he could not; certainly the defec- tive sense of structure in the Semitic mind stood in his way. Ch. 24'is very disjointed; ch. 25 is a very short speech by Bildad; ch. 26 an equally short reply by Job; 27 1-6, a continuation by Job; 27 7-end, is in the tone of the friends, and may be Zophar’s last speech; ch. 28 is a poem apart, telling that man can reach anything in the earth except Wisdom— this God has kept for Himself; chs. 29-31 are a final clearing of himself by Job. So far certainly, except for ch. 28 and stray verses interpolated, we have the great unknown poet. 3. The Speech of Elihu (Chs. 32-37) and Chs. 38-42. Chs. 32-37 are the speech of Elihu, an un- doubted interpolation to supplement the supposedly imperfect defense of God by the friends. In reality it repeats, and adds nothing. Artistically, too, it is inferior. Then, chs. 38-41 give a long and disjointed speech by God out of a whirlwind, broken (40 3-5) and followed (42 1-6) by very humble withdrawals of everything by Job. Finally, we have the Epilog referred to above. 4. The Problem of the Book. The problem is the relation of these parts. This problem is twofold: (a) Is this dénouement the work of the Poet? If so, it is the most terrific irony and puts the author in the position of the author of Ec, only in open revolt. God crushes Job with His wisdom and might, but does not solve his moral problem. At most, He exhibits to him the esthetic anodyne of nature. God’s attitude here is much the same as in ch. 28. Beyond this, His position is essentially that of the friends; but they had no whirlwind and storm. The fact that the poetry in this speech is quite as magnificent as that of the colloquies and a com- parison of this with 9 17, where such a divine method of, crushing him is deprecated by J., suggests that the speech may be by the Poet. If not, it must have been written, and by some other great poet, to make a suitable transition to the Epilog—a theory beset by difficulties. But (b) the problem of the _Elihu speech may suggest a different result. The author of this speech certainly expresses his own ‘mind. He does not create Elihu; he speaks through him. Also he fits him to the patriarchal scheme; Job is from Uz; Elihu is from Buz; both sons of names in the book, apart from Job, belong to side-lines of the patriarchal genealogies, except Barachel (‘God [’#I] blesses’) and Elihu (‘He is my God’). These meanings indicate an attitude and can not be accidental. ‘Elihu,’ then, considered that Job was wrong, but that the friends had failed to answer him. He tries, and practically repeats them; his position and theirs are one. But this is also the same as the position taken in the speech of the Lord. In what condition, then, did the book lie before ‘Elihu’? It is hard to think that he would have written as he did, if it had been complete except for his speech. The Lord’s condemnation of the friends and praise of Job would have pre- vented. His position would have been to condemn the whole book as profane. And even if the book had ended for him with 42 6, 7.e., had only contained the speech of the Lord and Job’s submission, but no . condemnation of the friends, the speech of the Lord would have satisfied him that he could not write anything further. Apparently, then, he added his protest to a copy which ended with ‘The words of Job are ended’ (81 40). This means that the speech of the Lord is not by the Poet of the colloquies. Again there is an essential difference of attitude between the speech of the Lord and all the other parts of the book. In that speech man is treated as simply one element in this manifold world; it could exist without him and the Lord is equally interested in the sprouting grass and the creatures of the wild nature where man has never been. Everywhere else in the book, the world, explicitly or tacitly, exists for the sake of man. Further, it can hardly be doubted that the Poet would have rejected with scorn the essential argument in that speech that because J. admittedly could not control and rule the world any more righteously than the Lord, or even at all, he had no right to criticize the Lord’s rule as faulty. From the Poet this could only have been the irony of (a), above. These critical results (a and b) can only be left face to face: the problem is still unsolved. But the balance distinctly inclines in favor of (b). Another question may be raised. Could the Poet of the colloquies have reached a ‘reconciliation,’ starting as he did? (a) If the Lord had appeared, not in storm but calmly, and had said to Job, ‘What you have said is true, and what your friends have said is not true. But you knew me as your friend in the past; can you not trust me now? Consider this sense of justice in yourself which you say I violate. Did I not make you and it? Must it not be in me also?’ Strangely, no Hebrew writer seeks refuge in this last idea, neither the author of Ee nor this Poet. But the latter could not. The Prolog stood there with the story of the Satan, and how Job was being sacrificed for naught (2 3). (b) Would a vision of spiritual immortality and recom- pense have satisfied Job? Almost certainly such a thought was current in his time (it is the thought, in one form or another, of all Apocalyptic), but could not help him in the position he ultimately reached. The burden of the painful earth, full of wrong and injustice, was on him and could not be 457 A NEW STANDARD lifted by such a bribe. Also, it was vindication here that he demanded. It is hard to see, then, how the Poet could have loosed his knot; the prose tale had tied it too hard. Finally, if we imagine that Goethe had died before finishing his ‘Faust,’ leaving the first part published, the second part unarranged, with the parallel passages uncanceled, and the dé- nouement unwritten, and then that some mechan- ical editor had taken it all, strung it together and ended it with the end of the Volksbuch of Faust, we shall have a rough external parallel to the present state of the Book of Job. Whether this parallel will lead or mislead us as to its origin is still the question. That several authors worked at the problem in succession seems to be certain. 5. Date. The date obviously can not ke fixed. The separate elements may scatter anywhere from the late 7th to the 4th cent. B.c. Job himself, probably, is a figure from the earliest popular legend and, whether historical or not, well served the purpose of the author. LireraturEeE: None of the English versions is even remotely adequate. The best guide, in exegesis, for the English reader is Davidson in the Cambridge Bible. But he is timid in hand- ling results, and may be supplemented by the extremely suggestive article by Cheyne in HB. A full bibliography will be found there. The com. of A. S. Peake (New Century Bible) will also be found useful. More recently several good technical commentaries have appeared: James Strahan (1914); S. R. Driver and G. B. Gray (2 vols., ICC, 1921); C. J. Ball (1922); M. Buttenwieser (1922). D. B. M. JOBAB, jo/bab (237, ydbhabh): 1. One of the sons of Joktan (Gn 10 29; I Ch 1 23). The sons of Joktan were a tribe of Semites allied to the Sabe- ans, whose inscriptions contain the name yuhaibab (Glaser, Skizze, II. 303; and Mittheilungen, 3 ff. See ErHNOGRAPHY AND ETHNOLOGY, § 13). 2. The second king of Edom (Gn 36 33). 3. A king of Madon (Jos 111). 4. A Benjamite (I Ch 89). 5. Another Benjamite (I Ch 8 18). A. C. Z. JOCHEBED, jok’i-bed (1291, yokhebhedh), ‘J’ is glory’: The wife of Amram, and the mother of Aaron and Moses (Ex 6 20; Nu 26 59, P). In the old document E she is designated, not by name, but as ‘the daughter of Levi’ (Hx 21). E. EH. N. JODA, jo’da (1wsé, Juda AV): An ancestor of Jesus (Lk 3 26). JOED, jo’ed (71¥V, yd‘edh): A Benjamite (Neh 1h) JOEL, ja’el(?8", yo’al),‘J” is God’ (?): 1.One of the so called minor prophets. See Jorn (the Prophet). 2. The eldest son of Samuel (I S 8 2; I Ch 6 33 [18] RV, 6 28 [13]). 3. An ancestor of Samuel (I Ch 6 36 [21], called Shaul in 6 24 [9]). 4. A Reubenite of Aroer (I Ch 5 4, 8). 5. A Levite (I Ch 157, 11, 17). 6. A Levite (I Ch 23 8, 26 22). 7. A Levite (II Ch 29 12). 8 A Gadite (I Ch 512). 9. A Simeonite prince (I Ch 4 35). 10. A chief of Issachar (I Ch 73). 11. One of David’s heroes (I Ch 11 38). 12. A chief of Manasseh (I Ch 27 20). 13. One who had a foreign wife (Ezr 10 43). 14. A Benjamite over- seer (Neh 11 9). Ou bk: JOEL, joel (P78, ya’al), I” is God’ (?). 1. The Prophet. Son of Pethuel, and one of the minor prophets. Of his personality nothing is known Job BIBLE DICTIONARY Tel except that his ministry was exercised in Judea, and more particularly in Jerusalem. It is clear also that he was a man of great moral force and insight. 2. Contents of the Book. The Book of Joel consists of three discourses. The first two are addressed to the people by the prophet himself (1 2-2 17); the third is represented as spoken by J’”’ (2 18-3 21). The first two discourses (1 2-20 and 2 1-17) are upon the same subject—the invasion of the country by a plague of locusts. In the first, the announcement of the calamity is followed by a call to recognize in it God’s judgment. The second enters into a highly picturesque description of the army of locusts. The third discourse in the book presents J’’ as giving His word of promise that His blessing would yet be bestowed upon the distressed land (2 18-3 21). _ 3. The Locusts. The subject throughout is the plague of locusts. Whether this means literal locusts or must be figuratively taken, and if figuratively, whether it is an allegory or an apocalyptic descrip- tion have been much-mooted questions. If the representation is an allegory, the locusts stand for hordes of enemies overrunning the country and leaving ruin and devastation all along their track. If it is an apocalyptic vision, they are the emblems of world-forces which would appear in the last days. But neither of these interpretations is satis- factory. They create more difficulties than they explain. All the conditions of the prophet’s de- scription are best met by the assumption of a plain, matter-of-fact pest of actual locusts. 4. Date: Early? The historical situation por- trayed is so void of the coloring, either of the Assyrian period (c. 800-650 B.c.) or the Babylonian (c. 650-538) that it is necessary to locate Joel’s ministry either in the 9th cent. B.c. or in the 4th (possibly later). The place of the book in the Canon certainly reflects an ancient opinion that Joel was one of the earlier prophets of Israel, approximately of the same date as Hosea and Amos. All the other considerations, however, adduced in support of this view are of the nature of efforts to remove diffi- culties and objections to it, or to combat the alternate view of a postexilic date. 5. Date: Postexilic? In favor of the postexilic date stand the following considerations: (1) The kingdom of the Ten Tribes is not within the prophet’s horizon. Whenever he uses the name Israel, he means Judah (cf. 2 27, 3 2, 16). (2) The people are scattered among the nations (3 2). (3) Jerusalem was not to be molested by strangers any more (3 17); which indicates that at the time of the writing it was, or had been, subject to such molestation. (4) On the other hand, the city was not in the hands of strangers, for the Temple service was in active observance. This is evident from the numerous allusions to priests and sacri- fices (1 9, 13, 2 14, 17), which, however, are inter- rupted, because of the ravages of the locust plague. Even the house of J’ is specifically mentioned (114). (5) The walls of the city were either stand- ing, as before the capture by Nebuchadrezzar in 586, or as rebuilt by Nehemiah, preferably the latter (29). (6) Altho the allusion to the Grecians (3 6) Joelah John the Apostle A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 458 wee. te aS may be a reference to sporadic cases of the subjec- tion of Hebrews to bondage and their sale as slaves, it is not likely that such individual occurrences could have attracted attention and been made the subject of public discussion, except as the Jews came to realize the important menace to their national life in the growth of the Macedonian power. (7) The style and diction of Joel presuppose the earlier prophets. His language is smooth as if the use of centuries had had its effect upon literary expression. It also contains some echoes of the earlier prophets (Am 1 2=J1 3 16; Am 9 13=Jl 3 18; Ob 17 =Jl 2 32; Ezk 471=J13 18). Accordingly, the most recent scholarship is almost unanimous in assigning Joel a postexilic date and more especially the 4th cent. B.c. An exception to this is Baudissin’s exposition of reasons for a preexilic date. 6. Religious Thought. The religious thought of Joel centers very largely around the idea of the visitation of judgment by J’. From this general thesis suggested by the calamity of the locusts, the prophet rises to the portraiture of the Great Day of J’’. He sees the principles underlying God’s dealings with Israel in their world-wide application, and predicts the outpouring of the Spirit upon ‘all flesh’ which is recognized in the N T as finding its fulfilment at Pentecost (Ac 2 16 #.). His general attitude too is inward and spiritual (cf. ‘Rend your hearts and not your garments’ 2 13). LirTERATURE: Driver, LOT (91899), pp. 307 ff. (also in Camb. Bible) (1897); G. A. Smith, in Hzpositor’s Bible (1898); Horton in New Century Bible; Bewer, J. A., in ICC (1911). A. C. Z. JOELAH, jo-i/la (M2NYV, yoe’lah): One of Da- vid’s soldiers (I Ch 12 7). JOEZER, jo-i’zar (UVP, yd‘ezer), ‘J’ is help’: One of David’s warriors (I Ch 12 6). JOGBEHAH, jeg’bi-ha (TIAN, yoghbehah), ‘ex- alted’ (?): A fortified city in Gad (Nu 382 35; Jg 8 11). It is the modern Khirbet-Agbéhat, NW. of ‘Ammén, about midway between that place and es-Salt. Map III, J 4. PS. 0. JOGLI, jeg’lai C22, yoghit), ‘exiled’: A Danite (Nu 34 22). JOHA, jo’ha (SMV, yoha’): 1. One of David’s soldiers (I Ch 11 45). 2. A Benjamite (I Ch 8 16). JOHANAN, jo-hé’nen (129), yohdndn, shortened from y’hohdnadn, the Heb. equivalent of John), ‘J’ is gracious’: 1. A captain, apparently of an escaped remnant of Zedekiah’s army, who sub- mitted to Gedaliah, the governor appointed by Nebuchadrezzar, and opposed the conspirator Ish- mael. After Gedaliah was assassinated, he was one of the leaders who, contrary to Jeremiah’s counsel, led the remnant down into Egypt, taking the prophet with them (I K 25 23; Jer 40 8-43 5). 2. The eldest son of Josiah, King of Judah (I Ch 3 15). 3. A descendant of David (I Ch 3 24). 4. A Levite (I Ch 69 f.). 5, 6. Two of David’s soldiers (I Ch 12 4,12). 7. An Ephraimite (II Ch 28 12). 8. One of the leaders in Ezra’s company (Ezr 8 12). 9. A high priest, the predecessor of Jaddua, the con- temporary of Alexander the Great (Neh 12 221.) This J. is also mentioned on the papyri recently dis- covered at Elephantine, Egypt. Here we learn that J. was High-priest in the 17th year of Darius II (i.e, 408 B.c.), and to him, among others, the Elephantine Jews appealed for help in getting their case against their Egyptian neighbors to the attention of the Persian officials (see Cowley, Aram. Papyri of the Fifth Century, No. 30). The same J. is also mentioned in Josephus (Ant. XI, 7 1) as having trouble with the Persian Governor because he (J.) slew his brother in the Temple. See also JEHOHANAN. HK. E.N. JOHN (of the Sanhedrin): The John mentioned in Ac 4 6, as being in the gathering of the Sanhedrin hurriedly summoned to take action against the rapid influence among the people of the teachings of the disciples of Jesus. Nothing is known regard- ing him. Lightfoot’s attempt to identify him with the famous Johanan ben Zacchai, president of the Great Synagog at Jamnia, is not convincing. M. W. J. JOHN (the father of Simon Peter): The name is variously spelled in different MSS. and VV. In Mt 16 17 the undisputed reading is [Bao]twva, rendered Jona (AV) and Jonah (RV). But in Jn 1 43 (§B*L) and in Jn 21 15 ff. (§ BD) the best attested reading is "Iwkwys (Jonas AV). While it is possible, as Chase suggests (HDB, vol. II, p. 677a), that the father of Simon had a double name, Jona-Jochanan or Jona-Johannes, the variation is more likely to be due to the freedom with which Gr. writers rendered the Heb. Yohanan. The LXX., e.g., in II K 25 23, has ’Iwvé; in Jer 47 (=ch. 40 in Heb.) 8, *Iwvév; and in II Ch 28 i2, ’Iwéyvqe. Nothing is known of this John beyond his relation- ship to Simon and Andrew. J aveL JOHN THE APOSTLE (’Iwéwys): The son of Zebedee (Mk 1 19) and Salome (cf. Mt 27 56 with Mk 15 40), the brother of James, and, with him, one of the Apostles (Mk 3 17and ||s). These brothers may have been cousins of Jesus (see JAmzEs, 1). The first distinct mention of him is in Jesus’ call of the four fishermen at the Sea of Galilee to His discipleship (Mk 1 16-20 and ||s). His home was most likely in Capernaum, and his family perhaps one of means (see JAMES, 1). Throughout the Synoptic narrative J. appears as one of the intimate disciples of Jesus (at the raising of Jairus’ daughter, Mk 5 37 and ||s; at the Trans- figuration, Mk 9 2 and ||s; at the agony in Gethsem- ane, Mk 14 33 and; ||s with Andrew also, at the last teaching before the Passion, Mk 13 3, and with Peter alone in the preparation for the Last Supper, Lk 22 8), and was doubtless, with his brother, promi- nent among those whom Jesus chose specially for his service (see JAMES, 1). The name ‘Boanerges’ (q.v.), referred to by Mark in his list of the Apostles as given to the brothers by Jesus (3 17), was doubt- less suggested later by some such incident as that referred to in Lk 9 51 ff., in agreement with which is the spirit of John’s action in the case of the man, outside the discipleship, who was casting out demons in Jesus’ name (Mk 9 38f. and ||s). It may have been because of the above possible relationship of these brothers to Jesus and their acknowledged intimacy with Him that their mother requested special 459 A NEW STANDARD honors for them in the coming Messianic Kingdom (Mt 20 20 ff.), or their impetuous character may have been largely responsible for the request, if it did not lead them to present it first themselves (cf. Mk 10 35 f.). Tho J. seems in the Synoptic narrative to have been equally pronounced with his brother in im- petuous and ambitious characteristics, he does not appear from the record of Ac to have developed into the same aggressiveness in the propaganda of the new religion; for when Herod laid his persecuting hand on the Church James was the first object of his cruelty. At the same time, he is mentioned with Peter twice in the public life of the Jerusalem Church (Ac 3 1-11 [with 4 1-23], 8 14-25), tho in each case Peter precedes him in word and action. Further- more, Paul refers to him in his account of the Council as, along with Peter and James, one of the ‘pillars’ of Jewish Christendom, tho his name is the last of the three (Gal 2 9). If to this record in Ac and the Synoptics there be added the references to himself by the author, or the editors, of the Fourth Gospel as applying to this Apostle, as we believe they do (see JouHN, GosPEL or, §§ 2-4), these milder characteristics of the man are more fully brought to light. In this Gospel he is first mentioned in connection with the coming to Jesus of disciples of the Baptist for per- sonal acquaintance (1 35-40). At the close of Jesus’ ministry, at the Last Supper, he reclined at the table in front of the Master and, at Peter’s sug- gestion, asked Him who it was that should betray Him (13 23-25). It is he also through whose acquaint- ance with the high priest Peter was admitted to the court of Caiaphas’ house (18 16), and to whom at the cross Jesus committed the care of His mother (19 26). He and Peter were the first of the disciple band to receive the announcement from the women of the open tomb and to investigate the facts (20 1-10). In the closing chapter of the Gospel he figures prominently in Jesus’ revelation of Himself at the Sea of Galilee. He was the first to recognize the Master (ver. 7), and received from Him an intimation of the long-continued service he was to render to His cause (vs. 20-23). The tradition which attaches itself to the name of the Apostle John is considerable in extent. In brief, it gives us to understand that his later life was passed in missionary activity in Ephesus and the surrounding region; that in the persecution of Domi- tian (81-96 a.p.) he suffered banishment to the island of Patmos, from which exile, on the accession of Nerva (96 4.p.), he returned to Ephesus, where he continued to live and work until his death in the reign of Trajan (98-117 a.p.). The chief witnesses for this tradition are Irenzeus, Polycrates of Ephesus, and Clement of Alexandria. In their corroborative support of one another they would appear to furnish us reliable facts. The credibility of their statement has been assailed however, on the basis that they confuse the Apostle John with another John, known as the Presbyter John, whose existence and im- portance are claimed to be proved by the statement of Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis, in the prolog to his expository work on the Oracles of the Lord, Joelah BIBLE DICTIONARY Fouat tha A doatle preserved by Eusebius (HE, ITI, 39). In this state- ment, however, Papias may not be distinguishing between two Johns, one of whom he classes with the Apostles, Andrew, Peter, Philip, Thomas, James, and Matthew, and the other with the disciple Aristion. As given in Eusebius, his state- ment reads as follows: ‘But I shall not hesitate also to put down for you, along with my interpretations, whatever things I have at any time learned carefully from the Elders (moecitepot) and care- fully remembered, guaranteeing their truth. For I did not, like the multitude, take pleasure in those that speak much, but in those that teach the truth; not in those that relate strange commandments, but in those that deliver the commandments given by the Lord to faith, and springing from truth itself. If then any one came who had been a follower of the Elders (weeoBUteeot) I questioned him in regard to the words of the Elders—what Andrew or what Peter said (e{xev), or what Philip, or what Thomas, or James, or what John, or Matthew, or any other of the disciples of the Lord said, and what things Aristion and the Elder (xpecBitepoc¢) John, the disciples of the Lord say (Aéyousty). For I did not think that what was to be gathered from books would profit me as much as what comes from the living and abiding voice.’ From the wording of the statement it is quite possible that the distinction Papias is making may not be between an Apostle John and an Elder John —the John in both groups is an Elder, and Elder would naturally have the same meaning in both groups—but between the classes of people from whom he sought his information (1) The first class would comprise those who had heard the words of the Elders, Andrew, Peter, Philip, Thomas, James, John, Matthew, and of necessity had been long in Palestine where these Elders had lived and worked. (2) The second class would be made up of those who were hearing the words of Aristion and the Elder John and did not need to have been in Palestine, outside of which Aristion and John were then living and working. From both classes, however, he could ask for the words of John, since he had been in Palestine and was now in Asia, outliving the other Elders (Zahn, N T' Introduction, li, 435-488, 451, note 18). At all events, it is quite impossible to ignore the difference between ‘said’ as applying to the first class, and ‘say’ as applying to the second. The onlyj alternative is to refer ‘say,’ not to ’ oral teachings but to written words (Drummond, Authorship Fourth Gospel, 199-202), which requires considerable ingenuity to reconcile it with what Papias immediately adds, that he made these inquiries because he did not think that what was to be gathered from books would profit him as much as what came from the living voice. The claim, therefore, that the witnesses above referred to (Irenzus, Polycrates and Clement) con- fused the Apostle John with another, a Presbyter John, would deserve more consideration if it were more certain that such a Presbyter existed. In fact, all the references in post Apostolic literature to a Presbyter John as distinct from the Apostle John are based on the assumption of Eusebius that such a distinction was intended by Papias in the statement from his works which he quotes in his History. But as long as that statement is capable of an interpretation which identifies the two Johns, the belief in the existence of a separate Presbyter ‘John the Baptist A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 460 ren I John must be open to grave and serious doubt. See Zahn, as above, and Overbeck, Das Johannes Evangelium (1911), pp. 209-212. It is indeed some- what surprizing (1) that there is no reference to the Ephesian residence of John by such older fathers as Ignatius and Polycarp, especially by the former in his Epistle to the Ephesians, and (2) that we have a definite statement of Papias presented (a) in the Chronicle of Georgius Harmartolos (9th cent.) and (b) in the Fragment from Philippus Sidetes (5th cent.) to the effect that John suffered martyr- dom along with his brother James at the hands of the Jews. That these are possible of explanation, however, and afford no evidence against the com- mon tradition is clear from the argument of Drummond, Character and Authorship of the Fourth Gospel, pp. 214-219, 228-254. In view of such testimony there does not appear to be justifiable reason for doubting at least the main facts which tradition has handed down as to the later life and activity of the Apostle John. As to the bearing of this tradition on the authorship of the Fourth Gospel see JoHN, GOSPEL oF, § 3. The material for a consideration of the religious thought of John lies so exclusively within the con- tents of the Fourth Gospel and the First Epistle that the reader is referred to these articles for its presentation. LiTERATURE: Besides the list given under art. Jonn, GosPpEL or, reference may be made to the larger lives of Christ, e.g., Edersheim (41884); Weiss (Eng. transl., 1894); Holtzmann (Eng. transl., 1904); Smith, In the Days of His Flesh (1905); to special works such as Macdonald, Life and Writings of St. John (1877); Niese, Leben des Heiligen Johannes (1878); Culross, John Whom Jesus Loved (1878); Gloag, Life of St. John (1891); Rankin, First Saints (1893); Abbé Fouard, St. John (1905), and to arts. by Strong in HBD, Riggs in DCG, and Zahn in PRE; Beckwith, The Apocalypse of John (1919), pp. 362-393. M. W. J. JOHN THE BAPTIST. (Iwéwns 6 Bantrorhs, Mt 31; I. 6 Gaztitwy, ‘J. the baptizer,’ Mk 1 4): The son of the aged priest Zachariah and his wife Elizabeth, and the forerunner of Jesus Christ. 1. The Sources. The sources for our knowledge of John the Baptist are: (1) The references to him in the Synoptics, with which we may also place those in Ac; (2) the references in the Fourth Gospel; and ° (3) the brief acount in Josephus (Ant. XVIII, 5 2). It will be helpful to note at the outset the general character of these somewhat different representa- tions, beginning with the one mentioned last. Josephus says that some of the Jews looked upon ; the defeat of Herod Antipas by Aretas, King of Arabia, as a Divine judgment on Herod for his treatment of ‘John who was called the Baptist, for Herod slew him who was a good man and had com- manded the Jews that they should practise virtue both in respect to righteousness toward one another and piety toward God, and that they should come together in a baptism. For baptism would thus appear acceptable to him, not when they used it as a request for the forgiveness of certain sins, but as a purification of the body after the soul had been thoroughly cleansed by righteousness.’ And he goes on to say that Herod feared lest John’s popularity might lead to some political disturbance and so he thought it best to forestall any such thing by putting John out of the way. He therefore sent him to the castle of Machzerus, where he was executed. This notice in Josephus is of great importance, for back of its somewhat vague generalities there must have been facts substantially the same as we have in the Synoptics. The great popularity of John, the appellation ‘the Baptist,’ his insistence upon righteousness, the relatively great importance at- tached to the rite of baptism, the unrest that might easily flame into political disturbance, the fact that it was Herod Antipas who put John to death—these are all chief points in the Synoptic account also. But Josephus’ superficial explanation of the pur- pose or character of the baptism of John is hardly adequate, and is even inconsistent with the earnest insistence on righteousness he justly ascribes to him. Furthermore, that Herod Antipas put John to death merely to forestall the possibility of his heading a revolution is altogether vague and im- probable. Something more definite must have been the reason for Herod’s hostility. Whether Josephus knew of Herodias’ hatred of John is, of course, not certain. Josephus’ silence about the ‘Messianic’ element in John’s preaching is not at all surprizing. The references to John in the Synoptics center, in the main, about the relation of the work of John to that of Jesus. This is viewed as a preparatory work, to ‘make ready the way of the Lord.’ His was thus essentially a prophet’s work, and John is viewed as the last of the prophets, the one who closed the succession by ushering in the new Messianic Age. The Synoptic account is frag- mentary. Only fragments of what must have been once a large amount of information have been pre- served. The broken character of these notices, the disagreement between John’s proclamation and the actual course of events that followed it, the remark- able strictures uttered by Jesus on the man He so highly honored—all make strongly in favor of the genuineness of the Synoptic account. ‘The story of John’s birth in Lk ch. 1 is not, of course, a part of the common Synoptic tradition. Except to those who are consistently skeptical of nearly everything in the Gospels, there is little, however, in Luke’s account of the birth of John that should occasion serious difficulty. The beauty and simplicity of the narrative; the ‘Hebraistic’ style, indicating that his information was drawn from an Aramaic source; the type of thought, which is that of the pre-Christian Messianic expectations rather than what became current in the Apostolic Age—all tell strongly in favor of the historicity of Luke’s account (cf. Plum- mer in ICC, Luke, p. 6, and see also Luxgz, GOSPEL OF). The references to the Baptist in the Fourth Gospel share the peculiarity of that Gospel’s account of the teachings of Jesus. At times it is difficult to draw the line between the words of the Baptist and those of the Evangelist, his reporter (e.g., 3 30f.), and at others between what the Baptist himself may have said or meant and the interpretation put upon his words by the Evangelist after years Of meditation on the significance of John’s appearance (e.g., 1 29). To the author of the Fourth Gospel this significance was solely that of a ‘witness’ (1 8, etc.; cf. 5 33). The 461 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY John the Baptist baptism of Jesus by John is implied in 1 31 f., which indicates the importance attached to it by the Evangelist. If this Gospel was written by one of the disciples of the Baptist whose ‘witness’ to Jesus led him to the One in whom he found life eternal, it is not surprizing that this testimony to Jesus was so important in his eyes. 2. Life of John Previous to His Public Ministry. The parents of John were an aged couple of priestly lineage (Lk 1 5, 7). Tho a priest, Zachariah, his father, had little sympathy with the worldly and corrupt Sadducee class in Jerusalem. His home in the ‘hill-country’ of Judea (exact location unknown) was characterized by the best type of Jewish piety, in which the ardent hope of the speedy fulfilment of Messianic prophecy was no insignificant element. As the son of a priest he must have been well versed in the traditional learning and, especially, well acquainted with the Scrip- tures. Knowledge of the portentous expectations awakened by his birth may have driven him to profound meditation upon the problem of Israel’s ‘salvation’ (1 15 ff., 68 ff.). The death of his parents when he was still a youth may have been the occa- sion of his withdrawal into ‘the deserts’ (1 80) in- stead of taking up the active work of a priest. In these solitudes he pondered over the problem of the age, feeding his soul on the sterner aspects of the messages of O T Prophecy, giving less attention to those of a different cast. Any direct communica- tions with the Essenes is improbable, tho he must have known of them. John learned his lesson at the feet of no human teacher. His doctrine was formu- lated by himself in the years of solitary communion with God and the message of Scripture in the wilderness. 3. John’s Mission. At last, coming forth from his retirement, he began to preach (for the date see CHRONOLOGY OF THE N T), not for self-aggrandize- ment, not to organize a new sect, or to inaugurate a new political movement, but to proclaim a great mes- sage and issue a greatsummons. ‘The word of God’ (Lk 3 2) called him forth like one of the prophets of old. Clad in simplest garb, like Elijah (Mk 1 6; Mt 3 4; cf. II K 1 8 RVmg.; Zec 13 4), using the plainest speech, with no fear of man before his eyes, he made a profound impression. No such voice had been heard in Israel for centuries. The crowds came from near and far, and the excitement was intense. And no wonder. For the main burden of John’s message was something to which no Israelite could be indifferent. That the long-looked-for era, so often foretold in Prophecy, was at last at hand was a startling message (Mk 1 2 f.; Mt 3 2). But no less startling was the announcement of the way in which this age was to be ushered in. Not by animmediate and glorious victory over Israel’s enemies (John was not a Zealot), but by a judgment on Israel herself, searching and thorough, in which every unworthy unrepentant Israelite should be destroyed. John’s message was virtually a summons to repentance, in view of the speedy appearance of Another, through or by whom the judgment should be executed (Mk 17 £.). The moral earnestness of the man is seen in the scathing rebuke he adminis- tered to the hypocritical religious authorities (Mt 3 7-10; Lk 3 7-9), and in the common-sense advice he gave to those who inquired of him ‘what shall we do? (Lk 3 1014). The common people and even those who were viewed as openly sinful were deeply moved and gave a heartier response to John than did i religious leaders (Mk 11 29-33 and ||s; Lk 29 f.). In view of these considerations it is easier to understand the significance of baptism as ad- ministered by John. This was but a preparatory step. It is called ‘a baptism of repentance unto remission of sins’ (Mk 14). Both the repentance and the remission found their reason solely in the expected ushering in of the Kingdom by a great judgment. John called upon all to repent and confess their sins and lead a better life and to symbolize and seal this new purpose by a bap- tism. It was all temporary, in the sense that it looked forward to being completed in or through the new developnents to follow. Thus John’s baptism, tho having the same moral end as Christian baptism, can never be identified with it. So well expressed is this difference in Ac 19 4 that further comment is unnecessary (see also Baptism). 4. John and Jesus. While John referred most positively to One who was to follow him, he re- frained from describing Him except in mostigeneral terms. He was ‘mightier’ than he, and His sandals John was not worthy even to unloose; and while John baptized with water, that One was to baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire (Mk 1 7f£.). The way in which He was to execute the judgment was also described in figurative language (Mt 3 10, 12; Lk 317). All this would seem to indicate that John, like the prophets of old, spoke out of a general inspiration which left him free to construct the details of his representation according to his best judgment. Whatever the degree of acquaintance- ship between the families of John and Jesus, it is evident, apart from Jn 1 31, 33, that the divergence between the views of John and Jesus makes it impossible that the two could have met and talked over their respective missions until Jesus presented Himself to John for baptism. Each went through his own peculiar preparatory experience whithout hold- ing any communication with the other. And yet it can scarcely be doubted that it was John’s proclama- tion that gave Jesus to understand that His time also had come. The significance for Jesus of His baptism by John is discussed in the article Baptism. Here we con- sider only the effect of this meeting on John. This seems to have been twofold: (a) On the one hand, John was profoundly impressed by the personality of Jesus. He drew back from Him, instinctively feel- ing his unworthiness to baptize Him, and in the profound experiences of those few moments John had a vision of the Divine perfection of a Sinless One. It was not the awful visage of a terrible judge that he looked upon then, but of One willing humbly to ‘fulfil all righteousness,’ and who was also the beloved Son of God (Mt 313-17). This brief interview with Jesus must have suggested to John that some John the Baptist John, Epistles of A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 462 of his ideas of the Coming One needed revision. (b) Consequently, we find soon after that John’s view of the Messiah’s work had undergone some change. Only thus can we account for his words to his disciples, ‘Behold the Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the world’ (Jn 1 29). If we bear in mind that these words were spoken after his meeting with Jesus, the contrast between them and the report in the Synoptics will be less surpriz- ing. John may have been led by that meeting to ask whether he had taken account of all that prophecy taught concerning the Messiah. What of the great passage on the Suffering Servant in Is ch. 53? The sight of Jesus might easily have led him to ponder over that prophecy, and while still under the spell of that impression he again saw Jesus once or twice and pointed Him out as ‘the Lamb of God.’ Yet. John could not have had that full light on the person and work of Christ which the Fourth Gospel imparts to him, and still have been subject to the limitations Jesus assigns him (Mt 11 1=Lk 7 28; ef. Mk 2 18-22), or have sent from prison to ask Jesus whether He were really the One who was to come (Mt 11 2 #.=Lk 7 13 f.). Thus the meeting with Jesus and observance of His work had a rather per- plexing effect on John. He certainly did not revise at once or altogether his Messianic program, and he could not easily adjust it to the facts as they actually transpired. On the whole, the conviction that the Messiah must sooner or later bring matters to a great crisis and execute the Divine judgment on the sinful nation remained fundamental with John. It was not given to him to see that the fundamental note of the Messianic era was love, not wrath. 5. John’s Further Ministry, Imprisonment, and Death. Thus awaiting some definite, signal mani- festation on the part of Jesus, John continued his ministry even after he had baptized Him. He could not see his way clear to lay it down before the judgment had begun. For his bold rebuke of Herod Antipas for his unrighteous union with Herodias, he was imprisoned. According to Mk 6 19 ff. it was Herodias rather than Herod who was angered at John. And it was her relentless hate that at last was gratified by gaining Herod’s consent to the execu- tion of the fearless preacher of righteousness (Mk 6 17-29=Mt 14 3-12). John’s influence did not die with him. Some of his disciples betook themselves to Jesus. Others probably sought to perpetuate his work independently of Jesus, and traces of their influence we meet with, twenty-five years later, in Asia Minor (Ac 18 25, 19 1 ff.). A superstitious feeling that John might rise from the dead and re- appear, or that he might be reincarnated seems to have been prevalent for a time (Mk 6 14-16; ef. Lk 9 7-9; Mk 8 28 and |[s). 6. Jesus’ Opinion of John. The significance of John can not be a matter of doubt to one who takes Jesus’ words as authoritative. He was a prophet, the last and greatest of the prophetic succession under the old dispensation (Mt 11 9, 13; Lk 16 16). His personal righteousness and integrity were un- questioned (Mt 117 f.=Lk 7 24 f.). To him was granted an honor greater than ever befell any other man, that of being the forerunner to prepare the way of the Lord (Mt 11 10f.=Lk 7 27f.). He was in truth the Elijah who was to come (Mk 912f.= Mt 17 1 £.; Mt 1114). He was the herald of a new age, through whom many had been stirred up to press into the Kingdom of God (Mt 1112; Lk 16 16). And yet John did not belong to the new era. In- cidentally, the rules of fasting he laid upon his disciples showed this (Mk 2 18-22 and ||s). Butit was in his whole view of the Messianic Age, in which judgment, not mercy, was uppermost, and in his altogether one-sided view of the Messiah’s work that he was not one of the great ones in the (new) Kingdom of God according to Jesus (Mt 11 11.= Lk 7 28). This was not a judgment on John’s per- sonal character, or a dictum regarding his final salvation. It had to do altogether with the value of John’s view of the Kingdom. And it was out of His loving wisdom that Jesus sent John’s messengers back, not with a categorical answer to his question, but with one well calculated to give John the clue to the truth he was seeking. See in addition to Comm., A. T. Robertson, John the Loyal (1911); A. Blakiston, John the Baptist and His Relation to Jesus (1912). EH. E. N. JOHN, EPISTLES OF: Three N T writings be- longing to the group of the so called CatHo.ic EPISTLES (q.v.). J. First Epistyx. 1. Authorship. The First Epistle, in spite of its anonymous character, is generally recognized as being so similar to the Fourth Gospel in its language and thought as to have been from the same author. If, therefore, the Gospel is from the Apostle John (JoHN, GosPEL oF, § 2a), the Epistle also is to be considered as from him. 2. Literary Relation to Fourth Gospel. The fact however, that the Epistle is not addressed to any one church, or to any particular group of readers, and the peculiar form of its opening verses, in which a reference to the facts of the historical Gospel as in some way underlying the Epistle’s message is so evident, raise the question of the literary relation between these two writings of the Apostle. — This question can be answered only by a con- sideration of the contents of the Epistle and the situation which these contents present. (a) Contents. The Epistle opens with a preliminary statement in which is given the basis of its message, viz.: the historical fact of the Word of life and the Apostle’s personal relation to it—a fact already announced to the readers with a view to their spiritual fellowship with him. On the basis of this historical fact the Apostle states his purpose in writing the letter, in order that his joy may be fulfilled (1 1-4). There follows then a summation of the truth heard from the Word of life, viz.: that God is light and is without darkness, with its bearing upon the readers’ fellowship with one another and their common relationship to Jesus Christ and to God (1 51°), This constitutes the introductory part of the Epistles. The message proper is then begun with a further statement of the purpose of its sending—that the readers may not sin (2 18), accompanying which is a pastoral reminder of their privileges and obligations in their consciousness of sin (2 1b- ll), bringing the Apostle to a restatement both of the present and of a previous message, from the point of view,of the younger and the older classes among his readers (2 1274), This is followed by an exhortation against a love of the world, with reasons for the urging (2 17) and a statement in general of the fact of Antichrist (2 182%), accompanied by assurances of the fact of their spiritual life (2 2° f.. 29), which othe a 463 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY John the Baptist John, Epistles of brings him to a presentation of the theme of the love of God, exhibited in the Christian’s relation of spiritual sonship to Him, with what this relationship involved for the future (31 !-) and its practical bearing upon the present life (3 3~!2), This leads the Apostle to a statement and discussion of the main theme of the Epistle, viz.: the love of the brethren. This theme is taken up by calling attention (1) to the natural- ness of the world’s hatred of the Christian (3 13) and (2) to the evidential nature of a love of the brethren (3 14 t-), with a statement of the necessary reason for the having of such love (3 16) and the necessary inference from its non-possession (3 17), closing with an exhortation to the possessing of it in its ‘reality (318), with the reasons which lie in its contribution to an assurance of the spiritual life (3 19724), After a short digression (4 16), there is given an exhorta- tion to brotherly love, with reasons for the exhorting (4 74), ‘followed by a more formal discussion of its bearing upon (1) God’s relation to us (4 1216) and (2) our confidence in the future (4 17 /.), leading to a statement (a) of the reason of such love (4 19), (b) of what it involves in confession of love to God (4 2°), and (c) of its basis in the command of God (4 2), There follows then a discussion of the allied theme of faith in Jesus as the Christ (51-12), consisting of a statement (1) of the relation of such belief to spiritual sonship with God (5 18), together with the consequences which follow as to love of the brethren (5 14); (2) of the relation which love to God and obedience to His command have to love of the brethren (5 2); (3) of the relation which love to God and faith in Jesus as the Christ have to obedience to God’s commands (5 35); (4) of the fact of Christ’s mission in the world and the witness to it of the Spirit (5 6-8), together with the obligation which rests upon us of receiving such witness (5 9712), This brings the Apostle to his conclusion, which consists in a restatement of the purpose of his writing, from the point of view of the readers’ assurance of eternal life (5 18), followed by a statement of varied spiritual results which issue from such assurance (5 14-2°), closing with an exhortation to the guarding of the spiritual life (5 21), ’ ; ; (b) Situation. The situation disclosed by this review of the Epistle’s contents is evidently one in which the spiritual life of the readers was in need of stimulating in the direction of its holiness, its brotherly fellowship, and its assurance of the facts which were basal to it. At the same time, it is clear from the polemic tone of certain passages (e.g., 218 ff., 37 ff., 41 ff.) that this need was due to false teachings which were dulling the readers’ spiritual perception and leading them into false views of the truth. ; When we come to study the Epistle closely it is apparent from such passages as 2 20, 4 6-8, 5 13, 19 f., where the question of real spiritual knowledge is claimed, 4 2 (cf. 1 2), where the fact of Christ’s coming in the flesh is emphasized, 4 10, 14, 5 10 £."(cf. 21 .), which accent Christ’s redemptive functions as Son of God, especially 5 5 f., which claims deity for Christ at His death as well as at His baptism, that the Epistle moved in very much the same ‘Gnostic surroundings as the Gospel! (cf. in the Gospel such passages as 14 7-9, 17, 20, 17 3, 25, which assert this spiritual knowing; 1 14, which declares this fact of Christ in the flesh; 6 50-58, 12 27, 16 15, 17 f., 28, 32, 17 1, 11, 18 11, which show Christ as Son of God in His death for the world’s salvation). 1 Cerinthus, whose teaching that only 'the human Jesus suffered on the Cross seems specially referred to in 5 5 f-, as also indirectly in 2! f-, 4 19, 14, 5 10 f., was a contemporary of the Apostle in Ephesus; also Docetism, which held that the Jesus who appeared on the earth was not possessed of a real physical nature and which is clearly opposed in 1 2, 4 2, 5 20, was an element in Gnostic thinking long before it became a distinct heresy in the teachings of Valentinus (c. 150 a.p.); while the boast of Gnosticism that it alone possessed knowl- edge of spiritual things, which obviously is denied in 2 29, 4 68, § 13,19 f.. was the fundamental claim of this way of think- ing from its beginning. See Gnosticism, §§ 4-6. The announced purpose of the Gospel’s writing (20 30f.) that the readers might have a more abun- dant spiritual life through their faith in Jesus as the Son of God brings the Ep. into further alignment with the Gospel (cf. Ep 2 1a, 3 3-12, 18-24, 5 13-21). This similarity in the surroundings is made more evident by the fact that both Gospel and Epistle have in view a tendency among their readers to ignore the commands of God, especially at the point of love—not only to God, but to one another (ef. Gospel 14 15, 21, 23 £., 15 9 f., 12-14, 17-19; Ep 3 7-12, 21-23, 4 20 f.)—a tendency with which we are made familiar in the later stages of Paul’s ministry, especially in the Ephesian region (see EpHEsIAns, EpistLE To, § 4). (c) Place, Date, and Occasion. If then both ' writings disclose the same general conditions in their surroundings, we have not only an idea of the time and the place of the Epistles’ origin (see Joun, GosPEL oF, §§ 2b, 2c), but more particularly some hint at the relation which the Epistle sustained to the Gospel; for if, as we have seen, the Epistle takes up these points brought out in the Gospel’s presenta- tion of Jesus and develops them in their bearing upon the practical life, then it would seem that the Epistle was written either to introduce to more careful attention the Gospel which was to follow it (Lightfoot), or—which is much more likely—that it was written to follow the Gospel and make effective on these practical lines the historical facts of the Divine Personality which it presented. This would serve to explain the unique beginning of the Epistle, basing as it does the message that follows on the historical facts which already had been announced to the readers.2 What was the occasion of the Epistle’s writing and how soon it followed upon the Gospel, if it was not sent along with it, it is im- possible to say. All that seems clear is that the specific message of the Gospel was in the Apostle’s mind when he wrote and that it was his purpose to apply its great truths to the practical living of his readers. 3. Thought of the Epistle. The consideration of this question of relationship between the Epistle and the Gospel gives a special interest to the Epistle’s thought. In general, it is apparent that, while this does not, as the Gospel’s, gather around the personality of Christ, yet it is Christ not simply in His redemptive relations to us but in Himself that forms its background. He is never called the Son of Man, yet not only is the fact of His incarnation asserted (4 2; cf. 1 2), but His nature as the Son of God is constantly kept at the front. It is as the Son that He manifests the eternal life, which was with the Father (12; cf. 5 20), so that it is with Him, the Son, as well as with the Father, that we have our spiritual fellowship (1 3, 2 24). It is the confession of Him as Son that constitutes this fellowship (4 15), and it is the denial of the Son, as well as of the Father, that constitutes the Spirit of Antichrist (2 22b, 23). It is thus as Son that He has come 2 It is interesting to note the acceptance of some such re- lationship between these two writings by Schmiedel, who opposes the genuineness of both (Religionsgeschichtliche Volksbitcher, I, Reihe 12, Heft II, 1906, pp. 28-32). John, Epistles of John, Gospel of A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 464 into the world in His redemptive mission (49 f., 14, 3 8), and through Him as Son that God has given us eternal life (5 10-12). As Son, therefore, He cleanses us from sin through His death (17). At the same time, He is the Christ. As such He came into the world and accomplished His mission (56). As such He is the propitiation for sin (2 2, 4 10) and the Advocate with the Father in the sinner’s behalf (2 1). With Him both as Christ and as Son is our fellowship (5 20). The denial of Him as Christ is, therefore, of the same Antichrist spirit as the denial of Him as Son (2 22 f., 4 2 £.), and belief in Him as Christ is of the same Divine spirit as belief in Him as Son (38 23, 4 2; ef. ver. 15, 5 1, 5). He is termed also in one passage the Word (Aéyos) of life (1 1). God is represented as Spirit, apprehensible only by the spiritual attitude of life (4 12; cf. 3 23). It is to this spiritual sense that God reveals Himself in His relations to us (47 f£.). He alone is the true God and the only source of spiritual life (5 20; cf. 2 29, 310). He is presented to us as the Father (2 1, 3 1); He is also presented to us under the figure of love (4 8, 16), which is viewed not simply as an attribute, but as an energizing activity, im- parting itself to us and in us, not only evidencing our possession of the Divine nature and fellowship (4 7, 12, 16), but perfecting itself in our obedience to God’s commands (25; cf. vs. 15-17, 314), especially in that command which brings us into love of one another (3 23, 412). This love has prompted God to send His Son for the saving of the world (4 9 f.) and to bring us into filial relations with Himself (81). Further, He is presented under the figure of light (1 5), which is viewed specifically as an energi- zing activity. In fact, since this statement is pre- sented as summing up the message of the Epistle and since the theme of this message is brotherly love, which is born of the love God has imparted to us, it would seem that this figure of light. was an emphatic way of bringing out the energizing power of love, since the characteristic element in light is its pervading, infusing power (cf. Gospel 1 4,9, 3 20f., 11 9 £., 12 35f.; cf. also Lk 11 33-36). This would seem to be evident from the fact that this Divine light is represented as producing practically the same results in us as those produced by love (cf. 1 6 f., 2 8-11, where walking in the light, as a sphere of ac- tivity to whose influences we are open, is evidence not only of fellowship with God but of the outgoing of our love in fellowship with one another). So the Holy Spirit is presented as given us by God not only to inform us of truth (as Gospel 14 26, 16 13 £.), but by His energizing within us to produce in us an assur- ance of our relation to God (8 24, 413) and to bring us to a living confession of Christ (4 2). Over against this is the energizing of the spirit of Antichrist (4 3). As a consequence of all this, eternal life is pre- sented not as a future possession but as a present activity. It is the Christian’s present spiritual living. The world lies in the power of the Evil One (5 19; cf. 3 8410); consequently, sin is not simply unrighteousness (1 9, 3 6-8, 5 17) and lawlessness (3 4), it is also hatred (8 10-12, 15), and darkness (1 6, 29-11), and death (8 14), and it can not escape our notice how these qualities of sin are interwoven to make up the general idea of sin as a resultant force, contrasted with the composite resultants of God’s Divine energizing in the life of the soul. The forces of sin are gathered up in the term Antichrist, which is not necessarily an individual (in spite of the personal cast of 2 18 f.), but simply the per- sonfication of the principles of evil (2 22, 4 3), a persistent yielding to which may result in the hope- lessness of spiritual life (5 16 f.). As a remnant of the old dominant forces of the evil life sin is still in the Christian (1 8-10, 2 1b) but no longer as the habit of life—as such it is impossible in one begotten, of God (3 6, 9). Consistently with this idea of the energizing of God in the spiritual life the Christian is the product of the life of God (2 29, 39, 47, 51 4, 18), and faith is distinctively the overcoming by Him of the evil influences of the world (5 4 f.). II. SEconD AND THIRD EPISTLES. 4. Writer’s Designation of Himself. The point of chief interest in the study of these Epistles is the question of their authorship. They both claim as author one who designates himself ‘the Elder’ (6 meecbUtepos), the question being who is to be understood by this name. The likelihood of a satisfactory answer to this question lies naturally along the line of an induc- tion of the contents of these letters, tho such in- duction can not promise much because of the restricted form of the writings. 5. Situation. The situation presented by the letters is briefly as follows: (1) The Second Epistle was written to the mother of a household, certain members of which were walking in the truth, presumably certain others not so walking (ver. 4). It was written to urge three things: (a) The following out of the command already given and known, viz., brotherly love (ver. 5 f.); (b) the careful preserving of faith already possessed and the preventing of its further loss (ver. §-); (c) the non-receiving of false teachers already among them (ver. 1¢ f-)—all these things being urged until the author might personally come to them and restore their joy (ver. }2). (2) The Third Epistle was written to a certain Gaius, a prominent member, if not an officer, in one of the churches over which the author was in charge. It was written (a) to commend him for his reception of certain brethren who had come to him on their journey (vs. 5-8); (b) to inform him of a letter which they bore from the author to the church, and of a contrary attitude toward himself on the part of a certain Diotrephes, another prominent member, perhaps an officer of the church in question (ver. °); (c) to announce his plan personally to come and rebuke this attitude (ver. 1°); (d) in the meanwhile to warn Gaius against following this example of Diotrephes, to encourage him in his’ good conduct until they should see each other (vs. 11, 18,14), and particularly to commend to Gaius Demetrius, who prob- ably was accompanying the brethren and was not in good favor with the Church (ver. !2). From this it is clear: (1) That these were purely personal letters. (2) That the II Ep. moves in a surrounding which reminds us of that of the I Ep., which is confirmed by a closer study of the false teachers referred to in the former, showing them to have been (a) of the same Cerinthian class, denying the Divine Sonship of Jesus (vs. 3, 9; ef. I Ep. 4 10, 14, 5 10 f.); (b) of the same Docetic class, denying that Jesus is come in the flesh (ver. 7; cf. I Ep. 4 2 £.); (e) of the same Antinomian class, ignoring the com- mands of God (vs. 4, 6, 9; cf. I Ep. 3 7-12). (8) That the III Ep. shows the author to be in responsible charge of a certain church, or churches, with con- 465 A NEW STANDARD fidence enough in his influence to quell by his personal presence ambitious opposition to his au- thority when absent. 6. Time and Place. Nothing definite is disclosed in the letters as to the time and place of their composition, tho the similarity of conditions be- tween II Ep. and I Ep. would seem to associate them in the Ephesian region and at the time of the labors of the Apostle John (q.v.). 7. Readers. The persons to whom the letters are sent seem distinctly enough designated, at least in the case of the III Ep.; yet nothing can be deter- mined as to their identity. The phrase of address in the II Ep. (‘the elect lady,’ éxAextH xvelg) has been variously interpreted, but obviously is nothing more than an indefinite term for the individual to whom the letter is sent. The Gaius of the III Ep. may be. any one of those of the same name mentioned in the N T (Ac 19 29, 20 4; I Co 1 14; Ro 16 23), or may be another person. The name was a common one. The Diotrephes of the III Ep. is mentioned no- where else in the N T, while the Demetrius is not likely to be identified with the Demetrius of Ac 19 23 ff. 8. Authorship. This all comes to the general result that while the Epistles disclose nothing which definitely decides their authorship, such indications as they give are in the direction of an authorship by the Apostle John. The only question is whether the author’s peculiar designation of him- self as ‘the elder’ is one which the Apostle could and naturally might, in the circumstances of these letters, use of himself. In answering this question we must remember that the only testimony we have as to the existence of a so called Presbyter (Elder) John is the assump- tion of Eusebius that Papias distinguishes between an Apostle John and a Presbyter John in the state- ment which he quotes from his works in his Eccle- stastical History (III, 39), while there is absolutely no proof of the residence and work in Asia and the Ephesian region of such a John as distinct from the Apostle (cf. Drummond, Character and Authorship of the Fourth Gospel, pp. 194-235, and JoHN, THE ApostLE). When we recognize, however, that in Papias’ statement the Apostles, including John, are designated elders (xeecQdtepot), and when we consider the fact that in the N T this term is not used exclusively in an official sense (cf. Ac 14 23, where it refers evidently to a class of mature men, appointed to the general oversight of the com- munity [f. I Th 512]; I Ti 51, where obviously age is meant [cf. Tit 2 2-8]. See AposrieE), it is clear that the author may have used the term here of himself, as Papias may have used it of the Apostles in his statement, to designate one who belonged to the older generation which was passing away. See Zahn, N T Introduction, II, 435 f. ’ Such a term would be quite in accord with the situation presented in these letters. To this Chris- tian mother, in trouble about her household, to this Christian Gaius in the emergency of his church 3 If the term be taken as a mystical designation of the church addressed, it may be that this II Ep. is the letter to the local church referred to in III Ep. ver. 9 (cf. Zahn, Introd., § 71). John, Epistles of BIBLE DICTIONARY John, Gospel of administration, it would give his encouragement and warning a peculiar appeal, through this relation- ship which he held to the venerated past. If Paul could use’a similar term (‘the aged,’ rpecitys) in his personal letter to his friend Philemon (ver. 9), John might with even greater propriety use this term in his personal letters to these friends. 9. External Evidence. These letters came to be fully accepted by the Church only at a relatively late date. For a considerable while they were placed in the class of Antilegomena, and in Jerome’s day were generally denied Apostolic origin and assigned to authorship by the ‘Presbyter.’ The earlier tradition, however, and that held by prom- inent Fathers such as Irenzeus and Clement of Alexandria, was that they came from the Apostle, the ‘Presbyter’ tradition arising later. This may be accounted for by the fact that as private letters they would be relatively slow in coming to light and when known would be naturally questioned as to their Apostolic credentials, especially as they did not contain an Apostolic name (as Philemon did). This would tend to confirm such doubt as might arise from the slowness of their appearance and formulate it into an assignment of them to the assumed ‘Presbyter’ of Papias. The fact, however, that when they first appeared they were held to have come from the Apostle by persons who in those times were the best informed and that this view persisted even when the suspicion regarding them formulated itself into the other view shows that the evidence for the earlier opinion must have been peculiarly strong. LiterRATURE: Among Introductions, those of Jiilicher (Eng. transl. 1904) and Zahn (Eng. transl. 1917) will best pre- sent the opposite positions of modern German scholarship. Among Commentaries, the following will be found most helpful: Ebrard (Eng. transl. 1860); Haupt (Eng. transl. 1879); Westcott (1886); and Weiss, in Meyer Krit.-exeget. Kom. tib. d. N T (1899); Brooke, in ICC (1912) is scholarly and exhaustive. See also Smaller Comm., Plummer (Camb, Greek Test. (1896); Bennett, New Century Bible (n.d.), and Law, Tesis of Life, a study of First Ep. (Kerr Lectures for 1909). Also the art. by Salmond in HDB. MisWwet JOHN, GOSPEL OF. The fourth of the N T Gospel Writings, commonly known as the Fourth Gospel, because of its distinctive difference in con- tents and character from the other three (see GosPEL, § 3). 1. Criticism of the Gospel. This difference has always been recognized, but it was not until the end of the 18th cent., during the Deistic movement in England, that it was made the reason for a definite attack against the Gospel’s genuineness (Evanson, 1792)—an attack which was repeated on broader grounds (Eckermann, 1796; Vogel, 1801) during the similar movement in Germany. Tho no lasting im- pression was made by these attacks, hostility against the Gospel was renewed a quarter of a century later (Bretschneider, 1820) with particular emphasis upon the differences in form and contents between the discourses of the Fourth Gospel and those of the Synoptics. Because of the critical uncertainty, if not weakness, with which it was met by the spiritual school of Schleiermacher (1825), this hostility grew until the purely mystical character of the Gospel was | asserted (Strauss, 1835) and it was relegated to the John, Gospel of A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 466 category of fanciful productions (Bruno Bauer, 1850). , In the meanwhile the Tiibingen School (1835) strengthened the unfavorable position in which the Gospel had been placed by returning to the differ- ences which the Gospel presented to the Synoptic narratives and disclosing the historical situation by which they claimed these differences were accounted for. This situation they held to be that of the 2d cent., and the Gospel to be the natural product of the theological controversies of that age. In proportion as this criticism was positive and constructive it appealed to the judgment of scholars, tho its essential ignoring of the field of external evidence opened the way for a vigorous opposition, which was carried on until the fundamental prin- ciples of Tiibingen criticism in general were shown to be unfounded in fact (Ritschl, 1857) and the re- action against the claims and the conclusions of the School began. In this reaction the Gospel returned to a relatively favorable position, opponents and defenders drawing appreciably nearer together in the admission, on the one side, that much of its material was of actual Apostolic date, if not of Apostolic origin, and, on the other side, that there was a subjective element in the writing which had molded in form and substance much, if not all, of its narrative and its discourses. Later, however, this middle position gave way to one of distinct antagonism, the question as to con- tents being not whether the record is more or less historical, but whether it is actually historical or purely fictional, the question as to the author being not whether it was the Apostle himself, or one of his disciples or contemporaries, but whether it was a writer of the Apostolic Age, or one who lived and wrote after that age had passed away and thus had no personal contact with it whatever. This flow of hostile criticism, Drummond’s notable work, The Character and Authorship of the Fourth Gospel (1904), more or iess obstructed through its thorough study of the external evidence for the dating of the Gospel, and of the internal evidence for its authorship, establishing the conclusion (p. 514) that the work belongs to the Ist cent. and that, while the Johan- nine authorship can not be absolutely demonstrated, it can not be denied.! Shortly after Drummond’s book there came to light a Syrian manuscript of the Odes and Psalms of Solomon (published by Rendel Harris, Cambridge University, 1909), a production recognized as be- longing to the later Apostolic century. Their sig- nificance lay in the fact that, whether they were of 1 An interesting contribution to the early date of the Gospel is given by Lamberton, Themes from St. John’s Gospel in Early Roman Catacomb Paintings, Thesis for the Ph. D., Princeton University. (n.d.) An examination of the frescoes of what is known as the Greek Chapel, located in the primitive portion of the catacombs and dating from the time of Hadrian, or Trajan, at the latest, revealed that underneath the vari- ous strata of plaster on the walls a first stratum was found containing reproductions of scenes distinctive of the Fourth Gospel (e.g., the Raising of Lazarus, and the Talk with the Samaritan woman). If these scenes were executed even as late as 130 a.p., it would presuppose, not only a circulation and acceptance of the Gospel in the Church some time previous to this in Rome, but the origin of the Gospel some time even earlier in the East. Christian origin (Harris), or of Jewish origin, with Christian editing (Harnack), they showed a striking resemblance to the thought of the Fourth Gospel, and yet disclosed their thinking as Jewish and not Hellenic. The argument naturally followed that if this Jewish document of Ist cent. origin contained the same mystical thinking as the Fourth Gospel, then the Gospel did not need to be considered of Hellenic 2d cent. date, but could be Jewish and of the Apostolic age.? This gave further pause to the hostile criticism of the Gospel, tho the main contention still centered at the point of the historic value of its contents; criticism moving away from the earlier and cruder theories of documentary partition into the more refined field of editorial revision, with more or less of Apostolic or first hand element in the original material, Dr. Garvie’s, The Beloved Disciple (1922), being the most recent and finest type of thismethod. In view of this present day criticism, the study of of the Gospel requires, not merely a general con- sideration of the Gospel’s contents to determine whether they can have come from the Apostolic Age, but a more specific study of them, to ascertain to what extent they give us the personal and not the edited experience of the author, and to what degree they show the author to have participated in the events which he records. We come, then, to the disclosures which the Gospel itself makes of itself. 2. Relation of Contents to Origin of Gospel: Outline. It presents to us, in spite of the deeply doctrinal character of its contents, a relatively simple plan of narrative which gathers around a framework of visits to Jerusalem (cf. Sanday, Criticism, p. 117) that extend from the beginning of the ministry to its end, tho, as will be seen later (note 4, p. 470, and § 4), all but one occur after the close of the Galilean work. After the Prolog (1 1 8)—whose opening statements re- garding the preexistence of the Logos (1 1 f-), His creative relation to the Universe (1 3), and His spiritually vital and illuminative relations to the soul of man (1 4 f-) are among the most profound utterances of Scripture, and whose following statements regarding the relation of this incarnate Word to the spiritual faith and life of men (1 914: 16-18) give an inspiring insight into the thought of all the Gospel—the narrative (1 19~ 20 #1) begins. It opens with the Baptist’s confession to the Jerusalem delegation which came to inquire as to the authority of his work (1 19-28)—a confession prepared for in the Prolog itself (1 8-8, 15) and followed by the Baptist’s testimony to his own disciples (1 29-86), which issues in the first disciple adherence to Jesus (vs. 37), This occurring at Jordan, there are then related events which presuppose a return of Jesus and His new-found dis- ciples to Galilee (2 1~2), from which region He makes the first visit of His ministry to Jerusalem (2 18-3 36). This visit, which is at the time of Passover (2 }8), is evidently undertaken in the spirit of reform, the corruptions of the 2 This conclusion has been given confirmation by the publication of a careful study of the Fourth Gospel by C. F. Burney, Oxford University, entitled The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel (1922), in which it is claimed that the language, as well as the thought, of the Gospel is Semitic, even in the Prolog, which has been the mainstay of those who held the Gospel to be Hellenic in its ideas. . 8 Bert’s Das Evangelium Johannes (1922) is an excep- tion to this analytical method, forming a return to the earlier allegorical idea and treatment of the Gospel’s contents, =. 467 national worship being attacked in the cleansing of the Temple (2 !4*16—Evangelist’s comment ver. 17), It is so under- stood by the religious leaders of the people (2 182°—Evangel- ist’s explanation ver 2! f.), The effect of this opening ministry is then given (2 %— Evangelist’s qualifying remark ver. * f-), an illustration being added in the visit of Nicodemus (3 17!5—Evangelist’s ampli- fication 3 16-21), From Jerusalem there is a departure of Jesus and His dis- ciples into Judea (3 2%), issuing in a ministry in the neighbor- hood of the Baptist’s work (3 33 f-). A dispute between the Baptist’s disciples and the Jews about purifying introduces a further testimony of the Baptist to Jesus (3 %%°—Evange- list’s amplification 3 31-36) and leads the way to a statement of the reasons for Jesus’ final return again into Galilee (4 1-3—Evangelist’s explanation ver. 2). Events on the journey through Samaria are given (4 442—Evangelist’s ex- planations ver. 8) and His reception in Galilee (4 445) with miracles at Cana and Capernaum (4 46%—HEvangelist’s com- ment 4 5), There is then narrated a second visit to Jerusalem (ch. 5), the main incident in which is the healing of the impotent man at the Pool of Bethesda (5 2-8—excise vs. 8». 4), which de- velops a strenuous opposition on the part of the Jews to Jesus’ disregard of the Sabbath laws and an open vindication by Jesus of His position (5 19-47), At the beginning of His reply His assertion of the relation He bore to God (ver. 17) inflames the Jews to murderous hostility (ver. 4) from which new element the rest of the discourse develops. Ch. 6 furnishes the one point of detailed contact with the Synoptic narrative, presenting to the readers the feeding of the multitude with which Jesus’ Galilean ministry was brought to its close (cf. Mk 6 32-4 and ||s). It gives in ad- dition, however, the subsequent address of Jesus in the syn- agog at Capernaum before the crowd which had followed Him back to the other side of the lake (6 35*8—Ev’s state- ment ver. 5%), with its effect on the people (6 664a—RHiy’s explanation 6 %b,. 6) and on the Twelve (6 %-7_—KHvy’s ex- planation ver. 71, and statement as to effect on Jesus of the hostility of the Jews 71). [In consulting this analysis one should keep in mind the disarrangements of the material. See Note 4, page 470]. There then follows Jesus’ final departure from Galilee at the time of the Feast of Tabernacles, for His closing ministry in Jerusalem (7 271°), the state of feeling in the city concerning Him (7 1-13) with His teaching in the Temple and its effect upon the people (7 4-81); the effort of the Pharisees and chief priests to arrest Him, with Jesus’ reply and its popular effect (7 *56), and finally His appeal on the last day of the Feast and its effect (7 §7-44—-Ev’s explanation ver. 39), closing with the report of the officers to the Pharisees and chief priests and the effort of Nicodemus to stay action (7 45-53—Ev’s explana- tion ver. 5°), Then is given Jesus’ further public teaching—probably in connection with this same Feast—with the Pharisaic hostility which it developed and Jesus’ escape from the city (8 12-59— excise episode of the woman taken in adultery, 7 58-8 11), Jesus’ return to the city at the Feast of Dedication (Ev’s statement ver. 22) and His healing of the blind man with the hostility it aroused (9 !~38) and Jesus’ discourse (9 39-10 2!), leading up to the Jews’ demands on Him for a plain statement of His Messiah- ship and Jesus’ answering discourse (10 2%), its irritating effect upon the Jews, and Jesus’ escape to the other side of the Jordan, followed by a sympathetic multitude (10 89-4), Ch. ‘1 presents Jesus’ return from the east of the Jordan to Bethany upon announcement of the sickness of Lazarus (11 }-6—Ev’s explanation ver. 2 and prefacing statement ver. 5), whom He raises from the dead (11 17-44), the effect of the miracle upon the Jews who were present (11 45 f.) and upon the Pharisees and chief priests (11 47-53), with the departure of Jesus and His disciples to Ephraim (11 54), There is then presented Jesus’ last visit to Jerusalem— closing the main narrative of the book (11 55-20 31), This large section opens with a statement of the coming Passover Feast, the curiosity of the people, and the command of the Pharisees for Jesus’ arrest (11 5-57), Following this come Jesus’ arrival at Bethany and the supper given Him in Lazarus’ home (12 !-®—Ey’s explanation ver. 6 and additional pemient ver. *), the council of the Jews against Lazarus (12 OP Ag esus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem, with its effect on the Pharisees (12 12-19_Ev’s comment vs. 1-18), the desire of certain Greeks to see Him, with His remarks and His with- drawal from publicity (12 2-8—Ey's statement as to the A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY John, Gospel of persistent unbelief of the Jews, with confirmation from prophecy, (12 87-43), with His further remarks (12 445°), This brings the narrative to the Passover Meal of Jesus with His disciples (13 1), which is given in detail, with the preceding ‘controversy among the disciples (13 2-29), the disclosure of the betrayer during its course (13 21%), and the questions of the disciples (13 36-88), leading up to His consolatory discourse (chs. 14-16), and valedictory prayer (ch. 17). There then follow the departure of Jesus and His disciples from the room and their arrival in Gethsemane (18 1), with the narrative of the betrayal (18 2"}2), the taking of Jesus to Annas (18 18a—Ev’s explanation vs. 1b; 14), Peter’s first denial (18 5-18), the trial before Caiaphas (18 19-24), Peter’s second and third denials (18 25-27), the presentation of Jesus before Pilate for judgment (18 %), with the details of His examination by that official (18 29-19 12), and the final surrender to the demand of the crowd for His Crucifixion (19 13716), This is followed by a narrative of the Crucifixion (19 17-37— Ev’s explanation 19 %™ and self-testimony vs. %5-37), the Burial (19 38-42), and the Resurrection, with its accompanying appearances to the disciples (20 1-29), closing with the Ev’s statement as to the motive of the narrative (20 39 f-), Ch. 21 is added evidently by way of supplement or epilog, giving an appearance of Jesus to His disciples at the Sea of Tiberias (21 1-6), with its effect upon the disciples (21 7 t-— Ev’s explanation vs. 7, 8b), the following meal upon the shore (21 *4—Hv’s statement ver. !4), Jesus’ questions to Peter, with Peter’s responses and the commissions given him (21 15-17) and finally Jesus’ prophecy regarding Peter, with Peter’s query and Jesus’ response (21 18 3—Ky’s explanation ver. !9 and statement ver. 28). This is closed with a formal assurance by those who pub- lished the Gospel as to the reliability of the record, with the impression of the writer representing them as to its relation in extent to the whole of Jesus’ life (21 24 f-), (a) Bearing upon Authorship. When we come to study the material covered by this outline we find at © outset that while the author is not named there is used an expression in referring to one of the dis- ciples which is significant as appearing to be either the author’s designation of himself or the designation of him by a later hand, or hands (see 21 24 in con- nection with 21 7, 20 (‘the disciple whom Jesus loved,’ 13 23, 19 26, 20 2, 217, 20). Naturally such a phrase turns us to one of the three disciples— Peter, James, and John—who were on terms of in- timate fellowship with Jesus. Of these three, how- ever, Peter is excluded, because of his being definitely named along with this peculiarly described disciple (13 23 £., 20 2-10, 217, 20, 23; cf. 1815 f.). James is also excluded because of his early martyrdom (Ac 12 2, 44 a.p.). John alone remains, and while he is not described elsewhere in the N T by this phrase, he is found in such companionship with Peter in the Jerusalem Church life (Ac 3 1-11, 41-22, 8 14; cf. also Gal 29) as would correspond with the companionship of Peter and this peculiarly described disciple in the Gospel narrative (see passages above; cf. also Lk 22.8). Assuming that the Apostle John is thus re- ferred to, is he to be identified with the author of the Gospel? In answer to this question there are certain things which a more detailed study of the Gospel renders quite evident. (1) Such study shows that, whoever the author may have been, he was a Jew. The evidence for this is briefly: (a) His familiarity with the situation of Jewish national affairs—e.g., («) the loss by the Jews of the legal right to put to death (18 31, 19 7)3 (8) the function of the high priest in the trial of a prisoner (18 19, 24, as compared with 18 13); (y) Pilate’s unstable position at Rome (19 12-15, 21). (b) His familiarity with the J ewish parties—e.g. , (a) the party composition of the Sanhedrin (7 45-52); John, Gospel of A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 468 (@) the identification of the chief priests with the Sadducees, as in their subordination to the popular leadership of the Pharisees (passim), and their haughty aristocracy of manner (11 49). (c) His familiarity with Jewish customs—e.g., («) the minor feasts—as Dedication (10 22; cf. I Mac 4 59); (@) the custom of attending the feasts in Jerusalem (7 2-13), the habit of the Galileans in particular (4 45), as well as the ceremonial details during their observance— e.g., those of the last day of the Feast of Tabernacles (7 37); (y) the necessity which controlled the Sab- bath of the Passover (19 31, 42); (8) the law of de- filement during the feast (18 28) and of purifica- tion before the feast (11 55); (¢) the marriage cus- toms (21 ff.) and the manner of burying (11 44, 19 39 £.). (d) His familiarity with ideas and con- ceptions peculiarly Jewish—e.g., («) the relations between the Samaritans and the Jews (49); (8) the Rabbinic avoidance of conversation with a woman (4 27); (y) the importance attached to education in the Rabbinic schools (7 15, 49); (8) the Messianic expectations among the people (ch. 7). (e) The fact that he was acquainted with the Hebrew text sufficiently to correct the LXX. rendering of his quotations by the original reading—e.g., the citation from Is 6 10 (12 40), and that from Ps 41 9 (13 18). Finally (f) the fact that his style bears a Hebrew stamp and betrays a Hebrew influence—e.g., («) the repetition of phrase with advancement of thought in 1 1-5, 10 11-16, 15 1-10, 17 2-5, 9 f., 15-17); (@) the parallelism of ideas with contrasted juxtaposition of words in 6 35, 12 44 f., 13 20; (y) the symbolic tendency of thought in 1 4f., 5 25, 6 55 f., 12 32, 14 19. (2) It shows the author was a Palestinian Jew— i.e., a Jew who knew the land through a personal acquaintance which came from living in it. From the frequency and detail of geographical and topo- graphical reference in Mt and Mk, as over against Lx, it would seem that such a characteristic agreed with the Palestinian residence of the first two writers. But this characteristic is more marked in the Fourth Gospel than in either Mt or Mk, and is often of a peculiarly detailed and descriptive kind—e.g., (a) a distinguishing of places from others of similar name (1 28, 21, 11), (b) a definiteness regarding out-of-the way places (38 23, 1154), (c) a descriptiveness regard- ing well-known places (4 5f., 11, 20), (d) a familiarity of detail regarding Jerusalem and the Temple (2 20, 5 2, 8 20, 10 23, 181, 19 13, 41). The significance of these references is evident in the fact that several of them are to places destroyed or lost sight of in the fall of Jerusalem and consequently which could only with difficulty have been known of in the 2d cent. (For fuller treatment of these two points, see Drummond, pp. 352-374). (3) It shows the author was an eye-witness of the events which he describes. Obviously, in propor- tion as the foregoing points have to do with occur- rences in Jesus’ ministry, the familiarity which they disclose is that which goes most naturally with an actual participation of the narrator in what occurred. Obviously also, as this familiarity discloses itself to be the characteristic of the narrative in general, the inference of personal contact with the events re- corded is strongly confirmed. Now, as a matter of fact, Matthew and Mark display this characteristic in their general narrative, as over against Luke, whose versatility would have enabled him easily to crowd his record with the marks of personal partici- pation in its events if he had had it. This participa- tion, however, Matthew did personally have (see MatrHew, Gospret or, § 1j), while Mark had it through Peter—from whom he got his material and who was one of Jesus’ most intimate and perhaps most impressionable disciples. It is interesting, therefore, to note that this familiarity is character- istic of the Fourth Evangelist’s narrative to a greater degree than it is even of Matthew’s or Mark’s. It is not a mere definiteness of statement that is dis- played, since this is possible where there has been no personal presence (cf. Mt 413, before Matthew’s call); much less is it mere length of statement, for this is even more possible without a personal — presence (cf. Mt 4 24 f£., before Matthew’s call); but a familiarity of touch which gives to the narra- tive a personal cast that most naturally involves a personal contact with the events (cf. e.g., 1 35-51, 4 4-42, 6 1-14, 11 1-46, 19 25-27—notably in comparison with Synoptic parallels 7 2-10 (cf. Lk 9 51-56], 12 1-8 [ef. Mk 14 3-9; Mt 26 6-13], 13 1-20 [cf. Lk 22 24-30] 18 2-12 [ef. Mk 14 43-52; Mt 26 47-56; Lk 22 47-53)) The author is constantly throwing into the narra- tive words and phrases and remarks that have no value apart from their connection with his own experience in the events he records. Note, e.g., (1) The incident of Peter and ‘that other disciple’ at the tomb (20 3-8)—there is no call for the details of his outrunning Peter and yet hesitating to enter until encouraged by Peter’s impulsiveness, and then, when he saw the disposal of the napkin and the linen cloths, coming as by a shock to the conviction of the Master’s return to life. There is no call for these details apart from his memory of the changes through which his thinking went in those swift moments. (2) The minute description of what took place on the Lake the morning after the multitude had been fed (6 22-24). Nothing of what happened the evening before, or in Capernaum afterwards, calls for these details—details so unimportant in themselves that they would never be looked for in the story, and yet, so interesting to the author that he could not refrain from giving them, because they were part of what to him was the crisis in the Master’s Galilean Ministry. So (8) the note added to the discourse at the Feast of Dedication (10 22). Nothing in the discourse, or in the dispute that followed it, depends on that note. Also (4) the mention of Sychar and Jacob’s well (45 f.); Bethany beyond Jordan (1 28); Aunon, near Salim (3 23); the city called Ephraim (11 54). None of these lend any weight to, or derive any significance from, the narratives with which they are connected. (For elaboration of this idea see Dr. H. Scott Holland’s The Fourth Gospel (posthumously published, 1923) pp. 53-62. This personal cast comes to its finest expression in the passages where the author gives the character of the disciples and some of the followers of Jesus (e.g., Philip, 6 5-7, 147-9; Thomas, 11 16, 14 5, 20 24-29; Peter, 13 6-9, 20 2-10, 21 3-22 [cf. Mt 14 28-31]; Martha 469 and Mary, 11 20-32, 39 [tho see 12 2 in comparison with Lk 10 38-41]). There is an intimacy of knowl- edge in what is said, as tho the subjects had been studied not only at close range, but from the view- point of Jesus’ own knowledge of them. In fact, there is a frequent appreciation of Jesus’ own less evident intimations and allusions and a profound entrance into His action and thought which would most naturally accord not simply with a personal participation in His ministry, but with a peculiar closeness of companionship in all the life he was privileged to live with the Master (cf. 4 34-38, 6 6, 64 f., 71, 115, 1311, 28 f.). If it be said that this, after all, might be the result of a native power of vision into the self of Jesus and of a keenness in the reading of the disciples’ character exercised by some spiritual genius a hundred years after the earthly ministry had been finished, the question immediately arises _ whether such vision and insight would not have been immeasurably more possible under the stimulus of a personal contact with Jesus and His disciples in the actual events which that ministry produced. Altogether, the author’s narrative has nothing in it of the artificial. The statements of fact are not forced. The reproductions of impressions are not labored. The undesigned way in which they appear bears the stamp of naturalness. The very frankness with which sometimes the impressions of the event are corrected by the better undersanding of later years (2 22, 1216), and the independency with which in essential matters the Synoptic point of view —which by the 2d cent. had attained a position of authority in the church—is handled (e.g., as to the scene of the ministry, the duration of the ministry, the cleansing of the Temple, the date of the Last Supper, and the Crucifixion) betray a first-hand knowledge of the facts. In fact, if one considers the Gospel’s general relation to the Synoptic narrative, it is not easy to escape the conviction that the author had a knowl- edge of the Master’s ministry without which it would be difficult fully to understand the narrative which the Synoptics give. That narrative presents us with a ministry of Jesus for which it offers practi- cally no explanation. It does not tell us (1) why John’s imprisonment made it necessary for Jesus to leave Judea and retire into a region removed from what was taking place there (Mk 1 14 f. and ||s; (2) why Jesus throughout his Galilean work was so careful that the news of His startling deeds should not be spread abroad and the Messianic acclaim of Himself should be suppressed (Mk 1 43 and _ |ls, 312, 543, 7 36); (3) why He followed up His feeding of the multitude with an abandonment of this Galilean ministry and retired with His disciples into the sparsely settled regions of Northern Galilee and the Decapolis (Mk 7 24, 31 and |ls); (4) why, after this period was over, on the disciples’ confession of their belief that His Messiahship was spiritually something more than a national Messiahship, He declared that because of this fact He must go up to Jerusalem to be betrayed into the hands of the religious leaders and by them be put to death (Mk 8 31 ff. and ||s);_ (5) how, when approaching he Holy City, He should weep over its coming rejec- A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY John, Gospel of tion of His message and mission (Lk 19 41 ff.); (6) or how,when He arrived there, He found a group of adherents and friends ready to do Him service (Mk 11 2 ff. and |ls, 12 1 #. and |/s, 14 13 ff. and 11 3). But the reason for these things is given in the Gospel: (1) Jesus left Judea on the imprisonment of John because He already had a ministry there in which His venturesome cleansing of the Temple had set Him in the public eye as a reformer in Israel (2 13-22, 4 1-3); He is careful about the spread- ing of His Messianic fame, not only because He feared to rouse the people’s nationalism (6 15), but because He had already tested the religious leaders in the Holy City and found them unresponsive to His mission (2 23-25, 3 31-36); (3) He abandons His Galilean work after the feeding of the multitude ' and retires into the regions beyond the Jewish border, not only because that provided meal had so inflamed the nationalism of His followers that He had to meet it with a clear challenge of His spiritual claims (ch. 6), under the depression of which His following faded away, but because, when after that defection He went up again to the Holy City to take up there His work, the murderous hostility of the religious leaders so threatened a fatal ending to His ministry that, not only could His work there not be done, but He must withdraw with His dis- ciples from all public activities and prepare them for the now inevitable end with which His ministry was confronted (5 18 and 7 1); (4) so, when that prepara- tion had brought the disciples to an acceptance of His spiritual Messiahship, He declares to them that He must go up to Jerusalem and be put to death, it 1s because His previous visit to the Holy City had shown the certainty of this outcome and that the time had come to make plain to them what they must face (5 18 f., 7 25, 8 37, 40,59, 10 11, 15,17f., 11 53); (5) so He weeps over the city because His previous visits had shown Him with increasing clearness how hardened to His claims were even the Covenant People of God (2 23-25, 7 31-40; chs. 8, 9, 10); (6) And when He came there, the friends and adherents He found, fewin number and for the most part of small influence, were those who, apart from the un- receptive crowd, on these previous visits had doubt- less attached themselves to Him (see 31 with 7 50 f., 7 31, 40, 9 38, 10 21, 40, 11 45, 12 11). But, more significantly, the Synoptic narrative actually fails to give us any explanation of why it was that, in spite of the fact that Jesus’ disciples had practically all been followers of the Baptist, whose message had emphasized the sinfulness of Israel, yet, when Jesus at the very outset of His ministry began to forgive people’s sins, to the out- raged amazement of the Pharisees and Scribes (Mk 9 5 and ||s, Lk 7 48), it produced apparently no sense of strangeness in the disciples. For this the Fourth Gospel offers not so much a doctrinal as a practical explanation when it discloses to us in Jesus the consciousness of a life and a character that, long before any doctrinal reasoning crystallized it in their mind, must, through the daily contact of an intimate fellowship, in some way have shown them the reasonableness and naturalness of the pre- rogative He assumed. (See Holland’s striking pres- John, Gospel of A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 470 entation of this idea in his above-mentioned book, Part I.) If behind the Synoptic Gospels lay the faith of the Early Church, the question naturally forces itself upon us, Where did the Church get that faith? The Synoptic narrative leaves us confused in the answer to that question unless we can under- stand that throughout His ministry Jesus was con- scious of a character and life that found their natural reason in His unique relation to God. If He was, it is not difficult to realize how such a per- sonality must have so impressed itself upon the disciples as to lead up to the faith that formed the life of the Church. It did not need to unfold itself to the disciples generally in such a profound way as it did to John, nor as fully to them as it did to him after it had been broadened and deepened by his experience, but that some such a personality as the Fourth Gospel discloses could have been among the disciples and not impressed itself upon them is difficult to believe. If it did, the source of the Church’s faith is given us. Ii, however, no such personality companied with the disciples through those two years of Jesus’ life and work, then it is hard to know what it was that produced that faith. The same consideration should hold in judging the account in Ac 1-12 as to its value as revealing the real faith in and appreciation of the person of Jesus which was after all the most powerful factor in the situation. The record in Ac shows us the externals—a group of men and women who had known Jesus and who now were seeking to prove to their Jewish brethren that He was the Messiah. But what He was to them personally, what they had found or seen in Him that had spoken to their souls was hard to put into words. No Christian terminology was yet at hand, and would have been of little significance then as proof to others of the Messiahship. In the nature of the case that proof had to be drawn mainly from Scripture as fulfilled by him or from evidence of His super- natural power (His resurrection, miracles, etc.). The deeper, more personal experience, necessarily, came to expression later in such a writing as the Fourth Gospel, which is conditioned by just those circum- stances which made possible and needful such ex- pression. This experience, however, must have been present from the first, for without it there would have been no faith. In view, then, of this indirect testimony as to the eye-witness character of the record, such pas- sages as 19 35, where the author calls upon Christ Himself (éxetvoc; ef. Zahn, Introd., § 65) to witness to the truth of what he says, and 21 24, where those who publish the Gospel indorse the truthfulness of its contents, are most significant. The first passage is the outpouring of the author’s own soul in memory of the closing scene of the great tragedy on Calvary; the other is the deliberate assurance of those who knew him and his personal contact with the history which he gives. 4That the Gospel shows signs of editorial work is, of course, to be frankly admitted, in view of such a statement as that in 21 24; In fact it may be that the designation of the author as ‘the disciple whom Jesus loved’ (13 2%, 19 26, 20 2, 21 2°) is more likely to have come from those who knew (b) Bearing upon Date. As to the time when the Gospel was written, on the supposition that ch. 21 is by another hand or hands, ver. 24 would appar- ently show by its use of the present tense that the editors were contemporary with the author. Apart, however, from any testimony in this ch. the lateness of the Gospel’s writing is evident from the maturity which pervades the Gospel’s thought, as seen in the principle which evidently controls the selection of material—e.g., (a) the production of Jesus’ profound discourses (chs. 2-8, 10-17), (b) the development of thoughts present germinally in the Synoptics (cf. Mt 11 4-6 with Jn 5 36, 10 25, 38, 1411, 15 24; Mt 915, 26 11 with Jn 18 1-3, 33, 36, 7 34, 8 21, 14 2 f., 12, 19, 28, 16 5, 10, 16, 17 11). But this maturity of the Apostle’s thought would in all probability be due to lateness in the Apostolic Age; since it is difficult to under- stand where the reason for such selection would be— even with a mature mind—unless it was in the author’s times. His advance upon the Synoptists finds its natural explanation in the advance of the thought of the Church, which must have progressed with the lapse of time. (c) Bearing upon Place. As to the place of writing, there is nothing in the Gospel to determine it; altho from what has been shown as to the lateness of its date it is not likely that it was written in Palestine. (d) Bearing upon Readers. As to the readers, it is clear from 20 30f. that they were already Christians —evidently those with whom the author had come in contact in his work and whom he sought by this presentation of Christ’s life to win to a more vital faith in Him. (e) Bearing upon Purpose. As to the purpose of the writing, it is clear the author was not aiming at producing a history; the narrative is too meager for that. Nor did he have in mind the writing of a biography; there are only glimpses of the life which are given to us. His object was religious, as 20 30 f. makes plain and clear. And if it be said that all the Synoptists had a similar object (GospEL, GosPELs, § 3), it is apparent that the religious object of this Fourth Gospel in a unique way centered itself on bringing out the personality of Christ as it had impressed itself upon the author’s own spiritual life —not by a display of His miraculous deeds, for the miracles given are few; nor by a disclosure of the people’s enthusiasm for Him, for it is the popular the author’s relationship to Jesus than from this self-elimina- ting author himself; while the Baptist’s designation of Jesus as ‘the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world’ (1 29, 386) is so different from his conception of the Coming One as given us in the Synoptics as to suggest a development of his spiritual ideas by others (see Jonn THE Baptist, § 4). Obviously, the displaced arrangement of the Gospel’s ma- terial (e.g., ch. 5 before ch. 6, tho directly connected with 7 15-24; 7 1-14 before vs. 15-24, tho they stand rightly before vs. 25-36; 7 45-82 after vs. 87-44, tho they properly precede them; 12 36b-43, before vs. 44-59, tho they properly come after them; chs. 15, 16 after 14 3!, which is clearly the close of the discourse, instead of after 13 2°, or the ‘Jesus saith’ of 13 31; 18 19-24 between vs. 18 and 25, which properly belong together, instead of after ver. 13, to which they clearly relate)—all this displacement is most naturally accounted for by editorial manipulation of the original material (see Burton, Short Introduction to the Gospels (1904),pp. 117-129; also Lewis, Disarrangements in the Fourth Gospel (1910). Such editing, however, does not affect the bearing of the general material of the Gospel upon its authorship as presented in the foregoing section. 471 A NEW STANDARD coldness and hostility to Him which characterize the record, but by a presentation of Jesus’ own con- sciousness of His divinely human self. This constitutes the internal evidence. It would seem to establish the identity of the author referred to in § 2(a), above.® 3. External Evidence. External evidence is practically at one in ascribing to the Gospel a Ist-cent. origin and an authorship by a John whose contact with the Gospel history is of first-hand character. In fact, it is so clear that by this John external evidence understands the Apostle that such scholars as Drummond (Character and Authorship of the Fourth Gospel, pp. 346-351), Stanton (The Gospels as Historical Documents, Part I, pp. 231-238), Sanday (Criticism of the Fourth Gospel, pp. 238-248), Ezra Abbot (The Fourth Gospel, pp. 75 f., 84 f.), Harnack (Chronologie d. alitchrist. Literatur, I, p. 677, and Overbeck, Das Johannes Evangelium, p. 123), on careful and painstaking investigation frankly admit it. This evidence is, in brief, that at the close of the 2d cent. the Gospel was universally accepted throughout the Church as the Apostle John’s. From this date its acceptance as John’s can be traced back to Irenzeus’, the significance of whose assignment of it to this source lies in the fact that he was a pupil of Polycarp, who was himself a pupil of the Apostle John. At the same time its use, independent of assignment to Apostolic author- ship, can be traced to the first decade of the 2d cent., showing it thus to be a product of the Apostolic Age. That external evidence, therefore, unchallenged at the time as it was by those whose every interest would have been to dispute it, confirms the evidence from the Gospel itself as to the identity of the author, not only with a John of Jesus’ disciple band, but with the John of His Apostolic circle, would seem too strong to be successfully controverted. (For full discussion of the tradition see Zahn, N T Introduction, § 64.) This John external evidence locates at Ephesus, from which place he carried on his later work throughout the surrounding region, until his death in the reign of Trajan (see JoHN THE APOSTLE). The | importance of this testimony in connection with the character of the Gospel’s contents is obvious; for Western Asia was a field of speculative thought even in the Apostolic Age (see CoLossiANns, EPISTLE TO THE, § 4), and developed along lines which bear significantly upon the so called philosophical ele- ment in the Gospel. This fact has been used, conse- quently, to show that the Gospel is the product of its environment, and thus, after all, a philosophical treatise, and not a record of historical fact. To this 5 For a discussion of the theory that the Apostle was martyred with his brother James in 44 a.p., see Drummond, Character and Authorship of the Fourth Gospel, pp. 228-235, and for a discussion of the theory of Delff, which would sup- plement it, that the author was a younger disciple attached to the circle of the Twelve, see Sanday, Criticism of Fourth Gospel, pp. 19, 99-108. For other suggestions of authorship, see Jackson, The Problem of the Fourth Gospel (1918), Excursus II. 6 In explanation of the failure of Ireneus distinctly to identify this John with the Apostle (Bacon, in Hibbert Journal, April, 1903), see Drummond (Character and Authorship of the Fourth Gospel, pp. 241-245). BIBLE DICTIONARY John, Gospel of end the Ephesian residence of the Apostle is disputed and the authorship of the Gospel assigned to another John of Ephesus—the Presbyter—with whom it is claimed the Fathers have confused the Apostle, who lived and died in Palestine and who had neither the ability nor the quality which would produce such a speculative work. (See JoHN THE APOSTLE.) This is one of the points of the revived attack upon the Gospel to-day (Harnack, Chronologie, I, pp. 675-680; Jiilicher, Introduction, pp. 402-429; Schmiedel in #B, II, cols. 2506-2514; see also Wernle, Beginnings of Christianity, II, p. 275). It has secured naturally considerable weight through the confirmation given by the De Boor fragment (Texte und Untersuch., V, 2, pp. 170, 177) to the theory of the Apostle’s martyrdom in 44 a.p. (see Note 5, this page). The effort, however, to sweep away the evidence for the Asian residence of the Apostle John must be considered a failure. There is no confusion in the minds of the Fathers as to the John whose life and work in Ephesus they assert. He is clearly the John of the Apostolic circle. In fact, for the residence in Asia of another so called Presbyter John we have absolutely no proof. (Drummond, Character and Authorship of Fourth Gospel, pp. 194-235, and Bacon, Fourth Gospel in Research and Debate [1910], p. 452 f.). It would seem, therefore, that external evidence confirms the conclusions reached from internal evidence that the author of the Gospel was Apostle John. 4. Objections to the Discourses. In all the criticism of the Gospel the main point of objection has practically always been and remains to-day the difference between the discourses of Jesus given in the Fourth Gospel compared with those presented in the Synoptic narrative, the contention being that the difference between these two sets of discourses is of such a peculiar kind that the same person could not have delivered both’. In proof of this position it is held that the Fourth Gospel presents us not simply with a more elevated form of discourse in place of the simple talks of the Synoptics—nor simply with an allegorical form of statement in the place of the parabolic form of the Synoptics, but rather that the Fourth Gospel almost exclusively substitutes Jesus Himself as the subject of the discourses in place of the varied and practical topics of the Synoptic talks (cf. Mt chs. 5-7, 11-13, 18, 20-23, 25; Mk chs. 6, 7, 10, 18; Lk chs. 10-18, 15-18); while it treats this self-subject of Jesus almost exclusively at the’ point of His Divinity and His relation to the Unseen World (cf. chs. 1-3, 5-8, 10-17)—in other words that the discourses of the Fourth Gospel are transcendental, philosophical and speculative, and unthinkable as having been uttered by the Jesus whom we know in the Synoptic narrative. In considering this objection we must remember that these differences are not absolute. There are traces of Fourth Gospel peculiarities in the Synoptics (cf. Mt 11 25-30; Lk 4 16-30) and traces of Synoptic 7 Wendt’s position, Das Evangelium Johannes (1900) (Eng. transl. 1902), is an exception in its acceptance of the dis- courses as primary. John, Gospel of A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 472 peculiarities in the Fourth Gospel (cf. 4 35-38); while certain expressions of Jesus have entered commonly into both sets of discourses and entered so naturally as to make it plain that in neither case are they artificial (cf. 219 with Mk 14 58, 15 29; 4 44 with Mk 6 4; 6 20 with Mt 14 27, etc.). When, however, apart from these similarities, we ask a reason for the differences, the question arises whether one can wholly ignore the difference in the surroundings in which they were delivered, the difference in the audiences to which they were spoken, and the difference in the narrators by whom they were reported. Had the Synoptics reported Jesus as delivering to the country folk of Galilee, who were largely loyal to Him, and during the early practical period of His work, when He was gathering around Himself a discipleship from the people, the same sorts of discourses, on the same sorts of themes as the Fourth Gospel reports Him as delivering to the speculative Scribes and Pharisees of Jerusalem, who were largely hostile to Him and during the later theological part of His work, when He came to present His Messianic claims to the leaders of the Nation, the credibility of the Synoptics would have been justly called in question. On the other hand, had the Fourth Gospel reported Him as delivering the same sorts of discourses to the Scribes and Pharisees in Jerusalem, largely at the close of His ministry, as the Synoptics reported Him as deliver- ing to the Galilean peasants at His ministry’s be- ginning, the credibility of the Fourth Gospel would have been more doubted than it is now. In propor- tion as the discourses of the Synoptics are suited to the people and circumstances of Galilee and the early Galilean work and those of the Fourth Gospel to the people and circumstances of Jerusalem and the later controversial stage of the ministry—in that proportion are both sets of discourses sup- posable. This is confirmed by the significant fact that the only discourse delivered outside of Jerusalem and to a Galilean audience so effectually confused and confounded those who heard it that it practically ended Jesus’ successful work in this region. (See ch. 6.) Such discourses could not have been delivered to the Galileans from the beginning of the ministry and the ministry have accomplished what it did. This becomes all the more evident when it is remem- bered that through dislocations of the original order of the Gospel’s narrative (see Note 5, page 471), among other changes, ch. 5 follows ch. 6—as must be obvious from a study of the connections between these chs. and ch. 7. This change, however, places the discourse of ch. 5 along with the other contro- versial discourses in the later Jerusalem ministry and adds to the isolated character of the discourse of ch. 6. But, whether delivered in Jerusalem or in Galilee, one can hardly fail to note the naturalness with which they grow out of the situations with which they are connected and develop through the dis- cussions they produce. ‘Their relation to the cir- cumstances in which they are delivered is no more artificial than that of the Synoptic discourses to the conditions which called them forth. If it be claimed, that however illumining all this may be, it does not adequately explain the differ- ences in the discourses—that Mt and Lk give a record of the later Jerusalem ministry and yet do not present Jesus as discoursing in the way characteristic _ of the Fourth Gospel—it is to be remembered that while this is so they do not, on the other hand, present Jesus as speaking in the same way as in His early Galilean work. There is a tone of judgment in Jesus’ later discourses as given by them which does not appear in His earlier talks on practical every- day themes. If it be further queried—on the basis that both kinds of discourses were actually delivered by Jesus in His later work—why one kind shouid be so markedly confined to the Synoptics and the other kind with equal exclusiveness limited to the Fourth Gospel, it must be remembered that we have to deal, not only with differences in surroundings and in - audience, but with differences in narrators as well, and that it is not impossible that the Fourth Evan- gelist saw a different side of Jesus from that which the Synoptists saw and in these discourses has given us that different side, which, as a matter of fact, must have disclosed itself in largest measure in Jesus’ later ministry. If it be demurred finally that it is unthinkable that a Galilean peasant, such as the son of Zebedee, should have been capable of seeing such a side of Jesus if it did exist, and capable of giving it to usif he saw it, we must not forget that if John belonged to the intimate circle of Jesus’ dis- ciples, and if, in this circle, he could be designated as the disciple whom Jesus specially loved, then there must have been in the relation of the disciple to Jesus that personality of acquaintance with the Master which could have formed the foundation of such a knowledge of the deeper and more thought- ful side of Jesus which would have made possible an attention to and a reproduction of just such discourses as this Fourth Gospel characteristically gives. If it is natural for the more pragmatic Matthew and Peter to have caught the more practical side of Jesus’ ministry and reproduced it in their narratives, is it beyond all naturalness that a more mystical John could have caught the more thoughtful side of Jesus’ ministry and reproduced it in his narrative—especially when the manifestation of that side must have been so largely confined to the later Jerusalem ministry which he makes substan- tially the content of his record? Much is and ought to be made of the subjective element disclosed in the author’s handling of his material. On this very basis, however, if the Gospel was written when and where tradition places it, the environment of thought and life in which the author found himself must have stimulated him to just such a deeper recollec- tion and profounder presentation of the life which he had witnessed and the personality with which he had come in contact. Such a character as is here presented may not have been created by the philo- sophical and theological atmosphere of Western Asia at the close of the ist cent., but: the deeper appreciation of it as it had actually shown itself and the more thoughtful disclosure of it as it had come to be appreciated must have been influenced by 478 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY John, Gospel of such surroundings, as they could not have been by the simpler life and thought of the early years of the Apostolic Age. It is, of course, urged that in the riticism of the Epistle to the Hebrews it is claimed that a man like Paul could not possibly have written in such an elevated style and with such strange philosophical ideas as the writer of this Epistle, which is all that is claimed against the Fourth Gospel. This ignores, however, the impor- tant fact that the cases are not similar. Paul has given us an established character of style and views in his accepted Epistles. Disagreement with these on the part of the author of Hebrews is so great that there can be no identity of authorship. On the other hand, John has given us no such standard. In fact, we get a picture of the man from the Synoptic history and from the Book of Acts and from acknowl- edged tradition which shows him to have been in the direction of just such a writing. The question is simply whether he could have grown, not changed, to it. As a matter of fact, the whole problem re- duces itself to the query whether it is easier to un- derstand the Apostle as reproducing Christ’s own expression of His personality, as he had come spiritually to appreciate it under the pressure of his environment, or an unknown genius of the 2d cent. as creating this personality itself as a product of his own idealizing through the suggestion of his sur- roundings. It has been due not a little to a realizing of this impossible alternative that recent criticism has moved so definitely in the direction of recog- nizing more or less of a historical basis in the contents of the book. 5. The Thought of the Book. I. The thought of the Gospel gathers around the Person of Christ. By this is meant not merely that the Evangelists makes Jesus’ discourses the contents of his Gospel, but that Jesus makes the content of His discourses Himself (see preceding §). This is their characteristic; their subject is the self of Jesus. That personality of whose presence we are so conscious in the Synoptic narrative is presented to us here with a directness and a fulness that have made these discourses the storm-center of the Gospel’s criticism. If it can be gathered from the Synoptics that Jesus’ con- sciousness of His self was the source of His con- sciousness of His Messiahship and created not only the spirit in which, but the view-point from which, all His Messianic work was done, then from these discourses it must be convincingly clear that this self-consciousness of Jesus was the ever-present fact of His life, the eternal convicition in all that He said, and the undying motive and reason in all that He did. Jesus’ teaching regarding Himself is thus naturally the heart of the Fourth Gospel’s thought (see GosPpEL, GosPELs, § 6). In this teaching Jesus speaks of Himself in three ways: (1) As the Christ, (2) as the Son of Man, (3) as the Son of God. (1) As the Christ, Jesus came necessarily face to face with the traditional national- ism of the Jews, especially in the later controver- sial stage of His ministry. Over against their con- ception of what the Messiah should be stood the Spiritual conception with which He informed the title. As Messiah He was not a political revolu- tionist (6 14 f.), not even the king who should fulfil the theocratic ideal (1 41, 49-51); He was the repre- sentative of a new spiritual order which, apart from all theocratic conditions, was to establish the will of God in the hearts and lives of men (cf. the talk with the Samaritan woman, leading up to His acknowledgment of Messiahship, 47-26). Naturally, therefore, He does not enter into the political de- bates of the people regarding His Messiahship (ch. 7), nor answer their request for a plain announce- ment of His Messianic claims (10 24). What He was as Messiah was so far above what they thought the Messiah to be that He could not use the title with any hope of being understood. It is only with the Samaritan woman at the beginning (4 26) and with the disciples at the end (17 3) that the title is as- sumed; but the conception of the spiritual opposite to their ideas is always present.. When we examine this conception we find that Jesus practically identifies it with His conception of Himself as the Son of Man (cf. 7 31-34 with 12 34-36) and as the Son of God (cf. 9 22 with ver. 35; 10 24 with vs. 25-38; ef. also Martha’s unrebuked identification, 11 27). (2) As son of Man, Jesus came again in conflict with traditional Messianic conceptions, tho at a farther remove from popular ideas; for whatever the people may have known of it from its usage in the O T (Dn ch. 7), they had no distinct under- standing of it (12 34). Jesus was, therefore, more free to use it and to put into it His consciousness of His relationship to man. As He presents it, this relationship is that of One who had descended from Heaven as His abode (3 13) and was, therefore, to ascend again into Heaven (6 62), and who was thus to establish in Himself communication between Heaven and Earth (1 51). Because of this heavenly origin and consummation, He was the dispenser of eternal life to men (6 27, 33, 51-54) and, at the same time, the executor of judgment among them (5 27). In this mission, however, He was to be lifted up upon the Cross (8 14, 8 28, 12 32), and through this Cross to be glorified (12 23 f., 13 31). This title designates thus the unique character of His personality as the Founder and Head of the Kingdom of God, and in proportion as it resolves into itself the title of Messiah shows His conception of His Messiahship to involve in itself a nature beyond that of man. (8) This is brought out distinctly in His use of the title Son of God; for through this title Jesus presents His more intimate relationship to God in His origin with God (8 42), whom He knows thus in a primary way (8 55) and whose heavenly glory He possessed before His coming into the world (17 5), in the character of His work as perfectly represent- ing the will of God (5 30, 6 38, 8 29, 46), and thus as perfectly revealing God’s truth (8 40-46, 14 6 f., 18 37; cf. 8 26 with vs. 31 f. and 36; cf. 17 4, 6-8 with vs. 14-17), and in the character of His own self, as one with God not only morally (17 21-23), but actually (10 38, 149, 11) and essentially (10 30, 17 5). Such a title, whether understood by the people in a Messianic sense or not (1 49; ef. Mt 26 63), was certain to arouse the fiercest resentment from their monotheism (5 18, 8 58 f., 10 30-39), and we might have thought that for this reason it would have John, Gospel of Joiada A NEW STANDARD been declined by Jesus. Its use is, therefore, all the more significant as showing that, while Jesus avoided the political controversy into which the title of Messiah would have inevitably brought Him, He did not hesitate to face the people with the title which expressed the fundamental claim on which He was conscious the whole character of His work for the salvation of the world depended. At the same time, it is evident that with Jesus these two titles, Son of Man and Son of God, involve much of the same idea. In His discourse at the unnamed Feast [Pentecost] (ch. 5) He speaks of His work as The Son, asserting the power which He possessed as Son of God to raise the dead (vs. 25-29) and at the same time the judgment He was to execute as Son of Man (ver. 27). So in His discourse after the feeding of the multitude (ch. 6) He declares that through acceptance of the Son men were to have eternal life and be raised at the last day (ver. 40), and along with this asserts that it is His prerogative as Son of Man to give to men eternal life (ver. 27); in fact, that eternal life and resurrection at the last day are possible only through acceptance of this Son of Man (ver. 53 f.), and that spiritual life is to be found only in His words, who as Son of Man is to ascend where He was before (ver. 62 f.; cf. ver. 68). Again, in the discourse following the Feast of Tabernacles (ch. 8), He speaks of the accord of His words as the Son of Man with what had been taught Him by His Father (ver. 28). It is plain, therefore, that in a real sense His prerogatives as Son of God, His origin as Son of God, His character as Son of God, belong to Him also as Son of Man and so, in fact, as Messiah. In other words, Jesus’ whole presentation of Himself rests upon and is derived from the unity of His consciousness of the unique relation which He sustained to God. When we come to study the Evangelist’s own conception of Jesus as apart from Jesus’ conception of Himself,we find that, while he does not use the term Son of Man, he speaks of Jesus as the Messiah through whom has come into the world the revela- tion of God and spiritual life (1 17; cf. ver. 18), and as the Son of God whose origin was with God (13 3) and with whom He is in unique relations (1 18)— involving, according to 1 1-3, 10, a fellowship with God and an instrumentality in His creative activity before the world was—who was commissioned by God to the redemption of the world (3 16 f., 34 f.; ef. 1 9-14), and through whom alone this redemption is possible (3 18, 36). These titles he unites in his declaration of the purpose for which his Gospel was written (20 31). If it be urged that he uses such Philonic terms as & Adyog (1 1, 14) and 6 povoyevfs (1 14, 18, 3 16, 18) to express his conception of the person of Christ, it shows, even if we do not accept the Semitic possibil- ity of these terms (as contended for by Harris, The Prologue to the Fourth Gospel [1917], and Burney, The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel [1922]), that he is interpreting his idea for the Hellenic world around him. But there is no evidence that this interpretation goes so far as a misrepresentation of Jesus Himself, in which the author struggled un- successfully to fuse the actual statements of Jesus BIBLE DICTIONARY 474 with the philosophy of his day (as maintained by Scott, The Fourth Gospel [1906], ch. xii). For in the first place, it is to be noted that these terms are rigidly excluded from the discourses. They appear only in those passages which represent the Evan- gelist’s own interpretation of this Personality; in fact, they stand conspicuously as the expression of his own ideas. Furthermore, it is clear that the dis- courses themselves show nothing short of a perfect consistency between Jesus’ statements regarding Himself and that fundamental consciousness of His separate relationship to God which He possessed in virtue of a sinlessness it was not possible for humanity to posit of itself, and of functions human- ity itself could not exercise. This is all the more significant when we realize that this consciousness is disclosed in the Synoptic record which is claimed as the standard of Jesus’ thought and life (see GosrEL, GospELs, § 6). This being, then, the teaching of Jesus and of the Evangelist on the doctrine whose presentation is characteristic of the Gospel, the remaining points in its thought can be briefly stated. II. The idea of God. The statements of Jesus and of the Evangelist regarding the nature of God and His relationship to the world do not differ es- sentially from the presentation given us by the Syn- optists. There is the same monotheism (5 44, 17 3), the same Fatherhood—in a general way toward all men (3 16, 4 23), and in a unique way toward Jesus Himself (3 35, 5 20, 10 17, 15 9, 17 24) and through Him toward His disciples (14 23, 16 27, 17 23). His commission of Jesus is the supreme evidence of His love to the world (8 16), which He desires not to condemn but to save (3 17, 5 22), tho judgment, in the sense of testing, is essentially involved in the revelation of Jesus’ mission (12 47-50). At the same time, God is in His nature Spirit (4 24), and so can be apprehended only by spizitual vision (6 46, 149), and, tho the giver of spiritual life to the world (5 26, 6 57; cf. 1 12 f.), can in this giving be appropriated only by a spiritual attitude (5 40, 6 37-40, 14 21-23). III. The idea of the world. As the physical universe, it has come into being through the in- strumentality of Jesus in His preexistent relation- ship with God (1 3, 10); as the world of human life, it was entered by Jesus as its spiritual light (8 19, 8 12, 9 5, 12 35 f., 46); as the human world alienated from God—which is the characteristic idea of the world in this Gospel (8 23, 12 31, 14 17, 30, 17 14, 25, 18 36)—it was the object of God’s redeeming love (3 16) and of Jesus’ redeeming mission (12 46 f£.). Its sin is represented as a darkness, which is complacent with itself and hates to subject itself to the light (3 19-21), is of misleading influence (12 35) and of en- slaving power (8 34), is a state and condition of the soul, whose sinful acts are simply manifestations of itself (8 24, 34), and has its source and impersonation in the devil (8 44). . IV. The idea of the Holy Spirit. As distinct in His personality from Jesus (14 16, 26, 15 26, 16 7), He is a teacher of the truth which Jesus Himself revealed (16 13-15), and thus the glorifying witness 8 Ch. 17 17 is not a Logos passage, and the Nicodemus dis- course ends, obviously, with 3 15, 475 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY John, Gospel of Joiada to Him (15 26, 16 14), dwelling within His disciples and inspiring them to an understanding of His words (14 26) and transforming them in character and life (7 38 f.). In relation to the world, He con- victs it of its sin, convincing it of the righteousness of Jesus and bringing it to realize the judgment which rests upon it (16 8-11). The Spirit thus con- tinues Jesus’ redemptive work, fostering the spiritual life of the disciples and giving effectiveness to His message of truth to the world. V. The idea of eternal life. It is a condition of the soul, the opposite of its condemned alienation from God (38 16-21, 36, 10 28). It is made possible by the death of Jesus (8 14 f., 6 51, 10 10-18), through faith in whom it is made effective (3 16-18, 6 40, 47, 11 25). This faith is a personal relation to Jesus, in which one is united spiritually to Him as the branch is united to the vine (15 1-8). It is called by Jesus a knowing of God and Himself (17 3), which is that conscious attitude of the soul in which it not only spiritually apprehends God, as revealed in Christ, but so opens itself to Christ’s incoming that He becomes the ruling power of its life. It is —as is its opposite—a present spiritual state and condition, tho it is—as is also its opposite—to be consummated in the future world (6 54). 6. Personality of John. From the facts of the Apostle’s life (see JoHN THE AposTLE) and from the thought of his Gospel (see preceding §) and of his Epistles (see preceding art., § 3), it is plain that he presents to us a personality which commands our attention. Such impetuousness as he showed in his early discipleship seems to have been the outcome of a nature whose strength lay in the intensity of its affections. He was not a ‘Son of Thunder’ in the same way as was his brother. Herod did not find in him the aggressive propagandist he did in James (Ac 121 f.); the Master did not find in James the devoted ‘son’ He did in him (Jn 19 26 £.). The stories told us by tradition of his rushing from the public bath when he knew the heretic Cerinthus was under the same roof, and of his allowing himself to be taken captive by a robber band in order to reclaim a youth whom he had converted and who had fallen again into evil life, if they are to be accepted as true, show, after all, the man of intense emotions rather than the man of aggressive action. This was really at the heart of what in the Gospel story he did with the exorcist (Mk 9 38 f.) and what with his brother he proposed to do with the Samari- tans (Lk 9 51-54). From the day of that first acquaintance with Jesus at the Jordan to the morn- ing of the Resurrection Day at the empty tomb, he loved. Tho he outraced Peter to the sepulcher, Peter pushed ahead of him into the darkened place, yet he was the first to understand and to believe. The influence of this character upon his thinking is evident. It is not so much that he has flung his faith against the error with which he was sur- rounded, but rather that he has taken the greatest truth of that faith—the person of his Lord—and made it his message to his day. This it would not have been possible to do had he not first thrown himself into that truth and been mastered by it. He is not speculative in his presentation of Christ. He is not a dialectician like Paul. The words of Jesus, as he heard them in those Gospel days, dis- closed to him the unfathomable truth of that Divine life, and he meditated upon them in all the experi- ence of his after-life, but with a profoundness of spiritual vigor he could never have possessed had he surrendered himself less intensely to Him who spoke them. The wondrous vision of that Divine personality burned itself into his soul and he con- templated it, but with the open eye of spiritual strength impossible in one who loved less passion- ately than did he. John is a mystic, but not a weak one. His thought is strong, because his nature was intense. His truth is profound, because his love of Him who incarnated it and revealed it in Himself was the passion of his life. Literature: Among Introductions those of Jilicher (Eng. transl. 1904) and Zahn (Eng. transl. 21917) are the best representatives respectively of the liberal and conservative tendencies of modern German scholarship. See also Bacon, N T Introduction in N T Handbooks (1900); Peake, N T Introduction in Studies in Theology (1910); Overbeck, Das Johannes Evangelium (1911); Jones, N T in the Twentieth Cen- tury (1914). Wade, NT History(1922); Perhaps the most com- plete introductory works on this Gospel representing present English and American scholarship are Drummond’s Char- acter and Authorship of the Fourth Gospel (1904), and Bacon’s The Fourth Gospelin Research and Debate (1910); see also Moffatt, Introduction to the Literature of the N T (1941). Among the Commentaries those of B. Weiss in Meyer’s Krit. exeget. Kom. tiber d. N T (1902) and Zahn in Kom. z. N T (1908) are conspicuous for their exegetical insight; that of Holtzmann in Hand-Com. z. N T (1891) for its critical refinement. The comprehensive Commentary of Godet (Eng. transl. 1887) is in critical and exegetical protest against the liberal tendencies of his day. The English works of Dods, in Expositor’s Greek Test. (1897) and West- cott (!41902) are scholarly and thorough. The smaller work of Milligan and Moulton in the International Revision Commentary (1908) is exceedingly clear. See also the smaller Comm. of Plummer (Cambridge Greek Test., 1900); Mc- Clymont (New Century Bible, n.d.); Clark (Westminster N T, n.d.); New Testament Theologies, Weiss (Eng. transl. (1888); Beyschlag (Eng transl. 1895); Holtzmann (1897), and Feine (21912, 31919). See Stevens, in the International Theo- logical Library (1899). His single work on the Johannine Theology (1894) fails to distinguish in the Gospel between the teaching of Jesus and the conceptions of the Evangelist. See also as most suggestive: Forrest, The Christ of History and of Experience (1897); Garvie, Studies in the Inner Life of Jesus (1907); Denney, Jesus and the Gospel (1909); Moffat, The Theology of the Gospels in Studies in Theology (1913). Of special critical works those to be recommended are Sanday, The Criticism of the Fourth Gospel (1905); Stanton, The Gospels as Historical Documents (Part iii, 1920); Harnack, Chronologie der altchrist. Lit. (1897-1904). See also Lewis (Mrs.), Light on the Fourth Gospel from the Sinai Palimpsest (1913); Strachan, The Fourth Gospel, its Significance and Environment (1917); Jackson, The Prob- lem of the Fourth Gospel (1918); Burney, The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel (1922); Garvie, The Beloved Disciple (1922); also article by Reynolds in HDB. For full bibliographies on the Gospel, tho necessarily lacking the recent books, reference may be made to lists contained in Luthardt, St. John the Author of the Fourth Gospel (Eng. trans] 1875), in the Eng. transl. of Meyer’s Krit-exeget. Kom. tiber d. N T (1875) and in Watkins’ Modern Criticism in Its Relation to the Fourth Gospei (Bampton Lectures for 1890). M. W. J JOHN MARK. See Marx. JOIADA, jei’a-da (YT, yoyadha‘), ‘J’ knows’: 1. One of those who repaired the wall of Jerusalem (Neh 3 6, Jehoiada AV). 2. A high priest, son of Eliashib. He was a contemporary of Nehemiah Joiakim Jonas A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 476 and held office c. 480, but the exact dates of his rule are not known (Neh 12 10f., 22, 13 28). EK. E. N. JOIAKIM, joi’a-kim (8’P2", ydydqim), ‘J’’ sets up’: A high priest, son of Jeshua (cf. Ezr 5 2, etc.). He ruled c. 500-450, but exact dates can not be given (Neh 12 10, 12, 26). E. E. N. JOIARIB, jei’a-rib (2° RV, yoyaribh), ‘J’ will contend’: 1. The head of a priestly family (Neh 11 10, 12 6, 19; Jehoiarib in I Ch 910). 2. One of Ezra’s assistants (Ezr 8 16). 3. A descendant of Perez (Neh 11 5). JOKDEAM, jek’di-am (8Y1P?, yogd‘am): A city of Judah (Jos 15 56). Perhaps the same as Jorkeam (I Ch 2 44). Site unknown. JOKIM, jo’kim ([’P), yoqim), ‘J’ will set up’: Probably the name of a postexilic family (I Ch 4 22). JOKMEAM, jek’mi-am (O99P!, yogm“adm): 1. A Levitical city in Ephraim (I Ch 6 68), called Kibzaim in Jos 21 22. Site unknown. 2. A city mentioned in I K 412, Jokneam AV, site unknown. JOKNEAM, jek’ni-am (8%), yogn‘am): One of the royal Canaanitish cities situated on Carmel (Jos 12 22). It lay on the SW border of Zebulun (Jos 19 11), and became a Levitical city (Jos 21 34). It is the modern Katmién on the E. slope of Carmel. Eusebius mentions it as 6 m. N. of Legio, on the road to Ptolemais. It has ruins of buildings, and is in a well-watered region. On I K 4 12 see JOKNEAM. Map III, E 1. CES JOKSHAN, jek’shen. See ETHNOGRAPHY AND ETHNOLOGY, § 13. JOKTAN, jek’tan. ETHNOLOGY, § 13. JOKTHEEL, jok’ the-el (28NP?, yogth’ él), a name probably of Arabic derivation: 1. A town of Judah (Jos 15 38). Site unknown. 2. The name given by Amaziah of Judah to a place in Edom which he conquered. Its former name was, apparently, Sela, ‘the cliff,’ usually, but probably wrongly, identified with Petra, the capital of Edom (II K 147; cf. II Ch 25 11 f.). Site unknown. EH. EH. N. JONA, j0’na, JONAS, jo’nas. See JouN. JONADAB, jen’a-dab. See JHHONADAB. JONAH, jo’na (737, yodnah), ‘dove’; in N T, Jonas (Mt 12 39 #.; Lk 11 29 #. AV): 1. A prophet, the son of Amittai (II K 14 25; see Jonan, Boox oF. 2. The father of the Apostle Peter (‘Jonas,’ AV Jn 2115). See Joun. JONAH, BOOK OF. 1. Place in the Canon. The place of Jonah in the O T is among the twelve minor prophets. But whereas the other books in this group contain for the most part prophetic dis- courses with just enough narrative material at intervals to show the occasion upon which these were delivered, the Book of Jonah is occupied mainly with a story, and the prophetic message in it is given as it were incidentally. 2. Contents. Ch. 1 begins with the account of Jonah’s call to preach at Nineveh, tho what his message was to be is not yet stated (verif.). To avoid obedience to this command he takes passage See ErHNOGRAPHY AND on a ship for Tarshish (ver. 3). On the way a storm imperils the safety of the vessel with all on aboard, and the crew, on the assumption that their danger is due to the anger of the god of some one on the vessel, cast lots to find out who this may be, and Jonah is taken (vs. 4-7). This leads to their ascertaining his identity and the cause of the wrath of his god (vs. g-10). A consultation on what should be done results in his being cast into the sea; but a monster especially prepared by J’’ swallows and holds him for three days and three nights (vs. 11-17). Ch. 2 gives the prayer of Jonah ‘out of the fish’s belly.’ The lan- guage of the prayer, however, is that of one who speaks as if surrounded by waters and sea vegeta- tion rather than of one imprisoned in the body of a living monster (vs. 1-10). Ch. 3 tells of the recom- missioning of Jonah and specifies his message (vs. 1-4). The people of Nineveh listen to the message, repent and are saved from the destruction predicted by the prophet (vs. 5-10). In ch. 4 Jonah is repre- sented as grieving because his prediction of wrath had not been realized (vs. 1-5). But J’’ teaches him, through his regret at the withering of a gourd plant grown in the night, that He Himself could not easily consign to perdition such a large city as Nineveh, full of His own living, feeling, creatures (vs. 6-11). 3. Jonah, the Prophet. The identity of the Jonah of this book with the prophet of that name who lived in the days of Jeroboam II (782-740), and predicted the restoration of ‘the border of Israel from the entrance of Hamath unto the sea of the Arabah’ (II K 14 25) can not reasonably be doubted. The question is whether the book was written by this prophet, and designed to be a record of his own experiences or a work of fiction with a moral lesson at the center of it, composed by some anonymous prophet of a much later date.. The correct under- standing of the message of the book will depend on the answer to this question. 4. Miraculous Element. One view of the book is that it contains a plain statement of facts. The reasons for this view are primarily the traditional acceptance of the book as true history, as far back as its existence can be traced. References to it are to be found in the Apocrypha (II Es 1 40; To 14 4, 8; III Mac 6 8; cf. also Jos. Ant. [X, 10 2). Moreover, it is to all appearances used in the N T as reliable history. Objections to its historicity drawn from the predominance of the prodigious element in the story are answered by the counter-proposition that similar objections would hold against the acceptance of all accounts of miracles, that there is nothing impossible in the miracles narrated, and that these are indeed on a level with those ascribed to Jonah’s earlier contemporaries, Elijah and Elisha, in the Book of Kings. 5. Historicity of Contents. On the other side, it is alleged that the appeal to tradition is ineffective. Tradition expresses the mind of witnesses quite re- mote from the time of the composition of the book. The earliest point to which it can be traced is at least 200 years short of the latest date assigned te the writing, and more than 600 years after the date claimed by the historical view; and within this period ATT A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Joiakim Jonas a false conception of it was, in the circumstances, bound to grow. The use of the book as history in the N T is only apparent. The N T does not commit Jesus Christ or its own authors to one or the other of the contending theories. If the understanding of the N T men was that the book is an allegory, a parable, a legendary story, or any other form of fiction, they could not have used it in any other way than they do; and if so, the method of its use does not indicate what their view of it was. 6. N T Does Not Support Historicity. On the use made of the book in the N T, especially by Jesus, it may even be argued that it is inconsistent with the conception of it as a narrative of facts. Jesus refers to the story of the Ninevites as a great moral fact, which would put to confusion the men of His own generation at the Day of Judgment (cf. Lk 11 29 #.; Mt 12 30 #.). This, however, is quite different from His considering it historical in the strict sense of the word. For if the repentance had actually occurred, He must have viewed it either as transient or as permanent. He could not have viewed it as transient and deduced from it the argu- ment He did. On the other hand, He could not have viewed it as permanent in face of the silence of the Books of Kings, and the still more significant silence of the prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, Nahum, and Zephaniah. He must, therefore, have used the book as a prophecy or, better, as a prophetic parable, in which the repentant Ninevites represent those Gen- tiles who saw the excellency of the religion of J’. (Cf. C. H. H. Wright, Essays, 1886, The Book of Jonah, etc.) 7. Positive Proof Against Historicity. Date. The grounds upon which criticism builds a con- clusion opposed to that of tradition are: (1) The impossibility of harmonizing the contents of the book with the setting within which it must have arisen, if it is to be taken as history. In the days of Jonah, ‘the son of Amittai,’ Nineveh did not possess the magnitude and importance assigned to it in the book. This feature of it is easily understood and appreciated as a skilful, artistic touch in a work of imagination, but it becomes gross misrepresentation if the work is to be judged strictly as history. It is clearly settled from the well-attested evidence in the case that the city of Nineveh was enlarged, embel- lished, and fortified by Sennacherib (701-687 B.c.), who also made it the capital of his empire. It had indeed served as such before the year 880, when Asshurnazirpal, on ascending the throne, made Calah the seat of government and royal residence. Calah remained the capital between 880 and 701 B.c. Precisely in the days of Jonah, therefore (c. 781- 741), Nineveh had fallen into a secondary place. Sennacherib found it ‘a wretched poor place.’ No matter how one may interpret the description of it as ‘an exceeding great city of three days’ journey’ (Jon 3 3), it is impossible to take the description literally, in view of the testimony of the monuments. (2) The silence of the Hebrew records with reference to such a signal triumph of the religion of J’, as the acceptance of it by the king of Assyria, is unaccount- able. (8) At the time the book was written the greatness of Nineveh was a thing of the past (‘Nine- veh was an exceeding great city’). This fixes the date of its production to later than 612 B.c., when Nineveh was destroyed. (4) From ch. 2 it appears that the author was acquainted with and used several of the later Psalms in composing the prayer of Jonah. (5) The character of the language of the book is that of the postexilic period, not that of the 8th cent. Its affinities relate it with Ezra~-Nehemiah. It contains Aramaic elements and the grammatical constructions, which in the O T are found in the latest books (cf. G. A. Smith in Hzpositor’s Bible). (6) The book does not claim to be a work of Jonah, but one about Jonah. If it were by a contemporary, or even by an immediate follower, it might still be regarded as a true account of the prophet’s ex- periences, but since it is a late production, it can only be considered a work in which Jonah figures as the central person of a story. Upon these grounds, especially the affinity with Ezra-Nehemiah in lan- guage, and an allusion to Joel, the date of the book is fixed at some year not much earlier than 300 B.c. Its acceptance in the Canon in this case as one of the twelve minor prophets becomes perfectly natural. 8. Jonah a Parable. The conclusion to which these considerations point is that the Book of Jonah was produced as a protest against the extreme form of Jewish nationalism in the latter half of the 4th cent. B.c., that in literary form it is an imaginative work with a moral lesson, and that the ancient prophet is chosen as its hero for his known anti- Assyrian bias. It is no valid objection against this view to say that the prophet Jonah is a historical character and the weaving of his personality into a work of imagination is improper, for that is precisely what all historical fiction has been doing through the history of literature. The lesson of the story is that J’’ is the God not of the Jew only, but also of the Gentile; that He is patient and merciful; that His love extends far beyond the limits of the Jewish world into the remoteness where Nineveh lies; that it includes not only the Ninevites, but the heathen sailors whose prayers He hears; that He cares even for the cattle (4 11). Contrasted with the true breadth of God’s love stands the narrowness of Jonah’s own view of the heathen world. Rather than carry a message to Nineveh, he tries to escape in an opposite direction. He has no desire to share the favor of God with others, and would even rejoice at their destruction. His attitude of mind, however, is the correct one from the point of view of the later Judaism; for this included, as a counterpart of the exaltation of Israel, the doctrine of the subjection of the Gentiles or their annihilation. Jesus fixed on this as the central theme of the book, and used it asa means toward arousing greater zeal for the Kingdom of God among the Jews of His own day. In a word, the lesson of the Book of Jonah is analogous to the foreign-mission idea of developed Christianity. Lrrerature: C. H. H. Wright, Bib. Ess. (1886), pp. 34-98; Nowack, Handk. z. d. Kl. Proph. (1897); Perowne, in Camb. Bible (1898); G. A. Smith, in Ezposiior’s Bible (1898); R. F Horton, in New Century Bible; J. A. Bewer, in ICC (1912). A. C. Z. JONAM, jo’nam (‘Iwvéy, Jonan AV): An ances- tor of Jesus (Lk 3 30). JONAS, jo’nas. See Jonan and JouN. Jonathan Jordan A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 478 JONATHAN, jen’s-fhan (927, yonathan, and HM, ychonathan), ‘J’’ has given,’ also Jehonathan: 1. A son of Saul (I S 14 6, 8), and one of the most attractive figures in the early period of the mon- archy. He appears first as an officer in his father’s army (I § 13 3) during the war with the Philistines, and wins the love of the whole nation through the exploit at Michmash, through which he secured a decisive victory for Israel (I S 141 ff.). His friend- ship for and loyalty to David furnished a theme for one of the most touching passages in Hebrew literature (I 8 chs. 18-20). The genuineness, dis- interestedness, and constancy of this affection were displayed in the way in which he effaced himself in the effort first to save David from his father’s jealousy and then to promote his interests. The manly courage of Jonathan led him to lay down his life in the battle of Mount Gilboa, in the hope of saving Israel from the general wreck accompany- ing Saul’s downfall (IS 31 2). David’s appreciation of Jonathan’s friendship is embodied in a beautiful elegy composed on the occasion of the latter’s death (IIS 117 f.). 2. A son of Gershom, therefore a descendant of Moses (Jg 18 30). The AV reading ‘Manasseh’ is based upon a correction of the text by the insertion of an ‘n’ into the Heb. word for Moses, probably to obviate the supposed difficulty of a descendant of Moses becoming the priest of an idol. The old tradition represents him as the Levite engaged by Micah in Ephraim, but carried away by the Danites to their city, where he became the founder of a priestly family (Jg ch. 17 f.) 3. A son of Abiathar, the high priest in the time of David (IIS 15 27). 4. A son of Shimea, a nephew of David (IIS 21 21; in I Ch 27 32, David’s uncle RV, but brother’s son RVmg.). 5. One of David’s heroes (II S 23 32; 1 Ch 11 34). 6. A son of Uzziah, one of David’s treasurers (I Ch 27 25). 7. A son of Jada (I Ch 2 32). 8. The father of Ebed (Ezr 8 6). 9. A son of Asahel (Ezr 1015). 10. A Levite (II Ch 17 8). 11. A son of Joida of the house of Jeshua (Neh 12 11). 12. A priest (Neh 12 14). 13 A son of Shemaiah, a Levite (Neh 12 18, 35). 14. A scribe in whose house Jeremiah was imprisoned (Jer 37 15). 15. A son of Kareah, probably same as 14 (Jer 408). A.C. Z. JONATH-ELEM-REHOKIM, j6’noth-i’lem-n- ho’kim. See Music, § 6. JOPPA, jop’a (N!5}, yapho’, Gr. ’Iéxny): The modern Jaffa, on the Mediterranean, 34 m. NW. of Jerusalem, the scene of the ancient legend of Andromache and Perseus. The border of Dan was ‘over against Joppa’ (Jos 19 46, Japho, AV), but apparently it was never an Israelite city. The cedars of Lebanon, both for Solomon’s temple (II Ch 2 16), and the second temple (Ezr 3 7), were brought by sea as far as Joppa. Jonah found there a ship going to Tarshish (Jon 1 3). These references indicate that it was more or less in control of the Phenicians until the Persian period. It was brought under Jewish control by the Maccabees (1 Mac 10 74 #.), and Simon fortified it, enlarged its har- bor, and attempted to make it a Jewish town by driving out many of the heathen population and planting therein a strong Jewish colony. Pompey, in 63 B.c., made it a free city, but Cesar sixteen years later restored it to the Jews. From the time of Herod the Great it formed a part of Judea and was intensely Jewish in spirit. In the Jewish war of 66 a.p., because of its fanatical opposition, the Romans, under Cestius Gallus, massacred 8,400 of its inhabitants. It recovered, but was reconquered and destroyed soon after by. Vespasian. As the only harbor on the Palestinian coast between Egypt and Carmel, Joppa was of great commercial im- portance, being the one port of Judea and Jeru- salem, just as to-day it is the terminus of the railway from Jerusalem to the Sea. Christianity early found its way to Joppa (Ac 9 36-ch. 10), and in this exclu- sive Jewish city Peter had his vision with its lesson of the universality of the Gospel. The modern town with a population of about 40,000, built on a rocky ridge and surrounded by fruit gardens, is quite picturesque. R. A, F.—E. C.'L. JOPPA, SEA OF: Only in Ezr 3 7, where we should read, with RV, ‘to the sea, to Joppa.’ JORAH, jo’ra (1", ydrah): The ancestral head of a large Jewish family (Ezr 2 18), called Hariph in Neh 7 24. JORAI, jd’ra-ai ("1”, yoray): The ancestral head of a Gadite family (I Ch 5 13). JORAM, jo’ram (27, ydradm): 1. For the men- tion of the name in II § 810, see Haporam. 2. For the two kings, one of Israel, the other of Judah, sometimes called Joram, see JEHORAM. 3. A Levite (I Ch 26 25). JORDAN, jér’dan (117, yardén; in prose usually with the article, Gn 13 10, etc.): The great river of Palestine. 1. Name. The name is supposed by some to be derived from ydradh, ‘to go down,’ with the ending en for an, 1.e., ‘the descender’ (Olshausen, Heb. Gr. 215 c.). Others, however, regard it as a name borrowed from a non-Semitic stock. The ancient derivation given by Jerome (on Mt 16 13), which makes it a compound from y’’6ér and ddan, ‘river of Dan,’ or ‘the river with the two sources, Jor and Dan,’ is no longer entertained. 2. The Sources. The Jordan springs from four sources in the foothills of Mount Hermon. The first is a small stream, Nahr Bareighit (‘Flea River’); the second, and most northerly, is the modern Nahr el Hasbany, springing out of a basalt cliff on the W. side of the base of Hermon, 12 m. N. of Tell-el- Kadi, near Hasbeiya. The third is the Nahr el-Leddan, which issues out of Tell-el- Kadi (the ancient Dan). The fourth is the Nahr Banias, which gushes out of a cavern in a rocky ledge at Cesarea Philippi (modern Banias). The final confluence of these streams takes place about 5 m. S. of Tell-el- Kadi, at which point the course of the Jordan strictly begins. 3. General Course. The entire length of the river is, however, generally reckoned from Hasbeiya to the Dead Sea, and in a straight line measures 135 m., but the windings of the channel lengthen this line to about 250 m, In its progress it falls 2,000 ft., or an average of 22 ft. to the mile. Its width varies from 80 to 180 ft. and its depth from 5 to 12 ft. except at the fords, where it runs shallower. Beginning at a point on Lake Huleh, it runs below the sea-level 479 A*NEW STANDARD through the remainder of its course, the only stream in the world, so far as is known, to do this. Between the Hasbany source, however, and Lake Huleh, it falls nearly 1,200 ft., while from Lake Huleh it drops 690 ft. to the Sea of Galilee (682 ft. below the Sea), and thence another descent of 610 ft. brings it into the Dead Sea, so that at its mouth it is 1,292 ft. below the level of the Mediterranean. Its course is interrupted by the two lakes just named (Merom, or Huleh, and the Sea of Galilee, or Tiberias). This breaks the Valley of the Jordan into three natural divisions. 4. The Upper Jordan. The northernmost section is known as the Upper Jordan Valley, and runs through a rich grazing district, the plain of Huleh (the O8A48a of Josephus, Ant. XV, 10 3; XVII, 2 1), sinking, however, at its lower end into a morass | overgrown with reeds and papyrus rushes, and offering a favorite resort to a large variety of water- fowl. 5. Middle Jordan. Four m. 8. of Lake Huleh the river strikes a channel running comparatively straight N. and S. with a stony bed and basalt cliffs on each side. Between these the water runs for 10 m. almost in the form of continuous whirling rapids. It is arrested and slackened by a bar of sediment, entirely the result of its own activity, a short distance from the Sea of Galilee, into which it finds its way. It reappears at the SW. end of the lake, apparently directed toward the W., but soon turns 8. 6. Lower Jordan. The third portion of the river’s course is quite different from either of the preceding. The valley, called el Ghér (‘the deep,’ in the O T ‘the Arabah’), is 3 m. wide at the N. end, but spreads into a plain 12 m. in width in the neighbor- hood of Jericho. Within this valley the river has cut for itself a bed (called Zor) 20 ft. wide at the N. extremity, and 200 ft. at the S. The Ghdr is very fertile, and nearest the river banks it becomes a thick jungle, consisting of semitropical vegetation. In modern times these woods furnish a home for wild boars, gazels, and other similar fauna (see PALESTINE, §§ 24-26); but in the ancient period leopards and lions were known to haunt them (Jer 49, 19, 50 44; cf. 12 5). 7. The Tributaries. The tributaries of the Jordan from the W. are not significant. They include the Wady Feggas, the Wdady el-Bireh, the Nahr Jalud, the Wddy el-Gozeleh (Wdady Fara), and the Wddy Kelt (the brook Cherith?). Of these the Jalud, flowing from Beisan, and the Fara, rising near Shechem, are the most important. From the E. the Jordan is fed by the Jarmak (Nahr Yarmtk) and the Jabbok ( Nahr ez-Zerka). Besides these, the Wady Jabis, the Wddy Ajlin, the Wddy Nimrin, and the Wddy el- Kefren also join the Jordan from the E. 8. The Fords. The Jordan was the ‘great divider’ between E. and W. Palestine. It is not, however, the stream itself that constitutes the greatest barrier; for to pass from one bank to the other is no serious task, except in times of flood; it is rather the generally precipitous aspect of the banks, with their steep bluffs on each side. The crossing of the Jordan “BIBLE DICTIONARY Jonathan Jordan is effected either at certain places where it runs shallower—fords—or over bridges. Of the fords there appear to have been a large number. Five are known to exist on the ‘Middle Jordan,’ and fifty- four on the ‘Lower Jordan.’ The latter are unequally distributed. Above the juncture with the Jabbok they are numerous; but from that point to Jericho they cease and recur in the neighborhood of Jericho to the number of five. These last are probably those _ mentioned in Jos 27; Jg 3 28. Of these fords perhaps a dozen are passable ordinarily, but they are at the present day known only to those who dwell in their immediate neighborhood. One of the most famous is that of Adama (mod. Tell ed-Damiyeh), believed by some to be the spot at which the hosts of Israel crossed under Joshua (Jos 3 4). Another is Beth- Barah (Jg 7 24; Bethabarah in Jn 3 26; see § 12, below). 9. Bridges. In the Biblical period bridges over the Jordan were unknown. The word does not occur in the O T. It was only after the Roman conquest that any were built, and of these all the earlier ones have been washed away by the annual floods, some possibly by waterspouts. The ruins of five or six may be seen just below the Sea of Galilee. Three comparatively modern ones are still standing. The Jisr Benat Yakub (‘bridge of Jacob’s daughters’), be- tween Lake Huleh and the Sea of Galilee, has prob- ably been in existence for 500 years at least. Another is to be found about two hours’ ride S. of the Sea of Galilee, and a third at Jericho. 10. Jordan in History. Political Significance. From the nature of the case, it was to be expected that such a feature as the J. should play a very im- portant part in the history of Palestine. Accord- ingly, it is met at the very beginning as a boundary and division line. As a boundary it figures in Jacob’s retrospect of his experiences (Gn 82 10), in the defini- tion of the relations of the nine and one-half tribes to the two and a half (Dt 3 20, 27 4; Nu 34 10-12), and in the prospective view just before the conquest (Jos 1 2). It is also given as the ideal boundary-line of the land by Ezekiel (47 18). But as such it seems, with a single exception, never to have served as the scene of armed conflict. That exception is the case of an attack by Jonathan Maccabeus against the tyrant Bacchides (I Mac 9 45 #f.). Nevertheless, it was always recognized as a natural line of separa- tion between the two sides of the land through which it flowed. 11. Historical Associations. Besides its political meaning, the Jordan providentially acquired also a spiritual significance, through the associations created about it by the great figures of Elijah, Elisha, and John the Baptist. Elijah made his appearance in Israel from some point on the E. side, and when he felt the approaching end of his early career (II K 27) he turned toward the river. Here, by the wonderful occurrences through which the transmission of his spiritual power and work to his successor was signified, the river seemed to be con- secrated to spiritual ends. Elisha’s bidding Naaman to wash in the Jordan (II K 5 10) was in perfect har- mony with his new and sacramental view of the waters of the river. Whether or not John the Baptist Jorim Joseph was moved by its associations with the ministry of Elijah and Elisha in selecting it as the scene for his own work, he certainly found in its waters a convenient emblem of the purifying spiritual power of righteousness, which he so emphatically preached. 12. Special Sites. Places specially noted along the Jordan are: (1) the ‘plain,’ kekkar, 2.e., ‘round,’ or rather more properly ‘oval’ (district) (Gn 13 10 f.; I K 7 46; IL Ch 4 17; IL 8 18 23, ete.), which consists of the broad valley spreading out from the confluence with the Jabbok as far S. as the lost cities of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gn 19 24, 28, 18 12). The term, however, is especially applied to the environs of Jericho (Dt 343; Neh 3 22, 12 28). The name 1s also used in various senses (cf. Oxf. Heb. Lex.). (2) The name ‘great valley’ is applied in I Mac 5 52 to the region W. of the Jordan, in the vicinity of Beth- shean. (3) The scene of the baptism of John is laid at ‘Bethany (Bethabarah, or Betharabah AV) be- yond Jordan’ (Jn 1 28, 3 26), a much-disputed site, but as ‘adbharah is in II S 19 18 rendered ‘ferry-boat’ (‘convoy’ mg.) and in II § 15 28, 17 16 ‘fords of the wilderness’ (‘plains’ AV), the term indicates the existence of a resting-place (‘house of the ford’) on the E. side, and a suitable locality for John’s work. Cf. G. A. Smith, HG HL, pp. 467 ff., and consult index; also Libbey and Hoskins, The Jordan Valley and Petra (1905), Vol. I. See also PALzesTINne, § 12. Ay Ge JORIM, jo’rim (‘Iweety): An ancestor of Jesus (Lk 3 29). E. E. N. JORKEAM, jér’ki-am, JORKOAM, -ko-am. See JOKDEAM. JOSABAD, jes’a-bad. See JozaBan. JOSAPHAT, jés’a-fat. See JEHOSHAPHAT. JOSE, j6’s1. See Jusus, 3. JOSECH, jé-sek (Iwonx, Joseph AV): An ancestor of Jesus (Lk 3 26). E. E. N. JOSEDEK, JOSEDECH, jos’i-dek. See Jenoza- DAK. JOSEPH, jo’zef: (91, ydséph), ‘may he add’ (according to Gn 30 24, but in 30 23 derived appa- rently from ’dsaph, ‘to take away,’ 7.e., the reproach of barrenness): The name may have been originally yoséph-él or yosébh-él; the list of Thutmose III gives a Canaanite town Yshp’r, and there is a Bab. name Jashub(p)-ilu. 1. J., son of Jacob. The account of J.’s birth is given briefly in Gn 30 22-24, while Gn chs. 37-50 are occupied with the details of his career. (a.) General Characteristics of the Narrative. Of all the patriarchal stories this is the most artistic, its composition showing a high development of the literary faculty. A striking peculiarity of the story is the individuality and marked personality of the hero. The typical element prevails in the case of Abraham, Isaac, and even of Jacob. They are pre- sented as examples of the life of faith, or as expres- sions of national ideals. But Joseph is many-sided; he is a man whose life displayes the noblest traits, not in one direction only, but in all. As his character presented itself to the minds of the narrator and his hearers, there was in it no flaw of passion or pre- judice. As slave, prisoner, interpreter of dreams, A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 480 grand vizier, he passed through every phase of life unscathed and unsullied. Furthermore, the story 1s remarkable for the vividness of its local color. The dreams have a detail that is unlike anything else in Genesis. The harvest picture (Gn 377) with the sheaves forming a circle in the field; the vine with its processes of growth from budding leaf to perfect fruit (Gn 40 10); the white bread different from the common food of the country (Gn 40 16); the sedge of the Nile on which the cattle feed, and the blighting east wind (Gn 41 2-6) are literary touches most lifelike. To these may be added the account of Joseph’s preparation to go to Pharaoh (41 14), his courtly response (41 16), the particulars of his agrarian policy (41 33 ff., 48 ff., 56, 47 13-26), the allusion to the interpreter (42 23) and to the table customs (43 32). Very interesting is the picture of the nomads, entirely out of their element in the cultured life of Egypt. There is no particular Palestinian habitat for the story. Hebron, Shechem, and Dothan (Gn 87 12, 14, 17) are mentioned, but the narrative does not find its locus in any of them. The climactic form is rather of the novel than of the sanctuary story, told to explain the origin of altar or of cultus. It is a task quite apart to determine the actual histo- ricity of the narrative itself, but to the narrator it is evident that Joseph was as real a character as Samuel, Saul, or David, and it is probably vain to seek an origin for the main outlines of his story in the migrations and mutations of tribal life. (b.) Analysis of the Narrative. Gn chs. 37-50 have been divided into thirteen sections by Gunkel. Most of the sections have each its special climax and crisis. (1) Ch. 37. Joseph’s preference by his father, his brothers’ consequent jealousy, his sale into Egypt, and complete disappearance from the homeland. (2) Ch. 38 accomplishes two pur- poses: first, it serves to intensify the sense of Joseph’s loss by the picture of the life in Canaan going on without him. He has vanished completely, and while Judah’s story is being told, the mind of the reader is held in suspense. But secondly, the conduct of Judah and his sons forms a sharp antithesis to Joseph’s (ch. 39). (3) Ch. 391-20b. Joseph tho a slave is in high favor with his master, but at the moment of prosperity the sinful passion of his master’s wife is turned to hate by his resistance to her advances, and to the humiliation of slavery is added that of imprisonment. (4) Chs. 39 20b-40. In prison he grows in favor and is able to interpret the dreams of officers near to Pharaoh, but they leave the prison and he is forgotten. (5) Ch. 41. Pharaoh dreams, and when all others have failed to interpret, the butler remembers Joseph, who, as the result, is suddenly exalted to power and influence. (6) Chs. 42-45 24 (sections VI, VII, VIII of Gunkel’s divi- sion) are better treated as one—Joseph’s power and the way he used it. The crisis of the story is reached in these chapters, and two delicate touches appear. First, it is Judah who stirs Joseph so deeply. The two representatives of the great divi- sion of the Hebrew race are brought face to face, one as suppliant, the other as superior, yet both are dignified; there is no cringing on the one side nor 481 haughtiness on the other. The one is ready to scarifice himself for the good of all; the other acts, not from the privileges of his station, but from the impulses of his heart. There seems to be an echo of this in Dt 337. It is as if the writer, weary of the division of the two kingdoms, pictured the union that might come through noble self-renunciation wherein neither thought of himself, but only of his brethren’s welfare. Again, it is a fine sense of art which makes Joseph conceal his identity until the last. His severe dealings are all in the character of the ruler of Egypt. When he reveals himself, the princely disguise is thrown aside entirely. A less artistic narrator, or a less magnanimous brother, would have terrified the brethren at the outset with the fact that they were in the power of one whom they had cruelly wronged, but no such bitter memory is left to rankle in their hearts. (7) Chs. 45 25- 47 12, 27. The journey of Jacob into Egypt, and the settlement in Goshen, illustrating Joseph’s fore- thought and care. (8) Ch. 47 13-26. Joseph’s agrarian policy, an episode illustrating his statesmanship. (9) Chs. 47 28-31, 48 1-22. Jacob’s last will and testament. (10) Chs. 49-50 3. Jacob’s blessing and death. (11) Ch. 50 4-26. Jacob’s burial and Joseph’s death. (c.) Critical Analysis. With the exception of 371, 2a, 41 46, 46 6-27, 47 5, 6a, 7-11, 27b, 28, 48 3-6, 7 (7), 49 1a, 28b-33, 50 12, 13, which are extracts from P, and carry along the chronological and genealogical threads of the narrative, chs. 37-50 belong to JE. The documents are closely interwoven and the same essential elements are behind each source. See GENESIS, § 4. (d.) Egyptian Analogs. ‘The Tale of the Two Brothers’ (cf. Petrie, Anc. Egyptian Tales) is fre- quently cited as the parallel, if not the original, of Gn 39 1-20. It would be difficult to deny the depen- dence of the one upon the other, tho the conclusions of the two are different. Both reflect the same conditions of life, and the Egyptian background is, therefore, consistent and authentic. The gold collar and the garment of byssus (Gn 41 42) were parts of the regular investiture of a high court official. Abrech (q.v.), ’abhrékh (41 43 mg.), may be the Assyrian word abarakku, the title of a dignitary, such terms readily passing from land to land. The names (Gn 41 45) have been variously identified, but they have an undoubted Egyptian stamp, tho they have undergone considerable phonetic change in becoming Hebraized. The famine, whose length is remarkable, finds two or three parallels in Egyp- tian history, and one which occurred in the XVIIth dynasty has been by some identified with the Bib- lical account. The crown ownership of the land, together with the rate of taxation and the exemption of the territory of the priests, recorded and explained (Gn 47 13-26), are well-evidenced economic conditions. It is difficult to determine under what Pharaoh Joseph flourished. The best evidence locates him at the end of the Hyksos period, perhaps under Apepi II. All such calculations must, however, be received with great caution (see Driver in HDB, art. Joseph). (e.) Purpose and Teaching. ‘The story has been A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Jorim Joseph read as if intended merely to glorify the progenitor of the leading tribes of the Northern Kingdom and to answer questions about the origins of tribal life. We need not reject such theories altogether, but we should miss much if we took the tale simply for an attempt to minister to ancestral pride. Asin mostO T stories the ethical element predominates, but there is more init than virtue triumphant. Joseph presents a noble ideal of character, remarkable as so many O T representations are, because the features most ex- alted are those least often seen, such as faithful- ness in public and in private, and gentleness where harshness might be condoned, with no trace of rancor for injuries most deep. In the speech of Judah (44 18 ff.) the grand note of self-sacrifice is struck, which glorifies the narrative and reads almost like a foregleam of the Suffering Servant. Of what is called theology there seems to be little, yet that little is like a deep undertone. ‘How then can I do this great wickedness and sin against God’ (39 9), he exclaims in the stress of temptation. And after keeping his brethren in ward for three days he says, “This do and live; for I fear God’ (42 18). The miraculous appears only in dreams and their interpretation, which are narrated as signs that an unseen God is shaping events for His children. The relation of Joseph to God differs much from that of other O T characters; there is a modernness to the picture which is noteworthy, God’s dealings being providential and not apparitional (Gn 50 20). (f.) The Tribe. ‘Joseph’ is frequently used to de- note the combined tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh or the N. Kingdom as a whole (Gn 49 22 #.; Nu 1 32; Dt 33 13 ff.; Jos 161,;.4: Jg 1-22; 1 K 11 98:1 Ch 51; Ps 78 67, 801, 81 5 [Asaphite]. An interesting prob- lem is presented by the possibility of early settle- ments by this tribe in Canaan before the Exodus. The probable occurrence of the place-name Joseph-el in the lists of Thothmes III suggests this, and I Ch 7 21 ff. seems to refer to an old invasion by the way of Philistine territory and to the establishment of Joseph clans on the slopes of the mountains of Ephraim. The early alliance of Gibeon with Israel and the decisive battle of Beth-horon, fought on adjacent territory, the close connection of Joshua with the region, the age-long holdings at Shechem, where the first (Manassite) king held sway (Jg 9 6), and the appropriation by the Northern Kingdom of the name Israel, indicate that Mt. Ephraim was very early a center of national life. ‘Joseph’ is equivalent to the people as a whole in Ps 80. The Song of Deborah (Jg ch. 5) places the Joseph tribes in the forefront of the muster, while Judah does not appear at all. It must also be noted that of all the twelve sons of Jacob, Joseph alone is given a position in the Genesis narrative alongside of the great fathers of the race. These facts can best be accounted for on the theory that the national life attained in Joseph its highest develop- ment and argues strongly for an early and long- continued hegemony of the tribe. In the Blessings of Jacob (Gn 49 22) and of Moses (Dt 33 13 ff.) the chief glories of the Hebrew race are made to cluster around the head of him who was separate from his brethren, and, in spite of all the vicissitudes Joses Joshua, Book of A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY A82 of the ages, the overthrow and the defeat, the ruthless destruction by foreign invaders, in spite of all attempts to crush and annihilate every vestige of national life, in spite of scorn and repudiation by his brethren to the South, tho the archers have sorely grieved him and shot at him and persecuted him, it is at Shechem and upon the heights of Geri- zim alone—the hard-won inheritance of Joseph (Gn 48 22)—that the light of early Hebrew faith con- tinues to burn and to shed its poor flickering rays over the mountains and valleys, where dwelt the ten thousands of Ephraim and the thousands of Manas- seh (see SAMARITANS; Fasts AND Feasts, § 7). LirerRATURE: Tomkins, Life and Times of Joseph; Erman, Life in Ancient Egypt (1895); Petrie, History of Egypt, and Egyplian Tales; Breasted, History of Egypt. Consult Commentaries on Genesis, especially those by Driver (Westminster Series). Gunkel, Ryle (Camb. Bible), and Skinner (ICC). A. 8S. C.*—O.R.S8. 2. See Nu 137. 3. A ‘son’ of Asaph (I Ch 25 2, 9). 4. One of the ‘sons of Bain’ (Ezr 10 42). 5. A priest (Neh 12 14). 6, 7. Two ancestors of Joseph, husband of Mary (Lk 3 24, 30). 8. Joseph of Ari- mathea, a wealthy Jewish counselor, friendly to Jesus (Mk 15 43 and |\s). 9. The husband of Mary, see Mary, THE VirGIN. 10. One of the brothers of Jesus (Mt 13 55, Joses AV; also called Joses Mk 6 3, 15 40, 47 and || in Mt). See BrerHREN OF THE Lorp. 11. Another name of Barnabas (Ac 4 36, Joses AV). See BarnaBas. 12. See Bar-SaBBas. JOSES, j6’siz or j0’zez (Iwoys): 1. One of the brothers of Jesus (Mt 13 55, Joseph RV; Mk 6:33), called also the son of Mary (Mt 27 56; Mk 15 40, 47). See BRETHREN OF THE Lorp. 2. Another name of Barnabas (Ac 4 36, Joseph RV). JOSHAH, jo’sha (YV, yoshah): The head of a Simeonite family (I Ch 4 34). JOSHAPHAT, jogh’a-fat (O2Y), yoshaphat), ‘I’’ is judge’: One of David’s heroes, from Methen, site of which is unknown (I Ch 11 43). 2. A priest (I Ch 15 24, Jehoshaphat AV). JOSHAVIAH, .josh”a-vai’a (NYY, ydshawyah): One of David’s heroes (I Ch 11 46). JOSHBEKASHAH, josh”bi-ké’sha = (TUPAY?, yoshb¢qashah): In the common Heb. text this is read as one of several proper names (I Ch 25 4). It is probable that these should be read as constituting a hymn of praise (see W. R. Smith, The O T in the Jewish Church, p. 1438, also Curtis in ICC, ad loc.). The combination occurs again in ver. 24. E.E.N. JOSHEB-BASSHEBETH, j6’’sheb-bas-shi’beth. See JASHOBEAM JOSHIBIAH, jesh’i-bai’a (723Y1, ydshibhyah, Josibiah AV): The head of a Simeonite family (I Ch 4 35). JOSHUA, jesh’iu-a (YVIT, yhdshia‘), “JI” is salvation’: 1. The son of Nun (originally Hoshea, Nu 18 8, 16, Oshea AV, changed by Moses to Joshua. In AV of Ac 7 45 and He 48 Jesus.) (1) Early Life. By appointment of Moses he led an attack upon the Amalekites at Sinai, gaining a briluant victory (Ex 17 10 f.); accompanied Moses as his ‘minister’ to the summit of the mountain (Ex 24 13, 32 17), and cared for the Tent of Meeting erected by Moses. He was next chosen to represent his tribe (Ephraim) among the spies (Nu 18 8). When these returned with their discouraging report, J., with Caleb, urged trust in J’ and immediate advance on the land (Nu 14 6). For this he was rewarded with long life (Nu 14 38), and was even- tually appointed by the laying on of hands in the presence of the priests (Nu 27 18f.) tosucceed Moses. (2) Story of Life in Book of Joshua. The story of of his public life from this point onward is given in the book that bears his name. As this is a compila- tion from various sources, most of them of very much later date than J.’s own time, the book gives on the whole an unhistorical rather than a historical repre- sentation of J.’s career. As the story now stands, as soon as Moses died J. took charge of the people and led them across the Jordan. In a quick succes- sion of campaigns he attacked and took Jericho and Ai (Jos chs. 1-8). Being then confronted with the alliance of the five kings, which was headed by Adonizedek of Jerusalem, he waged a warfare of conquest against these, and practically broke all opposition to the entrance of the Hebrews into the land (ch. 10). The resistance made by Jabin, King of Hazor, with his allies on the plain beside Lake Merom was not vigorous enough to turn the tide backward (ch 11). There remained the task of distributing the conquered territory among the tribes of Israel, which occupied Joshua during the remainder of his career (chs. 13-19). Meanwhile he did much to strengthen and complete the worship of J’ and nationalize the religion. But to what extent his activities in this direction reached, and what their success was, the working over of the sources by later hands does not permit us to say. He is represented as closing his career with two im- pressive addresses, in which he put high ideals of a national life controlled by the religion of J’’ before the people, and induced them to establish a cove- nant upon this basis (ch. 23 f.). (For literary and other questions see JosHuA, Book oF.) 2. A man of Bethshemesh in the days of Samuel (IS 614,18). 3. The governor of Jerusalem in the days of Josiah (II K 238). 4. The son of Jehoza- dak (also called Jeshua), high priest at the time of the return under Zerubbabel (536 B.c.) (Ezr 2 2; Hag 11, 12, 14; Zec 31, 3, etc.). In Zechariah’s third vision, he was chosen as the representative of the Jewish people, and through the taking off of his filthy garments and the putting on him of clean ones, the expiation of the sins of the people through the sufferings of the Captivity was symbolized. As the representative of the people he also received the announcement of the coming of the Messiah under the name of the Branch (Zec 3 1-8). A. C. Z.—KE. E. N. JOSHUA, BOOK OF: The sixth book of the O T, constituting the last portion of the Hexateuch (q.v.). 1. Name. The Book was named from Joshua, the leader of Israel in the conquest of Canaan, narrated in the book, perhaps because he was considered the author of most of its contents. According to the later Jewish scholars, Jos was the first of the four 483 ‘former Prophets’ (Jos, Jg, 8, K. See O T Canon, § 8). 2. Contents. The contents of Jos may be analyzed as follows: I, Toe Crossina or THE JORDAN AND ESTABLISHMENT OF THE Camp aT GILGAL (chs. 1-6) 1. Preparations for the crossing (1 1-3 18) 2. The crossing of the Jordan (3 14-4 18) 3. The camp at Gilgal (4 19-5 12) 4. The capture of Jericho (5 13-6 27) II. Tae Conquest or THE INTERIOR HiaHuLANp (chs. 7-12) 1. Conquest of Ai (and Bethel), etc. (7 1-8 29) 2. Law read on Mts. Ebal and Gerizim (8 9-35) 3. Defeat of the confederacy against Gibeon (9 1-10 27) 4, Other conquests in the W. and S. (10 28748) 5. Defeat of the Canaanites in the N. (11 15) 6. Summary of conquests under Joshua (11 16-12 24) Ill. Tue First ALLOTMENT oF TERRITORY (chs. 13-17) 1. The earlier allotment by Moses to the E. Jordan tribes (ch. 13) 2. The allotment by Eleazar at Gilgal (chs. 14-17) (1) Of Judah (chs. 14-15) (2) Of the House of Joseph (chs. 16-17) IV. Tue Seconp ALLOTMENT, AT SHILOH (chs. 18-21) 1. Of seven tribes (chs 18-19) 2. Of the cities of refuge (ch. 20) 3. Of the Levitical cities (ch. 21) V. Dismissau or EK. JorpDAN Warriors (ch. 22) VI. JosHua’s Last Days (ch. 23 f). 1. A farewell address (ch. 23) 2. The farewell address at Shechem (24 1-28) 3. Joshua’s death, ete. (24 29-33) 3. Contents Not Homogeneous. A close examina- tion of Jos will reveal the fact that the narrative is not homogeneous, and is also in some instances in- consistent, either with itself or with statements in other O T books. Some of the more significant in- consistencies may be cited as examples of many others of like character. In 2 15 Rahab’s house is on the wall of Jericho, but in 6 22, after the wall has fallen down flat, Joshua sends men into the city to find the house and bring out the woman. In 4 2 fi. twelve stones from Jordan are to be set up as a memorial on the bank (at Gilgal, ver. 19), but in ver. 9 they are set up in the bed of the river. In 8 3 ff. an ambushment of 30,000 men is placed near Ai, while in ver. 12 an ambushment of 5,000 men is placed in exactly the same spot for the same pur- pose. The section 8 30-35 demands a much longer time and a more complete work of conquest than is suggested in the preceding account. In 10 29- 43 J. is represented as completely conquering all S. Canaan, including the towns of Hebron and Debir, but in 14 6 ff. this same region is asked for by Caleb, given to him, and in 15 13 ff. conquered by Caleb as a part of the inheritance of Judah (cf. also Jg 1 2-20). In 13 1-7 J. is an old man, and, the main work of the conquest being over, he is directed to allot the land to the nine and one-half tribes, but in 14 6 ff. the hill-country of Judah is not yet conquered, and in chs. 14-17, instead of nine tribes, only Judah and the house of Joseph get their allotment at this time; 13 1-7 is, therefore, no suitable caption for what follows. In the story of the second allotment (ch. 18 f.) the introductory statement, 18 1-2, has no connection with, nor does it find any explanation in, the preceding narrative. Finally, that two farewell addresses should have been delivered by Joshua (chs. 23 and 24) is in itself remarkable, and the more so when we com- A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Joses Joshua, Book of pare them and find them so different in style and point of view. See also Hexarrucn, § 20. 4. Explanation of This Lack of Unity. The only satisfactory explanation of such inconsistencies is to be found in the theory that in Jos several originally separate narratives have been combined into one somewhat incoherent whole. The main thread of the narrative in chs. 1-12 (Div. I and II) was prob- ably drawn from the old J and E narratives, but not until after these had undergone some revision under the influence of the conditions of later times. 1 10-11a, 2 (all but 9b-11 and 24b), 3.1, 5, 9-10a, 11, 17, 4 ib-7a, 8, 10b-11, 18, 20, 5 2-3, 8b-9, 13-15, 6 (all but 18-19, 24b), 7 (except ver. 1), 8 (all but 1b-2a, 27 £., 30-35), 9 3-9a, 11-15a, 16, 22 f., 26, 10 1-7a, 9-14, 16-24, 26-27, 111, 4-9, may with reason be assigned to this source. In chs. 138-24 (Div. II-VI) the later Deuteronomic and Priestly elements predominate, especially the latter. Only 18 1, 7, 13, 15 14-19, 63 (cf. Jg. 1 10-15, 21), 16 1-3, 10 (cf. Jg. 1 29), 17 11-18 (cf. Jg 1 27b), 18 2-6, 8-10a, 19 47, and ch. 24 (except vs. 13 and 31) seem to belong to the ancient JE narrative. For the passages that seem to have belonged to the Priestly narrative see HexaTrucn, § 28 (end). The remainder of the material is ‘Deuteronomic,’ that is, it was written under the influence of the great ideas of Dt in which Israel’s history is viewed almost exclusively on its religious side (see DEUTER- onomy, § 6). 5. Process of Composition. The problem of the process of composition of Jos is a complex one. The following view, it is believed, will be found to satisfy the main conditions. The old JE narrative probably included an account of the conquest of Canaan, ending with Joshua’s farewell and death' (see Hrxa- TEUCH, §§ 12 and 20). In consequence of the com- bination of JE with Dt, the connection of the material in JE relating to the conquest with the earlier portion ending with Moses’ death was broken. This later part of JE was then worked over in the spirit of the Deuteronomic school more exten- sively than were the preceding portions, giving a distinctively ‘Deuteronomic’ history of the con- quest (see Hexarnucu, § 20). Later, these older portions of the Hexateuch were combined with the Priestly narrative, and either then, or not long after, all the material relating to the conquest was separated from the preceding, resulting in the forma- tion of the Pentateuch (as the Law) and the present Book of Joshua (see Hrxarrnucn, § 30). 6. Historical Value. Notwithstanding the late character of much of its material, Jos contains historical information of the highest value. With Jg ch. 1 the JE portions of Jos give us practically all we possess of the early tradition of the conquest of Canaan by Israel. While a complete account of the conquest is not given, the main outline of the movement has been preserved. But even in J and E the exact course of events is no longer clearly perceived. The traditions have become obscured or confused. The later unity of the Kingdom period (when J and E were written) was projected back into the earlier period. It is in the Deuteronomic and Priestly parts, however, that the most glaring historical inconsistencies are found. The Deuter- Josiah A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 484 Judas of James onomic writers failed to remember that the actual work of conquest was difficult and gradual, and accomplished largely by the different tribal elements of Israel, each working out its problem largely by itself; hence the résumé of Joshua’s work in 10 28 ff. and ch. 12, so contrary to the older notices in JH, in Jg 1, and in other early accounts. Ch. 23 reveals the ‘Deuteronomic’ point of view perfectly. It was forgotten by both the Deuteronomic and Priestly schools that the work of conquest broke Israel into a number of separate, detached elements, and that the unity under one military leader (Joshua) and one priestly head (the high priest) never really ex- isted. That was an ideal of later and especially post- exilic days projected back into the remote past. It is only in the ideals they set forth, not in their actual historical characters, that such elements are of value to the historian of Israel to-day. The geographical notices giving the tribal boundaries and the cities belonging to each tribe (chs. 13-19) contain valuable information on the historical geography of Palestine. LireraTurRE: Driver, LOTS, pp. 103-116; Carpenter-Harford, The Comp. of the Hexateuch (1902), pp. 347-378, 522 f.; H. W. Robinson in The New Century Bible; G. A. Cooke in Camb. Bible (1918). K. E. N. JOSIAH, jo-sai’a (YN, ys’shiyyaha), ‘J’ sup- ports’: 1. The son of Amon and Jedidah, the daughter of Adaiah, and king of Judah (638-609). He was raised to the throne at the age of eight, upon the assassination of his father (II K 21 23, 25.) It was in the eighteenth year of his reign that his distinctive policy was inaugurated. In that year he sent Shaphan, the scribe, to superintend some repairs in the Temple. While engaged in this work, Shaphan was given ‘the book of the law’ by the high priest, Hilkiah, which the latter said he had found in the Temple. The book was read to the King and by him believed to be the ideal national constitution of Israel. Upon its basis, Josiah instituted thorough- going religious reforms, centralizing all the worship of the land at the Jerusalem Temple (II K 22 1-20). It is generally agreed that this book was the code now found in Dt chs. 5-26 (or at least chs. 12-26), but that it was forged for the purpose of furnishing the king with the instrument of his reformation is not to be thought of. It is probable that it had taken form gradually as an ideal around a nucleus of Mosaic prescriptions. But it can hardly be ques- tioned that in Josiah’s reformation the Deuteronomic legislation for the first time became operative as the national constitution (see also DrurERonomy). In 609 Pharaoh Necho made an invasion into Palestine which Josiah undertook to resist, and in doing so lost his life in the battle of Megiddo. 2. A son of Zephaniah, contemporary of the prophet Zechariah (Zec 6 10). A. C. Z. JOSIBIAH, jes’’i-bai’a. See JosHrpran. JOSIPHIAH, jos’i-fai’a (M2PV, ydsiphyah), ‘J’ adds’: The father of Shelomith (Ezr 8 10) JOT (the letter 7, the Gr. tét«): The smallest letter of the Greek alphabet (Mt 5 18). If Jesus spoke in Aramaic His reference was to yédh (°), the smallest letter of the Aramaic and Hebrew alphabets. EK, E. N. JOTBAH, jet’ba (799), yotbah): The native place of Meshullemeth, mother of Amon, King of Judah (II K 21 19). Site unknown. JOTBATHAH, joet’be-fha (1930), yotbathah, also Jothbath AV): A station on the wilderness journey (Nu 33 33 f.; Dt 107). Site unknown. JOTHAM, jo’them (ON, yatham), ‘J’’ is per- fect’: 1. The youngest of the seventy sons of Gideon, who alone of all his brothers escaped the murderous designs of Abimelech. Through the parable of the trees selecting the bramble to be their king he warned the Shechemites against Abimelech (Jg 95,7, etc.). 2. A son of Uzziah (Joatham in Mt 19 AV) and king of Judah (c. 750-734 B.c.). He be- gan his reign as coregent, when leprosy appeared upon the person of his father (II K 15 5). He is said to have fortified and extended the dominion of Judah over the Ammonites (II Ch 27 3-6), and to have built the upper gate of the Temple. 3. A son of Jehdai (I Ch 2 47 AV; Jothan, RV). A.C. Z. JOTHAN, See Joruan, 3. JOURNEY, SABBATH DAY’S. See Wetaurs AND MEASURES, § 2. JOZABAD, joz’a-bad (1311, ydzabhadh), ‘J’ gives’: 1, 2, 3. The names of three of David’s soldiers (I Ch 12 4 [Josabad AV], 20). 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. The name of six Levites (II Ch 31 13, 35 9; Ezr 8 33, 10 23; Neh 87, 11 16). 10. A priest (Ezr 10 22). JOZACAR, joz’a-kar (13!", ydzakhar, Jozachar AV): One of the conspirators who slew King Joash (II K 12 21). In II Ch 24 26 by a scribal error he is called Zabad. His mother was an Ammonitess. EH. E. N. JOZADAK, jez’a-dak. See JEHOZADAK. JUBAL, ji’bal (29°, yubhal): A son of Lamech, legendary originator of the art of music (Gn 4 21). See also JABAL. JUBILEE, YEAR OF. See Fasrs anp Fuxasts, § 2; and Sapparu, § 5. JUBILEES, BOOK OF: An apocryphal writing, commonly classed with the Apocalypses. It was known to the ancients and to medieval Christian writers under the name of the Little Genesis, but having disappeared in the 14th cent., it was for- gotten until the middle of the 19th. The missionary Krapf brought an Ethiopic MS. of it to Europe in 1848, which was published by Dillmann. It re- produces the contents of Genesis and of Exodus as far as ch. 14, with many additions and embellish- ments of a legendary nature. It appears to have _ been composed by a Pharisee between 100 B.c. and 100 a.p. Cf. R. H. Charles, The Book of Jubilees (1902), and in Apocr. and Pseudepigr. of the O T, Vol. IT (1913). AD Cae. JUCAL. See Jenucat. JUDA, jt’de, JUDAH, jii’da. See Jupag, I. JUDAA, ju-di’a. Classic form of JupEA. See PALESTINE, §§ 33, 34. JUDAH, ji’da (THM, yhadhah), ‘J” praised ’(?): I. As a tribe, see Trises, §§ 2-4. II. As a kingdom, * see ISRAEL, History oF, § 6. III. For topography, see PALESTINE, § 7. OO 485 JUDAS, jii’das ('Lot3ac): The Gr. form of the Heb. name Judah, a common one among the Jews (Mt 10 4, 18 55; Lk 6 16, etc.). It was possibly endeared to late Judaism by the heroism of Judas Maccabeus (I Mac 2 4). R. A. F.—E. C. L JUDAS, an ancestor of Jesus (Lk 3 30) JUDAS, THE LORD’S BROTHER: One of the younger sons of Mary, the mother of Jesus (Mk 6 3; Mt 13 55). With his other brothers he evidently misunderstood Jesus until after the Resurrection (Mk 3 31; Jn 7 5, 19 26, 27; Ac 114). Later, he seems to have been known in Paul’s circle as engaged in the work of the Gospel (I Co 9 5), tho never as prominent as his brother James (Gal 2 9, 12; Ac 15 13-21, 21 17-25). If, as may well be, he wrote the Epistle of Jude (q.v.), he shrank from calling himself ‘the brother of the Lord,’ desiring to be identified as the brother of the well-known James. Hegesippus | says that his grandsons, arrested for claiming descent from David, tho they were poor peasants, were scornfully discharged from custody by Domitian. (See BRETHREN OFTHE Lorp.) R.A. F.—E.C.L JUDAS BARSABBAS. See BarsasBBas. JUDAS OF DAMASCUS: The person in whose home the converted Saul of Tarsus was found by Ananias (Ac 9 11). Otherwise unknown. R. A. F.—E. C. L. JUDAS OF GALILEE: So called, tho a native of Gamala in Gaulonitis. Together with a Pharisee, Sadduk, he led an agitation against the Roman authority when Quirinius undertook a census for the purpose of taxation—probably in 7 a.p., after the deposition of Archelaus (Ac 5 37). It was essentially a religious movement, based on the belief that God alone was to be their ruler, and from it sprang the Zealots (see CANANEAN), who became a distinctively political party over against the more or less religious sects of Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes. Josephus says nothing about the death of Judas and his followers, but his sons perished in later revolts. R. A. F.—E. C. L. JUDAS ISCARIOT, is-kar’i-at. One of the twelve disciples, the betrayer of Jesus. In each of the three lists of the Twelve (Mk 3 19 and ||s) he stands last—a position suggestive of his tragic failure (cf. Jn 6 70 f.). 1. Origin. In the Synoptics he is called ‘Iscariot,’ but in the Fourth Gospel his father, Simon, is also so named (671, 13 26), and evidently the term means ‘man of Kerioth.’ Kerioth is either the modern Karjetan, 8. of Hebron, Map II, E 3 (cf. Jos 15 25), or Kuriut, Map III, G 4 (Koree, Jos. Ant. XIV, 3 4), on the extreme northeastern border of Judea. Judas was, perhaps, the only Judean in the circle. 2. Call. From Mk 3 14 f.; Jn 6 70, it would seem that Jesus selected those to whom He was to entrust His gospel with the greatest care, but in view of Jn 6 64 the choice of Judas is very perplexing. Attempts have been made to explain it as a conscious submission by Jesus to the Divine plan for effecting His redeeming death, but the Synoptics require a a different solution. Judas must have promised well, and Jesus with His insight into character saw that in the Messianic enthusiasm of this Judean A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Josiah Judas of James there were great possibilities for good—or evil; and out of His loving heart He took the risk and gave him his chance. If any of the band should prove disloyal, Jesus knew from the beginning who it was that should betray Him. Judas shared all the poverty and hardship of the itinerant discipleship without suspicion on the part of his comrades, for they made him their steward (Jn 12 6). 3. Betrayal of Jesus. The crisis was probably brought on through the announcement in Jesus’ Capernaum address of the spiritual character of His mission (Jn ch. 6) involving the necessity of His death (Mk 8 31). Upon this announcement the enthusiasm of the Galileans died out, and whereas in the other disciples their love for Jesus struggles victoriously with their disappointment, in Judas it settles into demonic hatred (Jn 6 70), and at last utterly ruins his soul (17 12). Possibly the evil showed itself in pilfering from the common fund, and he may have been.detected by John, who of all the Evangelists has the most aversion for him (Jn 12 6). The actual betrayal (Mk 14 10 f., 18-21, 42-46; Mt 26 14-16, 21-25, 46-50; Lk 22 3-6, 21-23, 47, 48; Jn 13 2, 10 f., 18 f., 21-30, 18 2-9) presents difficulties, but we infer—(a) Jesus knew that Judas was betraying Him, and Judas was conscious of this knowledge at the Last Supper, which he seems to have left before the Eucharist was instituted; (b) the disciples, shocked at the possibility of such treachery, do not suspect Judas, for Jesus simply says that one of those in table fellowship with Him will betray Him. (c) Avarice was a partial motive (Mt 26 15; Jn 12 6), but Judas also was a tool of Satan (Lk 22 3; Jn 13 2, 27). (d) Judas knew the resort of Jesus and took every precaution to avoid miscarriage of his plans, but at the garden seems to have been disconcerted by the Master’s self-possession. It is not quite clear how the kiss of the traitor can be adjusted to the Johannine account. 4. Final Estimate. The two narratives of Judas’ death (Mt 27 3-10; Ac 1 18 f.) present serious dis- crepancies, which can only be reconciled with much ingenuity. Mt emphasizes the traitor’s remorse, while Ac brings into prominence his fate. The attempt to interpret the conduct of Judas favorably, as, e.g., that he wished to force Jesus to lead a popular movement, is inconsistent with the narra- tives. His remorse shows that he was not wholly bad. Avarice, desire to save himself since the death of Jesus was inevitable, despair at being involved in a spiritual movement which was issuing in a Messianic fulfilment wholly different from what he had hoped for, intolerance of the constant rebuke of his selfish nature by the penetrating insight of Jesus, all contributed to the awful ruin. R. A. F.—E. E. N. JUDAS OF JAMES. One of the Twelve, accord- ing to Lk 616 and Ac 1 13 (but not in the list as given in Mk 316 #.=Mt 102 8.). The phrase ‘of James’ would be taken ordinarily to mean ‘son of James,’ but it may mean ‘brother of James.’ The same per- son is referred to probably in Jn 14 22 (‘Judas, not Iscariot’). Many think he is to be identified with the Thaddeus of Mk 318 (= Lebbzus in Mt 10 3). Nothing certain is known of him other than what Judas Maccabeus Judges is contained in the references just cited (see also TuappgEvus). It is possible that this is the Judas who wrote the Epistle of Jude (q.v.). H. BE. N. JUDAS MACCABEUS. Sce MaAccaBEEs. JUDE, EPISTLE OF: 1. Authorship. Who was Jude or Judas who claims (ver. 1) to be the author of the Epistle? He simply calls himself ‘a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James.’ If there are no cogent reasons to the contrary, it is natural to identify him with the brother of Jesus mentioned in Mark 6 3. 2. Apocalyptic Influence. No weight can be attached, as by some, to the fact that he quotes from apocalyptic literature. Thus ver. 14 £. is taken from the Book of Enoch, which has influenced various passages in the Epistle. Ver. 9,is quoted from the Assumption of Moses. And there are further traces of apocalyptic influence. 3. Date. These apocalypses were in existence long before the 2d cent. If we could speak more definitely of the incipient Gnostic tendencies attacked throughout the Epistle, we might venture to be more dogmatic about the date. There is an ancient tradition quoted by Eusebius (H £, 3 19 f.) as to the grandchildren of Judas, the brother of James of Jerusalem, being brought before the Em- peror Domitian, which makes it necessary to place the Epistle early in his reign or before it. As to attestation, it may be said that by the close of the 2d cent. it was acknowledged by such writers as Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian as genuine, and it appears in the Muratorian Canon. Its destination must be pure conjecture. 4. Aim. The aim of the Epistle is entirely prac- tical. The writer is seriously concerned by the in- roads of false teaching in the community or com- munities he has in view. Assuming that his readers understand the errors against which he warns, he gives no minute definition of them. He speaks of the abuse of love-feasts (ver. 12), of antinomianism (passim), of denying Christ (ver. 4). But we have no grounds for connecting them with any theoretical errors like that of Cerinthus. 5. Errors. Plainly sexual abuses and covetousness were rampant. The false teachers are described as having ‘creptin.’ Moffatt thinks that the references point to ‘a familiar type of the prophet or mystagog who traded on the credulity and generosity of his dupes.’ The identification of them with definite groups of heretics such as the Ophites or Carpocra- tians is quite unwarranted. But they possessed some of the characteristics which already marked out those Gnostics who were beginning to be influential in the Christian community. Thus they were exclusive, prided themselves on their special attain- ments (so the author deliberately names them Yuxtxét, denying them the rye), and so lacked the true spirit of the Christian brotherhood. For the relation of the Epistle to Second Peter, see the article on that book. LITERATURE: The best English Commentary is that of J; B. Mayor (1907). A very full and well-balanced account of all the questions at issue is given in the relevant section of Moffatt’s Introduction to the Literature of the N T (1915). HAAS, A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 486 JUDEA, ju-di’a. See Pauestine, §§ 33, 34. JUDGE. See Law anp Leaatu Practisex, §§ 2,4. JUDGES: The eighth book of the O T. 1. Name. The name ‘Judges’ was given to it because the main portion of the book relates the deeds of leaders who are said to have ‘judged’ Israel. The Heb. term shdphét, translated ‘judge,’ must not be understood in an exclusively judicial sense. As used in the book of Jg, is practically equivalent to ‘ruler.’ 2. Contents. The analysis of Jg is simple. The book consists of three main divisions I, A FRAGMENTARY ACCOUNT OF THE CONQUEST OF CANAAN BY THE DIFFERENT TRIBES (1 1-2 5) 1. The movements of Judah and Simeon (1 1-21} 2. The conquest of Bethel by the House of Joseph (1 22-26) 3. aes Rao Set Canaanite cities in various tribes 4. ie rebuke by the angel at Bochim (2 15) II. Isrann UNDER THE ‘JUDGES’ (26 -16 31) 1. Introductory, giving the religious significance of the history of the judges (2 ®-3 8) 2. The deeds of the judges (3 7-16 31) III. An Apprenpix, ConTainrine Two Stories OF THE TIMES OF THE JuDGEs (chs. 17-21) 1. The migration of the Danites, and the establishment of the sanctuary at Dan (chs. 17-18) 2. The outrage at Gibeah, and the vengeance visited on the tribe of Benjamin (chs. 19-21) 3. Unity. The unity of Jg is only superficial. The three main divisions have no real internal connec- tion. They do not form, taken together, a pro- gressive, self-consistent narrative. The introductory statement, ‘And it came to pass after the death of Joshua,’ prefaces a narrative that deals with events which took place while Joshua was yet alive. Much of the material in ch. 1 is found also in Jos., partly in identically the same words (cf. 1 10-15 with Jos 15 13-19; 1 21 with Jos 15 63), and relating to Joshua, and his contemporaries. The question (ver. 1b), ‘who shall go up for us first against the Canaanites,’ plainly refers to the beginning of the conquest, and can not be applied to a time after Joshua’s death. The next notice of Joshua’s death in 2 8 is in perfect order, for there it serves to introduce the history of the age succeeding Joshua. The first words of Jg are then either out of their original place (2 11 ?), or are merely a late editorial addition to connect the book with the preceding Book of Joshua. In the second main division a distinct difference is to be observed between the introductory section (2 6-3 6, with the setting, e.g., 37 f., 12 f., 41, ete., given to the separate stories of the judges) and the stories themselves. The stories themselves say little about the religious situation, but in the long intro- ductory section and in the shorter interspersed com- ments this is the aspect on which all the emphasis is laid. The stories were, therefore, not composed by the author of the context in which we now find them, but were already at hand and used by him to point out the religious lessons of Israel’s early history. The two stories in the third division are likewise in no close logical or chronological connection with the rest of the book. Neither of them relates to the deeds of a judge, and both concern events that were thought to have taken place very soon after the Conquest. 4, Composition of Judges. The critical problem 487 presented by Jg is complex. Two features stand out clearly: (1) the abundance of very old material in the book and (2) the use made of this material by later writers, who belonged to an entirely different. age, and whose main interest was not historical but religious. The oldest material in Jg is to be found in the stories of the deeds of deliverance wrought by heroes of the olden time, and in the poem in ch. 5. Such material was preserved in the first place in the various localities where the valiant deeds were per- formed, and was there available for later collectors. The evidences of a double thread of narrative in the old stories, e.g., in that of Gideon, in which the characteristics of both J and E appear, have led an increasing number of scholars to conclude that these documents, or the literary work of the schools that produced them, included not only the history of the Conquest but the later period down to the time of Saul and David or even later. complicated literary problem see Driver, LOT®, or such comm. as those of Moore in JCC, or Burney (1918). The collector (or collectors, if we adopt the view that this was the work of ‘J’ and ‘E’) of these stories was interested, naturally, in the religious significance of Israel’s early history. But his (or their) view- point was that of the early Kingdom pd. (the pre- Deuteronomic pd.). Consequently the theory of religious defection and its punishment does not appear in this older material. It was a later hand, anticipating the more fully developed view of the ‘Deuteronomic’ school who worked over the stories as already collected and provided them with the general introduction and setting, to which reference has been made above (§ 3), but whose religious pragmatism was not so pronounced as that of the later Deuteronomic school. This pre-Deuteronomic collection of stories of the ‘judges’ was then revised by a later writer of the Deuteronomic school, who omitted the El and Samuel parts (probably also chs. 9 and the older elements in 17-21), added the story of Othniel (8 7-11), and worked over the intro- duction (2 6-3 6) and similar passages, in the spirit of the rigid pragmatism of the Deuteronomic writers. At a still later date this Deuteronomic ‘Judges’ was enlarged by the addition of 1 1-2 5, and the restoration of chs. 9 and 17-21 (considerably worked over), thus producing the book in its present form. This theory of the composition and tormation of the Book of Judges (essentially that of Burney) gives an adequate explanation of the facts dis- coverable on close study. For somewhat divergent theories consult Driver, LOT’ or the various comm. 5. The Chronology of the Judges. In Jg the periods covered by the different oppressions, the careers of the various judges, and the era of peace are given in great detail. The total amounts to 410 years. If we add to this sum the years of the wandering (40), of Joshua’s life (80?), of Eli (40), and Samuel (40?), Saul (20?), David (40), we have a total of over 600 years between the Exodus and the building of Solomon’s Temple. But this figure is altogether too high. It contradicts the statement in I K 61 that the Temple was begun 480 years after A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY For details of this’ Judas Maccabeus | Judges the Exodus, which is itself an excessive estimate, probably based on an artificial scheme of twelve 40- year periods from Moses to Solomon. Since the Exodus could not have taken place much before 1200 B.c. and David’s accession must be placed circa 1000 B.c., only about 150 years can be assigned to the period of the judges. The simplest solution of the problem is that the stories of the various judges were originally independent of each other and that the judges themselves were really local heroes, whose authority was in most cases limited to the tribe to which they belonged. Many of them were probably contemporaries. It was through the later arrange- ment of the stories in a chronological succession that the excessively long sum total was obtained. If we assign 50 years to the era of Deborah (including Othniel, Ehud, and Shamgar), 50 more to the era of Gideon (including Abimelech, Tolah, and Jair), and 50 more to the era of Jephthah and Samson (with the rest of the ‘minor’ judges), we shall have an approximately correct chronological distribution of the material in the book. (See also CoHrRoNoLOGY OF THE O T.) 6. The Historical Value of Judges. In estimating the historical value of Judges a distinction must be drawn between the statements made by the editors of the old stories and the stories themselves. The later editors (especially those after the original collector) viewed the early history almost entirely from a religious standpoint. The reverses and mis- fortunes narrated in the old stories were, therefore, interpreted as indisputable evidence of religious defection, which was thus punished by J”, who also in His gracious forbearance took pity and raised up deliverers. That there is a certain amount of truth in this ‘pragmatic’ view of the history no one would care to deny, but it is nevertheless a late interpretation by writers who failed to see the real character of Israel’s early life in Canaan as revealed in the old stories and poems (see Hrxatrrucn, § 14 f.). Apart from these late editorial sections Jg must be considered of great historical value. The first part (1 1-2 5) was drawn largely from the old JE history and contains just the information needed to supplement and correct the narrative in Jos (see JosHuA, §§ 3-5). In the second part (2 6-16 31) the stories of Deborah, Gideon, etc., well reveal the - character of the struggles and problems of the pre- kingdom period. The loose tribal organization, the jealousy and strife between different tribes and clans, the great degree of intermixture (both social and religious) with the Canaanites, the conflicts with invading barbarians, the beginnings of the long con- test for supremacy with the Philistines (Samson stories) and with the Ammonites (Jephthah story), the generally rude and rough character of the age, and the fundamental religious basis of the unity of Israel (loyalty to J’’)—all are well reflected in these ancient stories. The Ode of Deborah in Jg ch. 5 is one of the most important historical docu- ments in the O T. Evidently composed on the occasion of the great victory over Sisera, it gives us a view of the times of the greatest value, both for what it tells us of the conditions in Israel in that day, and for the historical presuppositions as to the Judgment Justification preceding Mosaic period. No theory of Israel’s early history that is inconsistent with the Ode of Deborah can be accepted as correct. The two stories in the Appendix (chs. 17-21) differ in his- torical worth. The first one (ch 17 f. )is full of most reliable and valuable information regarding early religious conditions in Israel. The second story as it stands is less trustworthy. The account in ch. 19 is in the main old and historical. But this was used by a later writer as a basis for a narrative, which is artificial and contains many historical im- probabilities. While some early disaster may have befallen Benjamin, and while very probably the maidens of Shiloh were accustomed to dance at the annual feast of J’’, the main narrative, which thinks of all the tribes of Israel as acting in that early period as a religious unit, is contradicted by all that we know of those times, which were characterized by anything but unity. LirpratuRE: G. F. Moore in ICC (1901), and the Com. on Judges by C. F. Burney (1918) are all that can be desired. Briefer Coms. are those in the New Century Bible and in the Camb. Bible. See also Driver in LOT®. JUDGMENT. See Escuatouoay, §§ 29, 36, 39, 41, 46-49. JUDGMENT HALL. See Prerorium. JUDGMENT SEAT: In ancient Israel the judge was accustomed to sit in giving judgment (Ex 1813), and the royal throne was preeminently a seat of judgment (I K 77; Is 16 5; Pr 208). It was thus natural that J’’s throne should be thought of as a judgment seat (Ps 97; J1 312; Dn 79 f.). The N T speaks not only of the throne of God (Rev chs. 4-5, etc.), but of the judgment seat of Christ (Ro 14 10; II Co 5 10) as the bar before which all men must appear (cf. Mt 25 31). In a figurative sense, Jesus told His disciples that they also should sit on thrones to judge Israel (Mt 19 28; Lk 22 30). The term @jue is used in a strictly technical sense in Mt 27 19; Jn 19 13; Ac 18 12-17, etc., of the judgment seat of the Roman governor, and in Ac 25 17 of the tribunal of the emperor himself at Rome. K. KE. N. JUDITH (MM, yehiidhith), ‘woman of Judah’: 1. A daughter of Beeri the Hittite and one of the wives of Esau (Gn 26 34). 2. The daughter of Merari, of the tribe of Simeon, and the widow of Manasses of the same tribe (Jth 81, 2), the heroine of the Book of Judith. J.S. R.—E. E. N. JUDITH, BOOK OF: One of the O T Apocrypha. 1. General Character. It is a romance written with the purpose of encouraging the people in their fidelity to the God of Israel, and stimulating them to a careful observance of the precepts of the Law. Under names that belong to a much earlier time than that from which the book dates, it veils situa- tions which are the reasons for its religious exhorta- tions. There is a difference of opinion among scholars as to just the time of the situations thus veiled, whether they belong to the period of the approach of Pompey to Jerusalem (Gaster), or to the days of Trajan (Volkmar), or to the Maccabean era (Schiirer). Each supposition has had strong support, but the last seems most probable. A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 488 2. The Story of the Book. Nebuchadrezzar, King of the Assyrians, in the 12th year of his reign, made war with Arphaxad, King of the Medes, and defeated him. To help him in this undertaking he had sum- moned many peoples far and wide, among them the Jews. They, as well as others, refused to go to the help of Nebuchadrezzar, and he determined to punish them. Holofernes, one of his great generals, was sent westward for this purpose. The Jews fortified themselves as best they could, and prayed earnestly for the help of the Lord. Holofernes blockaded Bethulia (Shechem), and cut off the water-supply. The situation was becoming desperate when Judith, a widow, rich, beautiful, and devout, offered to try to save her people. Arraying herself in her most beautiful garments and accompanied by her maid, she found her way to the tent of Holofernes, professing to all who met her that she wished to help the Assyrians to victory. Holofernes himself, greatly pleased with her beauty and apparent sincerity, provided for her sojourn in his camp. On the fourth day, he invited her to a banquet in his tent. The unwary general gave him- self up to the merriment of the hour, and stupefied himself with wine. This was Judith’s opportunity. With his own sword she cut off the head of the drunken sleeper, and, putting it into a sack, hurried back to Bethulia. Great was the rejoicing in Israel, and equally great was the consternation among the Assyrians, so great, indeed, that they fled before the attack of the Jews, and the land was saved. 3. Texts and Versions. The original language of the book was Hebrew, the standard Greek text being a translation from this. Three Greek recensions have been preserved: (1) the standard text, as given in most MSS. (including BAN); (2) a text found in Codex 58 (Holmes and Parsons); (3) a text closely related to (2), found in codices 19 and 108 The story is also extant in several Hebrew versions. Ancient versions of it are in Old Latin, Syriac, and Ethiopic. Jerome prepared the Vulgate with the help of an Aramaic version. 4. Date and Author. In what is said above re- garding the situations revealed in the story: itself must be found the means for estimating the time of writing. These, especially the references to legal observances and the Pharisaic theology, point to a late date (not before 150 A.p.). The author was undoubtedly a Jew. J. 5. R.—W. G. J. JULIA, jii/li-a (’TouAfa): One of a group of persons greeted in Ro 1615. Probably the group represents a Christian household (cf. Ro 16 3), in which case Julia is the wife of Philologus, and the mother of Nereus and his sister. J. was a common feminine name, occurring frequently among slaves and freed- men (cf. CIL, VI, 20416). J. M. T. JULIUS, ji’/li-os (IodXt0c): The name of the centurion of the Augustan band (q.v.) into whose keeping Paul and other prisoners were committed on their journey to Rome (Ac 271). He treated the Apostle with considerate kindness, permitting him to go ashore at Sidon to visit his friends; (ver. 3), and, tho he ignored Paul’s warnings in the earlier part of the voyage (ver. 10 f.), he followed his counsel later (ver. 31 f.), and in order to save Paul’s life pre- 489 vented the soldiers from following the Roman custom of killing the prisoners lest they should escape (ver. 42 f.). It is not unlikely that the privilege of separate residence which Paul enjoyed on his arrival at Rome (28 16), besides the favorable elogiwm from Festus, was due to Julius’ report of the voyage. W.J. JUNIA, ji’ni-a, or JUNIAS, ji’ni-as: Only the acc. form, louviav, is found in Ro 167, which may represent either the fem. Junia, or a contraction of a masc. name Junianus. In view of the large number of names of women and of Christian households in this ch. (cf. vs. 3, 6, 13, and 15), the former seems most likely. Probably J. was the wife of Andronicus. The expression tod¢ ouvyyevetcs, ‘kinsmen,’ merely implies that they were of the writer’s race (cf. Ro 9 3), while cuvaryyaratous, ‘fellow prisoners,’ may be used either literally or figuratively. The words xat ted éu00, ‘before me,’ may indicate that J. and Andronicus were among the very early converts to Christianity. 4 aioe iia bs JUNIPER. Sce Pauzsrine, § 21. _ JUPITER. See Greex RELIGION. JUSHAB-HESED, jii’’shab-hi’sed (100 IVY, yi- shabh hesedh): A descendant of David (I Ch 3 20). JUSTICE: In the Eng. Bible the word ‘justice’ is used in an intermediary sense between the two (much more frequent) terms ‘judgment’ and ‘righteousness.’ The word mishpdt, ‘judgment’ (primarily the decision of a judge), is sometimes, especially in RV, rendered ‘justice’ (Job 29 14, 36 17; Am 5 24, etc.). On the other hand, tsedheq and ts¢dhdqah, ‘righteousness,’ or ‘the right,’ are also frequently rendered ‘just’ or ‘justice’ (Dt 16 20; Ps 89 14 AV; Jer 31 23 AV, etc.). See JuDGMENT and RIGHTEOUSNESS. In Ac 28 4 4 Six (‘vengeance’ AV) means the divine nemesis, which was popularly sup- posed to pursue a criminal until it was satisfied by his punishment. E. E. N. JUSTIFICATION: This word is used in N T to describe the act of God in which a sinful man is for- given and received into the fellowship of God through his faith in Jesus Christ. (1) Literally, the verb (Stxatody) means ‘to pronounce righteous’; in other words, it affirms that, in spite of past sin, an accused person now stands in right relations. It does not mean that he has become a righteous character (see SANCTIFICATION), nor that he has not sinned in the past (see ConDEMN, CONDEMNATION), but that now God, his holy judge, treats him as right- teous. This is the righteousness or justification (Stxatocdvn) of God (Ro 117, 3 21-26), which makes the fundamental difference between the Jew and Gentile and the Christian man. It is made the subject of full and explicit discussion in Paul’s letters to the Galatians and the Romans. His argument has its force in the fact that it brings to light the inner meaning of the Divine forgiveness and the human responsive faith, which form for all N T writers the kernel of the Gospel, and of the new experiences which it has created (on the significance of the term ‘sanctification’ in the Ep. to the Hebrews, see A. B. Davidson’s Commentary, in Handbooks for Bible Classes, pp. 203-209; cf. also Moffatt in ICC (1924), A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Judgment Justification especially the Introduction, pp. xxx ff.) (2) This act of God stands in contrast (a) with the ideal of law, according to which God’s approval depends on man’s independent achievement of personal right- eousness (good works, or works of the law, Gal 3 10-12); and (b) with the state of condemnation (‘cursed’) in which every man, because guilty of sin, must find himself, apart from God (Jews, Gal 3 10; Gentiles, 3 8, 13 f.; Ro 1 18-32; all men, Ro 3 9). (3) This act of God has been made possible (a) by the death of Christ, who assumed the curse (Gal 313), and became propitiatory, through the shedding of His blood (Ro 3 25, 8 3; cf. I Jn 2 2, 4 10; He 9 11-14; I P 119, 318; Mk 10 45, 14 24) (see Reconcinia- TION and ATONEMENT). The man who sees in this death the atoning act of God will see in it the offer of mercy to himself; but (b) to see this, with inward trust, is for a sinner the supreme act of faith in God. For the awakened conscience the dream of immunity is the worst defiance of God. But in the cross of Christ God is revealed as at once righteous and merciful (Ro 3 26, 5 8-11). Consequently, our trust for the removal of guilt is fixed on that holy will, so rich in mercy (Eph 1 6f., 24 f.). (4) This ‘act must be distinguished from the process of sanctification. It conditions, underlies, and makes possible that process, but its power lies in its being directly apprehended in its own meaning and glory. Te be real it must be continuously realized, and that can only be in a life which is its confirmation and its fruit (Ro 5 17, 21 [8x«tocbyn]; Gal 5 2-6). (5) Dr. Sanday says, ‘The Christian life is made to have its beginning in a fiction’ (ICC, Romans, p. 36). Not so; the Apostle says explicitly ‘faith is reckoned for righteousness.’ We must re- member that faith is viewed by the N T as the act in which the fundamental right relation with God is really established. The man who trusts in God is righteous. Without that no man can be right- eous toward God, since it is faith that creates the base and quality of all action. The fear that thus a a doctrine of works is reestablished and that this view of faith would imply that man is saved by his own merit is groundless. For (a) faith is the trust of man’s soul in God, whose redeeming love in Christ and that alone made faith possible. Faith is not the result of man’s age-long progress in the search for God; it is the response to God’s goodness. And (b) faith is thus in its very spring and essence the denial of personal merit, the acceptance of grace. To claim merit for it would be to stifle its very life. To class it with ‘works’ because we call it a human and righteous act would be to ignore its fundamental difference from all ‘works.’ When, therefore,God reckons the believing man as righteous there is no fiction on God’s part and no merit on man’s part. And yet he 7s righteous. The danger of making ‘justification’ a strictly legal process and interpreting relations with God exclusively through that must be avoided. It is an aspect, or element, in those relations; but the moral action and reaction between the Divine and the human is manifold and has other no less real aspects and elements. (See ForGIvVENESS; GRAcE; LovE, § 2; REGENERATION, etc.) Justus Kenite A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 490 The principle of justification by faith is implicit in the teaching of Jesus, as in the prayer of the Publican (Lk 18 19 ff.), the reception of the Prodigal Son (Lk 15 11 ff.), the treatment of the Sinful Woman (Lk 7 36-50), throughout His teaching about forgive- ness at the hands of the Father, and in His own treatment of those who came to Him for rest. LireraturRE: Cremer’s Lexicon has a full and careful dis- cussion (s.v. d{xatog and derivatives); Sanday and Head- lam, on Romans in ICC (1895), is a mine for Pauline the- ology, as also P. Feine, Theologie des N T (31919); D. W. Simonin HDB s.v. See also for systematic discussion Rit- schl’s Rechtferligung und Verséhnung, vol. III 1883) (trans- lated under the title Justification and Reconciliation) (for the Biblical material, see vol. II); A. B. Bruce, The Chris- tianity of St. Paul (1894); J. Oman, Grace and Personality (1919), pp. 196-211; Burton on Galatians in ICC (pp. 460- 474). Consult also the main works on N T et JUSTUS, jus’tus (’Iotctos): The surname of three persons mentioned in the N T. 1. Joseph, called Barsabbas, who was one of the two from whom the disciples chose the successor of Judas, the lot falling upon his colleague Matthias (Ac 1 23 f.). 2. Titus KAB, kab: See Wetaurs AND Muasurss, § 3. KABZEEL, kab’z1-el (Nap, gabhts’ él): A town in the extreme S. of Judah (Jos 15 21), the home of Benaiah, captain of David’s guard (II S 23 20). It was reinhabited by the Jews in postexilic times (Neh 11 25; here called Jekabzeel). Site unknown. HK. HE. N. KADESH, ke’desh (WP, gddhésh, ‘holy’) or KADESH-BARNEA, -bar’ni-a (¥272 YIP, gadhésh- barnéa‘), ‘the holy place of Barnea’: A city located at the S. end of the Israelite territory, according to Ezk 47 19 (‘Meriboth-kadesh’) between Tamar and the river of Egypt, but according to Nu 34 4 between the latter point and Akrabbim. According to Gn 20 1 it was near Gerar. It was for a long time the site of the camp of the tribes of Israel (Nu 201 [J]; 27 14; 33 36; Dt 1 46). The modern site has been made the subject of dispute, but it is more than probable that Trumbull was right in identifying it with Ain Kadts in the plateau between Nakb es Safat and E. of Wdady Gertr, where a rich spring with several wells and pools contribute toward rendering the place an oasis. It was also called En Mishpat, ‘fountain of judgment’ (Gn 147), evidently because the locality served as a seat of judgment for a time (cf. H. C. Trumbull, Kadesh Barnea, 1884, pp. 238-332). A. C. Z. KADMIEL, kad'mi-el (9827P, qadhmval), ‘El is the ancient one’: 1. The ancestral head of a Levit- ical family which returned with Zerubbabel (Ezr 2 40; Neh 7 43, 12 8, 24). 2. One or more individual Levites of this name and family may have assisted in rebuilding the Temple (Ezr 3 9), in the services of the day of humiliation (Neh 9 4, 5), and in sealing the covenant (Neh 10 10). Cee DT: (Tittos, WH), a proselyte whose house Paul made his home and doubtless the center of his mission, when the opposition of the Jews in Corinth com- pelled him to abandon his teaching in the Synagog and give himself to work among the Gentiles (Ac 187f.). 3. Jesus, who was one of the fellow workers of the Apostle who proved a comfort to him in his first Roman imprisonment, and from whom he sent greetings to the Church at Colossz (4 11). In the case of 1 and 3, ‘Justus’ is a Gentile surname assumed by a Jew; in the case of 2, it is the surname of a Roman, who had associated himself with the worship of the Synagog (ceBbuevog tov Oedy). M. W. J. JUTAH, jot’a, JUTTAH, jot’ta (TOY, yiatah [Jos 15 55], 1, yutiah [Jos 21 16]): A town in the hill-country of Judah, 8. of Hebron, which was given to the priests for a city of refuge. It is the modern Yutid, a large Moslem village standing on a high ridge, with stone houses, cisterns, rock-tombs, and rock wine-presses. The inhabitants are rich in flocks. Map II, E 3. Ciba KADMONITE, kad’men-ait (227P, gadhméni): The Heb. word signifies a dweller in the East, and is synonymous with ‘sons of the East.’ It refers to the Arabs of the Syrian desert (Gn 15 19). See also ETHNOGRAPHY AND Erunotocy, § 138. J. A. K. KAIN, kén (7?P, gayin): I. Another term for the Kenites (Nu 24 22, RVmg.; ‘the Kenite’ AV); see KCENITE. II. A town in the mountains of Hebron (Jos 15 57; Cain AV), more correctly Hakkain, probably an old Kenite settlement, traditionally the tomb of Cain. Supposed to be identified with the modern Yukin, near Hebron (Buhl, Pal. p. 162). Map II, E. 3. KALLAI, kal’lo-ai (?P, gallay): A priest (Neh 12 20). KAMON, ké’mon (j19?, gamén, Camon AV): The burial-place of Jair, one of the Judges (Jg 105). Map IV, F 8. KANAH, ké’na (2P, gandh), ‘reed’: 1. A brook forming the boundary between Ephraim and Manasseh (Jos 168,179). Map III, HE 4. (Identifi- cation not certain.) 2. A city of Asher (Jos 19 28). Probably the modern Kanah near Tyre (Man IV, C 4). KAREAH, ko-ri’a (1R, garaah), ‘bald’: The ‘father of Jonathan, a leader of the remnant of the Jews (II K 25 23, Careah AV; Jer 408 #.). KARKA, kar’ka (TYP 1P, garqa‘Gh, Karkaa AV): A town on the 8. border of Judah (Jos 15 3). Site unknown. KARKOR, kGr’kér (1P 712, garqor): The place where Gideon overthrew Zeba and Zalmunna (Jg 810). It lay E. of Jogbehah, but its site is unknown. 491 A NEW STANDARD KARTAH, kar’ta (9 P, gariah): A city of Zebulun assigned to the Levites (Jos 21 34). It may be the same as Kattath (19 15). KARTAN, kar’tan (J97P, qartdn): A city of Naphtali, assigned to the Levites (Jos 21 32), called Kiriathaim (Kirjathaim AV) in I Ch67. Site un- known. KATTATH, kat’tath ("8P, qgatiadth): A city of Zebulun (Jos 19 15). Perhaps the same as Kartah (21 34), and Kitron (Jg 1 30). Site unknown. KEDAR, ki’dar ("7P, gédhar): One of the sons of Ishmael (Gn 25 13; I Ch 1 29) and the eponym of an important tribe of nomads of Arabian origin (Jer 210). Their flocks and tents were famous (Ezk 27 21; Jer 49 28 f.), and served as familiar embellish- ments of poetic speech (Ps 1205; Song 15). But in Is 42 11 they are said to inhabit ‘villages,’ and in Is 21 16 f. to furnish mighty ‘archers,’ which may mean either that a portion of the people had settled down to agriculture and military life, or that the ‘villages’ were simply encampments and the war- riors only such as a nomad people might develop. There seems to be no doubt, however, that the name did not always indicate the small section of Ishmael alluded to in Gn. In the Assyrian records K. is placed in juxtaposition with Nebaioth, as it is also in Is 607 (cf. COT, I, p. 133 f.; II, p. 107 f.), and its religion is said to be the worship of Syrian deities. See also ErHNoGRAPHY AND ETHNOLOGY, §§ 11 and 13. peal a sia A KEDEMAH, ked’i-ma (791, gédhmah), ‘east’: An Ishmaelite tribe (Gn 25 15; I Ch 1 31). See IsHMAEL; and ETHNOGRAPHY AND ErHnooey, § 13. KEDEMOTH, ked’i-moeth (NiD1P, gdhémath), ‘east (regions)’: 1. The wilderness of K. was near the upper waters of the Arnon on the E. of Moab (Dt 2 26). 2. The city of K. assigned to Reuben (Jos 13 18, 21 37; I Ch 6 79) was probably in the same locality, some miles E. of Dibon. Map I, G 10. E. E. N. KEDESH, ki’desh (WP, gedhesh), ‘holy place’: 1. A city in Naphtali, often mentioned. It was an old Canaanitish city with a king (Jos 12 22) and fortified (19 37), more definitely designated as ‘K.- naphtali’ (Jg 4 6) and ‘K. in Galilee’ (Jos 207, 21 32) in the hill-country of Naphtali. It was a city of refuge and a Gershonite Levitical city (I Ch 6 76 [61]). In Jg it is mentioned as the home of Barak, where he and Deborah gathered their forces to fight against Sisera (4, 6,9 f.). It was taken by Tiglath-pileser (IK 15 2). Jonathan Maccabeus defeated De- metrius, King of Syria, at this place (I Mac 11 63, 73), and Josephus (BJ, IV, 2 3, etc.) mentions that it lay between Galilee and Tyre, to which it belonged, and was hostile to the Jews. It is the modern Kedes, on the EH. slope of a hill, NW. of Lake Huleh, in a fruitful country with spring and cistern, and many Romanruins. MapIV,E5. 2. A Gershonite Levitical city in Issachar (I Ch 6 72 [57]), probably a mistake for ‘Kishion’ (Jos 19 20, 21 28). 3. A place in the S. of Judah (Jos 15 23) to be distinguished from Kadesh-karnea, Oa tad Wt Justus Kenite BIBLE DICTIONARY KEEPERS: In Ec 12 3 ‘keepers of the house’ is applied figuratively to the arms or hands as the guardians of the body. In all other cases in the Bible ‘keeper’ means ‘watchman,’ ‘guard,’ or ‘care- taker.’ KE. E. N. KEHELATHAH, ki”hi-lé’tha (7N27P, qehalathah): A station on the wilderness journey (Nu 38 22 f.). Site unknown. KEILAH, k-ai/la (72°YP, g°lah): 1. A walled city in the lowland of Judah, which David protected against Philistine raiders (Jos 15 44; I S 23 1-13). It is mentioned in the Tell el-Amarna tablets as Kiltt. In Nehemiah’s time it was a double district (Neh 3 17f.). This once important city is probably to be identified with Khurbet Kila, a ruined village on a terraced hill 7 m. E. of Eleutheropolis. Map II, D2. 2. ‘Keilah the Garmite’ (I Ch 419). Many of the names in this chapter refer to localities, and Keilah is apparently the same as 1 above. The meaning of ‘Garmite’ is unknown. L. G. L.—L. B. P. KELAIAH, ki-lé’ya (22P, gélayah) also Kelita (8B 2P, gelita’): One who married a foreign wife (Ezr 10 23). He is also mentioned among the expounders of the law as read by Ezra (Neh 87), and among the signers of the Covenant (Neh 10 10). KELITA, kel’i-ta. See Kenaran. KEMUEL, ki-mid’el (PSP, gemial): 1. The ancestral head of the Nahorites, from whom Aram was descended (Gn 22 21; but cf. 10 22). 2. A prince of Ephraim (Nu 34 24). 3. A Levite (I Ch 27 17). KENAN, ki’nan (1?’P, géndn, Cainan AV): The son of Enoch in the Sethite genealogy (Gn 59; I Ch 1 2), the equivalent of Cain in the genealogy of 41, 17 &. It is also the name of a Sabean deity (Skinner, JCC, ad loc.). KENATH, ki’noth (MJP, genath): A city in E. Gilead (I Ch 2 23). In Nu 382 42 it is said to have been taken by Nobah (a Manassite clan?) and called Nobah. Tho there was a Nobah near Jogbehah (q.v.) (Jg 811), there may also have been another. If so, K. may possibly be identified with Kanewdt in the Hauran, beyond the NE. border of Gilead at the E. end of Map I, J 4). E. E. N. KENAZ, ki’naz (P, q’naz), also KENEZ: The ancestral head of an Edomite clan of the same name (Gn 36 11, 15, 42; I Ch 1 36, 53). K. (Kenizzite RV, Kenezite AV) is also named as the clan to which Caleb (Nu 82 12; Jos 14 6, 14) and Othniel (Jos 15 17; Jg 113, etc.) belonged. K. (Gn 15 19) thus appears to have been either an Edomite clan, a part of which was absorbed into Judah, or an independent clan, one portion of which became Edomite, while the other united with Judah. Its seat was in S. Judah in the neighborhood of Hebron. E. E. N. KENITE, ki’nait (2, génz, Gentilic of VP, gayin, Kain [found in Nu 24 22; Jg 4 11]): The Kenites were a nomadic people whose original home lay in the region S. of Palestine. Moses’ father-in-law, Hobab, was a Kenite (Jg 1 16, 411), and hence we may infer that they were originally counted with the Midian- ites. The Kenite clan of which Hobab was chief Kenizzite Kingdom of God A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 492 threw in its lot with Israel on the march from Horeb to Canaan, and later joined Judah when that tribe undertook to conquer 8. Palestine (Jg 116#.). The Kenites took possession of a district to the S. of Judah proper, and there became closely identified with the Amalekites (in Jg 1 16 read ‘and they went and dwelt with the Amalekites’; cf. Moore in ICC, ad loc.). -Asmall clan led by Heber after- ward moved to N. Palestine (Jg 4 11). When Saul marched against Amalek he warned the Kenites to save themselves by separating from the Amalekites (I S 15 6). They occupied a distinct part of the Negeb near the Jerahmeelites (I S 27 10, 30 29). Later they were reckoned as an integral part of Judah (I Ch 255), and it was the Kenite Hammath who was considered the ancestor of the Rechabites (q.v.). The Kenites are mentioned in the enigmatic oracle ascribed to Baalam (Nu 24 21 f.). Many recent writers have advocated the theory that the Kenites were originally worshipers of J’, and that it was from them that Moses derived his knowledge of J”, but this theory is beset with many difficulties. E. E. N. KENIZZITE, ki-niz’zait. See Kmnaz. KERCHIEF: The rendering of the Heb. mispahah (Ezk 13 18, 21), a head-covering or veil of some sort, the exact nature of which is unknown. See also Dress AND ORNAMENTS, § 8. KEREN-HAPPUCH, ki’ren-hap’ok (VP 17P, geren happikh): One of Job’s daughters (Job 42 14). The name means ‘horn of eye-paint,’ the reference being to the black antimony dye used for the eye- brows and eyelashes. KERIOTH, ki’ri-oth (A? 7), geriyydth, in Jer 48 41 with the article), the pl. of giryadh, ‘city’: A place in Moab (Jer 48 24) with royal palaces (Am 2 2), perhaps the capital city. On the Moabite Stone (see Mesa) it is mentioned as containing a principal sanctuary of Chemosh. Buhl (GAP) identifies it with Rabbath Moab, the capital city of the district ‘Ar, S. of the Arnon. isis bs KERIOTH-HEZRON, ki’ ri-efh-hez’ron. HEZRON. KEROS, ki’res (27’P, gérds): The ancestral head of a family of Nethinim (Ezr 2 44= Neh 7 47). KETTLE: The rendering of didh (IS 214). See Foon, § 11. KETURAH, ki-tii’ra (THOP, q*tirdh), ‘frankin- cense’: The wife or concubine of Abraham, perhaps like Hagar taken during Sarah’s lifetime. She was the mother of six sons, representing Arab tribes 8S. and E. of Palestine. But the episodical nature of the passage (Gn 25 1-6), the plurals in ver. 3, and the broad geographical distribution of her descendants argue strongly for a tribal interpretation of Keturah’s personality. A. 8. C.*—O. R. 8. KEY, See Houss, § 6 (1). KEZIAH, ki-zai’a (TX'SP, qetst‘ah), One of the daughters of Job (Job 42 14). KEZIZ, :VALLEY OF, ki’ziz. See Emex-Keziz. See ‘cassia’: KIBROTH-HATTAAVAH, kib”refh-hat-té’a-va (TSAI MIP, gibhroth hatta’ dwah, ‘graves of lust’: A station on the wilderness journey from Horeb to Kadesh (Nu 11 34f., 33 16f., Dt 9 22). It was the scene of the wonderful supply of quail, the greedy eating of which brought on a plague causing the death of many in the camp. Site unknown. KIBZAIM, kib-zé/im (@°$4P, qibhtsayim): A Levitical city of Ephraim named in connection with Gezer and Beth-horon (Jos 21 22), called Jokmeam (q.v.) in I Ch 6 68. KID. See SacriricE AND OFFERINGS, § 5; Foon, § 10. KIDNEYS: In the O T the Heb. k*laydth is used in two senses. (1) Literal—of the kidneys with their fat. In one passage the term is used to indicate the choicest part of the wheat (Dt 3214). See SAcRIFICE AND OFFERINGS, § 10. (2) By metonymy—for the emotional nature of man with its impulses and © affections. In such passages it was rendered in AV by reins, for which RV substitutes ‘heart’ (cf. also Rev 2 23). See Man, Docrrine or, § 8. E.E.N. KIDRON, kid’ren (JiN1P, gidhrén): The name of the valley E. of Jerusalem, the stream of which is dry during the greater part of the year. Originally the spring Gihon (see JERUSALEM, § 11) emptied its waters into this part of the valley. The Valley of Jehoshaphat (Jl 3 12) is not to be identified with the Kidron, at least that portion of it near Jerusalem. See also JERUSALEM, § 5. EK. E. N. KINAH, kai’na (7P, gindh): A town in the ex- treme 8S. of Judah (Jos 15 22). Site unknown. KINDRED: The translation of a number of Heb. and Gr. terms in AV, most of which have been more correctly rendered by other words in RV. Atten- tion may be called to the following: 1. In the O T. (1) In Ezk 11 15, the term rendered ‘kindred’ means ‘redemption.’ This gives no good sense, and it is probable that the original reading was ‘captivity,’ or ‘exile,’ giving the meaning ‘fellow exiles.’ (2) In Ru 3 2, the Heb. means literally ‘acquaintance.’ (8) In Gn 24 7, ete., the Heb. word (rendered ‘nativity’ in RV) is the same as that rendered ‘kindred’ in 121, etc. It is derived from the verb meaning ‘to give birth to,’ and both senses are correct. In Est 210, 20, 86it might be rendered ‘race.’ (4) The Heb. word for ‘family’ is sometimes used in a broad sense for ‘kindred’ (Gn 24 38; Ps 22 27, etc.). 2.In the N T. (1) In Ac 46 yévosg means ‘family,’ while in 7 13, 19 it has its usual meaning of ‘race.’ (2) In Ac 8 25 xator&, family,’ is used in a very broad sense, almost equivalent to ‘race,’ or ‘nation.’ (3) In Rev 17, 59, etc., the RV ‘tribe’ is the literal meaning of the Gr. guAn. E. E. N. KING: The Heb. melekh, ‘king,’ appears to be derived from a root, mlkh, meaning ‘to decide’ or ‘to give counsel,’ (cf. the status of the head of a tribe, whose main function was to give counsel rather than to rule absolutely). The verb mdlakh, ‘to rule,’ or ‘to reign,’ is denominative from melekh. The original constitution of Israel was patriarchal (see FaMILY AND Famity Law, §§ 2, 4; and IsRag., SocraL DreveLoOpMENT oF, §§ 11, 12) and tribal. 493 A NEW STANDARD There was no central authority, even in religion. Individual leadership in war or in time of peace was after all, subordinate to the government of the tribes through their ‘elders.’ As Israel in Canaan entered into the experiences of a settled, instead of a nomad- ic, life, the essential weakness of the tribal constitu- tion became only too evident. The invasion by the Midianites (Jg chs. 6-8) and the conquest of central Israel by the Philistines (I S chs. 4-6) showed the need of union under one capable head. Gideon refused the offer of a crown (Jg 8 22 f.), and the attempt to found a kingdom by his incapable son Abimelech was abortive (Jg ch. 9). It was in the days of Samuel that the desire for a king came to be generally prevalent. The oldest narrative (I S 9 1- 10 16, 11 1-13) represents Samuel (and J” also) as at one with the people in this matter, and gives as the motive the desire for a leader to save Israel from the Philistines. Saul was the choice of both J” and His people. As king, Saul’s status was midway between that of the chief of a tribe and the more fully developed regal state exhibited by David. Saul was the war leader of all Israel, and in war his authority was supreme. But in other respects his court and the organization of his government were crude and primitive. It was otherwise with David (q.v.), in whom Israel found a man of truly regal character. David was chosen king by the tribal ‘elders,’ first of Judah (II S 2 4), then, seven years later, by those of all Israel (IIS 53). Asking, David was the military head, the supreme judge, and the religious head of all Israel. His authority was not absolute, for there were many ancient customs and rights which he was expected to uphold, not to annul (cf. the later case of Ahab and Naboth, I K ch. 21); still, in many respects his will was the su- preme law of the land, and in the selection of his officials, both military and civil, less attention was paid to the local tribal nobles and more to persons who would be directly dependent upon the king him- self. As the supreme court of appeal, this king and his officials practically supplanted the old tribal courts in matters of great importance. In these and other respects the tendency of the kingdom was to break down the old tribal system. Under David the kingly government was organized, and there was a real court and cabinet (II S 8 15-18, 20 23-26). Under Solomon, this organization was extended to cover the economic measures for the maintenance of the royal establishment (I K 4 1-28), and also the royal prerogatives were insisted upon in an autocratic spirit (cf. I K 12 8-11) unknown in earlier days, and exceedingly distasteful to the majority of his sub- jects, especially those outside of Judah (I S 8 10-18; I K 12 4-7). The northern tribes therefore at the death of Solomon refused their allegiance to his son, who declined to renounce the autocratic policy of his father. The Northern Kingdom thus origi- nated in a protest against absolutism. Omri, the fifth king, was the real organizer of the Northern Kingdom. Being the choice of the army, he had the power to enforce his authority. He diminished the independent power and significance of the old local and tribal constituencies, and made the throne supreme, and under the Omri dynasty the Northern Kenizzite BIBLE DICTIONARY Kingdom of God Kingdom came to be as closely organized about and dependent on the throne as was that of Judah. See IsRAEL, SoctaL DEVELOPMENT OF, §§ 30, 31. There was something ideal in the conception of a king to the mind of the ancient Israelite. The limits of the royal authority were somewhat vague, and hence there was all the greater need that, as the final court of appeal and the fountainhead of justice, the king be perfectly just and impartial. As the head of the state, he was to be the successful leader of its armies, the wise provider of all things con- ducive to public welfare, having at heart his people’s interests, quick to detect and punish the evil and reward the good (Dt 17 14-20; 1 K 127). As the chief of his people, he was also their representative before God. He was ‘J’’s anointed’ (I § 26 11, ete.) and really their high priest. He officiated at the national sacrifices, prayed for his people, and blessed them in ‘the name of J” (IS 14 33f.; ITS 618f.; I K 812 f., 13 4, etc.). It was easy, therefore, for the Messianic thought at times to conceive of the ideal future as the time when a perfect king should reign on David’s (ideal) throne as God’s own representative, and his kingdom be the realization of the rule of God in Israel and on earth (Is 9 6-7, 11 1-5, 321 ff.; Jer 23 5; Ezk 32 22-24, etc.). On the other hand the monarchi- cal idea had its opponents, perhaps from the first. The later strands of the narrative in I § view the desire for a king and the choice of Saul as equivalent to rejection of J’”’s leadership (cf. IS 8, 10 17-24, 12, 15). These late passages may well preserve the memory of early opposition which later was more fully developed and formulated. Solomon’s auto- cratic tendencies aroused opposition. Prophets boldly stood out against royalty; Dt 17 14 f. only grudgingly sanctions the kingdom. While no definite conflict between king and priesthood developed dur- ing the period of the monarchy, the priestly system formulated in the Law left practically no place for a monarch. It reduced him to a mere figurehead in an ecclesiastical state at the head of which was the high priest, wearing insignia proper to royalty (Ex 28 36 ff.; 39 38-31). EK. E. N. KINGDOM OF GOD: 1. Usage of Terms. A N T phrase based upon and expressing in its final form the O T idea of the spiritual rule of God over men. The phrase kingdom of heaven (GactAela taHv obpavay) is used in the N T by Mt only, and is an exact equivalent of the phrase ‘kingdom of God’ (factAret« cod Qe00). The substitution of ‘heaven’ for ‘God’ is based on the popular superstitious feeling in later Judaism, which led to the avoidance of the Divine namesin common speech. Outside of the N T, it was in use as the Targumic name of the Messianic em- pire (malkhith@ dhishmayy@), an alternate form of the older phrase, which, however, it never completely displaced. Which of the two expressions Jesus himself adopted, and whether He limited Himself to one or the other are open questions. (Cf. Stanton, The Jewish and Christian Messiah [1886], pp. 209-210; Dalman, Words of Jesus [1902], pp. 91 ff.). Less technical and formal expressions denoting the same idea are, ‘kingdom of their [my, Mt 26 29] father’ (Mt 13 43), ‘thy kingdom’ (in the Lord’s Prayer, Mt 6 10), ‘the kingdom,’ without qualification (Mt Kingdom of God 8 12); and, after the recognition of Jesus as the Me- siah, ‘kingdom of Christ’ (Pauline usage, I Co 6 91.; Gal 5 21). 2. The Idea in the O T. The essence of the con- ception of the kingdom of God is to be found in the O T. In one of the passages of the Hexateuch (Ex 19 5f. [J, or perhaps the redactor of JE]), Moses is represented as bringing the promise of J” to the people of Israel that they should be ‘a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ This was distinctly as- sumed by later writers as substantially realized in the last stages of the period of Judges. Gideon re- fuses the throne offered him upon the ground that J’ only must rule over Israel (Jg 8 23). When the people demanded a king from Samuel and he took the matter to J’, according to the later narrative (see SAMUEL, Books oF) he received the answer that it was not himself that the people had rejected but J” (IS 87; ef. 1212). In its simplest form, the idea expressed in these passages may be put in the prop- osition: Israel’s government is ideally a theocracy, z.e., The reign of God, and Israel, accordingly, the kingdom of God (see Kine for the older narrative with a somewhat different view; also cf. Saunt and SAMUEL, Books oF). With the establishment of the monarchy this idea naturally receded into the background, but the thought that God was the true king of Israel was never completely lost to sight. In the dark days of the exile, as Israel’s need became great, the prophets foresaw the re- establishment of the reign of J’’ in the future as the only effective remedy for the ills from which the nation was suffering. 3. Apocalyptic Development of the Idea. The root and ground of this hope was naturally the belief, becoming stronger from generation to generation, that Israel’s God was by right the sovereign of the whole world, the king of all the nations (Ps 74 12, 47 6-8). His restoration of Israel to supreme power and his return to the visible throne of his own peo- ple would only be the manifestation of an inner reality. The apocalyptic type of thought seized upon this idea and brought it into a new and rather elaborate phase of development. It transformed it into a comprehensive eschatological conception incorporating into it all the expectations quickened by the older prophets. Among these was first and foremost that of the coming of an ideal king (Mes- siah) after the type of David (a Son of David). Next, since the Messianic era was not in the way of coming quietly through a historic and gradual un- folding, the expectation arose that it would be brought in through a sudden break of the existing order by God’s interference from above. This was interlinked with the notion of the ‘Ages.’ The present age would be supplanted speedily and suddenly by the new (coming age). So great a change was naturally looked upon as ‘the end of the world,’ altho the phraseology used only designates the end of an age or dispensation. Finally, God’s assumption of the visible rule would involve the judgment of all enemies (sinners), both in Israel and without. This was the development and reassertion of the doctrine of the Day of J’, promulgated as early as by Amos (5 20). A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 494 The word Kingdom came to be applied to this expected new and ideal order (cf. Slav. En. 41, 52 4; Pss Sol. 5 21; Ass. Mos. 10 1) and the phrase ‘king- dom of God’ [‘kingdom of heaven’] passed into the Targumic usage (cf. Targum, Is 40 9; Mic 4 7; also Targ. Jon. Is 53 10, “The kingdom of the Messiah’; see also Cremer, Bibl. Theol. Lex., BactAebs; Schiirer, HI POU iieL70)3 4. Teaching of Jesus. John the Baptist, basing his expectation, as did the men of his age, on Dn 2 44, took the imminence of the kingdom as the occasion and motive of his preaching of repentance (Mt 8 1). But it was the use of the conception by Jesus that has lifted it into the place of its supreme importance. In fact, according to the synoptists, He made it the substance of His preaching. His theme was ‘the Gos- pel of the Kingdom’ (Mt 4 23). The usage of Jesus represents the kingdom (1) figuratively, under the form of a place. This is the case in all expressions involving the act of entering into the kingdom (Mt 7 21, 18 3; Mk 10 15, 23; Lk 18 24 f.). Sometimes, the place is more narrowly presented as an enclosure, or walled territory, or city with gates that can be closed (Mt 2314). It is better to enter into the kingdom of heaven with one eye than, having two, to be cast out (Mk 9 47). Men are said to be ‘near’ or ‘far’ from the kingdom (Mk 12 34). It requires effort to enter (Mt 11 12). But the difference between those who enter and those who do not is not the difference between the Jew and the Gentile, but that between those who possess a certain fitness for it and those who do not (Lk 9 62). But after entrance has been secured, it is a place of enjoyment, a place where even Jesus Himself shall eat and drink (Mt 26 29; Mk 14 25; Lk 22 16, 18). (2) In a second class of passages, the kingdom is represented as a possession. Of the poor in spirit and of those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake it is said, ‘theirs is the kingdom of heaven’ (Mt 5 3, 10; Lk 18 16f.). It is something that can be given and taken away. It will be taken from the Jews and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits trereof (Mt 21 43). It is promised to the little flock (Lk 12 32). The parables of the treasure hidden in the field and the merchantman seeking goodly pearls (Mt 13 44-46) give this view of it. It is the most valuable of possessions, and it is the height of wisdom to seek for it and the summit of prosperity to secure it (Mt 6 33; Lk 12 31). (3) A third class of passages represents the kingdom of God as an organization, constituted of a certain class of men. It is a body politic, growing from small beginnings into large proportions and power (Mt 13 31; Mk 4 26, 27). Its members are the chil- dren of the kingdom (Mt 13 38). Like every human organization this, too, must have its offices and officers; but to suppose that these are to be ap- pointed without reference to their character and on the same principle as in the political sphere—in order to lord it over their fellow members—is a grievous error. They that rule shall be they that serve. They shall rule in the very act of serving their brethren (Mt 20 21 #.). (4) A fourth class of passages designates the kingdom as an order of things, or a dispensation. In the vision of Daniel, 495 A NEW STANDARD it had been foreshadowed that with the coming of the fifth kingdom (that of the ‘saints,’ Dn 7 14, 22, 27) a revolution would occur in the affairs of Israel and, in fact, of the whole world. And it was the nearness of this new order of things that John the Baptist had preached. Jesus came with the same message, and taught His disciples to an- nounce the coming of the kingdom, to pray for it, and to prepare for it (Mt 6 10-13; Lk 9 2,11). The new feature of the dispensation thus announced is its spirituality. Its laws are essentially ethical. It is an order of things in which humility and purity count for more than self-assertion and outward con- formity to standards (Mt 11 11; Lk 7 28). It is an administration of justice and equity. Faithfulness and diligence are rewarded in it and sloth and un- brotherliness are punished (Mt 21 43; cf. 251#.). See also Jnsus Curist, §§ 138, 14. 5. Parallel and Contrasted Conceptions. His answer to the rich young man who asked Him what he must do to inherit eternal life, Jesus turned to His disciples and said, ‘How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God’ (Lk 18 24), and His disciples asked Him, “Then who can be saved?’ (Lk 18 26). In this passage the three phrases ‘kingdom of God,’ ‘eternal life,’ and ‘be saved’ are applied to the same thing. Whether the conversation is reported verbatim or as later inter- preted it is certain that it indicates at least what the kingdom of God was understood to be when Luke wrote. The Fourth Gospel also uniformly presents the ‘eternal life’ as the great theme of Christ’s teaching, thus putting it in the place occupied by the idea of the kingdom in the Synoptic account. Further, the kingdom of God is contrasted with the kingdom of Satan (Mt 12 26; Mk 3 24; Lk 11 18). This kingdom involves an organization controlled by one dominating power, and it is necessary that its law should be harmoniously observed by its subjects, else its integrity disappears and it collapses (Mt 12 25 £.; Lk 11 18). The kingdom of God is finally identified with the ‘coming age’ of the apoca- lyptic literature (Lk 18 30; Mk 10 30), and the ‘pres- ent age,’ being the obverse of the coming, falls into the place of opposition to the kingdom of God. In making the idea of the kingdom of God the main subject of his preaching, Jesus adopted what he found current in his age. At the same time he gave the conception a new intepretation. Just how much of its old content he retained and how much of his own he added has been a question much debated. 6. The Coming of the Kingdom. On the one side, it is claimed that His thought on this point coalesces with that of the Apocalyptists (apocalyptic-escha- tological view), and that, like them, He looks upon the coming of the kingdom as an outward event to be ushered in with a unique display of supernatural power (J. Weiss, Predigt Jesu vom Retiche Gottes 121906]; Baldensperger, Das Selbstbewusstsein Jesu [21903]; Bousset, Die Predigt Jesu in thren Gegensatz zum Judenthum [1892]; Schweitzer, Von Reimarus zu Wrede, E. T., The Quest of the Historical Jesus [1910]). On the other side, His utterances are inter- preted as representing the kingdom as a present evolving organism (ethico-religious view). Exclusive- | After: BIBLE DICTIONARY Kingdom of God ly taken, either one of these views fails to account for all the facts in the case, some of which seem to sup- port one and some the other. Thus arises a problem which might be solved by denying the genuineness of either class of utterances attributed to Jesus. The eschatological discourses may have been incorporated into the ethico-religious teaching of the Master by His reporters, because these were unable fully to ap- preciate His pure religious thought; or, less probably, the ethico-religious elements may have been read back into His speeches, tho developed later in the course of Apostolic activities; or the eschatological may have been but the form current in His day which Jesus used as a medium for His ethico-religious ideals; or, again, the eschatological may have formed the chief content of His teachings, and those in- stances of His usage in which the kingdom appears as a present reality may be proleptical. All these methods of dealing with the data do more or less critical and exegetical violence to them. The truth is that the primary element in Jesus’ conception is the ethico-religious, and the eschatological is used, partly as a vehicle for conveying this, and partly asa possible culmination and expression outwardly of the inner reality. The kingdom is then a present and growing power, whose final triumph might be con- ceived as taking place in the form ordinarily repre- sented in the Apocalyptic writings. 7. The Kingdom in Apostolic Teaching. The Apostolic teaching continues this blended presenta- tion without any tendency either toward the absorp- tion or toward the expulsion of the one view by the other. In the Epistles of Peter, the eschatological idea prevails. The kingdom is a future manifesta- tion (I P 17 f., 413); Christ Himself would come in glory and establish it (I P 45f.). In the Epistle of James, it is a privilege to be enjoyed by those who love Jesus as Christ that they shall inherit the king- dom (Ja 25). On the other hand, in Revelation, it is more than a future reign of God. With the ascen- sion of Jesus, Satan has been overthrown, and the kingdom has come (12 10). Believers are already rulers in it (16,510). The Seven Churches are in the domain of Christ. In the Johannine writings, the conception and phraseology of the kingdom yield to those of eternal life, which is represented as a present good secured by faith in Christ (Jn 3 36, 6 54; I Jn 511,13). But most clearly does this alternation of the idea from a present to a future reality appear in Paul’s system of thought. Here the two advents of Christ mark the developments. The first coming has already resulted in the establishment of a king- dom of which His disciples are fellow citizens, Eph 2 19; a dispensation of the fulness of the times, Eph 1 10; the body of Christ, Eph 1 23, 412, etc., con- stituted by the predominance of certain inner realities (Ro 14 17; I Co 4 20). Men are transferred into it (‘the kingdom of the Son’) by faith in God through Jesus Christ (Col 113). Yet this kingdom is associated with the future coming of Christ (II Ti 41), and is to be inherited (Gal 5 21; I Co 69f.). Paul also distinguishes between the kingdom of God, pure and simple, and the kingdom of Christ; but the difference is simply that the former represents an earlier stage in the Apostle’s thought and the latter Kingdom of God Kings, Books of A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 496 a later one. Yet the kingdom of Christ is the means of furthering the kingdom of God (I Co 15 24-27). It was only after the close of the Apostolic period that the identification of the kingdom of God with the Church of Christ began to be made. 8. The Kingdom and the Individual. The new meaning thus imparted to the conception of the kingdom of God broke down the older barriers of mere national and racial privilege about it. Both in the teaching of Jesus, and still more clearly in the system of Paul, the kingdom was to extend over the great heathen world (cf. Eph 3 6, where Gentiles are referred to as fellow heirs, fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise), and even possibly leave out some of the old Jewish communities (Ro 9 31-£.). From being the common- wealth of Israel, it came to be regarded as the com- munity of the righteous within Israel, and, finally, as the righteous among all nations. The conditions of membership are, accordingly, placed within the reach of the world at large, and consist in repentace from sin and trustful acceptance of the Christ as Savior (Mt 16 16; Ac 18 39, 319, 17 30; Ro 116). The privileges of such membership are correspondingly lifted out of a material sphere (currently expressed in such phrases as ‘eating bread in the kingdom of God’ [Lk 14 15], ‘partaking in a banquet of manna,’ or ‘of the flesh of leviathan,’ or ‘Behemoth’) into the more spiritual one of the vision of God, the recog- nition of sonship, the satisfaction with righteousness, the communion with the devout of past ages, and the completion of communion with God already begun. But on their part, the members of the king- dom must maintain a Christian character. As such, they are to be distinguished by humility, meekness, a forgiving spirit, a devout and prayerful attitude toward God, earnest aggressiveness in extending the kingdom, and a fraternal loving attitude toward their fellow members. Over one another they are to watch with care (Mt 18 15-20), and serve one another with devotion. 9. Later Interpretations of the Idea. When the Christian Church became a fully organized institu- tion and entered upon its career of influence in the world, the tendency arose to identify it with the kingdom of God (Augustine). This view continued to the days of the Reformers, who, for obvious reasons, amended it by identifying the kingdom of God with the invisible church. In more recent times the inclination prevailed to view the general sov- ereignty of God, morally and providentially exer- cised, as the true notion of the kingdom (F. D. Maurice). But the eschatological idea also is widely held. It is interpreted, however, as involving the notion that the original intention of Jesus was to establish a visible kingdom such as was expected by the Jews of His time. But since the Jews rejected Him, the kingdom was not then set up. It is held in abeyance until some time in the future when at his Second Coming he will establish it. 10. Summary. The Biblical idea of the kingdom of God may then be said to center about the thought of a special order of things or dispensation, the chief characteristic of which is that men recognize God as absolute sovereign. But they do so because, in the person and teaching of Jesus Christ, He is revealed to them as their Father. The relation of the indi- vidual to the kingdom is thus established by faith z.e., by the acceptance of the revelation made by Jesus; but those who accept Him irrespective of previous station in life or nationality are banded together as His new people. The order of things thus begun is to be completed in the future. Yet its complete manifestation at the last will not bring a new reality into existence, but will only fill out and reveal its outline. LiTERATURE: In addition to the works mentioned in the article, the following may be consulted: Bruce, Kingdom of God (31890) ; Candlish, Kingdom of God; Matthews, Messianic Hope in the N T (1907); Scott, E. F., The Kingdom and the Messiah (1910); A. G. Hogg, Christ’s Message of the Kingdom (1912); Dougall and Emmett, The Lord of Thought (1922). A. KINGS, BOOKS OF. In the Heb. Canon Jos, Jg, I and II S (as one book), and I and IT K (as one) form a group called the ‘Early (or Former) Prophets.’ How old this grouping is can not now be ascertained, but it antedates the LXX. and persisted (in Heb. MSS.) until the age of printing. 1. Name and Place in the O T Canon. Both Origen and Jerome speak of the difference between the LXX. division into two books (Third and Fourth ‘Kingdoms’) and the Heb. designation of the whole as one book of ‘Kings.’ Our subdivision of S and K into two books each, based as it is on the LXX.., is of no special significance, and is purely arbitrary, hav- ing no basis in the text. The dividing line between K and § has also been drawn somewhat arbitrarily, since I K chs. 1 and 2 are really the conclusion of the history of David narrated in II S. Lucian, in his recension of the LX X., made a much more natural division between II S and I K at I K 2 12, perhaps following ancient Heb. authorities in so doing. The exact relation of the original Heb. book of ‘Kings’ to the preceding historical books is obscure. It is certain that the older material in them all has been edited by compilers in the same spirit, and that together they form a closely connected series. But whether they were originally planned as such a series, and were once but four parts of one large work all edited by the same hand, are questions that can not be answered definitely. 2. General Structure and Purpose. Disregarding the artificial subdivision into two books, the entire work consists of three main parts: (1) The history of Solomon’s reign (I K chs. 1-11). (2) A synchronous history of the two kingdoms (I K ch. 12-IT K ch. 17). (3) The history of Judah from the fall of the North- ern Kingdom to the Exile (II K chs. 17-25). Throughout each of these three parts we find evidence of the use by the editor, or compiler, of a variety of sources, sometimes quoted verbatim in longer and shorter excerpts, at other times used more indirectly, but always in accord with one ruling purpose, to set forth the history from a religious rather than from a political point of view, and to show what lessons were to be learned from it regarding J’”’s dealings with His people. In political events or measures, as such, the compiler took little interest. ‘Of the careers of some of the most important kings (e.g., Omri and Jeroboam II) he gives only the briefest 497 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Kingdom of God Kings, Books of notices. The record of a half-century is compressed into a few lines (e.g., the reign of Manasseh). This was due simply to the ‘pragmatic’ or didactic aim of the historian. He selected from his sources only those things that seemed best suited to his main purpose. The signs of the compiler’s hand are mani- fold. (1) He makes definite reference to three works as authorities (cf. I K 11 41, 14 19, 29, and see below, § 4). (2) The constant recurrence of certain favorite formulas, which form the framework, as it were, of the whole. (a) Those by which a reign is introduced, which include, when complete, the synchronism with the contemporaneous reign in the other king- dom, the name of the king, his age, length of reign, name of queen-mother, and a statement as to his character (I K 14 21, 22 41 f., etc.). (b) Those by which the account of a reign is closed, which include a reference to the editor’s authority, a notice of the king’s death and burial, and the name of his suc- cessor (I K 11 41 ff., 14 19 f., 29, 31, 157 f., etc.). (3) The synchronistic scheme, according to which the accession of a king in one kingdom is dated accord- ing to the regnal year of the contemporaneous king in the other. This appears as a regular element of the formula (2) (a) just noted, and is carried through the entire period of the divided kingdom. It is not likely that these synchronisms were in the original authorities; they were probably computed by the editor on the basis of figures found in his sources. (4) The presence of a large number of passages, scattered through the work, all revealing the same religious point of view and holding a most important place in the general composition of the work. Some of them appear conspicuously in the framework (cf. (2) above) as judgments on the character of the individual kings, while others of more didactic character seek to show why misfortunes came upon different kings or the nation (e.g., I K 111-13, 32-39, 15 4 f., 29-31; IL K 17 18-23, ete.). The standpoint from which these are written is the ‘Deuteronomic.’ Kings are condemned for worshiping at the high places, a practise clearly contrary to the Deuter- onomic theory of one only legitimate sanctuary. The sins of Solomon, of Jeroboam, of N. Israel in general, and of Manasseh are all of just the kind that are especially condemned in Dt. The doctrine that the national prosperity was directly dependent upon its loyalty to J’’, and that disloyalty would surely be visited with heavy retribution is also a cardinal doc- trine of Dt (see DrurrRonomy, § 8). Along with such passages as these, a number of others, which are similar in literary style and mode of thought, will naturally be classed as from the compiler rather than from his sources. 3. Date. The narrative of K is carried down to the time when Evil-merodach, King of Babylon (562-560 B.C.), released the captive Jehoiachin, of Judah, from prison, 7.€., some time later than 561. This makes the book, as it stands, of exilic (or possibly post- exilic) date. There are also a number of editorial sections, such as II K 17 19 f., 21 10-15, 23 26 £., pos- sibly also I K 9 6-9, where an exilic point of view seems presupposed. But over against these indications of exilic date there are others which imply an earlier date for large portions of the work. (1) The fre- quently recurring expression ‘unto this day’ can be assigned often only to the editor (not to his source), and refers to conditions that passed away with the Exile (cf. I K 88, 9 21, 1219; II K 8 22, 166). Inother instances, as I K 1012; II K 17 23, 41, a preexilic date for the phrase is not certain, but it is probable, while in others, as IT K 10 27, it may belong to the source used by the compiler. (2) The presence of two separate strata in the editorial matter. One such stratum has just been referred to as evidence of exilic, or postexilic, date. The other, however, seems to demand a preexilic date—that is, there seems to be no consciousness, on the part of the writer, of the fall of Jerusalem, or of the cessation of the rule of David’s line, or of the captivity of Judah (e.g., I K 8 22-43, 11 29-39; II K 8 19, 17 18-23, in which vs. 19 f. are a later insertion). The conclusion, therefore, to which the evidence seems to point is that the work was composed before the fall of Jerusalem (586 B.c.), and that during or shortly after the Exile it was revised, and also supplemented by the addition of the account of the downfall of the Judean kingdom, all in the same spirit as that in which the original book had been written. The work as we have it is thus, in the main, the work of two editors, whom we may call R! and R?. The date of the first draft of the work by R! can not well have been earlier than the publication and adoption of the book of Deuteronomy as the stand- ard exposition of Israel’s religious constitution in 621 B.c. (see DEUTERONOMY, § 5). The influence of Dt is evident in all parts of the work. It extends even to minute points of phraseology (cf. the long lists of identical, or similar, expressions in K and Dt collected by Driver, LOT, pp. 200-203, and by Burney in HDB, II, pp. 859-861). The probability is, therefore, that some one, profoundly influenced by Dt and the reformation of Josiah’s time, also per- haps by the earnest appeals and denunciations of Jeremiah, undertook to compile a history of the kingdom in which the great religious and moral teachings of Dt would be seen to be illustrated and enforced in the actual course of events. The exact date of R! can not be fixed. In view of his reference in II K 245 to one of his sources as containing a full account of Jehoiakim’s reign (608-597), it is probable that he wrote in Zedekiah’s reign (597-586), on the eve of the fall of the kingdom. The date of the second revision by R? does not need to be placed later than the Return (536). Somewhere between 561 and 536 satisfies all conditions, as the few pas- sages that seem to show acquaintance with the Priests’ Code (I K 6 ta, ‘most holy place’ 616, ‘the golden altar’ 7 48, a few expressions in 8 1-7, and II K 18 31b) can easily be accounted for as late glosses. 4. Sources. The compiler R! had at his disposal a number of sources, some of which he names, while others can be detected by close study of the work. The sources named are ‘the book of the acts of Solo- mon’ (I K 11 41), ‘the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah’ (I K 14 29, etc., cited for all reigns except those of Ahaziah, Athaliah, Jehoahaz, Jehoiachin, and Zedekiah), and ‘the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel’ (I K 1419, etc., cited for all reigns except those of Jehoram and Hoshea), ings, Books of Kirieth A NEW STANDARD ' (1) The ‘book of the acts of Solomon’ must have been one of the main sources used by R! for his history of Solomon’s reign (I K chs. 1-11). But he did not draw all his information from this work. The introductory part of the account of Solomon (I K chs. 1-2) was, in the main, taken from the history of David’s reign in Jerusalem (see Davin, § 2 (8), and SAMUEL, Books or. The remainder of the account of Solomon’s reign (chs. 3-11) comprises three main kinds of material: (a) Annalistic and statistical notices, such as we find in 3 1, 4 1-28, 9 10-28, 10 14-20, 26, 28 f.; (b) an extended account of the building of the Temple and of its furnishings in 6 2-7 51; (c) a series of notices, all serving to show Solomon’s great wisdom and glory (8 6a, 7-13, 16-28, 51 f., 6-11, 13- 18, 8 1-13, 62-66 [?], 10 1-10, 13), with which 11 14-25 may be connected. Of these three groups it is likely that (b) was taken by R! from a larger description of the Temple, perhaps preserved in its archives; (c) com- prises just the kind of material we should expect to find in a ‘book of the acts of Solomon,’ while (a) was probably derived ultimately from the royal annals of Solomon’s reign. Whether (a) was found by R! in the ‘book of the acts of Solomon,’ or was gathered by him directly from the royal archives or through some intermediate source is difficult to decide. It is more probable that (a) was not a part of the ‘acts.’ “ (2) The exact nature of the two books ‘of the chron- icles of the kings’ of Judah and Israel is difficult to determine. The designation ‘book of the words (i.e., deeds or affairs) of the days’ is the technical term for official records (7.e., chronicles) such as would be kept by one of the court officials (I K 4 3; ef. Ezr 4 15, 19, 517, 61£.; Neh 12 23; Est 2 23, etc.). And as these works are referred to as sources of information for only such things as would naturally have a place in official records, it is natural to infer that such records are meant by this term. Modern scholars generally, but for no cogent reasons, reject this view, and think that two comprehensive his- torical works (perhaps based largely on the archives) were meant. In any case, much of the precise de- tailed information in K regarding the two kingdoms, such as the length of the different reigns, the specific events of these reigns, etc., must have been derived primarily from official records. But there is also much in K that may well have been drawn by R! from other sources. The story of Elijah, especially in I K chs. 17-19 and 21, and most of the story of /Wlisha in II K chs. 2-8 were derived probably from written ‘prophetic’ histories of these men. There are also accounts too extended and of too general a character to have been drawn immediately from official annals, tho largely political in character, and not marked by that specifically religious tone that distinguishes the ‘prophetic’ stories. These may well have been taken from written narratives of a popular nature, dealing with important events of both kingdoms. Another special source seems to have been a biography of Isaiah, used for certain events of Hezekiah’s reign. The following tabular presentation of the distribution of the sources (with the symbols by which they are frequently designated by modern scholars) used by R! may be found useful: BIBLE DICTIONARY 498 A. (Annals, or official records including the ‘books of the chronicles of the kings’), I K 3}, 4 1-19, 22 £., 26-28, g 10-28, 49 11 f. (2), 16-20, 26, 28 f., 1] 26-31, 40, 12 1-16, 18-20 7.4 16, 12, 17, 25-290 1 5 16-22, 27-29a, 16 9-11, 1ba-18, 21 f., 28b-24, 34; 99 46-49. TT K 1 1, 8 20-22, JQ at., 11 1-2, 1217 f., 13 3, 7, 22, 24f. 1.4 7-14, 19-22, 25 15 5, 10, 14, 16, 19 f., 25, 29 f., 16 5-9, 17 f., 17 3-6, 24-28 (2), 18 4(?), 8(?), 9-1 (in part), 13-16, 21 23 £., 22 3-15, 20b, 23 Im4a, 6-15, 21-24, 29-30, 33-35, 24 1, 7, S. (Acts of Solomon), I K 3 46a, 7-13, 15-28, 4 21, § 1b, 6~11 (2), 13-18 8 1-9 (nearly all), 19-13, 10 1710, 13, 14 14-25, T. (History of the building of the Temple and Palace), 6 2-6, 8-10, 15-21, 23-28, 317 51, Ej. (Stories of Elijah), I K 17 1-18 30, 32b-19 9a, 11b-21, 9] 1-20a, 27-29. TT K J 2-17, Es. (Stories of Elisha), II K 2 1724, 4 1-6 23, 8 1-15, 13 14-21, N. (Stories of the Northern Kingdom), I K 20 !-%, 22 1-37, II K 3 4-27, 6 24-7 20, 9 1-6, 10b, 11-28, 30-10) 27, Jud. (Judean stories), II K 12 4-17, 16 1916, Is. (Biography of Isaiah), II K 18 17-20 19, The remainder of the work, not covered by these references, can be considered as editorial, belonging either to the main editor (R }), or to his later reviser (R?), or to later hands (R1). Sections that may be assigned to R2 or Rl are: 1 K 3 2, 4 20f-. 24 f., 29-34 § 44-61, Q 6-9, 29, 10 21-25, 97, 19.17, 32 f. 13 1-88a, 15 Sb, 32, 16 7, 1821, 19 9b-1a, 20 35-48, 90 38. TT K 1 9-17, 13 4-6, 12 f., 28 14.17, 26 f., 17 7-17, 19, 29-40 9] 7-15, 28, 25 f. 93 16-20, 26 f. 242 f., 8.25 30, 5. Chronological Scheme. In K there are two separate sets of chronological data. (1) The lengths of each reign in both kingdoms. (2) The synchro- nism of each reign with that of the contemporary king in the sister kingdom. Theoretically, these two ought to harmonize perfectly, and ought to agree also with the well-established data of contemporary As- syrian chronology. But this is not the case, nor do the two parallel lists of figures for the separate reigns of the two kingdoms for a given period, when added, give the same total. Thus for the period from the disruption to the contemporaneous accession of Jehu in Israel and usurpation of Athaliah in Judah we have these figures: JUDAH. ISRAEL Rehoboam...... 17 years (16) Jeroboam....... 22 years (21) Abijant, :/caenen sa eae (2) ON adab tie 8 oe oe (1) ARDS ot toeelicon 4 i ea! AOA DAA cht a 24 eos) Jehoshaphat... core ra (24) eee Be) oe ee ee (1) Jehoram........ Sia (7) VA veri ibahae Nee) (7 days) Ahaziahiesuane ae Lippe Clee Omri ota ages 12 years (11) Ahab cw onwee ee 22 1 Sera Ahaniaih's: sees Pha ty (1) Jehoram........ 1270 Cee) 95 years (90) 98 years (90) Here is an apparent discrepancy of 3 years. But the length of each reign is evidently only approximate. Rehoboam’s reign, é.g., was not exactly 17 years to a day, but probably 16+ or possibly even 16—, the year to which the last part of one reign and the first part of the next belonged is counted twice, and in the case of short reigns (1 year or 2 years) even a few months might be reckoned as 2 years. Consequently there is probably no real discrepancy between these two lists. But if, on the basis of these figures, one attempts to construct a synchronistic table, he will find that it will not agree with the synchronisms given in K and supposedly constructed from the same figures. In most instances, in the synchronism, 1 year is deducted from the figures given for the separate reigns, but this is not always the case. For the next period, from the accessions of Athaliah and Jehu to the fall of Samaria, the difference between the totals of the two lists is about 20 years—about 160 years for Judah and 144 years for Israel—and as the actual length of the period was only about 120 years (842-722 B.c.), it is evident that serious errors 499 must be charged to the text as we now find it. For the next period, from 722 to 586 (the fall of Jeru- salem) the (single) list of figures for the kings of Judah is approximately accurate. The necessary corrections to be made in the figures of the second period can be seen in the article on O T Curo- NOLOGY. 6. Text. The Heb. text of K as now found in MSS. presents serious difficulties, and in many places the difference between it and the ancient versions, es- pecially the LXX., is very considerable. Further- more, MSS. of the LXX. reveal the presence of at least two different types of text as known to these translators. For details, reference must be made to the literature noted below. The textual history of K may be roughly represented thus: X1= Original book compiled by R14. X2= Revision made by R?. | A B 8C_ (etc.) = Various types of text, all differ- ing from one another, because of the addition of supplementary glosses, mistakes, etc., 5th to 2d cent. B.c. L Other forms of Heb. text, readings of which are found in Lucian’s recension of the LXX, and in other witnesses. G Heb. text used by the LXX. and now found in most MSS. of the LXX, H Present Heb. text. 7. Historical Value. In spite of the fact that K isa didactic or ‘pragmatic’ historical work, there is no sufficient ground for charging the compiler (R 1) with wilfully distorting or suppressing the truth. He gave the facts as he found them in his sources, altho he selected only such facts as he thought useful for his general purpose. His interpretation of the facts was also dictated by an earnest and high-minded motive. That he took Dt as a standard was due to the commanding influence that book had attained in his day. The legendary character of a part of his material, e.g., some of the stories told of Elijah and Elisha, can not be laid to his charge. It was a most important task to which he addressed himself, and it is due to him alone that we of to-day possess a working outline of the history of Israel during its most important period. LITERATURE: The commentaries of Benzinger (1899), Kittel (1900), and Skinner (New Century Bible, 1905); Driver, LOT (91916); Burney, Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Kings (1903), also his article on Kings in HDB. EK. E. N. KING’S DALE (in Gn Il. 17 referred to as ‘the vale of Shaveh, the same is the King’s Vale’ [‘dale’ AV]): The place where Abraham was met by the King of Sodom and Melchizedek on returning from his victory over Chedorlaomer. It is also mentioned as the place where Absalom erected a memorial to himself (IIS 1818). It was probably near Jerusalem. The word rendered ‘vale’ means ‘valley land,’ or a ‘low lying plain,’ in distinction from hilly land. See also JERUSALEM, § 8. E. E. N. KING’S POOL. See JERUSALEM, § 13. KINSMAN, KINSWOMAN, KINSFOLK, etc.: (1) In the majority of the occurrences of this term in the O T, it is the rendering of gd’él, ‘redeemer,’ ‘avenger,’ ptepl. of g@’al, ‘to redeem,’ ‘toavenge.’ It A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Kings, Books of Kiriath referred originally to the duty of every tribesman, or clansman, to support or avenge the cause of his tribe, clan, or family, and thus easily became the term whereby to designate one’s nearest relatives. (2) In Ru 21, 3 2, II K 10 11 (cf. RV), and Pr 7 4 the Heb. term means literally ‘acquaintance.’ (3) In Job 19 14 and Ps 38 11 (cf. RV) the Heb. means ‘one who is near.’ (4) In Lv 18 12 £., 17 and Nu 27 11 it means ‘flesh,’ 7.e., ‘blood relation.’ (5) In the N T the one term is ovyyevys, 2.e., ‘relative’ (in various degrees: Mk 6 4; Lk 1 36, 58, 2 44, 14.12, 2116; Jn 18 26; Ac 10 24; Ro 9 3, 167, 11, 21 when ‘fellow Jew’ is per- haps meant). See also KinpRED; and FAMILY AND Famity Law, § 8. K. E. N. KIR, ker (1"P, gir), ‘wall’: 1. A land and a people under Assyrian rule. According to Am 9 7 it wasthe original home of the Arameans (7.e., those of Damas- cus) and the country to which they were deported (Am 15; II K 169) by Tiglath-pileser. The LXX., however, omits Kir in II K 169, and it may have been inserted from Ami5. This people served in the Assyrian army (Is 226). No mention of the place has been found in inscriptions. The more common identification of Kir has been with the river Kur in N. Armenia. A comparison of Is 21 2 and 22 6 sug- gests that it was in the far East, as in 21 2 Media and Elam appear, and in 226 Kir and Elam. 2. ‘Kir’ is also used as the first part of the names of Moabite cities (see next article). ORBAa KIR (of) MOAB (ANIO°1P, gir-mo’abh): The name of an important city of Moab, and connected with Ar (of) Moab (Is 151). Some consider the two places identical. Buhl (Geog. des alten Paldstina, p. 269 f.) suggests that Ar of Moab is the name of a district S. of the Arnon, of which Kir Moab, the modern Rabba (Rabbath Moab), was the chief city. Others identify it with Kir-hareseth (q.v.). C. 8. T. KIR-HARASETH, ker’’-ha-ré’seth, -HARESETH, -ha-ri’seth, -HARESH, -hé’resh, -HERES, -hi’res (nYID VP, gir-haraseth (IL K 3 25], NYO 'P, -hdre- seth [Is 16 7], YI 'P, -hdres [Is 16 11; Jer 48 31]; WIN 'P, -heres [Jer 48 36]): The Targum has Kerak in all five passages, and ‘Kerak in Moab’ for ‘Kir Moab’ in Is 151. Itis the modern El-kerak, fortress on the wédy of the same name, E. of the Dead Sea, above the peninsula, Lisén. From II K 3 21, 24f. it was evidently not far from the southern boundary of Moab and was a fortified city. It lies on a precipi- tous hill, only slightly connected on the eastern side with the highlands. Its summit was originally accessible only through two rock tunnels. The present walls are largely medieval; only the lower portions are ancient. Water was provided by means of deep wells, cisterns, and tanks. The present popu- lation of a few thousand consists of several groups, each under its own sheik or head, and among them are many Greek Christians. They are half nomadic, rough, and hostile. Buhl identifies Kir-ha-raseth with Kerak, but not with Kir Moab (Is 151), which he places farther to the north. Co Sa KIRIATH, ker’i-ath ((20P, giryath, Kirjath AV), ‘city of’: K. is the construct form of giryah, ‘city,’ and forms the first element in a number of compound Kiriathaim Know A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 500 IS ETTTE EIS aEEIEEIEEEEE SIU SESS city-names. 1. K. is found alone once (Jos 18 28) for K-jearim (see 5 below). 2. K.-arba, ‘city of Arba,’ an ancient name for Hebron (Gn 23 2; Jos 14 15, etc. See Hresron). 3. K.-arim and K.-baal, see 5 below. 4. K.-huzzoth ( K-hiitsdth), ‘city of streets’ (tho the LXX. favors ‘city of sheepfolds’), a city of Moab (Nu 22 39). Site unknown. 5. K.-jearim, ‘city of forests (or thickets).’ An important town of Judah, on the W. boundaryline of Benjamin (Jos 15 9, 60, 18 14f.). Once it is called Kiriath (Jos 18 28), also Baalah (Jos 159; I Ch 136), K.-baal (Jos 15 60, 1814), and Baale-judah (II S 62). It was an ancient Ca- naanite city, one of the league to which Gibeon belonged (Jos 9 17), and was doubtless once a seat of Baal worship. It was here that the Ark of J’ rested after the Philistines returned it to Israel, until David removed it thence to Jerusalem (IS 6 21, 71f.; 1S 62f.;1 Ch135¢.; II Ch 1 4; cf. Ps 1326). K. was the home of the prophet Urijah, who was put to death by Jehoiakim (Jer 26 20 ff.). The town was reoccupied in postexilic times (Ezr 2 25; Neh 7 29). At some time during its history it seems to have received a contingent of Calebites from Hebron (I Ch 2 50-53). In spite of its importance and the many references to it, the site of K. is uncertain. It was near Mt. Jearim (Jos 15 10), and according to Eusebius (Onom.) 9 Rom. m. from Jerusalem on the way to Lydda (Map II, E 1 gives the usual identifi- cation with Kh. Erma; others prefer K. el- Hnab [Kiriath on the Map]; and recently H. Guthe [ZDPV, 1913, pp. 81 ff.] argues for El- Kubébe about 3 m. N. of Kiriath). 6. K.-sannah and K.-sepher, two names for the town otherwise known as Debir (q.v.) (Jos 15 49, 1515 £.; Jg 111#.). E. E. N. KIRIATHAIM, ker’'i-a-fhé’im (B@0I0P, girya- thayim), ‘double city’: 1. A city in the old Moabite territory assigned to Reuben (Nu 32 37; Jos 13 19), and afterward reoccupied by Moab (Jer 48 1, 23; Ezk 259). Shaveh-Kiriathaim, 7.e., ‘the plain of K.’ (Gn 14 5), was probably the level highland around K. Map II, J 2. See also Moabite Stone, line 10, under MzsHa. 2. See KarTAN. KIRIATH-ARBA, -ar’bo. See HEBRON. KIRIATH-ARIM, -@’rim. See Kirrars (5). KIRIATH-BAAL, ker’’i-ath-bé’al (oyan2 7p, qir- yath ba‘al), ‘city of Baal.’ See Krriara (5). KIRIATH-HUZOTH, -hiii’zofh (ISTP, gir- yath hitséth), ‘city of streets’: A city of Moab (Nu 22 39). Site unknown. KIRIATH-JEARIM, -ji’a-rim. See Krriata (5). KIRIATH-SANNAH, -san’a. See Krriatn (6). KIRIATH-SEPHER, si’fer. See Krriatu (6). KIRJATH, ker’jafh (and compounds). See KiriaTH and compounds. KISH, kish (V’P, gish; Cis in N T, Ac 13 21 AV), probably the name of an old Semitic deity (cf. Well- hausen, Reste arab. Heidenthums?, p. 67): 1. A wealthy man of the tribe of Benjamin. He was the father of Saul, the first king of Israel (IS 91f., 10 11; I Ch 8 33, etc.). A variant genealogy appears to be given in I Ch 8 30, but the text here (in vs. 29-32) is confused, or some other Kish may be meant. 2. A Levite (I Ch 23 21£., 24 29). 3. Another Levite (II Ch 2912). 4. An ancestor of Mordecai (Est 2 5). E. E.N. KISHI, kish’ai (YP, gisht): A Levite (I Ch 6 44; called Kushaiah in I Ch 15 17). KISHION, kish’i-on (1%, gishyon): A city of Issachar (Jos 19 20) assigned to the Levites (21 28 Map III, F 1. KISHON, kish’on, and KISON, kis’en (0p, gishon, always with nahal, river), ‘stream of (the god) Kish’?: The name of a river watering the Plain of Esdraelon or Megiddo, the modern Nahr el-mugatta‘. Map IV, B 7, C 8. Its N. arm rises in springs (el- Mezra‘ah) W. of Tabor, its S. arm near Mt. Gilboa (Jelbén), which meet in the plain under Megiddo (called the ‘waters of Megiddo,’ Jg 519). The river then flows between Carmel (I K 18 40) and the southern Galilean hills, across the plain of Acre, emptying into the bay of Acre N. of Haifa. Water is found in its bed during the whole year only in the last 7 m. of its course, in which it receives an abun- dant supply from springs in Mt. Carmel, and from two streams from the NE. emptying into it in the plain of Acre. In the rainy season, however, the streams from the hills of Galilee and Ephraim be- come rushing torrents, dangerous to chariots and horsemen (Jg 47, 13, 5 21; Ps 839 [10]), and overflow the whole plain, which is settled only on the higher ground about it (cf. G. A. Smith’s instructive descrip- tion of the campaign against Sisera in HGHL, pp. 391 ff.). There are always deep and treacherous pools along its course, and in the plain of Acre it seems to lose itself in marshes E. of Haifa. It is probably ‘the brook before Jokneam’ (Jos 19 11). OnSiek: KISS: The kiss was the expressive token of a variety of sentiments: (1) Friendship, especially in greeting among equals (Ex 4 27). ‘The abuse of it constituted the aggravation of the treachery of Judas (Mt 26 49). (2) Good will at parting (Gn 31 28; Ru 1 14). (3) Submission, or reverence (Job 31 27; Ps 212). (4) Worship, especially in idolatrous practise (I K 19 18; Hos 18 2). A. C. Z. KITE. See Pauestine, § 25. KITHLISH, kith’lish. See Currs.isu. KITRON, kit’ron. See Karrara. KITTIM, kit’im (8°93, kitttm; frequently Chit- tim AV): According to the table of nations (Gn 10 4), Kittim, with Elishah, Tarshish, and Dodanim, are the ‘sons’ of Javan, 7.e., they are the Ionian Greeks. In Phenician inscriptions Cyprus is known as Kition (kty). Originally this was the name of a town on the S. coast of the island, now known as Larnaka. This place was of such importance that the Hebrews applied the name to the inhabitants of the entire island. The exclusive application of the term Kittim to the Greek inhabitants of Cyprus (Gn 10 4) is based upon the knowledge that there was a Greek population before the Phenician im- migration, but in Is 23 1, 12 the prophet uses this name for the Phenicians who had colonized the island. The ‘isles of Kittim,’ the antipodes of Kedar (Jer 2 10), form a comprehensive geographical term, 501 A NEW STANDARD in all probability including the coasts of Greece and Asia Minor, as well as the islands of the E. Mediter- ranean. In Dn 11 30 it is predicted that the ships of Kittim will come against one of the kings of ‘the North,’ z.e., Antiochus Epiphanes. In this instance the reference is to the Romans, as the LXX. clearly proves. According to I Mac 1 1, Alexander the Great came from tne land of Kittim; here it is equivalent to Greece. The last two passages, to- gether with Nu 24 24, point to the conclusion that Kittim was used as a comprehensive geographical designation, including Italy and Sicily, as well as Greece and her islands. In Ezk 27 6 Kittim is spoken of as a source of boxwood for the Tyrians. See also ErHNOGRAPHY AND ETHNOLOGY, § 13. . Je ALS KNEADING-TROUGH. See Foon, § 2. KNEEL: This is the primary meaning of the Heb. barakh, also signifying ‘to bless,’ ‘to pray (for blessing).’ It also renders the Gr. yovuerety, ‘to fall on the knees,’ also the nouns berekh and yévu, ‘knee,’ in construction with such verbs as ‘to bend,’ ‘bow,’ etc. A man knelt to show homage or reverence to God (Is 45 23; Ro 14 11; Ph 210) or Baal (I K 1918; Ro 11 4), and to worship and pray, usually with the hands stretched out, as if before an idol (I K 854; II Ch 613; Ezr9 5; Dn 610; Lk 22 41; Ac 7 60, 9 40, 20 36, 215). By kneeling as well as by prostration (Ru 210; Lk 1716), a man did hom- age to his king or superior (Lk 5 8); in mockery, Mk 15 19). This homage he showed often when presenting a petition (II K 113; Mt 17 14; Mk 1 40, 10 17). CEST KNIFE: The earliest knives were of flint (Jos 5 2f.; ef. RV), which are found in abundance in the lower strata of excavated sites in Pal. and which were gradually displaced by those of bronze and, later, iron. The shape of an ordinary knife was that of a dagger or dirk. In Gn 226,10; Jg 19 29, and Pr 3014, the Heb. term ma’dkheleth signifies the large knife used for slaying animals. In Jos52f.,1K 18 28, and Ezk 51f., the term herebhis that usually rendered ‘sword.’ In Pr 23 2 and Ezr 19 the text is perhaps corrupt, originally not reading ‘knife.’ See also ARMs AND ARMOR, § 2, and Foon, § 11. HK. E. N. KNOP. See Trempte, § 13. KNOW, KNOWLEDGE: The several Heb. and Gr. terms rendered ‘know’ (yddha‘, the most com- prehensive term in Heb.; nadkhar, ‘to scrutinize care- fully,’ and then ‘to know’; ytvacxety and com- pounds; of8a, érfotauot, and their derived nouns) are used to express many shades of meaning, too numerous to be discussed at length here. These meanings vary from the simplest kind of objective perception to the more subtle processes of moral and religious understanding. The Biblical writers had no philosophic theories of knowledge, and no ab- struse metaphysical meanings should be read into their words, which are always to be taken in the sense naturally suggested by their contexts. God’s knowledge is not specifically differentiated from man’s. The distinction drawn by the Biblical writers is one of degree rather than of kind. Where- Kiriathaim Know BIBLE DICTIONARY as man’s knowledge is limited and also seriously impaired by his moral imperfection, God’s knowl- edge, not subject to such limitations, is all-compre- hensive and perfect. The deep-seated reverence of the Semitic mind tended to check undue curiosity in prying into such secrets. The Hebrew was con- tent to say ‘such knowledge is too wonderful for me’ (Ps 139 6). The skepticism which carelessly said ‘What doth God know?’ (Job 22 13; Ps 73 11; Is 5 19 ff.; cf. 22 13 f., 29 15) was utterly revolting to the devout Hebrew. The primitive anthropomorphic mode of thought shows itself occasionally, as in the old narratives in Gn ch. 3 f., 111-9, etce., where God’s ability to know or discover all things—e.g., human actions—is not viewed as immediate omniscience, but as dependent partly upon investigation. How- ever, as time passed the sense of His omniscience impressed itself ever more strongly, and was expressed most significantly in passages like Job 21 22, 23 10, 28 23, chs. 38-40; Is chs. 40-48, etc. Especial em- phasis was laid upon God’s knowledge of the human heart, and in this fact the devout Israelite found great comfort (cf. Pss 1 6, 37 18, 44 21, 69 5, 94 11, 108 14, 139 1 ff., etc.). Naturally, this conviction of the all-knowing and all-directing wisdom of God was a fundamental postulate of Hebrew prophecy. As to man’s knowledge, that on which the Bible lays especial emphasis are its religious and moral aspects. In the O T knowledge of God is the essence of religion, and while God is held to be infinite and surrounded by mystery and so, in a sense, unknowable (cf. Job 36 24 ff.), this was not allowed to interfere with religion or ethics, both of which, in Hebrew thought, rested on a knowledge of God. Even the strong sense of the limitations of human knowledge did not drive the author of Ec to atheism, irreligion, or immorality. It was all-im- portant that the Israelite should know that ‘J’’ is God’ (Ex 7 17, 16 12, 31 13; Ezk 67, ete.). But such knowledge, which might be purely theoretical or formal, or might be taught by the sever discipline of events, still lacked something. Not simply to know ‘that J’’ is God,’ but to ‘know him’ as God personally, experientially is the supreme demand of the religious teachers of the O T, especially the prophets (e.g., Hos 4 6, 6 6; Mic 6 8; Jer 31 34, etc.). That this involved necessarily a moral surrender on man’s part, and was thus very different from specu- lative intellectualism, or from mere formalism, should need no proof to any reader of the O T. It is the ‘fear’ (i.e., reverence) of J” that is the ‘beginning’ of knowledge (Pr 1 7). Inthe N Tit is the knowledge of God in or through Christ that is set forth as the climax of spiritual as well as moral attainment (Mt 11 27; Jn 17 3; Ph 3 8-10, etc.). Christ Himself alone knows God the Father fully (Mt 11 27; cf. Jn 7 29, 855, etc.) as well as knowing all that is in man (Jn 2 24). Consequently, through Him alone man can come to the highest knowledge of God. But both in the Fourth Gospel and in Paul, this knowledge is never allowed to pass over into intellectual speculation or to become mere theory. It is always held to consist in the highest and fullest development of the moral nature. It always necessarily includes the surrender of the Koa A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Lamentations will to, and the bestowal of the affections upon, Jesus Christ in a personal, not theoretical, act which is to be completed in a life full of good and loving service to God and man (cf. Jn 7 17, 8 31 f., 10 14, 147 #.; Ro 1 21; I Co 13 2, 83; 1 Jn 2 3, etc.). And while Paul sometimes finds it hard to choose words adequate to express his rapture as he thinks what it means to ‘know’ God in Christ, it is very instructive to note how he always holds himself and his readers down to the fundamental personal, ethical, experi- ential elements of this knowledge (e.g., in I Co ch. IDIOMS, K. E. N. KOA, ko’a (¥1P, goa‘): A term mentioned only in Ezk 23 23 (‘Pekod and Shoa and Koa and all the Assyrians’). Shoa and Koa are often coupled in the Assyrian inscriptions, however, where they ap- pear as the Sut@ and Kuta (or Guti; cf. ‘Goiim,’ Gn 141), peoples dwelling E. of the Tigris on the steppes between the upper courses of the Adhem and Diyaleh rivers. L. G. L.—E. C. L. KOHATH, ko’oeth (MP, qhath): One of the sons of Levi (Gn 46 11; Ex 6 16-18; Nu 3 17, etc.) and the reputed ancestor of one of the great divisions of the Levites, the Kohathites. See PrisstHoop, § 9d. LAADAH, lé’a-da (7719?, la‘daéh): Probably a late clan of Judah, inhabiting Maresha (I Ch 4 21). LAADAN, lé’a-dan. See Lapan. LABAN, 1é’ban (122, labhan), ‘white’; possibly so named because he was fair in comparison with his bedawin neighbors: A descendant of Nahor, and brother of Rebekah. His covetousness 1s well-char- acterized in Gn 24 30, where the sight of the presents sent by Abraham makes him obsequious in his courtesy. He is no more attractive on his next ap- pearance, and his attempt to overreach Jacob by giving him Leah instead of Rachel (Gn 29 23) receives its reward in more than one stroke of poetic justice. The bargain which he makes with Jacob (Gn 380 31 f.), laughing in his sleeve the while at Jacob’s simplicity, leaves him unexpectedly with a dwindling flock (Gn ch. 31), while Jacob drives his sheep to a safe dis- tance, providing beforehand for a three days’ start when the time should be ripe for flight (Gn 30 36, 31 25). But the most unexpected blow of all was that Rachel should steal his teraphim (Gn 31 19). His story carries with it a satire upon the Arameans, who had to be watched lest they fleece their own kin, but whose cleverness often overshot itself. Laban and his sons left behind on the hither side of Galeed (Gn 31 48) are like a racial vestige, sloughed off as the Jacob-Israel nation developed into its larger heritage. A. 8. C.*—O. R. 8S. LACE: This word is the rendering of pathal (in Ex 28 28; etc.), which means the ‘thread,’ or ‘string,’ by which the rings of the breastplate were joined (laced) to the rings of the ephod. LACHISH, lé’kish (¥’22, lakhish): A royal Ca- naanite city captured by Joshua (Jos 10 3, 31 f., 502 KOLAIAH, ko-lé/ya (™@2iP, galayah), ‘voice of J’’: 1. The father of the false prophet Ahab (Jer 29 21). 2. The head of a Benjamite family (Neh 117). KORAH, ko’ra (1P, gérah), ‘baldness’: 1. A son of Esau (Gn 386 5, 14, 18; I Ch 1 35). 2. One of the ‘dukes’ of Esau =Edom, perhaps a mere duplication of 1 (Gn 3616). 3. A ‘son’ of Hebron (I Ch 2 43; cf. 12 6, Korhite AV), probably a clan of Judah. 4. A Levite and the ancestral head of one of the gilds of Temple musicians, the Korahites (Ex 6 21, 24, Korhite AV; Nu 26 58, Korathite AV; I Ch 6 22; II Ch 20 19, Korhite AV; cf. the titles of Pss. 42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 84, 85, 87, 88), also of a body of doorkeepers and assistants (I Ch 6 37, 9 19 [here the name is spelled Kore, 871P, qéré’], 31, 26 1, Korhite AV, 19). It was this K. who rebelled against Moses in the desert (Nu 16 1-49, 26 9-11, 27 3; Jude 11, Core AV). On the significance of this story see Prizst- HOOD, § 9a. HE. E. N. KORE, ko’ri (S71P, goré’): 1. A Korahite clan (I Ch 9 19, 261; on 2619 cf. RV). 2. A Levite under Hezekiah (II Ch 31 14). KOZ, kez. See Hakkoz. KUSHAIAH, kiu-shé’ya. See Kisut. 12 11, 15 39) and assigned to Judah. It was made a fortress for the defense of Judah (II Ch 119). It was to L. that Amaziah fled, but in vain, when he discovered that a conspiracy had been formed against him (II K 14 19; II Ch 25 27). Later (701 B.c.) Sennacherib besieged it (II K 18 17), and from his camp sent messengers to Hezekiah summoning him to yield to Assyrian suzerainty. It was to L., there- fore, that Hezekiah sent the tribute required and made his submission (II K 1814). Nebuchadrezzar also laid siege to the city (Jer 347). In the Amarna letters L. is represented as under Egyptian control. Until the excavations conducted in behalf of the PEF by Flinders Petrie (Tell el-Hesy, 1891) and F. J. Bliss (A Mound of Many Cities, 1898) the modern site was supposed to be Umm Lakis. These excavations have shown that 7'ell el-Hesy is the real site. (Map II, C 2. Cf. G. A. Smith, HGHL, p. 234.) Umm Lakis, 3 to 4 miles from the site, may be a New Lachish settled by the returned exiles (Neh 11 30) and so named from its proximity to the ruins of its predecessor. AUC Nee LADAN, le’don (12, la‘dén, Laadan AV): 1. An Ephraimite (I Ch 7 26; cf. Eleadah, ver. 20). 2. The ancestral head of a division of the Gershonite Levites (I Ch 23 7-9, 26 21). See also Lipnt. LADANUM, lad’a-noum, the Gr. rendering of Heb. o>, lot (Gn 37 25 Myrrh AV). In Gn 4311 both EVV render ‘Myrrh.’ An aromatic gum. See Pa.zs- TINE, § 22. LADDER: The translation of the Heb. sullam, which occurs only in Gn 28 12. A better rendering from the root-meaning would be ‘a flight of steps.’ The figure was suggested by the conformation of the 503 A NEW STANDARD mountains near Bethel, and was used to signify the communication between heaven and earth. Cf. ver. 17, ‘the gate of heaven.’ Oe Pr be LADY: In Is 47 5,7 the RV gives the more correct rendering ‘mistress.’ In Jg 5 29 and Est 118 the Heb. sGrah means a ‘princess,’ or woman of rank. On II Jn 15 see Joun, EristiEs oF. LAEL, 1é’el yd. la@’él), [belonging] ‘to God’: A Gershonite Levite, father of the ‘prince’ of the family (Nu 3 24), to which was entrusted the care of . the tabernacle and tent (Nu 3 25f.). It is one of the many names in Nu in which ’é appears as a suffix. Bagg = ea bs LAHAD, lé’had (772, lahadh): The ancestral head of a Zorahite family in Judah (I Ch 4 2). LAHAI-ROI, la-hai’rei. See BreER-LAHAI-ROI. LAHMAM, li’mam (ORN?2, lahmam, in some MSS. lahmds): A city of Judah (Jos 15 40). Map IT, D 2. LAHMI, 1a’mai: In I Ch 20 5 we read, ‘Elhanan . slew Lahmi brother of Goliath.’ In the |], II S 21 19, we read ‘Elhanan . . . the Beth-lehemite slew Goliath.’ In the Heb. ‘Beth-lehem’ and ‘[the] Lahmi’ are almost identical in appearance, and might easily be confused. But it is more likely that in Ch the text of II 8S has been altered to avoid contradicting I S ch. 17. E. E. N. LAISH, 1é’ish (°?, layish, ‘lion’): I. The original name of the city Dan in the extreme N. of Israel (Jg 187 #f.), also called Leshem (Jos 19 47). See Dan. On Is 10 30 see LaisHan. II. A Benjamite (IS 25 44; ITS 3 15). LAISHAH, lo-ai’sha (7¥?, layshah): A city of Benjamin, not far from Anathoth (Is 10 30). LAKE OF FIRE. See Escuatroioey, § 48. LAKKUM, lak’kum (03P?, lagqiim, Lakum AV): A city of Naphtali (Jos 19 33). Site unknown. LAMB: This term is in the Bible used in different senses: (1) In the literal sense, as the name of the young of the sheep, either male or female. As this animal was common in Palestine (see PALESTINE, § 24), there are many Heb. terms rendered ‘lamb.’ These are: (a) kebhes, kibhsah, and kabhsGh (Ex 29 38; Gn 21 28; Lv 1410). (b) kesebh, kisbah (Gn 30 40; Lv 5 6). (c) taleh (I S 7 9; Is 65 25), also tl@’%m (Is 40 11). (d) kar, especially of a half-grown ram (Dt 32 14; Am 64; Ps 37 20). (e) tsd’n, ‘flock’ (Ex 12 21), also ben ts6’n, ‘a son of the flock’ (Ps 114 4, 6). (f) seh (Gn 227: 18 17 34). (g) ’immertn (Ezr 69). (h) dvds (Jn 1 29). (i) &evdc (Lk 10 3). (Jj) devtov (Jn 21 15; Rev 56, etc.). The place of the lamb in the sacrificial system was a conspicuous and important one (see SACRIFICE AND OFFERINGS, 5 ff.). In common life, its flesh furnished a delicate article of food (Am 6 4). It was not lawful to slaughter a lamb before it was eight days old (Lv 22 27). (2) Metaphorically, the figure of the lamb appears in poetic phraseology designed to convey the idea of harmlessness as contrasted with ferocity (Is 11 6), of guilelessness as contrasted with cunning (II S 12 3 #.; Jer 11 19; Is 53 7), and of playfulness (Ps 114 4, 6). (8) Symbolically, the ‘Lamb’ was a designation of Christ, with a twofold reference to the OT. In the testimony of John the Baptist (Jn 1 29, Koa Lamentations BIBLE DICTIONARY 36) to Jesus, the dyuvé¢ is evidently the lamb of Is 53 7, but in Rev 5 6 and passim the meaning is un- doubtedly sacrificial, and Christ is viewed as the antetype of the paschal lamb. A. C. Z. LAME, LAMENESS. See Diszase anp MepI- CINE, § 6. LAMECH, 1é’mek (722, lemekh): This name oc- curs in both of the genealogies of the antediluvian patriarchs (Gn 4 1-24 [J]; Gn ch. 5 [P]). In the former list, known as the Cainite genealogy, Lamech appears as the son of Methushael, and is represented as introducing polygamy into human society by marrying two wives—Adah and Zillah. The former is the mother of Jabal, who is the father of tent- dwellers and herdsmen, and of Jubal, the ancestor of musicians—the latter bears Tubal-cain, the founder of metal industries. Thus the sons of L. are looked upon as the founders of civilization and the originators of the arts. The song of L. is a sword- lay, the boasting of an Arab sheik after the slaughter of his enemies (Gn 4 23-24 [J]).. The ninth member of the second, or Sethite, genealogy also (Gn 5 26-29 [P]; ef. Lk 3 36) is Lamech, aman of exemplary piety and father of Noah. The latter, like the sons of L. in the first list, figures as the promoter of civilization by being the first to introduce the culture of the vine (Gn 9 20). If the two genealogies are different Heb. versions of the same prehistoric Semitic tradi- tion, as is now usually held, then instead of two patriarchs we have one. The Babylonian counter- part of L. (2) is Otiartes, or Ardates, the ninth of the antediluvian kings, who, according to Berossus, reigned for 12 sars, or 432,000 years. As L. is the father of Noah, so Otiartes is the father of Xisuthros, the hero of the Babylonian flood story. J. A. K. LAMENTATION. See Mournine anp Mourn- ING Customs, § 5. LAMENTATIONS: 1. Name. One of the poetical books of the Bible usually placed in the EVV be- tween Jeremiah and Ezekiel and attached to Jer as Ru is to Jg. The Eng, name is derived from the Latin Lamentationes Jeremie, which was used by the Fathers. The Vulgate title of the book, how- ever (Threni Jeremie), is not a translation but a transliteration of the LX X. Opfhyo: *Iepeutov. In the Heb. Bible the book is called 19°8, ’ékhah, ‘how?’ from its first word, in analogy with many other Biblical books (see Gmnusis, § 1; Exopus, § 1, etc.), and is placed in the third division of the Canon, the writings, and not among the Prophets, as in the Eng. Bible. In the usage of the Synagog it is reckoned as one of the Five Rolls (Megilloth, z.e., Song, Ruth, La, Eccl, and Esther). 2. Structure and Contents. As extant, La consists of five chapters, each one of which is complete in itself (in spite of Ewald’s contrary view). The first four of these consist of verses which are alpha- betical acrostics. But here the identity of structural plan ends. In chs. 1 and 2 each letter of the Heb. alphabet is assigned one verse, and each verse con- sists of three members [clauses]. In ch. 3 each letter of the alphabet is given three verses, but each verse consists of a single member. In ch. 4 each letter is given one verse, and each verse consists of Lamentations Laodicea two members. Moreover, in chs. 2-4 the alpha- betic arrangement deviates from the present order of the Heb. letters by placing 5 before y, a trans- position which has never been satisfactorily ex- plained. Finally, ch. 5, tho consisting like the others of twenty-two verses, is not arranged as an acrostic. The literary form is that of the elegy (ginadh) charac- terized by a special meter, the second line of which is shorter than the first—usually three accents followed by two. If this be regarded, as it is almost universally, the true form of Lamentations, each of the first four chapters is a separate elegy, and the fifth is a prayer. The general theme of the whole book is the grief of the faithful, in view of the desola- tion of the Holy City by the Babylonians in 586 B.c. In the first elegy the poet bewails the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple (1 1-11), tho he sees in the event a penalty for sin (vs.5 and 8). Yet he laments her doom as a bitter and comfortless one (1 12-22). In the second elegy the desolation of the city and the horrors of the siege are once more brought into view (2 1-10), and their distressing features intensified by allusion to the joy of the enemies of Israel (vs. 11-17). The city itself is then represented as making her appeal to God to consider her distress (vs. 18-22). The third elegy begins with a complaint of the poet in his own person (3 1-21), but proceeds to recall the love of God as the ground of Jerusalem’s hope for the future (vs. 22-35). This leads to an exhortation to penitence and confes- sion (vs. 36-55) and a prayer for vengeance upon the enemy (vs. 55-66). The fourth elegy bewails the fate successively of the people (41-6), the princes (vs. 7-11), the priests and prophets (vs. 12-16), and the king (vs. 17-20), and closes with a prediction of doom on Edom (ver. 21 f.). The last of the five poems laments before J’’ the manifold sorrows of Zion (5 1-18), and pleads fervently for deliverance from them (vs. 19-22). 3. Authorship. A very ancient tradition ascribes the authorship of La to the praphet Jeremiah. As early as the days of the Chronicler (c. 250 B.c.) a document, called ‘the lamentations’ (qinéth), was supposed to contain a dirge composed by Jeremiah upon the death of Josiah (II Ch 35 25). However, the only passage in La which may be construed as referring to Josiah is 4 20, which speaks of ‘the anointed of Jehovah,’ and this, tho conceivably a mournful retrospect by Jeremiah of the fate of his friend Josiah (the last pious king of Judah), is almost certainly a reference to the fate of Zedekiah. Shortly after the age of the Chronicler (c. 200 B.c.) the LXX. translator of La incorporated the tradi- tion at the opening of the book in the following words: ‘And it came to pass, after that Israel was made captive and Jerusalem laid desolate, that Jeremiah sat down weeping and lamented over Jerusalem, saying... ‘Thus the belief found explicit written expression, and through the later Jewish history (Jos. Ant. X, 51; where La is viewed as a dirge to be used at Josiah’s funeral), as well as by Christian writers (Jerome, in Zec. 12 11), La was uniformly and implicitly taken to be a work of Jeremiah’s. This conclusion has the further sup- port: of internal considerations, 7.e., (1) the antece- A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 504 dent probability that the sensitive and emotionai prophet who had witnessed the inevitable approach and culmination of Jerusalem’s doom should give vent to meditative feeling after all was over; (2) the linguistic resemblances between his prophecies and the style of La, and (3) the fact that certain passages seem to have been written by an eye-witness. As against these considerations, generally admitted to be quite strong, it is argued (1) that it is unlikely that Jeremiah would deliberately express his grief in alphabetic dirges; (2) that the artificial form of the acrostic is inconsistent with the intensity of feeling which must have possessed the prophet at the time of the fall of Jerusalem; (3) that certain passages of La betray dependence on Ezk (cf. 2 14, 4 20 with Ezk 22 28, 19 24, etc. For a full list of parallels and echoes of Ezk see Cornill, Introd. to the O T, p. 416, and Léhr, ZATW, 1894); and (4) that Jeremiah could hardly be imagined as saying, ‘the prophets find no vision’ (2 8), or as describing the weak Zedekiah as ‘the breath of our nostrils’ (4 20), or as exclaiming, ‘our fathers have sinned and we have borne their iniquities’ (5 7; cf. 31 29). On the ground of these considerations, the traditional assignment of the authorship of La to Jeremiah is much shaken. 4. Unity. But the question of authorship is fur- ther involved in that of unity, and the starting-point for the denial of the unity of La is the consideration that one man would scarcely have made the same subject the topic of five different compositions. Further, there are internal characteristics evidenc- ing differences of date. Yet on attempting to assign the different parts to different authors analysis has not gone so far as to claim five authors for the book. Some (Thenius) hold that the 2d and 4th chs. were composed by Jeremiah, while the Ist, 3d, and 5th were by three other authors. Others (Stade and Budde [formerly]) believe chs. 1, 2, 4 and 5 to be the work of one author and ch. 3 of another. Most investigators, including Néldeke, Léhr, Cornill, Wildeboer, and Budde [later] divide the elegies into three groups (chs. 2 and 4, 1 and 5, and 3), assigning each group to a separate author. But these attempts at analysis attach too much significance to’slight and doubtful data, and are far from being established upon sound critical foundations. The authorship of chs. 1, 2, 4, and 5 by Jeremiah is quite probable. Ch. 3 was written at a later time, and perhaps by another author, but no part of the collection is later than 530 B.c. LireRATURE: Driver, LOT, pp. 456-465; Cornill, Introd. to the O T (1907), pp. 411-418; Streane in Camb. Bible (1889); Adeney in Expositor’s Bible (1895); Cheyne on Jeremiah in Men of ihe Bible (1889); Peake in New Cent. Bible (1911). A. C. Z. LAMP: Properly the rendering of the Heb. nér (LXX. Abyvoc). The correlated Heb. mendrah is translated ‘candlestick,’ and is used especially for the golden lampstand of the Tabernacle (Ex 25 31- 35, ete.) and of the Temple (I K 7 49, etc.); while lappidh (LXX. Kaynks) (which in AV of Gn 15 17; Jg 7 16; Job 41 19; Ezk 113 is translated lamp’) is more properly rendered in RV by ‘torch.’ The Aram. nebhrashta@’ (Dn 5 5, ‘candlestick’) signifies a ‘lamp’ or ‘light,’ but the exact kind is uncertain, 505 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Lamentations Laodicea There is no description of a lamp in the Bible. All we know is that it had a wick of flax, pishtah (Is 42 3, 43 17), which was saturated with the oil, shemen (Ex 25 6, 27 20). In general, the ancient lamps were Gs, Ancient Lamp (simplest form). Ancient Lamp (improved form). the same as those in common use in the Hast to-day (see illustration). From ancient times the lamp has been an indispensable household article, not alone of the dwelling-house of the fellahin, but even of the tent of the bedawin. It was burned both day and night, not only to light the room of the tent, which was somewhat dark even in the daytime, but mainly in order that fire, which it was difficult to obtain Specimens of Ancient Palestinian Lamps. easily, might always be at hand. Even at the pres- ent day among the Arabs it is only the very poor that sleep in the dark. If it be said of a man, ‘Poor fellow, he sleeps in the dark’ (‘ala l‘atme), it is the same as saying: ‘He hasn’t a penny left to buy oil; he has got to the end’ (cf. Jer 25 10; Pr 13 9, 20 20). In the figurative language of the O T the burning lamp signifies the continuance of healthy, vigorous life, the extinguished lamp the reverse (cf. Ps 18 29; Pr 139, 20 20, 24 20, 3118, etc.). In the N T we have gavég (in Jn 18 3 lantern EV), a ‘light,’ but it is not clear whether lamps or some kind of torches are meant, and Avyvia, lampstand (candlestick, in AV of Mt 515; Mk 4 21; Lk 8 16, 11 33, and also in RV of He 9 2; Rev 112, etc.), by which some sort of rest,on which the lamp was placed, is meant, like a small table, or a shelf. See K. Galling, ‘Die Beleuch- tungsgerdte im israelitisch-jiidischen Kulturgebiet’ ZDPYV, xlvi (1923), 1-50. W. N.—L. B. P. LANCE, LANCET. See Arms AND Armor. § 1. LAND: In most instances in the O T ‘land’ is the rendering (1) of the Heb. ’ddhdmdah, ‘ground,’ ‘soil,’ properly used of arable land, but often used in a wider sense (cf. Dt 7 13 AV, for both usages); (2) of ’erets, which means ‘land’ as a portion of the earth’s surface, and is properly used in such expres- sions as ‘land of Canaan,’ ‘land of Israel,’ etc. The great majority of occurrences of ‘land’ are render- ings of this term. In addition, we have (3) sddheh, — ‘field,’ ‘open country,’ sometimes rendered ‘land’ (Ru 4 3; 1S 14 14, etc.). In the N T we find (4) &yeés, corresponding to (3) above, and (4) y%, corre- sponding to (2) above. Furthermore, we have (6) Enedc, ‘dry land’ (Mt 23 15), (7) xdea, ‘region,’ ‘place,’ ‘country’ (cf. RV in Mk 1 5; Lk 15 14; Ac 10 39), and (8) the diminutive ywetoy, ‘small place,’ ‘plot of ground’ (Ac 4 34, 53,8). The land of promise (He 119) is the land of Canaan promised to Israel’s ancestors (Ex 12 25; Dt 6 3, etc.). The expression ‘born in the land’ (Lv 2416; Nu 15 30 AV) is but one word in Heb. and is better rendered ‘home-born’ as in RV. See also Counrry and Grounp. E. E.N. LAND CROCODILE. See Patzstinn, § 26. LANDMARK: The rendering of the Heb. g*bhal (nearly always rendered ‘border,’ q.v.) in Dt 19 14, 27 17; Pr 22 28, 23 10; Hos 5 10 ‘bound’ AV; and of gbhiilah in Job 24 2. The boundaries of the ancestral estates in ancient Israel, as in other nations, were considered sacred and inviolable (cf. the festivals in honor of the god Terminus in ancient Rome). E. E. N. LANGUAGE OF THE N T. See Greex Lan- GUAGE. LANGUAGE OF THE OT. See Aramaic Lan- GUAGE, and Hmprew LANGUAGE. LANTERN. See Lamp. LAODICEA, 1é-ed’i-si’a (Aaodixera): A now de- serted site in the Lycus valley of ancient Phrygia. Its earlier names were Diospolis and Rhoas. Antio- chus II, Theos, rebuilt it and named it after Laodice, his wife. It owed its wealth and importance chiefly to its situation at the forks of the great trade-route from the East to Ephesus and Pergamum. . It be- longed to the Seleucids till 190 B.c., when it was given by the Romans to Eumenes, King of Perga- mum. ‘Two generations later (133) it passed finally to Rome. Successive captures aided by frequent Laodicea Law and Legal Practise A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 506 earthquakes caused its final abandonment. It was never a really great city, tho it was populous, mag- nificent, a money center. When damaged by an earthquake (60 A.D.) it refused assistance from the imperial treasury (cf. Rev 3 17, ‘I am rich and have gotten riches and have need of nothing’). Its bank- ing operations embraced the whole empire (cf. ver. 18, ‘I counsel thee to buy [through martyrdom, not as a gift] of me [not the filthy gold of thy banks, but] gold refined by fire, that thou mayest become rich [with true riches].’ L. was also a great manu- facturing center, having its trade chiefly in clothing. Its territory produced a breed of sheep (now extinct) with soft, glossy, black wool, needing no dyeing. This was manufactured into cloth, rugs, but chiefly into seamless black garments; also cloaks, the fa- mous shirts, woven of thread of three thicknesses, called trimita, costly shirts with purple borders (paragadia), woolen rain-coats (phainoula), em- broidered outer garments (chlamydes, chlanides) (cf. Rev 3 18), ‘I counsel thee to buy of me [not the black garments of thy looms, but] white garments that thou mayest clothe thyself.’ L. produced many wealthy citizens (one of them, Hiero, gave the city over $1,000,000), and the remarkable family of the rhetor Zeno, whose son Polemon became king of Lycaonia (39 B.c.), king of Pontus (88 B.c.), and progenitor of a long line of kings and princes. It was the seat of the famous medical school at the shrine of Men Karou, whose physicians compounded the famous ‘Phrygian Powder’ in cylindrical tablets, for the cure of ophthalmia (cf. Rev 3 18, ‘buy of me {not the tablets used by the physicians in your medical school, but true] eye-salve.’ Many Jews (7,500 adult freemen) were settled there by Antio- chus the Great. It became Christian at an early period, but Rev 3 14 ff. shows that the first enthu- siasm had cooled as a result of wealth. The Epistle ‘from the Laodiceans’ (Col 4 16) was perhaps evi- dently Paul’s encyclical letter which we have in the N T under the title ‘Epistle to the Ephesians’ (q.v.). The ‘Epistle to the Laodiceans,’ current in the Middle Ages, consists of excerpts from Paul’s canonical Epistles, mainly Phil., and was doubtless compiled to satisfy the interest aroused by the fore- going reference in Col. Paul did not personally labor among the Laodiceans (Col 21). Epaphras, chiefly (Col 17, 4 12 f.), and Timothy (Col 17) were probably the actual founders of the Christian Church there. It is possible that it also came within the personal work of Philip and of John. J. R.S. S.%—S. A. LAODICEANS. See LaopicEa. LAP. This word is used in RV three times, in each case for a different Heb. term. In II K 4 39, ‘his beghedh full’) beghedh, ‘garment,’ here rendered ‘lap,’ is used for the héq (rendered ‘lap’ in Pr 16 33 on which see Dress AND ORNAMENT, § 3. In Neh 513, the Heb. hdtsen, ‘bosom,’ probably also refers to the héq. LAPPIDOTH, lap/i-deth (NiTB?, lappidhath) ‘torches’ (or ‘ligntning-flashes’?): The husband of Deborah (Jg 4 4). LAPWING. See PALESTINE, § 25. LASEA, lo-si’a (Aacéa): A very small island E. of Cape Lithinos, about the center of the S. coast of Crete, called T'raphos, on which the town of Las(s)@a is located. Luke’s mention of it in connection with Fair Havens:(Ac 27 8) is the only known reference to it in antiquity. J.R.S. 8.*—E. E. N. LASHA, 1é’sho (YY, lasha‘): A border town of Canaan (Gn 10 19), site unknown, but commonly located in SE. Palestine. Jerome (Quest. in Gen. 10 19) identifies it with the hot springs of Callirrhoé, mentioned by Pliny and Josephus, situated in the Wady Zerka Ma‘%n, in Moab. Dillmann, Com. on Gen., ad loc., thinks this too far N. Wellhausen con- siders it the same as Laish on the NE. border, but this is improbable. Cae: LASSHARON, las-shé’ren ind lashsharén; La- sharon AV): A place mentioned only in Jos 12 18 as a royal city of Canaan. From the readings of the LXX. we should perhaps take the first letter as the preposition b and read, ‘the king of Aphek that be- longs to Sharon,’ 2. é., a district rather than a town. See SHARON 1. ea. eed LAST DAYS, LATTER DAYS. See Escua- TOLOGY, § 3. LATCHET. See Dress anp ORNAMENTS, § 7. LATIN (‘Powatott, ‘Pwuatxds, ‘Roman’): The official language of the Roman Government. Altho neither as widely known nor as far on the way toward recognition as an international language as Greek, it could not have been dispensed with in a legal declaration such as the inscription on the Cross was designed to be (Jn 19 20; Lk 28 38). As’ Ord; LATTER RAIN. See Pauesting, § 19. LATTICE: The rendering of four Heb. words: (1) ’eshnabh (Jg 5 28); (2) hdrakkim (Song 2 9), (3) hallon (1 K 6 4; Pr 76), all meaning ‘lattice windows.’ See Houss, §6 (j). (4) s*bhakhaéh (II K 1 2), strictly the trellis battlement of the roof. See Houssr, § 6 (d). LAVER. See Tempe, § 15; and TABERNACLE, § 3 (1). LAW AND LEGAL PRACTISE. 1. Origin of Israelitic Law. The people of Israel, during the course of their national history came successively under the influence of different environments, each of which had a decisive effect on Israel’s life and con- tributed its share to the formation of Israelitic law. Of these we specify as most important the following four: (1) The first determining influence came from the primitive type of life, which was the nomadic. In this early period there was no such thing in Israel as ‘law,’ as we now use the term. The funda- mental basis of the tribe was the family (q.v.), in which the will of the father was supreme. In the exercise of his authority the father of a primitive Semitic family was doubtless guided by custom. Custom, as interpreted or sanctioned by the father’s authority, was law. And asa Semitic family was not only a social but a religious unit, all family customs carried with them the authority of religior,»and thus to the early Semite religion and law were almost one and inseparable. In the process of centuries many of these family customs became so strongly in- 507 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Laodicea Law and Legal Practise trenched and of such binding authority that no father of a family would even think of abrogating them. In the case of Israel we find them regnant, or at least influential, down to the latest periods, and it is therefore in these ancient family customs that we are to seek for the origin of much of Israel’s law. The tribe was but the union of large clans, or families, and tribal custom was but the extension to a larger sphere of the principles already embodied in family custom. In the tribe, the heads of families, or clans, formed the authoritative body, but the authority of these over the tribe was not nearly so strong as that of the father over his family. Tribal custom, how- ever, being the wider application of family custom, was of the highest authority. (2) Through Moses who made J” the bond of union among the tribes of Israel, the influence of religion on the whole of Israel’s life took on a new significance. all the early Semites, family and tribal customs were under the protection of the family or tribal deity. When the customs were violated or disre- garded it was the same as disobeying the Divine will, and a punishment, or some other manifesta- tion of Divine displeasure, was liable to take place. Under Moses the same Divine sanction of Israel’s inherited customs was inculeated—and something more. For J’’, as Moses taught, was a God to whom righteousness, in the highest sense then possible to be conceived of, was a matter of supreme interest. Moses is said to have taught Israel, in cases of dis- pute between man and man, the ‘statutes of God and his laws’ (Ex 18 16), and in such sentences of justice and in all his work with Israel Moses had the oppor- tunity to inculcate higher conceptions of religion and right than were possessed by other Semitic peoples. In these higher conceptions we may find the reason for the spirit, if not the exact form, of many of the specific enactments of later Israelitic law. It is evident that in the foregoing citation the word statutes is used in the sense of formulated law, the sense in which it is commonly used by the later Deuteronomic and Priestly schools. Its use by the older E. writer simply shows how, as early as 8th cent., Moses was looked back to as the formulator of statutes and judgments (Ex 211). (3) A third determining influence came from Canaanite law and custom. When Israel conquered Canaan, the majority of the Canaanites were not exterminated, but only gradually subdued. Israel gained her foothold first in the highlands and in the least thickly settled parts of the country. The Canaanite cities in the more open lowland-places were the last to yield. The presence of this large Canaanite element, which had been so long in possession, and which by inter- marriage and other ways was gradually absorbed into Israel, was of highest significance for Israel’s customs and religion. The Canaanites were well advanced in civilization. Theirs were the cities and the farms that Israel appropriated. It was their tongue that Israel came to speak. They were Israel’s teachers in agriculture and other arts of civilized life. Their influence on Israel’s religion was very great. It would therefore be passing strange if, in the codified law of Israel, as we find it in the Pentateuch, there were not many enactments that, Among | in whole or in part, reflect ancient Canaanite prac- tise. (4) A fourth determining influence was that of the Babylonian civilization. A knowledge of Baby- lonian culture had been prevalent in Canaan a thousand years before the conquest by Israel. Where Babylonian civilization, commerce, and literature were known it is probable that Babylonian law was also known. This is perhaps the chief reason for the many remarkable similarities that exist between the Code of Hammurabi of c. 2000 B.c. and the Code in Exodus, ch. 21 ff. (committed to writing not earlier than the 9th cent. B.c.), altho it is not necessary to suppose that the Babylonian code is directly quoted in the Pentateuch. During the latter half of the kingdom period (735-536 B.c.) the contact between Israel and the civilization of the Euphrates Valley was very close, and during the Exile and after the Jews were face to face with this ancient and com- plex civilization. If Israel made use, in her own way, of the Creation and Flood stories of the East, there is no reason why she should not have done the same with its law, and that even in the Priestly law there may be much that is the result of such appropriation. 2. Formal Sources of Israel’s Law. From these various fields of influence and environment those who built up Israel’s system of law drew in formulating their decisions, and it was such decisions that formed the sources which the codifiers used who have given us the codes of the Pentateuch. Those who thus formulated law in Israel were: (1) The Elders, a general term inclusive of fathers of leading families heads (sheiks) of tribes, and, after the settlement in Canaan, the chief men of a town (‘elders of the city,’ Ru 4 2 #.; cf. Dt 19 12, 21 3 #., 22 15 #.; I K 218, etc.). These elders, or ‘Judges’ (Dt 16 18), pronounced judg- ment in cases of dispute between man and man. It was for them to decide the guilt or innocence of the accused, and fix the penalty. In earliest times criminal cases (theft, oppression, etc.) were probably most numerous. But with the more complex life of the kingdom-period many other cases acquired their attention. (2) The Priests. Of equal importance with the elders were the priests, and, as time went on, the priest gradually encroached upon the sphere of the elders, until finally (but not until after the Exile) almost the entire judicial system was in the possession of the priests. This progress is clearly reflected in the codes. The oldest civil code (Ex chs. 21-23) makes no mention of priests as judges, except possibly in the reference to the judgment of God (Ex 228). In the code of Dt the secular judges (elders) are fully recognized, but the attempt is being made to give the priests a larger share (cf. Dt 178 #., 19 15 f.). In the Priestly Code (and in the echoes of its legislation in Chronicles) the Levites, or priests, alone are recognized as judges. In most ancient times the priest’s duty was primarily to care for the (a) sanctuary, and to give forth the Divine oracle. The old custom of ‘casting the lot’ was probably one of the earliest modes of determin- ing the Divine oracle, and from this perhaps arose the term tdrah (usually rendered ‘law’), from ydrah, ‘to cast,’ tho many modern scholars derive the mean- ing ‘teaching ‘direction,’ etc., directly from the Hiph‘il (hérah) of the vb. yarah (III). The priest had Law and Legal Practise A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 508 to do mainly with matters having a religious signifi- cance, and the sanctuary became a place of religious instruction. When the sanctuaries became great centers, as they did in the kingdom-period, the priesthood became more influential, and it was natural for them to claim (as is done in Dt) a large share in deciding civil as well as religious cases. (3) The King and the royal courts. The king in Israel, especially after David, was a supreme court of appeal. The king was supposed to decide ‘justly,’ 7.€., in accordance with what was recognized as cus- tom and right in Israel, as well as in accordance with his natural sense of justice. The king was thus not supposed to be a mere autocrat bound by no will but his own, and could not lightly override ancient law. A decision of a king covering a new case, or modifying the application of traditional practise, became itself a legal precedent or law (cf. 1S 30 21-25; II 8 14 0; II K 14 5, where the editor of II K has reversed the facts). Able kings, like David, Solo- mon, Omri, and Jehoshaphat, doubtless did much to arrange a system of courts, religious and civil, all working harmoniously, but of their work only the faintest traces remain in the unreliable statements of the late Chronicler. (4) The Prophets. The prophets gave forth their utterances as of Divine authority; they spoke a Divine ‘word’ which they called téraéh, ‘law’, better, ‘direction’ or ‘teaching’ (Is 8 16). The prophets dealt with principles, how- ever, and only rarely interfered with special cases, and then only by way of rebuke. But the prophetic teachings, being an exposition of the fundamental principles of Israel’s religion and of conduct, exer- cised a great influence on Israel’s later lawmakers, as is evident especially in the Code of Dt. (5) The learned class of Scribes. From the Exile on, much was done by learned scribes, mostly in the way of expanding and extending the application of legal principles already recognized. The early stages of this activity are no longer known. Of only one such man do we have any definite knowledge, Ezra, the ‘ready scribe,’ through whose efforts the Priestly law was first codified. But Ezra was only one of many. After the formal adoption of Ezra’s law-book (Neh chs. 8-10) and the subsequent canonization of the Law (in the Pentateuch), the application of this Law to all manner of circumstances was made the object of serious study, and comprised the greatest portion of the work carried on in the scribal schools. The opinions of the most learned and honored scribes ~ or Rabbis (doctors of the Law; cf. Lk 5 17; Ac 5 34; lawyers; cf. Mt 22 35, etc.), were held to be of nearly as great authority as the written Law itself. In process of time there came about an organization of the legal bodies, at the head of which, as the final court of appeal, was the Sanhedrin (q.v.). In the rabbinical schools the decisions of the learned Rabbis were not at first committed to writing, but passed on orally through many generations, gradually becom- ing more numerous and complex as time went on. Finally, circa 200 a.p., the first codification of scribal law was made, the Mishna. This in its turn was commented on orally, until at last, circa 600 A.D., these comments on, and discussions of, the Mishna, which constitute the Gemara, were reduced to writing, resulting in the Talmud (=Mishna+ Gemara). Thus, in the course of centuries, through the decisions of its elders in the petty local courts, of its priests at the various sanctuaries, notably the larger ones, of the king and the royal courts, in the teaching of the prophets, and through the painstak- ing toil of its scribes, Israel came to have in her possession a large body of formulated law, a portion of which we have codified in the Pentateuch, which represents but the survival of a selected part of the ancient Law, another portion of which is contained in the voluminous material of the Talmud. 3. The Codification of Israel’s Law. We shall now proceed to note briefly the stages through which Israel’s law passed, until it reached the form in which we now find it in the Pentateuch. (1) Preliminaries to Codification. Nothing can be said of codification in the period before Israel became acquainted with the art of writing. However the traditional laws and customs were remembered in most ancient times, a code, even the shortest, implies a knowledge of writing. It is a priori probable, then, that even the earliest of Israel’s codes dates from the time when Israel had become acquainted with the civilization of Canaan, and after it had relinquished its nomadic type of life. It is also only when people are living in settled communities with something like a fixed judicial system that the need of codes will arise, and an authority will be at hand to promulgate them. If Moses did anything in the way of giving Israel a code, it must have been a brief and simple one, and it must have been given at Kadesh, where for many years Moses acted as the supreme judge of Israel, rather than at Sinai, where Israel stayed but a few months. In any case, what Israel received from Moses were principles rather than detailed statements, and the earliest code we have in the O T was probably formulated in Canaan, at least a century or two later than Moses, by those who felt that they were but putting into definite form the principles of justice taught by Moses. (2) The oldest codes. The oldest codification of Israelitic law we find in Ex chs. 20-23 and 34 10-26. This consists of: (a) Two sets of the fundamental principles of Israel’s covenant with J”. One of these is the Decalog (originally two pentads of five short commands each). The other covers the more external and ceremonial features of the Covenant, and is found in two recensions, one of which was given in J (34 1° 8), the other in EK (20 22-26, 22 29, 23 10-33), Both of these recensions show many marks of elaboration, especially in the way of warning against the seductions of Canaanite practises, and were made to serve a historical rather than a legal purpose in the documents in which they stand. The original form back of both recensions was possibly a decalog (double pentad) prescribing: 1. J” alone to be worshiped. 2. No molten gods. 3. Feast of unleavened bread. 4. Gift of first-born and firstlings. 5. The Sabbath. 6. Feast of Weeks and In gathering. 7. No leavened bread with a sacrifice. 8. Passover. 9. First-fruits. 10. A kid not to be seethed in its mother’s milk. Both of these sets of fundamentals may well go back to Moses. (b) A civil code (Ex 21 1-23 9), called ‘the judgments.’ It has been analyzed as follows (Carpenter-Harford, Comp. of the Hez., p. 472 £,): . Concerning Hebrew slaves (21 2-1, two pentads).. . Violence punishable by death (21 12717). . Injuries (21 18-27), . Cattle (21 28-36), . Property, theft and damage (22 !~). . Property, breach of trust (22 77, two pentads). . Various ordinances (22 87), SIO OP CON 509 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Law and Legal Practise 8. Reverence (22 %). 9. Administration of justice (23 }9). The fact that two of the sections can be subdivided into two pentads each makes it possible that the code was originally longer, and that each section once formed a complete decalog, but this is only hypothesis. So far as we know, this was the only attempt at codification between the conquest and the labors of the author(s) of the Deuteronomic code. To what extent this code (of Ex) was well-known throughout all Israel is uncertain. It is also uncertain whether all the sanctuaries or courts had the same body of law. This code probably represents what was taught at the most important centers (Jerusalem, Bethel, Samaria, etc.). As it was based on custom, it is likely that its general principles were pretty well known. It is just such a code as this that is pre- supposed by the early prophets (Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, Micah) as known and violated by the leading men of . their day. (3) The Code of Deuteronomy. The Exodus code must have been formulated very early, for between it and the much more elaborate Code of Dt the difference is so great that it can be ac- counted for only by a long period of development. The Code of Dt was compiled about 650, and proba- bly contains the Law as it had been expanded and developed, more particularly in Judah, and especially in the capital. In this code, however, we have a new factor to reckon with. Its author, or authors, were reformers, and at many points altered existing law to make it conform more nearly to their ruling ideas. This is particularly true of the sections dealing with religious practise, where the aim was to purify the worship by centralizing it at Jerusalem while conserving the standing of the Levitical priesthood. | For an analysis of the Code of Dt and other par- | (4) The Holiness | Code. To a certain extent parallel to the Code of | ticulars see DEUTERONOMY, § 2. Dt is the so called Holiness Code found mainly in Lv chs. 17-26 (with fragments in earlier chapters of Lv; see Leviricus, § 3, and also Hexarrucn, § 23). This code covers, in part, the same ground as the Code of Dt, but differs from it in that it is mainly con- cerned with ‘holiness,’ a conception which is made to include both moral and ceremonial purity. The moral tone of this code is high, in spite of its strong leaning toward ceremonialism. As the code stands in Ly it is probably the result of a number of revisions. Its first draft was probably drawn up before the Exile, but its final revision took place after Ezekiel’s prophecies were published. (5) The Contribution of Ezekiel. ‘Toward the end of his prophetic minstry (572 B.c.) Ezekiel formulated his conception of the restored Israel (Ezk chs. 40-48). The central, dominating element here is that of holiness. Israel is (to be) a holy community, in whose midst J’ dwells in His sanctuary. The Temple as J’”’s dwelling-place, the Priesthood as His ministers, the sacrifices and offerings as the means of communion with Him—these things held the first place with Ezekiel, while ‘the prince,’ the laity, and secular affairs in general were relegated to an altogether secondary place. There can be no doubt that the views of Ezekiel proved a powerful influence with all the sub- sequent workers on Israel’s Law. The tendency was to emphasize and develop the ceremonial elements. The conception of Israel as a nation was displaced by the conception of Israel asa church. It was along these lines that the workers labored who revised the Holiness Code and who sought to develop and per- fect other elements of their traditional Priestly law, much of which had not been as yet codified. (6) The Priestly Code. The climax of these labors was reached when, in the middle of the next century (5th cent. B.c.), Ezra had in his hand a completed Priestly Law-book, which he wished to take to Jerusalem and there have it adopted as the law of the community. This law-book was both a history (of Israel as the Covenant People) and a code. For its analysis see Hexarrucn, § 27. It was a complex in which numerous earlier codes, as the manual for worshipers (Lv chs. 1-7), the Holiness Code, ete., were embodied. Later enactments, or formulations, were placed side by side with the earlier ones, in spite of the inconsistency and even contradictions thus introduced at many points. With the adoption of this law-book in 457 B.c. (if Neh chs. 8-10 is to be placed immediately after Ezr ch. 10). (Dt had been adopted in 621) the process of codification did not immediately cease. Many minor additions and adjustments were probably made after Ezra’s time. Finally the Law, as we have it in the Pentateuch, came to be considered holy and of final authority, altho the actual practise in Judaism has never been identical at every point with the letter of the Law. 4. Procedure at Law. A case at law (cause, or controversy) might be criminal, civil, or religious, but the Law does not make these distinctions. The whole law was supposed to rest on a religious basis, and offenses against morality, or against religious ceremony, were equally against religion. The same courts had jurisdiction (in the O T period) over all cases. (1) Constitution of the Courts. In the O T the term ‘court’ does not appear. Judge, judges, elders etc., are the concrete terms that take its place. The earliest courts in Israel of which we have any record are those mentioned in the early historical narratives and in the old code of Ex chs. 21-23. The ‘elders,’ or ‘judges,’ here spoken of were, doubtless, the heads of the prominent families in their respective localities, and other men dis- tinguished for wisdom or judgment. Except as we may infer from the immemorial custom of viewing the father of a family as a judge, we have no light on the question how these persons were appointed or recognized as judges. From Ex 18 21 (cf. Dt 16 18) it may be inferred that some mode of selection was in vogue. In the towns of Canaan there was also, doubtless, a judicial system of some sort. Here the basal social form was the city, not the family, or clan, as in Israel. So we read of ‘the elders of the city’ as the judges (Jg 8 16, 11 5; Ru 4 2, ete.; cf. Dt 19 21, 21 3, 22 15, etc.), an expression that may have been adopted in Israel from Canaanite usage. How these primitive courts were organized we do not know. Later, the king became a supreme court of appeal. Some correlation was perhaps established between the local courts and the royal courts in the capitals (Jerusalem, Samaria), but we have no record of anything of the kind, except in the late notices in Chronicles, where David is said to have appointed Law and Legal Practise Lebanon A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 510 6,000 Levites as ‘officers and judges’ (I Ch 23 4), and Jehoshaphat (a century later) is said to have set judges in all the fortified cities of Judah, with a supreme court of Levites, priests, and elders in Jerusalem (II Ch 19 5-8). To the last reference some degree of historical truth may be allowed, but the first is plainly unhistorical. In Dt, while the old secular judgeship is recognized as legitimate, an effort is made to give the Levites (=priests) a larger and more important place in this work (ef. Dt 178 #., where the priests, as knowing J’’s law, give the decision in difficult cases; 19 17, 215). Dt probably reflects the historical development in this matter, for as time went on the position of the priesthood at the greater sanctuaries became even more important. During the Exile it was natural that the priestly students and expounders (e.g., Ezekiel) of Israel’s Law should favor the theory that the Levites and priests were alone capable of acting as judges, and it is to these classes alone that the judges belong, according to the Priestly Code and the literature that echoes the teaching of this code. But as the restored community (536 B.c.) was organized not on the basis of PC, but on that of the earlier codes of JE and Dt, this theory did not hold in actual practise (hence the references to elders in Ezr 5 5, 9, 6 7, 14, 10 8, 14). During the Persian period, the Persian governor was, of course, the final court of appeal, tho probably in all religious questions he gave full authority to the high priest and his council of priests. The power of the priesthood with the high priest at its head increased greatly in the later Persian period, and at the beginning of the Greek period the priest- hood was supreme. In the council that assisted the high priest, which was composed of priests, we may have the origin of the Sanhedrin (q.v.). Toward the end of the Maccabean and in the Roman periods the Pharisees became influential, and a certain propor- tion of the members of the Sanhedrin was of this party, tho the priests (the Sadducees), with the high priest at their head, appear to have predominated. The Sanhedrin did not displace the local courts, and it was not a simple court of appeal. It decided questions that the lesser courts could not decide. It decided also many matters independent of the lower courts. Its decisions were binding throughout Jewish Palestine, but death-sentences needed the sanction of the Roman governor. It is doubtless with special reference to the procedure of Roman law that the terms examine, examination, are used in the N T (Lk 23 14; Ac 49, 12 19, 24 8, 28 18). (2) Modes of Procedure. The procedure was simple as compared with Occidental usage. The courts were held in the open, generally in the broad place near the city gate. Only at the royal court (Solomon’s hall of judgment) and in the later Greek and Roman period were houses of judgment used. The proceed- ings in early times were public. The civil or religious authority did not prosecute officially, but heard and decided accusations or cases brought before it. Each side, accused and accuser, stated or pleaded its case. The accuser stood at the right hand of the accused, who, at least in postexilic times, was clothed in mourning garb (cf. Zec 31 ff.; Jos. Ant. XIV, 9 4). Witnesses, at least two, preferably three, were sum- moned (Dt 1915; Nu 35 30). They testified on oath, and the heaviest penalties were laid upon false witnessing (Dt 19 15-21; Lv 911) if, on special investi- gation (inquisition, Dt 19 18), this was discovered— an indication that such corruption of justice was common (cf. I K 2110). Bribery of judges is also severely condemned in both the Law and the Proph- ets, and was, doubtless, a source of much abuse. In cases of death-penalty, the witnesses were the first to lay hands on the condemned to put him to death (Dt 17 7; cf. also Ac 7 58). In certain cases where witnesses were not available circumstantial evidence (Dt 22 15 ff.), or the discernment of the judges, had to be relied upon. In desperate cases recourse was had to the judgment of God (Ex 22 8 £.; cf. Nu 5 11-31; Dt 21 1-9; cf. also I Co 5 3-5). Yor other details see CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS. LirkratuRE: Commentaries on the Pentateuch, e.g., Driver on Ex (Camb. B.) and Dt (ICC); G. A. Smith on Dt (Camb. B.); MecNeille on Ex (Westminster Series). In Carpenter-Harford Comp. of the Hexateuch, valuable discussion and conspectus of the codes will be found. Cf. also the works on Archdologie by Benzinger (2nd ed., 1907) and Nowack. The articles on Law and Justice and on Law and Law Literature in EB are illuminating. EH. EK. N. LAWYER. See Law anp Laaat Practisp, §2 (5). LAYING ON OF HANDS: The act of laying on of hands expressed different ideas, as follows: (1) Most commonly it indicated the self-identification of the person that performed the act with the one on whom hands were laid. In the offering up of sacri- fices, the offerer indicated his willingness to be considered one with the victim by placing his hand on its head (Ex 29 io f.; Lev 14f.,, 3 2, 8, 44 #.) (2) The impartation of an inner or spiritual gift. Thus the father’s blessing (Gn 48 14), the good-will of Jesus Christ for children (Mk 10 13, 16), health to the sick (Mk 5 23), and the bestowal of the Holy Spirit by the Apostles (Ac 19 6). (8) Consecration to the service of God. Joshua, when he succeeded Moses (Nu 27 18, 23; Dt 349), the deacons, when they were set apart to their service (Ac 6 6), likewise the Levites (Nu 8 10), the missionaries (Ac 13 3), and ministers in the Apostolic Church (I Ti 4 14, 5 22; II Ti 1 6) were ordained by the laying on of hands. (4) Another symbolical use of the act is more diffi- cult to explain, viz., that in which the witnesses against one accused of crime punishable by death laid their hands on him (Lev 2414). This may be a reflex of the sacrificial laying on of hands as in (1), with the idea involved of devotion to death. On (2) and (3) see also Cuurcu Lirn, § 8; cf. also ORDAIN. A. C. Z. LAZARUS, laz’a-rus (Adtaeos, from Heb. Eleazar, ‘God has helped’): 1. L. of Bethany. A friend of Jesus, and brother of Mary and Martha (Jo 111f.). He is not mentioned in the Synoptic Gospels, but his resurrection from the dead forms the climax of the miracles of Jesus recorded by John (11 1-44). He is described as subsequently making a feast for Jesus in Bethany, at which Mary anointed the Lord’s feet (121-8). Heis supposed, on account of the silence of Luke and the order in which the three are named in John (115), to have been the youngest of the family, the circle of whose acquaintance it is inferred was large (11 19), and their circumstances comfortable 511 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Law and Legal Practise Lebanon (123). His name seems to be preserved in the desig- nation of Hl-Azariyeh, a village on the SE. of the Mount of Olives, about 134 m. from Jerusalem, which is generally identified with the ancient Bethany. His resurrection constituted the occasion for many Jews believing in Jesus, and also was the determin- ing cause of the Sanhedrin’s plot to put Jesus (and incidentally Lazarus) to death (11 45-53, 12 10). Much critical interest centers about this miracle, its problem being inseparably connected with the larger one of the authorship and historicity of the Fourth Gospel. Those who believe this Gospel to be purely an allegorical fiction take the story of Lazarus to be a free composition out of elements drawn from the Synoptic Gospels. His name is obtained from the beggar of the parable (Lk 16 19-31), and the whole is an attempt to present a demonstration of the truth of Abraham’s words in Lk 16 31, or a personi- fication of Paul’sin Ro 7 24, 8 20f. The personalities of the sisters, the practical Martha and the contem- plative Mary, are borrowed from Lk 10 38-42, and the details of the miracle are an enhancement of those of the raising of the daughter of Jairus (Mk 5 22 ff. and ||s), and of the son of the widow of Nain (Lk 7 11 ff.). The supper is explained as a combination of the Bethany meal (Mt 26 6 #.; Mk 14 3 ff.), and the story of the anointing by the sinful woman in the house of Simon the Leper (Lk 7 36 ff.). The consensus of critical opinion to-day, however, is that there are many trustworthy data underlying the accounts of the Fourth Gospel (cf. Joon, GosPEL oF, § 2), and that it is not to be considered, therefore, simply a religious and dogmatic allegory. In that case, the story of Lazarus contains trustworthy elements, even tho it may be difficult to determiné just how much is fact and how much is due to modi- fication and interpretation of the fact in the mind of the Evangelist. Obviously it is very difficult to explain the absolute silence of the Synoptic Gospels regarding Lazarus, containing references as they do to the two sisters and an anointing at Bethany, even tho we freely admit the partial character of the sources of these Gospels. It would seem that such an event with such consequences as are described in the Fourth Gospel could hardly escape notice. Yet, on the other hand, it is perhaps more difficult, once the hypothesis of pure allegory is abandoned psy- chologically to explain the story’s composition as an ideal construction by the Evangelist to illustrate his view of Christ as ‘the resurrection and the life.’ It is too stupendous for any personal follower of Jesus, at least, simply to have invented. Some his- torical foundation is required, and the underlying facts, whatever they are, most probably therefore belong to that body of trustworthy information regarding a ministry of Jesus in Judea which appears to have been known to the author of the Fourth Gospel alone. 2. L. of the Parable (Lk 16 19-31). A beggar pictured by Christ in contrast to an unnamed rich man to illustrate the truth of the words recorded in Lk 16 13, 15. Tho designated by name, he is probably a hypothetical personage. LirerRatuRy; See that cited under art. on Joun, GosprL or. Se-D.— Maw alt LEACH, LEECH. See Horsr-Lescu. LEAD. See Merats, § 6. LEAH, li’a (7182, lz’ah), ‘gazel,’ or ‘wild cow’: The daughter of Laban, and Jacob’s first wife through the father’s ruse (Gn 29 23). L. was the mother of six sons and one daughter (Gn 29 32 f.). She was buried in Machpelah (Gn 49 31). In Ru 411 she is styled one of the builders of Israel. Under the name of Leah, traditions of large Aramean accre- tions to the original Hebrew stock have probably localized themselves (see Tripzs, § 2). A. 8. C.+—O. R. 8. LEANNOTH, lh-an’neth: A musical term from ‘anah, ‘to sing’ (Ps 88, title) in the phrase ‘Mahalath- Leannoth,’ which would appear to be equivalent to ‘Mahalath, to be sung.’ But the meaning of ‘Mahalath’ is unknown. See Psaums, Book or, § 3. BaZa LEASING: An old English word meaning ‘false- hood’ (Ps 4 2,56 AV). LEAVEN: The term which renders two Heb. words (s°’ dr, ‘ferment,’ and hdméts, ‘to be sour’) and one Gr. word (Gd), all of which are used to signify a lump of sour dough. The daily bread of the Hebrews was kneaded in a trough, and the yeast was added in the form of a small piece of dough. Bread prepared in a great hurry or in an emergency was unleavened (Gn 18 6; Ex 12 34). Leaven was absolutely prohibited in connection with the Pass- over and the Feast of Unleavened Bread (see Fasts AND Frasts, § 7), as well as in meal-offerings (Ex 12 15; Lv 2 11, 6 17). At the Exodus unleavened bread was used on account of a pressing emergency (Ex 12 34-39), and the prohibition of leaven ever afterward was due to the sacred associations cling- ing about the first Passover. The Feast of Unleav- ened Bread being an agricultural festival, the un- leavened cakes represented the first-fruits unmixed with last year’s harvest. The exclusion of leaven from all sacrifices (Ex 28 18, 34 25 [JE]) and from meal-offerings (Lv 211, 617 [P]) was due to the feeling that fermentation was closely allied to putrefaction and corruption, a view that the Hebrews shared with other peoples of antiquity. The peace-offering (Lv 7 13) and the wave-loaves (Lv 23 17) are only apparent exceptions, as they were not placed upon the altar. In the N T leaven is usually regarded as a symbol of corruption, which has a mighty pervasive power (cf. I Co 5 6-9; Gal 59). In this sense Christ used the phrase ‘the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod’ (Mk 815). In one of the parables the Savior uses it in a good sense, as an emblem of the pervasive power of the Kingdom of God (Mt 13 33 and ||). In Rabbinical literature leaven is a symbol of evil desires, and in Jewish theology it is used figuratively for the inherited corruption of human nature. J. A. K: LEBANA, li-bé’na, LEBANAH, l-bé’na (7322, lebhdnah): The ancestral head of one of the divisions of the Nethinim (Ezr 2 45; Neh 7 48). LEBANON, leb’s-nen (11332, lbhanon [in Heb. prose with the art.], from labhén, ‘to be white,’ because of its appearance when the snow covers its Lebanon Leprosy A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 512 summits, as it does for the greater part of the year, tho according to some it was the whiteness of its cliffs that gave L. its name): In general the double range of mountains running from NNE. to SSW. for about 95 m. from the plain of Jun Akkar on the N. to the turn of the river Litant westward and Banias on the S. The two parallel ranges are separated by a broad valley (the ancient Coele-Syria), narrowing toward its S. end, alluded to in the Bible, The geological constitution of the range is mainly threefold. The strata are irregular and faulty. The lowest of them is cretaceous (Glandaria limestone), the, middle consists of T’rigonia sandstone and the uppermost of Hippurite limestone. This last forms the summits. The foothills in the vicinity of the sea abound in chalk. The vast masses of limestone collect the rain and melted snow and yield it up in the form of innumerable springs where the sandstone Hovss or THE Forest or LEBANON—FRONT Evrvation. (After Stade.) (See also JeRusALEM, § 30.) as the Valley of Lebanon, and now called Buga‘-el- Aziz. By classical writers the W. range was named the Libanus and the E. the Anti-Libanus (cf. also Jth 17). In Biblical usage the two are given the same name (Dt 17, 3 25, 11 24; Jos 1 4,91). The whole mass abuts on the Mediterranean to the W. and slopes down into the plateau of Syria to the E. The average height of the range is not far from 6,000 ft., rising, however, at the highest point (Mt |g = yy Y Zi, J ©00000060000000/ ©©© 000000006000!) OOO OQOOOOGOOOOHOOO| © $ ° © 2 ¥ = Meters Ground-Plan of the House of the Forest of Lebanon. (After Stade.) Hermon) to 9,166 ft. The general structure of the Lebanon is rugged and irregular, except for the main direction of the chain of summits, and abounds in precipitous cliffs and hollows, which make it difficult for the traveler, and at the same time an easy hiding-place for the fugitive. This feature has made the Lebanon territory the home of such perse- cuted peoples as the Maronites and the Matawilé, as well as of such untamed and warlike races as the Amorites, the Itureans, and the Druses. intervenes. The scenery of the Lebanon is excep- tionally fine and has served as the basis of the poetical allusions in the Bible, which are many and richly colored. Politically, the Lebanon appears as a part of the ideal land of Israel (Jos 138 5; Dt 11 24), but was never conquered (Jg 3 3). The actual boundary of the land is, however, given as ‘Baal-Gad in the Valley of Lebanon’ (Jos 11 17). In other particulars the Lebanon is noted for its height, which makes it a place of outlook (Song 4 8), for its streams (Song 4 15), its snowy summits (Jer 18 14), its fragrance (Song 4 11; Hos 147), probably the odor of its cedar forests; these are also mentioned on their own ac- count (Jg 9 15; Is 2 13, etc.) and poetically called ‘the flower of Lebanon’ (Nah 1 4), ‘the glory of’ Lebanon’ (Is 35 2, 60 13). The ‘violence done to Lebanon’ is evidently the cutting down of these stately forests (Hab 217). Besides the cedars, ‘how- ever, large pines, firs, oaks, and cypress groves are to be found on the range; while the almond, the mulberry, the fig, the olive, the walnut, the apricot, the pear, the pomegranate, the pistachio, and the grapevine also flourish. Of animal life the region sustains, besides the domestic fauna, the mountain, or wild goat, the gazel, the panther, the bear, the jackal, the hyena, the boar, etc.; but these are rarely alluded to (cf. II K 149=IT Ch 2518). Whether the Tower of Lebanon in Song 7 4 was connected with Solomon’s royal House of the Forest of Lebanon (I K 7 2); see JERUSALEM, § 30, and Tremp Le, § 4), or was an independent structure, either real or imaginary, does not appear. Inthe N T no mention is made of Lebanon. A. C. Z. LEBAOTH, see BeTH-LEBAOTH; and BETH-BIRI. LEBBEUS, leb-bi’us. See THappvs. 513 LEB-KAMI, leb’’-ké/mai (*9P-22, lébh-qamday). A cryptic way of writing the pr. n. Kasdim (Chaldea) by the use of Athbash on which see SHESHACH (a similar case). Probably the cryptic spelling was not in the original text of Jer 51 1, but was a later gloss as the LXX. read ‘Kasdim.’ EK. E. N. LEBONAH, hi-bo’/na (7912?, lebhonah): A city of Ephraim near Shiloh (Jg 2119). Map III, F 4. LECAH, li’ka (7132, lékhah): Probably the name of a place inhabited by the Judahite clan Er (I Ch 4 21). LEDGE. See Aurar, § 2; and Temple, §§15 and 20. LEEK. See Pauusrine, § 23; and Foop anp Foop UTENSILS, § 3. LEES. See VINES AND VINTAGE, 2. LEGION (Aeytav, or Aeyedyv, from Lat. legio): | The unit of organization in the Roman army, con- sisting of a body of troops including both infantry and cavalry and varying in size, composition, and ‘tactical arrangement at different periods. In the N T period a legion contained 5,000 to 6,000 men, all Roman citizens, composed of ten cohorts of six centuries each. The total military force of the empire consisted of twenty-five legions, of which four were stationed in Syria. See AvuGUSTUS. To each legion was attached a body of ‘auxiliary’ troops, also about 6,000 in number, not composed of Roman citizens, but of provincials, recruited in the provinces, and usually on service in some other province than the one to which they belonged. Cf. Tucker, Life in the Roman World of Nero and St. Paul (1911), pp. 838-360. The name ‘legion’ came to be used in Greek, Rabbinical Hebrew, and prob- ably in Palestinian Aramaic for any great number, and occurs in this sense, with perhaps the additional thought of obedience to a superior wili, in Mt 26 53; Mk 59 and |ls. 8. D.—E. E. N. LEHABIM, li-hé’bim. See ETHNOGRAPHY AND Erunovoey, § 13. LEHI, li’hai cm, lehi), ‘jaw-bone’: A place, as yet unidentified, somewhere in the northern Shephelah of Judah, famed as the scene of Samson’s single- handed slaughter of the Philistines with the jaw-bone of an ass (Jg 15 9-19; II S 23 11, where for ‘into a troop’ we should read ‘in Lehi’). Jg 1517-19 should be interpreted as follows: In the place known as Ramath-lehi (‘height of Lehi’) there wasa ‘hollow place’ or basin, in which there was a spring known as EHn-hakkore, ‘the spring of the one who calls’ (or, since qgéré’, ‘caller,’ means ‘partridge,’ ‘the partridge spring’). The text does not mean that the ‘hollow’ was in the Jaw-bone. See also Heaps, Hraps. Cf. ‘Moore in JCC or Burney, Judges, ad loc. LEMUEL, lem’yu-el (78909, Iema’al [Pr 31 1], Rin? lemo’él [81 4], ‘belonging to God’: The name of a king to whom was attributed the poem in Pr 31 2-9, formerly commonly identified with Solo- mon. RVmg. makes him king of Massa (cf. Gn 25 14; I Ch 1 30), perhaps an unknown Arabian city (see Massah in ErHNOGRAPHY AND Ernouoey, § 18). Toy (ICC, ad loc.) considers the L. of ver. 4 a scribal repetition of the preceding letters. ate KES) A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Lebanon Leprosy LENDING. See Trapr AND COMMERCE, § 3. LENTILS. See Pauestinge, § 23; and Foop anp Foop UTEnsi1s, § 3. LEOPARD. See Pauestine, § 24. LEPROSY (OY 1%, tséra‘ath, or NYIS"Y, negha‘- tsdra‘ath, érea): 1. Medical Definition. From the medical point of view, what is called leprosy in the Bible is not a single disease, but a group of essentially dissimilar diseases. ‘True leprosy, as known in modern times, is an affection characterized by the appearance of nodules in the eyebrows, the cheeks, the nose, and the lobes of the ears, also in the hands and feet, where the disease eats into the joints, causing the falling off of fingers and toes. If nodules do not appear, their place is taken by spots of blanched or dis- colored skin (macular leprosy). Two types of the disease are recognized which sometimes blend into a mixed form. The first affects the skin and works inward (tuberculous leprosy); the second is seated in the nerves and causes local anesthesia (anesthetic leprosy). ‘The latter advances much more slowly than the former, and may be arrested giving the appearance of having been healed. The cause of leprosy was discovered by Hansen in 1871 to be a specific bacillus. Defective diet, however, seems to serve as a favorable condition for the culture of the bacillus. 2. Ceremonial Uncleanness of Leprosy. Leprosy was one of the few abnormal conditions of the body which the Levitical law declared unclean. Elaborate provision was therefore made for testing its exis- tence, and for the purification of those who were cured of it. As to the description of the disease, it is rather external and conventional than scientific. Both in the diagnosis and the prescription for cere- monial treatment the term used is generic, and includes other ailments which fall outside the correct modern definition of leprosy. It would be wrong, however, to infer that the whole subject is treated without any effort at discrimination. On the con- trary, Lv ch. 13 deals with it in a somewhat sys- tematic manner. 3. Distinctions. As a subject for ceremonial treat- ment, leprosy is given the general name of ‘plague [‘stroke’] of leprosy.’ It is then divided into three kinds, as it might affect (1) the human skin, (2) articles of clothing, or (3) houses. So far as it ap- pears in the human body, two stages in its develop- ment are marked, the incipient and the confirmed. In the incipient stage it was possible to mistake for it several other diseased conditions. Hence the pro- vision that, when a suspicious case appeared, it must be brought to the priest to be tested (Lv 13 2, 9, etc.). | From the moment, however, that the priest began his inspection and failed to declare his subject clean, the person under test was designated a leper, and considered unclean (Lv 13 3, 20, etc.). 4. Test of Leprosy. In the incipient stage leprosy was only constructively such, and might be cured. According to its development, which was scrutinized and judged by the priest, it might be declared (1) a ‘scab’ (sappahath, psoriasis, Lv 13 2), (2) tsdra‘ath- nosheneth, false (‘old’) leprosy (Lv 18 11), (3) anin- Leprosy Liberty, Christian A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 514 flamed cicatrix (‘scar of the boil,’ tsérebheth hash- shthin, Lv 18 23, ‘burning boil’ AV), (4) a scar of a former burn (s’éth hammikhwah, Lv 18 28), (5) a scalled-head (netheg, ‘ringworm,’ (Lv 13 37), (6) a tetter’ (bdhaq, Lv 138 39), or (7) a baldness (gibbéah, Lv 18 41). But any of these abnormal conditions might turn into a permanent leprosy, in which case the subject was required to be isolated, have dis- tinctive signs by which he might be recognized, and be regarded as unclean (Lv 18 45 f.). For the puri- fication of this uncleanness a special ceremonial was provided (Lv ch. 14. See also under Pouriry, PURIFICATION, § 12 (8) ). 5. Leprosy of Clothing. The leprosy of clothing, as far as it can be identified, was the result of a fungus, or mildew, produced by unknown causes. It was to be tested for a week, and if persistent, the garment was to be burned (Lv 13 47-59). 6. Leprosy of Houses. The leprosy of a house (Lv 14 33-57) is also hard to identify. It is described as consisting in hollow streaks, greenish, or reddish, in color, and lower than the wail, 7.e., as if issuing from its interior portions. It is probable that ‘dry rot’ is meant. Its treatment involved the scraping or removal of part of the wall, the carrying of the dust to a place for refuse, the replastering or rebuild- ing of the destroyed portion of the house, and the ceremonial cleansing of it as a whole (Lv 14 48-53). 7. Instances of Leprosy in the O T. Altho so carefully provided for in the ritual law, leprosy does not appear to have been of frequent occurrence in actual experience in the Bible. And the untechnical use of language about it renders it difficult to judge as to the special type in each case recorded. Of these cases, that of Naaman (II K 51 ff.) was probably not one of true leprosy. It covered his whole body and was white in appearance. These are more ap- proximately the symptoms of psoriasis. Not enough is said of Miriam (Nu 12 10) and the four lepers of Samaria (II K 7 8) to convey a clear idea of their types. That of Uzziah (II K 15 5; II Ch 26 19) was plainly an instance of the genuine incurable disease. 8. Leprosy inthe N T. Inthe N T the disease is included among those healed by Jesus in his daily ministry as the Messiah (Mt 108, 115; Lk 4 27, 7 22). Two instances of healings of leprosy are specifically recorded, viz., that of the man who by his too exu- berant gratitude for being cleansed prevented Jesus’ admission into a certain city and obliged him to withdraw into the wilderness (Mt 8 2; Mk 1 42; Lk 512), and that of the ten from among whom only one, a Samaritan, came back to express his gratitude. In healing leprosy Jesus was careful to lay stress not only on the healing act, but also on the cere- monial cleansing which restored the subject to social relationships. (Cf. in general Benzinger, Heb. Archdologie®, 1907, pp. 79, 92, 186, 377, 412; and see DisEASE AND Mepicinp, §4 (8), and III. A.C. Z. LESHEM, li’Shem. See Latsx. LETTER. See Booxs anp Writtnea, § 2; and EPISTLE. LETUSHIM, l-tii’Sshim. See ErHNoGRAPHY AND ErHNoLoey, § 18. LEUMMIM, h-vum’im. See EraNoGRAPHY AND ErHNnouoey, § 13. LEVI, li’vai. See Marraew; Prmsruoop, § § 8 and 9; and Trrex, Tripgs, § § 3 and 4. LEVIATHAN, li-vai's-than (1972%, liwyathan): A mythological figure, popularly believed to cause eclipses of the sun and moon by swallowing these luminaries or by throwing its folds around them. The monster was supposed to be subject to en- chanters who could rouse it to perform its feat. They were therefore alluded to.as those that ‘cursed the day’ Job 38; ef. Davidson, Camb. Bible, ad loc.). In Ps 74 14 and Is 27 1 it is the symbol of Egypt as the great devourer. In Job ch. 41 the reference is to the crocodile. A. C. Z. LEVITICUS, h-vit’i-kus: 1. Name. The fourth book of the Pentateuch, called by the Jews, from its opening words, wayyigrd’, ‘and he (J’’) called.’ The Greek-speaking Alexandrian Jews called it, from the general character of its contents, Acuittxdéy, 1.e., ‘the Levitical [book],’ which the Vulgate rendered by Leviticus. 2. Lv a Part of the Priestly Element (P) of the Hexateuch. The real character of Ly is revealed when it is perceived that it is but a portion of that long section of the priestly law and history book ([P] see Hexarrevucn, § 5) which deals with the or- ganization of the worship at Mt. Sinai. This section begins at Ex 24 15b-18a, is continued in Ex 25 1-31 18a (the command concerning the making of the Sanc- tuary), and in chs. 35-39 (the making of the Taber- nacle). Here begins the story of the institution of the worship of Israel, which can be outlined as fol- lows: 1. The general command regarding the setting up of the Sanctuary and the initiation of the Priesthood (Ex 40 115), 2. The erection of the Sanctuary and the first services (Moses in charge on the first day) (Ex 40 17-8), [Insertion—The sacrificial manual, Lv chs. 1-7.] 3. The initiation of the Aaronic Priesthood and related mat- ters continuing the narrative of Ex 40 %3 (Lv chs. 8-10). (a) Aaron and his sons formally inducted into the priestly office (Lv ch. 8 f.), according to the directions in Ex ch. 29 and 40 12-16, (b) The death of Nadab and Abihu (Lv 10 !1)), with addi- tional legal prescriptions in vs. 12720, [Insertion—A code concerning ceremonial purity, Lv chs. 11-15.]} Legislation following the death of Nadab and Abihu— the Day of Atonement (Lv ch. 16). {Insertion—The Holiness Code (Lv chs. 17-26), with a supplement concerning vows (ch. 27).] The large section of P, to which all this belongs, is continued in Nu, concluding at Nu 10 !° Disregarding the obvious connection with P and viewing it as a book by itself, Lv may be divided into four parts. I. The manual of offerings (chs. 1-7). II. The consecration of the Priesthood (chs. 8-10). III. The laws of ceremonial purity (chs. 11-16). IV. The law of holiness (chs. 17-27). 3. Relative Age of the Various Strata in Lv. It is generally recognized to-day that the extensive literature known as the P element of the Hexateuch went through a complicated process of editing before it attained its present form. Evidence of such edit- ing is abundant in Ly. Space allows the mention here of only a few of the most important instances. (1) In the manual of offerings (chs. 1-7). This manual at present consists of two parts, the general directions for the five principal offerings (1 1-67), and a manual for priests (6 8-7 38). It will be noticed that in the (ce — 515 A NEW STANDARD first part of the main introductory portion formulas differ remarkably. In 1 3, 10, 14 (for the burnt-offer- ing) and 31, 6, 12 (for the peace-offering) the regular formula is, ‘If his oblation be . . . he shall’; but in 2 4-16 the formula uses ‘thou’ and ‘ye,’ while in 1 2, 21-3 and in 41-67 the formulas are of a less dis- tinctive character. Such facts as these may indicate that in 1 3-17 and 3 1-17, dealing with the two oldest and main classes of offerings, we have the oldest form or original content of this manual, which was then supplemented by ch. 2 and later by the addi- tion of 41-67, and still later by 6 8-7 38 (which itself seems to be composed of earlier and later elements). If the reader will compare this manual with other sections of the Pentateuch covering, in part at least, essentially the same ground, as, e.g., Nu 15 1-31, he will discover for himself the existence of other and quite different sacrificial codes besides the compre- hensive one found here. (2) In Part III, the laws of ceremonial purity, perhaps the clearest evidence of strata of different dates, is found in chs. 11 and 16. In ch. 11 we have the law regarding clean and un- clean animals. This same subject is covered in the Code of Dt (14 3-21). In Lv ch. 11 the order of treatment is: (a) Quadrupeds which are ‘unclean’ (vs. 2-8); (b) water-animals which are ‘abomination’ (shegets) (vs. 9-12); (c) birds which are ‘abomination’ (vs. 13-19); (d) winged insects which are ‘abomination’ (vs. 20-23); (e) defilement by contact with carcasses (vs. 24-28); (f) creeping things and reptiles which are ‘unclean,’ and contamination from them (vs. 29-38); (g) defilement from contact with carcasses (vs. 39-40); (h) creeping things which are ‘abomination’ (vs. 41-45). In Dt 14 3-21 the order is: (a) Not to eat anything ‘abominable’ (t6‘@bhah) (ver. 3); (b) quad- rupeds that may (clean) and may not (unclean) be eaten (vs. 4-8); (c) the water-animals that may and may not be eaten (vs. 9-10); (d) the birds that may and may not be eaten (vs. 11-20); (e) that which dies of itself may not be eaten (ver. 21). It is evident that the whole section in Dt is much simpler than the corresponding one in Lv, and also that in Lv there are really two sets of prescriptions, one using the term ‘unclean’ (as in Dt), the other using the term ‘abomination’ (shegets) (not in Dt). These and other facts seem to indicate that in Dt we find the earlier and simpler law on this subject, and that the form in Ly is based on an old source, which has been supplemented by later additions. Ch. 16, in the main, forms a fitting conclusion to the preceding material in chs. 11-15. The command for an atoning ceremony, covering all phases of sin in the nation as a whole, might well conclude the group of laws on ceremonial purity. But in ch. 16, as it now stands, there is interwoven another set of prescriptions which have to do with Aaron and his sons alone and by ver. 1 are connected with ch. 10. These prescriptions (found in vs. 1, 3, 6, 11, etc.) are probably later addi- tions to the original law. (8) Part IV, The Holiness Code, also appears to be made up of different strata. A general analysis of this code will be found in the article Hexareucsu, § 23 and need not be repeated here. If this analysis be compared with the Code of Dt (see Drurnronomy, § § 2, 4), it will be found that the two present many striking similarities, Leprosy BIBLE DICTIONARY Liberty, Christian enough to suggest that both have been modeled on the earlier code in Ex 20 22-23 end, altho their many differences also show that they are independent of each other. Within this code, many passages may be found which are either contrary to or only loosely connected with the context, and have all the appear- ance of being added to the original code. Thus in ch. 23 a large amount (vs. 1-8, 21, 23-38, 39a, c, and 44) seems to belong more naturally with the later and more precise (as to fixed dates, etc.) priestly material (that forms the main thread of P) than with the earlier and more vague specifications that are characteristic of the original Holiness Code. The same differences can be noted in chs. 17, 21 f., and 24 f. (for detailed examination and proof, see Driver LOT*®, pp. 47 ff.). Ch. 27 is not a part of this code, but a later piece of legislation (P), dealing with the estimation and commutation of vows, consecrated things, and tithes. In its original form, the Holi- ness Code probably antedated Ezekiel. This prophet seems to have been well acquainted with it (or its constituent elements, in case it was compiled after his date), and largely influenced by it. (See also HEXATEUCH, § 24.) 4. General Character of Lv. Lv is thus a book in which materials originating in widely separated periods are found closely woven together. In general, the earlier portions are marked by greater simplicity, less preciseness in details and specifica- tions, a closer touch with the old agricultural type of life, less emphasis on ceremonialism per se, and more on morality and spirituality. The moral character of the Holiness Code is especially high. ‘Holiness to Jehovah’ is here more than mere formalism. In the later portions the rigid ceremonialism of the later Judaism is more manifest and the cultus is made all- important. Literature: Driver, LOT; Paton in JBL (1895); Baentsch, Das Heiligkeits-gesetz (1893); Harford-Battersby in HDB, vol. ili, art. Leviticus; Carpenter-Harford, The Composition of the Hexateuch (1902); A. T. Chapman, Introd. to ithe Pent. (in Camb. Bible) (1911); E. 8. Brightman, The Sources of the Hexateuch (1918). IN’ LEVY. See Sotomon, § 3; and Tax, Taxarion. LIBERTINES. See SYNAGOG OF THE LIBERTINES. LIBERTY, CHRISTIAN: This term is used to denote the breadth of action allowed the believer as distinguished from the non-believer. The nearest approach to the conception in the O T is that under- lying the release from obligation and penalty, which was provided for in the law of the Sabbatical year of Jubilee (q.v.) (derér, Lv 25 10; Is 611; Jer 34 8 £.). Furthermore, he who serves J” is conscious of an advantage in this particular (Ps 119 45). In the N T the new light on the inner relationship of the believer with God reveals liberty to be one of the essential results of faith (Jn 8 32 f.). In general, this larger range for the play of human activity is viewed as obliterating restraints created by other conditions. Bondage and slavery in the political sense cease to be sources of distress to the possessor of Christian liberty (I Co 7 21; Col 3 11). This liberty consists in the change of attitude toward the law, whereby conduct becomes loving conformity to the will of the Father, instead of constrained obedience to arbitrary prescriptions (cf. ‘against such there is no Libnah Lintel A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 516 law’ Gal 5 23; also Ro 7 3; Gal 2 4, 51). Moreover, the principle of sin as a dominant force over conduct loses its compelling power. To this extent the believer is free from sin (Ro 6 18, 8 2). The added knowledge gained by the believer enables him to see many actions as indifferent, and therefore to be done or not, according to his pleasure (I Co 10 23-29). This is ‘the perfect law of hberty’ (Ja 1 25), which, however, places upon its subject the responsibility of guarding against its misuse and abuse (Gal 5 13; I P 216). AL OLS: LIBNAH, lib’na (732°, libhnah) ‘whiteness’: 1. The third station after Hazeroth (Nu 33 20 f.), per- haps identical with Laban (Dt 11). 2. A town in the Shephelah, probably a member of the coalition against Gibeon defeated by Joshua (Jos 10 29 f.). It was made a priestly city (Jos 2113). Apparently lying S. of Lachish, it joined in the revolt of Edom against Judah (II K 8 22). In the days of Hezekiah it was evidently a strongly fortified town, and re- quired the attention of Sennacherib in order to secure his base of operations against Jerusalem (II K 19 8; Is 37 8). L. was the birthplace of the wife of Josiah, the mother of Jehoahaz and Zedekiah (II K 23 31, 2418). MapI, C9. A.S.C.*—O.R.S. LIBNI, lib’nai (222, libhnt): 1. The ancestral head of one of the divisions of the Gershonite Levites, the Libnites (Ex 6 17; Nu 8 18-21, etc.). Also called Ladan (q.v.). 2. Another Levite, the grandson of Merari (I Ch 6 29). LIBYA, lib’i-a (A:@én): The name of the large territory which included in ancient times Cyrenaica in the W. and Marmarica in the E.; the whole of L., therefore, lay between Egypt (the Delta) and the Roman province of Africa. Accordingly, the ‘parts of Libya about Cyrene’ (Ac 2 10) meant the western portion of the country. In the O T, L. is the AV translation of the Heb. pit (Ezk 305, 385). Libyans is the rendering of put (Jer 469 AV, ‘Put’ RV) and of labhim (Dn 11 43); tho this word is rendered ‘Lubim’ in II Ch 16 8 and Nah 39. See Erunoc- RAPHY AND Erunouoey, § §7 and 13. A.C. Z. LICE. See PAaLestine, § 26; and PLacuss. LIE. See CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS, § 2 (b). LIEUTENANTS: The AV rendering of the Heb. transliteration (DIBVIWOS, ’dhashdarp*nim, LEzr 8 36; Est 312, 89, 9 3), of the Persian khshatrapdan, the original of the Gr. catedays, ‘satrap,’ ‘governor.’ See SaTRAP. LIFE: This term is used in the English Bible to render a number of different Heb. and Gr. words, each of which has its own special significance. (1) In the O T the proper and most frequent term is hay, ‘life,’ used (both as noun and adj.) almost exclusively of men and animals, and with reference to the principle of animate existence—in the case of man often of sentient existence—in contrast with that which is inanimate or dead. Consequently, even running water or spring water, in contrast with stag- nant or cistern water, is spoken of as ‘living’ (cf. Gn 26 19; Lv 14 6, etc.). The noun, when rendered ‘life,’ is generally in the plural (the so called abstract plural). As examples of the more general use of the term, cf. Gn 27 (‘breath of life’), $, 3 22, 715. In some cases it is the period of conscious existence that is meant (Gn 3 14, 7 11), in others, life as affected by external conditions is the main idea (Ex 1 14), especially the ideal happy or blessed condition on earth, in which God’s favor is manifest (Dt 30 15, 19 f., 82 47; Ps 30.5; Pr 219). Inone case at least it is one’s consciousness of his own condition, or state of his feelings, that is meant (Job 33 20). A special, but frequent, use of the term is in oaths, at times when God swears by Himself (Nu 14 21, 28; Dt 32 40; Jer 46 18), or when man swears by God (Ru 313;18S 14 39, 45, etc.) or, with a slight change in the Heb. pronunciation (héy instead of hay), when man swears by some other man (Gn 42 15 f.; 1S 1 26; ILS 15 21, etc.). In all such cases the word is really used as a predicate adjective. (For the combination of hayyah [the fem. adj.] with nephesh, see the following.) (2) The word nephesh, frequently rendered ‘life,’ signi- fies the physical principle of life, which was some- times located in the breath (Gn 27; in Job 41 21 it is rendered ‘breath’), but more generally in the blood (Gn 9 4; Lv 17 14; Dt 12 23, etc.). The more usual rendering of this term is ‘soul’ (which can be under- stood in more than one sense), but where it is ren- dered ‘life,’ it is nearly always the physical existence that is intended (Gn 9 4f., 1917; Dt 19 21, etc.). Fre- quently a broader meaning is given to the term (e.g., Gn 44 30), and at times ‘soul’ would seem to be a better rendering than ‘life’ (e.g., Pr 6 26). The combination nephesh hayyah, rendered ‘living crea- ture’ (Gn 1 20), indicates, when used of man (e.g., Gn 27), the individual entity, the seat of personality, which, tho originating with the Divine breath being breathed into the material form, is not altogether destroyed when, at death, man returns ‘unto dust’ (Gn 3 19). See also Man, Docrrine oF, § § 1-8. (3) yamim, ‘days,’ is rendered ‘life’ in I K 3 u1; II Ch 1 11; Ps 616, 9116. (4) In Job 715 AV ‘life’ renders ‘etsem, ‘bone’; cf. RV. (5) In the N T, Cw is the equivalent of the O T hay. It is used to indicate conscious existence, especially in its higher moral and spiritual aspects. Of this God alone is the ultimate source; then, derivatively from God, its source is the Word (this only in Jn), and then in the Word Incarnate, Jesus Christ (Jn 1 4, 414, 5 26, 6 35, 14 6; cf. Col 1 15-17). Consequently, it often means the true life of the soul as found in communion with God, and the enjoyment of this throughout eternity (Mt 714, 188 f., Lk 1215; Jn passim). (6) The N T ux is the equivalent of the O T nephesh, ‘physical life,’ altho in Mk 8 35 and ||s the term is used in a double sense, indicative of the higher and lower aspects of the soul’s life. The more usual rendering of ux} in the N T is ‘soul.’ (7) The term foc, meaning the external aspects of life, its material benefits or enjoyments, its affairs, also its period, occurs a few times in the N T (Lk 814; I Ti 2 2; II Ti 24;IJn216). (8) In Rev 1315 AV xvedpa, ‘breath,’ is rendered ‘life,’ cf. RV. See also in general Man, DocrrinE or; and Escuarouoey. K. E. N. LIFE, BOOK OF: This phrase is used to denote the record of the privileges of God’s people. God’s ‘book’ (Ex 32 32; Ps 56 8, 139 16) is the emblem of His remembrance and guardianship of His people (ef. 517 A NEW STANDARD Mal 316). It is also called the ‘book of life’ (Ps 69 28, ‘the living’ RVmg.; Ph 43). The phrase is based on the custom of enrolling citizens for various purposes, e.g., as ‘childless,’ Jer 22 30; for identification of pedigree, Neh 7 5, 64, 12 22; for safeguarding of rights, Is 4 3; Ezk 139 (spiritual analog, Lk 10 20). From the O T usage was developed the apocalyptic conception of a special ‘Book of Life’ to be used at the last Judgment (Dn 121; Rev 3 5, 13 8, 17 8, 20 12, 15, 21 27; cf. Hth. En. 47 3, 108 3). A. C. Z. LIGHT: The rendering of a number of Heb. and Gr. terms: I. Terms relating to natural or physical light. (1) ’ér (both verb and noun), used primarily of the physical phenomenon, either generally as created by or emanating from God (Gn 1 3; Job 38 19), or as opposed to darkness (Gn 1 4, 5; Ex 10 23, ete.), or specifically, of daylight, or the morning light (Jg 19 26; 1S 14 36; II K 79, etc.), of the light of the sun (Job 31 26, cf. RV, 37 21; Hab 3 4), of the heavenly bodies (Ps 136 7), of the lightning (Job 36 32), or in the simple sense of ‘brightness,’ or ‘shining’ (Job 41 18; Is 13 10, 30 26, etc.). This term is often used figuratively: (a) Of the guidance, strength, and comfort vouchsafed by God to those who trust Him (Job 22 28, 29 3; Ps 27 1, etc.); so in the expression ‘the light of thy countenance,’ where the idea of communion with God is also set forth (Ps 4 6, 44 3, 89 15); (b) as the equivalent of physical life (Job 3 16, 20; Ps 49 19, etc.), or of the true moral life (Job 2413; Pr 418, ete.). (2) ma@’6r, ‘alight giver,’ used of the planets, sun and moon (Gn 1 14-16), and of the lamps in the Tabernacle (Ex!25 6, 27 20, etc.), less specifically in Ps 74 16, 90 8; Pr 15 30). (3) nar, in various derivative forms nér, nir, etc., used in AV, ‘lamp’ RV) of David (II S 21 17), of the con- tinuance of his dynasty (I K 11 36; II K 819; IIT Ch 217); and in a more literal sense in Dn 2 22, 5 11, 14; Job 34. (4) ndghah, ‘brightness’ (Is 50 10). On the AV of [K 74f. andIs8 20cf. RV. (5) Inthe N T the principal term is 96s, which corresponds to ’6r in the O T. Besides its use in a physical sense, metaphorically the term stands for the highest form of spiritual and moral life of which God is the source (I Jn 1 5, 7), and is mediated to man through the Word—Jesus Christ (Jn 1 4 #f., etc.). Consequently, the saving truth of God and the Christian character and life, which expresses it, is called light (Mt 5 14; Jn 319 £.; Ro 13 12; Eph 5 8, etc.). Related to 9c are the nouns gwortve, literally ‘light-giver,’ used of beacon-lights, metaphorically in Ph 2 15, but perhaps more literally in Rev 21 11, and guttowéc, ‘illumination’ (II Co 4 4, 6), the verb guwtttety, ‘to give light to’ (Jn 19; I Co 4 5, etc.), and the adj. pwtetvdg (Mt 6 22; Lk 11 34 ff.). (6) Adyvoc, ‘lamp’ RV (Mt 6 22; Lk 11 34, 12 35; Jn 5 35; II P 1 19; Rev 21 23). (7) Aaunrée, ‘torch,’ then ‘lamp’ (Ac 20 8); and the related verb A&éurety, ‘to give light as a torch’ (Mt 5 15). (8) ¢éryos, ‘the light (of some bright object)’ (Mt 24 29, etce.). (9) The verbs xatety, ‘to burn’ (Mt 5 15), &rety, ‘to kindle’ (Lk 8 16, 11 33, 15 8), éxtoatverv, ‘to shine upon’ RV (Lk 1 79), and émtgatoxety, ‘to shine upon’ RV (Eph 5 14). O. Terms relating to weight. (I) From qdlal, ‘to be light’? (I K 12 4, etc.), we have qdl, of agility and swift-footedness (II S 2 18), and the verb itself, in Libnah Lintel BIBLE DICTIONARY the sense of ‘to consider insignificant’ (I S 18 23; I K 16 31; II K 318, 2010; Is 49 6; Ezk 817), and q*ldgél, in the sense of ‘unsatisfactory,’ possibly ‘contempti- ble’ (Nu 21 5). (2) pdhaz, ‘unreliable’ (Jg 9 4; Zeph 3 4). (3) dwereiv, ‘to be careless’ (Mt 22 5). (4) éXapeds (Mt 11 30; II Co 417). II. Terms relat- ing to motion. (1) ydradh, ‘to come, or go dawn’ (Jg 4 15; IS 25 23 AV, etc.). (2) naphal, ‘to fall’ (Gn 24 64; IT K 5 21 AV; 1s 98). (3) pagha‘, ‘to chance upon’ (Gn 28 11). On Mt 3 i6 and Rev 7 16 cf. RV. K. E. N. LIGNALOES, lig-nal’6z or lain-al’6z. See ALozs. LIGURE, lig’yur. See Stonzs, Pructous, § 2. LIKHI, lik’hai (""P?, light): The head of a Manas- site family (I Ch 7 19). LILY. Sce PAuestine, § 22; also Tmempie, § 14. LIME (T°, stdh): In Is 33 12, Am 21 reference is “made to the process of securing lime from its com- pounds by intense heat. In these passages it is used figuratively to mean complete destruction. In Dt 27 2, 4, the Heb. word is translated ‘plaster,’ to desig- nate the substance made from lime, and put on walls to secure a smooth surface for decorating. CLs at: LINE: (1) hebhel, strictly, a ‘cord’ or ‘rope,’ then a ‘measuring-line,’ as in II S 8 2; Am 7 17; Zec 21. This word is often rendered ‘portion’ or lot, and its metaphorical meaning in Ps 16 6 rests on the more literal use of the word for that portion of J’’’s land, measured by line, which was each Israelite’s patri- mony. (2) gaw, and geweh (from qdwéah, ‘to be stretched,’ ‘fixed,’ or ‘strong’), a line, especially one used for measuring (I K 7 23; II K 21 13; Is 28 17; Jer 31 39, etc.). In Is 28 10 and 13 it is doubtful whether the Heb. gaw ldq@w should be rendered ‘line upon line,’ as these syllables are probably mere imitations of the thick, foolish utterance of the drunkard. A derivative of gawah, tiqwah, is found in Jos 2 18, 21. (8) hut, ‘cord,’ or ‘thread,’ is ren- dered line inI K 715. (4) pathil (from pdthal, ‘to twist’) is rendered ‘line’ but once (Ezk 40 3; cf. Gn 38 18, 25; Ezk 40 3; Jg 169, etc.). (5) seredh, in Is 44 13,is of doubtful meaning. The RV pencil is probably correct, but not certain. (6) xavav (II Co 10 16) is strictly a ‘reed,’ then a rod for measuring, and then came to be used in the sense of ‘limit,’ or ‘bounds.’ The RV ‘province’ is a fair interpreta- tion. HK. E. N. LINEN: The various words translated ‘linen’ in the O T are for the most part of somewhat un- certain meaning, and possibly in some cases varieties of cotton as well as of linen are meant. Where the Heb. word is pishteh, ‘flax,’ the meaning ‘linen’ is practically certain (Lv 13 47-49; Jer 131; Ezk 44 171.). sddhin (Jg 1412 f.; Pr 31 24; Is 3 23) means a square linen garment, something like a robe, that could be used as a wrapper, made probably of fine material. In I K 10 28, If Ch 116 RV has the correct reading. The N T terms present no difficulty, all meaning linen of various degrees of fineness. See also. FINE LinEN; and Dress AND ORNAMENTS, § 5. EH. E. N. LINTEL: In I K 6 31 the meaning of the Heb. term ’ayilis very uncertain. RVmg. suggests ‘posts,’ but ‘projection’ may be nearer the truth. The verse Linus Lord’s Prayer, The then would mean that the door-opening was pentag- onal in form, thus: ‘Kal See illustration of front elevation, Solomon’s Temple, under art. TEMPLE. On Am 91 and Zeph 2 14, cf. RV. See also Houss. EK. E. N. LINUS, lai’nus (Atvoc): One of four persons send- ing greetings to Timothy in II Ti 4 21. Since the name is a comparatively rare one (only in C/G, No. 8518; I. Sic. et Ital. No. 2276) much is to be said for Ireneus’ identification of L. with the successor of Peter and Paul (Adv. Her. III, 3 3; ef. Eus. HE, III, 2; V, 6). According to the Ap. Const. (VII, 46) L. was the husband, or son, of Claudia (Alvog 6 Kiavd{as), who is mentioned in the same salutation in II Ti 4 21. JOM. T. LION. See PALEstTine, § 24. LITTER: The translation of the Heb. word tsdbh in Is 66 20. The same word occurs in Nu 7 3 with ‘aghalah (‘wagon’), where it indicates that the wagons were covered like palanquins. By itself the term meant ‘a covered conveyance,’ constructed so that it could be carried by two mules, one in front and one behind. Eee ae LIVER. The expression ‘till an arrow (dart, AV) strike through his liver’ (Pr 7 23) is probably figura- tive, not a specific reference to any disease. For special conceptions regarding and uses of the liver, see SACRIFICE AND OFFERINGS, § 10; Man, Doc- TRINE OF, § 8; and Maaic anp Divination, § 4. LIVING CREATURE (pl. hayydth; in N T, Céov; ‘beast’ AV): 1. In the Bible. The name given to a symbolical figure first presented in Ezekiel’s vision (Ezk 1 5 f.), and again in Rev 4 6-9, 5 6, 8, 11, 61, 3, 5-7). The dependence of the latter on the former is quite manifest, tho the figure is worked over with a con- siderable amount of originality. The LX X. transla- tion of the Heb. word in Ezk is the link of connection between the two. The figure is composite. It con- tains a human element and elements drawn from the world of lower animal life, either terrestrial or aerial. In Ezk 101 #., the living creatures are called ‘cheru- bim’; but as cherubim, they differ from those which symbolize the Divine presence in the construction of the Mercy Seat (I K 6 23 ff.; see also CHmRUBIM). 2. Extra-Biblical Parallels. The affinity between these ‘living creatures’ and the winged bulls, the sphinx, and the griffin of extra-Biblical lore is most unmistakable. But only with the winged bull of the Assyrian cult is the relation such as to call for ex- planation. And here it is not difficult to see that, whereas the form of the Biblical living creature is derived from Mesopotamia, the use made of it is radically different. The Biblical figure represents the highest elements of creation, as ministering to and worshiping the Creator. They are never, as in Mesopotamia, themselves objects of homage or worship. A. C. Z. LIZARD. See PaA.zestine, § 26; and Foop anp Foop UTENSILS, § 9. LOAF, LOAVES See Foop ann Foop UTENSILS, § 2. A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 518 LO-AMMI, 16’’-am’‘ai. The symbolic name of Hosea’s third child (Hos 1 9). See Ami, and Hosspa, § 2. LOCK. See Houss, § 6 (1); and Crry, § 3. LOCUST or GRASSHOPPER: A migratory insect of which forty different species are known to exist in Palestine (Tristram, The Natural History of the Bible,’ 1889, pp. 306 ff.), tho the Rabbis assert that Locust (Oedipoda migratoria). there are as many as 800 species. Those named in the O T, without strict regard to scientific classifica- tion, are the following: (1) ’arbeh, ‘multiplier’ (Ex 10 4-6; Lv 11 22). (2) sol‘am, bald locust (Lv 1i 22). (3) hargél, ‘galloper’ (Lv 11 22; ‘beetle’ AV, ‘cricket’ RV, but ‘locust’ RVmg.). (4) haghdabh, ‘grasshopper’ (Lv 11 22). (5) ts¢ldtsal, ‘the tinkler,’ because of the whirring noise of its flight (Dt 28 42). (6) gébh, only in pl. gébhim (Is 33 4). (7) gdzam, ‘shearer’ (Jl Locust (with extended wings). 1 4, palmer-worm AV). (8) yeleg, ‘lopper’ (Jl 1 4; Nah 3 15; Ps 105 34). (9) héasil, ‘finisher’ (Ps 78 46, but usually translated caterpillar). (10) gébh or gobhay (Am 71; Nah 317). Certain of these kinds were permissible as food, and were and are largely eaten by the natives, being regarded very palatable (cf. Lv 11 22; Mt 3 4). The destructiveness of the locust is particularly noted by Biblical writers hence threats of judgment are couched in terms of a visitation of a plague of locusts (Jl 1 4 f.; Nah 3 15; Jer 51 14, 27, canker-worm RV, ‘caterpillar’ AV). Upon the basis of this characteristic of the insect arose later the apocalyptic figure of the locust with certain features of the war-horse, of the warrior, of the king, of the woman, and of the lion attached to it (Rev 9 3-11). This is evidently a symbol of destruc- tion, and is represented as appearing in large num- bers—an army under the command of Abaddon (q.v.; the Gr. equivalent is ’AmoAAdwy, ‘destroyer’). A. C. Z. LOD, led (1%, lédh), or Lydda (Ai35a), during the Roman period called Diospolis, now Ludd: A village 519 A NEW STANDARD lying in a fertile hollow of the Plain of Sharon, 11 m. SEH. of Jaffa. Map III, D5. It is mentioned in the later books of the O T (I Ch 8 12; Ear 2 33; Neh 7 37, 11 35), and once in the N T (Ac 9 32 4.). Its exposed position, in the path of armies going from the coast to Jerusalem, subjected L. to devastation by Roman, Saracen, Crusader, and Mongol. In the time of Josephus, however, the city was large and pros- perous, and was a celebrated seat of Rabbinical learning. It later became the seat of a bishopric. The present population is about 7,000. According to ancient Christian tradition (adopted also by the Moslems), St. George was born at L. in the 3d cent. A.D., and, after his martyrdom, was buried there. The cathedral of St. George, whose crypt was said to contain the hero’s tomb, has been frequently de- molished, and its ruins now enclose both a mosque and a Greek church. (see HGHL, pp. 160-164). L. G. L.—E. C. L. LO-DEBAR, 10”-di’bar (73°11? or N?, 10’- or 6- dh*bhar): A place E. of the Jordan, near Mahanaim (II S 17 27), where Mephibosheth, son of Jonathan, dwelt 11S 94f.). Gratz translates the same Heb. words in Am 6 13 by ‘Lodebar’ (‘thing of nought’ EV), the reference being to victories won, probably by Jehoash or Jeroboam II over the Syrian, at Lo-Debar and Karnaim (EV ‘horns’). The same place is probably meant by Debir (Heb. Lidhbhir) (Jos 13 26, cf. RVmg.). ~ C.S. T.—E. E. N. LODGE: I. The verb. (1) In the O T the verb rendered ‘to lodge’ usually is the Heb. lin, ‘to pass the night’ (Gn 24 33, 32 13, etc.). (2) In Jos 21 the term is shdkhabh, ‘to lie down’; cf. RV. (38) In Mt 21 17, the Gr. adAtCecOa: means properly ‘to pass the night in an «dA7’ (‘court-yard,’ or ‘sheep- fold’), but here it is used in a general sense. (4) In Lk 9 12 xataAtety means ‘to loosen,’ hence ‘to ungird,’ preparatory to lying down for the night. (5) nxatacxnvedy, ‘to pitch the tent’ and hence ‘to dwell,’ is found in Mk 4 32 and |l/s. (6) &evitery (from Eévoc, ‘stranger’), ‘to receive as a guest,’ is found in Ac 10 6, 18, 23, 32, 21 16, 287 (cf. RV). II. The nouns rendered lodge, lodging, or lodging- place are (1) é@’ (Ezk 407, 10, 12, etc. RV), meaning an antechamber of some kind, rendered ‘little chamber’ in AV. Dr. Davidson (on Ezk in Camb. Bible) suggests ‘guard-room’ (cf. I K 14 28; II Ch 12 11), see Tempe, § 18. (2) malon, ‘place to spend the night’ (Gn 42 27, 43 21; Ex 4 24 all 4nn’ AV; Jos 4 3, 8; II K 19 23; Is 10 29; Jer 9 2). The closely related term m*liinadh, meaning the temporary struc- ture for the watchman in a garden, is rendered ‘lodge’ in Is 1 8; cf. 24 20in AV and RV. (8) &evfa (from Eévoc, ‘stranger’) means first ‘hospitality,’ and then ‘lodging’ (Ac 28 23; Phm ver. 22). E. EH. N. LOG. See Wricuts AND Mrasurgs, § 3. LOIS, 1d’is (Awis): The grandmother (probably maternal) of Timothy (II Ti15). She was a Jewess, but whether by descent or by conversion from paganism is unknown. Through Paul she was led to embrace Christianity. E. E. N. LONG-SUFFERING. See Gon, § 2. LOOKING-GLASS. See Mirror. LOOPS. See TABERNACLE, § 3 (2). Linus Lord’s Prayer, The BIBLE DICTIONARY LORD: The rendering in EV of a number of Heb. and Gr. terms. As the ordinary term used in ad- dressing a superior: (1) ’ddhéni, ‘my lord.’ Itis used of (a) a prophet (I K 187, 13; IL K 2 19, 4 28), (b) princes or nobles (Gn 42 10, 48 20), (c) a king (IS 22 12, 26 17), (d) a father (Gn 31 35), (e) an elder brother (Gn 33 8 f.), (f) Moses (Ex 32 22; Nu 11 28), (g) a priest (IS 115 £.), (h) the theophanic angels (Gn 19 2; Jos 5 14; Jg 613), (i) a captain (IIS 1111), (j) any superior (Gn 24 18; Ru 2 13). In the N T xbotoc, is the customary term for addressing Jesus, and also frequently occurs in the full title applied to Him, the Lord Jesus Christ. It is also used (Mt 25 11, 24, and elsewhere) in addressing a superior, when it is frequently rendered ‘Sir.’ (2) In AV it is the usual rendering of the Divine name pm (and of its shorter form ‘T}, Yah), properly pronounced Yahweh, but usually transliterated ‘Jehovah’ in ARV. In AV it is usually rendered ‘LORD’ (in capitals). The plural form, ’ddhdndy, ‘my lords,’ is also very commonly used in the Heb. O T for God, and is always rendered ‘Lord,’ ‘my Lord,’ or ‘O Lord.’ Where the Heb. has both terms together, ‘adhonay Yahweh (Gn 15 2; Dt 3 24, etc.), AV renders ‘Lord GOD’ (in capitals), but ARV renders ‘Lord Jehovah.’ The term ’ddhdndy expressed in particular the authority and lordship possessed by God over His creatures. See also JEHOVAH. (3) s¢radnim, a plural term of uncertain etymology, is used to designate the princes or leaders of the Philistine confederacy (Jos 13 3; Jg 3 3, etc.). Some think that the word is allied to the Gr. tépavoe. The exact nature of the Philistine confederacy is unknown. Practically, these five ‘lords’ appear to have been petty kings, each a primus inter pares (cf. 1S 292 ¢.). (4) In the case of the other Heb. terms rendered ‘lord,’ this rendering is to be taken in a general rather than a specific sense. Such are (a) ba‘al, ‘master,’ ‘owner’ (Nu 21 28; Is 16 8); (b) g*bhir, ‘a [strong] man’ (Gn 27 29, 37); (c) mdré’ (Dn 2 47, 419, 24, 5 23); (d) rabh, which is simply an adjec- tive, ‘great’ (Dn 2.10; cf. RVmg.); (e) sar, ‘prince’ (Ezr 8 25 AV); (£) shalish, which means probably, one who has distinguished himself and thereby has at- tained to high rank (II K 7 2-19; Ezk 23 23); (g) rabhrebhdnin, ‘magnates,’ ‘great ones’ (Dn 4 36, 51,9, etc.).. (5) In the N T we have (a) deoxérne, ‘ruler,’ ‘master,’ as a designation of God (Lk 2 29; Ac 4 24; IT P 21; Jude ver. 4; Rev 610); (b) xdetoc, the ordinary Gr. term for master or lord, is also the equivalent through the LXX. of both ’ddhéndéy and Yahweh in the O T, as well as being the common designation of Jesus Christ. In I Ti6i5the verbal form xveteudyvtwy (ptepl. of xvetederv) occurs with xderog in the same sentence; (c) weytatévec (Mk 6 21) is properly “great ones,’ ‘magnates.’ On Mk 10 51, cf. RV. C. 8S. T.—E. E. N. LORD OF HOSTS. See Hosr. LORD’S DAY. See Saspparn, § 7. LORD’S PRAYER, THE: The title traditionally given to the prayer that Jesus taught His disciples (Mt 6 9-13; Lk 11 2-5), better known in the older Catholic churches by its opening words (Pater Noster, Iétep judy). It occurs in two different forms, and the differences suggest the question of the Lord’s Prayer, The Lo-Ruhamah A NEW STANDARD relations of these to one another. In Mt it is in- corporated in the Sermon on the Mount; in Lk it is given in answer to the request of the disciples, ‘Lord, teach us to pray, even as John taught his disciples,’ presumably on an occasion which fell after the Galilean ministry. If these accounts of its first delivery are absolutely independent of each other, the prayer must have been given on two separate occasions. Inherently this is neither impossible nor improbable. But from the literary point of view it appears more likely that the version in Mt is adapted to the plan of the Evangelist, and represents a transposition of it to a different setting from the original. In such a case the parallel account of Lk is to be regarded as giving the exact circum- stances of the delivery. The occurrence in both versions of the unusual word epiousios (rendered ‘daily’) indicates that the two forms are not inde- pendent. Most probably both versions are based on one translation of an original Aramaic adopted by Mt into the Sermon on the Mount and modified by Lk in accordance with his design of making the life and teachings of Jesus clear to Gentile readers. Of the two Lk’s version is the older. The omissions and changes made by each may be presented in parallel form: Mt. Lk. Our father who art in | Father, heaven, ; Hallowed be thy name. | Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy Kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so on earth. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts. As we also have forgiven our Give us day by day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins; For we ourselves also forgive debtors. every one that is indebted to us. And bring us not into temp- | And bring us not into tation, temptation. But deliver us from the evil one, The prayer is a unit, and altho extra-Biblical parallels of some of its phrases have been pointed out in Rabbinical sources, it does not appear that Jesus compiled the whole from such preexisting forms (against Wetstein, on Mt 69). The similari- ties alleged are for the most part verbal, and the sources from which they are drawn of much later date than the times of Jesus. The purpose for which the prayer was given is not defined with precision. Evidently, however, it was neither to furnish a stereotyped form which should do away with the free expression of the individual at the throne of God, nor, on the other hand, to show the true nature of prayer to those who were totally unaccustomed to it. The disciples both knew and used prayer; but they had misleading and confusing models before them in the practise of the Pharisees. It was as a corrective of these, and at the same time as a com- prehensive summary of all that might properly find a place in their devotional utterances, that the ideal was given. The contents of the Lord’s Prayer (as given in Mt) are usually outlined as consisting of seven petitions: (1) Hallowed be thy name. (2) Thy Kingdom come. (3) Thy will be done on earth, as it isin heaven. (4) Give us this day our daily bread. (5) Forgive us our BIBLE DICTIONARY 520 debts. (6) Lead us not into temptation. (7) Deliver us from the evil one. Of these the fourth is beset by obscurity in both versions. This is occasioned by the use of the term émtodctog (deriv. uncertain; possibly through the ptcpl. of émévat, ‘to be at hand’) which occurs nowhere else, either in Biblical or in classical Greek. The explanations of the term proposed are: (1) That it means bread of subsistence, i.e., sufficient; (2) bread for the morrow; (8) but best of all, because of the customary time of prayer in the evening, as having reference to the bread that shall be immediately needed (cf. Cremer, Bib.-Theol. W drterbuch (1893); Chase, The Lord’s Prayer in the Early Church, Texts and Studies (1891). Theseventh petition is omitted in the Lucan version. The word ‘evil’ in it is in the original (xovyeod) capable of being read either as a neuter (‘evil’ in general or as a masculine (‘the evil one’-—Satan). The latter sense is, on the whole, the most probable. LirErAtTuRE: Thirtle, J. W., The Lord’s Prayer (1915); Ottley R. L., The Lord’s Prayer: ‘Rule of Work and Worship (1915). A CRT. LORD’S SUPPER, THE (xveraxdby Setzvoyv, I Co 11 20); also often called the Eucharist, from the Gr. edyaptotety ‘to give thanks’ (cf. Lk 22 19; Mt 26 27; Mk 14 23): The name of the ordinance (sacrament) observed from the earliest Apostolic days to signify the communion of the disciples of Jesus Christ in His sacrificial death, and to commemorate that death as well as to draw the disciples together into a closer fellowship with one another. There are four ac- counts of the institution of the ordinance (Mt 26 26-29; Mk 14 22-25; Lk 22 15-20; I Co 11 23-26). Ac- cording to their differences these fall into two groups, Mt and Mk, and Lk and Paul respectively. Mt and Mk say nothing of a formal institution of a new rite by Jesus. Luke and Pauldo. In each of the groups one account is primary and the other secondary. Mt is dependent on Mk, and Lk on Paul. Reduced to their primitive forms the sources show that Mk represents Jesus as introducing the elements with the simple formula, ‘Take ye’; and Paul reports Him to have added, “This do in remembrance of me.’ The question must therefore be raised whether Jesus originally used the fuller form given by Paul, or the simpler one by Mk. If the former be true, then Jesus instituted the sacrament, and with such additions and developments in meaning as may be traced in the history of its observance, it has been perpetuated by the Church to the present day. If, on the other hand, it is Mk who gives the original and correct account, the occurrence in Paul’s version of the command, “This do in remembrance of me,’ must be explained. The phrase may be (1) an addition of Paul’s, on his own initiative. In this case, the ordinance as a permanent institution must be re- garded as a creation of Paul’s. But this is scarcely probable from the historical point of view. Paul, as a late comer into the community, would not have ventured to tell eye-witnesses what the exact facts had been upon any definite historical occasion. But (2) Paul may have embodied into his account a later addition to the words used by Jesus. Yet, how could such an addition have arisen? Spitta ( Urchristen- tum, 1893) answers that if Jesus died on the 14th 521 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Lord’s Prayer, The Lo-Ruhamah of Nisan (the very day of the Passover), His death broke up the whole tenor of the lives of His disciples, and made it impossible for them to enter into the festivities engaged in by the rest of the people. But by the law of Nu 9 10, the disciples must have returned to Jerusalem to celebrate the Passover on the 14th of Iyyar. This accounts for the fact that they were found at Jerusalem at that time. But in observing the Passover in the light of what had occurred, they saw the death of their Master very differently; the parallel between Jesus and the pas- chal lamb, slain at the same hour in which He died, forced itself upon them, and the idea that He was the Passover sacrifice dawned on their minds; but with the awakening of this idea came the peculiar meaning of the Lord’s Supper. The original circum- stances were lost sight of, and new words and acts imagined in their places. Paul simply reproduces this account of later origin. (3) Professor Briggs proposes the conjecture that Jesus met His disciples between His resurrection and His ascension, and having again sat at supper with them repeated the words He spoke on the night of His betrayal, explain- ing more fully their sacrificial and sacramental sig- nificance, especially with reference to the Sinaitic covenant (Ex 24 1-12), and then added the charge to commemorate His death, reported by Paul. Paul simply combined the record of the two occurrences into one in I Co 11 23 &. (The Messiah of the Gospels, p. 123). These theories seem too ingenious to represent the true history, and have found no favor with critical investigators. From the point of view of pure probability they have no advantages over the harmonistic theory which would make the ac- count of Paul the fuller, and that of Mk the more defective, report of the same event. There is only one ground on which it can be claimed that Mk’s account is more primitive than Paul’s, and that is the fact that it omits a feature contained in the other. Chronologically, Paul’s was given in a written form earlier than Mk’s, and in an oral form it had evidently been preached to the church at Cor- inth still earlier. In the absence of stronger grounds for doubting the authenticity of the whole account as given by him, the best explanation of the facts is that his report is full, and Mk’s omits one feature of the affair, less important from the point of view of his purpose. Upon the ground of the facts as above stated, it appears that for the body of the followers of Jesus the supper was to be an institution commemorative and symbolical, both of what Christ accomplished through His death, and of what He was to be to them continually; that it was to symbolize the union of His followers with Himself; and also to serve as a method of its progressive realizntion. In bringing His death to the memory, it should signify the sacrificial nature of that death as a basis of a new covenant. ‘The underlying assumptions are that the covenant is a relationship of the most cordial and intimate kind, that in order that it may exist all sources of offense must be removed, and that in the case of man’s relation to God the source of of- fense was sin, therefore it must be obliterated by a sacrifice. (See SACRIFICE AND OFFERINGS, § 8.) The Lord’s Supper, however, was to be not only a memorial festival, but also a symbol of Christ’s present relation to the believer. Through the bread and the cup the believer was to represent to himself the nourishing and strengthening of his inner life by communion with Christ. It has been alleged, upon the basis of comparative religion, that in the pagan faiths there are parallels to the eating of food which is believed either to be, or to represent, the Divine life and thus to bring the worshiper into vital rela- tions with the Deity. Thus in the cult of Dionysus, a bull which was regarded as the incarnation of the god of fertility, was torn and its flesh eaten raw, in order that his divine life might be transmitted to those who took part in the ceremony. (Cf. other illustrative details in Frazer, Golden Bough, II, 260- 300; Percy Gardner, Expl. Evang., 240 ff.) But whether such antecedents underlay the Christian sacrament at its inception or not, it is evident that its meaning was primarily that of the mystic infu- sion of the spirit of Christ symbolized in the external act of the eating of acommon meal. The thought is dimly present in the sacrificial festival-meal of the earlier Israelitic ritual. (Cf. SacriFICE AND OFFER- INGS, §3.) The institution was doubtless developed out of the O T Passover, and conveys in an exalted and spiritualized form the idea that in partaking of a sacrifice one enters into communion with God. This is only a part of the significance of the Lord’s Supper, but it is a prominent part. On the othor hand, while it is possible to lay undue stress on the influence of ideas drawn from the mystery cults of pagan religions on the Lord’s Supper, it is not neces- sary to deny the kinship between the symbolism used in the institution and the sacraments of the mystery cults, in order to realize its spiritual import. Even in such passages as Jn ch. 6 the main stress is on the spiritual significance of the metaphorical language; and the Church in the Apostolic and sub- Apostolic ages clearly perceived this. The words, ‘Having given thanks’ in Lk 22 17-19 (eiyapiothcag .. . edyaptoticas), denoting prob- ably an act in the old paschal ritual, have served as the ground for one of the names of the Lord’s Supper in the historical usage of the Church (the Eucharist). For the modern mind, the meaning of the Lord’s Supper, as presented in the N T, may be found (1) in the commemorative aspect of it, bringing to mind the redemptive death of Christ, (2) in the expression of communion with God under the new covenant, (3) in the communion of the disciples with one another, (4) in the promotion of the spirit of grati- tude (Eucharist) for redemption, and (5) in the realization of the anticipation of the completed redemption in the future (‘till he come’). Lirerature: Schultzen, Das Abendmahl im N T (1895); Adamson, The Christian Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper (1905); Lambert, The Sacraments in the N T (1903); Perey Gardner, Origin of the Lord’s Supper (1898); J. E. Simpson, Sacrament of the Gospel (1914); A. Gardner, History of the Sacrament (1921). A. C. Z. LO-RUHAMAH, 16”ru-hé/ma (712177 NY, 1a’ raha- mah), ‘not pitied’: The name of one of Hosea’s children. She was probably so named by the prophet in view of his wife’s infidelity to him. Later when his domestic tragedy enlightened him as to Lud Lot A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 522 the religious condition of Israel, he used the name symbolically of Israel (Hos 1 6, 8, 2 23). See Hosa, § 2. KE. E. N. LOT (wid, lot): According to J, the kinsman of Abram, who emigrated with him from Haran to Canaan (Gn 12 4a), where the relatives at length separated on account of strife between their herds- men. L. took his flocks and his herds to the fertile plain of the Jordan, and ultimately dwelt in the wicked city of Sodom (13 5-13). Angelic guests (cf. He 13 2) warned L. of the impending doom of the cities of the plain (19 1-13; cf. Lk 17 28 f.), and he escaped with his two daughters to the little city of Zoar (19 15-23). His daughters’ husbands, however, ridiculed his fears and refused to leave Sodom (19 14), and his wife (see Lor’s WIFE) also perished. From Zoar, L. and his daughters fled to the hill-country E. of the Jordan, where they lived in a cave (19 30). Here, of incestuous unions, were born Moab, ‘seed of father,’ and Ben-ammi, ‘son of kinsman,’ (19 31-38), the ancestors of the Moabites and the Ammonites (cf. Dt 29, 19; Ps 83.8). According to the document in Gn 14, whose age and origin are much disputed (see CHEDORLAOMER), he was captured in a raid by the eastern kings, but was rescued by his uncle Abram (14 12-16). According to P, L. was the son of Haran, Abram’s brother, and came with him from Ur of the Chaldees (Gn 11 27, 31; 12 5). Most modern scholars explain the story of L. as personifying the characteristics, migrations, and alli- ances of certain tribes of which he was the supposed ancestor (see ParrIARCHS). The name is apparently identical with Ldtan, ‘son’ of Seir (=Esau), and ‘father’ of the Horites (Gn 36 20, 22, 29), and is per- haps to be equated with Lwin (Rwtn), an early Eg. name for Palestine. Lot would thus be the aborigi- nal population of the lands later occupied by Moab and Ammon. The ancestry of the hated nations Moab and Ammon was intended to be brought into disrepute through the punning story of their shame- ful origin. The rescue of Lot by Abram (Gn ch. 14) belongs to a unique portion of the Pentateuch, which must be studied with the aid of the com- mentaries. In rabbinical literature L. is usually represented in an unfavorable light as self-indulgent and quarrel- some (cf. JH,s.v.). The Koran, however, frequently refers to him as a preacher of righteousness (e.g., Sura 29 27 #.; cf. II P 27), and calls the Sodomites ‘the children of Lot.’ The modern Arabic name for the Dead Sea is Bahr Lit, ‘the Sea of Lot.’ L. G. L—L. B. P. LOT: (1) The Heb. word gérdal, always rendered ‘lot,’ ‘lots,’ is probably derived from the root grl, which appears in Arabic words, meaning ‘stones,’ ‘stony place,’ etc.; since in the primitive method of ‘casting lots’ stones were probably used. In Pr 16 33 the lot is said to be ‘cast into the lap,’ and it may be inferred that stones (marked in some way) were placed in the fold of a garment or, perhaps more often, in a vessel of some sort, and then the shaking of the garment, or vessel, would throw a stone out on the ground, according to which the decision was given. Hence the expressions ‘the lot came forth’ (Heb. ‘came up,’ or ‘out’), or ‘fell.’ Other methods, however, may have been employed, to which these same terms would apply. The lot was but one means of divination employed by the Hebrews. Others were the ephod (q.v.) and the Urim and Thummim (q.v.). The lot was used to de- termine such cases as the inheritances of the tribes (Nu 26 55; Jos 14 2, etc.), the courses of the priests, and Levites (I Ch 6 54 ff., 24 5, 26 14), the scapegoat on the Day of Atonement (Lv 168 ff.), the discovery of one guilty of some sin (Jon 1 7); 7.e., In cases in which Divine guidance was desired, or in which the decision was left to chance (cf. the two N T instances, Ac 1 26and Mk 15 24 and ||s, where the Gr. is xAjeos). Ina few cases the word is used to indicate one’s fate or condition in life (Pr 1 14; Is 17 14; Jer 13 25). In other cases the term is used for the landed inheritance resulting from the lot (Jos 15 1; Jg 13; Ps 16 5, etc.). (2) In a few instances ‘lot’ renders the Heb. hebhel, ‘line’ (Dt 32 9; I Ch 16 18; Ps 10511). See LIne. E. E. N. LOTAN, 10’tan (yr, lotén): The ancestral head of a Horite (cave-dwelling) clan of the same name (Gn 36 20-29; I Ch 1 38). Some connection between Lotan and Lot, Abram’s nephew, is likely (Skinner, ICC on Gn 11 27), Note that Lot dwelt in a cave (Gn 19 30). See Lor. E. E. N. LOT’S WIFE: The wife of Lot is said by the J document to have disobeyed the angelic command (Gn 19 17) while fleeing from Sodom, and to have looked backward, whereupon she became a pillar of salt (19 26). Christ refers to her fate as a warning against thinking of the safety of worldly goods at the advent of the Son of Man (Lk 17 32). Salt formations are common near the 8. end of the Dead Sea. Jebel Usdum, ‘Mount Sodom,’ is a ridge of rock salt 5 m. long and several hundred ft. high. Near its base are numerous detached pin- nacles of salt, and at different times particular ‘pillars’ have been popularly identified with Lot’s wife (Wis 107; Jos. Ant. I, 11 4; or by the modern Arabs with ‘Lot’s daughter’; cf. the frontispiece in Stanley’s Sinai and Palestine). See Thompson, Land and Book, I, 295 ff., with illustration; Palmer, Desert of Exodus, I], 478 ff.; Baedeker, Palestine (1906), p. 173. L.G.L.—L. B. P. LOTUS-TREE. (0°?8¥, tse Slim, pl.). ‘The Zisyphus Lotus, a low thorny shrub, which loves warm and moist low-lying regions’ (Driver-Gray, ICC) mentioned in Job 40 21. (‘Shady trees’ AV © as a favorite haunt of the hippopotamus. HK. E. N. LOVE: 1. Early Form of Conception. The idea of love occupies a central place in the religion of the Bible as a whole. In the earlier writings the con- ception is that of a human affection as between individuals of the same sex or of opposite sexes. David’s tender feeling toward Jonathan and Jona- than’s toward David is love (ahdbhah, II S 1 26). But in the same passage the ideal of such love in its full strength and purity is recognized to be the love of a woman (cf. Gn 29 20; Ezk 16 8, 2317). Thisisa conception which naturally does not disappear in later Biblical usage (Song 2 4f., 35, 86f.; Ec 96). 523 2. Love of God to Man. (1) Inthe O T. The prophets seize upon this conception, and use it as the figure of the particular feeling of J” toward Israel. The first to present God as loving His chosen people is Hosea (Hos chs. 1-8, and 114). But the thought is taken up by Jeremiah (2 2, 31 3), and becomes very common—in fact, characteristic—of the relation in which J” is represented as sustaining to His people (Is 63 9). He is the Shepherd, the Father, the Guardian, in all of which capacities He is actuated by the tenderest. affection. (2) In the N T. At the very outset, the teaching of Jesus reveals love as the central and dominant affection of God. In fact, God’s love is all-comprehensive, not being limited to any race, but extending beyond the bounds which the O T seers had seen as limiting it. In the Synoptics, the revelation is contained im- plicitly in the various phases of the doctrine of God’s fatherhood. In the Johannine reports of the teach- ing of Jesus it is explicit (Jn 316). The conception is fully presented by Paul (Ro 5 5, 8 35, 39), and by John (I Jn 48f., etc.) as the basis of redemption from sin. 3. Love of Manto God. (1) Loveto J” intheO T. The love of the faithful to God is even more clearly defined. It is a condition of the normal life, which results in blessing (Ex 20 6), and must reach the highest possible pitch of intensity and the largest fulness (Dt 65). This is the note that remains con- stant in the religion of Israel amidst its changing forms of thought and worship. From the Song of Deborah (Jg 5 31) to the Psalms of the latest period (Ps 145 20, 146 8) the love for J” is a characteristic of the Israelite, and the ground of the good pleasure of J’ inhim. (2) Love to God in the Teaching of Jesus. But tho this condition is at the root of obedience to the Law of God throughout the O T, it assumes a new significance in the teaching of Jesus, who fixed the eyes of His disciples upon it, as distinguished from its consequences. It was possible to entertain regard for these consequences and obey the Law out- wardly from motives other than love. On the law of love the commandments and the prophetic teach- ings had grown as ripe fruit upon a living plant (Mt 22 40). Apart from this connection they would be futile. What it was necessary to strive for and at- tain was not obedience to commandments as such, but conformity to the will of God because of love to Him. The teaching of the N T throughout is simply the unfolding of this principle. Hence the idea of love is raised into the place of a new com- mandment (Jn 13 34). It is even called the ‘law’ (Ja 2 8). 4.Love Among Men. (1) Love the Basis of Ethics. The law of love is through the N T the basis of Christian ethics. What Jesus says of the funda- mental and controlling place of love in the O T ethics He means to apply to all ethics, and both Paul and James make the application accordingly. Every commandment intended to govern the relations of men is fulfilled in the commandment of love (Gal 514; Ro 138). (2) Brotherly Love. But the law of love reaches its intensest and fullest expression in the peculiar bond which faith in Jesus Christ creates among its individual possessors. These constitute a brotherhood; and the love that brings and keeps A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Lot Lud them together is brotherly love (g:AadeAgia). When the affection is commended to them, it is done by the use of the same term (He 13 1). What dis- tinguishes the believer’s feeling toward God and Christ. is, however, specifically éyéxn, ‘the love of delight.’ Christian love is thus the distinctive ele- ment of the fully developed religion of the Bible. As such it is made the subject of special treatment in two particularly significant passages (I Co ch. 13; I Jn ch. 4) AC ae LOVE-FEAST. See Cuurca Lirg, § 2. LOVING-KINDNESS: This is a predominantly Biblical word. It translates the Heb. hesedh, and this, in the main, when that word is used to express God’s love to man. In many places, however, the same Heb. word, when used of God’s love to man, -was in AV rendered ‘mercy’ (Gn 19 19, 24 27, etc.), ‘goodness’ (Ex 34 6), ‘kindness’ (Ps 31 21), ‘merci- ful kindness’ (Ps 117 2). ERV, tho showing a preference for the distinctive term ‘loving-kindness,’ preserves in most of these passages the older term; but ARV introduces ‘loving-kindness’ throughout (cf. also Oxf. Heb. Lex. s.v. 19%, II). See also Gop, § 2. Av Coz: LOW COUNTRY, LOWLAND: The Heb. term shephélah (from shadphél, ‘to be low,’ ‘sink down’) was given to the region between the central range of Palestine and the seacoast plain, which is partly highland, partly lowland, and, from the point of view of the highlander, continually ‘falls’ toward the sea. It is uniformly rendered ‘lowland’ in RV. The AV often renders it ‘valley,’ or ‘vale’ (Dt 1 7; Jos 91, 11 2, etc.), or ‘plain’ (I Ch 27 28, etc.), only rarely ‘lowland.’ See Pauestinn, § 11, and ef. G. A. Smith, HG HAL, pp. 199-237. K. E. N. LOWEST HELL. See Escuatouoey, § 18. LUBIM, li’bim. NOLOGY, §§ 7 and 138. LUCAS, li’kas. See LuKE. LUCIFER, li’si-for. See Day-Srar. LUCIUS, lit’Sshus (Aodxtocg): 1. Lucius of Cyrene, mentioned among the prophets and teachers in the church at Antioch (Ac 181). 2. Lucius, whom Paul calls his fellow countryman (ovyyevns, Ro 16 21; cf. Ro 9 3). Possibly to be identified with 1. This is all the more likely if the Jason of Ro 16 21 and of Ac 17 5, 7, 9 are identical, and if the Sosipater of Ro 16 21 is the same as the Sopater of Ac 20 4. Origen (Hom. in Rom. 16 21) identifies L. with Luke (Aouxés) the physician, but the names are philologi- cally distinct. di, VEE LUD, lud (799, ladh), LUDIM, la’dim (09, la- dhim): The name of apparently two races mentioned in the O T, a Semitic and an Egyptian. (1) The Semitic. According to Gn 10 22, Lud was one of the five sons of Shem. Commentators have very gen- erally identified Lud with Lydus, the eponymous ancestor of the Lydians., The difficulty with this view is that the Lydians were not a Semitic race, and their civilization had no connection with that of Assyria. Possibly Lud was the name of a lost North Syrian tribe. (2) The Egyptian. The Ludim are said to be begotten by Mizraim, or Egypt (Gn 10 13— See ETHNOGRAPHY AND EVTH- Luhith Luke, Gospel of A NEW STANDARD the phrase ‘begot’ denoting a geographical relation rather than actual descent). They appear as mer- cenaries in the Tyrian and Egyptian armies, and are famous as archers (Is 66 19; Jer 46 9; Ezk 27 10). Various conjectures have been made as to the identity of the Ludim. Some have cut the Gordian knot by emending the text and reading ‘Libyans.’ Others have regarded them as identical with Lud (Gn 10 22), z.e., Lydians. This conjecture is sup- ported by the LX X. (Ezk 30 5), where ‘Lud’ is ren- dered ‘Lydians.’ According to this theory, Lydians were settled in NE. Egypt. Others have identified them with the Berber tribe Lewdta; still others with the Rebu=Lebu, who inhabited Cyrenaica (see ETHNOGRAPHY AND ETHNOLOGY, § 138). J. A. K. LUHITH, liw’/hith (M7, M°N?, Iwhith): The ‘as- cent of Luhith’ was in Moab, S. of the Arnon. According to Eusebius (Onom.), there was a place of that name between Areopolis (Rabbath-Moab) and Zoar. It was the way of escape for Moabites fleeing to Zoar (Is 15 5; Jer 48 5). COh: LUKE, LUKAS, (Aovxés, probably pet name for Aobxtog): One of Paul’s companions and fellow workers, identified by some, but improbably, with Lucius of Cyrene (Ac 13 1). He is mentioned by name in only three passages, and all these are in the Epistles of Paul (Col 4 14; Phm ver. 24; If Ti 4 11). At the same time, the critical certainty of his authorship of the Third Gospel and the Book of Acts places at our disposal the so called diary passages in the latter writing (16 10-17, 20 5-21 18, 27 1-28 16) as additional sources for our knowledge of his life and work in the early Church. From the first passage (16 10-17) we learn that L. accompanied the Apostle from Troas to Phi- lippi on his second mission journey. The second pas- sage (20 5-21 18) tells us that some six years later, on the third mission tour, L. was again with Paul at Phi- lippi, from which place he journeyed with the Apostle to Jerusalem. It may be that L. spent these inter- vening years in Philippi, carrying on, as the Aposile’s representative, the work begun on the occasion of his first visit to the place. This would be the more likely if Philippi were L.’s home—as has been in- ferred (Renan)—tho the early tradition recorded by Eusebius (2, iii, 4 6) and found in the ancient Argumentum Evangelit Secundum Lucan (ec. 225 A.D.) makes him a native of Antioch or as belonging to an Antiochian family (see Ramsay, Luke the Physician, pp. 65-68). The third passage (27 1-28 16) shows him as Paul’s companion on his voyage to Rome. The references made to him by the Apostle are all in the Epistles written during his two imprisonments at Rome. In Col (4 14) he is mentioned simply as among those in Paul’s company sending salutations to the Colossian Christians; similarly in Phm (ver. 24) he is among those greeting the Colossian Christians to whom the Apostle is writing; while in II Ti (411) he is spoken of as the only one who had re- mained faithfully by the Apostle as the fatal ending to his captivity drew near. While these items seem relatively unimportant, they show us that L.’s fidel- ity to Paul kept him at the Apostle’s side through at least a portion of his first imprisonment—Col and BIBLE DICTIONARY 524 Phm having been written previous to Ph which was composed near the close of that period. They also disclose him as with the Apostle at the end of his second imprisonment—II Ti being his last letter. It may well be, therefore, that he was with the Apos- tles during his brief return to his Eastern mission- field and his second journey as a captive to Rome. The evidence gathered from the Third Gospel and from Ac that their author was a Gentile Christian is confirmed by the fact that in the Col passage L. belongs to the Apostle’s fellow workers who are marked off from those ‘who are of the circumcision’ (ver. 11). That he was a Greek rather than a Roman is shown, not merely by his versatility, his apprecia- tion of humor and his knowledge of the sea, but by his reference to the inhabitants of Malta as ‘bar- barians’ (Ac 28 2-4), which was after the manner of a Greek. The reference to him in the Col passage as a ‘physician’ is amply borne out by the language of the Gospel and Ac (for full discussion see Harnack’s Lukas d. Artat (Eng. transl., pp. 175-198] and Plum- mer, Com., pp. lxiii-lxvi), while the literary quality of such portions of his writings as are most likely the products of his own style (e.g., the prolog of the Gospel and the diary sections of Ac) show him to have been a man of culture as well as of scientific education. For the theory that he had personal knowledge of the events given in his Gospel, whether or not his knowledge was dependable, see Cadbury, Expositor, 1922, pp. 401-420. The legend which makes him a painter and assigns to him a picture of the Virgin found at Jerusalem is unreliable. For discussion of his authorship of the Third Gospel and Ac, as well as his tendencies of theolog- ical thought, see articles on these books. LiTERATURE: Consult in general the literature given for the following article, and article on Acts: especially Commen- taries on Luke and Acts: also Ramsay, St. Paul the Trav- eler (1904) and Luke the Physician (1908, ch. I); Harnack, Lukas der Artzt (1906), Eng. transl. (1908); McLachlan, Si. Luke, Evangelist and Historian (1912), and Lives of Paul. M. W. J. LUKE, GOSPEL OF: 1. Authorship. The third of the Synoptic Gospels (see GospEL, GOSPELS, § 3). In common with all the narrative writings of the N T, it attaches to itself no name of author, tho, together with Ac, it states distinctly for whom it was written (1 3). In fact, this dedication is admittedly so like that of Ac that the reference in the latter to ‘the former treatise’ (1 1) is universally recognized as a reference to this Third Gospel; so that both books are acknowledged as being by the same author. This is confirmed by the significant continuity dis- closed by the closing passage of the Gospel (24 44-53) and the opening passage of Ac (1 1-14) and by striking similarity in the general style and in the specific linguistic peculiarities of the two writings. (For a detailed display of these linguistic peculiar- ities cf. Plummer, in Int. Crit. Com., pp. xlviii-lxvi; Zahn, Introduction [Eng. transl.], § 61, notes 11-13.) This, however, is no help to a discovery of the author’s identity, for Ac tells us nothing more of its author than does the Gospel. Our only recourse, therefore, is to a critical induction of the Gospel, with help from Ac, as to such indications as bear upon its origin. 525 (a) Outline. An outline of its contents presents the following narrative scheme: Chs, 1 and 2 contain the introductory portion, consisting of the prolog (1 4-4) and the preliminary history, 7.e., the birth and early years of Jesus and the Baptist (1 5-2 %), The remaining chapters are taken up with the narrative proper, which is divided into two parts: (I) The active ministry of Jesus (3 1-21 88) and (II) His passion, resurrection, and ascen- sion (22 1-24 58), (1) The active ministry is presented in a way which conceives of it somewhat differently from the way in which it is viewed by the other two Evangelists. After a preliminary narrative (3 1-4 13), which gives the political situa- tion at the opening of the Gospel events (3 }. 28), an account of the ministry of the Baptist (3 2b-18)—to which is added an ac- count of his death, later in the history (3 19 f-)—and an ac- count of the induction of Jesus into His work, through His baptism (3 21 f-) and His temptation (4 !8)—between which is interpolated His genealogy (3 28-%8)—the Ministry in Galilee is taken up and presented as His popular work, i.e., His work among the people (4 4-9 17), In this, taking Mk’s sequence of events as the standard, there are some displacements (e.g., 5 1-11 should precede 4 %1b~87, and 8 4-18 should follow 8 1921, while 11 144-36 has been placed in the later ministry, tho it should really precede 8 19-21), The reason for the first two misplacements may be due to document sources peculiar to the Evangelist; the reason for the latter will be apparent when we see that the period between the Galilean and the Jerusalem ministry is considered by the Evangelist as Jesus’ Hducational work, t.e., the work in which He gave Himself particularly to the instruction and training of His followers (9 18-19 28); for this passage (11 14-88) is looked at from this point of view, tho really it is part of the event recorded in Mk 3 29-80, which occurred as the climax of the second preaching tour (see Synopric PROBLEM, § 6). This educational work is represented as carried on (1) in regions near to Galilee (9 185°) and (2) in regions covered by journeys to Jerusalem (9 5!-19 28), The latter portion includes some significant discourses (e.g., those connected with the mis- sion of the Seventy, 10 1-*4, with the request of the disciples con- cerning prayer, 11 1, with the ceremonial criticism in the Pharisee’s house 11 37-12 12 [cf. 13 1°17, 14 14], with the request concerning inheritance 12 13-59, and that concerning the signs of the times 17 2-37) and a number of His more elaborate parables (e.g., the Good Samaritan 10 *-37, the Rich Fool 12 13-21, the Lost Sheep, the Lost Coin, and the Prodigal Son, ch. 15, the Unjust Steward and Dives and Lazarus, ch. 16, the Unjust Judge, 18 1-8, the Pharisee and the Publican, 18 94, the Ten Pounds 19 1-27), and in its general contents is peculiar to the narrative of this Gospel, not being paralleled by either of the other Synoptics. The Jerusalem Ministry, with the public entry into the city, extends from 19 % to 21 88, consisting largely in controversies with the authorities, aroused by their challeng- ing questions (20 1-8. 20-49), illustrated by parables (20 19), and closed by His eschatological discourse (21 5-88), all of which are paralleled by the other Gospels. (II) Then follows the narrative of the Passion (22 1-23 56*), the Resurrection (23 56b-24 12), with the subsequent appearances to the disciples (24 18~43)—-which, in distinction from the other Gospels, are located in the neighbor- hood of Jerusalem—closing with the only account given by the Gospels of the Ascension (24 4458), (b) Prolog. In the closer study of this outline it becomes at once apparent that the statements of the prolog are significant in their bearing upon the Gospel’s origin; for they tell us (1) that there were in existence at the time of the Gospel’s writing many written ordered narratives of the Gospel history (1 1); (2) that these narratives were based, chiefly at least, upon oral tradition, handed down by those who participated in these events (ver. 2); (3) that these narratives, apparently not seeming satisfac- tory to the author, he had made an accurate inves- tigation of all the facts from the beginning, on the basis of which he had written to Theophilus in chronological sequence (xa%e§qs), in order that he might know the certainty (écgéAetav) concerning the things (or ‘words,’ ‘stories’) in which he had been instructed (xept dy xatnxnOns Adywy). As to the A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Luhith Luke, Gospel of element of investigation in this process, however, see Cadbury in Expositor (1922), pp. 401-420. These statements would seem to indicate that the author was not an eye-witness of the Gospel events, tho not necessarily outside of the Gospel genera- tion; for his Gospel, while dependent upon an in- vestigation of the facts, evidently accomplished that investigation through a personal examination of oral sources of information, rather than through a critical study of written documents. In addition, he states distinctly that these events occurred in the genera- tion to which he himself belonged (cf. the fuiv of ver. 1). (c) Literary Character. The fact that the author gave himself to such examination would seem to suggest that he was possessed of literary capacity, which is borne out by the classical character of the _prolog itself and the essential superiority in style of the rest of the book over that of the other Gospels (cf. Plummer, as cited above). This is brought out conspicuously in Ac, where, in the portions which relate the author’s personal experience (16 10-17, 20 5-21 18, 27 1-28 16), he exhibits a literary style, which shows his ability to write when not constrained by the style of his sources (cf. these sections with the distinctly Aramaic style of the first half of the book). In fact, if it be claimed that the Aramaic style of the first part of Ac and of the chapters in the Gospel which immediately follow the prolog is due to the author’s adaptation of his narrative to the distinctly Jewish events narrated, it simply shows in stronger light his literary versatility. From this it is natural to infer that the author was a Gentile Christian of Greek culture, which indeed has never been ques- tioned by scholars. (d) Pauline Character. A broader study of the Gospel’s contents gives indication of a spirit and line of thinking which are strikingly like Paul’s. Beyond a coincidence with Paul’s Epistles in vocabulary and phraseology (cf. Plummer, pp. liv-lix for list), there is in the material peculiar to the Gospels such a breath of national view (e.g., 2 32, 4 25 ff., 9 52-55, 10 25-37, 13 28-30, 24 47 [cf. Mt 6 32, 10 5, 18]) and such an emergence of characteristic Pauline doctrine (e.g., the graciousness of forgiveness, 7 36-50, ch 15, 23 39-43; the non-merit of mere works, 13 24-30, 17 7-10; the modifying influence of ignorance and unbelief, 12 47 £., 23 34) that it seems reasonable to believe not only that the author was acquainted with Paul’s teaching but that he selected his material in sym- pathy with it. (e) Theophilus. As to the Theophilus addressed in these writings, he evidently was a Gentile, since the Gospel was written obviously for one who was not only unfamiliar with Palestine geography, but was not even acquainted with Jewish customs. He was also apparently a man of rank (xpd&ttote; ef. author’s use of this word in Ac 23 26, 24 3, 26 25). There is no hint as to his residence, tho tradition places it at Antioch. (f) Motive. The motive in sending him the Gospel is distinctly stated in the prolog to be in order that he might have certain knowledge of the matters re- garding which he had been instructed (1 4). From this it is evident that he was favorably inclined Luke, Gospel of A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 526 toward Christianity and had had some information, if not distinct instruction, regarding its claims. It was the author’s purpose to win him fully to the new religion by placing before him in their full historical setting the Gospel stories (Aéyor) which had been told him. (g) Time. As to the time when the Gospel was written, it must be clear from a comparison of 19 41-44 and 21 20-24 with parallels in Mt (24 15-28) and Mk (13 14-23) that the author is writing from a point of view taken when these events of the pre- dicted catastrophe of Judaism had occurred. Both passages are peculiar to this Gospel and contain (especially 19 41-44) military terms, lacking in the other Synoptics, which would readily agree with the presence before the writer’s mind of the actual events, while the announcement of the Parousia is connected, not so much with the definite event of the downtreading of Jerusalem by the Gentiles, as with the indefinite event of the times of the Gentiles being fulfilled (21 24), which would seem to place it further in the future, in the mind of the author, than in that of either of the other Synoptists (cf. the eb0éws of Mt 24 29 and the év éxetvats tats huéeats of Mk 13 24 with the indefinite statement of Lk 21 25). If Luke was with Paul during his Cesarean impris- onment, he would have had abundant opportunity, both there and in Jerusalem, to secure information oral and written, tho if Mk was not written until near the close of Paul’s Roman imprisonment (63 A.D , see Mark, GosPEL oF), there would be no likelihood of his having known of that Gospel until his return with Paul to his final imprisonment, or of his having made use of it until after Paul’s death (66 a.p.) and it had become established among the churches generally as the record of the Gospel history. Tak- ing all things into consideration, therefore, it is not probable that it was written until after 70 a.p.; tho from its early currency in the post-Apostolic Church (see § 2 below) and much more from the early character of its thought (see § 4, below) it is not likely to have been much later than this date. Per- haps about 75 a.D. is most probable. (h) Place. No information is given of its place of composition, tho perhaps, in view of the Gentile writer and the Gentile cast of the writing, it was more likely outside of Palestine than within it. This induction leaves the Gospel a thoroughly pos- sible product of the Apostolic age—in fact, in view of the statements of the prolog, makes it impossibly later than the Gospel generation (see § 1 (b) above). It also discloses nothing which prevents its having been written by the man whose name it bears (see preceding article). 2. External Evidence. Both of these conclusions are borne out by the testimony of post-Apostolic literature. Its recognized currency in the Church can be traced back through Tatian (170 a.p.), who makes frequent and abundant use of it and Marcion (140 a.v.), by whom it was the only Gospel ac- cepted and who held it in an abbreviated and cor- rupt form of text, showing that the original text was not a new production in history but had been long enough in use to undergo alteration, to Clem- ent of Rome (100 a.p.), who seems to have had both the Gospel and Acts before him in his Epistle to the Corinthians. From the time of the Mura- torian Canon (170 a.p.) onward the Gospel is dis- tinctly referred to as Luke’s, and this reference is made not as an individual opinion but as the accepted belief of the Church. For the selection of this name rather than that of an Apostolic eye-witness of the events, there must have been strong ground in the facts of the case. The critical conclusion from the above internal and external study of the Gospel is that it was written by Luke, the companion of Paul (see preced- ing article). 3. Sources and Historic Value. That written nar- ratives of the Gospel events were in existence when the Gospel was produced is distinctly stated in the prolog (11). It is most improbable, therefore, that tho Luke by preference made his investigation of facts through the personal sources at his disposal, he made no use whatever of the written sources at his hand. In fact, it is obvious that some of his material must have come from documents (e.g., the Genealogy, 3 23-38, the Annunciation narrative, 15-79, the Nativity story, 21-39, the Childhood record, 2 41-51. Note the evident conclusions of these docu- ments, respectively at 1 80, 2 40, 2 52). Ramsay, however, as opposed to Plummer, considers that the character of the narrative points to an oral source (Was Christ Born in Bethlehem? p. 74 f.). Beyond these individual cases it is clear that there are identities between this Gospel and the First Gospel which are so striking in character as to com- pel the conviction that a common document lies behind them (e.g., 3 7-10, 17=Mt 3 7-10, 12; 4 3-13= Mt 4 3-11; 6 41 £.= Mt 7 3-5; 7 6b-9 = Mt 8 8-10; 7 22-28= Mt 11 4-11; 7 31-35=Mt 11 16-19; 9 58-co=Mt 8 19-22; 11 19 £., 223=Mt 12 27 f., 30; 11 24-22=Mt 12 43-45; 11 29-31=Mt 12 39-42). They can not be due to a mere use of the First Gospel by Luke, since they form only a portion of his parallels with this Gospel, the remainder showing such differences as to raise the question whether he had it before him at all when he wrote (but cf. Allen on Mt in JCC, pp. xlvii-lx). The fact that they are confined to the discourse parallels between these Gospels shows rather that behind them lay a collection of say- ings of Jesus with more or less of narrative set- ting, from which collection these two Evangelists drew much of their discourse material in common, tho in distinctively different ways—Matthew making larger use of the original source as a whole and sub- jecting its contents to his arbitrary grouping plan, Luke using only excerpts of it—and with greater freedom of literary handling (ef. Allen, pp. lix ff., and for the origin and character of this source in general see Synopric PRoBLEM, § 6.). The historical value of the Gospel is in general sup- ported by the historical accuracy of Acts, which is open at so many points to the tests of criticism and has so remarkably sustained its credibility. In fact, there have been but two specific objections lodged against the Gospel’s historicity. The first has to do with the reference to the enrolment mentioned in 21. It is claimed that Augustus never ordered a general enrolment to be made of the whole Roman 527 A NEW STANDARD world and that, even if he did, no enrolment was made in Judea until the governorship of Quirinius over Syria, 6-9 a.p. Egyptian papyri, however, dis- close that in that country there were enrolments by households in periods of 14 years. If an enrolment was made in Syria in 6-7 A.p., a period of 14 years would place this ‘first enrolment’ to which Luke refers in 8-7 B.c., and the lack of disturbance on that occasion, as distinguished from the riot which marked the second (Ac 5 37), might have been due to the fact that it was an enrolment by households for the purpose of census enumeration, as Luke implies (2 3 £.), and not an enrolment of property for the purpose of taxation. It was this latter that charac- terized the enrolment of 6-7 a.p., when Judea had become part of the Roman province of Syria, and which brought about the disturbance. In addition, Herod, through caution, may have postponed the process a year or more, or, being the first enrolment, it may have been slow in getting under way. At all events, what Augustus had ordered was merely that the principle of enrolment-taking be established in the Roman Empire, Luke’s reference being to its actual application in the province of Syria. Such delay, however, would give 7-6, more probably 6, B.c., as the year of Christ’s birth. (See Chronology of N T,§1). The second objection has to do with the governorship of Quirinius, mentioned in 2 2. It is claimed that his only governorship was from 6 to 9 a.p., when he ordered the enrolment referred to in Ac 5 37, and that Luke has ignorantly confused the dates. Apart, however, from the fact that there is inscriptional evidence to the effect that his governor- ship from 6-9 a.p. was his second governorship over Syria, it is shown from inscriptions discovered in 1912 and 1913 at Antioch in Pisidia, dating from 10-7 s.c. that he was engaged during that period in war in Cilicia, which belonged to the province of Syria, and that he held military rule in that prov- ince. Consequently, it would be quite possible that, while Varus, as is known, held the administrative governorship of Syria at that time, Quirinius held a special military rulership over that province, for which Luke would have no other word than jyeney (or hyevovebwy [ptepl.]), ‘governor.’ The time of this rulership would give him a more exact date for Christ’s birth than if he had connected it with the general period of Varus’ administrative office. It would seem, therefore, that, far from opening him- self to the charge of inaccuracy, Luke has given us information of specially historical worth. The old contention that Luke was dependent for his politi- cal dates and facts on Josephus, whose writings he misread, has been generally abandoned. In fact, when their statements can be tested, it is Luke who is more generally found to be accurate and Josephus more often guilty of exaggeration and error. (For full discussion of these objections see Ram- say's Was Christ Born in Bethlehem? and Bearing of Recent Discovery on N T, pp. 238-275.) 4. View Point. The presentation which Luke makes of the teachings of Jesus and his selection among the incidents of the Gospel history bring to notice certain traits in his thinking which are worthy of consideration. (1) As to God: Luke rep- BIBLE DICTIONARY Luke, Gospel of resents Jesus as declaring not only the sovereign power (18 27) and absolute goodness of God (18 18 f.), but also His Divine Fatherhood—primarily toward Jesus’ own disciples, involving a relation to them of care and protection in the outcome of their life of trust and obedience to Him (12 32). At the same time, as compared with Matthew, he makes but slight use of the term Father, tho he alone records the parable of the Prodigal Son (ch. 15), which, in agreement with his spirit of universalism, implies a Fatherly relation extending beyond the circle of actual discipleship; while, unlike Matthew, he makes no use at all of the title King in his representations of Jesus’ ascription of power to God, and records but one of the parables of Kingship and then elimi- nates this King-element from it (e.g., cf. 14 16 with Mt 22 2). (2) As to Jesus Himself: Luke presents Jesus as referring to Himself as the Son of Man and as the Son of God, tho the latter title He never ex- plicitly uses of Himself in any of the Synoptics. By the former title He designates His relation to the Kingdom of God not only as its Founder, in which relation it is His function to seek and to save the lost (19 10), to forgive sins (5 24), to determine the signifi- cance and use of the Sabbath (65) and the conduct of the natural life (7 34), but as its Servant, in which relation He has to surrender the comforts of life (9 58) and to submit to the sufferings of persecution and to the sacrifice of death (9 22, 44, 18 31, 22 22, 48), in return for which, however, is to come to Him at last the glory of His revelation and His exaltation in the consummation of the Kingdom (12 8, 40, 17 22- 30, 21 27, 36, 22 69). In these passages the reference to the redemptive function (19 10) and to the betrayal at the hands of Judas (22 22, 48) are peculiar to Luke. Tho, as said above, the title Son of God is never explicitly used by Jesus of Himself and the relation- ship which the title involves is implicitly asserted only in a few passages (Lk 2 49, 10 22 [Mt 11 27]; Lk 22 29, 42, 23 34, 46, 24 49 and the parable of the Vineyard, Lk 20 9-18 and ||s), yet in this relation- ship there is claimed a unique intimacy with God, involving a mutual knowledge of uncomparable character (10 22), a mutual harmony of will in ab- solute devotion on the filial side (22 42) and in abso- lute acquiescence on the Father’s side (23 34) a distinct representativeship by way both of commis- sion from God to His people (20 9-18, 22 29, 24 49) and of being entrusted by God with a work to be accom- plished (2 49; cf. the consciousness of its accom- plishment in the cry 23 46 [Jn 19 30]). It isto be noted that the seemingly deprecatory passage (Mk 13 32) does not appear in Lk, nor does the apparently despairing cry on the Cross, ‘My God, why hast thou forsaken me?’ (Mt 27 46; Mk 15 34), while the final word of intimate trustfulness and the interces- sory plea (23 34, 46) on the Cross, and the childhood passage of whole-hearted devotion (2 49) as well as the less significant statements of 22 29, 49 are given by Lk alone. Altho Jesus is thus represented as but in a slight way referring to His personal relationship with God, He is at the same time shown as acquiesc- ing in the application of this Divine title to Himself by others. This is significant in the two instances of the heavenly reference to Him as Son, where it is Luke, Gospel of Lysias A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 528 implied that He stands as the unique object of the Father’s pleasure (3 22, 9 35), and in the Tempter’s and in the Demoniac’s reference to Him as the Son of God, where His possession of supernatural power is implied (4 3, 9, 8 28). Mark and Matthew record other occasions on which the title is given to Jesus, both by His friends and by His enemies; Luke, how- ever, but twice records such references, and these are by the demons at Capernaum (4 41) and by the high priest at His trial (2270), in both of which cases the title is used apparently in nothing more than a Messianic sense. While Mark consistently presents Jesus throughout his narrative as the Wonder Worker, whose ministry impresses the people with its marvel, Luke begins his narrative with a nativity story in which the wonder element is developed throughout the story; alone of all the Synoptists, he applies to Jesus the title Lord (5 17, 713 101 39 41, 11 39, 12 42, 13 15, 175 £., 186, 19 8, 22 61, 243 34); and alone closes his narrative with the wonder of the Ascension and the promise of the sending of the Holy Spirit (24 49-51). It is noticeable that this Evangelist frequently represents Jesus not only as Himself holding communion with God in prayer (3 21, 5 16, 6 12, 9 18, 23 f., 111 22 32, 41, 44f£), but as urging prayer upon His disciples as the need of their spiritual life (6 28, 11 5-13, 18 1 #., 21 36, 22 40, 46.) (3) As to the Kingdom of God: While Luke represents Jesus as making use of the current theocratic phrase ‘the kingdom of God’ (kingdom of heaven’ in Mt), he is particular to bring out Jesus’ conception of its non-national and non-political character. It is Luke alone who records Jesus’ address at the Nazareth synagog, in which He discloses the nar- rowness of the people’s national idea of the Kingdom (4 16-30); it is Luke alone who has preseverd the parable of the Good Samaritan (10 25 37), the inci- dent of the Ten Lepers (17 11-19), and Jesus’ rebuke of His disciples’ national bigotry, when they desired to punish the Samaritans for not receiving them on their journey (9 51-56), in contrast with which is Mat- thew’s record of Jesus’ instruction to the Twelve (10 5 #f.; cf. also 15 24); and it is Luke alone who records Jesus’ reply to the Pharisee’s inquiry as to when the Kingdom of God should appear (17 20 #.), emphasizing the distinctive character of this teach- ing by showing the slowness with which Jesus’ own disciples apprehended it (24 21; Ac 16). It might seem that in his version of the Beatitudes Matthew brings out more distinctly the spiritual nature of the Kingdom in his description of the character of its subjects (cf Mt 51 #. with Lk 6 20 #.); but that Luke’s conception of the Kingdom is not a physical one is evident from his portrayal of its spiritual characteristics in the parables of Grace and Forgive- ness, which he alone records (e.g., Lost Sheep, ch. 15 3-7; Lost Coin, 15 8-10; Prodigal Son, 15 11-32; Dives and Lazarus, 16 19-31; Pharisee and Publican, 18 9-14; cf. 7 36-50). He has also emphsaized more than the other Synoptists the conditions of suffer- ing and self-sacrifice necessary for entrance into it (cf. 9 61 £., 14 28-35, 16 1-13). In agreement with this spiritual conception of the Kingdom, it is noticeable that Luke does not record those parables of the Kingdom which represent it as an objective good to be appropriated by men (Hid Treasure Mt 13 44; Costly Pearl, Mt 18 45 f.; cf. the parable of the Great Supper, 14 16-24 = Mt 22 2-14; emphasizing the gra- cionsness of the invitation rather than the material benefit of the feast). Itis also in agreement with this ~ spiritual idea that he brings out the universal pur- pose of the Kingdom (cf. the added citation in 3 6, the notes of universalism in the Nativity section, 1 79, 2 32, the historical statements, 4 25- 27, the com- mission to the Seventy 101 1., the Gentile factor in the Kingdom’s future 21 24). At the same time, it is strange that he makes no record of Jesus’ ministry in the regions of Tyre and Sidon (cf. Mk 7 24-8 26 and Mt ||). See Synopric ProsieM, §7. (4) As to the Messianic Salvation: Luke seems to represent Jesus as assigning eternal life to the world to come (18 30), and yet he makes clear that the salvation which Jesus bestows upon His disciples covers the present as well as the future life (zbid.). It does not consist in material things (12 33); in fact, he shows in the parable of the Rich Fool in what glaring con~ trast to them it stands (12 16-21). At the same time, it more than makes up for the loss of these things (18 29 f.), and even seems to secure them in the best sense of their possession (12 22-31). As to the general conditions on which this salvation is bestowed, Luke presents Jesus as laying emphasis upon the significance of personal relations to Himself (10 16, 12 8; cf. 10 21-24). Inthe matter of the more definite conditions of repentance and faith, however, he makes but slight mention of the former of them, rep- resenting Jesus as speaking of repentance but twice —once in His earlier ministry (5 32) and again in His closing commission to His disciples (24 47). He gives more prominence to faith, mentioning it several times as referred to by Jesus (5 20, 7 9, 7 50, 8 48, 8 50, 17 19, 18 8, 42, which is natural in one so Pauline in his way of thinking as this Evangelist. (See § 1d, above.) At the same time it is remarkable that as to the means by which the bestowal of this salvation is made possible, he alone does not refer to the death of Jesus (cf. Mk 10 45 and Mt 26 28), beyond recording His general remark to the disciples on the way to Emmaus (24 25-29). On the other hand, it is noteworthy, as an early element in his thinking, to what an extent Luke—as James in his Epistle—connects poverty and humbleness of social rank with possession of the blessings of the Kingdom (cf. Parable of Dives and Lazarus, ch. 16; the Lukan version of the Beatitudes, ch. 6; the O T passage read by Jesus in the Nazareth Synagog, 4 18; and the following: 12 33 [cf. Mt 6 19], 3 11, 5 11, 28 [ef. Mt 4 22, 99], 6 27, 30, 38, 11 41, 14 12-14, 21, 33, 19 8). (5) As to Eschatology: Luke has blended many of the teachings of Jesus regarding the progress and development of His Kingdom with His announce- ment of its consummation at His Second Coming (e.g., cf. eschatological address, ch. 21, and the passage and parable, 17 20-18 8), tho, as said under (3) above, the spiritual character of this develop- ment and consummation is perhaps more conspicu- ous in Lk than in the other Synopties (cf. 17 20-18 8). So also in the presentation of the Judgment Luke blends Jesus’ teachings as to the process of judge ment with those as to its final pronouncement; tho 529 he is less inclined than the others to display the crisis element in it (ef. 18 25-27 with Mt 7 21-23, 6 43-45 with Mt 12 33-37), which also is in agreement with his conception of the definite spiritual character of the Kingdom. Along with these profounder ideas one should not lose sight of the fact that Luke seems to exhibit in his choice of material, particularly his Parables (6), a special appreciation of Prayer, (a) in its significance as observed by Jesus (8 21, 5 16, 6 12, 9 18, 29,111, cf. 22 31 £.), (b) in the need of its obser- vance by others (cf. Parables which enjoin persistence in prayer, 11 5-13, 18 1-8, and the value of real prayer 18 11-14, as also the admonitions to the Twelve, 21 36, 22 32, 40 (7) a peculiar tenderness toward the Sinful (Cf. the three Parables of ch. 15; also 7 36-50, 19 2-10, 23 39-43 (Note [1]); and (8) a marked sym- pathy with the poor (1 53, 2 24, 418, 6 20, 7 22, 1413f., 16 20, 25). Lirpraturn: Among the Introductions, those of Jiilicker (Eng. trans., 1904) and Zahn (Eng. trans., second edition, 1917) best represent respectively the liberal and conservative ele- ments in German scholarship. Moffatt, The New Test. Intro- duction, in the International Theol. Library (1911), pp. 261- 282, represents the more critical English view-point. In addi- tion to these the following shorter introductions should be consulted: Bacon, New Test. Introduction (1900); Robinson, Study of the Gospels (1902); Burton, Short Iniro. to the Gos- pels (1904); Peake, New Test. Introduction (1901). The best commentaries are: Plummer, in Inter. Crit. Com. (1896); Bruce, in Expos. Gk. Test. (1897); Adeney, in New Century Bible (1901). Special works are: Harnack, Luke, the Physi- cian, in Crown Theol. Library (1908); Ramsay, Luke the Physician (1908); McLachlan, St. Luke, the Man and His Work (1920). For the theology of the Gospel, consult Ste- vens, New Test. Theol. (Inter. Theol. Library, 1899) and Holtzmann, Lehrb. d. neut’lichen Theologie (1897), espec. pp. 438-454; Moffatt, The Theology of the Gospels (1913). The following Lives of Christ may be consulted: Weiss (Eng. trans., 1894); Holtzmann (Eng. trans., 1904) representing respectively the evangelical and purely critical German view-point: Edersheim, Jesus the Messiah (one vol. ed., 1890), giving the Jewish background; Smith, In the Days of His Flesh (1905), a more popular presentation; Headlam (1924), scholarly, tho incomplete. M. W. J. LUNATIC: The AV rendering of Gr. ceAnve- Gouevoc (fr. ceAqyy ‘moon’) for which RV substi- tutes ‘epileptic.’ See Dismasp anp Mepicrne, ITI. LUST: The rendering in verbal and substantive forms of several Heb. and Gr. words: (1) In the O T the noun does not occur in RV; on Ex 15 9; Ps 78 18, 81 12 (all AV), cf. the more correct rendering in RV. (a) ’Gwah, ‘to desire,’ or ‘to wish’; the special sense is to be determined by the context (Nu 11 34; Ps 10614, andin AV Dt 1215, 20f., 1426). InNul1l4 we have ta’dwah, lusting AV, from the same root. (b) haémadh, ‘to desire,’ stronger than (1), usually rendered ‘covet’ (Pr 6 25). (2) Inthe N T. (a) The noun éxQuula, of frequent occurrence, is usually rendered ‘lust.’ In itself this term means simply ‘desire,’ and can be used of the noblest and purest sentiments (cf. Lk 22 15; Ph 1 23); but where it is rendered ‘lust,’ it indicates desires after mere ma- terial things, or the lower physical appetites and passions (Mk 419; Jn 8 44; Ro 1 24; Gal 516; IT Ti 2 22, 36, etc.). In Mt 5 28; I Co 106; Gal 517; Ja 42 the related verb éx:Ouyety, ‘to lust,’ and in I Co 106 the derivative noun émQupnths, ‘one who longs for,’ occur. (b) qdovm (Ja 41, 3 AV) is rendered more 1'T'o these references could be added the Pericope Adulterze of John 7 *8-8 should it be proved that this originally belonged to Luke’s Gospel (see McLachlan, St. Luke, ch. XIII). A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Luke, Gospel of Lysias properly by RV ‘pleasure.’ (c) The phrase év xé&Oet éxtOuulag (‘in the lust of concupiscence,’ I Th 45 AV) is rendered literally by RV ‘in the passion of lust.’ (d) Sekt, in Ro 1 27 means properly ‘sensual desire.’ (e) In Ja 4 5 éxtxofeiy is rendered more correctly by ‘doth long unto’ in RV. E. E. N. LUTE. See Music anp Musica INSTRUMENTS, $3 (3), (b). LUZ, luz (nb, liz): 1. A noted place in Canaan (Gn 35 6, 48 3), renamed Bethel (Gn 28 19; Jg 1 23) by Jacob, on the border between Ephraim and Ben- jamin (Jos 16 2, 1813). In Jos 16 2 it is distinguished from Bethel. Perhaps Bethel was the original name of the sanctuary E. of Luz. See Berner. 2. A town N. of Canaan, founded by a refugee from Luz (Bethel), which was taken by Ephraim on 1 23). Site unknown. Cosel. LYCAONTIA, lik’’a-’ni-o. See Asta Minor, III, 6 LYCIA, lish’i-a. See Asta Minor, III, 7. LYDDA, lid’a. See Lop. LYDIA lid’i-a (Avdia): One of Paul’s early con- verts in Europe, a native of Thyatira (Ac 16 14), in the district known as Lydia. The omission of all mention of L. by Paul in his Epp. rendersit probable, that Avdfa is an adjectival form = ‘the Lydian,’ and not the convert’s personal name. Only Addy (Lyda) is found in inscriptions as a proper name (cf. CJG, Nos. 653, 6975). Perhaps, therefore, L. may be identified with one of those women who in Ph 4 2 are said to have labored with Paul in the Gospel. See Evop1a; and Asta Minor, III,8. J. M. T. LYE: The rendering of the Heb. nether (Jer 2 22 RY; ‘nitre’ AV), the equivalent of the Gr. vitpoy, Lat. nitrum, 7.e., natron, or carbonate of soda (cf. Pr 25 20), a mineral alkali, which, at least in later times if not as early asin the time of Jeremiah, when mixed with oil was used as soap. EH. E. N. LYSANIAS, lai-sé’ni-as (Aucavies): The tetrarch of Abilene, or ‘the territory of the city of Abila, now Sak on the Abana river, nearly midway between Damascus and Heliopolis. The L. mentioned by Lk 31 was Lysanias IT, and must not be confounded with Lysanias I, who in 40 B.c. inherited the throne from his father, Ptolemzus, son of Mennzus, and was executed by Antonius in 36 B.c. An inscrip- tion (Dittenberger, OGIS 606) of Abila dating from the reign of Tiberius speaks of a Lysanias (II) as tetrarch of Abilene at that time. It is thus clear that Abilene had been severed from the kingdom of Chalcis (that of Lysanias I) and that it formed a separate tetrarchy, at whose head stood Lysanias IT. The name ‘Lysanias’ was probably a common one in the princely family. Lk 31 is correct. J.R. 8S. S.*—S. A. LYSIAS, lis’i-as (Avotzs): 1. A general, appointed regent of Syria and guardian of his son and heir by Antiochus Epiphanes in 166 B.c. (I Mac 3 38 f.). He was defeated the following year at Bethsura by Judas Maccabeus (I Mac 5 34 f.; Jos. Ant. XII, 75). Two years later (163 B.c.), however, L. again invaded Judea and succeeded in reaching Jerusalem, Judas being unable to check him, and laid siege to the Temple-area in which Judas had taken refuge. Only the news of the arrival in Antioch of Philip, a Lystra Maccabees A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 530 rival, led L. to make terms with Judas and grant the Jews religious liberty (of which they had been deprived in 168 B.c.). L. returned to Antioch, de- feated Philip, and continued to govern as regent and guardian of Antiochus V (I Mac ch. 6). Along with his ward, L. was put to death by order of Demetrius I in 162 B.c. (I Mac 7 2-4; Jos. Ant. XII, 10 1). 2. Claudius Lysias, a freedman of the Claudian gens, who was commander of the Roman cohort in Jerusalem at the time of Paul’s arrest (Ac 21 31 ff., 22 28). He permitted the latter to address the populace (Ac 21 39), protected him against their violence (Ac 22 24), and finally sent him under guard to Cesarea (Ac 28 23 f.). J. M. T.—E. E. N. LYSTRA, lis’tra (Adote«): A city of Lycaonia, with which province it passed, in 36 B.c., into the kingdom of Galatia, and on the death of Amyntas (25 B.c.) M MAACAH, mé’a-ka, MAACHAH (1924), ma‘d- khah): I. A district of Syria, near Mt. Hermon, and N. of Geshur (II 8 106, 8; I Ch 19 6f.), the home of the Maachathites (Dt 3 14; Jos 12 5, 18 11,13; IIS 23 34 [?]). See Aram, § 4 (6). II. 1. A ‘son’ of Nahor, Abraham’s brother (Gn 22 24). As Nahor was an Aramean, this Maacah is probably the genealogical equivalent of I. 2. One of David’s wives, the daughter of Talmai, King of Geshur, and the mother of Absalom (II § 3 3; I Ch 8 2). 3. The father of Achish, King of Gath (I K 2 39; but ef. I S 27 2); see Maocn. 4. One of the wives of Rehoboam, King of Judah, and the mother of Abijah (I K 15 2; II Ch 11 20 #.); perhaps identical with 2. 5. The mother of King Asa (I K 15 13; If Ch 15 16); but there seems to be some confusion here with 2; see Mica, III, 6. 6. Caleb’s concubine (I Ch 2 4g), and probably the name of a clan rather than an individual. The term Maacathite, as used in II S 23 34; II K 25 23; I Ch 419 and Jer 40 8, may refer to members of this clan. 7. A Benjamite woman (I Ch 715 f.). 8. The wife of Jehiel, the ‘father’ of Gibeon (I Ch 8 29, 9 35). 9. The father of Hanun (I Ch 11 43). 10. The father of Shephatiah (I Ch 27 16). MAADAI, mé’’a-dé’ai (12, ma‘ddhay): One of the ‘sons’ a Bani’ (Ezr 10 34). MAADIAH, mé’’a-dai’a (171%, ma‘adhyah): The ancestral head of a priestly family (Neh 12 5; also called Moadiah in ver. 17) MAAT, moa-é’ai ('Y9, (Neh 12 36). MAALEH-AKRABBIM, mo-al’1-a-krab’im. AKRABBIM. MAARATH, mé’a-rath (01Y), ma‘arath): A town of Judah (Jos 15 59). Site unknown. MAAREH-GEBA, mé’’-re-gi’ba (YATiTIY2, ma- ‘aréh ghdbha‘, meadows of Gibeah AV): A te near Geba (Jg 20 33). Probably the original reading mé‘ay): A Levite musician See into the Roman Provincia Galatia (see Asta MINoR, III, 6). Of little importance historically, L. is known chiefly from Luke’s mention of it in connec- tion with the visits and preaching of Paul (and Barnabas). The site, now called Zoldera, 1 m. N W. of Khatyn Serai (six hours’ travel 8. of [conium) was first conjectually identified with Khatyn Serat by Leake in 1820, a conjecture confirmed by Sterrett in 1885, through a Latin inscription on a pedestal (still in situ), which in the time of Paul supported a statue of Augustus (Divum Auglustum] Colonia] Julia Felix Gemina Lustra consecravit dlecreto| dlecurionum]). Thus L. was a Roman colonia founded about 6 B.c.), and coined money (only four coins are known). There are almost no remains of the old city and only a few inscriptions (chiefly Latin). L. was the home of Timothy (Ac 161)), and Artemas, one of the seventy disciples, is said to have been first bishop of Lystra. J.R.S S.*—S. A. was ‘to the west of Geba’; cf. Burney, Judges, ad loc. For Geba see Map III, FP 5; K. E.N. MAASAI, mé’a-sai (YY, ma‘say, Maasiai AV): A priest (I Ch 9 12), called Amashsai (Amashai AV) in Neh 11 13. MAASEIAH, méo-si’ya (WNYLD, ma‘dseyahi, and WYP, ma‘dséyah), ‘work of J’’’: 1. A Levite appointed as singer when the Ark was brought from the house of Obed-edom (I Ch 15 18, 2s). 2. A captain who joined Jehoiada against Athaliah (II Ch 231). 3. An officer under Uzziah (II Ch 26 11). 4. A son of Ahaz, slain by Zichri of Ephraim (II Ch 28 7). 5. A governor of Jerusalem under Josiah (II Ch 34 8). 6. An officer of the Temple under Jehoiakim (Jer 35 4), probably the same as the following. 7. A priest in the reign of Zedekiah (Jer 21 1, 29 25, 37 3). 8. The father of the false prophet Zedekiah (Jer 29 21). 9, 10, 11. Three priests who -had foreign wives (Ezr 10 18, 21, 22). 12. One of the ‘sons of Pahath-Moab’ who had a foreign wife (Ezr 10 30). 13. The father of Azariah, who repaired the wall (Neh 3 23). 14. One who stood at the right of Ezra when the Law was read (Neh 8 4). 15. One who explained the Law (Neh 87). 16. One who sealed the covenant (Neh 10 25 [26]). 17. A Judahite family name (Neh 11 5= AsataH, 4. 18. A Benjamite family name (Neh 117). 19, 20. Two priests (Neh 12 41 f.). Jer 32 12 and 51 59 AV have ‘Maaseiah’ for ‘Mahseiah’ RV. Oese fT, MAASIAI, ma-as’i-ai. See Maasai. MAATH, mé’ath (Mad6): (Lk 3 26). MAAZ, mé’az (7%, ma‘ats): The head of a Jerahmeelite family of Judah (I Ch 2 27). MAAZIAH, mé”e-zai’a (MIVD, ma‘azyah): The ancestral head of the 24th course of priests (I Ch 24 18), which was represented at the signing of the covenant (Neh 10 8). An ancestor of Jesus 531 A NEW STANDARD MACCABEES, mak’a-biz, THE: The Maccabees, or Hasmoneans (sometimes Asmoneans), as they were also called, from Hashmon, the great-grand- father of Mattathias, received their name from the title given to Judas, the second son of Mattathias. He was called Judas Maccabeus, 7.e., Judas ‘the Hammerer,’ because, doubtless, of his vigorous assaults upon the Syrians. The title gradually in- cluded all the members of the family of Mattathias and their descendants. The attempt by Antiochus IV, Epiphanes (175-164 B.c.) to force Greek worship upon the Jews brought on the crisis in which this Lystra BIBLE DICTIONARY Maccabees B.C. committed the leadership to (II) Judas. This vigorous young captain won victory after victory, and was able to restore the temple worship in three years after its defilement by Antiochus (Dec., 165 B.c.). The question of religious liberty being soon thereafter settled, the Maccabees, the tyranny of the Hellenistic party being intolerable, now set be- fore themselves the larger ambition of political in- dependence. For this Judas fought on against great odds, and at last fell in the battle of Elasa (161 B.c.). For seven years, with superb skill and unflagging zeal, he had defended the faith. The leadership was Hashmon Simeon Johanan Mattathias (+167 B.c.) John Simon (7135 B.c.) Judas Aristobulus I (105-104 B.c.) Hyrcanus II (u.p. 78-69, and 63—40 B.c.) Judas (f161 B.c.) John Hyrcanus (135-105 B.c.) Antigonus Eleazar Jonathan (143 B.c.) Mattathias Daughter Alexander Jannzus (104-78 B.c.) Aristobulus II (69-63 3.c.) oar as Alexander Antigonus (40-37 B.c.) 1 SI Ein cas Aristobulus Mariamne (m. Herod the Great) | | Alexander Aristobulus GENEALOGY OF THE HASMONEANS family came to leadership. The successors of Alex- ander the Great had taken up his policy of furthering Greek culture and customs among their subjects. Up to the time of Antiochus the Jews had been allowed religious freedom, but he, not content with the measure of Hellenization which had already been accomplished in Palestine, determined to make the Jews give up their religious rites and ceremonies, and adopt heathen practises. In the execution of his mad purpose he polluted the Temple, and sent his agents throughout the land to compel the people to worship idols. At the little town of Modin, where (I) Mattathias, an aged priest, and his five sons were living, the horror and anger of the Jews struck fire. The Syrian official who attempted to carry out the king’s wish was slain, the idolatrous altar was over- turned, and, with a call to all who wished to be faithful to the Law to come to them, Mattathias and his five sons fled to the mountains. The father lived but about a year after this, and at his death in 167 then given to his brother (III) Jonathan, whose successes were rather those of the politican than the warrior, altho he did not escape the disagree- able duties of war. He profited largely by the quarrels and intrigues of the Syrian court, and lost his life by a trap into which Tryphon, an aspirant for the Syrian throne, led him at Bethshan (143 B.c.). As John and Eleazar had both perished, there was only one son of Mattathias left, and the people called him heartily to lead them. His reign was short but brilliant. By his glowing zeal, unremit- ting energy, and clever diplomacy (IV) Simon achieved the independence of the nation (142 B.c.), and the troubles in Syria left him free to attend to the needs of his own government. He it was who drove the Syrians from the citadel in Jerusalem, where for twenty-six years they had disturbed the peace of the city. So completely did he free the land from the fear and trouble of war that ‘every man sat under his vine and fig-tree, and there was Maccabees Maccabees, Books of none to make them afraid’ (I Mac 1412). In Sept., 141 B.c., the people in great assembly resolved that he should be civil governor, military chief, and high priest ‘forever, until there should arise a faithful prophet’? (I Mac 14 41). Thus his exalted position was made hereditary. Simon’s reign was char- acterized by two important political acts—his em- bassy to Rome, and his coinage of money. It had been fitting that his prosperous career should end in a peaceful death; but, involved again in the tur- moils of the court at Antioch, he was, with his two sons, treacherously murdered by his son-in-law at a banquet at Docus near Jericho, 135 B.c. (V) John Hyrcanus, the third son of Simon, by a timely warn- ing, escaped the fate of his father, became his suc- cessor, and ruled the land for thirty-one years (135- 105 B.c.). His reign is notable for its extension of the kingdom. Territory E. of the Jordan, also Samaria and Edom,were brought under his rule, and he was independent of the Syrian kings. His policy of conquest and employment of foreign troops awakened strong opposition. During his reign the Pharisaic party became a prominent factor in the life of the nation. The whole drift of his administration was away from their ideals, and their opposition caused him, near the end of his reign, to side with the Sadducees. On the whole, however, his rule was prosperous. Josephus pays him a high tribute of praise (Ant. XIII, 107). Hyrcanus left the govern- ment to his wife and the high priesthood to his eldest son (VI) Aristobulus. Trouble, however, came soon, for Aristobulus, ambitious to have full power, im- prisoned his mother. Once at the head of the gov- ernment, he showed his sympathy with the Sad- ducees, took the title of king, encouraged Hellenism, and carried on a war of conquest. He was called the ‘Phil-Hellene.’ A fatal illness ended his career in 104 s.c. Bad as this man was in the eyes of the Pharisees, he did not compare in shamelessness and infamy with his successor (VII) Alexander Jannzus, the third son of Hyreanus. For twenty-six years (104-78 B.c.) this man fought, intrigued, and mur- dered in pursuit of his selfish ambitions, and won for himself a place among the reprobates of Jewish his- tory. His reign was marked by fierce internal con- flicts growing out of the opposition of the Pharisees. The outcome of his whole career was widened terri- tory and external glory, but deep inner unrest and uncertainty. (VIII) Alexandra, his wife, succeeded him upon the throne, and her reign of nine years has been called the ‘golden age’ of Pharisaism. In every possible particular she reversed the policy of Jan- neeus. As Josephus says, ‘while she governed other people, the Pharisees governed her.’ The high priesthood was given to the indolent and incom- petent Hyrcanus, eldest son of Jannzeus, while the younger son, Aristobulus II, because of his shrewd, energetic and ambitious nature, was studiously kept out of power. He became the rallying center for the Sadducees, and used them for his own aims. The death of Alexandra in 69 B.c. brought (IX) Hyrcanus II to power, but his brother (X) Aristobulus II made him give up both his royal and high-priestly rank. At this time the Herodian house began to exert a dire influence on the affairs of Palestine. Antipater, A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 532 father of Herod the Great, sided with the deposed Hyrcanus II, and Aristobulus II was shut up within the Temple enclosure. At this juncture there arrived in Syria Scaurus, Pompey’s lieutenant, to whom both the rival parties appealed for aid. On this appeal (65 B.c.) Aristobulus II won the day. But Pompey himself came to Damascus in 638 B.c., and again the Roman authority was asked to decide. Aristobulus II, who foolishly determined to resist the demands of the Romans, was finally overcome and Judea be- came henceforth a Roman province. Her indepen- dence was taken away, and the Hasmonean rulership overthrown. Hyrcanus II was reappointed high priest, but he was simply a tool in the hands of the Idumean Antipater (q.v.) and the Romans. In the course of the succeeding years the Hasmoneans made desperate efforts to reinstate themselves in power. There was a charm about the very name which led the Jews to second these fruitless attempts. Thou- sands lost their lives in trying to put Alexander, the son of Aristobulus II, upon the throne in 57 B.c. Aristobulus II himself made another attempt in 56 and Alexander again in 55 B.c. All these attempts were frustrated by the Romans and Antipater. One last attempt did succeed, and for a while (40-37 B.c.) (XI) Antigonus, the son of Aristobulus IJ, was king of Judea. He accomplished this by calling in the help of the Parthians. His coins were stamped with the title ‘King’ on one side, and ‘High Priest’ on the other. He was, however, neither a statesman nor a general. In trying persistently to get revenge upon Herod, the son of Antipater, he wasted his energy and at last the Idumean overthrew him and put him to death in 37 B.c. Thus ended the dynasty of the Hasmoneans. Herod married Mariamne, the daughter of Alexander, and by her had two children, Alexander and Aristobulus. All three were at last executed because of the cruel jealousy of Herod himself (see HERop). LireRATURE: The Books of Maccabees: Streane’s The Age of the Maccabees (1898); Histories of the Jews by Gratz, Cornill; Schirer’s The Jewish People in the Times of Jesus Christ (transl. 1891); Riggs, History of the Jewish People, Maccabean and Roman Periods (1900). J. SRi—W Gee: MACCABEES, BOOKS OF: Of the five books which bear this title only two (I, II) are usually in- cluded in the Apocrypha. The third is found in most MSS. and editions of the LXX.; the fourth in MSS. § and A, and in MSS. of Josephus. The fifth is extant in an Arabic text printed in the Paris and London Polyglots, where it is accompanied by a Latin translation. These books differ greatly from one another in character and worth. Indeed, their worth is in general in accord with their order, the first being very valuable as a history and the fifth having no independent value whatever. 1.1 Maccabees. (1) The Contents of I Maccabees. The brief, vivid narrative of this work begins with an account of the events which led to the Macca- bean uprising (see MaccaBrss, Tur) and ends with the death of Simon. Its history covers thus the forty years between 175-135 B.c. In an introduction (1 1, 9) the author aims to show how the stream of Hellenism found its way into Judea, and then, taking up the story of the mad folly of Antiochus, he 533 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Maccabees Maccabees, Books of carries us on through the brilliant campaigns of Judas Maccabeus from 166-161 B.c. (chs. 1-9). While Judas is the real hero of the book, the narra- tive covers the successful administration of Jonathan (161-143 B.c.) and the prosperous reign of Simon (143-135 B.c.), to show how the aims of Judas were realized in both the religious freedom and political independence of the nation. In a simple, straight- forward style it sets forth the heroic, triumphant patriotism of the brave souls who stood for the Law and God against fearful odds. It is the work of a true historian. Events are left to speak for them- selves. In all that pertains to the struggle itself the account is trustworthy. It is only when it treats of foreign nations that mistakes are found (see Mac 1 2,9, 8 2, 4, 6, 8f., 15 f.). The work is in marked con- trast to II Maccabees in its soberness and in its freedom from the miraculous. (2) Author, Place, and Date. All that can be said of the author is that he was a Palestinian Jew whose point of view is that of orthodox Judaism. His heart was with those who fought and planned so nobly for the nation’s wel- fare. He wrote his work in Hebrew, and it has come down to us in a Greek translation. One singular fact, which all students of the book have marked, is the absence of the name of God. This is not due to an undevout spirit, but rather to a reticent faith. It is in the record of noble deeds that we must seek for the expression of faith. There are several hints which help us to the determination of the date, altho this can not be fixed within narrow limits (cf. 13 30, 16 23 £.). The friendly spirit toward the Romans (8 12-16) prevents us from dating the work as late as 63 B.c. The period of writing may be put at some time in the early part of the Ist cent. B.c. Some of the sources which the author has used are found in 8 22 f., 10 18-20, 25-45, 11 30-37, 12 6-15, 14 22-45, 15 16-21. These consist of letters and decrees. For the facts of the history he may have relied, in part, upon personal recollection, and, in part, upon the word of witnesses then living. © 2. II Maccabees. (1) The Contents of II Macca- bees. The narrative of II Mac begins with the attack upon the Temple by Heliodorus, the minister of the Syrian monarch Seleucus IV (175 B.c.), and ends with the victory of Judas Maccabeus over Nicanor (160 B.c.). For the few years which preceded the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes it is our sole authority. At the opening of the book are two letters (1 1-9 and 1 10-2 18), supposed to be written by the Jews in Judea to their countrymen fin Egypt, inviting them to celebrate the feast of Dedication. These letters have no connection with the narrative, are from different hand, and are both forgeries. From 47 on, the account runs parallel with that of I Mae, and this parallelism affords opportunity for an easy com- parison of the characteristics of each narrative. In II Mac is found a copiousness of detail which some- times helpfully supplements the narrative of I Mac, but along with this is found an amount of exaggera- tion and inaccuracy which makes the whole work inferior. A notable feature, entirely absent from I Mag, is the miraculous element. The chief value of II Mac as a source of information to the historian is in those facts where it is not directly at variance with I Mac, and where additional and not improb- able material makes more complete the picture of times or events. (2) Author, Date, and Aim. With the exception of chs. 1 and 2, the author claims that his work is an epitomization of a work in five books, written by Jason of Cyrene. Of him we know nothing more. Criticism of this epitome makes evident that Jason did not know I Mac, and that he gained his material largely from oral sources. Jn a work thus produced it is not easy to say how much in the way of style and method is due to the original writer and how much to the epitomizer. In two places (2 19-32 and 15 38-39) we have the writing of the latter, and these passages would seem to show that the rhetorical effects sought, after all, through the book are due to the epitomizer rather than to Jason. The original work was in Greek, as was this epitome, and the Greek of the latter is that of one who knew well how to use it. No certain date can be given to the work. It was known to Philo, and so must have existed before 40 a.p. Conjecture has put the time of its preparation in the last part of the Ist cent. B.c. Jason’s work may have been written about 160 B.c. Like I Mac, this is also written from the point of view of orthodox Judaism. It is quite in accord with the spirit of the Pharisees. The writer is not content with simply setting forth the events of the stirring times between175 B.c. and 160 B.c. He aims to give their religious value, and so to strengthen faith. God is behind and in the history, ‘watching above His own.’ Glorious is the Temple in Jerusalem, and to its sacred enclosure and service the writer would bind more closely the hearts of his brethren in Egypt and all lands. They could join with the home people in celebrating those Maccabean feasts which commemorated the death of Nicanor and the dedication of the Temple, and thus promote national unity. True to its religious tone, the book emphasizes the punishment of the wicked, the chastisement in suffering for those who are faithful, and the joyful hope of resurrection. The last doctrine is expressed with exceptional clearness. 3. III Maccabees. The third book has nothing whatever to do with the Maccabees, and may have got its name, as Fritzsche thinks, from being ‘a sort of prolegomena to a complete history of the Macca- bees.’ The original language of the work was Greek, and it is found in most MSS. of the LXX., including A and B. (1) The Contents of III Maccabees. At Raphia (217 B.c.) Ptolemy IV defeated Antiochus the Great. Because of gifts and congratulations from the Jews, Ptolemy visited Jerusalem. While there, he insisted upon entering the sanctuary against the earnest and united opposition of both priests and people. Providence saved the Temple from desecra- tion, for Ptolemy was stricken with a fit, as he was about to carry out his design. Returning to Egypt, he was bent upon revenge, and so sent out an edict that all the Jews should be shut up in the hippodrome at Alexandria and then murdered. Before this was done the name of every victim was to be secured. So immense was the number that the means of registration failed, and for a time the Jews were safe. Ptolemy then planned to turn loose upon the people 500 elephants made frantic with wine. Night and Maccabees, Books of Machpelah A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY I IL day the Jews prayed unto God and their prayer was heard. For two days the execution of the fatal order was delayed by the oversleeping of the king, and by his opportune loss of memory. The de- liverance came through the sudden descent of two angels, who turned the elephants back upon the Egyptian army. Such a signal rescue changed completely the attitude of the king toward the Jews. They were set free, honored with a seven- days’ banquet, and given favor throughout the land. In memory of this deliverance they ordained a festival to be annually observed ‘for all the time = = = ele oa = 7 Ta. to a pet INTERIOR OF THE Mosque sat HEBRON. of their sojourn among strangers, from generation to generation.’ At the same time they put to death more than three hundred of their nation, who had apostatized at the time of the trouble. (2) Author, Date, and General Character. The author was an Alexandrian Jew. The date of the work is uncertain. It may have been written near the close of the Ist cent. B.c., or in the Ist cent. a.p. The book as a whole is a fiction, altho some historical facts are undoubtedly embedded in its improbable story. Josephus (Contra Ap. II, 5) gives an account of im- prisoned Jews attacked by elephants, and of a signal deliverance similar to this, but he connects it with Ptolemy VII. His tale, however, is quite as un- likely as that of III Mac. The yearly festival is probably a fact, and the character of Ptolemy IV is faithfully drawn. Farther than this we can not go. The inconsistencies and impossible situations show a legend, which has for its purpose the com- forting of those in trouble by making clear God’s fidelity to His own people. ‘ \ y NY if S— aaa Se SSS 4. IV. Maccabees. (1) General Character of IV Maccabees. This work relates to the Maccabean times simply in that it uses the incidents of II Mac 6 18-7 42 as illustrations of its theme, which is the ‘supremacy of pious reason over the passions.’ Itisa philosophical presentation, and can be divided into two main parts. Part I (1 1-3 19) contains a brief introduction, the statement of the theme, and an argument to show that the passions, severally con- sidered, may be under the control of the reason. Part II gives illustrations of this theme and argu- ment fromII Mac. There is, however, no such sharp \ \\ ANY A} en | \\ \' \\ \ \ \ \\ ‘ \ \\\ SS —— *y h | x S\\\r ®t wu? tt x NS hos ees S [SERENA NM se SENG ig SS A | = =_ = a7 Se —s Tuer MoNUMENTS TO THE PATRIARCHS. division of the philosophical and historical as this partition of the book would seem to indicate. All through there are reflections which reveal the author’s aim to edify and to inspire his readers with fidelity to the Law. (2) Author, Aim, and Date Since all thought of Josephus as the author has been given up, there is no name which we can give to the writer of this work. He was a Jew, whose Hellenistic culture had in no way diminished his fidelity to the faith of his fathers. Rather, he seeks on the basis of his own Scriptures, but with the forms which Greek culture gave him, to hold his countrymen true to Moses. In general, the form of the whole is that of an address. It resembles a sermon, the main purpose being religious edification and impulse. Two ot its teachings are noteworthy, viz.: the eternal existence of all souls after death—the good being in > blessedness (9 8, 1718), and the wicked in torment (99, 12 12)—and the vicarious atoning worth for the people of the death of the martyrs (6 29, 17 20). The style is exceptionally good, and the Greek of unusual 535 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY ‘Maccabees, Books of Machpelah excellence for a Jew. The work is, as a whole, a fine specimen of the best kind of Hellenistic literature. The date can not be determined with certainty. It is, of course, later than II Mac, and may be placed probably somewhere near the beginning of the Christian era. 5. V Maccabees. The last book, which is a com- pilation from I and II Mac and the writings of Josephus, aims to give a history of the Jews, from the time of Heliodorus (186 B.c.) to the last years of the reign of Herod the Great. Up to ch. 19 it follows, T and II Mac as well as Josephus; from ch. 20 to the | PRPS = pa " Hi ow the four eastern river basins and along the Thermaic and Strymonic gulfs was predominantly Greek, differing from the mixed population of the interior. Jewish synagogs were formed at Philippi, Thessa- lonica, and Berea, but probably not at Amphipolis and Apollonia (Ac 171). R. A. F.—E. C. L. MACHBANNAI, mak’ba-nai (7229, makhban- nay): A Gadite, one of David’s soldiers (I Ch 12 13). MACHBENA, mak-bi’na (13239, makhbénah, Machbenah AV): Probably the name of a place (I Ch 2 49), perhaps the same as Cabbon (q.v.). { Vie A al is vow, ce rc As m0) fii ih RE \ ra bi mt ANIL, We hs SSS — = = INTERIOR OF THE Mosqur At HEBRON. end, it borrows from Josephus and consequently has no independent value as a history. Its date must be placed later than Josephus (70-100 a.p.). Lirerature: Bissell, Apocrypha, in Lange Commentary (1880); Fritsche’s and. Grimm’s Apocryphen des alten Testaments (1851-60); Kautzsche’s Die Apocryphen und Pseudepigraphen des alten Tesiaments (1908); Schirer HJP (1891), Div. I, vol. iii; Charles, Apocrypha and Pseudeprigrapha of the O T (1913). J.S. R.—W. G. J. MACEDONIA, mas’i-dd’ni-a (Maxedoviz): The name of a Roman province which in N T times was bounded by Thrace, Illyricum, the Adriatic, and Achaia, and traversed from Dyrrachium to Neapolis by the military Egnatian road. The kingdom of Macedon, created by Philip, fell under Roman con- trol after the battle of Pydna in 168 sp.c.—the four older districts into which it was then divided (Ac 16 12) being united later (146 B.c.), with portions of Illyricum and Thessaly, into the one province of Macedonia under proconsuls or propretors (the former in the time of Paul), with Thessalonica as its capital. The population on the fertile plains of Tye MoNuUMENTS TO THE PATRIARCHS. MACHI, mé‘kai (°79, makhi): A Gadite, father of Geuel (Nu 13 15), whom Moses sent to spy out the land. LO te Pas ke MACHIR, mé’kir, MACHIRITE, mé‘kor-ait (V22, makhir): 1. The first-born son of Manasseh (Jos 171 £.); in Gn 50 23 and Nu 26 29 ff. represented as his only son. His family took possession of Gilead (Nu 32 39 £.; Dt 3 15; Jos 13 31; cf. Nu 27 1, 36 1). According to Jg 514 (where Machir = Manasseh), the Machirites dwelt originally W. of the Jordan, and at a later time migrated to Gilead. In I Ch 2 21 f., 7 14. Machir is connected with Gilead. 2. A son of Ammiel in Lo-debar, E. of the Jordan, near Mahanaim, who gave protection to Mephibosheth, son of Jonathan (II 8 9 4f.), and ministered to David on his flight from Absalom (II $ 17 27f.). C.8. T. MACHNADEBAI, mak-nad/1-bai (377292, makh- nadd*bhay): A Jew who married a foreign wife (Ezr 10 40). MACHPELAH, mac-pila (72222, makhpélah): 1. Biblical and Historical References. Mentioned in Machpelah Magic and Divination A NEW STANDARD the Priestly document of Gn as a plot of land E. of (‘before’) Mamre, bought by Abraham from Ephron the Hittite, after a series of typically Oriental negotiations (see Thompson, Land and Book, i, 246-249), in order that Sarah might be buried in the cave which was in the end of the partly timbered field (Gn ch. 23). According to P, this cave was afterwards the sepulcher of Abraham, Rebekah, Isaac, Leah, and Jacob (Gn 259 f., 49 30 £., 50 13). The signification of ‘the Machpelah’ (always with the article) is doubtful. It may mean ‘double place,’ and is thus translated in the ancient versions. Possibly the designation referred originally to the two chambers of the cave. Rabbinical literature contains curious conjectures as to the application of the term (see J#). But in Gn ‘the Machpelah’ seems to be used indifferently of the cave (23 9, 25 9), the field (23 19, 49 30, 50 13), or the entire property (23 17). Outside of the P document in Gn the Machpelah is never mentioned in the Scriptures or in the Apocrypha. Ac 7 16 curiously places the tomb bought by Abraham at Shechem, where Joseph was buried according to E (Jos 24 32). A late tradition places the sepulcher of Joseph in Hebron, by that of his ancestors, where it is shown to-day. Josephus (BJ, IV, 9 7) speaks of the marble monuments of the patriarchs. Sozomen (Hist. Eccl. II, 4) shows that the cult of the patriarchs at Hebron lasted down into Christian times. From the allusions of early pil- grims and historians it appears that the modern Harém or sacred enclosure at Hebron has been identified with the Machpelah at least since the beginning of the Christian era. 2. Traditional Site. The Hebron Hardm (‘sacred,’ or ‘forbidden,’ place) is a fortress-like quadrangle, 197X111 ft., with walls of hard limestone, 40 ft. high, which date from at least as early as the time of Herod, but are considered by many to be much older than the Herodian period; e.g., Robinson, Stan- ley, Warren. These ancient walls are surmounted by modern ones, plastered and whitewashed. Lofty minarets rise at diagonally opposite corners, and flights of steps along the short sides of the quad- rangle give access to the interior platform, which is about 18 ft. above the lowest ground adjoining. One end of the enclosure is entirely taken up by the mosque, whose clearstory can be seen above the exterior walls of the Harém. This mosque was originally a Crusaders’ church, built probably shortly after 1167 (see HeBron). Most of the other structures within the enclosure are Moslem, of the 14th cent. and later. In front of the mosque a four- arched portico opens into a small court, beyond which a number of chambers fill the farther end of the platform. (See illustrations pp. 5384-535.) The six monuments to the patriarchs and their wives are supposed by the Moslems to be placed directly over the corresponding graves in the cave beneath. Each coffin-like cenotaph is covered with richly embroidered silk, and enclosed in a little chapel or shrine. The shrines of Isaac and Rebekah alone are within the mosque, those of Abraham and Sarah are in the portico, while the cenotaphs of Jacob and Leah are in the chambers adjoining the BIBLE DICTIONARY 536 NW. exterior wall. Non-Moslems are rigidly ex- cluded from the entire enclosure, and the cave itself is held in such reverence and fear that perhaps no Moslem has entered it during the past seven cen- turies. Kaiser Wilhelm II was permitted to enter the mosque during his visit to Palestine in 1898; and when Hebron was hastily evacuated by the Turks and Germans before the allied advance in 1917, a German officer succeeded in penetrating to the cave beneath the mosque. Two supposed entrances in the floor of the mosque are covered with flagging and carpets. A third opening allows one to see down through a well-like shaft into a little whitewashed room, about 12 ft. square, whose floor is apparently on a level with the ground out- side the Hardm. This room is an antechamber which, through a doorway in its 8. wall, gives access to the sepulchers. Back of the Christian era it is impossible to trace the tradition which identifies the Hardm with the Machpelah, and back of the Priestly Code (ca. 500 B.c.) there is no evidence of the tradition which places the tomb of the patriarchs near Hebron. It is certain, however, from early Hebrew sources that Hebron was a holy place in ancient times (II 8 5 3, 157, 10), and its sanctity may have been due to the fact that it was the reputed burial place of the forefathers. The cult of ancestors was one of the most ancient and firmly established features of the pre-prophetic religion of Israel. (See BurrtaL and MourNING.) In view of the many centuries before our era dur- ing which there was no allusion to the cave of Hebron, not to mention the unsolved critical prob- lems relating to patriarchal history, the claim that the traditional sepulcher of the patriarchs is genuine (e.g., Warren in HDB, Stanley, Thompson, Robin- son [?]) is unjustified. LifBRATURE: Stanley, Lectures on: the Jewish Church, i, appendix ii, describes the epochal visit of the Prince of Wales’s party in 1862. Later and more accurate observa- tions are recorded in PEFSt, 1882, 197-213; 1897, 53-61. For statement of early travelers and historians, see Ritter, Geog. of Pal., ili, 305-323; Warren in HDB; Robinson, BRP, ii, 77 f.; Le Strange, Pal. Under the Moslems, 309-327. An exhaustive account of all that is known up to date is given by L. H. Vincent and E. V. H. Mackay, Hebron, le Hardm el-Khalil, Sepulture des Patriarches (1923). L. G. L.—L. B. P. MAD, MADNESS. See DisrAsz anp MEDICINE, § 5 MADAI, mé’dai. See Eranograpav AND E\rH- NOLOGY, §§ 6 and 13; and MzpgEs MADIAN, mé’di-an. In Acts 7 29 (AV) for Midian (q.v.). MADMANNAH, mad-man’a (3272, madhman- nah):1. A Calebite (I Ch 2 49), perhaps a genealogical statement of the origin of the town of the same name. II. A town in the 8S. of Judah (Jos 15 31), also called Beth-marcaboth (Jos 195;I Ch3 31). MapII, D3. Ore MADMEN, mad’men (j7, madhmén): A town in Moab, connected with Heshbon and Horonaim (Jer 48 2). Possibly it is to be identified with Dibon (Nu 21 30), the modern Dibén, for which Dimon 537 A NEW STANDARD occurs in Is 159. Cheyne emends to Nimrim, which (Is 15 6) occurs after Heshbon and Horonaim. GO} OyARs MADMENAH, mad-mi’na (732279, madhméndah): A place in Benjamin, N. of Jerusalem, between Anathoth and Gebim (Is 10 31). Site unknown. OF Bans MADON, mé’don (1179, mddhén): A royal city of the Canaanites (Jos 11 1, 12 19), usually identified with Madin near Hattin, a few m. W. of Tiberias. The LXX.(B) of Jos111has Mapeay, which suggests Meron, two hours WSW. of Kedesh-naphtali (Map IV, E 5). Caterie MAGADAN, mag’a-dan (Mayadéyv): A town vis- ited by Jesus (Mt 15 39, Magdala [May8aAé] AV); in the || Mk 8 10 Dalmanutha, AaAyavouvbé). It can not, however, be identified with certainty under either name. Ewald’s suggestion that Magadan is Megiddo is impossible, unless Megiddo be located, with Conder, near Beisan, instead of Lejjzun (but see Mrarippo). ‘Dalmanutha’ is probably a corrup- tion of Delimnitha (Atuyn, ‘harbor’; see Herz in Expos. T., Sept., 1897, altho Conder derives it from Aram. De Almanutha, ‘place of high buildings’), which points to Magdala as the modern Meydel, a few miles N. of Tiberias on the shore of Lake Galilee. This town is said in the Jerusalem Talmud (Ta‘anith, 4 8) to have been a prosperous one, but is nowhere else mentioned outside of the Gospels. ACE: MAGBISH, mag-bish (¥’222, maghbish): A place occupied by the returned exiles (Ezr 2 30). Site unknown. Perhaps the same as Magpiash, q.v. (Neh 10 20). MAGDALA, mag’da-le. See Macapan. MAGDALENE, mag’da-lin. See Mary, 2. MAGDIEL, mag’di-el (?8"122, maghdi’él): One of the ‘dukes’ of Edom (Gn 36 43). MAGIC AND DIVINATION. 1. General Sig- nificance of the Terms. Altho variously defined, thesé words are so often used indiscriminately, or with the meaning of one shading off into that of the other, that accuracy of definition is difficult. Magic, however, properly has to do with the use of objects or actions to produce, through influence over the spirits or jinn, the physical results con- trary to the natural order. It, therefore, in one respect resembles a crude form of science, while in another it approaches the sphere of religion; for magic rites are often but imperfect prayers or external forms through which deity is to be moved. Divination, on the other hand, is an effort, without disturbing the natural order of events, to learn what that order will be. It, therefore, is closely akin to prophecy, and in many of its forms, as it becomes more highly developed, we find it closely approxi- mating to the work of the seer or true prophet. Yet the diviner may use magic arts to accomplish his purpose. The most fully developed systems of magic and divination were found in Egypt and Babylonia (cf. Gn 41 8 #.; Ex 7 11 #.; Dn 1 20, 2 2, etc.). It has been a question whether the Hebrews borrowed theirs from the one or the other. Tho there undoubtedly was influence from the Baby- Machpelah BIBLE DICTIONARY Magic and Divination lonians during the exile, the main source of Hebrew magic was probably Egypt. The only reference to Babylonian magic is in Dn, while the Pentateuchal references are exclusively to Egypt. Some Hebrew magic, of course, must have been indigenous. In divination there was Babylonian influence (ef. Ezk 21 21 f.). Correlative terms for magic and divina- tion are sorcery and soothsaying. These two words usually imply a lower depth than the former and are generally used when the practises are prohibited. The word magic, which seems to come to us from Babylonia and perhaps from Persia, carries with it an element of superiority, just as divination might be regarded as legitimated by the results which it sought. Sorcery in every instance is resorted to when people desire the accomplishment of some purpose which is counter to morality or religion, and soothsaying pertains to an unholy desire to peer into the unseen world of the future. The soothsayer may be a sorcerer. Note how the term is used of Balaam (Jos 13 22; cf. Nu 227, 23, etc.), in connection with whose efforts victims were slain and sacrifices of- fered. 2. The Attitude of the Law Toward Such Prac- tises. The Hebrew legislation was emphatic in its condemnation of all that pertained to these arts, and it prescribed the most condign punishment for them. Ly 20 27 condemns the witch or the wizard to death, and Dt 18 10 f., which is the classical passage on this subject, specifies, in an exhaustive summary, the different kinds of sorcery. In this attitude Hebrew law is in complete conformity with that of other nations. The Code of Hammurabi (c. 2100 B.c.), in its first paragraph, legislates against witchcraft. The reason for this lies in the fact that such practises were contrary to the common social welfare. The man who sought the sorcerer was endeavoring to gain an advantage over his fellow men, and consequently became a public enemy. The danger was that he would break up the clan or the tribal, or even the national, life by arraying unseen powers against it. Such an effort meant the forsaking of the national god, and, therefore, was to be classed with idolatry. 3. The Practise of Magic and Divination in Israel. Terms Used. When the people of Jerusalem once found themselves in the most serious straits, they turned to the powers of the unseen world for help» (Is 8 19) and ignored their God. This, like all other efforts of the kind, testifies to the deep-seated desire of humanity to find some kind of a sympathetic response from a power greater than human, and as God often seems too far away to be a present help, lesser powers are turned to, who are felt to be more accessible and perchance more closely allied to hu- manity. In this respect Israel was at one with the larger world of its day. The Heb. word which is most frequently used of magical methods is the verb gasam (together with the deriv. noun gesem, usually rendered divination, but witchcraft in I S 15 23), generally rendered to divine or to use divination, or as a ptcpl. diviner, the root of which is found also in the Arabic kismet, ‘destiny.’ This, therefore, throws light upon the Hebrew conception. Magic or sorcery was an effort to determine fate, not so much by foretelling as by Magic and Divination A NEW STANDARD working out the destiny by means of charms, or spells, or potions, or the use of objects which in themselves are supposed to possess power, or into which the sorcerer himself has infused efficacy. Sometimes the arts may be practised by any individ- ual and by simple methods, an instance of which occurs in Gn 30 14, where didhda’im, ‘love-apples,’ rendered ‘mandrakes,’ are mentioned as possessing powers similar to those of a love-philter. The tera- phim, which seem to have been often found in house- holds, were probably used in connection with such arts (cf. Gn 31 30, 34; 18 1913). The lot, Urim and Thummim (q.v.), and the ephod were also familiar, a staff as well (Hos 412). More often, however, the seeker must have gone to a person supposedly en- dowed with peculiar powers. The most striking illustration of this is found in Saul’s experience (IS 28 3 ff.), who, altho he had expelled all who practised the black art, in his own extremity searched out a witch to help him, of whom he might inquire, or consult, z.e., learn the issue of the comming battle. The name by which she is called is'a fairly common one in the O T, ba‘alath ’dbh, ‘the possessor of ’6bh,’ rendered ‘that hath a familiar spirit.’ This Heb. term ’6bh may signify a ghost (a ‘control’) or a sub- terranean spirit which speaks from a hollow in the heart (cf. Is 29 4). Gaster thinks the ’6bh, the tera- phim, and the yidd*‘ont are mummies used for necromancy (HRE, IV, p. 811 b). The word yid- d*‘oni, translated wizard, however, probably refers to the spirit which was the sorcerer’s familiar or ‘control.’ It is naturally derived from the root yadha‘, ‘to know,’ and would apply very well to the spirit that the medium most often called upon, or which dwelt within her. In Assyrian the spirit of soothsaying is called muda. In the use of this term we see how sorcery and soothsaying are com- bined, for the arts necessary to call the spirit would be sorcery, while the response of the spirit itself would be soothsaying and in the realm of divination. Dt 18 10 f., already referred to, contains two groups of terms which must indicate the popular conception of the relationship of different kinds of divination. At the head of the first group (ver. 10) we find denounced the one who makes his son or his daughter ‘to pass through the fire.’ This may have been a form of heathen sacrifice, or it may have been a drastic method of consulting omens, in which ordeal the child was in many cases killed. Fire ordeals of various kinds are characteristic of the superstition of many primitive peoples. Another term, the ptcpl. ‘dnén or m*‘énén, practiseth augury (observer of times AV, also rendered ‘soothsayer’ Is 26; Jer 279, enchanter AV; Mic 512, and ‘sorceress’ Is 57 3), is of doubtful origin. W. Robertson Smith suggests that it is from a root, ‘adnan, signifying ‘to murmur,’ and that the diviner received his message through the murmuring of leaves as at Dodona (cf. also the ‘sound of going in the top of the mulberry- trees,’ II S 5 24), or the hum of insects (cf. the name of the prophetess Deborah, ‘a swarm of bees’ [?], and Baalzebub, ‘the lord of flies’). More likely it is connected with ‘dndn, ‘cloud,’ and means ‘weather prophet,’ not only in the sense of foretelling weather but also in the sense of controlling the elements. BIBLE DICTIONARY 538 The vb. néhash (ptepl. enchanter, Dt 18 10), seems to have the general sense of ‘practising divination’ or ‘observing omens.’ (Lv 19 26; II K 1717 etc.). It is used of hydromancy (Gn 44 5), and, in spite of its form, probably has no connection with serpent-charming. The word m*khashshéph, sorcerer (witch AV; cf. also Ex 22 18; II Ch 33 6; Mal 3 5), is akin to the Assyrian ka3sapu, and is often associated with the astrologers (Ex 7 11) and wise men (Dn 2 2). It is probably of foreign origin, and perhaps to be regarded as a general term summarizing the pre- ceding. The last word of the first group in the above- mentioned passage, Dt 18 10 f., is hébhér, charmer, which seems to contain the idea of ‘binding,’ and has been interpreted as meaning ‘the one who ties magic knots.’ But W. Robertson Smith’s suggestion, that it means ‘the weaver of a spell,’ is far more accept- able. Gaster holds that it means ‘one who is able to gather animals for good or evil purposes’ (HRE, - IV, p. 810 b). The second group of words (ver. 11) represents different ways of consulting the unseen world, ending with the term necromancer, literally, ‘one who inquires of the dead.’ The whole passage is, therefore, a comprehensive denunciation of those who use magical arts (‘sympathetic magic’) as well as those who assume to hold communication with the departed. 4. The Attitude of the Prophets Isaiah and Ezekiel. Besides several passages in the legal literature that forbid sorcery, the prophets Isaiah and Ezekiel are very specific in their attacks upon such unholy practises. Isaiah singles out special classes, and in his condemnation of the daughters of Zion (3 16 ff.) he enumerates their ornaments, several of which from their names, must have had a magical use. In fact, it is probable that pendants and bangles were originally worn to keep off evil influences, as indeed is the case in many parts of the world at the present day. The most spiritual con- ception of the radical difference between the true and the false is found in Is 8 19 f., where the hopeless people who are seeking ‘familiar spirits’ that chirp (peep AV) and mutter (ironical, probably suggestive of sounds made by the sorcerers) are exhorted to seek instead the living God. Ezekiel, more than a century later, found the people saturated with the strange customs of the. Orient. Lying divinations and false visions were the evils with which he had to contend. Wizards and witches preyed upon the superstitions of the popu- lace. In 13 17-23 some peculiar kind of charm is referred to. The obscurity of the expressions, how- ever, is great. The ‘pillows’ and the ‘kerchiefs’ (ver. 18) are probably amulets, possibly the pred- ecessors of the phylacteries and frontlets which in later Judaism had a magical use, altho then they had been conventionalized and become a part of decent and orderly dress. The ‘handfuls of barley’ and ‘pieces of bread’ (ver. 19) have sometimes been supposed to be the fees paid the witch, but it is more likely that they were employed in some magical rite (cf. the use of a portion of the meal-offering in the test for adultery, Nu 5 26). One of the most interest- ing passages is Ezk 21 21, where the king of Babylon is represented as consulting the omens before decid- 539 A NEW STANDARD ing whether he should advance against Jerusalem or Rabbah of Ammon. ‘The arrows may have been used as lots to be drawn from the quiver; or in shaking them the king may haye been polishing them for use in self-hypnosis similar to crystal- gazing. Teraphim were included in the augury used, and this gives us a clue to the employment of teraphim in general, and to the reason for their exclusion from legitimate rites. The last clause of ver. 21is the only definite Biblical allusion to the consultation of the entrails, but the examination of the liver was one of the commonest Babylonian practises. In a cabinet in the British Museum there is a clay model of a sheep’s liver, the surface of which is divided into small squares like the ‘regions’ of an astrologer’s map of the heavens, and in each square are cuneiform characters evidently intended to explain how certain appearances in each region are to be interpreted 5. Divination and Prophecy. The so called false prophets may in many cases have been soothsayers, and prophetism, starting with the more naive and innocent forms of divination, gradually rose to greater heights and more spiritual conceptions with the greater insight into moral needs. Samuel might give a response for a small fee (IS 97 f.), but his larger mission was to find a king and to hold both king and people to an undeviating path of rectitude. The trivial and the transient were divorced from the true prophet’s occupation, and the man with the far- reaching vision of Israel’s destiny scorned the fren- zied demonstrations of the false prophets, and in the form of vision and parable declared the fate of king and people, like Micaiah (I K ch. 22). Yet how near the methods of the two classes were we see from II K 3 13 #., where Elisha required the playing of a minstrel before he could attain the proper state of ecstasy. We need not wonder at this when we find how close we are to the most primitive notions of cause and effect among even fairly educated people at the present day. The Midianite who adorned his camel with chains and crescents for good luck in the time of Gideon (Jg 8 21-26) would find his successor to-day in Syria or Italy. 6. Divination by Dreams. Another point of con- tact between the true and the false appears in dreams. The will of God might be thus revealed. Jacob claimed to receive Divine messages by this means (Gn 31 11). Joseph dreamed of future great- ness (Gn 37 5 ff.), and to him as well as to Daniel came the power to interpret (Gn 40 8, 12, 41 25 ff.; Dn 1 17, etc.). Incubation-places were esteemed; perhaps Jacob’s at Bethel (Gn 28 11-17), cer- tainly the shrine at Gibeon, where a_ king might meet God in the visions of the night (I K 35 #.). Yet the leading prophets did not greatly esteem dreams. The vision was a higher medium of communication, and even this often gave place to forms in which the fancy had less play. 7. Practise of Magic in Postexilic Israel. A recru- descence of sorcery must have taken place during or toward the close of the Exile. This was due to Baby- lonian influence and the large and elaborate system there displayed. The second part of Isaiah is a wit- ness to this, and the magicians of different orders are BIBLE DICTIONARY Magic and Divination there presented in antithesis to true seekers after God, while Babylon herself, in the day of her down- fall, was to have no profit from those practises upon which she depended (Is 44 25, 47 12 #.). Astrol- ogers, star-gazers, and monthly prognosticators are the names given those who sought, not in the chance omens of trees or birds or entrails, but from the aspects of the heavens, a more sure word of prophecy and even they are discredited. The Book of Daniel is another witness of the power of sorcery over the mind, altho the tone of the narrative shows it not to be a contemporary description of the Babylonian system. The wise men, the Chaldeans, the sooth- sayers, and the magicians (hartummin, the Aram. equivalent of the Heb. hartummim, spoken of as the ‘magicians’ attached to the court of Egypt in Gn 41 8; Ex 7 11, etc.) seem in Dn to be great bands or gilds, who appear before Nebuchadrezzar and Bel- shazzar somewhat as the false prophets of Micaiah’s time (cf. I K 2210 f.), tho in more ceremonious guise. Daniel by superior endowment triumphs over them and becomes himself their chief (Dn 5 11). But from the beginning to the end of the O T the sin of witchcraft is classed with idolatry and tera- phim as the enemy of true religion (cf. 1S 15 23). 8. Survivals of Magical Customs in the Legitimate Cultus. It is an interesting, altho difficult, task to discover what traces of old magical customs were preserved in the religion and carried over into the rites. Yet what was once an incantation may often have been purified and retained in a ritual. In this question is involved the whole problem of the origin of religious forms. Certain peculiar laws in Ly and Nu show the influence of early superstitions. The jealousy ordeal (Nu ch. 5) is a good example of this. In the first place, the fact that it is an ordeal connects it with the entire series of practises into which magic enters as a large factor; and, secondly, the details of the test are decisive. Holy (t.e., pure) water was to be mingled with the dust from the floor of the Taber- nacle, and when a portion of the meal-offering had been burned, the woman was to drink the water, meanwhile assenting to the consequences of the curse pronounced by the priest if she were really unfaithful. This is in all essential respects identical with ordeals among other early people. The dress of the high priest was doubtless symbolical in character, altho much of the early significance must have been ob- scured and forgotten. Yet the bells suggest the idea of a counter-charm by which evil influences were to be driven away. Naturally such notions disap- peared in course of time, and the ornamental purpose was the only one thought of. The phylacteries and frontlets, the sacred words fastened on the door-post (the m¢zizoth of to-day), and the cabalistic use of the Divine name testify to the persistence of old superstition. The Book of Tobit gives us some insight into the views of early Judaism concerning the unseen world. The strange custom preserved in the ritual of the Day of Atonement, viz., the send- ing away of the goat Azazel (Lev 16 8 ff.). seems to be a survival of early beliefs in the necessity of propi- tiating demoniac powers. Among all ancient peoples the processes of life were considered mysterigus and awful, and it is possible that circumcision, per- Magic and Divination Malachi A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 540 formed generally at the period of puberty, had its origin in the desire to propitiate the unseen powers, which presided over life and death. Ex 4 24 fi., ob- scure as it is, must refer to such a conception. The circumcision of the child, made to apply in a vica- rious manner to Moses, was a propitiatory act. Ina similar way the period of a woman’s uncleanness was regarded as tabu, and her separation was due to the feeling that in some way the powers of the unseen world were involved. Sacrifices at the time of child- birth had a similar origin. The peculiar law in Lv 19 23-25, about the period before a fruit-bearing tree might be used, is only a further extension of the same idea that unseen powers must be considered and placated before human beings could come in for their share of the fruits of the earth, or into the full par- ticipation of the rights of life. It would seem prob- able that the art of; physicians suffered often from the imputation of sorcery. Asa’s recourse to them for his malady (II Ch 16 12) is reprobated. Undoubt- edly the medical means used were of a kind which resembled a witch’s brew, and the list of unclean beasts (Lv ch. 11) probably included some which were neither totems nor sacred, but whose use was forbidden because associated with magical practises. 9. Magicinthe N T. In the N T there aresundry allusions to magic and sorcery. The form then most prevelant was that of exorcism (Ac 1913 and cf. Mt 12 27), in which the main feature was the pronuncia- tion of magic formulas, or incantations, or the use of certain names to expel demons from human beings. Josephus (Ant. VIII, 2 5) says that the incantations discovered by Solomon were still in use in his time and appears to have had great faith in their efficacy. There seems to have been a question whether exorcism was a strictly legitimate practise. Christ’s miracles in connection with demons were met with the sneer that He was in league with the powers of darkness (Mt 12 24). It is significant that the word Beelzebub (‘Beelzebul’ EV Vmg.) which we find here, according to some MSS., is the name of the oracle from which responses were sought in Elijah’s time (II K 1 2), the one that gave answers through the droning of flies. In Ac1913 we have a record of the proceedings of certain exorcists who endeavored to imitate Apostolic methods, and found themselves routed by the unfortunate demoniac in a burst of grim satanic humor. This happened at Ephesus, the home of curious arts (neptepya, Ac 1919, magical arts RV), and resulted in the wholesale destruction of the apparatus of sorcery (Ac 19 18 f.). Two masters of this art are prominently named in the Apostolic narrative, Simon Magnus (q.v.) (Ac 89 f.), and Bar-Jesus, surnamed Elymas (q.v.) (Ac 13 6 ff.), the latter title being of Semitic origin and testifying to his reputation for occult wisdom. Lastly, the girl possessed of ‘a spirit of divination’ (Ac 16 16; Gr. ‘a spirit, a Python’; so RVmg.) should be mentioned. She is the N T equivalent of the one that hath a ‘familiar spirit? of the O T. Serpent superstition and clairvoyance seem combined in the description of this girl, and, if we knew more of the details of her case, such an example might cast some light on certain words which occur in Dt 18 10 ¢. Sorcery comes in for final denunciation in Rev, where its identification with spiritual wickedness is com- plete. Sorcerers are among those who are to be forever shut out from the heavenly city (22 15). As a sorcerer was the representative of that which militates against the unity of the body politic, the aider and abetter of treason and treachery; so he could have no consideration when the city was cleansed of everything that loveth and maketh a lie. LirERATURE: The articles on Magic, Divination, and Charms and Amulets in HRE, and Int. Stand. Bib. Enc.; W. R. Smith in the Journal of Philology, XIII, XIV. Much illustrative material may be found in Frazer’s Golden Bough; see also Jevons, Introduction to the Hist. of Religion (81904), chs, iii, iv, vi-vili; and Introd. to Comp. Religions (1908), chs, iii, iv. C.*—O. R. S. MAGICIAN. See Maaic anp Divination, § 7. MAGISTRATE: A term for a civil official. In Ezr 7 25 it is equivalent to the 6rdinary Heb. term for ‘judge.’ In Lk 12 58, the language of which is apparently molded by Gr. usage, it translates the term &pxwv, an officer higher than the ‘judge’ (cf. Mt 5 25); in Ac 16 20 ff. it renders the word otpatnyol, which is the ordinary Gr. equivalent for the duovirt, the two chief municipal officers of a Roman colony; called by courtesy pretors (cf. RVmg.), before whom political charges were brought. On Jg 18 7, Lk 1211, Tit 31, cf. RV. R. A. F.—E. C. L. MAGOG, mé’geg. See ETHNOGRAPHY AND Eranoioey, § 13, and also Goa. MAGOR-MISSABIB, mé’gér-mis’a-bib (12 a’392, maghor-missabhibh), ‘terror on every side’: A phrase coined by Jeremiah (Jer 6 25, 20 10), and (in 20 3) given by him as a name to Pashhur in prophecy of the fate which awaited him (cf. 46 5, 49 29). C.8. T. MAGPIASH, mag’pi-ash (¥9°512, maghpi‘ash): The name of a family whose representative signed the covenant (Neh 10 20). Perhaps the same as Magbish (q.v.). ; MAHALAH, ma-hé’la. See Mauuan. MAHALALEL, mo-hal’a-lel (282270, mahdlal él, Mahalaleel AV), ‘praise of God’: 1. One of the ante- diluvian patriarchs in the Sethite genealogy (Gn 5 12 #., etc.). 2. A descendant of Judah (Neh 11 4). 3. The N T form is Maleleel (in Lk 3 37 AV). MAHALATH, mé/ha-lath (N20) mahdlath): 1. The wife of Esau (Gn 289). 2. The wife of Reho- boam (II Ch 11 18). See also Psaums, § 3 (5). MAHALATH-LEANNOTH, mého-lath - l-an’- neth. See LmanNnorts. MAHALI, mé‘ha-lai. See Mant. MAHANAIM, mé”ha-né’im (92209, mahdnayim): A place of some importance. The earliest reference to it isin Gn 32 2 (E). Here Jacob, as he was return- ing from Mesopotamia, met the angels of God, and gave to the locality the name Mahanaim, 2.e., ‘two camps,’ or ‘companies.’ Mahanaim became the capi- tal of N. Israel under Ish-bosheth (II S 28, 12, 29). It was David’s headquarters during the revolt of Absa- lom (II S 17 24), and became the seat of one of Solo- mon’s prefectures (I K 414). The exact location has never been determined; it was certainly trans-Jor- danic, and lay to the N. of Jabbok and the S. of Penuel. Driver advocates an identification with Deir 541 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Magic and Divination Malachi ‘Alld, situated on the route which passes N. and 8. along the Jordan Valley. Following Jos 13 26, G. A. Smith is satisfied with locating it on the borders of Gad (See Map III, J 2.) J. A. K. MAHANEH-DAN, mé‘hoe-ni-dan” (] 77209, ma- hdnéh-dhén), ‘camp of Dan’: A name given to the place where the Danites encamped (Jg 18 25, 18 12). Perhaps two places are thus named, one between Zorah and Eshtaol (13 25), the other on the border of Benjamin, behind (west) of Kiriath-jearim. C. 8. T. _ MAHARAT, me-har’a-ai ("109, mahdray): One of David’s Bioes (II S 23 28; I Ch 11 30, 27 13). MAHATH, mé’hath (NN2, mahath): A Kohath- ite Levite of Hezekiah’s time (I Ch 6 35; II Ch 29 12, 3113). See AHiMoTH. MAHAVITE, mé’ba-vait, THE (8°02, mahd- wim): Eliel, one of David’s heroes, is called ‘the Mahavite’ (I Ch 11 46). The term is obscure and probably a scribal error for some other word. MAHAZIOTH, mea-hé’zi-ofh (NiIN'INS, mahd- zv oth), ‘visions’: One of the names in the peculiar verse (I Ch 25 4; see JosupeKasHaAn), later taken as the name of an individual (I Ch 25 30). MAHER-SHALAL-HASH-BAZ, mé”har-shé’lal- hagh-baz” (13 ON 52Y 7, maher shalal hash baz), ‘the booty hastens, the spoil speeds’: The sym- bolic name given to one of the sons of Isaiah, the prophet (Is 8 1), indicative of the impending doom of Damascus and Samaria. EK. BE. N. MAHLAH, ma‘la (12%, mahlah); 1. The eldest (?) of the five daughters of the Manassite Zelophe- had (Nu 26 33), who obtained the right to inherit their father’s property (as he had no son, 27 1), on the condition that they marry sons of their father’s brother (36 11). Their story gives the origin of the later law, which modified the earlier law of inheri- tance by males only (see Faminty anp Faminy Law, §§ 3, 8). 2. A Gileadite name (I Ch 7 18 Mahalah AV). ‘ Grade and bi MAHLI, ma’lai (°°, mala): 1. A son of Merari (Ex 619, Mahali AV; Nu 3 20; I Ch 6 19 [4]), and the founder of the Levitical family of Mahlites (Nu 3 33, 26 58; EXzr 8 18), descended from his two sons by the marriage of the daughters of one to the sons of the other (I Ch 23 22). 2. The son of Mushi, and grandson of Mahli (I Ch 6 47 [32], 23 23, 2430). C.S. T. MAHLON, ma@’len. See Cuimion. MAHOL, mé‘hol (711), mahal): The father of the three wise men, Heman, Calcol, and Darda, with whom Solomon is compared (I K 4 31 [5 11]). His origin is unknown. OARS ras be MAHSEIAH, mi-si’ya (NOM, mahséyah, Maa- seiah AV), ‘J’ is a refuge’: The grandfather of Baruch (Jer 32 12, 51 59). MAID, MAIDEN, MAID-SERVANT. See Fam- ILY AND Famiuy Law, § 7; also SLAVE AND SLAV- ERY, §§ 2, 3; and Marriage anp Divorce, §3. MAIL, COAT OF. See Arms anD Armor, § 9. MAIMED. See Sacririce AND OFFERINGS, § 5; and Disease AND Mepicing, § 6. MAINSAIL. See Snips anp Naviaarion, § 2. MAJESTY: The translation of (1) g@én (root idea ‘to raise oneself’), indicative of elevation, superiority; often translated ‘pride.’ Used of God in Is 2 10, 19, 21, 24 14; Mic 5 4; (2) of the related term gé’tih, cf. Ps 931; Is 2610; (8) of hddhar (root idea, ‘adornment,’ ‘distinction’), often rendered ‘beauty,’ ‘honor,’ ‘excellency.’ Used of God in I Ch 16 27; Ps 29 4, 96 6, 1041, 111 3, 145 5,12; (4) of hddh (root idea uncertain), eg., I Ch 29 11, 25; Job 37 22; (5) of several other terms, in both the O T and N T—all meaning ‘greatness,’ e.g., Est 1 4; Dn 4 36, 518; He 1 3, 81; II P1186. KH. E. N. MAKAZ, mé’kaz (¥R?, mdgats): A town near Shaalbim and Beth-shemesh (I K 4 9). Site un- known. MAKHELOTH, mak-hi’leth (Ni¥TP2, maghe- loth): A station on the wilderness journey (Nu 33 25 f.). Site unknown. MAKKEDAH, mak-ki’da (TIP, maggédhah): A Canaanite stronghold in the Shephelah, mentioned by the J document in connection with Joshua’s victorious campaign (Jos 10 10-27), and by D and P in the list of places captured with the subsequent allotment of the conquered city to Judah (Jos 10, 28 f., 12 16, 15 41). According to P, it was near Gederoth, Beth-dagon, and Naameh, and apparently on the natural route from the valley of Aijalon southward. Not far from the city was a cave, in which the five ‘kings’ hid from their pursuers (Jos 10 16 f., J). According to Warren (PEF, Surv. Mem, II, 411 ff., 427) these conditions are satisfied by the modern el-Mughér, a large, mud-built village, sit- uated upon a kind of promontory, which extends into the valley of Sorek (Wddy Surdr) from the north (Map III, C 5). It is undoubtedly an ancient site, as is shown by the rock-quarrying and the exis- tence of rock-cut tombs with locult running in from the sides of the chambers. So far as a careful ex- amination by the PEF surveyors could show, this is the only site in the plain where caves occur, and here they are numerous. The houses are built over and in front of caverns of various sizes, and small caves exist in the face of cliffs N. of the village. The Syriac of Jos 10 10 renders ‘Makkedah’ as Mokor, which approaches closely the Arabic mughr (pl. mughar), ‘a cave.” See PEFQ (1875), 165-167. This identification, however, is very doubtful. L. G. L.—L. B. P. MAKTESH. See JERUSALEM, § 36. MALACHI, mal’a-kai (2822, mal’akht), messenger’; possibly originally Malachiah, messenger of J’’.’ 1. Contents. The name of the last book in the prophetic collection. It consists of two parts. The first part (1 1-2 17) opens with a declaration of J’”’s love for Israel, and hatred of Edom (1 2-5); this is followed by a rebuke of the priests, who violate the prescriptions of the ritual law (1 6-14), and a threat of a heavy curse (21-3). This leads to the rehearsal of J’’s ideal covenant with Levi (2 4-9), and the de- nunciation of the special sin of faithlessness to the law of marriage (2 10-17). The second part begins ‘my ‘the Malachi Man, Doctrine of A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 542 with the prediction of the coming of J’”’s messenger (3 1-6), and: once more condemns the violation of J’’s commandments (8 7-15). The prophecy then closes with a vivid forecast of the judgment which shall separate between those who work wickedness and those who fear J” (3 16-4 3), and with the promise of the sending of Elijah (4 4-6). 2. Date. The date of the book is not definitely fixed by anything within it, but the general con- ditions reflected point to a time subsequent to the restoration of the Temple worship under Zerubbabel (17,10, 31). The evils denounced are similar to those met and rebuked by Ezra and Nehemiah (violations of the marriage law, 2 10-16; cf. Ezr 9 2, 10 3, 16-44; withholding the tithes 3 7-12; cf. Neh 13 10 f.). A governor is alluded to (1 8), but, as he is one who may receive presents, it can not be Nehemiah, for Nehemiah repelled the possible charge of doing so (Neh 5 14-18). From all these facts, it may safely be inferred that the prophecy belongs to the Persian period, and more especially to the time immediately preceding the reforms of Ezra and Nehemiah, 2.e., about 460-50 B.c. 3. Authorship. Whether the name of the book is the name of the prophet who wrote it is an open question. The title “The burden of the word of Jehovah’ (cf. Zee 91 and 121) indicates the appear- ance of a new type of superscription for prophecies. If the two sections in Zec are to be regarded as prophetic discourses anonymously published and later appended to the Visions of Zechariah, it is not unlikely that another anonymous prophet of the same general period should have published his message under the generic appelative of ‘messen- ger’ or ‘messenger of J’’,’. This view of the use of mal’ akhi seems to be supported by 3 1 and the tradition that Malachi was none other than Ezra himself (Targ. Jon. b. Uzziel, which adds to the name ‘Malachi’: ‘whose name is Ezra the scribe,’ an opinion adopted by Calvin). Against these con- siderations the reason for taking ‘Malachi’ as a proper noun is that it seems to be so translated in the LXX. In addition to this it is alleged ‘that every other book of the Minor Prophets opens with the name of its author.’ But this is a mere assump- tion (cf. Jonan; see also Driver, LOT'S, p. 321 f.). 4. Literary Features. In literary form the book is characterized by a quasi-dialectic type of discus- sion. This consists in the laying down of a general proposition which provokes contradiction leading to counterstatements, and ending with a vindication of the main position, perhaps more fully elaborated (cf. 1 2f., 217 f., 3 8f., 13 f.). By some this has been taken to be a sign that the prophecy was from the first circulated in writing. A better explanation of the fact is that the author adopted a method of teaching which was just coming into use and which later became a favorite in the schools and synagogs of Judaism. As to the book itself, it is more than probable that it represents a collection of sayings from a number of addresses delivered at different times. 5. Type of Thought. The type of thought repre- sented in M. points to a new development. While the prophet’s great ideal is, like that of earlier prophecy, the law of righteousness laid down by J” for His people, he lays great stress on the ritual. He also sees the great and terrible day of J’’ as about to break upon the familiar order of things, and bring unsparing judgment. But while the coming of this oonsummation is to be abrupt, preparation is to be made for it by the return of Elijah. 6. Summary. Thus by its style of composition, and by its system of thought, the book puts itself at the end of one order of things, and points to the beginning of another. It was an accurate instinct, therefore, and not a mere arbitrary impulse, that led to its being placed at the very end of the O T Canon (Prophetic Section), altho not the latest in the date of the O T books., LiTBRATURE: Driver, LOT® (1897), p. 355; Cornhill, Introd. to the O T (Eng. transl. 1907); Commentaries: V. Orelli, Minor Prophets (1893); Perowne, Malachi in Cambridge Bible (1890); G. A. Smith in Hzpositor’s Bible; S. R. Driver in The New Century Bible (1906); J. E. McFadyen, The Messenger of God (1910); J. M. P. Smith in ICC (1912). AG. ae MALCAM, mal’kam (RV), MALCHAM (AY) (0379, malkim): I. The eponym of a Benjamite family (I Ch 89). II. A deity of the Ammonites (Jer 49 1, 3; Zeph 1 5), the same as Milcom. See Semitic REiIGIon, § 26. G.S. T. MALCHIAH, mal-kai’a, MALCHI JAH, mal-cai’ja (920, 17920, malkiyyah, malkiyyahai), ‘my king is Jah’: 1. A descendant of Gershom (I Ch 6 40 [25]). 2. A priest, the father of Pashhur (I Ch 912; Neh 11 12; Jer 211, 381). 3. The head of the fifth course of priests (I Ch 24 9, perhaps =preceding). 4, 5, 6. Two of the ‘sons of Parosh’ (Ezr 10 25) and one of the ‘sons of Harim’ (Ezr 10 31) who had married foreign wives; the last also repaired the wall (Neh 3 11). 7. A son of Rechab who repaired the dung-gate (Neh 3 14). 8. A goldsmith who repaired the wall (Neh 3 31). 9. One who stood at Ezra’s left while he read the Law (Neh 8 4). 10. One who sealed the covenant (Neh 10 3 [4]); perhaps the same as 2. 11. A priest who assisted in dedicating the wall (Neh 12 42). Jerre HM f- MALCHIEL, mal’ki-el (78292, malki’él), MAL- CHIELITE, -ait, ‘God is king’: The ancestral head of the Malchielites, one of the clans of Asher (Gn 46 17; Nu 26 45; I Ch 7 31). MALCHIJAH. , See MAtcurian. MALCHIRAM, mal-kai’ram (OP220, malkiram), ‘my king is exalted’: A descendant of David (I Ch 3 18). MALCHISHUA, mal’/kai-shi’a (Y10°222, malki- shia‘), ‘the king is noble’ (?): A son of Saul, slain at the battle of Mt. Gilboa (I S 14 49, 31 2, Mel- chishua AV, etc.). MALCHUS, mal’kus (MéAxoc): One of the mixed company of Roman soldiers and officers of the Sanhedrin who arrested Jesus (Jn 18 3). He seems to have been a slave belonging to the household of the high priest. In the mélée that preceded the arrest his right ear was partially severed by Peter, and healed by Jesus (Jn 18 3, 10). Luke also records the incident, but not the name (Lk 22 49 f.). J! Mack: 543 A NEW STANDARD MALEFACTOR: The English translation of two Gr. words having practically the same meaning. (1) xaxonotds (xaxdv notdy, in some MSS.) (Jn 18 30 AV, ‘evil-doer’ RV). But in I P 2 14 (AV) it is rendered ‘evil-doer.’ It is possible that xaxoxoté¢ in I P 4 15 may mean ‘astrologer’ (cf. Artemid. Onetr. IV, 59). (2) xaxodpyoso (Lk 23 32 £.; IL Ti 29, ‘evil-doer’ AY). Js MRT; MALELEEL, meo-li’l-el (MaAeAena): An ancestor of Jesus (Lk 3 37 AV). See MAHALALEL, MALLOTHI, mal’o-thai (179, mallatht), ‘I have fulfilled’: Taken as a proper name (I Ch 25 4, 26), but more probably part of an ancient hymn. See JOSHBEKASHAH. . MALLOWS. See PALEsTINE, § 22. MALLUCH, mal’ok (7172, mallikh), also MALLUCHI, mal’lu-kai: 1. The name of a postexilic family and of several of its representatives (Neh 10 4, 12 2), called Malluchi in 12 14 (Melicu AV). 2. A Merarite Levite (I Ch 6 44). 3. One of the ‘sons of Bani’ (Ezr 10 29). 4. One of the ‘sons of Harim’ (Ezr 10 32; Neh 10 27). MAMMON (uaywvec, the Gr. form of an Aram. word for ‘riches’ [Mt 6 24; Lk 169, 11, 13]): The origin of the word is quite obscure. The following explana- tions are proposed: (1) Mammon was a deity of wealth; but there is no trace of belief in such a deity. (2) The word comes from the root ’aman, ‘to trust’ (ma@’mon, ‘that which is made secure’ or ‘deposited’). (3) It comes from matmon, ‘that which is treasured.’ The 2d is probably the correct derivation (cf. Dal- man, Aram. Gram.*, p. 170, and PRE?, Vol. XII, p-153 £:): A. C. Z. MAMRE, mam/’ri (81>!9, mamré’): I. In J, in the combination, ‘the oaks (‘plains,’ AV, ‘terebinths,’ RVmg.) of Mamre, which are in Hebron’ (Gn 13 is, cf. 181): The site of Abraham’s camp, which is placed by early Christian and modern Jewish tradition at er-Radmeh, 2 m. N. of Hebron. Near this is a ruin called ‘The House of the Friend (t.e., Abraham),’ and a second ruin, which is prob- ably the basilica erected by Constantine in the neighborhood. Since the 12th cent., however, the Christians have located Mamre 14 m. NW. of the city, where at the present time a very ancient tree is revered as ‘Abraham’s Oak.’ Both of these sites, however, seem too far from Hebron. (See Hesron.) The meaning of the name is unknown. II. In P, in the combination, ‘the cave of Mach- pelah, which is before Mamre, that is, Hebron’ (Gn 23 17-19, 259, 35 27, 49 30, 5013). The elimination of the holy trees, and the substitution of the patriarchal tomb, are significant for the age of P. (See MACHPELAH.) III. An Amorite chief, owner of the ‘oaks’ men- tioned above, and confederate with Abraham (Gn 1413, 24). (See AMRAPHEL. ) L. G. L.—L. B. P. MAN: The original Heb. and Gr. terms rendered ‘man’ are numerous, and each has its distinctive meaning. Only the briefest discussion can be given here. (1) The most generic term is ’édham, properly collective for ‘man’ in general, the genus Homo, mankind (Gn 1 26 f., 2 7, etc.), in distinction from Malachi BIBLE DICTIONARY Man, Doctrine of God (Nu 2319), or from other creatures (Gn 67, etc.). An individual is a ‘son of man’ (Ezk 21, etc.). This word has no plural; ‘men’ is literally ‘sons of man.’ (2) ’tsh indicates man as an individual, the male, the husband, the man of affairs, the citizen, etc. (Gn 2 23 f., 41, 13 16, 41 33; Hos 2 16, etc.). (3) ’éndsh, a collective, like ’@dham, and used much in the same way (Dt 32 26; Job 28 4, 32 8; Is 517, etc.). The Aramaic equivalent ’éndsh is used in Ezr 4 11; Dn 2 10, ete. (4) ba‘al, ‘owner,’ ‘master,’ is often rendered ‘man’ (pl. ‘men’) (Gn 20 3; Jos 24 11; Jg 92ff., etc.; see also BAaL; and Famity AND I'amity Law, § 3). (5) gebher, properly man as ‘strong,’ ‘vigorous,’ ‘brave’ (Ex 10 11; Jos 7 14; Jg 5 30. Often used in poetry in a more general sense; cf. Job 3 3, 1410; Ps 348, etc.). The Aram. equivalent is g*bhar (zr 4 21; Dn 2 25, ete.). (6) gibbdr, properly an adj., ‘strong,’ ‘powerful,’ but also, especially when _referring to warriors or heroes, used asa substantive. In either case it is generally rendered mighty man (Gn 109; Jos 10 2; Ru 21; II K 51, ete.). (7) 2akhar, ‘male’ (Lv 15 33; Nu 31 17f., ete.). (8) In a number of passages ‘man’ stands for the Heb. ben, ‘son of,’ thus, in I K 1 52 ‘worthy man’ is lit. ‘son of worth’; in IT K 216 ‘strong men’ is lit. ‘sons of strength,’ etc. (9) &ewroc in the N T corresponds to the O T ’ddhdm, as the most generic term, which is used in a great variety of senses. (10) &vne corresponds to the O T “ish, ‘man’ as an individual, etc., but its use is very general (Mt 7 24; Mk 6 20; Jn 1 13, etc.). (11) &eony or &peny, ‘male,’ is used in Ro 1 27; Rev 12 5. (12) The adjectives dveantvos (‘human,’ ‘of man’) and tédetocs (‘perfect,’ ° ‘full- grown,’ ‘adult’) are found in I Co 2 13, 4 3, 10 13; Ro 619; I P 213; Ja.37, and I Co 26, 1420. E.E.N. MAN, DOCTRINE OF: 1. General Features. The term ‘man’ (the rendering of the following Heb. and Gr. terms: ’ddhdam, ’ish,’énosh, gebher, &vVewxos, éyvo) is used of the human race, or human nature gen- erally, or else of the individual. It isin the former sense that it becomes a doctrinal term. Whether the Bible has a distinctive science of man (anthropology) isa question that must be answered upon the whole in the negative. This means that each large period of Biblical thought (that of the O T, or that of the N T) incorporates within itself the scientific ideas of its time, and that these are used as the vehicles for the communication of the essentials of religion. Inasmuch, however, as the latest stages of this development are controlled by the earlier, and do not at the end present radically contradictory tenets, the subject may be said to possess at least a relative unity. 2. The Origin of Man. As to the origin of man the Bible contains two accounts (Gn J 27 [P], and Gn 27[J]). In both, man is the creature of God. P puts this in a generic, J in a specific, form, 7.e., according to P, God created man as a part of the world; according to J, He fashioned him out of the dust of the ground, and then breathed into him the breath of life. The essential truth to be taught in both was that man owes his being te God, and has a spiritual affinity with Him. The mode of his coming into existence is a subordinate question to be answered by natural science. Man, Doctrine of Mandrake A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 544 a ete a Td eR NR RR A enn re AAR resent atathesathAta e=nneme een , 3. The Image of God in Man. The Biblical account of man’s creation includes also statements implying that man is endowed with the image (form) of God. This may mean that God has a bodily form, which serves as the pattern for that of man; or the image of God may be man’s moral nature; or it may consist in simple lordship over the other creatures. None of these views is satisfactory. Yet the frequent repetition of the statement (Gn 51, 9 6; Ja 39; Col 3 10) forbids the dismissal of it as a mere rhetorical embellishment. The image of God is better understood to be that which brings man into relation with God; in other words, to be his personality (Ps 8 5). 4, The Distinction of Sex. The same account includes a statement that God created man, male and female, which, however, is not to be associated with the mythological notion of an androgynous first man, but with the idea dominant throughout the Bible that the two sexes are on an equal footing, as far as relationship to God is concerned (Gal 3 28). This is in contrast with some forms of heathenism, in which woman is of inferior origin and occupies a lower place than man. 5. Unity and Complexity of Man. According to the prevalent representation of the Bible regarding man’s constitution, he is a unitary being. In every relationship he acts as one, both in the present life and in that after death. A separation of body from spirit is not held in view. And yet the complexity in unity of the human being is not ignored. On the one side, man is in contact with the material world, and possesses a nature which can be expressed only in terms of matter; on the other, he has powers that go beyond the world of matter. From this point of view, man is a twofold being. This doctrine is found in its simplest form in the idea of the inner man (Ro 7 22; II Co 4 16; Eph 3 16). It is implicit in Gn 27, and constantly comes to the surface in the designation of the superphysical in man, by the phrase the inward parts (Ps 59, 51 6). 6. Trichotomy. A still more exhaustive way of speaking of the whole man is resorted to by Paul. It consists in specifying body, soul, and spirit as parts of a complete human nature (I Th 5 23). This appears also in expressions in which a distinction be- tween soul and spirit is alluded to (I Co 15 44, 46; He 412). Some apparent support for this distinction is further found in the OT use of twoseparate words to designate soul and spirit respectively (nephesh and ruah). But on closer examination, this usage of the O T does not appear to be based upon a con- sistent psychological theory, but is rather a con- ventional one. So far as the distinction is observed, the word ‘soul’ stands for the principle of life as embodied in individuals, while spirit is the same principle as cause underlying the constituted life. In the N T, with its tendency toward keener analysis, spirit and soul are more clearly discrimi- nated from each other. The former is used of that specific side of human nature which allies man to God; the latter is restricted to the secular exercises of the inner man. 7. The Physical Man. The non-ethical side of man is concretely associated with the physical. The body is in the O T the seat of weakness, while in the N T it receives a more and more detached con- ception, until at times it is thought of as the mere residence of the spirit (II Co 51). At other times it is the ‘vessel,’ or instrument (II Co 4 7), or the ‘temple’ (I Co 619). The word flesh itself, ordinarily applied to the body, is found in several very broadly distinct meanings: (1) The material body (bdsdr, Gn 2 23), (2) human ‘nature in general (Jn 1 14), (3) relationship by marriage (Gn 2 23; Jg 9 2; Ro 9 5, 8), (4) the seat of all weakness (‘AI flesh is as grass,’ Is 40 6; ‘The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak,’ Mt 26 41), (5) moral turpitude (Ro 8 3 f.; Gal 5 13). 8. Localization of Faculties in the Body. In- dividual members or organs of the body are iden- tified with special functions of the mind. (1) The heart is the organ of thought (Pr 23 7; Mk 2 6; Lk 24 32), but not exclusively of the reasoning powers; for it is also the seat of the affections and appetites (Ps 104 25), eg., of joy (Is 80 29), anger (Dt 19 6), hatred (Lv 1917), and, in fact, of the whole personal life, including all the moral impulses, both the dis- criminative and the directive. ‘Heart’ is thus synonymous with ‘conscience’ (Job 27 6). (2) The bowels are more consistently the seat of the emo- tions, especially of those which, on account of their intensity or suddenness, produce a more perceptible reflex condition in the body (Is 16 11 AV, 63 15. La 1 20 ARV, however, renders more according to the sense). (3) The liver less frequently (La 2 11), and (4) the kidneys (Ps 79, 26 2, etc., reins AV and ERV; ARV here also renders, according to the sense, mind’) appear as seats of feeling. 9. Psychological Notions. The more purely psychological date of the Bible are scanty and more or less elastic. The conception of mind, except where it has been introduced by ARV in renderings according to the sense, is almost altogether a characteristic of the N T. And here it appears pre- dominantly in the synonymous terms voic, BovAn, the first of which denotes the deliberative reason, as applied to the moral life, with a bias either toward good or toward evil (Ro 7 23; Col 2 18; Rev 18 18); while the second denotes the act or state of intelli- gence, rather than a separate power or faculty. 10. Will. The Biblical conception of will must be gathered from what is said incidentally of willing as a phase of human activity. A name for the so called faculty of will is nowhere given. Neither is there a question of the freedom of the will, or of its determination. Practically, will arises in appetency, or strong inclination, and culminates in a wish (@éAnua [Ac 18 22; Eph 2 3] and éxrOuyte [Ro 6 12]). An inclination of a weaker nature, however, may show itself first in the form of a deliberation (Gob nua [I P 4 3]). The power of choice involves the power to accomplish what is chosen (Jos 24 15, 22; cf. also the appeal of Elijah, I K 18 21; cf. also Ph 1 22; He 11 25). Hence arises the idea of responsibility underlying the choice. Will worship (Col 2 23) is not the rendering of Divine honors to one’s own will, but the introduction into religion of arbitrary elements, according to one’s own choice. These may be well-intended, though unnecessary 545 A NEW STANDARD (or supererogatory), or hypocritical and harmful (ef. Lightfoot on Col 2 23). Lirerature: Laidlaw, Biblical Doctrine of Man (21895); Delitzsch, Bibl. Psych. (Eng. transl. 1867); Beck, Bibl. Psych. (Eng. transl. 1877); Wheeler Robinson, The Christian Doctrine of Man (1911). A. C. Z. MAW OF SIN. See Anticurist, § 6. MAN, SON OF. See Jesus Curist, § 15 (c). MANAEN, man’a-en (Mavatv=Heb. Menahém): A prophet in the church at Antioch, when Paul and Barnabas undertook their first missionary journey (Ac 181). He is also called a cbytpog0¢ of Herod the Tetrarch. While this may mean that he was the ‘foster-brother’ of Herod (cf. CIG, 3109), more probably it is simply a court title meaning ‘friend’ or ‘associate’ (see especially two Delos inscriptions reported in Bulletin de Correspondance hellénique [1877], I, 285, and cf. Deissmann, Bible Studies,? 810 f.). There is no established connection between this M. and Manaen the Essene referred to in Jos. Ant. XV, 10 5. & Aga bod ig MANAHATH, man’a-hath (M02), manahath): I. A son of Shobal, and the eponym of a Horite clan of Edom (Gn 36 23; I Ch 1 40). II. A place on the border of Judah, to which certain Benjamite clans were carried captive (I Ch 8 6). Site unknown. (ORIEN ht MANAHATHITE, man’a-hafh-ait (M22, ma- nahtt, Manahethite AV): A Calebite clan descended from Salma (I Ch 2 54). We should read the same word for Menuhoth (I Ch 2 52), which was also a Calebite clan and likewise inhabited Manahath, which ultimately became a city of Judah. C.S. T. MANAHETHITE, man’s-heth-ait. See Mana- HATHITE. MANASSEH, meo-nas’é (7¥22, menashsheh =Gr. Mavacofic, Manasses): I. The ancestral head of one of the tribes of Israel; see Tripn, Tripss, § 3 f. II. 1. The son of Hezekiah, King of Judah (695-641 B.c., IZ K 211). He succeeded his father at the age of twelve. As Hezekiah had hearkened to the teachings of the prophets and had carried on a drastic system of reforms in religious worship, based on their principles (II K 18 4), one of the first steps of the anti-prophetic party when he died was to start a violent reactionary movement. In this they succeeded so far as to enlist the young king in their cause. His policy was accordingly molded quite early in his reign by the leaders of this faction. Hezekiah’s reformation was arrested, and the cruder forms of worship practised in the reign of Ahaz were restored. Things went even further; for the king thought to strengthen himself against the prophetic party by winning over to his side the adherents of other religious systems, through the establishment of a syncretistic national religion in Judah. For this purpose he introduced from Assyria the astral system (the adoration of the ‘host of heaven,’ IT K 21 3), and caused ‘his son to pass through the fire’ (ver. 6), 7.e., he practised human sacrifice. In fact, he completely reversed his father’s policy, and even persecuted the prophetic party, especially the prophets. Many who resisted him were actually put to death (II K 21 16, 24 4; Jer 2 30). The syn- Man, Doctrine of BIBLE DICTIONARY Mandrake cretism thus introduced seems to have survived as late as the days of Ezekiel (Ezk 8 16). At all events, Jeremiah, after Manasseh’s death, was full of prophetic indignation and horror at Manasseh’s sins, and looked for their expiation as still in the future (Jer 15 4). Politically, Manasseh’s reign was prosperous and free from petty warfare with the surrounding nations. Judah’s relation to Assyria had been defined under Sennacherib as that of tribute-paying vassalage. This condition continued under Esarhaddon (687-662 B.c.), who names Manasseh as one of twenty-two tributary vassal princes (Menasé, Minsé, Schrader, COT, II, 58-60); but Manasseh rebelled against Asshurbanipal and was probably reconquered and taken for a time to Assyria as @ prisoner. No extra-Biblical account of such an occurrence, however, has been preserved. The Chronicler who relates this incident attributes the misfortune to Manasseh’s disobedience to the prophetic voice (II Ch 33 11). It is further added that this experience brought Manasseh to his senses, that he humbled himself before God, was restored to Jerusalem, reenacted his father’s reforms, and strengthened the fortifications of the city. Later tradition attributes to him the composition of a prayer in his distress (see Manasses, PRAYER OF). 2. One of the ‘sons of Pahath-moab’ who married a foreign wife (Ezr 10 30). 3. One of the ‘sons of Hashum’ who also married a foreign wife (Ezr 10 33). A.C. Z. MANASSES, mea-nas’siz. See MANASSEH. MANASSES, PRAYER OF: An apocryphal document, based upon the reference in II Ch 33 12 f. In the foregoing passage no prayer is given, but we are told (ver. 18) ‘that the rest of the acts of Manasseh and his prayer unto his God... are written among the acts of the kings of Israel’; also (ver. 19) that ‘his prayer... is written in the history of Hozai (the ‘seers’ AV).’ The so called Prayer of Manasses purports to be this prayer. It is found among the Canticles appended to the Psalter in some MSS. of the LXX.; also in Apost. Const. I, 22, but it never had a regular position in the LXX. Some scholars have favored the view that our Greek version of the prayer is connected, through the Hebrew, with the lost original referred to in II Ch. This, however, is not the generally accepted opinion. The prayer is rather a composition (date uncertain) emanating from later Judaism, and stands much in the same relation to II Ch 33 12 £. as does the Prayer of Azariah to Dn 3 24¢. It has been divided into three parts: (1) an invocation of the Deity; (2) a confes- sion of sin; (8) an entreaty for forgiveness; it sets forth God’s infinite compassion and the efficacy of repentance. In such a short piece (15 vs.) it is difficult to decide, but probably the original lan- guage was Greek. It has never been recognised as canonical, but is included in our EV among the Apocrypha. J. S. R.—W. G. J. MANASSITE, mea-nas’ait: The gentilic of Manas- seh, meaning a member of the tribe of Manasseh. See Tripss, §§ 2, 4. MANDRAKE. See PALESTINE, § 22; also Dis- EASE AND MEDICINE, § 3. WManeh Mark, John A NEW STANDARD MANEH, mé’ne. See WriauTs AND MEASURES, § 4. MANGER: The Gr. 9&tvy properly means ‘feed- ing-place’ (from xatetcOat, ‘to eat’), and should be thus rendered in Lk 13 15 (stall’ AV and RV), as it is correctly rendered in 2 7, 12, 16. MANIFEST, MANIFESTATION (gavepoiv, pavé- ewatc): In their general meaning these terms do not materially differ from ‘reveal’ and ‘revelation’; but they are found in a more specific usage in the N T, underlying which usage there is the idea of a sharp separation between spiritual and material realities. The breaking of the spiritual into the sphere of the material is designated a ‘manifestation,’ 7.e., the bringing into visibility of what is real but invisible. The terms are favorites in the Johannine writings (Jn 211, 17 6; I Jn 3 2, etc.), altho also used in the Pauline Epistles (I Ti 3 16). They are still more specificially applied to the second coming of Christ, as a spectacular revelation of Himself, emerging from His present invisibility (Col 1 26, 3 4; I Jn 2 28). AOU: MANNA (1, mdn): The food miraculously pro- vided for the Israelites during their desert wander- ings. According to the J document of the Hexateuch (Nu 11 6-9), the manna fell with the dew in the night, it looked like coriander seed (about a sixth of an inch in diameter, whitish, globular, and aromatic), or like bdellium (see BpELLIUM); it was gathered daily, ground, boiled, and made into cakes, which tasted like cakes baked with oil; the Israelites wearied of it during the sojourn in the desert. According to E (Ex 16 4), J’’ rained bread from heaven, and the people gathered it daily, that he might test them, whether they would keep his téradh. According to P (Ex 16 5-36), it appeared on the ground every morning, when the dew had evaporated, except on the Sabbath; it looked like hoar-frost; when the people saw it, they exclaimed man hi’, ‘what is it?’, hence its name mdan, ‘manna’; no one could gather more or less than a full omer- daily, and it would not keep over night, except on the day before the Sabbath, when one could gather two omers; it ceased on entering Canaan (Jos 512). The embellishment of the tradition in the later P document is obvious. Ps 78 25 calls manna ‘food of the mighty,’ 7.e., of ‘celestial beings.’ The sweet, sticky gum exuding from a species of tamarisk is called manna by the modern Arabs (Ritter, Geog. Pal. I, 271-292), and attempts have been made to identify this with the Biblical food. Exudations from other shrubs have also been suggested, and the scales of various lichens; but none of these has any practical food-value (all being medicinal rather than nu- tritive), or occurs in sufficient quantities, or pos- sesses the other requisite qualities to satisfy the Scriptural descriptions. The ‘manna’ of the American Pharmacopeeia is an exudation from a species of ash, and comes chiefly from southern Italy and Sicily. L. G. L.—L. B. P. MANNER: In the majority of instances this is an adequate, altho not literal, rendering of original terms meaning ‘word,’ ‘way,’ ‘judgment,’ etc. A few cases need comment. In Is 5 17 ‘manner’ AV BIBLE DICTIONARY 546 should be ‘pasture’ as in RV. In Is 10 24, 26 the references are historical, in the first instance (ver. 24), to the rod of the Egyptian taskmaster, in the second (ver. 26), to the rod of J’’, with which Moses smote the Red Sea. In Am 4 10 Egypt as the home of pestilence is meant; while in 8 14 (‘way’)RV it may refer to the (sacred) road to Beersheba. On Lv 20 23 cf. RV. In IIS 7 19 the text is doubtful, and in any case ‘way’ or ‘manner’ is an incorrect rendering. HK. E. N. MANOAH, mo-nd’a (32, manéah), ‘rest’: The father of Samson (Jg 13 2 ff.), described plainly as a man of Zorah, of the family of the Danites. From this it has been conjectured that his name was the eponym of the Manahathites (q.v.), of which it might be a corruption. The only thing certain seems to be that one-half of the clan of the Manahathites were Zorahites, viz., residents of Zorah, Manoah’s town. A. C. Z. MAN SERVANT. See Siavery, § 2 f. MANSION(S). Etymologically, this is a correct rendering of Gr. p.ovat, ‘abiding-place(s)’ (both from the same root). But in common use ‘mansion’ suggests the size or elegance of the ‘dwelling,’ which is not the emphatic idea in Jn 14 2 (cf. ver. 23). MANSLAYER. See Crimes AnD PUNISHMENTS, § 2 (b). MAN-STEALING. MENTS, § 2. MANTELET. See BESIEGE. MANTLE. See Dress anD ORNAMENTS, § 4; also Rua. MAOCH, mé’ok (T1992, ma‘dkh): The father of Achish, King of the Philistine city of Gath x S 273), called Maacah i in I K 2 39. CoSiaLe MAON, mé’en (]i¥?, ma‘on, ‘dwelling’), MAON- ITES, mé’anaits: A city in the hill-country of Judah near Ziph and Carmel (Jos 15 55, P; IS 25 2), represented (genealogically) as a descen- dant of Hebron and father of Beth-zur (I Ch 2 45). It is now Khurbet Ma‘in, a conical hill with caves and extensive ruins, which rises 200 ft. above the site of Carmel. Map II, E 3. (See Buhl, Geog., p. 163, with literature.) E. of Ma‘tn a waste pasture- land slopes down toward the Dead Sea. This is apparently the Wilderness of Maon, in which David took refuge (I S 23 24 f.). The Maonites (Heb. ma‘on; Jg 10 12) are possibly the same as the Meunim (q.v.), and the home of the tribe seems to have been in Arabia (I Ch 4 41; IT Ch 201 ARV mg.; 26 7), possibly at Ma‘dn, 13 m. SE. of Petra. Others identify them with the Mineans of 8. Arabia, and still others emend the text and read ‘Midian- ites.’ (See G. F. Moore, in ICC on Jg 10 12.) L. G. L.—L. B. P. MARA, mé’ra (81), mara’), ‘bitter’: A name given by Naomi to herself, because of her bitter ex- perience (Ru 1 20). Grate et be MARAH, mé’ra (179, marah), ‘bitterness’: The name of a bitter spring made sweet by Moses (Ex 15 23 ff.), the site of which constituted the first See CRIMES AND PUNISH- 547 station of the Israelites after crossing the Red Sea (Nu 33 8f.). Not yet located. CoSie: MARALAH, mar’a-la (12972, mar‘dlah): A city of Zebulun (Jos 19 11). Site uncertain, but see Map IV, C 7. MARANATHA, mar’a-nath’a: An Aramaic ex- pression found in I Co 16 22. According to Dalman (Aram. Gram.2 pp. 152, 357), the Gr. uaodv d04= the Aram. 8) 8312, ‘our Lord, come.’ It was prob- ably a widely current expression, a watchword of the early Christians, indicative of their fervent hope in the speedy reappearance of the Lord Jesus. BK. E. N. MARBLE: A stone capable of polish, and there- fore, for its brightness, called in Gr. wdapyapos (‘glistening’). The Heb. shayish is of uncertain derivation. Marble was often used in costlier build- ings (Est 1 6; Song 5 15), and especially in the Temple (I Ch 29 2; Jos. Ant. VIII, 3 2). The pillars of Herod’s Temple were of marble (BJ, V, 5 2). rw GE DLE MARCUS, mar’kus. See Mark (Joun). MARESHAH, meo-ri/sha (7¥871?, madré’shah), called Marisa in Jos. and II Mac:I. A city of Judah (Jos 15 44), fortified by Rehoboam (II Ch 11 8). It became the battle-field in a war between Asa and Zerah of Ethiopia (II Ch 149f.). It waslater sacked by Judas Maccabeus (Jos. Ant. XII, 8 6), and figured in the wars of the Maccabeans generally (II Mac 12 35; Jos. Ant. XIII, 91; XIV, 4 4, 139). Map II, D 2. II. The father of Hebron (I Ch 2 42) and the son of Laadah (I Ch 4 21). A.C. Z. MARINER. See Suips anp NaviaaTIon, § 2. MARISH: An old English form of ‘marsh’ (Ezk 47 11 AV). MARK: The rendering of (1) ’dth, ‘sign’ (Gn 4 15 AV). The sign was placed on Cain to protect him, not to mark him as a murderer. (2) mattdérah, from matar, ‘to watch,’ and hence the object on which the eye is fixed when shooting (I S 20 20; Job 16 12; La 3 12). (3) miphgé@‘, ‘that against which one strikes,’ the obstacle in the way (Job 7 20). Job com- plains that God (purposely) strikes against him continually. (4) tdéw, the last letter of the Heb. alphabet, the old form of which was T (Ezk 9 4, 6). Here the word seems to mean simply a mark or brand, not necessarily the letter itself. (5) ga‘dqa‘ in Lv 19 28 probably refers to barbarous customs of tattooing. (6) cxord¢ (Ph 3 14 AV), is ‘goal,’ as in RV. (7) ottyya (Gal 6 17), ‘imprints,’ or ‘brands,’ mean the scars of the wounds Paul had received for his loyalty to Christ. As slaves were branded to show to whom they belonged, so Paul calls these marks the ‘brands’ showing to what Master he belonged. (8) xéeayya, a ‘stamp’ im- printed on a surface, is used in Rev 13 16 f., 14 9, etc., of the mark branded or stamped on the fore- heads of the followers of Antichrist. EK. E.N. MARK, mark, JOHN (Méoexo¢): Of the life of M., the supposed author of the Second Gospel, but few notices are contained in the N T. His Jewish name was John, but like many Jews of the day he had A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Maneh Mark, John a Gentile surname, Mark (Marcus, Gr. Maexos). Presumably, he was a native of Jerusalem, where his mother had a large house (Ac 12 12) and was ap- parently a woman of some means. How M. and his mother became identified with the primitive Chris- { tian Church of Jerusalem we do not know. Some have thought that the peculiar episode related in the Gospel (14 51 f.) refers to him and is, as it were, his signature to his Gospel. In any case, we may be sure that by 44 a.p.—.e., less than fifteen years after Pentecost—both M. and his mother were prominent members of the Christian community in Jerusalem. The mother of M. was sister to either the mother or father of Barnabas, since M. is called the latter’s dvetrd¢ (Col 4 10 ‘cousin’ RV, not ‘nephew’ as AV). When Paul and Barnabas returned to Antioch, after their visit to Jerusalem with alms from the Church Antioch, they took with them ‘John whose sur- name was Mark’ (Ac 12 25). A year or two later M. was selected to accompany them on their first mis- sionary journey as a helper, dxyeétys (not a menial servant, nor, on the other hand, a colleague; Ac 13 5). M. remained with them while they evangelized Cyprus. But when they crossed over to the main- land, to Perga of Pamphylia, and planned to go thence into the interior of Asia Minor, M. withdrew and returned to his home in Jerusalem (Ac 13 13). Paul was much displeased at this, altho he appears to have had no objection at M.’s presence in Antioch after he and Barnabas had returned from their journey. Possibly M. returned to Antioch in their company after the Apostolic Council of 49 or 50 a.p. But when Paul and Barnabas planned a sec- ond journey and the latter wished to take M. along again, Paul refused (Ac 15 37 #.). The disagree- ment was so positive that Paul and Barnabas parted, and Barnabas with M. visited Cyprus once more (Ac 15 39), c. 50 a.p. After this time the history of M. is involved in obscurity. In Col 410 (ce. 60 or 61 a.p.) Paul writes to the Church of Colossze that in case M. comes to them, they should receive him, stating also that they had had some communications regarding him. It is evident that during the pre- ceding ten years M. had been restored to the Apostle’s favor, but when and how is not known. Col was probably written from Rome and would imply that M. was then with Paul at Rome, and was about to start thence on a journey to the East, expecting to visit Colosse. The letter to Philemon, ver. 24, shows that this was the case. M. did leave Rome, but whether he visited Colosse we do not know. He was in the East when Paul, at the time of his second imprisonment, wrote to Timothy and asked him to come to him and bring M. with him, since ‘he is useful to me for ministering.’ Pre- sumably M. was in Rome with Paul when the latter was executed. In I P 513 there is a reference to M. which only adds to the perplexity of the problem concerning the latter part of his life. If I P was written at Babylon (as Weiss holds) and some years before the execution of Paul, M. must have been associated with Peter after his visit to Cyprus with Barnabas, and then later transferred himself from Peter to Paul. But if I Pis late and was written from Rome, M. may have Mark, John Mark, Gospel of joined Peter after the death of Paul. Other solu- tions are, of course, possible, but no one of them can be considered more than a conjecture. The earliest Christian tradition, outside of the NT, associates M. with Peter as his épunveutys, a term capable of several renderings. ‘The more common rendering, ‘interpreter,’ would signify that M. may have been used by Peter to interpret his Aramaic discourses into Greek, such as people in Rome, for example, might more readily appreciate. Papias, to whom we owe this notice, thinks of M. as the con- stant companion of Peter and consequently well fitted to compose a Gospel in which Peter’s teaching was accurately reproduced even if not correctly ar- ranged (see Marx, Gosputu oF, § 1 [h]). Later tradi- tions connect M. with Alexandria, of which city he is reputed to have become the first Chritian bishop. His supposed remains were taken thence by the Venetians in the 9th cent. and thus St. Mark became the patron saint of Venice. But nothing certain is known of his later career, altho many legends exist in the apocryphal literature of the early Christian centuries. KE. E. N. MARK, GOSPEL OF: The second of the so called Synoptic Gospels (see GosprEL, GosPELs, § 3). 1. Authorship. Asis the case with all the narrative writings of the N T there is no one named as the author of this Gospel; tho the incident given in 14 51 f. is held by some scholars to be the author’s reference to himself, largely on the basis of what is generally assumed to be the Fourth Evangelist’s indefinite expression of self-reference (cf. Jn 18 15 f., 20 1-10). But even so, there is no way of identifying the person there referred to. As a matter of fact, it is only by a careful study of the contents of the Gospel that we can come to any conclusions as to the directions in which its author- ship lies, and these conclusions must at the best be tentative, until subjected to the testimony of the external evidence. (a) Contents. The material of the narrative is arranged in an order which not only follows the recognized general development of Jesus’ ministry, but is practically chronological in its sequence of individual events. After an Introductory Statement, containing the title of the Gospel (11), the record enters at once upon the Public Ministry of Jesus (1 2-13 37), This is opened with a preliminary narrative (1 2-1), con- sisting of a brief account of the ministry of the Baptist (1 2-8), leading up to Jesus’ induction into His work through His baptism (1 9-1) and His temptation (1 12 f-), The Min- istry proper is then taken up from the aspect of Jesus’ work among the people, viz.: A. His Popular Ministry (1 4-8 2), This popular work is described: (A) As it covered the region of Galilee proper (1 14-7 23), prefaced by a statement of His coming into Galilee and the theme of His message (1 “4 f-), and then taking up the action of the ministry, beginning with the call of the four fishermen (1 15-20) and the opening day of the Capernaum work (1 2174) and recording the tours out from Capernaum which, while spoken of as for the purpose of preaching (xnedacety, 1 %), are reported practically in their characteristic activity of events. I. The first tour is through the smaller villages near by Capernaum (1 %-5), This is followed by an account of the return to Capernaum and the work in that neighborhood (2 13 18a), II, With 3 1%-80 is given an incident in Capernaum which evidently marks the return from a second more extended preaching-tour (cf. Mt 11 2-80; Lk 7 1-8 8 as giving the inci- A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 548 dents probably occurring on this tour), This is followed by a further incident (3 4!-35)—presented as a sequence of the former—and by what Mark records of the parables by the sea (4 1-4), and then by what may be considered as a III, Third tour—across the sea into the country of the Gerasenes (4 55-5 20), This is followed by a return to Caper- naum, with subsequent miracles and a visit to Nazareth (5 21-6 6), after which is recorded a IV. Fourth tour—this time, however, apparently repre- sentative as well as personal through the sending out of the Twelve over a much larger region of the country, while Jesus Himself continued the more local work (6 6-33), This is closed with the events which ended His work in Galilee proper (6 34-58), to which is added a ceremonial criticism by the Pharisees and Jesus’ answering discourse (7 !-2), (B) This popular ministry is then interrupted with what is practically a period of retirement from public activity, located in the region of Northern Galilee and the Decapolis (7 %- 8 %6), tho some miracles are incidentally accorded, also a controversy with the Pharisees and a few remarks to His disciples (7 24-30, 82-37, 8 1-10, 22-26, 8 11-13, 14 21), B. At the close of this period He calls forth from his disciples a confession as to the spiritual character of His Messiahship (8 27-80) and then begins what the Evang. makes the second main feature of His narrative—His instructional Ministry (8 51-10 52), This includes His remarks connected with the announcement to His disciples of His approaching Passion (8 %-9 1), His Transfiguration (9 9-18), and His last journey to Jerusalem (9 30-10 582), C. There is then given the final feature of the narrative in His Ministry in Jerusalem (chs. 11-13), including the Eschatological Address of ch. 13. D. This leads up to His Passion and Resurrection (14 1-16 8 {vs. 9-20 being by a later hand)}). (b) Nationality of Author. A careful study of these contents makes clear that the author was a Jewish Christian, not because of any Jewish cast in the narrative, for this seems to be altogether lacking, but (1) because of the author’s familiarity with Jewish customs (cf. 1 44, 2 18, 11 15, 141) and beliefs (cf. 12 18) and his ready ability to explain them (cf. 7 2ff., 1412, 15 6, 42), and (2) because of his acquain- tance with the Aramaic language, which he translates for his readers’ sake (cf. 3 17, 5 41, 7 11, 34, 9 43, 10 46, 14 36, 15 22, 34). (c) Readers. On the other hand, it is equally clear that the readers were Gentile Christians, not simply because they were unacquainted with the language and customs of Palestine, for so were the Jewish Christian readers of Mt [q.v., § 1 (d)], but because, in addition to the explanation of Aramaic terms, there are some Latin terms (e.g., 2 4, 6 55 xekBattos, 6 27 onexvrAdtwp, 7 4, 8, Eéotyns, 15 30, 44 £. xevtupfwy 15 15, td txavdy motetv), which are used only by him, and some which seem to be used not so much from the writer’s habit of speech as from his desire to be un- derstood by the readers (cf. 12 42, 15 16). At the same time, there is, apart from the remarks of others, an almost total absence of O T quotations. (d) Place. There is no indication as to where the Gospel was written, tho perhaps from what has just been said a Latin country both for the readers and the writing might be more likely than a Greek or Hebrew one would be—in other words, the Western rather than the Eastern region of the early Church.! 1 Were we sure as to the identity of the Rufus mentioned in Ro 16 ® with the Rufus referred to in the Gospel (15 2), we might infer that the author’s inclusion of the children of Simon of Cyrene in his recital of the incident was due to the fact that his readers lived in Rome and would naturally be interested in this detail. Possibly the emphasis which he places on things clean and unclean (7 !-%#) might be due 549 (e) Time. As to when it was written, the general tendency of modern scholarship is to place it before the destruction of Jerusalem (70 a.p.). This would seem to be justified, for there is here the same naive unconsciousness that we find in Mt (q.v., §1 f.) regarding the unfulfilment of Jesus’ announcement of His return to earthimmediately upon the soon im- pending catastrophe predicted in ch. 18, cf. vs. 28-37), while there is an absence even of the things which in Mt might seem to betray a more developed church organization or doctrinal thought. If the apoca- lyptic elaboration of ch. 13 [see note on (i) p. 550] is justified, it would bring the time of composition necessarily to a date not long before the catastrophe of 70 a.p. And yet, if Mt also was written before 70 a.p., time enough would have to be allowed for Mark’s Gospel to become widely enough current as giving the recognized record of Jesus’ ministry to be reproduced so largely in Mt’s Gospel (see Synoptic PropuiEeM, § 5). Perhaps the earlier years of the sixth decade would best suit all the conditions in the case—making its composition shortly before Peter’s martyrdom in 64 a.p. All this would be confirmed by any evidence which might be forthcoming from a study of its literary relation to the other Synoptics, showing that Mk was used by Matthew as well as by Luke in the writing of their Gospels. (See SyNopric ProBLEM, § 5). (f) Motive. As far as this Gospel has a distinctive motive, it is to present Jesus to its readers in the actual reality of His wonderful life (see GosPEL, GospEts, § 3). It isa thoroughly objective narrative which is given. The discourses of Jesus are largely omitted, while there are brought out into strong prominence not simply His wonderful deeds, but the wonderful effects which they produced (cf. 1 22, a7 f., 37, 45, 212 f., 3 6-12, 41, 5 14-21, 42 [contrastive unbelief 6 2 f., 62 and Herod’s opinion 6 14], 6 31-33, 54-56, 7 36f., 1217, 34—naturally more evident during His popular than His instructional work). (g) Results of Internal Evidence. While the results obtained from this internal study of the Gospel are not indicative of anything beyond its being a possible product of the Apostolic Age and of the person whose name it bears, more definite conclusions are reached by a full and impartial com- parison of these results with the external evidence regarding the Gospel furnished by the post-Apostolic Age. (h) External Evidence. This evidence uniformly ascribes the origin of the Gospel to Mark and to M. as in some way connected in the writing with Peter. That M. could have been associated with the Apostle is of course evident from the glance at the N T notices of him (see previous article). The difficulty is simply to determine just what was this association from a literary point of view. Gathering from Jerome back to Papias such state- ments as have a bearing upon the problem, and to the discussion as to the distinction between them prevalent in the Roman Church (Ro ch. 14). While, if the identifying of the Last Supper with the Passover (14 12) was due to the fact that the later Roman custom of regarding the Eucharist ‘as a reproduction of the Paschal Meal had already begun, it might confirm the tradition that Mark wrote his Gospel at Rome (Bacon, Gospel Story, pp. xxix ff., 195-198; Burkitt, Sources, pp. 92-94). A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Mark, John Mark, Gospel of (Ee en ee a ee dence, it becomes quite clear that, as in the case of Mt, Papias furnishes the point of departure for all the succeeding tradition, not merely because he was the earliest witness, but because we can understnad how the other statements by those who came after him have been developed from his. The statement of Papias is as follows: ‘Mark, who had been Peter’s interpreter, wrote down accurately, tho not in order, whatever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he did not hear the Lord, neither did he follow Him, but at a later time, as I said, followed Peter, who delivered his discourses according to the needs [of each occasion], but not with the idea of making a complete arrange- ment of the Lord’s sayings. So that Mark erred in no respect, thus writing down such things as he re- membered; for of one thing he made great care, not to omit anything of what he had heard, or falsely to state anything in them [as he gave them].’ 2 From this it would seem that the literary relation between M. and Peter was connected with Peter’s fragmentary Gospel preaching. This, however, raises the question as to how M. could get from desultory discourses such a connected narrative as our Second Canonical Gospel gives us. In turning to Papias’ statement for more detailed investigation we find that it tells us that M., who had been with Peter as his interpreter (py. nveutyhes, ‘translator’—a relation not altogether easy to define, tho possibly referring to such services as might be rendered the Apostle when he was confronted with audiences whose language he could not use well enough for public discourse), committed to writing what he could remember of Peter’s Gospel discourses (St3acxcAtat), which were delivered, not with the purpose of making a completely arranged presenta- tion (cbyta—ts) of the Lord’s sayings, but in a way to suit the needs of each occasion (neds tas yeelas), and that the writing of them itself was not in order (od wévtor te Ect). The query is, of course, how such a description suits the contents of our Gospel. It might be pos- sible that the statement of Peter’s purpose in his dis- courses not completely to present the sayings of the Lord was intended to explain the fragmentary ap- pearances of such sayings in our Gospel; but it is not so easy to explain the criticism of M.’s own writing as being not in order; for whatever may be said of the Gospel’s bringing together into immediate con- nection events more probably separated in time or its piecing together into one discourse sayings uttered on different occasions (cf. Menzies, The Earliest Gospel, pp. 30-33), it not only presents a consistently developed plan of Jesus’ ministry, but it is in the main current of its narrative chrono- Le aae Mer eALE MODEL gee Ci Et noe a 2 Méoxoc wiv sounveutis [léteou yevéuevos boa éuvy- udveucey, dxetBas Zyeatev, of pévtor taEer te Oxd Tod yototod % AcyOévea 4 roayOévra. Otte yee iyxouce TOO xvelou, obte xapyxorolOncev ait@, Uotepoy 5é WS Egny Tlétem 8¢ xedco tas yoelas éxotetto tag Srdacxartas EAN’ ody Boxee chyraky cay xuptaxdy wotodwevos Ao- vlov, ote ob8kv huaote M&oxoc, otwc kx yekas WS anxepynudveucey. ‘Evd¢ yade éxotnoato rodvoray, Tod uUydéy dy Fnouce mapadcxety 4 Pebcacbat te év xdrotg. (Kus. HE, iti, 39.) Mark, Gospel of A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 550 logical in its sequence of sayings and events. When we consider the expression used in Papias’ state- ment, however, it becomes evident that this lack of order in M.’s writing was a lack of orderly arrange- ment (té&&c), rather than of orderly sequence (xabe&qH>)—a condition we could easily understand as applying to our Gospel providing Papias had in mind some other Gospel writing up to whose stan- dard arrangement of material M. had not, in his opinion, come. As such a standard each one of the Gospel narra- tives has been suggested (Mt—Holtzmann, Taylor; Lk—Salmon; Jn—Jiilicher, Harnack, Zahn), includ- ing the Logian document (B. Weiss). Whether, however, it is possible to decide among them or not, it is clear that, with the above understanding of his statements, there is no reason to doubt that Papias was talking about our Second Canonical Gospel, substantially as we have it before us to-day, and not about some hypothetical fragmentary writing by M., which possibly may have formed the basis for our Gospel but which has been hopelessly lost.4 (i) Sources. That the sources M. may have had for his narrative were confined to these Gospel dis- courses of Peter is not likely, whether he wrote during the Apostle’s lifetime, when he could freely consult with him and gain from his personal reminis- cence such purely individual incidents as 1 30 f., 35-38, 3 16, 8 32 ff., 14 30, 66-70, 16 7, which may not have entered into his public discourses, or whether he wrote after Peter’s death and gathered from the current tradition of the early Christian community such incidents as the above (note that Mt 14 28-31, 15 15, 16 17-19, 17 24-27, 18 21; Lk 5 3 ff., 12 41, 22 31 £. are omitted in Mk, which alone gives 11 21; cf. also 14 30, 37 with |ls) and such collections of Jesus’ sayings as may be evident in chs. 4, 9, and 13.5 In any event it is most probable |that what M. has given us in his Gospel is a reproduction of the com- mon Apostolic preaching in the Early Church, based perhaps in general on Peter’s presentation of it, but 3 For theories as to the existence of different recensions of Mk, see Synoptic PROBLEM, § 7. 4 When one realizes the primary position of Mt. as the first Gospel in the N T collection, and the characteristic grouping of its material—both discourses and events—the comparison of M.’s sequential order of events with such topical arrangement of contents might have been what was in Papias’ mind. 5 Upon a careful study of the Eschatological Address of ch. 13 it is clear that its unusual length—so different from Mark’s general brief record of Jesus’ remarks—is due to the fact that Mark incorporated it into his narrative as a written document, an individual apocalypse (see evidence for such a written document in the phrase of ver. 1 ‘let him that readeth understand’), which had become current in the Church, and that it had come to this written form in which it was current through accretions from apocalyptic folk lore to Jesus’ original remarks, the purpose of which remarks was ethical rather than predictive—to warn and encourage His followers in the time of their perplexity and distress rather than to give them beforehand a program of events. This elaboration of Jesus’ remarks (which is clearly observable in such passages as vs. §-10, 12-14, 17-20, 22-27, 88, 87) was due doubtless to the prominence in the Early Church of the hope of the Kingdom’s con- summation which these remarks had aroused, and was most likely the reason why Mk. departed from his habit of a purely narrative record and incorporated it as a whole, (See Jacobus, Mark, p. 188 f.) at the same time modified by his own wider experi- ences in company with Paul (cf. such Pauline traits as 13 35-37 [=Ro 13 12], 14 36 [=Ro 8 15; Gal 4 6], 115 [=Gal 4 4]) and Barnabas. This might account for the absence from Mk of the Nativity stories and the Genealogies given by Mt and Lk, which would not be part of such preaching, and even for the absence of the preaching of the Baptist, the Sermon on the Mount (excepting small fragments, 4 21, 24, 9 43, 47, 50, 10 11, 11 25), the dis- course to the Twelve (excepting the brief saying 6 10 f.), with the whole incident of the Seventy and the parabolic and discourse material peculiar to Lk (chs. 9-19 [excepting scattered sayings in Mk ch. 10)). The fact that generally speaking the sayings of Jesus find their way into Mk only in scattered fashion shows perhaps that he gave them only as they found their way fragmentarily into the com- mon preaching (note examples of this in Paul’s speech at Miletus, Ac 20 35). In truth, the fact that Mk has practically but one so called collected dis- course, and this the one on the coming catastrophe and the Parousia (ch. 13), shows how the thought of the primitive disciples was forward rather than backward (cf. Burkitt, The Gospel History and its Transmission, p. 264 f.),. and how when they preached ‘Jesus and the resurrection’ they were likely to give, not so much His teachings as the facts of His ministry culminating in His death and resurrection as the basis of their personal experience of Him as the Savior of the world. It is the later Gospels, whose plan and purpose were less objective —as Mt with its Messiahship of Jesus and Lk with its universalism of Jesus’ religion—which incor- porated the teachings of Jesus as a preponderating element in their record of His life and work. 2. Historical Value. Clearly the Gospel lies before us, not as a collection of unrelated anecdotes of the Gospel story, but, on the whole, as an intelligible outline of a consistently developed life and work. Here and there we find in it inaccuracies of state- ment, born of the thirty or more years by which it was removed from the events which it records (e.g., 1 39, where ‘throughout all Galilee’ is manifestly inconsistent with the restricted region of the tour; 2 26, where ‘Abiathar’ is given instead of Abimelech [cf. 1 S 211]; 7 3 #., where the ablutions are stated to have been practised by ‘all the Jews’; 14 12, which identifies the Last Supper with the Passover Feast [see note (1) under § 1(d), above]. There are also colorings of the narrative, evidently due to later doctrinal and apocalyptic points of view (e.g., 1 4, where the content of the Baptist’s preaching is phrased in terms of the Gospel preaching of the Early Church [cf. Ac 2 38, 10 43, 18 38 £.]; 4 10-12, where the reason given by Jesus for His use of parables is made to accord with the later Apostolic explanation of the puzzling reaction to Jesus’ mission by the Covenant People [cf. Ac 2 23, 4 28; Ro 117 f., 25; I P 2 8]; 7 19b-22, where Jesus’ words are interpreted and the list of evils is determined in the light of such controversies as arose in the Apostolic Age [cf. I Co 6 12-20, ch. 8, 10 23-33; Ro ch. 14; Gal 5 19-21; Ro 1 29-31]; particularly ch. 13, where in such passages as 5-10, 12-14, 17-20, 22-27, 33, 37 we have 551 A NEW STANDARD amplification and modification of Jesus’ eschato- logical discourse, influenced by the apocalyptic ideas present in the Church under the stress and strain of the impending catastrophe with which the Jewish war came to its close [see note 5 under § 1 (i) above]. There is also a tendency to group the mate- rial topically (e.g., 3 1-6, where the healing of the withered hand on the Sabbath, which in view of its resulting combination of Pharisees and Herodians against Jesus must have occurred much later, has been brought forward and placed with the only other incident of Sabbath controversy this Gospel contains; 3 22-30, where the presence of Jerusalem Scribes may indicate that this attack has been inter- polated into the incident of the anxiety of Jesus’ family for His welfare [3 i9b-21, 31-35], because of the association of the Beelzebub charge with the family’s illusion as to Jesus’ sanity; 9 38-41, which may have been interpolated because of the common reference to ministry in Jesus’ name, the thought of ver. 37 being clearly resumed at ver. 42. But none of these blemishes affects the historical con- sistency of the narrative as a whole. Grouping may have been a feature of Peter’s preaching; in- accuracies may have been due to misunderstanding and carelessness on the part of an early copyist; while the dogmatic and apocalyptic coloring was present in the thought of the Church of Mark’s own day. In truth, when we recognize this Gospel as a sober record of the facts of Jesus’ message and ministry as they occurred, we begin to under- stand whey it occupied so relatively small a place in the estimation of post-Apostolic literature. It lacked, not merely those elements of literary style which characterized its Synoptic companions, but those features of doctrinal interpretation which claimed the interest of the post-Apostolic Age. It was nothing but the simple story which long ago had been known and told abroad—the natural product of those early years when the Church lived in the vivid memory of the facts it had experienced. But it is this that gives it its supreme historical worth, especially when we realize that these facts came from the personal participation in them of one of Jesus’ intimate disciples: for if the story of this Gospel was not the product of the ideas of the Church, much less was it the product of one of the Church’s members, however prominent he may have been, for then his ideas must have created, not only their own historical illusions, but the historical illusions on which rested the belief of the Church at large: for this Gospel became the accepted his- tory for the Christian discipleship of the Apostolic Age. 3. The Text. The only important question as to the text of the Gospel is raised by the fact that in the ancient MSS. and Versions the concluding ch. appears in three different forms. In the larger number of these documents we have the longer form presented to us in the so called Received (Greek) Text; in the smaller number we have the shorter form given in the Revised (Greek) Text, which omits everything after ver. 8; in a few we have an intermediate form which substitutes for vs. 9-20 of the longer form a short paragraph of two sen- BIBLE DICTIONARY Mark, Gospel of tences.© Among these forms it is however not difficult to decide. The intermediate form has no MS. evidence of value and is discredited by its character; while the longer form, tho it has in its favor an overwhelming majority of MSS. and some of the Fathers, has against it the testimony of the two oldest Uncial MSS. (Sinaitic and Vatican) and one of the two earliest forms of the Syriac Version (Sinaitic Sryiac), all of which close the chapter at ver. 8. In addition to this, is the very significant silence of Patristic literature as to anything follow- ing verse 8. This is confirmed by a study of vs. 9-20 of the longer form, which, in language and style have very little in common with the rest of the Gospel. Whether the short form was the ending given the Gospel by Mark, or whether when it left his hand it had a longer ending which was early lost is not easy to decide. 4. View-Point. When we come to study in detail the thought of Mk, it becomes at once clear that we have relatively little material at our disposal. The objective character of the Gospel has resulted in a characteristic failure to preserve for its readers the teachings of Jesus. It contains few of His dis- courses. Its presentation of Jesus lies more in what it represents Him as having done than in what it records Him as having said. A statement of its thought, therefore, must necessarily be meager. (1) As to God: While M. represents Jesus as ascribing to God absolute goodness (10 17 £.) and un- limited power (10 27, 12 24, 14 36), he has not pre- served in these ascriptions either the title King or, with four exceptions (8 38, 11 25, 13 32, 14 36), the title Father. In but one of these excepted passages is His Fatherhood presented as related to Jesus’ dis- ciples, and in no case is it even inferentially con- sidered as in a general way related to all men; while but one lordship parable is preserved by this Gospel, viz., that of the Vineyard (12 1-11). (2) As to Jesus Himself: M. represents Jesus as using of Himself the title Son of Man, which tho not a current Messianic title, was employed by Him to designate His authori- tative right, as Head of the Messianic Kingdom, to forgive sin (2 10) and to determine the meaning and use of the Sabbath (2 28). Its almost exclusive presentation, however, is in connection with Jesus’ announcements of His coming Passion and the exaltation and glory which were to follow it. In this connection it designates Jesus’ consciousness of His necessary relation to the Salvation which His Mes- sianic rule was to offer to the world. As Son of Man he was to be delivered into the hands of His enemies (9 31, 10 33, 14 21 [bis] 41), through whom He was to suffer many things and be killed (8 31, 9 12, 31, 10 33), and in this death was to give His life a ransom for many (10 45). From this death, how- ever, He was to be raised again (8 31, 99) and to be exalted to the right hand of God (14 62), whence He was to come in glory to judge the world (13 26; cf. 8 38). Associated with this title is the more sig- nificant one of the Son of God which, however, M. does not represent Jesus as explicitly using of Himself. At the same time he presents Him as 6 The Freer MS. has an extended variant of the longer form (cf. Biblical World, 1908). ' Mark, Gospel of Marriage and Divorce A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 9% 552 accepting its explicit ascription to Himself by others and as implicitly ascribing it to Himself. M. re- stricts this ascription of it to Jesus by others to four occasions: on the occasions of Jesus’ baptism (1 11) and His transfiguration (97), when its use designates Him as the unique object of the Divine love and as gathering up in Himself and the mission He was accomplishing the Divine satisfaction; on one occasion of demoniac healing (57), whenit shows Him as regarded by the demons as possessed of super- natural powers (to which is prefaced by M. a general statement to the same effect in connection with His Capernaum work following His first preaching tour, 3 11), and at His trial, where the challenge of the High Priest (‘Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?’ 14 61), as far as it can be considered as employing this title, is made in nothing more than a technical Messianic sense, though Jesus’ reply transforms it into the title Son of Man, in which He assumes the possession of a Divine glory and power (the confession of the centurion at the Cross [15 39], tho employing this specific title, in all likelihood represents nothing more than a pagan idea of a superhuman hero). The implicit ascription to Himself by Jesus of this title is recorded by M. in but three passages—once when He is speaking of the final acknowledgment by the Son of Man before His Father of those who have been His true followers on earth (8 38); again in His agony in Gethsemane, where He surrendered Himself in loyal obedience to the Father’s will (14 36); and finally, in His eschato- logical discourse, where He confesses that the time of His Parousia is known not even to the Son, but only to the Father (13 32). The one parable in which this relationship is implied is that of the Householder and the Vineyard (12 1-11). Few as these passages are, they disclose a consciousness on Jesus’ part of a relationship to God involving a mutual harmony of will (14 36) and an acknowledgment by God of Jesus’ exalted right and authority to pronounce judgment upon men at the consummation of His Kingdom (8 38, 9 1), and yet, at the same time, a subordination on Jesus’ part, at least so far as the determination of the time and season of this con- summation were concerned (13 32). (8) As to the Kingdom of God: M. does not represent Jesus as using the peculiar phrase ‘kingdom of heaven,’ but as employing the general Messianic term ‘kingdom of God.’ The passages recorded are few in number, and in the picture of the Kingdom which they pre- sent emphasize the fact that its membership is determined by character and conduct (9 47, 10 23-25, 12 29-34), involving humility as its test of greatness (10 14 £.) and perhaps for this reason it is destined to go through a process of development before its con- summation is reached (4 26-30, 30-32)—a develop- ment, however, which will be marked by great crises (cf. 9 1 with the general statements of the eschatological discourse, ch. 18). To this consum- mation Jesus is represented as looking forward as the realization of His mission (14 25). There does not seem to be any emphasis laid upon the univer- salism of its scope (tho ef. the phrase peculiar to Mk in 11 17; cf. also 149), or upon the non-nation- alism of its plan and purpose (tho M. denounces the ceremonialism of the Pharisees, 7 1-23, 12 38-40); apart from the character-condition of its member- ship, its spirituality does not appear to be specially brought out (but ef. the passage peculiar to Mk 12 32-34). (4) As to the Messianic Salvation: M. represents Jesus as apparently confining eternal life to the future world, yet at the same time portraying the rewards of His discipleship as realized in the present life (10 29 f.). As to the character of this salvation, this passage is the only one in which it seems to be described, and here the impression is that it makes good the loss of material things which may come through following Him. As to the general conditions on which this Salvation is possible, Jesus is represented by M. as emphasizing the need of personal relations to Himself (8 34 f., 38, 10 29, 14 5-9); while of the specific conditions, both faith (1 15, 2 5, 5 34, 10 52; cf. 65 f., 9 42) and repentance (115; cf. 6 12) are mentioned, tho special atten- — tion seems to be called by M. to the enduring of persecutions (13 9-13). The death of Jesus is pre- sented as the means by which this Salvation is secured (10 45, 14 24 [cf. the more specific statement in Mt 26 28]). (5) As to Eschatology: M. merges the ideas of development and consummation in the Kingdom (ef. the eschatological discourse, ch. 18). At the same time, besides the parables of the Sower and the Lamp (4 21-25), the only parables by the sea which he has given are those which emphasize the development through which the Kingdom is to go (4 6-32). On the other hand, he does not seem to have entered into any presentation of the idea of judgment beyond the simple statements attached to the parable of the Lamp (4 21-25), to the announce- ment of His Passion (8 38), to the remarks on hu- mility and forgiveness (9 43-49), and the pronounce- ment of national doom contained in the parable of the Householder and the Vineyard (12 1-11) Literature: The larger Introduction of Jiilicher (Eng. transl. 1904) and Zahn (Eng. transl. 21917) represent respectively the best phases of German liberal and conservative scholar- ship. Moffattinthe Inter. Theo. Library (1911) gives the more critical English view-point. The following shorter Introductions also should be consulted: Bacon, New Test. Introduction (1900); Robinson, Study of the Gospels (1902); Burton, Short Intro. to the Gospels (1904); Peake, New Test. Introduction (1910). The best (larger) Commentaries are Gould in Inter. Crit. Com. (1896); Bruce, in Expos. Greek Test. (1897); Swete (1898); Menzies, The Earliest Gospel (1901). The following (smaller) may be consulted: Maclear, in Camb. Greek Tesi. (1899); Salmon, in New Century Bible (n.d.); Green, in Westminster New Test. (n.d.); Jacobus, in Bible for Home and School (1915). Special works: Burkitt, The Gospel History and Its Transmission (1906), The Earliest Sources for the Life of Jesus (1910); Salmon, The Human Element in the Gospels (1907); Bacon, Beginnings of the Gospel Story (1909); Jones, The New Test. in the Twentieth Century, pp. 194-207 (1914). The following lives of Christ are valuable in connection with the study of the Gospel: Weiss (Eng. transl. 1894); Holtzmann (Eng. transl. 1904), giving respectively the evangelical and purely critical view- point; Edersheim, Jesus the Messiah (one vol., ed. 1890), giving the Jewish background; Smith, In the Days of His Flesh (1905), a more popular presentation; Headlam (1924), scholarly, tho incomplete in the ground covered. Wie MARKET, MARKET-PLACE. See Crry, § 3. MARKET OF APPIUS. See Appius, MARKET oF. MAROTH, mé’roth (4119, maréth): A town men- tioned in Mic 112. Site unknown. 553 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Mark, Gospel of Marriage and Divorce MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE. 1. The Legal Character of Marriage in the O T Betrothal. In the O T marriage belongs within the sphere of in- dividual law; that is, it took place through a com- mercial contract which was concluded between the man who wished to marry and the man who had control over the woman who was sought in mar- riage. It concerned to a certain degree also the family or the local community, but the larger public, the people or the state, had no interest in the mar- riages of individual Israelites. The legal character of marriage is nowhere specifically described in the O T, but presupposed as understood. For example, the Book of the Covenant (Ex 21 9) speaks of the (known) rights of daughters, the prophet Ezekiel (16 38-41) of the (known) law concerning the adulteress. The carefully guarded position of the first-born son (Dt 21 15-17) necessarily presupposes fixed regulations concerning marriage, and the mar- ried woman is spoken of as b*‘tilath ba‘al (Dt 22 22; Gn 20 3; cf. Dt 241; Is 541; Pr 30 23), 7.e., as ‘acquired by a husband,’ ‘taken into possession.’ The prescrip- tions concerning marriage were not by any means all of Israelitic origin. Many regulations may have been retained by Israel from ancient usage, but others were probably taken over from the Canaanite civilization. If a comparison is made between the Israelitic law concerning marriage and that of the Code of Hammurabi, many distinctions as well as remarkable points of agreement will be found. The latter can not be explained otherwise than as due to the fact that Babylonian law (c. 2000 B.c.) had exercised an influence upon Israel through the medium of the Canaanite civilization. In addition, there are also found such regulations as correspond to the higher spirit of the Israelitic religion. So far as the steps preparatory to a marriage are concerned, the matter of first importance was the choice of a bride. In antiquity the youths and maidens mingled more freely than has come to be the case to-day in Oriental countries, under the in- fluence of Islam. The drawing of water at the springs or wells, the work in the field, or the care of the flocks furnished opportunities where they could see and speak to one another (Ex 2 16 f.; Gn 29 9-11; IS 9 11-13; ef. Dt 22 25-27). The young man who wished to marry was consequently easily in the position to seek out for himself, among the maidens of his age and station, the one whom he would prefer for his life companion; but custom demanded that it should be the father, or one who represented him as head of the family, who picked out the wife for the son who was in position to marry. Thus Abraham selected the wife for Isaac (Gn 24 2f.), Isaac for Ja- cob (281 f.), Judah for Er (38 6), Hagar, the mother, for Ishmael (21 21). Of course, there was nothing to prevent the wish of the son being the occasion of the father’s suit (Gn 34 4, 6; Jg 141 ff.), or that the inclination of the daughter should be respected (IS 1820). Indeed, cases are narrated of sons who took strange wives against the will of the parents (Gn 26 34 f., 27 46; Jg 141-10). But the rule was that the will of the father or of the parents was de- cisive. This decision was determined mainly by the fact that in every marriage two important condi- tions, relating intimately to the life of the times, had to be considered: (1) the size and limits of the families or clans involved, and (2) the assurance or certainty that the family estate would be kept in the posses- sion of the proper family line. One did not willingly permit his daughter to pass over into a strange family, because there she would be deprived of the protection of her own family or clan (Gn 29 19), and one was not inclined to allow the share of the family in the promised land which was inherited from his fathers to be broken up and pass into strange hands (Nu 361 4.). These interests could be better conserved when the knowledge of the parents regarding the prospective wife of the son was determinative rather than the irresponsible inclination of the son himself. The ultimate ground for this law was, without doubt, the complete, un- limited authority which a father possessed over the “members of his own family. 2. Marriage Negotiations. The Wedding. The second transaction preparatory to the completion of the marriage contract related to the determina- tion of the price through which the bridegroom acquired his prospective bride from her father. This was arranged between the parents (or their representatives) of the young people and was called the mohar (dowry, Gn 34 12; Ex 2216; 1 S 18 25, still called mahr by the natives of Palestine). Its amount, also its kind, differed according to the position and desirability of the bride: when David declared that he was without the means to procure the mdhar for a king’s daughter, Saul fixed upon two hundred foreskins of slain Philistines as the price (I S 18 20-27); and in order to show the ardent character of Shechem’s love, the narrator of Gn 3411 f. represents him as declaring himself ready to meet any conditions (cf. also the case of Jacob, Gn 29 15 ff., and of Othniel, Jos 15 16 f.). From a comparison of Ex 22 15 and Dt 22 28 f. it may be inferred that the average price paid for a bride to her father was 50 shekels (so also Cod. Ham. 138 f.). It was always understood in such cases that the father gave over to the bridegroom the bride as an inviolate virgin; for the Law (Dt 22 20 f.) pre- scribed that if this was found not to be the case the bride was to be publicly stoned. It is true that in Israel young women were sold in marriage who were no longer virgins; but in such cases the price was re- duced. Thus, it appears, Hos 3 2 may be taken as indicating that 30 shekels was the usual price of a slave (cf. Ex 21 32). The same passage shows also that there were various ways of making the payment, these being probably so arranged for beforehand. The bridegroom paid over the contract price to the father of the bride or his representative, as is evident from such passages as Gn 29 18, 28; I S 18 27; Gn 34 u £.; Dt 22 29 (so also Cod. Ham.). The same custom holds to-day among the inhabitants of Palestine. Custom did not allow the father to do with the mdhar as he pleased. The bride still had the right to expect of the father that he would devote a part of it to her, or at least to her benefit. Only in this way can the dissatisfaction of the daughters of Laban be explained over the fact that he, as a genuine miser, had used the gain he secured through Marriage and Divorce A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 554 Jacob’s service exclusively for himself (Gn 31 15). It is not contradictory to this that at their marriage he had given to Leah and Rachel each a slave as a handmaid (29 24, 29), for there are other references to a gift (berakhah) which a father might give his daughter at the time of her marriage (Jos 15 18 f.). All such gifts are not to be understood as the dowry which the woman brought to her marriage, but they ever remained as the individual property of the wife. It is in the postexilic times that we first hear of an inheritance brought by daughters from their parental estates to their husbands (To 8 12; Sir 25 22) as also of inheritances of daughters in general (Nu chs. 27, 36). As distinct from the méhar we are also to consider those presents of all kinds which the bridegroom gave the bride before the marriage (Gn 24 53, 34 12) which are expressly distinguished from the méhar by being termed mattdn (cf. Cod. Ham. 159 f.). These were the private property of the bride and could be viewed as an assurance that the marriage price would be paid. It was only through the actual payment of the mdhar that the young man came to acquire any authority or claim upon the prospective wife. Consequently, the Hebrew expression ’érés (espoused II S 3 14; Hos 2 21; Dt 207) is to be understood as something different from ‘to be betrothed to one.’ The bride was thereby designated as one upon whom no longer the father but another had the claim (m? 6rasaGh, Ex 22 15; Dt 22 23). Whoever violated such a (prospective) bride was liable to the same punishment as the adulterer (Dt 22 23-27; so also Cod. Ham. 130); from these regulations it is evident that with the payment by the bridegroom the mar- riage was legally established. On the other hand, whoever violated a virgin who was still free had to pay her father the méhar and marry the woman (Ex 22 15; Dt 22 28 f.). Recently Dr. J. Neubauer has denied that Israelitic marriage should be viewed as ‘purchase.’ By the help of the regulations in the Talmud concerning marriage he comes to the conclusions: In Israel originally (Gn 29 18 ff.) the marriage consisted in the giving of the bride to the bridegroom and the consummation that im- mediately followed. Later this came to consist of two separate transactions, viz., (a) the promise of marriage (betrothal) made legally binding through some kind of a gift by the bridegroom, and (b) the consummation or wedding itself. Finally a ‘writing’ (kethaibhah) took the place of the payment demanded from the bridegroom. If the maiden were of age she made the arrangement on her own responsibility. It she were under age her father represented her in the affair. According to Israelitic law regarding purchase and sale, the mdhar can not be considered as the purchase-price of the maiden. It corresponds rather to a pretium pudicitiae (like the ‘Morgengabe’ of Germanic Law). The marriage was completed by the bride being led from the house of her parents into the house of the bridegroom or that of his parents. This transac- tion, the espousal proper (Song 3 11), signified not only that now the father had released the bride from his authority and handed her over to the control of her future husband (cf. To 7 12), but also that the bride had now entered into the family or clan of her husband (Ps 45 10). Nowhere do we find any men- tion of any covenant or formalities of a religio- juridical sort, as an appeal to God or the like. This is easily understood if one but keeps in mind that marriage was not considered as going beyond the domain of individual law. What we find in Mal 2 14 has to do only with the mode of expression chosen by the prophet, and the case of Ru 4 11 f. is particular, not general. The Cod. Ham. (128) holds that a marriage contract was necessary for the genuineness of a marriage, but the oldest Israelitic notices say nothing of this. In To 7 15 we find the first mention of such a custom, in order to set forth the pious care and wise forethought of Raguel. Unfortunately, we do not possess a complete de- scription of the procedure at a wedding. Only a few details are occasionally mentioned: the elaborately clothed bridegroom (Is 61 10), surrounded by his friends, uiot tod vuugdvoc, sons (children AV) of the © bridechamber (Mt 9 15; cf. Jg 1411), betook himself toward evening (Mt 251 ff.) to the house of the bride. She was then led thence, veiled (Gn 29 23, 25, 24 65), and decked with rich ornaments (Jer 2 32; Is 49 18), surrounded by her friends (Ps 45 14), accompanied by music and song, with lights (Mt 251 ff.), to the house of the parents of the bridegroom, into the bridechamber (To 7 15 ff.). Now began the wedding ‘week’ (Gn 29 27 £.; Jg 14 12; doubled in To 8 18), participated in by those who were bid, which was filled with eating and drinking, joking, singing, and dancing, the guests being clothed in wedding-garments. J. G. Wetzstein in his essay, Die syrische Dreschtafel (Zeitschr. ftir Ethnologie, 1873, pp. 270-302), has made a collection of the mar- riage usages and marriage songs of the modern peasants east of the Jordan and of Lebanon, and in comparison therewith has recognized the Song of Solomon as a collection of wedding-songs. K. Budde has carefully worked out this conception in The New World, March, 1894. According to this theory, we have in the Song of Solomon a small collection of such songs as were sung by the youth in the neighborhood of Jerusalem at wedding-feasts. In these the friends of the bridegroom (thirty in Jg 14 11; sixty in Song 3 7) played the chief part, their leader being termed in Jn 3 29 6 gfAosg tod ywuygton, the friend of the bridegroom. In the O T there are also found cases in which the husband enters the family or clan of the wife. So Jacob,who indeed later, with the consent of his wives, severed his connection with Laban, had good ground to fear that Laban might take away his wives from him (Gn 31 14-16, 31). Further, we find in Nu 27 1-11 the regulation that any one who married an heiress did so in order that the name of the father might not disappear from his family (ver. 4). And in To 10 7-10 the question comes up for special discussion whether the young Tobias should remain with Raguel or should return with his wife to his father. Here also belongs, in a certain sense, the case of Samson’s marriage (Jg ch. 14 f.), which was so ar- ranged that Samson’s wife remained in the house of her parents and was visited by Samson only from time to time (cf. §8, below). In all such cases the bride was not brought to the parental house of the 555 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Marriage and Divorce bridegroom, and the joyous wedding-week was held in the house of her parents. 3. Polygamy. Israelitic marriages were regularly polygamous, in remarkable distinction from the regulations of the Cod. Ham., which holds fast to monogamy as fundamental. According to the terms noted in § 2, an Israelite could marry as many wives as his means would allow, consequently the rich, and especially princes, are mentioned as having a large number (cf. the case of Gideon, Jg 8 30; of David, II S 8 2-5, 5 13; and of Solomon, I K 11 1-4). Poor people contented themselves with one wife, altho that cases were not rare in which a man had two wives is evident from the fact that the law in Dt 21 15-17 deals particularly with such cases. Theoretically, all these wives stood on an equal footing among themselves and with reference to their husband. Actually, however, the relationship was generally different. Barrenness, loss of youthful charms, or a blemish of some sort not only easily robbed a wife of the love of her husband, but also drew upon her ridicule and abuse on the part of the other wife who was still able to bind the husband to herself. Conse- quently, the Law calls the one s¢ni’ Gh (i.e.,‘set aside,’ ‘neglected’), the other ’dhibhdah (i.e., ‘the loved,’ ‘cared for’) (Dt 21 15-17), both expressions being from the view-point of the husband. How such wives were accustomed to treat each other is expressed in the term tsdrah, that is, ‘enemy,’ ‘adversary,’ with which Peninnah, the rival wife of Hannah, is desig- nated from the view-point of the latter, in IS 16. Alongside of these legitimate wives the O T also recognizes concubines (Heb. pilaghshim) (cf. Gr. maArraxts, and the Arab. belkis), that is, female slaves (handmaids, maid-servants) who belonged to the husband and were subject to his authority (IIS 15 16, 16 21 f.), or were the property of his wives, and had been given over by these to the husband (e. g., on account of their own childlessness) and yet con- tinued to be under the authority of the respective wives so that these remained their mistresses (g¢bhiradh, Gn 16 4) and could at any time reduce them again to the position of slaves (Gn 16 6). So, e.g., Bilhah, the female slave of Rachel (Gn 29 29), was made the concubine of Jacob (35 22). Such concubines could either belong to another people or be Israelites. With the former the law of Dt 21 10-14 is concerned, with the latter that of Ex 21 7-11 (cf. Dt 15 12-18; Jer 34 8 ff.). 4. Adultery and Fornication. Between the pre- scriptions regarding adultery in the case of men and those in the case of women there were marked dif- ferences. For men they were lax, for women, strict. The prohibition of the Seventh Commandment (Ex 20 14; Dt 5 17) is indeed general; but it leaves open the question of what constitutes adultery for a man and what for a woman. The rigidity of the prescriptions relating to the virginity of the woman who was sought in marriage (Dt 22 13-21, 23 ff.; cf. § 2, above) shows that a chaste life on the part of a woman before marriage was to be the rule. And since the woman was obtained by the man as his wife under fixed regulations, it is easily understood that absolute fidelity was to be expected of her. If she were convicted of guilty conduct, in earlier times she was burned (Gn 88 24), in later times she was brought out naked (Hos 2 5) before the assembled people of the locality and by them stoned to death (Ezk 16 38-40, 23 45-47; cf. Dt 22 20f.; Jn 85). Presumably, the same punishment was meted out to the man who had seduced the wife of his neighbor (Dt 22 22; Lv 2010). That in other cases, not made public, the private vengeance of the injured husband was to be feared is evident from Pr 6 34. On the other hand, inter- course with the concubine of another was not viewed as adultery, but probably only as injury to his property (Lv 19 20). That wives were jealously watched by their husbands is evident, not only from the provisions of Dt 22 13-19, but also from the law regarding the drinking of the bitter curse-water (‘water of jealousy,’ Nu 5 11-31), whereby the guilt or innocence of the suspected wife was supposed to be established. Even if this law belongs to the latest strata of the Pentateuch, it certainly deals with an ancient custom, traces of which are also to be found among other peoples. To the husband was granted much more liberty. Altho he also was forbidden to commit adultery with another man’s wife, he was allowed to increase the number of his own wives and concubines, according to his de- sires and means, and also to have intercourse with women outside of his own house, provided only that these were not already bound by a betrothal or by a completed marriage. In case he violated a still free virgin, he was dealt with according to the law in Ex 22 15, Dt 22 28 f What a wife was entitled to demand from a husband is told in Ex 21 10. We nowhere read anything to the effect that he was forbidden extramarital intercourse with other women, There was abundant opportunity for this not only in pre-Israelitic Canaan, but also after the Conquest. Harlots (q.v.), zdndh, z6ndth (xbovn, I Co 6 15) were to be found not only in the cities (Is 23 15 f.; Pr 7 6-23), but also in the country districts (Gn 38 15). The expression nokhriyyah (‘foreigner’) for ‘harlot’ (Pr 2 16, 5 20, 6 24, 7 5, 23 27) implies that this practise was carried on in Israel originally by foreign women. Married women sometimes made a long absence of their husbands from home the occasion of having dealings with other men (Pr 7 18- 20). The house of a harlot was a sort of inn where any one, even an enemy of the land, might stop (Jos 2 1 ff.). In particular, that characteristic of the Canaanite cultus whereby men and women yielded themselves at sanctuaries, in honor of the deity, was a great incentive to unchastity. Such persons (masc. q¢dhéshim, fem. g¢dhéshdth, i.e., ‘dedicated to deity,’ hence not permitted to marry) were to be found at the sanctuaries of J’’, as is evident not only from Am 27, Hos 4 13 £., but also from the measures of kings Asa and Jehoshaphat of Judah (I K 15 12, 22 46), and the prohibition in Dt 23 18. Between such ‘holy’ women and harlots there was often ver little difference (cf. Gn 38 12-18). Such uncleanness at the sanctuaries was always denounced as con- trary to the religion of J’. To have intercourse with harlots was, even in ancient Israel, an offensive matter. The narrative in Gn ch. 38 attempts to excuse the conduct of Judah (vs, 12-15, 20-23). The Marriage and Divorce Book of Proverbs is fully cognizant of the dangers of such conduct and emphatically warns against it (53 f., 6 20ff., 7 4 ff., 2214, 23 27f., 293 f., 30 20). The demands of Jesus and the Apostles are remarkable not only for their incisiveness, but above all for their new religious basis (Mt 5 27-32; I Co 69-20; Eph 5 3-5; Col 3 5-8; Tit 2 2-6; Ja 4 4-8). 5. Divorce. In accordance with the fundamental principles involved in the contraction of a marriage (cf. § 2, above), the husband alone had the right to dissolve the marriage, and since in such a case he did not receive back the méhar paid for the wife, so he also voluntarily renounced his right to his property when he sent away (Heb. shillah, Gr. é&roAbety, Mt 5 32, 19 3) his wife. Probably the husband’s right to drive (Heb. gdrash, Lv 21 7) his wife out of the house was in ancient Israel un- limited, as it is to-day in Islam. The wife went back to her family, with whose wrath the husband, at least usually, had to reckon, and had the privilege of marrying again. But in case the husband was compelled by the wife’s family to divorce her, and she was given to another man, the first hus- band had the right, as the case of David (IIS 3 14-16) shows, to demand back his wife. Dt attempts to regulate such matters in the direction of making divorce more difficult. For example, it stipulates that the husband must give the wife a ‘bill of di- vorcement’ (Heb. sépher kerithith, Dt 241; Jer 3 8; Is 501), and further that something immoral or un- seemly must be the ground of the divorce (Heb. ‘erwath dabhdr, Dt 24 1), and, finally, that the divorced wife, in case she in the meantime has married another man, can not again become the wife of her first husband (Dt 24 1-4; cf. Jer 3 1). The expression ‘erwath dabhér was indeed variously understood by the learned Jews. In the time of Christ the stricter school of Shammai took it to mean unchaste, shameless conduct on the part of the wife. The milder school of Hillel, on the other hand, understood it to signify some contrariness of dis- position or fault on the part of the wife. The latter view, which was also approved by later rabbis, harmonizes well with the meaning of the lawgiver, who uses the expression in 23 15in the broader sense (cf. also Cod. Ham. 141, 148). There could be two cases, according to Dt, whena man lost the right to dismiss his wife: (1) When he had done her the injustice of wrongly charging that she entered the married state not as a virgin (Dt 22 13-19), and (2) when he was compelled to marry a virgin who, while yet unbetrothed, had been violated by him. Mal 2 10-16 goes beyond Dt when: it denounces him as dealing ‘treacherously’ who divorces ‘the wife of his youth.’ Nevertheless, the later times held to the regulation of Dt (ef. Mt 5 31f., 19 3-12). The provisions of Cod. Ham. 134 ff. are more favorable to the wife. 6. Widowhood and the Levirate Marriage. Throughout the O T widows appear as needing assistance. Their condition must, therefore, have been sad. Legally, they belonged to the private property of the husband (§ 2, above), and could, like this, be inherited. So Absalom played the réle of the heir of his father David when he took pos- A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 556 session of the concubines left behind in Jerusalem by David (II 8 16 20-22; cf. 20 3). A similar meaning is implied in the conduct of Abner (II 8 37 #f.), and in the demand of Adonijah (I K 2 13-22; cf. Gn 35 22). Furthermore, this was the ground of the custom that a son should marry his stepmother, which indeed is forbidden in Dt 22 30, 27 20; Lv 18 8, 20 11; but nevertheless was usual even down to the time of Ezekiel (Ezk 22 10). On the other hand, we find in- stances of widows living by themselves with their sons or other dependents (II K 414.; cf. 11S 145 f.; Ru 16f.; also in the case of the widow of Zarephath, I K 178 #.). Such instances may be in part cases in which the widow sought to conserve the property of her husband for her minor sons. A widow herself had no right of inheritance to the property of her husband. There seems to have been no fixed regula- tion in ancient Israel concerning the care of widows, but, on the other hand, their defenseless position was used by many men as the occasion for advancing their own interests (II K 81 #.; Is 10 2; Mic 2 9). The prophets came forward, therefore, as their champions (Is 117; Jer ch. 6). Dt provides that the gleanings of the field and the vineyards should be left for them (24 19, 21; cf. Ru 2 2), and includes them among those who should have a share in the tithes of the third year and be invited to take part in the sacrificial meals (14 28 f., 26 12, 16 11, 14). In later times (as earlier in the Cod. Ham. 171 f.) widows were better cared for. Tobias, e.g., received his full inheritance from Raguel only after the death of his mother-in-law (To 8 20). The position of the childless widow was particu- larly sad, since even during the lifetime of her hus- band she usually enjoyed no consideration (1S 16. f; Gn 16 4). In case a husband died without leaving behind a son even by one of his concubines, the ancient custom demanded that his surviving brother should marry the widow in order to preserve the name and inheritance of the dead. Then the first son born of this marriage was counted as the de- scendant and heir of the dead brother. This attempt to give to one already dead a son by means of the ‘levi- rate marriage’ (from levir‘[Lat.], ‘husband’s brother’) is evidently to be traced back to the prehistoric wor- ship of ancestors which demanded that the worship due a father should be assured through his son after the father’s death. For a widow this preserved a valuable right for which Tamar contended with the greatest cleverness against Judah (Gn ch. 38), who had promised her his third son. In Dt 265 5-10 this custom is sanctioned, and yet it is allowed to the brother-in-law to refuse to enter upon such a mar- riage. The custom therein prescribed of drawing off (hdlats) the shoe (cf. also Ru 4 7) signified prob- ably the renunciation of the inheritance of the brother (cf. the opposite in Ps 60 8). The attempt in Ly 18 16, 20 21 to forbid such marriages was not successful. In Mt 22 24 the usage of Dt. ch. 25 is presupposed as in vogue and made the basis of the discussion. Since daughters, incase there were no sons, had the right of inheritance (Nu 27 1 ff.), the levirate marriage was probably limited to such cases in which the father had left behind no children at all. The later law (Nu 27 4) provided that the name of 557 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Marriage and Divorce LLL CL A the father could be preserved in the family through the daughters (cf. § 2, above). 7. Prohibited Marriages. Under this heading be- long, in the first place, the mixed marriages, i.e., unions with Canaanite or other heathen peoples, which are forbidden in Dt 7 1-4, 23 4-7; Ex 3415 f., because thereby the worship of other gods would be introduced into Israel. This prohibition marked a sharp distinction against the earlier customs which saw nothing irregular in marriage with the native population of Canaan. When, after the occupation of Canaan, the unity of the local community found place alongside of the tribal unity and in part sup- planted it, it was impossible to avoid marriages be- tween Israelites and Canaanites. Numerous passages show that this actually took place (Jg3 5f.; 11S 113, 23 34; I K 7 14, etc.; Dt 2110 #.). The prohibition of Dt evidently found its reason in the religious or, more correctly, cultus view-point of the party of reform of those days (7th cent.). After the Exile it cost Nehemiah and Ezra anxious care to carry through the prescriptions of this law among the Jewish families in and about Jerusalem (Neh 13 23 ff. Ezr ch. 9 f.; Mal 2 14, where ’ésheth berithékh means ‘your wife of the Jewish faith’). Furthermore, in Dt andin PC marriages with persons of the following degrees of relationship are forbidden: with the wife of a father (Dt 22 30, 27 20; Lv 18 8, 2011); with one’s own sister or step-sister (Dt 27 22; Lv 189, it, 20 17); with the mother-in-law (Dt 27 23); with a niece (Lv 18 10); with an aunt on the father’s or mother’s side (Lv 18 12 f., 20 19); with the wife of the father’s brother (Lv 18 14, 20 20); with a daughter-in-law (Lv 1815, 2012); with the wife of a brother (Lv 18 16, 20 21); with mother and daughter (or niece) at the same time (Lv 18 17, 20 14; cf. Dt 27 23); with two sisters at the same time (Lv 18 18). Such marriages were, however, in the earlier times not rare (cf. the cases of Abraham, Jacob, etc.; also Ezk 22 10 f., and § 6, above). The prohibition in regard to these marriages was probably worked out in connection with the opposition against Canaanite cults (cf. Lv 18 3, 24 ff.). 8. Historical Development in Reference to Mar- riage Customs. The regulations concerning mar- riages were of the greatest’ importance to the Israelites, since the social organization of the people rested altogether upon the family. For clan and tribe were nothing else than expanded families. The head of a family was the master of all its branches; through the means of the family, custom and laws were regulated. The family also was the primary cultus organization (I § 11 #f.; 20 6, 28 £.; Ex 13 8, 14; Dt 127, 12, 18, 16 11, 14). An Israelitic family was founded by the father, who wished to continue the existence of his clan. The father was the master of the wives and children. Of matriarchy only a few traces survived in Israelitic customs. One may com- pare the marriage of Sampson (Jg ch. 14 f.; cf. § 2, above). Marriages between brother and sister (not of the same mother; cf. Gn 20 12; II S 18 13), as also marriages with a step-mother or a daughter- in-law (Ezk 22 10 f.), presuppose that the relation- ship was not reckoned according to the father. Polygamy, which it is evident from Jos. (Ant. XVII, 1 2) was a prevalent custom, involved a lower status of woman, altho her position in general was not so unfortunate as we might suppose. She was indeed purchased by the husband, and yet could not be sold by him as a slave, presupposing, of course, that she was herself not a slave (Ex 21 7-11; Dt 21 10-14). At the same time, a father could, in case of necessity, sell his still unmarried daughter as a slave. It was only on the basis of her union with a husband that she could become free after a six-year period of servitude (Ex 21 2 £.). Conse- quently, a woman materially bettered her condition through marriage. On the other hand, the women of antiquity, as is the case to-day in the Orient, sighed by reason of the hard labor which fell to them day by day in the villages, in caring for household affairs and the farms. Nevertheless, there was no lack in ancient Israel of clever and energetic women whose influence extended far beyond their own household (cf. Ex 15 20 f.; Jg44#.,17#.;1S 2514¢.; IIS 1414.; II K 11 2f., 22 14 f.), a conclusive proof that in those days women had more liberty, and stood on a much higher level than is the case to-day in Islam. The fact that the position of woman in Cod. Ham. is a high and responsible one speaks well, without doubt, for the advanced state of the ancient Babylonian civilization, and if we look for the same thing in vain in the O T, this is partly to be explained from the fact that Israel came in the first place out of the uncivilized desert, and in part also from the fact that the civilization of Canaan was on a lower level than that of Babylonia. At the same time, a finer appreciation of the significance of marriage and the worth of woman is evidenced in the later portions of the O T. It is sufficient here to refer to Gn 2 18, to the prophets who compared the union between Jehovah and Israel with marriage (Hos, Is, Jer, Ezk, etc.), to Pr 12 4, 19 14; Ps 128 3, and especially to the eulogistic ‘description of a worthy woman’ (Pr 31 10-31). With this agrees also the purpose of the legislation, especially of Dt, which was to im- prove the condition of women. At the same time, the growing estimation of the worth of women, the increasing individualizing of spiritual life, together with the deep horror of unbridled sexual license, led to the judgment that only lifelong monogamy with absolute prohibition of divorce corresponded to the Divine ideal of marriage (Mk 10 2-12; I Co 7 10 f.). On a lower level than the formulation of Jesus (Mk 10 5-9) is to be placed the judgment of Paul, who saw the ideal in absolute celibacy and considered marriage only as a lesser, altho often wholesome, evil (I Co 7 1-7, 38; ef. I Ti 3 2, 12, 4 3-5, 59, Tit 16; Rev 14 4) than license. LirerRATURE: W. Robertson Smith, Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia (1885); Ch. Stubbe, Die Ehe im A T (1886); J. Wellhausen, Die Ehe bei den Arabern, in Nachrichten, von d. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Géttingen (1893); pp. 431 ff.; F. A. Klein, in ZDPV, Bd. IV, VI; Baldens- perger, in PHFQ (1899-1901); Heb. Archdologie of Nowack (1894), Benzinger (21907); S. Rauh, Hebr. Familienrecht in vorprophetischer Zeit (1907); Fr. Wilke, Das Frauenideal und die Schdizung der Weibes im A T (1907); Eberharter, Was bedeutet Mohar? (Theol. Quartalschrift, 1913, 489 ff.); derselbe, Das Ehe und Familienrecht der Hebr. (1914); Hol- zinger, Khe und Frau im vordeuteronomischen Israel (1914) (Festschr. fiir Wellhausen); J. Neubauer, Beitrage zur Geschichte des biblisch-talmudischen Eheschliessungsrechts Marriage Feast Mary the Virgin A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 558 in Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft (1919 und 1920); G. Beer, Die sociale und religidse Stellung der Frau im israelitischen Altentum (1919). H. G MARRIAGE FEAST, MARRIAGE SUPPER. See MarriAGE AND Divorce, § 2. MARROW. The rendering of (1) the Heb. noun moah (Job 21 24) and ptepl. m*muhayim (Is 25 6), both derived from a root meaning ‘to be fat,’ con- tain marrow’; (2) hélebh, the ordinary word for fat (Ps 63 5); (3) shiqqiy, ‘drink,’ i.e., refreshment (Pr 38); and (4) of the Gr. wuedéc, ‘marrow’ or ‘pith’ (He 4 12). MARSENA, miar-si’na. See Princes, THE SEVEN MARSHAL: The rendering of séphér (Jg 5 14, ‘scribe’ RVmg., ‘writer’ AV) and tiphsadr (Jer 51 27, ‘sovernor AV), an Assyr. loan-word (cf. Assyr. tupsharru). The two passages into which RV intro- duces the word are both obscure; and the text, as reflected in ancient versions, is quite doubtful. But the functions of scribe and a military office (marshal) are often united in the same person (cf. sdphér = ‘enumerator,’ ‘muster-officer,’ probably the mean- ing in Jg 5 14, asin IT K 25 19, etc.). A. C. Z. MARS HILL. See AREOPAGUS. MARTHA, mGr’tha (Mée§ze=Aram. 8012, mar- tha’), ‘lady’: The name occurs twice: (1) As that of a woman identified only as a resident of an unnamed village, as having a sister named Mary, and as ‘cumbered about much serving’ and slow to understand and sympathize with her sister’s more contemplative temperament (Lk 10 38-42); (2) as that of a sister of Mary of Bethany and of Lazarus whom Jesus raised from the dead (Jn 11 1 f.). According to some the similarities between these two in character (cf. Jn 12 2, ‘M. served’), in re- lationship (each had a sister Mary), and in setting (both lived in villages), should lead to their identi- fication. On the contrary, others are impressed by the differences which would place the two accounts in different parts of the ministry of Jesus and in different geographical locations, and assume that there were two women of the name. A. C. Z. MARTYR: The original meaning and use of the word pdetus were legal, 7.e., ‘witness’ (cf. Mt 18 16). It is also used in the sense of ‘spectator’ (cf. Herod. 121). In the NT it is used chiefly of those who testify what they have seen and heard concerning Jesus (cf. Ac 1 8). Since loyalty in this testimony often incurred violent treatment (cf. Rev. 17 6), the word came ultimately to mean one who was put to death for the sake of the gospel. J. M. T. MARVEL, MARVELS, etc. See in general MIRACLES. MARY (Mapet«, Maoprdu, the Gr. form of the Heb. miryam, Aram. maryam, Miriam EV): The name of at least six women inthe N T. IntheO T ‘Miriam’ occurs only as the name of the sister of Moses (Ex 15 20; Nu 121; Mic 6 4) and of the daughter (or son?) of Jether (I Ch 417). The frequency of its Greek equivalent in the N T can be easily accounted for as a result of the popularity of ‘Mariamme’ (Meeréuun and less correctly ‘Mariamne’ Mapgréuvn), the grand- daughter of Hyrcanus II, the last Hasmonean ruler of the Jews and the favorite wife of Herod the Great (Jos. Ant. XIV, 121; BJ, XII, 1 3). 1. Mary the mother of Jesus. See Mary, THE VIRGIN. 2. Mary Magdalene. Among the women who accompanied Jesus and the Twelve on the tour through Galilee one named Mary bore the surname Magdalene, MaySaAnvy, ‘of Magadan,’ q.v. (but cf. Schmiedel in LB, art. Mary, § 26. For variant ex- planations of the surname cf. also Lightfoot, Hor. Heb. on Mt 27 56). This Mary is singled out as one from whom Jesus had cast out ‘seven demons’ (Lk 8 2; Mk 169). As demoniac possession was at the time assumed to be the general cause of ailments and disorders, this means that she was cured of a serious disability; but exactly what this was is disputed. According to some, the ailment was mainly moral aberration, possibly complicated with physical and mental disease. Those who thus explain the case allege that Jewish usage confused certain forms of immorality with demoniac possession (cf. Lightfoot, Hor. Heb. on Lk 8 2; Jer. Vit. Hil. Erem.; the latter specifically names possession by an amoris demon). If this be the true description of the evil from which Jesus delivered Mary, it becomes at once extremely probable that she is the same as the ‘sinner’ who anointed His feet at the house of Simon the Pharisee (Lk 7 36 f.). Some have gone further and identified her with Mary, the sister of Martha and Lazarus of Bethany (cf. David Smith, In the Days of His Flesh, 1905, pp. 206-211). Of this Mary, too, it is said that she ‘anointed the Lord with ointment and wiped His feet with her hair.’ The identification of Mary Magdalene, however, with Mary of Bethany upon this ground is quite precarious. Anointing, altho not frequently mentioned, when spoken of at all, is assumed to be a not unusual act of courtesy, and could easily have occurred twice during the career of a personage such as Jesus Christ. All that is known otherwise of Mary of Bethany is incon- sistent with her being the sinful woman of Simon’s banquet. Whether Mary Magdalene was the same as the sinful woman of Lk 7 36 must depend on the nature of her aberration and cure. If this was moral, the two designations may refer to the same person; if only mental, they must belong to different in- dividuals. The reasons for identifying the two which are derived from the alleged linguistic usage (as given by Lightfoot, cited above) lose their force when closely scrutinized; and apart from these reasons there is no ground for the view that Mary Magdalene was the ‘sinner.’ The nature of the ailment described as possession by ‘seven demons,’ must be largely a matter of speculation and conjecture. The number itself may be taken in a twofold sense. It may refer to the unusual violence of the attacks of the malady, making the cure a permanent source of the greatest relief and gratitude. But the ‘seven demons’ may also be conceived as possessing the sufferer not simultaneously but successively. It is not unusual after a mental ailment has been cured by suggestion for it to return. This recurrence may have been counted as a second demon, and each subsequent lapse following a temporary cure an additional one. This ingenious suggestion, made by Schmiedel (#B, art. Gospels, § 144), would imply that the cure of Mary by Jesus consisted not in one permanent act, 559 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Marriage Feast Mary the Virgin but in many successive treatments, a view which to say the least, is not the prima facie meaning of the Gospel narrative. Mary’s discipleship seems to belong to the latter part of Jesus’ ministry. Apart from Lk 8 2, she appears by name only in the story of the Passion and Resurrection (Mt 27 56, 28 1, and ||). But even if late, her attachment to Jesus was none the less strong, as is evidenced by the fact that she was found visiting His tomb, appar- ently alone, at the earliest opportunity offered after His burial (Jn 201). The Magdalene of tradition and art is almost altogether a creature of the imagination. She derives her name from Mary of Magdala, her interest as a penitent from the assumed identity of this Mary with the sinful woman of Lk 7 36, and what remains is pure fancy. 3. Mary the Mother of James and Joses, Wife of Clopas. Another Mary, ‘the mother of James and Joses,’ is named in the Synoptics (Mt 27 56, 61; cf. Mk 15 40) as one of those who witnessed the Crucifixion. In Mt 281 this same Mary is called ‘the other Mary.’ When the parallels Mk 161 and Lk 24 10 are brought into comparison, no doubt is left that ‘the other Mary’ is ‘the mother of James and Joses.’? In the Johannine report of the Crucifixion, however, the place of the mother of James and Joses in the list of the women who witnessed the Cruci- fixion is occupied by ‘Mary the wife of Clopas’ (Jn 19 25). At first sight this identification also appears to be beyond doubt, but considerable difficulty is ex- perienced on account of the confused data regarding Clopas. This name is certainly not to be identified with Cleopas in Lk 2418. It may be regarded as the same as Alphzus, since both represent the same Aramaic Halphay (cf. Lightfoot, Gal. p. 256; but, per contra, cf. Schmiedel in HB, art. Clopas). In such a case James ‘the less’ (Mk 15 40) must have been like Matthew (Levi) a son of Alphzeus, and, as patristic tradition has it, a ‘tax-collector’ (cf. Chrysost. Hom. in. Matt. 23, ‘two tax-collectors, Matthew and James’). If true, this identification would place Mary’s interest in Jesus in a clearer light. But Clopas may be altogether independent of any one of the persons mentioned in the Synoptic narrative. If so, he was either the father or the grandfather of James and Joses, the former if Mary was the wife, the latter if she was the daughter of, Clopas. But neither of these methods of identifying the mother of James and Joses with the Mary of Clopas is convincing, and it is possible to suppose, since the name is common enough otherwise, that the author of the Fourth Gospel may have had some other Mary in mind regarding whom nothing else is known. (See BRETHREN oF THE LORD.) 4. Mary of Bethany. Mary, the sister of Martha, appears in Lk 10 38-42 as an eager listener at the feet of Jesus. The residence of the two sisters is in this passage given as ‘a certain village.’ In Jn 111. Martha and Mary again appear as the friends and hosts of Jesus, but this time more definitely located at Bethany. The characterization of the two sisters, as well as their names, is the same as in the Lucan story, and whatever difficulty may exist about identifying the household of the ‘certain village’ with that of Bethany is altogether overbalanced by these obviously common characteristics. Mary of Bethany takes a place among the disciples of Jesus as a distinct type of the mystic and contemplative believer. The view that she was the same person as Mary Magdalene, or the ‘sinner’ of Lk 7 37, is not supported by sufficient evidence. 5. Mary the Mother of Mark. ‘Mary the mother of John whose surname is Mark’ (Ac 12 12) was the owner of the house in which the disciples assembled for prayer when Herod put James to death and cast Peter into prison. The latter upon his deliverance from prison immediately hastened to this meeting- place. Besides these details no further information is given of her in the N T. That she was a widow is clear from the fact that her name instead of that of her husband is given as that of the owner of the house. She also must have occupied a prominent _ place in the Christian community. The fact that Barnabas was a ‘cousin’ (Col 4 10, ‘sister’s son’ AV) of Mark shows her to have been related to Barnabas. In later Christian literature her house is located on Mt. Zion (the SW. hill, according to later theory). The house also is said to have served as the meeting-place of Christ and the disciples at the time of the Last Supper, of the Ascension, and of Pentecost. See JERUSALEM, §42. 6. Mary the Friend of Paul. The ‘Mary’ who bestowed much labor on the Roman Christians (‘you,’ Ro 16 6, ‘us’ AV) was apparently an active Christian in Rome. About her life and services, however, nothing more is known than is given in this brief salutation by Paul. The condition of the text leaves it somewhat uncertain whether the ser- vices for which she is singled out were rendered to Paul (eis ques), among the Romans (év byiv) or to the Romans (ets 5ua&>). A. C. Z. MARY THE VIRGIN. 1. Mary as Represented in the N T. In the N T the Virgin Mary is repre- sented as a descendant of the house of David (Lk 1 27; cf. Ro 13; but these may be references to the genealogy of Joseph). Her kinswoman Elisabeth, however (Lk 1 36), was ‘of the daughters of Aaron’ (Lk 15). But this relationship, too, may have been established some generations earlier by marriage. In the evangelic narratives, Mary appears quite rarely. Of her personal history before her betrothal to Joseph the N T gives no hint. In the accounts of the birth of Jesus, she naturally stands in the foreground (Mt 1 18, 20; Lk 1 27 #., 25 #.), and in general these accounts are so framed as to harmonize with the extraordinary character of the circumstances re- corded. They throw a poetic halo about the person of Mary as well as about the mystery of the Nativity. In the story of the life and work of Jesus, however, the personality of His mother is not put into a promi- nent place. His words as a child of twelve in the Temple (Lk 2 49) are just as full of mystery for her as they are for Joseph. When she is again men- tioned (altho this time the report is found in the characteristically different account of the Fourth Gospel, Jn 2 1-12) she seems to have some intimation of His possessing more than natural powers. Yet there is something about her notion, at least as to the use of these powers that stands in need of correc- tion. But in the matter of the failure of His brothers Mary the Virgin Mattanah A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 560 to believe in Jesus (Jn 7 5; cf. Mk 3 21), the evidence, altho negative, indicates that Mary was more sympa- thetic and expectant in her attitude than they. Jesus, on His part, is represented as placing more stress on the spiritual relationship to Him involvedin obedience to His Father’s will than on relationships of a merely earthly and physical character (Mt 12 46-50 and ||\s). Yet atHis crucifixion, which Mary witnessed in a wo- manly and motherly spirit, Jesus also showed His ap- preciation of the earthly filial relation through the committal of His mother to the care of the beloved disciple (Jn 19 25-27). After the resurrection and ascension of Jesus, Mary appears as a devout mem- ber of the first company of believers (Ac 1 14), but without any discernible preeminence among them. In these few and simple allusions to her the N T gives in a restrained and chastely rational picture all the authentic materials we possess regarding Mary. 2. Mary in the N T Apocrypha. Soon after the close of the Apostolic Age, the process began of embellishing and expanding these authentic data. The result is shown best in the Protevangelium Jacobi (cf. Tischendorff, Hv. Apoc.? 1876), and in- dividual traces of this mythologizing tendency are to be found as early as Justin Martyr and Tertullian. According to the document named, the parents of Mary were Joachim and Anna, a childless pair, who like Hannah (I S ch. 1) vowed that in case their prayer for offspring should be answered, they would consecrate the child to a life of service in the Temple. Mary was born and Anna at once placed her under the care of pure virgins. One year later, her father secured her special consecration by priests with the accompaniment of a sacrificial banquet. At the end of her third year, she was led in a procession of torch- bearers to the Sanctuary, and there ‘grew like a dove which builds her nest in the Temple,’ Her nourish- ment came through the hands of angels. When she reached the age of twelve, it became necessary that she should be removed from the Temple. The ques- tion how to accomplish this was answered by an angel directing that all the widowers should be assembled together into the presence of the high priest Zachariah and that each should bring a staff in his hand. The high priest took the staves into the Holy Place, where he offered his prayer. Coming out thence, as he returned them to their owners a dove fiew out of the staff of Joseph, the carpenter of Nazareth, and alighted on his head. This was recog- nized as the sign of Joseph’s being chosen to take charge of Mary (not as his wedded wife but as a ward entrusted by the Temple officials to his care). Presently it became necessary to weave a new curtain (veil) for the Temple. Seven virgins were appointed to do this work, and Mary was added to the number. It was during the making of the curtain that the angel of the annunciation appeared to her (as in Lk ch. 1). Mary, being found pregnant, was called with Joseph before the Sanhedrin, and at the instigation of the learned Rabbi Hannas, both she and Joseph were made to undergo the ordeal of ‘bitter water’ as prescribed in Nu 518 ff. This they stood, proving their innocence. On the way to Bethlehem (as in Lk 2 4), the time for the birth of her child having arrived, she took refuge in a cave. The universe, visible and invisible, lapsed into a profound silence of expectation. Joseph hastened to bring a midwife, but found the cave overshadowed by a cloud which presently lifted, revealing a great light and the infant Jesus was seen resting on the bosom of His mother. When Salome was informed by the midwife of the wonder of a virgin giving birth to a child, she dis- believed and was punished by haying her hand burned; but upon taking the child into her arms as directed by an angel, she was at once healed. From this point onward the apocryphal narrative coalesces with the canonical, recounting the visit of the magi, the murder of the children at Bethlehem, and other details, with the exception that instead of represent- ing Jesus as saved from Herod’s murderous inten- tions by flight into Egypt, it states that He was taken into a cleft in the mountain and there con- cealed until the danger was past. Another class of additions to and embellishments of the biography of Mary are those which relate the manner of her leaving the earthly life. These are of a somewhat later origin. Two apocryphal Greek writings now extant in Latin translations (De Tran- situ Marie) of the end of the fourth or the beginning of the fifth century contain the legend of the trans- portation of the soul of the Virgin to heaven by Christ and His angels, followed subsequently by the transportation also of her body in a cloud. In the earlier centuries it was more commonly believed, upon the basis of Lk 2 35, that she had suffered martyrdom. Epiphanus is uncertain as to whether or not Mary died and was buried. The current tradition finally settled down to the negative of this question. 3. Mary the Virgin. The title ‘Virgin’ has been attached to the name of Mary in all Christian litera- ture because of the firm belief that the birth narra- tives (Mt 1 18-25; Lk 1 26-2 21) record exact historical facts. The position of traditional Christianity on this point was in ancient times met by Jews and oppo- nents of Christianity among the heathen (Celsus) with the allegation that Jesus was the unlawful son of Mary and Panderas (Ilav0yp, TavOqeac, corrupted from rap8évoc, ‘virgin,’ the distinctive title of Mary among Christians). The Talmud (cf. Laible’s essay, Jesus Christus im Talmud, in Schriften des Institutum Judaicum in Berlin, 1891, pp. 9-89), in addition, rep- resents Mary as a professional braider of women’s hair, a calling which was not considered very rep- utable. The animus of all this, however, is too transparent to admit of its being allowed weight as historical evidence. In modern times, doubts re- garding the virgin birth have been based on histor- ical-critical and scientific-philosophical grounds. (1) The birth narratives in Mt and Lk, the only portions in which explicit mention of the virgin birth is made, are said not to belong to the earliest tradition of the life and work of Jesus. (2) The idea of the virgin birth was, it is alleged, first deduced from a misin- terpretation of Is 714, and then constructed into a historical statement and inserted in the evangelic narrative. (3) The notion of virgin hirth for ex- traordinary men is quite common among the peoples of the earth, even those most developed intellec- tually (Hindus, Greeks, etc.), and was imported inte 561 the story of Jesus. (4) the notion is an outcome in the historical sphere of the dogma of the essential divinity of Jesus. Per contra, the defense of the traditional conception is conducted partly upon the presumptive truth of the evangelic narrative, whose early date and genuineness are strenuously con- tended for, partly upon the a priori fitness of such an earthly origin for the Savior of mankind, and partly upon the harmony between it and the church doctrine of Christ’s person and work. (For a full discussion, see Saltau, Birth of Jesus Christ, 1903; Lobstein, Virgin Birth of Christ, 1903; Sweet, The Birth and Infancy of Jesus Christ, 1906; Orr, The Virgin Birth of Christ, 1907). Historically, the question whether Mary is the sole human parent of Jesus must stand or fall with the acceptance or re- jection of the evangelic infancy-narratives as abso- lutely credible testimony, issuing from Mary herself. In the absence of strong grounds for their rejection, their general apparent sanity, their freedom from objectionable features on a subject of such delicacy, and the early and implicit credit given them in the Christian community entitle these narratives to be believed as true accounts of fact. 4. Mary in Ecclesiastical Literature and Dogma. The thought of the virginity of Mary at the time of the birth of Jesus has led to further developments. These, however, for the most part possess a historical rather than a Biblical interest. They are traceable to diverse motives. The predominance of ascetic ideals and the belief in the superior merit inherent in the celibate and virgin state led to the notion that the mother of Jesus must be not only a virgin before and in the process of giving virth to her Divine Son, but must have remained a virgin ever afterward (perpetual virginity). Accordingly, Jesus could have had no brothers or sisters in the strict and true sense of the terms. Hence to explain the occurrence of the phrase ‘brethren of the Lord’ it was proposed to construe it as meaning either cousins, or children of Joseph by a previous marriage (the Hieronym- ian and Epiphanian views; see BRETHREN OF THE Lorp). Another interest centering about the person- ality of Mary was the dogmatic one of the sinlessness of Jesus. If she was the mother of the sinless nature of Jesus she must herself have somehow been purged of original sin. The idea legitimately worked out led, altho only as late as the middle of the 19th cent., to the dogma of the immaculate conception of Mary. Still another interest finds its starting-point in the respect that Mary had earned as the mother of the Savior of mankind. In the Biblical narrative, this natural deference to her as a privileged char- acter appears in the addresses of the angel and of Elisabeth (Lk 1 28, 42). From natural felicitation to veneration and from veneration to adoration, first akin to that due to God and afterward identical with it, were inevitable steps, altho many generations passed before the last one was taken. The con- troversy whether Mary should be called the ‘mother of God,’ involving the story of Nestorianism with all its sequels, leads to subjects which are altogether outside the field of Biblical interest even in its broadest and most indirect associations. Lireraturge: The Ante-Nicene Christian Library, vol. XVI . (Clark), contains translations of the apocryphal Protevan- A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Mary the Virgin Mattanah gelium Jacobi, Evang. Thomzx, Evang. de Nativiiate Mariz, Historia de Nativ. Mariz et de Infantie Salvatoris, His- toria Josephi, Evang. Infantiz, de Dormitione, and de Tran- situ Mariz. See also Lehner, Die Marienverehrung in den ersten Jahrhunderien (1886), and Neubert, Marie dans VEglise Anténicéenne (1908); and article by J. B. Mayor in HDB. ALCL. MASCHIL, mas’kil. See Psaus, § 3. MASH, mash. See EranocrapHy AND Ern- NOLOGY, § 13. MASHAL, mé’shal. See MIsHAL. MASON. See Artizan Lire, § 4. MASREKAH, mas’rn-ka ("21¥2, masréqah): The home of Samlah, who once reigned over Edom (Gn 36 36; I Ch 1 47). Site unknown. MASSA, mas’a (SY, massa’): An Ishmaelite clan (Gn 25 14). See ErHnocrapHY AND ETHNOLOGY, -§ 18; and LemvuEt. MASSAH, mas’a (199, massah), ‘testing’; cf. ‘temptation’ AVmg., ‘tempting,’ or ‘proving’ RV mg.: The name given the place where the chil- dren of Israel tempted J’’ by doubting His presence with them (Ex 177). Massah is also named in Dt 6 16, 9 22; Ps 95 8; but it is uncertain whether this is independent of the Massah where Levi was tested (Dt 33 8 f.). A. C. Z. MAST. In Pr 23 34 the Heb. hibbél is of uncertain meaning. It can mean ‘mast’ only through some connection with the ropes or tackling (habhal, the root, meaning ‘to bind’ or ‘tie’). Possibly it refers here to ‘the lookout basket at the masthead’ (BDB, sub. voc.). MASTER: This term is used to render: (1) ’Gdh6n, especially when this refers to persons other than God (Gn 249 ff., ete.). (2) sar, ‘prince,’ ‘chief? (I Ch 15 27); (8) ba‘al, ‘owner’ (Ex 22 8; Jg 19 22 £.; Ee 12 11; Is 1 3); (4) ‘ér (Mal 2 12, ‘him that waketh’ RV), and (5) rabh (Jon 16; Dn 13, 49,511); (6) 8t3dcxaro0¢ (mostly in the Gospels in AV, ‘teacher’ RV); (7) Seondtys, ‘sovereign master’ (I Ti 61 f.; II Ti 2 21; Tit 29; I P 218); (8) éxtatétys, ‘overseer’ (Lk 5 5, 8 24, 45, 9 33, 49, 1713); (9) xxOnynrh>, ‘guide,’ ‘leader’ (Mt 28 10); (10) xéetoc, ‘lord’ (Mt 6 24; Eph 6 5; Col 3 22, etc.); (11) xuSepyqtns, ‘steersman,’ ‘ship- master’ (Ac 27 11; Rev 18 17); (12) 6aBBet, ‘rabbi’ (q.v.). See also Snips anD NaviaarTION, § 2. 0 es Rad be MATHUSALA, moa-fhii’sa-la. See MErTHUSELAH. MATRED, mé’tred (19, matrédh): The mother of Mehetabel (Gn 36 39; I Ch 1 50). MATRI, mé'trai (192, matr?), MATRITES: The ancestral head of a Benjamite family, or clan, to which Saul belonged (I § 10 21). MATTAN, mat’en (12, maitdn), ‘gift’: 1. The priest of the temple of Baal in Jerusalem, who was slain under Jehoiada (II K 11 18=II Ch 2317). As Queen Athaliah was a daughter of Jezebel, he may have been a Phenician. 2. The father of Shephatiah (Jer 38 1). Gla Sanke MATTANAH, mat’a-na (92, mattanah), ‘gift’: A station in the wilderness wandering, between the Arnon and the plains of Moab (Nu 21 18 f.). It is likely that the words ‘from the wilderness to M.’ Mattaniah Matthew, Gospel of A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 562 constitute the last line ot the preceding poem, in which case M. is not to be taken as a proper noun, but should be rendered ‘gift.’ BK. E.N. MATTANIAH, mat’’a-nai’a (52, mattanyah), ‘gift of J’’: 1. The original name of King Zedekiah (II K 2417). 2. A descendant of Asaph (I Ch 9 15; Neh 11 22) and leader of the singers (Neh 1117, 12 8). 3. A Levite of the sons of Asaph, and a contempo- rary of Jehoshaphat (II Ch 20 14) (=preceding?). 4, 5, 6, 7. Four who married foreign wives (Ezr 10 26 f., 30, 37). 8. A doorkeeper in the Temple (Neh 12 25). 9. An Asaphite (Neh 12 35) =2 (?). 10. A treasurer in the Temple (Neh 13 13), also translation of W230, mattanyaha. 11. A Hemanite (I Ch 25 4, 16). 12. An Asaphite in the reign of Hezekiah, who helped cleanse the Temple (II Ch 29 13). PAs fast hi MATTATHA, mat’a-tha (Martaf&): An ancestor of Jesus (Lk 3 31). MATTATHIAS, mat’’a-thai’as (Mattabtac, Heb. mattithyah, ‘gift of J’’): This name, common in the later O T times (cf. Neh 8 4), occurs also in the Maccabean period. 1. A priest in Modein, the father of the five Maccabean brothers (I Mac 2 1). See Mac- CABEES, THe. 2. One of the captains in the army of Jonathan Maccabeus (I Mac 11 70). 3. A son of Simon the high priest (I Mac 16 14-16). 4. An envoy sent by Nicanor to Judas Maccabeus (II Mac 1419). 5, 6. The name is twice found in Luke’s genealogical table. In 3 25 M. the son of Amos, the seventh removed from Joseph, and in 3 26 the son of Semein, the thirteenth from Joseph. J via. MATTATTAH, mat’at-ta (TDD, mattatiah, Mattathah AV): One of the ‘sons of Hashum’ (Ezr 10 33). MATTENAI, mat’1-né’ai (20, mattenay): 1. One of the ‘sons of Hashum’ (Ezr 10 33). 2. One of the ‘sons of Bani’ (Ezr 10 37). 3. A priest (Neh 12 19). MATTHAN, mat’then (Ma60év): An ancestor of Joseph (Mt 1 15). MATTHAT, mat’ thot (Mar8éc and Maf6ar): The name of two ancestors of Jesus (Lk 3 24, 29) MATTHEW, math’iu (Ma6@atoc, abbr. of Matta- thias): One of the Apostles. His name is given in all the lists (Mk 318; Mt 10 3; Lk 615; Ac 113) in two of them (Mk and Ac) he is paired with Barthol- omew and in the other two (Mt and Lk) with Thomas. Outside of this record of Apostolic ap- pointment he is mentioned but once in the Gospel history, viz., in connection with his call by Jesus to His discipleship (Mk 2 13 f.; Mt 99; Lk 5 27), where his name is given by Mk and Lk as Levi (Acuet), Mk adding his father’s name Alphzeus, and imply- ing Capernaum as his home (cf. Mk 21 with ver. 13 f.). There is a possibility that he was a brother of the James of the apostolic circle, whose father was Alpheus. From the record of his call we learn that he was one of those Jews whose nationalism was weak enough to allow him to enter the execrated service of tax-gathering, altho this service was carried on apparently with less friction in the tetrarchy of Antipas than it was in the rest of Palestine. M. was a customs-officer, and it was while he was seated at his ‘place of toll’ on the customs-route between Damascus and the Mediterranean, which passed out- side of Capernaum along the Sea of Galilee, that Jesus called him to His following. This call was evidently intended by Jesus as a further object-lesson to the scribes and Pharisees, before whom He had just healed the paralytic in proof of His right to forgive sins without resort to ceremonialism; for along with all his class M. was unchurched by the religious leaders of the people, so that no more practical evidence of Jesus’ inde- pendence of ceremonialism could be given than to call M. to His discipleship. It is evident that before his call M. must have been familiar with Jesus and His gospel message and mission, since the prompt- ness of his response implied an intelligent under- standing of what was involved in the call. The ‘great feast’ which, following his call, M. made to his new Master (Lk 5 29 ff.) was, therefore, of special sig- nificance; for it was given not only with an under- standing of what his call involved for himself, but apparently with some idea of what his acceptance of it involved for Jesus. Its guests, apart from Jesus and His disciples, were made up mainly of M.’s fellow publicans and the general class of the ‘sin- ners’ (i.e., the ceremonially outlawed, not the morally corrupt), to which the publicans belonged, and the Pharisaic criticisms and Jesus’ answering remarks were quite to be expected (Mt 9 10-13 and Ils). As to his authorship of the First Canonical Gospel and his general position in the theological thought of the Early Church, see the following article. M. W. J. MATTHEW, GOSPEL OF: The first of the group of the socalled Synoptic Gospels (see Gospxt, GOSPELS, § 38). 1. Authorship and Historical Character. This Gospel, in common with the others, fails to name any one as its author, or even to hint, as some of the others do, at a more or less possible identifica- tion. Consequently, whatever knowledge is to be obtained of its authorship and its historical relation to the events which it records must come from a critical study of its contents, and a comparison of the results thus secured with the early traditions of the post-Apostolic Age. (a) Contents. Its contents are peculiary arranged. After the preliminary history, comprising the genealogy (1 1-17) and the Nativity story (1 121%) anda brief statement of the preaching of the Baptist (3 1-2), the record of Jesus’ public ministry is introduced with an account of His induction into it through His baptism (3 13-17) and His temptation (4 1-11), and a statement of the beginning of His work in Galilee (4 12-%), This public ministry, while it dis- closes a certain geographical arrengement (5 +15 29, covering His own country of Galilee; 15 21-17 21, the outside regions of Tyre and Sidon; 17 2-20 *%, Galilee and the regions beyond the Jordan; and chs. 21-28 His final ministry in Jerusalem, with His Passion and Resurrection), nevertheless is presented in such topical groupings of its teachings and its events as really to control the whole disposition of its material. There comes first: A. The Galilean Ministry (5 1-15 2°), consisting of I. A group of representative discourses treating of the Messianic Kingdom (5 1-7 2%); then II. A group of representative miracles, typical of Messianic times—showing Jesus’ popularity (8 1! 9 *)—an alternation which is then repeated with 568 | A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Mattaniah Matthew, Gospel of III. A group of representative discourses treating of the Messianic Kingdom—showing a growing op- position against Jesus (9 %5-13 58), and IV. A group of representative miracles, ilustrating Messianic times (14 1-%)—followed by an ap- parently isolated discourse treating of the Mes- sianic Kingdom (15 1-20), Then follows B. The Retirement into the regions of Northern and Eastern Galilee (15 2-17 2°), presented in VY. A group of miracles illustrating in outlook the future missions to the Gentiles (15 21-39), then VI. A group of discourses treating of the rejection of Israel and announcing the coming Passion (ch. 16), and VII. A group of miracles illustrating the glory of the Messiah and the weakness of the disciples’ faith (17 1-20), Then, after a statement of the return to Galilee, with a dis- course in Capernaum (17 22-18 %), and of the final departure from Galilee into the regions beyond the Jordan (19 1 f-), with discourses on the way (19 3-20 *), is given C. The Closing Ministry in Jerusalem—showing His final presentation of Himself as Messiah (chs. 21-25), which is arranged as follows: First, VIII. The triumphal entry into the city, with its con- nected incidents and remarks (21 117), and then IX. A group of representative discourses treating of the rejection of Israel (21 18-25 46), Then there is given the concluding narrative of D. The Passion and the Resurrection, closing with the Final World Commission to the Disciples (chs. 26-28). (b) Nationality of Author. It is obvious from even a cursory study of these contents that the author was a Jewish Christian. (1) The whole narrative is cast so in the Messianic mold that any other conclusion is quite impossible. (2) Fur- ther than this, a detailed study will show that Jesus is not only presented definitely as the Jewish Messiah (e.g., 11 [cf. 9 27, 12 23, 15 22, 21 9, 15], 1 16-18, 2 4, 27 17, 22 [ef. 2 2]), but His birth, the events of His life and His death are connected with O T specific predictions, and are displayed in a perfectly Jewish spirit as the necessary outcome of the Divinely prearranged plan (e.g., 1 22 f., 2 15, 17 f., 23, 414-16, 817, 12 17-21, 13 35, 21 4f., 279). (3) Finally, there is a distinct tendency in the narrative to revert to theocratic terms and points of view (e.g., Palestine =‘the land of Israel,’ 2 20 £.; Jerusalem = ‘the Holy City,’ 4 5, 27 53, ‘the city of the Great King,’ 5 35; God =‘the God of Israel,’ 15 31 [which is different from Lk’s LXX. citation 1 68]; the Apostles are sent to ‘the lost sheep of the house of Israel,’ 10 6, 15 24; Gentiles are held to be outside the immediate field of Christ’s mission, 15 23, 26 f., and as people of outside life and religion, 5 47, 6 7, 32, 18 17); the permanency of the Law is emphasized, 5 17-19; while the Sermon on the Mount is brought into comparison with the teachings of the Pharisees and also with the O T, as it is not in Lk (cf. chs. 5-7 with Lk 6 20-49). (c) His Gentile Point of View. At the same time, it is evident that the author is not a narrow-minded Jew: (1) He not only recognizes, but is in perfect accord with the Gentile element in the Church—in spite of his recording (a) such an episode as that of the Syro-Phenician woman in ch. 15, in which, however, Jesus’ purpose was really to disclose to the disciples where their own narrow nationalism would lead them, and (b) such commands as those to the disciples in 10 5 f. (cf. 10 18, 12 18, 21, but cf. also Jesus’ announcements of the nation’s impending doom, 8 11 f., 21 43, 22 7, alone reported by Mt); (2) He records the Baptist’s rebuke of the Jerusalem Jews, ch. 3. (3) He alone records Jesus’ denunciation of the Pharisees and scribes, ch. 23; cf. also 15 13 £.; 21 28-32. (4) He is the only one to give Jesus’ com- mission to go into all the world and make disciples of all the nations (28 19 f). (d) Readers. As to the readers, it is clear from the foregoing §§, (1b) and (1c), that the Gospel was intended for Jewish Christians; while from the Gospel itself it is evident that they were, (1) not only outside of Palestine, (2) but without familiar knowledge of many Jewish things; otherwise it would not have been necessary to interpret (a) such Heb. words as ‘Immanuel’ (1 23), or (b) such Aram. words as ‘Golgotha’ (27 33), or (c) the sentence from the Ps (27 46), or to explain (d) such a custom as the Passover amnesty (27 15), or (e) such a belief as that of the Sadducees (22 23). (e) Motive. Obviously, the distinctive motive of the Gospel is to present Jesus as the consummation of theocratic history and the fulfilment of theocratic principles, and yet not as answering to the national Messianic hopes, but as standing out against them and disclosing the falseness of Judaism, in conse- quence of which the Kingdom of God was to be world-wide in its scope. (f) Time. As to the time when the Gospel was written, little of a positive nature can be said. There are some things that would seem to indicate a late date (e.g., the use of the baptismal formula, 28 19 [tho cf. the use of a similar formula in the benedictory conclusion of II Co]; the use of éxxA nol in an organized sense, 1618 f., 1817 [altho cf. the same use of this term in the speeches of Stephen, Ac 7 38 and of Paul, Ac 20 28; also in the early Pauline Epistles to the Corinthians (I Co 7 17, 11 16, 14 33; II Co 11 28) and the still earlier Ep. of James (5 14]; the employment of such an expression as ‘to this day,’ 27 8, 28 15). On the other hand, the naive unconsciousness of the non-fulfilment of the proph- etic discourse of ch. 24 in its apparent reference to an immediate advent (cf. the distinctly different presentation in Lk chs. 19 and 21) would seem to betray a time of writing at least before the destruc- tion of Jerusalem (70 a.p.). Such an earlier date would be in agreement with any evidence to the effect that this Gospel was known to Luke in the writing of his narrative about 80 a.p. (See LUKE, Gosre. oF, § 3, and cf. in general on this point, Allen in Int. Crit. Com. p. Ixxxiv f.) (g) Place. As to place of composition, it is im- possible to make any statement of fact, and con- jecture is fruitless. (h) Results of Internal Evidence. Such an in- duction of the internal evidence produces, of course, no proof of authorship, altho the breadth of national view disclosed by the Gospel is in significant agree- ment with what we might naturally expect would be the liberal standpoint of such a man as the publican Matthew, whose name has been from the beginning assigned to this Gospel. A Jew who could become a tax-gatherer among his people is not likely to have been a narrow nationalist; while, as far as we know anything of his life and work, a Jewish Christian readership outside of Palestine and a time of writ- Matthew, Gospel of ing before 70 a.p, would have been perfectly pos- sible in his case. (i) External Evidence. The question is whether such a possible authorship is confirmed by the testimony of external evidence. This evidence is, in brief, that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Heb. (Aram.). Our Canonical Gospel, however, not being a translation (see § 1 (k), below), this would seem to make it one of two things—either another Gospel by a later (non-apostolic) hand, or a second Gospel by the same (apostolic) hand. Against this second alternative there is no antecedent objection, altho it is not a usual literary procedure. The first, how- ever, is difficult to reconcile with the fact that external evidence itself holds our Canonical Gospel to be of apostolic origin. This dilemma would seem to call for a more de- tailed study of what external evidence really means by its statement that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Heb. From such study emerge the following results: (1) An evident tradition from Papias to Jerome that Matthew wrote in Heb. a Gospel writing of some sort —called X6yta by Papias and etayyéAtov from Irenzeus onward—which tradition must have been based on some sort of a Gospel writing under Matthew’s name existing at the earliest time. (2) An evident existence in the time of Origen and Jerome of an apocryphal Gospel in Heb. claiming to be Matthew’s. (3) An evident tendency on the part of Jerome to identify the tradition and the apocryphal Gospel existing in his day. Manifestly, these results necessitate the further question: Was this apocryphal Gospel the basis of the tradition from the beginning, or did a genuine Heb. Matthew writing exist at the first and then in some way disappear, leaving only this apocryphal Gospel to account for the tradition? In answer to this question further investigation discloses the fact that the Apocryphal Gospel of Jerome’s day was the Heb. Gospel under Matthew’s name possessed by the sect of the Nazarenes and known as the Gospel According to the Hebrews. The existence of this Nazarene Gospel can be traced back to the 2d cent.—apparently to Papias’ own time. Inasmuch, however, as its apocryphal character and consequently false claim to Matthean authorship was evidently not discovered till the day of Origen and Jerome, it may have constituted the basis for Papias’ statement that Matthew composed t& Abyta in the Heb. dialect and that each one interpreted it as he was able (MacOatoc wiv obv ta Adyta “EBoatd: Staréxtw ouveyek&bato, hewhvevce 8’ alt& Oo Hy dv- vato< &xaotos), upon which statement all subsequent tradition concerning this Heb. Matthew Gospel is based. This would, in fact, seem to be the necessary conclusion, in spite of the use by Papias of the term tx Adyta, instead of td edayyéAtov, were it not for facts which disclose themselves upon a more de- tailed investigation of the contents of the Canonical Mt, in comparison with the contents of Mk and Lk. (j) Sources. This investigation shows that the Canonical Mt had two main sources for its material. The first and more comprehensive was the Canonical Mk, whose contents have been practically repro- duced in Mt’s narrative, the phraseology often being A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 564 altered to suit the author’s linguistic taste (for dis- play of alterations cf. Allen in Int. Crit. Com., pp. xix-xxxl, and Hawkins, Hore Synoptice, 2d ed., Part [II A and B) or his theological ideas (cf. Allen, pp. XXXi-xxxiv and Ixxi-lxxix), the sequential order being largely broken to suit the author’s topical plan of arrangement. The other source was a docu- ment apparently used in common with Lk, which lay behind the discourse material of their narratives (see Synoptic PRoBLEM, § 6, and Luks, GospPxEu or, § 3), and which must have contained, with more or less narrative setting, something approaching a collection of the sayings, or teachings, or discourses of Jesus. Such a document, whatever its specific character and make-up, lends significance to Papias’ statement, since at once the reason for his usage of the term t& Aéyta becomes apparent and his reference to a genuine Matthew Gospel-writing most probable. Assuming some such document as referred to in Papias’ statement, we can account for the confusion in the subsequent tradition; since having been more or less incorporated into the Canonical Gospel, this original writing would most likely have disappeared from use and knowledge, leaving as the only Heb. document under Matthew’s name this apocryphal Gospel of the Nazarenes, which, known as it was only at second hand till later times, might be thought to be the writing to which Papias referred. This in its turn might account for the substitution by Irenzeus of the term 1d edayyéAtov for Papias’ ta Aéyta and its retention from his day onward. This external evidence, therefore, that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Heb. reduces itself to this state- ment of Papias which seems to indicate that the writing in question was not a Gospel, but some col- lection of words or sayings uttered by Jesus in con- nection with incidents in His ministry as made it different from the ordered narrative of a Gospel and so justified the usage of the title tz Aéyta, in dis- tinction from the title td edayyéAtov. (kx) Historical Value. The only remaining question is as to who compiled this primary Matthean docu- ment with the Canonical Mk into our Canonical Mt. Manifestly, it is a matter of secondary im- portance how this question shall be answered; since the discourses of Jesus in the Canonical Gospel are so vitally connected with a first-hand report of Jesus’ utterances through this early Matthean writing and the substance of the narrative is so reproductive of the primary record of Mk. Matthew may have written nothing more than his primary document, yet our Canonical Gospel is too closely and intimately connected with eye- and ear-wit- ness reports of Jesus’ life and teachings to give us anything less than an essential history of His ministry. In other words, nothing is gained in the way of historical reliability by insisting upon the rather unusual literary procedure which would make the Apostle both the writer of the primary docu- ment and the compiler of the canonical narrative. The apparent uncertainty of modern scholars as to the origin and contents of this Matthean docu- ment (see Synoptic PROBLEM, § 6) does not essen- tially affect its value as a source for the ministry of 565 A NEW STANDARD Jesus; since whatever the facts as to these points may ultimately prove to be, it shows itself where it appears in the Gospels so primary in its character- istics that its reliability as a source must remain beyond question. The claim that the statement of Papias refers to an original narrative Gospel written by the Apostle in Heb. and afterward translated by him into Gr.— making our Canonical Mt a Gr. translation of the original Heb. and not an original Gr. writing (Zahn, Introd. § 54) overlooks the fact that it is obviously inconceivable that the Gr. of Mark’s Gospel should have been originally translated into the Heb. of this original Mt Gospel and then retranslated into the Gr. of our Canonical Mt, with such fidelity to the Markan original. The identities of word and phrase which the Canonical Mt shows to the Canonical Mk betray a contact at first hand and not through such a double process as this theory involves. 2. View-Point. When we study the character of the thought in the First Gospel we see at once that it moves in a distinctively O T atmosphere. Jesus is presented to the readers as in Himself, His King- dom, and its accompanying salvation the direct _ fulfilment of Messianic predictions and as thus specially accredited to the Jewish Christian circle to which the Gospel was sent. In any detailed con- sideration of the main themes the following facts will emerge: (1) As to God: M. represents Jesus as ascribing to God absolute goodness (19 16 f.) and unlimited power (10 28). At the same time, His application to God of the title ‘King’ is in the theocratic sense of the O T term rather than with the idea of creative rule (5 35 {cf. 15 31] and the king and lordship parables of the Unmerciful Servant, 18 23 #. [peculiar to Mt], the Householder and his Vineyard, 21 33-45 [cf. espec. ver. 43], and the Marriage Feast, 222f). Similarly, His ascription to God of the title ‘Father,’ while it shows this rule exercised benefi- cently over all His creation (5 45, 6 26, 10 29), dis- plays His peculiar relation to Jesus’ own disciples, and in this sense is used conspicuously by M. (5 16, 45, 48, 61, 4, 6, 8 f., 14 f., 18, 26, 32, 7 11, 21, 10 20, 13 43, 18 14, 23 9). (2) As to Jesus Himself: While M. does not repre- sent Jesus as explicitly using the title ‘Son of God’ of Himself, he does make clear that He accepts its explicit application to Himself by others (e.g., in the Divine declaration at His baptism, 3 17, and His transfiguration, 17 5, in the Tempter’s ap- proach to Him, 4 3, 6, in the demon’s appeal, 8 29, and in the high priest’s challenge, 26 63), and that He implies it of Himself (e.g., in His remarks connected with the upbraiding of the Galilean cities, 11 25-27, in His eschatological discourse, 24 36, in the parable of the Householder and his Vineyard, 21 33-45). At the same time, it is noticeable to what extent M. alone represents Jesus as implying the title of. Himself (e.g., 7 21, 10 32 £., 12 50, 15 13, 16 17, 18 10, 19, 35, 20 23, 25 34, 26 53, 28 19 f.), altho His acceptance of its explicit application to Himself by others is really confined to the confession of the disciples, 14 33, 1616f. (The use of the title by the railing mob, 27 40, 43, and the impressed centurion, 27 54, can hardly be considered in this connection.) In the BIBLE DICTIONARY Matthew, Gospel of implicit use of the title by Jesus there is the asser- tion of a relation of unique intimacy with God, involving the consciousness of a mutual knowledge (11 25-27; and yet see the apparently contradictory statement, 24 36); a mutual harmony of will (26 39, 42, 58) and a commission of peculiar revelatory and representative character (7 21, 10 32, 12 50, 15 13, 16 17, 18 10, 19, 35, 20 23, 25 34, 28 19). In the explicit application of the title to Jesus there is implied, in the Divine declarations, 3 17 and 17 5, the fact that He is the peculiar object of the Father’s pleasure; in the use of it by the Tempter, 4 3, 6, and the Demoniac, 8 29, the possession of supernatural power; and in the confession of the disciples, 14 33, 16 16, and the challenge of the high priest, 26 63, a Messianic claim. M. represents Jesus as making frequent applica- tion to Himself of the title ‘Son of Man’ (e.g., 8 20, 9 6, 11 19, 12 8, 32, 16 27 £., 17 9, 12, 22, 20 18, 28, 24 30b, 26 24 [bis], 45, 64), altho the instances in which he alone places it on Jesus’ lips are noteworthy (e.., 10 23, 12 40, 13 37, 41, 16 13, 19 28, 24 27, 30a, 37, 39, 44, 25 31, 26 2). In no case is this title applied to Jesus by others, while Jesus’ own use of it involves the conception of a relationship to the Kingdom not only as its Founder (e.g., in the revealing of truth, 13 37, the forgiving of sin, 9 6, the determining of the conduct of life, 11 19; and of the use of the Sab- bath, 128), but as its Ministering Servant (e.g., in the resigning of the comforts of life, 8 20, in submission to the persecutions of foes, 17 12, in yielding to the sacrifice of death, 12 40, 17 22, 20 28, 26 2, 24, 45, in return for which is to be the final exaltation to a throne of judgment and eternal glory, 13 41, 16 27 f., 19 28, 20 18 f., 24 27-44, 25 31, 26 64). Throughout his references to Jesus’ life and teach- ings, it is evident that M. takes a Messianic point of view, for he omits few opportunities of connecting both the words and the acts of Jesus with the Messianic forecasts of the Scriptures, e.g., His birth (1 22), His childhood (2 15, 17, 23), His Galilean work (4 14-16), His healing ministry (8 17), His avoidance of publicity (12 17-21), His method of teaching (13 35), the manner of His triumphal entry (21 4 £.), the disposal of the betrayal money (27 9), and at times represents Jesus Himself as so con- necting the experiences of His ministry and the events of His life, e.g., the misconceptions of His teachings (18 14), His betrayal (26 24), His desertion (26 31), His arrest (26 54, 56). (3) As to the Kingdom of God: For this phrase M. represents Jesus as using almost exclusively the phrase ‘Kingdom of Heaven’—seven times where the other phrase is reproduced by Mk (3 2, 417, 8 11, 13 11, 31, 19 14), eight times where it is reproduced by Lk (5 3, 7 21, 107, 11 11, 12, 13 33, 18 3, 23 13), and eighteen times in passages peculiar to himself (5 10, 19 [bis], 20, 13 24, 44, 45, 47, 52, 16 19, 18 1, 4, 23, 19 12, 201, 22 2, 251). In four passages the other phrase is represented as used (12 28, 19 24, 21 31, 43). At the same time, we find repro- duced other phrases peculiar to M.—e.g., ‘my Father’s kingdom’ (26 29), ‘the kingdom of their Father’ (13 43), ‘thy kingdom’ (6 10 [=God’s], 20 21 [=Jesus’]), ‘his kingdom’ (6 33, 18 41, 16 28), Matthew, Gospel of Meat A NEW STANDARD and the simple term ‘kingdom’ (4 23, 8 12, 9 35, 13 19, 38, 2414, 25 34). While it may not be possible to de- termine the reason for the peculiar phrasings of this common term which M. presents, it is clear that the frequency of his reproduction of the Kingdom idea is due to his O T conception of the Messiah’s mission as embodying God’s sovereignty and rule. (For detailed discussion of the term see Allen, in Jnt. Crit. Com., pp. Ixvii-lxxi.). M. represents Jesus as making strong its distinction from the national and political kingdom conceived of as the Messianic promise to the Covenant People; altho he brings out particularly that its membership is based on charac- ter and conduct (5 3-10, 19, 20, 7 21, 13 41, 181-3, 19 14, 23 £.), the test of greatness in it is humility (18 4), and its realization is to be in the perfect doing of God’s will (6 10); while he portrays its special value as an objective good (13 44-46)—because of which per- haps there will be by some a counterfeiting of real connection with it (13 47-50), and its progress will meet with hinderance and embarrassment (13 24 f.). While the Jews are represented as by right its ‘sons’ (8 12), their rejection of their privileges will cause them to be cast out (8 11 f.) and the Kingdom to be given to others who will satisfy its conditions (21 43). In this sense, M. understands that the Kingdom is to be universal (8 11 f., 21 31), and portrays it as con- ceived of by Jesus as a present fact (11 12, 12 28, 21 31 £., 23 13), as well as a future consummation (8 11 f., 13 40 ff., 47 ff., 24 30 ff., 25 31 ff.) and as thus characterized by a constant element of growth (13 31 £,3).33). (4) As to the Messianic Salvation: M. represents Jesus as conceiving of the Messianic Salvation as a thing not merely of the future, but of the present life (19 29), altho the details gathering around its future consummation are given special prominence by M. (138 30, 39-43, 47-50, 19 28, 25 31-46). This Salva- tion does not consist in material good (6 19 f.), altho it replaces the loss of such good a hundredfold (19 29), and secures it in the true sense of its possession (6 33). M. represents Jesus as emphasizing in general the need of personal relations to Himself in order to the bestowal of this Salvation (10 34-39, 11 29), and as presenting as its specific conditions both repen- tance (4 17, cf. 11 20 f., 12 41, 21 32) and faith (8 18, 9 2, 22, 29, 15 28). M. represents Jesus as referring to His death as the means by which the bestowal of this Salvation is secured (20 28; cf. the additional passage 26 28, peculiar to Mt). (5) As to Eschatology: M. merges the announce- ments of Jesus regarding the crises in the Kingdom’s development with those regarding its final consum- mation (cf. the eschatological address, ch. 24), altho he gives prominence to the distinctive element of progress in the development (cf. Parables of the Leaven, 13 33, and the Tares, 13 24-30, 36-43; cf. also Parable of the Drag-net, 13 47-50—all peculiar to Mt). So also in the announcements of the judgment, M. follows the general tendency to merge the ideas of its processes with those of its final declaration —tho, unlike his custom in the matter of the King- dom’s development, he makes prominent the ele- ment of the final pronouncement of the judgment (cf. 7 21-23 with Lk 6 46; 12 33-37 with Lk 6 43-45; BIBLE DICTIONARY 566 ef. also, as peculiar to Mt, 25 1-13, 31-46). This is doubtless due to the peculiar influence upon his thought of the O T idea of the Messianic rule, which, whatever its hidden and confused development, is fully to reveal itself in its final judgment. See the similar element characterizing the Baptist’s an- nouncement of this rule (3 11 f.). LirgErRATURE: Of the various N T Introductions avuilable to the English reader those of Jilicher (Eng. transl. 1904) and Zahn (Eng. trans. 21917) represent respectively the liberal and the conservative schools of modern German scholarship. To their exhaustive presentations of the Synoptic criticism may be added the critical introductions to the following leading Commentaries on Matthew: Allen in ICC series (1908); Bruce in Expos. Gr. Test. (1897); Weiss in Meyer’s Krit.-exeget. Kom. tib. d. N T (1898); Holtzmann in Hand Com. z. N T (1901), and Zahn in his own N T series (1903). For the Theology of the Gospel see Stevens, VN T Theology (1899), and Holtzmann, Lehrb. d. n’tlichen Theologie (1897), espec. I, pp. 425-438. Special works: Burton, Short Introd. to the Gospels (1904); Robinson Study of the Gospels (1902). The following Lives of Christ may be consulted: Weiss (Eng. transl. 1894); Holtzmann (Eng. transl. 1904) representing respectively the evangelical and purely critical German view-point; Edersheim, Jesus the Messiah (one vol. ed. 1890), giving the Jewish back- ground; Smith, In the Days of His Flesh (1905), a more popular presentation; Headlam (1924), scholarly, tho incomplete in the ground covered. M. W. J. MATTHIAS, mat-fhai’as (Ma06lac, ‘gift of J’,’ [ef. the Gr. Theodore], abbr. from Mattaflac, which was common in the Maccabean age; cf. I Mac 21 f., 11 70, 16 14; II Mac 14 19; also Lk 3 25): One of the little company of Jesus’ followers, who was chosen by lot to take the place of Judas among the Twelve (Ac 1 23-26), on the ground that he had ‘companied with’ them and was, therefore, competent to witness to the teaching and work of Jesus. The historicity of the transaction is denied (Zeller, Acts), but on insufficient grounds. The method of the choice by lot has been challenged (Stier, Words of App., i, 1; also David Smith in HDB, one vol. ed.). But he was recognized as such (Ac 6 2), altho nothing authentic of his life and ministry is known. Eusebius considered him one of the Seventy (H#, I, 12); Clement (Strom., IV, 6 35) identifies him with Zaccheus; the Clem. Recog. (I, 60) with Barnabas; Hilgenfeld (N T Extra Can., 105) with Nathaniel. His name soon became the center around which apocryphal writings clustered. These include a Gospel, a group of Traditions, and some Discourses. (Cf. Harnack, Chronol., 597 ff.). There are also apocryphal Acts of Andrew and Maithias (cf. Bonnet, Acta Apost. Apocr., 2, 1,1898). A.C. Z. MATTITHIAH, mat'ti-fhai’a (WN, mattithyah), ‘oift of J’’: 1. A Levite (I Ch 9 21). 2. A musician (I Ch 15 18, 21, 16 5). 3. Another musician (I Ch 25 3, 21). 4. One of the ‘sons of Nebo’ (Ezr 10 43). 5. One of Ezra’s assistants (Neh 8 4). MATTOCK: The term renders the following Heb. words: (1) mahdréshaéh (I S 13 20), which, however, is somewhat uncertain. It means the ‘plowshare’; but as this is already named in the first part of the verse, probably another term (one of those in ver. 21) originally stood at the end of ver. 20. See Fine. (2) ma‘dér (Is 7 25), ‘a chopping instrument,’ proba- bly similar to a pickax. (8) herebh (II Ch 346 AV), but the text is uncertain; cf. RVmg. KE. E.N. MAUL. See Arms AND ARMOR, § 5. 567 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Matthew, Gospel of Meat MAZZAROTH, maz’a-reth. § 4 (4). MEAH, mi’a. See JERUSALEM, § 38. MEAL. See Foop anp Foop Urensits, § 1. MEAL-OFFERING. See Sacririck AND OF- FERINGS, § 12. MEALS: 1. The Regular Daily Meals. Two regular daily meals are mentioned in the Bible, besides which there was doubtless in the early morning a slight and informal repast of bread, with some relish. (1) The simple ‘breakfast’ (Lk 11 37mg., dinner AV), or lunch, was eaten during the heat of the day, probably shortly before noon (Ru 214). (2) The principal meal, or supper, took place at about sunset, after the labor of the day was over (Gn 191 f.; Jg 19 16-21; Lk 1416-24; Jn 122). This was the meal See ASTRONOMY, at which meat would usually be served (cf. Ex 16 12).. Guests were sometimes entertained, however, at the midday repast (Gn 43 16, 25; Lk 11 37 f.; ef. I K 137). The word ‘meal’ occurs only in Ru 2 % (literally ‘at food time’). The O T gives no special names to the different meals. In Gn 43 16 to ‘dine’ is really ‘to eat bread,’ as in ver. 3%. ‘Dinner’ (Pr 15 1%) is better ‘a portion’? (ARVmzg.). The N T &etota&y and &etotov are always rendered dine and dinner by AV; but ARV sometimes calls this meal a ‘breakfast’ (Lk 11 37 f. mg.; cf. Jn 21 12, 15; ‘dinner’ is retained, however in Mt 22 4; Lk 14 2), The terms ‘breakfast, ‘dinner,’ etc., are inevitably somewhat misleading, as the meals thus named vary in hour and in formality, even in different sections of the same country. 2. Customs at meals. The early Hebrews sat at meals (Gn 27 19; 1 K 13 20; IS 20 25, etc.), either on chairs, or squatting in Arab fashion. But in spite of the invectives of the prophets (Am 3 12, 6 4; cf. Ezk 23 41), by N T times it had become the usual custom among the better classes, as among the Greeks and the Romans, to eat reclining! luxuriously upon low couches. ‘These were ordinarily arranged around three sides of the table, the fourth being left open for convenience in serving. Each person rested upon his left elbow, with the body at such an angle to the table that the head was near the ‘bosom’ (Jn 13 23) of the person next behind. Certain places on these couches were considered more honorable than others (Mt 23 6; cf. Lk 22 24). For the position at the Last Supper, see Edersheim, 11, 492 ff. The meals were naturally prepared and served by the women (Mt 8 15; Lk 10 40), who ordinarily ate with the men of the family (Dt 1614;1S 14; Job 1 4), but in early times, as among the Arabs, the prepara- tion (and the eating) of meat was the function of the men (Gn 187 f.). There was little cutlery, except for carving, and but few dishes, perhaps only one (cf. Lk 10 42a), into which each dipped his hand (Mt 26 23). The modern Syrians sop a piece of bread in the gravy, oil, or sauce; or fold it around a piece of meat, which can thus be taken out of the stew with- out soiling the fingers (cf. Ru 2 14; Mt 26 23; Mk 14 20; Jn 13 26; cf. also Pr 19 24). 3. Special Meals, Banquets, etc. Meals to which friends were previously invited (Lk 14 16), or feasts held upon special occasions—such as birthdays (Gn 1Thus AV ‘sit at meat’? &vaxetcbat, dvaxnAlvety, etc.) is usually explained as ‘recline’ by ARVmg. (e.g., Mt 9 19; Lk 13 29; Jn 12 2). These verbs are sometimes used, however, where it seems hardly likely that the actual position was a reclining one (¢.g., Mt 14 1%), 40 20; Job 1 4; Mt 14 6), marriages (Gn 29 22; Est 218; Mt 22 2), funerals (II S 3 35; Jer 167), laying of foundations (Pr 91-5), vintage (Jg 9 27), sheep-shear- ing (18 25 2, 36), and the numerous religious festivals —were, of course, more formal and elaborate. A second invitation was often sent when all was pre- pared, or a servant conducted the guests to the feast (Est 6 14; Lk 1417; Mt 22 2 #.). These customs still prevail in the Lebanon region. The host welcomed the guests with a kiss (Lk 7 45), after which the feet were washed, because of the dust of the journey (Gn 18 4; Jg 19 21; Lk 7 44). The head was anointed (Ps 235; Am 66; Lk7 46) and sometimes crowned with garlands (cf. Is 281). The guests were then seated according to their respective rank (I S 9 22; Lk 14 8; ef. Jn 13 23), the hands were washed (II K 3 11), and grace was said (I S 913; Mt 15 36; Lk 22 17, etc.). These last two ceremonies were elaborated into a confusing and burdensome ritual by the Pharisees (Mk 7 1-23), and were repeated after the meal (cf. Dt 8 10, which was cited in support of the blessing after eating). An honored guest received the largest, or choicest, portion of food (Gn 43 34; 1S 9 23 £.), and portions were sometimes sent to friends not at- tending the feast (II S 11 8; Neh 8 10; Est 9 19, 22). During the meal entertainment might be provided in the form of instrumental music (Is 5 12; Am 6 5), singing (II S 19 35; cf. Ec 2 8), dancing (Mt 14 6; Lk 15 25), or riddles (Jg 1412). One of the guests was sometimes appointed ‘ruler of the feast,’ to regulate the drinking and the entertainment (Jn 29). A great banquet occasionally continued for several days (Jg 1412; cf. Est 13 f.), but excess in eating and drinking is unsparingly condemned by the sacred writers (Ec 1016 f.; Is 511 £.; Am 61-6; ef. I Co 613; Ph 3 19). See also in general Foop anp Foop UTENSILS. Lirerature: Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, ii, 205-210; Thompson, The Land and the Book, iii, 74-79, and index, s.v. ‘Food,’ § vi f.; W. Nowack, Archdologie, I, pp. 180-187; I. Benzinger, Archdologie, pp. 168-172. L. G.L.—L. B.P. MEARAH, mi-é’ra (119, m*‘arah), ‘cave’: The name of a cave region, not taken by Joshua (Jos 13 4), belonging to Sidon, somewhere in the Lebanon country, E. of Sidon. Cspaly MEASURES. See Weiauts AND MEASURES. MEAT: The use of this term is much more re- stricted in RV than in AV where, according to Eng. usage of the 16th cent., the word ‘meat’ means food in general. ‘Meat’ is (1) The AV rendering of several related terms (derived from ’akhal, ‘to eat’), ’akhilah, ’okhlah, ’dkhel, and ma’akhdal, all meaning ‘food’ or ‘eating’ (I K 19 8; Gn 1 29; Lv 11 34; I S 205, etc.) and usually rendered ‘food’ in RV. (2) lehem, ‘bread,’ but frequently used broadly for food in general (Ly 22 11, 13; Nu 28 24; IS 20 24, etc.; ef. RVR. (8) baérath and biryéh (from barah, ‘to eat,’ especially to strengthen oneself when sick or weak, as in La 4 10), food suitable for a sick one (Ps 69 21; IIS 13 5, 7, 10, all AV). (4) tereph (Ps 111 5; Pr 31 15; Mal 3 10, all AV). (5) mdazén (Gn 45 23; Dn 412, 2 AV). (6) path (from pdathath, ‘to break in pieces’), a ‘bit,’ or ‘morsel’ (for food) (IIS 123 AV). (7) tsédhah, ‘provisions for a journey’ (Ps 78 25 AV). Meat-Offering Megiddo ' t (8) Beda, food,’ Bewcwoc, ‘eatable,’ and Gedcte, ‘eating,’ frequently rendered ‘food’ in RV (Mk 7 19; Lk 24 41; Jn 4 32; Ro 1415, etc.). (9) neocpd&ytoy, ‘anything eaten with’ [bread or other food] (Jn 21 5 AV). (10) te&meta, ‘table’ (Ac 16 34). (11) teo9%, ‘nourishment’? (Mt 3 4, 6 25, 10 10, etc. AV, ‘food’ RV). (12) o&yety, ‘to eat? (Mt 25 35, 42; Lk 8 55 AY). (13) ‘Meat’ is used also in rendering the the ptcpl. dvaxetwevoc, ‘to recline’ (i.e., at a meal) in the phrase ‘sit at meat’ (Mt 9 10, etc.). See also Foop, §§ 8-10. 1. oN, MEAT-OFFERING. See SacriFicE AND OF- FERINGS, § 12. MEBUNNAI, m-bon’nai (232, mebhunnay): One of David’s heroes (II S 23 27), called Sibbecai in I Ch 11 29, 27 11. MECHERATHITE, m1-ki’rath-ait (N22, m°- khératht): Probably a scribal error in I Ch 11 36 for Maacathite (cf. II S 23 34). MECONAH, m-ké’na (7399, mekhonah), Me- konah AV): A town in Judah, near Ziklag, occupied in postexilic times (Neh 11 28). Perhaps the same as Madmannah (Jos 15 31) (q.v.). MEDAD, mi’dad (TV, médhddh): An elder who had the gift of prophecy (Nu 11 26 £.). See also ApocaLypTic LITERATURE, § 3. MEDAN, mi’dan. KrHnouoey, § 13. MEDEBA, med’1-ba (83°1), médh*bha@’): A town in the ‘plain’ (‘tableland’ RVmg.) E. of Jordan, originally a possession of Moab. It was conquered by Israel (Nu 21 24 ff.), and assigned to Reuben (Jos 139, 16). After the disruption under Rehoboam it once more passed into the hands of the Moabites and is mentioned in the Mesha Stone (see Mesa) as captured by Omri (line 7 f.) and recaptured by Mesha and fortified (line 29f.). It figured largely in the struggles of the Maccabean period (I Mac 9 36 #.; Jos. Ant, XIII, 1 2, 4, 91, etc.). According to I Ch 19 7, the Syrians who came to assist the Ammonites against Joab encamped at the spot. The modern site is Mdadabaé, 6 m. from Heshbon (Map II, J 1). It has been colonized by Catholic Christians and contains important ruins. A mosaic map of Palestine discovered here in 1896, formed part of the floor of a church, built in the 5th cent. A full description with plates is given by Libbey and Hoskins, The Jordan Valley and Petra (1905), vol. i, chap. xii, and Appendix. BO. Z. MEDES, midz, MEDIA, mi’di-a, MEDIAN: Media (1), maddhay) was a mountainous country, bounded on the N. by the Caspian Sea, on the E. by a great desert, and on the S. by Susiana and Persia, and on the W. by Assyria and Armenia. This terri- tory, about 600 m. in length and 250 m. in breadth, is approximately covered by the provinces Ardelan and Irak Ajemi of modern Persia. In ancient times M. had two capitals: namely Rhague and Ecbatana (q.v.). It began to attract the attention of the war- like Assyrian kings as early as the middle of the 9th or the beginning of the 8th cent. B.c. At that time, to judge from the names of its leading in- habitants in the Assyrian lists, its population was of See ETHNOGRAPHY AND A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 568 Indo-European or Aryan stock, an inference which is confirmed by the nature of the names reported in the classical writers. This affinity of the Medes with the Aryan race is also reflected in Gn 10 2, which represents Madai as the son of Japheth. According to Herodotus (I, 95 ff.), M. was made into a kingdom by Deioces, who was succeeded by his son Phraortes; but of these two monarchs nothing is known except what the Greek historian reports. The real power of M. began with Kyaxares (584 B.c.), the conqueror of Nineveh; but the glory of the monarchy was short- lived. The successor of Kyaxares, Astyages (the Ishtuvegu of the cuneiform inscriptions), being de- feated by Cyrus (550 s.c.), Median independence came to an end, and Persia took the leadership in the Mesopotamian valley. The Medes never came into direct contact with the Hebrews. Sargon did indeed deport some of the conquered Israelites of the North- ern Kingdom into their cities (II K 17 6, 18 11), and — the prophets of Israel (Is 13 17, 21 2; Jer 51 11) name Media among the scourge in the hands of J” for the punishment of Babylon; but these are indirect rela- tionships. In the later books of the O T (e.g., Est 1 3, etc.) M. appears second to Persia, tho still recognized as a large and almost coordinate portion of the great monarchy. Dn 5 31 contains the state- ment that ‘Darius the Mede’ (‘Median’ AV) re- ceived the kingdom,’ but this is not as yet historically confirmed. : AS CUZe MEDIATOR (westtys), ‘middleman’: One who by his friendly offices establishes cordial relations be- tween two natural hostile or estranged persons, or parties. The term ‘mediator’ occurs only in Gal 3 19 £.; I Ti 25; He 8 6, 9 15, 12 24. The synonym ‘umpire’ (‘daysman’ AV) is found in Job 9 33. The idea of mediation, however, is not only common, but regulative in the religious thought both of the O T and the N T (cf. in the O T the verb pagha‘, ‘to make intercession,’ Is 53 12). 1. Intercession. The basis for the idea of media- tion is that of intercession before a monarch by one who enjoys his favor in behalf of one who, either be- cause he has lost it or because he never had it, seeks it. In this sense mediatorship is common in human relations. Jonathan makes intercession for David before Saul (IS 19 4); Abigail for Nabal before David (I S 25 18-31); the king of Syria for Naaman before the king of Israel (II K 5 6). But it is preeminently in the approach to God that mediation is necessary. Abraham interecedes for Abimelech (Gn 20 7, 17); also for Sodom and Gomorrah (Gn 18 23); Moses for Pharaoh and the Egyptians (Ex 8 8, 30, 9 28-33, 10 17 £.) and also for Israel (Ex 17 11, 33 13; Dt 9 18). Other cases of intercession are those of Samuel (IS 8 21, 12 19, 23; Jer 151) and Job (42 8). 2. Priestly Mediation. This mediation in behalf of the inferior before the superior (for man before God) is in principle identical with the priestly func- tion, and is carried through the priestly ritual. In the Apocrypha and in the apocalyptic literature instances of mediation include the intercession of angels, who take the prayers of men,before the throne of God (To 3 26). Enoch is besought by the fallen angels to plead for them (Hth. En. 13 4-7). In the Assumption of Moses, Moses makes inter- 569 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Meat-Offering Megiddo cession for the people of Israel (11 17, 12 6); while Enoch attempts to correct the common belief that there is any efficacy in such intercession (Slav. En. 53 1). The idea survives, and is carried into the N T (évtuyxaveiy, évtevEts). Here it is, however, con- nected with the work of Christ for His people (He 7 25), or the work of the Holy Spirit in behalf of the praying believer (Ro 8 27), or the sympathetic plea in prayer by believers for their fellow men (I Ti 21). 3. Angelic Mediation. Mediation by creatures, especially angels before the throne of God, became obnoxious to later Jewish thought, on account of the great risk involved of raising the mediating creatures into objects of worship. Accordingly in the Rabbin- ical schools the idea was discountenanced, and Moses alone was given the title mediator (Pesig. Rab. 6). Among Christians the belief in the intercession of saints, of angels, and of the Virgin Mary was largely . developed between the 3d and 6th centuries a.p. 4. Prophetic Mediation. The counterpart of me- diation in behalf of man before God is the presenta- tion of God’s word and will to men by an inter- mediary. The twofold ground for such mediation is (1) the necessity of communicating God’s will to men, and (2) the incapacity, or unwillingness, of men to receive it directly from Him. Moses becomes God’s mediator to Pharaoh and the Israelites (Ex 410f.). Later, in the giving of the Law on Mt. Sinai, at the express request of the people all communica- tions from God are made to them through Moses (Ex 20 19). Hence the later uniform representation that Moses was the mediator of the old covenant (He 86; Philo, Vita Moys, 319; Ass. Mos. 1 14, 312). But even Moses being supposed incapable of receiv- ing the Law directly, the idea arose that it was delivered to him through angels (Jos. Ant. XV, 5 3; cf. also Hermas, Simil., VIII, 3 3, who names Michael as the individual angel; cf. Ac 753; Gal 319). A.C. Z. MEDICINE. See Disnase anD Mepicine, § 3. MEDITERRANEAN SEA (also called Great Sea [Nu 34 6; Jos 1 4, 15 12; Ezk 47 10], Hinder, or West- ern Sea [Dt 11 24; Jl 2 20; Zec 14 8]): The inland ocean lying between Europe, Western Asia, and Africa, 2,320 m. long by 100 to 600 m, broad, and, between Sicily and Africa, divided into two basins by a submarine ridge. Its main divisions were the Phenician (Levant), the Aigean, the Adriatic (in- cluding the Ionian; see Apr1A), and the Tyrrhene Seas. During the summer months the prevailing winds (‘Ktesian’) in the E. portions are from the NW. In the winter, fierce gales (‘Levanters’) sweep down from ENE., and in the western portions vio- lent storms from the NW. and the NE. The Syrtes (quicksands Ac 27 17) on the shores of Africa, the straits of Messina, between Sicily and Italy, and Cape Malia on the 8. of Greece were regarded by ancient mariners with dread. The commerce of the Hebrews was chiefly by land, and they regarded the sea with some fear. Their coast-line, almost harbor- less, except N. of Carmel, was unfavorable to the growth of maritime trade; but they had intercourse with ‘the Isles,’ and had the Western world opened up to them by the Phenicians. In N T times the Mediterranean was surrounded by the civilization of the world, and its great islands were very produc- tive; so that there was a constant traffic in every direction, tho most of the trade converged on Rome from Spain, Sicily, Africa, the Augean, the Black Sea, and even India through Egypt—the grain-ships of Alexandria also supplying the capital with most of her food (cf. Ac 27 6, 2811). Through Joppa, Cesarea, and Ptolemais (q.v.), Palestine was in constant communication with the coasts of Asia Minor, Cyprus, Rhodes, Greece, and the West. R. A. F.—E. C. L. MEEK, MEEKNESS: Inthe OT there isa small group of words, ‘dndh, ‘dni, ‘dndw, ‘anwah, and ‘dnawah, all derived from the root my, the primary significance of which seems to be ‘to be bowed down, brought low.’ The verb ‘andh may mean (in the active) ‘to bend,’ ‘to oppress,’ or ‘to afflict,’ or (intransitively) ‘to be humble,’ especially before God or His law, or (in the passive) ‘to be bent,’ ‘op- pressed,’ ‘afflicted.’ The derivative ‘andw is con- sidered intransitive, and generally rendered ‘meek,’ ‘humble,’ or ‘lowly,’ and the nominal forms, ‘anwah, ‘dndwah, are rendered ‘meekness’ or ‘humility,’ while ‘ani is taken as passive and rendered ‘poor’ or ‘afflicted.’ Since those who ‘humbled themselves’ before God and were loyal to Him were also fre- quently the oppressed ones whose cause was cham- pioned by prophets and psalmists (Ps 22 26, 25 9; Is 611; Am 27, etc.), the terms ‘dni and ‘andw came to have somewhat of a technical religious sense, indicative of loyalty to J” as well as of lowly station in life. The significance that thus came to be read into these terms in the course of Jewish history ex- plains the important use in the N T of the corre- sponding Gr. adjectives xeéoc and teats (Mt 5 5, 11 29, 215;1 P34) andthe nouns reabtys and roaitys (I Co 4 21, ‘gentleness’ RV; II Cor 101; Eph 4 2, etc., frequently in Paul; Ja 1 21, 3 13; I P 315). When Jesus says, ‘Iam meek and lowly in heart’ (Mt 11 29), He must be understood as using the word in its acquired sense, in which whole-hearted submission to the will of God was the dominant note. E. E. N. MEGIDDO, mi-gid’6 (173), meghiddd), MEGID- DON (in Zec 1211): A very ancient Canaanite strong- hold (Jos 12 21, D; 1711, J), captured by Thotmes ITI (ca. 1500 B.c.), and mentioned in the Tell el- Amarna tablets (ca. 1400 B.c.), as well as in As- syrian inscriptions of the 8th century. The ruins of el-Lejjan (Latin, Legio), 44% m. N.W. of Taanach (q.v.), mark the site of the city in Roman times, but the ancient citadel was on the neighboring Tell el- Mutesellim (Map IV, C 8). This fortified city (I K 9 15) commanded the mouth of the chief pass from Sharon, as well as the road from En-gannim to the sea, and was so important a strategic point that the whole plain of Esdraelon was called ‘the valley of Megiddo’ (II Ch 35 22; Zec 12 11). “The waters of Megiddo’ (Jg 519) are apparently those of the Kishon, one of whose tributaries rises near el-Lejjan. See also Har-MaGEpon. } The excavation of Megiddo was undertaken by the German Palestine Society in 1903, and was con- tinued until 1905; and important archeological remains were found of every period from 2500 B.c. onward. See G. Schumacher and K. Steuernagel, Mehetabel Meraioth Tell el-Mutesellim (1908); G. A. Barton,. Archeology and the Bible (1916), p. 96. L.G. L.—L. B. P. MEHETABEL, mrhet’a-bl (98202, mehé- tabh’él) and MEHETABEEL, bil, AV, ‘God benefits’: 1. The wife of Hadar, King of Edom (Gn 36 39; I Ch 150). 2. The father of Delaiah (Neh 6 10). MEHIDA, mi-hai’da (81, mehidha’): The ancestral head of one of the subdivisions of the Nethinim (Ezr 2 52=Neh 7 54). MEHIR, mi’hor (VM), mehir): A small Judahite clan inhabiting the neighborhood of Eshton (J Ch 411). MEHOLATHITE, mi-ho'le-thait (N22, m:ho- latht): A native of Abel-meholah, the birthplace of Elisha (I K 19 16), situated on the border of one of Solomon’s prefectures (I K 4 12). Adriel, the hus- band of Merab, Saul’s daughter, is thus designated (IS 1819). In IIS 218 his father Barzillai. C.S. T. MEHUJAEL, mi-hi’jo-el (28979, 28, me- hiy@él, mehiyy@ él), perhaps ‘smitten of God,’ or ‘God gives life’: A great-grandson of Cain, the fourth in the Cainite genealogy (Gn 418). Same as Mana- LALEL (5 12) of the Sethite line. Ons ph fe MEHUMAN, mi-ht’/mon. See CHAMBERLAINS, THE SEVEN. MEHUNIM, mi-hi’nim. See Mreunim. MEJARKON, mi’jar’ken (JiP77'2, mehayyar- gon), ‘green water’: A place in Dan (Jos 19 46). But one should read (w. LXX.) ‘and on the west (2mé, ‘the sea’) Jarkon, with the border,’ etc. Rakkon is only a textual duplicate of Jarkon. Site un- known. EH. E. N. MEKONAH, mi-ko’na. See Meconan. MELATIAH, mel’’a-tai’a (202%, mélatyah), ‘J” delivers’: A Gibeonite (Neh 3 7). MELCHI, mel’kai (Medyet): The name of two ancestors of Jesus (Lk 3 24, 28). MELCHISEDEC, mel-kiz’1-dek. See MeEtcuiz- EDEK. MELCHISHUA, mel’’kai-shu’a. SHUA. MELCHIZEDEK (P7¥7272, malkt-tsedheg, Mel- chisedec, He 5 6, etc. AV), ‘king of righteous- ness’: M. appears abruptly in the narrative of Gn 14 18, as ‘priest of God Most High,’ and ‘king of Salem,’ and, in his priestly capacity, by the symbolical use of bread and wine bestows a blessing on Abraham. Such a person combining in himself the priestly and royal offices was afterward seen in the ideal king of Israel, to whom, therefore, a priesthood ‘after the order of Melchizedek’ was ascribed (Ps 110 4). In He 5 6, 7, this is elaborated in its application to Christ. Of the historicity of Melchizedek doubts have been expressed. But as it is admitted that Gn ch. 14 contains a historical kernel, such doubts are not justified. A. C. Z. MELEA, mi’li-a (MeAck): An ancestor of Jesus (Lk 3 31). MELECH, mi'lek (722, melekh), ‘king’: A grand- son of Jonathan, son of Saul (I Ch 8 35, 9 41). See Matcnui A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 570 MELICU, mel’i-kit. See Matuucut. MELITA, mel’i-ta: An island in the Mediter- ranean, the scene of Paul’s shipwreck (Ac 28 1), the modern Malta (the identification with Meleda, on the Dalmatian coast, is baseless). It lies 58 m. S. of Sicily and 180 m. N. of Cape Bon in Africa, and has an area of 95 sq. m. Occupied in turn by the Phenicians and Carthaginians, it came under the Romans in 218 B.c. and formed part of the province of Sicily. Paul’s ship, after drifting from Cauda near Crete for a fortnight, close-hauled on the star- board tack under an ENE. gale, reached what is now called St. Paul’s Bay, 8 m. NW. of Valletta, and struck a shoal formed, it would appear, between the island of Salmonetta and the shore on the W. side of the bay. The vessel went to pieces, but the ship’s company all escaped to the beach (Ac 27 14- 44). The inhabitants of the island (‘barbarians’ | means simply that they were not Greeks) probably spoke Punic, tho Publius, ‘the chief man of the island,’ and his family apparently knew Greek as well as Latin. This title for the governor is confirmed by early inscriptions from the neighboring island of Gozo. The ‘viper’ episode has been questioned, but the fact that to-day in a very thickly populated island there are no poisonous serpents is no evi- dence as to its condition in the Ist cent. After three months of great hospitality on the part of the in- habitants, and doubtless of more or less missionary work on the part of Paul, he and his companions sailed to Syracuse on an Alexandrian ship which had wintered at Melita. Nothing certain is known of Christianity in the island until the middle of the 5th cent., but some persons hold that Christian inscrip- tions of the 2d cent. have been discovered. R. A. F.—E. C. L. MELON. See Pauustinn, § 23; and Foop anp Foop UTENSILS, § 3. MELZAR, mel’zar. See SrewarD. MEMORIAL: In most cases the occurrence of this term in the Bible needs no explanation. That through which a person or an event, or even God Himself, is to be remembered is a ‘memorial’ (Ex 3 15, 12 14; Jos 4 7; Mk 14 9, etc.). The term ’azkarah, used asa technical term in the manual of offerings (Lv 2 2, 9, 16, 5 12, 6 15) and in other places in the Priest’s Code (Lv 247; Nu 5 26), is rendered ‘memorial’ as if derived from zaékhar in the sense of ‘to remember.’ The term is used of the portion of the vegetable offering that was burned on the altar as incense and of the frankincense that was sprinkled on the showbread (Lv 24 7), and the idea seems to have been that it was the fragrance of the incense that caused it to serve asa ‘memorial.’ E. E. N. MEMPHIS, mem’fis (Méyugrc), only in Hos 9 6, where Heb. is méph; and Noph in the AV of Is 19113, Jer 2 16, 441, 46 14, 19, and Ezk 30 13, 16, where the Heb. is néph: The capital of Egypt. In the sacred texts it is called Hat-ka-ptah (‘house of the Image of Ptah’), the name applied to {the whole land (At-yu- mtoc, ‘E-gy-pt’). The secular name of the’ city was, however, Men-nefert (‘the fine residence’), and was abbreviated into Mennefe and Menfe (Men is sup- posed to be the first part of the name Mena, 2.e., 571 Menes, the founder); hence the Greek form, which has prevailed in later historical times. The city was situated on the W. bank of the Nile, 12m. S. of modern Cairo, and covered a large area of terri- tory, probably shifting and changing its boundaries as the kings of the several dynasties chose new sites for their palaces. According to tradition, it was built by Menes of the first dynasty, and held a place of prime importance to the days of the Ptolemies, altho other cities, especially Thebes, rivaled and at times surpassed and supplanted it as a political center. It was the seat of a temple of the god Ptah (‘the world creator’), who was thought to be em- bodied in the Apis bull; but there were also many foreign deities worshiped in the city, especially Astarte. With the exception of the necropolis with its pyramids, the ruins of Memphis, which even to the 12th cent. A.D. were said to extend half a day’s journey, have totally disappeared. FOV A, MEMUCAN, mi-mii’ken. See Princes, THE SEVEN. MENAHEM, men’a-hem (812, menahém), ‘com- forter’: The son of Gadi (II K 15 14) and military governor of the earlier capital of Israel, Tirzah. When Shallum usurped the throne, Menahem re- fused to submit, made an attack on Samaria, where the king was holding court, captured the city, put the usurper to death, and was himself proclaimed king (circa 744 B.c.). His rule, however, was at first opposed, and it was necessary to suppress a rather formidable rebellion. This Menahem did, evidently with a strong hand, inflicting cruel revenge upon the disaffected. In order to maintain himself in power, he placed himself under vassalage to Pul, King of Assyria (II K 15 19 £.), better known as Tiglath-pileser III. But to secure this alliance, he was compelled to pay a large sum of money (1,000 talents) to the Assyrian king, which hein turn exacted from the wealthy men of his realm. The alliance turned out to be a serious disaster for Israel; since it offered the Assyrians the occasion for a hold upon the nation, destined to end in its annexation. Menahem’s policy was resisted in Israel by an anti-Assyrian party. But altho in constant peril, the king ended his reign in peace (ca. 736 B.c.), and was succeeded by his son Pekahiah. ALC. Z. MENAN, mi’nen. See MEnNNa. MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN, mi’ni, mini, ti‘kel, i-fGr’sin (7975) 7PM 82D NID, mene’, mene’) t¢qél, ipharsin): The words that appeared on the wall at Belshazzar’s feast (Dn 5 25). As Belshazzar and his lords were desecrating the sacred vessels that Ne- buchadrezzar had brought from Jerusalem, the form of a hand appeared writing upon the plaster of the wall these mysterious words. The king’s wise men failing to interpret them, Daniel was called, and after a lengthy exordium, presented his interpreta- tion (vs. 26-28), altho it took no account of the repe- tition of the first word of ver. 25. The words as now given are Aramaic, and by Daniel’s interpretation were to be paraphrased as in ARV, while the margi- nal rendering of the four words is ‘numbered, numbered, weighed and divisions,’ There is almost A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Mehetabel Meraioth endless discussion as to their rendering, many of the proposals being very fanciful. Daniel’s own inter- pretation takes enough liberty with the four words, as he interprets the first and third, and changes the fourth from wpharsin to peres, to warrant us in questioning the meaning of the entire inscription, as well as its proper pronunciation. There seems to be nothing better than Daniel’s rendering of the first and third words, while the last may be either ‘divisions,’ ‘divided,’ or ‘assessed’ (Margoliouth), or ‘Persians.’ According to Driver (Camb. Bible, ad loc.) the words are the names of weights, and should be read: ‘A m’na, a m’na, a shekel and half-shekels.’ Jo MiP: MENNA, men’a (Mewé, Menan AV): An ancestor of Jesus (Lk 3 31). MENUHOTH, mi-ni’heth. See MANAHATHITE. MEONENIM, mi-en’i-nim (ONY), me‘dnenim); with ’élén (‘oak’), ‘soothsayer’s oak’: The seat of an oracle near Shechem, perhaps the same as ‘oak of Moreh’ (Jg 9 37; cf. Gn 12 6; Jg 71). Ce Silke MEONOTHAI, mi-on’o-thai (ONY, m*e‘dnd- thay): A Kenizzite clan (I Ch 4 14). MEPHAATH, mef’a-ath (OY2°D, mépha‘ath): A place in Reuben, assigned to the Levites (Jos 13 18, 21 37; I Ch 6 79), later reoccupied by the Moabites (Jer 48 21). Site unknown; but it was somewhere between Medeba and Dibon. MEPHIBOSHETH, mi-fib’o-sheth ("W2'DP, me- phibhosheth), ‘he who scatters shame’ (?) (II S 4 4, 96 .); originally Meribbaal, ‘Baal is advocate,’ or ‘hero of Baal’ (so Gray, Proper Names, p. 201) (I Ch 8 34): 1. A cripple, son of Jonathan. A realistic account of the accident that crippled him is given in II S 4 4. When David was recognized king, M. promptly made his submission to him and received as a reward the private estate of Saul and an honor- able place at court (II S 9 6 ff.), together with the services of Saul’s steward Zibah. Later, during the rebellion of Absalom, Zibah slanderously accused his master of secretly joining the rebels and obtained his estate, which was adjudged forfeited (II S 161-4). But when M. protested his innocence David restored half the estate to him and gave him back his place at court (II S$ 19 24 #.). In the affair of Rizpah M. was spared for the sake of Jonathan (IIS 217). 2.A son of Rizpah (II § 21 8). AO ae MERAB, mi’rab (21, mérabh): The eldest daugh- ter of Saul (I S 14 49), promised to David (18 17), but given to Adriel (18 19). Their five sons were de- livered by David to the Gibeonites to be put to death (II S 21 8, where ‘Merab’ should be read for ‘Michal’). Cop be MERAIAH, mi-ré’ya (771), m*rdyah): The head of the priestly house of Seraiah in the days of Nehemiah (Neh 12 12). MERAIOTH, mi-ré’yoth (AVVP, merayoth): 1. A priest in the ancestry of Ahitub (I Ch 6 6 f., 52; Ezr 73). 2. Ason of Ahitub (I Ch 911; Neh 11 11). 3. By mistake in Neh 12 15 for Meremoth, q.v. (cf. ver. 3). Merari Mesha MERARI, mi-ré’rai ("17/?, m*rdrt), MERARITES: The third and youngest son of Levi (Gn 46 11; Ex 6 16). His importance lies chiefly in the fact that he was the ancestor and eponym of one, altho the smallest, of the Levite clans (Nu 3 17, 4 29; I Ch 61, 914). Asa gentilic the name is preceded always by the article (Nu 26 57). There were two subdivisions of the Merarite Levites, called respectively Musshi and Mahli. In the allocation of cities of residence, they were placed in Zebulun, Gad, and Reuben (Jos 217, 34-40). The family of M. was prominent in the train of Ezra at the restoration (Ezr 8 19), altho it 1s barely possible that this may be another clan of the same name ARCHEZ, MERATHAIM, mer’’e-fthé’im (8°02, m*ratha- yim), ‘double rebellion’ (?): An enigmatic name, ap- parently for Babylonia (Jer 50 21). Possibly it repre- sents the Babylonian name for the ‘sea country,’ 7.e., S. Babylonia. MERCHANT, MERCHANDISE. AND COMMERCE, § 3. MERCHANT SHIP. See Suips anp NAviGa- TION, § 2. MERCURY, mor’kit-ri, MERCURIUS (AV), mer-kit’ri-us. After healing the cripple at Lystra, Paul and Barnabas were viewed by the populace as celestial visitants and acclaimed, B. as Jupiter and P. as Mercury (Gr. Hermes). (Ac 14 11 f.). According to the popular mythology, Mercury was the attendant of Jupiter ‘Father of Gods and Men’ and the spokesman and messenger of the gods, the same place as was assigned in Semitic religion to Nebo. MERCY: This term is the translation in AV of derivatives of several Heb. roots: (1) hesedh, ‘good- ness,’ ‘kindness,’ in most passages, of God; for which RV has usually ‘loving-kindness,’ sometimes ‘kind- ness,’ also ‘goodness.’ The only verbal form is translated ‘show thyself merciful’ (I S 22 2s=Ps 18 25 [26]). The adj. hdstdh, denoting the active practise of hesedh, is used twice of God (Jer 3 12, ‘merciful’; Ps 145 17 ‘holy’ AV, ‘gracious’ RV), twice of men and then rendered with ‘merciful’ (II § 22 26=Ps 18 25 [26]); elsewhere it is used of men as exhibiting ‘duteous love’ toward God, hence ren- dered ‘pious,’ ‘godly.’ (2) rahamim, ‘bowels,’ as the seat of tender compassion, is rendered ‘mercies,’ but according to many this word is a denominative from rehem (‘womb’), and means ‘brotherhood,’ ‘brotherly feeling,’ z.e., of those born of the same womb. It is usually used of God, whose mercies are ‘great’ or ‘manifold.’ The verb réham, in the pi‘él (active) is used mainly of God and rendered ‘be merciful’ AV, in RV often ‘have compassion,’ and in the pu‘al (passive) of men. The adj. rahim, used only of God, is rendered ‘merciful’ (AV and ERY), also ‘full of compassion’ (Ps 78 38, etc.), but ARV has uniformly ‘merciful.’ (3) hdénan, ‘show favor,’ ‘be gracious,’ usually of God in bestowing favors on men or re- deeming them from various ills. It is rendered ‘be gracious,’ ‘merciful’ or ‘favorable,’ ‘have mercy’ or ‘pity.’ (4) hemlah, an inf. from a vb. meaning ‘to spare,’ have compassion,’ is rendered ‘being merci- ful’ (Gn 19 16), also ‘pity’ (Is 63 9). (5) kipper, See TRADE A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 572 ‘cover over,’ ‘propitiate’ (in Dt 21 8, 32 43, ‘be merci- ful’ AV; ‘forgive,’ ‘make expiation’ RV), elsewhere ‘make atonement,’ or ‘reconciliation.’ It is charac- teristic of the O T revelation that so much emphasis is found to be laid upon the great truth of God’s mercy to sinful man and the correlated truth of the duty of man to be merciful and compassionate toward his fellow men (cf. Mic 68). In the N T both of these truths have a flood of light thrown upon them by the revelation in Christ. God’s mercy revealed in Christ only makes more evident the primary place mercy must hold in the Christian’s attitude toward his fellow men. CoSnE: MERCY-SEAT. See Ark. MERED, mi’red (17/2, meredh): A clan of Judah (I Ch 4 17, 18). MEREMOTH, mer’i-moeth (i291), m*rémoth): 1. A priestly family (Neh 10 5, 12 3, 15; here Merai- oth should be Meremoth). 2. A priest in Ezra’s day (Ezr 8 33; Neh 3 4, 21). 3. One of the ‘sons of Bani’ (Ezr 10 36). MERES, mi’riz. See Princes, THE SEVEN. MERIBAH, mer’i-ba (72°72, meribhah, ‘strife’: The name of two places where similar occurrences are reported to have taken place during the course of the Exodous. (1) The first is in the region of Mt. Horeb, N. of Mt. Sinai, and in connection with the murmuring (‘striving’ RV, ‘chiding’ AV) of the children of Israel (Ex 17 1-7; see also Massan). (2) Meribath-kadesh, in the wilderness of Zin in the neighborhood of Kadesh (Ezk 48 28; ef. also Nu 27 14; Dt 32 51, where the rendering is ‘Meribah of Kadesh’). Here also the people found no water and ‘strove’ with (‘chode’ AV) Moses. By smiting the rock Moses caused water to gush forth. The similarity of these accounts has led many to assume that they are different versions of the same story. There is valid reason, however, for believing that the same circumstances, repeated in two different places, gave the same name to the places. This is especially likely because the Meribah of Rephidim is only incidentally spoken of under that name. Its more distinctive designation is Massah, ‘tempta- tion.’ The waters of Meriboth-kadesh in Ezk 47 19 (‘strife in Kadesh’ AV) are given as the S. limit of the ideal land of Israel. For a radical critical re- construction of the narrative in Ex and Nu, see Bacon, Triple Tradition of the Exodous, pp. 80 ff. Ad CoH, MERIBATH-KADESH, mer’i-bath-ké’desh. See MERIBAH. MERIB-BAAL, mer’ ib-bé’al. SHETH. MERIBOTH-KADESH. See MERIBAH. MERODACH, meo-rd’dak. See Semitic ReE- LIGION, §§ 15, 24, 32. MERODACH-BALADAN (II) (17823 718, mérd’dhakh bal’adhan; Assyr. Marduk-apal-iddin(a), ‘Marduk has given a son’); the most ancient form of Marduk was Maruduk, from which the Hebrew seems to have been taken; He was king of Babylon (II K 20 12 f. [Berodach]=Is 391 #.) from 722 to 710 B.c. and for about nine months in 703-702. M. See MErPHIBO- 573 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Merari | Mesha a was a Chaldean and head of the people of that name, whose capital was at Bit-Iakin, near the head of the Persian Gulf. He was a sworn enemy of Assyria, and gradually pushed northward until, with the aid of the Elamites, he seized Babylon in 721 B.c. After the embassy sent to Hezekiah (Is ch. 39), M. was defeated by Sargon II (710), and driven back to his native city, whence, to avoid capture, he fled to Elam. In 703-702, under Sen- nacherib’s reign in Nineveh, he secured the throne of Babylon for about nine months, but was forced to retire to his homeland, whence, after a period of defense, he fled, and is thought to have died in the city of Nagitu, on the western border of Elam. Teaver. MEROM, WATERS OF, mi’rom (378, mérom) : A place noted for the great victory of Joshua over King Jabin of Hazor and his allies (Jos 11 5). It is usually identified with the modern Bahrat el-Huleh, the northernmost of the three bodies of water through which the Jordan flows (see JoRDAN). But the identification is strongly contested on the grounds (1) that the word yam, ‘sea,’ would have been used if such a large body of water had been meant, and (2) that the situation does not harmonize with the geographical data of Jos 11 8. If these objections be valid the Waters of Merom must be found in a locality in upper Galilee abounding in springs, near the modern village Meron, or Marun er-Ras, a little W. of Safed, Map I, E 4 (so Buhl, Geog. Pal., p. 234). It is possible, however, that the phrase designates not any particular spot, but a district (as suggested in the Vulgate regione Merome of Jg 518). Such a district is in general that which, including the lake Huleh, stretches northward and is traversed by a stream, to which the phrase Waters of Merom is more strictly applicable. (Cf. Schenkel, Bib. Lex., 1869-75). Ae Kon Zi MERONOTHITE, mi-ren’o-fhait (072, mé- ronotht) ‘man of Meronoth’: The designation of two men, Jehdeiah (I Ch 27 30) and Jadon (Neh 37). No other reference to Meronoth occurs. Site un- known, but it was probably near Gibeon. E. E.N. MEROZ, mi'rez ('i2, mérdz): A place men- tioned only in the song of Deborah (Jg 5 23). The extreme bitterness of the curse against this other- wise unknown village has been accounted for on two hypotheses: either Meroz was so near the battle- field that its inaction was tantamount to a declara- tion of hostility to the Israelite cause, or else the fleeing Sisera was suffered to pass through the village unmolested. The position of this curse, just pre- ceding the blessing upon Jael, seems to lend weight to the second hypothesis. The name Meroz may survive in el-Murussus, a small, mud-built village 5 m. NW. of Beth-shean. L. G. L.—L. B. P. MESECH, mi’sek. See ETHNOGRAPHY AND Eruno.oey, § 13, under Meshech. MESHA, mi’sha:1. (Y¥'2, mésha‘). ‘A king of Moab conquered and made a vassal of Israel by Omri (885-874 B.c., II K 3 4). He is spoken of as a ‘sheepmaster,’ who paid an annual tribute consisting of the wool of 100,000 lambs and 100,000 rams. Some time near the end of Ahab’s reign he renounced his | 3. after my father. allegiance to Israel and secured his independence. After Ahab’s death Jehoram, his successor, at- tempted to recover the territory lost, and with the aid of Judah and Edom obtained a considerable victory over Mesha’s army (II K 3 22-24). But he was led to abandon the campaign on account of Mesha’s desperate deed of sacrificing his son and heir as a propitiation to Chemosh in plain view of the allies (II K 3 27). Mesha’s capital city was Daibon (Dibon) which was strongly fortified, as recent in- vestigations show (see Dison). Mesha, Stone of. Besides the Biblical data in IIT K 3 4 #., a memorial pillar of black basalt 33 ft. high by 2 ft. wide, erected by Mesha, gives information about the events of his reign. This stele was discovered in 1868 among the ruins of Dibon (Dibdn), by Rev. F. A. Kiein, a Prussian missionary. A rough squeeze was made for Clermont-Ganneau in 1869, with a copy of lines 13-20. When the Arabs of the neighborhood realized that the stone was valuable they broke it into frag- ments in the hope of selling the pieces separately to greater advantage. Two large fragments together with a large number of smaller ones were ultimately recovered and by the aid of the squeeze the stone was completely restored and taken to the Louvre in Paris. The inscription consists of thirty-four lines, and recounts how Mesha wrested back the cities Medeba, Nebo, and Jahaz, which Omri and his son Ahab succeeded in taking from Moab, together with Ataroth, formerly inhabited by Gadites. The inhabitants of these cities he ‘devoted’ (made herem, ‘devoted to deity’) to Chemosh, and carried on a campaign southward to Horonaim. The victorious campaign here commemorated was probably the same as that alluded to in IT K34f. The stone is of special interest and value, since it is the oldest extant inscription in Hebrew (in the broad sense). It throws much light upon the history of the Hebrew alphabet and also on the grammatical and lexical characteristics of the ancient Hebrew speech. The stone reveals the fact that the Israelites and Moab- ites (as well as the other neighboring Semitic peoples) spoke practically the same language. There are also remarkable affinities of thought between the Moab- ite Stone and many passages of the O T. For a facsimile reproduction of two lines of this inscription see ALPHABET. The following is the translation of Dr. Driver in EB, vol. iii, col. 3041 f.: 1. Iam Mesha, son of Chemosh [kan?], King of Moab, the 1 Daibonite. 2. My father reigned over Moab for thirty years, and I 2 reigned And I made this high place for 3 Chemosh in KR[H]H, a [high place of sal]lvation, 4. because he had saved me from all the assailants (?), 4 and because he had let me see (my desire) upon all them that hated me. Omri, 5. King of Israel, afflicted Moab for many days, because 5 Chemosh was angry with his land. 6. And his son succeeded him; and he also said I will 6 afflict Moab. In my days said he [thus;] 7. but I saw (my desire) upon him and upon his house, 7 and Israel perished with an everlasting destruction. Omri took possession of the [{laJnd 8. of Méhédeba, and it (2.e., Israel) dwelt therein, during 8 his days, and half his son’s days, forty years; but Chemosh [resto]red . 9. it in my days. And I built Ba’al-Me’on, and I made 9 it the reservoir (?); and I buill[t] Mesha Messiah A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 574 nn cnn rn EEE 10. Kiryathén. And the men of Gad had dwelt in the 10 land of ’Ataroth from of old; and the king of Israel 11. had built for himself ’Ataroth. And I fought against 11 the city, and took it. And I slew all the people [from] 12. the city, a gazingstock unto Chemosh, and unto Moab. 12 And I brought back (or, took captive) thence the altar-hearth of Dawdoh (?), and I dragged 13. it before Chemosh in Keriyyoth. And I settled therein 13 the men of SRN, and the men of 14. MHRT. And Chemosh said unto me, Go, take Nebo 14 against Israel. And IL 15. went by night, and fought against it from the break 15 of dawn until noon. And I took 16 it, and slew the whole of it, 7,000 men and male 16 strangers and women and [female stranger]s 17. and female slaves: for I had devoted it to ’Ashtor- 17 Chemosh. And I took thence the [ves]sels 18. of Yahwé, and I dragged them before Chemosh. And 18 the king of Israel had built 19. Yahas, and abode in it, while he fought against me. 19 But Chemosh drave him out from before me; and 20. I took of Moab 200 men, even all its chiefs; and I led 20 them up against Yahas, and took it 21. to add it unto Daibon. I built KRHH, the wall of 21 Ye’arin (or, of the Woods), and the wall of 22. the Mound. And I built its gates, and I built its 22 towers. And 23. I built the king’s palace, and I made the two reser- 23 [voirs (?) for walter in the midst of 24. the city. And there was no cistern in the midst of 24 the city, in KRHH. And I said to all the people, Make 25. you every man a cistern in his house. And I cut out 25 the cutting for KRHH, with (the help of) prisoner[s 26. of] Israel. I built ’Aro’er, and I made the highway” 26 by the Arnon 27. I built Beth-Bamoth, for it was pulled down. I built 27 Beser, for ruins 28. [had it become. And the chie]fs of Daibon were fifty, 28 for all Daibon was obedient (to me). And I reigned 29. over an hundred [chiefs] in the cities which I added to 29 the land. And I built 30. [Méhé]dé[b]a, and Beth-Diblathén, and the Beth- 30 Ba’al-Me’on; and I took thither the nakadh-keepers, 31. . .. sheep of the land. And as for Horonén, there 31 dwelt therein... 32. .. . And Chemosh said unto me, Go down, fight 32 against Horonén. And I went down. . 33. . . . [and] Chemosh [resto]red it in my days. And... 33 ye eo ‘And Le... od 2. (YY, mésha‘). A son of Caleb (I Ch 2 42). ANCL Z. MESHA, mi’she (8¥2, mésha’): I. A son of Sharaim, a Benjamite (I Ch 89). I. A place on the boundary of the region occupied by the sons of Joktan (Gn 10 30). ANG: MESHACH, mi’shak (78, méshakh): A name given by Nebuchadrezzar to Mishael, one of Daniel’s companions in Babylon (Dn 17). He was appointed over the province of Babylon (2 49). For refusing to worship the golden image he was cast into the fiery furnace, from which he came out uninjured (3 14 ff.). RAGS Bed Be MESHECH, mi’shek. See ErHNOGRAPHY AND Eruno.oey, § 18. MESHELEMIAH, mui-shel-mai’a (2989, me- shelemyah), ‘J’’ has recompensed’: The ancestral head of a division of Korahite Levites, entrusted with caring for the gates of the Temple (I Ch 9 21, 26 1, 2,9). Also called Shallum (I Ch 9 17, 19, 31), Shelemiah (26 14), and Meshullam (Neh 12 25). MESHEZABEL, mi-shez’a-bel (PRAPYP, mesha- cabh’él, Meshezabeel AV), ‘God is Savior’: The name af a family of postexilic Jews (Neh 3 4, 10 21, 11 24). MESHILLEMITH, mi-shil-mifh. See MkE- SHILLEMOTH. MESHILLEMOTH, mi-shil’-moth (NiD?, me- shilléméth): 1. An Ephraimite (II Ch 2812). 2. The head of a priestly family (I Ch 9 12, here called Meshillemith; Neh 1113). MESHOBAB, mi-sho/bab (331%), meshobhabh), ‘returned’: The head of a Simeonite family (I Ch 4 34). ; MESHULLAM, mi-shol’am (D2¥D, méshullam), ‘reconciled’?: 1. The grandfather of Shaphan, the scribe, in the reign of Josiah (II K 223). 2. A son of Zerubbabel (I Ch 319). 3, 4, 5. Three Benjamites (I Ch 817,97=Neh117;1Ch98). 6. A Gadite (I Ch 513). 7. The father of Hilkiah, the priest (I Ch 9 u=Neh 11 11). 8._A‘priest (I Ch 9 12), 9, A Kohathite, overseer of the repairs on the Temple, under Josiah (II Ch 34 12).: 10. A ‘chief man’ in Babylon, who helped Ezra to procure Levites to accompany him to Jerusalem (Ezr 8 16). 11. One who opposed Ezra in the matter of foreign wives (Ezr 10 15). 12. One who had married a foreign wife (Ezr 10 29). 13. A son of Berechiah, who as- sisted in repairing the wall (Neh 3 4, 30) and whose daughter was the wife of the son of Tobiah, the enemy of Nehemiah (618). 14. A son of Besodeiah who helped to repair the old gate (Neh 36). 15. One who stood at the left of Ezra when the Law was read (Neh 8 4). 16, 17. A priest and a chief who sealed the covenant (Neh 107, 20). 18. A prince in the procession at the dedication of the wall (Neh 12 33). 19, 20. Two heads of priestly houses in the time of Joiakim, the high priest (Neh 12 13, 16). 21. A porter under Joiakim (Neh 12 35). See also Mrsun- LEMIAH; SHALLUM; and SHELEMIAH. C.S. T. MESHULLEMETH, mi-shol'1-meth (02909, m:- shullemeth): The wife of King Manasseh and the mother of King Amon (II K 21 19). CoS MESOBAITE, mi-sod’ba-ait. See MEzoBaire. MESOPOTAMIA, mes’’0-po-té’mi-a. See ARAM, § 4 (4). MESSIAH (V2, mdshiah), ‘anointed,’ from mashah, ‘to anoint.’ 1. Name. In the N T generally translated into Xetotéc, ‘Christ,’ 7.e., anointed (Jn 4 25, etc., Messias AV). In the OT, M. is used in conjunction with J’ (‘Jehovah’s anointed’) as a title of honor for the king (IS 24 6, etc.). It is applied, however, poetically to the patriarchs (Ps 105 15) and to Cyrus (Is 451). Priests, as well as kings, and occasionally prophets, were anointed as a sign of their elevation to high functions. 2. Earliest Conception. The Messianic idea in its breadth is not to be limited by the meaning of the word Messiah. It includes all the aspirations of Israel to the world-wide influence from the very first. Long before the hope was fixed in a single person who should carry out God’s plan of righteous rule on earth, there had existed as an expectation that J’’ would impart such a blessing to Abraham’s posterity that all nations would ‘bless themselves’ in Abraham and his seed (i.e., ask such a blessing for themselves) (Gn 12 3), and that a succession of 575 A NEW STANDARD prophets would communicate God’s will to Israel (Dt 18 1s). The hope vaguely expressed in Gn 3 15 that the ‘seed of the woman’ should [eventually] ‘bruise’ the ‘head of the serpent’ contains a forward look to a great blessing for humanity. It is an ex- pression of hope that the ills infecting the race will be overcome by a power within the race. That this shall be accomplished through the agency of Israel is not, however, indicated in any way. The empire established by David and brought to its highest glory in Solomon enabled the idea of a ‘Kingdom’ in which the rule of J” on earth was visibly represented by the Davidic dynasty (cf. II S 7, especially vs. 12, 16, and 18 ff.) to gradually become a fixture, especially in prophetic thought. 3. The Messianic King. But it is with Isaiah that the prospect of the birth ef an ideal king first be- comes clear (9 2-7). His reign is to be one of universal and endless peace and prosperity (11 1-9), tho he was to appear in circumstances least promising. This thought is dwelt on specifically by Micah in the announcement that, when the house of David had been reduced by the national misfortunes to the lowest condition and driven to its ancestral residence at Bethlehem, then the Deliverer [‘Prince’] should appear (5 2, 5). Similarly, Jeremiah (23 5) foretold the springing up of a ‘Branch’ from the fallen trunk of David, a king with the significant name ‘Jehovah our righteousness’ (ver 6). During the period of the Exile, Ezekiel developed and enforced the hope (34 11-15, 23-31, particularly ver. 24; cf. also 37 24), giving the name David to the expected King (cf. also Hos 3 5 and Am 9 11, both of exilic or postexilic date). 4. The Servant of God. Quite a different aspect of the Messiah’s person and work is presented by Deutero-Isaiah. In a series of passages he gives the picture of a deliverer for Israel who accom- plishes his work by sacrifice, suffering, and death (42 1-4, 49 1-6, 50 4-9, 52 13-53 12) and is known as the ‘Servant of Jehovah,’ because his whole-hearted loyalty is in significant contrast to the stiff-necked disobedience of the people as a whole; and it is precisely because of this perfect devotion and cbedience unto death that he is raised to a high reward. It has been said that the Servant of Jehovah is a personification of the faithful remnant of Israel, by whose vicarious sufferings the people are re- deemed; but inasmuch as a nation could only be organized under a Head as the specially anointed of God, this Head (King), under whom the people is integrated, certainly has a real place in the con- ception of the servant. Here belong, too, Ps 22 1-11, 28 31. In Ps 2 the personal Messiah is represented as enthroned in Zion, and in Ps 110 (which may, however, be of Maccabean date) as combining in Himself the office of Priest with that of King. 5. Postexilic Development. This agrees so com- pletely with the conception of Zec 3 8 #., where the Messiah is given the name of ‘Branch’ (as in Jer), as to make it clear that in the postexilic period the appearance of an ideal king had become an in- - eradicable element in Israelitic thought. From Zee 46f. it might be inferred that Zerubbabel was by gome regarded as the Branch; but altho the prophet Mesha BIBLE DICTIONARY Messiah encourages confidence in him, he seems to designate Jeshua, not Zerubbabel, as the ‘anointed one’ (6 9-15; cf. 414). In the Maccabean age the name ‘Son of Man’ was given to the Messiah (Dn 7 13). And in the apocalyptic literature the ideal figure, altho naturally clothed in the symbolic garb characteristic of that type of writing, is constantly kept in view. In the Szb Or. (III 97-807), issuing from the middle of the 2d cent. B.c., there is an unmistakable description of him. In Eth. En. (chs. 36-72, the Book of Similitudes) he is portrayed under the figure of a white bull. In addition, in the judgment of many scholars, Enoch adopted from Dn the title ‘Son of Man.’ In two of the Psalms of Solomon (17 36, 18 6-8) even the title ‘Messiah’ is clearly fixed. Finally, the titles ‘elect’? and ‘Son of God’ are applied to him. 6. Diverse Outgrowths. Throughout its long his- tory the conception of the Messiah became the sub- ject of a variety of side developments, some of which are mere variants of the same fundamental type, and some are mutually exclusive. Of the latter class are the contradictory ideas, on the one hand, that the Messiah was Himself to be the deliverer of the people, and, on the other, that He was to be only the king who should rule it after it was delivered; alse the view, on the one hand, that He was to deliver through His sufferings (carrying out the thought of Is 52 13-53 12), and, on the other, that He was to reign in glory. That a preparation should be made for Him was commonly accepted. Malachi’s ‘messenger of Jehovah’ and the second appearance of Elijah furnished the ground for this. The signs immediately preceding and ushering in His reign were to include the dolores (ddiva:) Messiw, a phrase that refers, not to the experiences of the Messiah Himself, but to the experiences of the world in preparation for His coming; namely, the convulsions in nature and society foreshadowed in prophetic passages, such as Joel 2 28-32. 7. N T Messianism. In the N T Jesus of Nazareth is identified as the Messiah (Mt 1616, 20; Lk 4 18; Ac 2 36, 10 38), and is uniformly called ‘the Christ.’ What Jesus Himself thought the Messiahship was must be learned partly from His use of the title ‘Son of Man’ as His own self-designation. By the choice of this title He excluded from the Messiah’s character the main elements of the popular ideal, 7.e., that of a conquering hero, who would exalt Israel above the heathen, and through such exclusion He seemed to fail to realize the older Scriptural concep- tion. The failure, however, was only apparent and temporary. For in the second coming in glory He was to achieve this work. Accordingly, His disciples recognized a twofoldness in His Messiahship: (1) They saw realized in His past life the ideal Servant of Jehovah, and spiritual Messiah, the Christ who teaches and suffers for the people, and (2) they looked forward to the realization of the Davidic and conquering Messiah in His second coming.in power and glory to conquer the nations and reign over them. But Jewish and Christian ideals part from each other at this point. 8. Later Jewish Messianism. The later Jewish Messianic ideal was differentiated upon the ground Metals Micah, Book of of this distinction. Under the influence of the N T departure, Jewish thought took up the idea of a dying Messiah, but put it into a preparatory character (Mashiah ben-Joseph), who was to give his life in the defense of the nation as a warrior, but with no reference to sin or atonement. His death would simply pave the way for the second Messiah, the Everlasting King (Mashiah ben-David). Cf. Dalman, Der leidende u. sterbende Messias, 1888. 9. Christian Messianism. The Christian idea, on the other hand, took into itself all the spiritual ele- ments of the Hebrew thought as revealed in the O T, blended them into a unity, grouped them under the one head of anointing from above, and traced them to Jesus, who was thenceforth considered preemi- nently the Anointed. With the Greek name ‘Christ’ the conception passed from its Jewish to its uni- versally human stage. See also EscHarotoay, §§ 28, 33 f. LirprRaturReE: Drummond, The Jewish Messiah (1877); von Orelli, O T Prophecy (Eng. transl. 1885); Stanton, The Jewish and Christian Messiah (1886); Briggs, Messianic Prophecy (1886); Riehm, Messianic Prophecy (Eng. transl. 1891); Delitzsch, Messianic Prophecies in Historic Succession (Eng. transl. 1891); Volz, Die vorexilische Jahweprophetie u. d. Messias (1897). Mathews, The Messianic Hope in the N T (1907); Dougall and Emmet, The Lord of Thought (1922). AV CAT METALS: 1. Gold. The geological strata of Syria and Palestine being of recent sedimentary formation are wanting in metals. A limited amount of brown and granular iron ore is found, but the nature of the formation forbids the presence of other metals, which consequently were known to the Israelites only through importation from outside. Gold (zahabh, poetical harits, kethem, paz) finds mention in the earliest times. It came into Palestine chiefly through the agency of the Phenicians (Ezk 27 22). Arabian merchants brought it to the market of Tyre from Sheba and Ra‘ma. Solomon is said to have ob- tained it through the expeditions of his navy to Ophir. It was used for gilding the roofs, walls, and doors of palaces and temples, for plating idols, for all kinds of vessels, bowls, and cups, for ornamenta- tion, etc. Minted gold coins were unknown in pre- exilic days, but bars, round, flat disks, rings, and wedges (cf. Jos 7 21) of gold were in use, as media of exchange. It is evident that the Israelites learned how to work gold at an early date, since the oldest prophetic writings contain many figures of speech derived from the goldsmith’s art. Gold and silver were ‘refined’ (tsdraph) by melting, 7.e., the dross was separated from the pure metal. To hasten the purifying process use was made of an alkali (b6r, Is 1 25). We find mention made of a number of the instruments and utensils of the goldsmith, viz., the hammer, the anvil, tongs, chisel, graving tool, bel- lows, crucible, and melting-oven. That they under- stood soldering is clear from Is 41 7, while other passages show that they knew how to smooth and polish the metal. They were also acquainted with the art of plating metals, an industry always of great importance in Western Asia. In Ex 28 6 ff. we read of small threads, which evidently were cut from thin gold-plate, being woven into expensive cloth. 2. Silver. Far more common was the use of silver A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 576 (keseph), which also probably was brought into the country by the Phenicians, who obtained it from the mines of Tarshish, 7.e., Spain. From the earliest times it served as a medium of exchange, altho not in the form of coins, but of bars, which were weighed. Silver was put to much the same use as gold, e.g., for decorating palaces and sanctuaries, for idols, for musical instruments, etc. 3. Bronze. Of almost greater importance was the Cyprian bronze (es Cyprium), t.e., copper (n*hd- sheth). Since pure native copper was found but rarely in the countries known to the ancients, the ore had first to be smelted (cf. Job 28 2). Through this process it was discovered that, if the copper was alloyed, especially with tin, it became nearly as hard as steel. Such alloyed copper was called brass (nthésheth). From this were made pots, cups, pans, ladles, knives, etc. (Ex 38 3; Lv 6 21; Nu 16 39 [17 4]; Jer 52 18). Of the same metal weapons were also made: helmets, coats of mail, greaves, coverings for the legs, and shields (I 8 17 5 £., 38); spear tips and bows (II S 21 16, 22 35); also chains (Jg 16 21) and mirrors (Ex 38 8; Job 87 18). Great quantities of brass were used in the construction of the Temple: the altar and its network, the basins, the sea that rested on twelve brazen oxen, the two pillars that stood before the Temple, etc.—all were of brass (II Ch 41). That Solomon had to employ the Tyrian Huram-abi (Hiram) to cast these things shows that as late as the period of the early Kingdom the Israel- ites were still ignorant of the art of casting the metal. They learned it from the Phenicians. 4. Iron. Iron (barzel) was not equal in importance to brass. Israel became acquainted with it somewhat late. Their knowledge was gained probably through the Philistines, who had long known how to work the metal, and even in the early times had possessed chariots protected with iron (cf: IS 13 19-22). As peasants the Hebrews had been accustomed to make their own clothing, utensils, weapons, etc., as is partly the case in Palestine to-day. In the cities division of labor first took place, and only in these could craftsmen exist at a time when trade was so little developed. The raw material was brought in by Tyrians, mainly from Spain, tho it was also found in the Lebanon range (Jer 11 4; Dt 4 20,89; I K 8 51). Out of iron the blacksmiths (hardshé habbarzel) made axes and hatchets (Dt 19 5; II K 6 5), sickles, knives, swords, and spears (I S 177), bars (Is 45 2), chains and fetters (Ps 105 18, 107 10), nails, hoes, and pens (Jer 171; Job 19 24). Iron was also used for plows, threshing-wagons, and sledges (Am 1 3; I8 13 20; 11S 12 31). 5. Tin. Tin (bedhil) was brought by the Pheni- cians from Tarshish (Ezk 27 12). It seems to have been used almost entirely as the alloy with which to harden copper. 6. Lead. Lead (‘dphereth) was also brought in by Phenicians in connection with their naval expedi- tions to Tarshish (Ezk 27 12; cf. Pliny, III, 7). The metal came mainly, however, from the so called Tin Islands (the Cassiterides), usually identified with the coast of Cornwall, which still constitutes the main source of tin and lead for Europe (cf. Pliny, IV, 36; VII, 57). According to Job 19 24, lead was 577 A NEW STANDARD used for monumental tablets. In Am 77 we read of the plummet of lead. From Ezk 22 20 it may be inferred that the use of lead as an alloy was known to the ancients. W. N.—L. B. P. METE-YARD. See WEIGHTS AND Mrasurgs, § 2. METHEG-AMMAH, mi’’fheg-am’a (TST Wp), methegh ha’ammah), ‘the bridle of the mother-city’ (so RV): The text where this term occurs (II § 8 1) is difficult, if not corrupt, and the.Greek versions give no help. The meaning seems to be that David captured the Philistine metropolis. Most expositors have felt it necessary to find here an equivalent for Gath and its towns. Oat. Fed > METHUSAEL, mi-thu’sa-el. See MrmruusHAEgL. METHUSELAH, me-thu’si-la (M2WIN), m°thi- shelah), ‘man of the dart’; perhaps a variation of a Babylonian name, ‘man of Shelah’ (the name of a deity): A Sethite, the father of Lamech (Gn 5 25) = Methushael in the Cainite genealogy (Gn 4 18); in Lk 3 27 AV Mathusala. LBhate pial fie METHUSHAEL, mu-thi’sho-el (NYIND, m- thisha@’él, Methusael AV): One of the antediluvian patriarchs in the Cainite list (Gn 4 18), corresponding to Methuselah of the Sethite list (5 21). The name is Babylonian, meaning ‘man of God.’ See ME- THUSELAH. HK. K.N. MEUNIM, m-i’/nim (O'7YP, me‘iinim, Me- hunim AV): A tribe residing to the S. of Judah, near Edom, probably to be identified with the Arabians of Ma‘dn. It is first mentioned in Jg 10 12 (under the name Maonites), as an ancient enemy of Israel. In the days of Jehoshaphat the M. joined with Moabites and others in an unsuccessful attack on Judah (II Ch 201; cf. RVmg.). Later, Uzziah had trouble with them (II Ch 267). In Hezekiah’s day they suffered severely at the hands of the Simeonites (I Ch 4 41 RV). It may be that descendants of captive Meunim are referred to in Ezr 2 50 = Neh 7 52. Recently, it has been thought by some that the pre- ceding passages (except the last) refer to the N. Arabian Minzans, but the reasons given are in- conclusive. See ETHNOGRAPHY AND ETHNOLOGY, § 11. EK. E.N. MEZAHAB, mez’a-hab (AP, mézahabh), ‘wa- ters of gold’ (?): The grandfather of Mehetabel (Gn 36 39; I Ch 1 50). MEZOBAITE, mi-zd’ba-ait (M22, m*tsdbha- yah, Mesobaite AV): An obscure term designa- ting, apparently, the home of Jaasiel (I Ch 11 47). The text is probably corrupt. MIAMIN, mai’a-min. See M1JAmiM. MIBHAR, mib-hadr (1925, mibhhar): One of David’s heroes (I Ch 11 38), but in the |] (IS 23 36) we read ‘of Zobah’ (very similar in Heb. letters to Mibhar), which is probably the true text. MIBSAM, mib’som (9029, mibhsém): 1. An Ishmaelite clan (Gn 2513; I Ch 1 29). See Ern- NOGRAPHY AND ErHNnouoay, § 13. 2. A clan of Simeon (I Ch 4 25). Curiously, in both cases after Mibsam a Mishma is mentioned, indicating a possible connection between Simeonite and Ish- maelite clans. H. BE. N. Metals BIBLE DICTIONARY Micah, Book of MIBZAR, mib’zGr (1¥22, mibhisdr): A clan- chieftain, probably a clan also, of Edom (Gn 36 42; I Ch 153). It may be also a place-name. MICA, mai’ka, MICAH, mai’ka, MICAIAH, mai-ké’ya (HIND, mikhdyah[a], also 4722’, mi- khay*ht, "2°?, mikhah, and in some MSS. 89’), mikha’; cf. Oxf. Heb. Lex.): A name very common in the O T, from mi, ‘who,’ kh, ‘like,’ and Yah, ‘Jehovah,’ ‘who is like J’’,’ abbreviated often to Mica, but more usually to Micah and Micaiah. I. Mica (Micha AV). 1. A Levite, the son of Zichri (I Ch 915). 2. The son of Mephibosheth, see below II, 3. 3. One of the signatories of the cov- enant with Nehemiah (Neh 10 11). 4. The son of Zabdi, a Levite (Neb 11 17, the same as 3 ?). II. Micah. 1. An Ephraimite (Jg 171 ff.), who re- stored some money he had stolen from his mother. This money was then dedicated to the service of J’’, and spent in the making of a graven image and the employment of a Levite priest, both ultimately taken from Micah by the Danites. 2. A son of Joel, the head of a family of Reubenites (I Ch 5 5). 3. A great-grandson of Saul through Mephibosheth (Meribbaal) (II S 9 12; I Ch 8 34; ef, I, 2, above). 4. The son of Uzziel, a Kohathite priest (I Ch 23 20). 5. The father of Achbor (or Abdon) (II K 22 12; II Ch 34 20; see III, 2, below). 6. The Morash- tite prophet Micah (Mic 1 1; see Micau, Book oF). III. Micaiah (Michaiah AV). 1. The son of Imlah (I K 22 8 f.; II Ch 18 2 f.), a prophet of the time of Ahab, who was summoned at the request of Jehoshaphat to Samaria, and there foretold the impending defeat of Ahab at Ramoth Gilead. For this he was put into prison. 2. The father of Ach- bor (II K 22 12, the same as II, 5, above). 3. One of the princes sent by Jehoshaphat to teach the people (II Ch 177). 4. A priest, father of Mattaniah (Neh 12 35). 5. Son of Gemariah, a leading man of Judah in the days of Jehoiakim (Jer 36 11, 13). 6. The mother of Abijah, King of Judah (II Ch 18 2), and daughter of Uriel, but in II Ch 11 20, ‘the daugh- ter of Absalom’ (I K 15 2, ‘Abishalom’), called Maacah. AaGea: MICAH, BOOK OF: One of the minor prophetic writings of the O T. 1. The Prophet. The personality of the author of this book, like those of most of the minor prophets, is hidden in obscurity. He was a resident of Mor- esheth-Gath, an obscure town in Judah, and bore the very common name of Micaiah (see Mica, I, 6). The time in which his prophetic ministry falls is given as ‘the days of Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah,’ or between 745 and 700 B.c. In the early part of this period, the Northern Kingdom was still standing, but the signs of its downfall were in clear view, and Micah joined with Hosea and Amos in denouncing its sins. His mission, however, was not to the Northern Kingdom alone, but also to the Southern, and he views the sins of both kingdoms as summed up and brought to their cli- max in the capital cities of Samaria and Jerusalem respectively (1 5). 2. Divisions and Contents. The Book of Micah is usually divided into three sections, each introduced Micah, Book of Miletus A NEW STANDARD with the formula ‘Hear ye.’ I. The first section comprises the first two chapters of the book, and begins by describing the coming of J’’ for judgment upon Samaria and Jerusalem (1 1-9). This visitation is figured under the image of the march of a devastat- ing army through the country (110-16). It is a judg- ment based on violence and greed of the wealthy, who do not scruple to crush the poor and defenseless (2 1-13). II. The second section (chs. 3-5) opens with a repetition of the charges against the lead- ers of the people, enumerating judges, priests, and prophets as guilty of avarice and injustice. For these sins Zion should be ‘plowed asa field’ (3 1-12). But the prophet looks forward to the effect of the chastisement of the nation as it shall come in a grand Messianic age of restoration and comfort (4 1-5 1), and goes on to picture the Deliverer, who is to issue from the house of David, even tho this house had been compelled by adversity to withdraw into its rural domain of Bethlehem (5 2-15). III. The third section is a simple series of exhortations to repen- tance and warnings against sin (chs. 6, 7). 3. Critical Questions. The foregoing outline, however, follows the thought of the book only in a very general way, overleaping certain abrupt transi- tions and serious obscurities. Upon the basis of these it has been argued that the book is not a unit. Moreover, the allusion in 4 10 to Babylon seems meaningless as addressed to the generation of 745 to 700 B.c. If the name Babylon has been substi- tuted for another in the process of copying, this only illustrates the corruption of the text throughout the book. Chs. 6 and 7 also fit better into the age of Manasseh than into the last quarter of the 8th cent. B.c. In fact, in 7 7-20 signs of a postexilic date have been discerned, such as the scattering of the exiles far and wide through the world (7 12), the expectation that the walls of Jerusalem will be rebuilt (7 11), ete. All that can be said safely is that chs. 1-3 are cer- tainly the work of Micah, and that the rest of the book has been more or less subjected to editorial revision, and to the incorporation of fragments of a later date. LirgRATURE: Driver, LOT ®, pp. 325 ff.; Cornill, Introd. (Eng. transl. 1907); Ryssel, Untersuch. tiber die Tezxigestalt u. die Echtheit d. Buches micha (1887); Cheyne, Micah (in Camb. Bible) (21895); G. A. Smith, in The Expositor’s Bible, The Book of the Twelve Prophets, I (1896); A. J. Tait, The Prophecy of Micah (1917); R. F. Horton, in New Century Bible. A. C. Z. MICE. See Movuss. MICHA, mai’kd. See Mica. MICHAEL, mai’ka-el (739°2, mikha’al), ‘who is like God’: 1. The father of Sethur, one of the Spies (Nu 13 13). 2. Two Gadites (I Ch 513 f.). 3. A Levite (I Ch 6 40); 4. A man of Issachar (I Ch 7 3). 5. A Benjamite (I Ch 816). 6. A Manassite (I Ch 12 20). 7. The father of Omri one of David’s officials (I Ch 27 18). 8. A son of Jehoshaphat (II Ch 21 2). 9. The father of Zebadiah (Ezr 8 8). 10. M. the Archangel. See ANGEL, § 4. MICHAIAH, mai-ké’yd. See Mica, III. MICHAL, mai’kel (72"2, mikhal, an abbreviated form of ‘Michael’): The name of the younger daugh- ter of Saul, the only instance where the name is given BIBLE DICTIONARY 578 to a woman. Her first appearance presents her as anxious to become the wife of David. This is an unparalleled instance in the Bible of a woman openly avowing her love for a man and her desire to marry him (I § 18 19-21). Saul’s remark upon deciding to abet her desire indicates that he judged her to be a person of peculiar disposition. When she next appears it is in a ruse by which she saves the life of her husband (IS 1912f.). The third time she is mentioned itis as restored to David (II 8 3 13), and the last, as a mocker of his uncontrolled en- thusiasm in a religious dance (II S 616). ‘Michal’ in II S 21 8 is evidently a mistaken reading for ‘Merab’ (q.v.). A. C. Z. MICHMAS, mik’mes (222, mikhmas): The form in Ezr 2 27= Neh 7 31 of a name which is spelled elsewhere as in the next article. C. S22. MICHMASH, mik’mash (¥239, mikhmas [not WiI2, mikhmash, as generally read]): A place in Ben- jamin, 7 m. N. of Jerusalem, the modern Mukhmdas, 2,000 ft. above sea-level on the hill, N. of the narrow and deep Wddy es-Suwénit, a part of the pass which leads from Bethel on the table-land of Ephraim down to Jericho. Jonathan had driven the Philistines from Geba (IS 13 3) on the height 8. of this pass, and with Saul and their followers had encamped there, over against the Philistines in Michmash (I § 13 16). The valley between is called the ‘pass of Michmash’. ([S 18 23). This height is represented by Isaiah as being taken by the Assyrians in his prophetic descrip- tion of the coming attack on Jerusalem (Is 10 28). By descending from Geba and ascending the south- ern side of Michmash, Jonathan and his armor- bearer surprized the Philistines and put them to flight (I S 141#., cf. Driver, HTS [21913], p. 106, with map of the region). After the Captivity mem- bers of the Jewish community lived in M. (Ezr 2 27; Neh 7 31, 11 31). It was the residence of Jona- than Maccabeus, 156-152 B.c. (I Mac 973). Map III, F 5. Co Sisk MICHMETHAH, mik’mi-tha (19921), hammikh- m*thah): The article shows it is not a proper name, but an appellative. A place on the border between Ephraim and Manasseh, E. of Shechem (Jos 17 7, 16 6), not yet identified. LOA oi Be MICHRI, mik’rai (12, mikhri): A Benjamite (I Ch 98). MICHTAM, mik’tam. See Psaus, § 3. MIDDIN, mid’din (]"1), middin): A city in the wilderness of Judah (Jos 15 61). Site unknown. MIDIAN, mid’i-an, MIDIANITES, mid’i-an-aits: According to Gn 25 2, 177, midhydn, was one of the sons of Abraham by Keturah, 7.e., Midian was one of a number of tribes in NW. Arabia who were sup- posed to be closely related and descended from a more remote ancestral tribe, Keturah. A variant tradi- tion (Jg 8 24) classes them as Ishmaelites. And in the story of Joseph he is sold, according to J, to Ishmaelites (Gn 37 25-27, 28b), but in E the Midianites carry Joseph to Egypt (Gn 37 28a, 36). The refer- ences to the Midianites in the O T all imply the same general locality, NW. Arabia, as their home, altho they seem to be viewed as made up of a number of 579 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Micah, Book of Miletus clans (Gn 25 4) who ranged over a wide extent of country, from the region E. of the Sinaitic Peninsula (Ex 2 15 f.) northward as far as the territory E. of Gilead (Nu ch. 22; Jg ch. 6f.). The references reflect popular views of different periods. In Moses’ day the relations between Israel and Midian were most friendly. It was among a small tribe or clan of these people that Moses found refuge when he fled from Pharaoh, and one of the daughters or Reuel or Jethro, the ‘priest’ and chief of the clan became his wife (Ex 2 16 ff.). This same person Jethro (or his son?), called also Hobab (Nu 10 29 #.; Jg 116, 411), is also called a Kenite, so that the Kenites were pos- sibly a Midianite clan. When the Israelites were dwelling in Moabite territory the attitude of the Mid- ianites, according to one line of tradition, was hos- tile (Nu 22 4,7, 25 15, 18), tho the story in Nu ch. 31 is certainly of no historical value (cf. Gray in ICC, ad loc). This hostility manifested itself again in later years after Israel had gained possession of Canaan (Jg chs. 6-8). The Midianites are variously repre- sented as a peaceful pastoral people (Ex 2 16 ff.), as traveling merchants (Gn 37 28, 36), and as marauding Bedouin (Jg chs. 6-8). In all this there is nothing in- consistent with the well-known habits of large Arabian tribes. They seem to have lost their iden- tity at an early period. Cf. Skinner on Genesis in ICC (p. 349 f.) and see ETHNOGRAPHY AND ETH- NoLoey, § 11. E. E. N. MIDWIFE: In the Orient the help of a medical expert is not always required at childbirth, the place | of the physician being taken either by experienced women relatives or friends, or by a special class of semiprofessionals called ‘midwives.’ In ancient times this class must have been even more exten- sively resorted to (Gn 365 17, 38 28; Ex 1 15 ff.) than is the case at present. A. C. Z. MIGDAL-EL, mig’dol-al’”’ (89°29, mighdal’él)) ‘tower of God’: A city of Naphtali (Jos 19 38). Site unknown. MIGDAL-GAD, mig’dol-gad” (F229, mighdal- gadh), ‘tower of Gad’: A city of Judah, in the Sheph- elah (Jos 15 37), which has not been identified. There is a Mejdel about 214m. NE. of Ashkelon, with foundations, cisterns, and rock tombs. Caer: MIGDOL, mig’dol (71722, 2529, mighddl), ‘tower’: The name of one or more ih tee in Egypt where there was a fortress. We should use the mar- ginal reading of Ezk 29 10, 30 6, where Migdol is on the northern boundary of Egypt. Jewish refugees were found in M. and in two other frontier cities. The best-known M. (Gr. Mé&y3wdoc) was 12 m. S. of Pelusium. Probably another M. is mentioned in Ex 14 2; Nu 337, near the border of Egypt, where the Tsraclites left ‘the country. Cia be MIGHTY MEN. See Man. MIGHTY ONE: This term is a rendering of (1) gibbér, a human being of exceptional physical stature and strength (Gn 10 8; Jer 46 5; J1 3 11); (2) ’addir, ‘honorable,’ of a superhuman being (Is 10 34); (3) "El, ‘God’ (Ezk 31 11); (4) ’abbir Jg 5 22, AV ‘strong ones,’ RV); (5) tsdr, ‘rock’ (Is 30 29 AY). MIGHTY WORK, See Wonp:ER. MIGRON, mig’ren (J1112, mighrdn): 1. The name of the place where Saul encamped in or near Geba (IS 142). It should probably be translated ‘thresh- ing-floor.’ 2. A place between Aiath and Michmash, on the line of march the prophet lays out for the approach of the Assyrian army (Is 10 28). It is per- haps the modern ruin Makrin, N. of Michmash. Map III, F 5. CoS. MIJAMIN, mij’a-min (1%), mayyamin): 1. The ancestral head of one of the great priestly families, constituting the sixth course of priests. The term is also used for representatives of this family (I Ch 24 9; Neh 107, 12 5. Miniamin in vs. 17 and 41). 2. One of the ‘sons of Parosh’ (Ezr 10 25, Miamin AV). EK. E.N. MIKLOTH, mik’loth (Mi2P2, migléth): 1. The ancestor of a Benjamite family living near Gibeon (I Ch 8 32, 9 37 f.). 2. An officer under David (I Ch 27 4). : MIKNEIAH, mik-ni’ya (222), migqnéyaha): Levite musician (I Ch 15 18, 21). MILALAI, mil’a-lai (22, mildlay): A Levite musician (Neh 12 36). MILCAH, mil’ka (7320, milkah), ‘queen’: 1. Counted as a daughter of Haran and wife of Haran’s brother Nahor; but according to the genealogical mode of writing history, hernameinreality represents a tribe. Such amalgamations are probably repre- sented by these references: Gn 11 29, 22 20, 23, 24 15, 24, 47. 2. One of the ‘daughters of Zelophehad’ (Nu 26 33, 27 1, 36 11; Jos 17 3). In fact, these ‘daughters’ were towns. Milcah has not been identified (see ZELOPHEHAD) K. EK. N. MILCOM, mil’kem. See Semitic Retiaion, § 25. MILDEW. The rendering of yéradqdn, ‘paleness’ (fr. y@raq, ‘to be green’), always in conjunction with shiddaphon, ‘blasting’ (from the heat) (Dt 28 22; I K 8 37; IL Ch 6 28; Am 49; Hag 2 17). MILE. See Wercurs anD Mrasurss, § 2. MILETUS, mai-li-tos (Mi\ntoc, Miletum in IT Ti 4 20 AV): A town on the Carian coast of Asia Minor It was colonized by Ionian Greeks under Neleus. At an early period it became a flourishing seaport and commercial center, its ships visiting every part of the Mediterranean and particularly the Euxine Sea, on the coasts of which it founded seventy-five cities. After the Persian victory off the island of Lade (494), Miletus was sacked, its male citizens slain, the rest transported to Susa and Ampe (at the mouth of the Tigris). Later, it regained some of its prosperity. In 479 it joined the Athenian league, from which it afterward revolted, and defeated the Athenian fleet off Miletus in 412. It was captured by Aléxander in 334, from which time its importance waned, tho in the time of Paul it had recovered some propserity. It did not cease to exist until several centuries after Christ. It was here that the Apostle bade farewell to the elders of the Ephesian Church (Ac 20 15-17), and at a later visit left behind his companion Trophimus (II Ti 4 20). The alluvial silt deposited by the Meander has Milk Miracles A NEW STANDARD changed the whole coast line of the Latmic Gulf (now an inland lake), so that the fever-stricken site of Miletus (now Palatia) is several miles inland. Extensive excavations have been made on the site by the Germans, and several inscriptions of great interest have come to light. The most striking ruin is the open theater (largest in Asia Minor). Ruins also of the Town-Hall and the Delphinium have been unearthed. J.R.S.8.#—S. A. MILK. See Foon, § 6. MILL, MILLSTONE: In olden times the mill (réhayim, late Heb. t*hén, tahdndh) was an indis- pensable household utensil. Since the meal needed for baking was prepared daily, the sound of the mill was heard regularly wherever there was a dwelling (Jer 25 10; Ee 12 4). The mill consisted of two stones of heavy porous basalt, 17-19 ins. in diameter, and when new about 4 ins. thick. The lower stone (pelah tahtith, Job 41 24 [16]), which was generally extra hard and somewhat convex on top, had in the middle a small round peg of very hard wood. The upper stone (pelah re- khebh, Jg 9 63, or simply rekhebh, 1.e., ‘rider,’ Dt 24 6) was con- cave on the under side. It had in the middle a fun- nel-shaped hole in which the peg of the lower stone fitted loosely. Into this hole the grain. for grinding was poured. The upper stone was revolved by means of an upright pin near the rim. The grinding was done usually by female slaves (Ex 11 5; Is 47 2), probably also by prisoners (Jg 16 21; La 513). The meal, which poured out at the rim of the lower stone, was gathered in a cloth spread out under the mill. Whether anything like the durra mill of the Arabs was used by the Isra- elites in Palestine is doubtful, tho probably this may have been the case when they lived in the desert. This mill consisted of two stones, the lower concave, the upper one round. The grain was shaken into the lower stone and crushed by the rolling of the upper one. In later times, large mills worked by an ass came into use (cf. the wbroc bvixbc¢ of Mt 18 6). W. N..—L. B. P. MILLET. See Pauestine, § 23. MILLO, mil’s (817%, milla’): 1. The Millo (always with the Rr Hiitay in Jerusalem, seems originally to have been a part of the Jebusite fortifications of Zion, the H. hill of Jerusalem (II S 59=I Ch 11 8). BIBLE DICTIONARY Women Grinding Meal with a Mill. 580 If the word is Hebrew, it apparently means a ‘fill [of earth],’ and referred to some important earthwork guarding the N. approach to the citadel. This ‘fill’ was extended by David and Solomon (II 8 59; IK 915). See also JERUSALEM, § 20, and cf. the report of Excavations on Ophel in PEFQ, April, 1924. 2. The house of Millo (‘Beth-millo’ ARVmg.). An unknown place (or family?) near Shechem (Jg 9 6, 20). Itis possibly the same as ‘the tower of Shechem’ (Jg 947f.). 3. The house of Millo, where Joash was slain (II K 12 20), was presumably in Jerusalem and connected with 1, above. L. G. L.—L. B. P. MINA. See Money, I, 1. MIND. See Man, Docrrine or, § 9. MINE, MINING: The term ’mine’ (referring to metals) is used in EV but once (Job 28 1 vein AV). Here it renders méts@’, ‘outgoing.’ For the knowl- edge and use of metals among the Hebrews, see ~ METALS. MINGLED PEOPLE: The rendering of the Heb. ‘érebh (from ‘dGrabh, ‘to mix’) in I K 1015; Jer 25 20, 24, 50 37; Ezk 30 5. The same word is rendered mixed multi- tude in Ex 12 38 and Neh 13 3. In Ex 12 38 the ref- : i Y\\ =a erence is to 2 “ie 4 Wg G i (ea the non-Isra- we N ee h elite people of uncertain or mixed de- scent who ac- companied the Israelites in the Exo- dus from Egypt. In Jer 25 20 and Ezk 305, the mixed popu- lations of, or dependent upon, Egypt are meant. In Jer 50 37 the various nationalities represented in Babylon are intended. The reading in Jer 25 24 is probably a late gloss, while in I K 10 15 ‘kings of Arabia’ should probably be read (according to the || in II Ch 9 14). K.E.N. MINIAMIN, min‘i-a-min (2219, minydamin): 1. A Levite Radar Hezekiah (II Ch 31 15). 2. See Miyamin, 1. MINISTER, MINISTRY: In the O T the nouns ‘minister’ and ‘ministry’ are usually used in the re- ligious sphere. The Heb. verb sharath, rendered ‘minister,’ means ‘to serve,’ but is rarely used of the service of slaves. A ‘minister’ was thus one who ‘served’ in attendance on the sanctuary, whether a priest or one of the lower orders. See Cudrcu, §§ 6 and 7; and Synaacoa, § 2. K. E. N. MINNI, min’ai (2, minni): A kingdom men- tioned in connection with those of Ararat and Ash- 581 kenaz by Jeremiah in his denunciation of Babylon (Jer 51 27). The Minni of this passage corresponds to the Manné of the Assyrian inscriptions. The king- dom lay between the lakes of Urumiah and Van. The people were probably Indo-Europeans, and closely related to the Medes. Their capital was Zirtu, or Izirtu. The later Assyrian kings frequently invaded this territory, but held it with difficulty. Je fin Ke MINNITH, min‘ith (29, minnith): The north- ernmost city taken during Jephtha’s Ammonite campaign (Jg 1133). Its exact situation is unknown, but could scarcely be so far 8. or W. as the PHF map indicates. If the text of Ezk 27 17 is correct (but see Davidson, in Camb. Bible), M. was famous for its wheat. L. G. L.—L. B. P. MINSTREL: This term is applied to professional musicians (aJAnths, Mt 9 23 AV, but ‘flute-players’ RV) employed at funerals (cf. MourRNING AND Mournine Customs, § 5). In more ancient usage, minstrelsy (cf. m’naggén, ‘player’ [‘minstrel’ EV], from nagan, ‘to play,’ e.g., a harp [as inI § 16 16], II K 3 15) was associated with the art of divination, furnishing an accompaniment of plaintive melody to the process of self-excitation. See Music anp Musicau INSTRUMENTS, § 2 (b). Ae 2: MINT. See PaLestine, § 23; and Trrue. MIPHKAD, mif’kad, GATE OF. See Jmrusa- LEM, § 38. MIRACLES. 1. Meaning of the Term. The development of thought in the twentieth century has notably influenced the general attitude toward miracles. New and less dogmatic interpretations of nature and of natural law; wider knowledge of the history of religions, with a new understanding of its psychological development; fuller appreciation of the distinction between fact and value and the rela- tive significance of each for religion have done much to justify the statement of Prof. Samuel Harris, in 1887, with respect to the objection to miracles as interrupting the uniformity of nature. ‘To this ob- jection,’ he said, ‘there are four answers. It is founded on erroneous ideas as to what a miracle is; of what God is; of what nature is; and, lastly, of what the universe is.’ (The Self-Revelation of God, p. 477.) Understanding of this newer attitude will be aided by an examination of the content of the general term miracle. Its etymology has done not a little both to obscure and restrict its real meaning. Miracle, then is a general term used to designate a certain group of phenomena of human experience all of which contain three elements which may roughly be characterized respectively as the scien- tific, the psychological, and the logical. Unless an event includes all three of these elements it can not, except in a loose sense, be called a miracle. (a) Scientific Element. The first element is es- sentially negative in character. The event is un- usual, extra-ordinary. It appears as something different from the usual and expected phenomena of human experience, a divergence from the ‘uni- formity of nature’ as observed. Its positive inter- pretation as intrinsically super-natural does not rest A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Milk Miracles on the character of the event itself; but on the logical element in its interpretation, The overstress on the intrinsic non-naturalness, unpredictability, of the event has brought confusion into much of past dis- cussion of miracles. Both the proponents and the opponents of this idea have found themselves as- suming omniscience as to the range of human ex- perience in respect to the ‘natural’ world. One has confidently asserted the known limits of this range, and concluded to the intrinsic non-naturalness of certain events. The other with equal confidence has asserted the known limitlessness of this range and concluded to the intrinsic naturalness of all events. One is psychologically the child of a prescientific age, and the other the child of a scientific age. Psy- chologically both can be understood; but logically both are guilty of the same fallacy of a presupposed omniscience as to the range of human experience. A miracle as ‘absolute,’ and a miracle as ‘impossible’ are both absolutely impossible judgments, logically. (b) Psychological Element. But a miracle is not simply an eztra-ordinary event. It isan event which produces in the beholder, or in the one who hears of it second hand, a characteristic psychological reac- tion. It awakens wonder, surprize, perhaps also gratitude, fear, self-examination. It is this charac- teristic response that has determined the word for the event itself. This response is something charac- teristically different from curiosity. It does not quicken to investigation, but to an attitude akin to awe, rising to reverence, which tends to suppress rather than invite inquiry. The scientific sophisti- cation of our day accustomed to ‘the fairy-tales of science’ has tended to diminish the characteristic psychic reactions to extraordinary events, and to make them more closely approximate intellectual curiosity. Whether the tendency, in the presence of extraordinary events, to eliminate the reactions of awe, reverence, gratitude, self-examination, is or is not a mark of spiritual progress it is not necessary to discuss. It is only necessary to note the fact. (c) Logical Element. The third element included in the idea miracle has been called the logical, or pos- sibly better the causal or metaphysical. This is the explanation, or interpretation, of both the event and the psychic reaction to it as indicating some- thing, at least, as to the nature of the efficiency by which the event is produced. The logic of the super- natural explanation seems very simple. All phe- nomena of experience are the expression, manifesta- tion, explication, of some sort of power. The event called a miracle is of such an extraordinary nature, and the psychic reaction to it of such a special sort, that the power at work, in order adequately to ex- plain these effects, must be extraordinary. And since the results in both the outer and inner realm seem to be superior to those that express themselves ordinarily in nature they must be due to a super- natural power, a power other than that which works uniformly in nature. Such a conclusion suggests the dualistic notion of two powers at work in the field of human experience, one controlling the usual, ordinary, natural sequence of events, and another, so far superior to it, that into the natural sequence of events are interjected other events which are out Miracles A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 582 of the ordinary, supernatural, unpredictable. Whether such a conclusion is logically justifiable it is not now purposed to discuss. Attention is called simply to the fact that some such explanatory logic as this constitutes a characteristic element in the group of historic phenomena generalized by the word Miracle. In other words the miracle is an event interpreted as meaning something with refer- | ence to the power by which it is wrought. 2. Miracles as Facts. That miracles in the sense of events in human experience containing these scientific, psychological, and logical elements have occurred is beyond possible doubt. Human history can not be made intelligible without the recognition of the influence in it of religion, and the history of religion can not be intelligently written without the recognition of the occurrence of such events. Just how far the occurrence of such events provided the original stimulus to the conviction of the existence of deity, somehow conceived (Pratt in his ‘Religious Consciousness’ calls it ‘ruler of destiny’), which is an essential element in the religious consciousness, it is impossible to say. That such events have been a powerful influence in determining what men have thought as to the qualities of deity, and as to what correct human attitudes should be toward a deity possessing such qualities, can not be denied. 3. Miracle a Religious Term. It is just this in- ference as to the character of deity, and of the appropriate personal response, that constitutes miracle a positive religious term, as distinguished from a negative scientific term. The failure to recognize this distinction has brought confusion into much, if not most, of the earlier discussion of Christian miracles. Undoubtedly one of the inferred characteristics of the agency effectuating the miracle has been power, and a power conceived as great in direct proportion to the extraordinariness, non-naturalness, of the event. This accounts for the manifest tendency in the description of past miracles to magnify the power by increasing the extraordinariness of the described event, sometimes to the point of grotesqueness, and to quicken the play of the mythological imagination, as in the case of the apocryphal miracles of Christ’s youth. With a somewhat expanded knowledge of nature the emphasis on the power of the agent led to defining miracle as ‘a violation of the laws of nature,’ with the logically infelicitous presupposi- tion of human omniscience referred to above. And a still more widely expanded knowledge of nature has, with a similarly infelicitous logic, led to the denial of the occurrence of such events. It can not be too strongly emphasized that the significance of miracles as a religious, and especially as a Christian concept, does not lie solely, or even chiefly, in the sheer ‘supernaturalness’ of the event and the more or less correct conclusion to the stark power of the effectuating agency as divine. Its value asa religious concept does not lie in proving the existence of God, or the divinity of the agent exhibiting supernatural power; but in manifesting the attitude of God, already conceived to exist, toward man, and in- dicating the consequent response that should be made by man toward God. Religion and revelation are reciprocal terms. As religious phenomena, miracles are not to be viewed as proofs of God; but as revelations about God. 4. Interpretation of Miracles. The modern dis- tinction between facts and values, with the meta- physical implications of this distinction, with which Philosophy and Theology have been so largely con- cerned during the past generation, puts the inter- pretation of miracles in a new light, and one much more in accord with the view of them which appears in both the Old and New Testaments. The essential question is not as to the precise accuracy of the description of the event, or as to the existence of a power other than that operating in nature; but as to the meaning and value of the event in its bearings on the mutual relations of God and man. That the appearance of a non-natural event., 7.¢., an event outside previous experience, proves the operation of a divine, supernatural agency is psychologically true—men have widely interpreted it that way—but logically false. That the appear- ance of a non-natural event, in the above sense, proves either the operation of an unknown ‘natural law,’ or the unobserved operation of a known ‘law’ is, similarly, psychologically true and _ logically false. Both rest back on metaphysical presupposi- tions as to the nature of ultimate reality, more or less religious. From the theistic point of view we find a Christian theologian as early as Augustine quoted in the first edition of this work! asserting the ultimate ‘naturalness’ of miracles. The decision turns as Prof. Harris, quoted above, said, on the meaning of nature and the meaning of God. That uniformity in method of action, as observed by men, necessarily follows from the conception of the unity of God simply shows paucity of metaphysical imagination. Undoubtedly the effort of the older theologians to draw accurate distinctions between ‘providence,’ ‘special providences’ and ‘miracles’ and to interpret each in dynamic terms as essen- tially different modes of the divine activity, brought into the older discussion of miracles elements that are unnecessarily confusing to the modern mind. 5. O T Miracles. The record of miracles in the Bible and their progressive interpretation as clarified by modern historical scholarship not only illustrates what has been said concerning the general attitude toward miracles, but also indicates that modern thought with respect to them is moving more nearly into accord with the Bible view. Take for example the O T miracles associated with the deliverance of the Hebrews from Egypt. They were brought out ‘with strong power and with a mighty hand.’ It is evident that the narratives themselves show, as they recede in time from the event, a marked increase in marvelous, extra-ordinary accessories to the occa- sion, as in respect to the crossing of the Red Sea (cf. Ex 14 21a [J] and 14 22 [P], or the poetic state- ment in 15 8). But it is not simply as marvelous events associated with the departure from Egypt and the wanderings in the wilderness that they are 1$t. Augustine, De Civ. Dei, xxi, 8: ‘‘Omnia quippe porienta contra naturam dicimus esse; sed non sunt. Quo modo est enim contra naturam, quod Dei fit voluntate, cum volunias tanti wlique conditoris condite rei cuiwsque natura sit? Portentum ergo fit non contra naturam, sed contra quam est nota natura,” 583 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Miracles through all Hebrew history lauded and sung. They are the lore of the folk; but they are not simply folk-lore. Their significance is profoundly religious. They are rehearsed as a revelation of the gracious attitude of J’’ toward his chosen people which it is both the privilege and the duty of the people to discern, and which ought to awaken in them the response of loyal hearts and obedient conduct. As the idea of God widens and becomes clearer in ethical content, the due response is carried beyond the obligation to perform certain rites and obey specific commands, on to the purification of charac- ter. The real significance of the specific event, it becomes increasingly clear from the history of the religious development of the people does not lie in its eccentricity as an event in the realm of nature; but in its meaning and religious value as respects the mutual relations of God and man. That which for them chiefly constitutes these events miracles, is not primarily their extra-ordinariness, or their marvelousness, or the logical conclusion to a super- natural power. Something of all these is there, but the distinctive thing is that in them and through them is the realized manifestation of the meaning of God for his people. The reality and the vital significance of these personal relations as testified to by the religious consciousness and illuminated by experience is primal. This for them is the very heart of religion, and religion is the fundamental deter- miner of life. 6. The Miracles of Jesus. It is with this religious attitude of O T thought at its best that Jesus starts. It is this that He ‘fulfils.’ As a revealer of religious truth He is concerned with conveying to those with whom He comes in contact true value-judgments in respect to God and man and their relations, and the implications involved in the personal relations of men to one another (the divine Fatherhood, the Kingdom of God, the twofold law of love). The reality of God, the necessity and validity of the judgments of the religious consciousness, or the religious intuition, of those who are not ‘blind’ He not only takes for granted but demands shall be accepted by those to whom He ministers. One misreads the story if he does not feel the immense effort Jesus makes to lead men to ‘see’ the truth— to believe Him and believe in Him. This not by syllogistic reasoning and logical demonstration, but by direct vision of truth. He reasons, to be sure, with critical acumen, but His logic is used to clear the way for vision. He evidently does not conceive of His miracles as scientific proof of His extraordinary supernatural power; but rather as dramatic parables ‘—not in the sense of mythologized discourses— revealing, as did the parables to those that had ‘ears to hear,’ the spiritual realities of the universal kingdom of personal relations. He undoubtedly represented that God’s power worked through Him. He recognizes and approves the cogency of the logic of the Scribes in accusing Him of blasphemy because He assumed, in the case of the paralytic let down through the roof (Mk 2 4 f.), the divine prerogative of forgiving sins, and He justifies Him- self by manifesting the Divine power of healing. And when in connection with the ‘casting out a demon that was dumb’ (Lk 11 11) His deed is accounted for by spectators on the principle of the naturalistic diabolism of the day, He astutely argues from their premises to the unsatisfactoriness of such an explanation, and then faces them with the counter-implication ‘if I by the finger of God cast out demons then is the Kingdom of God come among you.’ But in both cases He is not so much directing toward them a demonstration as challenging their spiritual vision. From this initial point of view it is possible to appreciate (1) Why Jesus performed miracles at all; (2) Why He made faith the precondition of miracles and could say in the parable of Dives and Lazarus (Lk 16 20 #.), ‘if they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded if one rise from the dead’; (3) His obvious contempt for mere wonders (tépatx) as stimulating curiosity or producing astonishment—like Huxley’s typical miracle of a centaur trotting down Picadilly; (4) His refusal to give the signs (cnet) desired, because, to the discerning spirit, signs enough had already been given, and the signs desired would be wrongly interpreted; (5) His abandonment of miracle-work- ing when it became apparent that further miracles would lead to false evaluation of the content and purpose of His message. 7. Modern Interpretation. The current effort to appraise miracles, and especially the miracles of Christ, in terms of their meaning as manifestations of the character of the worker and of the power by means of which they were wrought, seems much closer to the attitude of Jesus, and less like that of the religiously ‘blind’ of His day than does the attitude of a generation ago. The crux of the question of miracles is not whether or not an ‘absolute miracle’ is conceivable, or whether or not the records of miraculous events are scientifically precise in their historic details, or whether or nov they involve a dualistic view of the universe. It really les in the validity of the value-judgments of the religious consciousness as interpretative of a certain class of events in the natural world as revela- tions of the character of God. It is worthy of note how the religious conscious- ness of the primitive church, so far as our records go, laid so little stress on the sheer marvelousness of the supreme miracle of the Christian faith—the resurrection of Christ—and emphasized so pro- foundly its religious significance as bearing on the mutual relations of God and man, and of men to one another, and found therein the cosmic signifi- cance of the risen Christ. LirErRATuRE: Most of the recent discussion of miracles is scattered through various volumes and reviews dealing with Theology and Philosophy of Religion. Mention should be made of the excellent work by Johannes Wendland, translated by H. R. Macintosh, on Miracles and Christianity (1911). As to the fact of Miracles recorded in the Gospels, Geo. P. Fisher’s Grounds of Theistic and Christian Belief, chs. 8 and 9, contain a suggestive summary (rev. ed., 1902). Abp. Trench, On Miracles (1846) still retains its value as a scholarly retrospect of opinion on the miracles of the N T. Cf. also Bruce, The Miraculous Element in the Gospels (1886); and Galloway, Religion and Modern Thought (1922), ch. 10; Hastings, Enc. of Religion and Ethics (1919), vol. viii, pp. 766-690. A. LAG. Miriam Moab A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 584 rece MIRIAM, mir’i-am (9)7, miryadm): 1. The sis- ter of Moses and Aaron (Ex 15 20). Like her two brothers, her sense of Divine things was keen, and her zeal for Jehovah, His cause and people, intense. The passage Ex 2 4 f. shows that she took part in the saving of Moses’ life. A pzan of victory over the safe crossing of the Red Sea is ascribed to her (Ex 1520 f.). Later, she claimed equal honor with Moses, and was smitten with leprosy, from which, however, she was restored by his intercession (Nu 12 1-16). Her death occurred at Kadesh (Nu 20 1). 2. Another of the name, from the tribe of Judah (I Ch 417). A. C. Z. MIRMAH, mir’ma (19°), mirmah, Mirma AV): A Benjamite (I Ch 8 10). MIRROR: This is the rendering of the following Heb. and Gr. terms: (1) mar’aGh (Ex 38 8); (2) r?’% (Job 37 18); (8) gilladyén (Is 3 23); (4) &coxtpov (I Co 13 12; Ja 1 23). In these passages the RV has ‘mirror,’ the AV ‘glass,’ looking-glass. The ancient mirror was made of polished molten metal, usually from an alloy of copper and tin. Later, silver mirrors came into use. ‘They were round, oval, also square, and often provided with decorated handles and backs. The mirrors used by the He- brew women (Ex 38 8) were of brass. In Job 37 18 the firmness and glitter of the molten mirror are in- cluded in the comparison with the sky. The reflec- tion in a metallic mirror was indistinct (I Co 13 12). The verb xatoxtoftety is used in the middle voice (II Co 3 18) and means ‘reflect as in a mirror’ (so ERV, ARVmg.) or ‘behold as in a mirror (the Gos- pel) the glory of Christ’ ARV. The meaning of gil- layon (Is 3 23) is uncertain; the LX -X. renders ‘trans- parent garments.’ See also Guass. CLSHts MISCARRY. The Heb. shdkhal is so rendered in II K 2 19, 21; cf. Hos 9 14. Elsewhere it is often rendered ‘cast the young.’ In both renderings the reference is to untimely birth. In II K 2 19, 21 the idea is that the water was the cause of the ‘land’ (t.e., the people and animals living on the land) suffering from untimely births (cf. Burney, HTK, ad loc.). See also Disnasz AND MEDICINE, § 7. MISGAB, mis’gab (3372, misgdbh): Apparently a town in Moab (Jer 48 1); but the text seems to be corrupt, and probably the original reading was quite different. EK. E.N. MISHAEL, migh’a-el (782, misha’él), ‘who is what God is’: 1. The head of a Kohathite family (Ex 6 22; Lv 10 4). 2. One of Ezra’s assistants (Neh 8 4). 3. The Heb. name of one of Daniel’s companions to whom the Babylonian name Meshach was given (Dn 1 6 f.). MISHAL, mai’shal (78, mish’al, Misheal AV): A town of Asher (Jos 19 26) assigned to the Levites (21 30). Probably the same as the Mashal of I Ch 674. Map lV, B6. MISHAM, mai’sham (99%), mish‘@m): A Ben- jamite (I Ch 8 12). MISHEAL, mish’1-al. See MIsHAt. MISHMA, mish’ma (Y2¥2, mishma&'): i. The ancestral head of an Ishmaelite clan (Gn 25 14; I Ch 1 30). 2. The ancestral head of a clan of Simeon (I Ch 4 25f.). See also Mipsam. MISHMANNAH, mish-man’na (732%), mish- mannah): A Gadite, one of David’s soldiers (I Ch 12 10). MISHRAITES, mish’ro-aits (91, mishra‘z): A postexilic family of Kiriath-jearim, which traced its ancestry to Caleb, son of Hur (I Ch 2 53). MISPAR, mis’par (12992, mispadr, Mizpar AV, called Mispereth in Neh 7 7): One of the leaders of the Return under Zerubbabel (Ezr 2 2). MISREPHOTH-MAIM, miz’’ri-feth - mé/im (O29 MDW, misrephdth mayim): A place appar- ently near Sidon (Jos 11 8), and viewed as marking the boundary of the land of Israel (13 6). Site unknown. MITE. See Money. MITER. See PriesrHoop, § 9 (b), and Dress AND ORNAMENTs, § 8. ) MITHKAH, mith’ka (P09, mithqah, Mithcah AV): One of the stations on the wilderness journey (Nu 383 28 f.). Site unknown. MITHNITE, mith’nait (20), mithnt): The desig- nation of Joshaphat, one of David’s heroes (I Ch 11 43), pointing to Methen or Mathan as the name of his home, altho no such town is mentioned in the OGE; MITHREDATH, mith’n-dath (7192, mithr- dhath), ‘given by Mithra’: 1. The treasurer of the Persian realm who, at the command of Cyrus, delivered to Sheshbazzar the vessels taken by Nebuchadrezzar from the Temple of Jerusalem (Ezr 18). 2. An officer of Artaxerxes (Longimanus) who joined with others in a protest against the re- building of the Temple (Ezr 4 7). MITYLENE, mit’i-li’ni (Mitudrqvn): Mentioned incidentally in Ac 20 14. The most important city of the island of Lesbos, situated on a promontory once itself an island. In the earliest times its people were highly cultured. It was the seat of science, art, and letters, having produced such persons as Pittacus, Alczus, and Sappho. Its climate was soft and salubrious. It possessed two harbors, and strong fortifications. It submitted to Persia in 546 B.c. and joined the [Ionian revolt. It later belonged to the Athenian confederacy, from which it revolted in 428 and was punished by Athens in a way that permanently crippled the island. J.R.S. S.*—J. M. T. MIXED MULTITUDE. See MINGLED PEOPLE. MIZAR, mai’zdr (1Y¥, mits‘ar), ‘littleness’: In Ps 42 6 M. seems to be the name of a hill situated somewhere between Hermon and the upper Jordan, and G. A. Smith (HG HL, p. 477, note) finds reminis- cences of the name in several localities near Banids. It is possible, however, that the word is an appella- tive (EVmg.), in which case, if we drop from the Heb. text one letter (which may have been acciden- tally repeated in copying), we may translate ‘I re- member thee, thou little mountain (t.e., Zion), from . . . the Hermons.’ L. G. L.—L. B. P. 585 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Miriam Moab MIZPAH, miz’pa (1839, mitspah; also, inter- changeably, MIZPEH AV), ‘watch tower’: A term originally applied to places where a watch (garrison) was set up. Hence the name of several towns and regions. The original meaning is clearly preserved in II Ch 20 24 and Is 21 8, which are rendered ‘watch tower’ both in the LXX. and in EVV. Be- _ tween the two forms of the name (in -dh and -eh) it is impossible to distinguish, except that ‘Mizpah’ is everywhere accompanied by the article (except in Hos 51). The places named Mizpah and Mizpeh are: 1. In the Shephelah (Jos 15 38), probably the locality named in Onom. 279, 139, N. of Eleutherop- olis (Map II, D 2), the modern Tell es-Safiyeh, a small village in the midst of cliffs of white limestone. 2. In Benjamin (Jos 18 26), called preeminently ‘the Mizpah.’ This place became the boundary- line between the Northern and Southern Kingdoms, and was fortified by Asa with stones carried from Ramah (I K 15 22; II Ch 166). It served also as the assembly-ground of the Israelites before the separa- tion of the two kingdoms (Jg 201, 3, 211; 1S 7 5, 10 17), was one of Samuel’s stations as judge (I § 7 16), and later the residence of Gedaliah (Jer 40 6 ff.; II K 25 25). After the Exile it was the capital of a district (Neh 3 15), and in the Maccabean age the headquarters of the uprising against the Seleucids (I Mac 3 46). It was situated on the way from Jerusalem to Shechem, and is to be identified with the modern WNebi-Samwil, where a Crusaders’ church is supposed to stand over the tomb of Samuel. Map III, F 5. 3. A land occupied by Hivites in the vicinity of Mt. Hermon, probably westward from the base of the mountain, mentioned in Jos 11 3 in connection with the confederation of the kings de- feated by Joshua near the waters of Merom, placed by Buhl (Geog. Pal. p. 240) at Kala‘at es-Subebeh, on the slopes of Mt. Hermon, 2m. E. of Banias. Map IV, ¥ 4. 4. The Valley of Mizpeh, W. of Hermon, also mentioned in connection with the defeat of the allies, but as a place whither they fled (Jos 118). It was in the same general locality as 3. 5. In Gilead, the residence of Jephthah (Jg 11 29, 34), an ancient sanctuary whose origin is traced back to patriarchal times. According to Gn 31 49, Jacob gave it the name it bears in commemoration of the compact with Laban [JE]; but the sense in which the word is used in this connection is slightly different from that in other places. Instead of an outlook-point, it indicates a place where God is invoked as a watcher (witness). Accordingly, it was a place invested with sacredness, and, on this ground, perhaps, was resorted to in making covenants between clans, such as that of Jephthah with the eastern tribes when they combined against the Ammonites. The location of the spot is fixed by the fact that Jacob on his way to Canaan crossed the Jabbok after the covenant with Laban. This would place Mizpah N. of the river Jabbok. Szf, NW. of Jerash, is supposed by many to be the exact spot, but the identification is not quite certain. Map III, K 3. 6. In Moab, probably the town where David placed his parents under the protection of the king of Moab (IS 22 3). Site unknown. As OnZ, MIZPAR, miz’par. See Mispar. MIZPEH, miz’pe. See Mizpau. MIZRAIM, miz’ra-im (821¥2, mitsrayim): 1. The Heb. name of Egypt, or sometimes, more strictly, of Lower Egypt; see Eaypt, § 1. 2. The second son of Ham (Gn 10 6, 13), the eponym ancestor of the Egyptians. See EraNoGRAPHY AND ErHNoLoey, § 12. J. F. McC.—L. B. P. MIZZAH, miz’a (WY, mizzah): A clan chieftain of Edom (Gn 36 13, 17; I Ch 1 37). MNASON, né’san (Mvécwv): A native of Cyprus and an early Christian disciple (Ac 21 16). Accord- ing to the commonly accepted reading and inter- pretation of the verse, the house of M., in which Paul and his companions lodged, was in Jerusalem. But according to Codex Beze, he lived in a village between Cesarea and Jerusalem, perhaps in Samaria, and here Paul lodged with him on the journey from Cesarea to Jerusalem. J. Mat. MOAB, md’ab: 1. Name. The name ‘Moab’ (O T ARID, mé’abh; Mesha Stone, 282; Assyr. ma’ab, ma’aba, mu’aba) is derived, by one of the popular etymologies so common in the O T, in Gn 19 37 (cf. LXX.) from mé (=min), ‘from,’ and ’abh, ‘father.’ But this can not be the real origin of the word, the etymology of which is no longer known. In the O T the name is pretty generally used of the people rather than of their land, and since the name passed out of use in the Greek period it is likely that it was always understood to be the name of a people, not a geographical term. 2. The Land of Moab. The territory that was occupied by the Moabites was the region imme- diately E. of the Dead Sea. On these fertile, but well-drained uplands, extending N. from the wédis that empty into the low country at the S. end of the Dead Sea to the southern borders of Gilead, and E. to the desert, the Moabites maintained themselves as a distinct people for over one thousand years. Their territory at no time much exceeded 60 m. in length and 30 m. in breadth, or about 1,500 sq. m. in area. Within this small compass was a population of probably at least 500,000 souls in its most flourishing days. Cities were numerous immense flocks of sheep and goats grazed on the rich pastures, grain was raised in abundance, and the people were easily able to live off their land, asking little from the outside world. For a descrip- tion of the topographical features, etc., see PALES- TINE, § 13 (c). 3. The Earliest History. The early history of M. is very obscure. In Israel’s tradition the Moabites were viewed as a kindred people, descended from Lot, the nephew of Abraham (Gn 19 37; Dt 29, 18). M. therefore was one of the group of closely related ‘Hebrew’ peoples (Israel, Edom, Moab, Ammon), all of whom had a common ancestry, and had this also in common, that they pressed in from the desert upon the cultivated land occupied by the Canaanites and altho becoming dominant, each in its own locality, adopted the language and absorbed much of the civilization of the people they conquered. The more ancient predecessors of the Moabites in some portions of their territory were called the Moab Moladah ‘Emim’ and ‘Zuzim’ (Gn 14 5; Dt 2 10), but the racial connections of these peoples are unknown. The representations in Nu (chs. 21 ff.), Dt (2 8 #., etc.), Jg (11 12-28), etc., imply that the Moabites had been well-established in their territory E. of the Dead Sea some time before Israel conquered Canaan, perhaps as long as a century. A short time before the Israelites appeared on the SH. border of M., on their way from Horeb to Canaan, the Moabites had suffered severely at the hands of Sihon, an Amorite king, perhaps from W. of the Jordan, who had con- quered the N. half of Moab’s territory (the portion N. of the Arnon), driving the Moabites out of their chief cities (Heshbon, Medeba, etc.), and founding an Amorite kingdom with his capital at Heshbon (Nu 21 21-30). 4, Moab and Israel in Moses’ Time. The Israelites thus found M. restricted to the S. half of the terri- tory they called their own, the Arnon now forming their N. boundary (Nu 2113). Israel traversed the eastern border of M., unmolested and probably even welcome by the Moabites, who may have hoped to find in the Israelites allies who would assist them in regaining their territory from the Amorites. In this they were doomed to disappointment; for after the Israelites had conquered Sihon they proceeded to take possession of this territory for themselves. This brought about an estrangement on the part of Moab. Tradition preserved notices of various phases of this hostility, such as the attempt of Balak, King of Moab, to secure the aid of the soothsayer Balaam (q.v.) to place Israel under a curse (Nu chs. 22-24), or the attempt to entice Israel away from loyalty to J” by means of the degrading worship of Baal-peor (Nu 25 1-5). There is no record of actual war between the two peoples at this time. -M. as the weaker was compelled to submit to the stronger confedera- tion of Israelitic tribes and to see its choicest pasture- lands and many of its cities taken possession of by the tribes of Reuben and Gad (Nu 32 1-5, 34 #.; Jos 13 15-28). The accounts of this occupation are not entirely clear and harmonious, but the general fact is well substantiated, both by Jg 5 15 ff. and by the Mesha inscription, line 10 (see Musua). It is prob- able that it was mainly the Reubenites who settled in Moab’s old territory, the Gadites locating origi- nally farther to the N. Later, but perhaps not for a century or more, the Gadites seem to have supplanted the Reubenites, the latter having in some way lost their tribal identity. 5. Moab in the Period Between Moses and David. After the main body of Israel had crossed the Jordan and was again broken up into separate tribes, each busy securing possesion of its portion of the W. Jordan land, the Moabites seem to have succeeded in regaining control of their old territory N. of the Arnon and at last, under their king, Eglon, ventured to cross the Jordan and attack the Isra- elites in the region W. of the lower Jordan. For a while this portion of Israel was held in subjection, but at length Eglon was assassinated by the Ben- jamite Ehud, under whose leadership the Moabites were defeated and compelled to retire to their own land. This put an end forever to attempts on the part of M. to occupy any territory W. of the Jordan. A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 586 Somewhat later, in the period of the ‘Judges,’ Jephthah the Gileadite appears to have conquered the Moabites, probably because of their attempt to control the region occupied by the Gadites (Jg 11 12-28, which seems to contain a separate account, from a different source, from that of the rest of the chapter; so recently also Burney, Judges (1918), pp. 298 ff.). In the summary account of Saul’s wars IS 14 47) he is said to have fought successfully against M., but no particulars are given. To this same general period may be assigned the war be- tween M. and Edom which is so obscurely referred to in Gn 36 35. According to the Book of Ruth, a Bethlehemite named Elimelech migrated to Moab in the Judges period. His sons married Moabite women, one of whom, Ruth, is the heroine of the beautiful story of the book and is represented as the ancestress of David. The reasons alleged against the historicity of this tradition do not appear to be - well-founded. 6. Moab Subject to Israel. Altho David was thus remotely akin to the Moabites, and had placed his parents under the protection of the king of M. during his troubles with Saul (I S 22 3), for some unknown reason, after he had become king of all Israel war broke out between him and Moab. In this war David was completely victorious and treated the conquered people with uncommon severity (IIS 8 2). It may be that at this time many Gadite families moved into M., occupying its most desirable cities and pasture-lands (cf. § 4, above). If this is so, it will explain the statement of the Mesha Stone (150 years after David’s time), line 10, ‘And the men of Gad had dwelt in Ataroth from of old,’ and perhaps also lines 17b, 18a, ‘And I took thence the vessels of Yahweh and J dragged them before Chemosh,’ the reference being to vessels at sanctuaries of J’’ estab- lished by David or by the Gadite worshipers of J’’. On this view, also, the confused character of the references Nu 321 ff., 33 #., and Jos 13 8 #., may be explained, the references to the Reubenites preserv- ing the memory of the earlier Reubenite occupation, those to the Gadites relating to the later immigra- tion of Gadites in the time of David. The spirit of the Moabites was humbled, but not broken, and at the accession of Rehoboam (ce. 933 B.c.), they once more became masters of their old territory N. of the Arnon, and freed themselves from the yoke of Israel. They seem to have maintained their independence until the reign of Omri (c. 888- 875 B.c.). This energetic and able monarch re- duced M. once more to subjection to Israel (Mesha Stone, lines 4-8), a condition of vassalage which lasted during the remainder of the reign of his son Ahab. The O T contains no account of this con- quest of M. by Omri, but does state that the annual tribute Mesha was accustomed to pay was the wool of 100,000 lambs and 100,000 rams (II K 3 4), in- cidental evidence of the great wealth of the country in this respect. Mesha was an able, patriotic monarch, and at the death of Ahab, according to the O T (II K 11, 35), revolted from subjection to Israel. The Mesha Stone seems to imply that the revolt took place in the days of Ahab, but as it says merely ‘his [Omri’s] 587 A NEW STANDARD son,’ it is uncertain whether Ahab or his son Je- horam is really intended. At any rate, the O T account of Jehoram’s attempt, aided by Judah and Edom, to bring Mesha once more under the yoke of Israel (II K 3 4-27) shows that the crisis of the con- flict did not come until Jehoram’s reign. Mesha’s story deals with the earlier stages of his revolt and can be read in his own words on the Mesha Stone, lines 1-20 (see Mrsua). His constructive work in developing and organizing his kingdom is partially told in the remainder of the inscription. The war with Jehoram may have occurred after the inscrip- tion was made. Jehoram’s attempt was unsuccess- ful, altho Mesha felt himself reduced to the ex- tremity of sacrificing his eldest son to Chemosh, and it was probably the superstitious awe aroused by this terrible deed that led the Israelites to give up the attempt. Nothing further is known of the history of M. in this period, the notice in II Ch 20 1-30 being of questionable historical value, while that in If K 13 20 simply reflects the general hostility between the two peoplesin that period. A hint of subjection to Syria (Hazael) is contained in II K 10 32 f. 7. Moab in the 8th-6th Centuries B.C. We next hear of M., incidentally, in Am 2 1-3, where, with other nations, it is condemned by the prophet of J” for its unrighteous conduct, in this case for its inhuman treatment of the king of Edom. We know nothing of the event referred to. The nature of this reference in Am seems to imply that M. was at that time (760-750 B.c.) an independent kingdom with its capital at Kerioth. In II K 14 25 the contempo- rary king of Israel, Jeroboam II, is said to have ‘restored the border of Israel from the entrance of Hamath unto the sea of the Arabah’ (7.e., the Dead Sea). This may imply a renewal of Israelitic control of Moab. In Is 15 1-16 12 there is a most interesting oracle regarding M. Very forcibly it depicts the anxiety and terror of M. because of an impending invasion from the N. or E. What this threatened or actual invasion was is uncertain, and the difficulties in the way of a satisfactory exegesis of these two chapters are so great as to forbid any historical inference from them (cf. Gray, ICC, ad loc.). It is quite possible that the conquests of Jeroboam II (c. 785-745 B.c.) E. of the Jordan seriously threat- ened M., but he apparently did not actually over- run the country. M., like the other small states in Syria, was com- pelled to yield to the irresistible encroachment, of Assyria. Salamanu, King of Moab, like Ahaz of Judah, paid tribute to Tiglath-pileser IV in 734 B.c. when that monarch humbled N. Israel and Damascus. Sargon (722-705 B.c.) found M. hostile, but his successor, Sennacherib (705-681 B.c.), speaks of the Moabite king Chemoshnadab as a willing vas- sal (unlike Hezekiah). Sennacherib’s successor, Esarhaddon (681-668 B.c.), received contributions for his building operations from Mutsuri of Moab, and the instinct of self-preservation against the Arabs led the Moabites to the same loyalty to Asshur- banipal (668-626). Thus, M., by recognizing the general supremacy of Assyria, maintained itself in prosperous semi- Moab BIBLE DICTIONARY Moladah independence for upward of a century. It does not seem to have been seriously implicated in the events connected with the downfall of the Assyrian Empire (606 B.c.). While at times it appears to have been inclined to join ina confederacy to resist Nebuchad- rezzar’s authority in Syria (Jer 27 3), its general attitude toward Judah was hostile and therefore probably friendly to Babylon (II K 24 2; Jer 9 26, 48 1-47; Ezk 25 8 ff.; Zeph 2 8 f.). The Moabites re- joiced, as did Edom, in the fall of their long-time rival Judah, altho some of the Jews found refuge in M. during the war with Babylon (Jer 4011). This hostility was never forgotten, and the counter- feeling in Judah manifested itself in legal prescrip- tions, prophecy, and psalms (Dt 23 3; Ps 60 8, 83 6, 108 9; Neh 131, 23; Jer ch. 48, etc.; cf. last reff.). Little is known of M. subsequent to the time of the downfall of Judah. It probably gradually suc- cumbed to the advance of the Arabian tribes, and eventually the territory was occupied by the Na- batzan Arabs. Whatever remained of the ancient Moabites became absorbed in the general population of their conquerors. 8. Religion and Culture of Moabites. The national deity of M. was Chemosh (see Semitic Reticion, § 17). The popular religious conceptions of the Moabites were quite similar to those of the Israelites. Some parts of the Mesha inscription read like parts of the O T (cf. lines 38-5, 8, 12-14, 17-19, 32). But the higher ranges of religious thought which so distinguished Israel were alto- gether foreign to the Moabites. Chemosh remained to the last a mere local, national, nature-deity, whose worship did not exclude that of other deities such as Nebo, Ashtar-chemosh, Baal-Peor (= Chemosh?). The civilization of the Moabites was comparative- ly high. Their cities were numerous and prosperous (see Dison). Twenty-five or more Moabite cities are mentioned in the O T. The people were experts in vine culture (cf. Is 16 8) and sheep-raising. The Mesha inscription is evidence that at least some of the people were able to read and write, using the ancient Canaanite or ‘Phenician’ alphabet, and also for a considerable knowledge of industrial arts (lines 21-27). It is altogether probable that the Moabites were in no important respect (except religion) be- hind Israel in their attainments in civilization. LiveERATURE: Conder, Heth and Moab; Tristram, The Land of Moab (21874); G. A. Smith, in HGHL, pp. 555-573; Buhl, GAP (passim) (1896); all these deal mainly with the geography and archeology. See also G, A. Smith in ZB, Buhl in PRE? (very complete), Bennett in HDB. ; E. E. N. MOABITE STONE, m0’ab-ait. See Mrsua. MOADIAH, md’’e-dai’a. See MAapian. MOAT. See Crry, § 3. MOCK. In Gn 219 our EV gives a wrong inter- pretation. Ishmael was ‘playing with’ but not ‘mocking’ Isaac (cf. RVmg.). 7 MOLADAH, mol’s-da (77712, 712, maladhah), A city near the southern boundary of Judah (Jos 15 26); it was reinhabited after the Exile (Neh 11 26). It is called a city of Simeon (Jos 19 2= Mole Money I Ch 4 28), and is mentioned with Beersheba. Site unknown. Gis ery MOLE. See PAuustine, § 24. MOLECH, md’lek, MOLOCH, md’‘lek. See SEMITIC RELIGION, § 26. MOLID, md’lid (vin molidh): A descendant of Jerahmeel (I Ch 2 29). MOLTEN SEA. See Tremp yp, § 13. MONEY OUTLINE. I. Historica, SKETCH. I. Preexilic Times. 1. Money by Weight. 2. BabylonianStandard. 3. Phenician Standard. 4. Trading Conditions and Money. II. Postexilic Times. 7. Coinage of Alexander. 8. Seleucid and Ptole- maic Coinage. 9. Jewish Coinage. JIT. New Testament Times. 10. Imperial Roman and Local Coinage. II. Corns CrrcuLaTING IN 5. Persian Coinage. New TrestraMEntT TIMES. 6. Phenician Coinage. III. ComparaTIvE VALUES. I. HisroricaAL SKETCH. I. Preexilic Times. Many and diverse objects, such as skins, cattle, corn, tobacco, etc., have served the purposes of money as a medium of exchange and a standard or measure of value. Simple barter with- out reference to media of exchange generally existed in early times, and is still practised in remote parts of the world. However, even before the conquest of Canaan by the Hebrews, the Canaanites were al- ready advanced in this respect, for they were using money in the form of precious metals, altho no doubt outside of the larger towns and ports barter was to be met. In buying the field of Machpelah, Abraham weighed out to Ephron 400 shekels of silver, ‘current with the merchant’ (Gn 23 16). The word shekel (shdqal, ‘to weigh’), it should be noted, was a weight, and not until much later a coin, as was also true of the English pound. 1. Money by Weight. Gold being rarely used, silver became the common form of money so that the word used for money was keseph (silver), as in Gn 17 13, where silver is the price of a slave. The only references in the O T to shekels of gold, with one exception (I Ch 21 25), are to the weights of certain objects, spoons, rings, etc., altho one of these mentioned below may have been used as a form of money. That silver was a measure of value is seen in the case of fines for offenses (Ex chs. 21 and 22), contributions to the Tabernacle (Ex 30 i3), and payments to the seer (IS 9 8), all of which were regulated by weight. It would seem from the references to the use of gold and silver in commercial transactions that the precious metals were actually weighed only when large sums changed hands. For ordinary payments the metals were in ingot form, cut into familiar sizes or rather weights, and easily recognized. Indeed only in large transactions did abrasion or loss of weight from other causes demand that the balance be used (Is 466). A direct reference to portions of ingots may probably be seen in I § 9 8, where Saul’s servant reports that he happens to have a fourth part of a shekel of silver, and in the use of the word gesitah, translated ‘piece’ in the O T, when Job’s friends gave him each a piece of money (Job 42 11), and Jacob bought a parcel of A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 588 land for 100 pieces (Gn 33 19). Probably the tongue or wedge of gold mentioned in Jos 7 21 and in Is 13 12 was also an ingot.! The O T is indefinite in its frequent mention of pieces of silver, but it is prob- ably right in many of these to recognize ingots of a shekel-weight of silver (or Silverlings, Is 7 23), as without doubt it is in the case of the 30 pieces of silver in Zech 11 12, 13 and Mt 26 15. 2. Babylonian Standard. Rings of gold were the common form of money in Egypt, and reference to rings of certain weights in Gn 24 22 may reflect, the influence of that country as it was in close com- munication with Canaan. Nevertheless it was Baby- lonia which gave the cultural background to Western Asia. From this age-old country and civilization, Abraham had journeyed about 2,0008B.c., and in his time the Babylonian weight system prevailed in Canaan. This weighing out of silver by Abraham was no isolated case, for in the cuneiform letters found at Tel el-Amarna (Egypt) and written about 1380 B.c. by Syrian governors to Amenhotep IV and his father, more than 100 years before the con- quest of Canaan by Israel, mention is made of the weighing of gold and silver on the Babylonian standard. This system continued to prevail in Syria and Asia Minor, but at some later period, certainly by the time of the issue of the first Phenician coins, and probably very much earlier, the weight standard of Tyre and Sidon, cities which dominated the trade of Palestine, was in use there for silver. The Babylonian standard, however, was retained for gold. Both systems contained two standards, a light and a heavy, the latter double the weight of the former.? The light Babylonian mant (Heb. maneh, Gr. wva, Lat.mina, and so Eng. mina) weighed 7,580 grains, the heavy 15,160 grains. The light Babylonian shekel, being 1/9 of a mani, weighed 126 grains, the heavy 252 grains. These weights applied to both gold and silver. The light gold shekel which was in general use was thus in weight between an English sovereign (123 gr.) and a U.S.A. five-dollar gold piece (129 gr.). The value of gold to silver over a very long period stood at 1314 to 1, an awkward ratio for commercial transactions. The silver shekel was therefore altered in weight to make a whole number of them the equivalent in value of the gold shekel. This was done by raising the weight of the silver shekel from 126 to 168 gr., so that 10 silver shekels then equaled 1 gold shekel (168X10=126X1314). The influence of the decimal system met by the Babylonian trader as he traveled westward was also seen in the altera- tion of the mina? from 60 shekels (on the Baby- lonian sexagesimal system) to 50, making 3,000 to the talent instead of 3,600 (Ek 38 24-26). This was for the weighing of the precious metals only, the ~ 1In the mound of Gezer and ‘in a stratum approximately contemporary with Joshua were found two gold ingots,’ one of which ‘might well be described as a tongue.’ 2 A royal norm existed with a slightly higher scale employed in payments to the Royal Treasury. It is doubtful if this occurs in the Bible unless in II § 14 26, 8 Sixty minas equaled 1 talent. The references in the O T to talents and to mdneh or mina (Ezk 45 12) are to weights. The same is true of the pound (I K 10 17, etc. AV), which in the Hebrew is mdneh, 589 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Mole Money sss - : ae ‘ z older system being retained for ordinary merchan- dise. In all this it must be remembered that these shekels were not coins but pieces of metal of approxi- mately the weights mentioned. At what time the change from the silver shekel (weight) of Babylonia weighing 168 gr. to the heavy Phenician one of 224 gr. took place is uncertain, but it may well have been early in the history of the Hebrews in Canaan. The heavy Babylonian shekel of 252 gr.4 continued to be used by the Hebrews for weighing gold until N T times, altho large sums were expressed in talents. The mina is seldom mentioned in the Bible, the sum usualy being given in shekels. In fact this usage was so common that the word shekel itself was fre- quently omitted (Gn 37 28; Jg 17 2, 3, 4, etc.). 3. Phenician Standard. The Phenician standard referred to above was a modification of the Baby- _lonian, for the Phenician silver shekel weighed only two-thirds of the Babylonian (168 gr. and 336 gr.), or 112 gr. for the light and 224 gr. for the heavy. Hence 15 Phenician silver shekels equaled 10 Baby- lonian shekels of silver or 1 of gold. It was on this Phenician heavy standard (224 gr.) that the so called Shekel of the Sanctuary, or Sacred Shekel, was calculated. At first 1t was paid by weight, later the shekel® and half-shekel coins were struck on this basis, and right down through the Ist cent. a.p. Phenician money was used for the Temple tribute. 4. Trading Conditions and Money. Many of the complex functions of money familiar now were ab- sent during preexilic times, altho behind Palestine lay the ancient commercial experience of Babylonia with its great eastern and western trade, its systems of banking and mortgage, and its safe deposits. We read of Tyrian traders having their quarters at Jerusalem (Neh 13 16), and of Ahab desiring trading quarters in Damascus (I K 20 34), but Palestine was in the main an agricultural country. Loans at ‘usury’ (=interest) are mentioned. Nevetheless, these are not to be interpreted until N T times (Mt 25 27, etc.) as capital lent for trading purposes, but merely loans to the distressed. Exceptionally, and notably in the reign of Solomon, there is evi- dence of a lively foreign trade and an abundance of the precious metals, This coincided with the success of the Phenicians who had controlled the Cilician silver mines and similarly gained control of those in Spain, thus rendering silver abundant. Perhaps it would be true to say that until a considerable time after the return from the Captivity, the payments of large sums recorded in the O T are rather the high lights of the picture. The next step in the development of money was the use of the precious metals stamped officially by the issuing authority to guarantee their weight and purity. This is the stage of the coin, of which, how- ever, there is no evidence in Palestine until after the return from the Exile. IT. Postexilic Times. 5. Persian Coinage. After their return from Babylon (536 B.c.), the Jews found 4 This heavy gold shekel equalled $10 or £2 1s., the mina, $500 or £102 1s., and the talent $30,000 or £6,150. The light gold weights were worth half of these amounts. 5 Value 67c. U.S. or 23 9d Engl. The Phenician or Jewish silver mina (heavy) =$33.25 or £6 16s 8d, and the talent $1,995 or £410. " many strangers in occupation of their land, and the returning exiles must have formed a lean colony, with but a poor trade and a small foreign commerce. In the busy ports Greek coins probably circulated, for the Lydians and Aiginetans are credited with having coined money early in the 7th cent. B.c. The Phenicians in their wide trading enterprises must have been familiar with this currency, but there is no evidence that the Hebrews used it before the exile. The first coins to circulate generally in Palestine were almost certainly Persian. Palestine Darics (Gold Coins of Darius Hystaspes). formed part of a satrapy of the Persian Empire, and we know that Darius Hystaspes (521-485 B.c.) issued great numbers of gold and silver coins. The former, called darics (of 130 gr.), were slightly heavier than a five-dollar gold piece, and bore the type of the Persian king as an archer; but this appearance of a ‘graven image’ did not apparently deter its being used by the Jews. In the RV the word ‘daric’ is substituted for the AV dram in I Ch 29 7; Ezr 2 69, 8 27, and Neh 7 70-72. The Hebrew is ‘dark*monim,’ but the events referred to in these passages were prior to the issue of the actual daric, and the original word may have referred to a weight. The sole right of issue, as an attribute of govern- ment, was retained by the kings of Persia only in the case of gold coins, hence thefreedomof Tyreand Sidon to coin silver. Silver coins called sigloi, or shekels (of 8614 gr.),® 20 of which equaled the gold daric, were also issued by Darius Hystaspes, and were about the size of the U.S. silver quarter dollar or an English shilling. The 40 shekels mentioned in Neh 5 i3 may therefore have been either Persian sigloi (8614 gr.) or Phenician shekels (224 gr.), 6. Phenician Coinage. Tyre issued early in the 5th cent. B.c., and more especially after the fall of Athens, shekels or staters as they were sometimes called, on the Phenician basis of 224 gr. or 15 to the Babylonian gold shekel of 252 gr. (15X224= 13144252). These early Tyrian silver shekels,? influenced by Athens and Egypt, bore the design of an owl with an Egyptian crook and flail, and on the obverse a dolphin or the god Melgqarth riding a sea-horse, etc. The double and half-shekels of Sidon bore the device of a galley and on the reverse a king of Persia driving a chariot or on foot slaying a lion. These Tyrian silver shekels. are the Phenician coins which were used for payment of the Shekel of the Sanctuary (Lv 27 25, etc.).8 The Talmud repeatedly states that all payments based on the Shekel of the Sanctuary are to be made in the $ Many of these weighed but 84 gr., and therefore equaled in weight half a Babylonian shekel (168 gr.). 7 The earliest Phenician shekels were thick and heavy. Later they were of normal thickness and about the size of a U. S. silver half dollar or an English florin. 8 The offering was finally fixed at a half-shekel (Ex 30 % P [later strand]), increased from the earlier rate of one third of a shekel fixed in Nehemiah’s time (Neh 10 #%), Money A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 590 Phenician currency (cf. A. R. S. Kennedy in E7, Vol, XXIV, p. 538 ff. and HE, J. Pilcher in PEHFQ (1915), pp. 186 ff. vi (. { . J) Rat AYN Ye) Deh \ oy aN att My aay Nees Ih Vy ene | > ZOD A yl 1S Tyrian Shekel or Tetradrachm (the offering for two males). (To illustrate the Shekel of the Sanctuary.) It has been claimed that Artaxerxes (458 B.c.) commissioned Ezra (Ezr 7 16-18) to coin silver and gold, but there are no surviving coins to substantiate this claim. 7. Coinage of Alexander. Palestine remained a subprovince of Persia until the conquest of that empire by Alexander the Great (332-323 B.c.). This great military genius brought not only peace and a united empire, but in their wake, trade and a single currency, the last a great lubricator of commerce. He issued gold staters on the Attic standard (of 133 gr.), which are found to-day as far N. as Lithuania and as far E. as India. It will thus be seen that the Babylonian light gold shekel, the Per- Gold Stater of Alexander the Great. sian daric and the stater of Alexander were approxi- mately the same weight. Silver tetradrachms (266 gr.)® were also struck under his authority at the local mints of Joppa, Acre, etc. The staters bore the head of Athena helmeted and on the reverse Winged Victory holding a mast and spar, with the inscription Alexandrou Basileos. The tetradrachms bore various designs, but the most common were the head of young Heracles in a lion’s skin and on the reverse Olympian Zeus seated on his throne holding an eagle, with the legend Alexandrou. 8. Seleucid and Ptolemaic Coinage. After his death and the rise of the Seleucid dynasty with its seat at Antioch, Palestine became a bone of con- tention between the Seleucids on the one hand and the Ptolemies of Egypt on the other. The Seleucids coined the tetradrachm (266 gr.) and drachma (66% gr.) on the Alexandrian standard, and at first their coins bore the same devices, the inscription being amended to Seleukou Basileos. The Ptolemaic cur- rency struck at Alexandria altho at first repeating Alexander’s designs was based on the Phenician weight standard (224 gr.), which naturally led to 9 Practically the same as the Attic tetradrachm (four drachmas), . its use by the Jews. Both the Seleucid and Ptolemaic issues are said to have borne the earliest portraits of deified kings, and if the stricter Jews were reluc- tant to handle them, more than a century and a half was to elapse before they could dictate what designs should and should not appear on their currency. Under the Seleucids of Syria, Tyre and Sidon con- tinued to issue silver shekels and thus to add to the variety of the currency in Palestine.}° 9. Jewish Coinage. The Seleucid king Antiochus Epiphanes (176-164 B.c.), fearing the defection of Jerusalem to the Ptolemaic king, attacked and despoiled it. When he went further and tried to Bronze Coin of Alexander Jannzus, showing Princely Inscrip- tion in Greek and Hebrew Script. Heb. 9071 JNU, Jehonathan Hammelekh,‘Jonathan the King.’ Gr. AAc§Eavdeou BactAewc, ‘Of Alexander the King.’ suppress Judaism and to foist Hellenism upon the Jews, which had already gained ground since the time of Alexander, he roused national opposition which culminated in the Maccabean rebellion. Be- gun for religious freedom, it was continued for political autonomy. Led by members of the Macca- bean family, a successful resistance was maintained against the successive Syrian kings until Antiochus VII (139 B.c.) granted Simon, the High Priest, the right ‘to coin money for thy country with thine own stamp’ (I Mac 15 6). It is therefore under the Maccabees that the first Jewish national coin with Hebrew legends and Hebrew religious symbols appeared. Bronze half and quarter shekels dated (possibly) between 141 and 135 B.c.)were struck by Simon Maccabeus,! and smaller pieces under his son John Hyreanus (135-104 s.c.). See illustrations in art. ALPHABET, §§ 1 and 2. The former bore various devices, including a citron, two bundles of twigs (carried at the Feast of Tabernacles), a palm tree with two baskets of fruit, a chalice (of manna in the Sanctuary? Ex 16 33), etc. They also bore the legend “The Redemption of Zion’ and the year of the High Priest’s rule. By some authorities cer- tain silver shekels and half-shekels bearing the de- vice of a chalice and on the reverse a triple lily (?) with the inscription ‘Shekel of Israel,’ ‘Jerusalem the Holy,’ are attributed to Simon Maccabeus, but by others to the First Revolt (66-70 a.p.). It will thus be seen that the Jews had guarded against the suspicion of idolatry by avoiding the representation of animals and human beings common on Greek coins of the period, and had substituted designs connected with their national worship. However, the wave of Hellenism would not be denied. The High Priestly family of the Maccabees aspired to princely rights 10 From 126 s.c. Tyre, freed from Seleucid rule, issued tetra- drachms (or shekels) with the device of the Tyrian Heracles (Melgarth) and lion-skin and on the reverse an eagle with foot on ship’s prow and palm branch over shoulder. These and the didrachmas (half-shekels) were popular with the Jews for payment of the Temple offering. 11 By some authorities these are attributed to the First Revolt. 591 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Money and position against the sentiment of the Jewish people, and eventually Alexander Janneus (103- 76 B.c.) claimed to be king and brazened it in Greek on his earlier coins. The sacred Hebrew language gave way, at least on the obverse of the coins, to pagan script, and the symbols of the Jewish Temple worship and fatherland to devices of a wholly pagan character. III. New Testament Times. The coinage of the N T period consisted mainly of the Imperial Roman currency of gold and silver and the bronze issues of local rulers. 10. Imperial Roman and Local Coinage. The Maccabean, or Asmonean, dynasty which had given the Jews a national currency, and from which the ‘Herods were descended, closed with Antigonus (37 B.C.), in whose time Judea became a Roman prov- ince. In fact the Roman denarius (penny AV, Denarius of Tiberius Cesar (probably type Pharisees tempted Christ with). shilling RV) was legal tender at Jerusalem as early as 53 B.c. Herod I (87-4 8.c.), the Idumean, married the niece of Antigonus, and ruled over Judea as feudatory. vassal of Rome. He was followed by his sons Herod Archelaus, the ethnarch of Judea, Samaria and Idumea (4 B.c.-6 a.D.), whom Joseph feared, and Herod Antipas, the tetrarch of Galilee and Perea (4 B.c.-39 a.D.), before whom Christ was arraigned. ‘The currency of all these rulers was exclusively of copper, and the legends on the Herodian coins were wholly in Greek, and the de- signs pagan. Herod Philip II (4 8.c.-34 a.p.), men- tioned in Lk 3 1, went further and issued bronze coins bearing the head of. Tiberius Cesar, a grave breach of the Mosaic Law. A coin exists which was struck by Herod Agrippa (37-44 a.p.) bearing the inscription ‘King Agrippa the great lover of Caesar,’ which recalls the term used by the Jews to Pilate, ‘Thou art not Cesar’s friend.’ Herod Agrippa II, before whom Paul was brought at Cesarea, issued coins with effigies of many Roman Emperors during his long reign from 48-100 a.p. Bronze Coin of Pontius Pilate. From 6-58 a.p. Judea was treated differently from the other provinces, being ruled directly by Roman officials—Procurators—of whom there were no less than 14 during this period. These procurators, in contrast with the Herodian princes, showed respect for the feelings of the conquered, as is illustrated by a coin of Pontius Pilate (26-36 Aa.p.), on which the device in no way offended Jewish religious senti- ments. None of the foregoing rulers had authority to issue gold or silver coins. These were directly under the Imperial authority, and it was the Im- perial currency which generally prevailed, except for the Temple purposes. It consisted of (1) the denarius, a silver coin a trifle larger than a U.S. dime, or about the size of an English sixpence, and passing in trade as a Greek drachma, but slightly heavier; and (2) the aureus (120-126 gr.), closely approximating the other gold coins hitherto circu- lating in Palestine, and worth 25 denarii. A few Imperial bronze coins issued by the Antioch mint may have found their way south. During Apostolic times the Jews once more issued their own currency. This occurred during their revolt against the Romans from 66-70 a.p., when the High Priest and Sanhedrin struck silver and copper coins. The copper coins bore the device on one side of an amphora with the year, and on the other a vine leaf with tendril and the words ‘Deliverance of Zion.’ The silver shekels and half-shekels, which as we have seen are attributed by some to Simon Maccabeus, bore a chalice with the words ‘Shekel of Israel’ and the year, and on the reverse a triple lily (?) with the legend ‘Jerusalem the Holy.’ This shekel was approximately the weight of the Phe- nician shekel, or actually 220 gr., and the half-shekel 110 gr., and in size equaled respectively a US. nickel, 5-cent piece, and a dime In the year 70 a.p. Jerusalem was besieged and taken, the Temple destroyed and ‘not one stone left upon another.’ Vespasian the conqueror issued coins to commemorate the destruction of Jewish hopes, with scenes of their pathetic fate and the legend ‘Judea capta.’ II. List or Corns CrrcuLatTiInG In N T Trmss. Penny. Perhaps the commonest coin during this time was the denarius (Shilling RV), an Imperial silver coin mistranslated in AV as ‘penny,’ or penny- worth (Mt 20 2, etc., 22 19; Mk 6 37; Lk 10 35, etc.). It was really the equivalent of the modern French franc (at par), or about 1914 cents and wasthetribute payable by the Jews to their conquerors. Most probably it was a denarius struck under Tiberius Cesar and bearing the Emperor’s head, with which the Pharisees sought to trap Christ. It is this coin which is probably intended in Ac 19 19. In Mt 18 24, 28, the contrast between the 100 pence and the 10,000 talents is greater than seems. The Roman- Attic talent}® was no longer a weight, but consisted of 6,000 denarii or drachmas, therefore the value of 10,000 talents of silver was 60 million denarit against 100 (pence) or denarii. Farthing. This is the translation of the Gr. word assarion (Mt 10 29; Lk 12 6), originally a Roman bronze coin weighing nearly a pound, but gradually reduced to the size of an Eng. halfpenny and adopted by the Greeks. In these instances it was probably a Greco-Roman coin issued in Syria. The value of 122 One of these denarii bears the inscription TI(berius) CAESAR DIVI AUG(usti) F(ilius) AUGUSTUS, or ‘Tiberius Caesar Augustus, son of the god Augustus.’ On the reverse it reads PONTIF(ex) MAXIM(us), ‘Chief Priest.’ (See illus.) 18 This talent=$1,158 or £240. Money Moses A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 592 the assarion was 11/; cents, or three-fifths of a penny, and sixteen equaled 1 denarius. A one as piece (assarion) and a 4 as piece (ses- fertius) equal to one quarter denarius were issued by the Imperial mint at Antioch. The word farthing is used also in the AV and RV to translate the Gr. word kodrantes, which was really the smallest Roman coin called a quadrans and equal to one quarter of an assarion, or about three-tenths of a cent or three-twentieths of a penny. Mite. This, of which two went to the kodrantes (Mk 12 42, etc.), is a translation of the Gr. word lepton, the smallest Gr. coin, of which 7 went to the Bronze Coin (of Alexander Jannzus), probably the > Mite of the New Testament. chalcus, a word used by Mk (see below). Asa foreign coin could not be used for a Temple offering it is probable that the smallest copper coins of the Maccabees with their Hebrew symbols and inscrip- tions were dropped into the box by the widow. The mite equaled about three-twentieths of a cent, or three fortieths of a penny. Pound. This word in the N T is a weight, but in Lk 19 13, etc., the original reads mina (Gr. wva). This is the Roman-Attic mina consisting of 100 denarii, and equal to $19.25 or £4. Shekel. The tetradrachm (4 drachmas) or shekel (RV Mt 17 27) was equal to about 4 denarii, and at this time was accurately named by the Evangelist a stater. Imperial coins of this value were issued from the mint at Antioch, and were of about the same weight as the old Phenician shekel (220- 224 gr.). For the Temple offerings the former would have had to be changed for the latter or current Tyrian shekels. These Tyrian shekels are believed to be intended by the 30 pieces of silver in Mt 26 15, etc, 27 3, and in Zech 11 12, 13 Half-Shekel. The didrachma (2 drachmas), or half-shekel, was the sacred tribute money volun- tarily offered by the Jews for the support of the Temple. It approximated the half-shekel of the old Temple tribute (Ex 30 13; Mt 17 24, RV). As the didrachma was a very rare coin, if not obsolete by this time, it had become the custom, as is illustrated by our Lord and by Peter, for two to pay the offering together, using a shekel. Since foreign coins with their referencestotheconqueror and their pagan symbols were not allowed to defile the Temple, it was necessary to resort to the money-changers in making offerings to the Temple. Drachma. This is only once mentioned in the N T, in the case of the loss of 10 pieces of silver by the woman of the Parable (Lk 15 8). Greek coins found their way into Palestine, but more frequently the drachmas were Imperial coins struck at Antioch. They passed for denarii in trade, but were at a discount in paying the Imperial tribute. The Roman gold coin Aureus (120-126 gr.= 25 denarii) must have been familiar to the Jews, and perhaps is referred to in such passages as Mt 10 9. There are various indeterminate references to silver (money) in the N T, which may be to denariz, drachmas, Phenician or Syrian shekels, or tetra- drachms, of early or current issues (Mt 10 9, 28 12-15), etc. In Mk 6 8 and 12 41 the AV uses the word money in translating the Greek word referred to above chalcus, which was the name of a copper coin equal to 7 lepta, or about three-fourths of a cent. The same word is translated brass in Mt 109. Summing up, the chief silver coins in circulation during N T times were the Roman denarius, Im- perial drachmas, and tetradrachms of Antioch, to- gether with shekels both early and contemporary of Tyre and Sidon. Probably a few Ptolemaic and Seleucid shekels survived. The copper currency consisted mainly of the issues of the Roman procurators and the Herods. Small copper coins of the Maccabees were in demand for the Temple offerings, and a few Greek and Roman coppers from the outside may have found their way into circulation. Gold receives little mention, but there may still have circulated with the Roman aureus some few of Alexander’s staters and even Persian darics. III. CoMpARATIVE VALUES. The value of moneys in the Bible is not easy to translate into their equivalents to-day, not merely because of the change in the relative value of the precious metals, but because of the differences in real purchasing power. Perhaps an illustration will give an instructive comparison. The agricultural day-laborer’s wage in the N T is one penny (Mt 20 2-i1), 7.e., a denarius the equivalent of a French franc (at par), and this is the very same rate of pay demanded of and paid by excavators in Greece and Crete before the Great War. LireraTuRE: F. W. Madden, Coins of the Jews (1881); Brit. Mus. Cat. Gr. Coins of Palestine (G. F. Hill, 1910) Brit. Mus. Cat. Gr. Coins of Phenicia (G. F. Hill, 1916); B. V. Head, Historia Numorum (1911); T. Reinach, Jewish Coins (1903), trans. by Mrs. Hill; HDB ITI, art.‘on ‘‘Money”’ by A. R. 8. Kennedy. Ciuc soe MONEY CHANGER. MERCE, § 3. MONSTER: The rendering of the Heb. tannin, a word meaning literally ‘the “Taree fish of the sea’ (sea-monsters,’ Gn 1 21, etc., ‘whales’ AV), and also used of serpents (Ex 79 f., etc.). The same term served to designate the mythological monster, or ‘dragon’ AV), that played such a part in the Babylo- nian creation myths (Ps 74 13; Is 51 9; ef. Jer 51 34, see Cosmoagony, § 4). As such, it was frequently used by the prophets, perhaps contemptuously, for Egypt (Is 271; Ezk 29 3, 32 2). See also Spa-Mon- sTER; and DRaGon. E. EL N. MONTHS. See Timp, § 3. MONUMENT: The rendering of (1) yddh, ‘hand’ (LS 15 12, ‘place’ AV), probably a sign for purposes of recognition of the place later on. In II S,18 18 the same word signifies something more imposing, but the object is still that of recognition as it is in (2) tsiyytn, ‘sign’ (II K 23 17, ‘title’ AV). (8) n*tstirim See TRADE AND Com- 593 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Money Moses (apparently from ndtsar, ‘to guard’ or ‘keep’) ‘secret places’ RV, ‘vaults’ RVmg. (Is 65 4, ‘monu- ment’ AV). Here the word is a synonym of sepulcher or tomb. The passage, however, is obscure. Some form of the worship of the dead, or necromancy, may be referred to. In the general sense of a simple memorial the word does not appear in Biblical usage. A. C. Z. MOON: The rendering of the Heb. ydréah (from a root meaning ‘to wander’ [?]), and Itbhandh (‘white,’ or ‘pale’). The new moon was hddhesh (‘new’), and the full moon kese’ (‘covered,’ [?]). To the early Semites, the ancestors of Israel, dwell- ing in the desert, the moon must have seemed of almost equal importance with the sun. Traveling was done largely by night. The moon’s phases were great natural phenomena, by which time could be measured. The moon and the tides were seen to have some connection, a fact observed very early by the Arabs living near the coast and engaged in commerce. The moon thus came to hold a promi- nent place in all thought and speculation concerning the heavenly bodies, their influence upon the earth and in the affairs of men, and especially in the astral religion of the Semites, which was so highly de- veloped in Babylonia. For illustration of the estima- tion of the moon see Gn 1 16 f.; Dt 4 19, 33 14; Job 31 26; Ps 81 3 RV, 104 19, 121 6, 186 9. See also Astronomy, § 2; and Semiric Re.iaion, § 32. (Cf. Nielsen, Aliarabische Mondreligion (1904). E.E.N. MOON, NEW. See Fasts anp Frasts, § 2. MOON, SMITING BY THE. Perhaps the refer- ence in Ps 121 6 is to the fear of injury from the moon which often leads Orientals to carry umbrellas as a protection against such injury, altho they do not seem to know what evil they thus seek to avert (so G. E. Post, in Ist ed. of this work.). E.E.N. MORASHTITE, mo-ras’thait (MY, morashii, Morashthite AV): The designation of the prophet Micah (Mic 1 1), indicating that he belonged to Moresheth-gath (1 14). MORDECAI, mGr’di-kai. See Estrumr, § 5 f. MOREH, mé’n (772, modreh), ‘soothsayer,’ or ‘director’ (ef. tdrah, ‘direction’): 1. The ‘Holy Tree’ Oak, RV (‘terebinth’ ARVmg., ‘plain’ AV) or ‘Holy Trees,’ Oaks, RV, of Moreh (Gn 12 6; Dt 11 30). The place indicated seems to have been a sacred tree, or grove, in the plain E. of Shechem, whose priests gave oracular information and advice. It is probably the same as ‘the augurs’ oak’ (Jg 9 37 ARVmg.), and possibly is also the ‘oak’ of Gn 35 4 and Jos 24 26. 2. The Hill of Moreh (Jg 7 1) is apparently Jebel ed-Dahi (‘Little Hermon’), on the opposite side of the Valley of Jezreel from Gilboa and the spring of Harod (cf. Jg 6 33 with 7 1). L. G. L.—L. B. P. MORESHETH - GATH, mér’ esh -eth-gath” (na NWD, modresheth gath): The birthplace of the prophet Micah (Mic 1 14). It lay (according to Eusebius and Jerome) a little E. of Eleutheropolis (Map II, D 2). Not the same as Mareshah (ver.15). MORIAH, mo-rai’a (72379, mdriyyah): The knoll or hillock on which, according to tradition, Abraham offered up Isaac in sacrifice. But the name is used simply as a general designation of the region (Gn 22 2). See also JERUSALEM, § 18. MORNING. See Time, § 1. MORTAR, MORTER. (1) The rendering of two Heb. terms, hémer and ‘aphdr, the former a common word for cement or clay, the latter usually meaning ‘soil,’ dust,’ etc., but in Ly 14 42, 45 it means mud plaster. See Arrizan Lirs, § 4. (2) ‘Mortar’ also renders medhdkhah (fr. dakh ‘to pound’) (Nu 118) and makhtésh (fr. kathash, also ‘to pound fine’) (Pr 27 22), both terms meaning a house-utensil, a heavy bowl in which spices ete. are pulverized by a pestle (q. v.). MORTGAGE. See TrapE anp ComMERcE, § 3. MOSERAH, md’si-ra (77910, mdsérah): One of the stations of the wilderness journey, mentioned in the fragment of an itinerary found in Dt 10 6f. as the place where Aaron died, probably the same as Moseroth in the itinerary of Nu (33 30 f.), and near Mt. Hor. The exact location is unknown. Cf. Driver, [CC on Dt in loc. HK. E.N. MOSEROTH, m0’si-reth. See Mospran. MOSES. 1. Name. The Heb. form of ‘Moses’ (1Y2, mdsheh) is derived in Ex 210 apparently from the Heb. root mdshah, ‘to draw out.’ But from the earliest times, assuming its Egyptian origin, another etymology has been sought for it. Josephus (Ant. II, 96) makes it from md, ‘water’ (Egyptian), and ushe, ‘saved’ (cf. also Philo, Vit. Moys. 1 4). This was commonly accepted, until Lepsius and Ebers suggested another, which, in spite of the objections raised by Cheyne (ZB s.v.), is to be preferred. It identifies the name with the Egyptian mes, or messu, ‘child,’ or ‘son’ (Brugsch. Wérterb., p. 698, extractus [ex utero]), often found in Egyptian proper names in combination with some Divine appellation (Ahmes, Thotmes, Ra-messu, etc., 2.e., divinely born; cf. Gr. Diogenes). 2. Historicity. The personality of Moses is thoroughly identified with the Exodus and the making of Israel as a nation. The understanding of the people’s life is very much embarrassed by the denial of the historicity, either of his person or of the event of the Exodus. Both, however, are known to later ages through the documentary sources J E D P, which have been interwoven into one story, and this, for the practical purpose of securing an adequate idea of Moses, it is unnecessary to unravel (cf., in general, Hexarreucn). Neither is it necessary, nor even possible, to separate the idealizing element infused into the account by a grateful and admiring people. On the one hand, it is quite possible to exaggerate this element by comparison with misleading ana- logs (Solon and Lycurgus). On the other hand, one may fall into error by denying it altogether. For a just estimate of the character and work of the hero, it is necessary to take into account not only what he appears to be in the outward events of history, but also what he became in the beliefs of his people. This latter element in the picture offers a fairer test of his power than might a dry, annalistic enumera- tion of his traits and deeds. Moses Moses, Assumption of A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 594 3. Birth and Preservation. Moses was born near the capital city of Egypt (Memphis?) of Hebrew parents, Amram and Jochebed, just at the time when the oppression of the Hebrews by the Egyp- tians had reached its severest form. His father was a Levite and had two other children, Aaron and Miriam. According to the Law, which prescribed the death of every male Israelitic child, he was to be put to death as soon as born (Ex 1 22). But he was saved from this fate by a clever plan of his mother! in the carrying out of which he passed under the care of Pharaoh’s daughter. According to some ancient writers (Artapanus, quoted by Eus. Prep. Ev. IX, 27, and Philo, Vit. Moys. 1 4), this princess, named Merris (but Jos. Ant. II, 9 5 says Thermuthis, @eou.o08ts, and some rabbis, Bithiah [I Ch 4 18)]), was married, but childless, and saw in the helpless Hebrew infant the fulfilment of her yearnings and prayers. Adoption was common in Egypt (cf. Brugsch, Gesch. Aeg., 884 f.). 4, Early Life and Education. The childhood? and youth of Moses were spent. in the palace of the princess. He was instructed ‘in all the wisdom of the Egyptians.’ Manetho says (ap. Jos. Cont. Ap. I, 26 9, 28 12) Moses served as a priest of Osiris at Heliopolis under the name of Osarsif. Tradition represents him as a young man of exceptionally attractive appearance and manly strength. Accord- ing to Philo (Vit. Moys. 1 5), the princess did not reveal to him his true relationship to her. But from Ex 2 11 it is clear that he was not ignorant of his Hebrew descent. In fact, his sympathy for the suf- ferings of his brethren, breaking out in an impetuous deed of bloodshed, compelled his flight from the land. According to later Alexandrian Jewish writers, known to and used by Josephus, he early showed signs of military genius. Taking command of the Egyptian army, he repulsed the Ethiopians from the very gates of Memphis, drove them back to their own capital Suba (later Merde), and captured that city by the aid of the princess Sharbin, who fell in love with him, and accompanied him back to Egypt (Ant. II, 10). 5. Moses in Midian. Revelation of Yahweh. The next period of his life was passed in Midian. This period, like the preceding, is said to have covered forty years [P]. In the land of Midian Moses found refuge with Jethro (also called ‘Reuel, the priest,’ Ex 2 18). Entering into the house of this leader through a marriage with his daughter Zipporah, he was given the superintendence of his flocks. In the course of his duties in connection with Jethro’s flocks, Moses received the Divine commission to be- come the ruler and deliverer of his oppressed breth- ren. The message came to him through the experi- ence of the burning bush (q.v.) at Mount Sinai. At the same time, he received a revelation of God as Jehovah (Yahweh), the God of the Covenant 1 Jos. Ant. I, 9 3 gives the story that Jochebed was moved to this by a supernatural revelation of the future mission of the child. 2 The analogous tales of wonderful preservation of persons destined to become great (Semiramis [Diod., 2: 4], Perseus [Apollod., II, 4:1], Cryus [Herod., 1:113], Romulus [Livy, 1:4]) do not affect the credibility of this account. The only case that could have served as a model is that of Sargon I (cf. Maspero, Gesch. d. Morgenl. Vélker, p. 194). (Pledge), which was to transcend the former knowl- edge of God as the God of power (Hl Shaddai). The name is certainly more ancient than the date of ‘Moses, as it constituted a component part of his mother’s name. And underlying its specific sense, which associates it with the Covenant, it includes the fundamental notion of self-existence and self- consistency, thus leading up to the higher idea of a God who keeps faith with His people. There are traces of the recognition of J’’ by the Kenites and other tribes in the Sinaitic peninsula (cf. Budde, Rel. of. Isr. to the Exile, 1898, pp. 1-38). But at the burning bush the expansion and transformation of this knowledge constituted a new era in the history of the name (see ISRAEL, RELIGION oF, §$§ 3-8). 6. The Commission of Moses. The commission of Moses was one calculated to stagger the bravest man. Neither did he fail to realize its difficulty. He shrank from it, feeling his weakness, especially in the art of persuasive speech. ‘To overcome this difficulty he was directed to take his brother Aaron into his confidence and use him as his spokesman (prophet). His task at once resolved itself into the two stages, first of leading the people to accept him as leader, and then inducing Pharaoh to let them go out of Egypt (Ex ch. 4). As far as the people were concerned, their hardships led them to give ear, tho cautiously and slowly, to his declaration that the hour for deliverance was come. It was otherwise with the king who ruled over them. Naturally he would not permit a race of hard workers to slip out of the land, where monuments of astounding magni- tude and difficulty had been erected in the past by the use of the accumulated muscular force of many human beings. 7. The Plagues. The efforts of the deliverer were now directed to the work of producing on the Egyp- tian king the impression that the will of the God of the Hebrews could not be withstood. This task was not easily accomplished. It required ten manifesta- tions of the Divine power called ‘plagues’ (Ex 7 20- 12 36; see PLacuss), in all of which there appeared a common attack upon the gods of the Egyptians and a common design to show the great power of J’’ as against the impotence of the native deities. These plagues also proved effective in inspiring courage and fortitude among the Hebrews themselves, stemming the often rising tide of disaffection among them and preventing them from falling back into a condition of hopelessness when their request for freedom was denied by Pharaoh (Ex 5 20f.). The repeated shocks thus inflicted on the king had their effect. By the tenth plague he found himself overawed and de- feated, and gave the Hebrews over into the hands of Moses, who forthwith led them through a way least to be expected, toward the wilderness of Midian. 8. Organization in the Wilderness. But if the task of getting Israel from under the yoke was a difficult one, that which confronted Moses on the Asiatic side of the Red Sea was much harder. To marshal the clans into some sort of community of action required the gifts of a general and legislator. How Moses proved himself equal to the occasion is told in the fourfold story of the Pentateuch. His first experience was in a conflict with Amalek (Ex A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Moses ey Moses, Assumption of 17 8-16). Next came the covenant at Sinai (Ex 19 2- 24 16), with the Decalog as its special ethical center. How necessary Moses’ personal presence among the people had become is made clear by the incident of the golden calf (see Car, GoLpEN), showing that even Aaron was not fully dominated by the new light on the religion of J’’ (Ex chs. 32-34). Just before the Israelite tribes left Sinai, Jethro joined them, and, acting upon his suggestion, Moses established a form of government for the people. It was simple enough, and there is no reason to think that it was unsuited to the circumstances. But with all its simplicity it must have been more or less of an ideal not easy to enforce (Ex ch. 18; Nu chs. 11, 16, 17). 9. Training of Israel. From Sinai Moses led Israel to the borders of the promised land. The only incident recorded of this portion of his life is the. affair of Miriam and Aaron, who claimed the same prophetic gifts and, therefore, equal authority with him. Their claim was the germ of anarchy. Division of authority at this time would inevitably have led to disorganization. Hence the severe penalty inflicted on Miriam, which, however, Moses removed by his Magnanimous intercession (Nu 1213). On the eve of the attack on Canaan, Moses sent a deputation to inspect the land and the people. The report brought back by the majority was discouraging (see Sprus). Discontent arose, so that the people were not ready for the task of entering and possessing the land. It became evident that a new generation must be raised and trained in the wilderness, and thus hardened and prepared for the work. The story of the years following is simple. It is summed up in the picture of a great leader confronted by a people unaccustomed to the freedom of self-government, and fretting at the hardships they were called on to endure. The incident of Dathan and Abiram (see DarHan), the Reubenites, who together with Korah the Levite rebelled against Moses, is perhaps one of several such uprisings. As against these, it is clear that Moses must have in every case vindicated and strengthened his authority. 10. Death of Moses. As the discipline of the wilderness was coming to its close, the end of the mission of Moses came with it. Moses made an effort to reach the promised land through Edom, but as this proved futile, because of the refusal of the king to let them pass through his land, Moses led Israel to the east side, reaching the frontiers of Moab. Here the men of the tribes of Gad and Reuben and a large number of Manasseh asked leave to stay (Nu ch. 32), and were given this permission, on condition, however, that they should first assist their brethren of the other tribes in conquering the country beyond the Jordan. The final scene in the great leader’s life came when he received the sum- mons to go up into Mount Nebo (in Abarim, q.v.; see also Nego), and there, after viewing the land of promise in its entire length and breadth, he died satisfied upon the heights of Pisgah. He was buried ‘in the valley, in the land of Moab over against Beth- peor, but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day’ (Dt 34 5f.). 11. Character and Greatness. Naturally tradition seized upon this element of mystery and wove super- natural legends out of it (cf. Assumption of Mos.; Jude ver. 9). It was natural, too, that, standing as he does at the very beginning of the united life of Israel, and furnishing for that life fundamental principles, he should be made the center and, later, the author of a great number of literary productions. How much or how little he wrote is not known. Ps 90 (a ‘Prayer of Moses’) and the contents of the Pentateuch have been ascribed to his pen. It is a tribute to his greatness that this should have been done. But, his distinctive characteristic, shining above all intellectual qualities, was his realization that only through obedience to spiritual and moral laws, the laws of the only true God, Yahweh, could the new people accomplish a national task and achieve a world-destiny. He was the first of the great prophets. ‘He brought J’ to Israel and Israel to J.’ See also Isrart, RELIGION oF, §§ 3-8. LITERATURE: Kittel, Hist. of the Hebrews (Eng. transl. 1895), I, pp. 192-262; Cornill, Hist. of Israel (Eng. transl. 1898); W. Robertson Smith, The O T in the Jewish Church (21892), pp. 202-323; G. Rawlinson, Moses (in Men of the Bible Serzes); Baker-Greene, Migration of the Hebrews. CirZ. MOSES, ASSUMPTION OF: 1. Apocalyptic Writing in Moses’ Name. An apocryphal book, based upon the account of the death of Moses (Dt 34 5 f.). Here it is said that Jehovah ‘buried him, . - . but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day.’ Evidently upon the ground of this statement, legendary representations arose of the great leader’s passing into heaven in an exceptional manner. Early Christian writers allude to at least four books that might have contained elaborations of this legend. These are The Apocalypse of Moses, The Assumption of Moses, The Ascension of Moses (Orig. de Prine. 3, 2, 1), and the Testament of Moses (Stichom. Niceph.). But these may be only dif- ferent names of one or two books. 2. Rediscovery of the Assumption. In any case, it is probable that there were at least two works bearing on the subject, which have been fused into the one now extant, under the single title, Assumption of Moses. This pseudepigraph was brought to light in modern times, first in Latin, in 1861 by Ceriani (Monum. Sacr. et Profan., fase. I, pp. 55-64), and has since been edited, with an introduction and notes and with an English transla- tion, by Professor Charles (1897). 3. Contents. The work begins with an exhorta- tion by Moses, addressed to Joshua to preserve his writings (ch. 1). This is followed by the prediction that Israel would forsake J’’ and be divided into two nations (ch. 2), but should awake to the enor- mity of her crime and repent (ch. 3); the two tribes should be restored, and the ten preserved among the Gentiles (ch. 4); they should repeatedly fall away (ch. 5), should be oppressed by Herod (ch. 6), and fall under the dominion of wicked leaders (ch. 7); ‘the Romans should subjugate them (ch. 8), but a great, Levite, Taxo!, should appear to restore a better condition of things among them (ch. 9). For 1This is a cryptogram made by gematria from Eleazar cuybsx=pioom, by taking in each case the letter preceding in the Heb. alphabet. But the final Pp is evidently lost by textual corruption. Most High Muppim A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 596 this deliverance a song of hope is inserted at this point (ch. 10). Joshua, to whom this revelation is made by Moses, laments and refuses to be com- forted (ch. 11), but is exhorted by Moses to take up his work of conquering and destroying the Gentiles (ch, 12). At this point the book comes to an abrupt end. 4. Identification. In the ancient patristic allusions to the Assumption of Moses, the words of Jude ver. 9 are said to be quoted from this book; but, as they do not appear in the extant text, it must be inferred either that there was a confusion of names or that the part of the book from which the quotation was made has been lost (Schtirer), or that our work is a Testament of Moses, with portions of the original Assumption incorporated into it (Charles). 5. Original Language. The Latin text is a transla- tion from a Greek original, and this again is believed by many to have been rendered from a Hebrew or Aramaic original (cf. Hilgenfeld’s attempted restora- tion into Greek in Messias Judeorum, 1869, pp. 435-468). Cf. Charles, Apoc. and Pseudepig. of the O T (1913). A. C. Z. MOST HIGH. The rendering of the Heb. ‘elydn which was frequently used of God, sometimes with él, ‘God,’ prefixed (as in Gn 14 18, etc.), but more often without. It may well be that it was taken over by Israel from Canaanite usage (cf. Skinner on Gn 1418 in ICC). See Gop, § 1. MOTE (xée90¢): As used in Mt 7 3f., Lk 6 41f., the Gr. means a ‘dried twig,’ or ‘splinter,’ in con- trast with ‘beam.’ The original meaning of the English word ‘mote’ is similar (cf. G. B. King in Harv. Th. Rev., Oct. 1924). 7 Rd MOTH. Sce PAtestine, § 26. MOTHER. See Famity anp Famixty Law, § 5. MOUND (sél‘lah, what is ‘raised up’): A heap of earth, timber, etc. (Jer 6 6, 32 24, 33 4; Ezk 4 2, etc., ‘mount’ AV), designed to facilitate a siege. See also BESIEGE. MOUNT, MOUNTAIN (11, har, de0s), ‘mount’ or ‘mountain range,’ ‘mountainous region,’ as distin- guished from the lowland: The RV has, more uniformly than AV, ‘hill-country,’ for‘ mountainous region,’ and uses ‘mountain’ more correctly than AV, which often has ‘hill’ for an isolated high ele- vation. ‘The more correct use of ‘mount’ is for specific mountains, as Sinai (Ex 19 11, 18; Nu 31, etc.), Hor (Nu 20 22, etc.), Hermon (Dt 3 8; Jos 11 17, etc.), Carmel (I K 1819, etc.), Zion (Is 45, 1012, etc.), and others. ‘Mountain,’ in sing. and pl., is used for high elevations in general. In Ps 68 15 f. [16 f£.], ‘mountain of Bashan’ is the mountain range of the Jebel Hauran; with this meaning it is more often translated ‘hill-country.’ ‘Mountain’ is often used in parallelisms with ‘hill,’ and in contrast with ‘val- ley.’ See Hitt, Hitu-Country. Various references to mountain are of interest. ‘Mountain (AV hill) of God’ (Ps 68 15 [16]) means a majestic mountain; cf. the simile in Ps 366 [7]. ‘M. of God’ in Ex 4 27, 18 5, etc., refers to Horeb (Sinai). ‘Mount of congrega- tion’ (Is 1413) is the dwelling-place of the gods in the far North. The mountains first appeared at crea- tion (Ps 104 6 f.), are one of God’s chief works (Ps 65 6 [7], 90 2), Am 413, they feel God’s displeasure (Is 42 15; Ps 104 32; Jg 5 5; Mic 1 4; Is 5 25, etc.); are called to witness God’s dealings with His people (Mic 6 2; Ezk 361, etc.). They leap in praise of J’ (Ps 114 4,6). Mountains are hiding-places (Jg 6 2; Ps 111), abodes of animals (I Ch 12 8; Song 4 8); in them sheep go astray (Nah 3 18; I K 22 17; Jer 50 6); good places for grazing (Ps 50 10; Job 39 8). Among the many figurative uses are Israel’s overcoming its foes (Is 41 15); overwhelming calamities (Jer 13 16); stability, though not as unchanging as God’s love (Is 54 10). In Dn 2 35, 45 the Aramaic “39, tur, ‘mountain,’ is used. In Is 29 3 mutstsdbh is ‘siege- works’ as in RV, and in Jer 6 6, 32 24, 33 4; Ezk 4 2, 17 17, 21 22, 26 8; Dn 11 15 sélelah is a ‘mount’ or ‘mound’ (as in ARV) thrown up in besieging a city. C.S. T. MOURNING AND MOURNING CUSTOMS: 1. The Mourning Garment. Upon news of the death of a relative or an important personage, people rent their garments (II S 111) and put on the mourning garment of sackcloth, sag (II S 3 31, 2110). As to what this garment was opinions differ. Some (Kamp- hausen and others) think it was very much like a corn-sack, open at both ends; others think that it was originally nothing more than a loin-cloth, which in prehistoric times was the customary and, in fact, the only article of clothing worn by Israel’s ancestors. Consequently, in later times it was worn only as a religious duty, 7.e., on extraordinary occasions, in mourning festivals, processions, etc. Even the late book The Ascension of Isaiah (2 10) speaks of the loin-cloth as a mourning-garment. Since old modes of dress, as they pass out of use, easily take upon themselves, from their very antiquity, a holy character, it is not surprizing that the prophets chose the sag as a piece of clothing. It is also probable that as time passed and civilization de- veloped, the dimensions of the sag were enlarged (cf. Schwally, ZATW, XI, 174 f.). 2. Dust or Ashes on the Head. As a sign of grief it was the custom to sprinkle ashes on the head, as the Arabs do to-day (II S 1 2; cf. Mic 110). It is probable that originally the ashes were those of the articles burned with the body (II Ch 16 14, 21 19), or dust from the grave (see W. R. Smith, Relig. of the Semites, p. 418 f.). 3. Cuttings in the Flesh. In Jer 166, Dt 141f., Lv 19 27 £. the practise of making cuttings in the flesh is presupposed as common. The prohibition of this custom was not due to the feeling that it in- volved a disfigurement of the body created by God, but to the conviction that it was a cultus-usage irreconcilable with the religion of J’’ (cf. I K 18 28). Evidently, the purposes was by means of blood to propitiate the spirits of the dead, and to persuade them to enter into fellowship, to a certain degree, with the living. 4. Shaving the Head or Beard. In like manner, the prohibition of the kindred custom of shaving the head or beard (Lv 19 27; Dt 141 #.) dealt with an old cultus-usage dating from a time when the worship of the dead was common in Israel. It was, in reality, an offering of hair brought to the dead— a practise in vogue also among the Egyptians, Arabs, Greeks, and other peoples. Wellhausen sug- 597 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Most High Muppim LL eh gests that probably the original meaning of the custom was that thereby the offerer confessed him- self to be dedicated to the deity. The covering of the head in times of grief (cf. II S 15 30; Jer 14 3; Est 6 12) Schwally compares with Elijah’s reverent covering of his head when God appeared to him (I K 19 13). The custom would thus be due to a feeling of awe and reverence in the presence of the dead, as was probably the custom of removing the sandals (cf. Ex 3 5 with Is 20 2£.; IIS 15 30). Whether the covering of the beard (Ezk 24 17; Jer 14 3; II S 15 30) is to be understood as due to a weakening of the earlier custom of cutting off the beard (so Benzinger) seems doubtful. In view of the fact that spirits of the dead were also feared as powers that could work injury to man, it is not improbable that a number of the above-mentioned customs, including that of covering the beard, were - due to an effort to render oneself inoffensive and thus protect oneself against harm. 5. Lamentations. Such mourning customs were usually accompanied by loud cries of sorrow. The relatives cried ‘Ho! Ho!’ and with loud lamentations preceded the body to the grave, often accompanied by professional female (at times male) mourners (Jer 9 16 f.; Am 5 16), musicians or minstrels (Mt 9 23, ‘flute-players’ RV), who chanted the mourning-song (gingh), or played mourning-tunes which had a peculiar rhythm and were always sung in a monot- onous strain. The same custom is observed to-day in the neighborhood of Damascus, in the Hauran, and elsewhere. There is direct reference to the lament over the dead in Zec 12 10 f., which can not be understood as meaning simple natural outbreak of sorrow, but must refer to the established cultus- usages of which each family had its peculiar forms. 6. The Meal for the Dead and Offerings to the Dead. The period of fasting was closed (or, in case it extended over several days, interrupted) by a feast for the dead (Hos 9 4; II S 3 35; Jer 167 £.; Eizk 24 17, 22). Besides such a feast, there were also offerings to the dead. In fact, the feast probably was an outgrowth of the custom of presenting offer- ings to the dead. The requirement in Dt 26 14, that when one brings his tithes he shall affirm that he has not ‘given thereof for the dead,’ can have reference only to offerings to, or meals in honor of, the dead. The latter had also a cultus significance, inasmuch as such food was considered unclean (Hos 9 4). Survivals of such a practise are met with in much later times. Tobias (To 4 17) is enjoined to lay food only on the tombs of the just, and not to give any such honor to sinners, while the son of Sirach ridicules this custom when he asks: ‘What profit is an offering to a shade? Good things poured out upon a mouth that is closed are the offerings of meat laid upon a grave’ (Sir 30 18 f.). The burning of spices, of which we find mention in late references (Jer 34 5; II Ch 16 14, 21 19) should also be viewed as a form of offering to the dead. It is, of course, to be understood that no claim is made that in later times there was any clear knowledge of the original nature of these mourning customs. As with many other customs, even more so with these, the practise survived long after the root from which it sprang had withered away. See Burtan anp BuriAu Customs; L. B. Paton, Spiritism and the Cult of the Dead in Antiquity (1921), ch. x. W. N.—L. B. P. MOUSE, MICE. See Patesrine, § 24. MOUTH: This term translates the following Heb. and Gr. words: (1) gdrdn, ‘throat’ (Ps 149 6, ‘throat’ RV). (2) hékh, ‘palate’ (Job 12 1, 20 13, ‘palate’ RV; Pr 5 3). (8) ‘ddhi, ‘ornament’ (Ps 32 9, ‘trap- pings’ RV; 103 5, ‘desire’ RV). (4) peh, ‘mouth’ (Gn 411; Ex 4 11; Job 31). (5) pum, Aram. ‘mouth’ (Dn 4 31, etc.). (6) pdnim, ‘face’ (Pr 15 14) (7) tera‘, ‘gate’ (Dn 3 26, ‘door’ RVmg.). (8) Adyos, ‘word’ (Ac 15 27, ‘word of mouth’ RV). (9) otéya, ‘mouth’ (Mt 4 4; Lk 1 64). Most of these terms have besides their literal usage, also a figurative one in which ‘mouth’ is often equivalent to ‘words,’ ‘speech,’ ‘judgment,’ ‘wisdom,’ and, in general, the character of a person as put into articulate expres- sion. Ayes MOVING THINGS: The rendering of sherets (Gn 1 20) and remes (Gn 9 3 AV). In Gn 1 20, however, this phrase is changed in RY to ‘living creatures.’ The difference between the two Heb. synonyms is that the first (sherets) conveys the idea of swarming and the second (remes) that of gliding or creeping. A. C. Z. MOW, MOWER, MOWING. See, in general, under Reaping, AcricutrurE, § 6. In Am 7 1 ‘king’s mowings’ has reference to a special cut- ting and gathering of grass for the king’s cattle. K. E. N. MOZA, m6’za (S¥15, médisa’): 1. A son of Caleb by his concubine Ephah (I Ch 2 46). 2. A descen- dant of Saul (I Ch 8 36f., 9 42 f.). CaS. bee MOZAH, md’/za ($2, mdtsdh): A city of Ben- jamin (Jos 18 26). Map II, E 1. (Site uncertain.) MUFFLERS. See Dress AND ORNAMENTS, § 8. MULBERRY-TREE. See Patusring, §§ 21 and 23. MULE (7178, peredh; fem. 1118, pirdah, properly, the term mule means the offspring of a he-ass and a mare, but the Heb. term probably includes that of the stallion and she-ass): An animal much used in the East, both in ancient and modern times. Mules, known in Egypt and Assyria long before, were intro- duced into Israel by David, whose riding animal was a mule (I K 1 33; cf. 11S 13 29, 189). From David’s time on they seem to have been quite common, and their importation was an important item in the commerce of the day (I K 10 25; cf. Ezk 27 14). They were used for riding and also as pack-beasts of burden (cf. II K 517). On Gn 36 24 and Est 8 10, 14, cf. RV. HK. E. N. MUNITION: The term renders the Heb. m*tsadh, métsodhah (Is 33 16), elsewhere (Is 29 7) rendered in RV ‘stronghold,’ and m*stiradh in AV, but RV ‘bulwark’ (Nah 2 1). Ay Gt Zi. MUPPIM, mop’pim (882, muppim): The an- cestral head of one of the clans of Benjamin, and the clan itself (Gn 46 21; called Shephupham[n], in Nu 26 39, Shupham AV and I Ch 85, and Shup- pim in I Ch 7 12, etc.). Murder Music A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 598 MURDER. See Crimes AND PUNISHMENTS, § 2. MURMUR, MURMURING: With one or two ex- ceptions all the instances in which these terms occur in the Bible have reference either to the frequent complainings of the Israelites against Moses in the Wilderness (Ex 15 24, 16 8, 17 3; Nu 14 2, etc.) or to the fault-finding of the Jewish religious leaders with Jesus (Lk 5 30; Jn 6 41, etc.). anything technical or peculiar in the expressions used. EH. E. N. MURRAIN. The Heb. debher, only once (Ex 9 3) rendered ‘murrain’ is the usual term for ‘pestilence.’ Also only here and Ps 78 50 is it used of the cattle plague. See DisnHaAsre AND Mepicinp, § 4 (2); and PLAGUES. MUSHI, mii’shai (U2, miasht: The ancestral head of one of the subdivisions of the Merarite Le- vites, the Mushites (Ex 6 19; Nu 3 20, 26 58; I Ch 6 19, etc.). MUSIC AND MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS: 1. Hebrew Music in General. Music in some form is almost universal among all peoples, from the savage or primitive grade upward, its primary application being as a social diversion, but usually with exten- sions in connection with magic and religious cere- mony, often with the aid of instruments of much ingenuity. It is, therefore, natural that musical customs and implements should have been well known to the ancient Hebrews. Yet, altho the O T refers often to singing and dancing, and names nearly twenty instruments, the whole subject remains ob- scure, since pictorial delineations are lacking, as well as helpful allusions to practical methods. Conjecture as to the facts must constantly take refuge in the use of analogies from adjacent countries (Egypt, Baby- lonia, and Assyria), or from usages now found among the Arabs. 2. Summary of Principal References. Without attempting an exhaustive summary of the references, four classes of the applications of music may at once be distinguished. (a) Singing, dancing and playing on instruments are frequent features of social jubila- tion, as in connection with the stories of Jacob (Gn 31 27), Miriam (Ex 15), Israel at Sinai (Ex 32 6, 18), Jephthah (Jg 11 34), David (IS 18 6-7), among the profane and riotous (Job 21 12; Ee 2 8, 7 5; Is 5 12; Am 5 23, 6 5), in general (Jer 31 4; Ezk 38 32), in contrast with times of despair (Is 24 8; Job 30 31; Pr 25 20; La 5 14-15), and at Babylon (Is 14 11) and Tyre (Is 23 16; Ezk 26 13, 28 13). The instruments mentioned are the drum, two kinds of pipe and two with strings. In one case drums and stringed instruments are named, apparently for war use (Is 30 32). In the list of the Cainites, Jubal is set down as the progenitor of instrumentalists (Gn 4 21). Social music, then, was evidently common and customary. (b) Music as a help to prophetic ecstasy is but lightly touched, but in a way that implies familiarity (II K 315; Ps 49 4). Akin to this was the use of music to relieve Saul’s depression (I S 16 16-23). (c) Music in a distinetly religious use appears with the story of David’s transfer of the Ark to Jerusalem (II S 6 5, 15). In the early histories Temple usages are implied in I K 1012, as in pas- In no case is there sages in the prophets (Am 8 3, 10; Is 80 29; Ezk 40 44). The later histories magnify the matter, tracing the founding of the system to David, mentioning in- stances of use under Solomon, Asa, Jehoshaphat, Jehoiada, Hezekiah, Josiah and after the Return, giving lists of singers, etc. (I Ch 6 31-47, 9 33, 13 8, 15 16-29, 16 4-6, 41-42, 25 1-31; IL Ch 5 12-14, 7 6, 9 11, 15 14, 20 21-22, 28, 23 13, 29 25-28, 30 21, 34 12, 35 15; Ezr 2 41, 65, 70, 3 10-11, 77, 24, 10 24; Neh 71, 44, 67, 73, 10 28, 39, 11 22-23, 12 27-43, 46-47, 18 5, 10; with a note ona Temple procession in Ps 68 24-25). The distribu- tion of the references leaves some question as to the amount of music in the First Temple, but they clearly imply its prominence in the Second, after the Exile had given knowledge of Babylonian customs. To these are to be added the many passages where instruments are mentioned in the Pss (33 2-3, 43 4, 47 5, 57 8, 71 22, 81 2-3, 92 3, 98 5-6, 108 2, 137 2-4, 1449, 1477, 149 3, 150 3-5), besides frequent allusions to the custom of song. The instruments oftenest named are drums, cymbals, two kinds of trumpets and at least two varieties of stringed instruments. (d) The use of trumpets for signaling, usually in war, but also in civil and religious observances, is fre- quently indicated, both as a fact (in the stories of Saul, Absalom, Solomon, etc.), as a ceremonial rule (as in Lv 25), and as a figure for prophetic utterance (as in Am, Hos, Jer, Ezk, etc.). A very peculiar reference is incorporated into the story of Nebuchad- regzar’s image (Dn 3 5, 7, 10, 15), on which see under (5) in the following section. 3. Instruments. The instruments designated be- long to certain groups that are everywhere found— those struck or shaken (percussive or pulsatile), those blown with the breath (flatile) and those with strings that are twanged by the fingers or by means ofa plectrum. The Hebrews are not known to have had any stringed instrument sounded by means of the friction of a bow (altho the AV and the RV employ the term ‘viol’ four and three times re- spectively). The subject has been greatly confused by the terms used by successive versions, the editors and translators either misinterpreting the Hebrew or else using musical terms without care. (1) The percussives or pulsatiles number four or five. The tabret or timbrel, t0ph, was probably a small, bowl-shaped drum or possibly some sort of tambourine. Most of the 17 references are con- nected with merry-making (as Gn 31 27; Jg 11 34; Is,5 12; Jer 31 4) and the ‘rest religious, in the hands of prophets (I 8 10 5) or of worshipers (as Ps 68 25, 150 4). It rarely occurs with the cymbals or trumpets, but is common with other instruments, doubtless as marking the rhythm. The cymbals, tseltstlim, m*tsiltayim, were either hollowed metal cups held in the hands or little plates fastened to the fingers (castanets). The 10 or more references are all in religious use and all but one (II § 6 5) in late books (as I Ch 16 5; Neh 12 27; Ps 150—in the last with intimation of noisy effect). In I Ch 15 19 they are said to be of brass. These, too, were time-and rhythm-markers. A pulsatile instrument, m*na‘an‘tm (AV, cornet, RV, castanets), appearing only in the story of the upbringing of the Ark (II S 6 5), was probably the Egyptian sistrum (a loop-shaped metal 599 A NEW STANDARD frame with loose, jingling rods run through it). Bells, or jingles, m*tsilldth, in the trappings of horses, are once named (Zec 14 20). (2) The flatiles include representatives of both the flute (or oboe) and the trumpet classes. The pipe, Aalil (and perhaps the instrument [?] desig- nated by the pl. term n*hiloth, Ps 5, superscription), was either a direct flute (flageolet) or possibly an oboe, doubtless made of cane or wood. Of 5 refer- ences, one shows use by the prophet-gild (I 8 10 5) and the rest are social (as Is 5 12). Another pipe, ‘“igabh (organ AV), is supposed to be some form of Pan’s-pipe or syrinx (a graduated set of tubes of cane). It appears always with the kinndr (see be- low). Except for one case that may be generic for wind-instruments (under Jubal, Gn 4 21), the refer- ences are poetic (Job 21 12, 30 31; Ps 150 4). A third pipe, negebh (Ezk 28 13), is doubtful, the term per- haps meaning some form of jewelry. The ram’s- horn, geren, is but rarely mentioned (Jos 6 5; I Ch 25 5; Dn 3), but was probably common as a rude implement for signals and noisy demonstrations. The curved trumpet, shéphdr, was probably de- rived from the geren, tho often made of wood. The nearly 40 references all concern the giving of signals, except a few in religious connections (II S 6 15; I Ch 15 28; II Ch 15 14; Ps 47 5, 81 3, 98 6, 150 3). The straight trumpet, hdtsdts¢rah, is more likely to have been of metal. This is clearly named over 15 times, mostly of signaling, but in later times almost wholly in the Temple ritual (as I Ch 16 6, 42; II Ch 29 26-28; Ezr 3 10, etc.). Apparently it became the characteristic instrument of the priests. (3) The stringed instruments are decidedly promi- nent, but their exact form is uncertain. The com- monest is the kinnér (harp, AV and RV), which is usually supposed to have been a lyre rather than a harp and therefore analogous to the Arab kissar. The over 35 references imply its constant employ- ment for both secular and sacred purposes. It is usually associated with the nebhel, but also with one of the trumpets, with the cymbals and the drum. The nebhel (psaltery, AV and RV), was probably not a psaltery (a variety of zither), but either a triangular harp, perhaps resembling the Greek ftrigon (as Jerome believed) or, still better, some form of lute and analogous to the common Egyptian nefer. In about 25 references it is usually associated with the kinnér, which perhaps implies that they were complementary rather than related (like lyre and lute). Monumental evidence (in Egypt) indicates that the Hebrews used the lyre, but whether this was called kinnér or nebhel is not clear. (4) Collective terms for instruments also occur, especially ‘implements of song’ or some similar phrase (Am 6 5; Neh 12 36; I Ch 15 16, 16 42, 23 5; II Ch 513, 7 6, 23 13, 29 26, 27, 30 21, 3412). Stringed instruments are supposed to be meant by n‘ghinah (Is 38 20; Job 309; La 3 14, 5 14; Ps 69 12, 77 6, and in the plural form n%ghinoth, in the captions of Pss 4, 6, 54, 55, 61, 67 and 76, with the colophon to Hab 3), and by minnim (Ps 45 8, 150 4); and similarly pipes by nehiloth (caption of Ps 5). In three cases (Ps 33 2, 144 9, 92 3) the word ‘ds6r, ‘ten,’ occurs, Murder BIBLE Music DICTIONARY in the first two with nebhel. This has been rendered ‘of ten strings,’ which, if correct, militates against making the nebhel a lute. In three cases (I Ch 15 21 and the captions to Pss 6 and 12) the word sheminith, ‘eighth,’ occurs, in the first with kinnér. This has often been said to mean singing or playing in ‘octaves’ or ‘eighths,’ which is far-fetched in the extreme (since it involves the notion of an 8-tone scale); it is much more likely to refer to the number of strings. In I Ch 15 20 and the captions of Pss 46 and 49 (in the last by a shift of text from the end of 48) the word ‘dlaméth, ‘maidens,’ appears, in the first with nebhel. This perhaps refers to some soprano effect. The word gittith (captions of Pss 8, 81, and 84) may signify some sort of instrument. The elucidation of all these terms, as of others be- low, is at best very uncertain, as the text may be corrupt or the reference be to facts or usages now unknown. (5) The terms used in the story of Nebuchadrez- zar’s image (Dn 3 5, 7, 10, 15) are so peculiar as to require special comment. The first, garnd’, is the emphatic form of geren, horn; the second, mashro- githd’, is probably some kind of pipe or flute; the third, githrés or githGrds, is plainly the Greek x(@aetc, lyre; the fourth, sabbekha’, is the Greek capGuxn, a triangular harp (probably of Oriental origin); the fifth, p*santérin, is perhaps the Greek aArietoy, another harp, or, better, the Persian santir, a dul- cimer; and the sixth, simpdn*yah, is evidently the Greek ouyzgwvla, probably a form of bagpipes. The rendering in both of the EVV, ‘cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, dulcimer,’ needs rectification, especially in the last three terms, since ‘sackbut’ (an old English form of trombone) is strikingly inapt, and ‘dulcimer’ is either misplaced or wholly wrong. The occurrence of loan-words from the Greek in this passage is naturally regarded as in- dicating the late date of the whole book. The term mahdlath, in the superscription of Pss 53 and 88, is of unknown derivation and meaning. 4. Musicians as a Class. It is likely that among the Hebrews, as among other peoples of antiquity, musicians as a class were somewhat definitely recog- nized. ‘Singing men and singing women’ are named as helpers at festivities (II S 19 35; cf. Ec 2 8) and perhaps as professional mourners (Ec 12 5; Mt 9 23). In later periods, if not earlier, the Temple had a notable body of singers and players, both men and women, set apart from among the Levitical class. The Chronicler makes frequent reference to these, but they are also mentioned by other writers (as II K 1213; Am 8 3, 10; Ezk 40 44), especially at the close of the Exile (as Ezr 2; Neh 7, 12, ete.). Their institution is attributed to David, under the advice of Gad and Nathan (II Ch 29 25, etc.), and they are said to have been divided into Kohathites, Asa- phites and Merarites (I Ch 6 31-48). In another place the supervisor is stated to have been Chenaniah and the leaders Asaph, Heman, and Ethan, or Jeduthun (I Ch 15 16-24). In the Temple their station was east of the brazen altar (II Ch 5 12); they also served on occasion with the army (II Ch 20 21-22, 28). At the Return the number of the Asaphites is given as 128 or 148 (Ezr 2 41; Neh 7 44) and the total as 200 or Music Myth 245 (Ezr 2 65; Neh 7 67), with Jezrahiah as super- visor in Nehemiah’s time (Neh 12 42). Provision was then made for their free maintenance, as for the priests and other Levites (Ezr 7 24; Neh 11 23, 12 47, 13 5, 10-13). All this detail certainly has value as indicating their importance in the postexilic time. 5. Actual Effects. As to the actual styles and forms of music used, we have little but inference and con- jecture to guide us. We suppose that vocal effects were emphasized, instruments being used only for accompaniment and contrast. Analogy suggests that song was almost wholly in unison, tending to be loud and harsh, sometimes strongly rhythmic, but often cast in the form of free recitative or cantillation, the melodic outline being based on modes or scales un- like those of our modern European music and em- bellished with manifold tonal decorations, as in Oriental singing generally. The structural parallel- ism of Hebrew poetry seems to imply more or less use of antiphony or responsion in musical declama- tion. It is a mooted question whether or not the traditional cantillation of modern synagogs sheds any light upon ancient usages. It is unlikely that it does, since this synagog music seems to have been progressively influenced by its local surroundings; in any case, there is insuperable difficulty in identi- fying what little may remain in it of ancient material. The vociferous praise that was apparently charac- teristic of Hebrew worship after the Exile is to be emphasized not so much for what it may have been artistically as for the general example that it estab- lished for the application of musical art in Christian public worship. 6. Musical Titles and Directions. In the Psalter occur several expressions (besides those already cited) whose meaning is obscure, but which are supposed to be musical or at least liturgical. In the captions of about fifteen poems are apparently the titles or first words of well-known melodies to which the poems were to be sung. These include ’al- tashhéth, ‘Destroy not,’ in Pss 57, 58, 59, 75; shishan-‘édhiith, ‘Lily of the Testimony,’ in Ps 60; shdshannim-‘édhith, ‘Lilies of the Testimony,’ in Ps 80, simply shdshannim, ‘Lilies,’ in Pss 45, 69; ’ayyeleth hashshahar, ‘Hind of the dawn,’ in Ps 22; yonath ’élem r:hogim, ‘Dove of the distant tere- binths,’ or ‘Silent dove of those afar off,’ in Ps 56, and mtth labbén, perhaps ‘Death of —?’ in Ps 9 (which may be a corruption in the text). The attempt to connect these expressions with any particular melodies is quite futile. Indeed, they may not refer to such melodies at all, especially as it is hard to see what precise similarity of form con- nects the poems to which the same title is assigned.! 7. Early Christian Music. The N T references to music are few and mostly unimportant. Jesus and the Disciples sang part or all of the Hallel (Pss 113- 1 It is not impossible that these titles refer to some passage, ritual occasion or object by which the poem was suggested or with which it was used. For example, ‘Destroy not’ is the opening of a notable prayer in Dt 9, with which it is not hard to associate the four poems in question. The ‘Lily’ titles recall the ornamentation of the two brazen pillars and the brazen sea in the Temple (I K 7 15-2), possibly hinting at a customary place of rendering. It is curious that the ‘Dove’ title has verbal similarities with Ps 55 6-7, so that it may be a subscription to 55 instead of a superscription to 56. Thirtle believes that all these expressions are subscriptions. A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 600 118) at the Last Supper (Mt 26 30; Mk 14 26). Among the early Christian fraternities singing had place as a method of social worship (Ac 16 25; I Co 14 15, 26; Eph 5 19; Col 3 16; Ja 513). In the Apocalypse and elsewhere musical symbols are used in describing the coming of the Last Day as well as the praises of heaven. ‘The instruments named are the cymbal, x0u.Barov (1 Co 13 1); the pipe or flute, adA6¢ (Mt 9 23, 1117; Lk 7 32; I Co 147; Rev 18 22); the trumpet, oéAntyé (Mt 6 2; I Co 14 8; He 12 19; Rev 1 10, 41, 18 22, and, as the signal for the Last Day, Mt 24 31; I Th 4 16; I Co 15 52; Rev 8 2-13, 9 1, 13-14, 10 7, 11 15); and the lyre, x:0ée~% (I Co 147; Rev 5 8, 14 2, 15 2, 18 22). Of these, the flute and the lyre were the most characteristic types in general Greek use. We infer that the first Jewish converts brought over with them the habit of psalmody from the synagogs, to which additions were soon demanded by the new conceptions and spirit of the new faith. The precise musical form used doubtless varied in different regions, the Jews using such styles and melodies as they already had and the Greeks adapt- ing the more elegant and artistic methods of Hellenic society. At Corinth we perhaps catch a hint of the Greek custom of ‘rhapsodizing’ or extempore can- tillation (I Co 14). Some distinction seems to have been made between ‘psalms, hymns and spiritual songs’ (Eph 5 19; Col 3 16), the first being properly songs from the O T, the second probably similar formal poems of a Christian origin and import, and the third perhaps freer and more popular songs. In the NT are preserved some late Jewish psalms (Lk 1 46-55, 68-79, 2 14, 29-32), and it is also thought that there are some fragments of the new hymns of the Early Church (as Eph 5 14; I Ti 3 16; IL Ti 2 11-13; Rev 48, 11, 5 9-10, 12-13, 7 10,12, 11 15-18, 15 3-4, 19 1-2, 5-8). act al Among monographs on the subject are Ernest David, Musique chez les Juifs (1873); J. Stainer, The Music of the Bible (1879, new ed. 1914); J. Weiss, Die musikalischen Instrumente des ATs (1895); H. Gressmann, Musik und Musikinstrumente im AT (1903); FF. Leitner, Der goittes- diensiliche Volksgesang im jiidischen und christlichen Aliertum (1906), and C. Sachs, Die Musikinstrumente des alien Aegyptens (1921), besides many articles. In JRAS (1921), S. Langdon connects terms in the Psalms with those in Baby- lonian liturgies, rendering it likely that several obscure words will thus be explained. For technical details about instruments various histories and dictionaries of music should be consulted. See also referencesin HDB. W.S. P. MUSTARD. See Patestine, § 23; Foop anp Foop UTENSILS, § 4. MUTH-LABBEN, mith’-lab’ben (12272, math labbén, ‘death of—?’): See Music anp Muosicau INSTRUMENTS, § 6. MUTTER. See Maaic anp Divination, § 4. MYRA, mai’rd (Mée«): A city on the southern sea- board of Lycia, one of the twenty-three republics, which, after 189 B.c., formed an independent Lycian league. Over this the Lyciarch presided. Myra, be- ing one of the six chief cities of Lycia, had two votes in the general assembly of the league. Theo- dosius II severed Lycia from Pamphylia, making Lycia a separate province, with Myra 4s capital. Its site, now Dembre, contains the ruins of a mag- nificent theater and rock-cut tombs, bearing in- scriptions in the Lycian language, written in an s MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS Kitara, lyre. . Arghtn, bagpipe. Nakkara, kettle-drum, "Od, mandolin. 8. Shubab, flute. 4. Nay, flute. Kantn, zither. 9. Nakkara, kettle-drum. . Shofar, Jewish ram’s horn, 4. Tambira, lute. 10. Daff derwis, Dervish’s tambourine. Buk, horn. 5. Rabéaib, fiddle. 11, Daf, tambourine. 17. Nay (Flute) » 12. Derbekke, hand-drum. (From the Suvia Davison Paton Collection in Hartford Theological Seminary. ) 601 alphabet peculiar to Lycia. None of the inscrip- tions are very old, but they prove that the Lycians were Aryans, tho they do not settle the entire question of nationality. Myra was the seat of the worship of the sailors’ god (of unknown name), whose functions have been assumed by St. Nicholas (Bishop of Myra, at the beginning of the 4th cent.), the modern patron saint of sailors. Myra was a port on the direct route between Syria-Egypt and Rome. Strong westerly winds prevail throughout the sum- mer and carry ships easily to Syria or to Egypt. On the return voyage ships from Egypt-Syria worked N. and E. of Cyprus and hugged the coast—because of the land breezes—past Myra to Cnidus. This explains the course of Paul’s ship (Ac 27 5) J. R. S. S.*—S. A. MYRRH. See Lapanum; OINTMENTS AND PER- | FUMES, § 1; and PaLusting, §§ 21 and 22. MYRTLE. See Patzstine, § 21. MYSIA, mish’i-a. See Asta Minor, III, 9. MYSTERY (uvottherov): In the simplest and most natural sense a mystery is something beyond the comprehension of the human understanding. As such, it is an inevitable factor in religion, which, from the nature of the case, associates the soul with God and the word of transcendental realities. Con- sequently, even in the most strictly scientific age, mystery in religion must abide. To eliminate it is to destroy the very essence of religion. All the more forcibly was its necessity felt in the ancient world when toward exploring this unknown element no means were available, and when every effort to peer into its obscurity was followed by a greater sense of awe. This condition gave rise to a twofold development, 7.e., first, the observation of problems in religion, and, second, the invention of a series of conventional forms, rites, or symbols, supposed to embody and convey knowledge of divine realities. The mysteries of the first class include such matters as the suffering of the just man and the prosperity of the wicked, the destiny of human beings after death, etc. Such mysteries constitute the subject of the Wisdom writings generally (Job, Pss 73, 139, etc.). But in the Bible the word is used predominantly in the second sense. A mystery is knowledge im- parted to, and possessed by, a limited circle of initiates in an organization. Among the non- Israelitic religions of ancient times there was hardly one in which worship was not in some portion of it turned into mystery. Toward this end the first step was to establish a line, on one side of which should stand the few initiated privileged characters, and on the other the great outside multitude. The subject-matter of knowledge by which the few were distinguished was next reduced to a system of sym- bolical representations. To pass from the ranks of the unintiated into the circle of the initiated, one must receive the necessary instruction from the consecrated priest (hierophant=‘revealer of sacred secrets’), and must be conducted through a course of significant actions, including sacramental guar- antees which secured him his privileges both in this A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Music Myth lifeandin the future. The Eleusinian mysteries in ancient Greece were the maturest and fullest ex- pression of the type, but others, both more ancient and elaborate, are known to have existed (e.g., the Orphic mysteries). The O T knows no mysteries of this type. The symbolical meaning of its ritual, including such fea- tures as the Holy of Holies with its cherubim and mercy-seat, the rites of the Day of Atonement, etc., are not peculiar secrets for the few, but the ex- pressions of a living religion common to the whole people. The spirit of democracy ran too high among the Hebrews to admit of the growth of such a system. But when Israel came in touch with Greek life, the idea was adopted and gained ground (cf. Wis. 14 15, 23, 12 5). In the N T the idea of mystery appears first as that of a secret known to God, and known by men only as revealed to them from above. Thus in the Syn- optic Gospels the kingdom of God has its mysteries (Mt 13 11; Mk 411; Lk 810). There is nothing in this of a ritual element or of exclusiveness. It is not the designed withholding of knowledge, but the obtuse- ness of men that keeps them from fully appreciating some of the teachings of Jesus, and renders these mysteries (cf. also I Ti 3 9, 16). Paul, more than any other N T writer, makes use of the figure of mystery in its Greek sense for the purpose of bring- ing into view the exact nature of the Gospels. And yet he uses the term not uniformly and with a mechanically fixed meaning, but with a considerable freedom. When he employs it, for instance, in the apocalyptic passage in II Th 2 7, it is in the sense of something that was still kept from the idle multitude, but soon to be made manifest. This is comparatively simple. On the other hand, in I Co 27,15 51 he speaks as an initiate who instructs the uninitiated (cf. also I Co 41; Col 1 26,43; Eph33 f.) So also in the ‘interpretation of tongues’ (I Co 142) he who speaks with tongues occupies the place of a hierophant, communicating knowledge to the small and select circle. Inasmuch as the Gospel is a message communicated by God in accordance with His sovereign grace to the circle that will accept it, the term ‘mystery’ seems eminently expressive of this aspect of it. Hence it is ‘the mystery’ (with or without the attached phrase ‘of Christ,’ Eph 3 4; Col 4 3, or ‘of God,’ I Co 41; Col 2 2). No amount of investigation or search could have brought this to the knowledge of man. But the effort by Kirsopp Lake, The Earlier Epistles of St. Paul (1911) to include the Sacraments among Christian mysteries has been successfully met by Schweitzer, St. Paul and his Interpreters (1912), and H. A. A. Kennedy, St. Paul and the Mystery Religions (1913). In the Apocalypse the general sense is analogous to that of the Pauline usage, but from the nature of the case it involves the employ- ment of elaborate symbolism (Rev 1 20, 107, 17 5, Oe BIER Gardner and Jevons, Manual of Gr. Antig. (1898), pp. 151-153, 274-286; L. Campbell, Religion in Gr. Lit. (1898); Anrich, Das Antike Mysterienwesen (1894); S. Angus, The Mystery-Religions and Christianity (1925). A. C. Z. MYTH. See FAB.ieE. Naam Nahum NAAM, né’em (28%) na‘am), ‘pleasant’: The ancestral head of a Calebite clan (I Ch 4 15). NAAMAH, né’a-ma (292, na‘dmah), ‘pleasant’: I. 1. A daughter of Lamech and Zillah, and sister of Tubal-cain (Gn 4 22). 2. An Ammonitess, wite of Solomon and mother of Rehoboam (I K 14 21, 31; II Ch 1213). II. A town in the Shephelah of Judah, between Beth-dagon and Makkedah (Jos 15 41). Site unknown. Cpae NAAMAN, né’o-man (1243, na‘dman), ‘pleasant’: 1. A Syrian general under Ben-hadad, perhaps also his political adviser or prime minister (II K ch. 5). Jewish legend identifies him with the young man who drew a bow at a venture and mortally wounded King Ahab (I K 22 34; Jos. Ant. VIII, 15 5). He was afflicted with leprosy. Through an Israelitic slave girl in his household he heard of the wonderful powers of the prophet Elisha in Israel, and, pro- curing an introduction from Ben-hadad to the king of Israel, he went in search of the healer. The king of Israel at first suspected a snare and an occasion of hostilities on Ben-hadad’s part, but was induced to send Naaman to the prophet, by whom the Syrian general was healed. He was also con- verted by this experience into a worshiper of J’’; whereupon the problem arose as to his conduct in Syria. In the performance of his official duties, he must go into the temple of Rimmon and bow be- fore the idol-god. He made it clear that this was not a violation of his devotion to J’. Further, in accordance with the notion that each god had exclusive jurisdiction of the land where. he was worshiped (cf. IS 26 19), he asked permission to take with him two mules’ burden of earth of the land of Israel upon which, as on a shrine of J’’, he might offer his worship. 2. A grandson of Benjamin (Gn 46 21) and eponym of a family, the Naamites (Nu 26 40). 3. A son of Ehud (I Ch 87). Perhaps same as m2; A. C. Z. NAAMATHITE, né’a-ma-fhait’”” (D2Y37, hanna- ‘amathi): A gentilic noun with the article, applied to Zophar, one of Job’s friends (Job 2 11, 1J 1, 201, 429), signifying that he was an inhabitans of Naa- mah (but not the town in Judah of that name). Cire ra By WAAMITE, né’a-mait. See Naaman, 2. NAARAH, né’a-ra (11), na‘drah): I. The an- cestress of several Calebite clans (I Ch 4 5f.), and originally probably a clan-name. II. A place on the border of Ephraim (Jos 16 7, Naarath AV; I Ch 7 28, Naaran). Map III, G5. NAARAT, né’a-rai ("W2, na‘dray): One of Da- vid’s heroes (I Ch 11 37; called Paarai in II S 28 35). NAARAN, né’a-ran. See Naarag, II. NAARATH, né’a-rath. See Naarag, II. NAASHON, né’a-shen. See NAHSHON. NAASON, noa-as’an (Naaccdyv, the O T Nashon, q.v.): An ancestor of Jesus (Lk 3 32). NABAL, né’bal (7233, nabhdl), ‘foolish,’ ‘reckless’: A wealthy sheep-owner of the clan of Caleb (I S 25 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 602 IN 2 f.), which owned the country about Hebron. He lived in Maon and pastured his flocks in Carmel. When N. was shearing sheep, David, in hiding from Saul, sent to him for a contribution. Churlish in disposition, and at the time intoxicated, he insult- ingly refused. His wise and comely wife, Abigail, however, went with bountiful gifts to meet David, who was on his way to attack N. Later N. heard from Abigail of his danger, and of her action, and soon after died from a shock. His widow, Abigail, then became the wife of David (I S 25 39 Ff., 30 5; IIS 2 2, 3:3). C.8. T. NABOTH, né’beth (M33, nabhoth): A Jezreelite, probably one of the leading men of the city (I K 219; cf. Jos. Ant. VIII, 13 8), whose judicial murder | furnished the occasion for Elijah’s prophetic de- nunciation of Ahab (I K ch. 21). The coveted vineyard (‘field’ in II K 9 25) was near the palace (LXX. ‘threshing-floor’) in Jezreel; but the sacred- ness of paternal inheritance was so firmly estab- lished (I K 21 3; ef. Nu ch. 36) that even Jezebel did not dare annex the land until Naboth (and his sons, II K 9 26) had first been executed upon a per- jured charge of blasphemy (cf. Ex 22 28). L. G. L.—E. C. L. NACHON, né’ken (]19}, nakhon, ‘Nacon’ RV): The name of the threshing-floor, or of its owner, where Uzzah was smitten for touching the Ark (II S 6 6), called ‘Chidon’ (I Ch 13 9). The place was named by David Perez-uzzah (IIS 68). See Nacon. Cees NACHOR, né’kér (Naye, the O T Nahor, q.v.): An ancestor of Jesus (Lk 3 34). NACON, né’ken (]19), nakhén, Nachon AV), ‘fixed’: This word is read as a proper name in EV of II S 6 6, and the structure of the sentence in Heb. seems to demand a proper noun here. But the word nakhon is a very improbable form for a proper noun. The LXX. reads ‘Nodab.’ The |] text in I Ch 13 9 reads ‘Chidon,’ which is a more probable reading, and possibly gives the correct form of thename. The site is unknown. EK. E. N. NADAB, né’dab (3°13, nddhabh), ‘generous,’ ‘no- ble’: 1. The eldest son of Aaron (Ex 6 23); see ABIHU. z. A son of Jeroboam (I K 14 20) and king of Israel for two years (15 25). While besieging Gibbethon, a Philistine town, he was assassinated by Baasha, who exterminated the house of Jeroboam after he became king (15 27 f.). 3. A Jerahmeelite family (I Ch 2 28f.). 4. A Gibeonite name (I Ch 8 30, 9 36). PONT. sad Me NAGGATI, nag’gai (Neyyat, Nagge AV): An an- cestor of Jesus (Lk 3 25). NAHALAL, né‘ha-lal (7202, nahdlal), NAHAL- LAL, no-hal’lal, and NAHALOL, né‘ha-lel (7773 nahdlol): A city of Zebulun (Jos 19 15), Jong held by the Canaanites (Jg 1 30), and later counted a Le- vitical city (Jos 21 35). Map IV, D7 (another iden- tification is with Malul, 3144 m. W. of Nazareth, Map IV, C 7). BE. EN. 603 A NEW STANDARD NAHALIEL, no-hé'li-cl (78202, nahdli’al), ‘brook of God’: A brook on Israel’s march from the upper waters of the Arnon to the plains of Moab (Nu 21 19). Its identification with any particular brook in that region is uncertain, tho the Wddy Zerka Md‘in has many advocates (see Map II, H 2). E. E. N. NAHAM, né’hom (903, naham), ‘He comforts’: A descendant of Judah (I Ch 4 19). NAHAMANI, né”ha-mé’nai (72202, nahdmani), ‘comforted’: One of the leaders of the Return (Neh 77; omitted in Ezr 2 2). - NAHARAT, né’ha-rai (193, nahdray and °3, nahrt): One of David’s heroes, the armor-bearer of Joab. His home was at Beeroth (II S 23 37, Nahari, AV; I Ch 11 39). . NAHASH, né‘hagh (VM), nahash), ‘serpent’: 1. A king of the Ammonites, whose intolerable conditions for the peaceful surrender of Jabesh-gilead brought Saul to the rescue, and inaugurated the successful struggle for the independence of Israel (I S 111 #.). His kindness to David elicited, on the news of the death of N., a return of kindness on David’s part to his son Hanun, who rudely insulted David’s messengers (11S 10 2; ICh 191). Another son of the same Nahash was Shobi, who brought needed supplies to David during his retirement to Gilead at the time of Absalom’s rebellion (II K 17 27). 2. The father of Abigail and Zeruiah, sisters of David (II S 17 25; I Ch 2 16). ‘Nahash’ here, however, may be a textual error for ‘Jesse,’ or Jesse may have married the widow of N., or N. a widow of Jesse. If this N. were the same as the king of Ammon, it would be easy to account for the kindnesses inter- changed between David and him, and at the same time unnecessary to assume more than one of the names in all the accounts. A. C. Z. NAHATH, né’hath (903, nahath): 1. One of the ‘dukes’ or clan-chieftains of Edom (Gn 36 13, 17; I Ch 1 37). 2. One of the ancestors of Samuel (I Ch 6 26, called Toah in ver. 34 and Tohu inI§ 11). 3. A Levite overseer under Hezekiah (II Ch 31 13). NAHBI, na@/bai (213, nahbi): One of the spies (Nu 13 14). NAHOR, né/her (117), nahor, Nachor AV; Jos 24 2; Lk 3 34): 1. The grandfather of Abraham and son of Serug (Gn 11 24f.). 2. The brother of Abra- ham and son of Terah (Gn 11 26-29). His marriage to Milcah and the genealogy of his children are given for the double purpose: first, of showing the rela- tionships of the patriarchal families, as his son Bethuel was the father of Rebekah and Laban (Gn 24 15); and secondly, as an ethnographical datum indicating the kinship of the Semitic peoples. Abra- ham was counted the ancestor of the south and N. | of the north Semites. AL Oe: NAHSHON, na’shen (]¥M], nahshin): The ‘prince’ (Nu 17, 2 3, etc.) of Judah. He was also an ancestor of David (Ru 4 20; I Ch 2 10; Lk 3 32 Naason AV). The same person is probably meant in Ex 6 23, Naashon AV. Naam Nahum BIBLE DICTIONARY NAHUM, né’hom (5372), nahiim), ‘comfort’: I. One of the minor prophets. 1. The Prophet. The only description of N. we have is found in the single word the Elkoshite (Nah 11). This appears to be derived from the name of a place, Elkosh; but a place bearing this name is no- where else mentioned. A late tradition identifies it with Alkush, a locality near Nineveh, where the prophet Nahum is also said to have been buried. But every consideration within and without the book militates against this identification. Another tradition, supported by Jerome, makes Elkosh a town in Galilee (Hicesi, or Helkesai). But this, too, fails to harmonize with the internal marks of the book, which show the prophet to have been a Judean (cf. 115). The town Elkosh was probably on a lost site in southern Judah, near Eleutheropolis. 2. Date. The date of Nahum’s ministry can be fixed within certain limits. On the one hand, he looks upon Nineveh as still standing. As its fall did not take place before 606 B.c., this date fur- nishes the latest limit of Nahum. On the other hand, in 3 8-10 the city of Thebes is spoken of as already captured by her enemies. As Thebes was taken by the Assyrians in 663 B.c., this is clearly the earliest limit. Whether Nahum prophesied in the earlier or later half of this period of fifty-seven years depends upon whether he viewed the fall of Thebes as a very recent event or a somewhat remote one; partly also upon the significance of the condition of weakness and decay which he pictures in the As- syrian Empire. Such a condition, growing rapidly worse, was already in full view in the middle of the 7th cent. B.c. The probabilities are, therefore, in favor of the earlier dating of Nahum’s ministry, and the year 650 may be taken generally as its central point. The relation of Manasseh to Assyria fur- nishes a suitable occasion for the warmth of feeling displayed in it on the part of a faithful Israelite. 3. Book: Contents. The contents of the book present J’’ coming in wrath and power to take vengeance on the enemies of Judah (1 1-15). From this general procalmation, which, however, vor- trayed the destruction of the enemy as total and irreparable, the prophet passes to the more par- ticular denunciation of Nineveh and the announce- ment of her day of doom (2 1-13). The picture is drawn vividly. The destroyer of Nineveh is at her very gates, her defenders are in flight, and can not be rallied (ver. 8), and her devastation and ruin are evidently complete. The reason for this fate is the sin of the city (3 1-7). It will rouse itself to a des- perate resistance and struggle, but in vain (3 8-19). 4.Integrity. There is a difference in form and tone between the passage 1 2-2 2 and the remainder of the book. The section 1 2-10 has an alphabetic arrange- ment of verses, which, tho not carried through, has given ground for the conjecture that it originally extended to 2 2. But if so, an alphabetical psalm, whose general thought harmonizes with Nahum’s prophecy, has been prefixed to that prophecy. The prophecy then strictly began with 2 3. In such a case, in order to bring it into still greater harmony with Nahum’s words, the psalm itself, or else its last portion, must have dropped out, and another ending \ Nail Names A NEW STANDARD |BIBLE DICTIONARY 604 (1 11, 2 2) must have been attached to it. These conclusions are, of course, based upon meager data, and can not be regarded except as tentative (cf. Bickell, Beitrége z. sem. Metrik. 1894; per contra, Davidson, in Camb. Bible). No doubt the text of Nahum has been greatly tampered with, and yet the general vigor and vividness of the prophet’s style largely overcome the obscurities created by textual corruption. 5. Characteristic Point of View. The striking peculiarity of Nahum’s thought is its fixed gaze on the enemies of God’s Chosen People. The prophet evidently has no fear for the people them- selves. At all events, he alludes neither to their sin nor to any impending wrath to be visited upon them. Presumably, the destruction of Assyria meant to him the deliverance of Israel from a source of dis- tress and a menacing danger. LITERATURE: Commentaries by Orelli (on the Minor Proph- ets); A. B. Davidson (in Camb. Bible, 1896); G. A. Smith, The Book of the Twelve Prophets (in the Expositor’s Bible, 1898); Farrar, Minor Prophets (in Men of the Bible Series); J. M. P. Smith in JCC (1911); W. Cannon, ‘Notes on Na- hum,’ in Expositor (1925), p. 250 ff. II. One of the ancestors of Jesus (Lk 3 25, Naum AV). A. C. Z. NAIL: This word renders (1) the Heb. yathédh, the ‘peg’ or ‘pin’ used to hold the tent-ropes (Jg 4 21 f., 5 26; ‘tent-pin’ RV), or to bind together the beams of a house (Zec 10 4); also a peg driven into the wall on which things may be hung (Ezr 9 8; Is 22 23, 25, and (2) masméréth (pl.), ordinary metal nails (I Ch 22 3, etc.); ; except in Dt 2112 and Dn 4 33, 719, where the meaning is obvious. E. E. N. NAIN, né’in (Naty; mentioned only in Lk 7 11): The modern village, which is still called Nein (Map IV, D 8), is beautifully situated on a small, elevated plateau at the foot of Little Hermon, but the mud-built hamlet is squalid and filthy. Numer- ous ruined houses show that it was formerly much larger, and in the hillside there are rock-cut tombs; but no traces of walls or of very ancient buildings have been found. The little mosque in Nain is called ‘The Place of Our Lord Jesus,’ a survival, apparently, of the name of an earlier Christian chapel commemorating the miracle. L. G. L.—L. B. P. NAIOTH, né’yeth (K*thibh, m3; z.e., nawith, or nanneycth, Qrre NY), nayoth, or 1}, néawwnyoth) A place ‘in Ramah,’ where Samuel and the ‘sons of the prophets’ dwelt, and where David dwelt while in hiding from Saul (I § 19 18-201). The absence of the article (see esp. I S 201) seems to indicate that the word isa proper name. It perhaps means ‘dwelling,’ and refers to a cenobium, or cloister, in which the prophets dwelt (cf. IS 10 5; II K 61-7). For criti- cisms of the Heb. text and conjectures as to the etymology, see Driver (Notes on Heb. Text of the Books of Samuel) or H. P. Smith (in ICC). L. G. L.—L. B. P. NAKED: In the following instances the word ‘naked’ needs some explanation. In Ex 32 25 the RV renderings ‘broken loose,’ ‘let them loose’ ex- press the sense of the Heb. para‘ much better than the AV ‘naked.’ The same may be said of II Ch \28 15. In Hab 39 ‘bare’ RV the reference is to the protective covering of the battle-bow, which was removed before going into action. In Is 20 2f. and Mic 1 8, the reference is to the mourning custom of stripping off the outer clothing and arraying oneself in sackcloth. In these two instances the sackcloth was to be dispensed with, not necessarily as an evi- dence of greater mourning, but simply of deeper and more intense feeling. See also MourRNING AND Movurnine Customs, § 1, under Sackcloth. For the use of ‘naked’ in Mk 14 51 f., Jn 217, and Ac 1916, see DRESS AND ORNAMENTS, §2. E. E. N. NAMES: 1. Importance Attached to Names. Among the Israelites, as among other peoples of antiquity, great importance was attached to names, whether of places, persons, or deity. This is evi- denced by the many instances in the O T of explana- tion of the origin of names, and altho these explana- tions with their accompanying philological inter- pretations are in many cases only superficial and popular, they show clearly how important names were considered to be. The derivation and primary significance of the Heb. word shém, ‘name,’ are uncertain. It is used nearly always of some definite proper name. Occasionally, it signifies ‘renown’ or ‘fame’ (IS 18 30; IIS 813). In this brief discussion we shall consider, first, person-names, then place- names, and, finally, Divine names. 2. How Names Were Given. So far as the O T gives us light on the subject, it appears that a child was named usually at birth by the mother (Gn 41, 25, 19 37f., 29 32 #f., etc.), altho this was by no means always the case. The father often (Gn 4 26, 16 15, 21 3, 35 18; II S 12 24 f., etc.) and, in one case at least, friends (Ru 4 17) are mentioned as giving the name. While in later times a child was named when circumcised (Lk 1 59, 2 21), this seems not to have been the case in early (O T) days. The primitive reason for naming the child at birth was, possibly, to there- by protect it from demoniac hostility (Bertholet, Kulturgesch. Israels [1919], p. 116). In later life it was also possible for a person to receive a name, sometimes called his surname, which was used alongside of, or supplanted, his original name. In all, or nearly all, such cases the new name was im- posed by a superior, or due to a change of status which seemed to demand a new name. Examples of such changes are: Abram to Abraham, Sarai to Sarah, Jacob to Israel, Joseph to Zaphenath-paneah, Eliakim to Jehoiakim, Mattaniah to Zedekiah, Daniel to Belteshazzar, Simon to Cephas, ete. In the earliest times names seem to have consisted of but one significant word (simple or compound), an appelative term of some sort (see next section). But in a closely settled region it would become necessary to distinguish individuals bearing the same name, and thus arose the habit of adding ‘son of’ so and so to the person’s name. Another way was to add a gentilic indicative of the place to which the person belonged (cf. e.g., II S 23 24 #.). Both patronymics and gentilics are very common in the O'T. When Palestine became bilingual, as was the case in N T times, many Jews bore two names, their native Hebrew or Aramaic name, and a Greek or Roman one, which was sometimes the equivalent in meaning 605 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Nail Names of the Aramaic (e.g., Cephas= Peter), in other cases not so (eg., John [Heb. ydhdnan] Mark [Lat. Marcus]). Many Heb. or Aramaic proper names also became Hellenized, e.g., Joshua (Heb.) =Jesus, Eliakim = Alcimus, etc. Since the reasons governing the choice of names are given in so many cases, it may be inferred that names were generally chosen, especially in the earlier times, because of some special circumstance or condition at birth which the name selected seemed capable of commemorating or sym- bolizing. Esau was so called (apparently) because he was either ‘red’ or ‘hairy,’ Jacob, because he had his brother by the ‘heel’ (Gn 25 25 f.), Isaac, because Sarah ‘laughed’ (Gn 18 13; cf. 17 17) at the promise of his birth (cf. also the reasons for the names given to Jacob’s sons, Gn 29 32-30 24, to the children of Hosea, Hos ch. 1, or of Isaiah, Is 71, 81 #.). In later times there was a tendency to make use of the same set of | names in the same family. This had become a well- established custom in N T times (cf. Lk 1 59-61), but it can not be traced certainly further back than the postexilic age (cf. Gray, Heb. Proper Names, pp.1-9). 3. Kinds of Names. Since Heb. names were in early times appelative designations, it follows that there could be easily many different kinds of names. In the present brief discussion perhaps the most convenient subdivision to make in the first place is, according to their structure, into simple and com- posite. (1) Simple Names. No exhaustive classification of names consisting of but one element will be at- tempted here. Animal names were especially com- mon in the oldest parts of the O T: e.g., Leah, ‘wild cow’; Rachel, ‘ewe’; Deborah, ‘bee’; Nahash, ‘ser- pent’; etc. Trees and plants also furnished names: Elon, ‘oak’; Tamar, ‘palm’; Rimmon, ‘pomegranate’; etc. Personal characteristics were determinative in some cases: ¢.g., Esau, ‘red’ (?); Laban, ‘white’; etc. The feelings of the parents showed themselves in other names: e.g., Rehum, ‘pitied’; Baruch, ‘blessed’; etc. From these and other fields the Hebrews drew the material for a very large propor- tion of their proper names. By means of endings added to the simple words they greatly increased the number of possible names. A final ‘i’ changed a place-name into a _ gentilic person-name: e.g., Jehudi, ‘man of Judah.’ In some cases the final ‘4’ stood for the personal pronoun ‘my’: e.g., Naomi, ‘my delight.’ Much more frequent was the use of the endings ‘an,’ ‘am,’ ‘on,’ ‘om;’ e.g., Nahshon, from néhash, ‘serpent.’ (2) Composite Names. Taking all the O T names together, early and late, the great majority consists of composite names, 7.e., names composed of two elements. By far the greatest number of these have, as one element of the compound, a Divine name or its equivalent. With composite names should also be classed those that, tho apparently simple, consist really of a sentence: e.g., Joseph, ‘he [God] shall add’; Japhlet, ‘he [God] causes to escape’; Jashub, ‘he shall return,’ etc. In most names of this kind the understood subject is God, tho other sub- jects are very common. In theophorous names—.e., names in which a Divine name forms one part of the componnd—quite freauently we meet with indirect rather than direct references to Deity. The sylla- bles ‘ab’ or ‘abi,’ ‘ah’ or ‘ahi,’ ‘am’ (‘am in Heb.) or ‘ammi,’ ‘dad’ or ‘dod,’ meaning respectively, ‘father,’ ‘brother,’ ‘uncle,’ and ‘kinsman,’ as used in proper names, probably refer to Deity: e.g., Abijah=‘J” is father’; Abiel=‘El [God] is father’; Abitub = ‘the father [God] is good’; Ahihud=‘the brother [God] is glorious’; Ammishaddai=‘Shaddai is uncle’; Eliam=‘God is uncle’; Eldad=‘El [God] is kins- man’; etc. In names of this class when both ele- ments refer to the Deity, sometimes the subject is placed first, as in Eliam, sometimes last, as in Am- miel, which is identical in meaning with Eliam. Another class of theophorous names consists of the names compounded with‘melek’ (EV‘melech,’ ‘king’), ‘baal’ (‘owner,’ ‘lord,’ and frequently used as a proper name for Deity), ‘adon(i)’ (‘lord’): e.g., Ahimelech = ‘the brother [God] is king’; Malchijah=‘J’’ is king’; Baaliada, ‘Baal knows’; Adonijah, ‘J’’ is lord.’ The names of Deity proper, ‘Ja,’ ‘Jah,’ ‘Jeho,’ all shortened forms of Yahweh (Jehovah), ‘El’ and ‘Eli’ (Ele) and Shaddai (quite rare), as used in compound names, are to be taken as subjects of the sentence which the name makes. The predicate may be any of the semi-divine names noted above, or an adjec- tive, or a noun, or some part of averb. The possible combinations are very many and the Hebrew vocabu- lary is exceedingly rich.in proper names thus formed. If the reader will select the proper names begin- ning with ‘E’ and ‘J,’ he will discover this for him- self. He should also bear in mind that there are as many, or perhaps more, cases in which the name of the Deity forms the second instead of the first part of the compound. These facts throw an interesting side-light on the conceptions of Deity entertained by the ancient Is- raelites. They not only thought much about God, but also thought of Him as near and, on the whole, well disposed toward them. They spoke of Him as ‘father,’ ‘brother,’ ‘uncle,’ ‘kinsman,’ and expressed this faith in the names they gave their children. 4. History of Names. Since it is now possible to arrange our O T literature in chronological order, it is also possible thereby to gain some light on the history of personal names in Israel. This subject has been investigated, especially by Prof. G. B. Gray, whose conclusions appear to rest on careful and accurate tabulations. In general, it may be said that the use of animal-names as person-names was most common in the earliest periods; that the tendency to use names with a religious significance was not so marked in the earlier period as it after- ward became; that while names compounded with ‘E]’—the general name for God—were in use from the earliest to the latest times, names compounded with ‘Ja,’ etc. (short for Yahweh, Israel’s national Deity), were rare before David’s time, but became common after that; that theophorous names compounded with ‘ab,’ ‘ah,’ ‘am,’ ‘dad,’ ‘did,’ ‘melech,’ ‘adon,’ and ‘baal’—i.e., practically all the semi-divine names used in compounds—had ceased to be formed by the time of the Exile; that those compounded with ‘Ja,’ ete., and ‘El’ gradually became the favorite class of names, being used almost exclusively in the later periods; and that the custom of giving religious names con- tis A NEW STANDARD tinually grew in favor, being the common rule in the late preexilic period, and in the exilic and post- exilic periods (for further details see Gray, op. cit., pp. 243 ff.). 5. Place-Names. The Hebrew names of places are in many instances of uncertain meaning. This is mainly due to the fact that such names are of great antiquity, going back to the pre-Israelite period in Palestine and thus are really of Canaanite or even pre-Canaanite origin. Names of trees or plants, e.g., Tappuah, ‘apple’; Tamar, ‘palm’; Elah, ‘oak’ or ‘terebinth,’ ete., and of animals, €.9., Aijalon, ‘stag’; Ir-nahash, ‘serpent city,’ etc., were frequently used. The natural features of a place—e.g., its fertility, its beauty, the color of the soil, or landscape —all these are found set forth in such place-names as Carmel, Shaphir, Adummim, Lebanon, Kedron, etc. The proximity of water was expressed by pre- fixes such as ‘En~- (‘spring’ or ‘fountain’), ‘Beer’ 8 well’) ,‘Me-~-’ (‘water’). Elevation is found indicated in the many Gebas, Gibeahs, Ramahs, and (prob- ably) Mizpahs. Compound place-names are also, very common. ‘Beth-,’ ‘house,’ ‘Hazor,’ 7.e., a fixed instead of a movable (as customary with nomads) place of abode—‘Kir’ or ‘Kiriath’ and ‘Ir’ (both =‘city’) are frequently found united with some other term to make the full name of a place. More significant, especially of the close association of religion with the life of the Israelites and of the Canaanites before them, are the frequent compound names in which the name of Deity forms one element. Such Semitic deities as Shamash, ‘the sun,’ Nebo, Anath, etc., appear in names like Beth- shemesh, chouse i. é., ‘temple’ or ‘shrine’] of the sun,’ Mt Nebo, Anathoth, etc. The two old deity names ‘baal’ and ‘el’ occur also i in a number of com- pounds, as Baal-shalisha, Baal-gad, Baal-Meon, Beth-el, Jezre-el, Iphtah-el, etc. 6. The Divine Names. To the ancient Israelite, great as was the significance he attached to his own and others’ names, the names of God were of the highest importance. Even ordinary person-names were looked upon as being more than mere words; they almost possessed an entity of their own. Con- sequently, the Divine names were invested with a special and peculiar sacredness. In a vague way the Deity and His name were considered as inseparable. Of the ‘Angel of the presence’ it is said ‘my name is in him’ (Ex 23 21). Such passages as Ex 307, 345 #.; Dt 28 58, and many others, reveal the importance at- tached to the name Jehovah ( Yahweh). A place became sacred when He there ‘recorded’ His name (Ex 20 24; Dt 12 5; I K 8 29, etc.). Of the Divine names, Jehovah ( Yahweh) was the name par ez- cellence, most holy and most rich in its significance for the Israelite. Of the origin and primary mean- ing of this name nothing positive can as yet be said, except that, in accordance with the statement of the OA ki (Gn 4 26 and in many subsequent passages), the name is probably very old, far antedating Moses. With this agrees the probable discovery of the name on ancient Babylonian inscriptions. It is not the origin, but the significance attached to the name that is the important thing in the thought and teach- ing of the O T. The famous passage in Ex 3 14 f. BIBLE DICTIONARY 606 gives us what we may well believe to have been (avon beinesthe hommanteplol fis| gives Ge ROR MTR eee iene Mosaic interpretation of the name—as indicative of self-assertiveness and the existence, not in an abstract metaphysical sense, but in a practical historical sense, of J’. He is the God who 7s, who is in his- tory, who i is and will be with His people; a pregnant idea, the full significance of which could be unfolded only gradually and during the course of many cen- turies (cf. Driver in Camb. Bible, Exodus, Introd. p. li, and pp. 23 f. and 40 f.). The parallel passage, 7.€., aS indicating the significance of the name, in the J document in Ex 34 6f.1is essentially of the same character as the E passage in Ex 3 14 f. The name Yahweh thus became the covenant name of God in Israel; the name above every other name in its meaning, and in the sentiments of loyalty and devotion awakened by it, to the Israelite. These sentiments came to expression especially i in the religious poetry of the Psalms and in the fervid utterances of prophecy. As time went on, the sacredness of the name Jehovah (Yohweh) was increasingly emphasized until at last it was con- sidered profanation to pronounce it even in religious exercises. This avoidance of the name had probably become common usage in N T times. In reading the Scriptures, for Yahweh was substituted either A dhonay (‘Lord’) or Elohim (God), and at last even in writing the text the vowels of ’Adhondy were attached to Yahweh, making it appear as if it were pronounced Yhowah, whence the Eng. ‘Jehovah.’ Other Divine names used by Israel were ‘Elyén, ‘the highest’ (Gn 14 18 #.; Nu 24 16, etc.); Shadday, rendered ‘almighty,’ altho its exact meaning is unknown (Gn 171; Ex 6 3, etc.); both of these names are often found combined with ’El; other rarer and probably only descriptive names were ’4abhir, ‘mighty one’ (Gn 49 24), tsar, ‘rock’ (II S 23 3, ete. ), and the like. The term A dhont y ‘Lord,’ is not strictly a proper name but rather a title. Still, the combination ’ddhénady Yahweh, ‘Lord Jehovah,’ like Yahweh ts*bh@ oth, ‘Jehovah of hosts,’ was so com- mon as to be looked upon practically as a proper name (see Lorp). 7. Divine Names inthe NT. By N T times so ex- cessive was the formal reference rendered to Divine names that even the words for God (i.e., Hl, @e6c, etc.) were rarely spoken by the devout Jew. Sub- stitutions such as ‘heaven’ were frequently used, where ‘God’ was meant. This tendency is seen even as early as the books of Esther and I Mac. (See Kingdom of God, § 1.) Perhaps as much by way of protest against such transcendentalism as for other reasons, Jesus used the suggestive and most significant term ‘Father’ for ‘God,’ emphasizing thereby both His supremacy and His ‘love for men, His children. On the other hand, in early Christian circles something of the reverence and awe attaching to Yahweh among the Jews was transferred to the name ‘Christ’ or the compound ‘Jesus Christ,’ which even in the Apos- tolic Age had come to be regarded as a proper name instead of a definitive expression (Jesus the Christ). Cf. the pregnant expressions ‘in the name of Christ,’ ‘in the name of Jesus Christ,’ ‘in the name of Jesus,’ which occur so frequently in the N T writings and 607 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Names Navy the emphasis on the name in baptism (Mt 28 19; Ac 2 38; Ro 6 3, etc.). This name had now become the name that is above every other name (Ph 29f.). LirerAtuRE: The works on Hebrdische Archdologie by Ben- zinger (2d ed. 1907) and Nowack (1894); the exhaustive article in EB, by Néldeke and Gray; Gray Studies in Heb. Prop. Names (1896). E. E. N. NAOMI, na-d’mi (21, naomi or no‘dmi), ‘my Ripe trices’ The wife of Elimelech (Ru 1 2, etc.). Widowed and bereft of her children in the land of Moab, whither they had all removed during a severe famine, she returned with her devoted daughter-in-law Ruth, whose history gives Naomi her importance in the Biblical narrative. A.C.Z. NAPHISH, né’fish (#5), naphish): The ances- tral head of an Ishmaelite clan (Gn 25 15; I Ch 1 31, 519, Nephish AV). It is likely that there was some connection between this Ishmaelite clan and the Nephisim (Ezr 2 50 Nephusim AV), or Nephushesim (Neh 7 52 Nephisheshim AV), of postexilic days, who were counted.as Nethinim (q.v.). Note also the collocation with Meunim (q.v.). See also ISHMAEL. E. E. N. NAPHTALIT, naf’ta-lai. See Trips, §§ 2-4. NAPHTUHIM, naf’tu-him (0°53, naphtuhim): Probably a designation for Lower Egypt or the Delta (Gn 10 13). NAPKIN. See BurtaL AND Buriat Customs, § 1. NARCISSUS, nar-sis’us (Né&extcces): A person mentioned incidentally in Ro 16 11 (‘the [household] of N’). Perhaps the reference is to a notorious favorite of Claudius, who had been put to death upon the accession of Nero, about three years before Ro was written (Tacitus, Annals, xi-xili, passim). After the death of N. his confiscated slaves doubt- less became part of ‘Cesar’s household’ (cf. Ph 4 22), but might still have been designated by the name of their former master. L. G. L.—E. C. L. NARD, SPIKENARD: A variety of bearded grass (Nardostachys Jatamansi, of the order Valerian- acee) native to India, from which was extracted a fragrant oil much used in the East (Song 1 12, 413 f.; Mk 14 3; Jn 12 3). The meaning of the adjective atottxy (in the N T reff.) is much disputed. On the whole, the balance of evidence seems to be in favor of ‘genuine,’ or ‘pure,’ tho ‘liquid’ has strong advo- cates. See also OINTMENT AND PERFUMES, § 3. KE. E. N. NATHAN, né’then (j93, nathin), ‘He [God] gives’: 1. A prophet to whom David looked for guidance in the administration of the spiritual side of his government (I1S72;I1Ch171;I K18#.). N however, was more than a public servant, as he took occasion to rebuke the king for his sin against Uriah (II S 121). He was very influential in pro- moting and securing Solomon’s accession to the throne (I K 18 f.), and his sons Azariah and Zabud were promoted by Solomon to important positions (IK 45). 2. Ason of David and ancestor of Jesus (II S 514; Lk 3 21). 3. The father of Igal, one of David’s valiant men! (II S 23 36) (=No. 8?) 4.A son of Attai,a Jerahmeelite (I Ch 2 36). 5. A con- temporary of Ezra (Ezr 816). 6. One who married a foreign wife (Ezr 10 39). 7. The head of a family, possibly the same as 2 (Zec 1212). 8. Brother of Joel, one of David’s heroes (I Ch 11 38). A.C. Z. NATHANAEL, no-fhan’s-el (Nabavanr = Heb. ne- than’él, ‘God has given’): N. is not mentioned by this name in the lists of Apostles in the Synopties, but figures among the early disciples in the Johannine tradition. In 1 46 he is associated with Philip of Bethsaida. According to the slightly different tradition in 21 2, he is ‘of Cana of Galilee.’ Beyond the statement of Jn 1 47 £. that he was without guile and the account of his acceptance of Jesus as the Messiah, nothing further is said of him in the N T. He is frequently identified with Bartholomew (q.v.), e.g., by Ewald, Meyer, Westcott, and others; but the only apparent reason for such identification is the association of Bartholomew with Philip in the lists of Apostles. Even this is not true in Ac 1 13, where the name of Thomas is inserted between that of Philip and Bartholomew. N. has also been identified with ‘the disciple whom Jesus loved (by Spareth, ZWT, 1868). See Zahn. N T Introd., § 1, N. 16 A oad BA NATHAN-MELECH, né’thon-mi’lek (7227102, n*than-melekh), ‘Melech gave’ (‘Melech’ may be the name of a god, or simply ‘a king’): An official in the time of King Josiah, who had a chamber in an annex of the Temple, near which stood the ‘horses . . . given to the sun,’ which were removed by Josiah (II K 23 11). Ova ag he NATIONS. See GENTILEs. NATURE, NATURAL: (1) In Dt 34 7 ‘natural force’ is the rendering of the Heb. léah, ‘moist,’ ‘full of sap,’ thus indicative of physical vigor. (2) The Gr. g6ctc, well rendered by ‘nature’ or, in the phrase xat& gictv, by ‘natural’ (Ro 11 21, 24), is used in the N T to express several shades of meaning: (a) The inherent character of a person or thing, the principles according to which normally it is governed (Ro 1 26, 2 14, 11 21-24; I Co 11 14; Gal 4 8); (b) as equivalent to ‘by birth’ (Ro 2 27; Gal 2 15); (c) ac- quired characteristics which have become fixed (Eph 2 3); (d) that which is peculiar or distinctive as marking one class of beings from another (II P 212 (AV, cf. RV), 14; cf. Ja 37, where it is rendered ‘kind’). (3) The term yéveorc, ‘birth’ or ‘origin,’ is once rendered ‘natural’ (Ja 1 23, lit. ‘of his birth’), and once ‘nature’ (in the peculiar passage Ja 3 6, on which see CoursE). (4) puxtxés (from Yux%, ‘soul,’ 2.e., the animate, sentient entity) is rendered ‘natural’ in I Co 214, 15 44, 46, in each case in con- trast with ‘spiritual.’ Since the guy was often viewed as the principle of the animal or physical life alone, uxtxés refers to} the lower, merely animal nature, not as yet controlled or reanimated by the Spirit (cf. its use in Jude ver. 19). K. KE. N. NAUM, né’um. See Nanovw, 2. NAVES: The AV rendering of the Heb. gabbim (I K 7 33), which means the ‘bends’ of the wheel, z.e., the ‘felloes’ (so RV). On the other hand, hish- shiirim (‘spokes’ AV) in the same verse is plausibly, but not certainly, rendered ‘naves’ in RV. E.E.N. NAVY. See Snips anp Naviaation, § 2; also TRADE AND COMMERCE, § 1. Wazarene Necromancer A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 608 i — ———— NAZARENE, naz’’a-rin’: The common rendering of the Gr. Natwoeaios is ‘of Nazareth’ (Mt 26 71 Lk 18 37; Jn 19 19), but in Mt 2 23 and Ac 24 5 the word evidently has a different sense. In Mt 2 23 N. seems to be regarded as interchangeable with ‘Nazirite’ (q.v.), possibly because both were viewed ordinarily as persons of inferior class. In Ac 24 5 ‘N.’ is the equivalent of ‘Christian,’ or ‘follower of the Man of Nazareth.’ A. C. Z. NAZARETH, naz’a-reth (Nat«pét, also N&taoa): A city in Galilee where Joseph and Mary, the parents of Jesus, lived, and, therefore, His own home in childhood and early manhood. Accordingly, He is called ‘Jesus of Nazareth’ (Mk 1 9; Jn 1 45); also ‘Nazarene’ (Nataenvéc, Lk 4 34; Natweatoc, Jn 19 19; Ac 2 22). The town is located on the side of a hill (Lk 4 29), which commands a splendid view of the Plain of Esdraelon and Mt. Carmel, and is very pic- turesque in general. Map IV, D7. In the days of Jesus it was held in contempt, but no reason is given for this (Jn 1 46). It is not mentioned in the O T, in the Talmud (tho Jesus is named as ‘the Nazarene,’ Sanh. 48a, 107b; Sot 47a), or by Josephus. It possessed a synagog, in which Jesus taught (Lk 4 29) Its modern name is En-Nasira. The Virgin’s fountain, being the only one in the town, can safely be associated with the life of Jesus. Other ‘sacred’ spots (Mt. of Precipitation, etc.) are fictitious. A. C. Z. NAZIRITE, naz‘i-rait (Vl, né@zir, fr. W= ‘separate’ Nazarite AV ‘consecrate’ RV mg., Nu 6 2'f.): 1. Idea of Naziritism. A separated or conse- crated person, a ‘devotee.’ Forms of consecration to God that go beyond ordinary requirements are of common occurrence in religious life. Among the Hebrews such forms were subjected to minute regulations (Nu ch. 6). The primary idea being devotion to the service of J’, the object of the regu- lations was to secure an impressive and complete separation from the rest of the world. The cere- mony by which this was done was inaugurated with a vow, nedher naézir (Nu 6 2). The person making the vow might be either a man or a woman; but there is no record of any woman taking the vow for her own sake. The mothers of Samson and Samuel were both under Nazirite regulations during the period of their bearing their Nazirite sons. But there is no evidence that they so continued after the end of that period, or resumed the Nazirite life for any other purpose later. 2. Life of the Nazirite. From the moment of the taking of the vow the Nazirite was put into a class separate from common men. The chief signs of the consecration were: (1) The cultivation of long hair. No razor must pass on the head of the Nazirite. The object of this provision was either to avoid profana- tion by the touch of a tool of human make, or the desire to offer the long locks as a sacrifice to God. In favor of the latter explanation may be cited the regulation in Nu 618, and the fact that similar prac- tises existed in other religions (Moore on Jg 135, in ICC). In favor of the former is the quite prevalent conception that anything touched by common tools was thereby profaned (cf. the profanation of stones by the chisel, Ex 20 25; cf. 1 K 67). A sacrificial victim must never have been shorn or have borne the yoke or have been used in ordinary labor (Nu 19 2; Dt 1519; in this case the shears are analogous to the razor on the Nazirite’s head). (2) Total abstinence from wine and all other strong drink (Nu 6 3 f.). In order to secure perfect conformity to this require- ment, the prohibition was made to include all that grew upon the vine in any form or shape. This was either in order to be on the safe side against the ill effects of intoxicants, or because of some belief that the evil which appears in full force in wine was in the grape even tho latent. (3) Ceremonial purity, especially by the avoidance of all contact with the dead. This requirement is self-explanatory. Any pollution of the kind would at once annul the vow and necessitate purification and the renewal of the whole ceremony (Nu 6 12). 3. Classes of Nazirites. Nazirites were of two classes: (1) Those who became such of their own free will and decision, and (2) those who were devoted by their parents. The law of Nu ch. 6 evidently refers to the former; for it contains a provision for the termination of the Nazirite life at the end of a period voluntarily fixed by the Nazarite Himself. There is no reason to suppose that the prescriptions were different in the case of Nazirites devoted ex utero, except on this single point, that their Nazirite- ship was for life. 4, Naziritism in History. The first instance on record of a Nazirite is that of Samson (Jg 18 5, 7, 14). The next is that of Samuel (I S 1 11), who was not only a Nazirite but also a prophet. During the period of the monarchy there must have been Nazirites, especially of the self-devoted class, in comparatively large numbers. Amos rebukes the people for enticing the Nazirites to drink wine (Am 212). As late as the days of Jesus, the Nazirite vow was observed by many. John the Baptist was in all probability a Nazirite of the second class (ex utero, Lk 115; cf. also I Mac 3 49). The case of Paul’s vow is another illustration (Ac 21 23). That the Nazirite vow antedates the law of Nu ch. 6 in history, there can be no doubt. The practise is assumed as already common and simply needing regulation. The Nazirite life was almost purely a religious and ceremonial one. For, while it secured abstinence from intoxicants, it did not affect the moral life in other matters. Nazirites do not seem to have been restrained from giving way to their passions (cf. Samson’s relations to Philistine women). A. C. Z. NEAH, ni’a (793, né‘Gh): A city of Zebulun (Jos 19 13). Site unknown. NEAPOLIS, ni-ap’o-lis (Ne&moAtc): The seaport of Philippi in N. Macedonia, lying opposite the island of Thasos. It shared in the prosperity of the larger city, 10 m. inland, and was the point where the great Egnatian Road across Macedonia reached the sea. An aqueduct and other remains identify it with the modern Kavalla. On his second missionary journey, in obedience to the vision he had received, Paul crossed from Troas, landing at Neapolis, and pro- ceeded thence to Philippi, where he began his European work (Ac 1611). R.A. F.—E.C. L. 609 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Nazarene Necromancer NEARIAH, ni’’a-rai’a (13, ne‘aryah): 1. The head of a family descended from David (I Ch3 22 ff.). 2. A Simeonite leader (I Ch 4 42). NEBAI, ni’bai. See Nosat. NEBAIOTH, ni-be’yoth (Ni), nebhadydth): One of the ‘sons’ of Ishmael (Gn 25 13, 28 9, 36 3; I Ch 1 29), the genealogical way of stating that N. was a N. Arabian clan or tribe. The wealth of this tribe in cattle is referred to in Is 607, where, as in the Gn passages, it is closely associated with Kedar. The same association of N. with Kedar is found in the Assyrian inscriptions of Asshurbanipal (668-626 B.c.), where the two are spoken of as Arabian tribes (cf. KAT, p. 151). It is usual to identify N. with the Nabatzan Arabs, so well-known to later history. But it is difficult to see how nia) and ya) can be closely connected. It is more probable that the Na- batzeans appeared later on the scene, displacing the. earlier Nebaioth, Kedar, etc. (cf. KAT®, p. 151 f.). See ErHNOGRAPHY AND HrHnowoeay, § 11. E.E.N. NEBALLAT, ni-bal’at (5233, nebhallat): A city occupied by Benjamites after the Exile (Neh 11 34). Map III, D 5. NEBAT, ni’bat (923, nebhat): Used only in the phrase Ydrobh‘dm ben Nebhat. The father of King Jeroboam, the first king of the Northern Kingdom (I K 11 26, and often). Oo SCE: NEBO, ni’bo (153, n*bhd): 1. A town E. of the Jordan, fortified and occupied by Reubenites (Nu 32 37; Is 15 2; Jer 48 22). It was besieged and cap- tured by King Mesha of Moab, who destroyed the altar of J’’ in it, and put its inhabitants to death (see Mesha Stone, lines 14 ff., under MmsHa). According to Onom. 283, 142, it was situated 8 m. from Hesh- bon, which would point to the modern Et-teim, S. of Heshbon, as the site. 2. Supposed to be a town in Judah (same as Nob in Is 10 32), whose inhabitants (Eizr 2 29, 10 43; Neh 7 33) returned with Zerubbabel. In Ezr 2 29, however, they are called ‘the children of Nebo,’ which makes it questionable whether a city is meant, as ‘children of’ is a phrase universally used of clans, and never in prose of the inhabitants of a town. On the supposition that Nebo is here a town, its site has been fixed at Bett Na&bd, just N. of Ajalon, Map III, E 5, and 12 m. NW. of Jerusa-. lem (Buhl, Geog. Pal., p. 193). The conjecture that families from the Nebo E. of the Jordan had main- tained their identity and name through the Exile and had become a postexilic clan (Bennett in H DB) is plausible, but has no support in the text. 3. Mt. Nebo (32), har-n*bho): A peak in the Abarim range (Nu 33 47; Dt 32 49, 341 [P]; in JE ‘Pisgah’), from which Moses viewed the promised land just before his death. Until recently Jebel Attarus, about 10 m. NW. of Heshbon, was supposed to be Mt. Nebo. But a better knowledge of the ground leads to Nébd, half-way between Heshbon and the N. end of the Dead Sea, Map II, J 1. While this site also scarcely harmonizes with the literal interpretation of Dt 341 #., the description here must be taken as that of the land as it afterward proved to be (cf. Driver, Deut in loco in ICC). 4. A widely worshiped Semitic deity. See Semrric Rexiaion, § 27 NEBUCHADREZZAR (II), neb’yu-kad-rez’ar (A¥877313), nebhiikhadhre’tstsar), NEBUCHAD- NEZZAR (Babyl-Assyr. Nabé-kudurri-utsur), ‘Nebo, defend the boundary’): The king of Neo-Babylonia, or, better, Chaldea, 605-562 B.c. He was the son and successor of Nabopolassar, the real founder of the Chaldean Empire, the dynasty being of Chaldean origin. He was the second king of that name, the first having ruled in Babylon, about 1140 B.c. The first notable act of N. was, as head of the army, the defeat of Necho II of Egypt (and the last remnant of the Assyrian army!) at Carchemish in 605 B.c. (Jer 46 2). While on this campaign at Pelusium, near the borders of Egypt, N. was notified of the death of his father, and, after a hasty return, he made secure his claim to the throne. His campaign, however, won for him the control of Syria and Palestine—the beginning of empire-extension toward the southwest. Of his numerous inscriptions, the larger propor- tion deals with his religious achievements, recon- struction of temples, dedications to his gods, and his devotion to the whole religious system. His con- quests and final destruction of Jerusalem, and his Babylonian exile of the Jews, are narrated in the O T only. During the final siege of the Jewish capital, N. met and defeated the army of Apries (Hophra O T) the Egyptian king, the ally of the Jews (Jer 37 5-8). During and after the fall of Jerusalem (586 B.c.), N. besieged Tyre for thirteen years (585-573 B.c.), before it acknowledged the sover- eignty of Babylon. A fragment of N.’s own in- scriptions indicates that he was still at war with Egypt in this thirty-seventh year (568 B.c.). In the forty-third year of his reign, he died and was succeeded by his son, Evil-Merodach. Under N. Babylon became the chief commercial, political, religious, and literary center of the Mesopotamian valley and of SW. Asia. Babylon was really N.’s creation, and the Chaldean kingdom was centered in this city. ToM~,P: NEBUSHAZBAN, neb’yu-shaz/’ben = (1378933 n*bhishazban; Babyl. Nabt-she-zib-a-ni, ‘Nebu, deliver me’): The name of the Rab-saris (‘chief cap- tain’) in the Chaldean army at the fall of Jerusalem (Jer 39 13). The name is actually found in Baby- lonian inscriptions as that given to a son of Necho II, (609-593 B.c.) King of Egypt, as a mark of his alle- giance to the king of Assyria. Te Me Be NEBUZARADAN, neb’’yu-zar-é’den, (J787P32) nbhiizar’ddhan; Babyl. Naba-zér-iddin(a), ‘Nebu has given aseed’). The chief of the body-guard of Nebuchadrezzar at the time of the fall of Jerusalem 586 B.c. (II K 25 8, 11, 20). He had charge of the captives after Jerusalem fell, and, in accord with the orders of Nebuchadrezzar, showed special favor to Jeremiah (Jer 39 11). Five years after the fall of Jerusalem he carried off 745 Jewish captives from Palestine (Jer 52 30). TisMiaP% NECOH, NECHO, NECO, ni’ko. See PHaraon, (7). NECROMANCER, NECROMANCY. See Maaic AND DIVvINATION, § 3. Nedabiah New Testament, Canon of NEDABIAH, ned’a-bai’a (73°, nedhabhyah): A son of Jaconiah, the captive king of Judah (I Ch 3 18). NEEDLE’S EYE: In the phrase ‘it is easier for a camel to go through a needle’s eye,’ etc., found in all the Synoptics (Mk 10 25 and ||s), the term is used in an entirely figurative sense to denote the extreme difficulty of entrance into the kingdom of God on the part of the rich (cf. Bruce in Exp. Gr. Test. and Swete’s Com. on Mark, in loc.). A parallel figure is found in Mt 28 24. J. MM: T. NEEDLEWORK. See Artizan Lirn, § 14. NEESING (from ‘neese,’ an old Eng. word, now obsolete, allied to ‘sneeze’): The word occurs once (Job 41 18 AV, ‘sneezings’ RV), and denotes the heavy breathing of the crocodile (‘leviathan’) bask- ing in the sun (cf. RV). NEGINAH, ni-gai’na; NEGINOTH, neg’i-neth. See Music anp Musica INstruMEntS, § 3 (4). NEHELAMITE, ni-hel’a-mait (P20) "2m? nehélami, nehlémz): A gentilic or a designation of the town or district of the false prophet Shemaiah, an exile with the Jews in Babylon, who sent a letter to Jerusalem complaining of Jeremiah’s letter to the Exiles. Jeremiah prophesied that Shemaiah would die in exile (Jer 29 24, 31 f.). CRS RM Be NEHEMIAH, ni’hi-mai’a, and NEHEMIAH, BOOK OF. See Ezra anp NEHEMIAH. NEHILOTH, ni’hi-leth. See Music anp Musicau INSTRUMENTS, § 3 (4). NEHUM, ni’hom (3M), nehiim), ‘comfort’: The name of one of the leaders of the Exile, who returned with Zerubbabel from Babylon (Neh 7 7). In Ear 2 2, the name is given as R*him, which is probably correct. C.S8. T. NEHUSHTA, ni-hosh’ta (SAYN), nehushta’): The mother of King Jehoiachin (II K 24 8-12; cf Jer 13 18 f., 22 26). NEHUSHTAN, ni-hosh’tan (JAY), nehushtan) The name of the brazen serpent destroyed by Heze- kiah (II K 18 4). Altho the statement in EV is quite simple and clear, the Heb. text is not free from difficulties. The derivation and meaning of the Heb. are uncertain. The derivation from n*hdsheth, ‘brass,’ with the diminutive ending dn (expressive of contempt), is not so satisfactory as that from nahash, ‘serpent,’ altho this leaves the significance of the ending tan undetermined. If we render the verb of the sentence ‘it was called’ instead of ‘he called it,’ then n*hushtan was the name by which the object was known to its worshipers. It was probably some form of serpent-worship that was carried on in con- nection with this object, which tradition, rightly or wrongly, identified with the brazen serpent said to have been made by Moses (see Semitic RELIGION, § 31). That this object was worshiped in the Temple is not said, nor is it said that it was used as an image of J’, as is often assumed. For various speculations concerning n*hushtan see Cheyne in EB, s.v. EK. E. N. NEIEL, ni-ai’el Owen, n'Vél): A town on the border of Asher (Jos 19 27). Site not certainly known. A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 610 NEIGHBOR: The rendering of ‘Gmzth, ‘equal’ (Lv 6 2, 19 15, 24 14, 25 15), ga@rdbh, ‘near one’ (Ex 32 27), réa‘, ‘friend,’ ‘friendly companion,’ more used in the O T than all the others put together (Ex 11 2; Lv 19 18, etc.), shakhén ‘[fellow] inhabitant’ (Ex 3 22), or ‘fellow countryman’ (cf. yeftwy, Lk 14 12, etc.), 6 cAnotoy (Mk 12 31, etc.), and xeptotxog (Lk 1 58). The necessity of living in villages, rather than in scattered farmhouses, for purposes of defense and the habitual residence at the same place, as dis- tinguished from frequent removals, combine in the Biblical Orient to give the neighborhood idea a peculiar importance. The neighborhood takes a distinct place as a social unit between the family and the town as a whole, and neighbor comes to be next to kin. From this point of view, the relation was at the same time promotive of good and full of risks. Hence the provisions in the O T legislation bearing on social duties are often couched in the terms of neighborhood (Ex 20 16 f.), including even the law of love for the neighbor (Lv 19 is; cf. Lk 10 29), where the idea is used as a stepping-stone for the inculcation of the law of universallove. A. C. Z. NEKEB, ni’keb. See ADAMI-NEKEB. NEKODA, ni-k6’da (STIP3, neqddha’): 1. The an- cestral head of a family of Nethinim (Ezr 2 48; Neh 7 50). 2. The ancestral head of a family who could not prove their genealogy (Ezr 2 60; Neh 7 62). NEMUEL, ni-miii’el DAI} nemwél): 1. The ancestral head of the Nemuelites, one of the clans of Simeon (Nu 26 12; I Ch 4 24), also called Jemuel (Gn 46 10; Ex 6 15). 2. The head of a Reubenite family (Nu 269). NEPHEG, ni’feg (193, nephegh): 1. The head of a Kohathite family (Ex 6 21). 2. A son of David (1S 515; I Ch 37, 146). NEPHEW. See Faminy anp Faminy Law, § 1. NEPHILIM, nef‘i-lim (0°?°D}, nephilim): A word of unknown etymology, rendered in the LXX. and AV by ylyavtes, ‘giants,’ (Gn 6 4; Nu 13 33). In Nu 13 33 the rendering ‘giants’—7.e., a race of men of extraordinary size, otherwise known as ‘sons of Anak’—is satisfactory (see Granrs). But in Gn 64, if the statement about the nphilim was an integral part of the original text, superhuman or semi-divine beings are meant (see Skinner in JCC, ad loc.). E. E. N. WEPHISH, ni’fish,h NEPHISHESIM, -1-sim, NEPHISIM, nef’i-sim, NEPHUSHESIM, n1-fii’shi- sim, NEPHUSIM, ni-fi’sim. See Napuisu. NEPHTHALIM, nef’fho-lim (Neg6aAciu): The AV form in the N T for ‘Naphtali’ (Mt 4 13, 15; Rev 76); NEPHTOAH, nef’to-a (MIND), nephtdah): A place, more exactly ‘the fountain of the waters of N.’ (Jos 159, 18 15), which was on the border between Judah and Benjamin. It is identified with the spring Infta in a bottom of a valley three-quarters of an hour NW. of Jerusalem, and also with Etam, now ‘Ain ‘Atén, SW. of Bethlehem. UE is Ps ip NEPHUSIM, ni-fii’sim. See NApuisux. 611 A NEW STANDARD NER, nor (73, nér), ‘light’: Saul’s uncle (I S 14 50; IIS 28;1K25). According to I Ch 8 33, however, N. was the father of Kish, and therefore Saul’s grandfather. There may have been two different persons of the same name. But from Jos. Ant. VI, 6 it appears that I Ch 8 33 is based on confusion of readings. A. C. Z. NEREUS, ni’ri-us (Nypeds): A Christian greeted in Ro 16 15, apparently belonging to a family of which other members are mentioned (see JULIA). The name occurs in Roman inscriptions (C7 L, VI, 4344). For the later Roman legend of the Acts of Nereus and Achilleus, which may have been sug- gested by inscriptions, see Lipsius-Bonnet, Apek. A postelgeschichte, II, 106 f. J. M. T. NERGAL, ner’gal. See Semiric REiIGIon, § 28. NERGAL-SHAREZER, nor’ gal-shar-i’zir (973 ASNW, nérghal sar’etser); Babyl. Nergal-shar-utsur, ‘Nergal, protect the king’: The Rab-mag (q.v.) of Nebuchadrezzar at the capture of Jerusalem in 586 B.c. (Jer 39 3, 13). He was one of the officers who rescued Jeremiah from prison (Jer 3913). Ina cunei- form letter from Erech recently read we find that N. occupied high military rank in Nebuchadrezzar’s reign, and that the army was not up to standard at the close of that reign. He married a daughter of Nebuchadrezzar, and thus was brother-in-law, and became successor of Evil-Merodach on the throne, under the popular name of Neriglissar, and ruled almost four years (559-556 B.c.). He was succeeded by his son, Labashi-Marduk, a mere child who was deposed after a reign of nine months. Pa vaP. NERI, ni’rai (Nyoet): An ancestor of Jesus (Lk 3 27). NERIAH, ni-rai’a (33, nériyyah), ‘J’ is light’: The father of Baruch, Jeremiah’s disciple (Jer 32 12 ff., etc.). NEST: Besides the literal and metaphorical ap- plications of the original word (gén, Nu 24 21; Jer 49 16; Ob 4; Hab 2 9; Job 29 18), the EVV also so translate a Greek term meaning ‘lodging-place,’ nxnatacxqvwats (Mt 8 20; Lk 9 58). NET. See FisHine and Huntina. NETAIM, né’ta-im (9°99) nta%im): The name of a place, the seat of an ancient pottery, probably near Gederah (I Ch 4 23 RV, cf. AV and RVmg). NETHANEL, ni-than’el (Y820}, nthan’él, Ne- thaneel AV), ‘God has given’: The name of ten individuals in the O T—all occurring in late (post- exilic) documents as follows: .1 The ‘prince’ of Is- sachar (Nu 1 8, 2 5, etc.). 2. David’s brother (I Ch 214). 3. A priest (I Ch 15 24). 4. A Levite (I Ch 24 6). 5. A son of Obed-edom (I Ch 26 4). 6. A prince of Judah (II Ch 177). 7. A Levite (II Ch 359). 8. One of the ‘sons of Pashhur’ (Ezr 10 22). 9. A priest (Neh 12 21). 10. A musician (Neh 12 36). NETHANIAH, neth’a-nai’a (730), nethanyah), ‘J’ gives’: 1. A chief musician (I Ch 25 2,12). 2.A prince of Judah and father of Ishmael, the opponent of Gedaliah (II K 25 23, 25; Jer 40 8, etc.). 3. A Levite (II Ch 17 8). 4. The father of Jehudi (Jer 36 14). Nedabiah BIBLE DICTIONARY New Testament, Canon of NETHINIM, nefh’i-nim (97D), n*thinim): The Hebrew word etymologically signifies ‘those given,’ and is applied to those who were given or dedicated to the sanctuary. It occurs frequently in postexilic literature as a designation of the slaves of the priests and Levites, who performed the menial services con- nected with the Temple and its ceremonies. Jose- phus terms them teeéd3ouAot, and the O T indicates that they were temple-slaves. They were the de- scendants either of Canaanites who had been reduced to forced labor or of captives of war. It was a cus- tom in Israel to give prisoners of war to priests as their portion. This was done by Moses in the case of the Midianites (Nu 31 30, 47), and, according to Jos 9 23, the Gibeonites also were made temple- slaves. Among the names of the Nethinim (Ezr 2 43-54; Neh 7 46-56) there are several pointing to an alien origin, e.g., Meunim and Nephisim. The em- ployment of aliens as temple-slaves is severely cen- sured by Ezekiel (44 6 f.), and was prohibited in Herod’s Temple. According to Ezr 8 20 the Neth- inim were organized by David; with the other ecclesiastics they were exempt from taxation and resided in special cities (Ezr 7 24, 2 70); after the Return, Ophel, opposite the water-gate, was assigned to them (Neh 3 26). Under Zerubbabel 392 Neth- inim returned, while 220 accompanied Ezra (Ezr 2 58, 8 20). Seealso PrrestHoop, § 9, d. eeu ie NETOPHAH, ni-td’fa (720), netdphah), ‘drop- ping’: A town in Judah mentioned with Bethlehem and Anathoth (Ezr 2 22; Neh 7 26), reinhabited by Jews who returned with Zerubbabel. From the name is derived the gentilic Netophathite (Neh 12 28 AV Netophathi), applied to two of David’s heroes (II S 23 28, 29; I Ch 11 30). Before the Exile it was inhabited by Calebites (I Ch 2 54). It is identified by some with Khurbet umm-Toba, S. of Jerusalem; by others with Beit- Nettif, W. of Jerusalem at the entrance to the Wddy es-Sunt, or Vale of Elah. OAS Ss ba NETTLE. Sce Pauzsringe, § 22. NETWORK: In Is 19 9 AV the Heb. héray is rendered ‘networks,’ but RV reads ‘white cloth.’ It is possible that ‘the weavers shall turn pale’ should be read. See also Tempe, § 14; Atrar, § 2; and PICTURE. K. BE. N. NEW EARTH, NEW HEAVENS. See Es- CHATOLOGY, § 48. NEW JERUSALEM. See REVELATION, Book or, § 6; and Escuarotoey, § 48. NEW MAN. See REGENERATION, § 2. NEW MOON. See Fasrs anp Frasts, § 6. NEW TESTAMENT, CANON OF. The idea con- veyed by the word ‘canon’ is that of a collection of sacred writings regarded as authoritative. The word ‘canon’ (xaviv, from xévwa, ‘reed’) means a ‘straight thing’ like a reed, and was applied to a ‘rod,’ a ‘ruler,’ or a ‘list,’ (cf. the papyrus lists of names of things arranged in a narrow vertical column). From such meanings as ‘ruler,’ or mason’s ‘rule,’ it came to have the more general meaning ‘rule,’ ‘standard.’ As applied to the New Testa- ment, it probably was originally used in the sense of New Testament, Canon of A NEW STANDARD ‘list? to denote the list of New Testament books (cf. the ‘canon of the mass,’ which is a catalog of martyrs and saints; also the Eusebian ‘canons,’ which were lists of passages in the Gospels). But a list is in most cases intended to be correct, that is, authoritative; and in view of the other meaning of the word canon (‘rule’), and of the growth of the idea of Scriptural authority, it was almost inevitable that the ‘canon’ of the New Testament should come to be used in the sense of an authoritative collection of Christian writings in distinction from other writ- ings not so regarded. 1. Introductory. TheIdea of Canon. Its adoption by Christians was probably influenced by the Alex- andrian custom of using collections of Greek authors as models and calling them xavévec. It is not pos- sible to say whether the more prominent idea is that of the Scriptures as normative, or that of a defining list of Scriptural books; probably both ideas were present from the beginning. It should be noted that the phrase 6 xavay ths d&AnOelag was also used for ‘the faith.’ | The idea of a canon of Scripture, apart from the word ‘canon,’ was inherited from the Jews, and was at first expressed by other words. The earliest of these expressions is probably in II Clement, which speaks of t& @rBAle xat of dxdctoAot; but more im- portant is the usage of Clement of Alexandria and Melito of Sardis, who adopted the word 8ta0qxy and who distinguish the N T as a % vé« 8taOqxy. From this is derived the adjective év3:d6ynxoc, used by Origen and others in the sense of ‘canonical.’ In Latin this became testamentum, but Tertullian pre- ferred instrumentum. Another phrase used by Origen was dedyuoctevuévat yeagat, meaning especially, tho perhaps not exclusively, Scriptures which could be read publicly in church; with these were, of course, contrasted the &xéxeugo yeapat. The earliest use of xavey (in the form tx xavoviGdueva) is in the Festal letter of Athanasius for 367, and from that time the word became popular. In discussing the history of the N T it is essential to observe the distinction between the use of its writings and their reception into the Canon. Docu- ments may have existed for many years before they became canonical, and quotation by an early writer does not prove that he regarded the book as Scrip- ture. The failure to recognize this point has some- times led to the assignment either of impossibly late dates for the origin of various books in the N T, or of impossibly early dates for their reception into the Canon. The present article is concerned with the question of canonicity, and only incidentally with that of origin. 2. The Teaching of Jesus the Earliest N T Canon. The Canon of our Lord and of the Apostles was the Jewish Scriptures. In the N T ‘scripture,’ ‘scrip- tures,’ means the whole or portions of the Jewish Bible, perhaps including some apocryphal books. The only exception to this rule is II P 3 16, where there is at least a tendency to rank the Pauline writings as Scripture. II P is, however, almost cer- tainly a pseudepigraph, and is not evidence for the first generation. At the same time, even in the earliest days of the Church, the O T did not stand BIBLE DICTIONARY 612 as the sole authority; coordinate with it was the teaching of the Lord, as may be seen from the Pauline Epistles (e.g., I Co 710; I Th 415). Between this and the authority of the O T there was only a difference of form. The latter was an authoritative book, the former was the teaching of an authoritative person. It is uncertain precisely when the teaching of the Lord was collected into book-form, but for the pres- ent purpose the important point is that no step had been taken before the end of the Ist cent. to transfer the authority of the Lord and His teaching to docu- ments describing Him or it, thus forming a canon. 3. Canonization of Writings Begun. In the sub- Apostolic period this transference of authority began to be made, but quite slowly. The earliest instance is probably in the Hp. Barn. 4 14, which introduces the sentence ‘Many are called, but few are chosen’ by ‘as it is written.’ This passage seems to be a direct quotation from Mt 22 14; but many scholars find difficulty in accepting this view, and think that a common apocryphal source lies behind both Mt and Kp. Barn. Much depends on the date assigned to Ep. Barn. If it was written c. 80 a.p. the former view seems less probable, but if Harnack’s dating of c. 180 a.p. be accepted, there is much less to be said against it, and it ought perhaps te be adopted. A more certain instance is in the book known as II Ep. of Clement, where a document containing the sayings of the Lord is unquestionably placed on the level of Scripture. But the date of this book is very uncertain; it is not earlier than 135 a.p. and is probably later (cf. Harnack, Chron. I, 488). A little earlier in some localities there began to be marked the tendency to exalt the Apostles and their teaching. This can be seen especially in Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, c. 115 a.p. (cf. Hp. ad Magn. 71). Such a tendency of thought, however, could end only in the establishment of Apostolic writings as canonical by the side of the written sayings of the Lord, tho as a matter of fact this process was not completed till the next generation. 4. Gospel Canon of 140-200. Putting aside Fp. Barn. and II Clement, the first writer who places Christian writings definitely on a level with the O T is Justin Martyr, who (c. 140-150 a.p.) refers to ‘Memoirs’ of the Apostles, called ‘Gospels’ (Apol. I, 66), and in his description of an early Christian service (A pol. I, 67) ranks them with the writings of the prophets. This was the first step in the actual formation of the N T Canon. It is not easy, however, to define exactly what were the books referred to as the ‘Memoirs’ of the Apostles. It seems almost certain that he knew and used all the Four Gospels and possible that he was acquainted with at least one other; but an important point, which has not yet been cleared up, is whether he used them as separate documents or in the form of a harmony. It is also likely that he was acquainted with at least some of the Pauline and other Epistles; but as he probably did not regard them as ‘scrip- ture,’ further definition is for the present purpose unnecessary. Almost contemporary with Justin were Papias of Hierapolis and Marcion of Rome. Papias seems to represent a more conservative atti- tude in that he preferred oral to written tradition, 613 and this perhaps suggests that the Church in Rome was more progressive than that in Hierapolis. He was acquainted with documents bearing the names of Matthew and Mark and probably also with the Apocalypse and perhaps other books of the N T; but the evidence is doubtful, and in any case does not prove that he regarded them as ‘scripture.’ 5. Canon of Marcion. Marcion, on the other hand, went further than Justin. He established a canon consisting of ‘Gospel’ and ‘Apostle,’ which seem to have been identical, the former with our Luke and the latter with the Pauline Epistles (omit- ting the Pastorals); tho the text differed from ours and perhaps had been altered by him. This is really the earliest evidence for the use of the Epistles as canonical. There is plenty of earlier evidence for their existence; but until Marcion they do not seem. to have been reckoned on the same level as the O T and the Gospels, so that in this respect the heretic anticipated the verdict of the Catholic Church. 6. Status of Gospels at Close of 2d Cent. Thus the evidence of the first half of the 2d cent. suggests that before its close the Church in some localities, notably in Rome, had taken the step of canonizing Apostolic writings which contained accounts of the Lord’s life and teaching. A tendency can also be observed which emphasized the importance of the Apostles, but it can not be shown that this had as yet led to the actual canonization of any of their writings. A considerable advance was made in the second half of this century. The authorities which we possess for this period show that the N T Canon was becoming settled, and that it consisted of Gos- pels and Apostolic writings. Points which were not settled were the restriction of the Gospels to the four which are now recognized, and the limits of the Apostolic writings. Before the end of the 2d cent., however, the Four Gospels, neither more nor less, were firmly established in the West and in Africa, and the writings of Irenzus show that an extensive system of symbolism was growing up around the number four. But in Alexandria Clement (c. 190) used other gospels besides the Four (e.g., that of the Egyptians), apparently without drawing any dis- tinction between them, tho the point is open to dispute, and in the East there is the negative evi- dence of Theophilus (c. 180) and the positive evi- dence of Tatian (c. 170), who introduced into the Syrian Church, not the fourfold Gospel, but the harmony based on it, which remained in general use until the beginning of the 5th cent. Tatian’s evi- dence is especially valuable, as he came from Rome. It shows that, altho the Four Gospels had there-a preeminent position, the emphasis laid on the four- fold canon, as against either the recognition of more gospels or the redaction of them into a harmony, belongs to the period between Justin and Irenzus (c. 180-190), the latter of whom, altho bishop of Lyons, may be taken to represent the Roman stan- dard. The existence of the Alogi, who rejected the Fourth Gospel, is also a sign that the fourfold Gos- pel had for a time to face some opposition. 7. Status of Apostolic Writings at Close of 2d Cent. Turning to the Apostolic writings, the kernel of the collection was everywhere the Acts and thir- A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY New Testament, Canon of teen Pauline Epistles. The only possible exception to this was in the Syrian Church. It is not at all certain that Tatian introduced these writings as canonical along with his Diatessaron; but this is not for the present purpose of great importance, as it is probable that a little later the influence of the Greek Church of Antioch brought in the ‘Separated Gos- pels’ and with them the Acts and Pauline Epistles. Certainly, until the beginning of the 5th cent. the evidence is that the Syriac Canon contained no other Apostolic writings, such as the Catholic Epistles. It is, however, remarkable that among the Pauline Epistles the Syriac Canon seems to have at first included some spurious letters connected with Corinth, still preserved in the Armenian N T, which were probably extracts from the Acta Pauli. A problem of importance, but at present insoluble, is the origin of the collection of the Pauline Epistles. It is certain that the exchange of valued books by neighboring communities was an important factor, but how the unanimity was reached which fixed on thirteen epistles is unknown. Outside the Pauline Epistles the Canon was still far from fixed. Except in the East, I Peter, I John, and the Apocalypse were generally received; but there was a consider- able literature on the fringe of the Canon, some of which has been since accepted and some rejected. For the West a valuable piece of evidence is the Canon discovered by Muratori, in 1740, the earliest known list of canonical books, which is attributed by some scholars to Hippolytus, tho there is room for much doubt on this point. The evidence of this document, which originated in the Roman Church, together with that of Irenzeus, Tertullian of North Africa, and Clement of Alexandria, may be exhib- ited in the following table, which fairly represents the Church opinion in the last quarter of the 2d cent. It should, however, be noted that the tabular form exaggerates the clearness of the evidence, which is not all equally satisfactory. n ~ aS ZllelS/215 | 81 E/ 8/8] 4 RPP P al aye | Ss Z| a 2 Irenzus........|No|No|No!No |Yes|No |Yes}/Yes}|No| ? |No Tertullian........| ? |No|No|Yes|No|No |Yes/Yes|No|Noj|No Clem. Alex... .| Yes/No} No} Yes| Yes} No?| Yes! Yes] Yes} Yes} Yes Mur. Canon....}No |No| No} Yes|Yes|No |Yes}No |No |No | Yes 8. Completion of Canon, from 3d to 6th Cent. It will thus be seen that at the beginning of the 3d cent. the N T Canon was fairly established with a four- fold Gospel, a collection of Pauline Epistles, and a less closely defined body of other Apostolic writings, as to which local opinion varied. The work of the next period in the West was the definition and gradual enlargement of the list of Apostolic books. In the end Hebrews, II Peter, IT and III John, and James won acceptance, owing chiefly to the belief that they had been written by Apostles, and that all Apostolic writings were authoritative. But the other books, tho lingering on in some quarters, were dropped. A somewhat eccentric list, which seems to represent some such survival, is the so called Claromontane Canon, found in Cod. D?#', which still retains Hermas and the New Testament, Canon of New Testament Chronology 4 NEW STANDARD Apocalypse of Peter, adds the Acts of Paul, and calls Hebrews the Epistle of Barnabas, as did Tertullian and Novatian. In Alexandria the greater vagueness of the Canon in Clement’s time demanded more thoroughgoing measures, and Origen (189-254) in- troduced a new classification of books. He divided the extant literature which had claims to be Apos- tolic into three classes: genuine, rejected, and doubt- ful. His division seems to have been that the Four Gospels, Acts, thirteen Pauline Epistles, Hebrews (with some hesitation), the Apocalypse, I Peter, and I John were recognized as genuine; certain heretical books, such as the Gospel of the Egyptians, were classed as rejected; while II and III John, James, Jude, and II Peter were doubtful. He used Hermas as Scripture, but recognized that some Christians differed from him. Eusebius of Caesarea (265-340) followed closely in Origen’s footsteps, and this divi- sion of the books had much influence on the succeed- ing generation. One point is especially noteworthy: Origen included the Apocalypse among the genuine books, but he was not in sympathy with that kind of literature. His opponent Methodius, however, accepted also the Apocalypse of Peter. We may probably trace here the influence of the antipathy to apocalyptic literature, which grew more pro- nounced in the East in the succeeding generations. The Canon of the Eastern Church was ultimately the same as that of the Western, but the Palestinian and Syrian churches long rejected the Apocalypse (cf. the Decree of the Council of Laodicea in 368, the Stichometry of Nicephorus, and the List of Sixty Canonical Books). The Alexandrians hesitated; but, following the lead of Athanasius, in the end they accepted it, tho not without controversy (cf. Eus. HE, VII, 25), and gradually the Alexandrian tradi- tion gained ground, and the Apocalypse was gen- erally accepted. Only the Syrian Church kept a more conservative position. Even at the beginning of the 5th cent. it did not accept the minor Epistles or the Apocalypse, and these were not added to the Syriac Bible until the 6th cent., while in some Nestorian circles they probably were never adopted at all. With this exception the Canon of the N T was generally fixed in its present form before the 6th cent. It is true that in outlying districts eccen- tricities were still to be found, such as an occasional use of the ‘Epistle to the Laodiceans’ among the Pauline Epistles. In the Reformation an attack was made on some of the Catholic Epistles, and Luther relegated to an appendix to his New Testament the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistles of James and Jude, and the Book of Revelation, but these points are not of the first importance, and are outside the scope of this article. LirERATURE: The subject may be studied especially in Zahn Gesch. d. neut. Kanon (1888-92); but one should also read Harnack’s Das N T um das Jahr. 200 (1889), or the section on the Canon in his History of Dogma (Eng. transl. 1897); also Leipoldt, Neutestamentlichen Kanon (1907-8). Satis- factory statements of the main points are given in H. J. Holtzmann’s Hinleitung in d. N T (1893), pp. 75-204, and in Jiilicher’s Introduction (Eng. transl. 1904), pp. 459-566. An indispensable collection of texts is given in Preuschen’s Analecta (1893), pp. 129-185. Westcott’s History of the Canon of the N T (1875) is still valuable, tho rather old and somewhat too apologetic. See also A. Souter, TJezt and Canon of ihe N T (1913). BIBLE DICTIONARY 614 NEW TESTAMENT CHRONOLOGY. In the absence of sufficient data no precise and detailed chronology of the events recorded in the New Testament is possible. The margin of uncertainty is indeed seldom very serious, but exact dating is not attainable. For the Gospel narrative our informa- tion is singularly scanty and not easily reduced to consistency. The earliest history of the Church lies in the same obscurity. Only as we advance into the second part of the Acts of the Apostles do we ap- proach a definite chronology. Perhaps the first important event in Christian history which can be quite precisely dated is the outbreak of the Neronian persecution in 64 a.p., which already lies outside the scope of the historical writings of the New Testa- ment. I. Tat FRAMEWORK oF CONTEMPORARY History. An outline of the relevant political events of the Roman Empire and its dependencies within which Christianity arose will serve as a setting for the chronology of the Apostolic Age. Augustus, 30 B.c.-14 a.p. Herod the Great, king of Palestine, 37-4 B.c. Temple begun at Jerusa- lem, probably in Jan. or Dec., 20- 19 B.c; Sons of Herod. (1) Archelaus, ethnarch of Judea and Sa- maria 4 B.c., ban- ished 6 A.D. (2) Antipas, tetrarch of Galilee and Perea 4 B.C.-39 A.D. (3) Philip, tetrarch of Trachonitis, ete., 4 B.C.-34 A.D. Judea under procura- tors, 6-41 A.D. Pontius Pilate, 26-36. Herod Agrippa I (Ac 12) after a life of ad- venture, King of the territory of his grandfather, Herod I, 37-44 (including Judea 41-44). Judea under procurators from 44. ; Revolt of Theudas be- Nero, 54-68. tween 44 and 48. Rome burned 19 July, Herod Agrippa II (Ac 64, followed by perse- 25 26), King of Chal- cution of Christians cis and parts of Gali- chiefly in Rome. lee and Perea 50- Tiberius, 14-37. Caligula, 37-41. Claudius, 41-54 100. Outbreak of Jewish Galba, Otho, Vitellius, 68- War 66. 69. Vespasian, 69-79. Fall of Jerusalem, Sept., Titus, 79-81. 70. Domitian, 81-96. 615 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY New Testament, Canon of New Testament Chronology Persecution of Chris- tians. Nerva, 96-98. Trajan, 98-117. II. Tae Lire or Jesus Curist. I. Internal Chronology of the Gospel Narratives. (I) Date of the Crucifixion. That the death of Jesus fell on a Friday at Passover-tide is a fixed point in all our records. According to the Fourth Gospel it took place on Nisan 14, immediately before the beginning of the Paschal Feast (Jn 13 1, 18 28, 19 14, 17-37). According to Mark, followed by the other Synoptics, Jesus had already eaten the Paschal meal with His disciples before His arrest (Mk 14 12-17), and consequently must have suffered on Nisan 15. tencies in the Synoptic account which tell in favor of the Johannine date, which is now generally accepted. (II) Duration of the Ministry according to the Synoptic Gospels. Prima facie the course of events related would not seem to extend beyond the limits of a single year, terminating about Easter. That the Ministry of Jesus did in fact last no more than a year is a view held by many both in ancient times and to-day. But there are data in the Synoptic Gospels themselves which make this view difficult. (a) There are in any case several unfilled gaps of unknown length in the Marcan narrative (e.g. 1 13-15, 39, 6 12-30). Altho only one visit to Jerusalem is recorded there are elements in the narrative which are better intelligible if Jesus had been in the capital before the last week. (b) Very shortly before the end of the Galilean ministry Jesus had fed a multitude in open country (Mk 6 34-44, related with varying detail again in 8 1-9), at a time when the grass was green, 1.e., in early spring and probably not long before Easter (Mk 6 39). It seems difficult to find room for the events recorded between the abandonment of Galilee and the Crucifixion on the assumption that these events happened in the same spring. We con- clude that the Galilean ministry ended roughly about a year before the Crucifixion. (c) During the Galilean ministry the disciples plucked ripe ears of corn (Mk 2 23). This would only be possible between Easter and Whitsuntide. It is very unlikely that this incident is so seriously mis- placed by Mark that it could be brought into the time between the Feeding of the Multitude and the Crucifixion. Hence it probably happened some months before the Feeding. At that time Jesus already had disciples and was already a marked man. ‘Hence it was not quite at the beginning of the ministry. It would appear to be difficult to bring the Synoptic narrative as a whole within less than about 2 years. (III) Duration of the Ministry according to the Fourth Gospel. This Gospel gives a fairly complete chronological scheme in which the course of events is punctuated by visits to Jerusalem for various Feasts. ‘Three Passovers are mentioned (2 13; 6 4— where the reading +d xé&cya is almost certainly genuine—11 55 saqa.). As the Ministry has already commenced, tho only in a very tentative way, There are, however, apparent inconsis- - before the Passover of 2 13, the period implied is somewhat over 2 years. While the correlation of the Johannine scheme with the Marcan in detail presents difficulties, the period allotted to the Ministry as a whole will fit the Marcan narrative sufficiently well. (IV) Length of the Life of Jesus. Luke makes Jesus ‘about 30 years old’ at the opening of His Ministry (3 23). This is doubtless only a rough ap- proximation. According to John 8 57 the Jews said to Jesus ‘Thou art not yet 50 years old.’ This may im- ply a theory (which is actually found outside the N T) that Jesus reached middle-age. This theory is in itself improbable, and it is perhaps not a neces- sary inference from the words of the Fourth Gospel. IT. Correlation of the Gospel Narratives with General Chronology. (1) Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate (26-36 a.p.), in the High-Priesthood of Caiaphas (18-36 a.p.). Attempts to obtain a more precise dating by calendar computations are somewhat precarious, but they are thought to favor 29, 30, or 31 a.p. A tradition of the early Church, going back at least to Tertullian, names the consulate of the two Gemini, 7.e., 29 a.p., as the date of the Crucifixion. (II) The date of the opening of the ministry is to be inferred from the elaborate synchronism given for the appearance of John the Baptist in Lk 31-3. The data here given are consistent with known facts. The most precise date which the passage affords is the 15th year of Tiberius. It is natural to suppose that this is reckoned from the beginning of Tiberius’ sole reign upon the death of Augustus in 14 a.p., as was usual in Syria and elsewhere. But there are several ways of reckoning the years. As Augustus died in August, strictly the 15th year of Tiberius is August 28-August 29 a.p. Counted according to the Roman calendar year, it would be January to December, 28 a.p. Counted according to the Seleucid civil year it would be October 1, 27 to September 30, 28 a.p. This last has recently been shown to be a normal way of reckoning regnal years in the province of Syria throughout the first century. If this was Luke’s meaning, his date for the opening of the Ministry would be consistent with the date 29 a.p. for the Crucifixion, if the shorter reckoning of the duration of the ministry be accepted (as Luke probably intended), or with 30 a.p. if the Ministry be held to have lasted over two years. From John 2 20 it appears that the Passover of the 46th year of the building of Herod’s Temple (i.e., probably the year 27 a.p.) was believed to have fallen within the Ministry. This can not be reconciled with Luke’s dating unless he be supposed to reckon Tiberius’ regnal years from some point other than the customary. That he did so is the view taken by many authorities, but it leaves us in complete uncertainty about the year intended. (III) The birth of Jesus is placed by Luke (2 2) at the time of a census held by Quirinius as Governor of Syria. The only known census held by Quirinius is that of 6-7 a.p. Clearly this is not the one intended. It has been supposed, on very slight evidence, that Quirinius may have had a previous term as Governor of Syria, about 3-1 B.c. If Jesus were born about New Testament Chronology New Testament Text A NEW STANDARD that time he would be ‘about 30 years old’ in 27-28 A.D. But in any case’no census is likely to have been held in those years. Tertullian states that a census of the province of Syria was held by Sentius Saturninus (9-7 B.c.). Ramsay dates this census, by inference, to 8-7 B.c., and supposes that a@ corresponding census for Palestine was carried out by Herod the Great in 6 B.c. About that time Quirinius was holding high command in the East for the Homonadensian War (8-5 B.c.), and it is just possible that this might account for the association of his name with the census. If such a date be ac- cepted for the birth of Jesus it would be necessary either to allow a somewhat wide latitude to the phrase ‘about 30 years old,’ or to suppose that the 15th year of Tiberius is reckoned in some unusual fashion. On the other hand the date 6 B.c. would harmonize with the statement of Mt 21 sqq. that Jesus was born under Herod the Great (and, it seems to be implied, not at the very end of his reign), which is probably to be understood also from Lk 1 5. The attempt to use the ‘star’ of Mt as a basis for astronomical calculations is quite illusory. Ill. THe Aposrouic AGE. 1. With the latter part of the Acts of the Apostles something like a definite chronology begins to emerge. In Ac 1812 we learn that Gallio became Proconsul of Achaia while Paul was at Corinth dur- ing his ‘Second Missionary Journey.’ An inscription found at Delphi enables us to date the beginning of Gallio’s term of office with a high degree of proba- bility to the summer of 51 a.p. (see Deissmann, St. Paul, Appendix I). Again, it is regarded by com- petent authorities as almost certain that Felix was succeeded by Festus as Procurator of Judea (Ac 24 27) in 60 or 61, most probably the latter. This makes it possible to approximate to a definite chronology of Paul’s trials and imprisonment. From these two fixed points we can construct a chronology of the latter part of Paul’s career with only a narrow margin of uncertainty. (a) ‘Second Missionary Journey’ (Ac 15 36- 18 22). §S. Galatia revisited, Macedonia, Athens, Corinth (114 years), Antioch; 49-53 a.p. Paul ar- rives in Corinth shortly after the expulsion of Jews from Rome, of which the probable date is the ninth of Claudius, 49-50 a.p., and leaves it shortly after Gallio’s arrival in 51. (b) ‘Third Missionary Journey’ (Ac 18 23-21 30). S. Galatia, Ephesus, Corinth, Jerusalem; 54-59 a.p. Ephesus 2)%4 years, 55-57; the journey by Troas to Macedonia (II Cor 2 12, 13) and thence to ‘Greece,’ with 3 months at Corinth (no doubt Ac 20 3); and the journey via Philippi to Jerusalem, winter of 57-8 to Pentecost 59. (c) Two years’ imprisonment (Ac 24 17) 59-61; appeal to Cesar shortly after Festus’ accession in 61. (d) Start for Rome, autumn 61; 3 months in Malta (Ac 28 11); arrival in Rome spring 62. Two years in Rome (Ac 28 20), 62-64 a.p. This, it will be observed, brings us down to the outbreak of the Neronian persecution, in which according to tradition Paul fell. There is however another tradition according to which Paul was first liberated, and subsequently suffered a second im- BIBLE DICTIONARY 616 | prisonment. If the succession of Festus be placed in 60 instead of 61 A.p., and the journey described in II Cor 2 12, 13 and Ac 20 1-3 somewhat curtailed in time, then it is possible to bring the two years in Rome to an end in 63 and to suppose that Paul was clear of the metropolis, perhaps in Spain, before the out- break of persecution. He may then have been rear- rested and put to death at a later stage of the perse- cution. But we have no data of value to go upon for these events. It is improbable that the Pastoral Kpistles, which (in the opinion of the writer of this article) are not Pauline as they stand, tho incorporat- ing Pauline material, can be used as evidence for a second imprisonment, and so far as any solid testi- mony goes, Paul’s career ends in 63 or 64 A.D. 2. For the earlier part of Paul’s career the evi- dence is less satisfactory. Gal 1 18-2 1 offers some information regarding the interval between his conversion and a certain fateful conference with Peter, John, and James the Lord’s brother. But there are two uncertain factors here: (a) it is not certain whether the 3 years of 1 18 are to be added to the 14 years of 21, making a total of 17 years (or perhaps according to our less inclusive reckoning 16 or even little more than 15 years), or are included in the 14 years, reckoned from the epoch-making event of the conversion; (b) it is not agreed whether the conference described is to be identified with the ‘Apostolic Council’ of Ac ch. 15, or to a less formal interview which is supposed to have taken place on the occasion of the visit described in Ac 11 29-30. A recent theory is that the author of Acts has dupli- cated accounts of what was really only one visit, but even then the question arises, whether Ac ch. 11 or Ac ch. 15 represents the true place of this visit in the narrative. These uncertainties make any chronological scheme based on these data precarious. The dominant view is that the conference de- scribed in Gal ch. 2 occurred between the (so called) first and second Missionary Journeys, as described in Ac ch. 15. As Paul was in Corinth by 50, after a devious and prolonged journey through Asia Minor and Macedonia, the start for the second journey can hardly be placed later than 49. For the earlier journey, through Cyprus and 8. Galatia (Ac chs. 13 and 14) we have no chronological data. The proconsulate of Sergius Paulus in Cyprus (Ac 13 7) is attested epigraphically, but without indica- tion of date. If 48 be taken as a roughly approxi- mate date for the Jerusalem conference, then the reckoning of Gal 1 18-2 1 would give 34-35 a.p. as the latest, 31 a.p. as the earliest, date for the conversion of Paul. 3. For the chronology of the narrative of Ac chs. 1-12 we have only one clearly fixed point, the death of Agrippa I (Ac 12 20-23), 44 a.p. This per- mits us to date approximately the death of James son of Zebedee and the imprisonment of Peter (Ac 12 1-19). The famine mentioned in Ac 11 28 can not be dated with precision; various dates between 46 and 49 have been shown to be possible. But in any case the exact relation between the famine and the order of events is problematical. Indeed the fre- quent changes of scene and the absence of any pre- cise indications of succession of events or lapse of 617 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY New Testament Chronology New Testament Text time make the whole chronology of this period un- certain. As the conversion of Paul may fall in any year from 31 to 35 a.p., we are left uncertain whether the events from Pentecost (perhaps 29 or 30 4.D.) to the martyrdom of Stephen are to be spread over a period of 6 or 7 years, or brought within little more than a year. The visit of Paul to the Jerusalem Church recorded in Ac 9 26-29 is evidently identical with that mentioned in Gal 1 18, but the account in Ac would never have led us to suspect an interval of 3 years from the conversion. According to the varying construction of the Galatians passage it might be dated approximately to either 34 or 37 A.D. ~The fcllowing may be offered as an extremely rough approximation to the chronology of this period. Rentecasts (A012)... eictevasiete te ices tale fais perhaps 29 or 30 a.p. Death of Stephen (Ac 7)............ about 31 a.p. Missions to Samaria and to pave (Ac 8, 11 19-1)... Conversion of Paul re 9 4: “19),,. Paul’s first visit to Jerusalem ntAS ELST A Se ARN PII CIP aE ee ae Herod Agrippa’s persecution (Ac 12). Paul and Barnabas in Cyprus and 8. Calatian CAO Loytmieee wens fee about 46-47 a.p. Council of Jerusalem (Ac 15)......... about 48 a.v. 4. New Testament History ends with Paul’s two years in Rome. ‘Traditionally Peter as well as Paul suffered in the Neronian persecution which began in 64 a.p., but of this nothing is said in the N T. The next landmark is the Fall of Jerusalem in 70 a.p; but altho this event has left its mark on certain parts of the N T, it is not definitely alluded to except by way of forecast. It is probable that the Apocalypse reflects the persecution under Domitian, about 93- 96 a.D. But all such questions are involved with the dating of the N T writings, and reference should be made to articles on the several books. LiterRAtTuRE: For the enormous literature of this subject a general reference must be made to articles in the larger en- cyclopedias: in PRE3, Jesus Christus by Zéckler, and Paulus by Zahn; Chronology by C. H. Turner, HDB. (the best conservative statement), and by v. Soden in HB. (highly critical). See also Schiirer, History of the Jewish People in the Time of Christ (1890); Harnack, Chronologie der altchrist. Intteratur (1897); Ramsay, Was Christ Born at Bethlehem? (1898), and St. Paul the Traveler and Roman Citizen (1897); Zahn, Introduction to the N T (1907), all representative recent works. In James Moffatt’s Historical N T (1901) there are very complete and useful tables and summaries of recent opinions. See also The Chronology of the N T by A. L. Grieve in Peake’s Commentary on the Bible (1919). A recent treat- ment of the subject i isin G. W. Wade, New Testament History (1922) and in the third volume of Eduard Meyer’s Ursprung und Anfdnge des Christentums (1923). ©, H: D: NEW TESTAMENT, LANGUAGE OF. GREEK LANGUAGE. NEW TESTAMENT TEXT: 1. N T Autographs Not Extant. The Bible did not fall from heaven as a ready-made book. It was written by men; men also have copied it. God has not been pleased to protect the text miraculously from all corruption. The autographs, inscribed upon perishable papyrus, and not preserved with any special care, soon disap- peared. Each copy brought into existence unin- tentional or intentional changes in the text. Even attempts to correct errors produced new mistakes. 2. Origin of Textus Receptus. As we must inter- . years from 31 a.p. onward about 32 (or 35) a.p. about 34 (or 37) A.D. about 43 a.p. See pret the Bible, 7.e., establish its original meaning, through the intelligent use of our understanding, so also we should seek to restore its original text through scientific criticism. The consciousness of this duty has never entirely left the Church since the days of the great, Alexandrian and Cesarean Greek scholar Origen (lived 184-253). The exegetes of the ancient Church debated text-differences with perfect free- dom. Even in the Middle Ages it was well-known that for the sake of accuracy correcting was neces- sary to copying, and various Bible Correctoria were actually in use. Only with printing could the idea arise that one text alone could be supreme, and this actually happened in the case of the text following the Erasmian edd. of 1516 ff., i.e., the Stephanus (1550) and the Elzevir (1624). 3. Rise of Modern Textual Criticism. But the Englishman John Mill, as early as 1707, shattered the belief in the Divine origin and infallibility of this Textus Receptus through the 30,000 variants which he counted in eighty manuscripts. During the 19th cent. the greatest progress was made in this field, especially in two respects: (1) Through Tischendorf’s discovery and publication of the most important old MSS. (1841-1869), which greatly increased the apparatus in size and value over the collections of Mill, Wettstein, Matthaei, Birch, Alter, and Scholz. (2) Through the development of a method of classi- fication of manuscripts and textual criticism by Lachmann (1842-1850) and Westcott and Hort (1881) which, founded on Bentley’s Proposal (1721), far outdistanced the earlier attempts of Bengel, Griesbach, and others. While, before his day, cor- rections were made only here and there in the Textus Receptus, Lachmann followed the right principle in deserting this text altogether and constructing one based directly upon the ancient manuscripts and versions. It was Westcott and Hort, however, who showed in a masterly way how to estimate the his- torical worth of all these witnesses, and therefrom to reconstruct the text. 4. Witnesses to the Text. The fullest surveys of the extant materials for text criticism are given by F. H. A. Scrivener, C. R. Gregory, and H. von Soden. These are: (1) The Greek manuscripts, which are divided according to the character of the writing into Majuscules, or Uncials (8rd-10th cent.), and Minuscules (9th-15th cent.), the former being desig- nated in the lists by capital letters, the latter by numbers (a more complicated system has been “ adopted by von Soden). The most important manu- scripts are these: four that originally comprised the whole N T, viz.; the Vaticanus (B) and Sinaiticus (x) of the 4th cent., the Alexandrinus (A) and Ephremi Syri Rescriptus (C) of the 5th cent.; the Washington (Freer) of the 5th cent., containing the Gospels, the Koridethi of the 8th cent., containing the Gospels; and two bilingual (Greek and Latin) manuscripts, once in the possession of Beza, the Cantabrigiensis (D), containing the Gospels and Acts, and the Claromontanus (D or D2), containing Paul’s Epistles, of the 5th or 6th cent. (2) The Ancient Versions. Of these the most important are the Latin, the Syriac, and the Coptic—of which the old Latin is not later in origin than the middle of New Testament Text Nibshan | A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 618 the 2nd cent., the old-Syriac dates from about A.D. 200, and the Southern Coptic (7.e., Sahidic) can not be later than the 4th cent. Of secon- dary importance are the Gothic, Armenian, Geor- gian, and Ethiopic, of the 4th and 5th centuries. These versions have been preserved in manuscripts various in contents and date, with many variations in readings, and should, therefore, be used only in the critical editions of Oxford and Cambridge (the Vulgate by Wordsworth and White, 1889 ff., the Old-Syriac by Burkitt, 1904, the Peshitta by Gwil- liam, 1901, the North-Coptic (Bohairic) by Horner, 1898 ff., the South-Coptic (Sahidic) by Horner, 1911 ff.). As these versions generally experienced con- tinual revision, on the basis of Greek texts, they reflect, in their variations, the development of the original text itself. (8) The Patristic Quotations. Since these, in the long process of manuscript copy- ing, were often accommodated to the standard biblical text as known to the copyists, it is necessary in their case also to use only the critical editions, especially those of Cambridge Texts and Studies, Texte und Untersuchungen (Leipzig), of the Vienna Academy (for Latin) and the Berlin Academy (for Greek) (see, for example, Barnard’s excellent study, The Biblical Text of Clement of Alexandria, in Cambridge Texts and Studies, vol. v. 5, 1899). If the versions serve to determine the readings which were referred to in the church of any given province, and thus help to localize a text, so the patristic quotations help to date as well as localize it, by ena- bling one to follow back even to the 2d cent. a read- ing for which, among the manuscripts, there may be only late witnesses or, perhaps, no witness at all. Just as the text of manuscripts which include several parts of the N T differs in purity and character for the Gospels, Paul, Acts and Cath. Epp., and the Apocalypse, so the versions and the patristic quo- tations vary in value, according as the versions are careful renderings of the Greek in the one case, and the patristic quotations are exactly taken from a copy of a scripture book in front of their authors in the other. 5. Principles of Criticism. How is the value of the testimony offered by this material to be ascertained? It is not sufficient merely to add up the witnesses for and against a reading; they must be weighed. Nor does age decide; often witnesses of equal age stand opposed to each other. A late manuscript may have been copied from a very old one, and contain a text better than that of an older manuscript that hap- pens to be extant. The witnesses must be grouped genealogically (the safest criterion of relationship is community of error), since the later manuscripts are to be referred back to earlier (extant or lost) originals (e.g., the socalled Ferrar Group, consisting of Gospel-manuscripts 18, 69, 124, 230, 346, 543, 788, 826, 828, 983, 1689, 1709, all derived from a lost Calabrian MS. (probably) of the 9th cent.). Most N T MSS., however, contain mixed texts, agreeing now with this, now with that group. Consequently it is the ever-changing grouping that decides. When NBD agree, their reading is generally correct. Less certain is the grouping 8B against D, or 8D against B, or BD against 8. In the Epp. of Paul NAC is stronger than BDG. Furthermore, the groups must be arranged according to the history of the text. It is comparatively easy to distinguish certain late recensions. Rejecting these, we concentrate on the old types of text current in the several great geo- graphical divisions of the Church, the Alexandrian, Antiochian, and Cesarean (these three underlying the recensions respectively of Hesychius, Lucian and, Pamphilus), and the Western. This may’be illus- trated by the following diagram: y x = Original text. a = text cur- b = text cur- c = text cur- w = ‘Western’ rent in the | rent at An- | rent at Cas- | text, never churches of | tioch. 2d and | area. 2d and | subjected to Egypt. 2d} 3d cents. 3d cents. a scholarly and 3d cents. revision. Hesychius’s Lucian’s re- Pamphilus’s recension. cension. recension. c. 300 a.p.? (T309a.D.) A bey Later Antiochian recension ¢. 350 A.D. Hesychius preferred a short text; Lucian a rich one (with many conflate readings); Pamphilus a good style. The fact that the ‘Western’ text was never revised explains the indefinite and fluctuating character of the witnesses to this type of text. Westcott and Hort believed that in B we have the representative of a neutral text, and they are probably not far wrong. Since their day abundant papyrus evidence has shown that this was the prevalent type of text in Egypt, which, being a sheltered district, with a splendid scholarly tradition, was more liked to pre- serve a pure text than any other region of the Roman Empire. It is perhaps more than a possibility that Origen had something to do with its preservation. On the other hand, the ‘Western’ text has gained in importance; because it is now known that it was widely current in most ancient times, especially since the discovery, by Mrs. Lewis, in 1892, of the Sinai- Syriac text. Blass, Bousset, Burkitt, Lagarde, Nestle, Wellhausen, and others are enthusiastic advocates of this Syro-Latin text. The agreement of the Old-Latin MS. k (representing the text in use at Carthage about 200-250 a.p.) and the Sinaitic-Syriac MS. (representing the text in use at Antioch about 200 a.p.) must never be despised. The truth is that the external witnesses alone do not decide. The history of the text shows that prac- tically all the most important variants were widely current as early as the 2d cent. The 3d and 4th cents. produced only new combinations on the basis of material that was already to hand. The decision rests finally upon the internal probabilities. We have to ask, which reading is the one from which it is most probable that the others were derived? For example, in Mk 1 41 the reading ‘aroused to anger’ (D) is more likely to be original than ‘being moved with compassion,’ because later reverence rejected the more human touch. Again in I Th 3 2 Paul calls Timothy the ‘fellow worker of God’ (D). At this offense was taken and it was corrected to ‘fellow worker,’ 7.e., with us (B), or ‘servant of God’ (&). Later copyists, before whom lay both readings, com- bined them, in some instances mechanically, as ‘God’s servant and fellow worker’ (G), or, with more insight, as ‘God’s minister and our fellow worker’ 619 ‘A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY New Testament Text Nibshan (K L Chrys.). Hence the value of Bengel’s Canon: Proclivi lectiont prestat ardua (‘the difficult reading is to be preferred to the easy’). Copyists are inclined to make readings smooth or more intelligible. There- fore the text that causes difficulty or gives offense is to be considered the more original; also nearly always the text that is shorter, simpler, or less elegant. The tendency to improve the style is especially noticea- ble in the quotations by the Fathers. Furthermore, the context and the style of the Biblical author must be taken into account. Copyists familiar with the Bible are easily misled into making similar passages more nearly alike. O T quotations made in the N T were apt to be brought into harmony with the O T readings as known to the scribes. The first three Gospels were especially subject to this harmonizing process. In particular, there was a tendency to conform Mk and Lk to Mt, because Mt usually came first in copies of the fourfold Gospel, and seems to have been the favorite in the early centuries. Thus the shorter text of the Lord’s Prayer in Lk 11 2-4 was often supplemented accord- ing to the longer text of Mt 69-13. 6. Importance of Textual Criticism for Other Disciplines. B. Weiss is altogether right, therefore, in claiming that textual criticism can not be carried on safely apart from exegesis, nor may it be dis- sociated from literary criticism. If, for example, Mt and Lk used our Mk, as is now generally becom- ing recognized, they can be of service as the oldest text-critical witnesses for Mk. On the other hand, it is a service rendered to literary criticism if it be proved by textual criticism that some verbal parallels between Mt and Lk originally did not exist, that Mk 16 9-20 and Jn 7 53-8 11 do not belong to these Gospels, or that in Eph 11 the words ‘at Ephesus’ were not in the original text. The text of the N T has also been influenced by dogmatic interests. The opposing parties in the ancient Church accused each other of falsifying the text, and even to-day we are able to detect in the MSS. we have the intrusion of dogmatic corrections. For example, the Cap- padocian fathers Basil and Gregory (of Nazianzus), who were strenuous advocates of the doctrine of the Trinity, read at I Co 8 6 an addition concerning the Holy Spirit; while the famous Trinitarian passage 1 Jn 57 is of Latin origin, and can not be traced farther back than Priscillian, a Spanish writer who died in 385 a.p. A very slight scribal alteration in I Ti 3 16 had a far-reaching dogmatic significance OC, ‘who’ being read as, or altered into, OC, (the usual abbreviation for OHOC ‘God.’). Cf. also the variants at Mt 116; Jn 118; Ac 20 28. It was in the interest of asceticism that in Lk 2 36 the ‘seven years’ were shortened to ‘seven days,’ in Mt 3 4 the ‘locusts’ were altered into ‘honey-cakes,’ and at Mk 9 29 to ‘prayer’ was added ‘and fasting.’ 7. Value of Conjecture. In spite of the large content of the tradition and the quantity especially of Greek MSS., it is not at all impossible that at some places the original text is lost and can be restored only through conjecture. So, for example, Origen conjectured that at Jn 1 28 ‘Bethabara’ should be read for ‘Bethany;’ at Mk 8 10 the reference to ‘the parts of Dalmanutha’ is an unsolved problem, and many attempts have been made to recover the true text; and Jerome approved ‘Banereem’ for the difficult ‘Boanerges’ of Mk 3 17; Westcott and Hort, with others, consider that at Col 2 18 and 23 all extant texts are corrupt. Conjectural criticism is not to be rejected because of its abuse in the hands of some, particularly Dutch critics. 8. The External Form of the Text. Our oldest MSS. are not punctuated, nor are there any spaces between the words. The punctuation and word- division of the later MSS. are not always to be taken as correct. At least as early as the 4th cent. attempts were made at several chapter-divisions. The one now current was the work of Stephen Langton of the 13th cent. Our verse-division originated with the printer Robertus Stephanus, 1551. The super-and subscriptions to the different books, which vary greatly in the MSS., are none of them original. The notices as to the dates of the Gospels, the place of writing, and bearers of the Epistles are not earlier than the 4th cent. 9. Modern Versions. The translations now in common use in Protestant churches were made, for the most part, in the time of the Reformation and are based upon the Erasmian Textus Receptus. As it then marked a great advance to set forth a transla- tion based on the original Greek text in the place of the medieval ones that were derived from the Vulgate, so the present time demands a translation based upon a critically corrected text. A praise- worthy beginning has here been made by the English and American Revised Versions. The modern trans- lations of Dr. Weymouth, the Twentieth Century, of Dr. Moffatt, and of Dr. Goodspeed are all based upon a careful study of the N T text. LireRATURE: Gregory, Prolegomena to Tischendorf’s Greek N T (81884-94), and Textkritik des N T (1900-09); Scrivener, Introduction to the Criticism of the N T (41894); von Soden, Die Schriften des N T’s (1902-13); Westcott and Hort, The N T in the Original Greek (1881), vol. ii; Schaff, A Companion to the Greek N T and the English Version (1883); Blass, Philology of the Gospels (1898); Nestle, Hinfiihrung in das Griechische Neue Testament (41923); Kenyon, Handbook of Textual Criticism of the N T (21912); R Knopf, Der Teat d. N T (1906); A. Souter, The Text and Canon of the New Testa- ment (1913); Vogels, Handbuch der Neutestamentlichen Kritik (1923). The most convenient texts with critical apparatus for ordinary students are Souter (1918), Von Soden (1913) and Vogels (21922). See also Introductions to the N T by Holtzmann (1892), Jiilicher (1906, Eng. transl. 1906), Zahn (1906, Eng. transl. 1907), and the excellent art. Texts and Versions by Burkitt in HB; Thompson, Introduction to Greek and Latin Paleography (1912); Kenyon, Facsimiles of Biblical Manuscripts in the British Museum (1900). . von D.—A. § NEW WINE. See VINES AND VINTAGE, § 2. NEW-YEAR. See Fastrs AnD Frasts, § 5; and Timp, § 4. NEZIAH, ni-zai’a (1S}, n%tstah), ‘excellent’: The ancestral head of a family of Nethinim (Ezr 2 54; Neh 7 56). NEZIB, ni’zib (2°), n¢tsibh): (Jos 15 43). Map II, D 2. NIBHAZ, nib’haz. See Semitic Retraton, § 28. NIBSHAN, nib’shan (1%33, nibhshan): A city in the wilderness of Judah (Jos 15 62), Site unknown. A town of Judah Nicanor Nineveh A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 620 NICANOR, nai-ké’ner (Nixdéywe): 1. A general of Antiochus Epiphanes and afterward of Demetrius I, defeated and slain by the forces of Judas Mac- cabeus at Beth-horon in March, 161 B.c. (I Mac 7 39-50; II Mac 15 36 ff.; Jos. Ant. XII, 105). The day of his defeat was celebrated annually as ‘Ni- canor’s Day.’ 2. One of the seven deacons appointed in Ac 6 5. For later legends concerning him, see Baronius, Annales, I, 34, cccxix. ARN Reed ly NICODEMUS, nik’o-di’mus (Nixddyu0c): A Pharisee and member of the Sanhedrin, who visited Jesus by night when the latter opened His ministry in Jerusalem (Jn 31ff.). Asa well-meaning Pharisee, he was impressed, doubtless, by the interest shown in the preaching of John the Baptist, and Jesus’ first public appearance in Jerusalem attracted his serious attention. With others, he was convinced that Jesus was ‘a teacher come from God.’ It was Jesus’ ‘signs’ that had so convinced him. For his own satisfaction he sought an interview with Jesus and chose the night-time as perhaps most con- venient, possibly in order to avoid criticism on the part of his fellow Sanhedrists. The conversation is evidently only partially reported in the account in the Fourth Gospel. But the salient points are evidently reproduced. N. was a sincere Pharisee with the general theological and religious conceptions of that sect. He probably inquired about the ‘king- dom of God’ with no question in his own mind as to his own full right to membership therein. Jesus’ answer was intended to open N.’s mind to the in- adequacy of the whole Pharisaic position, and He did this by pointing out that it is the spiritual con- dition of one’s heart that determines his member- ship in the Kingdom and nothing else. When N. shows himself slow to take this in, Jesus gently rebukes him for claiming to be a ‘teacher of Israel’ and not knowing these elementary (‘earthly’) things. The immediate result of the conversation is not known. We next hear of N. in connection with Jesus’ visit to Jerusalem at the Feast of Tabernacles, six months before His crucifixion and eighteen months after the conversation of Jn 314. At this time N. stands out in the Sanhedrin for a fairer treatment of Jesus than that court was inclined to give Him (Jn 7 50 f.). Six months later N. and Joseph of Arimathea, another member of the San- hedrin, cared for the body of the crucified Jesus and saw that it was decently buried instead of being exposed on the cross over the Sabbath (Jn 19 39). These last two incidents indicate a sincere apprecia- tion by N. of the purity of Jesus’ motives and re- spect, if not affection, for Him personally. That N. later became a Christian is not stated in the N T, but it is altogether probable. He was so viewed in early Christian legend, and a late Apocryphal Gospel (also called Acts of Pilate) attributed to him was once current in Christian circles (cf. HDB, vol. IIT, pp. 544-547). E. E. N. NICOLAITANS, nik’’o-lé’i-tanz (NtxoAattat): A sect of Christians mentioned in the Apocalypse (Rev 2 6, 15). Their words are said to have been abhorrent to the church at Ephesus. But at Pergamum their teaching was tolerated, contrary to is not clear, altho the fact that they are named in the same connection with Balaam (2 14) indicates, in general, a form of antinomianism. As to how they got their name, there is a great difference of opinion. Some have suggested that ‘Nicolaitan’ is another name for Pauline Christian, and that the passage is an attack on Paul (Van Maanen, Paulus, 1891, II, pp. 244-251). But that Pauline Christians should be hated by the Ephesian Church is not to be thought of. Some take Nicolaitan to be the Greek equivalent of Balaamite (both words meaning ‘one who over- comes (destroys) the people.’ It is more natural to derive it from Nicolas without reference to its Heb. equivalent. As there is only one man of the name in the Apostolic Age (Ac 6 5), tradition early fixed on him as the founder of the sect, upon the assump- tion that he had apostatized. This, however, can not be regarded as certain. As a matter of fact, there was a sect of Gnostic Nicolaitans in the 2d cent. A.D.; but its connection with Nicolas of Antioch, the deacon, is probably fictitious. Hither the here- siarch was another Nicolas or the sect took the name from a desire to trace its origin to an Apostolic man. A. C. Z. NICOLAS, nik’o-las (Ntx6Aa0¢): One of the seven chosen to deal with the complaint of the Hellen- istic widows, a proselyte from Antioch in Syria, and probably, as his name indicates, a Greek (Ac 6 5). Nothing further concerning him is certainly known; but Ireneus, Hippolytus, and other sources of tra- dition, probably on insufficient grounds, and not without strong dissent from other contemporary writers, connect the Nicolaitans (Rev 2 6, 15) with him. R. A. F.—E. C. L. NICOPOLIS, ni-kep’o-lis (Nixéxoats, ‘city of vic- tory’): A city of Greece, where Paul planned to spend the winter and directed Titus to meet him (Tit 312). There were numerous cities of this name, but doubtless that in Epirus on the E. coast of the Tonian Sea, situated on the promontory opposite Actium, enclosing the Ambracian Gulf on the NW., is meant. After his victory over Antony in 81 B.c. Augustus founded this city both to commemorate that event and as a center of new Hellenic life, and under imperial patronage it soon grew in magni- ficence and political importance. Quadrennial games were instituted in honor of the Actian Apollo, and they ranked with the other four athletic festivals of Greece. The teaching of Epictetus also brought it renown. Paul probably found it a good center for evangelizing the west of Greece, and may have been arrested here before his second imprisonment. R. A. F.—E. C. L. NIGER, nai’jor (Nfyee): The gentile name of a certain Simeon, who was prominent in the early church life of Antioch (Ac 131). Nothing more is known of him. NIGHT. See Time, § 1. NIGHT-HAWK. See Patestine, § 25. NIGHT MONSTER: The rendering of'the Heb. hilith (Is 34 14, screech-owl AV). In Babylonian belief Lilith was originally a female evil demon, and then considered as particularly the demon of the the Lord’s desire. What their teaching or work was | night. The Biblical writers often made use of such 621 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Nicanor Nineveh popular beliefs in enforcing or illustrating their own higher teaching. E. E. N. NILE: The classic name of the great river of Egypt. It is used from the days of Hesiod onward (NetXos), but occurs nowhere in the AV, tho it ap- pears in RV in Is 197, 8, 23 3, 10; Jer 467, 8, and Zec 1011. Neither does it occur in the Heb. O T. Moreover it has no Egyptian or Semitic cognates. Efforts to connect it with the Phenician nahal (Movers), or the general Semitic nahadr (Lepsius), have not been regarded as successful. The Egyp- tians called the river H’p ( Hapi), and personified it in a god of human form, characterized by masculine and feminine features. This Nile god is also repre- sented as wearing a bunch of aquatic plants and the girdle of a fisherman. In the Biblical text the Nile is mentioned simply as ‘The River’ (hayy° dr and y°’dr, modified from the Egyptian Jotr, Jo’r, and with the article; also Shihor, Is 23 3, ‘Nile’ RV; Jer 2 is, Sihor AV. By some the Gihon of Gn 213 is supposed to be the Nile. The Nile has always occupied a distinguished place among the great streams of the world, chiefly because it furnishes the basis of the life of Egypt. It has been truly said, ‘Egypt is the gift of the Nile’; for not only is the river essential to the pro- ductiveness of the soil as a means of irrigation, but it is the very source of that soil, which it brings in solu- tion from the in- terior of Africa, and deposits on each side of its channel during its period of inundation. The exact length of the river was unknown 1 to the ancients, its | sources being re- garded as shrouded in mystery. Its regular and _peri- odical rise and fall were, however, ac- curately under- stood and utilized. At Cairo the inun- dation begins with the first days of June and reaches its height about the Ist of October; it then recedes until April. It changes its color from white, when low, to rud- dy, and then to green, when it becomes unwholesome on account of decaying vegetable matter. As it falls it becomes ruddy again, and finally white. y.\an On Js Nile God. NIMRAH, nim’rd. See Brera-NIMRAH. NIMRIM, nim’rim (9°71, nimrim), or more ex- actly ‘the waters of Nimrim’: The context in Is 15 6, Jer 48 34 suggests a well-watered and fertile region in Southern Moab. Eusebius identified N. with a town, Bennamereim, N. of Zoar. The name is found to-day in Wady Numére, at the SE. end of the Dead Sea, and higher up, at the source of the Wady, are found the ruins of a town in what is still a well-watered and fertile region. Oo Ba NIMROD, nim’red (11), nimrddh): One of the great characters of Gn ch. 10. He wasason of Cush, and ‘began to be a mighty one in the earth’ (ver. 8). Tho the other sons of Cush (ver. 7) were peoples, Nimrod possessed all the marks of an individual. ‘He was a mighty hunter before Jehovah’ (ver. 9). His imperial sway extended over ‘Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh (Is 109, ‘Calno’), in the land of Shinar’ (ver. 10). ‘Out of that land he went forth into Assyria, and builded Nineveh, and Rehoboth-Ir, and Calah, and Resen between Nineveh and Calah (the same is the great city)’ (vs. 11, 12). He is thus distinguished as a hunter, a ruler, and a builder of extraordinary ability. We find also in Mic 5 5 that the land of Nimrod is in parallel with the land of Assyria. Various attempts have been made to identify this ancient Biblical hero with some of the legendary characters in early Babylonian inscriptions. One of the plausible identifications is that with the Baby- lonian national hero, Gilgamesh (formerly read ‘Iz- dubar’), when we consider the herculean tasks per- formed by him. From the view-point of his renown as a mighty hunter, and the possible l'nguistic simi- larities, the identification of him with Ninib, trans- literated into Aramaic as mwiys, and read Namurtu by Jensen (KB VI, 2, p. 12, 1. 44) is not wholly im- probable. No identification hitherto made, however, is entirely satisfactory. The presence in Assyria of many names in which this name Nimrod is pre- served testifies to the real basis of the legends and traditions still extant. ice Me P: NIMSHI, nim’shai ('¥3, nimsht): The father of Jehu, King of Israel (I K 19 16, etc.). NINEVEH, nin’i-va (23, nin*wéh), Assyr. Ni-na-a, Ni-nu-a: 1. Nineveh in Its Glory. The last eastern capital of the Assyrian Empire, located on the E. bank of the upper Tigris, opposite the site of the modern city of Mésul. The building of Nineveh is attributed to Nimrod. Gn 1011 f. reads: ‘Out of that land [Shinar] he went forth into Assyria and builded Nineveh, and Rehoboth-Ir, and Calah, and Resen between Nineveh and Calah (the same is the great city).’ Its beginnings reach into the third millenium B.c. From 885 B.c., the beginning of the reign of Asshurnatsirpal, it was one of the regular residence cities of the Assyrian kings. But not until the time of Sargon IT (722-705 B.c.) does it seem to have been promoted to the position of real capital of the empire; even then this king built his great palace at Khorsabad, a suburb to the N. of the chief city. Sennacherib was apparently the first king who made this city exclusively his residence. His son and successor Esarhaddon, and his grandson Asshurbanipal, likewise made N. their royal capital, and erected therein palaces of stupendous and mag- nificent proportions. 2. Nineveh Fallen. The glory of Nineveh waned Nineveh Nobleman A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 622 with the decline of the Assyrian power. According to the Nabopolassar Chronicle, this first Neo- Babylonian king, ‘the king of Akkad,’ battled with the Assyrian army from 616-612; finally, in alliance with the Umman Manda (the Medes from the N. and NE.), the combined armies crushed Nineveh, the Eastern capital in 612 B.c. Assyria’s Western capital, Harran, was probably existent until about 605 s.c. The prophecies of Nahum (ch. 2 f.) and Zephaniah (2 13-15) paint in realistic colors the tragedy that overwhelmed the great lion of the nations. The catastrophe was so disastrous and the results so complete that Xenophon with his 10,000 Greeks, who passed the ruins in the beginning of the 4th cent. B.c., could not ascertain what they represented. From that date almost to the middle of the last century, the | identity of these ruins was a mys- tery to every | traveler who saw them. ) 3. Nineveh | Uncovered. jj It was in 1820 a.p.that Rich,an Eng- lishman, resi- f¥ dent at Bag- dad, after ff careful ex- | amination of the ruins, was the first to conclude | that they represented all that re- mained of ancient Nin- eveh. In 1842 Botta began excavations on this site, but soon transferred his activity to Khorsabad, about 10 m. to the north, where he uncovered parts of Sargon’s palace. Between 1845 and 1850 Layard uncovered a part of the palace of Shalmaneser III at Nimroud, about 18 m. S. of Mosul, and also identified the site of ancient Nineveh just across the Tigris from Mosul, by bringing to light some of the palaces of its last three great kings. Theactual ruins of Nineveh consist of two mounds separated by the stream Khosr. Oneof these, Kuyunjtk, on the north, was found by Layard to have covered the palaces of Sennacherib (705-681 B.C.) and Asshurbanipal (668-626 B.c.); and the other, Nebi Yunus (‘prophet Jonah,’ for a tradition says he was buried here), covered the palaces of Sennacherib and Esarhaddon (681-668 B.c.). These royal residences were built in magnificent propor- NINEVEH, AS REBUILT BY SENNACHERIB AND ASSHURBANIPAL. A-—Palace of Asshurbanipal (668-626 B.c.). AR—Armory of Sennacherib. tions, and their ruins were found to be vast store- houses of valuable antiquities, including thousands of clay tablets, cylinders, bas-reliefs, statues, and other objects of genuine interest. The wall line of old Nineveh has been carefully traced, and the walled city has been found to have been about 3 m. in length and from 1 to 114m. in width, containing on a conservative estimate about 3 sq. m., or a little more than 1,800 acres of ground. On one of the cylinders of Sennacherib (B. M. 103,000) we find that Nineveh had fifteen gates piercing its walls, seven on the S. and E. sides, three on the N. and five on the W., each bearing a significant name, and together speci- fying the ruling divinities, the character of the king, the guardianship of trade, tribute, etc. If the state- ments of the Book of Jonah (8 3, 4 11) regarding _Nineveh’s size and pop- ulation are | to be consid- ered, we | must con- ceive of the i capital as covering in the mind of i} the writer the whole stretch of territory em- braced with- 1 in these ad- jacent sub- urban cities, viz.: Calah, 18 m. S. on the E. bank | of the Tigris, Resen, and | Rehoboth-Ir, | all, as we re- member, in- cluded in the record of Gn } 1011f. Then almost due N., about 10 m. distant, stood the palace of Sargon II, nearly as large as Calah, and to the }E. about 7 m. another town still unidentified. The inclusion of these towns with their territory and populations would amply satisfy the largest re- quirements. (But see JonAn, Boox oF.) Literature: Rich, Narrative of a Residence in Kourdistan and on the Site of Ancient Nineveh (1836); A. H. Layard, Nineveh and Its Remains (1848); idem, Discoveries in the Ruins of Nineveh and Babylon (1853); Jones, ‘‘Topography of Nine- veh,” with maps, in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (1855); Geo Smith, Assyrian Discoveries (1875); Billerbeck und Jeremias in Bettrdge zur Assyriologie, vol. iii, pp. 87 ff.; C. J. Gadd, The’ Fall of Nineveh (1923); Sees WAAL PPMIUM EER eer sissiena ain ian antl ty) watt QUUTUUUTEE ETE UATE TE W\ nnn | B—Palace of Sennacherib (705-681 B.c.). 1, 2, 3, 4, ete.—Gates (14 in all). History of Assyria (1923). M. P. NISAN, nai’san: The first month of the Jewish year. See Time, § 3. NISROCH, nis‘rok. See Searric Retraron, § 28. 623 A NEW STANDARD NITER: The Hebrew nether or Greek vitpov is not what is now called ‘niter,’ 7.¢., saltpeter (potassium nitrate), but common washing soda (sodium car- bonate) properly known as natron. It is found in many parts of the world as a deposit of alkaline lakes, notably in the famous natron lakes of Egypt, 60 miles WNW. of Cairo, and also in Syria and Asia Minor. When an acid, such as vinegar, is poured upon soda it produces effervescence (Pr 25 20 ‘soda’ RV). The RV renders ‘lye’ in Jer222. E.C. L. NO, NO-AMMON, nd”-2’mon (83, nd’, OS S83, no’ ’ammon): A great city in Upper Egypt known to the classical writers under the name of Thebes. Its Egyptian name was n’t, n’t-’m’n. Tho Thebes was the capital of Egypt as early as the 11th dynasty, its period of glory really began with the New Empire (16th cent. B.c.). It was enlarged and embellished by the kings of the 18th and 19th dynasties, and | even when their later successors moved their resi- dence into Northern Egypt, Amon worship with its powerful priesthood maintained for Thebes a con- trolling influence in the affairs of the state. Thebes, however, began to decline after the repeated occupa- tions of it by the Ethiopians in the 8th cent. It was captured both by Esarhaddon (670 8B.c.) and Asshur- banipal ([perhaps in] 667 B.c. and certainly in 663) at which time it was sacked and despoiled of its glory and from this attack it never recovered. Nah 3 8 alludes to one of these events, tho it is quite uncertain to which. In the days of Jeremiah (46 25) and of Ezekiel (80 14 ff.), it was still known as a populous city. But these prophets predicted its final collapse. Its significance ceased under the Ptolemies. Since then the site has been occupied only by a group of small villages on both sides of the Nile, which, however, abound in magnificent ruins (Luxor, Karnak, and Medinet-habu). A.C. Z. NOADIAH, n6”a-dai’a (MMTV, nd‘adhyah): 1. A Levite (Ezr 8 33). 2. A prophetess who opposed Nehemiah (Neh 6 14). NOAH, no’a (7, noah, Noe in the Gospels AV, ‘rest,’ but, according to the explanation of the Heb. writer, ‘comfort’ in Gn 5 29): 1. One of the ancient patriarchs, the tenth in order of descent beginning with Adam (Gn ch. 5 P) and the hero of the Biblical Flood-story (in both J and P). The story of Noah is interwoven in that of the Flood (q.v.). The Noah (Sit Napishti) of the Babylonian flood-legend is im- mediately after the Flood glorified. Of this there is an echo in Gn 69 (cf. Gn 5 22). Noah is further said to have been the discoverer of the culture of the vine and of wine-making (Gn 9 20-29). 2. One of the daughters of Zelophehad (Nu 26 33; Jos 17 3). A.C. Z. NOAH, APOCALYPSE OF: A lost apocalyptic writing, fragments of which have been incorporated in the Book of Enoch. The name and traditional character of Noah were, for obvious reasons, used by the apocalyptists in the same way as those of Enoch. But the nearness of the traditional dates. of the two ancients and their similarity led to the merging of the Apocalypse of Noah into that of Enoch. That there was a separate book supposed to be written by Noah is explicitly stated by the Nineveh Nobleman BIBLE DICTIONARY Jub. 21 10). But whether this was the book incor- porated in Enoch is a matter of conjecture. The Apocalypse of Noah consists of chs. 60, 65-69 25, and 106, 107 of Hth. Enoch, and is more usually known under the name of The Noachic Fragments. It bears unmistakable marks of having at one time existed in a separate form. Ch. 65, for instance, begins with Enoch as the speaker, but quite abruptly in ver. 5 the narrator appears to be Noah himself. In ch. 60 it is the 500th year that is cited as the start- ing-point; but Enoch was in his 365th year trans- lated, and the Flood took place in the 500th year of Noah. These fragments can be put together into an approximate unity, but the complete reconstruction of the original book is, of course, not possible. The book contains accounts of the Flood (chs. 60, 65-67 3), of the punishment of the sinful angels (67 4-69 25), and of the wonders accompanying the birth of Noah (chs. 106, 107). A. C. Z. NOB, nob (a3, ndbh): A priestly city (IS 22 11, 19), the home of the descendants of Eli (I S 14 3, Ahijah=Ahimelech), with a sanctuary and ephod (21 1 ff.), perhaps founded after the destruction of Shiloh. David rested here in his flight from Saul at Gibeah, and later all the priests were slain by Doeg, at Saul’s command, and the city destroyed. N. seems to have been between Gibeah and Adullam, where David hid himself (22 1). According to Neh 11 32 there was a Nob in Benjamin near Ana- thoth, and in Is 10 32 a place of the same name is mentioned which must have been on a hill immedi- ately to the N. of Jerusalem. The same location would answer for the three references, altho as yet no trace of a N. near Jerusalem has been found. Jerome mentions a Nabe, near Lydda, the modern Bét Nabi, 10 m. SE. of Lydda, but this place is too far N. and W. for the account inIS 21 ff. C.S. T. NOBAH, nd’ba (3), ndbhah): I. The name of a Manassite clan which captured the town Kenath (the modern Kanawét), evidently on their NE. boundary, in the Hauran (I Ch 2 23) toward Aram, to which the clan gave its own name Nobah (Nu _ 32.42). II. 1. Nobah (Nu 32 42); seeI. 2. A townon a road in Gilead, named with Jogbehah (Jg 8 11), per- haps the original home of the clan referred to in I, above. OgSsck NOBAI, nod’bai (333, ndbhay), in AV and RVmg. Nebai (the Q¢ré): One who sealed the covenant (Neh 10 19 [20]). Cosa: NOBLE: This term renders Heb. and Gr. words as follows: (1) ’addir, ‘mighty’ (Jer 30 21, ‘prince’ RV; Nah 3 18); (2) gaddhdl, ‘great’ (Jon 37); (3) hor, ‘free- born,’ noble in the strict sense (I K 21 8; Ee 10 17, etc.); (4) yaqqtr, ‘precious’ (Ezr 4 10); (5) ndghidh, eader’ (Job 29 10); (6) nadhibh, ‘liberal’ (Nu 21 18; Ps 83 11), and (7) edyevys, ‘well-born’ (Ac 17 11; I Co 1 26). A. C.-Z. NOBLEMAN: The rendering of two Gr. words: (1) edyevns, ‘well-born,’ which is comparatively rare inthe N T. In Lk 1912 there may be an allusion to the journey of Herod Antipas to Rome to secure the rank and title of King (cf. Jos. Ant. XVII, 9 4). (2) Little Genesis or Book of Jubilees (10 13; cf. also | @actktxdc, which in Jn 4 46 is rendered ‘nobleman’ Nod Noon A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 624 and probably means an officer in the royal house- hold. J. M. T. NOD, ned (‘ti3, nddh): The land of ‘wandering’ (cf. naddh, ‘wanderer,’ vs. 12,14). It is represented as a land EK. of Eden, in which Cain settled when he fled from the presence of J’ (Gn 416). C.S. T. NODAB, nd’dab (273, nddhabh): The name of a tribe mentioned with two Ishmaelite tribes E. of the Jordan, with whom Reuben, Gad, and the half- tribe of Manasseh had war (I Ch 519). CST. NOE, noi (Ne): The AV form of the word ‘Noah’ (q.v.) in the N T (Mt 24 37, etc.) NOGAH, no’ga (3, nodghah): A son of David (I Ch 37, 146). NOHAH, no’ha (771), nohah), ‘rest’: The ances- tral head of a Benjamite family or clan (I Ch 8 2). NOMADIC AND PASTORAL LIFE: 1. Origin and General Nature. This is the designation of that type of life in which the main source and means of support is the raising of herds of cattle or flocks of sheep and goats. Such a mode of life is purely pastoral when private ownership of land is recog- nized; but it becomes pastoral and at the same time nomadic when all land is held as common property and the pasturage and water needed by herd and flock are regarded free to the first comer just as air, sunlight, and navigable waterways are in modern civilization. When this is the case the shepherd community, finding the nourishment necessary for its flocks and herds exhausted in one region, moves to another, and a nomad life results (‘nomad’ =Gr youds, from yéuety, ‘to graze’). The conditions for the development of this type of life are particularly favorable in the great inland territory of Arabia, which abounds in rocky plateaux and hill slopes, with a thin layer of soil ill adapted to purposes of cultivation, but yielding an annual crop of vegeta- tion which can best be used as it stands as food for grazing animals. Thus from the earliest period the inhabitants of Arabia appear to have been nomads. In early history they made themselves felt as far as Egypt, invading that country as a horde of shepherds, and for a time holding it under complete control (the dynasties of the Shepherd Kings, or Hyksos). The inhabitants of Arabia were for the most part a Semitic people, and Semitic tradition carries nomad life back to the very beginnings of the world’s history. It represents Abel as a shepherd and ascribes the beginnings of migratory life to Jabal (Gn 4 20). 2. The Hebrews Originally Nomads. That the Israelites, after they had settled in Palestine, looked upon themselves as immigrants is shown by the very name they took to themselves. (See ErHnoc- RAPHY AND ETHNOLOGY, §§ 9 and 18, under Eber.) Abraham, tho represented as leaving a city in Meso- potamia, spent his life in tents and was the owner of large flocks as well as the head of a roving tribe. Lot, Ishmael, Jacob, and Esau are also represented as heads of tribes wandering about the country with flocks and herds as their main possessions and means of subsistence. The standing and place of residence of the children of Isarael in Egypt were fixed by the fact that they were shepherds, and in the transaction of locating them there lurks a suspicion that they might grow to be a public menace, due perhaps to the earlier experiences of the Egyptians with the Hyksos. Down to the days of the Exodus the Hebrews maintained their distinctive character, so that before Moses could assume the position of leader among them he needed to pass through a period of training as a shepherd under a nomad chief. The origin of a new nomadic tribe from an old one is illustrated in the story of the separation of Lot from Abraham (Gn ch. 12). As soon as the younger leader had gathered about him a band sufficiently large and capable of self-support and self-defense, questions of pasturage arose between his adherents and those of the older chief. Such differences might be settled amicably and fairly, as in the case of Abraham and Lot, or they might oc- easion bloody feuds and lasting animosities. In either case, the end would be the formation of new tribes parting from the old ones and seeking advan- tageous territories whereon to pitch their tents. Such tribes numbering from four to three hundred tents (families) are scattered over N. Arabia to-day. (See Cornill, Hist. of Israel, p. 36.) 3. Pastoral Life After the Settlement. Palestine, in the larger definition of it as including Moab and the Negeb (S. of Judah), furnishes soil for the devel- opment of pastoral life unrivaled anywhere. But as it abounds also in tracts of land suited for agricul- ture, when Israel took possession of it, the nation ceased being a purely nomad people, adopting the agricultural manner of life of the conquered Canaan- ites, occupying their built villages and cities, tho con- tinuing to raise flocks and herds as of old. The result was a civilization combining the features of both types of life. Arable lands everywhere were accepted as subject to private proprietorship; they were bought and sold, tilled and owned as in all settled com- munities. But large sections difficult or impossible to cultivate remained common territory. These were the hillsides and stony plateaux in the neighbor- hood of villages used in common by all the shepherds of the village in each case. The name ‘wilderness’ is given such stretches of land down to the present day, but what is meant is simply a grassy, shrub-clad hillside or highland unimproved by cultivation. Tho held and used by the men of a village in com- mon, such pasture-lands are carefully distinguished from similar lands belonging to neighboring villages. 4. The Shepherd’s Possessions. ‘The shepherd takes his name from the chief object of his care which is at the same time the chief item of his wealth, the sheep. This is, however, his chief, not his only possession. In fact, the Heb. and Gr. words (rd‘eh, motunv) go back to a more general conception of his character and represent him as a ‘feeder’ or ‘tender’ of pasturing animals. For besides sheep he keeps also goats and cattle (oxen, cows), and, in the purer nomadic condition, camels (Gn 12 16, 24 10 ff.; Job 1 3, 17, 4212). The last-named, along with asses (Gn 12 16; I S 15 3; Job 1 3), served as beasts of burden, carrying the tents and other simple but necessary furnishings belonging to the tribe. — 5. The Shepherd’s Natural Enemies. Pasture- grounds, such as those described in § 3 above, are 625 generally found adjoining gorges and ravines (wddys). These with the rocky ridges that bound them are often irregular in their courses, sometimes converg- ing and again diverging, crossing one another or abruptly lost in a maze of bewildering summits and depressions. The gorges are in the present day, for the most part, bare and rocky; but in ancient times they were more thickly wooded, a condition of things which furnished convenient lurking-places for the wolves, the jackals, the bears and, down to crusading days, also for the lions, which prowled about for stray members of flocks, and sometimes even at- tacked the flock and carried away a sheep or goat (cf. I S 17 34; Jer 5 6; Jn 10 12). From another quarter, the shepherd had to fear, as he does to-day, ‘the thief’? who ‘cometh not, but that he may steal, and kill and destroy’ (Jn 10 10). The ‘thief’ of the present-day Palestinian pastoral life is the Bedawi,. who regards the stealing of sheep an honorable pur- suit. In the OT period marauding bands of the Amalekites, Midianites, etc., gave the shepherd many an anxious hour. 6. The Shepherd’s Means of Defense. To protect his flocks and herds from these dangers, the shep- herd provided a fold (cote) into which he gathered the sheep and goats. The fold differed according to the nature of the locality where it was to be used. If this was a level stretch, the fold was an enclosure surrounded by walls sufficiently high to prevent wolves and jackals from leaping over, and also sur- mounted with branches of thorny bushes to render climbing over them very difficult if not impossible. If, however, the locality was a hillside, a natural cave more usually served the purpose of a fold. Such is the case to-day with the cave of Pan at Cesarea Philippi (Banias). Before the entrance to such a cave-fold was built a wall with a narrow door, with a guardhouse commanding it. In this guard-house the shepherds gathered by night and took turns in watching. As a general thing, for purposes of mutual protection and _ assistance, several shepherds combined to keep their flocks in the same fold (cf. the pl. in Lk 2 8, 15, 20). In the task of watching, the dog is to-day found to be of the greatest service. Because of his fidelity and ca- pacity for training, this animal becomes a guardian, not only by detecting the presence of the prowling wolf and jackal, and giving warning through his prompt barking, but also by constraining the sheep and goats to take the path pointed out by the shep- herd in cases in which, on account of large numbers, they miss the shepherd’s own guidance. Dogs are also useful in searching for and rescuing straying members of the flock. 7. The Shepherd’s Manner of Life. The Eastern shepherd’s day begins at early dawn. His first act is the calling of the sheep together. Each mem- ber of the flock has its name (Jn 10 3 #f.), commonly that of a flower or fruit, and each knows its name, or at least distinguishes the voice of its own shepherd from that of all others. As soon as the flock is gathered about him, the shepherd leads the way, the sheep and goats following him in file, with the dogs bringing up the rear. The shepherd himself is always armed with a long staff. When he has A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Nod Noon decided upon which patch of green herbage he will let his flock settle for the day, he leads the way to it, and the sheep dispose themselves about on the grass, while the goats climb the rocks in search of their own peculiar pasturage. At midday the shepherd guides his flock to some spring or well to water them; for unlike Europe and large portions of America, Palestine, by its dry and hot climate, makes it neces- sary to water pasturing animals regularly. After a season of rest following the watering, the flock is again led to the pasture-ground, and at night, with the same care and watchfulness for each individual, it is taken back to the fold. By this time some of the younger lambs may find it hard to keep up with the older and stronger sheep; these the shepherd carries in his arms, giving each one in turn some needed rest. This daily routine is interrupted only by the sheep-shearing (Gn 31 19, 38 13), which comes in the summer. At this season the shepherd gathers in his harvest of wool, one of the largest sources of his revenue. The occasion is accordingly celebrated with great festivities, which occur at the end of the shearing. Lambs and kids are slain and roasted night after night, and the whole village shares in the good things provided by its shepherd population (ef. IIS 13 23f.). Itis at this season that the freebooter, who has been of service in warding off attacks of thieves and marauders, can step in to claim some compensation for his informal and perhaps unin- vited police protection during the year. Such was probably the ground on which David made his re- quest for a gift from Nabal (IS 25 2 f.). 8. Shepherd Life in Institutions and Literature. No phase of life has left a deeper impress than the pastoral on the ideas, institutions, modes of expres- sion, and literary productions of the Hebrews. The traces of its influence are found in the provisions of the Mosaic legislation (Ex 221, 30; Dt 713, 15 19, 28 4, 18, 31, 51), which was drawn up upon the assumption that the care of flocks and herds was a large and important part of the people’s employment. The relation of the shepherd to the sheep served to bring to the consciousness of the Israelite the nature of the relation held by all leaders to the people led by them. The prophets never tire of reminding kings, priests, and princes of their duties by means of this com- parison (Jer 23 4, 25 34 f.; Hzk 34 2, 5,8 .; Zec 10 2f., 11 3, 5, 8,15f.) The incidents of the shepherd’s daily experience furnish some of the most picturesque imagery of the Psalter (cf. Pss 23, 80; also Pss 44 11, 49 14, 78 52, 72, 7913, 957, 100 3) as well as the ground of some of the most touching prophetic appeals (Jer 50 6; Is 4011; Ezk 346, 11£.; Zec 137). The com- parison of human beings to sheep was also used by Jesus Himself in His teaching (Mt 7 15, 12 11 f., 25 32 f.) and with most telling effect in His parables (Lk 15 4;Jn102#.). Finally the redemptive work of Christ, both on its passive and its active sides (Ac 8 32), was expressed in the ascription to Him of the title of ‘Shepherd’ by His first disciples (I P 2 25, 5 4; He 18 20), and in this they were but voicing again His own claim (Jn ch. 10). See also ISRAEL, SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT oF, §§ 7-17. A. C. Z. NON, non. See Nun. NOON, NOONDAY: Besides denoting a part of Noph A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 626 Numbers, Book of the day (see Trmn, § 1), this word is also used to designate the time most favorable for an attack on a city (because the defenders might be taking their siesta? So Peake, Jer 6 4, 15 8; or because then the daylight is most intense? Cf.Job514,1117). A.C.Z. NOPH, nef. See Mempais. NOPHAH, no’fa (M23, ndphah): A town of Moab (Nu 21 30, text uncertain). Site unknown. NORTH. See Easr. NORTH COUNTRY, THE (ji5¥ V7, ’erets tsd- phon): A designation, used by the prophets, of the quarter from which invaders were to come, also from which the exiles would return, in some passages translated ‘land of the N.’ (Jer 16 15; Zec 2.6). At times, tséphén, ‘north,’ is used by itself with the same meaning (Jer 1 14 f., 25 26). It designates Assyria (Is 14 31; ef. Zeph 2 13); Babylonia (Jer 61, 15 12, 46 20, 24, 47 2; Ezk 26 7); various lands (Jer 113 f£., 4 6, 10 22, 13 20, 25 9, 26); the quarter from which Cyrus would march against Babylon (Is 41 25: cf. Jer 50 3,9, 41, 51 48); Babylon (Zec 2 6, 66, 8); various countries from which the exiles would return (Jer 318, 1615, 238, 318; cf. Is 436, 4912). The expression ‘king of the north’ in Dn 11 6 ff. denotes successive kings of the Greco-Syrian kingdom of Antioch. CSL: NOSE, NOSTRILS: (1) The Heb. ’aph, ‘nose,’ is used sometimes in the O T with a meaning other than its simple and literal one. (a) By synecdoche the ‘nostrils’ are viewed as the seat of the ‘breath of life’ (Gn 27, 7 22, ete.). (b) Anthropomorphically, the ‘blast’ of God’s ‘nostrils’ is spoken of when the destructive wind or other nature forces, as His agents, are meant (Ex 158; Ps 188, 15, etc.). The ex- pression in Ezk 8 17, ‘they put the branch to their nose,’ is obscure, but appears to refer to some foreign mode of worship condemned by the prophet. In Ezk 23 25, ‘take away thy nose,’ ete., refers to the mutilation of captives in war. (2) nahar, ‘snorting,’ is rendered ‘nostrils’ (Job 39 20 AV, ‘snorting’ RV), but its cognate n*hirim is properly rendered ‘nos- trils’ in Job 41 20. HE. EL. N. NOSE JEWEL. See Dress AND ORNAMENTS § IT, 2. NOVICE (veégutoc, ‘newly planted’): Used in I Ti 36 1in the sense of ‘lately converted’ and, therefore, inexperienced. In later times the word became a technical term (‘neophyte’) for new converts. NUMBERS, BOOK OF: 1. Composite Character- The fourth book of the Pentateuch, which carries on the history of Israel in the wilderness from the second to the fortieth year of the Exodus. In struc- ture it resembles Gn and Ex (see Hexatrnucn, § 7), the same sources, JE and P, reappearing in it, and being continued to the close. P, as elsewhere, com- prises chiefly statistical and legal matter; the bright, picturesque narratives belong to JE. 2. Contents. (I) The section 11-10 28. The book begins with a long extract from P (1 1-10 28), the leading topics of which are the numbers and disposi- tion of the tribes, both in the camp and on the march, and the duties of the Levites. Ch. 1 gives a census of the tribes, with the exception of that of Levi (whose numbers follow in ch. 8). The number of males above twenty years old is stated to have been 603,- 550. Ch. 2 describes the position of the tribes in the camp, and their order on the march. Chs. 3 and 4 state the number of the Levites (22,000 above one month old, 8,580 between thirty and fifty years of age), their position in the center of the camp about the Tent of Meeting, and their duties in connection with it. Chs. 5 and 6 contain laws on different subjects—the exclusion of the unclean (5 1-4), cer- tain priestly dues (5 5-10, supplementary to Ly 6 1-7), the ordeal prescribed for the woman suspected by her husband of unfaithfulness (5 11-31), the obligations of the Nazirite vow (61-21), ending with the beautiful formula of priestly benediction (6 22-27). Ch. 7 describes, with unusual circumstantiality of detail, the offerings of the twelve princes of the tribes, at the consecration of the Tent of Meeting and the Altar. Ch. 8 is again a collection of laws—on the arrangement of the lamps upon the golden candle- stick (8 1-4), the consecration of the Levites to their duties (8 5-22, connecting with 3 5-13), and the period of their service (8 23-26). Ch. 9 1-14 enjoins the cele- bration of the Passover of the second year,and lays down regulations for the observance, in certain cases, of a supplementary Passover. Ch 9 15-23 describes the signals given by the cloud for the marching and the halting of the camp. Ch. 101-10 directs two silver trumpets to be made, to be used for starting the camps, and on certain other occasions. Ch. 10 11-28 narrates the departure of Israel from Sinai, and the order of their camps on the march. (II) The section 10 29-25. With 10 29 the narra- tive of JE is resumed (from Ex 34 28). In 10 29-32, Hobab is urged by Moses to act as the Israelites’ guide through the wilderness. Ch. 10 33-34 describes the functions of the Ark in directing the stages of their march. In 10 35-36 there is preserved to us, in verse, what must have been originally the old war- prayer, with which the Ark was taken out to, and brought back from, battle. Chs. 11 and 12 narrate the murmurings of the people at Kibroth-hattaavah, the appointment of seventy elders to assist Moses, the sending of quails to satisfy the people’s hunger, the vindication of Moses’ prophetic dignity, and the leprosy of Miriam. Chs. 13 and 14 contain the nar- rative of the spies sent out from Kadesh to explore and report upon the land. This narrative is com- posite, 13 17b-20, 22-24, 26b-31, 32b, 33, 141 (partly), 3f., 8 f., 11-25, 31-33, 39-45 belonging to JE, and the rest to P. The two accounts differ in representation. In JE the spies go only as far as Hebron, in the S. of © Judah (13 22-24); in P they go to the far N. of Canaan (13 21); in JE the land is fertile, but one which the Israelites are unable to conquer (13 27-31); in P it is a barren land (13 32); in JE Caleb is the only faithful spy, permitted afterward to enter Canaan (13 30, 14 24); P couples Joshua with him (14 6, 30, 38). Ch. 15 contains chiefly laws from P, 15 1-16 on the meal- and drink-offerings, 15 17-21 on the annual offering of a cake of the first dough, 15 22-31 on the sin-offering, to be offered for accidental dereliction of duty, 15 32-36 an account of the punish- ment of a Sabbath-breaker (essentially a law in the form of a narrative), 15 37-41 on the tassels (RVmg.) 627 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Noph Numbers, Book of to be the distinguishing mark of the Israelite. Chs. 16 and 17, on the rebellion of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, is another composite narrative, the different strands of which vary materially in representation. (1) JE (16 1b-2a, 12-15, 25-26, 27b-34) describes a rebellion of laymen (Dathan, Abiram, and Reubenites) against the civil authority of Moses; (2) the main narrative of P (16 1a, 2b-7a, 18-24, 27a, 32b, 35) describes a rebellion of the people at large, headed by Korah, against the exclusive priestly rights of the tribe of Levi, as a whole, and the subsequent confirmation of the rights of the tribe (16 41-50, 17); (3) a secondary stratum of P (16 7b-11, 16-17, 36-40) describes a rebellion of Levites, under the leadership of Korah, against the exclusive priestly rights of the family of Aaron. Sections (2) and (8) thus differ, in that in (2) there is no trace of opposition between the priests and the ordinary Levites, while in (3) this opposition is strongly marked (so Nu chs. 3, 4, 8, 181-7). Ch. 18 (P) defines the duties and revenues of the priests and Levites; ch. 19 (also P) prescribes the ritual of purification, after defilement by a corpse, by means of water mingled with the ashes of a red heifer. Chs. 20-22 (P and JE) describe Israel’s journey from Kadesh to the Steppes of Moab, on the E. of Jordan, with incidents of the way (e.g., the death of Miriam and Aaron, the brazen serpent, etc.). Notice here the ancient poetical fragments cited as historical authorities, 21 14 f. from the ‘Book of the Wars of Jehovah,’ 21 17 £. the Song of the Well, and the poem of the Ballad-singers (21 27-30). Chs. 22 2-24 give the history of Balaam (JE). The poems in chs. 23, 24, describing partly the splendid destiny in store for Israel, partly the fate reserved for some of its neighbors, are to be regarded as composed not by Balaam himself, but by a later hand, and placed in his mouth for the purpose of giving expression to thoughts deemed suitable to his position; 24 17-19 seem clearly to allude to the conquests of David. Ch. 25 (JE, 25 1-5; P, 25 6-18) records how the Israel- ites were seduced at Shittim into idolatry and im- morality, and how the zeal of Phinehas was rewarded with the promise of the permanence of the priest- hood in his family. (III) The section, chs. 26-36. Chs. 26-31 all belong to P. Ch. 26 describes the second census of Israel (cf. chs. 1 and 2) during the wanderings; the sum total of males (from twenty years old) is given at 601,730, besides the Levites (from one month old), 23,000. Ch. 27 1-11 contains the law of inheritance of daughters. In 27 12-23 Moses is commanded to view Canaan before his death, and Joshua is instituted as his successor. Chs. 28 and 29 are a priestly calendar, prescribing the public sacrifices to be offered at every sacred season. Ch. 30 relates to vows, defining the conditions under which a vow was to be binding. Ch. 31 describes how, in accordance with 25 16-18, a war of extermination was successfully undertaken against Midian. The narrative contains much that is both historically improbable and morally repug- nant. It is, in reality, not history, but ‘midrash,’ a story written with a religious purpose. No doubt there was a war of Israel against Midian; but the de- tails handed down by tradition have been elaborated by the compiler into an ideal picture of the manner the division of the land (vs. 16-29). in which, as he conceived, a sacred war must have been conducted, with the collateral aim of establish- ing the rule of the distribution of booty taken in war (31 25-30)—a rule which is elsewhere (I S 30 24- 25) referred to David. That the Midianites were not in reality exterminated is shown by the fact that they afterward invaded Israel in large numbers (Jg chs. 6-8). In ch. 32 (P and JE) Moses allots the land E. of Jordan to Reuben, Gad, and the half-tribe of Manas- seh, on condition that they help the other tribes to conquer the territory W. of Jordan. The closing chapters (33-36) are all from P. Ch. 33 contains P’s itinerary of the journeyings of the Israelites from Rameses to the Steppes of Moab. Ch. 34 defines the borders of Canaan (vs. 1-15), and nominates the tribal leaders who are to assist Joshua and Eleazar in In ch. 35 forty- eight cities are appointed for the residence of the Levites (vs. 1-8); six of these are to be, in addition, cities of refuge for the manslayer, and regulations for their use are laid down. Ch. 36 (supplementary to 27 6-11) provides that heiresses possessing landed property are to marry into their own tribe, in order to preserve the inheritance of each tribe intact. 3. Characteristics and Historical Value. The most attractive parts of the book are those belonging to JE. Here Moses is brought before us, ‘in his solitary grandeur, patient strength, and heroic faith; steadfast amid jealousy, suspicion, and rebellion, and vindicated by God himself (12 8) as a prophet of transcendent privilege and power’ (McFadyen, Introd., p. 45). Every reader will remember his noble prayer (11 29), that God would make all the people prophets, and put His spirit upon them all. The beautiful poems of Balaam are instinct with a high sense of Israel’s national destiny. The poetical fragments preserved in ch, 21 introduce us to an interesting typé of popular Hebrew poetry. In P the laws of ordeal in case of suspected adultery (ch. 5), of the Nazirite (ch. 6), and of lustration by the ashes of a red heifer (ch. 19) preserve archaic ele- ments, with analogies in the institutions of many other primitive peoples, which have been assimi- lated to the religion of Israel, and appear here in the form and character which they finally assumed. In the historical sections of P there is a large artificial element, especially in chs. 1-10, where the numbers are in many cases historically impossible, and the general picture is at variance with that of JE, as well as with the data afforded by the subsequent history. The simpler nucleus, supplied by tradi- tion, has been elaborated by the writer into an ideal picture of the organization which it was supposed that a sacred nation, marching through the wilder- ness, with its God in the midst of it, must have ex- hibited. In chs. 34 and 35 (the borders of the land, and the Levitical cities), also, there is much that is ideal; on ch. 31 (the war against Midian), see the remarks above. Behind the earlier source JE lie ballads (cf. 21 14, 27) and oral traditions, but even so ‘the history of the forty years themselves is a complete blank’ (McNeile), as the principal events recorded are confined to a few days at the beginning and a few months at the end of the wilderness period. Numbers, Symbolic Nun A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 628 Lrrerature: The principal commentaries are those of Dillmann (1886), Gray, in ICC (1903), Baentsch (1903), Holzinger (1903), A. R. S. Kennedy (Cent. Bible), and A. H. McNeile (Camb. Bible). S. R. D.*—J. E. M. NUMBERS, SIGNIFICANT AND SYMBOLIC: 1. Method of Counting. The method of counting among the Hebrews, as far back as it can be traced, was the common decimal system. The language con- tains names for nine units and the number ten, with compounds. The ten fingers of the two hands are believed to have furnished the starting-point and standard for the system. 2. The Writing of Numbers. In the earliest period numbers were spelled out in full. This is shown in the Moabite Stone and in the Siloam Inscription, and is the common practise of the O T. It was not until the postexilic period that the necessity was felt for employing special signs to represent the numbers. In fact, the earliest traces of the use of such signs occur on Maccabean coins, and consist of the letters of the alphabet. There is no evidence that the Hebrews ever invented, or adopted, a system of numerical notation such as was used by the Phenicians (Schroeder, Phoeniz. Sprache, pp. 186-189, and Merx, Gram. Syr., table to p. 17). But the significance for subsequent generations of the introduction of numerals was very great. While, on the one hand, the processes of arithmetic were largely facilitated, and the convenience of the system led to a great development in the science of com- putation, on the other, in the written records con- fusion of numbers became very easy and common. There is no part of the documents transmitted by copying so much subject to corruption as the record of numbers. 3. Approximation in Numbers. The Hebrews looked upon statistics somewhat as the other nations of the Orient. They occasionally tock a census (Nu 1 2; Ezr 81; Neh 78). But there are indications also that they entertained superstitious thoughts about such enumerations (II S 24 2 ff.); and, upon the whole, it does not seem likely that in estimating and reporting numbers they tried to be very precise. On the contrary, the evidence is strong that figures, wherever given, except the smallest, were meant as general, or round, numbers, which for practical pur- poses within definite limits, varying with different individuals and peoples, seemed to produce quite adequate impressions, and were more convenient for use. 4. Sacredness of Numbers. But in addition to such convenience of approximation, among the Hebrews a distinction was drawn between some numbers regarded as sacred and others regarded as profane. ‘Thus there arose a somewhat peculiar method of usage involving extensive and elaborate symbolism. In other words numbers were made to convey not only the ideas of arithmetic, but certain mystic significations. 5. Difficulty in Interpreting Numbers. The prac- tical effect of the foregoing principles is such an interplay of ideas as to render all generalization on the subject untrustworthy. No rule can be laid down as to what should be regarded as precise, what approximate, and what sacred or symbolical num- bers. And yet the absence of such a general rule does not preclude the recognition of the difference. In Gn 380 36 Jacob sets a three days’ journey between himself and Laban (cf. Gn 42 17; I K 12 5, etc.). Here the number 8 can not have a religious or sacred significance; but in Nu 6 24-26, with the threefold repetition of the Divine name in the benediction, and in Is 6 3, with the threefold occurrence of the term ‘Holy,’ and in other similar instances, the number 3 must be viewed as somehow connected with the sacredness of the subject. 6. Approximation and Hyperbole Combined. Ap- proximate, or round, numbers are more naturally apt to appear in the region of large figures. Such are 1,000 and 100. Both of these are found in the same connection in Ly 26 8 (cf. also Pr 17 10; Ec 6 3, 812; Mt 1812; Dt 1 11, 32 30; 1S 187; Is 3017). In most of these cases, in addition to the approxima- tion, there is an accessory design to enhance the im- pression by hyperbolical statement. This is all the more present when the number used is larger than 1,000, as in Dt 32 30, or in I Co 4 15, 14 19, and in Rev 5 11. 7. Sacred Numbers. The symbotical, or sacred numbers are 3, 4, 7, 10, 12, 40, 70, and their multi- ples. The right of 3 to appear in this list has been called in question. In the O T, taken by itself, the sacredness of 3 does not appear clearly. The ease of the three choices given David (II S 24 13), the threefold prostration of Elijah on the dead child ({ K 17 21), and the three daily prayers of Daniel (Dn 6 10) are not convincing. Those already cited (§ 5, above) from Nu 6 22-24 and Is 6 3 are more to the point, and indicate Babylonian influence. Among the Babylonians the triad was the favorite sacred group. The primary gods of the pantheon were three (Anu, Bel, and Ha); they represent the three parts of the universe, heaven, earth, and the abyss. Moreover, the number 3 is the smallest of those that can not be divided into equal integers, and, as confronting one in so many common aspects of nature and life, would naturally assume a sym- bolical value. The number 4 early became a symbol of completeness. It is undoubtedly based upon the four directions which stand open to one, 7.e., the right hand, the left hand, before and behind. From these, in the second place, arises the recognition of the four points of the compass ‘four corners of the earth,’ Is 1112, Ezk 7 2, Rev 71, 208. But each of these corresponds to a wind (Jer 49 36). There are, therefore, four winds of heaven (Ezk 37 9; Rev 7 1), and also four great rivers (Gn 210). Accordingly, in apocalyptic writings 4 is of frequent occurrence. There are four world kingdoms (Dn 7 3, 6, 17), four horns and four chariots in Zechariah’s vision (Zec 1 18,61), four living creatures, and four angels of de- struction (Rev 4 6, 9 13-15). The number 5 is signifi- cant only as the half of a perfect number (Lv 5 16). The same is true of 6, which, however,fderives its im- portance not so mich from its being one-half of 12, but because of its nearness to 7. Inthe seven-day period of creation, the six days’ work must be completed before the seventh day of rest, in order to make the perfect cycle (cf. Jos 6 3, 4, capture of Jericho). The significance of 7 has been variously derived, either from (1) its being reached by adding 4 and 8, (2) ol a CO EEE 629 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Numbers, Symbolic Nun A LS LL ae eS ee TI A (Pe reer eee ee from the division of the lunar month into four seven-day sections (weeks), according to the phases of the moon, (8) from the fact that seven planets were recognized in the earliest Babylonian observa- tion of the sky, or (4) from its combining two triads and a unit. Of these explanations the most prob- able, as far as Biblical usage is concerned, is the astronomical one (3), which was certainly widely diffused in Egypt and Mesopotamia. The Amarna tablets indicate that a sacred number was recognized among the Semitic peoples who had dealings with one another. Among the Hebrews 7 became the sa- cred number par excellence. The sacred times of the calendar were based upon it. Besides the weekly Sabbath, the seventh month, the Sabbatical year, the Jubilee year were determined by it. In other sacred relations it appears as the number of the priests who blew the horn at the siege of Jericho, in the number of days required for the capture of that city (Jos 6 4), the number of sacred locks (Jg 16 13- 19), the frequent seven-day periods taken for deliber- ation or preparation (IS 108, 11 3, 138; I K 18 43; Ezk 3 15 f.), the seven pillars of Wisdom (Pr 9 1), the seven princes of Persia (Est 114), etc. In some of the above-named uses the symbolic value of 7 may have either suppressed its numerical value or been combined with it. The following, however, are select instances of predominant stress on the symbol- ical aspect: The number of times that Jacob bowed before Esau (Gn 33 3), the number of women who shall take hold of one man (Is 41), the number of unclean spirits taking possession of the cleansed heart (Mt 12 45), and the number of times that the disciple must forgive his offending brother (Mt 18 21, 22). The half of 7 (33) has likewise a similar sacred significance (Dn 7 25, 12 7), of which the Apocalypse furnishes other instances (Rev 12 14; ef. also 1,260 days [=3% years], 11 3, 12 6, and 42 [=6X7] months, 11 2, 13 5). The number 10, as the highest of the series of units and at the same time the first of the second series, or, in other words, as the basis of the whole decimal system, could not but be vested with sacredness. Whether, as has been suggested, it acquired additional regard because it is the sum of 7 and 3 is doubtful. Like 7, it is used as both a round number and a sacred number, and in some of its uses, approximation and symbolic value are mingled, whereas in others either appears without the other. In Gn 2410, 22, for instance, it is a round number (cf. also Jos 22 14; Jg 17 10, etc.). But in the Decalog and in the decades of genera- tions in Gn, in the parables of the Talents and of the Virgins (Mt 25 1; Lk 19 17), and in the apocalyptic usage (Dn 7 7; Rev 13 1), the notion of complete- ness is more clearly present. But its sacredness is most fully brought into view in the tithe system and its correlative ritual (Nu 18 24 #.; Dt 14 22 ¢£.; Neh 10 37 f.; cf. Nu ch. 7). The significance of 12 may be traced to the Sumerian subdivision of the year into as many months, or revolutions of the moon. Twelve also happens to be the product of 3 and 4;; but, as in the case of 7, it is doubtful whether this fact has much to do with its sacredness. The tribes of Israel and of Ishmael (Gn 17 20, 35 22) were 12. That there was in this number something more than the fact of twelve patriarchs, the sons of Jacob (or of Ishmael), is manifest from the ef- fort to maintain the number, in spite of natural de- fections from or additions to it. When one tribe (Levi) was withdrawn, another was artificially created by subdivision (Joseph into Ephraim and Manasseh). The same is true in the N T with the number of the Apostles. Twelve is doubled in Rev 4 4, 5 8, 11 16, probably by the addition of the number of the Apostles to that of the tribes. Mul- tiples of 4 and 10, forty, and 7 and 10, seventy, naturally follow the significance of their components. Forty plays an important part in the chronology of the period of Judges and perhaps of the early monarchy. It is evidently used as a unit equivalent to a generation (Jg 3 11, 30, 5 31; cf. CHRONOLOGY OF OT). The duration of the wandering in the wilder- ness (Nu 14 33 f£.) and the three periods of the life of Moses are also reckoned as 40 each. Seventy was the number of the elders of Israel (Ex 24 1), of the persons in the household of Jacob at the time of the removal to Egypt (Gn 46 27), of the duration of the Exile (Jer 25 11 f., 29 10), and of the ‘year-weeks’ of Daniel (9 2, 24). 8. Multiples of Sacred Numbers. Multiples of 12 occur with the same regular meanings of approxima- tion and sacredness in the twenty-four courses of the priesthood (I Ch ch. 24), the forty-eight Levitical cities (Nu 35 6) the 12X12X1,000 of the redeemed in Rev 511. 9. Interpretation: Gematria. This symbolical use of numbers gave rise in the later rabbinical age to the theory that all numbers are full of secret mean- ings, being the archetypes of the ideas of God in the creation of the world and, therefore, the molding principles of the universe (Philo, De Leg. Alleg. I, 4; II, 1; De Mund. Opif. 3, 17, 31). But, if this were true, then the converse of it must also be true, 7.c., that each object has its fundamental number, and that the names of objects conceal in the numerical value of their letters the ideal nature of the objects themselves. Thus suggestions as to further mys- teries in nature and religion were discovered in the numerical values of all words in the sacred text. This conception led to the building up of a system of rules by which these suggestions might be followed. Words were transmuted into numbers, and numbers back into other words, and the secrets supposed to be concealed in the text of the O T were laid bare. The system, from its mathematical basis, was called gematria (a corruption of yewuetet«z). See SHE- sHACH. The only clear case of gematria in the N T is to be found in Rev 1318. The number of the Beast is here given as 666. From the context it appears very clearly that it was intended to be recognized as the name of a definite person by the inner circle of the readers of the book. At the same time, outsiders were to be left in the dark as to his identity. The in- numerable interpretations attempted of the passage may, therefore, be sifted and reduced to a very small number by the exclusion of those that ignore this fundamental assumption. 1k OYA NUN, non (7313, nin): A man of the tribe of Ephraim, the father of Joshua (Ex 33 1; Nu 11 28, etc.), always ‘nun’ except in I Ch 7 27, where the Nurse Offend A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 680 Heb. has nén, Non AV, which should probably be read, as in RV, ‘Nun.’ OR syd be NURSE, NURSING: The translation of two Heb. roots: (1) ydnagq, ‘suckle.’ The fem. Hiph‘il ptepl., ménegeth means a ‘wet-nurse’ (Ex 2 7; Is 49 23, figuratively), and also a caretaker for a weaned child (II K 11 2; Il Ch 2211). Such a one often remained as a special servant to the mature woman (Gn 24 59, 35 8). Usually, mothers suckled their own children (Gn 217; 1S 1 22 f.), but on occasion and in the wealthy and noble families a wet-nurse was em- ployed (Ex 27 #.). The Hebrew child, as are children in the East to-day, was suckled for two years (IS 1 22f.), and the weaning was celebrated by a feast (Gn 218). (2) ’Gman, ‘support.’ The fem. ptepl. ’d6meneth means a female caretaker in charge of children (Ru 4 16; II S 4 4). The masce. ptcpl. O OAK. See Pauesring, § 21; and Semitic Rre- LIGION, § 37. ; OAR. See Surps AND NaviGaTION, § 2. OATH: Normally, the oath is an invocation of God to witness the honesty of one’s motives and words. In the O T two varieties of it are found, one of which was reserved for cases of greater solemnity. The simpler and more common of the two was called sh*bhi‘ah, ‘swearing’; the more solemn alah, a ‘self-invoked curse.’ These appear in the N Tas Sexos, dexfGw and éuvdw for the first, and as dvabewatitw and xatax Oenatitw (ef. Mt 2672-74). The oath was taken ina formal way, altho one of several forms might be chosen, such as ‘Jehovah is a witness between me and between thee forever’ (I S 20 23, similar to Paul’s asseveration in II Co 1 23; Ph1 8; Gal 1 20), or ‘God do so to me and more also’ (IS 14 44; IL S 3 35), or ‘As Jehovah liveth’ (I S 14 39, 19 6; for other forms cf. I S 3 17, 25 22; II S 15 21). In addition to the words of the oath, certain sym- bolical acts were performed for the sake of greater impressiveness. The simplest of these was the raising of the hand toward heaven (Gn 14 22; Dt 32 40). In exceptional cases the hand might be placed under the thigh of the person imposing the oath (Gn 24 2, 47 29), as a sign of regard for the mystery of generation, whose source was God. A more elaborate ceremony consisted in the division of a sacrificial victim, and the act of walking between the parts (Gn 15 10, 17; Jer 3418). When an oath was imposed by another, the simple formula ‘Amen, Amen’ on the part of the taker was sufficient (Dt 27 15-26). Judicial abjurations are mentioned in I K 8 31; Mt 26 63. In later times, instead of God, things associated with His person or service were invoked, such as heaven, Jerusalem, the Holy City, the sun, the earth, the Temple (cf. Dalman, Words of Jesus, I, 168). The abuse of oaths reached such a pass that Jesus expressed Himself sweepingly against all oaths, presumably, however, with a view of correcting the abuse (Mt 5 34). See Law anp Lecat Practise, § 5; and Crimes AND PUNISH- MENTS, § 2 (b). 1) OR A ’6mén means a foster-parent (Nu 11 12; cf. the figura- tive use in Is 49 23). King Ahab entrusted his five sons to such guardians (II K 101, 5, where the same word is translated ‘they that brought them up’). CesuT. NUTS. Sce Pauusrine, §§ 21 and 23; and Foop AND Foop UTENSILS, § 5. NYMPHAS, nim’fas (Nvuyoés): If the variant reading (Néug«), which has good direct textual sup- port (B’, Euth) and is confirmed indirectly by MSS. having aitijs in the same verse (B, Syr.?), be correct N. was a Christian woman living in Laodicea (Col 4 15), whose house was used as a gathering-piace for Christians (cf. Ro 16 3,15). Perhaps she is especially mentioned here because the Colossian Epistle was to be read in her house (Col 4 16). Jo MaDe OBADIAH, 0”be-dai’a (HINTAY, ‘dbhadhyah{a)) ‘servant of J’”: 1. The author of the short prophecy which bears the name of Obadiah. 2. The governor of Ahab’s house, described as a ‘man who feared J” greatly’ (IK 183f.). 3. A son of Azel, of the family of Saul (I Ch 8 38). 4. A son of Izrahiah of Issachar (I Ch 7 3). 5. A Gadite who joined David at Ziklag (I Ch 129). 6. The father of Ishmaiah (I Ch 27 19). 7. Ason of Hananiah and grandson of Zerubbabel (I Ch 3 21). 8. A Merarite Levite (II Ch 34 12). 9. A son of Shemaiah of Jeduthun (I Ch 9 16; but in Neh 11 17 ‘Abda’). 10. An officer under Je- hoshaphat (II Ch 177). 11. A son of Jehiel (Ezr 8 9). 12. One who sealed the covenant with Ne- hemiah (Neh 10 5). 13. The head of a family of doorkeepers (Neh 12 25). A. C. Z. OBADIAH, BOOK OF: 1. The Prophet. One of the minor prophetic writings of the O T. The author gives even less information about himself than is customary with the others of his class. In fact, with the exception of his name, nothing is known of him save what may be indirectly gathered from his message. Josephus does, indeed, identify him with Obadiah, the governor under Ahab (I K 18 3 f.); but this is entirely inconsistent with the data deducible from the book concerning its setting and date. 2. Contents of the Book. The subject of the book is the doom of Edom. Evidently some great calamity in the form of an invasion had visited the country. The people, who were trusting in the alleged im- pregnable rocky fastnesses of their land (vs. 1-4), had been forced out of their homes; their towns had been plundered and thoroughly stripped of all that was of value (vs. 5, 6); and this had been done by those in whom they had reposed confidence as con- federates. The prophet sees in the visitation the power of J’ as a moving and directing cause (vs. 7-9). Moreover, the ground for the calamity was the unbrotherly treatment of Judah by Edom, after the siege of Jerusalem (vs. 10-14). The God of Israel was to visit a day of vengeance upon all the nations (vs. 15, 16), lay Edom low, exalt Israel, restore the 631 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE Nurse DICTIONARY Onna exiled to their homeland, and establish His king- dom among them (vs. 17-21). 3. Dates. In determining the date of the pro- duction, two facts afford help: First, the allusion in vs. 11, 12 to the capture of Jerusalem. This can be no other than that by Nebuchadrezzar in 586 B.c. For in this distress of Judah Edom gave its sympathy and appluase to Babylon (Ps 1377). Obadiah must then have uttered his words after 586. But, secondly, the relation of vs. 1-9 to the oracle of Jeremiah 49 7-22, while offering a puzzling complication, throws light on the literary relationships of the book. The similarity of these two passages can not be due to coincidence. The difficulty would disappear if Obadiah were assumed to have used the words of Jeremiah. For the date of the latter’s oracle is given as 605 B.c. (46 2); but the unity and move-- ment of Obadiah’s thought and the general nature of the resemblance in the two passages point rather to Jeremiah’s dependence on the minor prophet. But this would raise the date of Obadiah to 605 or earlier —a result that does not harmonize with what has been said of the allusion to the capture of Jerusalem. It follows then that either both Obadiah and Jere- miah have made use of an older anonymous oracle, or that the text of Jeremiah has been amended by the incorporation of Obadiah’s words. But, if the allusion to the capture of Jerusalem gives the earliest date possible for Obadiah, opinions have differed greatly as to the latest. Some have fixed it as after the Return (432 s.c., Nowack), and even as late as 312 (Hitzig). The question hinges on who the in- vaders of Edom were whose destructive work fur- nished Obadiah with the occasion for his prophetic discourse. Wellhausen is probably right in answering that they were Arab nomads. On the whole, 500 B.c. is the best latest limit for the ministry of Obadiah, and the book was probably written not much earlier than that date. Cf. Nowack in Hand Kommentar; G. A. Smith in LHzpositor’s Bible; Horton in The New Century Bible; J. M. P. Smith in ICC (1911). A. C. Z. OBAL, d’bal. See Epat. OBED, o’bed (1219, ‘dbhadh,’ "IwGhS,’lwB4a), ‘wor- shiper’: 1. The son of Ruth and Boaz (Ru 4 17) and father of Jesse, the father of David (Ru 4 21 f.; I Ch 2.12; Mt 1 5; Lk 3 32). 2. A Jerahmeeclite (I Ch 2 37 f.). 3. One of ‘the mighty men of the armies’ (I Ch 11 47). 4. A son of Shemaiah and grandson of Obed-edom, of the Korahite family (I Ch 26 7). 5. The father of Azariah, a captain of a hundred, who aided Jehoida against Queen Athaliah in set- ting Joash on the throne (II Ch 231). C.S. T. OBED -EDOM, 6”bed-i/dom (BITS 129, ‘abhedh *édhém), ‘worshiper of [god] Edom’: 1. A Philistine of Gath, dwelling near Jerusalem. David left the Ark in his house for three months before he carried it to Jerusalem (II S 6 10 f.=I Ch 18 13 £., 15 25). 2. The ancestor of a family of doorkeepers (I Ch 1518 f., 16 38, 26 4#.; II Ch 25 24), perhaps the same as the preceding. 3. A family of singers in post- exilic times (I Ch 15 21, 165). C.8. T. OBEISANCE (1%, shahah), ‘to bow down,’ ‘pros- trate oneself’: This term was used especially of the act of homage before a monarch or superior, often with a descriptive clause, ‘bowed with his face to the earth’ (IS 248 [9]), ‘bowed the head’ (Gn 43 28), ‘fell on her face to the ground’ (II S 144). RV has ‘did obeisance’ (II S 9 6; I K 1 31) for ‘reverence’ AV, and (IS 248; IIS 14 22; I K 153) ‘bowed him- self’? and ‘do obeisance’ for ‘humbly beseech thee’ AV (II 8 16 4). In many other passages ‘bow down’ or some similar expression is used. In relation to a god it means ‘worship.’ C.8. T. OBIL, o’bil (7°21, ’abhil), ‘camel-driver’: The overseer of David’s camels (I Ch 27 30). OBLATIONS. See HEAvE-OFFERING; SACRIFICE AND OFFERINGS, § 17. OBOTH, o’beth (nak, ’dbhoth): ) is not a conjunction, but an adverb, mean- ing ‘in succession,’ ‘one after another’ (cf. also Ac 11°40 18 23); K. E. N. ORDINANCE: A statutory prescription as dis- tinguished from consuetudinary law. The principal Heb. and Gr. words thus rendered are hugqadh, mish- pat, and dtatayy (Ex 12 14; Ps 11913; He 91). See also, in general, Law anp Leaat Practise. A. C. Z. OREB, d’reb (2NY, AY, ‘drébh), ‘raven’: I. A Midianite prince slain by the Ephraimites, who at the command of Gideon had gone down into the Jordan Valley to cut off the retreat of the Midianaites (Jg 7 25,8 3; Ps 8311). II. A place named after the Midianite prince (Jg 7 25; Is 10 26), located perhaps in the Wddy Far‘ah (see Moore, ad loc, in Int. Crit. Com. on Judges). OFh iy ty OREN, O’ren (j78, ’dren), ‘cedar’: The ancestral head of a Jerahmeelite clan (I Ch 2 25). ORGAN. See Music anp Musicat Insrrv- MENTS, § 3 (2). ORION, o-rai’an. See Astronomy, § 4. ORNAMENT. See Dress anp ORNAMENTS, II. ORNAMENT FOR THE LEGS. See Dress anp ORNAMENTS, II, 2. ORNAN. See ARAUNAH. ORPAH, 6r’pa (127¥, ‘orpah): A Moabitess, one of Naomi’s daughters-in-law (Ru 1 4, 14). OSEE, 6’zi. See Hossa, § 1. A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 648 OSHEA, o-shi’a. See JosHua. OSNAPPER, es’nap-er (18208, ’osnappar; LXX *Acevvapée; Lucian, Uaryavaccbens): A king who transported peoples to Samaria (Ezr 49 f.); probably the Assyr. king Asshurbanipal (Spynqipx, 668- 626 B.c.) is meant. Sargon (722-705 B.c.) seems to have been the first Assyrian king to transport men from the East to Samaria in 721 B.c. and 715 B.c. (II K 17 24; ef. COT, 276 f.). Esarhaddon (681- 668 B.c.) also sent colonists to Samaria (Ezr 4 2). Altho no other mention is made of Asshurbanipal than in Ezr 410, he was the only Assyrian king who could have transplanted the inhabitants of Susa and Elam. Esarhaddon had brought to subjection the whole of Syria and Egypt, and his empire extended from Babylon to Egypt. Asshurbanipal, his son, re- ceived the Assyrian throne with the western depend- encies; his brother Shamas-shum-ukin having been set over Babylon. A. quelled an uprising in Egypt, conquered the Elamite kingdom, and putting down the rebellion of his brother in Babylon became king of both Assyria and Babylonia (648 B.c.?). There seems to have been an uprising in Syria and Pales- tine at the same time, and according to II Ch 33 11 Manasseh was carried in chains to Babylon. The inscriptions mention Manasseh as a vassal of A., and the incident as recorded in Ch may well have been true, as A. probably resided at Babylon part of the time. He erected notable buildings, both pal- aces and temples, in various cities of his empire; but his greatest service to posterity was in collecting the very rich and valuable library of Babyl.-Assyr. lit- erature, which was discovered at Nineveh by Layard and Rassam (1845-50, and later). See Assyria; and NINEVEH. CISAb OSPREY. See PALESTINE, § 25. OSSIFRAGE. See Pauestine, § 25. OSTRICH (Heb. yd‘én, ya‘dnadh, wrongly ren- dered ‘owl’ in AV [except in La 4 3]; in Job 39 13 the present word rendnim is probably a textual mistake for y*‘énim. Etymology uncertain). This bird of the desert was well-known to the people of Palestine, and its chief characteristics are noted in the following references: Lv 11 16 (here listed as ‘unclean’ and not to be eaten); Is :18 21, 34 13, 43 20; Jer 50 39; La 4 3; Mi 18; and especially in the extended description in Job 39 13-18. See Paxs- TINE, § 25. E. EL. N. OTHNI, eth’nai (39¥, ‘othni): A Levite gate- keeper (I Ch 26 7). OTHNIEL, oth’ni-el (28°Y, ‘othni’al): The son of Kenaz, a younger brother of Caleb (Jos 15 17). The first of the so called judges of Israel. His courage had been tested, even before he assumed the judgeship, when at the invitation of Caleb he attacked and captured Kiriath-sepher, and received as a reward the hand of Caleb’s daughter Achsah in marriage (Jg 1 11-15). Othniel’s judgeship was occasioned by his success in repelling the invasion of Cushan-rishathaim of Mesopotamia (Jg 37 ff.). See JupGEs, Book oF. A.C. Z. OUCHES, auch’es (Settings RV): (1) The settings for the precious stones on the shoulder-pieces of the 649 high-priestly ephod (Ex 28 11, 39 6). (2) Pieces of gold work that served as fastenings for the golden cords of the breastplate (Ex 28 13 £., 25, 39 16, 18). The Heb. term mishb*tsdth means something ‘mixed’ or woven together (ef. Ps 45 13 ‘inwrought’), indicative of open or filigree work. Driver (Camb. Bible on Ex ad loc.) suggests ‘rosettes’ (of strips of beaten gold) as a suitable rendering. E. EH. N. OUTGOINGS: This term is the translation of two Heb. words: (1) métsd’, the place of the sun’s going forth, the east (cf. Ps 75 6 [7]), and by zeugma (Ps 65 8 [9]), ‘the goings forth of the morning and eve- ning’ = ‘the east and the west.’ (2) tétsd’dth (fem. pl.), ‘the point at which a boundary terminates.’ Altho the noun isafem. pl., the Heb. verb is sin- gular (Q’ré pl.), and in the original text the noun may have been singular. It is used in Jos (17 9, 18, etc.) in giving the boundaries of the tribal divisions in Canaan, where RV renders ‘goings out,’ while elsewhere, in Nu and Jos, it is rendered ‘goings forth,’ ‘goings out.’ Ge Sek. OUTLANDISH: This term is the old Eng. trans- lation for nokhri in Neh 13 26 AV, where RV has ‘foreign.’ Elsewhere AV usually renders this word by ‘strange,’ ‘stranger’ where RV has ‘foreign,’ ‘foreigner.’ Crna OVEN. See Foop anp Foop Ursnsits, § 2. OVERSEER: (1) In most instances in the O T this is a correct translation of the Heb. terms padgadh (noun and verb) and pdqidh, as the root idea signifies ‘to seek out,’ ‘to care for,’ ‘to inspect.’ (2) In II Ch 2 18, 34 13 the Heb. menatststhim might be ren- PAARAI, pé’a-rai or -ré (1¥3, pa‘drz): One of David’s heroes (II § 23 35), an Arbite (see Aras, II). In I Ch 11 37 called ‘Naarai son of Ezbai.’ PADAN-ARAM, pé’’den-é’ram. See ARAM. PADDAN-ARAM, pad’’dan-é’ram (978 118, pad- dan ’drém, Padan-aram AV; ‘Paddan’ alone in Gn 487 is doubtless due to a copyist’s omission; Mecoro- tala Luetac, LXX.): See Anam, § 2. L. G. L.—E. C. L. PADDLE: A term found only in Dt 23 13, for which RVmg. substitutes ‘shovel.’ The Heb. term so rendered, yathédh, is the common term for a peg, or ‘tent-pin,’ and here denotes that the butt end of the spear should be shaped so as to be used con- veniently for the purpose indicated. EE. E.N. PADON, pé’den (1118, padhdn): The ancestral head of a family of Nethinim (Ezr 2 44; Neh 7 47). PAGIEL, pé’gi-el (28932, pagh’al). ‘The ‘prince’ of the tribe of Asher (Nu 1 13, etc.). PAHATH-MOAB, pé”hoth-md’ab (ANI NIB, pa- hath mo’abh): A family from which 2,812 (Ezr 2 6) or 2,818 (Neh 7 11) men, in two branches, Jeshua and Joab, returned with Zerubbabel, and, later, 200 with Ezra (Ezr 8 4) and perhaps 218 more of the PADDAN- A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Ordain Palace dered ‘foremen.’ (3) In Pr 67 the Heb. term shotér is one which occurs many times in the O T, and always (in RV) rendered ‘officer,’ except in this place. On Nos. (1)-(3) see also Orricer. (4) On Ac 20 28 see Counc, § 8. HK. E.N. OWL. See Osrricu; and Pauesrine, § 25. OWNER OF A SHIP. See Suirs anp Navi- GATION, § 2. OX: Several Heb. words of different root-sig- nificance are rendered ‘ox’ in the Eng. Bible. (1) shér (apparently cognate with the Lat. taurus, Ger. stier, Engl steer), the most generic word used irrespective of age or sex. (2) baqar (‘to break through’), the term thus meaning the ‘plow-animal.’ In addition to these two terms, which represent nearly all the O T instances, there are two others: par, ‘bullock’; but in Ex 24 5 and Nu 231 (AV) ‘oxen,’ and ’alliph, ’eleph, meaning the ‘tamed,’ ‘domesticated,’ or ‘taught’ animal (Is 30 24; Ps 87, 14414). For the uses to which oxen were put see AGRICULTURE, §4; SACRIFICE AND OFFERINGS, § 5; and PALESTINE, § 24. E. E. N. OZEM, G’zem (O¥8, ’disem): 1. A brother of David (I Ch 2 15). 2. The ancestral head of a Jerahmeelite clan (I Ch 2 25). OZIAS, o-zai’as. See Uzzian. OZNI, 02’nai (38, ’oznz): The ancestral head of the Oznites, a clan of Gad (Nu 26 16), called Ezbon in Gn 46 16. Joab branch (Ezr 8 9). Hasshub, ‘son’ of P.-M., helped in repairing the wall (Neh 3 11), and the head of the family sealed the covenant (Neh 10 14 [15]). Eight of the family had married foreign wives (Ezr 10 30). Or sat. PAI, pé’ai. See Pav. PAINT, PAINTING. See Evn-parnt. PALACE: This term is used in the AV as the trans- lation of eight Heb. and two Gr. words: (1) ’appe- dhen, from the Persian apadéna, ‘treasury, ‘armory.’ In Dn 11 45 it means ‘palatial tents.’ (2)’armén, ‘cit- adel’; not used before the establishment of the King- dom of Israel, and means both ‘citadel’ (I K 16 18; II K 15 25, ‘castle’ RV) of the king’s house, and more generally ‘castles,’ ‘palaces,’ especially in passages of the Prophets, which speak of conquest (Jer 6 5; Am 1 4, etc.). (8) birah, ‘castle,’ ‘palace,’ a late word from Assyr. birtu, ‘fortress,’ only in postexilic lit., used for the Temple (I Ch 291, 19); for the for- tress near the Temple (Neh 2 8, 7 2, ‘castle’ RV), and for the fortress in (or which is) Shushan, the winter residence of the king of Babylon (Neh 11; Est 1 2, etc.; Dn 8 2). (4) bayith, ‘house’ (II Ch 9 11 RV); ‘king’s house,’ the usual term for a royal palace. (5) bithan, ‘house,’ ‘palace’ in Est only (1 5, 7 7, 8). (6) hékhal, a loan-word from the Accadian e-gal, ‘great house,’ used for a royal palace (I K 211; Dn ‘Palal Palestine A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 650 eer LL Ee SC EC Ts a Lh nt ae ee 1 4, etc.; Hos 8 14, ‘temple’ AV); but also for the Temple, the palace of God, the supreme King (Is 61; 1 K 61, etc.). (7) harmon, a word of uncertain meaning (Am 43 AV; cf. RV). (8) tiradh, ‘encamp- ment,’ ‘settlement’ (Song 8 9, ‘turret’ RV; Ezk 25 4, ‘encampments’ RV). (9) adAn, a ‘court’ and the house itself, ‘palace’ AV (Mt 26 3 £.; Mk 14 54 f.; Lk 11 21; Jn 18 15). (10) xpatteerov, ‘the camp of pretorian soldiers,’ ‘the pretorian guard’ (so Ph 1 13 RV). Their quarters in Rome did not include the royal palace, altho when absent from Rome the emperor was ‘in pretorio.’ See also PReroriuM. OAR SRA PALAL, pé'lel (228, palal): One who helped on the wall of Jerusalem (Neh 3 25). PALAN QUIN, pal’’an-kin’: The RV rendering of the Heb. ’appiryén (Song 3 9; ‘chariot’ AV), a word of foreign origin and of somewhat uncertain mean- ing. PALESTINE OUTLINE OF CONTENTS. V. Frora, §§ 21-238. VI. Fauna, §§ 24-26. VII. HisroricAL GEOGRA-~ PHY, §§ 27-38. I. Names, BouNDARIES. AND AREA, §§ 1-3. Il. Torpograpuy, §§ 4-13. III. Gronoay, §§ 14-16. IV. Tue Criimates, §§ 17-20. I. Names, BouNDARIES, AND AREA. 1. Names. Palestine did not receive its present designation from the people of Israel, through whose occupation of its soil it has become famous, but was so named from the Philistines, the enemies of Israel. It is in Herodotus that we first find the expression Svela } [lakatctivyn. He meant thereby either only the coast of the Mediterranean between Phenicia and the Arabian Desert in the S. (I, 105; IV, 39; VII, 89), or also the interior country lying back of this coast (II, 109; III, 91). As time passed, the reference of the name to the interior became more usual. It is true that Josephus only rarely uses IlaAatottvy (Palestine) for the land of the Israelites or of the Jews (Ant. I, 6 4 [§ 145]; XX, 121 [§ 259]). But Philo puts HaAatotfyy for Canaan, and simi- larly upon coins issued under the authority of Vespasian (70 a.p.) we read: Palestina (Palestina) in potestatem P. R. redacta. For the terminology of Christian writers the usage of Jerome (Com. on Ezk 27) was influential. By Palestine was understood the land inhabited by the Israelites, or Jews, with no definite determination of its boundaries. This territory belonged, according to the O T, to the land of Canaan, but was not the whole of it. The Israelites well-knew that they had not gained pos- session of all Canaan, for in Jos 11 17, 127, a distinc- tion is made between the territory Israel had taken from Canaan and that which had not been con- quered (Jos 13 2-6), and the well-known expression ‘all Israel from Dan even to Beersheba’ (I S 3 20; IL S 24 2, 15; I K 4 25 [5 5 in Heb.]) designated only the N. and S. limits of the territory actually pos- sessed by Israel. In the O T Canaan does not repre- sent a political unit but a geographical idea (like the term Germany), and never had fixed boundaries. This is the reason why the attempts in the O T to draw the boundaries of Canaan, especially on the N., differ so widely, as a comparison of Gn 10 15-19 with Dt 11 24; Gn 15 18 and Ex 23 31 with Ezk 47 15-20, 481. and Nu 841-12 (cf. 18 21) will show. The E. Jordan land (‘ébher hayyardén) was never explicitly reckoned as belonging to Canaan, and later (from Ezekiel’s time) was definitely distinguished from 1t. Canaan was called ‘the land of promise’ (He 11 9; ef. Ac 7 5) or ‘the promised land’ after such pas- sages as Gn 15 17; Dt 6 10; Ezk 20 42. On the con- trary, other designations of the O T have a narrower sense. For example, such terms as ‘the land of Israel’ (I S 13 9); ‘the land of the Hebrews’ (Gn 40 15; Jos. Ant. VII, 9 6 [§ 219]; Pausanias, VI, 24); ‘Jehovah’s house’ (Hos 9 15; Jer 12 7); the ‘holy mountain’ of J’ (1s 11 9); ‘the holy land’ (Zee 2 12 {16 in Heb.]; II Mac 17)—all mean only the land inhabited by Israel. It was ‘holy’ for Israel, be- cause it belonged to J’’ and He or His name dwelt therein; for Christians, because it was the theater - of Jesus’ activity or of sacred history in general. The Egyptian inscriptions show acquaintance with the name Canaan, tho they generally use the term Haru (cf. in O T, the ‘Horites’) for southern Syria. The term commonly employed by the Babylonians, Amurru (whence Amorites), signified generally Phenicia and the Phenicians. The Amarna letters limit this term to the Lebanon region and N. Phenicia, and for the 8. part of Syria use the term Canaan (Kinahni, Kinahhi). Among the Assyrians, from the 8th cent. on, the term mat Hattt, ‘land of the Hittites,’ meant not only N. but also S. Syria. Later for this expression another is used, ebir ndri (Heb. ‘ebher hannadhar, Aram. ‘adbhar nahdrda’), 1.e., the land W. of (‘beyond’) the Euphrates, which term, from the time of Darius, was exactly the term used for the Persian satrapy of Syria (Neh 2 7, 9, 3 7; Ezr 5 3, 6, 6 6ff.; cf. also ITS 1016; I K 4 24 [He 5 4)). To this correspond the expressions in I Mac 7 8, td mépay to0 notayod, and I Es 217, 24f. } xolAn Dupta xat Dotvixyn (cf. Strabo, 16). Finally, Greek and Roman writers use the name Iovéatz, Judea, in the sense of Palestine. Originally, this meant only the district about Jerusalem occupied by the postexilic Jews; later, the kingdom of the Hasmoneans was so named (Jos. Ant. XIV, 11 2), then the kingdom of Herod (XVI, 2 1), then the Roman province under Vespasian (Bell. Jud. III, 7 3; VII, 61; cf. Ptol. V, 161, 15 6-8). 2. Boundaries. If one understands by the term Palestine the land of Biblical history, 7.e., of Israel’s history, from Joshua to Herod, it will not be pos- sible to think of fixed boundaries. At the same time, the name indicates fairly well what might be spoken of as southern Syria, the natural boundaries of which are easy to determine. As on the W. it is limited by the sea, so it is on the S. and E. by the desert. But sea and desert, tho often compared, have as boun- daries very different meanings. The coast-line along the Mediterranean sea is sharp and changes little, but the transition from the cultivated land to the desert is gradual and the boundary-line changed according to the political conditions. Aitho deserts separated peoples from one another in those times, yet caravan routes were in existence still earlier as avenues of commerce to the open sea. Therefore it NWNetden, ahd Se SY ’ \ rt 3 NS 4 * bs so | a = 94 3Z ae i3& | 7 *S 4 ares 3 ; ; ; m Ss | ! ) i a : > = He OS 08 || S 08 ce r; Las ¥ ki aN YRULERR > iyedzit-Uy Pee & : ™ 5 wo ee retinal YDANIUNT, %, ” y X I}. ; ULE Ne Blog “10g & g ‘ whe g | ynn.ag ~ L TRS 2 | Tua. ae Ca bs | a | S. “EF ---7- i UPA UN SAT ae sny} ‘SOlTeI] UL SoUreU Ue pow : umeusedeg :snyy ‘edé£4 uvul0y Ul seovyd Jo saureu yUeTOUY HNIDSA LV dt IO dvVW «08. b8 wy an a Sm SHER HL Aoe "thm, 108 SE wosy J WSBreH- U3 ‘QBo.Jo II DqqdPT d Quow-eqaru ve - SEAT oD ungud of “usted, 10 woaKt RADE aa gery ‘eno asl ‘\ Dm V4) atl Ys qorMmoery) 3 pai” 2. = a mda rpeaydOn ates ANE NOL Sy, \ Ss ore Teed © ba j-~ , map ruM: J. -u0en 90g Q nsau0T ge YoLvay AQOIV Un 1? ee t ne om oe —s =-$seet Be ed ~~, nga 988 2, We Bol sola A —9ay-88 ug) seQ0US art. Raweeseey y~s, 2 f « f._* t ‘ " S~, . P: S45 whe 7M EMD 1ahhesormud -uRe Se ae = 1 aged Ba aso oir btn 3 Us _ Sana 1m TRIED S ; AE ~ BOG Stes ‘tanuer 7; met “Tet \ “ann op 2 NOTES me . SS Desnar ede ny see oH pa uritenn ane J Sworsa Zouk s Iny HES” xo, fi . boedd Sore! pines ae envoy {i 6 OP IL, > ED Yayreani g uM ys ea any “0 oreysy ‘uoTaxYsY = S — bu nT--~ ~~ 1S, eons in Sarde ea Cea: > ret AOU 19 wont N piles tet hor cr aS reg FUL 3qji DEPT WOU TN es Bi pote ws eae [st8 vfpy HHO WPAN ; Me RE 10 vddop? i 7 Dine 12 4y PNT es / § ey te ¢ Wea Ue aus 651 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Palal Palestine is more likely that foreign influences entered Pales- tine via the desert much earlier than they did from over the sea. On the N. the coast-plain comes to an end about 13 m. N. of ‘Akkad; Ras en- Nakira and Rds el-Abyad (6 m. farther N.), spurs of Jebel el-Mushakkah (1,190 ft. high), rise abruptly from the sea and extend eastward to the W. mountain boundary of Upper Galilee, which is united to Jebel ed-Dahr (c. 2,000 ft. high) by Jebel Htinin (3,000 ft.). Jebel ed-Dahr forms the watershed between the Nahr el-Litdnit (the Litany) and the Jordan and leads on to the foot of Hermon, which, situated above the sources of the Jordan, stands out distinctly as a natural boundary for the land from theS. To the SE. begins the level territory of an- cient Bashan, the most northern portion of the E. Jordan land with which the history of Israel was concerned. 3. Area. The area enclosed by these natural boundaries is not large. The sources of the Jordan at the foot of Hermon (at Tell el- Kadi) are distant in a straight line from Beersheba 143 m., from Kadesh-barnea, 187 m. The breadth narrows con- tinually from 8. to N. Through Tell Rifah—Beer- sheba—el- Kerak it is 112 m.; through Nebi Yinus— Jerusalem—Meshetta 81 m.; through Carmel— Tiberias 62 m.; through Ras el-‘Ain—Badnyés 47 m. —if 36° E. long. from Greenwich be taken as the E. limit toward the desert. Taking the breadth at Tell el- Kadi as the northern boundary and that at Beersheba as the southern, we have a total area of c. 10,000 sq. m. (26,108 sq. km.). Of this, according to the English survey (1872-77), c. 5,940 sq. m. (15,643 sq. km.) belong to W. Palestine, leaving a little over 4,000 sq. m. for E. Palestine. II. TorpoGRApPHy. 4. Horizontal and Vertical Lines of Division. Palestine, like the rest of Syria, is primarily the western coast-frontier of the Syro-Arabian Desert, which extends as a plateau, with an average eleva- tion of 2,400-3,000 ft., as far as the Euphrates and the Persian Gulf. The coast-line is remarkably unbroken. Only in one place does it show any deviation worth mentioning, namely, between Carmel and the cliffs of Acco (‘Akka) lying opposite. Here it bends to the E., forming a circular bay 6 m. long and 2 m. wide. On the S. side of the old city Acco there was an excellent natural harbor which was of greatest importance during the period from the Persian supremacy down to and beyond the time of the crusades. It is now neglected and filled up with sand brought by the Mediterranean current from Gibraltar and the Nile delta. The Turkish Government, before the war, was attempting to con- struct an artificial harbor at Haifa, opposite Acco to the S., in order to give the railway to Mecca a secure connection with the sea. The attitude of the present government of Pal. in this matter is as yet uncertain. The rocky islands also that lie off the coast, under whose shelter the Phenician harbors arose, appear on the S. coast only in the form of small rocky reefs which make the shore dangerous, e.g., at Joppa (Yafa). The coast is mainly flat and sandy; in only a few places does it rise in cliffs from the sea (at Askalon, Yafa, Tantara, ‘Ailit, and Acco). The vertical division of Palestine is more compli- cated. It arises from the great natural cleft or fault which begins at el-‘Akaba, is widest and deepest in the Dead Sea and extends beyond Hermon through the Orontes Valley to the north of Antioch. The deepest portion, z.e., the Jordan Valley and the Dead Sea, separates the general frontier of the Ara- bian Desert into two parts, usually termed the E. and W. Jordan land. This fact has been of greatest significance for the history of the W. Jordan land, as it was thereby released from its immediate con- nection with the desert and given the opportunity for its own historical development. The same fundamental topographical lines run- ning from S. to N. show themselves also on the W. ‘slope of the highlands and in the course of the coast- line, to a lesser extent also within the highland region itself (cf. § 7, below). In only one place are these lines apparently broken, viz., by the low-lying Plain of Jezreel (Esdraelon), which broadens out from the northern foot of Carmel toward the sea and also issues on the E. into the upper Jordan Valley through easily traversed passes on both sides of the isolated Jebel ed-Daht. Here, from remote antiquity, im- portant trade-routes have traversed the land from K. and W.; here also has often been the battleground for the control of Palestine. To the S. of this plain the mountain system is very simple: in the interior the central ridge, on which most of the main road runs naturally from N. to S., frequently widened out into smaller plains or valleys which are of great importance for the settlement and cultivation of the land, at the same time the water- shed, which descends rapidly toward the Jordan, on the W., slopes much more gradually toward the sea. N. of the Plain of Jezreel the watershed draws nearer the western side of the Jordan Valley and makes possible a somewhat isolated highland region toward the sea, which may be taken as the transition to the Lebanon and Antilebanon ranges. The surface of the E. Jordan territory is of a much more simple character. To the E. it extends to the desert highland, in a gradual rise or in rounded hills, furrowed by broad and deep watercourses. To the W. it breaks itself into countless spurs between which brooks and rivers have cut deep ravines. The descent to the Jordan is often very abrupt. While the average height of the E. Jordan plateau is some- what higher than that of the W. Jordan land, still they run parallel to each other. Both are highest in the N. (in Galilee and Jdldn, 7.e., Golan). In the central region (Samaria and Gilead) there is a depres- sion, and in the S. (in Judah and Moab) again an elevation. These topographical differences find mention also in the O T, where the different parts of the land are enumerated according to their natural characteris- tics: hiph hayydm, ‘the seacoast’; hashsh*phélah (in I Mac 12 38 LepnA&), ‘the underland,’ (‘the lowland’ EV), 7.e., the hilly region between the coast-plain and the mountains proper (often used to include the coast-plain also); Adhdar, ‘the mountain-land’; ha‘- drabhah, the Jordan Valley; hammishér, ‘the pla- Palestine A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 652 teaw’ (of Moab) (cf. Dt 17; Jos 91; Jg 19; II Ch 2610). 5. The Accessibility and Isolation of Palestine. In connection with the consideration of the to- pography of Palestine, questions arise as to the relative accessibility and isolation of the land and its suitability for the intercourse of its people with other lands. What the great geographer Carl Ritter wrote in 1852 (cf. Ritter, Hin Blick auf Pal. u. seine christl. Bevélkerung, 1852; Allgemeine Erdkunde, Bd. XV, i., p. 8 f.) concerning the general situation of Palestine, viz., that it was distinguished by its isolation from the rest of the civilized world and, at the same time, by its central position in the midst of that world, can be maintained to-day only with great reservations. It is true that Palestine lay midway between Babylonia and Egypt, the two most important seats of ancient civilization (cf. Ezk 5 8, 38 12 ‘navel of the earth’). But its natural relation to both was different. Palestine is most closely connected with the Euphrates and Tigris region through N. Syria, while it is separated from the delta of the Nile by a broad stretch of desert. In accordance with this the Amarna letters show the country to have been primarily under the cul- tural influence of Babylon, while the Egyptian influence at all times has been of lesser import. The very ancient trade-route from the Euphrates (at Carchemish) to the Nile traversed the land from N. to 8S. It reached the Sea of Gennesaret either from the Orontes Valley over the Jebel ed-Dahr and the highland of Galilee, or it drew near the upper course of the Jordan via Damascus, crossed this and united itself with the former branch on the W. shore of the Sea of G. Thence the road ascended the ridge of Tabor and then descended into the Plain of Esdraelon. At Megiddo, the mod. Tell el-Mutesellim, it left this to find its way to the coast-plain between the hills S. of Carmel through the Wddy ‘Ara. Here it skirted the foot of the hills, drawing near the coast at Lydda (Heb. Lédh), Ekron, and Ashdod, and passed on by Gaza and Raphia through the desert to the Nile delta. Even to-day this road is much used by caravans and for the herds which are driven to Egypt for sale, altho nothing is done for its main- tenance. Its tributaries will be mentioned later. A land traversed by such an ancient trade-route is not isolated; it is open to travel and constantly under the influence of outside civilization. This old trade-route shows that Palestine in the N. and S. offered no serious hindrances to commerce, while at other places it presented attractive openings (cf. Jer 15 7). The Bedawin of the eastern desert, the ‘children of the east’ (bené gedhem) of the O T, could without difficulty press forward to the W. Indeed, the Jordan Valley and River, S. of the Sea of Gennesaret as far as the Jabbok, can be crossed in many places without danger. Tn its southern portion, between the Jabbok and the Dead Sea, it is deeper and broader and the fords are much fewer, so that here intercourse between the two sides is relatively restricted. In the S. the ascent from Beersheba is at first easy, but the mountains them- selves offer difficulties to passage. Here is the re- gion to which Ritter’s term ‘isolation’ is in truth Dt 3 10; applicable, viz., the southern part of the mountain range of W. Palestine. As far as the neighborhood of Ndbulus (Shechem) we can travel from N., W., and E. through open roads furnished by Nature her- self; but the entire southern mountain-land is like a natural fortress. The heights have, in places, an elevation of nearly 3,600 ft. Only narrow, tortuous valleys shut in by steep, overhanging cliffs form the watercourses. The country as a whole is much more poorly supplied with water than is its northern part; consequently it is less fertile. The inhabitants of this mountain region were little affected by either the warlike or peaceful movements on the roads to the west. Large cities which depend on commerce for their prosperity were never found here, as the land has no commercial possibilities. It is certainly no accident that the most important history of the land took place in this southern part. The single open door to the sea (at Carmel) has been mentioned - (§4). But this was of consequence only for the later history of the land, after seamen had learned to ven- ture on the open sea instead of clinging to the coasts. In concluding this sketch we shall speak of the natural characteristics of each section of the land. 6. The Negeb or ‘the South.’ The Negeb or ‘the South’ was the most southern part of Canaan ac- cording to the O T (Jg 19; Dt 17; Jos 10 40, 1518.; Ezk 47 18 f.). The name (generally in the O T with the article) denoted (according to the Aramaic) probably ‘the dry, barren land.’ Since the LXX. in some places rendered the word by vétoc and Alb (‘South’), and the Vulgate followed it by using meridies or terra australis (and austrum), so the mis- leading expressions ‘South,’ ‘south-land’ passed over into many modern versions. The Negeb com- prised a territory which began at Beersheba, where the mountainous region ends, and stretched south- ward for about 55-60 m. On the E. and SE. it was bounded by the Wady el-Fikra! and its upper branch the Wddy el-Marra. On the W. and SW. it falls away to the lower level portion of the Wady el-‘Arish. Its form was, therefore, that of a triangle with the apex turned toward the 8. The Wédy el- Fikra (with el-Marra) was the natural boundary toward Edom (Jos 151, 21-32), and by the Waddy el- ‘Arish, the O T ‘brook of Egypt,’ the S. border of Israel (and Canaan) was extended to the Mediter- ranean (Jos 15 3 f.; Ezk 47 19; Nu 34 5). It is true that in this flat waste region no fixed boundary-line can be drawn, yet the lower Wady el-‘Arish does mark a definite line between the Egyptian desert to the W. and the arable region of Palestine to the S., as has been stated by Th. Kotschy and W. Barbey. On the African side the formation is that of a gravel bed overlaid with sand, while on the Asiatic side it is that of a hard clay subsoil under a thin covering of sand (cf. ZDPV, 1882, p. 220f.). A more detailed analysis may be found in P. Range, Geologische Karte der Isthmuswiiste, in ZDPV, 1922, plate I. The Negeb is a plateau, with its greatest elevation in the S. (3,000-3,500 ft.), seamed with countless wadys that carry off the waters of the winter rains; on the SE. and E. through the Araba into the Dead 1As the form Wddy is that preferred by the author it is so printed in this article. 653 A NEW STANDARD Sea; on the SW. and W. through the Wddy el-‘ Arish into the Mediterranean; on the N. and NW. through the W addy Bir es-Seba‘ into the same 8. of Gaza. Only on the W. slope are any springs to be found, viz., ‘Ain Kudés, ‘Ain el- Kadérdt, ‘Ain el- Kuséme, and ‘Ain el-Muwélih. These constitute the most valuable asset in the whole region. The southern- most, ‘Ain Kudés, is the ‘Kadesh-barnea’ of the O T, where the Israelites under Moses sojourned for a long period (Dt 1 19, 46; Jg 11 16f.). It is on this side of the plateau that the traces of civilization are most abundant, such as terraced hills, wells, and other structures for water, ruins of cities and castles, tho the land has always been more a land of shep- herds than of farmers and cities. To the N. the mountain-land ends in a well-formed low-lying plain (800-1,200 ft. above the sea) toward which the waters from S., E., and N. descend, and at Tell el-Fari‘ pass on to the sea, In this lowland lie the ruins Khirbet el-Miih (or Meleh) and Khirbet Bir es-Seba‘. The former corresponds to the city of Salt (II S 813; If K 147), the latter to Beer-sheba, famous as a shrine, and for its wells (Am 5 5, 8 14; Gn 21 33, 26 23-33, 461). About twenty wells are known to be extant as a result of the investigations made in 1915. The watershed of the mountain region at first runs from 8. to N., then from SW. to NE., to the Mt. Ras ez-Zuwéra, near the Dead Sea. Its ridge crossed an important road toward Elath on the Arabian Gulf of the Red Sea. Here we are to look for the ‘ascent of Akrabbim’ (Nu 34 4; Jos 15 3), also Tamar, the fortress built by Solomon (I K 9 18 [Kthibh]; cf. Ezk 47 i9, 48 28 and Thamaro on the Peutinger Tables), the ruins of which have been sought in the vicinity of modern Kornib (= Mamp- sis?) in the upper Wddy el-Jemen. The explorations of recent years have made it clear that the oldest settlements, in all probability, are to be ascribed to the Nabatzans and that, on the other hand, most of the cities were built in Byzantine time, from the 4th cent. B.c. onward. Cf. Woolley and Laurence, ‘The Wilderness of Zin,’ PHF Annual, 1914-15; Th. Wiegand, Sinaz (1920). 7. The Mountain Range from the Negeb to Shechem. Because of the general sameness in the natural character of this whole region (to which attention has been called, § 5, above) we should avoid dividing it, on the basis of merely historical considerations, into districts such as the hill- country of Judea, Samaria, etc. The ‘natural fort- ress’ of the hill-country comprises, as has been said in §5, the territory northward to Shechem. In this sketch it is divided in two parts: (A) from the Negeb to el-Bire, and (B) from el-Bire to Shechem. Under (A) we treat, first, of the watershed, secondly, of the western, and thirdly, of the eastern slope. A. (1) The mountain range of Pal. is connected with the hills of Negeb (§ 6) through the watershed. This watershed extends westward from Rés ez- Zuwéra (§ 6, above) about 8 m. to Tell ‘Arad and thence follows a northern direction parallel to the lines of the great cleft (of the Jordan Valley). Its southern part is cut up into three successive terraces, forming acute angles with the main line of water- BIBLE DICTIONARY Palestine shed, by three chains of hills which lift themselves out of the lowland near Khirbet el-Milh and Beer- sheba. These run from SW. to NE., in the general direction of the watershed of the Negeb. The result is that between these hills the land slopes to the S., é.g., n the case of the tortuous Wddy el- Khalil, from Hebron to the neighborhood of Beer-sheba. Furthermore, where these lines of hills cross the watershed, they form upland plains of different size which are remarkable for their fertility. Conse- quently, the slope from the crest of the range to the KE. is broken into three great terraces. The southern- most of these plains is that of Hebron (Gn 37 14), which is shut in on the E. and N. by the crest of the range (here c. 3,300 ft. high). Hebron was con- sidered a very old city (Nu 13 22; cf. Jos. BJ, IV, 9 7), which is quite credible when we consider its situation; for its upland plain is the point where four old roads unite, viz., from the N. (Shechem), from the W. (Gaza), from the SW. (Egypt via Beer-sheba), and from the SE. (Edom via Tamar). It furnished also the last resting-place before a long desert journey, or the first after such. The second upland plain lay, not on the W., but on the E. side of the watershed, between Halhul (Jos 15 58), Khirbet Teki‘a (Tekoa, Am 11), el- Khadr and Beth- lehem, and is famous for the abundant waters of the Wddy el-‘Arrib, which were brought probably by Herod’s engineers through the (still extant and used) conduit to the so called Solomon’s Pools (in the springy region S. of Bethlehem), and thence to Jerusalem. The third upland plain is also situated mainly to the W. of the watershed. In reality, it consists of a number of small plains that extend from Bethlehem as far as el-Bire and Ramallah, c. 10 m. N. of Jerusalem. The portion SW. of Jerusalem is called el-Bak‘a or el-Buké‘a, probably identical with the Valley of Rephaim of the O T (Is 17 5; Jos 158; IIS 518, 22). These plains have their outlet to the W. through the Wddy Bét Haninaé (N. of Jerusalem) or through the Wddy el-Werd (8S. of Jerusalem) into the Wddy es-Sardr, t.e., the Valley of Sorek (Jg 16 4). Through this alteration in the surface the main line of the watershed becomes less marked, is in the main somewhat flattened, so that one often crosses it without noticing it. Con- sequently, for purposes of cultivation and for resi- dence, this part of the crest of the ridge possesses great advantages over the lofty chains of the Leba- nons. While in the S., at Tell Zif, SE. of Hebron, the elevation reaches 2,700 ft. and 3,340 ft. at Strat el-Bella‘ (N. of Hebron), at Jerusalem it sinks to c. 2,650 ft., but rises again at Bethel to c. 2,890 ft. (2) The main western slope is separated distinctly from the Shephelah range of hills (see § 4, above) by a depression running N. and 8. A number of side valleys lead almost at right angles into the main valleys that run toward the W., and these taken together form a depression parallel to the great line of cleavage (N. and S.) which determines the forma- tion of the present surface of the land. On the E. side of this depression the hills slope toward it quite gradually; the W. side is mostly shut in by barren heights. This depression begins at the Wddy Malake about 5 m. NW. of the village Bét ‘Ur et- Palestine A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 654 Tahta (Beth-horon the lower), where the Wddy el- Muslib empties from the 8. It is continued south- ward in the Wady el-Miktelt, and then broadens out at the Wddy Selman into the Plain of Yalé (Aijalon, Jg 135; Jos 1010 #.; IZ Ch 1110). This has an eleva- tion of 650-800 ft., and is called to-day Merj ibn ‘Omér. In its midst lay the village Bét Nuba. The places Ashuwa‘ (Eshtaol) and ‘Artif indicate the line of the depression to the Wddy es-Sardr. It con- tinues southward thence in the Wddy en- Najil and, S. of the Wady es-Sant (cf. 1S 17 2, 19), in the Wady es-Sar (near Adullam and Keilah). This brings us to the large Wdady el-Afranj, which leads from Hebron to Bét Jibrin, the ancient Eleutheropolis. From this point, in the direction of Beer-sheba, only a few traces of this elevated eastern edge of the Shephelah can be detected. From the northern part of the crest of the moun- tains some spurs run out toward the W. which were used in olden times, especially by the Romans, as main routes of travel; since the valleys, owing to their narrowness, their many windings, and the numerous boulders in their upper courses, are un- suitable for roads. Thus, from el-Khadr, near Bethlehem, a spur branches out, on which the road runs that leads down to ‘Ain Shems, the Beth- shemesh of Jos 1510; 1S 612. Another, from Nebi Samwil (2,900 ft. high), NW. of Jerusalem—proba- bly the Mt. Ephron of Jos 159—connects the villages Biddi, Karjet el-‘Ineb, and Saris, from which a road leads down into the plain and comes out finally at Joppa. A third spur extends from el-J%ib, the an- cient Gibeon (Jos 9 8; II S 21 2; I K 3 4 ff.) to the upper and lower Beth-horon, along which in ancient times the most important road from the neighbor- hood of Jerusalem led down into the plain, and which was therefore the scene of many conflicts (Jos 10 10- 14;18 188;1 Mac315ff.). (3) The E. slope descends, as has been said, in three terraces (in two near Bethel), and is, in general, very steep. This makes necessary a brief notice of the differences of elevation. The crest of the central ridge is, on the average, about 3,000 ft. above the sea. The surface of the Dead Sea is 1,292 ft. below sea-level. Since these two are distant from each other in a straight line only about 153 m., the descent averages about 286 ft. to a mile. Except in the case of the few sharply sloping plains near the watershed, the rains contribute nothing to the fertilizing of the soil. The water simply rushes on from stone to stone in its unchecked descent. This region is, therefore, generally speaking, uncultivable and desolate; its better parts only are visited in the spring by shepherds with their flocks. There was indeed a time when this wilderness from Tekoa to Bethel was inhabited by many thousands of men. From the 4th to the 7th cent. a.p., it was the favorite abode of recluses and monks who here, either in caves in complete isolation from others or under a communal leadership in the so called lauras, or, later, in separate buildings, cenobia or monasteries, dedicated themselves to prayer, meditation, and labor. We know the names of 50-60 lauras and cenobia which stood some on the almost inaccessible cliffs of the deep valleys and others on the small level places of the steep slopes. The Mughdrat Kharétin near Tekoa, once identified with the Cave of Adullam, has preserved the name of the earliest founder of such establishments, Chariton (320-350). Of all these foundations, which have faded away since the conquest by the Arabs, but one remains, the monastery Mar Saba, founded by Sabas in 478, in the awful solitude of the barren slope of the middle Kedron (Wddy en- NGr). This whole region is called in the O T tne Wilder- ness of Judah (Wilderness of Judea in the N T)— a comprehensive expression indicative of many dif- ferent things: pasture-land (I S 17 28, 25.1 #.) for the protection of which towns and cisterns were con- structed; also caves which served as hiding-places for fugitives and marauders (I S ch. 24; I Mac 2 28 ff., 9 33, 62 ff.); cities, also, in the wilderness are mentioned in Jos 15 61 f., among them En-gedi, ‘the . goats’ spring,’ the modern ‘Ain Jidi, 400 ft. above the Dead Sea N. of the mouth of the Wddy el-‘Aréje; finally, absolutely barren mountains, valleys, and level surfaces. The different parts were named after near-by places, as the Wilderness of Maon (I 8S: 23 24f.), of Tekoa (II Ch 20 20), etc. For the north- ern part toward Bethel we know only the names of specific localities, as the Wilderness of Gibeah (Jg 20 42 f.), of Michmash (IS 13 8), of Ai (Jos 8 15), ete. B. We come back now to the highland which we have followed northward as far as el-Bire. The up- land plain now becomes smaller and completely disappears N. of Bethel between the heights which are crowded close together and surrounded by steep and deep valleys. We have here the most broken and consequently the most intricate part of the highland. The watershed verges in a somewhat tortuous way toward the E., approaching to within 9-12 m. of the Jordan Valley, as far as the height of et-Tuwanik, 2,847 ft. (SE. of Shechem). Conse- quently, the old road toward Shechem leaves the crest of the ridge, and making use of several valleys running N. to S., especially the Wddy el-Jib, finds its way along the western slope. Its course north- ward takes it by Sinjil and Lebonah, leaving the old town of Shiloh (the mod. Khirbet Seilin), in ‘its quiet seclusion, about 3 m. to the E. The short dis- tance between the watershed and the Jordan Valley makes the descent to the E. very abrupt. There are declivities from 2,000 to 2,400 ft. in depth. Among the tangled areas of mountains and valleys to the W. a long ridge is prominent that stretches westward from ‘Ain Sinyd (the Jeshanah of II Ch 13 19) and Jifnad (the Gophnah of Jos. BJ, III, 3 3). On this lay the Roman road from Jerusalem to Cesarea. Six m. N., near the village Sinjil, another long ridge appears. Between these two ridges the deep Wddy Der Ballit winds its way to the lowland. In its upper course, where the Wady el-J%b joins it from the N., it is flanked by precipitous hills, Burj Bardawil, i.e., Baldwin (2,570 ft.), and Burj el- Lisdne (3,130 ft.). These, with the crowning hill to the E., Dahr el-‘Asir (3,318 ft.), lend a picturesque aspect to the region which is only enhanced by the fact that the slopes are often covered with olive- groves and other green trees. The road to Shechem again strikes the watershed, because this bends to II dVW 08,98 9 06,68 WiawapH Yo mor ,O1.ce wea FB opnyzsaoy og. a 09.48 4) / OF F8 g 108.78 Vv 106. %8 Tats ) ny | te] 06 ST OL g 0 [hm ay S31IW 40 31v0S fee |= WA Lee >. a pups ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ 1eny} ‘sozpeyy Uy someM TIEPOW 274 ’ “Yo | if s qi Ww 2 popysy ~~ ~28Ng} ‘od4} wemoy uy seogid jo soureu quo~ay G ANLLSATVd ot NOILUOd NUWAM.LAOS : rf » i Y 4 Ws? 118 ( BS JO AUD \' ke) i NY Fh hal 3 Dqag+s9 NAT eqs \ ca ‘ S Sas ae = UePBPV. Z| yorag S ZR CSEyy MEW ¥ Woy 6 A TOUEY ‘ MN, f WUE i Z, 1 by fn eo] wr Tewley-u0zIze ‘tpen-ug) ANI ity, yas iy be As aries iy unysy == ty & uoTeysy UoTeyysy ar 102 G8 655 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Palestine the W. at almost a right angle from the peak of Tuwanik, but in a deep low-lying saddle (1,800 ft.) offers an open way to travel from S. to N. The same phenomenon repeats itself some miles farther N. between Mts. Gerizim (Jg 97; Dt 11 29 £.) and Ebal (Dt 27 12 £.; Jos 8 33). There the watershed ascends to the peak of Gerizim (2,849 ft.), then sinks into the little valley in which Nabulus (1,660 ft.) lies, thence ascends again to the top of Ebal (3,077 ft.)——plain indications that a more open and less bold type of mountain is at hand. The city Ndbulus (Neapolis) is the successor of the more ancient Shechem, which lay, according to Eus. (Onom.), some distance farther E., near the modern village Balata, where, in fact, we find the actual ‘back’ (sh¢khem), 7.e., the watershed, of the land. This trough between Gerizim and Ebal is remarkable for its abundance of springs, and was certainly one of the earliest centers of population in the land. It widens out to the E. in a fruitful plain (1,800-2,000 ft. above the sea), famed for its wheat, which extends S. along the E. side of Gerizim about 6 m. and to the K. about 5 m. It is named in different ways, after the names of adjoining villages, as, ¢.g., sahl sdlim, sahl ‘askar, sahl el-makhna. Two important roads lead hence westward to the sea, one of which, to Joppa, begins on the heights, but later makes use of the Wddy ‘Azztn, the other, to Cesarea and Dor through the well-watered Wdady Ndbulus. The N. foot of Gerizim is well covered with vegetation, but the peak is bare. Ebal has practically no vegetation. These facts serve to explain Dt 27 12 f., where Gerizim is designated as the mount of blessing and Ebal as the mount of cursing. Shechem, Shiloh, and Bethel, which are men- tioned in the oldest narratives of the O T, remind us that this region came into the permanent possession of Israel very early. It is frequently mentioned under the name ‘Mt Ephraim.’ To what part of the land did this designation originally apply? Ephraim is, strictly speaking, the name of the district occupied by that part of the tribe of Joseph which from it re- ceived its particular name. As this tribe expanded, the name ‘Mt Ephraim’ also went southward, so that even places in Benjamin were reckoned to ‘Mt. Ephraim’ (Jg 45;1S 14 22; ITS 20 21). But the most ancient sense of the term must not be deter- mined by this later usage. Since Ephraim means ‘fruitful land,’ the name could not have referred originally to the rough and quite stony region near Bethel and Dahr el-‘Asir, and since, in later times, the southern part of the territory of Joseph was called Ephraim, it is not probable that the name originally designated the northern part, 7.e., that which bordered on the Plain of Esdraelon. This region also is not such that the designation ‘mount’ would be applied to it throughout. Consequently, it is likely that by ‘Mount Ephraim’ was meant originally the less rough and stony region extending from Lebonah (el-Lubban) to Ydsid (4 m. N. of Mt. Ebal). On this supposition the old account in Jos 17 14-18 becomes intelligible; Joseph enlarged his original possession, Mt. Ephraim (ver. 15), by first clearing away the forest on the hill (ver. 17 f.) and then settling there. The lay of the land shows that the higher-situated wood can be thought of only as S. of the territory already possessed, that is, in the wilder part of the hill-country. 8. The Highland N. of Shechem. To the N. and NW. of Ebal the above-mentioned breaking up of the mountain range becomes very perceptible. The hills are lower, the slopes more gentle, and the valleys broader. Indeed, the openings between the chains of hills are often so broad that fairly large plains spread out, e.g., the plain (sahl) near the village ‘Arrabe with Tell Détén, which corresponds to the place Dothan or Dothaim (Gn 37 14-17). To- day a road still leads from Jenin, at the S. angle of the Plain of Esdraelon to the great highway along the foot of the hill region. The rain-water runs more slowly over the less precipitous slopes and sinks deeper into the soil. On the watershed N. of Ydasid there is a basin surrounded by hills, the bed of which in the spring after heavy rains becomes a lake, the Merj el-Gharak. 'The highest elevation of the W. slope is at Shékh Beydzid (2,375 ft.), on the range extending W. of Yasid. The hilly region Bildd er- Roha (in some places c. 1,600 ft.) makes the connec- tion with the Carmel range, which extends almost to the water’s edge, with a height of 1,600 to 1,800 ft. In ancient times Carmel was famed for its caves (Am 9 3) and for the beauty of its verdure (Is 35 2; Song 75). To-day it is but sparsely wooded. The watershed holds its course N. from Ebal to Ydsid (2,225 ft.), and then draws nearer the Jordan. The heights of [bztk (2,404 ft.) and Fuki‘a (1,502 ft.) are distant from it only a little over 9 m. in a straight line. The E. slope of the hill region toward the Jordan is here of a very different character from what we find farther 8. Between the valleys which run from NW. to SE. there are a number of ridges, all having the same general direction and about 12 m. long, which approach near the Jordan in single peaks, e.g., Karn Sartabe (1,244 ft.), Ras Umm el- Kharriibe (690 ft.), and Rés Umm Zoka (830 ft.). The valleys between these ridges are quite broad and open, in part also the southernmost, the Wady FGr‘a, the upper arms of which extend far up near the watershed, from the plain near Ndbulus to Tubas (Thebez) to the N. The road from Shechem to Bethshan on the Jordan runs past Thebez; another leads down the Wady Fdar‘a to the Jordan at the ford of ed-Ddmiye and thence into the EH. Jordan land. 9. The Plain of Esdraelon. Between the moun- tain region to the N. and S. in form like a right- angled triangle, lies the Plain of Esdraelon at present called Merj ibn ‘Amir. The right angle touches the foot of Mt. Tabor (1,848 ft.), which with Jebel ed- Dahi (1,700 ft.) and Jebel Fuki‘a (1,710 ft.) forms the E. side as far as En-gannim (Jenin). The latter mountain forms the continuation of the watershed between the Jordan and the Mediterranean. It is the Mt. of Gilboa (mod. Jelbén), famed as the place of the defeat and death of Saul (IIS 1 21). Jebel ed- Dahi is a small isolated mountain with several peaks, among which Nebi ed-Dahi (1,700 ft.) is the highest. Through the broad, fertile valley to the S. runs the Nahr Jalid, which has its origin near the village Zer%n, near the ancient Jezreel (I K ch. 21), and Palestine A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 656 flows on to the Jordan near Bethshan (Beisan). Along its short course there runs an ancient and im- portant road to the E. Jordan land. The northern narrower valley is drained by the Wddy el-Bire, which descends from Tabor to the Jordan. The long side of the triangle corresponds to a line drawn from Jenin on the S. to the N. slope of Carmel. The plain lies 200-300 ft. above sea-level, with its slope to the W. in the direction of the bay between Haifa and Acco. It has always been inhabited only on the edges, since the central part is marshy and in winter impassable. The volcanic deposit which was poured into this plain for thousands of years from the | volcano Jebel ed-Dahi, together with the basaltic subsoil, which appears on the surface here and there on the edges of the plain, has, through its decomposi- tion, given the plain its marvelous fertility. Through the western outlet flows the Nahr el-Mukatta‘, the Kishon of the O T (Jg 5 19-21; I K 18 40), in the spring often raging and dangerous, in the summer a slug- gish brook. 10. The Highlands of Galilee. The mountainous region N. of the Plain of Esdraelon divided itself naturally into two parts: Lower Galilee and Upper Galilee, The boundary between these is formed by a range of hills that begins some little distance from Acco and extends N. from Ramah (er-Rdme), including Nebi Heider (3,410 ft.), Jebelet el-‘Arus (8,480 ft.), and Safed (2,790 ft.). Lower Galilee is divided by three parallel chains of hills, running from W. to E., between which lie small plains. The heights along the N. edge of the Plain of Esdraelon form the first chain. Among them are the hills near Nazareth and Tabor (1,848 ft.). Its crest is isolated on all sides and is noticeable, especially from the E. Jordan land, because of its well-rounded summit. Only on the NE. is the mountain, here covered with basalt, connected with the main highland. The second chain is of smaller extent. To it belong Jebel Tur‘dn (1,770 ft.) and the basaltic Karn Hattin (1,038 ft.), which overlooks the Sea of Galilee. To the S. lies the small Plain of Tur‘an, to the N. the larger Sahl Battdf, called by Josephus (Vita, 45) Asochis, and in the O T (probably) Y«phtah-él, (‘Iphtah-el,’ Jos 19 14, 27). The third chain is the longest. It begins at the village Shefa ‘Amr to the W., grows higher and broader toward the E. (Jebel ed-Dédebe [1,790 ft.], Ras Kriméan [1,900 ft.]), and ends in the steep hills overlooking the Wddy el- Hammam at the Sea of Gennesaret. Its caves, difficult of access, were the hiding-places of the ‘robbers’ against whom Herod had to wage a hard struggle (Jos. BJ, I, 16 2,4). The fastnesses (I Mac 9 2; read MecadH0=Heb. m*sddhéth) against which the Syrian general Bacchides operated in 145 B.c. are found here. To the N. of the chain extends the Plain of er-Rdme. The watershed continues N. from Tabor with many turnings to W. and E. On the whole, it gradually draws near to the Jordan Valley, and at Hinin (2,950 ft.), not far from the sources of the Jordan, identifies itself with the bordering range of Upper Galilee. It ends in the Jebel ed-Dahr, which separates the Litént on the W. from the Nahr el- Hasbant to the E. To the W. of the watershed stretches the highland of Upper Galilee, an irregular quadrangle, wider in the 8. than in the N. Jebelet el-‘Arts, W. of Safed, forms the SE. corner. The western edge runs from the village Kisrd (2,520 ft.), over Tell Belat (2,020 ft.) and Khirbet Belat (2,467 ft.) to Jebel Jamle (2,624 ft.), N. of the medieval fortress Tibnin (2,412 {t.).. The eastern line is some- what broad in the §., viz., from Jebel Jermak (8,922 ft.), the highest mountain of Galilee, to the heights of Safed, known also as Jebel Safed, and famous for its abundance of water (here lies the Mérén |[Merom] of Jos 11 5, 7), as also for its fertile upland plains. Several old roads lead from this place in different directions—one through the Wddy el-‘Amid S. to the Sea of Gennesaret, another through the Wady el- Karn W.to the coast at ez-Z7b (Achzib, Jg 1 31), and another through the Wddy Dubdy and the Wdady Selikiye N. to Nahr el-Kdsimiye and the region of Sidon. The inner part of the quadrangle is traversed by two chains of mountains. One ex- tends from Jebel el-Ghabiye, SW. of Kades (the Kadesh of Jos 207) to the NW. to Khirbet el-Y adhin, near Tibnin; the other from Jebel Jermak also to- ward the NW. to Khirbet Belét. Between both these lie several fertile, well-cultivated, also wooded, upland plains. SW. of the second range the land is barren and waste, except the small depression el- Buké‘a, near the village of the same name. 11. The Plains Between the Mountains and the Coast. It is characteristic of Pal. that plains, smaller or larger in size, extend between the mountains and the coast. Due to the convergence of the coastline from W. to E. toward the mountains, they are of triangular shape, with the apex toward the N. The Plain of Acco extends from the promontory Rds en- Nakiira (see § 2, above) to the N. foot of Carmel, 12 m. long from N. to S., and 4 m. broad at the S. end. The northern part is fertile and occupied by peaceful villages. The middle part is crossed by the Nahr Na‘amdan (the Belus of antiquity) and is marshy, because the sand-dunes at the shore choke the outlet of the stream. The southern part, near the lower Kishon, is also marshy, yet covered with a richer growth of grass, and on the coast near Haifa a small grove of palms beautifies the landscape. The second plain consists of the narrow strip between Carmel and the coast, about 18 m. long and not more than 2-3 m. wide. Its S. boundary is formed by the Nahr ez-Zerka& (the Crocodile river of Pliny, HN, V, 17), in the marshes of which, not far from its mouth, crocodiles are still to be found. The heights of Bildd er-Roha (see § 8) extend in a spur, el- Khashm (554 ft.) to the plain. It is to these heights, perhaps, that the expression na@phath, or naphoth dor, refers—a region which in Jos 11 2, 12 23 is distin- guished from the Shephelah and the other parts of Pal., and is probably the same as the ‘heights of Dor’ (mod. Tantiira on the sea-coast). 8. of the Nahr ez-Zerké the level landscape becomes much broader. This region is known in the O T as Sharon (Heb. hashshaér6n), which probably means ‘the plain,’ and was famed for its abundance of water and luxuriant vegetation (Is 33 9, 35 2, 65 10 [here the text is cor- rupt]; Song 21). It was consequently well-known for its excellent pasturage (I Ch 27 29). The water OO Ee 657 that drains down from the mountains is checked near the coast by a line of sandy or rocky hills, so that, in addition to the streams, there are a number of marshes and pools; water is, therefore, easily reached. In some places these natural dikes have been opened by man to take away the excess of water. In this way, e.g., the Nahr el-Falik, N. of Arsif, arose. ' The landscape is not destitute of isolated hills or chains of hills; e.g., near Kerktr E. of Cwsarea, and again SW. of Kalansawe and to the NE. of Joppa. In Israel’s time these were probably covered with forests, since as late as the crusades mention is made of woods in the Plain of Sharon. To-day only insignificant remnants remain. On the average the plain is about 230 ft. higher in the E. than in the W. At Cesarea it is about 7} m. wide, at Joppa about 123 m. Its 8S. boundary runs from the mouth of Nahr Rabin (Map III, C 5), past the hill near er-Ramle (8 m. SE. of Lydda), to Latrin (near ‘Amwdas [Emmaus, Map III, D 5)). During the past forty years the cultivation of this plain has made great progress. Near Joppa the beautiful orange-groves have become very exten- sive. The German Templars, the Syrian Orphan- house at Jerusalem, and Jewish societies have settled agricultural colonies near Joppa and Lydda, and these have made a decided impression on the native farmers. S. of er-Ramle the Shephelah begins, regarding the E. border of which, near the central mountain range, mention has already been made (§ 7, above). The Heb. hashsh¢phélah is generally rendered in the LXX. by 4 (vq) wedtvh, more rarely by td xedfov, or transliterated by % cepndA& The Vulgate renders it planities or campestria, ‘lowland’ ARV. One must not think of the Shephelah as one great plain. On the contrary, this region, once the home of the Philistines, is divided into several plains separated by chains of hills. One is near ‘Akir (Ekron) and Yebna (Jabneh), on the lower course of the W ddy es- Sardar, called at its mouth Nahr Rabin. Another is near Hsdid (Ashdod) and ‘Arak el-Menshiye, on the lower course of the W ddy el-Afranj,which unites with the Wady es-Sant (the ‘Valley of Elah,’ IS 17 2), and is called, at its mouth, Nahr Sukrér. The chains of hills generally run E. and W., e.g., the one from Bat Nettif (1,515 ft.) past Shékh Da’ ad (590 ft.), el- Khéme (298 ft.), and Beshit (197 ft.) to Jabneh (83 ft.). Or the second one from Bet ‘Auwwé (1,495 ft.) 8 m. W. of Hebron, near ed-Dawa’ime and past Shékh ‘Ali (1,367 ft.), Tell [bdis (452 ft.), Chirbet ‘Ejjis er-Rads (831 ft.) to Khirbet Yasin (114 ft.) near Ashdod. Another line of hills runs from Ashdod parallel to the coast to Sumsum and Der Esnéd, near Gaza. In the vicinity of the Wddy el-Hesi the hills extend W. for about 12m. The most important are Tell en-Nejile (541 ft.) and Tell el-Hest (341 ft.). Near the Wddy esh-Sher?‘a the Shephelah gradually blends with the level plain of the Western Negeb (see § 6, above). From this brief description it follows that the expression ‘plain of the Philistines’ which is often used to-day, does not correspond to the character of the Shephelah. The O T un- derstands by the term ‘Shephelah’ the whole hilly region as far as the sand-dunes and the rocky A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Palestine heights of the coast; so also the Onomasticon of Eusebius and of Jerome (296, 154; ed. De La- garde). In Is 1114 ‘shoulder (kathéph) of the Philis- tines’ stands for the Shephelah. In Jos 10 40, 12 8, ’dshédhoth, ‘slopes,’ means not the hills of the Shephelah, but the lower slopes at the foot of the mountain region. The expression in Jos 11 16, ‘the Shephelah of the hill-country of Israel,’ as tho in contrast to a Shephelah of the Judean hill-country, has no basis in the natural characteristics of the land. There is no Shephelah N. of Wddy Malake (§ 7, above). 12. The Jordan Valley and The Dead Sea. (a) Here the Jordan cleft will be discussed only in general and mainly from the point of view of its relation to the surrounding country. The depression begins on the W. side of Mt. Hermon in the Wddy et- Teim, through which the most northern of the sources of the Jordan, the Nahr el-Hasbani (so named from the city Hasbéyd, on Mt. Hermon, near which the largest spring breaks forth from a basalt cliff, 705 ft. above the sea), flows in a southerly direction. After traversing the high Plain of Merj ‘Aytin (Ijon; cf. I K 15 20; II K 15 29) E. of the watershed, it rushes with rapid descent into the ravine of the Jordan, which takes its rise on the southern foot of Hermon, near the largest springs of the river. At Tell el- Kadi (elevation 508 ft.) (Dan, Jg 18 28 ff.), an extinct crater, there are two springs whose waters flow into the Nahr el-Leddan, the ‘little Jordan’ of Josephus (BJ, IV, 11). Further to the E., overlooking the village Baniyds (Paneas, Jos. BJ, II, 9 1), several springs unite to form the third source of the Jordan, the Nahr Baniyds. Here is to be found the deep grotto (elevation 1,079 ft.), sacred to Pan, from which, according to Josephus, the visible course of the Jordan has its beginning (Ant. XV, 10 3; BJ, I, 21 3; III, 107). The condi- tion of the cave is much altered now, since, in all probability, an earthquake has broken the rocks of the roof and filled the cave to a large extent with the fallen blocks of stone. The three streams above mentioned unite about 5 m. 8S. of Tell el- Kadi at an elevation of 141 ft. above the sea. The descent of the Nahr el-Leddén averages 74 ft. to a mile, that of the Nahr Baniyds 240 ft. Thesmall plain through which the Jordan now rushes is called Ard el-Hile (0846, Jos. Ant. XV, 103; XVII, 21; Huleta in the Talmud; cf. Neubauer, La Géographie du Talmud, p. 27). This name originated before the beginning of the Christian Era. It is found also in other parts of Syria, e.g., between the Nusairier Mts. and the Orontes, W. of Hamd, and probably signifies ‘a de- pression’ or ‘basin’ (cf. Eli Smith in Robinson, Bibl. Researches, III, Append., pp. 139-179). This basin is about 15 m. long and 6 m. wide, is well watered, since many small streams empty into it from both E. and W., and consequently is very fertile, altho partly covered with impenetrable thickets of reeds and papyrus. The S. end of this marshy tract is covered with water, forming a small lake, the Bahrat el-Hiale, in shape like a pear, as the S. end is narrow owing to the encroaching hills. English scholars speak of its elevation as being 7 ft. above the sea, but this figure is somewhat uncertain (cf. Survey of W. Palestine Pal. Memoirs, I, 195). Its depth is from 10 to 17 ft., varying with the time of the year. On the whole, it is gradually growing less, as a comparison of its present circumference (from 3.6 to 3.2 m.) with the statements of Josephus (BJ, IV, 11) clearly shows. This author calls it the Sea of the Semechonites (the inhabitants of Semecho). Among the different names current in later Jewish tradition, one (\DnD) agrees with this name. (Cf. Monatsschrift fiir Gesch. u. Wissenschaft d. Judenthums, 1860, ii.) To-day the whole region is too swampy to be inhabited and is not traversed by any road. In the N. part of its course, the Jordan is crossed by only two old roads: near its source by one that comes from Tyre through northern Galilee and goes on by the S. foot of Her- mon to Damascus, by the second, between the Bah- rat el-Hile and the Sea of Gennesaret which, coming from Damascus, crossed the Jordan near the present bridge, Jisr Bendt Ja‘kiib, descended into the Plain of Gennesaret, and thence led up from the seashore through the Wddy el-Hammdm to the Horn of HaGttin, and reached the sea, either via the Plain of Battof or over Tur‘dn, at Acco. This was called ‘the way of the sea’ (Is 91; by the Crusaders via maris). The Bahrat el-Hile is 9 m. distant from the Sea of Gennesaret, and, as the latter lies 692 ft. below sea- level, the fall of the Jordan between the two seas averages about 75 ft. to a mile. Its bed is narrow and shut in by basalt cliffs. There are but five fords between Bahrat el-Hile and the Sea of Gen- nesaret. (b) Both the course of the Jordan and the sur- rounding country S. of the Sea of Gennesaret take on an altogether different character. The banks of the river consist mainly of loose marl or clay, through which, in the spring, the stream often makes for itself new channels. Consequently, the river water becomes an increasingly dirty yellow as it flows on its course. On both sides the river-bottom is quite wide and correctly described in the common Arabic speech as consisting of two parts: («) That immediately near the Jordan is called ez-Zor. It includes the bed of the river, but applies chiefly to the rank growth of trees, shrubs, and reeds along the banks, inhabited by wild beasts,and called ‘the pride of the Jordan’ (Zec 11 3; Jer 12 50, 49 19, 50 44). The stream is usually hidden from the view even of one close at hand by this dense growth, also by its high banks. But after the rainy season it rises so high that even the trees along its banks are under water. On the E. side, this green strip along the river-bank is often broader and more level than it is on the W. side. (8) The broader region making up the whole river-bottom, together with the deep depression below sea level, the immense cleft extend- ing from the Sea of Gennesaret to the Dead Sea and beyond is called el-Ghar, i.e., ‘the depression.’ In the O T there is no similar name for this general region. The common term hda‘drabhah (Jos 18 18, etc.) denotes the dry, mostly barren tracts that pre- vail near the Dead Sea and about the lower course of the Jordan. The level, low-lying districts receive the name ha‘émeq (Jos 13 27) and big‘ah (Dt 34 3). Greek writers were the first to use the term addy, ‘ravine,’ ‘valley,’ ‘hollow,’ corresponding to the A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 658 common Arabic term (Diodor. IT, 48 9; XIX, 98 4; Jos. Ant. XVI, 5 2; BJ, I, 219; Eus. Onom. 214 f.). The low-land on either side of the Jordan is now accurately known, the W. side through the map published by the P. E. F., and the E. side through the map of the German Pal. Verein; with the only exception of the stretch from Nahr ez-Zerka to the Wdady Nimrin, opposite Jericho, of which a map is not yet at hand. S. of the Sea of Gennesaret the region around the Jordan is very well-watered and cultivated, especially on the HE. side. Here the Yarmik (so named as early as the Mishna [Para 89], the Hieromices of Pliny, V, 18) carries into the valley as large a volume of water as the Jordan itself. There is an important passage of the Jordan 6 m. 8S. of the Sea of Gennesaret (823 ft. below the sea), the ‘bridge of the junctions,’ Jisr el-Mejami‘, so called because here the roads from Tiberias, Bésdén (Beth- shan), and from the E. Jordan land come together. Near the old bridge a new one has been built over which the railroad from Haifa to Damascus crosses the Jordan. The width of the Ghor, on the E. side, changes; it is about two-thirds of a mile 8. of the Wady el- Yabis and reaches up to four miles at the mouths of the rivers Yarmuk and Nahr ez-Zerka. The waters coming down from the highland have cut their bed into the body of the mountain range in almost the same direction from E. to W., and the E. wall of the Ghér impresses the spectator with its great regularity. In some places the soil is not un- fertile and is being cultivated, provided the water supply is not lacking; but marl and rubble cover wide areas in consequence of the breaking of the clods. Here and there a natural hill rises out of the plain. Artificial hills, 7.e., ruins, are found between the Wéddy el- Yabis and the Nahr ez-Zerka. At the foot of the mountains lie some inhabited villages. On the W. side there is a very fertile and well-watered region in the neighborhood of Bésén (803 ft. below sea- level). It consists of a plain, part of which slopes down to the Jordan, which is traversed by the Nahr Jdliid (§ 9), and by many small brooks that flow down from Jebel Fukii‘a, which lies to the W. It is in the form of a triangle, its N. side being 12-15 m. long, its EK. side, as far as the mouth of the Wddy el-Mdaleh, 11m. InI Mac 522 and Jos. Ant. XII, 85, it is called ‘the great Plain,’ a name elsewhere ap- plied to the Plain of Esdraelon (§ 9, above). E. of Bésin a new bridge now spans the Jordan river. From the mouth of the Nahr Jdlid downward the river-bed is shut in by steep cliffs of marl, the layers of which are easily undermined and fall into the river, at times damming it up and stopping its flow. It is due to this that the course of the river changes so often and is so tortuous. Between the Wady el-Mdleh and the Waédy Abu Sidre the spurs of the western mountains approach so near to the Jordan that there is no room for a level bottom and, of course, no cultivation of the barren soil. Also from the E. the mountains in this part approach the Jordan river to a distance of two-thirds of a mile (see above). The broad valleys on both sides of Karn Sartabe, especially the Wddy Far‘a (§ 8), had in ancient times well-watered settlements. On the E. side the second important tributary stream of the Oe 659 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Palestine Jordan is the Nahr ez-Zerkd. It is the Jabbok of the O T (Dt 2 37, 3 16) and brings down a large quantity of water from the heights of the E. Jordan land, but only its edges are covered with a thick growth of vegetation. From Karn Sartabe the bed of the valley widens considerably, but only in the vicinity of the ancient Jericho does its character become less rough. Six miles N. of Jericho, at the Nahr el-‘Awja, Archelais was situated, famous of old for its palm- trees (Jos. Ant. XVII, 13 1), and near the beautiful spring ‘Ain es-Sultdn are the ruins of the ancient city of Jericho, mod. Hrtha (820 ft. below the sea), far behind in its cultivation, however, from what, it was in the time of Herod (cf. Jos. Ant. XV, 4 2; BJ, J, 18 5). The E. side, opposite Jericho, is now covered with vegetation and well cultivated. It corresponds to the ‘Abel-shittim’ of the O T (Nu 33 49), the ‘Abila of Perea’ of Josephus (BJ, II, 18 2). Here are to be found the ruins Tell Kefrén (Shittim, Nu 25 1) and Tell Rame (Beth- haram). But these green spots are really oases, surrounded by barren country. Consequently, the all-inclusive name for this region in the O T is ‘artbhoth, i.e., ‘steppes’; ‘steppes (‘plains’ RV) of Jericho’ for the western part (Jos 5 10), and ‘steppes of Moab’ for the eastern part (Nu 221). The nearer the Dead Sea, the more salty and barren the soil becomes, due to the alkali of the sea, which has an effect some distance inland. In the O T, therefore, the name of the most southern district W. of the Jordan, the ‘Valley of Achor,’ is the proverbial expression for a cheerless waste (Hos 2 15; Is 65 10). About 4 m. from the mouth of the Jordan the marl cliffs recede from its banks toward the base of the mountains, so that the N. end of the Dead Sea is _ surrounded by a level shore. If we now raise the question whether the Jordan Valley is conducive to or hinders intercourse between the two sides of the country through which it runs, the answer must be different for different parts of the long stretch from the Sea of Gennesaret to the Dead Sea, which is about 68 m., with a descent from 682 below the sea at Gennesaret to 1,292 ft. at the Dead Sea. The upper part of the course, near Bethshan, offers no serious hindrance to such intercourse. The fords are here very numerous. It is otherwise, how- ever, with the lower part of the course. At the mouth of the Nahr ez-Zerka there is the important old ford ed-Damiye, the O T ma‘abhar ha’ ddhaimah (I K 7 46; II Ch 4 17 £.; corrected text), in the place of which, during and after the rainy season, a ferry- boat is used. The bridge Jisr ed-Damiye, built in the 13th cent., is no longer used, as both the Jordan and Nahr ez-Zerkdé have changed their courses. Here the depth of the valley (1,144 ft. below the sea) and its width (8-9 m.) make the crossing a somewhat laborious undertaking. This is even more the case below the Zerkd; for the valley grows continually lower and wider, and, in addition, there are no fords except near Jericho, where there are five. Thirty years ago the Turkish Government built here a small bridge, which has made the crossing easier for riders and for beasts of burden. During the war it was made practicable for wheel traffic also. (c) The Dead Sea is but the continuation of the Jordan cleft, in fact, its deepest part. The water of this solitary inland sea is deep blue and its surface lies 1,292 ft. below the level of the Mediterranean. Its depth varies greatly. N. of the low peninsula, el-Lisan, it reaches 1,308 ft. (2,600 ft. below the sur- face of the Mediterranean), but in the smaller south- ern part it is only from 3 to 20 ft. The level of the water in the sea varies, not only during the year (to the extent of 6-7 ft. according to the rainfall), but also during longer periods. To-day it seems to be rising, since in 1820 the southern extremity could be crossed on foot, which is now impossible, and a small island not far off the NW. shore has become invisible within the last 20 years. The shore of both the N. and 8S. ends is low and level. In the S. it is a briny marsh (es-Sabkha), only passable in midsummer. On the E. and W. shores, however, high and steep mountains reach close to the water. These must be considered as the fragments of the original surface, which stood on the edges of the cleft. What was between them sank and now lies under the sea. Here we touch upon the question of the origin of the Dead Sea, to which scientific investigation gives an answer altogether different from that furnished by the hints we find in the O T. According to Gn 13 10, 19 25, the Dead Sea originated simultaneously with the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah. In fact, in Gn 14 3 the plain, which is now covered by the water of the salt sea, is called ‘Siddim’. These stories are remains of old Canaanite legends which were taken over by Israel and survived until a late period (Wis 10 6£.; Jos. BJ, IV, 84). The theory has been advanced that the Dead Sea is an isolated remnant of the ocean that once rolled its waves into the Jordan Valley from the S. and after its subsidence left this salt sea in the midst of the mainland. But this theory is contrary to the fact that across the ‘Araba, the southern extension of the Jordan cleft, as far as the Red Sea, there lies a watershed (er- Rishe) composed of chalkstone, 820 ft. above the sea-level, which has never been crossed by ocean waves. Asa matter of fact, the Dead Sea originated simultaneously with the fault that formed the Jor- dan depression, and is to be viewed as the deepest part of this cleft. The geologist who has investigated this question most thoroughly, Dr. M. Blanckenhorn, puts the disturbance that formed the Jordan Valley at the close of the Tertiary period. According to him, there was originally, on the site of the Dead Sea, a deep basin into which the water from all the surrounding country flowed. This somewhat shallow body of water became strongly impregnated with mineral salts from the hot springs which broke forth when the Jordan cleft was formed. At that time this sea covered the whole region from the height of er- Rishe, in the ‘Araba, to near the Sea of Gennesaret. The basis of this theory is the fact that deposits from water much fresher than that of the present sea are found on the slopes of the ‘Araba, about 1,400 ft. above the present surface of the Dead Sea. . Dr. Blanckenhorn distinguishes three rainy periods and three dry periods in the formation of the Dead Sea, which have left their traces in the deposits at differ- ent elevations around the edge of the sea. Through Palestine A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 660 successive geological disturbances the basin grad- ually sank to its present depth. During the sixth period (the third dry period) the sea came to its present condition. This took place at the beginning of the alluvial period, as is evident from the disin- tegration of the diluvial material in the southern part of the old sea-bed, which came about when the crust that formed the bottom of the valley gave way under the force of earthquakes. In this way, it is thought, the shallow southern part of the sea was formed, while at the same time there was cut, in the Jordan cleft, the present river-channel with its surrounding territory, called ez-Zdr by the Arabs (see above). In this later period of the history of the Dead Sea Dr. Blanckenhorn places the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah. That these lay, not at the N., but at the S. end of the sea is certain, since Zoar (Gn 19 20 #.) was near Sodom, and was situated to the SE. of the Dead Sea (cf. Jos. BJ, IV, 8 4; Onom. ed. De Lagarde, 261, 139; Mukaddasi, in ZDPYV, 1884, VII, 171; Fulcherius, in Bongars, Gesta Dei, I, 405), so that the old legend agrees with the conclu- sion of geology to this extent, that both indicate that the S. end of the sea was the scene of violent physical disturbances which might have deeply impressed themselves on the memory of early generations. The petrified wife of Lot, the ‘pillar of salt’ of Gn 19 26, Wis 10 6f., belongs to the formations which are con- tinually making and disappearing in the neighbor- hood of Jebel Usdum (‘Mt. Sodom’), the salt moun- tain at the SW. corner of the sea, 590 ft. above the surface. From the mass of the mountain sections break off, in form-like prisms, which, after being worn away, become isolated pillars of salt, and easily take on the appearance of human beings, especially that of women. Similar rock pillars, tho existent for a much longer time, are to be found in the dolomite and sandstone formations near the Dead Sea. One sandstone rock on the E. shore S. of the mouth of the Waddy el-Mo67ib is to-day called by the Arabs Bint Shékh Lat (‘daughter of Sheikh Lot’). Cf. M. Blanckenhorn, Entstehung und Geschichte des Toten Meeres (1896), and Natururwissenschaftliche Studien am Toten Meer und im Jordantal (1912), p. 114 ff. 13. The E. Jordan Land. The E. Jordan plateau, which extends to the border of the desert (§ 4, above), is divided, in its W. part, into four main regions. (a) The district N. of the Yarmik. This extends much farther E. than the other divisions of the E. Jordan land, namely, from 18 to 30m. E. of 36° E. long., which (§ 3, above) has been accepted as the E. boundary of Palestine. It has never received an all-inclusive name, because its individual districts show too distinctive characteristics and have never been firmly united politically. Above the upper course of the Jordan and the Sea of Gennesaret rises the plateau of Jélén, which has received its name from the city called in the O T Golan (Jos 208, 21 27). Inthe N. the foot of Hermon gives a fixed boundary, but there is none to the NE. and E. The valleys are broad and shallow; the watersheds, one N. towards the Wddy el-‘Ajam, and K.. towards the region known as Jiédér, are low. If one should follow the line of extinct voleanoes which extend in a wide circle from the foot of Hermon to the SE., he would come to the Nahr el-‘Allan, which is considered to-day as the E. boundary of the Jdldn. In fact, it indicates a significant change in the sur- face of the country, since EH. of it the volcanic hills and great blocks of lava disappear and a broad, stoneless, level plain begins. The 8. and W. boun- daries of the Jéldn are fixed—the Yarmik, the Sea of Gennesaret, and, above this, the Jordan. In the O T the names given to this country are (Beth) Maacha and Geshur (Dt 3 14; Jos 13 11-13), To-day it is customary to distinguish between the rocky and the level Jélan. The former is the N. half, a plateau with numerous craters in the NE. part, and covered with huge blocks and fragments of lava, abounding in springs and highly valued for its excellent pasture. The craters attain a height of 4,000 ft. or more (Teil esh-Shékha, 4,248 ft.; Tell Abu en-Nedd, 4,123 ft.), and are still partly covered with oaks or scrub-oaks. Formerly, the region was heavily wooded, and a century ago was called Yulul el-Hish, ‘forest heights.’ The level Jéldn, the southern half, begins with an elevation of about 2,300 ft., is less rich in springs, but is covered with a dark-brown volcanic soil of great productivity, altho little used for agri- culture. The ground slopes rapidly toward the Sea of Gennesaret on one side and toward the Yarmak on the other. The territory in the angle formed by the Nahr el-‘Allan, the Yarmik, and the Sea of Gennesaret is called to-day ez-Zawiye, ‘the corner,’ which corresponds to the Gr. name yuvia tHe Batavatas, given to it by Eusebius (Onom. 242). Cf. G. Schumacher, Der Dschélan (1887, Eng. trans. 1888). E. of Nahr el-‘Allan there begins a stoneless plain in which there are a few small artificial mounds and voleanic hills, where are found villages or ruins of earlier habitations. The soil is reddish-brown, com- posed of disintegrated lava from the craters of the mountains to the E., Jebel Haurdén or Jebel ed- Driiz, mixed with volcanic ashes and sand. It is easily worked and holds the moisture of the rainfalls tenaciously—a fact of great importance for its culti- - vation, since the country is destitute of springs. The wheat produced here, with its translucent kernels, is a choice article of commerce. Trees are rare. In view of the fact that the plain is somewhat lower in the center than on the edges, it is called by the Bedawin en- Nukra, ‘depression’ (a word used of the hearth which the Bedawin dig in the center of the guest-tent). The name Haurén is also common. From N. to S. this plain has an average elevation of 2,130 ft. It slopes to the W. and the wddys ed- Dahab and ez-Zédi carry the water in the rainy season to the Yarmik. To the NE. the Nukra borders on the Leja, a remarkably rough and im- passable region (see TRACHONITIS) and to the E. on the Jebel Hauran, which in modern times, because of its occupancy by the Druses, is also called Jebel ed- Driz, ‘Mt of the Druses.’ Here is the source of the lava-beds of the Nukra; for the cone- or gable- shaped heights of the mountain are all extinct vol- canoes and rise to a height of 5,900 ft., while the plain at their feet begins with an elevation of but 2,624 ft. This mountain, rising gradually from the W. to E., is probably mentioned in the Bible, as J : : 103,88 Worausay, J = wo 01, S¢ $e eT ~ 2, Lm Sa " Pe 5 — | Gur-18 QUSTATELY C= aodd | u010 9 -q79 Ose Yee UE ego TIME aor, nts le sade GSBE VETS 5 3am . ea Bey \ ah hon a eiak, BI dja PTT < é » | BS oy Ge) 661 A NEW STANDARD G. Wetzstein has noted (Das Batandische Giebelge- birge, 1884). He compared the name ‘Zalmon’ (Ps 68 14) with the mons Asalmanos (Ptol. V, 15) and the har gabnunnim, ‘mountain of gables’ (‘high moun- tain,’ Ps 68 16 f., ‘mountain of summits’ RVmg.), he identified with the gable-like peaks and volcanic cones of the Haurdén range. These ‘mountains of Bashan’ (Ps 68 15) were never in the possession of Israel, but the plain was; for this corresponds to the Bashan of the O T (usually habbdshan), Gr. Bac&v, Bacavitte, Batavéx. The region seems then to have possessed other characteristics than it does now. We hear nothing of the rich produce of agriculture which is now reaped yearly, but, on the contrary, of strong, fat cattle (Am 41; Dt 32 14; Ps 22 12), and of the beautiful oaks (Is 2 13; Ezk 27 6), and even of lions and leopards which had their haunts in Bashan (Dt 33 22; Song 4 8). The wild beasts have long since disappeared from this region, and unfortunately the forests also, remnants only of which exist now in upper Jdldén. While in the O T Bashan is usually associated with pasture-lands (Jer 50 19; Mic 7 14), to-day it is mostly under the plow. This change was brought about by Herod the Great, to whom the emperor Augustus, in 23 B.c., handed over this region, ordering him to drive out the ‘robbers’ (t.e., Bedawin) (Jos. Ant. XV 10 3; XVI 9 2; XVII 21f.). In the O T, Bashan denotes a region larger than the modern Nukra. It lay be- tween Hermon on the N. and Gilead on the S. and between Edrei (mod. Der‘d) and Salcha (Sal- khad) on the E. (Dt 3 8 ff.), yet so that the districts Geshur and Maacha lay W. of Bashan, between it and the Sea of Gennesaret (Jos 13 11-13). To the E. and §. the limits of the level volcanic region are, of course, unchangeable. To the E. were the ‘moun- tains of Bashan’ (Ps 68 15, mod. Jebel Haurdn), and to the 8. began the steppe (mod. el-Hamdd) sharply distinguished from the volcanic region by its bright yellow soil. But to the N. and W. the Bashan of the O T covered more territory than the mod. Nukra. Cf. G. Schumacher, Across the Jordan (1886); Das stidliche Basan (1897). (b) S. of the Yarmik lies the second part of the E. Jordan land, the ‘Ajlin, approximately bounded on the E. by the 36th parallel E. long., and reaching S. as far asthe Nahr ez-Zerka, the Jabbok of the O T. In the first place, something must be said of the Yarmik, the large river to the N. It drains a very large territory. From el-Jédir in the NE. to the Lej& and Jebel Haurdn in the E. and as far as the steppe el-Hamdd and the district es-Suwét in the SE., all watercourses unite in this river, which swells to a great stream after a rainy winter, tho in summer it is nothing remarkable. From Jélan come the Wddy er-Rukkdd and the Nahr el-‘ Allan. The Wddy el-Ehrér, forming the upper course of the Yarmik, takes its rise in Jédir. The Wddy el-Bajje gives an outlet to the Bahrat el-Bajje, an old sea of small area with an inhabited island in it, near el-Muzérib, and unites with the Wady ed-Dahab near Tell esh-Shthab. From the SE. the deep and im- posing Wddy esh-Shellale winds with many turns through the plateau, taking the name Wady Waran in its upper course. On the lower course of the BIBLE DICTIONARY Palestine Yarmik, about 7 to 10 m. from its junction with the Jordan, lies the remarkable little plain of el-Hammi (577 ft. below the sea), mostly on the right bank, in which there are six hot springs, each differert from the other in the character and temperature of its water (Z DPV, 1887, X, 59 ff.). The ridge of the plateau lies some distance to the BK. It rises from el-Husn (2,204 ft.) southward and the heights of Ras Imnif, Ras el-Fanadik, and el- Menara indicate the line of watershed between the valleys that slope toward the Jordan and the tribu- taries of the Yarmik that flow northward. This range, called Jebel ‘Ajlin, is still well-wooded, the thick growth of oaks and firs being in some places impenetrable, while the soil is covered with moss. To the E. lies an undulating hilly region 7-9 m. in breadth, which slopes away from Zell el- Khandsire and the more southerly Rihdb (the Rehob of II S 10 6, 8) toward the steppe el-Hamdd on the one side, and on the other from Kafkafa to the Jabbok. This district is called Bildd es-Suwét and is to-day still in the possession of the Bedawin (the Beni Hasan), but in the time of the Romans and in the first cen- turies of Mohammedan rule it was a stable seat of civilization, well-protected by roads and fortifica- tions. The western foothills of Jebel ‘Ajlin sink, at first gradually, toward the Jordan and comprise many fertile, well-cultivated districts, e.g., at ‘Ajlin on the Wddy ‘ Ajlin, where the olive thrives remark- ably and where there are also many small clumps of wood. The slopes near the Jordan are mostly tree- less, in some spots (as near Mukés [Gadara]) well- cultivated, in others steep and rocky. Streams of some importance are to be found only in the S. Wady el- Yabis, W. Kafrinji, and W. Rajib; they carry their water into the Jordan. From Sdakib on- ward the above-mentioned ridge runs SW. and W. under the name Jebel Mi‘rad. To the S. it falls pre- cipitously toward the Jabbok and to the W. toward the Jordan. On its N. side, 2 m. SE. of Rajib (Ragaba), are the remains of old iron-works (Mu- gharat el-Warda), which remind one of the Iron Mountain of Josephus (BJ, IV, 8 2). Cf. C. Steuer- nagel, Der ‘Adschliin (1925). (c) The third part of the E. Jordan land is the Belka, between the Jabbok and the Wddy el-M 6jib (the Arnon) totheS. (d) A fourth part (the modern administrative district el-Kerak) lies between the Arnon and the Wddy el-Ahsé (Hasé) inthe 8. The northern part of the Belka@ is taken up by Jebel Jil‘dd, the Mt. Gilead of the O T. It rises precipi- tously out of the Valley of the Jabbok and over the Jordan Valley, and contains a number of fertile plateaux, partly covered with woods, partly with fields and vineyards. Its highest point (3,597 ft.) is Jebel Osha‘ (Hosea; cf. Map III, J 4), near the Jordan Valley, from whose peak one may enjoy an instruc- tive view of the western range and its slope to the Jordan. To the E. of it is a small plain, el-Buké‘a (2,000 ft. above the sea), nestled in the mountain region, which is drained into the Jabbok by deep valleys. To the SE., Mt. Gilead rises to the high watershed on which the springs of the Jabbok are found. It runs by the ruins Ajbehat (Jogbeha, Jg 811, 3,433 ft.) through the old Ammonite territory Palestine A NEW STANDARD from N. to S. This ridge sends its brooks to the Jordan, partly through the Wady Shu‘éb, which leads down from Jebel Osha‘, and partly through the Wady Sir, which unites with the Wddy Hesban (Heshbon) andentersthe Jordan plain at Tell Kefrén, opposite Jericho. The ridge continues S. to Ma‘in (Baal Meon, Nu 82 38) and then, sinking to a level of 2,853 ft., it divides between the short valleys, which run directly W. with a steep incline to the Jordan, and the longer valleys, which at first begin in broad troughs leading southward, and then unite in the Wady Zerké Ma‘%n, which cuts through the plateau with a deep gorge and breaks down into the Dead Sea at the hot springs Hammam ez-Zerka (the Callirhoé of Jos. BJ, I, 33 5). S. of Wddy Zerka Ma‘tn we lose trace of the ridge which we have fol- lowed in its tortuous course between the Jordan and the desert to the E., and to which the landscape owes its peculiar character. The plateau now has a different and much simpler aspect. It rises to the E. and forms a watershed on the other side of which the Arabian Desert begins—about 6 m. E. of the 36th parallel. It is cut up by a large number of small wadys that soon unite to form larger valleys and finally meet in one main valley which leads through a deep gorge to the Dead Sea. The first of these main valleys in the Belkd, like the Yarmak and Jabbok in the N., is the Wddy el-Mojib, the Arnon of the O T. With its large northern tributary, the Wddy Heidan, or el-Wdle, it gathers the waters of the plateau W. of the desert from a region extending 50 m. along the edge of the desert. The slope of the highlands toward the Dead Sea is extraordinarily steep along the northern half of the eastern shore. Between the rocks and the water there is not room for even a small foot-path. Since the crest of the range attains an elevation of from 2,600 to 3,300 ft., the difference between it and the surface of the sea is anywhere from 3,900 to 4,600 ft. Near the low peninsula el-Lisdn the shore is wider. A road descends from the heights through a valley and leads along the beach, thence southward into the ‘Araba. The character of the plateau remains the same. Of the valleys which cut across it on their way to the salt sea, the most important are the Wddy el- Kerak, the Wady Numeéra, and the Wady el-Hasd, or Ahsd, which in its lower course is called Wady el-Kuraht. The last-named is to-day the boundary between the administrative district el-Kerak and Jibal to the 8. It was probably in ancient times the boundary between Moab to the N. and Edom to the S., and so identical with the ‘brook Zered’ (in its upper course, Dt 2 13 f.) and with the ‘brook of the willows’ (in its lower course; cf. Is 15 7). Cf. Al. Musil, Arabia Petrea, I, Moab, 1907). III. Grouoey. 14. The Rocks. The rocks visible to-day belong generally to the upper chalk deposits, which are usually named Cenoman, Turon, and Senon. Some marbles are found, as the soft Rudist marble (Arab. malake) and harder Nerinean marble (Arab. mizzi helu, the Santa Croce marble). The formation of this mountain region took place, therefore, in the chalk BIBLE DICTIONARY 662 period in the Tertiary Era. Older strata are met with E. of the Dead Sea, where the original break of the Jordan cleft is visible. Here is found the so called Nubian sandstone, and under it the permo- carbonic chalk and sandstone, and under this the crystalline old volcanic mountain-base, with streaks of porphyry and diorite. The flinty strata of the chalk were decomposed through the action of the water as early as the Tertiary Period, and cemented with a chalky shale. In this way the flinty breccia originated, which is frequently found as a surface formation near Jerusalem, in the Wilderness of Judah and in the ‘Ajlin, and is called ndrz by the Arabs, because of its fireproof qualities. It was in the Tertiary Period also that those outpourings of basalt took place which spread themselves over the higher parts of the chalky plateau and on the many isolated table-mountains. This was the origin of the basalt strata on the plateau E. of the Dead Sea, near Dibon and at Jebel Shihan, and of similar formations in the Plain of Esdraelon, and in Galilee, N. and NE. of Tabor, and in the neighborhood of Safed. Of later origin were the lava streams which flowed down toward the Jordan and Dead Sea in the furrow- like valleys, and have become to-day partly eroded by the water, as, for example, in the bed of the Yarmik. Now these furrow-like valleys did not come into existence prior to the origin of the Dead Sea (cf. § 12, above); if they have become the chan- nels for lava streams, then these must have occurred at a later date than that of the formation of the Dead Sea. Such eruptions took place in the later part of the Diluvian Era, and therefore probably after the beginning of the human epoch. It is likely that some of the extinct volcanoes of the E. Jordan land were still active in historical times, in the narrower sense. The earthquakes of which we hear in the history of the land were not the result of volcanic eruptions, but were due to structural changes—that is, to vibrations which originated in the displacement of sections of the crust of the earth near faults. Several earthquakes are mentioned in the Bible (IS 14 15; Am 11; cf. Zec 14 5; Mt 27 51), and the prophets frequently made use of such oc- currences in their representations of the Divine manifestations (Mic 1 3f.; Is 13 13, 2419 f.; ef. further C. Diener, Libanon, 1886, pp. 258 ff.). 15. Minerals. The old iron-works at Rajib in the K. Jordan land (cf. § 13, above) show that iron was taken from this region in the early days. That mining was not unknown in Pal. is also evident from Dt 89 and Job 28 1-11, but that these passages have that specific locality in mind can not be proved. Whether it would be profitable at the present day to mine iron in this spot has not been investigated. In recent years attention has been drawn to the mineral treasures of the Dead Sea and its neighborhood, and it has been questioned whether it might not be profitable to develop these. The water of the sea contains, besides common salt, chlorid of potash, chlorid of magnesia, magnesium bromid, and iodid of potash. Occasionally, large quantities of asphalt appear on the surface. In the immediate neighbor- hood of the sea there are also found rock salt, chrome oxid, and pure sulfur; at some distance away, petro- 663 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Palestine leum, pure asphalt, and asphalt-lime. The ‘slime pits’ mentioned in Gn 14 10 are probably an indica- tion that in early times, through the action of sub- terranean forces, the diluvian deposits were broken through and petroleum and asphalt springs, or wells, appeared in the neighborhood. 16. The Soil. The surface formation of limestone has long been subject to decomposition through the action of moisture and the atmosphere. The result is a red loamy soil, very rich and heavy. This is the specific virgin soil of the mountain-land. When it is adequately saturated with moisture, it gives a good yield in return for cultivation. In addition, there are a number of places (cf. §§ 9, 10, and 13, above) where the much richer volcanic soil occurs. Through the intense heat of midsummer the soil becomes very hard and cracked, and can be worked only after a thorough wetting. In the coast plain and the Jordan Valley there is considerable marl and sand. At the same time, the level districts of the coast are much more favorable for the produc- tion of humus than are the mountains. In the moun- tain region there is no great deposit of vegetable and animal material, which might be changed into humus through decomposition, and even if, in the autumn, some such material remains left upon the rocky surface, it is almost certain to be washed down in the winter by the heavy rains, to be deposited in part in the hollow places in the mountains, and in part in the deep valleys and low-lying plains. So it happens that in each year, with the wash from the mountain-sides, a great deal of fertile soil is brought down. In the E. Jordan land, in many places, con- ditions are more favorable for the formation of humus, as extensive wooded places still remain, and the surface rock is protected from erosion by the thick growth of the trees (cf. § 13 (b), above). IV. THe CuiMate. Since Pal. is situated between 31° and 33° N. lat., it belongs in general to the N. subtropic zone. The year divides itself naturally into a rainless, hot half and a rainy, cold half. The climate differs greatly in the different parts of the land. Along the coast it is milder and more uniform; in the mountain-land it is more severe and changeable. In the Jordan Valley it is nearly tropical, while in the E. Jordan land the greater distance from the sea and the nearness of the desert are important factors. Since we possess sat- isfactory meteorological observations for Jerusalem alone, we can apply the results of these only pro- visionally to the whole land. 17. The Temperature. The mean annual tem- perature on the coast is 20.5° C. (68.9° F.), in Jerusa- lem only 17.1° C. (62.8° F.). The teraperature rises in the mountain region from April to May very rapidly from 14.7° C. (58.5° F.) to 20.7° C. (69.3° F.). It attains its greatest height in August, at 24.5° C. (76.1° F.). It falls in November to 15.5° C. (59.9° F.) and is lowest in February at 8.8° C. (47.8° F.). The hottest days, usually in May, June, and Sep- tember, reach a temperature in the shade of 37° C. (98.6° F.) to 44° C. (101.2° F.). The coldest, in January, have a temperature of —4° C. (24.8° F.). Frost and ice are seen every year in Jerusalem. The latter, however, rarely lasts the day through. The differences of temperature within a day are often considerable, greatest in the months May-October, 12.8° C. (55° F.) to 18.1° C. (55.6° F.); smallest in December-February, 7.7° C. (46° F.) to 7.4° CG. (45.3° F.). The monthly mean is 22.2° C. (71.9° F.). The dangers arising from these changes are somewhat lessened by the fact that in the hottest months there is the least amount of moisture. 18. The Winds. In the summer, especially in July and August, the so called passat wind (a northerly, sometimes NW., sometimes NE. wind) blows over Pal. It is a dry wind, as it comes from a cooler into a warmer latitude and tempers the heat. In September and October, also in the spring until May, heavy E. and SE. winds are frequent, which make the heat almost unbearable because of their lack of moisture. In October and November the so called antipassat wind comes up from the S., usually bringing with it, in Pal., as well as in other Mediter- ranean lands, abundant rains (§ 19, below), as it comes from a warmer into a cooler region. It con- tinues until April and May, when it retreats once more to the S. The antipassat is generally a W. or a SW. wind (cf. Lk 12 54). Of greatest importance for the W. Jordan land is the somewhat regular inter- change between land and sea winds, which shows it- self both in the yearly period and also in the course of each day. In the summer the hot air over the heated rocky land rises and flows into the upper regions of the atmosphere, toward the sea, while in its place comes the cooler air of the lower strata of the atmosphere from the sea to the land. In the winter, on the other hand, the sea sends to the land warm currents of air, the land sending its cooler air seaward. During each day also a similar exchange of atmospheric currents takes place. During the day warm currents flow seaward, while the cooler air of the sea comes over the land. In the night the reverse process takes place. In consequence of the meeting and interaction of these currents of air, at times violent whirlwinds arise. The E. and SE. winds are the ones most feared, since through their excessive dryness not only health is endangered and all growing things threatened (Ezk 17 10, 19 12), but also because of their violence, and in consequence of the dust and sand which they bring with them, they are actually destructive (Jer 18 17; Ezk 27 26; Job 1 19, 15 2; Heb. rtéiah gadhim, ‘east wind’; the word shirocco [sirocco] is derived from the Arab. esh-sharki, ‘easterly’). 19. The Rainfall. The cooler rainy period of the year is that in which the antipassat wind prevails (§ 18). According to Biblical terminology, it is sub- divided into three periods: (1) The ‘early rain,’ Heb. yoreh and méoreh, Gr. xedinos (Ja 57), which, during October and November (December at the latest), makes the land moist, and thereby makes possible the beginning of the plowing. (2) The winter rain, Heb. geshem, heavy continuous rains, which soak the soil and fill the wells, cisterns, and pools. (3) The ‘latter rain,’ Heb. malqdsh, which falls during the latter half of March until the middle of May, fer- tilizes the summer crops, and causes the grain to ear. The average yearly rainfall in Jerusalem is 581.9 A NEW STANDARD Palestine mm. (22.93 in.). On the other hand, at Nazareth, about 60 m. farther N. and nearer the sea, it is 611.7 mm. (24.10 in.). The rainy period is broken up by long seasons of drier weather, when, under the in- fluence of the warm rays of the sun, everything starts to grow. The words in Song 2 11 have reference to the cessation of the winter rain. In Jerusalem the entire rainfall takes place in 52.4 days, 67.5 per cent. being in the months of December and January alone, while from May to September no rain falls at all. Consequently, after May the dry and the hot season coincide, which is so unfavorable for the growth of vegetation that in midsummer all the smaller plants wither away. Some compensation is afforded by the dew. The sea wind (cf. § 18, above) contains so much moisture that not only in the spring but also even in September and October a heavy dew falls each night (Song 5 2; Job 2919). There is no dew, however, when the shirocco wind blows from the desert, as it dries up all the moisture in the atmos- phere (I K 171; Hag 110)... Thunder-storms do not occur when the passat winds blow, that is, in the summer-time. Thunder and rain during the wheat harvest, therefore, cause great terror (I S 12 17 f.). In the other months thunder-storms are not rare, frequently occurring in April and May. Snow (Heb. shelegh) is usual in winter among the moun- tains (II S 23 20). In the neighborhood of Jericho it is unknown. Hail (Heb. bdrddh) (Job 38 22; Hag 217f.) not unfrequently falls in the winter. Whether the climate of Pal. has altered during historical times is a much-discussed question. E. Huntington (Palestine and its transformation, 1911) holds that the climate of Pal. was subject to ‘pul- satory changes’ within the period of known history, with a general tendency towards increasing dryness. It appears doubtful, however, whether the reasons given for this view can be maintained. The state- ments of the Bible, taken as a whole, harmonize with the climatic conditions that obtain at the present day. In one respect, however, a change has taken place. The forests in the W. Jordan land have about completely disappeared. In the earliest times, how- ever, they were present here, as they are now in the E. Jordan land (ef. Jos 17 15; Jer 47, 29; Is 9 18; Ezk 20 46f.; cf. also § 13, above). It is therefore probable that the periodic changes, from one season to the other, have suffered an alteration in the sense of greater contrasts than was the case formerly. 20. Water-Supply. The one large river of Pal., the Jordan, because of the depth of its river-bed (see § 12, above), is of no significance for the irriga- tion of the land. This, however, is not the case with the waters of its tributaries, where they come down from the mountains into the lower and more level parts of the Jordan Valley, e.g., E. of Jordan, the Yarmiuk, the Nahr ez-Zerkad, and the Wady Kefrén (or Hesbén); and W. of the Jordan, the Nahr Jalid, Wady Far‘a and others. This was the case in ancient times to a much higher degree than it is at present, as is evidenced by the ruins of exten- sive water-works in Bethshan, in the Waddy Far‘a, and at Jericho. The practise of constructing dams and using the water for irrigation purposes is presup- posed as well-known even in the O T (Is 7 3; Ezk BIBLE DICTIONARY 664 177, 314; Ps 1 3, 6510, 10410; Ec 2 6; Sir 24 42). The remaining rivers of Pal. traverse the coast-plain, the subsoil of which is filled with water and needs drainage rather than irrigation (cf. § 11, above). The highland is almost exclusively dependent upon the rainfall (cf. § 19, above), and on springs. The latter are not found distributed evenly over the mountain region. They are numerous in Upper Galilee, on the S. and SE. edges of the Plain of Hsdraelon and near Shechem. The southern part of the mountain country is poor in springs of any size. Not until we reach Hebron do we find them becom- ing more general, whence they flow northward into the Wddy el-‘Arrab and into the Wddy ed-Dilbe to the SW. It is seldom that a spring is well walled up, e.g., the one at Nazareth, altho remains of old structures are frequently found near springs. At the present day they are also furnished with few con- veniences, sometimes an old sarcophagus being used as a drinking-trough. Throughout the history of the land, both in peace and war, the springs have played an important réle. Whoever had possession of them was master of the land. It is evident from what has been said that the water-supply from springs—that is to say, from the rainfall stored in underground recesses—is quite insufficient. Since at the present day practically no provision at all is made for collecting the rain-water on the surface, either by dams or in pools, the water for the most part runs away uncared for. Consequently, droughts and failures of the harvests are not rare in Pal., and if rain is delayed for a long period, many springs become dry. This explains why in the O T so much is said of drought and famine in the land of Israel (IS 211;1 K171#.; Am 47 4.; Jer 14 2-6; Hag 16,9,216f.). The praise of the land as abundantly watered (Dt 8 7) is justified, when it is contrasted with the desert; nevertheless the characterization of it as entirely dependent on the rainfall (Dt 11 10-12) is altogether more correct. The well-known ex- pression ‘a land flowing with milk and honey’ (Ex 3 8, 17, 13 5; Nu 13 27, 148, etc.) does not signify the abundant return a land yields for its cultivation, for the honey spoken of is the honey of the wild bees (IS 14 25 £.; Dt 32 13; Mk 1 6), and milk is more closely connected with the pastoral pursuits. The expression probably refers to certain natural char- acteristics of the land, not to results brought about by the cultivation of the soil. It seems to have been used also of other lands (Nu 16 13), and prob- ably was derived originally from a mythological source (cf. H. Usener in Rheinisches Museum fiir Philologie, 1902, Bd. 57, pp. 177-195). V. Frora. The great variations in the character of the soil, in the distribution of water, and in temperature result in a correspondingly great variety in the forms and kinds of flora. In the lower Jordan Valley and by the Dead Sea, along with the subtropical flora, tropical plants are also found, as well as plants that belong to the steppe and desert. The fact that the greater part of the rainfall is limited to a few months, mainly December and January, and that in the following period, from May to December, there is. 665 a A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Palestine little rain and the heat is intense, is not at all favorable to the flourishing growth of vegetation. The variegated verdure which covers the land in the spring months of February and March lasts but a little while. For months the landscape is a monot- onous gray, especially in the southern hill region of the W. Jordan land. Terebinth-Tree. 21. Trees and Shrubs. The small forests that exist to-day W. of the Jordan, on Carmel and Tabor, and in Upper Galilee, give no sure ground for con- clusions concerning the appearance and condition of the wooded regions in earlier times in this part of Pal. (see § 19, above). The wooded regions of the H. Jordan land (see § 13, above) are evidence of what the condition once was throughout the land. The individual trees of these forests are not very high or large, nor do they stand very close together. The leaf-bearing trees show little of their stems, since the leafy branches begin generally but a little way from the ground. Where lofty trees are found, there is almost no low-growing copse or undergrowth. This is found most frequently on the edges of the forest, or in places where the trees are fewer and on the sides of ravines. The coniferous trees have a visible stem with almost no lower branches. A forest of leaf-bearing trees consists of several kinds of oak, the Prickly Evergreen, or Scarlet Oak (Quercus pseudococcifera), Arab. Sindjan, and the Valonia-oak (Quercus Agilops), Arab. Mellil, also Ballat (or ‘Afs); also of the Terebinth (Pistacia Terebinthus), Arab. Butm; the Mastic-tree (Pistacia Lentiscus) ; the Strawberry-tree (Arbutus Unedo and Arbutus andrachne), Arab. Kékab; the Wild Locust- tree (St. John’s-Bread) (Ceratonia Siliqua), Arab. Kharrib; the Nettle- or Lotus-tree (Celtis australis [and Lotus Zisyphus, Job 40 21 f.}), Arab. Més; the Wild Oil-tree—not the Olive, but the Oleaster—and the Oil-willow (Eleagnus angustifolia; cf. I K 6 23; Neh 8 15; Is 41 9). The coniferous trees are repre- sented by several varieties of Fir, Arab. Sndbar (Pinus Halepensis), especially the Carica. More rare is the Cypress (Cupressus sempervirens, or horizontalis). The leafy trees mentioned above are found frequently as shrubs, and often, as brushwood, cover wide stretches of territory, e.g., on the upper W addy el-‘ Arraib N. of Hebron, and on Mounts Tabor and Carmel. It is not improbable that this brush- wood is the survival of earlier forests. There are also found the Phillyrea media, the Storax (Styraz officinalis), the Blackthorn and Whitethorn, the Judas-tree (Cercis Siliquastrum), the Rock-rose (Cistus Creticus), the Furze (Genista), the Laurel, the Myrtle, the Caper-bush (Capparis spinosa), and many kinds of Willow, Arab. Safsadf. Along the brooks the Oleander and the Vitex Agnus-castus— the Abraham-tree—are frequently found. Of these trees and shrubs not many find mention in the O T. The names for oaks and terebinths occur frequently, but it is difficult to distinguish closely between them. Perhaps the words ’élah and ’allah generally signify Terebinth, while ’élon and ’allon mean the Oak. By b*rdsh the Cypress was meant. By ‘éts shemen is meant the Oil-willow (see above). It is remarkable that we can not certainly identify the old names for the Fir or Pine. Probably the tidhhar or t’ashshir (Is 41 19), signifies these varieties. From this example it is evident how little we can learn from the O T itself of many things once existing in ancient Pal. Libhneh signifies the Poplar; ‘armén the Plane-tree (or Maple?). Of shrubs, the resinous varieties are mentioned in the OT. The Balsam, tsd77 (Gn 37 25), is either to be identified with the Pistacia Lentiscus or the Styrax Officinalis. The Tragacanth (Heb. n°kéth) was the exudate of the many Astragalus varieties, and the Ladanum (Heb. lét) the fragrant resin of the Rock- rose (Cistus). In the Lebanon and Antilebanon regions there are found several varieties of Juniper, while in the E. Jordan land and in Galilee the Junt- perus excelsa and Oxycedrus are found. Of Thorns the O T gives us so many names that it is impossible to identify them certainly with any of the many varieties which are now found in the land. The Jordan depression contains few trees, but Palestine A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 666 shrubs are more numerous. The low thorny Acacia is represented by two varieties, the Acacia tortilis, Arab. Hs-Sant, and the Ac. Seyal, Arab. Seydl. Thorn-shrubs, which grow as large as trees, are represented by the Zizyphus Spina-Christi, the Zizyphus Lotus, Arab. Sidr, and by the Crategus Monogyna, Arab. Sarir. Both bear edible fruit. Another spiny shrub is the Balanites Aigyptiaca, Arab. zakkim, from the walnut-like fruit of which the Arabs prepare the so called Zaccheus-Oil, which they sell to travelers as Balsam of Jericho, hence the name False Balsam-tree. On the eastern side of the lower Jordan and near En-gedi, the Apple of Sodom grows—the Calotropis procera, Arab. ‘Oschr—whose beautiful fruit breaks with slight pressure and, to one’s surprize, is found to be entirely hollow (cf. Wis 106 and Jos. BJ, IV, 8 4). The Juniper-bush (I K 19 4) (Retama Retam) attains a height of more than 10 ft. In the neighborhood of water one meets with beautiful Tamarisks, and the banks of the Jordan (ez-Z6r; cf. § 12, above) have a thick growth of Poplar (Populus Euphratica), Arab. Gharab, which grows only in a tropical climate, of Tamarisks, of the willow-like Vitex Agnus-castus, Arab. Rish- rash, and of many varieties of Reeds (Juncus and Arundo). The vegetation of the steppes is found not only in the Jordan Valley, but also in the Negeb (cf. § 6, above) and in the Desert of Judah (cf. § 7, above). (The following list contains the names, Hebrew or Greek, and English, of all the trees and shrubs men- tioned in the Bible. The botanical identifications are taken mainly from Tristram, The Natural His- tory of the Bible (188058). Acacia, shittah (Ex 25 5, etc., shittim AV), Acacia Seyal (in the Arab. desert); A. farnesiana, A. serissa, and A. tortilis (in Palestine). Almond: (1) laz (Gn 30 3; ‘hazel’ AV). (2) shagédh. See ALMOND. Almug and Algum, ’algimim (I K 10% #-; II Ch 2 8 9 10), Uncertain, Sandalwood? Aloes. See ALozs. Apple, tapptiah, probably the Apricot. Ash, ’dren (Is 44 14, ‘fir’ RV), species uncertain. Balm, tsdri (Gn 37 *%, etc.). The fragrant gum of perhaps several different trees. Bay-tree. See BAyY-TREE. Box, ¢’ashshiir (Is 41 1, 60 13; Ezk 27 6). Some variety of Cedar or Cypress is probably meant, but the Box is pos- sible. Broom. See Juniper (below). Camphire. See Henna (below). Cassia: (1) qiddah. See Ornrments aNnD Prrrumess, § 1. (2) getsi‘ah (Ps 45 8). The Arab. Cassia (Laurus cassia). Cedar, ’erez. See Crpar. Chestnut. See PLANE-TREE (below). Cinnamon, ginndmén. See OINTMENTS AND Prrrumgs, § 1. Cypress: (1) berdsh. See Fir (below). (2) tirzah (Is 44 14, ‘holm-tree’ RV), meaning uncertain. Ebony, hobhnim (Ezk 27 15), Elm. See Oak (below). Fig, ténah, c0xoyv, Ficus carica. Fir: (1) berdth and berdsh. Probably the Cypress is meant. (2) ’oren (Is 44 14, ‘ash’ AV), meaning uncertain. Frankincense, lebhénah. See OrnrMENTS AND PrerFuMss, § 2. Gopher-wood, gopher (Gn 6 14). Probably some variety of Pine or Fir. Grape. See VINES AND VINTAGE. Hazel, liz (Gn 30 3 AV); cf. ALMOND (above). Heath, ‘ar‘ar (Jer 17 6, ‘tamarisk’ RVmg. 48 6). See Juniper (below); also see Hearn. ; Henna, kopher (Song 1 14, 4 13; ‘camphire’ AV), Lawsonia tnermis. Holm. See Cypress (above). Meaning uncertain. Husks, the pods of the Locust- or Carob-tree. Juniper: (1) réthem (I K 19 4, etc., ‘broom,’ Job 30 4 RV). (2) ‘ar‘ar. See Hwatu. Mulberry, bakha’ (bekha@’im, pl. IL S 5 23), meaning uncertain, perhaps the Trembling Poplar or Aspen. Myrrh, mor (Ps 45 8; Pr 7 17; Song 1 }%, etc.), Balsamodendron Myrrha. See OINTMENTS AND PERFUMES, § 2. Myrtle, hadhas (Neh 8 15, etc.) Myrtus communis. Nut: (1) ’éghéz (Song 6"). The Walnut (Juglans regia). (2) botnim (Gn 43 4). The Pistachio-nut. Oak: (1) ‘allah, ’élah, ’éldn, and ’allén. Various species of Oak or Terebinth. (2) ’élah (Is 6 13, ‘teil-tree’? AV; Hos 4 13, ‘elm’ AV). The word may be used generically, but the Teil or Terebinth is probably meant. Oil-tree, ‘éiz shemen (Is 41 }9, etc.; cf. Neh 8 18 AV). the Oleaster. Olive, zayith, Olea Europea. Olive, Wild, dyetéAatos (Ro 11"). tree. Palm-Tree, ‘amar, ootvé, Phenix dactylifera. Pine, tidhhar (Is 41 , 60 1%), meaning uncertain. the Elm. Plane-tree, ‘armon (Gn 30 37; Ezk 31 8, ‘chestnut’ AV), Platanus orientalis. Pomegranate, rimmén, Punica granatum. Poplar, libhneh (Gn 30 *%7; Hos 4 13), Styraz officinalis (?). Shittah-tree, shittim. See Acacia. Spice, Spicery: (1) basdm, besem, bosem. See OrIntTMaNTS AND PrerruMes, § 1. (2) sammin. Sen OINTMENTS AND PrerruMes § 1. (38) nekhd’th (Gn 37 *, etc.). The gum of the Astragalus tragacantha and perhaps of other varieties of Astragalus. Stacte, ndtaph (Ex 30 34). The gum of the Storax. See O:nt- MENTS AND PERFUMES, § 2. Sycamine, cuxkutvog (Lk 17 6), the Black Mulberry (Morus nigra). Sycamore, shigmah, suxowoeéa (Lk 194). Ficus Sycomorus. Tamarisk, ’éshel Gn 21 33, ‘grove’ AV; IS 22 6, 31 13, ‘tree’ AV). Tamariz gallica and T. pallasii. Teil-tree. See Oak (above). Terebinth (or Oak), ’élah (Smee Oak, above). Thick trees, ‘étz ‘adbhéth (Lv 23 4°, etc.), 7.¢., ‘trees with thick ~ or abundant foliage.’ Thyine, 0Uivoc (Rev 18 12), called Citrus (Citrinus) by the Romans (used for incense on account of its odor, and also for inlaying). Vine. See VINES AND VINTAGE. Walnut. See Nut (above). Willow: (1) ‘drabhah (Lv 23 4, etc.), not the Willow, but a species of White Poplar (Populus euphratica) is meant. (2) tsaphtsaphah (Ezk 17 5), generic term. FE. KE. N Probably The ungrafted Olive- Perhaps 22. Grasses and Smaller Plants. Meadows in the narrower sense of the word—that is, well-defined districts covered with grasses such as are found in more northern latitudes—are not met with in Pal. The nearest to anything of this kind is the district along the middle Kishon, at the western end of the Plain of Esdraelon (cf. § 9, above). Here in former times every year grass was mowed for the use of the Turkish cavalry, but, on account of the marshy soil, the hay is of little worth. Smaller patches of meadow are given over to grazing, so that the grass does not attain its full growth. Many places of this sort are found in the Plain of Sharon. Near brooks, rivers, and marshes many varieties of Cane and Reeds are found. Particularly interesting is the Papyrus antiquorum, which still grows in Pal. near the Sea of Gennesaret and Lake Hile, and in the Plain of Sharon, while it has completely disappeared from Egypt. Large areas of land, both in the plain as well as on the mountains W. and E. of the Jordan, are clothed in the spring with the beautiful green verdure of the perennial grasses. Many different varieties mingle together and are interwoven every- where with the variegated colors of a large number of herbs and flowers. This is the glorious spring 667 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Palestine beauty of the land, which unfortunately lasts but a little while. In June, or in July at the latest, it fades away under the rays of the sun, or because of the hot desert winds. Liliacew, Umbellifere, Legu- minose, and Labiate are represented by many varieties. Hyacinths, Ranunculi, Tulips, Anemones (Anemone coronaria), and Adonis Roses (Adonis palestine), Sword Lilies, Geraniums, and the Orchis mingle their various flowers in striking colors. The ‘rose’ of Song 21, Heb. hdabatstseleth, is probably the Colchicum autumnale (according to some the Narcissus Tazetta). By the term shéshannah we should hardly understand the White Lily (Lilium candidum), rather the Iris, so common in Pal. (cf. ZDPYV, xxi, 1 sq.). The Rose of Jericho (Sir 24 18 [14]) may possibly be the real rose, which was first introduced in Pal. probably during the Persian or Greek Era, but the Syriac translation reads instead © the Oleander. What is called to-day ‘Rose of Jericho’ is a very homely crucifer, an Anastatica hierochuntina, which, with moisture prevailing, opens, and, with dryness, closes the petals of its corona. In the Middle Ages the Asteriscus pygmeus was probably considered the Rose of Jericho. (The following list contains the names, Hebrew or Greek, and English, of all the smaller wild or un- cultivated herbs and plants mentioned in the Bible. The botanical identifications are taken mainly from Tristram, op. cit. Bramble. See THorns AND TuIsTLEs (1), below. Brier. See THORNS AND THISTLES (8)-(10), below. Bulrush, gome’. See REEp (2), below. Calamus, gdneh (gq. bésem or hattdbh), Acorus calamus. See OINTMENTS AND PERFUMES, § 1. Caper-berry, ‘dbhiyyoénah (Ec 12 5 RVmg.). Mepicine, § 3. Cockle, ba’shah (Jok 31 4°), generic term for weeds (so RVmg.). Coriander, gadh (Ex 16 31), Coriandrum sativum. Flag. See Reep (4), (5), below. Galbanum, helbenah (Ex 30 44), See DisEASE AND See OINTMENTS AND PER- FUMES, § 2. Gall, rd’sh. See Gauu. Gourd, Wild, pagqi‘ah (II K’4 %). The Colo- cynth or perhaps the Squirting Cucumber. Grass (Hay), hdtsir. See GRASS. Hemlock. See GAtu. Hyssop, ’éz6bh, meaning uncertain; perhaps the Caper (Capparis spinosa). See Hys- SOP. Ladanum. See Mrrru (below). Lily, shishan, shéshan- nah, xelvoy; generic term for a number of flowers: Lilies, Irises, etc. Mallows. See Saur- wort (below). Mandrake, didhay, Mandragora officina- lis. See DiseasH AND MepIctIng, § 3. Myrrh, lé6t (Gn 37 2, 431). Ladanum (the exudation of the Cis- tus villosus). See also § 21 (above). Nettles: (1) gimmosh (Pr 24 3° £., ‘thorns’; Is 34 13; Hos 9 8). The Sting-nettle ( Urtica pilulifera). (2) hadril (Pr 24 31; The Mandrake. Job 380 7; Zeph 2 %) The Prickly Acanthus (7), Wild Vetches (RVmg.). Papyrus, gdme’. See Reep (2), below. Reed: (1) qdneh (‘stalk’), xkAauo¢ (I K 14 % ete.). Ge- neric term. (2) géme’ (Ex 2 3, ‘bulrushes’; Job 8 ™ and Is 35 7, ‘rush’; Is 18 2, ‘papyrus’ RV, ‘bulrush’ AV). The papyrus. (3) ’drah (Is 19 7, meadowls], RV correctly). (4) "aha (Gn 41 2 18, ‘reed-grass’ RV, ‘meadow’ AV; Job 8 1, ‘flag’?). The Edible Rush or the Flowering Rush. (5) siph (Ex 2 3, 5, ete., ‘flags’; Jon 2 5, ‘weeds,’ i.e., Sea- weed). A generic term for marsh and sea vegetation. (6) ’agmén (Job 41 29; Is 9 14, 19 15, all ‘rush’; Is 58 5, ‘rush’ Arundo Donaz. RY, ‘bulrush’ AV Jn 51 32), : separ cea gy Piet SFA 3 Cian AAO 9 9s ence Nines Tyan yi), cy leanne CCT ee ’ i b yy fj AK vend Uy e,, ' ° PIE: a, Ainge 5 The Papyrus Plant. See ReEp (2), above. Rose, hdbhatstseleth (Song 2}; Is 35 1), meaning uncertain; per- haps the Sweet-scented Narcissus. Rue, tnyYavoy (Lk 11 42). Generic term (Rutacee). Rush. See Rep (2), (4), (6). Saltwort, malliah (Job 30 4, ‘mallows’ AV). Sodom, Vine of (Dt 32 12). above) is meant. Sweet Cane. See CaLamus. Tare(s), GtGavtov. Bearded Darnel. Thorns and Thistles: (1) ’atadh (Jg 9 14 f-, ‘bramble’; Ps 58 9, ‘thorn’). Rhamnus Europeum. (2) hoah (II K 14 Y, etc., ‘thorn,’ or ‘thistle’; Is 34 13, ‘bramble’ AV), Generic term for Thistle. (3) dardar (Gn 3 18; Hos 10 8, ‘thistle’) totBoAos in Mt 7 16.fProbably the Star-thistle. (4) hédheg (Pr 15 ¥, ‘thorns’; Mic 7 4, ‘brier’), meaning uncertan; perhaps the Solanum Sanctum. (5) qéts (Gn 3 38, ete, ‘thorns’), &*avOain N .T Generic term for Thorn-plants. (6) shamir (Is 5 §, etc., ‘brier’). A generic term for Thorn- plants. (7) na‘dtsiis (Is 7 1, 55 18, ‘thorn-hedge’). The Thorn-tree or Sidra. (8) barganim (Jg 8 7 16, ‘briers’), meaning uncertain. (9) sillén (Ezk 2 §, 28 24, ‘briers’), meaning uncertain. (10) sirpadh (Is 55 13, ‘brier’), mean- ing uncertain. .(11) sir, ‘thorn’ (Ec 7 8, etc.). (12) tstin, ‘thorn’ (Job 5 5; Pr 22 5). Wormwood, la‘dnah, &tvOocg. Generic term (Artemisia). See WoRMWOOD. 23. Fruits and Garden Products. In almost all localities of Pal., whether in the mountains or on the coast-plain, one meets with gardens and groves of fruit-trees, altho there is a great difference7in the varieties of plants and the general appearance between those on the coast and those on the moun- Atriplex halimus. Perhaps the Wild Gourd (see Palestine A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 668 tains. The famous gardens of Joppa are mostly devoted to Oranges, Citrons, Bitter- and Mandarin- oranges. More rarely does one see Almonds, Peaches, Bananas, and Dates. Of the numerous varieties of Agrumi which are met with to-day, even in the gardens of the mountain-land, none are men- tioned in the Bible. It is only in the late Jewish tradition that the expression ‘the fruit of goodly trees’ (Lv 23 40) is applied to the citron (Citrus medica, Heb. ‘etrogh, Arab. trunj). The date attains its fullest maturity and beauty in the region of Gaza. It ripens indeed near Joppa and Haifa, but the quality is somewhat inferior. Josephus extols the dates of Jericho (BJ, IV, 8 2f.). At present only a few comparatively young trees are found there, which were planted about forty years ago by the Russians in the garden of their hospice. On the other hand, palms are frequently met with along the E. bank of the Dead Sea at the mouths of streams. On the mountains the Palm is only for ornamental purposes, as its fruit does not ripen, altho Josephus speaks of palms as common in the Plain of Gennesaret (BJ, III, 108). Of late years the interior of the country E. of Haifa on the road to Nazareth has been largely planted with Mulberry-trees (Morus alba) for the purposes of silk culture. The blood-red juice of the fruit of the Morus nigra is mentioned in I Mac 6 34; this tree is now represented by individual specimens throughout the land. The Mulberry Fig —the Sycamore—was common in ancient Israel, not only in the Shephelah (I K 10 27), but also among the mountains (Am 7 14;Is910). To-day it is more rare, tho not entirely absent in the mountain region. Its wood rather than its fruit is prized, as is the case also with the St. John’s-tree (Lk 15 16). In the mountains the Olive-tree is the prevailing tree (e.g., the Mount of Olives near Jerusalem). Exceptionally extensive groves are found near Hebron, Bet Jala and Bethlehem, in the neighbor- hood of Jerusalem, near ‘Ain Karim and Bét Hanina, near Jifné and Sinjil, near Nadbulus, and in the region of Haifa. The most beautiful olive-trees to be seen are in the E. Jordan land near ‘Ajliin. In Pal. the cultivation of this tree is very remunerative, and Syria is probably the home of the olive. The Fig-tree is also found more frequently in the moun- tains than in the plains. It is not usually found in great numbers in any one place, tho this is the case between Bethel and Ndbulus, also near Bethlehem and Siloah. Usually single trees of this variety are found in the garden or near the house (cf. I K 4 25 [5 5]). It is remarkable for its vitality. With these trees it is usual also to find Pomegranates (Heb. rimmon, Arab. rummdan), the fruit of which attains in Syria an extraordinary size. Near Kefr Kenna, NE. of Nazareth, there is a beautiful orchard con- sisting entirely of pomegranate-trees. The Walnut- tree is found particularly near Hebron and Ndbulus, the Quince near Hebron, Jerusalem, and Nazareth. The Apricot is not common, and our more common fruits, Apples, Pears, Cherries, and Plums, are also rare, tho the pear is found near Artés and Mount Carmel. A characteristic of the borders of the gardens, especially in the plains, is the Cactus Fig (Cactus opuntia), a native of America. This plant forms an impenetrable hedge with its broad, prickly leaves and branches, and from July to September it bears a quantity of sweet and nourishing fruit. Vegetables can be grown in gardens only in case they are con- stantly watered during the hot summer. This has been the custom in Pal. from earliest times (cf. § 20, above) not only with gardens, but also with fields. The most common garden vegetables are the follow- ing: Watermelons (Arab. battikh; cf. Nu 115), which are profitably cultivated in the German colony at Sorona and to the N. at Hl-Mukhdlid; Cucumbers, both the larger and smaller varieties, are grown in great quantities. The smaller ones (Arab. khiydr), eaten raw, are great favorites with the Arabs. Para- dise Apples (Arab. banddra), Mallows (Arab. bamiye, Hibiscus esculentus), the Eggplant (Me- longena, Arab. bddinjan), Onions, and Garlic are very common. Cauliflower, Lettuce, and Radishes do well. More rare are Turnips (Arab. lift), Carrots (jezar), Rutabagas (shamander), Kohlrabi, and Spinach. The green Wild Asparagus receives only slight attention. Anise, Mustard, Flax, Hemp, Sumach (Rhus Coriaria), and Cotton, as well as various grains, which belong properly to the subject of agriculture, need not be discussed here. Cf. F. E. Dinsmore and G. Dalman, Die Pflanzen Paldstinas (1912). (The following list contains the names, Hebrew or Greek, and English, of all the cultivated plants, in- cluding grains mentioned in the Bible. The botan- ical identifications are taken mainly from Tristram, op. cit. Cf. also the two preceding §§. Anise, &veov (Mt 23 28). The Dill or Anethum graveolens, Barley, s°’6rim. The most common grain in Palestine, Beans, pél. Vicia Faba. Bitter Herbs, merérim. See Brrrer Hergs. Corn. The Eng. rendering of a number of words meaning ‘grain,’ t.e., wheat, rye, or barley. Cucumber: (1) qgishshw’ah (Nu 11 5). Cucumis Chate and C. sativus. (2) migshah (Is 1 8, ‘garden of cucumbers’). Cummin, kammon, xuy.fvoy (Is 28 %; Mt 23 2%), Cuminum sativum. Cummin, Black. See Fircuss. Fitches. See Fircues. Flax, pesheth (pl. pishtim). See Linen. Garlic, shim (Nu 115). Alliwm sativum. Gourd, gigayén (Jon 4 6; cf. RVmg.). Ricinus communis, or perhaps the Bottle-gourd (Cucurbita pepo). Herb(s). See Hers. Herbs, Green, yereqg. See Hers. Leeks, hatsir (Nu 11 5). Allium porrum. Lentil, ‘ddhashah (Gn 25 34, etc.). EHrvwm lens. Melon(s), ’dbhattihim (Nu 11 5). The Watermelon probably; perhaps also the Flesh or Musk Melon. Millet, ddhan (Ezk 4°). Panicum miliaceum and the Sorghum vulgare. Mint, Hdbocwov (Mt 23 28). Mentha sylvestris. Mustard, ctvant (Mt 13 24). Sinapis nigra. Onion, détsal (Nu 115). Allium Cepa. Pannag. pannag (Ezk 27 1”), meaning uncertain. See PaANNaa. Rye, Aussemeth. See Sprit (below). Saffron, karkém (Song 4 14). Crocus sativus. Spelt, kussemeth (Ex 9 32; Is 28 25, ‘rie? AV; Ezk 4 9, ‘fitches’ AV). Triticum Spelta. Spikenard, See Narp. Wheat, hittah several species, Triticum compositum, T. Spelta, T. hyberwum. E. E. N.] VI. Fauna. ; In ancient Israel the anima! world was more closely observed than the plant world. Evidence of this is found in the attempts to classify the animals, 669 which was done more carefully than was the case with the subdivision of the plant world, as found in Gn 111f. and Ps 104 14-17. In Gn 1 20-25 we have the classification into aquatic animals, birds, and land animals. The last are subdivided into wild beasts, domestic animals, and creeping creatures. Similar groups are found in Dt 4 171.; Ps 104 11-26; Ac 11 6, 10 12. In Gn ch. 2, the wild beasts and birds are viewed as the creatures standing in most intimate relations with man. In Gn 1 22 the aquatic animals and birds are distinguished especially as receiving the Divine blessing, while in Gn 1 24 ff. the land animals are represented as created on the same day with man. From the food law (Lv ch. 11; Dt ch. 14), as well as from the many exhortations to have compassion upon the animals, it may be inferred that the animal world was the object of close observation. An important difference between the fauna of modern Pal. and that of Biblical times is found in the fact that to-day wild animals are very much more rare than in early times, as might be inferred from passages like II K 17 25. The lion, the hart, and the larger varieties of antelopes have com- pletely disappeared. Bears are found only in the mountain-fastnesses of Hermon and Lebanon. Pan- thers (leopards) are seen but seldom near the Dead Sea and in the E. Jordan land, while their smaller cousins, the Felis jubata (Ger. ‘Gepard,’ the ‘hunting leopard’ of India) are found, e.g., on Mt. Carmel. The wild animals have been destroyed, partly through hunting, partly because, with the destruction of the forests (§ 21, above), they have lost their hiding- places. Lions have not been found in Pal. since the crusades. 24, Mammals. Recent investigations have made it certain that in the little land of Pal. several zo- ological regions overlap. N. Pal., together with Syria, belongs in reality to the Palearctic region, while S. Pal., especially the district around the Dead Sea, must be counted nearly altogether with the so called Ethiopic region, to which also the Peninsula of Sinai, Egypt, and Nubia show affinity. In addi- tion, there are some varieties of mammals in Pal. which belong to Arabia, Mesopotamia, or India. The boundary between the representatives of the two above-named regions is to be drawn, generally speaking, from the southern foot of Carmel across to the southern end of the Sea of Gennesaret. There is hardly another land on the earth of so small a compass as Pal. in which the Mammalia are so varied. The following mammals belong to the Palearctic region: The Roe, Fallow Deer, Field- mouse (Arvicola), Dwarf Hamster, Dormouse, Squirrel, Zizel (Spermophilus), Mole, Hare (Lepus syriacus), Polecat, Stoat, Stonemarten, Fox (Vulpes syriacus), Wildcat (Felis chaus), Badger, and Bear. The Ethiopic fauna are represented by the Porcu- pine (Acomys), Jerboa, Fat Sand-rat (Psammomys obesus), Black-tailed Garden Sleeper (Hliomys melanurus), Hare (Lepus Judee, and also sinaiticus and egypticus), Hedgehog, Rock-badger ([as in RVmg. Coney, EV] Hyrax syriacus, Heb. shaphan), Wild Goat (Capra beden, Heb. ’aqqo or ya‘él), Gazelle (Gazella dorcas and arabica), Wildcat (Felis bubastis), the Desert Cat (Felis maniculata), Lynx (Felis cara- A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Palestine cal), Panther (Felis pardus), Nile Fox, Ichneumon, Genet (Genetia vulgaris), and Wild Boar. Some of the mammals of Pal. must be reckoned perhaps as migrants from the eastern regions, namely, from India and Mesopotamia. Among these Nehring counts one of the varieties of the Field-mouse ( Neso- kia); the Wolf, since it is smaller than the European variety and is more like the slim wolf of W. India; the Hyena and the Jackal, of which one variety with small ears seems related to the Indian, while the other with larger ears is like the Egyptian Jackal. Of Bats there are in Pal. several varieties. For the breeding of animals the conditions in Pal. vary greatly. The reason is mainly that in the rain- less period—about one-half of each year—there is a lack of green herbage throughout most of the coun- try. On this account the breeder must be careful to arrange it so that the young are born in the spring, when throughout the land there is an abundance of green fodder. Since the climatic conditions were essentially the same in early times as they are now (cf. §§ 19-20, above), the care of animals then, as to-day was regulated by these conditions. For a correct understanding of many of the cultus regu- lations, e.g., in reference to the offering of firstlings, it is of great importance to have clearly in mind this limitation, which the nature of the land lays upon the breeding of animals. These conditions affect es- pecially the breeding of those animals such as cattle, sheep, and goats whose well-being depends upon the consumption of green fodder. Horses, mules, asses, and camels can more easily dispense with green food, and their care is consequently less difficult and at- tended with more success. The horse belong either to the native breed or to that of Erzerum in Asia Minor. Full-blooded horses are not raised in Pal. Mules are used generally as the beasts of burden. The Ass, especially in the poorer parts of the country, is everywhere used and is indispensable for agricul- tural purposes. The Camel, sometimes of the Arabian variety, sometimes that of Asia Minor, is superior to the mule in its ability to carry heavy burdens, and is highly esteemed because of its very moderate wants, in spite of its ugly form and its surly disposition. Conditions for the breeding of neatcattle in Pal. are of the poorest. Buffaloes, whose milk and butterare noted, are found only in the well-watered regions, ¢.g., in the Jordan Valley. The native breed of cattle is small and unattractive in appearance. In the spring-time the quantity of milk produced is fairly large, but it is for the most part given to the calves, which are left with the cows a long time, frequently as long as eight months. After August the cows give but little milk. The breed found in the Lebanon region is better, and often used for cross- breeding with the native variety. The Mohamme- dans keep cattle for agricultural work, as well as for the sake of the milk. Christians and Jews reckon also on the sale of the flesh. The breeding of sheep and goats stands on a much higher plane in Pal. than does that of cattle, and results in much larger pro- duction. The Sheep found generally in S. Pal. are those of the large fat-tailed variety. In the northern districts there are other breeds which are somewhat Palestine A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 670 wale smaller and more like the merino. The Fat-tailed Sheep is a good milk-producer, but its wool is not of great value. The Goats are generally black and remarkable for their long ears. There is also a variety with short ears. Their skin is of the greatest importance for the natives, especially near Hebron, since they make from it the vessels in which water, milk, wine, and oil are kept. Sheep and goats fur- nish the natives their supply of flesh, besides milk and cheese, also clothing—so far as foreign manu- facture is not preferred—and shoes. These ani- mals always find some pasturage, even in the dry months, and therefore give milk for a longer time and in proportionately larger quantities than do the cows. In the spring-time the surplus quantity of milk is con- verted by the peasants into melted butter and cheese, which serve as nourishment during the dry months of the year. [The following list contains the names, Hebrew or Greek, and English, of all the mammals mentioned in the Bible. The identifications are taken mainly from Tristram, op. cit. Antelope, t¢’6 and to’ (Dt 14 5, ‘wild ox’ AV; Is 51 2, ‘wild bull’? AV). Possibly the Oryx. Ape, gdph. See ApE. Ass, She-ass, Asses’ Colt, Young Ass. See Ass. Ass, Wild: (1) ‘arédh. (2) pere’. See Ass. Badger, tahash. See SHALSKIN. Bat, ‘dtalléph (Lv 11 ®, etc.). General term. Bear, débh (IS 17 %4, etc.). Ursus syriacus. Beast of the field, hayyath hassadheh (Lv 26 23, etc., beast’ AV). Behemoth, behéméth (Job 40 15). Hippopotamus. Boar, hdzir (Ps 80 18), Wild Boar. Bull, Bullock. See Carrie (below). Bull, Wild. See AnrEe.LopgE (above). Calf. See Carrie (below). Camel, gadmal. See CAMEL. Cattle, migneh (fproperty’). General term for cattle as property. (1) ’abbir, bull.’ (2) par, ‘bull,’ ‘bullock.’ (3) bagar, ‘bul- lock,’ ‘cattle,’ ‘herd,’ ‘ox.’ (4) ‘éghel, ‘calf.’ (5) par, shér and bdqdr (in fem.), ‘cow,’ (6) ‘eglah, ‘heifer.’ (7) (a) shor, (b) ’eleph, ‘ox.’ Chamois, zemer (Dt 14 5). Probably the Wild Sheep. Coney, shaphan (Lv 11 5, etc.). Hyraz syriacus. The Rock- badger. Cow. See Carrie (5), above. Doe, ya‘alah (Pr 5 1%, ‘roe’? AV). The female Wild Goat (?). Dog, kelebh (Ex 117, etc.). A species something like the Collie. Dragon: (1) tannin. See Monster. (2) tan (tannim). See JACKAL (below). Dromedary: (1) békher (f. bikhrah) (Is 60 §; Jer 2 28 AV). See CAMEL. (2) rekhesh (I K 4 28), ‘swift steeds’ RV. See Horse (below). (3) bené hadrammakhim (Est 8 }° AV, ‘bred of the stud’ RV). Meaning uncertain, but probably swift horses of special breed are meant. (4) kirkdrdth (Is 66 2°), see CAMEL. Ewe. See Sueep (below). Fallow Deer, yahmiir. See Rorsuck (below). Ferret, ’dndgah. See Grcxo, § 26, (II) below. Fox, shi‘al (Jg 15 4, etc.). Means both Fox and Jackal. Gazelle, tsebhi (Dt 12 15. 22, 14 5, 15 22; II S$ 2 18; I K 4 23, ‘roe,’ ‘roebuck’ AV). Gazella dorcas. Goat (and kid): (1) ‘éz (Gn 27 9, etc.). Generic term. (2) ‘atitdh (Nu 7 ", etc.). (8) sa‘ir (Lv 4 24, etc.). (4) tayish, ‘he-goat’ (Gn 30 45, etc.). (5) Kid, gedhi (Gn 27 9, etc.). Goat, Wild: (1) ya‘él (I S 24 2, etc.). The Ibex, Capra beden. (2) ’aqg6 (Dt 14 5). Species unknown. Greyhound, zarzir mathenayim (Pr 30 *1). Meaning uncertain. Hare, ’arnebheth (Lv 11 8; Dt 14 7). Lepus syriacus and L. Judxe. Hart, ’ayyal (Dt 12 15, etc.). Generic term for Deer (?). Heifer. See Carrie (6), above. Herd. See Carrie (3), above. Hind, ’ayydlah, ’ayyeleth. Fem. of Hart (see above). Horse (q.v.): (1) sis (Gn 47 ", etc.). Generally a chariot-horse. (2) pdrash (Gn 50 %, etc.). Usually for a riding-horse. ‘wild (3) rekhesh. A high-bred and swift horse. See Swirt Streps (below). (4) rammakh. A mare (?). See Droms- DARY (above). Hyena. The ‘Valley of Zeboim’ (I § 13 18) means probably the ‘valley of hyenas.’ See also SpreckLeED Birp of PREY (§ 25, below). Jackal: (1) tan (pl. tannim) (Job 30 , etc.). See also Dracon. (2) shi‘al, means also Fox. (3) ’iyyim (Is 13 22, 34 14; Jn 50 39), ‘wild beasts’ AV, ‘wolves’ RV. See Wotr (below.) Kid. See Goat (above). Lamb. See Surnp (below) and LAs. Leopard, namér (Song 4 8, etc.), meEdaAtS (Rev 13 2). Felis leopardus and F. jubata. Also the Panther. Lion: (1) ‘dri, ’aryeh (Gn 49 %, ete.). Generic. (2) kephir (Ps 35 1, ete.). Young Lion. (3) labhi’ (Dt 33 2°, etc.). Generic. (4) layish (Pr 30 8°). Generic. (5) Aéwv (Ps 5 3, etc.). Generic. Mole: (1) hdpharpdrah (Is 2 2°). Meaning uncertain. (2) tinshemeth. See CHAMELEON (§ 26, below). Mouse, ‘akhbar (Lv 11 ®, etc.). Generic term. Mule: (1) peredh, pirdah. See Mute. (2) rekhesh. See Drom- EDARY and Horse (above), and Swirr Srereps (below). Ox. See Carrue (3), (7), above. Ox, Wild. See ANTELOPE (above). Porcupine, gippddh (Is 14 28, 34 '; Zeph 2 14, ‘bittern’ AV). The meaning of the term is not certain. Perhaps Hedge- hog. Pygarg, dishén (Dt 145). Specific species uncertain. Ram. See SHExp (below). : Roe, Roebuck: (1) tstbht. See GazELuE (above). (2) yahmir (Dt 14 5; I K 4 23, ‘fallow deer’ AV). Aleephalus bubalis. (8) ya‘dlah. See Dor (above). Satyr, the rendering of sd‘ir in Is 13 21, 34 14, and Saryr. Seal. See SEALSKIN. Sheep (also Ewe, Goat, Lamb): (1) seh, individual term. (Goats, etc., small). (2) ts6’n, collective term, small cattle. (38) rdahél, ‘ewe.’ (q.v.) (4) kebhes. (5) kesebh. ‘Lamb,’ general terms. (q.v.) (6) kar, a lamb in the pasture or ‘stall.’ (7) faleh (I S 7 9; Is 65 25), a ‘sucking’ lamb. (8) ’ayil, ‘ram.’ (9) tsdphir, ‘ram.’ Swift Steeds, rekhesh (I K 4 28, ‘dromedary’ AV; Est 8 1, ‘mule’ AV). Swift horses. Swine, hdzir (Lv 117, etc.), Yoteposg (Mt 7 §, etc.). The Wild Boar. Unicorn, r’@ém. See WiLD Ox (below). Weasel, héledh (Lv 11 ”). Some think the Blind Mole (Spalaz typhlus) is meant. Whales, tannin (Gn 1 2, ‘sea-monster’ RV). Wild Goat. See Goat (above). Wild Ox, r’ém (Nu 23 22; Dt 33 1, etc.; ‘unicorn’ AV). Bos primigenius, now extinct. The German Auerochs. It was still extant in Assyr. times and is represented on the inscriptions as once inhabiting the Mediterranean coast See Goat (above), See MonstTEr. region. (Cf. Driver on Dt 33 ” in Int. Crit. Com.). Wolf, z’ébh (Gn 29 %, etc.), AUxog (Mt 7135, etc.). Canis lupus. See JACKAL (above). E E. N.] 25. Birds. The birds of Pal., as the mammals, represent several zoological regions, altho the exact classification of the varieties is attended with greater difficulties, and the results are more uncertain. The Palestinian birds mentioned in the Bible, apart from some names of doubtful significance, are found to be the same as those of to-day. Birds of prey are: the Eagle, Vulture, Falcon, Sparrow-hawk, Kite, and Owl. The Raven family is well represented. Of marsh- and water-fowl there are the Heron, White and Black Stork, the Pelican, Cormorant, Flamingo, Wild Goose, Swan, Marsh-hen, Snipe, Sandpiper, Crane, Bustard, Sea-gull, Storm-Petrel and Grebe. On the E. borders of the district el-Belka there appears once in a while an Ostrich from the Arabian Desert. Of the hen family there are, besides the Domestic Fowl, the Partridge (the Caccabis chukar, which ranges from Asia Minor to India, the Ammo- perdix heyi, and the Frankolinus vulgaris), the Quail, 671 A NEW STANDARD and the Sandgrouse. Wild Pigeons are found in great numbers; altho most of these visit the land only in course of their migration, yet many remain through the winter. In regard to the Turtledove whose appearance to-day, just as in the times of Song 2 12, is a sign of the beginning of the warmer period of the year, it may be remarked that, besides the European variety (Turtur communis), which is referred to in Song 2 12, there are two other varieties, the Ethiopic (7. senegalensis), and the Collared Turtle-dove (7'. risorius), which is a native of India. Night-hawks, Woodpeckers (Picus syriacus), King- fishers, Hoopoes, and Cuckoos are not wanting, nor are varieties of Starlings, including the Pastor roseus and the Amydrus tristrami. Besides the common varieties of Lark there are also found the Alauda isabellina near the Dead Sea, and the Desert Lark; the Ammomanes deserti, and the Amm. fraterculus. Some varieties of Swallow remain in the land through the winter, particularly the Oriental Swal- low ( Hirundo savignit), also the Cotyle rupestris and obsoleta), and of Swifts the variety Cypselus affinis, while other varieties appear in the period from February to April, the Cypselus apus, probably the sus of Jer 87, and the Common Swallow ( Hirundo rustica). Garden warblers are present in great numbers, also the Finch and our House-sparrow, whose beautiful variety, Passer moabiticus, deserves special mention. Withthese may be mentioned theTit- mouse, the Blue Woodpecker, the Wren, the Wagtail, the Oriole, the Butcher-bird, and the Palestinian Nightingale, or Bulbul. Thecommon Nightingale also visits Pal. and nests in April near the Jordan. The beautiful tropical bird Cinnyris osea, which is found on the Dead Sea, is also a representative of the fauna of India and Nubia. Of Thrushes there are several native varieties, and others which visit the land only in course of their migration. Cf. G. Dalman, ‘Ara- bische Vogelnamen von Palastina und Syria’ in ZDPN 1913, 165-179, with the recent literature. The breeding of birds receives little attention For water-fowls such as Geese and Ducks there is a lack of the necessary fresh water. Hens are common, but the variety is small. Turkeys are found among the Circassians and Christians. The breeding of Doves is carried on only in a moderate way. (The following list contains the names, Hebrew or Greek, and English, of all the birds mentioned in the Bible. The identifications are taken mainly from Tristram, op. cit. Bird of Prey, ‘ayit (Jer 12%). Generic term. Birds, Fowl(s), ‘6ph, tsippdr. Generic terms. Bittern, gippédh (Is 34 '; Zeph 2 13 f- AV). See Porcurine, § 24 (above). But Bittern is probably right. Cock, ZAExtwWPE (Mt 26 *4, etc.). Cormorant: (1) shalakh (Lv 11 ”; Dt 14 1”), Exact meaning uncertain. (2) g@’ath (Is 3411; Zeph 214 AV). See PELIcAN (below). (2) Crane: (1) ‘adgiir (Jer 8 7, ‘swallow’ AV). Grus cinerea. gig. See Swattow (below). Cuckoo, shahaph (Lv 11 16; Dt 14 15, ‘sea-mew’ RV). Meaning uncertain. Dove, yénah, meptotee& (Gn 8 8; Mt 316, etc.). Generic term, including both wild and domesticated pigeons. See TURTLE-DOVE (below). Eagle, nesher. Also means Vulture, probably the Griffin- Vulture. See Eac ie. Falcon, ’ayyah (Lv 11 14; Dt 14 18; Job 28 7; ‘kite’ AV). Generic term, probably meaning Kite. BIBLE DICTIONARY Palestine Gier-eagle: (1) pereg (Lv 11 1%; Dt 14 12; ‘ossifrage’ AV). Un- certain; the Sea-eagle, according to some. (2) raéham (Lv 11 18, ‘vulture’ RV). The Egyptian Vulture. Glede, ra’ah (Dt 1418), Meaning uncertain. Hawk, néts (Lv 1116, etc.). Generic term or possibly the Falcon. Hen, evig (Mt 23 %7; Lk 13 34). A general term for ‘bird,’ ‘fowl,’ etc. Heron, ’dndphah (Lv 11 19; Dt 14 18). Generic term. Hoopoe, diukhiphath (Lv i1 9; Dt 14 18, ‘lapwing’ AV). Kite: (1) dayyah (Dt 14 13; Is 34 15, ‘vulture’ AV). Generic term. (2) da’ah, a variant form of (1) (Lv 11 14 AY). (3) ’ayyah (Lv 11 14; Dt 1413 AV). See Fatcon. Lapwing, diikhiphath. See Hooron (above). Night-hawk, tahmag (Lv 11 16; Dt 14 15), of Owl. Osprey, ‘ozniyyah (Lv 11 13; Dt 14 12). Meaning uncertain. Ossifrage, pereg (Lv 11 13; Dt 14 12, ‘gier-eagle’ RV). Lam- mergeier or Bearded Vulture (Gypaetus barbatus). The largest of the Vultures. Ostrich: (1) ya‘dnah (Lv 11 18, etc., ‘owl’ AV). (2) yc‘én (La 4 3), (3) rdndn (rendnim, pl.) (Job 39 18, ‘peacocks’ AV). Owl, ya‘dnadh. See Osrricu (above). Owl, Great: (1) yanshéph, yanshiph (Lv 11 "; Dt 14 16; Is 34 1). Probably the Bubo ascalaphus. (2) gippoz (Is 34 15), See Dart-snakE (§ 26, below). Owl, Horned, tinshemeth (Lv 11 18; Dt 14 18, ‘swan’ AV). Meaning uncertain. Owl, Little, kés (Lv 11 16, etc.). Generic term. Owl, Screech-. See Niaur Monstmr. Partridge, qéré’ (I S 26 2; Jer 17 4). (Caccabis saxatilis). Peacock(s): (1) tukkiyyim (pl.) (I K 10 22). An Indian (Mala- bar) word. See Pracockxs. (2) raénadn. See Osrricu (above). Pelican, ga’ath (Lv 11 18; Dt 14 17; in Is 34 "; Zeph 2 14, ‘cor- morant’ AV). Pelecanus onocrotalus and P. crispus. Pigeon. See Dove (above). Quail, slaw (Ex 16 13; Nu 11 %1-), Corturniz vulgaris. Raven, ‘drébh. Generic term. Eight species are found in Palestine. Screech-owl. See Niagur Monster. Sea-mew, shahaph (Lv 11 16; Dt 14 16, ‘cuckoo’ AV). Sparrow, tsippér (Ps 84 3, 102 7). Birds in general, and es- pecially of small birds (Swallow, Lark, etc.). Perhaps a variety The Greek Partridge Speckled Bird of Prey, tsabhia‘. Meaning uncertain. See also Hymna, § 24 (above). Stork, hdsidhah (Lv 11 9, etc.). Ciconia alba. Swallow: (1) d*rdér (Ps 84 3, etc.). Generic term. (2) sig and gis (Jer 8 7, ‘crane’ AV). The Swift (Cypzlus). (3) ‘agur. See CRANE (above). Swan, tinshemeth (Lv 11 18; Dt 14 16, ‘horned owl’ RV). Mean- ing uncertain. Turtle-dove, ‘ur, toevyav (Gn 15 9; Song 2 12 turtle AV, etc.; Lk 224), Turtur auriius. Vulture: (1) rahdm (Lv 11 38, ‘gier-eagle’? AV). Vultur per- cnopterus. (2) dayyah. See Kite (above). E. E. N.] 26. Fishes, Reptiles, and Insects. The waters in and near the Jordan Valley, with the exception of the Dead Sea, abound in fish. This is especially true of the Sea of Gennesaret. Josephus’ statement that the Nile fish Coracinus was found in the spring at Capernaum (BJ, III, 10 8) finds support in the fact that to-day the Sea of Gennesaret, and also the neighboring warm springs and Lake Hille, contain fish which are also found in the Nile, partly in the upper Nile (Clarias macracanthus, of the variety silu- rus, Chromis niloticus and C. tiberiadis, etc.). The streams and brooks emptying into the Mediterra- nean are less abundant in fish. Tristram in his Fauna and Flora of Palestine (1884) counts forty- three varieties of fish for southern and middle Syria, among which are the Carp, Tench, Barb, Shote or Sheat-fish, and Blenny. Eels are found in the Kishon but apparently not in the Jordan region. Of Ser- pents and Lizards there are in Pal. a very large number, since the extensive uninhabited stretches Palestine of country and numberless clefts and holes in the rocks offer them welcome places of refuge. Tris- tram counts thirty-three varieties of serpents, among which are many poisonous ones, such as the Egyp- tian Naja haje (Cobra), the Vipera euphratica, the Daboia xanthina, the Echis arenicola (also found in Egypt), and the Cerastes Hasselquistti. Among the lizards, of which, according to Tristram, there are forty-four species, mention may be made of the African Crocodile, which is found even to-day in the marshes of the Nahr ez-Zerkd, S. of Carmel, which as early as Pliny (V, 17) was called the Croco- dile river. Near the Dead Sea there is also the Land-Crocodile, which Herodotus (IV, 192) men- tions in Libya (Arab. Waran, or Waral), two species, Psammosaurus scincus and Monitor niloticus. The most Common Lizard is the Hirdaun of the Arabs, the Horned Lizard (Stellio vulgaris), of which there are several species. Turtles are found everywhere on land and in the water. Insects are extraordinarily numerous, as is the case in all warm regions. It is sufficient here to mention Spiders, Scorpions, Wasps, Wild Bees, Flies, Gnats, Fleas, and Locusts. Of the sixty species many are harmless and hence little noticed. Greatly feared to-day, as in Bible times, is the migratory Locust (Hdipoda migratoria), which comes out from the interior of Arabia, and because of its voracity inflicts fearful destruction. The peas- ants of Pal. do not eat the locust, as the Bedawin do in case of hunger, and John the Baptist did out of voluntary asceticism (Mk 16). Pal. is well suited to the culture of Bees. For hives, the peasants make use of jars of baked or sun-dried brick, about 18 in. long and 6-9 in. in diameter. The German colonists cultivate bees after European methods. Cf. Fr. Bodenheimer, Die Tierwelt Pal. (1920). Concerning Mollusks, cf. Tristram, The Fauna and Flora of Palestine (Survey of Western Palestine, 1884). [The following list contains the names, Hebrew or Greek, and English, of all the Invertebrata, reptiles, etc., mentioned in the Bible. The identifications are taken mainly from Tristram, op. cit. (1) Generic term. Wild bees are usually meant. Ant, n¢malah (Pr 6 8, 30 35). Bee, debhérah (Dt 1 44, etc.). Beetle. See Cricket (below). Canker-worm. See Locust. Caterpillar. See Locust. Cricket, hargél (Lv 11 22, ‘beetle’ AV). Some variety of Locust is meant. Flea, par‘dsh (I S 24 15, 26 2°), arritans. Fly, Flies: (1) z*bhubh (Ec 10 1; Is 7 18). Some species of Gad- fly. (2) ‘arébh (Ex 8 21, etc.). Generic term. Gnat, x@vw) (Mt 23 24). Possibly the same as the Mosquito. Grasshopper. See Locust. Hornet (or Wasp), tsir‘ah (Ex 23 28, etc.). Generic term. Horse-leach, ‘dliigah. See Horsn-LBacu. Lice, kinnam, kinnim (Ex 8 16 ff., ete.). Pediculi. Locusts, Grasshoppers, etc. See Locust. Moth: (1) ‘ash (Job 4 ¥, etc.). The Clothes-Moth (Tineidz). (2) sas (ofS in N T) (Is 51 8). The Caterpillar of (1). Palmer-worm. See Locust. Scorpion, ‘agrabh (Dt 8 15, ete.). oxoonloc in N T. Snail: (1) shabbelul (Ps 58 8). Generic term. (2) hémet (Lv 11°). See Sanp-L1zarpD (below). Spider: (1) ‘akkabhish (Job 8 14, etc.). (2) s¢manith (Ps 30 28, etc.). See Lizarp (below). Worm: (1) ¢éla‘, tolé‘ah (Dt 28 %, etc.). Generic term. See also Cotors, § 2. (2) rimmah (Ex 16 24, etc.). General term. (3) sas (Is 51 8 AV). See Morn (above), General term, or the Pulez, A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 672 (2) Arrow-snake. See Dart-snaxek (below). Adder. See SzerpEnt (3)-(6), below. Asp. See Smrprent (3), below. Basilisk. See Sprreent (6), below. Chameleon: tinshemeth (Lv 11 ®, ‘mole’ AV). certain. (2) kéah (Lv 11 * AY), DILE (below). Cockatrice. See SmrpEnt (6), below. Creeping things: (1) sherets (Gn 7 4, etc.; ‘swarms’ Gn 1 2° RV). (2) remes (Gn 1 24, etc.). General term for fish, reptiles, etc. See Crrepine THINGS. Crocodile, liwyadthan (Job 41). Dart-snake, kippdz (Is 34 35; ‘arrow-snake’ ERV; ‘great owl’ AV). Serpens jaculus. Dragon. See Dragon. Frogs, ts*phardéa‘ (Ex 8 2, etc.). Rana esculenta. Gecko, ‘dndqah (Lv 11 *, ‘ferret? AV). ———~ ; Sys w¥ rs / Sth a iS — We i NG. “4 we ZS / UINWZ % KN yt 9% SEN \ - ie NSS ue P yw 8 one .S/ x or) \ "¢ iW) ieee Fe 21M Za ey i \ Me Of FS 2 y eS f Zz £ NS p> PES) AN LORS Hl eA i “y Aan 7] = filly Sey h 5 S|! wiz % He ran EY ow = Ft Kalat Anaza ip aap, ZY subir rae lane KS 1* f \ mS ws A Fas BY \ / / ‘ef Ma 4 ; cee SG aes PALS My Fm, aa: a Ne ‘We =! 4 is) } = F ee ~ \ Dae AYS W Petra see ee ye £ Hic He 7 oe =~. k ? 7 / ny ANY: djl ¢ A 2 (pua/s pied JEL Jafar. = / eS A> NG 22 ': “ Depression) ~aWadt Bd LS if Ny 4 = 4 Maan & EG ae Se Ait / 2 = § HEP SB SES oe, Wy = Longitude East from Greenwich 679 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Palestine Parable - territory into five districts, Jerusalem, Jericho, Gazara, Amathus, and Sepphoris, exclusive of Idumza, which remained in the control of the wily Antipater. The first three of these territories con- stituted Judea proper. Amathus (7'ell ‘Amate) was made the capital of Perea, as Sepphoris was of Galilee. But in 55 s.c. Gabinius restored the old conditions, and in 47 B.c. Cesar enlarged the terri- tory of Hyrcanus by the addition of the Plain of Esdraelon and the seaport Joppa. Altho after a long struggle the Maccabean Antigonus with the help of the Parthians again became King of the Jews (40-37 s.c.), Herod the son of Antipater suc- ceeded in having himself named by the Roman senate as king (40 B.c.), and having defeated Anti- ’ gonus ruled from 37 to 4.B.c. He rendered the land a great service in that he subdued the Arabian Bedawin in the Trachonitis (el-Leja), and brought this region, together with the adjacent districts Batanza and Auranitis, to a state of settled, peace- ful civilization (23 and 7 B.c.). He succeeded in adding Gaulanitis also, together with the district about the sources of the Jordan, to his kingdom. After his death, Augustus decided that Archelaus as ethnarch should have Idumzxa, Judea, and Samaria, that Antipas should have Galilee and Perea, and Philip receive Batanza (with Gaulanitis), Tracho- nitis, and Auranitis, the two latter with the title tetrarch. But as early as 6 a.D. the territory of | Archelaus was united with the province of Syria, | altho under special administration of a procurator — (6-41 a.p.). Philip, who built the city of Cesarea Philippi near the old Paneion at the sources of the Jordan (§ 12, above), and Julias on the site of Beth- saida, ruled until 33-34 a.p. His territory was united with the province of Syria until 37, then was given to King Agrippa I, who, in 39-40, also received the territory of Antipas, and in 41, Judea and Samaria. After his death (44 a.p.) the Emperor Claudius placed the whole region under procurators (44-66). For the suppression of the Jewish revolt (66-70 Nero appointed Flavius Vespasianus to the Jewish territory as a special province. It remained as the private property of the Emperor Vespasian after his son Titus had put down the revolt. The province of Judea was administered from Caesarea Palestina through imperial governors; that is, pretorian legates. After the suppression of the last revolt of the Jews (132-135 a.p.) by Hadrian, the province was named Syria Palestina, with a consular legate at its head. After the time of Septimius Severus (193-211 a.p.), the simple name ‘Palestine’ was the usual designa- tion (cf. § 1, above). Literature: Reland, Palestina, 1714; Ritter, Allgemeine Erdkunde, XIV-XVII, 21848-54; Robinson, Biblical Re- searches (and other works), 1841-65; the publications of the Palestine Exploration Fund, 1865-1924; Baedeker- Socin, Paldstina und Syrien (‘Eng. transl., 1897); G. A. Smith, Hist. Geog. of the Holy Land (111922); F. Buhl, Geo- graphie des alien Paldstina (1896), with full bibliography. H.G PALLU, palla (8192, pall’): The ancestral head of the Palluites (Nu 26 5), one of the clans of Reuben (Gn 46 9, Phallu AV; Ex 6 14, etc.). PALMER-WORM. See Locust. PALM-TREE. See Pauzstine, §§ 21, 23. PALSY. See Disrass anp Mepicing, III. PALTI, pal’tai CYB, palti): 1. One of the spies (Nu 139). 2. The person to whom Saul gave his daughter Michal, David’s wife, in marriage, after David had fled from the court (I S 25 44, Phalti AV; II 8 315, Phaltiel, AV, Paltiel RV). PALTIEL, pal'ti-cl (28022, palfi’él), ‘God de- livers’: 1. A ‘prince’ of Issachar (Nu 34 26). 2. See PattI, 2. PALTITE, pal’tait (%%27, happalit), ‘the man of Beth-palet’ (q.v.): The designation of Helez, one of David’s heroes (II S 23 26). Pelonite (I Ch 11 27) is probably a textual corruption of ‘Paltite.’ PAMPHYLIA, pam-fil’i-a. See Asta Minor, III, 10. PAN: (1) habhittim (I Ch 9 31), from habhath, ‘to broil’ or ‘roast,’ is of uncertain meaning, tho proba- bly it indicates some sort of a baking-dish. (2) mahdbhath (Lv 2 5, 6 21, 7 9, all ‘baking-pan’ RV; I Ch 23 29), from the same root as (1), must be some kind of a flat broiling- or baking-dish, but exactly what is intended is uncertain (cf. the same word in Ezk 4 3). (3) masréth (II S 13 9); as the Jewish- Aramaic equivalent of this word means ‘pan,’ the same meaning is probably to be assigned to the Heb. word. On other terms rendered ‘pan’ (kiyydr, sir, partir, and tsallahath) see Foop anD Foop UTEnsizs, § 11, and Plate I of HousrHotp Urensits, Fig. 4. EK. E. N. PANNAG, pan’nag (422, pannagh): An otherwise unknown word, which AV gives as a place, RV as some kind of confection (Ezk 27 17). Cornill and others emend to dhénagh, ‘wax’ (of bees), which goes well with ‘honey’ that follows. Grats bel 8 PAPER. See Books anp Waittng, § 1. PAPHOS, pe’fes (IIépoc): A town on the promon- tory of Zephyrium near the SW. corner of Cyprus, founded by the Phenicians under Cinyras. Old Paphos lay near the sea with its harbor at the mouth of the Bocarus. New Paphos lay 10 m. inland in a fertile plain. P. was noted for the sensuous cult of the local Nature-goddess, identified with the Greek Aphrodite, who sprang from the sea here (the Paphian Aphrodite), where she was wor- shiped in the shape of a conical meteoric stone (baetylus); an oracle was connected with her famous, wealthy temple, the priest of which exercised spiritual supremacy over Cyprus. P. was destroyed by an earthquake in 14 B.c.; when rebuilt, it was named Augusta in honor of Augustus, but this name failed to persist. In imperial times it was the residence of the proconsul of Cyprus (cf. Ac 13 6 f., and see Pauutus, Sererus). Many ruins dating from Roman period remain. J.R.S.S.*—S. A. PAPYRUS, poa-pai’rus or -pi’rus. See PAa.es- TINE, § 22; Books AND Writina, § 1; and Surps AND NAVIGATION, § 2. PARABLE: 1. Nature of Parables. The essence of the parable (Heb. mashdl, Gr. rapaGoAn, from napa B&rXetv, ‘to set side by side’) is the idea of com- parison. It aims to make use of the underlying analogies or resemblances between the natural and spiritual spheres. The Biblical usage of the term is Parables Parbar A NEW STANDARD not exact. In particular, in the O T mdshél stands for a wide variety of figurative forms of expression. (See PROVERB.) Occasionally, the nearest English quivalent would be ‘argument,’ used in a very general sense (Job 271, 291). Again, the word means a poetic oracle (Nu 23 7,18; Hab 26) or an obscure and enigmatic utterance, perhaps because couched in symbolic terms (Hzk 20 49). Inthe N T napaBory is applied to certain proverbial or metaphorical expres- sions which are not in the form of a narrative, e.g., ‘If the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch’ (cf. also Mt 15 14-16; Lk 4 23, 6 39). In the Fourth Gospel ‘parable’ is used to render xapotwtla (10 6), which is more srictly ‘proverb’ (so RVmg.). But the post-Biblical and modern usage of the term has tended to narrow its meaning and, in general, to limit it to similitudes cast into narrative form. Such simpler figurative speech is now called proverb or metaphor. More extended forms of conveying truth symbolically are the fable, the myth, and the allegory. Parable is thus to be distinguished from myth, which is also in the form of fictitious narrative capable of conveying moral and spiritual instruc- tion, and occurs in two forms. The first of these results from the unconscious clustering of imagined events about imaginary persons in the course of the formation of folk-lore. When folk-lore contains a kernel of historical fact, it becomes legend; when it embodies some truth of natural religion, it is called myth. The second type of myth is that of a story artificially constructed. In either case myth em- bodies and expresses truth, not as a matter of practical life, but of speculative thought. In its first form, it lacks the element of exact parallel- ism between the narrative and the truth conveyed through it. In its second form (cf. Plato, Gorg. 523a; Phed. 61a), while it approaches most nearly to the Biblical parable, it is not limited to the expression of spiritual or moral lessons; it is concerned with intellectual truth oftener than with ethical principles. The fable differs from the parable, first, in not aim- ing to represent action possible in nature. It draws its characters from the lower brute creation and even from the inanimate world. It represents these as possessing and using faculties of mind and heart just like the human. Foxes and wolves, eagles and tortoises, trees and flowers, pots and pans, converse with one another like men and women. But a more important difference between fable and parable is that the former is associated with instruction of a type lower than the spiritual. At the highest, its object is the cultivation of mere wordly wisdom or prudence. Quite often a fable is constructed for no other end than to entertain or amuse the reader, while a parable is always meant to teach some truth of the spiritual or eternal order. Finally, parable differs from allegory in that the latter is more elab- orate. It involves the possibility of being lengthened out indefinitely. It parallelizes the developments and sinuosities of an inner or ideal transaction by cor- responding terms in the figure. The former is characterized by brevity and simplicity. Figure and idea touch each other at one principal point. In form, also, parable and allegory differ as simile and metaphor (cf. ‘The kingdom of heaven is like BIBLE DICTIONARY 680 unto,’ etc., Mt 13 24, 31, 33, etc., with ‘I am the true vine,’ Jn 151 or ‘I am the door,’ Jn ch. 10). 2. Parables in the O T. Of parables in the strictest sense, the O T contains only two. The first of these is the story through which the prophet Nathan awakened in the consciousness of David a sense of his guilt in the matter of Bath-sheba (II S 121 #.), and the second, the similitude of the vine- yard used by Isaiah (5 1 ff.) to arouse loyalty to Jehovah on the part of Israel. Other stories, such as that of the trees assembled to elect a king (Jg 9 8) and of the thistle and cedar (II K 14 9), are more strictly fables. Still others, such as Hzekiel’s account of the two eagles and the vine (17 2 #.) and of the caldron (24 3 ff.), are allegories. The small number of parabolic narratives to be found in the O T must not, however, be taken as an indication of indifference toward this literary form as suitable for moral instruction. only apparently small. In reality, similitudes, which, tho not explicitly couched in the terms of fictitious narrative, suggest and furnish the materials for such narrative, are abundant. 3. Rabbinical Use of Parables. The parable has been a favorite method of teaching with the sages of Oriental countries in general. Especially did eminent rabbis (Gamaliel, Hillel) before and in the time of Jesus Christ use it freely. Some of the pro- ductions of these men possess much beauty and point. One, for instance, aims to impress on the mind the Divine origin and value of the Law in the following story: A certain king had an only daughter. A certain prince from a far land asked and obtained her in marriage. As he was about to take his bride to his own country her father said to him: ‘She whom I have given to thee is my only daughter. I can not bear to part from her; yet I can not say unto thee, Take her not, for she is thy wife. But show me this kindness; wherever thou goest prepare me a chamber that I may dwell with you, for I can not bear to be separated from my daughter.’ Thus where the Law is, God is. (Weber, Jtid. Theol. 71897, p. 17) But, as a general thing, the parables of rabbinical literature are artificial, unnatural, and fantastic (cf. Trench, Notes on Parables). 4. The Parables of Jesus. Jesus used the parable form so often and with such effect as to raise it to preeminence among literary vehicles of truth. At the same time He identified it with His own per- sonality as a teacher, tho it is not true to say, as Steinmeyer does, that it is a form peculiar to Jesus. In all probability, the evangelic records do not contain all the parables which He formulated. As to those which they do bring down to us, their exact number will vary according as one adopts a broader or a narrower definition of the term ‘para- ble.’ Some limit the number to twenty-seven, while others make out as many as fifty-nine. It isenough to say that these numbers, far apart as they are, still convey an idea of the relative frequency of this mode of instruction in the teaching of Jesus. In remark- able contrast to this is the fact that the Epistles of the N T contain nothing resembling the parables. This is also true of the apocryphal gospels. The Fourth Gospel stands midway between the Synop- The number is - 681 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Parables Parbar tics and the Epistles. While it records no parables in the strict sense of the word, it does contain figurative teaching of Jesus falling under the general name of allegory (Jn 107 #., 151 #.). With- in the smaller group constituted by the Synoptics the distribution of parables is again closely con- nected with the main characteristics peculiar to the separate documents. Mk, whose obvious aim is to tell of the works of Jesus, contains the smallest num- ber, giving only one not paralleled in the other two Synoptics. Lk, who aims to be full and complete, gives the largest number. Mt stands between these two, with a collection fairly representative of all Jesus’ parables. One striking characteristic of Jesus’ handling of parables is His use of them in pairs. The similitude of the Mustard-seed and that of the Leaven (Mt 13 33; Lk 13 20) convey essentially the same teaching. This is true also of the parables of © the Hidden Treasure, and the Pearl of Great Price (Mt 13 31f.; Mk 4 30; Mt 18 441f.), and of those of the Talents and Pounds. In one case, three parables appear to contain the same general lesson: the Lost Coin, the Lost Sheep, and the Lost Son (Lk ch. 15). The design of this repetition was evidently to pre- sent more clearly and forcibly truth already once expressed by showing it from other points of view. But both the grouping and the verbal form in which the parables are now extant have been to some degree influenced by the medium of the personalities through which they have been transmitted, 7.e., the consciousness of the evangelists. In respect to the literary form, according to Jiilicher, a tendency to develop the parables into allegories is to be dis- cerned in the Synoptic records (Gleichnissreden, I, pp. 183-202). But it is quite possible to exaggerate this. 5. Interpretation of Parables. The object of parabolic teaching was undoubtedly to set forth clearly and impressively the inner realities of the kingdom of God. Yet in the very nature of things, to many minds unprepared for this type of teaching they incidentally proved a source of mystification and apparent concealment of the meaning of the teacher (cf. Mt 13 10 f.). With the lapse of time and the change of conditions and forms of thought, and more especially of forms of expression, the tendency to misconstrue and misinterpret the para- bles grew. In modern times this tendency has often assumed the proportions of complete allegori- zation. The interpreters of the Tiibingen school, for instance, found in the parables allegories of the con- tests between the Judaizing and Pauline parties in the Apostolic Church. In more recent days, a group of writers including such men as Tolstoy (Teaching of Jesus), Kirchbach (Was lehrte Jesus? 81903), and Kalthoff (Das Christus Problem, 1902) read the parables as allegories of social and indus- trial conditions and movements. Such allegorizing is based in some instances upon accidental resem- blances and suggestions, as when in the Lost Coin (Lk 15 8) one sees a symbol of the lost soul, because just as the coin bears the image of a king, the soul bears the image of God. In other instances, allegori- zing is based on the use and interpretation of certain specific symbols in Scripture, upon the assumption that such interpretation of them gives them the stamp of authority. As, for instance, because in Mt 21 33, the leaders of Israel are portrayed as vine- dressers, the vine-dresser in Lk 13 6-9 (the parable of the Fruitless Fig-tree) must be taken as meaning a leader of Israel; but as the interpretation obviously does not fit the character of the person, the allegorist is compelled to explain that in this case the vine- dresser represents the leaders of Israel ‘as they were not.’ Again, in some instances, allegorizing is nothing more than the introduction of the theological and philosophical presuppositions of the interpreter. This was the case with the Tiibingen exegetes, who found in the four kinds of ground in the Parable of the Sower the four parties or sects of the early Christian Church. In all cases this type of inter- pretation violates fundamental principles, and mis- represents the teaching of Jesus. A parable from its nature presents a single thought in a figurative form. The thought may be simple as well as single, and in such a case, with the discovery and exposition of this thought the interpretation is complete. All else in the form of the figure must be regarded as back- ground or drapery. But the thought may also be complex (e.g., that in the Parable of the Sower), and then the subordinate features may, by their co- incident resemblances in the parabolic figure, throw auxiliary light upon it. Naturally, this principle leaves it to be determined what in each parable is the main thought and whether it admits of or de- mands auxiliary illustration. LireRATuRE: Jiilicher, Die Gleichnissreden Jesu (1899); Fiebig, Altjiidische Gleichnisse und die Gleichnisse Jesu (1904); Trench, Notes on the Parables (#41880); Bruce, The Parabolic Teaching of Christ (1886); Weinel, Die Gleichnisse Jesu (1905); Dods, The Parables of the Lord (21900); Drummond, J., Way of Life; Vol. I, Parables of Jesus (1918); Nourse, art. ‘Parable’ in ERE, Vol. IX (1917); Swete, H. B., Para- bles of the Kingdom (1920). Pe AOU PARACLETE, par’a-klit. See Hoxy Sprrrr, § 2. PARADISE. See Escuarouoey, § 31; and EpEn. PARAH, pé’ra (11811, happdrah), ‘the cow’: A city of Benjamin (Jos 18 23). Map III, F 5. PARAN, pé’ren (1782, pa’ran): 1. A wilderness between Midian and Egypt (I K 11 18), and defined more narrowly as including Kadesh, and, by infer- ence, also the wilderness of Zin and beyond to the S.; but still more narrowly as exclusive of Zin, which lies to the N. (Nu 13 21 and 33 36 LXX.). It is the modern et Th, a tableland abounding in lime- stone formation. It served as the refuge of Ishmael when expelled from the camp of Abraham (Gn 21 21). It was one of the stations of the wilderness journey (Nu 1012, 1216 [P]). From it the spies were sent out, and thither they returned to make their report (Nu 13 3, 26). 2. A mountain, named with Sinai, Seir, and Teman (Dt 33 2; Hab 3 3). But as these passages are poetical, the intention to name an exact spot is doubtful. It may be Jebel Makra. 3. El-Paran (LXX. tr. ‘terebinth of Paran’ Gn 14 6), a landmark near Kadesh. Since it appears to be the extreme southern point reached by the Kings of Israel, it may be the same as Elath (q.v.). A. C. Z. PARBAR, par’bar (1312, parbar): The Hebraized form of a Persian word, meaning ‘summer-house’ or Parched Corn Patriarchs ‘colonnade.’ It is the designation of a building con- nected with Solomon’s Temple on the W., where six Levites were stationed as guards, four at the cause- way and two inside the Parbar (I Ch 26 18). The word is used in its original Persian form parwdrim of one of the courts of the Temple (II K 23 11, pre- cincts RV, suburbs AV). J. A. K. PARCHED CORN. See Foop anp Foop UTEN- sits, § 1 PARCHMENT: The rendering of the Gr. wen. beavacs in II Ti 413. It probably denotes books made of the material just coming into use, and therefore reserved for more important writings. See also Books AND Writina, § 4; and PerGAMuM (end). PARDON. See FORGIVENESS. PARK. See OrcHARD. PARLOR. Not used in RV. In AV it renders (1) lishkha@h, a room near the sanctuary in which sacrificial meals were held (Dr.) (I S 9 22 [wrongly ‘guest chamber’ RV]; cf. the ‘chambers’ of the Temple; see Tmmpin, §§ 19-20). (2) ‘dliyyah (Jg 3 20 ff. ‘upper room’ RV) and hedher (I Ch 28 11, ‘Inner chambers’ RV) for which see Houss, § 6. E. E. N. PARMASHTA, por-magh’ta (NDYEIB, parmash- ta’), Persian for ‘chief’: One of the sons of Haman (Est 9 9) PARMENAS, par’mi-nas (II«ewevac): One of the ‘seven’ chosen to administer the charities of the Jerusalem Church (Ac 6 5). Nothing further is known of him. See Cuurcu# Lire, § 3. PARNACH, par’nak (7298, parndkh): A ‘prince’ of Zebulun (Nu 84 25). PAROSH, pé’resh (YB, par‘osh), ‘flea’: The ancestral head of a great postexilic family of the same name (Ezr 2 3, 8 3 [Pharosh AV], 10 25; Neh 3 25, 7 8, 10 14). PAROUSIA, par-t’shia- or -si-d. TOLoGY, §§ 34 ff. PARSHANDATHA, p§ar-shan’da-fha or pair’’shan dé’tha (SN73075, parshandatha’), a Persian word, ‘given by prayer’ (?): One of the sons of Haman (Est 97). PARTHIANS, par’thi-anz (IIée@cr, Ac 2 9): Men of Jewish descent who made their permanent home in Parthia, and were found, like many others of the Dispersion, at Jerusalem, probably as pilgrims cele- brating the festival. are nowhere mentioned in the Bible. Parthia was a mountainous land to the 8. of the Caspian Sea, bounded by Hyrcania on the N., Ariana on the E., Media on the W., and Carmania on the 8S. In its earliest known history this territory was a part of the Persian empire, constituting, according to Herodotus (IIT, 93), a portion of the 16th satrapy under Darius. It remained under Persian control as late as the con- quest of Persia by Alexander the Great. When the land passed into the hands of the Seleucids, the Parthians revolted under Arsaces and became an independent state (ce. 250 B.c.). But, once in- dependent, and under the lead of the Arsacids, Parthia rapidly grew into an empire extending to See Escua- A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Parthians, in a strict sense, — 682 the Euphrates and the Indus. ‘The Romans found this power difficult to deal with. In fact, they never conquered it. The Parthians played an important part in the history of Judea during the years follow- ing Pompey’s conquest (63 B.c.). An invasion by them in 39 B.c., tho repulsed at last, necessitated a reorganization of the government. They finally degenerated and succumbed before the Persians under the Sassanids in 226 a.D. A.C, Z, PARTITION, MIDDLE WALL OF: An expres- sion used by Paul (Eph 2 14) in a passage in which he asserts the abolition of all distinction between Jew and Gentile. It is probable that he had in mind the barrier (sdrégh) in Herod’s Temple that separated the outer court of the Gentiles from the inner courts accessible to Jews alone (Jos. Ant. XV, 2; BJ, V, 5). See Tremp ey, § 28. S. D.—M. W. J. PARTRIDGE (qér@’, ‘caller’): A bird common in Palestine, but regarded as insignificant in contrast with larger game (I § 26 20). In Jer 17 11 its alleged habit of stealing a nest and hatching young not of its own serves as the basis of a figurative usage. But as the partridge does not do this, the prophet is evidently using a current notion as the ground of his simile. See also PALESTINE, § 25. A.C. Z. PARUAH, po-ri’d or par’u-a (18, pariah): The father of Solomon’s officer Jehoshaphat (I K 4 17), PARVAIM, par-vé’im or piér’va-im (87778, par- wayim): Probably the designation of a region where gold was mined (II Ch 3 6). Two possible identifications, one in southern, the other in NH. Arabia have been proposed. PASACH, pé’sak (123, pdsakh): The head of a family of Asher (I Ch 7 33). PAS-DAMMIM, pas’’-dam’mim. DAMMIM. PASEAH, po-si’d (122, pdséah), ‘limping’: 1. The head of Judahite family (I Ch 4 12, or here a place- name?). 2. The ancestral head of a family of the Nethinim (Ezr 2 49; Neh 7 51, Phaseah AV, Neh 3 6). PASHHUR, pash’hir, PASHUR (718, pash- hair): 1. The son of Malchijah. With Zephaniah, the priest, he was sent by King Zedekiah (c. 588) to Jeremiah to inquire concerning the outcome of Nebuchadrezzar’s attack on Jerusalem (Jer 21 1 f.). Later, he was one of those (Jer 381 £.) who were re- sponsible for putting Jeremiah in the miry dungeon (I Ch 9 12; Neh 11 12). 2. The son of Immer, and chief overseer in the Temple under Jehoiakim. He smote Jeremiah and had him put in the stocks, from which he freed him the next day. Jeremiah gave him the name Magor-Missabib (q.v.), and prophe- sied that he would go into exile to Babylon (Jer 20 1#.). As Zephaniah, son of Maaseiah, evidently was overseer of the Temple under Zedekiah (IJ K 25 18; ef. Jer 29 26), P. probably was taken to Babylon with Jehoiachin (597 8.c.). 3. A priestly family which returned with Zerubbabel (Har 2 38; Neh 7 41). Six of the family had married foreign wives (Ezr 10 22), and arepresentative of the family sealed the covenant See Ernzs- aaa 683 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Parched Corn Patriarchs (Neh 10 3 [4]). 4. The father of Gedaliah (Jer 38 1), perhaps the same as 2 above. Cosel, PASSAGE (ma‘abhdr, ma‘barah), ‘pass,’ ‘ford’: This term is found in the AV of Jg 12 5, 6; I S 13 23, 14 4; Is 10 29; Jer 22 20, 51 32; but the same Heb. word is rendered ‘fords’ in Jos 2 7; Jg 3 28; Is 16 2. The RV more accurately renders by ‘fords’ in Jg 12 5, and Jer 51 32 mg. (but ‘passages’ in the text); also by ‘pass’ (‘passes’) in IS 13 23, 14 4; Is 10 29, and ‘Abarim’ in Jer 22 20. (Cf. ABARIM.) A. C. Z. PASSENGER: A word found in Pr 915; Ezk 39 u, 14, 15 AV in the obsolete sense of ‘one who is passing by’ or ‘through’ a place. The RV has the more modern ‘they [them] that pass by [through].’ A.C. Z. -PASSION: (1) In Ac 1 3, ‘after his passion’ is literally ‘after He suffered,’ pete td ralety adcéy. (2) The expression ‘like passions’ (Ac 14 15; Ja 5 17) is the rendering of the compound adj. éuotorabaje, ‘of like feeling,’ and means, in these two instances. ‘of like nature,’ ‘with the same natural limitations.’ Other occurences of the word need no explanation. E. E. N. PASSOVER. See Fasts anp Fnrasts, § 7. PASS THROUGH FIRE, CAUSE TO. See Semitic Retiaion, § 26. PASTOR: The original terms rd‘eh, rotwiy, ‘shep- herd,’ rendered by ‘pastor’ in Jer 2 8, 3 15, etc., and in Eph 4 11 AV, are in these instances used neither in their literal sense nor in the modern ecclesiastical sense of the Eng. word, but as the equivalent of ‘ruler.’ Of these renderings RV retains the word only in Eph 4 11. See also Cuurcu Lirg, § 8. A.C. Z. PASTORAL EPISTLES. See Timoruy, Epis- TLES TO; and Trrus, EpisriE To. PATARA, pat’a-ra (IIétaex): A seaport of Lycia E. of the mouth of the Xanthus, one of the twenty- three Lycian republics which formed a confederacy of seventy cities under a Lyciarch; the six chief cities (Xanthus, Patara, Pinara, Olympus, Myra, Tlos) had two votes each. P. was the seat of the worship, and a famous oracle, of Apollo Patareus. It was enlarged by Ptolemy Philadelphus, who re- named it Arsinoé (this name did not persist). Con- siderable ruins remain of walls, temples, theaters, an aqueduct, baths (built by Vespasian), sarcophagi, the pit and circular steps of the Apolline oracle, and a triumphal arch with the inscription ‘P. the capital of the Lycian nation.’ The ancient harbor is now a swamp. At P. Paul changed ships on his last voyage to Jerusalem (Ac 211f.). J. R. 8. S.*—S. A. PATH, PATHWAY: These words render the following original terms: (1) ’drah, ‘path,’ ‘customary road,’ (Job 19 8; Is 2 3, etc.). (2) mesillah, ‘highway’ (Is 59 7; Jl 28). (3) ma‘gal, ma‘galah, ‘wheel-road’ (Ps 17 5, 23 3; Pr 2 9, etc.). (4) mish‘dl, a pass ‘hemmed in’ on each side, or made by hollowing (Nu 22 24). (5) nathtbh, nethibhah, a ‘raised road,’ ‘highway’; in the literal sense (Job 28 7), and figura- tively for the course of life (Job 19 8; Ps 119 105; Pr 115, etc.). (6) sh*bhil, shebhil, a ‘way that stretches out’ (Ps 77 19; Jer 18 15). (7) tetBoc, a ‘path made by attrition’ (Mk 1 3, and ||s). (8) teoxt&, a ‘circuit,’ ‘wheel,’ 7.¢., a road that returns upon itself (He 12 13). Ai Ged _PATHROS, path’res, PATHRUISM, path-ri’- sim. See Eaypr, § 1; and EranoGraPHy AND ErHNoLoey, § 13. PATIENCE. See Gon, § 2. PATMOS, pat’mos (Iétu.0¢): A voleanic island of the Sporades, now nearly treeless, modern Patino. It is characterized by an indented coast and has a safe harbor. By the Romans it was made a place of exile for the lower class of criminals. According to tradition, John, the author of Rev, was banished thither by Domitian 95 a.p., where he lived at hard labor for eighteen months, and had his revelations (cf. Rev 19 #f.) in the ‘cave of the Apocalypse,’ now connected with the monastery of St. John, founded in 1088 a.p. by the monk Christodulus, on the authority of a bull (still extant) of the emperor Alexius Commenus. The embalmed body of John is still shown. Ruins of great antiquity remain. J.R.S.S.*—S. A. PATRIARCHS: As the etymology implies, a pa- triarch (xetercéexns) is one who rules a clan or tribe by paternal right. The word is used several times in the LXX. (e.g., I Ch 24 31; ‘heads of the fathers’ houses’ RV); but does not occur in the English OT. In the N T the title ‘patriarch’ is applied to Abra- ham (He 7 4), David (Ac 2 29), and the sons of Jacob (Ac 7 8 f.). Specifically, the word has come to in- dicate one of the early progenitors of the human race, or more narrowly, of the tribes of Israel. The Biblical patriarchs thus fall into three groups: (1) The antediluvians, (2) the names in the genealogical list from Shem to Terah, (3) Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. For these last, see articles under the re- spective titles; only the first two groups will be con- sidered in this article. There are two lists of the antediluvian patriarchs. The earlier narrative (Gn 416-24, J) traces the descent of Lamech from Cain through four generations, and frequently couples some interesting event with the name mentioned. The second genealogy (Gn 5 3-31, P) makes Seth the ancestor of Lamech, inserts this author’s customary chronological data, and adds two more names, so that there are in all ten generations from Adam to Noah. The difference in the spell- ing of the two lists is not so great as it appears in the English translation. From Shem to Terah (Gn ch. 11, P) only nine names appear in the Heb. text; but the LXX., followed by Lk 3 36, inserts ‘Cainan’ be- tween ‘Arpachshad’ and ‘Shelah,’ thus making ten generations here also. The different versions vary widely as to the longevity of the patriarchs. Thus from the Flood to Abraham was 290 years according to the present Heb. text, but is given by the LXX. as 1,070 years! This gives some idea of the extent to which the figures were manipulated by the ancient authorities, usually in the interest of some ideal chronological symmetry. (See CHRONOLOGY OF THE OT.) But according to all the accounts, the length of life ascribed is incredibly high. It is difficult to determine just what historic facts underlie the various genealogies of Genesis. The ten antediluvian patriarchs, with their enormous ages, Patrimony Paul A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 684 are connected with the] ten kings who, according to Berossus, ruled Babylonia for 482,000 years before, the Flood. The Sumerian originals of these monarchs have recently been discovered (Poebel, Historical Texts, 73 f.; Langdon, JRAS, 1923, pp. 251 #.). The descendants of Noah (Gn ch. 10 f.) are appar- ently personifications of homonymous tribes or localities, e.g., Canaan, Zidon, Ophir, Elam. (See GENEALOGY.) Even in the later chapters of Genesis we are often in doubt as to whether the narratives describe the actions of individuals or tribes. (See Lot.) We may safely say, however, that there is a strong presumption against the individual inter- pretation of any of the patriarchs before Abraham. Nevertheless, the Biblical writers may have believed that these names belonged to individuals. LirerAtTuRe: Driver, Genesis (1904); Ryle, Early Narratives of Genesis; Lenormant, Les origines de l’histoire; Worcester, Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge; L. B. Paton, “The Oral Sources of the Patriarchal Narratives,” in AJT (October, 1904); Skinner, Genesis, in ICC (1910), pp. 134 ff.; Rogers, Cuneiform Parallels (1912), pp. 78 ff.; Barton, Archaeology and the Bible (1916), pp. 264 ff.; Clay, Origin of Biblical Traditions (1923), pp. 124 ff. L. G. L.—L. B. P. PATRIMONY. See Faminy anp Faminy Law, § 8. PATROBAS, pat’ro-pas or -bas» (IIateéac): A member of the early Roman Church (Ro 16 14), otherwise unknown. PATTERN: This term renders the following Heb. and Gr. words: (1) tabhnith, ‘model’ (Ex 25 9, 40; Jos 22 28, etc.). (2) tokhnith, ‘measure,’ or ‘stand- ard,’ of the ideal temple (Ezk 43 10; cf. 2812 RVmg.). (3) mar’eh, ‘appearance,’ used of Moses’ vision of the Tabernacle (Nu 8 4). (4) brotdxwotc, an ‘outline,’ which serves as a model (I Ti 1 16 AV; ‘ensample’ RV; If Ti 1 13, ‘form’ AV). (5) ctéxoc, ‘model’ (Tit 27 AV; He 85). (6) drodelyparta, ‘copies’ (He 9 23 AV). ay. VE iL PAU, pé’u (198, pa‘): A city of Edom (Gn 36 39; Pai in I Ch 1 50). The LXX. reads ‘Peor.’ The site is doubtful. . PAUL I. Pavu’s Lirz Up ro His Convnrsion. 1, Birth and Early Training. Paul, WadAoc (originally Saul, Zaddkos or YaobA=Heb. 7iRY, sh@ ul), was born in Tarsus, a Cicilian city of note, intellectually as well as politically (Ac 21 39, 22 3). Against this express statement the story of Jerome —De Viris illustribus, 5—which makes Gischala of Galilee his birthplace can not count. Tarsus had a strong colony of patriotic Jews, who sent reenforce- ments to Jerusalem during its last siege, and among whom Paul was brought up. Whatever influence the Greek environment had on him must have been mainly unconscious. It was to Jewish influences he gave up his mind. Not only his father but remoter ancestors were Pharisees (Ac 238 6), and he became a devoted Pharisee himself. Yet tho Aramaic was his mother tongue (Ac 9 4, 21 40)— from which it has been inferred that his parents had not been long in the Dispersion—and tho he knew the Hebrew O T, he usually quotes the LXX., and is to be regarded rather as a Greek than a Hebrew Rabbi. He was by birth a Roman citizen (Ac 22 28), and Ramsay has the merit of showing how the im- perial idea influenced his mind and imagination, and even his policy as an evangelist. Attempts to trace in Paul other Greek influences which might have reached him in Tarsus—e.g., that of the Stoic philos- ophy, which had there its native seat, or of the Greek mysteries—are quite inconclusive (cf. Clemen, Pau- lus (1904), vol. ii, p. 65; W. Morgan, The Religion and Theology of Paul (1917); H. A. A. Kennedy, St. Paul and the Mystery Religions (1913). When Paul says himself (Gal 1 15) that God set him apart from birth, it means that all the influences about him from the beginning—Jewish, Greek, Roman— contributed, apart from any consciousness or inten- tion on his part, to fit him for the work of his life. There was a predestination in them which made him a ‘chosen vessel’ (cxeSoc éxAoyHs¢, Ac 9 15), but which he only came to see later. Of Paul’s family relations little is known. Later, he had a married sister in Jerusalem whose son was old enough to act in a delicate situation (Ac 23 16 f-), He himself seems never to have married. The gift for celibacy was part of his endow- ment for the homeless Apostolic life, As appeals to Rome were costly, it has been inferred that in his later days he must have fallen heir to some family property. He must have had a strong physique to be able to survive what we read in II Co 11 23-29, but his presence was not imposing (Ac 14 12). He mentions one distressing and repulsive illness (Gal 4 13), the one apparently from which he suffered chronic- ally or intermittently, and which he elsewhere describes as ‘a thorn in the flesh,’ ‘a messenger of Satan,’ who buffeted him to keep him humble amid the extraordinary revelations he had had. Of the various guesses at this (opthalmia, Farrar; malarial fever, Ramsay; crampe de predicateur, Godet; and epilepsy), there is most to be said for the last, or for some form of hysteria. At Tarsus Paul learned the trade of oxnvototds (Ac 183), which was connected with the local manufacture of cilicitum (goatshair cloth), but it is not certain what modern word gives best the best suggestion of the kind of work he did—weaver, sailmaker, saddler, or what. Its value to him as an Apostle was that it enabled him to make the gospel ‘without charge.’ &3&mavoy (I Co 98), and to maintain his character for disinterestedness (I Th 2 3; II Th 38 ICo9”; II Co12; Ac 20 #), He worked at his trade in Thessalonica, Corinth, and Ephesus. 2. Education in Jerusalem. From Tarsus Paul went to Jerusalem to be educated as a Rabbi in the school of Gamaliel (Ac 22 3). He became a ‘zealot’ for God, or for his ancestral traditions (Gal 114). Many strains of interest united here: national, for devotion to the Law meant devotion to Israel; intellectual, for a great Rabbi was to the Jews what a great philosopher was to the Greeks (Jn 3 10); personal, for in his zeal for the Law Paul was conscious that he had rivals whom he had to sur- pass, if he was to secure his own future (Gal 1 14 and Ph 3 7); and, finally, religious. Paul was a profoundly serious and pious man: he hungered and thirsted after righteousness, and he sought it de- votedly along this line. To be righteous meant to keep the Law, and he strove with all his strength to keep it. One of the most important questions to be considered in the study of Paul’s life is, What kind of experience did he have, spiritually, during this period? To this the Epp. make various references. In Ph 3 6 he says that he was, ‘as touching the righteousness which is in the law, found blameless,’ xnatk Stxatocbyyny thy gv vouw yevduevog Auwewxtos, which must mean that no one could censure him from the Pharisaic point of view. (In the same sense, cf. Ac 23 1.) In Gal 1 14 it is implied that so 685 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Patrimony Paul long as he was in this Pharisaic life he had a com- placent consciousness of some kind: he was not only getting on, but getting on better than others. It is sometimes maintained that we can not use Ro 7 7 as a confession of Paul’s personal experience before his conversion. The use of the first person singular, however, in contrast to the plural in Ro ch. 6 where he is dealing with what he assumed to be the com- mon Christian experience, as well as the intensity of the tone in the passage, supports the view that this is autobiography, even if present experience colors the remembrance of the past. To assume that Paul is describing his present condition would be to deny the purpose of the argument to show that Christ can do what the law could not do. We can not be certain, however, whether ver. 7 refers to a distinct moral crisis, in which Paul first discovered the opposition of sin and law in himself, or a recurring moral situation. What does seem certain is that Paul, with all his sincerity, had misgivings as to whether the way he was walking really led to right- eousness (see Romans, § 2). 3. First Contact with Christianity. We do not know when he came to Jerusalem. We have no evidence that he ever saw Jesus in the days of His flesh. Apparently he came into contact with the new movement in some connection with Stephen. The Cilicians (Ac 69) had or frequented a particular synagog in Jerusalem and were Stephen’s opponents Hence Paul probably encountered Christianity first in the form in which it threatened Judaism; Stephen had recalled the words of Jesus which threatened the destruction of the Temple and, therefore, to a great extent the superseding of the Law (Ac 6 14). But apart from definite dogmatic differences, a man so deeply in earnest with his own religion as Paul would soon feel that in the new society there was an attitude of the soul to God which was not his attitude, and which, if it were justifiable, made his religion vain. Two ideals and experiences of religion confronted each other in the Pharisee [and the Christian, and this ardent Pharisee was conscious at once that in Christianity he encountered the enemy. It was not a Sadducean police regulation, in the interest of the public order, which he assisted to enforce; it was a genuine religious persecution of which he became a leading agent. He often refers to this. Sometimes he speaks of the severity of the persecution (Ac 22 4, 19 f.), sometimes of the good conscience with which he acted (Ac 26 9); sometimes he expresses deep contrition (Gal 1 13; I Co 159; cf. I Ti 113, where remorse is lightened by the reflection that he had acted ‘ignorantly in un- belief,’ dyvodv .. . év dxtottg). These references by Paul himself are of interest in that they agree with the representation in Ac 91, that up to the moment of his conversion Paul was persecuting with a good conscience. The ‘kicking against the goad’ (Ac 26 14) does not mean that he was stifling nascent Christian conviction. He was to the last moment of his prechristian life in the tragic situation de- scribed by Jesus; he thought that his persecution of the disciples of Jesus was service rendered to God (Jn 16 2). . II. Pauw’s CoNnvERSION. 4. Influences Preparatory to Conversion. Paul’s conversion is in its issues the greatest event of early Christian history. As such, it is three times told in Ac (chs. 9, 22, and 26), and there are incidental allusions to it in Gal 1 12; I Co 91; II Co 4 6; Ph 312; 1 Ti 113. It raises three main questions: (1) What were its antecedents, in the sense of events and experiences leading up to it? In the line of what has been said above, some would deny that there were any: only thus, it is argued, can the supernatural character of Paul’s conversion be main- tained. But the supernatureal is not maintained by being made blankly unintelligible, and if a super- natural event—say the manifestation of Jesus— is to have one result and not another, it must be made to a mind in one condition and not another—that is, to a mind prepared for it. Paul’s state of mind had no power to produce the manifestation, but it made it possible for him to understand and appre- ciate it. As influences contributing to such a state of mind reference has been made to the death of Stephen, to the conduct of Christians under per- secution, to ideas suggested in the course of con- troversy with Christians (e.g., the idea with which the Christians, basing on Is ch. 53, countered Paul’s efforts to make them blaspheme—the idea, namely, that Jesus, instead of being accursed of God, as Dt 21 23 teaches, had in the love of God become curse for us), and, in particular, to the spiritual experience of Paul under the Law, as read in Ro 778. This experience was the ‘goad’ (Ac 26 14), which, tho like a stupid or frantic animal he did not know it, was driving him into the arms of Jesus (cf. Findlay in HDB, III, 702 n.). 5. Character of the Event. (2) What was it that took place on the way to Damascus? The answer Paul himself gives us is that the Lord ‘appeared to him’ (I Co 15 8), or that ‘he saw the Lord’ (9 1). In I Co ch. 15 he explains his agreement with the Twelve on the fundamental facts of Christianity, the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. As an Apostle he is a qualified witness of the resurrection, but resurrection is relative to burial; there is no such thing as the resurrection of the spirit. What Paul believed he saw-——-and what he believed the Twelve saw—was Christ in what he calls ‘the body of his glory’ (Ph 3 21). That this had a relation to the body which had been laid in the grave is certain, but it had been changed as ‘we shall be changed’ (I Co 15 51). It is useless to ask how such a body can be seen; it can not be seen at all unless Jesus (as the Fourth Gospel puts it, 211) ‘manifests him- self’; but assuming that He can manifest Himself, the question whether Paul’s seeing of the Risen Savior was objective or subjective falls to the ground. It was both. It was subjective in that it was accessible to Paul only, and not to all who were physically in the same situation as he, but it was objective in that it was no hallucination, but a real self-manifestation of the glorified Jesus. All the accounts of Paul’s conversion in Ac represent Jesus as not only appearing to the persecutor, but speak- ing to him; and tho in ch. 9 and ch. 22 a message is given through Ananias which in ch. 26 is put into Paul A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 686 the lips of Jesus Himself, yet all three narratives agree with Paul himself in Gal 1 16 in connecting with his conversion his vocation to preach the gospel to all men. 6. Relation to Paul’s Theology. (3) This antici- pates our third question: To what extent was Paul’s gospel. immediately given or involved in this ex- perience? ‘There was something which he called ‘my gospel’ (Ro 216, 16 25; II Ti 28); not Christianity simply, but, in a nature so strong with an experience so distinct, Pauline Christianity. What part of this peculiar phenomenon can be traced to this hour? The following points seem tolerably certain: (a) This experience fixed Paul’s Christology. Christ to him is predominantly the Risen One, the Lord of Glory. It is not the incarnation which rules his thoughts, as in the Fourth Gospel, but the resurrec- tion. His Christ is one in whom all carnal limitations disappear (II Co 5 16), one who shares the Father’s throne, and has been declared Son of God in power, in virtue of the resurrection from the dead (Ro 1 4). In the splendor in which He appeared to Paul He is the ‘image’ (eixdv, IT Co 4 4; Col 1 15) of God; it is the ‘glory of God’ which shines in the face of Jesus Christ (II Co 4 4-6). (b) It fixed his escha- tology. Paul saw the Lord, and the world in which the Lord lived was henceforth for him the real world. Immortality and glory were not indeterminate con- ceptions for Paul, half real or less. There was nothing so real to him as the Lord and His glory. But the Lord of glory was the Son of God, the first- born among many brethren, and Paul’s whole hope was to be conformed to the image of God’s Son (Ro 8 29). It is a mistake to interpret this only ethically; the image includes all Paul saw at his conversion; the ethical and the incorruptible are blended in it in the Divine. The whole of Paul’s Christianity can be put into the eschatological prop- osition, ‘We shall bear the image of the heavenly’ (I Co 15 49), if we understand ‘image’ in the full Pauline sense (II Co 4 4-6). (c) It fixed his soteriol- ogy, perhaps not in all the dogmatic or controversial or apologetic forms he afterward gave it in Gal or Ro, but in substance and effect. He knew from this time on with absolute certainty that salvation is of the Lord. It begins on God’s side and with a gracious act of God in Christ which man has done nothing to merit. Paul was going madly on the wrong road when he obtained mercy (I Ti 113), was apprehended or arrested (Ph 3 12), turned, and put right. Define this experience by relation to God, and it takes the form of a doctrine of Divine sovereign grace—God out of His pure mercy saves whom He will. This is the fundamental doctrine of redemp- tion as a doctrine of God, and all the gospel is in it. Define this same experience by relation to man, and it takes the negative form of a doctrine excluding all human rights or titles to salvation. God did not appear to Paul in Christ because of what he had done or was doing. It was not his devotion to the Law which was rewarded with salvation. All he had ever done, or tried to do, faded into nothingness, or only rose to impeach him; salvation was in Christ alone and in surrender to Him, not in anything Paul could do apart from Him, or antecedent to Him. This again is the fundamental doctine of redemption as a doctrine of man, and all the gospel is in it—righteous- ness by faith alone, apart from work of law. Paul knew now that nothing statutory contributes any- thing to salvation; it is all in Christ, crucified and exalted, and in the free response which Christ evokes in the heart. (d) Finally, it fixed his vocation as Apostle of the Gentiles. (See [2], above.) This does not depend on the fact that the Christ who appeared to Paul was not the Jewish national Messiah, but the heavenly Messiah, who was to have rule over all (cf. Briickner, Paul. Christologie, p. 29); it depends on Paul’s instinctive perception that he was being saved by Christ not as a Jew and a Pharisee, but as a man and a sinner. Absolute grace has in it the promise of universality; in the relation of absolute debt to God, all distinctions of men disappear. Iii. Pauu’s Aposrouic Lire. 7. Early Ministry. We have two accounts in the N T of what immediatlly followed Paul’s con- version (Gal 1 16 f.; Ac 9 19 #.). We may assume that his intercourse with Ananias (Ac 9 9-18) meant something for him, and that he either knew before- hand or received from him, the tradition of the Chris- tian fundamentals to which he refers in I Co 15 3. Paul there represents himself asa linkin the chain of tradition (cf. 11 23, napéSwxa. . .8 xat maeérAaBoy), but in Gal ch. 1 he insists that he owed to men neither his gospel nor his apostleship. From Damascus he went to Arabia (the Haurdn? or Sinai?), but apparently not for any length of time. The three years of Gal 1 18, mentioned after his return to Damascus, where he preached as a Christian (Ac 9 20) and made disciples of his own (ver. 25), seem to have been spent more in that city than in Arabia. His escape from Damascus at the risk of his life is referred to in Ac 9 23 #.; II Co 11 32. He went up to Jerusalem, to make acquaintance with the great man of the Church (Gal 1 18), and stayed with him a fortnight. No doubt from him he would hear much of Jesus. Otherwise, we should infer from his own account in Gal that the visit was one of much privacy. The narrative in Ac 9 26 ff. gives a different complexion to this visit, and seems to imply more (ver. 28 f.) than can easily be put into a fortnight, but both accounts end consistently. In Ac 9 30 Paul is sent via Ceesarea to Tarsus; in Gal 1 21 he comes into the regions of Syria and Cilicia (the latter usually a kind of annex, politically, to the great province of Syria). Paul himself mentions these facts as proof that he did not owe his gospel or his Apostolic commission to the Twelve. How could he, if he had exercised a Christian ministry which God had blessed both before he had seen any of them and in entire in- dependence of the fugitive contact he had later had with one of them? 8. Period of Obscurity. This brings us to the obscure period of Paul’s life, which, tho the chro- nology is uncertain, was of considerable duration. Between his first visit to Jerusalem (Ac 9 26) and his second (Ac 11 30, 12 25), Lightfoot and Turner reckon eight years, Ramsay ten, Harnack eleven (?). (For a full examination of all the evidence, ef. Turner in HDB, art. Chronology. See also 687 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Paul N T Curonotoey, ITT, 2-3.) What did he do all this time? In Gal 1 23 he says that the Christian churches in Judea heard from time to time that their former persecutor was preaching the faith he once attacked. No doubt the existence of churches in Cilicia, which numbered Gentiles among their members (Ac 15 23), was due in part to his work at this time. It was apparently toward the close of this period that Barnabas, who, according to Ac 9 27, had stood sponsor for Paul at Jerusalem, acted a second time as his good genius and brought him to Antioch. A great church had grown up there, which contained both Jewish and Gentile members; The reading “EA Anvas in 11 20 seems the more prob- able for two reasons: (1) it would have been nothing new for the Gospel to be preached to Greek-speaking Jews; (2) had Gentiles not been included from the first as well as Jews, would the populace have found. a nickname necessary for the new community? Barnabas, who had thrown himself heartily into the work, felt that this was the place for Paul. He went to Tarsus to seek him out (Ac 11 25), and when he returned with Paul, they were for a whole year hospitably entertained by the church (cuvay@fvat, Ac 11 26, as in Mt 25 35; Dt 22 2; Jg 19 18; cf. Bartlet, Com. on Acts 1902, ad loc.). It was this flourishing and generous church which, when a famine came soon afterward (44 or 45? a.p.), sent help to the poor saints of the mother church at Jerusalem by the hands of Barnabas and Paul (Ac 11 30, 12 25). For discussion of this journey and its relation to that described in Gal 2 1 see Commentaries of Lightfoot, Sieffert (Meyer series) and Burton in ICC, and, opposed to them, Ramsay in his Church in the Roman Empire and his St. Paul the Traveler. 9. Missionary Journeys. With the return of Paul and Barnabas to Antioch we enter on that part of the Apostle’s career on which we have the fullest information. In the church of Antioch there was organized the first distinctive mission. The story of it is told in Ac chs. 13 and 14. There is a formal propriety in laying out the life of Paul from this point according to the pro- gram in Ac. In harmony with this we have (1) the first missionary journey, through Cyprus and certain cities in Pisidia and Lycaonia, in Ac 13 1- 14 28; (2) the second, which, traversing part of the same ground in reverse order, carried the Apostle eventually to Philippi, Thessalonica, and Corinth, and thence once more to Antioch via Jerusalem (if this is implied in ‘having gone up and saluted the church,’ (Ac 18 22), in Ac 15 40-18 22; (8) the third, which, after passing from Antioch through the Galatian country and Phrygia and through the upper inland parts of Asia, led to a long sojourn in Ephesus. This may have been broken by visits to places within reach, and was terminated when Paul went via Troas to Macedonia, and thence to Corinth, returning once more by the route de- scribed in Ac chs. 20 and 21 to Jerusalem—all this in Ac 18 23-21 15. At the same time, there is much to be said for the view of von Dobschiitz (Probleme des apostolischen Zeitalters (1904), p. 58), that if we wish to have a really illuminating view of Paul’s work it is better to distribute it into two areas than into three periods. In accordance with this scheme he worked first in the regions of Syria and Cilicia, his headquarters being Tarsus and Antioch. Here he had a colleague, perhaps at first something approaching a patron, in Barnabas, and was ap- parently on some kind of terms with the Jerusalem church. His later sphere of work was in the regions of the Aigean, his headquarters being Ephesus and Corinth. Here he had assistants, but no colleague in the sense in which Barnabas had been a colleague. He was absolutely his own master, and tho he had the most intense desire to keep on terms with Jerusalem and maintain the unity of the body of Christ, he was jealous of his Apostolic independence and resented Jewish Christian intrusion into his churches. When his work in the Algean regions was done, his mind turned to Spain (Ro 15 24). He would not build on another man’s foundation (Ro 15 21; II Co 10 16), and evidently, as Zahn suggests, Egypt and Rome were already occupied. 10. Controversy over Admission of Gentiles. It is impossible to enter into the details of a life so rich, but some features in each period of it must be noted. The churches of Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe, founded during the first journey, are identified by many scholars—especially by Ramsay —with the churches of Galatia to which the Epistle is addressed (the South Galatian view). It is a serious but not conclusive argument against this that Paul addresses the churches in question as if they owed their being solely to him (Gal 4 13-20), whereas Barnabas was at this time his colleague and not his inferior. He could hardly have been men- tioned in the Epistle only to be censured for ‘dis- simulation,’ bréxerats (213). (But see Acts, § 8, and Gauatians, § 4.) Against this it is to be noted that from Ac 13 9 Paul becomes the leader of the enterprise (cf. ver. 13, ‘Paul and his company’; ver. 16, ‘Paul’; vs. 43-50, ‘Paul and Barnabas’). However, whether they were or were not the churches of Galatia, it was in connection with them that the controversy broke out which was the subject of the Epistle to the Galatians. While he preached in Pisidia and Lycaonia—which were included in the Roman province of Galatia—Paul had been harassed by unbelieving Jews; after his return, his gospel was challenged by Jewish Christians, who found it not false, but imperfect. They said ‘it is needful to circumcise them’ (the Gentile converts) ‘and to charge them to keep the law of Moses’ (Ac 15 5). Paul had evidently preached the gospel implied in his conversion, that Christ crucified and exalted, and the soul’s response to Him in faith, are the whole of Christianity; and to him it was as much treason to Christ to supplement this gospel as to supplant it. .To condition the Christian standing of the Gentiles by anything statutory was to give it up altogether, and tho Paul was quite willing to be a Jew to Jews (I Co 9 20), he would resist to the uttermost any suggestion that the Gentile must become a Jew in order to be in the full sense a Christian. This would not only mean that he him- self had run in vain (ets xevév, Gal 2 2), but that Christ had died for nothing (8woedky, ver. 21). 11. The Council Decree. The provisional settle- Paul A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 688 ment of this question is recorded in Ac ch. 15. Whether Paul is referring to this settlement in Gal ch. 2 is very doubtful. Some scholars, on the basis | of the ‘South Galatian’ view, hold that the Epistle to the Galatians was the first of Paul’s letters, and was written in the first heat of the controversy from Antioch before the Council was held; and there is much to be said for this conclusion: for (1) it re- moves the difficulty of reconciling the accounts in Ac ch. 15 and Gal ch. 2 of Paul’s visit to Jerusalem; (2) the conduct of Paul, Peter, and Barnabas as depicted in Gal is more intelligible before than after the decrees in Ac ch. 15 (per contra, see GALATIANS, §3). This decree was entirely in Paul’s favor. Nothing was added to his gospel; he was recognized as the Apostle of the Gentiles, whose ministry to them had been sealed by God as effectively as that of Peter to the Jews. There is no sufficient reason to question the genuineness of the ‘apostolic decree’ in Ac 15 231. If the concessions required of the Gen- tile Christians had been required as conditions of salvation, Paul could not have accepted them; but as ‘articles of peace,’ concessions made in love to brethren whose Jewish habits gave them a natural horror of certain things they are quite in the spirit of I Co chs. 8-10. The decree, however, assuming its genuineness, did not settle everything. By the concessions it required from Gentiles it secured to an appreciable extent the peace of mixed congregations and the unity of the Church, but it said nothing about the relation to the Mosaic law of Christians who were born Jews. The Pharisees might still say it was religiously binding on such, and therefore, for ex- ample, on Paul; whereas the logic of Paul’s gospel— as malignity enabled his enemies to see (Ac 21 21)— pointed unambiguously to the conclusion that the Law had now as little importance for the Jew as for the Gentile. It was in principle abolished by Christianity. Christ was the end of it to every believer (Ro 10 4). In this there were possibilities of future strife and bitterness which time did not fail to develop. 12. The Galatia of Ac 166. The second missionary journey, however, does not seem to have been much troubled by them. Paul, who had parted unhappily from Barnabas, seemingly over John Mark (Ac 15 37), perhaps for deeper reasons, if what is recorded in Gal 2 13 had already taken place, had taken Silas for his companion, and at Lystra added Timothy as his assistant (Ac 16 3). He carried conciliation to the very verge of his principles when he circum- cised Timothy. The text and meaning of Ac 16 6 are both in dispute. According to the ‘North Gala- tian’ view, Paul now passed through the Phrygian and Galatic country after and because he was hin- dered by the Holy Spirit from going W. into Asia to Ephesus. This would be the occasion on which he 1Cf, Lightfoot on Gal, ad loc.; Chase, Hulsean Lecture, pp. 93 ff.; von Dobschiitz, Probleme, p. 86, thinks the decree misplaced in Acts. Paul, he argues, clearly hears of it for the first time on a later visit to Jerusalem at 21 %; it was a measure adopted in the regions of Syria and Cilicia after he had left them for good, and was at work in the Asian-European field. (But see Acts, § 8.) For the non-canonical text and interpretation of the decree cf. Harnack, Die Apostel- geschichte, pp. 188 ff. (Eng. transl., pp. 248 ff.). first visited Galatia, and the Galatia now visited would be the part of Asia Minor ethnographically as well as politically entitled to the name. (But see Acts, § 8; GavaTiAns, § 4.) Sickness had delayed him, and the Galatians gave him and his message an enthusiastic welcome (Gal 4 13). He had delivered the Apostolic decrees to the churches he founded in common with Barnabas (Ac 16 4), but in this in- dependent mission there is no mention of them, and this may be why they are not alluded to in the account given in Gal of the controversy at Jerusalem. According to the ‘South Galatian’ view, Paul did not necessarily visit Galatia proper at all; and if the Epistle is dated early its references are to the first missionary journey, and not to the second. 13. First European Work. Still Divinely guided and controlled, the Apostle reaches the other side of the Aégean, and plants Christianity in the great provinces of Macedonia and Achaia. In the former, he had the churches he loved best (Thessalonica, Philippi); in the latter, his most successful, or at least his best-known foundation (Corinth). It was from Corinth, during his stay of eighteen months, that he wrote the Epistles to the Thessa- lonians, the contents of which mus not, however, be regarded as constituting the whole of his gospel at this stage of his work. InI Th 1 10 (monotheism and the second advent); I Co 2 2, 15 3; Gal 31 (Christ crucified, an atonement for sins), we see the substance of his preaching during this journey; in I Co 9 19-23 the principles on which he acted. In Thessalonica and Corinth he worked at his trade and burdened no one; but twice in Thessalonica he consented to accept help from his friends in Philippi (Ph 416). When Paul bade farewell to the brethren in Greece, he was accompanied by two new and devoted friends, Aquila and Prisca (Ac 18 2; Ro 16 3). The ship in which he sailed from Cenchreze touched at Ephesus, and he had time to enter the synagog and talk with the Jews, but, tho he promised to return, he cound not stay (Ac 18 19 f.). 14. Further Asia Minor Work. Of the visit to Jerusalem and to the church there which closed this journey, Luke tells nothing (Ac 18 22). Perhaps there was nothing pleasing to tell. If Gal was written at the later date, we may from it partially reconstruct Paul’s experience on this third journey in the following way: Paul may have become aware now of the opposition which was being organized against his work by Jewish Christians, and which came out soon after at Antioch in the hostile pres- sure brought to bear upon Peter by ‘certain from James’ (Gal 2 12). The ‘epistles of commenda- tion’ (II Co 3 1) may have already been given to the men whom in the course of his third journey we find in Galatia preaching another gospel (Gal 1 6), in Corinth assailing his apostleship, and claim- ing on ‘carnal’ ground a relation to Christ which he could not claim (I Co ch. 9; II Co chs. 3, 10, 11 22), and, worst of all, preaching ‘another Jesus’ whom Paul did not preach—.e., a Jesus in the sense of Jewish nationalism and its hopes (II Co 11 4), not ‘the Son of God who was preached among you by us,’ as he writes to the Corinthians (II Co 1 19), ‘by me and Silvanus and Timothy.’ The atmosphere 098 off oft 508 08% HEED cee se OOF gta FG OpNaTSUOT 086 | SS eee ; Feddor 28 \ oa ULFEALBS -_ | a yganset) | _ : ! sypute[(Old Ayia BO*BSERD goats ‘: uopls \" a \ a ome agro LEL Ut 1192020 02 pattafsitnr, som wruopohT utsyznoy yy? 2d00%9) ‘AV 986 02 dF 90L mous v2nIMH H20U200UT “a'¥ 90107 ‘d'V ZL Moufv2yIDD vUII0NT ‘A'V BZ) 0} 114N]DH N10U200NT ‘O'H 0F 92 '0'T 9g3 Mouf 14M] DH [ Ost 00T 0g oo 0 S3TIW SO 31V0S GINYOM ANTITAVd AHL AD aust) } s gid es "hd : y asoplug P wa soo 8) SO Q P vi, ie) NIST. otadiePelld puatug VI@QAT Wy o yoy eagshT? oS) ¢ | amy eooy-PNELD Te ‘ ° soursisg So 7 . ( / uo0rysureapyo 4 a TC iS¢ 4a SN Fe WA: 23 | LS Yeouo ooiztg bah hiss NY Y povinsonve’S Q aes a } rc > 3 $ LE SG we 689 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Paul in which all this was organized can not have been pleasant for Paul, and very likely his stay was short. At Antioch he lingered longer, making his way via the Galatic country and Phrygia to Ephesus. Dur- ing this second visit to Galatia, according to the ‘North Galatian’ view (implied in td xeétepov, Gal 4 13; the first is alluded to in Ac 16 6), he was able to warn the disciples (Gal 1 9) against the new gospel which was no gospel, but which was so soon -to bewitch them. Ephesus was now for three years Paul’s center; ‘All they that dwelt in [Roman] Asia heard the word of the Lord, both Jews and Greeks’ (Ac 19 10), partly by Paul’s voice, partly through Pauline Christians like Epaphras (Col 1 7), who introduced the gospel into Colossx, and possibly to places like Hierapolis and Laodicea (Col 2 1, 4 13; Rev ch. 2 f.), where the disciples had not seen Paul’s face in the flesh. 15. Troubles in the Corinthian Church. Into the complicated questions connected with Paul’s rela- tion to Corinth while at Ephesus it is impossible to enter here. We know that I Co was written from Ephesus, near the end of his stay (16 5-9); that he had written an earlier letter now lost (I Co 59); that he had paid a visit to Corinth (his second) in dis- tressing circumstances (II Co 21, 1214, 131); that he had written in connection with this another letter, probably lost (tho some seek it in IIT Co 10 1-13 10. See CorInTHIANS, EPISTLES TO THE, § 11), ‘out of much affliction and anguish of heart, and with many tears’ (II Co 2 4); and that what we call II Co, assuming its unity, was written from Mace- donia, to which province he proceeded when he was expelled from Ephesus. The distressing circum- stances referred to, which were connected with a personal injury of some kind, had been overcome by the letter written ‘out of much affliction,’ and are finally disposed of in II Co chs. 1-7; chs. 8 and 9 deal with the collection he is making for the poor at Jerusalem (Gal 2 10), and chs. 10-18, on this view, deal with the general condition of the Corinthian church—especially the opposition in it to Paul’s apostleship and gospel, and the survivals in the com- munity of pagan immorality (but see CoRINTHIANS, EPISTLES TO THE, §§ 8-11). He followed his letter quickly, and in the three winter months which he spent in Corinth wrote the Epistle to the Romans. Some scholars also place Gal in this period on the ground that it contains a developed theology, the result of Paul’s experience as a preacher, and that it has a close affinity with Ro. But neither of these reasons is conclusive. As has already been shown, Paul’s conversion contained implicitly his distinctive gospel; he was then a man of mature age, a learned thinker, who could very rapidly make explicit to himself what was implicit; there is nothing in Gal which would require a theological development covering a number of years after his conversion. The theology of Ga as of Ro represents ‘no tempor- ary phase of his thinking,’ but the gospel he preached at all times. ‘The resemblance is due not to nearness in time, but to oneness of faith.’ (See Garvie’s Life and Teaching of Paul, pp. 40-47.) Reasons have already been given for an earlier dating of Ga. This earlier date is possible only on the ‘South Galatian’ view, but does not necessarily follow from it (per contra, see GALATIANS, Ep. To, §§ 4 f.). All the Epistles of this period deal with the gospel as a doctrine of redemption. They argue, as against men who would introduce a statutory element into Christianity, that it is entirely an affair of grace and of inspiration; that the security in it for holiness is not any system of commands or prohibitions, but union with Christ, the sense of debt to Him, and the indwelling of His spirit; and that apostleship does not depend on historical relation to Jesus, which is in itself of no value, but on the revelation of the Risen Lord (Gal 1 16), the comprehension of the new covenant (II Co ch. 3), a life of devoted ser- vice and suffering (II Co chs. 6 and 11), and the Divine attestation of success in evangelic work (I Co 9 2; IT Co 3 2 f.). Ro expounds systematically in calmness of spirit the theology stated controver- sially with some heat of temper in Gal—an addi- tional reason for allowing a considerable lapse of time between the two epistles. 16. Final Jerusalem Journey. When Paul left Corinth in the spring for Jerusalem he was attended by delegates from most of his churches (Ac 20 4; II Co 8 19; I Co 16 3), in joint charge of ‘the collec- tion’ (I Co 161). He hoped this great proof of Gen- tile love would unite the churches and conciliate good-will at Jerusalem to himself and his gospel, but he was very anxious and uncertain (Ro 15 30.), and against all omens pressed on under some Divine compulsion (Ac 20 23, 21 4, 11-14). The event justified his fears. The N T tells nothing of the way in which the collection was accepted, but we see from Ac 21 20 that the Pharisaic party had entire ascen- dency in the church, and tho Paul, to conciliate them, carried compliance to an extreme which it is hard to justify on his own principles (Ac 21 23-26), yet when he fell into the hands of his Jewish enemies, the church does not appear to have done anything to help him. 17. Voyage to Rome. After appearing before the Sanhedrin at Jerusalem, and before Felix and Festus at Cesarea, he was compelled to protest against injustice and delay (he had been a prisoner fully two years, Ac 24 27) by exercising his right as a Roman citizen to appeal to the emperor. The voyage to Rome is told by an eye-witness (Ac 27 1-28 16). Paul was probably handed over at its close to the princeps peregrinorum (officer in charge of the foreigners), in a kind of military custody. He rented a house in which for two years he carried on his work unimpeded. The Epistles of his imprison- ment belong to this period, and Philippians, which was certainly written in Rome (Colossians [q.v.] and Philemon [q.v.] are by some referred to the Cesarean imprisonment), throws some light on the situation. The gospel had adherents in the palace (Ph 4 22), but there were much dissension and ill-feeling among Christians themselves, even among those engaged in evangelizing (1 15. See Puiziprians, § 1). Loyal and disinterested men, with no by-ends in their Christian work, were rare (2 21). The Pharisaic- Christian propaganda against Paul’s work was still going on, and the Apostle warns his beloved Philip- pians against it in one of his most passionate and Paul A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 690 (But see Puitiprrans, § 1.) The great characteristic of the prison Epistles, scornful outbursts (8 2). however, is their Christology. It is perhaps in- correct, in view of I Co 8 6, II Co 89, to speak of an advance or development in Paul’s thought; every- thing is latent in these passages which is unfolded in Col 1 13 ff.; Ph 2 5 ff. But where asin the con- troversial Epistles of the third journey (I and II Co, Gal, Ro) Christianity is presented as a doctrine of redemption having the Son of God indeed as its cen- ter (Ro 1 4; II Co 1 19), it is in the Epistles of the imprisonment presented more directly as a doctrine of Christ. If this needs to be supplemented, we may add—and of the Church as the body of Christ. Christ is in the forefront in Col, the body of Christ in Eph. The sum of both may be given in the words of Col 2 9: ‘In him dwelleth all the fulness of the godhead bodily, and in him ye are made full.’ Christ has absolute significance for the Apostle; all things have to be defined by relation to Him. God is revealed in Him alone; creation is constituted in Him alone; the Church is brought into being, and has its being, in Him alone. No one knows what God is, or the universe, or the Church, or redemption, apart from Him; but in Him the full and final mean- ing of all is disclosed. The Apostle, so to speak, takes the metaphysical responsibilities of his doctrine of redemption, and sets the example to believers of Christianizing all their ideas of God, man, and the universe. Christ is held up not only as a historical person, with whom the Twelve had associated—not only as a representative or a universal person, the second Adam—but unequivocally as an eternal and Divine person. The occasion for this, no doubt, lay in external circumstances; but the possibility of it and the impulse to it could only lie within, in the Christian experience of the Apostle himself (see Couossians, § 2, and Epumsrans, § 4). 18. Release and Second Imprisonment. The life of Paul can not be clearly traced beyond Ac 28 31. If the imprisonment at Rome here recorded ended in condemnation and his death, the author of Ac must have known, and it is difficult to say why he not only did not tell, but actually suggests (as ver. 30 f. do) the opposite, unless he intended, as has been suggested, to write a third treatise. A favor- able issue to his trial was also confidently expected by Paul himself; see Phm ver. 22; Ph 1 24 ff., 2 24, from which it appears that he meant after his long confinement to visit his churches in Macedonia and Asia. Further, the Pastoral Epistles, whether genuine or not, show that this view was prevalent in the early Church (but see Trmoruy and Titus, Epp. To). If the Pastoral Epistles are genuine they show that Paul’s appeal to Cesar was suc- cessful; that he obtained his liberty and revisited many of the scenes of his former activity (Ephesus, Macedonia, Troas, Corinth, Miletus), besides break- ing new ground (Crete, Nicopolis in Epirus); and that he carried through an organizing work, of which Ac has no record. Whether he succeeded in his plan of advancing to Spain is not certain: the reference to ‘the limit of the West’ (cd téoua cig Sbcews) in Clement of Romeisan argument that he did. If this assumption is correct, Paul was acquitted on his first trial before the Neronian persecution broke out in 64 a.p.; but as all tradition ascribes his martyr- dom to Nero, he must have been rearrested, and have undergone the imprisonment referred to in the Pastorals, before that emperor died in 68. (See for Pauline dates, in general, New TESTAMENT CHRO- NoLogy.) It is, however, maintained by some scholars that the Pastoral Epistles can not be re- garded as genuine, altho they contain authentic fragments, dealing with events, persons and situa-. tions which can be fitted into the historical frame- work of Acts. Dr. Harrison has worked out such a theory in great detail, having dealt with the lin- guistic phenomena more fully than has been done before. (See Pasrorat Epistues.) LireRAtuRE: The best short introduction to St. Paul’s life and work is Sabatier’s L’Apétre Paul (Eng. transl. edited by Findlay, 1896); Lewin’s Life and Epp. of St. Paul (21875); Ramsay’s St. Paul the Traveler (1896), and The Church in the Roman Empire (1893); A. Deissmann, Paul - (Eng. transl. 1912), most instructive as to Paul’s relation to contemporary conditions; A. E. Garvie, The Ife and Teaching of Paul (1910); H. Weinel, St. Paul, the Man and His Work (1906), are all helpful for understanding the outward conditions which affected Paul’s work. Of his experience attractive presentations are offered by Gardner, The Religious Experience of St. Paul (1911), and Deissmann, The Religion of Jesus and the Faith of Paul (1924), altho the second unduly depreciates the value of St. Paul as a theologian. His significance for to-day is discussed in Peabody, The Apostle Paul and the Modern World (1923); ef. also D. M. Ross, The Faith of St. Paul (1923); C. H. Dodd, The Meaning of Paul for To-day (1923); % f-), This confusion is the more easily explained if the Johannine writings originated in the Province of Asia, where Hierapolis, the later home of Philip the Evangelist, was a very early Christian center (Col 4 3, Cf. Bousset, Theol. Rundschau, July, 1905, p. 293 f.). 2. Philip the Evangelist, first mentioned in Ac 65 as one of those appointed to oversee the distribution of alms to widows. All the persons mentioned in this list have Greek names, which would seem to indicate Philip’s Hellenistic origin. This makes all the more natural his missionary activity after the persecution occasioned by the work of Stephen (Ac 8 4£.). It accounts also for his later residence in Cesarea, which there is no reason to question (Ac 21 8). Like some of the Apostles, Philip was married, and according to Ac 219, had four daughters, virgin prophetesses. Our later information concerning him and them is derived largely from the Montanists. Proclus, quoted by Caius (about 210), says (Eus. H#, ITI, 31 4) that ‘after him [some unknown prophet] there were four prophetesses, the daughters of Philip at Hierapolis in Asia. Their tomb is there and that of their father.’ Polycrates (Eus. HH, ITI, 31 3; V, 24) mentioned only three daughters of Philip, two buried at Hierapolis, and one in Ephesus. The fourth may have died before Philip’s removal from Cesarea. The later tradition, according to which this Philip was bishop of Tralles (Menol. Basil, in Migne, vol. exvil, col, 104, 168), is plainly an attempt to dis- tinguish again between this Philip and the Apostle. 3. Philip the Tetrarch. One of thesons of Herodthe Great by Cleopatra of Jerusalem (Jos. Ant. XVII, 1 3) and a stepbrother of Herod Antipas (q.v.). By his father’s will he was assigned the territory of Gaulanitis, Trachonitis, Batanea and Panias (Jos. Ant. XVII, 81; cf. Lk 31), with the title of tetrarch The appointment was confirmed by Augustus (Ant. XVII, 11 4, Gaulanitis omitted and Auranitis added). Lk 19 12 #. may be an allusion to or reminiscence of Philip’s visit to Rome at thistime. He married Salome, the daughter of Herodias (Jos. Ant. XVIII, 5 4), the wife first of his half-brother Herod and then of another half-brother (Herod Antipas), so that He- rodias wasreally the stepmother of Philip, not his wife, as represented in Mk 617 ||, Mt 143; unless, indeed Herod, the first husband of Herodias and father of Salome, bore also the name Philip, which, however, remains conjectural. Cf. Schirer, GVJ°, vol. I, p. 435, note 19, and per contra, Swete, Com. on Mk, in loc. His reign covered a period of nearly forty years (4 B.c. to 34 a.v.), after which his territory became a part of the province of Syria (Jos. Ant. XVIII, 48). Like his father, he was a great builder. He was a just man, on the whole the best of the Herods. See CSAREA Puitippi; and Heron, § 6. Lirerature: The fullest discussion of the relation between Philip the Apostle and Philip the Evangelist is that of Zahn in Forschungen, VI, pp. 158-175. Cf. also Schmiedel, EB, art. ‘Philip’. For Philip the Tetrarch consult Schirer, GJV8, I, 425 ff. JeiMak, PHILIPPI, fi-lip’ai (®fArrxor): A city and fortress in Macedonia, near the Thracian frontier, situated on a steep hill overlooking the valley of the Angites (Gangites) river, bordered on the N. by forests, on the 8. by a marsh, beyond which is the sea. Its sea- port was Neapolis. Its original name was Crenides, from numerous springs (xefqvn) about the hill. It was the location of an Athenian colony after 360 B.c. Crenides was captured by Philip of Macedon in 358 and renamed Philippi. Its chief importance for him consisted in the gold-mines, called Asyla, in the neighboring hill of Dionysus, and P. was not far from the auriferous Mt. Pangeus. It passed to Rome 168 8.c. P. emerged from obscurity in 42 B.c., when it was the scene of the great battle between Octavius and’ Antony on the one side, and Brutus and Cassius on the other—each with nineteen le- gions. It was on the heights of P. that Cassius com- mitted suicide after the battle which cost him 8,000 men, while Octavius and Antony lost 16,000. Later, Augustus made P. a Roman colony with the name Colonia Julia Philippensis, which probably after the battle of Actium was changed to Colonia Augusia Julia Philippensiwm, when its citizens received the tus italicum (=immunitas et libertas). As a Roman colony, P. began to outstrip Amphipolis and to lay claim to the dignity and title of ‘first’ city (Ac 16 12) when visited by Paul about 50 a.p.; Luke was per- haps a native but non-resident of Philippi, and the ‘man of Macedonia’ who appeared to Paul in a vision (Ac 169-10). P. was the scene of a great event in Paul’s life (Ac 16 11 ff.) and the home of the first Christian church on European soil, to which ten years later Paul adressed an Epistle. Early in the 2d cent. Ignatius visited P. on the way to martyr- dom, and Polycarp addressed to the church at P. an Epistle. J. R.S. S.*—S, AL Philippians, Epistle to Bonete A NEW STANDARD PHILIPPIANS, EPISTLE TO THE: One of Paul’s Epistles, addressed ‘to the saints that are at Philippi with the bishops and deacons.’ 1. Paul and the Philippian Church. Paul’s interest in Philippi began with the visit in answer to the call to ‘come over to Macedonia and help us’ (Ac 166f.). Whether the man of Macedonia was Luke, and whether Luke was a native of the town, as Ramsay argues, we do not know. Paul heeded the call, and arriving at Philippi, he found a group of ‘devout persons’ (‘God fearers’) from among the Gentiles, headed by Lydia (q.v.). His unfolding of the {Gospel to them at the ‘place of prayer’ (See Prayer, § 3) resulted in the formation of the Philippian church, of which the jailer in the city doubtless became a prominent member. With this church Paul sustained especially cordial rela- tions. He made two, possibly three, visits to it and twice at least (possibly four times) the church sent him gifts (416 and II Cor 119, ef. Ph 415). The last of these gifts had arrived some time before the writ- ing of the Epistle. It had come by the hands of Epaphroditus as a token of the church’s devotion to him. When Epaphroditus fell sick the Apostle was much distressed both personally and because of the Philippian Church’s interest in him. No other church, so far as we know, was as loyal to Paul and none responded to his leadership with as clear an understanding of his ideas. He regards their Christian life as a vindication of his ministry and a source of satisfaction to himself (2 15, 16, 4 1). 2. Occasion, Object, Characteristics. The special occasion of the Epistle was the arrival of Epaphro- ditus with a gift of money from the Philippian Christians (2 25, 4 18), and its object is to express Paul’s gratification and gratitude for this kindness. Other matters are included in the writing, such as the exhortation to harmony, to self-forgetful service of one another, warnings against Judaistic teachings and licentious lives. But these are subsidiary and incidental. Hence the characteristic of the writing is predominantly that of joy (‘epistola de gaudio,’ Bengel). The doctrinal element in it is comparatively small; but so much of it as the Apostle has felt called upon to include (2 5-9) has served as the basis of a most stimulating discussion on the method of the incarnation. 3. Date and Place of Writing. That the Epistle was written from some prison is explicitly stated (1 20). But from what prison? Until recently, there was one imprisonment of Paul’s certainly known and another held to be most probable. The first be- tween 56 and 61 a.p. consisting of two stages, namely in Cesarea and Rome; the second, in Rome, traditionally placed in the Mamertine, whence Paul was led to execution. This latter could not have been the imprisonment referred to in Philippians. In 1900, H. Lisco of Berlin (Vineula Sanctorum) suggested the possibility of an earlier imprisonment at Ephesus (before 55). Deissmann came inde- pendently to the same conclusion (Light from the Ancient East, 1910, pp. 229-231), and later: in his contribution to Anatolian Studies, etc., in honor of Sir W. M. Ramsay (1924)), attaching to it the theory that the ‘Letters of the Captivity’ were BIBLE DICTIONARY 708 written at this time. Others have given their sup- port to this view (Kirsopp Lake, B. W. Bacon, B. W. Robinson). But upon the whole, the theory has not advanced beyond the stage of a hypothesis. Per contra, the considerations in favor of the older view that the imprisonment during which Paul wrote letters was the Caesarean-Roman, gained strength with the more thorough discussion of the question. There remains, however, the further problem as to whether Paul wrote Philippians from Cesarea or from Rome. The internal evidence points to Rome. Only here could Paul have been in touch with Christians belonging to ‘Cesar’s household’ (4 22). In Cesarea the phrase could only have meant the official group in the headquarters of the Imperial government, which is very improbable. Rome was also a place where many were active in the propaga- tion of the Gospel, some moved by genuine zeal, and others out of ‘faction, not sincerely’ (1 14-18). The mention of the ‘Pretorian guard’ (113) also indicates Rome. Furthermore, the relation of Philippians with Philemon and the probability that Paul would come into touch with Onesimus in Rome rather than in Cesarea, confirms this view. Accordingly, the general consensus of scholarship fixes upon Rome as the place of the writing. But if Paul wrote it at Rome, did he do so during the earlier or the later portion of his imprisonment there? From the affinities of thought and spirit between it and Ro on one side, and the other Epis- tles of the imprisonment on the other side, shading off as they do into the Pastorals, Lightfoot (Philip. pp. 30 ff.) argued for the earlier date. Ph would thus be a connecting-link between the four great doctrinal Epistles and the later writings of Paul. On the other side, in behalf of the lateness of Ph, it has been said that the Roman imprisonment is assumed in it to be a matter of some standing (1 7, 13 f., 17); that the Apostle is looking forward to his speedy liberation (1 25, 2 23 f.); that it presupposes at least four journeys between Philippi and Rome as having taken place since Paul’s arrival at Rome; and finally that at the time of the writing Paul’s companions had left the city, since he does not mention them by name in his salutations, but, on the contrary, ex- plicitly says that he was left alone (2 19, 20). Accord- ingly, the great majority of later investigators (Weiss, Godet, Holtzmann, Jiilicher, Vincent, Zahn) have dated the Epistle from the last days of the im- prisonment (63 or, better, 61 a.D.). 4. Contents. The salutation (1 1, 2), in which Paul joins Timothy’s name with his own, is followed by an expression of thanksgiving. ‘This is based upon Paul’s personal relations with those addressed, their fellowship in the furtherance of the gospel, and their general steadfastness in the spiritual life. The thanksgiving imperceptibly passes into a devout prayer for their spiritual progress and comfort (1 3-11). The Apostle then gives them an account of his own circumstances, especially of his efforts to promote the spread of the gospel, and those of some who preached not sincerely, but ‘of envy and strife’ (112-26). This is followed by an exhortation to unity and lowliness of mind (self-forgetfulness in the ser- vice of others), taking Jesus Christ as their model 709 A NEW STANDARD (1 27-2 11) and, to stimulate them still further in this course, he appeals to them on the ground of his personal relation to them and the joy that he and they should have in one another (2 12-18). He then tells them of his intentions, the proposed visit of Timothy, and of the illness and recovery and mis- sion of Epaphroditus (2 19-30). At this point there occurs a rather abrupt turn from personal to more general affairs. The Apostle begins with the exhorta- tion to ‘rejoice,’ As he has prefixed the word ‘finally’ to the expression, it would be natural to suppose that he was about to close the letter; but either because, after an interruption involving an interval of time, he has seen the need for writing to them upon a new subject, or because, while even writing he has real- ized such a need, the Apostle breaks into a warning against the danger from the influence of Judaizing teaching among them. He illustrates by the con- | trast of the Jewish Law and the experience of grace in his own past life what he wishes them to take into account (3 1-16); but this easily leads to another im- plicit warning against the very opposite danger from the side of disregard of moral law as exemplified in the lives of some who observe no law but that of their fleshly natures (8 17-41). At this point the Apostle - returns to his exhortation, asking two of the mem- bers of the Philippian Church (Euodia and Syn- tyche) to put their dissensions aside (4 2, 3). He ex- horts all to joyfulness, to a sturdy resistance of the spirit of anxiety, and to the pursuit of all things good and noble (4 4-9). The last paragraph (4 10-20) is reserved for an acknowledgment of the pecuniary contribution sent to the Apostle through Epaphro- ditus, concluding with an expression of his assurance that the spirit of kindness which prompted his readers to this deed would have its adequate reward The Epistle then ends with the usual salutations from ‘all the saints, especially them that are of Cesar’s household’ (4 21) and the benediction (4 22). 5. Genuineness and Unity. That Paul wrote the Epistle was first questioned by Evanson (Disso- nance, etc., 1792, p. 263), but the real discussion of the subject was not begun until Baur classified it with the ‘conciliatory tendency’ documents, pro- duced toward the end of the Judaistic controversy. But tho Baur’s followers (Schwegler, Holsten, etc.) for a time persisted in the denial of the Pauline authorship of the Epistle, under the repeated search- ing investigations given the subject from a less biased point of view (Hilgenfeld, Pfleiderer, Jii- licher) its genuineness has been brought more and more clearly into view. In more recent years, an argument in favor of its pseudonymy has been at- tempted by van Manen (FB, s.v.; also Handl. d. Oudchrist. lett., 1900), but without any apparent im- pression on the majority of scholars. But, assuming its genuineness, the further ques- tion of the unity of the writing has been raised. On the strength of an allusion by Polycarp to ‘epistles’ by Paul to the Philippians, Le Moyne (Varia Sacra) propounded the view that the writing as extant consists of two Epistles fused into one in the process of transmission. This view has been made the basis of efforts to separate what precedes 3 1 and what follows, and to construct each into a distinct Epistle. BIBLE DICTIONARY __ Philippians, Epistle to But the language of Polycarp implies nothing more than that Paul had communicated with the Philip- pians by letter, the plural being, as is often the case, a more vivid form of the singular; and all efforts at the partition of the Epistle have been unsuccessful. This is also true of more recent attempts to disprove its integrity (Spitta, Zur Geschichte u. Lit. d. Urchris- tenthums, 1893; C. Clemen, Die Einheit d. paulin. Briefe, 1894). LITERATURE: Weiss, Der Philipperbrief (1859); Lightfoot, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians (1885); J. Agar Beet, Commentary on Eph, Ph, Col, and Phm (1891); Vincent, Ph and Phm in ICC (1897); G. Currie Martin in New Century Bible (1902); Maurice Jones in Westminster Comm. (1917). Cf. also Introductions to the N T by Zahn, Salmon, Weiss, Godet, Jiilicher, ete. AT Cc. Z. PHILISTIA, fi-lis’ti-a or -list’ya, PHILISTIM, fi-lis‘tim, PHILISTINES, fi-lis’tinz (NY22, p-lesheth, "AY ?B plishtt): 1. Name. The term ‘Philistia’ designated a strip of fertile land including many towns between the Mediterranean and the Sheph- elah, beginning S. of Joppa and stretching indefi- nitely to the borders of Egypt. The name is the basis of the term ‘Palestine.’ It was already given by the Assyrians as early as 800 B.c. (Palastu, Pilistu, Schrader) broadly to southern Palestine. By the Egyptians, however, only the Philistines are ex- pressly named (Pulesati, in the monuments of the reign of Rameses III). The O T usage of the name Philistine is peculiar. In the singular it is given to individuals only (Goliath, I 8 17 8, 18 3, etc.) and only in the plural to the people as a whole, differing in this from other gentilic adjectives (e.g., Hittite, Hivite, Canaanite, etc.), which are used collectively. This usage points to a sense of difference between the Philistines and other non-Israelites, and is sup- ported by the translation of the term in the LXX. into &AAéquAct (but sometimes uvAtottefy), and also by the fact that the Philistines are preeminently ‘the uncircumcised.’ 2. Origin and Affiliations. Recent investigations have led to the conclusion, now generally adopted, that the Philistines were one of the group of ‘sea peoples’ which in the latter part of the 18th and early part of the 12th cent. B.c. overran the E. Med. coast region (and even attempted the conquest of Egypt), and broke up the Hittite control of N. Syria. The Philistines (7.e., Pulesati, their own name, as given in the Egn. inscriptions) settled on the sea- coast of ‘Palestine’ (then Canaan) giving their own name to the region. ‘These people were non-Sem- itic in origin, hailing from Crete (probably) and also from the islands of the Au¥gean and the SE. coast of Asia Minor, whence they were driven by the for- ward movement of other peoples (perhaps the Phrygians). 3. Organized Life. Religion. The organization of the Philistines was effected around the five principal cities of Philistia (Ashdod, Ashkelon, Ek- ron, Gaza, and Gath). Whatever primitive tribal distinctions may have existed among them (Caph- torim, Cherethim, Philistim) were completely dis- placed by this redistribution of the population ac- cording to which each principal city became the center of a circuit and gave its name to its inhabi- tants (Ashdodite, Gittite, etc.). These five circuits Philistia Phebe A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 710 were ruled over by five lords (s*ranim, always used in pl., Jg 3 3; Jos 13 3; 18 58, 6 16, etc.), and appear to have been independent of one another, tho they commonly acted in concert, betraying the existence of a more centralized rule not specifically named. Whether the office of ‘lord’ was hereditary or elec- tive, and whether it involved military as well as civil functions, and, further, what was its exact relation to that of king (e.g., Achish of Gath, IS 21 11, etc.; Mittinti of Askelon, and Hanun of Gath, Keilins. Bibl. II, 20), does not appear clearly. Special commanders are, however, named ‘princes,’ sdrim, more correctly ‘chieftains’ (I S 18 30, 29 2), who evidently had charge of the armies (I § 23 3, 28 1). Their religion, which was probably either altogether or partly borrowed from the Canaanites whom they conquered, shows Semitic character- istics such as the worship of divinities in pairs (Dagon and a fish-goddess, Marna and Derke- to, apud Diod. II, 4) and Semitic divine names (the foregoing as well as Baalzebub). They had sooth- sayers (Is 2 6) and priests and diviners (I S 6 2) as well as temples (Jg 16 26). 4. History of the Philistines. The Philistines make their appearance in history at nearly the same time with the Israelitic invasion of Canaan. It was inevitable that, sooner or later, the Israelites, as masters of the highland, and the Philistines, in control of the coast, should come into conflict. In the first stage of the conflict which ensued their higher development as a military people gave them the decided advantage (Jg 107 #.). In spite of tem- porary checks to their encroachments (Jg 3 31), they succeeded in bringing the Israelitic tribes under their yoke. The conquest was completed during the last years of Eli, when they captured and carried into their own territory the emblem of Israel’s nascent national life, the Ark of the Covenant (IS chs. 4 f.). The weakness of Israel, however, was only the result of inexperience and lack of organization, and when, under Saul, unity of action and strong leadership were attained, the Philistine yoke was shaken off, and under David the oppressors were even put under Israelitic suzerainty (II S 81, 21 15 f.). For the rest of the period of their independent existence, Philistines and Israelites seem usually to have been at peace with each other, but occasional conflicts are noted in I K 15 27, and 1615 (9th cent.) and in II K 18 8 (8th cent.). The Assyrians in their invasions of' Palestine found much in the Philistine cities to seize; and their monuments contain many accounts of attacks on them. Inthe Maccabean age the Jews appear to be in possession of Philistia. The name Philistine ‘was still, in the days of Josephus (Ant. I, 6 2), used mainly of Philistia, tho the application of it to {the whole land of Israel had already come into use (Jos. Cont. Ap.I, 22). Cf. W. Max Miller, Asien und Europa, p. 387 ff., and for the later inves- tigations, Macalister, The Philistines, Their History and Civilization (1914); Cambridge Anc. History, Vol. IT (1924), p. 283 ff. A. C. Z.—E. E.N. PHILOLOGUS, fi-lel’o-gus (@:26Xov0¢): A Chris- tian in Rome to whom Paul sent a salutation (Ro 16 15), PHILOSOPHER (¢Aés090¢), PHILOSOPHY, gtAocopta, from ¢fdoc, ‘lover,’ and cogla, ‘wisdom’): 1. Origin of the Term. There is an ancient tra~ dition (Cicero, J'usc. V, 3) to the effect that the term was invented by Pythagoras; but it is not sufficiently supported. The earliest use of the word is in its strict etymological sense by Herodotus (1 3) in a passage where he represents Solon as traveling in search of wisdom (‘philosophizing’). Plato under- stands by philosophy, first, the Socratic love of the truth as distinguished from and opposed to the Sophistic assertion of it (Phedr. 278, ‘Wisdom be- longs only to God, man can be only a lover of wis- dom’ = ‘philospher.’ Cf. also Lysis, 218). Thus at its beginning, the term was intended to point out the relativity of knowledge; it shows the existence of a consciousness of limitations in knowing. It was an expression of modesty. But as the object of the search for the truth can not be anything short of the ultimate reality, Plato goes further and defines those as philosophers who set their affections on that which in each case really exists (Rep. 480). In the Platonic system, accordingly, philosophy is identi- fied with the more technical dialectics. With Ar- istotle, the first and most common sense of the word is left behind, but the technical sense develops into two branches according as the sphere of the search for wisdom is looked at narrowly or broadly. In the former case, there are many philosophies (Met. IV, 1, 1026, 18; Mathematics, Physics, Theology). In the latter sense, philosophy is the science of pure being (Met. VI, 1, 1026, 31; cf. XI, 3, 1060, 31), or as later renamed, metaphysics. The Stoics, consis- tently with their fundamental position that the essence of things is moral rather than intellectual, understood by philosophy a striving after virtue, which, however, they conceived broadly as including and dominating theoretical as well as_ practical affairs. Hence, according to them, philosophy is pro- ficiency in physics, ethics, and logic (Seneca, Epist. 89, 3). It is distinguished from ‘wisdom,’ which is the science of divine and human things (Plut. De Plac. Philos. 1, Proem). The Epicurean idea is, like the Stoic, associated with the notion of the supreme good. Epicurus himself is said to have defined philosophy as ‘the rational pursuit of happiness’ (Sext. Empir. Adv. Math, XI, 169). 2. Philosophy and Christianity. Thus at the time of the first preaching of Christianity, philosophy had secured a recognized place as the mistress of that peculiar province of knowledge which is ex- plored, not because of any need of outward life, but either from a simple desire for knowledge for its own sake, or as furnishing a unifying principle and goal for allaction. As suchit had been cultivated for over five centuries, and produced a number of con- crete systems, each aiming to set forth the inner unity of the universe and to make ultimate reality an object of definite knowledge. The earlier of these systems (Ionic, Eleatic, Heracleitean, Pythagorean, Anaxagorean, Atomistic, Sophistic, Socratic, Cy- renaic, and Cynic with minor variet:es) had lost their hold as final and satisfactory solutions of the probiem. The influence of Socrates was still per- ceptible through the systenis of Plato and Aristotle, Til A NEW STANDARD but these systems themselves were believed to need modification and development along certain lines. Of the post-Aristotelian philosophies, the Stoic and Epicurean were most widely held; and it is with these that Christianity came in contact. Of the pre-Christian Greek systems, however, Platonism had already touched and measurably affected Jew- ish thought in Alexandria, and thus also later en- tered into the formulation of Christianity so far as its doctrinal content was concerned. In another way, too, Christianity and philosophy came in con- .tact, z.e., when adherents of the former assumed an aggressive attitude within heathendom. 3. Philosophy and the N T. The explicit allusions to philosophy in the N T (Ac 17 18; Col 2 8) are naturally related to current forms, and indicate on the one side the recognition of common ground on which an understanding must be reached between the teachings of Christianity and those of philosophy;and on the other, irreconcilable differences on the ground of which the Christian teacher must warn his pupils against its illusive attractions. The philosophers of Ac 17 18 were evidently interested in Paul’s preach- ing, a fact largely due to their having grappled with the same problems as were presented most prom- inently by the Apostle in his preaching. The earlier Stoicism was pantheistic; the earlier Epicureanism agnostic, if not positively atheistic. But in the days of Paul these two types had drawn closer to each other, the former becoming more and more theistical and the latter deistical. By Epictetus (Diss. i, 9) God, without being completely detached from the universe, is recognized as Creator and Guardian and is even spoken of as Father of men. Seneca goes further, and makes conduct depend on the realiza- tion of God’s personal attention to human affairs. ‘So live among men as if the eye of God were upon you; and so address yourself to God as if men heard your prayer’ (Hpist. 10). And even Providence and immortality had come to be regarded as living issues in the realm of philosophy; and, what is more important from the practical point of view, the ruling place of philosophy in life was recognized. Cicero calls philosophy ‘the director of our lives, the friend of virtue and enemy of vice.’ So far as contemporary philosophy was busied about solving these problems, the first teachers of the gospel neither challenged it nor cast suspicion on its work and influence. Their attitude toward it was that of interested neutrality. The philosophers on their side, misled by the fact that the postulates and mediate aims of Christianity were so near akin to those of their own profession, regarded it as a species of philosophy, a view which gradually worked its way into Christian circles and became the dominant one in the 2d cent. under Justin Martyr and Tatian. 4. Abuse and Distrust of Philosophy. But philos- ophy had its imitations and illegitimate outgrowths. On account of these, both in the N T allusions to it and in the literature of the general period, a cer- tain undertone of distrust is perceptible and a cer- tain tendency to caution and discrimination in deal- ng with it. First of all, its votaries cultivated a quasi-Pharisaic contempt for the outside world. This gave rise to a series of personal traits and habits Philistia BIBLE DICTIONARY Phebe by which the philosopher was distinguished from the non-philosopher layman. The former was known for his long and unkempt hair and beard, his generally slovenly dress, his scorn for luxuries, and his alleged abstemiousness and self-contentment. It is upon these grounds that the satirist Lucian makes his vigorous attack on the philosophic sects of his day (Vitarum Auctio, Piscator, Hermotimus, Con- vivium, Nigrinus, etc.). In the persons of such men philosophy was but the mask that concealed selfish- ness, vainglory, greed, and sensuality. In fact, the portraiture of Lucian is based upon the existence of shameless hypocrisy in the ranks of philosophy. In another way the name of philosophy was used by schemers who exploited the region of the occult, the border-land between religion and science, and made a source of gain of the natural hunger for true knowledge of the inner meaning of the world and its Creator. A. CG. Z. PHINEHAS, fin’e-has (ONY2, pinchds, probably an Egyptian name, pe-nehasi; cf. Nestle, Figen. 112): 1. The son of Eleazar and grandson of Aaron, and high priest (Ex 6 25; Jg 20 28; I Ch 6 4, 50), dis- tinguished for zeal in behalf of J’, which he displayed by stepping forward at a critical time to punish an offender in Israel and thus stay a plague (Nu 257 f..). This deed was always regarded as most deserving, and was celebrated both in poetic composition (Ps 106 30) and in the later historical records (Sir 45 23; I Mac 2 26, 54). It must be viewed not merely as an act of rebuke against mixed marriages, for such marriages were not in themselves offensive if the non-Israelite were willing to forsake idolatry and enter into the covenant of J’’. It was rather because in this particular case the alien insisted on bringing her religion as a seed of corruption into Israel. P. officiated as the priest in the war with the Midianites under Joshua (Nu 31 6), and was deputed to go into the land of Gilead to rebuke the tribes on the EH. of the Jordan for building an altar, a step regarded as the possible beginning of disintegration for Israel (Jos 22 13). He was assigned an inheritance in the hill-country of Ephraim (Jos 24 33). 2. A son of Eli, slain in the war with the Philistines (I § 1 3, 44#.). 3. The father of Eleazar, a contemporary Ezra (Ezr 8 33). Ae Gide PHLEGON, fli’gen(®iéywy): A Christian of Rome to whom Paul sent a salutation (Ro 16 14). PHBE, fi’bi (®olGy, Phebe AV): A ‘servant’ [‘deaconess’ RVmg.] of the church at Cenchrez, whom the Apostle Paul commends to the Roman Church (Ro 161). The additional item given in the description of her as ‘a helper’ (succourer AV, xpoot&tts) is the feminine of a word meaning, in general, ‘patron,’ or ‘protector.’ In Athens the office of patron involved the charge of the affairs of per- sons without civic rights. The Roman law recog- nized the patronus as the representative of the foreigner. Such patrons were not uncommon in Jewish communities (cf. Schiirer, Die Gemeinde- verfassung d. Jud. in Rom, p. 31). But Phoebe could have occupied such a place only informally and unofficially, and must have been a person of wealth and position to do so. A.C. Z. Phoenix A NEW STANDARD Pillow PHENIKX, fi’niks (Poiu&, PotvE, Phenice AV) A place E. of Sphakia on the S. coast of Crete, the only harbor that affords safe anchorage at all seasons of the year, because of the peculiar configuration of its entrance, which opens toward the northeast and southeast winds (Ac 27 12). Strabo, Ptolemy, Stadiasmus (Mar. magn.), and Luke use the form PoivE, while Ptolemy distinguishes between gotvt- nods Atuyy (the harbor) and Potvé x6Atc (the city). The name of the harbor (now Lovtro) was transferred to the city on the plateau 2,000 ft. above the harbor where it still persists as Phinikia. J. R.S.S.*—S. A. PHRYGIA, frij’i-a. See Asta Minor, III, 11. PHURAH, fit’ra. See Purag. PHUT, fot. See Pour. PHUVAH, fiti’va. See Puan. PHYGELUS, fai-gi’lus (®iyeXo0c, Phygellus AV): A member of the Christian brotherhood who, in II Ti 1 15, is represented as having ‘turned away’ from Paul with ‘all that are in Asia,’ evidently through fear of becoming involved in his fate, or for doc- trinal reasons. See also HeRrmMoGENES. J. M. T. PHYLACTERY, fi-lak’tar-1 (gudAaxtherov, the same as the NYY, totaphoth, frontlets of Dt 6 8 f., 11 18): The Gr. term means literally ‘a means of preservation’ either of that which it is designed to preserve (i.e., the Law in the memory) or as that which is meant to preserve the wearer from harm; hence an amulet or charm, more probably the latter. Whatever the original significance of the word, there is no doubt that it was used as synonymous with the tephillah (pl. t¢phillin) of later Judaism, which is approximately rendered ‘prayer-band.’ The use of t*phillin is based upon four passages of the Law (Ex 13 9, 16; Dt 6 8, 1118). These were interpreted to mean that the true Israelite should actually wear the written Law on his arm and on his forehead. The passages in Ex, however, are manifestly metaphor- ical. About those in Dt there is some vagueness, admitting of their being taken literally. In any case these four texts were used as the emblem of the whole Law, and placed in the phylacteries. These phylacteries consisted of two leather pouches each fastened to a band and by the band attached to the worshiper’s person. The more important of the two was subdivided into four compartments and was tied to the head so as to bring it between the eyebrows (hence ‘frontlet’). Each one of its com- partments contained a copy of one of the passages above named as enjoining the use of phylacteries. The other phylactery, consisting of one compart- ment, was tied to the inside portion of the left arm in such a manner as to bring it as near as possible to the heart when the arm was bent in joining the two hands together. The date of the origin of the custom of wearing phylacteries may be approxi- mately fixed as the 2d cent. B.c. (cf. Kennedy in HDB). The custom was fixed into a law in the Talmud directing every male Israelite after his 13th year to use them at morning prayers except on Sabbaths and_ festivals. The wearing of phylacteries, which is perpetuated to the present day within orthodox Judaism under the technical title of ‘laying the tephillin,’ is highly ritualistic in BIBLE DICTIONARY re b- its nature and requires rigid conformity to certain minute regulations in the construction of the pouches, in the order in which they must be put on and taken off, and in the form of words to be uttered while being put on and taken off. Jesus, by implication, disapproved of the stress laid on the use of phylacteries by the Pharisees. He pointed this out as a sign of their love of display. ‘They make broad their phylacteries’ (Mt 23 5). This means that they wore larger pouches than ordinary, and made the bands by which they were attached to their persons correspondingly broader., It is possible that His utterance regarding them may have been actuated by the additional consideration that phylacteries were fast becoming, if they had not already become, objects of superstition. It is certain that somewhat later they were regarded by many as means of protection against demons. LrreratuRE: The rabbinical tractate TJephillin, ed. Ralph Kircheim (1851); Tract Berakot, transl. by Cohen (1921) passim; Oesterly and Box, Rel. and Worship of the Syr. (1907). Ginsburg (art. ‘Phylactery’ in Kitto-Alexander’s Bibl. Cycl.); also the fully illustrated article in JZ. PM / PHYSICIAN. See Diszasrt anp MeEpIcINE, § 3. PI-BESETH, pai-bi’seth (022°3, pi bheseth, Phibeseth AV), ‘house of Bastet,’ the cat goddess: The city Bubastis, the mod. Tell-Basta, with ex- tensive mounds, in Lower Egypt on the HE. side of the Pelusiac branch of the Nile. It was the capital of the 18th nome of Lower Egypt, and in 1000 B.c., under the Bubastic (22d) dynasty, became next in importance to Thebes. Its temple, containing important monuments, has been recently excavated by Naville. P. is referred to incidentally in Ezk 30 17. EP add Re PICTURE: This word is the rendering in AV for two words, meaning perhaps ‘something to look at,’ both from the root sakhah, ‘to look out,’ ‘look for.’ For (1) maskith, RV reads ‘figured [stones]’ (Nu 33 52), to agree with Ly 261, 7.e., stones with carv- ings or pictures used as idols. Other renderings are ‘watch-towers.’ ‘standards’ (as conspicuous); or by emendation, ‘ships.’ In Pr 25 11 ERV has bas- kets, ARV network (carving) of silver. For (2) stkhiyyadh, RV reads ‘imagery’ (Is 216). C.S. T. PIGEON. See Pauustine, § 25; also SacriIFIcE AND OFFERING, § 5. PI-HAHIROTH, pai’-ha-hai’reth (NVNI"B, pz hahiréth): The last encampment of the Israelites before the crossing of the Red Sea, near Baal- zephon (Ex 14 2, 9; Nu 33 7; we should also read ‘Pi-hahiroth’ for ‘Hahiroth’ in ver. 8). The loca- tion is unknown. C25aiks PILATE (Ilévttoc IktA&coc): Pontius Pilate was the fifth Roman procurator of Judea, Samaria, and Idumea (26-36 a.D., or 27-37 [Dobschiitz]). Pilate’s origin is obscure. He obtained knighthood either by birth or favor. One medieval tradition makes him a Gaul of Vienne, another a German hostage in Rome who joined the 22d legion., fought in Pontus (hence Pontius), and obtained the name Pilatus because of his skill with the pilwm; on another less probable view he was a descendant of a freedman (pileatus, corrupted to pilatus, from pi- leus, the ‘felt cap’ worn by manumitted slaves) 71s formerly owned by a member of the Samnite gens of the Pontit. P. was appointed procurator by his patron Sejanus, the anti-Semitic prime minister of Tiberius, and was probably instructed to crush Jewish fanaticism. His predecessor, Valerius Gratus (14-25 a.p.), had resided quietly in Cesarea, con- tent to enrich himself (among other ways by selling the office of high priest), and had respected Jewish superstitions. P. gave offense from the outset. He transferred the headquarters of the army from Cesarea to the palace of Herod (the Pretorium, Mk 15 16, etc.) in Jerusalem. The Roman standards, surmounted by eagles and banners with embroidered portraits of the god-emperor, were held by the Jews to be a violation of the second commandment. P. had remained in Caesarea, whither an excited mob repaired from Jerusalem to beg him to remove the abomination from the holy city. They clamored about the palace for five days; on the sixth P. admitted them to his judgment seat and threatened to massacre them unless they dispersed. They re- fused, and offered their bare throats to the soldiers. Finally, P. ordered the removal of the obnoxious standards, probably induced thereto by a bribe from Jerusalem. His second offense consisted in taking money from the sacred treasury (Corban) to construct an aqueduct from the Pools of Solomon to Jerusalem. Shocked at this deed, the Jews gathered before his tribunal, abused him, and accused him of embezzling a portion of the funds. In anger P. had the mob mercilessly butchered. P. gave a third offense by hanging up inscribed shields in Herod’s palace. The Jews appealed to Tiberius, who ordered the removal of the shields to the temple of the divine Augustus in Cesarea. In similar frequent tumults the Zealots of Galilee took @ prominent part, whereupon P. complained in- effectually to Herod Antipas, whom he further offended by attempting to punish the Zealots in Galilee. P. went to Jerusalem in 29 (see N T Curonovoey II, IJ, (I).) to be on the ground during the Passover, because he had reason to anticipate trouble, and during this visit occurred the events that will make him notorious as long as Christians repeat ‘suffered under Pontius Pilate.’ That the Jews could be conciliated was shown by Vitellius, who visited Jerusalem in 36, and won the good-will of the populace by a remission of taxes, and of the priests and people by permitting the official robes of the high priest. (hitherto stored in the castle of Antonia) to be deposited in the Temple. The final offense of P. led to his downfall. An impostor of Samaria claimed that he had received a revelation to the effect that Moses had concealed certain gold vessels on Mt. Gerizim. The people of Samaria, hitherto loyal to Rome, had gathered in a body (unhappily armed) to hunt for these vessels. P. sent soldiers to disperse the mob; a bloody massacre ensued and a whole village was destroyed. The Samaritans complained to Vitellius, who deposed P. (36-37) and sent him to Rome for trial. Tiberius died before P. reached Rome, and he languished in prison for some time. His case was probably never tried, and his end is enshrouded in uncertainty. Eusebius asserts that after many calamities P. A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Phenix Pillow committed suicide to forestall execution by Caligula. Malalas says that Pilate was beheaded by Nero. According to the legend in the Mors Pilati, his body was thrown into the Tiber, but the demons caused such perturbations in the river that the body was removed to Vienne and finally sunk in a lake on Mt. Pilatus, where it still causes storms. The Acta Pilati, professedly P.’s official report to the emperor concerning the trial and crucifixion of Christ, played a great rdle in early times; Justin Martyr appealed to them (thrice); so did Tertullian (about 180) and Kusebius (about 280). This record was destroyed, probably by Maximian (311). The extant Acta Pilati form a portion of the Gospel of Nicodemus, belonging to the 4th-5th cents., and were written for Jews by Jewish Christians. The Epistola Pilati, addressed to Claudius or Tiberius, purports -to be P.’s account of the resurrection of Christ. The Paradosis Pilati tells of P.’s trial, condemnation, and execution by Tiberius. P. prays to Jesus, who forgives him. This legend formed the basis of P.’s canonization as a saint in the Abyssinian Church (June 25), while in the Coptic Church he is reckoned one of the martyrs. The Mors Pilati tells of his banishment to Vienne, suicide, and final burial in Lake Pilatus. ‘Tradition makes P.’s wife (Procla, or Claudia Procula) a ‘proselyte of the gate’ and a secret follower of Jesus. She is canonized as a saint in the Greek Orthodox Church (October 27). J.R.S.S.*—S.A. PILDASH, pil’dash (¥1?72, pilddsh): The ances- tral head of a Nahorite clan (Gn 22 22). PILGRIMAGE. The rendering of mdghér (in pl.), ‘sojourning,’ ‘place of sojourning’ (Gn 479; Ps 119 54; also Ex 6 4 AV). There is no suggestion in these _ passages of the earthly life as a mere temporary - ‘sojourning’ (place) preparatory to a more abiding one (in heaven). But such apparently was the meaning N T writers (cf. He 1113 and I P 211) read into this and similar O T expressions. E.E. N. PILHA, pil/‘ha (8722, pilha’ Pileha AV): The representative of the postexilic family (Neh 10 24). PILL. See PEEL. PILLAR. See Tempter, § 14; and Semrric Rr- LIGION, § 29. PILLAR, PLAIN OF THE: The designation of the place where Abimelech was made king (Jg 9 6 AV, ‘oak [terebinth] of the pillar’ RV). The Heb. mutstsabh, ‘pillar,’ is with Moore, Int. Crit. Com., ad loc., to be emended to matstsébhah, and we should read ‘the massebah-tree,’ perhaps the stone set up by Joshua (Jos 24 26 f.) under the oak by the Sanc- tuary of J’’ in Shechem. C. 8:7. PILLOW: This is the rendering in AV of several words. (1) kabhir, something ‘netted’ (IS 19183, 16, ‘quilt? or ‘network’ RVmg.). Michal used it ‘at the head’ of the teraphim either to support the head or else as a net to cover it. (2) keseth, a band or fillet used as a charm in divination (Ezk 13 18, 29). (3) mera’dshoth (fem. pl.), ‘place at head’ (Gn 28 11, 18). RV has here correctly ‘under his head’; and for the same Heb. word in I § 26 7, 11, 16, ‘at his head’ for ‘at his bolster’ AV; in I S 26 12 ‘from Saul’s Pilot Plagues head’ for ‘from Saul’s bolster’ AV; in I 8 19 13, 16, ‘at his head’ for ‘for his bolster’ AV. InI K 19 6 the rendering is the same in both versions. (4) xpocxepkAtoy (Mk 4 38) means a cushion such as was used for a seat by rowers. 4, ae BS PILOT. See Surps anp Navigation, § 2. PILTAI, pil’tai or pil’té COB, piltay): The head of the priestly family of Moadiah (Neh 12 17). PIN: In all the occurrences of this word it is the rendering of the Heb. ydadthédh, which means ‘a, (wooden) peg,’ and is often used to denote the tent-pin. (Cf. Jg 4 21 f., 5 26, where AV has ‘nail.’) See also Natu. PINE AWAY. § 4 (1). PINE-TREE. See PatzestIne, § 21. PINION. See Gop, § 2. PINNACLE. See Tremptp, § 30. PINON, pai’nen (]72, pindn): A clan chieftain of Edom (Gn 36 41; I Ch 1 52). See also Punon. PIPE. See Music anp Mousicau INSTRUMENTS, § 3 (2). PIRAM, pai’ram (O83, pir’dm): King of Jar- muth, captured and put to death by Joshua (Jos 10 3, 16-27). PIRATHON, PIRATHONITE, pir’a-fhen, -ait (JiNY 1B, pir‘athon), ‘height’ (?): The home of Abdon, the last of the minor Judges (Jg 12 15); also of one of David’s heroes and captains (II § 23 30; I Ch 11 31, 27 14). It was in Ephraim, in the hill-country of the Amalekites, generally identified with Far‘dta, 5 m. SW. of Nablus (Shechem); by G. A. Smith as a for- tress at the head of the Wdaédy Fd‘rah, NE. of Na- blus. A Pirathon was fortified by Bacchides (I Mac 9 50). Cust: PISGAH, piz’ga ('1303, pisgah, always with the art., and always in the phrases ‘top of P.’ and ‘slopes [‘springs,’ Dt 4 49 AV; ASHDOTH PIS- GAH, Jos 12 3 AV] of P.’): A mountain summit, mentioned as a landmark and station of the Israelites in Moab (Nu 21 20; Jos 12 3, 13 20). It was noted as an outlook-point. Here Balak built seven altars for Balaam, and invited him to survey the hosts of Israel (Nu 23 14). Moses also viewed the land of promise from it (Dt 341). In this case it is ex- plicitly identified with Mt. Nebo in the Abarim. Identified also with Naba, a ridge about 214 m. in length and 14 m. broad projecting westward from the plateau of Moab near the NE. corner of the Dead Sea. It commands a comprehensive view of the whole of SE. Palestine (G. A. Smith HGHL, p.563). A. C. Z. PISHON, pai’shen (lB, pishén, Pison AV): One of the rivers of the Garden of Eden (Gn 2 11 f.). See EprEn. PISIDIA, pai-sid’1-a. See Asta Mrnor, III, 12. PISPA, pis’pa (820985, pispa’): A descendant of Asher (I Ch 7 38, Pispah AV). PIT: This word renders the following original terms: (1) bdr, ‘a large hole made by excavating’ (Gn 37 20 ff., etc.). (2) b’ér, ‘well’ (Gn 14 10, etc.). See Diszas—E AND MEDICINE, A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 714 (3) gébh, ‘trench’ (Jer 14 3, ‘cistern’ RV), also gebhe’ (Is 30 14, ‘cistern’ RV). (4) giimmats, ‘ditch’ (Ee 10 8). (5) pahath, ‘opening’ (II S 17 9, 18 17; Jer 48 43, etc.). (6) sh’dl, ‘hollow’ (Nu 16 30, 33; Job 17 16, etc., often rendered ‘hell’). (7) shihah, shehith, shehith, shahath, shthah, all from the same root idea ‘to sink down,’ (Pr 2214, 28 10; La 4 20; Job 33 18, etc.). (8) Bé8uvoc, ‘deep place’ (Mt 12 11) and (9) gpé«e, ‘well’ (Lk 14 5; and, figuratively, Rev 91). The term is also used metaphorically as the equivalent of either the grave (Job 33 18), Sheol (Nu 16 30, 33), or a snare. A unique usage is that of Is 511, where Sarah, the ancestress of the people, is so designated. A.C. Z. PITCH: In the Bible ‘pitch’ means bitumen, which was used in making boats water-tight. It occurs (Gn 6 14) as the trans. of képher, a word bor- rowed from the Assyr. kupru; and in Ex 2 3, Is 349 as the trans. of zepheth, also a loan-word. Accord- ing to Ex 2 3, it was used with hémar (the usual Heb. word for ‘bitumen’) in protecting Moses’ basket from the water. In Is 349 it is represented as a fluid and burning. All three words may mean the same, hémar alone being Heb. Oe Fad be PITCHER: This word renders (1) kadh, an earthen jar used for holding and carrying water from wells or springs (Gn 24 14 f.; Ee 12 16, etc.). It served also as a receptacle for oil or flour (I K 17 12, ‘barrel’ AV and ERV, and ‘jar’ ARV), and was made with handles, by which it might be lifted and carried about, and with a mouth large enough to permit the insertion of a torch (Jg 7 16 #.). (2) ne- bhel, also rendered ‘bottle’ or ‘flagon’ (La 4 2). (3) xeedutoy, ‘earthen vessel’ (Mk 1413). See plates of Potrery (p. 68) and HovusgeHotp Urtensizs I (p. 273). A.C, Z, PITHOM, pai’fhom (9%2, pithdm): A town in Goshen, in Lower Egypt, founded by Rameses II as a store-city (Ex 1 11 [JE], treasure city AV). Its Egyptian name was pa-T’um or pa-‘tum (‘house of Tum,’ or ‘house of the setting sun’). It was situated on the banks of the canal connecting the Nile with the Red Sea. Its ground-plan was in the form of a perfect square enclosed by strong walls. Within this enclosure stood a temple dedicated to Tum (the god of the setting sun), and subterranean chambers of various sizes, quadrangular in shape, without communication with one another, and approach- able only from above. These were lined with walls and floors of brick made, some with, and some without, straw. There is little doubt that they were intended for the storage of grain and other pro- visions (cf. Naville, The Store City of Pithom, 1885). AG Ze PITHON, pai’then (JMB, pithdn): A grandson of Jonathan (I Ch 8 35, 9 41). PITY (also compassion, which as the synonym of sympathy [fellow-feeling] occurs only in I P 31 and He 10 34; elsewhere it is always the equivalent of pity): One or both of these words are used to render: (1) hamal (Ex 2 6, etc., root idea ‘to spare’). (2) hesedh, ‘goodness,’ ‘kindness’ (Job 6 14 RV). (3) his (vb. Ezk 9 5; Dt 7 16, etc.). (4) hanan, hén, ‘favor,’ ‘grace’ (Jer 22 23 RV, etc.). (5) nidh, ‘to 7 Sa ~ ie = ae ee 715 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Pilot Plagues show grief’ (Ps 69 20). (6) raham, rahamim, ‘deep emotion’ (Am 1 11, ete.). (7) eVorrayxvos, Ja 5 11; I P 3 8, ‘compassionate’ RV. (8) oixtefoery (Ro 915). The feeling of kindness toward the weak, the erring, and suffering is uniformly represented as one that exists in the heart of God toward men and is enjoined upon as well as encouraged in the Israelite toward his fellow Israelites, especially the poor (Zee 79; Pr 19 17), the helpless and the defenseless (Ps 146 9), and the distressed (Job 6 14); but not toward an enemy (Dt 7 16) and an alien. Yet by its associ- ation with the will of J’ it takes its place in the complex of relig- ious affections (Hos 6 6). Jesus, by ob- literating all race and ritual distinc- tions as to those who should eall forth the sentiment (Lk 10 25-37), gave the law of compas- sion universal breadth. A.C. Z. PLAGUE: This term is frequently used to render, somewhat loosely, a number of Heb. and Gr. words: (1) mag- géphah and negheph (from ndghaph, ‘to push’ or ‘strike’), a ‘stroke,’ as a pun- ishment from God (Ex 9 14, 12 13; Nu 14 37, etc.). (2) makkah (from néa- khah, ‘to smite,’ a ‘smiting’ or ‘stroke,’ Lv 26 21; Nu 11 33, etc.). (3) negha‘ (from ndgha‘, ‘to touch’), a ‘touch,’ z.e., the touch of God, by a visita- tion of sickness or otherwise (Gn 12 17; Ex 11 1; and es- pecially in Lv ch. 13 f., of the ‘plague’ of leprosy). (4) debher, ‘pestilence’ and consequently nearer ‘plague’ in the usual sense of the term than the other words so rendered (Hos 13 14). The pestilence that brings death is what is meant, and the sense of the statement is that J’’ Himself will be as a death- dealing pestilence to the unrepentant Israelites. (5) ud&owtE, a ‘whip’ or ‘scourge,’ used of sickness (Mk 3 10, 5 29, 34; Lk 7 21). (6) xAnya, a ‘blow’ or ‘stroke’ (Rev 9 20, 11 6, etc.). See also Disnase AND Menpicineg, §§ 2 and 4 (2). E. E.N. PLAGUES, THE: The term usually given to the series of disasters that befell the Egyptians when the Israelites were seeking to gain their freedom. Ss. Store City of Pithom and its Vicinity. These were viewed by the Heb. writers as visitations of J’ upon the Egyptians for refusing to let Israel go and as demonstrations of His almighty power (Ex 7 3 ff., 9 14, etc.). As the narrative (Ex chs. 7-10) now stands, there were ten such occurrences: 1, blood; 2, frogs; 3, lice; 4, flies; 5, murrain of cattle; 6, boils; 7, hail; 8, locusts; 9, darkness; 10, death of the first-born. But this narrative is com- posite (see Exopus, § 4 f.), and no one of the three original narratives gave the full list of ten. The list of J was the longest, comprising seven (Nos. 1 [which in J is viewed as foul water in the river, not blood], 2, 4, 5, Cee 10s. what? of E comprised five (Nos lait, Saas 10), while that of P also included five Caen Oateene Those given in all three documents were apparently only Nos. 1 and 10, but it is possible that in E and P the lists were long- er than is now ap- parent. In Pss 78 and 105 also there are lists of the plagues, seven in each case, of which Six are identical, ut the order is different. Evidently there were variant traditions in Israel respecting the num- ber, the tendency perhaps being to consider seven as the correct number (cf. the apocalyptic use of this number in Rev 151 f., 21 9, ‘the seven last plagues’). In each of the narratives (J, E, P) a miraculous char- acter is assigned to the plagues, but in different degrees. In the oldest (J) only the general exercise of His control over nature by J” is assumed. It is J” that brings them about, but how is not told, except by suggesting the use of some natural agency, as the wind in connection with the locusts, 10 13, 19 (cf. the same view of the recession and return of the waters of the Red Sea in J in 14 21, 27). While in J the plagues are above all punishments, in P, and to a less degree in E, the marvelous character is made more prominent in that the plagues are brought by the stretching out of touch of Aaron’s (P) or Moses’ (E) rod, and it is in P’s narrative that the plagues as wonders or signs are especially emphasized (see the ie oepaaa City | chtraeet 8 oy IE Plagues Poetry A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 716 analysis of the narrative in Exopus, §4f.). Itis rea- sonable to infer, therefore, that in the earliest form of Israel’s tradition the ‘natural’ side of the plagues was recognized and that which made them so re- markable was their occurrence in connection with Israel’s struggle for freedom in which their prophet- ically gifted leader was enabled to interpret and use them as signal manifestations of J’’ in favor of His people. And that in those times, when every extra- ordinary natural phenomenon was referred directly to Divine action, such would be the interpretation not only of the Israelites but even of the Egyptians is altogether probable. It would not be surprizing, then, if a close study of the narrative of the plagues in connection with natural phenomena characteristic of Egypt should reveal that certain of them seem to be connected in a sort of natural sequence, which renders the narrative more intelligible to the modern reader and at the same time adds to its historical prob- ability. The results of such observations have been gathered and convincingly presented by Prof. A. Macalister in .HDB, s.v., who is followed in the main by McNeile in his recent Com. on Exodus (1908, Westminster Commentaries). The Nile often becomes a dull red after reaching its height (in August), and the water might easily, under special circumstances, become foul, as the red color is due to immense numbers of minute living organ- isms. Such conditions would be favorable for the appearance of unusually large numbers of frogs, plagues of which have occurred a number of times in Egypt, generally in September. The decomposi- tion of the dead frogs would favor the breeding of innumerable swarms of flies and other insects, and produce unhealthful conditions likely to bring about pestilence among beasts as well as men. Hail-storms, very rare in Egypt, have been known to occur in January, which is about the time demanded by what is said about the injury done to the crops by the hail (9 21). In the wake of the hail-storm the east wind brought with it locusts (a common plague in SW. Asia). The darkness that could be ‘felt’ (10 21) might easily have been caused by the terrible hamsin wind which brings with its hot blast sand and fine dust so that even breathing is difficult. The last visitation, the death of Egypt’s first-born, con- nects itself naturally with the general pestilential condition of the country at that time. Thus, there were, in general, but two great natural agencies at work to cause such a series of disastrous visitations, the presence of an unusually large quantity of decay- ing animal matter, and an unusual degree of atmos- pheric disturbance, bringing violent storms of wind and hail. That a tradition, centuries old before it was written down, should be an exact account, correct in every detail, of such a series of occurrences is improbable. The tradition gradually took its present form under the influence of dominant re- ligious and other conceptions. But its historical basis is not thereby overthrown, nor is it necessary to give up the essential correctness of its view that these visitations were evidences of God’s power and of His care for His people Israel. E. E. N. PLAIN: This term is used (in the AV) for seven Heb. and one Gr. words or expressions. (1) ’abhél, ‘meadow, always in compound names of places (as Jg 11 33, ‘Abel-cheramim’ RV, ‘meadow of vineyards’ RVmg.). (2) ’élén, ‘oak’ (‘terebinth’ RVmg.), only found in this form in names of places (Gn 12 6, 13 18, 14 13, 181; Dt 11 30; Jg 4 11, 9 6, 37; IS 10 3; cf. Jos 19 33). (8) big‘ah, ‘open, broad, val- ley,’ used as the opposite of hills or mountains, often rendered ‘valley’ (Dt 87, 11 1; Ps 104 8; Is 41 18, 63 14), used of level land (Is 40 4; Ezk 3 22 f., 8 4; cf. 371, ‘valley’), for the ‘plain’ of Babylon (Gn 11 2; ef. Dn 3 1), of Ono (q.v., Neh 6 2), of Aven (Am 1 5, ‘valley’ RV) between the Lebanon and Anti- lebanon, for the Jordan Valley (Dt 34 3), and for other ‘valleys’ (cf. Jos 11 17, 12 7; Zec 12 11; II Ch 35 22; Jos 118). (4) kikkér, ‘circle’; always rendered ‘plain,’ and, except in I K 7 46, II Ch 4 17, in RV with a capital P. It designates the Jordan Valley south of where it broadens out at the Jabbok, as far as and including the Dead Sea, if the ‘cities of the plain’ (Gn 1312) were S. of the Dead Sea (Gn 13 10f., 19 17 #.; Dt 34 3; II S 18 23; Neh 3 22, 12 28; cf. Mt 3 5, ‘region round about the Jordan’). (5) mishér, evel country’ (Ps 27 11, 143 10 ARVmg.; Jer 21 13; Zec 47; I K 20 23, 25; cf. Is 40 4, 42 16; Ps 26 12). ‘The plain’ is the technical term for the table-land of Moab or Reuben (Jos 20 8) from the Arnon to Heshbon (Dt 3 10, 4 43; Jos 13 17, 21; IZ Ch 26 10; Jer 48 8, 21), called also ‘P of Medeba’ (Jos 13 9, 16). (6) ‘Arabhah, ‘steppe,’ ‘desert-plain.’ The technical term for the hollow or depression (Dt 1 1 RVmg.) of the Jordan Valley, the Dead Sea, and S. to the Gulf of Akabah. El-Ghér is the modern name from the Sea of Galilee to 6 m. 8. of the Dead Sea, below that el-‘Ardbah. The AV renders by ‘plain’ or ‘plains,’ except (so also RV) in Ps and the Prophets, where a desert or wilderness is intended. The RV retains ‘plains’ in some cases (Nu 22 1, ete.; Dt 34 1, 8; Jos 4 13, 5 10, 13 32; IT K 25 5=Jer 39 5= 52 8); elsewhere in RV it is ‘Arabah.’ RV emends the text in II § 15 28, 17 16 to read ‘fords.’ See also ARABAH. (7) sh¢phélah, Jowland,’ the technical term for the low hills between the Mts. of Judah and the, Maritime plain, 8. of the vale of Aijalon (I Ch 27 28; II Ch 9 27; Jer 17 26, etc.). It is distinguished from the mountains, the Arabah, the Negeb (south), and the plain by the sea (Dt 17; Jos 91). See PAuus- TINE, § 7 (b). It is often rendered (in AV) ‘vale,’ ‘valley.’ RV has uniformly ‘lowland.’ In Jos 11 2 it refers to the lowland W. of Carmel, and near the coast. (8) téxo¢g medtvécg (Lk 617 RV, ‘level place’). GC. ee PLAISTER. See Puaster. PLANE. See Arrizan Lirs, § 5. PLANET. See Astronomy, § 38. PLANE-TREE. See Patzsring, § 21. PLANK. See Surps anp NaviaaTion, § 2. PLASTER: (1) sidh (n. and vb.), ‘lime,’ ‘white- wash.’ In Dt 27 2-4, the stones were to be covered with a preparation of lime, to provide a surface on which writing might be inscribed with a pigment, as was done in Egypt. (2) gir (Aram.), the plaster on a wall (Dn 5 5), similar to stdh above. (3) tuéah (vb.), ‘to overlay,’ ‘smear,’ the walls of a house with 717 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Plagues Poetry a mud plaster (Lv 14 42; cf. vs. 43, 48). (4) marah (vb.), a medical term, ‘to smooth’ or ‘smear’ a boil or sore with a plaster (of figs in Is 38 21). C.S. T. PLATTER: The rendering of two Gr. words: (1) mapotts, lit. ‘a side-dish’ (xao&, ‘by the side of,’ and boy), 2.e., a dish ‘in which delicacies are served up’ (Thayer, Gr. Lex. of N T) (Mt 23 25f.). (2) atvaé, ‘a board’ or ‘tablet’ and here a flat dish or ‘platter’ in the ordinary sense (Lk 11 39; charger AV in Mt 148 #.; Mk 6 25 #.). Such a dish could be of earthen- ware or of metal. ‘Charger’ is also used in AV to render g*‘araéh (Nu 7 13, etc.) and ’dghartdl, prob. ' ‘bow!’ (Ezr 19), both ‘platter’ RV. HK. E.N. PLAY: (1) ndghan, which means ‘to play on a stringed instrument’ (I § 16 16, etc.; II K 3 15; Ps 33 3; Ezk 33 32). (2) tsahaq (Pi‘él) in Ex 32 6, to enjoy oneself with singing and dancing, after sac- rificing (cf. vs. 17, 19; and xaftev in I Co 10 7). (8) sdhaq (Pi‘él), to ‘play’ or ‘sport,’ by singing and dancing with music of stringed instruments (I S 187; 11S 65, 21; I Ch 13 8, 15 29), of the playing of children (Zec 8 5), of contending in a tournament (II S 2 14), of playing or sporting with something (Job 40 20, 41 5 [40 29]). (4) Sha‘a‘ (Pilpél), ‘the playing’ of a child (Is 11 8). Cane Le PLEAD. See Law anp LEGAL Practissg, § 4. PLEASANT PLANTS. (Is 17 10.) See Aponis, PLANTINGS OF. PLEDGE: An article given as security or surety for the restoration of money borrowed. In early Heb. society such articles were apt to be garments, or a utensil of some sort (Ex 22 26; Dt 24 6-17; Job 24 3, etc.). In later times fields and houses were mort- gaged (Neh 5 3) and outside parties were invoked as security (Pr 61, 11 5, etc.). In all periods the way was open for the cruel oppression of the poor by the rich in respect to pledges. Both the Law and the prophets sought to mitigate the evils and inculcate a more humane spirit (see reff. above; also Am 2 8; Ezk 187). The wise men warned against the risk involved in becoming a surety (Pr 61, 11 15, 22 26, etc.). The word pledge has, however, other mean- ings, asin I § 1718, a ‘token’ to assure those at home of the safety of those in camp. In Gn 88 17-20 the meaning is self-evident. In II K 18 23, Is 36 8, ‘give pledges to’ should be ‘make a wager with’; so RVmg. See Earnest; also TRADE AND COMMERCE, § 3. EK. E.N. PLEIADES, plai’a-diz or pli’a-diz. See Asrron- omy, § 4. PLOW: The plow in common use in Palestine even to-day is a very primitive instrument, as will be seen by the accompanying illustration (cf. also Plate under AGRICULTURE). ‘The framework is rudely constructed and not of great strength. The plowshare (’éh; cf. Is 2 4; Jl 310; Mic 4 3) is almost flat (rather than upright) and merely breaks up the surface of the soil to the depth of three or four inches, instead of turning it over in deep furrows as is the case with the plows used in Europe and America. The word mahdréshah [from hdarash, ‘to cut in’] is also rendered ‘share,’ I S 13 20, and ‘mattock’ in ver. 21, while ’éh is rendered coulter, but as the Oriental plow has no coulter this is certainly wrong. According to the LX X., mahdréshah should be ren- dered ‘sickle.’ The passage has probably suffered in transmission. See Fitz. In plowing, the single Syrian Plow and Ox-goad. handle is held with the left hand, leaving the right free to use the goad. See also AGRICULTURE, § 4. K. E. N. PLUMB-LINE, PLUMMET. See Arrizan Lirs, § 4, PLUNDER. See Warrargz, § 5. POCHERETH, pek’1-refh, HAZZEBAIM (haz’’- si-ba/im 04% 2B, pokhereth hatsts¢bhayim, P. of Zebaim AV): The name of a subdivision of ‘Solo- mon’s servants’ (Ezr 2 57; Neh 7 59). POET (xotnths): This word is used only in Ac 17 28 by Paul in introducing a quotation to his Athenian audience from a Stoic writing (Cleanthes, Hymn to Zeus). But as the same sentiment is expressed by Aratus (8d cent. B.c.) in the more precise form in which he reproduces it (Phenomena), the Apostle uses the plural ‘poets.’ Paul quotes another Greek poet (Tit 1 12}, tho calling him after the Hebrew fashion a prophet (Epimenides, On Oracles). In I Co 15 33 there is a trace of poetic form, but as no author is named, the presumption is that the words were a popular proverb. ee ee s*=~$>~$~oss sss Reuben Simeon Levi Judah Issachar Zebulun ~ Rachel Zilpah Bilhah | | ———— —_— Pa ee Fe Joseph Benjamin Gad Asher Dan Naphtali -st OT Ephraim Manasseh Thus the twelve tribes go back to one father, Jacob-Israel, and to four mothers, Leah and Rachel being full wives, while Bilhah and Zilpah were con- cubines. Let us look at the modern hermeneutical prin- ciples laid down for the tribal interpretation of the patriarchal narratives. (1) The name of the father is really the designation of a tribe; (2) a wife or mother is a smaller tribe which is absorbed by a stronger, e.g., Leah by Jacob; (3) a marriage denotes the amalgamation of two different tribes, a concubine signifying a less important tribe; (4) the birth of a child denotes the origin of a new tribe. Such a theory of the patriarchal narratives, altho scientific, is extremely problematic. Even in a brief criticism several weak points in the theory may be noted. It disregards the personal elements of the narratives, which are exceedingly true to life, e.g., the strife and jealousy between Leah and Rachel, or the family life of Judah: it asserts or assumes many general principles without any real proof. If the genealogical grouping is a reflex of political and geographical conditions, the relation of the tribes as revealed in the later history ought to correspond to it. Here is where the theory completely breaks down, for cer- tain tribes, closely connected in the genealogical scheme, are without close political relations, and are far removed from one another geographically, e.g., Gad and Asher; Judah, Issachar, and Naphtali; and, altho conjectural theories abound which from the nature of the case can not be established, yet it remains a fact that no positive proofs have been advanced against the accuracy in all essentials of the O T account of the origin of the Hebrew tribes. In Scripture the tribes are grouped in many different orders, according to various principles of arrange- ment: (1) According to their relationship to Jacob, © his wives, and concubines (Gn chs. 29-35, 46 and 49; ON ey > ae 923 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Trial Tribes Ex ch. 1; Nu chs. 1, 2, 7, 10, 13, and 26; I Ch chs. 2 and 27). (2) Geographical position (Nu ch. 34; Dt ch. 33; Jos. chs. 13 f.; Jg ch. 5; I Ch ch. 12; Rev ch. 7). (8) Geography modified by tradition (the more important tribes blessing, and the lesser curs- ing, in Dt ch. 27). (4) An ideal grouping (Ezk ch. 48). 3. The Tribal Ancestors. Of the personal life of most of the sons of Jacob nothing is known; they are mere names. Of some, a few facts have been preserved. Simeon and Levi are associated together in a treacherous attack on the inhabitants of Shechem to avenge the rape of their sister Dinah (Gn ch. 34) after a settlement had been effected. For this crime both are severely rebuked in the Blessing of Jacob, and their posterity is destined to be scattered in Israel (Gn 495 f.). Rachel died in giving birth to Benjamin near Ephratah; she named him Benoni (‘son of my sorrow’), which Jacob changed to ‘Benjamin’ (‘son of the right hand,’ Gn 35 16-18). He is represented as the darling of his father, who reluctantly permitted him to go down to Egypt with his brethren (Gn chs. 42 #.). Judah (‘praised’) was the fourth son of Jacob by Leah (Gn 29 35), but he acts as a leader among his brethren, and soon appears with the rights of the first-born. Reuben, the eldest, and Judah both act as represen- tatives of the brothers in the history of Joseph. Judah is the leader in Gn 37 26, 48 3, 44 16, 46 28 (J), Reuben in Gn 37 22, 42 37 (EH). Judah is not por- trayed in a favorable light in Gn ch. 38. He married a Canaanitish wife who bore him three sons, Er, Onan, and Shelah. For Er his father took a wife Tamar by name, but when Er died childless, Onan refused to perform his duty according to the law of levirate marriage. Then in order to secure redress for her wrong Tamar, disguising herself as a Temple prostitute (q¢dhéshah), enticed Judah, who by her became the father of Perez and Zerah. Judah’s actions are not to be judged exclusively by the standards of our day; in general, he acted honorably according to the ideals of his time. Many modern writers interpret this story as a naive method of stating tribal relations. Tamar was thus a Canaan- itish clan which united with the Israelite tribe of Judah. If such were really the case, the narrative could scarcely have taken on such a form, throwing serious reflections on the character of the founder of the tribe to which David belonged (ch. 38 is assigned to J, the Judaic document). Reuben (‘behold a son’) is the first-born of Jacob and Leah (Gn 29 32). Asa boy of seven or eight, he gathers mandrakes for his mother (Gn 3014). His character has both a darker and a brighter side. He commits incest with his father’s concubine Bilhah (85 22); and in the Blessing of Jacob (Gn 49 3, 4) he is said to have lost his rights as first-born in consequence of this crime (cf. [Ch 51). On the other hand, in the story of Joseph he appears as a noble character, above the little and mean jealousies of his brothers; he saves Joseph’s life (Gn 37 21, 22, 29), acts as spokesman for the others (Gn 42 22 #.), and pledges his two sons to Jacob as surety for the return of Benjamin from Egypt (42 37). 4, Tribal History. In this article the history of the separate tribes will not be followed later than the era of the Judges. For subsequent conditions, see IsrAmt. During the desert march the tribes, according to P, were divided into four groups. Judah, Issachar, and Zebulun encamped on the E. of the sanctuary and formed the van in the march; they were followed by Reuben, Simeon, and Gad to the S. of the Tabernacle. After them came, in two divi- sions, Ephraim, Manasseh, and Benjamin, followed by Dan, Asher, and Naphtali, the former pitching their tents to the W. and the latter to the N. of the tent of meeting (Nu ch. 2). A list of the clans of the various tribes may be found in Gn ch. 46 and Nu ch. 26. We have also a detailed census both at the Exodus (Nu chs. 1, 2) and thirty-eight years later, at the close of the wanderings (Nu ch. 26). The tribes of Judah and Ephraim played the most important part in the history of the nation, and there was a constant duel between the two for the hege- mony of Israel. Judah’s position in the van of the desert march indicated the preeminence of this tribe, which num- bered 76,500 at the second census (Nu 26 22). By the admission of a Kenite element (Jg 1 16) and two Kenizzite clans, Caleb and Othniel (Jg 1 12-16, 20; Jos 14 6-15, 15 13-19), this tribe was materially in- creased. Judah absorbed Simeon also, which had dwindled during the desert wanderings from 59,300 (Nu 1 23) to 22,200 (Nu 26 12 #.). Simeon is men- tioned neither in the Blessing of Moses (Dt ch. 33) nor in the Song of Deborah (Jg ch. 5). These omis- sions clearly indicate that as early as the period of the Judges this tribe had lost its identity, and there is ample evidence for its absorption by Judah. In the conquest it acted with Judah (Jg 13). The terri- tory allotted to Simeon (Jos 19 1-9) really belonged to Judah (cf. Jos 15 26-32, 42), and after the Exile only Judahites are mentioned as inhabiting these cities (Neh 11 26 #.). The territory of Judah naturally falls into four parts: (1) The hill-country (Jos 15 48 #..); (2) the wilderness, running from the central range to the shores of the Dead Sea (Jos 15 61 #.); (3) the Shephelah, lying between the Maritime plain and the higher hills (Jos 15 33 #.); (4) the Negeb or ‘South’ on the extreme south (Jos 15 21 #.). The 8. bound- ary of Judah ran from the lower end of the Dead Sea by way of Kadesh-barnea to Wddy el-‘Arish; the N. border extended in an irregular line from Kiriath- jearim, in the Shephelah, to En-rogel, in the vicinity of Jerusalem, and then passed on to the Jordan (Jos 18 11-20). Judah is not mentioned in the Song of Deborah (Jg ch. 5), and was evidently at that early period working out its own destiny, quite independ- ently of the other tribes. Immediately to the N., separating Judah from its chief rival, lay the territory of the small but heroic tribe of Benjamin. History verifies the poetic or- acle ‘Benjamin is a wolf that raveneth’ (Gn 49 27); for the tribe was martial, being famous for its archers and slingers (Jg 20 16; I Ch 8 40, 12 2), and among its warriors it numbered Ehud, Saul, and Jonathan. It took part with the Northern tribes in the cam- paign against Sisera (Jg 514). The line separating its territory from that of Ephraim ran from the Jordan near Jericho by the way of Bethel (counted to Ben- jamin in Jos 18 13, to Ephraim in I Ch 7 28) to Beth- horon the lower. Ephraim occupied the middle por- Tribes Truth _ A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 924 ace al tana Petit fl Dea ae i i a tion of the land north of Benjamin and, ideally at least, its territory extended from the Jordan down to the seacoast (Jos 16 6 f., 177 #.). In two poetic oracles (Gn 49 22-26; Dt 33 13-17) the closely related tribes Ephraim and Manasseh are promised a fertile soil and indomitable military courage. The former was unable fully to conquer its allotment, for Gezer remained in the hands of the Canaanites until the reign of Solomon; but is said to have captured Aija- lon and Shaalbim, both originally Danite territory (Jg135f.). Ephraim absorbed Canaanitish elements, especially at Shechem (Jg 91 ff.). In consequence of haughty demeanor as chief tribe, there was con- siderable friction between it and leaders from other parts of Israel, e.g., Gideon and Jephthah. Among its tribal heroes we find Joshua, Samuel, and Jero- boam I. After the disruption of the monarchy, Ehpraim became a designation of the Northern Kingdom. Before proceeding further N. let us turn to the valleys of Aijalon and Sorek, which lie to the NW. of Jerusalem. In the original allotment of the land, these fell to Dan (Jos 19 40-48). The taunt of Deb- orah (Jg 5 17), ‘And Dan, why did he remain in ships?’ indicates that at one time its territory ex- tended down to the seacoast. It may have occupied Joppa (Jg 1 34 f.). A majority of this tribe, unable to maintain their position and hemmed in by Amo- rites and Philistines, were forced to migrate to the extreme N., and conquered the city Laish (Jg 18 7, 27 ff.). Samson belonged to the portion of the tribe that remained behind in their original quarters. In the Blessing of Jacob, Dan is likened to ‘a serpent in the way, an adder in the path, that biteth the horse’s heels’ (Gn 49 16, 17); in the Blessing of Moses, to a ‘lion’s whelp, that leapeth forth from Bashan’ (Dt 33 22). Both similes characterize the tribe as lurking in ambush and suddenly darting forth to attack the foe. This poetic description agrees with the narrative of Jg ch. 18, which tells of the sudden descent of 600 warriors of this tribe upon the peace- ful and defenseless inhabitants of Laish (thereafter named Dan) Directly N. of Ephraim lay the territory of the western branch of the tribe Manasseh. Its allot- ment stretched westward to the brook Kanah and included cities along the southern edge of the plain of Esdraelon. Here also the conquest was only partial and important points such as Bethshan, Dor, Endor, Taanach, and Megiddo (Jg 1 27 #.; ef. Jos 17 11 ff.) remained in the possession of the Canaanites. In the story of Deborah (Jg 514) Manasseh is referred to as Machir, the name of one of its principal clans. Of Israel’s early heroes, Gideon belonged to this tribe. The southern and eastern part of the plain of Esdraelon and the range of Gilboa fell to the lot of Issachar (Jos 1917-23). The famous Via Maris passed through this territory and was a source of great wealth (Dt 33 19). The poetic characterization of Gn 49 14-15 makes Issachar a strong tribe which suc- cumbed to the enticements of a favorable situation, and was subjugated by the Canaanites. The men of Issachar ardently espoused the cause of the tribes in the campaign against Sisera (Jg 515). In the age of the Judges Naphtali was a brave and patriotic tribe, producing Barak (Jg 5 18), and taking part in Gideon’s war of liberation from the Midianites (Jg 7 23). Its territory lay to the E. of Asher and Zebulun, and directly W. of the Sea of Galilee, stretching northward to the waters of Merom and the sources of the Jordan. The fertility of this region is proverbial; Josephus spoke of it as a terrestrial paradise, and modern travelers have vied with one another in exhausting their vocabularies to describe the richness and the productivity of the soil—quali- ties which were noted by ancient Hebrew poets (Gn 49 21; Dt 33 23). The region of which Naphtali’s territory was a part later bore the name Galilee, and has been hallowed as no other portion of Palestine, except Jerusalem, by the footsteps of our Lord in His earthly life and ministry. Another tribe which threw itself energetically into the struggle with Sisera was Zebulun (Jg 5 18), but in later periods it played a very unimportant part in the history of Israel. The situation of this territory was especially favorable. According to the limits as given in Jos 19 10-16, it was entirely inland, being bounded on the S. by Issachar, on the W. by Asher, and on the E. and N. by Naphtali. These boundaries included the plain of Asochis. The Blessing of Joseph (Gn 49 13) speaks of this territory in terms which imply an out- let to the sea: ‘Zebulun shall dwell at the haven of the sea; And he shall be for a haven of ships; And his border shall be upon Zidon.’ It is possible that the boundaries of the tribe varied at different periods of history, and at one time it had an outlet to the sea, as Josephus states. Zebulun was associated with Issachar as growing rich from maritime com- merce: ‘For they shall suck the abundance of the seas’ (Dt 3319). Zebulun’s territory was also a part of that larger section later known as Galilee, and the landscape was ‘richly diversified with sylvan vale, fruitful plain, and breezy height.’ Asher received as its portion a strip of coastland, stretching from Mt. Carmel to Phenicia (Jos 19 24-31). It was very fertile and especially adapted to the culture of the olive (Dt 33 24). From this section food was ex- ported for the royal table (Gn 49 20). This tribe only partially conquered its territory, for among the cities allotted to it were Acco, Tyre, and Sidon, which never became Israelitic; it was gradually amalga- mated with the Canaanites (Jg 1 31), and did not join the tribes to throw off the yoke of Sisera (Jg 517). In the inscriptions of Seti I and Rameses II, Asher (’-s-ru) is the designation of the Phenician interior highland, and hence some maintain that originally Asher was a geographical term. Moses gave permission to Reuben, Gad, and half- Manasseh to settle E. of the Jordan, provided that they took part in the conquest of the territory assigned to the other tribes (Nu ch. 32). Poetry and history agree in representing Gad as a brave and martial tribe: ‘Gad, a troop shall press upon him; but he shall press upon their heel’ (Gn 49 19; cf. Dt 33 20). Its environment induced such a character, for the Ammonites, Moabites, and other desert tribes frequently raided its territory (Jg ch. 11). Some of David’s bravest warriors, ‘whose faces were like the faces of lions, and they were as swift as the roes upon the mountains,’ were Gadites (1Ch 128). According 925 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Tribes Truth to Nu 32 34-36, the territory of Gad lay E. and NE. of the Dead Sea. The cities of this list were situated between the Jabbok and the Arnon. The allotment of Joshua (13 24-28) assigned territory to Gad which stretched from the Sea of Galilee southward to the land of the Ammonites. No doubt the fortunes of war made the boundaries vary at different periods. The inscription of Mesha (q.v.) corroborates the statements of Scripture: ‘and the men of Gad dwelt in the land of Ataroth from old’ (line 10), and sev- eral other Gadite cities are mentioned in the inscrip- tion. Reuben was an important tribe in the age of the Judges, for it is severely upbraided for not taking any part in the common defense during the great crisis when the Northern tribes defeated Sisera (Jg 5 15-17). The Reubenites must have suffered greatly at the hands of the Moabites, whose territory ad- joined, for their numbers dwindle and they are not heard of in later history. The list of their towns is given in Jos 13 15-23, and they were so situated as to form an enclave within the territory of Gad (Nu 32 37, 38). As Judah absorbed Simeon, so Gad swal- lowed up Reuben. The character of the land and its effect on tribal history are put in his inimitable style by G. A. Smith: ‘These high, fresh moors, the dust of whose paths still bear no footmark save those of sheep and cattle, had attracted two tribes, which, not crossing the Jordan, failed, like the others, to rise from the pastoral to the agricultural stage of life.’ Reuben produced no great national hero. After the defeat of Og, the trans-Jordanic portion of the tribe of Manasseh occupied the land E. of the Jordan as far S. asthe Jabbok. Their territory extended north- ward to the lower slopes of Hermon, and to the NE., including a large portion of the Hauran. The villages of Jair were allotted to Manasseh (Dt 3 14). The eastern clans of this tribe held to their pastoral mode of life, and had difficulty in maintaining their posi- tion against the nomads of the desert and the Am- monites. On this section cf. also PALESTINE § 29. Of Levi as a secular tribe little is known. The meaning of the name is uncertain; the view that ‘Levi’ is not a tribal name, but a professional title (cf. lawi’u, ‘priest,’ on Minean Inscriptions), is only a conjecture. The fact that Moses was a member of this tribe, as well as its devotion to the cause of Jehovah (Ex 32 25 #.), gained it the privileges of priestly rank. Early in the history of Israel the Levites became custodians of the sanctuary and its furniture (Nu 35f.). As the priestly tribe, it had no definite territory, but forty-eight cities were allotted to it (Nu 35 1-8); cf. also PrrrstHoop, §§ 2 (c), 4, 9. LiTERATURE: Barton, Sketch of Semitic Origins (1902), ch. 2; McCurdy, History, Prophecy, and the Monuments (1894-1901, vol. ii, chs. 2-3); W. R. Smith, Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia (1885); Keil, Handbuch der bibl. Archdologie? (1875); H. P. Smith, O 7 History (1903); Paton, Early His- tory of Syria and Palestine (1901); G. A. Smith, The Historical Geography of the Holy Land (1896); works of Benzinger (21907) and Nowack (1894) on Hebrdische Archdologie. Jeremia’s The O T in the Light of the Ancient East, II p. 77 (1911). For trenchant criticism of modern theories, see Orr, The Problem of the O T (1906) and Konig, Neweste Prinzipien der alttesta- mentlichen Kritik (1902). J.A.K TRIBUTE. See Tax. TROAS, trd’as. See ALEXANDRIA TROAS. 'TROGYLLIUM, tro-jil/i-om (Tewy6dtoy): The promontory at the foot of Mt. Mycale, in the prov- ince of Caria, nearly opposite the island of Samos and not far to the NW. of Miletus. It was here, ac- cording to the AV of Ac 2015, that Paul’s ship tarried for part of a day on its voyage along the Asian coast, being detained, probably, by contrary winds. The place of anchorage is still called St. Paul’s port. In the channel between Trogyllium and Samos the Greeks destroyed the Persian fleet in 479 B.c. J.R.S. S.t—S. A. TROOP: Apart from its strict military sense, this term appears in AV for: (1) gadh, the name for the god of ‘fortune’ (Gn 30 11, ‘fortunate’ RV =Heb. ‘with fortune’). In Is 65 11 (RV ‘fortune’), it is the name of the Phenician and Aramaic god. See FortuNE and Semiric REeiaion, § 22. (2) ’drah (Job 6 19, ‘caravan’ RV). C. Bob TROPHIMUS, tréf’i-mos (Tedgtuoc): A native of Ephesus (Ac 20 4, 21 29) who, with Tychicus, repre- sented the churches of the province of Asia in the presentation of the Gentile gifts to the church in Je- rusalem. The Gentile origin of T. is further attested by the tumult occasioned by the suspicion that Paul had taken him into the Temple (Ac 21 29). In II Ti 4 20 T. is said to have been left behind at Miletus, on the occasion of Paul’s final journey to Rome. JeMaTe TRUCE-BREAKERS: The AV rendering of the Gr. &orovdot, found only in II Ti 3 3 (‘ implacable’ RV). The original term means, literally, ‘without a libation,’ 2.e., ‘without treaty,’ the sealing of which was signified by a libation of (cf. Thuc. 1, 37). It was thus used to denote unwillingness to enter into a covenant, 7.¢., in the sense of ‘implacable.’ Vers be TRUMPET. Besides its use as an instrument of music the trumpet-sound was the alarm of war (cf. Am 36; Hos 81; Is 18 3; Zeph 1 16), a signal for battle or for rallying for war (Jg 3 27, 6 34, 718, etc.), anda signal for many other occasions when a public notice of some kind was to be given (I K 1 39; II K 9113, etc.). See also Music anp Musica INstRUMENTS, § 3 (2). BE. E. N. TRUMPETS, FEAST OF. See Fasts anp Feasts, § 2. TRUTH: 1. O T Terms. The rendering of two Heb. words, ’émeth, ’émiinah, whose primary idea is that of stability or firmness. From this sense to that of constancy, the transition is imperceptible. That which is stable is to be depended upon; con- sequently, even to running water is ascribed the property of truth (Is 33 16, ‘sure,’ EV). In the next stage, the idea is developed into conscious fidelity (loyalty, honesty) to that which is known to be good, and the conception of truth as a moral quality in a person comes into view. Truth in this sense is primarily the attribute of God Himself—perfect consistency with Himself (Ex 34 6; Ps 25 5, 48 3, etc.). 2. God’s Truth. God’s truth, however, is most of all emphasized in His relation to His covenant people. It is this quality in Him which encourages His own to trust Him. Therefore, it becomes the ground of their hope that their prayers to Him are heard, and that their taking refuge in Him in time | Truth Tyre of trouble is effective. His truth is, therefore, pre- eminently combined with His mercy (Ps 25 10, 26 3, 40 10, 85 10, 89 14). But it is also combined with His righteousness (Ps 45 4, 111 8). God’s truth is the ground of His righteous judgment (Neh 9 33). This leads to the definition of truth as the truthfulness of God, in the sense that what He says corresponds to His own being and, therefore, to reality in all par- ticulars. All that proceeds from His mouth is truth (Is 45 23)—the uncorrupted, unadulterated expres- sion of His own being and will. (For the N T re- production of this general idea, 7.¢., of ‘truth’ and ‘faithfulness’ or reliability, cf. such passages as Ro 37 [zrpOeta], 3 3 [xfottc]}; ICol9; I Th 5 24; He 10 23; I P 419; I Jn 19 [xcté¢] as applied to Christ; ef. He 2 17 [érAchuwy xat mtotdc]; Rev 3 14, 19 11 [motég xat &AnOtvdc]; also § 4, below.) 3. Truth in Man. What is an excellence in God is viewed as equally an excellence in man. The king, as exercising prerogatives of sovereignty, must be especially characterized by the same truth which distinguishes God (Ps 45 4; Pr 20 28). As constancy is to be measured, first of all, by conformity to out- ward reality in man, the characteristic of always con- forming to fact comes to be recognized as truth; so that veracity in speech is, above all other things, truth. The man of truth is he whose words can be trusted, because his utterances are exact representa- tions of outward realities. And this sort of truth, or truthfulness, is an accompaniment of the fear of God (Ex 18 21; Ps 152). The duty of truthfulness in social relations thus becomes one of the most important obligations, and its opposite is a grievous evil (Ps 1017; Pr 1217). A philosophical conception of truth does not appear in the O T. Expressions like ‘ buy the truth’ (Pr 23 23) refer, not to truth in the ab- stract or, in general, objectively viewed, but to truth as an inner equipment of character. 4. NT Conception. The content of the N T term (crAnPeta) is partly derived from the O T through the mediation of the LXX. and the Apocrypha. In the LXX. the O T conception is frequently rendered by ‘faithfulness’ (xfott¢ and derivatives; cf., ¢.g., as regards the Divine character and conduct Ro 8 3; I Co19, 1013; I Th 5 24; II Th3 3; He 10 23; 11 11; IP 419;LJn19; He217; Rev 15, 314), see § 2 above; but it is also rendered by the more classical term &hH0ea (as in the N T), with the emphasis on the objective side of reality and consistency with reality. This{ combination of the two notions is carried through the Apocrypha (cf. To 3 2; Sir 279 and To 710; Jth 55; IV Mac 5 10). Accordingly, the prog- ress of the N T thought is from the original ety- mological conception of &A7Seta, as reality, to that of conformity to reality; then to the expression of that conformity, 7.e., veracity, and, lastly, to moral or spiritual reality, especially as embodied in the words and person of Jesus Christ. 5. Special N T Developments. In the individual portions of N T the following shades of meaning appear: (1) In the Synoptic Gospels and Acts the truth is plain reality. In the phrase ‘of a truth’ (Lk 22 59; Ac 4 27) there is a manifest effort to lay emphasis on the actuality of what is asserted, tho it might appear unexpected or surprizing. Other- A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 926 wise, truth is correspondence to the reality in speech or representation (Mk 5 33). (2) In Ja, I and II P, and He, the truth is the body of Christian teaching which believers accept and present to the world (Ja 1 18, 314; I P 1 22; IT P 2 2; He 10 26). (8) In the Pauline writings, there is an occasional reversion to the O T sense of the Divine faithfulness (Ro 3 7 [cf. also 3 3, xtottc], 158),and occasional equivalency with human veracity (ICo58; IICo714); but, in the main, the truth is the body of thought which God has revealed to men for the purpose of drawing them out of sin to the love of Himself. It is not exactly identical, but generally synonymous, with Paul’s favorite term, ‘the gospel’ (Eph 1 13; cf. also Gal 25, 14,57; 1 Ti 315; Ro 28). (4) In the Johannine literature the primary conception of simple reality emerges occasionally (I Jn 3 is; II Jn ver. 1, II Jn ver. 1), and with it the sense of accord with reality, as in the phrase ‘to speak the truth’ (Jn 8 46, 16 7); but predominantly, the truth is a view of eternal moral and spiritual reality hypostatically conceived. Consequently, we find such terms as ‘to witness to the truth’ (Jn 5 33, 18 37), ‘the truth makes free’ (Jn 8 32), it ‘sanctifies’ (Jn 17 19). In its highest and most significant sense, it is embodied in the person of the Incarnate Logos (Jn 14 6). A. C. Z. TRYPHANA, trai-fi’na, AND TRYPHOSA, trai- fd’sa (Toebgatva, Teugdcx): Two Christian women mentioned in Ro 16 12, possibly twin sisters (see J. R. Harris, The Dioscuri in the Ch. Legends, 1903). For the story concerning ‘Queen Tryphzena’ see Acts of Paul and Thecla. Whether she is to be identified with the queen of Pontus mentioned on coins is uncertain. See Ramsay, The Church and the Roman Empire, p. 382. APs od TRYPHOSA. See TRYPHNA AND TRYPHOSA. TUBAL, ti’bel. See EranocrapHy aNnp ErH- NoLoey, § 13. TUBAL-CAIN, ti’bal-ken” (2°72, tabhal-qayin): The son of Lamech, and Zillah, and the ‘forger of every cutting instrument of brass and iron’ (Gn 4 22, ‘the instructor of every artificer in brass and iron’ AV). The word gayin is understood by some to mean ‘of Cain’ (the tribe); while others think it should probably be translated ‘smith,’ and not be taken as part of adouble name. He was perhaps the eponymous ancester of Tubal (=the Tibarenians) SE. of the Black Sea (Gn 10 2; Ezk 27 13; Is 66 19). Cosa: TUNIC. See Dress AND ORNAMENTS, § 2. TURBAN. See Dress AND ORNAMENTS, § 8. TURTLE. See Patestine, § 25 (under Turtle dove). TURTLE-DOVE. See Sacririck AND OFFER- InGas, § 5; and PauestIng, § 25. TUTOR. See Epucation, § 9. TWELVE. See Numsers, SIGNIFICANT AND SYMBOLIC, § 7. TWIN BROTHERS (Atécxoupot, 7.e., Castor and Pollux): These were two deities, regarded as the tutelary gods of sailors (Ac 28 11). The ship on which the Apostle Paul sailed either had an inscrip- tion indicating that it was dedicated to these deities 927 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Truth Tyre or figures of them ornamented its prow. See also Suips AnD NaviaaTIon, § 2. KH. E. N. TYCHICUS, tik’i-kus (Tuxtx6cs): A disciple of Paul, and the bearer of the Colossian letter, who in addition conveyed oral information concerning Paul’s state (Col 47 f£.). Almost exactly the same words are found in Eph 6 21 f., which, on the assump- tion of the independence of the passages, shows T. to have been also the bearer of the circular letter known as Ephesians. In the Pastorals T. is repre- sented as sent to Ephesus (II Ti 4 12) and to Crete (Tit 312). His constant association with churches in the province of Asia confirms the designation of T. in Ac 20 4 as an ’Actavéc, ‘a native of Asia.’ J Meat: | TYPE: This word does not occur in EVV. The Gr. tixosg means, primarily, ‘the mark made by a blow,’ ‘the print left on a substance by the impact of another,’ and so ‘the impression of a seal on wax.’ The original in such a case is the antitype. But usage is not perfectly consistent and uniform, the original being also called the type, of which the copy is an imitation, or antitype (I Th 17; Tit 27; IP 53). In Biblical interpretation a type is usually understood to be a person, or thing, prefiguring a future person, or thing. Adam was a type of Christ (Ro 5 14). The idea has been elaborated in great detail, involving especially the discovery of corre- spondences between the different rites of the sacrifi- cial ritual and the parts of Christ’s work. The great mass of these correspondences are artificial and imaginary; and the place and value of typology as the science which treats of the principles and results of such correlation (cf. Fairbairn’s Typology), are very questionable ee Cre. TYRANNUS, tai-ran’us (Tdbeavvoc): The head of a certain ‘school’ in Ephesus, where Paul carried on his work after his withdrawal from the Synagog (Ac 199). The word ttvoc (AV ‘one’ Tyrannus) is omitted in the best MSS. (8 AB), which would indicate that T. was not altogether unknown. That his school was one of considerable influence is implied by the fact that from it the entire province was reached with the gospel. According to D (also Syr. P. marg.), Paul discoursed regularly in this place, &x6 Seas é[ =xéurtys] ws Sex&dtys, ‘from the fifth to the tenth hour,’ after the fashion of the philosophers of the time. Itis probable, therefore, that T. was a regular teacher of some sort, with a following more or less large. He may have been also an adherent of the synagog, where he was favorably affected by Paul’s preaching. The use of his influence in securing an opening for the gospel would not be contrary to Paul’s method (cf. Ac 17 16 £.). J. M. T. TYRE, tair (7%, tsdr, ‘rock’ = Assyr. tsurru): The best known and most famous of the ancient cities of Phenicia (q.v.), located on the E. coast of the Mediterranean, not far from the territory of Israel, about 20 m. 8. of Zidon. Many extra-Biblical refer- ences define the city’s limits. Asshurbanipal, King of Assyria (668-626 B.c.), says: ‘In my third campaign I marched against Baal, King of Tyre, who dwelt in the midst of the sea.’ In the Anastast I Papyrus, T. is spoken of as a city in the sea, to which water is brought in ships, where fish are more plentiful than sand (Miller, Asien wnd Europa, p. 185). This is paralleled by the Biblical references in Ezk 26 17 (‘in the sea’) and 27 32 (‘in the midst of the sea’). This city ‘in the sea’ was located on an island—a coral reef—containing about 142 acres. The island was about 1,800 ft. from the mainland, on which stood, on the testimony of ancient authors, a much larger and, in fact, a much older, city called Old Tyre. The beginnings of T. were very ancient (Is. 23 1-7). Herodotus tells us (II, 44) that the priests of Mel- karth told him that it was founded 2,300 years be- fore his visit, that is, about 2750 B.c. Traditions unite to locate the first city on the mainland. Safety from siege, facility in dealing with shipping, and, probably, monopoly of trade, led to the building of the city on the island. Early in Israel’s history, it appears to have been a place of importance (Jos 19 29), and to have been well fortified (II S 247). In the Tell el-Amarna period (14th cent. B.c.), King Abimelech of Tyre professes his fidelity to the Pharaoh of Egypt. It established numerous manu- factories, both within its own walls, and on the coasts of the Mediterranean Sea, where it produced world- famed goods, such as purple dyes, metal-work, and glassware. It established trade relations with the known world, not only with the countries of the Mediterranean, but with those of every water adja- cent thereto, including Egypt, the Black Sea region, and even Great Britain (Ezk ch. 27). Tradition says its sailors rounded the Cape of Good Hope. It established colonies in N. Africa and in Spain, and was so powerful in the world of his day that Isaiah (23 8) designates it as ‘the bestower of crowns, whose merchants are princes, whose traffickers are the honorable of the earth.’ T. was in its prime in the days of David and Solomon, and played an important part in the ma- terial, commercial, political and religious history of Israel. The friendship established between Hiram of Tyre T1851; IK 51 #.) and David and Solo- mon became of mutual advantage to the two king- doms, especially in the matter of the construction of Solomon’s temple, and of long sea voyages to Ophir and to Tarshish. Doubtless Israel’s close relations with T. continued for several centuries, as may be in- ferred from the marriage of Ahab and Jezebel (I K 16 31). To the earlier Assyrian invaders of Syria T. is said to have paid tribute. But a change came about and it asserted its independence, just when, we do not know. But Shalmaneser V (727-722 B.c.) included T. in the same category with Samaria in 724, for he simultaneously laid siege to both of them. He died, however, in 722, and the siege of T. was raised. But Sennacherib, according to Josephus (Ant. IX, 14 2), endeavored, from 701 to 696, to reduce it; how- ever, after plundering the coast-towns, he gave up the task, as also Esarhaddon and Asshurbanipal were compelled to do. Nebuchadrezzar likewise besieged it for thirteen years, but, finally, left it uncaptured. Ezekiel draws a graphic picture of this important city and its relation to the trade of his day (chs. 26-28. While its activity was much checked by the numerous attacks of jealous neighbors and nations, Ucal ; Urim and Thummim A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 928 a ea and its wealth and glory declined, it did not cease to be an important commercial center (Neh 13 16). Its first fateful humiliating capture was that by Alex- ander the Great in 332. In seven months, he built from the mainland a causeway 1,800 ft. long and wide enough to assault and capture the city, and put its inhabitants to the sword, or enroll them as slaves. The city was repeopled and newly built. In the Greek period, it had a checkered fate, and in 198 came under the sway of the Seleucide. Pompey allowed it full autonomy in 65, which Augustus very much delimited. At the time of Christ the territory belonging to it reached down into Palestine as far | UCAL, yii’kol (29%, ’aikhal): An obscure word in Pr 301, taken as a proper noun by many interpreters. Others regard it as a verb, and would render it ‘[and] I am faint,’ or similarly. E. BE. N. UEL, yii’el (238, a’ él): One of those who married foreign wives (Ezr 10 34). ULAI, yu'lai (238, ’glay): A river near Susa (Shushan) in Persia (Dn 8 2, 16), called ‘Ulai’ also in the Assyr. inscriptions, and known to classical writers as Huleus. Herodotus and Strabo place Susa on the Choaspes (=modern Kercha); Pliny locates it on the Eulsus (=modern Karin), also called the Pasitigris. According to Néldeke, the two names are for the same river, as similar statements are made about both names. Delitzsch places the Ulai E. of Susa, and locates the city on the Choaspes. The rivers have so changed their channels that it is difficult to make any sure identifications. C. S. T. ULAM, yilem (0238, ‘alam): 1. The son of She- resh, a Manassite (I Ch 7 16 f.). 2. A Benjamite, father of a family of noted archers (I Ch 8 39 f.). ULLA, vl’a (NPY, ‘ull@’): The ancestor of a family of Asher (I Ch 7 39). UMMAH, om’a (OY, ‘ummah): A city of Asner (Jos 19 30). Probably a scribal mistake for ‘Acco.’ UMPIRE. See Day’s Man. UNCIRCUMCISED, UNCIRCUMCISION. See CIRCUMCISION and GENTILES. UNCLE. See Famity anv Famizy Law, § 1. UNCLEAN, UNCLEAN THING, UNCLEAN- NESS. See Purz, Puriry, Purirication, §§ 1, 6. UNCLEAN SPIRIT. The term dxéOeptocs ‘un- clean,’ commonly used in the Gospels as a designa- tion of demoniacs (those ‘with unclean spirits,’ Mk 5 2, 7 25, etc.) has a ceremonial rather than a moral significance. These unfortunates (who would be termed deranged to-day) were viewed, not as wicked, but as under some sort of control by a spirit or in some peculiar relation to deity. This placed them in a class by themselves, ‘separate,’ and contact with any such persons brought ceremonial defilement. Just as the ‘holy’ scriptures were said to ‘defile the hands’ of those who touched them, so such persons ‘defiled’ those who came in contact with them. See as Carmel (Mt 15 21-31; Mk 7 24-31). It became a Christian center (Ac 21 3-6), and was influential in the early Church. The Crusaders captured it June 27, 1124 a.p., but lost it again to the Saracens in March, 1291 a.p. Since that day it has been an unimportant Mohammedan town. It is no longer on an island. The mole, built by Alexander, has be- come so enlarged by accretions of sand on both sides that the original island is at present merely a promontory of the mainland. The modern city con- tains about 6,000 inhabitants, and has none of the marine commercial importance of Biblical times. Ty' MP also Demons AND DemMoNOLOGY; and Pours, Purti- FICATION. E. KE. N. UNCTION. See ANornt. UNDERGIRD. See Surps anp NaviaarTIon, § 3. UNDERSETTER. See Tremp te, § 15. UNDERSTAND, UNDERSTANDING. See Wis- DOM. UNDERTAKE: This word as used in Is 38 14 AV means to ‘be surety for,’ so RV. UNGODLY: This term is the translation of: (1) beliyya‘al, ‘worthlessness’ in AV in II S 225; Ps 184 (‘ungodliness’ RV) and in Pr 16 27, 19 28 (‘worthless’ RV). (2) l@ hasidh, ‘unkind’ (Ps 481). (8) ‘dwil, ‘unjust.’ (4) rdsha‘, ‘wicked’ (II Ch 19 2; Job 34 18; Ps 11, 4, 5, 6,37, 7312). In the N T it is used as a translation of dceByc, ‘impious’ (Ro 4 5, 5 6; I Til9;I P 418; II P25. 37; Jude vs. 4, 15). a Big oid 2y- UNICORN. See Pauustine, § 24. UNKNOWN GOD: Because of the multitude of gods, the Greeks always feared that some god might be offended by unintentional neglect in prayer or sacrifice; so that altars to anonymous gods were not uncommon (cf. Pausanias, Philostratus), to appease deities that might otherwise have been overlooked. On an altar in Athens was the inscription, ATNQ=TQ OEQ, ‘To an [not the] unknown god.’ This was noticed by Paul and used by him as a significant, as well as convenient, text with which to begin the defense of himself before the Areopagus (Ac 17 23). The phrase ‘too superstitious’ (ver. 22 AV) should read ‘somewhat religious,’ or ‘religious beyond others’ (‘very religious’ RV). See also RELIGION. J. R.S. S.*—S. A. UNLEARNED: This word is used to render (1) &yeauatos in the sense of ‘totally illiterate’ (Ac 413); (2) dua0qc, an ‘ignorant’ or ‘uninstructed’ per- son (II P 3 16, ‘ignorant’? RV); (8) d&xatSevtoc, an ‘uneducated’ person (II Ti 2 23, ‘ignorant’ RV); (4) idtmrns, ‘one in private life,’ ‘non-professional,’ ‘inexpert,’ or ‘uninformed’ (I Co 14 16, 23 f.). A. C. Z. UNLEAVENED. See SacririczE AND OFFERINGS; § 13; and Fasrs anp Frasrs, § 2 (2), and 7. a 929 A NEW STANDARD UNNI, on’ai (3¥, ‘unnit): 1. One of those ap- pointed by direction of David to be one of the musicians of the sanctuary (I Ch 15 18, 20). 2. See UNNO. UNNO, on’6 (13Y, ‘unnd): A Levite of the days of Zerubbabel (Neh 129). Unni AV. UNQUENCHABLE FIRE. See EscuaroLoey, § 39. UNSHOD: This term renders the adj. yahéph, ‘barefoot,’ the usual translation (II S 15 30; Is 20 2 #.). In Jer 2 25 Judah is warned lest she wear out her shoes in running after foreign gods and allies. Hitzig, ad loc., finds a reference to certain acts connected with Baal-worship. Ore = fied I UNWALLED TOWN, VILLAGE. See Crry, § 3. UNWASHEN. See Pours, Puriry, PuriIricaTIoNn, § 7. UPHARSIN, yu-far’sin. See Menn, Meng, etc. UPHAZ, yi'faz (1218, ’a%phdz): This term occurs only in Jer 109 and Dn 105. In case a proper n. is intended, the Heb. spelling is probably an error for “DIS, ’Ophir, Ophir (so Targum and Syr. Hexapla). It is possible, but not probable, that the original reading was mdphdz, ‘pure,’ as in I K 10 18; cf. Giesebrecht in Handkommentar z. A T (1907), ad loc. E. E. N. UPPER ROOM. Sce JERUSALEM, § 42; see also Hovss, § 6 (d) and (e). UPRIGHT: This is the rendering of ydshdr, in all cases in which the word has an ethical meaning. It denotes primarily ‘even,’ ‘level,’ and is used of roads in a number of passages. Then it is applied figura- tively to persons and to actions in the sense of ‘impartial,’ ‘equitable,’ ‘just,’ much as we use the adjectives ‘straight’ and ‘square.’ } oid 3 oe UR, or (m8, “ar; Assyr. urd, ‘fire’): I. The desig- nation of an ancient Babylonian city, commonly called ‘Ur of the Chaldees.’ Its importance is enhanced by the fact that it is regarded in the O T as the birthplace of Abraham (Gn 11 28, 31, 157; Neh 97), and the place from which he migrated to ‘Haran’ in Mesopotamia, and thence to Canaan. Its site has been identified at the modern Tell Mugheir (or, el- Mukajjar) (=‘bitumened’), on the right or W. bank of the Euphrates, about 140 m. SE. of the site of old Babylon, and about 150 m. NW. of the present Persian Gulf, near the junction of the Shatt-el-Hai with the Euphrates. It was one of the seats of worship of the moon-god Sin, as was also Harran, to which Abraham migrated. Its proximity to the Euphrates and the Persian Gulf (for at that day the latter reached more than 100 m. further inland than it does to-day) made this city an important com- mercial and political center. Located, as it was, in a group of strong religious and commercial cities, it occupied a pre-eminent place in the culture and com- merce of its day. The second part of the phrase, ‘of the Chaldees,’ seems to have been due to the fact that the region in which Ur was located was in later days designated as the land of the Chaldees or Chaldeans (Assyr. mat Kaldu). The ruins of Ur at the present time cover something more than 150 acres, and are somewhat oblong in form, consisting ~ BIBLE DICTIONARY Loa abd eM | mainly of a group of low mounds, with the remains of the usual tower or ziggurat in the northern por- tion of the area. Excavations in the spring of 1919 revealed the palace of King Dungi (c. 2500 B.c.), and many other ancient buildings. Tablets of 8th to 7th cent. B.c. give information regarding the worship of the moon-god Sin, patron deity of Ur. More recent discoveries by the University of Pennsylvania— British Museum Expedition (winter of 1924-5) have brought to light many interesting facts, among others ancient business records of the old temple of the moon-god, in which all receipts and expen- ditures were carefully tabulated (cf. N. Y. Times, Jan. 14, 1925). II. The father of Eliphal, one of David’s mighty men (I Ch 11 35). IeMeP URBANUS, or-bé’nvus (OteGavéc, URBANE AV): A Christian in Rome to whom Paul sent a salutation, calling him ‘our fellow worker’ (Ro 169). Nothing more is known of him. URI, yi’rai (8, ’a7), probably the abbreviated form of ‘Urijah’: 1. The father of Bezalel (Ex 31 2, etc.). 2. The father of Geber, one of Solomon’s stewards (I K 4 19). 3. One of the porters who married a foreign wife (Ezr 10 24). URIAH, yu-rai’a (BINS, ’ariyyah{a], ‘flame of J’” or ‘J” is light’: 1. A Hittite warrior (Mt 1 6, Urias AV) enlisted in David’s army, whom the king made a victim to his sinful infatuation for his wife Bath-sheba (ILS 112 ¢.). 2. Urijah, the chief priest of the Temple in the days of Ahaz, chosen by Isaiah as one of the two witnesses to attest the prophecy concerning Maher-shalal-hash-baz (Uriah, Is 8 2); at the king’s command he built a new altar after a Syrian or Assyrian model, and in other ways acquiesced in the innovations introduced by the king (II K 16 10-16). 3. The father of Meremoth, a priest in the days of Nehemiah (Ezr 8 33; Neh 3 4, 21). 4. A priest who stood by Ezra when he read the Book of the Law before the people (Neh 8 4), pos- sibly the same as 3. 5. Son of Shemaiah, a prophet of Kiriath-jearim (Jer 26 20-23), put to death by King Jehoiakim. A. C. Z. URIAS, yu-rai’as. See Urntan, 1. URIEL, yii’ni-el (2838, ’arv’él), ‘my light is EV: 1. A Levite, chief of the Kohathites, who assisted in bringing up the ark from the house of Obed-edom to Jerusalem (I Ch 6 24 [9], 15 5, 11). 2. According to II Ch 18 2, a man of Gibeah; and the maternal grandfather of Abijah. Og ld Be URIJAH, yu-rai’ja. See Urtan. URIM, yi’rm, AND THUMMIM, fhom’im (O°) ON, ‘Grim wthummim), ‘lights and perfec- tions’ (RVmg.). 1. A Method of Divination. A method of inquir- ing of God (I § 28 6), involving the use of certain stones in connection with the breastplate of judg- ment (Ex 28 30). Upon this breastplate were at- tached twelve gems, each representing one of the tribes of Israel. Josephus (Ant. III, 89) and some of the rabbis were of the opinion that these gems were identical with the Urim and Thummim. Following this opinion, some, in modern times, have conjectured Urim and Thummim Vain A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 930 that the method of divination by Urim and Thum- mim was the one used by the high priest when, in propounding an inquiry before God, he read the Divine answer by spelling it out in the successive flashings of light on the letters inscribed on the gems. Such an explanation would, of course, require the assumption that all the letters of the alphabet were represented on these gems. Of this there is no evidence whatever. 2. Assyrian Tablets of Destiny. The Urim and Thummim stones must then be distinguished from the gems of the ‘breastplate of judgment.’ They were two (possibly three) stones worn in a pouch attached to the breastplate, and so arranged as to be near the heart of the wearer. Analogs to such stones are found in the Assyrian ‘Tablets of Destiny’ (cf. Muss.-Arnolt, Urim and Thummim, in Am. Jour. of Theol. July, 1900, pp. 193 ff.), and the head- less and featherless arrowshafts ‘of command and prohibition’ among the Arabs (cf. G. F. Moore, EB, s,v.). These stones were small, and probaby inscribed with distinctive signs, by which one was known as the affirmative and the other as the nega- tive, and the third (if a third were used) non-com- mittal or blank. Regarding their construction, no directions of any kind are given. It has been alleged that they were shaped somewhat like the teraphim (Spencer, De Legibus, III, 3); but this is nothing more than a conjecture. 3. Method of Use. The manner of the use of the Urim and Thummim is also involved in obscurity. But the theory that there was a connection with, or analogy to, the breastplate, which the Egyptian high priest wore during legal trials (Wilkinson, Anc. Egyptians, III, 183), is generally discountenanced as based upon very superficial resemblances. Another theory assumes that the Urim and Thummim were emblems (Kalisch, Hxod. p. 544) identical with the twelve gems of the breastplate and that they sym- bolized the sanctification of the priest; that they were worn in order to represent to him the self- sacrifice involved in his office; but that inasmuch as they suggested his mediatorial office, they drew his rind away from self and environment and fixed it on the Divine will, stimulating supernatural insight and securing exact knowledge of that will. This view which assumes the use of hypnotism, is out of analogy with the general conditions under which the Urim and Thummim were used, and amounts to a practical abandonment of any explanation of the institution. The facts (Dt 33 8; 1S 14 41; Lv 87£,; Nu 27 21) point rather to the use of the Urim and Thummim as lots. If, in answer to an inquiry, the one designated as the affirmative fell out of the pouch, the inquirer would know that God approved; if the other or negative stone fell out, he would know that God disapproved his plan. Or, in case a third anonymous or non-committal stone were used and fell out, he would know that God declined to answer (I S 28 6). 4. History of Urim and Thummim. ‘The Urim and Thummim were used in the preexilic period. At the time of the Exile, they fell into disuse. Ezr 2 63 and Neh 7 65 show that they were regarded as a matter of the past. This probably accounts for the fact that the description of them in P throws so little light on them; since, when P was written, they had become only a memory. Josephus asserts that this mode of divination had ceased 200 years before his own day. Cf. McNeile in Westminster Com. on Ex 28 30. A. C. Z. USURY. See TrapE AND CoMMERCE, § 3. UTHAI, yu’thai, yi’thé, or yi'tha-ai (MW, ‘“ithay). 1. The son of Ammihud, a Judahite (I Ch 9 4). 2. One of the ‘sons of Bigvai,’ who returned from exile with Ezra (Ezr 8 14). UZ, oz (pip, ‘uts): I. 1. One of the ‘sons’ of Aram (Gn 10 23), perhaps the eldest, and consequently a grandson of Shem (Gn 10 22), tho I Ch 1 17 makes him a son of Shem. 2. The first-born ‘son’ of Nahor by Milcah (Gn 22 21, Huz AV), probably settlers or a tribe in the upper Euphrates Valley. 3. One of the ‘sons’ of Dishan of the Edomites (Gn. 36 28), perhaps a tribe which bore that name. II. The land which is designated as the home of Job (11). According to Job 1 3 it would seem to have been E. of Palestine, and according to 1 13-19, it was located on the edge of the desert and within raiding distance of the Sabeans and Chaldeans. Now, is it possible to combine all the foregoing cases of Uz, as is done by Glaser (II 414 ff.)? He thinks them to be identical with a section of the northwestern Arabian territory called Tihama. In Jer 25 20, it lies between Egypt and Philistia. The Assyrian inscriptions fre- quently mention Ussai as a land of Syria or on the edge of Syria, hence Delitzsch locates it at or near Palmyra. But at best this is only a conjecture. The evident meaning of the first chapter, confirmed by the location of the homes of some of Job’s so called friends—viz.: Eliphaz of Teman (2 11), Bildad the Shuhite (of Shuah; cf. Gn 25 2), Elihu the Buzite (Gn 22 21)—is that Uz was a section of country bor- dering on the eastern Arabian desert (from a Pal- estinian viewpoint), either in the Hauran or slightly farther N., tho not so far as Palmyra. TEMee UZAI, yii'zai, yii’zé, or yii’za-ai (HS, ’azay): One of those who repaired the walls under Nehemiah (Neh 3 25). UZAL, yi’zal (Ope, ’izdl): One of the thirteen Arabian tribes descended from Joktan (Gn 10 27). Arabic tradition looks upon it as the ancient name of San‘a, the capital of, Yemen in southern Arabia. It was after the Abyssinian occupation that the name ‘Uzal’ was changed to San‘d. According to one reading of Ezk 27 19, the Tyrians imported iron and spices from Uzal. San‘a is situated on a stream in the center of a beautiful and fertile region, which produces two crops a year. It has played an im- portant part in the history of Islam; in the 7th cent. it was the capital of the Zaidite Imams. Glaser, the explorer, rejects this site and advocates a position near Medina, but on subjective and inadequate grounds. Jc ALK: UZZAH, vz’a, UZZA, o2’a (MY, ‘uzzah) (AV): 1. A son of Abinadab. When David was transferring the ark to Jerusalem, Uzzah, one of the drivers, was smitten by J’’ because he sacrilegiously steadied 931 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Urim and Thummim Vain the ark (IIS 66#.). 2. One from whom a garden in or near Jerusalem was named. It was here that the kings Manasseh and Amon were buried (II K 21 18, 26). 3. A Levite (I Ch 6 29). 4. A Benjamite (I Ch 87). 5. Ancestral head of a group of Nethinim (Har 2 49, Neh 7 51). JA. K. UZZEN-SHERAH, 0vz’’en-shé’ra, UZZEN-SHEE- RAH, -sbir’a. See SHEERAH. UZZI, oz’ai (1¥, ‘uzzt), abbreviated from ‘Uz- ziah’ (q.v.): 1. A priest in the main line of descent from Aaron (I Ch 6 5, etc.). 2. The ancestor of a clan of Issachar (I Ch 7 2, 3). 3. The ancestor of a clan of Benjamin (I Ch 77). 4. The ancestral head of a Benjamite family in postexilic Jerusalem (I Ch 9 8). 5. An overseer of Levites in Jerusalem (Neh 11 22). (Neh 12 19, 42). UZZIA, vz-zai’a (NYY, ‘uzziyya’): An Ashterathite enumerated among the valiant men of David (I Ch 11 44). UZZIAH, oz-zai’a (BINIY, ‘uzztyyah[a]), ‘my strength is J’’: 1. Another name of Azariah, son of Amaziah, King of Judah, whom he succeeded at the age of sixteen (II K 151, 13, etc.; II Ch 26 3 #.; Mt 18 f. Ozias AV). His reign was signalized by suc- cessful wars against the Philistines, the Arabians, the Meunim, and the Ammonites. He strengthened the fortifications of Jerusalem, which were somewhat out of repair in consequence of the siege by Jehoash of Israel (II Ch 26 6-9). He also fortified the harbor city Elath, on the Red Sea, and colonized it with Jews (II K 14 22), How large a maritime enterprise VAGABOND): This term renders in the AV (1) the ptepl. of nidh, ‘to wander’ aimlessly as a fugitive (Gn 4 12, 14, ‘wanderer’ RV). (2) nia‘, ‘totter’ about as beggars (Ps 109 10). (8) xeprépxecbat, ‘to go about’ (Ac 19 13, ‘strolling’ RV). Ce S.7P. VAHEB, ve’/heb (37), wahébh), a place named in the poetic fragment quoted in Nu 21 14. Except that it must have been somewhere near the Arnon, its location is unknown. SeeSupHan. E. E. N. VAIL. See Dress aND ORNAMENTS, § 8; and TEMPLE, § 29. VAIN, VANITY: The basal conception in the word ‘vain’ (from Lat. vanus, ‘empty’) is that of ‘emptiness.’ It conveys the idea of something that may have a certain appearance or pretense of being or possessing substance, value, etc., but is in reality of no significance. Of the following numerous Heb. and Gr. terms rendered by ‘vain’ or ‘vanity’ in EV, the first four express this same general idea of ‘emptiness,’ ‘lightness,’ ‘transitoriness,’ ‘without real substance,’ especially in the moral or religious sphere: (1) hebhel, ‘breath,’ t.e., mere breath, illusion, fancy. (a) In a more general sense in the wisdom literature (Job 7 16, 9 29, ete.; Pr 31 30; Ec 1 2, 14, and often; Is 307, ete.). (b) Applied to wicked practises, especially idolatry (Dt 32 21; I K 16 13, 26; Jer 2 5, 6. The ancestor of a family of priests he thus secured for the kingdom of Judah is not clear. The size of his army is given by the Chronicler as 307,500. But this is very improbable; such large figures are quite liable to be due to confusion and misreading. ‘Toward the end of his reign, Uzziah became leprous, and his son Jotham assumed the reins of government (II K 155). His leprosy is inter- preted by the Chronicler as the penalty for usurping the function of the priesthood by burning incense in the Temple (II Ch 26 16-21). Uzziah’s reign was also noted for a great earthquake (Zec 14 5), which was used as a chronological datum in later times. In the famous inscription of Tiglath-pileser III, the name Azriyau of Yaudi appears on the list of the kings paying tribute. This suggests Uzziah, but the identification, which at first met with strong sup- port, is now generally given up. Yaudi was an Aramean district to the N. of Palestine. 2. A Kohathite in the genealogy of Heman (I Ch 6 24). 3. The father of Jonathan, an overseer of David (I Ch 27 25). 4. A priest who married a foreign wife (Ezr 10 21). 5. The father of Athaiah of a Judahite family of the postexilic period (Neh li 4). 6. See Uzzia. A. C. Z. UZZIEL, v-zai’el or 0z/1-el (dapry ‘uzevél), ‘God is strong’: 1. The ancestral head of one of the great divisions of Kohathite Levites (Ex 6 18, etc.), the Uzzielites (Nu 3 27). 2. One of the leaders of a band of Simonites against the Amalekites in Seir (in post- exilic days?) (I Ch 4 42). 3. The ancestor of a Benja- mite clan (I Ch 77). 4. A chief musician (I Ch 25 4, called Azarel in ver. 18). 5. A Levite in the days of Hezekiah (II Ch 29 14). 6. One of those who repaired the wall with Nehemiah (Neh 8 8). etc.). (2) rig, rég, ‘to empty,’ ‘empty.’ (a) Gen- erally (Lv 26 16, 20; Dt 32 47; Ps 21; Is 49 4, etc.). (b) In a moral sense (Jg 9 4, 11 3; II S 6 20, etc.). (3) sha@w’, ‘nothingness,’ also ‘deceit,’ ‘falsehood,’ and so rendered frequently in RV (Job 7 3, ‘misery’ RV, 11 11, 15 31, 31.5; Ps 12 2, 24 4, 26 4, 41 6, 60 11, 144 8, etc.; Is 113; Ezk 186 #., etc.). It is this word that is used in the Third Commandment (Ex 20 7; Dt 5 11). The common interpretation, taking the name of J” ‘in vain’ (2.e., lightly, irreverently, or in false oaths, etc.) is disputed by some, who would interpret shaw’ here as equivalent to ‘with empty hands’ (cf. Ex 23 15, where, however, a different Heb. word is used), and make the command a pro- hibition to worship J’’ without sacrifices. But this seems very improbable. The significance attached to the Divine name Yahweh was very great, and that the Decalog should emphasize the necessity of duly reverencing this name is only what would be expected. Cf. Kautzsch in HDB, extra vol., p. 640 f., and McNeile, Westminster Com. (1908), ad loc. (4) xevég (and derivatives), ‘empty,’ the exact N T equivalent of (2) above, but used more compre- hensively (Ac 4 25; I Co 15 10; II Co 61; Eph 5, etc.). In I Ti 6 20 and II Ti 2 16 the Gr. xevogwvla means lit. ‘empty sound’ (‘babblings’ RY). Other terms rendered more or less consistently by Vaizatha Versions A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 932 ‘yain’ or ‘vanity’ are: (5) ’awen, which is not ‘vanity’ but something positively wrong or troublesome (Job 15 35; Ps 107, both ‘iniquity’ RV; Pr 22 8, ‘calamity’ RV; Ts 41 29, 58 9, ‘wickedly’ RV; "Jer 414, ‘evil’ RV). (6) hinnam, ‘sratis,’ ‘for neaele. (Pr 117 Ezk 6 10). (7) nabhabh, ‘hollow’ (Job 11 12). (8) riéah, ‘wind’ (Job 15 2, 16 3; cf. RVmg.). (9) sheger, ‘lie,’ ‘deceit’ (Ex 59, ‘lying’? RV; IS 25 21; Ps 33 17; Jer 3 23, 88 twice, ‘false’ and falsely’ RV). (10) tohi, ‘barren,’ ‘waste,’ ‘empty’ (IS 12 21; Is 40 17, 23, 44 9, 45 18, ‘waste’ RV, 19, 59 4). (11) saphah in Is 36 5 means ‘lip’ and the lit. expression is ‘word of lips’; ‘vain’ is not in the original. (12) watatoc, watardtys, pathy, all having the general idea of ‘futility,’ ‘uselessness’ (Mt 159; Ac 14 15; Ro 8 20; I Co 3 20; Ja 1 26, etc.). (13) etxa, the N T equivalent of (6) above (Ro 13 4; I Co 15 2; Gal 3 4, 411; Col 218). (14) Sweedy, ‘freely,’ ‘as a gift’ (Gal 2 21, but here in the sense ‘to no pur- pose’). EH. BE. N. VAIZATHA, vai’ze-tha (SDP, wayzdtha’, Vajez- atha, vo-jez’a-fha AV): A son of Haman (Est 9 9). VALE, VALLEY: The term ‘vale’ is the rendering in both versions of ‘émeq (Gn 14 3, 8, 10, 87 14; also in RV Gn 1417; Jos 813, 15 8, 18 16; 1S 17 2, 19, 219; ef. also ‘king’s dale,’ Gn 14 17; II S 18 18). This term ‘émeq, ‘deepening, ? is (1) ‘a highlander’s word for valley, as he looks down into it,’ and is commonly used of broad valleys running up into the mountains, as the Vale of Elah (I S 17 19, etc.), of Aijalon (Jos 10 12), of Jezreel (Jos 17 16; Jg 6 33), etc. It seems to be used also of the maritime plain (Jg 1 19, 34; ef. Jer 475). It occurs also as opposed to mountains or hill-country (q.v.) (Mic 1 4; Jg 119, 34, 515; I K 20 2, etc.); an ‘€meg was broad enough for chariots (Jos (Jos 17 16; Job 39 21); was cultivated (IS 613; Ps 6513 [14]; Job 39 10; Song 2 1, etc.), and was suitable for herding (I Ch 27 29). Other words rendered by ‘valley’ are (2) biq‘ah, a ‘cleft,’ z.e., a broad opening in the midst of hills, and in some passages rendered ‘plain’ (q.v.). It is the opposite of hdr, ‘mountain’ (Dt 87, 11 11; Is 41 18, 63 14; Ps 104 8). The term big‘ah is used for Valley of Jericho (Dt 34 3), of Mizpeh (Jos 11 8), of Lebanon (Jos 11 17, 12 7), of Megiddo (II Ch 35 22; Zec 1211). The RV has ‘val- ley’ for ‘plain’ AV in Ezk 371, 2 and Am15. (8) gay’, gay, ge’ (Is 40 4), gé (Zec 14 4), a ‘depression,’ It is always rendered ‘valley — ‘gorge,’ or ‘ravine.’ and was narrower than the ‘émeg. It is the opposite of mountain and hill (Jos 8 1; Mic 1 6; I S 17 3; II K 2 16; Is 40 4, etc.). It is used with names for specific valleys. The RV reads ‘Ge-harashim’ (I Ch 4 14), and ‘Gai’ (I S 17 52, ‘Gath’ RVmg.). (4) nahal, ‘torrent,’ ‘torrent-valley,’ ‘wady.’ It is often used for the bed of a ‘torrent’ or ‘brook,’ even when there is no water (Nu 21 12, 329; Dt 1 24, 3 16, 21 4, 6; Jg 164;18 155; ILS 245, ‘river’ AV; II Ch 33 14; Job 21 33, 30 6; Ps 104 10; Pr 30 17; Song 6 11; Is 7 19, 57 5, 6, ‘stream’ AV; Jl 3 [4] 18; also for ‘brook’ AV, Nu 13 23 £.; II Ch 2016). A nahal was a suitable place for digging wells (Gn 26 17, 19; cf. II K 3 16, 17). The RV always has ‘valley of the Arnon’ river (Dt 2 24, 36, etc.). For the similitude see Nu 24 6. Onf. Heb. Lex. with other authorities suggests ‘palm- trees’ for ‘valleys.’ (5) sh*phélah, ‘lowlands,’ the Shephelah (q.v.) of Judah, see Patustine, § 7 (b). The RV always has ‘lowlands’ for ‘valley’ and ‘plain’ AV (Dt 17; Ob ver. 19; Zec 77). (6) ekeayé, ‘valley’ (Lk 3 5) for ge’ (Is 40 4); see (3) above. On the usage of the foregoing words, cf. also G. A. Smith, HGHL, p. 384. Oo Site: VALIANT MAN, MAN OF VALOR: These ex- pressions are often used of men, characterizing them as ‘men of war,’ or ‘warlike.’ They render: (1) gib- bor, ‘strong,’ ‘mighty,’ always in this sense (I Ch 7 2, 5, 11 26, ‘mighty’ RV; II Ch 13 3; Song 3 7, ‘mighty’ RV). (2) ‘ish- (‘man of’), ben- (‘son of’), or gibbér- (‘mighty man of’), hayil, ‘strength,’ ‘efficiency,’ ‘wealth.’ These latter Heb. expressions denote also personal qualities of courage, prowess (Jg 18 2; 1S 18 17; ITS 27, 13 28, 17 10; II K 51; II Ch 2617, etc.); skill or ability (I K 11 28; ef. Gn 47 6; Ex 18 21; Pr 31 10); virtue or worth (I K 1 42; 1 S 10 26, the op- posite of ‘worthless,’ ver. 27). The meaning ‘man of | substance’ (‘wealth’ AV) is also found (Ru 21 | RVmg.; 18 91 RV; ef. II K 15 20). CLSTL. VALLEY (or VALE) OF ACHOR, AIJALON, BACA, BERACHA, ELAH, ESCHOL, GERAR, GIBEON, HAMON GOG, HEBRON, IPHTAEL, JEHOSHAPHAT, JERICHO, JEZREEL, JIPH- THAHEL, LEBANON, MEGIDDO, MIZPEH, SALT, SHITTIM, SIDDIM, SOREK, SUCCOTH, ZARED, ZEBOIM, ZEPHATHAH, Etc. See AcHor; AIJALON; Baca, etc. VALLEY (or VALE) OF CHARASHIM and of CRAFTSMEN. See Gr-HARASHIM. VALLEY OF DECISION. See Jerusatem, § 5. VALLEY (or VALE) OF HINNOM, REPHAIM, SHAVEH, SON OF HINNOM. See Jerusatnm, §$§ 6-8; also SHAVEH. VALLEY OF KEZIZ. See Emex-xzz1z. VALLEY OF SLAUGHTER: A symbolic name for the Valley of Hinnom (Jer 7 32, 19 6). VALLEY OF VISION: A part of the title (prob- ably affixed by an editor) of one of Isaiah’s threaten- ing prophecies against Jerusalem (Is 22 1). It is difficult to see just what suggested the caption— possibly ver. 5. The LXX. reads ‘Valley of Sion.’ E. E. N. VANIAH, va-nai’a (i773), cana: One of the ‘sons of Bani’ (Ezr 10 36). VAPOR: This word renders: (1) ’édh, a term of doubtful meaning, probably related to the Assyr. edt, ‘flood,’ ‘overflowing water’ (Gn 2 6 ‘mist,’ LXX. ‘spring,’ Job 36 27 ‘vapor,’ LXX. ‘clouds’). (2) nas?’, ‘that which is lifted up,’ always associated with ‘ascending’ (Ps 135 7; Jer 10 13=51 16). (8) ‘alah, ‘that which goes up’ (Job 36 33 AV, but ‘[the storm] that cometh up’ RV). (4) qitér, ‘smoke’; cf. Gn 19 28 (Ps 148 8 AV, but ‘stormy wind’ RV), and (5) acts, ‘breath’ (Ja 4 14; Ac 2 19, ‘vapor of smoke’ [from the LXX. of Jl 2 30, where the Heb. is correctly rendered by AV and RV ‘pillars of smoke’]). ALG. Ze VASHNI, vash’nai (’3¥1, washni): The oldest son of Samuel, according to the Heb. text of I Ch 6 28. But the word ‘Joel’ (cf. I S 8 2) should be inserted and ‘Vashni’ would then be read ‘and the second’ as in RV. EK. E.N. 933 VASHTI, vagh’tai (MY, washti): Queen of Ahas- uerus (Est 19, etc.). See Esrner, Boox or, §§ 2, 6. VAT (FAT AV) and WINE-VAT (WINE-FAT AV). See Vines AND VINTAGE, § 1. VEDAN, vi'dan (]1), wedhdn): One of the com- mercial feeders of Tyre (Ezk 27 19 RV), a place un- known. Several other readings have been sug- gested. (AV reads ‘Dan also’). The text of the entire verse is very uncertain, the LXX. omitting the first part altogether. A. §. C.*—O. R. 8. VEGETABLES. See Patesting, §§ 21, 22, 23; and Foop anp Foop Urensins, § 3. VEHEMENT: This term in the AV of Jon 4 8, ‘sultry’ RV, renders a Heb. word, hdrishith, appar- ently from a root meaning ‘to cut’; hence, strictly, ‘cutting [distressing] wind’; but as the wind in ques- tion is also said to have been an east wind, what is meant is the hot, blasting wind from the desert. A. C. Z. VEIL. See Dress AND ORNAMENTS, § 8; and TEMPLE, § 29. VEIN. See Mina, Mirna. VENGEANCE: This term renders (1) ndgam, neqamah, from ndgam, ‘to avenge.’ It is predomi- nantly of God that vengeance is asserted (Jg 11 36; Is 348; Gn 415). (2) 83txn, ‘justice’ (so in RV of Ac 28 4; but in RV of Jude ver. 7, ‘punishment’). (8) deyn, ‘wrath’ (so in RV of Ro 3 5). (4) éx8lxxotc, ‘the full meting out of just retribution’ (Lk 21 22; Ro 12 19; II Th 1 8; He 10 30). See also Boon, AVENGER OF; and Gop, § 2. A. C. Z. VENISON. See Foon, § 10; and Huntina. VERMILION (1¥%, shdshar): This word denotes primarily the red ocher used in painting wood, and then the color itself (Jer 22 14; Ezk 23 14). A.C. Z. VERSIONS. I. Grerx Versions or THE O T, 1. Introductory. The victories of Philip of Macedon and of his son Alexander had a profound effect upon the intellectual life of Greece proper. One of their dreams was the unification of Hellas which led to the leveling down and partial merging of numerous dialects that heretofore had held their own in this much-divided little country. At the same time, as a result of the wider con- quests of Alexander in Western Asia and Egypt, there arose necessity for a new speech medium by means of which peoples of different nationality might intermingle and do business together. Out of these conditions and necessities in the century following the conquests of Philip and Alex- ander emerged a colloquial language known as the xotvy (from xotv6és, common). In the empires of Alexander and of his successors, the Ptolemies, the Seleucid kings, etc., this colloquial was in practically universal use. In this language as it appears written down in papyri, inscriptions, in the original portions of the LXX. such as Wisdom and II Maccabees, in Philo, the N T and elsewhere, there are compara- tively few dialectical variations except minor matters of pronunciation and orthography, and A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Vaizatha Versions these are such as would arise naturally from differ- ences in the writers’ education, their degree of familiarity with the older literary language, and the influence of foreign idioms and models. Comparison of the xotvy with writings of the clas- sical period to the great disadvantage of the latter leaves out of account the fact that while language lives it changes. Because it is different it is not necessarily greatly inferior. Increasing knowledge of the Hellenistic age reveals it to have been one of the most important periods in the development of human culture, all of which reflects itself in the language that became the medium of this culture. (See also GrrEK LANGUAGE and the literature there referred to). 2. Alexandria the Center of the New Culture. Alexandria became an important center of Hellenis- tic learning and culture. Here it was that scientific institutes were founded by the first Ptolemy, Ptolemzus Lagi, satrap from 323, king from 304-285 B.c. Acting on the advice of Demetrius Phalereus, he began to make a great collection of books and to erect buildings to house them. His successors con- tinued his policy, and thus there arose two libraries in Alexandria, the Museum and the Serapeum, and kings and scholars vied with one another in filling them with books. Among other things, the Alex- andrian libraries were active in causing the sacred books of the Egyptians, Jews, and Babylonians to be translated into Greek. Alexandria was situated at what was then the meeting-place of the nations, and a general interchange of thought was natural. 3. The Jews of Alexandria. Alexandria had been a favorite home of the Jews from its founding, and under the Ptolemies they were highly esteemed, because of their consistent loyalty during the inces- sant wars between Egypt and Syria. They were loyal because they enjoyed full citizenship; they occupied a quarter of the city near the palace; they were governed by their own ethnarch, and, as at Ephesus, belonged to a special tribe, a fact which permitted them to follow without hindrance their own religion and customs. About the time of the birth of Christ there were 1,000,000 Jews in Egypt. And there is evidence that due to their number and influence some Semitic phrases and idioms passed into general Hellenistic usage in Egypt and elsewhere. These appear here and there in papyrus texts. (See the list compiled by Thumb, Gr. Sprache im Z. d. Hell., and cf. R. L. Ottley, Handbook to the Septua- gint, p. 163 ff.) Jews in Alexandria remained faith- ful to national traditions and made pilgrimages to Jerusalem to pay the Temple tribute. But Jews living outside of Palestine tended to become more and more Hellenized. As the N T itself shows (cf. Ac 11 20 where some Mss. [8° AD] read ‘Greeks’ while others [BEH] ‘Hellenists’). ‘Greeks’ and ‘Hellenists’ were not always easily distinguished. In Alexandria a special effort was made to har- monize Jewish and Greek ideas. Thus we have the case of one Aristobulus, a Jewish peripatetic philoso- pher (about 120 B.c.), who wrote in Greek a com- mentary on the books of Moses, or the Mosaic Law, in which he introduced as tho from Orpheus, Linus, and Hesiod many verses written by himself. In it Versions he claimed also that Pythagoras and Plato got their first inklings of philosophy and law from Moses. 1. The Septuagint. 4. Its Origin. Some scholars infer from these statements of Aristobulus that a Greek translation of the Pentateuch was in existence prior to 400 B.c. But the first translation of which we have positive knowledge was made by Greek-speaking Jews of Alexandria. In his letter to Philocrates, a person claiming to be Aristeas (who was surely a Jew, and not a pagan) says that Demetrius Phalereus sug- gested to Ptolemzus Philadelphus (285-247 B.c.) that a translation of the books of the Law should be made into Greek; that an embassy consisting of Aristeas and Andreas was sent by Ptolemzus Philadelphus to Jerusalem to request the high priest Eleazar to send to Alexandria six scholars from each of the ten tribes of Israel to translate the Pentateuch into Greek. Aristeas gives the correspondence between Ptolemzeus and Eleazar and also the names of the seventy-two elders chosen by Eleazar to do the work. Arrived in Alexandria, these elders, Aristeas continues, were quartered on the island of Pharos, where in seventy-two days they completed the translation of the Pentateuch from the Hebrew rolls brought with them from Jerusalem, which means that the MS. from which the translation was made had the approval of the priestly authorities of Jerusalem. Aristobulus (150 B.c.), Philo Judzeus (30-50 a.p.), and Josephus (born 37 A.D.) are in prac- tical agreement with this account of Aristeas, that is to say, the story of Aristeas was believed by the Jews of Alexandria, from two centuries before Christ, and it was believed by the Church Fathers also, with the exception of Jerome. Modern scholars regard Aristeas’ story as a romance, but with a basis in fact, and the fact is this: That during the reign of Ptolemeus Philadelphus a translation of the Penta- teuch into Greek was really made from a MS. brought from Jerusalem for the purpose; that this translation was made probably by the aid of a stipend given by Ptolemzeus; that it was not made, however, by Palestinian Jews, as Aristeas asserts, but by Alexandrian Jews, to meet the needs of the Greek-speaking Jews of Egypt, both in public wor- ship and in private life. This version, because of the prevalent story that it had been made by seventy- two (or, in round numbers, seventy) Jewish elders, was known a8 % épunvela xatk tods EB3ouyxovTa = interpretatio septuaginta virorum, or seniorum, abbre- viated to ot O or ot 68—the LXX. or Septuagint. 5. Its Character. This translation, intolerable as it was to Atticists, because of its sometimes bar- barous style and the slavish copying of Semitic idioms, came into general use among Alexandrian Jews who welcomed it warmly (as did also the high priest in Jerusalem, according to the express testi- mony of Aristeas). It was at first limited to the Pentateuch, and it is not known when the other books of the Bible were translated; but we do know that the early Christian writers speak of the whole Greek Bible as the Septuagint, and we know also that most of the writings included in our Bible had been translated into Greek by Alexandrian Jews before A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 934 132 B.c., and that all the Hebrew Scriptures, incltud- ing the Apocrypha, had been turned into Greek before the birth of Christ. Taken as a whole, the Septuagint exhibits several varieties of Greek, corresponding to the antecedents and general culture of the different translators. Books originally written in Greek (as Wisdom, II-I[V Maccabees) compare favorably in style with the works of Jewish his- torians and philosophers. The translation of the Pentateuch is characterized by much literalness, due to the fact that it was intended to take the place of the sacred text in synagogs where Hebrew was not understood. In other cases, as in the translation of Isaiah and some of the Psalms, there are clear signs of incompetence (cf. Swete, Introduction to the O T tn Greek, revision by Ottley (1914), especially, pages 289-314). Paul quotes from this version, which during the Apostolic Age was held high in honor everywhere, except in Palestine. There it was dis- credited, because it did not follow the official Hebrew text of the Scribes, which by that time had become standard. There was no standard Heb. text when the LXX. was made, since the canon of the Prophets had not then been completed, the Hebrew text being revised and sanctioned by the priestly authorities in Jerusalem after the appearance of the Septuagint translation. This Septuagint version was regarded as sacred (t.e., inspired) Scripture by the Christians, who used it in their controversies with the Jews as equal in authority with the Hebrew original. On their part, however, the Jews claimed that, as it did not represent the official Hebrew text it could not be used as a basis for theological con- troversy. 2. Other Greek Versions. 6. Of Aquila. The result was that no less than six new translations, based on the official standard Hebrew text, were made, namely, those by Aquila Theodotion, Symmachus, and those by three anon- ymous writers whose versions were designated by Origen as Quinta, Sexta, and Septima. Aquila was a Gentile, born in Sinope in Pontus, on the Black Sea. He was a Roman, a kinsman of the Emperor Hadrian (117-188 a.p.), who commis- sioned him to rebuild Jerusalem under the name of Alia Capitolina (128-129 a.p.). In Jerusalem Aquila was converted to Christianity, but was excommunicated because he believed in astrology. He was then converted to Judaism, was circum- cised, and studied for a series of years under the leading Jewish Rabbis. The result of his Hebrew studies was a new translation of the Scriptures into Greek. It was made from the official standard Hebrew text, which it followed faithfully, liter- ally, slavishly, in utter disregard of Greek syntax, grammar, and idiom, his sole object being to supplant the Septuagint. His translation was ap- proved by the priestly authorities in Jerusalem, and was therefore hailed with delight by the Jews, but with disfavor by the Christians. Probably, because of this very excessive fidelity to the Hebrew text and idiom, it failed in its purpose to supplant the Septuagint, tho its painful accuracy makes it of very great vaiue for textual criticism. 935 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Versions Portions of Aquila’s translation of I K 20 9-17 and II K 23 11-27 were discovered by 8S. Schechter in the Genizah of the Cairo synagog in 1897-8. Other portions from the same storehouse, comprising many fragments of A.’s translation of the Psalms have been published by C. Taylor, Hebrew-Greek Cairo Genizah Palimpsests (1900). (41909), Vol. III, p. 438. 7. Of Theodotion. Theodotion, according to Irenzeus, was a native of Ephesus, tho Epiphanius contends that he, too, like Aquila, was a native of Sinope and a convert to Judaism. He was, probably, a Jew from Ephesus, and, according to Jerome, an Ebionite, that is, one who recognized Christ as the Messiah, but denied His Divinity, maintained the binding force of the Mosaic Law, and rejected Paul and his writings. Epiphanius assigns Theodotion to the reign of Commodus (180-192), but he wrote, probably, during the reign of Marcus Aurelius (161- 180). His translation was more a revision of the Septuagint than a version of his own. His object was both to avoid-the pedantry and absurd fidelity of Aquila and to present an idiomatic translation from the official standard Hebrew text, one that would not offend the literary susceptibilities of cul- tured Hellenists. The fragments of his translation show that he succeeded fairly well; his style is simple, dignified, and withal faithful to the original. The work of Theodotion is known chiefly from fragments of Jeremiah quoted by Origen and pre- served in the margin of the codex Marchalianus. Cf. Swete, op. cit., p. 44 ff. 8. Of Symmachus. Symmachus was an Ebionite by religion, according to Eusebius and Jerome, a Samaritan by birth, and, according to Epiphanius, a convert to Judaism. The last-named assigns him to the reign of Marcus Aurelius (161-180), tho it is more probable that he wrote during the reign of Com- modus (180-192). In his translation his aim was essentially the modern one, to give a liberal, idiomatic rendering of the Hebrew, not a crude literal translation—that is, he tried really to translate Hebrew thoughts into the current Greek literary style, and the fragments of his version show that he did not fail of success. Cf. fragments quoted by Swete, op. cit., p. 51. 9. The Quinta, Sexta, and Septima. Origen (185- 253 A.D.) mentions three other translations. From their relative positions in Origen’s Hexapla (see below), these were known as Quinta (é), Sexta (c’), and Septima (¢’). Origen found the MS. of Quinta at Nicopolis (near Actium) about 231 a.p., while the MS. of Sexta (or Septima; it is uncertain which) was found in a buried earthen jar in Jericho, about 217 a.p. Eusebius says that the MS. of Septima was found during the reign of Caracalla. We know nothing further about it, nor do we know whether or not Quinta, Sexta, and Septima each embraced the whole O T. Numerous fragments of Quinta (II Kings, Job, Psalms) and of Sexta (Psalms, Canticles) are extant; they show that the writer of Quinta had an elegant Greek style, while the writer of Sexta was fond of paraphrases. The fragments of Septima are very scant, being practically confined to the Psalter. Cf. Schiirer, GVJI 10. Later Versions. In the 14th cent. a Jew, pos- sibly to be identified with Elisseeus, who lived at the court of Murad I, translated most of the O T into Greek. His version is known as Codex Gracus Venetus, and is preserved in St. Mark’s Library in Venice. The translator produced a faithful, but infelicitous, version in what he thought was Attic Greek tho, curiously enough, he used the Doric dialect in rendering the Aramaic portions of Daniel. The first Modern Greek translation of the Psalms was made from the Septuagint in Crete by Agapion (1543); in 1547 a Jew of Epirus made a Modern Greek version of the Pentateuch; in 1576 Moses Phobian published in the Polyglot Pentateuch a version of Job in Modern Greek. 3. The Work of Origen and Others. 11. The Hexapla. Origen, born 185 a.p., revised the translation of the O T on the basis of the versions of Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus. He studied Hebrew in Egypt, whence he was exiled to Caesarea in Palestine (216-219), where he perfected his knowledge of Hebrew. He first wrote commentaries on the O T, which made a study of the standard Hebrew text necessary. Origen contended that Christians should know that the Septuagint version, regarded by them as inspired, did not represent the official Hebrew text, and that in many respects the versions of Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus were much more accurate than that of the Septua- gint. Origen, therefore, arranged the Hebrew text, the existing Greek versions, and the Septuagint version, as emended by himself, in parallel columns, whose arrangement we understand clearly from a fragment of his work discovered at Milan in 1896, and from another fragment containing all the six columns, found in 1898:1 i. li. iii. iv. Vv. vi. Hebrew ‘Translit- Version Version Alexan- Version text. eration of of drian of of the Aquila, Sym- version Theo- Hebrew machus. as re- dotion text into vised by Greek Origen. letters. Aquila’s version stands next to the Hebrew text, because it was slavishly faithful to the Hebrew. The version of Symmachus comes in the fourth column because it is practically a revision of that of Aquila. The version of Theodotion occupies the sixth col- umn, because it was practically a revision of the version of the Seventy, Origen’s revision of which occupied the fifth column. The Hebrew column contained in each line one word, or at most two, and each line of the corresponding Greek translations contained one word, or at most four. Origen’s great work was called the Hexapla, or Sixfold Edi- tion. He published also a smaller edition, called the Tetrapla, or Fourfold Edition, because it omitted the first two columns of the Hexapla. Occasionally, in the Hexapla (in the poetical and prophetical books) the versions of Quinta and the Sexta were added in separate columns, thus creating for those 1 The Milan fragment was edited by its discoverer Giov. Mercati. See Aiti della R. Accademia delle Scienze di Torino, 10 Apr., 1896. A Cairo fragment of the Hexapla of Ps 22 ap- pears in the work of C. Taylor referred to above (§ 6). Versions Village A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 936 “ RARER YS itil daret E> etal SA oc — ia Sam nhs dinate oe et te = books an Octopla, or Eightfold Edition. We hear also of a Heptapla, or Sevenfold Edition, in which either Quinta or Sexta was omitted. 12. Relation of Origen’s Text to the Massoretic. The fifth column of the Hexapla did not contain the Septuagint version, but that version revised by Origen, on the basis of the Hebrew text and the other Greek versions. The Septuagint version contained parts of sentences not to be found in the official Hebrew text, and, on the other hand, it did not con- tain parts of sentences that were in the official Hebrew text, and, again, it gave a sense not sup- ported by the official Hebrew text. Occasionally, matter, sometimes extending to several chapters, was displaced in the Septuagint version (all of which came about, because the Septuagint version was made before an official standard Hebrew text had been promulgated by the priesthood of Jerusalem). The object of Origen’s revised Hexapla text was to make the Septuagint version the exact equivalent of the official standard Hebrew text. Consequently, he changed the Greek order, making it correspond with the Hebrew order, and corrected the corrup- tions of the Septuagint version, supplying what was missing, but without altering the Greek. However, interpolations had also crept into the Septuagint, or Alexandrian, version, and presented difficulties to Origen, as did the matter found in the Septuagint version, but not in the official Hebrew, and the matter found in the official Hebrew text, but not in the Septuagint version. Origen tells us that he solved these problems by the inspiration of God. He adapted to his use some of the critical signs em- ployed originally by Aristarchus in his editions of the Homeric poems. This apparatus consisted of the obelus sign, =», or «=, placed before words or lines which were not found in the official Hebrew text, and were, therefore, unauthorized. The asterisk, * was placed before words or lines found in the official Hebrew text, but not in the Septuagint version. The metobolus, :, was placed at the end of the words or of the clause challenged by the obelus or the asterisk. When the words or the clause challenged by the obelus or by the asterisk over- passed the limits of the line, the obelus or the asterisk was repeated at the beginning of each line, until the presence of the metobolus notified the reader that the end of the challenged passage had been reached. The absence of critical marks in the fragments of the Hexapla discovered in 1896 and 1898 at Milan and Cairo has led some scholars to question whether these critical marks actually appeared in the text of Origen’s Hexapla as they are now found in Jerome’s Gallican Psalter and in the great Hexaplaric MS. known as G. 13. Editions of Hexapla. Origen’s Hexapla edition was finished about 240 a.p., and his Tetrapla edition appeared toward the end of his life. Eusebius says that in preparing his version Origen employed ‘more than seven tachygraphers [‘fast writers’ =stenogra- phers], who relieved one another at fixed intervals, and that he employed an equal number of bibliographers [‘copyists of the text’] and female calligraphers’ (‘ex- perts in penmanship’). The completed Hexapla edi- tion covered at least 3,250 leaves, or 6,500 pages, ex- clusive of the Quinta and the Sexta. The Tetrapla edition covered at least 2,000 leaves, or 4,000 pages. Neither of these editions was published, that is, they were not put upon the book-market, but were deposited in the library of Pamphilus in Cesarea, where they were consulted by Jerome in the 4th cent. It is known that they were still in existence in the 6th cent. They perished, probably, in 638, at the time of the capture of Ceesarea by the Saracens. The fifth column of the Hexapla edition, containing Origen’s version of the Septuagint version, was pub- lished separately and placed upon the Palestine book-market by Pamphilus (martyred within the period from 307 to 309) and Husebius, who com- pleted it after the death of Pamphilus. This edition was known as Eusebius’ edition, or as the Palestine edition, or as Origen’s edition of the Septuagint. It was a grave error of judgment to publish Origen’s Hexapla revision by itself, for it intensified diff- culties, in that the Aristarchian signs had no meaning- whatever in the separate publication, and the version itself, when taken out of connection with the Hebrew text and the other versions, was wholly misleading. 14. Hesychius and Lucian. When Pamphilus and Eusebius were publishing the fifth column of Origen’s Hexapla edition in Palestine, Hesychius in Alexan- dria, with the aid of Phileas and others, was revising and editing the old Septuagint version. This edition has disappeared, except as it may have been the basis of some of the old Latin and other versions made in Egypt from which it can be reconstructed partially. We do not even know positively who this Hesychius was, tho he was probably the martyr of that name. In Antioch, at about the same time, Lucian (martyred Jan. 7, 312), with the aid of Dorotheus, was making what was practically a new version of the Hebrew Bible. It has been ascertained that Lucian’s version was the archetype of several codices of the O T, and Lagarde has reconstructed much of the text of Lucian’s version. It is smooth and full; it is near to the Hebrew, and yet the Greek is idiomatic. It often gives double renderings, and sometimes Lucian’s rendering appears to be based on a better text than the Massoretic. TI. OrgeR VERSIONS OF THE O T. 15. The Latin. The Septuagint version was in common use throughout the Roman Empire from Gaul to Egypt and Cyrenaica, with the sole exception of Carthage, where Greek did not occupy a preferred position. It was, perhaps, at Carthage in the 2d cent. a.D. that the Septuagint version was first translated into Latin, the Old Latin Bible (Vetus Itala), frequently and accurately quoted by Cyprian (middle of 3d cent.). Jerome (Eusebius Hierony- mus, 329-420) of Pannonia, at the request of Pope Damasus, undertook a revision of the O T on the basis of the Septuagint (383). He began his work with the Old Latin Psalter (Psaliertum Romanum). A few years later (889), he published another revision of the Psalter, made from the Septuagint on the ba- sis of the fifth column of Origen’s Hexapla (Psalte- rium Gallicanum). About 390 he tramslated the Psalter from the Hebrew (Psalterium Hebraicum), which, however, failed to displace his other two 937 versions in the Church service. These versions were followed from time to time by versions of other books of the O T. The Latin Bible was revised in the 6th and again in the 9th cent., but the Latin Bible of to-day still re-echoes the Septuagint. This revised version was called the Vulgate, first by Roger Bacon, tho Jerome applied the term Vulgata to the Old Latin Bible. For a list of extant Old Latin fragments of the O T cf. Swete, op. cit., pp. 93-100. 16. The Egyptian (Coptic). Before the close of the 2d cent. A.p., at least two translations of the Bible into the Egyptian (Coptic, a corruption of Atybxttos) dialects (the Bohairic and the Sahidic) had been made from the Septuagint version. We have also fragments of later translations into other Egyptian dialects—the Middle Egyptian, the Fayumic, and the Akhmimic, all from the Septuagint version. 17. The Ethiopic. In the 4th cent. missionaries from Tyre evangelized Ethiopia, and in the 5th or 6th cent. the Bible was translated into Ethiopic, on the basis of the Greek Septuagint, tho Lagarde holds that the extant Ethiopic version was made from the medieval Arabic version in the 14th cent. 18. The Arabic. The earliest Arabic version was made partly from the Hebrew, partly from the Syriac Peshitto, partly from the Septuagint, and, possibly, partly from the Coptic. The first important transla- tion was made by Saadia Gaon (872-942), and it is still used by Arabic-speaking Jews. Other Arabic versions are the Karaite version and the Samaritan version of Saadia (11th cent.). 19. The Syriac. There were two Syriac versions of the O T. (1) The Peshitto or ‘the simple,’ made probably at Edessa by Jews, from the Hebrew, at the time of King Abgar (9-45 a.p.). A free revision of this version, on the basis of the Septuagint, was made by Philoxenus about 508 a.p., the fragments of which are in the British Museum (the Philoxenian Syriac). (2) The version of Paul, Bishop of Tella in Mesopotamia, made from the Hexapla revision of Origen about 616 a.p., called the Syro-Hexapla. Besides these two, there are fragments of several other Syriac versions, as follows: (1) A version in the Palestinian dialect contain- ing the whole O T and made from the Septuagint version. (2) A version by Mar Abbas (552 a.p.). (3) Two Jacobite versions: (a) By Polycarp (5th cent.), (b) by Jacob of Edessa (704 a.p.). (4) A version by a Syrian interpreter, called 6 Lbeoc. 20. Persian, Gothic, Armenian, Georgian, Sla- vonic, Etc. Maimonides says that the Pentateuch was translated into Persian long before Mohammed, but the first Persian version of which we have knowl- edge was made by Jacob Tawus, and appeared in the Polyglot Pentateuch (Constantinople, 1546). About 350 a.p. Ulfilas translated the Bible into Gothic, the long fragments of which version (Gospels and Pauline Epistles), unfortunately only few in number, are most precious to the student of lan- guage, because they are the oldest specimens of Teutonic literature. The translation of the Bible into Armenian falls between 354-441. It was begun at Edessa by Mesrop and continued by his nephew A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Versions Village Moses of Khoren. It was based on the Septuagint version. Mesrop also inaugurated the Georgian, or Iberian, version, on the basis of the Septuagint version. In the 9th cent. the brothers Cyril and Methodius translated the Septuagint version into Slavonic. Most of this version perished during the Tartar in- vasion in the 13th cent., and the present Slavonic version is not based wholly on the Septuagint, some of it having been translated from the Hebrew and some from the Latin Vulgate. The Western versions into Anglo-Saxon, Frankish, etc., were made from the Latin Vulgate, and not from the Hebrew or Greek. See also ARAMAIC LANGUAGE; and TARGUM. Lirrratour:: F, Field, Prolegomena in H ete Origenis (1875); Buhl, Text und Raves d. A T (Eng. transl. 1891); Nestle, in PRE’, Urtext und Uebersetzungen der Bibel (separate reprint, 1897) ; Schirer, GVI rien Mir III, pp. 424-442), S.*—J. M. T. VESSELS: The words so rendered have the very general meaning of ‘utensil,’ ‘weapon,’ etc., except nebhel in Is 30 14, which means an ‘earthen jar,’ or ‘pitcher.’ In I S 215 the interpretation is somewhat difficult. The probable meaning is that as David and his men were on a military expedition, they and all their accouterments were ceremonially ‘holy,’ so that they could touch the ‘holy’ bread without risk. See Purn, Puriry, Purirication, §§ 6,7. On vessels of papyrus (Is 18 2, ‘bulrushes’ AV), see SHips AND NAVIGATION, § 2. K. E. N. VESTMENTS. See, in general, Dress anp ORNAMENTS. VESTURE. See Dress anp ORNAMENTS. VIAL: This is the rendering of: (1) pakh, a ‘flask,’ ‘vial’ for holding oil. A vial of oil was used in anointing Saul (I S 101) and Jehu (II K 91, 3, box AV). (2) g&An, a broad, shallow ‘bowl’ (so RV in all passages), used for presenting incense (Rev 5 8) and drink-offerings. It was probably of saucer shape, so that the contents could be poured out at once and suddenly. In Rev (157, 161 f., 171, 219) they are spoken of figuratively as filled with the wine ‘of the wrath of God.’ C.S. T. VILLAGE: (1) The ordinary O T word hdtsér, ‘enclosure’ (cf. Hazor, Hazar-susaH, etc.), originally meant a settlement of nomads (cf. Gn 25 16; Is 42 11). (2) kaphar, ‘village’ (cf. Arab. kefr), is of later origin and not frequent in Biblical use (I Ch 27 25; Song 7 11), except In proper names such as Chephar-ammoni, Chephirah, Capernaum. It apparently denoted a regular village, and not a mere collection of tents or huts like hdisér. See also HAVVoTH-JAIR and PrEriz- zitEs. (3) In the N T the common Gr. term xay.7 is applied specifically to Bethlehem (Jn 7 42), Beth- saida (Mk 8 22 £.), Bethphage (Mt 211 f.), Bethany (Jn 111), and Emmaus (Lk 24 13). The O T never mentions villages singly or by name. They are usually grouped as mere dependencies of some fortified place (cf. Jos 13 23; Neh 11 30; cf. Mk 8 27), of which they are often called the bdndth, ‘daughters’ (Nu 32 42; II Ch 28 18; cf. II S 20 19), altho in many cases (e.g., Jos 15 21-32) the protecting ‘city’ must itself have been very small. The same idea of villages dependent on a city is represented in Vine Wagon A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 938 the N T term xwypéxortc, properly a ‘village-city’ (cf. Mk 1 38). The original distinction between a city and a village was that the former had walls (Lv 25 29-31; I S 618). Later on, the city became noted for its size and wealth; according to the Talmudists it must have a synagog, and in the Greek period a certain political organization was demanded. Varying standards, as well as the growth and decay of com- munities (cf. Zec 2 4), led to a certain latitude in the use of terms. Thus Bethlehem is called both a ‘city’ (Lk 2 4) and a ‘village’ (Jn 7 42). The same is true of Bethsaida (Lk 9 10; Mk 8 22 £.). Caper- naum (see above) was called a ‘city’ because much more important than its first part (Caper =kefr, ‘village’) would indicate. See also Crry, § 3. LireratTurRE: Stanley, Sinai and Palestine, Appendix, vi; | Keil, Biblical Archzology, ii, 109 f.; Schiirer, II, i, p. 154. L. G. L.— VINE. See VINES AND VINTAGE. VINEGAR: The word hémets, rendered ‘vinegar’ | in the O T, is usually wine in which the alcohol has been changed into acetic acid, as in the vinegar of modern times. Once ‘vinegar of strong drink’ is mentioned (Nu 6 3). Undiluted vinegar was too strong to be a satisfying drink (Ps 69 21) and irritat- ing to the teeth (Pr 10 26); but diluted with water was used as a relish (Ru 214), tho it was forbidden to the Nazirite (Nu 6 3). The ‘vinegar’ of the Cruci- fixion narratives (8G0¢, Mt 27 48 and |ls) was ap- parently the posca, or sour wine ordinarily served out to the Roman soldiers, and seems to have been offered as an act of mercy. See also VINES AND VINTAGE, § 2. L. G. L.—E. C. L. VINE OF SODOM. See Sopom, Vinz or. VINES AND VINTAGE: The fact that the com- mon name for ‘banquet’ among the Hebrews was mishteh (‘drinking’) shows the significance which attached to wine. Its use was presupposed as a necessary part of every meal (Gn 27 25), while ‘wine and grain’ in common speech represented the most important part of the produce of the land. 1. Culture of the Vine Among the Hebrews. In Gn 9 20 the culture of the vine is traced back to Noah, its origin being attributed to a mythical ancestor, just as other phases of civilized life are traced to ancient heroes in the Cainite genealogical table in Gn 416 #. A dim recollection of the fact that Israel learned the art of vine-culture from the Canaanites is to be found, not only in the story of the spies (Nu 13 24), but also in the hostile attitude of the Rechabites, who rejected the use of wine probably because of its Canaanite origin (cf. Jer ch. 35). As a matter of fact, vineyards were to be found everywhere in the land, especially on moun- tain slopes and hills (Is 51; Jer 31 5), but also in the valleys (e.g., in that of Jezreel, Jg 9 27; I K 211 #.). The vines from the neighborhood of Hebron were famous (Nu 13 24), also those from the Lebanon region (Hos 14 8). The care bestowed upon vine- culture is revealed in not a few passages of the O T. The hillside, where a plow could not be used, was worked with a mattock and the stones removed (Is ch. 5). It was protected by terrace-walls, gadhér, in order to prevent the washing away of the soil by water (cf. Nu 22 24), and surrounded with a thorn hedge, m*stikkdah, or wall, or even with both (Is 5 2, 5, 17 10 f.), as a protection against grazing herds (Is 7 25; Jer 12 10), or wild animals (Ps 80 14; Song 215). Huts or booths, sukkéth (cf. Is 1 8 cottage AV), or watch- towers, mighddl (Is 5 2), were erected, in which the vine-dresser, kérém (II Ch 26 10), or the keeper, notér, lived (Job 27 18; Song 16, 811 £.). Every vine- yard had its wine-press, a stone tub or vat (fat AV) (gath or purah), in which, with shouts of joy, hédh- adh, the grapes were trodden, darakh, to must (tirésh, new wine, 2.e., unfermented juice with its sediment); cf. Is 16 10; Jer 25 30, 48 33. If the soil was rocky, the press was hewn out in the rock. Connected with it, but on a lower level, was a receiving-vat, | yegebh, into which the must flowed to be clarified. From this it was drawn off into jars (Jer 48 11), or skins (Job 32 19).. The work of pruning, zamar, the branches with the pruning-hook, mazmérah (Ly 25 3; Is 24; Jn 15 3; etc.), was of great importance. In - general, the vines were trained as separate stocks, tho also, at times, they were allowed to run and develop into a number of connected vines. As to-day, so in older times, a vine with its wide outspreading branches furnished of itself a substantial foliage (cf. Mic 44). It was forbidden to plant anything else in a vineyard (Dt 22 9), and it was required that a vineyard should be left uncultivated every seventh, year (Ex 23 11; Lv 25 3 f.). The wood of old and useless vines was burned (Ezk 15 2 #.; Jn 156). As to the varieties of grapes raised in ancient Palestine, it is possible to draw some inferences from O T ex- pressions. From the designation of the juice of the | grapes as their ‘blood’ (Gn 49 11; Dt 32 14), it may be concluded that red grapes were most highly prized. This is confirmed by the use of the term sorég (‘red,’ Is 5 2; Jer 2 21) for the vines of best quality (‘the choicest vine’), which indicates that they were so called from their red grapes. In later times, however, the culture of other varieties must have supplanted that of the red grapes, for the wine exported from Palestine at the beginning of the Middle Ages was white, and it is the white grape that is grown most extensively there to-day. 2. The Manufacture of Wine. The time of the ripening of the grapes varied according to the loca- tion of the vineyards. On the plain along the coast there are ripe grapes as early as July, in the high- lands not for a month later, while those destined for the wine-press are not gleaned until September and October. This was the custom also in the olden times, since the festival which specially celebrated the vintage—the Feast of Booths (Tabernacles)— came in Tishri (September-October). It was a feast of unrestrained joy. Song and dancing were the order of the day (Jg 9 27; Is 16 10; Jer 25 30; 48 33). The must was drunk, either sweet or half fer- mented. It was generally allowed to ferment in jars or skins (the new wine of Mk 2 22 and ||/s), and to stand a while upon its lees (Is 48 11; Zeph 112). Some- times, it was kept over a year, until the second fer- mentation took place, and then poured from one vessel into another (Is 48 11). Before drinking, wine was filtered or strained (sh¢mdrim m*zuqqaqim Is 25 6; Jer 48 11). Among the Israelites, it was not 939 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Vine Wagon usual to mix the wine with water; this was a Greek custom. But it was often mixed with various sorts of spices (Song 8 2; Is 5 22). It can not be asserted with certainty that the Hebrews were accustomed to boil down the must to grape honey (Arab. dibs), tho this may well have been the case (cf. d¢bhdsh, Gn 43 11; I K 14 3; Ezr 2717). Grapes were often dried, tsim-~ miugim (I § 25 18), and pressed into cakes, ‘dshishah (Hos 31; ITS 619). At the present day, raisins form a chief article of export in Syria. The b°’dshim men- tioned in the O T (Is 5 2, wild grapes) were imperfect grapes that did not mature, but should be distin- guished from the bdser (Is 18 5, ‘ripening grape’; Jer 31 29 f., ‘sour grape’), which were grapes used while still green or unripe. What kind of injury to the vine was inflicted by the téla‘ath (Dt 28 39, ‘worm’) is not certain. LITERATURE: See Anderlind, “Die Rebe in Syrien, insbeson- dere in Palistina,’” ZDPV, xi, pp. 160 ff.; Frass, Drei Monate am Libanon (1876), pp. 26 ff.; J. Déller, ‘Der Wein in Bibel und Talmud,” Biblica, iv, 1923, pp. 143-167, 267-299 (full bibliography). W. N.—L. B. P. . . . VINEYARD. See VINES AND VINTAGE, § 1 VIOL. See Music anp Musicau INSTRUMENTS, § 3, at the beginning. VIPER. See PaLestine, § 26. VIRGIN: This word renders the Heb. and Gr. terms: (1) b¢thalah, ‘separated,’ which conveys defi- nitely the idea of virginity, and is used either, liter- ally, of a young unmarried woman (Gn 24 16; Ex 22 16 £.; IL S 13 2), or, figuratively, in poetic pas- sages, in the personification of a social body—a city, or state, e.g., ‘virgin daughter of Zion’ (Is 28 12); ‘virgin daughter of Babylon’ (Is 47 1); ‘virgin of Israel’ (Am 5 2). (2) ‘almah, ‘mature,’ used simply of a young woman of marriageable age, without reference to her being married or not (Gn 24 43; Song 1 3, 6 8; Is 7 14, etc.). See Immanvuru. (38) maoebévoc, used in the LX X. mainly as the rendering of bethalah (of ‘almadh in Gn 24 43 and Is 7 14); in the N T it retains its LXX. sense, with the single exception of Rev 14 4, where it is used of men, with the emphasis on the idea of chastity. A. C. Z. VIRGINITY. See Marrrace anp Divorce, § 4. VIRGINITY, TOKENS OF. See MarriaGE AND Drvorce, §§ 2, 4. VIRTUE, VIRTUOUS: This is the translation of hayil, ‘strength,’ ‘ability’ (Ru 3 1; Pr 12 4, 31 10, 29, in the phrase ‘a virtuous woman,’ lit. ‘a woman of ability’). The word is used in its Old Eng. sense of ‘power’ (cf. Mk 5 30). When the same expression is used of men it is commonly translated ‘a man of valor.’ | BE PD ee VISION. See Revetation, § 10; and PropHet, PRopHEcY, § 6. VOICE OF GOD. See Gop, § 2. VOPHSI, vof’sai ("P2}, wophst): One of the twelve spies sent by Moses to investigate the land of promise (Nu 18 14). VOW: A promise to God—either formally ex- pressed or tacitly implied—to perform some service or do things pleasing to Him, generally on condition of receiving in return a specific favor. Vows are ‘known in all religions, and belong to all ages. Jacob vowed that, if God would be with him and bless him, he would take Him as his God, build Him a sanc- tuary and pay Him tithes (Gn 28 20-22). Jephthah’s vow to sacrifice the object that would first meet him as he returned victorious from battle is familiar (Jg 11 30-40). Other vows mentioned are Hannah’s (IS 111 £.) and Absalom’s (IIS 1571.). Just before the battle of Michmash Saul led the people to vow that they would eat nothing until evening (IS 14 24f., 36 f.). The law of vows assumes that they are voluntary. No one is required to make a vow. Vows are classed with free-will offerings (Dt 12 6); but a vow once made constitutes a solemn obligation, from which nothing can absolve one. So far as a vow involved a sacrifice, such sacrifices were regulated by a prescribed ritual—the ceremony being desig- nated ‘to accomplish a vow’ (Ly 22 18-23, 27 1-13; Nu 15 3 ff.; ef. also Ac 21 23 #.). In such a case the Law fixed on a minimum of offerings, 7.e., for a man 50 shekels of the sanctuary, for a woman 30, for a male child 5, and for a female child 3 shekels (Nu 30 2 f.). The performance of vows was one of the tests which the prophets applied in exposing the transgressions of the people (cf. Is 19 21; Nah 1 15; Jon 1 16, 29; Job 22 27; Pr 20 25; Ps 22 25, 50.14, 56 12). The foregoing applies to the ordinary, later known as the ‘minor,’ vow. On the ‘major,’ better known as the ‘Nazirite,’ vow, see NAZIRITE. ASO. Bi VULTURE, See PALESTINE, § 25. W WAFER: This is the rendering of two Heb. words: (1) rdgigq (Ex 29 2, 23; Lv 2 4, 7 12, 8 26; Nu 6 15, 19; I Ch 23 29 ‘cakes’ AV), on which see Foop AND Foop Urensits, § 2. (2) tsappthith (from tsaphah, ‘to spread out’), a flat cake. The word occurs but once (Ex 16 31) and is used in this place as a sweetmeat: ‘wafers made with honey.’ E. E. N. WAGES: This word is used to render a number of Heb, and Gr. terms: sGkhar and maskéreth, ‘hire’ (Gn 30 28, 29 15, etc.); peullah, ‘work’ (Lv 19 13); utcbds, ‘reward’ (Jn 4 36); and ‘éydvoy, ‘rations’ (Lk 3 14; Ro 6 23; II Co 118). In Jer 22 13 ‘without wages’ renders the Heb. hinnam, ‘gratis,’ ‘without return.’ Almost nothing is said specifically as to the conditions and payments of hired service in the Bible. The actual amounts paid, e.g., a ‘shilling’ (‘penny’ AV), 2.¢., a denarius a day for vintage labor (Mt 20 2), or ten shekels and a suit of apparel a year, plus food, as a priest’s salary (Jg 17 10), were small in comparison with modern wages, but, of course, the purchasing power of money was then much greater than itisnow. The O T law regarding wages was concerned mainly with guaranteeing to the wage-earner the prompt payment of the amounts due him (Lv 1913; cf. Mal 3 5). E. E. N. WAGON, WAGGON, Sce Carr. Wail Watch A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 940 WAIL, WAILING. See Mournina anp Movurn- InG Customs, § 5; and EscuatTouoey, § 39. WALL. See Crry, § 3. WALLET (Scrip AV): The term renders Heb. and Gr. words as follows: (1) yalqit (from a verb meaning ‘to gather together’). The bag in which shepherds and others put stones for slinging (I 8 17 40). (2) xhea, a small bag in which to carry provisions, etc., while traveling (Mt 10 10, etc.). E. KE. N WALLS OF JERUSALEM. See JERusALEM, §§ 21, 31, 35, 36, 37. 3 WAR, WAR-CRY. See WarrFare, § 4. WARD. See Prison. WARDROBE: This term renders the Heb. beghaddhim, literally ‘garments,’ or ‘clothes.’ It is used only in the title ‘keeper of the wardrobe’ (II K 22 14; II Ch 34 22) given to Hasrah (‘Harhas’ AV). AL RZ WARES. Sce TRADE AND COMMERCE, § 3. (Ye if TORS. carried on only in the dry season. When the rainy weather of autumn came, operations were suspended, to be resumed in the spring. This is the meaning of the expression in II § 111, ‘the return of the year, at the time when kings go out,’ 7.e., on campaigns, when the long-continued fair weather of spring and early summer was favorable to military operations. While preliminary parleys frequently preceded a conflict (Jg 1112 #.;1S 111 #.; 1 K 201 f.), a formal declaration of war was by no means necessary (cf. 1S 155 f.). 2. Religious Aspects of Warfare. Before war was begun, sacrifices were offered, so that the expression gaddésh milhémah (‘to sanctify war,’ Jer 6 4; Mic 35; — J1 39; cf. RVmg.) meant to initiate a war with sacri- fices. In like manner, care was taken at the opening of a campaign, or in critical situations, not to omit seeking to know J’”’s will by means of the sacred lot (Jg11#.;1S 14 37, 23 2 8., 286, 307 £.; ITS 519, 23), or- through prophets (I K 225 #.;II K1924.). In other Bre a} CW Wee » ARCHERS IN BaTrLe SCENE FROM ASSHURNASIRPAL’S PALACE. WARFARE: The early historical sources—es- pecially those of the period of the Judges—show that early Palestinian wars were more like the expe- ditions of the Bedawin than like the campaigns of a great people. It was for the sake of plunder, or to repel a sudden attack, or to avenge the death of those killed in such an attack that the men of a clan or tribe rallied around the chief or the bravest one in the midst of them. 1. Character of Early Warfare. In times of great danger heralds were despatched to the friendly or neighboring tribes to ask their aid. If the enemy was beaten, each warrior returned to his own home with his share of the spoil. Thus Gideon at the head of 800 men of his clan sought to avenge the death of his brothers who had been slain by the Midianites (Jg 7 16 ff., 818 f.). The tribe of Dan put 600 warriors into the field to make con- quest of new places of abode (Jg 18 11 f.). Only on one occasion did any large number of tribes unite in a campaign. This was when, in the days of Barak and Deborah, the Israelites to the N. and 8. of the Plain of Esdraelon were engaged in a life-and-death struggle against Sisera (Jg ch. 4 f.; ef. also I S 11 6-8; Jg 20 1-3). Generally, wars were cases, a knowledge of the Divine will was sought by means of all kinds of omens (IS 148 f..; Jg 6 36 f.), and for this purpose, not that they might offer sacri- fices, priests accompanied the army, since the sacred lot was in their keeping. In ancient times, in order to make J’”’s help in battle more certain, the Ark, in which He was thought to be present, was carried with the army into war. This explains why Uriah was careful not to render himself ceremonially unclean through intercourse with his wife (IIS 1111), also the requirement that the camp be kept free from all defilement lest J’’ should withdraw Him- self from Israel (Dt 23 10 #.; cf. Nu 51 ff.). 3. Details of Camp and March. The detailed ar- rangement of a military camp is no longer known. The name ma‘gal (IS 17 20, 26 5, 7, ‘place of wagons’ RV, trench AV) indicates that it was circular in form, with the force camping under tents (ef. ITS 11 11). The sustenance for the army was generally secured as occasion offered (cf. I S 17 17 #.; II S 17 27 ff.), which could be managed without great diffi- culty, since the number ‘of troops was generally quite small. Sentries, who were changed three times in a night, watched the camp (Jg 7 19; I Mac 12 27). When the force marched out to battle, a detach- 941 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Wail i Watch ment remained with the camp (IS 30 24). On the march the enemy sought to harass the rear-guard (Dt 25 18; Jos 10 19) 4. The Ordering of a Battle. Military science was simple. It was an old custom of the Bedawin to divide a force into two attacking divisions or bands. The rear one (liers in wait, ‘agébh, Jos 8 13) served, if necessary, also as a reserve, or guaranteed to the chief and those with him a chance of escape (Gn 327 f.). Sometimes, in order to divert the attention of the enemy, and also to conceal the attack itself, three divisions were formed (Jg 716 #.;1S 111;1IS 18 2; I Mac 533). Night attacks were often resorted to (Jg 716 f.; 11 S 171 #.), as well as ambushments and pretended flight (Jos 8 2, 12; Jg 20 29 #.;1S 155; ef. II K 7 12 #f.), and circumvention of an enemy preparatory to an attack from the rear (II § 5 22). David availed himself of the rustling of the mulberry- trees in order to come upon his enemy unawares (II S 5 24); Joab disposed his men within a wooded tract to render the overthrow of Absalom’s followers more complete (II S 18 6 #.). A ttumpet-signal by the commander opened each battle (Jg 718) as well as the war itself, and in the same way the forces were called away from the fight (II S 2 28, 18 16, 20 22), or summoned to break camp and go home (II § 20 22). As to the disposition of the battle array, ma‘arakhah (I Ch 12 38, rank AV), information is lacking. Prob- ably, spearmen formed the first line, bowmen or archers the second, and slingers the third. Horse- men, or more accurately, horses and chariots, as a distinct element of the fighting force were not used by Israel until quite late—as in the Assyrian era— owing largely to the broken character of the ground, which was specially unfavorable for the movement of chariots. The bulk of the fighting was done by footmen. Before the beginning of a battle, it was usual to offer sacrifices (IS 79 f., 189 £. See above, § 1), then with a loud battle-cry, or alarm, é*ria‘ah, the host rushed against the foe (cf. Am. 1 14; Jer 49 2, etc.). On some occasions there were special battle-cries (Jg 7 18, 20). In the conflict men fought | hand to hand with the bare arm, as the upper gar- | ment had to be thrown back and tucked under the girdle, as it was also while on the march. In such contests personal bravery and skill, physical strength and agility decided the issue. The latter qualities were important not only for the attack itself, but for gaining advantageous positions. Sometimes, the battle was preceded by duels, which not seldom had a decisive effect on the outcome of the fray (IS 173 £.,, 41 ff., 51 f.; 11 S 214 #.; cf. 21 18 ff., 23 21). 5. After the Battle. To bury the slain countrymen was a sacred duty (I K 11 15), and over fallen heroes and captains a general lamentation was held (II S 3 31). The bodies of the enemy also were buried (cf. Ezk 39 11 #.) or burned (Is 30 33). It was only on special occasions that the head of an enemy was taken for a trophy (I 8 17 51 ff., 31.9; II S 20 22). On the other hand, it seems to have been an early custom to cut off the foreskins of fallen enemies (IS 18 25, 27). This was also customary in the wars of the Egyp- tians, as appears in a picture in the Ramesseum at Medinet Habu. Prisoners of war were often treated with great severity. Kings and leaders were usually put to death, sometimes after the victor had placed his foot on their necks (Jos 10 24); often large num- bers of captives were slain (II Ch 25 12); in other cases they were mutilated (Jg 16 £.; cf. IL S 12 31), frequently they were sold into slavery (Am 16,9, etc.). Such a passage as I K 20 30 ff., in its display of the mercy of Ahab toward Ben-hadad, shows how little inclined were the people of antiquity in general to be considerate in their treatment of a captured enemy. Even Deuteronomy justified on theological grounds the wholesale extirpation of the conquered inhabit- ants of the holy land (2016 ff.; cf. Nu 31 17). Horses taken as spoil were lamed (hocked) in the earliest times when Israel as yet had neither chariots nor horses (II S 8 4; Jos 11 6, 9). The country of a conquered enemy was often laid waste by cutting down the trees, stopping up the springs, and burn- ing the cities and villages (II K 3 19; Jg 6 4). A yearly tribute was laid upon a defeated people or, in many cases, a larger sum of money was demanded at once (II K 1814; Is 33 is). Hostages were also taken to prevent violation of agreements (II K 14 14), while garrisons were frequently placed in the captured cities (II S 8 6, 14). The booty (plunder, spoil) was shared equally between those who participated in the fight and those who guarded the camp (I 8 30 24 £.). Gold and silver were dedicated to the Temple of J’ CIS 8 11), and costly trophies were hung up in the sanctuary (IS 21 10; II K 1110; cf. IS 31 10). The warriors returning from a victorious batue, while under necessity, according to the Priestly Code, of submitting to the purification ceremony prescribed for those defiled by contact with the dead (Nu 31 19 ff.), were greeted with songs and dances and the noise of drums (Jg 11 34; IS 18 6 #.). Victorious kings often set up memorials of their victory (I S 15 12; cf. 712). In later times, there are accounts of thanksgiving festivals in honor of J’’, who gave the victory (II Ch 20 26 f.; I Mac 4 24) Literature: The Archeologies of Nowack and Benzinger; F. Schwally, Semiiische Kriegsalterttimer, 1901. W. N.—L. B. P. WARS OF JEHOVAH, BOOK OF THE: A lost work quoted in Nu 2114. It seems to have contained a collection of poems celebrating the victories of Israel over her enemies. The existence of such a book has been doubted by Professor Sayce (Acad. 1892, Oct. 22). On the other hand, it has been con- jectured that it was a source for Nu 21 17 f. and 27b- 30; and, further, that it was identical with the Book of Jashar (q.v.). Assuming the existence of such a collection, it was evidently so called because J’”’ was held up in all its songs as the leader of Israel’s armies and the cause of their successes (Ex 15 2). The wars of Israel were the wars of J’’, Israel’s God (cf. I S 18 17, 25 22). Ay CRS) WARS OF THE LORD, BOOK OF THE. See WakS OF JEHOVAH, BOOK OF THE. WASH, WASHINGS. See Burtat anp Burrau Customs, § 1; and Pours, Puriry, PuriricaTion, § 2. WATCH: In the O T the words ‘watch,’ watch- man are used of two kinds of duty: (1) that of guard- ing, shadmar and its derivatives, and (2) that of being on the lookout to discern from a vantage-point—such Watcher Weights and Measures A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 942 as a watch-tower, which seems to have been very common—things that took place at a distance, in order to report them in time, ts@phah and its deriva- tives (e.g., ‘mizpah’ [mitspah], ‘watch-tower’). On (1) cf. Jg 719; IT K 115; Neh 49, etc. On (2) cf. 1S 1416; ILS 18 34, 18 24; IT K 917; Is 218, etc. Another word, ndtsar, ‘to guard,’ or ‘to keep,’ is used in the sense of ‘watch’ only in II K 17 9, 18 8; Jer 4 16, 316; cf. Nah21. Inthe N T xovetwdta, ‘watch,’ AV means a ‘guard’ (Mt 27 65, 28 11). In the O T 'ashmuirah (Ex 14 24, etc.), and in the N T quaaxy (Mt 14 25, 24 43, etc.) are used for designating time (see Time, § 1), tho both terms get this sense from their more primary reference to the military custom of dividing the night into three (Heb.) or four (Roman) periods, during each of which a detach- ment of men kept watch or guard. K. E. N. WATCHER. See ANGELOLOGY, §§ 2, 4. WATCHMAN, WATCH-TOWER: The walled cities of Palestine had watch-towers (mighddl) on the walls (e.g., Jezreel, II K 9 17-20, 179; Gaza, 18 8), or an additional story above the gates, which served the same purpose (IIS 18 24 #.). There were also watch- towers to guard the roads (ef. II Ch 20 24). A watch- man was called: (1) nétsér (II K 179, 18 8; Jer 31 6, 4 16, ‘blockaders’). (2) shémér (Jer 51 12; figura- tively Is 2111, 12, 62 6; cf. Song 3 3, 57 = ‘city police’?). (3) tsdpheh (IS 14 16, ‘sentinels’; II S 13 34, 18 24 #.; II K 9 17-20; figuratively Is 52 8, 56 10 [=‘prophet’], 21 6; Ezk 3 17, 32 2, 6,7; Mic 7 4). See also TowER and WarTcH. OAs te WATER: Water was appreciated by the ancient Semites more highly than by most other races on account of its scarcity in the lands that they in- habited. In the Arabian desert, their original home, it was obtainable only from the scanty springs that here and there broke through the arid ground. In Canaan and the other lands adjacent to the desert there was rainfall, but it was so slight and uncertain as to be a constant source of anxiety. It is not sur- prizing, therefore, that water is mentioned in the Bible more frequently than any other substance. In Is 31, 33 16; Sir 29 21, 39 26, it is regarded as one of the chief supports of life. The finding of water was a matter of the utmost importance (Gn 16 7, 21 19, 26 19, 32; Ex 15 22, 17 2; Nu 21 5, 33 14), and when a well was discovered this event was celebrated with song (Nu 21 16-18). When springs could not be found, or when a person was passing through for- eign territory, water had to be bought (Dt 2 6, 28). Failure of the water-supply was the greatest of national calamities, and was regarded as a direct judgment of God (Lv 26 19; Dt 28 23 £.; I K 171; Is | 5 6; Am 47 £.); and, on the other hand, the Prophets look for a supernatural increase of the streams of Palestine as one of the chief blessings of the Mes- sianic Age (Is 30 25, 35 6 f., 41 18, 49 10; Jer 319; Zee 14 8; Ekzk ch. 47). On account of its needfulness and its scarcity, water becomes in the Bible a figure of speech for all kinds of blessings, e.g., good news (Pr 25 25), wisdom (Sir 15 3), a wife (Song 4 15), and par- ticularly for the Divine grace (Ps 23 2; Is 82 2, 551, 58 11; Jn 7 38; Rev 7 17, 21 6, 221, 17). By the primitive Hebrews, as by the other Semites, water in all its forms was reverenced as Divine (see Semitic ReLicion, § 8). In later times, springs became the favorite sanctuaries of J’ (see FounrAIN; Spring; WELL). In the narratives of the Hexateuch one of the functions of J’’ is miraculously to provide water for Israel (Ex 15 25, 17 6; Nu 20 8, 21 16; Dt 8 15). Even so late a writer as Jeremiah (Jer 14 22) regards it as the chief difference between J’’ and the ‘vanities of the nations’ that He can cause rain. See also Pauustinn, §§ 17-20. Water is often mentioned as used for cleansing purposes (Gn 24 32, 43 24; Ex 30 18-21, 40 7, 30-32; Lv 11 32, 148 f£., 15 5, 13, 16 4, 24, 28; Nu 1917; II K 131; Jth 10 3, 127; Lk 7 44; Jn 135). Hence it be- comes a symbol of the cleansing of the soul from sin (Eizk 16 4, 9, 36 25; Jn 35; Eph 5 26; He 10 22; I Jn 5 6,8). See also Baprism. Ls, Bi.Ps WATERCOURSE: This term renders in the AV: (1) yabhail, lit. ‘conduit’ (q.v.) (Is 44 4; ef. 30 25). (2)- mots@, ‘springs’ (q.v.) as RV (II Ch 32 30). (3) tealah, ‘trench,’ ‘conduit’ (q.v.); RV has ‘channel’ (poetical, Job 38 25; cf. II K 1817=Is 7 3, etc.). The RV renders also (4) tsinnér (IIS 5 8, ‘gutter’ AV) by ‘watercourse’ in this difficult passage, but the real meaning of ésinnér here is unknown. OFS tat WATER OF BITTERNESS. See Sacririck AND OFFERINGS, § 12. WATER-POT: (S3pef«). A vessel in which water was kept, either for drinking (Jn 4 28) or for purify- ing purposes (Jn 26 f.). See PotrEry. WATERS OF MEROM. See MeErom. WATERS OF STRIFE. Sce Mrrrsau. WATERSPOUT (7338, tsinnér): The Eng. word is found only in Ps 42 7 (waterfall ARV), and means strictly ‘canal’ or ‘watercourse’ (cf. II S 5 8), but is used of a rush of water of large proportions and of Divine origin. Briggs (JCC) thinks the Jordan rapids are meant, but great floods of rain seem to suit the context better (so Baethgen, H. oe . HE. N. WAVE-OFFERING. See SacrRIFICE AND Or- FERINGS, § 11. WAX: This word, the rendering of dénagh, ‘bees- wax,’ is found in the O T in Ps 22 14, 68 2, 97 5; Mic 1 4, always in a simile. See also Booxs anp Writ- ING. WAY: Literally used, this term denoted either (1) a ‘trodden path’ or ‘road’ (derekh, Gn 38 16, etc.; 656c¢, Mt 2 12, etc.; and ’drah, Is 30 11, 41 3), or (2) a ‘journey’ or ‘trip’ comprehensively viewed (Gn 28 20, etc.; Ac 8 36). But by a favorite Hebrew mode of thought, it is figuratively used also of the ‘habit,’ ‘conduct,’ or ‘attitude,’ whether of God or of man (Ex 32 8; Dt 5 33; Job 16 22; Ps 1199; Pr 12 28, etc.). Especially is this metaphorical sense attached to the term when employed in the plural (Jos 24 17; Ps 51 13, etc.; cf. Mt 713 £.). In the N T the plan of God for the salvation of man as outlined by the Prophets and realized in the gospel is called ‘the way of the Lord’ (Mt 3 3, etc.). From this meaning the term easily passed to the broader sense in which it meant Christianity or Judaism (Ac 9 2, 19 9, 22 4), and a a a a a 943 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Welshts shat ereatatéc came to include the whole system of thought and life | pleasure (Ps 66 12; ‘abundance’ RVmg.). (7) edxoole that the Christian accepts and practises (II P 2 2,15). | ‘abundance of means’ (Ac 19 25). A. C. Z. ; f A. C. Z. WEAN: This word renders gamal, ‘to complete’ or The term highway is usually the rendering of | ‘finish,’ and in every passage is used concerning & mésillah, ‘that which is thrown up,’ evidently refer- | child which has been weaned (cf. 18 1 22 # , etc.). ring to the labor of making the road, perhaps also to | Hebrew mothers usually nursed their children two the fact that the great thoroughfares of Ephraim and | or three years (ef. II Mac 7 28), as is the custom in Judah ran along the crest of the highland. InI Ch | Palestine to-day. The weaning of a child was ac- 26 16-18 the same term is rendered causeway, ex- companied by a feast (Gn 21 8) with an offering plained in ICC, ad loc., as ‘a street which led up to | (I S 1 24), Cc. S. T. the western side of the Temple from the Tyropceon Valley and from the Western Hill’ In Je the | “EAPON. Seo Ars anp Amon, better reading may be ‘caravans’ (see Moore, ICC, WEASEL. See Patestine, § 24. ad loc.). In Dt 2 27 the Heb. is derekh (badderekh, | WEAVE, WEAVING. See Arrizan Lire, § 12. badderekh, ‘in the way, in the way’ will I go) derekh WEB: In Is 59 5 f. the word rendered ‘webs’ is evidently meaning the main road; cf. RVmg. In | gir (in pl. form), which means a ‘fine thread,’ and Am 5 16 RV ‘streets’ is substituted for ‘highways’ | hence a spider’s ‘web.’ In Jg 16 13 f. the term mas- AV, as a rendering of hits. In Mt 22 10, Lk 14 23 | gsekheth is the ‘web’ or fabric which was being woven 636¢ is rendered ‘highway,’ but ‘way’ in Mk 10 46 | in the loom by Delilah. According to Moore (ICC, RY. On Mt 229, cf. RV. Byways (Jg 56) means | ad loc.), on the basis of the LXX. we should read ‘crooked paths’ as in RVmg. thus: ‘If thou weave the seven braids of my head prem wn enw em nw nme et mw em ee ew ewe ewe owe. 6 we Bee SO Oe SSO SS ST HWBEGES OS® + OSS SHO Se j