in 448 
 ΓΟΥ͂Ν 
 τ ‘ 
 ἢ 
 
 Asse 
 
 ' . 
 ae 
 ιν ‘ 
 ΠῚ . 
 ny 
 
 en ΡΝ ΨΥ pep nits bee 
 VTE Cea ΔΑ NN MEET νὰ CH Phe Oot u babe Tealgy comet rage 
 
 rhe An he tee Pe er ere ee 
 
 ' ΟΣ hr eee ὌΝ 
 ν᾿ PON δεν eee bebe pret oe meray YY 
 on 4 Serer Tene ays] ἐν bet eg 
 my ΟΣ tae ἡ εν 
 
 Δ ΔΎ ΩΝ κι ee Pe 
 «Ἅ 4 
 
 ΠΝ 
 
 “ι΄ ΠΣ 
 
 ῃ 
 
 oun ἐν δ. 4 URE NM Oy τὰν «γον 
 ΠΝ 
 
 ; ἢ το ΦιΟ τς τὸ 
 7 “ΝΠ ᾿ ᾿ ν. Pits , ' 
 ἢ i ( ᾿ Ν : a ‘ 
 ᾿ ae . 
 Yow ‘ ' 
 i ᾿ ‘ ᾿ εν a 
 soe , ; ὌΝ ee ee wally aa 
 ' 5 wv, ᾿ a . brags +See ᾿ a itty 
 aan ᾿ ‘ Wales 
 7 , ᾿ ᾿ ν" _ ᾿ υ ὟΝ yi CA Lom oe, νον 
 ᾿ ‘ " ἢ H ; fi , ᾿ ‘ % ret wheres Perera eer 
 ' ie a ' oy ἘΝ ΥΎΝ τ᾽ ἢ γα . oe iad 
 " ὸ te" ie ig: ᾿ 7 . 5.5 ‘ δεῖν υ ‘ ᾿ te ‘ y 
 ᾿ ᾿ Ἢ " ἢ ty ony fees i Dig gts ᾽ ' δ avy 
 rr ᾿ « ες soot ; ei «οὖ ‘ hee ‘ 
 row ᾿ : wey " ἊΝ te ov ae i δ. 6. ΩΝ 
 " oe " ‘ : 4 ἐν 7 te μιν ᾿ 
 ' aes. ‘ . at ye Mer Naar Pen . Οὔτ ἐν ἀκ τες 
 ᾿ (Www ἵ ἣ ἐφ γα. é erie ‘ Ν 
 4 υ etsy ‘ . ΠΟΤῚ “ἃ 
 ᾿ ᾿ ‘ Vox % a τῶν ᾿ Ὧν ἜΝ ἃ ἃ 
 8 “ ᾿ t Cay Ut oes ΠΥ ἱ 
 ᾿ ᾿ res : Pea & y ὃ σον νιν ἢ ἢ H ha! pce ty ' 
 ᾿ - eth 5 ᾿ ᾿ δ ‘ ͵ ῃ “ {4 ¥ dent 1 elenfere δι 
 A t ᾿ ‘I Ὁ: αὐ Ν " : 
 : ὴ ἢ wo . τεῦ φ᾽ debs ἐς γεν ΟΝ 
 ; ᾿ ἢ ᾿ Met Nearer eta ἦν yi be ' 
 , ᾿ 2 wee Pe ye fae bi te ho on 
 Ἁ , in i ' ἐν 
 ee ' t Par tye ἢ re ἵν ΜΠ ἢ 
 ᾿ ; ; ᾿ ἢ ᾿ ΠΥΡῚ P re FG hes . 
 f ‘ i ‘ : : tress 
 . 7 ᾿ ν τ LECH, Fe 86 = 5 
 i Pf ι ᾿ ἢ “ i 7 ἜΚ: 
 ; 1 τ : % $99 ᾿ ao yh ae oath ary ᾿ 
 \ ᾿ εἶ ; ἵ "» ᾿ ‘ 
 ‘ Su ς . τ he 
 ‘ toe Pa 1 
 π᾿ ᾿ ᾿ ἡ Αγ ἫΝ a 
 7 , ‘ ’ 
 Ce ᾿ ᾿ 
 : ‘ cM 
 ἢ δε ἢ κ᾿ ἜΣ τὰ J to. 
 te ἢ vets 
 i ᾿ ᾿ in ὶ ἮΝ ’ 
 : a : ; ee a Ρ. i wot 
 4 Η . ao" f 1 ‘ 
 ι ἵ ‘ Μ Ἢ é ea o 
 ee t ἢ zZ ἢ 
 iJ “ Η ry fi, if ᾿ sie) ἈΠ : ᾿ 
 i" 1 + aye git ἢ flr εἰ τ io raat 
 Η τος A . . 4 ξ ἜΝ r ἐν ayes ) Η 
 i ὶ ᾿ a Ὰ i ἐν αν Hy ἘΣ 
 ἢ ᾿ ͵ ΒΗ a : ᾿ ᾿ ι 8 oy ‘ 
 ᾿ πὶ ἦν ἢ ran : 
 - ἢ ᾿ η oe ) eA 7 bP are ᾧ We Bly 
 ᾿ ‘ , ‘ " ἢ 3 ΠΣ ‘ 
 j εις ἐν wet : , ᾿ 7 
 ἢ } 
 7, δῦ ͵ ᾿ yt ι 
 if i ‘ ᾿ a ' ῃ 
 : ' ' itive , 
 " - er) : H 7 
 y . Ut re | . | 2 
 ᾿ ἢ toe ; a ee κα}. 
 1 ᾿ “a τς τὲ ποῦν δ᾽ 
 ᾿ , ᾿ ἐδ Ἀλλ ᾿ pole 4 Ν ἐλα 
 ᾿ a Lg τ ΝΣ i. ᾿ ΕΝ ᾿ 
 i ΨΩ i 7 . μ 4 4 + «τ Ν ’ 
 ‘ ‘ vos hen? Ξ 
 . : OS ze ΎΝ 
 Υ ᾿ ' ᾿ ὁ κδ΄ δ Opt Boning 
 ἢ γ : τ 4 ν . ety 
 oo pit ae i εν ᾿ ᾿ ᾿ 
 ‘ hs : ΤΥ ‘ ᾿ ΝΥ " ies 
 ἢ ᾿ ᾿ ᾿ δον ὁ ’ ῃ deo ty ἐς ἀφ" Νᾳ 
 ps ᾿ τ ἢ ᾿ ει 4% ᾿ Η νον δ 
 . ᾿ Ἰ 5 “εν Μὰ ray 5 
 ' re ᾿ δ᾽ {τ᾿ ing ᾿ eu Nese! a ἝΝ 
 ᾿ τᾷ ῃ ἌΝ bone oe ft 4 ᾿ ᾿ at 
 ᾿ ‘ “τ. 4 yt ΟΝ με ΣΕ: γ “γοῤογῖῷ νι 
 “« Piya ian 7 ¥ MM et Dy | Han 100) » dated ‘ 
 ' ‘ δ δ 8 ΝΣ ων πον Yh hates 
 ’ ‘ ‘ : bo tein Eo peru ‘ 
 ' ‘ of a γεν. on ἢ Premera te 
 D er ᾿ * γῆν dene vee ἢ 
 ᾿ ᾿ δ τ ᾿ ᾿ ΜΝ mr at γύ τ gs me iay (i 
 ‘ v ᾿ ἔν τ Ὁ τὺ ΣΤ ΣΝ δι αν ay! ἈΝ τ ἃ 
 ἡ hve : ᾿ Α] 4 j- 9° € ri wee 
 ‘ . pens: hog oe ee ee a ss - 
 ‘ es” ᾿ "eas . res bere at. ἐν ῳ Base 
 ᾿ ᾿ ὴ ἜΣ fra bids te ͵ ee a3 a τὰ ΟΣ 
 Ho sul ᾿ 14 ΝΥ > 2 eee κα κατε SH ὁ ἐλ ἔφν whey dy 
 y 4 i ree Π εν vo bit Pron ew a cee ἀν ρος δὴ ἐν 
 ! ' ἢ ἢ 4 ᾿ ᾿ ’ been noe ata * ye en Se ces 
 : : ᾿ . bier ag cdg C4 ἱ Σὰ ma» ΟΝ fer rere 
 ᾿ _ ne 4 pe en Δ οὐδ 2 δι arte ΝῚ ΝΣ wm eater a 
 . op a 4 “ὁ 5 ‘ mR! yy wnt ‘ teepee HappSaieeane te 
 ‘ . ᾿ ᾿ πῆς wet ον, ἢ πὸ tog κ᾿ ἀγοθάνι Wane ive “2 " 
 ᾿ Ἂν 64> “τς Delong) Ὁ Gir t4 δ ἦν ὁ 4 are) αν WF a hg ΠΣ 
 , δι as " ν + ᾿ ᾿ re Ace we - e+e re bath are . Verere ΓΟ 
 ed en ᾿ eat ΟΣ ts vodee viftes tye fi ys figta Meaey eRe 
 ra to hibep δ ἢ ' ᾿ ry Ἢ ΩΣ ry ogee ‘ eee 
 ‘ ‘ ᾿ pew = re thin et = oa yikes zi Posen eeep tee 
 7? 4 . 2 ‘ pt ' ω OO a hen ppd τῷ keel oe δ'ε' ὦν 4: “εν 
 . Wan, ‘6 ᾿ rs eter ΡΥ er oe ΜΉ ti) 
 i δ: ᾿ ‘ ride ve RNP eth peas ae ἂν gee RM fete oe 
 ᾿ ᾿ ; ' ΣΝ “δον δι het ἀΡ ΨΟῪ Peat eee ere LSP NOG OAM heed ssh LE. tony θὲ 
 ' ἵ Ι tf, har Pr hae 1 hers ke Mie be wd ede pete ents ἄρυλνε eye Pe He ye opin 
 ͵ ton, timed ἐπ he dpe δ | Pk Ast eage ἌΝ : ΥΩ] MeO Ch σι ναι νον ἢν 
 ᾿ ; oe ὃ topo eat aes ΚΣ 
 ne. ᾿ oa tres an ᾿ Aer δ "IN. estes ike 
 oi% a brew” ite gine So's iF eee ee | penne fr MON ὦ ἀρ φλνλν 401 }9. Wi teeptictege 
 ret : a τὸ ΝΥ των. He faite Ie patieg ΟΝ a 
 κα Σὰ ἢ 007. Pi ons ek hee boveetilae nt ML a ee ee δεν ὅρον εν, er Tree TY Ln) 
 ῃ Ὁ αν ὦ Ὁ ᾿ a a aL CI τς πω fares ΠΗ" ΠΝ 
 δ δι Pe] Paes , Ngo ties Ἀν ua © ΟΥΤΩΣ 
 I + . : nm Geet 7 ΑΝ FU aD we ub wane at bine y Whee hr te eee 2 
 me a 1.) nut Peter tne, Meee eet Pek ce OS ee Ne PAE cers ἢ λὲν apm et pe ptpl ene @ γ ο ἢν beer gies ρου αν 
 ᾿ ᾿ aes Ptrb 1 οἢ οἰ re ad be es TOP hon OS wap αὶ ἡ ὦ διφρῷ ἃ t 
 ‘ bos ' ΓΌΩΝ ἊΝ oon Vow δεν Wage ΝΥ ὌΝ woe TO Eee Peta te ceding τιν 
 ιν 31 ἢ peg wee Ie ote Δ] . Ue ee fe Re er rae er Yr “be bedineg Meeps 446 PUPPET a ἃ speed gt 
 ᾿ ἜΑΡ ᾿ 7 toe ᾿ ἫΝ a) . beet. ἢ sty reins deme thegtany eae 
 ws ie ee ee | fot ΟΣ ΥΥΒΎΥΙ 
 rey Patt ares a reves Sie wegho δ 1. δὲ dermis sige ῃ 
 ' ? Bee oe Ah Ve Eb A ye δι καὶ tae Tener een eee ἢ Mee De ee Bs ; Pad pad Say 
 ᾿ ; Vere by ᾿ Lois errr sree Trani τ 
 ' veers ᾿ ἣν ΚΗ Paes 
 ΠΝ ᾿ ει ἢ ἘΝ ΠΣ παν μεν ΠΥ ΟΝ ΤΥ 
 wig ata ᾿ ἐν wt a κα λυ. πα εὐβον oadtet ane ΝΟΜῊΝ 
 ΝΑῚ ᾿ ἜΣ De SF ora ie eee fae ee Se 2 er 
 ΠΥ  ΎΩΝ ; τ ἀν std ᾿ a ‘ epee ΗΝ ΝΥΝ eth te 
 ᾿ ων ᾿ She ἐν ταν BE ὦ ἐς ᾳ ΣΟΥ oe 
 ἢν ᾿ Ἂν ἢ Τα ἢ τ κε hy, ἢ ΤΟΥ͂ 
 ᾿ a ᾿ νἀ ae Pr eee et espe ape sh ΠΟ 
 Η ' ‘ “1 παν ἢ “Ὁ ὦοιοοὁἐἔιυρ )η"} tow mt ΣΟΥ ΜῊ “ ὠν 
 " ΑΒ) ἢ re ὃ ΚΕ ΧΟ ΣΝ ἌΝ teebbay eee Seer ey he st 
 U2) - χα aw oy ᾿ ἢ uw. Vd wa pre gb ely e Cn ae ea ΠΟΥ͂Ν 
 “" 1 . ' : ᾿ r. ᾿ » of io , ere nave 
 na ‘ ha ae oP eT hs ' Pe ae ὁ 
 Voy 2 ap at aah ' ‘ Κα αἰ ἀν μὲ δ αλλ ες φὸν 
 ‘ poe we ’ inated tee ear veer 1d MPT pager ΠΣ 
 ΣΕΥ rs 
 ’ Ἷ β 4 τὴν doy στ δὰ ἐν ener ον ψι νην τϑηδολ 4] Με, 
 τ ἐφ νη eee  πλβά ee γυμῳ τ νιν ΑΝ ΟΜ Ald te gD | Prgeanyerr? fe ft >t ae 
 + Γ ἢ 
 
A 
 
 4 
 > 
 ha 
 
ip a 1 ve 
 » 
 
-ΥΨ 
 
 DICTIONARY OF THE 
 
 COMPRISING ITS 
 
 ANTIQUITIES, BIOGRAPHY, GEOGRAPHY, 
 AND NATURAL HISTORY. 
 
 EDITED BY 
 
 Sm WILLIAM SMITH, D.C.L., LL.D., 
 
 AND 
 
 Rev. J. M. FULLER, M.A. 
 
  —_—— 
 
 i Jerusaiem, 
 
 Second CDition. 
 
 IN THREE VOLUMES.—Vot. 1., Parr IL. 
 | ELZABAD—JUTTAH. 
 
 LONDON: 
 JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET. 
 1893. 
 
 The right of Translation ts reserved. 
 
DIRECTIONS TO BINDER. 
 
 Tue Map or Jervsauem, Plate I., to face page 1596, 
 Ν᾿ Do. do. Plate II. to face page 1646. 
 ν΄. Ῥο. do. Plate IIL, to face page 1654. 
 
᾿ 
 
 DICTIONARY 
 
 I 
 
 BIBLICAL ANTIQUITIES, BIOGRAPHY, GEOGRAPHY, 
 
 AND 
 
 NATURAL HISTORY. 
 
 ELZABAD 
 
 EL-ZA'BAD (3t28 = God hati given. Cp. 
 Theodore et sim.; B. ’EAsa€ép, A. ᾿Ελεζαβάδ ; 
 Elzabad). 1. The ninth of the eleven Gadite 
 heroes who came across the Jordan to David 
 when he was in distress in the wilderness of 
 Judah (1 Ch. xii. 12). 
 
 2. B. Ἐληζαβάθ, A. Ἐλζαβάδ. A Korhite 
 Levite, son of Shemaiah and of the family of 
 Obed-edom ; one of the doorkeepers of the “ house 
 of Jehovah” (1 Ch. xxvi. 7). Galea es) 
 
 EL-ZA'PHAN (JD¥DN = God hath protected. 
 
 Op. Phoen. Sy33H¥ [MV."]; Ἐλισαφάν; Elsa- 
 phan), second son of Uzziel, who was the son of 
 Kohath son of Levi (Ex. vi. 22). He was thus 
 cousin to Moses and Aaron, as is distinctly stated. 
 Elzaphan assisted his brother Mishael to carry 
 the unhappy Nadab and Abihu in their priestly 
 tunics out of the camp (Lev. x. 4). The name 
 is a contracted furm of the more frequent 
 ELIZAPHAN. (G.] [FJ 
 
 EMBALMING, the process by which dead 
 bodies are preserved from putrefaction and decay. 
 The Hebrew word DIM (chanat), employed to 
 
 denote this process, is connected with the 
 Arabic j=, which in conj. 1 signifies “to be 
 
 red,” as leather which has been tanned; and in 
 conj. 2, “to preserve with spices.” In the 1st 
 and 4th conjugations it is applied to the ripening 
 of fruit, and this meaning has been assigned to 
 the Hebrew root in Cant. ii. 13. In the latter 
 passage, however, it probably denotes the red 
 colour of the ripening figs (see Delitzsch in loco). 
 The word is found in the Chaldee and Syriac 
 
 ρ n» 
 dialects, and in the latter AK3@s. (chintetho) is 
 
 the equivalent of μίγμα, the confection of myrrh 
 and aloes brought by Nicodemus (John xix. 39). 
 
 The practice of embalming was most general 
 among the Egyptians, and it is in connexion with 
 this people that the two instances which we mect 
 with in the Ο, T. are mentioned (Gen. 1. 2, 26). 
 
 Mummies exist which are to be dated just before 
 and after this period (Ebers). Of the Egyptian 
 method of embalming there remain two minute 
 accounts, which have a general kind of agree- 
 ment, though they differ in details. 
 
 Herodotus (ii. 86-88. Cp. Wilkinson, Anc. 
 Lgypt.. ii. 383, &c. [1878])—whose account is 
 
 BIBLE DICT.—VOL. I. 
 
 EMBALMING 
 
 on the whole accurate—describes three modes, 
 varying in completeness and expense, and prac- 
 tised by persons regularly trained to the pro- 
 fession, who were initiated into the mysteries of 
 the art by their ancestors, The most costly 
 mode, which is estimated by Diodorus Siculus 
 (i. 91) at a talent of silver (about £250), was 
 said by the Egyptian priests to belong to him 
 whose name in such a matter it was not lawful 
 to mention, viz. Osiris. The embalmers first 
 removed part of the brain through the nostrils, 
 by means of a crooked iron, and destroyed the 
 rest by injecting caustic drugs. An incision 
 was then made along the flank with a sharp 
 Ethiopian stone, and the whole of the intestines 
 removed. The cavity was rinsed out with palm- 
 wine, and afterwards scoured with pounded 
 perfumes. It was then filled with pure myrrh 
 pounded, cassia, and other aromatics, except 
 frankincense. ‘his done, the body was sewn 
 up and steeped in natron (subcarbonate of soda, 
 Ebers) for seventy days (cp. the extract given 
 by Ebers from the Setnan papyrus). When the 
 seventy days were accomplished, the embalmers 
 washed the corpse and swathed it in bandages of 
 linen, cut in strips, and smeared with gum. They 
 then gave it up to the relatives of the deceased, 
 who provided for it a wooden case, made in the 
 shape of a man, in which the dead was placed, 
 and deposited in an erect position against the 
 wall of the sepulchral chamber. Diodorus Siculus 
 gives some particulars of the process which are 
 omitted by Herodotus. When the body was laid 
 out on the ground forthe purpose of embalming, 
 one of the operators, called the scribe (ypau- 
 Harevs), marked out the part of the left flank 
 where the incision was to be made. The dis- 
 sector (παρασχίστη5) then, with a sharp Ethio- 
 pian stone (black flint, or Ethiopian agate, 
 Rawlinson, Herod. ii. 141), hastily cut through 
 as much flesh as the law enjoined, and fled, 
 pursued by curses and volleys of stones from 
 the spectators. When all the embalmers (ταρι- 
 xeural) were assembled, one of them extracted 
 the intestines, with the exception of the heart 
 and kidneys; another cleansed them one by one, 
 and rinsed them in palm-wine and perfumes.* 
 The body was then washed with oil of cedar, 
 and other things worthy of notice, for more than 
 
 a Ebers allocates these duties somewhat differently, 
 and adds the names and special functions of other officers. 
 80 
 
990 EMBALMING 
 
 thirty days (according to some MSS. forty), and 
 afterwards sprinkled with myrrh, cinnamon, and 
 other substances, which possess the property not 
 only of preserving the body for a long period, 
 but also of communicating to it an agreeable 
 smell. This process was so effectual that the 
 features of the dead could be recognised. It is 
 remarkable that Diodorus omits all mention of 
 the steeping in natron. 
 
 The second mode of embalming cost about 20 
 minae (about £60). In this case no incision was 
 made in the body, nor were the intestines re- 
 moved, but cedar-oil was injected into the 
 stomach by the rectum. ‘The oil was prevented 
 from escaping, and the body was then steeped in 
 natron for the appointed number of days. On 
 the last day the oil was withdrawn, and carried 
 oft with it the stomach and intestines in a state 
 of solution, while the flesh was consumed by the 
 natron, and nothing was left but the skin and 
 bones. The body in this state was returned to 
 the relatives of the deceased. 
 
 The third mode, which was adopted by the 
 poorer classes, and cost but little, consisted in 
 rinsing out the intestines with syrmaea, an in- 
 fusion of senna and cassia (Pettigrew, p. 69), and 
 steeping the body for the usual number of days 
 in natron. 
 
 Porphyry (De Abst. iv. 10) supplies an omis- 
 sion of Herodotus, who neglects to mention what 
 was done with the intestines after they were 
 removed from the body. In the case of a person 
 of respectable rank they were placed ina separate 
 vessel and thrown into the river. This account 
 is confirmed by Plutarch (Sept. Sap. Conv. c. 16). 
 
 Although the three modes of embalming are 
 so precisely described by Herodotus, it has been 
 found impossible to classify the mummies which 
 have been discovered and examined under one or 
 other of these three heads. Dr. Pettigrew, from 
 his own observations, confirms the truth of 
 Herodotus’ statement that the brain was re- 
 moved through the nostrils. But in many 
 instances, in which the body was carefully pre- 
 served and elaborately ornamented, the brain 
 had not been removed at all; while in some 
 mummies the cavity was found to be filled with 
 resinous and bituminous matter. 
 
 M. Rouyer, in his Notice sur les Embaumements 
 des Anciens Eyyptiens, quoted by Pettigrew, 
 endeavoured to class the mummies which he 
 examined under two principal divisions, which 
 were again subdivided into others. These were 
 —I. Mummies with the ventral incision, pre- 
 served (1) by balsamic matter, and (2) by natron. 
 The first of these are filled with a mixture of 
 resin and aromatics, ana are of an olive colour— 
 the skin dry, flexible, and adhering to the bones. 
 Others are filled with bitumen or asphaltum, 
 and are black, the skin hard and shining. Those 
 prepared with natron are also filled with resinous 
 substances and bitumen. II. Mummies without 
 the ventral incision. This class is again sub- 
 divided, according as the bodies were (1) salted 
 and filled with pisasphaltum, a compound of 
 asphaltum and common pitch, or (2) salted only. 
 The former are supposed to have been immersed 
 in the pitch when in a liquid state. 
 
 The medicaments employed in embalming were 
 various. From a chemical analysis of the sub- 
 stances found in mummies, M. Rouelle detected 
 three modes of embalming—1, with asphaltum, 
 
 EMBROIDERER 
 
 or Jew’s pitch, called also funeral gum, or gun 
 of mummies; 2, with a mixture of asphaltum 
 and cedria, the liquor distilled from the cedar ; 
 3, with this mixture together with some resinous 
 and aromatic ingredients. The powdered aro- 
 matics mentioned by Herodotus were not mixed 
 with the bituminous matter, but sprinkled into 
 the cavities of the body. 
 
 It does not appear that embalming, properly 
 so called, was practised by the Hebrews. Asa 
 was laid ‘in the bed which was filled with sweet. 
 odours and divers kind of spices prepared by the 
 apothecaries’ art ” (2 Ch. xvi. 14); and by the 
 tender care of Nicodemus the body of Jesus was 
 wrapped in linen cloths, with spices, “a mixture 
 of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound 
 weight .. . as the manner of the Jews is to bury ” 
 (John xix. 32, 40). 
 
 The account given by Herodotus has been 
 supposed to throw discredit upon the narrative 
 in Genesis. He asserts that the body is steeped 
 in natron for seventy days, while in Gen. 1. 3 it’ 
 is said that only forty days were occupied in 
 the whole process of embalming, although the 
 period of mourning extended over seventy days. 
 Diodorus, on the contrary, omits altogether the 
 steeping in natron as a part of the operation; 
 and though the time which, according to him, 
 is taken up in washing the body with cedar oil 
 and other aromatics is more than thirty days, 
 yet this is evidently only a portion of the whole 
 time occupied in the complete process. Heng- 
 stenberg (Egypt and the Books of Moses, p. 69, 
 Eng. tr.) would reconcile this discrepancy by 
 supposing that the seventy days of Herodotus 
 include the whole time of embalming, and not ὦ 
 that of steeping in natron only; others, with — 
 more probability, explain any differences ot 
 detail and variations of practice by local or 
 dynastic customs (ep. Dillmann, Genesis, in loco). 
 Ebers thinks that there are grounds for be- 
 lieving that the embalming the body of Jacob 
 would have been after the manner of Memphis. 
 
 Their religious views suggested to the Egyp- 
 tians the idea of embalming. They practised it 
 in accordance with their doctrine of the trans- 
 migration of souls (see further, Eaypr, p. 872, 
 col. 2). The actual process is said to have been 
 derived from “ their first merely burying in the 
 sand, impregnated with natron and other salts, 
 which dried and preserved the body” (Rawlin- 
 son, Herod. ii. 142). Drugs and bitumen were 
 of later introduction, the latter not being gene- 
 rally employed before the 18th dynasty. When 
 the practice ceased entirely is uncertain (ep. 
 Wilkinson, Anc. Zgypt. ii. 398 [1878]). 
 
 The subject of embalming is fully discussed, 
 and the sources of practical information well- 
 nigh exhausted, in Dr. Pettigrew’s History of 
 Lqyptian Mummies. See also Ebers in Riehm’s 
 HW2B.s.n.* Einbalsamiren.’? [W. A. W.] [ΕΠ 
 
 EMBROIDERER. This term is given inthe 
 A. V. as the equivalent of rokem (DP), the pro- 
 ductions of the art being described as “ needle- 
 work” (ΠΡ). In Exodus the embroiderer is 
 contrasted with the “ cunning workman,” chosheb 
 (awn): and the consideration of one of these 
 
 terms involves that of the other. Various ex- 
 planations have been offered as to the distinction 
 between them, but most of these overlook the dis- 
 
Ὶ 
 Ε. 
 
 EMBROIDERER 
 
 tinction marked in the Bible itself, viz. that the 
 rokem wove simply a variegated texture, without 
 gold thread or figures, and that the chosheb inter- 
 wove gold thread or figures into the variegated 
 texture. We conceive that the use of the “gold 
 thread was for delineating figures, as is implied 
 in the description of the corslet of Amasis (Her. 
 iii. 47), and that the notices of gold thread in 
 some instances and of figures in others were but 
 different methods of describing the same thing. 
 It follows, then, that the application of the term 
 “embroiderer” to rokem is incorrect; if it belongs 
 to either, it is to chosheb, or the “ cunning work- 
 man,” who added the figures. But if “em- 
 broidery ” be strictly confined to the work of 
 the needle, we doubt whether it can be applied 
 to either, for the simple addition of gold thread, 
 or of a figure, does not involve the use of the 
 needle. The patterns may have been worked 
 into the stuff by the loom, as appears to have 
 been the case in Egypt (Wilkinson, Anc. Egypt. 
 i. 81 [1878]; cp. Her. Joc. cit.), where the 
 Hebrews learned the art, and as is stated by 
 Josephus (ἄνθη ἐνύφανται, Ant. iii. 7, § 2). The 
 distinction, as given by the Talmudists, and 
 which has been adopted by Gesenius (Zhesaur. 
 p- 1511) and Bahr (Symbolik, i. 266), is this— 
 that was rikmah, or “needlework,” where a 
 pattern was attached to the stuff by being sewn 
 on to it on one side; and that was the work of 
 the chosheb when the pattern was worked into the 
 stuff by the loom, and so appeared on both sides. 
 This view appears to be entirely inconsistent with 
 the statements of the Bible, and with the sense 
 of the word rikmah elsewhere. The absence of 
 the figure or the gold thread in the one, and its 
 presence in the other, constitutes the essence of 
 the distinction. In support of this view we call 
 attention to the passages in which the expressions 
 are contrasted. Rikmah consisted of the fol- 
 lowing materials, “‘ blue, purple, scarlet, and 
 fine twined linen” (Ex. xxvi. 36, xxvii. 16, 
 XXXvi. 37, xxxviii. 18, xxxix. 29). The work of 
 the chosheb was either “fine twined linen, blue, 
 purple, and scarlet, with cherubim” (ix. xxvi. 
 1, 31; xxxvi. 8, 35), or “gold, blue, purple, 
 scarlet, and fine twined linen ” (xxviii. 6, 8, 15; 
 xxxix. 2,5, 8). Again, looking at the general 
 sense of the words, we shall find that chosheb 
 involyes the idea of invention, or designing 
 patterns; rikmah the idea of texture as well as 
 variegated colour. The former is applied to 
 other arts which demanded the exercise of in- 
 ventive genius, as in the construction of engines 
 of war (2 Ch. xxvi. 15); the latter is applied to 
 other substances, the texture of which is remark- 
 able, as the human body (Ps. exxxix. 15). Fur- 
 ther than this, rikmah involves the idea of a 
 reguiar disposition of colours, which demanded 
 no inventive genius. Beyond the instances 
 already adduced, it is applied to tessellated pave- 
 ment (1 Ch. xxix. 2), to the eagle’s plumage 
 (Ezek. xvii. 3), and, in the Targums, to the 
 leopard’s spotted skin (Jer. xiii. 23), In the 
 same sense it is applied to the coloured sails of 
 the Egyptian vessels (Ezek. xxvii. 16), which 
 were either chequered or worked according to a 
 regularly recurring pattern (Wilkinson, Anc. 
 Egypt. i. 413 [1878]). Gesenius considers this 
 passage as conclusive for his view of the dis- 
 tinction, but it is hardly conceivable that the 
 patterns were on one side of the sail only, nor 
 
 EMERODS ΟῚ 
 
 does there appear any ground to infer a departure 
 from the usual custom of working the colours 
 by the loom. ‘The ancient Versions do not con- 
 tribute much to the elucidation of the point. 
 The LXX. varies between ποικιλτὴς and ῥαφι- 
 δευτής, as representing rokem, and ποικιλτὴς 
 and ὑφαντὴς for chosheb, combining the two 
 terms in each case for the work itself, 7 ποικιλία 
 Tov ῥαφιδευτοῦ for the first, ἔργον ὑφαντὸν 
 ποικιλτὸν for the second. The distinction, so far 
 as it is observed, consisted in the one being needle- 
 work and the other loom-work. The Vulgate 
 gives generally plumarius for the first, and poly- 
 mitarius for the second; but in Ex. xxvi. 1, 31, 
 plumarius is used for the second. The first of 
 these terms (plumarius) is well chosen to express 
 rokem, but polymitarius, i.e. a weaver who 
 works together threads of divers colours, is as 
 applicable to one as tothe other. The rendering 
 in Ezek. xxvii. 16, scutulata, i.e. “ chequered,” 
 correctly describes one of the productions of the 
 rokem. We have lastly to notice the incorrect 
 
 rendering of the word yaw in the A. V.— 
 
 “broider;” “embroider” (Ex. xxviili.4, 39; R.V. 
 
 “ chequer-work 7). It means stuff worked in a 
 tessellated manner, i.e. with square cavities, such 
 as stones might be set in (cp. Ὁ. 20). The art of 
 embroidery by the loom was extensively practised 
 among the nations of antiquity. The Baby- 
 lonians were also celebrated for it, but em- 
 broidery in the proper sense of the term, ἐσ. 
 with the needle, was a Phrygian invention of 
 later date (Plin. viii. 48). [W. L. B.J 
 
 EMERALD (253; LXX., ἄνθραξ ; N. T. and 
 Apoc., σμάραγδος), a precious stone, first in the 
 second row on the breastplate of the high-priest 
 (Ex. xxviii. 18, xxxix. 11), imported to Tyre from 
 Syria (Ezek. xxvii. 16), used as a seal or signet 
 (Ecclus. xxxii. 6), as an ornament of clothing 
 and bedding (Ezek. xxviii. 13 ; Judith x. 21), and 
 spoken of as one of the foundations of Jerusalem 
 (Rey. xxi. 19; Tob. xiii. 16). The rainbow 
 round the throne is compared to emerald in Rey. 
 iv. 3, ὅμοιος ὁράσει σμαραγδίνῳ. 
 
 The etymology of ἼΞ31 is uncertain. Gesenius 
 suggests a comparison with the word 915, a paint 
 with which the Hebrew women stained their 
 eyelashes. Kalisch on Exodus xxviii. follows. 
 the LXX., and translates it carbuncle, trans- 
 
 ferring the meaning emerald to pon in the 
 same v.18. The Targum Jer. on the same verse 
 explains 59 by 83733 =carchedonius, carbuncle 
 (so R. V. marg.).. Riehm (HWZJ. ‘Edelsteine,’ 
 No. 13) prefers *‘ granat.” ἔπ Wie) 
 
 EMERODS (BY>ay DIM; ἕδρα; anus, 
 nates ; Deut. xxviii. 27 1 Sam: v. 6: 9} 19: vi. 
 4,5, 11). The probabilities as to the nature of 
 the disease are mainly dependent on the probable 
 roots of these two Hebrew words; the former of 
 which* evidently means “a swelling;” the 
 latter, though less certain, is most probably from 
 
 “~- 
 
 a Closely akin to it is the Arab. , which means 
 
 tumor qui apud viros oritur in posticis partibus, apud 
 mulieres in anteriore parte vulvae similis herniac 
 virorum. 
 
 3.052 
 
932 
 
 y 
 a Syriac verb, ont, meaning “anhelavit swh 
 onere, enixus est in exonerando ventre” (Park- 
 hurst and Gesenius); and the Syriac neun 
 
 or 
 Pans from the same root denotes (1) such 
 effort as the verb implies, and (2) the intestinum 
 rectum. Also, whenever the former word occurs 
 in the Hebrew Kethib,” the Keri gives the latter, 
 except in 1 Sam. vi. 11, where the latter stands 
 in the Aethib. Now this last passage speaks of 
 the images of the emerods after they were ac- 
 tually made, and placed in the Ark. It thus 
 appears probable that the former word means 
 the disease, and the latter the part affected, 
 which must necessarily have been included in 
 the actually existing image, and have struck the 
 eye as the essential thing represented, to which 
 the disease was an incident. As some morbid 
 swelling, then, seems the most probable nature 
 of the disease, so no more probable conjecture 
 has been advanced than that haemorrhoidal 
 tumours (R. V. Deut. marg. Or, tumours or 
 plaque boils; in 1 Sam. text “tumours,” marg. 
 or piague boils), or bleeding piles, known to the 
 Romans as mariscue (Juv. ii. 13), are intended. 
 These are very common in Syria at present; 
 Oriental habits of want of exercise and improper 
 food, producing derangement of the liver, con- 
 stipation, &c., being such as to cause them. 
 The sense of plaguc-boils, a disease found among 
 the Druses, is preferred by others (see Dillmann? 
 on Deut. /.c.). The words of 1 Sam. v. 12, “the 
 men that died not were smitten with emerods,”’ 
 show that the disease was not necessarily 
 fatal. It is clear from its parallelism with 
 “botch ” and other diseases in Deut. xxviii. 27, 
 
 that pay i is a disease, not a part of the body; 
 
 but the translations of it by the most approved 
 authorities are various and vague.° Thus the 
 LXX. and Vulg., as above, uniformly render 
 the word as bearing the latter sense. ‘The men- 
 tion by Herodotus (i. 105) of the malady, called 
 by him θήλεια νοῦσος, as afflicting the Scythians 
 who robbed the temple (of the Syrian Venus) in 
 Ascalon, has been deemed by some a proof that 
 some legerd containing a distortion of the Scrip- 
 tural account was current in that country down 
 to alate date. The Scholiast on Aristophanes 
 (Acharn. 231) mentions a similar plague (fol- 
 lowed by a similar subsequent propitiation to 
 that mentioned in Scripture), as sent upon the 
 Athenians by Bacchus.4 The opinion mentioned 
 by Winer (s. vy. Philister), as advanced by 
 Lichtenstein, that the plague of emerods and 
 that of mice are one and the same, the former 
 being caused by an insect (solpuga) as large as a 
 field-mouse, is hardly worth attention. [H. H.] 
 
 E'MIM (D'S; B. ᾿Ομμαείν, A. ᾿Οομείν 
 [v. 10], ᾿Ομμιείν [v. 11], only twice mentioned, 
 
 EMIM 
 
 Ὁ Parkhurst, however, 5. v. pba, thinks, on the 
 ee 
 
 authority of Dr. Kennicott’s Codices, that Q994nY) is in 
 all these passages a very ancient Hebrew varia lectio. 
 
 ¢ Josephus, Ant. vi. 1, ὁ 1, dycevrepia; Aquila, τὸ 
 τῆς φαγεδαίνης ἕλκος. 
 
 ἃ Pollux, Onom. iv. 25, thus describes what he calls 
 βουβών. οἴδημα. μετὰ φλεγμονῆς αἱμοῤῥοῦ γίνεται κατὰ 
 
 τὴν ἕδραν ἔντος, ἐστί δε ὁμοία μύροις dors. Cp. Bochart, 
 Hierozoic. i, 381. 
 
 EMMAUS 
 
 Gen, xiv. 5 [LXX. om.] and Deut. ii. 10, 11). 
 As a Semitic word the name appears to mean 
 ‘“‘terrors,” and is used of the idols of Chaldea, 
 which “is a land of graven images, and they 
 are mad upon their idols” (Jer. 1. 38). It 
 appears that the Emim were the aborigines of 
 Moab: they “dwelt therein aforetime, a people 
 great, and many, and tall as the Anakim” (R. Y.). 
 They may have been of the same race as the 
 Rephaim in Bashan, the Zuzim in Ham, and the 
 Horites in Mount Seir. It is not, however, at 
 all certain that they were of Semitic race, 
 although the word presents a Semitic plural. 
 The Hittites are believed by scholars to have 
 been non-Semitic, and the Emim may have 
 belonged to the ancient ‘'uranian people, who 
 preceded the Semitic stock in Chaldea, as the 
 Emim preceded the sons of Lot in Moab. If 
 these aborigines were really what is called 
 Turanian, the meaning of the word is to be 
 sought in Turanian languages. In this case it 
 would be comparable with the widely diffused 
 word aima for a “horde ” or “tribe” (Tunguse 
 aiman, Buriat aimah, Mongol aimak, Livonian 
 aim, “ tribe”). The name of the Hittites occurs 
 in the Bible with a Semitic plural attached. In 
 the A. V (but not in the R. V.) the English 
 plural has in like manner been added to the 
 Hebrew—Emims being a case in point. [C. R. C.] 
 
 EM’MAUS (Eupaois), the village (κώμη) 
 to which the two disciples were going when our 
 Lord appeared to them on the way, on the day 
 of His Resurrection (Luke xxiv. 13). The only 
 indication of position is the distance from Jeru- 
 salem, which St. Luke gives as 60 stadia®* (A. V. 
 threescore furlongs) or about 6% English miles. 
 St. Mark (xvi. 12) simply says that the disciples 
 were on their way into the country (εἰς ἀγρόν). 
 Josephus (B. J. vii. 6, § 6) mentions a place 
 (χωρίον) called Emmaus, which was the only 
 portion of Judaea exempted from the general 
 lot of being scld. It was given by Titus to 800 
 men discharged from the army, and the distance 
 from Jerusalem is stated to have been 60, or, 
 according to the Latin copies, 30 stadia. This 
 last feature has led to the general supposition 
 that it is the same place as the Emmaus of the 
 N. T. Six sites have at various times been 
 proposed for Emmaus. 
 
 1. Eusebius and Jerome (OS? p. 257, 21; 
 p- 121, 6) identify it with the city of Emmaus, 
 ’Amwds, afterwards calied Nicopolis, which was 
 176 stadia, or about 20 English miles, from Jeru- 
 salem, and situated on the maritime plain, at the 
 foot of the mountains of Judah. This view was 
 held by all Christians down to the 12th century 
 (Sozomen, H. £. v.20; Abbot Daniel, lxii.), and 
 has been maintained in modern times by Dr. 
 Robinson (iii. 147 sq.), and by Guérin (Judee, 
 1.301 sq. Cp. Schiffers, Amwds, das Emmaus 
 d. hi. Lucas, 160 Stad. Ὁ. Jerus. 1891). It 
 necessitates a journey of 40 miles in one day, 
 and is at variance with the circumstances of the 
 narrative. The two disciples having journeyed 
 
 * The Sinaitic MS., supported by I, K, and N, has 160 
 stedia; but the best MSS. are decisive in favour of 60 
 stadia (sce Westcott and Hort). If the Sinaitic be one 
 of the MSS. of the N. T. prepared by Eusebius, at the 
 command of Constantine, it is possible that he altered 
 the text to bring it into agreement with the distance 
 of Emmaus-Nicopolis, ’Amwds, from Jerusalem. 
 
EMMAUS 
 
 from Jerusalem to Emmaus in part of a day 
 (Luke xxiv. 28, 29), left the latter again after 
 the evening meal, and reached Jerusalem before 
 it was very late (vv. 33, 42, 43). Now, if we 
 take into account the distance, 20 miles, and the 
 ‘nature of the road, leading up a steep and 
 difficult mountain, we must admit that such a 
 journey could not be accomplished in less than 
 from six to seven hours, so that they could not 
 have arrived in Jerusalem till long past mid- 
 night. The expressions used by St. Luke, “a 
 village named Emmaus,” and by St. Mark, 
 “into the country,” would hardly have been 
 employed if the disciples had been going to the 
 well-known fortress-city of Emmaus-Nicopolis 
 (Reland, pp. 427, 758; Thomson, L. and B. 
 Ρ. 534). 
 
 2. Kuryet el-’Enab, about 66 stadia from 
 Jerusalem, on the road to Jaffa, has been pro- 
 posed by the Rev. G. Williams (Dict. of Gk. and 
 Rom. Geog.) and Thomson (L. and B. p. 666). 
 The arguments in its favour are, a not very 
 ancient Greek tradition, the distance from Jern- 
 salem, and proximity to Austul (Castellum) and 
 Kulénieh (Colonia). Kuryet, however, is an 
 ancient name, Kirjath, and is not likely to have 
 been also known as Emmaus. 
 
 3. Kuldnich, about 36 stadia from Jerusalem, 
 on the road to Jaffa, In Josh. xviii. 26 men- 
 tion is made of a town Mozau, really ham- 
 Motsah (Αμώσα). which is believed to be the 
 same place as the Motsah mentioned in the 
 Mishna (Succah, iv. § 5), which was also a 
 Colonia. Ham-Motsah is in all probability the 
 Ammaous which, according to the Latin copies 
 of Josephus, was 30 stadia from Jerusalem 
 (PEF Qy. Stat. 1881, p. 237). It is identified 
 by Schwarz (D. heil. Land, p. 98) and Neubauer 
 (Géoq. du Talmud, pp. 152, 153) with Mulénieh, 
 but is more prebably the ruin Beit Mizza, in 
 the immediate vicinity. The arguments in 
 favour of identifying Auldnieh with the Emmaus 
 of St. Luke are very fully given by Sepp (Jer. 
 u. d. heil. Land, i. 54-73), who identifies Kustul 
 with the Castellum Emmaus of the Crusaders, 
 and by Ewald (Gesch. d. Volkes Isr. vi. 675 sq.). 
 See also Furrer in Schenkel, B. Z.s.v. Kuldnieh 
 was, and still is, a place to which the inhabitants 
 of Jerusalem went out for recreation. 
 
 4. The claims of e/-Aubeibeh have been well set 
 forth by Zschokke (Das N. T. Emmaus), and are 
 maintained by Baedeker-Socin (Hdbk. p. 141), 
 the Franciscans, Schick, Riehm (H WB. s. v.), and 
 others. Itis about 63 stadia N.W. of Jerusalem, 
 on an old Roman road leading through Beit 
 Likia to Ludd, Lydda; and at the head of one 
 branch of the valley in which Mulénieh lies. 
 The tradition connecting E. with e/-Mubcibeh 
 does not appear to be earlier than the i4th 
 century, and cannot be considcred trustworthy. 
 A monastery of Latin monks was established 
 there in 1862 (PEF. Mem. iii. 17, 131). 
 
 5. Etam (‘Ain ’Atdn) and Urtds, near “ Solo- 
 mon’s Pools,” have been proposed by Lightfoot 
 (Chor, iv. § 3) and Mrs. Finn (PHF Qy. Stat. 
 1883, pp. 53-64). The distance from Jerusalem 
 is about 60 stadia; but the place is not likely 
 to have been selected as the site of a Roman 
 colony; and it may be inferred from Josephus 
 (Antiq viii. 7, § 3) that the name Etam had not 
 
 een superseded by Emmaus. 3 
 
 6. Kh. el-Khamasa, 72 stadia in ἃ direct line, 
 
 EMMAUS 933 
 
 and 86 by road, from Jerusalem, and close to one 
 of the Roman roads leading to the plain near 
 Beit Jibrin. The arguments in its favour, of 
 which the principal is the name, are given by 
 Conder (PEF, Mem. iii. 36) and Geikie (Holy 
 Land and the Bible, ii. 142, 143). The distance 
 from Jerusalem, however, is far too great, and 
 all tradition points to a site further north. 
 
 The indication of position is so slight that no 
 positive identification can be made: the choice 
 seems to lie between Kuldnich, or Beit Mizza, 
 and el-Kubeibeh. [W.] 
 
 EM'MAUS, or NICOP’OLIS (Exuaois ; 
 Joseph. ᾿Εμμαυὺς and ’Auuaods), a town on the 
 Maritime plain, at the foot of the mountains of 
 Judaea, 22 Roman miles from Jerusalem, and 10 
 from Lydda (/tin. Hieros.; Reland, pp. 306, 427- 
 430; Jerome, Com. ad Dan. ch. xii.). The name 
 does not occur in the Ὁ. T.; but the town rose 
 to importance during the later history of the 
 Jews, and was a place of note in the wars of the 
 Hasmoneans. In 164 1.0. Lysias, Governor- 
 general of Syria, sent an army under Ptolemy, 
 Nicanor, and Gorgias to invade Judaea. ‘The 
 army encamped on the plain near. Emmaus 
 (1 Mace. iii. 40); and in this position was 
 attacked by Judas Maccabaeus, who had moved 
 down trom Jerusalem and pitched his camp on the 
 S. side of Emmaus (v. 57). The battle resulted in 
 the complete defeat of the Syrians (1 Mace. iv. 
 3-25). Emmaus was fortified, with other towns, 
 by Bacchides, the general of Antiochus Epiphanes 
 (1 Mace. ix. 50; Joseph. Ant. xiii. 1, § 3). 
 Under the Romans it was the chief town of a 
 toparchy (Joseph. B. J. iii. 3,§ 5; Plin. H. N. v. 
 14). It was reduced by Cassius to a state of 
 slavery (Ant. xiv. 11,§ 2; B.J.i. 11, § 2); and 
 was afterwards (4 A.D.) burned by order of 
 Varus (B. J. ii. 5, § 1), as a punishment for an 
 attack made on a company of soldiers carrying 
 corn and weapons to the Roman army (4, § 3). 
 When the Jews divided the country into military 
 districts, after the defeat of Cestius, Emmaus 
 formed part of the district of John the Essene 
 (8. J. ii. 20, 8 4).  Vespasian, during the 
 Jewish war, established a fortified camp at 
 Emmaus, and occupied the passes leading thence 
 to Jerusalem (B. J. iv. 8, § 1); and, prior to the 
 siege of Jerusalem, the 5th Legion marched up 
 from Emmaus (B. J. v. 1, § 6), and joined Titus 
 at Gabaoth-Saul (2, § 3). 
 
 In 131 A.D. Emmaus was destroyed by an 
 earthquake ; and in the 3rd century, about 221 
 A.D., it was rebuilt, under the title Nicopolis, 
 in consequence of the representations of a native 
 of the place, Sextus Julius Africanus, the 
 Christian historian, who went as an envoy to 
 the Emperor Heliogabalus (Chron. Pas. ad A.c. 
 223; Jerome, De Vir. ill. Ixiii.). According 
 to Sozomen (v. 20) and Nicephorus (x. 21), 
 Emmaus was called Nicopolis after the capture 
 of Jerusalem, and to commemorate that event. 
 To Eusebius and Jerome, Emmaus-Nicopolis was 
 the Emmaus of Luke xxiv. 15 (Onom., and Jerome, 
 Per. S. Paulae, v.), and such was the general 
 belief to the 14th century. Sozomen (vy. 20) 
 mentions a spring endowed with miraculous 
 powers which it owed to the touch of Christ. 
 This spring was closed by order of the Emperor 
 Julian to suppress the Christian belief attached 
 to it (Theophanes, Chron. 41); but it appears to 
 
934 
 
 have been open again in the 8th century (/tin. 
 8. Willibaldi, xiii.); and at a later period (Will. 
 of Tyre, vii. 24). 
 
 It is now ’Anucds, a small village, near the 
 foot of the mountains, to the left of the road 
 from Jaffa to Jerusalem. There are the ruins 
 of a Byzantine church, rock-hewn tombs, a 
 spring, ‘Ain Nini, and a well, bir et-Zadun, 
 “Well of the Plague,” which probably derives 
 its name from the plague of Emmaus which 
 desolated the Moslem army after the conquest 
 of Syria. The church was excavated by the 
 French in 1881, and an account published in 
 Les Missions Catholiques, 3rd March, 1882. For 
 a description of the ruins, see PHF. Mem. 
 iii, 14, 63; Sepp, Das heil. Land, i. 42; Guérin, 
 Judee, i. 29 sq.; and Clermont-Ganneau in 
 PEFQy. Stat. 1874, pp. 149, 160, 162; 1882, 
 pp. 24-37 
 
 The later Jewish legends are given by Neu- 
 bauer (Géog. du Lalmud, pp. 101, 102). Bishops 
 of Emmaus attended the Council of Nicaea, the 
 second Council of Constantinople, and the 
 meeting at Jerusalem in 536 A.D. 
 
 The name Emmaus was also borne by a village 
 of Galilee close to ‘liberias ; probably the ancient 
 HAMMATH, 1.6. hot springs. The springs are 
 mentioned by Josephus, Ant. xviii. 2, § 3; 
 Bod sive 1;'§ 8. [W.] 
 
 EM’MER (B. ἙἘμήρ, A. ᾿Εμμήρ ; Semmeri), 
 1 Esd. ix. 21. (IMMeEr.] 
 
 EMMER 
 
 EM’MOR (Ἑμμώρ, Westcott and Hort ; 
 Emmor), the father of Sychem ee vii. 16). 
 [Hamor. 
 
 ENA’JIM, more correctly as in R. V. ENAIM 
 (O°3°Y), is the marginal reading of the A. V. for 
 “ an open place ” (Gen. xxxviii. 14), and “openly ” 
 (v. 21). The LXX. have Αἰνάν. The Vulgate 
 renders it by im bivio. The Talmudists con- 
 sidered it to be the name of a place (Tal. Bab. 
 Sotah, 10 a), and identical with Enam in the 
 neighbourhood of Adullam. In Pesik. rab. 23 
 mention is made of a Kefar Enaim. Philo and 
 Eusebius also regard it as a place, and modern 
 commentators consider it the same as ENAM 
 (see Delitzsch and Dillmann’ in loco). [W.] 
 
 E’'NAM (with the article, DIY = the 
 double spring, Ges. Thes. p. 1019 a; B. Μαιανεί, 
 A. Ἠναείμ; Lnaim), one of the cities of Judah 
 in the Shefelah or lowland (Josh. xv. 34). From 
 its mention with towns (Jarmuth and Eshtaol, 
 for instance) which are known to have been 
 near Timnath, this is very probably the place 
 in the “gate” of which Tamar sat before her 
 interview with her father-in-law (Gen. xxxviii. 
 14). In the A. V. the words Pathach enayim 
 (D°3"Y MMB) are not taken as a proper name, 
 but are rendered “an open place” (see ENAJIM); 
 but “the gate of Enaim” (or the double spring) 
 is the translation adopted by the LXX. (ταῖς 
 πύλαις Αἰνάν), R. V., and now generally accepted. 
 In Josh. xv. 34, for” “Tappuah and Enam,” the 
 Peshitto has “ Pathuch-Elam,” which supports 
 the identification suggested above. Miiller (in 
 Riehm, HWB. s. n.) suggests Beit ‘Andn, but 
 this place is far to the N. and not on the road 
 from Adullam to Timnath. Schwarz (p. 73) 
 identifies it with the village Beth Ani, perhaps 
 
 ENCAMPMENT 
 
 Beit‘ Andn; Conder (Habk. to Bible, p. 410) more 
 probably with Ah, Wady ‘Alin near ‘Ain Shems, 
 Bethshemesh. [AIN.] [α SEW 
 
 E’NAN (Ὁ; bie Enan). Ahira ben- 
 Enan was “prince” of the tribe of Naphtali at 
 the time of the numbering of Israel in the 
 wilderness of Sinai (Num. i. 15, ii. 29, vii. 78, 
 
 83, x. 27). [G.] 
 
 ENA'SIBUS (Β. Ἐνάσειβος ; Eliasib), 1 Esd. 
 ix. 84. [ELIASHIB. } 
 
 ENCAMPMENT (73M, machdneh, in all 
 places except 2 K. vi. 8, where NVINA, tachandth, 
 
 is used). The word primarily ‘denoted, the 
 resting-place of an army or company of travel- 
 lers at night® (Ex. xvi. 13; Gen. xxxii. 21), and 
 was hence applied to the army or caravan when 
 on its march (Ex. xiv. 19; Josh. x. 5, xi. 4; 
 Gen. xxxii. 7, 8). Among nomadic tribes war 
 never attained to the dignity of a science, and 
 their encampments were consequently devoid of 
 all the appliances of more systematic warfare. 
 The description of the camp of the Israelites, 
 on their march from Egypt (Num. ii., iii.), 
 supplies the greatest amount of information on 
 the subject: whatever else may be gleaned is 
 from scattered hints. ‘The ‘Tabernacle, corre- 
 sponding to the chieftain’s tent of an ordinary 
 encampment, was placed in the centre; and 
 around and facing it (Num. ii. 1),> arranged in 
 four grand divisions, corresponding to the four 
 points of the compass, lay the host of Israel, 
 according to their standards (Num. i. 52, ii. 2). 
 On the east the post of honour was assigned to 
 the tribe of Judah, and round its standard rallied 
 the tribes of Issachar and Zebulun, descendants 
 of the sons of Leah. On the south lay Reuben 
 and Simeon, the representatives of Leah, and 
 the children of Gad, the son of her handmaid. 
 Rachel’s descendants were encamped on the 
 western side of the Tabernacle, the chief place 
 being assigned to the tribe of Ephraim. To this 
 position of Ephraim, Manasseh, and Benjamin, 
 allusions are made in Judg. v. 14 and Ps. Ixxx. 
 2. On the north were the tribes of Dan and 
 Naphtali, the children of Bilhah, and the tribe 
 of Asher, Gad’s younger brother. All these 
 were encamped around their standards, each 
 according to the ensign of the house of his 
 fathers. In the centre round the Tabernacle, 
 and with no standard but the cloudy or fiery 
 pillar which rested over it, were the tents of the 
 priests and Levites. The former, with Moses 
 and Aaron at their head, were encamped on the 
 eastern side. Onthe south were the Kohathites, 
 who had charge of the Ark, the table of shew- 
 bread, the altars and vessels of the sanctuary. 
 The Gershonites were on the west, and when on 
 the march carried the Tabernacle and its lighter 
 furniture; while the Merarites, who were en- 
 camped on the north, had charge of its heavier 
 appurtenances. The order of encampment was 
 preserved on the march (Num. ii. 17), the signal 
 for which was given by a blast of the two silver 
 trumpets (Num. x. 5). The details of this 
 
 a Whence Dyn nin (chanéth hayyém), “the 
 
 camping-time of day,” i.e. the evening, Judg. xix. 9. 
 b The form of the encampment was probably circular, 
 and not square, as it is generally represented. 
 
πιὰ ta 
 
 * Josh. vi. 28). 
 
 left its traces in their subsequent history. 
 
 - significant. 
 
 ENCAMPMENT 
 
 account supply Prof. Blunt with some striking 
 illustrations of the undesigned coincidences of 
 the Books of Moses ( Undes. Coincid. pp. 75-86). 
 
 In this description of the order of the encamp- 
 ment no mention is made of sentinels, who, it is 
 yeasonable to suppose, were placed at the gates 
 (Ex. xxxii. 26, 27) in the four quarters of the 
 camp. ‘This was evidently the case in the camp 
 of the Levites (cp. 1 Ch. ix. 18, 24; °2 Ch. 
 Xxxi. 2), 
 
 The sanitary regulations of the camp of the 
 Israelites were enacted for the twofold purpose 
 of preserving the health of the vast multitude 
 
 _ and the purity of the camp as the dwelling-place 
 
 of God (Num. v. 3; Deut. xxiii. 14). With this 
 object the dead were buried without the camp 
 
 (Ley. x. 4, 5): lepers were excluded till their 
 
 leprosy departed from them (Lev. xiii. 46, xiv. 
 3; Num. xii. 14, 15), as were all who were 
 visited with loathsome diseases (Ley. xiv. 3). 
 
 - All who were defiled by contact with the dead, 
 
 whether these were slain in battle or not, were 
 kept without the camp for seven days (Num. xxxi. 
 19). Captives taken in war were compelled to 
 remain for a while outside (Num. xxxi. 19; 
 The ashes from the sacrifices 
 were poured out without the camp at an ap- 
 
 - . ’ 
 _ pointed place, whither all uncleanness was re- 
 
 moved (Deut. xxiii. 10, 12), and where the 
 entrails, skins, horns, &c., and all that was not 
 otfered in sacrifice, were burnt (Lev. iv. 11, 12; 
 
 yi. 113 viii. 17). 
 
 The execution of criminals took place without 
 the camp (Lev. xxiv. 14; Num. xv. 35, 36; 
 Josh. vii. 24), as did the burning of the young 
 
 _ bullock for the sin-offering (Lev. iv. 12). These 
 
 circumstances combined explain Heb. xiii. 12, 
 and John xix. 17, 20. 
 
 The encampment of the Israelites in the desert 
 The 
 Temple, so late as the time of Hezekiah, was 
 still “the camp of Jehovah” (2 Ch. xxxi. 2; 
 ep. Ps. Ixxviii. 28); and the multitudes who 
 flocked to David were “a great camp, like the 
 «amp of God” (1 Ch. xii. 22; R. V. “host” 
 
 . [twice]). 
 
 High ground appears to have been uniformly 
 
 selected for the position of a camp, whether it 
 were on a hill or mountain side, or in an in- 
 
 accessible pass (Judg. vii. 18). So, in Judg. x. 
 17, the Ammonites encamped in Gilead, while 
 Israel pitched in Mizpeh. The very names are 
 The camps of Saul and the Philis- 
 tines were alternately in Gibeah, the “ height ” of 
 Benjamin, and the pass of Michmash (1 Sam. xiii. 
 2,5, 16, 23). When Goliath defied the host of 
 Israel, the contending armies were encamped 
 on hills on either side of the valley of Elah 
 (1 Sam. xvii. 3); and in the fatal battle of Gilboa 
 
 Saul’s position on the mountain was stormed 
 
 by the Philistines who had pitched in Shunem 
 
 ΑΙ Sam. xxviii. 4), on the other side of the valley 
 
 of Jezreel. The carelessness of the Midianites 
 in encamping in the plain exposed them to the 
 night stirprise by Gideon, and resulted in their 
 
 ' consequent discomfiture (Jude. vi. 33; vii. 8, 12). 
 
 Another important consideration in fixing 
 upon a position for a camp was the propinquity 
 of water: hence it is found that in most instances 
 
 -¢amps were pitched near a spring or well 
 
 (Judg. vii. 3; 1 Mace. ix. 33). The Israelites 
 
 ENCAMPMENT 935 
 
 Jezreel (1 Sam. xxix. 1), while the Philistines 
 encamped at Aphek, the name of which indicates 
 the existence of a stream of water in the 
 neighbourhood, which rendered it a favourite 
 place of encampment (1 Sam. iv. 1; 1 Καὶ. xx. 26; 
 2 K. xiii. 17). In his pursuit of the Amalekites, 
 David halted his men by the brook Besor, and 
 there left a detachment with the camp furniture 
 (1 Sam. xxx. 9). One of Joshua’s decisive en- 
 gagements with the nations of Canaan was 
 fought at the waters of Merom, where he sur- 
 prised the confederate camp (Josh. xi. 5, 7; cp. 
 Judg. ν. 19, 21). Gideon, before attacking the 
 Midianites, encamped beside the well of Harod 
 (Judg. vii. 1), and it was to draw water from 
 the well at Bethlehem that David’s three 
 mighty men cut their way through the host of 
 the Philistines (2 Sam. xxiii. 16). 
 
 The camp was surrounded by the mba, ma'- 
 
 gdalah (1 Sam. xvii. 20), or bayn, ma‘gal (1 Sam. 
 xxvi. 5, 7), which some, and Thenius among 
 them, explain as an earthwork thrown up round 
 the encampment, others as the barrier formed 
 by the baggage-waggons. The etymology of 
 the word points merely to the circular shape of 
 the enclosure formed by the tents of the soldiers 
 pitched around their chief, whose spear marked 
 his resting-place (1 Sam. xxvi. 5, 7), and it 
 might with propriety be used in either of the 
 above senses, according as the camp was fixed or 
 temporary. We know that, in the case of a 
 siege, the attacking army, if possible, surrounded 
 the place attacked (1 Mace. xiii. 43), and drew 
 about it a line of circumvallation (Pp), dayék, 
 2 K. xxv. 1), which was marked bya breastwork 
 of earth (APD, m’silldh, Is. Ixii. 10; mdb, 
 sol’lah, Ezek. xxi. 27 [22]; ep. Job xix. 12), for 
 the double purpose of preventing the escape of 
 the besieged and of protecting the besiegers from 
 their sallies.° But there was not so much need 
 of a formal entrenchment, as but few instances 
 oceur in which engagements were fought in the 
 camps themselves, and these only when the 
 attack was made at night. Gideon’s expedition 
 against the Midianites took place in the early 
 morning (Judg. vii. 19), the time selected by Saul 
 for his attack upon Nahash (1 Sam. xi. 11), and 
 by David for surprising the Amalekites (1 Sam. 
 xxx. 17; cp. Judg. ix. 33). To guard against 
 these night attacks, sentinels (aw, shém’rim) 
 were posted (Judg. vii. 20; 1 Macc. xii. 27) 
 round the camp, and the neglect of this pre- 
 caution by Zebah and Zalmunna probably led 
 to their capture by Gideon and the ultimate 
 defeat of their army (Judg. vii. 19). 
 
 The valley which separated the hostile camps 
 was, generally selected as the fighting ground 
 a, sddeh, “the battle-field,” 1 Sam. iv. 2, 
 xiv. 15: 2 Sam. xviii. 6), upon which the contest 
 was decided, and hence the valleys of Palestine 
 nave played so conspicuous a part in its history 
 (Josh. vill. 13; Judg. vi. 33; 2 Sam. v. 22, viii. 
 13, &e.). When the fighting men went forth to 
 the place of marshalling (OD Wd, ma‘dracah, 
 
 © The Chaidee renders ΠΡΟΣ ( Sam. xvii. 20) and 
 pep tee) δ 
 ΡΠ (2 K. xxv. 1) by the same word, O))73, or 
 
 at Mount Gilboa pitched by the fountain in | yy}p%5, the Greek χαράκωμα. 
 
936 
 
 1 Sam. xvii. 20), a detachment was left to 
 protect the camp and baggage (1 Sam, xvii, 22, 
 xxx. 24). The beasts of burden were probably 
 tethered to the tent pegs (2 K. vii. 10; Zech. 
 xiv. 15). 
 
 The MM, machdneh, or movable encamp- 
 ment, is distinguished from the a3), matstsab, 
 or AYN), n’tsib (2 Sam. xxiii. 14; 1 Ch. xi. 16), 
 which appear to have been standing camps, like 
 those which Jehoshaphat established throughout 
 Judah (2 Ch. xvii. 2), or advanced posts in an 
 enemy’s country (1 Sam. xiii. 17; 2 Sam. viii. 
 6), from which skirmishing parties made their 
 predatory excursions and ravaged the crops. [Ὁ 
 was in resisting one of these expeditions that 
 Shammah won himself a name among David’s 
 heroes (2 Sam. xxiii. 12). Machdneh is still 
 further distinguished from ὝΝ 3), mibtsar, “a 
 fortress” or “ walled town” (Num. xiii. 19). 
 
 Camps left behind them a memorial in the 
 name of the place where they were situated, as 
 among ourselves (cp. Chester, Grantchester, &c.). 
 Mahaneh-Dan (Judg. xiii. 25) was so called from 
 the encampment of the Danites mentioned in 
 Judg. xviii, 12. [Mananaim.] The more 
 important camps at Gilgal (Josh. v. 10, ix. 6) 
 and Shiloh (Josh. xviii. 9; Judg. xxi. 12, 19) 
 left no such impress; the military traditions of 
 these places were eclipsed by the greater splen- 
 dour of the religious associations which sur- 
 rounded them. [ΓΑ Wiel) 
 
 ENCHANTMENTS. 1. 0°09 or 0°79, 
 Ex, vii. 11, 22, viii. 7; φαρμακείαι, LXX. 
 (Grotius compares the word with the Greek 
 
 ENCHANTMENTS 
 
 Aural) ; secret arts, from ib, to cover ; though 
 
 others incorrectly connect it with pind, a flame, 
 
 or the glittering blade of a sword, as though it 
 implied a sort of dazzling cheironomy which 
 deceives spectators. Several Versions render the 
 word by “ whisperings,” insusurrationes ; but it 
 seems to be a more general word, and hence is 
 used of the various means (some of them no 
 doubt of a quasi-scientific character) by which 
 the Egyptian Chartummim (R. V. “ magicians ”’) 
 imposed on the credulity of Pharaoh. 
 
 2. DDWD; φαρμακείαι, φάρμακα, LXX. (2 Κ. 
 ix. 22; Mic. vi. 12; Nah. iii. 4); veneficia, male- 
 Ποῖα, Vulg.; ‘maleficae artes,” “ praestigiae,” 
 “muttered spells.”” Hence it is sometimes ren- 
 dered by ἐπαοιδαί, asin Is. xlvii. 9,12. The belief 
 in the power of certain formulae was universal 
 in the ancient world. Thus there were carmina 
 to evoke the tutelary gods out of a city (Macrob. 
 Saturn. iii. 9), others to devote hostile armies 
 (d.), others to raise the dead (Maimon. de Idol. 
 xi. 15; Senec. Oedip. 547), or bind the gods 
 (δεσμοὶ θεῶν) and men (Aesch. Fur, 331), and 
 even influence tne heavenly bodies (Oy. Vet. vii. 
 207 sq., xii. 263; Te quoque Luna traho,” 
 Virg. el. viii., Aen. iv. 489; Hor. Epod. v. 45). 
 They were a recognised part of ancient medicine, 
 even among the Jews, who regarded certain 
 sentences of the Law as efficacious for healing. 
 The Greeks used them as one of the five chief 
 resources of ynarmacy (Pind. Pyth. iii. 8, 9; 
 Soph. Aj. 582), especially in obstetrics (Plat. 
 Theaet. p. 145) and mental diseases (Galen, de 
 Sanitat. tuendd,i. 8). Homer mentions them as 
 
 ENCHANTMENTS 
 
 used to check the flow of blood (Od. xix. 456), 
 and Cato even gives a charm to cure a disjointed 
 limb (de Re Rust. 160; ep. Plin. H. N. xxviii. 2). 
 The belief in charms is still all but universal in 
 uncivilised nations : see Lane’s Mud. Lyypt. i. 300, 
 306, &c., 11. 177, &c.; Beeckman’s Voyage to 
 Borneo, ch. ii.; Meroller’s Congo (in Pinkerton’s: 
 Voyages, xvi. pp. 221, 273); Huc’s China, i. 
 223, ii. 326; Taylor’s New Zealand, and Living- 
 stone’s Africa, passim, &c,; and hundreds of 
 such remedies still exist, and are considered 
 efficacious aznong the uneducated, 
 
 3. piyind, Eccles. x. 113 ψιθυρισμός, LXX., 
 
 from vind. This word is especially used of the 
 charming of serpents, Jer. viii. 17 (ep. Ps. lviil- 
 5; keclus. xii. 13, Eccles. x. 11, Lue. ix. 891—a 
 parallel to “cantando rumpitur anguis,’ and 
 * Vipereas rumpo verbis et carmine fauces,” Ov. 
 Met. 1. c.). Maimonides (de Jdol. xi. 2) ex- 
 pressly defines an enchanter as one “who uses 
 strange and meaningless words, by which he im- 
 poses on the folly of the credulous. They say, 
 for instance, that if one utter the words before 
 a serpent or scorpion it will do no harm” 
 (Carpzov, Annot, in Godwinum, iv. 11). An 
 account of the Marsi who excelled in this art is 
 given by Augustin (ad Gen. ix. 28), and of the 
 Psylli by Arnobius (ad Nat. ii. 32); and they 
 are alluded to by a host of other authorities 
 (Plin. vii. 2, xxviii. 6; Aelian, #. A. 1. 575 
 Virg. Aen. vii. 740; Sil. Ital. viii, 495. They 
 were called ᾿Οφιοδιώκται). The secret is still 
 understood in the East (Lane, ii. 106). 
 
 4. The word DWM) is used of the enchant- 
 ments sought by Balaam, Num. xxiv. 1. It pro- 
 perly alludes to ophiomancy, but in this place has. 
 a general meaning of endeavouring to gain omens. 
 (εἰς συνάντησιν τοῖς οἰωνοῖς, LXX.). 
 
 5. BM is used for magic, Is. xlvii. 9, 12. It 
 comes from 73M, to bind (cp. καταδέω, βασκαίνω,. 
 bannen), and means generally the process of ac- 
 quiring power over some distant object or 
 person; but this word seems also to have beem 
 sometimes used specifically of serpent charmers, 
 for Rashi on Deut. xviii. 11 defines the ΔΊ 
 AN to be one “who congregates serpents and 
 scorpions into one place.” 
 
 Any resort to these methods of imposture was: 
 strictly forbidden in Scripture (Ley. xix. 26 5 
 Is. xlvii. 9, &c.), but to eradicate the tendency 
 is almost impossible (2 K. xvii. 17; 2 Ch. 
 xxiii. 6), and we find it still flourishing at the 
 Christian era (Acts xiii. 6, ἃ, viii. 9, 11, yonteta; 
 Gal. v. 20; Rey. ix. 21). All kinds of magic are 
 frequently alluded to in the Talmudic writings 
 (see Berachoth, £.53.1, f.62.1; Pesachim, f. 110. 
 1,2; Soteh, f. 48.1; Baba Bathra, f. 58.1, and 
 multitudes of other passages collected by Mr. 
 Hershon in his Yalmudic Miscellany, pp. 230— 
 235). 
 
 The chief sacramenta daemoniaca were sup- 
 posed to be a rod, a magic circle, dragon’s eggs, 
 certain herbs, or “insane roots,” like the hen- 
 bane, &c. The fancy of poets both ancient and 
 modern has been exerted in giving lists of 
 them (Ovid and Hor. //. cc.; Shakspeare’s Mac- 
 beth, Act iv. 1; Southey’s Curse of Kehama, 
 Cant. iv. &c.). [Wircucraris; AMULETS; 
 DIVINATION. ] [Ea Wareel 
 
ENDOR 
 EN-DOR (aarp = spring of Dor; Endor), 
 
 a place which with its ‘ daughter-towns ” 
 (M113) was in the territory of Issachar, and 
 yet possessed by Manasseh (Josh. xvii. 11 ; 
 LXX. om.). This was the case with five other 
 places which lay partly in Asher, partly in 
 Issachar, and seem to have formed a kind of 
 district of their own called “the three, or the 
 triple, Nepheth.” 
 
 Endor was long held in memory by the Jewish 
 people as connected with the great victory over 
 Sisera and Jabin. Taanach, Megiddo, and the 
 torrent Kishon all witnessed the discomfiture of 
 the huge host, but it was emphatically to Endor 
 that the tradition of the death of the two chiefs 
 attached itself (Ps. Ixxxiii. 9,10). Possibly it 
 was some recollection of this, some fame of 
 sanctity or good omen in Endor, which drew the 
 unhappy Saul thither on the eve of his last 
 engagement with the Philistines (1 Sam. xxviii. 
 7; B.’AedAdeép, A. Νηνδώρ). Endor is not again 
 mentioned in the Scriptures; but it was known 
 to Eusebius, who describes it as a large village 
 4 miles 8. of Tabor. Here to the north of Jebel 
 Dithy (the “ Little Hermon” of travellers), and 
 at the foot of the volcanic Zell el-‘Ajjil, the 
 name still lingers, attached to a considerable but 
 now deserted village. The rock of the mountain, 
 on the slope of which ΤΠ πα)" stands, is hollowed 
 into caves, one of which may well have been 
 the scene of the incantatioit of the witch (Van 
 de Velde, ii. 383; Rob. ii. 360; Stanley, p. 345). 
 There are a few rock-hewn tombs, and trom 
 one of the caverns issues a small spring. From 
 the slopes of Gilboa to Endor is 7 or 8 miles, 
 partly over difficult ground. foal 
 
 ENEAS. [AENEAS.]. 
 
 EN-EGLA'IM (ΟΣ = spring of two 
 “heifers ; ᾿Εναγαλλείμ ; Engallim), a place named 
 only by Ezekiel (xlvii. 10), apparently as on the 
 Dead Sea; but whether near to or tar from 
 Engedi, on the west or east side of the Sea, it is 
 impossible to ascertain from the text. In his 
 comment on the passage, Jerome locates it at 
 the embouchure of the Jordan; but this is not 
 supported hy other evidence. By some (0.7. 
 Gesenius, 765. p. 1019) it is thought to be 
 identical with EGLAIM, but the two words are 
 different, En-eglaim containing the Ain, which 
 is rarely changed for any other aspirate. The 
 LXX. B. by reading Βαιθαγλαὰμ (Josh. xv. 6) 
 seems to identify BeTH-HOGLAH with En-eglaim. 
 
 Tristram (Bib. Places, p. 93) identifies it with 
 Beth-hoglah, “Ain Hajlah ; Riehm (H WB.) with 
 “Ain Feshkhah, both near the N. end of the Dead 
 Sea. There is an ‘Ain ‘Ajjul, “calf’s spring,” 
 near Lake Huleh, in the northern portion of the 
 Jordan valley, but this would appear to be too 
 far from the Dead Sea. [Gal Wii} 
 
 ENEMES'SAR (Evepeoodp, Ἔνεμεσσαρός) 
 is the name by which the well-known king 
 Shalmaneser (IV.) of Assyria is designated in 
 the book of Tobit (i. 2, 15, &c.). This book is 
 not of any historical authority, being simply a 
 work of imagination composed probably by an 
 Alexandrian Jew between the years 300 and 
 150 B.c. The author of Tobit represents Ene- 
 messar as the king who carried the children of 
 
 Israel into captivity (i. 2, 10) to Nineveh (where } is merely a contraction, 
 
 ENGANNIM 937 
 
 Tobit became purveyor to Enemessar), having 
 followed closely the narrative of the Book of 
 Kings (2 Καὶ, xvii. 3-6, xviii. 9-11), where it is 
 related that Hoshea rebelled against Shalmaneser, 
 who besieged Samaria and “ carried Israel away 
 unto Assyria.” [ASSYRIA ; SHALMANESER. } 
 He likewise mentions Sennacherib not only as 
 the successor, but also as the son of Enemessar 
 (Tobit 1. 15), and in this he has evidently fol- 
 lowed his own interpretation of the Book of 
 Kings. As we know from the Assyrian inscrip- 
 tions, Sennacherib was the son of Sargon, the 
 first king of a new Assyrian dynasty, and pro- 
 bably, therefore, wholly unrelated to Shal- 
 maneser IV., so that Sennacherib cannot by any 
 means be regarded as being descended fiom him. 
 The form Enemessar for Shalmaneser is a cor- 
 ruption, being apparently put for Senemessar 
 (sh changed to s and then to the light breathing, 
 as in Arkeanos [’Apxéavos] for Sargon), / being 
 dropped, and the m and nm transposed. The 
 Hebrew Shalmaneser is itself a corruption or 
 shortening of the Assyrian Sulman-aSarid or 
 Salmanu-aSarid, ΟΣ ΡῚῚ 
 
 ENE'NIUS (B. Ἐνήνιος ; Lmmanius), one 
 of the leaders who returned with Zorobabel from 
 the Captivity (1 Esd. v. 8). There is no name 
 corresponding to it in the lists of Ezra and 
 Nehemiah. [8η 
 
 EN’GADDI (B. ἐν αἰγιαλοῖς, δὲ“ ᾿Ἐνγαδδοῖς ; 
 in Cades), Ecelus. xxiv. 14. [ENGEDI.] 
 
 EN-GAN'NIM (O°33°}'Y = spring of gar- 
 dens). 1. A city in the low country of Judah, 
 named between Zanoah and Tappuah (Josh. xv. 
 34). The LXX. in this place is so different from 
 the Hebrew that the name is not recognisable. 
 Vulg. Aen-Gannim. It is now probably Umm 
 Jina, 3 miles N.W. of Zdnt‘a, Zanoah (PEF. 
 Mem. iii. 42). 
 
 2. A city on the border of Issachar (Josh. xix. 
 21; B. Ἰεὼν καὶ Τομμάν, A.’Hyyavvin; En- 
 Gannim); allotted with its “suburbs” to the 
 Gershonite Levites (xxi. 29; Πηγὴ γραμμάτων 5 
 En-Gannim). These notices contain no indication 
 of the position of En-gannim with reference to 
 any known place, but there is great probability 
 in the conjecture of Robinson (ji. 315) that it is 
 identical with the Ginaia of Josephus (Ant. xx. 
 6, § 1), which again, there can be little doubt, 
 survives in the modern Jenin, the first village 
 encountered on the ascent from the great plain 
 of Esdraelon into the hills of the central country. 
 Jenin is still surrounded by the “ orchards ” or 
 ““cardens” which interpret its ancient name, 
 and the “spring” is to this day the characteristic 
 object in the place (Rob. ii. 315 ; Stanley, p. 349, 
 note; Van de Velde, p. 359; PEF. Mem. ii. 44; 
 Guérin, Samarie, i. 327). The position of Jenin 
 is also in striking agreement with the require- 
 ments of Beth-hag-Gan (A. V. “the garden- 
 house ;” Βαιθγάν), in the direction of which 
 Ahaziah fled from Jehu (2 Καὶ. ix. 27). The 
 rough road of the ascent was probably too much 
 for his chariot, and keeping the more level 
 ground he made for Megiddo, where he died 
 (see Stanley, p. 549). 
 
 In the lists of Levitical cities in 1 Ch. vi. 
 ANEM is substituted for En-gannim. Possibly it 
 
 (G.] [W.]. 
 
9358 ENGEDI 
 EN’GEDI ΟἽ }'Y = spring of the hid. 
 
 The Arabic φιλῶν ont preserves the same 
 
 meaning; ’Eyyadd) and ’Eyyadéat), the present 
 ‘Ain Jidy on the western shore of the Dead Sea. 
 The old name appears to have been TOATSSN, 
 Hazazon Tamar (see Gen. xiv. 7; 2 Ch. xx. 2) 
 In the latter passage (v. 16) the “ascent of Ziz” 
 ΟΠ is also mentioned as near Engedi (perhaps 
 we should read #8). The old name is usually 
 rendered “palm prunings,” and Engedi was once 
 famous for its palms, but the root also gives the 
 word ΝΠ, “ gravel,” and north of Engedi there 
 
 is still an important valley called Hasasa, esol, 
 oleae, “the valley of gravel.” When first 
 
 mentioned, this place was held by the Amorites. 
 It appears under its name Engedi as a town of 
 Judah “in the wilderness” (Josh. xv. 62). Huse- 
 bius (Onom. s. vy. Gadda) supposes Hazar Gaddah 
 (Josh. xv. 27) to be perhaps the same, but this 
 is clearly inadmissible. The Samaritan Version 
 
 (Gen. xiv. 71) renders Hazazon Tamar "73 np, 
 “the ravine of Cadi,’ probably for 52 (6. 
 Engedi). In Ezekiel (xlvii. 10) it is mentioned 
 apparently as near the shores of the Dead Sea. 
 In the Song of Solomon (i. 14) the vineyards 
 of Engedi are mentioned, and in Ecclesiasticus 
 (xxiv. 14) the palms of Engedi. Pliny, speaking 
 of the Essene hermits, says that they lived at 
 Engadda, and notices groves of palms (H.W. v. 
 17). In the Talmud (Tal. Bab. Sabb. 26 a) the 
 balm which was gathered between Engedi and 
 Ramatha (perhaps [?dmeh, in the Ghor es Seis- 
 aban, east of the Jordan, opposite Jericho) is 
 noticed. The name is also found in Ptolemy 
 (quoted by Reland, Pal. p. 462), and in Josephus 
 (Antiq. ix. 1, § 2), but these authors add little to 
 our information as to the site. Josephus places 
 it 300 stadia (373 Roman miles) from Jerusalem, 
 _ the true distance being about 25 English miles, 
 In later ages the place seems to have been little 
 known. Jerome gives no clear account of its 
 position, though he represents St. Paula looking 
 from Caphar Barucha (now Lent V‘aim) towards 
 the balm gardens and vines of Engedi(Zpit. Paulae 
 xii.). From the site in question, on a hill over- 
 looking the desert of Judah, south of Hebron, 
 the vicinity of Engedi can be seen. 
 
 The desert of Engedi was the hiding-place of 
 David (1 Sam. xxiv. 1-4), and the “rocks of the 
 wild goats” are the cliffs round this site where 
 the ibex is still found. The Crusading chronicles do 
 not mention the place, but according to Ludolph 
 of Suchen (Rey Colonies Irranques, p. 250) the 
 best vineyards in Palestine were here found in the 
 12th century, and the Templars took thence 
 ‘slips which they planted in Cyprus at Baffo. 
 These vineyards seem to have existed in the 1oth 
 century, and, according to Hasselquist, even as 
 late as 1759, A.D. There are neither palms nor 
 vines at Engedi now, but the local Arabs believe 
 that the Christians once had vineyards in this 
 desert, which is no doubt a tradition of 
 Crusading cultivation. “The place is mentioned 
 by Mejr ed Din in 1495 a.p., and by Seetzen in 
 1806. It seems to have been first visited and 
 recovered by Robinson in 1838, and two years 
 later by Lynch, since which time several travellers 
 have visited the spot. 
 
 ENGINE 
 
 The site of Engedi presents some of the finest 
 wild scenery west of the Dead Sea. [See the 
 drawing under Sea, THE Saut.] The great 
 valley (Wéddy el-Ghar) here forms a deep 
 gorge with precipitous sides, called Wady el- 
 ‘Areijeh (“valley of ascent”). The cliffs north 
 of the spring present a sheer wall of rock nearly 
 2,000 feet high, above which is a barren plateau 
 660 feet above the Mediterranean; and from it, 
 a little further north, rises a solitary peak 
 (Ras esh Shukf, 1227 feet above same level). A 
 very narrow winding descent, partly cut in the 
 face of the cliff, leads down 1340 feet to the 
 bank or undercliff, where the spring issues from 
 under a great boulder. The water is sweet, and 
 has been found at various times to be from 81° to 
 95° F., or less than the air temperature. A 
 jungle of canes marks the line of the brook or 
 cascade which flows down a deep descent to the 
 Dead Sea—b600 feet beneath. The ’Oshir tree 
 (Calotropis procera) or apple of Sodom grows 
 beside the water, and the Solanum or egg¢ plant. 
 The Sidr or Zizyphus, and the tamarisks (7. 
 tenuifolius), with alkali plants (Hubeihib) and 
 other desert shrubs, are also found, but the sur- 
 rounding cliffs and slopes are very barren. There 
 is a tine view of the Dead Sea and of the western 
 cliffs, and on the east side of the lake the castle 
 of Kerak is well seen. The hopping thrushes, 
 black grackle, bulbul, and other birds of the 
 Jordan valley here haunt the spring. There are 
 traces of ruined terraces just below it, perhaps 
 remains of the former vineyards, and a curious 
 sort of platform of large rudely-shaped stones, 
 measuring 15 ft. square and 3 ft high. To the 
 south is a ruined tower (Ausr el-‘Areijeh), 
 apparently not very ancient, but perhaps of 
 Crusading date: it was supplied by an aqueduct 
 from the spring, and resembles the ruined mediae- 
 val sugar mills near Jericho. In the gorge are 
 ancient rock-cut tombs or chambers, perhaps the 
 hermitages of the Essenes, or of later Christian 
 Eremites. There is another spring in this gorge. 
 The salt brought from Jebel Usdum is carried 
 up by the ascent, and the path may be very 
 ancient, as it would appear that by it the 
 Idumaeans and their allies reached the plateau of 
 the Judaean desert when advancing to attack 
 Jehoshaphat (2 Ch. xx.). [C. R. C.] 
 
 ENGINE, a term exclusively applied to 
 military affairs in the Bible. The Hebrew 
 pawn (2 Ch. xxvi. 15) is its counterpart in 
 etymological meaning, each referring to the 
 ingenuity (engine, from ingenium) displayed in 
 the contrivance. The engines to which the 
 term is applied in 2 Ch. were designed to 
 propel various missiles from the walls of a 
 besieged town: one, like the balista, was for 
 stones, consisting probably of a strong spring 
 and a tube to give the right direction to the 
 stone; another, like the catapulta, for arrows, 
 an enormous stationary bow. The invention of 
 these is assigned to Uzziah’s time—a statement 
 which is supported both by the absence of such 
 contrivances in the representations of Egyptian 
 and Assyrian warfare, and by the traditional 
 belief that the Jlalista was invented in Syria 
 (Pliny, vii. 56). Luther gives Brustwehren, i.e. 
 “parapets,” as the meaning of the term. Another 
 war-engine, with which the Hebrews were ac- 
 quainted, was the battering-ram, described in 
 
 > . ᾿ 
 ΡΥ ee Ἢ 
 
 enh «Ὁ ὁ» 
 
ENGRAVER 
 
 | Ezek. xxvi. 9 as ibap ‘MD, lt. a beating of that 
 ο΄ which is in front, hence a ram for striking walls ; 
 
 13, a ram. 
 
 and still more precisely in Ezek. iv. 2, xxi. 22, as 
 The use of this instrument was 
 well known both to the Egyptians (Wilkinson, 
 
 1, 887 [1878]) and the Assyrians. The references 
 
 — 
 
 Ὁ one or two pointed weapons. 
 
 _ Hebrews 
 
 in Ezekiel are to that used by the latter people, 
 consisting of a high and stoutly built framework 
 on four wheels, covered in at the sides in order 
 to protect the men moving it, and armed with 
 
 (From Botta, pl. 
 
 Assyrian war-engines. 
 
 was very different from that of the Roman aries 
 with which the Jews afterwards became ac- 
 quainted (Joseph. &. J. iii. 7, § 19). No notice 
 is taken of the testudo or the vinea (cp. Ezek. xxvi. 
 9, Vulg.); but it is not improbable that the 
 were acquainted with them (cp. 
 Wilkinson, i. 387 [1878]). The A. V. marginal 
 rendering engines of shot (Jer. vi. 6, xxxii. 24 ; 
 Ezek. xxvi. 8) is incorrect. LW. L. B.] 
 
 ENGRAVER. The term WN, so translated 
 in the A. V., applies broadly to any artificer, 
 whether in wood, stone, or metal: to restrict it 
 to the engraver in Ex. xxxv. 35, xxxvill. 23, is 
 improper (R. V. marg. craftsman): a similar 
 jJatitude must be given to the term MMB, which 
 expresses the operation of the artificer: in Zech. 
 iii. 9, ordinary stone-cutting is evidently in- 
 tended. The specific description of an engraver 
 was JON WN (Ex. xxviii. 11), and his chief 
 business was cutting names or devices on rings 
 and seals; the only notices of engraving are in 
 connexion with the high-priest’s dress—the twa 
 onyx-stones, the twelve jewels, and the mitre- 
 plate having inscriptions on them (Ex. xxviii 
 11, 21, 36). The previous notices of signets 
 (Gen. xxxviii. 18, xli. 42) imply engraving. 
 The art was widely spread throughout the 
 nations of antiquity, particularly among the 
 
 Egyptians (Diod. i. τὸ; Wilkinson, ii. 337 
 [1878]), the Aethiopians (Her. vii. 69), and 
 
 the Indians (Von Bohlen, Jndien, ii. 122). 
 [91 Bo 
 EN-HAD'DAH (TINY = sharp or swift 
 spring [Gesen.]; B. Aiuapéx, A. Ἤναδδά;: Ln- 
 hadda), one ot the cities on the border of Issachar 
 named next to En-gannim (Josh. xix. 21). Van 
 de Velde (i. 315) would identify it with ‘Ain Haud 
 on the western side of Carmel, and ahout 2 miles 
 only from the sea. But this is surely out of 
 
 the limits of the tribe of Issachar, and rather 
 
 Their appearance | 
 
 160.) 
 
 EN-MISHPAT 939 
 
 in Asher or Manasseh. Conder, with more pro- 
 bability, has suggested (PEF. Mem. ii. 45) Kefr 
 Addn, near Jenin, En-gannim. See other sug- 
 gestions in Dillmanu? in loco. (G.] [W.] 
 
 EN-HAK-KO'RE, A. V. En-hakkore ΟἿ 
 
 (spa = the spring of the erier ; πηγὴ τοῦ 
 
 ἐπικαλουμένου ; fons invocantis), the spring which 
 burst out in answer to the “ cry” of Samson 
 after his exploit with the jawbone (Judg. xv. 
 19), The name involves a play on the word 
 in v. 18, yihkera (SP 
 A.V. “he called”’). The 
 word maktesh, which in 
 the story denotes the 
 “hollow place” (liter- 
 ally, the “ mortar’) in 
 the jaw, and also that for 
 the “jaw” itself, lechi, 
 are both names of places. 
 The spring was in Lent, 
 in the territory of Judah, 
 and apparently at a 
 higher level than the 
 rock Eram (Judg. xv 
 9-19); but the position 
 of neither of these places 
 has yet been identified. 
 Aquila and Symmachus 
 translate Lehi by Ξιαγών, and Josephus knew 
 the place by the same name (Ant. v. 8, §§ 8,9). 
 Glycas (Ann. ii. 164) states that, in his time, 
 the spring was shown at Eleutheropolis under 
 the name πηγὴ Σιαγόνος. The spring is alluded 
 to by Jerome (Hp. 5. Paulae, 18), and it is 
 mentioned as being at Eleutheropolis by An- 
 toninus Martyr (p. 32). The spring intended 
 by these writers is apparently the Bir Umm 
 Judei‘a, at Beit Jibrin, Eleutheropolis. Conder 
 connects Ah. es-Sidgh, E. of ‘Ain Shems, with 
 Σιαγών, and En-hakkore with ‘Ayiin Κᾶρα, N.W. 
 of Zoreah (Tent. Work, i. 277). Van de Velde 
 (Memoir, p. 343) endeavours to identify Lechi 
 with Zell el-Lekiyeh, 4 miles N. of Beersheba, 
 and En-hakkore with the large spring between 
 the Tell and Ahuweilfeh. But Samson’s adven- 
 tures appear to have been confined to a narrow 
 circle, and there is no ground for extending 
 them to a distance of some 30 miles from Gaza, 
 which Lekiveh is, even in a straight line. A 
 more probable position is in the neighbourhood 
 of Wady Ortds, and ‘Ain Atdn, Eva (2), near 
 Bethlehem. [ETam, THE Rock.] [G.] [W.] 
 
 EN-HA’ZOR (VSM PY = spring of the 
 village ; πηγὴ ᾿Ασόρ; Enhasor), one of the 
 “fenced cities” in the inheritance of Naphtali, 
 distinct from Hazor, named between Edrei and 
 Iron, and apparently not far from Kedesh (Josh. 
 xix. 57). Renan, JZission de Phénicic, identifies 
 it with Ah. Hazireh, where there is a remark- 
 able tomb called Hazziir. Conder (P/F. Mem. 
 i. 204, 223, 239) follows Renan. Gueérin (Gali- 
 lée, ii. 118) raises the objection that there is 
 no spring at Hazireh, to represent the En of 
 Enhazor, but does not suggest any other identi- 
 fication. [G.] [W.] 
 
 EN-MISHPAT (OBW1D Ὁ, fountain of 
 judyment ; 4 πηγὴ τῆς κρίσεως; fons Misphat), 
 Gen. xiv. 7. [KADEsu.] 
 
940 ENOCH 
 
 ENOCH, and once HE’NOCH (9130 = 
 dedication: Philo, de Post. Cuini, § 11, ἑρμηνευε- 
 ταὶ Ἐνὼχ χάρις cov; ᾿Ενώχ ; Joseph. “Avwyxos : 
 Henoch). 1. The eldest son of Cain (Gen. iv. 
 17), who called the city which he built after 
 his name (v. 18). Ewald (Gesch. i. 356, note) 
 fancies that there is a reference to the Phrygian 
 Iconium, in which city a legend of one ~Avvakos 
 was preserved; but the legend is evidently 
 derived from Biblical and Jewish accounts of 
 the father of Methuselah (Steph. Byz. 8. Ὁ. 
 Ἰκόνιον, Suid. s, v. Navyakos), and owes much of 
 its existence to the similarity of name (Riehm, 
 HWB. 5. n. “Henoch”). Other places have 
 been identified with the site of Enoch, but with 
 little probability ; e.g. Anuwchta in Susiana, the 
 Heniochi in the Caucasus, &c. (see Dillmann,° 
 Delitzsch [1887] in loco). 
 
 2. The son of Jared (17) =a descent, cp. 
 
 Jordna), and father of Methuselah (ROYAND = 
 
 aman of arms; Philo, ἰ. c, ὃ 12, Μαθουσάλεμ 
 ἐξαπυστολὴ θανάτου; Gen. v. 21sq.; Luke iii, 
 28). In the Epistle of Jude (υ. 14, ep. Enoch 
 Ix. 8) he is described as “the seventh from 
 Adam; ” and the number is probably noticed as 
 conveying the idea of divine completion and rest 
 (cp. August. c. Faust. xii. 14), while Enoch was 
 himself a type of perfected humanity, ‘a man 
 raised to heaven by pleasing God, while angels 
 fell to earth by transgression” (Iren. iv. 16, 2). 
 The other numbers connected with his history 
 appear too symmetrical to be without meaning. 
 He was born when Jared was 162 (9X6xX3) 
 years old, and after the birth of his eldest son in 
 his 65th (5X6+7) year he lived 300 years. 
 From the period of 365 years assigned to his 
 life, Ewald (i. 356), with very little probability, 
 regards him as “the god of the new year,” but 
 the number may have been not without influence 
 on the later traditions which assigned to Enoch 
 the discovery of the science of astronomy 
 (ἀστρολογία, Eupolemus ap. Euseb. Praep. Ev. 
 ix. 17, where he is identified with Atlas). 
 After the birth of Methuselah it is said (Gen, v. 
 22-24) that Enoch ‘“‘ walked with God three hun- 
 dred years...and he was not; for God took him ” 
 
 (np, μετέθηκεν, LXX. [here only];  tulit, 
 Vulg.), The phrase “walked with God” 
 
 (πον πττΝ ἩΡΠΠΠ) is elsewhere only used of 
 Noah (Gen. vi. 9 3 cp. Gen. xvii. 1, &c.), and is 
 to be explained of a prophetic life spent in im- 
 mediate converse with the spiritual world 
 (Enoch xii. 2, “ All his action was with the holy 
 ones, and with the watchers during his life”). 
 There is no further mention of Enoch in the 
 O. T., but in Ecclesiasticus (xlix. 14) he is 
 brought forward as one of the peculiar glories 
 (οὐδὲ εἷς ἐκτίσθη οἷος °E.) of the Jews, for he 
 was taken up (ἀνελήφθη, A. μετετέθη) from the 
 earth. ‘‘He pleased the Lord and was trans- 
 lated [into Paradise, Vulg.], being a pattern of 
 repentance ” (Ecclus. xliv. 14). In the Epistle 
 to the Hebrews the spring and issue of Enoch’s 
 life are clearly marked. “ By faith Enoch was 
 translated (μετετέθη, translatus est, Vulg.) that 
 he should not see death .. . for before his trans- 
 lation (μεταθέσεως) he hath had witness borne 
 to him that he had been well-pleasing to God” 
 (xi. 5, R. V. ; cp. Riehm, /. c.), The contrast to 
 
 ENOCH 
 
 this Divine judgment is found in the constrained 
 
 words of Josephus: * Enoch departed to the 
 Deity (avexwpnoe πρὸς τὸ θεῖον), whence [the 
 sacred writers] have not recorded his death” 
 (Ant. i. 3, § 4). A further contrast is sometimes 
 drawn between the translation of Enoch and the 
 apotheosis of a Hercules, a Ganymede, &e. (see 
 Riehm, /. c.). It is more interesting to refer to 
 the Chaldaean tradition of the apotheosis of 
 
 | 
 
 Xisuthros, the tenth of the antediluvian Patri- — 
 
 archs (see Smith’s Chaldacan Genesis, pp. 42-6). 
 
 The comparative sobriety of the Biblical narra- — 
 
 tive will be, in all these cases, apparent. 
 
 The Biblical notices of Enoch were a fruitful — 
 
 source of speculation in later times (for Talmudi- 
 
 cal views, see Hamburger, 1.1.5 ‘ Henochsage’). — 
 Some theologians disputed with subtilty as to — 
 the place to which he was removed ; whether it — 
 
 was to Paradise or to the immediate Presence of 
 God (cp. Feuardentius ad Iren, v. 5), though 
 others more wisely declined to discuss the 
 question (Thilo, Cod. Apocr. N. T., p. 758). On 
 other points there was greater unanimity, 
 Both the Latin and Greek Fathers commonly 
 coupled Enoch and Elijah as historic witnesses 
 to the possibility of a resurrection of the body 
 
 and of a true human existence in glory (Iren. 
 
 iv. 5, 1; Tertull. de Resurr. Carn. 58; Hieron. 
 6. Joan, Hierosol. §§ 29, 32, pp. 437, 440); and 
 the voice of early ecclesiastical tradition is 
 almost unanimous in regarding them as “the 
 
 two witnesses ” (Rev. xi. 3 sq.) who should fall — 
 
 before “‘the beast,” and afterwards be raised to 
 heaven before the great judgment (Hippol. Frag. 
 in Dan. xxii.; de Antichr. xliii. Cosmas Indic. 
 p- 75, ap. Thilo, κατὰ τὴν ἐκκλησιαστικὴν 
 παράδοσιν ; Tertull. de Anima, 29; Ambros. ὧδ 
 Psalm. xlv. 4; Evang. Nicod. ec. xxv. on which 
 
 Thilo has almost exhausted the question: Cod. 
 
 Apoc, N. T. pp. 765 sq.). This belief removed a 
 serious difficulty which was supposed to attach 
 to their translation ; for thus it was made clear 
 that they would at last discharge the common 
 debt of a sinful humanity, from which they 
 were not exempted by their glorious removal 
 from the earth (Tertull. de Anima, 1. ¢.; August. 
 Op. imp. c. Jul. vi. 30). 
 
 In later times Enoch was celebrated as the 
 inventor of writing, arithmetic, and astronomy 
 (Euseb. Praep. Hv. ix. 17. Cp. Schiirer, Gesch. 
 d. Jiid. Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi,? ii. 
 p- 627). He is said to have filled 800 books 
 with the revelations which he received, and 
 is commonly identified with Jdris (i.e. the 
 learned), who is commemorated in the Koran 
 (ch. 19) as one “exalted [by God] to a high 
 place ” (cp. Sale, 1. c.; Hottinger, Hist. Orient. 
 
 pp- 30 sq.). But these traditions were pro-' 
 
 bably due to the apocryphal book which bears 
 his name (cp. Fabric. Cod. Pseudep. V. T. i. 
 215 sq.). 
 
 Some writers (6.0. Ewald), arguing from the 
 meaning of the name (“dedicator” or “be- 
 ginner”’) and the length of his life (565 years), 
 have considered Enoch a sun-god, a good spirit 
 to whom men would appeal to bless any fresh 
 undertaking. Baethgen (Beitriige z. Semit. 
 Religionsgeschichte, pp. 152-3) has well shown 
 the untrustworthiness of such conjectures. 
 
 Some (Buttm. Mythol. i. 176 sq.; Ewald, 1. ¢.) 
 have found a trace of the history of Enoch in 
 the Phrygian legend of Annacus (“Avvakos, 
 
,. 52. 
 
 ENOCH, THE BOOK OF 
 
 Ndvvakos), who was distinguished for his piety, 
 lived 300 years, and predicted the deluge of 
 Deucalion. [ENocH, 1.1 In the A. V. of 
 1 Ch. i. 3, the name is given as HENOCH. 
 
 8. The third son of Midian, the son of 
 Abraham by Keturah (Gen. xxv. 4, A. V. and 
 R. Vs Hanoch ; 1 Ch. i. 33, A. V. Henoch, R. V. 
 Hanoch). 
 
 4. The eldest son of Reuben (A. V. and R. V. 
 Hanoch ; Gen. xlvi. 9; Ex. vi. 14; 1 Ch. v. 3), 
 from whom came “the family of the Hanoch- 
 ites ” (Num. xxvi. 5). 
 
 5. In 2 Esd. vi. 49, 51, Znoch stands in the 
 Latin (and Eng.) Version for Behemoth in the 
 Aethiopic. fB. F. W.) [F.] 
 
 ENOCH, THE BOOK OF, is one of the 
 most important remains of that early apocalyptic 
 literature of which the Book of Daniel is the 
 great prototype. From its vigorous style and 
 wide range of speculation the book is well 
 worthy of the attention which it received in the 
 first ages, and recent investigations have still 
 left many points for further inquiry. 
 
 1. History.—The history of the book is re- 
 markable. The first trace of its existence is 
 generally found in the Epistle of St. Jude (wv. 14, 
 15; ep. Enoch i. 9), but the words of the Apostle 
 leave it uncertain whether he derived his quota- 
 tion from tradition (Hofmann, Schriftbeweis, 1. 
 420) or from writing (ἐπροφήτευσεν... Ἐνὼχ 
 λέγων), though the wide spread of the book in 
 the second century seems almost decisive in 
 favour of the latter supposition. It appears to 
 have been known to Justin (Apol. ii. 5), 
 Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. iv. 16, 2), and Anatolius 
 (Euseb. H. Δ. vii. 32). Clement of Alexandria 
 (Zclog. p. 801) and Origen (yet cp. c. Cels. v. 
 The patristic references are collected by 
 Schiirer, ii. 628) both make use of it, and 
 numerous references occur to the “ writing,” 
 “books,” and ‘“ words” of Enoch, the Book of 
 Jubilees, and in the Testament of the XII. 
 Patriarchs, which present more or less re- 
 semblance to passages in the present book (Fabr. 
 Cod. Pseudep. V. 1. i. 161 sq.; Gfrérer, Proph. 
 Pseudep. 273 sq.; Schurer, ii. 627). Tertullian 
 (De Cult. Fem. i. 3; cp. De Idol. 4) expressly 
 quotes the book as one which was “ not received 
 by some, nor admitted into the Jewish canon” 
 (in armarium Judaicum), but defends it on 
 account of its reference to Christ (/egimus 
 omnem scripturam aedificationt habilem divini- 
 tus inspirari). Augustine (De Civ. xv. 23, 4) 
 and an anonymous writer whose work is printed 
 with Jerome’s (Brev. in Psalm. exxxii. 23 cp. 
 Hil. ad Psalm. 1. c.) were both acquainted with 
 it; but from their time till the revival of 
 letters it was known in the Western Church 
 only by the quotation in St. Jude (Dillmann, 
 Hinl. \vi.). In the Eastern Church it was 
 known some centuries later. Considerable frag- 
 ments are preserved in the Chronographia (ed. 
 Dindorf, i. 20-3, 42-7) of Georgius Syncellus 
 (c. 792 A.D.), and these, with the scanty notices 
 of earlier writers, constituted the sole remains 
 of the book known in Europe till the close of 
 the last century. Meanwhile, however, a 
 report was current that the entire book was 
 preserved in Abyssinia; and at length, in 1773, 
 Bruce brought with him on his return from 
 Egypt three MSS., containing the complete 
 
 ENOCH, THE BOOK OF 941 
 
 Aethiopic translation. Notwithstanding the 
 interest which the discovery excited, the first 
 detailed notice of this translation was only 
 given by Silvestre de Sacy in 1800, and it was 
 not published till the edition of Archbishop 
 Lawrence in 1838 (Libri Enoch versio Acthiopica 
 
 . . Oxon.). But in the interval Lawrence 
 published an English translation, with an in- 
 troduction and notes, which passed through 
 three editions (The Book of Enoch, &c. by R. 
 Lawrence. Oxford, 1821, 1833, 1838). The 
 translation of Lawrence formed the basis of 
 the German edition of Hoffmann (Das Buch 
 Henoch, Jena, 1833-38); and Gfrérer, in 1840, 
 gave a Latin translation constructed from the 
 translations of Lawrence and Hoftmann (Pro- 
 phetae veteres Pseudepigraphi, Stuttgart., 1840). 
 All these editions were superseded by those of 
 Dillmann, who edited the Aethiopic text from 
 five MSS. (Liber Henoch, Aethiopice, Lipsiae, 
 1851), and afterwards gave a German transla- 
 tion of the book, with a good introduction and 
 commentary (Das Luch Henoch,. . . von Dr. A. 
 Dillmann, Leipzig, 1853). The discovery of a 
 small Greek fragment (ch. 89, 42-9) in the 
 Vatican, published by Mai in facsimile (Patrum 
 nova iblioth. ii.), and deciphered by Gilder- 
 meister (ZDMG. for 1855, pp. 621-4), led to 
 the hope that more might be found, but this 
 hope has been disappointed (cp. Merx, Archie, 
 ii. 243). In 1882 an English translation trom 
 the original Ethiopic, with introduction and 
 notes, was published by Dr. Schodde. The 
 work of Dillmann gave a fresh impulse to the 
 study of the book (cp. also his article on the 
 subject in Herzog, RE.2). Among the essays 
 which were called out by it, the most important 
 were those of Ewald (Ueber des Aethiopischen 
 Buches Henoch Entstehung, &c., Gottingen, 
 1856) and Hilgenfeld (DL. Jiidische Apokalyptik, 
 Jena, 1857). ‘lhe older literature on the sub- 
 ject is reviewed by Fabricius (Cod. Pseudep. 
 Verde ie 9θὴ.): 
 
 2. Original Language.—The Aethiopic trans- 
 lation was made from the Greek, and it was 
 probably made about the same time as the 
 translation of the Bible, with which it was 
 afterwards connected, or, in other words, to- 
 wards the middle or close of the fourth 
 century. The general coincidence of the trans- 
 lation with the patristic quotations of corre- 
 sponding passages shows satisfactorily that the 
 text from which it was derived was the same 
 as that ourrent in the early Church, though one 
 considerable passage quoted by Georg. Syncell. 
 is wanting in the present book (Dillm. p. 85). 
 But it is still uncertain whether the Greek text 
 was the original (Volkmar in ZDMG. 1860, 
 p- 1581; Philippi, Das Buch Henoch, p. 126, 
 1868), or itself a translation. One of the 
 earliest references to the book occurs in the 
 Hebrew Book of Jubilees (Dillm. in Ewald’s 
 Jahrb, 1850, p. 90), and the names of the Angels 
 and winds are derived from Aramaic roots (cp. 
 Dillm. pp. 236 sq.). In addition to this a 
 Hebrew book of Enoch was known and: used by 
 Jewish writers till the thirteenth century 
 (Dillm. inl. lvii.), so that on these grounds, 
 among others, many (J. Scaliger, Lawrence, 
 Hoffmann, Dillmann, and Schiirer, who refers 
 especially to Halévy, Journ. Asiat. 1867, 
 pp. 352-95) have considered it very probable 
 
942 
 
 that the book was first composed in Hebrew 
 (Aramaean). In such a case no stress can be 
 Jaid upon the Hebraizing style, which may 
 be found as well in an author as ina translator ; 
 and in the absence of direct evidence it is 
 difficult to weigh mere conjectures. On the 
 one hand, if the book had been originally 
 written in Hebrew, it might seem likely that it 
 would have been more used by Rabbinical 
 teachers; but, on the other hand, the writer 
 certainly appears to have been a native of 
 Palestine,* and therefore likely to have em- 
 ployed the popular dialect. If the hypothesis 
 of a Hebrew original be accepted, which as a 
 hypothesis seems to be the more plausible, the 
 history of the original and the version finds a 
 good parallel in that of the Wisdom of Sirach. 
 [ EccLESIASTICUS. ] 
 
 3. Contents.—In its present shape the book 
 consists of a series of revelations supposed to 
 have been given to Enoch and Noah, which 
 extend to the most varied aspects of nature anl 
 life, and are designed to offer a comprehensive 
 vindication of the action of Providence. [ENocH.] 
 It is divided into five parts. The first part (chs. 
 1-36, Dillm.), after a general introduction, con- 
 tains an account of the fall of the angels (Gen. 
 vi. 1) and of the judgment to come upon them 
 and upon the giants, their offspring (chs. 6-16) ; 
 and this is followed by the description of the 
 journey of Enoch through the earth and lower 
 heaven in company with an Angel, who showed 
 to him many of the great mysteries of nature, 
 the treasure-houses of the storms and winds, 
 the fires of heaven, the prison of the fallen, and 
 the land of the blessed (chs. 17-36). The 
 second part (chs. 37-71) is styled “a vision of 
 wisdom,” and consists of three “parables,” in 
 which Enoch relates the revelations of the higher 
 secrets of heaven and of the spiritual world 
 which were given to him. The first parable 
 (chs. 38-44) gives chiefly a picture of the future 
 blessings and manifestation of the righteous, 
 with further details as to the heavenly bodies: 
 the second (chs. 45~57) describes in splendid 
 imagery the coming of Messiah and the results 
 which it should work among “the elect” and 
 the gainsayers: the third (chs. 58-69) draws 
 out at further length the blessedness of “the 
 elect and holy,” and the confusion and wretched- 
 ness of the sinful rulers of the world. The 
 third part (chs. 72-82) is styled “the book of 
 the course of the lights of heaven,” and deals 
 with the motions of the sun and moon, and the 
 changes of the seasons; and with this the 
 narrative of the journey of Enoch closes. The 
 fourth part (chs. 83-91) is not distinguished by 
 any special name, but contains the record of a 
 dream which was granted to Enoch in his youth, 
 in which he saw the history of the kingdoms of 
 God and cf the world up to the final establish- 
 ment of the throne of Messiah. The fifth part 
 (chs. 92-105) contains the last addresses of 
 Enoch to his children, in which the teaching of 
 the former chapters is made the groundwork of 
 earnest exhortation. The signs which attended 
 the birth of Noah are next noticed (chs. 106-7) ; 
 
 ENOCH, THE BOOK OF 
 
 a The astronomical calculations by which Lawrence 
 endeavoured to fix the locality of the writer in the 
 neighbourhood of the Caspian are inconclusive. Cp. 
 Dillmann, p. li. 
 
 ENOCH, THE BOOK OF 
 
 and another short “ writing of Enoch” (ch. 108} 
 forms the close to the whole book (ep. Dillm 
 Binl. i. sq.3; Liicke, Versuch einer vollsténd. 
 inl. &e., i. 93 sq. ; Schodde, pp. 17-19 ; Schiirer, 
 ii. 617-9). 
 
 4. Integrity and Date.—If a certain general 
 unity marks the book in its present form, 
 yet internal coincidence shows clearly that 
 different fragments are incorporated into the 
 work, and some additions have been probably 
 made afterwards. Different ‘“ books” are men- 
 tioned in early times, and variations in style 
 and language are discernible in the present 
 book. The belief, once prevalent, that the work 
 is the work of one man written at one time, is 
 entirely given up by modern critics (Schiirer, 11. 
 620). To distinguish the original elements and 
 later interpolations is the great problem which 
 so many have set themselves to solve. Hofmann, 
 Weisse, and Philippi place the composition of 
 the whole work after the Christian era; the 
 first and the last think that St. Jude could not 
 have quoted an apocryphal book (Hofmann, 
 Schrijtheweis, i. 420 sq.), and Weisse seeks to 
 detach Christianity altogether from a Jewish 
 foundation (Weisse, Hvangelienfrage, p. 214 sq.). 
 It seems to be now generally acknowledged that 
 the second part (chs. 37-71) was the work of one 
 compiler, whose date is variously placed in 
 Christian times (Hilgenfeld and Volkmar agree- 
 ing here with Hofmann, Weisse, and Philippi) or 
 in pre-Christian (the date ranging from 8.0. 
 144-64; see Schiirer, ii. 621). The rest or 
 groundwork of the whole (chs. 1-36, 72-108) 
 is with great unanimity (Volkmar excepted) 
 placed in the second century B.c. Thus Ewald 
 places the composition of the groundwork of the: 
 book at various intervals between 144 B.c. and: 
 c. 120 B.c., and supposes that the whole assumed. 
 its present form in the first half of the century 
 before Christ. Liicke (2nd ed.) distinguishes 
 two great parts, an older part including chs. 
 1-36 and chs. 72-105, which he dates from the. 
 beginning of the Maccabaean struggle, and a 
 later, chs. 37-71, which he assigns to the period 
 of the rise of Herod the Great (B.c, 141). He 
 supposes, however, that later interpolatiens 
 were made without attempting to ascertain their: 
 date. Dillmann upholds more decidedly the 
 unity of the book, and assigns the chief part of 
 it to an Aramaean writer of the time of John 
 Hyrcanus (c. 110 B.c.). To this, according to 
 him, “historical” and ‘ Noachian additions ” 
 were made, probably in Greek translation 
 (Linl. lii.). Késtlin (quoted by Hilgenfeld, p. 96, 
 &c.) assigns chs, 1-16, 21-36, 72-105, to about 
 110 B.c.; chs. 37-71 toc. B.c. 100-64; and the 
 “ Noachian additions ” and ch. 108 to the time of 
 IIerod the Great. Hilgenfeld himself places the 
 original book (chs. 1-163; 20-36; 72-90; 91, 
 1-19; 95; 94-105) about the beginning of the 
 first century before Christ (a. a. O. p. 145, n.). 
 This book he supposes to have passed through 
 the hands of a Christian writer who lived 
 between the times “ of Saturninus and Marcion "ἢ 
 (p. 181), who added the chief remaining portions, 
 including the great Messianic section, chs, 37-71. 
 In the face of these conflicting theories (see them 
 and others collected in Schodde, pp. 20-6) it is 
 evidently impossible to dogmatize, and the 
 evidence is insufficient for conclusive reasoning. 
 The interpretation of the Apocalyptic histories 
 
ENOCH, THE BOOK OF 
 
 (chs. ὅθ, 57 ; 85-90), on which the chief stress 
 is laid for fixing the date of the book, involves 
 necessarily minute criticism of details, which 
 belongs rather to a commentary than to a general 
 introduction. Some inconsiderable interpolations 
 ~ have been made, and large fragments of a much 
 earlier date were undoubtedly incorporated into 
 the work ; but as a whole, a work thus gradually 
 created may be regarded as describing an im- 
 portant phase of Jewish opinion shortly before 
 the coming of Christ.” 
 : 5. Doctrine.—In doctrine the book of Enoch 
 exhibits a great advance of thought within the 
 limits of revelation in each of the great divisions 
 of knowledge. The teaching on nature is a curious 
 attempt to reduce the scattered images of the 
 O, T. to a physical system. The view of society 
 and man, of the temporary triumph and final 
 discomfiture of the oppressors of God’s people, 
 carries out into elaborate detail the pregnant 
 images of Daniel. The figure of the Messiah is 
 invested with majestic dignity as “the Son of 
 God” (ch. 105, 2 only), ‘“* Whose Name was 
 named before the sun was made” (ch. 48, 3), 
 and Who existed “ aforetime in the Presence of 
 God ” (ch. 62, 6; ep. Lawrence, Prel. Diss. li. f.). 
 And at the same time His human attributes as 
 “the son of man,” “the son of woman” (ch. 
 _ 62, 5 only), “the elect one,” “the righteous 
 one,” “the anointed,” are brought into con- 
 spicuous notice. The mysteries of the spiritual 
 world, the connexion of Angels and men, the 
 classes and ministries of the hosts of heaven, 
 the power of Satan (ch. 40, 7; ch. 65, 6), and 
 the legions of darkness, the doctrines of resur- 
 _ rection, retribution, and eternal. punishment 
 . (ch. 22; ep. Dillm. p. xix.), are dwelt upon with 
 _ growing earnestness as the horizon of speculation 
 - was extended by intercourse with Greece. But 
 the message of the book is emphatically one of 
 “faith and truth ” (ep. Dillm. p. 32); and while 
 the writer combines and repeats the thoughts of 
 Scripture, he adds no new element to the teach- 
 ing of the Prophets. His errors spring from an 
 undisciplined attempt to explain their words, 
 and from a proud exultation in present success. 
 For the great characteristic by which the book 
 is distinguished from the later apocalypse of 
 Ezra [Espras, 2ND Boox] is the tone of trium- 
 phant expectation by which it is pervaded. It 
 seems to repeat in every form the great principle 
 that the world, natural, moral, and spiritual, is 
 under the immediate government of God. Hence 
 it follows that there is a terrible retribution re- 
 served for sinners, and a glorious kingdom pre- 
 pared for the righteous, and Messiah is regarded 
 as the Divine Mediator of this double issue (chs. 
 90,91). Nor is it without a striking fitness 
 that a patriarch translated from earth, and 
 admitted to look upon the Divine Majesty, is 
 chosen as the “herald of wisdom, righteousness, 
 
 Ὁ Schtirer’s examination of chs. 85-90, as the only 
 passage which is helpful in fixing a date of com- 
 position, leads him to agree as to points of interpreta- 
 tion (e.g. the shepherds = Angels) and exposition of the 
 numbers with Hofmann, Ewald, and Dillmann; and he 
 assigns as the date the third quarter of the second 
 century B.c. Further, he concludes that chs. 37-71 are 
 of Christian origin, the ‘‘ Noachian sections ” and chs. 
 106-8 being interpolations whose date cannot be fixed 
 Gi. 621-7). 
 
 EN-ROGEL 943 
 
 and judgment to a people who, even in suffering, 
 saw in their tyrants only the victims of a 
 coming vengeance.” 
 
 6. Leception.—Notwithstanding the quotation 
 in St. Jude, and the wide circulation of the 
 book itself, the apocalypse of Enoch was uni- 
 formily and distinctly separated from the 
 canonical Scriptures. ‘Tertullian alone main- 
 tained its authority (/.c.), while he admitted 
 that it was not received by the Jews. Origen, 
 on the other hand (6. (els. y. Ῥ. 267, ed. 
 Spenc.), and Augustine (de Civ. xv. 23, 4), 
 definitively mark it as apocryphal, and it is 
 reckoned among the apocryphal books in the 
 Apostolic Constitutions (vi. 16), and in the 
 catalogues of the Synopsis S. Scripturac, Nice- 
 phorus (Credner, Zur Gesch. d. Kan. p. 145), 
 and Montfaucon (Bibl. Coislin. p. 193). 
 
 7. Literature.—The literature of the subject 
 is very voluminous. The English edition of 
 Schodde places within the reach of the student 
 the most important materials for the study of 
 the book; and notices of all the important 
 works which have been published since the first 
 edition of this Dictionary will be found in his 
 book, in Schiirer, ii. 629-30, and in Zéckler, 
 in Strack u. Zickler’s Kgf. Komm. zu d. heil. 
 Schriften A, u. N. T., ‘Die Apokryphen des A. 
 T.’s nebst einem Anhang iib. die Pseud-epi- 
 graphenlitteratur,’ p. 430. [B. F. W.] [F.] 
 
 ENOCH, CITY. [Enocu, No. 1.] 
 ENON. [AENoN.] 
 
 ENOS (ΣΝ = man as weak, not etymo- 
 logically but in accordance with usage, see 
 MV.'"1; ’Evdés; nos), son of Seth the son of 
 Adam (Gen. iv. 26). Kenan was his firstborn 
 (Gen. v. 9). His length of life is given as 905 
 years. The R. V. gives the name under the 
 form Enosh in the O. T. reff. (see also 1 Ch. i. 1), 
 but reads Enos in Luke iii. 38. [F.] 
 
 ENOSH (A. V. and R. V. in 1 Ch. i. 1). 
 [ENos. ] 
 
 EN-RIM’MON (ji) }'Y=fountain of pome- 
 granates; B. omits, A. ἐν Ῥεμμών ; et in Rim- 
 mon), one of the places which the men of 
 Judah re-inhabited after their return from the 
 Captivity (Neh. xi. 29). From the towns in 
 company with which it is mentioned, it seems 
 very probable that the name is the same which 
 in the earlier Books is given in the Hebrew and 
 A. V. in the separate form of “ Ain and Rim- 
 mon” (Josh. xv. 323 see Dillmann in loco), 
 “ Ain, Kemmon” (xix. 7; and see 1 Ch. iv. 32), 
 but in the LXX. combined, as in Nehemiah 
 [Ary, 2]. Van de Velde (Alem. p. 344) identifies 
 it with Umm cr-Rumdmin between Beit Jibrin 
 and Bir es-Seb’a. See also PEF. Mem. iii. 392, 
 398. [G.] [W.] 
 
 EN-RO'GEL O39 py=fountain of the fuller, 
 πηγὴ Ῥωγήλ; Fons Rogel), ἃ spring which 
 formed one of the Jandmarks on the boundary- 
 line between Judah (Josh. xv. 7) and Benjamin 
 (xviii. 16). It was the point next to Jerusalem, 
 and at a lower level, as is evident from the use 
 of the words “ascended” and “descended” in 
 these two passages. Here, apparently concealed 
 
944 EN-ROGEL 
 
 from the view of the city, Jonathan and Ahimaaz 
 remained, after the flight of David, awaiting in- 
 telligence from within the walls (2 Sam. xvii. 
 17), and here, “by the stone Zoheleth, which 
 
 is close to yy) En-rogel,” Adonijah held the 
 feast, which was the first and last act of his 
 attempt on the crown (1 K.i. 9). These are all 
 the occurrences of the name in the Bible. By 
 Josephus on the last incident (Ant. vii. 14, § 4) 
 its situation is given as “ without the city, in the 
 royal garden,” and it is without doubt referred to 
 by him in the same connexion, in his description 
 of the earthquake which accompanied the sacri- 
 lege of Uzziah (Ant. ix. 10, § 4), and which “ at 
 the place called Eroge”*® shook down a part of 
 the eastern hill, “so as to obstruct the roads, 
 _and the royal gardens.” 
 
 In the Targum, and the Arabic and Syriac 
 Versions, the name is commonly given as * the 
 
 spring of the fuller” (STS), >: and this is 
 generally accepted as the signification of the 
 
 Hebrew name—fogel being derived from by 
 in the sense of “to tread,” in allusion to the 
 practice of the Orientals in washing linen. 
 
 En-rogel has been identified with (a) the 
 present “ Fountain of the Virgin,” ‘Ain Umm 
 ed-Deraj = spring of the mother of steps—the 
 perennial source from which the Pool of Siloam 
 is supplied; and (ὁ) with Bir Hyits, the ‘ well 
 of Job,” 125 ft. deep, below the junction of the 
 valleys of Kedron and Hinnom, and south of the 
 Pool of Siloam. The arguments in favour of 
 the “Fountain of the Virgin” are briefly as 
 follows :— 
 
 1. The “ Fountain of the Virgin” is the only 
 real spring close to Jerusalem. Bir "γῆν is a 
 well, not a spring (En); and, except after heavy 
 rain, the water in it is generally 70 ft. or 80 ft. 
 below the level of the ground. ‘Thus, if the 
 former be not En-rogel, the single spring of this 
 locality has escaped mention in the Bible. 
 
 2. Exactly opposite the “ Fountain of the 
 Virgin,” and only separated from it by the 
 breadth of the valley, there isa rude flight of 
 reck-hewn steps which leads, up the precipitous 
 face of a ledge of rock, directly to the village of 
 Siloam. This place, called by the villagers ez- 
 Zehweileh, a name identical with Zoheleth, is 
 supposed by M. Clermont-Ganneau (PHF Qy. 
 Stat. 1869-70, p. 253) to mark the position of 
 “*the stone Zoheleth which is close to En-rogel.” 
 [ZOHELETH. ] 
 
 3. The “ Fountain of the Virgin” must always 
 have been a well-known spring, and as such a 
 suitable landmark on the boundary between 
 Judah and Benjamin. The date of Bir Eyib 
 is unknown; it is very possibly later than the 
 time of Joshua. 
 
 4. Bir Eyub does not suit the requirements of 
 2 Sam. xvii. 17. It is too far off both from the 
 city and from the direct road over Olivet to the 
 Jordan; and is in full view of the city, which 
 the other spot is not. 
 
 5. The martyrdom of St. James was effected 
 by casting him down from the Temple wall into 
 
 Seo EE EEE eee Se 
 
 5. This natural interpretation of a name only slightly 
 corrupt appears to have first suggestcd itself to Stanley 
 (9. & P. p. 184). 
 
 EN-SHEMESH 
 
 the valley of Kedron, where he was finally 
 killed by a fuller with his washing-stick. The 
 natural inference is that St. James fell near 
 where the fullers were at work.” Now Bir Hyib 
 is too far off from the site of the Temple to allow 
 of this, but it might very well have happened at, 
 the Fountain of the Virgin (see Stanley’s Ser- 
 mons on the Apost. Age, pp. 333-4). 
 
 6. Deraj and Hogel are both from the same 
 root, and therefore the modern name may be 
 derived from the ancient one, even though at 
 present it is taken to allude to the “steps” 
 by which the reservoir of the Fountain is 
 reached. 
 
 Add to these considerations (what will have 
 more significance when the permanence of 
 Eastern habits is recollected) —~7. That the 
 Fountain of the Virgin is still the great resort 
 of the women of Jerusalem for washing and 
 treading their clothes: and also—8. That the 
 king’s gardens must have been above Bir δ γῶν 
 and below the Fountain of the Virgin, which 
 thus might be used without difficulty to irrigate 
 them. A reminiscence of these gardens perhaps 
 lingers in the name Wddy Fer‘ain, “ Pharaoh’s 
 valley,” equivalent to “valley of the king,” 
 which the fellahin of Siloam apply to the section 
 of the Kedron valley between the S.E. angle of 
 the Haram wall and the junction of the Kedron 
 and Hinnom valleys. 
 
 The tradition that Bir Lyib is En-rogel is 
 apparently first recorded by Brocardus. In an 
 early Jewish Itinerary (Uri of Biel in Hottinger’s 
 Cippi Hebraici) the name is given as “ Well of 
 Joab,” as if retaining the memory of Joab’s con- 
 nexion with Adonijah—a name which it still retains 
 in the traditions of the Greek Christians. The 
 chief arguments in its favour are, that being below 
 the junction of the two valleys its situation agrees 
 better with the common boundary of. Judah and 
 Benjamin than the “ Fountain of the Virgin,” 
 but see above (3); and that in the Arabic ver- 
 sion of Josh. xv. 7, ‘Ain Iytb, or “Spring of 
 Job,” is given for En-rogel. Neither of these 
 arguments is of much weight. 
 
 For descriptions of the “Fountain of the 
 Virgin” and Bir Eyib, see Robinson, i. 331-334 ; 
 Williams, Holy City, ii. 489-495 ; Notes to O. δ. 
 of Jerusalem, p. 84; and PEF. Mem., “ Jeru- 
 salem,” pp. 365-375. [JERUSALEM.] [G.] [W.] 
 
 EN-SHE'MESH (ΕΣ ΒΝ = spring of the 
 sun; ἣ πηγὴ Tod ἡλιοῦ, πηγὴ Βαιθσαμύς ; Ln- 
 semes, id est, Fons Solis), a spring which formed 
 one of the landmarks on the north boundary of 
 Judah (Jesh. xv. 7) and the south boundary of 
 Benjamin (xviii. 17). From these notices it 
 appears to have been between the “ascent of 
 Adummin”—the road leading up from the 
 Jordan valley south of the γα) Kelt— 
 and the spring of En-rogel, in the valley of 
 Kedron. It was therefore east of Jerusalem and 
 of the Mount of Olives. The only spring at pre- 
 sent answering to this position is the “Ain Haud 
 —the “ Well of the Apostles,’’—about a mile below 
 Bethany, the traveller’s first halting-place on 
 the road to Jericho. Accordingly this spring 
 is generally identified with En-Shemesh (see 
 
 > So Jerome, Quaest. Heb. on 2 Sam. xvii. 20: * An- 
 cilla quasi, layandi gratia, cum pannis ad fontem Rogel 
 ierat.” 
 
ENSIGN 
 
 Dillmann on Josh. xv. 7). The aspect of ‘Ain 
 HTaud is such that the rays of the sun are on it 
 the whole day. This is not inappropriate in 
 a fountain dedicated to that luminary (PEL. 
 Mem, iii. 42). Re Nal 
 
 ENSIGN (53; in the A. V. generally “en- 
 
 sign,” sometimes “standard : ἢ 5), “ standard,” 
 with the exception of Cant. ii. 4, “ banner; ” 
 Nis, “ ensign”). The distinction between these 
 three Hebrew terms is sufficiently marked by 
 their respective uses: nes is a signal; degel a 
 military standard for a large division of an army ; 
 and oth, the same for a small one. Neither of 
 
 these latter words, however, expresses the idea 
 which “standard ” conveys to our minds, viz. a 
 flag ; the standards in use among the Hebrews 
 probably resembled those of the Egyptians (sce 
 below). 
 
 (1.) The notices of the nes or “ en- 
 
 pac 
 
 = 
 
 / 
 V 
 
 Wil 
 
 / ἐν 
 
 Egyptian Standards, (From Wilkinson.) 
 
 sign” are most frequent; it consisted of some 
 well-understood signal which was exhibited 
 on the top of a pole from a bare mountain 
 top (Is. xiii. 2, xviii. 3)—the very emblem 
 of conspicuous isolation (Is. xxx. 17). Around 
 it the inhabitants mustered, whether for the 
 purpose of meeting an enemy (Is. v. 26, xviii. 
 3, xxxi. 9), which was sometimes notified 
 by the blast of a trumpet (Jer. iv. 21, li. 27); 
 or as a token of rescue (Ps. lx. 4; Is. xi. 10; Jer. 
 iy. 6); or for a public proclamation (Jer. 1. 
 2); or simply as a gathering point (Is. xlix. 
 22, Ixii. 10). What the nature of the signal 
 was, we have no means of stating; it has been 
 BIBLE DICT.—VOL. I. 
 
 ENSIGN 945 
 
 inferred from Is, xxxiii. 23: and Ezek. xxvii. 7, 
 that it was a flag: we do not observe a flag 
 depicted either in Egyptian or Assyrian repre- 
 sentations of vessels (cp. Wilkinson, ii. 127 
 [1878]; Bonomi, pp. 166, 167); but, in lieu of 
 a flag, certain devices, such as the phoenix, 
 flowers, &c., were embroidered on the sail; 
 whence it appears that the device itself, and 
 perhaps also the sail bearing the device, was the 
 nes or “ensign.” It may have been sometimes 
 the name of a leader, as implied in the title 
 which Moses gave to his altar, “‘ Jehovah-nissi ” 
 (Ex, xvii. 15). It may also have been, as 
 Michaelis (Suppl. p. 1648) suggests, a blazing 
 torch. The important point, however, to be 
 observed is, that the nes was an occasional signal, 
 and not a military standard, and that elevution 
 and conspicuity are implied in the use of the 
 term: hence it is appropriately applied to the 
 “pole” on which the brazen serpent hung 
 (Num. xxi. 8), which was indeed an “ ensign” 
 of déliverance to the pious Israelite; and again 
 to the censers of Korah and his company, which 
 became a “sign” or beacon of warning to Israel 
 (Num. xvi. 38). (2.) The term degel is used to 
 describe the standards which were given to each 
 of the four divisions of the Israelite army at the 
 time of the Exodus (Num. i. 52, ii. 2 sq., x. 14 
 sq.). Some doubt indeed exists as to its meaning 
 in these passages, the LXX. and Vulgate re- 
 garding it not as the standard itself, hut as a 
 certain military division annexed to a standard, 
 just as vexillum is sometimes used for a body of 
 soldiers (Tac. Hist. 1. 70; Liv. viii. 8). The 
 sense of compact and martial urray does certainly 
 seem to lurk in the word ; for in Cant. vi. 4, 10, 
 the brilliant glances of the bride’s eyes are 
 compared to the destructive advance of a well- 
 arrayed host, and a similar comparison is em- 
 ployed in reference to the bridegroom (Cant. v. 
 10); but on the other hand, in Cant. ii. 4, no 
 other sense than that of a “banner” will suit, 
 
 _and we therefore think the rendering in the 
 
 A. V.and R. V. correct. In Ps. xx, 5 most 
 scholars accept the term ‘‘banners”’ (see De- 
 litzsch, Perowne, and Schultz in loco). <A 
 standard implies, of course, a standard-bearer ; 
 but the supposed reference to that officer in 
 Is, x. 18 (A. V. and R. V. text) is probably 
 incorrect, the words meaning rather as when a 
 sick man pineth away (R. V.marg. Cp. Delitzsch,* 
 Dillmann® in loco); similarly, in a somewhat 
 parallel passage (Is. lix. 19) the marg. translation 
 of R. V., the Spirit of the Lord shall lift up a 
 standard, is not now so generally adopted as that 
 of the text. The character of the Hebrew military 
 standards is quite a matter of conjecture; they 
 probably resembled the Egyptian, which con- 
 sisted of a sacred emblem, such as an animal, a 
 boat, or the king’s name (Wilkinson, i, 342-3 
 [1878]). Rabbinical writers state the devices to 
 have been as follows: for the tribe of Judah, a 
 lion; for Reuben, a man; for Ephraim, an ox; 
 and for Dan, an eagle (Carpzoy. Crit. App. 
 p. 667); but no reliance can be placed on this. 
 As each of the four divisions, consisting of three 
 tribes, had its standard, so had each tribe its 
 * sion ” (oth) or “ ensign,” probably in imitation 
 of the Egyptians, among whom not only each 
 battalion, but even each company, had its par- 
 ticular ensign (Wilkinson, 7. 9.). We know 
 nothing of its nature. The word occurs figura- 
 3 P 
 
940 
 
 tively in Ps. lxxiv. 4, as some think in reference 
 to the images of idol gods (but see Comm. in 
 loco). (W.L. B.] [FP] 
 
 ENSUE (Fr. ensuivre, Lat. insequor) = to 
 follow after (1 Pet. iii, 11, A.V. The R. V. 
 has “pursue.” Cp. Ps. xxxiv. 14, Prayer Book 
 version). ἢ 
 
 ENSUE 
 
 EN-TANNIM. [Dracon WELL.] 
 
 EN-TAP-PU’AH (MBAYY = spring of 
 apple or citron; B. πηγὴ Θαφθώθ, A. 7) yh 
 Θαθφώθ, BY™. Napéo; Fons Taphuac). The 
 boundary of Manasseh went from facing Shechem 
 “to the inhabitants of En-tappuah” (Josh. xvii, 
 7). It is probably identical with Tappuah, the 
 position of which will be elsewhere examined. 
 [Tappuan.] Conder (10k. to Bible, p. 263) iden- 
 tifies it, with some probability, with a spring 
 near Fasif, S. of Nablus, Shechem, and at the 
 head of a branch of the “brook Kanah,” Waddy 
 Kénah, which is the next point mentioned on the 
 boundary. Guérin (Samarie, i. 259) would place 
 it at ‘Ain cl-Fardh, N.E. of Nablus, but this is 
 too far from W. Kanak. Gal ΕἾ: 
 
 ENTRANCE TO HAMATH. [(Hamartn.] 
 
 EPAENETUS (Επαινετός : Epaenetus, Vulg. 
 Clem., but earlier spelling varies considerably), 
 a name meaning “ praiseworthy.” He is men- 
 tioned immediately after Prisca and Aquila in 
 Rom. xvi. 5. He is described (R. V.) as “ the 
 firstfruits of Asia unto Christ.” The A. V. gives 
 “ἐς Achaia” for “ Asia.” This is undoubtedly an 
 error, as the reading “ Asia” has much better 
 documentary support, and the position of first- 
 fruits of Achaia is elsewhere (1 Cor. xvi. 15) 
 assigned to other persons ; namely, the house- 
 hold of Stephanas. Asia is the province of which 
 Ephesus was the capital (AsIA); and Epaenetus 
 was probably an Ephesian converted by Prisca 
 and Aquila after they were left there by St. Paul 
 (Acts xviii. 19). When they departed to Rome 
 (implied in Rom. xvi. 3), Epaenetus may very 
 naturally have accompanied them. ([E. Rk. B.] 
 
 EPAPHRAS (Ezagpas; Lpaphras), a 
 Colossian (Col. iv. 12), who was with St. Paul 
 at the time of his writing his Epistle to that 
 Church. He had probably been the principal 
 instrument in the foundation of the Churches of 
 the Lycus—viz., Colossae, Laodicea, and Hiera- 
 polis, which had not as yet seen St. Paul’s face 
 in the flesh (Col. ii. 1). Epaphras felt responsi- 
 ble for their spiritual welfare (Col. iv. 13), and 
 it is probable that his uneasiness about the 
 heresy wnich had shown itself in Colossae 
 was the cause of his visit to St. Paul, and the 
 occasion of the Epistle being written. St. Paul 
 implicitly contrasts the teaching which the 
 Colossians had originally received from Epaphras 
 with the speculations now rife among them 
 (Col. i. 7 and ii. 6, 7). The position of Epaphras 
 is much cleared by the reading adopted in the 
 R. V. (ἡμῶν for ὑμῶν). He is described by 
 St. Paul as “a faithful minister of Christ on 
 our behalf” (see Lightfoot on Col. i. 7, note). 
 The Apostle regards him as his delegate in the 
 ministry of Christ to the Colossians. As 
 Epaphroditus represented the Philippians in his 
 
 ministry to the Apostle’s personal needs, so con- | 
 
 EPHAH 
 
 versely Epaphras represented the Apostle in his 
 ministry to the spiritual needs of the Colossians. 
 As we find Epaphras sending greeting in Col. 
 iv. 12, we may conclude that he did not return 
 when the letter was despatched. The expression 
 “my fellow-captive” applied to him in Philem, 
 v. 23 may possibly give the reason for this; viz 
 that he had in some way become involved in 
 St. Paul’s lot of imprisonment. But more pro- 
 bably he was voluntarily sharing it. The 
 objection taken to this sense of the Greek word, 
 συναιχμάλωτος (Lightfoot on Col, iv. 10, note), 
 may be met by regarding it as a continuation 
 of the metaphor implied in “ fellow-soldier ” 
 (συντρατιώτη5). They were engaged in warfare 
 for Christ, and therefore their captivity was 
 that of prisoners of war. [E. R. B.] 
 
 EPAPHRODI'TUS (Ἐπαφρόδιτος; Lpa- 
 phroditus). Thename is a common one, and means 
 “ attractive ” or “charming.” He is described 
 by St. Paul as “my brother and fellow-worker 
 and fellow-soldier, and your messenger and 
 minister to my need.” He had come to St. Paul 
 in his captivity at Rome as the bearer of gifts 
 from the Philippians (Phil. iv. 18). He had 
 remained with him, both to do him personal 
 service and also to help him in “the work of 
 Christ ” (Phil. ii. 30). His exertions in both 
 ways had led to or aggravated a dangerous 
 illness. He had risked his life to do all that his 
 brethren at Philippi would have desired to be 
 done for St. Paul on their behalf. Now his 
 affectionate nature was distressed on account. of 
 the anxiety which his friends at Philippi were 
 feeling at the news of his illness. He desired 
 to return, and St. Paul was desirous to send 
 him. With his usual delicacy and sympathy, 
 he represents the mission of Epaphroditus as 
 being for his pleasure because it was for theirs 
 (“that I may be the less sorrowful,” Phil. 11, 28). 
 On the title “ messenger ” (ἀπόστολον) applied to 
 Epaphroditus, see art. APosTLE. Epaphroditus 
 was almost certainly the bearer of the Epistle 
 to the Philippians (see Lightfoot 5 on Philippians, 
 p. 36), and may possibly be intended by the 
 expression “ true yokefellow” (Phil. iv. 3). 
 Although Epaphras is merely a shortened form 
 of Epaphroditus, yet the longer form of the 
 name is always used of the Philippian delegate 
 and the shorter of the Colossian teacher. The 
 identity of the two is most improbable (see 
 Lightfoot ? on Philip., p. 60, note). [E. R. B.J 
 
 EPENETUS (Rom. xvi. 5). [EPAENETUS.] 
 
 E/PHAH (SY; A. Tepdp, DE. Ταιφάρ 
 [Gen.]; B. Γαφέρ, A. Γαιφάρ [1 Ch.]; Zpha), 
 placed first in order among the sons of Midian 
 
 | (Gen. xxv. 4; 1 Ch. i. 33), and connected by 
 
 Isaiah (Ix. 6, 7) with the Midianites, the Ke- 
 
 turahite Sheba, and the Ishmaelites, both in 
 
 the position of their settlements and in their 
 
 wandering habits; but no satisfactory identifica- 
 
 tion of the tribe has been discovered. The 
 Bd OF 
 
 Arabic word BUS (Gheyfeh), which has been 
 
 supposed to be the same as Ephah, is the name 
 of a village near Cairo; but this is far from the 
 Midianite settlements, and the tradition that 
 Ephah settled in Africa does not rest on sufli- 
 cient authority. [Mrpran; SHepa.] Fried. 
 
EPHAH 
 
 Delitzsch (Wo lag das Paradies? p. 304) and | 
 
 Schrader (ΚΑ 1.3 pp. 146 sq., 613) compare it 
 with the cuneiform Hajapa, a North Arabian 
 tribe, and Halévy believes that ADV as a per- 
 sonal name is to be read in the Sata inscriptions 
 (see Dillmann® on Gen. /, c.). [Ε. 5. Ρ] [ἘΠ] 
 
 F’/PHAH (ΡΨ; B. Γαιφαὴλ παλλακή, A. 
 Γαιφὰ ἡ παλλ.; "Epha). 1. Concubine of Caleb, 
 in the line of Judah (1 Ch. ii. 46). 
 
 2. BA. Γαιφά. Son of Jahdai; also in the 
 line of Judah (1 Ch. ii. 47). 
 
 -E’PHAH. [MEasvres.] 
 E'PHAT (following the Keri, *D'Y; but the 
 
 original text is *>}Y = Opwar; and so LXX. B. 
 
 *Iwpe, N. PET; Ophi), a Netophathite, whose 
 
 sons were among the “captains (71t’) of the 
 Ls, 
 
 forces” left in Judah after the deportation to 
 Babylon (Jer. xl. 8). They submitted them- 
 selves to Gedaliah, the Babylonian governor, 
 and were apparently massacred with him by 
 Ishmael (sli, 3, cp. xl. 13). [W. A. W.] [Ε.} 
 
 E'PHER (bY; ᾿Αφέρ [Gen.},” Οφέρ [1 Ch.]; 
 Opher, Epher), named second in order among the 
 sons of Midian (Gen. xxv. 4, 1 Ch. i. 33), but not 
 mentioned in the Bible except in these genea- 
 logical passages. His settlements have not been 
 identified with certainty. According to Gesenius, 
 the name is equivalent to the Arabic (hiyr, 
 τῷ 
 
 pe: signifying “the young of the cow” [pro- 
 σ 
 
 bably meaning the bovine antelope called the 
 
 wild cow], and “a small beast or creeping 
 
 thing or an insect ” (Lane, Ar. Lex. s. v.). Two 
 
 tribes” bear a similar appellation, Ghifdr 
 
 (Ce 
 
 first Amalek, the other of the Ishmaelite Kindneh 
 (ep. Caussin de Perceval, Essai sur [ Hist. des 
 Arabes, i. 20, 297, 298; and Abuifedae Hist. 
 Anteislamica, ed. Fleischer, p. 196), we can only 
 identify one of them with the Biblical Epher by 
 assuming a confusion to have arisen in respect to 
 these nearly related tribes. The first settled 
 about Yethrib (Medina); the second, in the 
 neighbourhood of Mekka. Delitzsch [1887] and 
 Dillmann® (on Gen. /. 0.) adopt Wetzstein’s 
 view that the name corresponds with ‘Ofr, a 
 place between the Tihaima range and Aban, from 
 which that district of Arabia acquired the name 
 of the Neg’d of ‘Ofr. [ER Β Ρ (iki) 
 
 E'PHER (bp, a calf; B. “Agep, A. Γαφέρ ; 
 Eipher). 
 
 1. A son of Ezra, among the descendants of 
 Judah ; 
 the family of the great Caleb (1 Ch. iv. 17). 
 
 2. ’Opep. One of the heads of the families 
 of Manasseh on the east of Jordan (1 Ch. v. 
 24). ΠΟ ΕἾ ἢ 
 
 EPHES-DAM’MIM (0% DAN ; ᾿Ἐφερμέν, 
 B. -μεμ, A. ᾿Αφεσδομμείν ; in finibus Dommim), 
 a place between Socoh and Azekah, at which the 
 Philistines were encamped before the aftray in 
 which Goliath was killed (1 Sam. xvii. 1). The 
 meaning of the word is uncertain, but it is 
 
 ὩΣ but since one was a branch of the 
 
 possibly, though this is not clear, of 8 
 
 ‘here. 
 
 EPHESIANS, EPISTLE TO THE 947 
 
 generally explained as the “end” or “ boundary 
 of blood,” in that case probably derived from its 
 being the scene of frequent sanguinary encounters 
 between Israel and the Philistines. According to 
 Neubauer, Géogr. du Talmud, p. 158, the term 
 Maaleh Adumim is applied to Ephes-dammim i int 
 the Talmud. Under the shorter form of Pas- 
 DAMMIM it occurs once again in a similar con- 
 nexion (1 Ch. xi. 13). For the situation of the 
 place, see ELAN, VALLEY OF. [6] lB es 
 
 EPHE’SIAN (Ἐφέσιος; Zphesius), an in- 
 habitant of Ephesus. In the singular it is 
 applied to TROPHIMUS (Acts xxi. 29), and in the 
 plural to the people of Ephesus (Acts xix. 28, 
 34, 35), [F.] 
 
 EPHESIANS, EPISTLE TO THE 
 § 1. Tire, p. 947. 
 § 2. (a-c) CrrCUMSTANCES, p. 947. 
 (d) PURPOSE, p. 949. 
 (6) STRUCTURE, p. 950. 
 § 3. AUTHENTICITY, p. 952 :— 
 (1) External evidence, p. 952. 
 (2) History of the enquiry, p. 952. 
 (3) Is the Epistle genuine ? p. 954. 
 (a-d) Objections to genuineness, p. 954. 
 (e) Literary relations to Colossians and 
 other books, p. 957. 
 (f) Summary and conclusion, p. 963. 
 ὁ 4. Text—LiTERATURE, p. 964. 
 
 § 1. TITLE. 
 
 The title (with amplifications) πρὸς ᾿Εφεσίους 
 is attested by allextant MSS. and Versions. But 
 Marcion, and possibly others in his train (* haere- 
 tici,” Tertull. c. Marc. v. 11), adopted the title 
 “ad Laodicenos.” Tertullian’s statement to this 
 effect is confirmed by Epiphanius (/aer. 42, vol. 
 i. p. 811, Migne), who makes Marcion quote 
 Ephes. iv. 5, 6, from his “ Epistle to the Laodi- 
 ceans.” It is true that in a previous passage (}. 
 708), when enumerating the Epistles in Marcion’s 
 canon, he includes, as well as Ephesians, καὶ τῆς 
 πρὸς Aaod. λεγομένης μέρη. But in the face of 
 the quotation just mentioned, and of Tertul- 
 lian’s plain statement, this must be set down 
 to a confusion on the part of Epiphanius simi- 
 lar to that noticed by Bp. Lightfoot (Col. p. 292) 
 in the Muratorian Canon. To Marcion, then, 
 the title was “ad Laodicenos.” But there is no 
 evidence (Bleek, Hinl. § 169, notwithstanding) 
 that this was due to anything but a critical 
 conjecture on Marcion’s part. Tertullian’s 
 language, moreover, is positive proof that the 
 usual title of our Epistle was given to it on 
 grounds independent of the disputed reading. 
 He accuses Marcion of tampering with the title, 
 not with the words, of the Epistle, “ titudwm 
 ei aliquando interpolare gestiit, quasi et in isto 
 diligentissimus explorator ” (thid. 17. The sug- 
 gestion of Davidson, Alford, &c., that “ titulus ” 
 may include the ὦ greeting of the Epistle, is lin- 
 guistically admissible, but far from likely). 
 Tertullian makes no allusion to the words 
 in dispute, and therefore cannot have read 
 them. 
 
 § 2. CIRCUMSTANCES, PURPOSE, AND STRUCTURE. 
 
 (a.) For what readers ?—The decision depends 
 upon the following considerations, which call 
 for a more extended discussion than is possible 
 We state results only. 
 
 3P 2 
 
918 EPHESIANS, EPISTLE TO THE 
 
 (a) The genuineness of ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ (i. 1). The 
 evidence (collected by Tischendorf) goes to show 
 that from the first the Epistle was circulated 
 both with these words and without them, but 
 that in cither case (supra, §1) it was known as 
 an Epistle to the Ephesians. 
 
 (8) The connexion of the Epistle with 
 Ephesus may accordingly be regarded as certain, 
 independently of the reading of ch, i. 1. The 
 readers are moreover 
 
 (y) Gentiles (i. 13; contrast v. 12; ii. 1, 11-13, 
 19; iii. 1; v. 8), and a definite group of persons 
 (i. 155 vi. 21). 
 
 But (δὴ) the Epistle was not intended for 
 Ephesus only. This follows from the fact that 
 St. Paul is personally unknown to at any rate 
 the mass of his readers (i. 15, cp, iv. 21, ili. 2, 3). 
 Now the Apostle’s labours at Ephesus, though 
 fruitful of result outside the city (1 Cor. xvi. 
 9; Acts xix. 10, 26), had been carried on entirely 
 in Ephesus itself (Acts xx. 18, τὸν πάντα χρόνον); 
 he had not visited even the Lycus valley (Col. 
 ii. 1). 
 
 ἐν It is therefore as impossible to limit the 
 range of the letter to Ephesus as it is to exclude 
 Ephesus from it altogether. That the Epistle 
 was primarily addressed to Laodicea (greeted 
 through Colossae, Col. iv. 15), or that it was 
 purely catholic in its destination (see supra, y), 
 cannot be maintained. ‘That it was addressed 
 merely to the Gentile element in the Asiatic 
 churches (Milligan in Encycl. Drit.) is an ap- 
 proximation to the view regarded by the writer 
 of this article as probable: but this view postu- 
 lates an explanation of τοῖς οὖσιν in i. 1 which 
 will not commend itself to all, and overlooks 
 St. Paul’s frequent custom of addressing a Church 
 or Churches of mixed origin as if purely Gentile 
 (Rom. i. 13, xi. 13 sqq., and contrast 1 Thess. i. 9 
 with Acts xvii. 3, 4). 
 
 (5) The Epistle then was probably (1) ad- 
 dressed to Ephesus, but intended by St. Paul* to 
 circulate” among “the churches of Asia,” and 
 (2) identical with the letter ἐκ Λαοδικείας of 
 Col. iv. 16. The latter identification is based on 
 the verse just cited, combined with the close 
 relation of our Epistle to Colossians (see below), 
 and the identity of the bearer, Tychicus. The 
 identification of our Epistle with that “from 
 Laodicea” is of course denied by those who 
 
 a The omission of ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ would thus correspond in 
 purpose to that of ἐν Ῥώμῃ (Rom. i. 7) in G, g (Cod. 
 Born.), an omission possibly (see article Romans, and 
 Lightfoot in Journ. of Phil. 1870) indicative of a circu- 
 lation of that Epistle (in a form abridged by the omis- 
 sion of xv., xvi.) as an encyclical letter. 
 
 b The ‘‘circular” destination of the Epistle has been 
 maintained, with numerous modifications and subsidiary 
 hypotheses, by a host of scholars from Beza, Usher, and 
 Bengel onwards, including Hug, Neander, Riickert, 
 Credner, Harless, Anger, Olshausen, Klostermann, 
 Sabatier, Reuss, Ellicott, Holtzmann (‘‘for choice,” 
 Einl.2 p. 286), Weiss (Herzog, RE.1 Suppl. i. 481, &c.), 
 Wold. Schmidt (in Herzog, RE.? xi. 373, and in 6th ed. 
 of Meyer). Schenkel (Christusbild der Apost. 1879, 
 p. 88) was a convert to it, while Bishop Lightfoot, who 
 had promised a full discussion of the two kindred 
 questions in his long-looked-for introduction to Ephe- 
 sians, meanwhile expressed his belief that educated 
 opinion is tending, however slowly, in this direction. 
 (See also his remark, Jgn.1 ii. p. 63, that the Ephesians 
 were ‘‘the chief, though probably not the sole, re- 
 cipieats ” of the Epistle.) 
 
 EPHESIANS, EPISTLE TO THE 
 
 maintain its exclusively Ephesian destinatior 
 (see supra, 5), and by those who reject its 
 authenticity while maintaining the genuine- 
 ness and integrity of the Epistle to the Colos- 
 sians (Davidson; Renan, St. Paul, xii.; Ewald, 
 S.S. p. 157; and Von Soden substantially), 
 Others, however, rejecting Ephesians entirely 
 and Colossians wholly or in part, see in Col. 
 iv. 16 a reference to our Epistle (Baur, Paulus, 
 ii. 47; Volkmar, Apoc. 67; Hitzig; Hausrath, 
 Ap. Paulus; Holtzmann, Avit., passim, and 
 inl.” p, 294). The great mass of those critics who 
 accept both Epistles as genuine and regard Ephe- 
 sians as in any sense a circular letter take the 
 same view (Anger, Ueber den Laod.-brief, 1843 ; 
 Reuss, J/ist. N. 1. §§ 119, 120, in Eng. tr. ; and 
 especially Lightfoot, Col. p. 274 sq., where the 
 question is discussed in all its bearings and with 
 full references to the literature of the subject). 
 The objections (restated by Weiss, Hin/. p. 262) 
 turning on the difficulties as to the method of 
 circulation and the movements of Tychicus are 
 not generally regarded as very serious. 
 
 (b.) Place and Date of Composition —The 
 Epistle was written at the same time as those 
 to Colossians and Philemon, and carried by 
 Tychicus (vi. 21), who, with Onesimus the bearer 
 of the letter to Philemon (Philem. v. 13), was also. 
 charged with the delivery of that to Colossae 
 (Col. iv.7). St. Paul was a prisoner at the time 
 (Ephes. iii. 1, iv. 1, vi. 20; Philem. v. 10); this 
 fixes us to the alternative of either his two 
 years’ imprisonment at Caesarea (Acts xxiii. 35, 
 xxiv. 27), or his two years’ imprisonment at 
 Rome (Acts xxviii. 30). The former has been 
 contended for by some modern scholars, but is 
 certainly to be rejected? [CoLossIAns, EPISTLE TO 
 THE]. The silence of St. Paul as to the earth- 
 quake which reduced Laodicea, as well as Hiera- 
 polis and Colossae according to Eusebius, to ruins 
 in Nero’s reign, is explained by the fact that the 
 disaster had taken place at least two years pre- 
 viously (A.D. 60) if we follow Tacitus (Ann. 
 xiv. 27), or else did not take place till at least 
 a year later (A.D. 64, Eus. Chron.). 
 
 Taking Rome then as the place of writing, 
 the date depends (1) on the date of St. Paul’s 
 arrival there [see FEsrus; PAUL]; (2) on the 
 order of the Epistles written from Rome (see 
 Lightfoot, Phil. Introd., and articles CoLos- 
 SIANS and PHILIPPIANS), Assuming St. Paul 
 to have reached Rome in the beginning of 
 A.D. 61, and the Philippians to be the first of 
 his Roman Epistles, our group would come at 
 the very end (Philem. v. 22) of the διετία (Acts 
 xxvili, 31), i.e. at the beginning of the year 63. 
 
 (c.) Occasion.—St. Paul when he wrote had 
 reason to hope for a speedy release, and intended 
 to visit Asia at once upon regaining his liberty 
 (Philem. v. 22), But, in addition to the possibility 
 of his former disappointment (Philip. ii. 24) being 
 repeated, tkere were strong motives for his 
 writing, and that without delay. (1) The rapid 
 
 ¢ St. Paul’s other imprisonments (2 Cor. vi. 5, xi. 23 5 
 cep. Acts xvi. 23) cannot have been of the duration 
 implied in the language of these Epistles (Col. iv. 18). 
 The ‘‘second ” and final imprisonment is of course not to 
 be thought of (contrast 2 Tim. iv. 6 with Philem. v. 22). 
 
 ἃ See Lightfoot, Coloss. p. 37 sq., and on the other 
 side Weiss, Einl. p. 260; Reuss, Hist. N. 7. Script., 
 Eng. Tr. p. 106. 
 
EPHESIANS, EPISTLE TO THE 
 
 growth of Gentile Christianity in proconsular Asia 
 nad for some time been filling him with eager 
 and increasing anxiety (Col. ii. 1 and Ephes. 
 
 throughout) for the healthy growth, and settle- 
 _ ment in the one true Israel of God (Gal. vi. 16; 
 
 Ephes. ii. 12), of the converts from the un- 
 ‘circumcision. From Epaphras (Col. i.7, iv. 12), 
 who evidently entered into all that he felt, he 
 heard of their love and faith, their difficulties 
 with the Jewish element in the Church (Kphes. 
 li. 11, and iy. 3?), and longed to impart to them 
 (as he had done to the original Gentile Church 
 of Antioch years before, Acts xi. 26) the special 
 
 χάρισμα (Kom. i. 11, 13 b) of his apostleship 
 
 (Gal. ii. 7, 8; Rom. xi. 13). (2) An equally 
 strong and even more urgently pressing motive 
 was the state of things in the Lycus valley [see 
 COLosstAns]. It would seem indeed almost 
 probable that the (8) return of Onesimus to his 
 master at this particular time was suggested by 
 the opportunity of the mission of Tychicus, rather 
 than the converse: the desirability of sending him 
 with all possible promptitude (Philem. wv. 14, 
 15) would at any rate make the opportunity 
 thus offered one to be seized. [PHILEMON. ] 
 
 It would appear (see below, ὃ 3 e) that St. 
 Paul at first contemplated, in addition to the 
 private letter to Philemon, a single letter to the 
 Churches of Asia, embodying his anxiety for the 
 Spiritual growth of the Gentile Christians; for 
 their progressive realisation of their position in 
 the commonwealth of Christ’s Body, of all that 
 that position meant, and of its claims upon their 
 practical life. But upon the arrival of Epaphras 
 with the news from Colossae, it became impos- 
 sible to meet the special requirements of that 
 Church and neighbourhood with an epistle fitted 
 for the widely-spread communities of proconsular 
 Asia. The Epistle ultimately took shape in two 
 forms: ὅ a special letter for the Colossians, and 
 a general letter which the Apostle finally ad- 
 dressed to Ephesus, the metropolis in the faith 
 (Acts xix. 10, 26) of the entire province. The 
 relative priority of the two Epistles is on this 
 view unimportant: while it is psychologically 
 more natural for the general idea to precede its 
 special application, it is quite in harmony with 
 this that, when the time for writing came, the 
 more special letter was written first. The ques- 
 tion cannot be decided, however, upon such a 
 priori grounds: nor is the relation between the 
 Epistles to the Galatians and Romans an exact 
 parallel. Bp. Lightfoot, numbering Philippians, 
 Colossians, Philemon, 1, 2, and 3 respectively in 
 this group, evidently regards Ephesians as written 
 last. 
 
 (d.) Main Purpose and leading Ideas.—The 
 Epistle as finally drafted carries out the aim 
 indicated above. Its object is accordingly 
 “much more definite than it is often thought to 
 be... These views [of Meyer, Schenkel, Alford, 
 Harless, Gloag, Lightfoot] may be all partially 
 eorrect, but they are not enough. In this very 
 setting forth of the greatness of the Church, 
 
 in this description of her life, in this present- 
 
 ing of her to us in all the ideal glory of her 
 state as united to her Lord, the Apostle has 
 a farther and immediately practical aim—to 
 
 © So Weizsacker, Ap. Zeitalter, p. 565 (rejecting both 
 
 Epistles), «‘The two were probably composed, not 
 
 successively but simultanevus!ly.” 
 
 EPHESIANS, EPISTLE TO THE 949 
 
 show us that this ideal glory contemplated from 
 the first the union of both Jews and Gentiles in 
 equal enjoyment of the privileges of God’s cove- 
 nant, and that to the completeness of the body 
 of Christ the latter are as necessary as the 
 former, and that it is only when both are 
 together in Christ that His fulness is realised 
 and manifested” (Milligan, Zxcyc. Brit. p. 462 ; 
 the whole section should be consulted). The 
 Epistle is in fact the Gospel of the Gentiles, St. 
 Paul’s own Gospel in its positive expression, 
 For his Apostleship of the Gentiles tobe μὴ εἰς 
 κενόν (Gal. ii. 2, and see Philip. ii. 16), it was not 
 enough to have vindicated their rights againat 
 Judaising demands: they must realise and justify 
 their position as fellow-citizens of the saints 
 (Ephes, ii. 19), as living branches of the sacred 
 olive-tree (Rom. xi. 17), of the ancient and 
 renovated (Ephes. iv. 13, 24; v. 25, 26) congrega- 
 tion of God, into which, in consummation of God’s 
 eternal purpose (iii. 5, 11, &c.), they had been at 
 length engrafted. This central purpose‘ of the 
 Epistle is (1) immediately suggested by its 
 general character and by the Gentile origin of 
 its readers (supra, § 2, ἃ y), and (2) brought out 
 with irresistible clearness by an examination of 
 its structure (infra, e). 
 
 Reserving for the present a general discussion 
 of the theological contents of the Epistle and its 
 relation to St. Paul’s other writings (§ 3), we 
 will now point out how its central purpose is 
 worked out. St. Paul traces the calling of the 
 Gentiles to the eternal (i. 4) counsel of God, now 
 at last in the fulness of time made known to all 
 His creatures (i. 9, 10; iii. 9-11), to sum up all 
 things once again in Christ (ἀ νακεφαλαιώσασθαι, 
 i. 10: so Bengel ; Schenkel, Christusbild ; Weiss, 
 }. T.; the sense of ava- is marked by Tertull. 
 Monog. 5, “ ad initium reciprocare ;” Pesh., Vulg., 
 Goth.). This again carries us back to the 
 original cosmic mediation of the Son, a princi- 
 ple presupposed in all St. Paul’s teaching 
 (1 Cor. viii. 6; ep. Weiss, B. 7. ὃ 79, c; and 
 Lightfoot, Col. p. 116), and brought out pro- 
 minently in the companion Epistle (Col. i. 16), 
 but in our Epistle tacitly taken for granted. 
 The unity of all in Christ, involved both in His 
 original relation to creation and in the corre- 
 sponding eternal purpose of God to sum up again 
 (cp. ἀποκαταλλάσσειν, Col. i. 20, 21) all things 
 in Him, is as a matter of fact in abeyance. The 
 reason of this, the great problem of the later 
 Gnostics, St. Paul does not discuss: but sin is 
 here, as in the earlier Epistles (Rom. i. 213 viii. 
 20), assumed as the cause (Ephes. ii. 1), while 
 an original personal source of the cosmic discord 
 (ii. 2, vi, 12) is pointed to. In relation to man, 
 this severance or estrangement has come (1) be- 
 tween man and his Creator (y. 18; ep. Col. i. 21), 
 involving the former in darkness (vy. 8), death, 
 and the wrath of God (ii. 3-5, iv. 22); and (2) 
 between Jews and Gentiles, as a wall of division 
 
 f Baur, Ewald, Holtzmann, and others have pointed it 
 out, but their perception uf the truth has been embar- 
 rassed by assumptions as to date and authorship, and 
 consequently the doctrinal perspective, of the whole has 
 been missed. Especially, too much has been made of 
 the ““ conciliatory ” (iv. 3) purpose of the letter, supposed 
 to be exemplified in the language applied to the Jews 
 (ii. 12, Baur), to the older Apostles (ἅγιοι, iii. 5), and 
 to the author of the Apocalypse (πρόφηται, Holtzmann!), 
 and even in the use made of 1 Peter (Weiss). 
 
950 EPHESIANS, EPISTLE TO THE 
 
 (ii. 14) and a state of hostility (i. 15,16). In | 
 
 relation to this latter point, the case has a two- 
 fold aspect, only to be understood in relation to 
 the respective functions of Covenant and Law as 
 laid down in St. Paul’s older Epistles (ep. Gal. iii. 
 6-29; Rom. iii. 1, 2, 9, &c. The paradox is 
 expressed Rom. xi. 28; ep. Rom. iii. 20). On 
 the one hand, the “commonwealth of Israel ” 
 (Ephes. ii. 12) was founded by God (Gal. iii. 16; 
 Rom. iy. 13) as a first step in the reconciliation 
 of man to his Creator. Israel was united to 
 God by a covenant, and enjoyed the privilege of 
 hope, on the ground of Divine promises (Ephes. ii. 
 12). Moreover, this πολίτεια was to endure for 
 ever (Rom. iii. 3, xi. 29). 
 seed that the “many nations ” (Rom. iv. 13, 17) 
 were to be called: the Gentiles were in God’s 
 good time (Ephes. i. 10) to take their place within 
 “the Israel of God” (Gal. vi. 16). The removal 
 of the μεσότοιχον τοῦ φραγμοῦ, visibly embodied 
 in the ordinances (ii. 15; cp. Ὁ. 11) which 
 sharply severed Jew from Gentile, was not to 
 destroy the “household of God,” but to bring 
 within its bounds those who had previously been 
 excluded. Zhe continuty of the Church thus 
 lies at the very root of St. Paul’s conception of 
 it (cp. Pfleiderer, Paulinism, ii. 40 sq.). But, on 
 the other hand, the Israelite stood in no less 
 need of redemption than the Gentile: “ We were 
 by nature children of wrath as well as the rest” 
 (ii. 3). The “ordinances” set an ἔχθρα not 
 only between them and the rest of mankind, but 
 between them and God (cp. Rom. iv. 15; Col. 
 ii, 14), They that were “near,” not less than 
 they that were “afar off,” needed “peace ” and 
 ‘access to the Father” (Ephes. ii. 17,18). Both 
 in being reunited to God were reunited to one 
 another (cp. Rom. iii. 30) by the death of Christ 
 (Ephes. i. 7; ii. 16). It follows from this that, 
 great as were the privileges of the πολίτεια τοῦ 
 Ἰσραήλ, they were provisional and prospective, 
 awaiting completion with the fulfilment of the 
 Promises. In other words, the restoration of 
 the individual involves that of the Church. In 
 Christ, she receives (i. 23) a Head, a new princi- 
 ple of life and organic unity (iv. 16); in Him 
 she is redeemed, saved, cleansed (vv. 23-27), she 
 is His body; in Him she realises the highest and 
 tenderest Old Testament ideal (Hos. ii. 16, 19; 
 Is. liv. 5, &c.) of the relation of God to His People 
 (Ephes. v. 25); in her His function in relation 
 to the Universe finds its complete realisation 
 (i. 23). Until the Church has grown into one 
 
 i. 1-2. 
 I. 1. 3-14. 
 
 Apostolic salutation. : 
 
 [These blessings involve — 
 
 It was as Abraham’s | 
 
 | redemptive grace (iv. 32; 
 ? 
 
 | 
 
 EPHESIANS, EPISTLE TO THE 
 
 (iv. 13 sqq.; ep. Col. i. 28, iii. 11), until all ex 
 clusive distinctions ave effaced within her, God’s 
 eternal purpose in Christ is unsatisfied (i. 10, 
 &e.). It is this, then, that St. Paul “ agonises ” 
 
 (Col. ii. 1) toimpress upon the Gentile Christians — 
 
 of Asia, praying again and again (Ephes. i. 15; 
 
 iii. 1, 14) that they may learn more and more ~ 
 
 to what they have been called, until they grow 
 to the measure of the stature of the fulness of 
 Christ. The key-note to the Epistle is struck 
 in the word ἐπίγνωσις (i. 17), progressive en- 
 lightenment, not merely intellectual, but of a 
 kind that will be fully realised only hereafter 
 (1 Cor, xiii. 12; on the word, see Lightfoot on 
 Col. i. 9 and Phil. i. 9). With this growth in 
 spiritual wisdom will come mutual toleration 
 (iv. 2) and forgiveness, the fruit of Christ’s 
 cp. ii. 15), and a life 
 worthy of their calling. 
 
 (e.) Structure.—The analysis given below aims, 
 not at following the sequence of ideas into 
 every detail, which in the case of this Epistle 
 would involve a commentary, but at bringing out. 
 the main flow of the thought. The Epistle is 
 characterised by great simplicity in this respect, 
 coupled with extraordinary complexity and 
 length in its parenthetic matter. Its lack of 
 argumentative sequence is compensated by the 
 intense wnity of purpose which runs through it, 
 compelling the writer back to a thread which is 
 constantly dropped, but never lost sight of from 
 beginning toend. St. Paul, after blessing God for 
 the privileges bestowed in Christ (i. 3), prays for 
 the progress of his readers in knowledge of what 
 these privileges imply (i. 15-18). This prayer, 
 after a reminder of the great change from their 
 past to their present condition (ii. 1, 5, 8, 11-13), 
 he reiterates (iii. 1, 14) with deeper fervency and 
 significance, the climax culminating in a dox- 
 ology. He exhorts them to carry out their 
 privileses to their normal practical issues, unity,. 
 renunciation of Gentile vices, fidelity to social 
 and moral obligations, the armour of God, 
 prayer. Such is the outline of the Epistle, the 
 expression of St. Paul’s burning anxiety that the 
 Gentiles should understand, and justify, their 
 fellow-citizenship with the saints and Israel of 
 God. But the peculiar distinction of the Epistle 
 is due to the fulness of substance which the 
 simple theme draws up at every joint and turn 
 from the underlying springs of the unsearchable 
 riches of Christ. The following table will make 
 this plain :— 
 
 Blessed be God for the blessings bestowed in Christ upon all Christians. 
 
 4-6. God’s eternal purpose of our adoption in Christ. 
 7-14. Our redemption and forgiveness through His Blood, by virtue of the riches of His: 
 grace, to which also we owe— 
 
 8-10. 
 "αὶ 
 12. 
 
 13, 14. 
 
 Knowledge of God’s purpose to sum up all things in Christ. 
 
 This purpose includes us all, both 
 
 Jews, τοὺς προηλπικότας (who had previously hoped in the Christ), 
 
 You Gentiles also who accepted the good tidings and were accordingly sealed 
 
 with the Spirit to the destiny in store for the Israelites (ets ἐπ. τῆς δόξης 
 
 αὐτοῦ repeated). )] 
 
 II. i. 15-23. For this reason (God’s calling of the Gentiles) 1 also (i.e. as corresponding to God’s purpose) pray 
 Jor your enlightenment by God, that you may grow in knowledge of Him. : 
 [18, 19. This involves enlightenment concerning the hope and heritage to which you are 
 called, and particularly concerning 
 20-23. The Power of God exerted in Christ, and shown 
 
 Exaltation, 
 
 Resurrection, 
 in Hi { 
 Consequent relation to the Church.} * 
 
ΜΝ". -.. 
 
 EPHESIANS, EPISTLE TO THE 
 
 You too, once dead in Gentile sins, or rather 
 
 III. ii. 1-10. 
 
 (since we Jews were in no better case] 
 us (ἡμᾶς, vv. 4, 5, including ὑμᾶς, v. 1, and ἡμᾶς, v. 3), God raised to life in Christ. 
 (7-10. Import of this (1) as demonstrating God’s grace for all future ages, 7, 
 (2) as the foundation of Christian ethics, 8-10.] 
 
 11-22. 
 saints (19). 
 
 Bear in mind, then, this momentous change in your state; once aliens, now fellow-citizens of the 
 
 [13-18. This effected by the blood-shedding of Christ, which has removed the barrier (μεσότ. 
 
 τοῦ φρ.) and made both one. 
 
 20-22. You are now being built into God’s habitation, reared upon the Apostles and Prophets, 
 and upon Christ as corner-stone.] 
 
 iV. iii. 1-19. 
 
 To this end (your complete incorporation into the Edifice of the Church) 7 Paul, in virtue of my 
 
 special charge over you Gentiles, of which my bonds (1) and tribulations (13) are the pledge, 
 (2-6. This charge, of which you have heard, or may learn from what I have written, is ἃ 
 stewardship, or gift entrusted to me, namely the revelation of ὦ secret, to be made 
 known at last, of the inclusion of the Gentiles in the promise, 
 7-9. Which secret I am to proclaim to the Gentiles, 
 10-12. In order that to Powers unseen may be revealed God’s manifold Wisdom, correspond- 
 ing to His eternal purpose in Christ, ] 
 bow my Knees to the one Father that He may inwardly confirm and enlighten you, to comprehend 
 the love of Christ (18 b, 19 a), that you may be brought to Christian perfection. 
 20, 21. Doxology: climax of the foregoing description of God’s unlooked-for bounty, of which 
 the Church is the eternal monument. 
 
 V. iv. 1-vi. 9. 
 
 Therefore, wall worthily of your calling, 
 
 (2, 3. General characteristics of this :] 
 iv. 3b-16. Endeavouring to realise Unity : 
 (4-6. Principles of Unity: One Lord, &c. 
 7-12. Means divinely provided for its maintenance: 
 7, 8. Individuals variously gifted by the exalted Christ (9, 10, a point 
 in reference to His Exaltation), 
 9-13. And specially, for various offices, all subserving the progress of 
 the Church toward (unifying) completeness. 
 14-16. This completeness characterised— 
 (1) negatively, in relation to their old life, 
 (2) positively, in relation to Christ the Head and source of life to the 
 
 Body. 
 
 B. iv. 11-ν. 14. Renouncing heathen habits and conduct, and, in general, exchanging the old 
 
 self for the new : 
 
 Liv. 25-v. 4. Various details to be avoided. 
 (iv. 30-v. 1, 2. Counter-principles interjected— 
 
 (1) The Spirit not to be grieved. 
 
 (2) Filial imitation of God. 
 
 (3) Response to the Love shown in Christ’s 
 sacrifice.) 
 
 v. 5, 6. Warning as to consequences. 
 v. 7-14. Contrast of Light and Darleness.] 
 
 v. 15-vi. 9. 
 
 Q) 
 
 Walking wisely and redeeming the téme, especially with regard to 
 y. 18-21. Sobriety in body and mind (Spiritual Songs). 
 
 (2) v. 22-vi. 9. Family and social relations. 
 
 [a. ν. 22-33. 
 [[24--32. 
 
 Ῥ. νἱ. 1-4, 
 c. vi. 5-9. Slaves and masters. ] 
 
 Vi. vi. 10-24. Conclusion. 
 
 a. 10-20, 
 
 Wives and husbands. 
 CHRIST AND THE CHURCH.J] 
 Children and parents. 
 
 Final Exhortation: (1) Be strong in the Lord. 
 
 (The whole armour of God.] 
 
 (2) Prayer, generally (18); 
 
 f. 21-24. Epistolary matter. 
 
 specially for St. Paul (19, 20). 
 
 Tychicus and his mission. 
 Final peace and benediction. 
 
 It will be observed, firstly, that with every 
 desire to steer clear of exegetical assumptions on 
 debated points in analysing the Enpistle, it is im- 
 possible to do so entirely®; secondly, that the 
 commonly made division into a “ doctrinal” 
 (i-iii.) and “practical” (iv.—vi.) portion is 
 scarcely indicative of the main lines of cleavage 
 (against Holtzm. Arit. pp. 191, 218). The Epistle 
 
 & e.g. the close connexion οἵ iii. 1 and iii. 14 is assumed 
 with many of the very best authorities, in the face of 
 others (Chrysostom, Meyer, &c.), who make v. 1 into a 
 ‘self-contained clause by what must be called the arbitrary 
 and ungainly insertion of a verb neither expressed nor 
 implied in the Greek. 
 
 contains no systematic exposition of doctrine: its 
 doctrinal richness is subsidiary to and illustrative 
 of the practical purpose which binds the entire 
 Epistle into one (for instance, the cardinal 
 doctrine of Christ as Head of the Church appears 
 in i, 23, iv. 16, and not least in v. 24-32), while 
 the practical precepts (iv.—vi.) come under the 
 general head of ἀξίως περιπατῆσαι (iv. 1), and so 
 full into the main current of the Epistle. Full 
 enlightenment, and a life worthy of their calling, 
 were not to be thought of as separable; each was 
 equally necessary on the part of the Gentile 
 Church, if St. Paul was not to “have zun in 
 vain ” (Philip. ii. 16). 
 
952 EPHESIANS, EPISTLE TO THE 
 
 § 3. AUTHENTICITY. 
 
 If the above view of the purpose of the Epistle 
 be correct, it establishes a presumption in favour 
 of its Pauline origin. It is difficult for us to put 
 ourselves into St. Paul’s position with reference 
 to the admission of the Gentiles to the Divine king- 
 dom. To us-this admission ijsatruism. To him 
 “this amazing Gospel was always fresh: there 
 was a touch of strangeness in it to the last ” (Dale, 
 Lect.3 xii. p. 202). Nor is it easy to believe that 
 anyone even in the generation which immediately 
 succeeded St. Paul, and which entered upon his 
 labours, could have felt the novelty of this reve- 
 lation with its first freshness. To the writer of 
 this Epistle, not indeed the existence, but the 
 full naturalisation within the Churches of Gentile 
 Christendom, is still on its trial; it is a great 
 task, a matter demanding fervent prayer and 
 full of anxiety, to show them their rightful place 
 as heirs to God’s promises and fellow-citizens of 
 the saints. Now after the fall of Jerusalem the 
 Church no longer had a Jewish metropolis; Jewish 
 Christianity fell more and more into the back- 
 ground (cp. Lightfoot, Ga/.* pp. 300 sqq.; Har- 
 nack, Doymg.) pp. 97, 215 sqq.; also Schenkel, 
 Christusbild, p. vii.sqq.); after 70 A.D. the composi- 
 tion of such a letter as ours wouid be improbable ; 
 by 100 A.D. almost impossible. Such a presump- 
 tion, however, might be outweighed by strong 
 contrary evidence ; and contrary evidence has in 
 this case convinced critics of weighty authority. 
 
 (1.) Luternal evidence. The apostolic author- 
 ship of the Epistle was fully recognised in the 
 earlier decades of the 2nd century (Mangold in 
 Bleek, Einl.* p. 288; Holtzm. Αἴ γιέ. p. 278). Of 
 writers who show reminiscences of its language 
 may be mentioned CLEMENT OF RoE [see in- 
 dex of passages in Lightfoot or Gebhardt; no 
 single instance is decisive, but taken all together 
 they fairly imply a knowledye of the Epistle] ; 
 Potycarp, Ep. ad Phil. i., ep. Ephes. ii. 8, 9, and 
 xii. [quotes Ephes. iv. 26 as from the “Scrip- 
 tures”; the chapter has with others been re- 
 garded as the work of an interpolator, on grounds 
 which Lightfoot (Jgn. i. 586) has shown to be 
 arbitrary ; there is, however, the possibility that 
 Polycarp is directly quoting two separate “ Scrip- 
 tures ” (Ps. iv. 5, Deut. xxiv. 13, 15), especially as 
 he couples the two clauses by an et; but the 
 combination would in that case be an extraordi- 
 nary coincidence with Ephes. iv. 25 (yet the 
 composite quotation might be from a common 
 source; see Hatch, Lssays in Lib. Greck, pp. 203 
 sqq.)]; Hermas [Mand. x. 2=Ephes. iy. 30, 
 Sim. ix. 13=Ephes. iv. 4]; Letter to DiogNETUS 
 [c. ii., cp. Ephes. iv. 21-24?]; Justin [Dial. 39, 
 87 (from Ps. Ixviii. 18)=Ephes. iv. 8, Dial. 120 
 =Ephes. i. 21]. <A direct reference to the Epistle 
 is made by IGNATIUS, who, in writing to the 
 Ephesians (ὃ 12), addresses them as Παύλου 
 συμμύσται, Os ἐν πάσῃ ἐπιστόλῃϑ μνημονεύει 
 
 h The phrase ἐν πάσῃ ἐπιστόλῃ is open to some doubt. 
 The translation (of Kiene, St. Av. 1869, p. 286) ‘in an 
 entire letter” is scarcely tenable. We must choose 
 between (') ‘‘in every letter” (Lightfoot, Ign. 2, p. 65), 
 who relies on Rom. xvi. 5, 1 Cor. xv. 32, xvi. 8, 19, 
 2 Cor. i. 8 sq., 1 and 2 Tim.—passages which scarcely 
 satisfy the language of Ignatius, as they none of them 
 refer to the Ephesian Church; and (2) “in every part 
 of his letter’’ (Westcott, Can* p. 47): this use of πᾶς 
 without the article is borne out by such passages as Acts 
 
 EPHESIANS, EPISTLE TO THE 
 
 ὑμῶν. Setting aside Meyer’s arbitrary explana- 
 tion of ὑμῶν as not referring to the Ephesians 
 at all (but “to Pauline Christians as such” }), it 
 is difficult not to see in συμμύσται a reference to 
 the language of our Epistle (e.g. iii. 4, v. 32), 
 especially as the Epistle of Ignatius bears other 
 traces of its language; compare Ign. Ephes. i. 
 with Ephes. i. 3-6, 9, 11, and cp. Ephes. v. 1, 2 
 (also other letters of Ign.: e.g. Polyc. 5, ep. 
 Ephes. v. 25; Smyrn. 6, cp. Ephes. 1, 21; 
 Trall. 11, cp. Ephes. iv. 25, v.30). Ignatius, 
 then, regarded our Epistle as written by St. Paul. 
 To this body of evidence we must add that 
 of the Gnostic sectaries. From the Ophites 
 downward, the quotations from their writings 
 in Hippolytus show that our Epistle was known 
 to them. It is not, indeed, always certain 
 whether this or that individual heresiarch’ 
 (Basilides, Valentinus; cp. Westcott, Cun.* pp. 
 291, 295 sq.), or merely his followers, are stated 
 by Hippolytus to have used the language quoted, : 
 for he uses the words φασί, φησί conyertibly, 
 and that even when speaking of a sect as 
 distinct from a person (see Salmon, Jntrod.* 
 pp. 69,73; Holtzm. Hinl.? p.136,n.). But when. 
 we find the Epistle commonly acknowledged 
 among these schools, it is unreasonable to ex- 
 clude their founders, especially as the case of 
 Marcion at least is beyond all doubt. The 
 Valentiniuns (and, as Westcott, ult supra, shows 
 ground for believing, Valentinus himself) quoted 
 Ephes. iii. 4-18 as γραφή (Hipp. Pdil. vi. 34), and 
 Heinrici (Die Val. Gnosis τι. die h. Schrift, pp. 184, 
 192, Berl. 1871) has further shown grounds for 
 believing that they actually commented upon it. 
 By the close of the second century our Epistle was 
 universally received as St. Paul’s: Irenaeus, the 
 Muratorian Canon, Tertullian, Clement of Alex- 
 andria, unite the testimony of widely separated 
 Churches: it is unnecessary to do more than 
 mention their names, or to refer to evidence 
 later in date. Thus strongly attested by un- 
 contradicted tradition, the Pauline authorship 
 of the Epistle was unquestioned until the third 
 decade of the present century. 
 
 (2.) Modern Enquiries —(a.) Negative cri- 
 ticism. Doubts as to the authenticity of the 
 Epistle were first expressed by Usteri (Paul. 
 Lehrbegriff, 1824), but purely on the ground 
 of its relation to Colossians. He regarded the 
 character of the Epistle as thoroughly Pauline, 
 and uses it throughout his book as a standard 
 for St. Paul’s doctrine. He derived his doubts 
 from Schleiermacher’s lectures, which however, 
 as published, merely express the opinion (“ very 
 improbable,” Bleek) that Tychicus, the bearer 
 of Colossians, was charged by St. Paul with 
 the composition of this as a companion Epistle 
 (pp- 165 sq., 194). De Wette (Introduction * and 
 Commentary, 1843) rejected the Epistle on in- 
 ternal grounds also, as un-Pauline in language 
 and ideas, and a mere “verbose amplification ” 
 
 XVii. 26, ἐπὶ παντὸς προσώπου τῆς γῆς (according to the 
 correct reading), Arist. Hth. Nic. τ. xiii. 7, καὶ πᾶν σῶμα, 
 passages which can hardly be brought under the rebut- 
 ting principle laid down by Lightfoot in loco. The great 
 exaggeration involved in the former alternative almost 
 vanishes with the adoption of the latter, as the Epistle 
 to the Ephesians, in spite of its lack of local or personal 
 references, is throughout closely addressed to the par- 
 ticular spiritual needs of its readers. ἱ 
 
 Se ζω. ὦ στ 
 
EPHESIANS, EPISTLE TO THE 
 
 of Colossians. He ascribed the Epistle to a 
 disciple of St. Paul and to the sub- Apostolic age, 
 as also did Ewald (Sieben Sendschr. des N. }. 
 pp. 153 sqq.3 Hist. of Isr.> viii. 190 sqq., E. 
 Tr.), who dated it about A.D. 75. A similarly 
 negative attitude toward the Epistle is taken up 
 by Renan, Davidson, Hausrath (Apost. Paul. and 
 List. of N. 1. Times), Ritschl (Rechtfert. uw. 
 Verséhn.? ii, p. 244, &c.), Weizsiicker (Apost. 
 Zeitalter, 1886, pp. 330, 561, &c.), and others, 
 in addition to those to be mentioned presently. 
 De Wette’s objections were answered by Line- 
 mann (de Ep. ad Eph. authentia, Gott. 1853), 
 and among others who have defended the Ipistle 
 may be mentioned here Bleek (Lectures, and 
 Introd. to N. T.), Schenkel (in the Ist ed. of 
 Lange’s N. 7. and elsewhere), Klépper (de origine 
 Tipp. ad Eph. et Col., Greifsw., 1853), Meyer, 
 W. Schmidt, Reuss, and Weiss. 
 
 (b.) Merely negative criticism was incomplete 
 without some attempt to give a positive account 
 of the origin of the Epistle. This attempt was 
 first made by Schwegler (in the Theol. Jahrb. 
 1844) and Baur (Paudus,' 1845), who found in 
 the Epistle traces of Gnostic and even Montanist 
 language and ideas, and assigned it, along with 
 -that to the Colossians, to the middle of the 2nd 
 century; the main theme and underlying idea of 
 the “twin” letters being the reconciliation, in 
 Christ as Head of the Universe and of the Church, 
 of all opposing principles, and more especially 
 of Judaism and Gentilism; the author a Pauline 
 Christian writing in order to conciliate the 
 Jewish element in the Church, and offering “as 
 concessions” the recognition of the earlier pre- 
 rogative of the Jews (Ephes. ii. 12), and of 
 good works as on a par with faith (ii. 8 sqq.). 
 This construction was adopted by the Tiibingen 
 School generally (Zeller, Volkmar, &c.), and is 
 maintained in a modified form by Hilgenfeld 
 and by PHeiderer, who deny, however, the single 
 authorship of the two letters; the former (inl. 
 pp- 666, 677) regarding the two as successive 
 editions by distinct hands, at an interval of 
 some twenty years, of a work designed by a 
 gnosticising Pauline Christian to re-assert the 
 diminished authority of St. Paul against the 
 opposite extremes of Gnosticism and Jewish 
 Christianity which had thrust it into the back- 
 ground in the Asiatic Churches (against this 
 assumption cp. Lightfoot, Col. pp. 50-62) ; while 
 Pfleiderer regards our Epistle as quite distinct 
 in aim from that to the Colossians, and as the 
 -work of a Pauline Jewish Christian, aiming at 
 the reconciliation of opposing parties in the 
 Church, and as chiefly directed against a hyper- 
 Pauline or rather Asiatic and Gnostic ( Urchristen- 
 -tum, pp. 584 sq., 693) Antinomianism coupled 
 with practical licence (Paulinism, ii.162). Lastly, 
 Weizsicker (Ap. Zeitalter, 1886, p. 561) sees in 
 the two Epistles the work of one hand, and 
 an attempt to rehabilitate in Asia Minor the 
 ‘forgotten authority of St. Paul. It may fairly 
 -be said that the “tendency criticism” of the 
 -Tiibingen School, whether in its original shape 
 ‘or in its later modifications, has failed to reach 
 any consistent result as to the origin of the 
 two Epistles. 
  (c.) More definite results were to be expected 
 from the method of literary analysis, especially 
 with regard to the mutual relations of Ephesians 
 
 and Colossians. If the genuineness of either is 
 
 953 
 
 called in question, their relative priority (to- 
 gether with their literary relation to other N.T. 
 writings) becomes a vital problem. Mayerhoff 
 (1888) had decided the question of priority in 
 favour of Ephesians, while questioning the 
 genuineness of either Epistle. But the majority 
 of critics decided in favour of Colossians until a 
 new departure was made by Hitzig (Zur Kritih: 
 paulin. Briefe, 1870), who suggested (following 
 a hint of Weisse in his Philos. Dogmatik, 1855) 
 the possibility of mutual priority, the wholly 
 spurious Epistle to the Ephesians having been 
 written in the time of Trajan, and then used by 
 its composer in order to interpolate a genuine 
 Epistle of St. Paul to the Colossians. This sug- 
 gestion was followed up by Hénig, who however 
 made the “ Interpolator ” a third person (Zeitschr. 
 7. wiss. Theol. 1872), and by Holtzmann, whose 
 elaborate essay (Kritik des Epheser- und Kolosser- 
 briefe auf Grund einer Analyse ihrer Verwand- 
 schaftsverhdltnisse, 1872) presents the problem 
 with a thoroughness which leaves nothing to be 
 desired. (His theory will be discussed below : it 
 is conveniently summarised in his Linleitung,” 
 pp- 291 sq.; but for its thorough appreciation 
 the original work is indispensable.) While Holtz- 
 mann’s general idea has been endorsed, but 
 with deviations in detail, by Hausrath, Pflei- 
 derer, Mangold (in Bleek, Zini.*) and others, 
 no one critic has so far adopted the theory 
 in its original and most consistent form. His 
 most recent and able follower, Von Soden 
 (“ Colosserbrief,” in Jahrb. Prot. Theol. 1885 ; 
 “ Epheserbrief,” did. 1887), has reduced Holtz- 
 mann’s theory almost to a vanishing point, by 
 re-asserting the genuineness of Colossians with 
 the exception of nine verses, and the spurious- 
 ness and dependence of Ephesians only. With a 
 remarkable reservation as to the latter (to be 
 noticed below), he thus brings back the ques- 
 tion to the status quo ante, and leaves it where 
 Weisse and Hitzig found it. His theory may be 
 summarised as follows:—The Epistle to the 
 Ephesians is un-Pauline in many of its ideas 
 and in much of its language (ep. infra, (3) c), 
 and is the work of an imitator thoroughly 
 familiar with the writings of St. Paul (worked 
 out by Von Soden in an elaborate criticism 
 of “reminiscences,” with little or no proof 
 that the resemblances are due to anything but 
 identity of authorship). The main interest 
 of the writer is in the ultimate destiny of the 
 Christian (p. 460) in relation to the glorified 
 Christ, and in connexion with His cosmic function. 
 In this cosmic redemptive process, of which the 
 Church (p. 463) is the instrument, there are two 
 stages: (1) Peace between Jews and Gentiles 
 (formation of the Church); (2) perfect realisa- 
 tion of the Church as the πλήρωμα of Christ, 
 with whom the Church is thus quasi-identified, 
 occupying the place which St. Paul himself 
 assigns rather to the individual (1 Cor. xi. 3, 5; 
 Gal. ii. 20). The letter accordingly is an attempt 
 to further the fusion of Jewish and Gentile 
 Christians after the fall of Jerusalem by an 
 appeal as from St. Paul in view of the peculiar 
 circumstances of the time, and is in fact (p. 495) 
 much what St. Paul would have written had he 
 lived till then. 
 
 The problem of the relation of Ephesians to 
 Colossians is gut rid of by the denial of any 
 special relation between them (except in the 
 
 EPHESIANS, EPISTLE TO THE 
 
954 EPHESIANS, EPISTLE TO THE 
 
 $i rejected verses of Colossians and the “ practical 
 portion ” of Ephesians). Of this contention, to 
 which Von Soden devotes several pages (109-121) 
 of laboured proof, it is enough to say τοῖς 
 φαινομένοις ἀμφισβητεῖ ἐναργῶς (e.g. he will 
 not allow any marked parallelism between 
 Ephes. iii. 2, 5-7, and Col. i. 25-27!). The dis- 
 cussion below [(3) e, a] will therefore take 
 account of Holtzmann rather than of Von Soden. 
 
 (3) Is the Epistle genuine? The purely 
 negative points will be considered first, then 
 evidence supposed to point to some positive date 
 later than St. Paul, lastly the literary relations 
 of the Epistle to other New Testament books, 
 especially to Colossians. ‘The latter relation, 
 however, enters into so many problems belong- 
 ing to our Epistle that in discussing the author- 
 ship of the one it is seldom possible to exclude 
 all reference to the other. 
 
 (a.) The historical situation —The points urged 
 are (1) absence of local or personal references; 
 (2) absence of personal acquaintance’ between 
 St. Paul and his readers. These objections, 
 pointedly summed up by Kamphausen in 
 his verdict that the Epistle was ‘either not 
 written by Paul or not written to the Ephe- 
 sians,” fall to the ground with the result of 
 our discussion (§ 2, a) of the destination of the 
 Epistle. (3) That it is unworthy of St. Paul to 
 have copied himself, as he must have done if 
 both Colossians and Ephesians are genuine 
 (against this, see above, § 2, ὁ, and below). It 
 may be added here that the Epistle to PHILEMON, 
 the genuineness of which has not been seriously 
 questioned, lends a historical context and corro- 
 boration to its two companions, so much so that 
 Baur, condemning the two latter, rejected Phile- 
 mon en that ground alone; his highly fanciful 
 explanation of its origin will be found in Paulus, 
 ii. p. 93.) The remark of Holtzmann (A7rit. p. 14; 
 more smartly put by Von Soden, p. 473) that 
 if the Epistle is genuine its traditional inscrip- 
 
 tion is a standing puzzle (against this see above, | 
 
 § 2, a) suggests the reply that this is still more 
 the case if it be spurious. If the imitator of 
 St. Paul wrote ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ (i. 1), he must have 
 been singularly lacking in ingenuity to have 
 avoided all reference to St. Paul’s intercourse 
 with the Ephesian Church. If he did not, how 
 are we to explain such a daring deviation from 
 his model? Holtzmann’s answer to this ques- 
 tion (p. 131) will scarcely satisfy anyone but 
 himself. Von Soden’s (p. 479) is ingenious, but 
 does not meet the difficulty. 
 
 (h.) Absence of characteristic Pauline ideas.— 
 Tt must be remembered in limine that it is one 
 thing to take the Pauline “homologumena” 
 (Galatians, Corinthians, Romans) as the standard 
 
 “ΟΕ Pauline doctrine and language, but quite 
 another thing to demand that St. Paul shall 
 
 1 Holtzmann insists on the contrast between the 
 colourlessness of our Epistle in this respect and the 
 richness of personal details in Acts xx. 17-38, or inRom. 
 xvi. 3-16, where ‘‘we have a genuine greeting from th » 
 Apostle to Ephesian Christians.” For the reasons which 
 have led a number of scholars (Renan, Reuss, Farrar, 
 &c., first suggested by Keggermann, 1767) to see in 
 Rom. xvi. 1-20 the fragments of a lost letter to the 
 Ephesians, see Romans, ErisTLe To Tne. 
 
 2 Baur’s view is revived by Weizsacker, Ap. Ziltr’. 
 1886, p. 565: see Renan (St. Paul, p. xi.). 
 
 EPHESIANS, EPISTLE TO THE 
 
 never be permitted to step beyond their special 
 vocabulary or special mental horizon, never be 
 supposed to be occupied with any problems or 
 
 controversies other than those of the period οὔ 
 
 his life to which they belong, nor to give to 
 conceptions developed in the conflicts of that 
 critical epoch a more positive and final expres- 
 sion. The same caution applies in some measure 
 to the attempt to compare such an Epistle as 
 ours with the four earlier ones in concentration, 
 power, and intensity. Such a psychological 
 crisis as marks the period of those letters does 
 not come twice in a man’s life, nor does it last 
 long * (see also the remarks in article on COLOS- 
 SIANS). It leaves its mark behind; but while 
 it lasts, it must draw from depths of the spirit 
 which less stirring conditions fail to sound. 
 Since the last Epistle of the main group was 
 written, nearly five years had passed, and much 
 had happened. The Epistle to the Romans was 
 St. Paul’s last word on the question of principle 
 between himself and the Judaisers. If the latter 
 were still at work, St. Paul did not think it 
 necessary to re-open against them a question 
 which had been argued out (see Philip. i. 17, 
 iii, 2). The Gentile Churches were growing, 
 and new diiliculties and dangers were threaten- 
 ing them. 
 
 The main Pauline characteristics missed by 
 the critics of our Epistle are: (1) Polemic against 
 Juduisers. 
 Our Epistle is probably at least a year later than 
 Philippians, where no such doctrinal polemic is 
 entered upon. The Asiatic Churches were now 
 exposed to a new Judaising influence (Col. ii. 16, 
 &c.), not tobe met in the old way. (2) Justifica- 
 tion by faith. It is certainly true that this Epistle, 
 like that to Colossians, contains no mention of 
 this doctrine. “The word ‘ justification’ does 
 not occur; the specific idea for which the word 
 stands does not occur” (Dale). But “to St. 
 Paul the doctrine of justification by faith was 
 not a final statement of Christian truth:” the 
 idea of justification had been the common ground 
 between St. Paul and his Judaising opponents ; 
 he had met their insistance upon the authority 
 of law by the doctrine of justification by faith, 
 “a conception of the Christian redemption ex- 
 pressed in terms of law:” this particular 
 expression of i belonged, then, to a controversy 
 of which already in the Epistle to the Philip- 
 pians (iii. 9) we catch merely the echo. “The 
 Fact which his account of Justification by Faith 
 represented in one form is represented here in 
 another. His mind and heart are filled with 
 the Divine Grace” (Dale, Lect.® x., pp. 170-177). 
 While πίστις. the human factor in salvation, is 
 not lost sight of (ii. 8, iii. 17, vi. 23), it is over- 
 shadowed by the Divine and Creative (Ephes. 
 ii. 10, iv, 22-24; 2 Cor. v. 17) factor xapis, 
 conceived in a manner admittedly Pauline 
 (Holtzm. Arit. p. 213). Hence the “ catholic 
 synthesis of faith and works” (id.), a rock of 
 offence to hostile critics, but here (ii. 10), as in 
 the older Epistles (Rom. vi. 4, 143 viii. 3, 4), 
 regarded as the work of the Spirit, resulting 
 
 k Against the view (current in Germany) that the 
 Epistle to the Galatians was written not less than three 
 years before those to the Corinthians and Romans, see 
 GALaTrIans, and Lightfoot, Gal. Introd. iii. (especially 
 on the close relation between Gal. and 2 Cor.). τ: 
 
 This is met by what has been said. — 
 
 : 
 
EPHESIANS, EPISTLE TO THE 
 
 from union with God through and in Christ. 
 (The transition to the Ephesian form of this 
 doctrine is to be found in Philip. ii.12, 13.) We 
 may add that the psychological and anthropo- 
 logical assumptions of the older Epistles are also 
 to be found here [e.g. the conception of σὰρξ as 
 the seat of lust and sin (ii. 3, Col, ii. 11), and 
 the intermediate position of the νοῦς, needing, 
 yet susceptible of, renewal (Col. ii. 18; Ephes. 
 iv. 23; cp. Rom. vii. 23, 25). The use of πνεῦμα 
 (iv. 23) is not more surprising than that in 
 2 Cor. vii. 1}. On the identity of the teaching 
 of this Epistle with that of the main Epistles on 
 the previous position of Jews and Gentiles, see 
 above, § 2 d (and on this part of the subject 
 generally, Weiss, Bivl. Theol. §§ 100, 101, the 
 general validity of whose results is allowed by 
 Holtzm. Avit. p. 205). So far, then, as ideas 
 characteristic of the “ homologumena” are absent 
 trom our Epistle, there is nothing in the fact 
 inconsistent with the genuineness of the latter. 
 But there remains the more crucial inquiry, 
 whether the Epistle contains ideas inconsistent 
 with the known mind of St. Paul, or wholly 
 foreign to it, or to anything in his historical 
 environment, ‘and whether its form betrays the 
 work of another hand. 
 
 (c.) Definitely un-Pauline Features.—i. Vo- 
 cabulary,' Style, and Constructions. It is an easy 
 method of impugning the genuineness of any 
 book to ascribe divergencies of language to 
 diversity of authorship, and coincidences to 
 imitation. Holtzmann, in his elaborate verbal 
 analysis (pp. 113-120, 151-148) of the Epistle, 
 has not always kept clear of this methoa, 
 although he is of course alive: to its fallacy. 
 His test (correspondence of idea) is satisfactory 
 so far as it goes, but diversity of idea, even 
 where the lancuage is strikingly alike, does not 
 demonstrate unintelligent ἘΠΕ ἘΝ (compare 
 eg. the similar passages, Rom. 15; v. 13, 
 vii. 8, each distinct from the ener in idea anid 
 connexion). Peculiar expressions there certainly 
 are in our Epistle, such as vi. 11, μεθοδεία τοῦ 
 διαβόλου (St. Paul always says σατανᾶς, ποῦ 
 διάβολος, except in 1 and 2 2 Tim.); v. 5 ἴστε 
 γινώσκοντες  ἰἰϊ. 21, εἰς πάσας τὰς γενέας τοῦ 
 αἰῶνος τῶν αἰώνων, and others: but many are 
 objected to with no show of fairness: 6.0. St. 
 Paul may imply (Rom. vi. 21), but may not 
 expressly state (Ephes. ν. 11), that Gentile sins 
 are ἄκαρπα; he may combine (Rom. y. 21) 
 ἁμαρτία and παράπτωμα in the singular, but not 
 in the plural, at least not with καί (Ephes. ii. 1); 
 he may give two lists of church officers (1 Cor. 
 
 1 As to the vocabulary, the facts are these. The 
 Hpistle contains about 2,400 words, that to the Colossians 
 about 1,600. Of the former, 36 are ἅπαξ λεγόμενα (in 
 the N. T. But this is nothing unusual; the Second 
 
 Epistle to the Corinthians, with something more than 
 
 5,000 words, has 100 ἅπαξ λεγόμενα, i.e. nearly 2 per 
 cent., as against 14 per cent. in our Epistle). The 
 Epistle to the Colossians has 33, just 2 per cent. Our 
 
 Epistle has 18 words (Colossians has 11) peculiar to Β΄. 
 Paul (omitting the Epistles to Colossians, Timothy, and 
 Titus from the argument), 39 New Testament words 
 not elsewhere used by St. Paul (Colossians has 15); while 
 of the (nearly) 600 words common to both Epistles, 10 
 are peculiar to them in the N. T., 5 peculiar to St. Paul, 
 G N. T. words not elsewhere used by St. Paul (see 
 Holtzmann, Arit. pp. 100, 111, and the Appendix to 
 ‘Thayer’s Lexicon of N. 1. Greek). 
 
 | xii, 285 
 
 EPHESIANS, EPISTLE TO THE 955 
 Nom. xii. 5), but must not give a third 
 (Ephes. iv. 11); he may speak of ἀγαπᾶν τὸν 
 θεὸν (Rom. viii. 28) and φιλεῖν τὸν Κύριον 
 (1 Cor, xvi. 21), but on no aecount of ἀγαπᾶν 
 τὸν Κύριον (Ephes. vi. 24); he may call his 
 converts “beloved children” of his own (1 Cor. 
 iv. M 17), but not “beloved children” of God 
 (v. 1; Holtzmann, p. 102, singles out this as 
 “a speaking example”).  Ditiuseness, tauto- 
 logy, catchwords and tricks of style (such 
 as fondness for indirect, questions after verbs 
 of knowledge, φωτίζειν τί τὸ πλοῦτος and 
 the like, i. 18, iii. 9), combination of cognate 
 words (i. 6, ii. 4, ili. 6), strings of genitives 
 (i. 6, 10, 18, 19, &c.), the use of πᾶς, especially 
 to intensify abstract nouns, are more or less 
 decided peculiarities of this Epistle and that to 
 the Colossians, many of which, however, are 
 found (with less frequency) elsewhere in St. 
 Paul. But when we are told (Holtzm. A7vit. 
 p- 139) that the occurrence of a word 
 (ἀνεξιχνίαστος) only in Rom. xi. 33 and Ephes. 
 iii. 8 is a proof that one place borrows from the 
 other, or that the writer of Ephes. iii. 14 can 
 only have derived the idea of bowing his knees 
 to God from the study of Rom. xi. 4 or xiy. 11, 
 we realise the deceptiveness of verbal coinci- 
 dences. The style of the Epistle is further 
 objected to as lacking the syllogistic structure, 
 the sharp dialectical spring, the nerve and spon- 
 taneity of the acknowledged writings of St. 
 Paul. This criterion is to some extent subjec- 
 tive: so far as it rests on tangible data (such as 
 the infrequency of γάρ, so characteristic of Rom., 
 Gal., Cor.; ἄρα οὖν, once only Ephes. ii. 19, 
 eight times in Rom., but only once in Gal., 
 1 Thess., not in Cor.; διό, five times in our 
 Epistle, quite as frequent as elsewhere), it is 
 amply explained by the fact that St. Paul is 
 not here engaged in argument. Nor is it 
 reasonable to look for uniformity or equality of 
 style in the letters of a man of action (see the 
 interesting parallel case of Xenophon, in Salmon, 
 Introd.,* p. 419, note). 
 
 ii. Ideas.—(1) Christology. The relation of 
 Christ’s Redemptive Work to the Universe (“ the 
 mere presence of which shows the later point of 
 view,” Holtzm.) is certainly a prominent thought 
 in our Epistle (i. 10; Col. i. 20), but it cannot 
 surprise us in the writer of Rom. viii, 18-23. 
 His original mediation in creation (Col. i. 18) is 
 admitted to be already expressed in 1 Cor. viii. 6. 
 From 1 Cor. xv. 27 the transition (through 
 Philip ii. 9, 10, as Holtzmann admits in Zeitschr. 
 wiss. Theol. 1881, p. 102, n.) to the doctrine of 
 our Epistles is ἘΠΕ great, nor in any way incon- 
 sistent with the final ὑποτάξις of the Son to the 
 Father as expressed in 1 Cor. xv. 28 (see also 
 CoLossIANS). Von Soden has made a very re- 
 markable discovery in this connexion (pp. 440 
 sqq.). After drawing out (most admirably) the 
 
 ‘way in which Christ pervades the Epistle from 
 
 end to end, standing always as the Centre of 
 Christian faith and hope, conduct and lite, as 
 the Bond of all Christian relations, as the 
 Source of all Christian graces, he appeals to this 
 leading characteristic of the letter, not indeed 
 as decisive proof, but as a confirmation of the 
 other proofs, of its w-Pauline authorship! To 
 realise the contrast, he bids us read Colossians 
 or Philippians, and note the difference of atmo-~ 
 sphere. It is certainly a novel test of an un- 
 
956 EPHESIANS, EPISTLE TO THE 
 
 Pauline work—that it is too full of Christ! 
 But Von Soden goes on to suggest (p. 443) 
 that the author is reacting against ἃ post- 
 apostolic and faded grasp of Christ us the 
 Centre of life and thought. The importance 
 of this admission is to be carefully noted. 
 Von Soden cannot refuse to see the gulf 
 between our Epistle with its energetic grasp 
 of a living Christ, and the whole group of 
 Apostolic Fathers and apologists to which he 
 supposes it to belong. Von Soden goes on to 
 remark that the Christology of the Epistle is 
 its most Pauline characteristic. (2) Angelology. 
 The addition of θρόνοι (Col. i. 16) and κυριότητες 
 (Ephes. i. 21) to the terms applied in the earlier 
 Epistles (Rom. viii. 88 ; 1 Cor. xv. 24) to angelic 
 beings (cp. Ephes. iii. 10) cannot reasonably be 
 objected to: their mention in connexion with 
 the exaltation of Christ (Ephes. i. 20) reminds 
 us of Philip. ii. 10, which also supplies a point of 
 contact for the ἐπουράνια of our Epistle, which 
 term, however, is here used in a more definitely 
 local sense (i. 3, 20; ii. 6; iii. 10; vi. 12). The 
 demonology (Ephes. ii. 2; iv. 27; vi. 11,12, 16) 
 is paralleled by 1 Cor. x. 20, and elsewhere, save 
 that 6 διάβολος or 6 πονηρὺς (Ephes. vi. 16) is 
 here substituted for the older σατανᾶς. (3) The 
 Church, and Christ as Head of the Church. It is 
 objected that whereas St. Paul knows of local 
 churches (e.g. xi. 16), we here for the first time 
 find the idea of the Church (but see Gal. i. 3; 
 1 Cor. x. 32); and further, that whereas in the 
 older Epistles the many members of Christ stand 
 in organic relations with one another through 
 Him (Rom. xii. 5; 1 Cor. xii. 13, 27), Christ 
 being the vital principle uniting (1 Cor. vi. 17) 
 and pervading the whole (1 Cor. xii. 12), in 
 those to Ephesians and Colossians (Ephes. i, 23, 
 iv. 15; Col. ii, 19, &c.) Christ is the “ Head,” 
 Z.¢c,a member of the organic whole, the Church 
 as such being reduced to a trunk! (Holtzm. Arit. 
 p. 240.) As this criticism has been gravely 
 adopted by several German scholars (¢.g. Von 
 Soden, Col. p. 514, also Lphes. p. 467), it may 
 not be superfluous to point out that although 
 the former metaphor may be the more adequate, 
 either metaphor is perfectly natural, and ex- 
 pressive of part of the truth (ep, 1 Cor. xi. 3), 
 but that any metaphor may be pressed too far. 
 It should be further remarked that as the head 
 is incomplete without its body, so the Church is 
 the πλήρωμα of Christ, its Head (i. 23), inasmuch 
 as it is only in the Church that God’s purpose in 
 the κένωσις of his Son is completed (Ephes. i. 10: 
 ep. Philip. ii. 7, 9, 10; Rom. viii. 21; 1 Cor. xv. 
 25). (4) Intellectualism. It is certainly true 
 that ἐπίγνωσις and its cognate ideas (i. 17, iv. 
 13: ep. σύνεσις, iii. 45 φρόνησις, copia, i. 8,17; 
 ἀποκάλυψις, i. 17, iii. 3, 5, 10; γνωρίζειν, 
 φωτίζειν, i. 18, iii. 9: see a more complete list in 
 Holtzm. γέ. 217) play a very prominent part 
 in our Epistle, the key-note to which (see above, 
 § 2, d sub fin.) is the earnest desire of St. Paul 
 for the increase in spiritual enlightenment of the 
 Gentile Christians. Itshould be noted that here 
 again the Epistle to the Philippians comes to our 
 aid (Philip. i. 9, 10), opening in the same strain, 
 and revealing the same desire on St. Paul’s part 
 on behalf of another Gentile community at a 
 slightly earlier date (cp. also Philip. iii. 15, 
 
 φρονεῖν, ἀποκαλύπτειν, and Philip. iv. 8, also 
 
 1 Cor. i. 5 sqq.). That St. Paulshould recognise | 
 
 EPHESIANS, EPISTLE TO 'THE 
 
 wisdom as a factor in Christian perfection (ep. 
 1 Cor. ii. 6, iii. 1 sqq., xiv. 20, &c.) is not 
 surprising : to see a “ theosophical ” tinge in the 
 enlightenment which he desires for his readers 
 is purely arbitrary, The thought (of 1 Cor. ii. 
 6-16, ἄς.) that the revelation of Christ is the 
 deepest wisdom satisfies even such passages as 
 Col, i. 26, 27, ii. 2, 3; Ephes. iii. 3 sqq. The 
 μυστήριον of these Epistles is no esoteric or 
 abstruse doctrine, but St. Paul’s “gospel” of 
 the calling of the Gentiles (the use of the word 
 in Ephes. ν. 32 stands by itself. On the word 
 μυστήριον in these Epistles, see Lightfoot on 
 Col. i. 26, 28; on ἐπίγνωσις, see his note on 
 Philip. i. 9). The prominence given to ἐπίγνωσις 
 and its cognates in this Epistle 1s quite explicable, 
 therefore, in view of the phenomena of Philip- 
 pians on the one hand, and of St. Paul’s earlier 
 teaching on the other. For a more thorough 
 discussion, see Weiss, 2.7., § 102; also cp. Von 
 Soden, p. 456 sq. 
 
 (d.) Indications of post-Apostolic date.-—(1) 
 General. To this head belongs the alleged 
 “ studied assumption of St. Paul’s personality ” 
 (iii. 1-3, 7; iv. 1; vi. 20); the expressions ἅγιοι 
 ἀπόστολοι, iii. 5; ἐλαχιστότερος, iii. 8 (“ an 
 extravagant imitation of 1 Cor. xv. 9”); the 
 enumeration of church-officers, iv. 11 (ποιμένες 
 καὶ διδάσκαλοι, “union of the two offices late: 
 the gifts of miracles and tongues have ceased, as 
 is shown by comparison with 1 Cor. xii. 28”); 
 “the destruction of Jerusalem has taken place.” 
 (Holtzmann, Αγ. p. 160, infers this from Col. 
 iii, 1, 2; Ephes. ii. 6, comparing Heb, xii. 22, but 
 why not Gal. iv. 26?) Lastly, the age is one of 
 many sects (iv. 13, 14; Baur, Ewald, Holtz- 
 mann, &c., importing too much into the Greek). 
 It is not necessary to examine at length all 
 of the above and some other lesser objections, 
 urged by almost every adverse critic of the 
 Epistle ; but those founded on the difficult passage 
 iii. 5, 4, and on the phrase cited above from iii. 
 5, are not, so easy to meet. Of the last no very 
 satisfactory explanation has been given—see 
 Meyer in loco and Schmidt—and taken alone 
 it would certainly appear to reveal a writer who 
 looked upon the Apostles and Prophets with the 
 distant veneration of a later date rather than as 
 one of their namber. But it must be remarked 
 that the epithet ἅγιοι stands in close connexion 
 with the parallel passage in Colossians (i. 26), 
 in which τοῖς ἁγίοις αὐτοῦ corresponds to the 
 τοῖς ἁγίοις ἀποστόλοις αὐτοῦ καὶ προφήταις of 
 our present passage. The ἅγιοι in general are 
 the mediate or general (ἐφανερώθη), the am. k. 
 mpop. the immediate or special (ἀπεκαλύφθη), 
 recipients of the revelation. Is it not possible, 
 then, that the word ἁγίοις was meant to have 
 the same sense in our passage as it had in 
 Col. i, 26, but that the words as they stand 
 have in some way been dislocated? Reuss 
 (Gesch. N. T.6 p. 166) suggests that this is due 
 toa gloss. But even leaving the passage as it 
 stands, this difficulty alone will only turn the 
 scale if the other evidence is more niceiy balanced 
 than the writer of this article can regard it as 
 being. The problem is not unlike that involved 
 in Rev. xxi. 14, where the twelve Apostles seem 
 to be looked at by the writer ab extru. 
 
 (2) Gnosticism.—Baur (Paulus, ii. pp. 10-25) 
 regarded the two Epistles as belonging to the 
 earlier stages of the Gnostic development, “at 
 
EPHESIANS, EPISTLE TO THE 
 
 which the Gnostic ideas still passed as unobjec- 
 tionable Christian speculation.” (His arguments 
 to prove that they also bear traces of early 
 Montanist ideas—rpopjjra, progressive maturity 
 of the Church, the Spirit, holiness of the Church, 
 &c.—need no longer be examined: they break 
 down in the face of Marcion’s possession of our 
 Epistle, and “would prove almost any Epistle 
 of St. Paul to be Montanist,” Holtz. <Arit. 
 p. 276.) His main arguments, in which he was 
 tollowed by the Tiibingen School generally, and 
 
 in part by Holtzmann and others, are the use of 
 the term πλήρωμα---Ὀαῦ in these Epistles it is 
 always, except Col. i. 19 (where the context 
 suggests τῆς Oeor.), a relative term, πλήρωμά 
 tT.vos, Whereas in the Gnostic systems it is used 
 absolutely, as a term with a fixed denotation: 
 see also Lightfoot’s discussion (Coloss. p. 257 
 sqq.)—the use of αἰῶνες (‘ personified as the 
 vehicles of divine ideas,” a conception wholly 
 foreign to this Epistle), γενέαι (not “ spiritual 
 existences,” but human generations ; cp. Ephes. 
 iii. 5), and, in connexion with this, the Christo- 
 logy-and Angelology (on which see above), the 
 “ Syzygia” of Christ and the Church—the descent 
 into hades, Ephes. iv. 8 (not peculiar to Gnostics, 
 ep. 1 Pet. iii. 18 ; but the reference is disputed)— 
 the * intellectualism ” of the Epistles (the anti- 
 podes of esoteric Gnosis: see above). Doubtless 
 there are coincidences with Gnostic terminology, 
 but they are most simply explained by Gnostic 
 borrowings from St. Paul. Moreover, if it be 
 contended that our Epistle, without betraying 
 traces of any particular Gnostic system, yet 
 anticipates Gnosticism in its glances into tran- 
 scendent and mystical regions, this may be 
 allowed, in the sense in which we can trace “a 
 Gnostic element in Paulinism”’ itself (Holtz. 
 Einl.* p. 134). For a fuller discussion of the 
 question, the article of Dr. Milligan (ut supra) 
 may be consulted. 
 
 (8) Faded Paulinism.—The adequate discus- 
 sion of this note οἵ time would involve a dis- 
 cussion of current theories of the history of the 
 sub-Apostolic age, and of the manner in which 
 the various elements which the Church included 
 from the first (Jewish, Gentile, Pauline, &c.) 
 became assimilated. That this was on a basis 
 common to all follows from the nature of the 
 problem. That this again involved mutual ap- 
 proximation and the formation of a common or 
 average presentment of doctrine, in which much 
 of the individuality of such a teacher as St. 
 Paul would be missed, is no more than may 
 fairly be gathered from the character of (say) 
 the Epistle of Clement. To show that the 
 essential and moving faith of the Gospel was not 
 
 involved in any such process would be possible | 
 
 in the proper place. But what concerns us here 
 is the question whether we have before us a 
 product of the peculiar mind of St. Paul (Paul- 
 inism in the strictest sense), or merely the 
 reflex of his teaching in a mind other than his 
 own, under the influence of later circumstances, 
 and able to enter only into the general forms, | 
 not into the inmost personal spirit, of heed 
 Apostle of the Gentiles. What has been pointed 
 
 EPHESIANS, EPISTLE TO THE 957 
 out above (§ 2, ὦ, and preliminary remarks to 
 the present §; see also § 3, b) goes far, it is 
 submitted, to decide for the former alternative. 
 it may be admitted that the sharp outlines of 
 the conflict which colours the earlier Epistles 
 have faded in that to the Ephesians: but this 
 was already the case in Philippians (see above, 
 § 3, b). The general character of the post- 
 Apostolic age is found (see eg. Holtzmann, 
 FEinl.? p., 106) in a “Christian legalism,” a co- 
 ordination of faith and works, a tendency to 
 translate Pauline ideas into ethical generalities. 
 Now, as far as our Epistle is concerned, the main 
 example of this tendency is found in ii. 8-10, a 
 passage wholly similar in idea to Philip. ii. 12,13; 
 nor can it be justly said that Christian ethics 
 are in either passage placed on a foundation 
 different from that of Rom. vi. 1 sqq. (see Weiss, 
 Bib. Theol. § 101 b, and note 5; also Pfleiderer’s 
 admissions as to “successful harmonising,” &c. ; 
 Paulinism, ii. p. 189). To take one more ex- 
 ample, Pfleiderer (i. p. 181) objects that the 
 Epistle gives an ethical turn (i. 7, ii. 4, v. 25, 
 but especially v. 2) to the Death of Christ, thus 
 showing that the writer “ was not familiar with 
 the idea of an expiatory death.” This, again, 
 is a charge which might equally be brought 
 against the Epistle to the Philippians (ii. 8, 
 ||. 10); but is not the distinction between 
 θυσία (Ephes. v. 2) and ἱλαστήριον (Rom. iii. 
 27) rather a precarious support for so sweeping 
 a conclusion? As a matter of fact, in speaking 
 of the Death of Christ St. Paul goes back inva- 
 riably to the ultimate moral ideas upon which 
 the compound and symbolic idea of sacrifice rests : 
 only in Ephes. y. 2 is the term προσφύρα or 
 θυσία expressly applied to it. (See Weiss, B.7. 
 § 80 c, notes 8-10; on the relation of Christ’s 
 death to the reconciliation of Jews and Gentiles, 
 a point also objected to by Pfleiderer, see above, 
 § 2. d.) 
 
 We are unable, therefore, to regard as suc- 
 
 | cessful any attempt to identify the date of our 
 
 Epistle with some definite period of the post- 
 Apostolic age. But can we not, by an analysis 
 of its relations to other N. T. writings, trace it 
 definitely to an imitator of St. Paul ? 
 
 (e.) Literary genesis of the Epistle.—a. Relation 
 to Colossians. ‘This is the touchstone of the 
 entire question of authorship: it was the first 
 ground that raised the question (supra, § 3, (2) 
 a), and upon it depends almost every problem 
 relating to the Epistle. It is necessary first to 
 show the extent of the correspondence between 
 the two Epistles. It may be said that with the 
 exception of the Christological passages (Col. i- 
 15 sq.; ii. 3, 9, 10, 14, 15), the passages relating 
 to the Colossian heresy, certain personal matter 
 (Epaphras, Onesimus, &c.), and one or two lesser 
 features (¢.g. Col. 1. 24: iii. 1-45 iv. 6), the 
 whole of the Epistle to Colossians is more or less 
 directly reproduced in that to the Ephesians. The 
 table™ of strictly warallel passages does not 
 do full justice to the facts: many passages 
 which at first appear peculiar to Colossians cor- 
 respond, though not verbally, to passages of the: 
 sister Epistle. To take an example unpromising 
 
 m The following list of parallelisms is fairly complete: for the convenienc2 of the discussion in the text it is 
 divided, in accordance with Holtzmann’s hypothesis, into two classes. It is impossible to denote the exact degree 
 of similarity in each place; it varies from entire paragraphs to single words or expressions. This also explains 
 
 the fact that portions of the same verse in some cases appear in both cl:sses of parallelisms, 
 
 For other tables, see 
 
958 EPHESIANS, EPISTLE TO THE 
 
 at first sight, compare Col. iii. 11 with Ephes. ii. | 
 15, i. 23, iv. 13 (unity of Church in Christ, who | 
 is ali in all, in context with the idea of the | 
 corporate new or perfect man, effacing pre-existing 
 lines of division). To show it in detail would 
 involve a comparative analysis of the two 
 Epistles: but the converse might also be shown, 
 that, excepting the topics of the relations of 
 Jew and Gentile, the unity of the Church as | 
 including both, the marriage of the Church to | 
 Christ, the Spirit, the contrast of darkness and 
 light, and the armour of God, there is little in | 
 our Epistle that is not also to be found in 
 Colossians. 
 
 Starting from the argument that literal 
 simultaneity is tinpossible, Holtzmann lays stress 
 on the cul de sac in which both critics and 
 defenders of the Epistles find themselves, in | 
 face of the question which of the twin Epistles 
 came first into the world. (In_ particular 
 he poises the καὶ ὑμεῖς of Ephes. vi. 21—no | 
 καὶ in Col. iv. 7—against the καὶ ὑμεῖς of | 
 Col. iii, 8—no καὶ in Ephes. iv. 22—the καὶ 
 in either case appearing to presuppose a similar 
 message already penned for other readers.) 
 Assuming that this holds good (against the view 
 taken above, ὃ 2, c), he proceeds to his first | 
 main step, the proof that neither Ipistle can 
 claim priority throughout (as had been assumed 
 in earlier discussions), While in many passages 
 Colossians shows indisputable originality, the 
 same can be shown of Ephesians in other cases. 
 He then propounds the explanation of a common 
 original in the shape of a short Pauline Epistle 
 to Colossians, used (with other genuine Epistles 
 of St. Paul) by the composer of Ephesians. The 
 latter Epistle is then used by its composer to fill 
 out the original Epistle, which also receives 
 Christological and polemical additions, directed 
 
 | 
 
 Meyer, Introd. to this Ep. ; Moltzm. Avif. p. 25, and (more complete) Einl.? p. 291. 
 
 passages about which Holtzmann appears now (Hinl.*) to 
 
 (1) Alleged priority on side of Colossians. 
 
 EPHESIANS, EPISTLE TO THE 
 
 against an early form of Gnosticism; the result. 
 being our present, “ half-Pauline, half-Ephesian,” 
 Epistle to Colossians. The theory is then further 
 corroborated (p. 130), first by the fact that the 
 paralielisms which are due to the original Pau-. 
 line letter occur in different order in the two 
 Epistles, while those due to the “ Autor ad 
 Ephesios ” proceed pari passu, owing to the 
 systematic use of his own work made by the 
 latter in his interpolations (a glance at the 
 list given in note ™ will show that this is not 
 everywhere the case): secondly, by a most 
 
 ' minute analysis of the Epistles, with the aim of 
 
 showing (1) the dependence of Ephesians through- 
 out upon St. Paul’s admitted Epistles, but 
 especially upon the alleged original Epistle to 
 
 | Colossians ; (2) that the latter is unmistakably 
 
 Pauline and original, in addition to hanging 
 better together than the existing Epistle to 
 Colossians ; (3) that the latter is marked by 
 repetitions corresponding to the double use 
 alleged to have been made of it (“doublets ”), 
 and that it has in every way a double look,— 
 style, theology, the heresy combated, all in 
 some respects like what we know of St. Paul, 
 
 _ while in others they present features of a later 
 
 date. Finally, after a glance at analogous cases 
 of interpolation (successive forms of apocryphal 
 acts, &c., Epistle of Polycarp, but especially 
 Ignatian Epistles), and an examination of the 
 doctrinal characteristics of the two Epistles, 
 their relation to the rest of the N. T. literature 
 is estimated, and the date, motives, and historical 
 circumstances of their production hypothetically 
 
 | determined. 
 
 In order to estimate the force of this indict- 
 ment against our Epistle, we must remember 
 that Holtzmann relies throughout on the 
 validity of the negative criticism (see above, a—d), 
 
 The asterisks (*) denote 
 have changed his mind. 
 
 (2) Alleged priority on side of Ephesians. 
 
 Col. i. 1, 2 = Ephes. i. 1, 2. Ephes. i. 4 = Col. i. 22. } 
 Col. i. 3, 4 = Ephes. i. 16, 15. Kphes. i. 6, 7 = Col. i. 13 (τ. ay.), 14. 
 Col. i. 5 SH DNES a to, 1, 19. Lo. Iephes. i. 7-11 = (Col. i. 9, 16,17; 19; 20. 
 Col. i. 9 = Ephes. i. 15, 16. Ephes. i. 17 = Col. i. 9, 10: 
 Col. i. 10 = Ephes. iv. 1. Ephes. i. 18 = Cole 27" cp. ΠΕΣ 
 Col. 1. 13 = Ephes. ii. 2, 3. Ephes. i. 19, 20 -= Col. i. 11; ii. 12 (meer) ; iii. 1. 
 Col, i. 2L = Ephes. ii. 1, 2, 10, 18, 15. Ephes. i. 21-23 = Col. i. 16, 18, 195 ii. 10. 
 Col. i. 22 = Ephes. ii. 13, 16. Ephes. ii. 2, 3 == ΘΒ sit: Fe 
 Col. i. 23 = Ephes. iii. 1. Ephes. ii. 10 = Col. 1.10. - 
 Col. i. 25 = Ephes. iii. 2, 7, 8: Ephes. ii. 11 ΞΞΕ (ΔΙ. Manly 3: 
 (ΟἹ. i. 29 = Ephes. iii. 7, 20. Ephes. ii. 12, 13-17 = Col. i. 20, 21 (in part); ? ii. 14 (Soy.). 
 Col. ii. 4 = Ephes. iv. 17; v. 6. Ephes. ii. 20 = Col. 111. 7 (ἐποικ.). 
 Col. ii. 6,75 = Ephes. iv. 17, 20, 21. Ephes. iii. 1 = Col. i. 24. 
 Col. ii. 88 = Ephes. iv. 14. Ephes. iii. 3, 4, 5, 9, 16 = Col. i. 26, 27, 28 (cp. iv. 3).* 
 Col. ii. 12 = Ephes. i. 20; ii. 6. Ephes. iii. 10 = Col. i. 16; cp. ii. 15. 
 Col. ii. 13 = Ephes. ii. 1, 4, 5. Ephes. iii. 13 ΞΕ: 24. 
 Col. ii. 14, 20 = Ephes. ii. 15. Ephes. iii. 17 ΞΞ ΘΙ 
 Col. iii. 3» = Ephes. iii. 9. Ephes. iii. 18 ΞΞΙΟΟΙ. 1. δ. Δ Υ 5 11 2.5 
 Col. iii. 12,13 = Ephes. iv. 2, 32; v. 1,2. Ephes. iv. 3, 4 = Ool. iii. 14, 15. 
 Col. iii. 17 = Ephes. v. 20. Ephes. iv. 13 =. Col. i. 28 (πάντ.). 
 Col. iv. 2, 34, 4>= Ephes. vi. 18-20». Ephes. iv. 15, 16 = (Colo. 18% 5 11... 10. cp: ties 
 Col, iv. 5 = Ephes. v. 15, 16. Ephes. iv. 18 = Col. i. 21. 
 Col. iv. 6 = Ephes. iv. 29. Ephes. iv. 19 = Col. iii. 5.* 
 Col. iv. 7,8 | = Ephes. vi. 21, 22. Ephes. iv. 21-24 = Col. iii. 9, 10.* 
 Ephes. iv. 25-31 ΞΞΊΟΟΙ: ii. 8,198 *? 
 Ephes. v. 3-6 = Col. iii. 5, 6,* 8 (cp. ii. $b), 
 Ephes. v. 19 = Col. iii. 16.* 
 Ephes. v. 22-25, 28 = Col. iii. 18, 19.* 
 Ephes. ν. 23 = Col. i. 18. 
 Ephes. vi. 1, 4-9 = Col. iii. 20-iv. 1.* 
 Ephes, vi. 205 = Col. iv. 3, 4. 
 
EPHESIANS, EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS, EPISTLE TO THE 959 
 
 which he re-states with the greatest lucidity and | (especially with reference to the heresy combated 
 incisiveness, and seeks to supplement by a positive | and the internal unity of the composition) are 
 account of the phenomena. If the negative | clearly shown, It may be added that many of 
 criticism holds good, some theory of the kind is | the phenomena relied on by Holtzmann have 
 needed: if what has been alleged in reply has | been shown by Von Soden (see infra) to warrant 
 any weight, and if the account (sup: ‘a, 2, ¢, d) | no such inference as Holtzmann supposed, This 
 of the Pauline origin of the Epistle is natural and | latter fact also destroys what at first seems a 
 probable, the hypothesis becomes unnecessary | strong recommendation of the hypothesis, viz. the 
 and artificial. Remembering this, we proceed to | coinc idence in support of it fs so many indepen- 
 test it on its merits. dent tests (Arit. pp. 99, 130). The facts in 
 
 Holtzmann’s hypothesis examined.—So far as | reality yield no such dentain sound as is taken 
 the hypothesis depends on phenomena peculiar | for granted : the hypothesis is ready before their 
 to the Colossian Epistle, we may refer to the investigation is begun, and all th: at they have to 
 article upon it, and to Lightfoot’s commentary, | do is to fall, whether they will or no, into their 
 where the essential homogeneity of that Epistle assigned place. This stares us in the face, so 
 and the consistency of its ideas and notes of time | soon as we examine Holtzmann’s case in detail. 
 
 Gi.) Instances of priority. 
 Christ the Head of the Church. 
 
 ᾿ Ephes. iv. 16. Col. ii. 19. 
 ὃς ἐστιν ἡ κεφαλή, Χριστός, τὴν κεφαλήν, 
 ~ ἐξ οὗ πᾶν τὸ σῶμα ἐξ οὗ πᾶν τὸ σῶμα 
 συναρμολογούμενον καὶ συμβιβαζόμενον διὰ τῶν ἁφῶν καὶ συνδέσμων 
 διὰ πάσης ἁφῆς τῆς ἐπιχορηγίας πιχορηγούμενον καὶ συνβιβαζόμενον 
 κατ᾽ ἐνέργειαν ἐν μέτρῳ ἑνὸς ἑκάστου 
 μέρους τὴν αὔξησιν τοῦ σώματος αὔξει τὴν αὔξησιν τοῦ Θεοῦ. 
 
 ποιεῖται εἰς οἰκοδομὴν ἑαυτοῦ ἐν ἀγάπῃ. 
 
 Here the passage in Colossians has the ad-' (cp. Gal. iii. 5; 2 Cor. ix. 10), and of αὔξειν 
 vantage in point of conciseness and perspicuity, (αὐξάνειν only transitive in St. Paul), Holtzmann 
 gained however at the expense of the idea of (ΛΊΠ. pp. 51, 142, 158) regards the Ephesian 
 mutual interdependence among the members, passage as the original. The precariousness of 
 which the language in the Ephesian parallel every one of these numerous tests is sufficiently 
 labours to bring out. On this ground, coupled | shown by the fact that, in spite of them all, he 
 with the greater fitness of ἐξ οὗ after the | now regards the Colossian passage as original 
 masculine Χριστός, the naturalness of the passage | and genuine (Hinl.? p. 296, line 25, so also Von 
 in its Ephesian rather than in its Colossian | Soden), while Pfleiderer regards it as spurious, 
 context, the “‘ un-Pauline ” sense of ἐπιχορηγεῖν _ but as the original of the other (ii. pp. 100, 103). 
 
 Hymns and Spiritual Songs- 
 Ephes. v. 19. Col. iii. 16. 
 λαλοῦντες ἑαυτοῖς ψαλμοῖς καὶ ὕμνοις καὶ ὠδαῖς διδάσκοντες καὶ νουθετοῦντες ἑαυτοὺς ψαλμοῖς 
 [πνευματικαῖς] ἄδοντες καὶ ψάλλοντες τῇ καρδία ὑμῶν v μνοις ᾧὠδαῖς πνευματικαῖς ἐν [τῇ] χάριτι ἄδοντες ἐν 
 τῷ Κυρίῳ. ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν τῷ Θεῴ. 
 
 Here the Colossian passage is the more ex-{ Holtzmann as the original. But, in spite of the 
 panded of the two: the λαλοῦντες of Ephesians | “ un-Pauline” (ifrit. p. 164) language of the 
 is replaced by a more definite phrase: on these | passage, it is now (Hin/.? ubi supra, and Von 
 grounds and on that of the more obvious con- | Soden, Col. p. 528) restored to the Apostle, and 
 nexion in Ephesians, the latter is regarded by | the priority previously inferred is inverted. 
 
 The Reconciliation wrought by Christ. 
 
 Col. i. 20-22. Ephes. ii. 14-16. Col. ii. 14. 
 
 καὶ δι αὐτοῦ ἀποκαταλ- αὐτὸς γάρ ἐστιν ἡ εἰρήνη ἡμῶν ὃ ποιήσας 
 λάξαι τὰ πάντα εἰς αὐτόν, εἰρη- | τὰ ἀμφότερα ἕν καὶ τὸ μεσότοιχον τοῦ 
 νοποιήσας διὰ τοῦ αἵματος φραγμοῦ λύσας, τὴν ἔχθραν ἐν τῇ σαρκὶ ἐξαλείψας τὸ καθ᾽ ἡμῶν χειρό- 
 τοῦ σταυροῦ αὐτοῦ, [δι᾽ αὐτοῦ] αὐτοῦ, τὸν νόμον τῶν ἐντολῶν ἐν δόγμασι | Ὑρᾶάφον τοῖς δόγμασι ὃ ἣν 
 εἴτε τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς εἴτε τὰ ἐν τοῖς καταργήσας, ἵνα τοὺς δύο κτίσῃ ἐν αὐτῷ εἰς ὑπεναντίον ἡμῖν, καὶ αὐτὸ ἦρκεν 
 οὐρανοῖς " καὶ ὑμᾶς ποτὲ ὄντας ἕνα καινὸν ἄνθρωπον, ποιῶν εἰρήνην, ἐκ τοῦ μέσον προσηλώσας 
 ἀπηλλοτριωμένους καὶ ἐχθροὺς | καὶ ἀποκαταλλάξῃ τοὺς ἀμφοτέρους ἐν αὐτὸ τῷ σταυρῷ" ἀπεκδυσάμενος 
 τῇ διανοίᾳ ἐν τοῖς ἔργοις τος ἑνὶ σώματι τῷ θεῷ διὰ τοῦ σταυροῦ, - - - - ἐν αὐτῷ. 
 πονηροῖς,--νυνὶ δὲ ἀποκατήλ- ἀποκτείνας τὴν ἔχθραν ἐν αὐτῷ. 
 Aaéev ἐν τῷ σωματι τῆς σαρ- 
 κὺς αὐτοῦ διὰ τοῦ θανάτου. 
 
 The question of priority as between these | statement as to something accomplished by the 
 three passages (see Holtzmann, A7it. pp. 63 sq., | instrumentality of the latter (ἐν αὐτῷ following 
 92 sq., 137, 151; Pfleid. ii. p. 179 sq.) is highly | an aorist participle in both places). The Ephesian 
 complicated. The Ephesian passage is connected | passage. thus closely connected with the others 
 with Col. i. by the ideas of an enmity reconciled, | by its wording, yet embraces quite a distinct 
 peace being made, and that through the Cross, idea. Common to all three is the thought of the 
 and by the phrases évy .. . σώματι and τῆς | Cross as the instrument of man’s reconciliation 
 σαρκός (τῇ capxi)—with Col. ii. by the references | to God; but while in Col. i. this is deduced from 
 to the abolition of δόγματα, to the removal of a | the idea of its cosmic efficacy, and in Col. ii. is 
 μέσον, to the Cross, and by the supplementary | connected with that of cancelling a bond or 
 
950 EPHESIANS, EPISTLE TO THE 
 
 indictment (and while in each of the two 
 Colossian passages the process has reference also 
 to superhuman beings), in Ephes. ii. the common 
 reconciliation of Jew and Gentile to God (v. 16) 
 is in close relation (supra, § 2, d, e) with the re- 
 moval of the ancient barrier between the two; the 
 ideas ἔχθρα, εἰρήνη, μέσον, δόγμα, are adapted to 
 this specific reference; and lastly the Colossian 
 phrase ἐν τῷ σώματι THs σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ assumes 
 ἃ new colour, the verbaliy parallel ἐν ἑνὶ σώματι 
 (cp. Col. iii. 15) referring to the (mystical) body 
 of Christ regarded as embracing all reconciled 
 mankind without distinction, while ἐν τῇ σαρκὶ 
 αὐτοῦ (v. 15) preserves the idea of the literal 
 body of the Crucified, but with the secondary 
 instrumental reference. The Ephesian passage 
 is therefore regarded by both Holtzmann and 
 Pflciderer as, at least mainly, modelled upon its 
 parallels, the writer having thrown his subject 
 (the reconciliation of Jew and Gentile in Christ) 
 into confusion by borrowing from the passages 
 in Colossians language there used to express a 
 different idea. Hence the changed sense of 
 σῶμα, and the irrelevant ἐν τῇ σαρκὶ αὐτοῦ, 
 irrelevant because “ the slain body of Christ can- 
 not well be regarded as a means of reconciliation 
 ... between Jew and Gentile ” (Pfleiderer, p. 180). 
 This extravagant criticism comes strangely from 
 Pfleiderer, who has so clearly drawn out the 
 significance of Christ’s death to St. Paul in this 
 respect (i. p. 7, ii. p. 44). The whole argument, 
 in fact, for the priority of Colossians in this 
 parallelism is open to the charge of ignoring, 
 firstly, the main idea of the Epistle to the 
 Ephesians (supra, § 2, d); secondly, the fact 
 that, of the leading thoughts respectively dis- 
 tinctive of the three passages (cosmic efficacy of 
 Christ’s death, abolition of the law and consequent 
 unification of all in Christ, abolition of the law 
 as a hostile bond), that of Ephes. ii. 14 is in most 
 immediate contact with the earlier teaching of 
 St. Paul,—whence Holtzmann expunges, inter 
 alia, all cosmic references from the first passage, 
 while Von Soden also condemns part of the 
 third; — thirdly, the extremely plain and 
 straightforward connexion of the whole passage 
 in Ephesians (ii. 11-20), the spontaneous flow 
 of which absolutely forbids the idea of such 
 laboured and unintelligent compilation as its 
 
 Ephes. iv. 22-24, 
 4 , ~ Seer ΄ > . κ᾿ 
 ἀποθέσθαι ὑμᾶς κατὰ τὴν προτέραν ἀναστροφὴν τὸν 
 παλαιὸν ἄνθρωπον τὸν φθειρόμενον κατὰ τὰς ἐπιθυ- 
 μίας τῆς ἀπάτης, ἀνανεοῦσθαι δὲ τῷ πνεύματι τοῦ νοὸς 
 ὑμῶν, καὶ ἐνδύσασθαι τὸν καινὸν ἄνθρωπον τὸν 
 κατὰ θεὸν κτίσθεντα ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ καὶ ὁσιότητι 
 τῆς ἀληθείας. 
 Cp. Rom. vi. 6. ὃ παλαιὸς ἡμῶν ἄνθρωπος. 
 2 Cor. iv. 16, 
 
 Rom. xiii. 12,14. ἀποθώμεθα οὗν... 
 
 In 1872 the latter passages were supposed to 
 have been laid under contribution by the com- 
 piler of Ephesians, who subsequently abridged 
 his patchwork in the passage Col. iii. In 1886 
 the latter is supposed to be from the hand of 
 St. Paul (Holtzm. Zini.?; Von Soden, Col. 
 p- 253), the borrowing from the older Epistles 
 on the part of Ephesians being, as a consequence, 
 restricted to the least obvious points of resem- 
 blance (φθειρόμενον 3. Resemblances which 
 
 εἰ καὶ ὁ ἔξω ἡμῶν ἄνθρωπος διαφθείρεται, ἀλλ᾽ ὁ ἔσω ἡμῶν ἀνακαινοῦται .. . 
 V. 17, καινὴ κτίσις (and Gal. vi. 15). 
 . ἀλλὰ ἐνδύσασθε τὸν κύριον ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστόν. 
 
 EPHESIANS, EPISTLE TO THE 
 
 supposed genesis involves.—The above is on the 
 
 whole the strongest case of supposed priority ; 
 
 and if the result of a careful examination is so 
 indecisive, may we not reasonably say that the 
 
 method itself is open to suspicion? (Cp. Von 
 Soden, Col. p. 328, “ But who does not know 
 
 how precarious are all conjectures, in literary’ 
 
 criticism, as to the relative priority of parallel 
 passages ?’’) 
 
 ii. Critical Analysis of Ephesians. 
 is supposed to bring to light a mere or less 
 
 studied “literary dependence” on St. Paul’s 
 
 earlier Episties. The “auctor ad Ephesios,” 
 
 while borrowing most directly from the genuine 
 Colossians, the whole of which, with the excep-' 
 tion of its personal and polemic matter, he care-" 
 
 fully uses up, has also shown himself a careful 
 student of the rest of the Pauline literature. 
 Of course, in applying this test, everything 
 depends on distinguishing such resemblances and 
 differences as naturally follow from the identity 
 of the writer from such as betray the imitator. 
 But this is exactly the weakest part of Holtz- 
 mann’s discussion. To substantiate this, in 
 addition to the few instances given above (6. i.), 
 it may be well to examine one or two cases in 
 detail. (1) The parallelism last given (Ephes. 
 ii, 14, &c.) is a case in point. 
 (Rom. xi. 28), ἀποκαταλλάσσειν (καταλλ. liom. 
 xi. 15, 2 Cor. v. 18 sq.), σῶμα (Rom. vii. 4), 
 ἀποκτείνειν (Rom. vii. 11, 2 Cor, ii. 6), are, it 
 is argued, borrowed from St. Paul to express 
 ideas foreign to their original place in his vo- 
 
 cabulary. But St. Paul’s mind was more elastic 
 
 than that of his critics: the ideas of slaying 
 and enmity lend themselves to more metaphors 
 than one; while the word σῶμα is admittedly 
 used by him of the Church, and the transition 
 from the literal to the mystic sense of it (Col. i. 
 22; Ephes. ii. 16) has a strict parallel in 1 Cor. 
 x. 16, 17. To take another example: (2) the 
 alleged imitation of 1 Cor. xv. 20, 23-25, 27, 
 28, in Ephes. i. 20-23, is clearly due to the 
 natural connexion of ideas, which in a subject so 
 habitually on the Apostle’s lips would inevitably 
 bring with it a standing collocation of terms, 
 
 Once more (3) let us examine the passages. 
 
 Ephes. iv. 22 sqq., Col. iii. 8-10, together with 
 their parallels in other Epistles. 
 
 Col. iii. 8-10. 
 
 νυνὶ δὲ ἀπόθεσθε καὶ ὑμεῖς τὰ πάντα... - ἀπεκ- 
 
 δυσάμενοι τὸν παλαιὸν ἄνθρωπον σὺν ταῖς πράξεσιν. 
 
 αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐνδυσάμενοι τὸν νεὸν τὸν ἀνακαινού- 
 μενον εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν κατ᾽ εἰκόνα τοῦ κτίσαντος αὐτὸν: 
 ὅπον οὐκ ἔνι κιτ.λ. 
 
 2 Cor. 
 
 were formerly proofs of the “dependence” of 
 Ephesians are now allowed to prove the Pauline 
 authorship of Colossians. If we further recollect 
 that (although Pfleiderer, ii. 188. sees in Ephes. 
 iy. 24 an unintelligent reproduction of Col. iii. 
 10) the words καὶ ὑμεῖς, Col. iii. 8 (of which 
 Von Soden is therefore anxious to get rid), 
 strongly suggest that the writer had in his 
 mind a similar summons addressed to other 
 readers,—a fact which, taken with Ephes. iv. 
 
 This test: 
 
 The words ἔχθρα. 
 
going strictures. 
 
 EPHESIANS, EPISTLE TO THE 
 
 22, 25, makes it far more natural to assume 
 
 that the priority, if any, is here on the side of | 
 
 Ephesians,—the examination of this single in- 
 stance will have sutliced to show the precarious 
 character of Holtzmann’s canon of dependence, 
 
 One more example shall be given, this time 
 in his own words, and without comment (ΚΑ τέ. 
 p. 141). “ What is said of love, iv. 3, has its 
 double in Rom. xiii. 10, the reference to ἕν 
 σῶμα καὶ ἕν πνεῦμα, iv. 4, in 1 Cor. x. 17, xii. 
 4, Rom. xii. 5. That καλεῖν is constructed with 
 ἐν, in preference to the favourite eis, follows the 
 example of 1 Cor. vii. 15,” &c. Holtzmann has 
 certainly collected an admirable mass of illus- 
 trative matter for our Epistle (even if not 
 always quite fairly selected), but what evidence 
 does he offer that furnishes solid ground for his 
 theory ? 
 
 iii. The “original Epistle to the Colossians.” 
 As the result of the comparative and critical 
 processes which we have described (parturiunt 
 montes ...), Holtzmann arrives at a supposed 
 genuine relic of St. Paul,—in reality a cento of 
 words and phrases from the Colossian Epistle, in 
 connexions of his own. He analyses it verse by 
 verse with the aim of showing the conformity 
 of its language to the Pauline standard, and 
 does so, we may admit, with success. But, 
 with every wish on his part to avoid the pitfall 
 (Krit. p. 184), it strikes the reader at every 
 turn that the very same phenomena which 
 betray imitation elsewhere are here the cre- 
 dentiais of authenticity. For example, while 
 Holtzmann is unable to approve “the kingdom 
 of Christ and of God” (Ephes. v. 5), the phrase 
 in Col. i. 13, τὴν Bac. τοῦ υἱοῦ... αὐτοῦ (τὴς 
 ἀγαπῆς is condemned), is in his eyes “an in- 
 disputable trace of the Apostle’s hand” (p. 172); 
 to Pfleiderer (ii. 112) it is the very reverse. In 
 its reduced form the letter is supposed to gain 
 in clearness, unity of purpose, consecutiveness, 
 and compactness of structure. The two latter 
 are more than doubtful: the “ purpose” is the 
 very general one περιπατῆσαι ὑμᾶς ἀξίως τοῦ 
 Θεοῦ (Col. i. 10); the whole is a laboriously 
 dovetailed piece-work, without colour, point, or 
 passion. 
 
 iv. Zmprobability of Holtzmann’s hypothesis. 
 We now come to an unanswerable objection to 
 the hypothesis, quite independent of the fore- 
 Could such a process of inter- 
 polation have been carried out without leaving 
 its traces upon the textual evidence? It is no 
 answer to appeal to admitted interpolations 
 such as those of the Ignatian letters, for the 
 latter have survived in their earlier form as 
 well. Nor is the appeal to interpolations in 
 classical writers legitimate: for in the case of 
 N. T. writings the evidence is abundant enough 
 to bear traces even of very early alterations in 
 the text [CoLosstans]. The most elementary 
 principles of evidence, then, are fatal to such a 
 theory as Holtzmann’s. He has, it is true, 
 made some concession to the force of this objec- 
 tion, in his assumption of the identity of the 
 Ephesian compiler and the interpolator of 
 Colossians. Every addition to the dramatis 
 personae ageravates the unlikelihood of the plot 
 by widening the circle of persons acquainted 
 with the original Pauline letter, and so adds to 
 the force of the demand for evidence of its 
 having ever existed. But the necessity of 
 
 BIBLE DICT.—VOL. I. 
 
 | mann found it. 
 
 EPHESIANS, EPISTLE TO THE 961 
 
 assuming that the interpolator “ rescued ” this 
 precious relic “from oblivion ? (rit. p. 305) 
 only to-relegate it thither again,—in other 
 words, that its existence was known to one 
 person alone,—is in its turn a sufficient reductio 
 ad absurdum. Accordingly the tendency now is 
 to reduce the number of interpolated passages 
 to such limits as leave the relation between 
 Ephesians and Colossians exactly where Holtz- 
 Under his guidance we find 
 ourselves as much in a cul de sac as ever. 
 
 v. Probable Solution. It is fatal to the theory 
 of reciprocral priority to give up the identity 
 of compiler and interpolator, as has been done 
 by most of those critics who have expressed 
 partial ™ approval of Holtzmann’s scheme. We 
 have then to choose between complete depend- 
 
 | . . 
 ence on one side or the other, and simultaneous 
 
 composition by a single author. The former 
 alternative Holtzmann’s analysis has shown to 
 be inadmissible. His instances of “ priority of 
 Ephesians,” for example, may be shown (as by 
 Von Soden) to fall short of proving their case: 
 but the same may be shown of the instances 
 alleged in favour of the converse relation. To 
 both classes of instances, however, we can con- 
 sistently allow an equal negative validity, as 
 disproving that, the contrary of which they fail 
 to establish. Holtzmann, as is so commonly the 
 case, succeeds in pulling down the assumptions 
 of others, but fails in proving his own. A con- 
 tinuous survey of the language and thought® of 
 the two Epistles shows the impossibility of 
 carrying out any hypothesis of simple depend- 
 ence on either side, while the only consistently 
 worked out attempt at a more complex solution 
 breaks down, both from the indecisiveness of the 
 internal evidence, from the absolute lack of 
 external proof, and from the improbability of its 
 historical presuppositions, 
 
 There is, then, on the assumption of literary 
 dependence, no consistent hypothesis in the field. 
 What then prevents our accepting as true that 
 account of the origin of these letters which they 
 bear upon their face,—that they were simul- 
 taneously composed by St. Paul, and sent by 
 him to the same province by the same mes- 
 senger? Simply the supposed impossibility of 
 simultaneous composition on the one hand; the 
 improbability, on the other, of St. Paul copying 
 his own letters. But this objection must be 
 regarded as altogether unreal. Are not the 
 phenomena of our Epistles such as we should 
 
 " The principal names are Hausrath (Ap. Paulus,? 
 and Zeitgesch.” vol. iii. “differs in details ”); Pfleiderer 
 (see above) ; Von Soden (in Jahrbiicher fiir prot. Theol. 
 1885, 1887), who merely expunges eight and a half 
 verses of Colossians, and except as to these substantially 
 goes back to the old view of De Wette, &c. ; Schmiedel 
 (in Ersch and Gruber, 1826); Mangold (Bleek,‘ p. 602). 
 These critics generally reject Holtzmann’s distinctive 
 hypothesis (reciprocity of relations), but approve the 
 idea of interpolations in Colossians, and dependence of 
 Ephesians, ascribing the latter to a third hand. 
 
 © The contention (Honig, Zeitschr. wiss. Theol. 1872; 
 Pfleiderer, ii. 99, 165, &c.) that the two Epistles betray 
 diversities of thought incompatible with unity of author- 
 ship has been incidentally anticipated (§§ 2, ἃ; 3, c). 
 But on the special points of supposed difference, a 
 reference to Lightfoot’s notes and Excursus, and often 
 to Holtzmann’s discussions, will show the inconclusive- 
 ness of the reasons alleged. 
 
 3 Q 
 
962 EPHESIANS, EPISTLE TO THE 
 
 expect in letters written to different persons, 
 put on partially identical subjects, by the same 
 writer, and possibly on the same day? 
 
 B. Relation to the First Epistle of St. Peter, 
 
 EPHESIANS, EPISTLE TO THE 
 
 The resemblances between the two Epistles are 
 such in number” and in kind as to exclude the 
 idea of accidental coincidence. One instance 
 may be discussed in full :— 
 
 Descent and Exaltation of Christ. 
 
 Ephes. i. 20-22. 
 
 ἐγείρας αὐτὸν καὶ καθίσας ἐν PAL eG «ἴον 
 δεξιᾷ αὐτοῦ ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις 
 ὑπεράνω πάσης ἀρχῆς καὶ ἐξου- 
 σίας καὶ δυνάμεως . - - - καὶ 
 πάντα ὑπέταξεν ὑπὸ τοὺς πόδας 
 αὐτοῦ. 
 
 What attracts our attention here is the 
 correspondence of the ideas with which the 
 exaltation of Christ is associated in the two 
 Epistles. On the one hand the subjection, to 
 the risen Christ at the right hand of God in 
 heaven, of Angels and powers (passages 1 and 2), 
 on the other the exaltation (here only in N. T.) 
 coupled with the descent into hades (passages 2 
 and 3: the reference to the latter doctrine is 
 disputed, but probably correct, in the Ephesians, 
 and overwhelmingly probable in 1 Peter: the 
 latter passage at any rate appears to be founded 
 
 upon the other, so much so that Holtzmann calls | 
 | Theol. 1881, pp. 178, 332) to show that both 
 
 it the first known commentary upon it). The two 
 
 1 Pet. iii. 19, 21. 
 19. ἐν ᾧ καὶ τοῖς ἐν φυλακῇ πνεύ- 
 μασι πορεύθεις ἐκήρυξε .. 
 
 ἀναστάσεως ᾿Ιησοῦ 
 Χριστοῦ, ὅς ἐστιν ἐν δεξιᾷ θεοῦ 
 πορευθεὶς εἰς οὐρανὸν ὑποταγ- 
 έντων αὐτῷ ἀγγέλων καὶ ἐξου- 
 σίων καὶ δυνάμεων. 
 
 | 
 
 Epistles are moreover linked by several marked | 
 
 words and expressions applied by either writer 
 in the same way, 6.6. πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου, 
 ἀναστροφή, ἄγνοια, akpoywviatos, διάβολος ;—by 
 the similarity of their opening,—by the scheme 
 of household relations and duties,—by the en- 
 cyclical character of either,—by the reproduction 
 of the idea of Ephes. iii. 10 in 1 Pet. i. 12 
 (Angels spectators of the work of Redemption), 
 &e. It is impossible to resist the conclusion 
 that the writer of one Epistle was directly in- 
 fluenced by his knowledge of the other. If the 
 Epistle of Peter is regarded as prior in date, and 
 spurious—so Pfleiderer, Hilgenfeld, &c.—our 
 Epistle of course is condemned also, If 1 Peter 
 is prior but genuine, we have to suppose that 
 St. Paul borrowed from St. Peter. This is the 
 hypothesis of Weiss (Petr. Lehrbegriff, v. 5; 
 Introd. § 25, 6), which is at once obliged to face 
 the fact that 1 Peter shows equally striking 
 correspondences with other Epistles of St. Paul 
 (notably Romans, e.g. Rom. vi. 10, 1 Pet. iv. 1; 
 Rom. ii. 28, 1 Pet. iii. 4, and above all Rom. xii., 
 xiii.). Weiss accepts the challenge by assuming 
 that there also St. Paul is the borrower, a con- 
 tention (connected with an elaborate theory as to 
 the diffusion of Christianity in Asia Minor at a 
 very early date, and with a special view as to 
 date and readers of 1 Peter) which cannot be 
 discussed here [PETER, First EPISTLE OF; 
 Romans, EPISTLE TO], but which, in common 
 
 Ephes. iv. 8-10. 
 τὸ δὲ ἀνέβη τί ἐστιν εἰ μὴ ὅτι 
 καὶ κατέβη εἰς τὰ κατώτερα μέρη τῆς 
 γῆς; ὃ καταβὰς αὐτός ἐστιν καὶ ὃ 
 ἀναβὰς ὑπεράνω πάντων τῶν οὐρα- 
 νῶν sees 
 
 with almost every one whose opinion is entitled 
 to respect, we regard as untenable. (It is sup- 
 ported by Kiihl in the last issue of Meyer’s Com- 
 mentary on 1 Peter. Holtzmann, Hinl.? p. 517, 
 calls it “the most desperate step upon which 
 modern apologetics have ventured.” Weiss’ last 
 restatement of his case, Zntrod. to N. T. § 40.) 
 The other alternative, that 1 Peter borrows 
 from Ephesians, does not affect the genuineness 
 of the latter, and the questions involved in it 
 will be discussed in the art. PETER, FIRST 
 EPISTLE OF. It is necessary, however, to men- 
 tion the attempt of Seufert (Zeitsch. wiss. 
 
 Epistles are the work of a single author, pro- 
 bably the compiler of the Third Gospel and the 
 Acts. It should in fairness be observed that 
 Seufert only follows up a hint thrown out by 
 Holtzmann (Krit. p. 265, 1. 24), without, 
 however, securing even his master’s agreement 
 with the result. That the order of ideas in 
 the two Epistles is “on the whole (Arit. 
 ibid., and Seufert repeatedly) similar,” is a 
 generalisation which will not bear statement in 
 detail. 
 
 y. Relation to other New Testament writings. 
 The points of contact with the Synoptic Gospels 
 (Holtzm. vit. p. 248) are numerous though 
 slight: they prove nothing more than that the 
 writer of our Epistle was acquainted with the 
 πεπληροφορημένα of the Apostolic preaching. 
 The connexion with the Third Gospel (χαριτοῦν, 
 πανοπλία, ὁσιότης, &c.) is slightly more marked : 
 that with the Acts (cp. supra, ὃ 2, a, B) is not 
 peculiar to our Epistle (ep. e.g. Acts xxvi. 18 
 with Col. i. 12-14) and forms part of the larger 
 question of the Pauline affinities of the third 
 Evangelist [Acts; Gosprets]. The like applies 
 to the coincidences with HEBREWS (e.g. Ephes. 
 v. 26, Heb. xiii. 12, and the Christology), which, 
 it may be added (in agreement with Von Soden, 
 pp. 483-486), are not such as to suggest the 
 dependence of our Epistle (against Holtzm. 
 p- 255, and passim). With regard to the 
 Johannine writings, while Dr. Salmon’s remark 
 
 P The following are among the most striking: a fuller list in Weiss (Hinl. § 27, 6, note 2, and Petr. Lehrbegriff, 
 
 Ῥ- 425 sq.): 
 
 1 Pet. i. 3 = Ephes. 
 1 Pet. i. 14 = Ephes. v. 11 (and ii. 3). 
 1 Pet. i. 16-18 = Ephes. iv. 22. 
 1 Pet. i. 18-20 = Ephes. i. 4, 7; iv. 17. 
 
 i. 3. 
 
 2 Pet. ii. 1 = Ephes, iv. 21, 25, 31. 
 1 Pet. ii. 4-6 = Ephes. ii. 20 sq. 
 
 1 Pet. ii. 9 = Ephes. v. 8. 
 
 1 Pet. ii. 16 -Ξ Ephes. vi. 6. 
 
 1 Pet. ii. 18 = Ephes. vi. 5. 
 1 Pet. iii. 1 = Ephes. v. 22. 
 1 Pet. iii. 18 = Ephes. ii. 18. 
 1 Pet. iii. 19, 21, 22 = Ephes. iv. 8, 9; i. 20-22. 
 
 1 Pet. iv. 3 = Ephes. νυ. 7-14. 
 
 1 Pet. iv. 10 = Ephes. iii. 10; iv. 12? ~ 
 1 Pet. v. 2 = Ephes. iv. 11 (ποιμ.). 
 
 1 Pet. v. 8, 9 = Ephes. vi. 11. 
 
EPHESIANS, EPISTLE ΤῸ THE 
 
 - (p. 487, note) that “St, John read and valued 
 St. Paul’s writings ” is on any theory a sufficient 
 explanation of the few but striking resemblances 
 between the Gospel and our Epistle (those in 
 1 John are very faint), the relations of the 
 latter to the Apocalypse require a little more 
 discussion. Holtzmann confidently includes the 
 Apocalypse among the materials used by the 
 compiler of Ephesians, and even sees in Rom. 
 xvi. 26 (γραφ. mpop.—see below), Ephes. ii. 20, 
 iii. 5, iv. 11, an express reference to the prophetic 
 (Rey. xxii, 9) author of the former! In this, as 
 when he derives the phrase ἅγιοι ἄποστ. (Ephes. 
 iii. 5) from the indisputably wrong reading of 
 Rey. xviii. 20, and refers Ephes. iii. 18 to 
 the dimensions of the heavenly city in Rey. 
 xxi. 16, we recognise the old fallacy of 
 reading into the phenomena more than they 
 really tell us. The undoubted resemblances 
 (Ephes. i. 15, T. R., and Rev. ii. 4, ii. 20, ep. 
 Rey. xxi. 14; iii, 5, cp. Rev. x. 73 iii. 9, ep. 
 neveciv. 123 vy. 11, ep. Rev. xvili.4; v. 25 
 sq., ep. Rev. xix. 7, xxi., xxii., &c.) are partly 
 explicable (as in the last instance mentioned) by 
 common use of O. T. symbolism, and partly lend 
 themselves at least as easily to Dr. Salmon’s 
 explanation as to that of Holtzmann. 
 
 It remains to add a few supplementary remarks 
 as to the relation of our Epistle to St. Paul’s 
 undoubted writings. Rejecting the idea of 
 literary dependence, as the result of an arbitrary 
 
 method of investigation (as shown by its now 
 generally admitted failure as applied to the 
 _ greater portion of Colossians), and taking as 
 admitted the general conformity of our Epistle 
 to the Pauline theology, we remark: (1) the 
 peculiar resemblance to it, in language and 
 ideas, of the doxology’in Rom. xvi. 25-27 (Ephes. 
 iii. 5, 20 sq., &c.). Holtzmann ascribes the 
 doxology to his “ Autor ad Ephesios,”’ and there 
 are well-known textual grounds which warrant 
 the suggestion that the doxology may be nearer 
 in date to our Epistle than to that of which it 
 now forms the conclusion (see RoMANS and 
 Gifford’s Introduction to that Epistle). (2) Use 
 made of the Old Testament. To estimate the 
 influence of the LXX. upon the forms both of 
 thought and of language in our Epistle, recourse 
 must be had to the commentaries: a glance at 
 the text as printed by Westcott and Hort will 
 _ show the most conspicuous instances, but by no 
 means all. The quotations are mostly according 
 to the LXX., but not in every case dependent 
 upon it: in particular, iv. 8 (Ps. lxviii. 19) 
 betrays familiarity with rabbinical exegesis (cp. 
 _ v. 32 and Meyer on both places) ; v. 31, iv. 25, 26, 
 &e., are free quotations and combinations quite 
 in St. Paul’s manner, while y. 14 (cp. Is. xxvi. 19, 
 li, 17, lii,-1, lx. 1, 2; Ps. xliv. 23) presents a 
 problem closely analogous to that of 1 Cor. ii. 9 
 (γέγραπται). Moreover the characteristic ideas 
 of our Epistle—Christ the Corner-stone, Peace 
 preached to those far and near, the heavenly 
 armour, the Church wedded to her Lord (see 
 above, ὃ 2, d), &c.—find close points of contact 
 in the Old Testament. 
 
 Relation to Philippians, The use frequently 
 
 ade of that Epistle in the foregoing discus- 
 
 ions brings the genuineness of Ephesians into 
 lose reciprocal connexion with the order of 
 he Epistles of the Imprisonment. The latter 
 
 EPHESIANS, EPISTLE TO THE 963 
 
 pians by itself constitutes one. If our Epistle 
 is genuine, the sub-group to which it belongs 
 must be placed after, not as has usually been 
 supposed before, the other. If, again, there 
 are independent grounds for putting Philippians 
 earlier in the Roman imprisonment than has 
 been usually inferred, and as near as possible to 
 the great polemic group (Lightfoot, Philipp., 
 Introd. ; PHILIPPIANS), not only is a real psycho- 
 logical objection to the Pauline authorship of 
 our Epistle (ably put by Pfleiderer, i. p. 31, 
 note) removed, but an important link is re- 
 covered between our Epistle and the “ Pauline 
 homologumena.” This is conspicuously true of 
 the Christology (allowed by Holtzmann, supra, 
 6. ii.), of the stress laid upon ἐπίγνωσις and 
 cognate ideas, of the position assigned to good 
 works (Philip. ii. 12, 13), of the practical teaching 
 (Philip. i. 27, ep. Ephes, iv. 1, 4), of the “ wealth ” 
 of God in Christ (Philip. iv. 19 ; Ephes. i, 18, &.), 
 of the true and false περιτομή (Philip. iii. 3; 
 Ephes. ii. 11): ep. also Ephes. iii. 19 with Philip. 
 111. 8, iv. 7; Ephes. ii. 6 with Philip. iii. 20; 
 Ephes. v. 21 with Philip. ii. 3; Ephes. v. 19 with 
 the tone of Philip. iv. 4, 6. Considering the short- 
 ness of the Epistle to Philippians and the great 
 proportion of it taken up with personal matter, 
 the instances given—and they might be multi- 
 plied—of its affinity in ideas and language with 
 our Epistle are striking enough. If it reaches 
 out one hand (see Lightfoot’s parallel passages) 
 to the Pauline homoiogumena, it touches Ephe- 
 sians and Colossians with the other. (The 
 points of contact with Colossians are not limited 
 to the matter common to Ephes. Col., but make 
 in the same direction as those here given; a list 
 is given by Von Soden, Col. p. 541.) 
 
 f. Summary of literary question and conclu- 
 sion of question of Authenticity.—An examination 
 of the relations between our Epistle and other New 
 Testament writings has shown the failure of all 
 attempts hitherto made to construct, upon that 
 basis, an account of its origin which can weigh in 
 the balance against that which the letter bears 
 upon its face. The ablest and only complete at- 
 tempt of the kind, that of Holtzmann, has been 
 adopted, in its essential points, by nobody, although 
 it has been before the world for nineteen years. An 
 examination of it upon its merits has not gained 
 us over to its side. On the contrary, the Epistle’s 
 own account of itself has received incidental con- 
 firmation from more sources than one. Since, 
 then, literary and historical indications (supra, d) 
 alike fail to confront that account with any riva! 
 or counter-theory, and since the purely negative 
 objections are, to say the least, indecisive (supra, 
 a-c), what is there to stay judgment in the case? 
 True, it is easier to meet specific charges than 
 to prove positively the Pauline character of an 
 Epistle. If we take as the tests of the “ pectus 
 Paulinum ” mystical depth, dogmatic firmness, 
 warmth of personal feeling, polemic incisiveness— 
 the last being excluded by the scope of our Epistle 
 —then the others, we venture to say, are all 
 there. Still, the appeal must be, from the nature 
 of the case, lectort cordato; the matter is one of 
 taste and feeling, not one to be argued. 
 
 Without attempting, therefore, to prove what 
 is no subject for demonstration, we accept the 
 Epistle’s own account of its authorship, sup- 
 ported as it is by the unanimous testimony of 
 
 1 into two sub-groups, of which Philip- | antiquity, and uncontradicted by any decisive 
 5:0. 2 
 
964 EPHESIANS, EPISTLE TO THE 
 
 test or by the claims of any equally probable 
 theory of its origin. We will only add, in the 
 words of Erasmus, to which modern investiga- 
 tions have only lent an added significance, “ non 
 est cuiusvis hominis Pauli pectus etlingere.” If 
 the exact theological idiosyncrasy of St. Paul, 
 ‘so Jewish in its foundations, so anti-Jewish in 
 its results” (as in this Epistle, supra, § 2, d), 
 was so little understood by the generation which 
 succeeded him,—if, in fact, ““ Paulinism as a 
 living whole existed but once, and that in the 
 mind of its original exponent” (Holtzm. Hini. 
 p- 105 sq.), then the attempt to insert the Epistle 
 to the Ephesians in the sub-apostolic cycle, to 
 class it with the Epistles of Clement and Bar- 
 nabas, the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, and 
 the other literature of that singularly uncrea- 
 tive period, is a historical paradox, and nothing 
 more. 
 
 § 4, TexT—LITERATURE. 
 
 (1) The text of Ephesians has suffered less 
 from assimilation than that of Colossians: the 
 longer and more general would seem to have 
 somewhat overshadowed the shorter and more 
 special Epistle. But there are striking assimila- 
 tions of Ephesians to Colossians in such passages, 
 among others, as i. 15, τὴν ἀγαπήν, X°D., Vulg., 
 syr. Verss., many Fathers (=Col. i. 4); om. 
 NAB., Orig., Hier., &c. (see WH); 111. 7, τὴν 
 δοθεῖσαν, D°E., &c., and Greek Fathers (=Col. i. 
 25): τῆς δοθείσης, NBD.*, Vulg., &c.; v. 22, 
 ὑποτάσσεσθε, KL., Syr., Chrys. (=Col. iii. 18, 
 but -σθωσαν, NA. Verss., Greek Fathers, &c. = 
 ws ἄν, Col.?): om. B. and MSS. seen by Jerome. 
 Among textual cruces may be mentioned iii. 9, 
 πάντας ; iii. 11, ἐν τῷ Xpiorw: while in iii. 5 
 the view of ἁγίοις suggested above is adopted by 
 Lachmann and Tregelles, who place a comma 
 atter the word,—the suggestion of some primitive 
 disturbance in the text finding support inacertain 
 confusion in the readings (Orig., Theodt. omit 
 ἁγίοις ; B, Ambrst omit a@moor.; several MSS. 
 and Fathers put αὐτοῦ before amoor.), coupled 
 with the fact that in early times the difficulty 
 of the words as they stand would scarcely be 
 felt. On the materials for the text, see CoLos- 
 SIANS, but add that with the exception of C, 
 which contains only ii. 18-iv. 16 of our Epistle, 
 the materials for Ephesians are slightly more 
 abundant (6.0. for the Old Lat. r. contains 
 Ephes. i. 16-ii. 16). 
 
 (2) Literature—For general commentaries 
 on St. Paul’s Epistles, see RoMANS, EPISTLE TO 
 THE, and the Introd. to Meyer’s Romans (E. Tr.). 
 For patristic commentaries on our Epistle, see 
 CoLoOssIANS (and cp. Lightfoot in Galatians, 
 p- 223 sq.). For Ephesians, Cramer’s Catena 
 preserves many valuable fragments of Origen’s 
 commentary (see Dict. Christ. Biog. vol. iv. 
 p. 118). For a full list of modern commentaries, 
 see the Introd. to Meyer’s Ephesians (Eng. 
 Tr.); another list in the last German edition 
 by Schmidt. Among the older special com- 
 mentaries on Ephesians (mentioned in the Ist 
 ed. of this Dict.), Harless (1834, 2nd ed., 1858) 
 stands pre-eminent for point and thoroughness, 
 and still well repays consultation. The most 
 recent German commentaries (in addition to 
 
 EPHESUS 
 
 (2nd separate ed., 1867, when Braune’s com- 
 mentary took the place of it in Lange), Bleek 
 (1867), and Woldemar Schmidt (6th German ed. 
 of Meyer, 1886, very judiciously retouched). 
 Ellicott (8rd ed. 1864) remains the standard 
 English edition; that of Llewelyn Davies (2nd 
 ed., 1884) is brief, but able, reverent, and often 
 suggestive; while that by Moule (Camb. Bib, 
 Sch. 1886) is careful and concise, though the 
 exegesis is apt to be founded upon doctrinal 
 presuppositions. The doctrine and ethies of 
 the Epistle are the subject of the Lectures of 
 R. W. Dale (8rd ed., 1887), a masterpiece 
 of insight and theological grasp, and the best 
 possible introduction to the thought of the 
 Epistle. Bishop Lightfoot’s Colossians contains 
 much incidental matter relating to Ephesians: 
 his commentary on the latter, promised in the 
 Introduction to Colossians, was not completed. 
 Beet and Klépper have publisned editions 
 (1891), and one by Von Soden is announced. 
 Of works other than commentaries, Holtz- 
 mann’s Kritik (1872), so often quoted above, 
 is, whatever may be thought of its method 
 and 
 manual of almost everything bearing upon 
 the question cf authorship; Von Soden, in 
 Jahrb. fiir Prot. Theol. 1887, is most able, espe- 
 cially o: the theology of the Epistle, although 
 the view taken by him is not that maintained 
 in the present article. It has been referred to 
 above as “ Von Soden” simply. ‘ Von Soden, 
 Col.” refers to his articles on Colossians, 1885. 
 Of articles on the Epistle, the most recent is by 
 Schmiedel in Ersch and Gruber’s Hneycl. (1886, 
 commended by Holtzmann); that in Herzog? 
 (under “ Paulus”) is by Wold. Schmidt, and is 
 worth consulting (the article in Herzog! by 
 Weiss has been referred to above). Nothing 
 new will be found in Riehm’s HWB. (“ Ephe- 
 sus”’). In the Bibel-Lex. the article is Schenkel’s 
 own; that by Dr. Milligan in the Encycl. Brit.® 
 is excellent. [A. R.] 
 
 EPHESUS (Ἔφεσος), an illustrious city in 
 the district of Ionia (πόλις Ἰωνίας ἐπιφανε- 
 στάτη, Steph. Byz. 8. v.), nearly opposite the 
 island of Samos, and about the middle of the 
 western coast of the peninsula commonly called 
 Asia Minor. Not that this geooraphical term 
 was known in the Ist century. The Asta of 
 
 the N. T. was simply the Roman province which - 
 
 embraced the western part of the peninsula 
 (Conybeare and Howson’s Life and Epistles of 
 St. Paul, ch. viii. See especially Marquardt’s 
 Rémische Alterthiimer, vol. iv.). Of this pro- 
 vince Ephesus was the capital. 
 
 Among the more marked physical features of 
 the peninsula are the two large rivers, Hermus 
 and Maeander, which flow from a remote part 
 of the interior westward to the Archipelago, 
 Smyrna (Rev. ii. 8) being near the mouth of one 
 and Miletus (Acts xx. 17) of the other. Be- 
 tween the valleys drained by these two rivers is 
 the shorter stream and smaller basin of the 
 Cayster, called by the Turks Kuchuk Mendere, 
 or the Little Maeander. Its upper level (often 
 called the CaYstrian meadows) was closed to the 
 westward by the gorge between Gallesus and 
 
 Ewald’s Sendschreiben des Ap. Paulus, 1857; | Pactyas, the latter of these mountains being a 
 Sieben Sendschr. des N. B. 1870) are those of | prolongation of the range of Messogis which 
 
 Schenkel in the Ist ed. of Lange’s Bibelwerk , bounds the valley of the Maeander on the north, 
 
 conclusions, a thorough and luminous’ 
 
EPHESUS 
 
 the former more remotely connected with the 
 range of Tmolus which bounds the valley of the 
 Hermus on the south. Beyond the gorge and 
 towards the sea the valley opens out again into 
 an alluvial flat (Herod. ii. 10), with hills rising 
 abruptly from it. The plain is now about five 
 miles in breadth, but formerly it must have 
 been smaller ; and some of the hills were once 
 probably islands. Here Ephesus stood, partly 
 on the level ground and partly on the hills. 
 The early history of Ephesus was an oscillation 
 between the ascendency of the Greek city on 
 the hills and the old Asiatic temple on the 
 plain, 
 
 EPHESUS 965 
 
 Of the hills, on which a large portion of the 
 city was built, the two most important were 
 Prion (or Pion) and Coressus, the latter on the 
 S. of the plain, and being in fact almost a con- 
 tinuation of Pactyas, the former being in front of 
 Coressus and near it, though separated by a deep 
 and definite valley. The height of the Acropolis 
 on Coressus is about 1250 ft.; that of Prion, 
 about 500 ft. On the east side of Prion is a 
 church, cut in the solid rock, which is said to 
 have been dedicated to the Seven Sleepers of 
 Ephesus (J in Map, p. 970). Further to the N.E. 
 is another conspicuous eminence, about 250 ft. 
 high. It seems to be the hill mentioned by Pro- 
 
 Ἢ 
 Al) 
 
 i 
 
 ἢ 
 
 i 
 | 
 i 
 
 Ephesus from the Theatre. 
 
 (From Laborde.) 
 
 In the centre are the ruins of the ‘‘Great Gymnasium,’’ with the ‘‘ Civil Port’ beyond them, and 
 a hill crowned with the “ Prison of St. Paul’’ in the middle distance. To the left of this hill are the 
 slopes of Coressus, and, to the right, the windings of the Cajstrus, 
 
 copius (de Aedif. v. 1) as one on which a church 
 dedicated to St. John was built; and the present 
 name of the village on its slopes, Ayasolth, is 
 a corruption of “Ayios Θεολόγος. Considerable 
 remains of a church were found in excavations 
 on the hill: these may perhaps be identified 
 with St. John’s church, which was in existence 
 when the Council of Bishops assembled in 
 431 A.D. Among the coins found under the 
 Turkish pavement on the site of the temple of 
 Diana were a number bearing the legend moneta 
 quae fit in Theologo: 
 
 Ephesus is closely connected with St. John, 
 not only as being the scene (Rev. i. 11; ii. 1) 
 of the most prominent of the churches of the 
 Apocalypse, but also in the story of his later life 
 
 as given by Eusebius. Possibly his Gospel and 
 Epistles were written here. The so-called “Tomb 
 of St. Luke,” S. of Prion (F in Wap), is a Greek 
 polyandrion (Prof. W. M. Ramsay’s Historical 
 Geography of Asia Minor, 1890, p.110). “St. 
 Paul’s Prison” is the name fancifully given to 
 the other ruins of an ancient fort on the crest 
 of a hill between the “Civil Port” and the sea 
 (L in Map). There is a tradition that the mother 
 of our Lord was buried at Ephesus, as also 
 Timothy and St. John: and Ignatius addressed 
 one of his epistles to the church of this place 
 (τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ τῇ ἀξιομακαρίστῳ, τῇ οὔσῃ ἐν 
 ᾿Εφέσῳ τῆς ᾿Ασίας, Hefele, Pat. Apostol. p. 154; 
 Lightfoot’s Zgnatius, p. 27), which held a con- 
 spicuous position during the early ages of 
 
906 EPHESUS 
 
 Christianity, and was in fact the metropolis of 
 the churches of this part of Asia. But for 
 direct Biblical illustration we must turn to 
 the life and writings of St. Paul, in following 
 which minutely it is remarkable how all the 
 most characteristic features of ancient Ephesus 
 come successively into view. 
 
 1. Geographical Relations. — These may be 
 
 with the land. 
 
 All the cities of Ionia were remarkably well 
 situated for the growth of commercial pros- 
 perity (Herod. i. 142), and none more so than 
 Ephesus. With a fertile neighbourhood and an 
 excellent climate, it was also most conveniently 
 placed for traffic with all the neighbouring parts 
 of the Levant. In the time of Augustus it was 
 the great emporium of all the regions of Asia 
 within the Taurus (Strabo, xiv. p. 950): its 
 harbour (named Panormus), at the mouth of the 
 Cayster, was injudiciously reconstructed in the 
 time of Attalus (ib. p. 641), and the consequent 
 increase of alluvial matter caused serious hin- 
 drances, especially in St. Paul’s own time (Tac. 
 Ann. xvi. 23). The Apostle’s life alone furnishes 
 illustrations of its mercantile relations with 
 Achaia on the W., Macedonia on the N., and 
 Syria on the E. At the close of his second 
 missionary circuit, he sailed across from Corinth 
 to Ephesus (Acts xviii. 19) when on his way 
 to Syria (ἰδ. 21, 22): and there is some reason 
 for believing that he once made the same 
 short voyage over the Aegean in the opposite 
 direction at a later period [CORINTHIANS, FIRST 
 EPIsTLE TO]. On the third missionary circuit, 
 besides the notice of the journey from Ephesus 
 to Macedonia (xix. 21; xx. 1), we have the 
 coast voyage on the return to Syria given in 
 detail (xx. xxi.), and the geographical relations 
 of this city with the islands and neighbouring 
 parts of the coast minutely indicated (xx. 15-17). 
 To these passages we must add 1 Tim. i. 3, 
 2 Tim. iv. 12, 20; though it is difficult to say 
 confidently whether the journeys implied there 
 were by land or by water. See likewise Acts 
 stb VA 2.6.95 15 
 
 As to the relations of Ephesus to the inland 
 regions of the continent, these also are promi- 
 nently brought before us in the Apostle’s travels. 
 The “upper coasts” (τὰ ἀνωτερικὰ μέρη, Acts 
 xix. 1) through which he passed, when about to 
 take up his residence in the city, were the 
 Phrygian table-lands of the interior; and it 
 was probably in the same district that on a 
 previous occasion (Acts xvi. 6) he formed the 
 unsuccessful project of preaching the Gospel in 
 the district of Asia. Two great roads at least, 
 in the Roman times, led eastward from Ephesus; 
 one through the passes of Tmolus to Sardis 
 (Rev. iii. 1) and thence to Galatia and the N.E., 
 the other round the extremity of Pactyas to 
 Magnesia, and so up the valley of the Maeander 
 to Laodicea and Colossae, and thence to the 
 east as far as the Euphrates, with cross-roads 
 running south to Iconium, Tarsus, and the Syrian 
 Antioch (Prof. Ramsay, /. c. p. 49). There was 
 a-Magnesian gate on the E. side of Ephesus 
 (Wood’s Ephesus, p. 79). There were also roads 
 leading northwards to Smyrna and southwards 
 to Miletus. By the latter of these it is probable 
 that the Ephesian elders travelled, when sum- 
 moned to meet Paul at the latter city (Acts xx. 
 
 EPHESUS 
 
 17,18). Part of the pavement of the Sardian 
 road has been noticed by travellers under the 
 clifis of Mount Gallesus. All these roads, and 
 others, are exhibited on the map in Leake’s 
 Asia Minor. See also the Index Map in Prof. 
 Ramsay, /. ὁ. 
 
 2. Lemple and worship of Diana.—Conspicuous 
 
 | among the buildings of Ephesus was the great 
 viewed in connexion, first with the sea and then | 
 
 temple of Diana or Artemis, the tutelary divinity 
 of the city. . The earlier temple, which had 
 been begun by Chersiphron before the Persian 
 war, and afterwards enlarged, or even rebuilt, 
 by Paeonius in the 5th century (Vitruy. vil. 
 praef. 16; iii. 2, § 7), constituted an epoch in 
 the history of Greek art; since it was here first 
 that the graceful Ionic order was perfected 
 (Vitruv. iv. 1, 7). This temple was burnt down 
 by Herostratus, B.c. 356, in the night when 
 Alexander the Great was born (Strabo, xiv. 1); 
 and another structure, raised by the enthusiastic 
 co-operation of all the inhabitants of ‘ Asia,” 
 
 took its place (Greek Inscriptions in the British 
 
 Museum, iii., 1890, Nos. 518, 519, ed. Hicks). 
 
 This building was raised on immense substruc- 
 
 tions, in consequence of the swampy nature 
 
 of the ground (Pliny, xxxvi. ὃ 95). The 
 
 architect was Dinocrates, a Macedonian, and 
 
 among the sculptors employed in its decoration 
 
 was Scopas. Its dimensions as given by Pliny, 
 
 1. 6.) were very great. In length it was 
 
 425 feet, and in breadth 220. The columns 
 
 were 127 in number, and each of them was 
 
 60 feet high. The magnificence of this sanctuary 
 
 was a proverb throughout the civilised world 
 
 (Ὁ τῆς ᾿Αρτέμιδος ναὺς ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ μόνος ἐστὶ 
 
 θεῶν οἶκος, Philo Byz. Spect. Mund. 7). All 
 
 these circumstances give increased force to the 
 
 architectural allegory in the great Epistle which 
 
 St. Paul wrote in this place (1 Cor. iii, 9-17), 
 
 to the passages where imagery of this kind is 
 
 used in the Epistles addressed to Ephesus (Eph. 
 
 ii. 19-22; 1 Tim. 111. 15, vi 19. τ 
 
 ii. 19, 20), and to the words spoken to the 
 
 Ephesian elders at Miletus (Acts xx. 32), 
 
 The site of the famous temple remained long 
 unknown. In 1824 Colonel Leake appears to 
 have been the first to make any sensible sug- 
 gestion as to the place where it should be 
 sought. In 1863, Mr. J. T. Wood excavated the 
 Odeum on the S. side of Mount Prion. In the 
 Odeum he discovered several inscriptions con- 
 taining mention of Publius Vedius Antoninus, 
 γραμματεὺς of the city. One of these is a copy 
 of a letter from Antoninus Pius to the magis- 
 trates and council of Ephesus (between 140 and 
 144 a.p.), dealing with a dispute between Ephe- 
 sus and Smyrna on matters of titular prece- 
 dence (Greek Inscriptions in the British Museum, 
 iii, 1890, No. 489, p. 154, ed. Hicks). In 
 1866-8, Mr. Wood explored the Great Theatre (A) 
 on the western slope of Prion. Among the in- 
 scriptions here discovered was a series of decrees, 
 chiefly relating to more than thirty gold and 
 silver images (ἀπεικονίσματα), being figures of 
 Artemis with two stags, and a variety of emble- 
 matical objects, weighing from three to seven 
 pounds each, dedicated to Artemis and ordered 
 to be placed in her temple by a wealthy Roman, 
 C. Vibius Salutaris. On May 25, the birthday of 
 the goddess, these images were to be carried from 
 the temple past the Magnesian Gate to the 
 theatre, and thence to the Coressian Gate, before 
 
EPHESUS 
 
 being taken back to the temple. The date of | 
 the decrees, which are now in the British Mu- | 
 seum (i. iii, No. 481, pp. 83, 135, 140, 145), is 
 not much later than A.D. 104. They are thus 
 nearly contemporaneous with Pliny’s corre- 
 spondence with Trajan (about 112 a.p.), and 
 may be regarded as marking a reaction against 
 Christianity, which shows no sign of abatement 
 until perhaps half a century later (A.D. 161).* 
 The theatre in which these inscriptions were 
 
 ; 
 
 ΕἸ 
 
 (: 
 Ko 
 
 I 
 ἢ 
 
 1aa 
 
 \__< 
 
 WELLL 
 
 i 
 
 [ 
 
 r= 
 
 eaoaagaaaeo 
 
 B 
 
 Π [ἢ ΕΒ ΕΒ Π ΠΠ 
 
 Ao 
 
 Se ee aoe δ τ eS 
 
 τ. 
 
 4 
 \ 
 N 
 N 
 IN 
 N 
 N 
 N 
 N 
 N 
 N 
 IN 
 N 
 N 
 N 
 N 
 ‘ 
 N 
 N 
 N 
 
 )] 
 
 79: 
 
 @ 
 urls ee 
 
 [Π} 
 Je & 
 
 .«------...... 
 
 [} 
 
 an ΓΞ] ΓΞ 
 ΕΠ [ΕἸ 
 1 28! of 4-23! 6/510 20! 47 
 -—--—-163! 9/4" 
 
 oo 
 TT 19/4! 194 
 
 οἵ 
 
 x 
 ss 
 = 
 x 
 
 ' 
 4 
 
 Plan of the Temple of Diana at Ephesus. 
 
 found is undoubtedly the same as that mentioned 
 in the Acts as the scene of the uproar caused by 
 
 3 This is the date of an important inscription which 
 may fairly be interpreted ‘‘as an involuntary confession 
 of the subsequent decline of the Artemis-worship under 
 the growing influence of the new faith” (tb. No. 482, 
 Ῥ- 145). The speech of Demetrius in Acts xix. 27-28 
 finds a parallel in part of this document, B (1): [ἔδ]οξεν 
 τῆς πρώτης καὶ με[γίστης μητρ]οπόλεως τῆς ᾿Ασίας καὶ 
 δὶς νεωκ[όρου τῶν Σεβα]στῶν καὶ φιλοσεβάστου ᾿Εφε[σίων 
 πόλεως τῇ βο]υλῇ καὶ τῷ δήμῳ" περὶ ὧν εἰσήγ[ηται---Λ]αβέ- 
 ριος “Apowvos φιλοσέβαστος, ὃ γραμμ[ατεὺς τοῦ δ]ήμου" 
 ἐπεψήφισαν δὲ οἱ στ[ρ]ατηγοὶ τῆς πόλεως φιλοσέβαστοι" 
 [ἐπειδὴ ἡ π]ροεστῶσα τῆς πόλεως ἡμῶν θεὸς "Αρτεῖμις οὐ 
 μόνον] ἐν τῇ ἑαυτῆς πατρίδι ἀτιμᾶται, ἣν ἄλλων ἁπασῶν 
 πόλεων ἐνδοξοτέραν διὰ τῆς ἰδίας θειότητος πεποίηκεν, 
 ἀλλὰ καὶ παρὰ [Ἑλλησίν τε κ]αὶ [β]αρβάρ[ο]ις, ὥστε 
 πολλ]αχοῦ ἀνεῖσθαι αὐτῆς te[pa τε καὶ τιμάς" κιτ.λ, (iD. 
 
 Pp. 144, 294). 
 
 EPHESUS 967 
 
 the manufacturers of silver shrines for the 
 Temple of Artemis (Wood’s Discoveries at 
 Ephesus, pp. 73-4). Its diameter was 495 feet, 
 and it has been estimated that it was capable 
 of seating 24,500 persons. Some of the columns 
 in St. Sophia at Constantinople, said to have 
 been taken from the temple at Ephesus, possibly 
 came from this theatre. 
 
 Mr, Wood next ascertained the position of the 
 Magnesian Gate to the 8.E. of Prion.” In 1869 
 he came upon a massive wall, proved 
 to have belonged to the precincts of the 
 temple by an inscription stating that 
 they had been rebuilt by Augustus 
 Unser. in Brit. Museum, iii. No. 522; 
 B.c. 6). This wall was built to 
 restrict the limits of the sacred 
 precinct, which had approached too 
 near the city, and had thus unduly 
 facilitated the escape of criminals who 
 claimed the privilege of sanctuary 
 within the precinct (Strabo, p. 641, 
 and Tacitus, Ann. iii. 61), Further, 
 in 1870, he lighted on a marble 
 pavement, 19 feet below the alluvial 
 soil, with drums of columns, 6 feet 
 high, one base being still attached to 
 its plinth. The site of the temple 
 was thus reached, and its style was 
 at once seen to have been similar 
 to that of the temple of Athene 
 Polias at Priene, and of Apollo at 
 Branchidae. The largest and best 
 preserved of the drums was found 
 in 1871, and is now in the British 
 Museum. From the figures carved 
 on it, one of which represents Hermes, 
 it may fairly be presumed that it 
 was one of the 36 coluwmnae caelatae 
 recorded by Pliny, xxxvi. 95. In the 
 subsequent course of the excavations, 
 Mr. Wood discovered the remains of 
 three distinct temples, the earliest of 
 them being that built 500 B.c., for 
 which the solid foundations described 
 
 ΤΙ 
 
 --------------259΄,47.}--------------------------------- οἱ 
 
 (From Wood.) 
 
 by Pliny and Vitruvius were laid. 
 Between 5 and 6 feet below the 
 pavement, and under the foundations 
 of the walls of the cel/a, he found the 
 layer of charcoal, 3 inches thick, 
 described by Pliny (Wood, /, c. p. 259 ; 
 Vaux, Greek Cities of Asia Minor, 
 p- 45). The dimensions of the temple 
 were ascertained to be 163 feet 94 inches by 
 342 feet 63 inches, with eight columns in front 
 and two ranks of columns all round the cella. 
 This agrees with the description in Vitruvius. 
 The columns of the peristyle were 100 in number 
 (Wood, /. c pp. 264-5). He also found in 
 massive pieces beneath the site of the cella a 
 number of archaic fragments of sculpture and 
 
 ττττττα------------ ------------------------ == 41 BGR ----- === === === 
 
 eae eae 
 
 b Mr. Wood placed the Coressian gate on the N.E. of 
 the city near the Stadium, and was thus led to suppose 
 that the hill on the E. was Coressus, and the range on 
 the S., Prion. As regards the names of the two hills, 
 the converse is the view now generally accepted; while 
 the Coressian gate may be identified with a gate leading 
 towards the sea and situated near the western extremity 
 of the range of Coressus (see Map, and Weber’s mono- 
 graph in Μουσεῖον καὶ Βιβλιοθήκη τῆς Ἐὐαγγελικῆς 
 Σχολῆς, 1884, pp. 4-11; ep. note by Mr. Hicks on Gk. 
 Inscr. in British Museum, iii. p. 140). 
 
968 EPHESUS 
 
 architecture which have been identified as 
 remains of the cornice of the archaic temple 
 (A. S. Murray, Journal of Hellenic Studies, 
 x. 1-10, 1889). One or more canals, formed 
 by diverting the waters of the Cayster, and its 
 tributaries, afforced a water-way to the temple, 
 which thus became accessible from the sea 
 (Gk. Inser, in British Museum, iii. p. 179). An 
 inscription belonging to A.D. 160-1, and partly 
 quoted in note * on p. 967, states that “the 
 Ephesian goddess, whose worship had hitherto 
 been universally recognised, was now being set 
 at nought (ἀτιμᾶται) in her own native city” 
 (ib. p. 145). The Goths are credited with the 
 partial destruction of the last of the several 
 successive temples, A.D. 262; and some twenty 
 years later its total destruction was accom- 
 plished by the early Christians. 
 
 The chief points connected with the uproar at 
 Ephesus (Acts xix. 23-41) are mentioned in the 
 
 EPHESUS 
 
 article DIANA; but the following details must 
 be added. In consequence of this devotion the 
 city of Ephesus was called νεωκόρος (v. 35), 
 “temple-keeper ”(R.V.) or “ warden” of Artemis. 
 This was a recognised title applied in such cases, 
 not only to individuals, but to communities. In 
 the instance of Ephesus, the term is frequently 
 found both on coins (Zransactions of the Numis- 
 matic Socety, 1841) and on inscriptions (see 
 below). Its mneocorate was, in fact, as the 
 “town-clerk” (6 γραμματεὺς) said, proverbial 
 (Guhl’s Ephesiaca, pp. 114,115). Another con- 
 sequence of the celebrity of the worship of 
 Artemis at Ephesus was, that a large manu- 
 factory grew up there of small silver shrines 
 (vaol, v. 24), which strangers purchased and 
 devotees carried with them on journeys or set 
 up in their houses. [See DraNna, p. 782.] Of the 
 manufacturers engaged in this business, perhaps 
 Alexander the ‘“coppersmith” (6 χαλκεύξ, 
 
 a 
 
 " ἐν ΕΟ 
 
 4emple of Diana at Ephesus restored. 
 
 — ἃ λλ 
 
 αν 
 
 xt 
 % en 
 
 με =n! 
 
 Ys 
 ee ee 
 
 (From Wood's Modern Discoveries on the site of Ancient Ephesus.) 
 
 In the background the highest point is the Acropolis on Coressus (1250 ft.), with part of the city-walls running along the 
 
 ridge; and, below it, towards the left, the slopes of Lepre (about 500 ft.). 
 is the Magnesian Gate. To the right of Lepre and the Acropolis is the summit of Prion (about 500 ft.). 
 The precincts of the temple are approached by two routes:—(1) to 
 
 is a hill (260 ft.), crowned with the “ Prison of St. Paul.” 
 
 To the extreme left of the city-wall across the plain 
 To the extreme right 
 
 the left, leaving the wall near the tomb of Androclus; and (2) to the right, leaving it near the Stadium (see Map). 
 
 2 Tim. iv. 14) was one. The case of Demetrius 
 the “silversmith” (ἀργυροποιὸς in the Acts) is 
 explicit. He was alarmed for his trade, when 
 he saw the Gospel, under the preaching of St. 
 Paul, gaining ground upon idolatry and super- 
 stition; and he spread a panic among the 
 craftsmen of various grades, the τεχνῖται 
 (v. 24) or designers, and the ἐργάται (v. 25) or 
 common workmen, if this is the distinction 
 between them. Lastly, as an illustration of the 
 ery “Great is Diana of the Ephesians,” we have 
 an inscription in C. 7 G. 2963, describing her 
 statue outside Ephesus as “the great goddess 
 Artemis.” 
 
 3. The Asiarchs.—Public games were con- 
 nected with the worship of Artemis at Ephesus. 
 They were held in the month of ᾿Αρτεμισιών, 
 partly corresponding to our March and April. 
 
 ¢ See Hicks in Gk. Inscr. in British Museum, iii. 
 p. 79. 
 
 The uproar mentioned in the Acts possibly took 
 place at this season. St. Paul was certainly 
 at Ephesus about that time of the year (1 Cor. 
 xvi. 8); and Demetrius might well be pecu- 
 liarly sensitive, if he found his trade failing at 
 the time of greatest concourse. However this 
 may be, the Asiarchs (Acidpxa, R. V. “ chief 
 officers of Asia”) were present (Acts xix. 31). 
 These were wealthy persons appointed as officers, 
 after the manner of the aediles at Rome, to 
 preside over the games which were held in 
 honour of the Caesars in different parts of the 
 province of Asia, just as other provinces had 
 their Galatarchs, Lyciarchs, ἕο. Various cities 
 would require the presence of these officers in 
 turn. In the account of Polycarp’s martyrdom 
 at Smyrna (chap. 12,—Hefele, Pat. Apost. 
 p- 286) an important part is played by the 
 Asiarch Philip (Lightfoot’s Jgnatius, p. 967). 
 It is a remarkable proof of the influence which 
 St. Paul had gained at Ephesus, that the Asiarchs 
 
EPHESUS 
 
 took his side in the disturbance. See Dr. 
 Wordsworth’s note on Acts xix. 31; Conybeare 
 and Howson, chap. xvi. ii. p. 96, ed. 1865; 
 Hicks in GA. Inser. in British Museum, iii. p. 87; 
 and especially Lightfoot’s gnatius, ii. p. 987 sq. 
 [ASIARCHAE. ] 
 
 4. Study and practice of magic.—Not uncon- 
 nected with the preceding subject was the re- 
 markable prevalence of magical arts at Ephesus. 
 This also comes conspicuously into view in St. 
 Luke’s narrative. The peculiar character of 
 St. Paul’s miracles (δυνάμεις οὐ Tas τυχούσας, 
 v. 11) would seem to have been intended as 
 antagonistic to the prevalent superstition. In 
 illustration of the magical books which were 
 publicly burnt (v.19) under the influence of 
 St. Paul’s preaching, it is enough here to refer 
 to the ’Edécia γράμματα (mentioned in Plu- 
 tarch’s Symposium, vii. 5, 4; Athenaeus, p. 548; 
 Clem. Alex. Str. i. 73; and elsewhere), 
 which were regarded as a charm when 
 pronounced, and when written down were 
 carried about as amulets. The faith in 
 these mystic syllables continued, more 
 or less, till the 6th century. See Cony- 
 beare and Howson, chap. xiv., ii. p. 16; 
 Falkener’s Ephesus, chap. vi.; and the 
 Life of Alexander of Tralles in the Dict. 
 of Biog. There is a terracotta tablet with 
 ᾿Ἐφέσια γράμματα in the museum at 
 Syracuse. [DIawna, p. 781.] 
 
 5. Provincial and municipal government.—It 
 is well known that Asia was a proconsular pro- 
 vince ; and in harmony with this fact we find 
 ἀνθύπατοι (““ proconsuls,” R. V.; “deputies,” 
 A. V.) specially mentioned (v. 38). Nor is it 
 necessary to inquire here whether the plural 
 in this passage is generic, or whether the 
 governors of other provinces were present in 
 Ephesus at the time. Again we learn from 
 Pliny (NV. H. v. ὃ 120) that Ephesus was an 
 assize-town (forwm or conventus); and in the 
 sacred narrative (v. 38) we find the court-days 
 alluded to as actually being held (ἀγόραιοι 
 ἄγονται, R. V. “the courts are open”) during 
 the uproar ; though perhaps it is not absolutely 
 necessary to give the expression this exact 
 reference as to time (see Wordsworth). Ephe- 
 sus itself was a “free city,” and had its own 
 assemblies and its own magistrates. The βουλὴ 
 is mentioned by Josephus (Ant. xiv. 10, § 25; 
 xvi. 6, §§ 4, 7); and St. Luke, in the nar- 
 rative before us, speaks of the δῆμος (vv. 30, 
 33; A. V. “the people”) and of its custom- 
 ary assemblies (τῇ ἐννόμῳ ἐκκλησίᾳ, v. 39; 
 R. V. “the regular assembly”). That the tu- 
 multuary meeting which was gathered on the 
 occasion in question should take place in the 
 theatre (vv. 29, 31) was nothing extraordinary. 
 Tt was at a meeting in the theatre at Caesarea 
 that Agrippa I. received his death-stroke (Acts 
 xii. 23), and in Greek cities this was often the 
 place for large assemblies (Tac. Hist. ii. 80; 
 Val. Max. ii. 2). We even find conspicuous 
 mention made of one of the most important 
 municipal officers of Ephesus, the “ Town- 
 Clerk” (γραμματεύς), or keeper of the records, 
 whom we know from other sources to have been 
 a person of great influence and responsibility. 
 
 It is remarkable how all these political and 
 religious characteristics of Ephesus, which 
 appear in the sacred narrative, are illustrated 
 
 EPHESUS 969 
 
 by inscriptions and coins. An ἀρχεῖον or state- 
 paper office is mentioned on an inscription in 
 Chishull’s Travels in Turkey, p. 20. The γραμ- 
 ματεὺς frequently appears; so also the ᾿Ασίαρχαι 
 and ἀνθύπατοι. Sometimes these words are 
 combined in the same inscription: see for in- 
 stance Boeckh, Corp. Jnscr. 2999, 2994. The 
 following is worth quoting at length, as con- 
 taining also the words δῆμος and νεωκόρος :— 
 Ἢ φιλοσέβαστος ᾿Εφεσίων βουλὴ καὶ 6 vew- 
 κόρος δῆμος καθιέρωσαν ἐπὶ ἀνθυπάτου Πεδου- 
 καίου Πρεισκείνου ψηφισαμένου Τιβ. Κλ. Ἴταλι- 
 κοῦ τοῦ γὙραμμάτεως τοῦ δήμου, 2966 (about 
 127 Α.}.). See also 2968, 2977, 2972. Among 
 the inscriptions discovered by Mr. Wood we 
 have some early in the 2nd century of our era, 
 including phrases such as ἡ veoxdpos Ἐφεσίων 
 πόλις, and 6 νεοκόρος δῆμος. (For further 
 illustrations, see article by E. L. Hicks in the 
 
 Coin of Ephesus, exhibiting the Temple of Viana. 
 
 Expositor, June 1890, No. 6.) The coins of 
 Ephesus are full of allusions to the worship 
 of Artemis in various aspects. The word vew- 
 κόρος is of frequent occurrence. That which is 
 given above has also the word ἀνθύπατος: it 
 exhibits an image of the temple, and, bearing 
 as it does the name and head of Nero, it 
 must have been struck about the time of St. 
 Paul’s stay at Ephesus. 
 
 In the inscriptions of Ephesus we find fre- 
 quent mention of a board of νεοποιοὶ who had 
 charge of the fabric of the temple of Artemis 
 (Hicks, Gk. Inscr. in British Museum, iii. 
 p- 802). In the inscription recording the bequest 
 by Salutaris (ib. No. 481) two of the νεοποιοὶ 
 are directed to accompany the procession of 
 images from the pronaos of the temple, and to 
 see that they were brought back safely (#. 
 Ῥ. 81 α). By the side of the civic βουλὴ and 
 δῆμος, there was founded in the time of Lysi- 
 machus, about 300 8.6. (Strabo, p. 640), an im- 
 portant body called the γερουσία, which was 
 probably engaged, from the very first, with 
 matters of religion (Hicks, ib, pp. 71-78, 105, 
 where it is conjectured that the γερουσία of the 
 Roman time was a continuation of the γερουσία 
 of Lysimachus). 
 
 Each of these three bodies had a γραμματεύς, 
 and it was the γραμματεὺς Tod δήμου that, in 
 Roman times, was the most prominent of the 
 three. “As the real vigour of the ἐκκλησία 
 declined in the atmosphere of imperial rule, 
 while at the same time the forms of the free 
 republic were retained, it was more and more 
 left to the γραμματεὺς to arrange the business 
 of the public assembly.” The importance of 
 this official is proved by the extant inscriptions 
 of Ephesus. “It is therefore one example the 
 more of St. Luke’s accuracy in speaking of 
 
 ἃ Gk. Inscr. in British Museum, iii. p. 164. 
 
970 EPHESUS 
 
 EPHESUS 
 
 titles, when in Acts xix. 35 sq. he describes the ) address at Miletus, and indicated in the Epistle 
 γραμματεὺς as possessed of great influence with | to the Ephesians, and more distinctly in the 
 the assembly and keenly sensible of his own | Epistles to Timothy. It is more to our purpose 
 
 responsibility ” (ib. p. 82a). 
 
 if we briefly put down the actual facts recorded 
 
 We should enter on doubtful ground if we | in the N. T. as connected with the rise and 
 were to speculate on the Gnostic and other | early progress of Christianity in this city. 
 errors which grew up at Ephesus in the later That Jews were established there in consider- 
 apostolic age, and which are foretold in the | able numbers is known from Josephus (il. ¢.), 
 
 Oy 
 
 7} 
 
 7, 
 
 7; 
 
 lj 
 
 ἢ 
 \ 
 
 A 
 
 N 7, 
 
 ANI 
 
 "κὰὶ 
 
 "ν᾿ 
 
 ὮΝ y 
 
 ᾿ \ ν 7; 
 NIN N\\\A SOON ZF we 
 MW, Y a ὲ 
 
 " "νὰ 
 
 WZ TWAS 
 
 “we 
 
 We 
 
 | AB SS (ᾧ 
 
 SS S 
 
 Map of Ephesus. 
 A. Theatre. D. Great Gymnasium. 
 B. Forum, E. Double Church. 
 C. Agora. ἘΞ. “Tomb of St. Luke.” 
 
 and might be inferred from its mercantile 
 eminence ; but it is also evident from Acts ii. 9, 
 vi. 9. In harmony with the character of Ephe- 
 sus as a place of concourse and commerce, it 
 is here, and here only, that we find disciples of 
 John the Baptist explicitly mentioned after the 
 Ascension of Christ (Acts xviii. 253; xix. 3). 
 The case of Apollos (xviii. 24) is an exemplifica- 
 tion further of the intercourse between this 
 
 EPHESUS 
 
 Scale 
 ooo 2000 3000 Feet 
 
 9 
 
 Any Ἷ 
 (yy, 
 
 S SO 
 SSS WW Nii, 
 Wi 
 ——— ly 
 
 YS 
 
 DIANA 
 
 (After G. Weber.) 
 G. Small Gymnasium. K. Acropolis. 
 H, Tomb of Androclus. 1. “ Prison of St. Paul.” 
 J. Church of the Seven Sleepers. 
 
 place and Alexandria, The first seeds of Chris- 
 tian truth were possibly sown at Ephesus im- 
 mediately after the Great Pentecost (Acts ii.). 
 Whatever previous plans St. Paul may have 
 entertained (xvi. 6), his first visit was on his 
 return from the second missionary circuit (xviii. 
 19-21); and his stay on that occasion was very 
 short: nor is there any proof that he found any 
 Christians at Ephesus ; but he left there Aquila 
 
ἀάτοββ at Miletus. 
 ‘church at Ephesus was thoroughly organised 
 under its presbyters. 
 ‘was set over them, as we learn from the two 
 epistles addressed to him. Among St. Paul’s 
 ‘other companions, two, Trophimus and Tychicus, 
 
 EPHESUS 
 
 and Priscilla (v. 19), who both then and at a 
 later period (2 Tim. iv. 19) were of signal 
 service. In St. Paul’s own stay of more: than 
 two years (xix. 8, 10; xx. 31), which formed the 
 most important passage of his third circuit, and 
 during which he laboured, first in the synagogue 
 (xix. 8), and then in the school of Tyrannus 
 (v. 9), and also in private houses (xx. 20), and 
 during which he wrote the First Epistle to the 
 Corinthians, we have the period of the chief 
 evangelization of this shore of the Aegean. The 
 direct narrative in Acts xix. receives but little 
 elucidation from the Epistle to the Ephesians, 
 
 which was written after several years from 
 
 Rome; but it is supplemented in some important 
 particulars (especially as regards the Apostle’s 
 personal habits of self-denial, xx. 34) by the 
 This address shows that the 
 
 At a later period ΤΊΜΟΤΗΥ 
 
 were natives of Asia (xx. 4), and the latter pro- 
 
 bably (2 Tim. iv. 12), the former certainly 
 
 (Acts xxi. 29), natives of Ephesus. In the same 
 
 connexion we ought to mention Onesiphorus 
 
 (2 Tim. i. 16-18) and his household (iv. 19). 
 On the other hand must be noticed certain 
 
 ‘specified Ephesian antagonists of the Apostle, 
 
 the sons of Sceva and his party (Acts xix. 14), 
 Hymenaeus and Alexander (1}Tim. i. 20; 2 Tim. 
 iv. 14), and Phygelus and Hermogenes (2 Tim. 
 i. 15). 
 
 The site of ancient Ephesus has been visited 
 and examined by many travellers during the last 
 200 years; and descriptions, more or less co- 
 pious, have been given by Pococke, Tournefort, 
 Spon and Wheler, Chandler, Poujoulat, Prokesch, 
 Beaujour, Schubert, Arundell, Fellows, and 
 Hamilton. The fullest accounts are, among the 
 older travellers, in Chandler, and, among the 
 more recent, in Hamilton. Some views are 
 given in the second volume of the Jonian <An- 
 tiquities, published by the Dilettanti Society. 
 Leake, in his Asia Minor, has a discussion on the 
 dimensions and style of the Temple. Falkener 
 published in 1862 an elaborate work on Ephesus, 
 with numerous sketches taken on the spot during 
 a fortnight’s visit seventeen years before. Finally, 
 in 1877, appeared Mr. Wood’s important volume 
 
 entitled Discoveries at Ephesus, including the Site 
 
 and Remains of the great Temple of Diana; a 
 popular account of Modern Discoveries on the 
 Site of Ancient Ephesus by the same author was 
 published by the Religious Tract Society in 
 
 1890. The ruins are of vast extent, both on 
 
 _ the hills and on the plain: the map on the 
 
 opposite page, drawn under the superintendence 
 of Sir Charles Wilson, explains most of the 
 topographical details. 
 
 To the works above referred to must be added, 
 Gronov. Antig. Graec. vii. 287-401; Perry, De 
 rebus Ephesiorum (Gott. 1837), a slight sketch ; 
 Guhl, Ephesiaca (Berl. 1843), a very elaborate 
 work; Hemsen’s Paulus (Gott. 1830), which 
 
 contains a good chapter on Ephesus; Biscoe On 
 
 the Acts (Oxf. 1829), pp. 274-285; an article by 
 Ampére in the Rev. des Deux Mondes for Jan. 
 
 1842; Mr. Akerman’s paper on the Coins of 
 
 Ephesus in the Zrans. of the Numismatic Soc. 
 1841; Head’s History of the Coinage of Ephesus 
 
 EPHOD 971 
 
 (ending with the Christian era), 1880; E. 
 Curtius, in Beitrége zur Geschichte und Topo- 
 graphie Kleinasiens, Abh. der Akademie der 
 Wiss. (Diimmler, 1872), and in Alterthum und 
 Gegenwart (1874), ed. 2, 1886, ii, 98-128; and 
 Newton’s wHssays on Art and Archaeology, 
 pp. 210-245; also Zimmermann, Hphesos im 
 ersten Christlichen Jahrhundert, 1874; Menadier, 
 Qua condicione Ephesit usi sint inde ab Asia in 
 formam provinciae redacta, 1880 ; Bp. Lightfoot’s 
 Essay on the Discoveries at Ephesus as illustra- 
 tive of the narrative in the Acts, reprinted at 
 the end of his collected Hssays on Supernatural 
 Religion ; and Greek Inscriptions in British 
 Museum, iii. 1890, with Prolegomena to the in- 
 scriptions of Ephesus by E. L. Hicks, pp. 67-87, 
 and list of recent authorities on p. 68. G. Weber 
 has published a useful study of Ephesus, with 
 a good map of the city and surroundings (see 
 Μουσεῖον καὶ Βιβλιοθήκη τῆς Ἐῤαγγελικῆς 
 Σχολῆς, Smyrna, 1880-4, περίοδος iv. pp. 1-44). 
 
 (J. 8. Ha], [Jt.E. 5 
 
 EPH'LAL (DDN; B. ᾿Αφαμήλ, BY. -μηδ, 
 Α. ᾽Οφλάδ ; Ophial), a descendant of Judah, of the 
 family of Hezron and of Jerahmeel (1 Ch. ii. 37). 
 
 EPHOD (NSN), a sacred vestment origin- 
 ally appropriate to the high-priest (Ezra xxviii. 
 4), but afterwards worn by ordinary priests 
 (1 Sam. xxii. 18), and deemed characteristic of 
 the office (1 Sam. ii. 28, xiv. 3; Hos. iii. 4). 
 For a description and illustration of the robe 
 itself, see HigH-pRiEsT. A kind of ephod was 
 worn by Samuel (1 Sam. ii. 18), and by 
 David, when he brought the Ark to Jerusalem 
 (2 Sam. vi. 14; 1 Ch. xv. 27); it differed from 
 the priestly ephod in material, being made of 
 ordinary linen (bad), whereas the other was of 
 fine linen (shesh. See Dress 1); it is notice- 
 able that the LXX. does not give ἐπωμὶς or 
 ᾿Εφοὺδ in the passages last quoted, but terms of 
 more general import, στολὴ ἔξαλλος, στολῖὶ 
 βυσσίνη. Attached to the ephod of the high- 
 priest was the breast-plate with the Urim and 
 Thummim: this was the ephod κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν, 
 which Abiathar carried off (1 Sam. xxiii. 6) 
 from the Tabernacle at Nob (1 Sam. xxi. 9), and 
 which David consulted (1 Sam. xxiii. 9, xxx. 7). 
 The importance of the ephod as the receptacle 
 of the breast-plate led to its adoption in the 
 idolatrous forms of worship instituted in the 
 time of the Judges (Judg. viii. 27, xvii. 5, xviii. 
 14 sq.). The amount of gold used by Gideon in 
 making his ephod (Judg. viii. 26) has led 
 Gesenius (Zhesaur. p. 135), Bertheau and others, 
 following the Peshitto Version, to give the word 
 the meaning of an idol-image, as though that 
 and not the priest was clothed with the ephod : 
 but there is no evidence that the idol was so in- 
 vested, nor is the opinion supported by modern 
 critics (see Keil, Riehm, Kleinert, and Budde 
 [1890]). The ephod itself would require a con- 
 siderable amount of gold (Ex. xxviii. 6 sq., 
 xxxix. 2 sq.), and, with the jewels necessary, 
 may well have required the large sum stated to 
 have been used by Gideon. The meaning and 
 consequences of his act are considered under 
 
 GIDEON. (W.L.B] [FJ 
 
 E’PHOD (AN; B. Σουφί, AF. Οὐφίδ ; 
 Ephod). Hanniel the son of Ephod, as head of 
 
972 EPHRAIM 
 
 the tribe of Manasseh, was one of the men 
 appointed to assist Joshua and Eleazar in the 
 apportionment of the land of Canaan (Num. 
 xxxiv. 23). 
 
 EPHRAIM, Heb. EPH-RA’IM (07758; 
 Ἐφραίμ ; Joseph. "Edpaluns; Ephraim), the 
 second son of JOSEPH by his wife Asenath. He 
 was born during the seven years of plenteous- 
 ness, and an allusion to this is possibly latent 
 in the name, though it may also allude to 
 Joseph’s increasing family: “The name of the 
 second he called Ephraim (1.6. double fruitful- 
 ness), for God hath caused me to be fruitful 
 ΟΣ 157, hiphrani) in the land of my afiliction” 
 (Gen. sli. 52; xlvi. 20).* 
 
 The first indication we have of that ascend- 
 ency over his elder brother Manasseh, which at 
 a later period the tribe of Ephraim so unmis- 
 takably possessed, is in the blessing of the chil- 
 dren by Jacob, Gen. xlviii. (see Delitzsch [1887] 
 and Dillmann® in loco). Like his own father, 
 on an occasion not dissimilar, Jacob’s eyes were 
 dim so that he could not see (xlviii. 10; ep. 
 xxvii. 1). The intention of Joseph was evidently 
 that the right hand of Jacob should convey its 
 ampler blessing to the head of Manasseh, his 
 first-born, and he had so arranged the young 
 men. But the result was otherwise ordained. 
 Jacob had been himself a younger brother, and 
 his words show plainly that he had not for- 
 gotten this, and that his sympathies were still 
 with the younger of his two grandchildren. 
 He recalls the time when he was flying with 
 the birthright from the vengeance of Esau; the 
 day when, still a wanderer, God Almighty had 
 appeared to him at “Luz in the land of 
 Canaan,” and blessed him in words which fore- 
 shadowed the name of Ephraim; the still 
 later day when the name of Ephrath* became 
 ‘bound up with the sorest trial of his life 
 (xlviii. 7; xxxv. 16). And thus, notwithstand- 
 ing the pre-arrangement and the remonstrance 
 of Joseph, for the second time in that family, 
 the younger brother was made greater than the 
 elder—Ephraim was set before Manasseh (alviii. 
 19, 20). 
 
 Ephraim would appear at that time to have 
 been about 21 years old. He was born before 
 the beginning of the seven years of famine, 
 
 a Josephus (Ant. ii. 6, § 1) gives the derivation of 
 the name somewhat differently — “restorer, because 
 he was restored to the freedom of his forefathers ;” 
 ἀποδιδούς . . . διὰ TO ἀποδοθῆναι k.T.A. 
 
 b **J will make thee fruitful,” 775 (Gen. xlviii. 4) ; 
 
 “Be thou fruitful,” [5 (xxxv. 11); both from the 
 
 same root as the name Ephraim. 
 
 ¢ There seems to have been some connexion between 
 Ephrath, or Bethlehem, and Ephraim, the clue to which 
 is now lost (Ewald, Gesch. i. 493, note). The expression 
 “Ephrathite”’ is generally applied to a native of 
 Ephrath, i.e. Bethlehem; but there are some instances 
 of its meaning an Ephraimite. These are 1 Sam. i.1(see 
 Driver in loco), 1 K. xi. 26; in both of which the Heb. 
 word is accurately transferred to A. V., but is rendered 
 Ephraimite in R. V. But in Judg. xii. 5, where the 
 Hebrew word is the same, and with the definite article 
 OM ANIM), it is incorrectly rendered “ an Ephraimite.” 
 
 he es 
 In the other occurrences of the word “ Ephraimite”’ in 
 vv. 4,5, 6 of the same chapter, and in Josh. xvi. 10, 
 the Hebrew is “" Ephraim.” 
 
 EPHRAIM 
 
 towards the latter part of which Jacob had 
 come to Egypt, 17 years before his death (Gen. 
 xlvii, 28). Before Joseph’s death Ephraim’s 
 family had reached the third generation (Gen. 1. 
 23), and it must have been about this time that 
 the affray mentioned in 1 Ch. vii. 21 occurred, 
 when some of the sons were killed on a plun- 
 dering expedition along the sea-coast to rob the 
 cattle of the men of Gath, and when Ephraim 
 named a son Beriah, to perpetuate the memory 
 of the disaster which had fallen on his house. 
 [BertaAu.] Obscure as is the interpretation of 
 this fragment, it enables us to catch our last 
 glimpse of the Patriarch, mourning inconsolable 
 in the midst of the circle of his brethren, and 
 at last commemorating his loss in the name of 
 the new child, who, unknown to him, was to be 
 the progenitor of the most illustrious of all his 
 descendants—Jehoshua, or Joshua, the son of 
 Nun (1 Ch. vii. 27; see Ewald, i. 491). To 
 this early period too must probably be referred 
 the circumstance alluded to in Ps. Ixxviii. 9, 
 when the “children of Ephraim, carrying slack 
 bows,‘ turned back in the day of battle.” Cer- 
 tainly no instance of such behaviour is recorded 
 in the later history. 
 
 The numbers of the tribe do not at once 
 fulfil the promise of the blessing of Jacob. At 
 the census in the wilderness of Sinai (Num. i. 
 32, 33; ii. 19) its numbers were 40,500, placing 
 it at the head of the children of Rachel — 
 Manasseh’s number being 32,200 and Benjamin’s 
 35,400. But forty years later, on the eve of 
 the conquest (Num. xxvi. 37), without any 
 apparent cause, while Manasseh had advanced 
 to 52,700 and Benjamin to 45,600, Ephraim had 
 decreased to 32,500, the only smaller number 
 being that of Simeon, 22,200. At this period 
 the families of both the brother tribes are 
 enumerated, and Manasseh has precedence over 
 Ephraim in order of mention. During the 
 march through the wilderness the position of 
 the sons of Joseph and Benjamin was on the 
 west side of the Tabernacle (Num. ii. 18-24), 
 and the prince of Ephraim was Elishama the 
 son of Ammihud (Num. i. 10). 
 
 It is at the time of the sending of the spies 
 that we are first introduced to the great hero to 
 whom the tribe owed much of its subsequent 
 greatness. The representative of Ephraim on 
 this occasion was ‘‘ Oshea the son of Nun,” whose 
 name was at the termination of the affair changed 
 by Moses to the more distinguished form in 
 which it is familiar to us. As among the 
 founders of the nation Abram had acquired the 
 name of Abraham, and Jacob of Israel, so Oshea, 
 “help,” became Jehoshua or Joshua, “the help 
 of Jehovah ” (Ewald, ii. 306). 
 
 Under this great leader, and in spite of the 
 smallness of its numbers, the tribe must have 
 taken a high position in the nation, to judge 
 from the tone which the Ephraimites assumed 
 on occasions shortly subsequent to the conquest. 
 These will be referred to in their turn, 
 
 According to the present arrangement of the 
 records of the Book of Joshua—the “ Domesday 
 book of Palestine ”—the two great tribes of 
 Judah and Joseph (Ephraim and Manasseh) first 
 took their inheritance ; and after them, the seven 
 other tribes entered on theirs (Josh. xv., xvi., 
 
 ἃ This is the rendering of Ewald. 
 
EPHRAIM 
 
 xvii., xviii. 5). The boundaries of the portion 
 of Ephraim are given in xvi. 1-10. They include 
 the territory that was afterwards allotted to 
 Dan; but the passage (cp. Dillmann? in loco) is 
 evidently in some disorder, and in our ignorance 
 of the force of many of the almost technical 
 terms with which these descriptions abound, it 
 is unfortunately impossible to arrive at more 
 than an approximation to the case. The south 
 boundary was coincident for part of its length 
 with the north boundary of Benjamin. It 
 probably left the Jordan at the mouth of W. 
 Niieidmeh, and, passing N. of Jericho to ‘Ain 
 Dik, went up through the hill-country to 
 Bethel, Beitin, and Luz. It then went down 
 by the border of the Archites, ‘Ain Arik ; 
 Ataroth, Kh. Ddrieh, on the S. side of the 
 Lower Beth-horon, Beit ’ Or el-tahta ; and Gezer, 
 Tell Jezar, to the Mediterranean. This agrees 
 with the enumeration in 1 Ch. vii. 28, in 
 which Bethel is given as the eastern, and 
 Gezer as the western, limit. The general direc- 
 
 Vj 
 
 Manasseh. It is very possible that at first there 
 was no definite subdivision of the territory 
 assigned to the two brother-tribes. Such is 
 certainly the inference to be drawn from the 
 very old fragment preserved in Josh. xvii. 14-18, 
 in which the two are represented as complaining 
 that only one portion had been allotted to them. 
 The territory allotted to the ‘ house of Joseph” 
 may be roughly estimated at 55 miles from E. 
 to W. by 70 from N. to S.,a portion about equal 
 in extent to the counties of Norfolk and Suffolk 
 combined. But though similar in size, nothing 
 can be more different in its nature from those 
 level counties than this broken and hilly tract. 
 Central Palestine consists of an elevated district 
 which rises from the flat ranges of the wilder- 
 ness on the south of Judah, and terminates on 
 the north with the slopes which descend into 
 the great plain of Esdraelon. On the west a 
 flat strip separates it from the sea, and on the 
 east another flat strip forms the valley of the 
 Jordan. Of this district the northern half was 
 occupied by the great tribe we are now con- 
 
 EPHRAIM 973 
 
 tion of this line is N.E. by E. The common 
 border of Ephraim and Manasseh is defined 
 in Josh. xvi. 6-8; and partially in xvii. 7-10. 
 From Asher ham Michmethah, E. of Shechem, 
 and probably in the plain of Mukhna, it ran, 
 on the one hand, southward to En-tappuah, 
 Ydsi/, and thence along the course of the river 
 Kanah, W. Kanah, to the sea: and, on the other, 
 eastward to Taanath-Shiloh, Z*ana; Janoah, 
 Yaniin; Ataroth; Naarah, el-‘Aujeh, to Jericho 
 and Jordan. The boundary between Ephraim 
 and Dan, on the west, is not defined; but its 
 approximate position can be ascertained from the 
 notice of certain towns belonging to Dan, and of 
 others in Mount Ephraim. It appears to have 
 run along the crests of the spurs above the low 
 hills of the Shephelah, or “low-land.” Josephus 
 (Ant. ν. 1, § 22) makes the territory of Ephraim 
 extend from the Jordan to Gezer, and from 
 Bethel northwards to the “Great Plain,” by 
 which he perhaps means the plain of Mukhna, 
 and not Esdraelon, which was the limit of 
 
 Sa ciae 
 dd oat 
 
 phraim. 
 
 sidering. This was the Har-Ephraim, the 
 “Mount Ephraim,” a district which seems to 
 extend as far south as Ramah and Bethel 
 (i Sam, i. 1, vii. 17; 2 Ch. xiii. 4,19, compared 
 with xy. 8), places but a few miles north of 
 Jerusalem, and within the limits of Benjamin. 
 In structure it is limestone—rounded hills 
 separated by valleys of denudation, but much 
 less regular and monotonous than the part more 
 to the south, about and below Jerusalem; with 
 “wide plains in the heart of the mountains. 
 streams of running water, and continuous tracts 
 of vegetation” (Stanley, p. 229). All travellers 
 bear testimony to the “general growing rich- 
 ness ” and beauty of the country in going north- 
 wards from Jerusalem, the “innumerable foun- 
 tains” and streamlets, the villages more thickly 
 scattered than anywhere in the south, the 
 continuous cornfields and orchards, the moist, 
 vapoury atmosphere (Martineau, pp. 516, 521; 
 Van de Velde, i. 386-8; Stanley, pp. 234-5). 
 These are the “ precious things of the earth, and 
 the fulness thereof,” which are invoked on the 
 
914 EPHRAIM 
 
 ‘ten thousands of Ephraim” and the “ thousands 
 of Manasseh ” in the blessing of Moses. These 
 it is which, while Dan, Judah, and Benjamin are 
 personified as lions and wolves, making their lair 
 and tearing their prey among the barren rocks 
 of the south, suggested to the Lawgiver, as they 
 had done tothe Patriarch before him, the patient 
 “ bullock ” and the “bough by the spring, whose 
 branches ran over the wall,” as fitter images 
 for Ephraim (Gen. xlix. 22; Deut. xxxiii. 17). 
 And centuries after, when its great disaster had 
 fallen on the kingdom of Israel, the same images 
 recur to the prophets. The “flowers” are still 
 there in the “olive valleys,” “‘ faded” though 
 they be (Is. xxviii. 1). The vine is an empty 
 unprofitable vine, whose very abundance is evil 
 (Hos. x. 1); Ephraim is still the “ bullock,” 
 now “unaccustomed to the yoke,” but waiting 
 a restoration to the “pleasant places” of his 
 former “pasture” (Jer. xxxi. 185; Hos. ix. 13, 
 iv. 16)—“ the heifer that is taught and loveth 
 to tread out the corn,’ the heifer with the 
 “beautiful neck ” (Hos. x. 11), or the “kine of 
 Bashan on the mountain of Samaria” (Amos 
 iv. 1). 
 
 Th wealth of their possession had not the 
 same immediately degrading effect on this tribe 
 that it had on some of its northern brethren. 
 [AsHER.] Various causes may have helped to 
 avert this evil. 1. The central situation of 
 Ephraim, in the highway of all communications 
 from one part of the country to another. From 
 north to south, from Jordan to the Sea—from 
 Galilee, or still more distant Damascus, to 
 
 -Philistia and Egypt—these roads all lay more 
 or less through Ephraim, and the constant traffic 
 along them must have always tended to keep 
 the district from sinking intostagnation. 2. The 
 position of Shechem, the original settlement of 
 Jacob, with his well and his “ parcel of ground,” 
 with the two sacred mountains of Ebal and 
 Gerizim, the scene of the impressive and signifi- 
 cant ceremonial of blessing and cursing ; and of 
 Shiloh, from whence the division of the land was 
 made, and where the Ark remained from the time 
 of Joshua to that of Eli; and further of the 
 tomb and patrimony of Joshua, the great hero 
 not only of Ephraim but of the nation—the fact 
 that all these localities were deep in the heart 
 of the tribe, must have made it always the 
 resort of large numbers from all parts of the 
 country—of larger numbers than any other 
 place, until the establishment of Jerusalem by 
 David. 3. But there was a spirit about the 
 tribe itself which may have been both a cause 
 and a consequence of these advantages of 
 position. That spirit, though sometimes taking 
 the form of noble remonstrance and reparation 
 (2 Ch. xxviii. 9-15), usually manifests itself in 
 jealous complaint at some enterprise undertaken 
 or advantage gained in which they had not a 
 chief share. To Gideon (Judg. viii. 1), to Jeph- 
 thah (xii. 1), and to David (2 Sam. xix. 41-43), 
 the cry is still the same in effect—almost the 
 same in words—‘‘ Why did ye despise us that 
 our advice should not have been first had?” 
 “Why hast thou served us thus that thou 
 calledst us not?” The unsettled state of the 
 country in general, and of the interior of 
 Ephraim in particular (Judg. ix.), and the 
 continual incursions of foreigners, prevented the 
 
 EPHRAIM 
 
 more formidable manner than by these murmurs, 
 during the time of the Judges and the first 
 stage of the monarchy. Samuel, though a 
 Levite, was a native of Ramah in Mount Ephraim, 
 and Saul belonged to a tribe closely allied to the 
 family of Joseph, so that during the priesthood 
 of the former and the reign of the latter the 
 supremacy of Ephraim may be said to have been 
 practically maintained. Certainly in neither 
 case had any advantage been gained by their 
 great rival in the south. Again, the brilliant 
 successes of David and his wide influence and 
 religious zeal, kept matters smooth for another 
 period, even in the face of the blow given to 
 both Shechem and Shiloh by the concentration 
 of the civil and ecclesiastical capitals at Jerusa- 
 lem. When Saul fell on Mount Gilboa, Ephraim, 
 in common with all the tribes except Judah, 
 acknowledged Ishbosheth as king (2 Sam. ii. 9). 
 But after the murder of the latter, 20,800 
 of the choice warriors of the tribe, “men of 
 name throughout the house of their father,” 
 went as far as Hebron to make David 
 king over Israel (1 Ch. xii. 30). Among the 
 officers of his court we find more than one 
 Ephraimite (1 Ch. xxvii. 10, 14), and the 
 attachment of the tribe to his person seems to 
 have been great (2 Sam. xix. 41-43). But this 
 could not last much longer, and the reign of 
 Solomon, splendid in appearance but oppressive 
 to the people, developed both the circumstances 
 of revolt, and the leader who was to turn them 
 to account. Solomon saw through the crisis; 
 and if he could have succeeded in killing Je- 
 roboam as he tried to do (1 K. xi. 40), the 
 disruption might have been postponed for another 
 century. As it was, the outbreak was deferred 
 for a time, but the irritation was not allayed, 
 and the insane folly of his son brought the 
 mischief to a head. Rehoboam probably selected 
 Shechem—the old capital of the country— 
 for his coronation, in the hope that his presence 
 and the ceremonial might make a favourable 
 impression, but in this he failed utterly, and the 
 tumult which followed shows how complete was 
 the breach—“ To your tents, Ὁ Israel ! now see 
 to thine own house, David!” Rehoboam was 
 certainly not the last king of Judah whose 
 chariot went as far north as Shechem, but he 
 was the last who visited it as a part of his own 
 dominion, and he was the last who, having come 
 so far, returned unmolested to his own capital. 
 Jehoshaphat escaped, in a manner little short of 
 miraculous, from the risks of the battle of 
 Ramoth-Gilead, and it was the fate of two of his 
 successors, Ahaziah and Josiah—differing in 
 everything else, and agreeing only in this—that 
 they were both carried dead in their chariots from 
 the plain of Esdraelon to Jerusalem. 
 Henceforward in two senses the history of 
 Ephraim is the history of the kingdom of Israel, 
 since not only did the tribe become a kingdom, 
 but the kingdom embraced little besides the 
 tribe. This is not surprising, and quite sus- 
 ceptible of explanation. North of Ephraim the 
 country appears never to have been really ‘taken 
 possession of by the Israelites. Whether from 
 want of energy on their part, or great stubborn- 
 ness of resistance on that of the Canaanites, 
 certain it is that of the list of towns from which 
 the original inhabitants were not expelled, the 
 
 power of the tribe from manifesting itself in a | great majority belong to the northern tribes, 
 
-τ σγὐϑυυ τ ὐὐννΝ πα  ὸὴΝ 
 
 EPHRAIM 
 
 Manasseh, Asher, Issachar, and Naphtali. And 
 in addition to this original defect there is much 
 in the physical formation and circumstances of 
 the upper portion of Palestine to explain why 
 those tribes never took any active part in the 
 kingdom. They were exposed to the inroads 
 and seductions of their surrounding heathen 
 neighbours—on one side the luxurious Phoeni- 
 cians, on the other the plundering Bedouins of 
 Midian; they were open to the attacks of Syria 
 and Assyria from the north, and Egypt from the 
 south; the great plain of Esdraelon, which com- 
 municated more or less with all the northern 
 tribes, was the natural outlet of the no less 
 natural high roads of the maritime plain from 
 Egypt, and the Jordan valley for the tribes of 
 the East, and formed an admirable base of 
 operations for an invading army. 
 
 But on the other hand the position of Ephraim 
 was altogether different. It was one of very 
 great richness and great security. Her fertile 
 plains and well-watered valleys could only be 
 reached by a laborious ascent through steep and 
 narrow ravines, all but impassable for an army. 
 There is no record of any attack on the central 
 kingdom, either from the Jordan valley or the 
 maritime plain. On the north side, from the 
 plain of Esdraelon, it was more accessible, and 
 it was from this side that the final invasion 
 appears to have been made. But even on that 
 side the entrance was so difficult and so easily 
 defensible—as we learn from the description in 
 the Book of Judith (iv. 6, 7)—that, had the 
 kingdom of Samaria been less weakened by 
 internal dissensions, the attacks even of the 
 great Shalmaneser might have been resisted, as 
 at a later date were those of Holofernes. How 
 that kingdom originated, how it progressed, and 
 how it fell, will be elsewhere considered. [18- 
 RAEL, Krnepom or.] There are few things 
 more mournful in the sacred story than the 
 descent of this haughty and jealous tribe, from 
 the culminating point at which it stood when it 
 entered on the fairest portion of the Land of 
 Promise—the chief sanctuary and the chief 
 settlement of the nation within its limits, its 
 leader the leader of the whole people—through 
 the distrust which marked its intercourse with 
 its fellows while it was a member of the con- 
 federacy, and the tumult, dissension, and un- 
 godliness which characterised its independent 
 existence, down to the sudden captivity and 
 total oblivion which closed its career. Judah 
 had her times of revival and of recurring pros- 
 perity, but here the course is uniformly down- 
 ward—a sad picture of opportunities wasted 
 and personal gifts abused. ‘“ When Israel was 
 a child, then I loved him, and called my son out 
 of Egypt....I taught Ephraim also to go, 
 taking them by their arms; but they knew not 
 that I healed them. I drew them with cords of 
 a man, with bands of love. . . but the Assyrian 
 shall be their king, because they refused to 
 
 return. . . . Howshall I give thee up, Ephraim? 
 
 how shall I deliver thee, Israel? how shall I 
 make thee as Admah? how shall I set thee as 
 Zeboim ?” (Hos. xi. 1-8.) [ἢν [W.] 
 
 EPH-RA'TM (OES; ’E¢patu; Ephraim) 
 In “ Baal-hazor which is ‘by’ Ephraim” was 
 Absalom’s sheep-farm, at which took place the 
 
 murder of Amnon, one of the earliest precursors | 
 
 EPHRAIM, MOUNT 975 
 
 of the great revolt (2 Sam. xiii. 23). The 
 Hebrew particle OY, rendered above “by” (R. V. 
 “beside”), always seems to imply actual 
 proximity, and therefore we should conclude 
 that Ephraim was not the tribe of that name, 
 but a town. Ewald conjectures that it is identical 
 with ΡΗΒΑΙΝ, EPHRON, and OpHrRAnH of the 
 O. T., and also with the EpHrarm which was 
 for a time the residence of our Lord (Gesch. iii. 
 219, note). But with regard to the first three 
 names there is the difficulty that they are spelt 
 with the guttural letter ain, which is very 
 rarely exchanged for the aleph, which commences 
 the name before us. The only clue to its situa- 
 tion is its proximity to Baal-hazor, which has 
 been identified with Zell ’Asiir, 2} miles N.W. 
 of et-Taiyibeh, Ephraim. The LXX. make the 
 following addition to verse 34:—“And the 
 watchman went and told the king, and said, 1 
 have seen men on the road of the Oronen (B. 
 τῆς ᾿Ωρωνῆν, A.“ τῶν ὄρεωνη) by the side of 
 the mountain.” Ewald considers this to be a 
 genuine addition, and to refer to Beth-horon, 
 N.W. of Jerusalem, off the Nablis road, but the 
 indication is surely too slight for such an 
 inference. Any force it may have is against 
 the identity of this Ephraim with that in John 
 xi. 54, which was probably in the direction N.E. 
 of Jerusalem. [61] [W.] 
 
 EPH-RA'IM (Ἐφραΐμ; Ephrem; Cod. Amiat. 
 Efrem), a city CE. λεγομένην πόλιν) “in the 
 district near the wilderness” to which our 
 Lord retired with His disciples when threatened 
 with violence by the priests (John xi. 54). By 
 the “wilderness” (ἐρήμος) is probably meant 
 the wild uncultivated hill-country N.E. of 
 Jerusalem, lying between the central towns and 
 the Jordan valley. In this case the conjecture 
 of Dr. Robinson is very admissible that Ophrah 
 and Ephraim are identical, and that their 
 modern representation is et-Taiyibeh, a village 
 on a conspicuous conical hill, commanding a 
 view “ over the whole eastern slope, the valley 
 of the Jordan and the Dead Sea” (Rob. i. 444). 
 It is situated 4 miles N.E. of Bethel, and 14 
 from Jerusalem; a position agreeing tolerably 
 with the indications of Jerome in the Ono- 
 masticon (Efraim, Efron), and is too con- 
 spicuous to have escaped mention in the Bible. 
 It is probably also the Ephraim mentioned by 
 Josephus (B. J. iv. 9, § 9) as having, with 
 Bethel, been taken by Vespasian ; and the place 
 which gave its name to the toparchy of Apha- 
 rema (1 Macc. xi. 34). Guérin, Judée, iii. 
 45-51, gives a good description of et-Zaiyibeh, 
 with a summary of the arguments in favour of 
 its identification with Ephraim. [G.] [W.1 
 
 EPH-RA'IM, GATE OF (O58 Wt; 
 πύλη Ἐφραΐμ; porta Ephraim), one of the gates 
 of the city of Jerusalem (2 K. xiv. 13; 2 Ch. 
 xxv. 23; Neh. viii. 16, xii. 39), doubtless, 
 according to the Oriental practice, on the side 
 looking towards the locality from which 1" 
 derived its name, and therefore at the north, 
 perhaps at or near the position of the present 
 “Damascus gate.” [JERUSALEM.] [G.] [W.] 
 
 EPH-RA'IM, MOUNT, more correctly, as 
 in R. V., “the hill country of Ephraim.” In Jer. 
 iv. 15, xxxi. 6, 1.19, R. V, reads “the hills of 
 
976 EPHRAIM, THE WOOD OF 
 
 Ephraim.” The name by which the territory 
 allotted to the children of Joseph (Josh. xvii. 
 15) was apparently known. In its widest sense 
 it included part of Benjamin (Judg. iv. 5); and it 
 was also known as the mountain of Israel (Josh. 
 xi. 16, 21), and as the Mount of the Anaalekites 
 (Judg. xii. 15). It is frequently mentioned in 
 the O. T. (Judg. 111. 27, vii. 24, xvii. 1, 8, xviii. 
 2, 18, xix. τ 16; 18st Sam.cix. 4, aay. 22.: 
 2Sam. xx. 21; 2 K. v. 22; 2 Ch. xv. 8, xix. 
 4): and within its limits were, Timnath-serah, 
 or Timnath-heres, Joshua’s inheritance, and the 
 place of his burial (Josh. xix. 50, xxiv. 30; 
 Judg. ἢ. 9); Gibeah of Phinehas (Josh. xxiv. 
 33); Shechem (Josh. xx. 7, xxi. 21; 1 K. xii. 
 25; 1 Ch. vi. 67); Shamir (Judg. x. 1); Rama- 
 thaim-zophim (1 Sam. i. 1); and Mount Zema- 
 raim (2 Ch. xiii. 4). It was one of the twelve 
 districts into which Solomon divided the 
 country for commissariat purposes (1 K. iv. 8); 
 and was very fruitful and in places covered with 
 forest. The general character of the hill- 
 country allotted to Ephraim has already been 
 described. [Epuraim.] The highest points are 
 Mount Gerizim, 2848 feet; Mount Ebal, 
 3076 feet; and Tell ’Astir, 3376 feet. The 
 deeply-cut valleys that descend on the west, to 
 the plain of Sharon, are fertile and cultivated, 
 whilst those that descend on the east to the 
 Jordan Valley are barren and waste. [W.] 
 
 EPH-RA'IM, tHe WOOD or (O° 5N 1D; 
 δρυμὸς *Edpaiu; saltus Ephraim), a wood, or 
 rather, as in R. V., a forest (the word ya‘ar 
 implying dense growth*), in which the fatal 
 battle was fought between the armies of David 
 and of Absalom (2 Sam. xviii. 6), and the en- 
 tanglement in which added greatly to the 
 slaughter of the latter (v. 8). It would be very 
 tempting to believe that the forest derived its 
 name from the place near which Absalom’s 
 sheep-farm was situated (2 Sam. xiii. 23), and 
 which would have been a natural spot for his 
 head-quarters before the battle, especially 
 associated as it was with the murder of Amnon. 
 But the statements of xvii. 24, 26, and also the 
 expression of xviii. 3, “that thou succour us out 
 of the city,” i.e. Mahanaim, not to speak of the 
 statement of Josephus (Ant. vii. 10, § 1), that 
 Absalom crossed the Jordan and camped not far 
 from Mahanaim, in the country of Gilead, allow 
 no escape from the conclusion that the locality 
 was on the east side of Jordan, though it is 
 impossible to account satisfactorily for the 
 presence of the name of Ephraim (the Luc. Rec. 
 reads here Μααινάν = 0°3M1D) on that side of 
 
 the river. The suggestion is due to Grotius 
 that the name was derived from the slaughter 
 of Ephraim at the fords of Jordan by the 
 Gileadites under Jephthah (Judg. xii. 1, 4, 5); 
 and this is in accord with the statement of 
 Josephus (Ant. vii. 10, § 2), that the battle took 
 place in the “Great Plain,” or Jordan Valley. 
 But is it not at least equally probable that the 
 forest derived its name from this very battle ? 
 The great tribe of Ephraim, though not specially 
 mentioned in the transactions of Absalom’s 
 
 ® The low thorny brushwood or scrub which covers 
 many rocky and barren spots in the uplands of the 
 Bible is still called waar by the fellahin (Geikie, Holy 
 Land and the Bible, i. 49). 
 
 ‘indicate 
 
 EPHRATAH 
 
 revolt, cannot fail to have taken the most 
 conspicuous part in the affair, and the reverse 
 Was a more serious one than had overtaken the 
 tribe for a very long time, and possibly com- 
 bined with other circumstances to retard ma- 
 terially their rising into an independent king- 
 dom. Ephron, the strong city between Carnaim 
 and Bethshean, is too far distant to admit of 
 any connexion between it and the forest of 
 Ephraim. [61 ἘΠῚ 
 
 ἘΡΗ-ΒΑΎΜΙΤΕ (NBN; B. ᾿Εφραθείτης, 
 A. ἐκ τοῦ ᾽Εφραίμ; Ephrathaeus). Of the tribe 
 of Ephraim (Judg. xii. 5), elsewhere called 
 ‘“ Ephrathite.” CW. A. W.] 
 
 E’/PHRAIN (ji75y, Β. V. Ephron; Keri, 
 }7 IBY ; Ἐφρών ; Ephron), a city of Israel, which 
 with its dependent hamlets (1122 = “ daugh- 
 ters,” A. V. “ towns”) Abijah and the army of 
 Judah captured from Jeroboam (2 Ch, xiii. 19). 
 Jerome (Q. Heb.) on this passage says, Ephron 
 ipse est Sichem. So fruitful was Ephrain that 
 it was a proverb not to carry straw to Ephrain 
 (Otho, Zev. 172). It is mentioned with Bethel 
 and Jeshanah, ‘Ain Sinia, 31 miles north of 
 Beitin, and was apparently not far from them. 
 It has been conjectured that this Ephrain or 
 Ephron is identical with the Ephraim by which 
 Absalom’s: sheep-farm of Baal-hazor was situ- 
 ated; with the city called Ephraim near the 
 wilderness in which our Lord lived for some 
 time (John xi. 54); and with Ophrah (775Y), 
 a city of Benjamin, apparently not far from 
 Bethel (Josh. xviii. 23; cp. Joseph. B. J. iv. 9, 
 § 9), and which has been located by Dr. Robin- 
 son (i. 447), with some probability, at the 
 modern village of et-Taiyibeh, But nothing 
 more than conjecture can be arrived at on these 
 points (see Ewald, Geschichte, iii. 219, 466, v. 
 365; Stanley, p.214). [EpHraim.] [G.] [W.} 
 
 EPH-RA’TAH (R. V. EPHRATHAB), or 
 EPH-RATH (DSS, or NDS; ᾿Εφραθὰ and 
 Ἐφράθ; Ephratha, Jerome). 1. Second wife 
 of Caleb the son of Hezron, mother of Hur, 
 and grandmother of Caleb the spy, according to 
 1 Ch. ii. 19, 50, and probably v. 24, and iv. 4. 
 (CALEB-EPHRATAH. ] 
 
 2. The ancient name of Bethlehem-Judah, as 
 is manifest from Gen. xxxv. 16, 19, xlviii. 7, 
 both which passages distinctly prove that it was 
 called Ephrath or Ephratah in Jacob’s time, and 
 use the regular formula for adding the modern 
 
 name, pn>-n’a N's, which is Bethlehem, ep. e.g. 
 Gen. xxiii. 2, xxxv. 27; Josh. xv. 10. It cannot 
 therefore have derived its name from Ephratah, 
 the mother of Hur, as the author of Quaest. 
 Hebr. in Paraleip. says, and as one might other- 
 wise have supposed from the connexion of her 
 descendants, Salma and Hur, with Bethlehem, 
 which is somewhat obscurely intimated in 1 Ch. 
 ii. 50, 51, iv. 4. It seems obvious therefore to 
 infer that, on the contrary, Ephratah the mother 
 of Hur was so called from the town of her birth, 
 and that she probably was the owner of the 
 town and district. . In fact, that her name was 
 really gentilitious. But if this be so, it would 
 more communication between the 
 Israelites in Egypt and the Canaanites than is 
 commonly supposed. When, however, we 
 
EPHRATHITE 
 
 recollect that the land of Goshen was the 
 border country on the Palestine side; that the 
 Israelites in Goshen were a tribe of sheep- and 
 cattle-drovers (Gen. xlvii. 3); that there was 
 an easy communication between Palestine and 
 Egypt from the earliest times (Gen. xii. 10, 
 xvi. 1, xxi. 21, &c.); that there are indications 
 of communications between the Israelites in 
 Egypt and the Canaanites, caused by their trade 
 as keepers of cattle (1 Ch. vii. 21), and that in 
 the nature of things the owners or keepers of 
 large herds and flocks in Goshen would have 
 dealings with the nomad tribes in Palestine, it 
 ‘will perhaps seem not impossible that a son of 
 Hezron may have married a woman having 
 property in Ephratah. Another way of account- 
 ing for the connexion between Ephratah’s de- 
 scendants and Bethlehem is to suppose that the 
 elder Caleb was not really the son of Hezron, but 
 merely so reckoned as the head of a Hezronite 
 house. He may in this case have been one of 
 an Edomitish or Horite tribe, an idea which is 
 favoured by the name of his son Hur [CALEB], 
 and have married an Ephrathite. Caleb the spy 
 may have been their grandson. It is singular 
 that “Salma the father of Bethlehem” should 
 have married a Canaanitish woman. Could she 
 have been of the kindred of Caleb in any way? 
 If she were, and if Salma obtained Bethlehem, 
 a portion of Hur’s inheritance, in consequence, 
 this would account for both Hur and Salma 
 being called “father of Bethlehem.” Another 
 possible explanation is, that Ephratah may have 
 been the name given to some daughter of 
 Benjamin to commemorate the circumstance of 
 Rachel his mother having died close to Ephrath. 
 This would receive some support from the son 
 of Rachel’s other son Joseph being called 
 _ Ephraim, a word of identical etymology, as 
 appears from the fact that ‘TDN means in- 
 differently an Ephrathite, i.e. Bethlemite (Ruth 
 i. 1, 2), or an Ephraimite (1 Sam. i. 1). But it 
 would not account for Ephratah’s descendants 
 being settled at Bethlehem. The author of the 
 _ Quaest. Hebr. in Paraleip. derives Ephrata from 
 _ Ephraim, “Ephrath, quia de Ephraim fuit.” 
 But this is not consistent with the appearance 
 of the name in Genesis. It is perhaps impossible 
 to come to any certainty on the subject. It 
 _ must suffice therefore to note, that in Gen., 
 and perhaps in Chron., it is called Ephrath or 
 Ephrata; in Ruth, Bethlehem-Judah, but the 
 inhabitants, Ephrathites ; in Micah (v. 2), Beth- 
 lehem-Ephratah ; in Matt. ii. 6, Bethlehem in 
 the land of Juda. Jerome, and after him 
 Kalisch, observe that Ephratah, fruitful, has the 
 same meaning as Bethlehem, house of bread; a 
 view which is favoured by Stanley’s description 
 of the neighbouring corn-fields (Sinai § Pales- 
 tine, p. 164). [BETHLEHEM.] 
 3. Gesenius thinks that in Ps. exxxii. 6 
 _ L£phratah means Ephraim (so R. V. marg.). 
 "4 ΕΟ 
 EPH-RATHITE (‘MAN ; Ἐφραθαῖος ; Eph- 
 rathaeus). 1. An inhabitant of Bethlehem 
 (Ruth i. 2). 2. An Ephraimite (1 Sam. i. 1; 
 Judg. xii. 4, &c.). [A..C. H.] 
 
 EPH-RON (})15Y = vitulinus ; ᾿Εφρών ; Eph- 
 on), the son of Zochar, a Hittite ; the owner of a 
 field which lay facing Mamre or Hebron, and of 
 
 BIBLE’ DICT.—VOL. I. 
 
 977 
 
 the cave therein contained, which Abraham 
 bought from him for 400 shekels of silver (Gen. 
 xxiii. 8-17, xxv. 9, xlix, 29, 30, 1.15). By Josephus 
 (Ant. i. 14) the name is given as Ephraim; and 
 the purchase-money 40 shekels. On the simi- 
 larity of the negotiations to those of the present 
 day in Syria and Palestine, see Thomson, ἢ). 
 and B. ii, 381-4. [6 ΕΝ] 
 
 EPH-RON (Ἐφρών ; Ephron), ἃ very strong 
 city (πόλις μεγάλη ὀχυρὰ σφόδρα) on the east of 
 Jordan between Carnaim (Ashteroth-Karnaim) 
 and Bethshean, attacked and demolished by 
 Judas Maccabaeus (1 Macc. v. 46-52; 2 Mace. 
 xii. 27). From the description in the former of 
 these two passages, it appears to have been 
 situated in a defile or valley, and to have com- 
 pletely occupied the pass. (See Josephus, Ant. 
 xii. 8, § 5.) Its site has not yet been discovered. 
 
 [61]. ΕΝ] 
 
 EPH-RON, MOUNT (VIBY"T7; τὸ ὄρος 
 Ἐφρών ; Mons Ephron). The “cities of Mount 
 Ephron” formed one of the landmarks on the 
 northern boundary of the tribe of Judah (Josh. 
 xv. 9), between the “water of Nephtoah ” and 
 Kirjath-jearim. If these latter are identified 
 with ‘Am Lifta and Kuryet cl-Enab, Mount 
 Ephron is probably the range of hills on the 
 west side of the Wady Beit Hannina (traditional 
 valley of the Terebinth), opposite Lifta, which 
 stands on the eastern side. If, on the other 
 hand, they are identified with Etam, ‘Ain ‘Atdén 
 and Ah. ’Erma, Mount Ephron is probably the 
 long ridge or spur down which the road runs 
 from Solomon’s Pools, near Bethlehem, to ‘Ain 
 Shems, Bethshemesh. In this case it may 
 possibly be the same place as the Ephrathah or 
 Ephraim of Ps, exxxii. 6. [G.] [W.] 
 
 EPICURHE’ANS, THE (Ἐπικουρεῖοι), derived 
 their name from Epicurus (342-271 B.c.), a 
 philosopher of Attic descent, whose “Garden” 
 at Athens rivalled in popularity the “ Porch ” 
 and the “Academy.” The doctrines of Epicurus 
 found wide acceptance in Asia Minor (Lampsa- 
 cus, Mitylene, Tarsus, Diog. L. x. 1, 11 sq.) and 
 Alexandria (Diog. L. /. ¢.), and they gained a 
 brilliant advocate at Rome in Lucretius (95- 
 50 B.c.). The object of Epicurus was to find 
 in philosophy a practical guide to happiness 
 (ἐνέργεια ... τὸν εὐδαίμονα βίον περιποιοῦσα, 
 Sext. Emp. adv. Math. xi. 169). True pleasure 
 and not absolute truth was the end at which he 
 aimed ; experience and not reason the test on 
 which he relied. He necessarily cast aside dia- 
 lectics as a profitless science (Diog. L. x. 30, 31), 
 and substituted in its place (as τὸ κανονικόν, 
 Diog. L. x. 19) an assertion of the right of the 
 senses, in the widest acceptation of the term, to 
 be considered as the criterion of truth (κριτήρια 
 τῆς ἀληθείας εἶναι τὰς αἰσθήσεις καὶ τὰς mpo- 
 λήψεις [general notions] καὶ τὰ πάθη). He made 
 the study of physics subservient to the uses of 
 life, and especially to the removal of supersti- 
 tious fears (Lucr. i. 146 sq.) ; and maintained 
 that ethics are the proper study of man, as lead- 
 ing him to that supreme and lasting pleasure 
 which is the common object of all. 
 
 It is obvious that a system thus framed would 
 degenerate by a natural descent into mere mate- 
 rialism ; and in this form Epicurism was the 
 popular philosophy at the beginning of the 
 
 3R 
 
 EPICUREANS, THE 
 
978 EPIPHANES 
 
 Christian era (cp. Diog. L. x. 5, 9). When St. 
 Paul addressed ‘*Epicureans and Stoics” (Acts 
 xvii. 18) at Athens, the philosophy of life was 
 practically reduced to the teaching of those two 
 antagonistic schools, which represented in their 
 final separation the distinct and complementary 
 elements which the Gospel reconciled. For it is 
 unjust to regard Epicurism as a mere sensual 
 opposition to religion. It was a necessary step 
 in the development of thought, and prepared the 
 way for the reception of Christianity, not only 
 negatively but positively. It not only weakened 
 the hold which polytheism retained on the mass 
 of men by daring criticism, but it maintained 
 with resolute energy the claims of the body to 
 be considered a necessary part of man’s nature 
 co-ordinate with the soul, and affirmed the 
 existence of individual freedom against the Stoic 
 doctrines of pure spiritualism and absolute fate. 
 Yet outwardly Epicurism appears further re- 
 moved from Christianity than Stoicism, though 
 essentially it is at least as near; and in the 
 address of St. Paul (Acts xvii. 22 sq.) the affirma- 
 tion of the doctrines of creation (v. 24), provi- 
 dence (v. 26), inspiration (v. 28), resurrection, 
 and judgment (v. 31), appears to be directed 
 against the cardinal errors which it involved. 
 The tendency which produced Greek Epicur- 
 ism, when carried out to its fullest development, 
 is peculiar to no age or country. Among the 
 Jews it led to Sadduceeism [SADDUCEES], and 
 Josephus appears to have drawn his picture of the 
 sect with a distinct regard to the Greek prototype 
 (Joseph. «ἀπέ. xviii. 1, § 43 de B. J. ii. 8, § 14; 
 ep. Ant. x. 11, § 7, de Epicureis). In modern 
 times the essay of Gassendi (Syntagma Philoso- 
 phiae Epicuri, Hag. Com. 1659) was a significant 
 symptom of the restoration of sensationalism. 
 The chief original authority for the philosophy 
 of Epicurus is Diogenes Laertius (lib. x.), who 
 has preserved some of his letters and a list of 
 his principal writings. The poem of Lucretius 
 must be used with caution, and the notices in 
 Cicero, Seneca, and Plutarch are undisguisedly 
 hostile. EAD a MYEl 
 
 EPIPH’ANES (1 Mace. i. 10; x. 1). [AntI- 
 OCHUS EPIPHANES. | 
 
 EPI-PHI (Emi, 3 Macc. vi. 38), name of 
 the eleventh month of the Egyptian Vague year, 
 and the Alexandrian or Egyptian Julian year: 
 
 s 
 Copt. ENHIL; Arab. ou). 
 
 - 
 
 Egyptian it is called “the third month [of] the 
 season of the waters.” [Eaypr.] The name 
 Epiphi is derived from that of the goddess of the 
 month, Apap-t (Lepsius, Chron. d. Aeg. i. 141). 
 The supposed derivation of the Hebrew month- 
 name Abib from Epiphi is discussed in other 
 articles. [CHRONOLOGY ; Montus.] [R. 5. P.] 
 
 EPISTLE (ἐπιστολή). The Epistles of the 
 N. T. are described under the names of the 
 Apostles by whom, or the Churches to whom, 
 they were addressed. It is proposed in the 
 present article to speak of the epistle or letter 
 as a means of communication. The use of 
 written letters implies, it need hardly be said, 
 a considerable progress in the development of 
 civilised life. There must be a recognised 
 system of notation, phonetic or symbolic; men 
 
 In ancient 
 
 EPISTLi 
 
 must be taught to write, and have writing 
 materials at hand. In the early nomadic stages 
 of society accordingly, like those which mark 
 the period of the Patriarchs of the O. T., we 
 find no traces of any but oral communications. 
 Messengers are sent instructed what to say from 
 Jacob to Esau (Gen. xxxii. 3), from Balak to 
 Balaam (Num. xxii. 5, 7, 16), bringing back in 
 like manner a verbal, not a written answer 
 (Num. xxiv. 12). The negotiations between 
 Jephthah and the king of the Ammonites (Judg. 
 xi. 12, 13) are conducted in the same way. It 
 is still the received practice in the time of Saul 
 (1 Sam. xi. 7, 9). The reign of David, bringing 
 the Israelites, as it did, into contact with the 
 higher civilisation of the Phoenicians, witnessed 
 a change in this respect. The first recorded 
 letter (15D, LXX. βιβλίον : cp. the use of the 
 
 same word in Herod. i. 123) in the history of 
 the O, T. was that which “‘ David wrote to Joab, 
 and sent by the hand of Uriah ” (2 Sam. xi. 14); 
 and this must obviously, like the letters (Q5D, 
 
 LXX. βιβλίον) that came into another history 
 of crime (in this case also in traceable con- 
 nexion with Phoenician influence, 1 K. xxi. 8, 9), 
 have been “sealed with the king’s seal,” as at 
 once the guarantee of their authority, and a 
 saferuard against their being read by any but 
 the persons to whom they were addressed. The 
 material used for the impression of the seal was 
 probably the “clay” of Job xxxviii. 14. The 
 act of sending such a letter is, however, pre- 
 eminently, if not exclusively, a kingly act, 
 where authority and secrecy were necessary. 
 Joab, e.g., answers the letter which David had 
 sent him after the old plan, and receives a verbal 
 message in return, The demand of Benhadad 
 and Ahab’s answer to it are conveyed in the 
 same way (1 K. xx. 2, 5). Written communi- 
 cations, however, become much more frequent 
 in the later history. The king of Syria sends a 
 letter (DD) to the king of Israel (2 K. v. 5, 6). 
 A “writing ” (222, LXX. ἐν γραφῇ) comes to 
 Jehoram from Elijah the prophet (2 Ch. xxi. 12). 
 Hezekiah oa one occasion makes use of a system 
 of couriers like that afterwards so fully organ- 
 ized under the Persian kings (2 Ch. xxx. 6, 10, 
 NIN, LXX. ἐπιστολή ; cp. Herod. viii. 98, and 
 Esth. iii, 13, viii. 10, 14), and receives from 
 Sennacherib the letter (QD, LXX. τὰ βιβλία) 
 which he “spreads before the Lord” (2 K. xix. 
 14). Jeremiah writes a letter (ΒΡ, βίβλοΞ) to 
 the exiles in Babylon (Jer. xxix. 1, 3, the pro- 
 totype of the apocryphal Epistle of Jeremiah, 
 placed as Baruch vi. in the A. V.; on which see 
 BarucH, THE Book or). The Books of Ezra 
 and Nehemiah contain or refer to many such 
 documents (Ezra iv. 6 sq., v. 6, vii. 11; Neh. 
 ii. 7, 9, vi. 5). The influence of Persian, and 
 yet more, perhaps, that of Greek civilisation, 
 led to the more frequent use of letters as a 
 means of intercourse. Whatever doubts may be 
 entertained as to the genuineness of the epistles 
 themselves, their eccurrence in 1 Mace. xi. 30, 
 xii. 6, 20, xv. 1,16; 2 Mace. xi. 16, 34, together 
 with the allusions to them in 1 Macc. vy. 10, 
 ix. 60, x. 3, indicates that they were recognised 
 as having mainly (yet not entirely: see 1 Mace. 
 vii. 10, xv. 32) superseded the older plan of 
 messages orally delivered. The two stages of 
 the history of the N. T, present in this respect a 
 
EPISTLE 
 
 striking contrast. The list of the canonical 
 Books shows how largely epistles were used in 
 the expansion and organization of the Church. 
 Those which have survived may be regarded as 
 the representatives of many others that are lost. 
 The mention of “ every epistle ” and the warn- 
 ing of 2 Thess. iii. 17 indicate that St. Paul 
 had already written more than the two Epistles 
 to the Thessalonians—the only ones of that early 
 date still preserved. 1 Cor. v. 9, but probably 
 not Col. iy. 16 (cp. Lightfoot in loco), alludes to 
 a lost epistle, as does 3 John 9, We are perhaps 
 4oo much in the habit of forgetting that quite 
 as noticeable is the absence of all mention of 
 written letters from the Gospel history. With 
 the exception of the spurious letter to Abgarus 
 of Edessa (Kuseb. 11. 2. i. 13), no epistles have 
 been attributed to Jesus. The explanation of 
 this is to be found partly in the circumstances 
 of one who, known as the “carpenter’s son,” 
 was training as His disciples those who, like 
 Himself, belonged to the class of labourers and 
 peasants; partly in the fact that it was by 
 personal rather than by written teaching that 
 the work of the prophetic office, which He re- 
 produced and perfected, had to be accomplished. 
 ‘The Epistles of the N. T. in their outward form 
 are such as might be expected from men who 
 were brought into contact with Greek and 
 Roman customs, themselves belonging to a 
 different race, and so reproducing the imported 
 style with only partial accuracy. They fall 
 into two main groups: (1) the “Pauline” Epistles, 
 including the Epistle to the Hebrews, and (2) the 
 “Catholic Epistles,” viz. James, 1, and 2 Peter, 
 1, 2, and 3 John, and Jude. The title given to 
 this second group is not in strictness of speech 
 applicable to all of those contained in it. 2 Peter 
 and Jude are indeed perfectly general in their 
 address. James, 1 Peter, and 1 John are general 
 in their application, and are not (like St. Paul’s 
 Epistles) addressed to the Church in a single 
 city or country. Hence the term was applied 
 to them also; and afterwards, though less 
 accurately, its range was extended so as to 
 include 2 and 3 John as well (cp. Westcott, Zhe 
 Epistles of St. John, p. xxviii.). The Epistles in 
 each group begin (the Epistle to the Hebrews 
 and 1 John excepted) with the names of the 
 writer and those to whom the Epistle is addressed. 
 Then follows the formula of salutation (analogous 
 to the εὖ πράττειν of Greek; the SS. D., or 
 S. Ὁ. M., salutem, salutem dicit, salutem dicit 
 multam, of Latin correspondence), generally in 
 some combination of the words χάρις, ἔλεος, 
 εἰρήνη : occasionally, as in Acts xv. 23, Jas. i. 1, 
 with the closer equivalent χαίρειν (cp. Acts 
 xxiii. 26). Then the letter itself commences, in 
 the first person, the singular and plural being 
 used, as in the letters of Cicero, indiscriminately 
 {ep. 1 Cor. ii.; 2 Cor. i. 8,15; 1 Thess. iii. 1, 2; 
 and pass). Then when the substance of the 
 letter has been completed, questions answered, 
 truths enforced, come the individual messages, 
 characteristic, in St. Paul’s Epistles especially, 
 
 _ of one who never allowed his personal affections 
 _ to be swallowed up in the greatness of his work. 
 
 The conclusion in this case was probably modi- 
 fied by the fact that the letters were dictated 
 to an amanuensis. When he had done his 
 
 _ work, the Apostle took up the pen or reed, and 
 
 Ἷ 
 
 added in his. own large characters (Gal. vi. 11) 
 
 ERANITES, THE 979 
 
 the authenticating autograph, sometimes with 
 special stress on the fact that this was his 
 writing (1 Cor. xvi. 213 Gal: vi. 113 Col. iv. 
 18; 2 Thess. iii. 17), always with one of the 
 closing formulae of salutation, “ Grace be with 
 thee”—“the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be 
 with your spirit.” In one instance, Rom. xvi. 
 22, the amanuensis in his own name adds his 
 salutation. In the ἔρρωσθε of Acts xv. 29, and 
 ἔρρωσο of the received text in xxiii. 30, we have 
 the equivalents of the va/ete, vale, which formed 
 the customary conclusion of Roman letters. It 
 need hardly be said that the fact that St. Paul’s 
 Epistles were dictated in this way accounts for 
 many of their most striking peculiarities,—the 
 frequent digressions, the long parentheses, the 
 vehemence and energy as of a man who is 
 speaking strongly as his feelings prompt him 
 rather than writing calmly. For the autho- 
 rities on which the text of the two groups of 
 Epistles rest, see New TESTAMENT. 
 
 An allusion in 2 Cor. iii. 1 brings before us 
 another class of letters which must have been 
 in frequent use in the early ages of the Christian 
 Church, the ἐπιστολαὶ συστατικαί, by which 
 travellers or teachers were commended by one 
 Church to the good offices of others. Other 
 persons had come to the Church of Corinth 
 relying on these. St. Paul appeals to his con- 
 verts as the ἐπιστολὴ Χριστοῦ (2 Cor. iii. 3), 
 written “not with ink, but with the Spirit of 
 the living God.” Another instance of this kind 
 of letter is found in Acts xvili. 27; and ep. the 
 mention of Zenas and Apollos in Titus iii. 13. 
 On the later history of ἐπιστολαὶ συστατικαΐ, see 
 Suicer. Thes. ii. 1194, and Dict. of Christ. Antiq., 
 art. “Commendatory Letters.” 
 
 For other particulars as to the material and 
 implements used for epistles, see WRITING. 
 
 fae Pa” πο 8.6] 
 
 ER (CW = watchful ; “Hp; Her). 1. First- 
 born of Judah. His mother was Bath-Shuah 
 (daughter of Shuah), a Canaanite. His wife was 
 Tamar, the mother, after his death, of Pharez 
 and Zarah, by Judah. Er “was wicked in the 
 sight of the Lord; and the Lord slew him.” It 
 does not appear what the nature of his sin was ; 
 but, from his Canaanitish birth on the mother’s 
 side, it was probably connected with the abomi- 
 nable idolatries of Canaan (Gen. xxxviii. 3-7; 
 Num. xxvi. 19). 
 
 2. Descendant of Shelah the son of Judah 
 ( Ch. iv. 21). 
 
 9. With a final vod, Ert, perhaps designating 
 afamily, son of Gad (Gen. xlvi. 16; LXX. Andis). 
 
 4. Son of Jose, and father of Elmodam, in our 
 Lord’s genealogy (Luke iii. 28), about con- 
 temporary with Uzziah king of Judah. 
 
 ΒΞ Ἢ] 
 
 E/RAN (1), but Sam. and Syr. 11), Edan ; 
 *Edév; Heran), son of Shuthelah, eldest son of 
 Ephraim (Num. xxyi. 36). The name does not 
 occur in the genealogies of Ephraim in 1 Ch. vii. 
 20-29, though a name, EzER (11), is found 
 which may possibly be a corruption of it. Eran 
 was the head of the family of 
 
 E/RANITES, THE ΟΝ ἼΠ; Sam. ‘270i; 
 
 Ἐδενί ; Heranitae), Num. xxvi. 36. 
 3R 2 
 
980 ERASTUS 
 
 ERAS’TUS (Ἔραστος ; Erastus). 1. One of 
 the attendants or deacons of St. Paul at Ephesus, 
 who with Timothy was sent forward into Mace- 
 donia while the Apostle himself remained in Asia 
 (Acts xix. 22). He is probably the same as 
 Erastus who is again mentioned in the salutations 
 to Timothy (2 Tim. iv. 20), though not, as Meyer 
 maintains, the same as Erastus the chamberlain 
 of Corinth (Rom. xvi. 23). 
 
 2. Erastus the chamberlain, or rather the 
 public treasurer (οἰκονόμος, arcarius) of Corinth, 
 who was one of the early converts to Christianity 
 (Rom. xvi. 23). According to the traditions of 
 the Greek Church (Menol. Graecum, i. p. 179), he 
 was first oeconomus to the Church at Jerusalem, 
 and afterwards Bishop of Paneas. He is probably 
 not the same as Erastus who was with St. Paul 
 at Ephesus, for in this case we should be com- 
 pelled to assume that he is mentioned in the 
 Epistle to the Romans by the title of an office 
 which he had once held and afterwards re- 
 signed. LW. A. Wi] 
 
 T’RECH (FN ; Ὀρέχ; Arach) is the second 
 city of the list of four given in Gen. x. 10 as the 
 beginning of Nimrod’s kingdom in the land of 
 Shinar; the others being Babel, Accad, and 
 Calneh. This important city, supposed at first 
 to be Edessa or Calirrhoé (Urfah) in the N.W. of 
 Mesopotamia (so St. Ephrem, Jerome, and the 
 Targumists), is now known to be the site called 
 by the Arabs Warka, which lies halfway between 
 Hilla and Korna on the left bank of the Eu- 
 phrates, having on its eastern side the Nile 
 canal. This town was called Uruk (or Arku) by 
 the Babylonians and Assyrians, whence the Heb. 
 Erech and the Arab. Warka. The original 
 Akkadian name was Unu, Unug,* or Unuga, 
 which is translated in the Bilingual lists by 
 kubtu, “seat,” “dwelling.” Other native (Ak- 
 kadian) names for the city were Jdlag (or Πα); 
 Namerim ; Tir-ana, “the heavenly grove; ” Ara- 
 imina (or Uru-imina) and Da-imina, “ district 
 seven” (or “ the seven districts”), Gipar-imina, 
 “enclosure seven ” (or “the seven enclosures ἢ): 
 Ki-nd-ana, “the heavenly resting-place,” &c., 
 &e. As may be supposed from this, the Baby- 
 lonians thought a great deal of this city, which, 
 in ancient days, must have been a much more 
 delightful place than the present scene of 
 desolation which the ruins present would lead 
 one to suppose. That this was the case is also 
 indicated by the ruins themselves, which show 
 remains of large and elegant buildings with the 
 usual recessed or fluted walls, in some cases 
 decorated with patterns formed with the circular 
 ends of cones imbedded in mortar, and coloured 
 various hues. At the time when the Babylonian 
 empire was at the height of its power, it is 
 probable that the country around the city was 
 well drained, and properly fertilised by the 
 numerous canals. The dwellings of the people 
 seem, at one time, to have extended some three 
 miles beyond the walls of the city, which was 
 itself nearly six miles in circumference. 
 
 a Jt is from this form that, by change of m into 7, the 
 Bab.-Assyr. form Uruk comes. The Greek form of the 
 name of the city is ᾽Ορχόη; and the inhabitants are 
 mentioned in Ezra iv. 9 under the name of Archevites 
 Q@9)P, SDIN; DIN). Compare the Assyr. Arkda, 
 
 fem. Arkdaitu, * Erechite,” 
 
 ERECH 
 
 Erech seems to have been used as a necropolis, 
 large numbers of glazed earthenware coffins and 
 other receptacles, used for the burial of the dead, 
 having been found there. These coffins are 
 mostly of the Parthian period, though the city 
 had probably been used as a burial-place long 
 before then. 
 
 That it was a very ancient city is proved by 
 the Babylonian and Assyrian inscriptions. It 
 seems to have been the capital of the semi- 
 mythical hero-king Gilgames (Gilgamos), in the 
 wonderful legend concerning whom it is con- 
 stantly mentioned under the name of Uruk or 
 Uruk supuri, “Krech of the enclosure”? (see 
 above). From time to time it was attacked by 
 enemies, and devastated, as the following extract. 
 from a hymn of an unknown and probably pre- 
 historic period will show :— 
 
 “How long, O my lady, shall the strong enemy hold 
 
 thy sanctuary ? 
 
 In thy primeval city, Erech, famine existeth ; 
 
 In E-ulbar, the house of thine oracle, blood like 
 water floweth ; 
 
 He hath set fire in all thy lands, and poured it out 
 like date-fruit. 
 
 My lady, greatly am I bound up with misfortune. 
 
 My lady, thou hast hemmed me in, and entreated me- 
 evilly. 
 
 The mighty enemy hath smitten me down like a 
 single reed. 
 
 1 take not counsel, myself I am not wise. 
 
 Like the fields, day and night I mourn. 
 
 I, thy servant, pray to thee— 
 
 Let thy heart take rest; let thy mood be softened.” 
 
 During the historical period many kings. 
 reigned in Erech, and some of them—such as 
 Dungi, Ur-Bau, and Gudea, about 2500 B.c.; 
 Sin-gaSid, at a little later date; and Merodach- 
 baladan I., about 1325 B.c.—have left records of 
 their having done so on the many inscribed and 
 stamped bricks which are found in the ruins.. 
 In the year 2280 B.c., Kudur-Nanhundi, king of 
 Elam, invaded this part of Babylonia, captured. 
 Erech, and carried away the image of the goddess. 
 Nani, which was restored to its place 1635. 
 years later by AS8ur-bani-apli, king of Assyria. 
 Tablets of the reigns of Nabopolassar, Nebuchad- 
 nezzar, Nabonidus, Cyrus, Darius, and some of 
 the Seleucidae have also been found on the site. 
 
 This city contained two great temples, the 
 abodes of the patron divinities of the place. One 
 was called -ulbar (the house of the oracle :” 
 see the hymn above), and was dedicated to 
 the goddess Istar (Venus as evening star) ; the 
 other H-ana (“the house of heaven”), dedicated 
 to Nana (the goddess whose image was carried 
 off by the Elamite king), and now represented 
 by the Buwariya mound. It is argued by Prof- 
 Fried. Delitzsch that in former times the river 
 Euphrates must have flowed much nearer to the 
 city than at present, because, in the legend, of 
 GilgameS, it is related that GilgameS and Ea- 
 bani, after they had killed, in Erech, the bull 
 sent by the goddess Istar, washed their hands in- 
 the stream. See Loftus, Travels, &c.; Oppert, 
 Expédition en Meésopotamie, vol. i.; Smith, 
 Chaldean Genesis, p. 194; Delitzsch, Wo lag 
 das Paradies? and Records of the Past, vol. i., 
 N.S., pp. 78-85. [Ἰ- GPa 
 
 b Supuru (or Suburw) means “ring” (round the 
 moon), ‘‘halo,” and “fold,” ‘‘sheep-fold.” 
 
ERI 
 
 ἘΠΕῚ (W; Anadis in Gen., B. ᾿Αδδεί, AF. -δὶ 
 in Num. [v. 25]; Heri, Her), son of Gad (Gen. 
 xlvi. 16; Num. xxvi. 16, LXX. v. 25), 
 
 E’'RITES, THE (Wi; ὁ ᾿Αδεὶ or -5:; Heri- 
 tae). A branch of the tribe of Gad, descended 
 from Eri (Num. xxvi. 16). 
 
 ESAIAS [3 syll.] (Westcott and Hort, 
 Ἢσαίας ; Isaias ; Cod. Amiat. Ysaias), Matt. iii. 
 3, iv. 14, viii. 17, xii. 17, xiii. 14, xv. 7; Mark 
 vii. 6; Luke iii. 4, iv. 17; John i. 23, xii. 38, 39, 
 41; Acts viii, 28, 30, xxviii. 25; Rom. ix. 27, 
 29, x. 16, 20, xv. 12, [Isarau.] 
 
 E’/SAR-HAD-DON (AN ΘΝ ; ᾿Ασορδαν ; 
 LXX. Σαχερδονός ; Ptol. ᾿Ασαρίδανος ; Assyr. 
 A&Sur-dha-iddina, Ακβιι»-αλιι-ἰααἴηα, “* Asshur has 
 given a brother”; Asar-haddon), the name of one 
 of the greatest and also the mildest of the kings of 
 Assyria. He was the son of Sennacherib (2 K. 
 xix. 37), and grandson of Sargon of Assyria, sur- 
 named “the later” [SARGON ], who succeeded Shal- 
 maneser IV. Esarhaddon was not the eldest 
 son of Sennacherib; the unfortunate Assur-nadin- 
 Sum, who was made king of Babylon by his 
 father, having been the firstborn. Judging 
 from the meaning of his name, “ Asshur has 
 given a brother,” he was possibly the second 
 son of Sennacherib. The others were ASssur- 
 munik (or Assur-mulik) [ADRAMMELECH] and 
 Sharezer (= Sarra-usur ὃ). 
 
 Esarhaddon ascended the throne of Assyria on 
 the 18th day of Adar (Feb.—March), in the year 
 680 B.C., after, as is supposed, he had defeated 
 the army of his brothers in the land of Hani- 
 rabbe, near thé Upper Euphrates, and his brothers 
 had taken refuge in Armenia. Esarhaddon at once 
 turned his attention to Babylonia, where Nabi- 
 zér-napisti-lisir, son of Merodach-baladan, had 
 taken possession of the city of Ur. On the 
 Assyrian army marching against him, he fled to 
 Elam, where, however, the king of the country, 
 Ummanaldas, put him to death. Na’id-Marduk, 
 brother of Nabti-zér-napi8ti-lisir, threw himself 
 on the mercy of Esarhaddon, who restored him 
 to the dominions of his brother on the sea-coast 
 (called mat Tamti™). Esarhaddon now restored 
 those portions of Babylon which had been de- 
 stroyed by Sennacherib, his father, and returned 
 the images of the gods which had heen carried 
 away, thus conciliating the people. He also 
 defeated and put to death the chief of the 
 Chaldean tribe of Dakkuri, Samas-ibni, who had 
 taken possession of the fields of the people of 
 Babylon and Borsippa. Having restored the 
 land to its rightful owners, he placed Naba- 
 Sallim on the throne as king of the tribe of 
 Dakkuri. 
 
 Affairs in Babylonia being thus satisfactorily 
 settled, Esarhaddon, in the fourth year of his 
 reign, captured the cities Sidon and Bazza, and 
 executed Abdi-Milkutti, king of Sidon, together 
 with Sanduarri, king of Kundu and Sist. He 
 also built a new town near Sidon, peopling it 
 with the captives from the old city, and placing 
 it under the control of an Assyrian governor. 
 This was apparently an attempt to divert the 
 trade of Sidon to the new settlement, but the 
 ommerce lost at the destruction of Sidon went 
 to the sister-city, Tyre. At this time the whole 
 of Palestine and the surrounding district made 
 
 ESARHADDON 081 
 submission to Esarhaddon, who gives us ἃ list of 
 twelve kings of the mainland (including Baal of 
 Tyre, Manasseh of Judah, and the kings of Edom, 
 Moab, Gaza, Askelon, Ekron, &c.) and ten kings 
 of the island of Cyprus, all of whom sent pre- 
 sents, and were directed by Esarhaddon to 
 supply him with building materials for his new 
 palace at Nineveh. 
 
 In his sixth year, Esarhaddon began to turn 
 his attention to Egypt, and seems to have made 
 some slight conquests there. Operations were 
 continued in his seventh year, when there was a 
 battle on the 5th day of Adar; but it was not a 
 vigorous campaign, as a part of the Assyrian 
 army was engaged in Hupuskia, against the 
 Cimmerians, who were now beginning to make 
 inroads. Checked in the south, the Cimmerians 
 turned to the west and overran part of Asia 
 Minor, Cilicia and Dw’ua, in the neighbourhood 
 of Tubal, were also invaded, and thirty-one cities 
 taken; and Barnaki, “a powerful enemy dwel!- 
 ing in Til-Assuri” (Tel-Assar—cp. Is. xxxvii. 
 12), was overrun by the Assyrian army. The 
 Medesa, the Mannfa (Minni or Armenians), and 
 other tribes on the north and east of Assyria, 
 were next attacked, the result being that three 
 Median chiefs journeyed in person to Nineveh 
 and made submission to Esarhaddon. 
 
 Esarhaddon’s next move was in the direction 
 of Arabia, whither, after having returned to the 
 king, Haza-ilu or Hazael, the images of the gods 
 which Sennacherib had carried away, with his 
 own name written upon them (a common custom 
 with the Assyrian kings), Esarhaddon conducted 
 an expedition to subdue the country. He tra- 
 velled 900 miles, and reached two districts, 
 called Hazit and Bazu (Hazo and Buz), where he 
 subdued seven kings. An eighth, Lalé, king of 
 Yadi’, who had fled, afterwards made submission 
 at Nineveh, when Esarhaddon returned to him 
 the images of his gods, inscribed with “the 
 power of Assur,” and conferred upon him the 
 land of Bazu or Buz. After the death of Haza- 
 ilu, king of Arabia, Esarhaddon placed his son, 
 Ya’-ilu, on the throne. He was unpopular with 
 the tribes, however, and Esarhaddon had to send 
 an army to quell the insurrection which took 
 place. The Assyrians were successful, and 
 Wabu, a pretender, was captured and taken to 
 Nineveh. 
 
 In his eighth year Esarhaddon invaded and 
 plundered the land of the Rurisaa, the spoils of 
 which were taken to Erech in Babylonia. In 
 this year Esarhaddon lost his queen, who died on 
 the 5th day of Adar (Feb.—March). 
 
 In Nisan (March-April) of the tenth year of 
 his reign, Esarhaddon began the conquest of 
 Egypt. Battles were fought there on the 3rd, 
 16th, and 18th of Tammuz (June-July), result- 
 ing in the capture of Memphis on the 22nd. 
 Tirhakah, who was then king of Egypt, fled; 
 but his sons and nephews were captured, and the 
 city spoiled. Esarhaddon now divided Egypt into 
 twenty provinces, placing the majority of them 
 under Egyptian princes, who submitted to his 
 rule. Those not under native government—and 
 these were probably the more important posts— 
 he garrisoned with Assyrian troops under As- 
 syrian governors. A complete list of these pro- 
 vinces, with the names of their governors, has 
 come down to us. 
 
 In the eleventh year several of the great 
 
982 
 
 men of Assyria were, for some reason unknown, 
 executed by Esarhaddon. 
 
 Esarhaddon’s last expedition was again against 
 Egypt, but he fell ill on the road, and died on 
 the 10th of Marcheswan, in the twelfth year of 
 his reign, according to the Babylonian Chronicle, 
 and in the thirteenth, according to the Babylonian 
 Canon (667 or 668 B.C.). 
 
 Besides setting on foot the campaigns men- 
 tioned in his inscriptions, Esarhaddon carried 
 away captive Manasseh, king of Judah, who was 
 seized at Jerusalem by his captains on a charge 
 of rebellion, and taken to Babylon (2 Ch. xxxiii. 
 11), where Esarhaddon held his court. The 
 Jewish king was, however, afterwards pardoned 
 and restored to his kingdom. As has already 
 been mentioned above, Manasseh is given in his 
 inscriptions as a tributary of Esarhaddon. 
 
 Fsarhaddon rebuilt the walls of Babylon and 
 the temple of Bel in that city, as well as many 
 temples in Assyria and Akkad. He also built a 
 palace at Nineveh, on an old site which he en- 
 larged, and for which twenty-two kings of Hit, 
 the seacoast, and the middle of the sea (Cyprus), 
 furnished the materials. It was adorned with 
 winged bulls and colossi, and decorated with 
 rare and valuable stones. The doors were made 
 of sweetly-smelling wood overlaid with silver 
 and bronze. The south-west palace at Nimroud 
 1s the best-preserved of his constructions. This 
 building, which was excavated by Sir A. H. 
 Layard, is remarkable for the peculiarity of its 
 plan as well as for the scale on which it is con- 
 structed, and the Rey. G. Rawlinson says that 
 it corresponds in its general design almost exactly 
 with the palace of Solomon (1 K. vii. 1-12), but 
 is of larger dimensions, the great hall being 
 220 feet long by 100 broad (Layard’s Nin. & 
 Bab., p. 634), and the porch or antechamber 
 160 feet by 60. It had the usual adornments of 
 winged bulls, colossi, and sculptured slabs, but 
 it has suffered so severely from fire, that the 
 stones and alabaster slabs, &c., were all split 
 and calcined... This is all the more to be re- 
 gretted, as, from what has been said above, there 
 is reason to believe that Hittite, Phoenician, 
 and Cypriote artificers took part in the work. 
 Portions of very fine winged bulls from Esar- 
 haddon’s palace at Nineveh are now in the 
 British Museum. 
 
 Esarhaddon was probably one of the most 
 energetic of a very. energetic race of kings, and 
 carried his conquests farther than any of his 
 predecessors, leaving his kingdom, at his un- 
 expected death, ina very prosperous condition, 
 Although many acts of severity mark his reign, 
 he must nevertheless be regarded as one of the 
 most clement rulers of his time in the East—as 
 witness his treatment of Manasseh, Na’id- 
 Marduk, Haza-ilu of Arabia, and others. On 
 the whole, his was a wise and common-sense 
 reign (as things went at that time in the East), 
 and must have had the effect of reconciling the 
 diverse elements under his sway. At his death, 
 the kingdom was divided between his two sons, 
 ASSurbanipal (see ASNAPPER) becoming king of 
 Assyria and its dependencies, and Samas-Sum- 
 ukin (Saosduchinos) king of Babylon under him. 
 Both princes had probably not yet reached man- 
 hood when this took place. Esarhaddon’s third 
 son, Assur-mukin-palia, was raised to the priest- 
 hood, with the title of wrigall, probably at 
 
 ESARHADDON 
 
 ESAU 
 
 Nineveh; and his fourth and youngest, AsSur- 
 étil-Samé-irsiti-bullit-su, became wrigallu * be- 
 fore the god Sin” in Harran. 
 
 See G. Smith’s History of Assyria, and T. G.. 
 Pinches’s “ Babylonian Chronicle ” in the Journ, 
 Roy. Asiat. Soc., vol. xix., part 4. [Τ᾿ G. Ps] 
 
 ESAU, the eldest son of Isaac, and twin- 
 brother of Jacob. The singular appearance of 
 the child at his birth originated the name: “ And 
 the first came out red (δ᾽) δ, indicative of the 
 colour of the skin), all over like an hairy gar- 
 ment, and they called his name Lsau” WY, i.e. 
 “hairy,” “ rough,” Gen. xxv. 253 see Delitzsch: 
 {1887]). This. was not the only remarkable 
 circumstance connected with the birth of the 
 infant, Esau was the first-born; but as he was. 
 issuing into life Jacob’s hand grasped his heel. 
 The after enmity of two brothers, and the in-- 
 creasing strife of two great nations, were thus 
 foreshadowed (xxv. 23, 26. Cp. Dillmann,® 
 p- 310 sq.). Esau’s robust frame and “ rough ”” 
 aspect were the types of a wild and daring nature- 
 (cp. the Phoenician legends about Οὔσωος in 
 Dillmann,® p. 7). The peculiarities of his. 
 character soon began to develop themselves. 
 Scorning the peaceful and commonplace occupa- 
 tions of the shepherd, he revelled in the excite- 
 ment of the chase, and in the martial exercises. 
 of the Canaanites (xxv. 27). He was, in fact,. 
 a thorough Bedawy, a “son of the desert,” who- 
 delighted to roam free as the wind of heayen, 
 and who was impatient of the restraints of 
 civilised or settled life. His old father, by a. 
 caprice of affection not uncommon, loved his. 
 wilful, vagrant boy; and his keen relish for 
 savoury food being gratified by Esau’s venison, 
 he liked him all the better for his skill in hunt- 
 ing (xxv. 28). An event occurred which ex- 
 hibited the reckless character of Esau on the one 
 hand, and the selfish, grasping nature of his 
 brother on the other. The former returned from 
 the field, exhausted by the exercise of the chase, 
 and faint with hunger. Seeing some pottage of 
 lentiles which Jacob had prepared, he asked for 
 it. Jacob only consented to give the food on 
 Esau’s swearing to him that he would in return 
 give up his birthright. There is something 
 revolting in the whole transaction. Jacob takes 
 advantage of his brother’s distress to rob him of 
 that which was dear as life itself to an Eastern 
 patriarch. The birthright not only gave him 
 the headship of the tribe, both sacerdotal and 
 temporal, and the possession of the great bulk 
 of the family property, but it carried with it the 
 covenant blessing (xxvii. 28, 29, 36; Heb. xii. 16, 
 17). Then again whilst Esau, under the pressure 
 of temporary sufizring, despises his birthright. 
 by selling it fora mess of pottage (Gen. xxv. 34), 
 he afterwards attempts to secure that which 
 he had deliberately sold (xxvii. 4, 34, 88; Heb.. 
 xii. 17). 
 
 It is evident that the whole transaction was 
 public, for it resulted in a new name being given 
 to Esau. He said to Jacob (cp. R. V.), “ Feed me 
 with that same red (DAN) ...3 therefore was 
 his name called Edom” (DIT, Gen. xxv. 30).. 
 
 It is worthy of note, however, that this name is 
 seldom applied to Esau himself, though almost 
 universally given to the country he settled in, 
 and to his posterity. [Epom; Epomires.] The 
 
ESAU 
 
 name “children of Esau” 
 plied to the Edomites (Deut. ii. 4; Jer. xlix. 8; 
 Obad. v.18); but it is rather a poetical expression. 
 Esau married at the age of forty, and contrary 
 to the wish of his parents. His wives were both 
 Canaanites; and they “ were bitterness of spirit 
 unto Isaac and to Rebekah” (Gen. xxvi. 34, 35),® 
 The next episode in the history of Esau and 
 Jacob is still more painful than the former, as 
 it brings out fully those bitter family rivalries 
 and divisions which were all but universal in 
 ancient times, and which are still a disgrace to 
 Eastern society. Isaac, conceiving himself near 
 death, wished to bless Esau before he died; 
 but Jacob, co-operating with the craft of his 
 mother, is again successful, and secures ir- 
 revocably the covenant blessing. Esau vows 
 vengeance. But fearing his aged father’s patri- 
 archal authority, he secretly congratulates him- 
 self: “The days of mourning for my father are 
 at hand; then will I slay my brother Jacob” 
 (Gen. xxvii.41). Thus he imagined that by one 
 bloody deed he would regain all that had been 
 taken from him by artifice. But he knew not a 
 mother’s watchful care. Not a sinister glance 
 of his eyes, not a hasty expression of his tongue, 
 escaped Rebekah. She felt that the life of her 
 darling son, whose gentle nature and domestic 
 habits had won her heart’s affections, was now 
 in imminent peril; and she advised him to flee 
 for a time to her relations in Mesopotamia. The 
 sins of both mother and child were visited upon 
 them by a long and painful separation, and all 
 the attendant anxieties and dangers. By a 
 characteristic piece of domestic policy Rebekah 
 succeeded both in exciting Isaac’s anger against 
 Esau, and obtaining his consent to Jacob’s de- 
 parture—‘and Rebekah said to Isaac, I am 
 weary of my life because of the daughters of 
 Heth; if Jacob take a wife such as these, what 
 good shall my life do me?” Her object was 
 attained at once. The blessing was renewed to 
 Jacob, and he received his father’s commands to 
 go to Padan-aram (Gen. xxvii. 46; xxviii. 1-5). 
 When Esau heard that his father had com- 
 manded Jacob to take a wife of the daughters 
 of his kinsman Laban, he also resolved to try 
 whether by a new alliance he could propitiate 
 his parents. He accordingly married his cousin 
 Mahalath, the daughter of Ishmael (xxviii. 8, 9). 
 This marriage appears to have brought him into 
 connexion with the Ishmaelitish tribes beyond 
 the valley of Arabah. He soon afterwards 
 established himself in Mount Seir, still retain- 
 ing, however, some interest in his father’s pro- 
 perty in Southern Palestine. It is probable that 
 his own habits, and the idolatrous practices of 
 his wives and rising family, continued to excite 
 and even increase the anger of his parents; and 
 that he, consequently, considered it more prudent 
 to remove his household to a distance. He was 
 residing in Mount Seir when Jacob returned 
 from Padan-aram, and had then become so rich 
 and powerful that the impressions of his brother’s 
 early offences seem to have been almost com- 
 
 3 The opinion that this mésalliance was the original 
 tradition round which the other Biblical events con- 
 nected with Esau were made to centre is too hypothetical 
 and unsupported to secure acceptance. Not less imagi- 
 native is the opinion that Esau and Edom are but names 
 of gods transferred to men who have human biographies 
 accorded to them.—[F.] 
 
 is in a few cases ap-| pletely effaced. 
 
 988 
 
 His reception of Jacob was 
 cordial and honest ; though doubts and fears stil] 
 lurked in the mind of the latter, and betrayed 
 him into something of his old duplicity ; for 
 while he promises to go to Seir, he carefully 
 declines his brother’s escort, and, immediately 
 after his departure, turns westward across the 
 Jordan (Gen. xxxii. 7, 8, 11; xxxiii. 4, 12, 17). 
 
 It does not appear that the brothers again 
 met until the death of their father, about twenty 
 years afterwards. Mutual interests and mutual 
 fear seem to have constrained them to act 
 honestly, and even generously, towards each 
 other at this solemn interview. They united in 
 laying Isaac’s body in the cave of Machpelah. 
 Then ‘Esau took all his cattle, and all his sub- 
 stance, which he had got in the land of Canaan ” 
 —such, doubtless, as his father with Jacob’s 
 consent had assigned to him—“ and went into 
 the country from the face of his brother Jacob” 
 (xxxv. 29; xxxvi. 6). He now saw clearly that 
 the covenant blessing was Jacob’s; that God had 
 inalienably allotted the land of Canaan to Jacob’s 
 posterity ; and that it would be folly to strive 
 against the Divine will. He knew also that as 
 Canaan was given to Jacob, Mount Seir was 
 given to himself (cp. xxvii. 39, xxxii. 3; and 
 Deut. ii. 5); and he was, therefore, desirous with 
 his increased wealth and power to enter into full 
 possession of his country, and drive out its old 
 inhabitants (Deut. ii. 12). Another circumstance 
 may have influenced him in leaving Canaan. He 
 “lived by his sword” (Gen. xxvii. 40); and he 
 felt that the rocky fastnesses of Edom would be 
 a safer and more suitable abode for such as by 
 their habits provoked the hostilities of neigh- 
 bouring tribes, than the open plains of Southern 
 Palestine. 
 
 There is a difficulty connected with the names 
 of Esau’s wives, which is discussed under AHOLI- 
 BAMAH and BasHEMATH. Of his subsequent his- 
 tory nothing is known; for that of his descend- 
 ants, see EpoM and EDOMITES. {J. L. P.] 
 
 E’SAU (Ἡσαύ; Sel), 1 Esd. v. 29. [ΖΙΒΑ.] 
 
 ESA’Y (‘Hoatas ; Isaia, Isaias), Ecclus. xlviii. 
 20, 22; 2 Esd. 11. 18. [Isaran.] 
 
 ESCHATOLOGY. Eschatology, or the 
 Doctrine of the Last Things, is the name which 
 of late has become common for doctrine con- 
 cerning both the future state of the individual 
 and the consummation of the present dispensa- 
 tion, or end of the world, with its accompanying 
 events; and a complete view cannot be obtained 
 of the way in which either of these reached its 
 final form, apart from a consideration of the 
 other. The present article will necessarily be 
 confined to a review of biblical Eschatology. 
 An attempt will be made to trace the progress 
 of thought and Revelation on the Last Things in 
 the Old and New Testaments, though this also 
 can be done only in bare outline, while other 
 articles will be referred to for information on 
 particular points. (1) It will be convenient to 
 speak first of belief in the future of the indi- 
 vidual. As regards actual knowledge and clear 
 ideas on this subject, the Israelites, during the 
 greater part of that period to which the Old 
 Testament refers and belongs, are not in advance 
 of other nations. Indeed, their very superiority 
 consists in part in the severe restraint under 
 
 ESCHATOLOGY 
 
984 ESCHATOLOGY 
 
 which their thoughts are kept in this region, 
 where they have no sure light to guide them. 
 They have no mythology in regard to it, and 
 give but little the reins to imagination. The 
 bareness of their conceptions necessarily makes 
 their words few, and may explain how it has 
 been possible to doubt whether they believed in 
 any continued existence of the soul after death 
 at all. 
 
 Such passages as Job xxxiv. 14, 15, and Eccles. 
 xii. 7, with which also Pss. civ, 29 and exlvi. 4 
 may be compared, might possibly, taken by 
 themselves, be supposed to imply a pantheistic 
 conception: the spirit in man, which animates 
 his frame, seems to be regarded as an effluence 
 from an original Divine Source, with which it is 
 to be reunited at death. But the strong sense 
 of man’s personality and relationship of re- 
 sponsibility and love to a personal God which 
 distinguishes the Old Testament, negatives this 
 idea. 
 
 Expressions like those in Pss, xxxix. 13, cxv. 
 17, exlvi. 4; Is. xxviii. 18, 19, depict the loss 
 of all the interests and hopes and joys, the 
 warmth and light, of this present scene. They 
 do not necessarily exclude the notion of con- 
 tinued existence of the soul in another world. 
 Indeed such an expression as “‘ going down into 
 silence” (Ps. cxv. 17) seems to imply it. 
 Among such slight indications of belief in a 
 continuance of existence may be reckoned the 
 phrase “gathered unto his people” or “to his 
 fathers,” which clearly, from some passages in 
 which it is used, cannot mean “buried in the 
 family burying-place.” See, for example, Gen. 
 xxv. 8 (of Abraham, far away from his ancestral 
 home), xlix. 33 (where it is used not of Jacob’s 
 burial, but of his death); Num. xx. 24 (of 
 Aaron’s death on Mount Hor); Judg. ii. 10 (of 
 the passing away of a whole generation). As 
 showing a similar view of death, compare 
 David’s language, 2 Sam. i. 23. A still clearer 
 proof of belief in existence after death is the 
 practice of necromancy (Deut. xviii. 115 Is. viii. 
 19; 1 Sam. xxviii. 9 sq.). Is. xiv. 9 sq. and 
 Ezek, xxxii. 31 give fuller pictures of the 
 realms of the dead. In all this, however—and 
 the same holds of the language of the Old 
 Testament generally, with but few exceptions— 
 the state after death is contemplated as one of 
 gloom, sadness, enervation; while no clear 
 distinction is made between the condition of the 
 righteous and the wicked, and no doctrine of 
 retribution is associated with it. Compare 
 especially the Book of Job, chaps, vii. and xiv. 
 To the same effect is the name by which the 
 dead are in some places described, the Rephaim, 
 translated by the Revisers “ the Shades,” which 
 gives well the general sense of the word, though 
 not agreeing strictly with its derivation. (On 
 Rephaim, see art. Grants, ὃ 3. On Sheol, the 
 common name for the Under-world, see HELL, 
 and note also the name Abaddon, “ destruction.”’) 
 
 These mournful forebodings were the utter- 
 ance of human misgiving and doubt, natzural 
 even for the righteous when so little clear 
 knowledge of the future life had as yet been 
 vouchsafed. They are preserved in Holy Scrip- 
 ture, because it is a faithful record of human 
 experience, apart from which it would be im- 
 possible to understand the actual history of the 
 progress of Revelation, The prospect of gloomy 
 
 ESCHATOLOGY 
 
 death made the sorrows and injustices of life 
 harder to bear. The triumph of faith was as 
 yet most commonly seen in the confidence that, 
 in spite of all appearances to the contrary, God’s 
 righteousness would be vindicated even in this 
 life. The broad lesson of the Providential 
 ordering of this world had to be mastered 
 before men were allowed to dwell on recom- 
 pense in a life to come. Even such words as 
 those of Balaam (Num. xxiii. 10), which seem 
 to us so naturally to speak of the hope of future 
 bliss, must, on the ground of the prevailing 
 tenor and usage of Old Testament language, 
 be understood to refer to the long life and 
 peaceful end which were regarded as the fitting 
 and appointed reward of godliness. 
 
 But now and again, especially while viewing 
 the incompleteness of the manifestation of 
 Divine justice here, the soul is permitted to 
 attain to a confidence that even in and through 
 death it must be well with it, if it is reposing 
 in trust upon God (see Pss. xvi. 10, 11; xvii. 
 14, 15; xlix. 14, 15; Ixxiii. 24-26), Some inter- 
 preters hold that no hope of immortality is 
 expressed even in these passages. But in Ps. 
 xlix. it seems clear that the reference must be 
 to the joy of the righteous after death, from the 
 fact that the contrast drawn is between their 
 lot and the lot of the ungodly who are pros- 
 perous even to the end of life. Such is also the 
 most natural sense, and, supported by Ps. xlix., 
 we may say is almost certainly the sense, of 
 Ps. xvii. In Pss. xvi. and Ixxiii. again no inter- 
 pretation which does not see in the language 
 the expression of the hope of eternal communion 
 with God seems adequate. But it is particularly 
 to be noted that this confident hope of living 
 enjoyment of God hereafter springs from the 
 intense realisation of communion with God here. 
 These psalmists are sure that Death cannot have 
 power to triumph over such a fellowship. ‘The 
 communion instituted by Revelation between 
 the living God and man imparts to human 
 personality an eternal importance” (Oehler). 
 Compare our Lord’s argument with the Saddu- 
 cees, especially as recorded by St. Luke (xx. 37, 
 38). Another well-known passage (Job xix. 
 25 sq.) seems to hold out hope of satisfaction 
 after death for the righteous, while moving 
 more than those last considered in the plane of 
 Old Testament ideas. The exact rendering of 
 this passage does not favour the view that it 
 refers to a resurrection. And even if the render- 
 ing of the A. V. were right, the words would, 
 in the absence of all other intimations of belief 
 in a resurrection in the Book, have to be under- 
 stood of a vindication of the sufferer even in 
 this life. But the thought seems rather to be 
 that over his dust God would stand as his vindi- 
 cator, and that even in Sheol he would be 
 permitted to derive comfort from the proof 
 given of his innocence and of God’s favour. 
 
 The further development. however, of the 
 doctrine of immortality was not after the 
 manner of ordinary Theism. It did not consist 
 in attributing fuller life to the spirit apart 
 from the body, but in the growing expectation 
 of aresurrection. In the case both of Is. xxvi. 
 19 and Ezek. xxxvii. 1-14, it is difficult to 
 decide whether a literal resurrection of the 
 
 | dead, or a figurative representation of national 
 | revival, is to be understool. 
 
 There is most to 
 
ESCHATOLOGY 
 
 be said for the former view in Is. xxvi. 19, 
 where, as a much earlier passage, we should 
 least expect it. But at all events, in Dan. xii. 
 2,a resurrection which, though not universal, 
 should comprise both godly and ungodly, is 
 plainly foretold. Cp. also v.13. The doctrine 
 of the resurrection of the righteous is still more 
 clearly insisted on in 2 Mace. vii. 9, 11, 14, 23, 
 29; xii. 48,44. The oppressions to which the 
 taithful among the Jews were subjected under 
 Antiochus Epiphanes were peculiarly suited to 
 bring such a hope into prominence. It formed, 
 yas we know, a definite article of the creed of the 
 Pharisees, and is fully recognised in the Jewish 
 Apocalyptic literature. The work of Christ 
 with respect to this doctrine was (1) to refine 
 and spiritualise it (Matt. xxii. 23-30, and 
 parallels: ep. also St. Paul’s teaching concern- 
 ing the “spiritual body,” 1 Cor. xv. 35-end); 
 {2) to place it upon a sure foundation through 
 His revealing word and His own resurrection as 
 the “first-fruits” (1 Cor. xv. 20), the “ first- 
 born from the dead” (Col. i. 18; Rev. i. 5). 
 
 2. But there is another hope more clearly 
 apprehended and largely dwelt upon in the Old 
 Testament than that of personal immortality ; 
 it is that of the Redemption of Zion, the com- 
 plete peace, righteousness, and happiness of 
 Israel under their promised God-given King, 
 The doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, 
 when at length it arose, linked the hopes of the 
 individual to those of the nation. The righteous 
 would rise again in order to share in that 
 triumph of the Divine love and righteousness 
 in which, notwithstanding all seeming evidence 
 to the contrary, they had believed. The faith in 
 this glorious future for the nation had its foun- 
 dation in the knowledge of God’s covenant with 
 Israel, to which He must prove faithful, and the 
 sense in every age that the ideal of their condi- 
 tion as the People of God had not as yet been 
 attained, either as regards their inward state or 
 their surroundings. It rose ever clearer and 
 fuller in and through every period of adversity. 
 
 This is not the place in which to discuss the 
 justness of the language of the Seventh of the 
 Thirty-nine Articles of the English Church. 
 But the passing remark may be permitted, that 
 whatever may be thought of its fitness when we 
 are reviewing the uncertain hold upon the hope 
 of bliss hereafter for the individual in the Old 
 Testament, yet at least when we turn to the 
 hope for Israel, as God’s people, we see the in- 
 adequacy of the theory that “the Old Fathers 
 did look only for transitory promises.” Though 
 the future bliss is no doubt conceived under 
 earthly forms and as taking place upon this 
 earth, yet the whole drift of Old Testament 
 hope sets towards a final and complete establish- 
 ment of the Kingdom of God. 
 
 The germ of the later Jewish and the Chris- 
 tian conceptions of the Last Things is to be 
 found in the imagery of the Prophets of the Old 
 Testament concerning the Redemption of Zion. 
 Jehovah’s final judgment on the enemies of 
 Israel passed into the loftier conception of the 
 Day of Universal Judgment, and the picture of 
 a restored Jerusalem furnished the image of the 
 heavenly, eternal city. From the same imagery 
 the doctrine of a Millennium, preceded and closed 
 by specially fierce onslaughts of the enemies of 
 God, was also drawn. 
 
 While, again, the valley | 
 
 985 
 
 near Jerusalem where the enemies were to be 
 slaughtered gave the name of the place of 
 torment in another world (see the arts. Henn 
 and GEHENNA). 
 
 Foremost among the conceptions prepared 
 under the Old Testament which in Christian 
 faith were to be associated with the future 
 coming of Christ as the Judge and heavenly 
 King, we have the expression “day of the Lord ” 
 (i.e. of Jehovah), for a time of Divine judgment. 
 We find it used of times of Divine visitation 
 generally (Amos v. 18; Is. ii. 12, xiii. 6, 9; 
 Lam. ii. 22; Ezek. xiii. 5); but it had also 
 a special application to a final judgment upon 
 the enemies of Zion, and of the ungodly in the 
 midst of her, closely connected with her re- 
 demption (Is. xxxiv.8; Obad.v. 15; Joel iii. 14; 
 Mal. iv. 5). The idea of such a “day” does 
 not seem to have been originally taken from a 
 judge holding court, but from a terrible tri- 
 umphant conqueror executing vengeance in a 
 day of battle and slaughter (cp. Is. xiii. 4. 
 Zeph. i. 8, 16; Ezek. xiii. 5, xxx. 3,453 and Joel ii. 
 may also be compared). Touches are also added 
 to the descriptions, drawn from the terrors of 
 nature (Is. xiii. 10; Zeph. i. 15). The Lord’s 
 judgments were sometimes literally executed 
 through the sword of human warriors. But 
 in the visions of that last great judgment the 
 vengeance upon the heathen and the sinners in 
 Zion seems to be the work of powers of Nature, 
 or powers supernatural. In Joel iii. 12, an ad- 
 dition is made to the conception which was of 
 the greatest moment in the history of the 
 doctrine of judgment. The image of a great 
 slaughter is still employed in that passage, but 
 Jehovah is represented as sitting to judge while 
 it is taking place. The valley in the mind of 
 the Prophet here, when he speaks of “ the valley 
 of decision,” is most probably that same valley 
 of Hinnom where were seen in the vision of 
 Isaiah Ixvi. the carcases of those who had been 
 slain in the great Divine visitation, and which 
 furnished the name Gehenna to after-times. This 
 term came eventually to be loosely used of the 
 place of punishment to which the wicked go at 
 death, as well as of that connected with the 
 Messianic judgment; but originally it belonged 
 to the latter only. 
 
 After the destruction of the enemies of Zion, 
 and of the rebellious sinners among her own 
 people, there would follow a time of overflowing 
 prosperity and peace. All nations would ac- 
 knowledge the God of Israel and pay reverence 
 to His people. Nature herself would be rendered 
 newly propitious to man. All that is harsh and 
 cruel in her would be altered, and the fruitful- 
 ness of the earth would be multiplied many- 
 fold. So great would the change be that it 
 might be described as a renewal of heaven and 
 earth (Hos. ii. 18-23; Is. ii. 2-4, xi., Ixv. 17, &c.). 
 Similar descriptions, based upon these in the 
 Prophets, are found in the Jewish Sibylline 
 fragments, the pre-Christian portions of the Book 
 of Enoch, and the Psalms of Solomon, the figures 
 being sometimes grotesquely exaggerated (Sib. 
 Or. iii. 702-794; Enoch v. 6-9, x. 16—xi. 2; 
 Pss. of Sol. xvii. 23 sq.). We have not here, it is 
 to be observed, the doctrine of the Millennium in 
 its definite and ultimate form: for no indica- 
 tion is given of a limit to this period of bliss, 
 and of another world to follow it. The first 
 
 ESCHA'TOLOGY 
 
986 ESCHATOLOGY 
 
 trace of such a conception which we meet with 
 is in Enoch xci. 12-17. It comes out with far 
 greater distinctness in 4 Esdras vii. 26-31, and 
 in the Apocalypse of Baruch (Ixxiii.—lxxxiy. 2), 
 writings which most probably belong to the last 
 thirty years or so of the 1st century A.D. It 
 may be noted in passing that the duration of 
 this Messianic time according to 4 Esdras is 
 400 years, and that very various lengths are 
 assigned to it in Rabbinic writings. Into 
 Jerusalem or around it all the faithful were to 
 be gathered, and the difficulties attending such 
 an arrangement are quaintly dealt with. (For 
 Rabbinic doctrine on the subject, see Gfrérer, 
 Jahrhundert des Heils, pt. ii. c. 10.) 
 
 For the conception of the Universal Judgment 
 as well as for that of a Millennium, properly co 
 called, we have to go beyond the Old Testament. 
 The doctrine, indeed, of man’s personal responsi- 
 bility to God pervades the Old Testament; but 
 we do not find there the representation of one 
 great future assize to which shall be brought 
 fallen spirits and all men living and dead. For 
 the earliest instances of this we must pass to 
 the portions of the Book of Enoch which are 
 generally admitted to be pre-Christian and to 
 belong to the last century or century and a half 
 before Christ (see chs. xvi. 1; xxii. 4, ἄς). It 
 is unnecessary to give particular references 
 to later books,—4 Esdras, the Apocalypse of 
 Baruch, the Book of Jubilees. Isaiah xxiv. 
 21, 22, has been thought by some to refer to 
 a future judgment on spiritual beings and on 
 departed kings. But at any rate a universal 
 judgment is not there described. 
 
 There are differences in the representations of 
 the things of the end in different portions of the 
 New Testament. Language resembling that of 
 the Jewish Apocalypses is chiefly to be found in 
 the Synoptic Gospels, the Apocalypse of St. John, 
 the Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude, and the 
 Epistles to the Thessalonians. Deeper and more 
 comprehensive teaching, more divested of such 
 imagery, is set before us in the remaining 
 writings of St. Paul and St. John. But besides 
 this broad distinction there are differences of 
 imagery even in the former group, corresponding 
 in a measure to varieties in Jewish ideas. It 
 will be most convenient to follow the order of 
 events in the Apocalypse and to compare other 
 descriptions by the way. The succession of 
 calamities in the gradually unfolding visions 
 of the Apocalypse may be compared with the 
 briefer and more general description of the 
 signs of the end in our Lord’s Apocalyptic dis- 
 course in Matt. xxiv. (Mark xiii.; Luke xxi.). 
 Then after the fall of the city mystically called 
 Babylon, He Whose Name is ‘The Word of God ” 
 is seen going forth to war followed by the 
 armies of heaven; and the enemies of God 
 assemble to make war with Him and are over- 
 thrown (Rey. xix. 11-21). Then follows a 
 reign of the Saints (xx. 1-7) for a thousand 
 years. This passage does not enter into details, 
 and it is not clear that what is ordinarily meant 
 by the Millennium is intended. Such a belief, 
 known as Chiliasm or Millenarianism, was, 
 indeed, very prevalent in the Christian Church 
 of the 2nd century, and they so interpreted 
 this passage of the Apocalypse. But their 
 ideas on the subject were evidently chieft 
 
 ESCHATOLOGY 
 
 cum Tryph., 51, 80, 81; Irenaeus, v. 33-36), 
 If all ages of the Church and schools of inter- 
 preters be taken into account, it has been more 
 commonly held that this portion of the imagery 
 of the Apocalypse has been fiulfilled in the 
 victory, partial as it is, which Christ and His 
 Church have already won. Elsewhere in the 
 New Testament there is no clear indication of a 
 finite period before the Judgment, like that of 
 the reign of the Messiah in the later Jewish 
 writings. In the Synoptic Gospels figures of 
 earthly felicity are drawn from the Old Testa- 
 ment and from current Jewish language to 
 describe the triumph of the kingdom of God, 
 such as that of the great banquet (Matt. viii. 
 11, &c.), and of abundant possessions, including 
 the reign of the Apostles with Christ (Matt. 
 xix, 28, 29, &c.). But if the language be con- 
 sidered as a whole, it will be seen that it agrees 
 rather with those earlier and simpler ideas 
 described above, according to which the Mes- 
 sianic times and the world to come were not 
 distinguished from one another. According to 
 1 Thess. iv. 16, 17, the resurrection of those 
 that “sleep in Jesus” is to be a first incident of 
 His appearing, so that they will share in all its 
 joy and glory. Thus far this passage accords 
 with Rey. xx. 7; but no room seems to be left 
 for a reign on earth. 
 
 To return to the Apocalypse. After the 
 thousand years a renewed activity is permitted 
 to spiritual wickedness; and the powers of this 
 world, under the names of Gog and Magog 
 (cp. Ezek, xxxviii., xxxix.), are again gathered 
 together. The result is that they are destroyed, 
 and the Devil, who deceived them, cast into the 
 lake of fire. According to the older type of 
 prophetic imagery, the judgment upon the 
 ungodly was, as we have seen, conceived not as 
 a formal process of judgment, but as a great 
 slaughter. This view seems to be followed in 
 2 Thess, i. 7-10; but it is to be supernaturally 
 inflicted by the Christ Himself. In the more 
 fully developed ideas of the things of the end, 
 room was found for this ancient representation 
 of the judgment by placing an overthrow of 
 enemies (or even two, one at the beginning and 
 one at the close of the Messianic times) before 
 the final, universal forensic judgment upon 
 quick and dead. This more developed concep- 
 tion is presented to us in the Apocalypse. 
 
 We are thus brought to the Last Judgment, 
 and here we meet with the most significant point 
 of contrast between Christian and Jewish teach- 
 ing. It is that in the New Testament the Christ 
 appears as the Judge in the Universal Judgment 
 (Matt. xxv. 31 sq.; 2 Cor. v. 10, and other allu- 
 sions in St. Paul’s Epistles; James v. 7-9; 
 1 John ii. 28, with iv. 17; and perhaps also 
 1 Pet. iv. 5). This point does not appear quite 
 so clearly in the Apocalypse; it may, how- 
 ever, be inferred. The dead stand “before the 
 Throne” (right reading, xx. 12), and this Throne 
 is that “of God and of the Lamb” (xxii. 1). 
 Compare also xxi. 27 with xx. 12; and see 
 ii. 23 and xxii. 12. 
 
 Just before the Judgment the Devil is cast 
 into the lake of fire (xx. 10) to which the Beast 
 and the False Prophet have also been consigned 
 (xix. 20), Death and Hades, after they have given 
 up their dead, are also cast there (xx. 13, 14). 
 
 drawn from Jewish sources (Justin M. Dia’. | The binding of Satan during the thousand years 
 
ESCHATOLOGY 
 
 and his final consignment to the lake of fire 
 should be compared with the story in the Book 
 of Enoch and other Jewish Apocalypses of the 
 imprisonment, from the time of their fall, of the 
 angels who fell by lust just before the Flood, 
 and their removal at the Judgment Day to a 
 stili worse place of torture (Enoch x. 4-6, 12, 
 13; Apoc. of Baruch Jvi. 10-13; Book of Jubi- 
 lees, ch. v.). But Satan and his angels are not 
 identical with the latter, though there must 
 evidently be some connexion between the ideas 
 about them both. 
 
 Wicked men are cast into the same lake of 
 fire (xx. 15, xxi. 8; cp. the other comparatively 
 speaking full description of the Judgment in 
 Matt. xxv. 31-46). In the Book of Enoch, on 
 the other hand, the place of punishment to 
 which the wicked angelsare to be sent is distinct 
 from, though similar to, that for wicked men. 
 Other passages suggesting conscious suffering, 
 without end, or of which no end is indicated, 
 are Matt. v. 30, xiii. 49, 50, xviii. 8, 9 (Mark ix. 
 43, 45, 47, 48), xii. 32 (Mark iii. 29). More 
 vague is the image of the “outer darkness,” 
 outside the lighted banqueting-hall, where the 
 Feast is held, which represents the Joy of the 
 triumphant kingdom of God (Matt. viii. 12, 
 xxii. 13, xxiv. 51, xxv. 30; Luke xiii. 28), On 
 the other hand, we have language which recalls 
 rather the image of the destruction of God’s 
 enemies, and suggests annihilation. This is true 
 especially of 2 Thess. i. 7-10; but with this 
 view the following passages seem also best to 
 agree: Matt. ili, 12; 1 Pet. iy. 17,18; 2 Pet. 
 iii. 75; Jude 14,15. Cp. also Heb. x. 27. Of 
 the four following it is difficult to say under 
 which of the preceding heads they should be 
 classed: Matt. x. 28, xvi. 25; Luke xiii. 5, 
 xx. 18. On the other hand, Luke xii. 47, 48, 
 59, speaks of punishment limited in duration as 
 well as in severity; for an unending hell, however 
 modified, could not be described as “ few stripes.” 
 Even the “ many stripes” are scarcely consistent 
 with such a thought. An end seems also sug- 
 gested in Matt. v. 25, 26, stern as the purpose 
 of the passage is. Again, the very saying of our 
 Lord, which speaks of a sin that hath ‘ never 
 forgiveness, either in this world or in the world to 
 come,” suggests that there are others which have 
 (Matt. xii. 32; Mark iii. 28, 29). Again, the 
 phrase “to every man according to his deeds,” 
 and similar expressions, regarding the Judgment 
 (Matt. xvi. 27; 2 Cor. v. 10; Rev. xx. 12), 
 seem toimply a greater variety of award than 
 simply the division into two great classes of 
 the saved and the damned. Moreover, these 
 passages all plainly refer not to the intermediate 
 state, but to the Judgment Day. Cp. also 1 Cor. 
 11. 13, 15, The doctrine of Purgatory, when 
 presented in a spiritual form, seems to commend 
 itself to the reason, but it must be allowed that 
 it has no basis in Holy Scripture. 
 
 All this language has its correspondences with 
 Jewish descriptions of future judgment and 
 punishment. Yet there is in the New Testament 
 a greater simplicity and dignity; details are 
 less dwelt upon; the moral and spiritual lessons 
 count for much more, while a curious imagina- 
 tion is Jess gratified. In that other group of 
 New Testament writings to which reference has 
 been made, glimpses are afforded into deeper 
 underlying truths. All judgment has been 
 
 ESCHATOLOGY 987 
 
 committed to the Son of Man (John y. 22-27), 
 When He was on earth, the judgment of men of 
 all classes, and of the Evil One himself, was pro- 
 ceeding, and it is proceeding still (John xii. 31; 
 xvi. 8,11). The word “eternal” is applied to a 
 state of lifeand death on earth, where we should 
 rather use the word “spiritual.” In no mere 
 metaphorical sense there is a resurrection now, 
 as well as hereafter (John iii. 36, y. 24, xi, 25, 
 xvii. 35 1 John iii. 14, ν. 12,13; Rom. vi. 1 8q.)- 
 But this does not destroy the sense of the need 
 of future resurrection and judgment (John y. 
 25, 29; 1 John iii. 2 sq.; Rom. viii. 16 sq.). Here 
 and there also a more sublime close seems to be 
 indicated than that of the Judgment Day itself, 
 a time when at last every rational will shall be 
 brought into obedience to Christ, and complete 
 harmony and happiness shall be established 
 through every realm of being (1 Cor. xy. 23- 
 27; Col. i. 20; Ephes. i.20; Acts iii. 21; Rom. 
 xi. 325 Philip. ii. 10,11). It is too much over- 
 looked how much of the most distinctive teach- 
 ing of the Christian Revelation is contained in 
 its eschatology; in other words, in the new view 
 which it gives of God’s ultimate purposes with 
 regard to mankind and His kingdom. For in- 
 stance, the real gist of St. Paul’s great argument 
 in the Epistle to the Romans is to be found not 
 Jess in chs. viii.—xi. than in chs. ii—vii. 
 
 We have attempted thus far to bring out 
 clearly the facts in regard to the language of 
 Holy Scripture on future judgment and punish- 
 ment. Any adequate consideration of the con- 
 clusions to be drawn in view of the modern con- 
 troversies on the subject would be impossible 
 here. We must confine ourselves to one or two 
 remarks: (a) The descriptions are figurative, 
 and the figures are not matter of Revelation. 
 They are neither derived, except in germ, from 
 the Old Testament, nor newly given by Christ, 
 but are taken from prevailing Jewish language, 
 for the purpose of entorcing certain great truths. 
 There are, moreover, variations in the imagery 
 employed which show that the precise form of 
 the representations is of small account. It is, 
 for example, impossible to fit together the pic- 
 ture of the servants beaten with few or many 
 stripes with that of the two classes of the 
 righteous and the wicked in the parable of the 
 sheep and the goats. 
 
 (ὦ) We have as little right to explain away 
 the passages which speak of the final restitution 
 of all things as we have to destroy the force of 
 those which describe the doom of the wicked. 
 It may be that no thoroughly satisfactory way 
 of reconciling them will present itself. If so, 
 the apparently conflicting teaching should bring 
 home to us our own ignorance and the weakness. 
 of our thought. 
 
 3. The subject of the Intermetsate State is 
 treated—at least as regards the righteous—in 
 the article on PARADISE. It must suffice here 
 to note its connexion with the topics which 
 haye been discussed in the present article. It 
 would seem probable that the effort to combine 
 the ideas respecting the Under-world to which 
 the soul would go at death, spoken of in 1, when 
 brought into comparison with those concerning 
 the great consummation referred to in 2, must 
 have helped to render definite the conception of 
 an intermediate state. ‘The holy dead must, it 
 was felt, share in the future glory of Zion, and 
 
988 
 
 a term was thus set to their present state of 
 existence, The imagery on this subject also 
 underwent a development after the close of the 
 Old Testament Canon, as appears from the same 
 Apocalyptic and Rabbinic literature to which 
 yeference has already been made. The most dis- 
 tinct use of such imagery in the New Testament 
 is in the picture of separate abodes for the 
 righteous and wicked in Hades in the parable of 
 Lazarus and Dives in Hades (Luke xvi. 22 sq.). 
 
 ESCHEW 
 
 It is always to be remembered that we can 
 know nothing concerning either the future of the 
 individual soul or the end of the world, except 
 in figurative language. But the figures which 
 we have noticed, albeit not first promulgated in 
 Holy Scripture, have received its sanction; and, 
 taken in general outline, they shadow forth 
 truth to which our own minds and hearts give 
 a response. In spite of the part taken by the 
 body in all our thinking and acting, ineradic- 
 able instincts of the human heart and conscience 
 protest against the materialism which supposes 
 that there is no continued existence of the 
 human personality after death. At the same 
 time we see that an organism, such as that of 
 the resurrection-body, is necessary to the spirit 
 for the fulness of life; while all that we have 
 learnt and are learning concerning the manifold 
 ties that bind us together reconciles us to the 
 thought that the individual must wait for 
 perfect consummation and bliss in the final 
 regeneration. 
 
 Jewish Eschatology and its relation to Chris- 
 tian Faith is discussed, from various standpoints, 
 in many modern German works which deal 
 with the subject of Messianic doctrine. On the 
 doctrine of Future Life in the Old Testament, 
 Oehler’s Theology of the Old Testament may 
 be consulted with advantage. Information 
 respecting Jewish doctrine later than the Old 
 Testament, and the critical questions connected 
 with the Jewish documents of the last one or 
 two centuries B.C., and the Ist century A.D., 
 may be obtained in Zhe Jewish Messiah, by 
 J. Drummond, or both on these points and their 
 relation to Christian doctrine in The Jewish and 
 Christian Messiah, by V. H. Stanton. A good 
 succinct account of Jewish. belief in regard to 
 the things of the end will be found in Schirer, 
 The Jewish People in the time of Jesus Christ, 
 Div. ii. vol. ii, § 29, pp. 154-187, Eng. trans. 
 F. Weber’s Altsynagogale Paldstinische Theologie, 
 pp. 322-382, is also to be mentioned as spe- 
 cially useful for the Rabbinic doctrine on the 
 subject. Vests.) 
 
 ESCHEW (Job i. 1, 8, ii. 3; 1 Pet. iii. 11)= 
 to flee from or shun. The word occurs in the 
 collect for the Third Sunday after Easter, and is 
 retained by the R. V. in the above O.T. passages, 
 ‘but replaced by “turn away” in 1 Pet.  [F.] 
 
 ESDRAE’LON (Ἐσδρηλών, B. ’Ecdpahawy, 
 Judith iii. 9; B. Eopnady, A. Ἐσερηχών, Judith 
 iv. 6; ᾿Εσδρηλώμ, BN. -λών, Judith vii.3; Ἐσ- 
 δρηλώμ, N. -«λών, B. ᾿Εσρήμ, A. ’Ecdphu, Judith 
 i. 8; Esdrelon). This name is merely the Greek 
 form of the Hebrew word JEzREEL. It occurs 
 in this exact shape only twice in the A. V. 
 (Judith iii. 9, iv. 6). In Judith vii. 3, it is 
 EsDRAELOM (Zsdraelon, ed. 1611); and in i. 8, 
 EspRELOM (Zsdrelon, ed. 1611), with the 
 
 ESDRAELON 
 
 addition of “the great plain.” The name is 
 derived from the old royal city of JEZREEL, 
 which occupied a commanding site at the 
 eastern extremity of the plain. 
 
 The “great plain of Esdraelon” is called in 
 the O. T. the “valley of Megiddo” (2 Ch. 
 xxxy. 22), the “valley of Megeddon” (Zech. 
 xii, 11), and “Jezreel” only in 2 Sam. ii. 9; 
 in the Apocrypha, “the plain of Megiddo” 
 (1 Esd. i. 29) and “the great plain” (1 Mace. 
 xii. 49); by Josephus, “the great plain,” τὸ 
 πεδίον μέγα (Ant. xii. 8,§ 5; B. J. iii. 3, 81, 
 &e.) ; and by Eusebius and Jerome, “ the plain of 
 Legio,” πεδίον τῆς Aeyewvos, Campus Legionis, 
 from the Roman town Legio on its 8. side. It 
 separates the hills of Samaria on the 8. from 
 those of Galilee on the N.; and is not only the 
 largest and most fertile plain in Palestine, but 
 one of the most remarkable features of the 
 country. “A glance at its situation will show 
 that to a certain extent, though not in an equal 
 degree, it formed the same kind of separation 
 between the mass of Central Palestine and the 
 tribes of the extreme north, as the valley of the 
 Jordan effected between that same mass and the 
 trans-Jordanic tribes on the east” (Stanley, 
 S. § P. p. 337). At its eastern extremity stood 
 Jezreel, Zerin, the royal residence of the kings 
 of Israel, whence the broad, open “valley of 
 Jezreel ” (Josh. xvii. 16; Judg. vi. 33; Hos. i. 
 5) slopes gradually down to the Jordan valley ; 
 and at its western end was JokNEAM of Carmel, 
 Tell Keimtin. Its length from Zerin to Tell 
 Keimiin is 15 miles, and its greatest breadth 
 from Jenin to Junjdr is 14 miles. On the N.E. 
 the plain extends 34 miles further, to the foot 
 of Mount Tabor; and on the S.E. it stretches, 
 eastward from Jenin, for 91 miles between 
 Mount Gilboa and the hills to the S. On the N. 
 the mountains of Galilee rise boldly from the 
 plain, and the “ Mount of the Precipitation ” 
 (1285 ft.), below Nazareth, is conspicuous; 
 whilst on the S. low olive-clad hills slope gently 
 upwards to the heights of Mount Ephraim. On 
 the N.E. are the ridge of J. Duhy (1690 ft.) and 
 the isolated hill of Tabor (1843 ft.), and on the 
 N.W. the Kishon runs out through a narrow 
 gorge, between Carmel and the Galilean hills, to 
 the plain of Acre and the sea. 
 
 The wide undulating plain, now called 776} 
 ibn ’Amir, is dotted with grey tel/s, and seamed 
 in every direction with small watercourses, 
 which convey the drainage of the surrounding 
 hills to the Kishon. The fall is slight; the 
 water parting near Jenin is only 260 ft. above 
 the sea, and during winter the central portion of 
 the plain becomes an impassable morass, ‘The 
 Kishon at the same time becomes a deep, turbid 
 stream, and after heavy rain it rolls down in 
 flood as it did on the day when it swept away 
 the host of Sisera (Judg. v. 21). In summer 
 the rich, crumbling volcanic soil cracks, and — 
 numerous fissures make riding off the beaten 
 tracks difficult. Wherever it is tilled the plain 
 yields abundant crops of wheat, cotton, tobacco, 
 sesame, and millet, and everywhere flowers and 
 rank weeds attest the fertility of the soil. To 
 this richness there are allusions in Hos. ii. 
 21, 22; Gen. xlix. 14, 15; 1 Ch. xii. 405 and 
 in the modern name of the district, Beldd 
 Héritheh, the “country of the ploughed land.” 
 The plain is now fully cultivated, but thirty years 
 
ESDRAELON 
 
 ago it was the favourite resort of the Bedawin, 
 who, like the nomad Midianites and Amalekites, 
 —those “children of the east” who were “as 
 locusts for multitude,” whose ‘camels were 
 without number as sand by the seaside,”’— 
 devoured its rich pasture. Trees are rare 
 except round villages; but where there is an 
 abundance of water, as at Jenin, they grow 
 with great luxuriance. The whole plain is 
 watered by the numerous springs on the N.E. 
 and W. Between Zell Keimin and Tell Abu 
 Kudeis there are from fifty to sixty springs, all 
 Aresh and good, and some of them feeding 
 running streams. The three most remarkable 
 groups are those of Lejjtin, W. ed-Dufleh, and 
 Kireh, from which even in the dry season con- 
 siderable streams run down. No important 
 town was ever situated in the plain itself, but 
 on its borders were places of high historic and 
 sacred interest. Such were Jokneam of Carmel, 
 commanding roads through the gorge of the 
 Kishon to Accho, and over the ridge to the 
 plain of Sharon; Megiddo, at the northern end 
 of the easiest pass through the hills that 
 separate Esdraelon from the Maritime Plain; 
 Taanach; En-gannim, the Ginaia of Josephus 
 (B. J. iii. 8, § 4), which marked the boundary of 
 Samaria; Jezreel, the royal city, commanding 
 the great road down the Valley of Jezreel to 
 Bethshean and the country east of Jordan; 
 Shunem, Nain, and Endor, on the slopes of 
 J. Diy ; Daberath ; Chesulloth, the Xaloth of 
 Josephus (B. J. iii. 3, § 1); Gaba “ of the Horse- 
 men” (B. J. iii. 3, § 1); and Harosheth of the 
 Gentiles. 
 
 The principal roads which cross the plain 
 are: (1) the main road from Nablus to Jenin 
 and Nazareth; (2) the great trade route from 
 ‘Akka and Haifa to Zerin, Beisdn, and the 
 Haurdn, and to Tiberias and Damascus ; (3) the 
 main road from Lydda to Baka, and across 
 the ridge of Carmel to Jokneam (Zell Keimun), 
 Haifa, and ‘Akka; (4) the road which runs 
 from the Maritime Plain up the broad W. ‘Aras, 
 and, crossing the ridge at “Ain Jbrahim, descends 
 to Megiddo (Lejjun), whence it branches off to 
 Nazareth, and Zerin,—this line is one of the 
 easiest across the country, and must always 
 have been of great importance; (5) the road 
 from Jenin, that passes along the plain of 
 “Arrdbeh, N. of Dothan, and descends by W. el- 
 Ghamik to the Plain of Sharon: this, which is 
 also an easy road, is probably the one that was 
 followed by the Midianite and Amalekite mer- 
 chants who carried Joseph down with them to 
 Egypt. Over these roads the caravans of 
 merchants and the armies of contending nations 
 must always have passed on their way from E. to 
 W., or from N. to S.; and the fact that the great 
 plain was such a common thoroughfare must 
 have made it in peaceful times the most avail- 
 able and eligible possession of Palestine. “It 
 was the frontier of Zebulun — ‘Rejoice, O 
 Zebulun, in thy goings out.’ But it was the 
 special portion of Issachar; and in its condition, 
 thus exposed to the good and evil fate of the 
 beaten highway of Palestine, we read the 
 fortunes of the tribe which, for the sake of this 
 possession, consented to sink into the half- 
 nomadic state of the Bedouins who wandered 
 over it,—into the condition of tributaries to the 
 ‘Canaanite tribes, whose iron chariots drove 
 
 ESDRAELON 989 
 victoriously through it. ‘Rejoice, O Issachar, 
 in thy tents...they shall suck of the abun- 
 dance of the seas [from Acre], and of the 
 [glassy] treasures hid in the sands [of the 
 torrent Belus] ... Issachar is a strong ass, 
 couching down between two ‘troughs’: and 
 he saw that rest was good, and the land that it 
 was pleasant; and bowed his shoulder to bear, 
 and became a servant to tribute.’” (Stanley, 
 S. δ. P. p. 348) 
 
 The plain was the scene of two of the greatest 
 victories, ‘and of two of the saddest defeats, in 
 
 | 
 
 | 
 | 
 
 SDRAELON: 
 
 Plain of Esdraelon. 
 
 the history of the Jews. On the banks of the 
 Kishon, in Taanach by the waters of Megiddo, 
 the Lord delivered Sisera and his host into the 
 hands of Barak (Judg. iv. v.); and, in the Valley 
 of Jezreel, Gideon broke the “rod of the 
 oppressor” (Judg. vii.). On the “high places ” 
 of Gilboa, Saul and Jonathan perished miserably 
 (1 Sam. xxxi.; 2 Sam. i. 17-27); and in the 
 Valley of Megiddo, Josiah was sore wounded by 
 an arrow when attempting to stop the passage 
 of Necho’s army northwards from the Maritime 
 Plain (2 Ch, xxxy. 20-27). To these battles 
 the plain probably owes its celebrity as the 
 
990 ESDRAS 
 
 battle-field of the world, “the place which is | 
 
 called in the Hebrew tongue, Armageddon; ” 
 that is, “the city or mountain of Megiddo.” 
 It was across one portion of the plain, towards 
 Jenin, that Ahaziah fled from Jehu, and it was 
 to Megiddo that he was brought to die when 
 sore wounded at the ascent of Gur (2 K. ix. 
 27). Here too, spreading themselves out from 
 Bethulia to Cyamon, Zell Keimin, Wolofernes 
 and his soldiers were encamped during the siege 
 of the former place (Judith vii. 3). At a later 
 period during the Jewish war the plain was the 
 scene of frequent skirmishes, and at the foot of 
 Mount Tabor the Jews were sharply defeated by 
 Placidus (B. J. iv. 1, § 8). Here Crusaders and 
 Saracens met in conflict, and in 1799, at Fileh, 
 the Turks were conquered, by Bonaparte and 
 Kleber, at the battle of Mount Tabor. A 
 graphic sketch of Esdraelon is given in Stanley's 
 S.§ P. pp. 335 sq. See also PEF. Mem. ii. 36, 
 39,50; Robinson, ii. 315-30, iii. 139 sq.; Con- 
 der, Tent Work, i. 111 sq.3 Hbk. for 8S. ὁ P. 
 pp- 351 sq. [W.] 
 
 ES’DRAS ΟΈἜσδρας ; Esdras), 1 Esd. viii. 1, 
 avs 8,9. 195923, 2b, 81.2.99. OG ἘΞ Ὁ ΤῸ] 
 39, 40, 42, 45, 46, 49; 2 Esd. i. 1; ii. 10, 88, 
 423; vi. 10; vii. 2,25; viii. 2,19; xiv. 1, 38. 
 (Ezra. ] 
 
 ES’DRAS, FIRST BOOK OF.—I. Title. 
 This is the first in order of the apocryphal 
 books in the English Bible, which follows 
 Luther and the German Bibles in separating the 
 apocryphal from the Canonical Books, instead 
 of binding them up together according to his- 
 torical order (Walton’s Prolegom. de vers. Graec. 
 § 9). The classification of the four books which 
 have been named after Ezra is particularly 
 complicated. In the Vatican (B) edition of the 
 LXX., our Ist Esd. is called “Esdras A.” or 
 the jirst Book of Esdras, in relation to the 
 canonical Book of Ezra which follows it and is 
 called “Esdras B.” (i.e. our Ezra and Nehemiah) 
 or the second Esdras, the reason for this order 
 being probably due to the fact that the events 
 related in it precede in point of time, at least 
 partly, those related in the other two (see 
 Lupton, p. 5, n. 3). But in the Vulgate, Ist 
 Esd. means the canonical Book of Ezra, and 
 2nd Esd. means Nehemiah, according to the 
 primitive Hebrew arrangement, mentioned by 
 Jerome, in which Hzra and Nehemiah made up 
 two parts of the one Book of Ezra; and 3rd 
 and 4th Esd.—placed after the N. T.—are what 
 we now call 1 and 2 Esdras. These last, with 
 the Prayer of Manasses, are the only apocry- 
 phal books admitted co nomine into the Romish 
 Bibles, the other apocrypha being declared 
 canonical by the Council of Trent (1546). The 
 reason of the exclusion of 3rd Esdras from the 
 Canon seems to be either that the Tridentine 
 fathers in 1546 were content to follow the 
 estimate passed upon the book by Jerome (§ II. 
 below), or that they were not aware, or did not 
 remember, that it then existed in Greek. For, 
 though it is not in the Complutensian edition 
 (1515), nor in the Biblia Regia, yet it is found 
 in the Aldine edition (1518), in the Strasburg 
 edition (1526), and in the Basle edition (1545. 
 See Lupton, p. 4). Vatablus (about 1540) had, 
 
 it would seem, never seen a Greek copy, and, in 
 
 ESDRAS, FIRST BOOK OF 
 
 the preface to the apocryphal books, speaks of 
 it as only existing in some MSS. and printed 
 Latin Bibles.* For reasons now unknown, it 
 was excluded from the Canon, though it has 
 certainly quite as good a title to be admitted 
 as Tobit, Judith, &c. It has indeed been stated 
 (Bp. Marsh, Comp. View, ap. Soames, Hist. of 
 Ref. ii. 608) that the Council of Trent in 
 excluding the two books of Esdras followed 
 Augustine’s Canon. But this is not so. Au- 
 gustine (de Doctr. Christ. lib. ii. 13) distinctly 
 mentions among the libri Canonici, Esdrae duo;” 
 and that one of these was our Ist Esdras is 
 manifest from the quotation from it given below 
 from De Civit. Dei. Hence it is also sure that 
 it was included among those pronounced as 
 Canonical by the 3rd Council of Carthage (A.D. 
 397), where the same title is given, Msdrae 
 libri duo. In all the earlier editions of the 
 English Bible the books of Esdras are numbered 
 as in the Vulgate. In the 6th Article of the 
 Church of England (first introduced in 1571) 
 the first and second books denote Ezra and Ne- 
 hemiah, and the 3rd and 4th, among the Apo- 
 crypha, are our present 1st and 2nd. In the list 
 of revisers or translators of the Bishops’ Bible, 
 sent by Archbishop Parker to Sir William Cecil, 
 with the portion revised by each, Ezra, Nehe- 
 miah, Esther, and the apocryphal books of 
 Esdras seem to be all comprised under the one 
 title of Espras. Barlow, bishop of Chichester, 
 was the translator, as also of the books of 
 Judith, Tobias, and Sapientia (Corresp. of Archbp. 
 Parker, p. 335, Parker Soc. See Westcott, Hist. 
 of the Engl. Bible, p. 115). The Geneva Bible 
 first adopted the classification used in our present 
 Bibles, in which Ezra and NEHEMIAH give 
 their names to the two Canonical Books, and the 
 two apocryphal become 1 and 2 Esdras; where 
 the Greek form of the name indicates that these 
 books do not exist in Hebrew or Chaldee. 
 
 II. Reception of the book—As regards the 
 antiquity of this book and the rank assigned to 
 it in the early Church, it may suffice to mention 
 that Josephus quotes largely from it, and fol- 
 lows its authority, even in contradiction to the 
 canonical Ezra and Nehemiah, by which he has 
 been led into hopeless historical blunders and 
 anachronisms. It is quoted also by Clemens 
 Alexandrinus (Strom.i.); and the famous sentence 
 “Veritas manet, et invalescit in aeternum, et 
 vivit et obtinet in saecula saeculorum” (iv. 38) 
 is cited by Cyprian as from Esdras, and prefaced 
 by ut scriptum est (Epist. lxxiy.). Augustine also 
 refers to the same passage (de Civit. Dei, xviii. 
 36), and suggests that it may be prophetical of 
 Christ, Who is the truth. He includes under the 
 name of Esdras our 1 Esd. and the canonical 
 Books of Ezra and Nehemiah. 1 Esd. is also 
 cited by Athanasius and other fathers (see Pohl- 
 
 a “QOratio Manassae, necnon libri duo qui sub libri 
 tertii et quarti Esdrae nomine circumferuntur, hoc 
 in loco, extra scilicet seriem canonicorum librorum, 
 quos sancta Tridentina synodus suscepit, et pro ca- 
 nonicis suscipiendos decrevit, sepositi sunt, ne prorsus 
 interirent, quippe qui 4 nonnullis sanctis Patribus 
 interdum citantur, et in aliquibus Bibliis Latinis, tam 
 manuscriptis quam impressis, reperiuntur.” 
 
 b Jerome, in his preface to his Latin Version of 
 Ezra and Nehemiah, says, ‘*‘ Unus ἃ nobis liber editus 
 
 est,” &c.; though he implies that they were sometimes 
 
 called 1 and 2 Esdras. 
 
 2. 
 
eS = 
 
 7 
 
 ESDRAS, FIRST BOOK OF 
 
 mann in 7. Theolog. Quartalschr. p. 263 54.» 
 1859); and perhaps there is no sentence that 
 has been more widely divulged than that of 
 iv. 41, “ Magna est veritas et praevalet.” It is 
 rightly included by us among the Apocrypha, 
 not only on the ground of its historical in- 
 accuracy, and contradiction of the true Ezra, 
 but also on the external evidence of the early 
 Church. That it was never known to exist in 
 Hebrew, and formed no part of the Hebrew 
 Canon, is admitted by all (see Bissell, § 4). 
 Jerome, in his preface to Ezra and Neh., speaks 
 contemptuously of the dreams (somnia) of the 
 ‘8rd and 4th Esdras, and says that they are to be 
 utterly rejected. In his Proloyus Galeatus he 
 clearly defines the number of Books in the Canon, 
 Xxii., corresponding to the xxii. letters of the 
 Hebrew alphabet, and says that all others are 
 apocryphal. ‘This of course excludes 1 Esdras. 
 Melito, Origen, Eusebius, Athanasius, Gregory 
 Nazianzen, Hilary of Poitiers, Cyril of Jerusalem, 
 the Council of Laodicea, and many other fathers, 
 expressly follow the same Canon, counting as 
 apocryphal whatever is not comprehended in it. 
 
 Ill. Contents——As regards the contents of the 
 book, the first chapter is a transcript of the 
 last two chapters of 2 Ch., for the most part 
 verbatim, and only in one or two parts slightly 
 abridged and paraphrased, and showing some 
 corruptions of the text, the use of a different 
 Greek Version, and some various readings. 
 Chapters iii., iv. and v., to the end of v. 6, are 
 the original portions of the book, containing 
 the legend of the three young Jews at the 
 court of Darius; and the rest is a transcript 
 more or less exact of the Book of Ezra, with 
 the chapters transposed and quite otherwise 
 arranged, and of a portion of Nehemiah (ep. 
 Lupton, Schiirer, and Zéckler). The central 
 subject of the book, now very commonly ac- 
 cepted, is that originated by the heading of the 
 Old Latin Version, “De restitutione Templi:” 
 but other and collateral designs are apparent 
 on the part of the compiler, such as his wish 
 to stimulate his countrymen to a more zealous 
 observance of the Law, and win the favour of a 
 Ptolemaic or other heathen power; or his 
 desire to introduce and give Scriptural sanction 
 to the legend about Zerubbabel, which may or 
 may not have an historical base, and may have 
 existed as a separate work; or to explain the 
 great obscurities of the Book of Ezra, and to 
 present the narrative, as the author understood 
 it, in historical order. In this latter point, how- 
 ever, he has signally failed. For, not to advert 
 to innumerable other contradictions, the intro- 
 ducing the opposition of the heathen, as offered 
 to Zerubbabel after he had been sent to Jeru- 
 salem in such triumph by Darius, and the 
 describing that opposition as lasting “ until the 
 reign of Darius” (v. 73), and as put down by 
 an appeal to the decree of Cyrus, is such a pal- 
 pable inconsistency, as is alone quite sutfticient 
 to discredit the authority of the book. It even 
 induces the suspicion that it is a farrago made 
 up of scraps by several different hands. At all 
 events, attempts to reconcile the different por- 
 tions with each other, or with Scripture, is lost 
 
 labour (see Lupton, ὃ iii.). The compiler him- | 
 
 self is unknown. 
 V. Time and place.—As regards the time when 
 and place where the compilation was made, the 
 
 ESDRAS, FIRST BOOK OF 991 
 
 original portion (iii. 1-v. 6)—original, that is, 
 in the sense that there is nothing to answer to 
 it in the Canonical Books—does not afford much 
 clue. Itmay have come from a current Persian 
 court anecdote or from a Jewish tradition. The 
 conjecture (Fritzsche and Reuss) that not Zerub- 
 babel but his son Joachim is the hero of this 
 episode, and the deduction of date from this 
 change, is unsatisfactory, and does not remove 
 other difficulties (see Lupton and Zéckler). 
 The writer was conversant with Hebrew, 
 though he did not write the book in that 
 language. He was well acquainted with the 
 Books of Esther and Daniel (1 Esd. iii. 1, 2sq.), 
 and other Books of Scripture (ib. vv. 20, 21, 39, 
 41, &e., and v. 45 compared with Ps. exxxvii. 
 7); but that he did not live under the Persian 
 kings, and was not contemporary with the 
 events narrated, appears by the undiscrimi- 
 nating way in which he uses promiscuously the 
 phrase Medes and Pensians, or Persians and 
 Medes, according as he happened to be imitating 
 the language of Daniel or of the Book of Esther. 
 The allusion in iy. 23 to “sailing upon the sea 
 and upon the rivers,” for the purpose of “ rob- 
 bing and stealing,” seems to indicate residence 
 in Egypt, and acquaintance with the lawlessness 
 of Greek pirates there acquired. The phrase- 
 ology of v. 73 (of disputed meaning) sayours 
 also strongly of Greek rather than Hebrew. If, 
 however, as seems very probable, the legend of 
 Zerubbabel appeared first as a separate piece, 
 and was afterwards incorporated into the narra- 
 tive made up from the Book of Ezra, this Greek 
 sentence from ch. y. would not prove anything 
 as to the language in which the original legend 
 was written. The expressions in iv. 40, “ She 
 is the strength, kingdom, power, and majesty of 
 all ages,” is very like the doxology found in 
 some copies of the Lord’s Prayer, and retained 
 by us, “thine is the kingdom, and the power 
 and the glory for ever;” but Lightfoot says 
 that the Jews in the Temple-service, instead of 
 saying Amen, used this antiphon, “ Blessed be 
 the Name of the Glory of His Kingdom for ever 
 and ever” (vi. 427). So that the resemblance 
 may be accounted for by their being both taken 
 from a common source. Indications, though 
 faint ones, seem to place the origin of the work 
 in the Ist, or at the latter end of the 2nd, 
 century B.c. Ewald finds traces of the story of 
 chs. iii. iv. in the earliest of the Sibylline books 
 (.α. 181-143), and affirms that the “ history ” 
 of Aristeas (on the LXX.; 1st century) must 
 have been known to the compiler. Lupton 
 argues that the building of a temple, or re- 
 storation and adaptation of an Egyptian temple, 
 for Jewish worship, such as is connected with 
 Onias in the time of Ptolemy Philometor, 
 suggested the production of 1 Esdras, and 
 furnishes other reasons for agreeing with Herz- 
 feld in assigning the work to a period preceding 
 the Maccabaean wars. The point cannot be said 
 to be conclusively settled. 
 
 For a further account of the history of the 
 times embraced in this book, see EZRA; 2 Es- 
 DRAS; Joseph. Antig. Jud. xi. ; Hervey’s Gene- 
 alogy of our Lord Jesus Christ, ch. xi. ; Bp. Cosin 
 on the Canon of Scr,; Fulke’s Defence of Transl. 
 of Bible, p. 18 sq., Parker Soc.; Kitto, Bibl. 
 Cyclop., “Esdras.” The werks of Fritzsche 
 (Hand. z. d. Apokryphen, i. 11 sq.), Bissell 
 
000 ESDRAS, SECOND BOOK OF 
 
 (Lange’s Comm. on the Apocrypha), Lupton 
 (Speaker’s Comm. on the Apocrypha), and 
 Zisckler (¢ Die Apokryphen’ in Strack u. Zick- 
 ler’s Agf. Komm.) will supply the reader with 
 references to modern works. [A.C.H.] [F.] 
 
 ES’DRAS, SECOND BOOK OF, in 
 the English Version of the Apocrypha, and so 
 called by the author (2 Esd. i. 1), is more com- 
 monly known, according to the reckoning of 
 the Latin Version, as the fourth Book of Ezra 
 [see above, 1 Espras]; but the arrangement in 
 the Latin MSS. is not uniform (see that of the 
 Codex Sangermanensis quoted in Lupton, § i.), 
 and in the Arabic and Aethiopic Versions the 
 book is called the first of Ezra. The original 
 title, ᾿Αποκάλυψις Ἔσδρα (or προφητεία Ἔσδρα), 
 “the Revelation of Ezra,’ which is preserved 
 in some old catalogues of the canonical and 
 apocryphal books (Nicephorus, ap. Fabric. Cod. 
 Pseud. V. T., ii. 176; Montfaucon, Bidlioth. 
 Coislin. p. 194), is far more appropriate, and it 
 were to be wished that it could have been 
 restored, had it been possible to do so without 
 confusion with a later and inferior work, bear- 
 ing this title, and published by Tischendorf in 
 1866 (cp. Lupton, § i.) 
 
 I. Language and Versions.—The original lan- 
 guage of the book was Greek (cp. Van der 
 Vlis, Disputatio critica de Lzrae libro Apo- 
 crypho, &c., pp. 10-14, 1839), but for a long 
 time it was known only by an Old Latin 
 Version, which is preserved in some MSS. of 
 the Vulgate. This Version (3rd cent., Fritzsche) 
 was used by Ambrose (see the parallels in 
 Lupton, § ii.), and, like the other parts of 
 the Vetus Latina, is probably older than the 
 time of Tertullian. The Arabic text was dis- 
 covered by Mr. Gregory about the middle of the 
 17th century in two Bodleian MSS., and an 
 English Version made from this by Simon 
 Ockley was inserted by Whiston in the last 
 volume of his Primitive Christianity (London, 
 1711). Fabricius added the various readings of 
 the Arabic text to his edition of the Latin in 
 1723 (Cod. Pseud. V. T., ii. 174-sq.).. .The 
 Aethiopic text was published in 1820 by 
 [Archbp.] Laurence with English and Latin 
 translations, likewise from a Bodleian MS. 
 which had remained wholly disregarded, though 
 quoted by Ludolf in his Dictionary (“ Primi 
 Esrae libri, versio Aethiopica. ..Latine Anglice- 
 que reddita;” Oxon. 1820). The emendations 
 made by Van der Vlis (p. 77), the readings from 
 other MSS. collected by Dillmann (printed at 
 the end of Ewald’s edition of the Arabic text), 
 and those subsequently made by Praetorius, are 
 necessary for the study of a text of great value. 
 The Latin translation has been reprinted by 
 Gfrérer, with the various readings of the Latin 
 and Arabic (Praef. Pseud., Stuttg. 1840, p. 66 
 sq.); and the Bodleian Arabic text has been 
 published by Ewald (1863), who dates it A.D. 
 1354, and another version of it, also of the 
 14th cent., by Gildemeister (1877). The Ar- 
 menian Version, published in 1666, and trans- 
 lated in Hilgenfeld’s Messias Judacorum, diverges 
 very widely from the rest. 
 
 Of the five existing Versions, four (the 
 Syriac, Arabic, Aethiopic, and Latin) are thought 
 to have been made from a Greek text; the Arme- 
 nian Version was not. This is certainly the case 
 
 ESDRAS, SECOND BOOK OF 
 
 with regard to the Latin, the oldest and most 
 important of all, which bears everywhere traces 
 of Greek idiom (Liicke, Versuch einer vollst. 
 Einleitung, i. 144), and the Aethiopic (Van der 
 Vlis, p. 75 sq.), but is less certain with regard 
 to the two versions of the Arabre (Fritzsche 
 thinks the first text of the Arabic to be taken 
 from the Syriac). A clear witness to the Greek 
 text is Clement of Alexandria, who expressly 
 quotes the book as the work of “the prophet 
 Ezra” (Strom. iii. 16; cp. Ambrose, de bono 
 mortis, ch. xii.). A question, however, has been 
 raised whether the Greek text was not itself a 
 translation from the Hebrew (Bretschneider in 
 Henke’s Mus. iii. 478 sq.; ap. Liicke, /. c.); but 
 the arguments from language by which the 
 hypothesis of a Hebrew (Aramaic) original is 
 supported, are wholly unsatisfactory; and in 
 default of direct evidence to the contrary, it 
 must be supposed that the book was composed 
 in Greek. This conclusion is further strength- 
 ened by its internal character, which points to 
 Egypt as the place of its composition. 
 
 The Latin text, for many years that of the 
 Codex Sangermanensis (A.D. 822), compared with 
 that of the Codex Turinensis (15th cent.) and 
 of the Codex Dresdensis (15th cent.), can now 
 be improved by a Complutensian MS. of the 
 8th cent. discovered by Prof. Palmer in 1826, 
 and by the Amiens MS. of the 9th cent. dis- 
 covered by Mr. Bensley in 1874 (ep. Lupton, 
 § iii.). Followed by the English Version, it 
 contains two important interpolations (chs. i. ii.; 
 xv. xvi.) which are not found in the four 
 Oriental Versions, and are separated from the 
 genuine Apocalypse in the best Latin MSS. 
 Both of these passages are evidently of Chris- 
 tian origin: they contain traces of the use of 
 the Christian Scriptures (6.5. i. 30, 33, 373 
 ii. 13, 26, 45 sq.3 xv. 8, 353; xvi. 54), and still 
 more they are pervaded by an anti-Jewish spirit. 
 Thus, in the opening chapter, Ezra is commanded 
 to reprove the people of Israel for their con- 
 tinual rebellions (i. 1-23), in consequence of 
 which God threatens to cast them off (i. 24-34) 
 and to “ give their houses to a people that shall 
 come.” But in spite of their desertion, God 
 offers once more to receive them (ii. 1-32). The 
 offer is rejected (ii. 33), and the heathen are 
 called. Then Ezra sees “the Son of God” 
 standing in the midst of a great multitude 
 “wearing crowns and bearing palms in their 
 hands,” in token of their victorious confession 
 of the truth, The last two chapters (xv., xvi.) 
 are different in character. They contain a stern 
 prophecy of the woes which shall come upon 
 Egypt, Babylon, Asia, and Syria, and upon the 
 whole earth, with an exhortation to the chosen 
 to guard their faith in the midst of all the 
 trials with which they shall be visited (? the 
 Decian persecution. Cp. Liicke, p. 186, &c.). 
 Another smaller interpolation occurs in the 
 Latin Version in vii. 28, where filius meus Jesus 
 answers to “My Messiah” in the Aethiopic, and 
 to “ My Son Messiah” in the Arabic (cp. Liicke, 
 p- 170 n. ὅσο. ; Speaker’s Comm. in loco). The 
 passage in the Oriental Versions after vii. 35, 
 now also restored to the Latin, was probably 
 omitted from dogmatic causes. The chapter 
 contains a strange description of the inter- 
 mediate state of souls, and ends with a peremp- 
 tory denial of the efficacy of human interces- 
 
᾿ 
 
 a 
 Ns 
 hes 
 is 
 iy 
 
 iy 
 ne 
 
 ESDRAS, SECOND BOOK OF 
 
 sion after death. Vigilantius appealed to the 
 passage in support of his views, and called down 
 upon himself by this the severe reproof of 
 Jerome (Lib. c. Vigil..c. 7). This circumstance, 
 combined with the Jewish complexion of the 
 narrative, may have led to its rejection in later 
 times (cp. Liicke, p. 155 sq.). 
 
 Il. Contents.—The original Apocalypse (iii— 
 xiv.) consists of a series of angelic revelations 
 and visions in which Ezra, musing in the out- 
 skirts of Babylon, is instructed in some of the 
 great mysteries of the moral world, and assured 
 
 /of the final triumph of the righteous. The 
 first revelation (iiii-v. 15, according to the 
 E. Y.) is given by the Angel Uriel to Ezra, 
 in “the thirtieth year after the ruin of the 
 city” (i.e. some ninety years too early!), in 
 answer to his complaints (ch. iii.) that Israel 
 was neglected by God while the heathen were 
 lords over them; and the chief subject is the 
 unsearchableness of God’s purposes, and the 
 signs of the last age. The second revelation 
 {(ν. 20-vi. 34) carries out this teaching yet 
 further, and lays open the gradual progress 
 of the plan of Providence, and the nearness 
 of the visitation before which evil must attain 
 its most terrible climax. The third revela- 
 tion (vi. 35-ix. 25) answers the objections 
 which arise from the apparent narrowness of 
 the limits within which the hope of blessedness 
 is confined, and describes the coming of Messiah 
 and the last scene of Judgment. After this 
 follow three visions. The first vision (ix. 26-- 
 x. 59) is of a woman (Sion) in deep sorrow, 
 lamenting the death, upon his bridal day, of her 
 only son (the city built by Solomon), who had 
 been born to her after she had had no child for 
 thirty years. But while Ezra looked, her face 
 “upon a sudden shined exceedingly,” and “the 
 woman appeared no more, but there was a city 
 puilded.” The second vision (chs. xi., xii.), in a 
 dream, is of an eagle (Rome) which “came up 
 from the sea” and “spread her wings over all 
 the earth.” As Ezra looked, the eagle suffered 
 strange transformations, so that at one time 
 “three heads and six little wings” remained ; 
 and at last only one head was left, when sud- 
 denly a lion (Messiah) came forth, and with the 
 voice of a man rebuked the eagle, and it was 
 burnt up. The third vision (ch. xiii.), in a 
 dream, is of a man (Messiah) “ flying with the 
 clouds of heaven,” against whom the nations of 
 the earth are gathered, till He destroys them 
 with the blast of His mouth, and gathers 
 together the lost tribes of Israel and offers Sion, 
 “prepared and builded,” to His people. The 
 last chapter (xiv.) recounts an appearance to 
 Ezra of the Lord Who showed Himself to Moses 
 in the bush, at Whose command he receives 
 again the Law which had been burnt, and with 
 the help of scribes writes down ninety-four 
 books (the twenty-four canonical Books of the 
 O. T. and seventy books of secret mysteries), 
 and thus the people are prepared for their last 
 trial, guided by the recovered Law.* 
 
 a For other arrangements of the revelations and 
 visions (6.9. sevenfold) see Schiirer, Zickler, and Lupton, 
 §iv., who also gives a fuller analysis of the contents. 
 The arbitrary views of Iselin, who considers the work a 
 fiction, composed by a Syrian Christian against Mahom- 
 
 Py Medanism, and of Rabisch, who finds in ch. xiy. not 
 
 BIBLE DICT.—VOL. I. 
 
 a 
 
 ESDRAS, SECOND BOOK OF 993 
 
 III. Date.—The date of the book (chs. iii. 
 xiv.) is much disputed (see the three main con- 
 clusions in Schiirer*), though the limits within 
 which opinions vary are narrower than in the 
 case of the book of Enoch. Liicke ( Versuch einer 
 vollst. Hinl.* i. 209) places it in the time of 
 Caesar; Van der Vlis, shortly after the death of 
 Caesar. Laurence (/. c.) brings it down somewhat 
 lower, to 28-25 B.c., and Hilgenfeld (Jud. Apok. 
 Ρ. 221; Messias Judacorum, p. 1xi.) agrees with 
 this conclusion, though he arrives at it by very 
 different reasoning. On the other hand, Gfrérer 
 (Jahrh. d. Heils, i. 69 sq.) assigns the book to the 
 time of Domitian (A.D. 81-96), and in this he is 
 followed by most authorities, Wieseler, Reuss, 
 Fritzsche, Dillmann, Schiirer,? &. The inter- 
 pretation of the details of the vision of the 
 eagle furnishes the chief data for determining 
 the time of its composition (cp. Fabricius, Cod. 
 Pseud. ii. p. 189 sq.; and Liicke, p. 187, ἢ. &c., 
 for a summary of the earlier opinions on the 
 composition of the book). 
 
 The chief characteristics of the “ three- 
 headed eagle,” which refer apparently to his- 
 toric details,” are “twelve feathered wings” 
 (duodecim alae pennarum), “eight counter- 
 feathers” (contrariae pennac), and “three 
 heads ;”” but though the writer expressly inter- 
 prets these of kings (xii. 14, 20) and “ king- 
 doms ” (xii. 23), he is, perhaps intentionally, so 
 obscure in his allusions, that the interpretation 
 only increases the difficulties of the vision 
 itself. One point only may be considered cer- 
 tain,—the eagle can typify no other empire than 
 Rome. Notwithstanding the identification of 
 the eagle with the fourth empire of Daniel (ep. 
 Barn. Ep. 4; DANIEL, ΒΟΟΚ OF), it is impossible 
 to suppose that it represents the Greek king- 
 dom (Hilgenfeld ; cp. Volkmar, Die vierte Buch 
 Esra, p. 36 sq., Ziirich, 1858). The power of 
 the Ptolemies could scarcely have been de- 
 scribed in language which may be rightly 
 applied to Rome (xi. 2, 6, 40); and the succes- 
 sion of kings quoted by Hilgenfeld to represent 
 “the twelve wings” preserves only ἃ faint 
 resemblance to the imagery of the vision. 
 Seeking then the interpretation of the vision in 
 the history of Rome, the second wing (i.e. king), 
 which rules twice as long as the other (xi. 17), 
 is found in Augustus, who reigned some fifty-six 
 years. The ‘three heads” are taken to repre- 
 sent the three Flavii (Vespasian, Titus, and 
 Domitian), and ‘the twelve” to be the nine 
 Caesars (Jul, Caesar to Vitellius) and the three 
 pretenders Piso, Vindex, and Nymphidius 
 (Gfrérer). Volkmayr’s interpretation—by which 
 the twelve wings represent six Caesars (Caesar 
 to Nero); the eight “counter-feathers,” four 
 usurping emperors, Galba, Otho, Vitellius, and 
 Nerva; and the three heads the three Flavii— 
 offers many striking coincidences with the text, 
 but is directly opposed to the form of interpre- 
 tation given by Ezra (xii. 14, 18), and for other 
 
 less than five minor Apocalypses worked up in the 
 time of Hadrian (A.D. 120), may be seen in Zickler, 
 p. 447.—[F.] 
 
 b The description of the duration of the world as 
 “divided into twelve (ten Aeth.) parts, of which ten 
 parts are gone already, and half of a tenth part” 
 (xiv. 11), is so uncertain in its reckoning, that no 
 argument (¢.g. that of Hilgenfeld) can be a upon it. 
 
 3 
 
994 ESDRAS, SECOND BOOK OF 
 
 reasons is extremely improbable. Van der Vlis 
 and Liicke? regard the twelve kings as only gene- 
 rally symbolic of the Roman power; and while 
 they identify the three heads with the Trium- 
 yirs, seek no explanation of the other details. 
 The clearer light now thrown upon Jewish 
 thought and history during the critical period 
 100 B.c.-100 A.D. makes Gfrérer’s hypothesis, 
 with modifications, the most probable (see 
 Schiirer?), 
 
 The book—apocalyptic in cast and markedly 
 distinct from the historically framed books 
 which also bear the name of Ezra—is ἃ 
 genuine product of Jewish thought. Weisse 
 (LZvangelienfrage, p. 222) alone dissents on this 
 point from the unanimous judgment of recent 
 scholars (Hilgenfeld, p. 190, &c.); and the con- 
 trast between the tone and style of the Chris- 
 tian interpolations and the remainder of the book 
 is in itself sufficient to prove the fact. This 
 apocalypse was written in Alexandria more 
 probably than in Palestine; the opening andl 
 closing chapters certainly were; while their 
 author is now considered to have been a Chris- 
 tian, The date of chs. xv., xvi. is placed between 
 260-270 a.D.; that of chs. i., ii. is not fixed so 
 unanimously. 
 
 IV. Character.—In tone and character the 
 apocalypse of Ezra offers a striking contrast to 
 that of Enoch [Book or ENocn]. Triumphant 
 anticipations are overshadowed by gloomy fore- 
 bodings over the destiny of the world. The idea 
 of victory is lost in that of revenge. Future 
 blessedness is reserved only for “a very few” 
 (vii. 70; viii. 1, 3, 52-55; ix.1-13). The great 
 question is “not how the ungodly shall be 
 punished, but how the righteous shall be saved, 
 tor whom the world is created” (ix. 13). The 
 “woes of Messiah” are described with a terrible 
 minuteness, which approaches the despairing 
 traditions of the Talmud (v., xiv. 10 sq., ix. 
 3 sq.); and after a reign of 400 years (vii. 28-35 ; 
 the clause is wanting in Aeth. vy. 29), “Christ,” 
 it is said, “ My Son, shall die (Arab. omits), and 
 all men that have breath; and the world shall 
 be turned into the old silence seven days, like as 
 in the first beginning, and no man shall remain ” 
 (vii. 29). Then shall follow the resurrection 
 and the judgment, “the end of this time and 
 the beginning of immortality” (vii. 43). In 
 other points the doctrine of the book offers 
 curious approximations to that of St. Paul, as 
 the imagery does to that of the Apocalypse 
 (e.g. 2 Esd. xiii. 43 sq.3 v. 4).° The relation 
 of “ the first Adam” to his sinful posterity, and 
 the operation of the Law (iii. 20 sq., vii. 48, ix. 
 36); the transitoriness of the world (iv. 26); 
 the eternal counsels of God (vi. sq.); His 
 Providence (vii. 11) and long-suffering (vii. 64); 
 His sanctification of His people “from the 
 beginning ” (ix. 8) and their peculiar and lasting 
 privileges (vi. 59), are plainly stated; and on 
 the other hand the efficacy of good works (viii. 
 33) in conjunction with faith (ix. 7) is no less 
 clearly affirmed. 
 
 One tradition which the book contains ob- 
 tained a wide reception in early times, and 
 served as a pendant to the legend of the origin 
 
 © A complete list of parallel passages between 2 Esd. 
 and the Ν, T. may be seen in Lee, ᾿Απολειπόμενα, 
 pp. 112-25, 1752, 
 
 ESDRAS, SECOND BOOK OF 
 
 of the LXX. Ezra, it is said, in answer to his 
 prayer that he might be inspired to write again 
 all the Law which was burnt, received a com- 
 mand to take with him tablets and five men, 
 and retire for forty days. In this retirement a 
 cup was given him to drink, and forthwith his 
 understanding was quickened and his memory 
 strengthened; and for forty days and forty 
 nights he dictated to his scribes, who wrote 
 ninety-four books (Latin, 204), of which twenty- 
 four were delivered to the people in place of the 
 books which were lost (xiv. 20-48). This 
 strange story was repeated in various forms b 
 Irenaeus (adv. Haer. iii. 21, 2), Tertullian (de 
 cult. foem. i. 3, “omne instrumentum Judaicae 
 literaturae per Esdram constat restauratum ”), 
 Clement of Alexandria (Strom. i. 22, p. 410, P.; 
 ep. p. 392), Jerome (adv. Helv. 7, ep. Pseudo- 
 Augustine, de Mirab. S. Ser. ii. 32), and many 
 others; and probably owed its origin to the 
 tradition which regarded Ezra as the representa- 
 tive of the men of “the Great Synagogue,” to 
 whom the final revision of the Canonical Books. 
 was universally assigned in early times, 
 [CaANnon. ] 
 
 VY. Reception.—Though the book was assigned 
 to the “prophet ” Ezra by Clement of Alexan- 
 dria (Strom. iii. 16) and quoted with respect 
 by Irenaeus (/. c.) and Ambrose, who adopts or 
 paraphrases many passages in it (Lupton, § ii.), 
 it did not maintain its ecclesiastical position in 
 the Church.t Jerome speaks of it with con- 
 tempt (adv. Vigilant. See quotation in Speaker's 
 Comm. on vii. 102 *), and it is rarely found in 
 MSS. of the Latin Bible. Archbishop Laurence 
 examined 180 MSS., and the book was containe:L 
 only in thirteen, and in these it was arranged 
 very differently. It is found, however, in the 
 printed copies of the Vulgate older than the 
 Council of Trent, by whieh it was excluded from 
 the Canon; and quotations from it still occur 
 in the Roman services (Basnage, ap. Fabr. Cud. 
 Pseud. ii. 191. The words of ii. 34, 35 are 
 embodied in the “‘ Missa pro defunctis” of the 
 Sarum use). On the other hand, though this 
 book is included among those which are ‘read 
 for examples of life” by the English Church, 
 no use of it is now made in public worship, 
 though formerly ii. 36, 37 was used as an Introit 
 for Whitsun Tuesday. Luther and the Reformed 
 Church rejected the book entirely; but it was 
 held in high estimation by numerous mystics 
 (Fabric. 7. c. p. 178 sq.), for whom its contents 
 naturally had great attractions. 
 
 VI. Literatwre.—tThe literature of the subject 
 is very large. Some works have been already 
 noted. Schiirer (@esch. ὦ. Jiid. Volkes im 
 Zeitalter Jesu Christi,? p. 661) and Zéckler 
 (‘Die Apokryphen d. A. T.’s nebst einem Anhang 
 iiber die Pseudepigraphen,’ p. 448 in Strack 
 u. Zickler’s Kgf. Komm. in d. heil. Schriften 
 A.u. N. 1.35) give a full list. The English 
 reader will find help from Bissell, “The Apo- 
 erypha,” Appendix i. (Lange’s Comm. on the 
 Holy Scriptures); Eddrup, Introduction to 1 
 and 2 Esdras in S.P.C.K. Comm. on the Apo- 
 erypha; Churton’s The Uncanonical and Apo- 
 
 cryphal Scriptures ; and above all from Lupton in 
 
 ἃ The references and allusions once found in Clement 
 of Rome, Barnabas, Hermas, Tertullian, and Cyprian 
 are now generally given up (cp. Lupton, § ii-). 
 
 ae 
 
ESDRELOM, ESDRELON 
 
 the Speaker’s Comm. on 2 Esdras. The essay of 
 Van der Vlis is the most important contribution 
 to the study of the text, of which a critical 
 edition is still needed, though the Latin materials 
 for its construction are abundant. [B. F. W.] [F.] 
 
 ESDRE’LOM, ESDRE’LON. 
 ELON. | 
 
 ES’EBON, tury or (τοὺς ’EoeBwvlras, 
 A. τοὺς Ἐσεβών; Hescbon), Judith v. 15. 
 [HEsuBon. ] 
 
 ‘ ES’EBRIAS (EcepeBlas ; Sedebias), 1 Esd. 
 viii, 54. [SHEREBIAH.] 
 
 E’SEK (PWY = strife; *Adiucia; Calumnia), a 
 well (ἼΝ 3) containing a spring of water; which 
 the herdsmen of Isaac dug in the valley of 
 Gerar, and which received its name of Esek, 
 or “strife,” because the herdsmen of Gerar 
 “strove” (1PWYNM) with him for the possession 
 of it* (Gen. xxvi. 20). Josephus (Ant. i. 18, 
 § 2) gives the name as Ἔσκον. [G.] [W.] 
 
 ESH-BAAL Οὐ = Baal's man [WS 
 as in Phoenician = WN]; Zsbaal), the fourth 
 son of Saul, according to the genealogy of 1 Ch. 
 viii. 33 (B. ᾿Ασαβάλ, A. Ἰεβάαλ) and ix. 39 
 (B. Ἰεβάαλ, δὲ. Ἰσβάαλ, A. Βάαλ). He is 
 doubtless the same person as ISH-BOSHETH, since 
 it was the practice to change the obnoxious 
 name of Baal into Bosheth, as in the case of 
 Jerubbesheth for Jerub-baal, and (in this very 
 genealogy) of Merib-baal for Mephibosheth: 
 ΟΡ. also Hos. ix. 10, where Bosheth (A. V. 
 and R. V. marg. “ shame”) appears to be used 
 as a synonym for Baal. Which of the two 
 names is the earlier it is not possible to decide. 
 
 [6] ΓΝ] 
 
 ESH’BAN (jaVN; ᾿Ασβάν [Gen.], B. Ace- 
 Bay, A. Ἐσεβάν [1 Ch.]; Zseban), a Horite ; 
 one of the four sons of DIsHAN (so the Hebrew 
 in Gen.; but A. V. has Dishon), the son of Seir 
 the Horite (Gen. xxxvi. 26; 1 Ch.i. 41). No 
 trace of the name appears to have been dis- 
 covered among the modern tribes of Idumaea. 
 
 : [6] [W] 
 
 ESH’COL avis ; Ἐσχώλ ; Joseph. Ἔσ- 
 χωλής ; Eschol), brother of Mamre the Amorite, 
 and of Aner; and one of Abraham’s companions 
 in his pursuit of the four kings who had carried 
 off Lot (Gen. xiv. 13, 24). According to 
 Josephus (Ant. i. 10, § 2) he was the foremost 
 of the three brothers, but the Bible narrative 
 leaves this quite uncertain (cp. v. 13 with υ. 24). 
 Their residence was at Hebron (xiii. 18), and 
 possibly the name of Eshcol remained attached 
 to one of the fruitful valleys in that district till 
 the arrival of the Israelites, who then inter- 
 preted the appellation as significant of the 
 gigantic “ cluster” (in Heb. Eshcol) which they 
 obtained there. [ἢ] [W.] 
 
 [EspRA- 
 
 ® The word rendered ‘‘strive” (3%) in the former 
 
 part of v. 20 and in vv. 21 and 22 is not the same as that 
 from which Zsek derived its name, and has therefore 
 been translated by R. V. by a different English word, 
 “contended.” Such points, thcugh small, are anything 
 but unimportant in connexion with these ancient and 
 peculiar records, 
 
 ESHEK 995 
 
 ESH’COL, THE VALLEY, or THE 
 BROOK, OF (Pi3vig-on3, or SDN; pdpaye 
 βότρυος : Torrens botri ; Nehelescol, id est torrens 
 botri ; Vallis botri), a widy in the neighbourhood 
 of Hebron, explored by the spies who were sent 
 by Moses from Kadesh-barnea. From the terms 
 of two of the notices of this transaction (Num. 
 xxxii. 9; Deut. i. 24), and from the speech of 
 Caleb (Josh. xiv. 7-12), it might be gathered that 
 Eshcol was the furthest point to which the spies 
 penetrated. But this would be to contradict 
 the express statement of Num. xiii. 21, that they 
 went as far as Rehob. From this fruitful valley 
 they brought back a huge cluster of grapes; 
 an incident which, according to the narrative, 
 obtained for the place its appellation of the 
 “valley of the cluster” (Num. xiii. 23, 24). It 
 is true that in Hebrew Lshcol signifies a cluster 
 or bunch, but the name had existed in this 
 neighbourhood centuries before, when Abraham 
 lived there with the chiefs Aner, Eshcol, and 
 Mamre, not Hebrews but Amorites; and this 
 was possibly the Hebrew way of appropriating 
 the ancient name derived from that hero into 
 the language of the conquerors, consistently 
 with the paronomastic turns so much in favour 
 at that time, and with a practice of which traces 
 appear elsewhere. 
 
 In the Onomasticon of Eusebius the φάραγξ 
 βότρυος is placed, with some hesitation, at 
 Gophna, 15 miles north of Jerusalem, on the 
 Neapolis road (OS.? p. 288, 92). By Jerome 
 it is given as north of Hebron, on the road to 
 Bethsur (Zpitaph. Paulac). The Jewish traveller 
 Ha-Parchi speaks of it as north of the mountain 
 on which the (ancient) city of Hebron stood 
 (Benjamin of Tudela, Asher, ii. 437). A short 
 distance N.W. of Hebron is a fine spring called 
 ‘Ain Keshkaleh, which in ordinary conversation 
 is pronounced ‘Ain Ashkali. It is mentioned 
 under the name ‘Ain Eskali by Van de Velde 
 (ii. 64), De Saulcy (Voy. en Terre Sainte, i. 155), 
 Sepp (VJerus. u. d. heil. Land, i. 593), and 
 identified with Esheol. On the other hand, 
 Dr. Rosen (ZDMG., 1858, pp. 481-2), Guérin 
 (Judée, iii. 215), and Conder (PEF. Mem, iii. 
 306) give the form Keshkaleh, which may repre- 
 sent Eshcol, though the corruption would be 
 unusual, ‘The Jews of Hebron identify it with 
 W. Tufftih, up which runs the road from Hebron 
 to Tujfth and Beit Jibrin. The vineyards in 
 this valley are very fine, and produce the 
 largest and best grapes in the country, espe- 
 cially a large seedless grape which is much 
 sought after (Robinson, Phys. Geog. of H. Land, 
 p- 110; Tristram, Land of Israel, p. 393). 
 Geikie (Holy Land and the Bible, i. 318) places 
 Eshcol near Beersheba, but there are many 
 objections to this. [6.1 LW] 
 
 ESH'EAN, R. V. ESH’AN (jDWN ; B. Sond, 
 A.(?) Eady; Esaan), one of the cities of Judah, 
 in the mountainous district, and in the same 
 group with Arab, er-Rabiyeh, and Dumah, ed- 
 Démeh (Josh. xv. 52). It is possibly es-Simia, 
 23 τὰ. E. of Démeh (PEF. Mem. iii. 313, 378). 
 
 [61] ΓΝ 
 
 E'SHEK (pwy = oppression; Β. "Ασηλ, A. 
 
 Ἐσελέικ; Esec), a Benjamite, one of the late 
 
 descendants of Saul; the founder of a large and 
 35 2 
 
990 
 
 noted family of archers, lit. “treaders of the 
 bow” (1 Ch. viii. 39). The name is omitted in 
 the parallel list of 1 Ch, ix. [G.] 
 
 ESHKALONITES, THE 
 
 ESHKALO’/NITES, THE (accurately “ the | 
 
 Eshkelonite,” ΡΠ, in the singular num- 
 ber; τῷ ᾿Ασκαλωνίτῃ; Ascalonitas), Josh. xiii. 
 3. [ASHKELON. ] [G.] 
 
 Esthaol, Estaol, Asthaol), a town in the low 
 country—the Shefelah—of Judah. It is the first 
 of the first group of cities in that district (Josh. 
 xv. 33) enumerated with Zoreah (Heb. Zareah), in 
 company with which it is commonly mentioned. 
 Zorah (R. V.) and Eshtaol were two of the towns 
 allotted to the tribe of Dan out of Judah (Josh. 
 xix. 41). Between them, and behind Kirjath- 
 jearim, was situated Mahaneh-Dan, the camp or 
 stronghold which formed the head-quarters of 
 that little community during their constant 
 encounters with the Philistines. Here, among 
 the old warriors of the tribe, Samson spent his 
 boyhood, and experienced the first impulses of 
 the Spirit of Jehovah ; and hither after his last 
 exploit his body was brought, up the long slopes 
 of the western hills, to its last rest in the bury- 
 ing-place of Manoah his father (Judg. xiii. 25; 
 xvi. 31; xviii. 2, 8, 11, 12). [Dan.] In the 
 genealogical records of 1 Chron. the relationship 
 between Eshtaol, Zareah, and Kirjath-jearim is 
 still maintained. [EsHTAULITES. ] 
 
 In the Onomasticon of Eusebius and Jerome it 
 is mentioned as Esthaol (Ἐσθαὸλ) of Dan, 10 
 miles N. of Eleutheropolis on the road to Nico- 
 polis (OS.? p. 261, 87; p. 153, 32). It is now 
 the small village of Hshti‘a, 13 English miles 
 N. of Beit Jibrin, Eleutheropolis, and not far 
 from Sur‘ah, Zorah, which is also placed by 
 the Onomasticon 10 miles N. of Eleutheropolis 
 (PEF, Mem. iii. 25).  Guérin (Judeée, ii. 12) 
 also identifies the village, which he calls Achou‘a, 
 with Eshtaol. He connects a Wely Sheikh 
 Gherib with the tomb of Samson (ii. 382, but 
 see PEF. Mem. iii. 164). A description of 
 the locality is given by Geikie (Holy Land and 
 the Bible, ii. 147). [651 [W.] 
 
 ESHTAULITES, THE (ONAYNA, accur. 
 “the Eshtaulite,” in sing. number; B. viol Ἔσ- 
 Odau, A. of "EcPawaato:; Lsthaolitae), with the 
 Zareathites, were among the families of Kirjath- 
 jearim (1 Ch. 11. 53), [Esnraot.] [G.] 
 
 ESHTEMO’A, and in shorter form, without 
 the final guttural, ESHTEMOH’ ΟΡ 
 and ΠΡ; the latter occurs in Josh. xv. 
 only: in Josh. xv., B. corruptly Ἐσκαιμάν, 
 A. Ἐσθεμώ; in Josh. xxi., B. corruptly Téa, 
 A. Ἐσθεμώ; in 1 Sam., B. Ἐσθεῖε, A. Ἐσ- 
 θεμά: Istemo, Estemo, Esthamo, Esthemo), a 
 town of Judah, in the mountains; one of the 
 group containing DeBrr (Josh. xy. 50). With 
 its “suburbs” Eshtemoa was allotted to the 
 priests (xxi. 14; 1 Ch. vi. 57). It was one of 
 the places frequented by David and his followers 
 during the long period of their wanderings; and 
 to his friends there he sent presents of the spoil 
 of the Amalekites (1 Sam. xxx. 28, cp. v. 31). 
 The place was known in the time of Eusebius 
 and Jerome, who describe it as a κώμη μεγίστη 
 
 ESSENES 
 in Daroma (0.8.2 p. 254, 70, Ἔσθεμά). There is 
 little doubt that it was discovered by Dr. Robin- 
 son at es-Semit‘a, a village 7 miles south of 
 Hebron, on the great road from e-Milh, and in 
 the neighbourhood of other villages still bearing 
 the names of its companions in the list of Josh. 
 xv.; Anab, Socoh, Jattir, &c. The village is 
 
 | full of ancient remains ; there are some interest- 
 : ; oe | ing tombs, and boundary stones which appear 
 
 ESHTA’OL Ginny and ONAL, @ = 
 request, Ges.; B. ᾿Ασταὼλ and ’Acd, A. EaOada ; | 
 
 to mark the ancient limits of the city (see 
 Robinson, i. 494, ii. 204-5; Schwarz, p. 105; 
 PEF, Mem. iii. 403, 412; Guérin, Judee, iii. 
 173-75). 
 
 In the lists—half genealogical, half topo- 
 graphical—of the descendants of Judah in 1 Ch., 
 Eshtemoa occurs as derived from Ishbah, “ the 
 father of Eshtemoa” (1 Ch. iv. 17); Gedor, 
 Socoh, and Zanoah, all towns in the same locality, 
 being named in the following verse. Eshtemoa 
 appears to have been founded by the descendants 
 of the Egyptian wife of a certain Mered, the 
 three other towns by those of his Jewish wife. 
 See the explanations of Bertheau (Chronik, ad 
 
 loc.). [6.1 [W.] 
 
 ESHTEMO’A (B. Ἐσθαιμών, A. Ἰεσθεμώη ; 
 Esthamo), in 1 Ch. iv. 19, appears to be the 
 name of an actual person, “Eshtemoa the Maa- 
 chathite.” [MAACHATHITE. ] 
 
 ESH'TON (AUN; ᾿Ασσαθών; Esthon), a 
 name which occurs in the genealogies of Judah 
 (1 Ch. iv. 11, 12). .Mehir was “the father of 
 Eshton,” and amongst the names of his four 
 children are two—LBeth-rapha and Ir-nahash— 
 which have the appearance of being names, not 
 of persons, but of places. Ge" Well 
 
 ES'LI (Rec. T. Ἐσλί, B. Ἐσλεί, probably = 
 
 IMONN, Azattan; Καί, Cod. Amiat. Hesli), son 
 
 of Nagge or Naggai, and father of Naum, in the 
 genealogy of Christ (Luke iii. 25). See Hervey, 
 Genealogies, &c., p. 136. [6.1 
 
 ESO’RA (Αἰσωρά ; Vulg. omits: the Peshitto 
 Syriac reads Bethchorn), a place fortified by the 
 Jews on the approach of the Assyrian army 
 under Holofernes (Judithiv. 4). The name may 
 be the representative of the Hebrew word Hazor, 
 or Zorah (Simonis, Onom. VN. 7. p. 19), but no 
 identification has yet been arrived at. The 
 Syriac reading suggests Beth-horon, which is 
 not impossible (see Speaker’s Comm.). [G.] 
 
 ESPOUSAL. [Marrrace.] 
 
 ES’RIL (Eopia, A. Ἐφῤφίλ; Vulg. omits), 
 1 Esd. ix. 34. [AZAREEL, or SHARAI.| [G.] 
 
 ES’ROM (Ree. T. Ἐσρώμ ; in Luke, Lachm. 
 with B, Ἐσρών; EHsrom), Matt. i. 3; Luke 
 iii. 89. [Hxzron.] [G.] 
 
 ESSH’NES. 1. In describing the different 
 sects which existed among the Jews in his own 
 time, Josephus dwells at great length and with 
 especial emphasis on the faith and practice of 
 the Zssenes, the third in his category; the 
 Pharisees and the Sadducees being the other two. 
 They appear in his description to combine the 
 ascetic virtues of the Pythagoreans and Stoics 
 with a spiritual knowledge of the Divine Law. 
 An analogous sect, marked, however, by charac- 
 
/ 
 
 ESSENES 
 
 teristic differences, used, at one time, to be 
 found in the Egyptian Therapeutae; and from 
 the detailed notices of Josephus (B. J. ii. 8; 
 Ant. xiii. 5, § 9, xv. 10, § 4 sq., xviii. 1, 
 § 2 sq. [see § 12]) and Philo (Quod omn. prob. 
 liber. § 12 sq. [see p. 628, note "7; Fragm. 
 ap. Euseb. Praep. Ev. de vita contemplativa), 
 and the casual remarks of Pliny (ἢ. WV. v. 17), 
 later writers have frequently discussed the 
 relation which these Jewish mystics occupied 
 towards the popular religion of the time, and 
 more particularly towards the doctrines of 
 Christianity. For it is a most remarkable fact 
 that the existence of such sects appears to be 
 unrecognised both in the Apostolic writings and 
 in early Hebrew literature. 
 
 2. Thename Lssene ?Eoonvot, Joseph.; Essent, 
 Plin.) or Zssaean (Eocato, Philo; Jos. B. J. i. 
 3, 5, &e.) is itself full of difficulty. Various 
 derivations have been proposed for it, and all 
 are more or legs open to objection (see the list in 
 Lightfoot,” p. 349 sq.). The derivation preferred 
 by Schiirer and Ginsburg is that from NDN = 
 “the pious ones”; Lightfoot would give the 
 preference to DINWN = “the silent ones.” 
 
 3. The obscurity of the Essenes as a distinct 
 body arises from the fact that they represented 
 originally a tendency rather than an organisa- 
 tion. The communities which were formed out 
 of them were a result of their practice, and not 
 a necessary part of it. As a sect they were 
 distinguished by an aspiration after ideal purity 
 rather than by any special code of doctrines; 
 and, like the Chasidim of earlier times [Asst- 
 DEANS], they were confounded in the popular 
 estimation with the great body of the zealous 
 observers of the Law (Pharisees), The growth 
 of Essenism was a natural result of the religious 
 feeling which was called out by the circumstances 
 of the Greek dominion; and it is easy to trace 
 the process by which it was matured. From 
 the Maccabaean age there was a continuous 
 effort among the stricter Jews to attain an 
 absolute standard of holiness. Each class of 
 devotees was looked upon as practically impure 
 by their successors, who carried the laws of 
 purity still further; and the Essenes stand at 
 the extreme limit of the mystic asceticism which 
 was thus gradually reduced to shape. The 
 associations of the “Scribes and Pharisees” 
 (Ὁ 217, “ the companions, the wise”’) gave place 
 to others bound by a more rigid rule; and the 
 rule of the Essenes was made gradually stricter. 
 Judas, the earliest Essene who is mentioned (c. 
 110 B.c.), appears living in ordinary society (Jos. 
 B. J. i. 3, §5). Menahem, according to tradition 
 a colleague of Hillel, was a friend of Herod, and 
 secured for his sect the favour of the king 
 (Jos. Ant. xv. 10, ὃ 5).. But by a natural 
 impulse the Essenes withdrew from the dangers 
 and distractions of business. From the cities 
 they retired to the wilderness to realize the 
 conceptions of religion which they formed, while 
 they remained on the whole true to their ancient 
 faith. To the Pharisees they stood nearly in 
 the same relation as that in which the Pharisees 
 themselves stood with regard to the mass of the 
 people. The differences lay mainly in rigour of 
 practice, and not in articles of belief. While the 
 Pharisees and Sadducees represented political- 
 religious parties, the Essenes came to resemble 
 ἃ monastic order (Schiirer.? p. 468). 
 
 ESSENES 997 
 
 4. The traces of the existence of Essenes in 
 common society are not wanting nor confined to 
 individual cases. Not only was a gate at 
 Jerusalem named from them (Jos. B. J. v. 4, § 2, 
 Ἔσσηνῶν πύλη), but a later tradition mentions 
 the existence of a congregation there which 
 devoted “one-third of the day to study, one- 
 third to prayer, and one-third to Jabour” 
 (Frankel, Zeitschrift, 1846, p. 458). Those, 
 again, whom Josephus speaks of (B. J. ii. 8, § 13) 
 as allowing marriage may be supposed to have 
 belonged to such bodies as had not yet with 
 drawn from intercourse with their fellow-men. 
 But the practices of the extreme section—which 
 included non-marriage, absence from the Temple, 
 &c.—were afterwards regarded as characteristic 
 of the whole class, and the isolated communities 
 
 . of Essenes furnished the type which is preserved 
 
 in the popular descriptions. These were regu- 
 lated by strict rules (see them at length in 
 Ginsburg), analogous to those of the monastic 
 institutions of a later date. The candidate for 
 admission first passed through a year’s noviciate, 
 in which he received, as symbolic gifts, an axe, 
 an apron, and a white robe, and gave proof of 
 his temperance by observing the ascetic rules of 
 the order (τὴν αὐτὴν δίαιταν). At the close of 
 this probation, his character (τὸ 760s) was sub- 
 mitted to a fresh trial of two years, and mean- 
 while he shared in the lustral rites of the 
 initiated, but not in their meals. The full 
 membership was imparted at the end of this 
 second period, when the novice bound himself 
 “by awful oaths”—though oaths were abso- 
 lutely forbidden at all other times—to observe 
 piety, justice, obedience, honesty, and secrecy, 
 “preserving alike the books of their sect, and 
 the names of the Angels” (Joseph. Δ. J. ii. 8, § 7). 
 
 5. The order itself was regulated by an internal 
 jurisdiction. Excommunication, unless revoked 
 after due repentance, would be equivalent to a 
 slow death, since an Essene could not take food 
 prepared by strangers for fear of pollution. All 
 things were held in common, without distinction 
 of property or house; and special provision was 
 made for the relief of the poor. Self-denial, 
 temperance, and labour—especially agriculture 
 —were the marks of the outward life of the 
 Essenes ; purity and divine communion the ob- 
 jects of their aspiration. Slavery, war, and 
 commerce were alike forbidden (Philo, Quod om. 
 prob. l.§ 12, p. 877 M.); and, according to Philo, 
 their conduct generally was directed by three 
 rules, “the love of God, the love of virtue, and 
 the love of man” (Philo, /. c.). 
 
 6. In doctrine they did not differ essentially 
 from strict Pharisees. Moses was honoured by 
 them next to God (Joseph. B. J. ii. 8, 9). They 
 observed the Sabbath with singular strictness ; 
 and though they were unable to offer sacrifices 
 at Jerusalem, chiefly from regard to purity 
 (διαφορότητι ἁγνειῶν), but partly also from 
 their conception of sacrifices as of inferior value 
 (Lightfoot, pp. 371-3; Ginsburg, p. 205), they 
 sent gifts thither (Jos. Ant. xviii. 2,§ 5). At 
 the same time, like most ascetics, they turned 
 their attention specially to the mysteries of the 
 spiritual world, and looked upon the body as a 
 mere prison of the soul, though this, it would 
 seem, Is not to be understood as denying the 
 resurrection of the body (see Ginsburg, p. 207). 
 They studied and practised with signal success, 
 
998 
 
 according to Josephus, the art of prophecy (see 
 the instances in Joseph. B. J. ii. 8: cp. Ant. xv. 
 10, § 5; B. J. i. 3, § 5), though Lightfoot con- 
 siders them prophets in the sense only of 
 fortune-tellers or soothsayers (p. 418); and 
 familiar intercourse with nature gave them an 
 unusual knowledge of physical truths. They 
 asserted with peculiar boldness the absolute 
 power and foreknowledge of God (Joseph. Ant. 
 xiii. 5, § 9; xviii. 1, § 5),. and disparaged the 
 various forms of mental philosophy as useless or 
 beyond the range of man (Philo, /. ὁ. p. 877). 
 
 7. The number of the Essenes is roughly esti- 
 mated by Philo at 4,000 (Philo, 7. c.; followed 
 by Josephus, Ant. xviii. 2,§ 5: cp. B. J. ii. 8; 
 Schiirer,? p. 470, n. 12). Their best-known 
 settlements were on the N.W. shore of the Dead 
 Sea (Philo; Plin. //. cc.), but others lived in scat- 
 tered communities throughout Palestine, and in 
 other cities besides Jerusalem (Jos. B. J. ii.8, § 4. 
 Cp. [Hippol.] Philos. ix. 20; Schiirer,? p. 471). 
 
 8. In the Talmudic writings there is, as has 
 been already said, no direct mention of the 
 Essenes, but their existence is recognised by the 
 notice of peculiar points of practice and teaching. 
 Under the titles of “the pious,” “the weakly ” 
 (i.e. with study), “the retiring,” their maxims 
 are quoted with respect, and many of the traits 
 preserved in Josephus find parallels in the 
 notices of the Talmud (Z. Frankel, Zeitschrift, 
 Dec. 1846, p. 451 sq.; Monatsschrift, 1853, 
 p- 37sq.). The four stages of purity which are 
 distinguished by the doctors (Chagigah, 18 a, ap. 
 Frankel, op. cit. p. 451) correspond in a sin- 
 gular manner with the four classes into which 
 the Essenes are said to have been divided 
 (Joseph. B. J. ii. 8, § 10); and the periods of 
 probation observed in the two cases offer similar 
 coincidences.* 
 
 9. But the best among the Jews felt the peril 
 of Essenism as a system, and combined to dis- 
 courage it. They shrank with an instinctive 
 dread from the danger of connecting asceticism 
 with spiritual power, and cherished the great 
 truth which lay in the saying “Doctrine is not 
 in heaven.” The miraculous energy which was 
 attributed to mystics was regarded by them 
 as rather a matter of suspicion than of respect ; 
 and theosophic speculations were condemned 
 with emphatic distinctness (Frankel, Jonats- 
 schrift, 1853, pp. 62 sq., 68, 71). 
 
 10. The character of Essenism limited its 
 spread. Out of Palestine, Levitical purity was 
 impossible, for the very land was impure; and 
 thus there is no trace of the sect in Babylonia. 
 The case was different in Egypt, where Judaism 
 assumed a new shape from its intimate con- 
 nexion with Greece. Here the original form in 
 which it was moulded was represented not by 
 direct copies, but by analogous forms; and the 
 tendency which gave birth to the Essenes has 
 been sometimes thought to have found a fresh 
 development in the pure speculation of the 
 Therapeutae. These (according to Philo) were 
 Alexandrine mystics who abjured the practical 
 
 ESSENES 
 
 ® This § 8 is left unaltered. Ginsburg (p. 204) sup- 
 ports Frankel’s views. Lightfoot? (p. 356 sq.) is 
 thoroughly opposed to them. The difference between 
 these two scholars is extremely interesting, and mainly 
 arises from regarding the matter from a different point 
 of view. Schtirer? (p. 470, n. 11) agrees with Lightfoot. 
 
 ESTHER 
 
 labours which rightly belonged to the Essenes, 
 and gave themselves up to the study of the 
 inner meaning of the Scriptures, The “whole 
 day, from sunrise to sunset, was spent in mental 
 discipline.” Bodily wants were often forgotten 
 in the absorbing.pursuit of wisdom, and “ meat 
 and drink” were at all times held to be un- 
 worthy of the light (Philo, De vit. contempl., § 4). 
 But Philo’s treatise is now (see Schiirer,? p. 863) 
 generally considered unauthentic. The Thera- 
 peutae were probably only Christian monks. 
 
 11. From the nature of the case Essenism in 
 its extreme form could exercise very little in- 
 fluence on Christianity.» In all its practical 
 bearings it was diametrically opposed to the 
 Apostolic teaching. The dangers which it 
 involved were far more clear to the eye of the 
 Christian than they were to the Jewish doctors. 
 The only real similarity between Essenism and 
 Christianity lay in the common element of true 
 Judaism. Nationally, the Essenes occupy the 
 same position as that to which John the Baptist 
 was personally called, They mark the close of 
 the old, the longing for the new, but in this 
 case without the promise. In place of the 
 message of the coming “ kingdom” they could 
 proclaim only individual purity and isolation. 
 At a later time traces of Essenism appear in the 
 Clementines (cp. Lightfoot,? p. 372), and the 
 strange account which Epiphanius gives of the 
 Osseni COconvol) appears to point to some 
 combination of Essene and pseudo-Christian 
 doctrines (Haer. xix.). After the Jewish war 
 the Essenes disappear from history. The 
 character of Judaism was changed, and ascetic 
 Pharisaism became almost impossible. 
 
 12. The original sources for the history of 
 the Essenes have been already noticed. Of 
 modern essays, the most original and important 
 are those of Frankel in his Zeitschrift, 1846, 
 pp. 441-461, and Monatsschrift, 1853, p. 30 sq. ; 
 cp. the wider view of Jost, Gesch. d. Judenth. 
 i. 207 sq. See also Hilgenfeld (Die Ketzerge- 
 schichte d. Urchristenthums, p. 84 sq.); Gfrérer 
 (Philo, ii. 299 sq.); Diihne (Jiid-Alex. Reliy.- 
 Philos. i. 467 sq.); Ewald (Gesch. d. Volk. Isr. 
 iv. 420 sq.); Lightfoot (Zpp. to the Colossians 
 and Philemon,? p. 349 sq.); Ginsburg (“ Essenes ” 
 in Dict. of Christian Biography) ; Schiirer (Gesch. 
 d. Jiid. Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi,? ii. 
 Ρ. 467 sq.); Morrison (Zhe Jews under Roman 
 Rule, ch. xiy.). The rejection by Ohle (Die 
 Essener, in Jahrb. f. Prot. Theol. xiv. [1888]; 
 Die Pseudophilon-Essdéer u.s.w., in Beitriige z. 
 Kirchengeschichte [1888]) of the statements of 
 Josephus as spurious is not accepted by the best 
 modern critics. Lucius (Der Lssenismwus in 
 seinem Verhdltniss z. Judenthum [1881]) is less 
 radical and peremptory. [B.FS Wis] ΠῚ 
 
 HS'THER (ADS = the planet Venus ; Ἔσ- 
 @np), the Persian name of Hapassan, daughter 
 of Abihail the son of Shimei, the son of Kish, a 
 Benjamite [MorpDeEcatr], and cousin of Mordecai. 
 The explanation of her old name Hadassah, by 
 the addition of her new name, by which she was 
 better known, with the formula TADN δα, 
 
 Ὁ On this point again Lightfoot? (p. 397 sq.) is 
 radically opposed to Ginsburg (p. 201 sq.), whose 
 ruling idea is that ‘‘ Jesus...belonged to (the Essene) 
 portion of His religious brethren.” 
 
 σνυενυ 
 
 ESTHER 
 
 “that is, Esther’ (Esth. ii. 7), is exactly analo- 
 gous to the usual addition of the modern names 
 of towns to explain the use of the old obsolete 
 ones (Gen. xxxv. 19, 27; Josh. xv. 10, &c.). 
 Esther was a beautiful Jewish maiden, whose 
 ancestor Kish had been among the captives led 
 away from Jerusalem (part of which was in the 
 tribe of Benjamin) by Nebuchadnezzar when 
 Jehoiachin was taken captive. She was an 
 orphan without father or mother, and had been 
 brought up by her cousin Mordecai, who had an 
 office in the household of Ahasuerus king of 
 Persia, and dwelt at “Shushan the palace.” 
 When Vashti was dismissed from being queen, 
 and all the fairest virgins of the kingdom had 
 been collected at Shushan for the king to make 
 choice of a successor to her from among them, 
 the choice fell upon Esther, and she was 
 crowned queen in the room of Vashti with 
 much pomp and rejoicing. The king was not 
 aware, however, of her race and parentage ; and 
 so, with the careless profusion of a sensual 
 adlespot, on the representation of Haman the 
 Agagite, his prime minister, that the Jews 
 scattered through his empire were a pernicious 
 race, he gave him full power and authority to 
 kill them all, young and old, women and chil- 
 dren, and take possession of all their property. 
 ‘The means taken by Esther to avert this great 
 calamity from her people and her kindred, at 
 the risk of her own life, and to turn upon 
 Haman the destruction he had plotted against 
 the Jews, and the success of her scheme, by 
 which she changed their mourning, fasting, 
 weeping, and wailing, into light and gladness 
 and joy and honour, and became for ever 
 especially honoured amongst her countrymen, 
 are fully related in the Book of Esther. The 
 feast of Purim, i.e. of Lots (?), was appointed by 
 Esther and Mordecai to be kept on the 14th and 
 15th of the month Adar (February and March) 
 in commemoration of this great deliverance. 
 [Purm.] The decree of Esther to this effect is 
 the last thing recorded of her (ix. 32). The 
 continuous celebration of this feast by the Jews 
 to the present day is thought to be a strong 
 evidence of the historical truth of the Book. 
 ΓΕΒΤΗΕΒ, Book oF. ] 
 
 The questions which arise in attempting to 
 ‘give Esther her place in profane history are— 
 
 I. Who is Ahasuerus? This question is 
 answered under AHASUERUS, and the reasons 
 there given lead to the conclusion that he was 
 Xerxes the son of Darius Hystaspis (cp. Sayce, 
 Introd. to Ezra,... Esther, p. 96 sq.). 
 
 II. The second inquiry is, Who then was 
 Esther? Artissona, Atossa, and others are in- 
 deed excluded by the above decision; but are 
 we to conclude with Scaliger, that because 
 Ahasuerus is Xerxes, therefore Esther is Ames- 
 tris? Surely not. None of the historical par- 
 ticulars related by Herodotus concerning Ames- 
 tris make it possible to identify her with 
 Esther. Amestris was the daughter of Otanes 
 Onophas in Ctesias), one of Xerxes’ generals, 
 and brother to his father Darius (Herod. vii. 61, 
 82), Esther’s father and mother had been Jews. 
 Amestris was wife to Xerxes before the Greek 
 expedition (Herod. vii. 61), and her sons accom- 
 
 _panied Xerxes to Greece (Herod. vii. 39), and 
 had all three come to man’s estate at the death 
 of Xerxes in the 20th year of his reign, Darius, ' 
 
 999 
 
 the eldest, had married immediately after the 
 return from Greece, Esther did not enter the 
 king’s palace till his 7th year, just the time of 
 Darius’s marriage. These objections are con- 
 clusive, without adding the difference of cha- 
 racter of the two queens. The truth is that 
 history is wholly silent both about Vashti and 
 Esther. Herodotus only happens to mention 
 one of Xerxes’ wives; Scripture only mentions 
 two, if indeed either of them were wives at all. 
 But since we know that it was the custom of 
 the Persian kings before Xerxes to have several 
 wives, besides their concubines ; that Cyrus had 
 several (Herod. iii. 35; that Cambyses had four 
 whose names are mentioned, and others besides 
 (iii. 31, 32, 68); that Smerdis had several (ib. 
 68, 69); and that Darius had six wives, whose 
 names are mentioned (ib, passim), it is most 
 improbable that Xerxes should have been con- 
 tent with one wife. Another strong objection 
 to the idea of Esther being his one legitimate 
 wife, and perhaps to her being strictly his wife 
 at all, is that the Persian kings selected their 
 wives not from the harem, but, if not foreign 
 princesses, from the noblest Persian families, 
 either their own nearest relatives, or from one 
 of the seven great Persian houses. It seems 
 therefore natural 1o conclude that Esther, a 
 captive and ene of the harem, was not of the 
 highest rank of wives, but that a special honour, 
 with the name of queen, may have been given 
 to her, as to Vashti before her, as the favourite 
 concubine or inferior wife, whose offspring, how- 
 ever, if she had any, would not have succeeded 
 to the Persian throne. This view, which seems 
 to be strictly in accordance with what we know 
 of the manners of the Persian court, removes all 
 difficulty in reconciling the history of Esther 
 with the scanty accounts left us by profane 
 authors of the reign of Xerxes. 
 
 It only remains to remark on the character 
 of Esther as given in the Bible. She appears 
 there as a woman of deep piety, faith, courage, 
 patriotism, and caution, combined with resolu- 
 tion ; a dutiful daughter to her adoptive father, 
 docile and obedient to his counsels, and anxious 
 to share the king’s favour with him for the 
 good of the Jewish people. That she was a 
 virtuous woman, and, as far as her situation 
 made it possible, a good wife to the king, her 
 continued influence over him for so long a time 
 warrants us to infer. And there must have 
 been a singular grace and charm in her aspect 
 and manners, since she “ obtained favour in the 
 sight of all that looked upon her” (ii. 15). 
 That she was raised up as an instrument in the 
 hands of God to avert the destruction of the 
 Jewish people, and to afford them protection, 
 and forward their wealth and peace in their 
 captivity, is also manifest from the Scripture 
 account. But to impute to her the sentiments 
 put into her mouth by the apocryphal author 
 of ch, xiv., or to accuse her of cruelty because 
 of the death of Haman and his sons, and the 
 second day’s slaughter of the Jews’ enemies at 
 Shushan, is utterly to ignore the manners and 
 feelings of her age and nation, and to judge her 
 by the standard of Christian morality in our 
 own age and country instead. In fact the sim- 
 plicity and truth to nature of the Scriptural 
 narrative afford a striking contrast, both with 
 the forced and florid amplifications of the apo- 
 
 ESTHER 
 
1000 
 
 cryphal additions (see e.g. ϑρεαλθ,"5 Comm. on 
 the Apocrypha, i. 402), and with the sentiments 
 of some later commentators. It may be con- 
 venient to add that the third year of Xerxes was 
 B.c. 483, his seventh 479, and his twelfth 474 
 (Clinton, 7. H.), and that the simultaneous battles 
 of Plataea and Mycale, which frightened Xerxes 
 from Sardis (Diod. Sic. xi. § 36) to Susa, hap- 
 pened, according to Prideaux and Clinton, in 
 September of his seventh year. For a fuller dis- 
 cussion of the identity of Esther, and different 
 views of the subject, see Prideaux’s Connexion, 
 j. 236, 243, 297 sqq., and Petav. de doctr. Temp. 
 xii. 27, 28, who make Esther wife of Artaxerxes 
 Longimanus, following Joseph. Ant. xi. 6, as he 
 followed the LXX. and the apocryphal Esther ; 
 J. Scaliger (de emend. Temp. vi. 591; Animadv. 
 Euseb. 100) makes Ahasuerns, Xerxes; Ussher 
 (Annal. Vet. Test.) makes him Darius Hystas- 
 pis; Loftus, Chaldaea, ἕο. Eusebius (Canon. 
 Chron. 338, ed. Mediol.) rejects the hypothesis 
 of Artaxerxes Longimanus, on the score of the 
 silence of the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, and 
 adopts that of Artaxerxes Mnemon, following 
 the Jews, who make Darius Codomanus to be 
 the same as Darius Hystaspis, and the son of 
 Artaxerxes by Esther! It is observable that 
 all Petavius’s and Prideaux’s arguments against 
 Scaliger’s view apply solely to the now obsolete 
 opinion that Esther is Amestris. [A. C. ἘΠῚ 
 
 ES’THER, BOOK OF. 1. Title and 
 authorship. The Book is one of the latest of 
 the Canonical Books of Scripture, having been 
 written late in the reign of Xerxes, or early in 
 that of his son Artaxerxes Longimanus. The 
 author is not known, but some think that he 
 may possibly have been Mordecai himself. The 
 minute details given of the great banquet, of 
 
 ESTHER, BOOK OF 
 
 the names of the chamberlains and eunuchs and . 
 
 Haman’s wife and sons, and of the customs and 
 regulations of the palace, betoken that the 
 author lived at Shushan, and probably at court, 
 while his no less intimate acquaintance with the 
 most private affairs both of Esther and Mordecai 
 are thought to suit the hypothesis of the latter 
 being himself the writer. It is also not in 
 itself improbable that. as Daniel, Ezra, and 
 Nehemiah, who held high offices under the 
 Persian kings, wrote an account of the affairs 
 of their nation, in which they took a leading 
 part, so Mordecai should have also recorded 
 the transactions of the Book of Esther. The 
 termination of the Book with the mention of 
 Mordecai’s elevation and government agrees 
 with this view, which has the sanction of Ibn 
 Ezra, most of the Jews, Vatablus, Carpzovius, 
 and others, though not accepted by modern com- 
 mentators. The Book is included by Josephus 
 (c. Apion. i. 8) in the twenty-two Books of the 
 Canon, and probably as the last of those δικαίως 
 θεῖα πεπιστευμένα. Those who ascribe it to 
 Ezra, or to the men of the great Synagogue 
 (Baba Bathra, f. 14), may have merely meant 
 that Ezra edited and added it to the Canon of 
 Scripture, which he probably did, bringing it, 
 and perhaps the Book of Daniel, with him from 
 Babylon to Jerusalem. 
 
 2. Date and -place.—The earliest reference to 
 the Book is in 2 Macc. xv. 36, but the apo- 
 eryphal additions of the LXX. and Josephus 
 carry the evidence for it further back than the 
 
 ESTHER, BOOK OF 
 
 date of that work (c. 2nd cent. B.c.). The 
 closing words of the LXX. Version (see § 3, ὃ) 
 do not advance the matter. The language 
 (see ὃ 3, a), but above all the evident familiarity 
 of the writer with Persia, go to show that 
 the author lived in Persia, if after the reign of 
 Xerxes; and the end of the reign of Artaxerxes 
 Longimanus (B.C. 425) is accepted by many com- 
 mentators as the date of composition (Eichhorn, 
 Keil, Rawlinson, Sayce, &c.). It must, however, 
 be admitted that the same premisses lead others 
 (Ewald, Stiihelin, Bertheau, and Orelli) to prefer 
 a later Persian period or the beginning of the 
 Greek period (c. B.c. 332), while another class 
 of critics refuse to the Book any historical 
 value, and carry it down to much more modern 
 times (see Oettli, § 6). 
 
 3. ZYext.—The Book of Esther appears in ἃ 
 form in the LXX.,* and in the translations from 
 that Version, different from that in which it 
 is found in the Hebrew Bible. In speaking of 
 it we shall first speak of (a) the Canonical 
 Book found in Hebrew, and next (Ὁ) of the 
 Greek Book with its apocryphal additions. 
 (a) The Canonical EsTHer then is placed among 
 the hagiographa or D°2IND by the Jews, 
 and in that first portion of them which they 
 
 call the five volumes, nidan. It is sometimes. 
 
 emphatically called Megillah, without other dis- 
 tinction, and was held in such high repute by 
 the Jews that it is a saying of Maimonides that 
 in the days of Messiah the prophetic and hagio- 
 graphical Books will pass away, except the 
 Book of Esther, which will remain with the 
 Pentateuch. This Book is read through by the 
 Jews in their synagogues at the feast of Purim, 
 when it was once the custom—since abandoned 
 at least by British Jews—at the mention of 
 Haman’s name to hiss, and stamp, and clench 
 the fist, and cry, “Let his name be blotted 
 out; may the name of the wicked rot.” It. 
 is said also that the names of Haman’s ten 
 sons are read in one breath, to signify that 
 they all expired at the same instant of time- 
 Even in writing the names of Haman’s sons 
 in the 7th, 8th, and 9th verses of Esth. ix., 
 the Jewish scribes have contrived to express 
 their abhorrence of the race of Haman. For 
 these ten names are written in three perpen- 
 dicular columns of 3, 3, 4, as if they were 
 hanging upon three parallel cords, three upon 
 each cord, one above another, to represent the 
 hanging of Haman’s sons (Stehelin’s Rabbin. 
 Literat. ii. 349; Speaker’s Commentary on the 
 Apocrypha, “The rest of Esther,” pp. 362, 
 col. 2, n. 1, 402 (d)). The Targum of Esth. 
 ix., in Walton’s Polyglott,” inserts a very minute 
 account of the exact position occupied by Haman 
 and his sons on the gallows, the height from 
 the ground, and the interval between each ; 
 according to which they all hung in one line, 
 Haman at the top, and his ten sons at intervals 
 of half a cubit under him. It is added that 
 Zeresh and Haman’s seventy surviving sons fled, 
 and begged their bread from door to door, im 
 
 a The term LXX. is used here to indicate the whole 
 Greek volume as we now have it. 
 
 b There are two Targums to Esther, both of late date. 
 See Wolf’s Bibl. Hebr. Pars 11, 1171-81; Speaker’s 
 Comm. on the Apocrypha, i, 363. ) 
 
gy SPA λὲν 
 
 / 
 
 ESTHER, BOOK OF 
 
 evident allusion to Ps. cix. 9, 10. It has often 
 been remarked as a peculiarity of this Book that 
 the name of God does not once occur in it. Some 
 of the ancient Jewish teachers were somewhat 
 staggered at this, but others accounted for it 
 by saying that it was a transcript, under Divine 
 inspiration, from the Chronicles of the Medes 
 and Persians ; and that, being meant to be read 
 by heathen, the sacred Name was wisely omitted. 
 Baxter (Saint’s Rest, iv. ch. iii.) speaks of the 
 Jewish practice of casting to the ground the Book 
 of Esther, because the Name of God was not in 
 it; but Wolf (B. #. ii. 90) denies this, and 
 says that if any such custom prevailed among 
 the Oriental Jews, to whom it is ascribed by 
 Sandys, it must have been rather to express 
 their hatred of Haman. ‘This peculiarity of 
 the Book must not be pressed too far. Certain 
 it is that this Book was always reckoned’ in the 
 Jewish Canon, and is named or implied in 
 almost every enumeration of the Books com- 
 posing it, from Josephus downwards. Jerome 
 mentions it by name in the Prolog. Gal., in 
 his Epistle to Paulinus, and in the preface 
 to Esther; as does Augustine, de Civit. Dei 
 and de Doctr. Christ., and Origen, as cited 
 by Eusebius (Mist. Eccles. vi. 25), and many 
 others. Some modern commentators, both Eng- 
 
 lish and German, have objected to the contents 
 
 of the Book as improbable and not strictly 
 historical ; but if it be true, as Diodorus 
 Siculus relates, that Xerxes put the Medians 
 foremost at Thermopylae on purpose that they 
 might be all killed, because he thought they 
 were not thoroughly reconciled to the loss of their 
 national supremacy, it is surely not incredible 
 that he should have given permission to Haman 
 to destroy a few thousand strange people like 
 the Jews, who were represented to be injurious 
 to his empire, and disobedient to his laws. Nor 
 again, when we remember what Herodotus 
 relates of Xerxes in respect to promises made at 
 banquets, can we deem it incredible that he 
 should perform his promise to Esther to reverse 
 the decree in the only way that seemed prac- 
 ticable. It is likely too that the secret friends 
 and adherents of Haman would be the persons 
 to attack the Jews, which would be a reason 
 why Ahasuerus would rather rejoice at their 
 destruction.© In so many respects the writer 
 shows such accurate acquaintance with Persian 
 manners, and is so true to history and chrono- 
 logy, as to afford the strongest internal evidences 
 to the truth of the Book. The casual way in 
 
 which the author of 2 Macc. xv. 36 alludes to 
 
 the feast of Purim, under the name of “ Mardo- 
 chaeus’s day,” as kept by the Jews in the time of 
 Nicanor (8.6. 161), is another strong testimony 
 in its favour; and indeed justifies the expression 
 of Dr. Lee (quoted in Whiston’s Josephus, xi. 
 ch. yi.), that “the truth of this history is de- 
 monstrated by the feast of Purim, kept up from 
 that time to this very day.” 4 
 
 ¢ The arguments of those who deny strict historical 
 accuracy to the Book are summarized in Oettli, § 5, 
 “Geschichtlichkeit.” See Driver, LOT. p. 452sq. Cp. 
 on the other side, Sayce, p. 98 sq.—[F.] 
 
 4 Dr. W. Lee also has some remarks on the proof of 
 the historical character of the Book derived from the 
 feast of Purim, as well as on other points (Inspir. of 
 Hf. 8. 430sq.). See also Sayce, p. 101; Oettli, p. 233. 
 The etymological derivation from the Persian and the 
 
 1001 
 
 The style of writing is remarkably chaste 
 and simple. Xerxes, Haman, Mordecai, and 
 Esther are personages full of life ana imdi- 
 viduality ; and the narrative of the struggle 
 in Esther’s mind between fear and the desire to 
 save her people, and of the final resolve made in 
 the strength of that help, which was to be 
 sought in prayer and fasting, is very touching 
 and beautiful, and without any exaggeration. 
 It does not in the least savour of romance. The 
 Hebrew is very like that of Ezra and parts of 
 the Chronicles (al. like that of Ecclesiastes) ; 
 generally pure, but mixed with words of Persian 
 origin (Sayce, p. 93), and of Chaldaic affinity, 
 which do not occur in older Hebrew. 
 
 In short it is just what one would expect 
 to find in a work of the age to which the Book 
 of Esther pretends to belong. The student 
 has indeed only to compare the Hebrew Esther 
 with the Greek Esther now to be noticed in 
 order to see the difference between what may 
 be called genuine history and what is certainly 
 not. 
 
 (>) As regards the LXX. Version of the Book 
 (of which there are two texts, called by Dr. 
 Fritzsche, A and B), it eonsists of the Canonical 
 Esther with various interpolations prefixed, 
 interspersed,®° and added at the close. Read in 
 Greek, it makes a complete and continuous 
 history, except that here and there, as e.g. in 
 the repetition of Mordecai’s pedigree, the patch- 
 work betrays itself. ‘The chief additions are :— 
 | A preface containing Mordecai’s pedigree, his 
 dream, and his appointment to sit in the king’s 
 gate, in the second year of Artaxerxes. In the 
 third chapter, a pretended copy of Artaxerxes’s 
 decree for the destruction of the Jews is added, 
 written in thorough Greek style; a prayer of 
 Mordecai is inserted in the fourth chapter ; fol- 
 
 ESTHER, BOOK OF 
 
 lowed by a prayer of Esther, in which she excuses 
 herself for being wife to the uncircumcised king, 
 and denies having eaten anything or drunk wine 
 at the table of Haman; an amplification of 
 v. 1-3; a pretended copy of Artaxerxes’s letter 
 for reversing the previous decree (also of mani- 
 festly Greek origin in ch, viii.), in which Haman 
 is called a Macedonian, and is accused of having 
 plotted to transfer the empire from the Persians 
 to the Macedonians, a palpable proof of this 
 portion having been composed after the over- 
 throw of the Persian empire by the Greeks ; 
 and lastly an addition to the tenth chapter, in 
 which Mordecai shows how his dream was ful- 
 filled in the events that had happened, gives 
 glory to God, and prescribes the observation of 
 the feast of the 14th and 15th Adar. The whole 
 book is closed with the following entry :—“ In 
 the fourth year of the reign of Ptolemaeus and 
 
 identification of Purim with a Persian festival which the 
 later Jews metamorphosed into that connected with the 
 Book of Esther has been, in various forms, advocated by 
 Hitzig, Zunz, Lagarde, Reuss (see Oettli, p. 233). The 
 result is not philologically successful (see Halévy, 
 REJ. xv. 289, as against Lagarde’s Purim), neither is it 
 historically defensible.—[F.] 
 
 e The Targum to Esther contains other copious 
 embellishments and amplifications. On the whole 
 subject of the apocryphal ‘‘ Additions to Esther,” see 
 Speaker’s Comm. on ‘* The rest of Esther.”” Jacob, ‘Das 
 Buch Esther bei den LXX.’ in ΖΑ ΤΎΓ. x. 290, considers 
 the LXX. Version to have been made in Egypt about 
 B.C. 30. 
 
1002 ESTHER, BOOK OF 
 
 Cleopatra, Dositheus, wno said he was a priest 
 and Levite, and Ptclemy his son, brought this 
 epistle of Phurim, which they said was the 
 same, and that Lysimachus, the son of Ptolemy, 
 that was in Jerusalem, had interpreted it.” 
 This entry was apparently intended to give 
 authority to this Greek Version of EsTHER, by 
 pretending that it was a certified translation 
 from the Hebrew original. Ptolemy Philometor, 
 who is here meant,’ began to reign B.c. 181. 
 Though, however, the interpolations of the 
 Greek copy are thus manifest, they make a con- 
 sistent and intelligible story. But the apocry- 
 phal additions as they are inserted in some 
 editions of the Latin Vulgate, and in the 
 English Bible, are incomprehensible ; the history 
 of which is this: —When Jerome translated the 
 Book of Esther, he first gave the Version of the 
 Hebrew only as being alone authentic. He 
 then added at the end a Version in Latin of 
 those several passages which he found in the 
 LXX., and which were not in the Hebrew, 
 stating where each passage came in, and marking 
 them all with an obelus. The first passage so 
 given is that which forms the continuation of 
 chapter x. (which of course immediately pre- 
 cedes it), ending with the above entry about 
 Dositheus. Having annexed this conclusion, 
 he then gives the Prooemium, which he says 
 forms the beginning of the Greek Vulgate, be- 
 ginning with what is now v. 2 of ch. xi.; and 
 so proceeds with the other passages. But in 
 subsequent editions all Jerome’s explanatory 
 matter has been swept away, and the disjointed 
 portions have been printed as chapters xi., xii., 
 xiii., Xiv., xv., Xvi., as if they formed a narrative 
 in continuance of the Canonical Book. ‘The 
 extreme absurdity of this arrangement is no- 
 where more apparent than in chapter xi., where 
 the verse (1) which closes the whole Book in 
 the Greek copies, and in St. Jerome’s Latin 
 translation, is actually made immediately to 
 precede that (v. 2) which is the very first 
 verse of the Prooemium. As regards the place 
 assigned to Esther in the LXX., in the Vatican 
 edition, and most others, it comes between 
 Judith and Job. Its place before Job is a 
 remnant of the Hebrew order, Esther there 
 closing the historical, and Job beginning the 
 metrical Megilloth. Tobit and’Judith have been 
 placed between it and Nehemiah, doubtless for 
 chronological reasons. But in the very ancient 
 Codex published by Tischendorf, and called @. 
 Friderico-Augustanus (now ἐδ), Esther immedi- 
 ately follows Nehemiah (included under Esdras 
 B), and precedes Tobit. This Codex, which con- 
 tains the apocryphal additions to Esther, was 
 copied from one written by the martyr Pamphilus 
 with his own hand, as far as to the end of Esther, 
 and is ascribed by the editor to the 4th century. 
 
 As regards the motive which led to these 
 additions, one seems evidently to have been to 
 supply what was thought an omission in the 
 
 f He is the same as is frequently mentioned in 
 1 Macc.; eg. x. 57, xi. 12; cp. Joseph. A. J. xiii. 
 4, §1,5, and Clinton, #. H. iii. 393. This identifica- 
 tion with Philometor, if not positively certain, cannot be 
 said to be seriously refuted by Jacob, p. 274. sq. Dosi- 
 theus seems to be a Greek version of Mattathiah ; Ptolemy 
 was also a common name for Jews at that time. See 
 Speakers Comm. on the Apocrypha, i. 364-6. 
 
 ESTHER, BOOK OF 
 
 Hebrew Book, by introducing copious mention 
 of the name of God, It is further evident from 
 the other apocryphal books, and additions to 
 canonical Scripture, which appear in the LXX., 
 such as Bel and the Dragon, Susanna, the Song 
 of the Three Children, &c., that the Alexandrian 
 Jews loved to dwell upon the events of the 
 Babylonish Captivity, and especially upon the 
 Divine interpositions in their behalf, probably 
 as being the latest manifestations of God's 
 special care for Israel. Traditional stories 
 would be likely to be current among them, and 
 these would be sure sooner or later to be com- 
 mitted to writing, with additions according to 
 the fancy of the writers. The most popular 
 among them, or those which had most of an 
 
 historical basis, or which were written by men 
 
 of most weight, or whose origin was lost in the 
 most remote antiquity, or which most gratified 
 the national feelings, would acquire something 
 of sacred authority (especially in the absence of 
 real inspiration dictating fresh Scriptures), and 
 get admitted into the volume of Scripture, less 
 rigidly fenced by the Hellenistic than by the 
 Hebrew Jews. No subject would be more 
 likely to engage the thoughts and exercise the 
 pens of such writers, than the deliverance of the 
 Jews from utter destruction by the intervention 
 of Esther and Mordecai, and the overthrow of 
 their enemies in their stead. Those who made 
 the additions to the Hebrew narrative according 
 to the religious taste and feeling of their own 
 times, probably acted in the same spirit as 
 others have often done, who have added florid 
 architectural ornaments to temples which were 
 too plain for their own corrupted taste. The 
 account which Josephus follows seems to have 
 contained yet further particulars, as e.g. the 
 name of the Eunuch’s servant, a Jew, who 
 betrayed the conspiracy to Mordecai; other 
 passages from the Persian Chronicles read to 
 Ahasuerus, besides that relating to Mordecai, 
 and amplifications of the king’s speech to Haman, 
 &e. It is of this LXX. Version that Athanasius 
 (Fest. Epist. 39, Oxf. transl.) spoke when he 
 ascribed the Book of Esther to the non-canonical 
 books; and this also is perhaps the reason why 
 in some of the lists of the canonical Books 
 Esther is not named, as e.g. in those of Melito 
 of Sardis and Gregory Nazianzen, unless in these 
 it is included under some other book, as Ruth, 
 or Esdras& (see Whitaker, Disput. on H. Ser., 
 pp. 57, 58 [Park. Soc.]; Cosins on the Canon 
 of Scr. pp. 49, 50 [ditto]). Origen, singu- 
 larly enough, takes a different line in his £p. 
 to Africanus (Oper. i. 14). He defends the 
 canonicity of these Greek additions, though 
 he admits they are not in the Hebrew. His 
 sole argument, unworthy of a great scholar, 
 is the use of the LXX. in the Churches, 
 an argument which embraces equally all the 
 apocryphal books. Africanus, in his Ep. to 
 Origen, had made the being in the Hebrew 
 essential to canonicity, as Jerome did later. 
 The Council of Trent (1546) pronounced the 
 whole Book of Esther to be canonical (see 
 the R. C. commentators in Kaulen, Zinieit. in 
 die heil. Schriften A. 1, § 270 sq.), and 
 
 Ξ “This Book of Esther, or sixth of Esdras, as it is 
 placed in some of the most ancient copies of the 
 Vulgate.” (Lec’s Dissert. on 2nd Esdras, p. 25.) 
 
 4 
 ——-- ee υν 
 
 ᾿ 
 F 
 1 
 4 
 Ξ 
 
ἘΤΑΜ᾿ 
 
 ETAM, THE ROCK 1003 
 
 Vatablus says that prior to that decision it was | the numerous bold eminences which abound in 
 
 doubtful whether or no Esther was to be included 
 in the Canon, some authors affirming and some 
 denying it. He afterwards qualifies the state- 
 ment by saying that at all events the last seven 
 chapters were doubtful. Sixtus Senensis, in 
 spite of the decision of the Council, speaks of 
 these additions, after the example of Jerome, as 
 *“Jacinias hine inde quorumdam Scriptorum 
 temeritate insertas,” and thinks that they are 
 chiefly derived from Josephus, but this last 
 opinion is without probability. The manner 
 vand the order in which Josephus cites them 
 (Ant. xi. 6) show that they had already in his 
 days obtained currency among the Hellenistic 
 Jews as portions of the Book of Esther; as we 
 know from the way in which he cites other 
 apocryphal books that they were current like- 
 wise; with others which are now lost. For it 
 was probably from such that Josephus derived 
 his stories about Moses, about Sanballat, and 
 the temple on Mount Gerizim, and the meeting 
 of the high-priest and Alexander the Great. 
 But these, not having happened to be bound up 
 with the LXX., perished. However, the mar- 
 vellous purity with which the Hebrew Canon 
 has been preserved, under the providence of God, 
 is brought out into very strong light, by the 
 contrast of the Greek volume. Nor is it un- 
 interesting to observe how the relaxation of the 
 ‘peculiarity of their national character, by the 
 Alexandrian Jews, implied in the adoption of the 
 Greek language and Greek names, seems to have 
 been accompanied with a less jealous, and conse- 
 quently a less trustworthy guardianship of their 
 great national treasure, “the oracles of God.” 
 See further, Bishop Cosins, on the Canon of 
 H. &.; Wolf's Bibl. Hebr. 11, 88, and passim ; 
 Hotting. Thesaur. p. 494; Walton, Proleg. ix. 
 § 13; Whitaker, Disput. of Script. ch. viii. ; 
 Dr. O. F. Fritzsche, Zusttze zum Buche Esther ; 
 Baumgarten, de Fide Lib. Esther, &c. More 
 modern German literature on the Book of Esther 
 is enumerated by Cettli in Strack u. Zéckler’s 
 Kgf. Komm. z. d. heil. Schriften A. αἰ. N. Ttes. 
 “inl. z. Esther,” ὃ 7. Cp. Driver, LOT. 
 p. 449 sq. (ea Com 158} ἼΠ 
 
 E'TAM (ODD; Αἰτάν; Etam). 1. A village 
 (18M) of the tribe of Simeon, specified only in 
 the list in 1 Ch. iv. 32 (cp. Josh. xix. 7); but 
 that it is intentionally introduced appears from 
 the fact that the number of places is summed as 
 five, though in the parallel list as four, The 
 cities of Simeon appear all to have been in the 
 extreme south of the country (see Joseph. Ant. 
 y. 1, § 22). Conder (PEF. Mem. iii. 261) proposes 
 to identify it with Jfh. ‘Aitiéin, between 8 and 9 
 miles S. of Beit Jibrin, Eleutheropolis. 
 
 2. B. Airdy, A. Αἰτάμ (in Josh. xv. 59a). 
 A place in Judah, fortified and garrisoned by 
 Rehoboam (2 Ch. xi. 6, B. ᾿Απάν, ΒΡ, Airdu, 
 A. Αἰτανί). From its position in this list we 
 may conclude that it was near Bethlehem and 
 Tekoah; and in accordance with this is the 
 mention of the name among the ten cities which 
 the LXX. (ed. Swete) inserts in the text of 
 Josh. xy. 59a, “Thecoa and Ephratha which 15 
 Bethlehem, and Phagor and Aitan (Ethan).” 
 Reasons are shown below for believing it pos- 
 sible that this may have been the scene of 
 ‘Samson’s residence, the cliff Etam being one of 
 
 this part of the country ; and the spring of En- 
 hak-kore one of those abundant fountains which 
 have procured for Etam its chief fame. For 
 here, according to the statements of Josephus 
 (Ant. viii. 7, § 3) and the Talmudists, were 
 the sources of the water from which Solomon’s 
 gardens and pleasure-grounds were fed, and 
 Bethlehem and the 'l'emple supplied (see Light- 
 foot on John y.), The name is retained in that 
 of ‘Ain ‘Atdn, a fine spring, close to “Solomon’s 
 Pools,” near Urtds, the waters of which were 
 formerly conveyed to the Temple by an aque- 
 duct (see Dillmann? on Josh. /. c.). 
 
 3. B. Airdy, A. Airdu. A name occurring in 
 the lists of Judah’s descendants (1 Ch. iv. 3), 
 but probably referring to the place named 
 above (2), Bethlehem being mentioned in the 
 following verse. [6.1 
 
 E/TAM, THE ROCK (ΟῚ yD; ἡ πέτρα 
 "Hrd, for A. see below; Joseph. Αἰτάν ; Petra, 
 and silex, Etam), a cliff or lofty rock (such 
 seems to be the special force of Sela‘) into 
 a cleft or chasm (*)YD; A. V. “top,” R. V. 
 “cleft”) of which Samson retired after his 
 slaughter of the Philistines, in revenge for their 
 burning the Timnite woman who was to have 
 been his wife (Judg. xv. 8, 11%). The general 
 tenor of the narrative seems to indicate that 
 this natural stronghold (πέτρα δ᾽ ἐστὶν ὀχυρά, 
 Jos. Ant. v. 8, § 8) was in Judah, and that the 
 Philistines had advanced into the heart of the 
 territory of that tribe (vv. 9, 10) in their search 
 for Samson. At Lehi in Judah they were de- 
 feated, and the victory was so complete that it 
 raised Samson to be Judge, and secured peace 
 for 20 years (v. 20). It is evident that the 
 place Lehi, in which was the spring En-hak-kore 
 (v. 19), was above, or at a higher altitude than 
 the country of the Philistines (v. 9) and the 
 rock Etam (vv. 11, 13). There is no further 
 indication of position (the names have vanished), 
 but it may be inferred that “ the rock” was not 
 far from a town of the same name. 
 
 The identifications that have been proposed 
 are:—(1) A cliff, or “crag,” in the extremely 
 uneven and broken ground in the Wady (χεί- 
 μαῤῥος : see note *) Urtds, below ‘Ain ‘“Atdn 
 [Eram, 2]. Here is a fitting scene for the adven- 
 ture of Samson. It was sufliciently distant from 
 Timnah to have seemed a safe refuge from the 
 wrath of the Philistines, while on the other hand 
 it was not too far for them to advance in search 
 of him ; and it may be remarked that one of the 
 easiest and most direct routes from Philistia to 
 the heart of Judah, now marked by a Roman 
 road, was that which passes ‘Ain Shems, and 
 goes up by Beit ‘Atdb and el-Khudr to “ Solo- 
 mon’s Pools,” Bethlehem, and Jerusalem. This 
 road was frequently followed at a later date by 
 the Philistines, who, even in the reign of David, 
 had a garrison at Bethlehem near its head. 
 This position is apparently at variance with 
 the statement, in Ὁ. 8, that Samson went down 
 ae. de ee ee 
 
 a There is some uncertainty about the text of this 
 passage, the Alex. MS. of the LXX. inserting in v. 8 
 the words παρὰ τῷ χειμαῤῥῷ, ‘* by the torrent,” before 
 the mention of the rock. Eusebius (08.2 p. 264, 83- 
 84) has ἐν τῷ σπηλαίῳ Ἡτὰμ παρὰ τῷ χειμάῤῥῳ. In 
 v. 11 the reading agrees with the Hebrew. 
 
1004 
 
 to the rock Etam after the slaughter of the 
 Philistines ; but it is possible that an allusion 
 to the ascent which preceded the descent has 
 been omitted. In 1 Ch. xiii. 6 David is said to 
 have gone up to Kirjath-jearim (from Hebron) 
 to bring up from thence the Ark of God (to 
 Jerusalem), no mention being made of the 
 previous descent. ‘The view that the cliff Etam, 
 Ramath Lehi, and En-hak-kore must be looked 
 for in the abundant springs and numerous 
 eminences in the district round ‘Ain ‘Atdén and 
 Urtds, is supported by Stanley, Lect. on Jewish 
 Ch. i. 371; Guérin, Judez, iii. 118; Schenkel, 
 Bub. Lex.; Winer, RWB.; Bertheau?; Birch, 
 PEF Qy. Stat. 1881, p. 323, (2) Major Conder 
 (PEF. Mem. iii. 22, 23, and Tent Work, i. 275- 
 77) has proposed Beit ‘Atdb, “a small village, 
 standing on a remarkable knoll of rock which 
 rises some 60 ft. to 100 ft. above the sur- 
 rounding hilly ridge.” “A remarkable cavern,” 
 which might have been used asa hiding-place 
 by Samson, runs beneath the houses. This 
 place is in Judah, on the direct road to Beth- 
 lehem, mentioned above, and not far from 
 Samson’s home. But there is nothing at Beit 
 ‘Atdb to which the term Sela, “ cliff,’ used in 
 connexion with such places as Petra and the 
 gorge at Michmash, could be applied; and 
 there is also the difficulty that the Philistines, 
 in advancing to the higher ground of Lehi, 
 would have left “the rock” behind them, 
 and would consequently have been between 
 Samson and the men of Judah. Major Conder’s 
 identification has been accepted by Tristram, 
 Bib, Places, p. 48; and Geikie, H. Land and 
 the Bible, ii. 142. (8) Van de Velde (ii. 141) 
 would identify the rock Etam with the Etam of 
 1 Ch. iy. 32 near ‘Ain Rimmon, AA. Unum er- 
 Rumdmin, and Lehi with Lekiyeh, ashort distance 
 N. of Beersheba, but these places are too far to 
 the south, and must have been within the ter- 
 ritory of Simeon, while it is clear from the 
 narrative that the scene of Samson’s exploit 
 was in Judah. This view has the support 
 of Riehm, HWB. (s. v.); Keil, Comm. zu 
 Richter, xv. 8, p. 316; Boettger, Lex. Joseph. 
 S, Vv. Alta, ΚΕ (Rvel 
 
 E’THAM. [Exopvs, THE.] 
 
 E’THAN (JN) = strong ; Γαιθάν [1 K.], 
 Αἰθάν (Ps. BN.]; Ethan). The name of several 
 persons. 1. ΕἾΤΑΝ THE EZRAHITE, one of the 
 four sons of Mahol, whose wisdom was excelled 
 by Solomon (1 K. ivy. 31; LXX. v. 27). His 
 name is in the title of Ps. Ixxxix. There is 
 little doubt that this is the same person who in 
 1 Ch. ii. 6 (Ὁ. Αἰθάμ, A. -av) is mentioned— 
 with the same brothers as before—as a son of 
 Zerah, the son of Judah. [DARDA; EZRAHITE. ] 
 But being a son of Judah, he must have been a 
 different person from 
 
 2. B. Αἰθάμ, A.-ay. Son of Kishi or Kushaiah, 
 a Merarite Levite, head of that family in the 
 time of King David (1 Ch. vi. 44, Heb. v. 29), 
 and spoken of as a “ singer.’ With Heman and 
 Asaph, the heads of the two other families of 
 Levites, Ethan was appointed to sound with 
 cymbals (xv. 17,19). . From the fact that in 
 other passages of these Books the three names 
 are given as Asaph, Heman, and JEDUTHUN, 
 it has been conjectured that the two names 
 
 ETHAM 
 
 ETHIOPIA 
 
 both belonged to the one man, or are identical; 
 but there is no direct evidence of this, nor is 
 there anything to show that Ethan the singer 
 was the same person as Ethan the Ezrahite, 
 whose name stands at the head of Ps. Ixxxix., 
 though it is a curious coincidence that there 
 should be two persons named Heman and Ethan 
 so closely connected in two different tribes and 
 walks of life. 
 
 9. B. Aiédy, A. Ovpi. A Gershonite Levite, 
 one of the ancestors of Asaph the singer (1 Ch. 
 vi. 42, Heb. v. 27). In the reversed genealogy 
 of the Gershonites (v. 21 of this chap.) Joah 
 stands in the place of Ethan as the son of 
 Zimmah. [G.] 
 
 ETHANIM. [Montus.] 
 
 ETHBA’AL (YBN; Ἐθβάαλ ; Joseph. 
 ᾿θόβαλος; Ethbaal), king of Sidon and father 
 of Jezebel, wife of Ahab (1 K. xvi. 31). Josephus 
 (Ant. viii. 13, § 1) represents him as king of the 
 Tyrians as well as of the Sidonians. We may 
 thus identify him with Eithobalus (Ei@@BaAos), 
 noticed by Menander (Joseph. c. Apion. i. 18), a 
 priest of Astarte, who, after having assassinated 
 Pheles, usurped the throne of Tyre for 32 
 years, As 50 years elapsed between the deaths 
 of Hiram and Pheles, the date of Ethbaal’s reign 
 may be given as about B.c, 940-908. The varia- 
 tion in the name is easily explained; Ethbaal =- 
 
 with Baal; Ithobalus yrinx) = Baal with 
 him, which is preferable in point of sense to the 
 other. The position which Ethbaal held explains, 
 
 to a certain extent, the idolatrous zeal which 
 Jezebel displayed. [W. L. B.] [A. H. 51] 
 
 E’THER (NY; Lther, Athar), one of the 
 
 cities of Judah in the low country, the Shefelah 
 (Josh. xv. 42; B. Ἴθακ, A. ᾿Αθέρ), allotted to 
 Simeon (xix. 7; Β. ᾿Ιέθερ, A. BeOép). In the 
 parallel list of the towns of Simeon in 1 Ch. 
 iv. 32, TOCHEN is substituted for Ether. In his 
 Onomasticon Eusebius mentions it (OS? p. 261, 
 78-79) as being in his time a considerable place 
 (κώμη μεγίστη), called Jethira (Ἰεθειρά), near 
 Malatha in the interior of the district of Daroma. 
 But he evidently confounds it with JATTIR, now 
 Kh. ‘Attir, to the S.W. of es-Semii‘a, Eshtemoa. 
 Conder (PEF. Mem. iii. 261, 279) and Mihlau 
 (in Riehm’s HW8B.) identify it with Δ. el- 
 ‘Atr, a short distance N.W. of Beit Jibrin, but 
 this seems too far N. for a town belonging 
 to Simeon. The identification of the place is 
 still uncertain. It was probably situated nearer 
 Beersheba. [67 [W.] 
 
 ETHIOPIA (33; Αἰθιοπία; Acthiopia). 
 The country which the Greeks and Romans 
 described as “ Aethiopia” and the Hebrews as 
 “Cush” lay to the south of Egypt, and em- 
 braced, in its most extended sense, the modern 
 Nubia, Sennaar, Kordofan, and Northern Abys- 
 sinia, and in its more definite sense the kingdom 
 of Meroé, from the junction of the Blue and 
 White branches of the Nile to the border of 
 Egypt. The only direction in which a clear 
 boundary can be fixed is in the north, where 
 Syene marked the division between Ethiopia 
 and Egypt (Ezek. xxix. 10): in other directions 
 the boundaries can be only generally described 
 as the Red Sea on the east, the Libyan desert on 
 
τυ τσ  σ--- 
 
 ETHIOPIA 
 
 the west, and the Abyssinian highlands on the 
 south. The name “Ethiopia” is probably an 
 adaptation of the native Egyptian name “ Et- 
 haush,” which bears a tolerably close resem- 
 blance to the gentile form “ Aethiops;” the 
 Greeks themselves regarded it as expressive of 
 _ a dark complexion (from αἴθω, ‘to burn,” and 
 ὥψ, “a countenance”). The Hebrew and As- 
 syrian Cush was borrowed from the Egyptian 
 Kesh, which designated the district of which 
 Napata, the modern Gebel Barkal, was after- 
 wards the capital. The Hebrews do not appear 
 ‘to have had much practical acquaintance with 
 Ethiopia itself, though the Ethiopians were well 
 known to them through their intercourse with 
 Egypt. They were, however, perfectly aware 
 of its position (Ezek. xxix. 10); and they de- 
 seribe it as a well-watered country “ beyond ” 
 the waters of Cush (Is. xviii. 1; Zeph. iii. 10), 
 being traversed by the two branches of the 
 Nile, and by the Astaboras or Zacazze. The 
 Nile descends with a rapid stream in this part 
 of its course, forming a series of cataracts: 
 its branches are referred to in the words of Is. 
 xviii. 2, “whose Jand the rivers divide.” The 
 papyrus boats (“vessels of bulrushes,” Is. xviii. 
 2), which were peculiarly adapted to the navi- 
 gation of the Upper Nile, admitting of being 
 carried on men’s backs when necessary, were 
 regarded as a characteristic feature of the 
 country. The Hebrews carried on commercial 
 intercourse with Ethiopia, its “ merchandise ” 
 (Is. xly. 14) consisting of ebony, ivory, frank- 
 incense, and gold (Herod. iii. 97, 114), and 
 precious stones (Job xxviii. 19; Joseph. Ant. 
 vili. 6, § 5). The country is for the most part 
 mountainous, the ranges gradually increasing 
 in altitude towards the south, until they attain 
 an elevation of about 8000 feet in Abyssinia. 
 
 The inhabitants of Ethiopia were a Hamitic 
 race (Gen. x. 6), and are described in the Bible as 
 a dark-complexioned (Jer. xiii. 23) and stalwart 
 Tace (Is. xlv. 14, “‘men of stature ;” xviii. 2, for 
 “scattered,” substitute “tall,” ἢ. V.). Their 
 stature is noticed by Herodotus (iii. 20, 114), 
 as well as their handsomeness. Not improbably 
 the latter quality is intended by the term in 
 Is. xviii. 2, which is rendered “ peeled” (A. V.) 
 or “smooth” (R. V.), but which rather means 
 “fine-looking.’’ Their appearance led to their 
 being selected as attendants in royal households 
 (Jer. xxxviii. 7). The Ethiopians are on one occa- 
 sion coupled with the Arabians, as occupying the 
 opposite shores of the Red Sea (2 Ch. xxi. 16); 
 but elsewhere they are connected with African 
 nations, particularly Egypt (Ps. Ixviii. 31; Is. 
 xx. 3, 4, xliii. 3, xlv. 14), Phut (Jer. xlvi. 9), 
 Lub and Lud (Ezek. xxx. 5), and the Sukkiims 
 (2 Ch. xii. 3). They were divided into various 
 tribes, of which the Sabaeans were the most 
 powerful. [Sepa ; SuKKImM.] 
 
 The history of Ethiopia is closely interwoven 
 with that of Egypt. The two countries were 
 not unfrequently united under the rule of the 
 same sovereign. Pepi I. of the 6th dynasty 
 overran that part of Cush or Ethiopia—the To- 
 Kens of the Egyptian monuments—which lay 
 between the First and Second Cataracts, but its 
 complete conquest was reserved for the kings 
 ofthe 12th dynasty. 
 
 _ the Wawai, who extended from the First Cataract 
 
 to Korosko; his son Usirtesen I. subjugated the | 
 
 Amen-em-hat I. subdued | 
 
 ETHIOPIAN EUNUCH 1005 
 
 negro tribes who spread southward to Wadi 
 Helfa, and Usirtesen III. fixed the frontier of 
 Egypt at Semneh, where he built a fortress on 
 either side of the river. Nubia was at this 
 time well-watered and fertile, the present First 
 Cataract not having as yet been formed, and the 
 break in the navigation of the Nile being ap- 
 parently at Silsileh. The negro tribes extended 
 much further north than subsequently; the 
 area occupied by the Nubians being compara- 
 tively limited. During the period of the 
 Hyksos, Ethiopia was lost to Egypt, but Ahmes, 
 the founder of the 18th dynasty, who had mar- 
 ried a Nubian queen, set about the work of 
 reconquering it. His successor, Amenophis I., 
 completed the work: Ethiopia became an 
 Egyptian province as far south as Sennaar ; 
 colonies of fellahin were planted in different 
 parts of it, and the eldest son of the Egyptian 
 monarch took from henceforth the title of “the 
 prince of Cush.” In the time of Ramses II., the 
 Sesostris of the Greeks (of the 19th dynasty), the 
 great temple of Abu-Simbel was excavated in the 
 rock ; and though from time to time expeditions 
 were required against the restless tribes of the 
 Soudan, the country remained in the possession 
 of Egypt until after the fall of the 20th dynasty, 
 when one of the high-priests of Amun of 
 Thebes established an independent kingdom at 
 Napata. For some centuries this kingdom 
 remained in all respects Egyptian, language, 
 names, and customs being alike those of Egypt ; 
 and it was only gradually that the foreign culture 
 was replaced by one of native, growth. More 
 than once the kings of Napata overran Egypt, 
 and finally under Sabako, the So of 2 K. xvii. 4, 
 they made themselves masters of the whole 
 country and founded the 25th dynasty. Ta- 
 harka or Tirhakah (2 K. xix. 9) was driven 
 back into Ethiopia by the Assyrian forces of 
 Esar-haddon, B.c. 672; and though he made more 
 than one attempt to recover Egypt during the 
 Assyrian occupation of it, his efforts were un- 
 successful. After the reign of his successor, Nut 
 Mi-Amun, Ethiopia was divided into two 
 kingdoms—that of To-Kens, with its capital at 
 Kipkip; and that of Napata, which at one time 
 included Berua or Meroé, and the country of 
 Alo, which extended from the White and Blue 
 Nile to the plain of Sennaar. Ethiopia now 
 disappears from history, and is hardly heard of 
 again until the campaign of Cambyses; but the 
 Persian rule did not take any root there, nor 
 did the influence of the Ptolemies generally 
 extend beyond Northern Ethiopia, Shortly 
 before our Saviour’s birth, a native dynasty of 
 females, holding the official title of Candace 
 (Plin. vi. 35), held sway in Ethiopia, and even 
 resisted the advance of the Roman arms. One 
 of these is the queen noticed in Acts viii. 27. 
 [CANDACE. ] [AS HS.) 
 
 ETHIOPIAN (WID; Αἰθίοψ; Acthiops). 
 Properly ‘“Cushite” (Jer. xiii. 23); used of 
 Zerah (2 Ch. xiv. 9 [8]), and Ebedmelech (Jer. 
 xxxviii. 7, 10, 12 -xxxix, 16). [W. A. W.] 
 
 ETHIOPIAN EUNUCH. Acts viii. 26 sq. 
 gives the history of the baptism by Philip the 
 Evangelist of the Ethiopian chamberlain of 
 Candace. He had gone as a proselyte to Jeru- 
 salem to attend the great Feast; he had heard 
 
1006 ETHIOPIAN WOMAN 
 
 probably while at Jerusalem of the Death, 
 Resurrection, and Ascension of Jesus Christ, of 
 the claims put forth in His Name, and of those 
 who were known as His followers, When Philip 
 overtook him he was reading the Messianic 
 passage, Is. liii., and possibly debating with 
 himself how far the Prophet’s words might be 
 said to have found their fulfilment in Christ. 
 The explanation was given which induced him 
 to embrace the Gospel. Eusebius does not 
 hesitate to attribute to this Ethiopian—whom 
 he calls Indich—the first preaching of the 
 Gospel to his own people, and the founding of 
 Christianity among them (see Dict. of Christ. 
 Biog., 5. v. “ Ethiopian Church ἢ). [F.] 
 
 ETHIOPIAN WOMAN (N'W3; Αἰθιο- 
 πίσσα; Aethiopissa).  Zipporah, the wife of 
 Moses, is so described in Num. xii. 1. She is 
 elsewhere said to have been the daughter of 
 a Midianite, and in consequence of this Ewald 
 and others have supposed that the allusion is to 
 another wife whom Moses married after the 
 death of Zipporah. cw. A. W.] 
 
 ETHIOPIANS (3, Is. xx. 4; Jer. xlvi. 9, 
 ΝΞ ; Αἰθίοπες ; Acthiopia, Acthiopes). Properly 
 “Cush” or “Ethiopia” in two passages (Is. xx. 45 
 Jer. xlvi. 9). Elsewhere ‘‘Cushites,” or in- 
 habitants of Ethiopia (2 Ch. xii. 3, xiv. 12 [111], 
 13 [12], xvi. 8, xxi. 16; Dan. xi. 43; Amos 
 ix. 7; Zeph. ii, 12; Acts viii. 27). [ΕΤΗΙΟΡΙΑ.] 
 
 [W. A. W.] 
 
 ETH’MA (B. ’Ooud, A. Nooud; ober), 
 1 Esd. ix. 35 (see Speaker’s Conn. in loco). It 
 occupies the place of ΝΈΒΟ in the parallel list of 
 Ezra x. 43. 
 
 ETHNAN (jiN8, (Ὁ = gift; B. Σεννών, A. 
 Ἐνθαδί; Ethnan), a descendant of Judah; one 
 of the sons of Helah the wife of Ashur, “the 
 father of Tekoa” (1 Ch. iv. 7). 
 
 ETHNARCH (2 Cor. xi. 32). [GOVERNOR, 
 No. 11.] 
 
 ETH'NI (INS ; (?)=munificent ; ᾿Αθανεί ; 
 Athanai), a Gershonite Levite, one of the fore- 
 fathers of Asaph the singer (1 Ch. vi. 41; Heb. 
 υ. 26). 
 
 EUBU’LUS (Εὔβουλος), a Christian at 
 Rome mentioned by St. Paul (2 Tim. iv. 21). 
 
 EUER’GETES (Εὐεργέτης, a benefactor ; 
 Ptolemacus Euergetes), a common surname and 
 title of honour (cp. Plato, Gorg. p. 506 C, and 
 Stallbaum in loco) in Greek states, conferred at 
 Athens by a public vote (Dem. p. 475), and so 
 notorious as to pass into a proverb (Luke xxii. 5). 
 The title was borne by two of the Ptolemies: 
 Ptol. III, Euergetes I., B.c. 247-222, and Ptol. 
 VIL., Euergetes II., B.c. 146-117. The Euergetes 
 mentioned in the prologue to Ecclesiasticus has 
 been identified with each of these, according 
 to the different views taken of the history of 
 the book. [EccLEstasticus; JESUS SON OF 
 SIRACH. ] [B. F. W.] 
 
 EU'MENES II. (Eiperns), king of Pergamus, 
 succeeded his father Attalus I., B.c. 197, from 
 whom he inherited the favour and alliance of 
 the Romans. In the war with Antiochus the 
 
 EUNUCH 
 
 Great he rendered the most important services’ 
 to the growing republic; and at the battle of 
 Magnesia (B.C. 190) commanded his contingent 
 in person (Just. xxxi. 8, 5; App. Syn 34). 
 After peace was made (B.C. 189) he repaired 
 to Rome to claim the reward of his loyalty; 
 and the Senate conferred on him the provinces. 
 of Mysia, Lydia, Ionia (with some exceptions), 
 Phrygia, Lycaonia, and the Thracian Chersonese 
 (App. Syr. 44; Polyb. xxii. 7; Liv. xxxvili. 56). 
 His influence at Rome continued uninterrupted 
 till the war with Perseus, with whom he is said 
 to have entertained treasonable correspondence 
 (Liv. xxiv. 24, 25); and after the defeat of 
 Perseus (B.C. 167) he was looked upon with 
 suspicion, which he vainly endeavoured to re- 
 move. The exact date of his death is not men- 
 tioned, but it must have taken place in B.c. 159. 
 The large accession of territory which was 
 granted to Eumenes from the former dominions 
 of Antiochus is mentioned 1 Mace. viii. 8, but 
 the present reading of the Greek and Latin texts. 
 offers insuperable difficulties. “The Romans 
 gave him,” it is said, “the country of India and 
 Media, and Lydia and parts of his (Antiochus’) 
 fairest countries (ἀπὸ τὼν KaAA. χωρῶν αὐτοῦ). 
 Various conjectures have been proposed to re- 
 move these obvious errors; but though it may 
 be reasonably allowed that J/ysia may have 
 stood originally for Media (DID for ‘ND, 
 Michaelis), it is not equally easy to explain the 
 origin of χώραν τὴν Ἰνδικὴν. It is barely 
 possible that ᾿Ινδικὴν may have been substituted 
 for ᾿Ιωνικὴν after Μηδίαν was already established 
 in the text. Other explanations are given by 
 Grimm (Zxeg. Handb.) and Wernsdorf (De fide 
 Libr. Macc. p. 50 sq.), but they have little 
 plausibility (see Speaker’s Comm., Bissell, and 
 Zockler, in loco). [B. F. W.] (FJ 
 
 EUNA'TAN (B. Ἐναατάν, A.’EAvaéay ; En- 
 nagam), 1 Esd. viii. 44, possibly a misprint for 
 Ennatan, the reading of the Genevan Version, 
 and of the Bishops’ Bible (see D. B. Amer. ed.). 
 [ELNATHAN. ] [F.] 
 
 EUNICE (Εὐνίκη ; Eunice), mother of 
 Timothy (2 Tim. i. 5), a woman of unfeigned 
 faith, and, as we learn from Acts xvi. 1, a Jewess 
 and a Christian (πιστή). That her husband was 
 a Greek is probably mentioned to explain 
 why Timothy had not been circumcised (see 
 Timoruy). The influence of the tradition of 
 her widowhood appears in the addition of χήρας 
 (widow) in one cursive MS. [Ε. R. B.] 
 
 EUNUCH (0°10; εὐνοῦχος, θλαδίας; spado; 
 variously rendered in the A. V. “ eunuch,” 
 “officer,” and “chamberlain,” apparently as 
 though the word intended a class of attendants 
 who were not always mutilated).* The original 
 
 Hebrew word (root Arab. Gy, impotens esse 
 ad venerem, Gesen. s. v.) clearly implies the 
 incapacity which mutilation involves, and per- 
 haps includes all the classes mentioned in Matt. 
 xix. 12, not signifying, as the Greek εὐνοῦχος, 
 an office merely. The law, Deut. xxiii. 1 (cp. 
 Lev. xxii. 24), is repugnant to thus treating any 
 Israelite; and Samuel, when describing the 
 arbitrary power of the future king (1 Sam: viii. 
 pa ES wt alg en |. δα ΘΟ 
 
 ® So Whiston, Joseph. Ant. x. 10, § 2, note. 
 
e——— —— 
 
 EUNUCH 
 
 15, marg.), mentions “his eunuchs,” but does 
 not say that he would make “their sons” such. 
 This, if we compare 2 K. xx. 18, Is. xxxix. 7, 
 possibly implies that these persons would be 
 foreigners; cp. Jer. xxxviii. 7. It was a bar- 
 barous custom of the East thus to treat captives 
 (Herod. iii, 49, vi. 32), not only of tender age 
 (when a non-development of beard and feminine 
 mould of limbs and modulation of voice ensued), 
 but, it should seem, when past puberty, which 
 there occurs at an early age. Physiological 
 sonsiderations lead to the supposition that in 
 he latter case a remnant of animal feeling is 
 left ; which may explain Ecclus. xx, 4, xxx. 20 
 (ep. αν. vi. 366, and Mart. vi. 67; Philostr. 
 Apoll. Tyan, i. 37; Ter. Lun. iv. 3, 24), where 
 a sexual function, though fruitless, is implied. 
 Busbequius (/p. iii. 122, Ox. 1660) seems to 
 ascribe the absence or presence of this to the 
 total or partial character of the mutilation ; 
 but modern surgery would rather assign the 
 earlier or later period of the operation as the 
 real explanation. It is total among modern 
 
 Turks (Tournefort, ii. 8, 9, 10, ed. Par. 1717, 
 
 taillés ἃ fleur de ventre); a precaution arising 
 from mixed ignorance and jealousy. The 
 “officer” Potiphar (Gen. xxxvii. 363 xxxix. 1, | 
 marg. eunuch, and LXX. σπάδοντι, εὐνοῦχος), 
 was an Egyptian, was married, and was the 
 “captain of the guard”; and in the Assyrian 
 monuments an eunuch often appears, sometimes 
 armed and in a warlike capacity, or as a scribe, 
 noting the number of heads and amount of spoil, 
 as receiving the prisoners, and even as officiating 
 in religious ceremonies (Layard, Nineveh, ii. 
 324-6, 334). A bloated beardless face and 
 double chin is there their conventional type. 
 Chardin (Voyages en Perse, ii. 283, ed. Amsterd. 
 1711) speaks of eunuchs having a harem of 
 their own. If Potiphar had become such by 
 operation for disease, by accident, or even by 
 malice, such a marriage seems, therefore, ac- 
 cording to Eastern notions, supposable” (see 
 
 b The Jewish tradition is that Joseph was made a 
 eunuch on his first introduction to Egypt; and yet 
 the accusation of Potiphar’s wife, his marriage and 
 the birth of his children, are related subsequently 
 
 Without any explanation. See Targum Pseudojon. 
 
 EUNUCH 1007 
 
 Grotius on Deut. xxiii, 1; ep. Burckhardt, 
 Trav. in Arab. i. 290). Nor is it wholly repug- 
 nant to that barbarous social standard to think 
 that the prospect of rank, honour, and royal 
 confidence might even induce parents to thus 
 treat their children at a later age, if they 
 showed an aptness for such preferment. The 
 characteristics as regards beard, voice, &c., 
 might then perhaps be modified, or might gra- 
 dually follow. The Poti-pherah of Gen. xli. 50, 
 whose daughter Joseph married, was “ priest of 
 On,” and no doubt a different person. 
 
 The origination of the practice is ascribed to 
 Semiramis (Amm. Marcell. xiv. 6), and is no 
 doubt as early, or nearly so, as Eastern despotism 
 itself. Their incapacity, as in the case of mutes, 
 is the ground of reliance upon them (Clarke’s 
 Travels, part ii. § 1,13; Busbeq. Hp. i. p. 33). 
 3y reason of the mysterious distance at which 
 the sovereign sought to keep his subjects (Herod. 
 i. 99; cp. Esth. iv. 11), and of the malignant 
 jealousy fostered by the debased relation of the 
 sexes, such wretches, detached from social 
 interests and hopes of issue (especially when, as 
 commonly, and as 
 amongst the Jews, 
 foreigners), the natu- 
 ral slaves of either 
 sex (Esth. iv. 5), and 
 having no prospect 
 in rebellion save the 
 change of masters, 
 were the fittest props 
 of a government rest- 
 ing on a servile re- 
 lation, the most com- 
 plete ὄργανα ἔμψυχα 
 of its despotism or 
 its lust, the surest 
 (but see Esth. ii. 21) 
 guardians (Xenoph. 
 Cyrop. vii. 5, § 60 
 56. ; Herod. viii. 105) 
 of the monarch’s per- 
 son, and the sole con- 
 fidential witnesses of 
 his unguarded or 
 undignified moments. Hence they have in all 
 ages frequently risen to high offices of trust. 
 Thus the “chief”* of the cup-bearers and of 
 the cooks of Pharaoh were eunuchs, as being 
 near his person, though their inferior agents 
 need not have been so (Gen. xl. 1, 7, LXX.). 
 The complete assimilation of the kingdom of 
 Israel, and latterly* of Judah, to the neigh- 
 bouring models of despotism, is traceable in the 
 rank and prominence of eunuchs (2 K. viii. 6, 
 
 on Gen. xxxix. 1, xli. 50, and the details given in 
 XXxix: 13. 
 
 © Wilkinson (Anc. Egypt. ii. 61) denies the use of 
 eunuchs in Egypt. Herodotus, indeed (ii. 92), confirms 
 his statement as regards Egyptian monogamy; but if 
 this as arule applied to the kings, they seemed at any 
 rate to have allowed themselves concubines (ib. 181). 
 From the general beardless character of Egyptian heads 
 it is not easy to pronounce whether any eunuchs appear 
 in the sculptures or not. 
 
 ἃ 1 Ch. xxviii. 1 (LXX.) is remarkable as ascribing 
 eunuchs to the period of David, nor can it be doubted 
 that Solomon’s polygamy made them a necessary conse- 
 quence; but in this state they do not seem to have 
 played an important part at this period. 
 
1008 EUNUCH 
 
 ix. 32, xxiii, 11, xxv. 19; Is. lvi. 3, 45 Jer. 
 xxix. 2, xxxiv. 19, xxxviii. 7, xli. 16, lit, 25). 
 They mostly appear in one of two relations, 
 either military as “set over the men of war,” 
 greater trustworthiness possibly counterbalanc- 
 ing inferior courage and military vigour, or 
 associated, as we mostly recognise them, with 
 womenand children. It is possible but uncertain 
 that Daniel and his companions were thus treated, 
 in fulfilment of 2 K. xx. 17, 18; Is. xxxix. 7; cp. 
 Dan. i. 3, 7. The court of Herod of course had 
 its eunuchs (Joseph. Ant. xvi. 8, § 1; xv. 7, § 4), 
 as had also that of Queen Candace (Acts viii. 
 27). We find the Assyrian Rab-Saris, or chief 
 eunuch (2 K. xviii. 17), employed together with 
 other high officials as ambassador. Similarly, 
 in the details of the travels of an embassy sent 
 by the Duke of Holstein (p. 136), we find an 
 eunuch mentioned as sent on occasion of a state- 
 marriage to negotiate, and of another (p. 273) 
 who was the Meheter, or chamberlain of Shah 
 Abbas, who was always near his person, and had 
 his ear (cp. Chardin, iii. 37), and of another, 
 originally a Georgian prisoner, who officiated as 
 supreme judge. Fryer (Travels in India and 
 Persia, 1698) and Chardin (ii. 283) describe 
 them as being the base and ready tools of 
 licentiousness, as tyrannical in humour, and 
 pertinacious in the authority which they exer- 
 cise ; Clarke (Travels in Europe, &c., part ii. § 1, 
 Ῥ. 22), as eluded and ridiculed by those whom 
 it is their office to guard. A great number of 
 them accompany the Shah and his ladies when 
 hunting, and no one is allowed, on pain of 
 death, to come within two leagues of the field, 
 unless the king sends an eunuch for him. So 
 eunuchs ran before the closed arabahs of the 
 sultanas when abroad, crying out to all to keep 
 at a distance. This illustrates Esth. i. 10, 12, 
 15, 16; ii. 3, 8, 14. The moral tendency of this 
 sad condition is well known to be the repression 
 of courage, gentleness, shame, and remorse, the 
 development of malice, and often of melancholy, 
 and a disposition to suicide. The favourable 
 description of them in Xenophon (J. 6.) is over- 
 charged, or at least is not confirmed by modern 
 observation. They are not more liable to 
 disease than others, unless of such as often 
 follows the foul vices of which they are the 
 tools. Michaelis (ii. 180) regards them as the 
 proper consequences of the gross polygamy of 
 the East, although his further remark that they 
 tend to balance the sexual disparity which such 
 monopoly of women causes is less just, since the 
 countries despoiled of their women for the one 
 purpose are not commonly those which furnish 
 male children for the other. 
 
 In the three classes mentioned in Matt. xix. 
 12 the first is to be ranked with other examples 
 of defective organization; the last, if taken 
 literally, as it is said to have been personally 
 exemplified in Origen (Euseb. Zccl. Hist. vi. 8), 
 is an instance of human ways and means of 
 ascetic devotion being valued by the Jews above 
 revealed precept (see Schéttgen, Hor. Heb. 1. 
 159). But a figurative sense of εὐνοῦχος (cp. 
 1 Cor. vii. 32, 34) is also possible. 
 
 The operation itself, especially in infancy, is 
 not more dangerous than an ordinary amputa- 
 tion. Chardin (ii. 285) indeed says that only one 
 in four survives; and Clot Bey, chief physician 
 of the Pasha, states that two-thirds die; but 
 
 EUPHRATES 
 
 Burckhardt affirms (Δι. p. 329) that the opera- 
 tion is only fatal in about two out of a hundred 
 cases. 
 
 In the A. V. of Esther the word “ chamber- 
 lain” (marg. eunuch) is the constant render- 
 ing of DYD; and as the word also occurs in 
 Acts xii. 20 and Rom. xvi. 23, where the original 
 expressions are very different, some caution is 
 required. In Acts xii. 20 τὸν ἐπὶ τοῦ κοιτῶνος 
 τοῦ βασιλέως may mean a “chamberlain” 
 merely. Such were persons of public influence, 
 as we learn from a Greek inscription, preserved 
 in Walpole’s Turkey (ii. 559), in honour of P. 
 Aelius Alcibiades, “chamberlain of the em- ἡ 
 peror” (ἐπὶ κοιτῶνος SeB.), the epithets in 
 which exactly suggest the kind of patronage 
 expressed. In Rom. xvi. 23 the word ἐπίτροπος 
 is the one commonly rendered “steward” (6.7. 
 Matt. xx. 8; Luke viii. 3), and means the one 
 to whom the care of the city was committed. 
 
 See Salden, Otia Theol. de Eunuchis; Keim, 
 HWB. 5. n. * Verschnittene.’ (H. ἘΣ 
 EUNUCH, ETHIOPIAN. ΓΕΤΗΙΟΡΙΑΝ 
 
 EUNUCH. ] 
 
 EUO'DIA, R. V. (Evodia; textus receptus, 
 wrongly Evwdla; Hvhodia, Amiat.), a Christian 
 woman of Philippi, named with Syntyche (Phil. 
 iv. 2). St. Paul beseeches the two to be of one 
 mind in the Lord. They are described (v. 3) as 
 having laboured with Paul in the Gospel, an 
 important testimony to the work of women in 
 the primitive Church. The A. V. erroneously 
 takes Εὐοδίαν as a man’s name from a nom. 
 Evodias (see Lightfoot’s note in loco), [E. R. B.] 
 
 EUPHRA’TES (N15; Εὐφράτης: Bu- 
 phrates) is a word of Accadian or pre-Semitic 
 origin. The early inhabitants of Chaldaea called 
 the river the Pura-nunu, “the great water,” or 
 Pura, “the water,” simply. From this, the later 
 Semitic population formed Puratu by attaching 
 the Semitic suffix of the feminine to the Acca- 
 dian word. The Greek Luphratés is a popular 
 modification of the Persian Ufratu, where the 
 first syllable represents the adventitious vowel 
 produced by the omission of the first vowel of 
 the original name, and the consequent coalescence 
 of two initial consonants. In the Babylonian 
 inscriptions, the Euphrates is often called ‘“ the 
 river of Sippara.” It was also termed “ Sakhan,” 
 for which the Semitic equivalent seems to have 
 been Gikhinnu or Gihon. It is most frequently 
 denoted in the Bible by the term 1737, han- 
 
 nahar, ie. “the river,” the river of Asia, in 
 grand contrast to the short-lived torrents of 
 Palestine (see a list of the occurrences of this 
 term in Stanley, S. and P., App. § 34). 
 
 The Euphrates is the largest, the longest, and 
 by far the most important of the rivers of 
 Western Asia. It rises from two chief sources 
 in the Armenian mountains, one of them at 
 Domli, 25 miles N.E. of Erzeroum, and little 
 more than a degree from the Black Sea; the 
 other on the northern slope of the mountain 
 range called Ala-Tagh, near the village of 
 Diyadin, and not far from Mount Ararat. The 
 former, or Northern Euphrates, has the name 
 Frat from the first, but is known also as the 
 Kara-Su (Black River); the latter, or Southern 
 Euphrates, is not called the Frdt but the Murad 
 
EUPHRATES 
 
 Chai, yet it is in reality the main river. 
 branches flow at first towards the west or south- 
 west, passing through the wildest mountain- 
 districts of Armenia; they meet at <Aebban- 
 Maden, nearly in long. 39° E. from Greenwich, 
 having run respectively 400 and 270 miles. 
 Here the stream formed by their combined 
 waters is 120 yards wide, rapid, and very deep ; 
 it now flows nearly southward, but ina tortuous 
 course, forcing a way through the ranges of 
 Taurus and anti-Taurus, and still seeming as if 
 
 / 
 
 ——, 
 = 
 
 —— ν΄ 
 
 3 
 
 spread and stagnate; above Hit, and from thence 
 to Sumeisat (Samosata), the country along its 
 banks is for the most part open but hilly ; north 
 of Sumeisat, the stream runs in a narrow 
 valley among high mountains, and is interrupted 
 by numerous rapids. The entire course is cal- 
 culated at 1780 miles, nearly 650 more than 
 that of the Tigris, and only 200 short of that of 
 the Indus; and of this distance more than two- 
 thirds (1200 miles) is navigable for boats, and 
 even, as the expedition of Col. Chesney proved, 
 for small steamers. The width of the river is 
 BIBLE DICT.—VOL. I. 
 
 Both } 
 
 SIs nt 
 SES |} 
 
 EUPHRATES 1009 
 
 it would empty itself into the Mediterranean ; 
 but prevented from so doing by the longitudinal 
 ranges of Amanus and Lebanon, which here run 
 parallel to the Syrian coast, and at no great 
 distance from it, the river at last desists from 
 its endeavour, and in about lat. 36° turns to- 
 wards the south-east, and proceeds in this 
 direction for above 1,000 miles to its embouchure 
 in the Persian Gulf. The last part of its course, 
 from Hit downwards, is through a low, flat, and 
 alluvial plain, over which it has a tendency to 
 
 = 
 ἘΣΎ, 
 Uy al Mla i 
 
 πο a We 
 SO SY 
 
 ae τό KARE 2 τῇ 
 Ny NF a 
 
 The Euphrates. 
 
 greatest at the distance of 700 or 800 miles 
 from its mouth—that is to say, from its junction 
 with the Khabour to the village of Werai. It 
 there averages 400 yards, while lower down, 
 from Werdi to Lamlun, it continually decreases, 
 until at the last-named place its width is not 
 more than 120 yards, its depth having at the 
 same time diminished from an average of 18 
 to one of 12 feet. The causes of this singular 
 phenomenon are the entire lack of tributaries 
 below the Ahabour, and the employment of the 
 water in irrigation. The river has also in this 
 Sy ah 
 
1010 EUPHRATES 
 
 part of its course the tendency already noted, to 
 run off and waste itself in vast marshes, which 
 every year more and more cover the alluvial 
 tract west and south of the stream. From this 
 cause its lower course is continually varying, and 
 it is doubted whether at present, except in the 
 season of the inundation, any portion of the 
 Euphrates water is poured into the Shat-el-Arab. 
 
 The annual inundation of the Euphrates is 
 caused by the melting of the snows in the 
 Armenian highlands. It occurs in the month 
 of May. ‘The rise of the Tigris is earlier, since 
 it drains the southern flank of the great Armenian 
 chain. The Tigris scarcely ever overflows [H1p- 
 DEKEL], but the Euphrates inundates large 
 tracts on both sides of its course from Hit 
 downwards. The great hydraulic works ascribed 
 to Nebuchadnezzar (Abyden. Fr. 8) had for 
 their object to control the inundation by turn- 
 ing the waters through sluices into canals 
 prepared for them, and distributing them in 
 channels over a wide extent of country. 
 
 The Euphrates has at all times been of some 
 importance as furnishing a line of traffic between 
 the East and the West. Herodotus speaks of 
 persons, probably merchants, using it regularly 
 on their passage from the Mediterranean to 
 Babylon (Herod. i. 185). He also describes the 
 boats which were in use upon the stream (i. 194) 
 —and mentions that their principal freight was 
 wine, which was furnished by Armenia. Boats 
 such as he describes, of wicker-work and coated 
 with bitumen, or sometimes covered with skins, 
 still abound on the river. Alexander appears to 
 have brought to Babylon by the Euphrates route 
 vessels of some considerable size, which he had 
 had made in Cyprus and Phoenicia. They were 
 so constructed that they could be taken to pieces, 
 and were thus carried piecemeal to Thapsacus, 
 where they were put together and launched 
 (Aristobul. ap. Strab. xvi. 1, § 11). The dis- 
 advantage of the route was the difficulty of 
 conveying return cargoes against the current. 
 According to Herodotus, the boats which de- 
 scended the river were broken to pieces and sold 
 at Babylon, and the owners returned on foot 
 to Armenia, taking with them only the skins 
 (i. 194). Aristobulus however related (ap. 
 Strab. xvi. 3, § 3) that the Gerrhaeans ascended 
 the river in their rafts not only to Babylon, but 
 to Thapsacus, whence they carried their wares 
 on foot in all directions. The spices and other 
 products of Arabia formed their principal mer- 
 chandise. On the whole there are sufficient 
 grounds for believing that throughout the Baby- 
 lonian and Persian periods this route was made 
 use of by the merchants of various nations, and 
 that by it the east and west continually inter- 
 changed their most important products (see 
 Layard's Nineveh and Babylon, pp. 536-37). 
 
 The Euphrates is first mentioned in Scripture 
 as one of the four rivers of Eden (Gen. ii. 14). 
 Its celebrity is there sufficiently indicated by 
 the absence of any explanatory phrase, such as 
 accompanies the names of the other streams. 
 We next hear of it in the covenant made with 
 Abraham (Gen. xv. 18), where the whole country 
 from “the great river, the river Euphrates,”’ to 
 the river of Egypt, is promised to the chosen 
 race. In Deuteronomy and Joshua we find that 
 this promise was borne in mind at the time of 
 the settlement in Canaan (Deut. i. 7, xi. 24; 
 
 EUPHRATES 
 
 Josh. i, 4); and from an important passage in 
 the First Book of Chronicles it appears that the 
 tribe of Reuben did actually ext:nd itself to the 
 Euphrates in the times anterior to Saul (1 Ch. 
 v. 9). Here they came in contact with the 
 Hagarites, who appear upon the middle Eu- 
 phrates in the Assyrian inscriptions of the later 
 empire. It is David, however, who seems for the 
 first time to have entered on the full enjoyment 
 of the promise, by the victories which he gained 
 over Hadadezer, king of Zobah, and his allies, 
 the Syrians of Damascus (2 Sam. viii. 3-8; 
 1 Ch, xviii. 3). The object of his expedition was 
 “to recover his border,” and “to stablish his 
 dominion by the river Euphrates ;” and in this 
 object he appears to have been altogether suc- 
 cessful; insomuch that Solomon, his son, who 
 was not a man of war, but only inherited his 
 father’s dominions, is said to have “‘ reigned over 
 all kingdoms from the river (7.¢, the Luphrates) 
 unto the land of the Philistines and unto the 
 border of Egypt” (1 K. iv. 21; cp. 2 Ch. ix. 
 26). Thus during the reigns of David and 
 Solomon the dominion of Israel actually attained 
 to the full extent both ways of the original 
 promise, the Euphrates forming the boundary 
 of their empire to the north-east, and the river 
 of Egypt (torrens Aegypti) to the south-west. 
 This wide-spread dominion was lost before the 
 disruption of the empire under Rehoboam 5 and 
 no more is heard in Scripture of the Euphrates 
 until the expedition of Necho against the Baby- 
 lonians in the reign of Josiah. ‘The “great 
 river ” had meanwhile served for some time as 
 a boundary between Assyria and the country of 
 the Hittites [see Assyria], but had been re- 
 peatedly crossed by the armies of the Ninevite 
 kings, who gradually established their sway over 
 the countries upon its right bank. The crossing 
 of the rive> was always difficult; and at the 
 point where certain natural facilities fixed the 
 ordinary passage, the strong fort of Carchemish 
 had been built, probably in very early times, to 
 command the position. [CARCHEMISH.] Hence, 
 when Necho determined to attempt the perma- 
 nent conquest of Syria, his march was directed 
 upon “Carchemish by Euphrates”? (2 Ch. xxxv. 
 20), which he captured and held, thus extending 
 the dominion of Egypt to the Euphrates, and 
 renewing the old glories of the Ramesside kings. 
 His triumph, however, was short-lived. Three 
 years afterwards the Babylonians—who had 
 inherited the Assyrian dominion in these parts 
 —made an expedition under Nebuchadnezzar 
 against Necho, defeated his army, “ which was 
 by the river Euphrates in Carchemish”’ (Jer. 
 xlvi. 2), and recovered all Syria and Palestine. 
 Then “the king of Egypt came no more out of 
 his land, for the king of Babylon had taken 
 from the river of Egypt unto the river Euphrates 
 all that pertained to the king of Egypt” (2 K. 
 xxiv. 7). 
 
 These are the chief events which Scripture 
 distinctly connects with the “great river.” 
 It is probably included among the “rivers of 
 Babylon,” by the side of which the Jewish 
 captives “remembered Zion’? and “wept” 
 (Ps. exxxvii. 1); and no doubt is glanced at in 
 the threats of Jeremiah against the Chaldaean 
 “waters ” and “springs,” upon which there is 
 to be a “drought,” that shall “dry them up” 
 (Jer, 1. 38; li. 26). The fulfilment of these 
 
 ae 
 
EUPOLEMUS 
 
 prophecies has been noticed under the head of 
 CHALDAEA. ‘The river still brings down as 
 much water as of old, but the precious element 
 is wasted by the neglect of man; the various 
 watercourses along which it was in former 
 times conveyed are dry; the same channel had 
 shrunk; and the water stagnates in unwhole- 
 some marshes. 
 
 In ancient times the Euphrates fell into the 
 sea without first joining the Tigris, as is now 
 the case. When Sennacherib pursued the sub- 
 jects of Merodach-Baladan to the mouth of the 
 Eulaeus, he had, after sailing out of the Eu- 
 phrates, quite a long voyage by sea. According 
 to Pliny (Δ. H. vi. 31), the city of Charax, 
 the present Mohammerah, which was built by 
 Alexander the Great, was originally 10 stades 
 distant from the sea; in the age of Juba II. 
 50 miles, and in his own time 120 miles. Loftus 
 (Chaldaea and Susiana, p. 282) states that the 
 delta at the mouths of the Euphrates and Tigris 
 has increased since the beginning of the Christian 
 era, at the rate of a mile in about seventy years. 
 The ancient city of Eridu, now Abu-Shahrein, 
 when first founded stood upon the coast. Be- 
 tween the actual mouth of the Euphrates and 
 the sea, however, lay extensive “ salt-marshes,” 
 called Marratim in Babylonian, the Merathaim 
 of Jer. 1. 21. It was in these marshes that 
 Bit-Yagina, the ancestral capital of Merodach- 
 Baladan, was situsted, and it was here that 
 we first hear of his subjects, the Kalda or 
 Chaldaeans. 
 
 See, for a general account of the Euphrates, Sir 
 G. Chesney’s Zuphrates Expedition, vol. i.; and 
 for the lower course of the stream, cp. Loftus’s 
 Chaldaea and Susiana. See also Rawlinson’s 
 Herodotus, vol. i. Essay ix., and Layard’s Nineveh 
 and Babylon, chs. xxi. and xxii. [A. ἘΠ. 8.] 
 
 __ EU-POLEMUS (Εὐπόλεμος), the “son of 
 gob the son of Accos” (Akkdés; cp. Neh. iii. 
 , 21, &c.), one of the envoys sent to Rome by 
 udas Maccabaeus, c. B.C. 161 (1 Mace. viii. 17 ; 
 Mace. iv. 11; Joseph. An#. xii. 10,§6). He 
 has been identified with the historian of the 
 same name (Euseb. Praep. Lv. ix. 17 sq.); but it 
 is by no means clear that the historian was of 
 Jewish descent (Joseph. c. Ap. i. 233 yet cp. 
 ‘Hieron. de Vir. Illustr. p. 38). [B. F. W.] 
 
 _ EURO-CLYDON;; R. V. Evr-aquito (Εὐρο- 
 κλύδων ; NA. Εὐρακύλων ; LHuro-aquilo), the 
 mame given (Acts xxvii. 14) to the gale of 
 wind which off the south coast of Crete seized 
 the ship in which St. Paul was ultimately 
 wregked on the coast of Malta. The circum- 
 stances of this gale are described with much 
 particularity; and they admit of abundant 
 illustration from the experience of modern sea- 
 ‘men in the Levant. In the first place it came 
 ‘down from the island (κατ᾽ αὐτῆς), and there- 
 fore must have blown, more or less, from the 
 ‘northward, since the ship was sailing along the 
 south coast, not far from Mount Ida, and on the 
 way from Farr HAVENS toward PHOENICE. 
 So Captain Spratt, R.N., after leaving Fair 
 Havens with a light southerly wind, fell in 
 with “a strong northerly breeze, blowing direct 
 from Mount Ida” (Smith, Voy. and Shipwreck 
 of St. Paul, 1856, pp. 97, 245). Next, the wind 
 s described as being like a tvphoon or whirlwind 
 
 EUTYCHUS 1011 
 
 (τυφωνικός, A. V. and R. V. “ tempestuous ”); 
 and the same authority speaks of such gales 
 in the Levant as being generally ‘ accompanied 
 by terrific gusts and squalls from those high 
 mountains ” (Conybeare and Howson, Life and 
 Epistles of St. Paul, 1856, ii. 401). It is 
 also observable that the change of wind in 
 the voyage before us (xxvii. 13, 14) is exactly 
 what might have been expected; for Captain 
 J. Stewart, R.N., observes, in his remarks on 
 the Archipelago, that “it is always safe to 
 anchor under the lee of an island with a 
 northerly wind, as it dies away gradually, 
 but it would be extremely dangerous with 
 southerly winds, as they almost invariably shift 
 to a violent northerly wind” (Purdy’s Sailing 
 Directory, pt. ii. p. 61). The long duration of 
 the gale (“the fourteenth night,” v. 27), the 
 over-clouded state of the sky (“ neither sun nor 
 stars appearing,” v.20), and even the heavy rain 
 which concluded the storm (τὸν ὑετόν, xxviii. 2), 
 could easily be matched with parallel instances 
 in modern times (see Voy. and Shipwreck, p. 144; 
 Life and Epp. ii. 412). We have seen that the 
 wind was more or less northerly. The context 
 gives us full materials for determining its direc- 
 tion with great exactitude. The vessel was 
 driven from the coast of Crete to CLAUDA 
 (xxvii. 16), and apprehension was felt that she 
 would be driven into the African Syrtis (v. 17). 
 Combining these two circumstances with the 
 fact that she was less than half-way from Fair 
 Havens to Phoenice when the storm began 
 (v. 14), we come to the conclusion that it came 
 from the N.E. or E.N.E. This is quite in har- 
 mony with the natural sense of Εὐρακύλων 
 (Luro-aquilo, Vulg.), which is found in some of 
 the best MSS., and has been adopted in R. V.; 
 but we are disposed to adhere to the Received 
 Text, more especially as it is the more difficult 
 reading, and the phrase used by St. Luke (6 
 καλούμενος EvpokAvdwy) seems to point to some 
 peculiar word in use among the’ sailors. Dean 
 Alford thinks that the true name of the wind 
 was εὐρακύλων, but that the Greek sailors, not 
 understanding the Latin termination, corrupted 
 the word into εὐροκλύδων, and that so St. Luke 
 wrote it. [WUINDs.] [J.S.H.] [W.] 
 
 EU’/TYCHUS (E’tvuyos; Hutychus; Acts xx. 
 9-11). Sitting in the window of the upper room 
 where St. Paul was preaching, he was overcome 
 by sleep and fell to the ground. He was taken 
 up dead. But after St. Paul had embraced him 
 (like Elisha, 2 K. iv. 34) he said (R. V.), “‘ Make 
 ye no ado; for his life is in him,” St. Paul then 
 returned to the upper room, and the story closes 
 with the words, “they brought the lad alive.” 
 St. Paul’s words, “ his life is in him,” appear to 
 imply that he had not really expired. But 
 if we accept literally the distinct statement that 
 he was taken up dead, we must suppose that 
 St. Paul means “his life is now in him,” as a 
 consequence of what had been done, without 
 implying that it had continued to be in him 
 throughout. It is difficult to interpret the 
 apparent contradiction without unduly straining 
 one of the two phrases. It is clear, however, 
 that the author intends to relate a notable 
 miracle, either of healing or of raising from the 
 dead, otherwise the whole story would be with- 
 out point. [E. R. B.J 
 
 3 T 2 
 
1012 EVANGELIST 
 
 EVANGELIST (εὐαγγελιστής 3  evange- 
 lista: Acts xxi..8; Eph. iv. 11; 2 Tim. iv. 5). 
 The constitution of the apostolic Church in- 
 cluded a body of men known as Evangelists. 
 The absence of any detailed account of the 
 organization and practical working of the Church 
 in the 1st century leaves us in some uncertainty 
 as to their functions and pos:tion. The meaning 
 of the name, “the publishers of glad tidings,” 
 seems common to the work of the Christian 
 ministry generally, yet in Ephes. iv. 11 the 
 εὐαγγελισταὶ appear on the one hand after the 
 ἀπόστολοι and πρόφηται, and on the other 
 before the ποίμενες and διδάσκαλοι. Assuming 
 that the Apostles here, whether limited to the 
 twelve or not, are those who were looked upon 
 as the special delegates and representatives of 
 Christ, and therefore higher than all others in 
 their authority, and that the Prophets were 
 men speaking under the immediate impulse of 
 the Spirit words that were mighty in their 
 effects on men’s hearts and consciences, it would 
 follow that the Evangelists had a function 
 subordinate to theirs; yet more conspicuous 
 and so far higher than that of the pastors who 
 watched over a Church that had been founded, 
 and of the teachers who carried on the work of 
 systematic instruction. This passage would 
 accordingly lead us to think of them as standing 
 between the two other groups—sent forth as 
 missionary preachers of the Gospel by the first, 
 and as such preparing the way for the labours 
 of the second. ‘The same inference would seem 
 to follow from the occurrence of the word as 
 applied to Philip in Acts xxi. 8. He had been 
 one of those who had gone everywhere, εὐαγγελι- 
 Céuevor τὸν λόγον (Acts viii. 4), now in one 
 city, now in another (viii. 40); but he has not 
 the power and authority of an Apostle (see the 
 whole narrative in ch. viii.), he does not speak 
 as a prophet himself, though the gift of prophecy 
 belongs to his four daughters (xxi. 9), and exer- 
 cises apparently no pastoral superintendence over 
 any portion of the flock. The omission of Evange- 
 lists in the text of 1 Cor. xii. may be explained 
 on the hypothesis that the nature of St. Paul’s 
 argument led him there to speak of the settled 
 organization of a given local church, which 
 of course presupposed the work of the missionary 
 preacher as already accomplished, while the 
 train of thought in Ephes. iv. 11 brought before 
 his mind all who were in any way instrumental 
 in building up the Church universal. It follows 
 from what has been said that the calling of the 
 Evangelist is expressed by the word κηρύσσειν 
 rather than διδάσκειν, or παρακαλεῖν : it is the 
 proclamation of the glad tidings to those who 
 have not known them, rather than the instruc- 
 tion and pastoral care of those who have believed 
 and have been baptized. And this is also what 
 we gather from 2 Tim. iv. 2-5. Timothy is to 
 “preach the word ;” in doing this he is to “ do 
 the work of an evangelist.” It follows also 
 that the name denotes a work rather than an 
 order. And hence there are no references to 
 the existence of an order bearing this title in 
 any later writers. The word εὐαγγελιστὴς does 
 not occur in the Apostolic Fathers, nor even in 
 the Διδαχὴ τῶν δώδεκα ἀποστόλων, which 
 recognises a distinction between two kinds of 
 ministers, missionary (ἀπόστολοι καὶ προφῆται) 
 and. stationary (ἐπίσκοποι καὶ διάκονοι). The 
 
 EVE 
 
 Evangelist might or might not be a Bishop- 
 elder or a deacon. The Apostles, so far as they 
 evangelized (Acts vili. 25, xiv. 7; 1 Cor. i. 17), 
 might claim the title, though there were many 
 Evangelists who were not Apostles. ‘Omnis 
 apostolus evangelista, non omnis evangelista 
 apostolus” (Pelagius). The “brother whose 
 praise was in the Gospel” (2 Cor, viii. 18) may 
 be looked upon as one of St. Paul’s companions 
 in this work, and known probably by the same 
 name. In this as in other points connected 
 with the organization of the Church in the 
 apostolic age, but little information is to be 
 gained from later writers. The name was no 
 longer explained by the presence of those to 
 whom it had been specially applied, and came 
 to be variously interpreted. Theodoret (om 
 Ephes. iv. 11) describes the Evangelists—as they 
 have been described above—as travelling mis- 
 sionaries, who περίοντες ἐκήρυττον : Chrysos- 
 tom, as men who preached the Gospel μὴ 
 περίοντες πανταχοῦ. The two expressions, 
 when taken together, give us the idea of the 
 office very fairly. They were distinguished from 
 the Apostles, to whom they acted as subordi- 
 nates: “ missionary assistants of the Apostles 7 
 (Meyer). The account given by Eusebius 
 (A. EL. ii. 37), though somewhat rhetorical and 
 vague, gives prominence to the idea of itinerant 
 missionary preaching. Men “do the work of 
 Evangelists, leaving their homes to proclaim 
 Christ, and deliver the written Gospels to those 
 who were ignorant of the faith.” The last 
 clause of this description indicates a change im 
 the work which before long affected the meaning 
 of the name. If the Gospel was a written book, 
 and the office of the Evangelist was to read or 
 distribute it, then the writers were κατ᾽ ἐξυχὴν 
 THE Evangelists. It is thus accordingly that 
 Eusebius (/. c.) speaks of them, though the old 
 meaning of the word (as in JZ. Z. v. 10, where 
 he applies it to Pantaenus) is not forgotten by 
 him. Soon this meaning so overshadowed the 
 old that Oecumenius (Estius on Ephes. iv. 11) has 
 no other notion of the Evangelists than as those 
 who have written a Gospel (cp. Harless on Ephes. 
 iv. 11). Augustine, though commonly using 
 the word in this sense, at times remembers its 
 earlier signification (Serm. xciv. and celxvi.). 
 Ambrosianus (Estius /. c.) identifies them with 
 deacons. In later liturgical language the word 
 was applied to the reader of the Gospel for the 
 day (cp. Neander, Pflanz. u. Leit., iii. 5; Hooker, 
 E. P. v. ch. |xxviii.; Meyer on Acts xxi. 8: and 
 for the symbolic representations of the Evan- 
 gelists in the Church, see Dictionary of Christian 
 Antiquities, s. ν. ‘ Evangelists”). 
 
 [E.H.P.] [8.6 5.6] 
 
 EVE (AN, i.e. Chavvah, LXX. in Gen, iii. 20, 
 Zwh, elsewhere Eta; Heva), the name given in 
 Scripture to the first woman. It is simply ἃ 
 feminine form of the adjective °NM, living, alive, 
 which more commonly makes 74M; or it may be 
 regarded as a variation of the noun mn, which | 
 means /ife. The account of Eve’s creation is | 
 found in Gen. ii. 21,22. Upon the failure of | 
 a companion suitable for Adam among the 
 creatures which were brought to him to be 
 named, the Lord God caused a deep sleep to 
 fall upon him, and took one of his ribs from 
 
- 
 
 EVI 
 
 him, which he fashioned into a woman, and 
 brought her to the man. Various explanations 
 of this narrative have been offered. Perhaps 
 that which we are chiefly intended to learn 
 
 from it is the foundation upon which the union 
 
 between man and wife is built, viz. identity of 
 nature and oneness of origin. 
 
 Through the subtlety of the serpent, Eve 
 was beguiled into a violation of the one com- 
 mandment which had been imposed upon her 
 and Adam. She took of the fruit of the for- 
 bidden tree and gave it her husband (cp. 2 Cor. 
 xi. 3; 1 Tim. ii. 13,14), [ADAM.] The different 
 aspects under which Eve regarded her mission 
 as a mother are seen in the names of her sons. 
 At the birth of the first she said, “I have gotten 
 a man from the Lord,” or perhaps, “I have 
 gotten a man, even the Lord,” mistaking him 
 for the Redeemer. When the second was born, 
 finding her hopes frustrated, she named him 
 Abel, or vanity. When his brother had slain 
 him, and she again bare a son, she called his 
 name Seth, and the joy of a mother seemed to 
 outweigh the sense of the vanity of life: “ For 
 God,” said she, “hath appointed ME another 
 seed instead of Abel, for Cain slew him.” The 
 Scripture account of Eve closes with the birth 
 of Seth. [5.1.1 
 
 , EVI (MN; Evi; Zvi, Hevaeus), one of the five 
 kings or princes of Midian, slain by the Israelites 
 in the war after the matter of Baal-peor, and 
 whose lands were afterwards allotted to Reuben 
 (Num, xxxi. 8; Josh. xiii, 21). [Mpran.] 
 
 [E. 5. 
 
 EVIDENCE. The term used by the A. V. 
 to describe the document of purchase which 
 Jeremiah (xxxii. 10 sq.) signed and sealed upon 
 buying a field at a time when, humanly speak- 
 ing, such purchase seemed an act of folly. He 
 relied on God’s promise (v. 15). The R. V. 
 renders “ deed.” [F.] 
 
 EVIL-MERO'DACH (77179 DN; B. Εὐει- 
 ἀλμαρωδέκ [2 K.], δὲ. Οὐλαιμαραδάχ; Abyden. 
 ᾿Αμιλμαρούδοκος ; Beros, Εὐειλμαράδουχος ; Evil- 
 merodach; Bab. Amel-Marduk [= Awel-Marduk, 
 -Maruduk), ‘Man of Merodach’’) was, according 
 to Berosus, Abydenus, &c., the son and successor of 
 Nebuchadnezzar, and came to the throne of Baby- 
 lonia about 562 B.c. The Second Book of Kings 
 (xxv. 27) and the Book of Jeremiah (lii. 31) re- 
 date that in the accession year, or first year of 
 his reign, this king had compassion upon Je- 
 hoiachin, king of Judah (whom Nebuchadnezzar 
 had cast into prison thirty-seven years before), 
 released him from his confinement, “ spake kindly 
 to him,” honoured him above all the vassal-kings 
 at Babylon, and gave him a portion of his table 
 for the rest of his life. As Evil-Merodach 
 only reigned for two years (Abydenus, Fr. 9; 
 Berosus, Fr. 14), or two years and a few months, 
 according to the tablets dated in his reign, this 
 must have been done by means of a deed drawn 
 up in legal form, such as the words of the pas- 
 sages of Scripture imply, and as was usual in 
 Babylonia at the time, though it is not impos- 
 sible that Jehoiachin died before his royal 
 master. LEvil-Merodach was killed in a rebellion 
 fed by his sister’s husband, a Babylonian noble 
 mamed Neriglissar [NERGAL-SHAREZER], who 
 
 EXCOMMUNICATION 1013 
 
 then seized the Babylonian crown. According 
 to Berosus, Evil-Merodach rendered himself 
 odious by his debaucheries and other extrava- 
 gances, and it is to this that his untimely end 
 was really due. He was a good-natured, though 
 unwarlike and unwise ruler, [T. G. P.]} 
 
 EVIL SPIRIT. [Demoy.] 
 EXCELLENCY OF CARMEL, Is. xxxv. 2. 
 
 The wonderful profusion of flowering shrubs is 
 to Tristram “the grand characteristic of the 
 excellency of Carmel.” [CARMEL.] [F.] 
 
 EXCELLENT, as applied by A. V. to 
 Theophilus (Luke i. 3) and to Felix (Acts xxiii. 
 26) in the phrase “most excellent” (6 κράτιστος), 
 is usually considered a title or office (cp. “your 
 Excellency”). The R. V. preserves the same 
 English word for the same Greek word when 
 speaking of Felix (Acts xxiv. 3) and Festus 
 (Acts xxvi. 25), where the A. V. uses “noble.” 
 
 [F] 
 EXCOMMUNICATION ΟΑφορισμός ; Ex- 
 
 communicatio). Excommunication is a power 
 founded upon a right inherent in all religious 
 societies, and is analogous to the powers of 
 capital punishment, banishment, and exclusion 
 from membership, which are exercised by poli- 
 tical and municipal bodies. If Christianity is 
 merely a philosophical idea thrown into the 
 world to do battle with other theories, and to 
 be valued according as it maintains its ground 
 or not in the conflict of opinions, excommuni- 
 cation, ecclesiastical punishments, and _peni- 
 tential discipline are unreasonable. If a society 
 has been instituted for maintaining any body of 
 doctrine, and any code of morals, they are 
 necessary to the existence ct that society. That 
 the Christian Church is an orgamised polity, 
 a spiritual “ Kingdom of God” on earth, is the 
 declaration of the Bible [CHURCH]; and that 
 the Jewish Church was at once a spiritual and a 
 temporal organization is clear. 
 
 I. Jexish Excommunication. — The Jewish 
 system of excommunication was threefold. For 
 a first offence a delinquent was subjected to the 
 penalty of 471) (Widdui). Maimonides (quoted 
 by Lightfoot, Horae Hebraicae, on 1 Cor. ν. 5), 
 Morinus (de Poenitentia, iv. 27), and Buxtorf 
 (Lexicon, s. vy. 171) enumerate the twenty-four 
 offences for which it was inflicted. They are 
 various, and range in heinousness from the 
 offence of keeping a fierce dog to that of taking 
 God’s name in vain. Elsewhere (Bab. Moed 
 Katon, fol. 16, 1) the causes of its infliction are 
 reduced to two, termed money and epicurism, by 
 which is meant debt and wanton insolence. The 
 offender was first cited to appear in court, and if 
 he refused to appear or to make amends, his 
 sentence was pronounced—“ Let M, or N, be 
 under excommunication.” The excommunicated 
 person was prohibited the use of the bath, or of 
 the razor, or of the convivial table; and all 
 who had to do with him were commanded to 
 keep him at four cubits’ distance. He was 
 allowed to go to the Temple, but not to make 
 the circuit in the ordinary manner. The term 
 of this punishment was thirty days; and it was 
 extended to a second, and to a third thirty days 
 when necessary. If at the end of that time the 
 
101. EXCOMMUNICATION 
 
 offender was still contumacious, he was subjected 
 to the second excommunication, termed DWM 
 
 (cherem), a word meaning something devoted to 
 God (Lev. xxvii. 21, 28; Ex. xxii. 20; Num. 
 xviii. 14). Severer penalties were now attached. 
 The offender was not allowed to teach or to be 
 taught in company with others, to hire or to be 
 hired, nor to perform any commercial transac- 
 tions beyond purchasing the necessaries of life. 
 The sentence was delivered by a court of ten, 
 and was accompanied by a solemn malediction, 
 for which authority was supposed to be found in 
 the “Curse ye Meroz” of Judg. v. 23. Lastly 
 followed now (Shammdthd}, which was an 
 entire cutting off from the congregation. It has 
 been supposed by some that these two latter 
 forms of excommunication were undistinguish- 
 able from each other.* 
 
 The punishment of excommunication is not 
 appointed by the Law of Moses. It is founded 
 on the natural right of self-protection which all 
 societies enjoy. The case of Korah, Dathan, 
 and Abiram (Num. xvi.), the curse denounced 
 on Meroz (Judg. v. 23), the commission and 
 proclamation of Ezra (vii. 26, x. 8), and the 
 reformation of Nehemiah (xiii. 25), are appealed 
 to by the Talmudists as precedents by which 
 their proceedings are regulated. In respect to 
 the principle involved, the “cutting off from 
 the people” commanded for certain sins (Ex. 
 xxx. 33, 38, xxxi. 14; Lev. xvii. 4), and the 
 exclusion from the camp denounced on the 
 leprous (Ley. xiii. 46; Num. xii. 14), are more 
 apposite. 
 
 In the New Testament, Jewish excommunica- 
 tion is brought prominentiy before us in the 
 case of the man that was born blind and restored 
 to sight (John ix.). ‘The Jews had agreed al- 
 ready that if any man did confess that Jesus was 
 Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue. 
 Therefore said his parents, He is of age, ask 
 him” (wv, 22, 23). “And they cast him out. 
 Jesus heard that they had cast him out” (vv. 34, 
 35). The expressions here used, ἀποσυνάγωγος 
 γένηται---ἐξέβαλον αὐτὸν ἔξω, appear to refer 
 to the first form of excommunication or Niddui. 
 Our Lord warns His disciples that they will 
 have to suffer excommunication at the hands of 
 their countrymen (John xvi. 2); and the fear 
 of it is described as sufficient to prevent persons 
 in a respectable position from acknowledging 
 their belief in Christ (John xii. 42). In Luke 
 vi. 22, it has been thought that our Lord re- 
 ferred specifically to the three forms of Jewish 
 excommunication—“ Blessed are ye when men 
 shall hate you, and when they shall separate 
 you from their company [ἀφορίσωσινἼ, and shall 
 reproach you [ὀνειδίσωσιν), and cast out your 
 name as evil [ἐκβάλωσινἼ], for the Son of Man’s 
 sake.” The three words very accurately express 
 the simple separation, the additional maledic- 
 tion, and the final exclusion of niddui, cherem, 
 and shammdthd. This verse makes it probable 
 that the three stages were already formally dis- 
 éinguished from each other, though, no doubt, 
 the words appropriate to each are occasionally 
 used inexactly. 
 
 » A slightly different view of the three forms of ex- 
 communication will be found on Ὁ. 128, col. 1. Cp. also 
 Hamburger, R.Z. 5.0. “‘ Bann.” —[F.] 
 
 EXCOMMUNICATION 
 
 Il. Christian Excommunication.—Excommuni- 
 cation, as exercised by the Christian Church, is 
 founded not merely on the natural right pos- 
 sessed by all societies, not merely on the example 
 of the Jewish Church and nation. It was insti- 
 tuted by our Lord (Matt. xviii. 15, 18), and it 
 was practised by and commanded by St. Paul 
 (1 Tim. i, 20; 1 Cor. v. 11; Tit. iii. 10). 
 
 Its Institution.—The passage in St. Matthew 
 has led to much controversy, into which we do 
 not enter. It runs as follows :—‘ If thy brother 
 shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his 
 fault between thee and him alone; if he shall 
 hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if 
 he will not hear thee, then take with thee one 
 or two more, that in the mouth of two or three 
 witnesses every word may be established. And 
 if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the 
 Church; but if he neglect to hear the Church, 
 let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a 
 publican. Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever 
 ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, 
 and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be 
 loosed in heaven.” Our Lord here recognises 
 and appoints a way in which a member of His 
 Church is to become to his brethren asa heathen 
 man and a publican—i.e. be reduced to a state 
 analogous to that of the Jew suffering the 
 penalty of the third form of excommunication. 
 It is to follow on his contempt of the censure of 
 the Church passed on him for a trespass which 
 he has committed. The final excision is to be 
 preceded, as in the case of the Jew, by two 
 warnings. 
 
 Apostolic Example.—In the Epistles we find 
 St. Paul frequently claiming the right to 
 exercise discipline over his converts (cp. 
 2 Cor. 1. 23; xiii. 10). In two cases we find 
 him exercising this authority to the extent of 
 cutting off offenders from the Church. One of 
 these is the case of the incestuous Corinthian: 
 “Ye are puffed up, and have not rather 
 mourned, that he that hath done this deed 
 might be taken away from among you. For I 
 verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, 
 have judged already, as though I were present, 
 concerning him that hath so done this deed, in 
 the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are 
 gathered together, and my spirit, with the power 
 of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver such an one 
 unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that 
 the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord 
 Jesus” (1 Cor. v. 2-5). The other case is that 
 of Hymenaeus and Alexander: “ Holding faith, 
 and a good conscience; which some having put 
 away concerning faith have made shipwreck: otf 
 whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I 
 have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn 
 not to blaspheme” (1 Tim. i. 19, 20). It seems 
 certain that these persons were excommunicated, 
 the first for immorality, the others for heresy- 
 What is the full meaning of the expression, 
 “deliver unto Satan,” is doubtful. All agree 
 that excommunication is contained in it, but 
 whether it implies any further punishment, 
 inflicted by the extraordinary powers committed 
 specially to the Apostles, has been questioned. 
 The strongest argument for the phrase meaning 
 no more than excommunication may be drawn 
 from a comparison of Col. i. 13. Addressing 
 
 himself to the “saints and faithful brethren in 
 Christ which are at Colosse,” St. Paul exhorts — 
 
ys 
 
 EXCOMMUNICATION 
 
 them to “give thanks unto the Father Which 
 hath made us meet to be partakers of the in- 
 heritance of the saints in light: Who hath 
 delivered us from the power of darkness, and 
 hath translated us into the kingdom of His dear 
 Son: in Whom we have redemption through His 
 blood, even the forgiveness of sins.” The con- 
 ception of the Apostle here is of men lying in 
 the realm of darkness, and transported from 
 thence into the kingdom of the Son of God, 
 which is the inheritance of the saints in light, 
 by admission into the Church, What he means 
 
 ‘by the power of darkness is abundantly clear 
 
 from many other passages in his writings, of 
 which it will be sufficient to quote Ephes. vi. 12: 
 “Put on the whole armour of God, that ye 
 may be able to stand against the wiles of the 
 devil; for we wrestle not against flesh and 
 blood, but against principalities, against powers, 
 against the rulers of the darkness of this world, 
 against spiritual wickedness in high places.” 
 Introduction into the Church is therefore, in 
 St. Paul’s mind, a translation from the kingdom 
 and power of Satan to the kingdom and govern- 
 ment of Christ. This being so, he could hardly 
 more naturally describe the effect of excluding a 
 man from the Church than by the words, 
 “deliver him unto Satan,” the idea being, that 
 the man ceasing to be a subject of Christ’s king- 
 dom of light, was at once transported back to 
 the kingdom of darkness, and delivered therefore 
 into the power of its ruler, Satan. This inter- 
 pretation is strongly confirmed by the terms in 
 which St. Paul describes the commission which 
 he received from the Lord Jesus Christ, when he 
 was sent to the Gentiles: ‘To open their eyes, 
 and to turn them from darkness to light, and 
 from the power of Satan unto God, that they 
 may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance 
 among them which are sanctified by faith that 
 is in Me” (Acts xxvi. 18). Here again the act 
 of being placed in Christ’s kingdom, the Church, 
 is pronounced to be a translation from darkness 
 to light, from the power of Satan unto God. 
 Conversely, to be cast out of the Church would 
 be to be removed from light to darkness, to be 
 withdrawn from God’s government, and deli- 
 vered into the power of Satan (so Balsamon and 
 Zonaras, in Basil. Can. 7; Estius, in 1 Cor. v.; 
 Beveridge, in Can. Apost. x.). If, however, the 
 expression means more than excommunication, 
 it would imply the additional exercise of a 
 special apostolical power, similar to that exerted 
 on Ananias and Sapphira (Acts v. 1), Simon 
 Magus (viii. 20), and Elymas (xiii. 10: so 
 Chrysostom, Ambrose, Augustine, Hammond, 
 Grotius, and the elder Lightfoot). 
 
 Apostolic Precept.—In addition to the claim 
 to exercise discipline, and its actual exercise in 
 the form of excommunication, by the Apostles, 
 we find apostolic precept directing that disci- 
 pline should be exercised by the rulers of the 
 Church, and that in some cases excommunica- 
 tion should be resorted to: “If any man obey 
 not our word by this epistle, note that man, and 
 have no company with him, that he may be 
 ashamed. Yet count him not as an enemy, but 
 admonish him as a brother,” writes St. Paul to 
 the Thessalonians (2 Thess. iii. 14). To the 
 Romans: “ Mark them which cause divisions 
 and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye 
 
 EXCOMMUNICATION 1015 
 To the Galatians: “I would they were even cut 
 off that trouble you” (Gal. v.12). To Timothy: 
 “If any man teach otherwise,. .. from such 
 withdraw thyself” (1 Tim. vi. 3). To Titus 
 he uses a still stronger expression: “A man 
 that is an heretic, after the first and second 
 admonition, reject” (Tit. iii. 10). St. John 
 instructs the lady to whom he addresses his 
 Second Epistle, not to receive into her house 
 nor bid God speed to any who did not believe in 
 Christ (2 John v.10); and we read that in the 
 case of Cerinthus he acted himself on the pre- 
 cept that he had given (Euseb. H. Ε΄. iii. 28). 
 In his Third Epistle he describes Diotrephes, 
 apparently a Judaizing presbyter, ‘“ who loved 
 to have the pre-eminence,” as “casting out of 
 the Church,” ze. refusing Church communion to 
 the stranger brethren who were travelling about 
 preaching to the Gentiles (5 John v. 10). In. 
 the addresses to the Seven Churches, the angels 
 or rulers of the Church of Pergamos and of 
 Thyatira are rebuked for “suffering ” the Nico- 
 laitans and Balaamites “to teach and to seduce 
 my servants to commit fornication, and to eat 
 things sacrificed unto idols” (Rev. ii. 20). 
 There are two passages still more important to 
 our subject. In the Epistle to the Galatians, 
 St. Paul denounces, “ Though we, or an Angel 
 from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you 
 than that which we have preached unto you, 
 let him be accursed (ἀνάθεμα ἔστω). As I said 
 before, so say I now again, If any man preach 
 any other gospel unto you than that ye have 
 received, let him be accursed” (ἀνάθεμα ἔστω, 
 Gal. i. 8, 9). And in the First Epistle to the 
 Corinthians: “If any man love not the Lord 
 Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maran-atha” 
 (1 Cor. xvi. 22). It has been supposed that 
 these two expressions, “let him be Anathema,” 
 “let him be Anathema Maran-atha,’” refer 
 respectively to the two later stages of Jewish 
 excommunication—the cherem and the sham- 
 mathd. This requires consideration. 
 
 The words ἀνάθεμα and ἀνάθημα have evi- 
 dently the same derivation, and originally they 
 bore the same meaning. They express a per- 
 son or thing set apart, laid up, or devoted. 
 But whereas a thing may be set apart by way 
 of honour or for cestruction, the words, like 
 the Latin sacer and the English “devoted,” 
 came to have opposite senses—rTd ἀπηλλοτριω- 
 μένον Θεοῦ, and τὸ ἀφωρισμένον Θεῷ. The 
 LXX. and several ecclesiastical writers use the 
 two words almost indiscriminately, but in 
 general the form ἀνάθημα is applied to the 
 votive offering (see 2 Mace. ix. 16; Luke xxi. 5; 
 and Chrys. Hom. xvi. in Ep. ad Rom.), and the 
 form ἀνάθεμα to that which is devoted to evil 
 (see Deut. vii. 26; Josh. vi. 17, vii. 13). Thus 
 St. Paul declares that he could wish himself an 
 ἀνάθεμα from Christ, if he could thereby save 
 the Jews (Rom. ix. 3). His meaning is that he 
 would be willing to be set apart as a vile thing, 
 to be cast aside and destroyed, if only it could 
 bring about the salvation of his brethren. 
 Hence we see the force of ἀνάθεμα ἔστω in 
 Gal. i, 8. “Have nothing to do with him,” 
 would be the Apostle’s injunction, “but let 
 him be set apart as an evil thing, for God to 
 deal with him as he thinks fit.” Hammond (in 
 loc.) paraphrases it as follows :—‘ You are to 
 
 have heard, and avoid them” (Rom. xvi. 17). | disclaim and renounce all communion with him, 
 
1010 EXCOMMUNICATION 
 
 to look on him as on an excommunicated person, 
 under the second degree of excommunication, 
 that none is to have any commerce with in 
 sacred things.” Hence it is that ἀνάθεμα ἔστω 
 came to be the common expression employed by 
 Councils at the termination of each canon which 
 
 they enacted, meaning that whoever was dis- | 
 
 obedient to the canon was to be separated from 
 the communion of the Church and its privi- 
 leges, and from the favour of God, until he 
 repented (see Bingham, Ant. xvi. 2, 16). 
 
 ‘Nhe expression ᾿Ανάθεμα papavadd, as it stands 
 by itself without explanation in 1 Cor. xvi. 22, 
 is so peculiar, that it has tempted a number of 
 ingenious expositions. Parkhurst hesitatingly 
 derives it from MAS DIN, “Cursed be thou.” 
 But this derivation is not tenable. Buxtorf, 
 Morinus, Hammond, Bingham, and others iden- 
 tify it with the Jewish shammathd. They do 
 so. by translating shammdthd, “The Lord 
 comes.” But shammdthd cannot be made to 
 mean “The Lord comes ”’ (see Lightfoot in loco). 
 Several fanciful derivations of it are given by 
 Rabbinical writers, as ‘There is death,” ‘“ ‘There 
 is desolation’; but there is no mention by them 
 of such a signification as “The Lord comes.” 
 Lightfoot derives it from NSW, and it probably 
 means a thing excluded or shut out. Maran- 
 atha, however peculiar its use in the text may 
 seem to us, is an Aramaic expression, signi- 
 fying “ Our Lord is come ” (Chrysostom, Jerome, 
 Estius, Lightfoot), or “Our Lord cometh.” If 
 we take the former meaning, we may regard it 
 as giving the reason why the offender was to be 
 anathematized ; if the latter, it would either 
 imply that the separation was to be in per- 
 petuity, ““donec Dominus redeat ” (Augustine), 
 or, mere properly, it would be a form of solemn 
 appeal to the day on which the judgment should 
 be ratified by the Lord (cp. Jude, v. 14). In 
 any case, it is a strengthened form of the simple 
 ἀνάθεμα ἔστω. And thus it may be regarded as 
 holding towards it a similar relation to that 
 which existed between the shammdtha and the 
 cherem, but not on any supposed ground of ety- 
 mological identity between the two words 
 shammathé and maran-atha. Perhaps we ought 
 to interpunctuate more strongly between 
 ἀνάθεμα and papavadd, and read ἤτω ἀνάθεμα: 
 μαραναθά, ic. “Let him be anathema. The 
 Lord will come” (cp. R. V. “let him be 
 anathema. Maranatha’”’—explained as meaning 
 “our Lord cometh”). The anathema and the 
 cherem answer very exactly to each other (see 
 Lev. xxvii. 28; Num. xxi. 3; Is. xliii. 28). 
 
 Restoration to Communion.—Two cases of 
 excommunication are related in Holy Scrip- 
 ture; and in one of them the restitution of the 
 offender is specially recounted. The incestuous 
 Corinthian had been excommunicated by the 
 authority of St. Paul, who had issued his sen- 
 tence from a distance without any consultation 
 with the Corinthians. He had required them 
 publicly to promulgate it and to act upon it. 
 They had done so. The offender had been 
 brought to repentance, and was overwhelmed 
 with grief. Hereupon St. Paul, still absent as 
 before, forbids the further infliction of the pun- 
 ishment, pronounces the forgiveness of the 
 penitent, and exhorts the Corinthians to receive 
 him back to communion, and to confirm their 
 love towards him. 
 
 EXCOMMUNICATION 
 
 The Nature of Excommunication is made more 
 evident by these acts of St. Paul than by any 
 investigation of Jewish practice or of the ety- 
 mology of words. We thus find, (1) that it is 
 a spiritual penalty, involving no temporal pun- 
 ishment, except accidentally; (2) that it con- 
 sists in separation from the communion of the 
 Church; (3) that its object is the good of the 
 sufferer (1 Cor. vy. 5), and the protection of the 
 sound members of the Church (2 Tim. iii. 17); 
 (4) that its subjects are those who are guilty 
 of heresy (1 Tim. i. 20), or gross immorality 
 (1 Cor. ν. 1); (5) that it is inflicted by the 
 authority of the Church at large (Matt. xviii. 
 18), wielded by the highest ecclesiastical officer 
 (1 Cor. ν. 8; Tit. iii. 10); (6) that this officer’s 
 sentence is promulgated by the congregation to 
 which the offender belongs (1 Cor. vy. 4), in 
 deference to his superior judgment and com- 
 mand (2 Cor. ii. 9), and in spite of any opposi- 
 tion on the part of a minority (v. 6); (7) that 
 the exclusion may be of indefinite duration, or 
 for a period; (8) that its duration may be 
 abridged at the discretion and by the indul- 
 gence of the person who has imposed the penalty 
 (v. 8); (9) that penitence is the condition on — 
 which restoration to communion is granted 
 (v. 7); (10) that the sentence is to be publicly 
 reversed as it was publicly promulgated (υ. 10). 
 
 Practice of Excommunication in the Post- 
 Apostolic Church—tThe first step was an ad- 
 monition to the offender, repeated once, or even 
 more than once, in accordance with St. Paul’s 
 precept (Tit. iii. 10. See Apostol. Constitutions, 
 ii. 37-39; S. Ambr. De Offic. ii. 27; Prosper, 
 De Vit. Contempl. ii. 7; Synesius, Zp. lviii.). It 
 this did not reclaim him, it was succeeded by 
 the Lesser Excommunication (ἀφορισμός), by 
 which he was excluded trom the participation 
 of the Eucharist, and was shut out from the 
 Communion-service, although admitted to what 
 was called the Service of the Catechumens (see 
 Theodoret, Hp. Ixxvii. ad Lulal.). Thirdly 
 followed the Greater Excommunication or Ana- 
 thema (παντελὴς ἀφορισμός, ἀνάθεμα), by which 
 the offender was debarred, not only from the 
 Eucharist, but from taking part in all religious 
 acts in any assembly of the Church, and from 
 the company of the faithful in the ordinary 
 concerns of life. In case of submission, offenders 
 were received back to communion by going 
 through the four stages of public penance, in 
 which they were termed, (1) προσκλαίοντες, 
 jlentes, or weepers; (2) ἀκροώμενοι, audientes, 
 or hearers; (3) ὑποπίπτοντες, substrati, or 
 kneelers ; (4) συνεστῶτες, consistentes, or co- 
 standers; after which they were restored to 
 communion by absolution, accompanied by im- 
 position of hands. To trace out this branch of 
 the subject more minutely would carry us 
 beyond our legitimate sphere. Reference may be 
 made to Suicer’s Thesaurus Ecclesiusticus, 5. vv. 
 πρόσκλαυσις, ἀκρόασις, ὑπόπτωσις, σύστασι5. 
 
 References.—Tertullian, De Poenitentia, Op. 
 i. 139, Lutet. 1634; S. Ambrose, De Poenitentia, 
 Paris, 1686; Morinus, De Poenitentia, Anty. 
 1682; Hammond, Power of the Keys, Works, i. 
 406, Lond. 1684; Taylor, Ductor Dubitantium, 
 iii. 4, 2, Lond. 1852; Selden, De jure Naturali 
 et Gentium juxta Disciplinam Hebraeorum, Lips. 
 1695; Lightfoot, Horae Hebraicae, On 1 Cor. 
 v. 5, Works, ii. 746, Lond. 1634; Bingham, 
 
EXECUTIONER 
 
 Antiquities of the Christiim Church, Books xvi. 
 xviii., Lond. 1875; Van Espen, Jus Lcclesias- 
 ticum, Ven. 1789; Marshall, Penitential Disci- 
 pline of the Primitive Church, Oxf. 1844; 
 Thorndike, Zhe Church’s Power of Lacommuni- 
 cation, as found in Scripture, Works, vi. 21 
 (see also i. 55, ii. 157), Oxf. 1856; Waterland, 
 No Communion with Impugners of Fundamentals, 
 Works, iii. 456, Oxf. 1845; Augusti, Denk- 
 swurdigheiten aus der Christlichen Archdologie, 
 Leipz. 1817; Hey, Lectures in Divinity, On 
 Art. XXXII, Camb. 1822; Palmer, Treatise 
 ‘on the Church, ii. 224, Lond. 1842; Harold 
 Browne, Lxposition of the Articles, On Art. 
 AXXIL, Lond, 1863. [F. M.] 
 
 EXECUTIONER (M30); σπεκουλάτωρ). 
 The Hebrew tabbach describes in the first instance 
 the general office of one of the body-guard of a 
 monarch ; and, in the second place, the special 
 office of an executioner as belonging to that 
 guard (cp. Delitzsch, Genesis [1887], in loco). 
 Thus Potiphar was * captain of the executioners” 
 (Gen. xxxvii. 36; see margin), and had his 
 official residence at the public gaol (Gen. x]. 3). 
 Nebuzaradan (2 K. xxy. 8; Jer. xxxix. 9) and 
 Arioch (Dan. ii. 14) held the same office. That 
 the “captain of the guard” himself occasionally 
 performed the duty of an executioner appears 
 trom 1 K. ii, 25, 34. The post was one of high 
 dignity, and something beyond the present posi- 
 tion of the zabit of modern Egypt (cp. Lang, i. 
 163), with which Wilkinson (ii. 45 [1878]) com- 
 paresit. It is stili not unusual for officers of high 
 rank to inflict corporal punishment with their 
 own hands (Wilkinson, ii. 43), The LXX. takes 
 the word in its original sense (ep. 1 Sam. ix. 23), 
 and terms Potiphar chief-cook, ἀρχιμάγειρος. 
 
 The Greek omexovAdtwp (Mark vi. 27) is bor- 
 rowed from the Latin speculator; originally a 
 military spy or scout, but under the emperors 
 transferred to the body-quard, from the vigilance 
 which their office demanded (Tac. Hist. 11. 11; 
 Suet. Claud. 35). Wee Lee Si) ER 
 
 EXILE. 
 EX’ODUS (Ἔξοδος : called by the Jews, from 
 
 its opening words, NOY nbs, or more briefly 
 NYO, its usual name), the Second Book of the 
 
 Pentateuch, carrying on the narrative of the 
 history and antiquities of the Israelitish nation 
 {see GENESIS] from the death of Joseph to the 
 beginning of the second year after the Exodus 
 from Egypt (xl. 1, 17). 
 
 [Captiviry; DIsPERSION. | 
 
 I. Contents. 
 
 § 1. (i.) Chs. i—xii. Events leading to the 
 deliverance of the Israelites from Egypt, viz.: 
 a, The increase of Jacob’s posterity in Egypt, 
 and their oppression under a new king, who paid 
 no heed to the memory of Joseph (ch. i.); ὁ. The 
 birth and education of Moses, and his flight from 
 Egypt into the land of Midian (ch. ii.); c. The 
 call and commission of Moses to be the deliverer 
 of his people (iii. l-iv. 26), and preliminary 
 negotiations with the Israelites and Pharaoh 
 (iv. 27-vii. 7); d. The series of signs and 
 wonders by means of which the deliverance from 
 Egypt was at length effected, and the institution 
 of the Passover (vii. 8-xii. 51). 
 
 EXODUS 1017 
 
 (ii.) Chs. xiii, 1-xix. 2, The journey of the 
 Israelites from Rameses to Sinai: a. The march 
 to the Red Sea, the passage through it, and 
 Moses’ song of triumph on the occasion (xii. 37— 
 xv. 21); ὁ. The journey from the Red Sea to 
 Sinai, with particulars of the bitter waters of 
 Marah (xy. 23-6), the giving of quails and 
 manna, and the observance of the Sabbath 
 (ch. xvi.), the miraculous supply of water at 
 Rephidim, and the conflict with Amalek at the 
 same time (ch. xvii.), the meeting with Jethro 
 and the advice given by him to Moses (ch. xviii.). 
 
 (iii.) Chs. xix. 3-x]. 38. Events during the 
 first part of the sojourn at Sinai, viz.: a. The 
 solemn establishment of the Theocracy (see 
 xix. 5-8, xxiv. 3-8), on the basis (a) of the Ten 
 Commandments (xx. 1-17); (8) of a code of laws 
 (xx, 23-xxiii. 33), regulating the social life and 
 religious observances of the people (xix. 3- 
 xxiv. 11); ὁ. The giving of instructions to 
 Moses on Mount Sinai, for the construction of 
 the 'abernacle, with the vessels and furniture 
 belonging to it, for the consecration of Aaron 
 and his sons as priests, the selection of Bezaieel 
 and Oholiab to execute the skilled work that 
 was necessary, and the delivery to Moses of the 
 two tables of the Law (xxiv. 12-xxxi. 18); 
 c. The incident of the golden calf, Moses’ inter- 
 cession for the people, and the renewal of the 
 covenant (xxxii.-xxxiv.); d. The construction of 
 the Tabernacle, in its various parts, in accord- 
 ance with the directions prescribed in chs. xxv.— 
 xxxi., and its erection (xl. 17) on the first day 
 of the second year of the Exodus (xxxv.—xl.): 
 the consecraticn of the priests in accordance 
 with the injunctions Jaid down in ch. xxix. is 
 not related till Ley. viii. ; some other omissions 
 in xxxy.-xl,, as compared with xxv.—xxxi., will 
 be noticed in ὃ 14. In the course of the 
 history, it will be observed, different legislative 
 enactments are interspersed (see, besides the 
 passages that have been specified, chs. xii., xiii., 
 and xxxi. 12-17): the relation of these to one 
 another, and to the narratives with which they 
 are connected, will appear subsequently. 
 
 II. Structure and Authorship. 
 
 § 2. The Book of Exodus is a continuation of 
 the narrative of Genesis, and presents the same 
 structural peculiarities. The same two con- 
 trasted narratives, the priestly (P) and the 
 prophetical (JE), appear still side by side, each 
 displaying the same phraseological criteria, and 
 each marked by the same differences of repre- 
 sentation and style. Referring to the article 
 GENESIS* for an account of the main charac- 
 teristics of these sources, we proceed to analyse 
 the narrative of Exodus upon the same prin- 
 ciples, The interest of P, it will be observed, 
 lies chiefly in the ceremonial institutions of the 
 theocracy, which are described by him at length 
 (xxv.-xxxi., xxxv.-xl.): the parts contributed by 
 him in Exodus, prior to ch, xxv., form an intro- 
 ductory sketch of the main features of the 
 history, constructed upon a similar scale and 
 plan to that adopted in Genesis, and explained 
 in the article on that Book. 
 
 a And especially to § 12 on the analysis of JE. It is 
 not the intention of the following Tables to represent 
 
 | this in every detail as final, 
 
1018 EXODUS EXODUS 
 (i.) Chs. i-xi.—Lvents leading to the deliverance of the Israelites from Egypt :— 
 
 P i, 1-7.1 153-14. ii. 230-25. ᾿ ἢ τ 
 ie cam 7-8. 16-20. iv. 1-16. 
 E i. 8-12. 15-22, ii. 1-23a.? iii. 1-6. 9-15. 21-22. 
 J Ῥ ek SC vi. 2-vii. 13. 19-20a*. 21b}-22. 
 72 19-20a. 92-31. y. 1=vie 1. vii. 14-18, 
 Ue iv. 17-18. 20b-21. 17 (partly). 20b-21a. 
 P i aa viii. 5-7 [H. 1-3]. ὌΨΙ 15b-19 [H. 115-16]. 
 \ J vii. 23. 25. viii. 1-4 [H. vii. 26-29]. 8-15a [H. 4-114]. 
 {hs 24. 
 P ix. 8-12. 9 2 f 
 ᾿ ‘J viii. 20-32 [H. 16-28]. ix. 1-7. 13-21. 23b-34. χ. 1: 
 ίε ix. 22-238. 24a. 35. x. 8-13a. 
 i 2) 
 1 x. 13b. 14b-19. 28-29. 4-3, 
 fr l4at. 20-27. xi. 1-3. 9-10. 
 * To commanded. + From and the blood. To land of Egypt. 
 
 1 Here, i. 1-5 repeats the ‘substance of Gen. xlvi. 8-27, as is sometimes done by P at the beginning of a new stage 
 of the narrative (cp. Gen. i. 27 sq. with v. 1 sq.; v. 32 with vi. 10; xi. 27 with xi. 26; Num. iii. 2-4 with Ex. vi. 
 23, Lev. x. 1 sq. ; 
 
 2 So Jtilicher [see § 16]. Dillmann gives wv. 15-23a to J, arguing chiefly from the name Jewel, for which in 
 ch. xviii. 2 (E) we have Jethro. But, as Jiil. remarks, the name Reuel may be here a later insertion: had it 
 originally stood in the narrative, it would have appeared naturally in v. 16, rather than in v. 18. 
 
 § 3. The grounds of the preceding analysis ; as follows: each, it will be noticed, while 
 are particularly evident in the account of the | differing from the other, exhibits several traits 
 negotiations of Moses with Pharaoh, and in the | connecting it with the corresponding narrative 
 narrative of the Plagues. Both are marked, | in chs. iii—vii.9. In one narrative (P) Aaron co- 
 namely, by a series of systematic differences, per- | operates with Moses, and the command is Say 
 vading the narrative from beginning to end. | unto Aaron... . (vii. 19, viii. 5 [Heb. 1], 16 
 Thus in the former, the section vi. 2-vii. 13, as | [Heb. 12]; so before, vii. 9: even ix. ὃ. where 
 seems clear, is not in reality the sequel of iii. 1— | Moses acts, both are expressly addressed): no 
 vi. 1, but is parallel to it. Chs. iii. 1-vi. 1 | demand is ever made of Pharaoh; the sequel is 
 (disregarding, for the present, iv. 17, 18, 20b-21) | told briefly, usually within the compass of one 
 describe the call and commission of Moses, the | or two verses; the success or failure of the 
 appointment of Aaron to be his representative Egyptian magicians is noted: the hardening of 
 with the people (iii. 16; iv. 1, 16), and three | Pharaoh’s heart is expressed by PtN (was strong, 
 signs given to him for the satisfaction of the | or made strong, R. V. marg.), vii. 22, viii. 19 
 people: Moses and Aaron have satisfied the (Heb. 15), ix. 12 (so vii. 13), and the concluding 
 people (iv. 31), but the application to Pharaoh | formula is And he hearkened not unto them as the 
 has been unsuccessful, and something further is | LoRD had spoken (vii. 22, viii. 15b [Heb. 11b], 
 threatened. The continuation of vi. 1, however, | 19 [Heb. 15], ix. 12; so vii. 13). 
 is vii. 14; with vi. 2 there begins evidently In the other narrative (JE), on the contrary, 
 another account of Moses’ call, in which, unlike | Moses alone, without Aaron, is commissioned to 
 iv. 31, the people refuse to listen to the promises | go to Pharaoh: he addresses Pharaoh himself 
 conveyed to them (vi. 9), and in which, Moses | (in agreement with ivy. 10-16, where Aaron is 
 protesting his inability to plead * with Pharaoh | appointed to be his spokesman with the people): 
 (not, as before, with the people), Aaron is | a formal demand is regularly made, Let my 
 appointed to be his spokesman with him (vi. 11, | people go that they may serve me (vii. 16, viii. 1 
 12, 29, 30; vii. 1, 2). The case of Pharaoh’s | (Heb. vii. 26], ix. 1,13; x. 35 so before, in the 
 requiring a guarantee is provided for: Aaron's | same narrative, iv. 23, v. 1); upon Pharaoh’s 
 rod is to be thrown down that it may become a | refusing, the plague is announced, and takes 
 reptile (12, not WM), a serpent, as iv. 4), | effect without further human intervention (viii. 
 vii. 8 f. Pharaoh’s heart, however, is hardened, | 24 [Heb. 20], ix. 6), or at a signal given by 
 and the narrative at vii. 13 reaches just the | Moses, not by Aaron (vii. 20, ix. 22 sq., x. 12 sq., 
 same point as vi. 1. Thus vi. 2-8 is parallel to | 22); the interview with Pharaoh is prolonged, 
 111. 6-9, 14, 15; vi. 12b=350 to iv. 105; vii. 1 to | and described in some detail ; and the term used 
 iv. 16; vil. 4f. to iii. 19f., vi. 1. Corresponding | to express the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart is 
 to these material differences, others of expres- | not PIN, but 723, T2537, to be or to mack 
 sion and style mark each narrative throughout. | Acavy (vii. 14, viii. 15 [Heb. 11], 32 [Heb. 28), 
 
 § 4. The principal differences between the | ix. 7, 34, x. 1; see R. V. marg.). The style of 
 two narratives of the Plasues may be arranged | the narrative generally is more picturesque and 
 varied than that of P; it is marked by recurring 
 
 | phrases, which are, however, different from those 
 
 ee the preeent narrative (aaa of Pe as Thus saith the Lord, said regularly te 
 already refused to hear Moses, the different, ἃ priori Phasaoh: .. Behold ith the -ticiplad πα 
 ground alleged in vi. 12 for his hesitation (a ground, | BEBOP 9 PAGINGS «WET e partie 
 moreover, inconsistent with iv. 31) is difficult to under- | 4anouncement of the plague, Thou, thy people, 
 stand. and thy servants; the expression God of the 
 
EXODUS 
 
 TTcbrews (vii. 16, ix. 1, 13, x. 3, as before, iii. 18, 
 vy. 3), and several others which the careful 
 reader will note for himself. 
 
 § 5. Examining JE more particularly, we 
 observe that the main narrative is J, with 
 traces of E. 
 
 The reasons for supposing it to be not entirely homo- 
 geneous may be stated briefly thus. (i.) The verses 
 iv. 17, 20b-21 stand in no relation to their context ; 
 iv. 17 speaks of ‘‘ the signs” to be performed with the 
 rod, whereas only one sign to be so performed has been 
 described in wv, 1-9: iv. 21 mentions similarly wonders 
 to be done before Pharaoh, whereas vv. 1-9 speak only 
 of credentials for the satisfaction of the people. The 
 verses read, in fact, like fragments from another nar- 
 rative, which once of course contained the explanations 
 
 EXODUS 1010 
 
 which are now missing, and to which either v. 18 or 
 v. 19 doubtless also belonged (for in the existing narra- 
 tive both are not required, or, at least, v. 19 should 
 precede v. 18). (ii.) It is observed that in some of the 
 plagues the effect is not brought about immediately by 
 God (as e.g. ix. 6), but Moses, as here directed, uses his 
 rod (vii. 17, 20b; ix. 23; x. 13). It is difficult now 
 not to connect these passages with iv. 17, 20b-21, and to 
 suppose them to have been derived by the compiler 
 from the same source. Many critics are of opinion that 
 other traits in the narrative, especially some which 
 when viewed carefully seem to be redundant, are derived 
 likewise from E. One or two examples (ix. 24a, 35 ; 
 x. 14a) have been introduced into the Table; but the 
 criteria are slight, and may not be decisive. It is 
 wiser, therefore, to adopt this opinion, if at all, with 
 reserve. 
 
 § 6. (ii.) Chs. xii—xix. 2.—Departure of the Israelites from Egypt, and Journey to Sinai :— 
 
 P xii. 1-20. 28. 37a. 40-515 αἵ 1-22 
 i xii. 29-30.1 ΕΣ a abel 7 
 xii. 21-27. 
 i xii. 31-36.2 810-89. 
 Ῥ 20. xiv.4 1-4, 8-9. 15-18. 
 J : 21-22. 5-7. 10-14, 19-201. 
 i sili. 3-16.3 
 E 17-19. 
 P xiv. 21a.* j21c,* 22-23. 26-27a.+ 28-29. (xv. 19.) 
 (J 21b. 24-25, 27b. 30-31. 
 E xv. 1-18.5 20-21. 
 12 xvi.6 1-3, 6-24. 31-36. xvii. laf. xix. 1-2a.§ 
 [ J 4-5. 25-30. Xvii. ]b-2. ὯΝ τι 
 i Xv. 22-27. 
 E 3-6. 8-16. xviii.7 xix. 2b. 
 
 * The words: ‘‘ And Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the waters were divided.” 
 
 + To over the sea. 
 1 Cp. xi. 6, 8 (J). 
 
 + To Rephidim. 
 
 § To wilderness. 
 
 2 With v. 310 cp. iii. 12, x. 8, 11; with v. 32, x. 9, 24 (#). 
 3 This section, as it stands, is generally considered to be the work of the compiler of JE, earlier material, 
 
 however, being incorporated by him, e.g. wv. 6, 7, 12, 13. 
 
 4 The analysis of ch. xiv. is that of Néldeke, Dillmann (except in one or two clauses), and Kuenen, which appears 
 
 to the writer to be more probable than that of Wellh., who assigns to E part of what is here attributed to P. The 
 parts ascribed to P, if examined carefully, will be found to presuppose one another, and to be connected together by 
 many similarities of expression, in some cases agreeing with those elsewhere belonging to P (e.g. D}N, to harden, 
 of the heart), The parts assigned to J exhibit possible traces of the use of H (e.g. vv. 7, 10b [cp. Josh. xxiv.,7, E], 
 16, ** Lift up thy vod,” 19a [cp. Gen. xxi. 17; xxxi. 117}: but the two sources, if both have been employed, are 
 here so fused, that nothing more definite can be affirmed with confidence. 
 
 5 The Song is of course incorporated by the narrator from an earlier source, perhaps from a collection of national 
 poems. Its general style is antique; and in the main it is, no doubt, Mosaic: but it appears towards the end to 
 have undergone some expansion or modification of form at a later age; for v. 13 (“ Thou hast guided them to Thy 
 holy habitation”) clearly describes a past event, and v. 17b points to some Sized abode of the ark, such as the 
 temple at Shiloh (1 Sam. i. 9). ¥V.19 appears to be a redactional addition, reverting, in terms borrowed from P 
 (See xiv. 23, 26, 29), to the occasion of the Song. 
 
 6 In ch, xvi. vv. 4 and 5, on material even more than phraseological grounds, must have their source in a different 
 current of narrative from v.6sq.; for in vv. 6, 7 (evening and morning, in agreement with vv. 8, 12, flesh at 
 evening, and bread at morning) the communication made to the people differs in its terms from that stated in 
 vv. 4, 5 (bread alone) to have been given to Moses; and vv. 25-30 agree with vv. 4,5. In the text of P, it is 
 remarkable that the instructions to Moses to convey the promise of food to the people (vv. 11, 12) follow the 
 account of the actual delivery of the message, vv. 6-8: if it might be assumed that a transposition had taken place, 
 and that the original order was vv. 1-3, 9-12, 6-8, 13, &c., the consecution of the narrative would be improved. 
 Man in v. 15 is strange: in the sense of ‘‘ What?” man is a secondary, contracted form, confined to particular 
 Aramaic dialects (Néldeke, Syr. Gr. § 68; Wright, Compar. Gramm. of the Semitic Languages, p. 125). 
 
 7 An historically interesting chapter (see vv. 15 sq., 19 sq.), universally assigned to E. 
 
 in JE, xii. 21-7 (Passover); 29-36, 37b, 38 
 
 § 7. In chs. xii. and xiii. the double treatment ‘ ; a 
 (narrative—continuation of xi. 4-8); 39; xili. 
 
 is discernible without difficulty. Notice in P, xii. 
 
 1-13" (Passover); 14-20 (Unleavened Cakes); 
 28, 37a, 40-42, 51 (marrative); 43-50 (Pass- 
 over—supplemental) ; xiii. 1 sq. {Firstborn),° 20: 
 
 > In xii. 14 “this day” is the first day of Mazzoth 
 (Unleavened Cakes), not the Passover: ep. Lev. xxiii. 6. 
 
 ¢ In P this injunction is here isolated: the full expla- 
 nation is first given in Num. iii. 12 sq.; viii. 16-19. 
 
 3-10 (Unleavened Cakes); 11-16 (Firstborn). 
 The connexion between the different parts of 
 each narrative is observable, not merely in 
 technical details, but also in general style and 
 tone. The Passover was followed by the Feast 
 of Mazzoth; but the two are in their origin 
 distinct, and are treated accordingly, especially 
 in JE. The Passover commemorates the sparing 
 
1020 EXODUS 
 
 of the Israelites (xii. 13, 27), the Feast of 
 Mazzoth the morning of the Exodus (xiii. 3-10 ; 
 so xii. 17, xxiii. 15), being brought into con- 
 nexion with the circumstance that through the 
 haste with which the Hebrews left Egypt they 
 were obliged to bake for themselves unleavened 
 cakes on the morrow (xii. 34, 39); the dedica- 
 tion of the Firstborn (xiii. 11-16) is made a 
 memorial of the slaughter of the firstborn of 
 the Egyptians (xii. 29 84.). 
 
 Ch. xii. 21-27 cannot be the original sequel to vv. 1-15. 
 The verses do not describe the execution of the com- 
 mands enjoined, vv. 1-13: Moses does not repeat to the 
 people, even in an abridged form, the injunctions that 
 be has received; on the contrary, several important 
 points (e.g. the character of the lamb, and the manner 
 in which it was to be eaten) are omitted; and fresh 
 points (the hyssop, the basin, none to leave the house) 
 are mentioned respecting which the instructions just 
 given to him are silent. It seems clear that vv. 21-27 
 are really part of a different account of the institution 
 of the Passover, which “stands to xii. 3-13 in the same 
 relation that the Mazzoth-ordinance in xiii. 3-10 stands 
 
 § 8. iii.) Chs. xix. 3-xl.—Jsrael at Sinai :— 
 
 LZXODUS 
 to tnat in xii. 14-20” (Dillm, p. 100). Ve. 25-27 
 resemble strongly xiii. 3-16 (see vv. 5, 8, 10, 14 sq.), and 
 are no doubt to be referred to the same source, i.e. 
 either J (Dillm.), or the compiler of JE expanding 
 materials derived from J (so Wellb., at least for xiii. 
 3-16). 
 
 If the different laws respecting these feasts 
 be compared, the simplest will be seen to be 
 those in Ex. xxiii. 15, 18; then come those of JE 
 in chs. xii., xiii., and xxxiv. 18-20, 23-25; then 
 Deut. xvi. ; lastly, the injunctions of P in Ex. xii. 
 In chs. xii. and xiii. it may be noticed: (1) Pass- 
 over and Mazzoth are more clearly distinguished 
 in JE than in P; (2) in JE greater stress is laid 
 on their relation with the history and com- 
 memorative import; (3) the provisions in P 
 are far more definite and strict than in JE 
 (e.g. xii. 15b, 16, 18, 19b, and the whole of 
 vv. 43-49). It is remarked by Delitzsch that 
 the greater specialization of the ordinances 
 in P creates a strong presumption that they 
 were codified later (Studien, vii. pp. 340, 342). 
 
 ie 
 ie 
 E xix. 3-19. 
 
 XIX. 20-20. XX. 22-xxiil. 33. 
 Xx. 1-21. xxiv. (1-2). 
 Le xxiv. 15-18a.* XXv. 1?-xxxi. 18a. 
 Ἢ Xxiv. 3-8. 
 E (9-1i). 12-14, 18b. Xxxi. 180. xxxii. 1-8. 
 P XXxXiv. 29-35. XXXv.—XxI. 
 
 Ἷ 
 XXxii. 9-14. 
 te 
 
 * To cloud. 
 
 XXNiii. 12-xxxiv. 28. 
 
 15-29, 30-xxxiii. 6 (in the main), 7-11. 
 
 + To testimony. 
 
 1 So Wellh., Dillm. ; but admitting that vv. 3-8, the ‘classical expression in the O. T. of the nature and scope of 
 
 the theocratic covenant,” 
 
 has been amplified by the compiler of JE, perhaps (Dillm.) with elements derived from 
 
 J. The sequence of the chapter is in many places imperfect, an indication that it has been formed by a combina- 
 
 tion of different sources. 
 
 Thus the natural sequel of v. 3, went wp, would be not v. 7, came, but v. 14, went down ; 
 
 αν 9b is superfluous after v. 8b (if, indeed, it be more than a repetition of it, introduced by a clerical error); v. 13b 
 is obscure, and not explained by anything which follows [the ‘‘ trumpet” of vv. 16, 19 is not the ‘‘ ram’s-horn” of 
 bis verse]. In the latter part of the chapter, vv. 20-25 manifestly interrupt the connexion: v. 20 is a repetition of 
 v. 18a (‘ descended ””), and v. 21 of υ. 12: v. 25, ‘and said [Δ "11 unto them” (not, ‘‘ and told them”) should 
 be followed by the words reported, and is entirely disconnected wit xx. 1: on the other hand, xx. 1 is the natural 
 continuation of xix. 19. Clearly, two parallel narratives of the theophany on Sinai have been combined together : 
 though it is no longer possible to determine throughout the precise limits of each (see the attempt of Jiilicher, 
 ΒΡ. 306 sq.). Ch. xix. 20-25 is generally assigned to J: Kuenen regards these verses, together with v. 13b, 
 xxiv. 1-2, 9-11 (which similarly interrupt the connexion in ch. xxiv.), as standing by themselves, and forming 
 part of a third independent narrative of the occurrences at Sinai. 
 
 2 Chs. xxv. 1-xxxi. 18a contain P’s account of the instructions given for the construction of the Tabernacle, &c., 
 the sequel followings in chs. xxxv.-xl., which describe how these instructions were carried out. On some 
 
 questions arising out of these sections of P, see below, $§ 13, 14. 
 
 § 9. In chs. xix. 2b—xxiv. (after separating 
 xxiv. 15-18a, which belongs to P, and is the 
 introduction to ch. xxv.) there are two narra- 
 tives of the occurrences at Sinai, one attached 
 to the Decalogue, the other to the “ Book of 
 the Covenant” (i.e. the laws xx. 22-xxiii. 33; 
 see xxiv. 7). The Decalogue, with the narra- 
 tives attached to it, is generally allowed to 
 belong to E: the Book of the Covenant is con- 
 sidered by Wellhausen (Comp. p. 90) to have 
 formed part of J; but Kuenen (§ 8. 12, 18), 
 Dillmann (p. 220), Jiilicher (p, 305), assign it 
 to E, though it is doubtful whether the grounds 
 alleged are decisive. The principal grounds for 
 the separation in ch. xix. have been stated in 
 § 8, ποθ ἃ, In xx. 1, 19, 20, 21, notice God 
 (not Jehovah), as in xix. 3,17, 19. The sequel 
 to the “Book of the Covenant” is evidently 
 xxiv. 3-8. Ch. xxiv. 12-14, 18b, on the con- 
 
 trary, form a natural continuation of xx, 18-21: 
 the “elders ” in v..14 cannot well be the seventy 
 mentioned in v. 9 (among whom disputes are 
 not likely to have arisen during Moses’ absence), 
 but the elders of the people generally, named as 
 the people’s representatives: Moses goes up into 
 the mountain to receive, not merely the tables 
 of stone, but also instruction of a more general 
 kind (“the law and the commandment”), en- 
 abling him to speak to the people instead of 
 God, and in accordance with the request, xx. 19 
 (cp. Deut. v. 27-31). The intermediate verses 
 (xxiv. 1, 2, 9-11) are of uncertain origin. Pos- 
 sibly they are to be regarded as introductory 
 to v. 12 sq., and assigned to E; possibly = 
 form, with xix. 13b, 20-25 (see ὃ 8, note 1), 
 part of an independent narrative, of which only 
 fragments have been preserved. 
 
 τ 10. The Decalogue, it need hardly be said, 
 
EXODUS 
 
 is not the composition of E, but 1s merely in- | 
 
 corporated by him in his narrative. It is 
 repeated, as is well known, in Deut. v. 6-21, 
 where, though it is introduced formally (wv. 5, 22) 
 as a verbal quotation, it presents in fact con- 
 siderable differences, especially in the fourth, 
 fifth, and tenth commandments, from the text 
 of Exodus. The variations are manifestly due 
 to the author of Deuteronomy, whose style and 
 characteristic thought they mostly exhibit.¢ 
 It is the opinion, however, of many critics,° 
 based in part upon the fact of this varying text, 
 that the primitive form of the Decalogue was 
 not that in which it appears now even in 
 Exodus; but that originally it consisted merely 
 of the Commandments themselves, all expressed 
 with the same terseness exhibited still by the 
 first, sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth, and that 
 the explanatory comments appended in the case 
 of the others were only added subsequently 
 (probably by the compiler of JE). These com- 
 ments, in the case of Ex. xx. 10b, 12, bear a 
 singular resemblance to the style of Deuter- 
 onomy; so that, unless (as has been supposed) 
 they can have been introduced here from 
 Deuteronomy itself, they must be regarded as 
 belonging to the class of passages in Exodus 
 indicated in DEUTERONOMY, ὃ 34, as being the 
 source of some of the expressions which in their 
 entirety give to Deuteronomy its peculiar and 
 distinctive colouring (ib. § 36). The case of 
 Ex. xx. 11, however (which is not found in 
 Deuteronomy), is somewhat different. Not 
 only does this verse form no model for the style 
 of Deuteronomy, but it is alien in style to JE; 
 while on the other hand it resembles closely 
 two passages of P, Ex. xxxi. 17b, Gen. ii. 2b: 
 hence, as it is not perhaps very probable that it 
 would have been omitted when the Decalogue 
 was incorporated in Deuteronomy, had it 
 already formed part of it, the conjecture is not 
 an unreasonable one that it was introduced 
 into the text of Exodus, after Deuteronomy 
 was written, on the basis of the two passages of 
 P just referred to. 
 
 § 11. The laws contained in the “ Book of the 
 Covenant ” (xx. 22-xxiii. 33) comprise two ele- 
 ments (xxiv. 5), the “words ” (or commands) 
 and the “judgments: ” the latter, expressed 
 all hypothetically, occupy xxi. 1—-xxii. 17 (Heb. 
 16), 25a (24a), 26 (25), xxiii. 4 sq.; the former 
 occupy the rest of the section to xxiii. 19: 
 what follows, xxiii. 20 sq., annexing a promise in 
 case of obedience, imparts, as Wellh. observes, 
 to the preceeding law-book the character of a 
 “covenant” (cp. xxiv. 7). The laws them- 
 selves are taken naturally from a pre-existing 
 source, in most cases (as it seems) without 
 alteration of form, though most critics are of 
 opinion that here and there slight parenetic 
 additions have been made by the compiler: for 
 
 4 Thus with “observe,” Deut. v. 12 (for “re- 
 member”), cp. Deut. xvi. 1; with ‘fas the Lorp thy 
 God commanded thee,” wv. 12, 16, xx. 17, xxiv. 8, xxvi. 
 18; with v. 14b, xiv. 29, xv. 10; with the motive of 
 gratitude in v. 15 (which takes the place of the reference 
 in Exodus to the Creation), xv. 15, xvi. 11, 12, xxiv. 
 18, 22 ; with the addition in v. 16b, v. 29 [Heb. 26], vi. 18, 
 M20, 28; xxii. 7. 
 
 © Ewald, History, ii. 159; Speaker’s Comm. i. p. 336; 
 Dillm. p. 201. 
 
 EXODUS 1021 
 
 instance, xxii. 21b-22 (observe in v. 23 [Heb. 
 22) him, he, his in the Hebrew, pointing back 
 to the sing. “sojourner ” in v, 21); perhaps also 
 in xxiii, 23-25a. The verses xxiii. 4 sq. will 
 hardly be in their original position, for the 
 context (on both sides) relates to a different 
 matter, viz. just judgment. 
 
 The laws are designed to regulate the life 
 of a community living under simple conditions 
 of society, and devoted chiefly to agriculture. 
 After some introductory directions respecting 
 the erection of altars xx. 24-26, there follow 
 the DYODWID (xxi. 1), embodying in its main 
 principles the civil and criminal law of the 
 ancient Hebrews, and (xxiii. 14 sq.) certain 
 elementary religious observances. Slavery, 
 murder and manslaughter, manstealing, injuries 
 to life or limb, injuries caused by culpable neglect 
 (as by permitting an unruly animal to be at 
 large, or opening a pit negligently), theft, 
 burglary, damage caused by straying animals 
 or fire to a neighbour’s field, neglect in the 
 care of deposits and loans, seduction, witchcraft, 
 idolatry (xxii. 20), usury and pledges, veracity 
 in matters affecting a neighbour’s character, and 
 impartiality in judgment (xxiii. 1-3, 6-9) are, 
 in outline, the subjects dealt with in the code: 
 intermixed (xxii. 21, 22-24, 29-31; xxiii. 4, 
 5) or appended (xxiii. 9, 10-12, 14-19) are 
 precepts touching various religious and moral 
 duties (as oppression of strangers or of others 
 unable to protect themselves, the offering of 
 firstlings and first-fruits, the prohibition to eat 
 M51; the injunction xxiii. 4 sq. not to refuse 
 help to an enemy in his need, the sacred seasons 
 —viz. the Sabbatical year and the Sabbath [of 
 both of which the scope, as here defined, is a 
 philanthropic one}, the three annual pilgrim- 
 ages), The character of the society for the use 
 of which the code is designed, is evident from 
 the conditions of life which it presupposes, and 
 the cases which it contemplates as likely to 
 arise: notice, for instance, the frequency with 
 which the ox, the sheep, and the ass are 
 mentioned—they form even the typical example 
 of the “ deposit,” xxii. 9, 10—and the allusions to 
 agricultural life in xxi. 33 sq., xxii. 5, 6, xxiii. 
 10 sq., 16. The only forms of punishment pre- 
 scribed are retaliation and pecuniary compensa- 
 tion. Definite rights are secured to the slave. 
 Women do not enjoy the same social equality 
 with men. The Gér, or sojourner, living under 
 the protection of a family or the community, 
 has no legal status, but he must not be op- 
 pressed.f It is interesting to compare the Laws 
 of the Twelve Tables, or the Laws of Solon 
 (preserved in Plutarch, Vit. Solonis), which in 
 many respects presuppose a similar condition 
 of society. In what way this code (with 
 additions not of course to be neglected) is made 
 the basis of the later legislation of Deuteronomy 
 (chs. xii.-xxvi.) has been shown in the article 
 on that Book, 
 
 § 12. The sequel of JE’s narrative in chs. xix.— 
 xxiv. is xxxi. 18b—xxxiv. 28, comprising the 
 
 ‘Cp. W. R. Smith, 0. 7. J. C., p. 336 sq. Noticein 
 xxi. 6, xxii. 8 sq. [Heb. 7 sq.], the archaic conception of 
 God being the direct source of law: cp. xviii. 16b 
 (where Moses’ judicial decisions on points submitted to 
 him are termed ‘‘the statutes and laws of God’), and 
 1 Sam. 11, 25, with the writer’s note ad loc. 
 
EXODUS 
 
 narrative of the Golden Calf and incidents 
 arising out of it. Ch. xxxii. as a whole may be 
 assigned plausibly to E, only vv. 11-13 being 
 somewhat unlike E’s usual style and manner, 
 and having been perhaps expanded by the com- 
 piler of JE (cp. Gen. xxii. 16-18, to which in 
 ». 13 allusion is made), Chs. xxxii. 34, xxxiii. 
 1-6 exhibit traces of a double narrative—in 
 v. 5b, for instance, the people are commanded to 
 do what they have already done (v. 4b)—which 
 confirms the primd facie view that vv. 5a, 6 are 
 doublets of vv. 3b, 4b. The complication is 
 recognised by critics,® but no generally accepted 
 analysis of the entire passage has been effected. 
 Ch. xxxiii. 7-11 is an interesting passage, 
 which, as the tenses in the original show,® de- 
 scribes throughout Moses’ habitual practice (v. 7, 
 “used to take and pitch,” &c.). In its original 
 connexion it is not improbable that it was 
 preceded by an account of the construction of 
 the “Tent of Meeting,’ and of the Ark,’ of 
 which the Tent was to be the depository, which, 
 it may be conjectured, was the purpose for 
 which the ornaments, vv. 4-6, were employed: 
 when the narrative was combined with that of 
 P, this part of it was probably omitted on the 
 ground that it was no longer needed by the side 
 of the fuller description in chs. xxv., xxxv., &c. 
 Chs. xxxiii. 12-xxxiv. 9 form a continuous 
 whole: as it is difficult to determine whether 
 it belongs definitely to J or to the compiler of 
 JE, it is printed in the Table in the line between 
 the J and the E lines. Ch. xxxiv. 10-26" in- 
 troduces the terms of the covenant, v. 27: it 
 agrees substantially, often even verbally, with 
 the theocratic section of the “Book of the 
 Covenant” (xxiii. 10 sq.), the essential condi- 
 tions of which appear to be repeated here, with 
 some enlargement (especially in the warning 
 against idolatry, vv. 12-17), as the terms on 
 which the renewal of the covenant is granted. 
 The structure of JE’s narrative in chs. xix.— 
 XXiv., Xxxii.-xxxiv. is complicated. The narra- 
 tive appears indeed to exhibit unambiguous 
 marks of composition; but when the attempt is 
 made to distribute it in detail between the 
 different narrators, the criteria are frequently 
 indecisive; and it is possible to frame more 
 than one hypothesis which will account, at least 
 apparently, for the facts. Similarly the relation 
 of the Code xxxiv. 10 sq. to the very similar Code 
 in xxiii. 10 sq. is not perfectly evident, and may 
 be differently explained. Wellhausen, Dillmann, 
 Jiilicher, and Kuenen have displayed in their 
 treatment of the subject surprising ability and 
 acuteness: but beyond a certain point their 
 conclusions diverge; and even the most 
 plausible cannot claim to be more than a 
 possible interpretation of the facts. The writer 
 has accordingly made no attempt to do more 
 than indicate the broad and patent lines of 
 demarcation which occur in the narrative. In 
 
 = E.g. Kuenen, Theol. Tijdschr. 1881, p. 210. 
 
 4 Imperfects, interchanging with perfects and the 
 waw consecutive. See the writer’s Hebrew Tenses, 
 §§ 120, 121, or Ges.-Kautzsch,25 ὁ 112, 3, a (a). 
 
 i See Deut. x. 1, the terms of which presuppose the 
 omission of something in the existing text of Exodus 
 (cp. DEUTERONOMY, ὁ 10). 
 
 kx Sometimes called, in contradistinction to chs. xxi.— 
 xxiii., the “ Little Book of the Covenant,” or the 
 «“ Words (see v. 27) of the Covenant.” 
 
 EXODUS 
 
 all probability it reached its present form by 
 a series of stages, which can no longer be wholly 
 disengaged with certainty-! 
 
 § 13. We may now revert to chs. xxv.—xxxi. 
 18a, which contain P’s account of the instruc- 
 tions given to Moses respecting the Tabernacle 
 and the priesthood. The instructions fall into 
 two parts, chs. xxv.-xxix and chs. xxx.—xxxi. 
 The contents of chs. xxv.—xxix. relate to (1) the 
 vessels of the Sanctuary (ch. xxv.); (2) the 
 Tabernacle, its curtains, boards, Veil, and Screen 
 at the entrance (ch. xxvi.); (3) the Court round 
 the Tabernacle, containing the Altar of Burnt- 
 offering (ch. xxvii.); (4) the vestments 
 (ch. xxviii.) and rite of consecration (xxix. 
 1-37) of the priests; (5) the daily Burnt-offer- 
 ing, the maintenance of which is a primary 
 duty of the priesthood (xxix. 58-42), followed 
 by what appears to be the close of the entire 
 body of instructions (xxix. 43-46), in which 
 Jehovah promises to bless the sanctuary thus 
 established with His abiding presence. Chs, xxx.— 
 xxxi. relate to (1) the Altar of Incense (xxx. 
 1-10); (2) the maintenance of public service 
 (xxx. 11-16); (9) the Brazen Laver (xxx. 17- 
 21); (4) the holy Anointing Oil (xxx. 22-33); 
 (5) the Incense (xxx. 34-38); (6) the nomi- 
 nation of Bezaleel and Oholiab (xxxi. 1-11); 
 (7) the observance of the Sabbath (xxxi. 12-17). 
 
 A critical question of some difficulty here 
 arises in connexion with the relation of 
 chs. xxx.-xxxi. to chs. xxv.—-xxix. It is sur- 
 prising to find the Altar of Incense, which from 
 its importance might have seemed to demand a 
 place in ch, xxv. (among the other vessels of 
 the Tabernacle), mentioned for the first time in 
 xxx. 1-10, where the directions respecting the 
 essential parts of the Tabernacle are seemingly 
 complete (ch. xxix. 44-46): even in xxvi. 34 sq. 
 (where the position of the vessels of the 
 
 Sanctuary is defined) it is not named. More- 
 over, whereas in Ex. xxx. 10 an annual rite to 
 be observed in connexion with it is enjoined, in 
 the ceremony for the day of atonement, de- 
 scribed in detail in Ley. xvi., no notice of such a 
 rite is to be found, and only one altar, the Altar 
 of Burnt-offering, is mentioned throughout the 
 chapter. Further, a number of passages occur 
 in which the Altar of Burnt-offering is described 
 as “ the altar,” implying, apparently, that there 
 was no other (¢.g. chs. xxvii.—xxix.; Ley. i—iii., 
 v.-vi., Viii., ix., xvi.). It is argued,™ on these 
 grounds, that the original legislation of P 
 mentioned no Altar of Incense (incense being 
 only offered on censers, Ley. xvi. 12, &c.), and 
 that both this and other passages in which it is 
 spoken of (xxx. 27, xxxi. 8, xxxv. 15, xxxvii. 
 25, xxxix. 38, xl. 5, 26; Lev. iv. 7, 18; Num. 
 iv. 11), or which term “the Altar” of xxvii. 1, 
 &e., as though for distinction, “the Altar of 
 Burnt-offering ” (as xxx. 28, xxxi. 9, xxxy. 16, 
 xxxvill. 1, xl. 6, 10, 29; Lev. iv.), or “the 
 Brazen Altar” (xxxviii. 30, xxxix. 39), belong 
 
 to a secondary and posterior stratum of P. The 
 other subjects treated in chs. xxx.—xxxi. (above, 
 2-7) are either such as would naturally find 
 
 1 See further on this subject Wellh. Comp. pp. 83 86.» 
 327 sq.; Dillm. Comm. pp. 189 sq., 331 sq.; Jiilicher, 
 JPTh. 1882, pp. 295 sq.; C. G. Montefiore, Jewish 
 
 | Quarterly Review, 1891, pp. 276-291. 
 m Wellh. Comp. pp. 137 sq. ; Kuenen, Hez. § 6. 13. 
 
SS eee 
 
 = 
 
 EXODUS 
 
 place in an Appendix, or (remarkably enough) 
 occasion difficulties similar to those arising out 
 of the mention of the Altar of Incense. Thus 
 
 in xxix. 7, Lev. viii. 12, the ceremony of 
 anointing is confined to the chief priest 
 (Aaron); in xxx. 30 it is extended to the 
 
 ordinary priests (his “sons”). The same ex- 
 tension recurs in xxviii. 41, xl. 15; Lev. vii. 
 36, x. 7; Num. iii. ὃ. That the ceremony was 
 limited originally to Aaron seems, however, to 
 be confirmed by the title “the Anointed Priest ” 
 applied to the chief priest (Ley. iv. 3, 5, 16, vi. 
 22 (Heb. 15]: ep. Ex. xxix. 29 sq.; Lev. xvi. 32, 
 xxi, 10,12; Num. xxxv. 25), which, if the 
 priests generally were anointed, would be desti- 
 tute of any distinctive significance. 
 
 These arguments are undoubtedly forcible. It 
 is true, the use of the term “the Altar” for the 
 Altar of Burnt-offering might in itself be ex- 
 plained by the supposition that it was so styled 
 kar’ ἐξοχήν, in passages where there was no 
 danger of confusion with any other altar; but 
 in order to be properly estimated, the usage 
 must of course be viewed in connexion with 
 the other circumstances referred to. In con- 
 sidering the argument based on the silence of 
 Ley. xvi., Delitzsch (Studien, iii. p. 117) admits 
 that “were Lev, xvi. silent as to the Altar of 
 Incense, the distinction drawn by Wellhausen 
 between two strata of P would be established :” 
 he contends, however, that this altar is alluded 
 to in v.18. Dillmann, on the contrary (with 
 Oehler, Keil, &c.), considers—as it seems, justly 
 —that the order of the ceremonial in Lev. xvi. 
 16b-18 supports the view that the Altar of 
 Burnt-offering (outside the Tabernacle) is re- 
 ferred to in v. 18: admitting thus that the 
 Altar of Incense is not alluded to, he is obliged 
 to own that at least Ex. xxx. 10 is an addition 
 to the original law, designed for the purpose of 
 supplementing Lev. xvi. 16b. But, even with 
 this concession, it remains that, whatever be the 
 explanation,” in the body of instructions con- 
 tained in Ex. xxv.—xxxi. the Altar of Incense 
 holds a secondary place. 
 
 The extension of the ceremony of anointing 
 to the ordinary priests is allowed by Dillmann 
 (pp. 469 sq.) to be evidence that the passages so 
 mentioning it are of secondary origin, unless, 
 with Kurtz, it could be assumed that the rite 
 alluded to is the sprinkling with oil and blood 
 noticed in Ex. xxix. 21, Lev. viii. 30, which, 
 however, is not termed “anointing,” and is 
 subsequent to the anointing proper (Ex. xxix. 
 7; Lev. viii. 12). It is doubtful, therefore, 
 whether this explanation is admissible; and in his 
 final discussion of the sources of the Pent. (WDJ. 
 p- 635), Dillmann himself implicitly rejects it, 
 for he remarks there that the entire section xxx. 
 17-38 (together with xxxi. 7--11) appears to be 
 a later insertion, The section on the Sabbath 
 (xxxi. 12-17), as has been frequently remarked 
 (e.g. by Delitzsch, Studien, xii. p. 622), has in 
 
 n Dillmann suggests that it may have been partly due 
 to the writer’s historic consciousness that the Altar of 
 Incense did not form part of the original idea of a 
 Tabernacle, as the Table, Candlestick, and Altar of 
 Burnt-offering did: Del. supposes that the Divine idea 
 of the Tabernacle took shape gradually in the Jegislator’s 
 mind, and that the need of an Incense-Altar was only 
 realised by him after the plan of the Tabernacle as a 
 whole (chs. xxv.-xxix) had been completed. 
 
 EXODUS 1025 
 
 vv. 13-14a affinities with the Code (the “ Law 
 of Holiness”) of which extracts have been 
 preserved in Ley. xvii.-xxvi.; and the inference 
 is probably a just one, that that Code is the 
 ultimate source of the verses referred to.° 
 
 § 14. Chs. xxxy.-xl. form the sequel to chs. 
 XXV.-XXxXxl., narrating the execution of the in- 
 structions there communicated to Moses. Much 
 is repeated verbatim, with the simple change of 
 future tenses into past: there are, however, a 
 few cases of omission or abridgment, and the 
 order is different. The change of order is in most 
 cases intelligible. The injunction respecting 
 the Sabbath, which stands last in the instruc- 
 tions, occupies here the first place (xxxv. 1-3), 
 Next follow the presentation of offerings by 
 the people, and the appointment of Bezaleel and 
 Oholiab to superintend the work (xxxy. 4- 
 xxxvi. 7). In the account of the execution of 
 the work, the Tabernacle stands first (xxxvi. 
 8-38); then follow the sacred vessels to be 
 placed in it (ch. xxxvii.), the Altar and Laver 
 with the Court surrounding .them (xxxviii. 
 1-20), and particulars of the amount of metal 
 employed (xxxviii. 21-31). The Sanctuary 
 being thus completed, the dress of the Priests 
 is prepared (xxxix. 1-31), and the entire work 
 delivered to Moses (xxxix. 32-43.) Finally, 
 ch. xl. narrates how the Tabernacle was erected, 
 and its various vessels arranged in order. The 
 Altar of Incense and the Brazen Laver, it will 
 be noticed, which appear in the Appendiz to chs. 
 XXV.—xxix (viz. in ch. xxx.), are here mentioned 
 in accordance with the place which they properly 
 hold (viz. xxxvii. 25-28; xxxviii. 8). A few 
 unimportant verses (as xxv. 15, 22, 40) are not 
 repeated at all; some other notices (as xxv. 16, 
 21, 30, 37b), chiefly relating to the position of 
 the various vessels named, are not repeated in 
 their corresponding place, but transferred (in 
 substance) to xl. 17-33; the only material 
 omissions are the notices of the Urim and 
 Thummim (xxviii. 30), the Consecration of 
 Priests (xxix. 1-37), which is deferred till 
 Lev. viii., the oil for the lamps (xxvii. 20 sq.), 
 and the Daily Burnt-offering (xxix. 38-42), 
 for the repetition of which there would scarcely 
 be occasion. The principal instance of abridg- 
 ment is xxxvii. 29, where the sections dealing 
 with the Anointing Oil and the Incense (xxx. 
 22-35, 34-38) are merely referred to briefly. 
 In ch. xxxix., as compared with ch. xxxvi., some 
 other cases may also be noticed. 
 
 These chapters, like ch. xxx. sq., are treated by 
 Wellhausen and Kuenen as belonging to a secondary 
 stratum of P. If the secondary nature of ch. xxx. sq. be 
 admitted, this conclusion will indeed follow of necessity : 
 in chs. Xxxv.-xxxix. the notices referring to ch. xxxi.sq. 
 are introduced in their proper order, and ch, xl. alludes 
 to the Altar of Incense: chs. xxxy.-xl. thus presuppose 
 chs, XXx.-xxxi. as well as chs. xxv.-xxix. There are 
 also other grounds, peculiar to these chapters, thought to 
 point in the same direction, for which it must suffice to 
 refer to Kuenen’s carefully written note (Hex. § 6. 15).P 
 
 © See Leviticus ; or the writer’s Introduction to the 
 Literature of the 0. T. (1891), pp. 43 sq., 54. 
 
 P E.g., ch. Xxxviii. 24-28, besides presupposing (in 
 the figure 603,550) the census of Num. i., appears to 
 imply a misunderstanding of xxx. 11-16, as though the 
 contribution imposed there for the maintenance of the 
 service of the Sanctuary were designed to meet the cost 
 of its construction. 
 
1024 EXODUS 
 
 Dillmann, though in ZL. p. 354 sq. he had expressed | 
 
 himself in a different sense, in his final review of the 
 contents of P (VDJ. p. 635) adopts virtually the same 
 opinion, supposing the original nucleus of the six 
 whapters to have been limited to xxxv. 1-3, 4-5, 20 sq. 5 
 «xxvi. 2-6; xl. 1 54.ν 34-38, and considering the rest 
 (which presupposes chs. XXv.-xxxi. in its present form) 
 to be of later origin. 
 
 As soon as the Priest’s Code is examined with sufficient 
 minuteness. the question of its stratification—i.e. the 
 question whether all its parts are perfectly consistent, 
 and belong to the same stage of Hebrew legislation— 
 forces itself upon the reader's attention ; though the 
 problem which thus arises can hardly be said to have becn 
 as yet adequately grappled with. 
 
 § 15. The text of Exodus, with but few ex- 
 ceptions, appears to be free from corruptions. 
 The question of the origin and probable date of 
 the sources of which it is composed will be 
 considered under the article PENTATEUCH, where 
 also their most characteristic literary features 
 will be noticed. ‘The ““ Egyptianisms,” it per- 
 haps need hardly be remarked, which Canon 
 Cook affects to discover in the Book,? and which 
 Canon Rawlinson accepts as well-established 
 fact,’ are purely imaginary: the language is as 
 genuinely Hebrew as the language of Samuel 
 or Isaiah; and the few words of foreign origin 
 which it exhibits (except, of course, certain 
 proper names) are simply such as were natural- 
 ized in Hebrew, just as words like paradise or 
 palanquin ave naturalized among ourselves. 
 
 § 16. LrreRatuRE,— The Commentaries of 
 Dillmann and Keil on the Pentateuch, mentioned 
 under GENESIS, and of M. M. Kalisch (London, 
 1855); the critical works of Néldeke (Unter- 
 suchungen), Wellhausen (Die Comp. des Hex. ; 
 especially pp. 63-100, 136-151, 3823-333), 
 Kuenen, and Kittel, mentioned ἐν, 
 
 Special Monographs. — Julius Popper, Der 
 biblische Bericht δον die Stiftshiitte [on chs. xxv.— 
 xxxi. 3 xxxv—-xl.], 1862; A. Kuenen, “ Bijdragen 
 tot de critiek van Pent. en Josua,” in the Theol. 
 Tijdschrift, 1880, pp. 281-802 [on ch. xvi.; 
 cp. Wellhausen’s criticisms in the Nac trage to 
 Die Compos. des Hex. u.s.w. (1889), pp. 323-27), 
 1881, pp. 164-223 [an endeavour to solve the 
 problem presented by chs. xix.—xxiv., xxxii.— 
 xxxiv.; ep. Wellh. ib., pp. 327 sq.];—F. Delitzsch, 
 in the Zeitschrift fiir hirchl. Wiss. wu. kirchl. 
 Leben, 1880, pp. 113 sq. (the Incense-altar), 
 pp- 337 sq. (the Passover) ; 1882, pp. 281 sq. (the 
 Decalogue) ;—Lemme, Die religionsgeschichtliche 
 Bedeutung des Dekalogs, Breslau, 1880 ;—Ad. 
 Jiilicher, Die Quellen von Exodus i.-vii. 7, 
 Halis Saxonum, 1880; and Die Quellen von 
 Exodus vii. 8-xxiv. 11, in the Jahrbiicher fiir 
 Protestantische T..coloyie, 1882, pp. 79-127, 
 272-315 ;—C. A. Briggs, “ The Little Book of the 
 Covenant ” [Ex. xxxiv. 11-26], in the Hebrew 
 Student (Chicago), May 1883, pp. 264-72; 
 “The Greater Book of the Covenant” [Ex. xx. 22- 
 xxiii], ib., June 1883, pp. 289-303];—W. Η. 
 Green, The Hebrew Feasts, London, 1886, espe- 
 cially pp. 83 sq. [on ch. xii.]; and in Hebraica 
 (Chicago), 1886, pp. 1-12 ;—W. R. Harper, ib., 
 1889, pp. 25sq.; 1890, pp. 241 sq.;—W. H. 
 
 4 Speaker's Comm. i. pp. 244, 488 sq. (where there 
 are, besides, many inaccuracies and misstatements). 
 
 τ. T. Commentary, edited by Bishop Ellicctt, i. 
 p. 139 b. 
 
 EXODUS, ‘THE 
 
 Green, id., 1891, p. 104sq.; B. W. Bacon, “JE 
 in the Middie Books of the Pent.” in Journ. of 
 Bibi. Lit. 1890, pp. 161-200. [5. R. Ὁ. 
 
 EXODUS, THE. The object of this 
 article is to describe the Exodus chiefly in its 
 geographical aspect, and to give the results 
 arrived at in the latest researches on this great 
 event. ‘The chronology and history will be only 
 shortly referred to, having been treated more 
 fully in other articles. 
 
 1. Date——The date of the Exodus is discussed 
 under CHRONOLOGY. Most Egyptologists consider 
 that this great event took place under Menephthah, 
 the son of Rameses II., and that it was facilitated 
 by the troubles which beset the beginning of 
 Menephthah’s reign, especially by the invasion 
 of Mediterranean nations which threatened his 
 
 throne. Lepsius puts the Exodus in the year 
 1314 8.6. The date most commonly adopted is 
 
 1312; but it varies according to the views taken 
 of Egyptian chronology. Lately, Dr. Mahler of 
 Vienna, explaining the plague of darkness as a 
 solar eclipse, has fixed the 27th of March, 1335 
 B.c., as the day and year of the Exodus. It 
 would thus fall, not in the reign of Menephthah, 
 but under Rameses II., whose reign the Vien- 
 nese astronomer has calculated to have lasted 
 from 1347 to 1280 z.c. If we adopt Dr. Mahler’s 
 calculation as to the Exodus, it raises a con- 
 siderable historical difficulty, for it is hardly 
 possible to admit that the Hebrews should have 
 left Egypt at the beginning of the reign of 
 Rameses IJ., when the king was at the pinnacle 
 of his might and power (cp. PSEA, xii. 167 sq., 
 xiii. 439 sq.). 
 
 2. History.—The Exodus is a great turning- 
 point in Biblical history. With it the Patri- 
 archal dispensation ends and the Law begins, and 
 with it the Israelites cease to be a family and 
 become a nation. It is therefore important to 
 observe how the previous history led up to this 
 event. ‘The advancement of Joseph, and the 
 placing of his kinsmen in what was to a pas- 
 toral people “the best of the land,” favoured 
 the multiplying of the Israelites, and the pre- 
 servation of their nationality. ‘The subsequent 
 persecution bound them more firmly together, 
 and at the same time loosened the hold that 
 Egypt had gained upon them. It was thus that 
 the Israelites were ready when Moses declared 
 his mission to go forth as one man from the 
 land of their bondage. 
 
 The history of the Exodus itself commences 
 with the close of that of the Ten Plagues. 
 [PLAGUES oF Eayrr.] In the night in which, at 
 midnight, the firstborn were slain (Ex. xii. 29), 
 Pharaoh urged the departure of the Israelites 
 (vv. 31, 32). They at once set forth from 
 Rameses (vv. 37, 39), apparently during the 
 night (v. 42), but towards morning, on the 
 15th day of the first month (Num. xxxiii. 3). 
 They made three journeys and encamped by the 
 Red Sea.- Here the vanguard of Pharaoh’s army, 
 his chariots and horses, overtook them, and the 
 great miracle occurred by which they were saved. 
 
 3. Geography.—The determination of the route 
 taken by the Israelites when they left Egypt 
 is a difficult and much discussed question, on 
 which, however, recent excavations have thrown 
 some light. The Hebrews were settled in the 
 i lend of Goshen, which originally was the region 
 
EXODUS, THE 
 
 between the present towns of Belbeis, Zagazig, 
 and the site called Tell el-Kebir, and belonged to 
 the nome of Heliopolis. When the people in- 
 creased in number, they extended north towards 
 ‘Tanis (Zoan), south towards Heliopolis, and east 
 in the Wady Tumeilit [GosHEN]. They carried 
 with them the name “ land of Goshen,” which 
 applied to all the territory in which they were 
 
 settled; but the centre, Goshen proper, was ! 
 
 EXODUS, THE 1025 
 
 | the region originally assigned to them, also 
 called “land of Rameses.” It. contained the 
 city of Rameses, the site of which has not yet 
 been identified. It is from there that they 
 started ; there, between Tell el-Kebir and Zagazig, 
 was their place of meeting, to which flocked the 
 people scattered north and south towards Tanis 
 and Heliopolis. We do not know where the 
 king was living when those events took place ; 
 
 —-—-—WNaville, Linant, ete. 
 
 .------- Sir W. Dawson 
 ws Ebers, Godet. 
 
 Zagasig 
 Bubastis 
 
 foHeliopolis 
 
 °oTanis 
 Zoan | 
 
 qs 
 
 Heraopalis 
 
 Serapeumo % 
 
 x 
 WVYHLGT 1° Lb 
 
 SCAIRO.,,. : ᾿ 
 ΓΝ i ata oye 
 ae, |e 
 
 Map to illustrate the Exodus, 
 
 it has generally been admitted that it was at 
 
 Tanis, but it may have been at Bubastis, a much 
 nearer locality, which was then a city of great 
 importance, and a favourite residence of the 
 _ Pharaohs. 
 
 In going to the land of Canaan they had the 
 choice between two roads. One went through 
 Tanis and crossed the Pelusiac branch of the 
 Nile at the place now called Kantarah; soon 
 
 4 BIBLE DICT.—VOL. I. 
 
 i: 
 
 afterwards it reached the coast of the Mediter 
 ranean, and from there the frontiers of the 
 Philistines. This road is called in Scripture 
 (Ex. xiii. 17) “the way of the land of the 
 | Philistines,” which the Hebrews were to avoid, 
 | for they would have had to conquer or to march 
 round important strongholds and cities occupied 
 by large garrisons which would have imperilled 
 considerably their journey. This statement, 
 
1026 EXODUS, THE 
 
 “God led them not by the way of the land of 
 the Philistines, although that was near” (Ex. 
 xiii, 17), would alone be sufficient to refute the 
 opinion of Schleiden (Die Landenge von Sués), 
 who considers the JD D%, Yam Suph, as being 
 not the Red Sea, but Lake Serbonis, on the coast 
 of the Mediterranean; and who makes the 
 Hebrews follow a track of sand between the 
 lake and the sea. 
 
 The other route, through which Moses led the 
 people, followed the valley now called Wady 
 Tumeilat, and reached the desert near the pre- 
 sent town of Ismailia. It was on this way that 
 Jacob had arrived several hundred years before, 
 since we know that the place where he met 
 Joseph was Pithom-Heroopolis. {PrrHom.} This 
 road skirted the northern end of the Red Sea, 
 which at that time extended much further north 
 than now, comprising not only the Bitter Lakes, 
 but very likely also Lake Timsah. The opinions 
 differ as to the exact spot where the Hebrews 
 crossed the Yam Suph, the “sea of reeds ;” but 
 the scholars and travellers who have dealt with 
 the subject lately, agree on one point, that the 
 place of the crossing must be looked for north 
 of Suez. 
 
 Rameses, the starting-place, must not be con- 
 sidered the name of a city, but as referring to 
 the land of Rameses. [RAMESES.] It is more 
 natural to suppose that the camping-ground and 
 the place of meeting for a large multitude was 
 a district rather than a city, which could have 
 contained only a small portion of the departing 
 people. From there to the border of the desert 
 of Etham the distance to be travelled over was 
 about thirty miles. 
 
 The first station after Rameses was Succoth, 
 a Hebrew word meaning “tents.” It seems to 
 be a well-appropriated name for the resting- 
 place of a nomad population; but as it refers to 
 a locality situated in Evypt, it is more natural to 
 take Succoth as an Egyptian word which has 
 been slightly distorted in its form, so as to have 
 a meaning in the language of the Hebrews, though 
 retaining nearly the same sound as in Egyptian. 
 Succoth is not a city, it is a district, and may 
 be considered as an altered form of the Egyptian 
 name Thuket or Thukut, a region the capital 
 of which was the city of Pithom. This identi- 
 fication, proposed first by Brugsch, has been 
 adopted by Ebers, Lieblein, and other Egypto- 
 logists. 
 
 From Succoth, pushing straightforward, the 
 Hebrews reached “‘Etham in the edge of the 
 wilderness ” (Ex. xiii. 20). All the desert east 
 of the present Suez Canal, where the Israelites 
 marched three days after having crossed the sea, 
 was called the desert of Etham. This name is 
 transcribed by the Septuagint ’O@du (Ex. xiii. 20) 
 and Βουθάν (Num. xxxiii. 6). It has been sug- 
 gested that Etham was the Egyptian word 
 xetem, meaning “an enclosure,” “a fort,” and 
 that it referred either to the fortified wall which 
 the Pharaohs raised in the isthmus in order to 
 be protected against invasions of the Asiatic 
 nomads (Ebers, Gosen, p. 522), or to some strong- 
 hold of which we cannot fix exactly the site 
 (Brugsch, Dict. Géog., p. 646 ; Knobel-Dillmann 
 on Exod. xiv. 2). This etymology seems doubtful, 
 for the reason that the Hebrew language has also 
 the root onn, with the same sense; and it is 
 
 not easy to understand why the Hebrews should 
 
 EXODUS, THE 
 
 have modified the word as if it had been strange 
 to them, while they had it in their own lan- 
 guage in the same form, and with the same mean- 
 ing. Etham can also be compared to the region 
 of Atuma or Atima, mentioned several times in 
 the papyri as bordering on Egypt, and inhabited 
 by nomad shepherds (Naville, Pithom, p. 28). 
 
 Following the Wady Tumeilat, along the canal 
 dug by Rameses II., parallel in its direction to 
 the present Freshwater Canal, the Hebrews had 
 reached the wilderness, with the intention of 
 taking a desert route, the entrance of which is 
 still to be recognised, when they received a com- 
 mand which at first sight seemed to throw them 
 entirely out of their way (Kx. xiv. 2, R. V.): 
 “And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, 
 Speak unto the children of Israel, that they 
 turn back and encamp before Pi-hahiroth, be- 
 tween Migdol and the sea, before Baal-zephon : 
 over against it shall ye encamp by the sea.” 
 
 By this command they were compelled, after 
 having perhaps retraced their steps for a short 
 way, to make a right angle, and to march south, 
 so as to put the sea between themselves and the 
 desert. The place where they were to camp is 
 pointed out minutely, the neighbouring localities 
 being indicated as landmarks; but the sites can 
 only be determined by conjecture, and the identi- 
 fications proposed differ considerably. For the 
 
 expression NNT'5 ΣΕΥ “before Pi-hahi- 
 roth,” the Septuagint have the following trans- 
 lations: ἀπέναντι τῆς ἐπαύλεως (Ex. xiv. 2, 9), 
 ἐπὶ στόμα Ἑἰρώθ (Num. xxxiii. 7; see Swete’s 
 text), ἀπέναντι Εἰρώθ (v. 8). Here again 
 several interpretations have been suggested. 
 
 Jablonski proposes the Coptic ΠῚ aX! 
 
 UOT, “the place where sedge grows,” 
 which would correspond to the localities called 
 at present Ghuweybet-el-boos, “the bed of 
 reeds.” This etymology has been adopted 
 by Ebers, while Brugsch has advocated anothez 
 translation derived from Semitic roots: “the 
 entrance of the caverns or of the pits,” 
 βάραθρα (Dict. Geog. p. 97). It is also possible 
 that Pi-hahiroth should only be a modified form 
 of Pi kerehet, the house of the serpent, the name 
 of a sanctuary of Osiris belonging to the nome 
 of Pithom, and nearer the sea. [PI-HAHIROTH. } 
 
 We know with certainty that there was a 
 city of Migdol, μΜάγδωλον (Jer. xliv. 1, xlvi. 14; 
 Ezek. xxix. 10, xxx. 6), on the north-eastern 
 frontier of the land, the present Tell es Semut, 
 twelve miles from Pelusium according to the 
 Itinerary of Antoninus; but the name mentioned 
 here clearly refers to another place. The word 
 maktar or maktal exists also in the Egyptian lan- 
 guage, with a fortified wall as determinative, 
 and it means, as in Hebrew, “‘a tower.” We 
 know of a “tower of Seti I.;” and there must 
 have been. many watch-towers in Egypt, espe- 
 cially on the border, just as in Italy there are a 
 great number of “Torre.” Baal-zephon is a place 
 where the Semitic god Baal was worshipped. 
 The name is formed like Baal-Gad, Baal-Hamon. 
 According to Philo, Zaphon was the Phoenician 
 name for the North wind. Baal-zephon, men- 
 tioned in a papyrus as Baal Zapuna, would thus 
 be Baal of the North, or the North wind, and 
 might be located, according to Tischendorf and 
 Ebers, on one of the heights overhanging the 
 Red Sea. The name being Semitic, it is natural 
 
EXODUS, THE 
 
 to look for the site on the eastern side of the 
 sea, opposite the camp,—étevayrias, according 
 to the Septuagint. 
 
 From the scanty information we possess of 
 these localities, ditferent roads have been pro- 
 posed for the crossing of the sea. Ebers makes 
 the Israelites change their course near the pre- 
 sent city of Ismailia, and march south along the 
 Bitter Lakes nearly as far as Suez. Pi-hahiroth 
 is for him the ruined castle of Agerud, about 
 ten miles north-west of Suez. Migdol is near 
 the present Shaloof el Terraba, on the east side 
 ‘of the present canal; and Baal-zephon the sum- 
 mit of Mount Atakah, south of Suez, towering 
 over the Red Sea, and visible from a great dis- 
 tance. ‘The Hebrews would have crossed in the 
 lagoons which are immediately north of Suez. 
 It is the most southern route proposed, and 
 advocated also by Professor Godet (Bibl. annoter, 
 p. 415). An objection to which it is open, is 
 the very long march which the Hebrews would 
 have had to make when they turned round at 
 Etham, in order to reach their new camp at 
 Pi-hahiroth. 
 
 Sir W. Dawson, who explored the place in 
 1883, has come to the following conclusion 
 (Modern Science in Bible Lands, p.389) :—* After 
 somewhat careful examination of the country, 
 I believe that only one place can be found to 
 satisfy the conditions of the Mosaic narrative; 
 namely, the south part of the Bitter Lake, be- 
 tween station Fayid on the railway and station 
 Genetieh, Near this place are some inconsider- 
 able ancient ruins, and flats covered with 
 -Arundo and Scirpus, which may represent Pi- 
 hahiroth. On the west is the very conspicuous 
 peak known as Jebel Shebremet, more than 
 500 feet high (Migdol), commanding a very 
 wide prospect, and forming a most conspicuous 
 object to the traveller approaching from the 
 north. Opposite, in the Arabian desert, rises 
 the prominent northern point of the Jebel er- 
 Rabah, marked on the maps as Jebel Maksheih, 
 and which may have been the Baal-zephon of 
 Moses. Here there is also a basin-like plain, 
 suitable for an encampment, and at its north 
 side the foot of Jebel Shebremet juts out so as 
 to form a narrow pass, easy of defence. Here 
 also the Bitter Lake narrows, and its shallower 
 part begins, and a north-east wind, combined 
 with a low tide, wonld produce the greatest 
 possible effect in lowering the water.” 
 
 The route which is advocated by the author 
 of this article, and which seems to him to agree 
 with the results of the excavations in the Delta, 
 as well as with the Biblical narrative, is the 
 more northern one, between the Bitter Lakes and 
 Lake Timsah. The Israelites, arriving near the 
 present city of Ismailia, receive the order to 
 turn to the south and to march along the sea as 
 far as a place where the sea was narrow, the 
 water shallow, and where there was a watch- 
 tower (Migdol), which is supposed to have been 
 on the hill where many centuries afterwards 
 Darius erected a stele, and which has been called 
 _ by the French engineers the Serapeum. Pi-hahi- 
 roth would be the Egyptian city of Pikerehet, 
 a sanctuary of Osiris, which is represented now 
 by the ruins situate at the place where the 
 _ canal issues out of Lake Timsah, at the foot of 
 Gebel Miriam. Baal-zephon would be a sanc- 
 _ tuary on a hill, on the other side of the sea, an 
 
 EXORCIST 1027 
 
 | isolated place of worship, like the so-called 
 sheikhs of the present day. This view, which is 
 that of Linant, who derives it chiefly from 
 geological arguments, has been adopted “by 
 Lieblein, Poole, and by the author of the Suez 
 Canal, Lesseps. 
 
 The route of the Exodus has called forth a 
 great number of books and papers, the latest of 
 which are: Ebers, Durch Gosen zum Sinai, 2nd 
 ed.; Linant, Mémoire sur les principaux travaux 
 @utilité publique exécutés en Ligypte, p. 137 sq. ; 
 Lieblein, Handel und Schiffahrt auf dem Rothen 
 Meere; Sir W. Dawson, Lgypt and Syria, 
 p: 45 sq.; Modern Science in Bible Lands, 
 p. 382 sq.; Naviile, The Store City of Pithom 
 and the Route of the Exodus, 3rd ed. [Memoirs 
 of the Egypt Exploration Fund}. [E. N.] 
 
 EXORCIST (ἐξορκιστής ; exorcista). The 
 word exorcist occurs only once in the Bible 
 (Acts xix. 13), and is then employed as a de- 
 signation of persons who professed to cast out 
 evil spirits by exorcising them, i.e. by adjuring 
 them by some potent name or spell, to come 
 out of those whom they possessed (ὁρκίζω ὑμᾶς 
 τὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν, Acts, 1. c.; ep. ἐξορκώσις, dpkdw ; 
 Joseph. Ant. viii. 2, § 5). The cognate verb 
 (eEopri¢w) is found once in the N. T. and once in 
 the LXX. Version of the O. T.; but in both of 
 these places it is used in its classical sense of 
 administering an oath to a person, or charging 
 him with an oath, and as a synonym of the 
 simple verb (épxi(w) in the same sense (cp. Matt. 
 xxvi. 63, with Mark v. 7; Gen. xxiv. 3, Heb. 
 TWA, “Twill make thee swear,” with v. 37 ; 
 Demosth. 1265-6. See also 1 Thess. v. 27, where 
 ἐνορκίζω is the generally accepted reading). 
 
 The use of the word “exorcists” in the pas- 
 sage from the Acts, as a recognised description 
 of certain “strolling Jews,” confirms what we 
 know from other sources as to the practice of 
 exorcism among the Jews. The only example 
 of anything at all resembling the practice in 
 the O. T., though as regards the means em- 
 ployed it is not properly an exorcism, is the 
 familiar instance of David playing on his harp 
 before Saul, when “an evil spirit from the Lord 
 troubled him” (1 Sam. xvi. 14). The effect of 
 David’s playing is said to have been that “ Saul 
 was refreshed and was well, and the evil spirit 
 departed from him” (υ. 23). The way in 
 which both the malady and its cure are spoken 
 of by the servants of Saul (v. 16) shows that 
 the idea of demoniacal possession and of deliver- 
 ance from it was familiar to the Jews of that 
 day. Passing to the N. T., we ‘find our Lord 
 Himself recognising not only the prevalence, 
 but in some cases at least the efficacy, of exor- 
 cism among the Jews of His own day. When 
 the nature of the charge brought against Him 
 by the Pharisees, and the circumstances under 
 which it was brought, are taken into account, it 
 is impossible to regard His question to them, 
 “If I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do 
 your disciples (viol) cast them out ?” (Matt. xii. 
 27) as anything short of an admission, that 
 there were instances in which exorcism was 
 successfully practised by the disciples of the 
 Pharisees. The only alternative is to degrade 
 Him, morally and intellectually, to the level of 
 His adversaries, and to suppose, that in order to 
 silence or conciliate them, He credited them 
 
 3U 2 
 
1028 EXORCIST 
 
 with a power which He and they alike knew to 
 be simulated. The remark of the people on 
 another occasion, when our Lord had cast out a 
 devil, “It was never so seen in Israel,” and the 
 wonder they evinced, may have been called 
 forth, as Alford suggests, by the manner rather 
 than by the fact of the cure (Matt. ix. 33; 
 ep. Mark ii. 12). Justin Martyr has an in- 
 teresting suggestion as to the possibility of a 
 Jew of his day successfully exorcising a devil, 
 by employing the name of the God of Abraham, 
 Isaac, and Jacob (ἀλλ᾽ εἰ ἄρα ἐξορκίζοι τις 
 ὑμῶν κατὰ τοῦ θεοῦ ᾿Αβραὰμ καὶ θεοῦ ᾿Ισαὰκ 
 καὶ θεοῦ ᾿Ιακώβ, ἴσως ὑποταγήσεται [τὸ δαι- 
 μόνιον), Dial. cum Tryph. c. 85, p. 311, C. 
 See also Apol. ii. c. 6, p. 45, B, where he 
 claims for Christianity superior but not 
 necessarily exclusive power in this respect. 
 Compare the statements of ren. adv. Haeres. 
 ii. 5, and the authorities quoted by Grotius on 
 Matt. xii. 27). But Justin goes on to say that 
 the Jewish exorcists, as a class, had sunk down 
 to the superstitious rites and usages of the 
 heathen (Ἤδη μέντοι of ἐξ ὑμῶν ἐπορκισταὶ TH 
 τέχνῃ, ὥσπερ καὶ τὰ ἔθνη, χρώμενοι ἐξορκίζουσι 
 καὶ θυμιάμασι καὶ καταδέσμοις χρώνται, εἶπον). 
 It accords with experience, that the decay of a 
 religious system should be marked by the pro- 
 fane and spurious imitation of spiritual powers 
 which were once really, though it may be excep- 
 tionally, possessed by its adherents. ‘ Non 
 habebant quidem Judaei exorcistas ex Legis pre- 
 scripto: verum scimus Deum, ut in foederis sui 
 fide puroque cultu illos retineret, suam inter eos 
 praesentiam variis miraculis subinde testatum 
 
 esse. Ita fieri potuit ut invocato Dei nomine 
 daemones fugarent. Populus vero talem Dei 
 virtutem expertus, ordinarium 5101] munus 
 
 temere instituit” (Calvin on Matt. xii. 27). 
 The driving away of an evil spirit by fumiga- 
 tion, as described in the Book of Tobit (viii. 
 2, 3), though not strictly an exorcism, is an 
 example of such perversion. Josephus, after 
 asserting of Solomon, τρόπους ἐξορκώσεων kat é- 
 Aurey, ois ἐνδόμενα τὰ δαιμόνια Os μηκετ᾽ 
 ἐπανελθεῖν ἐκδιώκουσι, says that he himself had 
 seen one Eleazar, a Jew, releasing people from 
 the power of demons by the method of Solomon, 
 in the presence of Vespasian and his sons and 
 soldiers (Ané. viii. 2, ὃ 5). In another place 
 (Bell. Jud. vii. 6, § 3) he has a wild story of 
 exorcism by the use of a root, called Baaras, 
 from the name of the place where it grows. It 
 was the profane use by strolling impostors of 
 the name of Jesus, as a charm or spell to dis- 
 possess evil spirits, that issued in the disastrous 
 failure recorded in the Book of the Acts (xix. 
 13 sq.). 
 
 The Christian miracle of casting out devils, 
 whether as performed by Christ or by His apos- 
 tles and followers, is never called by the name 
 of exorcism in the N. T.; nor does it appear 
 that adjuration was used in performing it. The 
 simple word of command, coming as it did from 
 His lips “ with authority and power ” (Luke iv. 
 36, cp. Mark i. 27), was enough in the case 
 of our Lord to ensure the result, though, in 
 some instances at least, that word rose, it should 
 seem, to special dignity and solemnity, and was 
 not obeyed without marked tokens of resistance. 
 The word most commonly used by the Evangel- 
 ists to describe our Lord’s action is ἐπετίμησε. 
 
 EXORCIST 
 
 It is used of the miracle in the synagogue at 
 Capernaum by the only two of them who record 
 it, with the addition of the actual terms (φιμώ- 
 θητι, καὶ ἔξελθε ἐξ αὐτοῦ) in which the rebuke 
 was conveyed (Mark i. 25; Luke iv. 35). ΑἹ] 
 three of the Synoptists use it in describing 
 the miracle on the possessed child, immediately 
 after the Transfiguration (Matt. xvii. 18; 
 Mark ix. 25; Luke ix. 42); St. Mark alone 
 giving the solemn form of address (τὸ mvedua 
 τὸ ἄλαλον καὶ κωφόν, ἐγώ σοι ἐπιτάσσω, 
 ἔξελθε ἐξ αὐτοῦ, καὶ μηκέτι εἰσέλθῃς εἰς 
 αὐτόν), called forth perhaps by the pecu- 
 liar malignity of the spirit and his reluc- 
 tance to desert his prey (v. 26). In the 
 miracle in the country of the Gadarenes, St. 
 Mark’s ἔξελθε (v. 8) becomes in St. Luke παρήγ- 
 γειλε ἐξελθεῖν (viii. 29; or παρήγγελλε). The 
 daughter of the Syro-Phoenician woman was 
 set free by His mere volition, without personal 
 contact at all (Mark vii. 29, 30). Authority 
 (ἐξουσία) to cast out devils was bestowed by 
 Christ while on earth upon the Apostles and 
 the seventy disciples (Matt. x. 1; Luke x. 
 19: cp. Luke iv. 36; Mark i. 27), and a 
 like power was promised by Him to believers 
 after His Ascension (Mark xvi. 17. But 
 though this power was to be exercised by them 
 “in His Name” (Luke x. 17; Mark xvi. 17: 
 cp. Matt. vii. 22; Mark ix. 38), the virtue of 
 that Name, as simply uttered in faith, appears 
 to have sufficed, without any formula of adjura- 
 tion such as would properly constitute an exor- 
 cism (mapayyéAAw σοι ἐν τ. ὄνομ. “Ino. Xp., 
 Acts xvi. 18, the only case in which the words 
 used are given. See v. 165 vili.7). In one case, 
 which however is specially mentioned as excep- 
 tional, “‘ handkerchiefs or aprons,” carried away 
 to them from the body of St. Paul, had power 
 to deliver the possessed from the evil spirits 
 who tormented them (Acts xix. 12). 
 
 The reality of exorcism, or of the expulsion 
 of evil spirits which is commonly understood by 
 that name, must of course depend upon the 
 reality of possession. If there be no such thing 
 as demoniacal possession, there can be no need 
 and no room for deliverance from it. But if, 
 by a careful consideration of those passages of 
 the N. T. which bear upon the subject, we are 
 led to the conclusion that “there are eyil 
 spirits, subjects of the Evil One, who, in the days 
 of the Lord Himself and His Apostles especially, 
 were permitted by God to exercise a direct in- 
 fluence over the souls and bodies of certain 
 men” [DEMONIACS]; then it is only reasonable 
 to suppose that He Who “for this cause was 
 manifested, that He might destroy the works of 
 the devil” (1 John iii. 8; cp. Acts x. 38), 
 should grapple with and overcome that in- 
 fluence. At the same time, it should not be 
 forgotten that the argument is strong, when 
 taken in the reverse order. From the reality of 
 expulsion we may reasonably infer the reality 
 of possession. No theory of accommodation can 
 satisfactorily account for the language used by 
 Christ in casting out devils. As well might we 
 affirm, “if a physician were solemnly to address 
 the moon, bidding it to abstain from harming his 
 patient ” (Trench, Notes on the Miracles), that he — 
 was only employing the popular language which ~ 
 speaks of madness as Junacy, as to affirm that 
 —when our Lord says to one brought to Him as 
 
EXPIATION 
 
 possessed, “ Thou dumb and deaf spirit, I charge 
 thee, come out of him, and enter no more into 
 him” (Mark ix. 25)—it is an honest and truth- 
 ful accommodation to the views and prejudices 
 of His hearers on the subject of possession. If 
 possession were not real, He Who is “the 
 Truth” could not so have spoken. If so He 
 
 spoke and was obeyed, then possession and His | 
 
 victory over it are undoubted facts. [T. T. P.] 
 
 EXPIATION. 
 
 EYE-SERVICE. It has been pointed out 
 ‘(B. D., Amer. ed.) that we are indebted to the 
 translators of the Bishops’ Bible for this ren- 
 dering of ὀφθαλμοδουλεία (Ephes. vi. 6; Col. iii. 
 22). It describes that service which, duly per- 
 formed only when the master’s eye is upon it, is 
 for that reason reluctant and mercenary. [F.] 
 
 [SACRIFICE. ἢ 
 
 EZAR, 1 Ch. i. 38. [Ezerr.] 
 EZ'BAT (*31N; B.’ACwBal, δὲ. -βε, A.’ACBL; 
 
 Asbai), father ‘of Naari, who was one of David’s 
 thirty mighty men (1 Ch. xi. 37). In the 
 parallel list (2 Sam. xxiii. 35) the names are 
 given “ Paarai the <Arbite,’’ which Kennicott 
 decides to be a:corruption of the reading in 
 Chronicles (Dissertation, &e. p. 209). It is to 
 be noted that some twenty MSS. of the text in 
 Samuel read Ovpal υἱὸς tov ᾿Ασβί (Driver in 
 loco). [FJ 
 
 EZ'BON (ξεν; Θασοβάν; Eschon). 1. Son 
 of Gad, and founder of one of the Gadite families 
 (Gen. xlvi. 16; Num. xxvi. 16). In the latter 
 passage the name is written ‘318 (A. V. Ozni), 
 
 probably by a corruption of the text of very 
 early date (or, by tradition, Delitzsch [1887], 
 Gen. in loco), since the Tee (v. 25) have B. 
 ’ACevel (ΒΡ, ’ACavei, AF. ᾿Αζαινί). The process 
 may have been the accidental omission of the 2 
 in the oe instance Me in ἌΝ, Abiezer 
 
 finger a Hebrew form, the changing it into 
 oN. 
 Toy 
 
 2. ᾿Ασεβών. Son of Bela, the son of Ben- 
 jamin, according to 1 Ch. vii. 7. It is singular, 
 however, that while Ezbon is nowhere else 
 mentioned among the sons of Bela, or Benjamin, 
 he appears here in company with 5), Ivi, 
 which is not a Benjamite family either, accord- 
 ing to the other lists, but which is found in 
 company with Ezbon among the Gadite families, 
 both in Gen. xlvi. 16 (Eri, Y) and Num. xxvi. 
 16. Were these two Gadite families incorporated 
 into Benjamin after the slaughter mentioned 
 in Judg. xx.? Possibly they were from Jabesh- 
 
 Gilead (cp. xxi. 12-14). "(BECHER. ] Pech. 
 vii. 2 seems to fix the date of the census as in 
 king David’s time. [A. C. H.] 
 
 EZECHIAS (B. ‘E¢efas, A.’E¢exlas ; Ozias, 
 Ezechias). 1. 1 Esd. ix. 14. Son of Theocanus, 
 one of those who took up the matter of “strange” 
 marriage with “strange wives;” put for JAH- 
 AZIAH Ἅ. ANe Jahzeiah), son of Tikvah, ae Ezra 
 x. 15 (B. Δαζειά, N*. -as, A. Ἰαζίας). 2, 2 Esd. 
 vil. 40. [HEZEKIAH. ] 
 
 EZEKIEL 1029 
 
 EZECI’AS (E¢extas; Ezechias), 1 Esd. 
 ix, 43, one of those who stood on the right hand 
 of Ezra when he read the Book of the Law; for 
 HILKIAH in the parallel passage, Neh. viii. 4. 
 
 EZEKI'AS (Ἐζεκίας, and so Westcott and 
 Hort in N. T.; Hzechias), Ecclus. xlviii. 17, 22, 
 xlix. 4; 2 Mace. xv. 22; Matt. i. 9,10. [HEZE- 
 KIAH. | 
 
 EZE’KIEL (NPY). The name is derived 
 from Oss PIM, God will strengthen ἘΠ Thes. 
 
 (Simonis Onomast. v. τ᾿ τ 499). 
 has been strangely misrepresented. The LXX. 
 calls the Prophet Ἰεζεκιήλ (so too Ecclus. 
 xlix. 8); Josephus, *IeCexindos; Vulg. Ezechiel ; 
 Luther, Hesechiel. The same Hebrew name 
 occurs in 1 Ch. xxiv. 16 as that of the head of 
 the twentieth of the twenty-four priestly courses, 
 and there the A. V. represents it by Jehezekel. 
 Jewish writers give it under the nearer and 
 more correct form of Jechezk-el. Abarbanel 
 (Praef. in Ezech.) gives a direct significance to 
 the name, as that of “one who narrated the 
 might of God to be displayed in the future.” 
 Villalpandus (Praef. in Ezech. x.) sees a refer- 
 ence by the Prophet to his own name in the 
 word D'Pth (on the one hand “impudent,” on 
 the other “strong” or “firm”) in Ezek. iii. 
 7-9; and at last we get the wholly groundless 
 conjecture that it was a title applied to the 
 Prophet descriptively after the commencement 
 of his career (Sanctius, Prolegom. in Ezech. 
 p. 2; Carpzov, Introd. ii. pt. ii. ch. v.). 
 
 The Prophet Ezekiel was, as he himself informs 
 us, “the son of Buzi the priest” (i. 3). In the 
 A. V. and R. V. the clause is rendered “ Ezekiel 
 the priest, the son of Buzi,” and this translation 
 is defended by Hengstenberg, who takes it to 
 mean that Ezekiel was priest of the exiles 
 among whom he lived. The Hebrew accent 
 however points to the other rendering, which 
 is generally adopted by Jewish writers. The 
 word Buz (11) means contempt, and it might 
 seem strange that such a name should be con- 
 ferred on any child, yet this was also the name 
 of the second son of Milcah and Nahor. The 
 Rabbis, however, have built a theory upon the 
 name. They have a rule that, whenever a 
 prophet names his father, the father must also 
 have been a prophet, and Rabbi David Qimchi 
 in his commentary mentions a conjecture that 
 Ezekiel was the son of Jeremiah, who was called 
 Buzi because he was rejected and despised. It 
 need hardly be said that the conjecture is im- 
 possible, as also is the tradition mentioned by 
 St. Gregory of Nazianzus that Ezekiel was a 
 servant of Jeremiah. Of the real relations 
 which subsisted between the two Prophets we 
 shall speak further on; all that we know of 
 Buzi is that he was a priest of Jerusalem. 
 Ezekiel thus belonged to the highest aristocracy 
 of his nation, and it is obvious that he received 
 from his father a careful and learned education. 
 
 The date of his birth depends on the interpre- 
 tation given to Ezek. i. 1, where he mentions 
 his call “in the thirtieth year,” and “in tie 
 fifth year of Jehoiachin’s captivity.” The 
 latter expression gives us, according to the 
 Hebrew way of reckoning, the date B.c. 594; 
 
 The name 
 
1030 EZEKIEL 
 
 and as, in all other places, Ezekiel dates from 
 the year of Jehoiachin’s captivity (viii. 1; 
 xxiv. 1; xxix. 17; xxx. 20; xl. 1), we are fairly 
 acquainted with the chronology of his prophe- 
 cies. The expression “in the thirtieth year” 
 has been variously explained. Many commen- 
 tators refer it to the thirtieth year from the new 
 era of Nabopolassar, father of Nebuchadnezzar, 
 who began to reign B.C. 625 (Rawlinson, 
 Herodotus, i. 508). It has been supposed that 
 Ezekiel thus furnished a Chaldaean as well as a 
 Jewish date, and similar dates are found in Dan. 
 ii, 1, vii. 1; Ezra vii. 7; Neh: ii. 1, v. 14 
 (Rosenmiiller, Schol. ad loc. ; Scaliger, de emend. 
 Temp. Prolegom. p. xii.). On the other hand, 
 Ezekiel nowhere else alludes to this epoch, and 
 it does not seem to be certain that the accession 
 of Nabopolassar was observed as an era in 
 Babylon. Setting aside the conjecture of some 
 early commentators mentioned by Jerome 
 (Comment. in Ezech.), and followed by R. 
 Qimchi and Hitzig, that the expression refers to 
 the thirtieth year from the year of jubilee, we 
 may observe that the Targum of Jonathan has 
 “thirty years after Hilkiah the high-priest had 
 found the Book of the Law in the vestibule 
 under the porch at midnight, after the setting of 
 the moon, in the days of Josiah, &c., in the 
 month of Thammuz, in the fifth day of the 
 month” (cp. 2 K. xxii. 8-xxiii. 26). This 
 view is adopted by Jerome, Grotius, Ussher, 
 Hiivernick, &c. The Book was discovered 
 in the eighteenth year of Josiah, and the 
 date thus furnished coincides with the refer- 
 ence to the fifth year of king Jehoiachin’s 
 captivity. But there is no trace, either in 
 Ezekiel or elsewhere, that the finding of the 
 Book of the Law was ever used to mark an era, 
 and there can now be little doubt that by the 
 expression “in the thirtieth year ”* Ezekiel was 
 referring to his own age. This is the more 
 likely because he is speaking of a strictly 
 personal incident, and because at the age of 
 thirty a priest assumed his full functions (Num. 
 iv. 23-30). To one who writes more than any 
 of the earlier Prophets in a priestly spirit, and 
 was so deeply saturated with priestly traditions, 
 it was natural to refer to a date which added 
 new solemnity to the commencement of his 
 prophetic mission, because it connected that 
 mission with the hereditary duties of his office. 
 It is however a fact of profound significance 
 that the birth of the Prophet happened at the 
 period in which Josiah, startled by the revela- 
 tion which he found in the Book of the Law, 
 began his great reform of worship. ‘The effects 
 of that reform must have been deeply felt in 
 the education of a boy whose father was a 
 priest, and who lived under the very shadow of 
 the Temple. Whether Ezekiel during his 
 earlier years travelled among the neighbouring 
 nations, and so acquired those vivid conceptions 
 of their circumstances which he afterwards 
 embodied in his prophecies, we cannot tell; but 
 he was brought up amid the influences of a 
 reformation, during which the Temple and its 
 
 a The Hebrew expression means literally “ in thirty 
 years.” It may be compared with “after forty 
 years,” to indicate the age of Absalom in 2 Sam. xv. 7; 
 unless, with the Peshitto, Vulgate, and many MSS., we 
 here read “four” (see Driver in loco), 
 
 | 
 
 EZEKIEL 
 
 ritual occupied no small part of the thoughts 
 of his people. Jeremiah, who had attained to 
 manhood before the great religious movement 
 which marked the days of Josiah, was less pro- 
 foundly affected by it. He earnestly enforced 
 the truth that offerings and services were in 
 themselves far from sufficient; and when he 
 witnessed that utter ruin of his nation and of 
 its Temple which he had prophesied, he became 
 the herald of a new covenant, and found comfort 
 in the thought of days when there should 
 indeed be no Ark and no Temple, yet all 
 should know the Lord their God, and have the 
 Law written in their hearts (Jer. iii. 15-18; 
 xxxi, 31-34), The work to which Ezekiel was 
 called was different. The day for the New 
 Covenant of which Jeremiah prophesied had not 
 yet dawned, and the younger Prophet was com- 
 missioned, while teaching to his nation many 
 spiritual truths of the deepest importance, to 
 keep alive in their hearts that faithfulness to 
 the old ordinances which inspired them with 
 hope and patriotism during the centuries which 
 were yet to elapse before the Desire of all 
 nations came suddenly to that Second Temple 
 which the returning exiles raised from the ruins 
 of the First (Hag. ii. 7; Mal. iii. 1). 
 
 King Josiah, at the early age of thirty-nine, 
 fell in the great battle of Megiddo (8.6. 608), 
 after receiving a crushing defeat at the hands ef 
 Pharaoh Necho, king of Egypt. The disastrous 
 end of so good a king was a sore trial to the 
 faith of the pious Israelites. But worse trials 
 were to follow. Pharaoh placed Jehoiakim, the 
 eldest son of Josiah, as his vassal on the throne 
 of Judah, but in B.c. 605 was himself defeated 
 at Carchemish by Nebuchadnezzar. The con- 
 queror allowed Jehoiakim to retain his throne, 
 but in spite ot this Jehoiakim rebelled against 
 Nebuchadnezzar three years later, and was slain 
 in the eleventh year of a bad reign (2 K. xxiii. 
 37; 2 Ch. xxxvi. 8). His son and successor, 
 Jehoiachin, reigned but three months and ten 
 days, at the close of which Nebuchadnezzar 
 carried him away captive to Babylon with his 
 family, his treasure, and ten thousand prisoners 
 (2 K. xxiv. 14, 16),> among whom were the 
 flower of the aristocracy and of the male popu- 
 lation of Jerusalem. This took place in the 
 year 597 B.c. 
 
 Among these prisoners was Ezekiel, who must 
 accordingly ‘have been about twenty-five years 
 old. Josephus, indeed, whose account of this 
 period is both untrustworthy and marked by 
 positive errors, says that he was carried away 
 to Babylon while he was yet a boy (Jos. Antt. 
 x. 7, § 3). But this statement is inherently 
 improbable. Ezekiel’s last prophecy is dated in 
 the twenty-seventh year of the exile of Jehoia- 
 chin (xxix. 17), and it is unlikely that he long 
 survived that date. If then he was only a boy 
 at the beginning of the exile, he must have died 
 at an early age, and must have begun his pro- 
 phetic work as a very young man; a fact which 
 would almost certainly have been mentioned by 
 tradition. Besides this, it is hardly probable 
 that Ezekiel would have received so deep an 
 
 b According to Jer. 111. 28, the number of prisoners 
 was 3023, For the confusion of dates and numbers in 
 the accounts of the various deportations, see Ewald, 
 Gesch. 187. iii. 736. 
 
EZEKIEL 
 
 impress from the Temple services, or have pre- 
 sented so vigorous and mature a type of the 
 priestly character, as that which is manifested 
 in his Book, if he had been taken from Jerusalem 
 before his habits and convictions were fully 
 formed. ‘There seems to be little ground for 
 Theodoret’s supposition that Ezekiel was a 
 Nazavite. 
 
 Nebuchadnezzar was not one of the mere 
 rough soldiers who founded some of the ancient 
 monarchies. He resembled Alexander the Great 
 in his powers of organisation and in the breadth 
 ot his designs, and, like Cyrus and Darius, he is 
 
 “always spoken of with respect by the Hebrew 
 Prophets (Ezek. xxvi. 7; Dan. v. 18, &.). The 
 captivity which he inflicted on the Jewish exiles 
 took the form of a deportation or transmigra- 
 tion, and their lot was not aggravated by need- 
 less cruelties. Ezekiel was placed with a little 
 colony of his companions at Tel Abib (‘‘ Hill of 
 grassland”) on the river Chebar (iii. 15). Of 
 Tel Abib nothing is known, nor has the site been 
 identified.© The Vulgate renders it ‘ acervus 
 novarum frugum;” and the LXX., stumbling 
 over it, represents it by μετέωρος. It is not 
 certain whether the river Chebar was the Nahr 
 Malka, the “Royal canal” (Cellarius, Geogr. 
 4... 22; Bochart, Phaleg. i. 8), or the river 
 Khabour (the ancient ’ABéppas), which flows into 
 the Euphrates 200 miles north of Babylon. 
 There can be little doubt that Ezekiel’s place of 
 exile was in Chaldaea proper (i. 3), and there- 
 fore that the Chebar cannot be (as Bleek con- 
 jectured, Hinleit. § 221. See Fried. Delitzsch, 
 Wo lag das Paradies? p. 47 sq.) the river Habor 
 in Gozan (2 K. xvii. 6), which is an affluent of 
 the Tigris. The nominal tomb of Ezekiel is 
 shown at a place called Aefi/, south of Babylon 
 (Menasse ben Israel, de Reswr. Mort. p. 233; see 
 Ps. Epiphan. de Vit. et Mort. Prophet. ix.). It 
 is mentioned by Pietro de la Valle, and fully 
 
 described in the Itinerary of Benjamin of Tudela 
 
 Citiner. p. 66; Hottinger, Thes. Phil. 11. i. 33 
 Cippi Hebraici, p. 82; Carpzov, Apparat. Crit. 
 pp- 203, 204). 
 
 It was on the banks of the Chebar, ‘in the 
 land of the Chaldeans,” that God’s message first 
 reached Ezekiel, and “ the heavens were opened” 
 to him in the thirtieth year of his age, as to 
 Christ in the river Jordan (Origen). In the 
 passage describing his call (Ezek. i. 3) the 
 Targum interpolates the words ‘“‘in the land 
 {of Israel, and again a second time He spake to 
 him in the land] of the Chaldeans.” The inter- 
 polation may partly have been suggested by the 
 structure of some of Kzekiel’s early prophecies, 
 in which he imagines himself an ideal spectator 
 of scenes in Jerusalem (viii. 7, &c.); but it 
 also probably sprang from the Jewish notion 
 that the Shekinah could not overshadow a 
 Prophet out of the Holy Land. For this reason 
 Rashi supposes that ch. xvii. was Ezekiel’s first 
 prophecy, and was uttered before he went into 
 captivity, a view which he supports by the 
 Hebrew idiom 10 9 (A. V. and R. V. “came 
 
 © Tel, “mound,” is a common element in the names 
 of places: cp. Ezra ii. 59; Josh. xi. 13, where “in their 
 strength ” should be rendered “ upon their own mound ” 
 (cp. R. V.). The name Abib in this instance seems 
 to have been appropriate, for Ammianus Marcellinus 
 Gsiv. 3) says, ‘‘ Arborae amnis herbidae ripae.” 
 
 1031 
 
 expressly ”) ini. 3. R. Qimchi, however, admits 
 of exceptions to the Rabbinic rule in case the 
 prophecy was inspired in some pure and quiet 
 spot like a river’s bank. 
 
 Unlike his predecessor in the prophetic office, 
 who gives us the amplest details of his personal 
 history, Ezekiel rarely alludes to the facts of 
 his own life, and we have to complete the imper- 
 fect picture by the colours of late and dubious 
 tradition. We only learn from an incidental 
 allusion that he was married, and had a house 
 (viii. 1) in his place of exile, and lost his wife 
 by a sudden and unforeseen stroke. The way 
 in which he bore this deep affliction was due 
 to that absorbing recognition of his high call- 
 ing which enabled him to face every duty 
 which was laid upon him, and even to sub- 
 mit to the ceremonial pollution from which he 
 shrank with characteristic loathing (iv. 14). It 
 is only in one expression that the feelings of the 
 man burst through the self-devotion of the 
 Prophet. His obedience was unwavering, but 
 the deep pathos of his brief allusion to his wite’s 
 death (xxiv. 15-18) shows what well-springs 
 of the tenderest emotion were concealed under 
 his uncompromising opposition to every form 
 of sin.? 
 
 He lived in the highest consideration among 
 his companions in exile, and their elders con- 
 sulted him on all occasions (viii. 1, xi. 25, 
 xiv. 1, xx. 1, &c.), because in his united offices 
 of priest and Prophet he was a living witness 
 to “them of the captivity” that God had not 
 abandoned them. Vitringa even says (de Synaq. 
 Vet. p. 332) that “in aedibus suis ut in schola 
 quadam public&é conventus instituebat, ibique 
 coram frequenti concione divinam interpre- 
 tabatur voluntatem oratione facunda” (quoted 
 by Hiavernick). Jewish writers regard these 
 meetings as the first beginnings of the future 
 synagogues, and to this they refer Ezek. xi. 16, 
 “Although I have scattered them among the 
 countries, yet will I be to them as a little sanctuary 
 in the countries where they be.” On this pas- 
 sage the Targum distinctly says that the syna- 
 gogues are next in holiness to the Temple (see 
 Megilla, f. 29, 1; Jer. Berakhoth, 5, 1; Ham- 
 burger, RL. ii. s. v. Synagoge). 
 
 The last date mentioned by the Prophet 
 is the twenty-seventh year of the Captivity 
 (xxix. 17), so that his mission extended over 
 twenty-two years, during part of which period 
 Daniel was probably living, and already famous 
 (Ezek. xiv. 14, xxviii. 3). Tradition ascribes 
 various miracles to him, as, for instance, 
 escaping from his enemies by walking dry-shod 
 across the Chebar; feeding the famished people 
 with a miraculous draught of fishes, &c. He is 
 said to have been murdered in Babylon by some 
 Jewish prince (? 6 ἡγούμενος τοῦ λάου, called in 
 the Roman martyrology for vi. Id. Apr. ‘ judex 
 populi.” Carpzov, Jntrod. 1. c.), whom he had 
 convicted of idolatry; and to have been buried 
 in a σπηλαῖον διπλοῦν, the tomb of Shem and 
 Arphaxad, on the banks of the Euphrates. A 
 curious conjecture, discredited by Clemens 
 Alexandrinus (Strom. i. c. xv. § 70), but con- 
 sidered not impossible by Selden (Syntagm. de 
 
 EZEKIEL 
 
 4 There does not seem to be any ground for regarding 
 the death of Ezekiel’s wife as an unreal event—a mere 
 imaginary symbol—as Reuss and others do. 
 
1032 EZEKIEL 
 
 Diis Syr. ii. p. 120), Meyer and others, identifies 
 him with ‘“ Nazaratus the Assyrian,” the teacher 
 of Pythagoras. We need hardly mention the 
 foolish suppositions that he is identical with 
 Zoroaster, or with the Alexandrian ᾿Εζεκίηλος 
 ὃ τῶν Ἰουδαϊκῶν τραγῳδίων ποιητής (Clem. 
 Alex. Strom. i. ὃ 155; Euseb. Praep. Evang. 
 ix. 28, 29) who wrote a play on the Exodus, 
 called ᾿Εξαγωγή (Fabricius, Bibl. Grec. ii. 19). 
 This Ezekiel seems to have lived about B.c. 140 
 (see Gritz, Gesch. d. Jud. iii. pp. 42, 440). 
 
 But by the side of the scattered data of his 
 external life, those of his internal life appear so 
 much the richer. We have already noticed his 
 stern and inflexible energy of will and character ; 
 and we also observe a devoted adherence to the 
 rites and ceremonies of his national religion. 
 Ezekiel is no cosmopolite, but displays every- 
 where the peculiar tendencies of a Hebrew 
 educated under Levitical training. The priestly 
 bias is always visible, especially in chs. viii.— 
 xi., xlxlviii., and in iv. 13 sq., xx. 12 sq., 
 xxii. 8, ἕο. De Wette and Gesenius attribute 
 this to a “contracted spirituality,” and Ewald 
 sees in it “a one-sided conception of antiquity 
 which he obtained merely from books and tradi- 
 tions,” and “a depression of spirit enhanced 
 by the long continuance of the banishment and 
 bondage of the people.” But it was surely this 
 very intensity of patriotic loyalty to a system 
 whose partial suspension he both predicted and 
 survived, which cheered the exiles with the 
 confidence of the Prophet’s hopes for the future, 
 and tended to preserve the decaying nationality 
 of his people. Mr. F. Newman is even more 
 contemptuous than the German critics. ‘The 
 writings of Ezekiel,” he says, “painfully show 
 the growth of what is merely visionary, and an 
 increasing value for hard sacerdotalism ” (ποῦν. 
 Monarchy, p. 330). He speaks of the “heavy 
 materialism ” of Ezekiel’s Temple as being ‘‘as 
 tedious and unedifying as Leviticus itself; ” but 
 he refutes his own criticisms when he adds 
 that Ezekiel’s predictions ‘so kept alive in the 
 minds of the next generation a belief in a cer- 
 tain return from Captivity as to have tended 
 exceedingly towards that result.” 
 
 We shall try to show in the sketch of his 
 teaching that what has been called his pre- 
 dominating ceremonialism and externalism were 
 partly indeed due to his birth and early train- 
 ing, but were also essential to the work which 
 he was appointed to fulfil. It must be borne in 
 mind that five centuries were yet to elapse, even 
 after the Restoration of the Captivity, during 
 which it was the duty of the Jews to preserve 
 their national institutions until the Saviour of 
 the world should come. Over the religious life 
 of those centuries no Old Testament writer 
 exercised a more powerful influence than the 
 prophet Ezekiel.* 
 
 It was not only his attainment of the full 
 age for priestly functions which called forth 
 the prophetic gifts of Ezekiel. God, Who pre- 
 pares His servants by the education of history 
 and experience, trained the mind of His Prophet 
 by the course of events for the first overpower- 
 ing revelation which determined his future 
 
 6 In our Masoretic canon he is placed third of the 
 Nebiim Acharonim, or greater Prophets ; in Baba Kama, 
 f. 14, 2, he is placed second. 
 
 EZEKIEL 
 
 career. When Jehoiachin had been taken to 
 Babylon, his uncle Zedekiah was left as a viceroy 
 over the poor remnants of the people. In the 
 fourth year of his reign he joined in a great 
 movement of Jews, Phoenicians, Ammonites, 
 Moabites, and Edomites, to throw off the hated 
 yoke of Nebuchadnezzar. Such designs could 
 not be kept secret, and to afford himself with a 
 colourable excuse Zedekiah seems to have gone 
 in person to Babylon (Jer. li. 59),f accompanied 
 by ambassadors, to some of whom Jeremiah 
 entrusted the memorable letter in which he had 
 prophesied that the Captivity should last for 
 seventy years (xxv. 11), and in which he sternly 
 rebuked the false prophets who encouraged the 
 exiles in vain hopes (Jer. xxix. 1-32). It was. 
 probably this letter, and the thoughts which it 
 kindled, which awoke the flame of prophecy in 
 the heart of the exiled priest. Jeremiah was at 
 this time all but universally hated and perse- 
 cuted, and his life was constantly endangered by 
 the fury of lying prophets and apostate princes 
 (Jer. xx. 7-18). By the side of the Chebar it 
 was brought home to the mind of Ezekiel that 
 he, the aristocratic descendant of Zadok, must 
 throw himself into the cause of the poor priest 
 of Anathoth, and share the intense odium which 
 his prophecies had inspired. It is the mora 
 and spiritual relationship between these great 
 Prophets of the epoch of the fall of Judah which 
 is dimly shadowed in Jewish legends. Jerome 
 supposes that, being contemporaries during « 
 part of their mission, they interchanged their 
 prophecies, sending them respectively to 
 Jerusalem and Chaldaea for mutual confirma- 
 tion and encouragement, that the Jews might 
 hear as it were a strophe and antistrophe of 
 warning and promise, “ἢ velut ac si duo cantores 
 alter ad alterius vocem sese componerent ” 
 (Calvin, Comment. ad Ezech. i. 2). Although 
 it was only towards the close of Jeremiah’s 
 lengthened office that Ezekiel received his. com- 
 mission, yet these suppositions are easily 
 accounted for by the internal harmony between 
 the two Prophets, in proof of which we may 
 refer to Ezek. xiii.as compared with Jer. xxiii. 9 
 sq., and Ezek. xxxiv. with Jer, xxxiii., &e. This 
 inner resemblance jis the more striking from the 
 otherwise wide difference of character which 
 separates the two Prophets. Jeremiah is far 
 more of a poet than Ezekiel, though the latter 
 shows a more daring imagination. The elegiac 
 tenderness of Jeremiah is the reflex of his 
 gentle and introspective spirit, while Ezekiel, in 
 that age when true prophecy was so rare 
 (Ezek. xii. 21-25; Lam. ii. 9), “comes forward 
 with all abruptness and iron consistency. Has 
 he to contend with a people of brazen front and 
 unbending neck? He possesses on his own part 
 an unbending nature, opposing the evil with an 
 unflinching spirit of boldness, with words fulf 
 of consuming fire.” 
 
 Of the reception of Ezekiel’s prophecies during 
 the twenty-two years over which—though pro- 
 bably at irregular intervals—his work extendet 
 (Ezek. i. 1, xxix. 17), we have no direct informa- 
 
 f It should, however, be observed that the readings of 
 this verse are uncertain. The LXX., followed by Bleek 
 and others, read “ from Zedekiah ” for “with” ; and the 
 Peshitto reads “eleventh” for “fourth” year of his 
 reign. 
 
ς 
 
 EZEKIEL 
 
 tion. 
 the bitter and violent opposition which is the 
 ordinary fate of the true Prophet. From vague 
 and incidental notices we may infer that at tirst 
 he was made to suffer even to the extent of 
 bonds and imprisonment (zek, iii. 25); but if 
 80, he soon triumphed over his enemies, and 
 obtained honour and recognition as a Prophet, 
 even while the people took no practical heed to 
 his words (xxxiii. 32, 33). But while the 
 general tenor of his life seems to have been far 
 less stormy and troubled than that of his spi- 
 
 ritual father Jeremiah, his ministry was excep- 
 
 tionally powerful. Its central lesson has been 
 summed up in the words through repentance 
 to salvation” (Cornill, Der Prophet Ezekiel, 
 p- 264). The chosen people had drunk to the 
 dregs the cup of humiliation; they had seen 
 their kings defeated, dishonoured, dragged into 
 captivity, cruelly tortured, shamefully slain; 
 they had seen their royal city ruined and dis- 
 mantled, and their Temple destroyed by fire. 
 They had seen the God of Israel become as a 
 stranger in His own land (Jer. xiv. 8). Yet 
 there were many of the people who only spoke 
 the language of unbelief and defiance. They 
 expressed open doubts of God’s power (ls. lix. 1) 
 or of His justice (Ezek. xviii, 25, 293; xxxiii. 
 17, 20). It was the task of Ezekiel again and 
 again to refute these blasphemies, and to show 
 that the secret of Israel’s ruin lay exclusively 
 in Israel’s sins, and especially in the sins of 
 gross idolatry (Ezek. viii. xiv. 1-12), lascivious- 
 ness (xvi. xxili.), and bloodguiltiness (xxiv. 6-9), 
 and in the general corruption and trust in lies of 
 prophets, priests, princes and people (xxii. 1-31). 
 In preaching his Theodicaea, Ezekiel had espe- 
 cially to revive the national faith which had 
 been so deeply shaken by the miserable end of 
 the good king Josiah. He had to show how 
 false was the application of the proverb that 
 “The father had eaten sour grapes, and the 
 children’s teeth were set on edge” (xviii. 5-32), 
 and how completely the personal punishment of 
 his contemporaries was due to their own offences. 
 But while thus rebuking a rebellious despair, he 
 was obliged at the same time to strike down an 
 overweening confidence. In his days, as in 
 those of John the Baptist, the people, encou- 
 raged in their nationa] conceit by false prophets, 
 were founding vain hopes on the fact that “ they 
 had Abraham to their father” (Ezek. xxxiii. 24). 
 Ezekiel not only pointed out how futile was 
 such a plea for guilty souls (vv. 25-29), but he 
 dealt at this pride of birth the most tremendous 
 blow which it had ever received when he ex- 
 claimed, “Thy birth and thy nativity was of 
 the land of Canaan; thy mother was an Hittite, 
 and thy father an Amorite;" and thine elder 
 
 © He speaks of his people, even his fellow-exiles, as 
 “ἃ house of rebellion,” ii. 5-8 ; iii. 9, 26, 27; xxiv.3, &c. 
 See too xiv. 3, xx. 32. “The Holy One—blessed be He— 
 afflicted Ezekiel in order to cleanse Israel from their 
 iniquities.” (Sanhedrin, f. 39.) 
 
 h How bitterly this verse was felt by the Jews is 
 shown centuries later by the Rabbis of the Talmud. 
 “When the Holy One—blessed be He—commissioned 
 Ezekiel to say to Israel, ‘Thy father was an Amorite and 
 thy mother a Hittite,’ a pleading spirit ” (according to 
 Rashi, the angel Gabriel) “objected and said, ‘ If Abra- 
 ham and Sarah were to stand here in Thy presence, 
 
 wouldest Thou thus humiliate them to their face?’” | 
 
 It is, however, unlikely that he escaped | 
 
 EZEKIEL 1033 
 sister is Samaria, and thy younger sister that 
 dwelleth at thy right hand is Sodom and her 
 daughters” (xvi. 3, 44-59), They relied on 
 their holy origin, but their true paternity was 
 proved by their deeds (Is. i. 10; Matt. iii. 9; 
 John viii. 44). 
 
 Side by side however with the insolence of 
 obstinate self-defence, Ezekiel found that in the 
 hearts of others there was an abject despondency. 
 They were saying, “If our transgressions and 
 our sins be upon us, and we pine away in them, 
 how should we then live ? ”(xxxiii. 10). It was 
 in answer to such melancholy spirits that Ezekiel 
 set forth more clearly than any of his predeces- 
 
 ‘sors the truth that the one object of punish- 
 
 ment is not vengeance, but reformation. ‘The 
 key-note of all his teaching was, ‘I have no 
 pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that 
 the wicked turn from his way and live: turm 
 ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will 
 ye die, O house of Israel?” (xxxiii. 11). The 
 sole remedy for the present disastrous condition 
 of the nation was that heartfelt repentance 
 which proves its sincerity by amendment (ii2 
 203; xviii. 24-32; xxxiii. 13). For those whose 
 despair was too deeply-seated to be reached even 
 by this high moral teaching, which for the first 
 time set forth Jehovah as the Educator of the 
 human race, Ezekiel received his remarkable 
 vision of the Resurrection in the Valley of Dry 
 Bones (xxxvii. 1-14). This striking allegory 
 had for its immediate object the revival of 
 national hopes; but it has a far wider and more 
 glorious meaning, and, pointing as it does to “a 
 hope full of immortality,” it is one of the deepest 
 notes of revelation which the Old Testament 
 contains.' 
 
 Besides his high moral and spiritual teaching, 
 it was Ezekiel’s mission to keep alive among the: 
 Jews asense of their religious unity and poli- 
 tical existence. Judaism was never intended to: 
 be a cosmopolitan religion; and when the exiles 
 contrasted the colossal splendour of Babylor 
 with their own poor Jerusalem, they needed the: 
 message ‘‘ Fear not, thou worm Jacob” (Is. xli. 
 14), and the reminder that they were not to 
 sink into Babylonians, since they had higher 
 hopes and nobler promises. Their tears were 
 but to be as the softening showers which should 
 prepare the soil for a purer seed. It was there- 
 fore essential that they should not relapse into 
 the idolatry of their conquerors; and since they 
 had no longer a Temple or sacrifices, it was 
 necessary to insist with the utmost stringency 
 on their ancient and peculiar institution of the 
 Sabbath.* Ezekiel has been severely judged 
 because, amid the lofty teachings of his eigh- 
 teenth chapter, he dwells so strongly on one or 
 two negative and positive rules (xviii. 6-9, 11-- 
 
 (Sanhedrin, f. 44, 1.) The passage certainly shows an in- 
 tensely unfavourable view of Israel’s past, though it was 
 not meant to apply to Abraham and Sarah at all, but 
 to the heathen origin and moral affinities of the city of 
 Jerusalem. See chs. xvi., XX., Xxiii. 
 
 i The Rabbis lost themselves in frivolous discussions 
 as to whether the scene was real or not; and, if real, 
 what became of the men who were raised ! 
 
 k For the same reason Jeremiah dwells strongly on 
 the sacredness of the Sabbath (Jer. xvii. 21-27). It was 
 the strongest bulwark of the Law and national life of 
 the Jews. 
 
1094 EZEKIEL, BOOK OF 
 
 13, 15-17). The criticism is unjust, pecause 
 those rules are not meant to include all 
 morality, but are aimed at the dangers which 
 most immediately menaced the national exist- 
 ence—idolatry, impurity, greed, and unkind- 
 ness. How little the teaching of Ezekiel was 
 akin to Pharisaism may be seen in his insistence 
 on the fact that a new heart and a new spirit 
 (xxxvi. 26, 27) are not the reward of merit, but 
 the gift of God’s free love \vv. 21-23, 32, 33; 
 xvi. 62, 63; xx. 43,44). By this mixture of 
 doctrine and morality, by his thorough examina- 
 tion of the problems of sin and punishment, 
 and repentance and free grace (xviii. 32), and by 
 his reference of all questions to the will and 
 glory of God, Ezekiel has earned the title of 
 “the Paul of the Old Testament.” Further 
 than this, by his chosen title “Son of Man” and 
 its accordance with his deepest thoughts, he 
 becomes a type of Christ (Isidore, de Vit. et ob. 
 Sanct. 39). 
 
 That title was no ordinary one. It is true 
 that “son of man” is common in Scripture in 
 the sense of “man”; but the only two Prophets 
 to whom the title is given are Daniel, whois thus 
 addressed once only (Dan. viii. 17), and Ezekiel, 
 to whom the phrase is applied ninety times. It 
 is equivalent to weak mortal, and is doubtless 
 suggested by the noble language of the viiith 
 Psalm (viii. 4,5). If in one aspect it implies the 
 deep humility of the Prophet in the presence of 
 Him Who had revealed Himself as throned upon 
 the Cherubim, in another it suggests to Ezekiel 
 as to David the glory of his privilege in being 
 chosen to receive the messages of God (see i. 28; 
 iii. 23; xliii. 3; xliv. 4). [F. W. F.] 
 
 EZE’KIEL, BOOK OF. We see in his 
 Book the gradual transition from the Prophet 
 into the scribe. He is the precursor of Ezra 
 in inaugurating the religion of legalism. He 
 was neither a statesman nor a politician, but 
 resembles the figure of his own visions,—the 
 man in the white robe with the inkhorn by 
 his side (Ezek. ix.). Jeremiah, “the last great 
 Prophet, the evening star of the declining day 
 of prophecy, occupies the dividing line between 
 two ages, and without intending it closes the 
 species of entirely pure prophecy.” He points 
 to the new covenant (Jer. xxxi. 33, 34),* while 
 it was the main duty of Ezekiel to secure and 
 protect the resuscitation of the old covenant 
 until the fulness of the times. The object of 
 the “new heart and a new spirit” is ‘that 
 they may walk in My ordinances and observe 
 My statutes.” He does not, like Isaiah, look 
 mainly for new heavens and a new earth 
 (15. Ixv. 19; Ixvi. 22), but sketches a new 
 and minutely regulated national life.” It is 
 only in his denunciations that Ezekiel treads 
 in the footsteps of his prophetic predecessors ; 
 his remedies and ideals are priestly, and his 
 personal work was to a great extent of a 
 
 = Kuenen, “ Ezekiel” (Mod. Rev. p. 616, Oct. 1584), 
 φῇ xi. 20, xxxvi. 27. 
 
 b Compare Jer. iii. 16; vii. 4, 11-14, 21-23; ix. 25, 
 26; xxiv. 6, 7. Chapters xxx., xxxi. exhibit such “ ele- 
 vation of thought and expansion of horizon” that 
 Movers, Hitzig, and others have unwarrantably sup- 
 posed that they were written by “the second Isaiah” 
 (see Dr. R. Williams, The Hebrew Prophets, ii. 60). 
 
 EZEKIEL, BOOK OF 
 
 pastoral and didactic character (see xxiii. 6), 
 such as suited a period of national inaction. 
 
 I. Style—His prophetic method was very 
 varied. He furnishes instances of visions (viii.— 
 xi.), symbolic actions (iv. v. xii.), similitudes 
 (xv. xvi.), parables (xvii.), proverbs (xii, 225 
 xviii. 2), poems (xix.), allegories (xxi. xxiii. xxiv.), 
 and direct prophecies (vi. xx., &c.). Carpzoy 
 says, “Tanta ubertate et figurarum variatione 
 floret ut unus omnes prophetici sermonis nu- 
 meros ac modos explevisse, jure suo sit dicendus ” 
 (Introd. ii. pt. iii. 5). Michaelis and others talk 
 of his “ plagiarism ;” but although his language 
 is undoubtedly moulded by his early studies, it 
 shows a marked originality in form, in concep- 
 tion, and in many unique phrases, which may be 
 seen by contrasting his prophecy against Tyre 
 (xxviii.) with that of Isaiah (xxiii.). He is 
 indeed more of a writer than either a poet or 
 an orator, and his style is in general the 
 result of literary elaboration rather than of 
 spontaneous passion. ‘This is doubtless due to 
 the fact that many of his prophecies do not 
 seem to have been publicly uttered, but re- 
 corded in private. He seems to have been 
 a man of silent, meditative, and almost 
 melancholy character, and this gave to his 
 expressions the “ evenness and repose ” of which 
 Ewald speaks. The style of Ezekiel bears a 
 certain indefinable stamp of distinction and 
 self-restraint, which makes it contrast with the 
 more impassioned eloquence of his persecuted 
 contemporary, Jeremiah. On the other hand, 
 some of his symbols, images, and expressions are 
 crude and displeasing (xvi. 1-55; xxiii. passim), 
 and he is sometimes prolix from the many itera- 
 tions and recurrent formulae.t His composite 
 symbols show clear traces of the extent to 
 which his attention had been seized by the 
 strange forms of art by which he was sur- 
 rounded amid the temples and palaces of Babylon. 
 The attempt to interpret these by painting 
 taxed the highest powers even of an Albrecht 
 Diirer and a Raphael. These symbols furnish 
 an almost unique phenomenon in Semitic litera- 
 ture, and one which can only be explained by 
 recent familiarity with Aryan surroundings. 
 But Ezekiel shows in the combination of these 
 diverse elements a daring imagination and an 
 architectonic skill. They have exercised a 
 strong fascination over the minds of thinkers. 
 St. Gregory of Nazianzus (Or. 23) calls Ezekiel 
 the loftiest and most wonderful of all Prophets, 
 6 τῶν μεγάλων ἐποπτὴς καὶ ἐξηγήτης μυστηρίων 
 (see Carpzov, Introd. i. 192), and Herder de- 
 scribes him as the Aeschylus and Shakspeare of 
 the Hebrews. Schiller wished that he had 
 learnt Hebrew mainly because he wished to read 
 Ezekiel in his own language. Hiavernick is 
 perhaps too enthusiastic in speaking of “ his glow 
 of divine indignation,” and the “torrent of his 
 eloquence resting on a combination of power 
 and consistency, the one as unwearied as the 
 
 ¢ To speak of him as probably “ afflicted by a chronic 
 nervous malady ” (Stud. uw. Krit. 1877) is quite to exceed 
 the limits of legitimate conjecture. 
 
 ἃ Duhm (Die Theol. ἃ. Propheten) contrasts him un- 
 favourably both with Jeremiah and the later Isaiah, but 
 the difference between them does not necessarily prove 
 inferiority. The work as well as the style of Ezekiel 
 was of another order from that of his predecessors. 
 
a SS 
 
 EZEKIEL, BOOK OF 
 
 other is imposing.” St. Jerome, on the other 
 hand, writes too coldly when he says, ‘Sermo 
 ejus nec satis disertus nec admodum rusticus, 
 sed ex utroque genere medie temperatur” 
 (Praef. in Ezech.). Among the most splendid 
 passages are ch, i., the prophecy against Tyrus 
 (xxvi.-xxviii.) ; that against Assyria, ‘ the 
 noblest monument of Eastern history ” (xxxi.) ; 
 and ch. viii., the account of what he saw in the 
 Temple-porch, 
 
 ——* when, by the vision led, 
 His eye surveyed the dark idolatries 
 Of alienated Judah.”—Mrton, Par. Lost, i. 
 
 The depth of his matter, and the marvellous 
 nature of his visions, make him occasionally 
 obscure, but chiefly in passages which were 
 designedly shrouded in enigmatic language (e.g. 
 xxi, and xxxix.), His prophecy was placed by 
 the Jews among the }'tJ3 (treasures), those por- 
 tions of Scripture which (like the early part of 
 Genesis and the Canticles) were not allowed to 
 be read till the age of 30 (Jer. Ep. ad Lustoch. ; 
 Orig. proem. homil. iv. in Cantic.; Hottinger, 
 Thes. Phil, ii, 1,3). Hence Jerome compares 
 the “inextricabilis error” of his writings to 
 Virgil’s labyrinth (‘‘Oceanus Scripturarum, 
 mysteriorumque Dei labyrinthus”), and also to 
 the catacombs. The Jews classed him in the 
 very highest rank of Prophets. ‘The Sanhedrin 
 is said to have hesitated long whether his Book 
 should form part of the Canon, from its occa- 
 sional obscurity, and from its supposed contra- 
 dictions to the Law (xviii, 20-xx. 5, xxxiv. 7; 
 Jer. xxxii. 18). But in point of fact these 
 apparent oppositions are the mere expression of 
 truths complementary to each other, as Moses 
 himself might have taught them (Deut. xxiv. 
 16). Although, generally speaking, comments 
 on this book were forbidden, R. Ananias under- 
 took to reconcile the supposed differences.° 
 Spinoza, Zract. Theol. Polit. ii. 27, partly from 
 these considerations, inferred that the present 
 Book is made up of mere fragments, but his 
 argument from its commencing with a}, and 
 from the expression in i. 3 above alluded to, 
 hardly needs refutation. 
 
 Il. Unity.—As to the unity of the Book there 
 has never been any serious question. Josephus 
 indeed (Antt. x. 5, § 1) has the following pas- 
 sage: ov μόνον δὲ οὗτος (Jeremiah) προεθέσπισε 
 ταῦτα ἀλλὰ καὶ ὁ προφήτης ᾿Ιεζεκίηλος [és] 
 πρῶτος περὶ τουτῶν δύο βίβλια γράψας κατέλιπεν. 
 The undoubted meaning seems to be that Lzehiel 
 (although Eichhorn on various grounds applies 
 the word to Jeremiah) left two books of pro- 
 phecy ; which is also stated by Zonaras, and the 
 Latin translation of Athanasius, where, after 
 mentioning other lost books, and two of Ezekiel, 
 the writer continues, “Nunc vero jam unum 
 duntaxat inveniri scimus. Itaque haec omnia 
 per impiorum Judaeorum amentiam et incuriam 
 periisse manifestum est”? (Synops. p. 136, but 
 the passage does not occur in the Greek). In 
 
 e “Revere the memory of Hananiah ben Hizkiah, for 
 had it not been for him the Book of Ezekiel would have 
 been suppressed, because it contradicts the Law. By the 
 help of 300 bottles of oil he prolonged his studies till he 
 reconciled all the discrepancies” (Shabbath, f. 13, 2). 
 Rashi refers to Ezek. xliv..31, xlv. 20, as passages which 
 seem to contradict the Law. 
 
 EZEKIEL, BOOK OF 1035 
 
 confirmation of this view (which is held by 
 Maldonatus and others) some have referred to pas- 
 sages quoted in Clem. Alex. Paedag. i. 10, § 91, 
 ἐν ᾧ εὕρω σε ἐν αὐτῷ καὶ κρινῶ oe: and again, 
 τέτοκεν καὶ οὐ τέτοκεν φησὶν ἣ γραφή Cid. 
 Strom. vii. 16, § 93). ‘Tertullian says, * Legimus 
 apud Ezechielem de vacci illi quae peperit et 
 | non peperit ᾿ (de Carn. Christi, § 23; ep. Epi- 
 phan. Haeres. xxx. 30), and refers the supposed 
 prophecy to the Virgin Mary. The attempt to 
 identify it with Job xxi. 10 can hardly be 
 maintained. ‘That these passages (quoted by 
 Fabricius, Cod. Pseudepigr. Vet. Test. § 221) 
 can come from a lost genuine book is extremely 
 ‘improbable, since we know from the Talmud 
 the extraordinary care with which the later 
 Jews guarded the λόγια ζῶντα. They may 
 indeed come from a lost apocryphal book, al- 
 though we find no other trace of its existence 
 (Sixtus Sen. bibl. Sanct. ii. 61). Le Moyne 
 (Var. Sacra, ii. p. 332 sq.) thinks that they 
 undoubtedly belong to some, collection of tradi- 
 tionary Jewish apophthegms, such as those 
 which are preserved in Pirke Aboth, or the “ chap- 
 ters of the fathers.” Just in the same way we 
 find certain ἄγραφα δόγματα attributed to our 
 Lord by the Fathers, and even by the Apostles 
 (Acts xx. 35), on which see a monograph by 
 Kuinoel. The simplest supposition about the 
 passage in Josephus is either to assume that he 
 is in error, or to admit a former division of 
 Ezekiel into two books at ch. xxv., or possibly 
 at ch. xxxix. Le Moyne adopts the latter view, 
 and supports it by analogous cases. ‘There is 
 nothing which militates against it in the fact 
 that Josephus mentions δύο μόνα καὶ εἴκοσι 
 βίβλια (ὁ. Apion. i. 22) as forming the Canon. 
 III. Genwineness. — Of the genuineness of 
 the Book of Ezekiel there has never been any 
 serious doubt. It is true that in Baba Bathra, 
 f. 15, 1, we are told that “the men of the 
 Great Synagogue wrote the Book of Ezekiel, the 
 Twelve Minor Prophets, the Book of Daniel, 
 and the Book of Esther,’ where Rashi says 
 that “the men of the Great Synagogue were 
 Haggai, Malachi, Zerubbabel, Mordecai, and 
 their associates.” But “the Great Synagogue ” 
 is by many considered a purely unhistorical body, 
 and it is clear that ‘‘ wrote” can only mean 
 “edited.” It has indeed been rashly supposed 
 by Oeder, Vogel, and a writer in the Monthly 
 Magazine (1798) that the last nine chapters are 
 a spurious addition to the Book, and it has even 
 been suggested that they were written by some 
 Samaritan author to induce the Jews to permit 
 the co-operation of the Samaritans in the build- 
 ing of the Second Temple! Corrodi also doubted 
 the genuineness of chs. xxxviiil. and xxxix. 
 It.is needless to enter into the very slight show 
 ot-argument which was advanced in favour of 
 these views, because they have long been aban- 
 doned. Zunz went further ((ottesdienstl. 
 Vortr. p. 1833; Gesamm. Schriften, i. 217), and 
 impugned the genuineness of the whole Book, 
 which he believed to have been written between 
 p.c. 440 and B.c. 400. He argued (1) from 
 the specific character of some of the predictions 
 (e.g. xvii. 10; xxiv. 2sq.); (2) from the im- 
 possibility of believing that in B.c. 570 Ezekiel 
 should have dreamed of suggesting a new set of 
 laws, a new kind of Temple, and a new division 
 | of the Holy Land; (3) from the absence of any 
 
1036 
 
 allusion to Ezekiel in the Books of Jeremiah and 
 Esther; (4) from the allusions to Daniel 
 (xiv. 14); (5) from certain grammatical and 
 linguistic peculiarities. In answer to these 
 objections of a sincere and learned author we 
 may reply generally that, even if we allow 
 the purely ἃ priori objection to specific predic- 
 tions, they would only prove at the outside that 
 Ezekiel had edited his Book as a literary whole 
 towards the end of his life. The views of the 
 ancients and the moderns about literary methods 
 differed widely, and the addition of subsequent 
 touches may have been in no disaccord with the 
 customs of an undeveloped literature, and the 
 conditions under which the Book was made 
 public. 
 
 Such is the suggestion of Ewald and Kuenen ;‘ 
 and although it cannot be proved, and therefore 
 need not be accepted, it would be absurd to view 
 such circumstances from a modern standpoint, 
 or to attribute such subsequent editing to 
 literary fraud. The second objection of Zunz 
 must be treated separately. The third is a 
 mere argumentum e silentio, which, as has been 
 proved again and again by the most decisive 
 instances, has no validity at all, either in ancient 
 or modern days. The fourth objection does not 
 seem to have any intrinsic weight, and is of too 
 vague a character to be dealt with. The fifth 
 again has no validity because the conditions of 
 the Exile are quite sufficient to account for many 
 linguistic phenomena, and because it is far from 
 improbable that some of these linguistic pecu- 
 liarities may be due to a text which is regarded 
 by many scholars as being the most corrupt in 
 the Old Testament. 
 
 IV. Contents.—That Ezekiel was the editor 
 as well as the author of the Book is admitted 
 equally by Ewald, Keil, Kuenen, and nearly all 
 other inquirers. The prophecies are arranged 
 according to a definite plan. The Book is 
 divided into two great parts, separated from each 
 other by the destruction of Jerusalem. The 
 
 EZEKIEL, BOOK OF 
 
 f According to the headings of the prophecies, chs. 
 ivii. were delivered in the fifth year of Jehoiachin’s 
 captivity ; viii.—xix. in the sixth year; xx.—xxiii. in the 
 seventh year; xxiv. in the ninth year. If those head- 
 ings apply to the entire contents of each chapter, 
 Ezekiel distinctly predicted the peculiar fate of Zede- 
 kiah (xii. 13), and the particulars of the siege and fall 
 of Jerusalem. Kuenen argues that ch. xvii. could 
 not have been written in the sixth year of Jehoiachin’s 
 captivity, because Zedekiah had not then actually re- 
 volted, nor could he at that time have made a covenant 
 with Egypt, since Egypt is not mentioned in Jer. 
 xxvii. 3. He also thinks that xxi. 20-32 could not 
 have been written in B.c. 591, because “the reproach of 
 the Ammonites” (xxv. 1-7) could not bave been 
 uttered till after the fall of Jerusalem and the profana- 
 tion of the sanctuary. Hence he argues that Ezekiel 
 “did not trouble himself about scrupulous accuracy in 
 the literary reproduction of his spoken prophecies” 
 (Prophets, p. 328, E. T.). His view is that Ezekiel’s 
 slight subsequent additions to what he had previously 
 written or delivered did not in any way militate with 
 ancient and Eastern conceptions of literary good faith. 
 Reuss (Les Prophétes, ii. 1-12) goes even farther, and 
 supposes that the first twenty-four chapters were merely 
 written from an ideal standpoint anterior to the ruin of 
 the Temple. The manner in which Ezekiel, in xxix. 
 17-21, professedly modifies and supplements without 
 altering his original prophecy against Tyre, is wholly 
 unlike the editing process suggested by these critics, and 
 so far tells against their view. 
 
 EZEKIEL, BOOK OF 
 
 first division consists of chs. i.-xxiv. ; the second 
 of chs. xxy.-xlviii. So marked is the division 
 that the close of the twenty-fourth chapter 
 marks the exact half of the Book. There are 
 also marked differences between the general 
 character of these great divisions. The first 
 section is mainly characterised by threats of 
 judgment; the second section by promises of 
 deliverance, the idea of which is also involved in 
 the threats against heathen nations. The Book 
 may also be divided chronologically into three 
 sections, viz.:—l. The prophecies before the 
 fall of Jerusalem (i.-xxiv.); 2. Those delivered 
 during the siege (xxv.-xxxii.); 3. Those deli- 
 vered after the beginning of the final captivity 
 (xxxiii—xlviii.). Ezekiel himself gives fourteen 
 dates for his groups of prophecies—namely, 
 those delivered in the fifth year of Jehoiachin’s 
 captivity (i—vii.) ; in the sixth year (viii—xix.) ; 
 in the seventh year (xx.—xxiii.); in the ninth 
 year (xxiv. xxv.); in the tenth year (xxix. 
 1-16); in the eleventh year (xxvi.—xxvili, ; xxx. 
 20-263; xxxi.); in the twelfth year (xxxii., and 
 perhaps xxxv.—xxxix.); in the twenty-fifth year 
 (xl.-xlviii.); in the twenty-seventh year (xxix. 
 17-xxx. 1-—20)." 
 
 1. Looking yet more closely at the structure 
 of the Book, we find that the first great section 
 is composed of—I. The glorious vision which 
 inaugurated the Prophet’s work (i. ii. iii.). 
 lI. The general carrying out of his commission 
 (iii.-vii.) by various symbolic actions (iy. y.) 5 
 by the rebuke of idolatry (vi.); and the threat 
 of the final doom of. Judah (vii.). III. Details 
 of the profanation of the Temple by idolatry, 
 and of the consequent judgment which shall 
 come upon Jerusalem (viii—xi.). 1V. Further 
 rebukes of the special sins of the age, inter- 
 spersed with exhortations to repentance, and 
 threats of punishment (xii—xix.). V. The 
 imminence of the doom, and renewed denuncia- 
 tion of the crimes by which it had been pre- 
 cipitated (xx.—xxiii.). VI. The significance of 
 the now-commencing punishment (xxiv.). 
 
 2. The next section (xxv.—xxxii.) is composed 
 of seven oracles against Ammon, Moab, Edom, 
 the Philistines, and Sidon,‘ together with the 
 long and magnificent philippics agaiust Tyre 
 (xxvi.-xxviii, 19) and Egypt (xxix.—xxxii.) ; 
 which, as the Prophet explains (xxviii. 24-26), 
 are intended as a source of consolation to Israel. 
 They were delivered during the eighteen months 
 of the siege. Between the beginning of the 
 siege and the destruction of the Temple the 
 Prophet has no direct message to his country- 
 men; and some have even understood xxiy. 27, 
 xxix. 21, xxxiii. 22 (cp. iii. 26) in the sense 
 that during the progress of the siege he was 
 actually dumb or silent, and that this accounts 
 for the parenthetic character of these chapters.* 
 
 & It need hardly be said that the division of the Book 
 into actual chapters did not take place until centuries 
 after the days of Ezekiel. 
 
 h xxix. 17 sq. is a postscript to modify what had beem 
 said about the sack of Tyre in xxvi. See infra. 
 
 i The comparatively insignificant Sidon (xxviii. 20-23) 
 would perhaps hardly have been included among these 
 denunciations except from the mystic significance 
 attached to the number seven. 
 
 k The real or ideal dumbness was removed ‘‘in the 
 twelfth year of our captivity” (xxxiii. 21), but in this 
 passage the Peshitto reads “ eleventh,” and is followed 
 
‘| 
 
 EZEKIEL, BOOK OF 
 
 In this section one paregraph (xxix. 17-21) is 
 placed out of its proper chronological order, 
 having been uttered in the twenty-seventh year 
 of the captivity of Jehoiachin, and therefore 
 being the latest of all the prophecies of which 
 Ezekiel himself furnishes a date. It was added 
 seventeen years after the general prophecy 
 against Tyre, and may perhaps serve to explain 
 circumstances about the siege which had not 
 originally come into the sphere of the Prophet’s 
 vision, and of which the details are not accu- 
 rately known to us. 
 
 , 3. The third section consists of eight oracles 
 delivered after the fall of Jerusalem. They are 
 more directly full of hope and consolation. The 
 thirty-fourth chapter contains the reproof of the 
 shepherds that feed themselves, and the thirty- 
 fifth is the judgment of Mount Seir. The 
 thirty-seventh contains the splendid vision in 
 which, under the image of the dry bones in the 
 valley, Ezekiel not only encourages his people 
 to believe in the possibility of their restoration, 
 but also foreshadows, more nearly than any of his 
 predecessors, the great doctrine of the resurrec- 
 tion of the body. The thirty-eighth and thirty- 
 ninth chapters contain in four divisions the 
 prophecy against Gog and Magog. This general 
 picture of God’s judgments is no doubt partly 
 intended, like Rev. xx. 7-10, in which it is 
 imitated, to indicate the final conflict and over- 
 throw of the powers of evil, but may also be 
 meant to indicate in a cryptographic manner 
 the doom of Babylon. This would account for 
 the obscurity of the prophecy, and the sort of 
 apocalyptic twilight in which it is enveloped. 
 
 4, The last section contains nine chapters 
 
 (x1.-xlviii.) whieh have suggested many difficul- 
 ties, and have been explained in widely different 
 manners. They fall into three sections. The 
 first (xl.—xliii.) minutely describes the construc- 
 tion of the Temple; the second (xliv.—xlvi.) the 
 relation of different classes to the Temple and 
 its service; the third (xlvii. xlviii.) the blessing 
 which streams from the Temple, and its position 
 in the redistributed territories of the land. On 
 
 the way in which we understand this section | 
 
 depends our apprehension of the whole work 
 and mind of Ezekiel, and of the remarkable 
 position which he occupies in Jewish history. 
 Of the general views respecting these chapters 
 some may be dismissed at once and finally. 1. 
 lt is certain that they are not historical, for 
 the details differ absolutely from the details of 
 Solomon’s Temple, as well as from those of the 
 second and of Herod’s Temple, 2. It is equally 
 certain, in spite of such isolated expressions as 
 xliii. 10, xly. 1, &c., that they could never have 
 been meant to be Jiterally carried out, for they 
 abound in impossibilities on every page, and all 
 commentators alike are compelled to admit that 
 there can be nothing literal in the vision of the 
 holy waters (xlvii. 1-12). 3. The attempt to 
 give them a future applicability lands us in the 
 cabsurd conclusion that there is to be a millennial 
 retrogression from Christianity to the “ weak and 
 beggarly elements” of Jewish bondage. 4. All 
 endeavours to explain them allegorically or 
 symbolically have hopelessly failed, because, 
 
 ‘by some MSS., as also by Ewald, Hitzig, Kuenen, and 
 others. Jerusalem was taken in the eleventh year of 
 Zedekiah’s reign (Jer. li. 5-12), 
 
 EZEKIEL, BOOK OF 1037 
 
 | although such meaning may be attached to some 
 of the numbers and arrangements, they cannot 
 be applied without the utmost arbitrariness to 
 the great mass of minute particulars. 5. Hence 
 | there can be no reasonable doubt that in this, as 
 in the previous vision of Gog and Magog, and 
 indeed by a literary method which prevails 
 throughout his Book, Ezekiel is simply clothing 
 general views and conceptions in elaborate and 
 concrete forms. It is clear from his appeal to 
 direct Divine sanction (xliii. 10, 11) that he is 
 not indulging in an objectless play of fancy ; and 
 indeed his general views and enactments, as 
 Reuss truly says, were not without influence on 
 subsequent legislation. Nevertheless in these 
 eight oracles we are evidently moving in the 
 region of a pure Utopia, and dealing only with 
 an imaginative composition! That this ideal 
 picture was incapable of realisation may be seen 
 | from the facts that (a) it sets at defiance the 
 geography of the Holy Land,™ and the entire 
 circumstances of the returning exiles. (8) The 
 Temple with its precincts is a mile square, or 
 larger than all Jerusalem, and yet is on the top 
 of amountain. (1) It is also placed nine and a 
 half miles from the utmost bound of the city, 
 and more than fourteen miles from its centre. 
 (5) If equal strips of land were, in defiance of 
 all principles of justice, assigned to the twelve 
 tribes, the Temple could have nothing to do with 
 Zion, and would be well on the road to Samaria.” 
 (e) The “ oblation” (xly. 1) of holy land for the 
 sanctuary cannot by any possibility be brought 
 into the limits assigned for Palestine (xlvii. 15- 
 21). (ὦ The distribution of lands to the tribes, 
 besides its other incongruities, directly contra- 
 dicts the prediction of Obadiah v. 19. (7) The 
 land assigned to the support of the Temple and 
 its sacrifices is wholly inadequate, and yet the 
 enormous size of the area set apart for the 
 Temple itself leaves no room for some of the 
 tribes in the districts marked out for them. It 
 
 | may therefore be regarded as unquestionable 
 that all the concrete imagery is but the literary 
 development of a free ideal. 
 But what was the object of the Prophet in 
 this idea]? The answer is that it represents in 
 concentrated form the view which he held of 
 his entire mission. The famous nine chapters 
 were written with the same kind of object as 
 Plato’s Republic, Sir Thomas More’s Utopia, 
 Bacon’s New Atlantis, Campanella’s Civitas 
 Solis, Harington’s Oceana, and Fénelon’s Salent. 
 They clothe in concrete forms, which were never 
 meant for actual] realisation, Ezekiel’s conceptions 
 as to the future development of the theocracy, 
 and they are therefore to be regarded as being,’ 
 from his point of view, the crown and flower of, 
 all his work. He saw that it was God’s will: 
 that the future of Israel should differ widely 
 
 1 Hence the views of Ezekiel are not once alluded to 
 in the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, or in the prophecies 
 of Haggai and Zechariah. 
 
 m The Transjordanic territory is excluded. The re- 
 mainder of the strip assigued to the Holy City is 
 divided between the priests of the house of Zadok, the 
 other Levites, and the prince (xlviii.). 
 
 n The peculiar order of the tribes, in which Reuben is 
 inserted between Ephraim and Judah (xlviii. 6, 7), was 
 ideally intended to counteract the tendency of Ephraim 
 to vex Judah, and Judah to envy Ephraim (Is, xi. 13). 
 
1088 EZEKIEL, BOOK OF 
 
 from the past, and that practical securities must 
 be devised against the danger of a national 
 relapse into former idolatries. He saw that 
 those securities could best be provided in the 
 then condition of his people by the development 
 of an elaborate system of ritual. A priest by 
 birth, by training, and by all his sympathies, he 
 was also taught by the logic of events and the 
 revelation of God, that hereafter the Temple 
 and its service must occupy a different and more 
 important position than it had done during the 
 whole period since the Exodus. It was intended 
 to fulfil the function of a necessary education to 
 the Jews until the fulness of the time should 
 come. They were to be reminded by every de- 
 tail of worship that they were a peculiar people. 
 The Temple was to be the centre and symbol of 
 their life. That’Temple could not be rich with 
 treasures of gold and silver, like the Temple of 
 Solomon, but (ideally) it was to be built with 
 elaborate and symbolic symmetry, and isolated 
 in the centre of an immense domain, and to be 
 made the scene of continuous and solemn sacri- 
 fices. The king or prince was no longer to 
 claim the prominent functions with regard to it 
 which he had previously usurped, but was to be 
 surrounded with safecuards against the tempta- 
 tions to oppression (xlv. 7, 8), and was to employ 
 his revenues to supply the priests with sacrifices 
 (αν. 16,17). The feasts and the offerings are 
 carefully specified. The whole system is to be 
 placed under the charge of a special order, the 
 priests of the family of Zadok, who are to be 
 the exclusive guardians of the sacred precincts. 
 The aim of the code is “holiness” in the sense 
 of consecrated separation (Lev. xix. 2): “the 
 holy mount surrounded by the holy territory of 
 the priests; the holy house upon the holy 
 mount; the holy men to serve the holy house.” 
 In other words, the state is practically to be 
 transformed into a Church, and the theocracy is 
 to assume the form of a monocracy under the 
 administration of scribes and people. 
 
 V. Ezekiel and Leviticus—We have now to 
 consider the modern theories respecting these 
 chapters, which at the present time form one of 
 the most debated problems of the Old Testament. 
 
 The resemblances between Ezekiel and Ley. 
 Xvii.-xxvi. are of the most remarkable character, 
 and it cannot be for a moment denied that there 
 is some connexion between the two Books. A 
 similarity so close can only have arisen in one of 
 four ways: (1) Either Ezekiel borrowed largely 
 from the Book of Leviticus; or (2) those chapters 
 of the Book of Leviticus are a later addition to 
 the Pentateuch by authors who borrowed largely 
 from the Book of Ezekiel; or (3) both are alike 
 influenced in large measure by some common 
 source ; or (4) both were written by the same 
 author. 
 
 The last conclusion (4) is that of Graf (Die 
 Gesch. Biicher des Alten Testamentes, 1866, pp. 
 81-83), whose theory was laboriously supported 
 by Bishop Colenso (Pentateuch, pt. vi. ch. i. ii.).° 
 Kayser, in the main, maintained the same views 
 
 © He held that Ezekiel wrote Lev. xxvi., and possibly 
 Ley. xviii.-xx.; but, seeing the many expressions not 
 found in Ezekiel which occur in Lev. xxiii., xxiv., xxv., 
 xxvii., he thought that others of the last ten chapters of 
 Leviticus were written either by Ezekiel or by a writer 
 or writers who stood in close relation to him. 
 
 EZEKIEL, BOOK OF 
 
 (Jahrb. f. prot. Theol. 1881, pp. 541 sq.), by 
 eliminating from the chapters certain elements 
 which he regarded as Elohistic. The argu- 
 ment in favour of this opinion loses nearly all 
 its force when side by side with the verbal 
 resemblances we observe the differences between 
 the systems of the two Books. Those differences 
 are most striking. Thus Ezekiel ignores the 
 existence of a high-priest, unless it be very 
 indirectly implied in xli. 3. It is still more 
 strange that he ignores the Day of Atonement, 
 the Feast of Pentecost, and the New Moons, and 
 says nothing of an evening sacrifice (xlvi, 13— 
 15) or of the Paschal Lamb. He also changes 
 many other details of the Law as laid down in 
 the Pentateuch, as for instance in the ritual of 
 the Feast of Tabernacles (xlv. 25: ep. Num. 
 xxix. 12-24, 35; Ley. xxiii. 56, 39. Compare 
 also Ezek. xliv. 20; Lev. xxi. 5; Ezek. xliv. 22; 
 Ley. xxi. 7, 18, 14, &c.).P Accordingly this 
 theory is rejected by Klostermann, Zeitschr. f. 
 luther. Theol. 1877, pp. 401 5ᾳ.: Wellhausen, 
 Einl. in d. A. T., Von Bleek, 1878, p. 173; 
 Reuss, L’ Hist. Sainte et la Loi, p. 253; Smend, 
 Die Proph. Ezekiel erklart. p. xxvii. ; Delitzsch, 
 Zeitsch, f. kirchl. Wiss. 1880, xii. 618; and 
 Kuenen, De Godsdienst von Israel, ii. 94-96. 
 The theory has however been again taken up 
 by Horst, who in his Zev. xvii—xxvi. und 
 Hezekiel argues that the last nine chapters of 
 Ezekiel were written by the Prophet long after 
 the chapters in Leviticus, and in his prophetic 
 capacity, while the Priestly-codex, as the section 
 of Leviticus is often called, had been not so 
 much written as compiled by him twenty-five 
 years earlier from existing documents. 
 
 The first hypothesis—that Ezekiel borrowed 
 largely from the Book of Leviticus—is the one 
 adopted by Klostermann (/. c.);  Dillmann, 
 Komm. Ex. Levit., who, however, admits the 
 possibility of additions to Leviticus at the time 
 of the Exile and later; Hoffmann, Magazin f. d. 
 Wissensch. des Judenth., 1879, pp. 209-215; 
 Noldeke, Zur Kritik des A. T., pp. 67-71, and 
 Delitzsch, Pent. kritische Stud., p. 620.9% It is 
 in favour of this opinion that, so far as phrase- 
 ology is concerned, Ezekiel is not an original 
 writer, for he borrows very largely from Amos, 
 Hosea, Isaiah, Zephaniah, and above all Jeremiah. 
 If this hypothesis be true, the extent of Ezekiel’s 
 indebtedness still remains a remarkable problem, 
 especially since many of the words and expres- 
 sions are unique. Against these must indeed 
 be set a certain number of peculiarities and 
 differences. Hoffmann uses these as a proof that 
 Ezekiel could not have written the Priest- 
 codex, because in it there are none of the 
 
 P On the many differences between Ezekiel and the 
 Mosaic Law and later custom, see Professor Gardiner 
 *©on Ezekiel and the Law,” Journ. of Soc. of Bibl. Lit., 
 June 1881. Strack, in his article on the Pentateuch 
 (Herzog, R#.* xi.), argues further that the mention of 
 the year of Jubilee in Lev. xxv. 8, and of the Urim and 
 Thummim in Lev. viii. 8, is inconsistent with the theory 
 that the main part of the Levitic legislation is of post- 
 Exilian origin. See Edersheim, Prophecy and History, 
 1885, pp. 270-273. 
 
 4 See the long list of parallels in Smend’s Commentary, 
 pp.xxiy.,xxv. Hoffmann shows that no less than eighty- 
 one passages in this section of Leviticus have eighty- 
 three parallels in Ezekiel, so that one of the writers 
 must haye seen the other. 
 
κι 
 
 EZEKIEL, BOOK OF 
 
 approximations to the language of older writers 
 which are found in the prophecy; and also 
 because in the Priest-codex the parallels are to 
 the language of Ezekiel only, and not to the 
 phrases which he has in common with Deu- 
 teronomy and Jeremiah. Full weight must be 
 allowed to these considerations, but it still 
 remains difficult to account for the circumstance 
 that Ezekiel should have written a Book of 
 forty-eight chapters, and should have singled 
 out from the whole Pentateuch one small section, 
 and especially one isolated chapter (Ley. xxvi.), 
 for such deep study as to have become thoroughly 
 saturated with its style and expressions, and to 
 have borrowed from‘ one chapter nearly fifty 
 expressions, of which eighteen occur nowhere 
 else in the Bible.* 
 
 The second hypothesis (2)—that the Priestly- 
 codex is in reality later than Ezekiel and 
 partially founded on him—is, with trivial varia- 
 tions, that of Wellhausen, Kuenen, Smend, Reuss, 
 Lagarde, Stade, and Robertson Smith. Their 
 opinion is that the Book of Deuteronomy was in 
 the main the Book found—or, as they would say, 
 produced—by the high-priest Hilkiah in the 
 reign of Josiah, and that the chapters in Leviti- 
 cus are a modification of Ezekiel’s preparatory 
 and ideal scheme. They consider that the 
 Prophet meant his Torah to be a sketch for the 
 ritual of the Restoration, which was to supersede 
 the old and corrupt usage of the Temple (alii. 
 
 . 7; xliv. 5; xlv. 8, 9), and which was to be at 
 
 once ἃ reward for the repentance of his country- 
 men and a scheme to protect them from again 
 falling into like sins (Rob. Smith, The Prophets 
 of the Old Testament, pp. 374-387). The 
 essence of this new ideal is its sacerdotalism, in 
 that it gives prominence to an atoning ritual, 
 and puts an end to the sacrifices of individual 
 Israelites. This it effects partly by a stated 
 national sacrifice, and partly by separating the 
 worshippers from the sacrifices by ‘‘a double 
 cordon of priests and Levites.” The Levitical 
 legislation, according to this view, is but a 
 practical adaptation of Ezekiel’s essential prin- 
 ciples to the actual circumstances of the second 
 Temple, when Jews were no longer a free people 
 but a religious community. In the so-called 
 “Priestly Codex” of Leviticus the nation be- 
 comes “the congregation;” the civil order is 
 almost absorbed in the ecclesiastical ; the State 
 becomes a Church; the old prophetic ideal be- 
 comes a sacerdotal ideal.* Ezekiel’s last nine 
 chapters are regarded as the modification of an 
 old priestly Torah, and Ley. xvii-xxvi. as a 
 practical adaptation of this Torah, but with the 
 re-admission of many ancient ordinances. On 
 this hypothesis Ley. xxvi. is considered to be 
 an intentional imitation of the style and manner 
 of Ezekiel. For criticism of this view, we must 
 refer to the paper of Prof. Gardiner already 
 quoted. No literary question seems more diffi- 
 cult on ἃ priori grounds than the decision as to 
 which of two writers has borrowed from the 
 
 τ See Horst, p.85; Colenso, vi. 9. The argument from 
 the use of hapax legomena is, however, always pre- 
 carious. See Stanley Leathes, Witness of the Old Test. 
 to Christ, p. 282 sq. ᾿ 
 
 5. See the view developed in Prof. J. E. Carpenter’s 
 “Through the Prophets to the Law,” Modern Rev., Jan. 
 1884, 
 
 1039 
 
 other. For instance, every fresh critic takes a 
 different view of the obvious relations between 
 the Epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians, 
 and between St. Jude and 2 Pet. ii.; and quite 
 recently there have been opposite opinions as to 
 whether the Epistle of Barnabas borrows from 
 the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles or vice 
 versd. All that can be regarded as certain in 
 this instance is that there is some direct rela- 
 tion between the two sections of Ezekiel and 
 Leviticus. Writers like Hoffmann and Kalisch, 
 among others, adopt the third hypothesis (3), 
 that both alike are founded on an older work ; 
 but no one could compare such paragraphs as 
 Ley. xxvi, 30-33 with Ezek. vi. 3-7, or again 
 Lev. xxvi. with Ezek. xxxiv. 25-31, without a 
 strong conviction that one of the writers must 
 have actually seen the existing work of the 
 other. The questions here suggested cannot be 
 regarded as finally settled, but meanwhile we 
 may see as clearly as Luther did centuries ago, 
 that the authorship of this or that section of the 
 Pentateuch is a matter to be decided (as alone 
 it can be decided) by simple criticism, and that 
 it lies altogether out of the domain of religion. 
 
 There are no direct quotations from Ezekiel 
 in the New Testament, but in the Apocalypse 
 there are many parallels and obvious allusions 
 to the later chapters. A useful list of these 
 will be found in Dr. Currey’s Commentary 
 (Speaker’s Commentary, vi. 12-16). 
 
 The Vision of Ezekiel (‘The Chariot”) be- 
 came one of the chief studies of the Kabbalists, 
 and the repetition of it was supposed to be 
 surrounded with perils. The Talmud tells us of 
 a child who was trying to comprehend Chasmal 
 (A. V. “amber,” Ezek. i. 4), when a fire came 
 out of the Chasmal and consumed him (Chagiga, 
 f. 13, 1). Many other wonderful circumstances 
 about the NIDWD are narrated in the same 
 treatise, and in f. 11, 2, that there were four 
 questions relating to it into which, if a man 
 pried, ‘‘ it were better for him that he had never 
 been born.” See, too, Sukka, f. 28, 1, and 
 Klein, Le Judaisme, p. 32. 
 
 The text of Ezekiel is considered to be the 
 most corrupt in the Old Testament except that 
 of the books of Samuel. It may often be con- 
 jecturally emended from the general character 
 of the prophet’s style, and sometimes from the 
 renderings of the LXX., though many of the 
 various readings are obviously older than that 
 Version. Some are due to glosses and manipu- 
 lations of later scribes, especially in chs. xl.—xlviii, 
 See Smend, Der Proph. Ezechiel, p. xxix. 
 
 VI. Bibliography.— The chief commentators 
 on this “most neglected of the prophets” are, 
 among the Fathers, Origen, Jerome, and Theo- 
 doret ; among the Jews, Rabbis David Qimchi 
 and Abarbanel ; among the Reformers, Oecolam- 
 padius and Calvin; among Romanists, Pradus 
 and Villalpandus. There are modern commen- 
 taries by Marck (1731), Venema (1790), New- 
 come, Greenhill, Fairbairn (1851), Kliefoth 
 (1856), Henderson, Hivernick (1843), Hitzig 
 (1847), Hengstenberg (1867), Keil (1868), 
 Smend? (1880), Schréder (in Lange’s Bibelwerh), 
 Cornill (1886), and Orelli (in Strack u. Zéckler’s 
 gf. Komm., 1888). In the Speaker’s Commen- 
 tary (1876) the Book is edited by Dr. Currey ; 
 in Bishop Ellicott’s Commentary (1884), by Dr. 
 Gardiner. 
 
 EZEKIEL, BOOK OF 
 
1010 
 
 Besides these commentaries, we may refer to 
 Carpzov, Jntrod. iv. 203 sq.; Kayser, Jahrb. 7. 
 prot. Theol., 1881; Klostermann, Zeitschr. f. 
 
 EZEL, THE STONE 
 
 luther. Theol., 1877; Delitasch, Zeitschr. f. 
 hirchl. Wissensch., 1880; Hofimann, Magazin 
 
 f.d. Wissensch. d. Judenth., 1879, pp. 210-215 ; 
 Ewald, Die Propheten d. Alten Bundes (2nd ed. 
 1868), and Geschichte des Volkes Israel, iv. 3 
 Kuenen, Die Profeten, and De Godsdienst von 
 Israel, ii.; Duhm, Die ZLheologie der Propheten, 
 1875; Zunz, Gottesdienstliche Vertrdéye, and 
 Gesammelte Schriften, 1875; Graf, Die G eschicht- 
 liche Biicher des Alten Bundes, 1866; Noldeke, 
 Zur Kritik d. A. Test., pp. 67-713; Colenso, 
 Pentatcuch and Book of Joshua, part vi. 1872; 
 Wellhausen, Proleyomena zur Gesch. Israels (2nd 
 ed. 1883); Horst, Zev. xvii—xxvi. und Hezehiel, 
 1881; Dr. Robertson Smith, Zhe Prophets of 
 the Old Testament, pp. 374-387; Reuss, L’His- 
 toire Sainte et la Loi, i. 253 sq.; Kalisch, 
 Leviticus; Ὁ. 386; Driver, LOT. ch. v.; and 
 for Jewish views, Hamburger, ΠΕ. 5. v. 
 ‘ Jechezkel.’ [F. W. F.] 
 
 E'ZEL, THE STONE isn jas; B. τὸ 
 "EpyaB ἐκεῖνο, A. ἔργον ; lapis cui nomen est 
 Hzel). A well-known stone in the neighbour- 
 hood of Saul’s residence, the scene of the parting 
 of David and Jonathan when the former finally 
 fled from the court (1 Sam. xx. 19). At the 
 second mention of the spot (v. 41) the Hebrew 
 text (1330 Syn; A.V. and R. V. “out of a 
 place toward the south,” R. V. marg. from beside 
 the south) is, in the opinion of critics, undoubt- 
 edly corrupt (see the emendation of the text 
 in Driver, Notes on the Heb. Text of the DB. of 
 Sam. on 1 Sam. xx. 19). The true reading is in- 
 dicated by the LXX. B., which in both cases has 
 Ergab or Argab—in v. 19 for the Hebrew Lben, 
 “stone,” and inv, 41 for han-neged, “the south.” 
 Ergab is doubtless the Greek rendering of the 
 Hebrew Argob=a heap of stones. The true 
 reading of v. 41 will therefore be as follows: 
 “David arose from close to the stone heap,”— 
 
 close to which (the same preposition, Syy, ING Yo 
 
 ὁ Ὧν ”) it had been arranged beforehand that he 
 should remain (v.19). The change inv, 41 from 
 
 AINA, as the text stood at the time of the | 
 
 LXX., to 2337, as it now stands, is one which 
 might easily take place. [Ὁ [2 
 
 E’/ZEM (O8Y = bone; Β. Βοοσάλ, A. Boa- 
 σόμ; Asom), one of the towns of Simeon (1 Ch. 
 iv. 29). In the lists of Joshua (xix. 3) the 
 name appears in the slightly different form of 
 AzEM (the vowel being lengthened before the 
 cause). [G.] 
 
 E’ZER (WY ?=treasure ; E¢ép; Εἶχον). 1. A 
 son of Ephraim, who was slain by the aboriginal 
 inhabitants of Gath, while engaged in a foray on 
 their cattle (1 Ch. vii. 21). Ewald (Geschichte, 
 i. 490) assigns this occurrence to the pre- 
 Egyptian period. 2. A priest noticed in the 
 Book of Nehemiah (xii. 42; ᾿ἸΙεζούρ, LXX.). 
 3. 1 Ch. iv. 4. LW. L. B.) 
 
 EZERI'AS (B. 6 Zexpias, A. ὃ ’ECeplas ; 
 Azarias), 1 Esd. viii. 1. [Azartan, 7.] 
 
 EZI’AS (B. δ᾽ Ὀζίας, A.’E¢ias; Azahel), 1 Esd. 
 viii. 2, [AZARIAH ; AZIET.] 
 
 EZNITE, THE 
 
 E’ZION-GA’BER, or . . . GE’BER ΟὟ 
 23 = the giant’s back-bone; Τασίων TaBep; 
 Asiongaber ; Num. xxxiii. 35; Deut. ii. 8; 1 K. 
 ix. 26, xxii. 48; 2 Ch. viii. 17), the last station 
 named for the encampment of the Israelites 
 before they came to ‘the wilderness of Zin, 
 which is Kadesh,” subsequently the station of 
 Solomon’s navy, described as near “ Eloth, on 
 the sea shore, in the land of Edom” (R. V.); 
 and where that of Jehoshaphat was afterwards 
 “broken ”’—probably destroyed on the rocks 
 which lie in “jagged ranges on each side” 
 (Stanley, 8. & P. p. 2). Wellsted (ii. ch. ix. 
 153) would find it in Dahab [ὈΙΖΑΗΑΒΊ, but 
 this could hardly be regarded as “in the land 
 of Edom” (although possibly the rocks which 
 Wellsted describes may have been the actual 
 scene of the wreck), nor would it accord with 
 Josephus (Ant. viii. 6, § 4)" as “not far from 
 Elath.” According to the map of Kiepert (in 
 Robinson, 1856), it stands at ‘Ain el-Ghudydn, 
 about 10 miles up what is now the dry bed of 
 the Arabah, but, as he supposed, was then the 
 northern end of the gulf, which may have 
 anciently had, like that of Suez, a further ex- 
 tension. This probably is the best site for it. 
 By comparing 1 K. ix. 26, 27 with 2 Ch. viii. 
 17, 18, it is probable that timber was floated 
 from Tyre to the nearest point on the Mediter- 
 ranean coast, and then conveyed over Jand to the 
 head of the Gulf of Akabah, where the ships 
 seem to have been built; for there can hardly 
 have been adequate forests in the neighbourhood. 
 [WILDERNESS OF THE WANDERING.] [H. H.] 
 
 EZ'NITE, THE (123800, Wert ΣΝ ΘΠ ; B. 6 
 ᾿Ασωναῖος, A. ᾿Ασώναος ; Vulg. omits). Accord- 
 ing to the statement of 2 Sam. xxiii. 8, “ Adino 
 the Eznite ” was another name for (R. V.) “ Josh- 
 ebbasshebeth a Tachcemonite (A. Y. “the Tach- 
 monite that sate in the seat ”’), chief among the 
 captains.” The passage is, however, one of the 
 most disputed in the whole Bible, owing partly to 
 the difficulty of the one man bearing two names 
 so distinct without any assigned reason, and 
 partly to the discrepancy between it and the 
 parallel sentence in 1 Ch. xi. 11, in which for 
 the words “ Adino the Eznite” other Hebrew 
 words are found, not very dissimilar in ap- 
 pearance, but meaning “he shook (A. V. and 
 R. V. “lifted up”) his spear.” Modern critics 
 (see Driver, Notes on the Heb. Text of the BB. of 
 Sam. in loco) are mostly agreed that the words 
 in Chronicles preserve the original text, which in 
 the Book of Samuel has become corrupted. The 
 form of this particular word is the original text 
 (the Kethib) Etzno, which has been altered to Etzni 
 by the Masoret scribes (in the Keri), apparently 
 to admit of some meaning being obtained from 
 it. Jerome read it Htzno, and taking it to be 
 a declension of Πὲς (=“ wood”) has rendered 
 the words “quasi tenerrimus ligni vermiculus.” 
 The LXX. and some Hebrew MSS. (see Davidson’s 
 Heb. Text) add the words of Chronicles to the 
 text of Samuel, a course followed by the A. V. 
 
 The passage has been examined at length by 
 Kennicott (Dissertation 1, 71-128) and Gesenius 
 (Thes. pp. 994, 995), to whom the reader must 
 
 ὁ ᾿Ασιωγγάβαρος, αὑτὴ Βερενίκη καλεῖται, ov πόῤῥω 
 Αἰλανῆς πόλεως. 
 
EZRA 
 
 be referred for details. Their conclusion is that 
 the reading of the Chronicles is correct (see 
 Driver, /. c.). Ewald does not mention it (Gesch. 
 iii, 180, note). Gray ONY 3) 
 
 EZ/RA (NUY = help; Ἔσδρας). 1. The 
 head of one of the twenty-two courses of priests 
 which returned from captivity with Zerubbabel 
 and Jeshua (Neh. xii. 2). But in the somewhat 
 parallel list of Neh. x. 2-8, the name of the 
 same person is written ΠΛ), Azariah, as it is 
 probably in Ezra vii. 1. 
 
 2. A man of Judah (1 Ch. iv. 17). 
 
 8. The famous scribe and priest, descended 
 from Hilkiah the high-priest in Josiah’s reign, 
 from whose younger son Azariah sprung Seraiah, 
 Ezra’s father (Ezra vii. 1), thought by many to 
 be quite a different person from Seraiah the 
 high-priest. All that is really known of Ezra 
 is contained in the last four chapters of the 
 Book of Ezra and in Neh. viii. and xii. 26, 
 From these passages we learn that he was a 
 learned and pious priest residing at Babylon in the 
 time of Artaxerxes Longimanus (B.C. 465-425). 
 The origin of his influence with the king does 
 not appear, but in the seventh year of his reign, 
 in spite of the unfavourable report which had 
 been sent by Rehum and Shimshai (Ezra iv. 8, 9), 
 he obtained leave to go to Jerusalem, and to 
 take with him a company of Israelites, together 
 with priests, a few Levites, singers, porters, and 
 Nethinim. Of these a list, amounting to 1754, 
 is given in Ezra viii.; and these, also, doubtless 
 form a part of the full list of the returned 
 captives contained in Neh. vii., and in duplicate 
 in Ezra ii. (cp. Smend, Die Listen d. BL. Esra 
 u. Neh.). Including women and children, the 
 number probably amounted to between 6,000 
 and 8,000 souls. The journey of Ezra and his 
 companions from Babylon to Jerusalem took just 
 four months ; and they brought up with them 
 a large free-will offering of gold, silver, and 
 silver vessels, contributed, not only by the 
 Babylonian Jews, but by the king himself and 
 his counsellors. These offerings were for the 
 House of God, to beautify it, and for the pur- 
 chase of bullocks, rams, and the other offerings 
 required for the Temple-service. In addition to 
 this, Ezra was empowered to draw upon the 
 king’s treasurers beyond the river for any 
 further supplies he might require; and all 
 priests, Levites, and other ministers of the 
 Temple, were exempted from taxation. Ezra 
 had also authority given him to appoint magis- 
 trates and judges in Judaea, with power of life 
 and death over all offenders. This ample com- 
 mission was granted him at his own request 
 (v. 6), and it appears that his great design was 
 to effect a religious reformation among the 
 Palestine Jews, and to bring them back to the 
 observation of the Law of Moses, from which 
 they had grievously declined. His first step, 
 accordingly, was to enforce a separation from 
 their wives upon all who had made heathen 
 marriages, in which number were many priests 
 and Levites, as well as other Israelites. This 
 was effected in little more than six months after 
 his arrival at Jerusalem.* With the detailed 
 
 Ὁ The steps of Ezra’s reformation are well, if some- 
 what imaginatively, described by Hunter, After the 
 Exile, ii., chs. i. ii.—[F.] 
 
 BIBLE DICT.—VOL. I. 
 
 EZRA 1041 
 
 account of this important transaction Ezra’s 
 autobiography ends abruptly, and we hear 
 nothing more of him till, thirteen years after- 
 wards, in the twentieth of Artaxerxes, we find 
 him again at Jerusalem with Nehemiah “the 
 Tirshatha.” It is generally assumed that Ezra 
 
 | had continued governor till Nehemiah superseded 
 
 him; but as Ezra’s commission was only of a 
 temporary nature, “ to inquire concerning Judah 
 and Jerusalem” (Ezra vii. 14), and to carry 
 thither “the silver and gold which the king 
 and his counsellors had freely offered unto the 
 God of Israel” (v. 15), and as there is no trace 
 whatever of his presence at Jerusalem between 
 the eighth and the twentieth of Artaxerxes, it 
 seems probable that after he had effected the 
 above-named reformation, and had appointed 
 competent judges and magistrates, with authority 
 to maintain it, he himself returned to the king 
 of Persia. This is in itself what one would 
 expect, and what is borne out by the parallel 
 case of Nehemiah, and it also accounts for the 
 abrupt termination of Ezra’s narrative, and for 
 that relapse of the Jews into their former irre- 
 gularities which is apparent in the Book of 
 Nehemiah. Such a relapse, and such a state of 
 affairs at Jerusalem in general, could scarcely 
 have occurred if Ezra had continued there.” 
 Whether he returned to Jerusalem with Nehe- 
 miah, or separately, does not appear certainly ; 
 but as he is not mentioned in Nehemiah’s narra- 
 tive till after the completion of the wall (Neh. 
 viii. 1), it is perhaps probable that he followed 
 the latter some months later, having, perhaps, 
 been sent for to aid him in his work. The 
 functions he executed under Nehemiah’s govern- 
 ment were purely of a priestly and ecclesiastical 
 character, such as reading and interpreting the 
 Law of Moses to the people during the eight 
 days of the Feast of Tabernacles, praying in the 
 congregation, assisting at the dedication of the 
 wall, and in promoting the religious refor- 
 mation so happily effected by the Tirshatha. 
 But in this he filled the first place; being 
 repeatedly coupled with Nehemiah the Tirshatha 
 (viii. 9; xii. 26), while Eliashib the high-priest 
 is not mentioned as taking any part in the 
 reformation at all, through (as some think ; cp. 
 Hunter, ii. 235) hostility to the course pursued. 
 In the sealing to the covenant described in 
 Neh. x., Ezra’s name does not occur, probably 
 because this formal act on the part of the man 
 who had drawn up the covenant was not 
 considered necessary, though some consider that 
 he sealed under the patronymic Seraiah or 
 Azariah (v. 2), As Ezra is not mentioned after 
 Nehemiah’s departure for Babylon in the thirty- 
 second year of Artaxerxes, and as everything 
 fell into confusion during Nehemiah’s absence 
 (Neh. xiii.), it is not unlikely that Ezra may 
 have died or returned to Babylon before that 
 year (see his character, Mal. ii. 5-7). Josephus, 
 who should be our next best authority after 
 Scripture, evidently knew nothing about the 
 time or the place of his death. He vaguely 
 says, “ He died an old man, and was buried in 
 a magnificent manner at Jerusalem” (Ant. 
 
 b On the other hand, it is argued that Ezra remained 
 all this time in Jerusalem, but was forced into inactivity 
 by the strong reaction against his Puritan régime. Cp. 
 Hunter, ii. 96 sq. —[F.] 
 
 3 xX 
 
1042 EZRA 
 
 xi. 5, § 5), and places his death in the high- 
 priesthood of Joacim, and before the government 
 of Nehemiah! But that he lived under the 
 high-priesthood of Eliashib and the government 
 of Nehemiah is expressly stated in Nehemiah; and 
 there was a strong Jewish tradition that he was 
 buried in Persia. Thus Benjamin of Tudela 
 says of Nehar-Samorah—apparently some place 
 
 EZRA 
 
 on the lower Tigris, on the frontier of Persia, 
 Zamuza according to the Talmudists, otherwise 
 Zamzumu— The sepulehre of Ezra the priest 
 and scribe is in this place, where he died on his 
 journey from Jerusalem to king Artaxerxes ” 
 (i. 116), a tradition which certainly agrees very 
 well with the narrative of Nehemiah. This 
 
 sepulchre is shown to this day (ὦ. ii. 116, note). 
 
 Tomb o: 
 
 As regards the traditional history of Ezra, 
 it is extremely difficult to judge what portion 
 of it has any historical foundation. The 
 principal works ascribed to him by the Jews, 
 and, on the strength of their testimony, by 
 Christians also, are:—1. The institution of the 
 Great Synagogue, of which, the Jews say, Ezra 
 was president, and Daniel, Haggai, Zechariah, 
 Malachi, Zorobabel, Mordecai, Jeshua, Nehemiah, 
 &c., were members; Simeon the Just, the last 
 survivor, living on till the time of Alexander 
 the Great! 2. The settling the Canon of Scrip- 
 ture, and restoring, correcting, and editing the 
 whole sacred volume according to the threefold 
 arrangement of the Law, the Prophets, and the 
 Hagiographa, with the divisions of the Pesukim, 
 or verses, the vowel-points handed down by 
 tradition from Moses, and the emendations of 
 the Keri. 3. The introduction of the Chaldee 
 character instead of the old Hebrew or Samari- 
 tan. 4, The compilership of the Books of Chro- 
 nicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, and, some add, Esther ; 
 and, many of the Jews say, also of the Books 
 of Ezekiel, Daniel, and the twelve Prophets. 
 5. The establishment of synagogues. Of most of 
 these works a full account is given in Prideaux’s 
 Connexion, i. 308-348 and 355-376; also in 
 Buxtorf’s Tiberias. References to the chief 
 rabbinical and other authorities will be found in 
 Winer ; Fiirst, Der Kanon d. A. Ts., p. 112 sq. 3 
 and Hamburger, &.2. s. n. A compendious 
 account of the arguments by which most of 
 
 ra On the banks of the Euphrates, 
 
 these Jewish statements 
 
 are proved to be 
 fabulous is given in Stehelin’s Rabbin. Literat. 
 
 pp. 5-8. The chief are drawn from the silence 
 of the sacred writers themselves, of the apo- 
 eryphal books, and of Josephus—and, it might 
 be added, of Jerome—and from the fact that 
 they may be traced to the author of the 
 chapter in the Mishna called Pirke Avoth. 
 Here, however, it must suffice to observe that 
 the pointed description of Ezra (vii. 6) as “a 
 ready scribe in the Law of Moses,” repeated in 
 vv. 11, 12, 21, added to the information 
 concerning him that “he had prepared his 
 heart to seek the Law of the Lord, and to do it, 
 and to teach in Israel statutes and judgments ” 
 (vii. 10), and his commission “to teach the laws 
 of his God to such as knew them not” (v. 25), 
 and his great diligence in reading the Scriptures 
 to the people, all give the utmost probability to 
 the account which attributes to him a corrected 
 edition of the Scriptures, and the circulation of 
 many such copies. The Books of Nehemiah and 
 Malachi must indeed have been added later ; pos- 
 sibly by Malachi’s authority; and some tradition 
 to this effect may have given rise to the Jewish 
 fable of Malachi being the same person as Ezra. 
 But we cannot affirm that Ezra inserted in the 
 Canon any Books that were not already acknow- 
 ledged as inspired, as we have no sufficient 
 ground for ascribing to him the prophetic 
 character. Even the Books of which he was 
 
 | the compiler may not have assumed definitely the 
 
 4 
 
EZRA, BOOK OF 
 
 character of Scrrprure till they were sanc- 
 tioned by Malachi. There does not, however, 
 seem to be sufficient ground for forming a defi- 
 nite opinion on the details of the subject. In 
 like manner one can only say that the introduc- 
 tion of the Chaldee character, and the com- 
 mencement of such stated meetings for hearing 
 the Scriptures read as led to the regular 
 Ssynagogue-service, are things likely to have 
 occurred about this time. For the question of 
 Ezra’s authorship, see CHRONICLES and Ezra, 
 Book or, ΓΑ. C. H.] 
 
 EZ’RA, BOOK OF. I. Title and Structure 
 of the Book.—The Book of Ezra speaks for 
 itself to any one who reads it with ordinary 
 intelligence, and without any prejudice as to 
 its nature and composition. It is manifestly 
 a continuation of the Books of Chronicles, as 
 indeed it is called by Hilary, Bishop of Poitiers, 
 Sermones dierum Lsdrae (ap. Cosin’s Canon of 
 Ser. 51). It is naturally a fresh Book, as com- 
 mencing the history of the returned captives 
 after seventy years of suspension, as it were, of 
 the national life. But when we speak of the 
 Book as a chronicle, we at once declare the nature 
 of it, which its contents also abundantly confirm. 
 Like the two Books of Chronicles, it consists of 
 the contemporary historical journals kept from 
 time to time by the Prophets, or other author- 
 ised persons, who were eye-witnesses for the 
 most part of what they record, and whose 
 several narratives were afterwards strung toge- 
 ther, and either abridged or added to, as the 
 case required, by a later hand. That later 
 hand, in the Book of Ezra, was doubtless Ezra’s 
 own, as appears by the last four chapters, as 
 well as by other matter inserted in the previous 
 chapters. While therefore, in a certain sense, 
 the whole Book is Ezra’s, as put together by 
 him, yet, strictly, only the last four chapters 
 are his original work. Nor will it be difficult 
 to point out with tolerable certainty several of 
 the writers of whose writings the first six 
 chapters are composed. It has already been 
 suggested [CHRONICLEs, p. 577, col. 1] that the 
 chief portion of the last chapter of 2 Ch. and 
 Ezra i. may probably have been written by Daniel. 
 The evidences of this in Ezra i. must now be 
 given more fully. No one probably can read 
 Daniel as a genuine Book, and not be struck 
 with the very singular circumstance that, while 
 he tells us in ch. ix. that he was aware that the 
 seventy years’ Captivity, foretold by Jeremiah, 
 was near its close, and was led thereby to pray 
 earnestly for the restoration of Jerusalem, and 
 while he records the remarkable vision in answer 
 to his prayer, yet he takes not the slightest notice 
 of Cyrus’s decree, by which Jeremiah’s prophecy 
 was fulfilled, and his own heart’s desire and 
 prayer to God for Israel was accomplished, and 
 which must have been the most stirring event 
 in his long life, not even excepting the incident 
 of the den of lions. He passes over in utter 
 silence the first year of Cyrus, to which pointed 
 allusion is made in Dan. i. 21, and proceeds in 
 ch. x. to the third year of Cyrus. Such silence 
 is utterly unaccountable. But Ezra i. supplies 
 _ the missing notice. If placed between Dan. ix. 
 and x. it exactly fills up the gap, and records the 
 event of the first year of Cyrus, in which Daniel 
 was so deeply interested. And not only so, but 
 
 oe we. 
 
 EZRA, BOOK OF 1043 
 
 the manner of the record is exactly Daniel’s. 
 Ezra i. 1: “ And in the first year of Cyrus, king 
 of Persia,” is the precise formula used in Dan. i. 
 Berit L yi viie Us vil. Bs ix Lt ΧΟ exe, 
 The designation (vv. 1, 2, 8) “Cyrus, king of 
 Persia,” is that used in Dan. x. 1 ; the reference 
 to the prophecy of Jeremiah in v. 1 is similar to 
 that in Dan. ix. 2, and the natural sequence ta 
 it. The giving the text of the decree, vv. 2-4 
 (cp. Dan. iv.), the mention of the name of “Mith- 
 redath the treasurer,” v. 8 (cp. Dan. i. 3,11), 
 the allusion to the sacred vessels placed by 
 Nebuchadnezzar in the house of his god, v. 7 
 (cp. Dan. i. 2), the giving the Chaldee name of 
 Zerubbabel, wv. 8, 11 (ep. Dan. i. 7), and the 
 whole /ocus standi of the narrator, who evidently 
 wrote at Babylon, not at Jerusalem, are ail 
 circumstances which in a marked manner point 
 to Daniel as the writer of Ezrai. Nor is there 
 the least improbability in the supposition that 
 if Ezra edited Daniel’s papers he might think 
 the chapter in question more conveniently 
 placed in its chronological position in the 
 Chronicles than in the collection of Daniel’s 
 prophecies. It is scarcely necessary to add 
 that several chapters of the Prophets Isaiah 
 and Jeremiah are actually found in the 
 Book of Kings, as eg. Is. xxxvi—xxxix. in 
 2 K. xviii-xx. In the opinion then of the 
 writer of this article, Ezra i. was by the hand 
 of Daniel. 
 
 As regards Ezra ii., and as far as iii. 1, where 
 the change of name from Sheshbazzar to Zerub- 
 babel in υ. 2, the mention of Nehemiah the 
 Tirshatha in vv. 2 and 63, and that of Mordecai 
 in τ. 2, at once indicate a different and much 
 later hand, we need not seek long to discover 
 where it came from, because it is found in ex- 
 tenso, verbatim et literatim (with the exception 
 of clerical errors), in ch. vii. of Nehemiah, to 
 which it belongs beyond a shadow of doubt 
 (NEHEMIAH, Book oF]. This portion then was 
 written by Nehemiah, and was placed by Ezra, 
 or possibly by a still later hand, in this position, 
 as bearing upon the return from Captivity related 
 in ch. i., though chronologically out of place. 
 Whether the extract originally extended so far 
 as iii. 1 may be doubted.* The next portion 
 extends from iii. 2 to the end of ch. vi. With 
 the exception of one large explanatory addition 
 by Ezra, extending from iv. 6 to 23 (see below), 
 this portion is the work of a writer contem- 
 porary with Zerubbabel and Jeshua and an eye- 
 witness of the rebuilding of the Temple in 
 the beginning of the reign of Darius Hystaspis. 
 The minute details given of all the circum- 
 stances, such as the weeping of the old men who 
 had seen the first Temple, the names of the 
 Levites who took part in the work, of the 
 heathen governors who hindered it, the expres- 
 sion (vi. 15) “* This house was finished,” &c., the 
 number of the sacrifices offered at the dedica- 
 tion, and the whole tone of the narrative, 
 bespeak an actor in the scenes described. Who 
 then was so likely to record these interesting 
 events as one of those Prophets who took an 
 active part in promoting them, and a portion of 
 whose duty it would be to continue the national 
 chronicles? That it was the Prophet Haggai 
 
 * Oettli (§ 4) suggests that chs. i-iii. belong to one 
 historical source. 
 
 3X 2 
 
1044 
 
 becomes tolerably sure when we observe further 
 the following coincidences in style. 
 
 1. The title “the Prophet” is throughout 
 this portion of Ezra attached in a peculiar way 
 to the name of Haggai. Thus in vy. 1 we 
 read, “Then the Prophets, Haggai the Prophet, 
 and Zechariah the son of Iddo, prophesied,” &e. ; 
 and in vi. 14, “ They prospered through the pro- 
 phesying of Haggai the Prophet, and Zechariah 
 the son of Iddo.” And in ]jke manner in Hag. i. 
 1, 3, 12, ii. 1, 10, he is called ‘“ Haggai the 
 Prophet.” 
 
 2. The designation of Zerubbabel and Jeshua 
 is identical in the two writers: “ Zerubbabel 
 the son of Shealtiel, and Jeshua the son of 
 Jozadak” (cp. Ezra iii. 2, 8, v. 2, with Hag. 
 i. 1, 12, 14, ii. 2, 4, 23), It will be seen that 
 voth writers usually name them together, and 
 in the same order: Zechariah, on the contrary, 
 does not once name them together, and calls 
 them simply Zerubbabel and Jeshua. Only in 
 vi. 11 he adds “the son of Josedech,’ where the 
 difference in transliteration is merely an in- 
 accuracy in the A. V. corrected in the R. V. 
 “ Jehozadak.” 
 
 3. The description in Ezra v. 1, 2 of the 
 effect of the preaching of Haggai and Zechariah 
 upon Zerubbabel, Jeshua, and the people, is 
 identical with that in Hag. i., only abbreviated. 
 And Hag. ii. 3 alludes to the interesting circum- 
 stance recorded in Ezra iii. 12. 
 
 4. Both writers mark the date of the trans- 
 actions they record by the year of “ Darius the 
 king ” (Ezra iv. 24, vi. 15, compared with Hag. 
 1. 1, 15, ii. 10, &c.). 
 
 5. Ezra iii. 8 contains exactly the same enu- 
 meration of those that worked, viz. “ Zerub- 
 babel, Jeshua, and the remnant of their 
 brethren,” as Hag. i. 12, 14, where we have 
 “ Zerubbabel, and Jeshua, with all the remnant 
 of the people” (cp. too Ezra vi. 16 and Hag. 
 ii. 2). 
 
 6. Both writers use the expression “ the work 
 of the house of the Lord” (Kzra iii. 8, 9 
 compared with Hag. i. 14); and both use the 
 phrase ‘the foundation of the Temple was laid” 
 (Ezra iii. 6, 10, 11, 12, compared with Hag. ii. 
 18). 
 
 7. Both writers use indifferently the expres- 
 sions the “house of the Lord ” and the “‘ Temple 
 of the Lord,” but the former much more fre- 
 quently than the latter. Thus the writer in 
 Ezra uses the expression “the house” (M2) 
 
 twenty-five times, to six in which he speaks of 
 
 “the Temple ” (22%). Haggai speaks of “ the 
 
 house ” seven times, of “‘ the Temple” twice. 
 
 8. Both writers make marked and frequent 
 references to the Law of Moses. Thus cp. 
 Ezra iii. 2, 3-6, 8, vi. 14, 16-22, with Hag. i. 8, 
 10, ii. 5, 11-13, 17, &e. 
 
 Such strongly-marked resemblances in the 
 compass of two such brief portions of Scripture 
 seem to prove, in the opinion of the writer of 
 this article, that they are from the pen of the 
 same writer, 
 
 But the above observations do not apply to 
 Ezra iv. 6-25, which is a parenthetic addition 
 by a much later hand, and, as the passage most 
 clearly shows, made in the reign of Artaxerxes 
 Longimanus (8.¢. 465-425). The compiler who 
 inserted ch. ii., a document drawn up in the reign 
 
 EZRA, BOOK OF 
 
 EZRA, BOOK OF 
 
 of Artaxerxes, to illustrate the return of the cap- 
 tives under Zerubbabel, here inserts a notice of 
 two historical facts,—of which one occurred in 
 the reign of Xerxes, and the other in the reign 
 of Artaxerxes,—to illustrate the opposition 
 offered by the heathen to the rebuilding of the 
 Temple in the reigns of Cyrus and Cambyses. 
 He tells us that in the beginning of the reign of 
 Xerxes, i.e. before Esther was in favour, they 
 had written to the king to prejudice him 
 against the Jews—a circumstance, by the way, 
 which may rather have inclined him to listen to 
 Haman’s proposition; and he gives the text of 
 letters sent to Artaxerxes, and of Artaxerxes’ 
 answer, on the strength of which Rehum and 
 Shimshai forcibly hindered the Jews from re- 
 building the city. These letters doubtless came 
 into Ezra’s hands at Babylon, and may have led 
 to those endeavours on his part to make the 
 king favourable to Jerusalem which issued in 
 his own commission in the seventh year of his 
 reign. At v. 24 Haggai’s narrative proceeds 
 in connexion with v. 5. The mention of 
 Artaxerxes in vi. 14 is of the same kind. 
 The last four chapters, beginning with chapter 
 vii., are Ezra’s own, and continue the history 
 after a gap of fifty-eight years—from the 
 sixth of Darius to the seventh of Artaxerxes. 
 The only history of Judaea during this interval 
 is what is given in the above-named parenthesis, 
 from which we may infer that during this time 
 there was no one in Palestine to write the 
 Chronicles. The history of the Jews in Persia 
 for the same period is given in the Book of 
 Esther. 
 
 [In the canon of the Jewish Church the Books 
 of Ezra and Nehemiah are reckoned as one 
 (Baba Bathra, f. 15 a), and Ezra was regarded 
 as the “writer.” Josephus, Origen (E. πρῶτος 
 καὶ δεύπερος ev ἑνὶ "E(pG in Euseb. Hist. Lecl. 
 vi. 25), Melito of Sardis, Epiphanius, Jerome, 
 and the LXX. (N. and A.) also counted the two 
 as one; led to their conclusion as much by the 
 literary character of the Books as by a supposed 
 desire to bring the number of the Canonical 
 Books into keeping with the number of the 
 letters in the Hebrew and Greek alphabets. The 
 abrupt ending, or rather non-ending, of Ezra, 
 lent itself to this conclusion; while some of 
 the most interesting episodes in the history of 
 Ezra are to be found not in the Book which 
 bears his name but in Nehemiah (vii. 73 b-x). 
 It seems impossible now to determine when the 
 separation between the two Books (Heb. text, 
 LXX. B., and Vulg.) took place; but at least 
 the point fixed upon—the appearance of Nehe- 
 miah upon the scene—commends itself as the 
 most natural which could be selected. 
 
 The question of authorship, or perhaps 
 compilership, is by no means settled. In the 
 case of the Book Ezra (for the Book of Nehemiah, 
 see 8. n.), separate compilership being pre- 
 supposed, the style of the portions admitted to 
 be his (e.g. vii. 27, ix. 15) is declared to be in 
 agreement with that found elsewhere in the 
 Book; and such peculiarities as transition from 
 the first to the third person, or sections 
 alternately Hebrew and Aramaic, are not con- 
 sidered incompatible with the view that Ezra 
 was himself the compiler. On this supposition | 
 Ezra’s Book was written “in B.C. 457 or very 
 shortly afterwards” (Sayce, pp. 28-33), On the 
 
EZRAHITE 
 
 other hand, the peculiarities above mentioned 
 are with some critics matters of special moment ; 
 and dual compilership with a final redaction not 
 being considered satisfactory, a date is taken 
 from Neh. xii. 23 (“Darius the Persian” being 
 taken to be Darius Codomannus, B.C. 336-330), 
 and the Book is—as regards its present form— 
 placed at the end of the 4th cent. or in the begin- 
 ning of the 3rd cent. B.c, (Oettli, ὃ 5.)—F.] 
 Il. Zewt.—The text of the Book of Ezra is 
 not in a good condition. There are a good many 
 palpable corruptions both in the names and 
 /numerals, and perhaps in some other points. 
 It is written partly in Hebrew, and partly in 
 Chaldee. The Chaldee begins at iv. 8, and 
 continues to the end of vi. 18. The letter or 
 decree of Artaxerxes (vii. 12-26) is also given 
 in the original Chaldee. There has never been 
 any doubt about Ezra being canonical, although 
 there is no quotation from it in the N. T. 
 Augustine says of Ezra, “‘magis rerum gesta- 
 rum scriptor est habitus quam propheta” (de 
 Civ. Dei, xviii. 36). The period covered by 
 the Book is eighty years, from the first of Cyrus 
 (B.c. 536) to the beginning of the eighth of 
 Artaxerxes (B.C. 456). It embraces the govern- 
 ments of Zerubbabel and Ezra, the high-priest- 
 hoods of Jeshua, Joiakim, and the early part of 
 Eliashib; and the reigns of Cyrus, Cambyses, 
 Smerdis, Darius Hystaspis, Xerxes, and part of 
 Artaxerxes. Of these Cambyses and Smerdis 
 are not named. Xerxes is barely named iv. 6. 
 [Espras, First Book or.] (A. C. H.] 
 Ill. Literature. —The best edition of the 
 Heb.-Aram. text is Baer’s Libri Danielis, Ezrae, 
 et Nehemiae, 1882, with glossary, &c. by Fried. 
 Delitzsch. Good commentaries are supplied by 
 Bertheau-Ryssel? (in the Agf. Hdb. z. A. T.); 
 Keil (in Keil u. Delitzsch’s Bibl. Komm.); Schultz 
 (in Lange’s. Theol.-hom. Bibelw.); Neteler, Die 
 BB. Esdras, Neh., u. Esther; Rawlinson (in 
 Speaker’s Commentary); Sayce (Introd. to the 
 Books of Ezra, Neh. and Esther); Ryle (in Cam- 
 bridge Bible for Schools); Driver (LOT. p. 507 
 sq.); and Oettli (in Strack und Zéckler’s Kgf. 
 Komm. z. d. heil. Schriften d. A. T.), who also 
 supplies references to numerous German mono- 
 graphs on special points. [F.] 
 
 EZ'RAHITE, THE (*7 7181; Β. 6 Zapelrns, 
 A. 6 Ἐζραηλίτης [in K.], BS. ᾿Ισραηλείτης [ἴῃ 
 Pss.] ; Ezrahita), a title attached to two persons 
 —Ethan(1 K. iv. 31; Ps. lxxxix. title) and Heman 
 (Ps. lxxxviii. title). The word is naturally 
 derivable from Ezrah, or—which is almost the 
 same in Hebrew—Zerach, M1; and accordingly 
 
 in 1 Ch. ii. 6, Ethan and Heman are both given 
 as sons of Zerah the son of Judah. Another 
 Ethan and another Heman are named as Levites 
 and musicians in the lists of 1 Ch. vi. and 
 elsewhere. [G.] 
 
 EZ'RI (“NY = my help; ᾿Ἐσδρί, A. ’E¢pat; 
 Ezri), son of Chelub, superintendent for king 
 David of those who worked “for tillage of the 
 ground” (1 Ch. xxvii. 26). {G.] 
 
 FABLE 1045 
 
 F 
 
 FABLE (μῦθος ; fabula). Taking the words 
 “fable” and “ parable,” not in their strict ety- 
 mological meaning, but in that which has been 
 stamped upon them by current usage—looking, 
 ic. at the Aesopic fable as the type of the 
 one, at the Parables of the N. T. as the type of 
 the other,—we have to ask, (1) In what relation 
 they stand to each other, as instruments of 
 moral teaching ? (2) What use is made in the 
 Bible of this or of that form? That they have 
 much in common is, of course, obvious enough. 
 In both we find “statements of facts, which 
 do not even pretend to be historical, used as 
 vehicles for the exhibition of a general truth ” 
 (Neander, Leben Jesu, p. 68). Both differ from 
 the Mythus, in the modern sense of that word, 
 in being the result of a deliberate choice of 
 such a mode of teaching, not the spontaneous, 
 unconscious evolution of thought in some 
 symbolic form.* They take their place so far as 
 species of the same genus. What are the 
 characteristic marks by which the fable and 
 the Parable differ from each other, it is perhaps 
 easier to feel than to define. Thus we have 
 (cp. Trench, Notes on the Parables, p. 2) 
 (1) Lessing’s statement that the fable takes 
 the form of an actual narrative, while the 
 Parable assumes only that what is related 
 might have happened; (2) Herder’s, that the 
 difference lies in the fable’s dealing with brute 
 or inanimate nature, in the Parable’s drawing 
 its materials exclusively from human life; 
 (3) Olshausen’s (on Matt. xiii. 1), followed by 
 Trench (/. c.), that it is to be found in the 
 higher truths of which the Parable is the 
 vehicle. Perhaps the most satisfactory sum- 
 ming up of the chief distinctive features of 
 each is to be found in the following extract 
 from Neander (/. c.):—‘‘ The Parable is distin- 
 guished from the fable by this, that, in the 
 latter, qualities or acts of a higher class of 
 beings may be attributed to a lower (e.g. those 
 of men to brutes); while, in the former, the 
 lower sphere is kept perfectly distinct from that 
 which it seems to illustrate. The beings and 
 powers thus introduced always follow the law 
 of their nature, but their acts, according to 
 this law, are used to figure those of a higher 
 The mere introduction of brutes 
 as personal agents, in the fable, is not sufficient 
 to distinguish it from the Parable which may 
 make use of the same contrivance; as, for ex- 
 ample, Christ employs the sheep in one of His 
 parables. The great distinction here, also, lies 
 in what has already been remarked; brutes 
 introduced in the Parable act according to the 
 law of their nature, and the two spheres of 
 nature and of the kingdom of God are care- 
 fully separated from each other. Hence the 
 reciprocal relations of brutes to each other are 
 not made use of, as these could furnish no 
 appropriate image of the relation between man 
 and the kingdom of God.” 
 
 a On the myth see Bishop Westcott, Hssays on the 
 History of the Religious Thought in the West, p- 3. 
 
1046 FABLE 
 
 Of the fable, as thus distinguished from the 
 Parable, we have but two examples in the Bible: 
 (1) that of the trees choosing their king, ad- 
 dressed by Jotham to the men of Shechem 
 (Judg. ix. 8-15)—unnecessarily placed by some 
 (cp. Bleek-Wellhausen,* p. 194) in the times of 
 the Kings; (2) that of the cedar of Lebanon 
 and the thistle, as the answer of Jehoash to the 
 challenge of Amaziah (2 K. xiy. 9). The narra- 
 tive of Ezek. xvii. 1-10, though, in common 
 with the fable, it brings before us the lower 
 forms of creation as representatives of human 
 characters and destinies, differs from it, in the 
 points above noticed, (1) in not introducing 
 them as having human attributes, (2) in the 
 higher prophetic character of the truths con- 
 veyed by it. The great eagle, the cedar of 
 Lebanon, the spreading vine, are not grouped 
 together as the agents in a fable, but are simply, 
 like the bear, the leopard, and the lion in the 
 visions of Daniel, symbols of the great mon- 
 archies of the world. 
 
 In the two instances referred to, the fable has 
 more the character of the Greek αἶνος (Quintil. 
 Inst. Orat. v. 11) than of the μῦθος : that is, 
 it is less the fruit of a vivid imagination, sport- 
 ing with the analogies between the worlds of 
 nature and of men, than a covert reproof, 
 making the sarcasm which it affects to hide all 
 the sharper (Miiller and Donaldson, Hist. of 
 Greek Literature, vol. i. ch. xi.). The appearance 
 of the fable thus early in the history of Israel, 
 and its entire absence from the direct teaching 
 both of the O. and N. T., are, each of them 
 in its way, significant. Taking the received 
 chronology, the fable of Jotham was spoken 
 about 1209 B.c. The Arabian traditions of 
 Lokman do not assign to him an earlier date 
 than that of David. The earliest Greel: αἶνος 
 is that of Hesiod (Op. et D. v. 202), and the 
 prose form of the fable does not meet us till we 
 come (about 550 B.c.) to Stesichorus and Aesop. 
 The first example in the history of Rome is the 
 apologue of Menenius Agrippa B.c. 494, and its 
 genuineness has been questioned on the ground 
 that the fable could hardly at that time have 
 found its way to Latium (Miiller and Donald- 
 son, l.c.). It may be noticed, too, that when 
 collections of fables became familiar to the 
 Greeks, they were looked on as imported, not 
 indigenous. The traditions that surround the 
 name of Aesop, the absence of any evidence that 
 he wrote fables, the traces of Eastern origin in 
 those ascribed to him, leave him little more 
 than the representative of a period when the 
 forms of teaching, which had long been familiar 
 to the more Kastern nations, were travelling 
 westward, and were adopted eagerly by the 
 Greeks. The collections themselves are de- 
 scribed by titles that indicate a foreign origin. 
 They are Libyan (Arist. Rhet. ii. 20), Cyprian, 
 Cilician. All these facts lead to the conclusion 
 that the Hebrew mind, gifted, as it was, in a 
 special measure, with the power of perceiving 
 analogies in things apparently dissimilar, at- 
 tained, at a very early stage of its growth, the 
 power which does not appear in the history of 
 other nations till a later period. Whatever 
 antiquity may be ascribed to the fables in the 
 comparatively later collection of the Pancha 
 Lantra, the land of Canaan is, so far as we have 
 any data to conclude from, the fatherland of 
 
 FABLE 
 
 fable. To conceive brutes or inanimate objects 
 as representing human characteristics; to per- 
 sonify them as acting, speaking, reasoning; to 
 draw lessons from them applicable to human 
 life——this must have been common among the 
 Israelites in the time of the Judges. The part 
 assigned in the earliest records of the Bible to 
 the impressions made by the brute creation on 
 the mind of man when “the Lord God formed 
 every beast of the field and every fowl of the 
 air, and brought them unto Adam to see what 
 he would call them” (Gen. ii. 19), and the 
 apparent symbolism of the serpent in the narra- 
 tive of the Fall (Gen. iii. 1), are at once indica- 
 tions of teaching adapted to men in the posses- 
 sion of this power, and must have helped to 
 develop it (Herder, Geist der Ebriischen Poesie ; 
 Werke, xxxiv. p. 16, ed. 1826). The large 
 number of proverbs in which analogies of this 
 kind are made the bases of a moral precept, 
 and some of which (¢.g. Prov. xxvi. 11, xxx. 15, 
 25-28) are of the nature of condensed fables, 
 show that there was no decline of this power as 
 the intellect of the people advanced. The ab- 
 sence of fables accordingly from the teaching of 
 the O. T. must be ascribed to their want of 
 fitness to be the media of the truths which that 
 teaching was to convey. The points in which 
 brutes or inanimate objects present analogies to 
 man are chiefly those which belong to his lower 
 nature, his pride, indolence, cunning, and the 
 like; and the lessons derived from them ac- 
 cordingly do not rise higher than the pruden- 
 tial morality which aims at repressing such 
 defects (cp. Trench, Notes on the Parables, 1. c.). 
 Hence the fable, apart from the associations 
 of a grotesque and ludicrous nature which 
 gather round it, apart too from its present- 
 ing narratives which are “nec verae nec 
 verisimiles” (Cic. de Invent. i. 19), is in- 
 adequate as the exponent of the higher truths 
 which belong to man’s spiritual life. It may 
 serve to exhibit the relations between man and 
 man; it fails to represent those between man 
 and God. To do that is the office of the 
 PARABLE, finding its outward framework in the 
 dealings of men with each other, or in the 
 world of nature as it is, not in any grotesque 
 parody of nature, and exhibiting, in either case, 
 real and not fanciful analogies. The fable seizes 
 on that which man has in common with the 
 creatures below him; the Parable rests on the 
 truths that man is made in the image of God, 
 and that “all things are double one against 
 another.” 
 
 It is noticeable, as confirming this view of 
 the office of the fable, that though those of 
 Aesop (so called) were known to the great 
 preacher of righteousness at Athens, though a 
 metrical paraphrase of some of them was 
 among the employments of his imprisonment 
 (Plato, Phaedon, pp. 60, 61), they were not 
 employed by him as illustrations, or channels of 
 instruction. While Socrates shows an apprecia- 
 tion of the power of such fables to represent 
 some of the phenomena of human life, he was 
 not, he says, in this sense of the word, μυθολο- 
 γικός. The myths which appear in the Gorgias, 
 the Phaedrus, the Phaedon, the Republic, are as 
 unlike as possible to the Aesopic fables, are (to 
 take his own account of them) οὐ μῦθοι ἄλλα 
 Adyot,—true, though figurative, representations 
 
FABLE 
 
 of spiritual realities; while the illustrations 
 from the common facts of life which were so 
 conspicuous in his ordinary teaching, though 
 differing in being comparisons rather than narra- 
 tives, come nearer to the parables of the Bible 
 (cp. the contrast between τὰ Σωκρατικά, as 
 examples of the παραβολὴ and the λόγοι 
 Αἰσώπειοι, Arist. Rhet. ii. 20). It may be said 
 indeed that the use of the fable as an instru- 
 ment of teaching (apart from the embellish- 
 ments of wit and fancy with which it is asso- 
 ciated by such writers as Lessing and La Fon- 
 
 ,taine) belongs rather to childhood, and the 
 
 child-like period of national life, than to a 
 more advanced development. In the earlier 
 stages of political change, as in the cases of 
 Jotham, Stesichorus (Arist. 2het. 1. ¢.), Mene- 
 nius Agrippa, it is used as an element of per- 
 suasion or reproof. It ceases to appear in the 
 
 higher eloquence of orators and statesmen. The 
 special excellence of fables is that they are 
 Snunyopicol (Arist. Rhet. 1. c.); that “ducere 
 animos solent, praecipue rusticorum et imperi- 
 torum” (Quint. Jnst. Orat. 1. c.). 
 
 The μύθοι of false teachers claiming to belong | found (Zravels in Crete, ii. 
 
 FAIR HAVENS 1047 
 
 to the Christian Church, alluded to by writers 
 of the N. T. in connexion with γενεαλογίαι 
 ἀπέραντοι (1 Tim. i. 4), or with epithets Ἰου- 
 δαικοί (Tit. 1, 14), ypawdets (1 Tim. iv. 7), 
 σεσοφισμένοι (2 Pet. i. 16), do not appear to have 
 had the character of fables, properly so called. 
 As applied to them, the word takes its general 
 meaning of anything false or unreal, and here 
 we need not discuss the nature of the falsehoods 
 so referred to (see Riehm, 17 WB. s. n. “ Fabel ; ” 
 Cremer, Dibl.-Theol. Worterb.4 s. v. μῦθος). 
 On the large use and specimens of fable in the 
 Talmudical writings, see Hamburger, RL. 
 Abth. ii. s. v. “ Fabel.” (E.H.P.] (FJ 
 
 FAIR HAVENS (Καλοὶ Aiméves), a harbour 
 in the island of CreTe (Acts xxvii. 8), not 
 mentioned in any other ancient writing. There 
 seems no probability that it is, as Biscoe sug- 
 gested (on the Acts, p. 347, ed. 1829), the Καλὴ 
 ᾿Ακτὴ of Steph. Byz.—for that is said to be a 
 city, whereas Fair Havens is described as “a place 
 near to which was a city called Lasaea ” (τόπος 
 Tis ᾧ ἐγγὺς ἦν πόλις A.). Moreover Mr. Pashley 
 57) a district 
 
 called Acte; and it is most likely that Καλὴ 
 ᾿Ακτὴ was situated there; but that district is 
 in the W. of the island, whereas Fair Havens 
 was on the 8. [05 position is now quite certain. 
 Though not mentioned by classical writers, it is 
 still known by its old Greek name, as it was in 
 the time of Pococke, and other early travellers 
 mentioned by Mr. Smith (Voyage and Shipw. 
 of St. Paul,? pp. 80-82). LaAsAra, too, has 
 recently been most explicitly discovered. In 
 fact Fair Havens appears to have been practi- 
 cally its harbour. These places are situated 4 
 or 5 miles to the E. of Cape Matala, which is 
 the most conspicuous headland on the S. coast 
 of Crete, and immediately to the W. of which 
 the coast trends suddenly to the N. This last 
 
 Fair Havens in Crete. 
 
 ΡΞ 
 
 circumstance explains why the ship which con- 
 veyed St. Paul was brought to anchor in Fair 
 Havens. In consequence of violent and con- 
 tinuing N. W. winds she had been unable to 
 hold on her course towards Italy from Cnidus 
 (v. 7), and had run down, by Salmone, under the 
 lee of Crete. It was possible to reach Fair 
 Havens: but beyond Cape Matala the difficulty 
 would have recurred, so long as the wind re- 
 mained in the same quarter. A considerable 
 delay took place (v. 9), during which it is possible 
 that St. Paul may have had opportunities of 
 preaching the Gospel at Lasaea, or even at 
 GorTYNA, where Jews resided (1 Macc. xv. 23), 
 and which was not far distant: but all this is 
 conjectural, <A consultation took place, at which 
 
1048 
 
 it was decided, against the Apostle’s advice, to 
 make an attempt to reach a good harbour named 
 PHENICE, their present anchorage being ἀνευθέ- 
 τος πρὸς παραχειμασίαν (v.12), All such terms 
 are comparative: and there is no doubt that, as 
 a safe winter harbour, Fair Havens is infinitely 
 inferior to Phenice; though perhaps even as a 
 matter of seamanship St. Paul’s advice was not 
 bad. However this may be, the south wind, 
 which sprang up afterwards (v. 13), proved 
 delusive; and the vessel was caught by a 
 hurricane [EUROCLYDON] on her way towards 
 Phenice, and ultimately wrecked. Besides a 
 view (p. 81), Mr. Smith gives a chart of Fair 
 Havens with the soundings (p. 257), from which 
 any one can form a judgment for himself of the 
 merits of the harbour. (Jos. Ε Wied 
 
 FAIRS 
 
 FAIRS (OD°2)33Y; ἀγορά; nundinae, forum), 
 a word which occurs only in Ezek. xxvii. and there 
 no less than seven times (vv. 12, 14, 16, 19, 22, 
 27, 33): in the last of these verses it is ren- 
 dered by the A. V. “ wares;” and this, being the 
 true meaning of the word, is used by the Rk. V. 
 throughout. It will be observed that the word 
 stands in some sort of relation to 11D through- 
 
 out the whole of the chapter, the latter word 
 also occurring seven times, and translated by 
 A. V. sometimes “market ” (vv. 13, 17, 19), and 
 elsewhere “ merchandise ” (vv. 9, 27, 33, 34, the 
 rendering of R.V.). The words are used 
 alternateiy, and represent the alternations of 
 commercial business in which the merchants of 
 Tyre were engaged. That the first of these 
 words cannot signify “fairs” is evident from 
 v.12; for the inhabitants of Tarshish did not 
 visit Tyre, but wice versd. Let the reader 
 substitute the R. V. “traded for thy wares” for 
 the A. V. “traded in thy fairs,” and the sense 
 is much improved. The relation which this 
 term bears to maarab, which properly means 
 “barter,” appears to be pretty much the same as 
 exists between exports and imports. The re- 
 quirements of the Tyrians themselves, such as 
 slaves (v. 13), wheat (v. 17), steel (v. 19), were a 
 matter of maarab; but where the business con- 
 sisted in the exchange of Tyrian wares for 
 foreign productions, it is specified in this form, 
 “Tarshish paid for thy wares with silver, iron, 
 tin, and lead.” The use of the terms would 
 probably have been more intelligible if the 
 Prophet had mentioned what the Tyrians gave 
 in exchange: as it is, he only notices the one 
 side of the bargain, viz. what the Tyrians 
 received, whether they were buyers or sellers. 
 
 (W.L. BJ (FJ 
 FALLOW-DEER (TOM,* yachmir ; Arab. 
 
 ©; A. BovBadros; bubalus; R. V. roe- 
 
 Sack). The Heb. word, which is mentioned 
 only in Deut. xiv. 5, as the name of one of the 
 animals allowed by the Levitical law for food, 
 and in 1 K. iv. 23 as forming part of the provi- 
 sions for Solomon’s table, appears to point to the 
 Antilope bubalis, Pallas, the Alcelaphus bubalis 
 of recent naturalists; the βούβαλος of the Greeks 
 (see Herod. iv. 192; Aristotle, Hist. Anim. iii. 6, 
 
 ® From the root 4)M, “ to be red” (see MV.11), 
 
 FALLOW-DEER 
 
 ed. Schneider, and De Part. Anim. iii. 2, 11, ed. 
 Bekker ; Oppian, Cyn. ii. 300) is properly, we be- 
 lieve, identified with the before-named antelope. 
 From the different descriptions of the yachmir, 
 as given by Arabian writers, and cited by 
 Bochart (Hieroz. ii. 284 sq.), it would seem 
 that this is the animal denoted ; though Damir’s 
 remarks in some respects are fabulous, and he 
 represents the yachmir as having deciduous 
 horns, which will not apply to any antelope. 
 Still Cazuinus, according to Rosenmiiller, iden- 
 tifies the yachmir® with the bekker-el-wash 
 (“wild cow”), which is the modern name in 
 N. Africa for the Antilope bubalis. Kitto (Pict. 
 Bibl. Deut. ἰ. 0.) says, “The yachmir of the 
 Hebrews is without doubt erroneously identified 
 with the fallow-deer, which does not exist in 
 Asia,” and refers the name to the Oryx leucoryz, 
 citing Niebuhr as authority for stating that this 
 animal is known among the Eastern Arabs by 
 the name of yazmur. The fallow-deer (Cervus 
 dama) is undoubtedly a native of Asia; indeed 
 Persia seems to be its proper country. Hassel- 
 quist (Zrav. p. 211) noticed this deer in Mount 
 Tabor. But it was unknown in Egypt, and can 
 never, from its habits as a dweller in woods, have 
 existed in Arabia. It was, therefore, unlikely 
 to be mentioned by Moses. The authority of the 
 LXX., however, in a question of this kind, has 
 some weight: accordingly we have little doubt 
 but that the yachmir of the Heb, Scriptures 
 denotes the bekker-el-wash, or “wild ox,” of 
 Barbary and N. Africa (see Shaw’s Travels, 
 p- 242, and Suppl. p. 75, folio; Buffon, Hist. 
 Natur. xii. p. 294). The Greek βούβαλος evi- 
 dently points to some animal having the general 
 appearance of an ox. Pliny CV. H. viii. 15) 
 tells us that the common people in their igno- 
 
 Alcelaphus bubalis. 
 
 rance sometimes gave the name of bubalus to the 
 Bison (Aurochs) and the Urus. He adds, the 
 animal properly so called is produced in Africa, 
 
 Ὁ Yachmér, Ruber ; ‘‘ animal ad genus pertinens cui 
 
 est apud Arabes nomen Ui! 3” πώ, 
 
 Tex. Ar.) 5 
 
FAMINE 
 
 and bears a resemblance to the calf and the 
 stag. ‘That this antelope partakes in external 
 form of the characters belonging both to the 
 Cervine and Bovine ruminants will be evident 
 to any one who glances at the woodcut. 
 
 The behkker-el-wash appears to be depicted in 
 the Egyptian monuments, where it is repre- 
 sented as being hunted for the sake of its flesh, 
 which Shaw tells us (Suppl. p. 75) is very sweet 
 and nourishing, much preferable to that of the 
 red deer (see Wilkinson’s Anc. Lgypt. i. pp. 214— 
 47 [smaller ed. 1878]), This animal, which 
 is about the size of a stag, was common in 
 ‘N. Africa up to the last century, in the early 
 part of which Dr. Shaw speaks of it as common 
 on the Atlas mountains, where it is now all but 
 extinct. It lives in small herds. The range of 
 the Bubale is from Morocco to Arabia; and 
 though I never myself obtained it in Palestine, 
 yet 1 have found the Arabs east of Jordan per- 
 fectly familiar with it, and have seen its horns 
 in their possession. They stated that they often 
 shot it at its watering-places. 
 
 But we believe that the yachmir equally in- 
 cludes the roebuck, and that the Revisers were 
 fully justified in so rendering the word. The 
 roebuck (Cervus capreolus, L.) identical with 
 the British species was found, though now very 
 rare in Palestine, by myself in the Galilaean 
 woods, and by Major Conder on Mount Carmel 
 (Proc. Zool. Soc., London, 1876, pp. 420, 701). 
 An animal so capable of maintaining itself in 
 the neighbourhood of man, and still existing, 
 cannot formerly have been rare. The Arabs are 
 
 “1: . : . ο 
 perfectly familiar with it, and call it J os, 
 identical with the Hebrew name. In general 
 
 appearance, with its short horns and somewhat 
 heavy gait, it would bear to incurious ob- 
 servers the semblance of a diminutive bubale; 
 and as the larger animal became scarcer and 
 almost forgotten, the name would be applied to 
 the more familiar and smaller one. In asimilar 
 way, since the bustard and the stork became 
 extinct in England, their names are applied by 
 the country-folk to the smaller Norfolk plover 
 and the heron. ἘΠ ΒΥ 
 
 FAMINE. When the “sweet influences 
 (R. V. “cluster”) of the Pleiades” are bound, 
 and “the bands of Orion” cannot be loosed * 
 (Job xxxviii. 31), then it is that famines 
 generally prevail in the lands of the Bible. In 
 Egypt a deficiency in the rise of the Nile, with 
 drying winds, produces the same results. The 
 famines recorded in the Bible are traceable to 
 both these phenomena; and we generally find 
 that Egypt was resorted to when scarcity 
 afflicted Palestine. This is notably the case in 
 the first three famines, those of Abraham, of 
 Isaac, and of Jacob, although in the last case 
 Egypt was involved in the calamity, and only 
 saved from its horrors by the provident policy 
 of Joseph. In this instance, too, the famine 
 was widespread, and Palestine further suffered 
 from the restriction which must have been 
 
 ® That is to say, when the best and most fertilising of 
 the rains, which fall when the Pleiades set at dawn 
 (not exactly heliacally) at the end of autumn, fail. 
 {For other interpretations, see Delitzsch, Davidson, 
 Bradley, and Speaker’s Comm. in loco.] 
 
 1049 
 
 placed on the supplies usually derived, in such 
 circumstances, from Egypt. 
 
 In the whole of Syria and Arabia, the fruits 
 of the earth must.ever be dependent on rain: 
 the watersheds have few large springs, and 
 the small rivers are not sufficient for the 
 irrigation of even the level lands. If therefore 
 the heavy rains of November and December 
 fail, the sustenance of the people is cut off in 
 the parching drought of harvest time, when 
 the country is almost devoid of moisture. 
 Further, the pastoral tribes rely on the scanty 
 herbage of the desert-plains and valleys for 
 their flocks and herds; for the desert is inter- 
 spersed in spring-time with spontaneous vege- 
 tation, which is the product of the preceding 
 rainfall, and fails almost totally without it. 
 It is therefore not difficult to conceive the 
 frequent occurrence and severity of famines 
 in ancient times, when the scattered population 
 of a country—pastoral rather than agricultural 
 —was dependent on natural phenomena which, 
 however regular in their season, occasionally 
 failed, and with them the sustenance of man 
 and beast. 
 
 Egypt, again, owes all its fertility—a fertility 
 that gained for Zoan [Sain] the striking 
 comparison to the “garden of the Lord ”—to 
 its mighty river, whose annual flood is sufficient 
 to inundate nearly the whole land and renders 
 the cultivation of cereals an easy certainty. 
 But this very bounty of nature has not un- 
 frequently exposed the country to the opposite 
 extreme of drought. With scarcely any rain, 
 and that chiefly on the Mediterranean coast 
 (though of late years showers have become 
 more common at Cairo, and have even reached 
 Thebes), and with wells only supplied by 
 filtration from the river through a nitrous 
 soil, a failure in the rise of the Nile almost 
 certainly entails a degree of scarcity; but if 
 it is followed by cool weather, and occurs only 
 for a single year, the labour of the people 
 may in a great measure avert the calamity. 
 Dearth and famine in Egypt are caused by 
 defective inundation, preceded, accompanied, 
 and followed, by prevalent easterly and southerly 
 winds. Both these winds dry up the earth, 
 and the latter, keeping back the rain-clouds 
 from the north, are perhaps the chief cause of 
 the defective inundation, to which they also 
 contribute by accelerating the current of the 
 river, which northerly winds would retard. 
 Famines in Egypt and Palestine seem to be 
 affected by drought extending from Northern 
 Syria, through the meridian of Egypt, as far 
 as the highlands of Abyssinia. 
 
 The first famine recorded in the Bible is 
 that of Abraham, after he had pitched his tent 
 on the east of Bethel: “And there was a 
 famine in the land: and Abram went down 
 into Egypt to sojourn there, for the famine 
 was grievous in the land” (Gen. xii. 10). We 
 may conclude that this famine was extensive, 
 although this is not quite proved by the fact 
 of Abraham’s going to Egypt; for on the 
 occasion of the second famine, in the days of 
 Isaac, this patriarch is recorded to have found 
 refuge with Abimelech king of the Philistines 
 in Gerar, and to have been warned by God 
 not to go down into Egypt, whither therefore 
 we may suppose he was journeying (Gen. xxvi. 
 
 FAMINE 
 
1050 FAMINE 
 
 1 sq.). We hear no more of times of scarcity 
 until the great famine of Egypt which “was 
 over all the face of the earth;” “and all 
 countries came into Egypt to Joseph to buy 
 corn, because that the famine was sore in 
 all lands” (Gen. xli. 56, 57). “And the 
 sons of Israel came to buy corn among those 
 that came: for the famine was in the land 
 of Canaan” (xlii. 5). Thus, in the third 
 generation, Jacob is afflicted like his ancestors, 
 and sends from Hebron to Egypt when he hears 
 that there is corn there; and it is added in 
 a later passage, on the occasion of his sending 
 the second time for corn to Egypt, “and the 
 famine was sore in the land,” 1.6. Hebron (Gen. 
 xliii. 1). 
 
 The famine of Joseph need be discussed here 
 only with reference to its physical character- 
 istics. We have mentioned the chief causes of 
 famines in Egypt: this instance differs in the 
 remarkable occurrence of seven consecutive 
 years of plenty, whereby Joseph was enabled to 
 provide against the coming dearth, and to 
 supply not only the population of Egypt with 
 corn, but those of the surrounding countries: 
 “ And the seven years of plenty, that was in 
 the land of Egypt, came to an end. And the 
 seven years of famine began to come, according 
 as Joseph had said: and there was famine in all 
 lands; but in all the land of Egypt there was 
 bread. And when all the land of Egypt was 
 famished, the people cried to Pharaoh for 
 bread; and Pharaoh said unto all the Egyptians, 
 Go unto Joseph; what he saith to you, do. 
 And the famine was over all the face of the 
 earth: and Joseph opened all the storehouses, 
 and sold unto the Egyptians; and the famine 
 ‘ was sore in the land of Egypt” (Gen. xli. 53- 
 πο, ον). 
 
 The modern history of Egypt throws some 
 curious light on these ancient records of 
 famines; and instances of their recurrence 
 may be cited to assist us in understanding 
 their course and extent. They have not been 
 infrequent since the Muhammadan conquest, 
 according to the testimony of Arab historians : 
 one of great severity, following a deficient rise 
 of the Nile, in the year of the Flight 597 (4.D. 
 1200), is recorded by ‘Abd-el-Latif, an eye- 
 witness and a trustworthy authority. He 
 gives a most interesting account of its horrors, 
 states that the people throughout the country 
 were driven to the last extremities, eating offal 
 and even their own dead, and mentions, as an 
 instance of the dire straits to which they were 
 driven, that persons who were burnt alive 
 for eating human flesh were themselves, thus 
 ready .roasted, eaten by others. Multitudes 
 fled the country, only to perish in the desert- 
 road to Palestine (Relation de Egypte, trans. 
 S. de Sacy, p. 360 sq.; White’s text, p. 210 sq.). 
 
 But the most remarkable famine occurred 
 in the reign of the Fatimy Khalif el-Mustansir, 
 the only famine of seven years’ duration on 
 record in Egypt since the time of Joseph. This 
 famine (A.H. 457-464, a.p. 1064-1071) ex- 
 ceeded in severity all others of modern times, 
 and was aggravated by the anarchy which then 
 ravaged the country. Vehement drought and 
 pestilence (says Es-Suyity, in his Ausn el 
 Muhddarah) continued for seven consecutive 
 years, so that they [the people] ate corpses, 
 
 FARTHING 
 
 and animals that died of themselves; the 
 cattle perished; a dog was sold for five dinars, 
 and a cat for three dinars...and an ardebb 
 (about five bushels) of wheat for one hundred 
 dinars, and then it failed altogether. He adds, 
 that all the horses of the Khalif, save three, 
 perished, and gives numerous instances of the 
 straits to which the wretched inhabitants 
 were driven, and of the organised bands of 
 kidnappers who infested Cairo and caught 
 passengers in the streets by ropes furnished 
 with hooks and Jet down from the windows, in 
 order to provide themselves with food. This 
 account is confirmed by El-Makrizy (in his 
 Khitat : cp. Quatremére, Mémoires géographiques 
 et historiques sur ? Egypte, ii. 296), from whom 
 we further learn that the family and even 
 the women of the Khalif fled, by the way of 
 Syria, on foot, to escape the peril that 
 threatened all ranks of the population. The 
 whole narrative is worthy of attention, since 
 it contains a parallel to the duration of the 
 famine of Joseph, and at the same time enables 
 us to form an idea of the character of famines 
 in the East. The famine of Samaria resembled 
 it in many particulars; and that very briefly 
 recorded in 2 K. viii. 1, 2 (R. V.), affords 
 another instance of one of seven years: “ Now 
 Elisha had spoken unto the woman whose son 
 he had restored to life, saying, Arise, and go 
 thou and thy household, and sojourn whereso- 
 ever thou canst sojourn: for the Lord hath 
 called for a famine; and it shall also come upon 
 the land seven years. And the woman arose, 
 and did according to the word of the man of 
 God: and she went with her household and 
 sojourned in the land of the Philistines seven 
 years.” Bunsen (Lgypt’s Place, &c., iii. 334, 
 335) quotes the record of a famine in the reign 
 of Usurtasen I., which he supposes to be that 
 of Joseph; but on chronological grounds alone 
 the theory is untenable. The “ famine lasting 
 many years,” referred to in the inscription in 
 the tomb of Baba at El-Kab (immediately 
 before the 18th Dynasty; Brugsch, Hist. of — 
 Egypt under the Pharaohs ?, i, 158, 302 sq., and 
 Die bibl. sieben Jahre d. Hungersnoth, 1891), if 
 “a pious fraud,” yet shows the existence of a 
 tradition that there had been, at some early 
 date, a seven years’ period of severe distress 
 (Renouf, PSBA. 1891, xiii. 444). 
 
 In Arabia, famines are of frequent occurrence. 
 The Arabs, in such cases, when they could not 
 afford to slaughter their camels, used to bleed 
 them, and drink the blood, or mix it with 
 the shorn fur to make a kind of black-pudding. 
 They ate also various plants and grains, which 
 at other times were not used as articles of 
 food. And the tribe of Hanifeh were taunted 
 with having in a famine eaten their god in a 
 dish of dates mashed up with clarified butter 
 and a preparation of dried curds of milk (Lane, 
 
 Ar. Lew. 8. v. ey ). [E. 5. P.] 
 FAN. [Acricu.ture, pp. 66, 67.] 
 
 FARTHING. Two names of coins, one the 
 fourth part of the other, are rendered in the 
 A. V. and in the R. V. by this word. 
 
 1. ἀσσάριον (Matt. x. 29; Luke xii. 6), 
 properly a small as, assarium, but in the N. T. 
 period used as the Greek equivalent of the 
 
FASTING AND FASTS 
 
 Latin as. 
 by as, and in Luke xii. 6 translates “ two 
 assaria” by dipondius; the dupondius, or di- 
 
 pondius, being equal in value to two asses. | 
 
 The Graeco-Roman, or technically Greek im- 
 perial, coin equivalent to the Roman as is no 
 doubt intended by the Evangelists. 
 
 2. κοδράντης5, quadrans (Matt. v. 26; Mark 
 xii. 42), a coin equivalent to two lepta (λεπτὰ 
 δύο, 6 ἐστιν κοδράντης, Mark, /. c.). The plain 
 meaning of this passage is that two lepta were 
 equal to a quadrans, the lepton (λεπτὸν) being a 
 coin current in Palestine, but the quadrans not 
 necessarily so, St. Luke’s use of Latin- words 
 renders it quite possible that he intended to give 
 the information that two common Palestinian 
 coins were equivalent to a Roman one, or to the 
 fourth part of the as. There is no question that 
 the smallest Roman coin of the earlier emperors 
 was a quadrans, and that the smallest Judaean 
 copper coin was lighter, and could well be 
 reckoned as its half, it being remembered that 
 bronze or copper money is always of the nature 
 of a token -currency, and that the weight con- 
 sequently is not to be taken too seriously into 
 account. It is doubtful if the currency of 
 Palestine at the time referred to contained a 
 κοδράντης. [R. S. P.] 
 
 FASTING AND FASTS. Fasting, in the 
 sense of a religious or ceremonial abstinence 
 from food, either partial or complete, for a 
 certain time, at recurring periods, or under 
 special public or private emergencies, is a 
 practice the beginnings of which, like those of 
 most other instinctive religious customs, are lost 
 in the mists of an immemorial past. ‘¢ Food I have 
 not eaten; weeping is my fare;... tears are 
 my meat and drink,” is the cry of the old 
 Accadian penitent, we know not how many 
 thousands of years before our era.* And in 
 certain old Babylonian calend rs for the months 
 of Intercalary Elul, Ve-Adar, Sebat, Tebet, 
 Sivan, 2nd Nisan, and Marchesvan, prescrib- 
 ing the rites to be observed by the king on 
 each day of the month, we find that on five 
 days—viz. the 7th, 14th, 19th, 21st, and 
 28th—the king was religiously bound to ab- 
 stain from certain kinds of food and other 
 indulgences, such as riding in his chariot.” 
 In this connexion, it should be borne in mind 
 that Babylonia is the earliest recorded home of 
 the fathers of Israel (Gen. xi. 31; Josh. xxiv. 2); 
 and that the civilisation of Accad is the oldest, 
 of which any authentic documents remain. On 
 the other hand, the monuments of Egyptian 
 antiquity make no mention of the usage of 
 fasting.© The brief statements of Herodotus, 
 to the effect that the Egyptians fasted before 
 sacrificing to Isis (ii. 40; ep. iv. 186), if cor- 
 rect, refer only to the voluntary practice of iso- 
 lated localities at a comparatively late period. 
 
 a [U-NU]-KU-i irR-SUKUMMA-MU...{R-UA-MU= 
 (ritumjul akul; bikitum kurmati...dimtu mastiti, 
 (Haupt, ASKT. No. 15.) ; 
 
 b These calendars belong to the Assyrian collections 
 of the British Museum. That for Intercalary Elul was 
 published in W. A. 1., iv. 32,33. The remains of the 
 others are given in the new edition. See Pll. 32, 33, 33*. 
 
 ¢ So I am informed by Mr. Le Page Renouf. Neither 
 in this nor in many other cases must we look to Egypt 
 for the origin of Hebrew religious customs. 
 
 The Vulg. in Matt. x. 29 renders it ! 
 
 FASTING AND FASTS 1061 
 
 Although there is no direct inculcation of 
 fasting as a religious practice in the sacred 
 literature of China before Buddhism, we find 
 its disciplinary value recognised in the Doctrine 
 of the Mean (e.g. in the phrase chai ming, to 
 purify the mind by abstinence), a work ascribed 
 to the grandson of Confucius. The Vedas 
 prescribe fasting ; and the practice of it forms 
 an important element in the ascetic dis- 
 cipline both of the Brahman and the Bud- 
 dhist. The system of Zoroaster and its modern 
 representative Parsism naturally neglect an 
 observance which, if favourable to the calm 
 contemplative life of the religious mystic, is not 
 compatible with the active stir and strain of a 
 business career. The strict fast of the ninth 
 month (Ramadan), universally observed in 
 Islam, was probably instituted not without 
 reference to Jewish and Christian precedents. 
 Nor was the practice unknown to the Greeks and 
 Romans, although it does not appear to have 
 been a matter of general obligation as in the 
 case of Semitic religions. It was customary in 
 the Eleusinian mysteries; and the women who 
 celebrated the Thesmophoria abstained from 
 common food, though they might eat cakes of 
 sesame and honey. 
 
 On the occasion of certain prodigia at Rome, 
 B.C. 191, the Sibylline books ordered a quin- 
 quennial fast to be instituted in honour of Ceres ; 
 but this prescription doubtless concerned the 
 priesthood only, and such of the laity as chose 
 to honour it (Liv. xxxvi. 37). The idea involved 
 was that of a sympathetic share in the grief of 
 the goddess, who abstained from food and 
 drink during her long search for her lost 
 Proserpine. Tertullian informs us that on the 
 occasion of a severe drought, the heathen kept 
 a thoroughly Jewish fast, and walked in pro- 
 cession barefoot (De Jejunio, 15). On our Monday 
 (dies Jovis) a fast in honour of Jupiter was 
 recognised as meritorious by the Romans (Hor. 
 Sat. li. 3, 288-292). But, upon the whole, the 
 practice had no more than a sporadic and 
 isolated prevalence in classical antiquity. 
 
 In the Old Testament we find numerous refer- 
 ences to fasting. The term D1 ¥—rendered νηστεία 
 by the LXX., and jejwnium in the Latin Versions, 
 denoting first “fasting” and then “a fast,” in 
 the concrete sense (plural NVD1¥, Esth. ix. 31)— 
 is common in the Prophets (including the histo- 
 ries) and occurs thrice in the Psalms (xxxv. 13; 
 Ixix. 10; cix. 24), but not once in the Law,. 
 where we find instead (Ley. xvi. 29, 31; Num. 
 xxx. 13) the striking expression 5) Mav, “ to 
 afflict, abase, or humble the soul,” 7. 6. the self 
 (Ps. iii. 2; Is. li. 23), or perhaps specially the 
 appetites and desires (Ps. xlii. 4; Prov. vi. 30; 
 Jer. ii, 24). 
 
 It was only on one day in the year, the great 
 Day of Atonement, that the Law required all 
 Israelites to fast. [ATONEMENT, Day oFr.] It 
 has been maintained by a powerful school 
 of modern critics (Graf, Wellhausen) that the 
 Day of Atonement is of post-Exilic origin, 
 on the grounds that it is only mentioned 
 in the “Priestly Legislation,’ and that no 
 reference is made to it in the narrative 
 (Neh. viii—x.). We have seen, that so far as 
 the element of religious fasting is concerned, 
 that custom is of unknown antiquity; and the 
 Hebrew phrase which describes it as an “ abasing 
 
1052 FASTING AND FASTS 
 
 of the soul,” may belong to a very distant past, 
 independently of the relative age of the canoni- 
 cal documents in which it is now first found. 
 No very profound study is required to enable 
 persons of ordinary intelligence to realize the 
 fact that the great fundamental conceptions and 
 observances of religion are, broadly speaking, 
 the same throughout the ancient world. The 
 Old Testament adopts the common external 
 forms of worship and service, and adapts 
 them to the expression of the higher mean- 
 ings of revealed religion, Thus it does not 
 expressly originate sacrifice, although it lays 
 down particular rules to be observed in sacrifice. 
 It nowhere defines a temple or an altar as 
 something previously unknown, any more than 
 it defines the idea of God. It takes for granted 
 that Israel is already familiar with these and a 
 hundred other necessary elements of religion ; 
 yet it incidentally reveals, in the clearest way, 
 the ancient and original sense of such a term as 
 “altar,” when it uses as a synonymous expres- 
 sion “the table of Jehovah” (Ezek. xli. 22; 
 Mal. i. 7-12). Modern researches have demon- 
 strated that this phrase covers the ultimate pre- 
 historic conception of an altar. And yet the 
 first Old Testament writers in which it occurs, 
 both belong to the period after the fall of the 
 Jewish monarchy. ‘To argue that the idea was 
 post-Exilic, on that ground, would be evidently 
 absurd. The assumption, however, that Israel 
 did not before the post-Exilic period observe the 
 Day of Atonement, rests, as we have seen, upon 
 the precisely similar ground that the Day is 
 not mentioned by any writer previous to “the 
 Priestly Legislation,” which is referred to that 
 period. This is not the place to discuss the age 
 and authorship of the Book of Leviticus and of 
 that section of the Hexateuch to which it belongs 
 {PenTaTEuCcH]. The inherent weakness of an 
 argument which assumes that a religious usage 
 or prescription cannot be primitive, because no 
 relatively early record of it happens to have 
 survived, hardly requires to be pointed out. 
 We may recognise the fact that the historical 
 Books of the Old Testament nowhere mention 
 the annual Fast of the tenth day of the seventh 
 month (Tishri), without drawing Graf's inference 
 that therefore it was unknown before the Exile 
 (Graf, Die gesch. Biich. des A. T. p. 41). How 
 many other things are missing in those frag- 
 mentary outlines of Israel’s history! Some, at 
 least, who carefully note the characteristics of 
 these narratives, with their express references to 
 fuller accounts upon which they are based, and 
 their occasional episodes or “‘cameos” of per- 
 sonal history, interpersed unequally in the 
 course of mere annals abbreviated at times to 
 little more than a thin line of royal and 
 dynastic names, will not be inclined to set much 
 store by this argument from omission, where so 
 much besides of equal or greater consequence is 
 likewise omitted. 
 
 But the Day of Atonement is not mentioned 
 in Neh. viii-x. “Even in 444 8.6. the year of 
 the publication of the Pentateuch by Ezra,” 
 writes Wellhausen, “the great Day of Atonement 
 has not yet come into force. Ezra begins the 
 reading of the Law in the beginning of the 
 seventh month, and afterwards the Feast of 
 Tabernacles is observed on the fifteenth; of an 
 atoning solemnity on the tenth of the month | 
 
 FASTING AND FASTS 
 
 not a word is said in the circumstantial narra- 
 tive, which, moreover, is one specially interested 
 in the liturgical element, but it is made up for 
 on the twenty-fourth (Neh. viii. ix.). This testi- 
 monium e silentio is enough; down to that date 
 the great day of the Priestly Code (now intro- 
 duced for the first time) had not existed” (Pro- 
 legomena to the Hist. of Israel, p. 111, Eng. tr.). 
 It is true that the chronicler exhibits a strong 
 interest in everything that concerns the Temple 
 and its services; but his narrative in these 
 chapters is far from being “ circumstantial ” in 
 the sense required by this argument, viz. that 
 of containing a complete “record of proceedings 
 from the first day of the seventh month onwards 
 to the twenty-fourth,” as stated by Professor 
 Robertson Smith (Old Test. in Jewish Church, 
 p- 377). The chronicler does not profess to 
 supply such a consecutive relation within the 
 space of these three chapters. Had that been 
 
 his intention, the long prayer of the Levites” 
 
 (Neh. ix. 4-38) would hardly have been allowed 
 to occupy such an altogether disproportionate 
 share of his space. But why is the authority 
 of the chronicler’s compilation, which is referred 
 by these learned:critics to the “‘ very end of the 
 Persian or the beginning of the Greek period,” 
 preferred in this instance to that of the 
 “ Priestly Legislation,” which they allow to 
 have been published in its completeness at least 
 a century and a half before his time? On the 
 one hand, no writer suggests that the author 
 of Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah was ignorant of 
 the ordinance of the tenth day of the seventh 
 month. On the other, critics have not scrupled 
 to suppose him capable of freely antedating 
 the customs and institutions of later times. 
 If then he does not mention the Day of Atone- 
 ment in this passage, it certainly is not 
 because he did not believe that it had been 
 observed at all before B.c. 444, nor because 
 he intended to suggest such a _ surprising 
 inference; but rather because he wished to 
 dwell at length upon the exceptional public 
 humiliation of the twenty-fourth day of the same 
 month. After all, in this as in other portions 
 of his compilation he made his choice of excerpts 
 in his own way, like other Oriental compilers, 
 without having the fear of modern criticism 
 before his eyes. Perhaps, indeed, the celebration 
 of the Day was not recorded in the source he 
 was using. It is evident from the whole account 
 that the returned exiles were unfamiliar with 
 the ordinances of the ancient Law, which had 
 fallen into desuetude during their long captivity 
 in a heathen land. This it was that necessitated 
 the public reading and exposition of the Law 
 recorded in the eighth chapter. In the then 
 irregular state of things, their religious leaders 
 may not have judged it possible or expedient 
 to proclaim the observance of the Day of Atone- 
 ment on that occasion. The ceremonies of the 
 Day, which were specially concerned with the 
 purification of the high priest and his family, 
 and then that of the Temple and its vessels, 
 would hardly have seemed appropriate, at a 
 time when the people had not yet formally 
 undertaken to observe the Law, and to provide 
 for the maintenance of the sacrificial worship 
 (Neh. x. 29 sq.); when the dues of the priest- 
 hood were left unpaid, and “the house of God 
 was forsaken” (cp. Neh. xiii. 10,11). The entire 
 
FASTING AND FASTS 
 
 picture presented to us in these vivid though 
 fragmentary chapters is one of a provisional 
 state of things; of the gradual restoration and 
 regulation of the public worship after long 
 disuse and disorder. The walls of Jerusalem 
 were not rebuilt in a day; nor were the pre- 
 cepts of the Law carried out at once in all 
 their fulness by the struggling community of 
 Judea. The remainder of the Book, which 
 relates how the population of Jerusalem was 
 recruited, the Levitical ministry re-established 
 in the Temple, the observance of the Sabbath 
 vindicated, witnesses to the fact clearly enough.* 
 
 There remains one other objection. It is 
 urged that the Day of Atonement confliets with 
 that purely joyous conception of worship which 
 characterised ancient Israel. But that concep- 
 tion is no more than a plausible hypothesis, 
 which itself conflicts with the general analogy 
 of the history of religion. Reference has already 
 been made to those old Accadian confessions of 
 sin which the Semitic Assyrians of the 7th 
 century B.C. copied from Babylonian texts for 
 their own use. Hebrew human nature even in 
 the earliest period probably resembled human 
 nature at large in respect of an occasional con- 
 sciousness of guilt and the need of expiation. 
 And there were too many occasions in the 
 national history, when foreign oppression or 
 domestic disaster, when the sword or drought 
 or pestilence, irresistibly suggested the Divine 
 wrath, to allow us to acquiesce in the pro- 
 position that national sin, atonement, and expia- 
 tion became principal ideas in the religious 
 consciousness of Israel only after the Exile. The 
 witness of the Prophets and of the prophetical 
 histories is against this view. Would the 
 troubles of the times of the Judges, or the 
 plague in David’s reign, be the occasion of holi- 
 day rites and joyous feasting round the altar? 
 On the other hand, what proof is there that 
 during the period of the Exile “men felt them- 
 selves ... unceasingly under the leaden pressure 
 of sin and wrath” (Wellhausen, p. 112)? Such 
 a conception of the time seems to be unnatural ; 
 or at least the statement is rhetorically exagge- 
 rated. The sorrowful utterances of the Lamen- 
 tations do not express the uniform experience 
 of the entire Captivity. If that were so, the 
 buoyant oracles of the Prophets of the period are 
 as inexplicable as the fact that so many of the 
 banished preferred to stay in Babylonia, and so 
 few took advantage of the Edict of Deliverance.° 
 
 4 The “circumstantial narrative” omits to notice the 
 Sabbatic character of the first day of the seventh month, 
 and the blast on the priestly trumpets with which it 
 was ushered in (Ley. xxiii. 24; cp. Neh. viii. 1), though 
 the former fact is implied in the statement that ‘‘the 
 day is holy unto our Lord” (Neh. viii. 10). Whether 
 the trumpet-blast “ill-befitted its quiet solemnity” 
 (Wellhausen, p. 110) or not, may be a matter of 
 opinion. Mirth was not necessarily implied by the 
 blowing of trumpets, but simply the proclamation of 
 the fact that the day had begun. See Friedlander, 
 Text-book of the Jewish Religion2, p. 19. 
 
 e The late Friedrich Bleek maintained, on the ground 
 of its peculiar contents, that Lev. xvi. was of Mosaic ori- 
 gin (Hinleitung, § 12sq.). The proceedings with refer- 
 ence to the desert-fiend (Azazel) can hardly have been 
 instituted for the first time in the 5th cent.; and, as a 
 matter of fact, this demon belongs to primitive Accadian 
 religion (see PSBA., June 1890). 
 
 i 
 
 FASTING AND FASTS 1088 
 
 During the Exile four annual fast-days were 
 established, in commemoration of the fall of 
 Jerusalem and subsequent calamities. These 
 days were the ninth of the fourth month, for 
 the capture of Jerusalem (Jer. lii. 6); the 
 tenth of the fifth month, for the destruction of 
 the city and the Temple (2 K. xxv. 8, 9; Jer. lii, 
 12); the fast of the seventh month, for the 
 murder of Gedaliah (2 K. xxv. 25; Jer. xli. 1, 
 2); and that of the tenth day of the tenth 
 month, for the beginning of the siege (2 K. xxv, 
 1; Jer. 111. 4; Zech. viii. 19, 20). The Mishna 
 (Taanith, iv. 6) and St. Jerome (in Zech. viii.), 
 following contemporary Jewish notions, connect 
 other events with these fasts, regardless of 
 manifest anachronisms. After the Return, and 
 when the rebuilding of the Temple had begun, 
 the Jews of Babylon sent to inquire of the 
 priests at Jerusalem whether they were still 
 bound to keep the fast of the fifth month. 
 Thereupon the Prophet Zechariah took occasion to 
 rebuke their hypocritical observance of the fast- 
 days of both the fifth and the seventh months 
 (Zech. vii. 5, 6); and declared that all the four 
 fasts would hereafter be turned into days of 
 “joy and gladness and cheerful feasts ” (viii. 19). 
 According to Jewish tradition, this led to the 
 abolition of the fasts, but they were re-intro- 
 duced after the destruction of the second Temple. 
 The Prophet’s words, however, are scarcely a 
 direct injunction to discontinue the four fasts. 
 But it is a remarkable coincidence that Titus 
 took Jerusalem in the fourth month, and the 
 Temple was burnt in the fifth (on the 10th 
 Léus=Ab, according to Josephus ; on the 9th of 
 Ab, according to the Talmud). The Jews still 
 observe these fasts (Friedlinder, pp. 32, 33). 
 
 Fasting is one form of sacrifice, the essential 
 idea of which is the surrender of some personal 
 good in order to propitiate the Divine favour. 
 The necessity of self-denial is illustrated at the 
 very outset of Scripture by the parable of the 
 Forbidden Fruit (cp. Tertull. de Jejun. 8). Fast- 
 ing is, moreover, a natural outward evidence of 
 inward self-abasement before God, and of humble 
 acquiescence in the Divine chastisements ; it is 
 an instinctive mode of manifesting sorrow for 
 sin, and of enhancing and intensifying that 
 sorrow. Consequently, so long as the sense of 
 sin, in any degree beyond a merely sentimental 
 regret, shall survive; so long as it is felt that 
 our worst transgressions are directly due to the 
 indulgence of a fallen nature and the corrupt 
 desires of the flesh,—so long will it seem right to 
 earnest spiritual minds to mortify the body by 
 the discipline of fasting. 
 
 As a natural accompaniment and token of 
 intense grief, fasting finds many incidental illus- 
 trations in the Old Testament. It is associated 
 with mourning for the dead (1 Sam. xxxi. 13; 
 2 Sam. i. 12); with private and personal dis- 
 tresses (1 Sam. i. 7; Ps. cix. 24); with sym- 
 pathetic sorrow for the misfortunes of friends 
 (1 Sam, xx. 345 Ps. xxxv. 13) and for national 
 calamities (Judg. xx. 26; Neh, 1. 4: Baruchi. 5; 
 Joel i. 14, ii. 12,15); with the expression of 
 penitence for one’s own offences (1 K. xxi. 27; 
 Ecclus. xxxiy. 26) and for those of the com- 
 munity (1 Sam. vii. 6; Deut. ix. 18; Jonah iii. d; 
 Ps. lxix. 10; Ezra x. 6; Neh. ix. 1). Persons 
 fasting often displayed other signs of mourning, 
 such as wearing sackcloth, rending their gar- 
 
1054 FASTING AND FASTS 
 
 ments and plucking out the hair of head and 
 beard, sprinkling the head with earth and 
 ashes, weeping, lying prostrate on the ground, 
 neclect of washing and anointing the person, 
 and walking barefoot (2 Sam. i. 11, xii. 16, 
 90; 1 K. xxi. 27; Ezra ix. 3; Neh. ix. 1; 
 Esth. iv. 3; Add. to Esth. xiv. 2; Is. lviii. 5; 
 Jonah iii. 6; Dan. ix. 3; Judith viii. 6 ; 1 Mace. 
 iii. 47). 
 
 In the case of individuals, fasting was recog- 
 nised as auxiliary to undisturbed communion 
 with God, and as a preparation for the reception 
 of Divine revelations (Exod. xxxiv. 28; Deut. 
 ix.9; Dan. x.2; 2 Esd. v. 13, 20, vi. 31, 35, 
 &e.; Matt. iv. 2). Upon similar grounds, the 
 practice of a fasting reception of the Eucharist 
 may be justified (ep. also Acts xiii. 3). 
 
 In special emergencies extraordinary general 
 fasts were sometimes proclaimed, in token of 
 national humiliation for sin, and by way of 
 averting the Divine wrath or of ensuring the 
 Divine assistance in public enterprises (1 Sam. 
 vii.6; 2 Ch. xx. 3; Ezra viii. 21; Jer. xxxvi. 6, 
 9; 2 Macc. xiii. 12; Judith iv. 9, 10, vi. 19: 
 ep. 1 Sam. xiv. 24; 1 K. xxi. 9, 12).* 
 
 The writings of the Prophets of the Exile and 
 the Return reveal the origin of a popular ten- 
 dency to regard fasting as in itself so pleasing 
 to God as to atone for the flagrant neglect of 
 the higher duties of righteousness, mercy, and 
 truth. Against this delusion the Prophets of 
 the period raise their protest, as their prede- 
 cessors had done, against a similar heathenish 
 view of the value of the old sacrificial system. 
 Like the Ionic philosopher, they bid their 
 countrymen fast from wickedness (νηστεύειν 
 κακότητος, Empedocles, Fragm. 454. See Is. 
 Ivili. 3 sq.; Zech. vii. 5 sq., viii. 16 sq.: 
 and cp. Joel ii. 12, 13; Jer. xiv. 12), without 
 implying any denunciation of the proper use of 
 literal fasting as a spiritual discipline. 
 
 To this period must be referred the origin of 
 fasting “twice in the week” (Luke xviii. 12), 
 which was the regular custom of the Pharisees, 
 the days chosen being the second and the fifth 
 (Monday and Thursday, which were the days 
 appointed for public fasts, according to Taanith, 
 ii. 9). See also Matt, ix. 14, vi. 16; Mark ii. 
 18; Luke v. 33. Judith is represented as 
 fasting daily, except on the Sabbaths and New 
 Moons and the eves of those festivals (Judith viii. 
 6); a fact which clearly indicates’ the growing 
 rigour of the standard of outward sanctity 
 (cp. also Judith iv. 9; Tob. xii.8; Ecclus. xxxiv. 
 26; Luke ii. 37). 
 
 Custom varied in the matters of time and 
 strictness. There was the one day fast from 
 evening to evening (Jos. Ant. iii. 10, § 3), termin- 
 ating with the appearance of the stars; a limit 
 which is still observed by the Moslems in their 
 fast of Ramadan. But besides this, we read also 
 of a fast of three days (Esth. iv. 16; 2 Mace. 
 xiii. 12); of four (Acts x. 30, probably); of 
 seven (1 Sam. xxxi. 13); and even of forty days. 
 In the longer periods, we have to think of re- 
 
 f In later times, the Sanhedrin was wont to order a 
 general fast if the beginning of the rainy season was 
 delayed. And Josephus informs us of a fast which the 
 Pharisee Ananias succeeded in getting imposed upon the 
 town of Tiberias, for his own private ends (Life, § 56). 
 
 FAT 
 
 - 
 
 striction to bare necessaries (Dan. x. 2, 3),® and 
 perhaps of abstinence even from these until night- 
 fall.» The rules of fasting, which were long in 
 dispute between the schools of Hillel and 
 Shammai, are systematized in the Talmudic 
 tracts Joma and Taanith. 
 
 It is important to remember that our Lord 
 has emphatically recognised the religious value 
 of fasting (Matt. vi. 16-18; ix. 15). Hecouples 
 it with prayer as a source of spiritual power 
 (Matt. xvii.21). If His disciples are said not to 
 have fasted so long as “the Bridegroom ” was 
 with them, the denial relates only to the frequent 
 and excessive fasts of the Jewish sects (Matt. 
 xi. 19; cp. ix. 15). Fasting was naturally 
 important in the practice of John’s disciples, 
 their master’s work being especially a preaching 
 of repentance. 
 
 In view of our Lord’s attitude towards this 
 observance, we are not surprised to find that in — 
 the primitive Church not only did Jewish 
 Christians long continue to keep the Jewish 
 fast-days, but fasting and prayer were united in 
 the practice of Gentile believers also, especially 
 in the case of Ordination (Acts xiii. 1-3; xiv. 
 23). With St. Paul’s warnings against the 
 tendency to attach an independent value to 
 fasting, and to reduce Christian holiness to 
 a mere external asceticism (Rom. xiv. 2, 6, 
 17, 21; Col. ii. 16, 21-23; 1 Tim. iv. 3-5, 8, 
 γ. 23), we have also to consider his precept 
 (1 Cor. vii. 5) in favour of fasting, and, above 
 all, his own practice (2 Cor. vi. 5; xi. 27). 
 
 It isnot logical to confess the Divine authority 
 of Christ, and the inspiration of His Apostles, 
 and at the same time to treat as of no perma- 
 nent obligation an ordiaance for which the 
 Master Himself Jaid down rules, and which both 
 He and His immediate followers carefully ob- 
 served in practice. So far from being, as some 
 suppose, contrary to the spirit of the Gospel ; asa 
 token of sorrow for sin, as a means of crucifying 
 the flesh, as an act of obedience to the precepts 
 and a following of the example of Christ, fast- 
 ing is one of the proofs of a sincere acceptance 
 of the Gospel. [C. J. B.] 
 
 FAT. The Hebrews distinguished between 
 
 the suet or pure fat of an animal (121), and 
 
 the fat. which was intermixed with the lean 
 (ΣΟ, Neh. viii. 10). Certain restrictions 
 were imposed upon them in reference to the 
 former: some parts of the suet—viz. about the 
 stomach, the entrails, the kidneys, and the tail 
 of a sheep, which grows to an excessive size in 
 many Eastern countries, and produces a large 
 quantity of rich fat [SHEEP ]—were forbidden to 
 be eaten in the case of animals offered to 
 Jehovah in sacrifice (Lev, iii. 3, 9, 17; vii. 3, 
 23). The ground of the prohibition was that 
 the fat was the richest part of the animal, and 
 
 z Op. Tertullian’s portionale jejuniwm, or partia! 
 fast, i.e. abstinence from particular kinds of food. 
 
 h So the Council of Chalcedon decreed that in fasting 
 one should take neither food nor drink all day until 
 after the evening prayer (The Sixteenth Homily). It 
 was the rule of the Essenes to abstain altogether from 
 flesh and wine, and only to partake of such food as 
 bread, vegetables, millet, and water, after sunset. 
 [EssENEs.] 
 
FAT 
 
 therefore belonged to Him (iii. 16). It has 
 been supposed that other reasons were super- 
 added, as that the use of fat was unwholesome 
 in the hot climate of Palestine. 
 however, to be no ground for such an assump- 
 tion. The presentation of the fat as the 
 richest part of the animal was agreeable to the 
 dictates of natural feeling, and was the ordi- 
 nary practice even of heathen nations, as 
 instanced in the Homeric descriptions of sacri- 
 fices (Jl. i. 460, ii. 423; Od. iii. 457), and in 
 the customs of the Egyptians (Her. ii. 47) and 
 Persians (Strab. xv. p. 732). Indeed, the term 
 cheleb is itself significant of the feeling on 
 which the regulation was based; for it describes 
 metaphorically the best of any production (Gen. 
 xly. 18; Num. xviii. 12; Ps. Ixxxi. 16, cxlvii. 
 14: cp. 2 Sam. i. 22; Judg. iii. 29; Is. x. 16). 
 With regard to other parts of the fat of sacri- 
 fices or the fat of other animals, it might be 
 consumed, with the exception of those dying 
 either by a violent or a natural death (Lev. vii. 
 24), which might still be used in any other 
 way. The burning of the fat of sacrifices was 
 particularly specified in each kind of offering, 
 whether a peace-offering (Ley. iii. 9), consecra- 
 tion offering (viii. 25), sin-offering (iv. 8), 
 trespass-offering (vii. 3), or redemption-offering 
 (Num. xviii. 17). The Hebrews fully appre- 
 ciated the luxury of well-fatted meat, and had 
 their stall-fed oxen and calves (1 K.iv. 23; Jer. 
 xlvi. 21; Luke xy. 23); nor is there any reason 
 to suppose its use unwholesome. [W. L. B.] 
 
 FAT (A--S. faet. Cp. Germ. fass), i.e. Vat. 
 The word employed in the A. V. and R. V. to 
 translate the Hebrew term 30), Yekeb, in Joel 
 
 ii, 24, iii. 13 only. The word commonly used 
 for yekeb, indiscriminately with gath, ΤΣ, is 
 “ wine-press ” or “ wine-fat,” and once “ press- 
 fat” (R. V. “ wine-fat,” Hag. ii. 16): but the 
 two appear to be distinct—gath, the upper re- 
 ceptacle or “press” in which the grapes were 
 trod ; and yekeb, the “ vat,” on a lower level, into 
 which the juice or must was collected. The 
 word is derived by Gesenius (Zhes. 619 0) from 
 a root signifying to “ hollow or dig out”: and in 
 accordance with this is the practice in Palestine, 
 where the “wine-press” and “vats” were 
 excavated in the native rock of the hills on 
 which the vineyards lay. Rock-cut presses 
 are found in every part of the hills of Palestine. 
 They usually consist of two square basins. The 
 upper, which was large and shallow, was used 
 for treading the grapes. A short channel led to 
 the smaller and deeper basin, yekeb, into which 
 the wine ran, and whence it was sometimes 
 strained off into a third basin. The “ wine- 
 fat” (R. V. “wine-press”) of Mark xii. 1 is 
 ὑπολήνιον, which is frequently used by the LXX. 
 to translate yekeb in the O. T. [Gra LW 
 
 FATHER (4), AN, Chald. Abba, NAN, Mark 
 xiv. 36, Rom. viii. 15; πατήρ; pater: a primi- 
 tive word, but following the analogy of NAN, to 
 show kindness, Gesen. Thes. pp. 6-8). 
 
 The position and authority of the father as 
 the head of the family is expressly assumed and 
 sanctioned in Scripture, as a likeness of that of 
 the Almighty over His creatures; an authority, 
 as Philo remarks, intermediate between human 
 
 There appears, | 
 
 FATHER 1055 
 
 and divine (Philo, περὶ γονέων τιμῆς, ὃ 1). It 
 lies of course at the root of that so-called pa- 
 triarchal government (Gen. iii. 16; 1 Cor. xi. 3) 
 which was introductory to the more definite 
 systems which followed, and which in part, but 
 not wholly, superseded it. When therefore the 
 name of “ father of nations” was given to Abram 
 [ABRAHAM], he was thereby held up not only as 
 the ancestor, but as the example to those who 
 should come after him (Gen. xviii. 18,19; Rom. 
 iv. 17). The father’s blessing was regarded as 
 conferring special benefit, but his malediction 
 special injury, on those on whom it fell (Gen. 
 ix. 25, 27; xxvii. 27-40; xlviii. 15, 20; xlix.); 
 and so also the sin of a parent was held to affect, 
 in certain cases, the welfare of his descendants 
 2K. ν. 27), though the Law was forbidden to 
 punish the son for his father’s transgression 
 (Deut. xxiv. 16; 2 K. xiv. 6; Ezek. xviii. 20), 
 The command to honour parents is noticed by St. 
 Paul as the only one of the Decalogue which bore 
 a distinct promise (Ex. xx. 12; Eph. vi. 2), and 
 disrespect towards them was condemned by the 
 Law as one of the worst of crimes (Ex. xxi. 15, 
 17; 1 Tim. i. 9: ep. Virg. Aen. vi. 609; 
 Aristoph. Ran. 274-773). Instances of legal 
 enactment in support of parental authority are 
 found in Ex. xxii. 17; Num. xxx. 3, 5, xii. 
 1 Dent. xxi 18. ΣΙ eve χα Se πε ὦ 
 xxii. 12: and the spirit of the Law in this 
 direction may be seen in Prov. xiii. 1, xv. 5, 
 Xvii. 25, xix. 13, xx. 20, xxviii. 24, xxx. 17; Is. 
 xlvy. 10; Mal. i.6. The father, however, had 
 not the power of death over his child (Deut. 
 xxi. 18-21; Philo, 7. c.). 
 
 From the patriarchal spirit also the principle 
 of respect to age and authority in general appears 
 to be derived. Thus Jacob is described as bless- 
 ing Pharaoh (Gen. xlvii. 7, 10: cp. Lev. xix. 
 32, Prov. xvi. 31; Juv. Sat. xiii. 54, 55; Philo, 
 loc. ὃ 6). 
 
 It is to this well-recognised theory of parental 
 authority and supremacy that the very various 
 uses of the term “ father ” in Scripture are due. 
 (1.) As the source or inventor of an art or prac- 
 
 _tice (Gen. iv. 20, 21; Job xxxviii. 28, xvii. 14; 
 
 John viii. 44; 2 Cor. i. 3). (2.) As an object of 
 respect or reverence (Jer. ii. 27; 2 Καὶ. ii. 12, 
 y. 15, vi. 21). (8.) Thus also the pupils or 
 scholars of the prophetical schools, or of any 
 teacher, are called sons (1 Sam. x. 12, 27; 1K. 
 xx. 35; 2K. ii. 3, iv. 1; Heb, xii. 95 1 Tim. 1:2). 
 (4.) The term father and also mother is applied 
 to any ancestor of the male or female line re- 
 spectively (2 Sam. ix. 7; 2 Ch. xv. 16; Is. li. 
 2; Jer. xxxv. 6, 18; Dan. v. 2). (5.) In the 
 Talmud the term father is used to indicate the 
 chief, e.g. the principal of certain works are 
 termed “ fathers.” Objects whose contact causes 
 
 | pollution are called “fathers” of defilement 
 
 (Mishn. Shabb. vii. 2, vol. ii. p. 29; Pesach i. 6, 
 vol. ii. p. 137, Surenh.). (6.) A protector or 
 guardian (Deut. xxxii. 6; Job xxix. 16; Ps. 
 Ixviii. 5). Many personal names are found with 
 the prefixes JN and IN, as Ab-salom, Abi-shai, 
 Abi-ram, &c., implying some quality or attribute 
 possessed, or ascribed (Gesen. pp. 8, 10. See 
 reff. under ABIA), 
 
 There is no word in Hebrew for “ grand- 
 father,” and thus the word “ fathers” is used in 
 the sense of seniors (Acts vii. 2, xxii. 1), and of 
 parents in general, or ancestors (Dan. v. 2; 
 
1056 FATHOM 
 Pusey, Daniel, p. 409; Jer. xxvii. 7; Matt. 
 xxiii. 30, 32). Ἷ 
 Among Mohammedans parental authority has 
 great weight during the time of pupilage. The 
 son is not allowed to eat, scarcely to sit, in his 
 father’s presence. Disobedience to parents is 
 reckoned one of the most heinous of crimes (Burck- 
 hardt, Notes on Bed. i. 355; Lane, Mod. Eg. 
 i, 84). (He W..P.] 
 
 FATHOM. [MEasuREs.] 
 
 FAUCHION (Judith xiii. 6, xvi. 9), some- 
 times spelt faulchion or falchion. The Greek 
 word ἀκινάκης is variously considered to have 
 been a straight sword, or a crooked sword, or 
 a short spear (see Speaker’s Comm. on the 
 Apocrypha in loco). A drawing of the “ Aki- 
 nakes ” is given on p. 159. 
 
 FEASTS. [Fxstivats.] 
 
 FEET. For customs relative to the feet, see 
 Dust, MourNING, SANDAL, and WASHING. 
 
 FELIX (Φῆλιξ ; Felix), Antonius Felix (Tac. 
 Hist. v. 9). As a freedman of Antonia, mother 
 of the Emperor Claudius, he had assumed her 
 family name. He was brother of Pallas, one of 
 the great freedmen who were the real adminis- 
 trators of the empire in the reign of Claudius. 
 Felix was procurator of Judaea at the time of 
 St. Paul’s arrest at Jerusalem, and to Felix at 
 Caesarea he was sent for trial (Acts xxiii. 24, 
 26). After hearing Tertullus and St. Paul 
 (Acts xxiv. 1-21), Felix put off the Jews with 
 the pretext that he would wait for the evidence 
 of Lysias before deciding, though the chief 
 captain’s opinion was already before him in 
 writing. A remarkable reason is given for the 
 postponement (Acts xxiv. 22)—namely, that 
 “he had more exact knowledge concerning the 
 Way;” that is to say, that he knew a good 
 deal about Christianity and its relation to 
 Judaism ; or, as may possibly be implied by the 
 comparative, more than Paul’s accusers had 
 chosen to tell him. The postponement is there- 
 fore represented in the narrative as being made 
 in St. Paul’s favour, though a bolder and juster 
 man would at once have acquitted the accused. 
 On this statement of his knowledge of “the Way” 
 follows naturally the account of the audience 
 given by Felix to St. Paul on the subject of the 
 Christian faith (Acts xxiv. 24). The Apostle 
 chose topics of direct personal application to 
 Felix and Drusilla themselves. The guilty con- 
 science of Felix was moved to fear. He dis- 
 missed St. Paul abruptly. Other interviews fol- 
 lowed, but the impression made does not seem 
 to have been renewed, as we are expressly told 
 that “he sent for him the oftener and com- 
 muned with him,” in the hope of getting a bribe 
 for his release (Acts xxiv. 26). ‘Two years’ 
 imprisonment followed the trial. Felix was 
 recalled; and, desiring to gain favour with the 
 Jews in view of the complaints which he knew 
 would follow him to Rome, he left St. Paul in 
 bonds (Acts xxiv. 27). The gross injustice of 
 the imprisonment of an innocent man, prolonged 
 for two years in the hope of obtaining a bribe 
 for his release, is surely sufficient to meet the 
 charge that the character of Felix in the Acts 
 
 FELIX 
 
 is inconsistent with that given by profane 
 writers. For criticism in this direction, see 
 Overbeck in loco; De Wette, Apostelyesch.* The 
 account in Josephus (Bb. J. iv. 13) represents 
 Felix only as a stern governor in a time of great 
 turbulence, dispersing rebels and crucifying 
 robbers. But the later narrative of Ant. xx. 
 7, 8, shows him in his true colours, and from it 
 we learn the following particulars. He per- 
 suaded Drusilla to desert her husband Aziz and 
 live with him [DrustiA]. He induced Eleazar, 
 the brigand chieftain, to surrender on promise of 
 safety, and then sent him to Rome for punish- 
 ment. He grew weary of the repeated admoni- 
 tions of Jonathan the high-priest, to whom he 
 owed his position, and procured his assassina- 
 tion. He made no attempt to restrain the war- 
 fare of the factions in Jerusalem. Things went 
 on as if there was no government (ὡς ἐν ἄπρο- 
 στατήτῳ πόλει). On Felix’s return to Rome he 
 was followed by accusers from Judaea, and “ he 
 would certainly have suffered punishment for 
 the wrongs he had committed against the Jews, 
 had not Nero yielded to the urgent entreaties of 
 Pallas (brother of the accused), who was then 
 in great favour with the emperor” (Ant. xx. 8, 9). 
 
 Tacitus mentions Felix twice, and his own 
 fellow-countryman paints him even in blacker 
 colours than Josephus the Jew. “ Relying on his 
 brother’s influence, Felix counted on impunity 
 for any misdeeds he might commit. His reme~ 
 dial measures were such as to stimulate crime” 
 (Tac. Ann. xii.54). He had the soul of a slave 
 with the power of a sovereign, and he exercised 
 his power in all manner of cruelty and lust” 
 (Tac. Hist. v. 9). After all this, Tertullus’ 
 reference to the “ peace ” enjoyed by his means, 
 and to the “clemency” which characterised 
 him, sounds like the bitterest irony (Acts xxiv. 
 2-4). 
 
 It remains to notice very briefly a serious dis- 
 crepancy between the statements of Josephus 
 and Tacitus, which is as yet unreconciled. Taci- 
 tus states that Felix was joint procurator with 
 Cumanus, having Samaria as his- portion, before 
 his appointment as sole procurator of Judaea, 
 Samaria, Galilee, and Peraea. On the troubles 
 between the Jews and Samaritans being referred 
 to the legate of Syria, Quadratus acquitted 
 Felix and sent Cumanus with others to Rome for 
 trial (Tac. Ann. xii. 54). Josephus, on the 
 other hand, while he gives a full account of the 
 Samaritan troubles, and the legate’s inquiry 
 into them, does not mention Felfx till his ap- 
 pointment to Judaea after the trial and con- 
 demnation of Cumanus at Rome. Ewald accepts 
 Tacitus’ account (Hist. Israel, vii. 418 sq.), but 
 critics generally reject it as mistaken. It may 
 be remarked that it is difficult to understand 
 why Jonathan should have asked for Felix as 
 procurator (Jos. Ant. xx. 8, 5) unless the latter 
 had already served in Syria and gained favour 
 with the Jews. The interest of the discrepancy 
 for N. T. students lies in the justification which 
 has been sought from this lengthened procura- 
 torship of Felix for the words of St. Paul (Acts 
 xxiv. 10), “of many years” (cp. “ Jampridem 
 Judaeae impositus,” Tac. Ann. xii. 54). But 
 accepting Wieseler’s chronology (Chron. Apost. 
 Zeit. pp. 66-88), Felix had been procurator for 
 five years (A.D. 53-58) at the time of the trial, 
 and in a government where so many changes 
 
FELLER 
 
 had ‘occurred this was a long period. The addi- 
 tion of δίκαιον to κρίτην in some few authorities, 
 feebly justified by Chrysostom, would be a piece 
 of flattery impossible in St. Paul’s mouth. The 
 only other mention of Felix is in Suetonius 
 (Claud. 28), who calls him “the husband of 
 three queens.” One of the three was Drusilla, 
 already mentioned. Another wife of royal 
 descent was a grand-daughter of Antony and 
 Cleopatra, also named Drusilla by Tacitus (/ist. 
 ν. 9). But probably this is by confusion with 
 Drusilla the daughter of Herod Agrippa. The 
 third “ queen ” is unknown. [E. R. B.] 
 
 FELLER (ls. xiv. 8; A. V. and R. V.), a 
 cutter of wood, from the A.-S. fellan, “to fell.” 
 The word describes the destructive character of 
 the king of Babylon. [F.] 
 
 FELLOES (A.-S. foelge), the curved pieces 
 forming the circumference of a wheel (1 K. vii. 
 33, A. V. and R. V.; Lumby, “Glossary of 
 Bible Words” in Eyre and Spottiswoode’s 
 Teachers’ Bible). y 
 
 FENCED CITIES (0°9¥29, or ΠῚ ΝΥ 32, 
 Dan. xi. 15, from T¥3, cut off, ‘separate, equiva- 
 lent to niya DY, Ges. p. 231 5 πόλεις ὀχυραί, 
 τειχήρεις, τετειχισμέναι ; Urbes, or civitates, mu- 
 ratae, munitae, munitissimae, firmae). ‘The broad 
 distinction between a city and a village in 
 Biblical language has been shown to consist in 
 the possession of walls. [Ciry.] The City had 
 walls, the village was unwalled, or had only a 
 
 FENCED CITIES 1057 
 
 watchman’s tower (S330 ; πύργος ; turris cus- 
 todum ; compare Gesen. p- 267), to which the 
 villagers resortéd in times of danger. A three- 
 fold distinction is thus obtained—1l, cities ; 
 2, unwalled villages; 3, villages with castles or 
 towers (1 Ch. xxvii. 25). The district east of 
 the Jordan, forming the kingdoms of Moab and 
 Bashan, is said to have abounded from very early 
 times in castles and fortresses, such as were 
 built by Uzziah to protect the cattle, and to 
 repel the inroads of the neighbouring tribes, 
 besides unwalled towns (Amm. Mare. xiv. 9; 
 Deut. 11]. 5; 2 Ch. xxvi. 10). Of these many 
 remains probably exist undiscovered at the 
 present day, if many have been discovered 
 (Porter, Damascus, ii. 197; Conder, Heth and 
 Moab, p. 127). The dangers to which unwalled 
 villages are exposed from the marauding tribes 
 of the desert, and also the fortifications by 
 which the inhabitants sometimes protect them- 
 selves, are illustrated by Sir J. Malcolm 
 (Sketches of Persia, ch. xiv. 148; and Frazer, 
 Persia, pp. 379, 380; cp. Judg. v. 7). Villages 
 in the Hawran are sometimes enclosed by a 
 wall, or rather the houses being joined together 
 form a defence against Arab robbers, and the 
 entrance is closed by a gate (Burckhardt, Syria, 
 . 212). 
 
 ξ A further characteristic of a city as a fortified 
 place is found in the use of the word 12, to 
 build, and also fortify. So that “to build” a 
 city appears to be sometimes the same thing as 
 to fortify it (ep. Gen. viii. 20 and 2 Ch. xvi. 6 
 with 2 Ch. xi. 5-10 and 1 K. xv. 17). 
 
 Fortified place belonging to an enemy of the Assyrians, 
 
 The fortifications of the cities of Palestine, 
 thus regularly “fenced,” consisted of one or 
 more walls crowned with battlemented parapets, 
 
 M35, having towers at regular intervals (2 Ch. 
 xxxii. 5; Jer. xxxi. 38), on which in later times 
 engines of war were placed, and watch was kept 
 
 by day and night in time of war (Judg. ix. 45; 
 2 K. ix. 17; 2 Ch. xxvi. 9, 15). Along the 
 
 oldest of the three walls of Jerusalem, there | 
 
 were 90 towers; in the second, 14; and in the | 
 
 third, 60 (Joseph. B. J. v. 4, § 2). One such | 
 BIBLE DICT.—VOL. I. 
 
 tower, that of Hananeel, is repeatedly mentioned 
 (Jer. xxxi. 38; Zech. xiv. 10), as also others 
 (Neh. iii. 1, 11, 27). The gateways of fortified 
 towns were also fortified and closed with strong 
 doors (Judg. xvi. 2,3; 1 Sam. xxiii. 7; 2 Sam. 
 xviii. 24, 33; 2 Ch. xiv. 7; Neh. ii. 8, iii. 3, 6, 
 &c.; 1 Mace. xiii. 33, xv. 39). In advance of 
 the wall there appears to have been sometimes 
 
 an outwork (2%, προτείχισμα), in A. V. marg. 
 
 ditch, R. V. “rampart” (1 K. xxi. 23; 2 Sam. 
 xx. 15 (A. V. “trench,” marg. the outmost 
 
1058 FENCED CITIES 
 
 wall; R. V. “rampart”]; Ges. Thes. p. 454), 
 which was perhaps either a palisade or wall 
 lining the ditch, or a wall raised midway within 
 the ditch itself. Both of these methods of 
 strengthening fortified places, by hindering the 
 near approach of machines, were usual in earlier 
 Egyptian fortifications (Wilkinson, Anc. Hy. i. 
 408 [1878]), but would generally be of less 
 use in the hill forts of Palestine than in Egypt. 
 In many towns there was a keep or citadel for a 
 last resource to the defenders. Those remaining 
 in the Haurdn and Ledja are square. Such existed 
 at Shechem and Thebez (Judg. ix. 46, 51, viii. 17 ; 
 2K. ix. 17), and the great forts or towers of Pse- 
 phinus, Hippicus, and especially Antonia, served 
 a similar purpose, as well as that of overawing 
 the town at Jerusalem. These forts were well 
 furnished with cisterns (Acts xxi. 34; 2 Mace. 
 v.53; Joseph. Ant. xviii. 4,§ 3; B. J. i. 5, § 4, 
 v. 4, ὃ 2, vi. 2,§1). At the time of the en- 
 trance of Israel into Canaan there were many 
 fenced cities existing, which at first caused great 
 alarm to the exploring party of searchers (Num. 
 xiii. 28), and afterwards much trouble to the 
 people in subduing them. Many of these were 
 
 ἔχω στον. 
 
 FENCED CITIES 
 
 refortified, or, as it is expressed, rebuilt by the 
 Hebrews (Num. xxxii. 17, 34-42; Deut. iii. 4, 5; 
 Josh. xi. 12, 13; Judg. i. 27-33), and many, 
 especially those on the sea-coast, remained for a 
 long time in the possession of their inhabitants, 
 who were enabled to preserve them by means of 
 their strength in chariots (Josh. xiii. 3, 6, xvii. 
 16; Judg. i. 19; 2 K. xviii. 8; 2 Ch. xxvi. 6). 
 The strength of Jerusalem was shown by the 
 fact that that city, or at least the citadel, or 
 “stronghold of Zion,” remained in the posses- 
 sion of the Jebusites until the time of David 
 (2 Sam. v. 6, 7; 1 Ch. xi. 5). Among the 
 kings of Israel and Judah several are mentioned 
 as fortifiers or “builders” of cities: Solomon 
 (1 K. ix. 17-19; 2 Ch. viii. 4-6), Jeroboam 1. 
 (1 K. xii. 25), Rehoboam (2 Ch. xi. 5, 12), Baasha 
 (1 K. xv. 17), Omri (1 K. xvi. 24), Hezekiah 
 (2 Ch. xxxii. 5), Asa (2 Ch. xiv. 6,7), Jehosha- 
 phat (2 Ch. xvii. 12), but especially Uzziah 
 (2 K. xiv: 22; 2 Ch. xxvi. 2, 9, 15); and in the 
 reign of Ahab the town of Jericho was rebuilt 
 and fortified by a private individual, Hiel of 
 Bethel (1 K. xvi. 34). Herod the Great was 
 conspicuous in fortifying strong positions, as 
 
 “sae! 
 wee 
 
 2 ἈΝ 
 Ξε τς = - SIN 
 S SS ΞΞΞΞΘῈ = 
 
 ——S 
 
 = 
 ΞΞΞΞ Hed SS aa 
 = : ΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞῚ 
 
 τὸ τς τ 
 LAY UE -ΞΞΞ-. oS 
 SS ΟΣ τς ΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΖΈΞΞΞΞΞ yw SS SS SSS 
 => SS : 
 —————— Ὁ = 
 
 Assyrian Fortifications. 
 
 Masada, Machaerus, Herodium, besides his great 
 works at Jerusalem (Joseph. B. J. vii. 6, 
 §§ 1, 2, and 8, § 3; B. J. i. 21,§ 10; Ant. 
 xiv. 13, § 9). 
 
 But the fortified places of Palestine served 
 only in a few instances to check effectually the 
 progress of an invading force, though many in- 
 stances of determined and protracted resistance 
 are on record, as of Samaria for three years 
 (2 K. xviii. 10), of Jerusalem (2 K. xxv. 3) for 
 four months, and in later times of Jotapata, 
 Gamala, Machaerus, Masada, and above all Jeru- 
 salem itself, the strength of whose defences drew 
 forth the admiration of the conqueror Titus | 
 
 (Joseph. B. J. iii. 6, iv. 1 and 9, vii. 6, §§ 2-4 
 and 8; Robinson, i. 232). 
 
 The earlier Egyptian fortifications consisted 
 usually of a quadrangular and sometimes double 
 wall of sun-dried brick, 15 feet thick, and often 
 50 feet in height, with square towers at inter- 
 vals, of the same height as the walls, both 
 crowned with a parapet, and a round-headed 
 battlement in shape likeashield. A second lower 
 wall with towers at the entrance was added, 
 distant 13 to 20 feet from the main wall, and 
 sometimes another was made of 70 or 100 feet 
 in length, projecting at right angles from the 
 main wall to enable the defenders to annoy the 
 
FERRET 
 
 assailants in flank, The ditch was sometimes 
 fortified by a sort of tenaille in the ditch itself, 
 or a ravelin on its edge, In later times the prac- 
 tice of fortifying towns was laid aside, and the 
 large temples with their enclosures were made 
 
 to serve the purpose of forts (Wilkinson, Anc.’ 
 
 Egypt. i. 408, 409 [1878}). 
 
 The fortifications of Nineyeh, Babylon, Ecba- 
 tana, and of Tyre and Sidon are all mentioned, 
 either in the Canonical Books or in the Apocrypha. 
 
 The so-called Golden Gate of Jerusalem, showing supposed 
 remains of the old Jewish Wall. 
 
 In the sculptures of Nineveh representations are 
 found of walled towns, of which one is thought 
 to represent Tyre, and all illustrate the mode of 
 fortification adopted both by the Assyrians and 
 their enemies (Jer. li. 30-32, 58; Ezek. xxvii. 
 11; Amos i. 10; Nah. iii. 14; Zech. ix. 3; Tob. 
 i. 17, xiv. 14, 15; Judith i. 1, 4; Layard, Min. 
 ii. pp. 275, 279, 388, 395; Nin. § Bab. pp. 231, 
 358; Mon. of Nin. pt. ii. 39,43). [H.W. P.] 
 
 FERRET (P38, andhah ; μυγαλή ; mygale ; 
 R. V. “Gecko”’), one of the unclean, creeping 
 things forbidden as food in Ley. xi. 30. All 
 commentators are agreed that the rendering of 
 the A. V. is erroneous. That of the R. V. seems 
 the most probable (see the marg. note in loco). 
 This and the three which follow it in Leviticus 
 are “creeping things,” or reptiles; and the 
 name is from a root PIN, “to sigh or groan,” 
 well applicable to the rapid clucking sound 
 made by the Gecko (Ptyodactylus gecko) by 
 vibrating its tongue against its palate, whence 
 the name. The LXX. translates it μυγαλή, 
 the shrew mouse (Sorex araneus), which is 
 common enough in Palestine, where are also 
 other species of shrew. The Rabbinical writers 
 identify andkdh with the hedgehog, which, 
 though not uncommon in the country, would 
 not be classed with the creeping things, but is 
 looked upon as a small porcupine (Lewysohn, 
 Zool. des Talmuds, §§ 129, 134). The gecko is 
 extremely common in the Holy Land and in 
 Arabia. It runs with great rapidity on walls 
 and on smooth, indented surfaces, attaching itself 
 to a ceiling by means of a remarkable provision 
 
 FESTIVALS 1059 
 
 in the structure of the underside of its toes, a 
 series of fine laminae or plates, so that its move- 
 ments appear like those of a fly. (H. B. T.] 
 
 FESTIVALS. I. The student of antiquity 
 soon discovers that there is little that can be 
 called strange or peculiar in the principal 
 features of the Mosaic system of ritual and 
 observance. The ceremonial actions in which 
 the religious spirit found natural expression are 
 much the same here as elsewhere [see FasTIna]; 
 allowing for modifications of more or less im- 
 portance, introduced from time to time by 
 special enactment, or originating in the altered 
 circumstances of the Israelitish people at the 
 various stages of their history. The Higher 
 Revelation could find free course in the ancient 
 channels; new ones were needless, and might 
 even have proved a hindrance to its beneficent 
 progress. What was good or capable of ex- 
 pressing good in existing religious usage was 
 taken up and moulded to its own purposes by 
 the religion of Moses and the Prophets. Among 
 the institutions of natural* religion which were 
 thus accepted by Mosaism as legitimate and 
 worthy of adoption and regulation in the 
 interests of a more spiritual faith and a more 
 
 | enlightened practice, was the festival. 
 
 A festival or feast is a period of time con- 
 sisting of one or more consecutive holy days; 
 that is, days hallowed or set apart for the 
 honour of God. Generically a holy season, the 
 festival is specifically a season of rejoicing, and 
 thus excludes the fast. The principal business 
 of the festival in the ancient world was sacrifice 
 with its attendant ceremonies; and this natur- 
 ally involved a more or less entire cessation 
 of the ordinary business of life. 
 
 The opinion that the germ of the festival, as 
 of all other worship, is to be found in periodical 
 offerings and prayers to the departed, is far 
 from being borne out by the oldest available 
 evidence. It directly contradicts the testimony 
 of the documents of the extremely primitive 
 Accadian religion; where the chief objects of 
 adoration are not ghosts, but elemental Powers 
 of Heaven, Earth, the Deep, Fire, Wind, and 
 Water: a religion which takes us back to at 
 least five thousand years before our era, and 
 whose beginnings must be referred to a yet 
 remoter epoch. Ea, the Creator of Man, who 
 has his home in “the waters under the earth,” 
 is no more a magnified ghost than is Nanna the 
 Moon, or Utu the Sun, or Mermer the Wind, or 
 Bilgi the Fire, or Nergal the God of War, or 
 Ningirsu (the Chinese Siennung) the God of 
 Tillage. Yet these deities belong to the earliest 
 records of the oldest known language—the 
 primitive speech of the land of Shumir and 
 Accad, 
 
 To make “ Animism” the one original form 
 of religion is to ignore the fact that the im- 
 pressions received in dreams and associated with 
 the mystery of death were neither the most 
 frequent nor the most vivid of the influences 
 to which the primitive mind was subject. 
 The powers of nature, the great objects of 
 the physical world, the sun and moon daily 
 departing and returning, apparently of their 
 
 5. By “natural,” in this connexion, I mean, universally 
 resulting from the religious instincts of humanity. 
 
1000 
 
 own will and motion, the sound and force of 
 the unseen winds, the terrific phenomena of the 
 storm, would from the outset impress ignorant 
 but receptive humanity with those lively 
 emotions of wonder and awe which find an 
 instinctive expression in worship; even if we 
 must grant that man first appeared upon this 
 earthly scene in that forlorn destitution of 
 reason and conscience and spiritual intuition 
 which current speculation so freely presupposes. 
 “ Animism,” to say the least, is no more a com- 
 plete account of the origin of religion than the 
 chemistry of the body is a complete account of 
 human nature; and there is no ground in 
 archaeology for denying that the sense of Unseen 
 Non-human Living Powers is as truly an 
 aboriginal endowment of humanity as the sense 
 of an external world. 
 
 The Christian apologist is by no means con- 
 cerned to prove the absolute originality of the 
 Festivals prescribed or permitted by the Mosaic 
 Law. It is enough for his purpose to establish 
 the fact that these and other customary ob- 
 servances were vitalized under the new religion 
 by the infusion of anew spirit. That Israel, 
 like other contemporary peoples, observed 
 certain festivals before the time of Moses is a 
 fact which might reasonably be taken for 
 granted. In those times no festivals could only 
 mean no religion. Besides, if the ancestors of 
 Israel migrated from ‘Ur of the Chaldees” 
 (Gen. xi. 31), and if they there had “served 
 other gods” (Josh. xxiv. 2), they must have 
 kept the festivals of the Moon, the tutelar god 
 of Ur. It is an arbitrary and ignorant concep- 
 tion, justified neither by the sacred records nor 
 by historical experience, which imagines that 
 the Mosaic legislation implied or made possible 
 a clean sweep of all primitive traditions, and 
 abolished for Israel the entire heritage of the 
 past. That is not the method by which progress 
 has been achieved in the history of religion. 
 
 But we have the positive evidence of the 
 Hebrew language, with its use of the primitive 
 Semitic term 4M (chag), which is common to 
 Hebrew and the cognate dialects, and must have 
 descended from the period when the great Semitic 
 family had not yet broken up into distinct 
 nations. It is the term rendered “ feast”? in 
 Exod. x. 9; cp. iii. 18, v. 1. The tenacious 
 vitality of traditional festivals is well known 
 from general history, and may be illustrated by 
 the long survival of the Roman Saturnalia, 
 under more or less transparent disguises, in 
 Christian times. 
 
 In Israel, as in other ancient nations, we find 
 Festivals or holy times associated (1) with the 
 periodic changes of the moon, and (2) with the 
 recurring seasons of the year. Of the former 
 kind were the New Moons and Sabbaths; of the 
 latter, the three great annual Pilgrimage- 
 Feasts. As regards the question of relative 
 antiquity, the lunar Festivals would seem to be 
 the older. All indications go to suggest that 
 they were of primitive observance in Israel, and 
 the opening page of Genesis represents the 
 Sabbath as of immemorial institution; in perfect 
 harmony with what we learn from other 
 = αν». ὁΦὅΦὁΦὁ “ὋΝ 
 
 > I suppose no one would credit ‘‘anthropoid apes” 
 with any sort of worship—even that of their dead 
 forbears. 
 
 FESTIVALS 
 
 FESTIVALS 
 
 sources, viz. that a Sabbath or Day of Rest was 
 known in ancient Babylonia, the primeval home 
 of the forefathers of Jacob, and that the New 
 Moons were there observed with prescribed 
 hymns and offerings (see W.A.Z. iv.?, plates 25 
 ‘and 32-33*). The differences of detail in regard 
 to the observance of the Sabbath, e.g. that the 
 Babylonian Kalendars seem to restrict it to the 
 king and certain members of the priestly classes, 
 and that the 19th day of the month is charac- 
 terised in the same terms as the 7th, 14th, 21st, 
 and 28th, cannot reasonably be considered to 
 weaken the evidence for the Babylonian origin 
 of the Sabbath. We should expect that in this 
 as in other instances the effect of Mosaism 
 would be to develop and spiritualize a pre- 
 existing institution. In the prominence which 
 it gave to the Sabbath, in the strictness and the 
 universality of the ordinance, and above all in 
 the religious significance associated therewith, 
 we may still say with Dillmann that Mosaism 
 was “ quite original and creative.” ° 
 
 As Wellhausen has remarked, it is probable 
 that the Sabbath was originally regulated by 
 the phases of the moon, and thus occurred on 
 the 7th, 14th, 21st (and 28th) days of the month, 
 the new moon being reckoned as the first day. 
 Hence the anxious care with which from the 
 earliest period watch was kept for the first ap- 
 pearance of the new moon which determined the 
 beginning of the month. The service rendered to 
 man by this planet as a measurer of time and 
 an indicator of holy seasons is more than once 
 recognised in the Old Testament. It is called 
 “the faithful witness in the sky” (Ps. Ixxxix. 
 37), and is said to have been appointed “ for set 
 seasons ”’ (Ps. civ. 19; cp. Gen. i. 14). 
 
 That the New Moons, i.e. the first days of the 
 twelve or thirteen lunar months of the Hebrew 
 year [see YEAR], were held in high estimation 
 from ancient times in Israel, is sufficiently 
 attested, both by the Historical and by the 
 Prophetical Books (1 Sam. xx. 5, 18; 2 K. iv. 
 23; Amos vili. 5; Hos. ii. 11; Is. 1. 18 ; ep. Ps. 
 Ixxxi. 3); while the Law lent its sanction to 
 these traditional holy days by the prescription 
 of additional offerings (Num. xxviii. 11-15) for 
 all of them, and by raising the New Moon of the 
 Seventh Month to a position of special sanctity 
 (Ley. xxiii. 24 sqq.; Num. xxix. 1 sqq.; FEAST 
 oF TRUMPETS). The observance of the New 
 Moons lasted even to Christian times (Col. ii. 
 16). 
 
 The position accorded to the New Moon of the 
 seventh month is not an isolated fact. It stands 
 in connexion with that peculiar extension of the 
 Sabbatical idea to months and years, of which 
 
 ¢ The late George Smith, quoted by Wellhausen, 
 Proleg. p. 112, n. 2, speaks of ‘‘ a general prohibition 
 of work on these days” (Assyr. Eponym Canon, 
 pp. 19, 20). Mr. Smith appears to have inferred this 
 from the expression UD GUL-GAL, “a bad (or unlucky) 
 day,” amu limnu, which the Babylonian Kalendars 
 apply to the four (five) days. The texts, however, say 
 nothing about general observance. They only regulate 
 the conduct of the king and two other official persons— 
 a priest and a soothsayer. 
 
 The definition preserved in 7.4.1. ii. 32, 16 ab, 
 aim nuh libbi | sabattum, “The Day of Rest of the 
 Heart | The Sabbath,” is very remarkable. There is, 
 however, no documentary evidence connecting it with 
 the five days mentioned in the text. 
 
i 
 
 kingdom. As 
 
 FESTIVALS 
 
 no trace has been found outside of Mosaism. 
 Thus, as the first day of the seventh month was 
 to be hallowed by entire rest from work 
 (shabbdthén) and by religious assembly and 
 sacrifice, so the seventh year was ordained as a 
 year of rest for the land, during which the 
 sacred soil, Jehovah’s gift to His people, was to 
 keep “a Sabbath of perfect rest” (shabbath 
 shabbathén; Lev. xxv. 4) by being left to lie 
 fallow all the year (Ex. xxiii. 11; Lev. xxv. 2-7; 
 Deut. xy. 1 sq.). Similarly, it was ordered that 
 after the lapse of seven times seven years, or 
 “seven Sabbaths (weeks) of years,” the year of 
 Jubilee should be celebrated (Lev. xxv. 8). 
 
 The great annual Festivals connected with the 
 seasons of the year seem to have had their origin 
 in the joy and thankfulness which led men to 
 offer to God the firstlings of their flocks and 
 herds and the first-fruits of the field and the 
 vineyard (cp. Gen. iv. 3, 4). Hence the spring 
 and autumn Festivals, vestiges of which are 
 found inthe remains of so many ancient peoples, 
 remote from each other in space and time, in 
 race and language. Among nations akin to the 
 Hebrews, the festival of New Year was kept by 
 the Babylonians and Assyrians, as we learn 
 from the cuneiform inscriptions of Esarhaddon 
 and Nebuchadnezzar ;% while the Sacaean feast 
 which was celebrated five days in the eleventh 
 month, and was a kind of Saturnalia, may per- 
 haps represent the Autumn feast (Berosus ap. 
 Athen. Deipn. xiv. 9, 44; Ctesias, Fragm. Assyr. 
 20). The Syrians of Harran had a famous 
 spring festival (Chwolsohn, Ssabier, ii. 25); and 
 the Arabs before Muhammad appear to have 
 observed their seventh month, Rajab, as a holy 
 festival month. Among peoples of Aryan race, 
 the ancient Persians are said to have held a new 
 year’s festival (Nairéz) for six days at the 
 beginning of the first month (Farvardin = 
 March-April), and an autumn feast also of six 
 days’ duration (Mihrgan), from the 16th 
 day of the seventh month (Mihr = September— 
 October) onwards. The Hindus still celebrate 
 their Huli-feast in March, and a feast of harvest 
 in September. The general practice of antiquity, 
 as established by these and similar instances, 
 raises a strong presumption in favour of the 
 historical character of the three great annual 
 Festivals of Israel. It is true that there is little 
 specific mention of these Festivals outside the 
 Books of the Law. But here again, as in the 
 case of Fasts, we have to bear in mind the 
 poverty of our documents. The unexceptionable 
 evidence of the prophetic allusions may be con- 
 sidered to supply the deficiencies of the historical 
 narratives. We know from Amos (Υ. 213 viii. 
 5, 10) and Hosea (ii. 13; ix. 5) that the annual 
 Feasts, as well as the New Moons and Sabbaths, 
 were, with whatever deviations from the strict 
 order of Mosaism as represented by the more 
 orthodox practice of Judah, diligently observed 
 in Northern Israel ; and the references of Isaiah 
 (i. 12-14; xxix. 1; xxx. 29) prove the popu- 
 larity of the traditional Festivals in the southern 
 regards the premonarchical 
 period, Dillmann justly considers the notice of 
 
 ἃ The feast was called Zagmukku, a term explained 
 to mean ré§ Satti, ““ Beginning of the year” (=Heb. 
 MIWA WN), and derived from the Accadian zac, 
 “head,” and MUG, MU, “ year.” 
 
 FESTIVALS 1061 
 
 the first celebration in Canaan of Passover and 
 the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Josh. v. 10, 11) 
 to be ancient and authentic. The annual feast, 
 celebrated with dances of virgins at Shiloh in 
 the time of the Judges, appears from the context 
 to have been a vintage-feast, and thus to repre- 
 sent the Feast of Tabernacles (Judg. xxi. 
 19 sq.); and towards the close of this period 
 we have the yearly pilgrimage of Elkanah and 
 his family to the same sanctuary (1 Sam. i. 3, 
 21). The sacrifices which Solomon offered 
 “three times in a year” (1 K. ix. 25) are 
 rightly referred by the later historian to the 
 three great annual Feasts (2 Ch. viii. 13); and 
 that sovereign is recorded to have dedicated the 
 Temple in the seventh month immediately 
 before the Feast of Tabernacles (1 K. viii. 2, 65, 
 66; cp. 2 Ch. vii. 9,10). The important and 
 unquestionably authentic notice of Jeroboam’s 
 transference of this last great Festival from the 
 seventh to the eighth month proves at once its 
 previous observance and the strong hold which 
 it had upon the people (1 K. xii. 32). We thus 
 have adequate if not abundant evidence in 
 favour of what is, after all, the natural con- 
 clusion that Israel, like every other ancient 
 people of note, had from the outset its regular 
 Festivals and Holy Days. When, therefore, it is 
 said (2 K. xxiii. 22) that no such Passover as 
 that of the eighteenth year of Josiah had been 
 held “ from the days of the Judges,” it is obvious 
 that we are not to understand that the Passover 
 had never before been celebrated at all. This 
 extraordinary inference of a defunct criticism 
 does violence to the context (Heb. “the like of 
 this Passover”), and, moreover, would prove 
 too much; for the chronicler has made a similar 
 statement in regard to this celebration (2 Ch. 
 xxxv. 18), and a yet more inclusive one in 
 regard to the Feast of Tabernacles (Neh. viii. 
 17); and no critic would accuse that writer of 
 disbelief in the Mosaic institution of the three 
 great Festivals. The plain meaning of these 
 passages is that the Festivals in question had 
 not previously been observed in perfect accord- 
 ance with the letter of the written Law. 
 
 While all the holy times of the Hebrews 
 were alike Mo‘ddim (O15), “ fixed or ap- 
 pointed seasons” (Gen. i. 14; Ley. xxiii. 2), 
 the three annual Feasts of Passover and Un- 
 leavened Bread, of Pentecost, and of Tabernacles, 
 were also called Chaggim (0°3M); a term which, 
 according to its etymology, may have originally 
 denoted dances in a ring, probably accompanied 
 by music and singing, like the Greek cyclic 
 chorus. The cognate verb (J4M) means “ to 
 dance,” 1 Sam. xxx. 16; elsewhere it is “ to 
 keep festival” (Ex. xxxii. 6, 18, 19; Judg. xxi. 
 19; Lev. xxiii. 39; Ps. xlii. 4), “because they 
 danced and expanded the Good Day (i.e. the 
 Feast) with rejoicing,” as Kimchi explains. 
 
 ar 
 
 e In Arabic the root c , hhagga, is ““ἴο go on 
 
 pilgrimage” to Mecca; which agrees with the fact that 
 the Hebrew chaggim were pilgrimage-feasts. 
 The Talmud uses the term Ὁ"), régalim, in this 
 ey ra 
 sense; owing to a misunderstanding of the sense of that 
 term in Ex, xxiii. 14; cp. Num. xxii. 28 (= “‘times”’) 
 (Ges. Thes. 8. Vv. 0). 
 
1062 FESTIVALS 
 
 Besides the earlier prescription of these Feasts 
 in Ex. xxiii, 14-19, xxxiv. 18 sq. (cp. Deut. 
 xvi.), the middle section of the Law, now com- 
 monly known as “The Priestly Legislation” 
 (das Priesterbuch), which Dillmann dates circ. 
 1000 B.c., but which Graf, Wellhausen, and 
 their school refer to the age following the 
 Return, furnishes a more elaborate Kalendar οἱ 
 Festivals (Lev. xxiii.; Num. xxviii., xxix.). In 
 all, seven holy seasons (“set times,” mé‘ddim, 
 Ley. xxiii. 2) are reckoned in addition to the 
 weekly Sabbath, as follows :— 
 
 (1.) Passover, on the 14th of the first month. 
 
 (2.) Unleavened Bread, seven days, beginning 
 with the 15th of the first month. 
 
 (3.) Pentecost, the 50th day after the 16th 
 of the first month. 
 
 (4.) New Moon, or first day, of the seventh 
 month.‘ 
 
 (5.) Day of Atonement, on the 10th day of 
 the seventh month. : 
 
 (6.) Feast of Tabernacles, seven days, from 
 the 15th of the seventh month. 
 
 (7.) The Aséreth ; that is, perhaps, the Closing 
 Day, on the 22nd of the seventh month. 
 
 Thus six of the seven annual sacred times 
 fall in the first and seventh months. The five 
 (or six) months which include winter and the 
 seasons of ploughing and sowing are unmarked 
 by any annual feasts or holy seasons. So far as 
 the numbers are concerned, there is no material 
 divergence between the different accounts. 
 Where only three Feasts are enumerated, the 
 great popular Pilgrim-festivals (Chaggim) are 
 intended. 
 see the special articles. Here it may be observed 
 that the Feast of Unleavened Bread, falling in 
 the month Abib, i.e. the month of Ears of Corn 
 (Ex. xxiii. 15), which was the month of the 
 vernal equinox (March-April) when the first 
 
 For particulars as to these Feasts, ' 
 
 FESTIVALS 
 
 as Tisri, the seventh month, had the same name 
 and position in the Babylonian Kalendar ( Tas- 
 ritu, probably meaning ‘“ Consecration”). The 
 Accadian name ITI DU AZAG, “month of the 
 Pure Abode,” suggests a possible connexion with 
 the Feast of Tabernacles.» However this may 
 be, the fact that these two 7-day Festivals 
 began on the 15th day of the month,—that is, 
 at the time of full moon, which was also a 
 Babylonian sacred season,—seems to indicate a 
 connexion with the lunar cycle (cp. Num. ix. 
 9 sq.). The special importance of the Feast 
 of Tabernacles, both in earlier and in later times, 
 is evident from Jeroboam’s interference with it 
 (1 K. xii. 32) and from Zechariah’s prophecy 
 concerning it (Zech. xii. 14). 
 
 Ewald and Dillmann have plausibly grouped 
 the six annual Festivals, including the Day of 
 Atonement and excluding the seventh New 
 Moon, round the two great Feasts of Unleavened 
 Bread and Tabernacles. Each greater Festival 
 is ushered in by a preliminary holy day (Vor- 
 feier) and terminated by a closing celebration 
 (Nachfeier). The Passover and Pentecost are 
 thus subordinated to the spring Festival; the 
 Day of Atonement and the Aséreth to that of 
 autumn. Dillmann’s ingenious argument must 
 not, however, blind us to the fact that the 
 documents always name three, never two Pil- 
 grim-Feasts (Chaggim). A love of symmetry 
 and system is apt to carry us beyond our evi- 
 dence. Neither the Day of Pentecost nor that 
 of Atonement really fit into the framework pro- 
 vided for them. Both are independent celebra- 
 tions of the greatest importance ; and the latter 
 is not a “festival” at all in the sense of the 
 three Pilgrim-Feasts. 
 
 All these sacred times involved the cessation 
 of ordinary business. But seven days within 
 the feast-cycle were distinguished as Days of 
 
 ears ripened, marked the beginning, as the Feast | Holy Convocation (Ex. xii. 15; Lev. xxiii; 
 
 of Pentecost marked the end, of the corn- 
 harvest; while the Feast of Tabernacles was 
 essentially a vintage-feast. The agricultural 
 
 basis of these festivals is evident from their | 
 
 alternative names. But the mode in which the 
 Law associated new facts of religious import 
 even with observances which in their origin 
 had a different significance, and thus turned 
 them into celebrations commemorative of great 
 providential events in the history of Israel, is 
 clearly seen in the reason assigned for making 
 this month Abib the beginning of the year (Ex. 
 xii. 2), and in the sacramental meaning as- 
 eribed to the ordinances of the Passover and of 
 Unleavened Bread (Deut. xvi. 1-3). Even the 
 Feast of Tabernacles, or of Ingathering (Ex. 
 xxiii, 16), with its more obvious import of 
 harvest joy and thanksgiving, had a historical 
 reference connected with the feature of dwelling 
 in leafy booths (Lev. xxiii. 42, 43). Abib or 
 Nisan was, however, the first month of the 
 Babylonian year (Wisannu; a softened form of 
 the Accadian NI-SANGA, “ that which is first”); 
 
 f After the introduction of the Seleucid era, the New 
 Moon of the seventh month became a sort of New Year’s 
 Day. 
 
 & According to another reckoning (Ex. xxiii. 16), 
 which was the rule in Syria, the year began in autumn 
 [see Year]. 
 
 Num. xxviii.; Is. i. 13), and were observed with 
 a more Sabbatical strictness. They were the 
 first and seventh days of the Feast of Un- 
 leavened Bread, the Day of Atonement, the 
 first of the Feast of Tabernacles, the eighth day 
 (Aséreth) which immediately followed it, the 
 New Moon of the seventh month, and the Day 
 of Pentecost. Of these, the Day of Atonement 
 demanded absolute cessation of every kind of 
 work (Lev. xvi. 29, xxiii. 2, 31; Num. xxix. 7); 
 on the other six, abstention from all “servile 
 
 work” (M72y nxn ; perhaps chiefly hus- 
 bandry) was enough (Ley. xxiii. 7, 8, 21, 25, 35, 
 36; Num. xxviii. 18, 19: cp. Ex. xii. 16). On 
 all these days assemblies were called for public 
 worship. Owing to their Sabbath-like cha- 
 racteristics, they are designated by a kindred 
 Hebrew term (shabbathén ; formed from shab- 
 bath: Lev. xxiii. 24,39): the Day of Atonement 
 is distinguished by a title which combines the 
 two expressions (shabbath shabbathén; Lev. xxiii. 
 82). On any other day of the great 7-day 
 
 h The term bu is explained sukku, ‘hut,”—which 
 seems to answer to the Heb. sukkéth, ΤᾺ 3» in the 
 
 name of the feast,—as well as Subtu, “ dwelling,” and 
 tilu, ‘‘ mound”’ (see Sc. 25, 28, 30). We may remember 
 that the booths of the Feast were set up on the house- 
 tops. 
 
 i At the end of the verse, simply Shabbath, Sabbath. 
 
FESTIVALS 
 
 festivals work was for obvious reasons permis- 
 sible, provided the day did not happen to 
 coincide with a weekly Sabbath. 
 
 Festival days were naturally marked in the 
 public service of the national Sanctuary by 
 special sacrifices, and in some cases _ by offerings 
 characteristic of the occasion, in addition to the 
 ordinary morning and evening sacrifice (Lev. 
 xxiii; Num. xxviii. xxix.). As regards the 
 attendance of the people, it is evident that the 
 public proclamation of a “ Day of Holy Convo- 
 cation ” invited the presence at the services of 
 all Israelites who might be in the neighbour- 
 hood of the Sanctuary; and for the three great 
 Pilgrim-feasts, attendance was enjoined by the 
 Law upon all males (Ex. xxiii, 14-17, xxxiv. 
 23 sqq.; Deut. xvi. 16). It was expressly for- 
 bidden to come empty-handed; and the custom 
 was to take advantage of the pilgrimages for 
 the presentation of obligatory as well as free- 
 will offerings. The fact that no penalties are 
 threatened for non-attendance may indicate that 
 the Law is rather regulating ancient and 
 popular usage than ordaining new observances. 
 At all events, the general enthusiasm for the 
 pilgrimage-feasts from ancient times is suffi- 
 ciently attested (Ps. xlii. 5, Ixxxiv. 6, 7; and 
 the Pilgrims’ Hymn-book, Pss. exx.—cxxxiv. ; 
 cep. 1 K. xii. 32). In individual cases, allowance 
 would naturally be made for untoward circum- 
 stances, such as distance, difficulties of travel- 
 ling, poverty, and other material obstacles (cp. 
 John vii. 8,10). Philo of Alexandria was even 
 satisfied with a single pilgrimage, like a modern 
 Mahometan Haggi. 
 
 Although women were not under formal 
 obligation to make the annual pilgrimages, the 
 examples of Hannah (1 Sam. i. 7; ii. 19) and 
 of the Blessed Virgin (Luke ii. 41) indicate 
 the practice of pious women in regard to 
 the greater Festivals from the earliest period 
 to the latest. In spite of all deductions, the 
 conflux of Jews from all parts of the world 
 to Jerusalem for the celebration of the three 
 great Feasts, especially that of Pentecost (Acts 
 ii. 9 sq.), was, in the period after the Return, 
 enormous. Josephus estimates the number at- 
 tending the Passover at over two millions; and 
 the Roman procurator was always careful to 
 make a strong show of military force in Jeru- 
 salem on these occasions, in order to overawe 
 the multitudes of fervid patriots (Jos. Ant. xvii. 
 9§ 3,10 §2, xx. 8§11; Bell. Jud. ii. 12 §1: 
 ep. Matt. xxvi. 5; Luke xiii. 1; Acts xxi. 31 
 sq.). The great influence of these gatherings, 
 not only as vivifying old religious memories and 
 intensifying devotion, but also as fostering a 
 sense of national unity, was already recognised 
 in the early period of the monarchy (1 K. xii. 
 26, 27; cp. 2 Ch. xxx. 1); and their effect 
 upon the maintenance of Judaism as a living 
 force throughout the Greek and Roman world 
 until the fall of Jerusalem can hardly be 
 overrated. 
 
 II. In the period after the Return, certain 
 annual festivals were instituted in commemora- 
 tion of historical events in which the mercy of 
 God was especially recognised. Of these the 
 chief were :—(1) The Feast of Purim (Esth. ix. 
 20 sq.: see PURIM), in memory of the deliver- 
 ance of the nation from the designs of Haman ; 
 and (2) the Feast of the Dedication, instituted 
 
 FESTIVALS 1063 
 
 B.C. 164 by Judas Maccabaeus (1 Mace. iv. 56 ; 
 see DEDICATION). Other new festivals of this 
 period—such as Nicanor’s Day, commemorating 
 the victory of the 13th Adar, B.c. 161 (see N1- 
 CANOR: 1 Mace. vii. 49; Jos. Ant. xii. 10, § 5), 
 and the anniversary of the taking of the Acra 
 by Simon, B.c. 141 (1 Mace. xiii. 52)—soon fell 
 into disuse, though the former appears to have 
 survived until the time of Josephus. The so- 
 called “Feasts of the Wood-carryings,” ἑορταὶ 
 τῶν ξυλοφορίων (Jos. Bell. Jud. ii. 17, §§ 6, 7; 
 Taanith, iv. 5) grew out of the circumstance 
 that the offerings of wood for Temple use (Neh. 
 x. 343; xiii. 21) came in the course of time to be 
 brought to Jerusalem by all contributors on 
 the same day, viz. the 14th of the fifth month 
 (Los = Ab). 
 
 II. The New Testament does not record the 
 formal institution of any Christian Festivals. 
 But although not a word is said of its insti- 
 tution, we find the Lord’s Day already recog- 
 nised by the Church (Acts xx. 7: ep. 1 Cor. 
 xvi. 1, 2; Heb. x. 25; Rev. i. 10); and the 
 earliest external testimonies confirm the natural 
 inference from these passages [see Lorp’s Day]. 
 The first Christians, moreover, followed the 
 example of their Master in observing the 
 greater Festivals of the Jewish Church, at least 
 until the destruction of the Holy Place. Those 
 Festivals, indeed, had received a new significance 
 for them, by association with the principal 
 events in the history of Redemption; just as 
 the Law had given them a higher import for 
 ancient Israel, by making them commemorative 
 of the turning points in the historical emanci- 
 pation of Jehovah’s people. Thus the Passover 
 was consecrated anew by the sacrifice of Christ 
 our Passover (1 Cor. v. 7, 8); Pentecost, by the 
 outpouring of the Holy Ghost (Acts ii. 1 sq. ; 
 Xvili. 21; xx. 16). 
 
 For the rest, it is a superficial error to sup- 
 pose that the cycle of Festivals is an unnecessary 
 addition to the simplicity of the Gospel. A 
 mechanical observance, and a total misconcep- 
 tion of the use and meaning of festal solem- 
 nities, may make it such in effect, as happened 
 in the case of the old Jewish Church. But a 
 similar perversion of the Lord’s Day is by no 
 means unknown in the history of Christian 
 sects. The widespread, indeed we may say 
 universal observance of special days and seasons 
 among the great historical races of mankind, is 
 a fact which goes far to prove that they answer 
 to some special needs of human nature; and 
 reason cannot refuse to admit that the same 
 grounds of religious expediency which suggested 
 the institution of festivals and holy days in all 
 the great pre-Christian systems, have lost little 
 of their original force in the lapse of time. It 
 seems plain that in our present circumstances— 
 and more now, in the busy, restless modern 
 world, than at any former period—such days 
 and seasons of detachment, and holy meditation, 
 and joyful commemoration of the great facts of 
 Redemption—yes, and of the lives and deaths of 
 those glorious patterns of our humbler walk, 
 the saints of old,—can only be neglected at the 
 deadly risk of complete absorption in the cares 
 and pleasures of the passing scene. No stronger 
 indication of the truth can well be imagined 
 than the necessity that has driven religious 
 bodies, which in time past have exhibited the 
 
1064 FESTUS 
 
 greatest hostility to the “ ecclesiastical super- 
 stition”” of Saints’ days, to the observance of 
 unauthorised equivalents such as anniversaries, 
 and harvest festivals, and “ Flower Services,” 
 and “Watch Night.” What are these and 
 similar novelties but so many unconscious testi- 
 monies to the wisdom of the Church Catholic 
 in her ordinance of fixed holy days? Festivals, 
 in short, would seem to be necessary for the 
 average of mankind, if the spiritual life needs 
 recurring stimulus and renewal, if religion is to 
 have its due, and if the homage of public wor- 
 ship and thanksgiving is to be offered at fitting 
 intervals and with due solemnity to our Divine 
 Lord and King. 
 
 See Reland, Antig. Hebr.; Biihr, Symbolik ; 
 Ewald’s Antiquities of Israel; Dillmann apud 
 Schenkel’s Bibellewicon, 5. v. Feste; Riehm, 
 HWB., p. 430 sq.; Graf, Die gesch. Biicher des 
 A. T.; Prof. W. Robertson Smith, Prophets, 
 p- 383; Wellhausen’s Prolegomena, pp. 83-120 ; 
 Encycl. Brit.? s. v. Festivals ; Hooker, Eccl. Pol. 
 Υ͂. ch. Ixix. sq. [..8}} 
 
 FESTUS (Φῆστος; Festus). Porcius Festus 
 -was sent by Nero as the successor of Felix in 
 the government of Judaea, and probably arrived 
 there in the summer of A.D. 60. Onhis reaching 
 Jerusalem the case of St. Paul was at once 
 brought before him by the chief priests, and on 
 his return to Caesarea he held an inquiry. 
 Perplexed by the religious questions raised on 
 the trial (Acts xxv. 20), and still more from a 
 desire to gain favour with his new subjects, he 
 was disposed to carry St. Paul to Jerusalem for 
 a further trial. The danger involved in this 
 led St. Paul to appeal to Caesar. On the 
 arrival of Agrippa, Festus related to him the 
 whole affair, and sought his assistance in gain- 
 ing understanding of the religious questions 
 involved. The doctrine of the resurrection 
 called out from Festus the words “Paul, thou 
 art mad;” but the discourse strengthened the 
 governor’s conviction of the prisoner’s innocence 
 of the charges of the Jews, who had probably 
 sought both before Felix and Festus to identify 
 St. Paul with the religious impostors (γόητες) 
 who under both governors played a prominent 
 part in the disturbances of the time (cp. also 
 Acts xxi. 38). Festus shows exactly the same 
 selfishness as Felix in his readiness to gratify 
 the Jews at St. Paul’s expense. But he may 
 not have heard of the conspiracy and ambush 
 two years before, and may have suspected no 
 treachery. Beyond this there is nothing to 
 blame in him as a magistrate, and the narrative 
 of the Acts harmonises with the account of 
 Josephus (B. J. ii. 14, 1), who contrasts him 
 favourably with his successor Albinus. [His 
 cynical inability to understand religious earnest- 
 ness contrasts unfavourably with his predeces- 
 sor’s “knowledge of the Way” and awakened 
 conscience; but Festus was certainly a better 
 governor and probably a better man. His 
 triendship with Herod Agrippa IJ. (Acts xxy. 
 13) is illustrated by an incident recorded by 
 Josephus (Ant. xx. 8, 11), in which he takes 
 Agrippa’s part. He died in less than two years 
 after his appointment. [E. R. B.] 
 
 FETTERS (AY; 533; DpH. 1. The 
 
 first of these Hebrew words, nechushtaim, ex- 
 
 FIELD 
 
 presses the material of which fetters were 
 usually made, viz. brass (πέδαι xadkal; A. V. 
 and R. V. “fetters of brass”), and also that 
 they were made in pairs, the word being in the 
 dual number: it is the most usual term for 
 fetters (Judg. xvi. 21; 2 Sam. iii, 34; 2 K. 
 xxv. 7; 2 Ch. xxxiii. 11, xxxvi. 6; Jer. xxxix. 
 7, 111. 11). Iron was occasionally employed for 
 the purpose (Ps. cv. 18, exlix. 8). 2. Cebel 
 occurs only in the above Psalms, and, from its 
 appearing in the singular number, may perhaps 
 apply to the link which connected the fetters. 
 Zikkim (“fetters,” Job xxxvi. 8) is more usually 
 translated “chains” (Ps. cxlix. 8; Is. xlv. 14; 
 Nah. iii. 10), but its radical sense appears to 
 refer to the contraction of the feet by a chain 
 (Gesen. Thesaur. p. 424). (W. L. B.] 
 
 FEVER (ΠΠῚΡ, np, ἽΠΊΠ ; terepos, 
 plyos, épeOiouds; Lev. xxvi. 16; Deut. xxviii. 
 22). These words, from various roots signify- 
 ing heat or inflammation, are rendered in the 
 A. V. by various words suggestive of fever, or 
 a feverish affection. The word ῥίγος (“shudder- 
 ing”) suggests the ague as accompanied by 
 fever, as in the opinion of the LXX. probably 
 intended; and this is still a very common 
 disease in Palestine. The third word, which 
 they render ἐρεθισμός (a term still known to 
 pathology), a feverish irritation, and which in 
 the A. V. is called burning fever, may perhaps 
 be erysipelas. The cases in the Gospels are St. 
 Peter’s wife’s mother (Matt. viii. 14; Mark 1. 
 30; Luke iv. 38) and the “nobleman’s son” 
 (John iv. 52, πυρέσσουσα, πυρετός), but neither 
 having any distinctive symptom. Fever con- 
 stantly accompanies the bloody flux, or dysentery 
 (Acts xxviii. 8; cp. De Mandelslo, Travels, 
 ed. 1669, p. 65). Fevers of an inflammatory 
 character are mentioned (Burckhardt, Arab. i. 
 446) as common at Mecca, and putrid ones at 
 Djidda. Intermittent fever and dysentery, the 
 latter often fatal, are ordinary Arabian diseases. 
 For the former, though often fatal to strangers, 
 the natives care little, but much dread a 
 relapse. These fevers sometimes occasion most 
 troublesome swellings in the stomach and legs 
 (ii. 290, 291). [H. H.] 
 
 FIELD (ny). The Hebrew sadeh is not 
 
 adequately represented by our “ field ;” the two 
 words agree in describing cultivated land, but 
 they differ in point of extent, the sadeh being 
 specifically applied to what is wnenclosed, while 
 the opposite notion of enclosure is involved in 
 the word field. The essence of the Hebrew word 
 has been variously taken to lie in each of these 
 notions, Gesenius (Zhesaur. p. 1321) giving it 
 the sense of freedom, Stanley (S. and P. p. 490) 
 that of smoothness, deriving arvum from arare. 
 On the one hand, sadeh is applied to any culti- 
 vated ground, whether pasture (Gen. xxix. 2, 
 xxxi. 4, xxxiv. 7; Ex. ix. 3), tillage (Gen. xxxvii. 
 7, xlvii. 24; Ruth ii. 2, 3; Job xxiv. 6; Jer. 
 xxvi. 11; Micah iii. 12), woodland (1 Sam. xiv. 
 25, A. V. and R. V. “ ground ;” Ps. cxxxii. 6), 
 or mountain-top (Judg. ix. 32, 36;°2 Sam. i. 
 21); and in some instances in marked opposi- 
 tion to the neighbouring wilderness (Stanley, 
 pp. 236, 490), as in the instance of Jacob 
 settling in the field of Shechem (Gen. xxxiii 
 
Ἂς 
 
 FIELD 
 
 19), the field of Moab (Gen. xxxvi. 35; Num. 
 xxi, 20, A. V. “country ;” Ruth i. 1), and the 
 vale of Siddim, i.e. of the cultivated fields, which 
 formed the oasis of the Pentapolis (Gen. xiv. 3, 
 8; see Delitzsch [1887] and Dillmann‘), though 
 a different sense has been given to the name by 
 Gesenius ( Thesaur. p. 1321). On the other hand, 
 the sadeh is frequently contrasted with what is 
 enclosed, whether a vineyard (Ex. xxii. 5; Lev. 
 xxy. 3, 4; Num. xvi. 14, xx. 17; cp. Num. xxii. 
 23, “the ass went into the field,” with v. 24, “a 
 path of the vineyards, a wall being on this side 
 and a wall on that side”), a garden (the very 
 name of which, ἢ, implies enclosure), or a walled 
 town (Deut. xxviii. 3, 16): unwalled villages or 
 scattered houses ranked in the eye of the Law as 
 fields (Lev. xxv. 31), and hence the expression 
 εἰς τοὺς ἀγρούς = houses in the fields (in villas, 
 Vulg.; Mark vi. 36, 56). In many passages 
 the term implies what is remote from a house 
 (Gen. iv. 8, xxiv. 63; Deut. xxii. 25) or settled 
 habitation, as in the case of Esau (Gen. xxv. 27; 
 the LXX., however, refers it to his character, 
 ἀγροῖκος): this is more fully expressed by "25 
 mw, “the open field” (Lev. xiv. 7, 53, xvii. 
 5; Num. xix. 16; 2 Sam. xi. 11), with which 
 is naturally coupled the notion of exposure and 
 desertion (Jer. ix. 22; Ezek. xvi. 5, xxxii. 4, 
 xxxili. 27, xxxix. 5). 
 
 The separate plots of ground were marked off 
 by stones, which might easily be removed (Deut. 
 xix. 14, xxvii. 17; cp. Job xxiv. 2; Prov. xxii. 
 28, xxiii. 10): the absence of fences rendered 
 the fields liable to damage from straying cattle 
 (Ex. xxii. 5) or fire (v. 6; 2 Sam. xiv. 30): 
 hence the necessity of constantly watching 
 flocks and herds, the people so employed being 
 in the present day named Natoor (Wortabet, 
 Syria, i. 293). A certain amount of protection 
 was gained by sowing the tallest and strongest 
 of the grain crops on the outside: “spelt” 
 appears to have been most commonly used for 
 this purpose (Is. xxviii. 25, as in the margin). 
 From the absence of enclosures, cultivated land 
 of any size might be termed a field, whether it 
 were a piece of ground of limited area (Gen. 
 xxiii, 13, 17; Is. v. 8), a man’s whole inherit- 
 ance (Lev. xxvii. 16 sq.; Ruth iv. 53; Jer. xxxii. 
 9, 25; Prov. xxvii. 26, xxxi. 16), the ager 
 publicus of a town (Gen. xli. 48; Neh. xii. 29), 
 as distinct, however, from the ground imme- 
 diately adjacent to the walls of the Levitical 
 cities, which was called W919 (A. V. and R. V. 
 suburbs”), and was deemed an appendage of 
 the town itself (Josh. xxi. 11, 12), or lastly the 
 territory of a people (Gen. xiv. 7, xxxii. 3, 
 xxxvi. 35; Num. xxi. 20; Ruth i. 6, iv. 3; 
 1 Sam. vi. 1, xxvii. 7,11). In 1 Sam. xxvii. 5, 
 “a town in the field” (A. V. and R. V. 
 “country”) =a provincial town as distinct 
 from the royal city. A plot of ground sepa- 
 
 rated from a larger one was termed my npdn 
 (Gen. xxxiii. 19; Ruth ii. 3; 1 Ch. xi. 13), or 
 simply npbn (2 Sam. xiv. 30, xxiii. 12; cp. 
 2 Sam. xix. 29). Fields occasionally received 
 names after remarkable events, as Helkath- 
 Hazzurim, the field of the strong men, or possibly 
 of the sharp knives (R. V. marg., 2 Sam. ii. 16; 
 ep. Driver, Notes on the Heb. Text of the BB. of 
 
 FIG, FIG-TREE 1065 
 
 Sam. The LXX. has a different reading), or 
 from the use to which they may have been 
 applied (2 K. xviii, 17; Is. vii. 33; Matt. 
 xxvii. 7). 
 
 It should be observed that the expressions 
 “fruitful field” (Is. x. 18, xxix. 17, xxxii. 15, 
 16) and “ plentiful field ” (Is. xvi. 10; Jer. xlviii, 
 33) are not connected with sadeh, but with 
 carmel, meaning a park or well-kept wood, as 
 distinct from a wilderness or a forest. The 
 same term occurs in 2 K. xix. 23 and Is. xxxvii. 
 24 (A. V. “Carmel ἢ), Is. x. 18 (“forest ”), and 
 Jer. iv. 26 (“fruitful place”) [CARMEL]. Dis- 
 tinct from this is the expression in Ezek. xvii. 
 5, ΠῚ ἢ (A. V. “fruitful field”), which 
 means a field suited for planting suckers. 
 
 We have further to notice other terms— 
 (1.) Shedemoth (NVIIW), translated “ fields,” 
 and connected by Gesenius with the idea of 
 enclosure. It is doubtful, however, whether 
 the notion of burning does not rather lie at the 
 bottom of the word. This gives a more con- 
 sistent sense throughout. In Is. xvi. 8, it 
 would thus mean the withered grape; in Hab. 
 iii. 17, blasted corn; in Jer. xxxi. 40, the burnt 
 parts of the city (no “fields” intervened be- 
 tween the south-eastern angle of Jerusalem and 
 the Kedron); while in 2 K. xxiii. 4, and Deut. 
 xxxil. 32, the sense of a place of burning is ap- 
 propriate. It is not therefore necessary to treat 
 the word in Is. xxxvii. 27, “blasted,” as a 
 corrupt reading (cp. 2 K. xix. 26). (2.) Abel 
 
 (2%), a well-watered spot, frequently employed 
 as a prefix in proper names. (3.) Achu (ANN), 
 a word of Egyptian origin (see reff. in MYV.1), 
 given in the LXX. in a Grecised form, ἄχει 
 (Gen. xli. 2, 18, ‘‘meadow;”’ Job viii. 11, “flag ;” 
 Is. xix. 7, LXX.), meaning the green flags and 
 rushes that grow in the marshes of Lower Egypt. 
 (4.) Maareh (ID), which occurs only once 
 (Judg. xx. 33, “meadows”; R. V. “ Maareh- 
 Geba ”), with a sense of openness or bareness or 
 exposure: thus, “they came forth on account 
 of the exposure of Gibeah,” the Benjamites 
 having been previously enticed away (v. 31). 
 [W.L. Β [FJ 
 
 FIELD, FULLER’S, THE. 
 FIELD, THE. ] 
 
 FIELD, POTTER'S, THE. 
 PorTer’s FIELD, THE. } 
 
 FIG, FIG-TREE (FINM, teénah; Arab. 
 cy» teen ; συκῇ ; ficus) belongs to the natural 
 
 order of the Bread-fruit family, and the sub- 
 order Moreae, which includes also the mulberry. 
 It is a word of frequent occurrence in the O. T., 
 where it signifies the tree Ficus Carica of Lin- 
 naeus, and also its fruit. The LXX. render it 
 by συκῆ and σῦκον, and when it signifies fruit 
 by συκή---αἰδο by συκεὼν or συκών, ficetum, in 
 Jer. v. 17 and Amos iv. 9. In N. T. συκῇ is the 
 fig-tree, and σῦκα the figs (Jas. iii. 12). It is 
 indigenous in Southern Europe, North Africa, the 
 Canary Islands, Asia Minor, Syria, Persia, Ar- 
 menia, and Northern India. It has a very smooth 
 bark, with very large, thick, and palmate leaves. 
 The branches are numerous, wide and spreading, 
 presenting an object of striking beauty when in 
 
 [FULLER’s 
 
 [ACELDAMA ; 
 
1066 FIG, FIG-TREE 
 
 full leaf. The fruit, unlike any other in this 
 country, is an enlarged, succulent, hollow re- 
 ceptacle, containing the imperfect flowers in its 
 interior. Hence the blossom of the fig-tree is 
 not visible till the receptacle has been cut open. 
 The fig-tree is very common in Palestine (Deut. 
 viii. 8). Mount Olivet was famous for its fig- 
 trees in ancient times, and they are still found 
 there (see Stanley, S. & P. pp. 187, 421, 422). 
 The name probably means “early ripening,” 
 
 from 31, “to be in good time.” See MV." 
 
 In Gen. iii. 7, the identification of MINA ΠῸΣ 
 
 with the leaves of the Ficus Carica has been 
 disputed by Gesenius, Tuch, and others (see 
 Delitzsch [1887] in loco), who think that the 
 large leaves of the Indian Musa Paradisiaca 
 are meant (Germ. Adamsfeige, Fr. figuier 
 d@ Adam). These leaves, however, would not 
 have needed to be strung or sewn together, and 
 the plant itself is not of the same kind as 
 the fig-tree. Dillmann® considers that the 
 writer chose the fig-leaf as the largest with 
 which he was familiar among Palestine leaves. 
 
 The failure or destruction of the fig is re- 
 peatedly threatened by the Prophets as one of 
 Jehoyah’s sore judgments upon the land, which 
 was “a land of wheat and barley and vines and 
 fig-trees”’? (Deut. viii. 8). “He smote their 
 vines also and fig-trees” (Ps. cv. 33). It must 
 be borne in mind that the dried fig is not only 
 an agreeable luxury, but, as an important article 
 of daily food, is one of the staples of the 
 country. Dried figs along with barley-cakes 
 are the usual provender of the traveller, as 
 well as the cheapest food. 
 
 “To sit every man under his vine and under 
 his fig-tree” (1 K. iv. 25; 2 K. xviii. 31; Is. 
 xxxvi. 16; Mic. iv. 4, Zech. iii. 10) conveyed 
 to the Jew the fullest idea of peace, security, 
 and prosperity. Nor is the expression merely 
 figurative. There is no protection against the 
 rays of an Eastern sun more complete than the 
 dense foliage of the fig-tree, which often touches 
 the ground at its circumference. Under such a 
 fig-tree, screened from all human observation, 
 had Nathanael wrestled in prayer, but was noted 
 by the omniscient eye of Jesus the Messiah. 
 
 When figs are spoken of as distinguished from 
 the fig-tree, the plur. form D'JNM is used (see 
 Jer. viii. 13). 
 
 2. There are also the words 1343, 35, and 
 ne, signifying different kinds of figs. 
 (a.) In Hos. ix. 10, MISHA NDI signifies the 
 first ripe of the fig-tree, and the same word 
 occurs in Is. xxviii. 4, and in Mic. vii. 1 
 (cp. Jer. xxiv. 2). Lowth on Is. xxviii. 4 
 quotes from Shaw’s Zrav. p. 370 sq. a notice 
 of the early fig called boccére, and in Spanish 
 Albacora (see MV." 85. n.). (6.) IB is the 
 
 unripe fig, which hangs through the winter. 
 It is mentioned only in Cant. ii. 13, and its 
 name comes from the root 418, crudus fuit. The 
 LXX. render it ὄλυνθοι. It is found in the Greek 
 word Βηθφαγή = "3 5 NA, “house of green 
 figs ” (see Buxt. p. 1691). (c.) In the Historical 
 Books of the O. T. mention is made of cakes of 
 figs, used as articles of food, and compressed 
 into that form for the sake of keeping them. 
 They also appear to have been used remedially 
 
 FIG, FIG-TREE 
 for boils (2 K. xx. 7; Is. xxviii. 21). Such a cake 
 
 was called n224, or more fully D*INA nda, 
 
 from a root which in Arab. dabala = to make 
 into a lump. Hence, or rather from the Syr. 
 
 xnba4, the first letter being dropped, came 
 the Greek word παλάθη. Athenaeus (xi. p. 500, 
 ed. Casaub.) makes express mention of the πα- 
 λάθη Συριακή. Jerome on Ezek. vi. describes the 
 παλάθη to be a mass of figs and rich dates, 
 formed into the shape of bricks or tiles, and 
 compressed in order that they may keep. Such 
 cakes harden so as to need cutting with an axe. 
 
 Few passages in the Gospels have given occa- 
 sion to so much perplexity as that of St. Mark 
 xi. 13, where the Evangelist relates the cireum- 
 stance of our Lord’s cursing the fig-tree near 
 Bethany: “And seeing a fig-tree afar off having 
 leaves, He came, if haply He might find any 
 thing thereon: and when He came to it, He 
 found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs 
 was not yet” (R. V. “ for it was not the season of 
 figs”). The apparent unreasonableness of seek- 
 ing fruit at a time when none could naturally 
 be expected, and the consequent injustice of the 
 sentence pronounced upon the tree, is obvious 
 to every reader. 
 
 The fig-tree, as has been stated above, in 
 Palestine produces fruit at two, or even three, 
 different periods of the year: first, there is the 
 bicctirah, or “early ripe fig,” which ripens from 
 May to August, according to situation. The 
 bicctirdh drops off the tree as soon as ripe; 
 hence the allusion in Nah. iii. 12, when shaken 
 they “even fall into the mouth of the eater.” 
 Shaw (Trav. i. 264, 8vo ed.) aptly compares 
 the Spanish name breba for this early fruit, 
 “quasi breve,” as continuing only for a short 
 time. About the time of the ripening of the 
 bicctirim, the karmous or summer fig begins to 
 be formed ; these rarely ripen before September, 
 when another crop, called “the winter fig,” 
 appears. Shaw describes this kind as being of 
 a much longer shape and darker complexion 
 than the karmous, hanging and ripening on the 
 tree even after the leaves are shed, and, pro- 
 vided the winter proves mild and temperate, 
 being gathered as a delicious morsel in the spring 
 (cp. also Plin. WV. ἢ. xvi. 26, 27). 
 
 The attempts to explain the above-quoted 
 passage in St. Mark are numerous, and for the 
 most part very unsatisfactory. 
 
 The explanation which has found favour with 
 most writers is that which understands the 
 words καιρὸς σύκων to mean “the fig-harvest ;” 
 the γὰρ in this case is referred not to the clause 
 immediately preceding, “ He found nothing but 
 leaves,” but to the more remote one, “ He came 
 if haply He might find any thing thereon ” (for 
 a similar trajection it is usual to refer to Mark 
 xvi. 3, 4); the sense of the whole passage being 
 then as follows: “And seing a fig-tree afar off 
 having leaves, He came if perchance He might 
 find any fruit on it (and He ought to have found 
 some), for the time of gathering it had not yet 
 arrived, but when He came He found nothing 
 but leaves” (see the notes in the Greek Testa- 
 ment of Burton, Trollope, Bloomfield, Webster 
 and Wilkinson; Macknight, Harm. of the Gospels, 
 ii, p. 591, note, 1809; Elsley’s Annot. ad ἰ. c., 
 &c.), A forcible objection to this explanation 
 
FIG, FIG-TREE 
 
 will be found in the fact that at the time im- 
 plied, viz. the end of March or the beginning 
 of April, no figs at all eatable would be found 
 on the trees; the biccitrim seldom ripen in 
 Palestine before the end of June, and at the 
 time of the Passover the fruit, to use Shaw’s 
 expression, would be “hard and no bigger than 
 common plums,” corresponding in this state to 
 the paggim (0°35) of Cant. ii. 13, wholly unfit 
 for food in an unprepared state; and it is but 
 reasonable to infer that our Lord expected to 
 find something more palatable than these small 
 sour things upon a tree which by its show of 
 foliage bespoke, though falsely, a corresponding 
 show of good fruit, for it is important to re- 
 member that the fruit comes before the leaves. 
 Again, if καιρὸς denotes the “ fig-harvest,” we 
 must suppose that, although the fruit might 
 not have been ripe, the season was not very far 
 distant, and that the figs in consequence must 
 have been considerably more matured than 
 these hard paggim; but is it probable that St. 
 Mark should have thought it necessary to state 
 that it was not yet the season for gathering figs 
 in March, when they could not have been fit to 
 gather before June at the earliest ? 
 
 The difficulty is best met by looking it full in 
 the face, and by admitting that the words of 
 the Evangelist are to be taken in the natural 
 order in which they stand, neither having re- 
 course to trajection, nor to unavailable attempts 
 to prove that edible figs could have been found 
 on the trees in March. It is true that occa- 
 sionally the winter figs remain on the tree in 
 
 _ mild seasons, and may be gathered the following 
 
 — ee ae 
 
 | 
 ἱ 
 
 spring, but this is not to be considered ἃ usual 
 circumstance. 
 
 But, after all, where is the wnreasonableness 
 of the whole transaction? It was stated above 
 that the fruit of the fig-tree appears before the 
 leaves ; consequently if the tree produced leaves 
 it should also have had some figs as well. As 
 to what natural causes had operated to effect so 
 unusual a thing for a fig-tree to have leaves in 
 March, it is unimportant to inquire; but the 
 stepping out of the way with the possible chance 
 (εἰ ἄρα, si forte, “under the circumstances; ” 
 see Winer, Gram. of Ν. T. Diction, p. 465, Mas- 
 son’s transl.) of finding eatable fruit on a fig-tree 
 in leaf at the end of March, would probably be 
 repeated by any observant modern traveller in 
 Palestine. The whole question turns on the 
 pretensions of the tree: had it not proclaimed 
 by its foliage its superiority over other fig-trees, 
 and thus proudly exhibited its precociousness; or, 
 had our Lord at that season of the year visited 
 any of the other fig-trees upon which no leaves 
 had as yet appeared with the prospect of finding 
 fruit—then the case would be altered, and the 
 unreasonableness and injustice real. The words 
 of St. Mark, therefore, are to be understood in 
 the sense which the order of the words naturally 
 suggests. The Evangelist gives the reason why 
 no fruit was found on the tree, viz. “ because 
 it was not the time for fruit ;” we are left to 
 infer the reason why it ought to have had fruit 
 if it were true to its pretensions; and it must 
 be remembered that this miracle had a typical 
 design, to show how God would deal with the 
 Jews, who, professing like this precocious fig- 
 tree “to be first,” should be “last” in His 
 favour, seeing that no fruit was produced in 
 
 FIR 1067 
 
 their lives, but only, as Wordsworth well ex- 
 presses it, “the rustling leaves of a religious 
 profession, the barren traditions of the Pharisees, 
 the ostentatious display of the Law, and vain 
 exuberance of words without the good fruit of 
 works.” 
 
 The question is well summed up by Arch- 
 bishop Trench (Notes on the Miracles, p. 438): 
 “All the explanations which go to prove that, 
 according to the natural order of things in a 
 climate like that of Palestine, there might have 
 
 | been even at this early time of the year figs on 
 
 that tree, either winter figs which had survived 
 
 | till spring or the early figs of spring them- 
 
 selves: all these, ingenious as they often are, 
 yet seem to me beside the matter. For, without 
 entering further into the question whether they 
 prove their point or not, they shatter upon that 
 ov γὰρ ἣν καιρὸς σύκων of St. Mark 3 from which 
 it is plain that no such calculation of probabilities 
 brought the Lord thither, but those abnormal 
 leaves which He had a right to count would have 
 been accompanied with abnormal fruit.” See also 
 Trench’s admirable reference to Ex. xvii. 24. 
 
 In the fig-tree as in all other plants, there 
 are individual peculiarities, and the writer has 
 often noticed, both in Palestine and especially in 
 the Canary Islands, trees which naturally, or 
 from their situation, put forth their leaves much 
 earlier than their neighbours. But the fruit 
 also precedes the foliage. Yet occasionally we 
 have found trees in leaf without fruit. These 
 were generally young trees which had been 
 making vigorous growth. In some moist and 
 hot nooks, as at Engedi, and in some Canary Is- 
 land glens, the fig-tree never sheds its leaf and 
 bears sparingly throughout the year. In Palestine 
 irregular pieces of ground, the mouths of wells, 
 and corners of vineyards are generally occupied 
 by a fig-tree, “A fig-tree planted in a vine- 
 yard.” The fig still maintains its repute in the 
 East as the best poultice (Is. xxxviii. 21), and 
 its use is familiar among ourselves as efficacious 
 for gumboils. ΕΠ ey | 
 
 FIR (W113, bérdsh ; DINIID, berdthim [see 
 MV."']; from 012, “to cut,” Ges. p. 246, ren- 
 dered indifferently in LXX. as ἄρκευθος, κέδρος, 
 πίτυς, κυπάρισσος, πεύκη : abies, cupressus ; A. Y. 
 and R. V. “fir;” R. V. marg. cypress). The 
 word occurs very frequently in the O. T., gene- 
 rally in connexion with Lebanon and other 
 mountain districts, and the A. V. translation is 
 probably correct, though the term may have 
 included the cypress, which is a conifer, and 
 the juniper, which is similar in general appear- 
 ance. That it is a general expression, like our 
 own word “fir,” may be inferred from the 
 LXX. rendering it sometimes πεύκη (pine), at 
 other times κυπάρισσος (cypress), or ἄρκευθος 
 (juniper), all of which must have been well 
 known to the Alexandrines. The timber was 
 used for boards or planks for the Temple (1 K. 
 vi. 15); for its two doors (v. 34); for the ceiling 
 of the greater house (2 Ch. iii. 5); for ship- 
 boards (Ezek. xxvii. 5); for musical instruments 
 (2 Sam. vi. 5). The red heart-wood of the tall 
 fragrant juniper of Lebanon was no doubt ex- 
 tensively used in the building of the Temple; 
 and the identification of berdsh or beréth with 
 this tree receives additional confirmation from 
 the LXX. words ἄρκευθος and κέδρος, “a 
 
1068 FIRE 
 
 juniper.” The deodar, the larch, and Scotch fir, 
 which have been by some writers identified with 
 the berésh, do not exist in Syria or Palestine. 
 The most abundant species of pine now found in 
 Lebanon and Western Palestine is Pinus halepen- 
 sis (Mill.) or Aleppo pine, a very handsome tree, 
 not unlike our Scotch fir. It must be this 
 species, still common on Lebanon, which is asso- 
 ciated with the cedar for its noble growth. 
 “The fir-trees were not like his boughs” 
 (Ezek. xxxi. 8). ‘The choice fir-trees of 
 Lebanon” (Is. xxxvii. 24). On Gilead and other 
 mountainous regions east of Jordan its place is 
 taken by Pinus carica (Don.), an allied species. 
 The Aleppo pine is found occasionally throughout 
 the country as far south as Hebron, but has 
 generally been destroyed for fuel. In the time of 
 the Crusades there was a fir-wood on the hills 
 between Jerusalem and Bethlehem, of which 
 not a trace now remains. A few trees linger 
 far south of Hebron, near Jattir (‘Attir). Pinus 
 laricio (Poir.), the Austrian pine, has been intro- 
 duced on the coast, where also Pinaster pinea, 
 &c.,is found sparingly. The only true fir, as dis- 
 tinguished from pine, is Abzes cilicica (Ant. and 
 K.) on Lebanon, probably abundant in ancient 
 times. But the handsome Juniperus excelsa 
 (Flor. canc.) is still very common, and Cupressus 
 sempervirens (L.), both native and planted, is 
 frequent. [CEDAR.] (fst, ΒΟ ANS] 
 
 FIRE (1. UN; πῦρ; tgnis: 2. “δ, and also 
 AN; φῶς; lux; flame or light). The applica- 
 tions of fire in Scripture may be classed as :— 
 
 I. Religious. (1.) That which consumed the 
 burnt sacrifice, and the incense-offering, begin- 
 ning with the sacrifice of Noah (Gen. viii. 20), 
 and continued in the ever-burning fire on the 
 Altar, first kindled from heaven (Ley. vi. 9, 13, 
 ix. 24), and rekindled at the dedication of Solo- 
 man’s Temple (2 Ch. vii. 1, 3). 
 
 (2.) The symbol of Jehovah’s Presence, and the 
 instrument of His power, in the way either of 
 approval or of destruction (Ex. iii. 2, xiv. 19, 
 xix. 18; Num. xi. 1, 3; Judg. xiii. 20; 1K. 
 MV os Ὁ eS Τῇ, ΤΩΣ ΠἸ, ΜΠ. σἱ. 17... ρει 
 Is. li. 6, Ixvi. 15, 24; Joel ii. 30; Mal. iii. 2, 3, 
 iv. 1; Mark ix.44; 2 Pet. iii. 10; Rev. xx. 14, 
 15; Reland, Ant. Sacr. i. 8, p. 26; Jennings, 
 Jewish Ant. ii. 1, p. 301; Joseph. Ant. iii. 8, § 6, 
 viii.4,§ 4). Parallel with this application of fire 
 and with its symbolical meaning is to be noted 
 the similar use for sacrificial purposes, and the 
 respect paid to it, or to the heavenly bodies as 
 symbols of deity, which prevailed among so many 
 nations of antiquity, and of which the traces are 
 not even now extinct (W. R. Smith, Zhe Religion 
 of the Semites, i. Index 5. n. “ Fire”): e.g. the 
 Sabaean and Magian systems of worship, and their 
 alleged connexion with Abraham (Spencer, de Leg. 
 Hebr. ii. 1, 2); the occasional relapse of the Jews 
 themselves into sun-, or its corrupted form of fire- 
 worship (Is. xxvii. 9; cp. Gesen. }1DM, p. 489; 
 Deut. xvii. 3; 2 K. xvii. 16, xxi. 3, “xxiii. 5, 10, 
 11, 13; Jer. viii. 2; Ezek. viii. 16; Zeph. i. 5; 
 Jahn, Arch. Bibl. c. vi. §§ 405, 408) [Moxocn] ; 
 the worship or deification of heavenly bodies or 
 of fire, prevailing to some extent, as among the 
 Persians, so also even in Egypt (Her. iii. 16; 
 Wilkinson, Anc. Egypt. i. 328 [1878]); the 
 sacred fire of the Greeks and Romans (Thue. i. 
 
 FIRE 
 
 24, ii. 15; Cic. de Leg. ii. 8, 12; Liv. xxviii. 12 ; 
 Dionys. ii. 67; Plut. Numa, 9, i. 263, ed. Reiske) ; 
 the ancient forms and usages of worship, differ- 
 ing from each other in some important respects, 
 but to some extent similar in principle, οἵ. 
 Mexico and Peru (Prescott, Meaico, i. 60, 64; 
 Peru, i. 101); and lastly the theory of the so- 
 called Guebres of Persia, and the Parsees of 
 Bombay (Frazer, Persia, c. iv. 141, 162, 164; 
 Sir R. Porter, Zravels, ii. 50, 424; Chardin, 
 Voyages, ii. 310, iv. 258, viii. 367 sq.; Niebuhr, 
 Voyages, ii. 36, 37; Mandelslo, Travels, Ὁ. i. 
 p- 76; Gibbon, Hist. c. viii., i. 335, ed. Smith ; 
 Benj. of Tudela, Harly Trav. pp. 114, 116; 
 Burckhardt, Syria, p. 156). 
 
 The perpetual fire on the Altar was to be 
 replenished with wood every morning (Ley. 
 vi. 12; cp. Is. xxxi. 9). According to the 
 Gemara, it was divided into three parts, one for 
 burning the victims, one for incense, and one for 
 supply of the other portions (Ley. vi. 15; Re- 
 land, Antig. Hebr. i. 4, 8, p. 26; and ix. 10, 
 p- 98). Fire for sacred purposes obtained else- 
 where than from the Altar was called “ strange 
 fire,” and on account of their use of such Nadab 
 and Abihu were punished with death by fire from 
 God (Lev. x. 1, 2; Num. iii. 4, xxvi. 61). 
 
 (9.9) In the case of the spoil taken from the 
 Midianites, such articles as could bear it were 
 purified by fire as well as in the water ap- 
 pointed for the purpose (Num. xxxi. 23). The 
 victims slain for sin-offerings were afterwards 
 consumed by fire outside the camp (Lev. iv. 12, 
 21, vi. 30, xvi. 27; Heb. xiii. 11). The Nazarite 
 who had completed his vow, marked its com- 
 pletion by shaving his head and casting the hair 
 into the fire on the Altar on which the peace- 
 offerings were being sacrificed (Num. vi. 18). 
 
 II. Domestic. Besides for cooking purposes, 
 fire is often required in Palestine for warmth 
 (Jer. xxxvi. 22; Mark xiv. 54; John xviii. 18; 
 Harmer, Obs. i. 125; Riumer, p. 79). For this 
 purpose a hearth with a chimney is sometimes 
 constructed, on which either lighted wood or 
 pans of charcoal are placed (Harmer, i. 405). 
 In Persia a hole made in the floor is sometimes 
 filled with charcoal, on which a sort of table is 
 set covered with a carpet; and the company 
 placing their feet under the carpet draw it over 
 themselves (Olearius, Travels, p. 294; Chardin, 
 Voyages, viii. 190). Rooms in Egypt are 
 warmed, when necessary, with pans of char- 
 coal, as there are no fire-places except in 
 the kitchens (Lane, Mod. Eg. i. 41; English- 
 woman in Egypt, ii. 11). 
 
 On the Sabbath the Law forbade any fire to 
 be kindled, even for cooking (Ex. xxxv. 3; Num. 
 xy. 32). To this general prohibition the Jews 
 added various refinements, ¢.g. that on the eve 
 of the Sabbath no one might read with a light, 
 though passages to be read on the Sabbath by 
 children in schools might be looked out by the 
 teacher. If a Gentile lighted a lamp, a Jew 
 might use it, but not if it had been lighted for 
 the use of the Jew. Ifa Festival day fell on the 
 Sabbath eve, no cooking was to be done (Mishn. 
 Shabb. i. 3, xvi. 8, vol. ii. pp. 4,56; Moed Katan, 
 ii. vol. ii. p. 287, Surenhus.). 
 
 III. The dryness of the land in the hot season 
 in Syria of course increases liability to accident 
 from fire. The Law therefore ordered that any 
 one kindling a fire which caused damage to corn 
 
4 
 
 FIREPAN 
 
 in a field, should make restitution (Ex. xxii. 6; 
 cp. Judg. xv. 4, 5; 2 Sam. xiv. 30; Mishn. 
 Maccoth, vi. 5, 6, vol. iv. p. 48, Surenh.; Burck- 
 hardt, Syria, pp. 496, 622). 
 
 IV. Punishment of death by fire was awarded 
 by the Law only in the cases of incest with a 
 mother-in-law, and of unchastity on the part of 
 a daughter of a priest (Lev. xx. 14, xxi. 9). In 
 the former case both the parties were to suffer, 
 in the latter the woman only. This sentence 
 appears to have been a relaxation of the original 
 practice in such cases (Gen. xxxviii. 24), Among 
 
 other nations, burning appears to have been no 
 
 uncommon mode, if not of judicial punishment, 
 at least of vengeance upon captives; and ina 
 modified form was not unknown in war among 
 the Jews themselves (2 Sam. xii. 31; Jer. xxix. 
 22; Dan. iii. 20, 21). In certain cases the 
 bodies of executed criminals and of infamous 
 persons were subsequently burnt (Josh. vii. 25 ; 
 2K. xxiii. 16). 
 
 The Jews were expressly ordered to destroy 
 the idols of the heathen nations, and especially 
 any city of their own relapsed into idolatry (Ex. 
 xxxii, 20; 2 K.x. 26; Deut. vii. 5, xii. 3, xiii. 
 16). In some cases, the cities, and in the case 
 
 of Hazor, the chariots also, were, by God’s order, 
 
 iy 
 ] 
 7 
 
 ἔ 
 
 consumed with fire (Josh. vi. 24, viii. 28, xi. 6, 
 9,13). One of the expedients of war in sieges 
 was to set fire tothe gate of the besieged place 
 (Judg. ix. 49, 52). [SrecEs.] 
 
 Y. Incense was sometimes burnt in honour of 
 the dead, especially royal personages, as is men- 
 tioned specially in the cases of Asa and Zede- 
 kiah, and negatively in that of Jehoram (2 Ch. 
 xvi. 14, xxi. 19; Jer. xxxiv. 5). 
 
 VI. The use of fire in metallurgy was well 
 known to the Hebrews at the time of the Exo- 
 dus (Ex. xxxii. 24, xxxv. 32, xxxvii. 2, 6, 17, 
 xxxvili. 2, 8; Num. xvi. 38, 39). [HANDI- 
 CRAFT. | 
 
 VII. Fire or flame is used in a metaphorical 
 sense to express excited feeling and divine 
 inspiration, and also to describe temporal cala- 
 mities and future punishments (Ps. Ixvi. 12; 
 Jer, xx. 9; Joel ii. 30; Mal. iii. 2; Matt. xxv. 
 41; Mark ix. 43; Rev. xx. 15). [H. W. P.] 
 
 FIREPAN (OFM); πυρεῖον, θυμιατήριον ; 
 ignium receptaculum; thuribulum), one of the 
 vessels of the Temple service (Ex. xxvii. 3, 
 Reyna ΨΚ. xxv. 15) Jer, lii. 19). - The 
 same word is elsewhere rendered “snuff-dish ” 
 (Ex, xxv. 38, xxxvii. 23; Num. iv. 9; ἐπα- 
 ρυστήρ ; emunctorium) and “ censer” (Lev. x. 1, 
 xvi. 12; Num. xvi. 6 sq.), a variety of ren- 
 dering preserved by the R. V. There appear, 
 therefore, to have been two articles so called: 
 one, like a chafing-dish, to carry live coals for 
 the purpose of burning incense ; another, like a 
 snuffer-dish, to be used in trimming the lamps, 
 in order to carry the snuffers and convey away 
 the snuff. [W. L. B.] 
 
 FIRKIN. [MEasovres.] 
 
 FIRMAMENT. This term was introduced 
 into our language from the Vulgate, which 
 gives firmamentum as the equivalent of the 
 στερέωμα of the LXX. (better Greek Ven.— 
 τάμα from τείνω), and of the rakia (7 ) of the 
 
 Hebrew text (Gen. i. 6). The Hebrew term first 
 
 FIRMAMENT 1069 
 
 demands notice (cp. Delitzsch [1887] and Dill- 
 mann® in loco). It is generally regarded as 
 expressive of simple expansion, and is so ren- 
 dered in the margin of the A. V. (/.c.; R. V. 
 “expanse ’’); but the true idea of the word is 
 a complex one, taking in the mode by which the 
 expansion is effected, and consequently implying 
 the nature of the material expanded. The verb 
 raka means to expand by beating, whether by 
 the hand, the foot, or any instrument. It is 
 especially used, however, of beating out metals 
 into thin plates (Ex. xxxix.3; Num. xvi. 39), 
 and hence the substantive O'YP 7 = “ broad 
 
 (R. V. “ beaten”) plates” of metal (Num. xvi. 
 38). It is thus applied to the flattened surface 
 of the solid earth (Is. xlii. 5, xliv. 24; Ps. 
 cxxxvi. 6), and it is in this sense that the term 
 is applied to the heaven in Job xxxvii. 18 (ΕΒ. V.) 
 — Canst thou with Him spread ” (rather ham- 
 mer) “out the sky, which is strong as a 
 molten mirror ”—the mirror to which he refers 
 being made of metal. The sense of solidity, 
 therefore, is combined with the ideas of expan- 
 sion and tenuity in the term rakia. Saalschiitz 
 (Archaeol. ii. 67) conceives that the idea of 
 solidity is inconsistent with Gen. ii. 6, which 
 implies, according to him, the passage of the 
 mist through the rakia; he therefore gives it 
 the sense of pure expansion—it is the large and 
 lofty room in which the winds, &c., have their 
 abode. But it should be observed that Gen. ii. 
 6 implies the very reverse. If the mist had 
 penetrated the rakia, it would have descended 
 in the form of rain; the mist, however, was 
 formed under the rakia, and resembled a heavy 
 dew—a mode of fructifying the earth which, 
 from its regularity and quietude, was more 
 appropriate to a state of innocence than rain, 
 the occasional violence of which associated it 
 with the idea of Divine vengeance. But the 
 same idea of solidity runs through all the refer- 
 ences to the rakia. In Ezek. i. 22-26, the 
 “firmament ” is the floor on which the throne 
 of the Most High is placed. That the rakia 
 should be transparent, as implied in the com- 
 parisons with the sapphire (Ex. /. c.) and with 
 erystal (Ezek. 7. ¢.; cp. Rev. iv. 6), is by no 
 means inconsistent with its solidity. Further, 
 the office of the rakia in the economy of the 
 world demanded strength and substance. It was 
 to serve as a division between the waters above 
 and the waters below (Gen. i. 7). In order to 
 enter into this description we must carry our 
 ideas back to the time when the earth was a 
 chaotic mass, overspread with water, in which 
 the material elements of the heavens were in- 
 termingled. The first step, therefore, in the 
 work of orderly arrangement, was to separate 
 the elements of heaven and earth, and to fix a 
 floor of partition between the waters of the 
 heaven and the waters of the earth; and 
 accordingly the rakia was created to support 
 the upper reservoir (Ps. cxlviii. 4), itself being 
 supported at the edge or rim of the earth’s disk 
 by the mountains (2 Sam. xxii. 8; Job xxvi. 11). 
 In keeping with this view the rakia was pro- 
 vided with “ windows” (Gen. vii. 11; Is. xxiv. 
 18; Mal. iii. 10) and “doors” (Ps, Ixxviii. 23), 
 through which the rain and the snow might 
 descend. A secondary purpose which the rakia 
 served was to support the heavenly bodies, sun, 
 moon, and stars (Gen. i. 14), in which they were 
 
1070 FIRMAMENT 
 
 fixed as nails, and from which, consequently, 
 they might be said to drop off (Matt. xxiv. 29). 
 In all these particulars we recognise the same 
 view as was entertained by the Greeks and, toa 
 certain extent, by the Latins. The former 
 applied to the heaven such epithets as “ brazen” 
 (χάλκεον, Il. xvii. 425; πολύχαλκον, 1]. v. 504) 
 and “iron” (σιδήρεον, Od. xv. 328, xvii. 565)— 
 epithets also used in the Scriptures (Lev. xxvi. 
 19); and that this was not merely poetical 
 embellishment appears from the views promul- 
 gated by their philosophers, Empedocles (Plu- 
 tarch, Place. Phil. ii. 11) and Artemidorus (Senec. 
 Quaest. vii. 13), The same idea is expressed in 
 the caelo affixa sidera of the Latins (Plin. ii. 39, 
 xviii. 57). If it be objected to the Mosaic 
 account that the view embodied in the word 
 rakia does not harmonize with strict philoso- 
 phical truth, the answer to such an objection is, 
 that the writer describes things as they appeared 
 to him rather than as they are. The writer 
 purposed “to give, in a few broad and powerful 
 strokes, the great outlines of creation: shadow- 
 ing forth its deep mysteries in a series of grand 
 and impressive representations on a scale of 
 magnificence which is without parallel. In the 
 tone of description suited to such a purpose, 
 minute specification is out of place. All is vast 
 and general. Let anything be added in the way 
 of minute distinction, or of explanation and 
 conciliation, and the whole style of conception 
 is changed” (Conant). In truth the same ab- 
 sence of philosophic truth may be traced 
 throughout all the terms applied to this subject, 
 and the objection is levelled rather against the 
 principles of language than anything else. 
 Examine the Latin coelum (κοῖλον), the “hollow 
 place ” or cave scooped out of solid space; our 
 own “heaven,” .¢. what is heaved up ; the Greek 
 οὐρανός, similarly significant of height (Pott. 
 Etym. Forsch. i. 123); or the German “ Himmel,” 
 from heimeln, to cover—the “roof” which con- 
 stitutes the “heim” or abode of man: in each 
 there is a large amount of philosophical error. 
 Correctly speaking, of course, the atmosphere is 
 the true rakia by which the clouds are sup- 
 ported, and undefined space is the abode of the 
 celestial bodies. There certainly appears an 
 inconsistency in treating the rakia as the sup- 
 port both of the clouds and of the stars, for it 
 could not have escaped observation that the 
 clouds were below the stars: but perhaps this 
 may be referred to the same feeling which is 
 expressed in the coelum ruit of the Latins, the 
 downfall of the rakia in stormy weather. Al- 
 though the rakia and the shamayim (“heaven”) 
 are treated as synonymous in Gen. i. 8, yet it 
 would be more correct to recognise a distinction 
 between them, as implied in the expression 
 “firmament of the heavens” (Gen. i. 14), the 
 former being the upheaving power and the 
 latter the upheaved body—the former the line 
 of demarcation between heaven and earth, the 
 latter the strata or stories into which the 
 heaven was divided. Dr. Conant (B. D. Amer. 
 ed.) has pointed out that it is well to distinguish 
 the merely ideal and poetical imagery in later 
 writings (Ps. civ. 3; 2 Sam. xxii, 8; Job xxvi. 
 11, xxxvii. 18) and in symbolic vision (Ezek. i. 
 22-26) from the purely descriptive, though 
 manifestly phenomenal, representation in the 
 Book Genesis. CW... Jin Bel ΕΠ 
 
 FIRST-BORN 
 
 FIRST-BORN (1132; πρωτότοκος ; primo- 
 genitus ; from 723, early, ripe, Gesen. p- 206), 
 applied equally both to animals and human 
 beings. That some rights of primogeniture 
 existed in very early times is plain, but it is not ~ 
 so clear in what they consisted. They have been 
 classed as, a. authority over the rest of the 
 family ; 6. priesthood ; c. a double portion of the 
 inheritance. The birthright of Esau and of 
 Reuben, set aside by authority or forfeited by 
 misconduct, proves a general privilege as well as 
 quasi-sacredness of primogeniture (Gen. xxv. 23, 
 31, 34, xlix. 3; 1 Ch. v. 1; Heb. xii. 16), and 
 a precedence which obviously existed, and is 
 alluded to in various passages (as Ps. lxxxix. 27; 
 Job xviii. 13; Rom. viii. 29; Col. i. 15; Heb. 
 xii. 23); but the story of Esau’s rejection tends 
 to show the supreme and sacred authority of 
 the parent irrevocable even by himself, rather 
 than inherent right existing in the eldest son, 
 which was evidently not inalienable (Gen. xxvii. 
 29, 33, 36; Grotius, Calmet, Patrick, Knobel; 
 Dillmann,? Delitzsch [1887] on Gen. xxy. and 
 XXVii.). 
 
 Under the Law, in memory of the Exodus, the 
 eldest son was regarded as devoted to God, and 
 was in every case to be redeemed by an offering 
 not exceeding five shekels, within one month 
 from birth. If he died before the expiration of 
 thirty days, the Jewish doctors held the father 
 excused, but liable to the payment if he out- 
 lived that time (Ex. xiii. 12-15, xxii. 29; Num. 
 vill. 17, xviii. 15, 16; Lev. xxvii. 6; Lightfoot, 
 Hor. Hebr. on Luke ii. 22; Philo, de Pr. Sacerd. 
 i. ΠῚ. 233, Mangey]). This devotion of the first- 
 born was believed to indicate a priesthood be- 
 longing to the eldest sons of families, which 
 being set aside in the case of Reuben, was 
 transferred to the tribe of Levi. This priest- 
 hood is said to have lasted till the completion of 
 the Tabernacle (Jahn, Arch. Bibl. x. §§ 165, 387; 
 Selden, de Syn. c. 16; Mishn. Zebachim, xiv. 4, 
 vol. v. 58; cp. Ex. xxiv. 5), 
 
 The ceremony of redemption of the first-born 
 is described by Calmet from Leo of Modena 
 (Calm. on Num. xviii.). The eldest son received 
 a double portion of the father’s inheritance 
 (Deut. xxi. 17), but not of the mother’s (Mishn. 
 Becoroth, viii. 9. Cp. M. Bloch, Das Mos.-Talm. 
 Erbrecht, § 16,1890). If the father had married 
 two wives, of whom he preferred one to the 
 other, he was forbidden to give precedence to 
 the son of the one, if the child of the other were 
 the first-born (Deut, xxi. 15, 16). In the case 
 of levirate marriage, the son of the next brother 
 succeeded to his uncle’s vacant inheritance (Deut. 
 xxv. 5, 6). Under the monarchy, the eldest son 
 usually, but not always, as appears in the case 
 of Solomon, succeeded his father in the kingdom 
 (1 Κ. i. 30, ii, 29). 
 
 The male first-born of animals (OM) Wd; 
 διανοῖγον μήτραν ; quod aperit vulvam) was also 
 devoted to God (Ex. xiii. 2, 12, 13, xxii, 29, 
 xxxiv. 19, 20; Philo, 7. ¢c., and Quis rerum div. 
 haeres. 24 [i. 489, Mang.]). Unclean animals 
 were to be redeemed with the addition of one- 
 fifth of the value, or else put to death; or, if not 
 redeemed, to be sold, and the price given to the 
 priests (Lev. xxvii. 13, 27, 28). The first-born 
 of an ass was to be redeemed with a lamb; or, if 
 not redeemed, put to death (Ex. xiii, 13, xxxiy. 
 
-_—_ 
 
 —_e ee Oo 
 
 FIRST-BORN, DEATH OF THE 
 
 20; Num. xviii. 15). Of cattle, goats, or sheep, 
 the first-born from eight days to twelve months 
 old were not to be used, but offered in sacrifice. 
 After the burning of the fat, the remainder 
 was appropriated to the priests (Ex. xxii. 30; 
 Num. xviii. 17, 18; Deut. xv. 19, 20; Neh. x. 
 36). If there were any blemish, the animal was 
 not to be sacrificed, but eaten at home (Deut. xv. 
 21, 22, and xii. 5-7, xiv. 23). Various refine- 
 ments on the subject of blemishes are to be 
 found in Mishn. Becoroth (see Mal. i. 8. By 
 “ firstlings,” Deut. xiv. 23, compared with Num. 
 Xviii, 17, are meant tithe animals: see Reland, 
 Anti, iii. 10, p. 327; Jahn, Arch. Bibl. 
 § 387). Were 
 
 FIRST - BORN, DEATH OF THE. 
 [PLaacues, No. 10.] 
 
 FIRST-FRUITS. 1. O°9523 in pl. only, 
 or O53; Gesen. p. 206: usually πρωτογεννή- 
 ματα, ἀπαρχαὶ τῶν πρωτογεννημάτων (Ex. xxiii. 
 19); primitiae, frugum initia, primitiva. 2. 
 MWS, from WN, head or top in two places, 
 followed by O'VID3, Ex. xxiii. 12, xxxiv. 26 
 (Gesen. pp. 1249, 1252). 3. MIDI, Gesen. 
 Ῥ. 1276: ἀφαίρεμα, ἀπαρχή ; primitiae. 
 
 Besides the first-born of man and of beast, 
 the Law required that offerings of first-fruits of 
 
 produce should be made publicly by the nation ' 
 
 at each of the three great yearly Festivals, and 
 also by individuals without limitation of time. 
 No ordinance appears to have been more dis- 
 tinctly recognised than this, so that the use of 
 the term in the way of illustration carried with 
 it a full significance even in N. Τὶ times (Prov. 
 ili. 9; Tob. i. 63 1 Mace. iii. 49; Rom. viii. 23, 
 xi. 16; Jas. i. 18: Rev. xiv. 4). 
 
 1. The Law ordered in general, that the first 
 of all ripe fruits and of liquors, or, as it is twice 
 expressed, the first of first-fruits, should be 
 offered in God’s House. (Ex. xxii. 29, xxiii. 19, 
 xxxiv. 26; Philo, de Monarchia, ii. 3 [ii. 224, 
 Mang. 7). 
 
 2. On the morrow after the Passover sabbath, 
 i.é. on the 16th of Nisan, a sheaf of new corn was 
 to be brought to the priest, and waved before 
 the Altar, in acknowledgment of the gift of 
 fruitfulness (Ley. xxiii. 5, 6, 10, 12; ii. 12), 
 Josephus tells us that the sheaf was of barley, 
 and that when this ceremony had been per- 
 formed, the harvest work might be begun 
 (Joseph. Ant. iii. 10, § 5). 
 
 3. At the expiration of seven weeks from this 
 time, i.e. at the Feast of Pentecost, an oblation 
 
 was to be made of two loaves of leavened bread” 
 
 made from the new flour, which were to be 
 waved in like manner with the Passover sheaf 
 (Ex. xxxiv. 22; Lev. xxiii. 15, 17; Num. 
 xxviii. 26). 
 
 4, The feast of ingathering, 1.5. the Feast of 
 Tabernacles in the seventh month, was itself 
 an acknowledgment of the fruits of the harvest 
 (Ex. xxiii. 16, xxxiv. 22; Lev. xxiii. 39). 
 
 These four sorts of offerings were national. 
 Besides them, the two following were of an in- 
 dividual kind, but the last was made by custom 
 to assume also a national character. 
 
 5. A cake of the first dough that was baked 
 was to be offered as a heave-offering (Num. xv. 
 19 21). 
 
 FIRST-FRUITS 1071 
 
 6. The first-fruits of the land were to be 
 brought in a basket to the holy place of God’s 
 choice, and there presented to the priest, who 
 was to set the basket down before the Altar. 
 The offerer was then, in words of which the 
 outline, if not the whole form was prescribed, to 
 recite the story of Jacob’s descent into Egypt, 
 and the deliverance therefrom of his posterity ; 
 and to acknowledge the blessings with which 
 God had visited him (Deut. xxvi. 2-1 1). 
 
 The offerings, both public and private, resolve 
 themselves into two classes: a, produce in general, 
 in the Mishna D353, Biccurim, first-fruits, 
 primitivi fructus, πρωτογεννήματα, raw produce. 
 ὁ, DVI, Terumoth, offerings, primitiae, ἀπαρ- 
 xal, prepared produce (Gesen. p. 1276 ; Augus- 
 tine, Quaest. in Hept. iv. 32, vol. iii. p. 732; 
 Spencer, de Leg. Hebr. iii. 9, p. 713; Reland, 
 Antiq. iii. 7; Philo, de Pr. Sacerd. i. [ii. 233, 
 Mang. ] de Sacrific. Abel. et Cain, 21 [i. 177, M.]). 
 
 a. Of the public offerings of first-fruits, the 
 Law defined no place from which the Passover 
 sheaf should be chosen, but the Jewish custom, 
 so far as it is represented by the Mishna, pre- 
 scribed that the wave-sheaf or sheaves should be 
 taken from the neighbourhood of Jerusalem 
 (ZLerumoth, x. 2). Deputies from the Sanhedrin 
 went on the eve of the Festival, and tied the 
 growing stalks in bunches. In the evening of 
 the Festival day the sheaf was cut with all pos- 
 sible publicity, and carried to the Temple. It 
 was there threshed, and an omer of grain, after 
 being winnowed, was bruised and roasted; and 
 after it had been mixed with oil and frankincense 
 laid upon it, the priest waved the offering in all 
 directions. A handful was thrown on the altar- 
 fire, and the rest belonged to the priests, to be 
 eaten by those who were free from ceremonial 
 defilement. After this the harvest might be 
 carried on. After the destruction of the Temple 
 all this was discontinued, on the principle, as it 
 seems, that the House of God was exclusively 
 the place for oblation (Lev. ii. 14, x. 14, xxiii, 
 13; Num. xviii. 11; Mishn. Zerwm. v. 6, x. 4,5; 
 Schekalim, viii. 8; Joseph. Ant. iii. 10, § 5; 
 Philo, de Pr. Sacerd. i. [ii. 233, Mang.]; Reland, 
 Antig. iii. 7, 3, iv. 3, 8). 
 
 The offering made at the Feast of the Pentecost 
 was a thanksgiving for the conclusion of wheat 
 harvest. It consisted of two loaves (according 
 to Josephus one loaf) of new flour baked with 
 leaven, which were waved by the priest as at 
 the Passover. The size of the Joaves is fixed by 
 the Mishna at seven palms long and four wide, 
 with horns of four fingers’ length. No private 
 offerings of first-fruits were allowed before this 
 public oblation of the two loaves (Ley. xxiii. 15, 
 20; Mishn. Zerum. x. 6, xi. 4; Joseph. Ant. iii. 
 10, § 6; Reland, Antig. iv. 4, 5). The private 
 oblations of first-fruits may be classed in the 
 same manner as the public. The directions 
 of the Law respecting them have been stated 
 generally above. To these the Jews added or 
 from them deduced the following. Seven sorts 
 of produce were considered liable to oblation, 
 viz. wheat, barley, grapes, figs, pomegranates, 
 olives, and dates (Gesen. p. 219; Deut. viii. 
 8; Mishn. Bicurim, i. 3; Hasselquist, Zravels, 
 
 |p. 417), but the Law appears to have con- 
 _templated produce of all sorts, and to have 
 
 been so understood by Nehemiah (Deut. xxvi. 
 
1072 FIRST-FRUITS 
 
 2; Neh. x. 35, 37). The portions intended to 
 be offered were decided by inspection, and the 
 selected fruits were fastened to the stem bya 
 band of rushes (Bic. iii. 1). A proprietor might, 
 if he thought fit, devote the whole of his pro- 
 duce as first-fruits (ibid. ii. 4). But though the 
 Law laid down no rule as to quantity, the mini- 
 mum fixed by custom was Ath (Reland, Antig. 
 iii. 8, 4). No offerings were to be made before 
 Pentecost, nor after the feast of the Dedication, 
 on the 25th of Cisleu (Ex. xxiii. 16; Lev. xxiii. 
 16, 17; Bic. i. 3, 6). The practice was for com- 
 panies of twenty-four persons to assemble in the 
 evening at a central station, and pass the night 
 in the open air, In the morning they were 
 summoned by the leader of the Feast with the 
 words, “Let us arise and go up to Mount Zion, 
 the House of the Lord our God.” On the road 
 to Jerusalem they recited portions of Psalms 
 exxii. and cl. Each party was preceded by a 
 piper, a sacrificial bullock having the tips of his 
 horns gilt and crowned with olive. At their 
 approach to the city they were met by priests 
 appointed to inspect the offerings, and were 
 welcomed by companies of citizens proportioned 
 to the number of the pilgrims. On ascending 
 the Temple mount each person took his basket, 
 containing the first-fruits and an offering of 
 turtle-doves, on his shoulders, and proceeded to 
 the court of the Temple, where they were met 
 by Levites singing Ps. xxx. 2. The doves were 
 sacrificed as a burnt-offering, and the tirst-fruits 
 presented to the priests with the words appointed 
 in Deut. xxvi. The baskets of the rich were of 
 gold or silver ; those of the poor of peeled willow. 
 The baskets of the latter kind were, as well as 
 the offerings they contained, presented to the 
 priests, who waved the offerings at the S.W. 
 corner of the altar: the more valuable baskets 
 were returned to the owners (Bic. iii. 6, 8). 
 After passing the night at Jerusalem, the 
 pilgrims returned on the following day to their 
 homes (Deut. xvi. 7; Zerwm. ii. 4). It is men- 
 tioned that king Agrippa bore his part in this 
 highly picturesque national ceremony by carry- 
 ing his basket like the rest, to the Temple 
 (Bic. iii. 4). Among other by-laws were the 
 following: 1. He who ate his first-fruits else- 
 where than in Jerusalem and without the proper 
 form was liable to punishment (Maccoth, iii. 3, 
 vol. iv. 284, Surenh.). 2. Women, slaves, deaf 
 and dumb persons, and some others were exempt 
 from the verbal oblation before the priest, 
 which was not generally used after the Feast of 
 Tabernacles (Bic. i. 5, 6). 
 
 b. The first-fruits prepared for use were not 
 required to be taken to Jerusalem. They con- 
 sisted of wine, wool, bread, oil, date-honey, 
 onions, cucumbers (Zerum. ii. 5, 6; Num. xv. 
 19, 21; Deut. xviii. 4), They were to be made, 
 according to some, only by dwellers in Palestine; 
 but according to others, by those also who 
 dwelt in Moab, in Ammonitis, and in Egypt 
 (Terum.i. 1). They were not to be taken from 
 the portion intended for tithes, nor from the 
 corners left for the poor (ibid. i. 5, iii. 7). The 
 proportion to be given is thus estimated in that 
 treatise: a liberal measure, 3, or, according to 
 the school of Shammai, .,; a moderate portion, 
 τ} a scanty portion, J, (see Ezek. xlv. 13). 
 The measuring-basket was to be thrice estimated 
 during the season (ib. iv. 3). He who ate or 
 
 ‘the owner for three years. 
 
 FISH, FISHING 
 
 drank his offering by mistake was bound to add 
 
 1, and present it to the priest (Lev. v. 16; xxii. 
 
 14), who was forbidden to remit the penalty 
 
 (Terum. vi. 1, 5). The offerings were the per- 
 
 quisite of the priests, not only at Jerusalem, but - 
 in the provinces, and were to be eaten or used 
 
 only by those who were clean from ceremonial 
 
 defilement (Num. xviii. 11; Deut. xviii. 4). 
 
 The corruption of the nation after the time 
 of Solomon gave rise to neglect in these as well 
 as in other ordinances of the Law, and restora- 
 tion of them was among the reforms brought 
 about by Hezekiah (2 Ch. xxxi. 5,11). Nehe- 
 miah also, at the Return from Captivity, took 
 pains to re-organise the offerings of first-fruits 
 of both kinds, and to appoint places to receive 
 them (Neh. x. 35, 37; xii. 44). Perversion or 
 alienation of them is reprobated, as care in 
 observing is eulogised by the Prophets, and 
 specially mentioned in the sketch of the restora- 
 tion of the Temple and Temple-service made by 
 Ezekiel (Ezek. xx. 40, xliv. 30, xlviii. 14; Mal. 
 iii. 8). 
 
 An offering of first-fruits is mentioned as an 
 acceptable one to the prophet Elisha (2 K. iy. 
 42). 
 
 Besides the offerings of first-fruits mentioned 
 above, the Law directed that the fruit of all 
 trees freshly planted should be regarded as uncir- 
 cumcised, or profane, and not to be tasted by 
 The whole produce 
 of the fourth year was devoted to God, and did 
 not become free to the owner till the fifth year 
 (Ley. xix. 23-25). The trees found growing by 
 the Jews at the conquest were treated as exempt 
 from this rule (Mishn. Orlah, i. 2). 
 
 Offerings of first-fruits were sent to Jerusalem 
 by Jews living in foreign countries (Joseph. 
 Ant. xvi. 6, § 7). 
 
 Offerings of first-fruits were also customary 
 in heathen systems of worship (see, for in- 
 stances and authorities, Parker, Bibliotheca, v. 
 515 ; Patrick, On Deut. xxvi.; and a copious list 
 in Spencer, de Leg. Hebr. iii. 9, de Primitiarum 
 Origine ; also Leslie, On Tithes, Works, vol. ii. ; 
 Winer, 5. v. Erstlinge). [ΕΠ W.Pal 
 
 FISH, FISHING. Fishes, with the other 
 inhabitants of the waters, as sea-monsters, 
 whales, and great reptiles, as well as the fowl 
 of the air, are the products of the fifth day, οὐ. 
 creative epoch (Gen. i. 21). Their place in the 
 record of creation is in exact accord with the 
 results of geological investigation; which shows 
 them to be the earliest vertebrate animals found 
 in the stratified rocks. The earliest types appear 
 in the Old Red Sandstene, the ganoid fishes 
 of the Dura Den deposits. From these strata 
 upwards fishes gradually increase, reaching their 
 fullest development in the Cretaceous or chalk 
 epoch, when the warm-blooded mammals or 
 quadrupeds were beginning to prevail. 
 
 The Jewish literature does not show that the 
 nation ever acquired any intimate knowledge 
 of this branch of natural history. The fisher- 
 men, whether of the sea or the lake, doubtless 
 had distinctive names for the various species 
 which they caught, but of these only one is 
 preserved in Josephus, and none in Scripture 
 or in the Rabbinical writings. They simply 
 classified them as great or small, clean or un- 
 clean. The latter is the only distinction between 
 
FISH, FISHING 
 
 the kinds of fish in the law of Moses (Lev. xi. 9-- 
 12). The unclean fish, forbidden as food, were 
 such as had no fins or scales. This would com- 
 prise all aquatic reptiles, the Siluridae or Sheat 
 fish, very common in the Nile and Jordan, the 
 Raiidae or Skate fish, and the Petromizidae or 
 Lampreys. To these the Rabbis afterwards 
 added the Muraenidae or Eels, whose scales are 
 very minute and covered with a slimy secretion. 
 The Egyptians adopted a similar classification, 
 and looked on all fishes without fins or scales as 
 unwholesome (Wilkinson, Anc. Egypt. ii. 191-2 
 [1878]). One of the laws of El Hakim pro- 
 “hibits the sale or even the capture of such 
 (Lane, Mod. Egypt. i. 132). This distinction 
 is probably referred to in the terms σαπρά (eswi 
 non idonea, Schleusner, Lex. 5. v.; Trench, 
 Parables, p. 137) and καλά (Matt. xiii. 48). 
 The second division is marked in Gen. i. 21 (as 
 compared with v. 28), where the great marine 
 animals (ὑπ DIAN; κήτη μεγάλα), 
 generically described as “whales” in the A. V. 
 and ‘“ sea-monsters” in the R. V. (Gen. J. ¢.; 
 Job vii. 12) [WHALE], but including also other 
 animals, such as the crocodile [LEVIATHAN] 
 and perhaps some kinds of serpents, are dis- 
 tinguished from “every living creature that 
 
 creepeth” (NWN ; A. V. and R. V. “moveth”), 
 a description applying to fish, along with other 
 reptiles, as having no legs. To the former class 
 we may assign the large fish referred to in Jon. 
 i. 1 ΟὟ} 39; κήτος μέγα, Matt. xii, 40), 
 which Winer (art. Fische), after Bochart, iden- 
 tifies with a species of shark (Canis carcharias) ; 
 and also that referred to in Tob. vi. 2 sq., iden- 
 tified by Bochart (Hieroz. iii. p. 697 sq.) with 
 the Silurus glanis, but by Kitto (art. Fish) with 
 a species of crocodile (the seesar) found in the 
 Indus (see Speaker’s Comm. in loco). The 
 Hebrews were struck with the remarkable 
 fecundity of fish, and have expressed this in 
 the term 2, the root of which signifies increase 
 (cp. Gen. xlviii. 16), and in the secondary 
 sense of yu, lit. to creep, thence to multiply 
 (Gen. i. 20, viii. 17, ix. 7; Ex. i. 7), as well as 
 in the allusions in Ezek. xlvii. 10. Doubtless 
 they became familiar with this fact in Egypt, 
 where the abundance of fish in the Nile, and in 
 the lakes and canals (Strab. xvii. p. 823 ; Diod. 
 1. 36, 43, 52; Herod. ii. 93, 149), rendered it 
 one of the staple commodities of food (Num. 
 xi. 5; cep. Wilkinson, /. c.). The destruction of 
 the fish was on this account a most serious 
 visitation to the Egyptians (Ex. vii. 21; Is. xix. 
 8). Occasionally it is the result of natural 
 causes: thus St. John (Travels in Valley of the 
 Nile, ii, 246) describes a vast destruction of fish 
 from cold, and Wellsted (Travels in Arabia, i. 
 310) states that in Oman the fish are visited 
 with an epidemic about every five years, which 
 destroys immense quantities of them. 
 
 The worship of fishes was expressly forbidden 
 by the law of Moses: “The likeness of any fish 
 that is in the waters beneath the earth ” (Deut. 
 iv.18). This strange form of idolatry was 
 widely spread and still exists in the East. It 
 arose, perhaps, from the fecundity of fishes, 
 which caused them to be taken as the emblems 
 of abundance and increase. The blessing of 
 
 BIBLE DICT.—VOL. I. 
 
 FISH, FISHING 1073 
 
 Jacob upon the sons of Joseph was, “Let them 
 grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth,” 
 A. V. marg. as fishes do increase (Gen. xlviii. 
 16). Nations the widest apart, as the Tartars and 
 the ancient Britons, had their fish-gods, the one 
 the Nataghi, the other the Brithyl! of the Kelts 
 and Belgae. In Egypt many species of fishes 
 were objects of worship (Herod. ii. 72). Hero- 
 dotus, in the passage referred to, mentions only 
 two kinds as venerated, but we find from other 
 authors that different fishes were worshipped in 
 different places (Plut. de Js. ὃ 18; Wilkinson, 
 1, ¢c.). Cuvier noticed no less than ten distinct 
 species depicted on the walls of the sepulchral 
 caves of Thebes (see also Rawlinson, Herod. 
 ii. 120). The mummies of several kinds of 
 fishes are found in great numbers stored up 
 in the Egyptian temples. Fish-worship extended 
 also to Assyria. The fish-god, a male form of the 
 Phoenician Dagon, is represented on one of the 
 sculptures of Khorsabad, though Rawlinson con- 
 siders them distinct (Herod. i. 593). The male- 
 god is also described by Berosus(Layard, Nineveh, 
 iil. p. 466). Ichthyolatry spread also to India 
 (Baur, Mythologie, ii. 51) ; but among the Phi- 
 listines the fish-god or goddess was a national 
 deity, and had temples in all their cities, notably 
 at Gaza and Ashdod. In Scripture records 
 Dagon was thought to have been represented 
 with the head, arms, and body of a man, and 
 the tail of a fish (cp. 1 Sam. v.43; A. V.); “ only 
 the stump (fishy part, marg.) of Dagon was left 
 to him ;” but (cp. R. V.) the belief that his 
 body terminated in the tail of a fish arose from 
 a mistaken etymology of the name (Dacon]. 
 This worship of Dagon remained to the time of 
 the Hasmonaeans, who destroyed the temple at 
 Ashdod. At a later period the idol was of female 
 form, as we find from Lucian (De Ded Syr.) 
 and Diodorus Siculus, who describes the image 
 at Ashkalon as having the face of a woman 
 and the body of a fish. Sidon was also the fish- 
 goddess of Phoenicia (Cic. de Nat. Deor. iii.). 
 For an exhaustive summary of historical refer- 
 ences, see Selden, de Dis Syris, de Dagone. The 
 superstitious veneration of certain fishes still 
 remains even among the Moslems in Northern 
 Syria and Mesopotamia. A few miles north of 
 the Syrian Tripoli is a monastery of dervishes, 
 with a spring and pool swarming with fish, 
 which are held sacred, as being inhabited by the 
 souls of the faithful departed, and to which 
 offerings are made. So at Orfa, the ancient 
 Edessa, the fishes of the river are held sacred by 
 the Moslems (see Robertson-Smith, Zhe Religion 
 of the Semites, i. 157 sq.). 
 
 Fish was a principal article of diet in Egypt, 
 although forbidden to the priests. “We re- 
 member the fish which we did eat inEgypt freely,” 
 was the complaint of the Israelites when they 
 murmured in the wilderness. Not only was 
 there, and still is, prodigious abundance of fish 
 in the Nile, and especially in the Delta, but the 
 variety of species is very great. Herodotus, 
 Josephus, and Strabo give us the names of 
 several kinds, most of which are difficult of 
 identification. Herodotus names the λεπιδωτός, 
 probably Cyprinus lepidotus, allied to the carp, 
 ὀξύρρυγχος (Mormyrus oxyrhynchus), and the 
 eel, as sacred fish (ii. 72, and Plut. de Js. vii. 18, 
 22). Strabo mentions these, and also κοράκινος 
 (Clarias macrocanthus); κέστρευς, a species of 
 
 82 
 
1074 FISH, FISHING 
 
 mullet; @dypos, a bream, and many others which 
 cannot be satisfactorily identified, as inhabiting 
 the Nile (Strabo, Geogr. xvii. p. 1164; ed. 
 Falconer, Oxford, 1807).* The fresh-water fishes 
 of Egypt are as varied as they are numerous, 
 belonging chiefly to the families of the Sparidae, 
 Labridae, Chromidae, and Cyprinidae, the bream, 
 perch, and carp. It is very remarkable that 
 while the Greek language possesses over 400 
 names for fishes, not more than one or two have 
 been preserved in Hebrew. 
 
 The fishes of the Jordan, its lakes and affluents, 
 bear a strong affinity to many of the species of 
 the Nile, though with far less admixture of 
 species found in other rivers of the Eastern 
 Mediterranean. In fact, the ichthyology of the 
 Jordan system is the most isolated and unique, 
 as regards geographical distribution, in the 
 world. Thirty-six species have been ascertained, 
 and of these only one (Blennius lupulus) belongs 
 to the ordinary Mediterranean fauna. Two others, 
 Chromis niloticus and Clarias macrocanthus, are 
 Nilotic, Seven other species occur also in the 
 rivers of South-West Asia, as the Tigris and 
 Euphrates. Ten more are found in other parts 
 of Syria, chiefly in the Damascus lakes; and 
 the remaining sixteen species of the families 
 Chromidae, Cyprinodontidae, and Cyprinidae 
 are peculiar to the Jordan. This analysis points 
 to a very close affinity of the Jordan with 
 the rivers and lakes of tropical Africa. The 
 affinity is not only of families, but of genera, 
 for Chromis and Hemichromis are peculiarly 
 Ethiopian forms, while the other species are 
 identical with, or very closely allied to, the 
 fishes from other fresh waters of Syria. 
 But the African forms are a very large pro- 
 portion of the whole; and considering the 
 difficulty of transportation in the case of 
 fresh-water fishes, these peculiarities are of 
 great significance. These fishes probably 
 date from the earliest time after the eleva- 
 tion of the country from the Eocene ocean. 
 They form a group far more distinct and 
 divergent from that of the surrounding 
 region than can be found in any other class 
 of existing life. During the epochs subse- 
 quent to the Eocene, owing to the unbroken 
 isolation of the basin, there have been no 
 opportunities for the introduction of new 
 forms, nor for the further dispersion of the old 
 ones. ‘The affinity is very close to the forms 
 of the rivers and fresh-water lakes of East 
 Africa, even as far south as the Zambesi; but 
 while the genera are the same, the species are 
 rather representative than identical. The solu- 
 tion appears to be, that during the Meiocene 
 and Pleiocene periods, the Jordan basin formed 
 the northernmost of a vast system of fresh- 
 water lakes, extending from north to south; of 
 which, in the earlier part’of the epochs, perhaps 
 the Red Sea, and certainly the Nile basin, the 
 Nyanza, the Nyassa, and Tanganyika lakes, and 
 the feeders of the Zambesi, were members. 
 During that warm period, a fluviatile ichthyo- 
 logical fauna was developed suitable to its then 
 conditions, consisting of representative and, 
 perhaps, identical species throughout the area. 
 
 The advent of the Glacial period was, like its 
 
 a For a fuller account of the Nile fishes, see Athe- 
 naeus, Vii. 55 sq. 
 
 FISH, FISHING 
 
 close, gradual. Many species must have perished 
 under the changed conditions. The hardiest 
 survived ; and some, perhaps, have been modified 
 to meet those new conditions. Under this strict 
 isolation it could hardly be otherwise; and - 
 however severe the climate may have been—that 
 of the Lebanon, with its glaciers, corresponding 
 with the present temperature of the Alps at 
 a similar elevation (regard being had to the 
 difference of latitude), the fissure of the Jordan 
 being, as we certainly know, as much depressed 
 below the level of the ocean as it is at present, ἴ.6. 
 1300 feet at the Dead Sea—there must have been 
 an exceptionally warm temperature in its waters, 
 in which the existing species could survive. 
 
 The most important species in the Lake of 
 Galilee are two species of blenny, Blennius 
 lupulus and B. varus ; Chromis niloticus, known 
 as Bolti in Egypt, and Moucht by the fishermen 
 of Tiberias ; Chromis tiberiadis, the Mouchtlebet 
 of the fishermen, found in amazing shoals; 
 C. Andreae, C. Simonis, C. Flavii-Josephi, the 
 Addadi of the fishermen; C. microstomus, the 
 Moucht kart of the fishermen, Hemichromis 
 sacra, all peculiar to the lake; Clarias macro- 
 canthus, the silurus, κοράκινος of Josephus, 
 barbour of the fishermen; Barbus canis and 
 
 WN 
 
 NLR 
 QI τ 
 AN a ας, 
 
 {\ 
 
 XXKYY) 
 Bit 
 
 An Egyptian Landing-net. 
 
 (Wilkinson.) 
 
 B. longiceps, the LEscheri of the fishermen, 
 both peculiar, and swarming in the Jordan, 
 as well as in the lake. The fishes of the 
 genera Chromis and Hemichromis have an extra- 
 ordinary manner of propagation. The spawn 
 is deposited in a little cavity, and the male fish 
 takes the ova into his mouth one by one, and 
 hatches them there; and for several weeks after, 
 until they are nearly four inches long, the 
 young continue to live in his mouth and gills, 
 which are distended so that his jaws cannot 
 meet. Dr. Livingstone noticed a similar habit 
 in a fish of the Lake Tanganyika. The density 
 of the shoals of fish in the Lake of Galilee can 
 scarcely be conceived by those who have not 
 witnessed them. They sometimes cover an acre 
 or more on the surface in one dense mass, their 
 dorsal fins standing out of the water. Josephus 
 notices this abundance, and mentions also the 
 Coracinus, which, being the same as the Sheat- 
 fish of the Nile, suggested the belief that the lake 
 was connected with the Nile (Bell. Jud. iii. 10, 
 8). There was also a tradition that one of the 
 ten laws of Joshua enacted that the fishing of 
 the lake should be free to all comers (Lightfoot, 
 Talm. Ex. Matt. iv. 18). 
 
FISH, FISHING 
 
 Many of the fish are carried by the rapid 
 stream of the Jordan in shoals into the Dead Sea, 
 where they are stupified and soon perish, and 
 No 
 
 may be seen floating dead on the surface. 
 
 FISH, FISHING 1075 
 
 in soul”; the word “fish” not being in the 
 Hebrew. 
 
 Numerous allusions to the art of fishing occur 
 in the Bible: in the Ὁ. Τὶ these allusions are of 
 a metaphorical character, de- 
 scriptive either of the conver- 
 sion (Jer. xvi. 16; Ezek. xlvii. 
 10) or of the destruction (Ezek. 
 xxix. 3 sq.; Eccles. ix. 12; 
 Amos iv.2; Hab. i. 14) of the 
 enemies of God. In the N. T. 
 the allusions are of a historical 
 character for the most part, 
 though the metaphorical appli- 
 
 cation is still maintained in 
 
 Matt. xiii. 47 sq. 
 
 The Sea of Galilee was fished 
 principally by means of the 
 drag- or draw-net—n 22, 
 michmoreth, σαγήνη, sagena, 
 whence ‘seine,’ as we still 
 call it (Is. xix. 8; Hab. i. 15; 
 Matt. xiii. 47),—a large net, 
 
 leaded and buoyed, which is 
 
 more vivid illustration ot the regeneration of the 
 land by the waters of life could be presented than 
 the vision of Ezekiel, showing these waters of 
 death peopled by living things: “The fishers 
 shall stand upon it from Engedi even unto En- 
 eglaim: they shall be a place to spread forth 
 nets; their fish shall be according to their kinds, 
 as the fish of the great sea, exceeding many ” 
 (xlvii. 10). 
 
 While the Jews diligently prosecuted fishing 
 in the Sea of Galilee (Joseph. Dell. Jud. iii. 10, § 9) 
 they do not appear to have themselves worked 
 the fisheries on their coast; but they possessed 
 few localities adapted for boat harbours. Joppa 
 was indeed their only port where any consider- 
 able fleet of fishing-boats could find shelter ; 
 for the northern ports were held by the Phoeni- 
 cians, who, from Tyre and Sidon, extensively 
 practised this industry. The Hebrew name of 
 Sidon signifies “ fishing-place;” and fishing is 
 the only remaining industry of the squalid village 
 which occupies the site of Tyre. ‘Tyre shall 
 be a place for the spreading of nets in the 
 midst of the sea” (Ezek. xxvi. 5). Jerusalem 
 was supplied with fish by Phoenician fishermen, 
 “men of Tyre” (Neh. xiii. 16) who came up 
 from Joppa; probably with dried fish, such as is 
 still largely consumed. The trade in fish must 
 have been considerable, as one of the gates of 
 Jerusalem was the fish-gate (2 Ch. xxxiii. 14), im- 
 plying a fish-market, which would be contiguous 
 to it, as each commodity to the present day has 
 its distinct bazaar. Salt-fish is often spoken of 
 
 in the Talmud, where it is called M19 (Lightfoot 
 on Matt. xiv. 17). There is no clear evidence 
 that the Jews preserved fish alive in ponds or 
 tanks as the Egyptians did. In the passages 
 which are supposed to suggest this (Cant. 
 vii. 4, “fish-pools in Heshbon”’), “ fish” is 
 an interpolation, omitted in R. V. In Is. xix. 
 10 “all that make sluices and ponds for fish ” 
 is rendered in R. V. “all they that work for 
 hire (marg. that make dims) shall be grieved 
 
 carried out by a boat, cast, and 
 then drawn in in a circle, so as 
 to “enclose a great multitude 
 of fishes.” It is this kind of 
 net to which our Lord compares the kingdom 
 of Heaven (Matt. xiii, 47-50). The number 
 
 of boats on the lake in our Lord’s time was 
 very large (Joseph. Bell. Jud. iii. 10, § 9), and 
 the few boats which still exist there employ 
 
 Ἷ 
 ih 
 
 WG 
 Se 
 Rae) 
 » RS 
 
 £S> 
 
 Coy 
 Ill 
 
 Ss Ss! 
 — 
 
 Pm 
 2 
 »" 
 
 Ν 
 bod Tee 
 
 Fishing. (Kouyunjik.) 
 
 the draw-net. The fishing is carried on at 
 
 night, the best time for taking fish, as we 
 
 know in our own seas, and as we read in Luke 
 
 y. 5. Another net very a Bie was 
 3 
 
 a 
 
1076 FISH GATE 
 
 the casting-net—D 1M, cherem (Hab. i, 15; Ezek. 
 xxvi. 5, 14, xlvii. 10), ἀμφίβληστρον (Matt. iv. 
 18; Mark i. 16), rete,—elsewhere expressed by 
 the generic term δίκτυον. This was used either 
 by a naked fisherman wading from the shore, and 
 by a rapid motion throwing his net and then 
 drawing it in in a circle, or thrown in the same 
 manner from a boat. It was this casting-net 
 that Peter and Andrew were using when called 
 to be fishers of men (Matt. iv. 18), and it was 
 also the same kind, as we see from the details 
 of the narrative, which enclosed the second 
 miraculous draught after the Resurrection (John 
 xxi, 6-8). The casting-net is still in common 
 use round the lake. Another mode of fishing 
 which was and still is practised on the rivers 
 
 Ee 
 em 
 
 Fishing with Grouud Bait. (Wilkiuson.) ~ 
 
 5 De 
 
 FITCHES 
 
 was by weirs or stake-nets formed of a sort of 
 cane wattle. According to the Rabbis, one of the 
 traditional laws of Joshua forbade the use of stake- 
 nets in the Lake of Galilee, where the fishing was 
 
 free to all, lest the boats should be damaged by © 
 
 them (Lightfoot, Zalm. La. Matt. iv. 18). 
 
 Other modes of taking fish in present use in 
 Palestine, and alluded to in Scripture, are by 
 the hook and line. Angling is often depicted on 
 the Assyrian and Egyptian monuments. It was 
 a favourite amusement, and was also followed 
 as a livelihood (Wilkinson, ii. 186 [1878]). 
 It is referred to by Isaiah (xix. 8), “They 
 that cast angle (Heb. MDM) into the Nile” 
 
 (R. V.); Hab. i. 15, and Job xl. 1. Two 
 
 other words are used by Amos: ΠΝ, tzinnah, 
 
 eg | Ea 
 
 and 1D, sir, i.e. “thorn” (ch. iv. 2); in Matt. , Jerusalem; it may have led to the fish market, 
 
 xvii. 27, we read “cast an hook ” (ἄγκιστρον). 
 
 or the Tyrian merchants who brought fish to 
 
 Hooks were used with lines, with or without a the city (Neh. xiii. 16) may have sold them in 
 
 rod, and especially with night-lines. Fly-fishing 
 was unknown, as none of the fishes of the Nile 
 or Palestine will rise like the Salmonidae to a fly. 
 In Job xli. 2, “ Canst thou put an hook into his 
 nose? or bore his jaw through with a thorn?” 
 the reference is not to fishing, but to the keeping 
 alive, after the Egyptian fashion, in tanks, fishes 
 not required for immediate use, by a hook through 
 their gills (MIN, choach; “ thorn,” A.V. ; “ hook,” 
 ἢν) wn 
 of rushes (}IDIN, agmon, “ hook ;” A. V. “rope;” 
 R. V. marg., rope of rushes). 
 
 Another method of fishing was with the fish- 
 spear, still used in the Lebanon and North Syria. 
 This is alluded to by Job (xli. 7; Hebr. xl. 31), 
 “Canst thou fill his skin with barbed irons? 
 or his head with fish-spears ἢ ” 
 
 The fish is a favourite symbol in the Christian 
 Church, frequent in the catacombs of Rome, and 
 familiar especially on early Christian sepulchral 
 monuments in Northern Syria and other parts 
 of the East,—not, as has been absurdly suggested, 
 from an old superstition, or in honour of the fisher- 
 men of Galilee, but from the circumstance that 
 the initial letters of the words ’Incovs Χριστύς, 
 Θεοῦ υἷος, Σωτήρ, form the word ᾿Ιχθύς (see Dict. 
 of Christ. Antig. s. τι. “ Fish”), ΒΡ 
 
 FISH GATE (0°23 “Wt), Neh. iii. 3, xii. 
 39; Zeph.i.10. A gate in the north wall of 
 
 This was attached to a stake by a rope | 
 
 front of it. [JERUSALEM. } [W.} 
 
 FISH-POOLS. Cant. vii. 4. More cor- 
 rectly PooLs, as in R. V. [HESHBON.] 
 
 FITCHES (6. Vercurs). Two Hebrew 
 words are so rendered in A. V.: (1) NiDD3, 
 
 hussemeth (Ezek. iv. 9); elsewhere A. V. “ rye,” 
 
 Nigella sativa. 
 
 R.V. “spelt;” see Rye. (2) ΠΣ, hetsach ; 
 μελάνθιον; gith; R. V. marg. black cummin 
 
———————— ee 
 
 J 
 ; 
 
 FLAG 
 
 (Is. xxviii. 25, 27), denotes without doubt the 
 Nigella sativa, L., an herbaceous annual plant 
 belonging to the natural order Ranunculaceae 
 and sub-order Helleboreae, which grows in the 
 S. of Europe and in the N. of Africa, It is 
 cultivated in Palestine for the sake of its 
 seeds, which are to this day used in Eastern 
 countries as a medicine and a condiment. They 
 are black, whence the name, and hot to the 
 taste, and are sprinkled thickly over the flat 
 cakes of the country before they are baked, in 
 the same way that caraway seeds are used among 
 yourselves. The seeds may be seen on all the 
 little provision stalls in the markets. The leaves 
 of the plant are laciniated, like those of the ranun- 
 culus, the flower yellow (in other species red or 
 purple), and the seed-vessel is a cup divided into 
 partitions or cells with a fringe of horns. This 
 plant is mentioned only in Is. xxviii. 25, 27, 
 where especial reference is made to the mode 
 of threshing it; not with ‘a threshing in- 
 strument ” (717M), but “ with a staff” (ND), 
 because the heavy-armed cylinders of the former 
 implement would have crushed the seeds of the 
 Nigella. The μελάνθιον of Dioscorides (iii. 83, 
 ed. Sprengel) is unquestionably the Nigella ; both 
 these terms having reference to its black seeds, 
 which, according to the above-named author and 
 Pliny (WV. H. xix. 8), were sometimes mixed with 
 bread. The word gith is of uncertain origin. It 
 is used by Pliny (NV. #. xx. 17), who says, 
 “ Gith ex Graecis alii melanthion, alii melasper- 
 mon vocant.” Plautus also (Rud. v. 2, 39) has 
 the same word git: “Os calet tibi! num git 
 frigide factas.” Cp. Celsius (Hierob. ii. 71). 
 Besides the WV. sativa, there are seven other 
 species found wild in Palestine; NV. arvensis, L., 
 and NV. damascena, L., being common field 
 weeds; but the seeds of all the wild species 
 are less aromatic than those the cultivated 
 plant. {8}: 1:1 
 
 FLAG. See Bunrusn. 
 
 FLAGON, a word employed in the A. V. to 
 render two distinct Hebrew terms: 1. Ashishah, 
 MWS (2 Sam. vi. 19; 1 Ch. xvi. 3; Cant. 
 ii. 5; Hos. iii. 1). The real meaning of this 
 word, according to the conclusions of Gesenius 
 (Thes. p. 166), is acake of pressed raisins. He 
 derives it from a root signifying to compress, 
 and this is confirmed by the renderings of the 
 LXX. (λάγανον, ἀμορίτη, πέμματα) and of the 
 Vulgate, and also by the indications of the Tar- 
 gum Pseudojon. and the Mishna (Nedarim, 6, 
 § 10). In the passage in Hosea there is probably 
 a reference toa practice of offering such cakes 
 before the false deities (R. V. renders “a cake,” 
 or “cakes of raisins”), The rendering of the A. V. 
 is perhaps to be traced to Luther, who in the 
 first two of the above passages has ein Néssel 
 Wein, and in the last Kanne Wein; but 
 primarily to the interpretations of modern Jews 
 (e.g. Gemara, Baba Bathra, and Targum on 
 Chronicles), grounded on a false etymology (see 
 Michaelis, quoted by Gesenius, and the observa- 
 tions of the latter, as above). It will be 
 observed that in the first two passages the 
 words “of wine” are interpolated, and that in 
 the last “of wine” should be “ of grapes.” 
 
 2. Nebel, 53) (Is. xxii. 24. only). Nebel is 
 commonly used for a bottle or vessel, originally 
 
 FLAX 1077 
 
 probably a skin, but in later times a piece of 
 pottery (Is. xxx. 14). But it also frequently 
 occurs with the force of a musical instrument 
 (A. V. generally “psaltery,” but sometimes 
 “viol”), a meaning which is adopted by the 
 Targum, the Arabic and Vulgate Versions, 
 Luther, and given in the margin of the A. V. 
 The text, however, follows the rendering of 
 the LXX., and with this agrees Gesenius’s 
 rendering, “ Becken und Flaschen, von allerhand 
 Art.” [5.7 [W.] 
 
 FLAX. Two Hebrew words are used for 
 this plant in O. T., or rather the same word 
 slightly modified —NAWS and nwa. About 
 the former there is no question. It occurs only 
 in three places (Ex. ix. 31; Is. xlii. 3, xliii. 17), 
 As regards the latter, there is probably only one 
 passage where it stands for the plant in its 
 undressed state (Josh. ii. 6). Eliminating all 
 the places where the words are used for the 
 article manufactured in the thread, the piece, or 
 the made-up garment [LINEN; COTTON], we 
 reduce them to two: Ex. ix. 31, certain, and 
 Josh. ii. 6, disputed. 
 
 In the former the flax of the Egyptians is 
 recorded to have been damaged by the plague of 
 
 hail. The word bys is retained by Onkelos; 
 but is rendered in LXX. σπερματίζον, and in 
 Vulg. folliculos germinabat. The A. V. seems 
 to have followed the LXX. (bolled = σπερμα- 
 tiCov); and so Rosenm., “globulus seu nodus 
 lini maturescentis” (Schol. ad loc.). Gesen. 
 makes it the calyx, or corolla; he refers to the 
 Mishna, where it is used for the calyx of the 
 hyssop, and describes this explanation as one of 
 long standing among the more learned Rabbins 
 (Thes. p. 261). 
 
 For the flax of ancient Egypt, see Herodot. 
 ii. 37, 105; Cels. ii. p. 285 sq.; Heeren, Jdeen, 
 ii. 2, p. 368 sq. For that of modern Egypt, see 
 Hasselquist, Journey, p. 500; Olivier, Voyage, 
 iii. p. 297; Girard’s Observations in Descript. de 
 VEgypte, t. xvii. (état moderne), p. 98; Paul 
 Lucas, Voyages, pt. 11. p. 47. 
 
 From Ritter’s ELrdkunde, ii. p. 916 (ep. his 
 Vorhalle, &c., pp. 45-48), it seems probable that 
 the cultivation of flax for the purpose of the 
 manufacture of linen was by no means confined 
 to Egypt; but that, originating in India, it 
 spread over the whole continent of Asia at a 
 very early period of antiquity. That it was 
 grown in Palestine even before the conquest of 
 that country by the Israelites appears from 
 Josh. ii. 6, the second of the two passages 
 mentioned above. There is, however, some 
 difference of opinion about the meaning of the 
 words PDT AWB; Awoxadrduyn; Vulg. stipulae 
 lini; and so A. V. “stalks of flax;” Joseph. 
 speaks of λίνου ἀγκαλίδας, armfuls or bundles of 
 flax; but Arab. Vers. “stalks of cotton.” Ge- 
 senius, however, and Rosenmiiller are in favour 
 of the rendering “stalks of flax.” If this be 
 correct, the place involves an allusion to the 
 custom of drying the flax-stalks by exposing 
 them to the heat of the sun upon the flat roofs 
 of houses; and so expressly in Josephus (Ant. 
 y. i. § 2), λίνου yap ἀγκαλίδας ἐπὶ τοῦ τέγους 
 ἔψυχε. In later times this drying was done in 
 ovens (Rosenm. Alterthumsk.). There is a 
 decided reference to the raw material in the 
 
1078 
 
 LXX. rendering of Lev. xiii. 47, ἱματίῳ στυπ- ! 
 πυίνῳ, and Judg. xv. 14, στυππίον : cp. Is. 
 i, 31. 
 
 The various processes employed in preparing 
 the flax for manufacture into cloth are indicated 
 —1. The drying process (see above). 2. The 
 peeling of the stalks, and separation of the 
 tibres (the name being derived by Gesen. from 
 
 DUD, “to tear apart,” “to stretch out.” But 
 
 the term is probably of foreign origin). 3. The 
 hackling (Is. xix. 9; LXX. λίνον τὸ σχιστόν : 
 vid. Gesen. Lex. 5. v. PY WW ; and for the combs 
 used in the process, cp. Wilkinson, Anc. Eyypt. 
 ii. 90 [1878]. The flax, however, was not 
 always dressed before weaving (see Ecclus. xl. 
 4, where ὠμόλινον is mentioned as a species of 
 
 FLEA 
 
 clothing worn by the poor). ‘That the use of 
 the coarser fibres was known to the Hebrews, 
 may be inferred from the mention of tow 
 (M2) in Judg. xvi. 9, Is. 1. 31. That flax 
 was anciently one of the most important crops 
 in Palestine appears from Hos. ii. 5, 9; and 
 that it continued to be grown, and manu- 
 factured into linen in N. Palestine down to 
 the Middle Ages, we have the testimony of 
 numerous Talmudists and Rabbins. It is still 
 cultivated there, but not so extensively as the 
 cotton plant. [Corron; Linen.] [T. E. B.] 
 
 FLEA (WS, par‘osh; ψύλλος ; pulew) is 
 
 only twice mentioned in Scripture ( Sam. | 
 
 xxiv. 14, xxvi. 20), where David addressing Saul 
 compares himself to it, as the most insignificant 
 and contemptible of living things. The flea, 
 Pulex irritans, L., of the insect order Aphani- 
 ptera, though world-wide in its distribution, is 
 nowhere more abundant than in the East. It 
 propagates there in countless myriads among 
 the dust of caves, especially if used occasionally 
 by cattle, and among the stubble and refuse of 
 old camps. Woe betide the traveller who 
 
 incautiously pitches on the site of an old 
 Bedouin encampment! The villagers in the 
 wattled huts of Northern Syria are frequently 
 driven away by the swarms of fleas, and are 
 compelled to desert their homes for a year 
 or two. [Ho baa 
 
 FLESH. [Foop.] 
 
 FLINT wingdn. The corresponding Assyr. 
 élméiu. may betoken the diamond. See MV."). 
 The Hebrew quadriliteral is rendered flint in 
 Deut. viii. 15, xxxii. 13; Ps. cxiv. 8; and Is. |. 7. 
 In Job xxviii. 9 the same word is rendered rock 
 in the text, and flint in the margin (R. V. text, 
 “flinty rock”). In the first three passages the 
 reference is to God’s bringing water and oil out 
 of the naturally barren rocks of the Wilderness 
 for the sake of His people. In Isaiah the word 
 is used metaphorically to signify the firmness 
 of the Prophet in resistance to his persecutors. 
 In Ezek. iii. 9 the English word “ flint” occurs 
 in the same sense, but there it represents the 
 Hebrew Zzor. So also in Is. v. 28 we have like 
 flint applied to the hoofs of horses. In 1 Mace. 
 x. 73, κόχλαξ is translated flint, and in Wisd. xi. 
 4 the expression ἐκ πέτρας ἀκροτόμου is adopted 
 from Deut. viii. 15 (LXX.). ΓΥ͂. }.1 
 
 FLOOD. ΓΝΟΔΗ. 
 
 | ΡΡ. 903-507). 
 
 FLY, FLIES 
 FLOOR. [PAVEMENT. 
 FLOUR. [Breap.] 
 FLOWER. [PALestTINeE, BoTANy OF.] 
 
 FLOWERS, only in the phrase “her 
 flowers,” A. V.; “her impurity,” R. V. (IN); 
 h ἀκαθαρσία αὐτῆς, ἐν τῇ ἀφέδρῳ αὐτῆς; 
 tempus sanguinis menstrualis), Lev. xv. 24, 33. 
 “Stains” of the menstruation is intended; the 
 earliest source of the expression being probably 
 Plato, Rep. 429 Ὁ, where τὸ ἄνθος means “ the 
 dye,” there of purple (ἁλουργόν); see also 
 
 557 C, πᾶσιν ἄνθεσιν πεποικιλμένον. [ISSUE OF 
 Boop. ] (H. H.] 
 FLUTE, THE (Aramaic Washrauqitho 
 
 ΓΝ. 21, Dan. iii. 5, 7, 10, 15), is one of 
 the oldest musical instruments known. It is, 
 no doubt, identical with the Hebrew Chalil 
 
 on, 1 Sam. x. 5); but although old, and 
 having naturally undergone much development 
 and many changes of construction, it has yet 
 preserved its two chief characteristics. Its 
 piccolo is capable of producing very sharp notes 
 indeed,—and hence its name Mashraugitho: cp. 
 Is. v. 26; Zech. x.8. On the other hand, it has 
 the power of imitating the feeble whisper of the 
 dying, and the mysterious death-rattle. It is 
 for these reasons that the ancient Hebrews em- 
 ployed this instrument on the most opposite 
 occasions—at burials (Mishna Kethuboth, iv. 4), 
 at weddings (Mishna Bobo Metzi’0, vi. 1), and 
 at festivals, both private (Is. xxx. 29) and public 
 (1 Kings i. 40), profane (Is. v. 12) and religious 
 (Mishna Sukkah, v. 1). [S. M. S.-S.] 
 
 FLUX, BLOODY (Svcevrepta, Acts xxviii. 
 8), the same as our dysentery, which in the 
 East is, though sometimes sporadic, generally 
 epidemic and infectious, and then assumes its 
 worst form. It is always attended with fever. 
 [Fever.] A sharp gnawing and burning sensa- 
 tion seizes the bowels, which give off in purging 
 much slimy matter and purulent discharge. 
 When blood flows, it is said to be less dangerous 
 than without it (Schmidt, Bibl. Medic. c. xiv. 
 King Jehoram’s disease was 
 probably a chronic dysentery and the “ bowels 
 falling out,” perhaps the prolapsus ani, known 
 sometimes to ensue (2 Ch. xxi. 15, 19); but 
 possibly it was the actual discharge of portions 
 of the diseased organs (see Biblisch- Talmudische 
 Medicin, by R. J. Wunderbar, iii. B, c). [H. H.] 
 
 FLY, FLIES. The two following Hebrew 
 terms denote flies of some kind. 
 
 1. Zébéib (AAT; μυῖα; museca) occurs only in 
 Eccles. x. 1, “Dead zébibim cause the ointment 
 of the apothecary to send forth a stinking 
 savour,” and in Is. vii. 18, where it is said, 
 “The Lord shall hiss for the zébi%b that is in the 
 uttermost part of the rivers of Egypt.” The 
 Hebrew name, it is probable, is a generic one 
 for any insect, but the etymology is a matter 
 of doubt (see Gesenius, 7165. p. 401; MV.1). 
 In the first-quoted passage allusion is made 
 to flies, chiefly of the family Muscidae, getting 
 into vessels of ointment or other substances ; 
 even in this country we know what an in- 
 tolerable nuisance the house-flies are in a hot 
 
FLY, FLIES 
 
 summer when they abound, crawling every- 
 where and into everything; but in the East the 
 nuisance is tenfold greater, where in a few 
 minutes they will pollute a dish of food. The 
 zébib from the rivers of Egypt has by some 
 writers, as by Oedmann (Vermisch. Samm. 
 vi. 79), been identified with the zimb of which 
 Bruce (Zrav. v. 190) gives a description, and 
 which is evidently some species of Zabanus. 
 Sir G. Wilkinson has given some account 
 (Transac. of the Entomol. Soc. ii. p. 183) of a 
 gad-fly (Oestrus) under the name of Dthebab, 
 va term almost identical with zébib. Though 
 χορῶν is probably a generic name for any flies, in 
 this passage of Isaiah it may be used to denote 
 some very troublesome and injurious fly, κατ᾽ 
 ἐξοχήν. “The Dthebab is a long grey fly, 
 which comes out about the rise of the Nile, and 
 is like the Cleg of the north of England; it 
 abounds in calm hot weather, and is often met 
 with in June and July, both in the desert and 
 on the Nile.’’ This insect is very injurious to 
 camels and horses, and causes their death, if the 
 sores which it generates are neglected ; it attacks 
 both man and beast. We have found it ex- 
 tremely tormenting to our herses and mules in 
 the hotter parts of Palestine. 
 
 So grievous a pest was the zébub in the plains 
 of Philistia, that the Phoenicians invoked against 
 it the aid of their God, under the name of 
 BAAL-ZEBUB, “the Lord of the fly.” Though 
 such a title may seem a term of derision, and 
 has been so interpreted, as applied in contempt 
 by the Israelites (Selden, De Diis Syris, p. 375), 
 yet there seems no reason to doubt that this 
 was the name given to their god by his 
 worshippers; and the torments caused by flies 
 in hot climates amply account for the designa- 
 tion. Similarly the Greeks gave the epithet 
 ἀπόμυιος to Zeus (Pausan. v. 14, § 2; Clem. 
 Alex. Protrept. ii. 38). Pliny speaks of a Fly- 
 god, Myiodes (xxix. 6, 34). The Jews in 
 derision changed the name Baal-zebub to Baal- 
 zebul, “ Lord of the dunghill,” and applied it 
 in the time of our Lord to the prince of the 
 devils (Matt. xii. 24, &c.). 
 
 2. “Aréb (AW; κυνόμυια; omne genus mus- 
 carum, muscae diversi generis, musca gravissima ; 
 “swarms of jlies,” “divers sorts of flies,” A. V. 
 and R. V.), the name of the insect, or insects, which 
 God sent to punish Pharaoh: see Ex, viii, 21-31; 
 Ps, Ixxviii. 45, ον. 31. The question as to what 
 particular insect is denoted by ‘arb, or whether 
 any one species is to be understood by it, has 
 long been a matter of dispute. The Scriptural 
 details are as follows:—The ‘drdb filled the 
 houses of the Egyptians, covered the ground, 
 lighted on the people, and the land was laid 
 waste on their account. The LXX. explain 
 ‘dréb by κυνόμυια, ie. “dog-fly:” it is not 
 very clear what insect is meant by this 
 Greek term, which is frequent in Homer, who 
 often uses it as an abusive epithet. It is not 
 improbable that one of the Hippoboscidae or 
 horse-flies, perhaps H. Equina, Linn., is the 
 κυνόμυια of Aelian (N. A. iv. 51), though Homer 
 may have used the compound term to denote 
 extreme impudence, implied by the shamelessness 
 ef the dog and the teasing impertinence of the 
 common fly (J/usca), As the ‘dréb is said to 
 have filled the houses of the Egyptians, it seems 
 
 FOOD 1079 
 
 not improbable that common flies (Muscidae) 
 are more especially intended, and that the 
 compound κυνόμυια denotes the grievous nature 
 of the plague, though we see no reason to 
 restrict the ‘dréb to any one family. It may 
 include, besides the horse-fly, those blood-sucking 
 tormentors the gnats or mosquitoes (Culicidae), 
 and the gad-flies (Oestrus). The common 
 horse-fly is, however, quite tormenting enough 
 to have been of itself the Egyptian plague. It 
 settles on the human body like the mosquito, 
 sucks blood, and produces festering sores. “Of 
 insects,” says Sonnini (Zrav. iii. p. 199), “the 
 most troublesome in Egypt are flies; both man 
 and beast are cruelly tormented with them. 
 No idea can be formed of their obstinate rapacity. 
 It is in vain to drive them away, they return 
 again in the self-same moment, and their perse- 
 verance wearies out the most patient spirit.” 
 It is the great instrument of spreading the well- 
 known purulent ophthalmia, which is conveyed 
 from one individual to another by these dreadful 
 pests, which alight on the diseased eye, and then 
 with their feet moist from the discharge inocu- 
 late the next healthy person on whom they 
 settle. See for cases of Myosis produced by 
 Dipterous larvae, Transactions of Entomol. Soc. 
 ii. pp. 266-269. 
 
 The identification of the ‘dréb with the cock- 
 roach (Blatta Orientalis), which Oedmann ( Verm. 
 Sam, pt. ii. c. 7) suggests, and which Kirby 
 (Gridgw. Treat. ii. p. 357) adopts, has nothing 
 at all to recommend it, and is purely gratuitous, 
 as Mr. Hope proved in 1837 in a paper on this 
 subject in the Trans. Entomol. Soc. ii. 179-183. 
 The error of calling the cockroach a beetle, and 
 the confusion which has been made between it 
 and the sacred beetle of Egypt (Ateuchus sacer), 
 has been repeated by M. Kalisch (Hist. and 
 Crit. Comment. Exod. /. c.). The cockroach, as 
 Mr. Hope remarks, is a nocturnal insect, and 
 prowls about for food at night, “but what 
 reason have we to believe that the fly attacked 
 the Egyptians by night and not by day?” We 
 see no reason to be dissatisfied with the reading 
 in our own Version. [WH], LES Baty 
 
 FOOD. The diet of Eastern nations has 
 been in all ages more light and simple than our 
 own. The chief points of contrast are the 
 small amount of animal food consumed, the 
 variety of articles used as accompaniments to 
 bread, the substitution of milk in various forms 
 for our liquors, and the combination of what we 
 should deem heterogeneous elements in the same 
 dish, or the same meal. The chief point of agree- 
 ment is the large consumption of bread, the 
 importance of which in the eyes of the Hebrew 
 is testified by the use of the term lechem (ori- 
 givally food of any kind) specifically for bread, 
 as well as by the expression “staff of bread” 
 (Lev. xxvi. 26; Ps. cv. 16; Ezek. iv. 16, xiv. 
 13). Simpler preparations of corn were, how- 
 ever, common ; sometimes the fresh green ears 
 were eaten in a natural state,* the husks being 
 rubbed off by the hand (Lev. xxiii. 14; Deut. 
 xxiii, 25; 2 K. iv. 42; Matt. xii. 1; Luke vi. 1); 
 more frequently, however, the grains, after 
 
 8 This custom is still practised in Palestine (Robin- 
 son’s Researches, i. 493). 
 
1080 
 
 being carefully picked, were roasted in a pan 
 over a fire (Lev. ii. 14), and eaten as “ parched 
 corn,” in which form it was an ordinary article 
 of diet, particularly among labourers, or others 
 who had not the means of dressing food (Lev. 
 xxiii. 14; Ruth ii. 14; 1 Sam. xvii. 17, xxv. 18; 
 2 Sam. xvii. 28): this practice is still very 
 usual in the East (cp. Lane, i. 2515; Robinson, 
 Researches, ii. 350). Sometimes the grain was 
 bruised (like the Greek polenta, Plin. xviii. 14), 
 in which state it was termed either 3 (ἐρικτά, 
 LXX.; A. V. “beaten,” R. V. “bruised; ” Lev. 
 ii. 14, 16), or MID (πτισάναι, Aq., Symm.; 
 A.V. “ground corn,” R. V. “bruised corn;” 
 2 Sam. xvii. 19; cp. Prov. xxvii. 22), and then 
 dried in the sun; it was eaten either mixed with 
 oil (Lev. ii. 15), or made into a soft cake named 
 now (A.V. “ dough,” R. V. marg. coarse 
 
 meal ; Num, xv. 20; Neh. x. 37; Ezek. xliv. 30). 
 The Hebrews used a great variety of articles 
 (John xxi. 5) to give a relish to bread. Some- 
 times salt was so used (Job vi. 6), as we learn 
 from the passage just quoted; sometimes the 
 bread was dipped into the sour wine (A. V. and 
 R. V. “vinegar”) which the labourers drank 
 (Ruth ii. 14); or, where meat was eaten, into 
 the gravy, which was either served up separately 
 for the purpose, as by Gideon (Judg. vi. 19), or 
 placed in the middle of the meat dish, as done 
 by the Arabs (Burckhardt, Notes, i. 63), whose 
 practice of dipping bread in the broth, or melted 
 fat of the animal, strongly illustrates the 
 reference to the sop in John xiii. 26sq. The 
 modern Egyptians season their bread with a 
 sauce” composed of various stimulants, such as 
 salt, mint, sesame, and chickpeas (Lane, i. 180). 
 The Syrians, on the other hand, use a mixture 
 of savory and salt for the same purpose (Rus- 
 sell, i. 93). Where the above-mentioned acces- 
 sories were wanting, fruit, vegetables, fish, or 
 honey, were used. In short it may be said that 
 all the articles of food, which we are about to 
 mention, were mainly viewed as subordinates to 
 the staple commodity of bread. The various 
 kinds of bread and cakes are described under 
 the head of BREAD. 
 
 Milk and its preparations hold a conspicuous 
 place in Eastern diet, as affording substantial 
 nourishment ; sometimes it was produced in a 
 
 FOOD 
 
 fresh state (12M; Gen. xviii. 8), but more gene- 
 rally in the form of the modern /eban, i.e. sour 
 milk (ANN; A.V. “butter;” Gen. xviii. 8; 
 Judg. v. 25; 2 Sam. xvii. 29). The latter is 
 universally used by the Bedouins, not only as 
 their ordinary beverage (Burckhardt, Notes, i. 
 240), but mixed with rice, flour, meat, and even 
 salad (Burckhardt, i. 58, 63; Russell, Aleppo, 
 i. 118). It is constantly offered to travellers, 
 and in some parts of Arabia it is deemed scan- 
 dalous to take any money in return for it 
 (Burckhardt, Arabia, i. 120). For a certain 
 season of the year, /eban makes up a great part of 
 the food of the poor in Syria (Russell, /.c.). Butter 
 (Prov. xxx. 33) and various forms of coagulated 
 milk, of the consistency of the modern kaimak 
 
 b The later Jews named this sauce Γ᾽ ἽΠ (Mishn. 
 Pes. 2, § 8): it consisted of vinegar, almonds, and spice, 
 thickened with flour. It was used at the celebration of 
 the Passover ( Pes. 10, § 3). 
 
 FOOD 
 
 (Job x. 10; 1 Sam. xvii. 18; 2 Sam. xvii. 29), 
 were also used. [Burrer; CHEESE; MILK.] 
 Fruit was another source of subsistence: figs 
 stand first in point of importance; the early 
 sorts described as the “summer fruit” ΟἿ; 
 Amos viii. 1, 2) and the “first ripe fruit” 
 (723 ; Hos. ix. 10; Mic. vii. 1) were esteemed 
 a great luxury, and were eaten as fresh fruit ; 
 but they were generally dried and pressed into 
 cakes, similar to the date-cakes of the Arabians 
 (Burckhardt, Arabia, i. 57), in which form they 
 
 were termed pda (παλάθαι, A. V. “cakes of 
 figs ;” 1 Sam. xxv. 18, xxx. 12; 1 Ch. xii, 40), 
 and occasionally ΤΡ simply (2 Sam. xvi. 1; 
 A.V. “summer fruit ”). Grapes were generally 
 eaten in a dried state as raisins (D*PID¥; ligaturae 
 uvae passac, Vulg.; 1 Sam. xxv. 18, xxx. 12; 
 2 Sam. xvi. 1; 1 Ch. xii. 40), but sometimes, as 
 before, pressed into cakes, named NUYS (2 Sam. 
 vi. 19; 1 Ch. xvi. 3; Cant. ii. 5; Hos. iii. 1), 
 understood by the LXX. as a sort of cake, Adya- 
 νον amo τηγάνου, and by the A. V. as a “ flagon 
 of wine,” and by the R. V. as “a cake of raisins.” 
 Fruit-cake forms a part of the daily food of the 
 Arabians, and is particularly adapted to the 
 wants of travellers; dissolved in water, it affords 
 a sweet and refreshing drink (Niebuhr, Arabia, 
 p: 573 Russell, Aleppo, i. 82) ; an instance of its 
 stimulating effect is recorded in 1 Sam. xxx. 12. 
 Apples (probably citrons) are occasionally noticed, 
 but rather in reference to their fragrance (Cant. 
 ii. 5, vi. 8) and colour (Prov. xxv. 11) than as 
 an article of food. Dates are not noticed in 
 Scripture, unless we accept the rendering of /¥) 
 in the LXX. (2 Sam. xvi. 1) as=qotvires ; it can 
 hardly be doubted, however, that where the 
 palm-tree flourished, as in the neighbourhood of 
 Jericho, its fruit was consumed; in Joel i. 12 it 
 is reckoned among other trees valuable for their 
 fruit. The pomegranate tree is also noticed by 
 Joel; it yields a luscious fruit, from which a 
 species of wine was expressed (Cant. vill. 2; 
 Hag. ii. 19). Melons were grown in Egypt 
 (Num. xi. 5), but not in Palestine. The mul- 
 berry is undoubtedly mentioned in Luke xvii. 6 
 under the name συκάμινος : the Hebrew D'822 
 
 so translated (2 Sam. v. 23 [R. V. marg. balsam 
 tree]; 1 Ch. xiv. 14) is rather doubtful; the 
 Vulg. takes it to mean pears. The συκομορέα 
 (“sycomore,” A. V.; Luke xix. 4) differed from 
 the tree last mentioned; it was the Egyptian 
 fig, which abounded in Palestine (1 K. x. 27), and 
 was much valued for its fruit (1 Ch. xxvii. 28; 
 Amos vii. 14). [APPLE; Citron; Fies; MuUL- 
 BERRY-TREE ; PALM-TREE; POMEGRANATE ; SY- 
 CAMINE-TREE; SYCAMORE. | 
 
 Of vegetables we have most frequent notice of 
 lentils (Gen. xxv. 34; 2 Sam. xvii. 28, xxiii. 115 
 Ezek. iv. 9), which are still largely used by the 
 Bedouinsin travelling (Burckhardt, Arabia,i. 65); 
 beans (2 Sam. xvii. 28; Ezek. iv. 9), which still 
 form a favourite dish in Egypt and Arabia for 
 breakfast, boiled in water and eaten with butter 
 and pepper; from 2 Sam. xvii. 28 it might be 
 inferred that beans and other kinds of pulse 
 
 were roasted, as barley was, but the second bp 
 
 in that verse is interpolated, not appearing in 
 the LXX. and other Versions (see QPB.*), and, 
 even if it were not so, the reference to pulse in 
 
ὅδ». 
 
 FOOD 
 
 the A. V., as of cicer in the Vulg.; is wholly 
 unwarranted ; cucumbers (Num. xi. 5; Is. i. 8; 
 Bar. vi. 70; cp. 2 K. iv. 39, where wild gourds, 
 Cucumeres asinini, were picked in mistake for 
 cucumbers); leeks, onions, and garlic, which 
 were and still are of a superior quality 
 in Egypt (Num. xi. 5; ep. Wilkinson, Anc. 
 Egypt. i. 169 [1878]; Lane, i. 251); lettuce, 
 of which the wild species, Lactuca agrestis, is 
 identified with the Greek πικρὶς by Pliny (xxi. 
 65), and formed, according to the LXX. and the 
 Vulg., the “ bitter herbs” (2°77) eaten with 
 the Paschal lamb (Ex. xii. 8; Num. ix. 11); 
 endive, which is still well known in the East 
 (Russell, i. 91), may have been included under 
 the same class. In addition to the above we 
 have notice of certain “ herbs "(ΠῚ δε; 2 K. iv. 
 39) eaten in times of scarcity, which were 
 mallows according to the Syriac and Arabic 
 Versions, but, according to the Talmud, a veget- 
 able resembling the Brassica eruca of Linnaeus; 
 
 and again of sea-purslain cnadn ; ἄλιμα; A.V. 
 “ mallows,” R. V. “ salt-wort ”) and broom-root 
 (O°, A. V. and R. V. “juniper ;” Job xxx. 4), 
 
 as eaten by the poor in time of famine, unless the 
 latter were gathered as fuel. An insipid plant, 
 probably purslain, used in salad, appears to be 
 referred to in Job vi. 6, under the expression 
 ninen WY) ( white of egg,” A. V., R. V. marg. 
 the juice of pursiain). The usual method of 
 eating vegetables was in the form of potuage 
 (113; ἕψημα ; pulmentum; Gen. xxv. 29; 2 K. 
 iv. 38; Hag. ii. 12); a meal wholly of veget- 
 
 - ables was deemed very poor fare (Prov. xv. 17; 
 
 Dan. i. 12; Rom. xiv. 2). The modern Arabians 
 consume but few vegetables ; radishes and leeks 
 are most in use, and are eaten raw with bread 
 (Burckhardt, Arabia, i. 56). [BEANS; Cu- 
 CUMBER; GARLIC; GOURD; LEEK; LENTIL; 
 ONION. ] 
 
 The spices or condiments known to the 
 Hebrews were numerous: cummin (ls. xxviii. 
 25; Matt. xxiii. 23), dill (Matt. xxiii. 23; 
 “anise,” A. V.), coriander (Ex. xvi. 31; Num. 
 xi. 7), mint (Matt. xxiii. 13), rue (Luke xi. 42), 
 mustard (Matt. xiii. 31, xvii. 20), and salt (Job 
 vi. 6), which is reckoned among “ the principal 
 things for the whole use of man’s life ” (Ecclus. 
 xxxix. 26). Nuts (pistachios) and almonds (Gen. 
 xliii. 11) were also used as whets to the appetite. 
 [ALMOND-TREE; ANISE ; CORIANDER; CUMMIN ; 
 Mint; Mustarp; Nuts; SPIcEs.] 
 
 In addition to these classes, we have to notice 
 some other important articles of food: in the 
 first place, honey, whether the natural product 
 of the bee (1 Sam. xiv. 25; Matt. iii. 4), which 
 abounds in most parts of Arabia (Burckhardt, 
 Arabia, i. 54), or the other natural and artificial 
 productions included under that head, especially 
 the dibs of the Syrians and the Arabians, 
 ie. grape-juice boiled down to the state of 
 the Roman defrutum, which is still exten- 
 sively used in the East (Russell, i. 82); the 
 latter is supposed to be referred to in Gen. xliii. 
 11 and Ezek. xxvii. 17. The importance of 
 honey as a substitute for sugar is obvious; it 
 was both used in certain kinds of cake (though 
 prohibited in the case of meat offerings, Lev. ii. 
 11), as in the pastry of the Arabs (Burckhardt, 
 Arabia, i. 54), and was also eaten in its natural 
 
 FOOD 1081 
 
 state either by itself (1 Sam. xiv. 27; 2 Sam. 
 xvii, 29; 1 K. xiv. 3), or in conjunction with 
 other things, even with fish (Luke xxiv. 42). 
 “ Butter and honey ” is an expression for rich 
 diet (Is. vii. 15, 22); such a mixture is popular 
 among the Arabs (Burckhardt, Arabia, i, 54). 
 “Milk and honey” are similarly coupled to- 
 gether, not only frequently by the sacred 
 writers, as expressive of the richness of the 
 promised land, but also by the Greek poets (ep. 
 Callim. Hymn. in Jov. 48; Hom. Ud. xx. 68), 
 Too much honey was deemed unwholesome 
 (Prov. xxv. 27). With regard to oil, it does not 
 appear to have been used to the extent we might 
 have anticipated; some modern Arabs only 
 employ it in frying fish (Burckhardt, Arabia, i. 
 54), substituting butter for all other purposes ; 
 others make it a prominent article of food; 
 while other Orientals eat it universally in place 
 of butter and fat during Lent. Among the 
 Hebrews oil was deemed an expensive luxury 
 (Prov. xxi. 17), to be reserved for festive 
 occasions (1 Ch. xii. 40); it was chiefly used in 
 certain kinds of cake (Lev. ii. 5 sq.3~1 K. xvii. 
 12). “Oil and honey ” are mentioned in con- 
 junction with bread in Ezek. xvi. 13, 19. The 
 Syrians, especially the Jews, eat oil and honey 
 (dibs) mixed together (Russell, i. 80). Eggs are 
 not often noticed, but were evidently known as 
 articles of food (Is. x. 14, lix.5; Luke xi. 12), 
 and are reckoned by Jerome (Jn Epitaph. Paul. 
 i. 176) among the delicacies of the table. The 
 Orientals of to-day fry them in twice their bulk 
 of fat or butter or oil. [Honry; O11. ] 
 
 The Orientals are, as a rule, sparing in the use 
 of animal food ®: not only does the excessive heat 
 of the climate render it both unwholesome to 
 eat much meat (Niebuhr, Descript. p. 46), and 
 expensive from the necessity of immediately con- 
 suming a whole animal; but beyond this the 
 ritual regulations of the Mosaic law in ancient, 
 as of the Koran in modern times, have tended to 
 the same result. It has been inferred from Gen. 
 ix. 3, 4, that animal food was not permitted 
 before the Flood: but the notices of the flock of 
 Abel (Gen. iv. 2) and of the herds of Jabal (Gen. 
 iv. 20), as well as the distinction between clean 
 and unclean animals (Gen. vii. 2), favour the 
 opposite opinion; and the permission in Gen. ix. 
 3 does not so much constitute a considerable 
 difference (Dillmann’ in loco) as (ep. Delitzsch 
 [1887] in loco) a more explicit declaration of a 
 condition implied in the grant of universal 
 dominion previously given (Gen. i. 28). The 
 prohibition then expressed against consuming 
 the blood of any animal (Gen. ix. 4) was more 
 fully developed in the Levitical Law, and enforced 
 by the penalty of death (Ley. iii. 17, vii. 26, 
 xix. 26; Deut. xii. 16; 1 Sam. xiv. 32 sq. ; Ezek. 
 xliv. 7, 15), on the ground, as stated in Lev. 
 xvii. 11 and Deut. xii. 23, that the blood con- 
 tained the principle of lite, and, as such, was to 
 be offered on the Altar; probably there was an 
 
 ¢ Dr. Post (B. D. Amer. ed., s. v. ‘* Food,” note at 
 end) points out, however, that dyspepsia is very common 
 among the people, and arises partly from their heavy 
 and unwholesome food, and partly from the fact that 
 their heavy meal is taken just before retiring for the 
 night. He describes a stew as consisting of meat and 
 vegetables fried in butter or fat, and the eater as drink- 
 ing as much of the fatty matter as possible. 
 
1082 FOOD 
 
 additional reason in the heathen practice of con- 
 suming blood in their sacrifices (Ps. xvi. 4; Ezek. 
 xxxiii. 25). The prohibition applied to strangers 
 as well as Israelites, and to all kinds of beast or 
 fowl (Lev. vii. 26; xvii. 12, 13). So strong was 
 the feeling of the Jews on this point, that the 
 Gentile converts to Christianity were laid under 
 similar restrictions (Acts xv. 20, 293; xxi. 25). 
 Asa necessary deduction from the above principle, 
 all animals which had died a natural death 
 
 cmb33, Deut. xiv. 21), or had been torn of beasts 
 (7578, Ex. xxii. 31), were also prohibited (Lev. 
 
 xvii. 15; cp. Ezek. iv. 14), and were to be thrown 
 to the dogs (Ex. xxii. 31) : this prohibition did not 
 extend to strangers (Deut. xiv. 21). Any person 
 infringing this rule was held unclean until the 
 evening, and was obliged to wash his clothes (Ley. 
 xvii. 15). In the N. T. these cases are described 
 under the term πνικτόν (Acts xv. 20), applying 
 not only to what was strangled (as in A. V.), but 
 to any animal from which the blood was not 
 regularly poured forth. Similar prohibitions 
 are contained in the Koran (ii. 175, v. 4, xvi. 
 116), the result of which is that at the present 
 day the Arabians eat no meat except what has 
 been bought at the shambles. Certain portions 
 of the fat of sacrifices were also forbidden (Ley. 
 iii. 9, 10), as being set apart for the Altar (Lev. 
 iii. 16, vii. 25: cp. 1 Sam. ii. 16 sq.; 2 Ch. vii. 
 7): it should be observed that the term in Neh. 
 viii. 10, translated fat, is not abn, but D311 
 =the fatty pieces of meat, delicacies. In addi- 
 tion to the above, Christians were forbidden to 
 eat the flesh of animals, portions of which had 
 been offered to idols (εἰδωλόθυτα), whether at 
 private feasts, or as bought in the market (Acts 
 xv. 29, xxi. 25; 1 Cor. viii. 1 sq.). All beasts 
 and birds classed as unclean (Lev. xi. 1 sq.; 
 Deut. xiv. 4 sq.) were also prohibited [UNCLEAN 
 Beasts AND Brirps]: and in addition to these 
 general precepts there was a special prohibition 
 against “ seething a kid in his mother’s milk ” 
 (ix. xxiii. 19, xxxiv. 26; Deut. xiv. 21), which 
 has been variously understood, by Talmudical 
 writers as a general prohibition against the joint 
 use of meat and milk (Mishna, Cholin, cap. 8, 
 § 1); by Michaelis (7708. Recht, iv. 210) as pro- 
 hibiting the use of fat or milk, as compared 
 with oil, in cooking; by Luther and Calvin as 
 prohibiting the slaughter of young animals; and 
 by Bochart and othersas discountenancing cruelty 
 in any way. These interpretations, however, all 
 fail in establishing any connexion between the 
 precept and the offering of the first-fruits, as 
 implied in the three passages quoted. More 
 probably it has reference to certain heathen 
 usages at their harvest festivals (Maimonides, 
 More Neboch. 3, 48; Spencer, de Legg. Hebr. 
 itt. 535 sq. Cp. Knobel-Dillmann on Exod. 
 xxill. 19): and there is a remarkable addition in 
 the Samaritan Version and in some copies of the 
 LXX. in Deut. xiv. 21, which supports this 
 view 3 ὃς γὰρ ποιεῖ τοῦτο, ὡσεὶ ἀσπάλακα θύσει, 
 ὅτι μίασμά ἐστι τῷ θεῷ ᾿Ιακώβ (cp. Knobel, Com- 
 ment. in Ex. xxiii. 19). The Hebrews further 
 abstained from eating the sinew of the hip (73 
 NWT, Gen. xxxii. 32 (Heb. v. 33]), in memory 
 
 of the struggie between Jacob and the Angel 
 (cp. v. 25). The LXX., the Vulg., and the 
 A. V. interpret the ἅπαξ λεγόμενον word nasheh 
 
 FOOD 
 
 of the shrinking or benumbing of the muscle (ὃ 
 ἐνάρκησεν ; gui emarcuit; “which shrank”): 
 Josephus (Ant. i. 20, § 2) more correctly ex- 
 plains it, τὸ νεῦρον τὸ πλατύ; and there is 
 little doubt that the nerve he refers to is the 
 nervus ischiadicus, which attains its greatest 
 thickness at the hip. There is no further 
 reference to this custom in the Bible; but the 
 Talmudists (Cholin, 7) enforced its observance 
 by penalties. 
 
 Under these restrictions the Hebrews were 
 permitted the free use of animal food : generally 
 speaking, they only availed themselves of it in 
 the exercise of hospitality (Gen. xviii. 7), or at 
 festivals of a religious (Ex. xii. 8), public (1 K. 
 1. 9; 1 Ch. xii. 40), or private character (Gen. 
 xxvii. 4; Luke xv. 23): it was only in royal 
 households that there was a daily consumption 
 of meat (1 K. iv. 23; Neh. v.18). The use of 
 meat is reserved for similar occasions among the 
 Bedouins (Burckhardt’s Notes, i. 63). The 
 animals killed for meat were—calves (Gen. xviii. 
 7; 1 Sam. xxviii. 24; Amos vi. 4), which are 
 farther described by the term fatling (δ) 2 Ξξ 
 
 μόσχος σιτευτός, Luke xv. 23, and σιτιστά, 
 Matt. xxii. 45 2) Sam. vi. 15:1 τὶ! πν 
 A.V. “fat cattle”); lambs (2 Sam. xii. 4; Amos 
 vi. 4); oxen, not above three years of age (1 K. 
 i. 9; Prov. xv. 17; Is. xxii. 13; Matt. xxii. 4), 
 which were either stall-fed (D°812; μόσχοι 
 ἐκλεκτοί), or taken up from the pastures (1; 
 βόες vouddes; 1 K. iv. 23); kids (Gen. xxvii. 
 9; Judg. vi. 19; 1 Sam. xvi. 20); harts, roe- 
 bucks, and fallow-deer (1 K. iv. 23), which 
 are also brought into close connexion with 
 ordinary cattle in Deut. xiv. 5, as though hold- 
 ing an intermediate place between tame and 
 wild animals; birds of various kinds (O°7BY; 
 A.V. “fowls;” Neh. v. 18; the LXX., how- 
 ever, gives χίμαρος, as though the reading 
 were O°D¥); quail in certain parts of Arabia 
 (Ex. xvi. 13; Num. xi. 32); poultry (0°33 3 
 1 K. iv. 23; understood generally by the LXX., 
 ὀρνίθων ἐκλεκτῶν ovrevtd; by Kimchi and the 
 A. V. and R. V. as “fatted fowl; ” by Gesenius, 
 Thesaur. p. 246, as geese, from the whiteness of 
 their plumage; by Thenius, Comm. in /.c., as 
 guinea-fowls, as though the word represented 
 the call of that bird); partridges (1 Sam. xxvi. 
 20); fish, with the exception of such as were 
 without scales and fins (Ley. xi. 9; Deut. xiv. 
 9), both salted, as was probably the case with 
 the sea-fish brought to Jerusalem (Neh. xiii. 16), 
 and fresh (Matt. xiv. 19, xv. 36; Luke xxiv. 42). 
 This in our Saviour’s time appears to have been 
 the usual food about the Sea of Galilee (Matt. 
 vii. 10); the term oWdpioy is applied to it by 
 St. John (vi. 9; xxi. 9 sq.) in the restricted 
 sense which the word obtained among the later 
 Greeks, as = fish. Locusts, of which certain 
 species only were esteemed clean (Ley. xi. 22), 
 were occasionally eaten (Matt. iii. 4), but con- 
 sidered as poor fare. They are at the present 
 day largely consumed by the poor both in Persia 
 (Morier’s Second Journey, p. 44) and in Arabia 
 (Niebuhr, Voyaye, i. 319); they are salted and 
 dried, and roasted, when required, on a frying- 
 pan with butter (Burckhardt’s Notes, ii. 92; 
 Niebuhr, /. c.). 
 
 Meat does not appear ever to have been eaten 
 
FOOT 
 
 by itself; various accompaniments are noticed 
 in Scripture, as bread, milk, and sour milk 
 (Gen. xviii. 8); bread and broth (Judg. vi. 19); 
 and with fish either bread (Matt. xiv. 19, xv. 
 36; John xxi. 9) or honeycomb (Luke xxiv. 
 . 42): the instance in 2 Sam. vi. 19 cannot be 
 relied on, as the meaning of the term BUN, 
 rendered in the A. V. “a good piece of flesh,” 
 after the Vulg., assatura bibulae carnis, is quite 
 unknown (see Driver, Notes on the Heb. Text of 
 the BB. of Sam., in loco. The R. V. renders in 
 text a portion of flesh, and in marg. of wine). 
 Mor the modes of preparing meat, see COOKING ; 
 and for the times and manner of eating, MEALS: 
 see also Fisn, Pow, &c. 
 
 To pass from ordinary to occasional sources 
 of subsistence: prison diet consisted of bread 
 and water administered in small quantities 
 (1 K. xxii. 27; Jer. xxxvii. 21): pulse and 
 water was considered but little better (Dan. i. 
 12): in time of sorrow or fasting it was usual 
 to abstain either altogether from food (2 Sam. 
 xii. 17, 20), or from meat, wine, and other 
 
 delicacies, which were described as NITION ond, 
 
 lit. bread of desires (Dan. x. 3). In time of 
 extreme famine the most loathsome food was 
 swallowed; such as an ass’s head (2 K. vi. 25), 
 the ass, it must be remembered, being an un- 
 clean animal (for a parallel case ep. Plutarch, 
 Artaxeraz. 24), and dove’s dung (see the article 
 on that subject), the dung of cattle (Joseph. 
 B. J. vy. 13, § 7), and even possibly their own 
 dung (2 K. xviii. 27). The consumption of 
 human flesh was not altogether unknown 
 (2 K. vi. 28; cp. Joseph. B. J. vi. 3, § 4), the 
 passages quoted supplying instances of the exact 
 fulfilment of the prediction in Deut. xxviii. 
 56, 57: cp. also Lam. ii. 20, iv. 10; Ezek. 
 γ.}10. 
 
 With regard to the beverages used by the 
 Hebrews, we have already mentioned milk, and 
 the probable use of barley-water, and of a mix- 
 ture resembling the modern sherbet, formed of 
 fig-cake and water. The Hebrews probably 
 resembled the Arabs in not drinking much 
 during their meals, but concluding them with 
 a long draught of water. It is almost needless 
 to say that water was most generally drunk. 
 In addition to these the Hebrews were ac- 
 quainted with various intoxicating liquors, the 
 most valued of which was the juice of the 
 grape, while others were described under the 
 general term of shechar or strong drink (Lev. x. 
 9; Num. vi. 3; Judg. xiii. 4, 7), if indeed the 
 latter does not sometimes include the former 
 (Num. xxviii. 7): these were reserved for the 
 wealthy or for festive occasions. The poor con- 
 sumed a sour wine (A. V. “ vinegar ;” Ruth ii. 
 14; Matt. xxvii. 48), calculated to ‘quench 
 thirst, but not agreeable to the taste (Prov. x. 
 26). (Dring, StRoNG; VINEGAR; WATER; 
 WINE. | rw. L.B.] 112 
 
 FOOT, watering with the (Deut. xi. 10). 
 [GARDEN. ] 
 
 FOOTMAN, a word employed in the A. V. 
 in two senses. 1, Generally, to distinguish 
 those of the people or of the fighting-men who 
 went on foot. from those who were on horseback 
 
 FOREHEAD 1083. 
 
 ba, ragli, from regel, a foot. The LXX. 
 commonly express it by πεζοί, or occasionally 
 ταγμάτα. 
 
 But, 2. The word occurs in a more special 
 sense (in 1 Sam. xxii. 17 only; R. V. “ guard ;” 
 both A. V. and R. V. have in marg. Heb. runners), 
 and as the translation of a different term from 
 the above—}'4, rootz. This passage affords the 
 first mention of the existence of a body of swift 
 runners in attendance on the king, though such 
 a thing had been foretold by Samuel (1 Sam. 
 viii. 11). This body appears to have been after- 
 wards kept up, and to have been distinct from 
 the body-guard—the six hundred, and the thirty 
 —who were originated by David. See 1 K. 
 MV ove eos each. x. LO; 11s 2 Κ΄. xi. 45165 
 11, 13,19. In each of these cases the word is 
 the same as the above, and is rendered “guard :” 
 but the translators and revisers were evidently 
 aware of its signification, for they have put 
 the word “runners” in the margin (1 K. xiv. 
 27, A. V. and R. V.; 2 K. xi. 4; 2 Ch. xii. 10, 
 R. V.). This indeed was the force of the term 
 “footman” at the time the A. V. was made, as 
 is plain not only from the references just 
 quoted, but amongst others from the title of a 
 well-known tract of Bunyan’s—TZhe Heavenly 
 Footman, or a Description of the Man that gets 
 to Heaven, on 1 Cor. ix. 24 (St. Paul’s figure of 
 the race). Swift running was evidently a 
 valued accomplishment of a perfect warrior—a 
 gibbor, as the Hebrew word is — among the 
 Israelites. There are constant allusions to this 
 in the Bible, though obscured in the E. V., 
 from the translators not recognising or not 
 adopting the technical sense of the word gibbor. 
 Among others see Ps. xix. 5; Job xvi. 14; Joel 
 ii. 7, where “strong man,” “giant,” and 
 “mighty man ” are all gibbor, used in connexion 
 with running. David was famed for his powers 
 of running; they are so mentioned as to seem 
 characteristic of him (1 Sam. xvii. 22, 48, 51; 
 xx. 6), and he makes them a special subject of 
 thanksgiving to God (2 Sam. xxii. 30; Ps. 
 xviii. 29). The cases of Cushi and Ahimaaz 
 (2 Sam. xviii.) will occur to every one. It is 
 not impossible that the former—the Ethio- 
 pian,” as his name most likely is—had some 
 peculiar mode of running. ([Cusui.] Asahel 
 also was “swift on his feet,” and the Gadite 
 heroes who came across to David in his diffi- 
 culties were “swift as the roes upon the 
 mountains :” but in neither of these last cases is 
 the word rootz employed. The word probably 
 derives its modern sense from the custom of 
 domestic servants running by the carriage of 
 their master. [GUARD.] [ΟΠ [W.] 
 
 FORDS. [See Jorpan.] 
 
 FOREHEAD (ΠΥ, from ΠΝ, rad. inus. 
 
 to shine, Gesen. p. 815; μέτωπον ; frons). The 
 practice for women of the higher classes, espe- 
 cially married women, in the East, to veil their 
 faces in public, sufficiently stigmatizes with re- 
 proach the unveiled face of women of bad cha- 
 racter (Gen. xxv. 653 Jer. iii. 3; Niebuhr, Voy. 
 i. 132, 149, 150; Shaw, Travels, pp. 228, 240; 
 Hasselquist, Travels, p. 58; Buckingham, Arab 
 Tribes, p. 312; Lane, Mod. Eg. i. 72, 77, 225—- 
 248; Burckhardt, Travels, i. 233). An especial 
 
 or in chariots. The Hebrew word for this is | force is thus given to the term “hard of fore- 
 
1084 FORESKIN 
 
 head,” as descriptive of audacity in general 
 (Ezek. iii, 7-9; comp. Juv. Sat. xiv. 242 — 
 « Ejectum attrita de fronte ruborem ”). 
 
 The custom among many Oriental nations 
 both of colouring the face and forehead, and of 
 impressing on the body marks indicative of 
 devotion to some special deity or religious sect, 
 is mentioned elsewhere [CUTTINGS IN FLESH]. 
 (Burckhardt, Notes on Bed. i. 51; Niebuhr, 
 Voy. ii. 57; Wilkinson, Anc. Egypt. ii. 342 
 [1878]; Lane, Mod. Ey. i. 66.) It is doubtless 
 alluded to in Rev. (xiii. 16, 17; xiv. 93 xvii. 5; 
 xx. 4), and in the opposite direction by Ezekiel 
 (ix. 4-6) and in Rev. (vii. 3; ix. 4; xiv. 15 
 xxii. 4). The mark mentioned by Ezekiel with 
 approval has been supposed to be the figure of 
 the cross, said to be denoted by the word here 
 used, 1A, in the ancient Semitic language 
 
 (Gesen. p. 1495; Spencer, de Leg. Hebr. ii. 20. 
 3, pp. 409, 413; MV.?). 
 
 It may have been by way of contradiction to 
 heathen practice that the high-priest wore on 
 the front of his mitre the golden plate inscribed 
 “ Holiness to the Lord” (Ex. xxviii. 36, xxxix. 
 30; Spencer, /. c.). 
 
 The “jewel for the forehead” mentioned by 
 Ezekiel (xvi. 12), and in margin of A. V. Gen. 
 xxiv. 22, was in all probability nose-rings (so 
 R. V. Cp. Is. iii. 21; Lane, Mod. Eq. iii. 225, 
 226; Harmer, Obs. iv. 311, 312; Gesen. p. 870; 
 Winer, 5. v. Nasenring). The Persian and also 
 Egyptian women wear jewels and strings of 
 coins across their foreheads (Olearius, Travels, 
 p- 317; Lane, Mod. Eg. ii. 228). [Nose-JEWEL. | 
 
 For the use of frontlets between the eyes, see 
 FRONTLETS; and for symptoms of leprosy ap- 
 parent in the forehead, Leprosy, [H. W. P.] 
 
 FORESKIN. [Crrcumcision.] 
 
 FOREST. The corresponding Hebrew terms 
 are 1D’, WN, and DID. The first of these 
 most truly expresses the idea of a forest, the 
 etymological force of the word being abundance, 
 and its use being restricted (with the exception 
 of 1 Sam. xiv. 26, and Cant. v. 1, in which it 
 refers to honey) to an abundance of trees. The 
 second is seldom used, the word itself involving 
 the idea of what is being cut down (silva a 
 caedendo dicta, Gesen. Thesaur. p. 530): it is 
 only twice (1 Sam. xxiii. 15 sq.; 2 Ch. xxvii. 4) 
 applied to woods’ properly so called, and there 
 probably to woods on hills as distinguished from 
 woods on the plain; its sense, however, is illus- 
 trated in the other passages in which it occurs, 
 viz. Is. xvii. 2 (A. V. “bough,” R. V. “ wood.” 
 The verse is difficult, and the readings various. 
 See Delitzsch* and Dillmann® in loco), where 
 the comparison is to the “forsaken places ” 
 (R. V.) of worship in the forest, and Ezek. 
 xxxi. 3, where it applies to trees or foliage 
 sufficient to afford shelter (frondibus nemorosus, 
 Vulg.; A. V. and R. V. “with a shadowing 
 shroud”). The third, pardes (a word of foreign 
 origin [see MV.""], meaning an enclosed place, 
 whether garden or park, whence also comes the 
 Greek παράδεισοΞ), refers perhaps to forest trees 
 (Neh. ii. 8), the forests of Palestine being care- 
 fully preserved under the Persian rule, a regular 
 warden being appointed, without whose sanction 
 no tree could be felled. Elsewhere the word 
 
 FOREST 
 
 describes a garden or orchard (Eccles. ii..5 ; Cant. 
 iv. 13). 
 
 Although Palestine has never been in his- 
 torical times a woodland country, yet there can 
 be no doubt that there was much more wood 
 formerly than there is at present. It is not 
 improbable that the highlands were once covered 
 with a primeval forest, of which the celebrated 
 oaks and terebinths scattered here and there are 
 the relics. The woods and forests mentioned 
 in the Bible appear to have been situated, 
 where they are usually found in cultivated 
 countries, in the valleys and defiles that lead 
 down from the high- to the lowlands and in the 
 adjacent plains. They were therefore of no 
 great size, and correspond rather with the idea 
 of the Latin saltus than with our forest. 
 
 (1.) The wood of Ephraim was the most 
 extensive. It clothed the slopes of the hills 
 that bordered the plain of Jezreel, and the plain 
 itself in the neighbourhood of Bethshan (Josh. 
 xvii. 15 sq.), extending, perhaps, at one time to 
 Tabor, which is translated δρυμὸς by Theodotion 
 (Hos. v. 1), and which is still well covered with 
 forest trees (Stanley, p. 350). (2.) The wood 
 of Bethel (2 K. ii. 23, 24) was situated in the 
 ravine which descends to the plain of Jericho. 
 (3.) The forest of Hareth (1 Sam. xxii. 5) was 
 somewhere on the border of the Philistine plain, 
 in the southern part of Judah. (4.) The wood 
 through which the Israelites passed in their 
 pursuit of the Philistines (1 Sam. xiv. 25) was 
 probably near Aijalon (cp. v. 31), in one of the 
 valleys leading down to the plain of Philistia. 
 (5.) The “ wood ” (Ps. exxxii. 6) implied in the 
 name of Kirjath-jearim (1 Sam. vii. 2) must 
 have been similarly situated, as also (6) were 
 the “ forests ” (Choresh) in which Jotham placed 
 his forts (2 Ch. xxvii. 4). (7.) The plain of 
 Sharon was partly covered with wood (Strab. 
 xvii. p. 578), whence the LXX. gives δρυμὸς as 
 an equivalent (Is. lxv. 10). It has still a fair 
 amount of wood (Stanley, p. 260). (8.) The 
 wood (Choresh) in the wilderness of Ziph, in 
 which David concealed himself (1 Sam. xxiii. 
 15 sq.), lay S.E. of Hebron. 
 
 The greater portion of Peraea was, and still is, 
 covered with forests of oak and terebinth (Is. ii. 
 13; Ezek. xxvii. 6; Zech. xi. 2: cp. Bucking- 
 ham’s Palestine, pp. 103 sq., 240 sq.; Stanley, 
 p- 324). A portion of this near Mahanaim was 
 known as the “wood of Ephraim” (2 Sam. 
 xviii. 6), in which the battle between David and 
 Absalom took place. Winer (art. Walder) 
 places it on the west side of the Jordan, but a 
 comparison of 2 Sam. xvii. 26, xviii. 3, 23, 
 proves the reverse. The statement in xviii. 23, 
 in particular, marks its position as on the high- 
 lands, at some little distance from the valley of 
 the Jordan (cp. Joseph. Ant. vii. 10, §§ 1, 2). 
 
 “The house of the forest of Lebanon” (1 K. 
 vil. 2, x. 17, 21; 2 Ch. ix. 16, 20) was so called 
 probably from being fitted up with cedar. It 
 has also been explained as referring to the 
 forest-like rows of cedar pillars. The number 
 and magnificence of the cedars of Lebanon is 
 frequently noticed in the poetical portions of 
 the Bible. The forest generally supplied Hebrew 
 writers with an image of pride and exaltation 
 doomed to destruction (2 K. xix. 23; Is. x, 18, 
 Kxxu. 19) xxxvil. 24; Jer. xxiv) [Δ στ ἢ, 
 xlvi. 23; Zech. xi. 2), as well as of unfruitful- 
 
‘ 
 : 
 
 FORNICATION 
 
 ness as contrasted with a cultivated field or 
 vineyard (18. xxix, 17, xxxii. 15; Jer. xxvi. 18; 
 
 Hos. ii. 12). Webs B) {π|] 
 FORNICATION. [Apurrery.] 
 FORTIFICATIONS. [Fencep ΟἸΤΙΕΒ.7 
 FORTUNATUS (Φορτούνατος ; Fortunatus), 
 
 mentioned in 1 Cor. xvi. 17, and in Clem. Rom. 
 Lp lix., where Bishop Lightfoot has the follow- 
 ing note:—*The form of the expression (σὺν 
 καὶ ᾧ.) seems to separate Fortunatus from 
 ‘Ephebus and Bito; and, if so, he was perhaps 
 not a Roman who accompanied the letter, but 
 a Corinthian from whom Clement was expecting 
 a visit. In this case there is no improbability 
 in identifying him with the Fortunatus of 
 1 Cor. xvi. 17, for he seems to be mentioned 
 by St. Paul (A.D. 57) as a younger member 
 of the household of Stephanas, and might well 
 be alive less than forty years after, when 
 Clement wrote. It must be remembered, how- 
 ever, that Fortunatus is a very common 
 
 name.” [E. R. B.] 
 
 FOUNTAIN. 1. Ὁ), from }'Y, to flow ; also 
 signifies an “eye,” Gesen, p. 1017. 2. fiMID 
 (from 1), a well-watered place; sometimes in 
 eee. “well,” of “spring.” 9: DD Nyin 
 from δὲ ν᾽, to go forth, Gesen. p. 613; a gushing 
 forth of waters, 4. “pd, from Ap, to dig, 
 Gesen. p. 1209. 5. DIDI, from VIZ to bubble 
 
 forth, Gesen. p. 845. 6. Ss, or nba, from 60, 
 to roll, Gesen. p. 288; all usually rendered πηγή, 
 or πηγὴ ὕδατος ; fons and fons aquarum. The 
 special use of these various terms will be found 
 examined in the Appendix to Stanley’s Sinai 
 and Palestine. 
 
 Among the attractive features presented by 
 the Land of Promise to the nation migrating 
 from Egypt by way of the desert, none would 
 be more striking than the natural gush of 
 waters from the ground. Instead of watering 
 his field or garden, as in Egypt, “with his 
 foot” (Shaw, Travels, p. 408), the Hebrew culti- 
 vator was taught to look forward to a land that 
 “drinketh water of the rain of heaven, a land 
 of brooks of water, of fountains and depths 
 springing forth in valleys and hills” (Deut. viii. 
 7; xi. 11,R. V.). In the desert of Sinai, “ the 
 few living, perhaps perennial springs,” by the 
 fact of their rarity assume an importance 
 hardly to be understood in moister climates, 
 and more than justify a poetical expression of 
 national rejoicing over the discovery of one 
 (Num. xxi. 17). But the springs of Palestine, 
 though short-lived, are remarkable for their 
 abundance and beauty, especially those which 
 fall into the Jordan and its lakes throughout its 
 whole course (Stanley, 5. δ᾽ P. pp. 17, 122, 
 128, 295, 373, 509; Burckhardt, Syria, p. 344). 
 The spring or fountain of living water, the 
 “eye” of the landscape (see No. 1), is distin- 
 puished in all Oriental languages from the 
 artificially sunk and enclosed well (Stanley, 
 p. 509). Its importance is implied by the 
 number of topographical names compounded 
 with En, or Aim (Arab.): En-gedi, <Ain-jidy, 
 
 “spring of the gazelle,’ may serve as a striking 
 
 FOUNTAIN 1085 
 
 instance (1 Sam. xxiii. 29; Reland, p. 763; 
 Robinson, i. 504; Stanley, App. ὃ 50), 
 
 The volcanic agency which has operated so 
 powerfully in Palestine, has from very early 
 times given tokens of its working in the warm 
 springs which are found near the Sea of Galilee 
 and the Dead Sea. One of them, En-eglaim, 
 the “spring of calves,” at the N.E. end of the 
 latter, is probably identical with Callirrhoé, 
 mentioned by Josephus as a place resorted to by 
 Herod in his last illness (Joseph. B. J. i. 33, 
 § 5; Kitto, Phys. Geogr. of Pal. pp. 120, 121; 
 Stanley, S. § P. p. 285). His son Philip built 
 the town, which he named Tiberias, at the 
 sulphureous hot-springs at the S. of the Sea of 
 Galilee (Joseph. Ant. xviii. 2, § 3; Hasselquist, 
 Travels, App. 283; Kitto, p. 114; Burckhardt, 
 Syria, pp. 328, 330; Oliphant, Haifa, p. 127). 
 Other hot-springs are found at seven miles’ 
 distance from Tiberias, and at Omkeis (Gadara) 
 (Reland, p. 775; Burckhardt, pp. 276, 277; 
 Kitto, pp. 116, 118). 
 
 Jerusalem, though mainly dependent for its 
 supply of water upon its rain-water cisterns, 
 appears from recent inquiries to have possessed 
 either more than one perennial spring, or one 
 issuing by more than one outlet. To this agree 
 the “fons perennis aquae” of Tacitus (Hist. v. 
 12), and the ὑδάτων ἀνέκλειπτος σύστασις of 
 Avisteas (Joseph. ii, 112, ed. Havercamp; 
 Robinson, i. 343, 345; Williams, Holy City, ii. 
 458, 468; Raumer, p. 298; Ezek. xlvii. 1, 12; 
 Kitto, Phys. Geogr. pp. 412, 415). [CisTERNS; 
 SILOAM. | 
 
 In the towers built by Herod, Josephus says 
 there were cisterns with χαλκουργήματα 
 through which water was poured forth: these 
 may have been statues or figures containing 
 spouts for water after Roman models (Plin. 
 Epist. v. 6; Ν. ἢ. xxxvi.15, 151; Joseph. B. J. 
 v. 4, § 4). 
 
 No Eastern city is so well supplied with water 
 as Damascus (Zarly Trav. p. 294). In Oriental 
 
 Fountain at Nazareth. (Roberts.) 
 
 cities generally public fountains are frequent 
 (Poole, Englishw. in Egypt, i. 180). Traces of 
 such fountains at Jerusalem may perhaps be 
 found in the names En-rogel (2 Sam. xvii. 17), 
 the “ Dragon-well ” or fountain, and the “ gate 
 of the fountain” (Neh. ii. 13, 14). The water 
 which supplied Solomon’s pools near Bethlehem 
 
1086 FOUNTAIN GATE 
 
 was conveyed to them by subterranean channels. 
 
 In these may also be found “ the sealed fountain” 
 of Cant. iv. 12 (Hasselquist, p. 145; Maundrell, 
 Early Trav. p. 457). The fountain of Nazareth 
 
 eg ἢ 
 
 - San στο, Ὁ ἘΞ eS ον 
 So-called * Fountaiu” of Cana. (Εγυμ livverts.) 
 bears a traditional antiquity, to which it has 
 probably good derivative, if not actual, claim 
 (Roberts, Views in Palestine, i. 21, 29, 33; Col. 
 Ch. Chron. No. exxx. 1473 Fisher’s Views in 
 Syria, i. 31, iii. 44). 8 
 
 FOUNTAIN GATE, Neh. iii. 15; xii. 57. 
 A gate in the city walls on the south side of 
 Jerusalem, near, and probably leading to, Siloam. 
 { JERUSALEM. ] 
 
 FOWL, FATTED (O'DIAN O33, bar- 
 berim avoosim; ὄρνιθες σιτευταί; aves altiles). 
 The word only occurs in 1 K. iv. 23, in the list 
 of supplies for the daily provision of Solomon’s 
 table. There is no other clue to the meaning 
 of the term than the rendering of the LXX. 
 Gesenius proposes “fatted geese” or swans, 
 from 13, “to be white.” But the goose is not 
 
 an inhabitant of Syria, which is much too warm 
 for it, and the swan is only a rare visitor in 
 winter. Others have suggested guinea-fowls. 
 But we have no evidence that this tropical 
 African bird was ever introduced by Solomon or 
 the Phoenicians. But there seems no difficulty 
 in accepting the ordinary rendering of our 
 domestic fowl; for although we have no proof 
 of the Jews having possessed poultry before the 
 Captivity, yet when Solomon introduced pea- 
 cocks from India, it is most probable he would 
 also import the common fowl, which has been 
 from time immemorial domesticated in that its 
 native country. [ἘΠ ὀ8Β: | 
 
 FOWL, FOWLER. [Sparrow.] 
 FOX (VW, shital; ἀλωπήξ; vulpes). The 
 Turkish Jae, jakal, French chacal, German 
 
 schakal, R. V. marg. jackals, are evidently 
 related to the Hebrew word, and refer to the 
 jackal (Canis aureus, L.). The various passages 
 where the word occurs, show that the Hebrews, 
 like the Arabs at the present day, used the same 
 name for both fox and jackal. At the same 
 time, there is another word—D"X, tyim, lit. 
 “howlers”—which occurs in Is, xiii. 22, 
 xxxiv. 14, Jer 1. 39, rendered in A. V. “wild 
 beasts of the islands,” and R. V. ‘ wolves,” which 
 more probably represents the jackal, whom the 
 
 FOX 
 
 ΠΕΣ beni walwal,.“sons of 
 
 Arabs call Js) 9 
 howling,” or uss, wawi, as commonly as 
 jakal. 
 
 In all the passages where the Hebrew shi‘al 
 occurs, excepting possibly Cant. ii. 15, Ezek. xiii. 4, 
 jackals rather than foxes are intended. The 
 
 Canis aureus (Jackal). 
 
 passage in Ps, lxiii. 10, “ they shall be a portion for 
 shi‘alim,” evidently refers to “ jackals,” which 
 are ever ready to prey on the dead bodies of the 
 slain, follow caravans for the chance of the animals 
 that fall, and attack graves for the carrion. 
 The fondness of the fox for grapes is well known 
 in the East; but not more so than that of the 
 jackal, which, going in packs, often commits great 
 devastation in the vineyards. Both animals are, 
 like the dog, omnivorous. Thus in many parts 
 of North Africa, where the jackals swarm, there 
 is no possibility of obtaining flesh or carrion, and 
 they subsist on the fruit of the dwarf palmetto, 
 with which the plains are covered. 
 
 The shu‘dlim of Judg. xv. 4 are evidently 
 “jackals,” and not “foxes,” for the former 
 animal is gregarious, whereas the latter is 
 solitary in its habits; and it is in the highest 
 degree improbable that Samson should ever have 
 succeeded in catching so many as 300 foxes, 
 whereas he could readily have “ taken in snares,” 
 
 as the Hebrew verb (729) properly means, so 
 
 many jackals, which go together for the most part 
 in large groups. The whole passage, which de- 
 scribes the manner in which Samson avenged him- 
 self on the Philistines by tying the tails of two 
 jackals together, with a firebrand between them, 
 and then sending them into the standing corn and 
 orchards of his enemies, has, it is well known, 
 been the subject of much dispute. Dr, Kennicott 
 (Remarks on Select Passages in the O. T., Oxford, 
 1787, p. 100) proposed, on the authority of 
 
 seven Hebrew MSS., to read shédlim corde’), 
 
 “sheaves” (?), instead of shi‘dlim corre, 
 leaving out the letter 1: the meaning then 
 being, simply, that Samson took 300 sheaves of 
 corn, and put them end to end (“tail to tail ”), 
 and then set a burning torch between them (see 
 also what an anonymous French author has 
 written under the title of Rénards de Samson, 
 and his arguments refuted in a treatise, “ De 
 Vulpibus Simsonaeis,” by B. H. Gebhard, in 
 Thes. Nov. Theol. Phil. i. 553 sq.). The 
 proposed reading of Kennicott has deservedly 
 found little favour with commentators. Not to 
 mention the authority of the important old 
 
FOX 
 
 Versions which are opposed to this view, it is 
 pretty certain that siédlim cannot mean 
 “sheaves.” ‘The word, which occurs only three 
 times, denotes in Is. xl. 12 “the hollow of the 
 hand,” and in 1 K. xx. 10, Ezek. xiii. 19, 
 “handfuls.” ; 
 
 The difficulty of the whole passage consists in 
 understanding how two animals tied together 
 by their tails would run far in the same 
 direction. Col. H. Smith (in Kitto’s Cyc., art. 
 ** Shual ”) observes, “ they would assuredly pull 
 counter to each other, and ultimately fight most 
 _fiercely.” Probably they would ; but it is only 
 fair to remember, in reply to the objections 
 which critics have advanced to this transaction 
 of the Hebrew judge, that it has yet to be 
 demonstrated that two jackals united by their 
 tails would run counter, and thus defeat the 
 intended purpose; in so important a matter as 
 the verification of a Scripture narrative the 
 proper course is experimental where it can be 
 resorted to. Again, we know nothing as to the 
 length of the cord which attached the animals, 
 a consideration which is obviously of much 
 importance in the question at issue; for, as 
 jackals are gregarious, the couples would 
 naturally run together if we allow a length of 
 cord of two or three yards, especially when we 
 reflect that the terrified animals would endeavour 
 to escape as far as possible out of the reach of 
 their captor, and make the best of their way 
 out of his sight. The translation of the A. V. 
 is unquestionably the correct rendering of the 
 Hebrew, and has the authority of the LXX. and 
 Vulg. in its favour. But if the above remarks 
 are deemed inadequate to a satisfactory solution 
 of Samson’s exploit, we are at liberty to suppose 
 that he had men to help him, both in the 
 capture of the jackals and in the use to which 
 he put them, and it is not necessary to conclude 
 that the animals were all caught at, and let 
 loose from, the same place : some might have been 
 taken in one portion of the Philistines’ territory, 
 and some in another, and let loose in different 
 parts of the country. This view would obviate 
 
 Vulpes Nilotica. 
 
 the alleged difficulty alluded to above; for 
 there would be no necessity for the jackals to 
 run any great distance in order to insure the 
 greatest amount of damage to the crops: 150 
 
 FRANKINCENSE 1087 
 
 different centres, so to speak, of conflagration 
 throughout the country of the Philistines must 
 have burnt up nearly all their corn; and, from 
 the whole context, it is evident that the injury 
 done was one of almost unlimited extent. 
 
 With respect to the jackals and foxes of 
 Palestine, the common jackal of the country is 
 the Canis aureus, L., so named from its tawny 
 yellow colour, and which may be heard every 
 night in the villages. ‘The fox of the southern 
 and central regions of Palestine, extremely abund- 
 ant in Judaea and the east of Jordan, is Vulpes 
 Nilotica, Riipp, which differs very slightly from 
 our own, being a little smaller, more tawny 
 above, and of a greyer hue below. In its habits 
 it is very distinct from the jackal, being solitary, 
 and often hunting in the daytime. It is found 
 through Egypt, Arabia, and the Syrian desert. 
 
 Another species is common in the wooded 
 districts of Galilee and the north, Vulpes 
 jlavescens, Gray, the Canis Syriacus of Col. H. 
 
 Smith, known to the natives as ἔξ: tha‘lab. 
 
 It is considerably larger than the last species, 
 and differs from the English fox, of which we 
 believe it to be only a local race, by its peculiarly 
 bright light yellowish colour throughout, and 
 finer and longer fur. It has black ears, and 
 a splendid brush. It ranges from Syria to 
 Central Asia, and the north side of the Hima- 
 
 Canis Syriacus. 
 
 layas (cp. Hemp. and Ehr. Symb. Phys. pt. i. ; 
 Hasselquist, Zrav. p. 184). That jackals and 
 foxes were formerly, as now, common in Palestine 
 is evident from the names of places derived from 
 these animals, a8 Hazar-Shual (Josh. xy, 28), 
 Shaalbim (Judg. i. 35). 
 
 The Rabbinical writers make frequent mention 
 of the fox and his habits. In the Talmud it is 
 said, “The fox does not die from being under 
 the earth: he is used to it, and it does not hurt 
 him.” Again: “He has gained as much as a 
 fox in a ploughed field,” ie. nothing, Another 
 proverb relating to him is: 
 
 ἐς Tf the fox be at the rudder, 
 
 Speak him fairly—‘ My dear brother.’ ” 
 [W. H.] [H.B. T.] 
 
 FRANKINCENSE (91939, debonah, from 
 129, “to be white”; 
 wy) lubain [Ex. xxx. 34, &c.; 1 Ch. ix. 29; 
 Matt. ii. 11; Rev. viii. 3]), the fragrant gum of 
 
 AlBavos; thus; Arab. 
 
1088 FREEDOM 
 
 an Indian tree, procured through Arabia. “ All 
 they from Sheba shall come. They shall bring 
 gold and incense” (Is. lx. 6); “Incense from 
 Sheba ” (Jer. vi. 20). Frankincense is the gum 
 or resin of the tree Boswellia serrata of botanists, 
 which grows abundantly in the hilly districts of 
 Central and Southern India, and is known as 
 “Salai” by the natives. It belongs to the 
 natural order Amyridaceae, or the Myrrh family. 
 All the trees of the order, which is tropical, 
 abound in balsamic resin. Among the genera 
 which it includes are Amyris and Jcica, yielding 
 elemi and incense-wood, and Balsamodendron, or 
 balsam tree, from some species of which the 
 mér of the Hebrews, the myrrh of commerce, is 
 procured, Boswellia serrata, and to a more 
 limited extent Boswellia glabra, are the sources of 
 the Olibanum, the Hebrew Lebonah, and Greek 
 λίβανος, the frankincense of the Scriptures and 
 
 Boswellia serrata, 
 
 of modern commerce. The Hindoos call the 
 gum “Cundur.” It is abundant especially 
 about Nagpur, whence large quantities are 
 exported to Europe. It requires no preparation, 
 and is procured by cutting slits in the bark, 
 whence it copiously exudes. The best gum is of 
 a white eolour, brittle and bitter to the taste, 
 and is reserved for the Mohammedan markets. 
 That which is yellowish in colour is considered 
 less pure, but is in large demand in Southern 
 and Central Europe for use in the ceremonial of 
 the Greek and Roman Churches. Previous to 
 the English occupation of India there was great 
 uncertainty as to the origin of frankincense ; 
 the greater part of that supplied to Europe 
 reaching us by caravan through Persia to Aleppo. 
 Nor do the ancients, as may be seen from Theo- 
 phrastus and Pliny, appear to have been much 
 better informed (Theophr. Hist. Plant. ix. 4; 
 Plin. Hist. xii. 31). No tree yielding such a 
 gum has ever been found in Palestine (Cels. 
 Hicrob. i. 231 sqq.). [H. B. T.] 
 
 FREEDOM, Acts xxii. 28. [CrrT1zENsHIP.] 
 
 FRET (A.-S. fretan), used in the sense of 
 “devour.” In Lev. xiii. 55 the word, as a noun 
 (R. V. “afret ”), is the translation of NNM5, 
 
 and signifies the leprosy spot which has eaten 
 into a garment, [F.] 
 FRINGES. [Dress.] 
 FROG (UI I_Y, tzephardé'a; βάτραχος; 
 rana). Gesenius derives the Hebrew word from 
 TBS, “to leap,” and the Arabic rae » réda‘, 
 
 FRONTLETS 
 
 “ marsh,” i.e. “the marsh - leaper;” but 
 Dietrich’s derivation of the word from the root 
 “IDY, “to swell,” is now more generally accepted 
 (see MV."). The frog was selected by God 
 as an instrument for humbling the pride of 
 Pharaoh (Ex. viii. 2-14; Ps. Ixxviii. 45, ev. 
 30; Wisd. xix. 10): frogs came in prodigious 
 numbers from the canals, the rivers, and the 
 marshes; they filled the houses, and even 
 entered the ovens and kneading troughs. When 
 at the command of Moses the frogs died, the 
 people gathered them in heaps, and “the land 
 stank” from the corruption of the bodies. 
 There can be no doubt that the whole trans- 
 action was miraculous: frogs, it is true, if 
 allowed to increase, can easily be imagined 
 to occur in such multitudes as marked the 
 second plague of Egypt—indeed, similar plagues 
 are on record as having occurred in various 
 places, as at Paeonia and Dardania, where 
 frogs suddenly appeared in such numbers as to 
 cause the inhabitants to leave that region— 
 (see Eustathius on Hom. J/. i., and other quo- 
 tations cited by Bochart, Hieroz. iii. 575)—but 
 that the transaction was miraculous appears 
 further from the fact that the frogs would not 
 naturally have died, in such prodigious numbers 
 as is recorded, in a single day. 
 
 It is stated (Ex. viii. 7) that the Egyptian 
 “magicians brought up frogs.” Some writers 
 have denied that they could have had any such 
 power, and think that they must have practised 
 some deceit.. It is worthy of remark, that 
 though they may have been permitted by God 
 to increase the plagues, they were quite unable 
 to remove them. 
 
 Amongst the Egyptians the frog was con- 
 sidered a symbol of an imperfect man, and was 
 supposed to be generated from the slime of the 
 river—ek τῆς τοῦ ποταμοῦ ἰλύος (see Hor- 
 apollo, i. 20). A frog sitting upon a lotus 
 (Nelumbium) was also regarded by the ancient 
 Egyptians as symbolical of the return of the 
 Nile to its bed after the inundations. The 
 symbol was probably suggested by the habit of 
 the tree frog (Hyla arborea, L.), which sits on 
 the foliage for the greater part of the year, but 
 returns to the water for three months in spring 
 for the spawning season. Some have connected 
 the Egyptian word Hhrur, used to denote the Nile 
 descending, with Chrur, the Coptic name of a 
 frog (Jablonski, Panth. Aegypt. iv. 1, § 9); but ~ 
 the connexion suggested is more than doubtful. 
 
 The only known species of frog which occur at 
 present in Egypt are the Rana esculenta, Schinz, 
 of which two varieties are described, which differ 
 from Spallauzani’s species in some slight pecu- 
 liarities (Descript. de ?Egypte, Hist. Natur. 
 tom. i. p. 181, fol. ed.), and the little tree frog 
 (Ayla arborea), mentioned above, which in spring 
 lives in the water in vast myriads. Its croak, 
 when there are many together, may be heard at 
 a distance of more than a mile, The Rana 
 esculenta, the well-known edible frog of the 
 Continent, has a wide geographical range, being 
 found all over Europe (though scarce in the 
 British Isles); through Northern Asia and Japan ; 
 in North Africa and Egypt; in Syria, Mesopota- 
 mia, and Northern Persia. [W. H.] [H. B. T.] 
 
 FRONTLETS, or PHYLACTERIES 
 (MEDI, Ex. xiii, 16; Deut. vi. 8, xi. 18; the 
 
FRONTLETS 
 
 only three passages of the O. T. in which the | 
 
 word occurs; LXX. ἀσάλευτα; N. I’. φυλακ- 
 τήρια, Matt. xxiii. 5; the modern Jews called 
 them Zephillin, rovpn, a word not found in the 
 Bible, Buxtorf, Ler. TZalm. 5. v.). These 
 “‘frontlets ” or “ phylacteries’”? were strips of 
 parchment, on which were written four passages 
 of Scripture (Ex. xiii, 2-10, 11-17; Deut. vi. 
 4-9, 13-22) in an ink prepared for the purpose. 
 They were then rolled up in a case (NA) of 
 black calfskin, which was attached to a stiffer 
 piece of leather, having a thong one finger 
 4 broad, and one and 
 a half cubits long. 
 “They were placed at 
 the bend of the left 
 arm; and after the 
 thong had made a 
 little knot in the shape 
 of the letter 9, it was 
 wound about the arm 
 in a spiral line, which 
 ended at the top of 
 the middle finger.” 
 This was called “the 
 Tephillah on the arm,” 
 and the leather case 
 contained only one cell, 
 the passages being 
 written on a single 
 piece of parchment, 
 with thin lines ruled 
 between (Godwin, Mos. 
 § Aar. 1, ch. x. 2159), Those worn on the 
 forehead were written on four strips of parch- 
 ment (which might not be of any hide except 
 cow’s hide, Nork. Bramm. und Rabb. p. 211; ep. 
 Hesych. 8. Ὁ. Σκυτικὴ ἐπικουρία), and put into 
 four little cells within a square case, on which 
 the letter was written; the three points of 
 the t being “an emblem of the heavenly 
 Father’s, Jehovah, our Lord Jehovah” (Zohar, 
 fol. 54, col. 2). The square had two thongs 
 (ΠΝ), on which Hebrew letters were in- 
 _ scribed; these were passed round the head, and 
 after making a knot in the shape: of Ἵ passed 
 over the breast. This phylactery was called 
 “the Tephillah on the head,” and was worn in 
 the centre of the forehead (Leo of Modena, 
 Ceremonies of the Jews, i. 11, τι. 4; Calmet, s. y. 
 Phylactery ; Otho, Ler. Rabbin, p. 656). 
 
 The derivation of NYDOW is uncertain. Ge- 
 Senius derives it by contraction from ΓΊΒΩΒΌ 
 (7168. p. 548). The Rabbinic name popn comes 
 from N2BM, “a prayer,” because they were 
 worn during prayer, and were supposed to 
 typify the sincerity of the worshipper; hence 
 they were bound on the /eft wrist (Gem. Eruvin. 
 95, 2; Otho, 7. c.; Buxt. Lex. Talm. 5. v.). In 
 Matt. xxiii. 5, only, they are called φυλακτήρια, 
 either because they tended to promote obser- 
 
 vance of the Law (ἀεὶ μνημὴν ἔχειν τοῦ Θεοῦ, 
 Just. Mart. Dial. c. Tryph. p. 205, for which 
 Dents Luther happily renders the word by 
 
 Frontlets or Phylacteries, 
 
 Denkzettel), or from the use of them as amu- 
 lets (Lat. praebia, Gk. περίαπτα, Grotius ad 
 Matt. xxiii. 5). Φυλακτήριον is the ordinary 
 
 Greek word for an amulet (Plut. ii. 378 B, where 
 
 gvA.=the Roman bulla), and is used apparently 
 
 with this meaning by a Greek translator (Ezek. 
 BIBLE DICT.—VOL. 1, 
 
 FRONTLETS 1089 
 
 xiii. 18) for MINDS, cushions (Rosenmiiller, 
 Schol. ad loc. i.; Schleusner, Lex. in N, T.)s 
 That phylacteries were used as amulets is 
 certain, and was very natural (Targ. ad Cant. 
 viii. 3; Bartoloce. Bibl. Rab. i, 576; Winer, 8, 
 vv. Amulete, Phylakterien). Jerome (on Matt. 
 XXxill. 5) says that they were thus used in his day 
 by the Babylonians, Persians, and Indians, and 
 condemns certain Christian “ mulierculae ” for 
 similarly using the Gospels (“parvula evan- 
 gelia,” βίβλια μικρά, Chrys.) as περιάμματα, 
 especially the Proem. to St. John (cp. Chrysost. 
 Hom. in Matt. 73). The Koran and other sacred 
 books are applied to the same purpose to this 
 day (Hottinger, Hist. Orient. i. 8, p. 301; de 
 nummis Orient. xvii. sq. “The most esteemed 
 of all Hhegabs is a Mooshaf, or copy of the 
 Koran,” Lane, Mod. 2. i. 338). Scaliger even 
 supposes that phylacteries were designed to 
 supersede those amulets, the use of which had 
 been already learnt by the Israelites in Egypt. 
 [AMULETs.] There was a spurious book called 
 Phylact. Angelorum, where Pope Gelasius evi- 
 dently understood the word to mean “ amulets,” 
 fur he remarks that Phylacteria ought rather 
 to be ascribed to devils. In this sense they 
 were expressly forbidden by Pope Gregory (“ Si 
 quis ... phylacteriis usus fuerit, anathema 
 sit,” Sixt. Senensis, Bibl. Sanct. p. 92; ep. Can. 
 36, Concil. Laod.). 
 
 The LXX. rendering ἀσάλευτα (Aquil. ἀτί- 
 vaxTa) must allude to their being tightly bound 
 on the forehead and wrist during prayer. Petit 
 (Var. Lectt. ii. 3) would read ἀζάλευτα (h. e. 
 appensa, αἰδοῖα ἐπὶ ἀποτροπῇ ἢ Schleusner, 
 Thes. 8. v. ἀσάλ.), but he is amply refuted 
 by Spencer (de Legg. Rit. iv. 2, p. 1210) 
 and Witsius (Aegypt. ii. 9, § 11). Jerome calls 
 them Pittaciolu (al. Pictat.), a name which 
 tolerably expresses their purpose (Forcellini, 
 Lea. 8. v.). 
 
 The expression “they make broad their phy- 
 lacteries”” (πλατύνουσι τὰ φυλ. αὐτῶν, Matt. 
 xxiii. 5) refers not so much to the phylactery 
 itself, which seems to have been of a prescribed 
 breadth, as to the case (A¥*¥P) in which the 
 parchment was kept, which the Pharisees 
 (among their other pretentious customs, Mark 
 vii. 3, 4; Luke v. 33, &c.) made as conspicuous 
 as they could (Reland, Antig. ii. 9,15). Misled 
 probably by the term πλατύνουσι, and by the 
 mention of the ΓΝ or fringe (Num. xv. 38, 
 κλῶσμα ὑακίνθινον ἐπὶ τὰ κράσπεδα τῶν πτερυ- 
 γίων, LXX.) in connexion with them, Epiphanius 
 says that they were πλάτεα σήματα πορφύρας, 
 like the Roman Jaticlave, or the stripes on a 
 dalmatic (τὰ δὲ σήματα τῆς πορφύρας φυλακ- 
 τήρια εἰώθασιν of ἠκριβωμένοι μετονομάζειν, c. 
 Haer, i, 33; Sixt. Sen. 1. c.). He says that 
 these purple stripes were worn by the Pharisees 
 with fringes, and four pomegranates, that no 
 one might touch them, and hence he derives 
 their name (Reland, Ant. ii. 9, 15). But that 
 this is an error is clearly shown by Scaliger 
 (Llench, Trihaer. viii. p. 66 sq.). It is said that 
 the Pharisees wore them always, whereas the 
 common people only used them at prayers, be- 
 cause they were considered to be even holier 
 than the }'*¥, or golden plate, on the priest’s 
 tiara (Ex, xxviii. 36), since that had the sacred 
 name once engraved, but in each of the Tephillin 
 
 4A 
 
1090 
 
 the tetragrammaton recurred twenty-three 
 times (Carpzov, App. Critic. p.196). Again the 
 Pharisees wore the Zephillah above the elbow, 
 but the Sadducees on the palm of the hand 
 (Godwin, /. c.). The modern Jews only wear 
 them at morning prayers, and sometimes at 
 noon (Leo of Modena, /. c.). 
 
 In our Lord’s time they were worn by all 
 Jews, except the Karaites, women, and slaves. 
 Boys, when (at the age of thirteen years and a 
 day) they became ΤΊ ΝῊ 3232 (sons of the com- 
 mandments), were bound to wear them (Baba 
 Berac. fol. 22, 1, in Glossa), and therefore they 
 may have been used even by our Lord, as 
 He merely discountenanced their abuse. The 
 suggestion was made by Scaliger (J. c.), and led 
 to a somewhat idle controversy. Lightfoot 
 (Hor. Hebr. ad Matt. xxiii. 5) and Otho (Lez. 
 Rab. p. 656) agree with Scaliger, but Carpzov 
 (i. c.) and others strongly deny it, from a belief 
 that the entire use of phylacteries arose from 
 an error. 
 
 The Karaites explained Deut. vi. 8, Ex. xiii. 
 9, &c., as a figurative command to remember the 
 Law (Reland, Ant. p. 132), as is certainly the 
 case in similar passages (Prov. iii. 3, vi. 21, vii. 
 3; Cant. viii. 6, &c.). It seems clear to us that 
 the scope of these injunctions favours the 
 Karaite interpretation, and in Ex. xiii. 9 the 
 word is not ΤΊ ΒΘ, but II, “a memorial ” 
 (Gerhardus on Deut. vi. 8; Eduardus on Bera- 
 choth, i. 209; Heidanus, de Orig. Erroris, viii. 
 B. 6; Schéttgen, Hor. Hebr. i. 199; Rosen- 
 miiller, ad lJoc.; Hengstenberg, Pent. i. 458). 
 Considering too the nature of the passages 
 inscribed on the phylacteries (by no means the 
 most important in the Pentateuch —for the 
 Fathers are mistaken in saying that the Deca- 
 logue was used in this way, Jer. /..c.; Chrysost. 
 1. c.; Theophyl. ad Matt. xxiii. 5), and the fact 
 that we have no trace whatever of their use 
 before the Exile (during which time the Jews 
 probably learnt the practice of wearing them 
 trom the Babylonians), we have no doubt that 
 the object of the precepts (Deut. vi. 8; Ex. xii. 
 9) was to impress on the minds of the people 
 the necessity of remembering the Law. But 
 the figurative language in which this duty was 
 urged upon them was mistaken for a literal 
 command. An additional argument against 
 the literal interpretation of the direction is the 
 dangerous abuse to which it was immediately 
 liable. Indeed such an observance would defeat 
 the supposed intention of it, by substituting an 
 outward ceremony for an inward remembrance. 
 We have a specimen of this in the curious 
 literalism of Kimchi’s Comment on Ps, i. 2. 
 Starting the objection that it is impossible to 
 meditate in God’s law day and night, because of 
 sleep, domestic cares, &c., he answers that for 
 the fulfilment of the text it is sufficient to wear 
 Lephillin! 
 
 In spite of these considerations, Justin (Dial. 
 ec. Tryph. 1. c.), Chrysostom, Euthymius, Theo- 
 phylact, and many moderns (Baumgarten, 
 Comm. i. 479; Winer, 5. vy. Phylact.) preter the 
 literal meaning. It rests therefore with them 
 to account for the entire absence of all allusion 
 to phylacteries in the O. Τὶ The passages in 
 Proverbs (v. supra) contain no such reference, 
 and in Ezek. xxiv. 17 185 means not a Phylactery 
 
 FRONTLETS 
 
 FULLER 
 
 (as Rashi says), but a turban. [CRowNs.} 
 (Gesen. 7168. p. 1089.) 
 
 The Rabbis have many rules about their use. 
 They were not worn on Sabbaths or other sacred 
 days, because those days were themselves a sign 
 or pledge (MIN), and required no further 
 memorial (Zohar, f. 236; Reland, ἰ. c.). They 
 must be read standing in the morning (when 
 blue can be distinguished from green), but in 
 the evening (at sunset) they might be read 
 sitting. In times of persecution a red thread 
 Was worn instead (Munster, de Prace. uffirm. ; 
 cp. Josh. ii. 18). Both hands were to be 
 used, if possible, in writing them. The leather 
 must have no hole in it. A single blot did not 
 signify if an uneducated boy could read the 
 word. At the top of the parchment no more 
 room must be left than would suffice for the 
 
 letter 5, but at the bottom there might be room 
 even for P or J. A man, when wearing the 
 Tephillin, must not approach within four cubits 
 of a cemetery (Sixt. Senensis, /. c.). He who 
 has a taste for further frivolities (which yet are 
 deeply interesting as illustrative of a priestly 
 superstition) may find them in Lightfoot (Hor. 
 Heb. ad loc.), Schittgen, Otho (Lex. Rab. s. v.), 
 and in the Mishna—especially in the treatise 
 called Rosh Hashanah (see, too, Bab. Berachoth, 
 f. 7a, &c., in Schwabe, pp. 17, 98, 247, &c.). 
 
 The Rabbis even declared that God wore them, 
 arguing from Is, Ixii. 8, Deut. xxxiii. 2; ep. Is. 
 xlix. 16. Perhaps this was a pious fraud to 
 inculcate their use; or it may have had some 
 mystic meaning (Zohar, pt. ii. fol. 2; Carpzov, 
 ἴ 90). 
 
 Josephus gives their general significance (Ant. 
 iv. 8, §13, ὡς περιβλεπτὸν πανταχόθεν τὸ περὶ 
 αὐτοὺς πρόθυμον τοῦ Θεοῦ). They were sup- 
 posed to save from the Devil (Targ. ad Cant. 
 viii. 3) and from sin (Hottinger, Jur. Hebr. Leg. 
 xx. p. 29), and they were used for oaths; but 
 the Rabbis disapproved the application of them 
 to charm wounds, or lull children to sleep (ld. 
 Leg. 253; Maimon. de Idol. ii.). He who wore 
 them was supposed to prolong his days (ls. 
 xxxviii. 16), but he who did not was doomed to 
 perdition, since he thereby broke eight affir- 
 mative precepts (Maimon. Zephil. iv. 26). 
 
 On the analogous practice alluded to in Rey. 
 xiii. 16, xiv. 1, see FOREHEAD. 
 
 Besides the authors already quoted (Sixt. 
 Senensis, Reland, Otho, Lightfoot, Schéttgen, 
 Carpzov, Hottinger, Godwin, Rosenmiiller, 
 &c.), see the following, to whom they refer :— 
 Maimonides, Zephillin; Wagenseil in Sota, cap. 
 ii. 397-418; Surenhusius, Mishna ad Tract. 
 Berachoth, pp. 8, 9; Beck, de Judaeorum liga- 
 mentis precativis, and de usw Phylact. (1679); 
 Basnage, Hist. des Juifs, v. ch. xii. 12 sq. 3 
 Braunius, de Vest. Sacerd. p. 7 sq.3 Buxtorf, 
 Synag. Jud. p. 170 sq. ; Ugolini, Thes, tom. xxi. 5 
 de usu Phylact. There is in this latter work much 
 further information, but we have inserted all 
 that seemed interesting. Full information may 
 also be found in Hamburger, AZ. Abt. ii. s. v. 
 “ Tephillin,” who quotes all the chief ‘Talmudic 
 passages. [F. W. F.] 
 
 FULLER (025, from D253, to tread, Gesen. p. 
 
 657 ; γναφεύς; fullo). The trade of the fullers, 
 so far as it is mentioned in Scripture, appears 
 
FULLER 
 
 to have consisted chiefly in cleansing garments 
 and whitening them. The use of white garments, 
 and also the feeling respecting their use for 
 
 FULLER’S FIELD, 1091 
 
 Rome for discharging positive colour, was 
 abundant in some parts of Palestine, but there is 
 no evidence to show that it was used in the 
 
 THE 
 
 festal and religious purposes, may be gathered | fullers’ trade. 
 
 from the following passages :— 
 Eccles, ix. 8; Dan. vii. 9; Is. Ixiv. 
 6; Zech. iii. ; 2 Sam. vi. 14; 
 1 Ch. xv. 27; Mark ix. 3; Rev. 
 ie, ‘vis 11, vir ον Mishna 
 Tuanith, iv. 8: see also Stat. Silv. 
 i. 2, 2375 Ovid, Fast. 1.79; Clau- Prt) 
 dian, de Laud. Stil. iii. 289. This 
 
 Aranch of the trade was perhaps 
 
 exercised by other persons than 
 
 those who carded the wool and 
 
 smoothed the cloth when woven 
 
 (Mishna Bava Kama, i.; x. 10). 
 
 In applying the marks used to dis- 
 
 tinguish cloths sent to be cleansed, 
 
 fullers were desired to be careful 
 
 to avoid the mixtures forbidden by the Law 
 (Lev. xix. 19; Deut. xxii. 11; Mishna Ciélaim, 
 ix. 10). 
 
 The process of fulling or cleansing cloth, so 
 far as it may be gathered from the practice of 
 other nations, consisted in treading on the 
 garments with the feet or beating with bats in 
 tubs of water, in which some alkaline substance 
 answering the purpose of soap had been dissolved 
 
 (Gesen. Thes. p. 1261, 231; Beckmann, Hist. of 
 
 Inventions, ii. 94, 95, Bohn). The substances 
 used for this purpose which are mentioned in 
 Scripture are 1}, nitre, νίτρον, nitrum (Gesen. 
 Ῥ. 930; Prov. xxy. 20; Jer. ii. 22), and N12; 
 soap, ποία, herba fullonum, herba borith (Gesen. 
 p- 246; Mal. iii. 2). Nitre is found in Egypt 
 and in Syria, and vegetable alkali was also 
 obtained there from the ashes of certain plants, 
 probably Salsola kali (Gesen. p. 246; Plin. xxxi. 
 10, 46; Hasselquist, p. 275; Burckhardt, Syria, 
 Ῥ. 214). The juice also of some saponaceous 
 plant, perhaps Gypsophila struthium, or Saponaria 
 officinalis, was sometimes mixed with the water 
 for the like purpose, and may thus be regarded 
 as representing the soap of Scripture. Other 
 substances also are mentioned as being employed 
 in cleansing, which, together with alkali, seem 
 to identify the Jewish with the Roman process, 
 as urine and chalk, Creta cimolia, and bean-water, 
 i.e. bean-meal mixed with water (Mishna, Shabb. 
 ix. 5; Middah, ix. 6). Urine, both of men and 
 of animals, was regularly collected at Rome for 
 cleansing cloths (Plin. H. NV. xxxviii. 6, 8; Athen. 
 xi. p. 484; Mart. ix.93; Plautus, Asin. v. 2, 57), 
 and it seems not improbable that its use in the 
 fullers’ trade at Jerusalem may have suggested 
 the coarse taunt of Rabshakeh, during his inter- 
 view with the deputies of Hezekiah in the 
 highway of the fuilers’ field (2 K. xviii. 27), 
 but Schoettgen thinks it doubtful whether the 
 Jews made use of it in fulling (Antiq. full. § 9). 
 The process of whitening garments was per- 
 formed by rubbing into them chalk or earth of 
 some kind. Creta cimolia (cimolite) was pro- 
 bably the earth most frequently used. The 
 whitest sort of earth for this purpose is a white 
 potter’s clay or marl, with which the poor at 
 Rome rubbed their clothes on festival days to 
 make them appear brighter (Plin. xxxi. 10, 
 § 118; xxxv. 17). Sulphur, which was used at 
 
 3, 5 
 
 saith é { 
 
 Egyptian Fullers, 
 
 Fe 
 
 The trade of the fullers, which in Egypt was 
 carried on both by men and women, as causing 
 offensive smells, and also as requiring space for 
 drying cloths, appears to have been carried on 
 at Jerusalem outside the city; and from them 
 a field, a monument, and also a Oye (En- 
 rogel), derived their names (Jer. ii. 22; Beck- 
 mann, Hist. of Inv. ii. 92, 106, Bohn; Dict. of 
 Gr. and Rom. Antiq., art. Pullo ; Winer, s. v. 
 Walker ; Wilkinson, ii. 106 [1878]; Saalschiitz,. 
 i, 3, 14, 32, ii: 14, 6; Schoettgen, Antiq.. 
 fulloniae). [HANDICRAFT.] fie We Ps] 
 
 FULLER’S FIELD, THE (02)3 πὴ; 
 ἀγρὸς τοῦ γναφέως, or xvapéws; ager fullonis),. 
 a spot near Jerusalem (2 K. xviii. 17; Is. 
 Xxxvi. 2, vii. 3), so close to the walls that a 
 person speaking from there could be heard on 
 them (2 K. xviii. 17, 26). It is only inci- 
 dentally mentioned in these passages, as giving 
 
 its name toa “highway ” (pp) = an ane 
 road, Gesen. Thes. p. 957 6), “ein” (2) or “on’ 
 
 by, A. V. “in”), which highway was the 
 
 “conduit of the upper pool.” The “end” 
 (ΝΡ) of the conduit, whatever that was, 
 
 appears to have been close to the road (ls. 
 vii. 3). One resort of the fullers of Jerusalem 
 would seem to have been below the city on the 
 south-east side. [EN-ROGEL.] But Rabshakeh 
 and his “ great host ” can hardly have approached 
 in that direction, They must have come from 
 the north—the only accessible side for any body 
 of people—as is certainly indicated by the route 
 traced in Is. x. 28-32 [GIBEAH]; and the 
 fuller’s field was therefore, to judge from this 
 circumstance, on the table-land on the northern 
 side of the city. The “ pool” and the “ conduit ” 
 would be sufficient reasons for the presence of 
 the fullers. 
 
 The fuller’s Monument, mentioned by Josephus 
 (B. J. v. 4, § 2) as being near the N.E. corner 
 of the third wall, was possibly connected with 
 the fuller’s field. The only known conduit on 
 the N. side of the city is that, undoubtedly a 
 very ancient one, which entered the city to the 
 Εν of the Damascus Gate, and in close proximity 
 to it must have been the fuller’s field. 
 
 In considering the nature of this spot, it 
 should be borne in mind that Sade, “field,” is 
 aterm almost invariably confined to cultivated 
 
 A 2 
 
1092 FUNERALS 
 
 arable land, as opposed to unreclaimed ground. 
 (JERUSALEM. } [G.] ΠΕ ἢ 
 
 FUNERALS. [Burra.] 
 FURLONG. [MEAasuRES.] 
 
 FURNACE. Various kinds of furnaces are 
 noticed in the Bible. (1.) 113M is so translated 
 in the A. V. in Gen. xv. 17; Is. xxxi. 9; Neh. 
 iii. 11, xii. 38. Generally the word applies to 
 the baker’s oven, which is described under 
 BREAD, and some think that the “ tower of the 
 furnaces” in Neh. should be rendered “tower of 
 the ovens.” In Gen. xy. and Is. xxxi. it is used in 
 a more general sense. (2.) W253, ἃ smelting or 
 calcining furnace (Gen, xix. 28; Ex. ix. 8, 10, 
 xix. 18), especially a lime-kiln, the use of which 
 was evidently well known to the Hebrews (Is. 
 xxxiii. 12; Amos ii. 1). (3.) 13, a refining 
 furnace (Prov. xvii. 3, xxvii. 215 Ezek. xxii. 
 
 (Wilkinson.) 
 
 18 sq.), metaphorically applied to a state of trial 
 (Deut. iv. 20; 1 K. viii. 51; Is. xlviii. 10; Jer. 
 xi. 4). The form of it was probably similar to 
 the one used in Egypt, which is figured above. 
 
 The Egyptian Potter’s Furnace. (Wilkinson.) 
 
 (4.) JUAN, a large furnace built like a brick- 
 
 kiln, with an opening at the top to cast in the 
 “materials (Dan. iii. 22, 23), with a door on the 
 ground by which the metal might be extracted 
 (». 26). The Roman fornax, as represented in 
 Dict. of Gr. and Rom. Ant, s.n., gives an idea 
 of the Persian Attun. The Babylonians and 
 Persians were in the habit of using the furnace 
 as a means of inflicting capital punishment (Dan. 
 loc. Jer. xxix. 225 2 Mace. vii. 5; Hos. vii. 7). 
 A parallel case is mentioned by Chardin ( Voyage 
 en Perse, iv. 276), two ovens having been kept 
 ready heated for a whole month to throw in any 
 corn-dealers who raised the price of corn. (5.) 
 The potter’s furnace (Ecclus. xxvii. 53 xxxviii. 
 30), which resembles a chimney in shape, and 
 was about five or six feet high, as represented 
 
 GABA 
 above. (6.) The blacksmith’s furnace (Ecclus. 
 xxxviii. 28). The Greek κάμινος, which is 
 
 applied to the two latter, also describes the 
 calcining furnace (Xen. Vectig. iv. 49). It is 
 metaphorically used in the N. T. in this sense 
 (Rey. i. 15, ix. 2), and in Matt. xiii. 42 with an 
 especial reference to Dan. iii. 6. [W. L. B.] 
 
 G 
 
 GA’AL ops =a graft [Ges.] or loathing [al.]: 
 B. var. Γάλααδ, Γάλα, Tadd; A. Tada, Γάδ: 
 Joseph. TadAns: Gaal), son of Ebed, aided 
 the Shechemites in their rebellion against Abi- 
 melech (Judg. ix.; Joseph. Ant. v. 7, ὃ 3, 4). 
 He does not seem to have been a native of 
 Shechem, nor specially interested in the revo- 
 lution, but rather one of a class of condottieri, 
 who at such a period of anarchy would be 
 willing to sell their services to the highest 
 bidder. Josephus calls him τὶς τῶν ἀρχόντων, 
 a term which scarcely designates any special 
 office, as in the case of Zebul (τῶν Σικιμιτῶν 
 ἄρχων, Joseph. 2. ¢.): more probably it has 
 reference to the headship of his family (Judg. 
 ix. 26; Joseph. 7. c.), and the command of a 
 body of men-at-arms, who seem to have been 
 permanently attached to his service (σὺν ὅπλί- 
 ταις καὶ συγγενέσι, Joseph.). His appeal to 
 ante-Israelitish traditions (Judg. ix. 28), to- 
 gether with the re-establishment of idolatry 
 at Shechem, shows that the movement in which 
 he took part was a reactionary one, and pro- 
 ceeded upon the principle of a combination of 
 the aborigines with the idolatrous Israelites 
 against the iconoclastic family of Gideon as re- 
 presented by Abimelech. The ambitious designs 
 of Gaal, who seems to have aspired to the 
 supreme command, awakened the jealousy of 
 Zebul, who recalled Abimelech, and procured 
 the expulsion of Gaal from the city upon a 
 charge of cowardice. [T. E. B.] 
 
 GA’ASH (WYI=spur : B. Γαλαάδ, A. ads; 
 Josh. xxiv. 30: Gaas). On the north side of 
 “the hill of Gaash” (accurately, as in R. V., 
 ‘mountain of G.” '3°7i1), in the district of 
 “mount Ephraim,” was Timnath-serah, or 
 Timnath-heres, the city which at his request 
 was given by the nation to Joshua; where he 
 resided, and where at last he was buried (Josh. 
 xxiv. 30; Judg. ii. 9; cp. Josh. xix. 49, 50). 
 We only hear of it again incidentally as the 
 native place of one of David’s guard, “ Hiddai, 
 or Hurai, of the brooks (the torrent-beds or 
 
 wadys, bn) of Gaash””—the “torrents of the 
 earthquake” (2 Sam. xxiii. 30; 1 Ch. xi. 32), 
 By Eusebius and Jerome it is said to have been 
 near Thamna, i.e. Tibneh, about 12 miles N.E. of 
 Lydda (OS.? p. 255, 63; ep. p. 264, 8). Its site 
 depends on that of TIMNATH-HERES, which has 
 been identified by some writers (see Dill- 
 mann,? in loco) with Tibneh, and by others 
 (Conder) with Kefr Haris, 9 miles S.W. of 
 Shechem. [4.71 [W.] 
 
 GA’/BA (Y13; Γαβαά, Γαιβάλ, Γαβαών ; 
 Gabee, Gaboa, Geba). Pausal pronunciation of 
 GeBA (R. V.). It is found in the A. V. in 
 
 , 
 
GABAEL 
 
 Josh. xviii. 243 Ezra ii. 26; Neh. vii. 30: but 
 in the Hebrew also in 2 Sam. ν. 25; 2 Καὶ, xxiii. 
 8; Meh. xi. 31. [GABDES.] 
 
 GA'BA-EL (BN. Γαβαήλ, A. Γαμαήλ; Vet. 
 Lat. Gababel [Tob. i. 1], Vulg. Gabelus). 1. An 
 ancestor of Tobit (Tob. i, 1). 
 
 2. A poor Jew (Tob. i. 17, Vulg.) of “ Rages 
 in Media,” to whom Tobias lent (sub chiro- 
 grapho dedit, Vulg.) ten talents of silver, which 
 Gabael afterwards faithfully restored to Tobias 
 in the time of Tobit’s distress (Tob. 1. 14, iv. 1, 
 
 720, v. 6, ix., x. 2). [GABRIAS. ] [Bek W-| 
 
 GAB’ATHA (Bagatha), Esth. xii. 1. [Bic- 
 THAN. | 
 
 GAB’'BAI ('33= ? exactor of tribute; Β. Γηβή 
 [for N. and A. see Swete’s text]; Gebbai), ap- 
 parently the head of an important family of 
 Benjamin resident at Jerusalem (Neh. xi. 8). 
 
 GAB’BATHA (TaBBaba; Gabbatha). The 
 Hebrew or Chaldee appellation of a place also 
 called “ Payement ” (λιθόστρωτον), where the 
 judgment-seat or bema (βῆμα) was planted, from 
 his place on which Pilate delivered our Lord to 
 death (John xix. 13). The name, and the in- 
 cident which leads to the mention of the name, 
 occur nowhere but in this passage of St. John. 
 The place was outside the praetorium (A. V. 
 “judgment-hall,” R. V. “ palace”), for Pilate 
 brought Jesus for th from thence to it. 
 
 It issuggested by Lightfoot (Herc. on St. John 
 in loco) that the word is derived from 24, “ἃ 
 
 surface,” in which case Gabbatha would be a mere 
 translation of λιθόστρωτον. There was a room 
 in the Temple in which the Sanhedrin sat, and 
 which was called Gazith (see Edersheim, Life 
 and Times of Jesus the Messiah, ii. 553), because 
 it was paved with smooth and square flags 
 (1a); and Lightfoot conjectures that Pilate 
 
 may on this occasion have delivered his judg- 
 ment in that room. But this is not consistent 
 with the practice of St. John, who in other 
 instances gives the Hebrew name as_ that 
 properly belonging to the place, not as a mere 
 translation of a Greek one. Besides, Pilate 
 evidently spoke from the bema—the regular 
 seat of justice—and this in an important place 
 like Jerusalem would be a fixed spot, and that 
 spot not within the Temple, where the Prae- 
 torium, a Roman residence with the idolatrous 
 emblems,* could not have been. The word 
 Gabbatha is more probably Chaldee, NN23, 
 from a root signifying height or roundness 
 (see Edersheim, ii. 578, n. 2)—the root of the 
 Hebrew word Gibeah, which is the common 
 term in the O. T. for a bald rounded hill, or 
 elevation of moderate height. In this case 
 Gabbatha designated the place on which the bema 
 was planted, or perhaps the elevated bema; and 
 the “pavement” was possibly some mosaic or 
 tesselated work, either forming the bema itself, 
 or the flooring of the court immediately round 
 it—perhaps some such work as that which we 
 are told by Suetonius (Caesar, 46) that Julius 
 
 a These emblems were suppressed at Jerusalem. For 
 the movable nature of the bema, see Joseph. B. J. ii. 
 14, § 8. Caesarea was the station of the Procurator, not 
 Jerusalem. 
 
 GAD 10938 
 
 Caesar was accustomed to carry with him on 
 his expeditions, in order to give the bema or 
 tribunal its conventional elevation. [G.] [W.] 
 
 GAB'DES (A. Γαββῆς, B. Κάββης ; Gabea), 
 1 Esd.'v. 20. In Ezra ii, 26, Gapa. 
 
 GAD’RIAS (B. Γαβρίας; &. Γαβρεί, ie. 
 ΤΡ}, the man of Jehovah), according to the 
 present text of the LXX. the brother of Gabael, 
 the creditor of Tobit (Tob. i. 14), though in 
 another place (Tob. iv, 20, τῷ τοῦ Γαβρία; 
 cp. Fritzsche ad loc.) he is described as his 
 father by E. V. (but doubtfully, the word “son” 
 being in italics). The readings throughout are 
 very uncertain, and in the Versions the names 
 are strangely confused. It is an obvious cor- 
 rection to suppose that Γαβαήλῳ τῷ ἀδελφῷ τῷ 
 TaBpia should be read in i. 14, as is in fact 
 suggested by N., Γαβήλῳ ... τῷ a5. τῷ Tape. 
 The misunderstanding of τῷ ἀδελφῷ (cp. Tob. i. 
 10, 16, &c.) naturally occasioned the omission 
 of the article. The Old Latin has, Gabelo fratri 
 meo filio Gabahel, and in iv. 20. [B. F. W.] 
 
 GAB’RIEL Oya = man of God; Ta- 
 βριήλ, LXX. and N. T.). The word, which is 
 not in itself distinctive, but merely a descrip- 
 tion of the angelic office, is used as a proper 
 name or title of the Angel sent to Daniel (Dan. 
 viii. 16, ix. 21), and of the Angel of the An- 
 nunciation sent to Zacharias and to the Blessed 
 Virgin (Luke i. 19, 26. In the Targums and 
 Chaldee paraphrase of the Old Testament, 
 Gabriel is spoken of [Deut. xxxiv. 16] as one 
 of the angelic ministrants at the burial of 
 Moses, and [2 Ch. xxxii. 21] as the Angel 
 destroying the army of Sennacherib). In the 
 ordinary Jewish and Christian traditions he is 
 described as one of the “four great Arch- 
 angels,” or as one of the “seven holy Angels 
 who stand before God” (cp. Luke i. 19, and 
 Rev. viii. 2). In Holy Scripture he is called 
 simply “the Angel” and (in Dan. ix. 21) “the 
 man Gabriel;” and he appears as the repre- 
 sentative of the angelic nature, not in its 
 dignity or power of contending against evil 
 [MicHAExL], but in its ministration of comfort 
 and sympathy to man. Thus his mission to 
 Daniel is to interpret in plain words the vision 
 of the ram and the he-goat, and to comfort him 
 after his prayer with the prophecy of the 
 “seventy weeks.” Similarly in the New 
 Testament he is the herald of good tidings, 
 declaring the coming of the predicted Messiah 
 and of His forerunner. His prominent character, 
 therefore, is that of a “ man of God,” a “ fellow- 
 servant ᾿ of the saints on earth; and there is a 
 corresponding simplicity, and absence of all 
 terror and mystery, in his communications to 
 men, though the vision of him inspired special 
 
 awe. It may be noted that the Koran, imi- 
 tating in this respect our Holy Scripture, 
 makes him the special medium of Divine 
 
 revelation to Mahomet, and so a kind of patron- 
 Angel of Islam. [A. B.] 
 
 GAD (13; Γάδ, Joseph. Γάδας ; Gad), Jacob’s 
 seventh son, the first-born of Zilpah, Leah’s 
 maid, and whole-brother to Asher (Gen. xxx. 
 11-13; xlvi. 16, 18). (a) The passage in which 
 the bestowal of the name of Gad is preserved— 
 
1094 
 
 like the others, an exclamation on his birth— 
 is more than usually obscure: “ And Leah 
 said, Fortunate! (R. V.; be gad, 333), and she 
 called his name Gad” (Gen, xxx. 11). Such is 
 supposed to be the meaning of the old text of 
 the passage (the Ketib): so it stood at the time 
 of the LXX., who render the key-word by ἐν 
 τύχῃ; in which they are followed by Jerome in 
 the Vulgate, feliciter, and by most modern com- 
 mentators.* But in the marginal emendations of 
 the Masorites (the Keri) the word is given T2823, 
 “Gad comes” (A. V. “a troop cometh’’). This 
 construction is adopted by the ancient Versions 
 of Onkelos, Aquila (ἦλθεν ἡ ζῶσις), and Sym- 
 machus (ἦλθεν Tad). (0) In the blessing of 
 Jacob, however, we find the name played upon 
 ina different manner: “Gad” is here taken as 
 meaning a marauding band or troop (the term 
 constantly used for which is gedud, 1173), and 
 
 the allusion—the turns of which it is impos- 
 sible adequately to convey in English—would 
 seem to be to the irregular life of predatory 
 warfare which would be pursued by the tribe 
 after their settlement on the borders of the 
 Promised Land. ‘Gad, a plundering troop 
 (gedud) shall plunder him (ye-guident), but he 
 will plunder (ya-gid) at their heels” (Gen. xlix. 
 19). A. V. renders the words, “ Gad, a troop 
 shall overcome him; but he shall overcome at 
 the last.’ The R. V. is, “Gad, a troop shall 
 press upon him, but he shall press upon their 
 heel.” » (c) The force here lent to the name 
 has been by some partially transferred to the 
 narrative of Gen. xxx., 6.4. the Samaritan Ver- 
 sion, the Veneto-Greek, and our own A. V.; but 
 it must not be overlooked that the word gedid 
 —vby which it is here sought to interpret the 
 gad of Gen, xxx. 11—possessed its own special 
 signification of turbulence and fierceness, which 
 makes it hardly applicable to children in the 
 sense of a number or crowd, the image sug- 
 gested by the A. V. Exactly as the turns of 
 Jacob’s language apply to the characteristics 
 of the tribe, it does not appear that there is 
 any connexion between his allusions and those 
 in the exclamation of Leah. The key to the 
 latter is probably lost. To suppose that Leah 
 was invoking some ancient divinity, the god 
 Fortune, who is conjectured to be once alluded 
 to—and only once—in the so-called later part of 
 the Book of Isaiah, under the title of Gad (Is. Ixy. 
 11. A. -V.. “that troop,” R. V. Fortunes”? 
 Ges., “dem Gliick’’), is by some considered a 
 poor explanation, by others not improbable in 
 an Aramaean, 
 
 Of the childhood and life of the individual 
 Gap nothing is preserved. At the time of the 
 descent into Egypt seven sons are ascribed to him, 
 remarkable from the fact that a majority of their 
 names have plural terminations, as if those of 
 families rather than persons (Gen. xlvi. 16). The 
 list, with a slight variation, is again given on 
 the occasion of the census in the wilderness of 
 Sinai (Num. xxvi. 15-18). [Arop; Ezpon; 
 
 GAD 
 
 5. In bis Quaest. in Genesim, Jerome has in fortuna. 
 Josephus (Ant. i. 19, § 5) gives it a still different turn— 
 τυχαῖος =fortuitus. 
 
 > Jerome (De Benedict. Jacobi) interprets this of the 
 revenge taken by the warriors of the tribe on their 
 return from the conquest of Western Palestine, for the 
 incursions of the desert tribes during their absence. 
 
 GAD 
 
 | Oznt.1_ The position of Gad during the march 
 to the Promised Land was on the south side of 
 the Tabernacle (Num. ii. 14). The leader of the 
 tribe at the time of the start from Sinai was 
 Eliasaph, son of Reuel or Deuel (ii. 14, x. 20). 
 Gad is regularly named in the various enume- 
 rations of the tribes through the wanderings— 
 at the despatching of the spies (xiii, 15)—the 
 numbering in the plains of Moab (xxvi. 3, 15); 
 but the only inference we can draw is an indica- 
 tion of a commencing alliance with the tribe 
 which was subsequently to be his next neighbour 
 (see Dillmann? and Delitzsch [1887] in Gen, J. c.). 
 He has left the more closely related tribe of 
 Asher, to take up his position next to Reuben. 
 These two tribes also preserve a near equality in 
 their numbers, not suffering from the fluctuations 
 which were endured by the others. At the first 
 census Gad had 45,650, and Reuben 46,500; at 
 the last, Gad had 40,500, and Reuben 43,330. 
 This alliance was doubtless induced by the simi- 
 larity of their pursuits. Of all the sons of 
 Jacob these two tribes alone returned to the 
 land which their forefathers had left five hundred 
 years before, with their occupations unchanged. 
 “The trade of thy slaves hath been about cattle 
 from our youth even till now ”—‘* we are shep- 
 herds, both we and our fathers ” (Gen. xlvi. 34, 
 xlvii. 4)—such was the account which the Pa- 
 triachs gave of themselves to Pharaoh. The 
 civilisation and the persecutions of Egypt had 
 worked a change in the habits of most of the 
 tribes, but Reuben and Gad remained faithful to 
 the pastoral pursuits of Abraham, Isaac, and 
 Jacob; and at the halt on the east of Jordan we 
 find them coming forward to Moses with the 
 representation that they “have cattle”—“a 
 ereat multitude of cattle ’’—and the land where 
 they now are is a “place for cattle.” What 
 should they do in the close precincts of the 
 country west of Jordan with all their flocks and 
 herds? Wherefore let this land, they pray, be 
 given them for a possession, and let them not be 
 brought over Jordan (Num. xxxii. 1-5). They 
 did not, however, attempt to evade taking their 
 proper share of the difficulties of subduing the 
 land of Canaan; and after that task had been 
 effected, and the apportionment amongst the 
 nine and a half tribes completed “at the door- 
 way of the tabernacle of the congregation in 
 Shiloh, before Jehovah,” they were dismissed by 
 Joshua “to their tents,” to their “ wives, their 
 little ones, and their cattle,” which they had 
 left behind them in Gilead. To their tents they 
 went—to the dangers and delights of the free 
 Bedawi life in which they had elected to remain, 
 and in which—a few partial glimpses excepted — 
 
 the later history allows them to remain hidden 
 from view. 
 
 The country allotted to Gad formed the 
 northern portion of the kingdom of Sihon, king 
 of the Amorites. This kingdom, which was 
 divided between Reuben and Gad, lay east of 
 Jordan, and comprised all the hill-country from 
 the Arnon, Wady Mojib, to the Jabbok, Waddy ez- 
 Zerka, and the whole of the Jordan valley to the 
 east of the river from the Salt Sea to the Sea of 
 Chinnereth, or Gennesaret (Deut. iii. 12-17; 
 Josh. xii. 2,3; xiii. 27). North of the Jabbok* 
 
 ¢ The Jabbok now forms the boundary between two 
 Turkish administrative districts. 
 
Ϊ , 
 GAD 
 
 was the kingdom of Og, which was allotted to 
 the half tribe of Manasseh, and the boundary 
 between the two Amorite kingdoms thus became 
 the common frontier between Gad and Manasseh. 
 The possessions of Gad commenced at or near 
 Heshbon (Josh. xiii. 26). They embraced “ half 
 the hill country of Gilead’ (Deut. iii. 12), or 
 “half the land of the children of Ammon” 
 (Josh. xiii. 25); and included the ancient sanc- 
 tuary of Mahanaim. On the east the furthest 
 landmark given is “ Aroer, that faces Rabbah,” 
 the present ‘Ammdn (Josh. xiii. 25). West was 
 the Jordan (v.27). The territory thus consisted 
 fof two comparatively separate and independent 
 parts—(1) the high land, on the general level 
 of the country east of Jordan; and (2) the 
 sunk valley of the Jordan itself—the former 
 
 GAD 1095 
 
 | stopping short at the Jabbok ; the latter occupy- 
 ing the whole of the great valley on the east side 
 of the river, and extending up to the very sea 
 of Chinnereth, ot Gennesaret, itself. 
 
 The territory of Gad has been well described 
 as a “combination of rich arable and pasture 
 lands with fine forests” (Oliphant, Land of 
 Gilead, p. 223), as “park-like and beautiful,’ 
 and as “ offering the most attractive combina- 
 tion of soil, climate, and scenery” (p. 197). 
 The undulating downs clothed with rich grass, 
 on the east, are pre-eminently a “land for 
 cattle”? (Num. xxxii. 4). The broken country 
 on the west above the Jordan is very pic- 
 turesque, and “most beautifully varied with 
 hanging woods, mostly of the vallonia oak, 
 laurestinus, cedar, common arbutus, Arbutus 
 
 ΞΞ 
 5Π ΞΞ Ay 
 
 SSN TRL ST Ὁ RI QR μΩΣΞΞ 9 Σ now 
 . MO SASS ΚΠ 07 NS 
 7. Sucedth Reo nea εὺς SGN BIN ee ZAIN El Brier 
 Zi ZAR LN GN AR RAR DNA > Sa (δ Χ 
 Zp ACN NY WAS WIENS onc GOW? te ςς 
 WMA Za SAW’ Bee ge 
 <7 aN Se ee 
 agi WN SS OEE 7 Z 5. 
 > i τ Ν Ὶ Ce aN Ws Lie Ue ΤῈ 
 WSS ὴ KZ (AE GOYA x By Rill 
 ἐκ. S\\ WAN a? 155 = ee ὡ 
 is ane Sis AAS ν ΖΕ ἢ Aas 
 77. Acar  Ζ  Π ΞΞΞΣ Δα ὶς Bos 
 Lan 
 = HUISSN WAIN ZG AR ἢ “ 
 CSSA ΞΖ ‘ 
 Ws | x Wes [yx ΝΣ 
 ANIC f AW WNW wisi ; 
 jr ΡΣ 1} i 
 WY WB ee = 
 SS ὌΡΟΣ | 
 
 Lorne ? 
 Ss ΘΑΉ mss 
 
 Map o 
 
 andrachne, &e. At times the country had all 
 the appearance of a noble park” (Irby, p. 147). 
 It is also a land of rivers and springs, and the 
 gorges through which the streams find their way 
 from the plateau to the Jordan valley are of 
 great beauty. ‘Clear brooks are running be- 
 tween lawns of turf, or breaking in falls over 
 high precipices, hung with brambles and green 
 with fern: thick oak woods of most English 
 character climb the slopes and here and there 
 crown a white chalk-cliff’” (Conder, Heth and 
 Moab, p. 163). The highest point, Jebel Osh‘a, 
 is 53,597 ft., and the level of the plateau is from 
 2,500 ft. to 3,000 ft. above the sea. [GILEAD.] 
 
 Such was the territory ailotted to the Gadites : 
 but there is no doubt that they soon extended 
 themselves beyond these limits. The official 
 records of the reign of Jotham of Judah (1 Ch. 
 
 Z ZERO R Ν 
 MNS Www ge ὺς 
 = PASS ἊΣ wy anil a 
 Εν τηνε Τ᾿ ἘΦ RIAA, 
 1. 2, 
 
 ἌΝ NY NZ SG As SEW = 
 A NPIS SA, WEE SAE 
 
 iN As SQN WE NS 
 
 ANUS — ISSO AY \S 
 WS ΣῊ Sons, 3 
 > 
 
 f Gad. 
 
 y. 11, 16) show them to have been at that time 
 established over the whole of Gilead, and in 
 possession of Bashan as far as Salcah — the 
 modern Sél/khad, a town at the eastern extremity 
 of the noble plain of the Hawrdn—and very far 
 both to the north and the east of the border 
 given them originally, while the Manassites 
 were pushed still further northwards to Mount 
 Hermon (1 Ch. y. 23). They soon became iden- 
 tified with Gilead—that name so memorable in 
 the earliest history of the nation; and in many 
 of the earlier records it supersedes the name of 
 Gad, as we have already remarked it did that of 
 Bashan. In the Song of Deborah “Gilead ” is 
 said to have “abode beyond Jordan” (Judg. v. 
 17). Jephthah appears to have been a Gadite, a 
 native of Mizpeh (Judg. xi. 34; cp. v.31, and Josh. 
 xiii, 26), and yet he is always designated “the 
 
1090 GAD 
 
 Gileadite;”’ and so also with Barziliai of Maha- 
 naim (2 Sam, xvii. 17; Ezra ii, 61: ep. Josh, 
 xiii. 26). 
 
 The character of the tribe is throughout 
 strongly marked—fierce and warlike—‘ strong 
 men of might, men of war for the battle, that 
 could handle shield and buckler, their faces the 
 faces of lions, and like roes upon the mountains 
 ’ for swiftness.” Such is the graphic description 
 given of those eleven heroes of Gad—“ the least 
 of them more than equal to a hundred, and the 
 greatest to a thousand’’—who joined their 
 fortunes to David at the time of his greatest 
 discredit and embarrassment (1 Ch. xii. 8), un- 
 deterred by the natural difficulties of “ flood and 
 field” which stood in their way. Surrounded, 
 as they were, by Ammonites, Midianites, Hagar- 
 ites, ““ Children of the East,” and all the other 
 countless tribes, animated by a common hostility 
 to the strangers whose coming had dispossessed 
 them of their fairest districts, the warlike pro- 
 pensities of the tribe must have had many oppor- 
 tunities of exercise. One of its great engage- 
 ments is related in 1 Ch. v. 19-22. Here their 
 opponents were the wandering Ishmaelite tribes 
 of Jetur, Nephish, and Nodab (cp. Gen. xxv. 15), 
 nomad people, possessed of an enormous wealth 
 in camels, sheep, and asses, to this day the 
 characteristic possessions of their Bedawi suc- 
 cessors. This immense booty came into the hands 
 of the conquerors, who seem to have entered 
 with it on the former mode of life of their 
 victims: probably pushed their way further into 
 the eastern wilderness in the “steads” of these 
 Hagarites. Another of these encounters is 
 contained in the history of Jephthah, but this 
 latter story develops elements of a different 
 nature and a higher order than the mere fierce- 
 ness necessary to repel the attacks of the 
 plunderers of the desert. In the behaviour of 
 Jephthah, throughout that affecting history, 
 there are traces of a spirit which we may 
 almost call chivalresque: the high tone taken 
 with the Elders of Gilead, the noble but fruitless 
 expostulation with the king of Ammon before the 
 attack, the hasty vow, the overwhelming grief, 
 and yet the persistent devotion of purpose, surely 
 in all these there are marks of a great nobility 
 of character, which must have been more or less 
 characteristic of the Gadites in general. If to 
 this we add the loyalty, the generosity, and the 
 delicacy of Barzillai (2 Sam. xix. 32-39), we 
 obtain a very high idea of the tribe at whose 
 head were such men as these. Nor must we, 
 while enumerating the worthies of Gad, forget 
 that in all probability Elijah the Tishbite, “ who 
 was of the inhabitants of Gilead,” was one of 
 then. 
 
 But while exhibiting these high personal 
 qualities, Gad appears to have been wanting in 
 the powers necessary to enable the tribe to take 
 any active or leading part in the confederacy of 
 the nation. The warriors who rendered such as- 
 sistance to David might, when Ishbosheth set up 
 his court at Mahanaim as king of Israel, have 
 done much towards affirming his rights. Had 
 Abner made choice of Shechem or Shiloh instead 
 of Mahanaim—the quick, explosive Ephraim in- 
 stead of the unready Gad—who can, doubt that 
 the troubles of David’s reign would have been 
 immensely increased, perhaps the establishment 
 of the northern kingdom antedated by nearly a 
 
 GAD 
 
 century ? David’s presence at the same city 
 during his flight from Absalom produced no 
 effect on the tribe, and they are not mentioned. 
 as having taken any part in the quarrels betweem 
 Ephraim and Judah. 
 
 Cut off as Gad was by position and circum- 
 stances from its brethren on the west of Jordan, 
 it still retained some connexion with them. We 
 may infer that it was considered as belonging to 
 the northern kingdom—“ Know ye not,” says 
 Ahab in Samaria, “ know ye not that Ramoth in 
 Gilead is ours, and we be still, and take it not. 
 out of the hand of the king of Syria?” (1 K. 
 xxii. 3). The territory of Gad was the battle- 
 field on which the long and fierce struggles of 
 Syria and Israel were fought out, and, as an 
 agricultural pastoral country, it must have 
 suffered severely in consequence (2 K. xx. 33). 
 The ‘men of Gad” are supposed to be noticed 
 on the Moabite Stone (1. 10; Records of the 
 Past, New Ser. ii. 208); but it is possible that 
 “Gad” may have another meaning in this. 
 passage. 
 
 Gad was carried into captivity by Tiglath- 
 pileser (1 Ch. ν. 26), and in the time of Jere- 
 miah the cities of the tribe seem to have been 
 inhabited by the Ammonites. “ Hath Israel no 
 sons? hath he no heir? why doth Malcham 
 (ie. Moloch) inherit Gad, and his people dwell 
 in his cities?” (Jer. xlix. 1). [Gal wel 
 
 GAD Ca; Γάδ; Gad), “the seer” (ΠῚΠ|7), 
 or “the king’s seer,” ic. David’s—such appears. 
 to have been his official title (1 Ch. xxix. 29 ς 
 2 Ch. xxix. 25; 2 Sam. xxiv. 11; 1 Ch. xxi. 9) 
 —was “a prophet ” (8°23), who appears to have 
 joined David when in “the hold,” and at whose: 
 advice David quitted it for the forest of Hareth 
 (1 Sam. xxii. 5). Whether he remained with 
 David during his wanderings is not to be ascer- 
 tained: we do not again encounter him till late 
 in the life of the king, when he reappears in 
 connexion with the punishment inflicted for the 
 numbering of the people (2 Sam. xxiv. 11-19 ;. 
 1 Ch. xxi. 9-19). But he was evidently at- 
 tached to the royal establishment at Jerusalem, 
 for he wrote a book of the Acts of David (1 Ch. 
 xxix. 29), and also assisted in settling the ar- 
 rangements for the musical service of the “ house 
 of God,” by which his name was handed down 
 to times long after his own (2 Ch. xxix. 25). In 
 the abruptness of his introduction Gad has been 
 compared with Elijah (Jerome, Qu.. Hebr. om 
 1 Sam. xxii. 5), with whom he may have been 
 of the same tribe, if his name can be taken as 
 denoting his parentage, but this is unsupported by 
 any evidence. Nor is there any apparent ground 
 for Ewald’s suggestion (Gesch. iii. 116) that he 
 was of the schoo] of Samuel. If this could be 
 made out, it would afford a natural reason for 
 his joining David. [6 
 
 GAD (13; δαιμόνιον, &. δαίμων ; Fortuna). 
 Properly “the Gad,” with the article. In the 
 A. V. of Is. Ixv. 11 the clause “that prepare a 
 table for that troop” has in the margin instead 
 of the last word the proper name Gad, which 
 evidently denotes some idol (ep. the second! 
 clause where the A. V. text “number” is in 
 marg. Meni, and in R. V. “ Destiny”). ‘Phat 
 Gad was the deity Fortune, under whatever 
 
GAD 
 
 outward form it was worshipped, is supported 
 by the etymology, by the common assent of 
 commentators, and by the R. V. It is evidently 
 
 connected with the Syriac Iny gadé, ‘* fortune, 
 
 luck,” and with the Arabic Ss, jad, “good 
 
 fortune,” and Gesenius is probably right in his 
 conjecture that Gad was the planet Jupiter, 
 which was regarded by the astrologers of the 
 East (Pococke, Spec. Hist. Ar. p. 130) as the 
 star of greater good fortune. The name appears 
 frequently in Phoenician (6.5. DYI73) and Pal- 
 myrene (¢.g. NMA) inscriptions (see MV."; 
 Biithgen, Beitrage z. Semit. Religionsgeschichte, 
 p- 77); and a trace of the Syrian worship of 
 Gad is to be found in the exclamation of Leah, 
 when Zilpah bare a son (Gen, xxx. 11; 133, 
 begad [LXX. ἐν τύχῃ], the Kethid reading now 
 generally preferred to the Keri 11 N32, “Gad, 
 or good fortune cometh”). The Targum of 
 Pseudo-Jonathan and the Jerusalem Targum 
 both render “a lucky planet cometh,” and testi- 
 mony to the worship of Gad among the ancient 
 Canaanites is furnished by the names Baal-Gad, 
 Migdal-Gad. The name is not Babylonian, 
 however identical the worship of Gad and Bel 
 is, by some, thought to have been. Buxtorf 
 (Lec. Talm. s. v.) reports the ancient custom 
 for each man to have in his house a splendid 
 couch, which was not used, but was set apart 
 for “the prince of the house;” that is, for the 
 star or constellation Fortune, to render it more 
 propitious. This couch was called the couch 
 of Gada, or good-luck (Talm. Babl. Sanhed. 
 f. 20a; Nedarim, f. 56a). Again in Bereshith 
 Rabba, p. 65, the words 928 DAp? in Gen. xxvii. 
 31 are explained as an invocation to Gada or 
 Fortune. Rabbi Moses the Priest, quoted by 
 
 Aben Ezra (on Gen. xxx. 11), says “ that 335 
 (Is. Ixv. 11) signifies the star of luck, which 
 points to everyining that is good; for thus is 
 the language of Kedar (Arabic): but he says 
 that 31 δὲ ἃ (Gen. xxx. 11) is not used in the 
 same sense.” 
 
 Illustrations of the ancient custom of /ecti- 
 sternia (cp. Jer. vii. 18, li. 44) or the placing 
 a banqueting table in honour of idols will be 
 found in the table spread for the sun among 
 the Ethiopians (Her. iii. 17, 18), and in the 
 feast made by the Babylonians for their god 
 Bel, which is described in the Apocryphal his- 
 tory of Bel and the Dragon, v. 3 (cp. also 
 Her. i. 181, &c., and the fact as attested by 
 Nebuchadnezzar; see Speaker’s Comm. on Bel 
 and the Dragon, v. 3). The table in the temple 
 of Belus is described by Diodorus Siculus (ii. 9) 
 as being of beaten gold, 40 feet long, 15 wide, 
 and weighing 500 talents. On it were placed 
 two drinking cups (καρχήσια) weighing 30 
 talents, two censers of 300 talents each, and 
 three golden goblets, that of Jupiter or Bel 
 weighing 1200 Babylonian talents. The couch 
 and table of the god in the temple of Zeus 
 Triphylius at Patara in the island of Panchaea 
 are mentioned by Diodorus (vy. 46). Cp. also 
 Virg. Aen. ii. 763: 
 
 **Hue undique Troia gaza 
 Incensis erepta adytis, mensaeque deorun 
 
 Crateresque awro solidi, captivaque vestis 
 Congeritur.” 
 
 GADARA 1097 
 
 Other, now obsolete, opinions upon Gad may be 
 seen in the first edition of this Dictionary. See 
 the commentaries on Isaiah (/. c.) by Delitzsch* 
 and Dillmann,® and the monographs noted there 
 and by Baudissin in Herzog’s REZ 5. n. 
 “Gad.” (W. A. W.] [FA] 
 
 GAD, RIVER OF (R. V. “valley of 
 {[marg., toward ; see Driver, Notes on the Heb. 
 Lext of the BL. of Sam. in loco} Gad”’), 2 Sam. 
 xxiv. 5. From its mention in connexion with 
 Aroer, and “the city that lieth in the midst of 
 the river,” it is evident that the river Arnon 
 is intended. Riehm, however (//WP. s. vy. 
 Gad), identifies it with the Jabbok. [ARNON; 
 AROER. | νη 
 
 GAD'/ARA (Γάδαρα; Eth. Γαδαρεύς, fem. 
 Tadapis) is not mentioned in the Bible, but is 
 evidently referred to in the expression “ country 
 of the Gadarenes,” χώρα or περίχωρος τῶν 
 Γαδαρηνῶν (Mark ν. 1; Luke viii. 26,37). The 
 town would appear, from its name (Gadara = 
 Geder, Gederah, Gederoth, Gedor), to have been 
 of Jewish or earlier origin, and, according to a 
 tradition preserved in the Mishna (Hrakhin, ix. 
 6), it was fortified by Joshua. The first his- 
 torical notice of Gadara is its surrender to 
 Antiochus “the Great,” after his victory, B.c. 
 198, over Scopas, the general of Ptolemy, at the 
 sources of the Jordan (Polyb. v. 71; Josephus, 
 Ant. xii. 5, § 3). But, like other cities in the 
 debateable provinces of Phoenicia and Coele- 
 Syria, it must previously have undergone many 
 vicissitudes during the long war between the 
 Seleucidae and the Ptolemies. It was taken 
 from the Syrians by Alexander Jannaeus, early 
 in his reign (8.0. 105-79), after a siege of ten 
 months (Ant. xiii. 18, § 3; B. Ji. 4, § 2), and 
 its inhabitants were apparently enslaved (ZB. J. 
 i. 4, § 3), and compelled to accept the religion 
 of the Jews (Ant. xiii. 15, § 4). Possibly it was 
 the scene of Alexander’s defeat by the Arabs 
 (Ant. xiii. 18, ὃ 5); but cp. B. J. i. 4, ὃ 4, in 
 which this battle is said to have taken place 
 near Golan. Gadara remained in the possession 
 of the Jews for many years, apparently until it 
 was destroyed by them (B. J. i. 7, § 7) during 
 the civil war between Aristobulus and Hyrcanus. 
 Shortly afterwards Pompey, having taken Jeru- 
 salem (B.C. 63), rebuilt Gadara to gratify his 
 freedman Demetrius, who was a Gadarene, and 
 at the same time made it a free city and restored 
 it to its own citizens. Like all the other cities. 
 to which Pompey granted self-government, and 
 freedom and immunity from taxation, it was 
 placed under the jurisdiction of the Governor 
 of Syria, and counted from the era of Pompey, 
 B.c. 64 (Ant. xiv. 4,§ 4; B.J.i. 7, § 7). When 
 Gabinius, who was Proconsul of Syria, B.c. 57-55, 
 instituted five Sanhedrin for the government 
 of the Jews, he seated one of them at Gadara 
 (Ant, xiv. 5, § 4; 8. J. i. 8, § ὅλ." Augustus 
 gave the city to Herod the Great (Ant. xv. 7, 
 § 3), whose government does not seem to have 
 given complete satisfaction to the Gadarenes 
 
 * Schiirer, Geschichte des judischen Volkes im Zeitalter 
 Christi, i. 275, τι. 5, ii. 89 sq., partly on the ground that 
 a Sanhedrin would hardly be located in a free city, 
 proposes to read Gazara for Gadara, and to place the seat 
 of the Sanhedrin at Gezer in Judaea. 
 
1098 GADARA 
 
 (Ant. xv. 10, §§ 2, 3). On Herod’s death it-was 
 transferred back to Syria (Ant. xvii. 11, ὃ 4; 
 B. J. ii. 6, § 3). 
 
 At the very commencement of the Jewish 
 insurrection, the Jews, enraged at the massacre 
 of their kinsmen at Caesarea, ravaged the 
 
 country round Gadara, and set fire to the villages | 
 
 that belonged to it. Upon this the Syrian 
 residents put the most troublesome Jews to 
 death, and imprisoned others (Vit. § 9; B. J. ii. 
 18, §§ 1, 2, 5). Not long afterwards the 
 Gadarenes, with the people of Gabara, Sogane, 
 and Tyre, would appear to have attacked and 
 captured Gischala, where the Jews had declared 
 against the Romans (Vit. § 10); and at a later 
 period Gadara was taken by Josephus (Vit. § 15). 
 It opened its gates to Vespasian® when he 
 marched against it after having crushed the in- 
 surrection in Galilee, and the people pulled 
 down its walls to show that they desired peace 
 (B. J. iv. 7, § 3). The coins of Gadara are 
 autonomous and imperial; and cover the period 
 from the year 8 (B.C. 56) to the year 303 
 (A.D. 239). The types are: a female head with 
 mural crown; cornucopiae; the figure of 
 Astarte crowned ; Jupiter seated in a tetrastyle 
 temple ; Hercules; Pallas; and a trireme with the 
 legend TFAAAPEWN NAYMA. The surname 
 
 Pompeiaus appears first on a coin of Antoninus ; 
 
 GADARA 
 
 warm springs and baths (Eusebius and Jerome, 
 OS.? p. 248, 11; p. 219, 78; p. 130, 15; p. 91, 26; 
 Itin. Ant. Mart. vi.). According to the Jeru- 
 salem Talmud (Zrubin, ν. 7) Hamthan (Amatha) 
 was a Sabbath day’s journey from the city 
 Josephus calls Gadara, at the time of the Jewish 
 War, the capital of Peraea; and Polybius says 
 that it was one of the most strongly fortified 
 cities in the country (Joseph. B. /. iv. 7, § 3; 
 Polyb. v. 71). It was one of the cities of Deca- 
 
 | polis (Plin. v. 16); and had a district, called 
 
 Gadaritis, under its jurisdiction, which, on the 
 west, had a common boundary with Galilee 
 (B. J. iii. 8, § 1; 10, ὃ 10). This district is 
 referred to by Strabo (xvi. 2, 45), and ap- 
 parently corresponds to the “country of the 
 
 | Gadarenes” in the N. T. Ptolemy (v. 15) and 
 | Steph. Byz. (254) call Gadara a city of Coele- 
 | Syria; and the latter says that it once bore the 
 
 names of Seleucia and Antiochia. The position 
 of the city was one of great strategic importance, 
 
 | for the roads from Tiberias and Scythopolis to 
 
 Damascus and Gerasa passed throughit. Gadara 
 was 16 M. P. from Scythopolis and 16 from 
 
 | Capitolias (Jtin. Ant. ed. Wess. pp. 197, 198), 
 
 16 from Tiberias (Zab. Peut.), and 12 from Abila 
 (OS.2 p. 243, 8). Josephus (Vit. 65) places it 
 60 stadia from Tiberias, but this is evidently 
 
 | wrong. 
 
 the Naumachia must have been held either near | ‘ 
 the hot springs or on the Sea of Galilee. Several | had a mixed population. After it was rebuilt 
 
 Coin of Gadara. 
 
 bishops of Gadara are mentioned as having been 
 present at the General Councils of the Church: 
 Cajanus at Nicaea, Eusebius at Antioch, Theo- 
 dorus at Ephesus, &c. The Latins in the 
 Middle Ages called the place Kedar (John of 
 Wiirzburg, xxv.) ; and the Arab writer Dimashki 
 (A.D. 1300) calls it Jedar, i.e. Gadara—a name 
 
 which Seetzen, who discovered the ruins in the | 
 
 present century, found attached to the steep 
 hillside below them. 
 
 Gadara was a strongly fortified city (Ant. xiii. | 
 3, § 3; B. J. iv. 7, § 3); situated near the 
 
 Hieromax, Gadara Hieromace praefluente (Plin. 
 H. N. v.16); east of Jordan, and over against 
 Scythopolis and Tiberias. It stood on a_ hill, 
 at the foot of which, at a place called Amatha 
 (Ἐμμαθά), 3 M. P. from the city, there were 
 
 b In B. J. iii. 7, § 1, Vespasian is said to have taken 
 Gadara immediately after his arrival at Ptolemais; but 
 the place intended is evidently Gabara, Kh. Kabra, 
 which it was necessary to occupy before attacking 
 Jotapata. Reland(p. 771), who is followed by Robinson, 
 Milman, and Schiirer, also reads Gabara for Gadara in 
 Vit. δῇ 10, 15. ; 
 
 Like all the other cities of Decapolis, Gadara 
 
 and made a free city by Pompey, 
 the governing and wealthy classes 
 were probably of Greek origin, 
 whilst the greater part of the 
 people, urban and rural, were 
 Aramaeans, more or less Hel- 
 lenised. Josephus (Ant. xvii. 11, 
 § 4; B. VJ. ii. 6, § 3) calls it a 
 Greek city, and it may be in- 
 ferred from what he says that 
 this was the cause of its re- 
 transfer to Syria on the death of 
 Herod. The coins bear Greek 
 legends, and the Greek inscrip- 
 tions, found on the site, contain 
 such names as Theodoros, Pam- 
 philos, &e. Strabo (xvi. 3) mentions several 
 learned Greek Gadarenes: e.g. Philodemas, the 
 Epicurean ; Menippus; Theodorus, the Sophist, 
 who was tutor to the Emperor Tiberius ; 
 Apsines, the Rhetorician, &c. There was, how- 
 ever, a strong Jewish element in the popula- 
 tion, and possibly many Judaised Aramaeans. 
 The Midrash (Zsther, ch. 1, 2) speaks of a “hall 
 of justice,” perhaps that in which the Sanhedrin 
 sat; and there is said to have been an important 
 school at Migdal Gadar (Tal. Bab. Taanith, 2a). 
 According to the Talmudists, Mount Gadar was 
 one of the physical subdivisions of the hill- 
 country of Peraea, and the site of one of the fire 
 signal-stations (Neubauer, Géog. du Talmud, 
 pp. 40, 243). Gadara owes its celebrity to its 
 hot springs and baths, which were reckoned 
 second only to those at Baiae (Eunap, Sardian. 
 ap. Reland, Palaest. p. 775), and are praised by 
 Origen (iv. 140) and by Epiphanius (Adv. Haer. 
 i. 131). They are mentioned in the Itinerary 
 of Antoninus Martyr (vii.), who calls them the 
 “Baths of Elias,’ and by the early Arab 
 historians and geocraphers. 
 
 The ruins of Gadara, now called Umm Keis, 
 
 1 
 
GADARA 
 
 cover a hill on the S. side of the Hieromax, 
 Shrerisat el-Mandhir, about 6 Eng. miles 8.E. of the 
 Sea of Galilee. ‘he ruins include two theatres, 
 a basilica, a temple, a fine street with a colon- 
 nade on each side, of which the columns are 
 prostrate, the city wall and gates, an aqueduct, 
 and other buildings. On the pavement of the 
 main street the ruts formed by the chariot 
 wheels can still be seen. On the eastern side of 
 the city, the ground bears the name Jedi Umm 
 Keis, and here there are numerous rock-hewn 
 tombs, with their stone doors still swinging on 
 their hinges, and a large number of basalt sar- 
 ‘eophagi (for descriptions of the ruins, see Burck- 
 hardt, Syria, p. 270 sq.; Schumacher, Northern 
 “Ajliin, p. 46 5ᾳ.; Wilson, Recovy. of Jerusalem, 
 
 p. 373 sq.; Sepp, Jerusm. u. d. heilige Land, ii. 
 
 Tomb at Gadara. 
 
 216 sq.; Porter, Hbdk. for Syr. §& Pal.). About 
 23 Eng. miles N. of the ruins, on the right bank 
 of the Sheri‘at el-Mandhir, are the hot springs. 
 The water is strongly impregnated with sulphur, 
 and has a temperature of 110° Fahr. ; its medi- 
 cinal qualities are highly valued by the Bedawin. 
 The ruins of baths and houses cover a large area 
 (Schumacher, The Jauldn, p. 149 sq., and autho- 
 rities cited above). 
 
 It was in the “land of the Gadarenes”’ that, 
 according to the A. V. of Mark v. 1(R. V. “ Gera- 
 senes”’?) and Luke viii. 26, 37 (R. V. “ Gera- 
 senes”’), our Lord healed the demoniac and per- 
 mitted the devils to enter into a herd of swine. 
 In Matt. viii. 28, however, the same miracle is 
 said (A. V.) to have been performed in the “land 
 of the Gergesenes” (R. V. “Gadarenes”). There 
 is aremarkable difference in the readings of the 
 
 GADARA 1099 
 
 most ancient MSS. in these verses: jy. reads 
 Γα(ζαρηνῶν in Matt., Γερασηνῶν in Mark, and 
 Γεργεσηνῶν in Luke; in Matt. and Mark the 
 readings have been altered by a later hand 
 to agree with Luke; B., which is followed by 
 Rh. V., has Γαδαρηνῶν in Matt. and Γερασηνῶν 
 in Mark and Luke; A., which is followed by 
 A. V., has Γεργεσηνῶν in Matt. and Γαδαρηνῶν 
 in Mark and Luke. Of these readings Γερασηνῶν 
 is manifestly wrong, for Gerasa is about 35 
 miles from the Sea of Galilee, and is never men- 
 tioned in connexion with it. The question 
 therefore lies between Gadara and Gergesa. 
 The miracle took place “on the other side of 
 the sea,” “over against Galilee,” i.c. on the 
 eastern shore of the lake, near the spot where 
 Jesus and His disciples Janded (Mark vy. 2), in 
 close proximity to a town, 
 and not very far from 
 ground sloping steeply 
 down to the margin of 
 the lake (Matt. viii. 32; 
 Mark y. 13; Luke viii. 
 32, 33). The only place 
 on the E. shore of the 
 lake which fulfils these 
 conditions is a spot near 
 the mouth of Wéddy 
 . Semakh. There are here 
 the ruins of a town called 
 Kersa, and about a mile 
 to the south “the hills, 
 which everywhere else 
 on the eastern side are 
 recessed from a half to 
 three-quarters of a mile 
 from the water’s edge, 
 approach within forty 
 feet of it; they do not 
 terminate abruptly, but 
 there is a steep even 
 slope” (Recovy. of Jeru- 
 sulem, p. 368: cp. Mac- 
 gregor, Rob Roy on the 
 Jordan, p.422 sq.; Thom- 
 son, Land and the Book, 
 ed. 1869, p. 315 sq.). 
 The pronunciation of the 
 word SKersa by the Be- 
 dawin is so similar to 
 Gergesa as to suggest its 
 identification with that 
 place. The word Tepye- 
 onvay seems to be the 
 
 same as the Hebrew #14 (LXX. Tepyecaios) 
 in Gen. xv. 21 and Deut. vii. 1—the name of 
 an old Canaanitish tribe [GrRGASHITES], which 
 Jerome (in Comm. ad Gen. xv.) locates on the 
 shore of the Sea of Tiberias. Origen says (Opp. 
 iv. 140) that there was an ancient city called 
 Gergesa on the shore of the lake, and that 
 bordering on the water there was a precipitous 
 descent which it appears that the swine de- 
 scended. Eusebius and Jerome (08.? p. 256, 14; 
 p. 162, 18) also allude to Gergesa, which was then 
 a village on a hill above the lake. Gadara, 
 situated on a hill 6 m. from the shore of the 
 lake, cannot be the city referred to by the 
 Evangelists (the opinion followed by Riehm, 
 HWB. s.n.); and, though the land of the 
 Gadarenes probably extended to the lake, there is 
 
1100 GADDI 
 
 no topographical feature south of Wady Fik such 
 as that indicated in the narrative. It is also 
 remarkable that the reading Γαδαρηνῶν does not 
 occur once in the Sinaitic MS. (δ). The possi- 
 bility that the Jand at the mouth of Wady 
 Semakh was under the jurisdiction of Gadara is 
 slight, for the district of Hippos, Stéisiyeh, which 
 ran down to the lake (B. J. iii. 3, § 1), intervened. 
 It is more probable that Gergesa, Kersa, was in 
 Gaulanitis. An interesting discussion between 
 Mr. Gladstone and Professor Huxley on the 
 nationality of the swine-herds, the character of 
 the miracle, and the place at which it took place 
 will be found in the Nineteenth Century Maga- 
 zine, 1890 and 1891. [W.] 
 
 GAD’DI ("33 = my happiness or fortunate ; 
 Tad8i; Gaddi), son of Susi; representative of 
 the tribe of Manasseh among the spies sent by 
 Moses to explore Canaan (Num. xiii. 11). 
 
 GAD'DI-EL ὦν 18 = God is my happiness ; 
 Γουδιήλ; Geddiel), son of Sodi; representative 
 of the tribe of Zebulun on the same occasion 
 (Num. xiii. 10). 
 
 GA'DI ΟἽ; B. Γαδδεί, A. Γεδδεί, and [v. 17] | 
 TadAe!? ; Gadi), father of Menahem, who 
 seized the throne of Israel from Shallum (2 k. 
 xv. 14, 17). 
 
 GAD'ITES, THE C13; ὁ Tad, 6 Ταδδί, 
 οἱ viol Tad; Gad, Gaditae, Gaddi). ‘The de- 
 scendants of Gad and members of his tribe. 
 Their character is described under Gap. In 
 2 Sam. xxiii. 36 for “the Gadite” B. has 
 Γαλααδδεί (A. Γαδδί), and the Vulg. de Gadi. 
 
 GA’'HAM (03; AD. Tadu; Gaham), son of 
 Nahor, Abraham’s brother, by his concubine 
 Reumah (Gen. xxii. 24). No light has yet been 
 thrown on this tribe. The name perhaps signi- 
 ties sunburnt or swarthy (see MY."), 
 
 GA’HAR (093; Tadp; Guher), The Bene- 
 Gachar were among the families of Nethinim 
 who returned from the Captivity with Zerubba- 
 bel (Ezra ii. 47; Neh. vii. 49). In 1 Esd. the 
 name is given as GepDpUR. [W. A. W.] [F.] 
 
 GAI'US. [Joun, Seconp ΑΝ THIRD Epis- 
 TLES OF. ] 
 
 GAL’AAD (Γαλαάδ), 1 Mace. v. 9, 55; Judith 
 1. 8, xv. 55 and THE COUNTRY OF GALAAD (7 
 Γαλααδῖτις ; Galaaditis), 1 Macc. v. 17, 20, 25, 
 27, 36, 45; xiii, 22, the Greek ore Ay the 
 word GILEAD. 
 
 GA'LAL (O03; B. Γαλαάδ, A. Twasa; 
 Galal). 1. A Levite, one of the sons of Asaph 
 (1 Ch. ix. 15). 2, Another Levite of the family 
 of Elkanah (1 Ch. ix. 16). 8. A third Levite, 
 son of Jeduthun (Neh. xi. 17; BNA. om., 
 Neeme sup Γαλέλ : Galal) [W.A.W.] [F.j 
 
 GALA’TIA (Γαλατία, Γαλατική, Γαλλογραι- 
 kia), a central district of Asia Minor, lying north 
 of Phrygia and Cappadocia, and consisting of a 
 broad strip of country about 200 miles in length, 
 stretching from south-west to north-east. On 
 the south-west it bordered on Phrygia, Pessinus 
 being the chief town; on the north-east it 
 
 GALATIA 
 
 bordered on Pontus and Cappadocia, the chief 
 town being Tavium; in the centre was Ancyra, 
 generally regarded as the capital of the whole 
 district (Ramsay, Jistor. Geography of Asia 
 Minor, pp. 221-254). 
 
 it derives its name from Gallic tribes, who 
 made a settlement there. The name Galatia 
 was that by which the country which the 
 Romans called Gallia was known to the Greeks, 
 and they gave the same name to the Asiatic 
 country in which the Gallic tribes settled. In 
 atime somewhat later than that to which the 
 Books of Scripture belong, Greek writers made 
 a distinction between European and Asiatic 
 Gaul, adopting the Latin names Gallia for the. 
 former and Gallograecia for the latter; but so 
 late as the lifetime of St. Paul, the name 
 Galatia was ambiguous and might denote either 
 country. Consequently when St. Paul says (2 
 Tim. iv. 10) that he had sent Crescens to 
 Galatia, the phrase does not absolutely de- 
 termine whether it was to European or Asiatic 
 Galatia that Crescens had been sent; and so in 
 the margin of the Revised Version of the New 
 Testament, the alternative rendering “ Gaul” 
 is given, Several ancient writers suppose that 
 what we call Gaul was intended. Thus Eusebius 
 (Π. £. iii. 4; cp. note in loco, edd, Wace and 
 Schatt) certainly understood Gaul to be meant 
 in 2 Timothy. So also Epiphanius (/aer. li. 11), 
 who boldly pronounces it to be an error to 
 understand Galatia. Theodoret (in loco) reads 
 Galatia, but interprets, “that is to say, Gaul, 
 for that was the ancient name of the country, 
 and so it is still called by those acquainted with 
 foreign literature.” When Christianity came 
 to be the predominant religion in Gaul, there 
 was a natural desire of the inhabitants to con- 
 nect the origin of their Churches with apostolic 
 times by claiming Crescens as one of their 
 founders, and it might be expected that French 
 writers should take the same view. But 
 Tillemont (δέ, Paul, Art. 52 and note 81, vol. i. 
 pp. 312, 584) understands the passage of the 
 Eastern Galatia, and gives strong reasons for 
 thinking that the conversion of Gaul belongs to 
 a later date, and that there is no trace of the 
 work of Crescens in that country. Accordingly 
 modern commentators generally reject the in- 
 terpretation “ Gaul.” 
 
 In the inscription of the First Epistle of St. 
 Peter, ‘to the strangers scattered throughout 
 Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia,” &c., the collocation 
 
 of the words leaves no doubt that the Asiatic, 
 
 Galatia is intended. 
 
 But there is an earlier passage where Galatia 
 is mentioned and where some have claimed for’ 
 the word the meaning “Gaul.” In 1 Mace. viii. 
 2, among the reasons why Judas Maccabaeus sent 
 
 an embassy to the Romans it is stated that he, 
 
 had heard of their wars with the Galatians, and 
 
 how they had conquered them and brought: 
 
 them under tribute. Here the margin of the 
 English Version for “Galatians” has “ French- 
 men”; and in support of the view that the 
 Western country is intended, it is urged that in 
 the next verse (1 Mace. viii. 3), immediately 
 after the mention of the victories of the Romans 
 
 over the Galatians, their conquest of Spain is” 
 
 spoken of; and further that, although the’ 
 Romans under Manlius Vulso gained a great 
 victory over the Galatians (B.C. 189), it does not 
 
 5 
 
 i 
 
GALATIA 
 
 appear that he brought them under tribute ; 
 whence it is contended that the Galatians in- 
 tended must be the Gauls of Northern Italy. 
 Yet notwithstanding these arguments, it seems 
 more natural to think of those Galatians whom 
 Manlius had conquered less than thirty years 
 before the embassy of Judas Maccabaeus. The 
 Jews would hear with interest of this victory 
 of Manlius; for Jews had themselves been in 
 conflict with these Galatians, and could boast of 
 a victory over them. ‘This we learn from a 
 reference made in the Second Book of Macca- 
 ees (viii. 20) to a great victory gained in 
 Babylonia by Jews over Galatians, and there 
 can be no doubt that Eastern Galatians are 
 intended, though we have no other information 
 as to the battle in question. It has been 
 conjectured that it may have been fought by 
 Jews serving under Antiochus, king of Syria, 
 who gained the name of Soter by his victories over 
 the Galatians. 
 
 There can be no doubt that the repression of 
 Gallic brigandage was a public service which 
 well deserved recognition. It would not be 
 relevant to this article to describe what Southern 
 Europe suffered from successive waves of Gallic 
 invasion from the time of the burning of Rome 
 in 390 B.c. to the subjugation of Gaul by Julius 
 Caesar. Here we are only concerned with 
 Asia, which had its first experience of the 
 rapacity of the Gauls in B.c. 278, when a large 
 body of them crossed the Hellespont in search of 
 plunder. For some fifty years they and those 
 who followed them levied contributions widely 
 on the unwarlike inhabitants of Asia Minor. 
 The first great check was given them, as already 
 stated, by Antiochus Soter; but it was Attalus, 
 the ruler of Pergamum, who first refused to pay 
 them tribute, and, having defeated them in a 
 great battle, confined them to the district 
 which derived its name from them. ‘The date 
 of the victory of Attalus is not exactly known, 
 ‘but he ruled from b.c. 241 to 197, and 230 may 
 be set down as an approximate date. The 
 Gallic invaders had consisted of three distinct 
 tribes, and so the country in which they settled 
 was divided into three cantons,—the Trocmi 
 occupying the north-eastern extremity next 
 Pontus, having Tavium for their capital; the 
 ‘Tolistoboii being at the opposite or south-western 
 extremity, having Pessinus for their capital, and 
 the Tectosages at Ancyra in the centre. These 
 Eastern Gauls preserved much of their ancient 
 character, and something of their ancient lan- 
 guage (see Mommsen, Provinces of the Roman 
 Empire, i. 341, Eng. tr.), At least Jerome says 
 that in his day the same language might be 
 heard at Ancyra as at Tréves: and he is a good 
 ‘witness; for he himself had been at Tréves. 
 The prevailing speech, however, of the district 
 was Greek. Hence the Galatians were called 
 Gallograeci (‘Hi jam degeneres sunt: mixti, 
 et Gallograeci vere, quod appellantur:” Manlius 
 in Livy, xxxviii. 17), The inscriptions found at 
 Ancyra are Greek, and St. Paul wrote his 
 Epistle in Greek. 
 
 These warlike people had more than once 
 given their services as mercenaries to Syrian 
 kings in their wars with their neighbours, and 
 they fought on the side of Antiochus the Great 
 in his war with the Romans, and took part in 
 the last great battle in which he was defeated. 
 
 GALATIANS, EPISTLE TO THE 1101 
 
 This drew the attention of the Romans on them, 
 and the Consul Manlius invaded their country 
 in B.c. 189, and succeeded in bringing them to 
 complete submission. The account of his cam- 
 paign is given in the 38th book of Livy, who 
 also has a reference (xxxiii, 21) to the previous 
 victory of Attalus. 
 
 We have here no concern with the history of 
 Galatia in the years immediately following ; but 
 it is important to note that Amyntas, the last 
 of the independent rulers of the country, had 
 through favour, first of M. Antonius, afterwards 
 of Augustus, been in possession not only of 
 Galatia, but of a good deal of adjacent territory. 
 So, when on the death of Amyntas (8.6. 25) 
 Galatia was made into a Roman province by 
 Augustus, the province included, in addition to 
 Galatia proper, Lycaonia, Pamphylia, Pisidia, and 
 a good deal of Phrygia. The result is to intro- 
 duce a new ambiguity into the word Galatia, 
 obliging us to consider, when we meet the word 
 in the New Testament, whether it is to be 
 understood as a geographical or as a political 
 term. In particular, St. Paul speaks (1 Cor. xvi. 
 1) of the churches of Galatia, and he addresses an 
 Epistle to the Galatians, and some have thence 
 inferred that among the travels of the Apostle 
 must have been one of which St. Luke in the 
 Acts gives no particulars, in which he evangel- 
 ized the whole country of Galatia proper, even, 
 as some would have it, travelling from Pessinus 
 to Tavium and back; others understand the 
 word Galatia in its political sense, and contend 
 that we are not bound to think of any churches 
 of Galatia but those whose foundation by St. 
 Paul is recorded in the Acts, such as Derbe and 
 Lystra, Antioch in Pisidia, &c., which, though 
 not belonging to Galatia proper, were included 
 in the Roman province of Galatia. The ques- 
 tion thus raised will be more conveniently dis- 
 
 ; cussed in the next article, THE EPISTLE TO THE 
 
 GALATIANS, [G. 5. 
 
 GALATIANS, THE EPISTLE TO THE. 
 I. Authorship.—In the case of the Epistle to the 
 Galatians, we are able to touch lightly on dis- 
 cussions as to its authorship which require more 
 serious consideration in the case of other New 
 Testament Books. That this is a genuine letter 
 of the Apostle Paul may be accounted as a fact 
 acknowledged by the best critics of all schools. 
 It is trne that the acknowledgment is not 
 absolutely universal, but the exceptions are not 
 important enough to deserve much regard, for 
 it would evidently be impossible in this Dictionary 
 to discuss every paradox in maintaining which 
 critics have exhibited their ingenuity. 
 
 The absence of controversy as to the author- 
 ship of this Epistle is not to be ascribed to its 
 possessing any great superiority in respect of 
 external attestation over other New Testament 
 Books. It is true that it is formally quoted 
 towards the end of the 2nd century by Irenaeus 
 (ar. vii. 2, xvi. 25 v. xxi. 1, &c.), Clement of 
 Alexandria (Strom. iii. 15, &c.), Tertullian (De 
 Monog. vi., &c.), the citations by each writer 
 being so numerous, that it would be incon- 
 venient to give a complete list. Somewhat 
 earlier Celsus, writing against the Christians, 
 quotes this Epistle as being in general use among 
 them; this being, as Origen remarks, Celsus’s 
 
 9 
 
 only quotation from St. Paul’s Epistles (Orig. adv. 
 
1102 GALATIANS, EPISTLE TO THE 
 
 GALATIANS, EPISTLE TO THE 
 
 Cels. v. 64). Celsus had been speaking of the ; period in the history of Christianity, we can 
 
 variety of sects among the Christians and their 
 mutual hostility ; but all of them, he says, you 
 will hear saying, ‘‘The world is crucified unto 
 me, and I unto the world” (Gal. vi. 14). The 
 Clementine Homilies, a work exhibiting bitter 
 hostility to St. Paul, show a knowledge of this 
 Epistle in a spiteful reference (xvii. 19) to St. 
 Paul’s having withstood St. Peter (Gal. ii. 11). 
 There are besides distinct proofs of knowledge of 
 the Epistle, though without formal quotation of 
 it, by Justin Martyr (Zrypho, 95, 96), Tatian 
 (Hieron. in Hp. Gal. vi. 8), Polycarp (ce. 3, 5, 
 12), and Ignatius (Magnes. 8). The Epistle 
 formed part of the heretic Marcion’s Apostolicon, 
 or collection of apostolic letters, in the early 
 part of the 2nd century. This mass of external 
 attestation, the enumeration of which does not 
 profess to be complete, might certainly be held 
 ~ to afford sufficient evidence of the Pauline author- 
 ship of the Epistle, if it were not that similar 
 testimony has not been accepted as conclusive 
 in the case of other New Testament Books. 
 
 But what has silenced controversy is the note 
 of early date stamped on the Epistle by the 
 character of its contents. It deals with the 
 question whether or ποῦ it was obligatory on 
 Gentile converts to Christianity to submit to the 
 rite of circumcision. St. Luke has informed us 
 (Acts xv.) that this question did give rise to 
 warm controversy in the Christian Church at an 
 early period of its history; but from the nature 
 of the case it was inevitable that this question 
 must give rise to violent controversy the first 
 time that heathens were proposed for admission 
 in any numbers into the Church. To become a 
 Christian was not merely to acknowledge Jesus 
 ot Nazareth as a Divine Teacher, it was also to 
 become one of a society the members of which 
 were bound together by close bonds of brotherly 
 association and mutual love; and the partaking 
 of a common meal, which was a familiar insti- 
 tution in friendly societies at the time, came to 
 possess in the Christian societies the highest 
 religious significance. That Jews should enter 
 into such intimate association with uncircum- 
 cised persons was opposed to all their prejudices. 
 St. Luke represents St. Peter as telling Cornelius, 
 “Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for 
 a man that is a Jew to keep company or come 
 unto one of another nation,” and as afterwards 
 having to excuse himself to his countrymen 
 “because he had gone in to men uncircumcised 
 and had eaten with them” (Acts x. 28, xi. 2). 
 Of heathen testimonies to this feature of Jewish 
 exclusiveness it is enough to cite the description 
 of Tacitus (Hist. v. 5): “adversus omnes alios 
 hostile odium: separati epulis, discreti cubilibus.” 
 Jewish converts to Christianity had been largely 
 made from the Pharisees, the most exclusive of 
 the Jewish sects, and the most rigid in its obser- 
 vance of the Mosaic Law. Thus it might before- 
 hand have seemed impossible to unite Jews and 
 Gentiles in such close fraternity as that which 
 was the rule of the Christian societies ; for the 
 demand of circumcision as a condition of com- 
 munion was certain to be made by the Jews, 
 while very few Gentiles would consent to submit 
 to an ordinance which was not only painful, but 
 was regarded as degrading. 
 
 Yet, as we know that Gentile Churches were 
 formed in a number of places at a very early 
 
 certainly infer that the controversy concerning 
 the necessity of circumcision must have been 
 one of short duration. For this was nospecula- 
 tive question about which men might go on dis- 
 puting for years; it was an urgent practical 
 one which demanded immediate decision: Was 
 the Church at Jerusalem to recognise as daughter 
 Churches those new communities in which uncir- 
 cumcised persons predominated? Now all our — 
 authorities give what is clearly independent testi- 
 mony to the fact that the relations between the 
 Jerusalem Church and the Churches founded by 
 Paul were not only friendly, but were cemented by 
 pecuniary obligations ; that just as Jews residing 
 in foreign countries contributed their half-shekel 
 to the support of the Temple service, so the 
 Christian converts among the Gentiles made 
 contributions for the necessities of the parent 
 Church at Jerusalem. We are told in the Acts 
 of two journeys made by St. Paul to Jerusalem as 
 the bearer of such contributions: we find in the 
 Second Epistle to the Corinthians (cc. viii., ix. 5 
 see also 1 Cor. xvi. 1, Rom. xv. 25) St. Paul 
 making elaborate arrangements for the collection 
 of such contributions from different Churches ; 
 this Epistle to the Galatians represents St. Paul’s 
 mission to the Gentiles as recognised by the lead- 
 ing Apostles, and describes this collection for the 
 Jewish poor as having been a condition agreed on 
 at the time of that recognition. The inference 
 that the admissibility of uncircumcised persons 
 to Christian membership was recognised at a 
 very early period of the Church’s history is 
 confirmed by the fact that there is no trace of 
 controversy on this subject in any documents 
 that have come down to us of later date than 
 that claimed for the Epistle to the Galatians. 
 It may well be believed that there were some 
 among the original Jewish members of the 
 Church to whom the decision to admit uncireum- 
 cised persons to their fellowship was altogether 
 distasteful, and who were shocked at St. Paul’s 
 teaching that compliance with the obligations of 
 the Mosaic Law was a matter of indifference as re- 
 gards man’s salvation. We learn therefore with- 
 out surprise that hostility to St. Paul’s teaching 
 was not quite extinct in Jewish circles at the end 
 of the 2nd century. But at that date the attempt 
 to impose circumcision on Gentiles had been 
 long abandoned as hopeless. In the account of 
 St. Peter’s preaching given in the Pseudo-Clemen- 
 tine Homilies, which of all extant documents 
 represent to us anti-Paulinism in its strongest 
 form, Peter’s converts are always merely baptized, 
 not circumcised; nor is there any trace in the 
 story that Clement himself, the hero of the 
 romance, was ever circumcised. It is evident 
 how early must be the date of a document 
 written when the admissibility of an uncireum- 
 cised person to the Church was the burning 
 question of the day. 
 
 When the document is recognised to be as 
 early as the time when St. Paul was in activity, 
 there is no temptation to look for any other 
 authorship for it than that which itself claims. 
 But even if we left out of sight the considera- 
 tion that the Epistle deals with a controversy 
 which must have ceased to be disputed 
 long before St. Paul was dead, it makes such 
 a revelation of the feelings and character of 
 the writer that a critic makes an exhibition of 
 
GALATIANS, EPISTLE TO THE 
 
 incompetence if he fancies that the St. Paul whom 
 this letter presents to us is no real person, but 
 the imaginary creation of a disciple of a later 
 generation. 
 
 What the letter discloses as to the circum- 
 stances under which it would seem to have been 
 written is, that the persons addressed had been 
 originally heathen (iv. 8), and had been con- 
 verted by St. Paul at a time when his bodily weak- 
 ness might have seemed likely to interfere with 
 his usefulness; that he had notwithstanding 
 been most successful in his preaching to them, 
 and had been regarded by them with the warmest 
 affection (iv. 13-15); that these converts had ac- 
 cepted from St. Paul a Gospel which taught that 
 faith in Christ was the one necessary and sufh- 
 cient condition for salvation; that after St. Paul’s 
 departure other teachers had come among them, 
 claiming to speak with higher authority than 
 his, namely, with that of the original Apostles, 
 and that they had been successful in largely 
 persuading the Galatians that St. Paul’s teaching 
 was imperfect, and that faith in Christ alone 
 would not suffice for their salvation unless they 
 were also circumcised and observed the other 
 precepts of the Mosaic Law. Now we may 
 pronounce it unlikely that a later Paulinist 
 would invent such a history as that of a revolt 
 from the Apostle of his first converts; but quite 
 impossible that he should so succeed in giving 
 adequate expression to the feelings of surprise, 
 grief, and indignation with which St. Paul re- 
 ceived the news of the defection of his discipies. 
 
 This letter has points of contact with two 
 other of the Epistles ascribed to St. Paul, which, 
 though in many respects unlike each other, have 
 such features in common with this that we may 
 confidently say that all are the work of the same 
 author, and that we cannot reject one without 
 rejecting all three. The polemic of the Epistle 
 to the Galatians divides itself into two principal 
 parts: (a) the writer vindicates his apostolic 
 authority, claiming to be entirely independent of 
 those who had been Apostles before him, not 
 being indebted to themeither for his knowledge of 
 the Gospel which he preached, or for his apostolic 
 commission, but having received them by direct 
 revelation from Jesus Christ; (0) he expounds 
 the principles on which he resisted the inculea- 
 tion of the necessity of circumcision, showing 
 that the enforcement of the Mosaic Law as 
 obligatory was subversive of the whole Gospel 
 which he taught. Now, the Epistle to the 
 Romans contains a quite similar exposition of 
 principles, not only akin to that given in the 
 Epistle to the Galatians in its general line 
 of argument, but so full of verbal coincidences 
 
 with it that we may safely conclude not only | 
 
 that the two Epistles are the work of the same 
 author, but also that the composition of the two 
 could not have been separated by any great in- 
 terval of time. Butit would seem that St. Paul’s 
 apostolic authority was not disputed by those to 
 whom the Epistle to the Romans was addressed ; 
 for that Epistle contains nothing corresponding 
 to the section in the Epistle to the Galatians 
 which asserts and justifies St. Paul’s claim to 
 apostleship. In the Second Epistle to the Corin- 
 thians, on the other hand, the controversial ex- 
 position of the non-necessity of circumcision is 
 entirely wanting, nor are there nearly so many 
 verbal coiucidences with the Epistle to the 
 
 GALATIANS, EPISTLE TO THE 1103 
 
 Galatians as in the Epistle to the Romans. But 
 it has close affinity with the Epistle to the Gala- 
 tians in all that regards the personal relations 
 of St. Paul with his disciples. In both cases 
 the Apostle addresses children in the faith, 
 who owed their knowledge of the Gospel to 
 himself, and whom he regards with a father’s 
 affection ; and in both cases he is disappointed by 
 finding that his love is but coldly returned, and 
 that newly-arrived teachers threaten to supersede 
 him in his converts’ esteem. The letters written 
 under these circumstances prove their own 
 genuineness by making a revelation of the cha- 
 racter of the writer, beyond the skill of any 
 forger to produce. The letters show the writer 
 to have been a proud man to whom self-assertion 
 and self-vindication are altogether distasteful, and 
 one of such warm affections as to feel acutely 
 pained that the necessity of asserting his right- 
 ful claims should have arisen from the defection 
 of disciples whom he loved and from whom he 
 had deserved more confidence. The identity.of 
 character exhibited in the letters to the Corin- 
 thian and to the Galatian Churches is even a 
 stronger proof of common authorship than coin- 
 cidence in forms of expression. 
 
 Although the internal evidence for the 
 genuineness of these letters is decisive on the 
 grounds already stated, there are some other 
 considerations that it is worth while to mention. 
 
 (1.) We have a note of early date in the fact 
 that so much of the Epistle to the Galatians 
 is taken up with an assertion of St. Paul’s in- 
 dependent authority. With the multiplication 
 of Churches claiming him as their founder, his 
 authority ceased to be disputed within the pale 
 of the Christian Church; nay, from a very 
 early period he came to be spoken of as the 
 Apostle, a title which no doubt he owed to the 
 fact that his letters soon ceased to be the exclu- 
 sive property of the several Churches to which 
 they were addressed, and became the manual of 
 apostolic instruction used in the public reading 
 of widely separated Churches, It is true that 
 the Pseudo-Clementine writings show that there 
 was a small body of persons calling themselves 
 Christians (though reckoned by the bulk of Chris- 
 tians as outside their community) who did not 
 recognise St. Paul’s authority ; but these counted 
 St. Paul, not only as no Apostle, but as a deceiver 
 and an enemy. The polemic in the Epistles to 
 the Galatians and Corinthians is not directed 
 against such a view as this, but only labours to 
 show that St. Paul was entitled to claim perfect 
 equality with the elder Apostles. The contro- 
 versy, therefore, concerning St. Paul’s apostleship, 
 in the form in which we find it in the Epistle 
 to the Galatians, is like the controversy con- 
 cerning circumcision, one which could only have 
 been disputed in the very earliest age of the 
 Church. 
 
 (2.) An argument may be founded on the 
 agreement between the attitude towards Judaism 
 and the Old Testament held by the Churches 
 which claim St. Paul for their founder, and that 
 presented in the Epistles under consideration. 
 Any one who studies the history of the rise of 
 Christianity out of Judaism must be struck by 
 the paradox that there should be such complete 
 continuity between the two religions and yet 
 such an entire break between them. All the 
 
 _ rites and institutions on which the Jews prided 
 
1104 GALATIANS, EPISTLE TO THE 
 
 themselves, as placing them on a higher level 
 than the surrounding Gentiles, are abandoned ; 
 the wall of separation between Jew and Gentile 
 is altogether thrown down, yet the authority of 
 the great Jewish lawgiver is kept unimpaired, 
 and the sacred books which ordain the Jewish 
 institutions are held in the highest reverence. 
 Now among those who, in the 2nd century, re- 
 sisted the obligations of Judaism, there was a 
 disposition to take a less favourable view of the 
 older religion. The great majority of the Gnostic 
 sects rejected the Old Testament altogether, and 
 even denied that the God of the Jews was the 
 same as He by whom Jesus had been sent. In 
 the system of Marcion hostility to Judaism 
 received its fullest development, and assumed 
 the form which gained the widest acceptance. 
 In one of the oldest of the Christian documents 
 not received into the Church’s Canon, the epistle 
 which bears the name of Barnabas, though the 
 authority of the Old Testament is fully acknow- 
 ledged, yet the Jewish rites are rejected, not 
 merely as not now binding on Christians, but as 
 never having been binding on the Jews them- 
 selves. They are represented as having adopted 
 them through a misunderstanding of the Divine 
 precepts, under the influence of an evil angel. 
 The fact that the opinion concerning the Old 
 Testament which was held by the Pauline 
 Churches is that which we hold ourselves, ought 
 not to prevent us from seeing how singular, and 
 even inconsistent, it must have appeared when 
 it was first put forward. It must have seemed 
 strange that men should side with the Jews 
 in opposing those who impugned the Divine 
 authority of the Old Testament, and yet refuse 
 to regard the institutions which it ordained, as 
 binding on them. We are bound to account 
 historically for the wide acceptance in the 
 Christian Church of such a view. We have the 
 explanation at once if we acknowledge the 
 genuineness of the group of Epistles of which 
 that to the Galatians is one. For it would then 
 appear that the Pauline Churches but followed 
 the teaching of their founder, who, in the very 
 letters in which he resisted most strenuously 
 the attempt to impose Jewish ordinances on 
 Gentiles, yet fully acknowledged the authority 
 of the Jewish Scriptures, and quoted them more 
 largely than in any other writings ascribed to 
 him. The historical problem remains without 
 solution if we reject these Epistles. 
 
 But perhaps more has been said thaw was 
 necessary in defence of the genuineness of the 
 Epistle to the Galatians and of the other three 
 Epistles (Romans and the two Corinthians) 
 which must stand or fall with it. The argu- 
 ments urged against these Epistles by extreme 
 followers of Baur have no force except as ad 
 hominem ; and though they may prove success- 
 fully that it is inconsistent to accept these 
 Epistles and reject those to the Philippians and 
 the First to the Thessalonians, yet those who can- 
 not accept both of Baur’s decisions will generally 
 choose to adopt the first rather than the second. 
 
 II. Persons addressed.—The Epistle to the 
 Galatians differs from the rest of Paul’s Epistles 
 to Churches, in being addressed, not, like those, 
 to the Church of some leading city, but to 
 the Churches of a district; and in the article 
 GALATIA it is explained that there is an am- 
 biguity in this word which may denote either 
 
 GALATIANS, EPISTLE TO THE 
 
 the geographical district of Galatia, or the 
 Roman province of that name, which included 
 besides a good deal of adjacent territory. We 
 turn, then, to the Acts of the Apostles in order 
 to discover whether the history therein contained 
 enables us to determine the question, 
 
 Now, although the Book of the Acts is in 
 accordance with the Epistle to the Galatians in 
 the testimony which it bears to the existence in 
 the very early Church of a controversy on the 
 subject of circumcision which soon came to be 
 forgotten, yet these two witnesses are clearly in- 
 dependent. We must presently discuss whether 
 the variation between the accounts of St. Paul’s 
 history, as given in the Acts and as inferred from 
 the Epistle to the Galatians, is such as to impair 
 the credibility of either witness, but certainly 
 the unlikeness is such that we can say with 
 confidence that the author of either document 
 could not possibly have seen the other. From 
 the 2nd century downwards, St. Paul has been 
 mainly known to the Christian world as the author 
 of documents used in the public reading of the 
 Church. To the writer of the Book of the Acts 
 St. Paul is known only as an active missionary, 
 and it is not so much as mentioned that he ever 
 wrote a letter to a distant Church. Signs of 
 acquaintance with any of the extant letters are 
 very doubtful, and it may be pronounced as 
 certain that the Epistle to the Galatians was 
 not known to the author of the Acts. It is 
 evident what an early date this obliges us to 
 assign to the latter Book, viz. the time before St. 
 Paul’s Epistles had passed, from being the exclu- 
 sive possession of the Churches to which they 
 were severally addressed, into general Church 
 use. It is needless to discuss the untenable 
 hypothesis that the writer of the Epistle to the 
 Galatians could have known the Book of the 
 Acts. 
 
 In the account of St. Paul’s first missionary 
 journey given in Acts xiv. we are told of his 
 having preached the Gospel in Antioch in Pisidia, 
 in Iconium, in Derbe and Lystra, cities which 
 belonged to the Roman province of Galatia. St. 
 Luke never uses the word Galatia in speaking of 
 these cities: on the contrary, he describes Derbe 
 and Lystra geographically as cities of Lycaonia ; 
 but we must admit the possibility that St. Paul’s 
 use of language may have been different from 
 St. Luke’s. 
 
 If St. Paul visited Galatia proper, it must have 
 been on his second missionary journey, recorded 
 in Acts xvi.; but the very scantiest account is 
 there given of the Apostle’s labours in the 
 Galatian district. It strengthens our belief in 
 the reliance to be placed on the accuracy of St. 
 Luke’s history, when we find how silent he is as 
 to occurrences at which he was not either actu- 
 ally present or had means of full information. 
 He does give a pretty full account of St. Paul’s 
 first missionary journey : but there is good reason 
 to think that St. Luke was a resident at Antioch, 
 and he tells how St. Paul and St. Barnabas on their 
 return gathered the Church of that city together 
 and rehearsed all that God had done with them. 
 But St. Luke was not St. Paul’s companion in the 
 first part of the Apostle’s second missionary 
 journey : for we find from his use of the pronoun 
 “we” that he did not join the Apostle until his 
 arrival at Troas (Acts xvi. 10). Accordingly, of 
 all that previously took place on that tour he only 
 
GALATIANS, EPISTLE TO THE 
 
 relates one incident at length, and for his know- 
 ledge of that we can easily account. When 
 St. Paul’s company arrived at Troas, it included 
 a member with whom St. Luke appears to have 
 had no previous acquaintance, viz.'limothy. He 
 would naturally inquire something as to the 
 history of this new companion, and “accordingly 
 he relates how St. Paul on his visit to Derbe and 
 Lystra had found this disciple and chosen him 
 to be his travelling companion ; but the details of 
 St. Paul’s work before he himself had joined him 
 he does not attempt to record. What we learn 
 is that on this visit St. Paul’s work in Asia Minor 
 began with Cilicia, and, it is natural to think, 
 with Tarsus. Then, as has been just mentioned, 
 we find St. Paul in Derbe and Lystra. We are next 
 told that as St. Paul went through the cities he 
 delivered the decrees which had been ordainet 
 by the Apostles and Elders at Jerusalem. We 
 cannot say with absolute certainty that among 
 these cities were Iconium and Antioch in Pisidia, 
 for St. Luke does not expressly say so. But it is 
 not likely that St. Paul would have been in such 
 close neighbourhood of churches which he had 
 founded on his previous tour, and omit to deliver 
 to them the apostolic decrees. There was a 
 reason for St. Luke’s special mention of Derbe 
 and Lystra because the call of Timothy had to 
 be related. St. Luke next tells of the missionary 
 party, that “ they went through the Phrygianand 
 Galatian country, having been hindered by the 
 Holy Ghost from speaking the Word in Asia. And 
 when they were come over against Mysia, they 
 assayed to go into Bithynia, and the Spirit of Jesus 
 suffered them not. And passing by Mysia they 
 came down to Troas” (cp. Acts xvi. 6, 7, R. V.). 
 It appears from this that it had been St. Paul’s 
 original intention to travel westward from 
 Antioch through the Roman province of Asia, 
 meaning probably to reach the sea at Ephesus. 
 We do not know in what way the Divine intima- 
 tion was given which caused him to alter his 
 course in a northerly direction, but we may 
 reasonably conjecture that hindrances to his 
 journey westward presented themselves which 
 either he or some other prophetic member of the 
 party instructed the rest to regard as provi- 
 dential guidance. We are tempted to connect 
 with this the statement in Gal. iv. 13, the 
 most obvious meaning of which is that St. Paul’s 
 work in the Galatian district arose out of 
 an illness of his. Such an illness may have 
 caused arrangements which had been made for 
 his journey into Proconsular Asia to fall through 
 (and possibly more than once). The question 
 with which we are immediately concerned is, 
 What was the country to which St. Paul next 
 directed his course, and which St. Luke describes 
 as the “Phrygian and Galatian country ”? Renan 
 concludes that because St. Luke next tells of 
 St. Paul’s being in Mysia, which lies far to the 
 north-west of Antioch or Iconium, his journey 
 must have been altogether in that direction, and 
 that we cannot suppose him to have gone to 
 Galatia proper, which would be much to the 
 -east of his way. But we have no right to 
 assume, that when St. Paul’s intention to go into 
 Asia was frustrated, he at once determined to 
 make for Mysia. He was evidently prepared to 
 follow God’s providential cuidance, whitherso- 
 ever it might lead him. We cannot tell what 
 invitations to join their party he may have 
 BIBLE DICT.-—VOL. 1. 
 
 πον εν νυν νον" 
 
 GALATIANS, EPISTLE TO THE 1105 
 
 received from Jewish acquaintances proceeding 
 in the Galatian direction, or what assurances of 
 hospitable reception when they reached their 
 destination, such as might indicate that this was 
 where God had opened a door tohim. All that St, 
 Luke tells us is that St. Paul ultimately arrived 
 on the borders of Mysia; but as to w hether he 
 reached that point by a direct or a circuitous 
 route, he gives us no information, 
 
 Other biographers of St. Paul, influenced by 
 the fact that he wrote an Epistle to the 
 Galatians, and anxious to find a place in his 
 history for a complete evangelization of Galatia, 
 represent him as having been detained by illness, 
 if not at Antioch in Pisidia, at Synnada, where 
 the road to Asia branched off, and that he then 
 travelled to Pessinus, the nearest town of Galatia 
 proper. So far the suggested route corresponds 
 sufficiently with St. Luke’s narrative. But they 
 go on to represent him as proceeding north-east- 
 ward from Pessinus to Ancyra, thence in the 
 same direction to Tavium, and then of necessity 
 back again to Ancyra and Pessinus. But cer- 
 tainly St. Luke’s statement that “they went 
 through the Phrygian and Galatian country, and 
 came over against Mysia,” is one from which we 
 should never have gathered that we were to put 
 a great loop on the course of St. Paul’s travels, or 
 think of him as having made a prolonged stay 
 in Galatia. When we observe, moreover, that St. 
 Luke carefully avoids saying that St. Paul went 
 through “Galatia,” not only in the verse al- 
 ready cited (xvi. 6), but also in the verse (xviii. 
 23) which describes another visit of St. Paul 
 to the same region, and where again the phrase 
 used is “the Galatian and Phrygian country,” 
 we are led to think of this phrase as meaning 
 not so much Galatia proper as rather the coun- 
 try which was geographically Phrygia but poli- 
 tically Galatia. The result is that St. Luke’s 
 narrative does not warrant us to conclude with 
 any certainty that St. Paul made any prolonged 
 stay in Galatia proper, or did much work in 
 founding Churches there; though if there be 
 other evidence that he did, no presumption to 
 the contrary arises from the silence of a narra- 
 tive so concise as that in the Acts. 
 
 We turn therefore to St. Paul’s Epistles, and 
 first inquire what is meant by the “ Churches of 
 Galatia” (1 Cor. xvi. 1): “Concerning the col- 
 lection for the saints, as I gave order to the 
 Churches of Galatia, so also do ye.” Weare 
 not entitled to conclude that because St. Luke, 
 when historically relating the course of St. Paul's 
 journeys, describes the places visited by their 
 precise geographical designations, St. Paul may 
 not have used the word Galatia in a wide sense 
 when in want of a word to include all the 
 Churches which he had founded in the Roman 
 province of Galatia. In fact, if he had wished 
 to include under one designation the Churches 
 of Antioch, Iconium, Derbe and Lystra, together 
 possibly with others in the adjacent district, it 
 is hard to say what other term he could have 
 used. There is, as we have said, no certain evi- 
 dence that St. Paul founded Churches in Galatia 
 proper; if he did, these of course would be 
 included among the Churches of Galatia. But 
 the question is, whether we are bound to under- 
 stand St. Paul’s use of the word as excluding all 
 Churches save those of Galatia proper? Now 
 it is not likely either that, when he was organ- 
 
 4B 
 
1106 GALATIANS, EPISTLE TO THE 
 
 izing a collection for the poor Christians of 
 Jerusalem, he would omit to appeal to the 
 Churches in the Galatian province with which 
 his relations were so intimate, or that he 
 would leave those Churches unmentioned when 
 writing to Corinth. Thus the word as used in 
 the Epistle to the Corinthians will very well 
 bear the wider sense. 
 
 We turn then to its use in the inscription of | 
 
 the Epistle to the Galatians. There is some 
 temptation to understand the word here too in 
 the wider sense. ‘The occasion of the Epistle was 
 the temporary success of emissaries from the 
 Pharisaic section of the Church at Jerusalem, 
 who inculcated circumcision as necessary for 
 all Christians. We know from the Acts that 
 such teachers had gone to Antioch in Syria, and 
 it is easy to believe that similar efforts were 
 made elsewhere; but it is strange if the only 
 place we hear of their success should be the 
 most remote corner ot Asia Minor that St. Paul 
 ever reached. It is therefore a tempting sup- 
 position that the Jewish teachers starting from 
 Antioch may have followed St. Paul’s own 
 course, and made converts in the Churches of 
 Derbe, Lystra, Antioch, and Iconium, which he 
 had founded. We could then understand the 
 Apostle’s passionate indignation on learning the 
 falling away of men who had once held him in 
 such love, that “if it had been possible they 
 would have plucked out their own eyes and 
 have given them to him.” It may also be 
 taken in favour of this hypothesis, that if we 
 adopt a common interpretation of Gal. iv. 13, 
 and understand the verse to imply that St. Paul’s 
 evangelization of the “ Galatians” was owing 
 to his having been detained by sickness in their 
 country, we must suppose this sickness to have 
 befallen St. Paul when it had been his intention to 
 go to some other district. But we cannot with 
 much probability imagine him to have gone 
 into Galatia proper merely with such an inten- 
 tion, whereas it would harmonize well with the 
 story in the Acts if we could apply the word 
 ‘“‘Galatians ” to the people of the place where 
 the road to Ephesus branched off, and where 
 the Apostle was constrained, not improbably by 
 illness, to abandon his intention of proceeding in 
 that direction. 
 
 On the other hand, the strongest argument 
 for believing the Apostle to have been in Galatia 
 proper is his exclamation (iii. 1) “O foolish 
 Galatians!”—a phrase which it is not easy to 
 regard as used to people of different nation- 
 alities. There is no difficulty in imagining 
 routes for St. Paul which would have brought 
 him into Galatia proper. Thus he might have 
 struck north from Iconium to Ancyra, or 
 perhaps more probably from Synnada to Pessinus. 
 With each of these Galatian cities Jews had 
 commercial relations; so that it is easy to 
 conceive that the Apostle might have received 
 an invitation to visit either place, and equally 
 to conceive that other Jews, advocates of the 
 necessity of circumcision, right have followed 
 in the same track. But all this is so purely 
 matter of conjecture, that in the absence of any 
 positive information from St. Luke we find 
 ourselves unable to assert with any confidence 
 that St. Paul was ever in Galatia proper. 
 
 We could not arrive at this negative conclu- 
 sion if we attached much weight to explanations 
 
 GALATIANS, EPISTLE TO THE 
 
 which have accounted for the suddenness of the 
 Galatian abandonment of the Gospel as taught 
 by St. Paul, by the fact that these people were 
 largely of Celtic extraction,—a race proverbial 
 for fickleness. It may be doubted whether 
 Celts formed the predominant element in the 
 Churches of Galatia, even taking that word to 
 denote the specially Gallic country. Its popu- 
 lation must have contained a great mixture of 
 races. The native Phrygian element long 
 survived; and the Consul Manlius on his 
 invasion was welcomed by priests of Cybele. 
 There long continued to be among them Gauls 
 speaking their own language, for St. Jerome 
 tells in the Preface to the second book of his 
 Commentary on the Galatians that he himself 
 recognised the language which he heard spoken 
 there as the same that he had heard spoken at 
 Tréves. But the name Gallograecia attests 
 how powerful the Greek element had become, 
 consisting partly no doubt of Gauls who had 
 learned the language, but in a great measure 
 also of the numerous Greek settlers who had 
 taught it to them; and lastly, the Jewish 
 element was, as already stated, by no means 
 inconsiderable. It must have been among the 
 Greeks and Jews that St. Paul’s converts were 
 made, and it may be doubted whether among 
 the Christian converts there was any very large 
 proportion of Celtic blood. 
 
 But it is more important to observe that men 
 of different countries share in a common nature, 
 and that people often make mistakes in fancying 
 they see tokens of national peculiarity in what 
 is but the result of the working of the common 
 human nature. Thus Bishop Lightfoot thinks 
 it worth while to point out that the Epistle to 
 the Galatians enumerates among the “ works of 
 the flesh,” drunkenness and revellings, and that 
 drunkenness was a darling sin of Celtic peoples ; 
 that it condemns strife and vainglory, and that 
 the Gauls were a very irritable people; that it 
 exhorts to liberality in almsgiving, advice much 
 needed by Gauls, who were proverbial for 
 avarice. But if these indications could be 
 accepted as proofs, they would establish that 
 the Epistle to the Ephesians also was addressed 
 to Gauls (see v. 18; iv. 31, 28). And the 
 Corinthians, too, are convicted of Gallic fickle- 
 ness; for they also, though St. Paul’s children in 
 the faith, largely transferred their allegiance to 
 new teachers. 
 
 But it needs no theory as to the race ex- 
 traction of St. Paul’s converts to account for some 
 change in their feelings towards him. When 
 the Galatians were first converted, they knew 
 no other Christian teacher than St. Paul; but 
 they learned from him to recognise Jerusalem as 
 the head-quarters of the religion, and they heard 
 of the Twelve as having received apostleship 
 from Christ Himself. No wonder that they 
 were profoundly impressed when teachers came 
 among them claiming to speak with the 
 authority of the parent Church, and informing 
 them that new conditions still must be complied 
 with before they could be recognised as perfect 
 Christians. Nor is it strange if, when they 
 pleaded that St. Paul who had founded their 
 Church had never insisted on these conditions, 
 they were staggered at being told that St. Paul | 
 himself was but a new convert, and was not 
 
 one whose authority could be set in opposi- . 
 
 j 
 
 q 
 
GALATIANS, EPISTLE TO THE 
 
 tion to that of the Apostles whom Christ had 
 appointed. 
 
 With regard to the persons addressed, there 
 remains still the question whether they were 
 Jews or Gentiles; but it is plain from the 
 whole drift of the Epistle that the writer had 
 Gentiles principally in view. He protests (vi. 12) 
 against those who would force circumcision on 
 them, and declares (v. 2) that if they were 
 circumcised Christ would profit them nothing. 
 This clearly does not apply to men who, like 
 himself, had been circumcised in infancy. And 
 (iv. 8) he expressly speaks of the fime when his 
 readers, ‘not knowing God, did service to them 
 which by nature are no gods,” The phrase too 
 “in mine own nation” (i. 14) implies that those 
 whom he addressed were of a different nation. 
 On the other hand, we may reasonably believe 
 that the bulk of the Gentile converts had entered 
 the Gentile Church through the road of 
 Judaism. St. Paul’s invariable practice was to 
 commence his missionary work in each city by 
 preaching in the Jewish synagogue or place of 
 worship (Acts xiii. 14; xiv. 1; xvi. 135 xvii. 
 1, 10, 17; xviii. 4); and, as at Antioch in 
 Pisidia (Acts xiii. 43). the first Gentile converts 
 would always be made trom among the “ devout 
 persons” who were in the habit of attending 
 the Jewish worship. That reverence for the 
 Old Testament which was common to both 
 “Jews and proselytes,” and was shared by St. 
 Paul himself, would be taught by him to all the 
 converts which he made. Consequently, though 
 appeals to the Old Testament, as a_ book 
 familiarly known and held in authority by all 
 his readers, are frequent in the Epistle to the 
 Galatians, this affords no ground for doubting 
 the predominance of the Gentile element in the 
 Galatian Churches. 
 
 Ill. Date of the Epistle—The most generally 
 accepted chronology of the part of St. Paul’s 
 life with which we are here concerned, is as 
 follows:—The second missionary journey, in 
 which the Apostle went through the “ Phrygian 
 and Galatian country,” is assigned to the years 
 51 and 52; the third journey, in which he 
 visited the same district again, to the year 54. 
 Then succeed three years at Ephesus; shortly 
 before leaving which place in 57, he writes the 
 First Epistle to the Corinthians. From Ephesus 
 he travels through Macedonia, and arrives at 
 Corinth ; before leaving which place in 58, he 
 writes the Epistle to the Romans. For our 
 present purpose it is immaterial whether we are 
 wrong in accepting these dates as approximately 
 correct, since we are concerned to determine, 
 not in what year of our Lord the Epistle to the 
 Galatians was written, but in what part of 
 St. Paul’s life. 
 
 In St. Paul’s first missionary tour we read (Acts 
 xiv.) of his having evangelized Derbe, Lystra, 
 Iconium, and Antioch; and it has been already 
 explained that the Churches so formed might in 
 a certain sense be described as Churches of 
 Galatia. It has been suggested that, by thus 
 understanding the phrase, we could account for 
 the illness which led to the Apostle’s work in 
 Galatia, as resulting from injuries sustained 
 by him when he was stoned in Lystra. If we 
 could imagine the Epistle to the Galatians to 
 have been written from Antioch after his return 
 from his first tour, we could account for the ab- 
 
 GALATIANS, EPISTLE TO THE 1107 
 
 sence in the letter of any reference to the conclu- 
 sions come toat Jerusalem, as recorded in Acts xy. 
 But the attempt to assign so early a date collapses 
 in face of the mention in the Epistle (ch. ii.) of 
 a visit made by St. Paul to Jerusalem, at least 
 14 years, perhaps 17 years, after his conversion. 
 The visit, recorded in Acts xi. 30, took place be- 
 fore any of St. Paul’s missionary journeys, and at 
 a time when controversy concerning the necessity 
 of circumcision is not likely to have arisen. St. 
 Luke places it before the death of Herod; that is 
 to say, before the year 44, and this would leaye 
 no room for the 14 or 17 years. We are therefore 
 constrained to agree with the great majority of 
 commentators in identifying the visit referred 
 to in Gal. ii. with that recorded in Acts xy. 
 This would oblige us to place the letter after 
 A.D. 513; and on other grounds we have come to 
 the conclusion that the Churches addressed had 
 been formed on St. Paul’s second missionary 
 journey, A.D. 52. Thus, then, we have a limit 
 in one direction to the date of the Epistle. 
 
 Expressions in the Epistle which have been 
 used to fix the date more closely cannot be relied 
 on as decisive. Thus it has been held that the 
 words (i. 6) “I marvel that ye are so soon re- 
 moved [“ so quickly removing,” R. V.] from him 
 that called you into the grace of God,” oblige us 
 to assign the earliest possible date to the 
 Epistle. But ‘‘soon” is an indefinite phrase, 
 and the limits within which the date of the 
 Epistle must lie are narrow; so that Paul 
 might conceivably have spoken of the Galatian 
 apostasy as rapid, even at the latest date we 
 can assign to the letter. 
 
 On the other hand, the words (iy. 13) “how I 
 preached the Gospel at the first” (τὸ πρότερον) 
 are translated in the Revised Version “the first 
 time” or “the former time,” and it has been 
 inferred that St. Paul refers to two visits to 
 Galatia ; in other words, that his Epistle was 
 written after his second visit. The argument 
 is not absolutely decisive, because in view of the 
 passages, John vi. 62, ix. 8,1 Tim. i. 13, it must 
 be admitted that τὸ πρότερον need not neces- 
 sarily mean, on the former of two occasions, but 
 might mean simply “formerly.” Yet, if we 
 suppose the Epistle to have been written after 
 the first visit and before the second, the period 
 of which he is speaking could not have been 
 more than a year or two previously, and τὸ 
 πρότερον is not a phrase which we should expect 
 to be used in referring to it. Thus the pre- 
 sumption remains that the Epistle was written 
 after the second visit. Another ambiguous 
 passage bearing on the present question is 
 (i. 8, 9): “ though we or an Angel from heaven 
 should preach unto you any Gospel other than 
 that which you received, let him be ana- 
 thema. As we have said before, so say I now 
 again, If any man preach unto you any Gospel 
 other than that which you received, let him be 
 anathema.” The question is, Do the words in 
 v. 9, “as we have said before,” refer merely to 
 what has been said in v. 8, or do they refer to 
 something said by word of mouth when the 
 Apostle was in Galatia? Against the former 
 supposition may be urged, that if the Apostle 
 thought it necessary for greater emphasis to 
 repeat a second time what he had said, we 
 should expect him to speak rather more strongly 
 the second time than the first. Thus, after he 
 
 4B2 
 
1108 GALATIANS, EPISTLE TO THE 
 
 had bidden them not to receive any one who 
 preached a different Gospel, we could under- 
 stand his going on to say, “* Yea, if even an Angel 
 from heaven were to preach a different Gospel, 
 let him be anathema.” But there is something 
 of an anticlimax when the ‘‘ Angel from heaven ” 
 occurs in the first verse, ‘any one” in the 
 second, Again, it is to be noted that after the 
 opening salutation, in which “all the brethren 
 that are with me” are included, St. Paul, in v. 6, 
 uses the first person singular, I, and continues it 
 throughout the Epistle. ‘Therefore, if in v. 9 he 
 were merely repeating what had been said in 
 v. 8, we should expect him to say, ‘as J have 
 said before.” There are therefore grounds for 
 considering the “we” of v. 9 to be really used 
 in a collective sense, and for supposing that 
 reference is made to a warning given by the 
 missionary party when present in Galatia. If 
 this be so, this warning is more likely to have 
 been given on the second visit than on the first 
 evangelization of the Church, at which time 
 there would be no rival teachers against whom 
 warning would be necessary. 
 
 In order to determine more accurately the 
 place of the Epistle to the Galatians in the series 
 of St. Paul’s letters, it is necessary to compare it 
 with other letters written about the same period, 
 as we may judge from their exhibiting the 
 Apostle’s mind occupied with the same contro- 
 versies, 
 
 The Epistle to the Romans.—This Epistle not 
 only has coincidences with that to the Galatians 
 in a number of phrases and statements common 
 to both, but the exposition of the Apostle’s rea- 
 sons for resisting the imposition of circumcision 
 as necessary to salvation is so much alike in the 
 two that we might equally draw an account of 
 these reasons from one or the other. The choice 
 his readers had to make was whether they would 
 seek for justification through the works of the 
 Law or through faith in Christ. Now by the 
 former method success was impossible. The Law 
 demanded complete obedience. ‘The conditions 
 on which it offered life were stated in words of 
 Moses, quoted in both Epistles (Gal. iii. 12, Rom. 
 x. 5): “The man that doeth these things shall 
 live in them.” It pronounced a curse on all who 
 came short of complete obedience: ‘Cursed is 
 every one who continueth not in all things that 
 are written in the Book of the Law to do them” 
 (Gal. iii. 10). In point of fact no one, either 
 Jew or Gentile, has succeeded in yielding this 
 perfect obedience. The detailed proof of this 
 occupies the first three chapters of the Epistle 
 to the Romans. And the conclusion is given in 
 almost identical words in the two Epistles: “ By 
 the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified ” 
 (Rom. iii. 20; Gal. ii. 16). 
 
 The Apostle does not content himself with the 
 negative statement that justification could not 
 be obtained through the Law of Moses ; he shows 
 that the Old Testament had pointed out a dif- 
 ferent way: “That no man is justified by the 
 Law in the sight of God, it is evident, for ‘The 
 just shall live by faith’” (Gal. ii. 11; Rom. 
 i. 17). And this way was the earlier. The 
 covenant of promise was made with Abraham 
 because of his faith. “Abraham believed God, 
 and it was counted unto him for righteous- 
 ness ” (Rom. iv. 3; Gal. iii. 6), That promise 
 was 430 years earlier than the giving of the Law 
 
 GALATIANS, EPISTLE TO 'THE 
 
 to Moses, and could not be disannulled by an 
 institution so much later (Gal. iii. 17). Nay, it 
 was anterior to the institution of the rite of cir- 
 cumcision; for the statement that faith was 
 reckoned to Abraham for righteousness refers to 
 an earlier period of Abraham’s life, and he only 
 received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the 
 righteousness which he had had before he was 
 circumcised (Rom. iv. 11). 
 
 But the promise made to Abraham was not to 
 himself alone. It was to him and to his seed. 
 That seed was Christ, and they are to be ac- 
 counted the true seed of Abraham who are 
 Christ’s, and who have the faith of Abraham 
 (Gal. ii. 16). For Abraham was not the father 
 of the Jews only. It is written that he was to 
 be the father of many nations; and so he was 
 the father not of the circumcision only, but of 
 all them that believe, circumcised or not (Rom- 
 iv. 11). Nay, those Israelites after the flesh who 
 were under bondage to the Mosaic Law, though 
 they might be children of Abraham, were not 
 heirs of the promises to Abraham. Abraham 
 had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other 
 by a free woman: the one born after the flesh, 
 the other through the promise. As then, so 
 now, he that was born after the flesh persecuted 
 him that was born after the Spirit. But what 
 saith the Scripture? “Cast out the bondmaid 
 and her son, for the son of the bondmaid shall 
 not be heir with the son of the free woman” 
 (Gal. iv. 28-30). 
 
 But if it has been proved that the Law is 
 ineffectual as a means of justification, does it 
 follow that it was useless and not divinely 
 instituted? Nay, there was a time when it 
 had served an important use. ‘The heir, as 
 long as he is a child, is under subjection to 
 tutors and governors appointed by the father. 
 Such a tutor had the Law been to the heirs of 
 promise. It had made them conscious of sin, and 
 pronounced a curse on disobedience from which 
 itself was powerless to deliver; and thus trained 
 those who were under its tutorship to look for 
 justification through faith in Christ, Who has 
 redeemed us from the curse of the Law, being 
 made a curse for us. This reconciliation of the 
 rejection of the Mosaic Law with an acknow- 
 ledgment of its excellence and of the uses which 
 it served is common to Rom. vii. and Gal. iii. 
 21-26. And, lastly, the Apostle protests that 
 the liberty to which his disciples were called 
 must not degenerate into licence; teaching 
 them, in words common to both Epistles, how 
 the love which springs from faith in Christ 
 secures the complete fulfilment of the Law, 
 “For all the law is fulfilled in one word, ever 
 in this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy- 
 self” (Gal. v. 14; Rom. xiii. 8-10). 
 
 Besides the general agreement in the exposi- 
 tion of theory, the two Epistles are full of 
 coincidences in phrases and forms of expression. 
 Notice has already been taken that the same 
 passages from the Old Testament are quoted in 
 both (Gen. xv. 5; Lev. xviii. 5; Ps. exliii. 2; 
 Heb. ii. 4); and it may be added that in 
 both occurs the same formula of Old Testa- 
 ment citation, “what saith the Scripture?” 
 (Rom. iv. 3; Gal. iv. 30,) and that in the 
 quotation of Ps. exliii. 2 there are variations 
 from the LXX. in which both Epistles agree; 
 viz., the phrase “the works of the Law” is 
 
GALATIANS, EPISTLE TO THE 
 
 introduced, and “no flesh” is substituted for 
 
 “no man living.” 
 
 We add two or three out of a great number 
 
 of parallel passages : 
 
 Rom, viii. 14-17. 
 
 “For as many as are led 
 by the Spirit of God, these 
 are sons of God. For ye 
 received not the spirit of 
 bondage again unto fear; 
 ‘but ye received the spirit 
 of adoption, whereby we 
 cry, Abba, Father. The 
 _/ Spirit Himself beareth wit- 
 ness with our spirit that 
 we are children of God: 
 and if children, then heirs; 
 heirs of God, and joint- 
 heirs with Christ.” 
 
 Rom. vi. 6-8. 
 
 **Our old man was cruci- 
 fied with Him. . . . Butif 
 we died with Christ, we 
 believe that we shall also 
 live with Him.” 
 
 Rom. vii. 4. 
 **Ye also were made 
 
 GAL. iv. 5-7. 
 
 “That we might receive 
 the adoption of sons. And 
 because ye are sons, God 
 sent forth the Spirit of His 
 Son into our hearts, crying, 
 Abba, Father. So that 
 thou art no longer a bond- 
 servant, but a son; and if 
 a son, then an heir through 
 God.” 
 
 GAL. ii. 20. 
 
 “1 have been crucified 
 with Christ: yet I live; 
 yet no longer I, but Christ 
 liveth in me” 
 
 GAL, ii. 19. 
 “For I through the law 
 
 dead to the Law... that 
 we might bring forth fruit 
 unto God.” 
 
 Rox. vii. 23-25. 
 
 “JT see a different law 
 in my members, warring 
 against the law cf my 
 mind ...I myself with 
 ‘the mind serve the law of 
 ‘God, but with the flesh the 
 law of sin.” 
 
 died unto the law, that I 
 might live unto God.” 
 
 GAL. v. 17. 
 
 «The flesh lustetb against 
 the Spirit, and the Spirit 
 against the flesh: for these 
 are contrary the one to the 
 other: that ye may not do 
 Rom. vii. 15. the things that ye would.” 
 
 “Not what I would, that 
 do I practise; but what I 
 hate, that I do.” 
 
 It is needless to multiply quotations ; for the 
 proofs already alleged amount to a demonstration 
 of the common authorship of the two Epistles. 
 And writers are generally agreed that the 
 
 , Epistle to the Galatians must be the earlier of 
 the two. ‘This Epistle is a vehement argument 
 struck out under the immediate needs of a 
 pressing controversy; the other is a calm pre- 
 sentation of the same argument in a complete 
 and systematic form. We may then take the 
 year 58, to which the Epistle to the Romans is 
 commonly assigned, as a lower limit to the date 
 of the Epistle to the Galatians. 
 
 The great resemblance in phraseology between 
 the Epistles gives us a right to infer that they 
 could not have been separated by any long in- 
 terval of time. This argument is not so strong 
 as in the case of the Epistles to the Ephesians 
 and Colossians, which we otherwise know to 
 have been written at the same time and sent 
 by the same messenger, and where the nature of 
 the topics is not such as to make it likely that 
 the same thoughts would for a long time so 
 occupy the writer’s mind as to find expression in 
 the same words. But as longas the controversy 
 concerning circumcision was going on, the Apostle 
 would be likely on different occasions to use the 
 same arguments, and perhaps without much 
 variety of expression. Still, when we observe 
 
 GALATIANS, EPISTLE TO THE 1109 
 
 what great variety of style there is in St. Paul’s 
 letters,—even in the four letters written while 
 the controversy concerning circumcision was 
 going on; how different these are from the 
 Epistles to the Thessalonians, and these again 
 from the Epistle to the Philippians, from the 
 Epistles to the Colossians and Ephesians, and 
 from the Pastoral Epistles,—it becomes hard to 
 believe that long time could have passed over 
 without producing more change of style and 
 topics than we find between the Epistles to the 
 Romans and to the Galatians. 
 
 There is no necessity to believe that the 
 controversy concerning circumcision was of long 
 duration: we can even see that it was dying 
 out when the Epistle to the Romans was written. 
 If the Epistle to the Galatians had been the only 
 one to come down to us, the verse (v. 2) “If ye 
 be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing,” 
 might lead us to think that the Apostle alto- 
 gether condemned the observance of the Mosaic 
 Law by Christians. Yet in the Epistle to the 
 Romans (chs. xiv., xv.) we find the observance 
 of Jewish distinctions of days and of meats 
 treated as a matter of indiflerence, with regard 
 to which it is a duty to be tolerant, and even 
 to abstain from using our own liberty in such 
 a way as to lead others to do what their con- 
 sciences condemn, though in our eyes it might 
 be innocent. On looking more closely at the 
 Epistle to the Galatians, we find that what 
 the Apostle condemns (ch. v.) is not the obser- 
 vance of Jewish ordinances, but the insisting on 
 them as necessary to justification. To seek for 
 justification in such a way was an abandonment 
 of the only possible way of justification, that 
 through faith in Christ ; for if we attempted it 
 by the Law we made ourselves debtors to observe 
 the whole of it, an undertaking in which 
 success must be impossible. But though the 
 more tolerant attitude of the Epistle to the 
 Homans is quite reconcilable with the doctrine 
 of that to the Galatians, it would scarcely 
 have been assumed until the strain of the conflict 
 with the Judaizers had somewhat relaxed. 
 
 The First Epistle to the Corinthians—On 
 the other hand, that conflict appears hardly 
 to have begun when the First Epistle to the 
 Corinthians was written. Considering the great 
 variety of topics dwelt on in that letter, it is 
 quite remarkable that that topic which was 
 uppermost in the Apostle’s thoughts when he 
 wrote the Galatian letter is altogether in the 
 background in the Corinthian letter. There 
 are many traces that the Apostle’s view of the 
 way of salvation was at both times the same 
 (1 Cor. i. 30; vi. 11 5 xv. 3, 56). Inthe Corin- 
 thian as well as in the Galatian letter he treats 
 circumcision or uncircumcision as amatter of com- 
 plete indifference as far as salvation is concerned 
 (1 Cor. vii. 19; Gal. ν. 6). But in the Corinthian 
 letter this is taken for granted, and is not the 
 subject of laborious argumentation: he is there 
 occupied less with exposition of dogma than with 
 questions of practical morality. It is true that 
 St. Paul’s authority at Corinth seems already 
 to have suffered something from the rivalry of 
 other teachers; but only because they were 
 imagined to outshine him in eloquence or learn- 
 ing, and there is no trace that they differed from 
 him in doctrine, seeing that he feels himself 
 under no necessity to enter on the task of refuta- 
 
1110 GALATIANS, EPISTLE TO THE 
 
 tion. There is very little parallelism between 
 1 Corinthians and Galatians, beyond that be- 
 tween the verses (1 Cor. vii. 19; Gal. v, 6) just 
 quoted, and the fact that in both Epistles the 
 proverb is quoted, “A little leaven leavencth 
 the whole lump” (1 Cor. v. 6; Gal. v. 9). 
 
 The Second Epistle to the Corinthians.—But 
 parallels are extremely numerous between Gala- 
 tians and the Second Epistle to the Corinthians ; 
 and the fact that the Galatian letter is so 
 much more akin to the Second Corinthian 
 letter than to the First, is a strong argument 
 for placing it in order of time later than the 
 First. During the interval between the two 
 Corinthian letters the influence of teachers in 
 that Church rival to St. Paul appears to have 
 largely increased ; for while in the First Epistle 
 the Apostle contents himself with deprecating 
 schisms, and protesting against making the 
 reception of the Gospel depend on the excel- 
 lence of the human teachers who promulgated 
 it, in the Second Epistle he finds himself under 
 the necessity of vindicating his own authority, 
 and comparing his claims on his disciples’ 
 regards with those of the teachers who had 
 been put forward as his rivals. But the neces- 
 sity of this self-vindication gives the Apostle 
 much pain, and that chiefly on account of the 
 contrast between the affection his disciples had 
 formerly borne him and their present with- 
 drawal of confidence. In the exhibition of the 
 writer’s pain at ill-returned affection we have 
 the closest affinity between the Epistle to the 
 Galatians and the Second to the Corinthians. 
 In the former the Apostle recalls (iv. 15) how 
 the Galatians had first received him as an 
 Angel of God, when if it had been possible they 
 would have plucked out their own eyes and 
 have given them to him; in the latter (xii. 15) 
 their distrust forces from him the bitter com- 
 plaint, “The more abundantly I love you, the 
 less I be loved.” Other coincidences enume- 
 rated by Lightfoot, some of them very striking, 
 are Gal. i. 6, 2 Cor. xi. 4; Gal. i. 9, 2 Cor. 
 Xie ie Galva, 10/02) Cor. voll; (Gal. ai. Ὁ, 
 2 Cor. viii. 6; Gal. iii. 18, 2 Cor. v. 213 Gal. 
 iv. 17, 2 Cor. xi. 2; Gal. vy. 15, 2 Cor. xi. .20; 
 Gal. vi. 15, 2'Cor. v. 17. 
 
 In the Second Epistle to the Corinthians St. 
 Paul relies entirely on his personal authority 
 for suppressing the rivalry of other teachers, 
 and does not give, as he does in the Epistle to 
 the Galatians, an argumentative refutation of 
 their teaching. Possibly he had received no full 
 report of their teaching at the time when he 
 wrote the former letter. But whereas in 1 Cor. 
 the tendency of the Corinthians to form parties 
 in their Church is merely rebuked, without any 
 hint as to doctrinal differences between the 
 parties, we find traces in 2 Cor. that the 
 Apostle’s most formidable rivals belonged to the 
 Jewish section of the Church. We gather this 
 from his appeal (xi. 22): “ Are they Hebrews? 
 so am I, Are they Israelites? so am I. Are 
 they the seed of Abraham? so am I.” And it 
 seems not improbable that both in the case of 
 the Churches of Corinth and of Galatia the 
 rival teachers had come down with some mission 
 from the Church of Jerusalem which authorized 
 them to describe themselves as ἀπόστολοι. This 
 title had been given among the Jews to emis- 
 saries sent to collect the Temple tribute, and we 
 
 GALATIANS, EPISTLE TO THE 
 
 learn from the Didaché that it continued to be 
 used in the Christian society of representatives 
 sent by one Church to another. In this sense 
 the word occurs (2 Cor. viii. 23; Phil. ii. 25). 
 If we suppose the rival teachers to have been 
 able to claim this title, we have the explanation 
 why the Apostle, in the opening of the Epistle 
 to the Galatians, claims to be himself an 
 Apostle, but one sent not by men, but by 
 Jesus Christ Himself; and we may conjecture a 
 reference to thesé teachers in those who are 
 described (2 Cor, xi. 5, xii. 11) as of ὑπερλίαν 
 ἀπόστολοι. On the whole, then, we seem to 
 have the most probable account of the origin of 
 the Galatian letter by supposing that some 
 little time after the Apostle had written the 
 Second Epistle to the Corinthians, and while he 
 was still uneasy as to the result of the attempts 
 to undermine his authority at Corinth, his 
 anxieties were brought to a climax by tidings 
 that Judaizing emissaries had penetrated so far 
 as to the remote Churches which he had founded 
 in Galatia, who, disparaging his authority in 
 comparison with that of the Apostles whom 
 they claimed to represent, had succeeded in 
 causing among those simple disciples a large 
 defection from the Gospel which St. Paul had 
 preached, of salvation through faith in Christ 
 without the works of the Law. The actual 
 letter well corresponds with what might have 
 been written under the tumult of feelings ex- 
 cited by this intelligence. 
 
 Galatians and the Acts of the Apostles.—In 
 the first two chapters of the Epistle to the 
 Galatians, which contain the Apostle’s vindica- 
 tion of his personal authority, he gives an auto- 
 biographical sketch of his previous history, 
 differing in so many respects from the account 
 given in the Acts of the Apostles, that we have 
 already pronounced it to be impossible that the 
 author of that Book could have seen the Gala- 
 tian letter. But there are those who have con- 
 tended that the discrepancies are so great that 
 the account in the Acts cannot be accepted 85. 
 truthful, and must be regarded as the dishonest 
 attempt of a writer of the 2nd century to 
 suppress the true history of early dissensions in 
 the Church. But it is scarcely possible that a 
 writer of the 2nd century could be so un- 
 acquainted with the Epistle to the Galatians as 
 the author of the Acts manifestly is. And it is 
 certainly inconsistent that objectors who hold 
 no theory of verbal inspiration should apply 
 different rules in their judgment of the New 
 Testament Books and of other books of like 
 character. If we had to compare the account 
 given by a veteran statesman of transactions in 
 which he had taken part fourteen years or 
 more previously with an independent history of 
 the same transactions written by a younger 
 member of his party several years still later, it 
 is likely enough that we should find discrepan- 
 cies which we might attribute either to imper- 
 fect recollection in the one case or imperfect 
 information in the other, yet feel no inclination 
 to doubt either the authorship of either docu- 
 ment or its importance to any one desirous to 
 study the history of the period. For example, 
 the authenticity of the Acts has been impugned 
 because the Book makes no mention of St. Paul’s 
 retirement to Arabia, of which he tells in Gal. i. 
 17. But, in the parallel case we have imagined 
 
 ees 
 uF, 
 
ςς 
 
 GALATIANS, EPISTLE TO THE 
 
 the fact that the younger writer appeared to be 
 unacquainted with some incidents in the early 
 life of his leader would not be felt as a reason 
 for doubting his ability to give a trustworthy 
 account of those public acts which came under 
 the narrator’s cognizance. On the other hand, 
 the Acts (xi. 30) relate a visit to Jerusalem 
 made by St. Paul and St. Barnabas as bearers of 
 a money contribution, of which visit no mention 
 is made in the Epistle to the Galatians. But in 
 that Epistle the writer’s object is to prove his 
 independence of the elder Apostles, and for this 
 purpose to tell how little in point of fact he 
 had seen of them. Now it appears from the 
 narrative in the Acts that the Apostles were 
 absent from Jerusalem at the time of this visit, 
 and that the contribution was handed not to 
 them, but to “the Elders.” If this were profane 
 history, we should not trouble ourselves much to 
 speculate how the two accounts were to be re- 
 conciled; whether it was that St. Paul thought 
 it irrelevant to mention a very short visit to 
 Jerusalem in which he had no interview with 
 Apostles, or that he had even forgotten that 
 visit when he was writing, or that the contribu- 
 tion, though entrusted to St. Paul and St. Barna- 
 bas, had actually been delivered by the latter. 
 Again, there seems every reason to helieve 
 that the visit to Jerusalem, of which St. Paul 
 speaks in Gal. ii., is the same as that of which 
 St. Luke tells in Acts xv.: but there are dis- 
 crepancies. St. Paul says that he went up “ by 
 tevelation,” St. Luke that he went up by 
 appointment of the brethren at Antioch: St. 
 Luke only tells of a public meeting of the 
 Church at Jerusalem, St. Paul of private con- 
 sultation between himself and the elder Apostles. 
 Yet there is no difficulty in receiving both 
 accounts and regarding them as supplementary. 
 We can accept the statement of St. Luke that 
 St. Paul appeared in Jerusalem as commissioned 
 by the Church of Antioch, and also St. Paul’s own 
 statement that it was by revelation the idea 
 had been suggested to him that the way to put 
 an end to the dissensions raised at Antioch by 
 emissaries who claimed to speak with the 
 authority of the Church at Jerusalem, was to 
 send a deputation to the parent Church in 
 order to ascertain whether that claim was well 
 founded. It appears from Acts xv. 3 that in 
 order that the report of the deputation might 
 be above all suspicion “certain others” were 
 joined on it with St. Paul and St. Barnabas. 
 Again, we can readily believe on the authority 
 of Gal. ii., that before the public meeting of 
 which St. Luke tells, St. Paul had, as prudence 
 would suggest, held a conference with the lead- 
 ing Apostles, and had come to an agreement 
 with them as to the line that was to be taken. 
 There would be nothing surprising if St. Luke 
 were not acquainted with what had taken place 
 in such private conference; and, on the other 
 hand, St. Paul’s words (Gal. ii. 2) do not exclude 
 allusion to a conference with the Church gene- 
 rally, though it is most to his purpose to dwell 
 on the sanction given to his course of action by 
 the leading Apostles. Clearly discrepancies of 
 the kind here noticed, though they would need 
 to be carefully considered if we were discussing 
 whether the inspiration granted to the sacred 
 writers was such as to preclude the possibility 
 of the smallest inaccuracy, and though the 
 
 GALATIANS, EPISTLE TO THE 1111 
 
 possibility of diversely reconciling them may 
 leave room for doubt or difference of opinion 
 as to some details of the history, yet afford no 
 grounds for suspicion of the good faith of the 
 narrator of either of the accounts we are com- 
 paring. 
 
 But the criticism which is really worth con- 
 sidering is that which, not content with striving 
 to make capital out of small discrepancies, en- 
 deavours to show that the Book of the Acts en- 
 tirely misrepresents St. Paul’s method of preach- 
 ing the Gospel and his relations to the elder 
 Apostles. In the Acts St. Paul is represented as 
 following the fixed rule of addressing himself 
 to the Jews first, and never feeling himself at 
 liberty to go to the heathen until the Jews 
 have rejected him. In every city he comes to 
 he makes his first visit to the Jewish syna- 
 gogue, and only turns to the Gentiles when 
 repulsed there (Acts xiii. 45, xviii. 6). Nor 
 even do we find him adopting a different method 
 at Athens (see Acts xvii. 17), where there were 
 facilities for entering into direct discussion with 
 heathen philosophers such as did not exist else- 
 where. But we are told that “the real Paul” 
 was from the first profoundly conscious of being 
 distinctly Apostle to the heathen (Gal. i. 15), 
 and would not hear of any distinction of Jew 
 from Gentile, or any privilege of the former 
 over the latter. Again, St. Paul is represented in 
 the Acts as only solicitous to relieve the Gen- 
 tiles from the yoke of submission to the Jewish 
 Law, but as quite willing that that Law should 
 be observed by those who were Jews by birth; 
 nay, as observing it himself. He goes up to 
 Jerusalem to attend the Jewish feasts (Acts 
 xviii. 21, xx. 16); he circumcises Timothy (xvi. 
 3); he makes «a vow and shaves his head at 
 Cenchrea (xviii. 18); and he finally loses his 
 liberty in consequence of having shown himself 
 in the Temple joining in the offerings made by 
 four other men who had a vow. But we are 
 told that such concessions could never have been 
 made by “the real Paul,” who held that men 
 even of Jewish birth ought not to observe the 
 Law, circumcision and salvation being incom- 
 patible, for he had told his disciples that if they 
 should be circumcised Christ should profit them 
 nothing. Finally, the sermons ascribed to St. 
 Paul in the Acts only treat of the Messiahship 
 of Jesus and of the doctrine of the Resurrection, 
 and are silent on the topic of which St. Paul’s 
 mind was full, viz. justification by faith with- 
 out the works of the Law, while the language 
 put in the mouth of St. Peter is thoroughly Paul- 
 ine. And generally the representation given in 
 the Acts of the friendly attitude of St. Peter and 
 St. James towards St. Paul and his preaching is 
 said to be incredible in view of what the Epistle 
 to the Galatians reveals as to the hostility 
 between St. Paul and the elder Apostles. 
 
 Now, if we had to admit the interpretation 
 of the Epistle to the Galatians to be correct, 
 which represents St. Paul as from the first con- 
 ceiving his mission to be exclusively to the 
 Gentiles, we should be forced to agree with the 
 extreme critics of Baur’s school, who, holding 
 with their master that the representations in 
 the Acts and in the Galatians are irreconcilable 
 with each other, declare that the former are so 
 much the more credible that if we have to reject 
 one or other we must reject the latter. In fact 
 
1112 GALATIANS, EPISTLE TO THE 
 
 the method of preaching ascribed to St. Paul by 
 St. Luke, namely that of beginning by preaching 
 in the Jewish synagogues, is exactly that which 
 a Christian missionary might have been expected 
 to adopt. Even if he had the conversion of 
 Gentiles solely in view, it was in the synagogues 
 that he would find Gentiles already convinced of 
 the folly of polytheism, and acquainted with the 
 Jewish prophecies, and thus prepared to follow 
 the proof that these prophecies were fulfilled in 
 Jesus. But it is not credible that one who loved 
 his own nation so ardently as St. Paul (Rom. ix. 
 3) would make no effort for the conversion of at 
 least some of them; and the rule of preaching 
 ascribed to him in Acts xiii. 46, “ It was necessary 
 that the word of God should first be preached 
 to you,” is in perfect harmony with Rom. i. 16, 
 “to the Jew first and also the Gentile.” In 
 any case, we can assert with certainty that the 
 Gentile converts, addressed in the Galatian 
 letter, had been made through the road of 
 Judaism. They are all assumed to be well 
 acquainted with the Old Testament and to 
 acknowledge its authority, nor could the success 
 with them of the Jewisn inculcators of circum- 
 cision be credible if they had not been previously 
 well affected towards Judaism. They were then 
 exactly such converts as would have been made 
 if St. Paul’s method of preaching had been such 
 as St. Luke describes. 
 
 Again St. Luke’s account that St. Paul was led 
 on to realize his commission as Apostle to the 
 Gentiles only gradually, and through the provi- 
 dential leading of events, is far more credible 
 than that he assumed this attitude at once on 
 his conversion. Surely the transition to becom- 
 ing a preacher from having been a persecutor of 
 Jesus Christ was startling enough to fill one 
 period of the Apostle’s lite, and we ought in 
 all reason to allow him a considerable time to 
 familiarize himself with his new position before 
 expecting him to make a second change equally 
 startling, that from having been a bigoted Jew 
 to one who rejected all the rules of Judaism, 
 and made no difference between circumcised and 
 uncircumcised. If St. Paul had made this change 
 at once, he would have found himself in a 
 position of complete isolation and without a 
 single sympathizer. But no one could less afford 
 to dispense with sympathy than St. Paul. His 
 Epistles reveal him as a man of the strongest 
 affections, always accompanied in his missionary 
 travels by a band of fellow-workers, unhappy 
 when left alone by them, and, we may well 
 believe, roused to the highest indignation against 
 the Judaizers, through his strong affection for 
 his Gentile converts, on whom it was proposed 
 to lay an intolerable burden. 
 
 Again, it is a complete misunderstanding of 
 the doctrine of St. Paul’s Epistles to imagine 
 that he censured the observance of Jewish rites 
 by men of Jewish birth. His doctrine all through 
 is that such observance is, as far as salvation is 
 concerned, a thing indifferent; that compliance 
 with national customs is not a duty and not a 
 sin. 
 not be circumcised ; those who had were not to 
 obliterate the mark of circumcision (1 Cor. vii. 
 18). He himself (1 Cor. ix. 20) gives direct 
 confirmation to St. Luke’s account of his conduct, 
 declaring that to the Jews he had become as a 
 Jew, to those under the Law as under the Law, 
 
 GALATIANS, EPISTLE TO THE 
 
 becoming all things to all men that he might by 
 all means save some. It is quite intelligible 
 that a man holding these principles should refuse 
 to circumcise Titus when the rite was insisted 
 on as a necessity, but be willing to circumcise 
 Timothy, who by the mother’s side was of Jewish 
 birth, when his uncircumcision put a bar to his 
 usefulness as a preacher of the Gospel. It may 
 be added that no statement in the Acts is more 
 trustworthy than that of the circumcision of 
 Timothy, since, as we have already remarked, an 
 attentive study of the whole section shows 
 that St. Luke must have got his information 
 from Timothy himself. 
 
 Lastly, with regard to St. Luke’s report of St. 
 Paul’s preaching, surely no wise missionary to 
 heathen would begin by entangling them in con- 
 troversies internal to Christians. Men must be 
 made to believe that Jesus was the Messiah and 
 that He rose from the dead before they could be 
 expected to take interest in the question whether 
 or not he had included in his Gospel the condi- 
 tion of compliance with Mosaic ordinances. St. 
 Luke’s narrative might justly have been sus- 
 pected if he had represented St. Paul as pursuing 
 a different course in such sermons as he has re- 
 ported. For St. Paul himself has named these 
 two fundamental points as the essential condi- 
 tions of salvation, “If thou shalt confess with 
 thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in 
 thine heart that God hath raised Him from the 
 dead, thou shalt be saved” (Rom. x. 9). Since 
 the Epistle to the Galatians reports that James; 
 Cephas, and John had acquiesced in St. Paul’s 
 mission to the heathen, no apology is necessary if 
 St. Luke in his report of their public utterances 
 represents them as in accordance with St. Paul. 
 
 The Council of Jerusalem. — Although St. 
 Luke’s narrative in Acts xv. admits of easy 
 reconciliation with Gal. ii., there remains the 
 ditiiculty that no mention is made in Galatians 
 of the letter which St. Luke reports as sent to 
 different Churches, stating the obligations to 
 which it was agreed on at the Jerusalem con- 
 ference that Gentiles should be subjected; and 
 further that when St. Paul himself (1 Cor. viii. 
 x.; Rom. xiv.) discusses the lawfulness of eating 
 meat offered to idols, he completely disregards 
 the injunctions of that apostolic letter. Here it 
 must be owned that the Pauline Epistles enable 
 us to correct the impression which the narra- 
 tive in the Acts, if it stood alone, would convey. 
 It has been common with Church writers to 
 speak of the meeting related in Acts xy. as the 
 “first general council;” and, one might thence 
 infer, as having made ordinances binding on the 
 Church in all times and all places. But in point 
 of fact the prohibition against eating blood is 
 not only obsolete among ourselves, but had 
 become so in the time of St. Augustine (Cont. 
 Faust. xxxii. 13), where he tells that those who 
 were scrupulous in this matter were then only 
 laughed at. And he explains the prohibition as 
 one temporarily necessary when Jewish members 
 
 | of the Church were numerous, who could not 
 Those who had not been circumcised need | 
 
 join in a common meal with those that did 
 
 | not observe it, but as needless where Jewish 
 
 Christians were scarcely to be found. Yet in 
 the 2nd century this prohibition was observed, 
 and probably derived its authority from this very 
 chapter of the Acts. One of the Lyons martyrs 
 
 | of the year 177 (Euseb. H. Κ΄. v. i. 27), when 
 
ςς 
 
 GALATIANS, EPISTLE TO THE 
 
 questioned concerning the stock calumny that 
 Christians at their meetings drank human 
 blood, exclaimed, ‘‘ How could we drink the blood 
 of men, who do not think it lawful to drink the 
 blood of beasts!”’ (see also Tert. Apol. 9.) The 
 juxtaposition also in Rey. ii. 14, 20, of com- 
 mitting fornication and eating things sacrificed 
 to idols, falls in completely with St. Luke’s 
 account, that an apostolic letter containing these 
 two prohibitions in close sequence had been 
 widely circulated. The letter itself, however, 
 as given by St. Luke, is only addressed to the 
 “brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch 
 and Syria and Cilicia”; and it appears from 
 St. Paul’s Epistles that he did not think himself 
 bound to give it a wider application. While he 
 gladly accepted the relief from the necessity of 
 circumcision which that letter gave to Gentile 
 converts, he himself regarded the use of meat 
 offered to idols as a thing in itself indifferent, 
 and which only became unlawful on account of 
 the scandal which it might cause. 
 
 We must be struck with the modernness of 
 the Apostle’s views on this subject. The 
 opinions widely current at the time are most 
 fully exhibited in the Pseudo-Clementine writ- 
 ings. They teach that food offered in an idol 
 temple was taken possession of by the demon 
 who really was the divinity there worshipped: 
 that consequently that food became so changed 
 in its character that any one who partook of it, 
 whether he knew what had befallen it or not, 
 was liable to be taken possession of by the sume 
 demon. These ideas passed into the Christian 
 Church, and the benediction of food before use 
 was felt by many to be not merely, as we 
 regard it, an act of thanksgiving to God for 
 His bounty, but also a protection against de- 
 monic power. Thus Gregory the Great in his 
 Dialogues tells of a nun who in a garden inad- 
 vertently ate a lettuce without crossing herself, 
 and so became possessed by a demon who chanced 
 to be on the lettuce at the time (Dial. i. 4). 
 To our feelings the advice given by St. Paul 
 to his converts cammends itself as what would 
 naturally be given by a man wise and sensible 
 as well as pious, and as not involving any matter 
 of controversy. His advice in substance was, 
 *‘Do not trouble yourself with anxious scrupu- 
 losity about the food you eat. Meat will not 
 make you better or worse. If it has even been 
 brought into the idol temple, it cannot com- 
 municate to you any pollution it may have 
 received there. But if it appears that your 
 partaking of these dedicated meats will be con- 
 strued by your heathen hosts into homage or 
 adherence to false gods; or if, though intending 
 no such homage yourselves, you influence by 
 your example brother Christians, not so well 
 instructed as yourselves, to do what to their 
 mind implies adherence to idolatry, then what 
 had before been indifferent becomes unlawful.” 
 This advice takes for granted that meat offered 
 to idols has not in itself the power of com- 
 municating pollution or causing injury to the 
 recipient, and that, if we are bound to abstain, 
 it is not for our own sake but for that of others. 
 But, however readily we might grant this, it 
 was no matter of course that it should be con- 
 ceded in St. Paul’s time. In fact the opposite 
 theory is maintained in books written not long 
 after his time by men of good natural gifts, well 
 
 GALATIANS, EPISTLE TO THE 1113 
 
 acquainted with the philosophy of their day, of 
 varied knowledge and considerable intellectual 
 acuteness. Our Lord however, when asked about 
 certain foods supposed to be polluting, threw His 
 answer into a pointed form well adapted to fix 
 itself on the memory of the hearers: “ Not that 
 which goeth into the mouth, but that which 
 cometh out of the mouth, defileth a man.” Though 
 St. Paul was not a personal hearer of our Lord, 
 this maxim of His could scarcely have been un- 
 known to him, and it may well have influenced 
 the advice he gave his converts. Looking on the 
 question in the light he did, it is intelligible 
 that he would not care to extend the absolute 
 prohibition of the Jerusalem conference further 
 than to the Churches to which it was addressed, 
 and that he would feel himself free to permit 
 Christians elsewhere to use their liberty provided 
 it were so done as to cause no hurt to others. 
 The Conflict with St. Peter—Although it would 
 be impossible in this article to discuss all the 
 passages in the Epistle on which serious con- 
 troversy has arisen, it would not be right to 
 leave unnoticed a passage which has attracted 
 so much attention as that (ii. 11 sq.) which 
 reveals the fact that at one time two leading 
 Apostles were at open variance with each other. 
 Porphyry used it to undermine the credit of 
 both Apostles, arguing that either St. Peter is 
 convicted of ignorance of the religion which he 
 professed to teach, or St. Paul of gross disrespect 
 towards an elder Apostle. The Pseudo-Cle- 
 mentine romance of which St. Peter is the hero, 
 regards opposition to him as only possible to 
 have been made by an enemy; and though in re- 
 ferring to the transaction it suppresses St. Paul's 
 name and substitutes that of Simon Magus, yet 
 coincidences of language with the Epistle to 
 the Galatians clearly show that St. Paul was in- 
 tended. Clement of Alexandria appears to have 
 felt that disagreement between Apostles was 
 impossible; and he solved the difficulty by the 
 hypothesis that Cephas, under which name the 
 teacher rebuked by St. Paul is designated in 
 the Galatians, was not Peter the Apostle, but 
 only one of the seventy disciples (Luke x.). The 
 arguments in favour of this view were that 
 St. Peter had in the case of Cornelius eaten with 
 men uncircunicised, and would be unlikely after- 
 wards to be ashamed to act in the same way; 
 that the Acts make no mention of any public 
 difference between St. Paul and St. Peter; and 
 that the words in Gal. ii. 13, “even Barnabas 
 was carried away by their dissimulation,” imply 
 that the Cephas spoken of was a person inferior 
 to St. Barnabas, since if St. Peter had been in- 
 tended we should not have expected to read ‘not 
 only Peter, but even Barnabas.” However much 
 such a solution had to recommend it to Church 
 writers, it was found impossible to maintain it 
 when it was fairly compared with the context 
 in the Epistle. Origen then devised a new way 
 of understanding the transaction, which for a 
 couple of centuries or more held its ground in 
 the East as the true explanation of what had 
 taken place. Origen’s work has been lost, but we 
 have a full exposition of his theory in a sermon 
 by St. Chrysostom on the passage. We can well 
 adopt his account of the circumstances of the 
 case. The Apostles in Judaea would not run 
 the risk of disturbing the infant faith of their 
 disciples by a premature pulling up of the 
 
1114 GALATIANS, EPISTLE TO THE 
 
 practices in which they had been rooted from | 
 their earliest years. It was otherwise with St. 
 Paul when he preached to the Gentiles, who had 
 never been accustomed to such rules. Thus 
 quite naturally St. Peter and his Churches in 
 Judaea observed the Jewish practices; St. Paul 
 and his Gentile converts did not. When St. 
 Peter came down to Antioch, he naturally con- 
 formed to the practices which he found estab- 
 lished there, as St. Paul conformed to Jewish 
 practices when he went to Jerusalem. But when 
 Jerusalem Jews came down to Antioch, St. Peter, 
 not to shock their weak faith, went back to the 
 mode of living which they had always known 
 him to use; and then certain of the permanent 
 members of the Church of Antioch were led to 
 follow St. Peter’s new example, and thus gave 
 rise to the scene described in the Epistle. St. 
 Chrysostom will not believe that there was any 
 real disagreement between the Apostles; but he 
 regards St. Paul’s public rebuke and St. Peter’s 
 submission to it as a scene arranged between 
 them in order that St. Peter might be justified in 
 the eyes of the Jerusalem visitors. Just, he says, 
 as those whose duty it is to collect taxes shrink 
 from the odium attending the disagreeable task 
 of pressing severely on their debtors, and have 
 recourse to the expedient of getting their superiors 
 publicly to press them for what they are bound 
 to bring in, and to bitterly revile them for their 
 remissness, so that they can then do their work 
 without offence, it being plain to all that the 
 rigour they exercise is forced on them and not 
 their own choice. Thus we are to understand 
 the scene between St. Peter and St. Paul as an 
 arranged apology to excuse the former for a 
 change in his course of action, which would 
 have given great offence if supposed to be made 
 altogether of his own choice. 
 
 St. Jerome, who adopts this theory, adds a more 
 offensive illustration. He tells how often he 
 had seen in the Roman law courts two counsel 
 reviling each other with the utmost bitterness, 
 who yet might be seen a little after out of court 
 walking together the best possible friends. To 
 this illustration St. Jerome added a more ques- 
 tionable defence of the lawfulness of temporary 
 simulation; and it is not wonderful that this 
 line of exposition grated harshly on the deep 
 religious feeling of St. Augustine, whose corre- 
 spondence with St. Jerome about this passage 
 constitutes one of the most interesting specimens 
 of patristic Biblical criticism. St. Augustine 
 reduces the question to this: Is it better to 
 maintain thatthe Apostle Paul wrote something 
 that was not true or that the Apostle Peter did 
 something that was not right? To say that St. 
 Peter on this occasion did no wrong is to give 
 the lie to St. Paul, who tells that “Peter walked 
 not uprightly after the truth of the Gospel.” 
 And if we can imagine this statement of St. Paul 
 to be false, we lose all confidence in the truth of 
 
 any passage of Scripture. 
 
 The result of this controversy was to bring 
 about a general agreement that there was a real 
 difference of opinion between the Apostles, and 
 that St. Paul was justified in rebuking St. Peter, 
 not as erroneous in his doctrine, but as faulty in 
 his practice. But it must be mentioned that 
 the earliest Western writer who dealt with the 
 passage had taken St. Peter’s side. Marcion had 
 justified his rejection of the authority of the 
 
 . 
 
 GALATIANS, EPISTLE TO THE 
 
 elder Apostles by quoting St. Paul’s accusation’ 
 of St. Peter as having walked “not uprightly 
 according to the truth of the Gospel;” and 
 Tertullian, whose impulse in controversy always 
 is to catch at the first weapon near at hand, 
 replies: “ True, but this was when St. Paul was 
 still young in the faith, still uncertain whether 
 he had run or might be still running in vain. 
 His expostulation with Peter was but the out- 
 break of the zeal against Judaism of a new 
 convert, which Paul himself retracted when he 
 became older and had learned to become all things 
 to all men, and even to the Jews to become a 
 Jew ” (Adv. Mare. i. 4). But when Tertullian 
 recurs to the subject, he drops this apology, 
 which is hardly consistent with the reverence 
 for St. Paul which he always exhibits, and takes 
 the usual ground that it was only St. Peter's 
 practice which was faulty, and that no question 
 of doctrine was involved. 
 
 Modern critics who contend that St. Peter’s 
 conduct manifests a real difference of doctrine 
 from St. Paul, exhibit inability to enter into the 
 feelings of the people of the time. Some help 
 towards this is given by our knowledge of the 
 caste system of our Indian Empire, Different 
 views have been. taken by missionaries as to 
 whether they ought to tolerate the observance 
 of caste by their converts, as a mere national 
 custom, belonging to the secular sphere with 
 which religion has no concern, or whether they 
 should demand of their converts the abandon- 
 ment of caste on pain of rejection or excom- 
 munication. Evidently the possibility of carry- 
 ing out the former plan depends much on 
 whether or not there is a mixture of races in 
 the Church. In Palestine in the first age of 
 Christianity the members of the Church were 
 all Jews, and there seemed no reason why they 
 should forsake their national customs. By 
 compliance with them (if that can be called 
 compliance which was not so much ἃ con- 
 cession to the feelings of others as a satisfaction 
 to the feelings and prejudices in which they 
 themselves had been brought up), Jews in 
 Palestine, who believed in the Messiahship of 
 Jesus, could preserve the friendship and esteem 
 of their unconverted brethren. This, we are told, 
 was the case with St. James the Just. But it 
 was otherwise where races were mixed; and the 
 Indian caste system enables us to understand 
 the difficulties felt by a Christian Jew on finding 
 himself obliged to mix with Gentiles as brethren 
 and on the most intimate terms. A Jew like 
 St. Paul, who quite cast off his national ex- 
 clusiveness, would be looked on as having lost 
 caste, and so would be regarded by unbelieving 
 Jews as a renegade more deserving of hatred 
 than a Gentile; while even Christian Jews 
 could not conquer their dislike at such laxity, 
 feeling towards it much as Queen Elizabeth and 
 other non-Romanists did to a married priesthood. 
 Feelings cannot be altered in a moment, and the 
 heart will still revolt at what the intellect can 
 give no good reason for condemning. 
 
 English residents abroad who have persuaded 
 themselves that there is no harm in conforming 
 to some foreign customs condemned by the code 
 of English propriety, will still feel uncomfort- 
 able when their laxity comes under the eye of 
 their own countrymen. And nothing can be more 
 natural than that St. Peter, though convinced in 
 
\ 
 
 GALATIANS, EPISTLE TO THE 
 
 theory that there was nothing wrong in his 
 conforming to the practices of the Church of 
 Antioch in associating with Gentiles, should feel 
 much ashamed when detected in his laxity by 
 visitors from Jerusalem. On the other hand, 
 the natural effect of his conduct was that the 
 Gentile converts, whom so great an Apostle pro- 
 nounced to be unfit for his society, were put 
 under strong temptation to do whatever might 
 be necessary to raise themselves to the higher 
 Jevel; and this naturally drew strong remon- 
 strance from St. Paul. But there is no reason 
 to understand the “compulsion” spoken of in 
 his question, “* Why compellest thou the Gentiles 
 to live as do the Jews?” as of any other kind 
 than that necessarily exercised by his practice 
 and example. [G. 5.1] 
 1V. Bibliography.—For comm. which embrace 
 the whole of the Pauline Epp., see 2 CoRIN- 
 THTANS sub fin. Patristic comm. on Galatians 
 abound: a valuable notice of them is given in an 
 app. to his com. by Bp. Lightfoot, who refers to 
 Cave, Script. Eccles. Hist. Liter., Oxon. 1740; 
 Fabricius, Bibl. Graeca; Schréckh, Christliche 
 Kirchengeschichte ; Simon, Histoire critique des 
 principaux Commentateurs du N. T., 1693; 
 Rosenmiiller, Historia Interpretationis Librorum 
 Sacrorum, 1795-1814; and Augustin in Ndsselt, 
 Opuse. iii. p. 321. The earlier patristic comm. 
 “have for the most part an independent value ; 
 the later are mere collections or digests of the 
 labours of preceding writers.” Greek: Of 
 Origen’s vast cumm. on Galatians only three 
 fragments remain in a Latin tr. of Pamphilus’ 
 Defence of him; but probably “all subsequent 
 writers are directly or indirectly indebted to 
 him to a very large extent.” St. Chrysostom’s 
 com. (0. A.D. 390) is less homiletic and more 
 continuous than his other treatises on the N. T., 
 Eng. tr. in Library of the Fathers, Oxf. 1840. 
 The com. of Theodore of Mopsuestia (c. 420), the 
 best representative of the School of Antioch, is 
 extant in a Latin version: Dom Pitra, Spicil. 
 Solesm. i. p. 49, 1852; Swete, Camb. 1880-82. 
 Theodoret’s (c. 450) is avowedly a reproduction 
 of St. Chrysostom and Theodore: but it is highly 
 praised. Latin: The com. of Victorinus Afer 
 (c. 360), like that of the unknown Hilary com- 
 monly called Ambrosiaster (c. 375), supplies 
 valuable material for criticism of the Old Latin 
 text of the Bible; but while Hilary’s is one of 
 the best Latin comm., that of Victorinus is one 
 of the worst: its obscurity is universally con- 
 demned. St. Jerome’s com. (c. 387) was written 
 in haste (Pref. to B. iii.), like most of his works, 
 and is partly a digest of previous expositions, 
 “Though abounding in fanciful and perverse 
 interpretations, violations of good taste and good 
 feeling, faults of all kinds, this is nevertheless 
 the most valuable of all the patristic comm. on 
 the Ep, to the Gal.” St. Augustine’s Hxpositio 
 of the Ep. is thought to be all his own ; but it 
 does not rank among his best works. As a 
 sample of later comm. that of Claudius of Turin 
 (c. 815) may be taken. He professes merely to 
 compare; and his choice is determined by his 
 fondness for allegorical interpretation. Of the 
 N. T. catenae that on Gal. alone is printed 
 entire; Paris, 1542; Bibl. PP. maz. xiv. p. 139; 
 Magn. Bibl. Vet. Patr. ix. p.66; Migne, Patrol. 
 Lat. civ. p. 838. For a good list of comm., 
 from Luther onwards, see Meyer’s Com. Eng. tr., 
 
 GALBANUM 1115 
 
 Edinburgh, 1873, and add to it the following :— 
 Latin: Lorentz, Arg. 1747; Semler, Halae, 1779; 
 Fischer, Long. 1808; Niemayer, Gott. 1827. 
 English: B. Jowett, Murray, 1859; J. Venn, 
 Nesbit, 1878; H. Cowles, New York, 1879; 
 W. Sanday in Ellicott’s N. T., Cassells, 1879; 
 J. S. Howson in Speaker’s Comm. on N. T., 
 Murray, 1881; A. Beet, Hodder, 1885; J. S. 
 Exell, Nisbet, 1889; E. Huxtable in Pulpit 
 Com., Kegan Paul, 1889; Findlay, H dder, 
 
 1889; Sadler, Bell, 1890 (homiletic and 
 devotional). German: Zschokke, Halle, 1834; 
 
 Baumgarten-Crusius, Leip. 1846; Ewald, Gitt- 
 ing. 1857; Vémel, 1865; Besser, Halle, 1869; 
 Brandes, Wiesbaden, 1869; Sieffert, Gétting. 
 1886 ; Steck, 1888; Zimmer (on the Old Latin 
 text), 1888; Schaefer (Roman Catholic), Miinster, 
 1890; Vilter, Die Comp. d. Paulin. Hauptbriefe : 
 I. “ Der Romer und Galaterbrief,” Tiibingen, 
 1890, 175 8., reviewed by Holtzmann in the 
 Theol. Literaturztg., Aug. 23, 1890, * Der 
 Galaterbrief ist ihm vollstiindig unecht. Auch 
 sind Interpolationen hiufig ;” Lipsius, Freiburg 
 i. B. 1891. Srench: Rieu, Paris, 1829; Barrau, 
 Mont. 1842. The student will derive great 
 help from Ellicott, Longmans, 1867 (grammatical 
 and exegetical, with criticism of editions in the 
 preface); Lightfoot, Macmillan, 1887 (indis- 
 pensable); Meyer; Wieseler, Gétting. 1850 
 (historical and chronological; chief defender of 
 the Teutonic origin of the Galatians); Sieffert ; 
 and Lipsius. In Field, Otiwn Norvicense, iii., 
 Oxf. 1881, are notes on ii. 11, vi. 10, 113 in 
 Jahrb. f. prot. Theol. ii. p. 188, Lipsius on 
 vi. 6-10. The literature on the relation of 
 Gal. ii. to Acts xv. is considerable; for refer- 
 ences, see Reuss, Gesch. d. heil. Schr. N. T., 
 Braunschweig, 1887, § 65, Eng. tr. Clark, 
 1884, p. 58. The literature on iii. 20 is 
 immense; for references, see Meyer in loco. 
 Expositor, 1st Series: Gal. 1. 19 in vol. x. 
 p- 162; ii. 3-5 in xi. 2015 ii. 18 im ix. 3925 1]. 
 20 in iii. 62; vi. 1-5 in x. 81. 2nd Series: Ep. 
 in 11. 287; 111. 8 in vi. 98. 3rd Series: Ep. in 
 iv. 131; the Judaizers in x. 52, 107; ii. 1-5 in 
 vi. 435; iii. 16 im ix. 18; ii. 19, 20 in x. 52, 
 107. ΓΑ ἘΠ 
 
 GALBANUM (7939h, chell’ndh), one of the 
 
 perfumes employed in the preparation of the 
 sacred incense (Ex. xxx. 34). ‘The similarity of 
 the Hebrew name to the Greek χαλβάνη and the 
 Latin Galbanum has led to the supposition that 
 the substance indicated is the same. The gal- 
 banum of commerce is brought chiefly from 
 India and the Levant. It is a resinous gum of a 
 brownish yellow colour, and strong, disagreeable 
 smell, usually met with in masses, but some- 
 times found in yellowish tear-like drops. The 
 ancients believed that when burnt the smoke of 
 it was efficacious in driving away serpents and 
 gnats (Plin. xii. 56, xix. 58, xxiv. 13; Virg. 
 Georg. iii. 415). But, though galbanum itself 
 is well known, the plant which yields it has not 
 been exactly determined. Dioscorides (iii. 87) 
 describes it as the juice of an umbelliferous 
 plant growing in Syria, and called by some 
 μετώπιον (cp. i. 71). Kiihn, in his commentary 
 on Dioscorides (ii. p. 532), is in favour of the 
 Ferula ferulago (L.), which grows in North Africa, 
 Crete, and Asia Minor. According to Pliny 
 (xii. 56) it is the resinous gum of a plant called 
 
1110 GALEED 
 
 stagonitis, growing on Mount Amanus in Syria; 
 while the metopion is the product of a tree near 
 the oracle of Ammon (xii. 49). The testimony 
 of Uheophrastus (Hist. Plunt. ix. 7), so far as it 
 goes, confirms the accounts of Pliny and Diosco- 
 rides. It was for some time supposed to be the 
 product of the Bubon galbanum of Linnaeus, a 
 native of the Cape of Good Hope. Don found in 
 the galbanum of commerce the fruit of an um- 
 belliferous plant of the tribe Silerinae, which he 
 assumed to be that from which the gum was 
 produced, and to which he gave the name of 
 Galbanum officinale.* But his conclusion was 
 called in question by Dr. Lindley, who received 
 from Sir John Macneil the fruits of a plant 
 growing at Durrood, near Nishapore, in Kho- 
 rassan, which he named Opoidia galbanifera, of 
 the tribe Smyrneae. This plant has been adopted 
 by the Dublin College in their Pharmacopoeia, as 
 that which yields the galbanum (Pereira, Mat. 
 Med. ii. pt. 2, p. 188). M. Buhse, in his Persian 
 travels (quoted in Royle, Mat. Med. pp. 471, 
 472), identified the plant producing galbanum 
 with one which he found on the Demawend 
 mountains. It was called by the natives Ahas- 
 such, and bore a very close resemblance to the 
 Ferula erubescens, but belonged neither to the 
 genus Galbanum nor to Opoidia. It is believed 
 that the Persian galbanum, and that brought 
 from the Levant, are the produce of different 
 plants. But the question remains undecided. 
 
 If the galbanum be the true representative of 
 the chell’nah of the Hebrews, it may at first 
 sight appear strange that a substance which, 
 when burnt by itself, produces a repulsive 
 odour, should be employed in the composition of 
 the sweet-smelling incense for the service of 
 the Tabernacle. We have the authority of 
 Pliny that it was used, with other resinous 
 ingredients, in making perfumes among the 
 ancients; and the same author tells us that 
 these resinous substances were added to en- 
 able the perfume to retain its fragrance 
 longer. ‘*Resina aut gummi adjiciuntur ad 
 continendum odorem in corpore” (xiil. 2). 
 Galbanum was also employed in adulterating 
 the opobalsamum, or gum of the balsam plant 
 (Plin. xii. 54). [W. A. W.] 
 
 GAL-EED (153 =heap of witness; A. Bov- 
 vos pdptus; Acervus testimonii Galaad). The 
 name given to the heap which Jacob and Laban 
 made on Mount Gilead, in witness of the cove- 
 nant between them (Gen. xxxi. 47, 485; cp. 
 vv. 23, 25), [GILEAD ; JEGAR-SAHA-DUTHA. | 
 
 GAL'GALA (Γάλγαλα; Galgala), the ordi- 
 mary equivalent in the LXX. for Gilgal. In the 
 E. V. it is named only in 1 Mace. ix. 2, as desig- 
 nating the direction of the road taken by the 
 army of Demetrius, when they attacked Masaloth 
 in Arbela—“ the way to Galgala” (ὁδὸν τὴν εἰς 
 Γάλγαλα). The army, as we learn from the 
 statements of Josephus (Ant. xii. 11, § 1), was 
 on its way from Antioch, and there is no reason 
 to doubt that by Arbela is meant the place of 
 that name in Galilee now surviving as IJrbid. 
 
 » I have not been able to discover either Galbanum 
 officinale or Opoidia galbanifera growing in Syria. 
 There is a specimen of the latter in the Herbarium at 
 Cambridge from Northern Persia, which is probably the 
 true home of the plant.—[H. B. T.] 
 
 GALILEE 
 
 [ARBELA.] The ultimate destination of the 
 army was Jerusalem (1 Mace. ix. 3), and 
 Galgala may theretore be either the upper 
 Gilgal near Bethel, or the lower one near 
 Jericho, as the route through the Ghor or that 
 through the centre of the country was chosen 
 (Ewald, Gesch. iv. 370). Josephus omits the 
 name in his version of the passage. It is a 
 gratuitous supposition of Ewald’s that the 
 Galilee which Josephus introduces is a corruption 
 of Galgala; on the other hand, Galilee may be 
 the correct reading in 1 Mace. ix. 2. [G.] [W.] 
 
 GALILAE’AN (Γαλιλαῖος ; Galilaeus), an in- 
 habitant of Galilee (Matt. xxvi. 69 in R. V. only; 
 Mark xiv. 70; Luke xiii. 1, 2, xxii, 59, xxiii. 6; 
 John iv. 453; Acts ii. 7; also in the Greek in 
 Acts i. 11, v. 37). (W.] 
 
 GALILEE (Γαλιλαία). The Hebrew word 
 bibs, Galil, rendered “ Galilee ” (LXX. Γαλιλαία) 
 
 in the O. T.—probably to keep up the corre- 
 spondence with the N. 'l.—is derived from a root 
 
 723, “to roll.” In the plural form, GELILOTH 
 (A. V. “ borders,” “coasts; ” R. V. “regions ”’), 
 it occurs five times in the O. T., and is applied on 
 each occasion to level or slightly undulating 
 districts, such as Philistia and the Jordan Valley 
 near Jericho, (alt/ would appear then to signify 
 level or undulating ground, and was perhaps 
 used in this sense in Josh. xx. 7, xxi. 32, 1 Ch. 
 vi. 76, to indicate the plain in which Kadesh 
 Naphtali was situated. At a later period the 
 word was apparently used in a wider sense to 
 denote a district. The “land of Galilee,” which 
 probably lay close to the borders of Hiram’s 
 kingdom, contained twenty cities (1 K.ix. 11-13); 
 and, in 2 Καὶ, xv. 29, Galilee is mentioned as a 
 distinct locality, whence the people were carried 
 away captive to Assyria. The expression 
 “ Galilee of the nations,” or “of the Gentiles ” 
 
 (Dan bibs, Is. ix. 1 ; in Matt. iv. 15, Γαλιλαία 
 
 τῶν ἐθνῶν; in 1 Mace. v. 15, Γαλιλαία ἀλλο- 
 φύλων), indicates a still more extended area; 
 but it is by no means clear that it refers toa 
 region with fixed geographical limits. 
 
 The northern tribes established themselves 
 slowly in their possessions, and did not drive 
 out the Canaanites, who continued to dwell 
 amongst them (Judg. i. 30-333; iv. 2). Even 
 under the monarchy the heathen element in the 
 population was strong; the cities given by 
 Solomon to Hiram must have been heathen 
 cities; and Isaiah (ix. 1) uses the term “ Galilee 
 of the nations.” After the people of Upper 
 Galilee had been taken captive by Tiglath-pileser 
 (2 K. xv. 29; Jos. Ant. ix. 11, §1), the country 
 was probably occupied by heathen, and there 
 is no record of its having been re-settled by 
 Hebrews after the return from the Captivity. 
 The period at which Galilee was constituted a 
 separate administrative district is uncertain, but 
 it was possibly during the time of the Persian 
 domination. It is first mentioned, with Judaea 
 and Samaria, in the letter from Demetrius to 
 Jonathan Maccabaeus (1 Mace. x. 30; Jos. Ant. 
 xiii. 2, § 3); and was then a toparchy, having 
 approximately the same limits as the later dis- 
 trict under the Herods. In Judith i. 8 there is 
 an indication of the topographical division into 
 
GALILEE 
 
 Upper and Lower Galilee. At the commencement 
 of the Asmonaean revolt the number of Jews 
 in Galilee must have been small. They took no 
 part in the rebellion, and it was only after Judas 
 Maccabaeus had established himself in Judaea, 
 and had restored the Temple service, that the 
 war spread to Galilee. The Galilaean Jews, 
 being oppressed by the heathen amidst whom 
 they lived, appealed to Judas for protection, and 
 Simon Maccabaeus was sent to their assistance. 
 
 | 
 | 
 
 After a successful campaign Simon returned to | 
 
 Judaea, taking with him the Jews he had 
 rescued, “ with their wives and their children, 
 and all that they had” (1 Mace. v. 14, 15, 17, 20, 
 21, 23, 55; Jos. Ant. xii. 8, § 2). The object 
 of this deportation was probably to strengthen 
 the position of the insurgent Jews in the hill- 
 
 PEK 
 °Japoah 
 
 GALILEE 
 English Miles 
 0123456 
 
 Upp) 
 Iii is Kantah°\—> i 
 y oCapharati 
 
 YR 
 
 ἔς ἢ 7 οἱ Fe Waters 
 ia— ofMerom 
 Hf; i Zabulon oGischata ( 
 ᾿ Γ Ἂς ἃ ὩΣ ΕΣ ΕΣ 
 Jebel 
 ermuk oSafed 
 Er-Ramely 
 
 WS 3 CO} 
 cor X. 
 R cha iff 78 
 Yij=zas 
 
 oFotapat Na 
 olapata AS 
 
 5° 
 piain οὗ ᾿ 
 
 | 
 
 country of Judaea. Under Jonathan Maccabaeus 
 the power of the Asmonaeans rapidly increased 
 and apparently extended over Galilee (Jos. Ant. 
 xiii. 2,§ 3; 4,§9;5,§6). Jonathan defeated 
 the generals of Demetrius at Kadesh in Galilee 
 
 (1 Mace. xi. 63-74; Jos. Ant. xiii. 5, § 6); and | 
 
 it was in Galilee that he fell into the fatal snare 
 
 laid for him by Tryphon (1 Mace. xii. 47, 4935, 
 
 Jos. Ant. xiii. 6, § 2). Galilee formed part of 
 the Jewish state founded by the Asmonaeans, 
 and no doubt partook of the general prosperity 
 under the rule of Hyrcanus. 
 at this time that the Jews began to settle in 
 Galilee; and the richness of the country and 
 
 It was perhaps | 
 
 the facilities it offered for trade must have at- | 
 
 tracted large numbers of emigrants from the less 
 fertile hills of Judaea, for, during the Herodian 
 
 | Antipater, having been made 
 
 | which it flourishes. 
 
 1117 
 
 period, Jews and Judaised Aramaeans formed a 
 large majority of the population. In B.c, 47 
 procurator of 
 Judaea by Julius Caesar, entrusted the govern- 
 ment of Galilee to his son Herod (Jos. Ant. xiv. 
 9, § 2); and the district afterwards, B.c. 40, 
 formed part of the dominion over which Herod 
 was made king. On Herod’s death, B.c. 4, Herod 
 Antipas was made tetrarch of Galilee and Perea 
 
 GALILEE 
 
 | (Ant. xvii. 8, § 1), and he retained the govern- 
 
 ment until his banishment in a.p, 39—a period 
 that included the whole life of Christ (Luke 
 xxiii. 7). Galilee now passed to Herod Agrippa I. 
 (Ant. xviii. 7, § 2), who died suddenly, a.p. 44, 
 at Caesarea; it was then placed under the 
 Roman procurator of Judaea, and, with the ex- 
 ception of Tiberias, Tarichaeae, and a small 
 adjoining district, which were given to Herod 
 Agrippa IIL. (Ant. xx. 8, § 4), so remained until 
 the outbreak of the final war in A.D, 66. 
 
 Galilee, in the time of Christ, was the most 
 northern of the three districts into which Pales- 
 tine west of the Jordan was divided (Luke xvii. 
 11; Acts ix. 31; Jos. B. J. iii. 3, § 1); and in- 
 cluded, roughly speaking, the territories assigned 
 to Issachar, Zebulun, Asher, and Naphtali. It 
 was bounded on the S. by Samaria, and stretched 
 from the foot of the Samaritan hills northwards 
 to the river Leontes; on the W. it was separated 
 from the sea by the territories of Ptolemais and 
 Tyre, and on the E. it extended to the Jordan 
 and the Sea of Galilee or Tiberias. Its limits 
 were at one time close to Ptolemais (1 Mace. v. 
 55), Carmel once belonged to it (Jos. B. J. iii. 
 8, § 1), and according to the Talmudists (Neu- 
 bauer, Géog. du Talmud, pp. 236, 240, 242) it 
 embraced Caesarea Philippi, Gamala, and the 
 country above Gadara. Josephus (B. J. iii. 3, 
 
 /§ 1) divides Galilee into ‘Lower Galilee,” 
 | which extended from Tiberias, on the E., to 
 
 Zebulan, perhaps Sh‘aib, on the W., and from 
 Xaloth, Jksal, on the plain of Esdraelon, to 
 Bersabe; and ‘‘ Upper Galilee,” which stretched 
 northwards from Bersabe to Baca, on the Tyrian 
 frontier, and from Meloth, perhaps M‘alia, on 
 the W., to Thella, near the Jordan. We learn, 
 incidentally, that Lower Galilee extended as far 
 as the village of Ginaea, the modern Jenin, on 
 the extreme southern side of the plain of Es- 
 draelon (Ant. xx. 6,§ 1; B. J. iii. 8, § 4); that 
 Chabolo, Kabul, was on the confines of Ptolemais 
 (Vit. 43); and that Arbela (/rbid) and Jotapata 
 (Jef‘at) were in Lower Galilee (Vit. 37; B. J 
 ii. 20, § 6). The Mishna (Shebitth, ix. 2) adds 
 a third division, “the valley” or district of 
 Tiberias; and defines Upper Galilee as the 
 country beyond Kefr Hananiah, Kefr ‘Andn, in 
 which the sycamore does not grow, and Lower 
 Galilee as the district, below that village, in 
 The division is a natural 
 one, and easily understood, for, beyond Kefr 
 ‘Andn, the range of Jebel Jurmuk rises, almost 
 like a wall, for about 2,000 feet, and separates. 
 the rugged hills of Jebel Safed and the Belad 
 Besharah from the rich open country to the 
 south. The Mishna (Gittin, vii. 8) places Kefr 
 Utheni, or Uthnai, perhaps Kefr Addn, N.W. of 
 Jenin, on the frontier between Galilee and 
 Samaria; and, according to Tal. Bab. Gittin, 
 7 b, Kezib (ez-Zib) was the last town of Galilce 
 towards the north-west. Eusebius (O08.° p. 256, 
 90) appears to call Upper Galilee “ Galilee of 
 
1118 GALILEE 
 
 the nations,” in which he places Capernaum 
 (OS? p. 272, 96). 
 
 Upper Galilee is a mountainous district, “ the 
 mount Naphtali” of the O. T. (Josh. xx. 7), 
 parted from the lofty range of Mount Leba- 
 non, of which it is a southern prolongation, 
 by the deep ravine of the Leontes. The 
 highland plateau is diversified by picturesque, 
 deeply-cut valleys, small but rich upland plains, 
 and steep hills, clad with brushwood, that often 
 attain an altitude of over 3,000 feet, and culmi- 
 nate in Jebel Jermuk, 3,934 feet. It is in places 
 well wooded with dwarf oak, intermixed with 
 tangled shrubberies of hawthorn and arbutus; 
 but it is above all “a land of brooks of water, of 
 fountains and depths that spring out of valleys 
 and hills” (Deut. viii. 7). On the E. the 
 plateau ends with an abrupt descent to the 
 Jordan valley, and the rich plain of Ard e/-Kheit 
 that borders the e-Hiileh Lake; and on the W. 
 it gradually breaks down to the Phoenician 
 plain. It was once covered with fruitful fields 
 and vines; and its fruits were renowned for 
 their great sweetness (Tal. Bab. Megilla, 6a); 
 and it is still well cultivated by a numerous and 
 industrious population. The plateau is so cut 
 up by an intricate system of valleys that no im- 
 portant trade routes could ever have crossed it, 
 and communication must always have been 
 difficult. The ancient main roads were: (1) from 
 Tyre by Kul‘at Martin and Abrikha to Dan and 
 Caesarea Philippi; (2) from the Sea of Galilee 
 up the Jordan Valley; and (3) from Safed by 
 Kades, Kedesh Naphtali, and Hunin to the bridge 
 over the Leontes. On the plateau are the ruins 
 of Kedesh (Josh. xx. 7, apparently the “ Nephthali 
 in Galilee” of Tobit i. 2); of Gischala, e/-Jish, 
 a city fortified by Josephus, and the last place 
 in Galilee to hold out against the Romans 
 (B. J. ii. 20, § 6; iv. 1, § 1; 2, §§ 1-5); and of 
 several towns with large synagogues. The chief 
 town is now Safed, which has a large population 
 of Jews, and is one of the four holy Jewish 
 cities of Palestine. 
 
 Lower Galilee is characterised by the number 
 and richness of its plains, and is one of the 
 most beautiful and fertile districts in Palestine. 
 The soil is especially favourable to agriculture, 
 and here and there are spots well wooded with 
 oak and other trees. ‘he hills sink down in 
 graceful slopes to broad winding yales of the 
 richest green; the outlines are varied, the 
 colours soft; and the whole landscape is one of 
 picturesque luxuriance. Renan describes it in 
 glowing terms as “un pays trés-vert, trés- 
 ombragé, trés-souriant, le vrai pays du Cantique 
 des cantiques et des chansons du _ bien-aimé ” 
 { Vie de Jésus, p.43). The plains commence with 
 that of er-Rameh, 1250 feet above the sea, at the 
 foot of Jebel Jermuk. To the south of this is the 
 Sahel el-Buttauf, the “great plain of Asochis” 
 (Jos. Vit. 41), from the eastern end of which 
 there is a rapid descent to the plain of Genne- 
 sareth, celebrated alike for its beauty and the 
 fruitfulness of its soil (8. J. iii. 10, § 8). Above 
 Tiberias is the Sahel el-Ahma, with its rich 
 volcanic soil; and, towards the southern ex- 
 tremity of the district, the hills fall rapidly to 
 the great plain of Esdraelon, to enjoy which 
 Issachar was content to become “a servant unto 
 tribute” (Gen. xlix. 15). The blessings pro- 
 mised to Zebulun and Asher (Gen. xlix. 13, 20; 
 
 GALILEE 
 
 Deut. xxiii. 18, 19, 24) seem to be inscribed on 
 the features of the country; it is “a land of 
 wheat and barley, and vines and fig-trees, and 
 pomegranates ; a land of oil olive, and honey” 
 (Deut. viii. 8), Josephus describes the soil of 
 Galilee as “universally rich and fruitful, and 
 planted with trees of all sorts, so that by its 
 fruitfulness it invites even the most slothful to 
 take pains inits cultivation” (B. J. iii. 3, §§ 2, 3). 
 According to the Talmudists, the country for 16 
 miles round Sepphoris was fertile, “flowing with 
 milk and honey ” (Tal. Bab. Megilla, 6 a); and 
 the fruits of Gennesareth were so luscious that 
 they were not sent to Jerusalem at the time of 
 Feasts, lest men should be tempted to go up to 
 the Feasts for the sake of eating them (Tal. Bab. 
 Pesakhim, 8b). The productions of Galilee were 
 of the most varied description; oil was plentiful 
 (Jos. Vit. 13, 30 B. Je 11..21, § 2)5%and the 
 climate was so favourable to the growth of the 
 olive-tree, that according to the Talmud it was 
 easier to raise a forest of olive-trees in Galilee 
 than a child in Judaea (Neubauer, Géog. du Tal. 
 p- 180). At Achabara pheasants were raised ; 
 Arbela was noted for its cloth ; Bethshean, ‘* the 
 gate of Paradise,” for its linen, its olives, and its 
 exuberant fertility; Capernaum and Chorazin 
 were celebrated for their wheat, Safed for its 
 honey, Shikmonah for its pomegranates, Sigona 
 for its wine, and Kefr Hananiah for its pottery. 
 The indigo plant was cultivated near Magdala; 
 in the spring the ground was carpeted with 
 flowers, and the vine, the fig, the walnut, the 
 almond, the oleander, the myrtle, the balsam, 
 the palm, and many other trees, shrubs, and 
 aromatic plants flourished in this “ garden that 
 has no end” (Neubauer, pp. 180-240; Jos. B. J. 
 iii. 3, §§ 2, 3; 10, § 8). The fisheries of the 
 Sea of Galilee provided occupation for large 
 numbers of fishermen; Tarichaeae, “the salting 
 station,” supplied the best fish for salting 
 (Strabo, xvi. 2, § 45); and the salt fish was sent 
 to all parts of the country, especially to Jeru- 
 salem at the time of the great Feasts, when it 
 was possibly sold outside the “Fish Gate.” 
 Lower Galilee was well provided with roads: 
 one ran from Acre to er-Rdmeh, and then, climb- 
 ing the high hills, joined the road northwards 
 from Safed through Upper Galilee ; another ran 
 from Acre by Sepphoris to Tiberias and the 
 Jordan valley; and a third, over which grain 
 was brought down from the fertile plains east 
 of Jordan to the sea, crossed the great plain of 
 Esdraelon to Jezreel, and passed on by Scytho- 
 polis and Gadara to the Haurdn. The great 
 trade route that connected Egypt with Damascus 
 and Syria entered Lower Galilee at Megiddo, and 
 running on past the Sea of Galilee, crossed the 
 Jordan at Jisr Benat Yakub. No small portion 
 of the commerce between the east and the west 
 passed over these roads, of which one was known 
 as the “‘way of the sea,” the via maris of the 
 Middle Ages, and added to the wealth of the 
 district. The chief towns of Lower Galilee were 
 Tiberias, Tarichaeae, Sepphoris, Gabara, Gischala, 
 Zebulun; the fortresses of Jotapata and Mount . 
 Tabor ; and those mentioned in N. T. history, 
 Nazareth, Cana, Capernaum, and Chorazin. 
 
 It is evident from the Gospels and also from 
 Josephus, that, in the time of Christ, Galilee was 
 densely populated and thickly covered with towns 
 and villages. Josephus states that there were 
 
»ΥΦ: 
 
 GALILEE 
 
 204 cities and villages, the very least of which 
 contained more than 15,000 inhabitants (Vit. 45 ; 
 B,J. iii. 3, § 2); that on one occasion 100,000 
 armed men assembled in a single night (B. J. ii. 
 21, § 3); and that Herod Antipas had armour 
 for 70,000 men in his armoury (Ant. xviii. 7, § 2). 
 The Sea of Galilee was covered with ships and 
 boats: Josephus collected 230 on one occasion at 
 Tarichaeae (B. J. ii. 21, § 8); and “the whole 
 basin must have been a tocus of life and energy ; 
 the surface of the lake constantly dotted with 
 the white sails of vessels, flying before the 
 mountain gusts, as the beach sparkled with the 
 
 ‘houses and palaces, the synagogues and the 
 
 3) 
 
 temples of the Jewish or Roman inhabitants 
 (Stanley, S. and P. p. 376). The numbers of 
 Josephus are possibly exaggerated, but apart from 
 these the extensive ruins at Zell Him, Kerdzch, 
 and other places, and the numerous ruined syna- 
 gogues, such as those at Kefr Birim, Meiron, &c., 
 attest the former prosperity of the district. 
 Jews and Aramaeans and others who had ac- 
 cepted the Law of Moses, formed a large 
 majority of the population; but there were 
 numbers of Greeks, Egyptians, Arabs, and 
 Phoenicians intermingled with them (Jos. Vit. 
 6,12; Strabo, xvi. 2, § 34). The people were 
 industrious and enterprising, and engaged in 
 agriculture and commerce. They were courageous 
 and warlike, a heritage of olden times (Judg. v. 
 18), and regarded honour more than money 
 (Tal. Jer. Ketuboth, iv. 14). Cowardice was 
 never a failing of the Galilaeans, who were 
 
 inured to war from infancy (Jos. B. J. iii. 3, 
 
 § 2); and during their last struggle with the 
 Romans, they constantly showed a supreme 
 contempt for death. The independent spirit of 
 the Galilaeans sometimes showed itself in armed 
 opposition to the constituted authority (B. J. i. 
 16, § 5); and the people of Tiberias are described 
 as being “by nature disposed to changes, and 
 delighting in seditions ” (Vit. 17). During the 
 disorders that followed the death of Herod the 
 Great, Judas, son of Hezekiah, raised some men 
 and seized Sepphoris (Ant. xvii. 10, §5). Judas 
 the Galilaean, the founder of the sect of the 
 Galilaeans, who taught that God alone was Lord 
 and Master, and that no one should submit to 
 mortal men as masters, raised a revolt in Judaea, 
 whilst Coponius was procurator (Acts v. 37; 
 Jos. Ant. xviii. 1, §§ 1, 6; 8. J. ii. 8, § 1). 
 They were Galilaeans, perhaps rebels, who were 
 put to death by Pilate at the time of the sacrifice 
 (Luke xiii. 1); and, at a later period, Galilee 
 was the centre of the rebellion which ended in 
 
 the capture and destruction of Jerusalem, Some 
 
 of the most noted of the defenders of the Holy 
 City during the last siege were Galilaeans, as 
 Eleazar, who perished at Masada, and John of 
 Gischala. The Talmud (Neubauer, Géog. du Tal. 
 p- 182) mentions certain differences between the 
 religious ceremonies as practised in Galilee and 
 Judaea; and it would seem, from Matt. xv. 1, 
 where the Pharisees appear as emissaries from 
 the dominant party of Jerusalem, that the 
 Galilaeans lacked the narrow prejudices of the 
 people of Judaea, and maintained a certain in- 
 dependence in religious matters. They also 
 differed in speech. A Galilaean was known by 
 his accent, or dialect (Matt. xxvi. 73; Mark xiv. 
 70; Acts ii. 7; Tal. Bab. Erubin, 53a; Light- 
 foot, Opp. ii. 141), and appears in the Talmud 
 
 GALILEE 1119 
 
 as a lout or boor (Lrubin, 536). There seems 
 to have been a settled belief that Galilee could 
 produce no prophet (John vii. 52); and the 
 reputation of Nazareth may be inferred from 
 the question, Can there any good thing come 
 out of Nazareth?” (John i. 46). It is possible 
 that Galilee was regarded asa subject or inferior 
 district, by the descendants of the men who 
 had risen and won their freedom under the 
 Asmonaeans, and that the Jews of Judaea and 
 Jerusalem considered themselves superior to the 
 Galilaeans. But there is no evidence in the Bible 
 or in Josephus to show that Galilee and the 
 Galilaeans were, as is sometimes stated, looked 
 upon with contempt. That such feelings arose 
 and were freely expressed at a later date, when 
 Christianity was spreading amongst Jews and 
 Gentiles, is very probable, for the new religion 
 was often connected with the home of its Founder. 
 The Emperor Julian is said to haye called the 
 Christians “‘Galilaeans”’ in his edicts, in order to 
 cast dishonour on them, and to have cried out 
 on receiving his death-wound, “ Galilaean ! thou 
 hast conquered!” (Theodoret, Hist. Eccl. iii. 8, 
 21,25. ‘he accounts about his death and of 
 his last words are, however, very diverse. See 
 Dict. of Christ. Biog. s.n.) 
 
 Galilee first acquired a world-wide interest 
 through “ Jesus the Galilaean ” (Matt. xxvi. 69, 
 R. V.). It was at Nazareth that the child Jesus 
 “orew and waxed strong in spirit, filled with 
 wisdom ;” and at Cana that He performed His 
 first miracle (John ii. 11). It was the scene 
 of the greater part of our Lord’s private 
 life and public acts; here were Capernaum, 
 “His own city,” in which He dwelt (Matt. 
 iv. 13; ix. 1), and “the cities wherein most 
 of His mighty works were done” (Matt. xi. 
 20); and here He showed himself to His dis- 
 ciples after His Resurrection (Matt. xxviii. 7, 16; 
 John xxi. 1). The Apostles were also either by 
 birth or residence chiefly Galilaeans (Acts i. 11; 
 ii. 7). 
 
 It may be remarked that the first three 
 Gospels are chiefly taken up with our Lord’s 
 ministrations in Galilee; while the Gospel of St. 
 John dwells more upon those in Judaea. The 
 nature of our Lord’s parables and illustrations 
 was greatly influenced by the peculiar features 
 and products of the country. ‘The vineyard, the 
 fig-tree, the shepherd, and the desert in the 
 parable of the Good Samaritan, were all appro- 
 priate in Judaea; while the corn-fields (Mark iv. 
 28), the fisheries (Matt. xiii. 47), the merchants 
 (Matt. xiii. 45), and the flowers (Matt. vi. 28), 
 are no less appropriate in Galilee. After the 
 destruction of Jerusalem Galilee became the 
 chief seat of Jewish schools of learning, and the 
 residence of their most celebrated Rabbins. The 
 National Council or Sanhedrin was taken for a 
 time to Jabneh in Philistia, but was soon re- 
 moved to Sepphoris, and afterwards to Tiberias 
 (Lightfoot, Upp. ii. p. 141). The Mishna was 
 here compiled by Rabbi Judah Hakkodesh 
 (c. A.D. 109-220); and a few years afterwards 
 the Gemara was added (Buxtorf, Tiberias, p. 
 19). Remains of splendid synagogues _ still 
 exist in many of the old towns and villages, 
 showing that from the 2nd to the 7th cen- 
 tury the Jews were as prosperous as they were 
 numerous (PHF. Mem. vol. i.; Conder, Hand- 
 book to Bible, pp. 301-314; Porter, Handbook : 
 
1120 GALILEE, MOUNTAIN IN 
 
 Stanley, S. δ᾽ P. pp. 361-387; Merrill, Galilee 
 in the time of Christ; Riehm, s.v.; Guérin, 
 Galilée). [W.] 
 
 GALILEE, MOUNTAIN IN (Matt. xxviii. 
 16), where Jesus manifested Himself to His dis- 
 ciples after His Resurrection. The particular 
 mountain referred to is unknown. It may possibly 
 have been the “ Mount of Beatitudes’ (Matt. 
 y. 1), or the high mountain of the Transfiguration 
 (Matt. xvii. 1). The view that it was one of 
 the knolls on the ridge of Olivet is evidently 
 wrong, for it is distinctly stated that the dis- 
 ciples went into Galilee. Some have supposed 
 that St. Paul refers to this manifestation of 
 Christ in 1 Cor. xv. 6. [W.] 
 
 GALILEE, SEA OF. [GENNESARETH.] 
 
 GALL, the representative in the A. V. of the 
 Hebrew words mérérah or mérérah, and rosh, 
 
 1. Méréréh or mérorah (VID or MT; 
 χολή; fel, amaritudo, viscera mea) denotes ety- 
 mologically “that which is bitter”; see Job 
 xiii. 26, “thou writest bitter things against 
 me.” Hence the term is applied to the “ bile” 
 or “gall” from its intense bitterness (Job 
 xvi. 13; xx. 25); it is also used of the “poison” 
 of serpents (Job xx. 14), which the ancients 
 erroneously believed was their gall; see Pliny, 
 NN. H. xi. 37, “No one should be astonished that 
 it is the gall which constitutes the poison of 
 serpents.” 
 
 2. Résh (WRI or WII; χολή, πικρία, ἄγρω- 
 otis; fel, amaritudo, caput), generally translated 
 “gall” by the A. V., is in Hos. x. 4 rendered 
 “hemlock”: in Deut. xxxii. 33, and Job xx. 16, 
 vésh denotes the “poison” or “venom” of 
 serpents. From Deut. xxix. 18, “a root that 
 beareth +ésh” (margin ‘a poisonful herb’’), 
 and Lam. iii. 19, “the wormwood and the 
 rosh,” compared with Hos. x. 4, “judgment 
 springeth up as rdsh,” it is evident that the 
 Hebrew term denotes some bitter and perhaps 
 poisonous plant, though it may also be used, as 
 in Ps. lxix. 21, in the general sense of “some- 
 thing very bitter.” Celsius (Hierob, ii. pp. 46- 
 52) thinks that hemlock (Coniwm maculatum) is 
 intended, and quotes Jerome on Hosea in support 
 of his opinion, though it seems that this com- 
 mentator had in view the couch-grass (Triticum 
 repens) rather than “hemlock.” Rosenmiiller 
 (Bib. Bot. p. 118) is inclined to think that the 
 Lolium temulentum best agrees with the passage 
 in Hosea, where the rdsh is said to grow “in 
 the furrows of the field.” 
 
 Other writers have supposed, and with some 
 reason (from Deut. xxxii. 32, “ their grapes are 
 grapes of résh”), that some berry-bearing plant 
 must be intended. Gesenius (Zhes. p. 1251) 
 understands “ poppies ”; Michaelis (Suppl. Lex. 
 Heb. p. 2220) is of opinion that rdsh may be 
 either the Loliwm temulentum, or the Solanum 
 (“ night-shade”’). Oedmann (Verm. Sum. pt. iv. 
 9. 10) argues in favour of the Colocynth. The 
 most probable conjecture, for proof there is 
 none, is that of Gesenius: the capsules of the 
 Papaveraceae may well give the name of résh 
 (“head”) to the plant in question, just as we 
 speak of poppy-heads. The various species of 
 this family spring up quickly in corn-fields, and 
 the juice is extremely bitter. At least nine 
 
 GALL 
 
 species of poppy are found in Palestine: our 
 corn-field red poppy (Papaver rhoeas) is as 
 abundant and universal there as in Britain. 
 The opium poppy (Papaver somniferum) is only 
 there found cultivated. A steeped solution of 
 poppy-heads may be “the water of gall” of 
 Jer, viii. 14, unless, as Gesenius thinks, the 
 WN1 1D may be the poisonous extract, opium ; 
 but nothing definite can be learnt. 
 
 The passages in the Gospels which relate the 
 circumstance of the Roman soldiers offering our 
 Lord, just before His crucifixion, “ vinegar 
 mingled with gall,” according to St. Matthew 
 (xxvii. 34), and “wine mingled with myrrh,” 
 according to St. Mark’s account (xv. 23), require 
 some consideration. ‘The first-named Evangelist 
 uses χολή, Which is the LXX. rendering of the 
 Heb. rdsh in the Psalm (xix. 21) which foretells 
 the Lord’s sufferings. St. Mark explains the 
 bitter ingredient in the sour vinous drink to be 
 “myrrh ” (οἶνος ἐσμυρνισμένοΞ), for we cannot 
 regard the transactions as different. “St. 
 Matthew, in his usual way,” as Hengstenberg 
 (Comment. in Ps. lxix. 21) remarks, “ designates 
 the drink theologically: always keeping his eye 
 on the prophecies of the O. T., he speaks of gall 
 and vinegar for the purpose of rendering the ful- 
 filment of the Psalms more manifest. St. Mark 
 again (xv. 23), according to his way, looks rather 
 at the outward quality of the drink.” Bengel 
 takes quite a different view; he thinks that both 
 myrrh and gall were added to the sour wine: 
 ἐς myrrha conditus ex more ; felle adulteratus ex 
 petulantia” (Gnom. Nov. Test. Matt. 1.c.). Heng- 
 stenberg’s view is far preferable ; nor is “gall” 
 (χολὴ) to be understood in any other sense than 
 as expressing the bitter nature of the draught. 
 As to the intent of the proffered drink, it is 
 generally supposed that it was for the purpose 
 of deadening pain. It was customary to give 
 criminals just before their execution a cup of 
 wine with frankincense in it, to which reference 
 is made, it is believed, by the οἶνος κατανύξεως 
 of Ps. 1x. 33 see also Prov. xxxi. 6. This, the 
 Talmud states, was given in order to alleviate 
 the pain. See Buxtorf (Lex. Talm. p. 2131), 
 who thus quotes from the Talmud (Sanhed. 
 fol. 43, 1): “ Qui exit ut occidatur (ex sententia 
 judicis) potant eum grano thuris in poculo vini 
 ut distrahatur mens ejus.” Rosenmiiller (Dib. 
 Bot. p. 163) is of opinion that the myrrh was 
 given to our Lord, not for the purpose of alle- 
 viating His sufferings, but in order that He 
 might be sustained until the punishment was 
 completed. He quotes from Apuleius (Metamorp. 
 viii.), who relates that a certain priest ‘“ dis- 
 figured himself with a multitude of blows, 
 having previously strengthened himself by 
 taking myrrh.” How far the frankincense 
 in the cup, as mentioned in the Talmud, was 
 supposed to possess soporific properties, or in 
 any way to induce an alleviation of pain, it 15 
 difficult to determine. The same must be said 
 of the οἶνος ἐσμυρνισμένος of St. Mark; for 
 it is quite certain that neither of these two 
 drugs in question, both of which are the produce 
 of the same natural order of plants (Amyri- 
 daceae), is ranked among the hypnopoietics by 
 modern physicians. It is true that Dioscorides 
 (i. 77) ascribes a soporific property to myrrh, 
 but it does not seem to have been so regarded 
 by any other author. Notwithstanding, there- 
 
 j 
 
GALLERY 
 
 fore, the almost concurrent opinion of ancient 
 
 and modern commentators that the “wine | 
 
 mingled with myrrh” was offered to our Lord 
 as an anodyne, we cannot readily come to the 
 same conclusion. Had the soldiers intended a 
 
 mitigation of suffering, they would doubtless | 
 
 have offered a draught drugged with some sub- 
 stance having narcotic properties. The drink 
 in question was probably a mere ordinary beve- 
 rage of the Romans, who were in the habit of 
 seasoning their various wines—which, as they 
 contained little alcohol, soon turned sour—with 
 various spices, drugs, and perfumes, such as 
 myrrh, cassia, myrtle, pepper, ἄς, (Dict. of Gr. 
 and Rom. Antiq., art “ Vinum ”’). [W. H.] 
 
 GALLERY, an architectural term, describ- 
 ing the porticoes or verandahs which are not 
 uncommon in Eastern houses. It is doubtful, 
 however, whether the Hebrew words, so trans- 
 lated, have any reference to such an object. 
 (1.) In Cant. i. 17 (A. V. and R. V. “rafters,” 
 A. V. marg. galleries), the word rachit (Ὁ 1) 
 means “panelling,” or “fretted work,” and is 
 so understood in the LXX. and Vulg. (φάτνωμα, 
 laqueare). The sense of a “ gallery” appears to 
 be derived from the marginal reading rahit 
 (O°, Keri), which contains the idea of “run- 
 
 ning,” and so of an ambulatory, as a place of 
 exercise: this sense is, however, rejected by 
 most commentators. (2.) In Cant. vii. 6 (ΕΚ. 
 v. 5. A. V. “ The king is held in the galleries”; 
 R. V. “... held captive in the tresses thereof,” 
 i.e. of the hair), rahit is applied to the hair; 
 the regularly arranged, flowing, locks being 
 compared by the poet to the channels of running 
 water seen in the pasture-grounds of Palestine. 
 fiAre.|) (8.) In Ezek. xli. 15,165 xiii. 3, 5, 
 the word attiz (P'MN, A. V. text and R. V. 
 “gallery,” A. V. marg. v. 15, several walks or 
 walks with pillars: Cornill [in loco] has a dif- 
 ferent reading) seems to mean a pillar, used for 
 the support of a floor. The LXX. and Vulg. 
 give in xlii. 3 περίστυλον and porticus, but a 
 comparison of vv. 5 and 6 shows that the “ gal- 
 leries” and “pillars” were identical; the reason 
 of the upper chambers being shorter is ascribed 
 to the absence of supporting pillars, which 
 allowed an extra length to the chambers of the 
 lower story (see R. V.). The space thus in- 
 cluded within the pillars would assume the 
 corner of an open gallery. CW. L. B.] 
 
 GALLEY. [8π|Ρ.] 
 
 GAL’LIM cords =heaps, or possibly springs; 
 Γαλλείμ [Is.]; Gallim), a place which is twice 
 mentioned in the Bible:—(1.) As the native 
 place of the man to whom Michal, David's wife, 
 was given—‘“Phalti the son of Laish, who 
 
 was from Gallim” cordan, 1 Sam. xxv. 44). 
 The LXX. has B. Ῥομμά, A. Γαλλεί, A*(?). 
 
 in either to the situation of the place. In 2 Sam. 
 iii. 15, 16, where Michal returns to David at 
 Hebron, her husband is represented as following 
 her as far as Bahurim, i.e. on the road between 
 the Mount of Olives and Jericho (cp. 2 Sam. 
 xvi. 1). But even this does not necessarily 
 point to the direction of Gallim, because Phalti 
 may have been at the time with Ishbosheth at 
 Mahanaim, the road from which would naturally 
 BIBLE DICT.—VOL. I. 
 
 GALLIO 1121 
 
 | lead past Bahurim. (2.) The name occurs again 
 in the catalogue of places terrified at the approach 
 of Sennacherib (Is. x. 30): “Lift up thy voice, 
 O daughter (6. O inhabitant) of Gallim! attend, 
 ; Ὁ Laish! poor Anathoth!” The other towns 
 in this passage — Aiath, Michmash, Ramah, 
 Gibeah of Saul—are all, like Anathoth, in the 
 tribe of Benjamin, a short distance north of 
 Jerusalem. It should not be overlooked that in 
 both these passages the names Laish and Gallim 
 are mentioned in connexion. Possibly the Ben- 
 Laish in the former implies that Phalti was a 
 native of Laish, that being dependent on Gallim. 
 
 Among the names of towns added by the LXX. 
 to those of Judah in Josh. xv. 59, Galem (Γαλέμ, 
 A. Γαλλίμ) occurs, between Karem and Thether. 
 In Is. xv. 8, the Vulgate has Gallim for Eglaim, 
 among the towns of Moab. 
 
 The name of Gallim has not been met with in 
 modern times. Conder (PEF. Mem. iii. 20) 
 proposes to identify it with Beit Jdla, near 
 Rachel’s Tomb, to the south of Jerusalem ; but 
 this is too far from the other towns mentioned 
 in Is. x. 30. Eusebius, from hearsay (λέγεται), 
 places it near Akkaron (Ekron). [ΘΠ] WV 
 
 GAL'LIO (Γαλλίων; Gallic), proconsul of 
 Achaia when St. Paul was at Corinth, probably 
 A.D. 53. “Proconsul” (ἀνθύπατος, A. V. deputy) 
 was the title of the governor of senatorial 
 provinces, and is therefore used by St. Luke 
 of the governors of (1) Cyprus, Acts xiii. 7; 
 (2) Asia, Acts xix. 38; and (3) Achaia, Acts 
 xviii. 12. Achaia had been an imperial province, 
 but was restored to the senate by Claudius 
 (Suet. Claud. xxv.). [See Acuata.] The de- 
 scription of Gallio as proconsul (R. V.) is 
 therefore an important instance of St. Luke’s 
 historical accuracy. 
 
 When the Jews accused St. Paul, Gallio, 
 without asking for his defence, dismissed the 
 charge. Encouraged by the action of the 
 proconsul, the Greek bystanders fell on Sos- 
 thenes (one of the accusers) and beat him in the 
 precincts of the court. Gallio took no notice 
 of this. The indifference ascribed to him in the 
 words “Gallio cared for none of these things,” 
 is not an indifference to religious questions as 
 such, but to the outbreak of Greek spite against 
 the Jews. For another view of the incident, 
 see Ewald, Hist. Jsr. vii. p. 380. No stress 
 must be laid on the words “the Greeks” (v. 17, 
 A. V.) in determining the sense; for although 
 probably correct as an explanation of “all” 
 (πάντες), they have no right to stand in the 
 text, and are omitted by R. V. [See ΒΟΒΤΗΕΝΕΒ. 
 
 Gallio belonged to a great literary family. 
 He is known to Roman history as the brother 
 of L, Annaeus Seneca, the tutor of Nero. His 
 father, a famous professor of rhetoric, was a 
 
 Spaniard from Corduba. His nephew Lucan 
 
 _has left us the great poem of the Pharsalia. 
 Γαδδεί, and Josephus Γεθλά; but there is no clue | 
 
 Gallio’s original name was Marcus Annaeus 
 Novatus, and he took the names of Junius Gallio 
 on adoption by L. Junius Gallio, a friend of his 
 father’s, and, like him, a great rhetorician. 
 Gallio’s brother Seneca speaks most affectionately 
 of him. In a striking passage (Seneca, Nut. 
 Quaest. iv. praef.) he describes the extraordinary 
 charm of his disposition and manner, and the 
 gentle firmness with which he always put aside 
 flattery. There is nothing in the temperate 
 40 
 
1122 
 
 words with which Gallio rejects the Jewish | 
 accusation which is inconsistent with this _ 
 character. A Tertullus would have had no 
 chance with him. Some writers (6.6. Kreyher, 
 Seneca und seine Beziehungen zum Urchris- 
 tenthum) have seen in Gallio’s favour to St. 
 Paul a link in the supposed connexion between 
 St. Paul and Seneca; but see Bp. Lightfoot, 
 Philippians,? “St. Paul and Seneca,” p. 299. 
 Gallio’s conduct is only one among the many | 
 illustrations which the Book of the Acts collects | 
 to show the friendly, or at worst the impartial, 
 attitude of the Roman authorities towards | 
 Christianity in its early days. Hausrath with 
 some reason considers that the course taken by | 
 Gallio opened the way for the rapid and ex- 
 traordinary growth of the Church of Corinth. 
 The trial before Gallio wasa crisis in its history. 
 See his very full article “Gallio” in Schenkel’s 
 Libel-Lex. 
 
 For other notices of Gallio in Roman literature, | 
 see Seneca, Hp. 104, where his residence in | 
 Achaia is mentioned, and Plin. NW. H. xxxi. 33. | 
 
 GALLOWS 
 
 For his character and Spanish origin, see 
 Statius, Silvae, τι. vii. 32. He was involved in | 
 the ruin of his brother Seneca under Nero, and 
 though spared at first (Tac. Ann. xv. 73) 
 perished later, probably by his own hand (Dio— 
 Cass. Ixii. 25; and Euseb. Chron. Οἱ. 211). | 
 Wieseler uses what is known of Gallio as 
 evidence to strengthen his system of chronology 
 (Wieseler, Chron. Apost. Zeit. pp. 119-20). 
 SERB 
 
 GALLOWS. [PuNISHMENT.] 
 
 GAM’A-EL (B. Γάμηλος, A. Γαμαήλ ; Ame- 
 nus), 1 Esd. viii. 29. [DANIEL, 9.1 
 
 GAMA’LIEL ΡΣ =God’s recompense 
 or care; TopadmA; Gaumaliel), son of Pedahzur ; 
 prince or captain (NW) of the tribe of Manas- 
 seh at the census at Sinai (Num. i. 10; ii. 20; 
 vii. 54, 59), and at starting on the march 
 through the wilderness (x. 23). cw. A. W.] 
 
 GAMA’LIEL (Γαμαλιήλ; Gamaliel: for the 
 Hebrew equivalent, see preceding article), de- 
 scribed in Acts v. 34 as “a Pharisee, a doctor of 
 the Law, had in honour with all the people.” 
 This description exactly corresponds with that 
 given in the Mishna of Rabban Gamaliel I., who 
 died about A.D. 57, and was at the height of his 
 influence at the time of the trial described in 
 Acts v. He belonged to the milder and more 
 liberal school of Hillel, whose grandson he is 
 said to have been. Some of his decisions are 
 quoted by Hamburger, Real Encyc. Talmud.; but 
 though all on the side of relaxation, yet they 
 relate to such trifling details that it is difficult 
 to gain from them any picture of the man. 
 They are more fully given in Jost, Geschichte 
 d. Judenthums, i. 281 sq. However, the ascrip- 
 tion to him (Hamburger, /. 9.) of the following 
 precepts, is of interest when we remember that 
 he was the teacher of St. Paul, the Apostle of the 
 Gentiles (Acts xxii. 3). He is said to have 
 taught that the poor of the heathen should 
 share with Israelites the gleaning and the corn 
 left standing in the corners of the fields; and | 
 
 that it was a duty for Israelites to inquire alter 
 their welfare, sustain them, visit their sick, 
 and bury them. He is described as president 
 
 GAMES 
 
 of the Sanhedrin, but this is probably a late 
 and untrustworthy tradition (see Schiirer, 
 
 | Jewish People, Div. 11. vol. 1. p. 181); and in 
 
 the narrative of Acts v. he appears as an 
 ordinary member, though having great weight. 
 The influence which enabled him to carry the 
 Sanhedrin with him (Acts y. 40) is illustrated 
 also by the proviso that a certain decision of 
 the Sanhedrin passed in his absence should only 
 have force if it obtained his approval (Zdai- 
 joth, 77, quoted by Hamburger). With the 
 exaggeration of eulogy, it was said that at his 
 death reverence for the Thora ceased, and the 
 observance of the laws of purity and separation 
 came to nought. He was the earliest teacher to 
 whom the title of Rabban was given, a higher 
 degree than Rab or Rabbi. His discourse in 
 Acts v. 35-39 seems to regard the question of 
 “this counsel” being from men or from God, 
 as an open one, without betraying a leaning to 
 one side or the other. Still the syntactical 
 connexion of “let them alone,” with the words 
 “Jest haply ye be found fighting against God,” 
 may be held to show an inclination to the 
 Christian side, which is not inconsistent with the 
 probable attitude of the Pharisees at this period as 
 contrasted with the active persecuting zeal of the 
 Sadducees. Ecclesiastical mythology has seized 
 with its usual eagerness on this indication, and 
 Clem. Recog. i. 65 represents him as a Christian. 
 “He was secretly our brother in the faith, but 
 by our advice kept his place among them,” 1.6. 
 the Sanhedrin. It is unnecessary to follow here 
 the development of this legend, so inconsistent 
 with the honour in which he was held by Jewish 
 tradition; but full references are given in 
 Schiirer, Jewish People, Div. 11. vol. i. p. 364. 
 Besides authorities already quoted, see Deren- 
 bourg, Hist. et Geog. Pal. xv. [Ε΄ R. B.] 
 
 GAMES. Of the three classes into which 
 games may be arranged,—juvenile, manly, and 
 public,—the first two alone belong to the Hebrew 
 life; the latter, as noticed in the Bible, being 
 either foreign introductions into Palestine or 
 the customs of other countries. With regard 
 to juvenile games, the notices are very few. It 
 must not, however, be inferred from this that 
 the Hebrew children were without the amuse- 
 ments adapted to their age. The toys and 
 sports of childhood claim a remote antiquity ; 
 and if the children of the ancient Egyptians 
 had their dolls of ingenious construction, and 
 played at ball (Wilkinson, Anc. Lgypt. i. 197 
 [1878]), and if the children of the Romans 
 amused themselves much as those of the present 
 day— 
 
 ** Aedificare casas, plostello adjungere mures, 
 
 Ludere par impar, equitare in arundine longa” 
 (Hor. 2 Sat. iii. 247)— 
 
 we may imagine the Hebrew children doing the 
 same, as they played in the streets of Jerusalem 
 (Zech. viii. 5). The only recorded sports, how- 
 ever, are keeping tame birds (Job xli. 5; ep. 
 Catull. ii. 1, Passer, deliciae meae puellae) and 
 playing at marriages or funerals (Matt. xi. 16). 
 With regard to manly games, they were not 
 much followed up by the Hebrews; the natural 
 earnestness of their character and the influence 
 of the climate alike indisposed them to active 
 exertion. The chief amusement of the men 
 appears to have consisted in conversation and 
 
GAMES 
 
 joking (Jer. xv. 17; Prov. xxvi. 19). A military 
 exercise seems to be noticed in 2 Sam. ii. 14, 
 but the term under which it is described (PM) 
 is of too general an application to enable us to 
 form an idea as to its character: if intended as 
 a sport, it must have resembled the G’erid, with 
 
 the exception of the combatants not being | © ‘ 
 | The expression as used by St. Paul is usually 
 
 mounted; but it is more consonant to the sense 
 of the passage to reject the notion of sport and 
 give sichék the sense of fencing or fighting 
 (Thenius, Comm. in loc.). 
 usual sport consisted in lifting weights as a 
 trial of strength, as also practised in Egypt 
 (Wilkinson, i. 207 [1878]). Dice are mentioned 
 by the Talmudists (Mishna, Sanhedr. 3,3; Shabb. 
 
 In Jerome’s day the | 
 
 23, 2), probably introduced from Egypt (Wilkin- | 
 
 son, ii. 424 [1878]); and if we assume that the 
 
 Hebrews imitated, as not improbably they did, | 
 
 other amusements of their neighbours, we might | 
 
 add such games as odd and even, mora (the 
 
 GAMES 1123 
 
 | criminals (Joseph. Ant. xv. 8, §1), who were 
 
 micare digitis of the Romans), draughts, hoops, | 
 
 eatching balls, &c. (Wilkinson, i. 188 [1878]). If 
 it be objected that such trifling amusements were 
 inconsistent with the gravity of the Hebrews, 
 it may be remarked that the amusements of the 
 
 Arabians at the present day are equally trifling, | 
 
 such as blind man’s buff, hiding the ring, &c. 
 (Wellsted’s Arabia, i. 160). 
 
 Public games were altogether foreign to the 
 spirit of Hebrew institutions: the great religious 
 Festivals supplied the pleasurable excitement 
 and the feelings of national union which rendered 
 the games of Greece so popular, and at the same 
 
 time inspired the persuasion that such gatherings | 
 should be exclusively connected with religious | 
 
 duties. Accordingly the erection of a gymnasium 
 by Jason, in which the discus was chiefly prac- 
 tised, was looked upon as a heathenish proceeding 
 (1 Mace. i. 14; 2 Macc. iv. 12-14), and the 
 subsequent erection by Herod of a theatre and 
 amphitheatre at Jerusalem (Joseph. Ant. xv. 8, 
 
 § 1), as well as at Caesarea (Ant. xv. 9, §6; | 
 B. J. i. 21, §8) and at Berytus (Ant. xix. 7, | 
 § 5),—in each of which a quinquennial festival in | 
 
 honour of Caesar was celebrated with the usual 
 
 contests in gymnastics, chariot-races, music, and | 
 
 with wild beasts,—was viewed with the deepest 
 
 aversion by the general body of the Jews (Ant. | 
 
 ὅεν..8.. 8.1). 
 
 The entire absence of verbal or historical | 
 
 reference to this subject in the Gospels shows 
 how little it entered into the life of the Jews: 
 some of the foreign Jews, indeed, imbibed a 
 taste for theatrical representations; Josephus 
 
 (Vita, 3) speaks of one Aliturus, an actor of | 
 
 farces (umoAdyos), who was in high favour 
 with Nero. Among the Greeks the rage for 
 theatrical exhibitions was such that every city 
 of any size possessed its theatre and stadium. 
 At Ephesus an annual contest (ἀγὼν καὶ γυμνικὸς 
 καὶ μουσικός, Thucyd. iii. 104) was held in 
 honour of Diana, which was superintended by 
 officers named ᾿Ασιάρχαι (Acts xix. 31; R. V. 
 ‘chief officers of Asia”). [ASIARCHAE.] It is 
 probable that St. Paul was present when these 
 games were proceeding, as they were celebrated 
 
 in the month of May (cp. Acts xx. 16; Cony- | 
 
 beare and Howson’s St. Paul, ii. 81). A direct 
 reference to the exhibitions that took place on 
 such occasions is made in the term ἐθηριομάχησα 
 (1 Cor. xv. 32). The θηριομάχοι were some- 
 
 exposed to lions and other wild beasts without 
 any means of defence (Cic. Pro Sext. 64; Tertull. 
 Apol. 9). Political offenders were so treated, 
 and Josephus (2. J. vii. 3, § 1) records that no 
 less than 2,500 Jews were destroyed in the 
 theatre at Caesarea by this and similar methods. 
 
 taken as metaphorical, both on account of the 
 qualifying words kar’ ἄνθρωπον, the absence of 
 all reference to the occurrence in the Acts, and 
 the rights of citizenship which St. Paul enjoyed 
 (cp. Evans in Speaker’s Comm., Schnedermann 
 in Strack τι. Zéckler’s Ayf. Komm.). Certainly 
 St. Paul was exposed to some extraordinary 
 suffering at Ephesus, which he describes in 
 language borrowed from, if not descriptive of, a 
 real case of θηριομαχία; for he speaks of himself 
 as a criminal condemned to death (ἐπιθανατίου:, 
 1 Cor, iv. 9; ἀπόκριμα τοῦ θανάτου ἐσχήκαμεν, 
 2 Cor. i. 9), exhibited previously to the execu- 
 tion of the sentence (ἀπέδειξεν, 1 Cor. J. c.), 
 reserved to the conclusion of the games (ἐσχά- 
 Tous), as was usual with the theriomachi (“ novis- 
 
 | simos elegit, velut bestiarios,” Tertull. de Pudic. 
 ' 14), and thus made a spectacle (θέατρον ἐγενή- 
 
 Onuev). Lightfoot (Heercit. on 1 Cor. xv. 32) 
 points to the friendliness of the Asiarchs at a 
 subsequent period (Acts xix. 31) as probably 
 resulting from some wonderful preservation 
 which they had witnessed. Nero selected this 
 
 | mode of executing the Christians at Rome, with 
 
 the barbarous aggravation that the victims 
 were dressed up in the skins of beasts (Tac. 
 Ann. xv. 44). St. Paul may possibly allude to 
 his escape from such torture in 2 Tim. iy. 17. 
 Cp. Dict. of Gr. and Rom. Ané. art. “ Bestiarii.” 
 
 St. Paul’s Epistles abound with allusions to 
 the Greek contests, borrowed probably from the 
 Isthmian games, at which he may well have heen 
 present during his first visit to Corinth (Cony- 
 beare and Howson, ii. 206). These contests 
 (ὁ ἀγῶν---ἃ word of general import, the fight, as 
 the R. V. has it, 2 Tim. iv. 7; 1 Tim. vi. 12) 
 were divided into two classes, the pancratium, 
 consisting of boxing and wrestling, and the 
 pentathion, consisting of leaping, running, quoit- 
 ing, hurling the spear, and wrestling. The 
 competitors (6 ἀγωνιζόμενος, 1 Cor, ix. 25; ἐὰν 
 ἀθλῇ τις, 2 Tim. ii. 5) required a long and 
 severe course of previous training (cp. σωματικὴ 
 γυμνασία, 1 Tim. iv. 8), during which a parti- 
 cular diet was enforced (πάντα ἐγκρατεύεται, 
 δουλαγώγω, 1 Cor. ix. 25, 27). In the Olympic 
 contests these preparatory exercises (προγυμνά- 
 ouara) extended over a period of ten months, 
 during the last of which they were conducted 
 under the supervision of appointed officers. The 
 contests took place in the presence of a vast 
 multitude of spectators (περικείμενον νέφος 
 μαρτύρων, Heb. xii. 1), the competitors being 
 the spectacle (θέατροντεθέαμα, 1 Cor. iv. 9; 
 θεαζόμενοι, Heb. x. 33). The games were opened 
 by the proclamation of a herald (κηρύξας, 1 Cor. 
 ix. 27), whose office it was to proclaim the name 
 and country of each candidate, and especially to 
 announce the name of the victor before the 
 assembled multitude. Certain conditions and 
 rules were laid down for the different contests, 
 as, that no bribe be offered to a competitor; 
 that in boxing the combatants should not lay 
 
 times professional performers, but more usually | hold of one another, &c.: any infringement of 
 
 4C 2 
 
1124 GAMES 
 
 GAMUL 
 
 these rules (ἐὰν μὴ νομίμως ἀθλήσῃ, 2 Tim. ii. | were, the starting-point and the goal, the locus 
 
 5) involved a loss of the prize, the competitor 
 being pronounced disqualified (ἀδόκιμος, 1 Cor. 
 ix. 27; indignus brabeo, Bengel). 
 was selected for his spotless integrity (6 δίκαιος 
 κριτής, 2 Tim. iv. 8): his office was to decide 
 any disputes (BpaBeverw, Col. iii. 15; A. V. and 
 
 R. V. “rule,” R. V. marg. Gr. arbitrate) and to | 
 give the prize (τὸ βραβεῖον, 1 Cor. ix. 24; Phil. | 
 
 iii. 14), consisting of a crown (στέφανος, 2 Tim. 
 ii. 5, iv. 8) of leaves of wild olive at the Olympic 
 games, and of pine or, at one period, ivy at the 
 Isthmian games. These crowns, though perish- 
 able (φθαρτόν, 1 Cor. ix, 25; cp. 1 Pet. v. 4), 
 were always regarded as a source of unfailing 
 exultation (Phil. iv. 1; 1 Thess. ii. 19): palm 
 
 Isthmian crowns. 
 
 branches were aiso placed in the hands of the 
 victors (Rev. vii. 9). St. Paul alludes to two 
 only out of the five contests, boxing and running, 
 more frequently to the latter. In boxing (πυγμή; 
 cp. πυκτεύω, 1 Cor. ix. 26), the hands and arms 
 were bound with the cestus, a band of leather 
 studded with nails, which very much increased 
 the severity of the blow, and rendered a bruise 
 inevitable (Smwmd(w, 1 Cor. ἰ. c.; ὑπώπιατετὰ 
 ὑπὸ τοὺς ras τῶν πληγῶν ἴχνη, Pollux, Onom. 
 ii. 4, ὅ2). The skill of the combatant was 
 shown in so avoiding the blows of his adversary 
 that they were expended on the air (οὐκ ὡς ἀέρα 
 δέρων, 1 Cor. 1. c.). The foot-race (δρόμος, 
 2 Tim. iv. 7, ἃ word peculiar to St. Paul; cp. 
 Acts xiii. 25, xx. 24, rendered “course” by A. V. 
 and R, V.) was run in the stadium (ἐν σταδίῳ 5 
 A. V. and R. V. “race” [R. V. marg. Gr. race- 
 course]; 1 Cor, ix. 24), an oblong area, open at 
 one end and rounded in a semicircular form at 
 the other, along the sides of which were the 
 raised tiers of seats on which the spectators sat. 
 
 The Race. 
 
 The race was either from one end of the stadium 
 to the other, or, in the διαυλος, back again to 
 the starting-post. There may be a latent re- 
 ference to the δίαυλος in the expression ἀρχηγὸν 
 καὶ τελειωτήν (Heb. xii. 2); Jesus being, as it 
 
 The judge | 
 
 a quo and the locus ad quem of the Christian’s 
 course. The judge was stationed by the “goal” 
 (R. V. σκοπόν; A. V. “mark”; Phil. iii, 14), 
 which was clearly visible from one end of the 
 
 | stadium to the other, so that the runner could 
 
 make straight for it (ov« ὡς ἀδήλως, 1 Cor. ix. 
 26). St. Paul brings vividly before our minds 
 the earnestness of the competitor, having cast 
 off every encumbrance (ὄγκον ἀποθέμενοι πάντα), 
 
 especially any closely-fitting robe (εὐπερίστα- 
 
 tov, Heb. xii. 1; ep. Conybeare and Howson, ii. 
 543), holding on his course uninterruptedly 
 (διώκω, Phil. iii. 12), his eye fixed on the distant 
 goal (ἀφορῶντες, ἀπέβλεπε, Heb. xii. 2, xi. 26; 
 ἀπὸ notat longe, Bengel), unmindful of the 
 space already past (τὰ μὲν ὀπίσω ἐπιλανθανό- 
 μενος, Phil. 1. ¢.), and stretching forward with 
 bent body (τοῖς δὲ ἔμπροσθεν ἐπεκτεινόμενοΞ), 
 his perseverance (δι᾽ ὑπομονῆς, Heb. xii. 1), his 
 joy at the completion of the course (μετὰ χαρᾶς, 
 Acts xx. 24), his exultation as he not only 
 receives (ἔλαβον, Phil. iii. 12) but actually 
 grasps (καταλάβω, “apprehend,” in A. V. and 
 R. V. Phil.; ἐπιλαβοῦ, 1 Tim. vi. 12, 19) the 
 crown which had been set apart (ἀπόκειται, 
 2 Tim. iv. 8) for the victor. Cp. Dean Howson’s 
 4th Essay on “*The Metaphors of St. Paul” 
 (Sunday Magazine, 1866-7). [W. L. Bal 
 
 GAMMA’'DIMS (097153). ‘This word occurs 
 only in Ezek. xxvii. 11, where it is said of Tyre, 
 “the Gammadims were in thy towers.” A 
 variety of explanations of the term (some ob- 
 solete, like the Vulg. Pygmaez; see first edit. 
 of this work) have been offered. (1.) Some 
 treat it asa geographical or local term; reading 
 (a) OD) (Gen. x. 2, Cappadocians; so La- 
 garde), or (Ὁ) ὩΣ (Gen. x. 18, a Canaanitish 
 people; so Cornill). (2.) Others retain the 
 present reading and give a more general sense 
 to the word. Gesenius (Thesaur. p. 292) con- 
 nects it with 23, a staff, whence the sense of 
 
 brave warriors, hostes arborum instar caedentes ; 
 and Roediger supports the signification of 
 
 warriors from the Syriac τίμα. ad Gesen. 
 
 Thes. p. 79). After all, the rendering in the 
 LXX., φύλακες, furnishes the simplest explana- 
 tion: and the Lutheran translation has followed 
 this, giving Wéchter. 
 
 The following words of 
 
 Castle of a maritime people, with the shields hanging upon the 
 walls. (From a bas-relief at Kouyunjik. Layard.) 
 
 the verse— they hanged their shields upon the 
 walls round about ’—are illustrated by one of 
 the bas-reliefs found at Kouyunjik (see pre- 
 ceding cut). CW. L. BJ [FJ 
 
 GA'MUL (51103 = weaned; Β. ὁ Γαμούλ; 
 A. Ἰαχείν ; Gamul), a priest; the leader of the 
 22nd course in the service of the sanctuary 
 (1 Ch. xxiv. 17). 
 
GAR 
 
 GAR (fds; Sasus). “Sons of Gar” are 
 named among the “sons of the servants of 
 Solomon ” in 1 Esd. v. 34. There are not in the 
 lists of Ezra and Nehemiah any names corre- 
 sponding to the two preceding and the six 
 succeeding this name. 
 in the A. Υ, is derived from the Aldine text 
 (see Speaker’s Comm. in loco). [F.] 
 
 GARDEN (3, 733, 733; κῆπος). Gardens 
 in the East, as the Hebrew word indicates, are 
 inclosures, on the outskirts of towns, planted | 
 with various trees and shrubs. From the allu- | 
 sions in the Bible we learn that they were | 
 surrounded by hedges of thorn (Is. v. 5), or 
 walls of stone (Prov. xxiv. 31). For further 
 protection lodges (Is. i. 8; Lam. ii. 6) or watch- 
 towers (Mark xii. 1) were built in them, in 
 which sat the keeper (1$3, Job xxvii. 18) to 
 drive away the wild beasts and robbers, as 
 is the case to this day. Layard (Win. ὁ Bab. 
 p- 365) gives the following description of a 
 scene which he witnessed :—‘ The broad silver 
 river wound through the plain, the great ruin 
 cast its dark shadows in the moonlight, 
 the lights of ‘the lodges in the gardens of 
 cucumbers’ flickered at our feet, and the deep 
 silence was only broken by the sharp report of 
 a rifle fired by the watchful guards to frighten 
 away the wild boars that lurked in the melon | 
 beds.” The scarecrow also was an invention 
 not unknown (προβασκάνιον, Bar. vi. 70). 
 
 The gardens of the Hebrews were planted 
 with flowers and aromatic shrubs (Cant. vi. 2, 
 iv. 16), besides olives, fig-trees, nuts, or wal- 
 nuts (Cant. vi. 11), pomegranates, and others 
 for domestic use (Ex. xxiii. 1]; Jer. xxix. 5; | 
 Amos ix. 14). The quince, medlar, citron, 
 almond, and service trees are among those 
 enumerated in the Mishna as cultivated in 
 Palestine (Kilaim, i. § 4). Gardens of herbs, or 
 kitchen-gardens, are mentioned in Deut. xi. 10 
 and 1 K. xxi. 2. Cucumbers were grown in 
 them (Is. i. 8; Bar. vi. 70), and probably also 
 melons, leeks, onions, and garlic, which are 
 spoken of (Num. xi. 5) as the productions of a 
 neighbouring country. In addition to these, 
 the lettuce, mustard-plant (Luke xiii. 19), 
 coriander, endive, one of the bitter herbs eaten 
 with the Paschal lamb, and rue, are particu- 
 larised in the precepts of the Mishna, though 
 it is not certain that they were all, strictly 
 speaking, cultivated in the gardens of Palestine 
 (Kilwim, i. §§ 2, 8). It is well known that, in 
 the time of the Romans, the art of gardening 
 was carried to great perfection in Syria. Pliny 
 (xx. 16) says, “* Syria in hortis operosissima est ; 
 indeque proverbium Graecis, ‘Multa Syrorum 
 olera ;’” and again (xii. 54) he describes the 
 balsam plant as growing in Judaea alone, and 
 there only in two royal gardens. Strabo (xvi. | 
 p- 763), alluding to one of these gardens near | 
 Jericho, calls it 6 τοῦ βαλσάμου παράδεισος. 
 The rose-garden in Jerusalem, mentioned in the 
 Mishna (Maaseroth, ii. § 5), and said to have 
 been situated westward of the Temple-mount, is 
 remarkable as having been one of the few 
 gardens which, from the time of the Prophets, 
 existed within the city walls (Lightfoot, Hor. 
 Heb. on Matt. xxvi. 36), They were usually 
 planted without the gates, according to the 
 gloss quoted by Lightfoot, on account of: the 
 
 The form of the name | 
 
 GARDEN 1125 
 
 fetid smell arising from the weeds thrown out 
 from them, or from the manure employed in 
 their cultivation. 
 
 The gate Gennath, mentioned by Josephus 
 (B. J. v. 4, § 2), is supposed to have derived its 
 name from the rose-garden already mentioned, 
 or trom the fact of its leading to the gardens 
 without the city. It was near the garden- 
 ground by the Gate of the Women that Titus 
 was surprised by the Jews while reconnoitring 
 the city. The trench by which it was sur- 
 rounded cut off his retreat (Jos. B. J. ν. 2, § 2). 
 But of all the gardens of Palestine none is 
 possessed of associations more sacred and im- 
 perishable than the garden of Gethsemane, 
 beside the oil-presses on the slopes of Olivet. 
 Kight aged olive-trees mark the site which 
 tradition has connected with that memorable 
 garden-scene, and their gnarled stems and 
 almost leafless branches attest an antiquity as 
 venerable as that which is claimed for them. 
 [GETHSEMANE. ] 
 
 In addition to the ordinary productions of the 
 country, we are tempted to infer from Is. xvii. 
 10, that in some gardens care was bestowed on 
 the rearing of exotics. To this conclusion the 
 description of the gardens of Solomon in the 
 Targum on Eccles. ii. 5,6 seems to point: “I 
 made me well-watered gardens and paradises, 
 and sowed there all kinds of plants, some for 
 use of eating, and some for use of drinking, and 
 some for purposes of medicine; all kinds of 
 plants of spices. I planted in them trees of 
 emptiness (7.e. not fruit-bearing), and all trees 
 of spices which the spectres and demons brought 
 me from India, and every tree which produces 
 fruit ; and its border was from the wall of the 
 citadel, which is in Jerusalem, by the waters of 
 Siloah. 1 chose reservoirs of water, which 
 behold! are for watering the trees and the 
 plants, and I made me fish-ponds of water, some 
 of them also for the plantation which rears the 
 trees to water it.” 
 
 In a climate like that of Palestine the 
 neighbourhood of water was an important 
 consideration in selecting the site of a garden. 
 The nomenclature of the country has per- 
 petuated this fact in the name En-gannim— 
 “the fountain of gardens”—the modern Jenin 
 (cp. Cant. iv. 15). To the old Hebrew poets 
 “a well-watered garden,” or “a tree planted by 
 the waters,” was an emblem of luxuriant fer- 
 tility and material prosperity (Is. lviii. 11; Jer. 
 xvii, 8, xxxi. 12); while no figure more 
 graphically conveyed the idea of dreary barren- 
 ness or misery than “a garden that hath no 
 water” (Is. 1. 30). From a neighbouring 
 stream or cistern were supplied the channels or 
 conduits by which the gardens were intersected, 
 and the water was thus conveyed to all parts 
 (Ps. i. 33 Eccles. ii. 6; Ecclus. xxiv. 30). It is 
 matter of doubt what is the exact meaning of 
 the expression “to water with the foot” in 
 Deut. xi. 10. Niebuhr (Descr. de Vl Arabie, 
 p- 138) describes a wheel which is employed for 
 irrigating gardens where the water is not deep, 
 and which is worked by the hands and feet after 
 the manner of a treadmill, the men “ pulling 
 the upper part towards them with their hands, 
 and pushing with their feet upon the lower 
 part ”’ (Robinson, ii. 226). This mode of irri- 
 gation might be described as “watering with 
 
1126 GARDEN 
 
 the foot.” But the method practised by the 
 
 agriculturists in Oman, as narrated by Wellsted 
 
 (Trav. i, 281), answers more nearly to this de- | 
 scription, and serves to illustrate Prov. xxi. 1: | 
 “ After ploughing, they form the ground with a 
 spade into small squares with ledges on either 
 side, along which the water is conducted. . . 
 When one of the hollows is filled, the peasant | 
 stops the supply by turning up the earth | 
 with his foot, and thus opens a channel into 
 another.” 
 
 The orange, lemon, and mulberry groves 
 which lie around and behind Jaffa supply, per- 
 haps, the most striking peculiarities of Oriental 
 gardens—gardens which Maundrell describes as 
 being “a confused miscellany of trees jumbled 
 
 wove 
 
 “΄-ν-- σ- 
 
 Ἂς 
 
 φ 
 
 ote ferret 
 
 a a cn AR NN A a i cn eee 
 
 GARDEN 
 
 together, without either posts, walks, arbours, 
 or anything of art or design, so that they seem 
 like thickets rather than gardens ” (arly Trav. 
 in Pal. p. 416). The Persian wheels, which are 
 kept ever working, day and night, by mules, to 
 
 | supply the gardens with water, leave upon the 
 
 traveller’s ear a most enduring impression 
 (Lynch, Exp. to Jordan, p. 441; Siddon’s 
 Memoir, p. 187). 
 
 The law against the propagation of mixed 
 species (Lev. xix. 19; Deut. xxii. 9, 11) gave rise 
 to numerous enactments in the Mishna to ensure 
 its observance. The portions of the field or 
 garden, in which the various plants were sown, 
 were separated by light fences of reed, ten palms 
 in height, the distance between the reeds being 
 
 “on ae 
 
 PS = 
 
 ἣν 
 
 ΞΕ 
 
 ete fe. 
 
 EE OO 
 =F τ 
 
 fol oletevolateter 
 8 : 
 
 BH 
 
 EE 
 
 IS 
 
 Ss 
 
 BT FS σους Σ Ξ ΞΤΞΕ ΞΟ Ξ ἜΟ 
 
 ( 
 " 
 | 
 ‘ 
 
 not more than three palms, so that a kid could 
 enter (Kilaim, iv. §§ 3, 4). 
 The kings and nobles had their country-houses 
 
 surrounded by gardens (1K. xxi. 1; 2 K. ix. 27), | 
 
 and these were used on festal occasions (Cant. 
 y. 1). So intimately, indeed, were gardens 
 associated with festivity that horticulture and 
 conviviality are, in the Talmud, denoted by the 
 same term (cp. Buxtorf, Lex. Talm. s. v. 
 MID). It is possible, however, that this 
 may be a merely accidental coincidence. The 
 garden of Ahasuerus was in a court of the 
 palace (Esth. i. 5), adjoining the banqueting- 
 hall (Esth. vii. 7). In Babylon the gardens and 
 orchards were inclosed by the city-walls (Layard, 
 Nin. ii, 246). Attached to the house of Joachim 
 was a garden or orchard (Sus. v. 4)-- ἃ garden 
 
 inclosed”? (Cant. iv. 12)—provided with baths 
 and other appliances of luxury (Sus. Ὁ. 155 ep. 
 2 Sam. xi. 2). 
 
 In large gardens the orchard (DIB, παρά- 
 5eucos) was probably, as in Egypt, the inclosure 
 set apart for the cultivation of date and sycamore 
 trees, and fruit-trees of various kinds (Cant. iv. 
 13; Eccles. ii. 5). Schroeder, in the preface to 
 his Thesaurus Linguae Armenicae, asserts that 
 | the word “ pardes” is of Armenian origin, and 
 | denotes a garden near or round a house. planted 
 with herbs, trees, and flowers (see MV."!). It 
 is applied by Diodorus Siculus (ii. 10) and 
 Berosus (quoted by Jos. Ant. x. 2, § 1) to the 
 famous hanging gardens of Babylon. Xenophon 
 (Anab. i, 2, § 7) describes the “ paradise” at 
 Celaenae in Phrygia, where Cyrus had a palace, 
 
GARDEN 
 
 as a large preserve full ‘of wild beasts; and 
 Aulus Gellius (ii. 20) gives “vivaria” as the 
 equivalent of mapadeloos (cp. Philostratus, Vit. | 
 Apoll. Tyan. i. 38). The officer in charge of 
 such a domain was called “the keeper of the 
 paradise ” (Neh. ii. 8). 
 
 The ancient Hebrews made use of gardens as 
 places of burial (John xix. 41). Manasseh and 
 his son Amon were buried in the garden of their 
 palace, the garden of Uzza (2 K. xxi. 18, 26; 
 ἐν τοῖς αὑτοῦ παραδείσοις, Jos. Ant. x. 3, § 2). 
 The retirement of gardens rendered them 
 
 - favourite places for devotion (Matt. xxvi. 36; 
 4 John xviii. 1; cp. Gen. xxiv. 63). In the 
 degenerate times of the monarchy they were 
 
 selected as the scenes of idolatrous worship 
 
 ae 
 SS 
 
 RS 
 N| 
 δὶ 
 
 iM), WM 
 { ] 
 
 mM ἡ) 
 τ i| 
 
 ἡϑὲ 
 
 ~ 
 
 SA iin 
 {1 
 
 Wf 
 4A ik 
 
 , if 
 εἱ ΕΣ (Δι 
 ἐμ BARN 
 WANS Sa 
 
 TYAN 
 
 1127 
 
 (Is. i. 29; Ixv. 3; Ixvi. 17), and images of the 
 idols were probably erected in them. 
 
 Gardeners are alluded to in Job xxvii. 18 and 
 John xx. 15. But how far the art of gardening 
 was carried among the Hebrews we have few 
 means of ascertaining. That they were ac- 
 quainted with the process of grafting is evident 
 from Rom. xi. 17, 24, as well as from the minute 
 prohibitions of the Mishna;* and the of method 
 propagating plants by layers or cuttings was 
 not unknown (Is. xvii. 10). Buxtorf says that 
 PDN, *drisin (Mishna, Biccurim, i. § 2), were 
 gardeners who tended and looked after gardens 
 on consideration of receiving some portion of 
 the fruit (Lex. Talm.s. v.). But that gardening 
 was a special means of livelihood is clear from a 
 
 GARDEN 
 
 \ Fe 
 Ἃ lo WY i 
 Δ Ἰ}" ᾿ 
 Sap 
 yy 1X 
 
 1) 
 ᾿ 
 
 XY δ : 5 ΝΕ Ni ἥν»; 
 ih ay , ἣ \ ἢ Ns \ al δὴ 
 Re AAW 
 = : ΕΔ], ἀν ἡ 
 
 iS 
 
 ia 
 ἤν 
 
 Assyrian garden and fishpond. (Kouyunjik.) 
 
 proverb which contains a warning against rash 
 speculations: “Who hires a garden eats the 
 birds; who hires gardens, him the birds eat” 
 (Dukes, Rabbin. Blumenilese, p. 141). 
 
 The traditional gardens and pools of Solomon, 
 supposed to be alluded to in Eccles. ii. 5, 6, are | 
 shown in the Wédy Urtds (i.e. Hortus), about 
 an hour andaquarter to the south of Bethlehem 
 (cp. Jos. Ant. viii. 7, § 3). The Arabs per- 
 petuate the tradition in the name of a neigh- 
 bouring hill, which they call “ Jebel-el-Furei- 
 dis,” or “Mountain of the Paradise” (Stanley, 
 Sin. § Pal. p. 166). Maundrell is sceptical on 
 the subject of the gardens (Zarly Trav. in Pal. 
 p- 457), but they find a champion in Van de 
 Velde, who asserts that they “ were not confined — 
 
 to the Wddy Urtds; the hill-slopes to the left 
 and right also, with their heights and hollows, 
 must have been covered with trees and plants, 
 as is shown by the names they still bear, as 
 ‘ peach-hill,’ ‘ nut-vale,’ ‘ fig-vale,’” &c. (Syria 
 4. Pal. ii. 27). 
 
 The “king’s garden,” mentioned in 2 K. xxv. 
 4, Neh. iii. 15, Jer. xxxix. 4, 111, 7, was near 
 the pool of Siloam, at the mouth of the Tyro- 
 poeon, north of Bir Eyub, and was formed by 
 the meeting of the valleys of Jehoshaphat and 
 Ben Hinnom (Wilson, Lands of the Bible, i. 498). 
 
 a It was forbidden to graft trees on trees of a dif- 
 ferent kind, or to graft vegetables on trees or trees on 
 vegetables (Kilaim, i. §§ 7, 8). 
 
1128 
 
 Josephus places the scene of the feast of Adonijah 
 at En-rogel, “ beside the fountain that is in the 
 royal paradise ” (Ant. vii. 14, § 4; ep. also ix. 
 10, § 4). (Ww. A. W.] 
 
 GAREB 
 
 GA’REB (14; Γαρέβ), one of the heroes of 
 David’s army (2 Sam. xxiii. 38). He is described 
 as the (A. V. “an”) Ithrite; et ipse Jethrites, 
 Vulg. This is generally explained as a patrony- 
 mic = son of Jether, a family of Kirjath-jearim. 
 It may be observed, however, that Ira, who is 
 also called the Ithrite in this passage, is called 
 the Jairite in 2 Sam. xx. 26, and that the read- 
 ings of the LXX. vary in the former passage 
 (see Swete in loco). ‘These variations support 
 the sense given in the Syriac Version, which 
 reads in 2 Sam. xx. 26 FI", 1.6. an inhabitant 
 of Jattir in the mountainous district of Judah 
 (see Driver, Notes on the Heb. Text of the BB. 
 of Samuel, in loco). [W.L. BJ ΠΣ] 
 
 GA’REB, THE HILL (8 3 NYIA=scabbed, 
 leprous, Ges., Fiirst ; βουνοὶ Γαρήβ ; collis Gareb), 
 named only in Jer. xxxi. 39. A hill outside 
 Jerusalem, mentioned next to “the gate of the 
 corner” as a poins on the boundary of the re- 
 stored city in the latter times. From the context 
 it must have been on the north side of Jerusalem, 
 for the Prophet, in describing the limits of the 
 city, commences at the N.E. (v. 38), and then 
 goes round to the N. and N.W. (v. 39), and the 
 S.W., S., and E. (υ. 40). Possibly in Jeremiah’s 
 time it was the dwelling-place of the lepers 
 (Lev. xiii. 46). Riehm (s. v.) places it to the 
 S.W. of Jerusalem, and Graf, quoted by Riehm, 
 identifies it with the hill which separated the 
 valleys of Hinnom and Rephaim (Josh. xv. 8; 
 xvii. 16). Gesenius (Add. ad Thesaur. p. 80) 
 thinks it may have been Bezetha. Ewald 
 (Gesch, Christus, p. 485) identifies it with Gol- 
 gotha. It is very possibly the hill above Jere- 
 miah’s grotto, outside the Damascus Gate, which 
 is supposed by some authorities to be Golgotha, 
 and near which there appears to have been, at an 
 early period, a leper’s hospital, and perhaps the 
 houses of the lepers. [1 
 
 GARIZ'IM (Γ΄. Γαριζίν, A. Γαριζείν ; Gari- 
 zin), 2 Mace. ν. 28 : vi. 2. [GeERizIM.] 
 
 GARLANDS (στέμματα). The wreaths 
 brought with oxen by the priest of Jupiter at 
 Lystra, when the people were about to worship 
 Paul and Barnabas (Acts xiv. 13). Priests, 
 altars, victims, and votaries were all decked with 
 them. Cp. Tertullian, de Corona, x.; and see 
 Speaker's Comm. in loco. [F.] 
 
 GARLICK (Oi, shim; τὰ σκόρδα; allia; | 
 RGAE ares it reat εν | be adopted in 1 K. iv. 17, 19. 
 
 Arab. “» ἐλ; Num. xi. 5) is mentioned 
 
 among the vegetables and good things of Egypt 
 which the Israelites remembered with regret and 
 murmuring at Taberah in the wilderness (Num. 
 xi. 5). The cultivated garlic of Egypt is identical 
 with our own Allium sativum, which is grown 
 throughout the world, but especially in semi- 
 tropical regions. Its importance as an article of 
 food, or rather as a condiment, in Egypt, is 
 shown by the statement of Herodotus (ii. 125), 
 that an inscription on the Great Pyramid 
 
 GARRISON 
 
 recorded that 1600 talemts of silver were 
 expended on radishes, onions, and garlic, for 
 the workmen employed in its construction. 
 The outer casing of the Pyramid having been 
 long ago stripped off, there is now no means of 
 proving or disproving the historian’s statement, 
 which, however, contains nothing improbable. 
 The fondness of the Jews for garlic was 
 proverbial among the ancients, and was cast in 
 their teeth as a reproach. Rabbi Solomon, as 
 quoted by Celsius, says: ‘Hoe proprium genti 
 Ebraeae cacoéthes esse solet, ut comesto allio 
 hircorum more incredibilem foetorem exhalent.” 
 Another commentator on the Talmud, Salomon 
 Zevi, pleads in reply that the taste for garlic 
 had come down from their ancestors in the 
 wilderness, and that the Talmud had decided it 
 to be a most wholesome food. Besides the 
 cultivated garlic, no less than 36 species of 
 this family of plants have been enumerated as 
 found wild in various parts of Palestine (see 
 MV.1!). The roots of all of them have the same 
 character, but of many the blossoms are very 
 handsome, pink as well as white, and a few 
 
 exhale a very grateful perfume. [H. B. T.] 
 GARMENT. [Drzss.] 
 GAR'MITE, THE (9790; LXX. [ed. 
 
 Swete] is altogether different ; Garmi). Keilah 
 the Garmite, i.c. the descendant of Gerem (see 
 the Targum on this word), is mentioned in the 
 obscure genealogical lists of the families of Judah 
 (1 Ch. iv. 19). Keilah is apparently the place 
 of that name; but there is no clue to the reason 
 of the soubriquet here given it. [6.1 
 
 GARRISON. The Hebrew words so rendered 
 in the A. V. are derivatives from the root ndsab, 
 
 “to place, erect,” which may be applied to a 
 
 variety of objects. (1.) Massab and massabah 
 ΟΥ̓, ΠΝ) undoubtedly mean “a garrison” 
 (A. V. and R. V.), or fortified post (1 Sam. 
 xiii. 23, xiv. 1, 4, 12, 15; 2 Sam. xxiii. 14). 
 
 | (2.) Neésib (A°¥$)) is also used for “a garrison” 
 
 (A. V. and R. V. in 1 Sam. x. 5, xiii. 33 1 Ch. 
 xi. 16); but some prefer the sense of a ‘“‘ column” 
 erected in an enemy’s country as a token of 
 conquest, like the stelae erected by Sesostris 
 (Her. ii. 102, 106; cp. the LXX. ἀνάστημα in 
 1 Sam. x. 5): and think that what Jonathan 
 broke in pieces was a column which the Philis- 
 tines had erected on a hill (1 Sam. xiii. 3). 
 (3.) The same word is elsewhere taken to mean 
 ‘“‘officers” placed over a vanquished people 
 (2 Sam. viii. 6, 14; 1 Ch. xviii. 13; 2 Ch. xvii. 
 2); but there seems no necessity for departing 
 in these cases from the larger term “ garrison” 
 (A. V. and R. V.), if the translation “ officers ” 
 (4.): The A. V. 
 translates by “garrisons” the NAS of Ezek. 
 xxvi. 11, but the R. V. “pillars” (marg. Or, 
 
 | obelisks) expresses more accurately the reference 
 
 to those monolithic pillars which were visible 
 symbols or embodiments of the presence of the 
 deity. Thus Melcarth was worshipped at Tyre 
 in the form of two pillars (Robertson Smith, 
 Religion of the Semites, i. pp. 186 sq., 190-1), 
 and the beautiful pillars of the Tyrian temples 
 attracted the attention of Herodotus (ii. 44). 
 
 In the Book of the Acts a garrison evidently 
 occupied the “castle” or barracks connected 
 
Ν 
 
 GASHMU 
 
 with the Tower of Antonia at Jerusalem (xxi. 
 34, 37). Its officer and soldiers were the means 
 of rescuing St. Paul, and in its prison he found 
 refuge. On very nearly the same site the present 
 Turkish garrison stands. Some have thought 
 
 that this garrison was Pilate’s praetorium, and | 
 therefore the place where Jesus Christ was | 
 
 arraigned before the Roman governor. 
 In Acts xi. 32 the A. V. “the governor kept 
 the city ... with a garrison” is more correctly 
 
 rendered by the R. V. * guarded (ἐφρούρει) the | 
 
 city.” See 8. D.,Amer.ed. [W.L.B.] [F.] 
 GASH’MU (113; Gossem), Neh. vi. 6. 
 
 Assumed by all the lexicons to be a variation of 
 the name of GrsHEM (see vv. 1, 2). The words 
 “and Gashmu saith” are omitted in BA., but 
 occur in N°*™5, καὶ Γοσὲμ εἶπεν. [Ε.1 
 
 GA/TAM (onya ; Γοθόμ (Gen.], B. Γοωθάμ, 
 A. To@au [Ch.]; Gatham, Gathan), the fourth 
 son of Eliphaz the son of Esau (Gen. xxxvi. 11; 
 1 Ch. i. 36), and one of the “ dukes ” of Eliphaz 
 (Gen. xxxvi. 16). Nothing is known about 
 him. (F.] 
 
 GATE. 1. WY, from wey, to divide, Gesen. 
 Ρ. 1458; πύλη; porta, introitus. 2. MnB, from 
 TN, to open, Ges. p. 1138; θύρα, πύλη ; ostium, 
 a “ doorway.” 
 αὐλή, σταθμός ; limen, postes. 4. YIM, Chald., 
 only in Ezra and Daniel; αὐλή, θύρα ; ostium, 
 fores. 5. nbs, from nes, to hang down ; Gesen. 
 Ρ. 339, a door; θύρα ; valva, ostium, fores, the 
 “ door” or valve. 
 
 The gates and gateways of Eastern cities 
 anciently held, and still hold, an important part, 
 not only in the defence, but in the public 
 economy of the place. They are thus sometimes 
 taken as representing the city itself (Gen. xxii. 
 17, xxiv. 60; Deut. xii. 12, xvi. 5; Judg. v. 8; 
 Ruth iv. 10; Ps. Ixxxvii. 2, cxxii. 2). Among the 
 special purposes for which they were used may 
 be mentioned—1l. As places of public resort, 
 either for business, or where people sat to con- 
 
 verse and hear news (Gen. xix. 1, xxiii. 10, xxxiv. 
 20, 24; 1 Sam.iv. 18; 2 Sam. xv. 2, xviii. 24; 
 
 Ps. Ixix. 12; Neh. viii. 1, 3, 16; Shaw, Trav. | 
 
 p- 207). 2. Places for public deliberation, ad- 
 ministration of justice, or of audience for kings 
 and rulers, or ambassadors (Deut. xvi. 18, xxi. 
 19, xxv. 7; Josh. xx. 4; Judg. ix. 35; Ruth iv. 
 eA sam. ax. 8; 1 Καὶ xxii. 10: Job xxix. 7; 
 Prov. xxii. 22, 
 Lam. v. 14; Amos v. 12; Zech. viii. 16; Polyb. 
 xy. 31). Hence came the usage of the word 
 “ Porte” in speaking of the government of Con- 
 stantinople (Zarly Trav. p. 349). 
 markets (2 K. vii. 1; ep. Aristoph. Hq. 1243, 
 ed. Bekk.; Neh. xiii. 16, 19). [Crrres.] In 
 
 heathen towns the open spaces near the gates | 
 appear to have been sometimes used as places | 
 
 for sacrifice (Acts xiv. 13; cp. 2 K. xxiii. 8). 
 Regarded therefore as positions of great im- 
 
 portance, the gates of cities were carefully | 
 
 guarded and closed at nightfall (Deut. iii. 5 ; 
 
 Josh. ii. 5,7; Judg. ix. 40, 44; 1 Sam. xxiii. 7; | 
 2 Sam. xi. 23; Jer. xxxix. 4; Judith i. 4: see j 
 
 Rey. xxi. 25). They contained chambers over 
 the gateway, and probably also chambers or 
 
 3. *}D, a vestibule or gateway ; | 
 
 xxiv. 7; Jer. xvii. 19, xxxviii. 7; | 
 
 3. Public | 
 
 1129 
 
 | recesses at the sides for the various purposes to 
 | which they were applied (2 Sam. xviii. 24; 
 _ Layard, Nin. & Bab. p. 57, and note). 
 
 GATE 
 
 Assyrian Gates. (Layard.) 
 
 The gateways of Assyrian cities were arched 
 or square-headed entrances in the wall, some- 
 times flanked by towers (Layard, Nineveh, ii. 
 388, 395, Min. δ' Bab. 231, Mons. of Nin. Pt. 2, 
 pl. 49; see also Assyrian bas-reliefs in Brit. Mus. 
 Nos. 49, 25, 26). In later Egyptian times, the 
 gates of the temples seem to have been intended 
 as places of defence, if not the principal fortifi- 
 
 τὸ 
 
 Egyptian Doors.—Fig. 1. The upper pin, on which the door turned. 
 Fig. 2. Lower pin. (Wilkinson.) 
 
 cations (Wilkinson, Anc. Ey. i. 409 [1878)). 
 
 The doors themselves of the larger gates men- 
 
 tioned in Scripture were two-leaved, plated with 
 
 metal, closed with locks and fastened with metal 
 
 An Egyptian Folding-door. 
 
 bars (Deut. 111. 5; Judg. xvi. 3; 1 Sam. xxiii. 
 (7: 1K. iv. 133 2 Ch. viii, 5; Neh. iii. 3-15; 
 ' Ps, cvii. 16; Is. xlv. 1,.2; Jer. xlix. 31). Gates 
 ; not defended by iron were of course liable to be 
 | set on fire by an enemy (Judg. ix. 52). 
 | The gateways of royal palaces and even of 
 
1180 GATE 
 
 private houses were often richly ornamented. 
 Sentences from the Law were inscribed on and 
 above the gates, as in Mohammedan countries 
 sentences from the Kuran are inscribed over 
 doorways and on doors (Deut. vi. 9; Is. liv. 12; 
 Rey. xxi. 21; Maundrell, #. 7. p. 488; Lane, 
 Mod. Eg. i. 29; Rauwolft, Travels, Pt. iii. c. 10; 
 
 Modern Kgyptian Door. (Lane.) 
 
 Ray, ii. p. 278). The principal gate of the royal 
 palace at Ispahan was in Chardin’s time held 
 sacred, and served as a sanctuary for criminals 
 (Chardin, vii. 368), and petitions were presented 
 
 GATE 
 
 the Temple of fir (1 K. vi. 31, 32, 34; Ezek. xli. 
 23, 24). Of the gates of the outer court of 
 Herod’s temple, nine were covered with gold and 
 silver, as well as the posts and lintels, but the 
 outer one, the Beautiful Gate (Acts iii. 2), was 
 made entirely of Corinthian brass, and was con- 
 sidered far to surpass the others in costliness 
 (Joseph. B. J. v. 5, ὃ 3). This gate, which was 
 
 ἹΠΠΠΠΠΠΠΙΠΠΠΠΠΠΠΠΠΠΠΠΠΠΠΠΠ 
 
 SOK 
 = 
 
 XXX SEOKIEGPS 
 
 a 
 
 esl 
 ‘NCA 
 
 Ancient Egyptian Door. (Wilkinson.) 
 so heavy as to require.twenty men to close it, was 
 unexpectedly found open on one occasion shortly 
 before the close of the siege (Joseph. B. J. vi. 5, 
 § 3; Ὁ. Ap. 9). 
 The figurative gates of pearl and precious 
 | stones (Is. liv. 12; Rev. xxi. 21) may be re- 
 garded as having their types in the massive 
 | 
 
 to the sovereign at-the gate (see Esth. iv. 2 
 
 =": 
 
 and Herod. iii. 120, 140). The gateways of 
 Nimroud and Persepolis were flanked by colossal 
 figures of animals. 
 
 The gates of Solomon’s Temple were very 
 massive and costly, being overlaid with gold 
 and carvings (1 K. vi. 34, 35; 2 K. xviii. 16). 
 Those of the Holy Place were of olive-wood, 
 two-leaved, and overlaid with gold; those of 
 
 = δ 
 
 πηι 
 ΠΤ» [ΞΞΞ- Ξεαεξεαὶ 
 ll 
 Ι 
 IN ΠΠ] 
 
 fx 
 
 τ. 
 = οἷν 2 he 
 
 Ἃ 
 Ν᾿ 
 
 WI 
 
 > 
 
 VS «,5::} 
 
 Tn 
 
 = 
 
 DOU N 
 
 HIMES a3 1) FS pk 
 
 πὶ 
 
 γ 
 
 Ancient Egyptian Door. 
 
 (Wilkinson.) 
 
 stone doors which are found in some of the 
 ancient houses in Syria. These are of single 
 slabs several inches thick, sometimes 10 feet 
 high, and turn on stone pivots above and below 
 (Maundrell, Early Trav. p. 447; Shaw, p. 210; 
 Burckhardt, Syria, pp. 58, 74; Porter, Damas- 
 cus, iil. 22, 192; Ray, Coll. of Trav. ii. 429), 
 Egyptian doorways were often .richly orna- 
 
GATE, BEAUTIFUL 
 
 mented. The parts of the doorway were the 
 threshold (*|D, Judg. xix, 27; πρόθυρον, limen) 
 the sideposts (ny ; σταθμοί; uterque postis), 
 
 the lintel (CHPLND ; arid, superliminare, Ex, | 
 
 xii. 7). It was on the lintel and side-posts that 
 the blood of the Passover lamb was sprinkled 
 (Ex. xii. 7, 22), A trace of some similar prac- 
 tice in Assyrian worship seems to have been dis- 
 covered at Nineveh (Layard, Win. ii. 256). 
 
 The camp of the Israelites in the desert 
 appears to have been closed by gates (Ex. xxxil. 
 27). 
 rine word “door” in reference to a tent ex- 
 presses the opening made by turning up the 
 cloths in front of the tent, or dispensing with 
 them altogether, and the tent is then supported 
 only by the hinder and middle poles (Gen. xviii. 
 2; Burckhardt, Notes on Bed. i. 42; Robinson, 
 ii. 571). 
 
 In the Temple this duty was discharged by Le- 
 vites ; and in the houses of the wealthier classes, 
 and in palaces, persons were especially appointed 
 
 “ 
 
 ᾿ to keep the door (2 K. xii. 9, xxv.18; 1 Ch. ix. 
 
 18, 19; Esth. ii. 21; Jer. xxxv. 4; DY; 
 θυρωροί, πυλωροί; portarii, janitores). In the 
 A. V. these are frequently called “ porters,” a 
 word which has now acquired a different meaning. 
 The chief steward of the household in the 
 palace of the Shah of Persia was called chief of 
 the guardians of the gate (Chardin, vii. 369). 
 [Currain ; House; TEMPLE. ] [πρῶ 
 
 GATE, BEAUTIFUL, of the Temple (Acts 
 iii. 2). [TEMPLE; JERUSALEM. ] 
 
 GATH (ni; Γέθ [1 Sam.], Josephus Tirta), 
 one of the five Philistine strongholds (Josh. xiii. 
 3; 1Sam. vi.17). The name is usually rendered 
 “wine press” (cp. Joel iv. 13; Neh. xiii. 15; 
 Lam. i. 15), an abbreviated form of ΤᾺ, accord- 
 ing to Gesenius (Zex.). The ethnic form is 
 a, “Gittite” (2 Sam. vi. 10, &.); in the 
 feminine, N°F3 (Ps. viii. 1, &c.). In Arabic the 
 name might be expected to survive as Jett or 
 Jenneta, but no site is known in the required 
 position bearing such a name; and the position 
 of Gath is still a matter of uncertainty. The 
 generally accepted view is that advocated by 
 Dr. Porter in 1857 and by others, which places 
 this stronghold at the important fortress of 
 Tell es-Safi, north of Beit Jibrin (see PEF. 
 Mem. ii. Ὁ. 415, sheet 16). According to 
 Josephus (Ant. v. 1, § 22) Gath was in the 
 territory of Dan and in the vicinity of Jamnia. 
 It is not enumerated in the geographical chapters 
 of the Book of Joshua as belonging to any tribe 
 in particular, and in one passage (Josh, xi. 22) it 
 appears to have remained unconquered in the 
 hands of the Anakim. In the time of David it 
 was still an important Philistine fortress, the 
 native place of the giant Goliath (1 Sam. xvii. 4). 
 After the battle in the Valley of Elah ( Wady 
 Surrdr) the Philistines fled “by the way to 
 Shaaraim (‘gates’) even unto Gath and unto 
 
 Ekron.” This expression seems to agree with | 
 
 the passage from Josephus already quoted, in 
 placing Gath near the northern limits of the 
 Philistine region, and Gath is enumerated next 
 to Ekron in an earlier passage (1 Sam. vi. 17; 
 cp. 2 Sam.i. 20). Obed-edom the Gittite (2 Sam. 
 
 | Gaza. 
 
 GATH 1131 
 
 | vi. 10) was no doubt a native of Gath, but there 
 
 is nothing to show that he was a Philistine. 
 
 |The Gittites who followed David from Gath 
 
 (2 Sam. xv. 18) are mentioned with the Pele- 
 thithes and Cherethites, who appear also to have 
 come from Philistia, but of whose nationality 
 nothing is known. Achish, king of Gath in 
 David’s earlier days (1 Sam. xxi. 10), bears a 
 name perhaps not Semitic, and having no known 
 Semitic derivation—a remark which applies to 
 other Philistine names as well. His father’s 
 name was Maoch (1 Sam. xxvii. 2,3) or Maachah 
 (1 Κι. ii. 39), and he was still independent in 
 Solomon’s time. Whether the Philistine Gath 
 was the city taken by Hazael, king of Syria 
 (2 K. xii. 17), may be doubtful, though not im- 
 probable. According to 1 Ch. xviii. 1, David 
 himself took Gath, but his conquest, like those 
 of many other monarchs, Assyrian or Egyptian, 
 had little effect on the permanent history of 
 the town. In the corresponding passage in 
 Samuel (2 Sam. viii. 1; see Wellhausen in loco) 
 Metheg-Amman stands instead of Gath. Reho- 
 boam is said to have fortified Gath (2 Ch. xi. 8) 
 with other cities on the borders of his kingdom. 
 These works are not mentioned in the parallel 
 passage in Kings (1 K. xii, 21). Uzziah “ brake 
 down the wall of Gath ” (2 Ch. xxvi. 6) when 
 pushing his conquests over Philistia; but Amos, 
 writing in the same reign (Amos vi. 2), still 
 speaks of Gath as a Philistine city. In the later 
 prophets (Zeph. ii. 4 ; Zech. ix. 5, 6), when Philis- 
 tine cities are enumerated Gath is not among 
 them. It may have been ruined in the later 
 invasions from Babylon, or by the Persians, but 
 during the days of the Hebrew kings it was 
 always a thorn in the side of Israel. 
 
 The references to Gath in monumental records 
 are as yet few and doubtful. In the list of 
 towns in Palestine conquered by Thothmes III. 
 about 1600 B.c. one bears the name Kenetu 
 (No. 93), but this may be the modern Jennata, 
 much further south; No. 63 Jenet is Kefr 
 Jennis, which is again too far north; No. 70 
 Jenet is more possibly Gath. In the time of 
 Amenophis IV., about 1450 B.c., a city named 
 Gimti is noticed in one of the letters from Tell 
 Amarna, and in an inscription of Sargon’s it is 
 connected with Ekron. It is mentioned in the 
 above letter with Gedor and Keilah, and may 
 perhaps, as Delitzsch supposes, be Gath. It 
 appears to have been a place of importance, 
 since the “forces of the city of Gimti” were 
 commanded by a prince who successfully drove 
 out the Egyptian garrison. Such notices, how- 
 ever, do not aid us to fix the exact site. Nor is 
 it certain that the true site was known in the 
 time of Eusebius. In the Onomasticon, however 
 (O82 p. 254, 20), he states that Gath was 5 miles 
 from Eleutheropolis, on the way to Diospolis. 
 Jerome (OS.? p. 159, 15) adds nothing to this, 
 but in another work (Com. ad Mic. i., in Reland, 
 Pai, ii. p. 286) he says that Gath was still a 
 large village, on the way from Eleutheropolis to 
 We may suspect that Gazara, or Gezer, 
 should here stand for Gaza, in which case 
 Jerome’s notice would agree with that of Euse- 
 bius, which he accepts in translating in the Ono- 
 masticon. Under the head of Gath-Rimmon 
 (Γεθρεμμών), Eusebius (OS p. 255, 38) speaks 
 of the town so called in Dan as being 12 mile- 
 from Diospolis (Lydda) on the way to Eleutheros 
 
1192 GATH-HEPHER 
 
 polis. Ifthe same site is intended, the distance 
 from Eleutheropolis to Diospolis is made to be 
 17 Roman miles in all. The true distance is 24 
 English miles ; but as this route is not one of 
 the great Roman highways, it is possible that 
 we have to deal with mere estimates of distance. 
 There is no remarkable site 5 Roman miles 
 north of Eleutheropolis, Tell es-Safi being 7 
 English miles distant from the site of Eleuthero- 
 polis (Beit Jibrin). Thus, though the indications 
 favour the usually accepted site, there is no 
 absolute identification, as yet, of Gath. The 
 Onomasticon (OS? p. 255, 73) makes a false 
 distinction between the Philistine stronghold 
 and the Gath to which the Ark was taken from 
 Ashdod (1 Sam. ν. 8) on the way to Ekron. This 
 site is said by Eusebius, and by his translator 
 Jerome, to be between Antipatris (Rds οἱ ‘Ain) 
 and Jamnia (Yebna)—a vague indication, but 
 one which does not agree with the site already 
 more carefully defined. The authors of the 
 Onomasticon (OS? p. 255, 76) add that there 
 was “another place called Geththim,” perhaps 
 meaning Gittaim (Neh. xi. 33). 
 
 The site at Tell es-Safi is remarkably strong 
 and important. A white chalk cliff stands up 
 on the south 300 teet above the open valley of 
 Elah, and nearly 700 feet above the Mediterranean. 
 The modern village is on the top with a sacred 
 
 WwW 
 place outside. The name sal} ws signifies 
 
 “‘ white (or shining) hill,” “and the cliff is con- , 
 
 spicuous at a considerable distance. The houses 
 are of mud; the water supply is from a well in 
 
 the valley to the north. A few foundations | 
 
 with drafted stones remain, being traces of the 
 important mediaeval castle of Blanchegarde 
 (Alba Specula), which was erected in 1144 A.D. 
 by Fulke of Anjou. It was dismantled by 
 Saladin (Will. of Tyre, xv. 25), and had four 
 towers of equal size. It is mentioned asa castle 
 in 1191 a.p. (itin. Ric, IV. xxiii. xxxii.), when 
 three hundred Saracens formed the garrison. 
 If this identification of Gath be correct, it seems 
 to have long retained its importance. A good 
 account of the site is given by Robinson (bib. 
 Res. ii. pp. 29-32). El Mukaddasi (11th cent. 
 A.D.) says the place had a governor of its own. 
 Yakat (14th cent.) also speaks of it as an im- 
 portant place (see Le Strange, Palestine under 
 Moslems, pp. 41, 544). No antiquities of im- 
 portance have, however, as yet been found at 
 the site. [Ὁ. Β. 61 
 
 GATH-HEPHER or GITTAH-HEPHER 
 (ἼΒΠΠ na, 2 K. xiv. 25). The second spelling, 
 TBM NAA (Josh, xix. 13), is merely the locative 
 case of the name, and is correctly changed to 
 Gath-hepher in the ΒΗ. ἡ. The name is usually 
 translated “vine press of the pit.” This town 
 was on the border of Zebulun and Naphtali, and 
 was the home of Jonah. The site is not identified 
 in the Onomasticon, but Jerome (Comm. on Jonah, 
 quoted by Reland, Pal. ii. p. 786) places it in 
 
 8 In literary notices of this town it is always spelt 
 ἄλϑ 
 
 w 
 χ Lad\ ue: but the name as taken down from 
 
 the peasantry omits the last letter, which is not a 
 radical, 
 
 GAZA 
 
 the second mile from Saphorim, or Diocaesarea, 
 on the road to Tiberias. He says it was a small 
 village where the tomb of Jonah was still shown. 
 Benjamin of Tudela (12th cent.) also says that 
 the tomb of Jonah was shown in his time near 
 Sepphoris (Larly Travels in Pal. p. 89); and 
 Isaac Chelo (14th cent.) says that the modern 
 name of Gath-hepher in his time was Mesh-had 
 (Carmoly, Jtin. p. 256): it was then a small 
 place, inhabited by a few poor Moslems, but he 
 appears to confound it with Kefr Kenna, where 
 he says that a mosque covered the tomb of Jonah, 
 one of the seven prophets buried in Palestine 
 whose tombs were known. In the Talmud (Tal. 
 Jer. Shebiith, vi. 1; Neubauer, Géog. du Tal. p.201) 
 it is apparently the same site that is mentioned 
 as 15M, in connexion with Sepphoris (ep. Bere- 
 shith Rabba, 98), as a place standing high, and 
 apparently 3 miles distant. 
 
 There is no doubt that these references 
 all point to the present village οἱ Mesh-hed 
 (PEF. Mem. i. pp. 363, 367, sheet vi.), where 
 one of several supposed tombs of Jonah is still 
 venerated. It is now a small village with a 
 Makam, or sacred place, surmounted by two 
 domes, and with a population of some 300 
 Moslems. Sepphoris (Seffarieh) is about 21 
 English miles to the west; Kefr Kenna is half 
 a mile to the north-east. The tomb of Neby 
 Yunis stands high (1250 feet above the Mediter- 
 ranean), overlooking the plain on the north. 
 Robinson (bib. Res. ii. p. 350) adopts the tra- 
 ditional view as possible. The site is of great 
 importance as defining the boundary of Zebulun. 
 
 [C. R. C.] 
 GATH-RIMMON (57 13), “wine press 
 
 of the pomegranate,” according to Gesenius 
 
 | (Lew.), but perhaps connected with the name of 
 
 Rimmon, “high” (cp. Gesenius s. v.). There 
 are two places so called in the Bible. 
 
 1. A city in the territory of Dan (Josh. xxi. 
 24; 1 Ch. vi. 69), situated in the vicinity of 
 Bene Berak and Jehud (Josh. xix. 45) or north- 
 east of Joppa. It is with this town that the 
 Onomasticon (O8.? p. 255, 58) identifies a village 
 21'miles south of Lydda [Gatu]. The site is 
 
 : quite unknown. 
 
 2. A city of Manasseh west of Jordan (Josh. 
 xxi. 25). The LXX. reads Βαιθσὰν or Beth- 
 shean, and in the parallel passage (1 Ch. vi. 70) 
 we read Bileam. There is thus great uncer- 
 tainty as to the text. Within the limits of the 
 tribe of Manasseh we have the name of Rimmon at 
 the village of Kefr Rummdn, north of Shechem, 
 and of Gath at Jett, an important site on the 
 edge of the Sharon plain, where the main valley, 
 running N.W. from Shechem, debouches into 
 the lowlands. This latter is probably the Gitta 
 which, according to Justin Martyr, was the 
 home of Simon Magus, but its identity with 
 Gath-rimmon is purely a matter of conjecture 
 (see PEF. Mem. ii. 163-201; and for Kefr 
 Rumman, ii. 45). The site of Jett is the 
 only one known in Southern Palestine, where 
 
 the name Gath appears to survive. ([C. R. C.] 
 w? 
 GAZA (MY; Γάζα; Arabic, B35, Ghiizzeh, 
 
 “strong” or “ fortified,” Gesenius, Lew, In 
 Deut. ii. 23, 1 K. iv. 24, and Jer. xxv. 20, the 
 | A. V. reads AZZAH, which the R. V. corrects 
 
GAZA 
 
 into accordance with the general spelling. In 
 cuneiform texts the name is spelt with a gut- 
 tural, which may be pronounced kh or gh, 
 There is no certainty as to the early pronuncia- 
 tion, since the two sounds which in Arabic are 
 
 represented by & and a are represented by 
 
 only a single letter [1] in the Hebrew and Phoe- 
 nician alphabets, down to a very late date; but 
 the exact sound does not affect the radical mean- 
 ing). One of the most important cities in 
 Palestine, the frontier fortress on the Egyptian 
 highway, and in all ages a place of great 
 strength, barring the road to the south. 
 mentioned in Genesis (x. 19) as the limit of the 
 Canaanite territory, and frequently as one of 
 the five great Philistine cities. The latest 
 Biblical notice is in Acts (vill. 26); and both in 
 monumental and classical history the name is 
 familiar. It was the limit of Hebrew conquest 
 (Josh. x. 41), but was apparently not at first 
 reduced, as the Anakim survived in it (xi. 22), 
 
 though assigned as one of the provincial capitals | 
 
 to Judah (xv. 47). lt was taken by the Hebrews 
 in the next generation after Joshua (Judg. i. 18), 
 though in Samson’s time (Judg. xvi. 1, 21) it was 
 in the hands of the Philistines. Perhaps it may 
 have been lost during the Midianite incursions 
 (Judg. vi. 4). In David’s time it was a Philis- 
 
 tine fortress (1 Sam. vi. 17). Hezekiah smote | 
 
 the Philistines as far as Gaza (2 K. xviii. 8). 
 An Egyptian conquest of the city is mentioned 
 by Jeremiah (xlvii. 1,5), and Amos in earlier 
 times speaks of its approaching desolation 
 (i. 6, 7), but it survived in Zephaniah’s time 
 (ii. 4), and Zechariah yet later speaks of it as an 
 inhabited city (ix. 5). Its position on one of 
 the main trade routes along the shore secured 
 its prosperity, in spite of constantly recurring 
 sieges and demolitions. In the N. T. Gaza is 
 
 mentioned (Acts viii. 26) as reached by a road | 
 
 through deserts, and the region round it has 
 always been very deficient in water supply—a 
 
 fact which added considerably to its importance. | 
 
 The earliest account on monuments of this 
 city is found in one of the recently discovered 
 Tell Amarna letters, written by a local governor 
 to the king of Egypt, probably about 1450 B.c. 
 The city was then held by Egypt—probably 
 about the time of the earlier Judges; but 
 the letter speaks of a revolt apparently in 
 favour of the ‘Abiri or “ Hebrews” (see PSBA. 
 June 1889, p. 345): “The city of Gaza, be- 
 longing to the king, which is on the shore of 
 the sea westwards of the cities of Gath and 
 Carmel (of Judah), fell away to Urgi and to the 
 men of the city of Gath” (Gimti). The Egyp- 
 tian governor appears to have been taken cap- 
 tive, since the same letter (now in the Boulak 
 Museum) states that he was then “in his 
 house in the city of Gaza.” About a century 
 later Gaza is also mentioned in the Zravels of a 
 Mohar, at a time when Rameses II. had re- 
 established Egyptian supremacy, during the 
 days of Canaanite oppression under Sisera. 
 possession of Gaza was always that of a secure 
 base for advance into Palestine; and it appears 
 to have been almost always in the power of 
 Egypt, until that power was overthrown by the 
 το We have, however, no account of 
 any siege by Nebuchadnezzar, or by Darius, on 
 
 It is | 
 
 The | 
 
 1135 
 
 their way to Egypt. The city may have sur- 
 rendered, or have been simply guarded by the 
 invaders, Cambyses is said to have stored his 
 treasures there (Pomp. Mela, i. 11); and accord- 
 ing to Arrian (Zaped. Alex. ii. 26) the city 
 resisted Alexander the Great for five months, 
 and was finally taken by storm, the men being 
 slain and the women and children sold as slaves, 
 while a new population was taken from the 
 surrounding country. It subsequently acknow- 
 ledged the sway of the Greek kings of Egypt 
 and of Syria in turn: it was fortified by Bac- 
 chides, its environs burned by Jonathan the 
 Hasmonean, and the town itself taken by his 
 successor Simon (1 Mace. xi. 61, 62, xiii. 43; 
 Josephus, Ant. xiii. 5, §5). Simon imposed the 
 Law on its inhabitants. Other passages (1 Mace. 
 ix. 52, xiv. 7, xv. 28, xvi. 1) which speak of 
 Gazara have been wrongly supposed to refer to 
 Gaza, when in fact Gezer is clearly intended. 
 Strabo is apparently incorrect in supposing 
 Gaza to have remained in ruins in the times 
 succeeding Alexander’s siege (xvi. 2, 30), other 
 notices of which occur in Quintus Curtius 
 (4, 6), Plutarch (Alex. ch. 25), Josephus (Ant. 
 xi. 8, §§ 3, 4), as noted by Robinson (Lidl. Res. 
 ii. p. 41). About 96 B.c. Alexander Jannaeus 
 destroyed the town after a year’s siege (Jose- 
 phus, Ant. xiii. 13, § 3, and xiv. 5, ὃ 3). It was 
 restored by the Roman general Gabinius, and 
 given to Herod the Great by Augustus, and 
 after his death assigned to Syria (Ant. xv. 7, 
 § 3, and xvii. 11, § 4). The Jews in rebellion 
 against Florus laid it in ruins ( Wars, ii. 18, § 1), 
 but it recovered after the fall of Jerusalem, 
 and coins of Titus, Adrian, and later emperors 
 were struck at Gaza (Rel. Pal. pp. 788, 797). 
 The notices of Gaza by later classical writers 
 | are extracted by Reland, but do not add mate- 
 rially to our information. Pliny speaks (vi. 28) 
 of the trade routes from Petra and Palmyra 
 which met at this frontier city. Arrian 
 (Jib. ii.) makes the distance from the sea to be 
 20 stadia. The surrounding country, he says, 
 was sandy, and the sea shallow. The city 
 itself was jarge and placed on a hill with a 
 strong wall. This account clearly refers to the 
 present site of the town, although the distance 
 is slightly overstated, the city being 2 Eng- 
 lish miles from the shore. Gaza had a small 
 port called the Majuma of Gaza, or in the Greek 
 of Julianus λιμένα τῆς Γάζης. The word 
 Majuma is apparently a corruption of an Ara- 
 maic word (2) and signifies a “seaside” 
 place, but the Greek term was very early 
 adopted among the Jews (in Greek or Roman 
 times) as a designation for the small ports, or 
 rather landing-places, near cities on the Pales- 
 tine coast, and it survives in the modern Arabic 
 
 El Mineh (αλλ), applied to the ruins at 
 
 | the present landing-place. Sozomen (Hist. v. 
 | 3; ep. Reland, Pal. p. 791) mentions this port 
 | or Limen of Gaza as called Majuma in Con- 
 stantine’s time, and as containing a population 
 | favourable to Christianity. The distance be- 
 /tween the two he also gives as 20 stadia. 
 | Several other writers quoted by Reland (Eva- 
 
 grius; Marco Diacano, Vita S. Porphyrii, &c.) 
 
 notice the shore town as distinct from the city 
 | itself. According to Eusebius, a Bishop Silvanus 
 
 GAZA 
 
1154 
 
 of Gaza was martyred in 285 A.D. under Diocle- 
 tian; and of other Bishops enumerated, no Jess 
 than six appear, down to 536 A.D., subscribing 
 their names in councils (Euseb. H. Δ. 8,13; ep. 
 Rob. Bib. Res. ii. p. 41). In later times there 
 appear to have been Bishops both of the town 
 and of the Majuma (cp. Reland, Pai. ii. p. 209). 
 In the Onomasticon (OS.* p. 252, 62) we learn 
 that the city was important in the 4th cent. A.D. 
 (est usque hodie insignis civitas Palestinae are 
 the words of Jerome’s translation), and in the 
 Talmud it is mentioned as still given to idolatry 
 in the same ages (Tal. Jer. Abodah Sarah, i. 4; 
 Tal. Bab., same treatise, 116; Neubauer, Geog. 
 Tal. p. 68), but inhabited nevertheless by Jews. 
 That pagan idolatry long survived in Gaza we 
 iearn from the Life of St. Porphyry, who is said 
 in 406 a.D. to have been made Bishop, and 
 instructed to demolish the temples, funds being 
 granted by Eudoxia, wife of the Emperor Ar- 
 cadius, for the erection of a church. There 
 were at this time eight temples to the gods in 
 Gaza; and if this account is correct, they must 
 have been recently restored, since Jerome 
 (Comm. in Esa. xvii. 3; ep. Robinson, Bib. Res. 
 ii. 42) speaks of the destruction, in his own 
 time, of the temple of Marnion, and appa- 
 rently of the building of an earlier church. 
 The eight deities are said to have been Venus, 
 Apollo, Proserpine, Hecate, the Sun, Fortune, 
 and Juno, with Marnas, who was the chief deity 
 and who is compared to the “Cretan Jove.’’* 
 His name is usually translated “ our lord,” and 
 it is possible that the great statue of Jupiter, 
 discovered some twelve years ago near Gaza 
 and now in the Constantinople Museum, repre- 
 sents Marnas (see Conder’s Syrian Stone Lore, 
 Ρ. 287, for a drawing of this statue, which is 
 15 teet high): the temple of Marnas is said to 
 have been circular, with two rows of pillars. 
 Gaza does not seem to have been frequently 
 visited by the early pilgrims, although the 
 trade relations of its population rendered them 
 favourable to visitors. Antoninus in the 6th 
 cent. A.D. speaks of Gaza and its Majuma as a 
 mile apart. He calls the city magnificent and 
 delightful, its inhabitants most respectable, 
 eminent for all kinds of liberality, and friendly 
 to pilgrims (ch. xxxiii.). In the 9th century 
 Bernard the Wise speaks of the richness of the 
 town, which meantime had fallen into the 
 hands of the Moslems, having been conquered 
 by Abu Bekr, the first Khalif in 634 a.p. At 
 the close of the 8th century (796 A.D.) it had, 
 however, been desolated during civil wars 
 among the Arabs. It appears always to have 
 recovered rapidly from its misfortunes. In 
 985 A.D. El Mukaddasi speaks of the city as 
 containing a beautiful mosque, a monument of 
 Omar, and the tomb of Hashem, Muhammad’s 
 father. In the struggles between the Moslem 
 rulers of Egypt and Syria, the possession of 
 Gaza was always very important; and after the 
 
 GAZA 
 
 ® Marna was also in Egyptian a word for “Lord” 
 (Pierret, Vocab. p. 195). In Gaza he was the rain-giving 
 god. There was a place in the town called Tetram- 
 phodos, ‘‘the cross roads;” and here stood the altar and 
 nude statue of Venus, before which lamps were lighted 
 and incense offered by women. The statue answered by 
 dreams those about to marry, as the worshippers stated 
 (Vita Porph.). 
 
 GAZA 
 
 conquest of Jerusalem by the Franks, Gaza with 
 Ascalon formed the bulwarks of Egypt against. 
 the Christians. In 1152 A.D. the Franks erected 
 a fortress on the hill, which was then appa- 
 rently deserted, and so cut the communication 
 of Egypt with Ascalon; the fortress was en- 
 trusted to the Templars (Will. of Tyre, xvii. 12). 
 Saladin vainly attacked this fortress in 1170 
 A.D., but it surrendered after the fatal day of 
 Hattin in 1187 (Will. of Tyre, xv. 21, and Boha 
 ed Din); it was entered by king Richard, accord- 
 ing to Robinson (ib. Res. ii. p. 43), but, if so, 
 soon retaken; and great Christian defeats oc- 
 curred in its vicinity in 1239 and 1244 a.p. 
 In the following century Sir John Maundeyille 
 speaks of the town as “a gay and rich city, and 
 as very fair and full of people.” The Arab 
 historians and geographers often refer to Gaza, 
 but their notes, as in most other cases, are 
 brief. Ibn Haukal (10th cent.) speaks of the 
 city as a great market for the Hejjaz, and as 
 the place where the Khalif Omar obtained his 
 early wealth. In the 13th century, however, 
 Abu el-Feda speaks of it as a city only of 
 medium size, with a small castle and gardens. 
 In another century it had again become pros- 
 perous, with many mosques, as noted by Ibn 
 Batata (Le Strange, Palestine under Moslems, 
 p. 442). This short review of its history suf- 
 fices to show that, from the earliest times to 
 our own, the geographical position of the town 
 has secured a constantly returning prosperity, 
 in spite of continual assaults from the north 
 and south, and also in spite of the absence of a 
 port. Its trade was always a caravan trade, 
 and the products of Arabia came to it (through 
 Petra) as well as those of Palestine and of 
 Egypt. It remains the starting-place for the 
 journey to Egypt across the desert, which Baby- 
 lonians, Persians, Greeks, and later warriors ac- 
 complished along the same narrow track, which 
 was also followed by Napoleon in 1799, on his 
 way to and from Syria. 
 
 Modern Gaza is one of the chief cities of 
 Palestine, and the largest frontier town on the 
 side of Egypt. A full account is given in the 
 Memoirs of the Survey of Western Palestine 
 Gi. 234, 235, 248-251). The town itself 
 occupies the greater part of the isolated hill, 
 which rises 180 feet above the sea and 60 
 to 100 feet above the surrounding plain. The 
 site is almost as large as that of the city of 
 Jerusalem, but is not fully occupied on the 
 north. Considerable scattered suburbs occur 
 on each side on the lower ground. The greater 
 part of the houses are of mud and wood. 
 There are no city walls, but great mounds 
 visible on the sides of the hill mark the site of 
 ancient fortifications, the date and character of 
 which are at present unknown in default of 
 excavation. They may perhaps belong to 
 Crusading or even later times. On the south, 
 near the quarantine building, the name Bab ed 
 Darin is given to a road crossing, preserving 
 probably the name of the “Gate of Darum,” 
 named from the Crusading fort of Darum (now 
 Deir el-Belah) on the road to Egypt. The 
 population of Gaza is believed to be about 
 18,000 souls, the large majority being Moslems, 
 with some 200 Greek orthodox Christians. 
 About a century ago the Samaritans, who then 
 also resided in Egypt, had a synagogue in Gaza, 
 
GAZA 
 
 but they have now died out, and the Jewish | 
 population is small. A few missionaries and 
 
 government officials, in charge of the telegraph, 
 
 &c., form the only European element. The | 
 town is divided into four quarters, called— | 
 (1) The quarter “of the Steps” on the west, | 
 (2) “of the Prison” on the north, (3) “ of the 
 
 mud houses” on the east, (4) “of the olives ” | 
 on the south. The town is surrounded with | 
 beautiful gardens. A few palms occur, and | 
 figs, olives, lentils, apricots, mulberries, melons, | 
 cucumbers, and dates are grown, with a little 
 cotton. The -bazaar provides the Arab nomads 
 
 τοῦ the south with clothing, soap is manufac- 
 
 shrine sacred to a certain ’Ali. 
 
 tured, and on the west are potteries, where a 
 black pottery, similar to that used in very early 
 times, is made. The place is reported very 
 healthy, on account of its dry desert air. The 
 sand dunes steadily encroach on the west and | 
 south over the cultivated ground. The water | 
 
 1135 
 
 supply is from Beiydrahs, or deep wells like 
 those of Jaffa, of which there are many in the 
 gardens. ‘The names of fifteen of these were 
 collected by the Survey party. On the north a 
 long avenue of very ancient olives extends for 
 about 4 miles to the next villages, and the 
 site generally is picturesque and truly Oriental, 
 being little spoilt by the sordid Levantine imi- 
 tations of Western civilisation, found in parts 
 more frequented by tourists. The costume of 
 the natives is Egyptian rather than Syrian—as 
 is noticeable in other Philistine towns; and the 
 early population succeeding the Avites (ep. 
 Deut. ii. 23) was also Egyptian, for the Philis- 
 tines—according to the Book of Genesis—were 
 of Egyptian derivation, though of what stock is 
 as yet uncertain (x. 14); while, as already seen, 
 the Egyptians still held Gaza in the 14th cent. 
 B.c. and probably much later. 
 
 The principal buildings in Gaza are the Serai 
 
 GAZA 
 
 Gaza. 
 
 or Government office, and the mosques. There 
 are five lofty minarets on the hill. The great 
 mosque is the Crusading Church of St. John 
 Baptist, and there is a second large mosque with 
 several smaller. The shrine of ’Aly el Merwan 
 is the traditional prison, or tomb, of Samson 
 (Judg. xvi. 30), and is on the east side of the 
 town. It appears to be a modern building. 
 The tomb of Hashem, father of Muhammad 
 (already noticed), is shown near the brow of the 
 
 hill on the north-west. There is also a Greek 
 church in Gaza, which contains two Byzantine 
 columns, and appears to be ancient. A register 
 therein preserved is said by the priests to be a 
 
 thousand years old. On the south side of the | 
 
 town is an isolated hillock called El Muntar, 
 “the watch tower,” and now crowned with a 
 It is surrounded 
 ‘by a Moslem cemetery, and is traditionally the 
 place to which Samson carried the gates of Gaza 
 (cp. Judg. xvi. 3), though it is doubtful whether 
 
 this agrees with the expression ‘“‘ before Hebron.” 
 The hill is about 270 feet above sea-level at 
 the top. 
 
 The ruined site at δὶ Mineh representing the 
 Majuma of Gaza is north-west of the town on 
 the shore; it bears the name #/ Kishani (“ the 
 painted tiles”). It now consists of gardens, 
 with a few wells, surrounded by a bank; but is 
 clearly the site of a small town. Marble slabs 
 and other fragments have here been dug up by 
 the peasantry. In the plain, rather more than a 
 mile to the east of the town, is an ancient race- 
 course, called Meiddn ez Zeid, said to have been 
 
 _ made by the Saracens some 700 years ago. The 
 
 corners are marked by pillars, stolen from the 
 headstones of Christian graves. On two of these 
 there are Greek inscriptions, which appear to 
 be of the Byzantine age, cut on the grey granite. 
 One is the epitaph of the son of Domesticus, set 
 up by his father. The other contains the words 
 of Psalm xxiv. 1, “The earth is the Lord’s 
 
1136 
 
 and the fulness thereof,’ with the name of 
 Deacon Alexander, who “ faced” some ‘*monu- 
 ment” with stone in “February 640” (no doubt 
 of the Christian era). Both were found by the 
 Rev. W. D. Pritchett in 1875 and 1877 re- 
 spectively. The distance between these goals 
 was 1,000 δίαα, or about 2,000 yards east and 
 west. With the exception of the great statue 
 of Jupiter already noticed, these are the oldest 
 remains as yet found at Gaza. The Church of 
 St. John was built in the latter half of the 
 12th century, and is a fine and massive specimen 
 of Crusading work. The west door is remarkably 
 fine, with pointed arches. The church had a 
 nave and two aisles, with clerestory windows to 
 the nave. A slab with a representation of the 
 golden candlestick and a short Greek text is 
 built in to the wall of this clerestory. The apses 
 have been destroyed, and the building much 
 injured by the Moslems. An inscription of 
 Kalawin (13th cent. A.D.) occurs over the 
 courtyard door; and a later text over the Mih- 
 rab, by Musa Pasha, dates 1074 a.H. Small 
 pottery figures (Teraphim), like those common 
 in Phoenicia and Cyprus, have been discovered 
 
 GAZARA 
 
 | K. iv. 23, R. V.). 
 
 at Gaza; but are not of necessity very ancient, | 
 
 though certainly specimens of the native pagan 
 art, common to the whole of Syria. It is possible 
 that very interesting discoveries might here 
 result from excavation on the hill-side, but 
 very ancient remains cannot be expected to 
 survive on the surface. Gaza is the capital of 
 the Turkish province bearing the same name, and 
 subject to the Jerusalem governor. [C. R. C.] 
 
 GAZ'ARA (ἡ Γάζαρα and τὰ Γάζαρα; Gaz- 
 ara), a place frequently mentioned in the wars of 
 the Maccabees, and of great importance in the 
 operations of both parties. Its first introduction 
 isas a stronghold (ὀχύρωμα), in which Timotheus 
 took refuge after his defeat by Judas, and which 
 for four days resisted the efforts of the infuriated 
 Jews (2 Mace. x. 32-36). One of the first steps 
 of Bacchides, after getting possession of Judaea, 
 was to fortify Bethsura and Gazara and the 
 citadel (ἄκρα) at Jerusalem (1 Mace. ix. 52; Jos. 
 Ant. xiii. 1, § 3); and the same names are 
 mentioned when Simon in his turn recovered 
 the country (1 Mace. xiv. 7, 33, 34, 36, xv. 28; 
 Jos. B. J. i. 2, § 2). So important was it, that 
 Simon made it the residence of his son John as 
 general-in-chief of the Jewish army (1 Macc. 
 MUU Do σαν. ἢν. 10. oul))s 
 
 There is every reason to believe that Gazara 
 was the same place as the more ancient GEZHR 
 or GAZER, now Tell Jezer. The name is the 
 same as that which the LXX. use for Gezer in 
 the O. T.; and, more than this, the indications 
 of the position of both are very much in accord- 
 ance. As David smote the Philistines from 
 Gibeon to Gezer, so Judas defeated Gorgias at 
 Emmaus and pursued him to Gazera (1 Macc. 
 iv. 15). Gazara also is constantly mentioned in 
 connexion with the sea-coast—Joppa and Jamnia 
 (xv. 28, 35; iv. 15), and with the Philistine 
 plain, Azotus, Adasa, &. (iv. 153 vii. 45; xiv. 
 34). [GrEzeER.] [αὐ i Weil 
 
 GA’ZATHITES, THE (NINA, accur. “ the 
 Azzathite;” τῷ Taalw; Gazaeos ; R. V. Ga- 
 zites), Josh. xiii. 3; the inhabitants of Gaza. 
 Elsewhere the same name is rendered GAZITES 
 in the A. V. 
 
 | bushes of Gennesaret. 
 
 GAZELLE 
 
 GAZELLE. By this word the Revisers 
 have rendered ‘2¥, MI, sébi, sébiyah, in 
 the text of the Pentateuch, and in the margin 
 elsewhere. The A. V. everywhere renders the 
 Hebrew by “ roe,” or “ roebuck ;” LXX. δορκάς, 
 δόρκων, δορκάδιον ; Vulg. caprea, damula; Arab. 
 
 iste , zabi. There can be no question as to 
 
 the accuracy of the Revisers’ translation; the 
 Hebrew and Arabic names being identified by - 
 
 Arabic writers with Jl. ghazal, the gazelle, 
 
 and the names being frequently interchanged 
 in poetry. The gazelle is by far the most 
 abundant of all the antelope tribes in Palestine, 
 as it is along the whole of North Africa and 
 South-Western Asia. Its flesh was much 
 esteemed among the Jews: “The unclean and 
 the clean may eat thereof, as of the roebuck ("2 ¥, 
 
 R. V. “ gazelle”), and as of the hart” (Deut. 
 xii. 15, 22, &c.). Its venison was among the 
 delicacies of Solomon’s table: ‘“harts, and 
 gazelles, and roebucks, and fatted fowls” (1 
 But the gazelle is more 
 frequently mentioned in Scripture as an emblem 
 of loveliness, grace, gentleness, and swiftness: 
 “swift as the roes upon the mountains ” (1 Ch. 
 xii. 8). Its beauty rendered it a favourite term 
 of admiration in love: “My beloved is like 
 
 | a roe or a young hart” (Song ii. 9, v. 17, and 
 
 viii. 14). “Thy breasts are like two young 
 roes that are twins” (Song iv. 5). Asahel, the 
 brother of Joab, “was as light of foot as a 
 wild roe.” To the present day, the black-eyed 
 gazelle supplies the Arab poet with his favourite 
 similes for the fair object of his admiration. 
 Naturally the word, as expressive of beauty, 
 became a favourite female name, “Tabitha” in 
 its Aramaic form, or “Dorcas” in its Greek 
 rendering (Acts ix. 36). 
 
 The common gazelle of Palestine is the 
 Gazella dorcas (Pall.), and is the only species 
 west of the Jordan. It is the only wild animal 
 of the chase which an ordinary traveller is 
 pretty certain to meet with. Small herds of 
 gazelle are to be found in every part of the 
 country, and when water is scarce they con- 
 gregate at their favourite drinking places in 
 large numbers. I have seen a herd of about 
 100 at the southern end of the Jebel Usdum, 
 south of the Dead Sea, where they had congre- 
 gated to drink at ‘Ain Beida (de. the white 
 spring), the only fresh spring within several 
 miles. Though generally considered an in- 
 habitant of the deserts and the plains, the 
 gazelle appears to be everywhere at home. It 
 shares the rocks of Engedi with the wild goats; 
 it dashes over the wide expanse of the desert 
 beyond Beersheba; it canters in single file 
 under the monastery of Marsaba. I have found 
 it in the glades of Carmel, before they were 
 ruthlessly stripped to make charcoal; it often 
 springs from its leafy covert behind Mount 
 Tabor, and screens itself under the thorn 
 Among the grey hills of 
 Galilee we still find “the roe upon the moun- 
 tains of Bether,” and I have seen a little troop 
 of gazelles feeding on the Mount of Olives, close 
 to Jerusalem itself. In the open ground it is 
 the wildest of game, and can scarcely ever be 
 captured; but, once in cover or among trees, it 
 
GAZER 
 
 is very easily approached. The Arabs capture 
 it generally by concealing themselves near the 
 well-known watering places. In the rocky 
 districts the hunters lie in wait in the sides of 
 the steep ravines, down which the gazelles are 
 known to pass. The Druses of the Hauran 
 contrive decoy enclosures, with pitfalls in which 
 they sometimes capture a whole herd. But the 
 horseman of the desert despises these devices, 
 and the true Arab sheikh will only pursue the 
 gazelle with the Persian greyhound, or the 
 falcon, or with both conjointly. If the grey- 
 hound be alone, the roe often “delivers itself 
 from the hand of the hunter.” If falcons are 
 used alone, generally two are thrown off, the 
 birds employed being the sakker (Falco saker, 
 Gm.). ‘The birds do not attempt to seize their 
 victim, but repeatedly swoop at its head, and so 
 arrest its speed till the horseman can come up. 
 If falcons and greyhound are used together, the 
 poor animal can scarcely ever escape, as the 
 birds repeatedly swoop at it until the dog comes 
 up and seizes it. Dean Stanley was much 
 interested by seeing the peasants chasing the 
 gazelle in the valley of Ajalon, i.e. “ of stags,” 
 proving the appropriateness of the name down 
 to the present day. 
 
 A different species of gazelle is found in 
 Gilead and on the wide plains and deserts 
 eastward, which has generally been considered to 
 be the Gazella arabica, Ehrenb. It is larger than 
 the common species, and of a darker fawn colour 
 on the back, and is known as the Ariel gazelle. 
 It extends from Syria across Persia as far as 
 Seinde, The Persian Gazella subgutturosa and 
 Gazella Bennetti are distinct. Sir Victor Brooke, 
 after examining my specimens from Gilead, 
 whilst agreeing that they are distinct from 
 Gazella dorcas, is inclined to believe that they 
 are of another race differing from the Ariel 
 gazelle of South Arabia, and more nearly ap- 
 proaching the western species. But the different 
 races or species of gazelle are very numerous 
 and difficult to discriminate. [ΠῚ ἘΞ Me] 
 
 GA’ZER ΟἹ ; Gazer), 2 Sam. v. 2ὅ [Γα- 
 (npd]; 1 Ch. xiv. 16 [B. Γάζαρα, δὲ. -αν, A. -npa]. 
 The same place as GuzER, the difference arising 
 from the emphatic Hebrew accent; which has 
 been here retained in the A. V., though disre- 
 garded in several other places where the same 
 form occurs. [GezER.] From the uniform 
 practice of the LXX., both in the O. T. and the 
 books of Maccabees, Ewald infers that the ori- 
 ginal form of the name was Gazer; but the 
 punctuation of the Masorets is certainly as often 
 the one as the other. (Ewald, Gesch. ii. 427, 
 note.) [6 1 ΠΝ 1 
 
 GAZE’RA. 1. (Τ.: τὰ Γάζηρα, A. Γάσηρα; 
 Joseph. τὰ Γάδαρα; Gezeron, Gazara), 1 Mace. 
 iv. 15; vii. 45. The place elsewhere given as 
 GAZARA. 
 
 2. (Ὁ. Ka¢npd, A. Γαζηρά ; Gaze), one of the 
 “servants of the Temple,” whose sons returned 
 with Zorobabel (1 Esd. v. 31), In Ezra and 
 Nehem. the name is GAZZAM. , 
 
 GA'ZEZ (113 = shearer; BA. ὃ TeCove; Ge- 
 zez), a name which occurs twice in 1 Ch. ii. 46: 
 (1) as son of Caleb by Ephah, his concubine ; 
 and (2) as son of Haran, the son of the same 
 woman : the second is possibly only a repetition 
 
 BIBLE DICT,—VOL. I. 
 
 1187 
 
 of the first. At any rate there is no necessity 
 for the assumption of Houbigant, that the second 
 Gazez is an error for Jahdai. In some MSS. and 
 in the Peshitto the name is given asGazen, The 
 Vat. LXX. omits the second occurrence, 
 
 GA'ZITES, THE (O'MIVN; τοῖς Γαζαίοις ; 
 Philisthiim), inhabitants of Gaza (Judg. xvi. 2). 
 Elsewhere given as GAZATHITES, 
 
 GAZ'ZAM (13,2 = the devourer; Ταζέμ 
 [Ezra], Γηζάμ [Neh.]; Gazam, Gezem). The 
 Bene-Gazzam were among the families of the 
 Nethinim who returned from the Captivity 
 with Zerubbabel (Ezra ii. 48; Neh. vii. 51). 
 In 1 Esd. the name is altered to GAZERA, 
 
 GE'BA (v3, often with the definite article, 
 
 =the hill; TaBad [usually]; Gabaé, Gabee, 
 Gabaa, Geba), a city of Benjamin, with “sub- 
 urbs,” allotted to the priests (Josh. xxi. 17; 
 1 Ch. vi. 60). It is named amongst the first 
 group of the Benjamite towns, and was ap- 
 parently near the north boundary (Josh. xviii. 
 24). Here the name is given as GABA, a change 
 due to the emphasis required in Hebrew before 
 a pause; and the same change occurs in Ezra ii, 
 26, Neh. vii. 30 and xi. 31, 2 Sam. v. 25, 2 K. 
 xxiii. 8; the last three of these being in the A.V. 
 (and all in the R. V.) Geba. In one place Geba 
 is used as the northern landmark of the kingdom 
 of Judah and Benjamin, in the expression “ from 
 Geba to Beersheba” (2 K. xxiii. 8), and also as 
 an eastern limit in opposition to Gazer (2 Sam. 
 v. 25; TaBdwv). In the parallel passage to 
 this last, in 1 Ch. xiv. 16 the name is changed 
 to Gibeon. During the wars of the earlier part 
 of the reign of Saul, Geba was held as a 
 garrison by the Philistines (1 Sam. xiii. 3), but 
 they were ejected by Jonathan—a feat which, 
 while it added greatly to his renown, exas- 
 perated them to a more overwhelming invasion. 
 Later in the same campaign we find it referred 
 to in order to define the position of the two 
 rocks which stood in the ravine below the 
 garrison of Michmash, in terms which fix Geba 
 on the south and Michmash on the north of 
 the ravine (1 Sam. xiv. 5, TaBaé: the A. V. 
 has here Gibeah; R. V. correctly Geba), Ex- 
 actly in accordance with this is the position 
 of the modern village of Jeb‘a, which stands 
 picturesquely on the top of its steep terraced 
 hill, on the very edge of the great Wéddy 
 Suweinit, looking northwards to the opposite 
 village, which also retains its old name 
 of Mitkhmas (PEF. Mem. iii. 9, 94; Guérin, 
 Judée, iii. 68). The names, and the agreement 
 of the situation with the requirements of the 
 story of Jonathan, make the identification cer- 
 tain; and it is still further confirmed by the 
 invaluable list of Benjamite towns visited by 
 the Assyrian army on their road through the 
 country southward to Jerusalem, which we have 
 in Is. x. 28-32; where the minute details—the 
 stoppage of the heavy baggage (A. V. “car- 
 riages”), which could not be got across the 
 broken ground of the wddy at Michmash ; then 
 the passage of the ravine by the lighter portion 
 of the army, and the subsequent bivouac 
 
 (“‘lodging,” Hop =rest for the night) at Geba on 
 the opposite side—are in exact oy gg with 
 4 
 
 GEBA 
 
1188 GEBAL 
 
 the nature of the spot. Standing as it does on 
 the south bank of this important wddy—one of 
 the most striking natural features of this part 
 of the country—the mention of Geba as the 
 northern boundary of the lower kingdom is very 
 significant. Thus commanding the pass, its 
 fortification by Asa (1 K. xv. 22, βουνὸν ; 2 Ch. 
 xvi. 6) is also quite intelligible. It continues 
 to be named with Michmash to the very last 
 (Neh. xi. 31). 
 
 Geba is probably intended by the “ Gibeah-in- 
 the-field” of Judg. xx. 31, to which its position 
 is very applicable. [GIBEAH, 6.] The “fields” 
 are mentioned again as late as Neh, xii. 29. 
 
 It remains to notice a few places in which, 
 from the similarity of the two names, or possibly 
 from some provincial usage,* ὁ’ Geba” is perhaps 
 used for ‘‘Gibeah.” These are:—(1.) Judg. xx. 
 10: here the A. V. and R. V., probably anxious to 
 prevent confusion, have ‘Gibeah.” (2.) Judg. 
 xx. 33: “the meadows,” or more probably “the 
 cave of Geba.” In this case A. V. has ‘“Gibeah,” 
 and R. V. * Maareh-Geba,” marg. the meadow 
 of Geba or Gibeah. The meaning seems to be 
 that the “liers in wait” were concealed in 
 the cave or caves of Geba, and brake forth when 
 the men of Benjamin had been drawn away from 
 Gibeah (cp. vv. 33, 36, 37). For the existence of 
 caves at Jeb‘a, see PEF. Mem. iii. 9. Owing to 
 the word occurring here at a pause, the vowels 
 are lengthened, and in the Hebrew it stands as 
 (dba. (8.) 1 Sam. xiii. 16: here the A. V. has 
 
 _altered the name, whilst R. V. retains the 
 reading “Geba.” Josephus (Ant. vi. 6, § 2) has 
 Γαβαών, Gibeon, in this place; for which perhaps 
 
 . compare 1 Ch. viii. 29, ix. 35. 
 
 2. The Geba (B. Γαεβαί, A. Ταιβᾶ, δὲ. Γαιβάν), 
 named in Judith iii. 10, where Holofernes is 
 said to have made his encampment— between 
 Geba and Scythopolis ”—must be the place of 
 the same name, Jeb‘a, on the road between 
 
 Samaria and Jenin, about 3 miles from the 
 former (Rob. i. 440; PEF. Mem. ii. 155). The 
 Vulgate has a remarkable variation here—venit 
 ad Idumaeos in terram Gabaa. ([G.] [W.] 
 
 GE'BAL (33, Θ᾽ γαῖ, from 523, gabal, to 
 twist; thence by35, gevu!, a line; thence we 
 
 Gebal, a line of mountains as a natural boundary ; 
 in Ps., A. Γεβάλ, NB. NaiBadA; Gebal: in Ezek. 
 βίβλιοι, Giblit), ἃ proper name, occurring in 
 Ps. Ixxxili. 7 (Vulg. Ixxxii.) in connexion with 
 Edom and Moab, Ammon and Amalek, the 
 Philistines and the inhabitants of Tyre. The 
 mention of Assur, or the Assyrian, in the next 
 verse, is with reason supposed to refer the date 
 of the composition to the latter days of the 
 Jewish kingdom. It is inscribed moreover with 
 the name of Asaph. Now, in 2 Ch. xx. 14, it is 
 one of the sons or descendants of Asaph, Ja- 
 haziel, who is inspired to encourage Jehoshaphat 
 and his people, when threatened with invasion 
 by the Moabites, Ammonites, and others from 
 beyond the sea, and from Syria (as the LXX. 
 and Vulg.: it is unnecessary here to go into the 
 obscurities and varieties of the Hebrew, Syriac, 
 and Arabic Versions). It is impossible there- 
 fore not to recognise the connexion between this 
 
 s As with us, Barkshire for Berkshire, Darby for 
 Derby, &c. 
 
 GEBAL 
 
 Psalm and these events; and hence the contexts 
 both of the Psalm and of the historical records will 
 justify our assuming the Gebal of the Psalms 
 to be one and the same city with the Gebal of 
 Ezekiel (xxvii. 9), a maritime town of Phoenicia, 
 and not another, as some have supposed, in the 
 district round about Petra, which is by Josephus, 
 Eusebius, and St. Jerome called Gebalene. Je- 
 hoshaphat had, in the beginning of his reign, 
 humbled the Philistines and Arabians (2 Ch. xvii. 
 9,10), and still more recently had assisted Ahab 
 against the Syrians (ibid. ch. xviii.). Now, ac- 
 cording to the poetic language of the Psalmist, 
 there were symptoms of a general rising against 
 him: on the south, the Edomites, Ishmaelites, 
 and Hagarenes; on the south-east, Moab and 
 north-east Ammon; along the whole line of 
 the western coast (and, with Jehoshaphat’s mari- 
 time projects, this would naturally disturb him 
 most : see 2 Ch. xx. 36) the Amalekites, Philist- 
 ines, and Phoenicians, or inhabitants of Tyre, 
 to their frontier town Gebal, with Assur, ze. 
 the Syrians or Assyrians, from the more distant 
 north. It may be observed that the Ashurites 
 are mentioned (v. 6) in connexion with Gebal no 
 less in the prophecy than in the Psalm. But, 
 again, the Gebal of Ezekiel was evidently no 
 mean city. From the fact that its inhabitants 
 are written “Giblians” in the Vulg., and ‘ Bib- 
 lians ” in the LXX., we may infer their identity 
 with the Giblites, spoken of in connexion with 
 Lebanon by Joshua (xiii. 5), and that of their city 
 with the “ Biblus ” (or Byblus) of profane litera- 
 ture—so extensive that it gave name to the sur- 
 rounding district (see a passage from Lucian, 
 quoted by Reland, Palest. lib. i. ο. xlii. p. 269). 
 It was situated on the frontiers of Phoenicia, 
 somewhat to the north of the mouth of the 
 small river Adonis, so celebrated in mythology 
 (cp. Ezek. viii. 13). Meanwhile the Giblites, or 
 Biblians, seem to have been pre-eminent in the 
 arts of stone-carving (1 K. vy. 18) and ship- 
 ealking (Ezek. xxvii. 9); but, according to 
 Strabo, their industry suffered greatly from the 
 robbers infesting the sides of Mount Lebanon. 
 Gebal or Gubal is frequently mentioned in the 
 cuneiform inscriptions; its king, Sibitti-bahali, 
 paid tribute to Tiglath-pileser II.; under Sen- 
 nacherib its king was Urumelik; and under 
 Esarhaddon, Milki-asapa (Schrader, Die Keilin- 
 schriften u. d. A. Test. p. 185). Enylus, king of 
 Byblus, joined the Macedonian fleet, with his 
 vessels, after the town was taken by Alexander 
 (Arrian, Anab. ii. 15, §8; 20, §1). Pompey not 
 only destroyed the strongholds from whence these 
 pests issued, but freed the city from a tyrant 
 (Strabo, xvi. 2, 18). Some have confounded 
 Gebal, or Biblus, with the Gabala of Strabo, just 
 below Laodicea, and consequently many leagues 
 to the north, the ruins and site of which, still 
 called Jebileh, are so graphically described by 
 Maundrell (Early Travellers in Pales. by Wright, 
 p- 394). By Moroni (Dizion. Eccles.) they are 
 accurately distinguished under their respective 
 names. Finally, Biblus became a Christian see 
 in the patriarchate of Antioch, subject to the 
 metropolitan see of Tyre (Reland, Palest. lib. i. 
 p- 214 sq.). It shared the usual vicissitudes 
 of Christianity in these parts; and even now 
 furnishes episcopacy with a title. It is called 
 Jebeil by the Arabs, thus reviving the old 
 Biblical name (Dict. Gk. and Rom. Geog., s. Ve. 
 
GEBALITES 
 
 Byblos). Extensive excavations were carried 
 out, in and near Jebeil, by M. Renan, who dis- 
 covered numerous tombs and sarcophagi, the 
 substructions of a large temple, perhaps that of 
 Adonis, and many interesting Phoenician remains 
 (Mission de Phénicie, pp. 153-359). 
 
 CE. 8. Ff) [W.] 
 
 GEBALITES, 1 K. v. 18 (R. V.). [GEBAL.] 
 
 GE'BER (023 = α strong mm), a name oc- 
 curring twice in the list of Solomon’s com- 
 missariat officers, and there only. 1. (BA. 
 TaBép; Dengaber). The son of Geber (Len- 
 Geber) resided in the fortress of Ramoth-Gilead, 
 and had charge of Havoth-Jair and the district 
 of Argob (1 K. iv. 13). Josephus (Ané. viii. 
 2, § 3) gives the name as TaBdpns. 2. (Γαβέρ, 
 B. omits; Gaber). Geber the son of Uri 
 had a district south of the former—the “ land 
 of Gilead,’ the country originally possessed 
 by Sihon and Og, probably the modern Lelka, 
 the great pasture-ground of the tribes east of 
 Jordan (1 K. iv. 19), The conclusion of this 
 verse as rendered in the A. V. and R. V. (text) 
 is to some unsatisfactory—“ and he was the only 
 officer which was in the land ”—when two others 
 are mentioned in vv. 13 and 14, A more accu- 
 rate interpretation is, “and one officer who was 
 in the land” (R. V. marg.), that is, a superior 
 (A'S), a word of rare occurrence, but used again 
 for Solomon’s “‘oflicers”’ in 2 Ch. viii. 10) over 
 the three. Josephus has ἐπὶ δὲ τούτων εἷς πάλιν 
 ἄρχων ἀποδέδεικτο, the πάλιν referring toa simi- 
 lar statement just before that there was also one 
 general superintendent over the commissaries of 
 the whole of Upper Palestine. {G.] [W.] 
 
 GE’BIM (0°335, with the article, = pro- 
 bably the ditches; the word is used in that 
 sense in 2 K, iii, 16, and elsewhere; Γιββεΐρ ; 
 Gabim), a village north of Jerusalem, in the 
 neighbourhood of the main road, and apparently 
 between Anathoth (the modern ‘Andta) and the 
 ridge on which Nob was situated, and from 
 which the first view of the city is obtained. It 
 is named nowhere but in the enumeration by 
 Isaiah of the towns whose inhabitants fled at 
 Sennacherib’s approach (x. 31). Judging by 
 those places the situation of which is known to 
 us, the enumeration is so orderly that it is im- 
 possible to entertain the conjecture of either 
 Eusebius (Γηβείν, Gebin, OS.? p. 256, 2; p.162, 5), 
 who places it at Geba, 5 miles north of Gophna; 
 or of Schwarz (p. 131), who would have it identi- 
 cal with Gob or Gezer: the former being at least 
 10 miles north, and the latter 20 miles west, of 
 its probable position. The site is unknown, but 
 it may perhaps be e/-’ Aisdwiych, on the eastern 
 slope of the ridge of Olivet. {G.] [W.] 
 
 GECKO. The rendering in R. V. of NPIS, 
 "anakah ; but in A. V. Ferret, which see. ; 
 
 GEDALI'AH (073 and 1544, ic. Ge- 
 daliahu = Jah is great; YodoAlas; Godolias). 
 1, GepAian, the son of Ahikam (Jeremiah’s 
 protector, Jer. xxvi. 24), and grandson of 
 Shaphan the secretary of king Josiah. After 
 the destruction of the Temple, B.c. 588, Nebu- 
 -chadnezzar departed from Judaea, leaving 
 Gedaliah with a Chaldaean guard (Jer. xl. 5) at 
 
 GEBER 1139 
 
 Mizpah, a strong (1 K. xv. 22) town, 6 miles 
 N. of Jerusalem, to govern, as ἃ tributary 
 (Joseph. Ant, x. 9, § 1) of the king of Babylon, 
 the vine-dressers and husbandmen (Jer. lii. 16) 
 who were exempted from captivity. Jeremiah 
 
 joined Gedaliah ; and Mizpah became the resort 
 
 of Jews from various quarters (Jer. xl. 6, 11), 
 many of whom, as might be expected at the end 
 of a long war, were in a demoralized state, un- 
 restrained by religion, patriotism, or prudence. 
 The gentle and popular character of Gedaliah 
 (Joseph. Ant. x. 9, §§ 1, 3), his hereditary piety 
 (Rosenmiiller in Jer, xxvi. 24), the prosperity of 
 his brief rule (Jer. xl. 12), the reverence which 
 revived and was fostered under him for the 
 ruined Temple (xli. 5), fear of the Chaldaean 
 conquerors, whose officer he was,—all proved 
 insufficient to secure Gedaliah from the foreign 
 jealousy of Baalis king of Ammon, and the 
 domestic ambition of Ishmael, a member of the 
 royal family of Judah (Joseph. Ant. x. 9, § 3). 
 This man came to Mizpah with a secret purpose 
 to destroy Gedaliah. Gedaliah, generously re- 
 fusing to believe a friendly warning which he 
 received of the intended treachery, was mur- 
 dered, with his Jewish and Chaldaean followers, 
 two months after his appointment. After his 
 death, which is still commemorated in the Jewish 
 Calendar (Prideaux, Connexion, anno 588; Zech. 
 vii. 19; Friedliinder, Zext Book of the Jewish 
 Religion, p. 33) as a national calamity, the Jews 
 in their native land, anticipating the resentment 
 of the king of Babylon, gave way to despair. 
 Many, forcing Jeremiah to accompany them, 
 fled to Egypt under Johanan (see Stanley, /ist. 
 of the Jewish Church, ii. Lect. xl.; Milman, 
 Hist. of the Jews,’ i. 403). 2, GEDALIAHU ; 
 a Leyite, one of the six sons of Jeduthun 
 who played the harp in the service of Jehovah 
 (1 Ch. xxv. 3 [Β. om.], 9 [A. Γοδολίας, B. 
 Γαλουιά)). 8. GEDALIAH ; a priest in the time 
 of Ezra (Ezra x. 18 [BA. Γαδαδειά, 8. Padadead]). 
 [JoapANus.] 4. GEDALIAHU; son of Pashur 
 (Jer, xxxvill. 1; N!. Γολίας), one of those who 
 caused Jeremiah to be imprisoned. 5, Gu- 
 DALIAH ; grandfather of Zephaniah the prophet 
 
 (Zeph. i. 1). GW. To Be) ea 
 
 GED/DUR (B. Κεδδούρ, A. Γεδδούρ ; Gedilu), 
 1 Esd. v. 30. [GAnAR.] 
 
 GED’EON (Γεδεών; Gedeon). 1. The son 
 of Raphaim; one of the ancestors of Judith 
 (Judith viii. 1). The name is omitted in BN. 
 
 2. The Greek form of the Hebrew name 
 GIDEON (Heb. xi. 32); retained in the N. Τὶ by 
 A. V. (R. V. “ Gideon ””) in company with Elias, 
 Eliseus, Osee, Jesus (=Joshua), and other 
 Grecised Hebrew names, to the confusion of the 
 ordinary reader. 
 
 GE'DER (17) = wall; A. Tadép, B. “Ace; 
 Gader). The king of Geder was one of the 
 thirty-one kings who were overcome by Joshua 
 on the west of the Jordan (Josh. xii. 13), and 
 mentioned in that list only. Being named with 
 Debir, Hormah, and Arad, Geder was evidently 
 in the extreme south: this prevents our identi- 
 fying it with Gedor (Josh. xv. 58), which lay 
 between Hebron and Bethlehem; or with hag- 
 Gederah in the low country (xv. 36). It is 
 possible, however, that it may be the Gedor 
 
 4D2 
 
.1110 
 
 named in connexion with the Simeonites (1 Ch. 
 iv. 39). [6.1] [Wei 
 GEDE’RAH (Τ ὙΠ, with the article=the 
 sheepcote; Tadnpa; Gedera), a town of Judah 
 in the Shefelah or lowland country (Josh. xy. 
 36), mentioned next after ADITHAIM, Haditheh. 
 It is probably the Gedour (Γεδοὺρ) of Eusebius, 
 which was in his time called Gedrus (Tedpovs), 
 and was 10 miles from Diospolis (Lydda) on the 
 road to Eleutheropolis (OS.? p. 254, 39). This 
 place is now Kh. Jedireh, 9 Eng. miles south of 
 Ludd (PEF. Mem. iii. 43). The name (if the 
 interpretation given be correct), and the occur- 
 rence next to it of one so similar as GEDERO- 
 THAIM, seem to point to a great deal of sheep- 
 breeding in this part. ἘΠ [w.] 
 
 GEDE’RATHITE, THE Cn 1749; B. 6 
 Tadapaderetu, N. 6 Tadapa, A. 6 Γαδηρωθί ; Gade- 
 rothites), the native of a place called Gederah, 
 but not of that in the Shefelah of Judah, for 
 Josabad the Gederathite (1 Ch. xii. 4) was one of 
 Saul’s own tribe—his “ brethren of Benjamin ” 
 (v. 2). It is now apparently the village 
 Jedireh, near el-Jib, Gibeon (PEF. Mem. iii. 9). 
 
 [G.] [W.] 
 
 GEDE'RITE, THE (7730; B. 6 Γεδω- 
 ρείτης, A. 6 Τεδώρ; Gederites), i.e. the native of 
 some place named Geder or Gederah. Baal-hanan 
 the Gederite had charge of the olive and sycamore 
 groves in the low country (Shefelah) for king 
 David (1 Ch. xxvii. 28). He possibly belonged 
 to GEDERAH, a place in this district, the very 
 locality for sycamores. (all> [Rival 
 
 GEDE'ROTH (N}713 = sheepcotes, but in 
 Ch. with the article; in Ch. B. Γαληρώ, A. 
 Γαδηρώθ, in Josh. Γεδδώρ : Gideroth, Gaderoth), 
 a town in the Shefelah or low country of Judah 
 (Josh. xv. 41; 2 Ch. xxviii. 18). It is not 
 named in the same group with GEDERAH and 
 GEDEROTHAIM in the list in Joshua, but with 
 Beth-dagon, Dajiin, Naahmah, Nd’aneh, and 
 Makkedah, el-Mughar. Sir C. Warren proposes 
 to identify it with Katrah, the CEDRON of 
 1 Mace. xv. 39, which is close to el-Mughar 
 
 (PEF, Mem. ii, 410). [61 [W.] 
 GEDEROTHATM cant = two sheep- 
 
 folds ; Gedorathaim), a town in the low country 
 of Judah (Josh. xv. 36), named next in order to 
 Gederah. The LXX. render it καὶ af ἐπαύλεις 
 αὐτῆς. [GEDERAH. ] Gals We} 
 
 GEDO’R (1133 =a wall; Gedor). 1. (B. 
 Teddy, A. TedHp), a town in the mountainous 
 part of Judah, named with Halhul, Bethzur, 
 and Maarath (Josh. xv. 58), and therefore a few 
 miles north of Hebron. It seems to be the place 
 Tddepa, Gaddera, described by Eusebius and 
 Jerome (0.2 p. 254, 37; p. 160, 30) as being in 
 the boundaries of Jerusalem (Aclia), near the 
 Terebinth, and there called Γιδωρά, Gadora. It 
 is now probably represented by Ah. Jedir, which 
 lies to the north of Beit Stir, Bethzur, and about 
 2 miles west of the road from Hebron to Beth- 
 lehem (Robinson, Bid. Res. iii. 288 : PEF. Mem. 
 iii. 313). 
 
 2. The town—apparently of Benjamin, and, if 
 so, perhaps Jedireh—to which “ Jeroham of 
 Gedor ” belonged, whose sons Joelah and Zeba- 
 
 GEDERAH 
 
 GEHENNA 
 
 diah were among the mighty men, “Saul’s 
 brethren of Benjamin,” who joined David in his 
 difficulties at Ziklag (1 Ch. xii, 7). The name 
 has the definite article to it in this passage 
 ΟΥ̓Δ ΠΤ}; of τοῦ Τεδώρ). If this be a Ben- 
 jamite name, it is very probably connected 
 with 
 
 & (Γεδούρ ; in 1 Ch. viii. 31, B. Aovp; in ix. 
 37, BN. Ἰεδούρ.) A man among the ancestors 
 of Saul; son of Jehiel, the “father of Gibeon ”” 
 (1 Ch. viii. 315 ix. 37). 
 
 4. The name occurs twice in the genealogies. 
 of Judah—1 Ch. iv. 4 and 18—(in both short- 
 ened to V3; Γεδώρ). In the former passage 
 
 Penuel is said to be “ father of Gedor,” while in 
 the latter Jered, son of a certain Ezra by his 
 Jewish wife (A. V. “Jehudijah,” RK. Vo “the 
 Jewess’’), has the same title. In the Targum, 
 Jered, Gedor, and other names in this passage are 
 treated as being titles of Moses, conferred on him 
 by Jehudijah, who is identified with the daughter 
 of Pharaoh. 
 
 5. In the records of the tribe of Simeon, im 
 1 Ch. iv. 39, certain chiefs of the tribe are said 
 to have gone, in the reign of Hezekiah, “to the 
 entrance of Gedor, unto the east side of the 
 valley’ (8°37), in search of pasture-grounds, 
 and to have expelled thence the Hamites, who. 
 dwelt there in tents, and the Maonites (A. V. 
 “habitations,” R.V. Meunim). Simeon lay in 
 the extreme south of Judah, and therefore this. 
 Gedor must be a different place from that 
 noticed above—No. 1. If what is told in υ. 42 
 was a subsequent incident in the same expedition, 
 then we should look for Gedor between the south 
 of Judah and Mount Seir, ie. Petra. No place 
 of the name has yet been met with in that 
 direction. The LXX. (both MSS.) read Gerar 
 for Gedor (ἕως τοῦ ἐλθεῖν Tepdpa); which agrees 
 well both with the situation and with the men- 
 tion of the “pasture,” and is adopted by Ewald 
 (i. 322, note). The “valley” (Gai, 1.6. rather 
 the “‘ ravine ”’), from the presence of the article, 
 would appear to be some well-known spot ; but 
 in our present limited knowledge of that district, 
 no conjecture can be made as to its locality. 
 Nachal (=wady), and not Gai, is the word else- 
 where applied to Gerar. [G.] ΤΠ 
 
 GEHA’ZI (‘tMa, of uncertain meaning; 
 Tie(i; Giezi), the servant or boy of Elisha. He 
 was sent as the Prophet’s messenger on two 
 occasions to the good Shunammite (2 K. iv.) ; 
 obtained fraudulently in Elisha’s name money 
 and garments from Naaman; was miraculously 
 smitten with incurable but non-infectious 
 
 leprosy ; and was dismissed from the Prophets. | 
 
 service (2 K. y.). Later in the history he is 
 mentioned as being engaged in relating to king 
 Joram all the great things which Elisha had 
 done, when the Shunammite whose son Elisha 
 had restored to life appeared before the king, 
 petitioning for her house and land of which 
 she had been dispossessed in her seven years’ 
 absence in Philistia (2 K. viii.), [W. ft, Bq 
 
 GEHEN’NA, the Greek representative of 
 D373, Josh. xv. 8, Neh. xi. 30 (rendered by B. 
 
 Γαιέννα, A. Tal Ovdy i in Josh. xviii. 16); more 
 fully, D307 }2 ‘A or ‘7733 ὰ (2 K. xxiii. 10, 
 
 2 Ch, sxviii. 3, xxxiii. 6, Jer. xix. 2), the “ valley 
 
 a 
 
GELILOTH 
 
 of Hinnom,” or “of the son” (usually), or 
 “children (one reading of 2 K.) of Hinnom,” a 
 deep narrow glen to the S. of Jerusalem, where, 
 after the introduction of the worship of the fire- 
 gods by Ahaz, the idolatrous Jews offered their 
 children to Molech (2 Ch. xxvili, 3, xxxiii. 6 ; 
 Jer, vii. 31, xix. 2-6). In consequence of these 
 abominations the valley was polluted by Josiah 
 (2K. xxiii. 10); subsequently to which it became 
 the common lay-stall of the city, where the dead 
 bodies of criminals, and the carcases of animals, 
 and every other kind of filth were cast, and, 
 according to late and somewhat questionable 
 authorities, the combustible portions consumed 
 with fire. From the depth and narrowness of 
 the gorge, and perhaps its ever-burning fires, 
 as well as from its being the receptacle of all 
 sorts of putrefying matter, and all that defiled 
 the holy city, it became in later times the image 
 ef the place of punishment (cp. Zhe Book of 
 Enoch, chs. xxvi., xxvii., with Dillmann and 
 Schodde’s notes in loco), where their worm 
 dieth not, and the fire is not quenched;” in 
 which the Talmudists placed the mouth of hell: 
 “There are two palm-trees in the V. of H., 
 between which a smoke ariseth;... and this is 
 the door of Gehenna” (Talmud, quoted by 
 Barclay, City of Great King, p. 90; Lightfoot, 
 Centur. Chorograph. Matt. proem. ii. 200, Cp. 
 Riehm, HW28., and Hamburger, RE. s. nn. 
 “ Holle,” “ Hinnom”; Weber, System εἰ. altsynaq. 
 Palist. Theologie, p. 326 sq. [and Index 5. v.]). 
 In this sense the word is used by our blessed 
 Mord Matt. v.29, 80, x. 28, xxiii, 15, 335 
 Mark ix. 43, 45; Luke xii. 5; and with the 
 addition τοῦ πυρός, Matt. v. 22, xviii. 9; Mark 
 ix. 47; and by St. James, 111. 6. [HryNnom, 
 VALLEY OF ; TOPHET.] [ES Wey a 
 
 GELI'LOTH (m4 = circuit ; B. Ταλιαώθ, 
 A. ᾿Αγαλλιλώθ, as if the definite article had 
 been originally prefixed to the Hebrew word; 
 ad tumulos), a place named among the marks 
 of the south boundary line of the tribe of 
 Benjamin (Josh. xviii. 17). The boundary went 
 from Enshemesh towards Geliloth, which was 
 “over against” (M39) the ascent of Adummim. 
 
 In the description of the north boundary of 
 Judah, which was identical at this part with 
 the south of Benjamin, we find Gilgal sub- 
 stituted for Geliloth, with the same specifica- 
 tion as “over against ” (n33) the ascent of 
 Adummim (Josh. xv. 7). The name Geliloth 
 never occurs again in this locality, and it 
 therefore seems probable that Gilgal is the 
 right reading. Many glimpses of the Jordan 
 valley are obtained through the hills in the 
 latter part of the descent from Olivet to Jericho, 
 along which the boundary in question appears 
 to have run; and it is very possible that, 
 from the ascent of Adummim, Gilgal appeared 
 through one of these gaps in the distance, “ over 
 against” the spectator, and thus furnished a 
 point by which to indicate the direction of the 
 line at that part. 
 
 But though Geliloth does not again appear in 
 the A. V., it is found in the original bearing ἃ 
 peculiar topographical sense. The following 
 _ extract from the Appendix to Dean Stanley’s 
 8. § P. (180 edit.), § 13, contains all that can be 
 said on the point :—‘ This word is derived from 
 
 GENEALOGY 1141 
 
 a root bbs, ‘to roll’ (Gesen. Thes. p. 287 b). Of 
 
 the five times in which it occurs in Scripture, 
 two are in the general sense of boundary or 
 border: Josh. xiii. 2, ‘All the borders of the 
 Philistines’ (ὅρια) ; Joel iii. 4, ‘ All the coasts of 
 Palestine’ (KR. V. Philistia) (Γαλιλαία ἀλλοφύ- 
 λων): and three specially relate to the course of 
 the Jordan: Josh. xxii. 10, 11, ‘The borders of 
 Jordan’ (in xxii. 10, B, Γάλγαλα τοῦ Ἰορδάνου; 
 inv. 11, Β. Γαλαὰδ τ. 71.5 in vv. 10, 11, Α. Γαλιλὼθ 
 τ. Ἴ.); Ezek. xlvii. 8, ‘The east country’ (eis τὴν 
 Γαλιλαίαν). In each case R. V. renders by region 
 or regions. It has been pointed out in ch. vii. 
 p: 278, note, that this word is analogous to 
 the Scotch term ‘links,’ which has both the 
 meanings of Geliloth, being used of the snake- 
 like windings of a stream, as well as with the 
 derived meaning of a coast or shore, Thus 
 Geliloth is distinguished from Ciccar, which will 
 rather mean the circle of vegetation or dwellings 
 gathered round the bends and reaches of the 
 river.” 
 
 It will not be overlooked that the place 
 Geliloth, noticed above, is in the neighbourhood 
 of the Jordan, [G.] [W.] 
 
 GEMAL'LI ΟΡ 8: B. Ὁ. 13 Γαμαΐ, A. 
 Γαμαλί; Gemalli), the father of Ammiel, who 
 was the “ruler” (Nasi) of Dan, chosen to 
 represent that tribe among the spies who 
 explored the land of Canaan (Num, xiii. 12). 
 
 GEMARIAH (7.)i=Jehovah hath com- 
 
 pleted ; Ταμαρίας ; Gamarias). 1. Son of Shaphan 
 the scribe, and father of Michaiah. He was one 
 of the nobles of Judah, and had a chamber in 
 the house of the Lord, from which (or from a 
 window in which, Prideaux, Michaelis) Baruch 
 read Jeremiah’s alarming prophecy in the ears 
 of all the people, B.c. 606 (Jer. xxxvi.). Gema- 
 riah with the other princes heard the Divine 
 message with terror, but without a sign of re- 
 pentance ; though Gemariah joined two others _ 
 in intreating king Jehoiakim to forbear destroy- 
 ing the roll which they had taken from Baruch, 
 2. Son of Hilkiah, being sent B.c. 597 by king 
 Zedekiah on an embassy to Nebuchadnezzar at 
 Babylon, was made the bearer of Jeremiah’s 
 letter to the captive Jews (Jer. xxix.). [W. T. B.] 
 
 GEMS. ([Stonss, Preciovs.] 
 GENEALOGY (Γενεαλογία), literally the 
 
 act or art of the yeveaAdyos, 1.6. of him who 
 treats of birth and family, and reckons descents 
 and generations, Hence by an easy transition 
 it is often (like ἱστορία) used of the document 
 itself in which such series of generations is set, 
 down. In Hebrew the term for a genealogy or 
 pedigree is YM NAD and NDIA TAN, «the 
 book of the generations,” Greek Venet. γεν- 
 νήσεις ; and because the oldest histories were 
 usually drawn up on a genealogical basis, the 
 expression often extended to the whole history, 
 as is the case with the Gospel of St. Matthew, 
 where “the book of the generation of Jesus 
 Christ ” includes the whole history contained 
 in that Gospel. So Gen. ii. 4, “‘ These are the 
 generations of the heavens and of the earth,” 
 seems to be the title of the history which 
 follows (see Delitzsch [1887] and Dillmann® in 
 
1142 GENEALOGY 
 
 loco). Gen. v. 1, vi. 9, x. 1, xi. 10, 27, xxv. 12, 
 19, xxxvi. 1, 9, xxxvii. 2, are other examples of 
 the same usage, and these passages seem to 
 mark the existence of separate histories from 
 which the Book of Genesis was compiled. Nor 
 is this genealogical form of history peculiar to 
 the Hebrews, or the Semitic races. The earliest 
 Greek histories were also genealogies. Thus 
 the histories of Acusilaus of Argos and of 
 Hecataeus of Miletus were entitled Γενεαλογίαι ; 
 and the fragments remaining of Xanthus, 
 Charon of lLampsacus, and Hellanicus, are 
 strongly tinged with the same genealogical 
 element,* which is not lost even in the pages 
 of Herodotus. The frequem use of the patro- 
 nymi¢ in Greek; the stories of particular races, 
 as Heraclides, Alemaeonidae, &c.; the lists of 
 priests and kings, and conquerors at the Games, 
 preserved at Klis, Sparta, Olympia, and else- 
 where; the hereditary monarchies and priest- 
 hoods, as of the Branchidae, Eumolpidae, &c., 
 in so many cities in Greece and Greek Asia; the 
 division, as old as Homer, into tribes, fratriae 
 and γένη, and the existence of the tribe, the 
 gens and the familis among the Romans; the 
 Celtic clans, the Saxon families using a common 
 patronymic, and their royal genealogies running 
 back to the Teutonic gods,—these are among the 
 many instances that may be cited to prove the 
 strong family and genealogical instinct of the 
 ancient world. Coming near to the Israelites, 
 it will be enough to allude to the hereditary 
 principle, and the vast genealogical records of 
 the Egyptians, as regards their kings and 
 priests, and to the passion for genealogies 
 among the Arabs, mentioned by Layard and 
 others, in order to show that the attention paid 
 by the Jews to genealogies is in entire accord- 
 ance with the manners and tendencies of their 
 contemporaries. In their case, however, it was 
 heightened by several peculiar circumstances. 
 The promise of the land of Canaan to the 
 seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob successively, 
 ‘and the separation of the Israelites from the 
 Gentile world; the expectation that Messiah 
 would spring from the tribe of Judah; the 
 exclusively hereditary priesthood cf Aaron with 
 its dignity and emoluments; the long succession 
 of kings in the line of David; and the whole 
 division and occupation of the land upon genea- 
 logical principles by the tribes, families, and 
 houses of fathers, gave a deeper importance to 
 the science of genealogy among the Jews than 
 perhaps any other nation, We have already 
 noted the evidence of the existence of family 
 memoirs even before the Flood, to which we are 
 probably indebted for the genealogies in Gen. 
 iv., v.; and Gen. x., xi., &c. indicate the con- 
 tinuance of the same system in the times 
 between the Flood and Abraham. But with 
 Jacob, the founder of the nation, the system of 
 
 reckoning by genealogies (wrenn, or in the 
 
 language of Moses, Num. i. 18, s5)n) was much 
 further developed. In Gen. xxxv. 22-26, we 
 have a formal account of the sons of Jacob, the 
 patriarchs of the nation, repeated in Ex, i. 1-5. 
 In Gen, xlvi. we have an exact genealogical 
 census of the house of Israel at the time of 
 
 4 ὅσα Ἑλλάνικος ᾿Ακουσιλάῳ περὶ τῶν γενεαλογιῶν 
 διαπεφώνηκεν (Joseph. ¢. Apion, i. 3). 
 
 GENEALOGY 
 
 Jacob’s going down to Egypt. The way in 
 which the former part of this census, relating: 
 to Reuben and Simeon, is quoted in Ex. Vi. 
 where the census of the tribe of Levi is all that: 
 was wanted, seems to show that it was tran- 
 scribed from an existing document. When the: 
 Israelites were in the wilderness of Sinai, in 
 the second month of the second year of the 
 Exodus, their number was taken by Divine 
 command, “after their families, by the house 
 of their fathers,” tribe by tribe, and the number 
 of each tribe is given “by their generations, 
 after their families, by the house of their 
 fathers, according to the number of the names,. 
 by their polls” (Num. i., iii). This census. 
 was repeated thirty-eight years afterwards, and 
 the names of the families added, as we find in 
 Num. xxvi. According to these genealogical 
 divisions they pitched their tents, and marched, 
 and offered their gifts and offerings, and chose: 
 the spies. According to the same they cast the 
 lots by which the troubler of Israel, Achan, was: 
 discovered, as later those by which Saul was 
 called to the throne. Above all, according to 
 these divisions, the whole land of Canaan was 
 parcelled out amongst them. But then of 
 necessity that took place which always has- 
 taken place with respect to such genealogical 
 arrangements, viz. that by marriage, or servi-- 
 tude, or incorporation as friends and allies, 
 persons not strictly belonging by birth to such 
 or such a family or tribe were yet reckoned in 
 the census as belonging to them, when they had 
 acquired property within their borders, and 
 were liable to the various services in peace or 
 war which were performed under the heads of 
 such tribes and families. Nobody supposes that 
 all the Cornelii, or all the Campbells, sprang 
 from one ancestor, and it is in the teeth of 
 direct evidence from Scripture, as well as of 
 probability, to suppese that the Jewish tribes. 
 contained absolutely none but such as were 
 descended from the twelve patriarchs.” ‘The 
 tribe of Levi was probably the only one which: 
 had no admixture of foreign blood. In many 
 of the Scripture genealogies, as e.g. those of 
 Caleb, Joab, Segub, and the sons of Rephaiah, 
 &c., in 1 Ch, iii, 21, it is quite clear that birth 
 was not the ground of their incorporation into: 
 their respective tribes. [Bucwer; CALEB.} 
 However, birth was, and continued to be 
 throughout their whole national course, the 
 foundation of all the Jewish organisation, and 
 the reigns of the more active and able kings. 
 and rulers were marked by attention to ge- 
 nealogical operations. When David established 
 the Tempie-services on the footing which con- 
 tinued till the time of Christ, he divided the 
 priests and Levites into courses and companies, 
 each under the family chief. The singers, the 
 porters, the trumpeters, the players on instru- 
 ments, were all thus genealogically distributed. 
 In the active stirring reign of Rehoboam, we 
 have the work of Iddo concerning genealogies 
 
 b Jul. Africanus, in his Ep. to Aristides, expressly 
 mentions that the ancient genealogical records at 
 Jerusalem included those who were descended from 
 proselytes, and γειώραι, as wellas those who sprang 
 from the patriarchs. The registers in Ezra and 
 Nehemiah include the N.thinim, and the childgcn of 
 Solomo..’s servants. 
 
GENEALOGY 
 
 (2 Ch. xii, 15). When Hezekiah re-opened 
 the Temple, and restored the Temple-services 
 which had fallen into disuse, he reckoned the 
 whole nation by genealogies. This appears 
 from the fact of many of the genealogies in 
 Chronicles terminating in Hezekiah’s reign 
 [AzARIAH, 13], from the expression “So all 
 Israel were reckoned by genealogies” (1 Ch. 
 ix. 1), immediately following genealogies which 
 do so terminate, and from the narrative in 
 2 Ch. xxxi. 16-19 proving that, as regards the 
 priests and Levites, such a complete census was 
 taken by Hezekiah. It is indicated also in 1 Ch. 
 iv.41. We learn too incidentally from Prov. xxv. 
 that Hezekiah had a staff of scribes, who would 
 be equally useful in transcribing genealogical 
 registers, as in copying out Proverbs. So also 
 in the reign of Jotham king of Judah, who 
 among other great works built the higher gate 
 of the house of the Lord (2 K. xv. 35), and was 
 an energetic as well as a good king, we find a 
 genealogical reckoning of the Reubenites (1 Ch. 
 γ. 17), probably in connexion with Jotham’s 
 wars against the Ammonites (2 Ch. xxvii. 5). 
 When Zerubbabel brought back the Captivity 
 from Babylon, one of his first cares seems to 
 have been to take a census of those that re- 
 turned, and to settle them according to their 
 genealogies. The evidence of this is found in 
 1 Ch. ix., and the duplicate passage Neh. xi. ; 
 in 1 Ch. iii. 19; and yet more distinctly in 
 Neh. vii. 5 and xii. In like manner Nehemiah, 
 as an essential part of that national restoration 
 which he laboured so zealously to promote, 
 gathered “together the nobles, and the rulers 
 and the people, that they might be reckoned 
 by genealogy ” (Neh. vii. 5, xii. 26). The abstract 
 of this census is preserved in Ezra ii. and Neh. 
 vii.. and a portion of it in 1 Ch, iii, 21-24, 
 That this system was continued after their 
 times, so far at least as the priests and Levites 
 were concerned, we learn from Neh. xii. 22; 
 and we have incidental evidence of the continued 
 care of the Jews still later to preserve their 
 genealogies in such passages of the apocryphal 
 books as 1 Mace. ii. 1-5, viii. 17, xiv. 29, and 
 perhaps Judith viii. 9, Tob. i. 1, &c. Passing 
 on to the time of the birth of Christ, we have a 
 striking incidental proof of the continuance of 
 the Jewish genealogical economy in the fact 
 that when Augustus ordered the census of the 
 empire to be taken, the Jews in the province of 
 Syria immediately went each one to his own 
 city, 1.6. (as is clear from Joseph going to Beth- 
 lehem the city of David) to the city to which 
 his tribe, family, and father’s house belonged. 
 So that the return, if completed, doubtless ex- 
 hibited the form of the old censuses taken by 
 the kings of Israel and Judah. 
 
 Another proof is the existence of our Lord’s 
 genealogy in two forms as given by St. Matthew 
 and St. Luke. [GENEALOGY OF JESUS CHRIST. ] 
 The mention of Zacharias, as “of the course of 
 Abia,” of Elisabeth, as “of the daughters of 
 Aaron,” and of Anna the daughter of Phanuel, as 
 “of the tribe of Aser,” are further indications 
 of the same thing. And this conclusion is ex- 
 pressly confirmed by the testimony of Josephus 
 in the opening of his Life. There, after de- 
 ducing his own descent, “not only from that 
 Face which is considered the noblest among the 
 Jews, that of the priests, but from the first of 
 
 GENEALOGY 1143. 
 
 the 24 courses” (the course of Jehoiarib), and 
 on the mother’s side from the Asmonean sove- 
 reigns, he adds, “I have thus traced my genea- 
 logy, as I have found it recorded in the public 
 tables” (ἐν ταῖς δημοσίαις δέλτοις ἀναγεγραμ- 
 μένην) ; and again (contr. Apion. i. § 7), he states 
 that the priests were obliged to verify the 
 descent of their intended wives by reference to 
 the archives kept at Jerusalem ; adding that it 
 was the duty of the priests after every war 
 (and he specifies the wars of Antiochus Epiph., 
 Pompey, and Q. Varus) to make new genealogi- 
 cal tables from the old ones, and to ascertain 
 what women among the priestly families had 
 been made prisoners, as all such were deemed 
 improper to be wives of priests. As a proof of 
 the care of the Jews in such matters he further 
 mentions that in his day the list of successive 
 high-priests preserved in the public records 
 extended through a period of 2,000 years. From 
 all this it is abundantly manifest that the Jewish 
 genealogical records continued to be kept till 
 near the destruction of Jerusalem. Hence we 
 are constrained to disbelieve the story told by 
 Africanus concerning the destruction of all the 
 Jewish genealogies by Herod the Great, in order 
 to conceal the ignobleness of his own origin. 
 His statement is, that up to that time the 
 Hebrew genealogies had been preserved entire, 
 and the different families were traced up either 
 to the patriarchs, or the first proselytes, or the 
 γειώραι or mixed people. But that on Herod’s 
 causing these genealogies to be burnt, only a 
 few of the more illustrious Jews who had pri- 
 vate pedigrees of their own, or who could supply 
 the lost genealogies from memory, or from the 
 Books of Chronicles, were able to retain any 
 account of their own lineage—among whom he 
 says were the Desposyni, or brethren of our 
 Lord, from whom was said to be derived the 
 scheme (given by Africanus) for reconciling the 
 two genealogies of Christ. But there can be 
 little doubt that the registers of the Jewish 
 tribes and families perished at the destruction 
 of Jerusalem, and not before. Some partial 
 records may, however, have survived that event, 
 as it is probable, and indeed seems to be implied 
 in Josephus’s statement, that at least the 
 priestly families of the Dispersion had records 
 of their own genealogy. We learn too from 
 Benjamin of Tudela, that in his day the princes 
 of the Captivity professed to trace their descent 
 to David, and he also names others, e.g. R. 
 Calonymos, “a descendant of the house of David, 
 as proved by his pedigree” (i. 32), and ΚΕ. 
 Eleazar Ben Tsemach, ‘‘ who possesses a pedigree 
 of his descent from the prophet Samuel, and 
 knows the melodies which were sung in the 
 Temple during its existence” (ib. p. 100, &c.), 
 He also mentions descendants of the tribes of 
 Dan, Zebulun, and Naphtali, among the moun- 
 tains of Khasvin, whose prince was of the tribe 
 of Levi. The patriarchs of Jerusalem, so called 
 from the Hebrew nias YN, claimed descent 
 from Hillel, the Babylonian, of whom it is said 
 that a genealogy, found at Jerusalem, declared 
 his descent from David and Abital. Others, 
 however, traced his descent from Benjamin, and 
 from David only through a daughter of Shepha- 
 tiah® (Wolf, H. B. iv. 380). But however 
 
 ¢ Some further information on these modern Jewish 
 
1144 GENEALOGY 
 
 tradition may have preserved for a while true 
 cenealogies, or imagination and pride have 
 coined fictitious ones, it may be safely affirmed 
 that, after the destruction of Jerusalem, the 
 Jewish genealogical system came to an end. 
 Essentially connected as it was with the tenure 
 of the land on the one hand, and with the 
 peculiar privileges of the houses of David and 
 Levi on the other, it naturally failed when the 
 land was taken away from the Jewish race, and 
 when the promise to David was fulfilled, and 
 the priesthood of Aaron superseded, by the 
 exaltation of Christ to the right hand of God. 
 The remains of the genealogical spirit among 
 the later Jews (which might of course be much 
 more fully illustrated from Rabbinical litera- 
 ture) has only been glanced at to show how 
 deeply it had penetrated into the Jewish national 
 mind.? It remains to be said that just notions 
 of the nature of the Jewish genealogical records 
 are of great importance with a view to the 
 right interpretation of Scripture. Let it only 
 be remembered that these records have respect 
 to political and territorial divisions, as much as 
 to strictly genealogical descent, and it will at 
 once be seen how erroneous a conclusion it may 
 be, that all who are called “sons” of such or 
 such a patriarch, or chief father, must neces- 
 sarily haye been his very children. Just as in 
 the very first division into tribes Manasseh and 
 Ephraim were numbered with their uncles, as 
 if they had been sons instead of grandsons (Gen. 
 xlviii. 5) of Jacob, so afterwards the names of 
 persons belonging to different generations would 
 often stand side by side as heads of families or 
 houses, and be called the sons of their common 
 ancestor. For example, Gen. xlvi. 21 contains 
 grandsons as well as sons of Benjamin [BELAN ], 
 and Ex. vi. 24 probably enumerates the son and 
 grandson of Assir as heads, with their father, of 
 the families of the Korhites. And so in innu- 
 merable instances. If any one family or house 
 became extinct, some other would succeed to its 
 place, called after its own chief father. Hence 
 of course a census of any tribe drawn up ata 
 later period, would exhibit different divisions 
 from one drawn up at an earlier. Compare, 6.07.» 
 the list of courses of priests in Zerubbabel’s time 
 (Neh. xii.) with that of those in David’s time 
 (1 Ch. xxiv.).° The same principle must be 
 borne in mind in interpreting any particular 
 genealogy. The sequence of generations may 
 represent the succession to such or such an 
 inheritance or headship of tribe or family, 
 rather than the relationship of father and son.‘ 
 Again, where a pedigree was abbreviated, it 
 
 genealogies is given in a note to p. 32 of Asher’s Benj. 
 of Tudela, ii. 6. 
 
 ἃ Thus in the Targum of Ester we have Haman’s 
 pedigree traced through twenty-one generations to the 
 “impious Esau; ” and Mordecai’s through forty-two 
 generations to Abraham. The writer makes thirty-three 
 generations from Abraham to king Saul! 
 
 e The Jews say that only four courses came back 
 with Zerubbabel, and that they were subdivided into 
 twenty-fuur, saving the rights of such courses as should 
 return from Captivity. See Selden, Opp. v. i. t. i. p. x. 
 
 7 «The term ‘son of’ appears to have been used 
 throughout the East in those days, as it still is, to denote 
 connexion generally, either by descent or succession” 
 (Layard’s Nin. & Bab. p. 61S). The observation is to 
 explain the inscription “ Jehu the son of Omri.” 
 
 GENEALOGY 
 
 would naturally specify such generations as 
 would indicate from what chief houses the 
 person descended. In cases where a name was 
 common the father’s name would be added for 
 distinction only. These reasons would be well 
 understood at the time, though it may be diffi- 
 cult now to ascertain them positively. Thus in 
 the pedigree of Ezra (Ezra vii. 1-5), it would 
 seem that both Seraiah and Azariah were heads 
 of houses (Neh. x. 2); they are both therefore 
 named. MHilkiah is named as having been high- 
 priest, and his identity is established by the 
 addition “the son of Shallum” (1 Ch. vi. 13); 
 the next named is Zadok, the priest in David’s 
 time, who was chief of the sixteen courses 
 sprung from Eleazar, and then follows a com- 
 plete pedigree from this Zadok to Aaron. But 
 then as regards the chronological use of the 
 Scripture genealogies, it follows from the above 
 view that great caution is necessary in using 
 them as measures of time, though they are 
 invaluable for this purpose whenever we can be 
 sure that they are complete. What seems ne- 
 cessary to make them trustworthy measures of 
 time is, either that they should have special 
 internal marks of being complete, such as where 
 the mother as well as the father is named, or 
 some historical circumstance defines the several 
 relationships, or that there should be several 
 genealogies, all giving the same number of 
 generations within the same termini. When 
 these conditions are found, it is difficult to over- 
 rate the value of genealogies for chronology. 
 In determining, however, the relation of gene- 
 rations to time, some allowance must be made 
 fur the station in life of the persons in question. 
 From the early marriages of the princes, the 
 average of even 30 years to a generation will 
 probably be found too long for the kings.® 
 
 Another feature in the Scripture genealogies 
 which it is worth while to notice is the recur- 
 rence of the same name, or modifications of the 
 same name, such as Tobias, Tobit, Nathan, 
 Mattatha, and even of names of the same sig- 
 nification, in the same family. This is an 
 indication of the carefulness with which the 
 Jews kept their pedigrees (as otherwise they 
 could not have known the names of their remote ~ 
 ancestors); it also gives a clue by which to 
 judge of obscure or doubtful genealogies, 
 
 The Jewish genealogies have two forms, one 
 giving the generations in a descending, the other 
 in an ascending scale. Examples of the de- 
 scending form may be seen in Ruth iv. 18-22, or 
 1 Ch, iii.; of the ascending, 1 Ch. vi. 33-43 
 (A. V.), Ezra vii. 1-5. The descending form is 
 expressed by the formula A begat B, and B begat 
 C, &c.; or, the sons of A, B his son, C his son, 
 &e.; or, the sons of A, B, C, D; and the sons of 
 B, c, D, E; and the sons of C, 5, F,G, &c. The 
 ascending is always expressed in the same way. 
 Of the two, it is obvious that the descending 
 scale is the one in which we are most likely to 
 find collateral descents, inasmuch as it implies 
 
 & Mr. J. W. Bosanquet, in a paper read before the 
 Chronolog. Instit., endeavours to show that a generation 
 in Scripture language = 40 years ; and that St. Matthew’s 
 three divisions of fourteen generations, consequently, 
 equal each 560 years; a calculation which suits his: 
 chronological scheme exactly, by placing the Captivity 
 in the year B.c. 563. 
 
GENEALOGY OF CHRIST 
 
 that the object is to enumerate the heirs of the 
 person at the head of the stem; and if direct 
 heirs failed at any point, collateral ones would 
 have to be inserted. In all cases too where the 
 original document was preserved, when the 
 direct line failed, the heir would naturally place 
 his own name next to his immediate predecessor, 
 though that predecessor was not his father, but 
 only his kinsman. Whereas in the ascending 
 scale there can be no failure in the nature of 
 things. But neither form is in itself more or 
 less fit than the other to express either proper 
 or imputed filiation. 
 
 Females are named in genealogies when there 
 is anything remarkable about them, or when 
 any right or property is transmitted through 
 them. See Gen. xi. 29, xxii, 23, xxv. 1-4, xxxv. 
 22-26; Ex. vi. 23; Num. xxvi. 33; 1 Ch. ii. 4, 
 19, 35, 50, &c. 
 
 The genealogical lists of names are peculiarly 
 liable to corruptions of the text, and there are 
 many such in the Books of Chronicles, Ezra, &c. 
 Jerome speaks of these corruptions having risen 
 to a fearful height in the LXX.: “Sylvam 
 nominum quae scriptorum vitio confusa sunt.” 
 “Ita in Graec. et Lat. Codd. hic nominum 
 liber vitiosus est, ut non tam Hebraea quam 
 barbara quaedam et Sarmatica nomina conjecta 
 arbitrandum sit.” “Saepe tria nomina, sub- 
 tractis @ medio syllabis, in unum vocabulum 
 cogunt, vel .. . unum nomen... in duo vel 
 tria vocabula dividunt ” (Pracfat. in Paraleip.). 
 In like manner the lists of high-priests in 
 Josephus are so corrupt, that the names are 
 scarcely recognisable. This must be borne in 
 mind in dealing with the genealogies. See 
 Schiirer, Gesch. αἰ. Jiid. Volkes*, ii. 166 sq. 
 
 The Bible genealogies give an unbroken de- 
 scent of the house of David from the Creation to 
 the time of Christ. The registers at Jerusalem 
 must have supplied the same to the priestly and 
 many other families. They also inform us of 
 the origin of most of the nations of the earth, 
 and carry the genealogy of the Edomitish sove- 
 reigns down to about the time of Saul. Viewed 
 as a whole, it is a genealogical collection of 
 surpassing interest and accuracy. Cp. Rawlin- 
 son’s Herodot. i. ch. 2; Burrington’s Geneal. Tab. ; 
 Selden’s Works, passim ; Benj. of Tudela’s Itin., 
 by A. Asher. [A. ΟΣ ἘΠῚ 
 
 GENEALOGY or JESUS CHRIST. The 
 New Testament gives us the genealogy of but 
 one person, that of our Saviour. The priesthood 
 of Aaron having ceased, the possession of the 
 land of Canaan being transferred to the Gentiles, 
 and there being under the N. Τὶ dispensation no 
 difference between circumcision and uncircum- 
 cision, Barbarian and Scythian, bond and free, 
 there is but One Whose genealogy it concerns us 
 as Christians to be acquainted with, that of our 
 Lord Jesus Christ. Him the prophets announced 
 as the seed of Abraham and the son of David, 
 and the Angel declared that to Him should be 
 given the throne of His father David, that He 
 might reign over the house of Jacob for ever. 
 His descent from David and Abraham being 
 therefore an essential part of His Messiahship, 
 it was right that His genealogy should be given 
 as a portion of Gospel truth. Considering, 
 further, that to the Jews first He was manifested 
 
 GENEALOGY OF CHRIST 1145 
 
 and Abraham was a matter of special interest 
 to them, it seems likely that the proof of His 
 descent would be one especially adapted to con- 
 vince them; in other words, that it would be 
 drawn from documents which they deemed 
 authentic. Such were the genealogical records 
 preserved at Jerusalem. [GenEALoGy,] And 
 when to the above considerations we add the 
 fact that the lineage of Joseph was actually 
 made out from authentic records for the purpose 
 of the civil census ordered by Augustus, it 
 becomes morally certain that the genealogy of 
 Jesus Christ was extracted from the public 
 registers. Another consideration adds yet fur- 
 ther conviction. It has often excited surprise 
 that the genealogies of Christ should both give 
 the descent of Joseph, and not of Mary. But if 
 these genealogies were those contained in the 
 public registers, it could not be otherwise. In 
 them Jesus, the son of Mary, the espoused wife 
 of Joseph, could only appear as Joseph’s son 
 (cp. John i. 45). In transferring them to the 
 pages of the Gospels, the Evangelists only added 
 the qualifying expression “as was supposed” 
 (Luke iii, 25, and its equivalent, Matt. i. 16). 
 But now to approach the difficulties with 
 which the genealogies of Christ are thought to 
 be beset. ‘These difficulties have seemed so con- 
 siderable in all ages as to drive commentators 
 to very strange shifts. Some, as early as the 
 second century, broached the notion, which 
 Julius Africanus vigorously repudiates, that the 
 genealogies are imaginary lists designed only to 
 set forth the union of royal and priestly descent 
 in Christ. Others on the contrary, to silence 
 this and similar solutions, brought in a Deus ex 
 machind, in the shape of a tradition derived 
 from the Desposyni, in which by an ingenious 
 application of the law of Levirate to two uterine 
 brothers, whose mother had married first into 
 the house of Solomon, and afterwards into the 
 house of Nathan, some of the discrepancies were 
 reconciled, though the meeting of the two 
 genealogies in Zerubbabel and Salathiel is wholly 
 unaccounted for. Later, and chiefly among Pro- 
 testant divines, the theory was invented of one 
 genealogy being Joseph’s, and the other Mary’s; 
 a theory in direct contradiction to the plain 
 letter of the Scripture narrative, and leaving 
 untouched as many difficulties as it solves. The 
 fertile invention of Annius of Viterbo forged a 
 book in Philo’s name, which accounted for the 
 discrepancies by asserting that all Christ’s an- 
 cestors, from David downwards, had two names. 
 The circumstance, however, of one line running 
 up to Solomon, and the other to Nathan, was 
 overlooked. Other fanciful suggestions have 
 been offered; while infidels, from Porphyry 
 downwards, have seen in what they call the con- 
 tradiction of St. Matthew and St. Luke a proof of 
 the spuriousness of the Gospels; and critics like 
 Professor Norton, a proof of such portions of 
 Scripture being interpolated. Others, like Al- 
 ford, content themselves with saying that solu- 
 tion is impossible, without further knowledge 
 than we possess. But it is not too much to say 
 that after all, in regard to the main points, there 
 is no difficulty at all, if only the documents in 
 question are dealt with reasonably, and after the 
 analogy of similar Jewish documents in the O. T. 
 —and that the clues to a right understanding 
 
 and preached, and that His descent from David! of them are so patent, and so strongly marked, 
 
1140 GENEALOGY OF.CHRIST 
 
 that it is surprising that so much diversity of 
 opinion should have existed. The following pro- 
 positions will explain the true construction of 
 these genealogies :-— 
 
 1. They are both the genealogies of Joseph, 
 i.e. of Jesus Christ, as the reputed and legal son 
 of Joseph and Mary. One has only to read them 
 to be satisfied of this. The notices of Joseph 
 as being of the house of David, by the same 
 Evangelists who give the pedigree, are an addi- 
 tional confirmation (Matt. i. 20; Luke i. 27, ii. 
 4, &.); and if these pedigrees were extracted 
 from the public archives, they must have been 
 Joseph’s. 
 
 2. The genealogy of St. Matthew is, as Grotius 
 most truly and unhesitatingly asserted, Joseph’s 
 genealogy as legal successor to the throne of 
 David, i.e. it exhibits the successive heirs of the 
 kingdom ending with Christ, as Joseph’s reputed 
 son. St. Luke’s is Joseph’s private genealogy, 
 exhibiting his real birth, as David’s son, and 
 thus showing why he was heir to Solomon’s 
 crown. This is capable of being almost demon- 
 strated. If St. Matthew’s genealogy had stood 
 alone, and we had no further information on this 
 subject than it affords, we might indeed have 
 shought that it was a genealogical stem in the 
 strictest sense of the word, exhibiting Joseph’s 
 forefathers in succession, from David downwards. 
 But immediately we find a second genealogy of 
 Joseph—that in St. Luke’s Gospel—such is no 
 longer a reasonable opinion. Because if St. Mat- 
 thew’s genealogy, tracing as it does the succes- 
 sive generations through the long line of Jewish 
 kings, had been Joseph’s real paternal stem, 
 there could not possibly have been room for a 
 second genealogy. The steps of ancestry coin- 
 ciding with the steps of succession, one pedigree 
 only could in the nature of things be proper. 
 The mere existence therefore of a second pedi- 
 gree, tracing Joseph’s ancestry through private 
 persons, by the side of one tracing it through 
 kings, is in itself a proof that the latter is not 
 the true stem of birth. When, with this clue, 
 Wwe examine St. Matthew’s list, to discover 
 whether it contains in itself any evidence as 
 to when the lineal descent was broken, we fix at 
 once upon Jechonias, who could not, we know, 
 be literally the father of Salathiel, because the 
 word of God by the mouth of Jeremiah had pro- 
 nounced him childless. It had also declared that 
 none of his seed should sit upon the throne of 
 David, or rule in Judah (Jer. xxii. 30). The 
 same thing had been declared concerning his 
 father Jehoiakim in Jer. xxxvi. 30. Jechonias 
 therefore could not be the father of Salathiel, 
 nor could Christ spring either from him or his 
 father. Here then we have the most striking 
 confirmation of the justice of the inference 
 drawn from finding a second genealogy, viz. that 
 St. Matthew gives the succession, not the strict 
 birth; and we conclude that the names after 
 the childless Jechonias are those of his next 
 heirs, as also in 1 Ch. iii. 17. One more look at 
 the two genealogies convinces us that this con- 
 clusion is just; for we find that the two next 
 names following Jechonias, Salathiel and Zoro- 
 babel, are actually taken from the other genea- 
 logy, which teaches us that Salathiel’s real 
 father was Neri, of the house of Nathan. It 
 becomes therefore perfectly certain, that Sala- 
 thiel of the house of Nathan became heir to 
 
 GENEALOGY OF CHRIST 
 
 David’s throne on the failure of Solomon’s line 
 in Jechonias, and that as such he and his de- 
 scendants were transferred as ‘‘sons of Jeconiah” 
 to the royal genealogical table, according to the 
 principle of the Jewish Law laid down in Num. 
 xxvii. 8-11. The two genealogies then coincide 
 for two, or rather for four generations, as will 
 be shown below. There then occur six names in 
 St. Matthew which are not found in St. Luke; 
 and then once more the two genealogies coincide 
 in the name of Matthan or Matthat (Matt. i. 15; 
 Luke iii. 24), to whom two different sons, Jacob 
 and Heli, are assigned, but one and the same 
 grandson and heir, Joseph the husband of Mary, 
 and the reputed father of Jesus, Who is called 
 Christ. The simple and obvious explanation of 
 this is. on the same principle as before, that 
 Joseph was descended from Joseph, a younger 
 son of Abiud (the Juda of Luke iii. 26), but 
 that, on the failure of the line of Abiud’s eldest 
 son in Eleazar, Joseph’s grandfather Matthan 
 became the heir; that Matthan had two sons, 
 Jacob and Heli; that Jacob had no son, and con- 
 sequently that Joseph, the son of his younger 
 brother Heli, became heir to his uncle, and to 
 the throne of David. Thus the simple principle 
 that one Evangelist exhibits that genealogy 
 which contained the successive heirs to David’s 
 and Solomon’s throne, while the other exhibits 
 the paternal stem of him who was the heir, 
 explains all the anomalies of the two pedigrees, 
 their agreements as well as their discrepancies, 
 and the circumstance of there being two at all. 
 It must be added that not only does this theory 
 explain all the phenomena, but that that portion 
 of it which asserts that Luke gives Joseph's 
 paternal stem receives a most remarkable con- 
 firmation from the names which compose that 
 stem. For if we begin with Nathan, we find 
 that his son, Mattatha, and four others, of whom 
 the last was grandfather to Joseph, had names 
 which are merely modifications of Nathan 
 (Matthat twice, and Mattathias twice); or if 
 we begin with Joseph, we shall find no less than 
 three of his name between him and Nathan: an 
 evidence, of the most convincing kind, that 
 Joseph was lineally descended from Nathan in 
 the way St. Luke represents him to be (ep. Zech. 
 xii. 12). 
 
 3. Mary, the mother of Jesus, was in all pro- 
 bability the daughter of Jacob,.and first cousin 
 to Joseph her husband.* So that in point of 
 fact, though not of form, both the genealogies 
 are as much hers as her husband’s. 
 
 But besides these main difficulties, as they 
 have been thought to be, there are several others 
 which cannot be passed over in any account, 
 however concise, of the genealogies of Christ. 
 The most startling is the total discrepancy 
 between them both and that of Zerubbabel in 
 the O. T. (1 Ch. iii. 19-24). In this last, of 
 seven sons of Zerubbabel not one bears the 
 name, or anything like the name, of Rhesa or 
 Abiud. And of the next generation not one bears 
 the name, or anything like the name, of Eliakim 
 or Joanna, which are in the corresponding genera- 
 tion in St. Matthew and St. Luke. Nor can any 
 subsequent generations be identified. But this 
 
 a Hippolytus of Thebes, in the 10th century, asserted 
 that Mary was granddaughter of Matthan, but by her 
 mother (Patritius, Dissert. ix. &c., De Gen. Jes. Christi). 
 
GENEALOGY OF CHRIST 
 
 difference will be entirely got rid of, and a re- 
 markable harmony established 1n its place, if we 
 suppose Rhesa, who is named in St. Luke’s 
 Gospel as Zerubbabel’s son, to have slipped into 
 the text from the margin. esa is in fact not 
 aname at all, but it is the Chaldee title of the 
 princes of the Captivity, who at the end of the 
 second, and through the third century after 
 Christ, rose to great eminence in the East, 
 assumed the state of sovereigns, and were con- 
 sidered to be of the house of David (see pre- 
 ceding article, p. 1143). These princes then 
 were exactly what Zerubbabel was in his day. 
 
 ~ It is very probable therefore that this title, 
 
 1 
 7 
 
 NW, réshd, should have been placed against 
 the name of Zerubbabel by some early Christian 
 Jew, and thence crept into the text. If this be 
 so, St. Luke will then give Joanna, Ἰωαννᾶς, as 
 the son of Zerubbabel. But Ἰωαννᾶς is the very 
 same name as J/ananiah, m3, the son or 
 Zerubbabel according to 1 Ch. iii. 19, [Hana- 
 nisu.] In St. Matthew this generation is 
 omitted. In the next generation we identify 
 Matthew’s Ab-jud (Abiud), TITAN, with Luke’s 
 Juda, in the Hebrew of that day “ΠῚ (Jud), 
 and both with Hodaiah, 17°) 71, of 1 Ch. iii. 24 
 (a name which is actually interchanged with 
 Juda, THM, Ezra iii. 9; Neh. xi. 9, compared 
 with Ezra ii. 40; 1 Ch. ix. 7), by the simple 
 process of supposing the Shemaiah, ΠΝ, of 
 1 Ch. iii. 22 to be the same person as the 
 Shimei, ‘VID, of v. 19: thus at the same 
 time cutting off all those redundant generations 
 which bring this genealogy in 1 Ch. iii. down 
 some 200 years later than any other in the 
 Book, and long after the close of the Canon. 
 
 The next difficulty is the difference in the 
 number of generations between the two gene- 
 alogies. St. Matthew’s division into three 
 fourteens gives only 42, while St. Luke, from 
 Abraham to Christ inclusive, reckons 563 or, 
 which is more to the point (since the genera- 
 tions between Abraham and David are the same 
 in both genealogies), while St. Matthew reckons 
 28 from David to Christ, St. Luke reckons 43, 
 or 42 without Rhesa. But the genealogy itself 
 supplies the explanation. In the second tessaro- 
 decade, including the kings, we know that 
 three generations are omitted—Ahaziah, Joash, 
 Amaziah—in order to reduce the generations 
 from 17 to 14: the difference between these 
 17 and the 19 of St. Luke being very small. 
 So in like manner it is obvious that the genera- 
 tions have been abridged in the same way in 
 the third division to keep to the number 14. 
 The true number would be one much nearer 
 St. Luke’s 23 (22 without Rhesa), implying the 
 omission of about seven generations in this last 
 division. Dr. Mill has shown that it was a 
 common practice with the Jews to distribute 
 genealogies into divisions, each containing some 
 favourite or mystical number, and that, in order 
 to do this, generations were either repeated or 
 left out. Thus in Philo the generations from 
 Adam to Moses are divided into two decads and 
 one hebdomad, by the repetition of Abraham. 
 But in a Samaritan poem the very same series is 
 divided into two decads only, by the omission of 
 six of the least important names (J%ndication, 
 pp. 110-118). 
 
 GENEALOGY OF CHRIST 1147 
 
 Another difficulty is the apparent deficiency 
 in the number of the Jast tessarodecad, which 
 seems to contain only 13 names. But the 
 explanation of this is, that either in the process 
 of translation, or otherwise, the names of 
 Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin have got confused and 
 expressed by the one name Jechonias. For that 
 Jechonias, in τ. 11, means Jehoiakim, while in 
 v. 12 it means Jehoiachin, is quite certain, as 
 Jerome saw long ago. Jehoiachin had no 
 brothers, but Jehoiakim had three brothers, of 
 whom two at least sat upon the throne, if not 
 three,” and were therefore named in the gene- 
 alogy. The two names are very commonly 
 considered as the same, both by Greek and 
 Latin writers, e.g. Clemens Alex., Ambrose, 
 Africanus, Epiphanius, as well as the author οὗ 
 1 Esd. (i. 37, 43), and others. Ivenaeus also 
 distinctly asserts that Joseph’s genealogy, as. 
 given by St. Matthew, expresses both Joiakim 
 and Jechonias. It seems that his identity of 
 name has led to some corruption in the text 
 of very early date, and that the clause Ἰεχονίας 
 δὲ ἐγέννησε τὸν ᾿Ιεχονίαν has fallen out between 
 αὐτοῦ and ἐπὶ τῆς μετ. BaB.,in v.11. The Cod. 
 Vat. (B.) contains the clause only after Βαβυ- 
 A@vos in v, 12, where it seems less proper (see 
 Alford’s G. 7. ; and Westcott and Hort in loco). 
 
 The last difficulty of sufficient importance to- 
 be mentioned here is a chronological one. In 
 both the genealogies there are but three names 
 between Salmon and David—Boaz, Obed, Jesse- 
 But, according to the common chronology, from 
 the entrance into Canaan (when Salmon was 
 come to man’s estate) to the birth of David was 
 405 years, or from that to 500 years and up- 
 wards. Now for about an equal period, from 
 Solomon to Jehoiachin, St. Luke’s genealogy 
 contains 20 names. Obviously therefore either 
 the chronology or the genealogy is wrong. But 
 it cannot be the genealogy (which is repeated 
 four times over without any variation), because 
 it is supported by eight other genealogies,° which 
 all contain about the same number of genera- 
 tions from the Patriarchs to David as David’s 
 own line “does: except that, as was to be ex- 
 pected from Judah, Boaz, and Jesse being all 
 advanced in years at the time of the birth of 
 their sons, David’s line is one of the shortest. 
 The number of generations in the genealogies 
 referred to is 14 in five, 15 in two, and 11 in 
 one, to correspond with the 11 in David’s line. 
 There are other genealogies where the series is 
 not complete, but not one which contains more 
 generations. It is the province therefore of 
 Chronology to square its calculations to the 
 genealogies. It must suffice here to assert that 
 the shortening the interval between the Exodus 
 and David by about 200 years, which brings it 
 to the length indicated by the genealogies, does. 
 in the most remarkable manner bring Israelitish 
 history into harmony with Egyptian, with the 
 traditional Jewish date of the Exodus, with 
 the fragment of Edomitish history preserved in 
 Gen. xxxvi. 31-39, and with the internal 
 evidence of the Israelitish history itself. The 
 
 Ὁ See Jer. xxii. 11. 
 
 ¢ Those of Zadok, Heman, Ahimoth, Asaph, Ethan, 
 in 1 Ch. vi.; that of Abiathar, made up from different 
 notices of his ancestors in 1 Sam.; that of Saul. from 
 1 Ch. viii, ix., and 1 Sam. ix.; and that of Zabad in 
 1 Ch. ii. 
 
1148 GENEALOGY OF CHRIST 
 
 following pedigree will exhibit the successive 
 generations as given by the two Evangelists :— 
 
 According Adam | 
 to Lamech 
 tL. Luke. Seth | 
 Noah 
 _ Enos | 
 Shem 
 Cainan 
 | Arphaxad 
 Maleleel 
 Cainan 
 Jared 
 fala 
 Enoch 
 | Heber 
 Mathusala | 
 Pharez 
 Phalec (Peleg) 
 Ezrom 
 Tagau (Reu) 
 Aram (Ram) 
 Saruch (Serug) 
 Aminadab 
 Nachor 
 | Naasson 
 Thara (Terah) 
 Salmon=Rachab 
 A-cording Abraham | 
 to Matt. Booz=Ruth 
 and Luke. Isaac 
 Obed 
 Jacob 
 | Jesse 
 Judah | 
 | David=Bathsheba 
 { 
 | 
 According Solomon According Nathan 
 do Matt, | to Luke. 
 Roboam Mattatha 
 Abia Menan 
 ma Melea 
 J ae at Eliakim 
 | | 
 Joram (Ahaziah, Jonan 
 Joash, Amazinh) 
 Joseph 
 Ozias 
 Juda 
 Joatham 
 Simeon 
 Achaz | 
 Levi 
 Ezekias | 
 | Matthat 
 Manasses | 
 Jorim 
 Amon | 
 Eliezer 
 Josias | 
 Jose 
 Jechonias (i.>. Je- | 
 hoiakim) and _ his Er 
 brothers (i.e. Je- | 
 hoahaz, Zedekiah, Elmodam 
 and Shallum) 
 | Cosam 
 Jechonias (te. Je- | 
 hoiachin), child- Addi 
 less | 
 sai ks 
 Neri 
 
 (Matt. and Luke.) | 
 
 | l 
 Bis heir was . . Salathiel 
 
 Zorobabel (the Princa or Rhesa) 
 
 ! 
 Joanna (Hananiah, in 1 Ch. iii. 19, 
 omitted by Matthew i. 13) 
 
 | 
 J μῶν or Ab-iud (Hodaiah, 1 Ch. iii, 24) 
 
 | Ι 
 Eliakim Joseph 
 
 Hatt, Luke. 
 
 Azor Semei 
 Sadoe Mattathias 
 ‘auch Malth 
 Eula N nine 
 τις gui 
 
 mana 
 Amos 
 Mattathias 
 Joseph 
 sane 
 
 GENERATION 
 
 Melchi 
 L-vi 
 (Matt. and Luke.) | 
 πε... 
 Matt. Tis heir was Matthan or Matthat Luke 
 I ΠῚ 
 Jacob Heli 
 Ι (Matt. and Luke.) | 
 
 Ι \ 
 Mary = Jacob’s heir was Joseph 
 
 | 
 Jesus, called Christ. 
 
 Thus it will be seen that the whole number 
 of generations from Adam to Christ, both in- 
 clusive, is 74, without the second Cainan and 
 Rhesa. Including these two, and adding the 
 name of Gop, Augustine reckoned 77, and 
 thought the number typical of the forgiveness 
 of all sins in Baptism by Him Who was thus 
 born in the 77th generation, alluding to Matt. 
 xviii. 225; with many other wonderful specu- 
 lations on the hidden meaning of the numbers 
 3, 4, 7, 10, 11, and their additions and multi- 
 plications (Quaest. Evang. lib. 11). Irenaeus, 
 who probably, like Africanus and Eusebius, 
 omitted Matthat and Levi, reckoned 72 gene- 
 rations, which he connected with the 72 nations 
 into which, according to Gen. x. (LXX.), man- 
 kind was divided, and so other Fathers likewise. 
 
 For an account of the different explanations 
 that have been given, both by ancient and 
 modern commentators, the reader may refer to 
 the elaborate Dissertation of Patritius in his 
 2nd vol. De Evangeliis; who, however, does not 
 contribute much to elucidate the difficulties of 
 the case. The opinions advanced in the fore- 
 going article are fully discussed in the writer’s 
 work on the Genealogies of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ ; and much valuable matter will be found 
 in Dr. Mill’s Vindication of the Geneal., and in 
 Grotius’ note on Luke iii. 23. Other treatises 
 are, Gomarus, De Geneal. Christi; Hottinge., 
 Dissert. duae de Geneal. Christi; G. G. Voss, 
 De J. Chr. Geneal.; Yardley, On the Geneal. of 
 J. Chr., ὅτο, [A. C. H.] 
 
 GENERATION. 1. Abst-act:—time, either 
 definite or indefinite. The primary meaning of 
 the Heb. 1) is revolution; hence period of 
 time: cp. περίοδος, ἐνιαντος, and annus. From 
 the general idea of a period comes the more 
 special notion of an age or generation of men, 
 the ordinary period of human life. In this 
 point of view the history of the word seems to 
 be directly contrasted with that of the Latin 
 sacculum ; which, starting with the idea of breed 
 or race, acquired the secondary signification of 
 a definite period of time (Censorin. de Die Nat. 
 ce. 17). 
 
 In the long-lived Patriarchal age a generation 
 seems to have been computed at 100 years (Gen. 
 xv. 16; cp. v.13 and Ex. xii. 40: see Delitzsch 
 [1887] and Knobel’s note in Dillmann® on Gen. 
 i. ¢.); the later reckoning, however, was the 
 same which has heen adopted by other civilised 
 nations, viz. from thirty to forty years (Job 
 xlii. 16). For generation in the sense of a 
 definite period of time, see Gen. xv. 16; Deut. 
 xxiii. 3, 4, 8, &. 
 
 As an indefinite period of time:—for time 
 past, see Deut. xxxii. 7, Is. lviii. 12; for time 
 future, see Ps. xlv. 17, Ixxii. 5, ὅζο. 
 
 2. Concrete :—the men of an age, or time. 
 generation contemporaries (Gen. vi. 9; 
 
 ae 
 
 | so 
 
GENESARETIL 
 
 15. lili. 8; see Lowth ad loc. ; Ges. Lex. ; better 
 than “aeterna generatio,” or “ multitudo credi- 
 tura.” Cp. the commentaries of Delitzsch* and 
 Dillmann®) ; posterity, especially in legal for- 
 mulae (Ley. iii. 17, &c.) 5 fathers, or ancestors 
 (Ps. xlix. 19; Rosenm. Schol. ad loc., and 
 modern comm,; cp. 2 Ch, xxxiv. 28).  Drop- 
 ping the idea of time, generation comes to mean 
 a race, or class of men: e.g. of the righteous 
 (Ps. xiv. 5, &c.); of the wicked (Deut. xxxii. 5 ; 
 Jer. vii. 29, where “generation of his wrath ” 
 = against which God is angry). 
 
 In A. V. of N, Test. three words are rendered 
 ~ by generation :— 
 γένεσις, γεννήματα, γενεά. 
 γένεσις, properly generatio; but in Matt. i. 1 
 
 βίβλος γενέσεως = niin BD =a genealogical 
 scheme, έ 
 
 γεννήματα, pl. of γέννημα, Matt. iii. 7, &e., 
 A. V. generation; more properly brood, as the 
 result of generation in its primary sense. 
 
 γενεὰ in most of its uses corresponds with the 
 Heb. 7). 
 
 For the abstract and indefinite, see Luke i. 50, 
 
 Eph. iii, 21 (A. V. “ages,” R. V. “ generations” : 
 
 [see R. V. marg.]), future: Acts xv. 21 (A. V. 
 “of old time,” R. V. “from generations of 
 old”), Eph. iii. 5 (A. V. “ages,” R. V. “ genera- 
 tions ”), past. 
 
 For concrete, see Matt. xi. 16. 
 
 For generation without reference to time, see 
 Luke xvi. 8, “in their generation,” 1.6. in their 
 disposition, “indoles, ingenium, et ratio homi- 
 num,” Schleusner; Trench, “in worldly things ” 
 (Notes on the Parables, in loco); Speaker’s Comm. 
 ‘in relation to their kindred”; Nisgen, “ their 
 contemporaries ” (Strack τι. Zéckler’s Agf. Komm. 
 in loco). Matt. i. 17, “all the generations; ” 
 either concrete use, sc. ‘*familiae sibi invicem 
 succedentes ;” or abstract and definite, according 
 to the view which may be taken of the difficulties 
 connected with the genealogies of our Lord. 
 (GENEALOGY. | Eis Ee Bale pes 
 
 GENES’ARETH. In this form the name 
 appears in the edition of the A. V. of 1611, in 
 Mark vi. 53 and Luke ν. 1, following the spell- 
 ing of the Vulgate. In Matt. xiv. 34, where 
 the Vulg. has Genesar, the A. V. originally 
 followed the Received Greek Text—Genesaret. 
 The oldest MSS. have, however, Tevynoapér in 
 each of the three places. [GENNESARET. ] 
 
 GENESIS (Γένεσις, from the LXX. rendering 
 of ii. 4a, αὕτη ἣ βίβλος γενέσεως οὐρανοῦ καὶ 
 γῆς : called by the Jews, like the other Books 
 of the Pentateuch, from its first word, NWN 12> 
 Béréshith), the first Book in the great historical 
 series, Gen,—2 Kings, or, more immediately, in 
 the Hexateuch (Gen.—Josh.). 
 
 § 1. The general aim of the Hexateuch is to 
 describe in their origin the fundamental institu- 
 tions of the Theocracy (the civil and ceremonial 
 law), and to tvace from the earliest past the 
 course of events which issued ultimately in the 
 establishment of Israel in Canaan. The Book of 
 Genesis comprises the introductory period of 
 this history, embracing the lives of the ancestors 
 of the Hebrew nation, and ending with the 
 death of Joseph in Egypt,—the close of the 
 term .of migration and the beginning of the 
 
 GENESIS 1149 
 
 period during which the clan that accompanied 
 Jacob into Egypt grows insensibly into a nation, 
 It recounts the fortunes of the Patriarchs as 
 they were handed down by tradition; it repre- 
 sents them as patterns, in that remote age, of a 
 higher faith among mankind, and as providen- 
 tially commissioned to be the founders of a 
 community inspired by the principles of a true 
 religion, and destined ultimately to become the 
 eradle of a faith that should embrace the world. 
 It shows us ABRAHAM, privileged to be the 
 “Friend of God,” migrating from the distant 
 east, and entering Canaan as his adopted home, 
 treated by the native princes with honour and 
 respect, and receiving from God promises of an 
 august future for his descendants. It shows us 
 IsAAc, living a quieter, less eventful life, but other- 
 wise re-enacting the experiences of his father. It 
 describes next the chequered career of JAcon ; 
 the ruse by which he wrests the supremacy 
 from Esau; his strange contest with Laban; 
 his return, an altered man, after the wrestling 
 at Peniel; the reunion, so little expected, with 
 his sons in Egypt. We trace the hand of Provi- 
 dence in the vicissitudes which befel JosErn ; 
 and the circumstances are related which made 
 Egypt for a while the home of the ancestors of 
 Israel. In the course of the narrative many 
 points interesting to a later age are incidentally 
 noticed and explained: for example, local an- 
 tiquities (¢.g. xvi. 14; xix. 22; xxi. 315 xxiii; 
 XXvi. 333; xxviii. 19; xxxi. 47; xxxvi. 24, &c.), 
 current proverbs or customs (x. 9; xvii.; xxii, 
 14; xxviii. 22; xxxii. 32 [Heb. 33]; xlvii. 26), the 
 contrasted character or condition of neighbouring 
 nations (ix. 25-7; xvi. 12; xvii. 20sq.3 xix. 
 37 sq. 5 xxv. 23 sqq. ; xxvii. 27-9, 39, 40; xlviii. 
 19). And in ch. xlix. the political character, 
 or geographical position, of the tribes of Israel 
 is prefigured in their father’s blessing. 
 
 § 2. To recount, however, the ancestry of 
 Israel alone would leave an unsatisfactory blank 
 in the picture ; the place occupied by it among 
 other nations must also be defined. Accordingly 
 the line of its ancestors is traced back beyond 
 Abraham to the first appearance of man upon 
 earth ; and by means οἵ a genealogical scheme, 
 developed sometimes with surprising minuteness, 
 the degree of affinity uniting the principal nations 
 known tothe Hebrews, tooneanother, and to Israel 
 isindicated. Thus to the History of the Patriarchs 
 in particular, chs. xii.—l., is prefixed, chs. i—xi., a 
 general view of the Early History of Mankind, 
 from the Creation inclusive, explaining the 
 presence of evil in the world (ch. iii.), sketching 
 the beginnings of civilization (ch. iv.), accounting 
 for the existence of separate nations (ch. x., xi. 
 1-9), and determining the position occupied by 
 the Hebrews among them (x 1, 21, 22; xi. 
 10-26). 
 
 § 3. The framework into which the whole is 
 cast is marked by the recurring formula These 
 are the generations (lit. begettings) of .. . . The 
 phrase is strictly one proper to genealogies, 
 implying that the person to whose name it is pre- 
 fixed is of sufficient importance to mark a break 
 in the genealogical series, and that he and his 
 descendants will form the subject of the record 
 which follows, until another name is reached 
 prominent enough to form the commencement 
 of a new section. By this means the Book of 
 Genesis is articulated as follows :-- 
 
1180 _ GENESIS 
 
 Chs. i-iv.* (Creation; Fall of man; Progress of 
 
 invention in the line of Cain to Lamech). 
 
 »  vY. 1>-vi, 8 (Adam and his descendants, through 
 Seth, to Noah). 
 
 . Vi. 9-ix. 29 (History of Noah, and of his sons, 
 till their father’s death). 
 
 Ὁ. xX. 1-xi. 9 (Sons of Noah, and nations sprung 
 from them). 
 
 + Xi. 10-26 (Line of Shem to Terah). 
 
 o> xi. 27-xxv. 11 (Terah and his descendants, 
 Abram and Lot). 
 
 >> Χχν. 12-18 (Ishmael and Arab tribes claiming 
 descent from him). 
 
 9» XXv. 19-xxxy. 29 (Life of Isaac, with history 
 of his sons till Isaac’s death). 
 
 >> XxXxvi. 1-43 (Esau and his descendants, with a 
 digression, vv. 20-30, on the aboriginal in- 
 habitants of Edom). 
 
 3 Xxxvii. (see v. 2)-1. (Life of Jacob subsequent 
 to Isaac’s death, and history of his sons to 
 death of Joseph).¢ 
 
 To this scheme the narrative of Genesis is 
 accommodated. The attention of the reader is 
 fixed upon Israel, which is gradually disengaged 
 from the nations with which it is at first confused: 
 at each stage in the history, a brief general 
 account of the collateral branches having been 
 given, they are dismissed, and the narrative is 
 limited more and more to the immediate line of 
 Israel’s ancestors. Thus after ch. x. all the 
 descendants of Noah disappear, except the line 
 of Shem (xi. 10sqq.): after xxv. 18 Ishmael 
 disappears, and Isaac only remains: similarly 
 after ch. xxxvi. Jacob alone is left. The same 
 method is adopted in the intermediate parts : thus 
 xix. 30-38 the relation to Israel of the collateral 
 branches of Moab and Ammon is explained: 
 xxii. 20-24 (family of Abraham’s brother 
 Nahor), xxv. 1-4 (children of Keturah), those 
 of other kindred tribes. 
 
 A similar plan governs the promises and 
 blessings given to, or by, the Patriarchs: they 
 become gradually more definite, and their scope 
 is progressively narrowed. Addressed first in 
 general terms to Adam, they are repeated to 
 Noah, then limited to Shem among his de- 
 scendants, afterwards brought down to Jacob, 
 till finally among his sons the promise of royalty 
 is bestowed upon Judah alone. They may be 
 grouped in two series, which, however, whether 
 taken separately or together, exhibit in this re- 
 spect the same principle. Thus (a) i. 28-30; 
 ix. 1-7; xvii. 6-8; xxviii. 3 sq.3 xxxv. 11 sq. 
 (quoted, xlviii. 3): (0) iii. 155 ix. 26; xii. 1-3 
 (Abraham: also xiii. 14-17; xv. 5, 13-16; xviii. 
 18; xxii. 15-18); xxvi. 2-5, 24 (Isaac); xxvii. 
 27-29; xxviii. 13-15 (Jacob); xlix. 10 (Judah). 
 
 The unity of plan thus established (and 
 traceable in numerous other details) has been 
 long recognised by critics: the hypothesis that 
 
 * The formula is here applied metaphorically to 
 “‘heaven and earth,” and stands at ii. 4a. Elsewhere 
 it always relates to what follows: inasmuch as in this 
 place it can scarcely refer to ii. 4 b sqq. (for this narrative 
 is silent as to the heavens), it must refer exceptionally 
 to what precedes. Perhaps, as some critics have con- 
 jectured, it originally stood as the superscription to i. 1, 
 and owes its present position to the compiler of the 
 Book of Genesis. 
 
 b The formula here is slightly different: ** This is 
 the book (07 roll) of the generations,” &c. 
 
 ¢ The formula occurs next in Num. iii. 1 (of Aaron 
 and Moses): sce also Ruth iy. 18; 1 Ch, i. 29 (all). 
 
 GENESIS 
 
 the Book of Genesis is a collection of “ frag= 
 ments” belongs to the infancy of criticism. 
 
 ὃ 4. Unity of plan, however, is not synony- 
 mous with unity of structure. The Book of 
 Genesis shows clear marks of the one, but not of 
 the other. Like the rest of the Pentateuch, and 
 indeed like the historical Books generally, it is 
 composed of distinct documents or sources, 
 which a later editor or redactor has welded 
 together into a continuous whole, subordinating 
 them to the aim with which he wrote, but 
 leaving them in the main with their distinctive 
 literary and other characteristics unchanged. 
 Although (for reasons which will appear) there 
 are points which remain, and probably will 
 continue to remain, uncertain, the fundamental 
 distinctions between these documents or sources 
 have been ascertained by critics, and the general 
 limits of each determined, with sufficient clear- 
 ness to enable us to picture, at least approxi- 
 mately, the process by which the Pentateuch 
 assumed its present shape. The question of the 
 relative date of its several component parts is 
 discussed in the art. PENTATEUCH: we shall 
 confine ourselves here to an indication of the 
 general grounds upon which—in the Book of 
 Genesis in particular—the distinction of sources 
 is inferred, and an exposition of the structure of 
 the Book as analysed by the best. and most 
 recent critics. 
 
 § 5. When the Pentateuch is read attentively, 
 two facts amongst others attract the reader’s 
 notice: (1) the same event is doubly recorded ; 
 (2) the style and languagein different sections 
 vary. In Genesis we have thus a double 
 narrative of the origin of man upon earth, i. 1— 
 ii. 4a, and ii. 4 b-25. It is true, ii. 4 Ὁ sqq. might 
 apparently be regarded as merely a more de- 
 tailed account of what is described succinctly 
 in i, 26-30; but a more attentive examination 
 reveals differences which preclude the suppo- 
 sition that both sections are the work of the 
 same hand. It is clear that in ch. ii. the order 
 of creation is 1. man (v. 7), 2. vegetation (v. 9; 
 cp. v. 5), 3. animals (v. 19),74. woman (υ. 21 sq.). 
 The separation made between the creation of 
 woman and man is, indeed, fairly explicable 
 upon the hypothesis that ii. 4 b sqq. describes in 
 detail what is stated summarily in i. 27 Ὁ; but 
 the order in the other cases forms part of a 
 progression evidently intentional on the part of 
 the narrator here, and as evidently opposed to 
 the order indicated in ch. i. (vegetation, ani- 
 mals, man). Not only, however, are there 
 material differences between the two narratives : 
 they ditter also in form. The style of i. 1-ii. 4a 
 is unornate, measured, precise, and particular 
 phrases frequently recur; that of ii. 4b sqq. is 
 freer and more varied; the recurring phrases 
 are less marked, and not the same as those of 
 i. 1-ii. 4a. Ch. xix. 29, again, where it stands, 
 interrupts the narrative and repeats the substance 
 of wv. 1-25: the presumption, hence derived, 
 that it is a briefer account of the same event, 
 incorporated from another source, is confirmed 
 by the style, which resembles that of other 
 sections similarly distinguished from the narra- 
 tive in which they are embedded.? In chs. 
 
 ἃ The rendering had formed is against idiom. 
 © Observe God, Jehovah having been regularly used 
 
GENESIS 
 
 xxi. 31 and xxvi. 33 we have two explanations of 
 the origin of the name Beersheba; xxviii. 19 and 
 xxxv. 15, two of the name Bethel; xxxii. 28 and 
 xxxv. 10, two of Zsrael ; xxxii. 3 and xxxiii. 16, 
 Esau is described as already resident in Edom, 
 while in xxxvi. 6, 7 his settlement there is attri- 
 buted to causes which could only have come 
 into operation subsequently. In the narrative 
 of the Deluge vi. 9-13 is a duplicate of vi. 5-8, 
 and vii. 1-5 of vi. 18-22, the latter with the 
 difference that of every clean beast seven are to 
 be taken into the ark, while in vi. 19 two of 
 every sort indiscriminately are prescribed: there 
 are also accompanying differences of phraseology.‘ 
 Even the genealogies exhibit two distinct types 
 (below, § 10, I, note). Other sections con- 
 spicuously distinguished both by phraseology 
 and manner of treatment are ix. 1-17, xvii. 
 xxiii.: where, as in these cases, the differences 
 are at once numerous, recurrent, and systematic, 
 they may be regarded as conclusive evidence 
 that the narratives in which they occur are not 
 the work of one and the same author. 
 
 § 6. The sections homogeneous in style and 
 character with i. 1-ii. 4a recur at intervals to 
 the close of Joshua, and, when disengaged from 
 the rest of the narrative and read consecutively, 
 are found to constitute a tolerably complete 
 whole, containing a systematic account of the 
 origines of Israel, marked by definite literary 
 characteristics, prominent amongst which is the 
 use of God rather than Jehovah (till Ex. vi. 3), 
 written in the unornate style of an annalist, 
 displaying a methodical regard for chronological 
 data which entitles it to be regarded as the 
 framework of our present Hexateuch, and 
 treating with particular minuteness the regula- 
 tions for sacrifice and other ritual institutions 
 (Sabbath, circumcision, passover, tabernacle, 
 priesthood, feasts, &c.) of the ancient Hebrews. 
 From these several characteristics the source in 
 question (or its author) has been differently 
 styled the Book of Origins 5 (Ewald), the Elohist 
 (Hupfeld, Bleek, &c.), the Annalistic narrator 
 (Schrader), the “Grundschrift ” (Tuch, Néldeke), 
 the Priests’ Code (Wellhausen, Kuenen, De- 
 litzsch), Of these designations the last is in 
 strictness applicable only to the legal parts ; 
 these, however, form such a distinctive and 
 central element, that it may not unsuitably be 
 extended so as to embrace the entire source; 
 and it may be represented conveniently, for the 
 sake of brevity, by the letter P." 
 
 before (e.g. vv. 13, 14, 16, 24), and remembered (see 
 viii. 1; Ex. ii. 22): also notice the general statement that 
 Lot dwelt in “the cities of the Plain,” as in xiii. 12 (P), 
 which would fall naturally from a writer compiling a 
 summary account of the occurrences, but hardly so 
 from one who had just before named repeatedly Sodom 
 as the particular city in which Lot was dwelling. 
 
 f See the art. PenratEucH (by the present Bishop of 
 Worcester), ii. 776 (1st ed. of this Dict.) where what 
 fias been stated above is further illustrated. 
 
 & Urspriinge — Ewald’s rendering of the Heb. 
 
 Τὴ ἢ (‘generations ”): see his Hist. of Isracl, i. 
 
 pp. 74-96. 
 
 h Dillmann uses the letter A. Wellhausen uses Q 
 (so Delitzsch), on account of the four (Quatuor) cove- 
 nants described in it (with Adam, i. 28-30; Noah, ix, 
 1-17; Abraham, xvii.; Israel, Ex. vi. 2 sqq.). But the 
 first of these is pot strictly a covenant, but a blessing. 
 
 GENESIS 1151 
 
 § 7. In Genesis, as regards the limits of P, 
 there is virtually no difference of opinion amongst 
 critics. It embraces i. 1-ii. 4a (creation of 
 heaven and earth, with God’s rest upon the 
 Sabbath) ;—v. 1-28, 30-32 (line of Adam’s 
 descendants through Seth to Noah) ;—vi. 9-22; 
 vii. 6, 7-9 (in parts), 11, 13-16 a, 18-21, 24; 
 viii. 1-2 a, 3 »-ὅ, 13a, 14-19; ix. 1-17, 28, 29 
 (the Flood and the subsequent covenant with 
 Noah) ;—x. 1-7, 20, 22, 23, 31, 32 (sons of 
 Japheth, Ham, and Shem ‘) ;—xi. 10-26 (descen- 
 dants of Shem to Terah);—xi. 27, 31, 32; 
 xii. 4b-5 5 xiii. 6, 11 b-12a; xvi. 1a, 3, 15, 16 
 (history of Abram to birth of Ishmael) ;—xvii. 
 (circumcision) ; xix. 29 (destruction of the cities 
 of the Plain) ;—xxi. 1 b, 2 b-5 (birth of Isaac); 
 —xxili. (purchase of cave of Machpelah) ;— 
 xxv. 7-11 a (death of Abraham) ;—xxyv. 12-17 
 (descendants of Ishmael) ;—xxv. 19, 20, 26 b; 
 xxvi. 34, 355 xxvii. 46-xxviii. 9 (history of 
 Isaac: Esau’s wives: reason why Jacob goes to 
 Paddan-aram) ;—xxix. 24, 29; xxxi. 18 b; xxxiii. 
 18a; xxxiv." 1, 2a, 4, 6, 8-10, 13-18, 20-24, 
 25 (partly), 27-29; xxxv. 9-13, 15, 22 b-29 
 (veturn of Jacob from Paddan-aram to Shechem : 
 his sons’ refusal to sanction intermarriage with 
 the Shechemites: change of name at Bethel: 
 death of Isaac) ;—xxxvi. [in the main’] (history 
 of Esau) ;—xxxvii. 1-2a (to Jacob); xli. 46; 
 xlvi, 6-27; xlvii. 5-6 a™ 7-11, 27 b-28; xlviii. 
 3-6; xlix. la, 28b, 29-33; 1. 12, 13 (history 
 of Joseph). The passages present an outline of 
 the antecedents, and patriarchal history, of 
 Israel, in which only important occurrences— 
 such as the Creation, the Flood, the covenants 
 with Noah and Abraham—are described with 
 minuteness, but which is sufficient to form an 
 introduction to the systematic view of the 
 theocratic institutions which it was the main 
 object of the author of this source to exhibit. 
 A few omissions are apparent (6.7. that of the 
 events of Jacob’s life in Paddan-aram, presupposed 
 by xxxi. 18, and probably others); but these 
 may be naturally ascribed to the redactor, who, 
 in combining P with his other source, gave a 
 preference not unfrequently to the fuller and 
 more picturesque narrative of the latter. Only 
 very seldom does the language of P appear to 
 have been modified by the redactor: thus in xvii. 
 1, xxi. 1 b, Jehovah has been substituted for 
 Elohim; in xlvi, 8-27 also slight modifications 
 appear to have been made by him. As a rule, 
 however, the language of the narrator is un- 
 changed; and many of the peculiarities of his 
 style are apparent even in a translation. His 
 language is that of a jurist rather than a his- 
 torian: it is circumstantial, formal, and precise ; 
 a subject is developed methodically, and com- 
 pleteness of detail, even at the risk of some 
 repetition, is regularly observed: sentences cast 
 
 i Cp. below, § 10, I. 
 
 k See, however, below, § 10, III., n. 6. 
 
 1 For parts of this ch. appear to contain an element 
 foreign to P (see the commentators). 
 
 m As read in LXX., viz.: *‘ And Jacob and his sons 
 came into Egypt to Joseph, and Pharaoh king of Egypt 
 heard of it. And Pharaoh spake unto Joseph, saying, 
 Thy father and thy brethren are come unto thee: behold, 
 the land of Egypt is before thee; in the best of the land 
 make thy father and thy brethren to dwell.” Then fol- 
 lows v. 7. Cp. below, § 10, IV., ἢ. 3. 
 
1182 GENESIS 
 
 in the same type constantly recur." Particular 
 formulae are repeated with great frequency, 
 especially such as articulate the progress of the 
 narrative,? or note the orderly observance of 
 prescribed forms. The author pays consistent 
 attention to numbers, chronology, and other 
 statistical data. A love of system governs his 
 whole treatment of the history. ‘These pecu- 
 liarities become even more marked in those 
 portions of the subsequent Books of the Hexa- 
 teuch which belong to the same source. 
 
 § 8. It may be worth while here to anticipate 
 an objection that may be felt. It has been said 
 that the sections which have been designated by 
 P, when compared with other parts of the 
 narrative, betray differences of style which 
 argue a difference of authorship. As many of 
 these sections consist of brief formal notices, 
 the differences, it may be thought, could be 
 accounted for by the not unreasonable hypothesis 
 that one and the same author, having to make 
 such formal notices, adopted spontaneously a 
 similar style throughout. It is true that, did 
 the sections in question consist solely of such 
 notices, the explanation suggested would be a 
 plausible one; when, however, we find sections, 
 often of considerable length, dealing with varied 
 subject-matter, occurring not in Genesis merely, 
 but throughout the Hexateuch, and marked 
 uniformly by the same distinctive and stereo- 
 typed phraseology, it cannot be accepted as 
 adequate. It should be added, to preclude a 
 not unfrequent misconception, that the use of 
 God (till Rx. vi. 3) instead of Jehovah, is but 
 one feature in the style of P, not, in fact, more 
 conspicuous than many others, which regularly 
 accompany it.P 
 
 § 9. Is, however, what remains, after the 
 separation of P, homogeneous in structure? It 
 would appear not. Especially from ch. xx. 
 onwards, the narrative exhibits marks of com- 
 posite structure; and the component parts, 
 though not differing from one another in diction 
 or style so widely as either differs from P, and 
 being so welded together that the lines of de- 
 marcation between them cannot frequently be 
 fixed with certainty, seem nevertheless, in their 
 broader outlines, to be distinctly recognisable. 
 Thus xx. 1-17 is distinguished by the use of 
 God, while in chs. xviii—xix. (except xix. 29 P), 
 and in the similar narrative xii. 10-20, Jehovah 
 is regularly employed. The same phenomenon 
 is repeated, xxi. 6-31, xxii. 1-13, and elsewhere, 
 noticeably in xl.-xlii.,xlv. For such a variation 
 in consecutive and similar chapters it is difficult 
 
 n ΑΒ ν. 6-8, 9-11, 12-14, &c.; xi. 10-11, 12-13, Ke. 5 
 Ri. 4 Ὁ, xvi. 16, xvii. 24, 25, xxi. 5, xxv. 20, xli. 46a, Ex. 
 vii. 7; &c. 
 
 ο Asi. 5b, 8b, 13, &c.5 x. 5 [see QPB.3], 20, 31, 32, 
 xxv. 16, xxxvi. 40, &c. 
 
 P Undoubtedly Jehovah and God express different 
 aspects of the Divine nature; but the theory of Keil 
 (Einl., § 33) and others, that a sense of this distinction 
 ruled the choice in each case, will be felt, if the passages 
 are examined in detail, to be artificial and inadequate. 
 Even were the case otherwise, the other variations 
 would still remain unexplained. The statement in the 
 Speaker’s Commentary, i. Ὁ. 28 a, that the peculiarities 
 of the Elohistic phraseology ‘‘ have been greatly magni- 
 fied, even if they exist at all,” is not in accordance 
 with the facts. See the present writer’s Introduction to 
 the Literature of the O. T. (1891), pp. 122-128. 
 
 GENESIS 
 
 to find a satisfactory explanation except diversity 
 of authorship: where it occurs, it is moreover 
 often accompanied by differences of representa- 
 tion, which point to the same conclusion. At 
 the same time, the fact that Elohim is not here 
 attended by the other criteria of P’s style, for- 
 bids our assigning the sections thus characterised 
 to that source. An independent source must 
 therefore be postulated: and in fact all eritics 
 who have examined carefully the text of Genesis 
 have satisfied themselves that the parts which 
 remain after the separation of P, consist of 
 excerpts from two narratives covering in the 
 main the same ground, but independent of each 
 other, which have been welded together into a 
 single whole. One of these sources, from its 
 use of the name Jahweh, is now generally desig- 
 nated by the letter J: the other, which has just 
 been alluded to and which uses chiefly the name 
 Elohim, is denoted by E. The composite work 
 thus produced may be referred to by the double 
 letters JE.* The precise manner in which these 
 two sources were combined together has been 
 disputed, and can hardly be said to be entirely 
 certain ; but critics generally agree with Wellh., 
 who supposes that it was effected by the inde- 
 pendent hand of a compiler. The method 
 usually followed by the compiler was to extract 
 an entire narrative, without appreciable altera- 
 tion, from either of these sources, as the plan 
 of his work required (e.g. xx. 1-17 from E; 
 xxiv. from J); sometimes, however, it would 
 seem as if in a narrative derived as a whole 
 from one source particular notices borrowed 
 from the other were incorporated, and some- 
 times a narrative appears to be composed of 
 elements derived from each in nearly equal 
 proportions. Occasionally the compiler appears 
 to have introduced slight additions of his own. 
 In order to gain an intelligent insight into the 
 redactor’s method, the reader should be careful 
 to fix his attention on the main source followed 
 in each section, treating mentally the passages. 
 incorporated in it as subordinate.® 
 
 4 In passages, viz. in which the Divine name is used 
 absolutely. Where it has to be qualified by a genitive, 
 or possessive pronoun (as “God of Abraham,” ‘thy 
 God”), Elohim is naturally used quite freely in J, the 
 personal name Jahweh, as is well known, not admitting 
 of being thus qualified. 
 
 r This is the nomenclature introduced by Wellhausen 
 and now generally adopted (e.g. by Delitzsch), The 
 author of the original source J is often called by Weil- 
 hausen the Jahvist, the author of E the Hlohist, and the 
 compiler who united the two the Jehovist (a name 
 which combines the letters of JaHWeH with the vowels. 
 of ElOhIm). But it is preferable to employ symbols 
 exclusively, using J, E, P, to denote indifferently the 
 documents or their authors. Dillmann uses B and C for 
 E and J respectively. 
 
 8 The following practical method is recommended. 
 In a Bible—Hebrew or English—printed, if possible, 
 with one column in a page, let a line be drawn on the 
 right-hand side of the text, along the edge of the parts 
 assigned to J, and a similar line on the left-hand side 
 oi the text along the parts assigned to E: two lines, one 
 on each side of the text, may then be used to indicate 
 the parts belonging to P: additions belonging more 
 specially to a redactor may be underlined. By this. 
 plan, a far clearer view of the structure of the narrative 
 will be obtained than can be given by any mere tabular 
 analysis. For those who are acquainted with German, 
 however, all such mechanical aids have been now 
 
7 
 
 GENESIS 
 
 GENESIS 1153 
 
 § 10. The analysis of JE, as accepted gener- | opinion and unimportant redactional additions 
 
 ally by critics at the present day (including in 
 most cases Delitzsch), is exhibited in the fol- 
 lowing series of tables; the notes appended 
 indicate—so far as the available space will 
 permit—the general nature of the grounds 
 upon which it rests. Minor differences of | 
 
 I. Chs. i-xi. The beginnings of history. 
 
 J: 11. 4 b-iii. 24; iv. 1-26; v. 293; vi. 1-4, 5-81; vii. 
 
 are disregarded ; but the more important cases 
 in which the criteria are indecisive, and in 
 which consequently opinion is not unanimous, 
 have usually been noted. E cannot be recog- 
 nised with certainty before ch. xx. (or perhaps 
 ch, Xv.), 
 
 1-5, 7-10! (in the main), 12, 16b, 17, 22-231; viii 
 
 ’ 
 
 2b-3a, 6-12, 13 Ὁ, 20-22 ; ix. 18-27; x. 8-19, 21, 24-30; xi. 1-9, 28-30. 
 1 With slight insertions, especially in vi. 7, vii. 3, 9, 23, due to the compiler. 
 
 The rest belongs to P (§ 7), or, in a few 
 subordinate passages, is the work of the com- 
 piler. On the question whether the parts here 
 assigned to J are perfectly homogeneous, it 
 must suffice to refer to Dillmann (ed. 1886), 
 pp. 88-90, 128, 199 sq., with the references 
 there given. In J the line of Seth has been 
 preserved imperfectly (iv. 25 sq.); the compiler 
 having preferred the genealogy in the form in 
 which it was given by P (v. 1-28, 30-31), only 
 incorporating v. 29 from J (notice the differ- 
 ence in style of this verse from the rest of ch. 
 y., and the similarity in form to iv. 25, 26, as 
 well as the reference to iii. 16 sq.). The names 
 in these two chapters are borrowed, it is plain, 
 
 from ancient popular tradition: in J this | 
 
 tradition is exhibited in its more primitive 
 
 feature in any way suggestive of what was 
 mythical, and reduced to little more than a list 
 of names and chronological data. In reading 
 ch. iv. (J), it is difficult not to be reminded of 
 the Phoenician narrative of Sanchoniathon 
 (preserved in the Greek translation of Philo of 
 Byblus‘), where, in a very similar style, the 
 origin of various institutions and inventions is 
 connected similarly with a series of prehistoric 
 names. The Hebrew and Phoenician narratives 
 are both, it would seem, derived from the same 
 cycle of old Semitic tradition. 
 
 In the account of the Flood, the main narra- 
 tive is that of P, which has been enlarged by 
 the addition of elements derived from J. Here, 
 however, the elements contributed by J form 
 a tolerably complete narrative, though there 
 are omissions: 6.0. between vi. 8 and vii. 1, 
 of the instructions for making the ark, in place 
 of which the compiler has preferred the account 
 in Ps and between vii. 5 and viii. 6 the 
 extracts from J for a similar reason do not 
 form an entirely complete narrative. The 
 distinguishing characteristics of the two ac- 
 counts are well exhibited by  Delitzsch 
 (p- 164 sq.): each is marked by a series of 
 
 (Aug. 1888) superseded by Die Genesis mit dusserer 
 Unterscheidung der Quellenschriften iibersetzt, von E. 
 Kautzsch und A. Socin (ed. 2, 1891). In this very 
 convenient volume, by the use of different kinds of 
 type, the literary structure of the Book is exhibited 
 with great distinctness to the eye. Another work of 
 similar character, but more elaborate, is B. W. Bacon’s 
 The Genesis of Genesis (Hartford, U.S.A., 1892). It 
 should, however, be recollected in using either of these 
 books (cp. below, § 12) that the distribution of parts 
 between J C E can frequently not claim more than a 
 relative probability. 
 
 t Quoted by Eusebius, Praep. Evang. i. 10 (ed. 
 Heinichen). Cp. the translation, with notes, by Leuor- 
 mant, Les Origines, &c. [see § 14], i. 536 sqq. 
 
 BIBLE DICT.—VOL., I. 
 
 q 
 
 recurring features which are absent from the 
 other, and by which it is connected with other 
 sections of the Book belonging respectively to 
 the same source. There are, moreover, differ- 
 ences of detail in the two narratives: thus the 
 distinction between clean and unclean animals 
 is peculiar to J; and while in J the entire 
 duration of the Flood is 40 + (7 +7+7)= 
 61 days (vii. 4, 12, 17; viii. 6, 10 [“* other seven 
 days,” implying seven between v. 7 and v. 97, 
 12), in P it extends over a year and 11 days 
 (vii. 11; viii. 14). The form which the 
 tradition took in Babylonia should be com- 
 pared," though it cannot be maintained that 
 the Biblical accounts are simply borrowed 
 thence. In the Babylonian account (which on 
 
 _ the whole has greater affinities with the narra- 
 form; in P it has been divested of every 
 
 tive of J than with that of P), the duration 
 is “ 6 days and 7 nights” ++ 7 days. 
 
 In ix. 20-27, some critics are of opinion that 
 the form has been modified, and that in the 
 original narrative Canaan, not Ham, was the 
 author of the misdeed. Certainly the existing 
 text (v. 22, compared with v. 25) presents a 
 difficulty which has not been satisfactorily ex- 
 plained. 
 
 On ch. x. the masterly analysis of Wellhausen 
 should be read. The scheme of P may be learnt 
 from the passages ascribed to him in § 7: here, 
 as elsewhere, his plan is, having dealt first with 
 the collateral branches, to dismiss them, and so 
 to pass on to the line which leads directly to 
 Israel. Thus xi. 10 sq. is the natural sequel in 
 P to x. 22-23. The parts of ch. x. not ascribed 
 to P exhibit a different style: contrast e.g. vv. 
 21, 25, 26 with vv. 22, 23. Vv. 21, 22 are 
 the opening words of two parallel accounts 
 (P and J respectively) of the descendants of 
 Shem; vv. 24,25 are J’s account of Eber and 
 Peleg, parallel to P’s in xi. 14-16 (ep. iv. 
 25, 26 J, beside v. 2-8 P). Notices in J of the 
 nations descended from Noah have thus been 
 combined by the final redactor with the more 
 systematic scheme of P. 
 
 On xi. 28-30, ep. Budde [8 14], pp. 220-223, 
 who shows that the genealogies of J are cast in 
 a different mould from those of P, and points 
 out the similarities of expression in iv. 17-26; 
 x. 8-19, 21, 24-30; xix. 37 sq.; xxii. 20-24; xxv. 
 
 1-6 (6... abs [not yn, which is used by P] 
 of the father, N17 DJ [so besides only Judg. 
 viii. 21], the father of . . ., &c.). 
 
 « Schrader, KAT.2, p. 46 sqq. The Hxcursus of Paul 
 Haupt, pp. 55-79, containing a transcription and transe 
 lation of the entire Babylonian narrative, is unfortus 
 nately omitted in the English translation. 
 
 4E 
 
1154 GENESIS 
 
 Il. Chs. xii—xxvi. Abraham and Tsaac. 
 
 { J xii. 1-4a, 6-20. xiii. 1-5, 7-11a, 12b-18. xv. (mainly).! Xvi. 1b-2, 4-14. Xviii. 1-xix. 28, 30-38. 
 Ἑ a = = - 
 
 { J xxi. la, 2a. xxi. 33, xxii. 15-18, 
 E xx.? 1-17, (18). xxi. 6-32a, (9203). (34). xxii. 1-14. 19, 
 
 { J xxii. 20-24. xxiv.t xxv. 1-6, 110, 18, 21-26a, 27-34. xxvi.5 1-14, (15), 16-17, (18), 19-33.8 
 = τὲ 3 sea εν cos 
 
 The verses enclosed in parentheses appear to be due to the compiler of JE. The parts not included in the Table 
 belong to P, with the exception of ch. xiv., which seems to have been taken from an independent source. 
 
 1 Ch. xy. shows signs of composition; but the criteria are not entirely decisive, though the main narrative is 
 generally considered to be that of J. See Wellh., Comp., p. 23 sq.; Dillm. p. 242; Budde, p. 416 sqq.; Kautzsch 
 and Socin, p. 27 sq.; Β. W. Bacon in che American journal Hebraica, vii. (1890), 75sq. Wellh. supposed vv. 1-6 
 to be derived (with slight modifications) from Εἰ, vv. 7-11, 17-18 from J ; but both Kautzsch and Socin and Bacon 
 follow Budde in recognising J in vv. 2a, 3b, 4, 6, if not in v. 1 as well. 
 
 2 (8. xx—xxii. form a long section, with the exception of very few verses, entirely from E. The pre- 
 dominance of God will be noticed; the neighbouring J-sections have regularly Jehovah. 
 
 3 In chs. xx. and xxi. 22, Abraham and Abimelech dwell together: this half-verse represents Abraham as not 
 resident in the land of the Philistines at all. The notice is attributed to the compiler, who ‘‘transfers here the 
 situation implied in xxvi. 23, 36 (7). V. 34 seems intended as preparatory to ch. xxii., where lsaac appears as a 
 grown-up lad. 
 
 4 Probably with one or two glosses at the end. The strange syntax of JON TW nbrwn, v. 67, is best 
 explained by the supposition that JON MY is ἃ gloss. 
 
 5 In xxvi. 1 the words “‘ beside . . . to Abraham” have probably been added by the compiler. Vv. 3b-5 (on 
 grounds of style: see Delitzsch) appear to have been expanded or re-cast by the compiler. The same may have 
 been the case with xxii. 15-18 (cp. Dillm.). 
 
 6 It is probable that in chs. xxiv.-xxvi. a transposition has taken place, and that the original order was xxv. 1-6, 
 llb, xxiv. (where v. 36, for instance, presupposes xxv. 5), xxvi. 1-3a, 6-33, xxv. 21-26a, 27-34, of which 
 ch. xxvii. is now the natural sequel. 
 
 Ill. Chs. xxvii._xxxvi. Jacob and Esau. 
 
 g§ J xxvii. 1-45.1 XXviii.? 10, 13-16, 19, 2-14,3 
 LE 11-12, 17-18, 20-22, xxix. 1, 15-23, 25-28, 30, 
 Γ J xxix. 31-35. ___3b-5, 1, RUG ς δι 200, __244-xxxi. 1, 
 CE ΠῚ ΧΧΣ. 1-3a (to knees), 6, 8, 17-20a, 20c-23, 
 { J 3, 46, 48-50, Xxxii. 3-13a (Heb. 4-14a), 
 B xxxi: 2; 4.188, 19. 46,5 47, 51-xxxii. 2 (Heb. 3). 
 { 22 (Heb. 23), 24-32 (Heb. 25-33). σχχχῖϊ. 1-17, 
 E xxxii. 130-21 (Heb. 14b-22), 23 (Heb. 24), 18b-20. 
 { J xxxiv.6 2b, 3, 5, 7, 11, 12, 19, 25 (partly), 26, 30, 31. 14,7 A 21-22a. 
 E XXXxv. 1-8, 16-20, 
 
 1 According to some critics, with traces of E (as vv. 21-23 beside vv. 24-27 ; vv. 33-34 beside vv. 35-38); but it 
 is doubtful if this opinion is correct. Cp. however B. W. Bacon, Hebraica, vii. 143 sqq. 
 
 2 In ch. xxviii. the main narrative is E; vv. 13-16 being, as it seems (cp. the similar promise in xiii. 14-16 ; xii. 3), 
 introduced from the parallel narrative of J. V.17 connects with v.12. Itis probable that in the original context 
 
 yoy in v. 13 meant by him (i.e. by Jacob): cp. R. V. marg., and (for the Hebrew) xviii. 2. 
 
 3 So Dillm., Del. In the narrative of the births of Jacob’s children, xxix. 31 sq., nctice God interchanging with 
 Jehovah, and the double etymologies, xxx. 16 and 18; 20; 23 and 24. 
 
 4 Jn the narrative of the separation of Jacob and Laban (xxx. 25 sq.), it is to be observed that the two sources 
 give a different account of the understanding with Laban, and of the manner in which Jacob evaded it (so Del.). 
 At the same time, as it seems, each account contains notices incorporated by the compiler from the parallel 
 narrative (see Dillm. or Del. ; also Bacon, Hebraica, vii. 226 sqq.). 
 
 5. In xxxi. 45 sq. there seem to be two accounts of the covenant between Jacob and Laban (notice that the terms 
 of the covenant in v. 50 differ from those in v. 52), which have been combined by the compiler of JE, with slight 
 additions or glosses. 
 
 ®On this chapter, see (besides the Commentaries of Dillm. and Del.) Kuenen in the Th. Tijdschr. xiv. (1880), 
 p. 257 sqq.; Wellh. in the ‘ Nachtrage’ to his Composition, pp. 312 sqq., 353 sq. ; and Cornill in the Zeitschrift 
 Sir die Alttest. Wissenschaft, 1891, pp. 1-15. The ch. presents considerable difficulties; and the analysis is in 
 some particulars uncertain. The two narratives differ partly in phraseology, and still more in representation. 
 In J the entire transaction partakes of a domestic character: Shechem is the spokesman ; his aim is the personal 
 one of securing Dinah as bis wife; and only the two sons of Jacob are engaged in the act of vengeance (cp. xlix. 6). 
 In the other narrative, Hamor, head of the clan, is the spokesman ; his aim is to secure an amalgamation between 
 his own people and Jacob’s; and ‘the sons of Jacob” generally, 7.e. Israel as a whole (cp. xxxv. 5, xlviii. 22), 
 fall upon the Shechemites. As regards the parts assigned (§ 7) to P, observe the similar phraseology in 
 vv. 15b, 22b, 24b, and in xvii. 10b (P), and in v. 24 and xxiii. 10b, 18b (also P). It is, however, true that the 
 passages referred above to P do not throughout exhibit P’s characteristics; and hence Wellh. and Cornill may be 
 right in supposing them to be based in part upon excerpts from E. That E contained some account of a conquest 
 of Shechem by Jacob may be reasonably inferred from xxxy. 5, xlviii. 22. 
 
 7 On this verse, see also Cornill, J. c. p. 15 sq. 
 
 εὐ 
 
—————— 
 
 GENESIS 
 IV. Chs. xxxvii-l. Joseph. 
 { J 12-21, 25-27, 
 E xxxvii. 2b-11, 22-24, 
 i Xxxviii. xxxix. Kea 
 kK ΧΙ. xli.! 1-45, 47-57. 
 
 { J xlvi. 28-xlvii. 4, 6b,3 12-26, 27a (to Goshen), 29-31. 
 = & 
 
 28a (to pit), 
 
 xiii. 1-37, 
 
 GENESIS 1155 
 
 28b (to silver), 31-35, 
 
 28c-30, 36. 
 
 xlli. 38—xliv. 34,2 
 
 xlv.! 1-xlvi. 6. 
 xlix. 1b-28a. 1. 1-11, 14, 
 
 xlviii. 1-2, 8-22.4 15-26. 
 
 1 With (as critics generally suppose) traces of J, as xl. 1b, 3b, 15b; xli. 14 (‘and they brought him quickly 
 from the dungeon”) ; xlii. 27-28; xlv. 4 (‘‘ whom ye sold into Egypt’’), 5 (‘that ye sold me hither”) ; xly, 28. 
 
 2 With traces of E (xliii. 14, 230). 
 
 3 As read in LXX., viz. (directly answering v. 4), “And Pharaoh said unto Joseph, Let them dwell in the 
 land of Goshen ; and if thou knowest that there are able men amongst them, then make them,” &. Then follow 
 
 vv. 5, 6a (P), as given above, § 7. 
 
 4 In the main, probably ; but the two narratives cannot here be disengaged with certainty. 
 
 The grounds of the analysis of the history 
 of Joseph must be sought in the Commentaries, 
 or (morg briefly) in the writer’s Introduction, 
 p-16sq. Stated generally, they consist partly in 
 the fact that the representation in different 
 parts of the narrative varies, partly in the 
 occurrence of short, isolated notices, not 
 harmonising properly with the context in which 
 they are now found, but presupposing different 
 circumstances, and hence derived presumably 
 from a different source (cp. Delitzsch, p. 437). 
 
 In ch. xlix. the blessing of Jacob is of course 
 incorporated by J from some earlier, inde- 
 pendent source. It may have been in circu- 
 lation either as a separate piece, or as part of a 
 collection of national poetry. 
 
 § 11. The sections attributed to J are justly 
 admired as exhibiting the perfection of Hebrew 
 historical style. In ease, fluency, and grace, 
 they are unsurpassed: everything is told with 
 precisely the amount of detail that is needed: 
 picturesque and graphic, the narrative never 
 lingers; the reader’s interest is at once 
 awakened, and sustained to the end. The 
 contrast with the style of P is complete: com- 
 pare for example ch. xvii. with chs. xviii—xix., 
 or ch. xxiii. with ch. xxiv. J’s narrative is more- 
 over pervaded by a fine vein of ethical and 
 psychological discrimination; and the traditions 
 which the author recounts become in his hands 
 the vehicle of deep theological truths. His 
 narrative is also instinct with a warm sense 
 of Israel’s noble spiritual possessions, and is 
 elevated by a lofty and vivid consciousness of 
 the august future reserved for it (see the series 
 ὃ of promises, quoted in ὃ 3: in a, belonging 
 to P, the outlook is limited to Israel itself, its 
 
 ‘position as a medium of extending salvation to 
 
 the world being disregarded). ‘fhe style of E 
 is nearly equal to that of J, but does not 
 perhaps display quite the same power or 
 delicacy of touch. Such material differences as 
 it exhibits, when compared as a whole with J, 
 will be noticed under the article PENTATEUCH. 
 8 12. That P and JE form two clearly 
 definable, independent sources is ἃ conclu- 
 sion that may be accepted without hesita- 
 tion. As regards the analysis of JE, the 
 criteria are fewer and less definite; and no 
 doubt the same confidence that the points of 
 demarcation have been rightly assigned, cannot 
 in all cases be felt. But the indications that 
 the narrative is not homogeneous seem un- 
 mistakable; and the uncertainty which some- 
 
 times exists as to the exact limits of the 
 
 sources employed will be seen to be not greater 
 than is natural, when it is considered that 
 the differences between them are less numerous 
 and prominent than in the case of P, and that 
 the compiler appears to have made it his aim 
 to unite them as effectually as possible into an 
 organic whole. But it is right to distinguish 
 between degrees of probability, and to recollect 
 that that which attaches to the distinction of 
 J and E is seldom so great as that attaching to 
 the distinction of P from JE, and that there are 
 passages of JE in the analysis of which (as 
 critics themselves universally admit) certainty 
 is not attainable. 
 
 § 13. As regards the process by which the 
 Book of Genesis reached its present form, the 
 opinions of critics differ. Dillmann supposes 
 that the compiler to whom the Book owes its 
 present form found J, E, and P as three dis- 
 tinct documents, which he combined together, 
 making such omissions and modifications as 
 were necessary. But this would be a com- 
 plicated work for a single author to accomplish: 
 J and E, moreover, appear to be welded to- 
 gether more intimately than either is with 
 P. Hence the view of Wellhausen and others 
 is more probable, that the combination was 
 effected in two stages: first, J and E were 
 united together; afterwards, the whole thus 
 formed (JE) was combined with P by another 
 hand. The method followed in the combination 
 of J and E has been indicated above (§ 9). 
 The compiler who united JE with P adopted P 
 as his framework, and fitted JE into it, making 
 in either such omissions as were necessary in 
 order to avoid needless repetition, and incor- 
 porating ch. xiv. from a special source, but 
 otherwise making little or no change except 
 such redactional adjustments as the unity of 
 his work required. Thus he naturally assigned 
 
 i. 1-ii. 3 the first place, at the same time 
 (perhaps) removing ii. 4a from its original 
 position as superscription to i. 1, and placing it 
 where it now stands. In appending next from 
 J the narrative of Paradise, he changed (as it 
 seems) Jahweh into Jahweh Elohim, for the 
 purpose of identifying expressly the Author of 
 life in ii. 4b-iii. 24, with God, the Creator, in 
 i. 1-ii. 4a. Still following J, he incorporated 
 from it the history of Cain and his descendants, 
 but rejected the list of Seth’s descendants 
 
 v See e.g. Wellh. Comp. pp. 32, 35, 37; Kuenen, Hez. 
 § 8. 5; Kautzsch and Socin (ed. 2), pp. xi. (cp. xiii.), 
 
 58, 88. 
 4E 2 
 
1156 GENESIS 
 
 (which J must clearly have contained), except | 
 
 the first two names, and the etymology of 
 Noah, in favour (vy. 1-28, 30-32) of the 
 genealogy and chronological details of P, In 
 vi. 1-ix. 17 he combines into one the double 
 narrative of the Flood, preserving, however, 
 more from both the parallel accounts than was 
 usually his practice, and in parts slightly 
 modifying the phraseology. The close of 
 Noah's life (ix. 28 sq.) from P naturally follows 
 the incident ix. 20-27 from JE. Ch. x., the 
 Table of nations, embodies particulars taken 
 from both sources; it is succeeded by the 
 account in JE of the dispersion of mankind 
 (xi. 1-9). The history of Israel’s ancestors is 
 now resumed. Ch. xi. 10-26 carries on the 
 line from Shem to Terah, from P: xi. 27-32 
 states particulars respecting Terah’s family, 
 especially Abram, derived partly from P, partly 
 from JE, and necessary as an introduction to 
 the fuller details of Abram’s life, which follow 
 in ch. xii., &c. Mutatis mutandis, ἃ similar 
 method was followed by him in the rest of the 
 Book. The narrative of Genesis, though com- 
 posite, is constructed in accordance with a 
 definite plan, to which the final compiler (who 
 is the true “ author ” of the book in its existing 
 form) has accommodated all the details which 
 he has introduced. 
 
 § 14. Lirerature. LExegetical :— Fr. Tuch 
 (Halle, 1838; ed. 2, with preface [critical] by 
 Ad. Merx, Halle, 1871); F. Delitzsch, ed. 1, 
 1852; ed. 5, under the title Newer Commentar 
 iter die Genesis, Leipzig, 1887 [translated: Τὶ 
 and T. Clark]; C. F. Keil, ed. 3, Leipzig, 1878 ; 
 M. Kalisch, London, 1858; A. Knobel (in the 
 Kurzgefasstes Exeg. Handbuch), ed. 1, 1852; 
 ed. 3-5 (re-written) by A. Dillmann, 1875, 
 1882, 1886. Also in J. P. Lange’s Theol.- 
 homil. Bibelwerk (ed. 2, by Lange, 1877); in 
 Ed. Reuss, Za Bible, Traduction nouvelle avec 
 introductions et commentaires, tom. i. Paris, 
 1879; in the Speaker’s Commentary (by E. H. 
 Browne, afterwards Bishop of Winchester) ; in 
 the Commentary edited by Bishop Ellicott (by 
 ik. Payne Smith, Dean of Canterbury); in the 
 Pulpit Commentary by T. Whitelaw; in the 
 Expositor’s Bible by Marcus Dods. 
 
 The most masterly and complete of these are 
 those of Dillmann and Delitzsch, which include 
 all necessary references to recent critical and 
 archaeological literature (prior to 1886-7). 
 
 Critical:—H. Hupfeld, Die Quellen der 
 Genesis, 1853; Th. Néldeke, Untersuchungen zur 
 Kritik des A, T., 1869 [fixes the limits of P]; 
 J. Wellhausen, “Die Composition des Hexa- 
 teuchs” in the Jahrbiicher fiir Deutsche 
 Theologie, xxi., xxii. (1876-7) [xxi. 392-450 
 on Genesis], reprinted (a) in Shizzen u. Vorar- 
 beiten, ii. (1885); (b) together with matter 
 contributed by the same writer to his edition of 
 Bleek’s Zinleitung, published in 1878, on the 
 structure of Judges, Samuel, and Kings, in 
 Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der his- 
 torischen Biicher des A. T.’s, 1889; J. Well- 
 hausen, Prolegomena zur Gesch. Israels [trans- 
 lated under the title History of Israel], ed. 3, 
 1886, esp. ch. viii; K. Budde, Die Biblische 
 Oryeschichte (Gen. i.—xii. 5), 1883; A. Kuenen, 
 articles in the Theol. Tijdschrift, Leiden, 1880, 
 p- 257 sq. (on Gen. xxxiv.), 1884, p. 121 sq. 
 (criticism of Budde’s work), and his WHist.- 
 
 GENESIS 
 
 critisch Onderzoek naar het Ontstaan en de 
 Verzameling van de Boeken des Ouden Verbonds 
 (ed. 2), i. 1, 1885 [translated under the title 
 The Hexateuch, London, 1886]; R. Kittel, Gesch. 
 der Hebrier, i. (* Quellenkunde und Geschichte 
 der Zeit bis zum Tode Josuas”), 1888; 
 Kautzsch and Socin (above, § 9, note); W. R. 
 Harper in the American journal Hebraica, Oct. 
 1888, p. 18 sqq., July 1889, p. 243 sqq., Oct. 
 1889, p. 1 syq., with the criticisms of W. H. 
 Green, ib. Jan—April 1889, p. 137 sqq., Jan.— 
 March 1890, p. 109 sqq., April 1890, p. 161 sqq. 
 Special shorter articles or dissertations are men- 
 tioned by Dillmann, p. xxi. sq. (and elsewhere). 
 
 Miscellaneous :—On the cosmogony of Genesis : 
 Ewald, Erklérung der Bibl. Urgeschichte in the 
 Jahrbiicher der Bibl. Wissenschaft, i. (1849), 
 76-94 (Gen. i.), ii, 132-165 (Gen. ii.—ili.), iii. 
 108-115; and in Die Lehre der Bibel von Gott 
 (esp. vol. iii. § 231 sq.); Ed. Riehm, Der Bibl. 
 Schépfungsbericht, Halle, 1881 (a lecture, il- 
 lustrating the permanent religious value of 
 the narrative); Otto Ziéckler, Gesch. der Bezie- 
 hungen zwischen Theologie und Naturwissen- 
 schaft, 2 vols. 1877-9 (exhaustive), more briefly 
 in his art. “Schdpfung” in Herzog’s PRE., 
 xiii. (1884), pp. 629-49; T. K. Cheyne, art. 
 “Cosmogony” in the Zncyclopaedia Britan- 
 nica®; F. H. Reusch, Bibel und Natur (trans- 
 lated); 85... Β. Driver, “The Cosmogony of 
 Genesis” in The Lapositor, Jan. 1886, p. 23 
 sqq., with the references; C. Pritchard, in 
 Occasional Thoughts of an Astronomer, 1890, 
 p- 257 sqq. The Phoenician cosmogony (§ 10) 
 may be read most conveniently in Heinichen’s 
 Praeparatio Evangelica of Eusebius, i. 10, to be 
 compared with the translation in Lenormant, 
 Les Origines de 0 Histoire daprés la Bible et 
 les Traditions des Peuples Orientauz,? Paris, 
 1880-84, i. p. 536 sqq. 
 
 The Babylonian account of the Creation 
 and Deluge may be seen in G. Smith’s Chaldean 
 Account of Genesis, 1876 (ed. 2 by A. H. 
 Sayce, 1880; in German by Friedrich Delitzsch 
 {with notes], 1876); in Lenormant, J. c. pp. 493 
 sqq., 601 sqq.; in Schrader’s ΛΑ 7.2, 1883 [in 
 English, London, 1885; but see note *, ὃ 10]); 
 that of the Creation also in Records of the Past, 
 second series, i. (1888), p. 133 sqq. (translated by 
 A. H. Sayce); p. 149 sqq. (another version). 
 
 The archaeology of Genesis, from i. 1 to x. 3 
 (at which point the author’s labours were 
 interrupted by his death), is treated, almost 
 with superabundant illustration and research, | 
 by Fr. Lenormant in the work just referred to. 
 See also G. Ebers, Aegypten und die Biicher 
 Mose’s, i. [all that has appeared: deals only 
 with Genesis], 1868; Friedrich Delitzsch, Wo 
 lag das Paradies? 1881; A. Dillmann, “ Ueber 
 die Herkunft der Urgeschichtlichen Sagen der 
 Hebriier,” in the Sitzungsberichte der Kén.- 
 Preuss. Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 
 1882, p. 427 sq. (translated in the Bibliotheca 
 Sacra, New York, July 1883); and on the 
 interpretation of Gen. xlix. 10, S. R. Driver, 
 Gen. xlix. 10: An Exegetical Study, in the 
 Cambridge Journal of Philology, xiv. (1885), 
 pp. 1-28. 
 
 The text of Genesis, except in a very few 
 passages (as xvi. 13, xx. 16}, xli. 56), has been 
 handed down in great purity. The principal 
 variants in the versions are noted by Dillmann: 
 
GENNESAR, WATER OF 
 
 GENNESARET, SEA OF 1157 
 
 see also the sare author’s Beitrdége aus dem | largest in Galilee, rises to the surface with great 
 
 Buch der Jubiliien zur Kritik des Pentateuch- 
 Textes in the Sitzungsberichte der Kin.-Preuss. 
 Akad. der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 1883, pp. 
 323-340. [S. R. D.] 
 
 GENNESAR, WATER OF (τὰ ὕδατα τὰ 
 Tevynodpa; aque Genesar), 1 Mace. xi. 67: ep. 
 Ant. xiii. 5, § 7. [GeNNESARET, SEA OF.] 
 
 GENNESARET, LAND OF (7 γῆ Γεννη- 
 caper; terra Genesar, terra Genesareth). After 
 the miracle of feeding the five thousand, our 
 Lord and His disciples crossed over the lake of 
 Gennesaret and “came into the land of Genne- 
 saret,” or (R. V.) “came to the land unto 
 Gennesaret ” (Matt. xiv. 34; Mark vi. 54). It is 
 generally believed that this term was applied to 
 the fertile crescent-shaped plain on the western 
 shore of the lake, extending from Khan Minyeh 
 on the north to the steep hill behind Mejdel on 
 the south, and called by the Arabs el-Giuweir, 
 “the little Ghor.” The description given by 
 Josephus (B. J. iii. 10, § 8) would apply admir- 
 ably to this plain. He says that along the lake 
 οἵ Gennesaret there extends a region of the same 
 name, of marvellous nature and beauty. The 
 soil was so rich that every plant flourished, and 
 the air so temperate that trees of the most 
 opposite natures grew side by side. The hardy 
 walnut, which delighted in cold, grew there 
 luxuriantly ; there were the palm-trees that 
 were nourished by heat, and fig-trees and olives 
 beside them, that required a more temperate 
 climate. Grapes and figs were found during 
 ten months of the year. The plain was watered 
 by a most excellent spring, called by the natives 
 Capharnaum, which was thought by some to be 
 a vein of the Nile, because a fish was found there 
 closely resembling the coracinus of the lake near 
 Alexandria. The length of the plain along the 
 shore of the Jake was thirty stadia, and its 
 breadth twenty. Making every allowance for 
 the colouring given by the historian to his de- 
 scription, and for the neglected condition of el- 
 Ghuwovir at the present day, there are still left 
 sufficient points of resemblance between the 
 two to justify their heing identified. The length 
 of the plain from ‘Ain et-Zineh to Mejdel is 
 3 miles, or, if the small adjoining plain of ct- 
 Tabghah be included, 34 miles; and its greatest 
 breadth is 14 miles. There are two springs: 
 the ‘Ain et-Tineh, near Khan Minyeh, which is 
 close to the lake, and only a few inches above 
 its level; and the ‘Ain el-Mudawwarah, “* Round 
 Fountain,” which is about half a mile from the 
 lake, and one mile from Mejdel. Three streams 
 issuing from W. ‘Amid, W. er-Rubudiyeh, and 
 W. el-Hamdm, cross the plain and help to 
 fertilise it. The ‘Ain et-Tineh, from its low 
 level and slight head of water, could never have 
 
 been utilised for irrigation; and the “ Round | 
 
 Fountain,” from its position and size, could only 
 have irrigated a very small portion of the plain. 
 Neither of these fountains could therefore have 
 been the Capharnaum of Josephus, which is 
 
 said to have watered the plain throughout | 
 
 (διάρδεται). This could, however, have been 
 effected by the waters of ‘Ain et-Tabgha/, which 
 were carried into the plain, by a remarkable 
 aqueduct, at-an altitude sufficient to irrigate it 
 throughout its whole extent. This spring, the 
 
 force in the plain of et-Zébyhah, about half a 
 mile from Gennesaret, and, wherever Capernaum 
 may be placed, is almost certainly the fountain 
 called by Josephus Capharnaum. At the northern 
 extremity of the plain, el-Ghwreir, are the 
 mounds of MJinyeh, and at its southern end is 
 Mejdel, Magdala; on the shore of the lake are 
 several mounds of rubbish, and on the slope of 
 the hills, which rise somewhat abruptly, are 
 shapeless ruins, all perhaps marking the sites 
 of some of those towns and villages in which 
 Christ taught. The soil of the plain, enriched by 
 the scourings of the basaltic hills, is surprisingly 
 fertile; and the shore, fringed by a thick jungle 
 of thorn and oleander in which birds of brilliant 
 plumage find a home, is broken into bays of 
 exquisite beauty. Burckhardt tells us that the 
 pastures of Kidn Minyeh are proverbial for their 
 richness (Syria, p. 319); and the fertility and 
 beauty of the plain have been remarked upon by 
 nearly every traveller (see Stanley, S. §& P. 
 ch. x.; Robinson, iii. 282 sq.; Thomson, Z. and 
 B. p. 347 5ᾳ.; Wilson, Recovery of Jerusalem, 
 p- 350; Guérin, Gali/ee, i. 207 ; Sepp, ii. 232). 
 
 In the Journal of Classical and Sacred Philology 
 Gi. 290-308) Mr. Thrupp has endeavoured to 
 show that the land of Gennesaret was not el- 
 Ghuweir, but the fertile plain e/-Batihah, on the 
 north-eastern side of the lake. The dimensions 
 of this plain and the character of its soil and 
 productions correspond with the description given 
 by Josephus of the land of Gennesaret ; but it is 
 very swampy near the lake, and has no spring 
 corresponding to the Capharnaum of Josephus 
 It is also perfectly clear, from an examination of 
 the narrative in the Gospels, that Capernaum 
 (which was certainly west of Jordan) and Genne- 
 saret were close together on the same side of the 
 lake. [CAPERNAUM; BETHSAIDA. ] 
 
 Additional interest is given to the land of 
 Gennesaret, or e/-Ghuweir, by the probability 
 that its scenery suggested the parable of the 
 Sower. It is admirably described by Dean 
 
 | Stanley: “There was the undulating corn-field 
 
 descending to the water’s edge. There was the 
 trodden pathway running through the midst of 
 
 it, with no fence or hedge to prevent the seed 
 
 from falling here and there on either side of it, 
 or upon it; itself hard with the constant tramp 
 of horse and mule and human feet. There was 
 the ‘good’ rich soil, which distinguishes the 
 whole of that plain and its neighbourhood from 
 the bare hills elsewhere descending into the 
 lake, and which, where there is no interruption, 
 produces one vast mass of corn. There was the 
 rocky ground of the hiilside protruding here 
 and there through the corn-fields, as elsewhere 
 through the grassy slopes. There were the large 
 bushes of thorn—the ‘ Nabd,’ that kind of which 
 tradition says that the Crown of Thorns was 
 woven—springing up, like the fruit-trees of the 
 more inland parts, in the very midst of the 
 waving wheat” (S. ¢ P. p. 426). 
 [Wee Wei. We] 
 
 GENNESARET, SEA OF (λίμην Γεννη- 
 σαρέτ, Luke ν. 1), one of the names of the 
 well-known SEA OF GALILEE (Matt. iv. 18; 
 Mark vii. 31; John vi. 1) or SEA OF TIBERTAS 
 (John vi. 1), a sweet-water lake through which 
 the river Jordan flows. The name has been 
 
1158 GENNESARET, SEA OF 
 
 thought to be connected with the older title, 
 SEA OF CHINNERETH or of CHINNEROTH (Num. 
 xxxiv. 11; Josh. xii. 3), and with the town of 
 that name (Josh, xix. 35), but this is uncertain, 
 nor is it known certainly that Chinneroth is a 
 Semitic word. The “plains south of Chin- 
 neroth” (Josh. xii. 3) are probably those 
 surrounding the Jordan south of the lake. 
 According to Gesenius (Lew.), the Hebrew form 
 of the name Gennesaret would be 103). InTal- 
 mudic notices (cp. Neubauer, Géog. Tal. p. 215), 
 the name is spelt D139) or 1D°) and identified 
 with Kinnereth (Tal. Jer. Megillah, i. 1). The 
 Midrash (Bereshith Rabba, ch. 98) translates 
 Gennesaret “ Prince’s Garden,” which would be 
 the natural rendering in both Hebrew and 
 Assyrian. The fruits of this region were much 
 prized in the times when the writers in question 
 were living near the lake (2nd to 5th cent. 
 A.D.) The Rabbis applied the Bible words 
 “blessing of God” to this region (Siphre, end). 
 The region, though not often mentioned in the 
 Bible, was famous for its fertility, and well 
 known not only to Josephus (see especially 
 Wars, iii. 10, § 8), but also to classic writers 
 (Strabo, xvi.; Pliny, v. 16; Ptol. v. 15), and in 
 every succeeding age it has been a place of 
 pilgrimage, and its natural productions have 
 been described by Moslem as well as by Christian 
 authors. 
 
 Sea of Gennesaret or Galilee. 
 
 Josephus describes the shores of the lake, 
 within a century of the time when it was the 
 scene of many incidents in the life of Christ, and 
 before the time when Tiberias on its shores 
 became the seat of the Sanhedrin, and the 
 centre of Jewish life, after the destruction of 
 Jerusalem. He gives the dimensions of the 
 lake as 140 furlongs by 40, and speaks of the 
 sweet water and numerous fish. The land of 
 Gennesaret near the lake was fertile, and many 
 trees—such as the walnut, palm, fig, and olive— 
 grew near the shores. Vines also were cultivated, 
 the air was of good temperature, and the plain 
 was watered by the spring of Capernaum. 
 Titus, at the time of which Josephus is speaking, 
 had constructed a fleet on the lake, for the 
 
 GENNESARET, SEA OF 
 
 attack of Tarichaeae at the south end of the 
 same; and although at the present time there 
 are only one or two boats on the lake, there 
 were ships on its waters in the 10th and 12th 
 centuries A.D. 
 
 The lake lay between the territory of Ma- 
 nasseh in Bashan and of Naphtali west of Jordan, 
 as has been shown by the recent discovery of 
 certain towns of Naphtali on the plateau west 
 of Tiberias. The Talmudic commentators say 
 the same (Tal. Bab. Baba Kama, 81b, quoted by 
 Reland, Pal. i, p. 259), and in the same treatise 
 (80b) fishing in the waters of the Tiberias 
 
 G72 ὃν» iD") is noticed. Pliny (v. 16) 
 gives a short but clear account (quoted by 
 Reland, Pal. i. p. 440) under the name Lake of 
 Genesera. He makes it 16 miles long and 6 
 miles wide. On the east he says were Julias and 
 Hippos ; on the south Tarichaeae, whence the lake 
 itself was sometimes named ; on the west Tiberias. 
 with salubrious hot springs. In Ptolemy’s 
 geography it is also called Τιβέριας λίμην. 
 
 The lake is a natural basin, pear-shaped and 
 surrounded with limestone cliffs, except on the 
 north and north-west, where steep slopes lead 
 down from the mountains of Naphtali, and from 
 the plains of Lower Galilee, respectively. A 
 narrow strip of flat ground occurs on either 
 side, and on the north-west enlarges into the 
 small plain of Gennesaret, now only tilled in a 
 few patches and covered with brushwood, 
 measuring 3 miles by 14 mile, and watered by 
 the springs in the western hills and by the 
 “ Round Fountain” (‘Ain οἱ Madéwarah) in the 
 plain itself. The soil is a rich basaltic loam. 
 [GENNESARET, LAND OF.] The north shore of 
 the lake is rocky, and indented with small coves. 
 The plain of the Batihah, east of the Jordan, at 
 vhe north-east corner of the lake, is larger than 
 that of Gennesaret, measuring about 3 miles along 
 the shore, with an extreme width of 14 mile. It 
 is very swampy, with a rich basaltic soil, and 
 watered by several streams, that of Wady 
 Hejaj being larger than either of the Gennesaret 
 streams (Sir C. W. Wilson, Recovery of Jeru- 
 salem, p. 368). The name of the ruin of 
 Mes‘adiyeh in this plain may be thought to 
 preserve that of Bethsaida Julias, though not at 
 the ancient site [see BETHSAIDA]. A consider- 
 able cultivation is described in this plain by 
 Robinson (Bib. Res. ii. 411), similar to that of 
 the Gennesaret vale, and the nomad Arab 
 tribes here possess large herds of buffaloes. 
 The Jordan enters the lake on the north, and has 
 there formed a small] delta. The greatest depth 
 of water in the concave basin, according to the 
 measurements of Lieut. Lynch, is 165 feet 
 (Report, p. 15; cp. Rob. Bib. Res. ii. 417). 
 The average height of the plateau east of the 
 lake is about 1200 feet above the Mediter- 
 ranean, and that on the west about 1000 feet. 
 The level of the lake itself is 680 feet below 
 that of the Mediterranean, as determined by ἃ 
 line of levels run by the surveyors of Palestine. 
 The cliffs are precipitous and rugged, but the 
 scenery of the lake is somewhat featureless, and 
 not so wild as that of the Dead Sea. Its more 
 picturesque effects are due to the colours of the 
 sunset or of the storm. The general colouring 
 in summer is white or dusky brown, but in 
 spring the vegetation covers the slopes with 
 
GENNESARET, SEA OF 
 
 green, On the north the ground is strewn 
 with basaltic débris. The actual length is 
 124 miles north and south by 8 miles at its 
 widest part east and west. The cultivation on 
 the shores has much decreased.* In the plain 
 of Gennesaret corn and indigo are grown; there 
 are a few palms at Kefr Arjib, east of the lake, 
 near Magdala and Tiberias, and a grove at the 
 south end of the lake. Robinson (Bib. des. ii. 
 388) mentions maize, wheat, barley, millet, 
 tobacco, melons, grapes, gourds, cucumbers, and 
 a few vegetables, the melons being especially 
 fine; rice was also grown (p. 402). The 
 greater extent of shore is now however wild, 
 the ground covered in spring with gigantic 
 
 1159 
 
 thistles and, near the springs, with oleanders. 
 The papyrus is also found in the swampy 
 ground, where some of the springs run into the 
 lake. The waters are still full of fish of 
 various kinds, resembling bream and perch, and 
 the famous coracinus or sheat fish, to which 
 Josephus refers. These fish, caught in nets or 
 by poisoning bread crumbs with bichloride of 
 mercury, are fully described by Dr. Tristram 
 (PEF. Mem. and Nat. Hist. of the Bible, p. 285); 
 they resemble the Nile fishes, and are found 
 also in the Jordan. The shoals are very 
 numerous, and fourteen species have been 
 identified, two of which are very common, viz. 
 Chromis Nilotica and Clarias macrocanthus: 
 
 GENNESARET, SEA OF 
 
 £ea of Gennesaret or Galilee, with the village of Magdala. 
 
 three other species of the African genus Hemi- | legends as to these fishes occur 
 
 chromis seem to be peculiar to the lake. The 
 coracinus or sheat fish is the second of those 
 named, and is said to occur in the Round 
 Fountain as well as in the lake. Mediaeval 
 
 3. Sugar-canes are mentioned by El Mukaddasi (10th 
 cent. A.D.) at Tiberias, with palm-trees and the nabk 
 fruit, as well as manufactures of carpets, paper, and 
 cloth. There were then boats on the lake. The climate 
 was considered unhealthy; the hot baths were, however, 
 much reputed for the cure of skin diseases. In the 12th 
 century there were mills near Magdala, and the owners 
 had fishing rights in the lake (Cod. Dipl. 1, No. 156). 
 Tiberias was then a walled town and capital of the 
 district. 
 
 in several 
 tractates, but are more curious than valuable. 
 The chief inhabited site is the town of 
 | Tiberias, founded (or rebuilt) by Herod Antipas. 
 | South of this are the famous hot springs, which 
 | probably mark the site of Hammon (1 Ch. 
 | vi. 76), or HamMatn (Josh. xix. 35): the 
 distance from Tiberias is only 13 miles. The 
 springs have an average temperature of 137° 
 Fahr., and are said to have greatly increased in 
 temperature and in volume at the time of the 
 great earthquake of Safed in 1837. 
 _ At the south end of the lake towards the 
 | west and close to the Jordan outlet was 
 Tarichaeae, the ruins of which still exist, almost 
 surrounded with water, at Aerak. 
 
1160 GENNESARET, SEA OF 
 
 On the slopes further west was Sinnabris 
 (Senn-en-nabruh), mentioned by Josephus in 
 connexion with the Jordan (Wars, iii. 9, § 7; 
 iv. 8, ὃ 2). On the east shore Gamala (el 
 Hosn) stood on the cliffs, and Hippos (Suésieh) 
 has recently been fixed at a ruin 2 miles east of 
 the lake shore, and a mile west of ik (Aphek). 
 Further north a small ruined mound, called 
 Kersa, on the narrow plain at the foot of the 
 slopes, is supposed to mark the city of the 
 GERGESENES (Matt. viii. 28; cp. Mark v. 1). 
 Chorazin, on the slopes north of the Sea of 
 Galilee, is a well-known site, but opinion differs 
 as to CAPERNAUM. Some writers, following 
 Robinson, place it close to the “ Figtree Spring ” 
 at the ruin of MJinyeh, near the little cliff, 
 pierced by an ancient cutting at the north end 
 of the plain of Gennesaret, near the shore. 
 This opinion seems to gather support from 
 mediaeval Jewish tradition. Other authors 
 accept the Christian tradition, which since the 
 4th century has always placed Capernaum at 
 Tell Him. Between these two sites, which are 
 22 miles apart, are the five fine springs called Lt 
 Tabghah, with ruined mills, and ἃ reservoir 
 whence they were fed. This appears to be the 
 Migdol Tseboia of the Talmud, ‘“‘the dyer’s 
 tower ” (Tal. Jer. Taanith, iv. 8: cp. Neubauer, 
 Géog. Tal. p. 217). It is possible that the 
 curious water towers at this site, and at Mag- 
 dala, may have had some connexion with the 
 art of dyeing, which was a common Jewish 
 occupation in later times. 
 
 The sites so noticed are ruinous, but in the 
 plain of Gennesaret there is a small hamlet 
 containing three or four families of Algerines, 
 who till the plain. It is called Abu Shusheh, 
 from its sacred shrine. It does not appear to 
 be an ancient site. At the south end of the 
 plain is Mejdel (Magdala), a mud village of 
 about 80 inhabitants, with palms and ruined 
 mills, and cultivation to the north. 
 
 The population of Tiberias is reckoned only 
 at 2,000 to 3,000 souls, including the Jews 
 (about 200), the Christians, and the Moslems. 
 Thus the decay of cultivation in this region is 
 no doubt mainly due to decay in population. 
 The existence of ruins of no less than nine small 
 towns, on or near the shore, is evidence of the 
 former prosperity of the region. The climate 
 is now extremely hot in summer and mild in 
 winter, owing to the depression and to the 
 surrounding rocks; but if we may judge from 
 the frequent notice of fevers and other diseases 
 among the population of this region, which 
 recur in the Gospel narratives, the climate 
 cannot have been very different in the time of 
 Christ from that of our times, although irriga- 
 tion and cultivation may have decreased the 
 power of the malaria, now prevalent in the 
 swampy ground near the springs. 
 
 The vicinity of the lake is subject to sudden 
 storms, such as are mentioned in the Gospels 
 (Matt. viii. 24, xiv. 24; Mark iv. 37, vi. 48; Luke 
 vili. 23; John vi. 18), blowing down from the 
 western gorges. These occur in spring and 
 early summer, as well as in autumn and winter, 
 and are sometimes induced by the great heat in 
 the lake basin. Such a storm has been de- 
 scribed by Sir Charles Wilson (Recov. of Jerus. 
 p. 340), in a series of papers which give the 
 fullest extant account of the whole lake. The 
 
 GENTILES 
 
 region surrounding the lake is also subject to 
 earthquakes, and the hot springs of Tiberias and 
 Gadara, together with the basalt fields north 
 and west of the valley, are evidence of volcanic 
 forces which are still working beneath the 
 surface, and which in pre-historic times were 
 very powerful. Monumental notices of the 
 Sea of Galilee are confined to the slight refer- 
 ence in the Zravels of a Mohur (or Egyptian 
 official), who in the 14th century B.C. appears 
 to have reached its shores from the west, and 
 to have travelled down to the Jordan valley 
 past Tarichaeae. The region lay apart from the 
 main highways of war and commerce, and its 
 most prosperous period was perhaps in the 2nd 
 century A.D., when the Jews gathered round the 
 famous school of the Mishnaic Rabbis, and when 
 synagogues and other buildings were erected in 
 the towns on the shore. ‘The earliest inscrip- 
 tions in Greek and in Hebrew, found in the 
 vicinity, belong to this peaceful period, and the 
 opinion of architectural authorities attributes 
 the well-known synagogues of Tell Him, 
 Chorazin, and others to this age. The earliest 
 remains -are, however, the scattered dolmens 
 on the hills to the north, and the old stone 
 circle (Ahjar en-Nasdra) on the plateau to the 
 west—relics probably of Canaanite idolatry. 
 The traditional scenes of various events in the 
 life of Christ shown near the lake, have not 
 been continuously fixed at any site, and vary 
 in different ages. They cannot, therefore, be 
 considered to possess authority.” [C. R. C.] 
 
 GENNE'US (1.7 Tevvatos, A. Tevveds 3 Gen- 
 nacus), father of Apollonius, who was one of 
 several generals (στρατηγοὶ) commanding towns 
 in Palestine, who molested the Jews while Lysias 
 was governor for Antiochus Eupator (2 Mace. 
 xii. 2). Luther understands the word as an 
 adjective (yevvatos=well-born), and has “ des 
 edlen Apollonius.” 
 
 GENTILES. I. Old Testament.—The He- 
 brew )3 in sing.=a people, nation, body politic ; 
 in which sense it is applied to the Jewish nation 
 amongst others. In the pl. it acquires an ethno- 
 graphic and also an invidious meaning, and is 
 rendered in A. V. by Gentiles and Heathen. 
 
 ‘3, the nations, the surrounding nations, 
 foreigners as opposed to Israel (Neh. v. 8). In 
 Gen. x. 5 it occurs in its most indefinite sense= 
 the far-distant inhabitants of the Western Isles 
 (see Dillmann® and Delitzsch [1887 ]), without 
 the slightest accessory notion of heathenism or 
 barbarism. In Lev., Deut., Pss. the term is 
 applied to the various heathen nations with 
 which Israel came into contact; its meaning 
 grows wider in proportion to the wider circle 
 of the national experience, and more or less 
 invidious according to the success or defeat of 
 the national arms. In the Prophets it attains 
 at once its most comprehensive and its most 
 hostile view: hostile in presence of victorious 
 rivals, comprehensive with reference to the 
 triumphs of a spiritual future (ep. Schultz,* 
 
 b A legend current among Jews and Moslems predicts 
 that Messiah will rise from the Sea of Gennesaret. It 
 bears a curious resemblance to the old Persian legend of 
 a future prophet who is to be born in a legendary lake in 
 the East. 
 
GENUBATH 
 
 Alttest. Theologie, p. 745 sq., and [with caution] 
 Cheyne, The Origin of the Psalter, p. 291 sy. 
 and notes). 
 
 Notwithstanding the disagreeable connotation 
 of the term, the Jews were able to use it, even 
 in the plural, ina purely technical, geographical 
 sense. So Gen. x. 5 (see above); Is. ix. 1. In 
 Gen. xiv. 1, Josh. xii. 23, D3 is by R. V. and 
 most moderns taken as the name of a land, 
 *“ Goiim”’ (cp. Delitzsch and Dillmann® on Gen. 
 d.¢., though Dillmann? prefers, ‘‘ nations,” in 
 Josh. ἐ. ¢.). 
 
 For “Galilee of the Gentiles,” cp. Matt. iv. 
 15 with Is. ix. 1, where the A. V. and R. V. 
 (text) read “Galilee of the nations.” In Heb. 
 
 Dyan byby means the “circle of the Gen- 
 
 tiles;” Kar’ ἐξοχήν, ban, hag-Galil; whence 
 the name Galilee was applied to a district which 
 was largely peopled by the Gentiles, especially 
 the Phoenicians. 
 
 Il. New Testament.—1. The Greek ἔθνος in 
 sing. means a people or nation (Matt. xxiv. 7; 
 Acts ii. 5, &c.), and even the Jewish people 
 (Luke vii. 5, xxiii. 2, &.; ep. 03, supr.). It is 
 only in the pl. that it is used for the Heb. O°, 
 heathen, Gentiles (cp. ἔθνος, heathen, ethnic): in 
 Matt. xxi. 43 ἔθνει, “nation,” alludes to, but 
 does not directly stand for, “‘ the Gentiles.” As 
 equivalent to Gentiles it is found in the Epistles 
 of St. Paul, but not always in an invidious sense 
 (e.g. Rom. xi. 13; Eph. iii. 1, 6). 
 
 2. Ἕλλην, John vii. 35, 7 διασπορὰ τῶν 
 Ἑλλήνων, “ the Jews dispersed among the Gen- 
 tiles” (R. V. “the Dispersion among [marg. of] 
 the Greeks”); Rom. iii. 9, Ἰουδαίους καὶ Ἕλλη- 
 vas, “ Jews and Gentiles” (R. V. “ Greeks ”’). 
 
 The A. V. is not consistent in its treatment 
 of this word ; sometimes rendering it by Greek 
 (Acts xiv. 1, xvii. 4; Rom. i. 16, x. 12), some- 
 times by Gentile (Rom. ii. 9, 10, iii. 9; 1 Cor. 
 x. 32), inserting Greek in the margin. The 
 R. V. translates it always “ Greek ” (see Thoms, 
 Concordunce to the R. V. of the N. T., 5. n.). 
 The places where Ἕλλην is equivalent to Greek 
 simply (as Acts xvi. 1, 3) are much fewer 
 than those where it is equivalent to Gentile. 
 The former may probably be reduced to Acts 
 xvi. 1, 3, xviii. 17; Rom. 1.14. The latter use 
 of the word seems to have arisen from the 
 almost universal adoption of the Greek language. 
 Even in 2 Mace. iv. 13, Ἑλληνισμὸς appears as 
 synonymous with ἀλλοφυλισμός (cp. vi..9); and 
 in Is. ix. 12 the LXX. renders omy by 
 Ἕλληνας; and so the Greek Fathers defended 
 
 the Christian faith πρὸς Ἕλληνας, and καθ᾽ 
 “Ἑλλήνων. (GREEK; HeatTuEen.]  ([T. E. B.] 
 
 GENU’BATH (N23); Γανηβάθ:; Genubath), 
 the son of Hadad, an Edomite of the royal family, 
 by an Egyptian princess, the sister of Tahpenes, 
 the queen of the Pharaoh who governed Egypt 
 in the latter part of the reign of David (1 K. xi. 
 20; cp. v.16). Genubath was born in the palace 
 of Pharaoh, and weaned by the queen herself; 
 after which he became a member of the royal 
 establishment, on the same footing as one of the 
 sons of Pharaoh. The fragment of Edomite 
 chronicle in which this is contained is very re- 
 markable, and may be compared with that in 
 
 GERAR 1161 
 
 Gen. xxxvi. Genubath is not again mentioned 
 or alluded to. The meaning of the name has 
 been variously traced to an Egyptian source, 
 and is given as “curly” or “the Southern ” 
 or “the Pinite” (PBSA. x. 372). [Ε.] 
 
 GE'ON (Γηῶν ; Gehon), i.e. GinoNn, one of 
 the four rivers of Eden; introduced, with the 
 Jordan, and probably the Nile, into a figure in 
 the praise of wisdom (Ecclus. xxiv. 27). This is 
 merely the Greek form of the Hebrew name, the 
 same which is used by the LXX. in Gen. ii. 13. 
 
 GE'RA (N14, ?=Little weight ; Pnpd), one of the 
 “sons,” 1.6. descendants, of Benjamin, enume- 
 rated in Gen. xlvi. 21, as already living at the 
 time of Jacob’s migration into Egypt. He was 
 son of Bela (1 Ch. viii.3). [Beta.] The text of 
 this last passage is very corrupt ; and the different 
 Geras there named seem to reduce themselves into 
 one,—the same as the sonof Bela. Gera, who is 
 named in Judg. iii. 15 as the ancestor of Ehud, 
 and in 2 Sam. xvi. 5 as the ancestor of Shimei 
 who cursed David [BrcuER], is probably also 
 the same person. Gera is not mentioned in the 
 list of Benjamite families in Num. xxvi. 38-40 = 
 of which a very obvious explanation is that at 
 that time he was not the head of a separate 
 family, but was included among the Belaites; 
 it being a matter of necessity that some of 
 Bela’s sons should be so included, otherwise there 
 could be no family of Belaites at all. Dr. 
 Kalisch has some long and rather perplexed ob- 
 servations on the discrepancies in the lists in 
 Gen. xlvi. and Num. xxvi., and specially as 
 regards the sons of Benjamin. But the truth 
 is that the two lists agree very well so far as 
 Benjamin is concerned. For the only discrepancy 
 that remains, when the absence of Becher and 
 Gera from the list in Num. is thus explained, is 
 that for the two names "MN and WN (Ehi and 
 Rosh) in Gen., we have the one name DVS 
 (Ahiram) in Num. If this last were written 
 DN’), as it might be, the two texts would be 
 almost identical, especially if written in the 
 Samaritan character, in which the shin closely 
 resembles the mem. That Ahiram is right we 
 are quite sure, from the family of the Ahi- 
 ramites, and from the non-mention elsewhere of 
 Rosh, which in fact is not a proper name. 
 (Rosu.] The conclusion therefore seems certain 
 
 that WN TIS in Gen. is a mere clerical error 
 
 {Delitzsch (1887) and Dillmann® leave the matter 
 untouched], and that there is perfect agreement 
 between the two lists. This view is strengthened 
 by the further fact that in the word which 
 follows Rosh, viz. Muppim, the initial m is an 
 error for sh. It should be Shuppim, as in Num. 
 xxvi. 39; 1 Ch. vii. 12. The final m of Ahiram, 
 and the initial sh of Shuppim, have thus been 
 transposed. To the remarks made under BECHER, 
 it should be added that the great destruction of 
 the Benjamites recorded in Judg. xx. may ac- 
 count for the introduction of so many new 
 names in the later Benjamite lists of 1 Ch. vii. 
 and viii., of which several seem to be women’s 
 
 names. ἘΔ CoH) 
 GERAH. [MEeAsures.] 
 GERA’R (113; Tepapd. The name is 
 
 rendered “ sojourning ” by Simonis, and “ water- 
 
1102 GERAR 
 
 pots” by Gesenius, Lex. ; the modern Arabic 
 
 w we 
 name of the site is ye οἱ ὅ5)5-» apparently 
 “yuin of the pottery maker” [Khurbet Umm 
 a ΄ 
 
 w 
 Jerrér], from yyy pl. .\ 5, “a water-pot.” 
 eae aa 
 
 There is much pottery at the site. It is, how- 
 ever, doubtful if this is the original meaning of 
 the Hebrew name). Gerar is first mentioned 
 (Gen. x. 19) with Gaza as being on the S.W. 
 border of Palestine; then as a place where 
 Abraham “sojourned” (13), apparently after 
 he had “dwelt” (AW) in the Negeb or “ dry ” 
 country, between Kadesh and Shur (Gen. xx. 
 1). At this time it was the abode of 
 Abimelech, the Philistine king (Gen. xxvi. 1), 
 and Isaac dwelt in Gerar (v. 6) and sowed 
 
 corn, and dug again wells in the valley bn, 
 “a torrent bed”) of Gerar, which had been 
 previously dug (15M) by Abraham (v. 18), to 
 which he gave the names EseK and SITNAH, 
 “contention” and “enmity.” His further 
 retreat from the pastoral lands of the Philis- 
 tines was to Rehoboth and Beersheba. In a 
 later age we read that Asa, after defeating the 
 Ethiopians (Cushites) at Mareshah (in αν 
 Sdjieh or Zephathah, close to Beit Jibrin), pur- 
 sued them to Gerar (2 Ch, xiv. 13,14). Yet 
 later we find the Gerrhenians, or people of 
 Gerar, mentioned as defining the limit of the 
 power of Judas Maccabaeus on the south 
 (ὦ Mace. xiii. 24). In most of the Biblical 
 passages the Samaritan Version reads “ As- 
 
 calon” for Gerar, and the Arabic x05)! 
 
 (Khalisa or Elusa: ep. Reland, Pai. ii. p. 805), 
 showing that the ancient site of Gerar was 
 unknown to these copyists. The Targum of 
 Jonathan also substitutes Arad. Nevertheless 
 the name was known to Josephus (Ant. i. 12, 
 § 1; viii. 12, § 1), and the Onomasticon in the 
 4th cent. A.D. refers to Gerara as being 25 
 miles south of Eleutheropolis, in the region 
 called Geraritica, beyond Daroma. Geraritica 
 seems to be noticed in the Talmud (2 7}, Tal. 
 Jer. Shebiith, vi. 1; Midrash Bereshith Rabba, 
 ch. 46; Targ. Jon. on Gen. xx. 1; Neubauer, 
 Géog. Tal. p. 65) as an unhealthy region near 
 the “river of Egypt.” It was inhabited by 
 Gentiles, excepting the Jews at Gaza. Sozomen 
 (Hist. lib. vi. 32, quoted by Reland, Pail. ii. 
 p- 805) says that there was a large monastery 
 and a very great torrent at Gerar. With 
 exception of the distance given by Eusebius, 
 these indications are not very exact, but they 
 all agree in pointing to the region S.E. of Gaza, 
 on the way to the Negeb or “dry” land south 
 of Beersheba, and on the border of the Egyptian 
 desert, in the S.E. corner of the Philistine 
 country. This is exactly where the ruined site 
 (Khurbet Umm Jerraér) has been found, on the 
 right bank of the great torrent-bed of Wady 
 Ghuzzeh, which flows N.W. to fall into the sea 
 about 4 miles south of Gaza. The distance from 
 this site of Gerar to Eleutheropolis (Beit Jibrin) 
 is actually 30 English miles; but this may be 
 considered as approximately representing the 
 estimated distance in the Onomasticon. There 
 are no stone wells such as occur at Beersheba, 
 
 GERASA 
 
 but water is easily obtained by digging 
 Hufeiyir, “ pits,’ in the torrent-bed. These 
 are easily filled in and require to be redug, 
 thus not only illustrating the redigging of 
 Abraham’s wells by Isaac, but preserving the 
 same word, used in the Hebrew narrative, for 
 “digging” the shallow water-pits for the 
 flocks, necessitated by the fact that the water 
 flows beneath the surface of the shingly bed of 
 the torrent. The ruins consist of a large 
 mound, the site of a good-sized town: about a 
 dozen cisterns or granaries of rubble, with 
 domed roofs, exist among the débris; a few 
 fragments of glass and tesserae were observed, 
 and on the sides of the torrent-bed a thickness 
 of six or ten feet of broken pottery, half buried. 
 The pottery is hard and red, and probably not 
 very ancient. The country round is a pastoral 
 plain, with water only in the great courses 
 which run down from Beersheba, by Gerar, to 
 the sea. The region generally is much like 
 that round Beersheba, and well fitted for the 
 pastoral nomadic life of the Hebrew patriarchs ; 
 yet not incapable of producing a crop of corn 
 such as Isaac reaped. The life of the neigh- 
 bouring Arabs—mainly pastoral, yet not 
 without some attempt at agriculture—repre- 
 sents that of the Patriarchs (see Mem. Survey 
 West Pal. iii. 389). [Ο ΤῸ 
 
 GER’ASA (Τέρασα; Arab. Jerésh,  γδὴ | >). 
 
 This famous town is not mentioned in the 
 Bible, but in Mark v. 1 the R. V. reads * Ge- 
 rasenes” for the “Gadarenes” of the A. V., 
 referring to the inhabitants of the district of 
 which Gerasa was the capital. This change is 
 made on the authority of the Sinaitic and 
 Vatican MSS. and Codex Bezae. In Matt. viii. 
 28 the Sinaitic MS. reads “Gazarenes”’ for 
 ‘““Gadarenes.” There was evidently a confusion 
 made by copyists between Gadara and Gerasa, 
 and Origen points out (see Reland, Pal. ii. 
 p- 806) that the latter is too far from the Sea 
 of Galilee to be the site intended in the Gospel, 
 although the reading in the majority of the 
 MSS. known to him appears to have been 
 Gerasenes in Matt. viii. 28. The meaning of the 
 name is probably “plain” or “ pasture” (see 
 Gesen. Lex.), and there are several sites in 
 Palestine east and west of Jordan where it 
 recurs as Jerdsh in the modern nomenclature of 
 ruined sites. 
 
 The earliest historic notice of Gerasa is found 
 in Josephus in the time of Alexander Jannaeus, 
 about 85 B.c. ( Wars, i. 4, § 8). Marching from 
 Pella near the Jordan valley, the Hasmonean 
 king penetrated S.E. to this remote town, already 
 a strong place, and built a triple siege-work 
 round it, taking it finally by assault. In the 
 time of Josephus the town marked the limits of 
 Peraea, or the country beyond Jordan on the 
 side of the desert (Wars, iii. 3,§ 3). In the 
 Talmudic writings Gerash (t/73) is made equiva- 
 lent to Gilead (Midrash on Samuel, ch. xiii. ; 
 Neubauer, Géog. Tal. p. 250). The city was well 
 known in the 4th cent., and Jerome (0 8.2 p. 158, 
 29, 5. v. Gergasi) calls it urbs insignis Arabiae. 
 It had risen from its ashes in the 2nd century 
 A.D. —the time of its greatest prosperity—after 
 having been set on fire by Lucius Annius during 
 the war of Vespasian against the Jews (Wars, 
 
GERASA 
 
 iv. 9,§ 1). The Jews themselves ( Wars, ii. 18, 
 § 1) had wasted this region just before the war in 
 revenge for the massacres at Caesarea, and the 
 population is called “Syrian” by Josephus, 
 being no doubt Aramean.* Pliny appears to 
 refer to Gerasa in the form Galasa, as now read 
 
 (v. 18), in enumerating towns of the region of | 
 
 Gilead and Bashan; and Epiphanius (Adv. Haeres. 
 book ii.) speaks of the spring in the city of 
 Gerasa of Arabia. Stephanus (Zthnic.) says that 
 it belonged to the region of the fourteen cities 
 (perhaps meaning Decapolis) in Syria, and was 
 the home of Ariston Rhetor. Iamblichus, who 
 mentions it with Bostra, says it was colonised by 
 the veterans of Alexander the Great. Jerome 
 (ad Obad, 1) says that the region of Gerasa was 
 the ancient Gilead (cp. Reland, Pal. ii. 806). 
 Coins of Gerasa are said by Reland to exist, 
 bearing the legend APTEMIZ TYXH ΓΕ- 
 ΡΑΣΩΝ, showing the worship of Artemis in 
 the temple here erected in the 2nd century A.D. 
 
 The town however became Christian, and its | 
 
 bishops attended the Great Councils of the Church. 
 In the 10th century El Mukaddasi speaks of the 
 region Jebel Jarash as being full of villages in 
 trade relation with Tiberias. Baldwin II. early 
 in the 12th century (1121 A.D.) besieged Jarras, 
 and the chronicler speaks of its strong site and 
 the mighty masonry of its walls. William of 
 Tyre, describing this siege, makes the distance a 
 few miles (leagues) from the Jordan (Hist. xii. 
 ch. 16): the town was then fortified by a garrison 
 sent by the Sultan of Damascus; but as the 
 latest buildings in Gerasa belong to the By- 
 zantine period, it would appear never to have 
 been inhabited by any settled Moslem population. 
 In the 13th century Yakat, who had not seen it, 
 describes the site as once a mighty city, but 
 “now a total ruin.” A river however turned 
 several mills, and the mountains round contained 
 many villages, Jerash, he says, had been 
 conquered in the time of Omar (Le Strange, Pal. 
 under Moslems, p. 462). The importance of 
 Gerasa is, however, attested by its ruins rather 
 than by any historic notices of the site. In 
 respect of these Roman remains it is perhaps 
 the most interesting example in Syria of the 
 great works of the Antonines (140-180 4.D.), 
 presenting even more variety than Palmyra, 
 and being also more purely Roman. Surpassing 
 Philadelphia and Gadara, and laying before our 
 eyes the complete plan of a Roman colonial city, 
 with no later additions save a church close to 
 the great Temple, it stands as it was left by the 
 shock of earthquake or after the fierce assault 
 of the followers of Omar. 
 
 The site is on the uplands of Gilead, 18 miles 
 east of the Jordan and 5 miles north of the 
 Jabbok, at an elevation of about 1700 feet 
 above the Mediterranean, near the border of 
 the Syrian desert. The town lies across a flat 
 valley with low hills of grey limestone, the 
 summits of which are occupied by the walls on 
 the east and west. A perennial brook in a 
 sunken bed divides the town into two unequal 
 portions, the largest to the west, and flows south 
 
 5 Since, in the passage referring to the attack by 
 Annius, Jericho is said to have been held by the Romans, 
 it does not seem necessary to adopt Reland’s reading, 
 Gazara (Gezer) for Gerasa; but the criticism is worthy 
 of notice, 
 
 | 
 
 | 
 | 
 
 GERASA 1163 
 in a bright stream, with a cascade close to the 
 south wall. The course is surrounded with 
 oleanders, but the hills are bare, with a little 
 scrub of oak and mastic in places. Corn is also 
 grown on the slopes by the villagers of Saf, the 
 nearest inhabited place. Approaching from the 
 south, scattered sarcophagi, a triumphal arch, 
 and a great basin 230 yards by 100 yards, sur- 
 rounded with tiers of stone seats, are first seen. 
 This latter structure is the naumachia or circus 
 for naval contests, once filled from the stream. 
 The city gate is a quarter of a mile to the north. 
 The area of the walls, which are traceable on 
 all sides with six gates, has been over-esti- 
 mated: according to Kiepert’s plan, it is not 
 quite 3,000 yards, enclosing a polygon. Within 
 the walls the main street of columns runs 
 parallel to the stream on the west; the circular 
 forum or peribolos being on the south, close to 
 a theatre and a temple. The great temple 
 occupies the western slope near the centre of 
 the western quarter. A second theatre exists 
 further north; and a third temple, east of the 
 stream, in the N.E. corner of the town. A 
 basilica or judgment hall faces the great temple, 
 east of the main street ; and north of this, close 
 to the stream, are the baths. Two main streets 
 run across the stream, that from the basilica 
 having a bridge with ruts carefully cut for 
 chariot wheels. Another large public building 
 stands in the east quarter, near the stream, 
 between the two streets. The size of the 
 buildings may be judged from that of the 
 pillars of the southern temple, which are 
 38 feet in height and 43 in diameter. In 
 the basilica is a fine red granite pillar shaft, 
 which must have been brought from Egypt or 
 from Sinai. The site was carefully explored by 
 Burckhardt, who copied most of the inscriptions. 
 Of these ten are known, one having the name of 
 Antonius. As usual in Syria, the Romans have 
 used the Greek language and character, Two 
 texts near the ruined foundations of the church 
 (immediately south of the great temple) are of 
 special interest, as they refer to the establish- 
 ment of Christianity and the discontinuance of 
 the pagan worship. The shorter is a memorial 
 of a certain ᾿Αεθλοφόρος or “victor ”—a term 
 which is sometimes applied to Christian 
 champions or martyrs—named Theodorus. 
 “His body,” says the poet, “is in the earth, but 
 his soul in the wide heaven.” This text is in 
 hexameters and marked with the Cross: the 
 date is probably about the 5th century A.D. 
 The second and longer text, in 13 hexameter 
 lines, was carved by a priest named Aeneas (see 
 translation in Conder’s Palestine, 1889, p. 181), 
 and relates that the clouds of darkness having 
 been dispelled by the grace of God, the sign of 
 the Cross has been substituted for the evil odour 
 of the sacrifices formerly offered here. The 
 region round Jerash was one of the earliest to 
 accept Christianity, but the text above mentioned 
 is the most important yet discovered in con- 
 nexion with the abolition of pagan rites in 
 Syria. Gerasa was no doubt an important 
 trading centre, communicating with the Hauran, 
 and with the southern cities of Gilead as well 
 as with the west. It shared the fate of all the 
 cities east of Jordan, and ceased to be inhabited 
 when the Arabs overthrew the Byzantine power. 
 The best accounts are in Burckhardt’s and 
 
1164 GERGESENES 
 
 Buckingham’s Travels. It was visited by the 
 present writer in 1882, but would repay a 
 more complete exploration than has yet been 
 attempted. [C. R. C.] 
 
 GERGESE'NES, Matt. viii. 28. [GADARA.] 
 
 GERGESI'TES, THE (of ΓΕεργεσαίοι ; 
 Vulg. omits), Judith v. 16. [GIRGASHITES.] 
 
 GERIZ’'IM (O%73 17; Γαριζίν). The name 
 is doubtfully translated by Gesenius “ Mount of 
 
 SS 
 ἊΝ 
 
 Hh 
 
 Hy 
 SS 
 ἢ yy, ae 
 yy 
 
 Ay 
 Gif 
 ΄, 
 
 GERIZIM 
 
 the Gerizites,” but cannot well be connected 
 with the tribe of Girzites (otherwise Gezrites 
 or people of Gezer) in Philistia (1 Sam. xxvii. 8). 
 The root 173 in Hebrew and Arabic means “ to 
 
 Tr 
 cut off” or “separate;” and since no definite 
 article is used, the term may refer rather to the 
 features of the mountain than to any ethnical 
 sue 
 
 name: compare the Arabic +5, “barren 
 
 land” or “unwatered.” The ruggedness of 
 Gerizim suggests that the true meaning is 
 
 SS 
 = . = 
 
 = SSS 7 2 
 
 SSA 
 
 δ 
 ᾿ 
 
 ects 
 
 ot ΥΞΞΞὰΣ 
 Si Barracks 
 
 ced 
 τ 
 
 “᾿- “oe , 
 ~ ae et 7 
 Wisse. es STosephi's Torrb 
 CoS "4 ͵ 
 iy) Wipes ἥ ἢ 
 WA he Ss i 
 WIN: Θ᾿ 
 
 Bieri ΟΕ  ΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΙ͂ΞΞ 
 ee 
 
 Ebal and Gerizim. 
 
 “mountain of the barren places.” The position 
 of Ebal and Gerizim is defined, with unusual 
 detail, in the first passage in which the name 
 
 occurs (Deut. xi. 30; R. V.): ‘¢ Are they not be- 
 yond Jordan, behind (or in the western parts of) 
 the way of the going down of the sun, in the land 
 
GERIZIM 
 
 of the Canaanites, which dwell in the Arabah 
 (‘plain’ or ‘desert’) over against the Gilgal, 
 near the plains (or terebinths) of Moreh?” Yet 
 this account has been understood by Eusebius 
 and Jerome to refer to a site near Jericho. It 
 is notable, however, that the extreme horizon 
 (“behind the sunset”) is clearly intended as 
 viewed from the region east of Jordan, whence 
 the two mountains are almost hidden by the 
 chain to their immediate east. This would not 
 agree with any site in or near the Jordan valley. 
 The blessing was to be set (or “ given forth ”’) 
 on Gerizim, though the altar, according to the 
 Hebrew Version, was to be built on (or at) Ebal 
 (Deut. xxvii. 4, 12). The tribes were to stand 
 half on one mountain and half on the other. 
 According to the Samaritans, who charge the 
 Jews with altering the text, the altar was to be 
 erected on (or “at”) Gerizim, the “mount of 
 the blessing.” It is not however to be supposed 
 that the summits of the mountains are intended, 
 for in the passage which records the ceremony 
 (Josh. viii. 33) the tribes are said to have stood 
 
 “in front ” 49) of either mountain, probably 
 on the lower slopes, which are separated by a 
 distance of only half a mile. Much that has 
 been written as to the difficulty of hearing the 
 words spoken by the priests standing between 
 the two divisions of the people, is quite un- 
 necessary, in view of the precise meaning of the 
 Hebrew words. The natural amphitheatre of 
 hill-slopes is well fitted for the retention of the 
 voice, but no unusual clearness of the air marks 
 the spot, nor is any such required by the Bible ac- 
 count. The space is sufficient fora large national 
 assembly, and the phonetic difficulty is only that 
 which is found in every open-air assembly. 
 
 The clearest notice of the position of Gerizim 
 is found ina later passage (Judg. ix. 7), when 
 Jotham addressed the men of Shechem from the 
 top of the mountain. In the New Testament 
 also (John iv. 20, 21), the Samaritan woman, 
 speaking at Jacob’s well, clearly refers to Geri- 
 zim asthe mountain close by, where the Samari- 
 tans worshipped. It is therefore to be regarded 
 as certain that the mountain south of the vale 
 of Shechem is that called Gerizim in the Bible. 
 
 The question whether Gerizim is the moun- 
 tain intended in Genesis (xxii. 2) as the scene of 
 Abraham’s sacrifice of his son is quite distinct. 
 It is described as in the “land of Moriah ” 
 
 (77D), which has been connected with. the 
 
 Moreh near Shechem (Gen. xii. 6; Deut. xi. 30), 
 which was either a “plain” (A. V.) or a group 
 of “oaks ” or terebinths (R. V.); but it should 
 be noticed that Moriah was the name of the 
 Temple hill (72ND), according to the author of 
 the Second Book of Chronicles (iii. 1), and Josephus 
 believed that the Temple mountain was the 
 scene of this sacrifice (Ant. i. 13, § 2). The 
 Samaritan tradition identifies it with Gerizim, 
 and Dean Stanley (S. ¢ P. p. 235) has argued 
 in favour of this view. The distance from Beer- 
 sheba does not absolutely forbid such an identifi- 
 cation, since Gerizim can be seen at some con- 
 siderable distance (Gen. xxii. 4); but there 
 appears to he no very conclusive reason for pre- | 
 ferring the Samaritan to the Jewish tradition on | 
 
 this point. 
 The summit of Gerizim was probably a sacred 
 place at a very early period, like the summits of , 
 
 GERIZIM 1165 
 
 many other mountains in Palestine—such as Car- 
 mel, Olivet, &c.; but we have no account of any 
 temple or altar on the mountain in the Bible. 
 Josephus states that Sanballat, the Horonite, 
 allied by marriage to the high priest Jaddua, 
 built for his son-in-law, Manasseh, a temple on 
 Gerizim (Ant. xi. 8, § 4); but the difficulty 
 arises that Josephus dates this event in the time 
 of Alexander the Great, whereas the Sanballat 
 of the Ο, T. lived in the time of Nehemiah (Neh. 
 xiii, 28), nearly a century earlier ; and however 
 old Sanballat may have been, the two accounts 
 can hardly be reconciled. The whole of 
 Josephus’ account of the Samaritan history is 
 marked by strong prejudice; but he clearly 
 identifies Gerizim as the mountain near Shechem 
 (Ant. xi. 8, § 6). Ina later passage (Ant. xiii. 
 3, § 4) the dispute before Ptolemy Philometor, 
 between Jews and Samaritans, as to the com- 
 parative antiquity of their temples, is narrated. 
 The peculiar views of Eusebius and Jerome as to 
 the position of Gerizim and Ebal were also pro- 
 bably due to Jewish influence. In the Onomus- 
 ticon (OS.? p. 253, 79; 158, 4) they identify these 
 mountains with two hills near Jericho, and reject 
 the Samaritan statement that they were near 
 Shechem, with the words sed vehementer er- 
 rant ; which, however, applies to themselves. 
 That their view was not generally received is 
 clear, since the Bordeaux Pilgrim in the same 
 century places Gerizim at Shechem; and this 
 is also always the view of every pilgrim or 
 chronicler who mentions the mountain later. 
 Eusebius himself (Praep. Evang. ix. 22) quotes 
 lines from Theodotus which accurately describe 
 the true position. Procopius of Caesarea, de- 
 scribing the works of Justinian on the mountain, 
 also places it near Shechem (De Aedif. v. 7). 
 
 In conclusion of the question as to the Sama- 
 ritan temple, it is remarkable that, in the 
 Gospel, no allusion is made to its existence. The 
 fathers are merely said to have worshipped “ in 
 this mountain” (John iv. 20). As, however, John 
 Hyrcanus, in 129 B.c., made an expedition into 
 Samaria, where he is said to have caused the 
 temple on Gerizim to be deserted (Ant. xiii. 9, 
 § 1, 10,§ 2; Wars, i. 2, § 6), it is possible that 
 it may have been in ruins in the time of Christ. 
 The coins of Neapolis are believed to represent 
 a temple on Gerizim, but Robinson has ex- 
 pressed his doubt (Bib. Res. ii. p. 293) whether 
 more than an altar existed on the mountain. 
 During the war against Vespasian (Josephus, 
 Wars, iii. 7, § 32) the Samaritans endeavoured 
 to resist the Romans on Gerizim, but the latter 
 held apparently the springs at the foot of the 
 mountain, and the defenders submitted, worn 
 out by heat and want of water and of food. In 
 
 74 A.D. the Emperor Zeno built the church still 
 to be seen on the summit, to which Justinian 
 added a fortress in the next century. This church 
 was seized by the Samaritans under the leader- 
 ship of a woman in 529 a.p., the third year of 
 Justinian’s reign, but a cruel retribution fell on 
 the rioters, and it appears that for a time all 
 access to the mountain was denied them. 
 
 The Samaritan accounts of their history are 
 all unfortunately very late, being written in 
 the Middle Ages. Gerizim was the centre of 
 their faith, round which were clustered many 
 traditional sites. Joseph’s tomb, Jacob’s well, 
 the sepulchres of Joshua and of the sons of Aaron 
 
1100 GERIZIM 
 
 were all near to the mountain, on which in all 
 ages, from the time when they became a dis- 
 tinct sect, they appear to have shown the site of 
 Abraham’s sacrifice, and to have held their Pass- 
 over feast. Here, too, they believed that Joshua 
 set up the Tabernacle, and afterwards built a 
 temple. The site of Bethel was also shown as 
 early as the 4th century A.D. on the mountain, 
 and is still so placed by the Samaritans. The 
 Samaritan ‘“‘ Book of Joshua” is a legendary 
 work of the 13th cent. A.D. (Juynboll, Leyden, 
 1848), founded on earlier materials. It can- 
 not be relied on except in so far as it shows 
 Samaritan beliefs. According to this work, 
 written in Arabic, all Israel gathered thrice 
 a year on Gerizim, where a temple was erected 
 (ch. xxiv.), on the altar of which only could 
 sacrifices be made (ch. xxxviii.). On Gerizim, 
 in the time of the Judges, the sacred vessels 
 were hidden in a cave (ch. xlii.), where the 
 Samaritans believe them still to lie hid. In the 
 days of the Persians the re-erection of this 
 temple was permitted, the Jews were defeated 
 in their contention in favour of Jerusalem, and re- 
 pented, all Israel worshipping on Gerizim (ch. xlv.). 
 Alexander the Great acknowledged Gerizim to 
 be the true centre of worship (ch. xlvi.) ; Hadrian 
 brought the brazen doors of the Jerusalem 
 Temple to the shrine which he built on Gerizim 
 (ch. xlvii.). At this time many of the sacred 
 books were lost. The Romans placed a guard on 
 the mountain, and a magic bird of brass warned 
 them of the approach of any Samaritan (ch. xlviii.): 
 this appears to have been destroyed in a riot 
 under Baba Rabba (ch. 1.). Among the articles 
 of Samaritan belief (see Nutt, Samaritan Hist. 
 p- 67), the sanctity of Gerizim is one of the most 
 distinctive. Itis regarded as the abode of God 
 on earth, the home of eternal life, “the Mount 
 of Blessings,” “ the Everlasting hill,” “ the Stone 
 of Israel’: above it is Paradise; here Adam and 
 Seth raised altars, and seven steps led to Noah’s 
 altar; here were the “ twelve stones ” on which 
 the Law was inscribed, the high-priest’s house, 
 and the cave of Makkedah. Gerizim, they say, 
 is the highest mountain in the world (though 
 Ebal is 200 feet higher), and Gerizim alone was 
 not covered by the Flood. 
 
 Among mediaeval writers Benjamin of Tudela 
 is one of the very few who describe the Samaritans. 
 He mentions an altar on Gerizim (in 1163 A.D.), 
 where they offered sacrifice, made from the 
 stones taken by Israel from Jordan, The moun- 
 tain, he says, was rich in wells and orchards 
 (which applies only to its N.W. slopes), whereas 
 Ebal was barren, which applies to the southern 
 side of the mountain. Sir John Maundeville 
 (1322) speaks of the sacrifices, and of the tradi- 
 tion of Abraham’s sacrifice. Maundrell (1697 
 A.D.) speaks of “a small temple or place of 
 worship,” and of the Samaritan assertion that 
 Joshua’s altar was built on Gerizim, He also 
 regards the latter as more fruitful than Ebal. 
 The other Jewish pilgrims whose Itineraries are 
 known refer only in a cursory manner to the 
 mountain. According to Crusading tradition, 
 both Dan and Bethel were on or near Gerizim, 
 and the calves set up by Jeroboam stood on the 
 mountain, or on Ebal and Gerizim (Marino 
 Sanuto, 14th cent.); but these opinions have no 
 historic value. If any temple was really built 
 
 on Gerizim, it would appear to have been an | 
 
 GERIZIM 
 
 unimportant edifice, soon destroyed, and of which 
 no remains are recognisable at the present time. 
 
 The fullest account of Gerizim is to be found 
 in the Memoirs of the Survey of Western Pales- 
 tine (vol. ii. sheet xi. pp. 168-9, 187-93), as ex- 
 plored in 1866, 1872, 1875, and 1882. The 
 mountain is one of the highest in Palestine south 
 of Galilee, rising to a small plateau, half a mile 
 in length north and south, and presenting steep 
 slopes on the north and east, while long spurs run 
 out on the other sides—the whole forming a 
 remarkable block of rugged limestone, which, as 
 seen from the western plains or from the plateau 
 east of Jordan, is conspicuous among the sur- 
 rounding mountains. The extreme height is 
 2,800 feet above the Mediterranean, and about 
 1200 above the vale of Shechem, which lies to 
 the north, dividing Gerizim from Ebal, while on 
 the east is the plain of El Mukhnah (“the 
 camp”) stretching to the hills on the east, which 
 hide the Jordan valley. This plain is often 
 identified with Moreh (already mentioned), and 
 the border of Ephraim appears to have run along 
 its west side at the foot of Gerizim. The mount- 
 ain consists of hard and very rough limestone, 
 the lower part dokomitic, the upper of nummu- 
 litic beds, found also on Ebal, but not common 
 in Palestine, except at considerable elevations. 
 There are two excellent springs on the east, near 
 the foot of the slope, and on the north is the 
 ‘Ain Balata (to be noticed later), and further 
 west, beneath the lower spur, the fine fountain 
 called Ras el ‘Ain. Near the northern springs 
 occur gardens with olives, figs, pomegranates, 
 and cactus, which are picturesque in contrast 
 with the utter barrenness of the rocks which 
 rise above them. A peculiar knoll, north of the 
 main summit, is clearly artificial, in part at 
 least. The white marl, which overlies the 
 dolomite, appears at the foot of Gerizim on the 
 south-east. The plain to the east, and the vale 
 of Shechem, present a contrast to the mountain, 
 being very fertile and well cultivated, and the 
 springs and gardens of Shechem itself are 
 celebrated among Syrians. 
 
 The view from the summit is one of the 
 most extensive and remarkable in Palestine (see 
 Tent Work in Palestine, chap. ii.). On the north 
 it is blocked by the superior height of Ebal; 
 beneath are seen the buildings and gardens of 
 Shechem. On the east the hills of Gilead appear ; 
 above the nearer tops east of the plain of the 
 Mukhnah. On the south are the mountains 
 round Shiloh. On the west a large part of the 
 plain of Sharon appears, beyond the foot hills, 
 which are dotted with olive-groves and villages, 
 and the Mediterranean forms the horizon beyond 
 the yellow sand dunes, Caesarea can be seen on 
 this side, and further north the hills beyond 
 Samaria and the distant range of Carmel. 
 
 One of the most remarkable sites connected 
 with Gerizim is “the Mosque of the pillar” 
 (Jami’a el ‘Amud) at the foot of the mountain, 
 half a mile from the village of Balata. There 
 appears to have been a sacred Samaritan shrine 
 in this vicinity, known in later times as “ the 
 Holy Oak” or “the Tree of Grace ”—possibly 
 the oak of Moreh already mentioned. The name 
 Balata is perhaps a corruption of this title 
 (Ballut, “oak ”), since Jerome (0.5.3 p. 140, 15) 
 speaks of Balanus as the ‘oak of Shechem” 
 (Judg. ix. 6), and as near Joseph’s tomb. This 
 
—— 
 
 GERIZIM 
 
 was the place where Abimelech was proclaimed, 
 at the foot of the holy mountain, and the Sama- 
 ritan tradition appears to connect the site with 
 the oak by the “sanctuary of Jehovah” (Josh. 
 xxiv. 26), and with the oak mentioned yet 
 earlier in the story of Jacob (Gen. xxxv. 6). 
 The name “ Mosque of the pillar” no doubt 
 commemorates the pillar, or “erect stone,” be- 
 side which the Shechemites made their king 
 under the oak; but this shrine cannot be the 
 site of Joshua’s altar “at” Ebal, unless we take 
 the Samaritan view as to the alteration of the 
 text, and suppose that the sanctuary was really 
 at the foot of Gerizim. 
 
 Immediately north of the summit of the moun- 
 tain are the ruins of Lézeh or Luz—the place 
 where the Samaritans celebrate the Passover, 
 This name is also of some antiquity. Samaritan 
 tradition makes it the site of Bethel, where Jacob 
 dreamed. In the Onomasticon it is mentioned as 
 Luza near Shechem (Ο 5.5 p. 167, 14). The ruins 
 consist merely of dry stone walls, with the 
 trench for roasting the Paschal lambs, a large 
 stone on which the high-priest stands, and places 
 for boiling water and skinning the sacrifice. 
 The Holy Rock of the Samaritans is a limestone 
 stratum on the very summit, overlooking the 
 eastern slope. It trends naturally to the north- 
 west, and has a pit or cave on this side, over 
 which the Tabernacle is believed to have stood. 
 The rock measures 50 feet either way, with a 
 low dry-stone fence to mark its limits. There 
 is a well-marked artificial “ cup hollow ” in this 
 rock, such as so frequently occur at pre-historic 
 sanctuaries or “earth-fast rocks.” It is said to 
 mark the site of the laver in the court of the 
 Tabernacle.* East of the rock are the “seven 
 steps” (of Noah’s altar or of Adam/’s descent 
 from Eden), and on the south-east corner of the 
 plateau forming the summit of the mountain is 
 a small trench in the rock—the supposed site of 
 Abraham’s altar. The ‘twelve stones” are 
 rudely-shaped blocks in a foundation wall of 
 three or four courses. They are not of great size, 
 and the date of the platform so formed is un- 
 certain. There are many small praying places, 
 fenced with stones, round the sacred rock, but 
 no clear indications of any important building. 
 
 The Christian ruins near the north end of the 
 plateau include Zeno’s octagonal church, with 
 an apse to the east, and six side chapels with 
 smaller apses; round which church rises Jus- 
 tinian’s square fortress—180 feet N. and 8. by 
 230 feet E. and W.—formed of drafted masonry, 
 such as was used in Byzantine times. A 
 modern shrine on the north-east tower of the 
 fortress is called Sheikh Ghanim, or, by the 
 Samaritans, the tomb of Shechem ben Hamor. 
 North of the fortress is a reservoir, 120 feet by 
 60 feet, to supply water, there being none on 
 the summit: this also is Byzantine work. Pro- 
 copius says that the church was dedicated 
 to the Virgin, and was fortified in consequence 
 of the Samaritan attack upon it: the original 
 wall round it was a mere dry stone fence, but 
 the fort of Justinian rendered it impregnable. 
 The artificial knoll—perhaps a Roman guard 
 station—has already been noticed: a vallum 
 
 a The Samaritan Chronicle, however (Jowrnal Asia- 
 tique, Dec. 1869, p. 435), places the site of the Tabernacle 
 and temple at Luz. 
 
 GERSHOM 1167 
 
 protected it on the side of the summit, and a 
 strong building, 53 feet square, stood on the 
 knoll, 
 
 To the Arab population Gerizim is known only 
 as Jebel et Tor, a common name for isolated 
 summits. To the Samaritans it is best known 
 as “the Mount of the Blessing.” (C. R. C.] 
 
 GERI/ZITES, 1 Sam. xxvii. 8. [Gerzrres.] | 
 GERRHE'NIANS, THE (ἕως τῶν Γεῤῥη- 
 
 νῶν, A. Τεννηρῶν ; ad Gerrenos), named in 
 2 Mace. xiii. 24 only, as one limit of the district 
 committed by Antiochus Eupator to the govern- 
 ment of Judas Maccabaeus, the other limit being 
 Ptolemais (Accho). To judge by the similar 
 expression in defining the extent of Simon’s 
 government in 1 Mace. xi. 59, the specification 
 has reference to the sea-coast of Palestine, and, 
 from the nature of the case, the Gerrhenians, 
 wherever they were, must have been south of 
 Ptolemais. Grotius seems to have been the first 
 to suggest that the town Gerrhon or Gerrha 
 was intended, which lay between Pelusium and 
 Rhinocolura ( Wady el- Arish). But it has been 
 pointed out by Ewald (Geschichte, iv. 365, note) 
 that the coast as far north as the latter place 
 was at that time in possession of Egypt, and he 
 thereon conjectures that the inhabitants of the 
 ancient city of GERAR, S.E. of Gaza, the resi- 
 dence of Abraham and Isaac, are meant. In 
 support of this Grimm (Awrzg. Handb. ad loc.) 
 mentions that at least one MS. reads Γεραρηνῶν, 
 which would without difficulty be corrupted to 
 Γεῤῥηνῶν. 
 
 It seems to have been overlooked that the 
 Syriac Version (early, and entitled to much re- 
 
 spect) has Gazar Gh: By this may be in- 
 
 tended either (a) the ancient GrzER, now Tell 
 Jezer, S.E. of er-Ramich; or (Ὁ) Gaza, which 
 sometimes takes that form in these books. In 
 the latter case the government of Judaea would 
 contain the whole coast of Palestine ; and this is 
 most probably correct. [Gane Wen 
 
 GERSHOM (in the earlier books OW73, in Ch. 
 generally Da). 1. (in Ex. Pnpodu; in Judg. 
 xxx. B. Γηρσόμ, and A. Γηρσώμ:; Joseph. Γῆρσος; 
 Gersom, Gersan.) The first-born son of Moses 
 and Zipporah (Ex. ii. 22; xviii. 3). The name is 
 explained in these passages as if py A (Ger 
 sham)= “a stranger there,” in allusion to Moses’ 
 being a foreigner in Midian—* For he said, I 
 have been a stranger (Gér) in a foreign land.” 
 This signification is adopted by Josephus (Ant. 
 ii, 13, § 1), and also by the LXX. in the form of 
 the name which they give—I'npoau; but accord- 
 ing to Gesenius ( Zhes. p. 306b), its true meaning, 
 taking it as a Hebrew word, is “ expulsion,” 
 from a root wa, being only another form of 
 GERSHON (see also Fiirst, Handuwb.). The cir- 
 cumcision of Gershom is probably related in Ex. 
 iv. 25. He does not appear again in the history 
 in his own person, but he was the founder of a 
 family of which more than one of the members 
 are mentioned later. (a.) One of these was a 
 remarkable person — “Jonathan the son of 
 Gershom,” the “young man the Levite,” whom 
 we first encounter on the way from Bethlehem- 
 Judah to Micah’s house at Mount Ephraim 
 
1108 GERSHON 
 
 (Judg. xvii. 7), and who subsequently became 
 the first priest to the irregular worship of the 
 tribe of Dan (xviii. 30, B. Γηρσόμ; A. Γερσώμλ). 
 The change of the name “ Moses ” in this passage, 
 as it originally stood in the Hebrew text, to 
 “ Manasseh,”’ as it now stands both in the Text 
 and the A. V. (R. V. has “ Moses”; mary. 
 Manasseh), is explained under MANASSEH. 
 (6-) But at least one of the other branches of 
 the family preserved its allegiance to Jehovah, 
 for when the courses of the Levites were settled 
 by king David, “the sons of Moses the man of 
 God” received honourable prominence, and 
 SHEBUEL, chief of the sons of Gershom, was ap- 
 pointed ruler (1°})) of the treasures (1 Ch. 
 xxiii. 15-17; xxvi. 24-28). 
 
 2. The form under which the name GERSHON 
 —the eldest son of Levi—is given in several 
 ΕΒ μὸν of Chronicles, viz. 1 Ch. vi. 16, 17, 20, 
 43, 62, 71; xv. 7. ‘The Hebrew is pincet aiter 
 nately ca and DIR; the LXX. have 
 
 different renderings of the name; B. Γεδσών, 
 A. Γηρσών; Vulg. Gerson and Gersom. 
 8. (DW: BA. ΓΤηρσώμ ; Gersom.) The re- 
 
 presentative of the priestly family of Phinehas, 
 among those who accompanied Ezra from ἀρὰ 
 lon (Ezra viii. 2). In Esdras the name 
 
 GERSON. {G.] rw.) 
 
 GERSHON (iA; in Gen. Γηρσών, in 
 other books uniformly Γεδσών ; and so also A. 
 with three exceptions ; Joseph. Ant. ii. 7, ὃ 4, 
 Τηρσόμη5), the eldest of the three sons of Levi, 
 born before the descent of Jacob’s family into 
 Egypt (Gen. xlvi. 11; Ex. vi. 160). But though 
 the eldest born, the "families of Gershon were 
 outstripped in fame by their younger brethren 
 of Kohath, from whom sprang Moses and the 
 priestly line of Aaron.* Gershon’s sons were 
 [1ΒΝ1 and Sumi (Ex. vi. 17; Num. iii. 18, 21; 
 1 Ch. vi. 17), and their families were duly re- 
 cognised in the reign of David, when the perma- 
 nent arrangements for the service of Jehovah 
 were made (1 Ch. xxiii. 7-11). At this time 
 Gershon was represented by the famous Asaph 
 “the seer,” whose genealogy is given in 1 Ch. 
 vi. 39-43, andalso in part, vv. 20,21. The family 
 is mentioned once again as taking part in the 
 reforms of king Hezekiah (2 Ch. xxix. 12, where 
 it should be observed that the sons of Asaph 
 are reckoned as distinct from the Gershonites). 
 At the census in the wilderness of Sinai the 
 whole number of the males of the Bene-Gershon 
 was 7,500 (Num. iii. 22), midway between the 
 Kohathites and the Merarites. At the same 
 date the efficient men were 2,630 (iv. 40). On 
 the occasion of the second census the numbers 
 of the Levites are given only in gross (Num. 
 xxvi. 62). The sons of Gershon had charge of 
 the fabrics of the Tabernacle—the coverings, 
 curtains, hangings, and cords (Num. ili. 25, 26; 
 iv. 25, 26); tor the transport of these they had 
 two covered wagons and four oxen (vii. 3, 7). 
 In the encampment their station was behind 
 CIMS) the Tabernacle, on the west side (Num. 
 
 ili. 93). When on the march, they went with 
 the Merarites in the rear of the first body of 
 
 a See an instance of this in 1 Ch. vi. 2-15, where the 
 line of Kohath is given, to the exclusion of the other two 
 families. 
 
 GERZITES 
 
 three tribes—Judah, Issachar, Zebulun—with 
 Reuben behind them. In the apportionment of 
 the Levitical cities, thirteen fell to the lot of 
 the Gershonites. These were in the northern 
 tribes—two in Manasseh beyond Jordan: four 
 in Issachar ; four in Asher; and thrée in Naph- 
 tali. All of these are said to have possessed 
 “suburbs,” and two were cities of refuge (Josh. 
 xxi. 27-33; 1 Ch. vi. 62, 71-76). It is not easy 
 to see what special duties fell to the lot of the 
 Gershonites in the service of the Tabernacle after 
 its erection at Jerusalem, or in the Temple. 
 The sons of Jeduthun “ prophesied with a harp,” 
 and the sons of Heman “lifted up the horn,” 
 but for the sons of Asaph no instrument is men- 
 tioned (1 Ch. xxv. 1-5). They were appointed 
 to “prophesy” (that is, probably, to utter or sing 
 inspired words, 823), perhaps after the special 
 prompting of David himself (xxv. 2). Others 
 of the Gershonites, sons of Laadan, had charge 
 of the ‘¢ treasures of the house of God, and over 
 the treasures of the holy things” (xxvi. 20-22), 
 among which precious stones are specially named 
 (xxix. 8). 
 
 In Chronicles the name is, with two ex- 
 ceptions (1 Ch. vi. 1, xxxiii. 6), given in the 
 slightly different form of Gershom [GEeRSHOM, 
 2]. See also GERSHONITES. [61]. ἘΨΜΠ 
 
 GERSHONITES, THE Ο3 31, i.e. the 
 Gershunnite; B. 6 Γεδσών, 6 Τεδσωνί; υἷοι Ted- 
 σωνί; A. [sometimes] Γηρσών), the family de- 
 scended from GERSHON or GERSHOM, the son of 
 Levi (Num. iii, 21, 23, 24: iv. 24, 27; xxvi. 57 5 
 Josh. xxi. 333; 1 Ch. xxiii. 7; 2 Ch. xxix. 12). 
 
 “THE GERSHONITE,” as applied to indivi- 
 duals, occurs in 1 Ch, xxvi. 21 (Laadan), xxix. 8 
 (Jehiel). G. 
 
 GER’'SON (Γηρσών; Gersomus), 1 Esd. viii. 
 29. [GERSHOM, 3.] 
 
 GER’ZITES, THE ΟΥ̓ or "ΤΣ (Ges. 
 Thes. p. 301], the Girzite, or the Gerizzite; B. 
 omits, A. τὸν Γεζραῖον; Gerzi and Gezri, but 
 in his Quaest. Hebr. Jerome has Getri; Syr. and 
 Arab. Godola), a tribe who with the Geshurites 
 and the Amalekites occupied the land between 
 the south of Palestine * and Egypt in the time of 
 Saul (1 Sam. xxvii. 8). They were rich in 
 Bedawi treasures—‘“‘ sheep, oxen, asses, camels, 
 and apparel” (v. 9; cp. xv. 3; 1 Ch. vi. 21). 
 The name is not found in the text of the A. V., 
 but only in the margin (R. V., on the other 
 hand, has “ Girzites” in the text and Gizrites 
 in the margin). This arises from its having 
 been corrected by the Masorets (Keri) into 
 GIzRITES, which form our translators have 
 
 a The LXX. (B) has rendered the Passage referred to 
 as follows:—kat ἰδοὺ ἡ γῆ κατῳκεῖτο ἀπὸ ἀνηκόντων 
 
 Cc abi) ἡ ἡ ἀπὸ Τελαμψοὺρ( . Τελαμσούρ), τετει- 
 tN 
 
 χισμένον καὶ ἕως γῆς Αἰγύπτου. The word Gelamsour 
 may be ἃ corruption of the Hebrew meolam . . Shurah 
 
 G— pon +t, A.V. “of old..to Shur”). Some 
 cursive "MSS. read TeAdu (δῶρ for prim), a place 
 
 in the south-east of Judah (Josh. XV. 24), which bore a 
 prominent part in a former attack on the Amalekites 
 (1 Sam. xv. 4); and this reading is more satisfactory (cp. 
 Driver, Notes on the Heb. Text of the BB. of Sam.1. ¢.). 
 
ω" 
 
 GESEM 
 
 adopted in the text. The change is supported 
 by the Targum, and by A. as above. There is 
 not, however, any apparent reason for relinquish- 
 ing the older form of the name, the interest of 
 which lies in its possible connexion with that of 
 Mount Gerizim. In the name of that ancient 
 mountain we have perhaps the only remaining 
 trace of the presence of this old tribe of Bedawin 
 in Central Palestine. They appear to have 
 occupied it at a very early period, and to have 
 relinquished it in company with the Amalekites, 
 who left their name attached to a mountain in 
 the same locality (Judg. xii. 15), when they 
 abandoned that rich district for the less fertile 
 but freer South. Other tribes, as the Avvim 
 and the Zemarites, also left traces of their pre- 
 sence in the names of towns of the central 
 district (see AVVIM, and p. 395, n. °). 
 
 The connexion between the Gerizites and 
 Mount Gerizim appears to have been first sug- 
 gested by Gesenius. It has been since adopted 
 by Stanley (S. δ' P. p. 237, note), Gesenius in- 
 terprets the name as “dwellers in the dry, 
 barren country.” [GERIZIM.] κε {Oa 
 
 GE'SEM, THE LAND OF (γῆ Γεσέμ; terra 
 Jesse), the Greek form of the Hebrew name 
 GOSHEN (Judith i. 9; Syr. Goshen). 
 
 GE’SHAM (j0"3, i.e. Geshan, of uncertain 
 meaning ; B. Swydp, A. I'npodu; Gesan), one of 
 the sons of JAHDAI, in the genealogy of Judah 
 and family of Caleb (1 Ch. ii. 47). Nothing 
 further concerning him has been yet traced. 
 The name, as it stands in our present Bibles, is 
 a corruption of the A. V. of 1611, which has, 
 accurately, Geshan (so R. V.). 
 
 GE’SHEM and GASH’MU (3; once, 
 WW, Neh. vi. 6; Γῆσαμ ; Gossem), an Arabian, 
 mentioned in Neh. ii. 19 and vi. 1, 2, 6, who, 
 with “Sanballat the Horonite, and Tobiah the 
 servant, the Ammonite,” opposed the rebuilding 
 of the walls of Jerusalem. Geshem, we may 
 conclude, was an inhabitant of Arabia Petraea, 
 or of the Arabian Desert, and probably the chief 
 of a tribe which, like most of the tribes on the 
 eastern frontier of Palestine, was, in the time of 
 the Captivity and the subsequent period, hostile 
 to the revival of the Jewish nation. Geshem, 
 like Sanballat and Tobiah, seems to have been 
 one of the “governors beyond the river,” to 
 whom Nehemiah came, and whose mission 
 “grieved them exceedingly, that there was 
 come a man to seek the welfare of the children 
 of Israel” (Neh. ii. 10); for the wandering in- 
 habitants of the frontier doubtless availed them- 
 selves largely, in their predatory excursions, of 
 the distracted state of Palestine, and dreaded 
 the re-establishment of the kingdom; and the 
 Arabians, Ammonites, and Ashdodites are re- 
 corded to have “conspired to fight against Jeru- 
 salem,” and to stop the work of fortification. 
 The endeavours of these confederates and their 
 failure are recorded in chs. ii., ἵν.» and vi. The 
 Arabic name corresponding to Geshem cannot 
 
 one 
 
 ve foe 
 
 easily be identified. G’isim ( aula) is 
 
 of very remote antiquity; and G’ashum Goin ) 
 
 is the name of an historical tribe of Arabia | 
 
 BIBLE DICT.—VOL, I. 
 
 GETHER 1169 
 
 Proper; the latter may more probably be com- 
 pared with it, although neither is identical in 
 form. As regards the two Hebrew forms, 
 Geshem is uninflected; Gashmu corresponds to 
 the Arabic nominative case (supposing that the 
 Hebrew text of Neh. vi. 6 is sound). 
 (E. S. P.] [(C. J. By 
 GESHU’R (113; Γεσσούρ (al. Γεδσούρ]; 
 
 Jessur. Gesenius translates the word as bridge, 
 
 Arabic yume, but the root also means “ daring ”), 
 & 
 
 an independent kingdom of the Geshurites (see 
 next article) in David’s time (2 Sam. iii, 3; xiii. 
 37,38; xiv. 23,32; xv.8; 1Ch. iii. 2). It was 
 close to Aram or Syria (2 Sam. xv. 8), and 
 Talmai, its king, was Absalom’s grandfather. 
 To Geshur he fled after the murder of Amnon, 
 and the LXX. adds that it was the country of 
 (his mother) Maachah, as appears also from the 
 earlier passage. It appears to have been the 
 Ie 
 region now called Jeidir G gone), the plain 
 
 south of Hermon and east of the Jordan, 
 usually supposed to be the later IruRABA 
 (Luke iii. 1): on the borders of David’s king- 
 dom and of Syria. [C. R. C.] 
 
 GESHU’RI and GESHU’RITES (713; 
 Jos. Ant. vi. 13, § 10, Σερρῖται). Two nations 
 of this name appear to be mentioned. (1.) The 
 inhabitants of Geshur above noticed, who would 
 appear to be the later Ituraeans (Deut. iii. 14 ; 
 Josh, xii, 5, xiii. 2, 11, 13; 1 Ch, ii. 28). 
 They appear in the earliest passage cited to 
 have remained independent beyond the posses- 
 sions of the tribe of Manasseh, and to have dwelt 
 near ARGOB and MAACHAH. They had probably 
 (Josh. xii. 5) been also independent of Og, king 
 of Bashan. If this tribe is to be understood in 
 Josh. xiii. 2, they were not conquered by Joshua 
 (see vv. 11 and 13), and remained as a min- 
 gled people who, according to the First Book 
 of Chronicles (ii. 23), were subdued by Jair. 
 The relations of the Hebrews to these border 
 tribes appear, from a number of passages, to 
 have constantly fluctuated, and the original 
 population was never rooted out. 
 
 (2.) A tribe mentioned in the south with the 
 Amalekites (1 Sam. xxvii. 8 [B. Γεσειρί, A. 
 Tecepel; Gessuri]) and the Gezrites. These 
 three peoples are said to have been abori- 
 gines on the south border of Palestine, near 
 the desert of Shur. It is quite possible that 
 they were a division of the northern tribe 
 (No. 1), and that this division is intended in 
 Josh. xiii, 2, though not in wv. 11, 13 of the 
 same chapter. [C. R. ΟἿ 
 
 GE'THER (13; Γάθερ; Gether), the third 
 of the four sons of Aram (Gen. x. 23). In 
 1 Ch. i, 17 he and his brothers are briefly 
 included with their father among the “sons” 
 of Shem. No satisfactory trace of the people 
 sprung from this stock has been found. The 
 theories of Bochart and others, which rest on 
 improbable etymologies, are without support; 
 while the suggestions of Carians (Jerome), 
 
 S- Ban 
 
 Bactrians (Joseph. Ant.), and the x8,0\ 5 the 
 
 G'aramikah (Saad.), are not better founded (see 
 4F 
 
1170 GETHSEMANE 
 
 Bochart, Phaleg, ii. 10, and Winer,s.v.). Kautzsch 
 suggests that the four Aramean peoples are 
 named according to their local situation, pro- 
 ceeding from north to south. Thus Uz in 
 S. Syria is mentioned first; then comes Hil, 
 perhaps to the north of the Sea of Galilee 
 (cp. Lake Huleh); between which and Mash, 
 which he connects with Mount Masius, south of 
 the Upper Tigris, we must place Gether, 1.6. 
 somewhere between Damascus and the Euphrates 
 or even beyond it—a sufficiently vague deter- 
 mination. But in 1 Ch.i. 17 the fourth name 
 is not Mash, but Meshech (so also LXX. Gen. 
 x. 23), i.e. the Mushki or Muski of Assyrian 
 annals, who lay to the north-east of Cappadocia 
 in Lesser Armenia (Schrader, KAT? p. 84). 
 
 The Arabs write the name ple (Ghathir) ; 
 
 and, in the mythical history of their country, 
 it is said that the (probably aboriginal) tribes of 
 Thamid, Tasm, Jadi, and Ad (the ‘last, in the 
 second generation, through ’Ud) were descended 
 from Ghathir (Caussin, Zssai, i. 24, 28; Abul- 
 Fida, Hist. Anteisl. p. 16. Sale’s Prelim, Disc. and 
 the authorities there cited). See ARABIA, ARAM, 
 and NABATHAEANS. [E. S$. P.] 1000 B.] 
 
 GETHSEMANE (Nia, gath, a “ wine- 
 press,” and I)’, shemen, “ oil;” Te@onuavel, 
 or more generally Γεθσημανῆ), a small “ farm,” 
 as the French would say, “un bien aux champs” 
 (χωρίον, = ager, praedium; or as the Vulgate, 
 villa; A. V. “place;” R. V. marg. an en- 
 closed piece of ground; Matt. xxvi. 36; Mark 
 xiv. 32), situated across the brook Kedron 
 (John xviii. 1), and perhaps near the foot of 
 Mount Olivet (Luke xxii. 39). There was a 
 “garden,” or rather orchard (κῆπος), attached 
 to it, to which the olive, fig, and pomegranate 
 doubtless invited resort by their “hospitable 
 shade.” And we know from the Evangelists St. 
 Luke (xxii. 39) and St. John (xviii. 2) that our 
 Lord ofttimes resorted thither with His disciples. 
 According to Josephus, the suburbs of Jerusalem 
 abounded with gardens and pleasure-grounds 
 (παραδείσοις, B. J. vi. 1, § 1; ep. v. 3, § 2). 
 Now, with the exception of those belonging to 
 the Greek and Latin convents, hardly the 
 vestige of a garden is to be seen. There is 
 indeed a favourite spot, half a mile or more to 
 the north, on the same side of the continuation 
 of the valley of the Kedron, the property of a 
 wealthy Turk, where the Muhammadan ladies 
 sometimes pass the day with their families, 
 their bright - flowing costume 
 picturesque contrast to the stiff sombre foliage 
 of the olive-grove beneath which they cluster. 
 But Gethsemane has not come down to us as a 
 scene of mirth; its inexhaustible associations 
 are the offspring of a single event—the Agony 
 of the Son of God on the evening preceding His 
 Passion. Here emphatically, as Isaiah had fore- 
 told, and as the name imports, were fulfilled 
 those dark words, “I have trodden the wine- 
 press alone” (xiii. 3; cp. Rev. xiv. 20, “the 
 Wine-press . . . without the city”). . “The 
 period of the year,” writes Mr. Gresswell 
 (Harm. Diss. xlii.), “was the Vernal Equinox: 
 the day of the month about two days before the 
 full of the moon—in which case the moon 
 
 forming ἃ. 
 
 GETHSEMANE 
 
 would not be now very far past her meridian ; 
 and the night would be enlightened until a late 
 hour towards the morning ”—the day of the 
 week Thursday, or rather, according to the 
 Jews, Friday—for the sun had set. The time, 
 according to Mr. Gresswell, would be the last 
 watch of the night, between our 11 and 12 
 o'clock, Any recapitulation of the cireum- 
 stances of that inetlable event would be un- 
 necessary ; any comments upon it unseasonable. 
 
 A modern garden, enclosed by a wall, in which 
 are some old olive-trees, said to date from the 
 time of Christ, is now pointed out as the 
 Garden of Gethsemane. It is on the left bank 
 of the Kedron, about 730 feet from the east 
 wall of the city, and immediately south of the 
 road, from St. Stephen’s Gate to the summit of 
 Olivet, which separates it from the “ Grotto 
 of the Agony ” and the “Tomb of the Virgin.” 
 This garden is, there is little reason to doubt, 
 the spot alluded to by Eusebius when he says 
 (OS.? p. 248, 18), that Gethsemane was at the 
 Mount of Olives, and was then a place of prayer 
 for the faithful; and which Jerome jmore 
 distinctly defines as being at the foot of the 
 Mount of Olives, and as having a church built 
 over it (OS.? p. 130, 22). The Bordeaux Pilgrim 
 (..D. 333) mentions a stone at the place where 
 Judas betrayed Christ, which was to the left of 
 the road up the Mount of Olives, and about a 
 stone’s-throw from the tombs of Isaiah and 
 Hezekiah (tin. Hierosol.). Theodosius (0. A.D. 
 530) also mentions the place of betrayal (De 
 Situ Τ. S. xi.). A broken column from 20 to 
 30 paces south of the entrance to the garden is 
 now shown as the place of betrayal; the tombs 
 of Isaiah and Hezekiah are those of Zechariah 
 and Absalom. Cyril of Jerusalem, Antoninus, 
 Arculfus, and nearly all later pilgrims 
 mention Gethsemane, so that the chain of 
 tradition is almost unbroken. §. Silvia (a.D. 
 379-88) gives an interesting account of the 
 service at Gethsemane, during the night of 
 Thursday and early morning of Good Friday ; 
 and of the procession from the garden to the 
 cross (Per. ad Loca Sancta). Whether the 
 traditional site be the true one or not is a more 
 difficult question. There is no tradition earlier 
 than the first half of the fourth century; and 
 Robinson suggests (i. 346) that the spot may 
 have been fixed upon during the visit of Helena 
 to Jerusalem A.D. 326, when the places of the 
 Crucifixion and Resurrection were supposed to be 
 identified. He also seems inclined to the view 
 that Gethsemane was higher up the Mount of 
 Olives than the present site (i. 347, note), which 
 must have been close to the Roman road to 
 Jericho, and not a place that is likely to have 
 been selected for frequent retirement from the 
 crowded streets of Jerusalem. This view is also 
 taken by Thomson (L. δ' δ. p. 634). The close 
 proximity of the present garden to the brook 
 Kedron is, however, considered by some to be an 
 argument in its favour (Stanley, 8. δ᾽ P. p. 455). 
 Falkener (Proc. Soc. Bib. Archaeol. June 1887) 
 places Gethsemane on the right bank of the 
 Kedron, beneath the city wall, but this seems 
 inconsistent with the Bible narrative. 
 
 Against the contemporary antiquity of the 
 olive-trees, it has been urged that Titus cut 
 down all the trees round about Jerusalem; and 
 certainly this isno more than Josephus states in 
 
GETHSEMANE 
 
 express terms (see particularly B. J. vi. 1, § 1, 
 a passage which must have escaped Mr. 
 Williams, Holy City, ii. 4387, 2nd _ edit., 
 who only cites v. 3, § 2, and vi. 8, ὃ 1). Be- 
 sides, the 10th legion, arriving from Jericho, 
 
 GETHSEMANE ΤῊ 
 
 | were posted about the Mount of Olives (y. 2, 
 ὃ 3; and ep. vi. 2, § 8), and, in the course of 
 the siege, a wall was carried along the valley 
 of the Kedron to the fountain of Siloam (vy. 10, 
 
 § 2), 
 
 The probability therefore would seem to 
 
 ay 
 ᾿" 
 
 Gethsemane (as it was in 1841, and before it was enclosed and fenced round as it is now). 
 
 be, that they were planted by Christian hands 
 to mark the spot: unless, like the sacred olive 
 
 of the Acropolis (Bahr, ad Herod. viii. 55), they ' 
 
 may have reproduced themselves. They are 
 not mentioned by any of the earlier pilgrims. 
 Maundrell (Zarly Travellers in P., by Wright, 
 
 Ῥ. 471) and Quaresmius (Elucid. T, 8. lib. iv. 
 per. v. ch. 7) appear to have been the first to 
 notice them, not more than three centuries ago,; 
 the former arguing against, and the latter in 
 favour of, their reputed antiquity: but nobody 
 
 reading their accounts would imagine that there 
 4 ¥F 2 
 
1172 GEUEL 
 
 were then no more than seven or eight, the 
 locality of Gethsemane being supposed the same. 
 Parallel claims, to be sure, are not wanting in 
 the cedars of Lebanon, which are still visited 
 with so much enthusiasm: in the terebinth, or 
 oak of Mamre, which was standing in the days 
 of Constantine the Great, and even worshipped 
 (Vales. ad Euseb. Vit. Const, iii, 53), and the 
 fig-tree (Ficus elastica) near Nerbudda in India, 
 which native historians assert to be 2,500 years 
 old (Patterson’s Journal of a Tour in Egypt, §c., 
 p. 202, note). Still more appositely there were 
 olive-trees near Linternum 250 years old, ac- 
 cording to Pliny, in his time, which are recorded 
 to have survived to the middle of the tenth 
 century (Nouveau Dict. d’ Hist. Nat. Paris, 1846, 
 vol. xxix. p.61). Descriptions of the traditional 
 Garden of Gethsemane, with its chapels and 
 “holy places,” will be found in Porter, Hand- 
 book, and Baedeker-Socin, Pal. and Syria. 
 ΓΕ. Κα. Ff] [W.] 
 
 GE-U-EL ONINa, ?=the greatness of God, 
 
 Sam. Seva; Τουδιήλ ; Guel), son of Machi; ruler 
 of the tribe of Gad, and its representative among 
 the spies sent from the wilderness of Paran to 
 explore the Promised Land (Num. xiii, 15). 
 
 ΘΟΕ ΖΕ (113, ?=a precipitous place, in pause 
 Wd; Tatep, Γεζέρ, Γάζης, Ta¢dpa, Γαζήρα; 
 Gazer), an ancient city of Canaan, whose king, 
 Horam, or Elam, coming to the assistance of 
 Lachish, was killed with all his people by Joshua 
 (Josh. x. 33; xii712). The town, however, is not 
 said to have been destroyed ; it formed one of the 
 landmarks on the south boundary of Ephraim, 
 between the lower Beth-horon and the Mediter- 
 ranean (xvi. 3), the western limit of the tribe (1 
 Ch. vii. 28; Jos. Ant. v. 1, § 22). It was allotted 
 with its suburbs to the Kohathite Levites (Josh. 
 xxi. 21; 1 Ch. vi.67); but the original inhabitants 
 were not dispossessed (Judg. i. 29); and even 
 down to the reign of Solomon the Canaanites, or 
 (according to the LXX. addition to Josh, xvi. 10) 
 the Canaanites and Perizzites, were still 
 dwelling there, and paying tribute to Israel 
 (1 K. ix. 16). At this time it must in fact 
 have been independent of Israelite rule, for 
 Pharaoh had burnt it to the ground and killed 
 its inhabitants, and then presented the site to 
 his daughter, Solomon’s queen. But it was 
 immediately rebuilt by the king (v. 17); and 
 though not heard of again till after the Cap- 
 tivity, yet it played a somewhat prominent 
 part in the later struggles of the nation. 
 [GAZARA. ] 
 
 Ewald (Gesch. iii. 280; cp. ii. 427) takes Gezer 
 and Geshur to be the same, and sees in the de- 
 struction of the former by Pharaoh, and the 
 simultaneous expedition of Solomon to Hamath- 
 zobah in the neighbourhood of the latter, 
 indications of a revolt of the Canaanites, of 
 whom the Geshurites formed the most powerful 
 remnant, and whose attempt against the new 
 monarch was thus frustrated. But this can 
 hardly be supported. 
 
 In one place Gob is given as identical with 
 Gezer (1 Ch. xx. 4; cp. 2 Sam. xxi. 18). Jose- 
 phus (Ant, vii. 12, 2) agrees with 1 Ch. xx. 4. 
 Gezer is named as the last point to which 
 David’s pursuit of the Philistines extended 
 
 GEZER 
 
 (2 Sam. v. 25; 1 Ch. xiv. 16%), and as the 
 scene of at least one sharp encounter (1 Ch. xx. 
 4). It was naturally strong, and occupied an 
 important position on the outskirt of the 
 Philistine territory (Γαζαρά τῆν τῆς Παλαιστί- 
 νων χώρας ὑπάρχουσαν, Jos. Ant. viii. 6, § 1; 
 cp. vii. 4, ὃ 1). By Eusebius it is mentioned 
 (O82 p. 254, 14) as, being 4 miles northward 
 (ἐν Bopetois) from Nicopolis (Amwds). Strabo 
 (xvi. 2, § 29) mentions it under the name Gadaris 
 (Tadapis), and says that the Jews had appro- 
 priated it to themselves. It is possible that 
 Gazara should be read for Gadara in Jos. Amt. 
 xiv. 5,§ 4; 8. J.i. 8, ὃ 5, and that Gezer and 
 not Gadara was the seat of the Sanhedrin, 
 This view derives some support from the 
 evidence that Gezer was an important Jewish 
 city during the Maccabaean period. 
 
 The site of Gezer was discovered at Tell 
 Jezer, close to the village of Abu Shusheh, by 
 M. Clermont-Ganneau, in 1870. It is situated 
 on a swell of the low hills, about 4 miles 
 W.N.W. of *Amwds; and the tomb of Sheikh 
 Muhammad el-Jezari which surmounts the 
 mound is a conspicuous landmark, and a 
 prominent object to the right of the road from 
 Jaffa to Jerusalem. The view from the ruins 
 over the rich plain of Philistia is extremely 
 fine, and the site is an admirable one for a 
 fortified city. The terrace walls of the Zell are 
 of large blocks of unhewn stone, and there is 
 much broken pottery scattered over the surface. 
 There are the remains of an aqueduct and pool, 
 numerous rock-hewn tombs, a large number 
 of wine-presses, an ancient quarry, and a 
 large cave hollowed in the soft rock. The 
 identity of Gezer with Tell Jezer was confirmed 
 by the discovery of two bilingual inscriptions 
 on the face of the rock, containing the Greek 
 word AAKIOY (perhaps Hilkiah) in characters 
 of the classical epoch, followed by “ΙΔ in 
 Hebrew letters of ancient square form. The 
 latter M. Ganneau translates “the limit of 
 Gezer,” the name of the town being written 
 as it is in the Bible; and he connects the 
 Alkios of the text with a certain Alkios, son of 
 Simon, whose name occurs on a sarcophagus 
 found at Lydda. The inscriptions are perhaps 
 of the late Maccabaean period, and may 
 possibly define the Sabbatic boundary; they 
 are about 5,600 ft. from the centre of the Zell 
 (PEF. Mem. ii. 428-439). M. Ganneau has 
 also shown that Zell Jezer is the celebrated 
 Mons Gisardus, or Mont Gisart, which is so 
 frequently mentioned in the histories of the 
 Crusades, and which gave its name to one of 
 the noble families of the Latin Kingdom of 
 Jerusalem (Recueil d’ Archéologie Orientale, p. 351 
 sq.)- 
 
 Prom the occasional occurrence of the form 
 Gazer, and from the LXX. Version being almost 
 
 In these two places the word, being at the end of a 
 period, has, according to Hebrew custom, its first vowel 
 lengthened, and stands in the text as Gazer, and in 
 these two places only the name is so transferred to the 
 A.V. But, to be consistent, the same change should 
 have been made in several other passages, where it 
 occurs in the Hebrew: e.g. Judg. i. 29; Josh. xvi. 3, 
 10; 1K. ix. 15, &. It would seem better to render the 
 Hebrew name always by the same English one, when 
 the difference arises from nothing but an emphatic 
 accent, 
 
»ε 
 
 GEZRITES 
 
 uniformly Gazera or Gazer, Ewald infers that 
 this was really the original name. [G.] [W.] 
 
 GEZ’RITES, THE ('7135, accur. the Giz- 
 rite; τὸν Γεζραῖον ; Gezri). The word which 
 the Jewish critics have substituted in the 
 margin of the Bible for the ancient reading, 
 “the Gerizite” (1 Sam. xxvii..8), and which 
 has thus become incorporated in the text of the 
 A.V. If it mean anything—at least that we 
 know—it must signify the dwellers in Gezer, 
 But Guzer was not less than 50 miles distant 
 from the “south of Judah, the south of the 
 Jerahmeelites, and the south of the Kenites,” 
 the scene of David’s inroad; a fact which stands 
 greatly in the way of our receiving the change. 
 [GERZITES, THE. } [6 ΕΝ 
 
 GI’AH (3; Tat; vallis), a place named 
 only in 2 Sam. ii. 24, to designate the position 
 of the hill Ammah—“ which faces Giah by the 
 way of the wilderness of Gibeon.” No trace of 
 the situation of either has yet been found, but 
 they must have been to the east of Gibeon. 
 By the LXX. the name is read as if N‘, ie. a 
 
 ravine or glen; a view also taken in the 
 Vulgate. [AmMauH.] 
 
 GIANTS. The frequent allusion to giants 
 in Scripture, and the numerous theories and 
 disputes which have arisen in consequence, 
 render it necessary to give a brief view of 
 some of the main opinions and curious in- 
 
 _ ferences to which the mention of them leads. 
 
 1. They are first spoken of in Gen. vi. 4, 
 
 under the name Néphilim cord); LXX. γί- 
 yavres; Aquil. ἐπιπίπτοντες ; Symm. βιαῖοι ; 
 Vulg. gigantes ; Onk. δὲ Ἴ53 ; Luther, Tyrannen). 
 The etymology of the word is obscure. Some 
 derive it from N25 (= ‘“ marvellous”), or, 
 from 25), either in the sense to throw down, or 
 
 to fall (= fallen angels, Jarchi, cp. Is. xiv. 12 ; 
 Luke x. 18). Others give it the meaning “ ἥρωες 
 irruentes”’ (Gesen.), or collapsi (by euphemism, 
 Boettcher, de Inferis, p. 92, or unnaturally 
 born [MV.""]); but certainly not “because 
 men fell from terror of them” (as R. Kimchi). 
 That the word means “giant” is clear from 
 
 Num. xiii. 32, 33, and is confirmed by ΣΙ 
 the Chaldee name for “the aery giant ” Orion 
 (Job ix. 9, xxxviii. 31; Is. xiii. 10; Targ.), 
 unless this name arise from the obliquity of the 
 constellation (Gen. of Earth, p. 35). 
 
 But we now come to the remarkable state- 
 ment about the origin of these Nephilim in 
 Gen. vi. 14 (ep. Delitzsch [1887] and Dill- 
 mann® in loco. See also Kurtz, Die Ehen 
 der Séhne Gottes, &c., Berlin, 1857; Ewald, 
 Jahrb. 1854, p. 126 ; Govett’s Isaiah Unfulfilied ; 
 Faber’s Many Mansions, J. of Sac. Lit. Oct. 
 1858, &c.) We are told that “there were 
 Nephilim in the earth,” and that “ afterwards ἢ 
 (kal μέτ᾽ ἐκεῖνο, LXX.) the “sons of God” ming- 
 
 ling with the beautiful “daughters of men” 
 
 ) 
 
 produced a race of violent and insolent Gibborim 
 (0°33). This latter word is also rendered by 
 the LXX. γίγαντες; but we shall see hereafter 
 that the meaning is more general. It is clear, 
 however, that no statement is made that the 
 
 GIANTS 1173 
 
 Nephilim themselves sprang from this un- 
 hallowed union. Who, then, were they? Tak- 
 
 ing the usual derivation (553), and explaining 
 it to mean “fallen spirits,” the Nephilim seem 
 to be identical with the “sons of God;” but 
 the verse before us militates against this notion 
 as much as against that which makes the 
 Nephilim the same as the Gibborim, viz.: the 
 offspring of wicked marriages. This latter sup- 
 position can only be accepted if we admit either 
 (1) that there were two kinds of Nephilim,— 
 those who existed before the unequal intercourse, 
 and those produced by it (Heidegger, Hist. 
 Patr. xi.), or (2) by following the Vulgate 
 rendering, postquam enim ingressi sunt, το. But 
 the common rendering seems to be correct, nor 
 is there much probability in Aben Ezra’s ex- 
 planation, that JINN (“after that”) means 
 
 Syn ANN (ie. “after the deluge”), and is 
 an allusion to the Anakim. 
 
 The genealogy of the Nephilim then, or at 
 any rate of the earliest Nephilim, is not recorded 
 in Scripture, and the name itself is so mysterious 
 that we are lost in conjecture respecting them, 
 
 2. The sons of the marriages mentioned in 
 Gen. vi. 1-4 are called Gibborim (0°33, from 
 724, to be strong), a general name meaning 
 
 powerful (ὑβρισταὶ καὶ πάντος ὑπεροπταὶ καλοῦ, 
 Joseph. Ant. i. 8, § 1; γῆς παῖδες τὸν νοῦν 
 ἐκβιβάσαντες τοῦ λογίζεσθαι κιτ.λ., Philo, de 
 Gigant. p. 270 : ep. Is. iii. 2, xlix. 24; Ezek, xxxii. 
 21). They were not necessarily giants in our 
 sense of the word (Theodoret, Quaest. 48). Yet, 
 as was natural, these powerful chiefs were al- 
 most universally represented as men of extra- 
 ordinary stature. The LXX. render the word 
 γίγαντες, and call Nimrod a γίγας κυνηγός 
 (1 Ch. i. 10); Augustine calls them Staturosi 
 (de Civ. Det, xv. 4); Chrysostom, ἥρωες εὐμηκεῖς ; 
 Theodoret, παμμεγεθεῖς (cp. Bar. iii. 26, εὐμεγε- 
 θεῖς, ἐπιστάμενοι πόλεμον). 
 
 But who were the parents of these giants; 
 
 who are “the sons of God” combdyn ie 
 The opinions are various. (1) Men of power (υἱοὶ 
 δυναστευόντων, Symm. Hieron. Quaest. Hebd. ad 
 
 loc. ; 882137 123, Onk.; mw 193, Samar. ; 
 so too Selden, Vorst, &c.): ep. Ps. ii. 7, Ixxxii. 
 6, lxxxix. 27; Mic. v. 5, &c. The expression 
 will then exactly resemble Homer’s Διογενεῖς 
 βασιλῆες, and the Chinese Tidn-tsew, “son of 
 heaven,” as a title of the Emperor (Gesen. s. v. 
 j2). But why should the union of the high- 
 
 born and the low-born produce offspring unusual 
 for their size and strength? (2) Men with 
 great gifts, “in the image of God” (Ritter, 
 Schumann). (3) Cainites arrogantly assuming 
 the title (Paulus); or (4) the pious Sethites 
 (cp. Gen. iv. 26; Maimon. Mor. Neboch. i. 14; 
 Suid. s. vv. Σὴθ and μιαιγαμίας ; Cedren. Hist. 
 Comp. p. 10; Aug. de Civ. Dei, xv. 23; Chry- 
 sost. Hom. 22, in Gen.; Theod. in Gen. Quaest. 
 47; Cyril, c. Jul. ix. &c.). A host of modern 
 commentators catch at this explanation, but 
 Gen. iv. 26 has probably no connexion with the 
 subject. Other texts quoted in favour of the 
 view are Deut. xiv. 1, 2; Ps. Ixxiii. 15; Prov. 
 xiv. 26; Hos. i. 10; Rom. viii. 14, &c. Still 
 the mere antithesis in the verse, as well as 
 
1174 GIANTS 
 
 other considerations, tend strongly against this 
 gloss, which indeed is built on a foregone con- 
 clusion. Compare however the Indian notion 
 of the two races of men, Suras and Asuras 
 (children of the sun and of the moon, Nork, 
 Bramm. und Rabb. p. 204 sq.), and the Persian 
 belief in the marriage of Djemshid with the 
 sister of a dev, whence sprang black and impious 
 men (Kalisch, Gen. p. 175). (5) Worshippers of 
 false gods (παῖδες τῶν θεῶν, Aq.), making 133 
 = “servants” (cp. Deut. xiv. 1; Prov. xiv. 26; 
 Ex. xxxii. 1; Deut. iv. 28, &c.). This view is 
 ably supported in Genesis of Earth and Man, 
 p- 39 sq. (6) Devils, such as the Incubi and 
 Succubi. Such was the belief of the Cabbalists 
 (Valesius, de S. Philosoph. cap. 8). That these 
 beings can have intercourse with women St. 
 Augustine declares it would be folly to doubt, 
 and it was the universal belief in the East. 
 Mohammed makes one of the ancestors of Balkis 
 queen of Sheba a demon, and Damir says he had 
 heard a Mohammedan doctor openly boast of 
 having married in succession four demon wives 
 (Bochart, Hieroz. i. p. 747). Indeed the belief 
 still exists (Lane’s Mod. Hg. i. chs. x., xi.). 
 (7) Closely allied to this is the oldest opinion, 
 that they were angels (ἄγγελοι τοῦ Θεοῦ, LXX., 
 for such was the old reading, not viol, Aug. de 
 Civ. Dei, xv. 23; so too Joseph. Ant. i. ὃ, § 1; 
 Phil. de Gig. ii. 358; Clem. Alex. Strom. iii. 7, 
 § 69; Sulp. Sever. Hist. Script. in Orthod. 1. i. 
 &e.: cp. Job i. 6, ii. 1; Ps. xxix. 1, Job iv. 18). 
 The rare expression “sons of God” certainly 
 means angels in Job xxxviii. 7, i. 6, 11, 1; and 
 that such is the meaning in Gen. vi. 4 also, was 
 the most prevalent opinion both in the Jewish 
 and early Christian Church. 
 
 It was probably this very ancient view which 
 gave rise to the spurious book of Enoch, and the 
 notion quoted from it by St. Jude (v. 6), and 
 alluded to by St. Peter (2 Pet. ii. 4; ep. 1 Cor. 
 xi. 10, Tert. de Virg. Vel. 7). According to 
 this book, certain angels, sent by God to guard 
 the earth (Eyphyopo., φύλακες), were perverted 
 by the beauty of women, “went after strange 
 flesh,” taught sorcery, finery (/umina lapillorum, 
 circulos ex aure, Tert., &c.), and being banished 
 from heaven had sons 3,000 cubits high, thus 
 originating a celestial and terrestrial race of 
 demons—* Unde modo vagi subvertunt corpora 
 multa” (Commodiani Instruct. ΓΠΙ. Cultus Dae- 
 monum), i.e. they are still the source of epilepsy, 
 Χο. Various names were given at a later time 
 to these monsters. Their chief was Leuixas, 
 and of their number were Machsael, Aza, Schem- 
 chozai, and (the wickedest of them) a goat-like 
 demon Azael (cp. Azazel, Lev. xvi. 8; and for 
 the very curious questions connected with this 
 name, see Bochart, Hieroz. i. p. 652 sq.; Rab. 
 Eliezer, cap. 23, Bereshith Rab. ad Gen. vi. 2; 
 Sennert, de Gigantibus, iii.). 
 
 Against this notion (which Havernick calls 
 “ the silliest whim of the Alexandrian Gnostics 
 and Cabbalistic Rabbis ”) Heidegger (Hist. Putr. 
 l. c.) quotes Matt. xxii. 30, Luke xxiv. 39, and 
 similar testimonies. Philastrius (adv. Haeres. 
 cap. 108) characterises it as a heresy, and Chry- 
 sostom (Hom. 22) even calls it τὸ βλάσφημα 
 ἐκεῖνο. Yet St. Jude 15 explicit, and the question 
 is not so much what can be, as what was be- 
 lieved. The Fathers almost unanimously accepted 
 these fables, and Tertullian argues warmly 
 
 GIANTS 
 
 (partly on expedient grounds!) for the genuine- 
 ness of the book of Enoch. The angels were 
 called ᾿Εγρήγοροι, a word used by Aq. and Symm. 
 to render the Chaldee Ἢ) (Dan. iv. 13 sq.: 
 Vulg. Vigil; LXX. eip; Lex. Cyrilli, ἄγγελοι ἢ 
 ἄγρυπνοι ; Fabric. Cod. Pseudepigr. V. T. p. 180), 
 and therefore used, as in the Zend-Avesta, of 
 good guardian Angels, and applied especially to 
 Archangels in the Syriac liturgies (ep. WY, Is. 
 xxi. 11), but more often of evil angels (Castelli, 
 Lex. Syr. p. 649 ; Scalig. ad Euseb. Chron. p. 403 ; 
 Gesen. 8. v. 1'Y). The story of the Egregori is 
 
 given at length in Tert. de Cult. Fem. i. 2, ii. 10; 
 Commodianus, Jnstruct. iii.; Lactant. Div. Znst. 
 ii. 14; Testam. Patriarc, c. v.. ὅθ. Every one 
 will remember the allusions to the same inter- 
 pretation in Milton, Par. Reg. ii. 179— 
 
 ** Before the Flood, thou with thy lusty crew, 
 False-titled sons of God, roaming the earth, 
 Cast wanton eyes on the daughters of men, 
 And coupled with them, and begat a race.” 
 
 The use made of the legend in some modern 
 poems cannot sufficiently be reprobated. 
 
 We need hardly say how closely allied this 
 is to the Greek legends which connected the 
 ἄγρια φῦλα γιγάντων with the gods (Hom. Od. 
 vii. 205; Pausan. viii. 29), and made δαίμονες 
 sons of the gods (Plat. Apolog. ἡμίθεοι; Cratyl. 
 § 32). Indeed the whole heathen tradition 
 resembles the one before us (Cumberland’s 
 Sanchoniatho, p. 24; Hom. Od. xi. 306 sq.; 
 Hes. Theog. 185, Opp. et D. 144; Plat. Rep. ii. 
 § 17, 604 E; de Legg. iii. § 16, 805 A; Ovid, 
 Metam. i. 151; Luc. iv. 593; Lucian, de Ded 
 Syr., &e.; ep. Grot. de Ver.i. 6); and the Greek 
 translators of the Bible make the resemblance 
 still more close by introducing such words as θεό- 
 μαχοι, γηγενεῖς, and even Titaves, to which last 
 Josephus (/. c.) expressly compares the giants of 
 Genesis (LXX. Prov. ii. 18; Ps. xlviii. 2; 2 Sam. 
 v. 18; Judith xvi. 5). The fate too of these 
 demon-chiefs is identical with that of heathen 
 story (Job xxvi. 5; Sir. xvi. 7; Bar. iii. 26-28; 
 Wisd. xiv. 6; 3 Mace. ii. 4; 1 Pet. iii. 19). 
 
 These legends may therefore be regarded as 
 distortions of the Biblical narrative, handed 
 down by tradition, and embellished by the fancy 
 and imagination of Eastern nations. The belief 
 of the Jews in later times is remarkably illus- 
 trated by the story of Asmodeus in the book of 
 Tobit. It is deeply instructive to observe how 
 wide and marked a contrast there is between 
 the incidental allusion of the sacred narrative 
 (Gen. vi. 4) and the minute frivolities or 
 prurient follies which degrade the heathen 
 mythology, and repeatedly appear in the 
 groundless imaginings of the Rabbinic inter- 
 preters. If there were fallen angels whose 
 lawless desires gave birth to a monstrous 
 progeny, both they and their intolerable off- 
 spring (it is implied) were destroyed by the 
 Deluge, which was the retribution on their 
 wickedness, and they have no existence in the 
 baptized and renovated earth. 
 
 Before passing to the other giant-races we 
 may observe that all nations have had a dim 
 fancy that the aborigines who preceded them 
 and the earliest men generally were of immense 
 stature. Berosus says that the ten antediluvian 
 kings of Chaldea were giants, and we find in all ὁ 
 
GIANTS 
 
 monkish historians a similar statement about 
 the earliest possessors of Britain (ep. Hom. Od. x. 
 119; Aug. de Civ. Dei, xv. 9; Plin. vii. 16; 
 Varr. ap. Aul. Gell. iii. 10 ; Jer. on Matt. xxvii). 
 The great size decreased gradually after the 
 Deluge (2 Esd. v. 52-55). That we are dwarfs 
 compared to our ancestors was a common belief 
 among the Latin and Greek poets (77. v. 302 sq. ; 
 Lucret. ii. 1151; Virg. Aen. xii. 900; Juv. xv. 
 69), although it is now a matter of absolute 
 certainty from the remains of antiquity, reach- 
 ing back to the very earliest times, that in old 
 days men were no taller than ourselves. On 
 the origin of the mistaken supposition there are 
 curious passages in Natalis Comes (MZytholog. vi. 
 21) and Macrobius (Saturn. i. 20). 
 
 The next race of giants which we find men- 
 tioned in Scripture is 
 
 3. THE ReEPHAIM, a name which frequently 
 occurs, and in some remarkable passages. The 
 earliest mention of them is the record of their 
 defeat by Chedorlaomer and some allied kings at 
 Ashteroth Karnaim (Gen. xiv. 5). They are 
 again mentioned (Gen. xv. 20), their dispersion 
 recorded (Deut. ii. 10, 20), and Og the giant 
 king of Bashan said to be “the only remnant of 
 them ” (Deut. iii. 11; Josh. xii. 4, xiii. 12, xvit. 
 15). Extirpated however from the east of 
 Palestine, they long found a home in the west, 
 and in connexion with the Philistines, under 
 whose protection the small remnant of them 
 may have lived, they still employed their aims 
 against the Hebrews (2 Sam. xxi. 18 sq.; 1 
 Ch. xx. 4). In the latter passage there seems 
 however to be some confusion between the 
 
 Rephaim and the sons of a particular giant of | 
 
 Gath, named Rapha. Such a name may have 
 been conjectured as that of a founder of the race, 
 like the names Ion, Dorus, Teut, &c. (Boettcher, 
 de Inferis, p. 96, n.; Rapha occurs also as a 
 proper name, 1 Ch. vii. 25, viii. 2, 37). It is 
 probable that they had possessed districts west 
 of the Jordan in early times, since the “ valley 
 of Rephaim ” (κοιλὰς τῶν Τιτάνων, 2 Sam. v. 18, 
 1 Ch. xi. 15, Is. xvii. 5; κι τῶν γιγάντων, 
 Joseph. Ant. vii. 4, § 1), a rich valley S.W. of 
 Jerusalem, derived its name from them. 
 
 That they were not Canaanites is clea: from 
 there being no allusion to them in Gen. x. 15-19. 
 They were probably one of those aboriginal 
 peoples to whose existence the traditions of 
 many nations testify, and of whose genealogy 
 the Bible gives us no information. The few 
 names recorded have, as Ewald remarks, a 
 Semitic aspect (Geschich. des Volkes Isr. i. 311) ; 
 but from the hatred existing between them and 
 both the Canaanites and Hebrews, some suppose 
 them to be Japhethites, ‘ who comprised especi- 
 ally the inhabitants of the coasts and islands” 
 (Kalisch on Gen. p. 351. Cp. Dillmann’ in loco). 
 
 DNS) is rendered by the Greek Versions very 
 variously (Ῥαφαείμ, γίγαντες, γηγενεῖς, θεό- 
 μαχοι, Τιτᾶνες, and ἰατροί ; Vulg. Medici ; LXX. 
 Ps, Ixxxvii. 10; Is. xxvi. 14, where it is con- 
 fused with D'N51; cp. Gen. 1. 2, and sometimes 
 νεκροί, τεθνηκότες, especially in the Jater 
 Versions). In A. V. the words used for it are 
 “Rephaim,” “ giants,” and “the dead.” That 
 it has the latter meaning in many passages is 
 certain (Ps. Ixxxviii. 10; Prov. ii. 18, ix. 18, 
 xxi. 16; Is. xxvi. 19, 14). The question arises, 
 
 1175 
 
 how are these meanings to be reconciled ? 
 Gesenius gives no derivation for the national 
 name, and derives "9 = mortui, from N54, 
 sanavit, and the proper name Rapha from ‘an 
 Arabic root signifying “tall,” thus seeming to 
 sever a// connexion between the meanings of the 
 word, which is surely most unlikely. Masius, 
 Simonis, &c., suppose the second meaning to 
 come from the fact that both spectres and giants 
 strike terror (accepting the derivation from 
 np, remisit, “unstrung with fear,” R. Bechai 
 on Deut. ii.); Vitringa and Hiller from the notion 
 of length involved in stretching out a corpse, or 
 from the fancy that spirits appear in more than 
 human size (Hiller, Syntag. Herm. p. 205; Virg. 
 Aen. ii. 772, &c.). J. D. Michaelis (ad Lowth, De 
 sacr. poesi Hebr. p. 466) endeavoured to prove 
 that the Rephaim, &c., were Troglodytes, and 
 that hence they came to be identified with the 
 dead. Passing over other conjectures, Boettcher 
 sees in N57 and nd) a double root, and thinks 
 that the giants were called DSB) (languefacti) 
 by an euphemism; and that the dead were so 
 called by a title which will thus exactly parallel 
 the Greek καμόντες, κεκμηκότες (cp. Buttmann, 
 Lexil, ii. 237 sq.). His arguments are too elabo- 
 rate to quote (but see Boettcher, pp. 94-100). 
 An attentive consideration seems to leave little 
 room for doubt that the dead were called 
 Rephaim (as Gesenius also hints) from some 
 notion of Sheol being the residence of the fallen 
 spirits or buried giants. The passages which 
 seem most strongly to prove this are Prov. xxi. 
 16 (where obviously something more than mere 
 physical death is meant, since that is the 
 common lot of all); Is. xxvi. 14, 19, verses 
 difficult to explain without some such supposi- 
 tion; Is. xiv. 9, where the word "TIAY (oi 
 ἄρξαντες τῆς γῆς, LXX.), if taken in its literal 
 meaning of goats, may mean evil spirits repre- 
 sented in that form (cp. Lev. xvii. 7); and 
 especially Job xxvi. 5, 6, “‘ Behold the gyantes 
 (A. V. ‘dead things’) grown under the waters” 
 (Douay Version), where there seems to be clear 
 allusion to some subaqueous prison of rebellious 
 spirits, like that in which (according to the 
 Hindoo legend) Vishnu, the water-god, confines 
 a race of giants (cp. muAdpxos, as a title of 
 Neptune, Hes. Theog. 732 ; Nork, Brammin. und 
 Rabb. p. 319 sq.). [OG ; GOLIATH.] 
 
 Branches of this great unknown people were 
 called Emim, Anakim, and Zuzim. 
 
 4, Emm (ODN; LXX. ’Ouuly, Ἰμμαῖοι), 
 smitten by Chedorlaomer at Shaveh Kiriathaim 
 (Gen. xiv. 5), and occupying the country after- 
 wards held by the Moabites (Deut. ii. 10), who 
 gave them the name DDN, “terrors.” The 
 word rendered “tall” may perhaps be merely 
 “ haughty ” (ἰσχύοντες). [EMIM.] 
 
 5. Anakim (22). The imbecile terror of 
 the spies exaggerated their proportions into some- 
 thing superhuman (Num. xiii. 28, 33), and their 
 name became proverbial (Deut. ii. 10; ix. 2). 
 [ANAKIM. ] 
 
 6. Zuzim (737), whose principal town was 
 Ham (Gen. xiv. 5), and who lived between the 
 Arnon and the Jabbok, being a northern tribe of 
 Rephaim. The Ammonites, who defeated them, 
 called them DDD? (Deut. ii. 20 sq., which is 
 
 however probably an early gloss). 
 
 GIANTS 
 
1176 GIANTS 
 
 We have now examined the main names 
 applied to giant-races in the Bible, but except 
 in the case of the first two (Nephilim and 
 Gibborim) there is no necessity to suppose that 
 there was anything very remarkable in the 
 stature of these nations, beyond the general fact 
 of their being finely proportioned. Nothing can 
 be built on the exaggeration of the spies (Num. 
 xiii. 33); and Og, Goliath, Ishbi-benob, &c. (see 
 under the names themselves), are obviously 
 mentioned as exceptional cases. The Jews, how- 
 ever (misled by supposed relics), thought other- 
 wise (Joseph. Ant. v. 2, ὃ 3). 
 
 No one has yet proved by experience the 
 possibility of giant races, materially exceeding 
 in size the average height of man. There is no 
 great variation in the ordinary standard. The 
 most stunted tribes of Esquimaux are at least 
 four feet high, and the tallest races of America 
 (e.g. the Guayaquilists and people of Paraguay) 
 do not exceed six feet and a half. It was long 
 thought that the Patagonians were men of 
 enormous stature, and the assertions of the old 
 voyagers on the point were positive. For 
 instance, Pigafetta (Voyage Round the World, 
 Pinkerton, xi. 314) mentions an individual Pata- 
 gonian so tall, that they “ hardly reached to his 
 waist.” Similar exaggerations are found in the 
 Voyages of Byron, Wallis, Carteret, Cook, and 
 Forster; but it is now a matter of certainty 
 from the recent visits to Patagonia (by Winter, 
 Capt. Snow, &c.), that there is nothing at all 
 extraordinary in their height. 
 
 The general belief (until very recent times) 
 in the existence of fabulously enormous men, 
 arose from fancied giant-graves (see De la Valle’s 
 Travels in Persia, ii. 89), and above all from the 
 discovery of huge bones, which were taken for 
 those of men, in days when comparative anatomy 
 was unknown. Even the ancient Jews were 
 thus misled (Joseph. Ant. v. 2, § 3). Augustine 
 appeals triumphantly to this argument, and 
 mentions a molar tooth which he had seen at 
 Utica a hundred times larger than ordinary 
 teeth (de Civ. Dei, xv. 9). No doubt it once 
 belonged to an elephant. Vives, in his com- 
 mentary on the place, mentions a tooth as big 
 as a fist which was shown at St. Christopher’s. 
 In fact this source of delusion has only been 
 dispelled in modern times (Sennert, de Gigant. 
 passim ; Martin’s West. Islands, in Pinkerton, ii. 
 691). Most bones which have been exhibited 
 have turned out to belong to whales or ele- 
 phants, as was the case with the vertebra of a 
 supposed giant, examined by Sir Hans Sloane in 
 Oxfordshire. 
 
 On the other hand, isolated instances of mon- 
 strosity are sufficiently attested to prove that 
 beings like Goliath and his kinsmen may have 
 existed. Columella (R. RB. iii. 8, § 2) mentions 
 Navius Pollio as one, and Pliny says that in the 
 time of Claudius Caesar there was an Arab 
 named Gabbaras, nearly ten feet high, and that 
 even he was not so tall as Pusio and Secundilla 
 in the reign of Augustus, whose bodies were 
 preserved (vii. 16). Josephus tells us that, 
 among other hostages, Artabanus sent to Tiberius 
 a certain Eleazar, a Jew, surnamed “ the Giant,” 
 seven cubits in height (Ant. xviii. 4,§ 5). Nor 
 are well-authenticated instances wanting in 
 modern times. O’Brien, whose skeleton is pre- 
 served in the Museum of the Coll. of Surgeons, 
 
 GIBEA 
 
 | must have been eight feet high, but his un- 
 
 natural height made him weakly. On the other 
 hand, the blacksmith Parsons, in Charles II.’s 
 reign, was seven feet two inches high, and also 
 remarkable for his strength (Fuller’s Worthies, 
 Staffordshire). 
 
 For information on the various subjects 
 touched upon in this article, besides minor 
 authorities quoted in it, see Grot. de Veritat. i. 
 16; Nork, Brammin. und Rabb. 210 ad fin. ; 
 Ewald, Gesch. i. pp. 305-312; Winer, s. v. 
 Riesen, &c. ; Gesen. s. Ὁ. DSB; Rosenmiiller, 
 
 Kalisch, Comment. ad loca cit.; Rosenmiiller, 
 
 Alterthumshk. ii. ; Boettcher, de Inferis, p. 95 sq. ; 
 
 Heidegger, Hist. Patr. xi.; Havernick’s Introd. 
 
 to Pentat. p. 345 sq.; Horne’s Introd, i. 148; 
 Faber’s Bampt. Lect. iii. 7; Maitland’s Eruvin ; 
 Orig. of Pagan Idol. i. 217, in Maitland’s False 
 Worship, pp. 1-67 ; Pritchard’s Nat. Hist. of Man, 
 v. 489 sq.; Hamilton on the Pentat. pp. 189-201 ; 
 Papers on the Rephaim, Journ. of Sac. Lit. 1851. 
 There are also monographs by Cassanion, Sangu- 
 telli, and Sennert: we have only met with the 
 latter (Dissert. Hist. Phil. de Gigantibus, Vittemb. 
 1663); it is interesting and learned, but extra- 
 ordinarily credulous. [F. W. F.J 
 
 GIANTS, VALLEY OF THE (Josh. xv. 
 8; xviii. 16). [REPHAIM, VALLEY OF.] 
 
 GIB'BAR (133; B. Ταβέρ, A. Ταβέρ ; Geb- 
 bar), Bene-Gibbar, to the number of ninety-five, 
 returned with Zerubbabel from Babylon (Ezra 
 ii. 20). In the parallel list of Nehemiah (vii. 
 25) the name is given as GIBEON. 
 
 GIB/BETHON (j\N32a=c height ; B. Beye- 
 θών, Γεθεδάν, A. Γαβαθών, TaBebdy ; Gabathon), a 
 town allotted to the tribe of Dan (Josh. xix. 44), 
 and afterwards given with its “suburbs ” to the 
 Kohathite Levites (xxi. 23). Being, like most 
 of the towns of Dan, either in or close to the 
 Philistines’ country, it was no doubt soon taken 
 possession of by them; at any rate they held it 
 in the early days of the monarchy of Israel, 
 when king Nadab “and all Israel,” and after 
 him Omri, besieged it (1 K. xv. 27; xvi. 15, 17). 
 What were the special advantages of situation 
 or otherwise which rendered it so desirable as a 
 possession for Israel are not apparent. In the 
 Onomasticon (O8.? p. 255, 52) it is quoted as a 
 small village (πολίχνη) called Gabe, in the 17th 
 mile from Caesarea. This must, however, be 
 wrong, as the territory of Dan did not extend 
 northwards beyond the Wdady Kanah. Conder 
 has suggested Kibbich, to the S.W. of Tibneh, as 
 a possible identification (PEF. Mem. ii. 297). 
 
 GIB'EA (SUI3=<c hill; B. Γαιβάλ, A. Γαιβαά; 
 Gabaa). Sheva, “the father of Macbenah” and 
 “father of Gibea,” is mentioned with other names, 
 unmistakably those of places and not persons, 
 among the descendants of Judah (1 Ch. ii. 49; 
 cp. v. 42). This would seem to point out Gibea 
 (which in some Hebrew MSS. is Gibeah; see 
 Burrington, i. 216) as the city GIBEAH in Judah. 
 The mention of Madmannah (v. 49; cp. Josh. xv. 
 31), as well as of Ziph (v. 42) and Maon (υ. 45), 
 seems to carry us toa locality considerably south 
 of Hebron. [GiBEeAH, 1.1 On the other hand, 
 Madmannah recalls Madmenah, a town named. 
 in connexion with Gibeah of Benjamin (ls. x. 
 
GIBEAH 
 
 31), and therefore lying somewhere north of 
 Jerusalem. 
 
 GIB'EAH (ΠΥ 33, derived according to 
 Gesenius [ Thes. pp. 259, 260] from a root, vii, 
 signifying to be round or humped: cp. the Latin 
 gibbus, Eng. gibbous ; the Arabic > jebel, a 
 
 mountain, and the German Gipfel). A word 
 employed in the Bible to denote a “ hill ”—that 
 is, an eminence of less considerable height and 
 extent than a “mountain,” the term for which 
 is 10, har. For the distinction between the two 
 terms, see Ps. cxlviii. 9; Prov. viii. 25; Is. ii. 2, 
 xl. 4, &e. In the Historical Books gibeah is 
 commonly applied to the bald rounded hills of 
 Central Palestine, especially in the neighbour- 
 hood of Jerusalem (Stanley, App. ὃ 25). Like 
 most words of this kind, it gave its name to 
 several towns and places in Palestine—which 
 would doubtless be generally on or near a hill. 
 They are— 
 
 1. GrBEAH (Γαβαά; Gabaa), a city in the 
 mountain-district of Judah, named between Cain 
 and Timnah, and in the same group as Maon and 
 the Southern Carmel (Josh. xv. 57; and ep. 1 Ch. 
 ii. 49, &c.). Robinson (ii. 6, 16), Tobler (Dritte 
 Wanderung, p. 157), and Conder (PEF, Mem. iii. 
 25) suggest its identification with Jeb‘a, about 
 7 miles W.S.W. of Bethlehem. This place is 
 apparently the village named Gabatha, which is 
 mentioned in the Onomasticon (Ο 8.3 p. 255, 57) 
 as containing the monument of Habakkuk the 
 prophet, and lying 12 miles from Eleuthero- 
 polis. It cannot therefore be the place intended 
 in Joshua, since that would appear to have been 
 to the S.E. of Hebron, near where Carmel and 
 Maon are still existing. The site is therefore 
 yet to seek (cp. Dillmann? on Josh. 7. c.). 
 
 2. GIBEATH (NYI23; LXX., see below; Ga- 
 baath). This is enumerated among the last 
 group of the towns of Benjamin, next to Jeru- 
 salem (Josh. xviii. 28). It is sometimes taken 
 to be the place which afterwards became so 
 notorious as ‘Gibeah-of-Benjamin” or “ of- 
 Saul.” But this, as we shall presently see, 
 was about 4 miles north of Jerusalem, near 
 Gibeon and Ramah, with which, in that case, it 
 would have been mentioned in v. 25. The name 
 being in the “construct state”—Gibeath and 
 not Gibeah—may it not belong to the following 
 name Kirjath, and denote the hill adjoining that 
 town, or, according to Schwarz (pp. 102, 103), 
 the title of one place, “‘ Gibeath-Kirjath”? The 
 obvious objection to this proposal is the state- 
 ment of the number of this group of towns as 
 fourteen, but this isnot a serious objection, as in 
 these catalogues discrepancies not unfrequently 
 occur between the numbers of the towns, and 
 that stated as the sum of the enumeration (cp. 
 Josh. xv. 32, 36; xix. 6, &.). In this very list 
 there is reason to believe that Zelah and ha-Eleph 
 are not separate names, but one. The lists of 
 Joshua, though in the main coeval with the 
 division of the country, must have been often 
 added to and altered before they became finally 
 fixed as we now possess them.* It is possible 
 
 a For instance, Beth-marcaboth, “ house of chariots,” 
 and Hazar-susah, ‘‘ village of horses ” (Josh. xix. 5), 
 would seem to date from the time of Solomon, when the 
 traffic in these articles began with Egypt. 
 
 GIBEAH 1177 
 
 that Kirjath may be identical with Kirjath- 
 jearim, and that the latter part of the name 
 has been omitted by copyists at some very early 
 period. Such an omission is apparently indicated 
 by the readings of the LXX. (B. Γαβαωθιαρείμ ; 
 A. Γαβαὰθ καὶ πόλις ᾿Ιαρίμ) and some Hebrew 
 MSS. [Kirgarn]. In this case Gibeath might 
 denote the hill on which the Ark rested in the 
 time of Saul (see below, No. 3). The objection 
 to this view is that Kirjath-jearim is enumerated 
 as a city of Judah (Josh. xv. 60). Major Conder 
 (PEF. Mem. iii. 43) proposes to place Gibeath at 
 Jibi‘a, 3 miles north of Kuryet el-’Enab, which 
 he identifies with Kirjath. A more likely site 
 would be Kh. el-Jubeiah, to the right of the road 
 from Kuryet el-’Enab to Jerusalem, and near 
 Kustul. Sepp (ii. 11) identifies Gibeath with 
 Gibeah of Benjamin; and Riehm (8. v. Gibea, 3) 
 and Dillmann? incline to the same view. 
 
 3. (Πὺ 3} Π ; Β. ἐν τῷ βουνῷ, A. ἐν βουνῷ ; in 
 Gabaa.) The place in which the Ark remained 
 from the time of its return by the Philistines 
 till its removal by David (2 Sam. vi. 3, 4; ep. 
 1 Sam. vii. 1, 2). The name has the definite 
 article, and in 1 Sam. vii. 1 it is translated “the 
 hill.”” (See No. 2 above.) 
 
 4, GIBEAH-OF-BENJAMIN. This town does 
 not appear in the lists of the cities of Benjamin 
 in Josh. xviii. (1.) We first encounter it in the 
 tragical story of the Levite and his concubine, 
 when it brought all but extermination on the 
 tribe (Judg. xix. xx.). It was then a “city” 
 (WY), with the usual open street (AIM) or 
 square (Judg. xix. 15, 17, 20), and containing 
 700 “chosen men” (xx. 15), probably the same 
 whose skill as slingers is preserved in the next 
 verse. Thanks to the precision of the narrative, 
 we can gather some general knowledge of the 
 position of Gibeah. The Levite and his party 
 left Bethlehem in the “afternoon’—when the 
 day was coming near the time at which the 
 tents would be pitched for evening. It was 
 probably between 2 and 3 o’clock. At the 
 ordinary speed of Eastern travellers they would 
 come “over against Jebus” in two hours, 
 say by 5 o’clock, and the same length of time 
 would take them an equal distance, or about 
 4 miles, to the north of the city on the Nablus 
 road, in the direction of Mount Ephraim (xx. 13, 
 cp. 1). The Levite proposed to lodge at Ramah 
 or Gibeah; the latter being apparently the 
 nearest to Jerusalem; and when the sudden 
 sunset of that climate, unaccompanied by more 
 than a very brief twilight, made further progress 
 impossible, they “turned aside” from the beaten 
 track to the town where one of the party was 
 to meet a dreadful death (Judg. xix, 9-15). 
 Later indications of the story seem to show that 
 a little north of the town the main track divided 
 into two—one, the present Wablus road, leading 
 up to Bethel, the ‘“‘ house of God,” and the other 
 taking to Gibeah-in-the-field (xx. 31), possibly 
 the present Jeb‘a. Below the city probably— 
 about the base of the hill which gave its name 
 to the town—was the “cave” of Gibeah,” in 
 
 bm Wp, A. V. “meadows of Gibeah,” taking the 
 word as Ma‘areh, an open field (Stanley, App. § 19); 
 the ,|LXX. transfers the Hebrew word literally, 
 MapaayaBé; the Syriac has Lesko = cave. The 
 Hebrew word for cave, Me‘arah, differs from that 
 
1178 
 
 which the liers in wait concealed themselves 
 until the signal was given ° (xx. 33). 
 
 During this narrative the name is given simply 
 as ‘“Gibeah,” with a few exceptions ; at its intro- 
 duction it is called “ Gibeah which belongeth to 
 Benjamin ” (xix. 14, and so in xx. 4). Inxx. 10 we 
 have the expression “ Gibeah of Benjamin,” but 
 here the Hebrew is not Gibeah, but Geba—23- 
 
 The same form of the word is found in xx. 33, 
 where the meadows, or cave, “ of Gibeah ” should 
 be “of Geba.” Josephus, in describing the route 
 of the Levite, apparently makes Gibeah (Γαβὰ) 
 20 stadia from Jerusalem (Ant. v. 2, § 8); but 
 too much reliance should not be made on this 
 statement, for he gives, at the same time, the 
 distance from Bethlehem to Jerusalem as 30 
 instead of 40 stadia. 
 
 The natural inference from the above story is, 
 that Gibeah and Ramah were not far from the 
 road Jeading northwards from Jerusalem, and 
 some 4 or 5 miles from that place. The site of 
 Ramah, er-Rdm, about 53 miles from Jerusalem 
 and 3 mile east of the road, is well known; and 
 Gibeah must be looked for somewhat nearer to 
 Jerusalem—perhaps at Kh. Rds et- Tawil (PEF. 
 Mem. iii. 124) or Tell el-Ful (iii. 158), which are 
 respectively 4 miles and 3 miles from Jerusalem, 
 and 2 mile and + mile east of the road. The 
 suggestion that Jeb‘a, Geba, 63 miles from Jeru- 
 salem and 2} miles east of the road, is the Gibeah 
 referred to is untenable, though it may be in- 
 tended in Judg. xx. 33. Jerome (Zp. 8. Paulae, 
 vi.) apparently places Gibeah on the direct road 
 from Gibeon to Jerusalem. 
 
 (2.) We next meet with Gibeah of Benjamin 
 during the Philistine wars of Sanl and Jonathan 
 (1 Sam. xiii. xiv.). It now bears its full title. 
 The position of matters seems to have been 
 this :—The Philistines were in possession of the 
 village of Geba, the present Jeb‘a on the south 
 side of the Wady Suweinit. In their front, across 
 the wady, which is here about a mile wide, and 
 divided by several swells lower than the side 
 eminences, was Saul in the town of Michmash, 
 the modern Mukhmas, and holding also ‘ Mount 
 Bethel; ” thatis, the heights on the north of the 
 great wady—Deir Diwan, Burkah, et-Tell, as 
 tar as Beitin itself. South of the Philistine 
 camp, and between 2 and 3 miles to its rear, 
 was Jonathan, in Gibeah-of-Benjamin, with a 
 thousand chosen warriors (xiii. 2). The first 
 step was taken by Jonathan, who drove out the 
 Philistines from Geba, by a feat of arms which 
 at once procured him an immense reputation. 
 But in the meantime it increased the difficulties 
 of Israel, for the Philistines (hearing of their 
 reverse) gathered in prodigious strength, and, 
 advancing with an enormous armament, pushed 
 Saul’s little force before them out of Bethel and 
 Michmash, and down the Eastern passes to 
 Gilgal, near Jericho in the Jordan valley (xiii. 
 
 GIBEAH 
 
 adopted in the A. V. only in the vowel-points; and 
 there seems a certain consistency in an ambush con- 
 cealing themselves in a cave, which in an open field 
 would be impossible. On the other hand, the expression 
 “round about” in Ὁ. 29 seems inconsistent with the 
 theory of a cave ; and more suitable to an ambush con- 
 cealed in standing corn, or by inequalities in the ground. 
 The R. V. reads ‘‘ Maareh-geba” in the text, and “the 
 meadow of Geba”’ in the margin. 
 ¢ Josephus, Ant. v. 2, § 11. 
 
 GIBEAH 
 
 4, 7). They then established themselves at 
 Michmash, formerly the head-quarters of Saul, 
 and from thence sent out their bands of plun- 
 derers, north, west, and east (vv. 17,18). But 
 nothing could dislodge Jonathan from his main 
 stronghold in the south. As far as we can dis- 
 entangle the complexities of the story, he soon 
 relinquished Geba, and retired with his little 
 force to Gibeah, where he was joined by his 
 father,* with Samuel the prophet and Ahiah the 
 priest, who, perhaps remembering the former 
 fate of the Ark, had brought down the sacred 
 Ephod® from Shiloh. ‘These three had made 
 their way up from Gilgal, with a force sorely 
 diminished by desertion to the Philistine camp 
 (xiv. 21) and flight (xiii. 7)—a mere remnant 
 (κατάλειμμα) of the people following in the rear 
 of the little band (LXX.). Then occurred the 
 feat of the hero and his armour-bearer. In the 
 stillness and darkness of the night they de- 
 scended the hill of Gibeah, crossed the inter- 
 vening country to the steep terraced slope of 
 Jeb‘a, and threading the mazes of the ravine 
 below climbed the opposite hill, and discovered 
 themselves to the garrison of the Philistines just 
 as the day was breaking.* 
 
 No one had been aware of their departure, but 
 it was not long unknown. Saul’s watchmen in 
 Gibeah were straining their eyes to catch a 
 glimpse in the early morning of the position of 
 the foe; and as the first rays of the rising sun 
 on their right broke over the mountains of 
 Gilead, and glittered on the rocky heights of 
 Michmash, their practised eyes quickly dis- 
 covered the unusual stir in the camp; they could 
 see “the multitude melting away, and beating 
 down one another.” The muster-roll was hastily 
 called to discover the absentees. The oracle of 
 God was consulted, but so rapidly did the tumult 
 increase that Saul’s impatience would not permit 
 the rites to be completed, and soon he and Ahiah 
 (xiv. 36) were rushing down from Gibeah at the 
 head of their hungry warriors, joined at every 
 step by some of the wretched Hebrews from their 
 hiding-places in the clefts and holes of the Ben- 
 jamite hills, eager for revenge, and for the re- 
 covery of the “sheep, and oxen, and calves” 
 (xiv. 32), equally with the arms, of which they 
 had been lately plundered. So quickly did the 
 news run through the district that—if we may 
 accept the statements of the LXX.—by the time 
 Saul reached the Philistine camp his following 
 amounted to 10,000 men: on every one of the 
 heights (Bauw6) of the country the people rose 
 against the hated invaders, and before the day 
 was out there was not a city even of Mount 
 Ephraim to which the struggle had not spread. 
 (JONATHAN. ] 
 
 ἃ According to R. V. (1 Sam. xiii. 15, 16), Samuel 
 went from Gilgal to Gibeah, whilst Saul and Jonathan 
 assembled their men in :Geba, whence they must have 
 gone to Gibeah (xiv. 2, 17). 
 
 e 1 Sam. xiv. 3. In v.18 the Ark is said to have been 
 at Gibeah; but this is in direct contradiction to the 
 statement of vii. 1, compared with 2 Sam. vi. 3, 4, and 
 1 Ch. xiii. 3; and also to those of the LXX. and 
 Josephus at this place. The Hebrew words for Ark and 
 epkod—t} ἽΝ and {HN—are not very dissimilar, and 
 may have been mistaken for one another (Ewald, Gesch. 
 111. 46, note ; Stanley, p. 205). 
 
 f We owe this touch to Josephus: ὑποφαινούσης ἤδη 
 τῆς ἡμέρας (Ant. vi. 6, ὁ 2). 
 
GIBEAH 
 
 The only indications of position in the above 
 narrative are that Gibeah and Geba were distinct 
 places (xiii. 2, 3; xiv. 2,5, in R. V.), and that 
 Saul’s watchmen in Gibeah could see the com- 
 motion in the Philistine army at Michmash. 
 If Gibeah of Benjamin were in the position 
 suggested ia (1), it must have been between 4 
 and 5 miles from Michmash,—a distance at 
 which it would be difficult, though not perhaps 
 impossible, with the assistance of the rays of 
 the rising sun, for a trained eye to distinguish 
 an unusual movement in a large army. May 
 we not, however, suppose that the watchmen 
 were the usual outposts or scouts, 2 or 3 miles 
 in front of Gibeah; and that they kept up 
 communication with Saul by means of swift 
 “yunners”? In this case there would be no 
 difficulty in placing Gibeah at or near Tell 
 el-Fil. The actual distances from Mukhmds 
 are, Jeb‘a, 2 miles; Kh. Ras et-Tawil, 4 miles ; 
 and Tell el-Fitl, 5 miles. Josephus (Ant. vi. 6, 
 δὲ 1-3) does not distinguish between Gibeah 
 and Geba. 
 
 (3.) As “Gibeah of Benjamin,” this place is 
 referred to in 2 Sam. xxiii. 29 (cp. 1 Ch. xi. 31), 
 and as “‘ Gibeah ” it is mentioned by Hosea (v. 8; 
 ix. 9; x. 9), but it does not again appear in the 
 history. It is, however, almost without doubt 
 identical with Ἶ 
 
 5. GIBEAH-OF-SAUL (Dane ΓΟΣᾺ; the LXX. 
 do not recognise this name except in 2 Sam. 
 xxi. 6, where they have Γαβαὼν Σαούλ, Gaboath 
 Saulis, and Is. x. 29, πόλις Σαούλ, elsewhere 
 simply Γαβαὰ or A. Γαβαθά). This is not men- 
 tioned as Saul’s city till after his anointing 
 (1 Sam. x. 26), when he is said to have gone 
 “home ” (Hebr. “to his house,” as in xv. 34) to 
 Gibeah, “to which,” adds Josephus (Ant. vi. 4, 
 § 6), “he belonged.” In the subsequent narra- 
 tive the town bears its full name (xi. 4), and 
 the king is living there, still following the 
 avocations’ of a simple farmer, when his rela- 
 tions 8 of Jabesh-Gilead beseech his help in their 
 danger. His Ammonite expedition is followed 
 by the first Philistine war, and by various other 
 conflicts, amongst others an expedition against 
 Amalek in the extreme south of Palestine. But 
 he returns, as before, *‘to his house ” at Gibeah- 
 of-Saul (1 Sam. xv. 34). Again we meet with 
 it, when the seven sons of the king were hung 
 there as a sacrifice to turn away the anger of 
 Jehovah (2 Sam. xxi. 6"), The name of Saul 
 has not been found in connexion with any place 
 of modern Palestine, but it existed as late as 
 the days of Josephus, and an allusion of his has 
 fortunately given a clue to the position of the 
 town. Josephus (B. J. ν. 2, § 1), describing 
 Titus’s march from Caesarea to Jerusalem, 
 gives his route as through Samaria to Gophna, 
 thence a day’s march (usually 10 miles) to a 
 valley “called by the Jews the Valley of Thorns, 
 near a certain village called Gabathsaoule 
 (TaBalcaodvaAn), distant from Jerusalem about 
 30 stadia.” Here he was joined during the 
 night (§ 3) by the legion from Emmaus (Nico- 
 
 & This is a fair inference from the fact that the wives 
 of 400 out of the 600 Benjamites who escaped the 
 massacre at Gibeah came from Jabesh-Gilead (Judg. 
 xxi. 12). 
 
 h The word in this verse rendered “hill” is not 
 
 GIBEAH 1179 
 
 polis), which would naturaliy come up the road 
 by Beth-horon and Gibeon, the same that still 
 falls into the road from Gophna to Jerusalem 
 about half a mile north of Zell el-FViéil. The 
 junction of the two roads is exactly 10 Roman 
 miles from Jufna, Gophna, and 30 stadia from 
 Jerusalem; and it is just the position that 
 an army advancing on Jerusalem and expecting 
 reinforcements by the Beth-horon road might 
 be expected to take up. Hereabouts then must 
 have been the “Valley of Thorns,” perhaps 
 W. ed-Dumm, west of the road, or W. el-Hafi, to 
 the east of it; and “ Gabathsaoule,” which may 
 have been either Tell el-Ful or Kh. Πᾶς et- 
 Tawil, respectively 25 and 382 stadia from 
 Jerusalem. The agreement between the posi- 
 tions of Gibeah of Benjamin and Gibeah of Saul 
 is complete, and there seems every reason to 
 suppose that the two places are identical. 
 
 The position assigned to Gibeah, as also the 
 identification of Geba with Jeb‘a, is fully sup- 
 ported by Is. x. 28-32, where we have a specifi- 
 cation of the route of Sennacherib from the 
 north through the villages of the Benjamite 
 district to Jerusalem. Commencing with Ai, 
 to the east of the present Beitin, the route pro- 
 ceeds by Mukhmds across the “ passages ”’ of the 
 Wady Suweinit to Jeb‘a on the opposite side; and 
 then by er-Radm and Tell el-Fil, villages ac- 
 tually on the present road, to the heights north 
 of Jerusalem, from which the city is visible. 
 Gallim, Madmenah, and Gebim, none of which 
 have been yet identified, must have been, like 
 Anathoth ( Andta), villages on one side or the 
 other of the direct line of march. The only 
 break in the chain is Migron, which is here 
 placed between Ai and Michmash, while in 
 1 Sam. xiv. 2 it appears to have been 5 or 6 
 miles south, at Gibeah. One explanation that 
 presents itself is, that in that uneven and rocky 
 district the name “ Migron” (“ precipice”) would 
 very probably, like “Gibeah,” be borne by 
 more than one town or spot. [ΜΊΘΒΟΝ.7 
 
 In 1 Sam. xxii. 6,) xxiii. 19, xxvi. 1, “Gibeah ” 
 doubtless stands for G. of Saul. 
 
 Dr. Robinson (i. 577-79) was the first to 
 identify Gibeah of Benjamin, or of Saul, with 
 Tell el-Ful, though it was partly suggested by 
 a writer in Stud. u. Kritiken. He has been fol- 
 lowed by Stanley, Tristram, Porter, Geikie, 
 Sepp, Riehm, and Baedeker-Socin. On the other 
 hand, Knobel, ‘‘henius, Manchot in Schenkel’s 
 Bib. Lex., Schwarz, and Conder identify Gibeah 
 with Geba, Jeb‘a. Conder argues, from Judg. 
 xx. 31, 1 Sam. xiv. 2, xxii. 6, that Gibeah was 
 a district having Geba asa capital (PEF Qy. Stat. 
 1877, pp. 104, 105; 1881, p. 89). It seems clear, 
 however, especially from Is. x. 29, that they 
 were distinct places. Birch (PHF Qy. Stat. 1882) 
 suggests Kh.’ Adaseh, 2 miles E. of £l-Jtb, Gibeon, 
 as a site for Gibeah, but this place is apparently 
 ADASA. ὶ 
 
 6. GIBEAH-IN-THE FIELD (ΠῚ)3 NVI ; Γα- 
 Bad ἐν ἀγρῷ ; Gabaa), named only in Judg. x=, 
 31, as the place to which one of the “ high- 
 
 ways” (Πρ) led from Gibeah-of-Benjamin, 
 
 i The words in 1 Sam. xxii. 6 may either be trans- 
 lated “ἴῃ Gibeah, under the tamarisk tree on the 
 height,” as in R. V. marg., or it may imply that Ramah 
 
 gibeah but har, i.e. “ mountain” (see Driver, Notes on | was included within the precincts of the king’s city. 
 
 the Heb. Text of the BB. of Samuel, in loco). 
 
 (RAMAH.] 
 
1180 GIBEATH 
 
 —“of which one goeth up to Bethel, and one 
 to Gibeah-in-the-field.” Sadeh, the word here 
 rendered “field,” is applied specially to culti- 
 vated ground, “as distinguished from town, 
 desert, or garden” (Stanley, App. § 15). Culti- 
 vation was so general throughout this district, 
 that the term affords no clue to the situation of 
 the place. It is, however, remarkable that the 
 north road from Jerusalem, shortly after passing 
 Tell el-Fil, separates into two branches, one 
 running on to Beitin (Bethel), and the other 
 diverging to the right to Jeb‘a (Geba). The 
 attack on Gibeah came from the north (cp. xx. 
 18, 19, and 26, in which “the house of God” is 
 really Bethel), and therefore the divergence of 
 the roads was north of the town. In the case 
 of Gibeah-of-Benjamin we have seen that the 
 two forms “ Geba” and ‘“‘Gibeah ” appear to be 
 convertible, the former for the latter. If the 
 identification now proposed for Gibeah-in-the- 
 field be correct, the case is here reversed—and 
 “Gibeah ” is put for “ Geba.” 
 
 The “meadows of Gaba” (33; A. V. Gibeah, 
 R. V. Geba; Judg. xx. 33) have no connexion 
 with the “field,” the Hebrew words being en- 
 tirely different. As stated above, the word 
 rendered “meadows” is probably accurately 
 “cave.” [GEBA, p. 1177, n. ».] 
 
 7. There are several other names compounded 
 of Gibeah, which are given in a translated form 
 in the A. V., probably from their appearing not 
 to belong to towns. These are:— 
 
 (1.) The “hill of the foreskins,” R. V. marg. 
 Gibeath ha-araloth (Josh. v. 3), between the 
 Jordan and Jericho; it derives its name from 
 the circumcision which took place there, and 
 seems afterwards to have received the name of 
 GILGAL. 
 
 (2.) The “hill of Phinehas,” R. V. marg. 
 Gibeah of Phinehas, in Mount Ephraim (Josh. 
 xxiv. 33). Schwarz (H. L. p. 118), who is fol- 
 lowed by Sepp (ii. 53) and Conder (PEF. Mem. 
 ij. 288), identifies it with ’Awertah, near Nablus, 
 where the tombs of Phinehas and Eleazar are 
 shown. Guérin (Judee, iii. 37) and Riehm (s. v.) 
 place it at Jibia, 3 miles north of Kuryet 
 el-’ Enab. 
 
 (3.) The hill of Moreh (Judg, vii. 1). 
 
 (4.) The hill of God—Gibeath ha-Elohim 
 (1 Sam. x. 5); one of the places in the route of 
 Saul, which is so difficult to trace. In vv. 10 
 and 13, it is apparently called “the hill” and 
 “the high place.” 
 
 (5.) The hill of Hachilah (1 Sam. xxiii. 19, 
 xxvi. 1). 
 
 (6.) The hill of Ammah (2 Sam. ii. 24). 
 
 (7.) The hill Gareb (Jer. xxxi. 39). 
 
 In addition to those enumerated above, 
 Josephus (B. J. iii. 3, § 1) mentions a Gibeah 
 as adjoining Carmel, and as having the sobri- 
 quet “city of horsemen” ([aBa πόλις ἱππέων), 
 because it was the residence of certain horsemen 
 dismissed by Herod. This place is now called 
 Jeb'a (PEF. Nem. ii. 42). {G.] [W.] 
 
 GIBEATH, Josh. xviii. 28. [Greean, 2.] 
 
 GIBEATHITE, THE CNvI30; 6 TaBa- 
 θίτος; Gabaathites), 1.6. the native of Gibeah 
 ( Ch. xii. 3); in this case Shemaah, or “the 
 Shemaah,” father of two Benjamites, “Saul’s 
 brethren,” who joined David. 
 
 GIBEON 
 
 GIBEON (033, ic. “ beionging to a hill;” 
 Γαβαών, Joseph. Γαβαώ; Gabaon), one of the 
 four* cities of the Hivires, the inhabitants of 
 which made a league with Joshua (ix. 3-15), 
 and thus escaped the fate of Jericho and Ai 
 (ep. xi. 19). It appears, as might be inferred 
 from its taking the initiative in this matter, to 
 have been the largest of the four—“‘a great 
 city, like one of the royal cities ”—larger than 
 Ai (x. 2). Its men too were all practised war- 
 riors (Gibborim, O33). Gibeon lay within the 
 territory of Benjamin (xviii. 25), and with its 
 “suburbs ” was allotted to the priests (xxi. 17), 
 of whom it became afterwards a principal sta- 
 tion. Occasional notices of its existence occur 
 in the Historical Books, which are examined 
 more at length below; and after the Captivity 
 we find the “men of Gibeon” returning with 
 Zerubbabel (Neh. vii. 25: in the list of Ezra 
 the name is altered to Gibbar), and assisting 
 Nehemiah in the repair of the wall of Jerusalem 
 (11. 7). In the post-biblical times it was the 
 scene of a victory by the Jews over the Roman 
 troops under Cestius Gallus, which offers in 
 many respects a close parallel to that of Joshua 
 over the Canaanites (Joseph. B. J. ii. 19, § 7; 
 Stanley, 8. δ᾽ P. p. 212). 
 
 The situation of Gibeon has fortunately been 
 recovered with as great certainty as any ancient 
 site in Palestine. The traveller who pursues 
 the northern camel-road from Jerusalem, turn- 
 ing off to the left beyond Tell e/-Ful, on that 
 branch of it which leads westward to Jaffa, 
 finds himself, after crossing one or two stony 
 and barren ridges, in a district of a more open 
 character. The hills are rounder and more 
 isolated than those through which he has been 
 passing, and rise in well-defined mamelons from 
 broad undulating valleys of tolerable extent and 
 fertile soil. This is the central plateau of the 
 country, the “land of Benjamin;” and these 
 round hills are the Gibeahs, Gebas, Gibeons, and 
 Ramahs, whose names occur so frequently in 
 the records of this district. Retaining its an- 
 cient name almost intact, e/-Jib stands on the 
 northernmost of a couple of these mamelons, 
 just at the place where the road to the sea 
 parts into two branches, the one by the lower 
 level of the Wady Suleiman, the other by the 
 heights of the Beth-horons, to Gimzo, Lydda, 
 and Joppa. The road passes at a short distance 
 to the north of the base of the hill of el-Jt. 
 The strata of the hills in this district lie much 
 more horizontally than those further south. 
 With the hills of Gibeon this is peculiarly the 
 case, and it imparts a remarkable precision to 
 their appearance, especially when viewed from a 
 height such as the neighbouring eminence of 
 Neby Samwil. The natural terraces are carried 
 round the hill like contour lines; they are all 
 dotted thick with olives and vines, and the 
 ancient-looking houses are scattered over the 
 flattish summit of the mound. On the east side 
 of the hill is a copious spring, which issues in a 
 cave excavated in the limestone rock, so as to 
 form a large reservoir, whence a rock-hewn 
 passage led to the surface of the hill above 
 (PEF Qy. Stat. 1890, p. 23), In the trees farther 
 
 5. So Josh. ix. 17. Josephus (Ant. v. 1, § 16) omits 
 Beeroth, 
 
GIBEON 
 
 GIBEON 1181 
 
 down are the remains of a pool or tank of consider- | crowning act of perfidy should have overtaken 
 
 able size; probably, says Dr. Robinson, 120 feet 
 by 100, i.e. of rather smaller dimensions than the 
 lower pool at Hebron. This is doubtless the 
 “pool of Gibeon ” at which Abner and Joab met 
 together with the troops of Ishbosheth and 
 David, and where that sharp conflict took place 
 which ended in the death of Asahel, and led at 
 a later period to the treacherous murder of 
 Abner himself. Here or at the spring were the 
 “ great waters (or the many waters, O27 OD) 
 of Gibeon,”” at which Johanan the son of 
 Kareah found the traitor Ishmael (Jer. xli. 12). 
 Round this water also, according to the notice 
 of Josephus (ἐπί τινι πηγῇ τῆς πόλεως οὐκ 
 ἄπωθεν, Ant. ν. 1, § 17), the five kings of the 
 Amorites were encamped when Joshua burst 
 upon them from Gilgal. The “wilderness of 
 Gibeon ” (2 Sam. ii. 24)—the Midbar, i.e. rather 
 the waste pasture-grounds—must have been to 
 the east, beyond the circle or suburb of culti- 
 vated fields, and towards the neighbouring 
 swells, which bear the names of Jedireh and 
 Bir Nebdéla. Such is the situation of Gibeon, 
 fulfilling in position every requirement of the 
 notices of the Bible, Josephus, Eusebius, and 
 Jerome. Its distance from Jerusalem by the 
 main road is as nearly as possible 63 miles ; but 
 there is a more direct road reducing it to 
 5 miles. 
 
 (1.) The name of Gibeon is most familiar to 
 us in connexion with the artifice by which its 
 inhabitants obtained their safety at the hands of 
 Joshua, and with the memorable battle which 
 ultimately resulted therefrom. This transac- 
 tion is elsewhere examined, and therefore re- 
 quires no further reference here. [JOSHUA ; 
 BETH-HORON. ] 
 
 (2.) We next hear of it at the encounter 
 between the men of David and of Ishbosheth 
 under their respective leaders, Joab and Abner 
 (2 Sam. ii. 12-17). The meeting has all the 
 air of having been premeditated by both parties, 
 unless we suppose that Joab had heard of the 
 intention of the Benjamites to revisit from the 
 distant Mahanaim their native villages, and had 
 seized the opportunity to try his strength with 
 Abner. The details of this disastrous encounter 
 are elsewhere given. [JOAB.] The place where 
 the struggle began received a name from the 
 circumstauce, and seems to have been long after- 
 wards known as the “field of the strong men.” 
 [HELKATH-HAZZURIM. | 
 
 (9.9 We again meet with Gibeon in connexion 
 with Joab; this time as the scene of the cruel 
 and revolting death of Amasa by his hand 
 (2 Sam. xx. 5-10). Joab was in pursuit of the 
 rebellious Sheba the son of Bichri, and his being 
 so far out of the direct north road as Gibeon 
 may be accounted for by supposing that he was 
 making a search for this Benjamite among the 
 towns of his tribe. The two rivals met at 
 “the great stone which is in Gibeon ”-~some 
 old landmark now no longer recognisable, at 
 least not recognised—and then Joab repeated 
 the treachery by which he had murdered Abner, 
 but with circumstances of a still more revolting 
 character. [JOAB. 
 
 It is remarkable that the retribution for this 
 
 >» Both here and in 1 K. iii. 4, Josephus substitutes 
 Hebron for Gibeon (Ant. x. 9, § 5; viii. 2, § 1). 
 
 Joab close to the very spot on which it had been 
 committed. For it was to the Tabernacle at 
 Gibeon (1 K. ii. 28, 29; cp. 1 Ch. xvi. 39) that 
 Joab fled for sanctuary when his death was 
 pronounced by Solomon, and it was while cling- 
 ing to the horns of the brazen Altar there that he 
 received his deathblow from Benaiah the son of 
 Jehoiada (1 Καὶ. ii. 28, 30, 34; and LXX. υ. 29). 
 (4.) Familiar as these events in connexion 
 with the history of Gibeon are to us, its reputa- 
 tion in Israel was due to a very different circum- 
 stance—the fact that the Tabernacle of the 
 congregation and the brazen Altar of burnt- 
 offering were for some time located on the 
 “high place” attached to or near the town. 
 We are not informed whether this “ high place ” 
 had any fame for sanctity before the Tabernacle 
 came there; but if not, it would have probably 
 been erected elsewhere. We only hear of it in 
 connexion with the Tabernacle, nor is there any 
 indication of its situation in regard to the town. 
 Dean Stanley has suggested that it was the 
 remarkable hill of Neby Samwil, the most promi- 
 nent and individual eminence in that part of the 
 country, and to which the special appellation of 
 “the great high-place” (1 K. iii. 4; moan 
 
 ΠΡ 2) would perfectly apply. And certainly, 
 
 if “great” is to be understood as referring to 
 height or size, there is no other hill which can 
 so justly claim the distinction (Sinai and Pal. 
 p- 216). But the word has not always that mean- 
 ing, and may equally imply eminence in other 
 respects, ¢.g. superior sanctity to the numerous 
 other high places—Bethel, Ramah, Mizpeh, and 
 Gibeah—which surrounded it on every side. The 
 main objection to this identification is the 
 distance of Neby Samwil from Gibeon—more 
 than a mile—and the absence of any closer 
 connexion therewith than with any other of 
 the neighbouring places. The most natural 
 position for the high place of Gibeon is the 
 twin mount immediately south of e/-Jib—so 
 close as to be all but a part of the town, 
 and yet quite separate and distinct. The tes- 
 timony of Epiphanius, by which Dean Stanley 
 supports his conjecture, viz. that the “ Mount 
 of Gabaon”’ was the highest round Jerusalem 
 (Adv. Haereses, i. 394), should be received with 
 caution, standing as it does quite alone, and 
 belonging to an age which, though early, was 
 marked by ignorance, and by the most improba- 
 ble conclusions. 
 
 To this high place, wherever situated, the 
 “Tabernacle of the congregation ””—the sacred 
 tent which had accompanied the children of 
 Israel through the whole of their wanderings— 
 had been transferred from its last station at 
 Nob. The exact date of the transfer is left in 
 uncertainty. It was either before or at the 
 time when David brought up the Ark from Kir- 
 
 ¢ The various stations of the Tabernacle and the 
 Ark, from their entry on the Promised Land to their 
 final deposition in the Temple at Jerusalei, wiil be 
 examined under TABERNACLE. Meantime, with re- 
 ference to the above, it may be said that though not 
 expressly stated to have been at Nob, it may be con- 
 clusively inferred from the mention of the ‘ shew- 
 bread” (1 Sam. xxi. 6). The ‘‘ephod” (v. 9) and the 
 expression “before Jehovah” (v. 6) prove nothing 
 either way. Josephus throws no light on it. 
 
1182 GIBEONITES, THE 
 
 jath-jearim, to the new tent which he had 
 pitched for it on Mount Zion, that the original 
 tent was spread for the last time at Gibeon. 
 The expression in 2 Ch. i. 5, “the brazen Altar 
 he put before the Tabernacle of Jehovah,” at 
 first sight appears to refer to David. But the 
 text of the passage is disputed, and the authori- 
 ties are divided between Diy = “he put,” and 
 Dw =“ was there” (R. V.). Whether king David 
 transferred the Tabernacle to Gibeon or not, he 
 certainly appointed the staff of priests to offer 
 the daily sacrifices there on the brazen Altar of 
 Moses, and to fulfil the other requirements of 
 the Law (1 Ch. xvi. 40), with no less a person at 
 their head than Zadok the priest (v. 39), assisted 
 by the famous musicians Heman and Jeduthun 
 (v. 41). 
 
 One of the earliest acts of Solomon’s reign— 
 it must have been while the remembrance of the 
 execution of Joab was still fresh—was to visit 
 Gibeon. The ceremonial was truly magnificent : 
 he went up with all the congregation, the 
 great officers of state—the captains of hundreds 
 and thousands, the judges, the governors, and 
 the chief of the fathers—and the sacrifice con- 
 sisted of a thousand burnt-offerings (1 K. iii. 4). 
 And this glimpse of Gibeon in all the splendour 
 of its greatest prosperity—the smoke of the 
 thousand animals rising from the venerable altar 
 on the commanding height of “the great high 
 place ”—the clang of “trumpets and cymbals 
 and musical instruments of God” (1 Ch. xvi. 
 42) resounding through the valleys far and near 
 —is virtually the last we have of it. Ina few 
 years the Temple at Jerusalem was completed, 
 and then the Tabernacle was once more taken 
 down and removed. Again “all the men of 
 Israel assembled themselves” to king Solomon, 
 with the “elders of Israel,” and the priests and 
 the Levites brought up both the Tabernacle and 
 the Ark, and “all the holy vessels that were in 
 the Tabernacle” (1 K. viii. 3; Joseph. Ant. viii. 
 4, § 1), and placed the venerable relics in their 
 new home, there to remain until the plunder of 
 the city by Nebuchadnezzar. The introduction 
 of the name of Gibeon in 1 Ch. ix. 35, which 
 seems so abrupt, is probably due to the fact 
 that the preceding verses of the chapter contain, 
 as they appear to do, a list of the staff attached 
 to the “Tabernacle of the congregation ” which 
 was erected there; or if these persons should 
 prove to be the attendants on the “new tent ” 
 which David had pitched for the Ark on its 
 arrival in the city of David, the transition to 
 the place where the old tent was still standing 
 is both natural and easy. For the present state 
 of Gibeon, see PEF. Mem. iii. 10, 94, and Guérin, 
 Jude, i. 385-391 [G.]. [W.] 
 
 GIBEONITES, THE (82.337; of TaBaw- 
 virat; Gabaonitae), the people of Gibeon, and 
 perhaps also of the three cities associated with 
 Gibeon (Josh. ix. 17)—Hivites; and who, on the 
 discovery of the stratagem by which they had 
 obtained the protection of the Israelites, were 
 condemned to be perpetual bondmen, hewers of 
 wood and drawers of water for the congregation, 
 and for the house of God and Altar of Jehovah 
 (Josh. ix. 23, 27). Saul appears to have 
 broken this covenant, and in a fit of enthusiasm 
 or patriotism to have killed some and devised a 
 
 GIDDEL 
 
 general massacre of the rest (2 Sam. xxi. 1, 2, 
 5). This was expiated many years after by 
 giving up seven men of Saul’s descendants to 
 the Gibeonites, who hung them or crucified 
 them “ before Jehovah ”’—as a kind of sacrifice 
 —in Gibeah, Saul’s own town (vv. 4, 6, 9). At 
 this time, or at any rate at the time of the 
 composition of the narrative, the Gibeonites 
 were so identified with Israel, that the historian 
 is obliged to insert a note explaining their 
 origin and their non-Israelite extraction (xxi. 2). 
 The actual name “ Gibeonites ” appears only in 
 this passage of 2 Sam. [NETHINIM. ] 
 
 Individual Gibeonites named are (1) ISMAIAH, 
 one of the Benjamites who joined David in his 
 difficulties (1 Ch. xii. 4); (2) ΜΕΠΑΤΙΑΗ, one of 
 those who assisted Nehemiah in repairing the 
 wall of Jerusalem (Neh. iii. 7); (3) HANANIAH, 
 the son of Azur, a false prophet from Gibeon, 
 who opposed Jeremiah, and shortly afterwards 
 died (Jer. xxviii. 1, 10, 13, 17). [6 Wel) 
 
 GIBLITES, THE (0337, ie. singular, 
 “the Giblite ;” B. Γαλιὰθ Φυλιστιείμ, A. TaBal ; 
 confinia). The “land of the Giblite” is men- 
 tioned in connexion with Lebanon in the enu- 
 meration of the portions of the Promised Land 
 remaining to be conquered by Joshua (Josh. 
 xiii. 5). The ancient Versions, as will be seen 
 above, give no help, but there is no reason to 
 doubt that the allusion is to the inhabitants of 
 the city GEBAL, which was on the sea-coast at 
 the foot of the northern slopes of Lebanon. The 
 one name is a regular derivative from the other 
 (see Gesenius, 7198. p. 258 Ὁ). We have here a 
 confirmation of the identity of the Aphek men- 
 tioned in this passage with Afza [APHEK, 2]; 
 and the whole passage is instructive, as show- 
 ing how very far the limits of the country 
 designed for the Israelites exceeded those which 
 they actually occupied. 
 
 The Giblites are again named (though not in 
 
 the A. V.) in 1 K. v. 18 (O30; B. om, A. of 
 Βέβλιοι; Bibdlii), as assisting Solomon’s builders 
 and Hiram’s builders to prepare the trees and 
 the stones for building the Temple. That they 
 were clever artificers is evident from this 
 passage (cp. Ezek. xxvii. 9); but why the A. V. 
 should have rendered the word “ stone-squarers ” 
 is not obvious. Possibly they followed the 
 Targum, which has a word of similar import in 
 this place. R. V. correctly translates Gebalites, 
 [81 ΓΙ 
 
 GIDDAL'TI Cmb33 =F have magnified 
 (God) ; B. Γοδολλαθεί, A. Γεδολλαθί ; Geddelthi), 
 one of the sons of Heman, the king’s seer, and 
 therefore a Kohathite Levite (1 Ch. xxv. 43 ep. 
 vi. 33): his office was with thirteen of his 
 brothers to sound the horn in the service of the 
 Tabernacle (vv. 5, 7). He had also charge of 
 the 22nd division or course (v. 29). 
 
 GIDDEL (33 =e hath magnified; B. 
 Κεδέδ, A. Γεδδήλ [Ezra], BN. Γαδήλ, A. Σαδήλ 
 [Neh.]; Gaddel). 1. Children of Giddel (Bene- 
 Giddel) were among the Nethinim who returned 
 from the Captivity with Zerubbabel (Ezra ii. 47 ; 
 Neh. vii. 49). In the parallel lists of 1 Esdras 
 (v. 30) the name is corrupted to CATHUA. 
 
 2. Bene-Giddel were also among the “servants 
 
~~ 
 
 GIDEON 
 
 of Solomon” who returned to Judaea in the same 
 caravan (Ezra ii. 56, B. Γεδηά, A. Γεδδήλ; Neh. 
 vii. 58, BN. Γαδήλ, A. Γαδδήλ). In 1 Esd. v. 
 32 this is given as ISDAEL. 
 
 GIDEON (jiv3, Ges.=a hewer, i.e, a brave 
 warrior; cp. Is. x. 33: Γεδεών; Gedeon), a 
 Manassite, youngest son of Joash of the Abiez- 
 rites, an undistinguished family who lived at 
 Ophrah (LXX. v. 11, Ἔφραθᾶ), which was pro- 
 bably a town of Manasseh not far from Shechem 
 (Judg. vi. 15), although its exact position is 
 unknown. He was the fifth recorded Judge of 
 Israel, and for many reasons the greatest of 
 them all.. When we first hear of him he was 
 grown up and had sons (Judg. vi. 11, viii. 20), 
 and from the apostrophe of the Angel (vi. 12) 
 we may conclude that he had already distin- 
 guished himself in war against the roving bands 
 of nomadic robbers who had oppressed Israel for 
 seven years, and whose countless multitudes 
 (compared to locusts from their terrible de- 
 vastations, vi. 5) annually destroyed all the 
 produce of Canaan, except such as could be 
 concealed in mountain fastnesses (vi. 2). It 
 was probably during this disastrous period that 
 the emigration of Elimelech took place (Ruth i. 
 1, 2). Some have identified the Angel who 
 appeared to Gideon (φάντασμα νεανίσκου μορφῇ, 
 Jos. Ant. v. 6) with the prophet mentioned in 
 vi. 8, which will remind the reader of the 
 legends about Malachi in Origen and other 
 commentators. Paulus (δος. Conserv. ii. 190 
 sq.) endeavours to give the narrative a sub- 
 jective colouring, but rationalism is of little 
 value in accounts like this. When the Angel 
 
 _appeared, Gideon was thrashing wheat with a 
 
 flail (ἔκοπτε, LXX.) in the wine-press, to con- 
 ceal it from the predatory tyrants. After a 
 natural hesitation he accepted the commission 
 to be a deliverer, and learnt the true character 
 of his visitant from a miraculous sign (vi. 12-- 
 23); and, being reassured from the fear which 
 first seized him (Ex. xx. 19; Judg. xiii. 22), 
 he built the altar Jehovah-shalom, which existed 
 when the Book of Judges was written (vi. 24). 
 In a dream the same night he was orderea to 
 throw down the altar of Baal and cut down the 
 Asherah (A. V. “ grove”) upon it [ASHERAH], 
 with the wood of which he was to offer in sacrifice 
 his father’s “ second bullock of seven years old,” 
 an expression in which some see an @llusion to the 
 seven years of servitude (vi. 25; cp. v. 1). Per- 
 haps that particular bullock is specified because 
 it had been reserved by his father to sacrifice to 
 Baal (Rosenmiiller, Schol. ad loc.), for Joash 
 seems to have been a priest of that worship. 
 Bertheau can hardly be right in supposing that 
 Gideon was to offer two bullocks (Richt. p. 115). 
 At any rate the minute touch is valuable as an 
 indication of truth in the story (see Ewald, 
 Gesch. ii. 498, and note). Gideon, assisted by 
 ten faithful servants, obeyed the vision, and 
 next morning ran the risk of being stoned; but 
 Joash appeased the popular indignation by using 
 the common argument that Baal was capable of 
 defending his own majesty (cp. 1 K. xviii. 27). 
 This circumstance gave to Gideon the surname 
 
 of Dy («Let Baal plead,” vi. 32; LXX. Ἵερο- 
 Adad), a standing instance of national irony, ex- 
 
 1185 
 
 Winer thinks that 
 
 this irony was increased by the fact that bys) 
 (see MV.!") was a surname of the Phoenician 
 Hercules (cp. Movers, Phéniz. i. 434). We have 
 similar cases of contempt in the names Sychar, 
 Baal-zebul, &c. (Lightfoot, Hor. Hebr. ad Matt. 
 xii. 24), In consequence of this name some 
 have identified Gideon with a certain priest 
 ‘IepéuBados, mentioned in Eusebius (Praep. 
 Lvang. i. 10) as having given much accurate 
 information to Sanchoniatho the Berytian (Bo- 
 chart, Phaleg, p. 7763; Huetius, Dem. Evang. 
 p- 84, &c.), but this opinion cannot be main- 
 tained (Ewald, Gesch. ii. p. 494; Gesen. s. v.). 
 We also find the name in the form Jerubbesheth 
 (2 Sam. xi. 21. Cp. Eshbaal, 1 Ch. viii. 33, with 
 Ishbosheth, 2 Sam. ii. sq.). Ewald (p. 495, n.) 
 brings forward several arguments against the 
 supposed origin of the name. 
 
 2. After this begins the second act of Gideon’s 
 life. “Clothed” by the Spirit of God (Judg. 
 vi. 84: cp. 1 Ch. xii. 18; Luke xxiv. 49), he 
 blew a trumpet; and, joined by “Zebulun, 
 Naphtali, and even the reluctant Asher ” (which 
 tribes were chiefly endangered by the Midian- 
 ites), and possibly also by some of the original 
 inhabitants, who would suffer from these pre- 
 datory “sons of the East” no less than the 
 Israelites themselves, he encamped on the slopes 
 of Gilboa, from which he overlooked the plains 
 of Esdraelon covered by the tents of Midian 
 (Stanley, Sin. § Pal. p. 243). Strengthened by 
 a double sign from God (to which Ewald gives 
 a strange figurative meaning, Gesch. ii. p. 500), 
 he reduced his army of thirty-two thousand by 
 the usual proclamation (Deut. xx. 8; cp. 1 Mace. 
 iii. 56). The expression “let him depart from 
 Mount Gilead” is perplexing (R. V. marg. renders 
 go round about); Dathe would render it “ ἐν 
 Mount Gilead,”—on the other side of Jordan; 
 
 and Clericus reads 353, Gilboa; but Ewald is 
 probably right in regarding the name as a sort 
 of war-cry and general designation of the Man- 
 assites (see too Gesen. Ties. p. 804,n.). By a 
 second test at “the spring of trembling ” (now 
 probably ‘Ain Jahlood, on which see Stanley, 
 p- 342), he again reduced the number of his 
 followers to three hundred (Judg. vii. 5 sq.), 
 whom Josephus explains to have been the most 
 cowardly in the army (Ant. v. 6,§ 3). Finally, 
 being encouraged by words fortuitously over- 
 heard (what the later Jews termed the Bath 
 Kol; cp. 1 Sam. xiv. 9, 10; Lightfoot, Hor. 
 Hebr. ad Matt. iii. 14), in the relation of a 
 significant dream, he framed his plans, which 
 were admirably adapted to strike a panic terror 
 into the huge and undisciplined nomad host 
 (Judg. viii. 15-18). We know from history 
 that large and irregular Oriental armies are 
 especially liable to sudden outbursts of uncon- 
 trollable terror; and when the stillness and 
 darkness of the night were suddenly disturbed 
 in three different directions by the flash of 
 torches and by the reverberating echoes which 
 the trumpets and the shouting woke among the 
 hills, we cannot be astonished at the complete 
 rout into which the enemy were thrown. It 
 must be remembered too that the sound of three 
 hundred trumpets would make them suppose 
 that a corresponding number of companies were 
 
 GIDEON 
 
 pressive of Baal’s impotence. 
 
1184 GIDEON 
 
 attacking them.* For specimens of similar 
 stratagems, see Liv. xxii. 16; Polyaen. Strateg. 
 ii. 37; Frontin. ii. 4; Sall. Jug. 99; Niebuhr, 
 Desc. de ? Arabie, p. 304; Journ. As. 1841, ii. 
 516 (quoted by Ewald, Rosenmiiller, and 
 Winer). The custom of dividing an army into 
 three seems to have been common (1 Sam. xi. 
 11; Gen. xiv. 15), and Gideon’s war-cry is not 
 unlike that adopted by Cyrus (Xen. Cyr. iii. 
 28). He adds his own name to the war-cry, as 
 suited both to inspire confidence in his followers 
 and strike terror in the enemy. His stratagem 
 was eminently successful, and the Midianites, 
 breaking out into their wild peculiar cries, fled 
 headlong “‘down the descent to the Jordan,” to 
 the “house of the Acacia” (Beth-shitta) and 
 the “meadow of the dance” (Abel-meholah), 
 but were intercepted by the Ephraimites (to 
 whom notice had been sent, vii. 24) at the fords 
 of Beth-barah, where, after a second fight, the 
 princes Oreb and Zeeb (“the Raven ” and “the 
 Wolf”) were detected and slain,—the former at 
 arock, and the latter concealed in a wine-press, 
 to which their names were afterwards given. 
 Meanwhile the “higher sheykhs, Zeba and Zal- 
 munna, had already escaped,” and Gideon (after 
 pacifying —by a soft answer, which became 
 proverbial—the haughty tribe of Ephraim, viii. 
 1-3) pursued them into eastern Manasseh, and, 
 bursting upon them in their fancied security 
 among the tents of their Bedouin countrymen 
 [see KARKOR], won his third victory, and avenged 
 on the Midianitish emirs the massacre of his 
 kingly brethren whom they had slain at Tabor 
 (viii. 18 sq.). In these three battles only fifteen 
 thousand out of one hundred and twenty thousand 
 Midianites escaped alive. It is indeed stated in 
 Judg. viii. 10, that one hundred and twenty thou- 
 sand Midianites had already fallen: but here, as 
 elsewhere, it may merely be intended that such 
 was the original number of the routed host. 
 During his triumphal return Gideon took sig- 
 nal and appropriate vengeance on the coward 
 and apostate towns of Succoth and Peniel. The 
 memory of this splendid deliverance took deep 
 root in the national traditions (1 Sam. xii. 11; 
 Ps, Ixxxiii. 11; Is. ix. 4, x. 26; Heb. xi. 32). 
 
 3. After this there was a peace of forty years, 
 and we see Gideon in peaceful possession of his 
 well-earned honours, and surrounded by the 
 dignity of a numerous household (viii. 29-31). 
 It is not improbable that, like Saul, he had owed 
 a part of his popularity to his princely appear- 
 ance (Judg. viii. 18). In this third stage of his 
 life occur alike his most noble and his most 
 questionable acts, viz. the refusal of the mon- 
 archy on theocratic grounds, and the irregular 
 consecration of a jewelled ephod, formed out of 
 the rich spoils of Midian, which proved to the 
 Israelites a temptation to idolatry, although it 
 was doubtless intended for use in the worship of 
 Jehovah. Gesenius and others (Zhes. p. 135; 
 
 ἃ Τὸ is curious to find “lamps and pitchers ” in use 
 for a similar purpose at this very day in the streets of 
 Cairo. The Zabit or Agha of the police carries with 
 him at night, ‘‘a torch which burns soon after it is 
 lighted, without a flame, excepting when it is waved 
 through the air, when it suddenly blazes forth: it 
 therefore answers the same purpose as our dark lantern. 
 The burning end is sometimes concealed in a small pot 
 or jar, or covered with something else, when not re- 
 quired to give light”’ (Lane’s Mod. Eg. i. ch. iv.). 
 
 GIER EAGLE 
 
 Bertheau, p. 133 sq.) follow the Peshitto in 
 making the word Ephod here mean an idol, 
 chiefly on account of the vast amount of gold 
 (1700 shekels) and other rich material ap- 
 propriated to it. But it is simpler to under- 
 stand it as a significant symbol of an unautho- 
 rised worship. 
 
 Respecting the chronology of this period, little 
 certainty can be obtained. Making full allow- 
 ance for the use of round numbers, and even 
 admitting the improbable assertion of some of 
 the Rabbis that the period of oppression is 
 counted in the years of rest (v. Rosenmiiller on 
 Judg. iii. 11), insuperable difficulties remain. 
 If, however, as has been suggested by Lord A. 
 Hervey, several of the judgeships really syn- 
 chronise instead of being successive, much of 
 the confusion vanishes. For instance, he sup- 
 poses (from a comparison of Judg. iii., viii., and 
 xii.) that there was a combined movement under 
 three great chiefs, Ehud, Gideon, and Jephthah, 
 by which the Israelites emancipated themselves 
 from the dominion of the Moabites, Ammonites, 
 and Midianites (who for some years had occu- 
 pied their land), and enjoyed a long term of - 
 peace through all their coasts. “If,” he says, 
 “we string together the different accounts of 
 the different parts of Israel which are given us 
 in that miscellaneous collection of ancient re- 
 cords called the Book of Judges, and treat them 
 as connected and successive history, we shall 
 fall into as great a chronographical error as if 
 we treated in the same manner the histories of 
 Mercia, Kent, Essex, Wessex, and Northumber- 
 land, before England became one kingdom” 
 (Genealog. of our Lord, p. 238). It is now 
 well known that a similar source of error has 
 long existed in the chronology of Egypt. 
 
 (F. W. F.] 
 
 GIDEO’NI (373, or once ‘31993; B. 
 [usually] Γαδεωνεί, AF. [usually] Γαδεωνί; Ge- 
 deonis). Abidan, son of Gideoni, was the chief 
 man of the tribe of Benjamin at the time of the 
 census in the wilderness of Sinai (Num. i. 11; 
 ii. 22; vii. 60, 65; x. 24). 
 
 GID’OM (O73; Γεδᾶν, A. Γαλαάδ), a place 
 named only in Judg. xx. 45, as the limit to 
 which the pursuit of Benjamin extended after 
 the final battle of Gibeah. It would appear to 
 have been situated between Gibeah ( Tell el- Fil) 
 and the cliff Rimmon (probably Rummén, about 
 3 miles E. of Bethel); but no trace of the name, 
 nor yet of that of Menuchah, if indeed that 
 was a place (Judg. xx. 43; A. V. “with ease,” 
 Rk. V. “at their resting place”—but see 
 margin), has yet been met with. The reading 
 of A., “Gilead,” can hardly be taken as well 
 founded. In the Vulgate the word does not 
 seem to be represented. LG eaaven 
 
 GIER EAGLE. The rendering in A. V. of 
 DN, racham, MIMI, rachamah, in Lev. xi. 18 
 and Deut. xiv. 17, the only passages where the 
 
 name occurs: Arab. em "y or "y racham, ra- 
 
 chamah; R. V. “vulture.” All authorities are 
 unanimous in identifying racham with the 
 well-known Egyptian vulture, or “ Pharaoh’s 
 | hen,” as it is often called in the East, Neo- 
 
GIER EAGLE 
 
 phron percnopterus (L.). The Revisers’ trans- 
 lation is undoubtedly preferable to that of the 
 A, V. But it is unfortunate that the name 
 “vulture” is applied in our language to 
 birds so widely different in appearance and 
 character as the Griffon and the Neophron. 
 The LXX. in Leviticus give κύκνος, “swan ;” 
 and in Deut. πορφυρίων, “purple water- 
 hen,” Porphyrio caeruleus, Vand., in which 
 they are followed by the Vulgate. But both 
 of these seem to be mere random guesses of 
 writers who had no knowledge of the subject, 
 and have no justification, etymological or other. 
 The name gier-eagle is a compound of the German 
 word for vulture, Geter, and eagle; than which 
 a more inappropriate name could hardly be 
 found for the un-eaglelike Neophron. This bird 
 holds an important place in the Arab pharma- 
 copoeia, and is also the subject of many wonderful 
 tales. In spite of its repulsive habits—for it 
 feeds exclusively on putrid carrion and ordure— 
 or perhaps because of its consequent value as 
 a scavenger, it is greatly respected by all 
 Orientals: its Turkish name is Ach bobba, “ white 
 father,” in respectful allusion to its white plu- 
 mage. Everywhere in the East it is protected. 
 Though more abundant in tropical countries 
 than elsewhere, its range is very extended. In 
 Africa it is found from the Cape to Morocco and 
 Egypt, and through Southern Europe and the 
 warmer parts of Asia to Ceylon. (The Indian 
 bird has however been distinguished as Veophron 
 ginginianus, Lath., but the differences are very 
 
 minute.) It is a handsome bird on the wing, 
 with white body and tail and black pinions. 
 It respectfully follows but never consorts with 
 the noble griffons, and is often seen high up in 
 the air, sailing below them. Its long, feeble, 
 and slightly curved bill, and its weak feet and 
 claws, separate it widely from the true vultures, 
 eagles, and all other birds of prey, with which 
 it is never classed by the Orientals. In Palestine 
 it is only a summer visitant, arriving from the 
 south in April, and remaining till October. It 
 is scattered everywhere in pairs over the country, 
 nesting low down in the cliffs, and heaping up 
 in some conspicuous spot an enormous structure 
 of sticks, turf, bones, rags, pieces of sheepskin, 
 and whatever else the neighbourhood of a village 
 may supply. It is fearless, and from long ex- 
 perience seems to have confidence in man, visit- 
 BIBLE DICT.—VOL. I. 
 
 GIFT 1185 
 
 ing the village dunghills with perfect unconcern. 
 Excepting over a carcase, rarely more than two 
 are ever seen together, The Egyptian vulture 
 does not acquire its adult plumage until it is 
 two years old. The young bird has a dappled 
 brown plumage, and in this plumage it has been 
 captured in England, 
 
 The Revisers, while substituting “vulture” 
 for “ gier eagle,” as the translation of rdchdm, 
 have unfortunately transferred this latter word to 
 DB, peres, the “ lammergeyer ” of naturalists, 
 the “ossifrage”’ of the A. V. fH. Be Day 
 
 GIFT. The giving and receiving of presents 
 has in all ages been not only a more frequent, 
 but also a more formal and significant proceeding 
 in the East than among ourselves. It enters 
 largely into the ordinary transactions of life: no 
 negotiation, alliance, or contract of any kind 
 can be entered into between states or sovereigns 
 without a previous interchange of presents: 
 none of the important events of private life— 
 betrothal, marriage, coming of age, birth—take 
 place without presents: even a visit, if of a 
 formal nature, must be prefaced by a present. 
 We cannot adduce a more remarkable proof of 
 the important part which presents play in the 
 social life of the East, than the fact, that the 
 Hebrew language possesses no less than fifteen 
 different expressions for the one idea. Many of 
 these expressions have specific meanings: for 
 instance, minchah (ΠΠΠΠ2}2) applies to a present 
 from an inferior to a superior, as from subjects 
 to a king (Judg. iii, 15; 1 K. x. 25; 2 Ch. 
 xvii. 5): mas’eth (MNWID) expresses the converse 
 idea of a present from a superior to an inferior, 
 as from a king to his subjects (Esth. ii. 18); 
 hence it is used of a portion of food sent by the 
 master of the house to guests whom he wishes 
 to honour (Gen. xliii. 34; 2 Sam, xi. 8): nisseth 
 (AN) has very much the same sense (2 Sam. 
 xix. 42): beracah (133), literally a “blessing,” 
 is used where the present is one of a compli- 
 mentary nature, either accompanied with good 
 wishes, or given as a token of affection (Gen. 
 xxxili. 11; Judg.i. 15; 1 Sam. xxv. 27, xxx. 26; 
 2 K. v. 15); and again, shochad (1NW) is a 
 gift for the purpose of escaping punishment, 
 presented either to a judge (Ex. xxiii. 8; Deut. 
 x. 17) or to a conqueror (2 K. xvi. 8). Other 
 terms, as mattan (12), were used more gene- 
 rally. The extent to which the custom pre- 
 vailed admits of some explanation from the 
 peculiar usages of the East: it is clear that the 
 term “ gift” is frequently used where we should 
 substitute ‘ tribute,” or “fee.” The tribute of 
 subject states was paid not in a fixed sum of 
 money, but in kind, each nation presenting its 
 particular product—a custom which is frequently 
 illustrated in the sculptures of Assyria and 
 Egypt; hence the numerous instances in which 
 the present was no voluntary act, but an ex- 
 action (Judg. iii. 15-18; 2 Sam. viii. 2, 6; 1 K. 
 iv. 21; 2K. xvii. 3; 2 Ch. xvii. 11, xxvi. 8); 
 and hence the expression “to bring presents ” = 
 to own submission (Ps. lxviii. 29, Ixxvi. 113 Is. 
 xviii. 7). Again, the present taken to a prophet 
 was viewed very much in the light of a con- 
 sulting “ fee,” and conveyed no idea of bribery 
 (1 Sam. ix. 7, cp. xii. ὃ; 2 K. v. 5, rn 9): it 
 
1186 GIHON 
 
 was only when false prophets and corrupt judges 
 arose that the present was prostituted, and 
 became, instead of a minchah (as in the instances 
 quoted), a shochad, or bribe (Is. i. 23, v. 23; 
 Ezek. xxii. 12; Micah iii. 11), But even allow- 
 ine for these cases, which are hardly “ gifts” in 
 our sense of the term, there is still a large excess 
 remaining in the practice of the East: friends 
 brought presents to friends on any joyful 
 occasion (Esth. ix. 19, 22), those who asked for 
 information or advice to those who gave it (2 K. 
 viii, 8), the needy to the wealthy from whom 
 any assistance was expected (Gen. xliii. 11; 2 K. 
 xv. 19, xvi. 8), rulers to their favourites (Gen. 
 xlv. 22; 2 Sam. xi. 8), especially to their officers 
 (Esth. ii. 18; Joseph. Ant. xii. 2, § 15), or to 
 the people generally on festive occasions (2 Sam. 
 vi. 19). On the occasion of a marriage, the bride- 
 groom not only paid the parents for his bride 
 (A. V. and R. V. “ dowry”), but also gave the 
 bride certain presents (Gen. xxxiv. 125 cp. Gen, 
 xxiv. 22), while the father of the bride gave her 
 a present on sending her away, as 15 expressed in 
 
 the term shilluchim (DINGY, 1 K. ix. 16): and 
 again, the portions of the sons of concubines 
 were paid in the form of presents (Gen. xxv. 6). 
 The nature of the presents was as various as 
 were the occasions: food (1 Sam. ix. 7, xvi. 20, 
 xxy. 18), sheep and cattle (Gen. xxxii. 13-15; 
 Judg. xv. 1), gold (2 Sam. xviii. 11; Job xlii. 
 11; Matt. ii. 11), jewels (Gen. xxiv. 53), furni- 
 ture and vessels for eating and drinking (2 Sam. 
 xvii. 28); delicacies, such as spices, honey, &c. 
 (Gen. xxiv. 53; 1K. x. 25, xiv. 3); and robes 
 (1 K. x. 25; 2 K.v. 22), particularly in the case 
 of persons inducted into high office (Esth. vi. 8; 
 Dan. v. 16; cp. Herod. iii. 20). The mode of 
 presentation was with as much parade as possible ; 
 the presents were conveyed by the hands of 
 servants (Judg. iii. 18), or still better on the 
 backs of beasts of burden (2 K. viii. 9), even 
 when such a mode of conveyance was unneces- 
 sary. The refusal of a present was regarded as 
 a high indignity, and this constituted the aggra- 
 yated insult noticed in Matt. xxii. 11, the mar- 
 riage robe having been offered and refused 
 (Trench, Notes on the Parables, in loco). 
 No less an insult was it, not to bring a present 
 when the position of the parties demanded it 
 (1 Sam. x. 27). [W. L. B.] 
 
 GI'HON (jin'4; ADE. Γηῶν; Gehon). 1. 
 The second river of Paradise (Gen. ii. 13). 
 The name does not again occur in the Hebrew 
 text of the O. T.; but in the LXX. it is used in 
 Jer. ii. 18, as an equivalent for the word 
 Shichor or Sihor, i.e. the Nile, and in Ecclus. 
 xxiv. 27 (E. V. “Geon”). ΑΙ] that can be 
 said upon it will be found under Enen, p. 849. 
 
 2. (Ji73, and in Ch. }}M'A; B. Γειών, A. Trav; 
 Gihon.) A place near Jerusalem, memorable as 
 the scene of the anointing and proclamation of 
 Solomon as king (1 K. i. 83, 38, 45). From the 
 terms of this passage, it is evident that it was at 
 a lower level than the city—“ bring him down 
 
 (8591 Π}} upon by) Gihon”—“they are come 
 up bys) from thence.” With this agrees a 
 
 later mention (2 Ch. xxxiii. 14; Γιόνν), where it is 
 called “ Gihon-in-the-valley,” the word rendered 
 
 GIHON 
 
 valley being nachal (m2). In this latter place 
 Gihon is named to designate the direction of the 
 wall built by Manasseh—“ without the city of 
 David, on the west side of Gihon, in the valley, 
 even to the entering in at the fish-gate.” It is 
 not stated in any of the above passages that 
 Gihon was a spring;* but the only remaining 
 place in which it is mentioned suggests this 
 belief, or at least that it had given its name to 
 some water— Hezekiah also stopped the upper 
 source or issue ΓΝ ΣΟ, from RY, to rush forth ; 
 incorrectly “watercourse” in A. V.] of the 
 waters of Gihon” (2 Ch. xxxii. 30; A. Γιών, 
 B. Serv). Josephus also writes (Ant. vii. 14, 
 § 5) of “the fountain called Gihon.” 
 
 The following facts may be noticed in regard 
 to the occurrences of the word. 
 
 1. Its low level; as above stated. 
 
 2. The expression ‘“ Gihon-in-the-valley ;” 
 where it will be observed that nachal (“torrent ἢ 
 or “‘wady ”) is the word always employed for 
 the valley of the Kedron, east of Jerusalem— 
 the so-called Valley of Jehoshaphat; ge 
 (“ravine” or “glen”) being as constantiy 
 employed for the Valley of Hinnom. In this 
 connexion the mention of Ophel (2 Ch. xxxiii- 
 14) with Gihon should not be disregarded. 
 
 3. The Targum of Jonathan, and the Syriac 
 and Arabic Versions, have Shiloha, i.e. Siloam 
 (Arab. ‘Ain-Shiloha), for Gihon in 1 K. i.; so 
 also Procop. Gaz. Scholia in 2 Par. xxxii. Γηῶν" 
 τὸν Σιλωὰμ οὕτω καλεῖ. In Chronicles they 
 agree with the Hebrew text in haying Gihon. 
 In the Mishnah (Pesachim iv. 9) Siloam is called 
 Gihon, and a Christian tradition to the same 
 effect is given by Theodoret as cited by Reland 
 (Pal. p. 859). [Ὁ Siloam be Gihon, then 
 
 4. The omission of Gihon from the very de- 
 tailed catalogue of Neh. iv. is explained. 
 
 It is possible that two different places are 
 intended by “Gihon” and “Gihon in the val- 
 ley ;”—the former being Siloam, or the end of 
 the conduit which, before the construction of 
 the rock-hewn tunnel, carried the waters of the 
 Fountain of the Virgin to the lower Pool of 
 Siloam, and “ Gihon in the valley” the Foun- 
 tain of the Virgin itself. This view agrees 
 with the statements of Josephus that Adonijah’s 
 feast took place “near the fountain that was 
 in the king’s paradise” (Ant. vii. 14, § 4), that 
 is, Enrogel or the Fountain of the Virgin; and 
 (14, § 5) that Solomon was anointed at “the 
 fountain called Gihon” (τὴν πηγὴν τὴν λεγο- 
 μένην Tidv),—probably Siloam, which Josephus 
 elsewhere (B. J. v. 4, §§ 1, 25 9,§ 4) calls a 
 spring. 
 
 The position of the “upper spring of the 
 waters of Gihon,” which Hezekiah stopped and 
 brought “straight down to(R. V. ‘‘on”) the west 
 side of the city of David,” is one of the most 
 difficult questions connected with the topo- 
 graphy of Jerusalem. The most natural identi- 
 fication would be the Fountain of the Virgin, 
 
 ® It has been suggested (Dr. Chaplin in PEFQy. Stat. 
 1890, p. 124) that the true derivation of Gihon is not ‘3, 
 
 giah, “ to burst forth,” but }73, gahan, “ to bow down,” 
 ey 
 
 to prostrate oneself, and that the term was originally 
 applied, not to the fountain, but to the’ canal which 
 
 | brought the water from the fountain. 
 
Ἂς 
 
 GILALAI 
 
 in the Kedron valley; but the Siloam tunnel 
 through which the waters of that spring flow 
 down to the upper Pool of Siloam, near the 
 southern extremity of the eastern hill, can 
 scarcely be said to have conveyed them to or on 
 the west side of the city of David. On the 
 other hand, the description in 2 Ch. xxxii. 30 
 would apply perfectly to the waters of a spring, 
 north of the Damascus Gate, carried southward 
 by the very ancient conduit that entered the 
 city near “the Quarries,” and apparently fol- 
 lowed the west face of the eastern hill upon 
 which the city of David stood. There is, how- 
 ever, no known spring near the head of the 
 valley that runs down through the centre of 
 Jerusalem, and it is doubtful whether the aque- 
 duct in question derived its supply from a 
 spring or a reservoir. The conduit which ap- 
 pears to have connected the Birket Mamilla 
 with the “ Low Level Aqueduct” and the reser- 
 yoirs in the Temple enclosure, might also be 
 described as carrying water down “to” the 
 west side of the city of David; but there is no 
 trace or tradition of the existence of a spring 
 near that pool. [JERUSALEM. Water Supply.] 
 
 The two pools Birket Mamilla and Birket es- 
 Sultan, in the “valley of Hinnom,” appear as 
 the “Upper” and “ Lower ” Pools of Gihon in 
 the map of Marino Sanuto (4.D. 1310), and these 
 titles have been adopted by many succeeding 
 writers, including Robinson, Tobler, and others 
 in the present century. The valley of Hinnem 
 appears to have been first called the “valley of 
 Gihon” in the last century (A.D. 1738, Jonas 
 Korte, Plan). In the 12th century, the “ Hill 
 of Evil Counsel,” south of Jerusalem, was called 
 “Mount Gihon,” and regarded as the place at 
 which Solomon was anointed king (John of 
 Wiirzburg, xv.; William of Tyre, viii. 4; Thiet- 
 mar, p. 19, &c.). In 1283, the hill N.W. of 
 Jerusalem was called “ Mount Gihon,” according 
 to Brocardus (viii. 9); and this tradition appears 
 to have gradually replaced the older one, which 
 had not quite died out in the 15th century 
 (Ff. Fabri, i. 427). 
 
 The spring of Gihon is identified with the 
 Fountain of the Virgin by Furrer, Riehm, Sepp, 
 Baedeker-Socin, Conder, &c.; it is placed north 
 of the Damascus Gate by Fergusson, Williams, 
 Barclay, De Saulcy, &c.; and near the Birket 
 Mamilla by Robinson, Thomson, Tobler, &c. 
 
 [6] [WJ 
 
 GILALAL (°553, probably = 99593 [Ges.]; 
 A. Γελωλαί, BN. omit; Galalai [v.35]), one of 
 the party of priests’ sons who played on David’s 
 instruments at the consecration of the wall of 
 
 Jerusalem, in the company at whose head was 
 Ezra (Neh. xii. 36). 
 
 GILBO’A (w253, Ὁ = the bubbling fountain, 
 Ges.). The name of the mountain ridge 
 which bounds the great plain of Lower Galilee 
 [ESDRAELON] on the east. The name may be 
 derived from the important spring, ‘Ain Jalid, 
 at the foot of the mountain to the north, or 
 from one of the other springs which also rise from 
 its lower slopes on the east, or from the spring 
 well on the mount itself. The name survives 
 
 at the village of Jelbén (yg), on the 
 southern part of the range. Here Saul en- 
 
 GILBOA 1187 
 
 camped (1 Sam. xxviii, 4) near Jezreel, at the 
 N.W. end of the range, opposite the Philistines 
 at Shunem, and his defeat occurred on the 
 mountain itself (ch. xxxi, 1,8; 2 Sam. i. 6). 
 In the “Song of the Bow” (2 Sam. i. 21) a 
 curse is pronounced on the “mountains of Gilboa,” 
 that there should be “no dew nor rain upon 
 you, nor fields for heave offerings,” on account 
 of Saul’s death (cp. 2 Sam, xxi. 12, and 1 Ch. 
 x. 1, 8). Josephus represents Saul as being 
 hemmed in on the mountain (Ant. vi. 14, § 7), 
 probably from the west ; and escape down the 
 rugged eastern slopes would have been very 
 difficult. The site of the mountain and of the 
 village (Γελβοῦς, Gelbus) was known to Eusebius 
 and Jerome (OS.? p.256, 82; p. 161,15) as 6 miles 
 from Scythopolis (Beisdn). Gilboa is not often 
 mentioned by later writers, though its site was 
 not forgotten. William of Tyre (xxii. 26) men- 
 tions it as having Jezreel to the west; and 
 Marino Sanuto (14th cent.) gives it the same 
 position. Among Jewish travellers Benjamin 
 of Tudela (12th cent.) speaks of its barrenness, 
 and says it was called Jelbén by the Christians. 
 Rabbi Uri of Biel, in the 16th century, says 
 that dew and rain never fell there—clearly re- 
 ferring to the curse in the “ Song of the Bow.” 
 
 The Gilboa ridge runs north for 43 miles 
 from the saddle at Wady Shubésh, which may 
 be said to be its limit, passing Jelbén, a small 
 village west of the watershed. The highest 
 point is at Sheikh Burkin, 1696 feet above the 
 Mediterranean. Here the range curves round 
 N.W., and runs to Jezreel (4 miles), where it 
 abuts on the Plain of Esdraelon, and on the 
 valley north of Jezreel. The elevation at δὶ 
 Mazar, 24 miles S.E. of Jezreel, is 1318 ft. above 
 the sea, whence the shed falls rapidly, being 
 only 400 feet above the sea at Jezreel itself. 
 The great plain to the west has an average 
 elevation of 300 feet above the Mediterranean, 
 so that the apparent height of Gilboa from the 
 west is about 1000 to 1400 feet. On the east 
 it towers more than 2,000 feet above the Jordan 
 valley. On the north it is precipitous, with 
 curiously contorted strata. On the east the 
 slopes are extremely steep, with cliffs in places, 
 On the west the spurs run out with gentler 
 slopes into the plain, The southern part is very 
 rugged, of hard grey dolomitic limestone. This 
 is, however, covered on the west and north by 
 the soft white chalk, whence the name Rés 
 Sheiban, “ the hoary head,” applied to one of the 
 knolls on the ridge. The range generally is now 
 known as Jebel Fuki‘a, from the large village of 
 Fukt‘a, which stands among its olives on the. 
 west slope, 1500 feet above the sea, where the- 
 range begins to curve. The mountain is barren 
 and waterless on its upper slopes, but at Jelbdn 
 there is a spring well of perennial water, whence 
 perhaps the old name of Gilboa was derived. 
 At the eastern foot there are fine springs at the 
 ruin Mujedd‘a, 125 feet below the Mediterranean; 
 and further north, at about the same level, is. 
 ‘Ain el ‘Asy—a very large spring of thermal 
 water (80° Fahr.) in a pool 100 yards long, 20 
 yards wide, and 20 feet deep, issuing from a 
 low cliff. On the north there are two other 
 famous springs, also 120 feet below sea-level, 
 east of Jezreel, feeding the stream which flows 
 east between them to the Jordan, and watering 
 Bethshean, The southern, from a cave in the 
 
 4G2 
 
1188 GILEAD 
 
 precipices of Gilboa, is called ‘Ain Jalid (“Go- 
 liath’s Spring ”’), and in 300 A.D. the Bordeaux 
 Pilgrim incorrectly makes it the scene of David’s 
 conquest of the giant. It is the ‘Ain Jalit of 
 Boha ed Din (Life of Saladin). The pool is 50 
 yards long, muddy and sulphurous, but the 
 spring itself is clear and sweet; the depth is 8 
 to 10 feet. The northern spring, ‘Ain Tub‘ain, 
 is the Tubania of the Middle Ages (Will. of 
 Tyre, xxii. 27), which Robinson confuses with 
 the preceding. It was believed to have been 
 miraculously supplied with fish for the benefit 
 of the Christian army fighting Saladin. Both 
 springs ‘still contain fish. ‘Ain TZub‘aiin is 
 smaller than ‘Ain Jalid, and its waters have a 
 reddish tinge. 
 
 The lower slopes of Gilboa to the west have 
 several olive groves, and corn is grown in the 
 soft ground. Inthe rougher part to the south 
 a scrub of mastic, arbutus, dwarf oak, and haw- 
 thorn covers the rocks. The summit is very 
 bare, but thyme, mint, and cistus grow on the 
 ledges. The soil is in parts (especially to the 
 north of Jelbén) a basaltic débris, which is 
 fertile. The vine was once grown near Jezreel, 
 as noticed in the Bible (1K. xxi.) and as attested 
 by the remains of rock-cut wine-presses. The 
 contrast between the barren ridge and the rich 
 valleys on each side is sufficiently notable. 
 
 Near the village of Deir Ghuzdleh, near the 
 west foot of Gilboa, a curious rude stone monu- 
 ment was found in 1872, resembling the dolmens 
 of Galilee and of Eastern Palestine. This is 
 probably a relic of prehistoric times. There are 
 nine villages on the slopes of Gilboa, namely: 
 (1) Jelbén, on the south, as already noticed; 
 (2) Fuki‘a, possibly the Aphek to which the 
 Philistines advanced (1 Sam. xxix. 1), turning 
 Saul’s strong position near the “fountain in 
 Jezreel,” which wasno doubt the ‘Ain οἱ Meiyeteh 
 —a clear spring below the town; (9) El Mazar 
 or El Wezr), a stone hamlet on the watershed 
 inhabited by Dervishes; (4) Zer‘in or JEZREEL; 
 (5) Beit Kad, a small mud village 687 feet above 
 the sea, on the west slopes ; (6) Deir Ghuzdleh, a 
 similar village 738 feet above the sea, further 
 north ; (7) ‘Arrdneh, close to the plain, further 
 north, probably the Reggan or Rangan which 
 Josephus mentions (Ant. vi. 14, § 1), as the 
 Philistine camp “near Shunem”; (8) Sundela, 
 a still smaller hamlet higher up (502 feet above 
 the sea); and (9) Niris, a little hamlet hidden 
 among the northern precipices, 600 feet above 
 the valley. This last, in the Middle Ages, be- 
 longed to the Abbey of Mount Tabor. Several 
 other villages are found in the rough country at 
 the south end of the chain. With the exception 
 of Jelbén and Jezreel they all depend on cisterns 
 or deep wells for water. One of Jacob’s sons is 
 traditionally believed to be buried at el Mazar 
 (“the place of pilgrimage ”’). 
 
 The above sketch is abstracted from the 
 writer’s account of his explorations on the 
 mountain in 1872-4 (PEF. Mem. vol. ii. sheet 
 ix. pp. 75, 79-88, 90, 91). Mujedd‘a, as there 
 explained, appears to be the probable site of 
 Megiddo, at the foot of Gilboa towards the 
 east. [C. R. C.J ° 
 
 , GIL'EAD (19237 ; Γαλαάδ ; modern Arabic 
 - ΄σσ Ἢ 
 ὡαὶς- >, Jebel Jil‘ad). The geographic 
 -~ 
 
 GILEAD 
 
 name is written with the article in Hebrew; 
 
 the personal name, and the patronymic vqub3, 
 ce 
 occur in Num, xxvi. 29, 30; Judg. xi. 1, 2, 
 xii. 7; 1 Ch. v.14. The meaning is “rugged,” 
 but in Gen. xxxi. 21 it is connected with GALEED 
 
 cava, “mound of witness ;”’ ep. Gesen. Lex.) ; 
 the region east of the Jordan Valley, between 
 the plains of Bashan and the deserts of Moab, 
 coinciding with the territory of the tribe of Gad. 
 The great gorge of the Hieromax (Yermith) is its 
 natural boundary on the north; the plateau south 
 of Rabbath Ammon appears to be its southern 
 limit ; on the east it extends to the Syrian desert, 
 and on the west to the Jordan Valley. It is 
 divided into two districts by the valley of the 
 Jabbok (Zerka): the northern, comprising about 
 600 square miles, is the modern Jebel ‘Ajlin; 
 the southern, about 400 square miles in area, is 
 now called the Belka or “waste” land. The 
 name occurs very frequently in the Bible (more 
 than eighty references are given) as Mount 
 (117) Gilead and land or country (8) of Gilead, 
 
 and sometimes as “The Gilead” only. It was 
 famous as a pastoral region, and also as producing 
 balm and other aromatic plants; and is one of 
 the most picturesque and well-watered regions 
 of the Hebrew land. The northern part still 
 contains many villages, and is cultivated, but 
 the southern is almost entirely in the possession 
 of nomadic tribes, with very little cultivation 
 and only one inhabited town (es-Salt), though 
 corn is grown in the level tracts. 
 
 Mount Gilead is first noticed (Gen. xxxi. 
 21-25) as crossed by Jacob from Mizpeh (Sif) 
 to Mahanaim (Mukhmah). Thence came the 
 Ishmaelites, bearing gums, balm, and cistus 
 (Gen. xxxvii. 25). Jazer, on its border, and the 
 “land of Gilead,’ were good pasture-lands 
 (Num. xxxi. 1). It already was filled with 
 cities which had belonged to the Amorites 
 (vv. 26, 29, 31), whose cattle also fell a prey to 
 the Hebrews (Deut. ii. 35,363 cp. iii. 10). The 
 Ammonites dwelt on the east side of Gilead, 
 apparently as far north as the Jabbok (Deut. 
 iii. 16). Ramoth in Gilead was a city of refuge 
 (Deut. iv. 43). In Deut. xxxiv. 1 we find the 
 words “all Gilead unto Dan,” which are difficult 
 to explain. According to the geographical 
 chapters of the Book of Joshua (xii. 2) half 
 Gilead, as far north as the Jabbok, belonged to 
 Sihon the Amorite, whose capital was beyond 
 its limits at Heshbon. The northern half was 
 ruled by Og, whose capital was at Ashtaroth 
 Carnaim (Zell Ashterah) in Bashan. It became 
 the heritage of the tribe of Gad, though some of 
 the families of Manasseh appear also to have 
 held lands in its northern parts (Josh. xiii. 11). 
 The border was at Jazer (v. 25), and Manasseh 
 extended even as far south as Mahanaim 
 (Mukhmah) in Gilead (vv. 30, 31; ep. xvii. 5, 6). 
 Ramoth, however, belonged to the tribal terri- 
 tory of Gad (xx. 8), and Mahanaim was a city 
 of Gilead, also in the territory of Gad (xxi, 38). 
 The tribes took possession after the conquest of 
 Western Palestine (xxii. 9, 13, 15; 32), and in 
 Judges (v. 17) Gilead appears to be synonymous 
 with the Hebrews of the east. In Gilead were 
 the Havoth Jair or “villages of Jair,” the 
 Gileadite judge (Judg. x. 4); but the Amorites 
 still dwelt there (v. 8), and the Ammonites 
 
GILEAD 
 
 attacked the “ princes of Gilead” (wv. 17, 18). 
 “Gilead begat Jephthah” “the Gileadite” 
 (Judg. xi, 1), who fled to Tob (probably Zucyibeh) 
 near Gadara, whence he was summoned to assist 
 the “elders of Gilead ” attacked on the south 
 by the Ammonites (v. 5), meeting them at 
 Mizpeh (Sif), north of the scene of conflict 
 (wv. 10, 11), whence he advanced towards the 
 Ammonite capital (v. 29), driving them south 
 into Moab, and returning to his house at 
 Mizpeh (vv. 33, 34). The Aroer mentioned in 
 this passage was apparently the place so named 
 close to Rabbath-ammon. The concord between 
 the Hebrews of the east and west was, according 
 to this narrative, no longer maintained, and the 
 men of Ephraim, raiding to the north-east, were 
 caught at the upper fords of the Jordan in 
 Northern Gilead (Judg. xii. 4, 5,7); but subse- 
 quently the Gileadites are said to have joined 
 the rest of Israel in worship at Mizpeh near 
 Jerusalem (xx. 1). Gilead remained faithful to 
 the house of Saul (2 Sam. ii. 9), but after the 
 death of Ishbosheth accepted David’s rule, when 
 Rabbath-ammon had been conquered by Joab. 
 Here David found a refuge at Mahanaim, and 
 Absalom camped in Gilead (2 Sam. xvii. 26, 27) 
 in the wood of Ephraim (xviii. 6), which was 
 probably one of the oak woods south-west of 
 es-Salt. Joab’s census of David’s dominions in- 
 cluded Gilead (xxiv. 6), but did not apparently 
 include Bashan [see GESHUR]. In the time of 
 Solomon Gilead was divided into two provinces, 
 of which the northern had its capital at Ramoth, 
 and the southern at Mahanaim (1 K. iv. 13, 14, 
 19). From Tishbe in Gilead came Elijah 
 (1 K. xvii. 1). In Ahab’s reign the Syrian king 
 of Damascus seized Ramoth-gilead, where Ahab 
 met his death in attempting to regain the city 
 (1 K. xxii.). All Gilead and Moab then passed 
 into the power of the Syrians (2 K. x. 33), and 
 in the 8th century B.C. Tiglath-pileser, the 
 Assyrian monarch, conquered this region (2 K. 
 xv. 29). The men of Gad had already been 
 oppressed, in Omri’s time, by Mesha king of 
 Moab, as stated on the Moabite Stone. The 
 number of cities possessed by Jair in Gilead is 
 stated in 1 Ch. ii. 22 to have been twenty-three ; 
 the expression “ father of Gilead” (v. 21) may 
 perhaps be taken as a territorial title, like others 
 in the Bible. 
 
 The Assyrian tablets supply a gap in the his- 
 tory of Gilead after this period, for the region is 
 not further noticed in the history of the later 
 Hebrew kings. In the reign of Manasseh (see 
 Cylinder A of Assur-bani-pal), about 650 B.c., 
 there was a great inroad of Arab tribes from the 
 south, joined by the Nabatheans near Petra. 
 They conquered Edom, Moab, Beth-Ammon, the 
 Hauran, and Zobah (near Damiascus), and clearly 
 therefore overran Gilead. Assur-bani-pal with 
 his army set out from Nineveh, crossed the 
 Tigris and the Euphrates, and advanced some 
 700 miles. They came to “the lofty country, 
 they passed through the forests of which the 
 shadow was great and strong, and with vines, 
 a road of mighty woods.” Thence they entered 
 a desert, and, after punishing the Arabs who had 
 fled back to the Nabatheans, they returned on 
 the road to Damascus. This account would seem 
 to apply to no other region than Gilead, which 
 has always been celebrated for its forests. The 
 petty kings of Moab, Ammon, and Gilead were at 
 
 GILEAD 1189 
 
 this time subject to Assyria, and with intervals 
 of revolt remained so subject till the Babylonians 
 and Persians succeeded ta the power of the kings 
 of Nineveh. The. Hebrew population probably 
 became much mingled with the other stocks, 
 and some were carried captives even as early as 
 the time of Tiglath-pileser (1 Ch. v. 6), as in the 
 case of the Gileadite prince of the tribe of Reuben. 
 The cattle of the Israelites multiplied, and were 
 pastured in Gilead as far east as the “desert of 
 Euphrates ” (vv. 9, 16), but the attacks of the 
 Hagarites had commenced even in the time of 
 Saul (v. 10), and the settled population suffered, 
 as they still do, from the raids of the desert 
 Arabs, to which the tribes west of Jordan were 
 less exposed, after the establishment of the 
 kingdom, Gilead was famous for its warriors in 
 David’s time (1 Ch. xxvi. 31), and is claimed as 
 Hebrew territory in the Psalms (Ix. 7, cviii. 8). 
 The flocks of goats “ couching on the slopes of 
 Mount Gilead” are mentioned in the Song of 
 Songs (iv. 1, vi. 5), as a simile of the colour of the 
 hair of the Egyptian bride. Jeremiah (viii. 22 
 speaks of the medicinal balm of Gilead, already 
 noticed in Genesis (cp. xxii. 6 and xlvi. 11): the 
 Gileadites were apparently pagans in this later 
 period (Jer. 1. 19; Ezek. xlvii. 18; Hos. vi. 8, 
 xii, 11). The Ammonite attacks are mentioned by 
 Amos (i. 3, 13) as early as the 9th century B.c. 
 In Obadiah (v. 19) Gilead is given to Benjamin. 
 In Micah (vii. 14) its flocks are again mentioned. 
 In Zechariah the return of Israel to Gilead is 
 promised (x. 10). These various notices give a 
 fairly continuous history of the region down to 
 the Persian period, and show the pastoral 
 character of the country, and also its settled 
 condition at a very early period. 
 
 After the revolt of Judas Maccabaeus a suc- 
 cessful raid was made into Gilead and Bashan, 
 with the object however of gathering in the 
 Jewish population to more secure regions west 
 of Jordan (1 Mace. y. 9 sq.; Josephus, Ant. xiii. 
 14,§ 2; Wars, i. 4, ὃ 3). The Jews had fled 
 before the heathen of Gilead, to Dathema, and 
 were shut up in Gileadite cities (1 Mace. ν. 27). 
 Judas Maccabaeus, assisted by the Nabatheans 
 (v. 25), attacked Bashan, but “ turned aside” to 
 Maspha—perhaps Mizpeh of Gilead—which he 
 took by assault (v. 35). After various successes he 
 then returned with the Jews from the east (v. 45) 
 to Bethshean and to Jerusalem. Gilead, though 
 conquered by Alexander Jannaeus (1st cent. B.C.), 
 was retaken by the king of Arabia (Ant. xiii. 
 14, § 2), after the expedition in which tribute had 
 been for a time imposed ( Wars, i. 4,§3). In 
 the time of Christ little is known of Gilead, but 
 some of its northern towns belonged to the 
 region of Decapolis. Vespasian sent Lucius 
 Annius into this region, who took Gerasa [see 
 GERASA] during the great war preceding the 
 destruction of Jerusalem. The most prosperous 
 age in the history of this region appears to have 
 been the Antonine period (140-180 4.D.), when 
 several Roman cities were built, such as Gadara, 
 Capitolias, Gerasa, and Philadelphia; and though 
 fresh Arab tribes colonised Gilead and Bashan 
 soon after, the ruins of the country and the list 
 of bishoprics show that this prosperity con- 
 tinued after the establishment of Christianity, 
 and until the invasion of Gilead by the Moslems 
 under Omar. The Crusaders also appear to have 
 established themselves in this region, which paid 
 
1190 GILEAD 
 
 tribute to Baldwin I. as early as a.p. 1118. 
 Baldwin 11. in A.p., 1121 conquer: it, and ad- 
 vanced beyond Gerasa towards Bostra. Two 
 strongholds were built, one near Ajlin in the 
 northern district (called Kal‘at er-Rabad), one in 
 
 WS 
 = WS 
 
 a0 
 
 a AN Ὡς 
 Su ἔν SN 
 Zany a ὶ 
 RW ty 
 SPS iumeeNW 
 
 \ 
 
 SWISS 
 ANNES 
 ὶ 
 
 GILEAD 
 
 the south at es-Salt; and the pilgrim road to 
 Mecca was commanded by these, and by the 
 great castle of Kerak in Moab. The region was 
 known as “ Oultre Jourdan,” and was attacked 
 by Saladin on his way to Kerak, Since the fall 
 
 ἴῃ 
 
 Wi 
 Ne 
 N 
 
 EE 
 
 git 
 
 willy 
 ἴω 4, 
 
 ret Se 
 sont Manag SS τ. 
 
 πὴ 
 
 δ 
 οὐδ 
 
 ; Ἢ 
 Mins 
 
 hea" 
 oe 
 
 US Fy 
 
 BESS 
 Wirtz ΖΖΖΖ222 
 Ὡς Wily 
 
 ‘J = 
 
 SS 
 
 ἢ Mttew na Ww 
 5 HAS ye 
 
 Re iy, 9 
 WZ 
 
 ΘᾺ 
 
 δὰ 
 Me 
 Y 
 
 Ad 
 
 ἡ 
 
 νι 
 Wl 
 
 ἣν 
 
 S 3 
 
 % AWS iil 
 
 LS, APB 
 Girt 
 WS 
 
 Map of Gilead. 
 
 δὶ . 
 
 yey 
 MAT ANN 
 
 y = 
 “iw 
 
 of the Christian kingdom little is known of its 
 history. Its population decayed, and the great 
 Arab tribes became supreme, until within the 
 Jast half-century, when they were reduced to pay 
 taxes by the Turks, The inaccessibility of the 
 position of Gilead, and its exposure to raids from 
 
 the desert, remain its chief drawbacks, though 
 the climate is healthy, the country fertile and 
 picturesque, and better watered and wooded 
 than the rest of Palestine. 
 
 The Gilead mountains are little more than the 
 edge of the great eastern plateau which extends 
 
GILEAD 
 
 to the Euphrates. Viewed from the west, they 
 form a chain rising more than 4,000 feet above 
 the Jordan valley, with extremely steep slopes ; 
 viewed from the east, the highest tops arenot more 
 than about 500 feet above the level of the plateau, 
 which may be said to have an average level of 
 3,090 feet above the Mediterranean towards the 
 south, sinking northwards to the plains of Bashan 
 about 1,000 feet lower. The highest point in 
 Gilead is Jebel Osh‘a, just north of es Salt, deter- 
 mined trigonometrically by the Palestine sur- 
 veyors as 3,597 feet above the Mediterranean. 
 Some of the ridges to the S.E. are nearly as high. 
 Jebel Osh‘a (the probable site of Penuel) com- 
 mands one of the most extensive views in 
 Palestine (see Conder’s Heth and Moab, ch. vi.), 
 and far wider than that, so celebrated, which 
 may be commanded from Nebo in clear weather. 
 East of this mountain is the circular basin of the 
 Bukei‘a (on the west side of which stood Maha- 
 naim), which is only 2,000 feet above the 
 Mediterranean. North of the Jabbok the general 
 elevation is lessthan on the south. Jebel Hakart, 
 west of Reimtin (Ramoth-gilead), is estimated 
 arometrically at 3,480 feet; and Jebel Kafkafah, 
 further north, close to the great pilgrim road 
 on the watershed—the true eastern limit of 
 ‘Gilead—is about 3,430 feet. A very fine view 
 is obtained from Jval‘at er Rabad on a conical 
 point near Ajliin, about 2,700 feet above the 
 Mediterranean. Yet further north Zl Mazar 
 stands up 2,830 feet, but the general elevation 
 as not above 2,000 feet ; and the Jordan valley is 
 here only about 500 feet below the Mediter- 
 ranean (except in the river-bed itself), so that 
 the ascent is here reduced to 2,500 feet. 
 
 The geological formation is the same as that 
 of Western Palestine, but the underlying sand- 
 stone, which does not appear west of Jordan, 
 forms the base slopes of the chain of Moab and 
 Gilead, and is traceable as far as the Jabbok. 
 It is covered in part by the more recent white 
 marls which form the curious peaks of the foot 
 hills immediately above the Jordan valley; but 
 reaches above them to an elevation of 1,000 feet 
 above the Mediterranean on the south, and forms 
 the bed of the Bukei‘a basin, furthe: east and 
 1,000 feet higher. Above this lies the hard 
 impervious Dolomitic limestone, which appears 
 in the rugged grey hills round the Jabbok, and 
 in Jebel Ajlin, rising on an average 1500 feet 
 above the sandstone, and forming the bed of the 
 copious springs. It also dips towards the Jordan 
 valley; and the water from the surface of the 
 plateau, sinking down to the surface of this 
 formation, bursts out of the hill-slopes on the 
 ‘west in perennial brooks. It was from the rugged- 
 ness of this hard limestone that Gilead obtained 
 its name. Above this again is the white chalk 
 of the desert plateau, the same found in Samaria 
 and Lower Galilee, with bands of flint or chert 
 in contorted layers, or strewn in pebbles on the 
 surface. Where this formation is deep the country 
 is bare and arid, supplied by cisterns and deep 
 wells. Thus the plateau becomes desert, while 
 the hill-slopes abound in streams and springs, and 
 for this reason Western Gilead is a fertile country, 
 and Eastern Gilead a wilderness. 
 
 The perennial streams are numerous. The 
 main drains are the river Jabbok in the centre 
 of the region, and the Hieromax in its deep gorge, 
 with rugged precipices on the extreme north. 
 
 GILFAD 1191 
 
 | Here in 634 A.p. the Moslems won their great 
 victory over the forces of the Romans, which 
 left them the masters of Syria. ‘The Jabbok, 
 rising in the clear springs at Rabbath-ammon, 
 but sinking at intervals in its bed of boulders, 
 flows north at first; and turning suddenly west, 
 reinforced from the great Zerka springs near 
 the pilgrim road, it breaks down in an open and 
 picturesque glen, flowing into the Jordan. The 
 western valleys are clothed with thick woods of 
 oak, and on the higher slopes the Aleppo pine is 
 conspicuous. The glailes of some of these valleys 
 —such as Wady Hamir, east of Ramoth-gilead, 
 and Wady Sir, which runs S.W. of Rabbath- 
 ammon, by the ruined palace of Hyrcanus— 
 present some of the most beautiful sylvan 
 
 scenery in Syria, superior to that of the Leba- 
 non. ‘The rocky ground is covered with flowers, 
 of which the phlox, cistus, and narcissus are the 
 commonest, with bushes of styrax, hawthorn, 
 mastic, and arbutus, the slopes hidden with 
 hanging woods of oak. One such wood—per- 
 haps the Wood of Ephraim—occurs south of 
 es-Salt, and those of the Jebel Ajlin are equally 
 dense and beautiful. The rugged upper slopes 
 are dotted with scrub, chiefly of mastic bushes. 
 The desert plateau is diversified with clumps of 
 the white broom (the juniper of the Bible): 
 along the courses of the streams the dark olean- 
 der, with its flame-coloured blossoms, attains to 
 the size of a small oak, and canes form a brake 
 in the lower ground, where also the tamarisk 
 and the lotus flourish, though the palm is rarely 
 found. The region is still mainly pastoral, great 
 flocks of goats being fed on the slopes, while the 
 desert camels are driven in wild droves on the 
 plateau, are used only for their milk (and on 
 feast days for their flesh), and are never saddled 
 or bridled. Here alone in Syria can the true 
 nomad life of the Arab be studied, and even the 
 settled population, in dress and manner, ap- 
 proach closely to the Bedu. 
 
 Gilead was famous in Pliny’s time, as in that 
 of the early Patriarchs, for its balm (¢sori), but 
 the tree which bore it has been variously identi- 
 fied with the Zakkum, or thorny lotus (Balanites 
 Aegyptiaca), the home of which is in the Jordan 
 valley, with the pistachio or sticky mastic, which 
 grows on the mountains (not the true pistachio), 
 and with the opobalsamum or true balm-tree, 
 not now known in Gilead, but found near Mecca. 
 The Ishmaelites (as already noted) also brought 
 from Gilead the nechoth (“spicery ”), which has 
 been thought to be the styrax or mock orange, 
 still frequently found in the glades of Gilead, or 
 more probably the gum tragacanth or astragalus, 
 which is equally common. They also traded in 
 “myrrh” (/6¢),—an incorrect translation, gene- 
 rally agreed to be the gum of the Cistus ladani- 
 ferus, a beautiful flower, like the dog rose in 
 appearance, still commor on these hills. It is a 
 sure note of the accuracy of that picture of early 
 Hebrew society which is drawn in the Book of 
 Genesis, that the products so noted are those 
 native to Gilead, while monumental records 
 carry back the trading relations of Syria and 
 Mesopotamia with Egypt many centuries earlier 
 than the age of Joseph. 
 
 The ruins of Gilead mostly belong to the 
 Roman and Byzantine, to the early Arab and 
 Crusading periods; but in certain centres near 
 ancient sites, especially at Rabbath-ammon, Saf 
 
1192 GILEAD 
 
 (Mizpeh), and the mouth of the Jabbok glen, 
 great groups of dolmens, similar to those of 
 Bashan, Moab, and Galilee, have survived—pre- 
 historic monuments of the Amorites and Re- 
 phaim. At Rabbath-ammon there are tombs 
 of the Hebrew age, Roman temples, theatres 
 and baths, and early Moslem mosques. Gerasa, 
 Gadara, and Capitolias (Beit er-Ras) present us 
 with the relics of cities built in the 2nd century 
 A.D., and every ruined town presents well-carved 
 masonry, sarcophagi, and inscriptions of the 4th 
 and 5th centuries of our era, to which later 
 builders have added little, beyond the two 
 Crusading castles already noticed, and a few 
 later minarets and mosques. In the steep 
 ravines the cells of anchorites, and solitary 
 monasteries, are found, and in unexpected nooks 
 great Roman tomb towers and rock-cut sepul- 
 chres, with well-carved bas-reliefs and classic 
 tracery. The unfinished palace of Hyrcanus 
 (Arak el Emir), with its gigantic masonry, 
 carved lions, and Aramaic text on the rock wall 
 of its cave stables and granaries, is one of the 
 most interesting sites. It is dated 176 B.c., and 
 is almost unique in architectural history, as is 
 also the beautiful kiosque at Amman of the 
 Persian or early Arab period (for these ruins in 
 Southern Gilead, see Memoirs of the Survey of 
 Eastern Palestine). The modern villages, when 
 not piled up from such ancient materials, are 
 mainly mud hoyels, or caves faced with stone 
 walls. 
 
 The most interesting sites in the topography 
 of Gilead are described under the names of 
 GADARA, GERASA, and RABBATH-AMMON, but 
 a few words may be added as to important places 
 of various ages. Ramoth-gilead was probably 
 situated not far west of Gerasa, near the edge of 
 the plateau where the ancient ruins and tombs 
 near the little mountain village of Reimiin are 
 still to be explored. This site, open to the 
 incursions of the Syrians from the northern 
 plains, could be reached by chariots up the open 
 glen of the Jabbok. Mahanaim, the southern 
 capital, probably stood on the west border of the 
 Bukei‘a basin, where the name still survives as 
 Mukhmah, near the Roman ruins and fine spring 
 of ΕἸ Basha—a site fully meeting the numerous 
 requirements of the Old Testament notices. 
 Jabesh-gilead was in the north, and the name 
 survives in that of Wady Yabis, though the 
 exact site is doubtful. Mizpeh, as already stated, 
 was probably at Saf, N.E. of Gerasa, where a 
 dolmen centre surrounds the home of Jephthah. 
 Close to the Jordan valley is the secluded town 
 of Pella (Fahil), with its hot springs, famous in 
 Talmudic accounts, and its fragmentary Christian 
 inscriptions. North-west of Rabbath-ammon 
 are the extensive Byzantine ruins of Jubeihah, 
 on the plateau, marking the site of Jogbehah 
 (Judg. viii. 11), to which Gideon pursued the 
 Midianites, Jazer, the border town, is probably 
 to be fixed at Beit Zer‘ah, in the flat ground 
 4 miles N.E. of Heshbon. The towns of Gad 
 (Josh, xiii. 25-27) included Aroer near Rabbath- 
 ammon, Beth-aram and Beth-nimrah in the 
 plain opposite Jericho, Succoth (Zell Der‘ala, 
 north of the Jabbok), and Zaphon (Amdta, near 
 Gadara), with others already noticed. Among 
 other notable places are to be reckoned Mezarib, 
 at the sources of the Hieromax, one of the sta- 
 tions of the Haj, with its curious lake, warm 
 
 GILEADITES, THE 
 
 spring, and Turkish castle ; Irbid (Arbela), with 
 its gigantic Roman masonry, the present seat of 
 government of the Jebel Ajlin, though only now 
 containing 300 inhabitants; Beit er-Ras (Capi- 
 tolias), with remains of a pillared street, and 
 Roman eagles, aqueducts, and baths; the village 
 of Ajlin, with ancient olive-trees and gardens, 
 and a population of 500 souls, three-fourths of 
 whom are Christians; and Sf (Mizpeh), with 
 three springs, and a stream turning several 
 mills, and also rich in olive-trees. South of the 
 Jabbok the only town is es-Salt (the Saltus 
 Hieraticus of the Middle Ages, then the seat of a 
 Bishop), which has a population of 6,000 souls, 
 and is a government centre. It lies on the south 
 slope of Jebel Osh‘a, commanded by its Crusader- 
 castle, and possesses a small bazaar. 
 
 The revenue of the Jebel Ajliin is said to be 
 now only about £7,000 per annum, but culti- 
 vation is gradually increasing, even the “Adwan 
 Arabs sowing corn in the valleys; and with 
 greater security the region might become 
 as prosperous as in Roman times, when the 
 population must have been very dense, and the 
 great families very rich. The present popula- 
 tion includes some 5,000 Arabs, of the "Adwan 
 and Beni Sakhr tribes, living in tents, and pay- 
 ing an uncertain poll-tax. The former possess 
 flocks and cattle, but the latter have only camels. 
 Both are tribes which came a few centuries ago 
 from the Hejjaz, and subjugated the earlier 
 Arabs. Since the 7th century B.C. this immigra- 
 tion from Arabia has continually brought fresh 
 elements of pure Arab origin into Gilead, and 
 little remains of the old Aramaic stock. 
 
 The principal works which treat of Gilead are 
 the Travels of Burckhardt, Buckingham’s Arab 
 Tribes, Irby and Mangles’ Travels, Selah Mervill’s 
 East of Jordan. For the southern region, see 
 Conder’s Heth and Moab, 1883, and Palestine, 
 1889, and Memoirs of the Survey of Eastern 
 Palestine; also Le Strange, Ride through 
 Ajliin, 1886, in Schumacher’s Across the Jordan. 
 L. Oliphant’s Land of Gilead, 1880, contains a 
 picturesque account of the whole region, but 
 the antiquarian information is misleading. Tris- 
 tram’s work on Moab and his earlier Travels may 
 also be consulted. Sir Charles Warren (PEF Qy. 
 Stat. and Underground Jerusalem) also visited 
 Gilead, and Sir C. W. Wilson explored Gadara. 
 The Jebel Ajliin has, however, not been surveyed 
 as thoroughly as Moab, and is less perfectly 
 known than Bashan, [C. R. C.J 
 
 GIL'EAD, MOUNT (Judge. vii. 3). Accord- 
 ing to Gritz and Bertheau, the reading should 
 be “ Gilboa,” which would accord well with the 
 narrative. If the reading is to be maintained, it 
 is not impossible that this name, “the rugged,” 
 may have been applied to Gilboa [see GILBOA], 
 and that it survives at ‘Ain Jalid, at the foot of 
 the mountain, which is by some identified with 
 the spring Harod, where (v. 1) Gideon was en- 
 camped, Griitz’s reading “ Endor” for “ Harod ἢ 
 does net agree with his proposed emendation. 
 
 [Ὁ R. C.J} 
 
 GIL'EADITES, THE (wwb3; Judg. xii. 4, 5, 
 ΣΑΣ Judg. xii. 4, 5, Γαλαάδ; Num. xxvi. 
 29, Tadaadl, B.Tadaadel; Judg. x. 3, 6 Γαλαάδ: 
 
 Judg. xi. 1, 40, xii. 7; 2 Sam, xvii. 27, xix. 51; 
 1 Κι ii. 7; Ezra ii. 61; Neh. vii. 63, ὁ Γαλααδ-- 
 
GILGAL 
 
 {rns3; B. Tadaadeirns, exc. Judg. xi. 40, B. 
 Γαλαάδ A. 6 Γαλααδίτις, 6 Γαλααδείτης, and 
 Judg. xii. 5, ἀνδρὲς Γαλαάδ : Galaaditae, Galaad- 
 ites, viri Galaad), A branch of the tribe of 
 Manasseh, descended from Gilead. There appears 
 to have been an old standing feud between them 
 and the Ephraimites, who taunted them with 
 being deserters. See Judg. xii. 4, which may 
 be rendered, “And the men of Gilead smote 
 Ephraim, because they said, Runagates of Ephraim 
 are ye (Gilead is between Ephraim and Man- 
 asseh);” the last clause being added parenthetic- 
 ally. In 2 K. xv. 25 for “of the Gileadites ” 
 the LXX. have ἀπὸ τῶν τετρακοσίων ; Vulg. de 
 jiliis Galaaditarum. [Weer ἈΠ LW!) 
 
 GIL'’GAL (always with the article, baban, 
 but once; Γάλγαλα [plural]; Galgala). By 
 this name were called at least two, and probably 
 three places in ancient Palestine. 
 
 1. (1.9 The site of the first camp of the Israel- 
 ites on the west of the Jordan, the place at 
 which they passed the first night after crossing the 
 river, and where the twelve stones were set up 
 which had been taken from the bed of the stream 
 (Josh. iv. 19, 20, cp. v. 3); where also they 
 kept their first Passover in the land of Canaan 
 (v. 10). It was in the “end of the east of 
 Jericho” (Ὁ MWD N¥Pa; A. V. “in the east 
 border of Jericho”), apparently on a hillock or 
 rising ground (v. 3, cp. v. 9) in the Arboth- 
 Jericho (A. V. “the plains”); that is, the hot 
 depressed district of the Ghor which lay between 
 the town and the Jordan (v. 10). Here the 
 Israelites who had been born on the march 
 through the wilderness were circumcised; an 
 occurrence from which the sacred historian 
 derives the name: “‘This day I have rolled 
 away (galliothi) the reproach of Egypt from off 
 you.’ Therefore the name of the place is called 
 Gilgal* to this day.” By Josephus (An¢é. v. 1, 
 § 11) it is said to signify “freedom” (ἐλευ- 
 θέριον). The camp thus established at Gilgal 
 remained there during the early part of the 
 conquest (ix. 6; x. 6, 7, 9, 15,43); and we may 
 perhaps infer from one narrative that Joshua 
 retired thither at the conclusion of his labours 
 (xiv. 6, ep. v. 15). The manner in which 
 Gilgal is mentioned, in Deut. xi. 30, in connexion 
 with the “land of the Canaanites,” in which 
 were Ebal and Gerizim, apparently led Eusebius 
 and Jerome (OS.? p. 253, 1, 79; p. 158, 4, 14) 
 to place those mountains in the Jordan valley 
 near Jericho. [EBAL; GERIZIM.] 
 
 (2.) We again encounter Gilgal in the time of 
 Saul, when it seems to have exchanged its 
 military associations for those of sanctity. True, 
 Saul, when driven from the highlands by the 
 Philistines, collected his feeble force at the site 
 of the old camp (1 Sam. xiii. 4, 7); but this is 
 the only occurrence at all connecting it with 
 war. It was now one of the “holy cities” (of 
 ἡγιασμένοι) ---ἰῇ we accept the addition of the 
 LXX.—to which Samuel regularly resorted, 
 where he administered justice (1 Sam. vii. 16), 
 and where burnt-offerings and peace-offerings 
 were accustomed to be offered “ before Jehovah ” 
 
 a This derivation of the name cannot apply in the 
 case of the other Gilgals mentioned below. May it not 
 be the adaptation to Hebrew of a name previously exist- 
 ing in the former language of the country ? 
 
 GILGAL 1193 
 
 (x. 8, xi, 15, xiii. 8, 9-12, xv. 21); and on one 
 occasion a sacrifice of a more terrible description 
 than either (xv. 33). The air of the narrative 
 all through leads to the conclusion that at the 
 time of these occurrences it was the chief 
 sanctuary of the central portion of the nation 
 (see x, 8, xi. 14, xv. 12, 21). But there is no 
 sign of its being a town; no mention of building, 
 or of its being allotted to the priests or Levites, 
 as was the case with other sacred towns, Bethel, 
 Shechem, &c. 
 
 (3.) We again have a glimpse of it, some sixty 
 years later, in the history of Dayid’s return to 
 Jerusalem (2 Sam. xix.). The men of Judah 
 came down to Gilgal to meet the king to conduct 
 him over Jordan, as if it was close to the river 
 (xix. 15), and David arrived there immediately 
 on crossing the stream” after his parting with 
 Barzillai the Gileadite. 
 
 How the remarkable sanctity of Gilgal became 
 appropriated to a false worship we are not told, 
 but certainly, so far as the obscure allusions of 
 Hosea and Amos can be understood (provided 
 that they refer to this Gilgal), it was so appro- 
 priated by the kingdom of Israel in the middle 
 period of its existence (Hos. iv, 15, ix. 15, xii. 
 11; Amos ix. 4, v. 5). 
 
 Beyond the general statements above quoted, 
 the sacred text contains no indications of the 
 position of Gilgal. Neither in the Apocrypha 
 nor the N, T. is it mentioned. Later authorities 
 are more precise, but unfortunately discordant 
 among themselves. By Josephus (Ant. v. 1, § 4) 
 the encampment is given as 50 stadia, rather 
 under 6 miles, from the river, and 10 from 
 Jericho, In the time of Jerome the site of the 
 camp, and the twelve memorial stones, were still 
 distinguishable, if we are to take literally the 
 expression of the Hpit. Paulae (ὃ 14). The 
 distance from Jericho was then 2 miles. The spot 
 was left uncultivated, but regarded with great 
 veneration by the residents: “locus desertus.. . 
 ab illius regionis mortalibus miro cultu habitus ” 
 (OS? p. 159, 28), Theodosius (circ. A.D. 530) 
 gives the distance from Jericho as 1 mile, and 
 mentions the twelve stones, and the ager Domini, 
 which was irrigated by water from the fountain 
 of Elisha, ‘Ain es Sultdn (De Situ 1. S. § xvi.). 
 Antoninus (circ. A.D. 570) states that not far 
 from Jericho there was a church in which were 
 placed the twelve stones, and that the ager 
 Domini was in front of the church (De Loc. 
 Sanct. xiii.). When Arculf was there at the end 
 of the 7th century, the place was shown at 
 5 miles from Jericho. A large church covered 
 the site, in which the twelve stones were ranged. 
 The church and stones were seen by Willibald, 
 thirty years later, but he gives the distance as 
 5 miles from the Jordan, which again he 
 states correctly as 7 from Jericho. Abbot 
 Daniel (A.D. 1106) says that the church was 
 dedicated to St. Michael, and was 1 verst, or 
 two-thirds of a mile, from Jericho (Pil. xxxv.); 
 Phocas (xxi.) places the church 6 miles from 
 the Mt. of Temptation. The stones are mentioned 
 also by Thietmar,* A.D. 1217, and lastly by 
 Ludolf de Suchem a century later. Schwarz 
 
 b Such is the real force of the Hebrew text (xix. 40). 
 
 © According to this pilgrim, it was to these that John 
 the Baptist pointed when he said that God was “able of 
 these stones to raise up children unto Abraham” 
 (Thietmar, Peregr. 31), 
 
1194 GILGAL 
 
 (H. L. p. 99) mentions a hill near the Jordan 
 which the Arabs called Gilgal; but the site was 
 really discovered in 1865 by Herr Zschokke at 
 Tell Jiljt!, 44 miles from the Jordan, and 1} 
 miles from Eriha, Jericho (Beitrige zur Topog. 
 d, westlichen Jordinsau). ‘There are here an old 
 pool and a number of artificial mounds, to both 
 of which the name Ji/jilieh is attached; and 
 the remains of an old building, possibly the 
 church and monastery of St. Michael, erected on 
 the spot where Joshua, according to tradition, 
 saw the Archangel Michael (Josh. v. 13). A 
 curious legend is attached to the ruins, con- 
 necting them with the capture of Jericho by 
 Joshua (PEF. Mem. iii. 173, 191, 230; Gan- 
 neau in PE FQy. Stat. 1874, pp. 174-177; Sepp, 
 ii. 147 sq.). In Judg. ii. 1, iii. 19, Micah vi. 5, 
 Gilgal is apparently the well-known place in 
 the Jordan valley. ' 
 
 2. This was certainly a distinct place from 
 the Gilgal which is connected with the last scene 
 in the life of Elijah, and with one of Elisha’s 
 miracles. The chief reason for believing this 
 is the impossibility of making it fit into the 
 notice of Elijah’s translation. He and Elisha 
 are said to “go down” (177) from Gilgal to 
 Bethel (2 K. ii. 2), in opposition to the repeated 
 expressions of the narratives in Joshua and 
 1 Samuel, in which the way from Gilgal to the 
 neighbourhood of Bethel is always spoken of as 
 an ascent, the fact being that the former is 
 about 3,700 feet below the latter. Thus there 
 must have been a second Gilgal at a higher 
 level than Bethel, and it was probably that at 
 which Elisha worked the miracle of healing on 
 the poisonous pottage (2 K. iv. 38). Perhaps 
 the expression of 2 K. ii. 1, coupled with the 
 “came again” of iv. 38, may indicate that 
 Elisha resided there. It is now, apparently, 
 Jiljilia, a large village, on the top of a high hill, 
 to the west of the main north road, 74 miles 
 from Bethel, Beitin, and 44 m. from Shiloh, 
 Seiltin. The altitude of Jiljilia (2,441 ft.) is 
 less than that of Bethel (2,890 ft.); but its 
 appearance on the hills above the great Wady 
 el-Ji) is such as to give the impression of great 
 height, and the descent into the valley may 
 have led to the expression “ going down” to 
 Bethel. Van de Velde (Memoirs, p. 179), who 
 appears not to have visited the place, estimated 
 
 it to be 500 or 600 feet above Bethel; see also 
 Guerin (Samarie, ii. 168). Jiljilia may also be 
 the Beth-gilgal of Neh. xii. 29 (PHF. Mem. 
 ili. 290). 
 
 3. The “KING OF THE NATIONS OF GILGAL,” 
 or rather perhaps, as in R. V., the “king of 
 
 Goim in Gilgal” (35 ay}3-45), is mentioned 
 in the catalogue of the chiefs overthrown by 
 Joshua (Josh. xii. 23), The name occurs next 
 to Dor (v. 22) in an enumeration apparently pro- 
 ceeding southwards; and this agrees with the 
 position in which Eusebius and Jerome place 
 Gilgal. It was, in their day, a village called 
 Galgulis (Γαλγουλίς), 6 miles N. of Antipatris 
 (OS? p- 254, 315 p. 159, 24); and this place 
 is now Kalkilich, 64 MP. north of Rés el-‘Ain, 
 Antipatris. The Gilgal’ of Josh. xii. 23 may 
 however be Jiljiilich, a large mud village in the 
 plain about 4 miles N. of Ras cl-Ain (PEF. Mem. 
 il, 289). What these Goim were has been dis- 
 
 cussed under HeatueN. By that word (Judg. | 
 
 GIN 
 
 iv. 2) or “nations” (Gen. xiv. 1) the name is 
 usually rendered in the A. V., as in the well- 
 known phrase “Galilee of the nations” (Is. ix. 
 1; cp. Matt. iv. 15). Possibly they were a 
 tribe of the early inhabitants of the country, 
 who, like the Gerizites, the Avim, the Zemarites, 
 and others, have left only this faint casual trace 
 of their existence there. 
 
 4. A Gilgal is spoken of in Josh. xv. 7, in 
 describing the north border of Judah. In the 
 parallel list (Josh. xviii. 17) it is given as 
 GELILOTH, and under that word an attempt is 
 made to show that Gilgal, ze. the Gilgal near 
 Jericho, is probably correct. {G.] [W.] 
 
 GI'LOH (753; B. omits, A. Τηλών ; in Sam. 
 TwaAd), a town in the mountainous part of Judah, 
 named in the first group, with Debir and Esh- 
 temoh (Josh. xv. 51). Its only interest to us 
 lies in the fact of its having been the native 
 place of the famous Ahithophel (2 Sam. xy. 12), 
 where he was residing when Absalom sent for 
 him to Hebron, and whither he returned to 
 destroy himself after his counsel had been set 
 aside for that of Hushai (xvii. 23). ‘The site is 
 uncertain. Tobler (Drit. Wand. Map) identifies 
 it with Beit Jala, near Bethlehem; but this is 
 too far to the north, and Conder suggests, with 
 greater probability, Ah. Jdla, about 3 miles 
 N.W. of Hulhii, Halhul (PEF. Mem. iii. 313, 
 354). [ἃ] [W.) 
 
 GI'LONITE, THE (35°99 and *353n; Β. 
 Θεκωνεί [xv.], Γελωνείτος [xxiii], A. Γιλω- 
 ναῖος [xv.], Γειλωνίτοκ, 1.6. the native of Giloh 
 {as Shilonite, from Shiloh]): applied only to 
 Ahithophel the famous counsellor (2 Sam. xy. 
 125 xxiii. 34). {G.] [W.] 
 
 GIM’ZO (i193, ὃ = place where sycamores 
 
 grow; B. Ταλεζώ, A. Γαμαιζαΐ), a town which 
 with its dependent villages (Hebr. “ daugh- 
 ters”) was taken possession of by the Philis- 
 tines in the reign of Ahaz (2 Ch. xxviii. 18). 
 The name—which occurs nowhere but here— 
 is mentioned with Timnath, Socho, and other 
 towns in the north-west part of Judah, or 
 in Dan. It still remains attached to a large 
 village between 2 and 3 miles S.W. of Lydda, 
 south of the road between Jerusalem and 
 Jaffa, just where the hills of the highland finally 
 break down into the maritime plain. Jimzu is 
 a tolerably large village, on an eminence, well 
 surrounded with trees, and standing just beyond 
 the point where the two main roads from Jeru- 
 salem (that by the Bethhorons, and that by 
 Wady Suleiman), which parted at Gibeon, again 
 join and run on as one to Jaffa. It is remarkable 
 for nothing but some extensive corn magazines 
 underground, unless it be also for the silence 
 maintained regarding it by all travellers up to 
 Dr. Robinson (ii. 249). (G.] [W.] 
 
 GIN, a trap for birds or beasts: it consisted 
 of a net (MB), and a stick to act as a springe 
 (tYPD); the latter word is translated “gin ” in 
 the A. V. and R. V. of Amos iii. 5, and the former 
 in Is. viii. 14, the term “snare” being in each 
 case use] for the other part of the trap. In 
 Job xl. 24 (A. V. marg.) the second of these 
 terms is applied to the ring run through the 
 nostrils of an animal. cW. L. B.] 
 
GINATH 
 
 GI’NATH (3'3, ? = a garden; Τωνάθ : Gi- 
 neth), father of ΤΊΒΝΙ, who after the death of 
 Zimri disputed the throne of Israel with Omri 
 (1 K. xvi. 21, 22). 
 
 GIN’NETHO (‘1M33, te. Ginnethoi, ? = 
 gardener ; B. omits, NA. Γεννηθουί ; Genthon), 
 one of the “chief” (OWN = heads) of the 
 priests and Levites who returned to Judaea with 
 Zerubbabel (Neh. xii. 4). He is doubtless the 
 same person as 
 
 GIN’'NETHON (jin3); A. Γαανναθών, ἐξ. 
 ᾿Δαντώθ, B. Γνατόθ; Genthon), a priest who 
 sealed the covenant with Nehemiah (Neh. x. 6). 
 He was head of a family, and one of his de- 
 scendants is mentioned in the list of priests and 
 Levites at a later period (xii. 16). 
 
 GIRDLE, an essential article of dress in the 
 East, and worn both by men and women. The 
 corresponding Hebrew words are: 1. ΔΙ] or 
 m7han, which is the general term for a girdle of 
 any kind, whether worn by soldiers (1 Sam. 
 xviii. 4; 2 Sam. xx. 5.3} 1 Καὶ, ii. 5; 2 K. iii. 21), 
 or by women (is. iii, 24). 2. Ht, especially 
 used of the girdles worn by men; whether 
 by prophets (2 K. i. 8; Jer. xiii. 1), soldiers (Is. 
 ν. 27; Ezek. xxiii. 15), or kings in their mili- 
 tary capacity (Job xii. 18). 8. ΠῚ or ANN, 
 used of the girdle worn by men alone (Job xii. 
 21; Ps. cix. 19; Is. xxiii. 10), 4. IN, the 
 girdle worn by the priests and state officers. In 
 addition to these, Syne (Is. iii. 24. The etymo- 
 logy of the word is much disputed ; see Dillmann® 
 in loco) is a costly girdle worn by women. The 
 Vulgate renders it fuscia pectoralis. It would thus 
 seem to correspond with the Latin strophium, 
 a belt worn by women about the breast. In the 
 LXX., however, it is translated χιτὼν μεσοπόρ- 
 φυρος, “a tunic shot with purple,” and Gesenius 
 has “‘buntes Feyerkieid” (cp. Schroeder, de Vest. 
 Mul. pp. 137-8, 404. Dietrich [see MV." con- 
 nects it with the Targ. NINB, Oberkleid). The 
 ΝΡ mentioned in Is. iii. 20, Jer. ii. 32, 
 were probably girdles (R. V. “ sashes”), al- 
 though both Kimchi and Jarchi consider them 
 as fillets for the hair (A. V. “ headbands”). In 
 the latter passage the Vulgate has again fascia 
 pectoralis, and the LXX. στηθοδεσμίς, an appro- 
 priate bridal ornament. 
 
 The common girdle was made of leather (2 K. 
 1.8; Matt. iii. 4), like that worn by the Bedouins 
 of the present day, whom Curzon describes as 
 “armed with a long crooked knife, and a pistol 
 or two stuck in a red leathern girdle ” (Monast. 
 of the Levant, p.7). In the time of Chardin 
 the nobles of Mingrelia wore girdles of leather, 
 four fingers broad and embossed with silver. <A 
 finer girdle was made of linen (Jer. xiii. 1; 
 Ezek, xvi. 10), embroidered with silk, and some- 
 times with gold and silver thread (Dan. x. 5; 
 Rey. i. 13, xv. 6), and frequently studded with 
 gold and precious stones or pearls (Le Bruyn, 
 Voy. iv. 170; cp. Virg. Aen. ix. 359). Morier 
 (Second Journey, p. 150), describing the dress of 
 the Armenian women, says, ‘‘ They wear a silver 
 girdle which rests on the hips, and is generally 
 curiously wrought.” The manufacture of these 
 
 GIRDLE 1195 
 
 girdles formed part of the employment of women 
 (Prov. xxxi. 24), 
 
 The girdle was fastened by a clasp of gold or 
 silver, or tied in a knot so that the ends hung 
 down in front, as in the figures on the ruins of 
 Persepolis. It was worn by men about the loins, 
 hence the expressions DYN ἽΝ Cs. xi. 5); 
 DOM ΝΣ (is. v. 27). The girdle of women 
 was generally looser than that of the men, and 
 was worn about the hips, except when they 
 were actively engaged (Proy. xxxi.17). Curzon 
 (p. 58), describing the dress of the Egyptian 
 women, says, “Not round the waist, but round 
 the hips a large and heavy Cashmere shaw] is 
 worn over the yelek, and the whole gracefulness 
 of an Egyptian dress consists in the way in which 
 this is put on.” The military girdle was worn 
 about the waist ; the sword or dagger was sus- 
 pended from it (Judg. iii. 16; 2 Sam. xx. 8; Ps. 
 xlv. 3). In the Nineveh sculptures the soldiers 
 are represented with broad girdles, to which the 
 sword is attached, and through which two or 
 even three daggers in a sheath are passed. 
 Q. Curtius (11. 3) says of Darius, “ Zona aurea 
 muliebriter cinetus acinacem suspenderat, cui ex 
 gemma erat vagina.” Hence girding up the 
 loins denotes preparation for battle or for active 
 exertion. In times of mourning, girdles of sack- 
 cloth were worn as marks of humiliation and 
 sorrow (ls. iii. 24, xxii. 12). 
 
 In consequence of the costly materials of 
 which girdles were made, they were frequently 
 given as presents (1 Sam. xviii. 4; 2 Sam. xviii. 
 11), as is still the custom in Persia (cp. Morier, 
 Ρ. 93). Villages were given to the queens of 
 Persia to supply them with girdles (Xen. Anab. 
 i.4, §9; Plat. Alc. i. p. 128). 
 
 They were used as pockets, as among the Arabs 
 still (Niebuhr, Descr. p. 56), and as purses, one 
 end of the girdle being folded back for the 
 purpose (Matt. x. 9; Mark vi. 8): hence, zo- 
 nam perdere, to lose one’s purse” (Hor. Lpist. 
 ii, 2, 40; cp. Juv. xiv. 297). Inkhorns were 
 also carried in the girdle (Ezek. ix. 2). 
 
 The IAN, or girdle worn by the priests about 
 the close-fitting tunic (Ex. xxviii. 39, xxxix. 29), 
 is described by Josephus (Ant. iii. 7, § 2) as made 
 of linen so fine of texture as to look like the 
 slough of a snake, and embroidered with flowers 
 of scarlet, purple, blue, and, fine linen. It was 
 about four fingers broad, and was wrapped 
 several times round the priest’s body, the ends 
 hanging down to the feet. When engaged in 
 sacrifice, the priest threw the ends over his left 
 shoulder. According to Maimonides (de Vas. 
 Sanct. c. 8), the girdle worn both by the high- 
 priest and the common priests was of white 
 linen embroidered with wool; but that worn by 
 the high-priest on the day of Atonement was 
 entirely of white linen. ‘The length of it was 
 thirty-two cubits, and the breadth about three 
 fingers. It was worn just below the armpits to 
 avoid perspiration (cp. Ezek, xliv. 18). St.Jerome 
 (Ep. ad Fabiolam, de Vest. Sac.) follows Josephus. 
 With regard to the manner in which the girdle 
 was embroidered, the “needlework” (A. V.; 
 Dp nwyd, Ex. xxviii, 39; ΒΕ. V. “the work of 
 the embroiderer.” See Knobel-Dillmann in loco) 
 is distinguished in the Mishna from the “ cunning- 
 
 work” (A. V.; 2 π mw, Ex, xxvi. 31; R. V. 
 
1190 
 
 “the work of the cunning workman”) as being 
 worked by the needle with figures on one side 
 only, whereas the latter was woven work with 
 figures on both sides (Cod. Joma, ὁ. 8). So also 
 Maimonides (de Vas. Sanct. viii. 15). But Jarchi 
 on Ex. xxvi. 31, 36 explains the difference as 
 consisting in this, that in the former case the 
 figures on the two sides are the same, whereas 
 in the latter they are different. [EMBROIDERER. | 
 
 In all passages, except Is. xxii. 21, OJIN is 
 
 used of the girdle of the priests only, but in 
 that instance it appears to have been worn by 
 Shebna, the treasurer, as part of the insignia of 
 his office; unless it be supposed that he was of 
 priestly rank, and wore it in his priestly capacity. 
 He is called “‘high-priest” in the Chronicon 
 Paschale, p. 115 a, and in the Jewish tradition 
 quoted by Jarchi in loco. 
 
 The “curious [A. V. marg. Or, embroidered] 
 girdle” (AWM, Ex. xxviii. 8; R.V. “the cun- 
 
 ningly woven band”) was ae of the same 
 materials and colours as the ephod; that is, of 
 “cold, blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine 
 twined linen.” Josephus describes it as sewn to 
 the breastplate. After passing once round, it 
 was tied in front upon the seam, the ends hang- 
 ing down (Ant. iii. 7, § 5), According to Mai- 
 monides, it was of woven work. 
 
 “Girdle” is used figuratively in Ps. cix. 5; 
 Is. xi. 5: cp. 1 Sam. ii. 45 Ps. xxx. 11, Ixy. 12; 
 Eph, vi. 14, {Wak. Wel 
 
 GIR’GASHITES, THE ewan, 1.Cry AC- 
 cording to the Hebrew usage, singular-—“ the 
 Girgashite ;” in which form, however, it occurs 
 in the A. V. but twice, 1 Ch. i. 14 and Gen. x. 
 16, in the latter THE GIRGASITE [R. V. Girga- 
 shite]; elsewhere uniformly plural, as above; 
 R. V. uniformly singular: 6 Γεργεσαῖος, and so 
 also Josephus: Gergesaeus), one of the nations 
 who were in possession of Canaan before the 
 entrance thither of the children of Israel. The 
 name occurs in the following passages :—Gen. x. 
 16, xv. 21; Deut. vii. 1 (and xx. 17 in Samarit. 
 and LXX.)3; Josh. iii. 10, xxiv. 11; 1 Ch. i. 14; 
 Neh. ix. 8.5 In the first of these “the Girgasite” 
 is given as the fifth son of Canaan ; in the other 
 places the tribe is merely mentioned, and that 
 but occasionally, in the formula expressing the 
 doomed country ; and it may truly be said in 
 the words of Josephus (Ant. i. 6, § 2) that we 
 possess the name and nothing more; not even 
 the more definite notices of position, or the 
 slight glimpses of character, general or indi- 
 vidual, with which we are favoured in the case 
 of the Amorites, Jebusites, and some others of 
 these ancient nations. The expression in Josh. 
 xxiv. 11 would seem to indicate that the district 
 of the Girgashites was on the west of Jordan ; 
 nor is this invalidated by the mention of “ Ger- 
 gesenes” in Matt. viii. 28 (Tepyeonvay in Rec. 
 Text, and in a few MSS.—mentioned by Epi- 
 phanius and Origen—Tepyecaiwy), as on the east 
 side of the sea of Galilee, since that name may 
 indicate that some families of the tribe settled 
 in this place after they were driven from Southern 
 Palestine. A curious tradition is related in the 
 Talmud of an appeal made by the Girgashites 
 
 GIRGASHITES, THE 
 
 85 In Deut. iii. 19 (Gk. v. 14) the LXX. have’B. Tap- 
 τασεί, B*?b? AF, Tapyace: for the ‘*Geshuri” of the 
 Hebrew text. 
 
 GITTITH 
 
 to Alexander the Great during his stay in Pales- 
 tine, for redress for the losses they had suffered 
 from the Jews in consequence of their expulsion 
 from Canaan. The appeal, however, was fruit- 
 less (Otho, Lex. Rabb. 31). [61  EWesl 
 
 GIR’GASITE, THE (Gen. x. 16). See the 
 
 foregoing. 
 
 GIRZITES, 
 [GERZITES. | 
 
 GISCHALA. [AuHLAB.] 
 
 GIS'PA (ΑΒ; BA. om., Noes inf Τεσφά; 
 Gaspha), one of the overseers of the Nethinim, 
 in “the Ophel,” after the return from captivity 
 (Neh, xi. 21). By N*%. the name appears to have 
 been taken as a place. [F.] 
 
 THE, 1 Sam. xxvii. 8, R. V. 
 
 GIT’TAH-HE’PHER, Josh. xix. 13. 
 [GATH-HEPHER. ] 
 
 GITTAIM (OF), i.e. two wine-presses; B. 
 Γεθθαί, A. Γεθθείμ; Gethaim), a place incidentally 
 mentioned in 2 Sam. iv. 3, where the meaning 
 appears to be that the inhabitants of Beeroth, 
 which was allotted to Benjamin, had been com- 
 pelled to fly from that place, and had taken 
 refuge at Gittaim. Beeroth was one of the 
 towns of the Gibeonites (Josh. ix. 17); and the 
 cause of the flight of its people may have been 
 (though this is but conjecture) Saul’s persecution 
 of the Gibeonites, alluded to in 2 Sam, xxi. 2. 
 Gittaim is again mentioned in the list of places 
 inhabited by the Benjamites after their return 
 from the Captivity, with Anathoth, Hazor, 
 Ramah, and other known towns of Benjamin to 
 the N.W. of Jerusalem (Neh. xi. 33). The two 
 may be the same ; though, if the persecution of 
 the Beerothites proceeded from Benjamin, as we 
 must infer it did, they would hardly choose as a 
 refuge a place within the limits of that tribe. 
 Gittaim is the dual form of the word Gath, 
 which suggests the Philistine plain as its 
 locality, But there is no evidence for or against 
 this. 
 
 Gittaim occurs in the LXX. Version of 1 Sam. 
 xiv. 33—“out of Getthaim roll me a great 
 stone.” But this is not supported by any other 
 of the ancient Versions, which unanimously 
 adhere to the Hebr. text, and probably proceeds 
 from a mistake or corruption of the Hebrew 
 word DANII 5 A. V. “ye have transgressed.’ 
 It further occurs in the LXX. in Gen. xxxvi. 35 
 and 1 Ch. i. 46, as the representative of AVITH, 
 a change not very intelligible (see Dillmann® on 
 Gen. /.c.), and equally unsupported by the other 
 old Versions. [Gal Wel 
 
 GITTITES. The inhabitants of Gath (2 Sam. 
 vi. 10, 11; xv. 18, 19). Obed-edom and Ittai 
 are named, and six hundred Gittites followed 
 David from Gath. In the latter passage the 
 LXX. renders the word “mighty men,” and is 
 followed by Ewald and Thenius. There is 
 nothing to show that these Gittites were Philis- 
 tines, since there was probably no town in 
 Palestine, in Dayid’s time, of which the popula- 
 tion was unmixed [see GATH]. [C. R. C.] 
 
 GITTITH, or, more correctly, Haggittith, 
 which appears as part of the first, or intro- 
 
GIZONITE, THE 
 
 ductory, verses of Psalms viii., Ixxxi., ‘and 
 Ixxxiy., has produced an amusing, if somewhat 
 unsatisfactory, search after hypotheses. The 
 authors of the Septuagint evidently had in mind 
 the Agadic tradition of the Rabbis, when they 
 rendered ’Al-Haggittith by ὑπὲρ τῶν ληνῶν (see 
 later on), and are by no means alluded to by Ibn 
 ’Ezra, as has been asserted, when he rejects the 
 explanation of the “fablers, babblers, or idiots ἢ 
 
 (5530). The Targumist gives Gittith as ἃ 
 harp brought (viii. 1) or come (Ixxxi. 1 and 
 Ixxxiv. 1) from Gath (of Philistia?). This expla- 
 nation is not merely quoted by Rashi, but ap- 
 proved of by him, with the additional remark, 
 that in Gath they were masters in constructing 
 this instrument. He rejects the view of the 
 Rabbis (Midrash Zehillim) that this title was an 
 allusion to the heathen nations, which would be 
 one day trodden down as grapes are trodden in 
 avat. Not that Rashi rejected the Rabbinic say- 
 ing itself, which rests on the Bible (ls. xiii, 2, 3) ; 
 but he rejects the local application of it. He 
 does so justly, since, as he says, contents and 
 context give no evidence whatever for such 
 an application. Rashi here, as in most other 
 places, exhibits supreme good sense. Rab 
 Se‘adyah, the Gaon (Ewald, Ueber die Arabisch 
 geschriebenen Werke Jiidischer Sprachgelehrten, i., 
 Stuttgard, 1844, 8vo, on Ps. viii. 1), says 
 that this Psalm got its name Gittith from 
 haying been given by David to the household 
 of Obed-Edom the Gittite. This explanation 
 is also given by Ibn “Ezra (190) ὙΠ ΠῚ 
 
 ὙΠ2Π DYN Taw min|awn), without, however, 
 acknowledging his indebtedness to the Gaon; 
 and between it and his own well-known theory 
 (This is the beginning of a poem, &c.) he 
 vacillates, with rather an inclination to the 
 former exposition. Qimchi reproduces both 
 these explanations, only consistently reversing 
 their order, as he approves more of the second 
 explanation (see Schiller-Szinessy, Qimchi on the 
 Psalms, i., Cambridge and Leipzig, 1883, 8vo, 
 p. 15). He inserts between the first and second 
 explanations the interpretation of some anony- 
 mous. authors, according to whom this Psalm 
 was called Gittith because David both composed 
 and recited it while at Gath in Philistia. This 
 interpretation, if it were possible, would leave 
 the headings of Psalms Ixxxi. and Ixxxiv. en- 
 tirely unexplained. Now, on grounds both 
 negative and positive, advanced in AIJELETH 
 SHAHAR, ALAMOTH and AL-TASCHITH, one is 
 constrained to explain Haggittith as the name 
 of a mhusic-band, dwelling in the Levitical Gath- 
 Rimmon, and the director of which was Obed- 
 Edom the Gittite (1 Ch. xv. 21). This theory 
 would give a double reason for the name Hag- 
 gittith. Obed-Edom did not merely excel asa 
 music-director, but had harboured the Ark of 
 God for three months, when David, after the 
 catastrophe of Uzzah, was afraid to take it to 
 Zion, his own city. For this act of piety and 
 devotion the Lord had blessed Obed-Edom the 
 Gittite, and the king had granted to this Levite 
 the mastership over a music-corps, consisting 
 for the most part of his own household, which 
 should bear his name. [S. M. S.-S.] 
 
 ‘GI'ZONITE, THE (3130: BN. omit; 
 A. 6 Γωυνί ; Lucian, ὁ Γουνί : Gezonites). “The 
 
 GLASS 1197 
 
 sons of Hashem the Gizonite” are named 
 amongst the warriors of Dayid’s guard (1 Ch. 
 xi. 34). In the parallel list of 2 Sam. xxiii. 32 
 the name appears as JASHEN. Gizon is not 
 otherwise known, and the reading of Lucian, 
 6 Touvi, seems to point to "2377, the name of 
 a Naphtalite family (see Driver, Notes on Heb. 
 Text of the BB. of Sam. 1. ¢.). [F.] 
 
 GIZRITES, THE, 1 Sam. xxvii. 8, R. V. 
 margin. [GERZITES. | 
 
 GLASS (N'D131; ὕαλος ; vitrum). The word 
 occurs only in Job xxviii. 17, where in A. V. it 
 is rendered “ crystal,” but in R. V. “glass.” It 
 comes from Jat (to be pure), and according to” 
 the best authorities means a kind of glass which 
 in ancient days was held in high esteem (J. D. 
 Michaelis, Hist. Vitri apud Hebr.; and Ham- 
 berger, Hist. Vitri ea antiquitate eruta, quoted 
 by Gesen. 8. v.). Symmachus renders it κρύ- 
 σταλλος, but that is rather intended by WIJ 
 (Job xxviii. 18, A. V. “ pearls,” LXX. ydBis, a 
 word which also means “ice;” cp. Plin. H. NV. 
 xxxvii. 2), and Mp (Ezek. i. 22). Besides Sym- 
 machus, others also render it διαυγῆ κρύσταλ- 
 Aos (Schleusner, Thesaur. 5. v. tados), and it is 
 argued that the word ὕαλος frequently means 
 erystal. Thus the Schol. on Aristoph. Nu). 764 
 defines ὕαλος (when it occurs in old writers) as 
 διαφανὴς λίθος ἐοικὼς ὕάλῳ, and Hesychius gives 
 as its equivalent λίθος τίμιος. In Herodotus 
 (iii. 24) it is clear that ὕαλος must mean crystal, 
 for he says, 4 δέ σφι πολλὴ καὶ evepyos ὀρύσ- 
 σεται, and Achilles Tatius speaks of crystal as 
 ὕαλος ὀρωρυγμένη (ii. 3; Baehr, On Herod. 
 ii. 44; Heeren, Jdeen, ii. 1, 335). Others con- 
 sider M'3}31 to be amber, or electrum, or ala- 
 
 baster (Bochart, Hieroz. ii. ch. vi. 872); but 
 modern criticism almost universally adopts the 
 meaning glass (see MY.!!, Dillmann # in loco). 
 
 The Hebrews must have been aware of the 
 invention of glass. There has been a violent 
 modern prejudice against the belief that glass 
 was early known to, or extensively used by, the 
 ancients, but both facts are now certain. From 
 paintings representing the process of glass-blow- 
 ing which have been discovered at Beni-Hassan, 
 and in tombs at other places, we know that the 
 invention is at least as remote as the age of 
 Osirtasen the First (perhaps a contemporary of 
 Joseph), 3500 years ago. A bead as old as 
 1500 B.c. was found by Captain Hervey at 
 Thebes, “ the specific gravity of which, 25° 30’, 
 is precisely the same as that of the crown glass 
 now made in England.” Fragments too of 
 wine-vases as old as the Exodus have been dis- 
 covered in Egypt. Glass beads known to be 
 ancient have been found in Africa, and also (it 
 is said) in Cornwall and Ireland, which are in 
 all probability the relics of an old Phoenician 
 trade (Wilkinson, in Rawlinson’s Herod. ii. 50, 
 i. 475; Anc. Egypt. ii. 64, 65 [1878]). The art 
 was also known to the ancient Assyrians (Layard, 
 Nineveh, ii. 42), and a glass bottle was found in 
 the N.W. palace of Nimroud, which has on it the 
 name of Sargon, and is therefore probably older 
 than B.c. 702 (14. Win. and Bab. pp. 197, 503). 
 This is the earliest known specimen of trans- 
 parent glass. 
 
 The disbelief in the antiquity of glass (in 
 
1198 GLASS 
 
 spite of the distinct statements of early writers) 
 is difficult to account for, because the invention 
 must almost naturally arise in making bricks or 
 pottery, during which processes there must be 
 at least a superficial vitrification. There is little 
 doubt that the honour of the discovery belongs 
 to the Egyptians. Pliny gives no date for his 
 celebrated story of the discovery of glass from 
 the solitary accident of some Phoenician sailors 
 using blocks of natron to support their sauce- 
 pans when they were unable to find stones for 
 the purpose (//. V. xxxvi. 65). But this account 
 is less likely than the supposition that vitreous 
 matter first attracted observation from the cus- 
 , tom of lighting fires on the sand, “in a country 
 producing natron or subcarbonate of soda” 
 (Rawlinson’s Herod. ii. 82). It has been pointed 
 ,out that Pliny’s story may have originated in 
 the fact that the sand of the Syrian river Belus, 
 at the mouth of which the incident is supposed 
 to have occurred, “was esteemed peculiarly 
 suitable for glass-making, and exported in great 
 
 Egyptian Glass Blowers. (Wilkinson.) 
 
 quantities to the workshops of Sidon and Alex- 
 andria, long the most famous in the ancient 
 world” (Dict. of Gk. and Rom. Απέϊᾳ. 5. τι. Vitrum, 
 where everything requisite to the illustration 
 of the classical allusions to glass may be found). 
 Some find a remarkable reference to this little 
 river (respecting which see Plin. H. N. v. 17, 
 XXXvi. 655; Joseph. B. J. ii. 10, § 2; Tac. Hist. 
 Υ. 7) in the blessing to the tribe of Zebulun, 
 “they shall suck of the abundance of the seas, 
 and of treasures hid in the sand” (Deut. 
 xxxili, 19) Both the name Belus (Reland, 
 quoted in Dict. of Geogr. s.v.) and the Hebrew 
 
 word Sin, “sand” (Calmet, s. v.), have been 
 suggested as derivations for the Greek ὕαλος, 
 which ts however, in all probability, from an 
 Egyptian root. 
 
 Glass was not only known to the ancients, 
 but used by them (as Winckelmann thinks) far 
 more extensively than in modern times. Pliny 
 even tells us that it was employed in wains- 
 coting (vitreae camerae, H. N. xxxvi. 64; Stat. 
 Silv. i. ch. vy. 42). The Egyptians knew the art of 
 cutting, grinding, and engraving it, and they 
 could even inlay it with gold or enamel, and 
 
 GLEANING 
 
 “permeate opaque glass with designs of various 
 colours.” Besides this, they could colour it with 
 such brilliancy as to be able to imitate precious 
 stones in a manner which often defied detection 
 (Plin. H. N. xxxvii. 25, 33, 75). This is pro- 
 bably the explanation of the incredibly large 
 gems which we find mentioned in ancient 
 authors ; e.g. Larcher considers that the emerald 
 column alluded to by Herodotus (ii. 44) was 
 “du verre coloré, dont l’intérieur était éclairé 
 par des lampes.” Strabo was told by an Alex- 
 andrian glass-maker that this success was partly 
 due to a rare and valuable earth found in Egypt 
 (Beckmann, History of Inventions, “ Coloured 
 Glass,” i. 195sq., Eng. Transl. ; also iii. 208 sq., 
 iv. 54). Yet the perfectly clear and transparent 
 glass was considered the most valuable (Plin. 
 xxXxvi. 26), 
 
 Some suppose that the proper name NIDIWD 
 Ὁ (“burnings by the waters”) contains an 
 allusion to Sidonian glass-factories (Meier on 
 Josh. xi. 8, xiii. 6), 
 but it is much more 
 probable that it was 
 so called from the 
 burning of Jabin’s 
 
 chariots at that 
 place (Lord A. 
 Hervey, On the 
 
 Genealogies, p. 228), 
 or from hot springs. 
 In the N. T. glass 
 is alluded to as an 
 emblem of bright- 
 ness (Rey. iv. 6, 
 xv. 2, xxi. 18). The 
 three other places 
 where the word 
 occurs in the A. V. 
 (ly, Cor. "sill 12. 
 2 Cor. iii, 18; Jas. 
 i, 23), as also the 
 word “ glasses” (Is. 
 iii. 23), are consi- 
 dered under Mir- 
 RoRS. For, strangeto say, although the ancients 
 were aware of the reflective power of glass, and 
 although the Sidonians used it for mirrors (Plin. 
 H. N. xxxvi. 66), yet for some unexplained 
 reason mirrors of glass must have proved unsuc- 
 cessful, since even under the empire mirrors were 
 universally made of metal, which is at once 
 less perfect, more expensive, and more difficult 
 to preserve (Dict. of Gk. and Rom. Antiq. s. τι. 
 Speculum). [F. W. F.] 
 
 GLEANING nibs as applied to produce 
 
 generally, ppd rather to corn; see Ley. xix. 9, 
 10. The verbs are also used figuratively, Judg. 
 xx. 45, andi. 7). The remarks under CORNER 
 on the definite character of the rights of the 
 poor, or rather of poor relations and dependants, 
 to a share of the crop, are especially exemplified 
 in the instance of Ruth gleaning in the field of 
 Boaz. Poor young women, recognised as being 
 “his maidens,” were gleaning his field; and on 
 her claim upon him by near affinity being made 
 known, she was bidden to join them and not go 
 to any other field; but for this, the reapers, it 
 seems, would have driven her away (Ruth ii. 6, 
 
GLEDE 
 
 GOAT 1199 
 
 8, 9). The gleaning of fruit trees, as well as of | 105, to teach) rather than goading (Saalschiitz, 
 
 cornfields, was reserved for the poor. Hence the 
 proverb of Gideon, Judg. viii. 2. Maimonides 
 indeed lays down the principle (Constitutiones de 
 donis pauperum, cap. ii. 1), that whatever crop 
 or growth is fit for food, is kept, gathered all 
 at once, and carried into store, is liable to that 
 law. See for further remarks, Maimon. Con- 
 stitutiones de donis pauperum, cap. iv. (H. Η.} 
 
 GLEDE (AN), ra’ah; yop; txion). The 
 word occurs only in Deut. xiv. 13, and is trans- 
 lated “ glede” in A. V.and R. V. Inthe parallel 
 passage in Ley. xi. 14, TN, da’ah, “ vulture,” 
 is read. Gesenius therefore suggests that da’ah 
 should be substituted also in Deut. If however 
 MIN) be correct, the name is derived from the 
 bird’s clearness of vision, and means “the far- 
 seer.” Our translators have distinguished 
 between “kite” and “ glede,” though the names 
 are often used synonymously in the South of 
 England for the royal or red kite, Milvus ictinus, 
 Say., now all but extinct. But in the North of 
 England, in Scotland and Ireland, “glede” is 
 applied to the buzzard, which is probably there- 
 fore the bird intended by our translators. There 
 are three species of buzzard in Palestine: the 
 common buzzard, Butco vulgaris, Leach, on the 
 coast; 2. desertorum, Daud., in the southern 
 wilderness ; and δ, ferox (Gm.), the finest and 
 largest of the genus, spread all over the country. 
 
 [HBL] 
 
 GNAT (κώνωψ) only occurs in Matt. xxiii. 
 24, “Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat and 
 swallow a camel,” A. V. But R. V. correctly — 
 “which strain owt the gnat and swallow the 
 camel ;” as in all the earlier Versions, Tyndall’s, 
 Cranmer’s, and the Genevan: a proverbial ex- 
 pression, the gnat being looked on as one of the 
 smallest of insects. The gnat of the East is 
 better known to us as the “ mosquito,” one of 
 the most irritating pests of all countries, and 
 which in Palestine can only be escaped by sleep- 
 ing on high ground, away from trees or water. 
 Gnats belong to the order Diptera, genus Culex. 
 All the species are characterised by having a 
 long proboscis in a grooved sheath, from which 
 the insect shoots its long slender lance into the 
 skin. The larvae and pupae live in water, only 
 emerging into the air when they leave the 
 chrysalis. pHs Bs Ta] 
 
 GOAD. The equivalent terms in the Hebrew 
 are (1) WP!) (Judg. iii. 31) and (2) 2 
 (1 Sam. xiii. 21; Eccles. xii.11). The explana- 
 tion given by Jahn (Archaeol. i. 4, ὃ 59; cp. 
 Μ 11) is that the former represents the pole, 
 and the latter the iron spike with which it was 
 shod for the purpose of goading, and may refer 
 to anything pointed; and the tenor of Eccles. xii. 
 requires rather the sense of a peg or nail, any- 
 thing in short which can be fastened ; while in 
 1 Sam. xiii. the point of the ploughshare is more 
 probably intended. The former does probably 
 refer to the goad (A. V. and R. Y. “ox-goad”’), 
 the long handle of which might be used as a 
 formidable weapon (cep. Hom. 7. vi. 135), 
 though even this was otherwise understood by 
 the LXX. as a ploughshare (ἐν τῷ ἀροτρόποδι) : 
 it should also be noted that the etymological 
 force of the word is that of guiding (from 
 
 Archaeol. i. 105). There are undoubted refer- 
 ences to the use of the goad in driving oxen in 
 Ecclus. xxxviii. 25, and Acts xxvi. 14. The 
 instrument, as still used in the countries of 
 Southern Europe and Western Asia, consists of 
 a rod about 8 feet long, brought to a sharp 
 point and sometimes cased with iron at the 
 head (Harmer’s Observ. iii. 348). The expres- 
 sion “to kick against the goad” (Acts xxvi. 14, 
 Rk. V.; A. V. “the pricks”) was proverbially 
 used by the Greeks for unavailing resistance to 
 superior power (cp. Aesch. Agam. 1633, Prom. 
 323; Eurip. Bacch. 791). LW, 2. Bel 
 
 GOAH, Jer. xxxi.39, R. V. [Goaru.] 
 
 GOAT. 1. Of the Hebrew words which are 
 translated goat and she-goat in A. V., the most 
 
 0 
 common is tY, ‘aiz = Syr. 13, Arab. τῷ» 
 —~ 
 
 Phoen. ἄζα. The Indo-Germanic languages have 
 a similar word in Sansk. ag'a = goat, ασ' ὦ = she- 
 goat, Germ. geis or gems, Greek αἴξ, αἰγός. The 
 derivation from my, to be strong, points to he- 
 goat as the original meaning, but it is also 
 specially used for she-goat, as in Gen. xy. 9, 
 xxxi. 38, xxxii. 14; Num. xv. 27. In Judg. vi. 
 19 ΤΣ 73 is rendered Aid, and in Deut. xiv. 4 
 Dy mw is rendered the goat, but properly 
 signifies flock of goats. OD is used elliptically 
 for goats’ hair in Ex. xxvi. 7, xxxvi. 14, &c.; 
 Num. xxxi. 20; and in 1 Sam. xix. 15. 
 
 2. TAY, ‘attud, τράγοι, hirci, is the common 
 word for the he-goat, which is the leader of the 
 herd. All herds of goats, however small, have 
 a leader, whose movements are followed by all 
 the others. It occurs only in the plural and is 
 rendered indifferently “ goats” and “ he-goats” 
 in A. V. and. R.V. It is used metaphorically 
 for leaders of men: “Be as the he-goats 
 before the flocks” (Jer. 1. 8). ‘Even all the 
 chief ones of the earth,” marg. he-goats (ls. 
 xiv. 9). “Mine anger is kindled against the 
 shepherds, and I will punish the he-goats,” i.e. 
 “the leaders of the people” (Zech. x. 3, R. V.). 
 
 3. WL, sd‘ir, lit. “a hairy one” or “ bristly 
 one,” is the word commonly used in the Penta- 
 teuch for the goat offered as sin offering, whether 
 a full-grown animal ora kid. 
 
 4. UF, tayish, ie. the butter or the striker, 
 from vn, tish, “to strike” or “butt,” a non- 
 39 
 existent root ; Arabic Ue tais, plur. ω» 4.) 
 
 tuyiis, “a he-goat.” The word occurs in four 
 passages only. In Prov. xxx. 31-2, R. V.: “Four 
 things which are stately in going... the he- 
 goat.” The stately march of the he-goat be- 
 fore the herd, and his haughty bearing, as well 
 as the dauntless stare with which he scrutinizes 
 a stranger, are well known to all familiar with 
 the East; and his name is still commonly used 
 by the Arabs to express dignity of manner and 
 bearing.*® 
 
 C7 
 
 a So the Alexandrian Version of the LXX. gives in 
 Is. xiv. 9, τράγος ἡγούμενος αἰπολίου. Cp. Theocritus, 
 Id. viii. 49, Ὦ τράγε, τὰν λευκᾶν αἰγᾶν ἄνερ : and Virg- 
 Ecl. vii. 7, ““ Vir gregis ipse caper.” 
 
1200 GOAT 
 
 5. VD, saphir, occurs only in 2 Ch. xxix. 
 21, Ezra vi. 17, and Dan. viii. 5, 8. It is derived 
 from DY, “to leap.” In Daniel it is followed by 
 DY, ze. a he-goat of the goats, and is used as 
 a figure of the Macedonian Empire: “ Behold, 
 an he-goat came from the west on the face of 
 the whole earth”? (v. 5). 
 
 Ἔριφος and ἐρίφιον, 1.6. “a young goat or kid,” 
 are translated “goats” in our Version (R. V. 
 marg. kids). “ Goat-skins” in Heb. xi. 37 are 
 in the Greek ἐν αἰγείοις δέρμασιν. 
 
 There are several breeds of goats (Cupra 
 Aircus, L.) in Palestine. The supposed wild 
 original of the goat (Capra aegagrus, Gm.) is 
 common in Armenia, the Caucasus, and North 
 
 TORS 
 Ay Wa 
 is = 
 ay) fe —_~ 
 ΠΥ ἢ Ξ 
 = 
 a, 
 ; ~ “~——_ 
 1) A 
 YN Ly 
 ἡ 
 
 ἊΝ 
 
 " i 
 JAW, 
 a ἢ] ΝᾺ 
 i WY 
 Ψ 
 
 ἡ Wit Ι ‘4 
 Way ν 
 SRN ik 7 
 ἜΝ Νὰ } 
 UE WRENS 
 ψ δι 
 
 ΞΞΞ ΞΟ 
 
 —— 
 
 Long-eared Syrian Goat. 
 
 Persia; yet the goats of Syria exhibit a wider 
 divergence than those of any other country, 
 from the pristine type. In the Lebanon there 
 is a very marked race, like the Welsh breed of 
 goat, generally black and with short ears often 
 erect. Very different from this is the common 
 Syrian goat of the South (Capra mambrica, L.), 
 with enormous pendent ears often hanging down 
 below its nose, and stout recurved horns. These 
 long ears are alluded to by Amos (iii. 12): “ As 
 the shepherd taketh out of the mouth of the 
 lion two legs, or a piece of an ear.” These goats 
 are very large, with long hair, generally black. 
 In fact, black is as much the rule with the 
 Syrian goat as white with the English sheep. 
 Another race is the mohair goat (Capra angor- 
 ensis, L.), which is only a carefully selected breed 
 of the other, generally white, and with very 
 long silky hair. It is only reared in a few places 
 in the north of the country. It is to this fine- 
 haired goat probably that allusion is made in 
 the Song of Songs iv. 1: “Thy hair is as a flock 
 of goats that appear from [lie along the side 
 of,” R. V.] Mount Gilead.” 
 
 Goats formed an important item in the wealth 
 of the Patriarchs, and were used for food and 
 for sacrifice. In pastoral regions the goat may 
 be said to be the complement of the sheep. 
 The one browses where the other cannot feed, 
 for the goat prefers brushwood and coarse herb- 
 
 GOAT 
 
 age to the fine pasturage indispensable for the 
 sheep. ‘Thus on the downs of Arabia where no 
 shrubs are to be found, there are no goats, and 
 they are not mentioned among the possessions of 
 Job. Inthe rich maritime plains their place is 
 taken by horned cattle, for the luxuriant grasses 
 are too succulent for their taste. But the 
 southern wilderness, where there are many 
 dwarf bushes, and the “hill-country” from 
 Hebron up the centre of Western Palestine to 
 the top of Lebanon, are of all others the best 
 adapted for goats; and here from the earliest 
 times they have been a chief source of wealth. 
 Nabal, in the Negeb or South-land of Judah, 
 had 3,000 sheep and 1,000 goats. Further north, 
 the proportion of the latter would have been 
 greater. 
 
 The sheep and goats are always seen together 
 under the same shepherd, but they do not tres- 
 pass on the domain of each other; nor seems 
 there to be on either side any desire for more 
 intimate acquaintance. The sheep, quietly wend- 
 ing their way along the lower slopes of the 
 hillside, graze closely the tender herbage and 
 fine grass; the goats, generally filing in long 
 lines a little above them, skip from rock to rock, 
 and browse the thymes and twigs of the dwarf 
 shrubs. When folded together at night, they 
 still gather in distinct groups; and round the 
 well, while waiting for the troughs to be filled, 
 they instinctively classify themselves separately. 
 With all their economic value, the goats have 
 been the cause of much of the bareness and 
 the scarcity of spring rains in Palestine. Their 
 constant browsing has precluded any chance of 
 the restoration of the forests in any part of 
 the country. They have extirpated many species 
 of trees which once covered the hills, and which 
 now are only to be found east of Jordan. The 
 scarcity of fuel has tempted the villagers to 
 cut down almost every tree of any size in the 
 country, while the goats effectually keep down 
 the seedlings. Until an enlightened Pasha 
 intervened, there was great danger of the cedars 
 of Lebanon becoming absolutely extinct with the 
 decay of the few surviving patriarchs of the 
 forest. Within the present century, after the 
 ebony forests had been cut down in the island of 
 St. Helena, the goats barked and destroyed all 
 the younger trees until not a solitary plant of 
 the species survives. ; 
 
 In all the districts where goats are kept their 
 milk takes the place of cow’s milk with us, and 
 is used both fresh (called by the Arabs haleeb) 
 and curdled (/eben), and is also manufactured 
 into cheese: “Thou shalt have goat’s milk 
 enough for thy food, for the food of thy 
 household, and for the maintenance of thy 
 maidens” (Prov. xxvii. 27). The herds are 
 their wealth: “The goats are the price of the 
 field” (Prov. xxvii. 26). A kid of the goats 
 has always been the special dish for a visitor, or 
 for a feast. To this day it is as it was in the 
 time of Abraham: the sheikh presses the tra- 
 veller to stay till a kid of the goats has been 
 caught, slain, and cooked for his entertainment: 
 “1 pray thee, let us detain thee, until we shall 
 have made ready a kid for thee” (Judg. xiii. 
 15). The lambs are more generally kept for the 
 sake of their wool, and not slain until they have 
 yielded at least one fleece; while a calf is too’ 
 large and valuable to be slain except on some 
 
GOAT, SCAPE 
 
 very great occasion. ‘‘Thou never gavest me a 
 kid,’ complains the elder brother of the pro- 
 digal, “that I might make merry with my 
 friends: but as soon as this thy son was come, 
 ... thou hast killed for him the fatted ca/f” 
 (Luke xv. 29, 30). 
 
 The habits of the goat have afforded frequent 
 illustrations in the teaching of our Lord. In 
 the solemn description of the day of judgment, 
 “He shall separate them one from another, as 
 a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats” 
 (Matt. xxv. 22). The traveller can watch the 
 shepherd, when evening is coming on, carefully 
 picking his way on the hill-side, as he cheerily 
 ealls and encourages the sheep who follow him 
 quietly and in close order, on the beaten track 
 towards the well-known cave where they will 
 be folded till morning, secure from wolf or 
 jackal. Higher up on the mountain-side, in 
 looser order, gambolling and skipping from rock 
 to rock, yet still keeping fairly in line with the 
 sheep, come the goats: and then, when the cave 
 has been reached, they leap down from the rocks 
 above, as if simply to exhibit their agility. The 
 shepherd then tells, first the sheep into one side 
 of the cave, and next the goats into the other. 
 
 Goat’s hair being, with the exception of the 
 long silky fleeces of the Angora breed, much 
 coarser than wool, is only employed, like camel’s 
 hair, in the weaving of coarse fabrics. The 
 outer curtains of the Tabernacle in the wilder- 
 ness were of goat’s hair (Exod, xxxvi. 14). It 
 was also used for stuffing cushions (1 Sam. xix. 
 18). Goat-skins were and are still a very 
 important item in the economy of the East ; 
 for of these are made all the bottles that are 
 used for the conveyance of water. wine, oil, and 
 milk; earthenware jars being only for the 
 storage of wine in cellars, or for the daily supply 
 of water for domestic use. For a description of 
 the manufacture of goat-skin bottles, see 
 Borrue. [Η. B. 1.1 
 
 GOAT, SCAPE. ΓΑΤΟΝΈΜΕΝΥ, Day 0Ε.} 
 
 GOAT, WILD. Two Hebrew words are 
 thus rendered in A. V. and R. ἡ. (1) Dvn, 
 yeelin; τραγέλαφοι, ἔλαφοι; tbices: and fem. 
 TOW, ya'alah, A.V. “roe,” R. V. “doe; ” Arab. 
 SEs wal. The word is derived from the root 
 
 ὃν», “to climb;” and in the three passages 
 
 where it occurs in the plural—1 Sam. xxiv. 2, 
 Job xxxix. 1, and Ps. civ. 18—it is no doubt 
 vightly translated “wild goat.” The Trans- 
 lators seem to have rendered the feminine 
 form by “roe” or “ doe,” as being more euphu- 
 istic where it is used as a term of endearment. 
 The wild goat of North Arabia, Moab, and 
 Palestine is Capra beden, Wagn.=Capra sinai- 
 
 tica, Ehrenb., we beden, of the Arabs, and 
 
 was well known to the Israelites in the wilder- 
 ness and afterwards in their own land. It is 
 still abundant in Sinai and Petra, not uncom- 
 mon in Moab and the wilderness of Judaea, 
 and lingers in Central Palestine from Jericho to 
 Samaria. It was interesting to the present 
 writer to find this graceful creature near the 
 very fountain to which it gave name, Engedi, 
 “the fountain of the kid,” on the hills where it 
 BIBLE DICT.— VOL. I. 
 
 GOAT, WILD 1201 
 
 roamed of old, where David wandered to escape 
 from Saul: “Saul took three thousand chosen 
 men out of all Israel, and went to seek David 
 and his men upon the rocks of the wild goats ” 
 (1 Sam. xxiv. 2). We also obtained a young 
 one alive near Jericho, and found a horn 
 further north. In Moab we frequently saw 
 them, and obtained four specimens. We have 
 also found its teeth in the breccia of bone 
 caverns in Lebanon, where possibly it still exists, 
 The flesh is excellent eating, far superior to 
 that of the gazelle, and is probably the venison 
 which Esan went to hunt for his father in 
 the wilderness of Judaea. The late Rey. 
 F. W. Holland, who was well acquainted with 
 the ibex in Mount Sinai, writes: “ They are 
 frequently shot by the Bedawee, who charge 
 about six shillings for a full-grown one, and 
 from eighteenpence to two shillings for a live 
 young one. But they are very difficult to rear. 
 [ had three, but they all died; and one of the 
 monks told me that the year before he had 
 twenty, but had lost them all. The Beden 
 being very shy and wary, keeping to the moun- 
 tains, and also, from their colour, very difficult 
 to be seen, are not often detected by travellers, 
 and have therefore been supposed to be much 
 more scarce than they really are. The kids, 
 before they are able to accompany the old ones, 
 are concealed by the mother under some rock, 
 and apparently are only visited at night. I once 
 caught a little one which ran out from under a 
 rock, as I was climbing a mountain. The poor 
 little creature had evidently heard me coming, 
 and ran out, thinking I was its mother. The 
 
 Arab who was with me was very anxious to 
 wait near it till evening to shoot the old one, 
 and he said there must be another kid close by, 
 as two were always dropped at a birth; but we 
 failed to find a second. 
 shrill kind of whistle.” 
 
 Like other members of this family, the Beden 
 
 Their warning cry is a 
 
 Oopra beden, Wagn. 
 
 will drop from a great height and light upon 
 its powerful horns without injury. The Sinaitic 
 ibex is very distinct in appearance from the 
 
1202 GOATH 
 ibex of the Alps, of the Pyrenees, or of Candia, 
 and still more from the large Himalayan ibex. 
 It is smaller than the Alpine species, with longer 
 but much finer and narrower horns; and is of a 
 sandy. colour, lighter than any of its congeners. 
 2. IPN, *akhd ; τραγέλαφος ; tragelaphus ; A.V. 
 and R. V. “wild goat,” in Deut. xiv. 5, where 
 alone the word occurs. It appears to be con- 
 
 nected with the Arabic gs, ‘anak. There 
 
 have been various conjectures as to the animal 
 intended; some suggesting the Capreolus py- 
 gargus (Pall.), called Ahu by the Persians, from a 
 fancied similarity in the names. But it is doubt- 
 ful if this antelope was ever found so far West. 
 Others have proposed the Paseng, Capra aegra- 
 grus, Cuv., the wild goat of the Caucasus and 
 Taurid. [Ὁ is far more probable that the A. V. 
 is correct, and that the Capra beden is intended, 
 more especially since it does not otherwise occur 
 in the list in Deut., and yet must have been of all 
 the animals of the chase by far the most familiar 
 to Israel in the wilderness. [H. B. T.] 
 
 GO'ATH (73; the LXX. seem to have had 
 
 a different text, and read ἐξ ἐκλεκτῶν λίθων ; 
 Goatha), a place in the neighbourhood of Jeru- 
 salem, and named, in connexion with the hill 
 Gareb, only in Jer, xxxi. 39. The name (which 
 is accurately GoAH, as in R. V.) is derived by 
 Gesenius from NY3, “ to low,” as a cow (see, how- 
 ever, MV.1). ‘Tn accordance with this is the 
 rendering of the Targum, which has for Goah, 
 
 δὴν M3'3 = the heifer’s pool. The Syriac, 
 
 a. 0 
 on the other hand, has TAso:S, leram tha,“ to 
 the eminence.” Owing to the presence of the 
 letter Azn in Goath, the resemblance between it 
 and Golgotha does not exist in the original to 
 the same degree as in English. [GOLGOTHA.] 
 
 The Prophet mentions Goah as one of the 
 limits of the restored Jerusalem in the latter 
 times; and he appears to describe a circuit of 
 the city commencing at the tower of Hananeel, 
 and going round by north to west, south, and 
 east. In this case Goah would be either, follow- 
 ing the Syriac Version, the hill on which the 
 Russian convent stands, or, adopting the render- 
 ing of the Targum, a pool in or near the posi- 
 tion of the Birket Mamilla. [Gares.] Renan 
 (V. de J., p. 269, note 4) places Gareb and Goath 
 to the N.W. of Jerusalem. α.} [Weg 
 
 GOB (23, and 3)3, perhaps = a pit or 
 ditch; [v. 18] BA. Γέθ, [v. 19] B. Ῥόμ. A. 
 Γόβ; (o}), a place mentioned only in 2 Sam. 
 xxi. 18, 19, as the scene of two - encounters 
 between David’s warriors and the Philistines. 
 In the parallel account—of the first of these 
 only—in 1 Ch. xx. 4, the name is given as 
 GEZER ; and this, as well as the omission of any 
 locality for the second event, is supported by 
 Josephus (ἀπέ. vii. 12, § 2) and most modern 
 critics. On the other hand, the LXX. and 
 Syriac have Gath in the first case; and this 
 appears to be borne out by the account of a 
 third and subsequent fight, which all agree 
 happened at Gath (2 Sam. xxi. 20; 1 Ch. xx. 6), 
 and which, from the terms of the narrative, 
 seems to have occurred at the same place as 
 the others. The suggestion of Nob—which 
 
 GOLAN 
 
 ] Davidson (Hebr. Text) reports as in many MSS., 
 
 —is not admissible on account of the situation 
 of that place. LG.] [W.) 
 
 GOBLET (j3N; κρατήρ ; crater ; joined with 
 1D to express roundness, Cant, vii. 2; Gesen. 
 Thes. 22,739; “in plur. Ex. xxiv. ἡ δ 
 “ basons,” Is. xxii. 24; LXX. literally ayavid; 
 craterac; A. V. “cups ”), a circular vessel for 
 wine or other liquid. [Basty.]  [H. W. P.] 
 
 GOG. 1. (13; Γούγ; Gog.) A Reubenite 
 (1 Ch. v. 4); according to the Hebrew text, son 
 of Shemaiah. The LXX., however, have a dif- 
 ferent text throughout the passage. 2, [Macoa. } 
 9. In the Samarit. Codex and LXX. of Num. 
 xxiy. 7, Gog is substituted for Agag. 
 
 GO’LAN qh: ; Γαυλῶν), a city and a region. 
 
 The name of the region survives in the Arabie 
 on 
 ole Jauldn, the district east of Galilee. 
 The city—capital of the district—is placed by 
 A 
 Herr Schumacher at Sahem el Jauldn φῦ 
 σ΄ 
 
 Cat 
 pews 18 miles east of the lake, where the 
 
 inhabitants hold a tradition that the site was. 
 once the chief city of the region (Across the 
 Jordan, p. 92); it is not, however, within the 
 present limits of the Jaulan, though this is not 
 an important objection, especially as Golan was 
 in Bashan (Deut. iv. 43; cp. Josh. xx. 28). With 
 its suburbs it is assigned, in Josh. xxi. 27, to the 
 Levites. The site in question is a large village, 
 standing on the plateau 1400 feet above the 
 level of the Mediterranean. Ruins of a church 
 with sculptured crosses exist, and the place was 
 evidently inhabited about the 3rd to the 6th cen- 
 tury A.D. Eusebius speaks of Golan (TavAGv) as 
 a large village in Bashan in his own time (OS. 
 p- 255, 75) ; ep. Josephus ( Wars, i. 4, §§ 4 and 8). 
 The district of Golan, called Gaulanitis by Jose- 
 phus (Tavaaviris), was one of the four divisions. 
 into which ancient Bashan was divided in Roman 
 times; the others being Auranitis (/aurdn), 
 Trachonitis (7 Lejjah), and Batanaea (El But- 
 tein). Of these Gaulanitis was the western 
 region, bounded on the south by the river Iliero- 
 max, and extending to the Sea of Galilee and the 
 Jordan. On the east it adjoined the corn plains 
 of the Hauran; on the north it reached to the 
 region of Geshur (probably Ituraea) near Paneas 
 (Wars, iii. 3, § 5). Josephus includes it in the 
 kingdom of Og (Ant. iv. 5,§ 3; ep. 7, § 4, and 
 Wars, iii. 3,§ 1). Sogana and Seleucia are men- 
 tioned in connexion with this region, the former 
 in Upper Gaulanitis; while Gamala, near the 
 Sea of Galilee, was in Lower Gaulanitis ( Wars, iv. 
 1,§1). Seleucia was at the Merom Lake, as here 
 stated, and this passage shows the western and 
 northern extent of the district. Other cities 
 included in the limits were Hippos (Sisich), 
 Bethsaida Julias (probably ed Dikkeh, near et 
 Tell), and Aphek (1 Kings xx. 23-25), which 
 was the battle-ground of Benhadad, supposed to 
 be /ik, east of the Sea of Galilee. It is described 
 as in a mishor or “plain,” such as that of Gau- 
 lanitis. Hippos was one of the cities of the 
 Decapolis. The region thus embraced an area 
 of about 600 square miles. 
 
GOLAN 
 
 The modern Jaulain is now divided into three 
 regions,—/2sh Shdrah on the north, and further 
 south the “‘eastern” and the ‘western ” divisions. 
 They are separated by the glen of the Nuhr er 
 Rukhad, ἃ perennial stream flowing south to 
 join the Hieromax. The east limit of the Jaulan 
 isa parallel stream, 20 feet broad, called Nahr 
 Allan; both streams are spanned by ruined 
 bridges with pointed arches. The Jaulan is a 
 plateau, rising northwards, and about 1500 feet 
 above the Mediterranean on an average. The 
 formation is basaltic—a field of lava covering 
 the limestone, which appears in the ravines 
 which intersect it. It is well watered, with 
 fine springs and brooks, and cultivated round 
 the villages; but the soil is covered with 
 mounds of basalt rock, resembling ruined sites, 
 and it does not possess the fine red soil of the 
 Wauran, which is free from rocks. It is, how- 
 ever, an excellent pastoral region, especially to 
 the north, where the Anazeh Arabs feed nume- 
 yous flocks, and the grass is knee-deep in spring- 
 time. Remains of forests are found to the 
 south, and scattered terebinths on the plateau. 
 On the north a curious volcanic chain runs 
 parallel to the Jordan. It consists of the craters 
 of extinet volcanoes, presenting a very ragged 
 and picturesque sky-line, as seen from the valley. 
 These are called Shafat Kutta, and the southern- 
 most crater, called Yell Faris, rises 800 feet above 
 the plateau, which is here about 2,700 feet above 
 the Mediterranean. It commands a fine view 
 on all sides, to the rich corn plains of the Hauran 
 on the east, and over the Jordan valley to the 
 hills of Galilee on the west. 
 
 The northern district is mainly. pastoral, very 
 few inhabited places now remaining. The seat 
 of a Kaimakam is placed on the north, at the 
 decayed village of Kuneitrah, now possessing 
 only a few stone huts, but in Burckhardt’s time 
 a khan, a mosque, and walls. Three thousand 
 Circassians were here located about twelve years 
 ago by the Sultan, to cultivate the country. 
 This region was held by the Crusaders, and called 
 the Land of Soethe—a corruption of the Arabic 
 Suwdad, meaning the “ black land,” on account of 
 the basaltic soil. Moslem historians apply the 
 term more widely to the whole Jaulan (see Rey, 
 Colonies Franques, p. 434). The region south of 
 Esh Sharah, bordering on the Sea of Galilee, now 
 contains very few hamlets. Among them the 
 largest perhaps is Ahisfin, which is mentioned 
 in 900 4.D. by Yakiibi, and contains remains of 
 a fort. "λα (Aphek) also presents ruins, includ- 
 ing columns and Cufic texts. West of this are 
 the remains of the great fortress of Gamala, on 
 the cliffs above the lake (see Sir C. W. Wilson’s 
 account, Recovery of Jerusalem, p. 370). North- 
 east of Fik is the large village of el ‘Al, where 
 a life-sized statue of a goddess with a quiver is 
 preserved. This place was seized by the Franks 
 in 1105 A.D., and a fortress built (cp. Rey, 
 Col. Franques, p. 434), which still bears the 
 name “ Baldwin’s Tower,” in the great valley 
 2 miles to the north. Immediately above the 
 valley (Wady es Semakh) is a spur on the north 
 covered with dolmens. 
 
 The eastern region of the Jaulan contains 
 many ruined sites, and about a dozen inhabited 
 villages. The ruins and inscriptions, and re- 
 mains of a Roman road running east, prove that 
 it was fully populated in the 2nd century, and 
 
 GOLD 
 
 down to the 6th century A.D. It has, indeed, 
 never been entirely deserted. The highest point 
 in the plateau, towards the north, is at the 
 village Ghadir el Bustdn, 1912 feet above sea- 
 level. Three miles to the south, on the Roman 
 road, the hamlet ‘Ain Dakkdr consists of about 
 thirty huts, but there are remains of a Roman 
 town which appears to have had a temple. A 
 fine stream supplies the site. On the north is 
 a remarkable field of dolmens, such as occur in 
 Moab and Gilead. They are called by the 
 peasantry “ graves of the children of Israel,” 
 but appear more probably to, be prehistoric 
 remains of the original Amorite population. 
 The bridge over which the Roman road crosses, 
 at this point, was repaired in later times by the 
 Franks or the Arabs. A little further south are 
 the ruins of Kaukab, probably the Kokaba which 
 was inhabited in very early Christian times by 
 the Ebionites from Pella (Epiphanius, Haeres. 
 xxx. 2, 18; xl. 1). eit Akkdr, yet further 
 south, on the Nahr ’Allan, was also a Roman 
 town in a strong position, Sahem οἱ Jauldn, 
 further east (the supposed site of Golan), is a 
 large village with gardens and orchards and 
 good water, but falling into decay. The ruins 
 present sculptures like those of the Roman cities 
 of the Hauran, and carved crosses show that 
 these belong to Christian times. sh Shejerah, 
 further south again, has a population of about 
 450 souls, with Roman ruins. Μὲ Lkseir, on 
 the Hieromax, is the lowest inhabited place, 
 1145 feet above sea-level, with a fine perennial 
 spring. Three miles to the north-west, on the 
 same valley bank, is Beit Erry, which Seetzen 
 identified with the Bathura (Βαθύραλ) of Josephus, 
 where Herod settled a Jewish population under a 
 Jewish leader from Babylon (Ant. xvii. 2, § 2). 
 ‘Abdin, a hamlet of 150 souls, N.W. of the last, 
 contains a mosque with a tower, and a Greek 
 text has been found: there is a good spring, and 
 the land is well cultivated. <efr el Mu, on the 
 right bank of the Nahr er Rukkad, is a flourish- 
 ing village; among other remains is a curious 
 
 1203 
 
 _ bas-relief of Aesculapius, and what appears to be 
 
 a Roman altar. Herr Schumacher identifies this 
 site with the Alema (1 Mace. v. 26), where the 
 Jews were shut up till rescued by Judas Macca- 
 baeus: there is no improbability in this view. 
 North-east of this, near Seistin (now ruined), 
 there is another field of dolmens. These sites 
 are the principal ones of interest as yet described, 
 and it is thus clear that the Jaulan is not a 
 desert, but a very fertile pastoral region, which 
 has possessed a settled population from the 
 earliest times. A full account will be found in 
 Schumacher’s Across the Jordan, 1886, and further 
 information in the Rev. Selah Merrill’s Reports 
 (No. 4, American Palestine Exploration Society, 
 January 1877). The region is also noticed in 
 Burckhardt’s Travels in Syria. [Ὁ R. C.] 
 
 GOLD, the most valuable of metals, from 
 its colour, lustre, weight, ductility, and other 
 useful properties (Plin. H. Ν. xxxiii. 19). Hence 
 it is used as an emblem of purity (Job xxiii. 10) 
 and nobility (Lam. iv. 1). There are six Hebrew 
 words used to denote it, and four of them occur 
 in Job xxviii. 15, 16,17. These are— 
 
 1.231, the common name, connected with 
 AN¥ (to be yellow), as geld, from gel, yellow. 
 Various epithets are applied to it: as, “fine” 
 
 4H 2 
 
 a 
 
1204 GOLD 
 
 (2 Ch. iii. 5), “refined”? (1 Ch. xxviii. 18), 
 “pure” (Ex. xxv. 11). In opposition to these, 
 
 “beaten gold” coin’ “) is probably mixed 
 gold; LXX. ἐλατός ; used of Solomon’s shields 
 (1 K.’x. 16). 
 
 2. NID (κειμήλιον), treasured, 1.9. fine gold 
 (1 K. vi. 20, vii. 49, &c.), Many names of pre- 
 cious substances in Hebrew come from roots 
 signifying concealment, as })}OO1 (Gen. xliii. 25, 
 A.V. “ treasure ᾽)). 
 
 3. TB, pure or native gold (Job xxviii. 17; 
 Cant. v. 15; probably from 118, to separate). 
 
 Rosenmiiller (Aléerthumsk. iv. p. 49) makes it 
 come from a Syriac root meaning solid or massy ; 
 
 but ὝΠΟ (2 Ch. ix. 17) corresponds to Did 
 
 ( K. x. 18). The LXX. render it by λίθος 
 τίμιος, χρυσίον ἄπυρον (Is. xiii. 12; Theodot. 
 timepOov: cp. Thue. ii. 13; Plin. xxxiii. 19, 
 obrussa). In Ps. cxix. 127, the LXX. render it 
 τοπάζιον (A. V. “fine gold”); but Schleusner 
 happily conjectures τὸ πάζιον, the Hebrew word 
 being adopted to avoid the repetition of χρυσός 
 (Thes. s.v. τόπαζ; Hesych. s. v. πάζιον). 
 
 4. I¥a, gold earth, or a mass of raw ore (Job 
 
 xxii. 24, ἄπυρον, A.V. “ gold,” R.V. “treasure ”). 
 The poetical names for gold are :— 
 1. ONS (also implying something concealed) ; 
 
 LXX. χρυσίον ; and in Is. xiii. 12, λίθος πολυ- 
 τελής. In Job xxxvii. 22, it is rendered in A.V. 
 “fair weather,” R. V. ‘golden splendour ;” 
 LXX. νέφη χρυσαυγοῦντα. (Cp. Zech. iv. 12.) 
 
 2. yn =“dug out” (Prov. vili. 10), a 
 general name, which has become special, Ps. 
 Ixviii. 13 (A. V. and R. V. “ yellow gold”’), where 
 it cannot mean gems, as some suppose (Bochart, 
 Hieroz. ii. 9). Michaelis connects the word 
 charas with the Greek χρυσός. 
 
 Gold was known from the very earliest times 
 (Gen. ii. 11). Pliny attributes the discovery of 
 it (at Mount Pangaeus), and the art of working 
 it, to Cadmus (HZ. N. vii. 57); and his statement 
 is adopted by Clemens Alexandrinus (Strom. 
 i. 363, ed. Pott.). It was at first chiefly used 
 for ornaments, &c. (Gen. xxiv. 22); and although 
 Abraham is said to have been “very rich in 
 cattle, in silver, and in gold” (Gen. xiii. 2), yet 
 no mention of it, as used in purchases, is made 
 till after his return from Egypt. Coined money 
 was not known to the ancients (6.7. Hom. 77. 
 vii. 473) till a comparatively late period ; and 
 on the Egyptian tombs gold is represented as 
 being weighed in rings for commercial purposes 
 (cp. Gen. xliii, 21). No coins are found in the 
 ruins of Egypt or Assyria (Layard’s Vin. ii. 418). 
 “Even so late as the time of David gold was 
 not used as a standard of value, but was con- 
 sidered merely as a very precious article of 
 commerce, and was weighed like other articles ” 
 Gahn, Arch, Bibl. § 115, 1 Ch. xxi. 25). 
 
 Gold was extremely abundant in ancient times 
 (1 Ch. xxii. 14; 2 Ch. i. 15, ix. 9; Nah. ii. 9; 
 Dan. iii. 1); but this did not depreciate its 
 value, because of the enormous quantities con- 
 sumed by the wealthy in furniture, ἕο. (1K. 
 vi. 22, x. passim; Cant. iii. 9, 10; Esth. i. 6; 
 Jer. x. 9: cp. Hom. Od. xix.55; Herod. ix. 82). 
 Probably, too, the art of gilding was known 
 extensively, being applied even to the battle- 
 
 GOLGOTHA 
 
 | ments of a city (Herod. i. 98 ; and other autho- 
 
 rities quoted by Layard, ii. 264). 
 
 The chief countries mentioned as producing 
 gold are Arabia, Sheba, and Ophir (1 K. ix. 28, 
 x. 1; Job xxviii. 16: in Job xxii. 24, the word 
 Ophir is used for gold). Gold is not found in 
 Arabia now (Niebuhr’s Travels, p. 141), but it 
 used to be (Artemidor. ap. Strab. xvi. 3, 18, 
 where he speaks of an Arabian river ψῆγμα 
 χρυσοῦ καταφέρων). Diodorus also says that it 
 was found there native (ἄπυρον) in good-sized 
 nuggets (BwAdpia). Some suppose that Ophir 
 was an Arabian port to which gold was brought 
 (cp. 2 Ch. ii. 7, ix. 10). Other gold-bearing 
 countries were Uphaz (Jer. x. 9; Dan. x. 5) 
 and Parvaim (2 Ch. iii. 6). 
 
 Metallurgic processes are mentioned in Ps. 
 Ixvi. 10, Proy. xvii. 3, xxvii. 21; and in Is. 
 xlvi. 6, the trade of goldsmith (cp. Judg. xvii. 4, 
 A) is alluded to in connexion with the over- 
 
 laying of idols with gold-leaf (Rosenmiiller’s 
 Minerals of Script. pp. 46-51). [HANDICRAFT.] 
 [F. W. F.] 
 
 GOLDSMITH. [HanpIcRAFT.] 
 
 GOL'GOTHA (Γολγοθᾶ; Golgotha), the 
 Hebrew name of the spot at which our Lord 
 was crucified (Matt. xxvii. 33; Mark xv. 22; 
 John xix. 17). By these three Evangelists it is 
 interpreted to mean the “ place of a skull.” St. 
 Luke, in accordance with his practice in other 
 cases (cp. Gabbatha, Gethsemane, &c.), omits 
 the Hebrew term and gives only its Greek 
 equivalent, κρανίον. The word Calvary, which 
 in Luke xxiii. 33 is retained in the A. V. from 
 the Vulgate, as the rendering of κρανίον, ob- 
 scures the statement of St. Luke, whose words 
 are really as in R. V.—‘‘the place which is 
 called ‘the skull’”—not, as in the other 
 Gospels, κρανίου, “of a skull;” thus employing 
 the Greek term exactly as they do the Hebrew 
 one. This Hebrew, or rather Chaldee, term, 
 
 was doubtless ΜΡ δ, Gulgolta, in pure He- 
 
 brew ndids (see MV.1!!), applied to the skull 
 
 on account of its round globular form, that 
 being the idea at the root of the word. 
 
 Two explanations of the name are given: (1) 
 that it was a spot where executions ordinarily 
 took place, and therefore abounded in skulls; 
 but according to the Jewish law these must 
 have been buried, and therefore were no more 
 likely to confer a name on the spot than any 
 other part of the skeleton. In this case too the 
 Greek should be τόπος κρανίων, “of skulls,” 
 instead of κρανίου, “of a skull,” still less “the 
 skull” as in the Hebrew, and in the Greek of 
 St. Luke. Or (2) it may come from the look or 
 form of the spot itself, bald, round, and skull-like 
 (the French Chawmont : Renan, V. de J. p. 269), 
 and therefore a mound or hillock, in accordance 
 with the common phrase —for which there is no 
 direct authority—“ Mount Calvary.”* Which- 
 ever of these is the correct explanation—and 
 
 there is apparently no means of deciding with 
 
 a The Bordeaux Pilgrim is the first to call it Monti- 
 culus Golgotha (Itin. Hieros.); and it is possible that 
 the term ‘‘ Mount ” criginated in the artificial isolation 
 of the rock at “Calvary” in the Church of the Holy 
 Sepulchre (Hayter Lewis, Churches of Constantine at 
 Jerusalem, p. xiv. note). 
 
GOLIATH 
 
 certainty—Golgotha seems to have been a known 
 spot. ‘This is to be gathered from the way in 
 which it is mentioned in the Gospels, each except 
 St. Matthew® having the definite article—* the 
 place Golgotha”—“ the place which is called 
 a skull "—“the place (A. V. omits the article) 
 called of, or after, a skull.” It was “ outside the 
 gate,” ἔξω τῆς πύλης (Heb. xiii. 12: ep. Matt. 
 xxviii, 11; Lev. xxiv. 14; Num. xv. 35, 36; Deut. 
 xvii. 5), but close to the city, ἐγγὺς τῆς 
 πόλεως (John xix. 20); apparently near a 
 thoroughfare on which there were passers-by 
 (Matt. xxvii. 39; Mark xy. 29). This road or 
 path led out of the “ country ’’* (ἀγρός : Mark 
 xv. 21; Luke xxiii. 26). It was visible “ from 
 afar” (Mark xy. 40), or “ afar off” (Luke xxiii, 
 49); and it may perhaps be inferred from a 
 comparison of Matt. xxvii. 41, Mark xv. 29, with 
 John xviii. 28, that it was within sight of the 
 Temple. It was probably the ordinary spot for 
 executions. Why should it have been otherwise ὃ 
 To those at least who carried the sentence into 
 effect, Christ was but an ordinary criminal ; and 
 there is not a word to indicate that the soldiers 
 in “leading Him away ” went to any other than 
 the usual place for what must have been a 
 common operation. However, in the place (ἐν 
 τῷ ToT@) itself—at the very spot—was a garden 
 or orchard (κῆπος) within which was a new 
 tomb, “ wherein was never man yet Jaid.” 
 
 These are all the indications of the nature and 
 situation of Golgotha which present themselves 
 in the N. T. Its locality in regard to Jerusalem 
 is fully examined in the description of the city. 
 (JERUSALEM. ] 
 
 A tradition at one time prevailed that Adam 
 was buried on Golgotha, that from his skull it 
 derived its name, and that at the Crucifixion 
 the drops of Christ’s blood fell on the skull and 
 raised Adam to life, whereby the ancient pro- 
 phecy quoted by St. Paul in Ephes. vy. 14 received 
 its fulfilment—“ Awake thou Adam that sleep- 
 est,” —so the old Versions appear to have run— 
 “and arise trom the dead, for Christ shall touch 
 thee” --(ἐπιψαύσει for ἐπιφαύσει). See Jerome, 
 Comm, on Matth. xxvii. 33, and the quotation in 
 
 ' 
 
 GOLIATH 1205 
 
 with m3, “to wander.” Simonis, however, de- 
 rives it from an Arabic word meaning “ stout” 
 (Ges. Thes.s. v.). His height was “six cubits aud 
 a span,” which, taking the «ubit at 21 inches, 
 would make him 104 feet hish. But the LXX. 
 and Josephus read “four cubits and a span ” 
 (1 Sam. xvii. 4; Joseph, Ant. vi. 9, 8.1). This 
 will make him about the same size as the royal 
 champion slain by Antimenidas, brother of 
 Alcaeus (ἀπολείποντα μίαν μόνον παχέων ἀπὸ 
 πέμπων, ap, Strab. xiii. p. 617, with Miiller’s 
 emendation). Even on this computation Goliath 
 would be, as Josephus calls him, ἀνὴρ παμμε- 
 γεθέστατοε---ἃ truly enormous man. 
 
 The circumstances of the combat are in all 
 respects Homeric; free from any of the puerile 
 legends which Oriental imagination subsequently 
 introduced into it,—as for instance that the 
 stones used by David called out to him from the 
 brook, “By our means you shall slay the 
 giant,” &c. (Hottinger, Hist. Orient. i. 3, 
 p- 111 sq.; D’Herbelot, 5. v. Gialut), ‘The 
 fancies of the Rabbis are yet more extraordinary. 
 After the victory David cut off Goliath’s head 
 (1 Sam. xvii. 51; cp. Herod. iv. 6; Xenoph. 
 Anab. v. 4, §17: Niebuhr mentions a similar 
 custom among the Arabs, Descr.; Winer, s. v.), 
 which he brought to Jerusalem (probably after 
 his accession to the throne, Ewald, Gesch. iii. 94), 
 while he hung the armour in his tent. 
 
 The scene of this famous combat was the Val- 
 ley of the Terebinth, between Shochoh and Aze- 
 kah, probably among the western passes of Ben= 
 jamin, although a confused modern tradition has 
 given the name of ‘Ain Jahlood (spring of Goliath) 
 to the spring of Harod, or “trembling” (Stanley, 
 p- 342; Judg. vii. 1). (ELAH, VALLEY oF.] 
 
 In 2 Sam. xxi. 19, we tind that another Goliath 
 of Gath, of whom it is also said that “ the staff 
 of his spear was like a weaver’s beam,” was 
 slain by Elhanan, also a Bethlehemite. St. 
 Jerome (Quaest. Hebr. ad loc.) makes the un- 
 likely conjecture that Elhanan was another name 
 of David. The A. VY. here interpolates the 
 words “the brother of,” from 1 Ch. xx. 5, 
 where this giant is called “ Lahmi.” This will 
 
 Reland, Pal. p. 860; also Epiphanius, Adv. Haer. | be found fully examined under ELHANAN. 
 
 xlvi. 5; Saewulf, in Zarly 7ravellers, p. 39; and 
 the quotations from Basil, &c. in Mislin (ii. 304, 
 305). The skull commonly introduced in early 
 pictures of the Crucifixion refers to this. 
 
 A connexion has been supposed to exist be- 
 tween GOATH and Golgotha, but at the best this 
 is mere conjecture, and there is not in ‘the 
 original the same similarity between the two 
 
 names—n}) and ssnb1$3—which exists in their 
 English or Latin garb, and which probably 
 occasioned the suggestion. [G.] [W.] 
 
 GOLIATH (3 ; Γολιάθ ; Goliah), a famous 
 giant of Gath, who “morning and evening for 
 forty days” defied the armies of Israel (1 Sam. 
 xvii.). He was possibly descended from the old 
 Rephaim, of whom a scattered remnant took 
 refuge with the Philistines after their dispersion 
 by the Ammonites (Deut. ii. 20, 21; 2 Sam. 
 xxi. 22). Some trace of this condition may be 
 preserved in the giant’s name, if it be connected 
 
 b St. Matthew, too, has the article in B. 
 ¢ But the Vulgate has de villa. 
 
 In the title of the Psalm added to the Psalter 
 in the LXX. we find τῷ Δαύιδ πρὸς τὸν Γολιάδ ; 
 and although the allusions are vague, it is 
 perhaps possible that this Psalm may have been 
 written after the victory. This Psalm is given 
 at length under Davin, p. 724. It is strange 
 that we find no more definite allusions to this 
 combat in Hebrew poetry ; but it is the opinion 
 of some that the song now attributed to Hannah 
 (1 Sam. ii. 1-10) was originally written in com- 
 memoration of David’s triumph on this occasion 
 (Thenius, Die Biicher Sam. p. 8: ep. Bertholdt, 
 Finl. iii. 915; Ewald, Poet. Biicher des A. B. 
 i. 111. Cp. Driver, Notes on the Heb. Text of 
 the BB. of Sam., p. 21). 
 
 By the Mohammedans Saul and Goliath are 
 called Talat and G’alit (see Koran), perhaps 
 for the sake of the homoioteleuton, of which 
 they are so fond (Hottinger, Hist. Orient. i. 3, 
 p- 28). Abulfeda mentions a Canaanite king 
 of the name G’alut (Hist. Anteislam. p. 176, 
 in Winer, 8. v.); and, according to Ahmed al 
 Fassi, Gialout was a dynastic name of the old 
 giant - chiefs (D’Herbelot, 5. νυν. Falasthin). 
 (GIANTS. ] [F. W. F.] 
 
1306 | GOMER 
 
 GO'MER (133; Γαμέρ; Gomer.) 1. The 
 son of Japheth, and the father of Ashkenaz, 
 Riphath, and Togarmah (Gen. x. 2, 3). His 
 name is subsequertly noticed but once (Ezek. 
 xxxvili. 6; Touwép)3as an ally or subject of the 
 Scythian king Gog. Heis generally recognised 
 as the progenitor of the early Cimmerians, 
 though no longer as that of the later Cimbri 
 and the other. branches of the Celtic family, 
 and of the modern Gael and Cymry (Delitzsch 
 [1887] on Gen. /. c.). The Cimmerians, when 
 first known to us, occupied the Tauric Cher- 
 sonese, where they left traces of their presence 
 in the ancient names, Cimmerian Bosporus, 
 Cimmerian Isthmus, Mount Cimmerium, the 
 district Cimmeria, and particularly the Cim- 
 merian walls (Her. iv. 12, 45, 100; Aesch. 
 Prom. Vinct. 729), and in the modern name 
 Crimea. They forsook this abode under the 
 pressure of the Scythian tribes, and during the 
 early part of the 7th century B.c. they poured 
 over the western part of Asia Minor, committing 
 immense devastation, and defying for more than 
 half a century the power of the Lydian kings. 
 They were finally expelled by Alyattes, with 
 the exception of a few, who settled at Sinope 
 and Antandrus. It was about the same period 
 
 that Ezekiel noticed them (Assyr. Gimir), as | 
 
 acting in conjunction with Armenia (Togarmah) 
 and Magog (Scythia). The connexion between 
 Gomer and Armenia is supported by the tradi- 
 tion, preserved by Moses of Chorene (i. 11), that 
 Gamir was the ancestor of the Haichian kings 
 of the latter country. After the expulsion of 
 the Cimmerians from Asia Minor, their name 
 
 alone survived in a few geographical relics. | 
 
 Various other conjectures have been hazarded 
 on the subject: Bochart (Phaley, iii. 81) identi- 
 fies the name on etymological grounds with 
 Phrygia; Wahl (Asien, i. 274) and Lagarde 
 (Armen. Send. § 448) propose Cappadocia, the 
 Armenian name of which was Gamir (see MV.!, 
 Dillmann,? and Delitzsch on Gen. /. c.). 
 
 2. The daughter of Diblaim, and concubine of 
 Hosea (i. 3). [W. L. B.) ΠῚ 
 
 GOMOR’RAH (non, ‘Amorah, perhaps= 
 submersion, from TY, an unused root; in 
 
 Arabic yee ghamar, is “to overwkeim with 
 
 water ;”’ Γομόῤῥα; Gomorria), one of the five 
 “cities of the plain,” or “vale of Siddim,” 
 that under their respective kings joined battle 
 there with Chedorlaomer (Gen. xiv. 2-8) and 
 his allies, by whom they were discomfited till 
 Abram came tothe rescue. Four out of the five 
 were afterwards destroyed by the Lord with fire 
 from heaven (Gen. xix. 23-29). One of them 
 only, Zoar or Bela, which was its original name, 
 was spared at the request of Lot, in order that 
 he might take refuge there. Ofthese Gomorrah 
 seems to have been only second to Sodom in 
 importance, as well as in the wickedness that 
 led to their overthrow. What that atrocity was 
 may be gathered from Gen. xix. 4-8. Their 
 miserable fate is held up as a warning to the 
 children of Israel (Deut. xxix. 23); as a pre- 
 cedent for the destruction of Babylon (ls. xiii. 
 19 and Jer. 1. 40), of Edom (Jer. xlix. 18), of 
 Moab (Zeph. ii. 9), and even of Israel (Amos iv. 
 11). By St. Peter in the N. T., and by St. Jude 
 
 GOMORRAH 
 
 (2 Pet. ii. 6; Jude, vv. 4-7), it is made “an 
 ensample unto those that after should live un- 
 godly,” or “deny Christ.” Similarly their 
 wickedness rings as a proverb throughout the 
 prophecies (e.g. Deut. xxxii. 32; Is. i. 9, 10; 
 Jer. xxiii. 14; cp. Rom. ix. 29). Jerusalem 
 herself is there unequivocally called Sodom, and 
 her people Gomorrah, for their enormities ; just 
 in the same way that the corruptions of the 
 Church of Rome have caused her to be called 
 Babylon. On the other hand, according to the 
 N. T., there is a sin which exceeds even that of 
 Sodom and Gomorrah; that, namely, of which 
 Tyre and Sidon, Capernaum, Chorazin, and Beth- 
 saida were guilty, when they “repented not,” 
 in spite of ‘the mighty works” which they 
 had witnessed (Matt. x. 15); and St. Mark has 
 ranged under the same category all those who 
 would not receive the preaching of the Apostles 
 (vi. 11). 
 
 Gomorrah is first mentioned, with Sodom, 
 Admah, and Zeboiim, as belonging to the 
 Canaanites (Gen. x. 19); and next in connexion 
 with the separation of Abram and Lot (Gen. xiii. 
 10). Its approximate geographical position is 
 clear if no evidence but that of the earliest 
 records contained in the Bible be accepted. 
 The “cities of the plain” were in the Ciccar, or 
 plain of Jordan, and were eastward of and 
 visible from the heights between Bethel and Ai 
 (Gen. xiii. 10-12), They must therefore have 
 been situated in the Jordan valley, near the 
 northern end of the Dead Sea (PL’FQy. Stat. 
 1859-70, p. 125). A careful examination, by ex- 
 perienced geologists, of the country between the 
 Dead Sea and the Gulf of ‘Akabah, has shown 
 that the opinion long current, that the overthrow 
 of the cities was caused by the convulsion which 
 formed the Dead Sea, and that they were sub- 
 merged in the lake, is untenable. The country 
 must have assumed its present form long before 
 the advent of man upon the earth, and during the 
 Pluvial period the Jordan valley was filled by a 
 great lake, whose waters once stood about 1400 ft. 
 above the present surface of the Dead Sea, and 
 gradually subsided until they reached the level 
 at which they now stand,—1292 ft. below the 
 Mediterranean (Hull, PLF. Geological Me- 
 moir, and Mount Seir; Lartet, Essai sur la Geéo- 
 logie de la Palestine). The expression, “the vale 
 of Siddim (the same is the Salt Sea)” (Gen. xiv. 
 3), would almost seem to indicate a knowledge 
 of the former existence of the lake (cp. Jos. 
 Ant. i. 9), though it must have shrunk very 
 nearly to its existing dimensions lone before 
 Sodom and Gomorrah were overthrown. There 
 can have been no permanent rise in the level of 
 the water, such as that implied by the sub- 
 mergence of the cities, and the presence of water 
 is not mentioned in the description of the 
 catastrophe (Gen. xix.). The later passages 
 speak of the district in which the cities were 
 situated as being still visible, and this agrees 
 with the statement of Josephus (/. J.iv. 8, § 4). 
 Their destruction is expressly attributed to the 
 brimstone and fire rained upon them from heaven 
 (Gen. xix. 24; see also Deut. xxix. 23, and 
 Zeph. ii. 9; also St. Peter and St. Jude before 
 cited). And St. Jerome (0 8.2 p. 148, 31) says of 
 Sodom, “ civitas impiorum divino igne consumpta 
 juxta mare mortuum.” The whole subject is 
 ably handled by Cellarius (ap. Ugol. Thesaur. vii. 
 
GOMORRAH 
 
 pp. deexxxix.-lxxviii.), though it is not always 
 necessary to agree with his conclusions. [Sopom.] 
 
 There is, perhaps, more to be said for the 
 view, that the cities were at the south end of 
 the Dead Sea. A town called Zoar is placed in 
 this direction by Josephus (B. J. iv. 8, § 4) and 
 by Eusebius (OS.* p. 261, 36; p. 299, 85); and 
 the latter states that, in his time, it had a 
 Roman garrison, and was to the south of 
 Nimrim (0.5.2 p. 231, 13; p. 284, 32). The 
 Arab geographers also place Sughar, or Zughar, 
 _—‘the city of Lot,” at the south end of the 
 Dead Sea (Le Strange, Pal. under the Moslems, 
 pp- 286-292); and this place, the Seyer οἱ 
 the historians of the Crusades, is probably 
 identical with the Zoar of Eusebius. There 
 is, however, no necessary identity between 
 the Zoar of Josephus, Jerome, the Arab geo- 
 eraphers, and the Crusaders, and the Zoar of 
 Lot; and there are good grounds for believing 
 that they were not the same place [Zoar]. The 
 latest exponent of the above theory, M. Clermont- 
 Ganneau, places Sodom at Usdum; Zoar in the 
 Ghor es-Safi; and Gomorrah at ‘Ain Ghamr, in 
 the ‘Arabah about 20 leagues south of the Dead 
 Sea (PEF Qy. Stat. 1886, 19-21: cp. Baedeker- 
 Socin, Hbk. p. 288, Eng. ed.; Sepp, i. 813 sq.). 
 The expression “ plain of Jordan,” so frequently 
 used to indicate the position of Gomorrah and its 
 companion cities, is quite incompatible with the 
 view that they were at the south end of the 
 Dead Sea; nor was this view generally adopted 
 by the earlier pilyrims to Palestine. S. Siivia 
 (circ. A.D. 385) places Segor (Zoar) and “ the land 
 of the Sodomites” close to Mount Nebo, and 
 says that Segor, which then had a Bishop, was 
 6 miles from the Dead Sea (Per. ad L. S. pp. 41, 
 42). Antoninus (circ. 570) states that Segor 
 was near the spot, 8 miles from Jordan, where 
 Moses died, and that the Jordan fell into the 
 Dead Sea below Sodom and Gomorrah (De ZL. 5. 
 x., xxiv.); and Theodosius (circ. 530) connects 
 the two cities, and the pillar of Lot’s wife, with 
 the point at which the Jordan enters the lake 
 (De Situ T. 8. xviii., xix.). Arculf also speaks 
 of the Southern Zoar as “Z. of Arabia,” as if it 
 were distinct from the Z. of Lot (De Loc. 
 Sanct. ii. 16). Amongst mediaeval pilgrims 
 Thietmar (/ter ad T. 8.) places the cities east 
 of Jordan. 
 
 Sir G. Grove appears to have been the first in 
 modern times to point out [Sopom] that, ac- 
 cording to the terms of the ancient history, the 
 cities stood at the north end of the Dead Sea; 
 and this view has been very generally accepted 
 in this country and America (Hull, J/ount Seir, 
 p- 165; Dawson, Egypt and Syria, pp. 110-114; 
 Conder, Heth and Moab, pp. 149, 150; Geikie, 
 H. L, and the Bible, ii. 119; Merrill, Last of 
 Jordan, pp. 232 sq.; Harper, Bible and Modern 
 Discovery, pp. 20 sq.). It seems clear, from 
 the short time that it took Lot to reach Zoar 
 (Gen. xix. 15, 23), that the cities were east 
 of Jordan, and probably not far from the foot 
 of the Moabite hills. Here at any rate are 
 an old site called Tell esh-Shdghir, which 
 meets the requirements of Zoar and perhaps 
 retains a trace of its name (PELF. Mem. East. 
 Pal. p. 239); a Kh. Bel‘ath, possibly the 
 “Bala” of Eusebius (ib. p. 147); and a Wady 
 ‘Amr, close to the Dead Sea, in a very probable 
 site for Gomorrah (7d. p. 252). It may be inferred 
 
 1207 
 
 from Gen. xix. 27, 28, that the, overthrow of 
 the cities was not accompanied by an earthquake 
 or other violent convulsion of nature, and an 
 interesting yet simple explanation of the manner 
 in which they were destroyed has been suggested 
 by Sir J. W. Dawson. He supposes that, at 
 the time referred to, accumulations of inflam- 
 mable gas and petroleum existed below the 
 plain of Siddim, and that the escape of these 
 through the opening of a fissure along the old 
 line οὐ fault might have produced the effects 
 described—namely, a pillar of smoke rising up 
 to heaven, burning bitumen and sulphur raining 
 on the doomed cities, and fire spreading over the 
 ground. The attendant phenomenon of the 
 evolution of saline waters, implied in the de- 
 struction of Lot’s wife, would be a natural 
 accompaniment, as water is always discharged 
 in such eruptions; and in this case it would be 
 a brine thick with mud, and fitted to encrust 
 and cover any object reached by it (Zgypt and 
 Syria, p. 112). [E. 8S. Ff] [W.] 
 
 GOMO’RRHA, the manner in which the 
 name GOMORRAH is spelt in the E. V. of the 
 Apocryphal books and the N. Testament, follow- 
 ing the Greek form of the word, Γομόῤῥα 
 (2 Esd. ii. 8; Matt. x. 15; Mark vi. 11; Rom. 
 ix. 29; Jude 7; 2 Let. ii. 6). 
 
 GOPHER WOOD. Only once in Gen. vi. 14. 
 The Heb. 1D XD, “trees of Gopher,” does not 
 occur in the cognate dialects. The A. V. and 
 Rk. V. have made no attempt at translation ; 
 Coverdale renders “ Pyne trees ; ” the LXX. (ξύλα 
 τετράγωνα) and Vulgate (ligna laevigata)— 
 elicited by metathesis of 1 and ἢ (751=4)3), 
 the former having reference to square blocks, cut 
 by the axe, the latter to planks smoothed by the 
 plane—have not found much favour with modern 
 commentators. 
 
 The conjectures of cedar (Ibn Ezra, Onk., 
 Jonath. and Rabbins generally), wood most proper 
 to float (Kimchi), the Greek κεδρελάτη (Jun., 
 Tremell., Buxt.), pine (Avenar., Munst.), tur- 
 pentine (Castalio), are little better than gratui- 
 tous. The rendering cedar has been defended by 
 Pelletier, who refers to the great abundance 
 of this tree in Asia, and the durability of its 
 timber. 
 
 The Mohammedan equivalent is sag, by which 
 Herbelot understands the Indian plane-tree. 
 Two principal conjectures, however, have been 
 proposed :—1. By Is. Vossius (Diss. de LXX. 
 Interp. c. 12) that ἼΒ3 = IHS, resin; whence 
 ‘] °SD, meaning any trees of the resinous kind, 
 such as pine, fir, &c. 2. By Fuller (Miscell. 
 Sac. iv. 5), Bochart (Phaleg, i. 4), Celsius 
 (HMierobot. pt. i. p. 328), Hass (Hntdeckungen, 
 pt. ii. p. 78), that Gopher is cypress, in favour 
 of which opinion (adopted by Ges. Lex.) they 
 adduce the similarity in sound of gopher and 
 cypress (κυπάρ = γοφέρ), the suitability of the 
 cypress for ship-building, and the fact that 
 this tree abounded in Babylonia, and more 
 particularly in Adiabene, where it supplied 
 Alexander with timber for a whole fleet (Arrian. 
 vii. 161, ed. Steph.). 
 
 A tradition is mentioned in Eutychius (Annals, 
 p. 34) to the effect that the Ark was made of 
 the wood Sadj, by which is probably meant not 
 the ebony, but the Juniperus oxycedrus, a species 
 
 GOPHER WOOL 
 
1208 GORGIAS 
 
 of cypress (ochart and Cels.; Rosenmiiller, 
 Schol. ad Gen. vi. 14, and Alterthumsk. vol. iv. 
 pt. 1). (T. E. B.] 
 
 GOR’GIAS (Γοργίας), a general in the ser- 
 vice of Antiochus Epiphanes (1 Mace. iii. 38, 
 ἀνὴρ δυνατὸς τῶν φίλων τοῦ βασιλέος; cp. 2 
 Mace. viii. 9), who was appointed by his regent 
 Lysias to a command in the expedition against 
 Judaea B.c. 166, in which he was defeated by 
 Judas Maccabaeus with great loss (1 Macc. iv. 
 1 sq.). At a later time (B.c. 164) he held a 
 garrison in Jamnia, and defeated the forces of 
 Joseph and Azarias, who attacked him contrary 
 to the orders of Judas (1 Macc. vy. 56 sq.; 
 Joseph. Ant. xii. 8, § 6; 2 Macc. xii. 32). The 
 account of Gorgias in 2 Macc. is very obscure. 
 He is represented there as acting in a military 
 capacity (2 Macc. x. 14, στρατηγὸς τῶν τό- 
 πων [ὃ], hardly of Coele-Syria, as Grimm [l. c.] 
 takes it), apparently in concert with the Idu- 
 maeans ; and afterwards he is described, accord- 
 ing to the present text, as “ governor of Idumea” 
 (2 Mace. xii. 32; ep. Zéckler), though it is pos- 
 sible (Grotius, Grimm, /. 6.) that the reading is an 
 error for “ governor of Jamnia” (E. V. marg. 
 Joseph. Ant. xii. 8, § 6,6 τῆς Ἴαμνει... στρα 
 τη γός). The hostility of the Jens towards him 
 is described in strong terms (2 Mace. xii. 35, τὸν 
 κατάρατον, E. V. “that cursed man”); and 
 while his success is only noticed in passing, his 
 defeat and flight are given in detail, though con- 
 fusedly (2 Mace. xii. 34-38 ; cp. Joseph. /. c.). 
 
 The name itself was borne by one of Alex- 
 ander’s generals, and occurs at later times among 
 the eastern Greeks. [5 Νὴ 
 
 GORTY'NA (Γόρτυναι ; in.classical writers, 
 Γόρτυνα or Γορτύν), a city of Crete, and in 
 ancient times its most important city, next to 
 Cnossus. The only direct Biblical interest of Gor- 
 tyna is in the fact that it appears from 1 Macc. 
 xv. 23 to have contained Jewish residents. 
 (CretEe.] The circumstance alluded to in this 
 passage took place in the reign of Ptolemy Phy- 
 secon; and it is possible that the Jews had in- 
 creased in Crete during the reign of his prede- 
 cessor Ptolemy Philometor, who received many 
 of them into Egypt, and who also rebuilt some 
 parts of Gortyna (Strabo, x. p. 478). This city 
 was nearly half-way between the eastern and 
 western extremities of the island; and it is 
 worth while to notice that it was near Fair 
 Havens; so that St. Paul may possibly have 
 preached the Gospel there, when on his voyage 
 to Rome (Acts xxvii. 8, 9). Gortyna seems to 
 have been the capital of the island under the 
 Romans. For the remains on the old site and 
 in the neighbourhood, see the Museum of Classi- 
 cal Antiquities, ii. 277-286, and Spratt, Trave’s 
 and Researches in Crete. [J. 5. H.] [W.] 
 
 GOSHEN. 1. qua ; Γεσέμ, Γεσὲμ ᾿Αραβίας 
 Γεσέν ; Gessen; ΓΕΟΕΜ), a word of uncertain 
 etymology, the name of a part of Egypt where 
 the Israelites dwelt for the whole period of their 
 sojourn in that country. It is usually called the 
 “land of Goshen” (3 YN), but also “ Goshen ” 
 simply. It appears to have borne another name, 
 ppv) YS, the “ land of Rameses”’ (Gen. xlvii. 
 11). The first mention of Goshen is in Joseph's 
 message to his father (Gen. xly. 10), “* Thou shalt 
 
 GOSHEN 
 
 dwell in the land of Goshen, and thou shalt be 
 near untome.” This shows that the territory was 
 near the residence of the king. According to 
 the Christian tradition as related by Syncellus, 
 the king under whose reign Joseph was raised 
 to his high position is said to have been Apophis 
 (Apepi), known as one of the Hyksos or Shepherd 
 kings. It is therefore near the cities which 
 have preserved traces of the Hyksos that we are 
 to look for the site of Goshen. These cities are 
 Tanis and Bubastis, in the Eastern Delta, in 
 both of which the name of Apophis has been 
 discovered, 
 
 We have not much information in Scripture 
 as to the nature and size of Goshen ; however, 
 when those scanty data are supplemented by 
 recent discoveries, we may have a fair idea-of 
 what it was. 
 
 The second mention of the name of Goshen is 
 in this passage (Gen. xlvi. 28, 29): “ And Jacob 
 sent Judah before him unto Joseph, to show the 
 way before him unto Goshen; and they came 
 into the land of Goshen. And Joseph made ready 
 his chariot, and went up to meet Israel his father 
 unto Goshen.” ‘Ihis shows clearly that Goshen 
 was in the eastern part of Egypt, on the way 
 from the capital, whatever it was, towards 
 Palestine. In the first of these verses the 
 Septuagint has an important variant: συναντῆσαι 
 αὐτῷ καθ᾽ Ἡρώων πόλιν eis γῆν Ῥαμεσσῆ. Thus 
 the entrance into Goshen is said to be near Hero- 
 opolis (Ὁ. PrrHom), and the two names Goshen and 
 Rameses are considered as equivalent. Their 
 identity is confirmed in the next chapter (xlvii. 
 6), where Pharaoh says to Joseph, “ In the best of 
 the land make thy father and thy brethren -to 
 dwell, in the land of Goshen let them dwell ;” 
 while the execution of the order is related thus 
 (υ. 11): “ And Joseph placed his father and his 
 brethren, and gave them a possession in the best 
 of the land, in the land of Rameses, as Pharaoh 
 had commanded.” 
 
 The advice that Joseph gave his brethren as to 
 their conduct towards Pharaoh further character- 
 ises the territory (Gen. xlvi. 33, 34): “ And it 
 shall come to pass, when Pharaoh shall call you, 
 and shall say, What is your occupation ? that ye 
 shall say, Thy servants have been keepers of 
 cattle from our youth even until now, both we 
 and our fathers; that ye may dwell in the 
 land of Goshen: for every shepherd is an abomi- 
 nation unto the Egyptians.” It was a land of 
 pasture, particularly well adapted for shep- 
 herds bringing with them large flocks. This is 
 the sense in which must be construed the ex- 
 pression “the best of the land.” It does not 
 mean the most fruitful, or the most productive, 
 but the most favourable for the feeding of cattle. 
 
 The nearly unanimous tradition as to the exact 
 site of Goshen has located it in the eastern 
 part of the Delta, on the way to Palestine and 
 Syria. Already the book of Judith mentions it 
 with two places on the eastern frontier, and 
 below Memphis (Judith i. 9: καὶ Tapvas καὶ 
 Ῥαμεσσῇ καὶ πᾶσαν γῆν Γεσέμ, ἕως τοῦ ἐλθεῖν 
 ἐπάνω Τάνεως καὶ Μέμφεω5). The Arab authors 
 generally assign as the site of Goshen localities 
 at the entrance of the present Wady Tumeylat, 
 the valley going towards the Red Sea, and where 
 is now the Freshwater Canal. The two Arab 
 translators of Genesis, Saadiah and Aboo Said, 
 employ invariably for Goshen the word Sadir, 
 
GOSHEN 
 
 which the two French scholars, Quatrem?re and 
 Silvestre de Sacy, have determined to be a region 
 about Abbasah, between the present cities of 
 Zagazig, Belbeis, and ‘Tell-el-Kebir. Makrizi 
 points very nearly to the same place, when he 
 says that Belbeis is the land of Goshen mentioned 
 in the Pentateuch. 
 
 Belbeis, considered as the centre of the land of 
 Goshen, already occurs in the narrative of the 
 famous Rabbi Benjamin of Tudela in the 7th 
 century, who says that the land of Goshen is 
 the city of Bolsir-Salbis (Belbeis), “ἃ large city 
 where there are three thousand Jews.” This 
 tradition lasted down to the 17th century, 
 when the celebrated traveller Pietro della Valle 
 visited Egypt. He describes Belbeis as an im- 
 portant place, where there are a few hieroglyphi- 
 cal inscriptions, and which is said by the Jews to 
 be the land of Goshen. He adds that it is the more 
 probable, as the place was on the way to Palestine, 
 and must have been a district favourable to the 
 grazing of cattle. 
 
 If the region around Belbeis was the original 
 land of Goshen, it was certainly not sufficient to 
 contain a large population; the Israelites must 
 have spread to the north and south, and the 
 name probably extended also with them. There- 
 fore most of the authors, especially Ebers, have 
 considered Goshen as being the land east of the 
 Tanitic branch, as far as Memphis in the south ; 
 the present province of Sharkich. 
 
 On (Heliopolis) is often mentioned as belonging 
 to the Jand of Goshen. It occurs first in che 
 Septuagint, in the passage (Ex. i. 11) which 
 describes the persecution of the Israelites in 
 Goshen, and which reads in Hebrew, “ They 
 built for Pharaoh store cities, Pithom and 
 Raamses.” Here the Greek Version adds to 
 Pithom and Raamises a third city: ‘On, which 
 is Heliopolis.” ° Josephus endorses this view 
 (Ant. Jud. ii. 188, ed. Niese), and, relating the 
 arrival of Jacob in Egypt, says that “ Pharaoh 
 allowed him to dwell with his children in Helio- 
 polis” (συνεχώρησεν αὐτῷ ζὴν μετὰ τῶν τέκνων 
 ἐν Ἡλιουπόλει). We shall see further that the 
 connexion between Heliopolis and Goshen exists 
 in the hieroglyphical inscriptions. 
 
 In the Septuagint the name Goshen is usually 
 translated by Γεσὲμ *ApaBias. Several authors 
 since Cellarius have observed that this addition 
 ‘indicated that Goshen was situate in what was 
 called under the Greek kings the nome of Arabia, 
 mentioned by the geographer Ptolemy, and 
 having as capital Phacusa, A confirmation of 
 this view was found lately in the narrative of 
 the pilgrimage of a woman to Egypt and the 
 Holy Land made in the 4th century. This 
 document speaks repeatedly of the nome and 
 the city of Arabia as being the land of Goshen, 
 terra (esse. 
 
 Let us now turn to the hieroglyphical in- 
 scriptions. We find there that the nome which 
 Brugsch has determined to be the nome of 
 Arabia, the twentieth in the lists of Lower 
 Egypt, contains a city and a region of the name 
 of Kesem, sometimes abbreviated as Kes, which 
 has generally been considered as the Egyptian 
 equivalent of Goshen. This last form Jes is 
 preserved in the second syllable of the word 
 Phacusa, which thus is found to contain the 
 radical of Goshen, as the Dutch scholar Van der 
 Hardt had conjectured, at the end of the last 
 
 Nee eee SaaS 
 
 GOSHEN 1209 
 
 century; the radical being preceded either by 
 the Egyptian article pa, or by the word pa, 
 which means “a house ” or “ a temple.” 
 
 The ruins of the city of Kesem or Kes, 
 Phacusa, lie under a village of recent date, 
 called Saft el Henneh, about 6 miles east of 
 Zagazig, and at the same distance from Belbeis. 
 Until this century the place belonged to the 
 province of which Belbeis was the capital, and 
 this reminds us of the various traditions quoted 
 above, assigning Delbeis as the site of Goshen. 
 
 The nome of Arabia was called in Egyptian 
 Sopt, from the name of its god, a warlike 
 divinity, taking various forms, the most ancient 
 of which is a man wearing two feathers on his 
 head and holding a sceptre. It is interesting to 
 notice that the Arabian nome is of late forma- 
 tion, and that it did not exist as an independent 
 nome at the time of the 19th Dynasty. 
 Under Seti 1., the father of Rameses IL, it still 
 was part of the nome of Heliopolis, and was 
 watered by its canal. Thus, when the Hebrews 
 came and settled in Goshen, it was not an 
 organised province occupied by an agricultural 
 population ; it was part of the marshland called 
 the water of Ra, in which the city of Bailos 
 (Belbeis) was situate. It could be given by the 
 king to foreigners, without despoiling the 
 native population. It must have been some- 
 thing very like the borders of the present 
 Sharkieh, north of Fakoos, where the Bedouins 
 have their camps of black tents and graze 
 their large flocks of cattle. ‘The name the 
 water of Ra may have been the origin of “Ain 
 Shems, a name which is often found in con- 
 nexion with the sojourn of the Israelites in 
 Egypt. ‘There the small city of Bailos (Belbeis) 
 was built, near which king Menephtah, who is 
 considered to be the king of the Exodus, relates 
 that he fought a great battle against foreign 
 invaders. It is curious that, speaking of the 
 region around it, he says, “that it was not 
 cultivated, but left as pasture for cattle because 
 of the strangers.” 
 
 The excavations made in that part of the 
 Delta have shown that Bubastis, the ruins of 
 which exist near the city of Zagazig, was a 
 large and important town, already under the 
 Hyksos, and later under Rameses IH. Apepi, 
 the king of Joseph, certainly resided in that city, 
 where he left important monuments; and the 
 same must have been the case at least occasion- 
 ally, under Rameses IJ. and Menephtah, judging 
 from the size of their constructions there, and by 
 the fact that Bubastis was the key of the road 
 to Syria. If the kings resided there, in the 
 immediate vicinity of Goshen, it makes the 
 narrative of Scripture more intelligible, in 
 shortening considerably the distance between 
 Joseph and the settlement of his brethren; or 
 between the king and the Hebrews, in the 
 period preceding the Exodus. 
 
 In conclusion, we may say that the original 
 land of Goshen, the land allotted to Jacob and 
 his sons, was a territory between Tell-el-Kebir, 
 Zagazig, and Belbeis: at that time it had no 
 definite boundaries; but it extended with the 
 increase of the inhabitants, and it applied to 
 the eastern part of the Delta from the Tanitic 
 branch to the desert and the Red Sea. This area 
 coincided very much with what we should call 
 the province of Sharkieh, and part of the 
 
1210 
 
 Kalioubieh, as far as Heliopolis. This is the 
 extent we may suppose it had at the time of 
 the Exodus. 
 
 On Goshen may be consulted Ebers, Durch 
 Gosen zum Smnai, Leipzig, 1881; Naville, Goshen 
 and the Shrine of Saft el Henneh (Egypt. Explor. 
 Fund, 5th Memoir), London, 1887; Brugsch, 
 Steininschrift und Bibelwort, Berlin, 1891. [E.N.] 
 
 2. qua; Toodu; Gessen, Gozen.) The “land” 
 or the “country (both }N) of Goshen” is 
 twice named asa district in Southern Palestine 
 (Josh. x. 41, xi. 16). Its position is uncertain, 
 From the first of these passages it would seem to 
 have lain between Gaza and Gibeon, and there- 
 fore to be some part of the maritime plain of 
 Judah; but in the latter passage, that plain— 
 the Shefelah—is expressly specified in addition to 
 Goshen (here with the article). In this place 
 too the situation of Goshen—if the order of the 
 statement be any indication—would seem to be 
 between the “south” and the Shefelah (A. V. 
 “valley”). The name may be old, and may 
 retain a trace of early intercourse between Egypt 
 and the south of the Promised Land. For such 
 intercourse cp. 1 Ch. vii. 21. 
 
 3. A town of the same name is once men- 
 tioned in company with Debir, Socoh, and 
 others, as in the mountains of Judah (Josh. 
 xv. 51). There 15 nothing to connect (Dillmann?) 
 this place with the district last spoken of. It 
 has not yet been identified. [α.1 [FJ 
 
 GOSPELS.* The name Gospel (from god 
 and spell, Ang.-Sax. good message or news, which 
 is a translation of the Greek εὐαγγέλιον) is 
 applied to the four inspired histories of the 
 life and teaching of Christ contained in the 
 New Testament. [MatrHEw; Mark; LuKE; 
 Joun.] It may be fairly said that the genuine- 
 ness of these four narratives rests upon better 
 evidence than that of any other ancient writings. 
 They were all composed during the latter half 
 of the first century: those of St. Matthew and 
 St. Mark some years before the destruction of 
 Jerusalem; that of St. Luke probably about 
 A.D. 64; and that of St. John towards the close 
 of the century. Before the end of the second 
 century, there is abundant evidence that the 
 four Gospels, as one collection, were generally 
 used and accepted. Irenaeus, who suffered mar- 
 tyrdom about A.D. 202, the disciple of Polycarp 
 and Papias,—who, from having been in Asia, in 
 Gaul, and in Rome, had ample means of knowing 
 the belief of various churches,—says that the 
 authority of the four Gospels was so far con- 
 firmed that even the heretics of his time could 
 not reject them, but were obliged to attempt to 
 prove their tenets out of one or other of them 
 (Contr. Haer. iii. 11, § 7). ‘Tertullian, in a 
 work written about A.D. 208, mentions the four 
 Gospels, two of them as the work of Apostles, 
 and two as that of the disciples of Apostles 
 (apostolici) ; and rests their authority on their 
 apostolic origin (Adv. Marcion. iv. ch. ii.). 
 Origen, who was born about Α.Ὁ. 185 and died 
 A.D. 253, describes the Gospels in a characteristic 
 strain of metaphor as “the [four] elements of 
 the Church’s faith, of which the whole world, 
 reconciled to God in Christ, is composed” (Zn 
 
 GOSPELS 
 
 5. See note on p. 1217, col. 1. 
 
 GOSPELS 
 
 Johan.). Elsewhere, in commenting on the 
 opening words of St. Luke, he draws a line 
 between the inspired Gospels and such pro- 
 ductions as ‘“ The Gospel according to the 
 Egyptians,” “The Gospel of the Twelve,” and 
 the like (Homil. in Luc. iii. 932 sq.). Although 
 Theophilus, who became sixth (seventh ?) bishop 
 of Antioch about A.D. 168, speaks only of ‘the 
 Evangelists,” without adding their names (Ad 
 Autol. iii. 124, 125), we might fairly conclude 
 with Gieseler that he refers to the collection ot 
 four, already known in his time. But from 
 Jerome we know that Theophilus arranged the 
 records of the four Evangelists into one work 
 (Lpist. ad Algas. iv. 197). Tatian, who died 
 about A.D. 170 (?), compiled a Diatessaron, or 
 Harmony of the Gospels. ‘The Muratorian frag- 
 ment (Muratori, Antig. Jt. iii. 854; Routh, 
 Relig. S. vol. iv.), which, even if it be not by 
 Caius and of the second century, is at least a 
 very old monument of the Roman Church, de- 
 scribes the Gospels of St. Luke and St. John; 
 but time and carelessness seem to have destroyed 
 the sentences relating to St. Matthew and St. 
 Mark. Another source of evidence is open to us, 
 in the citations from the Gospels found in the 
 earliest writers. Barnabas, Clemens Romanus, 
 and Polycarp quote passages from them, but not 
 with verbal exactness. The testimony of Justin 
 Martyr (born about A.D. 99, martyred A.D. 165) 
 is much fuller; many of his quotations are 
 found verbatim in the Gospels of St. Matthew, 
 St. Luke, and St. John, and possibly of St. Mark 
 also, whose words it 1s more difficult to separate. 
 The quotations from St. Matthew are the most 
 numerous. In historical references, the mode of 
 quotation is more free, and the narrative occasion- 
 ally unites those of St. Matthew and St. Luke: 
 ina very few cases he alludes to matters not men- 
 tioned in the canonical Gospels. Besides these, 
 St. Matthew appears to be quoted by the author 
 of the Epistle to Diognetus, by Hegesippus, 
 Irenaeus, Tatian, Athenagoras, and Theophilus. 
 Eusebius records that Pantaenus found in India 
 (the south of Arabia ?) Christians who used 
 the Gospel of St. Matthew. ΑἸ] this shows that 
 long before the end of the second century the 
 Gospel of St. Matthew was in general use. 
 From the fact that St. Mark’s Gospel has few 
 places peculiar to it, it is more difficult to 
 identify citations not expressly assigned to him ; 
 but Justin Martyr and Athenagoras appear to 
 quote his Gospel, and Irenaeus does so by name. 
 St. Luke is quoted by Justin, Irenaeus, Tatian, 
 Athenagoras, and Theophilus; and St. John by 
 all of these, with the addition of Ignatius, the 
 Epistle to Diognetus, and Polycrates. From 
 these we may conclude that before the end of 
 the second century the Gospel collection was 
 well known and in general use. There is yet 
 another line of evidenee. The heretical sects, as 
 well as the Fathers of the Church, knew the 
 Gospels; and as there was the greatest hostility 
 between them, if the Gospels had become known 
 in the Church after the dissension arose, the 
 heretics would never have accepted them as 
 genuine from such a quarter. But the Gnostics 
 and Marcionites arose early in the second cen- 
 tury; and therefore it is probable that the 
 Gospels were then accepted, and thus they are 
 traced back almost to the times of the Apostles 
 (Olshausen). Upona review of all the witnesses, 
 
GOSPELS 
 
 from the Apostolic Fathers down to the Canon 
 appended to the Laodicean Council in 364, and 
 that of the third Council of Carthage in 397, in 
 both of which the four Gospels are numbered in 
 the Canon of Scripture, there can hardly be 
 room for any candid person to doubt that from 
 the first the four Gospels were recognised as 
 genuine and as inspired; that a sharp line of 
 distinction was drawn between them and the 
 so-called apocryphal Gospels, of which the num- 
 ber was very great; that, from the citations 
 of passages, the Gospels bearing these four 
 
 names were the same as those which we possess 
 
 in our Bibles under the same names; that un- 
 believers, like Celsus, did not deny the genuine- 
 ness of the Gospels, even when rejecting their 
 contents; and, lastly, that heretics thought it 
 necessary to plead some kind of sanction out of 
 the Gospels for their doctrines: nor could they 
 venture on the easier path of an entire rejection, 
 because the Gospels were everywhere known to 
 be genuine. Out of a mass of authorities the 
 following may he selected:—Norton, On the 
 Genuineness of the Gospels, 2 vols. London, 1847, 
 2nd ed.; Kirchhofer, Quellensammlung zur Ge- 
 schichte des N. T. Canons, Zirich, 1844; De 
 Wette, Lehrbuch der hist.-krit. Einleitung, &c., 
 7th ed., Berlin, 1852; Hug’s Linleitung, &c., 
 Fosdick’s [American] translation, with Stuart’s 
 Notes; Olshausen, Liblischer Commentar, Intro- 
 duction, and his Lchtheit der 4 Canon. Evan- 
 gelien, 1823; Jer.. Jones, Method of settling the 
 Canonical Authority of the N. T., Oxford, 1798, 
 2 vols.; F. C. Baur, Avit. Untersuchungen tiber 
 die Kanon. Evangelien, Tiibingen, 1847; Reuss, 
 Geschichte des N. T.; Dean Alford’s Greck Testa- 
 ment, Prolegomena, vol. i.; Rev. B, F. Westcott’s 
 History of N. T. Canon, London, 1859; Gieseler, 
 Historisch-kritischer Versuch tiber die Enstehung, 
 &c., der schriftlichen Evangelien, Leipzig, 1818. 
 On comparing these four Books one with 
 another, a peculiar difficulty claims attention, 
 which has had much to do with the controversy 
 as to their genuineness. In the Fourth Gospel 
 the narrative coincides with that of the other 
 three in a few passages only. Putting aside the 
 account of the Passion, there are only three 
 facts which St. John relates in common with the 
 other Evangelists. Two of these are, the feeding 
 of the five thousand, and the storm on the Sea 
 of Galilee (ch. vi.), which appear to be intro- 
 duced in connexion with the discourse that arose 
 out of the miracle related by St. John alone. 
 The third is the anointing of His feet by Mary ; 
 and it is worthy of notice that the narrative of 
 St. John recalls something of each of the other 
 three: the actions of the woman are drawn 
 from St. Luke, the ointment and its value are de- 
 scribed in St. Mark, and the admonition to Judas 
 appears in St. Matthew ; and St. John combines in 
 his narrative all these particulars. Whilst the 
 three present the life of Jesus in Galilee, St. John 
 follows him into Judaea; nor should we know, 
 but for him, that our Lord had journeyed to 
 Jerusalem at the prescribed feasts. Only one 
 discourse of our Lord that was delivered in 
 Galilee, that in the 6th chapter, is recorded by 
 St.John. The disciple whom Jesus loved had it 
 put into his mind to write a Gospel which 
 should more expressly than the others set forth 
 Jesus as the Incarnate Word of God: if he also 
 had in view the beginnings of the errors of 
 
 GOSPELS 1211 
 
 Cerinthus and others before him at the time, as 
 Irenaeus and Jerome assert, the polemical pur- 
 pose is quite subordinate to the dogmatic. He 
 does not war against a temporary error, but 
 preaches for all time that Jesus is the Christ 
 the Son of God, in order that believing we may 
 have life through His Name. Now many of the 
 facts omif‘ed by St. John and recorded by the 
 rest are such as would have contributed most 
 directly to this great design; why then are they 
 omitted? The received explanation is the only 
 satisfactory one, namely, that St. John, writing 
 last, at the close of the first century, had seen 
 the other Gospels, and purposely abstained from 
 writing anew what they had sufficiently re- 
 corded, [JOHN.] 
 
 In the other three Gospels there is a great 
 amount of agreement. If we suppose the history 
 that they contain to be divided into sections, 
 in 42 of these all the three narratives coincide, 
 12 more are given by St. Matthew and St. Mark 
 only, 5 by St. Mark and St. Luke only, and 14 by 
 St. Matthew and St. Luke. To these must be 
 added 5 peculiar to St. Matthew, 2 to St. Mark, 
 and 9 to St. Luke; and the enumeration is com- 
 plete. But this applies only to general coinci- 
 dence as to the facts narrated: the amount ot 
 verbal coincidence, that is, the passages either 
 verbally the same, or coinciding in the use of 
 many of the same words, is much smaller. “ By 
 far the larger portion,” says Prof. A. Norton 
 (Genuinencss,? i. 240), “of this verbal agree- 
 ment is found in the recital of the words of others, 
 and particularly of the words of Jesus. Thus, in 
 Matthew’s Gospel, the passages verbally coinci- 
 dent with one or both of the other two Gospels 
 amount to less than a sixth part of its contents ; 
 and of these about seven-eighths occur in the 
 recital of the words of others, and only about 
 one-eighth in what, by way of distinction, I 
 may call mere narrative, in which the Evan- 
 gelist, speaking in his own person, was un- 
 restrained in the choice of his expressions. In 
 Mark, the proportion of coincident passages to 
 the whole contents of the Gospel is about one- 
 sixth, of which not one-fifth occurs in the nar- 
 rative. Luke has still less agreement of ex- 
 pression with the other Evangelists. The pas- 
 sages in which it is found amount only to about 
 a tenth part of his Gospel; and but an incon- 
 siderable portion of it appears in the narrative 
 —less than a twentieth part. These proportions 
 should be further compared with those which 
 the narrative part of each Gospel bears to that 
 in which the words of others are professedly 
 repeated. Matthew’s narrative occupies about 
 one-fourth of his Gospel, Mark’s about one-half, 
 and Luke’s about one-third. It may easily be 
 computed, therefore, that the proportion or 
 verbal coincidence found in the narrative part 
 of each Gospel, compared with what exists in the 
 other part, is about in the following ratios: in 
 Matthew as one to somewhat more than two, in 
 Mark as one to four, and in Luke as one to ten.” 
 
 Without going minutely into the examination 
 of examples, which would be desirable if space 
 permitted, the leading facts connected with the 
 subject may be thus summed up:—The verbal 
 and material agreement of the first three Evan- 
 gelists is such as does not occur in any other 
 authors who haye written independently of one 
 another. The verbal agreement is greater 
 
GOSPELS 
 
 where the spoken words of others are cited than 
 where the facts are recorded; and greatest in 
 quotations of the words of our Lord. But in 
 some leading events, as in the call of the first 
 four disciples, that of St. Matthew, and the Trans- 
 figuration, the agreement even in expression is 
 remarkable: there are also narratives where 
 there is no verbal harmony in the outset, but 
 only in the crisis or emphatic part of the story 
 (Matt. viii, 3=Mark i. 41=Luke v. 13, and 
 Matt. xiv. 19, 20=Mark vi. 41-43=Luke ix. 
 16, 17). The narratives of our Lord’s early 
 life, as given by St. Matthew and St. Luke, 
 have little in common; while St. Mark does not 
 include that part of the history in his plan. 
 ‘The agreement in the narrative portions ot the 
 Gospels begins with the Baptism of John, and 
 reaches its highest point in the account of the 
 Passion of our Lord and the facts that preceded 
 it; so that a direct ratio might almost be said 
 to exist between the amount of agreement and 
 the nearness of the facts related to tne Passion. 
 After this event, in the account of His burial 
 and resurrection, the coincidences are few. ‘The 
 language of all three is Greek, with Hebrew 
 idioms: the Hebraisms are most abundant in 
 St. Mark, and fewest in St. Luke. In quota- 
 tions from the Old Testament, the Evangelists, 
 or two of them, sometimes exhibit a verbal 
 agreement, although they differ from the Hebrew 
 and from the Septuagint Version (Matt. iii. 3= 
 Mark i. 3=Luke iii. 4. Matt. iv. 10=Luke iv. 
 8. Matt. xi. 10=Mark i. 2=Luke vii. 27, &c.). 
 Except as to twenty-four verses, the Gospel of St. 
 Mark contains no “principal facts which are not 
 found in St. Matthew and St. Luke; but he often 
 supplies details omitted by them, and these are 
 often such as would belong to the graphic 
 account of an eye-witness. There are no cases in 
 which St. Matthew and St. Luke exactly har- 
 monize, where St. Mark does not also coincide 
 with them. In several places the words of St. 
 Mark have something in common with each of 
 the other narratives, so as to form a connecting 
 link between them, where their words slightly 
 differ. The examples of verbal agreement be- 
 tween St. Mark and St. Luke are not so long 
 or so numerous as those between St. Matthew 
 and St. Luke, and St. Matthew and St. Mark; 
 but as to the arrangement of events St. Mark 
 and St. Luke frequently coincide, where St. 
 Matthew differs from them. These are the 
 leading particulars; but they are very far from 
 giving a complete notion of a phenomenon that 
 is well worthy of that attention and reverent 
 study of the sacred text by which alone it can 
 be fully and fairly apprehended. 
 
 These facts exhibit the three Gospels as three 
 distinct records of the life and works of the 
 Redeemer, but with a greater amount of agree- 
 ment than three wholly independent accounts 
 could be expected to exhibit. The agreement 
 would be no difficulty without the ditferences; 
 it would only mark the one Divine source from 
 which they are all derived—the Holy Spirit, 
 Who spake by the Prophets. The difference of 
 form and style, without the agreement, would 
 offer no difficulty, since there may be a sub- 
 stantial harmony between accounts that differ 
 greatly in mode of expression, and the very 
 difference might be a guarantee of independence. 
 The harmony and the variety, the agreement 
 
 GOSPELS 
 
 and the differences, form together the problem 
 with which Biblical critics have occupied them- 
 selves for a century and a half. 
 
 The attempts at a solution are so many, that — 
 they can be more easily classified than enu- 
 merated. ‘The first and most obvious sugges- 
 tion would be, that the narrators made use of 
 each other’s work. Accordingly Grotius, Mill, 
 Wetstein, Griesbach, and many others, have 
 endeavoured to ascertain which Gospel is to be 
 regarded as the first ; which is copied from the 
 first; and which is the last, and copied from 
 the other two. It is remarkable that each of 
 the six possible combinations have found advo- 
 cates ; and this of itself proves the uncertainty 
 of the theory (Bp. Marsh’s Michaelis, iii: 172; 
 De Wette, Handbuch, § 22 et sqq.). When we 
 are told by men of research that the Gospel of 
 St. Mark is plainly founded upon the other two, 
 as Griesbach, Bisching, and others assure us; 
 and again, that the Gospel of St. Mark is cer- 
 tainly the primitive Gospel, on which the other 
 two are founded, as by Wilke, Bruno Baner, 
 and others, both sides relying mainly on facts 
 that lie within the compass of the text, we are 
 not disposed to expect much fruit from the dis- 
 cussion. But the theory in its crude form is in 
 itself most improbable; and the wonder is that 
 so much time and learning have been devoted to 
 it. It assumes that an Evangelist has taken up 
 the work of his predecessor, and without sub- 
 stantial alteration has made a few changes τὰ 
 form, a few additions and retrenchments, and 
 has then allowed the whole to go forth under 
 his name. Whatever order of the three is 
 adopted to favour the hypothesis, the omission ) 
 by the second or third, of matter inserted by 
 the first, offers a great difficulty ; sinve it would 
 indicate a tacit opinion that these passages are 
 either less useful or of less authority than the 
 rest. The nature of the alterations is not such 
 as we should expect to find in an age little 
 given to literary composition, and in writings 
 so simple and unlearned as these are admitted 
 to be. The replacement of a word by a 
 synonym, neither more nor less apt, the omission 
 of a saying in one place and insertion of it in 
 another, the occasional transposition of events ; 
 these are not in conformity with the habits of a 
 time in which composition was little studied, 
 and only practised as a necessity. These genera} 
 objections will be found to take a still more 
 cogent shape against any particular form of this 
 hypothesis: whether it is attempted to show 
 that the Gospel of St. Mark, as the shortest, is 
 also the earliest and primitive Gospel, or that 
 this very Gospel bears evident signs of being 
 the latest, a compilation from the other two; 
 or that the order in the Canon of Scripture 
 is also the chronological order—and all these 
 views have found defenders at no distant date— 
 the theory that each Evangelist only copied from 
 his predecessor offers the same general features, 
 a plausible argument from a few facts, which is 
 met by insuperable difficulties as soon as the re- © 
 maining facts are taken in (Gieseler, pp. 35, 36 ; 
 Bp. Marsh’s Michaelis, iii., Part ii., 171 sqq.). 
 
 The supposition of a common original from 
 which the three Gospels were drawn, each with 
 more or less modification, would naturally occur 
 to those who rejected the notion that the Evan- 
 gelists had copied from each other. A passage 
 
‘ 
 
 / 
 to it 
 
 GOSPELS 
 
 of Epiphanius has been often quoted in support 
 of this (/faeres. 51, 6), but the ἐξ αὐτῆς τῆς 
 πηγῆς no doubt refers to the inspiring Spirit 
 from which all three drew their authority, and 
 not to any earthly copy, written or oral, of His 
 divine message. The best notion of that class 
 of speculations which would establish a written 
 document as the common original of the three 
 Gospels, will be gained perhaps from Bishop 
 Marsh’s (Michaelis, vol. iii., Part ii.) account of 
 Kichhorn’s hypothesis, and of his own additions 
 It appeared to Kichhorn that the 
 portions which are common to all the three 
 Gospels were contained in a certain common 
 document, from which they all drew. Niemeyer 
 had already assumed that copies of such a docu- 
 ment had got into circulation, and had been 
 altered and annotated by different hands. Now 
 Kichhorn tries to show, from an exact com- 
 parison of passages, that “ the sections, whether 
 great or small, which are common to St. 
 Matthew and St. Mark but not to St. Luke, and 
 at the same time occupy places in the Gospels 
 of St. Matthew and St. Mark which correspond 
 to each other, were additions made in the copies 
 used by St. Matthew and St. Mark, but not in 
 the copy used by St. Luke; and, in like manner, 
 that the sections found in the corresponding 
 places of the Gospels of St. Mark and St. Luke, 
 but not contained in the Gospel of St. Matthew, 
 were additions made in the copies used by St. 
 Mark and St. Luke ” (p. 192). Thus Eichhorn 
 considers himself entitled to assume that he 
 can reconstruct the original document, and also 
 that there must have been four other documents 
 
 _ to account for the phenomena of the text. Thus 
 
 he makes— 
 
 1. The original document. 
 
 2. An altered copy which St. Matthew used. 
 
 3. An altered copy which St. Luke used. 
 
 4. A third copy, made from the two preced- 
 ing, used by St. Mark. 
 
 5. A fourth altered copy, used by St. Matthew 
 and St. Luke in common. 
 
 As there is no external evidence worth con- 
 sidering that this original or any of its numerous 
 copies ever existed, the value of this e:aborate 
 hypothesis must depend upon its furnishing the 
 only explanation, and that a sufficient one, of 
 the facts of the text. Bishop Marsh, however, 
 finds it necessary, in order to complete the 
 
 y account of the text, to raise the number of 
 
 documents to eight, still without producing any 
 external evidence for the existence of any of 
 them; and this, on one side, deprives Eichhorn’s 
 theory of the merit of completeness, and, on the 
 other, presents a much broader surface to the 
 obvious objections. He assumes the existence of — 
 
 1. A Hebrew original. 
 
 2. A Greek translation. 
 
 3. A transcript of No. 1, with alterations and 
 additions. ᾿ 
 
 4. Another, with another set of alterations 
 and additions. 
 
 5. Another, combining both the preceding, 
 used by St. Mark, who also used No. 2. 
 
 6. Another, with the alterations and additions 
 of No. 3, and with further additions, used by 
 St. Matthew. 
 
 7. Another, with those of No. 4 and further 
 ot used by St. Luke, who also used 
 
 ο. 2. 
 
 GOSPELS 1213 
 
 8. A wholly distinct Hebrew document, in 
 which our Lord’s precepts, pavables, and dis- 
 courses were recorded, but not in chronological 
 order; used both by St. Matthew and St. Luke. 
 
 To this it is added, that “as the Gospels of 
 St. Mark and St. Luke contain Greek transla- 
 tions of Hebrew materials, which were incor- 
 porated into St. Matthew’s Hebrew Gospel, the 
 person who translated St. Matthew’s Hebrew 
 Gospel into Greek frequently derived assistance 
 from the Gospel of St. Mark, where he had 
 matter in connexion with St. Matthew: and in 
 those places, but in those places only, where 
 St. Mark had no matter in connexion with 
 St. Matthew, he had frequently recourse to 
 St. Luke’s Gospel” (p.361). One is hardly sur- 
 prised after this to learn that Eichhorn soon 
 after put forth a revised hypothesis (Hinleitung 
 in das N. T., 1804), in which a supposed Greek 
 translation of a supposed Aramaic original took 
 a conspicuous part; nor that Hug was able to 
 point out that even the most liberal assumption 
 of written documents had not provided for one 
 case, that of the verbal agreement of St. Mark 
 and St. Luke, to the exclusion of St. Matthew ; 
 and which, though it is of rare occurrence, 
 would require, on Kichhorn’s theory, an addi- 
 tional Greek version. 
 
 It will be allowed that this elaborate hypo- 
 thesis, whether in the form given it by Marsh or 
 by Eichhorn, possesses almost every fault that 
 can be charged against an argument of that 
 kind. For every new class of facts a new docu- - 
 ment must he assumed to have existed; and 
 Hug’s objection does not really weaken the 
 theory, since the new class of coincidences he 
 mentions only requires a new version of the 
 “original Gospel” which can be supplied on 
 demand. A theory so prolific in assumptions 
 may still stand, if it can be proved that no 
 other solution is possible; but since this cannot 
 be shown, even as against the modified theory 
 of Gritz (Neuer Versuch, &c., 1812), then we 
 are reminded of the Schoolman’s caution, entia 
 non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem. To 
 assume for every new class of facts the existence 
 of another complete edition and recension of the 
 original work is quite gratuitous; the docu- 
 ments might have been as easily supposed to be 
 fragmentary memorials, wrought in by the 
 Evangelists into the web of the original Gospel ; 
 or the coincidences might be, as Gritz supposes, 
 cases where one Gospel has been interpolated by 
 portions of another. Then the ‘original Gospel” 
 is supposed to have been of such authority as to 
 be circulated everywhere: yet so defective as 
 to require annotation from any hand, so little 
 reverenced that no hand spared it. If all the 
 Evangelists agreed to draw from such a work, 
 it must have been widely if not universally 
 accepted in the Church; and yet there is no 
 record of its existence. The force of this 
 dilemma has been felt by the supporters of the 
 theory: if the work was of high authority, it 
 would have been preserved, or at least men- 
 tioned; if of lower authority, it could not have 
 become the basis of three canonical Gospels: 
 and various attempts have been made to escape 
 from it. Bertholdt tries to find traces of its 
 existence in the titles of works other than our 
 present Gospels, which were current in the 
 
 | earliest ages; but Gieseler has so diminished 
 
1214 GOSPELS 
 the force of his arguments, that only one of 
 them need here be mentioned. Bertholdt in- 
 geniously argues that a Gospel used by St. 
 Paul, and transmitted to the Christians in 
 Pontus, was the basis of Marcion’s Gospel; and 
 assumes that it was also the “ original Gospel :” 
 so that in the Gospel of Marcion there would be 
 a transcript, though corrupted, of this primitive 
 document, But there is no proof at all that St. 
 Paul used any written Gospel; and as to that 
 of Marcion, if the work of Hahn had not settled 
 the question, the researches of such writers as 
 Volckmar, Zeller, Ritschl, and Hilgenfeld, are 
 held to have proved that the old opinion of 
 Tertullian and Epiphanius is also the true one, 
 and that the so-called Gospel of Marcion was 
 not an independent work, but an abridged ver- 
 sion of St. Luke’s Gospel, altered by the heretic 
 to suit his peculiar tenets (see Bertholdt, iii. 
 1208-1223; Gieseler, p. 57; Weisse, Hvange- 
 lienfrage, p. 73). We must conclude then that 
 the work has perished without record. Not 
 only has this fate befallen the Aramaic or 
 Hebrew original, but the translation and the 
 five or six recensions. But it may well be 
 asked whether the state of Jetters in Palestine 
 at this time was such as to make this constant 
 editing, translating, annotating, and enriching 
 of a history a natural and probable process. 
 With the independence of the Jews their litera- 
 ture had declined; from the time of Ezra and 
 Nehemiah, if a writer here and there arose, his 
 works became known, if at all, in Greek trans- 
 lations through the Alexandrine Jews. That the 
 period of which we are speaking was for the Jews 
 one of very little literary activity, is generally 
 admitted; and if this applies to all classes of 
 the people, it would be true of the humble and 
 uneducated class from which the first converts 
 came (Acts iv. 13; Jas. ii. 5). Even the 
 second law (δευτερώσει5), which grew up after 
 the Captivity, and in which the knowledge of 
 the learned class consisted, was handed down by 
 oral tradition, without being reduced to writing. 
 The theory of Eichhorn is only probable amidst 
 a people given to literary habits, and in a class 
 of that people where education was good and 
 literary activity likely to prevail : the conditions 
 here are the very reverse (see Gieseler’s able 
 argument, pp. 59 sq. [ep. p. 1229). 
 
 Libliography.—The English student will find 
 in Bp. Marsh’s Translation of Michaelis’ Introd. 
 to Ν. T. iii. 2, 1803, an account of Eichhorn’s 
 earlier theory and of his own. Veysie’s Zz- 
 amination of Mr. Marsh’s Hypothesis, 1808, has 
 suggested many of the objections. In Bp. Thirl- 
 wall’s Translation of Schleiermacher on St. Luke, 
 1825, Introduction, is an account of the whole 
 question. Other principal works are, an essay 
 of Eichhorn, in the 5th vol. Allgemeine Bibliothek 
 der biblischen Literatur, 1794; the Essay of 
 Bp. Marsh, just quoted ; Eichhorn, Hinleitung in 
 das Ν. T., 1804; Gratz, Neuer Versuch die Enste- 
 hung der drey ersten Eoang. zu erkléren, 1812; 
 Bertholdt, Histor.-kritische Einleitung in simmt- 
 liche kanon, und apok. Schriften des A. und N. T., 
 1812-1819; and the work of Gieseler, quoted 
 above. See also De Wette, Lehrbuch, and West- 
 cott, Introduction, already quoted; also Weisse, 
 Evangelienfrage, 1856. 
 
 There is another supposition to account for 
 these facts, of which verhaps Gieseler has been 
 
 GOSPELS 
 
 the most acute expositor. It is probable that 
 none of the Gospels was written until many 
 years after the day of Pentecost, on which the 
 Holy Spirit descended on the assembled disciples. 
 
 | From that day commenced at Jerusalem the 
 
 work of preaching the Gospel and converting 
 the world. So sedulous were the Apostles in 
 this work that they divested themselves of the 
 labour of ministering to the poor, in order that 
 they might give themselves “continually to 
 prayer and to the’ ministry of the word” (Acts 
 vi.). Prayer and preaching were the business 
 of their lives. Now their preaching must have 
 been, from the nature of the case, in great part 
 historical; it must have been based upon an 
 account of the life and acts of Jesus of Nazareth. 
 They had been the eye-witnesses of a wondrous - 
 life, of acts and sufferings that had an influence 
 over all the world: many of their hearers had 
 never heard of Jesus, and many others had re- 
 ceived false accounts of one whom it suited the 
 Jewish rulers to stigmatize as an impostor. 
 The ministry of our Lord went on principally in 
 Galilee; the first preaching was addressed to 
 people in Judaea. There was no written record 
 to which the hearers might be referred for his- 
 torical details, and therefore the preachers must 
 furnish not only inferences from the life of our 
 Lord, but the facts of the life itself. The 
 preaching, then, must have been of such a kind 
 as to be to the hearers what the reading of 
 lessons from the Gospels is to us. So far as the 
 records of apostolic preaching in the Acts of the 
 Apostles go, they confirm this view. St. Peter at 
 Caesarea, and St. Paul at Antioch, preach alike the 
 facts of the Redeemer’s life and death. There is 
 no improbability in supposing that in the course 
 of twenty or thirty years’ assiduous teaching, 
 without a written Gospel, the matter of the 
 apostolic preaching should have taken a settled 
 form. Not only might the Apostles think it 
 well that their own accounts should agree, as in 
 substance so in form; but the ¢eachers whom 
 they sent forth, or left behind in the Churches 
 they visited, would have to be prepared for 
 their mission; and, so long as there was no 
 written Gospel to put into their hands, it might 
 be desirable that the oral instruction should be 
 as far as possible one and the same to all. It is 
 by no means certain that the interval between 
 the mission of the Comforter and His work of 
 directing the writing of the first Gospel was so 
 long as is here supposed: the date of the Hebrew 
 St. Matthew may be earlier. [MatTTHew.] But 
 the argument remains the same: the preaching 
 of the Apostles would probably begin to take one 
 settled form, if at all, during the first years of 
 their ministry. If it were allowed us to ask why 
 
 God in His providence saw fit to defer the gift 
 
 of a written Gospel to His people, the answer 
 
 would be, that for the first few years the 
 
 powerful working of the Holy Spirit in the 
 living members of the Church supplied the place 
 
 of those records, which, as soon as the brightness 
 
 of His Presence began to be at all withdrawn, 
 
 became indispensable in order to prevent the 
 
 corruption of the Gospel history by false teachers. 
 
 He was promised as One Who should “teach 
 
 them all things, and bring all things to their 
 
 remembrance, whatsoever ” the Lord had “ said 
 
 unto them” (John xiv. 26). And more than 
 
 once His aid is spoken of as needful, even for 
 
GOSPELS 
 
 the proclamation of the facts that relate to 
 Christ (Acts i. 8; 1 Pet. i. 12): and He is 
 described as a witness with the Apostles, rather 
 than through them, of the things which they 
 had seen during the course of a ministry which 
 they had shared (John xv. 26, 27; Acts v. 32. 
 Cp. Acts xv. 28), The personal authority of 
 the Apostles as eye-witnesses of what they 
 preached is not set aside by this Divine aid: 
 again and again they describe themselves as 
 “witnesses” to facts (Acts ii. 32, iii, 15, x. 
 32, &e.); and when a vacancy occurs in their 
 number through the fall of Judas, it is almost 
 assumed as a thing of course that his successor 
 shall be chosen from those “ which had com- 
 panied with them all the time that the Lord 
 Jesus went in and ont amongst them” (Acts 
 i. 21). The teachings of the Holy Spirit con- 
 sisted, not in whispering to them facts which 
 they had not witnessed, but rather in reviving 
 the fading remembrance, and throwing out into 
 their true importance events and sayings that 
 had been esteemed too lightly at the time they 
 took place. But the Apostles could not have 
 spoken of the Spirit as they did (Acts v. 32, 
 xv. 28) unless He were known to be working in 
 and with them and directing them, and mani- 
 festing that this was the case by unmistakable 
 signs. Here is the answer, both to the question 
 why was it not the first care of the Apostles 
 to prepare a written Gospel, and also to the 
 seruples of those who fear that the supposition 
 of an oral Gospel would give a precedent for 
 those views of tradition which have been the 
 bane of the Christian Church as they were of 
 the Jewish. The guidance of the Holy Spirit 
 supplied for a time such aid as made a written 
 Gospel unnecessary ; but the Apostles saw the 
 dangers and errors which a traditional Gospel 
 would be exposed to in the course of time; and, 
 whilst they were still preaching the oral Gospel 
 in the strength of the Holy Ghost, they were 
 admonished by the same Divine Person to prepare 
 those written records which were hereafter to 
 be the daily spiritual food of all the Church of 
 Christ.* Nor is there anything unnatural in 
 the supposition that the Apostles intentionally 
 uttered their witness in the same order, and 
 even, for the most part, in the same form of 
 words. They would thus approach most nearly 
 to the condition in which the Church was to be 
 when written books were to be the means of 
 edification. They quote the scriptures of the 
 Old Testament frequently in their discourses ; 
 and as their Jewish education had accustomed 
 
 3 The opening words of St. Luke’s Gospel, “ Foras- 
 much as many have taken in hand to set forth in order 
 a declaration of those things which are most surely 
 believed among us, even as they delivered them unto 
 us, which from the beginning were eye-witnesses and 
 ministers of the word,” appear to mean that many 
 
 persons who heard the preaching of the Apostles wrote | 
 
 down what they heard, in order to preserve it in a 
 permanent form. The word ‘‘many” cannot refer 
 to St. Matthew and St. Mark only; and if the passage 
 implies an intention to supersede the writings alluded 
 ᾿ to, then these two Evangelists cannot be included under 
 them. Partial and incomplete reports of the preaching 
 of the Apostles, written with a good aim, but without 
 
 authority, are intended; and, if we may argue from | 
 
 St. Luke’s sphere of observation, they were probably 
 composed by Greek converts. 
 
 GOSPELS 1215 
 
 them to the use of the words of the Bible as 
 well as the matter, they would do no violence 
 to their prejudices in assimilating the new 
 records to the old, and in reducing them toa 
 “form οἵ sound words.” ‘They were all Jews 
 of Palestine, of humble origin, all alike chosen, 
 we may suppose, for the loving zeal with which 
 they would observe the works of their Master 
 and afterwards propagate His Name; so that 
 the tendency to variance, arising from peculiari- 
 ties of education, taste, and character, would 
 be reduced to its lowest in such a body. The 
 language of their first preaching was the Syro- 
 Chaldaic, which was a poor and scanty lan- 
 guage; and though Greek was now widely 
 spread, and was the language even of several 
 places in Palestine (Josephus, Ant. xvi. 11, § 4; 
 Bell. Jud. iii. 9, § 1), though it prevailed in 
 Antioch, whence the first missions to Greeks 
 and Hellenists, or Jews who spoke Greek, pro- 
 ceeded (Acts xi. 20, xiii. 1-3), the Greek tongue, 
 as used by Jews, partook of the poverty of the 
 speech which it replaced; as, indeed, it is im- 
 possible to borrow a whole language without 
 borrowing the habits of thought upon which 
 it has built itself. Whilst modern taste aims 
 at a variety of expression, and abhors a repeti- 
 tion of the same phrases as monotonous, the 
 simplicity of the men and their language and 
 their education, and the state of literature, 
 would all lead us to expect that the Apostles 
 would have no such feeling. As to this, we 
 have more than mere conjecture to rely on. 
 Occasional repetitions occur in the Gospels 
 (Luke vii. 19, 20; xix. 31, 34), such as a writer 
 in a more copious and cultivated language would 
 perhaps have sought to avoid. In the Acts, the 
 conversion of St. Paul is three times related 
 (Acts ix., xxii., xxvi.), once by the writer and 
 twice by St. Paul himself; and the first two 
 harmonize exactly, except as to a few expressions 
 and as to one more important circumstance 
 (ix. 7 = xxii. 9)—which, however, admits of an 
 explanation—whilst the third deviates somewhat 
 more in expression, and has one passage peculiar 
 to itself. The vision of Cornelius is also three 
 times related (Acts x. 3-6, 30-32; xi. 13, 14), 
 where the words of the Angel in the first two 
 are almost precisely alike, and the rest very 
 similar, whilst the other is an abridged account 
 of the same facts. The vision of St. Peter is twice 
 related (Acts x. 10-16, xi, 5-10), and, except in 
 one or two expressions, the agreement is verbally 
 exact. These places from the Acts which, both 
 as to their resemblance and their difference, may 
 be compared to the narratives of the Evangelists, 
 show the same tendency to a common form of 
 narrative which, according to the present view, 
 may have influenced the preaching of the 
 Apostles. It is supposed, then, that the preach- 
 ing of the Apostles, and the teaching whereby 
 they prepared others to preach, as they did, would 
 tend to assume a common form, more or less 
 fixed ; and that the portions of the three Gospels 
 which harmonize most exactly owe their agree- 
 ment not to the fact that they were copied from 
 each other, although it is impossible to say that 
 the later writer made no use of the earlier one, 
 nor to the existence of any original document 
 now lost to us, but to the fact that the apostolic 
 preaching had already clothed itself in a settled 
 or usual form of words, to which the writers 
 
1216 GOSPELS 
 
 inclined to conform without feeling bound to do 
 so; and the differences which occur, often in 
 the closest proximity to the harmonies, arise 
 from the feeling of independence with which 
 each wrote what he had seen and heard, or, in 
 the case of St. Mark and St. Luke, what apostolic 
 witnesses had told him. The harmonies, as we 
 have seen, begin with the baptism of John; 
 that is, with the consecration of the Lord to 
 His Messianic office; and with this event pro- 
 bably the ordinary preaching of the Apostles 
 would begin, for its purport was that Jesus is 
 the Messiah, and that as Messiah He suffered, 
 died, and rose again. They are very frequent 
 as we approach the period of the Passion, because 
 the sufferings of the Lord would be much in the 
 mouth of every one who preached the Gospel, 
 and all would become familiar with the words 
 in which the Apostles described it. But as 
 regards the Resurrection, which differed from 
 the Passion in that it was a fact which the 
 enemies of Christianity felt bound to dispute 
 (Matt. xxviii. 15), it is possible that the diver- 
 gence arose from the intention of each Evangelist 
 to contribute something towards the weight of 
 evidence for this central truth. Accordingly, 
 all the four, even St. Mark (xvi. 14), who 
 oftener throws a new light upon old ground 
 than opens out new, mention distinct acts and 
 appearances of the Lord to establish that He 
 was risen indeed. The verbal agreement is 
 greater where the words of others are recorded, 
 and greatest of all where they are those of 
 Jesus, because here the apostolic preaching 
 would be especially exact; and where the his- 
 torical fact is the utterance of certain words, 
 the duty of the historian is narrowed to a bare 
 record of them (see the works of Gieseler, 
 Norton, Westcott, Weisse, and others already 
 quoted [ep. p. 1219). 
 
 That this opinion would explain many of 
 the facts connected with the text is certain. 
 Whether, besides conforming to the words and 
 arrangement of the apostolic preaching, the 
 Evangelists did in any cases make use of each 
 other’s work or not, would require a more 
 careful investigation of details to discuss than 
 space permits. Every reader would probably 
 find on examination some places which could 
 best be explained on this supposition. Nor does 
 this involve a sacrifice of the independence of 
 the narrator. If each of the three drew the 
 substance of his narrative from the one common 
 strain of preaching that everywhere prevailed, 
 to have departed entirely in a written account 
 from the common form of words to which Chris- 
 tian ears were beginning to be familiar, would 
 not have been independence but wilfulness. To 
 follow here and there the words and arrange- 
 ment of another written Gospel already current 
 would not compromise the writer’s independent 
 position. If the principal part of the narrative 
 was the voice of the whole Church, a few 
 portions might be conformed to another writer 
 without altering the character of the testimony. 
 In the separate articles on the Gospels it will 
 be shown that, however close may be the agree= 
 ment of the Evangelists, the independent position 
 of each appears from the contents of his Book, 
 and has been recognised by writers of all ages. 
 It will appear that St. Matthew describes the 
 kingdom of Messiah, as founded in the Old 
 
 Se ee ee ee ee ee ee eee 
 
 GOSPELS 
 
 Testament and fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth ; 
 that St. Mark, with so little of narrative - 
 peculiar to himself, brings out by many minute 
 circumstances a more vivid delineation of our 
 Lord’s completely human life; that St. Luke 
 puts forward the work of Redemption as a 
 universal benefit, and shows Jesus not only as 
 the Messiah of the chosen people, but as the 
 Saviour of the world; that St. John, writing 
 last of all, passed over most of what his prede- 
 cessors had related, in order to set forth more 
 fully all that he had heard from the Master 
 Who loved him, of His relation to the Father, 
 and of the relation of the Holy Spirit to both. 
 The independence of the writers is thus estab- 
 lished ; and if they seem to have here and there 
 used each other’s account, which it is perhaps 
 impossible to prove or disprove, such cases will 
 not compromise that claim which alone gives 
 value to a plurality of witnesses. 
 
 Each Gospel has its own features, but the 
 picture which they conspire to draw is one full 
 of harmony. The Saviour they all describe is 
 the same loving, tender guide of His disciples, 
 sympathising with them in the sorrows and 
 temptations of earthly life, yet ever ready to 
 enlighten that life by rays of truth out of the 
 infinite world where the Father sits upon His 
 throne. It has been said that St. Matthew 
 portrays rather the human side, and St. John 
 the divine; but this holds good only in a limited 
 sense. It is in St. John that we read that 
 “Jesus wept;” and there is nothing, even in 
 the last discourse of Jesus, as reported by 
 St. John, that opens a deeper view of His divine 
 nature than the words in St. Matthew (xi. 25-30) 
 beginning, “I thank Thee, O Father, Lord of 
 heaven and earth, because Thou hast hid these 
 things from the wise and prudent, and hast 
 revealed them unto babes.” All reveal the 
 same divine and human Teacher ; four copies of 
 the same portrait, perhaps with a difference of 
 expression, yet still the same, are drawn here, 
 and it is a portrait the like of which no one had 
 ever delineated before, or indeed could have 
 done, except from having looked upon it with 
 observant eyes, and from having had the mind 
 opened by the Holy Spirit to comprehend features 
 of such unspeakable radiance. Not only does 
 this highest ἐς harmony of the Gospels ” manifest 
 itself to every pious reader of the Bible, but the 
 lower harmony—the agreement of fact and 
 word in all that relates to the ministry of the 
 Lord, in all that would contribute to a true 
 view of His spotless character—exists also, and 
 cannot be denied. For example, the Synoptists 
 tell us alike that Jesus was transfigured on the 
 Mount; that the shekinah of divine glory shone 
 upon His face; that Moses the lawgiver and Elijah 
 the prophet talked with Him; and that the 
 Voice from heaven bare witness to Him. Is it 
 any imputation upon the truth of the histories 
 that St. Matthew alone tells us that the wit- 
 nesses fell prostrate to the earth, and that Jesus 
 raised them; or that St. Luke alone tells us 
 that for a part of the time they were heavy 
 with sleep? Again, one Evangelist, in describing 
 our Lord’s temptation, follows the order of the 
 occurrences, another arranges according to the 
 dezrees of temptation, and the third, passing 
 over all particulars, merely mentions that our 
 Lord was tempted. Is there anything here to 
 
GOSPELS 
 
 shake our faith in the writers as credible his- 
 torians? Do we treat other histories in. this 
 exacting spirit? Is not the very independence 
 of treatment the pledge to us that we have 
 really three witnesses to the fact that Jesus 
 was tempted like as we are? for if the Evan- 
 gelists were copyists, nothing would have been 
 more easy than to remove such an obvious 
 difference as this. The histories are true accord- 
 ing to any test that should be applied to a 
 history; and the events that they select— 
 though we could not presume to say that they 
 were more important than what are omitted, 
 except from the fact of the omission—are at 
 least such as to have given the whole Christian 
 Church a clear conception of the Redeemer’s 
 life, so that none has ever complained of in- 
 sufficient means of knowing Him. 
 
 There is a perverted form of the theory we 
 are considering which pretends that the facts of 
 the Redeemer’s life remained in the state of an 
 oral tradition till the latter part of the second 
 century, and that the four Gospels were not 
 written till that time. The difference is not of 
 degree but of kind between the opinion that the 
 Gospels were written during the lifetime of the 
 Apostles, who were eye-witnesses, and the notion 
 that for nearly a century after the oldest of 
 them had passed to his rest the events were 
 only preserved in the changeable and insecure 
 form of an oral account, But for the latter 
 opinion there is not one spark of historical 
 evidence. Heretics of the second century, who 
 would gladly have rejected and exposed a new 
 Gospel that made against them, never hint that 
 the Gospels are spurious; and orthodox writers 
 ascribe without contradiction the authorship of 
 the Books to those whose names they bear. The 
 theory was invented to accord with the as- 
 sumption that miracles are impossible, but upon 
 no evidence whatever; and the argument when 
 exposed runs in this vicious circle :—‘‘ There are 
 no miracles, therefore the accounts of them must 
 have grown up in the course of a century from 
 popular exaggeration; and as the accounts are 
 
 - not contemporaneous, it is not proved that there 
 
 are miracles!” That the Jewish mind in its 
 
 lowest decay should have invented the character 
 of Jesus of Nazareth, and the sublime system 
 of morality contained in His teaching—that four 
 writers should have fixed the popular impression 
 in four plain, simple, unadorned narratives, 
 without any outbursts of national prejudice, or 
 any attempt to give a political tone to the events 
 they wrote of—would be in itself a miracle 
 harder to believe than that Lazarus came out 
 at the Lord’s call from his four-days’ tomh. 
 
 For a detailed harmony of the four Gospels 
 the following works may be consulted :— 
 
 Griesbach, Synopsis Evangeliorum, 1776; De 
 
 | 
 ᾿ 
 
 Wette and Liicke, Syn. Evang. 1842; Rédiger, 
 Syn. Evang. 1829; Clausen, Quatuor Evany. 
 Tubulae Synopticae, 1829; Greswell’s Harmony 
 and Dissertations, a most important work; the 
 Rey. I. Williams On the Gospels; Theile’s Greek 
 Testament ; and Tischendorf’s Syn. Hvang. 1854 ; 
 besides the well-known works of Lightfoot, 
 Macknight, Newcome, and Robinson. [W. T.] 
 
 {This article of the late Archbishop is re- 
 printed without change, as being of historical 
 interest. More recent criticism is given in the 
 form of a supplement.—EDITOoRs. ] 
 
 BIBLE DICT.—VOL, 1. 
 
 GOSPELS 1217 
 
 SUPPLEMENT. 
 
 History of the Criticism of the Synoptic Gospels, 
 1863-1888.—The year 1263, in which the first 
 edition of this Dictionary appeared, might be said 
 to mark a turning-point in the history of 
 Synoptic criticism. For some twenty years up 
 to that date, in the Jand in which criticism 
 generally was most active, the Tiibingen School 
 had been in the ascendant. This school owed its 
 characteristics to the remarkable talent for 
 speculative and historical combination possessed 
 by its founder, F, C. Baur. At the basis of his 
 criticism of the Gospels lay a comprehensive 
 theory as to the history and development of 
 Christianity in the first two centuries. Up to 
 the middle of the second century the dominant 
 form of Christianity was Ebionite or Judaizing. 
 At the opposite pole to this lay the teaching of 
 St. Paul. And out of the gradual reconciliation 
 and combination of these two great opposing 
 forces Catholic Christianity at last took its rise. 
 Our present Gospels are the result of this 
 historical process. They reflect and represent 
 its course. We can still trace in them a number 
 of distinct layers, as it were, of dogmatic 
 tendency, deposited one after the other. What 
 comes to us as history was really the clothing in 
 narrative forms of ideas and doctrines. “The 
 Evangelists,” wrote Hasert, the so-called “Saxon 
 Anonymus,” in words adopted by Schwegler 
 (Nachapost. Zeitalt. ii. p. 41), “were by no 
 means the simple fisher-folk for which they 
 have been taken, but they have a very delicate 
 touch, and are in part extremely skilful and 
 penetrating persons (tiefsinnige Geister). Not 
 one little word in their writings, not even the 
 most insignificant, has been chosen by them 
 without the most deliberate intention and a 
 very special object ”—that object being, as the 
 writer goes on to explain, the promotion of the 
 views of that party in the Church to which 
 each in turn belonged. As Baur and his fol- 
 lowers took as their starting-point Ebionitism, 
 it was natural that they should find the earliest 
 stratum of evangelical composition in those 
 documents which are historically associated with 
 the Ebionite party. At the bottom of all came 
 the Gospel according to the Hebrews and other 
 kindred writings—the Gospel according to the 
 Egyptians, and the Gospel according to Peter— 
 of 4}1 of which only small fragments have come 
 down tous. Latest in the group was our present 
 St. Matthew—a composite work, in which the 
 different elements were only roughly and im- 
 perfectly harmonized: one set of sayings which 
 implied the permanence of the Mosaic Law and 
 of the Temple-ritual appearing side by side with 
 another which spoke of new wine in new bottles 
 and distinctly recognised the admission of the 
 Gentiles. Not dissimilar in its composite cha- 
 racter, though rounded off by superior literary 
 skill, was the Gospel which marked the corre- 
 sponding approximation of parties from the 
 Pauline side, our present St. Luke. Here, too, 
 Ebionite and Pauline elements were combined, 
 the latter preponderating and forming the 
 groundwork of the Gospel: both elements were 
 brought nearer to each other by mutual coaces- 
 sions. The process of reconciliation was com- 
 pleted in our present St. Mark, the last of all 
 the documents on the Jewish-Christian side, but 
 
 41 
 
1218 GOSPELS 
 
 in which the interests of party shaded off into 
 neutrality. This latest of the Gospels was 
 really little more than a colourless epitome of 
 the other two. By this time Catholic Chris- 
 tianity, or the union of modified Paulinism with 
 modified Ebionitism, was fully established. The 
 literary process occupied just the middle de- 
 cades of the second century, extending from 
 about the year 130 to 170. The canonical St. 
 Matthew fell about the earlier date. 
 
 It will be seen that this was essentially a 
 historical theory. Baur and Schwegler, who 
 may be taken as its most thoroughgoing repre- 
 sentatives, both paid considerable attention to 
 the passages quoted from: the writings of the 
 second century as evidence for the use of our 
 present Gospels; and such controversies as took 
 place within the School, like: that as to the 
 relation of the canonical St. Luke to the Gospel 
 used by Marcion, turned largely upon questions 
 of this kind. But the foundation on which the 
 theory rested was the assumed persistence of 
 Ebionite or Judaizing Christianity within the 
 Church, and the gradual amalgamation of its 
 doctrines with those of Paulinism. The specu- 
 lative, dogmatic reconstruction came first in 
 order of time, and the literary criticism had to 
 follow in its train. It was a theory impressed 
 from above downwards. See especially for the 
 above: ‘Schwegler, Das nachapostolische Zeit- 
 alter, Tiibingen, 1846; Baur, Aritische Unter- 
 suchungen iiber die kanonischen vangelien, 
 Tubingen, 1847. 
 
 It was against this method that the year 1863 
 brought a reaction. Not of course that the 
 ‘Tiibingen theory had passed without opposition 
 in its earlier stages. It always had a declared 
 and uncompromising antagonist in Ewald. And 
 the seeds of the theory which was to reccive 
 tuller development in the next period had already 
 been laid simultaneously by Weisse and Wilke 
 in 1838. But the publication of Holtzmann’s 
 Die Synoptischen Evangelien in 1863 was practi- 
 cally a new departure. Instead of approaching 
 the inquiry from above, it approached it from 
 below. It began, not with broad general con- 
 ceptions, but with a close and searching exami- 
 nation of the language of the Gospels and of 
 their relation to one another. And the method 
 thus inaugurated has been followed by the 
 majority of the more recent workers in this 
 department of criticism. The influence of Baur 
 has been felt far beyond the limits of his more 
 immediate following, but for the last eight-and- 
 twenty years the method principally in vogue 
 has been the opposite of his, and its resources do 
 not yet seem to be exhausted. 
 
 Subsequent History of the Tiibingen Theory.— 
 In tracing the history of this more recent period 
 it will probably conduce to clearness of presen- 
 tation if we take each of the competing theories 
 separately. And first to follow the fortunes of 
 the Tiibingen theory of which we have just 
 been speaking. From the first the Tubingen 
 
 - School had its right or more conservative wing. 
 While Ritschl was revising and fundamentally 
 modifying the whole theory of historical de- 
 ᾿ yelopment put forward by Baur, Hilgenfeld was 
 ’ throwing back the dates assigned to the canonical 
 Gospels, and in particular contending for the 
 ‘ priority of St. Mark over St.\ Luke; Volkmar, 
 -‘Professor at Ziirich, who in other respects 
 
 GOSPELS 
 
 cannot be called a conservative, was demon- 
 strating the traditicnal view of the relation of 
 Marcion to St. Luke. When the author of 
 Supernatural Religion brought this latter con- 
 troversy on to English ground, he felt himself 
 compelled after a time to abandon his position. 
 The originality of St. Luke therefore, in relation 
 to Marcion, is one of the points on which scholars 
 may be said to be generally agreed, unless the 
 question is to be re-opened, as so many others 
 have been, in Holland. ‘The veteran Hilgenfeld 
 has not relaxed his exertions, but has gone on 
 maintaining his position against all comers. In 
 his Introduction (Hinleitung in d. N. T.), which 
 came out in 1875, he formulates his views in 
 some such way as this. The First Gospel, which, 
 like Baur, he regards as a more or less radical 
 recension of an older Gospel akin to the Gospel 
 according to the Hebrews, he places very soon 
 (εὐθέως, Matt. xxiv. 20) after the destruction 
 of Jerusalem. The Second Gospel follows in the 
 early years of the reign of Domitian (81-96 a.D.). 
 It is throughout dependent upon the first, with 
 the addition of a Petrine tradition (p. 516). 
 The association ot this Gospel with St. Mark, as © 
 directly or indirectly responsible for its contents, 
 is not without foundation. Its tendency is 
 Petrine. The third Evangelist has used St. 
 Matthew’s Gospel in both its forms, and also 
 the canonical St. Mark, besides the Gospel 
 according to the Hebrews and other documents. 
 His work was composed towards the end of 
 Domitian’s reign in the interests of Paulinism. 
 
 More upon the original lines of Baur, though 
 with some recession in regard to dates, was the 
 arrangement advocated in England by Dr. 5. 
 Davidson. The original Aramaic Gospel, which 
 was really the work of St. Matthew, he would 
 place between 60-70 a.p.; our present recension 
 of it later; our third Gospel (not the work of 
 St. Luke) about 110, and the second about 120 
 (Introduction to the N. T., 2nd ed., 1882). 
 
 On the extreme verge of the School, and 
 representing its doctrines in their most moderate 
 form, would stand Dr. Keim. Beginning life as 
 a pupil of Baur, and inheriting his methods, he 
 yet reduced Baur’s conclusions in every direction 
 within far more sober limits. Keim held that 
 the First Gospel was in the main written about 
 the year 66, in the time of feverish expectation 
 which preceded the great catastrophe of the fall 
 of Jerusalem. Some thirty years after that 
 event it received some not extensive interpola- 
 tions, which betray themselves as such by break- 
 ing the connexion of the narrative or bearing 
 signs of Jater origin. The passages thus obelised 
 were Matt. i. 18-ii. 23; iii. 14,15; viii. 11,12; 
 xxii. 1-14; xxv. 1-12; xxvii. 3-10, 19, 62-665 
 xxviii. 11-15 (Gesch. Jes. v. Naz. i. pp. 61-63). 
 The author of these additions also revised and 
 edited the whole. The Third Gospel Keim 
 placed in the “times of the Gentiles” (Luke 
 xxi. 24), 1.6. about the year 90 A.D. The author, 
 he thinks, had the First Gospel before him, not 
 in its revised but in its original form; and he 
 had besides a version of the Discourses later 
 than that embodied in the First Gospel. Side 
 by side with these documents, both of Jewish- 
 Christian origin, he had others of a more Pauline 
 character—one containing the Samaritan epi- 
 sodes and perhaps the sending of the Seventy, 
 others which more directly breathed the spirit 
 
GOSPELS 
 
 of the Pauline Gospel. Keim saw no reason to 
 doubt the identity of the Evangelist with the 
 companion of St. Paul. The last of the Synop- 
 tics, St. Mark, he assigned approximately to the 
 
 year 100; and in regard to this he adhered to 
 
 the view of Baur, that it was for the most part 
 acento made up from St. Matthew and St. Luke. 
 
 ' What was not referable to these sources was 
 
 derived from oral, or more probably written 
 (Jewish-Christian) tradition, In the popular 
 abridged edition of his larger work, which 
 represents in some respects his later views, 
 
 _ Keim moved forward the dates which he had 
 
 assigned to the Gospels. The revision of St. 
 
 ᾿ Matthew was now circa 100 A.p.; St. Luke 
 
 about the same date, the authorship by St. 
 
 _ Paul’s companion being abandoned; St. Mark 
 _ about 120. At a still later date Keim showed 
 ‘a disposition to make concessions to his oppo- 
 nents, and to take up a position which he 
 
 described as ‘more eclectic”: “On the ground 
 of renewed study of the passages in Papias and 
 
 _of the groups of discourse in Matt. and Luke,” 
 
 he was no Jonger prepared ‘to stand uncon- 
 ditionally in the way of the theory of two main 
 
 ‘documents, one containing chiefly discourse and 
 
 the other narrative” (Aus dem Urchristenthum, 
 
 -Liivich, 1878, p. 30). 
 
 ’ tradition 
 
 τ composed. 
 
 τ presented with great literary skill. 
 
 A truer representative of the old Tubingen 
 is Dr. C. Holsten of Heidelberg, 
 though he too has very considerably modified 
 the ground-conception of the history on which 
 the Tiibingen theory was based. Dr, Holsten’s 
 work on the Synoptic Gospels was published in 
 
 two parts: the first, entitled Die drei urspriing- 
 
 lichen, noch ungeschriebenen Evangelien, came 
 out in 1883; the second, Die Synoptischen 
 
 ' Heangelien. nach der Form ihres Inhaltes, in 
 ᾿ 1885. | 
 ‘of the position of parties in the Christian 
 
 The first of these is a masterly sketch 
 
 Church at the period in which the Gospels were 
 It is the Tiibingen theory stripped 
 of its exaggerations, conformed to facts, and 
 On the 
 
 basis of this investigation into the history of 
 
 - doctrine Dr. Holsten attempts in his second 
 - treatise to explain the growth of the Synoptic 
 ᾿ Gospels. 
 
 The development of doctrine is the 
 only factor which he recognises; and with its 
 
 ‘help he maintains the thesis in all its boldness 
 
 » form. 
 
 ' any disparaging sense. 
 - legitimacy of the Pauline conceptions, and he 
 
 that our present St. Mark is a direct and 
 
 τ conscious transformation of our present St. 
 ' Mattnew, and the canonical St. Luke in like 
 
 manner a direct and conscious transformation of 
 its two predecessors. The First Gospel is 
 
 » Petrine, the Second and Third represent different 
 ‘shades of Paulinism. 
 
 It is the old Zendenz- 
 Kritik in its most logical and thoroughgoing 
 Dr. Holsten is, however, careful to 
 guard against the supposition that he uses it in 
 He fully recognises the 
 
 sees in the Gospels which embody that concep- 
 tion the spontaneous outcome of a deep and 
 creative religious movement. 
 
 The second of these two treatises of Holsten’s 
 is as disputable as the first was instructive, and 
 the scanty approval with which it has been 
 received is significant as a sign of the times. 
 
 ’ The Tiibingen theory suggested points of view 
 _ which must not be lost sight of: it contained 
 
 elements of truth which have passed into other 
 
 | their day. 
 
 GOSPELS 1219 
 
 systems. Doctrinal tendencies do leave their 
 mark upon documents and enable us to fit them 
 into their historical surroundings. But the 
 Tiibingen construction of history, though 
 suggestive, was faulty; andthe application of 
 it as a hypothesis to account for the literary 
 composition of the Gospels was to a large extent 
 misplaced and wholly inadequate. Men like 
 Hilgenfeld and Keim learnt as much from their 
 opponents as from their teachers, and therefore 
 still deserve a hearing; but the more pro- 
 nounced forms of the Tubingen theory have had 
 The dates which they assigned to 
 the Gospels were impossible: the recondite 
 motives and diplomatic finesse which they 
 attributed to their authors were an anachron- 
 ism: and from the point of view of inductive 
 criticism, their method was ἃ ὕστερον πρότερον---- 
 it came to the study of the Gospel texts last 
 instead of first; and it brought its solutions 
 ready-made to the facts, instead of waiting for 
 the facts, by classification and analysis, to point 
 the way to their own solution. 
 
 The Hypothesis of Oral Tradition.—In strong 
 contrast to the Zendenz-Kritik, which seeks a 
 doctrinal motive for every literary variation, is 
 the hypothesis which would base our Gospels, 
 as we have them, directly and without the 
 intervention of other documents on the oral 
 tradition of the primitive Church. This 
 hypothesis, first put forward in 1818 by 
 Gieseler, during the last five-and-twenty years 
 has had but few voices raised in its favour on 
 the Continent. Godet and one or two Roman 
 Catholic commentators (not including Schanz, 
 the latest and probably the best among them) 
 have been its chief representatives. During the 
 same period in England it would have a better 
 claim than any other to be considered the 
 dominant theory. This is probably due in great, 
 measure to the wide-spread influence of Dr. 
 Westcott, by whom the theory was adopted in 
 his Introduction to the Study of the Gospels 
 (ist ed. under the title Llements of the Gospel 
 Harmony, a Norrisian Prize Essay, in 1851; 
 2nd ed. under its present title in 1860; 7th ed. 
 1888). The same theory was advocated by 
 Abp. Thomson, both in the first edition of this 
 Dictionary and in the introduction to Vol. I. of 
 the Speaker’s Commentary. Bp. Lightfoot gave 
 it incidental support by arguing that the 
 documents mentioned by Papias might well be 
 our first two Gospels (Contemp. Rev., August 
 1875, reprinted in Hssays on Supernatural Re- 
 ligion, p. 142 sq.). And it has been accepted by 
 Dean Plumptre, Archdeacon Farrar, Dr. Lumby, 
 and many others. 
 
 It is not difficult to understand the attractions 
 of this hypothesis, especially for an English 
 mind. It accounts at once simply and naturally, 
 and without having recourse to any hyper- 
 critical theorizing, for all the differences 
 between the Gospels. And it has the great 
 recommendation that on the Baconian principle, 
 Hypotheses non fingo, it dispenses with the 
 necessity for inventing any other documents 
 than those which have actually come down to 
 us. The objections to assuming an earlier St. 
 Matthew than our present St. Matthew or an 
 earlier St. Mark than our present St. Mark are 
 stated especially by Dr. Salmon with great force 
 (Introduction, pp. 86 sq., 5th ed.). On the other 
 
 ; 413 
 
1220 GOSPELS 
 
 hand, there is much reason to doubt whether | 
 the German writers, like Weiss (Leben Jesu, i. 
 p. 27), who are strongest in their condemnation 
 of the oral theory, have really done justice to it. 
 With all their learning and powers of analysis, 
 it is perhaps a question whether the Germans 
 do not come somewhat short in_ historical 
 imagination. In reading many theories on the 
 origin of the Gospels we do not seem to get 
 clear of the nineteenth-century study or lecture- 
 room. Yet Palestine in the time of Christ was 
 something very different from these. The Jews 
 at this time were essentially a people of tradition. 
 The sayings of the Talmud were handed down 
 for centuries from mouth to mouth before they 
 were committed to writing. The Targums, or 
 Aramaic paraphrases of the Old ‘Testament 
 Scriptures, repeated at the reading of the 
 lessons in the synagogues, were forbidden to be 
 set down in writing. Reader and interpreter 
 followed each other alternately, and the inter- 
 preter was obliged to speak from memory: he 
 was not allowed to consult a book. The earliest 
 written Targums of which we hear date from 
 the first century, and these were of Books like 
 Job and Esther, which were not read in the 
 public services. The Jews therefore were in 
 the habit of transmitting orally long strings of 
 connected sayings: the memory was constantly 
 practised: written compositions were the excep- 
 tion, and oral transmission the rule. 
 
 Our own theologians have very rightly laid 
 stress on this characteristic of Jewish life. And 
 when it is urged against them that the original 
 tradition would be in Aramaic and not in Greek, 
 that too, at least on the negative side, is not so 
 certain. The number of synagogues in Jeru- 
 salem was counted by hundreds (Edersheim, 
 Life, δο., i. p. 119). Many of these, like the 
 synagogues of the Libertines, Cyrenians, and 
 Alexandrians in which St. Stephen disputed (Acts 
 vi. 9), would be specially intended for the Greek- 
 speaking Jews who came up as pilgrims to the 
 feasts. It was just among these Greek-speaking 
 Jews that the Christian propaganda was most 
 successful; and it seems far from improbable 
 that a special cycle of teaching would be 
 arranged for their benefit. The foreign Jews 
 more than the natives would need to have the 
 picture of the words and acts of Christ set 
 before them. 
 
 On all these grounds it would seem that a 
 stronger case can be made out for the oral 
 hypothesis than is often acknowledged. And 
 yet even when due allowance has been made 
 for them, it is still not clear that the hypothesis 
 is adequate to account for the facts. Ifwe put 
 aside for the moment the differences between 
 the three Synoptic Gospels and look only at the 
 agreement, we shall find that that agreement is 
 of the most thorough and searching kind. It is 
 agreement (1) in the selection of incidents and 
 sayings, (2) in their order, (3) in turns of phrase 
 which an oral tradition, however close, would 
 not be likely to preserve. A few words may be 
 said on each of these ports. 
 
 (1) Selection of Narratives.— We are often 
 reminded that the Synoptic Gospels are even at 
 best a very fragmentary record. The Ephesian 
 editor of St. John was so impressed with the 
 abundance of the facts to be recorded as to give 
 stterance to the hyperbole that if all were 
 
 GOSPELS 
 
 written down “the world itself should not contain 
 the books that should be written ” (John xxi. 25). 
 And yet the Synoptic Gospels, with all their 
 repetitions, only fill a very slender volume, 
 They themselves atford evidence enough that 
 what they contain is not the whole—even in 
 outline—but mere samples of the incidents in 
 the life of Christ. They all alike refer to 
 numbers of miracles of which they only par- 
 ticularise the same select few. ‘They tell of the 
 woe denounced upon Chorazin and Bethsaida for 
 their unbelief in face of the wonders that had 
 been wrought in them, And yet not one of the 
 wonders wrought in these cities do they record. 
 Scattered over the Synoptic Gospels there are 
 divers hints of a Judaean ministry: and yet if 
 we had had these Gospels alone, we should have 
 had no direct intimation that our Lord during 
 His public ministry had ever travelled south- 
 wards from Galilee. The Fourth Gospel throws 
 into relief the omissions of the Synoptists: but 
 the greater those omissions, the more remark- 
 able is it that they should coincide in their 
 choice of incidents to the extent they do. 
 
 (2) Order of Narratives. — Nor does the 
 strength of the case lie only in the fact that 
 the same incidents are chosen. ‘The order in 
 which they occur is a more or less artificial 
 one; and yet that order is practically the 
 same—at least the divergences are transparent 
 enough to let the fundamental order be seen 
 through them. ‘There is a normal order of 
 the incidents in the Synoptic Gospels which 
 underlies all three, and is capable of being 
 recovered. Much might be said on this head, 
 which was made the special subject of a paper 
 read at Oxford in 1886 by the Rey. F. H. Woods 
 [since published in Studia Biblica, ii. 59 54ᾳ.1. It 
 must suffice to refer to that paper here, or to 
 the discussions in Holtzmann or Weiss. 
 
 (3) Coincidences of Language.—It is hard to 
 believe that these coincidences in order are 
 such as could be accounted for by the observ- 
 ance of a set type in preaching or catechetical 
 instruction. And the difficulty is increased 
 when we come to note the kind of coinci- 
 dences which also occur in phraseology. We 
 might well conceive that, even in an oral 
 Gospel, “ single phrases would be impressed with 
 peculiar force,” and that there would be a 
 “yecurrence of strange words in the same con- 
 nexion in the different Evangelists, even when 
 the construction of the sentence was changed” 
 (Westcott, Introduction, p. 193, ed. 3). But 
 the actual agreement in the Synoptics goes 
 beyond this. It extends to phrases which are 
 mere connecting links between the sections, and 
 which are just of a kind that in a purely oral 
 tradition would be the first to vary. It is easy 
 to give examples. We may take for instance 
 four of the first consecutive sections in St. 
 Mark’s Gospel. 
 
 Mark i. 16. 
 
 Καὶ παράγων παρὰ τὴν 
 θάλασσαν τῆς Ταλιλαίας 
 εἶδεν Σίμωνα καὶ ᾿Ανδρέαν 
 τὸν ἀδελφὸν Σίμωνος ἀμ- 
 φιβάλλοντας ἐν τῇ θαλάσσῃ" 
 
 Matt. iv. 18. 
 Περιπατῶν δὲ παρὰ τὴν 
 θάλασσαν τῆς Ταλιλαΐας 
 εἶδεν δύο ἀδελφούς, Σίμωνσ 
 τὸν λεγόμενον Πέτρον καὶ 
 ᾿Ανδρέαν τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ» 
 
 ἦσαν γὰρ ἁλεεῖς. βάλλοντας ἀμφίβληστρον 
 εἰς τὴν ϑάλασσαν" ἧσαν vag 
 ἁλεεῖς. 
 
 ie 
 
GOSPELS 
 
 Observe especially the last clause, “ for they 
 were fishers.” This might indeed be thought 
 to be superfluous, and it would be so anywhere 
 but in this naive and simple kind of composition. 
 But in any case it is in a high degree improba- 
 ble that two independent versions of a story 
 orally repeated would not only both concur in 
 introducing such a clause, but introduce it 
 precisely at the same place. The conclusion 
 seems almost inevitable that the two Evan- 
 gelists are copying, not slavishly but freely, 
 not as scribes but as historians, from a common 
 document. 
 
 In the next section the coincidence is between 
 St. Mark and St. Luke. 
 
 GOSPELS 1221 
 
 Luke iy. 31, 32. 
 
 Kai κατῆλθεν eis Καφαρ- 
 ναοὺμ. πόλιν τῆς Ταλιλαίας, 
 καὶ ἦν διδάσκων αὐτοὺς ἐν 
 τοῖς σάββασιν" καὶ ἐξε- 
 πλήσσοντο ἐπὶ τῇ διδαχῇ 
 αὐτοῦ K.T.A. 
 
 Mark i. 21, 22, 
 
 Kai εἰσπορεύονται εἰς 
 Καφαρναούμ" καὶ εὐθὺς 
 τοῖς σάββασιν ἐδίδασκεν 
 εἰς τὴν συναγωγήν. Καὶ 
 ἐξεπλήσσοντο ἐπὶ τῇ διδαχῇ 
 αὐτοῦ K.T.A. 
 
 The section in St. Luke is brought from an 
 altogether different context, and it bears marks 
 of this in the definition of Capernaum as “a 
 city of Galilee.” The whole passage is still merely 
 an introduction to the incident which follows ; 
 and yet it glides at once into an identity of 
 language which hardly seems to be consistent 
 with oral tradition. 
 
 The next section belongs to the triple Synopsis : 
 Matt. viii. 14. Mark i. 29, 30. 
 Kat ἐλθὼν ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς eis τὴν οἰκίαν Καὶ εὐθὺς ἐκ τῆς συναγωγῆς ἐξελ- ᾿Αναστὰς δὲ ἀπὸ τὴς συναγωγῆς 
 Πέτρον εἶδεν τὴν πενθερὰν αὐτοῦ βε- θόντες ἦλθον εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν Σίμωνος εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν Σίμωνος. 
 βλημένην καὶ πυρέσσουσαν. καὶ ᾿Ανδρέου μετὰ ᾿Ιακώβου καὶ Ἴω- πενθερὰ Se τοῦ Σίμωνος ἦν συνεχο- 
 ἄννου. ἡ δὲ πενθερὰ Σίμωνος κατέ- μένη πυρετῷ μεγάλῳ. 
 κειτο πυρέσσουσα. 
 
 Luke iv. 38, 
 
 This is not one of the sections that we should 
 choose to prove the dependence of the threefold 
 narrative on a document rather than on tradi- 
 tion. For its proper appreciation it would 
 require a systematic examination of the method 
 and style of each of the three Evangelists. And 
 yet it should be noticed how closely the steps in 
 the narrative correspond—the synagogue; the 
 house; the sick woman; her relationship to 
 Peter; the nature of her sickness. We cannot 
 perhaps say beforehand that an oral tradition 
 would not preserve all these steps, but they are 
 
 Matt. viii. 16. 
 ᾿Οψίας δὲ γενομένης προσήνεγκαν 
 αὐτῷ δαιμονιζομένους K.T.A. 
 
 This passage raises a question with which we 
 shall have to deal presently, viz. as to the rela- 
 tive priority or closeness to the original 
 (whether oral or written) of the three Gospels. 
 It has been actually suggested that St. Mark’s 
 double phrase, “at even ”—‘“ when the sun set,” 
 was a compound of which one part was taken 
 from St. Matthew, the other from St. Luke; 
 but Holtzmann very rightly replies to this that 
 the mention of the sun setting is by no means 
 50 redundant as it may seem; the day being a 
 Sabbath, the people would not be allowed to 
 move their sick until sunset (Linleitung, p. 344). 
 We may certainly discard the notion that St. 
 Mark has pieced together two phrases that lay 
 before him in different documents; but there 
 is nothing at all unnatural in supposing that 
 the other two Evangelists drawing indepen- 
 dently of each other from a document like our 
 St. Mark, the one chose one phrase and the other 
 
 Matt. xxvi. 47. 
 
 Kat ἔτι αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος ἰδοὺ Καὶ εὐθὺς ἔτι 
 
 Ξ oe Ἶ : ᾿ : 
 *Tovdas cis τῶν δώδεκα ἦλθεν καὶ μετ’ παραγίνεται ᾿Ιούδας ὃ ᾿Ισκαριώτης, 
 εἷς τῶν δώδεκα, καὶ μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ ὄχλος 
 
 αὐτοῦ ὄχλος πολύς κ-.τ-λ. 
 κιτ.λ. 
 
 How is it that all three Evangelists must needs 
 tell us precisely at this point that Judas was 
 “one of the Twelve”? It is not that he had 
 not been mentioned before, for he had been men- 
 tioned several times, and once with a coincidence 
 similar to this of which we are speaking ; for 
 
 Mark i. 32. 
 ᾽Οψίας δὲ γενομένης, ὅτε ἔδυ ὁ ἥλιος 7 Δύνοντος δὲ τοῦ ἡλίου ἅπαντες... 
 ἔφερον πρὸς αὐτὸν πάντας K.T.A. 
 
 Mark xiv. 43. 
 
 at least more easily explicable on the assump- 
 tion of a common document. An exception 
 is presented by the additions in St. Mark 
 (“ the house of Simon and Andrew, with James 
 and John”). These would of course be quite 
 as consistent with oral tradition. At the 
 same time they do not cause any real diffi- 
 culty when they come to be considered in 
 connexion with the general relations of the 
 three Gospels. 
 
 After describing the incident in Peter’s house, 
 the triple narrative proceeds :— 
 
 Luke iv. 40. 
 
 ἤγαγον . . . πρὸς αὐτόν. 
 
 another. This is just what might be expected 
 to happen under the circumstances, though it 
 might happen equally well if the common basis 
 was oral. The reason why the section is referred 
 to here is as showing that not merely the sub- 
 stance of the narratives but even the introduc- 
 tory phrases and links of transition present 
 strong features of identity. The four sections 
 together were taken almost at random as an 
 average specimen of the Synoptic narrative, and 
 yet all yieid evidence—the first two strong 
 evidence—that the hypothesis of a written 
 document will better account for the phenomena 
 than the hypothesis of oral tradition. 
 
 No doubt the strongest point in the passages 
 just quoted is the identical insertion by St. 
 Matthew and St. Mark of the explanatory clause 
 ἦσαν yap adecis. One more striking example 
 may be given of the same thing, from the 
 narrative of the Betrayal. 
 
 Luke xxii. 47. 
 "Ere αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος, ἰδοὺ ὄχλος, 
 καὶ ὃ λεγόμενος ᾿Ιούδας εἷς τῶν δώδεκα 
 προήρχετο αὐτούς κ.τ.λ. 
 
 αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος 
 
 when his name occurs in the list of the Apostles 
 all the Evangelists alike take occasion to stigma- 
 tize him as “the traitor ” (Matt. x. 4= Mark iii. 
 19 = Luke vi. 16). Weshould not be surprised 
 if some one writer, seeking to heighten the 
 guilt of Judas, had thought fit to remind us 
 
1222 GOSPELS 
 
 GOSPELS 
 
 that he had been numbered among the Apostles ; | tremely few exceptions, did not belong to the 
 
 but when three together conspire to remind us 
 of this at the very same juncture in the narra- 
 tive, some more substantial explanation appears 
 to be needed than is supplied by oral tradition. 
 
 Phenomena like these seem to drive us back 
 upon the hypothesis of a common written docu- 
 ment. But there is one passage which goes 
 even further, and contains what can scarcely 
 be called an equivocal allusion to that docu- 
 ment itself. When they are recording the 
 prognostication of the signs which are to pre- 
 cede the coming of the End, the first two Evan- 
 gelists at least appear as if they were conscious 
 that the observation of those signs was a matter 
 of very pressing moment for their readers. 
 
 Matt. xxiv. 15, 16. 
 
 Ὅταν οὖν ἴδητε τὸ βδέλυγ- 
 μα τῆς ἐρημώσεως τὸ ῥηθὲν 
 διὰ Δανιὴλ τοῦ προφήτου 
 ἑστὸς ἐν τόπῳ ἁγίῳ (ὁ ἀνα- 
 γινώσκων νοείτω), τότε οἱ 
 ἐν τῇ ᾿Ιουδαίᾳ φευγέτῶσαν 
 κιτ.λ. 
 
 “Let him that readeth understand.” “Him 
 that readeth”—what? The two Evangelists of 
 course mean, what they are writing. But they 
 would hardly coincide in inserting the warning, 
 in the same words, at exactly the same place in 
 the sentence, unless it were suggested to them 
 from without. But this external suggestion is 
 not given by oral tradition: it is not “ him that 
 heareth,” but “him that readeth.” We seem to 
 be shut up to the conclusion that both made 
 use of a common written document from which 
 the phrase was derived. 
 
 This written document then seems to be 
 removed out of the category of fictitious entities, 
 and therefore is proof against the satire which 
 is sometimes directed against those who assume 
 the existence of what appear to be such entities. 
 It is true that the theory implies that a docu- 
 ment, which might be described as a Gospel, 
 has been lost. But other books which would 
 otherwise have been included in the New Testa- 
 ment have been lost. This is certainly the case 
 with at ieast one Epistle of St. Paul’s (1 Cor. v. 9): 
 and we have only to go to St. Luke’s Preface to 
 see that Gospels fared like Epistles. The won- 
 der would really have been if all the writings 
 of the apostolic age had come downto us. And 
 not only is there room for apostolic writings to 
 be lost, but there is also room for them to be 
 transformed in the process by which they have 
 reached us. Those who argue to the contrary 
 do not sufficiently consider the peculiar condi- 
 tions under which those writings arose. It is 
 hard to divest ourselves of the associations of a 
 literary age. We are apt to write and speak 
 as if we supposed that there must have been 
 always historians at hand: to chronicle the 
 appearance of every new composition. Anyone 
 who has made a close study, e.g. of the Versions 
 of the Bible, will know how erroneous such an 
 idea would be. The great difficulty which 
 besets the origin of the Gospels arises from the 
 fact that they grew up, as 1t were, in the dark, 
 and that their early history can only be re- 
 covered by analysis. They grew up, too, under 
 conditions that have probably never been 
 repeated. The primitive Christians, with ex- 
 
 Mark xiii. 14. 
 
 Ὅταν δὲ ἴδητε τὸ βδέλυγ- 
 μα τῆς ἐρημώσεως ἑστηκότα 
 ὅπου οὐ δεῖ (6 ἀναγινώσκων 
 νοείτω), τότε οἱ ἐν τῇ ᾿Ιου- 
 δαίᾳ φευγέτωσαν κ-.τ.λ. 
 
 literary classes. ‘The earliest written records 
 were not composed by literary men; and those ~ 
 into whose hands they fell would not treat them - 
 as we treat books, least of all as we should 
 treat the Bible. There was a sacredness about © 
 them no doubt, but the sacredness attached to ’ 
 the things recorded, not to the records. ‘The 
 chief desire of each individual would be to have 
 a full collection of the facts; he would be far © 
 less careful where his facts came from. We © 
 have examples of the process from a time when 
 it was rapidly waning in the interpolations © 
 which the so-called Western text (Cod. Bezae, 
 the Old Latin, and the Old Syriac) admitted ' 
 during the course of the second century. By the 
 close of that century, the time of Irenaeus, the 
 process was practically at an end, But it is 
 uncritical to transfer the conditions of 160-200 
 A.D., or even those of the forty years preceding, 
 to the latter half of the apostolic and the sub- 
 apostolic age. When, therefore, the famous 
 passages which Eusebius quotes from Papias 
 describe the circumstances under which. St...’ 
 Matthew and St. Mark wrote their Gospels, it , 
 does not at once follow that the Gospels of , 
 which he is speaking are in all respects the ; 
 same as those which we have now, or even : 
 those which Papias himself had. Papias pro- : 
 bably did not ask himself the question whether 
 they were or whether they were not. ‘The - 
 tradition that reached him was ἃ historical 
 tradition, and came to him as a matter of his-» 
 tory. It would be a further and distinct step 
 to turn that history: into an instrument of oriti- ; 
 cism, and see whether the accounts he heard of 
 their origin corresponded. exactly with the 
 characteristics of the Gospels which he was in 
 the habit of using. If any change, or accretion ' 
 of changes, took place, it would be in that dis-. 
 turbed and obscure time which immediately fol- 
 lowed the taking of Jerusalem. It would be a’ 
 great chance if anyone consciously observed the’ 
 change as it was being made, and a still greater ' 
 that he should take note of it in writing, and’ 
 that his note should be preserved. The earliest: ’ 
 stages in the transmission of the New Testament 
 Books, we may be sure from the nature of the 
 case, would be of a very peculiar kind. They 
 would not be copied mechanically by profes- 
 sional scribes, but they would be copied with a’ 
 certain amount of freedom by persons who were 
 not tied by professional scruples, and from no 
 bad motive, but from a natural interest, made 
 use of the MS. before them to place on record. 
 particulars which they had got from other 
 sources. And the nearer we go back to the 
 actual composition of the Books, the greater 
 would the liberties taken with them be. Nor. 
 have we any guarantee that copies so treated Ὁ 
 would not come down to us. The tendency 
 would be to preserve the fullest copy rather 
 than the purest. : 
 We are able then, if this reasoning holds, to. 
 approach the documentary hypothesis without 
 prejudice, not only in itself, but even if in any 
 of its forms.it should involve some distinction 
 between the Gospels mentioned by Papias’ and | 
 those which now bear the same names. We 
 know from the express statement of St. Luke. 
 that there were many Gospels in his day. But’ 
 it would surely be strange, and not the reverse, 
 
 = 
 
GOSPELS 
 
 if these Gospels should have been existing side 
 by side with our present St. Matthew and St. 
 Mark, and yet that those two Gospels should be 
 in no literary relation to them, but exclusively 
 based upon oral tradition. 
 
 The Hypothesis of common Documentary 
 Sources.—The way is now clear for the more 
 direct discussion of this hypothesis. In Germany, 
 as we have already said, it has had the field 
 almost to itself during the period of which 
 we are speaking. It has, however, taken a 
 number of different and often complicated 
 forms; and we shall perhaps best avoid the 
 confusing effect of enumerating these if we first 
 give ἃ mere outline of the contributions that 
 have been made to the study of the subject, re- 
 serving details, and then break up the problem 
 
 into its parts and endeavour to show how each | 
 
 of these has been treated separately. 
 
 The threshold of the period is marked, as we 
 began by saying, by the appearance of Dr. H. 
 J. Holtzmann’s Die Synoptischen Hvangelien 
 (Leipzig, 1863), a work following in the train 
 of Weisse and Wilke (see above, p. 1218), but 
 more thorough and searching than any that 
 had preceded it. In his latest publication, the 
 Hinleitung in ἃ. N. T. (Ast ed. 1885, 2nd 
 ed. 1887), Dr. Holtzmann has announced some 
 changes of opinion which will be noted below. 
 
 Within a year of Dr. Holtzmann’s appeared 
 
 another able treatise, also maintaining the docu- 
 mentary hypothesis, by Dr. C, Weizsiicker, 
 Untersuchungen iber die evangelische Geschickte, 
 thre Quellen und den Gang threr Entwicklung 
 (Gotha, 1864). Dr. Weizsicker, too, has recently 
 had the opportunity of reviewing his previous 
 work in Das Apostolische Zeitalter (Freiburg i. 
 b., 1886). Of this also details will be given 
 below. The articles ‘ Evangelien,” “ Geschichts- 
 quellen des N. T.” in vol. ii., “ Johannes” in 
 vol. iii., and “ Lukas,” “ Markus,” “ Matthiius ” 
 in vol]. iv. of Schenkel’s Bibel-Lexikon (Leipzig, 
 1869, 1871, 1872), were all written by Holtz- 
 mann; they were excellent summaries at the 
 time when they were written, and are still by 
 no means without their interest. In 1872 began 
 a series of very solid and elaborate works by 
 Dr. B. Weiss, developing in detail views to which 
 he had previously given a general expression: 
 Das Marcusevangelium, Berlin, 1872; Das 
 Matthéusevangelium und seine Lucas-Parailelen, 
 Halle, 1876; Das Leben Jesu, Berlin, 1882; 
 Hinleitung in das Ν. T., Berlin, 1886. Besides 
 these more important works both Dr. Holtzmann 
 and Dr. Weiss had written frequently in perio- 
 dicals, in part controverting the special views of 
 each other. By the side of Weiss’ Leben Jesu 
 mention should he made of another book of the 
 same kind and with the same title (Halle, 1885, 
 Ist ed.; 1887, 2nd ed.), by Dr. Willibald Bey- 
 schlag. Dr. Beyschlag had been an eager student 
 of the Synoptic problem, and had written articles 
 upon it in the Studien u. Kritiken, of which he 
 was joint editor. In the Introduction to his 
 Leben Jesu he gave a summary of results which 
 are much upon the same lines as those of Dr. 
 Holtzmann, though obtained by independent 
 study. The first introductory part of Die Lehre 
 Jesu by Dr. H. H. Wendt (Gottingen) is really 
 an elaborate treatise of nearly: 350 pages, on the 
 Gospels, and it has at least the merit of being 
 based upon a very close analysis of the texts. 
 
 GOSPELS 1223 
 
 When we have-mentioned Scholten in Holland 
 (Het oudste Lvangelie, 1868, with a German 
 translation by Redepenning, Elberfeld, 1869; 
 Het paulinisch Lvangelium, 1870, also transiated, 
 Elberfeld, 1881), Renan in France (esp. Les 
 Lvangiles, Paris, 1877), and Dr. Edwin A, Abbott 
 in England (art. “ Gospels ” in the Encyclopaedia 
 Britannica), though the list might be consider- 
 ably lengthened, we shall probably have men- 
 tioned the most important productions on this 
 side of the question. 
 
 Let us first see what all these various works 
 have in common before we proceed to consider 
 the points on which they diverge. ‘I'wo leading 
 principles which it is believed that they all have 
 more or'less in common, are (1) the acceptance 
 of the statements made by Papias; (2) the belief 
 in the priority (at least for a great part of the 
 Gospel) of St. Mark. 
 
 (1.9) The Statements of Papias—We might go 
 further and say that in contradistinction to the 
 upholders of oral tradition, the writers of whom 
 we have been speaking are unanimously of 
 opinion that whatever may be the case in regard 
 to St. Mark, the Gospel attributed by Papias to 
 St. Matthew was not our present Gospel, but 
 an older document, of smaller extent, incor- 
 porated in ‘that Gospel. This oJder document 
 they regard as in the main a “coliection of dis- 
 courses,” interpreting λόγια (lit. “ oracles ”) in 
 that sense. Now it must be admitted that 
 Bp. Lightfoot proved in his article in the Con- 
 temporary Review (Aug. 1875) that the word 
 does not necessarily bear this sense, and that it 
 would fit just as well a mixed record of acts and 
 discourses, like our Gospel. At the same time 
 it must also be admitted that the word might 
 have the more limited signification, or at least 
 might be applied to a document of which this 
 more limited description might be given. If 
 the advocates of the document theory took the 
 statement of Papias as their text, and argued 
 from it downwards, their position would be 
 untenable : it would at most amount to a possi- 
 bility that might be true or might not. They 
 have, however, pursued the more critical method 
 of keeping their analysis of the texts distinct 
 from their interpretation of Papias, and only 
 combining the two because they are found at 
 the end of ‘the process to coincide. Papias then 
 gives us two main documents,—a Gospel by St. 
 Mark, which, if not our present Gospel, might 
 be very like it, and a collection of discourses 
 composed by St. Matthew. Of the more exact 
 composition of each of these documents we shall 
 have to speak immediately. 
 
 (2.) Priority of St: Mark—By “ priority” of 
 St. Mark is meant here, either that our St. Mark 
 came first of the three Synoptics in order of 
 time, or that our St. Mark represents most 
 nearly in the greater number of its parts the 
 original Gospel which gave the framework to 
 the others. This is the direct antithesis to the 
 view of St. Augustine (‘¢ Marcus Matthaeum 
 subsecutus, tamquam pedisequus et breviator 
 ejus videtur,” De Cons. Lv. i. 2,§ 4), and of the 
 older Tiibingen School which regarded St. Mark 
 as a mere epitome of St. Matthew. The inver- 
 sion of this view is due mainly to two argu- 
 ments: (1) an examination of the order of the 
 narratives in all three Gospels; (2) an examina- 
 tion of their language.. (1) The position of the 
 
1553 ' GOSPELS 
 
 writers of whom we are speaking is based upon 
 this main fact, that by assuming the order of 
 the narratives observed by St. Mark it is not 
 only possible but easy to explain the order of 
 the other two Evangelists; while, on the other 
 hand, by assuming the order either of St. Matthew 
 or of St. Luke, we should be wholly unable to 
 explain the order of the remaining Gospels. If 
 we divide St. Mark’s Gospel into three sections 
 —(a)i. 1—iii. 6; (ὁ) iii. 7—vi. 13; (0) vi. 14— 
 xvi. 8—we shall find that in section a the order 
 (but for some insertions on St. Luke’s part) is 
 practically identical with that of St. Luke, and 
 that in section c the order is similarly identical 
 with that of St. Matthew. Section 6 is more 
 broken, but here too the order of St. Mark has 
 alternately the support of one or other of the 
 companion Gospels. ‘The cases in which one or 
 other of these Gospels diverges from the order 
 of St. Mark are accounted for either by the 
 general characteristics of the Gospel in question 
 or by some particular feature in the portion of 
 narrative which is transposed. This aspect of 
 the subject has been worked out with great 
 care by Mr. F. H. Woods in the paper mentioned 
 above. It is not contended that the order of 
 St. Mark, though in the main chronological, is 
 so in all respects: some sections (according to 
 Holtzmann, ii. 23—iii. 6, iv. 21-25, ix. 33-50, x. 
 2-31, xi. 23-26) show marks of artificial com- 
 
 GOSPELS 
 
 position: but it is contended—and this is one 
 of the concessions that the progress of criticism 
 has brought into ever-clearer light—that the 
 order of St. Mark represents the normal order of 
 the Synoptic narratives. 
 conclusion holds good when the language of St. 
 Mark is compared with the language of the 
 other two Gospels. Here, too, St. Mark is 
 found to be in the main the middle term which 
 explains the parallel columns of the Synopsis. 
 The proposition needs some restriction—we can 
 only say “in the main.” And yet there are 
 large stretches of the Gospel in which the proof 
 of it is overwhelming. When the language of 
 the Synoptic parallels is analysed, it falls under 
 four heads: (i.) points common to all three 
 Gospels ; (ii.) points common to St. Mark and 
 either of the other two Gospels; (iii.) points 
 common to St. Matthew and St. Luke against 
 St. Mark ; (iv.) points peculiar to each of the 
 three Gospels. Now, putting aside the first and 
 last of these heads, which prove nothing to our 
 purpose, we observe at once that the second 
 class far exceeds the third. Some very slight 
 illustrations of what is meant may be gathered 
 from the verses of the triple synopsis printed 
 above. A few figures tabulated from the sections 
 which follow next in order may help to make it 
 clearer. 
 
 Points common)Points common 
 Points common) to St. Mark |to 8t. Matthew 
 
 to all three in turn with | and St. Luke 
 
 Gospels. St. Matthew against 
 
 and 8t. Luke. St. Mark. 
 Healing of the Leper (Matt. viii. 1-4 = Mark i. 40-45 = Luke v. 12-16) . 33 19 ( 8+11) 3 
 Healing of the Paralytic (Matt. ix. 1-8 = Mark ii. 1-12 = Luke v. 17-26) . 55 45 (15- 30) 11 
 Levi’s Call and Supper (Matt. ix. 9-13 = Mark ii. 13-17 = Luke v. 27-32). 41 29 (19+10 5 
 Fasting (Matt. ix. 14-17 = Mark ii. 18-22 = Luke v. 33-39) . . . 46 47 (21426 8 
 Plucking the Ears of Corn (Matt. xii. 1-8 = Mark ii. 23-28 = Luke vi. 1-5 51 33 (10+ 23 8 
 Healing the Withered Hand (Matt. xii. 9-14 = Mark iii. 1-6 = Luke vi. ar 20 48 (21- 21) 5 
 
 The reader who wishes to pursue the subject 
 further may be referred to Mr. Rushbrooke’s 
 sumptuous Synopticon (London, 1880, 1881), 
 which is specially constructed to exhibit in 
 detail the relation of the three Gospels to each 
 other. He will also find a specimen printed in 
 various types, with a convincing argument based 
 upon it, in Dr. Abbott’s art. “Gospels”’ in the 
 Encycl. Brit., p. 790 sq. Some interesting statis- 
 tics bearing on this point have been collected by 
 Dr. Schaff (Apostolic Christianity, p. 596 sq.). 
 The total number of words in St. Mark, includ- 
 ing the last twelve verses, is 11,158: of these 
 2,651 are common to all three Gospels ; 2,793 to 
 St. Mark and St. Matthew; 1174 to St. Mark 
 and St. Luke. The figures for St. Matthew and 
 St. Luke (2,415) are not relevant to our purpose, 
 as they include the Sermon on the Mount, &c., 
 which are omitted by St. Mark (see Sch#rer, 
 Theol. Literaturzeitung, 1883, p. 99, for the 
 correction of a mistaken inference which Dr. 
 Schaff draws from his data). It appears that 
 more than half of the whole substance of St. 
 Mark (6,618 words out of 11,158) has been 
 absorbed into the other Gospels. It should be 
 said that the belief in the priority of St. Mark 
 —not necessarily in point of time, but in near- 
 ness to the common groundwork of the Synoptic 
 Gospels, whatever that groundwork might be— 
 
 is shared by defenders of the documentary hypo- 
 thesis, like Holtzmann, Weiss, and their allies, 
 with advocates of the oral theory, like Dr. West- 
 cott, and with writers who adopt a half-way 
 position between the parties, like Dr. Salmon. 
 The opposition to it has come chiefly from the 
 Tiibingen school, and from those under Tiibingen 
 influences. It is, if not an assured result of 
 criticism, yet rapidly becoming so. 
 
 Secondiry Features in St. Mark.—The greater 
 originality of St. Mark, speaking broadly and 
 generally, has thus been, as it seems, trium- 
 phantly vindicated. And yet the claim is one 
 that cannot be made without reserve. True as 
 it is on the whole that St. Mark represents 
 more nearly the groundstock of the tradition, 
 he does not do so in every particular. In all 
 the sections tabulated above, though the general 
 preponderance was strong in favour of St. Mark, 
 there was still a small residuum in which 
 St. Matthew and St. Luke were agreed against 
 him. Usually these were not of great moment : 
 in the first of the above sections (The Leper) 
 there were three, ἰδού, Κύριε, εὐθέως (for εὐθύς); 
 in the second (The Paralytic) eleven, ἐδού again, 
 ἐπὶ κλίνης, εἶπεν, kA[ ny], ἀπῆλθεν εἰς τὸν οἶκον 
 αὐτοῦ, [ἐ)φοβ[ἤθησανἼ, and so on. The per- 
 sistent way in which small points of this kind 
 kept recurring in each of the sections was 
 
 (2) A very similar , 
 
GOSPELS 
 
 remarkable. But the points were not always 
 small. Occasionally whole sayings of a striking 
 
 kind and certainly original were found to have | 
 
 dropped out from St. Mark while they were 
 retained by St. Matthew: such as “Go not into 
 any way of the Gentiles, and enter not into any 
 city of the Samaritans; but go rather to the 
 lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matt. x. 5, 6). 
 And if there was room to doubt whether St. 
 Matthew was not here drawing from a peculiar 
 source to which St. Mark had not access, there 
 was a clearer case in regard to the omission of a 
 saying like “61 was not sent but unto the lost 
 sheep of the house of Israel” (Matt. xv. 24). 
 It was natural that sayings which seemed to 
 breathe so much of the old particularism should 
 drop away when the wholesale admission of 
 Gentiles was a fait accompli. But the retention 
 of such sayings is a high testimony to the 
 originality of the document in which they occur, 
 and here the originality is on the side of St. 
 Matthew, not of St. Mark. Besides these 
 isolated dicta, there were some sections like 
 those at the very beginning of his Gospel in 
 which St. Mark did present the appearance of 
 an abridgment. 
 
 This collection of points brings us to what is 
 really one of the greatest difficulties in the 
 whole Synoptic question—the secondary features 
 in St. Mark. No theory could be said to be 
 satisfactory until it accounted for these.. We 
 proceed to enumerate the principal hypotheses 
 to which recourse has been had to account for 
 them: These are—(i.) the hypothesis of an Ur- 
 Marcus, or older form of the Gospel, nearly 
 resembling our present form, but containing 
 those features which have been lost in it; (ii.) 
 the hypothesis that St. Luke had before him 
 our present St. Matthew, and took from it those 
 features which he has in common with it as 
 against St. Mark; (iii.) the peculiar theory of 
 Weiss, which will be more fully described 
 below ; (iv.) another theory, also suggested by 
 Weiss and by others, but which does not seem 
 as yet to have received very close attention ; 
 (v.) along with these solutions may be mentioned 
 a fifth on somewhat peculiar lines by νυ Eng- 
 lish scholars. 
 
 (i.) Zhe Ur-Marcus Hypothesis.—This was 
 the hypothesis originally adopted by Holtzmann, 
 and fully worked out by him in the book which 
 we have taken as the starting-point of our 
 survey. Something like it was also adopted 
 independently by Weizsiicker in his Unter- 
 suchungen (1864). In the circle of those who 
 held that there was a documentary basis for all 
 these Synoptics it met with much approval. 
 Perhaps one of its simplest forms is that which 
 is put forward by Beyschlag in his Leben Jesu 
 (1885). In describing this the opportunity may 
 be taken to mention that many of those who 
 fall back upon an Ur-Marcus still do not 
 believe that even this is absolutely the oldest 
 form of evangelical composition. Beyschlag 
 himself would begin the series with the notes 
 which Papias says were taken down by St. 
 Mark from the preaching of St. Peter, in regard 
 to which he takes the οὐ μέντοι τάξει of Papias 
 in its strictest sense. He supposes that they 
 were mere jottings with no literary arrange- 
 ment (eben Jesu, Ὁ. 85). The date at which 
 
 GOSPELS 1225 
 
 66. These Petrine notes were combined a year 
 or two later with a specially Galilean tradition 
 into the Protevangelium, a finished literary 
 whole on the lines of our St. Mark, which gave 
 the framework of their Gospels to both St. 
 Matthew and St. Luke. This was still before 
 the taking of Jerusalem. Soon after that event 
 the Protevangelium, or Ur-Marcus, underwent a 
 slight revision (0... the substitution of ἐν 
 ἐκείναις ταῖς ἡμέραις in Mark xiii. 24 for the 
 εὐθέως οἵ Matt, xxix. 29), and was so brought to 
 its present shape. Now it is not rare in English 
 books to find severe criticisms on this multi- 
 plication of documents with imaginary names— 
 Ur-Marcus, Proto-Marcus, Deutero- Marcus, 
 Protevangelium, and the like. The names are of 
 course matters of pure indifference. The docu- 
 ments might as well be labelled A, B, and C, or 
 X, Y, and Z. And the documents too themselves 
 are hypothetical; but they are not therefore 
 altogether imaginary. The assumption that 
 there are such documents is merely the expres- 
 sion (which may be wrong, but cannot be known 
 to be so until it has been thoroughly tested) of 
 certain facts which are revealed by an analysis 
 of our present Gospels. There are distinct 
 layers in our present St. Mark. There is one 
 layer that is earlier than our St. Matthew, and 
 another that is later; one layer that is before 
 the fall of Jerusalem, and another that is after 
 it. To call these separate layers so many docu- 
 ments, or stages in the history of a document, is 
 a step, but by no means a reckless one; and the 
 only condition for the verification of the hypo- 
 thesis is that it shall really account for all the 
 facts. 
 
 The natural objection to the Ur-Marcus 
 theory is, that it implies the existence of a 
 Gospel which is so like our present Gospel 
 without being identical with it. Under modern 
 conditions such a thing hardly could exist. 
 Under ancient conditions, in literary circles, and 
 where the regular machinery of book production 
 and propagation was at work, it would be rare. 
 But the particular conditions under which the 
 Gospels arose, as we have seen, did not come 
 under these general laws. The changes that 
 took place in them would probably fall within 
 the sphere of transcription rather than of 
 authorship. The fate of the first two or three 
 copies would determine the fate of the book. 
 This is not equivalent to saying that the Ur- 
 Marcus hypothesis is proved; it is only a plea 
 that it should not be dismissed in limine, as if it 
 were incredible. It is one of the hypotheses 
 which deserves renewed testing by systematic 
 application to the text. 
 
 (ii.) The Hypothesis that the First Gospel 
 was used by the Author of the Third—A change 
 has come over the attitude of many defenders 
 of the Ur-Marcus theory. This change dates 
 from the appearance of a work by E. Simons, 
 Hat der dritte Evangelist den kanonischen 
 Matthius benutzt? (Bonn, 1881,) now un- 
 fortunately out of print, and not to be obtained 
 in this country. Simons answered the question 
 that he put to himself in the affirmative; and 
 since he did so several leading critics have come 
 round to or expressed the same opinion. So 
 Holtzmann (Theol. Literaturzeitung, 1881, 
 col. 182; Hinleitung, p. 339), Weizsiicker (Apost. 
 
 these were made he would put about the year | Zvitalter, 1886, p. 414), Wendt (Lehre Jesu. 
 
1226 GOSPELS 
 
 1886, p. 193). Holtzmann’s conversion had 
 taken place from independent study before 
 Simons’ book appeared; Weizsicker gives no 
 details; Wendt appears to derive his view from 
 Simons. It is obvious that the assumption that 
 St. Luke had St. Matthew’s Gospel before him 
 at once gives a satisfactory solution of all the 
 coincidences between them. It is, however, 
 essential to this theory that it should be taken 
 with the limitations which its cautious expouent 
 has given to it. Simons only contends for a 
 slight and incidental use of the First Evangelist’s 
 work by the Third. Directly and systematically 
 he used St. Mark, indirectly and cursorily St. 
 Matthew. It is as if he copied the one and was 
 affected by an indistinct recollection of words 
 and phrases in the other. This is a possible 
 state of things: and only such very qualified 
 use is consistent with the marked divergence 
 which St. Luke presents in so many particulars 
 from St. Matthew. 
 
 If the First Gospel had been throughout the 
 work of an Apostle, then in any case St. Luke’s 
 procedure would hardly be intelligible, as he 
 lays especial stress on the evidence of eye-wit- 
 nesses; but he may have felt that the First 
 Gospel, as it is, did not exclude a certain rivalry, 
 or he may not have had a copy in his possession 
 at the time of writing. 
 
 (iii.) Weiss’ Theory.—Dr. B. Weiss still finds 
 both the Ur-Marcus hypothesis and the hypothe- 
 sis that St. Luke used the canonical Matthew in- 
 admissible, and he still holds to a theory of his 
 own to which there have been some approxi- 
 mations, but to which he does not seem to 
 have won many converts (see, however, Lr- 
 positor, 1891, p. 412). He maintains that the 
 Second Evangelist not only had and used the 
 Petrine tradition, but also the Matthaean col- 
 lection of discourses mingled with narrative. 
 The Gospel so constructed again became a main 
 source of our present First Gospel, the author of 
 which thus used the Matthaean document twice 
 over, itself directly, and indirectly through 
 St. Mark. In using it directly he at times 
 preserved its language more closely than St. 
 Mark had done. The cumbrous part of this 
 theory is the double use which it involves of the 
 same document; and it is open to the further 
 objection, How did St. Mark come to leave out 
 from his apostolic document just those dis- 
 courses which were its most characteristic 
 features? It ought, however, to be said that 
 the theory that the Third: Evangelist had 
 seen the work of the First also involves the 
 double use of a document—the Logia, once in 
 its original form, and once as worked up in our 
 St. Matthew. 
 
 (iv.) A modified Form of Weiss’ Theory.—In his 
 Leben Jesu, p. 45, Weiss presents his theory with 
 what appears to be somewhat of a modification. 
 He warns us that in speaking of the use by 
 St. Mark of St. Matthew’s collection he does not 
 mean a formal collating in the ordinary sense of 
 the term; he reminds us that St. Mark himself 
 had his home in Jerusalem, and would often have 
 heard the oral teaching of the Apostles before 
 he became a companion of St. Peter and con- 
 ceived the thought of writing a Gospel ; some- 
 thing of what he set down would be due to 
 these recollections, and they would lead him to 
 refer to St. Matthew’s work and enrich his own 
 
 GOSPELS 
 
 from it as soon as it appeared. 
 to ask if this last suggestion is necessary, and if 
 the first part would not be better without it. 
 Is it not enough to suppose that beside the 
 Petrine notes St. Mark would also use the 
 tradition of the Mother-Church, and that the 
 
 superior details in the First Gospel are only . 
 
 the same tradition rather more 
 rendered ? 
 theory: but an opinion cannot be expressed upon 
 either form of it until it is confronted verse 
 by verse with the texts. 
 
 (v.) So far the solutions have either treated 
 
 correctly 
 
 our St. Mark as itself an original document, . 
 
 or as nearly co-extensive with the common 
 original of the Synoptic portions of the three 
 
 Gospels; and the divergences from St. Mark . 
 
 have been explained as due in the main to 
 literary considerations. 
 
 and those which are common to St. Mark with 
 
 either of the others, would alike form part of. 
 But another hypothesis . 
 It was possible to start not from. 
 
 the original document. 
 was possible. 
 the threefold coincidences and the twofold co- 
 incidences, but from the threefold coincidences 
 alone. Dr. Edwin. A. Abbott in his article in 
 the Encyclopaedia Britannica alopted this alter- 
 native, and a somewhat similar solution of 
 the question was worked out independently by 
 Dr. Edersheim. [Dr. Edersheim’s papers are 
 not published, but permission was given by 
 the author before his death for the use which 
 is here made of their contents.] Both these’ 
 
 scholars appear to have been influenced by the ‘ 
 
 same argument, viz. by the observation that 
 the threefold coincidence—* the triple tradi- 
 tion,” as Dr. Abbott calls it—when detached 
 from the rest of the context, gives by itself a 
 tolerably continuous narrative. Dr. Abbott’s 
 “triple tradition” corresponds to Dr. Edersheim’s 
 “ original document ” (“ O. D.”); and a specimen 
 
 of Dr. Abbott’s reconstruction of this may be: 
 
 seen in the art. “Gospels” in Encl. Brit. vol. x. 
 p- 793. If the result appears to the modern 
 reader somewhat abrupt, disjointed, and obscure, 
 Dr, Abbott urges that the Mishna was trans- 
 mitted in a very similar fashion; he compares 
 the short sentences of his tradition to a telegram 
 which needs to be “ expanded” before it can be 
 understood; and he makes use in a most in- 
 genious manner of this very obscurity and the 
 
 differences of interpretation to which it gave ᾿ 
 
 rise as a means of accounting for some of the 
 
 more marked deviations from the original text: 
 
 and from each other, in the three Gospels 
 (Common Tradition of the Synopt. Gospels, p. xi. 
 London, 1884). 
 of his “original document” does not differ 
 widely from Dr. Abbott’s, but in the further 
 development of the two theories there is some 
 divergence. Dr. Abbott agrees with the mass 
 of the scholars who adopt the documentary 
 hypothesis in regarding our St. Mark as the 
 nearest representative of the common tradition, 
 
 and he believes that the First and Third Evan- - 
 
 gelists have borrowed from this independently. 
 Dr. Edersheim finds the common tradition often 
 more faithfully preserved in St. Matthew, and 
 he thinks that St. Luke had seen both St. Mark 
 and St. Matthew. For a criticism (which is rather 
 too caustic) on the reconstructed “ triple tradi- 
 
 We are tempted - 
 
 This would at least simplify the’ 
 
 In this way both the. 
 elements which are common to all three Gospels, . 
 
 Dr. Edersheim’s reconstruction - 
 
GOSPELS 
 
 tion,” the reader may be referred to Dr. Salmon’s 
 Introduction, p. 132 sq., 5th edit. 
 
 The Collection of the Logia.—If the secondary 
 features in St. Mark are one of the “ burning 
 points” in the Synoptic question, the exact 
 nature and extent of the Logia of St. Matthew 
 is another. [ven the existence of this document 
 is not perhaps altogether proved, though there 
 is a strong consensus upon the point in Germany. 
 The assumption of it does not really rest upon 
 a particular interpretation of the words of 
 Papias, but is an independent result of analytic 
 criticism which appears to coincide with, and 
 to be confirmed by, those words. When on the 
 one hand it was observed—as it could not fail 
 to be observed—that the common matter in 
 St. Matthew and St. Luke which they had over 
 and above the main body of the Synoptic tra- 
 dition shared by them with St. Mark consisted 
 mainly of discourse, and when on the other hand 
 there was the express statement of Papias that 
 St. Matthew composed a collection of λόγια 
 which, whatever the other uses of the word, 
 would be at least an appropriate name for a 
 collection of discourses, it was an obvious step 
 to identify the common element of discourse in 
 the First and Third Gospels with the document 
 the existence of which was thus historically 
 attested. And there was the further reason 
 for this that it was improbable on a number 
 of grounds (which are conveniently summarised 
 by Beyschlag, p. 93), that the First Gospel in its 
 present form, though even in this form a very 
 primitive document, came directly from the 
 hands of an Apostle. That being so, it was a 
 simple and natural explanation of the eccle- 
 siastical tradition which connects this Gospel 
 with the name of St. Matthew, that it embodied 
 the original apostolic work in so prominent and 
 distinctive ἃ manner, 
 
 But was the same apostolic work also used 
 by St. Luke? The primd facie view is no doubt 
 that it was; nor is the presence of difficulties in 
 the way of this supposition at once destructive 
 of it. There is, for instance, such a difficulty 
 almost at the outset in the Sermon on the 
 Mount. Putting aside for a moment the 
 divergence in the account by the two Evan- 
 gelists of the circumstances under which the 
 discourse was delivered, and putting aside the 
 difference in extent of the two versions, is it 
 probable that if the Third Evangelist had had 
 before him the Beatitudes in the form in which 
 we have them in St. Matthew he would have 
 written as he did? Or if the First Evangelist 
 had had them before him in the form in which 
 they occur in St. Luke, would he have written 
 as he did? The divergence seems to go beyond 
 the usual degree of latitude in two independent 
 transcriptions of the same text, nor does it seem 
 that an adequate motive can be assigned for it. 
 Something might be due to the fact that, as 
 Beyschlag supposes, and as the consent of all the 
 early authorities would lead us to expect, St. 
 Matthew originally wrote in Aramaic, and the 
 two’ Evangelists translated from this original 
 independently : but a mere difference in transla- 
 tion will not resolve eight (or nine) Blessings 
 into four Blessings and four Woes. If we must 
 assume that both versions are derived from the 
 same source, does it not seem almost necessary 
 to suppose that some further step or steps inter- 
 
 1227 
 
 vened before they could reach their present 
 form? The question must be left, for it is one 
 that does not appear to have been grappled with 
 quite so thoroughly as might be desired: and it 
 is only a single example out of many. The 
 difficulties which arise out of the order of the 
 several discourses or sayings in the two Gospels 
 have been dealt with more satisfactorily, though 
 it would be too much to say that a full solution 
 has been found. ‘This however reminds us that, 
 though progress may be slow, yet there has 
 been progress. Wendt has recently made a 
 bold attempt (Lehre Jesu, i. p. 50 sq.) to recon- 
 struct not merely the outline, but the whole 
 text of the original Logia from our two Gospels. 
 It was more than could be hoped that such an 
 attempt should be immediately successful. Bat 
 aiming at a higher object is often the best way 
 to attain a lower object; and the experiment 
 can hardly fail to contribute to the furtherance 
 of criticism. Though agreement has not yet 
 been reached on « number of important ques-- 
 tions relating to the Logia, there is at least a 
 tendency to agreement on two points: (i.) It is 
 coming to be now generally recognised that the 
 First Evangelist has grouped together sayings 
 that were not all really spoken on the same 
 occasion (so in the Sermon onthe Mount, at 
 least in Matt. vii.). Holtzmann compares 
 many of the sayings which belong to the Logia 
 to “erratic blocks” which have travelled some 
 way from their original position. He and 
 others think that they are more often to be 
 found im situ in St. Luke (6.5. Luke xii. 18-31; 
 cp. Matt. vi. 25-33). The opposite view to 
 Holtzmann’s is held amongst others by Dr. 
 Edersheim, whose reconstruction of the Logia is 
 peculiarly interesting. He thought that it was 
 a genuinely Jewish work, constructed after the 
 manner of such works in five Pereqs or Sec- 
 tions, like the five books of the Law, or the five- 
 fold division of the Psalter. These five Peregs 
 are identified with the five great masses of dis- 
 course in St. Matthew. The whole theory is 
 attractive; but the difficulties will begin to 
 be felt when it is sought to explain how the 
 compact discourses of St. Matthew came to be 
 dispersed into the scattered sayings that we: 
 find in St. Luke. (ii.) Another point on which 
 critics are now more agreed than they were at 
 the beginning of the period of which we have 
 been speaking is, that though the Logia consisted » 
 of anumber of more or less detached sayings, 
 these sayings were often prefaced with brief 
 historical introductions. What has been said on . 
 the meaning of the word λόγια will show that 
 these were by no means excluded. ‘Thus the’ 
 way is prepared for Weiss, who would refer to 
 the Logia not only narratives like the Healing 
 of the Centurion’s Servant—which are peculiar 
 to St. Matthew and St. Luke—but others like the 
 Healing of the Leper and of Jairus’ Daughter, 
 and the Sabbath controversies (Mark ii. 23 sq.), | 
 which are common to all three Gospels. This is 
 part of the theory which has been previously 
 referred to (p. 1226 above), and it has not as 
 yet met with much acceptance. 
 
 This glance at the history of the Synoptic ques- 
 tion is as far perhaps as we can go with profit 
 in general terms. The one thing to be depre- 
 cated on this even more than on other questions, 
 is the random use of generalities untested by 
 
 GOSPELS 
 
1228 
 
 facts. What has just been given does not 
 profess to be more than a sketch in outline of 
 the different solutions ; it is not even a criticism 
 of them, much less an attempt either to propose 
 a new solution or defend an old one. ‘That can 
 only be done satisfactorily by going through the 
 whole text verse by verse and word by word. 
 
 There are doubtless some who will be 
 deterred by the multitude of divergent views 
 which are held by critics. But it is a shallow 
 urgument, and one that ought not to be used, 
 to point to the extent of this divergence as in 
 itself proof that all the theories alike are wrong 
 and a real solution impossible. No considerable 
 scientific question has ever escaped without a 
 tentative period; least of all a question of such 
 extreme complexity and difficulty as the present. 
 The impression that is made upon the mind of 
 one who has studied the question mainly from 
 without, and not as yet, except to a limited 
 extent, in close detail from within, is that the 
 complexity is not so great as to be never un- 
 wavelled, and the difficulty not so great as to be 
 never overcome. 
 
 Little by little, untenable hypotheses are 
 being discarded; theories are formulated and 
 brought to a precise issue, to which an affirma- 
 tive or negative answer can be given; and as 
 the issues are narrowed, the magnifying-class of 
 a close criticism is brought to bear upon them. 
 When we remember all this, and when we take 
 into account some wider considerations, the 
 international character which theological study 
 of all kinds is assuming, and the many and 
 varied qualifications of those both in Europe and 
 America who are engaged upon it, it does not 
 seem too bold to prophesy that the end, if not 
 exactly near, is not very distant, and that the 
 twentieth century at least will not be far 
 advanced before the long-sought solution is found. 
 
 Comparative Table of different Forms of the 
 Documentary Hypothesis —It only remains to 
 attempt to give some idea of the relation in 
 detail of these different theories to each other. 
 The student, it is thought, must often wish for 
 some means of comparing together the treat- 
 ment of particular sections by the different 
 critics ; and an attempt is made to give him 
 this, though it must be confessed only in arough 
 and approximate way. ‘The task was one that 
 it was difficult to carry out satisfactorily. In 
 cases like those of Weiss and Wendt and Holtz- 
 mann’s reconstruction of 1863, the data were 
 sufficiently complete ; but in the case of Weiz- 
 siicker and Beyschlag, where the treatment was 
 less detailed, incidental and scattered statements 
 had to be picked out and put together, and 
 where such statements were wanting (though 
 they might often be supplied by probable con- 
 jecture) it seemed best to leave a blank; nor 
 can it be said that the examination of these 
 writers has been exhaustive. It was also not 
 found possible to represent in the tables all the 
 restrictions and qualifications and variations in 
 the assignment of position with which the 
 criticism of the different sections is accompanied. 
 The tables do not aim at giving more than a 
 coup d'eil of the subject, with such limitations 
 as appear to be inseparable from a coup d’eil; 
 but it is hoped that it may prove of some use to 
 those who desire to attack the problem at closer 
 quarters. The sections are adapted from 
 
 GOSPELS 
 
 GOSPELS 
 
 Holtzmann’s Hinleitung, pp. 355-361. A short - 
 preliminary account is given of each of the 
 
 theories tabulated, with one or two details 
 
 which may enable the English reader to judge 
 
 of its distribution. It will be seen that most of 
 
 the writers quoted are veterans who have given 
 
 prolonged attention to the subject. 
 
 Holtzmann, Dr. H. J. (Ὁ. 1832), Professor at 
 Strassburg. In his work on the Synoptic 
 Gospels in 1863 Dr. Holtzmann held that the 
 two main elements in the Synoptic composition 
 were (1) an Ur-Marcus similar to but in some 
 respects fuller than our present St. Mark; (2) a 
 collection of Logia or discourses by the Apostle 
 St. Matthew, worked up in both the First and 
 the Third Gospels, and often preserved most 
 faithfully in the latter. In his latest work, 
 the Linleitung in das N. 7. (Ast ed. 1885), Dr. 
 Holtzmann has announced some modifications of 
 these views, due to the discussions in which he 
 has been engaged in the interval. He now 
 thinks that the Third Evangelist had the work 
 of the First (our present St. Matthew) before 
 him, “so that at least most of the reasons for 
 distinguishing between an Ur-Marcus and our 
 present Mark fall away.” He also thinks that 
 all the discourses in St. Luke are not necessarily 
 to be referred to the Logia; that some of them 
 have undergone still further redaction in St. 
 Luke than in St. Matthew; and that the Logia 
 may not have consisted purely of discourse, but 
 that there may have been brief introductory 
 narratives as a framework for the discourses. 
 Dr. Holtzmann’s changed views as to the dates 
 of the completed Gospels will be noticed below. 
 We are unfortunately without the materials for 
 representing his present position in detail, and 
 so have been obliged to fall back upon this 
 earlier construction, which has now indeed come 
 to have only a historical interest, but which in 
 its day was the most solid attempt that had been 
 made at the elucidation of the problem, and 
 which still retains much of its suggestiveness. 
 [Dr. Holtzmann’s latest views are given in his 
 concise commentary on the Synoptic Gospels . 
 (Die Synoptiker, Freiburg i. B., 1889).] 
 
 Weizsacher, Dr. C. (Ὁ. 1822), Professor at 
 Tiibingen. Dr. Weizsiicker, like Dr. Holtzmann, 
 has recently brought out a revised version of 
 his original Untersuchungen iiber die evangelische 
 Geschichte. Almost the same interval of time 
 separates the two works: the Untersuchungen 
 appeared in 1864, Das Apostolische Zeitalter in 
 1886. Here, however, the later work is full 
 enough to allow us to use it directly. The 
 characteristic feature in Dr. Weizsiicker’s theory 
 is, that he thinks that both the narrative-ele- 
 ment and the discourse-element in the Gospels 
 have gone through a greater number of stages 
 and a longer development before reaching their 
 final shape. According to Weizsiicker, smaller 
 collections were made up into larger before the 
 larger were made up in our present Gospels. 
 He tries to distinguish these smaller collections, 
 and we have endeavoured to reproduce these 
 distinctions, which are not so arbitrary as one 
 who approaches the subject from the outside 
 may perhaps think them. 
 
 Weiss, Dr. B. (b. 1827), Professor at. Berlin. 
 In a long series of publications, enumerated 
 above, Dr. Weiss has held steadily, and with but 
 little modification, to his original idea: which 
 
GOSPELS 
 
 is, that the Apostle St. Matthew wrote first a 
 collection mainly of discourse, but with a slight | 
 amount of narrative appended; that St. Mark, 
 having this before him, combined with it his 
 recollections of the preaching of St. Peter, and 
 that the work which he so produced lay before 
 both the First and the Third Evangelists, who 
 also had access to the original Matthaean collec- 
 tion. 
 this collection; by ‘‘ Petrine Gospel” he means 
 the tradition derived by St. Mark from St. 
 Peter. These two he takes to be the fundamen- 
 tal and primitive elements in our Gospels as we 
 now have them; all three being composite in 
 different proportions. Mention has been made 
 of the slight modification which Dr. Weiss seems 
 disposed to admit. 
 
 Wendt, Dr. H. H. (b. 1853), Professor at 
 Heidelberg. As befits a younger scholar build- 
 ing upon the labours of his predecessors, Dr. 
 Wendt has stated his views with great precision, 
 though his object in writing was primarily to 
 lay the foundation for a study in Biblical Theo- 
 logy (Die Lehre Jesu,- 1886). He, too, seeks to 
 analyse St. Mark’s Gospel into the different 
 groups of tradition of which it is composed ; 
 and he has also, as we have seen, made a bold 
 attempt to reconstruct from the texts of St. 
 Matthew and St. Luke the original Logia. 
 
 Beyschlag, Dr. Willibald (b. 1823), Professor 
 at Halle. Dr. Beyschlag’s views may be ascer- 
 tained from an article in Studien und Kritiken 
 for 1881, and from his Leben Jesu (1st ed. 1885; 
 2nd ed., which has been used here, 1887). He 
 holds that the first nucleus of our Second Gospel 
 consisted of the loose notes taken down by St. 
 Mark of the teaching of St. Peter; that these 
 were reduced to order by a Galilean Christian, 
 who inserted the warning in Mark xiii. 14, and 
 that the Protevangelium thus formed was after- 
 wards edited, as we have it, for the use of the 
 Church of Rome. Much about the same time 
 with the Protevangelium, St. Matthew com- 
 mitted to writing his Logia, which were worked 
 up doubly, on the basis of the Protevangelium, 
 in our First and Third Gospels—in the latter 
 perhaps from a different version of the Aramaic 
 origina]. Of all the different forms that have 
 been taken by the Two-Document hypcthesis, 
 this of Dr. Beyschlag’s is perhaps the simplest 
 and least complicated (see Table, pp. 1230- 
 1236). 
 
 External History of the Gospels: Formation of 
 the Canon. — Along with the inherent com- 
 plexity of the phenomena, the other main 
 source of difficulty is the scantiness of the 
 literature which might throw light upon them. 
 For the first hundred years of their existence— 
 70-170 A.D.—the Gospels pass through a region 
 which is only dimly and fitfully illuminated by 
 extant documents. The Church, in Dr. Salmon’s 
 picturesque expression, “enters a tunnel,” from 
 which it only emerges in the time of Irenaeus. 
 Hence a special importance attaches to every 
 addition to the literature of the period. And 
 the twenty-five years that we are chronicling 
 happen to be singularly rich in such additions. 
 We will first speak of the additions which have 
 been made to the materials of our knowledge, 
 then of the criticism which has gathered round 
 those materials, and lastly we will try to sum up 
 the results which seem to have been obtained. 
 
 By “Oldest Gospel”? Dr. Weiss means | 
 
 GOSPELS 1229 
 
 Addition of New Materials.—The year 1863 is. 
 again marked by an event of importance. It 
 was in this year that Tischendorf first gave to 
 the world the complete text of the N. T. from 
 the Sinaitic Codex, with the Epistle of Barnabas 
 and fragments of the Greek Hermas (N. 7. 
 Sinaiticum sive N. T. cum epistola Barnabae et 
 fragmentis Pastoris, Leipzig). This was the 
 first time that the 43 opening chapters of the 
 Epistle of Barnabas had been published in the 
 original Greek. The publication was important, 
 as setting at rest the question as to the genu- 
 ineness of ὡς γέγραπται introducing the much- 
 debated quotation πολλοὶ κλητοί, ὀλίγοι δὲ 
 ἐκλεκτοὶ at the end of ο. 4. Up to the finding 
 of Cod. δὲ there had been room to suppose that 
 “sicut scriptum est”? was an interpolation by 
 the Latin translator, Something will be said as 
 to the bearing of this on the history of the 
 Canon of the Gospels below. The evidence of 
 another Greek MS. was added in 1877, when 
 Hilgenfeld utilised for his second edition of the 
 Epistle the collations of the Constantinople MS. 
 written in 1056, sent to him by Bryennius. 
 
 The accessions to the text of Hermas derive a 
 present interest from the publication (or rather 
 republication) of the concluding portion by 
 Driseke after Simonides (Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschrift, 
 1887, Heft 2, p. 172 sq.), and from its vindi- 
 cation by Hilgenfeld; but we are forbidden to 
 go into this by the doubly dubious character 
 of the text itself and of the allusions to the 
 Synoptic Gospels in Hermas generally.  [Si- 
 monides’ text is now completely disposed of: 
 see A Collation of the Athos Codex of the Shep- 
 herd of Hermas, by Dr. Spyr. P. Lambros, 
 ed. by Mr. J. Armitage Robinson, Cambridge, 
 1888.1 
 
 We are treading on firmer ground in following 
 the history of the writings attributed to Clement 
 of Rome. The precious Constantinople MS. 
 which contained the Greek text of Barnabas also 
 contained the two so-called Epistles of Clement ; 
 and the concluding portions of both of these 
 were published for the first time by Bryennius, 
 Metropolitan of Serrae (now of Nicomedia), in 
 1875. Within a few months of the event the 
 University of Cambridge became possessed of a 
 Syriac version of the two Epistles which had 
 hitherto been overlooked, although it had be- 
 longed to the distinguished Orientalist M. Jules 
 Mohl. By the help of these uew documents 
 Bp. Lightfoot was able to supplement his pre- 
 vious edition and to revise the text of the whole 
 in an Appendix which appeared in 1877. The 
 added chapters of the First Epistle contained no 
 quotations from the Gospels, but those of the 
 Second Epistle (which is now proved to be, as it 
 had been before suspected of being, really a 
 Homily) were found to contain a number of 
 important data, both for the history of the 
 Canon in general and for that of the Gospels in 
 particular. The Old Testament was called τὰ 
 βιβλία: the New Testament, or such Books as. 
 the writer regarded as authoritative, of ἀπό- 
 στολοι. If, on the one hand, it was clear that 
 he used an apocryphal Gospel or Gospels, on the 
 other he was found to cite the evangelical 
 records not only as γραφή, but with the still 
 more weighty formula 6 Θεὸς λέγει. A word 
 will be sazd on the significance of these pheno- 
 mena presently. 
 
a ee νυ’ pet a era eee ewe CS a τὖ αν € " τς ον ν΄ ne 
 
 4 “MOUS ΠΡΟ Us st Cee rx ommy 91-41 “A Ἅ01}) PHOAL Om JO 9UBYT 80 sondiosiq ᾿ 
 Bey “711 £q ΠΟΙ.» κοῦ * Ἰϑάθορ 480 “suf JO woroa noad τᾶν sno $f, 86 ArT * ΔΝ MM. U1} FO γι VT 8v soydiostq, ‘et 
 masagyp wy Maoyp| . ἪΝ A μὰ eee? Gon στ 5 ἘΝῚ incon ὐϑέον ες (ce Fe “AIK Θγ} OT "Δ HRI) MUM OL 10 MS SV sadposiq “LT 
 “MOISI9A 
 
 1918} γθηλλθῖποθ 
 ΤΙ Ὁ UL OYNT 910 194 
 
 ‘ONT Ὁ] τπιος [81 55} UY το} JOU Σ & “7811 Aq pay ; ᾿ Ἢ P A 3 air ‘IACONNT ε71-8 “A 287) ΕΘΌΠΗΠΠΞΩ͂ 9Π 1" 
 -ᾶἕμο ϑουι ἔ Βι301 -Ι3μο θιοαι | 6:80 τέο ἦν aes ae Te ea, -τροῖα Laoag} (9-08 "14 OMNT ἐ01-8 “A Ἅ207Χ) SOPNIIW 961, “OT 
 “SI 10. ὕοῃοο 
 τοῦ 18γπθιποιάάπο 
 . , . - * Jadsoy yseplo . : , * moaqaeyr | "ἢ Ὁ , . * (σ SL Ἃ ἬΝ) JUNO 91} UO ποίπαϑῳ ΟἹ UOTJONpoayuT ΟἿ 
 : ‘ —sas.inoosy 10 dno.iy 1511 
 (ot 
 “e150 = 
 Pe secs pn) a mS adehauas eS Fa oS egal t Sek ἀπ Ba = eee awe eee 
 | 4a; “πε eons 1794 \| ξτστοι IX “τὸ χ ‘ese "ΔῈ ‘99BIV) PATO, 9} JO DOIONH ὃ ΒΘΟΠΟΙΡΠ papMolD ‘FT 
 | UOIPpBly, 9619 4 
 ᾿ Α 4 Ivy Υ ν ] . . . 5 . . . . . . . . (9-1 *AIX “do 
 “(301 | Jadsop aurazag Aq gariaar u ϑαραντααῃΐ ἐ11τ-ὸ ΤΑ Ὁ. 9-| Π| MARL ἘἘ1- ΠΧ 2810) Bupdng pros maVAdTS OMLL "eT 
 WOL UOI}aSUT ; 4 : μ ᾿ poonpal τπιοτῖρῦα, ἢ. ; he : ; 6 5 3 : : : 3 z * (4t-01 ‘Ix ‘do 
 nD a "x HURD) jamb tee Tedsop 959P10 | 10 umnyens sar ieg ϑπουσπαῃ ἢ ἐς ἢ ‘IA OMY] ἐβῦτεῦ Ἢ 5101} £ 8-1 “HEX 10) BuyAvg ysuryy : WIeGGNE EMT, “ZI 
 τα π|93118.9}0. τὸ} : HAV] 
 Ξ . ὩΣ 4 3 *jadsoy ournag | Aq Burm oy ) " * snorvuiy (6¢- πιῶ Δ OU] GEL Ἢ yavyy " L1-6 Χι 701.) Buyer JO UOT}SaN?) 911} PUL TAIT “1T 
 x {πη119 αὐλογοιαΐ 5 * yadson 4Έ9Ρ0 poonpax πομηρναι, |. * snort) "(960-21 Δ ONWT σ1- HW YM § 8-1 XE 3201.) OAT RABY ΠῚ, “OL 
 NqVy4S ΤΟΙ ΙΒ 
 [τοὶ 5 τ jadson Ἴ59Ρ10 fas * snoivaig | * (6t- LT “WAX ‘do ‘ QI-GI “A ONT £ GF-OF * LMIV]L $ F-T “WIA 701.) Jedory oy, ‘6 
 (a) aoe ‘a * + jadsox θα 194 * ὁ snomuig | * : (Fe-aP “AL ΘΝ $ 6E-SE “T AV]Y) uemMamnay “sg 
 : . Ξ Se ees Ὁ 5 * Jadsoy θαι» 4 | ‘yavyy |) * * snowwuniy | (1s-Fe AL ΘΠ § Fe-6s TE MAB ἢ LIF ἼἽΠΑ “IV UOUTIG 10 ΘΒΠΟῊ oy} UI snsar “1 
 ἔν τ ea ΕἼΤ “SS ORO Ot i) | aa * yadsoy ourneg | AQ Suyun of J| * * snowvony | ° : 5, Σ *CLS-18 “AL ANT Β0-τ Ἵ MARIN) usury s,4eq v 9 
 ur aomog [eioodg WoIPw.G JaqIINy ‘“(aynT } paonpad uolgrpesy, 
 + ἀπῃῃ9 0 Δ Θ)0 1} } WT “VW SMES 1 uy aonog yewadg ὃ Jo τππη01]8 aayaeq] + ΘΟ" snommug | °° Ε([{ Δ OYUN] ἐ06-91 ἜΜΠΙΥ 0- 81 “AL 011) saTISOdy ἀπο Jo ΠΟ “9 
 ὍΟΡΕΡΘΙ, θαμηθ4 |! .. radsop ee | | 
 : * jadson oulayag 8 * Βποαθααῃ | * (91 ΨΙ ΑΓ ΘΝ ΠΕ $90 FT ἜΣΟΙ f SLT-GT ΔΤ HIRI) 991ΠῈ}0) Ul ψαθτπο] γος ΤΡ 
 4 1201 Ὰ > * yadsoy 259010 5 8 J ὃ * Βποαθπμῃ | * : * (Sl-T AL ayn] ἘΣῚ Zl LAV ὁ LI-1 “AT 2070) Gonrydmay, 91, 'δ 
 SI ‘FI 
 # τ 7511) BId0T pue ‘ aan | Ἶ * Ἰθάβο ἢ) 259010 : ὃ : : * snoreuny | ° (az “τὸ ΠΗ ΠΊ $ 11-6 EP MAVIL $ LI-ET “I 1510) 151Π0 snsap Jo wsydugq ~~ 
 1 + ungouessreag Ayqissod = ‘u0j31p on 
 ὋΠῚ 510) ἜΠΟΣ “BAL yeyuaume|ddns}) yy gomog tate | 55 κα 5.3. τὰ * + snovug Ὁ ὃ ΠΟ ᾿ς (θτπι ἬΓΘΝΟΊ :8-Τ ἜΜ1ΌΠ. ἐστ-πῚ ἫΙ 1011) 1506 91," 
 + απ Π9 3 Ὀ ΛΘ 20 1.1 | +) τϑάθο 25901[0 | —ANsiayy o17qnd eq} jo ἘΝ 
 "(ASST (5881 “1881) ‘(9sst) ϑΕΒΙ ‘BRST “9181 ‘ZL8T) *(988T F981) *(e981) 
 OV THOSAAG LAND AA SSIA AL | WAMOVSZIT AL NNVNZLIOW 
 | seer fl! 5 Ψ, 1 OS δ᾽ - Ὁ -ὡςω, π΄ ἂρ πὸ é 
 a ‘SSISHHLOGAH AUVLNYWOIOG WHOL AO 
 a 
 -- SNWUOA LNAYAMMIG YAGNA STAdSON ἩΜΠΈΗ., LSUId AHL AO SISATIVNV AHL YNIAOHS ΠΊΒΥΙ ATAILVYVdIWO) 
 
1281 
 
 “ὉΟΙΏ ΡΟ], θυ 1394 
 
 : Pg 5 * Bidory 
 θ}301} | ᾿ + yisory | 
 i. * ayy] pus 
 τε -ς “Wa aynryy (| VIN UE BIZ0T 
 ἐπε σε γεν 1] PUE VY Β9μ96; 
 ΒΟΙ,ΙΟΞΕΙ {}1λλ 00 ae δ ἢ 
 “9. “SON .0}}8) BIZO . E 0g “6% | 
 a Ἢ “HA 9501 τζ8-8ῦ [ 
 ἼΧΧ 7010 +) ἘΠῚΟἽ | 
 
 “eiforr{| ° * uorxeutoo 
 Ἄ o1{ qua.layip ur a 
 
 201 | - - * ΜΙ301 
 
 ἡ . . 
 
 ! ! 
 “UN TIBUBAIOIY . * VW song | 
 
 MITT 
 : 5 τ  vISoryT 
 NOIXdUUOdD JUaLay 
 
 ἪΡ ut Apavd “ooh 
 * Ὁ  uoTyIppe \ 
 (UA “ἘΠ3Ο 
 
 135 
 S ὌΠΞΟΤ 
 ulorxauu0) 
 
 Wal yip ur Ort 
 * ¢% ὋΝ ‘aAnqn ang 
 . SuOrxvuu0d { 
 quariayip ur ‘eiSory 
 ° ° > Ὧ1307 
 
 GOSPELS 
 
 “019991109 . 
 911 10 syind 1910 
 wory (ὋΝ ‘GE ‘LE 
 
 { 
 quarayip ut “1801 
 
 Ὃς “6% ‘93-82 “61 7 * uorrauuo) 
 81 Δ UPI) suo | qua1ayyp ul Me a} 
 -“J9SUL LA “ὉΙ3Ο0Ὶ. : : visor} 
 
 (uorxan | 
 τοῦ 4919} ut 
 ‘cT-L'TA 7811) wisory! 
 (9-1 “1A 071) υ1301 
 “Cie “TA 9501 ἐστ \ 
 “ITA ἭΤΕ Ppt) eifo7 
 
 "30 
 * “bs oF “ΧΙ Hav 
 ἴπ0} wWOINtppe 
 WSS YA ‘wisoy 
 *-qqeyy fq uoWIpy 
 . δ * Ὅ3ΟΤ 
 πὰ τς υἱβο 
 
 * — (ϑοχθος jwpadg 
 
 juommaov{dsip omtos 
 tra ‘jadsoy 4yseplo *sasinoo 
 “SIq 10 ὕ012091 
 
 -[99 18γποιποάάης 
 
 ‘ayy Aq | ᾿ΒΟΒΙΠΟΟΒΤΩ͂ 10 uly 
 
 W913 414994100 a10ut PON) SENNA BEI 
 sBur{vs jo uotxeu 
 τοῦ = *yadsoy γΒ9010, 
 *saSNorsiqy Jo 1101} 
 “VITO GATFIUO TT 
 
 ul 1918 184 91} 
 ΒΒ U01499][09 outs 
 oq} 10 1110} 1920] 
 BSI 6-02 Δ 9511] 
 ᾿ΒΘΘΙΠΟΟΒΙΩ͂ 10 
 ἈΟΤΟΘ]100 OAIPUII 
 
 | [yey 
 
 - * 19680}) ysaplo 
 
 ) 
 yyia ‘fadsoy 4ysepiQ 
 
 “yey Aq pay 
 -Ipoul ‘snoivut 
 τῇ pur BizoTy 
 
 mor 85. “22 “ἸΣ- . Ἄ ϑποαθπαῃ ᾧ 
 ayy) jedsoy 259010 
 8 * yedsoy 280070Ὸ 0 * snomeattg 
 - * Ἰθάβο Ὁ 42300|0 ee Ω ὌΠ20Π] 
 . ‘ 
 : * yadson 259010Ὸ -291109 bert at q\\ 5 5πουθπαῃ ᾧ ] 
 : * jadsoy Ἴ59010 | . ᾿ snowy | 
 ὀ * yedsoy 259}070 ᾿ ὃ Ἐ3ΟἽ 
 ee de Mies ΠΟΤ 
 Tadsop 389P10 { pue πα α 
 “BISO'T ) 
 : τος jadsoy ysapio ° , . ΠΟΙ UuOdI}IEeSUT 
 | UJIM ‘snolvUIp 
 ! 
 iG 5 ese ΠΟΘΩ͂Ν. “new Aq pag 
 Isdeop θη ὶ σπροῖα ἘΝ 
 savy Δα τ | 
 
 vovid =: sad.nos 
 191|}0 ραν 
 “Βι 061 ‘snow 
 
 "s901N0S 
 19Π10 pus 
 
 | ‘vidory ᾿δποισι ῃ 
 
 ‘ayn'yT Aq 
 uals 414991100 
 a1OUL eisoy || 
 ut sduifvs 10 
 
 * porrpot ‘v1S0'T 
 
 . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 (8ζ Wha 
 
 “IX ‘do ‘1Z-61 ‘MTA OYNT £ eg-TE “I YUVAL $OS-9F “NX 4707.) suornvpary systayO *oe- 
 ; Y ᾿ ῳ * (98-16 ἽΧ ΘΥΠῚ § Sp-Ep ΠΧ Ἅ701.) ΘΘΠΟῊ A}duq oN, “GF 
 ς Ξ ἀν ᾿ς (θτθῦ IX eH] $27-8e “HX 011) UTIg Ἷ Oy Bulyaag ΒΡ 
 . . . . . . . . . a ἢ - 5 - . €2-LT ἊΣ 
 
 OANT 08 δ “MI ΌΙΝ 28 ‘ge ‘ze-es “MX Wg) οϑιθηρ on} pried aousjag “LF 
 Ἀπ Ree me Pk ei er 
 PANT * 00-06 “HE AVY $¥G-Zs “WX “FE-ZE "ΧΕ “)811) Qnqezjaeg IIA sourTTy ‘oP: 
 : * COL “TAX ‘ge-Te ‘82-81 “HA aN] 61-ὸ “IX 0}1) UONSENd sastdeg oy, ‘oF 
 : $ ᾿ ὃ *  (G9-LG “X} OMN'T §S-BI ΠΑ 011) SHINO Suraoyjoy “FF 
 
 (08-86 ΠΧ ‘OI-1 ‘HA OyNT Ἐ ET-9 “HLA Ἵ72907.), UopNyUAN aug, ‘EF 
 —uneuiadeg 28 ΑΔ) ΒΈ ΓΙ 
 
 * (62 “85 ΠΑ Ἅ201γ) ϑηβο απ ‘aE 
 
 * (GLP TA ΘΥΠΊ § 12-3 “TA 010) βοϊαθαθα Barpnpouoy “TF 
 2 ; ’ : ᾿ (42 “9G “WX ONT Ὁ €Z-16 "HA Ἵ701.) WEePJPS ὋΝ 
 ᾿ϑΡ ΒΡ ἼΔ 9701 96 -88 ἫΧ “do 0Z-9T “HA Ἅ2010) Βγπ|1|1 slang Lq UOT “68 
 : . . . ᾿ . ‘ δ (GT ‘IIA “4207. sqoydorg ὉΒ18.}1 “ge 
 St Τὸ ἡ (Ὁ ee ἯΙΧ 9501 FT EL “A Ἅ]7)) aH MomEN 901, “LE 
 st ts (1g 1A ONT ΓΤ “ITA 7801) INOQNZIAN sau 04 Linq 98 
 5 : *  (ei- "Ix eyny $ 11-2 “11a "sQUI) toLvrg 07 JuaMEdvInooUY “GE 
 . . . . . . (9 ‘TIA 01.) ΒΖ ΌΤΠῚ͵, ΑἸΟῊ Jo MONVIOIaA][ “FE 
 ξ ; 6 > (ZF-LE ἼΔ OMWT $ G-T “HA Ἴ707.) Βι9010 Sujspne “se 
 Ων = © Ν ε (18- GG UX aN yT S pE-e7 “TA 0.1) 59.180 ATPIIO AL. ‘Ss 
 5 Ξ fi . . * (SL ‘IAX oy] τῷ “TA Ἅ707.) SIOJSB OMT, “1 
 st Σ΄ (ge-FE “TX 9501 fs ‘Zs “TA “HVW) Apog 91} Jo ἀϊπῦη ou, Ὃς 
 δ . . (+8 ‘Es ἫΧ ΘΥ £ 13-61 “TA Ἅ70}.) ἘΟΛΌΘΗ Ul OINSVATT, “67 
 SO 9s 2 (Gieor (Acie) sane a neesy, 
 δ . . . * (P-L ‘IX Ὁ) £eT-6 ‘1A Ἅ1Ό10) θάμα §,P1O'] 911, "1S 
 : ‘ : . . . * (8-1 ‘1A “25010) του puv supy 95 
 " 8 δ ἢ (98-ZE ‘0-22 “TA ONT £ 8p-gE “A Ἅ7071) TAG 10} pooy "ὁ 
 pa eh i SE τ οτος πλ nM TIO) GR 
 
 * (81 TAX ayy $ Ze 18 “A Ἴ}071) DONOATIT “δῦ 
 - δον το (08=42 A ΠῚ ArexTNpY * 
 
 (69 “89 ἫΧ oyn’y £92 “95 “A Ἢ ΠΟ ΌΠΙΌΠΟΟΘΣΙ Aout, 
 na Lass ἐν τ εν ΩΣ Ῥσ-ὶ "Δ “YW! ) αὐραπὶς 
 
 " (AL TAX ONT £ OS-LT “Δ Ὁ.) AVT om 03 ΤΟΙ} Ό]ΟΣ 
 
GOSPELS 
 
 *8yN'T SB ΠΟΙ͂ΧΘΙΙ 
 ἱστοῦ 19281 UL Bi90'T 
 
 ἜὌΟΙΧΘΙΕΙ 
 -109 SI} UL BIDOT] 
 
 | 
 | 
 
 ὍΣ ΠῚ Ul 901n0s 
 aeynoad {212 
 “mIn!eBuUvAVz}OIg 
 
 *CINITOBUPAI4OI, | 
 
 *WNT[aSUBAD}OIg { 
 
 "qd sattag ) 
 
 "ΠΟΙΧΘΙΠΙΟΟ { 
 SVR UL θ1207 
 *qnauteor|dsip ) 
 ous πηι ὈΠ30Π}) 
 “ΠΟΙΧϑατιΟῦ ) 
 SayNyT ul ἘΪΖΞῸῚ 
 
 *RIBO'T 
 
 pue ‘q  saleg 
 “UOINPPLL, 98117294 
 
 *Y SoLleg } 
 
 “ΠΟ. 8.1, 911|:1}9.} 
 
 ὙΠῸ Δα 
 petpoqraa ‘uonip 
 τῶ, yeyuawejddng 
 
 *BISO'T 
 
 *y ey Uy ΘΙ ΞΟΠ 
 Wo,  SUOTJIppe 
 {im ‘WW sellag 
 “Worppely, 9119 
 
 ΞΘ ul ὉΠ207 
 
 Ὕ SeLieg J 
 ‘uorpray, θα μγ04) 
 
 | -Caget ‘eset 1881) 
 | OVIHOS Lag 
 
 (9881) 
 LANA AL 
 
 αὶ ἀχότπ Ὁ ) 
 | 
 
 *(988T 851 9281 ‘ZL81) 
 
 jodsoxy ountjag 
 
 jadsoy 4s9p10 
 
 jedsoy 4saPIO 
 jadsoy 259Ρ1|0 
 
 [edsoy ysepl0 
 
 ——_— 
 
 jedsoxy 4ssp[Q 
 
 — 
 
 (jadsoy 9111} 
 | τοι +) Tauson 489p10 
 
 -Ξ 
 
 ᾿ * jedsoxy 91111794 
 
 (que ut -dsoy uty 
 “aq +) Jadsop yseplo 
 
 * + yadsox 459010 
 5 19ι1[500 aunt 
 Ε * yadsoy 259010 
 (queyy αἵ ‘dsoy 9611} 
 “a +) jadsop isapio 
 ὅ * jadsoxy Θ1Π 1194 
 (yreyy αὐ dso 9111. 
 "ad +) ladsoy Ἴ59010 
 . * jadsoy ΘΠ 1198 
 ε * yed-04 γ5Ό0010 
 
 F Ξ GurIv 
 ur jedson 9011} 
 
 -a[ +) Jalsoy ἼΞΘΡΙΟ 
 
 SST1A\ 
 
 . . . 
 
 (24-4 
 
 ΧΟ 707.) 01909] 
 τοῦ 1Βγιοπιοχάάπῷ 
 
 ΒΟΒΑΠΟΟΒΙΩ 
 uo}}22T10) aati 
 
 "(8Z-LT *X wD 
 
 ‘(GI-g ‘x eH) 
 
 ΒΘΘΙΠΟΟΒΙΩ 
 ἘΟΙΊΌΘΙΟΟ ΟΠ ΠΩ 
 
 Aq Surya 
 
 ὙΌΣ 
 04 
 
 peonpad uolyIpely, 
 jo WinzeIys ἀϑη1 8} 
 
 UONIpBIy 19710Π 
 ΠΟΙ puodas “16 
 
 ὋΝ JO Longue) 
 
 ΠΟ; 251 ‘TS 
 
 ON Jo ποτρμπιτγιοῦ 
 
 UOTFIPR.AT, 1920Π 
 "ὍΠ101 puooos “τα 
 
 ὋΝ JO UOT}RNUTWUID 
 
 . 
 
 ayqnop ut 
 
 * é19 ὋΝ SV 
 ἽΠΠΟΙ 
 *qoid 
 UOFMPBIL, YSvl[aBy 
 
 “(9881 ‘4981) 
 UAMOVSZITA A 
 
 | 
 
 2 
 | 
 | 
 
 Ξ--- --- Ξ--Ὸ--. 
 
 oy 
 
 Βῃσαυτπτῃ 
 
 ἘΠΟΙθΙΠΙΩ 
 119... [ered 
 
 qs “420Π0Ὶ: 44 
 
 payrpout 
 
 τποα! 
 
 . 
 
 “θη 
 ἘΠΠΟΤῚ 
 1201 
 *BIZ0TT ) 
 A[UIR]Y 
 Ἐ13ΟῚ 
 
 ‘syN'T pue 
 
 ‘We Ul BIZO'T 
 Woy SUO}}Ipps 
 
 qa 
 
 uoNTpr} 
 
 τπ0.} 
 τῖιϑ 
 
 ᾿Ξ} 5. 1:1. 868] 
 
 ὍΣΠΠ Ul 
 Τῦχο 
 
 pase] 
 
 *NoIvU( } 
 
 Βποιθαια ἢ 
 Βποιθῖπαῃ 
 
 βῃηραταιῇ 
 
 30 
 βποιθίπιῃ 
 esoT 
 SuoIvU ἢ 
 
 * (eiZory mors 
 
 Ἅ7811) 
 
 snorvUl τὸ 
 Ξποιθπαῃ 
 
 Sho1BOlI() { 
 
 . vIdUT 
 
 * ΒΠΌΧΒΙΠΙΩ 
 
 *(e981) 
 XNVKZLIOW 
 
 (9 ‘xreyny er “1 ‘1a wry) saltruotssify 9Π1 10 sssoong ‘OL 
 —sfouino pf 13007 
 
 (τ "P-6e “xX 010) oNZoyidg “69 
 
 (τοῦ “AIX Ὁ, 88 “18 *X 701.) ποι} 10 981 
 (859-16 "HX exNT ! 98-PE “x Ἢ.) PAO Ὁ 4Nq θοῦθ4 JON 
 
 89 
 ᾽:9 
 
 99 
 
 . . . . . 
 
 (GI-1 ‘HX 9.701 585-21 “x 701.) AuOMINSaT, ΒΒ9 1100 ἢ] 
 (9I-E1 *X 9) ΠῚ $FZ-0Z “IX “7010 1 5Θ1210 UvaTITeH 9Π1 9} θολὰ “29 
 . . 5 . . . . . . . . . (ετ- T "x ‘do 
 
 SRW] §11-Q9 ἼΔ HAV 91- Ἵ “X—eeE “XI 3201.) sepsod y 901 jo UOTSsITT 19 
 —sasinoosiq’ jo ἀπο (puosag 10) plryy, 
 
 (085-91 ‘AL NNT $ 9-1 “IA ΔΌΣ ! Se-FS “HIN 070) qJoIvZBN 70 snser “eg 
 
 CAI-11 “14 ‘do ‘g¢-OF “ITA ONN’] £ EF-1Z “A HIV] 960-81 “ΧΙ VIL) 19᾽Π3ΠῈ6| snsrepe "69 
 (68-92% “INA 9501 07. 1 "A WARP $ FE-RS “UTA .47011.) SOVJUOME ousITpYy eq, 19 
 "(στῶ "JA ONN'T $1F-GE “ΛΕ ΣΙΌΙΣ | 1Z-ES “MIA Ἴ7810) 9507 04} WO tAIOYg 961, “09 
 
 —sAouinor 4104S 
 
 5 δ τ x Ξ. . ba . (ξ9-95 "}IX 1011) Βοαθαθα JomANY 064 
 ἐὺ ae : * (pe ‘ee “AL avy "68. ‘FE “IX “7010 Se1qvavg Aq Sulqovay, “8g 
 sh Το Το τ τὸ 8 Ὁῦ HEX 9.07 | ee “HEX 7017) UeAveT 90, “Lg 
 2 (61 ‘81 ‘HIX ONNT $7e-0E “AL NAVI 55 ‘1e “IX 7071) paag pavysnyy 96, 199 
 Το (68-98 "AT HAP $ OS-14 “HEX 7010) APos9ag Zuymory paag ey, "69 
 . . δ τος (81:1 ‘HA ΘΥΠΊ οσ-1Ο ΔΙ YAK) 3100 9.1 puv Sulivozy 9 
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . (cI-Tl 
 
 ΠΙᾺ ONWY] $ OZ-ET “AL ΒΝ *€2-81 IX 201.) eTqQvarg oy} Jo UoNvyesdsejuy “Eg 
 5 : * (43 “δῦ 'Χ ONNT 21 91 “HEX 4201.) ΒθΒΒΘΌΕ ΛΑ ΘΑ JO ΞΒΘΟΡΘΒΕΘΤΗ Jem 
 : * (OI-F 'πιὰ “Ig 
 
 ANN] $ZI-1 “AI HAV $ ST-T “MIX 2701) Jamog ay} 10 araning 
 —sesinoosiq, Jo dnoisy (psig, 10) puoosas 
 
 a .ῬςἘ---.----- τ .᾽0ῸὉοςὈ--ςςς-ς --------΄  σσὕοάέός.κ-- - 
 
1253 
 
 GOSPELS 
 
 5 : . . . . * (G8-68 “HIAX “7070 JUVAIDS [NJPAoTIU oY, "18 
 
 ape * yadsory ysoplo 
 “SWI Ul : 
 aoinos Ivypused =>) * 3 Ξ: 5 (p “8 “MAX OYNT τοῦτο] ἽΠΙΛΧ “701.) 19ΠΊ10 161 Ὁ Bu1,001109 90 
 
 "ΒΟΘΙΠΟΟΒΙΩ JO {| 
 at pues snoreuap, 
 
 “VIZO'T . . . visor] . . jadsoxyy wep lOf{| UO!IT [ND VAI 
 leioypwmoy Suey | tt tt (OTHE ἋΧ OMT $ FI-OT “IMAX “7010) punoy, pur 2501 "96 
 
 . * snoivunty | * : : : ᾿ : υ ᾿ * (04 “ὋὉΡ “XE 1.) φῦ. 8 
 “MART 
 
 * 19'son qseaplo 
 *yadsor ysaplo ᾿ . 
 
 pur yodsox) ΡΟ ἢ 
 Ἴϑ801) auljog ᾿ΒΟΞΙΠΟΟΒΙ( JO 
 
 | Ῥὰν jedsoxy 4590[0 
 *jadsoy ysaplo ) 
 | 
 
 Α͂ ASPIAGV . 9 0 "(Ὁ “1 MAX OYN] 5 τ ΟΡ NI YALL $ 6-9 ἬΠΑΧ 701.) sooudyoO 66 
 | Wor} ETO) Sel 4 ἐπ ον: Τὴ ( 
 | . . Ω * snore | " 5 Ὁ : ‘ : * (0G “GF "XL OYN'] § 1h-8E “XE YAR) oouvszspoy, +76 
 
 | sia jedsorny θι1794 
 119 1501) Θ1Π79,1 \ : c 
 pus yadsoy 2590}1|0Ὸ 
 
 ay ΟἿ wo “Ὁ 4 Sa'dag Ἶ ᾿ 
 0}. Oeics ἜΝ OUI, | . ω * snoivulty) | ° 5 ᾿ (Sh-OF “ΧῚ OMT $ Le-S§ ΧΕ WAVY 9 6-ἴὶ “WAX 3701.) eoMpadaIg "18 
 
 ‘sasimoosiq( Jo dno. 21 ποὸ 
 
 ἽΠΠΩΙ, [eI ete e wee * + pdsop asapio Se (ek ace | CREEL ey )ονεθον cy, ως 
 
 τρια, αὐῃποϑα ἢ τ λβ κα: : : 
 . * snowy | (ep-eF "XI OWT $ 26-06 "XT WAV 60 ‘ZS MAX “07. uolsstg oy} Jo Aooydorg *68 
 
 τος ἢ βπραθαῃ | * * (GP-LE XL ON] $ 6S-PL “XEN SF S-PL WAX 2010) Sog ὉΔΟΊ ΜΙ 96, “88 
 
 * jodsoy oulrjog 
 
 ᾿ Ξ ἜΑ Ἴ59Ὀ10 
 aOR Aq | 
 
 “UNTADuvAdzorgs | Perpoquta ‘uoytp 
 sei 41. *jodson) qsapto \ lite * snowwwag | ° * (96-82 "XE ONT $ 81-3 “XE ΣΌΣ $ ST-T “WAX 2207.) UONVIMBYsuvIy, 971, “18 
 | 
 
 “BAY, TeyuoUre| dds, pur ea aulajeg 
 *(€8-13 
 ‘IIA Navy) Tedsory 
 dUjoq Woy Sqareyy | 
 Ἅ7ΌΠΥ Ul Uontpra “ysaeg )] . ᾿ : “7010 Aq pa ‘ ; ᾿ oy ὙΠΔ᾿ STAG THT oT ES σι το Π ΤΠ . 
 ae ened siete Cae et jadsoy autea{ tra ΤΑ ΕΝ (τοῦ “THA NACL το τλῦ ΧΕ 701.) ὉΡΕΘΒΏ 1051 Jo ur pull 96, 68 
 “ARTY Aq | 
 
 (ὌΙΒΟΤ 1π0.1} 601-21 Ὥ pus W salieg 
 JAX “QV faagory | ‘UO pwiy, aulaqog 
 
 C * Βῃοαθπιῃ | * (xG-BT XEON] 1 ΧΟ “WA YC] $ SZ-ET “LAX 4707.) UOISsazMOD 5,19794 98 
 
 Pxpoquia ‘uomip |) * — * jadsoy ourjog "os Βῃοιθπιῃ | st ΤΠ ὁ ([65ῈῚ WA YC | ZI-G “TAX Ἵ707.) 5Βθοβαθηᾳ oy} JO usava'y] “+B 
 -BLI, [equamayddng| | See ᾿ 
 ὍΣΠῚ μι 7 Ἂ BR : 
 ‘VR Ul ΘΙΞΟῚ *(jadsoy τ Πα οὐ (eM Y 3 ἃ . . το “IIx toy Εἴτ"» γπτι ‘JAX 70 ΘΒΠ ΘῈ Us! Ἶ 
 Beste sles (| -a +) jedson ysopio τὸ eee Snorvtut yp) (49-46 “IIx OAT IESE AIA SUEN ΣΤ τσ WW) pasnjey usig y "88 
 I , ouLygag }| I 
 -Ό πεν τἢ ᾿ 1950.) θτι11294 ᾿ " Βῃηοαθάῃ || ° 0 * (OI-T ‘HIA Avy, £ 6E-TE “AX Ἴ701..) puvsnoyy, nog oy} Jo Surpsaq “58 
 ( : *jadsoy ϑι11194 2 * snoivuig | * . ᾿ * (48-1 “TIA VL £ 18-6 “AX 7011.) ION O43 05 LOUIMOL 18 
 ἜΡΙΝ ὶ BB *(yaryy ut "dsoy eur 
 BID0 (yar ‘UPB, οὐ aU CE ΕΟ SUL . * snoivud ᾿ i ῳ "ITA ΣΧΌΙΓ ἐ87-ῷ “AX .)0ῦ ασῖπο AA ULIOIUDOYg-O14G OT, Ὃ8 
 ae IN) i PUI ud) e  odeon ena a (υ5-τῦ “HA suey £8 10) αὐτπολλ 
 
 (σι801 wory | 
 “FL ΣΤ “AX Ἅ10}.) 
 WIN [PoSUvAIOL 
 
 (| ‘e ‘wonwpeag, aunye,)}" —* PdSop θαμηθᾳ "ft snomeomg, | τ΄ ΤΠ * (EST “HA HaVyT "06-1 “AX “1010) seastreqT BA Αβιθλοαγαορ "δ. 
 
 f : *jadsoy outtyag ᾿ * Βποαθπῃ | * 0 Ὁ 5 : 5 * (ϑ6-8 6 "IA ὙΠ ε96- 8 “ATX Ἅ1Ό71) ὈΙΠΉΟΣ “84 
 “UOLPIPTAT, τοι "yavyy 4 4 A 5 . © (7 . στ᾿ . “ 
 
 PUly | ᾿ apne aera as Pee δ * ΒΠΟΙΒΠΙΩ (GG-CF “IA NAV 88 -ῦῦ "ATX 7810) 1920 AL OY} UO BuIyIVA “LL 
 TUNIPSUvAIYOIG) | -C.1T, ]®yuemejddn- a ; Ricker : * snomemntg | (LI-TL'XLONWT § pF-1TE “1A Yale § [ZT “ATX 751.) puBSNOTT, OAT, 049 JO Surpoay ὁ. 
 
 * jadsor ysapto eisoT | * 5 ᾿ e - ᾿ τ 7 (08-82 IX 107.) 910 OFUN OULD ,, “G4 
 
 oe - ς 
 
 BEET - * jadsoy 499010 e c - ὃ - visoTy | ° C : q Η "Fe στ ve ONT | LZ-SB IX “701.) SULATBsYULY, ὍΣ 
 
 “Maryy Aq J E * Jadsoy autyag » - C : “ κησιθπαῃ | °° * (065-21 x ‘or xrayn'y $ Of “IA YAIV]L) SIIVUOISSIPL 049 JO UINJOY “EL 
 peipoqmia ‘uwoIp <4, * * jadsoy ouraqag 5 . - Ξ * snoiemiy | * "(05 ‘61 “IL ayN'T £ θ6-ι IA ΣΙΝ ! *BI- 8 “AIX 7011) 1517 86 oy Jo yywaq “ZL 
 sal poyuoutajddng | ἶ * 104: ourayag ὲ ᾿ ᾿ : ἡ snaqeuy | * ' (6-4 *XE OW] $ OT-FT IA yaryy ἐσ Ἵ ΑΙΧ Ἅ7071) eb 8,pola}] “TL 
 
 ae eS! νδυνδ, ἕἱ-ὦ 
 
 4K 
 
 BIBLE DICT.—VOL, I. 
 
GOSPELS 
 
 1234 
 
 “TUNITOSUCAIIOAT 
 
 ὍΙΠΟΤΙ 
 
 “(υοτμοᾶ χϑη189 
 “F1-6 'ΠΙΑΧ 0x07) 
 ποιοα Jaye] ‘e1do'T 
 
 *BIZO'T 
 
 *BISO'T 
 
 ayn'T os pur) uo 
 
 lod Joytea “1301 
 “ΠΎΠ1Ο 1070] “BIZ0'T 
 
 | 
 τῇ 
 a 
 | 
 
 ΞΟ. 
 
 } 
 UOIXaUUOd UL BIZO'T 
 
 “BIZorTy wtoly ATULE TA 
 
 “(L881 “9881 “1881) 
 
 OVTIHOSAAG 
 
 "ν᾽ Saltag 
 *UOIPIPBLY, θ6 1794 
 
 Ὃ Satay 
 TONIPRIy, θ6170,ς 
 
 | 
 
 | 
 | 
 Ἢ Sontag 
 
 ‘UOIPIpBly, θτ1294 
 "801 ON | 
 gas * suOIxeut0d 
 quolayip ul θιϑοη 
 ΤΟΊ 
 BIDO'T 
 vinor'y 
 “PI-OL ! 
 
 “WWAX ONT FAN 
 UOLX3UU0D UL BIZ0'] 
 
 Cia ae | 
 
 “HX OYNT $ 6Z-FT 
 
 ‘AXX 7011 WIM 
 uoLxauu0d UL mi 
 ‘ayy Aq ) 
 poyouu0s se BIZo'T 
 . . + ‘e1Sory 
 ‘ayn'T Aq } 
 poyoutod sv BIZ0T 
 *€8 ὋΝ WIM } 
 UWOTXOUUOD UL BISZOTT 
 R130] 
 “1307 
 "8130 
 ὌΠΞΟῚ 
 *UOI}IPBIT, 18.10 \ 
 puv visor] 10 “1301 
 
 . . . 
 
 (9881) 
 LANG AL 
 
 ᾿ * jodsoxy ϑ τη9 4 
 
 ᾿ * aounos [eroadg 
 ὙΠ ut ‘dsoy 91111} 
 -aq pure jadsoy 259010 
 A * yadsoy oulijog 
 ὃ + podsoy ϑατ1948 
 δος δ᾽ Jadsoy 5900 
 . * yadsoxy outaqag 
 94 
 θ6π11)961 ΑἼΌΙΘΙΧ 
 ‘jad 
 eultjag Alureyy 
 
 “soy 
 
 -son 
 *a0.1n0s [bloods 
 Woy aqeieg puooseg 
 
 . . . 
 
 * go1nos yeroadg 
 
 * ΟΌΧΠΟΒ ἸΒιοοᾶς 
 
 Cepg d “quar 
 το “ἃ “e uagaT ‘do 
 κα "ἃ "διώρα - 2} 
 
 : 901N03 yetoods 
 wo Apjred ‘jadsory 
 4soplO Mor ΑἸγ1841 
 
 “(9881 581 ‘9L8T “181) 
 
 SSIT A, 
 
 ‘soouony 
 “ur 10}8} “μνὍνὰ 
 πὶ Ajuo ynq ‘Bur 
 -Moys *gafqns 03 
 Suipiooov = posuvt 
 -1@ sa0a1d Jo SysIs 
 τοῦ UOT~EgG SIT, 
 
 ‘(98st ‘F98T) 
 UAMOVSZIT AA 
 
 |poyipomt noripely, 
 
 5 * Βασαθίαα af | 
 : * GonIpeiy, 
 βποιθῖπα ἢ 
 
 snoveaniy, 
 βαραθαα 
 * Bisory A[qeqoag 
 : * Βασι ἢ 
 
 : "Βασι ἢ 
 
 Βῃραθπα 
 
 TISO'T 
 
 ΠΟΤ 
 vISOT 
 B1B0rf 
 
 B1B0'T 
 
 BIZO'T 
 
 vIBOT 
 visor] τπ01] APU 
 
 vIDO'T 
 mac) 
 BISO'T 
 UOTPIPVILT Urovpuye 
 * UOIIPrIy, [B10 
 Ά * ΠΟΙΉΡΌΙΙ, 
 
 (e981) 
 NNYNZLIOW 
 
 ‘ . ‘ ‘ ὁ . 
 . 
 
 (FF-6E ‘XIX oMN'T) UMoTUsN.OL 190 aac stay "51 
 : 5 5 ‘ Ἵ (i 88 -Εζ 
 
 *XIN ONNWY] ΕΤΤῚ ‘UX ὙΠῸ 11 Ὶ ἼΧΧ 201.) weyesnioe oyur Anug OLUVISSOTT ΠΤ 
 . . . Β . . . . . . (οτ-ῖ “XIX OYNTT) snovqoorz ὍΚΙ 
 * (€f-Ge 'ΠΙΑΧ oN] :76- 9} °X BVI $ Fe-6% "XX “7010 snowmeg puilg “GIT 
 
 (0g-#z “TIXX O37 $ of-GE °x YAVI £83-0% "XX 4201.) svapaqeZ JO SuOg OY], “SIT 
 
 *(FE-Le ἬΤΑΧ oyn] $ FE-ZE "XK Yep | GI-LT "XX 2011) wayesnies ΟἹ da Buoy “LIT 
 ς ὙΠ τῷ . ae * (91-| ‘XX “7011) pavsout A 911} UT SlamMoquy oy, 911 
 (OS-ST ἭΤΑΧ aNWT] $ Te-LT ΣΧ YAU $Oe-9T “XIX “7017) UT, SuNOX YORY ey, “SLL 
 8 8 Τ 61 MANX OY] 91.851 ἽΧ YOY § ST-ST “XIX Ἤν.) UaIPTINO ‘FIT 
 ; : ᾿ 5 : 3 (GIFT *X YALL σΙ-π-Ὶ “XTX ἍΌΠ.) ΘΌΧΟΛΙΩ “ETT 
 
 —Wopvsniar 0} Aoumnos 
 
 . . . . . . . . . 
 
 (FI-L *HIAX 9511) selqvivg OMT, ‘ZIT 
 : Ἢ 5 P 2 : (τοῦ “HWAX oXN]) poy Jo WopSury 91, 
 
 (01- *HAX oy] ) yUvAIG ΡῈ Joys 
 (185-61 ἼΛΧ oYNT) snivzeryT pur uvy, yory ony, 
 
 ἽΓΠΕ 
 ὍΤΙ 
 ὍΟΙ 
 
 . . . . . . . . 
 
 (91 ‘FI “AX ONT) ssaUSHODIYTN-JEg “SOT 
 
 . . . . . ° . . 
 
 (ZI-L ἼἽΛΧ 9517) prvaroyg ysnfuQ 971, *40T 
 
 ὃ 5 ὃ : . : v τς (866-87 “ALX aN'T) 2500 96} SuUN0D 
 (91- “ΔΙΧ dyN'T) sjonburg ye syveg ynoqu saTqvirg 
 (se-1e [60] ‘rx oy) saftey τοι! oingaedocy 
 
 801 
 “COL 
 “FOL 
 
 01 
 “COL 
 “10T 
 ὍΟΤ 
 Ὃθ 
 “86 
 
 (9-1 “IX oYN'T) suvaptTey poreyqySnevIg ὉΠ, 
 
 OO Te eS Se eee (CEMTERONNG) OOM OI ΓΕ 
 (16- τ “1X OWT) doURZTIOYUT paplald 90], 
 ᾿ 5 4 : : 5 ; > * (Gi-ge 'Χ ayNT) AIL, par ὉΠ. ι0}. 
 
 (99-16 "Xt aNWT) eSvITLA αὐμαθαιυς OI, 
 (8-1 ‘ita aywT) voto Ay Surtoystarpy 
 
 . . . . . . . . 
 
 FI ἽΠΑΧ --τρ *X1 ONT UL “8:00 1061 JOYITA soBvsseg : ποιγοθς πιθοῦ 91, 
 
 --...-οο7ΥὦὔὦἈ-............-ὦΆ55ἅ 00 a 55--.Ὸᾷ.νᾷ......Ὸὖ.ὖϑν.ν..΄΄οὃΡγὋὦὃὦὃ........ 
 
1235 
 
 GOSPELS 
 
 { τ: 5 * dill | ΝΗ UL fe ον 
 | UL  SdOJFROYTpoLL ΒΟ ΒΟ ΡΟ ὁ * — (TL-OF “XS ay] ἔσ)- 8 "ΙΧ Ὑ1ῸΠ 621-98. ἼΛΧΧ 701.) 1011], pur say 
 ] : ata ‘jadsox ouryeg ὙΠ |) qq ‘snorewig 
 ; tern tae ΕΝ ] ΓΟ Suny M0 ὌΠ UL 
 OAT Wy uoNIp J) θα πῈ} sdey is \| °° Wedsop θι11} 4 | paonpas ‘uoytpery, ἢ aoanos sayiangy ¢| (6e-Te ἬΧΧ ΘΗΠΊ 185-90 “AIX WAVY fee-O¢ “TAX “JRT) saaTO Jo yunoyy 911, “yer 
 “VIL, Te1oads ἘΠ 1 ΔΝ ΡΟ Re jo τπυῦγῦ1η5. Jotaey]) WIM ‘snoreutg he 
 ΠῚ ΠΡ ΟΘΑ ΦΌΧΟ Πλὴν οὐ a : + yadsoy aulijog | : * snoreuy | * (e0-€ ἬΧΧ OWN] : OZ-OT “AIX AWN} 6G-PL ἸΛΧχ 7010) Teo [ysvg OL “OFT | 
 PDEA L Md} + yadson outsjog \ ° c snomeuniy { : * (06-96 “ta ‘do “Ὁ Ἵ “xx ΟΝ τε 
 | pave jadson 459010) ope {6-1 ‘AIX Mary $ET-T ἼΔΧΣ oo, [eng 10} Suyurouy § ployas0,g uolssng OYJ, “SFT 
 
 —uolssvg oy], 
 
 “(jeuF110 your | " + pdsopqsapto} . " ° easesaeA OGL | Tt tt τὸ (opie ARK Ἤ0}γ) quaTABpNE 1507 ONT, "FFT 
 51 0) ee \ *suorxouuo0d Ὶ * jadsoxy Ἴ500|0 : 5 : Ὁ ἘΙΞΟ | * 5 ὴ ἡ (ΔΌ-ΤΙ ‘XIX OYN'T ΟΦ ΤΙ ἌΧΧ 7010) (Spunog) syuITeY, oT, “FT 
 [nyyquop visor aig 
 
 arin yuetoyip ul e807) | 5 > Jadsoy asapto . . . . Ὅμ307 Aiqeqoig | * . . . . * (cz Bits NNT 'ES1I-T “AXX 011) SUIBILA UOT, OT, ‘ZFT 
 : + Jadsoy 2590|0 . : , ‘ ἘΞΟῚ | ° 2 : "(065-85 “NIX ONNT | Te-CF ‘AIXX 7011) 5γπύλιος [NJGOIeAA 9011, “IFT 
 ‘ Ὁ Ὅξ | 
 1G-¥G Ὅ0-:-ἃὠἙἁ8 8.“ "ὃ 
 F ] | | eyny] pus 
 is 0870) asd.{y ‘ayy ut ‘dso ‘eI UL 8001 
 “viZorT Pie vi nie Gee ‘SuOT}VOyIpow autos 2 . Α -Ἐοιροῖα autos ὡ tC 9 ᾿ ᾽ : : EC 3 . . . (28-83 ‘Ax 
 puvtunresuwsayorgy | eel Pees (WIM ‘fodson outa) | puv ‘eor] moss () “9g-g ἼΧΧ OYM'] $1 E-T WX ὙΌΣ $GP- “AIX 7010) osmoosiq oFdAywoody “OFT 
 ue ὁ 86 Ge Τὸ -ad pur 1950.) ysop10 | SUOT}IOSUT 4qBTIS 
 €1-6 9-T ‘HIx | TIM ‘sno1eo9 
 IV) 9 soles 
 ‘UOI}Ipely, θ01194 | 
 Ὃ saqiag 5 Ε sare =, . . . . . . . . . —T ‘Ixy 6 px ΤΥ oT τ . 
 “ΠΟΙΙΡΈΩΙ, a) Tedsoy θα 29. Βῃοιθαα (στ ἸΧΧ ONT ἘΡΡ τε TEX SLUR) OPAL S,MOPT AA OPT, “6ST 
 -suouta0e(ds1p sjuacrogepdsip Ι * Jadson 2590|0 bt gests ae Pee * (ce ‘FE “HIX ONN'T 408-18 “ἽΠΧΧ 810) 1 WoTesnier [861 
 “p12, ‘ Or] |! μ ὯΔ 
 amos GA “20 | OOS UM TOT). 7. Ἰοᾷβου qsapqo 88.581 WIXX “HL {| -ἘΠῚ pure ooanos * δ (6:18 ἽΧ OYNTT £ 98-8 “HIXX “1 Ὲ10) ΒΘΘΒΤΌΠ 911}. Jo uOTwOUNUEG "LET 
 
 TIA Ur sosimoo || peroods e1Z0'T 
 “SUT Jo ποῃροοχορῖ " * Βηοινίπιῇ | ° *  (LI-GF ΧΧ ON] $ OF-SE “IX HAV § L-1 ἽΠΧΧ 3707.) soovyp ἡποτποῖο 1 *9ET 
 —sosinoosiq Jo dnoiy Π1Π|} 
 
 “HTL UL BIZory Ὶ 
 | pus ‘9 saliag “2 eee woe } 
 “UOIIPBIY, sUlIjeg di 1 Ὁ ἼΒ9ΡΙ0 
 
 *jedsoy ὉτΠ1170.1 0 , 5 : * snoivuliy | ° * (FF-1P ‘Xx oyu ἐ ye-ce x eA ' * 9F- Ty “HIXX Ἅ20710) plang pus ys ὍΘΙ 
 ( *‘jadsoy ourtjog ) . . . . © ΘΠΟΙΌΓΙΙ ς ἣ : ‘ - - E * (48-s2 *x “do ‘oF “68 
 "g 591195 pus jadsoxy 4SePIO η ‘XX ΘΥΠῚ § FE-8G ‘HX WIRY ΟΡ ΡΣ ἬΧΧ quan) 4οταρυθ απο 2091) oy], “P&T 
 ‘UOlPIPCL], Θθα11η94 *jadsoy {1120 : 2 5 ie * snoivuig | (se-2% "XxX ayN'T £27 81 ἫΝ WARY δ οτος “XX Ἴ78711) ΡΌΘΩ oy} Jo τΙΟΙ709.1Π|59}} “EET 
 : 5 : : i ῳ ᾿ 5 * snout | * (sé “28 “Xx OYNT STL HIA—¢¢ ἼΛ uyo i) [Ada\[npV Url ΘΝ, URUIO A, OTL) “SET 
 *jadsoy ourltjog 5 5 5 he * snowy | ° (9- 08 ‘XX OMN'T $ YT-ET “WX yary § *GG-GT “NX 701.) Αϑτο ϑ ΠΟΤῚ, aL “el 
 *jadsoxy ysoplg, ‘ICT ° δ ἘΙΖΟΊ | * ‘ (FE-9T “ATX ONT $ PINT “WXX 7011) 1509.1 OSVLUAVY 911, “OST 
 | 5.1 + ee ἜΝ οἷ ὉΠ ΒΉΠΘΤΠ9]9 1910} Ϊ * * ΒΠοΛθαΩ | * (61-6 ‘XX 9. ΠΠ § ZI-L ἼΧ avy 691-28 ἸΧΧ 7011) prwsout A ON} Jo θχαθαθα *6ZT 
 
 > (08 ‘6% “IIA eqny " 78 ‘TS ἼΧΧ Ἅ75011) ἀπ) Ὁ6 8 UO JO UoTOafexy ὈΤΌΒΙαΌΠ “RZT 
 
 “(S914 ) ὍΣ ΠῚ Ul aoanos \ UITAL ynq ‘sas.n0o | 
 
 ~vivd qj0q) Bid0r]5) μια ‘fadsoy ysapjos| ΟἹ 20. ποθοθΠ0 0} * τ" αμῖογΐ δ ome eC : (ce-11 "AX OW] “dd ξ O8-FG INK 7017) SUOS OMT, ONL, “ΔΤ 
 “y goptag * jadsoy outqog . . . jas * snoreuag | ἡ . *(S-T (XX ΟΝ $ ee-17 “IX YAR $ λύτο ἼΧΧ 011) UsNdeg sugor 951 
 ᾿ ΟΜΙΡΌΙΙ, OUR | conor + ee 
 
 . 4 *(6-9° ‘Jo ἐστ “IX 5} $2Z-03 ‘IXX 71) poloqiI AA 9911, Sty ony, * 
 
 qSOp|Q δῦ ἼΧ yaeyy snoxeuiy) | *(6-9 "TX ONT 10 £¢7-0Z "IX HAVIN $7T-0G ἽΧΧ Ἅ7011) PLOT AL OTL, SY OL, “S20 
 
 0} Jodsoryy 01|11}..} 
 *jadsoy autijag ὥ ᾿ 3 - * ΘΠποιθίπα (ΒΡ: ip 4 ὉΠ ¢ 6I-ST 1x YAVJL §GI-SL ἸΧΧ 7010) oj duty, oy} Jo SursuvaD “PZT 
 *padeoy ouIjog . ω 8 Σ * Βηοαθῖπι ἢ ῳ (FI-ZL “EX Yar) oo], Sty 901 Jo Buysmg "SE 
 
1236 GOSPELS GOSPELS 
 
 While such were the fortunes of the Clemen- 
 
 ἴω ἐς 3 . 4 tine Epistles, a more “ epoch-making” work 
 oR fo OB ges appeared, but for a time remained practically 
 =o 327 2 S23 hidden,—the translation by Aucher and Moesinger 
 os pee τΒ Ἐρ τε ἢ of an Armenian version of a Commentary by 
 ἘΞ cas ἘΞ Ξ ἐξ Ephraem Syrus on a text which the editors 
 a3 BES ἘΞ 33 2 rightly maintained to be that of the long-lost 
 ἘΔ & 6 on Diatessaron of Tatian. This did not indeed pass 
 ‘eee as Te Ξ τη τς entirely unnoticed, but it did not attract by any 
 ΞΕ ΞΟ Ξ τος "ἘΞ | means the attention which it deserved until the 
 | Ξ΄ΞΞ = Ξ -ΞΞ ἕ publication in 1881 of Part I. of Zahn’s For- 
 1 ao | aes 3 leo oie schungen zur Geschichte des neutestamentlichen 
 Ξ Ὁ Ξ' Ξ ay Eg ἘΠῚ S82 Kanons. Zahn devoted the whole of this volume 
 zo efe 385 22632525 | to the Diatessaron, reconstructing and analys- 
 ἘΣΈΣΕΞ Ἐῶ 39 8 EES ing its text, pointing out its relation to other 
 a = & aos & authorities, tracing the history both of the 
 ΓΞ fe τ Ξ ἜΡΙΞΕ Diatessaron and its author, and indeed doing all 
 ® a= 3 2 8 that an accomplished critic should do, The 
 Sane a “iio Εἰ AS) ep appearance of the veritable Diatessaron dispelled 
 | ® cs ae = 3 Ξᾷ 9 a number of myths or figments with which some 
 =hel Ze = S εἰ «588 rather hypercritical writers had surrounded it, 
 = gore ἊΣ So » 888 and a solid and most important contribution 
 a 234 Ξ gs 2 as was made to our knowledge of the history of 
 ἘΣ $54 8 £2 8 #235 2, the Gospels in the second century. This know- 
 - = = col Sie eB ledge will be still further enhanced when the 
 complete text is published of an Arabic version 
 ee : ᾿ of the rect τ οἷ ye a nie! ee 
 aS was given by Father Ciasca in Pitra’s Analecta 
 ΞΕ Ν ΜΟῚ Sacra, tom. iv. p. 465 sq., Paris, 1883. [Some 
 Sof sections have recently been published by De 
 Sa s Lagarde in Mittheilungen, ii. 30 sq., and suffice 
 gs to disappoint the expectations which the version 
 aes had excited. It is found to be based upon the 
 Zo Ξ - -sE2e Peshitto: in other words, the Diatessaron was 
 = 88s ἢ «ἘΞ 95 adapted to the text of the current Arabic N. T., 
 ἘΜῈ ΖΞ Ξ 23 =a just as in Cod. Fuldensis it was adapted to the 
 
 es - = mea Lo wu " » Ϊ ry 
 88 Zac 3 ΞΕ: Ded Vulgate. See further Hemphill, Diat. of 1. 
 ἘΦ fea Εἰ ΞΞΞΞΞ 5’ (Dublin, 1888); Rendel Harris (Cambridge, 
 eI a#e3 8 Bless 1890); Sellin in Zahn’s Forschungen, iv. 225 sq. 
 
 5 = Ant τὸν (Erlangen and Leipzig, 1891).] 
 
 In the next part of his Forschungen, which 
 appeared in 1883, Zahn was less fortunate. He 
 sought to recover a document which would only 
 have been second in importance to the Diates- 
 saron, viz. a Commentary by Theophilus of 
 Antioch, which, if genuine, would have been 
 written about 180 a.p. But though Zahn 
 himself adheres to his opinion, or at most only 
 admits interpolations in the work which he put 
 forward, it is not too much to say that critical 
 opinion on the whole has been unfavourable to 
 the claim which he made for it. 
 
 Bryennius published the contents of his pre- 
 cious MS. by instalments, and early in the year 
 1884 the world was startled to find itself in the 
 possession of a new document belonging in all 
 probability to the sub-apostolic age. The echoes 
 of this discovery are still around us, and more 
 need not be said about the history of the Didache. 
 
 Sepulchre (Matt. xxviii. 1-10; Mark xvi, 1-8; Luke xxiv. \Urmarens . 
 
 he Sepulchre (Matt. xxviii, 11-15) ; 
 
 149. The Crucifixion (Mutt. xxvii. 1-61; Mark xv. 1-47; Luke xxiii. 1-56) . . ᾿ 
 
 Σ & 
 ΕΞ 3 7 
 
 τ᾿ 2. ἢ 
 
 ει I 
 
 = = 
 ai iM se 
 
 5 a= 
 
 : BH 
 
 3 ἘΠΕῚ: 
 Ξ ἘΠΕῚ Ξ The bearings of it upon the Canon of the Gospels 
 Ὁ Ξ Ξ ἢ are similar to those of other documents of the 
 4a st eters ὡς same date, and will be treated with them in the 
 2 ἘΞ. 9 ἘΞ Ά general summary. 
 
 a Ξ ΞΕ Εν: A word of mention is due here to the dis- 
 3 18 8838 covery by Mommsen in the Phillipps Library at 
 2 Ee Ὁ Ξ Ξ Pe Cheltenham of a stichometrical list of the Books 
 τὶ Ξ = as Ξ Ἑ Ξ of Ο. T. and N. T. and of the writings of Cyprian. 
 Ξ ξω 49 2 = Ξ This list was published by Mommsen soon after 
 = aH a4 4 ἃ its discovery in Hermes, vol. xxi. p. 142 sq., 
 Φ Rodd ὁ ὁ under the heading Zur lateinischen Stichometrie. 
 τι Ξ a πὶ ὦ τὶ It has the advantage of being definitely dated : 
 
 the MS. is of the tenth century, but it contains 
 
GOSPELS 
 
 amongst other matter a note pointing to the 
 year 359 as the time of its composition, and 
 there is nothing to prevent the extension of this 
 date to the list. It would thus rank next to the 
 Muratorian Fragment among the Latin lists, and 
 it has the Gospels in a peculiar order,*—Matthew, 
 Mark, John, Luke, which deserves appreciation 
 among other phenomena of the same kind. [On 
 this list see Studia Biblica, iii. 217 sq., and Zahn, 
 Gesch. d. Kan, ii. 143 sq.} 
 
 History of Criticism.—it was natural that dis- 
 coveries like these should give an impulse to 
 criticism, though in some important istances 
 criticism was not first stirred by them. The 
 activity has been greatest in the latter half of 
 the period over which our survey extends. It 
 would be out of place here to attempt to notice 
 all the books relating to the Canon, or all the 
 criticism of the newly-discovered documents that 
 falls within this period. But a few words may 
 be said in regard to discussions bearing directly 
 upon the use of the Gospels. These may be 
 regarded as grouping themselves round certain 
 central points: (1) the use of the Gospels by 
 the early Gnostics ; (2) the elaborate controversy 
 covering the whole period of the formation of 
 the Canon of the Gospels, raised by Supernatural 
 Religion ; (3) the discussions as to the genuine- 
 ness of the Commentary attributed to Theophilus 
 of Antioch ; (4) the discussions as to the Didache. 
 
 For the reasons above mentioned, the last two 
 need not detain us. Enough to say that in the 
 
 controversy about the supposed Commentary of 
 
 Theophilus, the protagonists were Dr. Theodor 
 Zahn and Dr. Adolf Harnack; and that the 
 principal works bearing on the controversy were 
 Part 11. of Zahn’s Furschungen (Erlangen, 1883) ; 
 Vol. 1, Part IV. of Gebhardt and Harnack’s 
 Texte u. Untersuchungen (Der angebliche Evan- 
 geliencommentar des Theophilus von Antiochien, 
 Leipzig, 1883); andareply by Zahn in an appen- 
 dix to the next part of the Forschungen (Supple- 
 mentum Clementinum, p. 198 sq., Erlangen, 1884). 
 A short account of the controversy was given 
 in an essay published in Studia Liblica, p. 89 sq. 
 (Oxford, 1885). In regard to the Didaché, there 
 have of course been discussions and differences 
 of opinion, but only to a slight degree affecting 
 the use of the Gospels. 
 
 The two other discussions have been of greater 
 moment for our particular subject. If our 
 inquiry had included St. John, we should have 
 had to add a third in order to take special note 
 of the admirable monograph on the Hxternal 
 Lvvidences for the Authorship of the Fourth Gospel 
 (Boston, 1880) by the late Dr. Ezra Abbot; and 
 the equally admirable articles, much to the 
 same effect, by Prof. James Drummond in the 
 Theological Review, Oct. 1875, and April and 
 July 1877, with two articles, tending to qualify 
 the results obtained, by Dr. Edwin A. Abbott in 
 the Modern Review, July and October 1882 ; the 
 bulky but fantastic volume by Thoma, Die 
 Genesis des Johannes-Evangeliums (Berlin, 1882), 
 on the same side, and a brief criticism by Dr. 
 Salmon (/ntroduction, p. 78sq.). All these deal 
 primarily with the Fourth Gospel, which does 
 
 a A St. Gall MS. of the same list is found, however, 
 to be a common Western order,—Matt., John, Mark, 
 Luke. See an article by C. H. Turner in the Classical 
 Review for 1892. 
 
 GOSPELS 1237 
 
 not come within our present purview. ‘The use 
 of St. John is the main question in connexion 
 with the Gnostics, but the other Gospels are 
 also involved in a minor degree. The most im- 
 portant point is in regard to Basilides, who 
 wrote about the year 125. ‘There is no doubt 
 that the account of the Basilidian systems by 
 Hippolytus (Refut. omn. Haer, vii. 20-27) 
 contains direct quotations from St. Luke and 
 St. John. The question is, Are these quotations 
 made by Basilides himself or by his disciples ? 
 Mr. Matthew Arnold answers confidently, “by 
 Basilides himself,” and the same answer is given 
 by Dr. Ezra Abbot and a number of other 
 scholars against the opposition of Hilgenfeld, 
 Lipsius, and others, including now Holtzmann 
 (Linl, p. 133). The most important discussion of 
 the subject—all the more important because it is 
 not dealing directly with the use of the canonical 
 Books—is that by Dr. Hort in art. “ Basilides,” 
 Dict. of Christ. Biog. i. 270 sq. This article 
 does not appear to be known to Dr. Holtzmann. 
 Dr. Hort also is of opinion that the eight chapters 
 of Hippolytus represent the teaching of Basilides 
 himself. (For other literature, see Ezra Abbot, 
 Authorship, §c. p. 87: it should perhaps be 
 mentioned that the series was first opened in 
 two directly apologetic treatises by Tischendorf, 
 Wann worden unsere Evang. verfasst? Leipzig, 
 1865 sq., and Hofstede de Groot, Basilides am 
 Ausgange d. Apost. Zeitalters als erster Zeuge 
 fiir Alter u. Autoritét d. N.T.lichen Schriften, 
 Leipzig, 1868.) The use of the Gospels in the 
 other great Gnostic school, that of Valentinus, 
 has been treated by Heinrici in Die Valen- 
 tinianische Gnosis u. die heil. Schrift (Berlin, 
 1871). A summary, with negative leanings, 
 may be found in Holtzmann, Hinleitung, p. 133 sq. 
 (cp. Weiss, Einl. p. 58). 
 
 In England by far the most agitating con- 
 troversy arose out of the publication in 1874 of 
 the work entitled Supernatural Religion, the 
 able and learned but strongly biassed author 
 of which still remains unknown. ‘This con- 
 troversy certainly stirred the depths of the 
 English mind, and led to a great re-awakening 
 of the critical spirit. It is needless to say that 
 the leading part in it was borne by Dr. (since 
 Bp.) Lightfoot in a series of articles in the 
 
 ‘uontemporary Review (Jan., Feb., May, Aug., 
 Oct. 1875; Feb., Aug. 1876; May, 1877). 
 Other works on the same side were: Westcott 
 On the Canon, pref. to 4th ed, 1874; Sanday, 
 Gospels in the Second Century, London, 1876 
 (out of print); Sadler, Zhe Lost Gospel and its 
 Contents, London, 1876; Baring-Gould, Lost 
 and Hostile Gospels, London, 1874. Mention 
 should also be made of an eminently clear and 
 impartial work by Mr. E, B. Nicholson (mow 
 Bodley’s Librarian) on The Gospel according to 
 the Hebrews (London, 1879). The author of 
 Supernatural Religion took up a number of very 
 untenable positions, but there are some amongst 
 those who opposed him who have cause to be 
 grateful to him for sending them back to the 
 detailed study of the texts. 
 
 Results—A pledge has been given that an 
 attempt should be made to sum up the results 
 which seem to emerge from the foregoing 
 retrospect of the research and criticism of a 
 quarter of a century. The means hardly exist 
 for giving to such a summing up a strictly 
 
1238 GOSPELS 
 
 objective character ; it must needs take a 
 subjective colour from the mind through which 
 it passes. The warning is necessary that what 
 follows must no longer be taken as a statement 
 of acknowledged facts, but simply as an in- 
 dividual opinion. This applies especially to 
 what is said under the first head: in regard to 
 the later periods a consensus appears to be 
 gradually forming. : 
 
 We may map out the period which the Gospels 
 traversed in the process of becoming canonical 
 into four nearly equal sections: (1) the close of 
 the apostolic age, A.D. 60-90; (2) the age of 
 Papias and the apostolic Fathers, a.p. 90-140 ; 
 (3) the age of Justin and Tatian, A.D. 140-170; 
 (4) the age of Irenaeus and Clement of Alexan- 
 dria, A.D. 170-200. 
 
 (1.) The Apostolic Age; or Age of the Com- 
 position, fixing of the literary form, and first 
 transcription, of the Gospels. If the view here 
 expressed is not mistaken, all four Gospels were 
 written within this period. The only portion 
 that perhaps falls outside it would be the 
 editorial notes of the Ephesian elders which they 
 added in sending out the Gospel of St. John. 
 The groundstock of the Synoptic Gospels—not 
 only the Logia and Mark-Gospel of Papias, but 
 also by far the greater part of the special docu- 
 ments or traditions used by the First and Third 
 Evangelists—took their shape before the fall of 
 Jerusalem in A.D. 70. That date marks the 
 centre of a period of very considerable activity 
 (Luke i. 1). The Gospel of St. Luke, as a whole, 
 lies beyond it, about the year 80. The Gospel 
 according to St. Matthew was compounded into 
 a shape very nearly resembling the present a 
 short time before it: εὐθέως in Matt. xxiv. 29 
 appears to mark the date not only of the parti- 
 cular document, but of the whole of which that 
 document forms a part. The Gospel of St. Mark 
 (by a process which further investigation 1s 
 needed to define more exactly) also reached a 
 shape not far removed from the present, about 
 the same time. But the first copies of these 
 Gospels fell into the hands probably of disciples, 
 men of simple and unsophisticated character, 
 who were not bound by any strict ideas as to 
 the duty of copyists to preserve exact diplomatic 
 accuracy. They did not hesitate to alter a word 
 here or a word there, sometimes to give it 
 greater point (as in Matt. xxii. 7, “The king 
 was wroth, and sent his armies, and burnt up 
 their city ”), sometimes to prevent possible mis- 
 understanding (as in Mark xiii. 24, ἐν ἐκείναις 
 ταῖς ἡμέραις for εὐθέω5), perhaps even adding 
 short supplementary bits of narrative that 
 reached them through oral tradition. Nor can 
 we confine this process entirely to the first 
 copyists: it went on even into the second 
 century. Itsdying embers are seen in the addi- 
 tions which are found in the documents of the 
 Western text (¢.g. the moving of the waters and 
 the paragraph of the adulteress in St. John); 
 perhaps also in some (e.g. the interpolation in 
 Matt. xxvii. 49, and several of those in Luke 
 xxiv.) which are characteristic of other lines of 
 transmission. All that took place was perfectly 
 bond fide, though not strictly in accordance with 
 our modern rules or with the ideal standard of 
 what is permissible and what is not permissible 
 in copyists. Irenaeus knew better when he 
 inserted his famous adjuration, to those who 
 
 GOSPELS 
 
 copied his work, to compare carefully what 
 they wrote with the original, and see that it 
 was properly corrected (Eus. H. #. ν. 20). But 
 Irenaeus belonged to a different class, and pos- 
 sessed a higher degree of culture than the first 
 transmitters of the text. With them the state 
 of things was similar to that which St. Augus- 
 tine describes (though perhaps with less justice) 
 in regard to the origin of the Latin versions: 
 “Ut enim cuique primis fidei temporibus in 
 manus venit codex Graecus et aliquantulum 
 facultatis 5101 utriusque linguae habere vide- 
 batur, ausus est interpretari.” Any one who 
 knew how to write thought himself fit to copy 
 a Gospel, and copied it often for his own use, not 
 without slight glosses or amplifications. But 
 these were made, as it were, with the pen on 
 the paper, not with any recondite idea of 
 furthering the interests of sect or party, though 
 it would be only natural that the writer’s own 
 opinions should at times affect the turn of a 
 sentence or the choice of a phrase. All this 
 time, though the contents of the Gospels were 
 greatly valued, there was no idea of a special 
 sacredness attaching to the particular words. 
 The first step on the way to this was when the 
 Gospels came to be read in church. We know 
 that from the very first Christian writings were 
 read in this way. ‘Thus St. Paul gives a special 
 charge that 1 Thess. was to be “read before all 
 the brethren,” and in like manner that the 
 Epistle to Colossae should be read “in the 
 Church of the Laodiceans” and the Epistle to 
 Laodicea at Colossae. Nor was a writing of 
 this kind read once and then put on the shelf or 
 laid up among the archives. It was brought 
 out repeatedly and read for the edification of 
 those present. This is clearly expressed in the 
 well-known words of Dionysius at Corinth, in 
 which, acknowledging the letter which had just 
 been received from the Church of Rome, he 
 says: “To-day we have kept the Lord’s holy 
 day, in which we read your Jetter, and we shall 
 be able constantly (ἀεί wore) to read it, and 
 derive admonition from it as we do from the 
 former letter written to us by Clement.” It 
 appears that it does not at once follow from this 
 church-reading that a book was regarded as 
 what we call “canonical.” The letter of 
 Clement to the Corinthians was, it is true, one 
 of those which were tentatively put upon a 
 canonical level in certain Churches, but no such 
 claim was ever made for the Epistle of Soter, of 
 which Dionysius is more immediately speaking. 
 We must beware of carrying back our own hard 
 and fast lines into this primitive age. ‘The dis- 
 tinction between sacred and secular was not 
 clearly marked as it is with us: not so much 
 that the sacred was secularized as that the 
 secular was hallowed: χρήσιμον, a favourite 
 word, is the common term which covers both. 
 We must not, therefore, infer at once that 
 because the Gospels (or rather Gospels sine artic.) 
 were read in church that they were therefore 
 from the first upon the same footing with the 
 Old Testament Scriptures. The earliest direct 
 evidence that we have for the solemn public 
 reading of the Gospels is in Justin Martyr 
 (Apol. i. 67); but it was manifestly an esta- 
 blished practice in his day, and no doubt goes 
 back much further. We may, indeed, ask 
 whether a trace of it 15 not even to be found in 
 
GOSPELS 
 
 the 6 ἀναγινώσκων νοείτω of the ground-docu- 
 ment of the Synoptics. It would be too much 
 to say positively that this implied public read- 
 ing; but there are so many indications of this 
 (compare πρόσεχε τῇ ἀναγνώσει coupled with τῇ 
 παρακλήσει and τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ, 1 Tim. iv. 18) 
 that we can well imagine the reader, as the signs 
 of the catastrophe of Jerusalem were beginning 
 to thicken, turning, as if with an aside, to his 
 assembled hearers, and warning them to take 
 the words to heart. We can believe that the 
 author of the ground-document himself intended 
 this use to be made of them. But again it 
 would be a mistake to apply any such con- 
 clusion too systematically : “ἢ vigour and rigour ” 
 are the last things that are in place in dealing 
 with this early time. The different Gospels 
 were written under different circumstances and 
 with different objects: St. Luke’s, for instance, 
 was intended for the private perusal of a single 
 illustrious convert. Nor must we suppose that 
 there was any jealous exclusion of the other 
 documents which he mentions in favour of what 
 afterwards became the canonical Three. 
 
 (2.) The Age of Papias and the Apostolic 
 Fathers, A.D. 90-140.—The conditions which 
 have just been described may, it is thought, 
 furnish a clue to some of the difficulties which 
 beset this next period. (i.) There will no 
 longer be any real difficulty in the γέγραπται 
 of Barnabas applied to a text from St. Matthew. 
 We shall have no need to have recourse to the 
 very forced assumption that the author is re- 
 ferring not to St. Matthew, but to a really 
 different text from 4 Ezra. That assumption 
 criticism has by this time entirely discarded. 
 But we must remember that the idea of ypapy 
 was elastic, and that the use of this word does 
 not at once and alone confer a higher authority 
 upon St. Matthew than a still more explicit 
 appeal in Jude 14 confers upon the Book of 
 Enoch, or than the use of equally strong ex- 
 pressions in 2 Clement confers upon the Gospel 
 according to the Egyptians. (ii.) We shall also 
 be prepared to understand the phenomena of the 
 evangelical quotations in this period. They are 
 seldom exact; in particular they often show a 
 fusing of different passages, and especially a 
 fusing of expressions from St. Matthew and 
 St. Luke; and though these expressions are 
 sometimes distinctive of either Gospel, they are 
 not of that decisive kind which we find in Justin 
 Martyr, but minor and secondary. One thing is 
 clear—that the writers were not transcribing our 
 Gospels with the MS. before them. There was 
 no reason why they should do so in the very 
 incidental way in which their quotations are 
 introduced. The fusing that has taken place is 
 especially of such a kind as,comes through 
 quoting from memory. It is the sort of free- 
 dom that we ourselves use in quoting familiar 
 sayings, though somewhat greater, as these 
 were not learnt by rote from printed books. 
 iii.) For all through this period there was 
 still at work a living and active oral tradition. 
 The passage where Papias lays stress on this 
 (Euseb. H. £, iii. 39) is of course one of the 
 commonplaces of criticism. But it is clear 
 that Papias by no means stood alone. The 
 substance of the Gospels lay in the brain of the 
 writers of this period as a confused product of a 
 number of different things; of oral tradition, 
 
 GOSPELS 1239 
 catechesis, public reading and private study; 
 and it came out often in the same confusion, 
 reminiscences of apocryphal Gospels being at 
 times mixed with those of the canonical. The 
 distinction of “apocryphal” and “canonical ” 
 was only beginning to exist, and that in a half- 
 unconscious way. (iv.) But a real beginning was 
 being made. Another step in this direction 
 was being taken. It is seen in the heightened 
 significance which was coming to attach—not 
 even yet exactly to the Gospels, but—to the 
 evangelical sayings, which are more and more 
 on a level with the O. T. The transition is 
 clearly seen in the places where a written 
 authority for the “words of the Lord” is 
 referred to. Thus in the Didaché: Christians 
 are to pray, ὡς ἐκέλευσεν 5 Κύριος ἐν τῷ 
 εὐαγγελίῳ αὐτοῦ (8, 2); they are to live κατὰ 
 τὸ δόγμα τοῦ εὐαγγελίου : and in 2 Clem. ο. 8, 
 λέγει γὰρ 6 Κύριος ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ (see 
 Weiss, Hinl. p. 41, n. 3). The authority of 
 the spoken word passed over to the written 
 word. A characteristic name marks the tran- 
 sition: τὰ λόγια is now no longer confined to 
 the Scriptures of the O. T., it is used for the 
 written or unwritten tradition of the N. T. 
 We have it in Papias (Euseb. 17. LZ. iii. 39); we 
 have it in Polycarp (Ad Phil. c. 7); we have it 
 in 2 Clem. c. 13. In the last two examples 
 the reference is to written Gospels; in the first 
 probably to the written and oral tradition com- 
 bined. It is significant that the λόγοι of which 
 the Evangelists so often speak (ὅτε συνετέλεσεν 
 τοὺς λόγους τούτους) should now have acquired 
 the heightened and impressive name of λόγια. 
 Cp. Weizsiicker, Apost. Zeitalt. p. 387. 
 
 (8.) The Age of Justin and Tatian, A.D. 140— 
 170.—There was still the distinction to be 
 drawn between recognised and unrecognised 
 Gospels. The Homily of Clement, as we have 
 seen, quotes both indifferently; so, too, does 
 Ignatius; so, it used to be alleged, does Justin. 
 There can be no antecedent objection to the 
 view that Justin used an apocryphal Gospel 
 The author of the Homily ascribed to Clement 
 was his contemporary, and what one might do 
 the other might do. The question is only as to 
 the fact whether the evidence warrants us in 
 believing that Justin used another Gospel or 
 Gospels besides the canonical. Our three 
 Synoptics Justin used so largely that a full 
 outline of the evangelical history, with the 
 characteristic features of each clearly marked, 
 has several times been constructed from his 
 writings (Hilgenfeld, Zvangelium  Justin’s, 
 p- 101 sq.; Westcott, Canon, pp. 102 sq., 107 n., 
 ed. 5; Sanday, Gospels im Second Century, 
 pp- 91 sq., 118 sq.). There remain, however, a 
 few details (e.g. the Magi coming “ from Arabia,” 
 the fire on Jordan at the Baptism, the making of 
 “ploughs and yokes”) which are not found in our 
 canonical Gospels; and our choice lies between 
 supposing that these come from some apocryphal 
 source, and regarding them as merely free 
 embellishments of the narrative, similar to 
 those which are often found in the Western 
 texts, or inferential additions ‘by Justin himself. 
 The balance of opinion is now, as it would seem, 
 somewhat in favour of the latter alternative: 
 so Dr. Edwin Abbott, Encycl. Brit. p. 817; 
 Weiss, Hinl. p. 42 sq.; not however Holtzmann, 
 Einl, p. 118. Tatian is upon much the same 
 
1240 GOSPELS 
 
 footing as Justin. If he made any use of an 
 apocryphal Gospel, and it is perhaps too much 
 to say positively that he did not (see Zahn, 
 p- 241 sq.), his use of this bore a quite infini- 
 tesimal proportion to his use of the canonical 
 Gospels. 
 
 (4.) The Age of Irenaeus and Clement of 
 Alexandria, A.D. 170-200.—The four Gospels 
 were thus gradually fenced off from other 
 writings of the same kind. The date at which 
 the process was complete varied somewhat in 
 different localities. ‘The last stage before the 
 final is represented by Clement of Alexandria, 
 who quotes from Julius Cassianus, a Docetic 
 Gnostic, a passage from the Gospel according 
 to the Hebrews, adding the remark that the 
 saying in question is not found in the four 
 received Gospels (ἐν τοῖς παραδεδομένοις ἡμῖν 
 τέτταρσιν εὐαγγελίοι5), but in the Gospel accord- 
 ing to the Hebrews. From this it would seem 
 that though he reserves a paramount authority 
 for the Gospels recognised by the Church, he did 
 yet allow a certain authority to the apocryphal 
 Gospel. The incident illustrates the process by 
 which the restriction of the Gospel to our 
 present four took place. From early days, as 
 we have seen—probably as far back as A.D. 125 
 at least—the Gospels were appealed to by the 
 Gnostics; they were treated like Scriptures, and 
 mystical interpretations were put upon them. 
 This at once invested them with an authoritative 
 character. The Catholic party met their oppo- 
 nents partly by contesting their interpretations, 
 partly by a watchful care that the number of 
 authoritative Gospels should not be increased. 
 A process of criticism went on, which we cannot 
 quite describe as unconscious, though it has left 
 no record of itself in history. The cause of this 
 silence is to be sought not merely in the scarcity 
 of documents, but in the nature of the process 
 itself. It came before the synodal action of the 
 Church was fully organised, and it was due 
 rather to the personal direction of the ἡγούμενοι 
 oY προιστάμενοι τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν forming and 
 guiding the opinion of their communities. That 
 there must have been something of a struggle is 
 implied in the gradual elimination of books 
 which Papias and Ignatius and 2 Clement had 
 freely quoted. But so far as the Gospels are 
 concerned, this struggle hardly seems to extend 
 beyond the space between Basilides and Tatian. 
 The first public recognition of the Church’s 
 verdict is found in the Muratorian Fragment ; 
 but by that time the process has entered upon 
 its last stage. In Irenaeus 1t is complete—so 
 complete that the steps by which the result 
 had been gained were forgotten. Irenaeus 
 regards it as a fundamental axiom, an unalter- 
 able law of the spiritual world, that there should 
 be four Gospels and no more. These, though 
 fourfold in form, are one in substance; the same 
 Spirit inspires them; it is nolonger the consent 
 of the Church on which they rest, but they are 
 themselves “the pillar and buttress (στύλος καὶ 
 στήριγμα) of the Church, and that which 
 breathes into it the breath or spirit of life.” 
 There may be some slight difference in the rate 
 of progress in different Churches—at Alexandria, 
 for instance, the dividing-line would appear to 
 fall between Clement and Origen, and in Asia 
 Minor there was a (limited) opposition to the 
 
 Fourth Gospel—but the position of Irenaeus | important change in the outward form of the 
 
 GOSPELS 
 
 was never afterwards seriously questioned. The 
 Canon of the Gospels, in the fullest sense of the 
 word, is established. 
 
 Inferences to be drawn from the Order of the 
 Gospels.—There is one more point to which 
 allusion may perhaps be made, though this 
 too cannot claim to rest on general consent, and 
 indeed does not seem to have engaged the 
 attention of scholars. By the time of Irenaeus 
 the order of the Gospels is well defined. The 
 same order appears in the Muratorian Frag- 
 ment, in Irenaeus, Origen, Gregory Nazianzen, 
 Athanasius, Jerome, Augustine, Rufinus, Cassio- 
 dorus, with the great mass of later Greek 
 writers and MSS. The order which competed 
 most directly with this is the Western order: 
 St. Matthew, St. John, St. Luke, St. Mark. 
 This is the order of the Codex Bezae, and of 
 the leading texts of the Old Latin, Codd. 
 Vercellensis, Veronensis, Palatinus, Brixianus, 
 Corbeiensis II., Monacensis, Dublinensis (Usseri- 
 anus). ‘Lhis was the order of a copy of the 
 Gospels which was said five centuries after his 
 time to have belonged to Hilary (Gregory, 
 Proleg. p. 137). It is also inferred that St. Luke 
 followed St. John in the Gospels of Lucifer 
 Calaritanus (Harnack, Theol. Interaturzeit. 
 1886, p. 176). The order in which Cyprian 
 ranges his quotations in the Zestimonia varies 
 too much for a certain inference to be drawn 
 from it. The stichometry in Cod. Claromontanus, 
 which goes back to a great antiquity, was a 
 similar order to that of the Western docu- 
 ments, except that St. Mark is placed before St. 
 Luke. A single very important Old Latin MS., 
 Cod. Bobiensis (1), places St. Matthew after St. 
 Mark at the end of the volume. The MSS. of 
 the Egyptian versions have the common order, 
 but the vocabularies, both Memphitic and The- 
 baic, very frequently have the order St. John, 
 St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. Luke (Lightfoot ap. 
 Scrivener, Introd. pp. 390, 399, ed. 3). The 
 order in the Curetonian Syriac—St. Matthew. 
 St. Mark, St. John, St. Luke—was unique until 
 the discovery of Mommsen’s list, which coincides. 
 with it [but see note on p. 1237]. The list itself, 
 as we have seen, was probably drawn up about. 
 the year 359, but it may well represent an 
 earlier arrangement. ‘The noticeable point in alk 
 this is the variety which is seen to exist in the 
 oldest forms of the oldest Versions—the Latin, 
 Egyptian, and Syriac, especially the Latim and: 
 Syriac. Does not the inference lie near at hand 
 that these Versions were made before there was 
 any accepted order, at the very time when the 
 Gospels were first beginning to be collected in 
 a single volume, and when different books were 
 made up in different ways? We could not, of 
 course, speak confidently if the order of the 
 Gospels stood alone, but many other phenomena 
 point to the same conclusion. [The evidence 
 bearing upon the order of the Gospels 1s con- 
 yeniently collected by Gregory, Proleg. to ed. 8 
 of Tischendorf’s NV. 7., Leipzig, 1884; Baethgen,. 
 in an admirable monograph on the Curetonian 
 Syriac (Lvangelienfragmente, Leipzig, 1885), is 
 inclined to place it in the third century, but 
 the arguments which he adduces are capable of 
 another interpretation. ] 
 
 It is carrying speculation a little further if 
 we also assign to the same period another 
 
GOSPELS 
 
 Gospels — viz., their transference from the 
 papyrus roll to the vellum codex. For Christian 
 literature in general the date of this trans- 
 ference seems to be the middle of the fourth 
 century, when Jerome tells us that Euzoius, 
 Bishop of Caesarea, “took pains to renew on 
 parchment the library of Origen and Pamphilus, 
 which had begun to wear out.” (‘ Corruptam 
 jam bibliothecam Origenis et Pamphili in 
 membranis instaurare conatus est,” De Vir. Lil. 
 exiii.) But just as we hear of law books on 
 vellum considerably before this date, so also 
 would this be the case with the Christian 
 Scriptures, as with Books that were much used 
 and in which durability of material was a 
 necessity. So long as the Books remained in tine 
 roll-form, there would hardly be a fixed order. 
 The rolls were smaller in size, and it is not pro- 
 bable that there would be more than one Gospel 
 in a single volumen. ‘The four volumes would be 
 put together in a single τεῦχος or case (forming 
 a “Tessarateuch ” by the side of the Mosaic 
 “Pentateuch ”’), but there would be no special 
 distinction of order. But as soon as the codex 
 took the place of the roll, the four Gospels 
 would be written continuously, and a regular 
 order would come to be observed. 
 
 Dates assigned to the Gospels.— The reader 
 may wish to have, in conclusion, some means of 
 obtaining a general view of the influence of 
 these various critical investigations, internal 
 and external, on the dates which have been 
 
 GOSPELS 1241 
 
 assigned to the Gospels, and the kind of relation 
 into which they are brought with the facts of 
 the history. A double tendency will be obsery- 
 able: on the one hand, from the time of Baur 
 and Schwegler onwards, a steady pushing back of 
 the extravagant chronology which characterised 
 the ‘Tiibingen School at its outset; and on the 
 other hand, in recent days, something of an ad- 
 vance on the part of critics like Dr. Holtzmann 
 and Dr. Weizsiicker, whose first opinions were 
 decidedly conservative. A mistaken inference 
 might be drawn from this last fact as to the real 
 state of things in Germany. Of the younger 
 theologians there are few, so far as the present 
 writer’s knowledge extends, who have expressed 
 themselves on the Synoptic question; but the 
 best of them (and among these it is a pleasure 
 to name Εἰ, Loofs, J. Gloel, J. Haussleiter, 
 A. Eichhorn, and J. M. Usteri °) have shown a 
 combination of openness of mind with sobriety 
 and soundness of judgment which is full of 
 promise for the criticism of the future. ‘The 
 tendency to bring down the composition of the 
 Third Gospel to the end of the first century or 
 beginning of the second, is in part due to the 
 opinion which became widely diffused about 
 1875-1878, that the author knew and made use 
 of the Antiquities of Josephus. The arguments 
 in favour of this contention are fully stated in 
 Keim, Aus dem Urchristenthum, pp. 1-27; or 
 the other side is the weighty dissent of Schiirer 
 (Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschrift, 1876, p. 574). 
 
 DATES ASSIGNED TO THE GOSPELS IN THEIR PRESENT Form. 
 
 St. Matthew. St. Mark. St. Luke. St. John. 
 Baur - A 1847 | 130-134 A.D. The Gospels generally between 130-170 A.D. 
 Schwegler . ἃ . 1846 | Canonical Gospels not knuwn to ;Laterthan Marcion.| Contemp. with Paschal 
 Justin. controversy and Mon- 
 tanism. 
 Volkmar 1870 | 105-110 a.p. 75-80 A.D. . - | ¢. 100 A.D. 150-160 A.D. 
 Supernatural Religion 1874 | No evidence for a century and a half after the death of Christ. 
 Hilgenfeld 1863, 1875 | Soonalter 70 4.D.| First years of Domi-; c. 100 a.v. 120-140 A.D. 
 tian (81-96 A.D.) 
 Holtzmann 3 . 1863 | Synoptic Gospels, both sources and finished compositions, between 60-80 A.D. 
 Pe 1885 | After 70 A.D. . | | After 100 A.D. . 
 Weizsacker 1886 | Synoptic Gospels at different dates after 70 a.p. outside the strictly Apostolic Age. 
 Keim 1867 | c. 66 A.D. 100 A.D. c. 90 A.D. . Under Trajan, 100- 
 117 A.D. 
 35 . - . 1573 | c. 68 A.D. “ Conk 0 ΑΌ c. 100 or some- | 6. 130 A.D. 
 what later. 
 Renan τ 1803 Before St. Luke. Soon after 70 A.p. | After the death of John, 
 | from notes left by him. 
 = ᾿ : . 1877 | 85 A.D. - | 76 A.D. 94 A.D. c. 126 A.D. 
 Weiss, Beyschlag, &c. Shortly before or after 70 A.D. c. 80 A.D. c. 90 A.D. [1879]. 
 Alford : : Ε 63-70 A.D. 58 A.D. Not Jater than 85 A.D. 
 
 The Uiterature of the period covered by our 
 survey has been given with what will probably 
 be thought sufficient completeness, so that any 
 further enumeration of authorities would seem 
 to be unnecessary. A word of special acknow- 
 ledgment should, however, be given to the 
 excellent Hinleitung of Dr. Holtzmann, a work 
 studded with condensed information, which it 
 was hopeless to think of emulating. The 
 similar volume by Dr. B, Weiss is also a very 
 conscientious piece of work, but it has been less 
 often consulted. 
 
 Further History of Synoptic Criticism, 1888-- 
 1891.—The tendency of the most recent criticism 
 has been in much the same direction as that 
 
 described above. The two most conspicuous 
 
 exceptions would be the Rey. J. J. Halcombe’s 
 Historic Relation of the Gospels (London, 1889), 
 which would invert the usual theory by making 
 St. John’s Gospel written first, and the other 
 Gospels, with St. Matthew at their head, supple- 
 mentary to τ ; and a work which has come into 
 the writer’s hands as he 15 sending this to press, 
 Dr. C. F. Nisgen’s Geschichte αἰ. Neutestl. Ojfen- 
 barung (Munich, 1891), which goes back to 
 Gieseler’s hypothesis and finds the common basis 
 of the Synoptic Gospels in oral tradition. Nosgen 
 thinks that the statement of Papias about 
 
 b Two of these, alas, and those by no means the least 
 promising, Gloel and Usteri, were removed by death 
 in 1891. 
 
1242 GOSPELS 
 
 St. Matthew refers to an older and smaller work 
 by the Apostle, which was not formally trans- 
 lated in writing, but which every one who pos- 
 sessed sufficient knowledge of Aramaic made 
 what he could of for himself. This earlier work, 
 he thinks, was afterwards incorporated in the 
 larger Greek Gospel by the same Evangelist, 
 and, when it had thus done its work, passed into 
 disuse and perished. Apart from these two 
 books, the general set of the tide has been in 
 favour of the “ Two-Document” hypothesis. The 
 most noticeable points would be as follows :— 
 (1) The publication in Studia Biblica, vol. ii., of 
 the essay by Mr. F. H. Woods, mentioned above 
 (Ὁ. 1220), “ On the Origin and Mutual Relation 
 of the Synoptic Gospels.” The scope of this 
 essay is not quite so large as its title might 
 seem to imply: it does not cover the whole 
 problem, but is confined to an extremely close 
 and searching examination of the order of 
 Synoptic narratives, resulting in the conclusion 
 that the fundamental order for all three Gospels 
 is that of our present St. Mayk. On this subject 
 it is likely to remain the standard treatise for 
 some time to come. Another argument to the 
 same general effect is supplied by Dr. Paul 
 Ewald in Das Hauptproblem der Evangelien- 
 frage (Leipzig, 1890). Against the view that 
 the common foundation of our Gospels is to be 
 sought in oral tradition, Dr. Ewald urges, in 
 addition to the usual arguments, this: that if 
 there was such a stereotyped oral tradition, we 
 must conceive of it as arising in the Mother 
 Church at Jerusalem; but if so, how can we 
 account for the absence from it of all those 
 special elements which are found in the Gospel 
 of St. John—and not in the Gospel alone, but 
 also with greater or less clearness distributed 
 over a number of sub-Apostolic and even 
 Apostolic writers? From this it seems to 
 follow that the common foundation in question 
 was not the work of the Mother Church; that 
 it was not an oral tradition spread over a 
 number of persons at all; but that its one- 
 sidedness shows it to be the work of a single 
 individual. Dr. Ewald infers that the state- 
 ment of Papias respecting “ Notes” put together 
 by St. Mark from the preaching of St. Peter 
 well suits the case, and is the most probable 
 explanation of the phenomena. He thinks that 
 our present St. Mark differs but little from the 
 original Gospel; Mark i. 1-3, vii. 24—vili. 26, 
 xvi. 9-20, being the only additions. Another 
 writer of importance, who will be shortly men- 
 tioned in another connexion, Dr. A. Resch, 
 follows Weiss in supposing that our St. Mark is 
 a combination of the original Notes from the 
 Preaching of St. Peter with large extracts from 
 the Matthaean Logia. He appears to go farther 
 than any other recent writer in regarding our 
 present Second Gospel as of composite origin 
 {Agrapha, p. 28); but his views on this subject 
 have not yet been fully explained. 
 
 (2) All the writers last mentioned, together 
 with others both in England and on the Con- 
 tinent (Rev. A. Wright, Composition of the Four 
 Gospels, London and New York, 1890; Rev. 
 J. Estlin Carpenter, Zhe Synoptic Gospels, 
 London, 1890; Th. H. Mandel, Kephas, der Zvan- 
 gelist, Leipzig, 1889), agree in postulating as the 
 second main source of the Synoptic Gospels, the 
 Logia, a collection primarily of discourses by 
 
 GOSPELS 
 
 | St. Matthew. The more exact determination 
 of this document is, however, a matter of extreme 
 difficulty, and can hardly be said to have made 
 much progress since the courageous attempt of 
 Wendt noted in the former part of this article. 
 The most valuable observations on this branch 
 of the subject are probably those of Dr. P. 
 Ewald. (i.) He argues against what may be 
 almost called the prevailing tendency, to go for 
 the reconstruction of the Logia to St. Luke 
 rather than to St. Matthew, pointing out in 
 particular that the section Luke ix. 51—xviii. 14 
 cannot well be taken as a representative section 
 of the Logia, both because of the absence from 
 more than half of it of Matthaean parallels, and 
 also because of its peculiar linguistic character, 
 which is more in agreement with that of the 
 Evangelist himself than with that which is 
 otherwise distinctive of the Logia. As this 
 section shows several points of contact with 
 Southern Galilee (Luke ix. 51 sq., x. 29 sq., 
 xiii. 1 sq., 22, and perhaps 31 sq., xvii. 11 sq. ; 
 ep. also vii. 11 sq.), Dr. Ewald thinks that it was 
 derived (orally ?) from a native of that district, 
 who joined our Lord while He was travelling 
 through it (Hauptproblem, &c., p. 238, note). 
 (ii.) He observes further that in the parts which 
 are common to St. Luke with St. Matthew 
 there are great differences in the closeness of the 
 parallelism—sometimes almost complete identity 
 for two or three verses together, and sometimes 
 as great divergence. The former cases Dr. Ewald 
 would regard as examples of the manner in 
 which the Evangelist would naturally treat the 
 documents to which he had access; the latter 
 as evidence of the disturbing effect produced by 
 the presence of more than one source (written or 
 oral) for the paragraph in question (μέ sup. 
 pp- 216-226). 
 
 (3) So far the criticism of the recent past has 
 only been a continuation of that which was in 
 vogue throughout the preceding period, but a 
 
 new avenue seemed to be opened by the publica- 
 tions of Dr. Resch. The most considerable of 
 these appeared in vol. v. of Gebhardt and Har- 
 nack’s Texte und Untersuchungen under the 
 title Agrapha: Aussercanonische Evangelienfrag- 
 mente (Leipzig, 1889). This was accompanied 
 by a number of detached essays, especially in 
 Luthardt’s Zeitschrift f. kirchl. Wissenschaft τι. 
 kirchl. Leben for 1888 and succeeding years, and 
 is to be followed by a further volume, Ausser- 
 canonische Paralleltexte zu den Evangelien (see 
 Theol. Literaturblatt, 1889, col. 370). Dr. Resch 
 has begun with the most elaborate collection ever 
 yet made of sayings not found exactly in our 
 present Gospels, but quoted by the Fathers or 
 otherwise preserved, which appear to possess any 
 real claim to have been actually spoken by our 
 Lord. And the characteristic part of his theory 
 
 is that he believes that many of these sayings 
 were not merely derived from oral tradition or 
 from any later form of Gospel, but from the 
 oldest of all the documents which ever went by 
 that name, the original Logia of St. Matthew. 
 So far back does he throw this primitive Gospel 
 (which he believes to have been written not in 
 Aramaic but in Biblical Hebrew) that he finds 
 numerous traces of it in the writings of St. Paul 
 from 1 Thessalonians (A.D. 52) onwards. The 
 importance of this contention is obvious. It is, 
 however, by no means certain that Dr. Resch has 
 
—_ - 
 
 GOTHOLIAS 
 
 proved his point. He writes with something of 
 the sanguine spirit of a discoverer, and there 
 can be little doubt that the list of sayings put 
 forward as original will need considerable 
 pruning. It is noticeable, however, that in the 
 assumption of a Semitic Gospel older than the 
 Kpistles of St. Paul Dr. Resch does not stand 
 alone. A similar view has been put forward 
 quite independently in this country by Prof. 
 J.T. Marshall: see his series of articles in the 
 Expositor for June 1890 and the first half-year 
 of 1891. Prof. Marshall differs from Dr. Resch 
 in maintaining that the language of this oldest 
 Gospel was not Biblical Hebrew but the current 
 Aramaic of our Lord’s time. In this he seems 
 to hold the more probable view ; and his articles 
 are distinguished by care and orderly method, 
 though it is necessary to add that the validity 
 of many of the linguistic arguments employed 
 is questioned by Semitic scholars. All these 
 questions must be regarded as still sub judice. 
 
 (4) Special mention ought to be made of the 
 great work on the Canon by Theodor Zahn, 
 Geschichte d. Neutestl. Kanons (Erlangen and 
 Leipzig, vol. 1. 1888, 1889; vol. 11. part 1, 1890). 
 The second volume contains an extremely full 
 and close discussion of the early lists of the 
 Canonical Books (the Muratorian Fragment, 
 Mommsen’s list, the Claromontane Catalogue, 
 &c.). At the end of the volume is an examina- 
 tion, equally thorough, of the numbering and 
 order of the Canonical Books and of the Biblical 
 Stichometries (ep. Stud. Bibl. iii. 222 sq., 233 sq., 
 259 sq., 261 sq., 307 sq., and the articles in Class. 
 Rev. referred to on p. 1237 above). Parallel to 
 this work is the series of Forschungen zur Gesch. 
 d. Neutestl, Kanons, of which a fourth volume has 
 just appeared under the joint editorship of Hauss- 
 leiter and Zahn., This discusses, amongst other 
 things, the Arabic Diatessaron. The appearance 
 of the first instalment of Zahn’s History called 
 forth a prompt, if not hasty, criticism from 
 Harnack (Das Neue Testament um das Jahr 
 200, Freiburg i. B., 1889), to which Zahn at 
 once replied (Hinige Bemerkungen, &c. Erlangen 
 and Leipzig, 1889), though leaving his later 
 issues to speak for themselves. Jiilicher followed 
 with a lengthy review in Theol. Literaturzeitung 
 (1889, col. 165 sq.) in a sense similar to Harnack’s. 
 These mutual criticisms, however unpleasant 
 for those concerned in them, all contribute to 
 clearness of ideas and exactness of statement. 
 In these respects Zahn’s original statement may 
 have been somewhat wanting, but in any case 
 his voiumes, which have so far followed each 
 other in quick succession, are an extraordinary 
 monument of diligence and learning. 
 
 This brief retrospect has been itself of the 
 nature of a bibliography. For fuller details on 
 the present position of the Synoptic problem, 
 reference may be made to a series of articles in 
 the Expositor, Feb.-June,1891. [W. S—y.] 
 
 GOTHOLI'AS. Josias, son of Gotholias (To- 
 θολίου ; Gotholiae), was one of the sons of Elam 
 who returned from Babylon with Ezra (1 Esd. 
 vu. 33). The name is the same as ATHALIAH, 
 with the common substitution of the Greek G 
 for the Hebrew guttural Aim (cp. Gomorrah, 
 Gaza, &c.). This passage compared with 2 K. 
 xi. 1, &c., shows that Athaliah was both a male 
 and female name. 
 
 GOURD 1243 
 
 GOTHO'NIEL (BAN Γοθονιήλ, N*. To- 
 θονίου, t.c. Othniel ; Gothonicl), father of Chabris, 
 who was one of the governors (ἄρχοντες) of the 
 city of Bethulia (Judith vi. 15). 
 
 GOURD CYP, hikadyon, only in Jonah 
 
 ω 
 
 iv. 6-10; κολοκύνθη; hedera; Arab, 
 
 yaktin). A difference of opinion has long existed as 
 to the plant which is intended by this word. The 
 argument is as old as St. Jerome, whose render- 
 ing hedera was impugned by St. Augustine as a 
 heresy! In reality St. Jerome’s rendering was 
 not intended to be critical, but rather as a kind 
 of pis aller necessitated by the want of a proper 
 Latin word to express the original. Besides, he 
 was unwilling to leave it in merely Latinised 
 Hebrew (kikayon), which might have occasioned 
 misapprehensions. St. Augustine, following the 
 LXX. and Syr. Versions, was in favour of the 
 rendering gourd, which was adopted by Luther, 
 the A. V., R. V. (text), &c. “In St. Jerome’s 
 description of the plant called in Syr. havo, and 
 Punie el-keroa, Celsius recognises the Ricinus 
 palma- Christi (R. V. marg.), or Castor-oil plant 
 (Mierobot. 11. 273 sq.; Bochart, Hieroz. ii. 293, 
 623). 
 
 The Ricinus palma-Christi is extremely com- 
 mon in all the eastern countries of the Mediter- 
 ranean, in Persia, India, and China. The present 
 writer has found it in great abundance on the 
 banks of the Euphrates. The strongest argument 
 in favour of the Ricinus is the supposed derivation 
 of the Hebrew word used in Jonah from the Egyp- 
 tian name of the Ricinus or Castor-oil plant, Aiki. 
 
 Cp. Herod. ii. 94. S| 
 
 c= 
 ’al-khirwa‘. Of the identity of kiki and ’al-khirwa‘ 
 with Ricinus, the Castor-oil tree, there can be no 
 
 The Arabic name is 
 
 Castor-oil plant (Ricinus communis, L.). 
 
 question; and the Egyptian word became 
 Hebraized. The Talmud speaks of castor oil as 
 PP DL’, and Dioscorides (iv. 64) calls the oil 
 made from the κρότων or kiki, κίκινον ἔλαιον. 
 But we have not yet seen any convincing argu- 
 
1244 
 
 ment to identify these names with the fikayon 
 of Jonah. The etymological argument is doubt- 
 less strong, but there are practical reasons which 
 incline us the other way. The /ticinus is rather 
 a shrub than a tree, and has large palmate leaves 
 
 GOURDS, WILD 
 
 with serrated lobes, and upright spikes of 
 blossom. It is not a tree used for shade, bemg 
 
 of a straggling growth, though a man might 
 creep for shelter underneath it. Now Niebuhr 
 observes that the Jews and Christians at Mosul 
 (Nineveh) maintained that the tree which 
 sheltered Jonah was not ’al-khirwa‘ but “ el- 
 kerra‘,” a sort of gourd. ‘This revival of the 
 Augustinian rendering has been defended by 
 J. E. Faber (Notes on Harmer’s Observations, ὅσο. 
 i. 145). And it must be confessed that the 
 evidently miraculous character of the narrative 
 in Jonah deprives the Palma-Christi of any special 
 claim to identification on the ground of its rapid 
 growth and decay, as described by Niebuhr. 
 The gourd, on the contrary, meets all the 
 conditions of the problem. We are expressly 
 told that Jonah “made him a booth;” and not 
 till after it was made, did God prepare the 
 kikayon to cover it. This is exactly what a 
 climbing gourd would do, but not what a 
 Ricinus could effect. No one who knows the 
 plant can conceive its casting shade over an 
 existing arbour. But this 1s exactly what the 
 gourd would do. ‘he fragile lodge of green 
 boughs set up by Jonah would, as soon as the 
 foliage withered, leave him exposed to the 
 scorching rays. Then the tendrils of the gourd 
 would seize the framework, and rapidly the 
 plant with its large Jeaves would cover the 
 whole arbour. In all warm climates the gourd 
 is used for shade and for covering trellis-work. 
 So rapid is its natural growth, that it is com- 
 monly said to grow an inch in an hour. In the 
 gardens about Sidon and Damascus the present 
 writer has seen many ἃ trellised gourd shading a 
 summer-house. But it withers as rapidly as it 
 springs up; and a very slight injury to the 
 slender stem, the gnawing of its bark by a snail, 
 or a blast of wind, will shrivel every leaf and 
 leave the fruit hanging from the naked foot- 
 stalks, a type of desolation. The “ worm that 
 God prepared” might be one of these snails, 
 which could bark and thus destroy the whole 
 plant ‘instantaneously. The gourd is of the 
 Melon family, Lagenuria vulgaris, 1). C., Arab. 
 
 oo har‘, el-kerra‘ of the Syrians, and is grown 
 
 chiefly for the use made of its fruit, when emptied 
 of the seeds, as bottles. ELSE depo dts), 
 
 GOURDS, WILD (MiWPB, pakha‘ath ; 
 τολύπη ἀγρία [= ἀγρία κολοκύνθη, Suid.]; 
 Colocynthides agri; A. V. and R. V., “wild 
 gourds,” in 2 K. ivy. 89). The Hebrew name is 
 derived from YP, “to split or burst open.” 
 The same word with the masculine termination, 
 D'YP5, is apphed to certain ornamental carvings 
 in Solomon’s temple, and is there translated 
 “knops,” A. V., and R. V. marg. gourds 
 (1 K. vi. 18, &c.). In the passage from 2 K., 
 we read : “ Elisha came to Gilgal, and there was 
 a dearth in the land. . . And one went out into 
 the field to gather herbs, and found a wild vine 
 (VY 153), and gathered thereof wild gourds 
 his lap full, and came and shred them into 
 
 GOURDS, WILD 
 
 the pot of pottage: for they knew them not. 
 So they poured out for the men to eat. And it 
 came to pass, as they were eating of the pottage, 
 that they cried out and said, O thou man of 
 God, there is death in the pot. And they 
 could not eat thereof.” Many conjectures have . 
 been hazarded as to the fruit intended, and 
 pages have been written by Celsius, Gesenius, 
 and others for and against various claimants. 
 Cucumis prophetarum, L., the globe cucumber, 
 has been suggested. LHecballium. elateriwn, L., 
 the squirting cucumber, has found still stronger 
 advocacy from the derivation of the Hebrew 
 word, signifying “that which bursts; ” and, as 
 is well known, the squirting cucumber bursts 
 and shoots out its seeds when touched. These 
 plants are common in Palestine. But the 
 ancient Versions support the colocynth (Citrudlus 
 
 Colocynth. 
 
 colocynthis, L.). The incidents in the narrative 
 quoted seem to point beyond question to the 
 colocynth. Elisha had come down to the 
 Jordan valley from his ordinary residence 
 among the hills of Benjamin. Now in the 
 hill-country the globe cucumber and the 
 squirting cucumber are common weeds by the 
 wayside and in the fields, and would certainly 
 be known by the gatherer, the prophet’s fol- 
 lower from the upper country. The colocynth, 
 which is not unlike the globe cucumber in 
 general appearance, on the contrary is not found 
 in the hills or cultivated land, but is exceedingly 
 common on the hot sands by the coast, and on 
 the sands round the Dead Sea. It abounds 
 about Jijili, the ancient Gilgal. What more 
 natural than that the man gathering herbs 
 should mistake it for the globe cucumber, which 
 is harmless and edible when cooked. ‘he 
 squirting cucumber, though slightly bitter, is 
 not nauseous, nor does it have any resemblance 
 to the other plants of the family. The man, we 
 are told, gathered the fruit from a wild vine. 
 This is exactly what the colocynth plant would 
 be called, from its palmate vine-shaped leaves and 
 its tendrils, just as the word “ vine”’ is applied 
 in the dialects of the West Indies and the United 
 
GOVERNOR 
 
 States as a generic term for creeping plants with 
 tendrils—grape-vine, pumpkin-vine, melon-vine, 
 &c. The fruit is very beautiful to look at, of 
 the size and colour of an orange, but smooth and 
 glossy. A stranger from the upper country 
 would be attracted at once by the beautiful 
 appearance of the fruit, and would eagerly 
 gather it as a wild melon. But when the 
 pottage was tasted! The repulsive bitterness of 
 the drastic colocynth will not be forgotten by 
 any one who has tasted it. Both at Gilgal and 
 in the sandy flats in front of Engedi we found 
 the colocynth covering a great extent of ground, 
 and it is also found on volcanic sands in other 
 hot countries. 
 
 Another argument in favour of the colocynth 
 is the use of the same word to describe some 
 carved ornaments in Solomon’s Temple. The 
 shape of the colocynth would suggest a graceful 
 ornament, which could scarcely have been 
 adapted from the shape of the other fruit 
 suggested. On reviewing the whole question, 
 we may look on the identification of the 
 colocynth as all but indisputable. (H. B. T.] 
 
 GOVERNOR. ‘This English word is the 
 representative of no less than ten Hebrew and 
 four Greek words. To discriminate between 
 them is the object of the following article. 
 
 ,1: mdy, ’alluiph, the chief of a tribe or family, 
 FON, “eleph (Judg. vi. 15 (A. V. and Rk. V. 
 “family ”; R. V. marg. thousand]; Is. lx. 22 
 fA. V. and R. V. “a thousand”); Mic. v. 1 
 {Heb.; A. V. and. R. V., v. 2, “thousands,” 
 Rk. V. marg. families]), and equivalent to the 
 “ruler of a thousand ” of Ex. xviii. 21, or the 
 “ὁ head of a thousand ” of Num. i. 16(R. V. marg. 
 families). It is the term applied to the “dukes ” 
 of Edom (Gen, xxxvi. 15, &c.). The LXX, have 
 retained the etymological (see MV.") signi- 
 ficance of the word in rendering it by χιλι- 
 
 ἄρχος in Zech. ix. 7, xii. 5, 6 (cp. prow, from 
 
 ὌΧ The usage in other passages seems to 
 imply a more intimate relationship than that 
 which would exist between a chieftain and his 
 fellow-clansmen, and to express the closest 
 friendship. *Adluph is then “a guide, director, 
 counsellor” (Ps. ly. 18 (A. V. “guide,” R. V. 
 *¢companion”’]; Prov. ii. 17 [A. V. “ guide,” 
 R. V. “ friend,” marg. guide}; Jer. iii. 4 (A. V. 
 and R. V. “guide,” R. V. marg. companion)), 
 the object of confidence or trust (Mic. vii. 5 
 (A. V. and R. V. “ guide,” R. V. marg. familiar 
 Sriend)). 
 
 2. PPM, chokék (Judg. v. 9 [R. V. and A. V. 
 “ governor 7), and 3. PPI, m’chokek (Judg. 
 ν. 14[R. V. and A. V. “governor ”’]), denote a 
 ruler in his capacity of lawgiver [R. V. marg. 
 Judg. v. 14] and dispenser of justice (Gen. xlix. 
 10 [A. V. “© lawgiver,” and R. V. marg., R. V. 
 text “ruler”]; Prov. viii. 15 [a verb=“to 
 decree,” A. V. and R.V.]; cp. Judg. v. 14 
 with Is. x. 1). 
 
 4, Ὁ, moshél, a “ruler” considered especially 
 as having power over the property and persons 
 of his subjects; whether his authority were 
 absolute, as in Josh. xii. 2 of Sihon, and in Ps. 
 cv. 20 of Pharaoh; or delegated, as in the case 
 
 of Abraham’s steward (Gen. xxiv. 2), and Joseph | 
 
 GOVERNOR 1245 
 
 as second to Pharaoh (Gen. xlv. 8, 26; Ps. ev. 
 21). The “governors of the people” in 2 Ch. 
 xxiii. 20 appear to have been the king’s body- 
 guard (cp. 2 K. xi. 19), 
 
 ὃ. Td), nagid, is connected etymologically 
 with 13 and 733, and denotes a prominent per- 
 sonage, whatever his capacity. It is applied to 
 a king as the military and civil chief of his 
 people (2 Sam. v. 2 [A. V. “captain,” R. V. 
 “ prince,” marg. leader], vi. 21 [A. V. “ruler,” 
 R: V.i prince ”];°1 Ch: xxix. 22 (A. V. “ chief 
 governor,” hk, V. “prince,” marg. deader]), to 
 the general of an army (2 Ch. xxxii. 21 [A. V. 
 and R. V. “Jleaders”]), and to the head of a 
 tribe (2 Ch. xix. 11 (A. V. and R. V. “ruler 7). 
 The heir-apparent to the crown was thus desig- 
 nated (2 Ch. xi. 22 [A. V. “ruler,” R. V. “the 
 prince ᾽᾽7) as holding a prominent position among 
 the king’s sons, The term is also used of per- 
 sons who fulfilled certain offices in the Temple, 
 and is applied equally to the high-priest (2 Ch. 
 xxxi. 13, A. V. and RK. V. “ruler,” cp. v. 10) as 
 to inferior priests (2 Ch. xxxy. 8, A. V.and R. V. 
 “rulers ”’) to whose charge were committed the 
 treasures and the dedicated things (1 Ch. xxvi. 
 24 [Α. V. and R. V. “ruler” ]), and to Levites 
 appointed for special service (2 Ch. xxxi. 12 [A. V. 
 and R. V. “ruler”’}). It denotes an officer of 
 high rank in the palace, the lord high chamber- 
 lain (2 Ch. xxviii, 7 [A. V. “ governor,” R. V. 
 “ruler ”]), who is also described as “over the 
 household ” (1 K. iv. 6), or “the governor of 
 his house” (1 K. xviii. 3, A. V.; R. V. “over 
 the household”), Such was the office held by 
 Shebna, the scribe, or secretary of state (Is. xxii. 
 15), and in which he was succeeded by Eliakim 
 (2 K. xviii. 18). It is perhaps the equivalent of 
 οἰκονόμος, Rom. xvi. 23, and of ἱεροστάτης, 
 1 Esd, vii. 2 (cp. 1 Esd. i. 8). 
 
 6. δ), nast. The prevailing idea in this 
 word is that of elevation. It is applied to the 
 chief of the tribe (Gen. xvil. 20 (A. V. and R. V. 
 “prince ”]; Num. ii. 3 (A. V. “ captain,” R. V. 
 “prince”’], &c.), to the heads of sections of a 
 tribe (Num, iii. 32 (A. V. “ chief over the chief,” 
 R. V. “prince of the princes’), vii. 2 [A. V. and 
 Rk. V. “princes”]), and to a powerful sheykh 
 (Gen. xxiii. 6 [A. V. and R. V. “prince”]). It 
 appears to be synonymous with ’allaph in 2 Ch. 
 i, 2, DSUI=NIAN WN) (cp. 2 Ch. v. 2). In 
 general it denotes a man of elevated rank. In 
 later times the title was given to the president 
 of the great Sanhedrin (Selden, De Synedrits, ii. 
 6, § 1). 
 
 tls NNB, pechah, is probably a word of Assyrian 
 origin (see Schrader and Fried. Delitzsch in 
 ΜΝ. Others give it a Pers. origin). It is 
 applied in 1 K. x. 15 [A. V. and R. V. 
 “governors ”’] to the petty chieftains who were 
 tributary to Solomon (2 Ch. ix. 14 (A. V. and 
 R. V. “governors ]);: to the military com- 
 mander of the Syrians (1 K. xx. 24 (A. V. and 
 R. V. “captains,” R. V. marg. governors]), the 
 Assyrians (2 K. xviii. 24 [A. V. and R. V. 
 “captains 7), the Chaldeans (Jer. li. 23 [A. V. 
 “captains,” R. V. “governors”]), and the 
 Medes (Jer. li. 28 [A. V. “captains,” R. V. 
 “governors ”’}). Under the Persian viceroys, 
 during the Babylonian Captivity, the land of the 
 Hebrews appears to have been portioned out 
 among “ governors” (TN)NB, pachoth) inferior in 
 
1240 GOVERNOR 
 
 yank to the satraps (Ezra viii. 36 [A. V. and 
 Rk. V. “ governors ”}), like the other provinces 
 which were under the dominion of the Persian 
 king(Neh. ii. 7, 9 [A. V. and R. V. “governors”’)). 
 It is impossible to determine the precise limits 
 of their authority, or the functions which they 
 had to perform. They formed a part of the 
 Babylonian system of government, and are 
 expressly distinguished from the D°33D, s’ganim 
 (Jer! 1i/ 23, 28 [A. Vo “rulers,” K.'V. “de- 
 puties 7)» to whom, as well as to the satraps, 
 they seem—if the order of the words be signi- 
 ficant of rank—to have been inferior (Dan. ii. 
 2, 3, 27); as also from the DW, sarim (Esth. 
 iii. 12, viii. 9), who, on the other hand, had a 
 subordinate jurisdiction. Sheshbazzar, the 
 “prince” (N32, Ezra 1. 8) of Judah, was 
 appointed by Cyrus “ governor” (1M) of Jeru- 
 salem (Ezra v. 14), or “ governor of the Jews,” 
 as he is elsewhere designated (Ezra vi. 7), an 
 office to which Nehemiah afterwards succeeded 
 (Neh. v. 14, A. V. and R. V. “governor ;” cp. 
 xii. 26) under the title of Tirshatha (Ezra ii. 65 
 ΓΑ. V. and R. V. marg. governor]; Neh. viii. 9). 
 Zerubbabel, the representative of the royal 
 family of Judah, is also called the “ governor” 
 of Judah (Hag. i. 1), but whether in consequence 
 of his position in the tribe or from his official 
 rank is not quite clear. Tatnai, the “ governor ” 
 beyond the river, is spoken of by Josephus (Ant. 
 xi. 4, § 4), under the name of Sisines, as ἔπαρ- 
 xos οἵ Syria and Phoenicia (cp. 1 Esd. vi. 3); 
 the same term being employed to denote the 
 Roman proconsul or propraetor as well as the 
 procurator (Jos. Ant. xx. 8,§1). It appears 
 from Ezra vi. 8 that these governors were 
 entrusted with the collection of the king’s taxes ; 
 and from Neh. v. 18, that they were supported 
 by a contribution levied upon the people, which 
 was technically termed “the bread of the 
 governor” (ep. Ezra iv. 14). They were pro- 
 bably assisted in discharging their official duties 
 by acouncil (Ezra iv. 7, vi. 6). In the Peshitto 
 Version of Neh. iii. 11, Pahath Moab is not 
 taken as a proper name, but is rendered “ chief 
 of Moab”; and a similar translation is given in 
 other passages where the words occur, as in 
 Ezra ii. 6, Neh. vii. 11,x. 14. The “ governor” 
 beyond the river had a judgment-seat at Jeru- 
 salem, from which probably he administered 
 justice when making a progress through his 
 province (Neh. iii. 7). 
 
 8. PB, pakid, denotes simply a person 
 appointed to any office. It is used of the officers 
 proposed to be appointed by Joseph (Gen. xli. 34 
 [R. V. and A. V. marg. overseers]); of Zebul, 
 Abimelech’s lieutenant (Judg. ix. 28, A. V. and 
 R.V. “ officer”); of an “officer” of the high-priest 
 (2 Ch. xxiv. 11), of “overseers” (A. V. and 
 R. V.) inferior to the nagid (2 Ch. xxxi. 13 com- 
 pared with v. 12), or pakid nagid (Jer. xx. 1): and 
 of a priest or Levite of high rank (Neh. xi. 14, 22 
 [A. V. and R. V. “ overseer’’]). The same term 
 is applied to the eunuch “set over” the men of 
 war (2 K. xxv. 19; Jer. 111. 25), and to an 
 “officer ” appointed for especial service (Esth. ii. 
 3). In the passage of Jer. xx. above quoted the 
 word possibly foreshadows the duties of the 
 captain of the Temple guard mentioned in Acts 
 iy. 1, v. 2, and by Josephus (B. J. vi. 5, § 3). 
 
 GOVERNOR 
 
 9. wry, shallit, a man of authority. Applied 
 
 to Joseph as Pharaoh’s prime minister (Gen. 
 xliii, 6 (A. V. and R. V. “governor ”]); to 
 Arioch, the “captain ” of the guard, to the king 
 of Babylon (Dan. ii. 15), and to Daniel as third 
 in rank under Belshazzar (Dan. vy. 29 [A. Υ. 
 and R. V. “the third ruler,” Rk. V. marg. rule as 
 one of three]). 
 
 10. Tt’, sar, a chief, in any capacity. The 
 term is used equally of the general of an army 
 (Gen. xxi. 22 [A. V. “chief captain,” R. V. 
 “captain 7), or the commander of a division 
 (1K. xi. 24; xvi. 9A. V. and R. V. “captain”)), 
 as of the governor of Pharaoh’s prison (Gen. 
 xxxix. 21 (A. V. and R. V. “ keeper ”)), and the 
 “chief” of his butlers and bakers (Gen. xl. 2), 
 or herdsmen (Gen. xlvii. 6 [A. V. and R. V. 
 “rulers over my cattle”]). ‘The chief officer of 
 acity, in his civic capacity as “ governor” (A. V. 
 and R. V.), was thus designated (1 K. xxii. 26 ; 
 2 K. xxiii. 8). The same dignitary is elsewhere 
 described as “ over the city” (Neh. xi. 9, A. V. 
 and R.V.). In Judg. ix. 30 sar (A. V.and R. V. 
 “ruler of the city”) is synonymous with pakid 
 in v. 28 (A. V. and R. V. “ officer”), and with 
 both pakid and nagid in 1 Ch. xxiv. 5. 1 
 MIIN"TWdN, saré hammédindth, “the princes of 
 provinces ” (1 Κα. xx. 14), appear to have held a 
 somewhat similar position to the “ governors ” 
 under the Persian kings. 
 
 11. ἐθνάρχης, 2 Cor. xi. 32—an officer of rank 
 under Aretas, the Arabian king of Damascus. 
 It is not easy to determine the capacity in which 
 he acted. ‘The term is applied in 1 Mace. xiv. 
 47, xv. 1, to Simon the high-priest, who was 
 made general and ethnarch of the Jews, as a vassal 
 of Demetrius. From this the office would appear 
 to be distinct from a military command. The 
 jurisdiction of Archelaus, called by Josephus 
 (B. J. ii. 6, § 3) an ethnarchy, extended over 
 Idumaea, Samaria, and all Judaea, the half of 
 his father’s kingdom, which he held as the 
 Emperor’s vassal. But, on the other hand, 
 Strabo (xvii. 13), in enumerating the officers 
 who formed part of the machinery of the Roman 
 government. in Egypt, mentions ethnarchs appa- 
 rently as inferior both to the military com- 
 manders and to the nomarchs, or governors of 
 districts. Again, the prefect of the colony of 
 Jews in Alexandria (called by Philo yevdpxns, 
 lib. in Flacc. § 10) is designated by this title in 
 the edict of Claudius given by Josephus (Ant. 
 xix. 5, ὃ 2). According to Strabo (Joseph. Ant. 
 xiv. 7, § 2) he exercised the prerogatives of an 
 ordinary independent ruler. It has therefore 
 been conjectured that the ethnarch of Damascus 
 was merely the governor of the resident Jews, 
 and this conjecture receives some support from 
 the parallel narrative in Acts ix. 24, where the 
 Jews alone are said to have taken part in the 
 conspiracy against the Apostle. But it does not 
 seem probable that an officer of such limited 
 jurisdiction would be styled “the ethnarch of 
 Aretas the king;” and as the term is clearly 
 capable of a wide range of meaning, it was most 
 likely intended to denote one who held the city 
 and district of Damascus as the king’s vassal or 
 representative. 
 
 12. ἡγεμών, the procurator of Judaea under 
 the Romans (Matt. xxvii. 2, &c.), The verb is 
 employed (Luke ii. 2) to denote the nature of 
 
GOZAN 
 
 the jurisdiction of Quirinus over thé imperial 
 province of Syria. 
 
 13. οἰκονόμος (Gal. iv. 2), a steward; appa- 
 rently entrusted with the management of a 
 minor’s property. 
 
 14. ἀρχιτρίκλινος, John ii. 9, A. V. and R. V. 
 “the ruler of the feast.” It has been con- 
 jectured, but without much show of probability, 
 that this officer corresponded to the συμποσί- 
 apxos of the Greeks, whose duties are described 
 by Plutarch (Sympos. Quaest. 4), and to the 
 arbiter bibendi of the Romans. Lightfoot sup- 
 poses him to have been a kind of chaplain, who 
 pronounced the blessings upon the wine that 
 was drunk during the seven davs of the mar- 
 riage feast. Again, some have taken him to be 
 equivalent to the τραπεζοποιός, who is defined 
 by Pollux (Onom. vi. 1) as one who had the 
 charge of all the servants at a feast, the 
 carvers, cup-bearers, cooks, &c. But there is 
 nothing in the narrative of the marriage feast 
 at ,\Cana which would lead to the supposition 
 that the ἀρχιτρίκλινος held the rank of a 
 servant. He appears rather to have been on 
 intimate terms with the bridegroom, and to 
 have presided at the banquet in his stead. The 
 duties of the master of a feast are given at full 
 length in Ecclus. xxxv. (xxxii.). 
 
 15. In James iii. 4, the A. V. renders 6 
 εὐθύνων by “ governor ” (gubernator). The R. V. 
 “‘steersman ” expresses the meaning intended 
 more clearly. 
 
 In the Apocryphal books, in addition to the 
 common words ἄρχων, δεσπότης, στρατηγός, 
 which are rendered “ governor,” we find ἐπι- 
 στάτης (1 Esd. i. 8; Judith ii. 14), which closely 
 corresponds to T°); ἔπαρχος used of Zerub- 
 babel and Tatnai (1 Esd. vi. 3, 29, vii. 1), and 
 προστάτης, applied to Sheshbazzar (1 Esd. ii. 
 12), both of which represent NB; ἱεροστάτης 
 ( Esd. vii. 2) and προστάτης τοῦ ἱεροῦ 
 (2 Mace. iii. 4), “the governor of the Temple” 
 = 122) (cp. 2 Ch. xxxv. 8); and σατράπης 
 C1 Esd. iii. 2, 21),‘\**a satrap,” not always used 
 in its strict sense, but as the equivalent of orpa- 
 τηγός (Judith v. 2, vii. 8). [W. A. W.] [FJ 
 
 GO’ZAN (ΝΣ; Γωζάν; Gozan; Assyr. 
 Guzana) is mentioned (1 Ch. v. 26) as the place 
 where there was a river—“ the river of Gozan” 
 —which river seems, in 2 K. xvii. 6 and xviii. 
 11 (if we omit the on supplied by the Rk. V.)— 
 to be the Habor (Khabour); see also 2 K, xix. 12 
 ΞΞΞΊΕ. τσντ!. 12. 
 
 Gozan was the tract to which the Assyrian 
 kings Pul or Tiglath-pileser (III.) and Shalma- 
 neser, or possibly Sargon, carried away the 
 Israelites (Reuben, Gad, and Manasseh) captive. 
 It has been identified with many different tracts 
 of country, but is probably the Gauzanitis 
 (Tav¢aviris) of Ptolemy (Geograph. v. 18), and 
 is regarded by some as being the Mygdonia of 
 other writers (Strab., Polyb., &.), by the adding 
 of the Semitic formative 12 and the common 
 change of z into d. As it was the tract watered 
 by the Habor (ABdéssas or XaBdpas), the 
 modern Khabour, the great Mesopotamian affluent 
 of the Euphrates, and as it is mentioned in 
 2 K. xix. 12 (=Is. xxxvii. 12) in connexion 
 with Reseph and the Beni-Eden, it must have 
 lain between the Tigris and the Euphrates. Sir 
 
 GRASS 1247 
 
 H. Layard (Nineveh and Babylon, pp. 269-313) 
 describes the region as one of remarkable fer- 
 tility. In the Septuagint translation Alae and 
 Abor (Halab and Habor) are both given as 
 rivers of Gozan (4 K.=2 K. xvii. 6); but this is 
 apparently a misunderstanding, as is indicated 
 by the next chapter (v. 11), where the singular, 
 ricer, is used, and refers to Habor only. 
 According to the Assyrian geographical lists, 
 Gozan lay between TuShan and Nasibina (Nisibis), 
 and is mentioned as a city; from which fact is 
 to be inferred, that the name Gozan was after- 
 wards extended to the district in which it was 
 situated. When in the hands of the Assyrians, 
 it was placed under the authority of an Assyrian 
 governor, who, as one of the higher officers of 
 the realm, was from time to time appointed 
 Eponym. Those !who acted in this capacity 
 were Mannu-ki-Assur (794 B.c., reign of Ram- 
 manu-nirari), Bur-Sagale (763 B.C., reign of 
 ASSur-danan), and Bél-Harran-béla-usur (727 
 B.c., reign of Tiglath-pileser 111.).. A revolt 
 took place there in the year 759 B.c. (13th year 
 of AsSur-danan). Εἰἔὠ τ ea 
 
 GRA'BA (9 πὲ ᾿Αγγαβά 3; Armacha), 1 Esd. 
 v. 29. [HaGapa.] As is the case with many 
 names in the E. V. of the Apocryphal books, 
 it is not obvious whence our translators got 
 the form they have here employed—without 
 the initial A, which even the corrupt Vulgate 
 
 retains. In Ezra ii, 45 the name is given as 
 Hagabah. 
 
 GRAPE. [Vr1xz.] 
 
 GRASS. Four Hebrew words are thus 
 
 rendered in A. V. and R. V. (1) NW, deéshe, 
 from the root NUT, “to spring up;” Arab. 
 G 
 Og wads; LXX. χλόη, χόρτος, πόα, 
 βοτάνη; V. herba. It is the word most com- 
 monly used for grass, as distinguished from 
 VSM, chasir, “ fodder,’ and from avy, “eseb, 
 “herbs,” 1.9. herbage for cattle as distinguished 
 from herbs eaten by man. Thus, in Gen. i. 
 11, 12, “ Let the earth bring forth grass (déshe), 
 the herb (‘escb) yielding seed.” Gesenius defines 
 the word as comprising grasses, which have no 
 seed obvious to the careless observer, and all the 
 small herbage which springs up in meadows. 
 (2) WSN, chasir; LXX. χόρτος, πόα, βοτάνη: 
 V. herba. More accurately “fodder,” from a 
 root signifying “to be green.” It is evidently 
 a generic term, including whatever grows in 
 pastures suitable for the food of cattle. In 
 Prov. xxvii. 25, Is. xv. 6, it is translated “ hay,’ 
 which it is not, in our sense of the term; but 
 rather the meadow grass when fully ripe. As 
 the herbage rapidly fades under the parching 
 heat of Palestine, it has supplied an image of 
 the brevity of human life (ls. xl. 6,7; Ps. xe. 
 5) and of the fleeting nature of human fortune 
 (Job vii. 12; Ps. xxxvii. 2).  Chasir, like its. 
 Greek equivalent χόρτος, primarily signified an 
 enclosure, hence an enclosed space for cattle to 
 feed in, and finally the food itself of the cattle. 
 (3) AWY, ‘ésed; Chald. NADY, NAO, ‘isda, 
 ‘osba. Generally translated “herb,” but in 
 twenty passages “Erase It is identical with 
 
 the Arabic CAS, ‘ushb, “herb,” and is 
 
1248 GRASS 
 
 frequently used for garden herbs and vegetation 
 eaten by man, in contrast with déshe. But in 
 other passages, as in Deut. xi. 15, it expresses 
 the pasturage of cattle; and elsewhere is 
 rendered by the ‘grass of the field” and the 
 “ orass of the mountain,” ὁ.9. herbage generally. 
 
 (4) P?’ yerek, is once rendered “grass” 
 (Num. xxii. 4). It literally signifies “green,” 
 and is used for herbage exactly as the German 
 das Griine, and is also applied to the foliage of 
 trees. In the N. T. “grass,” wherever it occurs, 
 is the rendering of the Greek χόρτος. 
 
 In a country with such various climates 
 and soils as Palestine, there is great variety 
 in the natural grasses. Yet there are very 
 few meadows like those of our moister and 
 more equable climate. Two hundred and six- 
 teen distinct species have been described from 
 that country by M. Boissier and others. They 
 may be divided into three groups: those of 
 the hill-country, of the sea-coast plains, and 
 of the basin of the Jordan and the Dead 
 Sea. (1) The grasses of the hill-country, 
 i.e. of the bare downs of Southern Judaea, 
 or the Negeb, and of the barer hills of Cen- 
 tral Palestine, are for the most part identical 
 with the species of Northern Africa, Spain, 
 and Arabia, with a considerable admixture of 
 Mediterranean species in the northern part. 
 They are nearly all perennial, short and close, 
 springing up almost suddenly after the rains, 
 and continuing but a short time, leaving 
 scarcely a trace above ground. (2) The grasses 
 of the coast plain, of Central Galilee, and of 
 Gilead are chiefly of the Mediterranean and 
 South European species, including not a few 
 British species, tall and luxuriant in spring, 
 forming a rank meadow for a short time, and 
 then, after the seed has ripened, sending up a 
 finer after-grass under the dried stems, and so 
 affording pasturage more or less throughout the 
 year. This atter-grass is alluded to in Amos vii. 
 1: “In the beginning of the shooting up of 
 the latter growth; and, lo, it was the latter 
 growth after the king’s mowings.” (3) The 
 grasses of the Jordan valley are very peculiar, 
 most unlike those of the hills, not compact or 
 forming turf, but coarse and loose, shooting up 
 luxuriantly in early spring, then rapidly seed- 
 ing and dying down, scorched and burnt up at 
 once, and leaving for the rest of the year no 
 trace of their existence above ground, save the 
 withered and straggling stems from which the 
 seeds and their sheath have long been shaken. 
 They are for the most part Arabian and Egyp- 
 tian desert kinds, but include also species found 
 in India, as Sorghum vulgare, and in South 
 Africa, as Pennisetum cenchroides. 
 
 The short seasonal existence of all these 
 grasses has supplied the writers of Scripture 
 with the imagery above referred to, on the tran- 
 sitory character of man’s life; which has a 
 force scarcely perceived in our moist Northern 
 climate. “Smitten and withered like grass” 
 is a comparison perpetually before the mind of 
 Psalmist and Prophet. Our verdure, on the 
 contrary, is almost perpetual, and in winter our 
 meadows are not colourless like theirs. But let 
 a travellerwide over the downs of Bethlehem in 
 February, one spangled carpet of green, and 
 brilliant flowers; and again in May, when all 
 traces of verdure are gone; or let him push his 
 
 GREECE 
 
 | horse through the tall solid growth of lucernes 
 and grasses in the valley of the Jordan in early 
 spring; and then return and gallop across a 
 brown, cracked, hard-baked plain, as the writer 
 has done, in June, with only here and there the 
 withered stems of grasses and thistles to tell 
 that life had ever existed there, and the Scrip- 
 ture imagery will come home to him with ten- 
 fold power. The grass has withered, the beauty 
 is gone, the flower is faded: a brown desert has 
 taken the place of a brilliant garden. [Η, B. T.] 
 
 GRASSHOPPER. See Locust. 
 GRAVE. 
 
 GREAVES (ΠΝ). This word occurs in 
 the A. V. and R. V. in 1 Sam. xvii. 6 only, in 
 the description of the equipment of Goliath— 
 “he had greaves of brass upon his legs.” It 
 appears to be derived from a root signifying 
 “brightness,” as of a star (see Gesenius and 
 Fiirst). Its ordinary meaning is a piece of 
 defensive armour which reached from the foot 
 to the knee, and thus protected the shin of the 
 wearer. This was the case with the κνημὶς of 
 the Greeks, which derived its name from its 
 covering the κνήμη, 1.6. the part of the leg 
 
 [ BURIAL. ] 
 
 above named. The Mischah of the above 
 passage is usually taken in the same sense, 
 though the word is not in either the dual or 
 plural number, but is singular. All the old 
 Versions, including Josephus, give it the mean- 
 ing of a piece of armour for the les—some even 
 for the thigh. [G.] [W.] 
 
 GREECE, or Hellas, as it was called by its 
 inhabitants, was the country which occupies 
 the easternmost of the three peninsulas that 
 project southwards into the sea from the conti- 
 nent of Europe. In respect to its conformation 
 it presents some marked points of contrast with 
 the other two: for while Spain is characterised 
 by its broad area, divided into sections by parallel 
 chains of mountains running from east to west, 
 so that Strabo has aptly compared it to a bull’s 
 hide (ii. 5, § 27); and Italy presents a long, 
 unbroken coast-line, but little diversified with 
 bays and harbours; Greece is distinguished both 
 by the extraordinary variety of its outline, and 
 by the irregularity of its surface. In these 
 respects, also, it differs from the countries in its 
 immediate neighbourhood. The Balkan penin- 
 sula, as it is called in modern times—that is, 
 the entire district south of the Haemus range 
 and the mountain chains which form a link 
 between it and the Alps—is composed in its 
 northern portion, in the provinces of Thrace, 
 Macedonia, and Illyria, of undulating ground, 
 alternating with level plains and ill-defined 
 mountain masses, the latter of which are closely 
 compacted together on the side towards the 
 Adriatic Sea. But as we advance further south 
 and approach the Aegean, the character of the 
 ground changes and becomes at once more definite 
 and more varied. The mountains now group 
 themselves into distinct chains, with well-marked 
 summits and delicate outlines, and the coasts 
 are indented with innumerable inlets, which 
 penetrate far into the land, and are themselves 
 subdivided into minute creeks and harbours. 
 These features are traceable in Epirus, Thessaly, 
 
 and the seaboard of Macedonia; but they are 
 
GREECE 
 
 much more striking in the districts to the south 
 of these, which were inhabited by races more 
 strictly Hellenic in their origin—in Locris, 
 Phocis, Boeotia, and Attica; and, above all, in 
 that country which was the culminating point 
 in the structure of the entire peninsula, the 
 Peloponnese. To trace these points somewhat 
 more in detail: the main chain of mountains, 
 which runs through the country from north to 
 south, halfway between the Aegean and the 
 Adriatic, in its northern portion bore the name 
 of Scardus, but further south, where it separates 
 Thessaly from Epirus, that of Pindus. From 
 this, at various points, transverse ranges radiate, 
 as, for instance, the Cambunian mountains to 
 the north of Thessaly, terminating in Mount 
 Olympus, at right angles to which, along the 
 sea-coast, is formed the chain of Ossa and Pelion. 
 But it is the southern extremity of Pindus that 
 forms the birthplace of those mountains which 
 are most intimately associated with the classical 
 history of Greece. Here, at the south-western 
 angle of Thessaly, the parallel ranges of Othrys 
 and Oeta diverge toward the east, and the Acto- 
 lian mountains to the south-west; while the 
 most lineal descendants of the main chain are 
 those which, taking a south-easterly course, are 
 successively known by the famous names of 
 Parnassus in Phocis, and Helicon in Boeotia, 
 after which, as Cithaeron and Parnes, they sepa- 
 rate the last-named country from Attica, throw- 
 ing off spurs southwards in Aegaleos and Hymet- 
 tus which bound the plain of Athens. Then 
 follow the mountains of the Peloponnese, which 
 have a separate organisation of their own, form- 
 ing a massive barrier in the north of Arcadia, 
 which throws up the conspicuous summits of 
 Cyllene, Aroanius, and Erymanthus; while 
 towards the south .run down the lofty chains 
 of Parnon, Ta¥getus, and Lycaeum, As regards 
 their elevation, Mount Olympus reaches nearly 
 10,000 feet ; but with this single exception the 
 chief mountains range from 8,000 to 3,000 feet, 
 and among these there are at least twenty-five 
 whose names are familiar to our ears. Many of 
 them are covered with snow during several 
 months of the year; and this feature, together 
 with their number and beauty of form, tends to 
 ‘produce scenery of an exquisite character. Again, 
 to turn to the coast-line, we find that the further 
 the Greek peninsula advances towards the south, 
 the more varied is its outline and the more deeply 
 it is indented by the sea. At three points, in 
 particular, the continent is contracted by inlets 
 which penetrate into it from the two sides: 
 first, to the south of Thessaly and_Epirus, where 
 ‘the Maliac advances to meet the Ambracian 
 gulf; secondly, where the former of these two 
 pieces of water, in the neighbourhood of Ther- 
 mopylae, faces the inmost angle of the Crissaean 
 bay under Delphi; and thirdly, where the 
 Corinthian and Saronic gulfs are only separated 
 by the narrow dam of the Isthmus. Besides 
 the bays that have now been mentioned, the 
 Peloponnese is deeply penetrated by three gulfs, 
 —the Argolic, the Laconian, and the Messenian. 
 The numerous small headlands which project 
 into these still further increase the length of 
 the coast-line, and form a multiplicity of tiny 
 harbours, of which the Piraeus is a familiar ex- 
 ample. It is owing to this that the sea is 
 rarely absent from views of Greece, and that sea 
 BIBLE DICT.—YVOL. I. 
 
 1249 
 
 and land seem to be equally component elements 
 of the country: in the Peloponnese, for example, 
 there are few of the mountains from which the 
 sea is not visible either on one side or on the 
 other. Nor must we omit to notice the islands, 
 whether those of the western or those of the 
 eastern sea. ‘These conspicuous objects, follow- 
 ing one another in long succession, present the 
 appearance of mountain chains half submerged 
 in the water: and this in some cases they were; 
 as, for instance, the northern Cyclades—Andros, 
 Tenos, and Myconos—which are a continuation 
 of the ridge that intersects Euboea; and the 
 western islands of the same group—Ceos, Cyth- 
 nos, Seriphos, and Siphnos, which bear a similar 
 relation to the mountains of Attica. By cross- 
 ing from one to another of these it was compara- 
 tively easy to pass from Greece both to Asia 
 Minor and to the southern extremity of Italy. 
 In speaking of Greece in connexion with the 
 Bible, it is necessary to lay stress on these 
 points, because they exercised great influence 
 on the character of the Greek people, who were 
 appointed to bear an important part in the pre- 
 paration of the world for the reception of the 
 Gospel. To pass over for the moment what 
 may be called the external influences of Greece 
 on the world at the time of Christ’s coming, in 
 respect of language and of social agencies and 
 political organisation, by means of which the 
 spread of Christianity was facilitated, and the 
 instruments of its development were prepared: 
 the Greeks exercised a great internal or sub- 
 jective influence in this respect; and that in 
 two different ways. In the first place, the 
 speculations of Greek philosophy proved up to 
 what limit the human mind could advance, in- 
 dependently of Revelation, in the investigation 
 of morals and religion. The Greeks, beyond all 
 other nations of antiquity, performed the office 
 which St. Paul describes, of ‘seeking the Lord, 
 if haply they might feel after Him and find 
 Him ;” and the result of tneir seeking was 
 to show that “the world by wisdom knew not 
 God.” In their case also it was proved, 
 that after a disruption had taken place be- 
 tween the cultivated intelligence of the people 
 and their traditional religion, the highest sanc- 
 tions of good living failed, and a depravation of 
 morals was the result. As Neander expresses it 
 (Church History, vol. i. p. 7; Bohn’s edit.), 
 “There was as yet no salt to preserve the life of 
 humanity from decomposing, or to restore to 
 purity what was passing into decomposition.” 
 Secondly, in order that Christianity might be- 
 come the universal religion, it was necessary 
 that it should assimilate whatever good and 
 noble forces there were at work in the world, 
 and should be able to sympathise with, and 
 employ for its own purposes, whatever tends to 
 elevate human nature; and thus the Greeks, by 
 cultivating the higher civilisation in the various 
 branches of science and art, supplied an element 
 necessary to, full religious development, which 
 was wanting in Judaism, Now the peculiar 
 nature of Hellenic culture, and the extraordinary 
 richness of its growth, was due to the combined 
 influences of race and country,—to the character 
 and intellect of the Greek people, together with 
 the conformation of the land which they in- 
 habited, and to the remarkable correspondence 
 between the two. These influences ἌΝ this 
 4 
 
 GREECE 
 
1250 GREECE 
 correspondence are especially traceable in the 
 most marked features of the Greek mind as seen 
 in its products,—its independence, its many-sided- 
 ness, and its temperateness. The first of these, 
 independence—the same characteristic which m 
 the political history of Greece shows itself alike in 
 resistance to foreign domination and in incapacity 
 for combination on the part of the states at 
 home—was fostered by the presence of the moun- 
 tains and the sea, by the inspiring and elevating 
 associations of the two, and by the close contact 
 of the home-loving life of the mountaineer with 
 the changeful occupations of the seafaring 
 man. Many-sidedness and versatility naturally 
 arose in a country where a variety of objects 
 were continually presenting themselves to the 
 eye; where land and water, plain and moun- 
 tain, snow-clad peaks and fertile valleys, bright 
 uplands and dark ravines, were endlessly inter- 
 mingled. And the absence of any objects of 
 colossal magnitude, the moderate elevation of 
 the mountains, the land-locked bays and island- 
 studded seas, suggested the idea of limitation ; 
 while the delicacy of the outlines, and the har- 
 monious grouping of the various features in the 
 views, inspired a feeling for symmetry and the 
 love of beauty. From the combination of these 
 proceeded that moderation, and that balanced 
 tone of mind, which are the secret of the good 
 taste and the good judgment of the Greeks. 
 Such influences would have been thrown away on 
 a people incapable of appreciating them, but found 
 a peculiarly congenial soil in the Hellenic mind. 
 A comparison of the geographical position of 
 Greece with that of Palestine is instructive, 
 both in respect of the resemblances and the con- 
 trasts which it presents. In the smallness of 
 the area which they occupy the two countries 
 have a marked point of likeness. The sarcasm 
 of the unbeliever, which was aimed at Palestine, 
 that so limited a district could not have changed 
 the fortunes of mankind, would apply with 
 almost equal force to Greece. If, on the one hand, 
 the Holy Land, from Mount Hermon and the 
 sources of the Jordan in the north to the southern 
 extremity of the Dead Sea, extends over only 
 two degrees and a halfof latitude; on the other, 
 the whole length of Greece, from the northern- 
 most corner of Thessaly to the promontory of 
 Taenarum, is comprised within four degrees. 
 The part of the country, especially, on which its 
 fame chiefly depends—that which lies to the 
 south of Mount Othrys—is remarkably limited 
 in extent ; from this point onward the breadth 
 of the continent contracts, and its area is les- 
 sened by the numerous bays and gulfs which 
 encroach upon the land. Similarly in respect 
 of the proximity in which places of world-wide 
 fame stand to one another—if in Palestine the 
 traveller is surprised at passing in the course of 
 a few hours from Hebron by Bethlehem to Jeru- 
 salem, he is not less astonished at finding that 
 the sites of Nauplia, Tiryns, Mycenae, and 
 Argos can easily be visited in a single day, and 
 that by sea a short run before a favouring wind 
 takes him across from the Piraeus to Aegina, 
 and thence to Epidaurus on the coast of Argolis. 
 But here the correspondence between the two 
 countries ceases, and a strong contrast presents 
 itself in the isolation of the one and the accessi- 
 bility of the other. Palestine, hemmed in, as it 
 was, between the desert and the sea, and bordered 
 
 GREECE 
 
 by a long and almost harbourless shore, was the 
 fitting home for a people set apart, among whom 
 the truths of morality and religion were to 
 receive a special and independent development. 
 Greece, on the other hand, both from its situa- 
 tion and the conformation of its territory, was, 
 so to speak, a naturally receptive country, and 
 was suited to hand on the torch of civilisation 
 to Western lands. Lying on the confines of 
 Asia and Europe, it occupied a position in many 
 respects similar to that of England at the pre- 
 sent day: it was the natural point of communi- 
 cation between the old world and the new; all 
 the arts, the ideas, and the movements which 
 passed trom the east to the west must neces- 
 sarily pass through it; and it was in the power 
 of its inhabitants to modify and recast whatever 
 was transmitted from the one to the other. The 
 islands, which followed one another in irregular 
 chains, and were separated only by narrow 
 spaces of sea—especially the Cyclades and the 
 islands adjacent to them in the middle of the 
 Aegean, and those which bound that sea to- 
 wards the south, Crete, Casos, Carpathos, and 
 Rhodes—served as stepping-stones to facilitate 
 the approach to Greece, and lessened the dangers 
 of a voyage in the infancy of navigation. The 
 conspicuous headlands offered points to steer for, 
 and the innumerable harbours both provided a 
 refuge in case of danger and encouraged the ex- 
 port and import trade. It is also to be remarked 
 that these features of the country are much 
 more conspicuous on its eastern than on its 
 western side, for the principal bays, promon- 
 tories, and island-chains face in the direction of 
 Asia. Italy and Greece, on the other hand, may 
 be described as standing back to back to one 
 another, for the western shores of Greece ofter 
 but few harbours, while the districts of Italy on 
 which its future development was destined to 
 depend — Campania, Latium, and Etruria— 
 opened not on the Adriatic, but on the Tyrrhe- 
 nian Sea. The result of this was, that Greek 
 civilisation was not passed on to Italy until 
 it had reached something like maturity. 
 
 It was through the Phoenicians that the 
 Greeks first came into contact with the Semitic 
 race. That people were attracted to Greece by 
 the purple trade, for the purple-mussel was 
 found at several points near the shores of that 
 country. Thus by way of the lower line of 
 islands just mentioned they reached the La- 
 conian gulf, where they established one of their 
 principal factories on the island of Cranaé, close 
 to the port of Gythium. Similarly by the 
 southern Cyclades they made their way to 
 Hermione at the extremity of Argolis, which 
 was famed for its purple, and from that point 
 they advanced on the one side to Nauplia, on the 
 other to Corinth. The purple-mussel appears 
 on the coins of the last-named city, and Sisy- 
 phus, its local hero, was said to have been 
 father of Porphyrion,—that is, the purple trade ; 
 and to have founded the worship of Melicertes, 
 —that is, the Tyrian Melcarth. It was by means 
 of these strangers that the principal arts of life 
 were introduced into Greece,—in particular the 
 alphabet and weights and measures. At a later 
 period numerous traces of their presence re- 
 mained. Among the leading Greek divinities 
 Heracles and Aphrodite were of Phoenician 
 origin, and the latter goddess obtained her name 
 
GREECE 
 
 of Cytherea from her worship having been first 
 established on the island of Cythera, which was 
 one of the head-quarters of their fisheries. 
 Among the trees of Greece, the date-palm was 
 introduced by them, as its name going testifies ; 
 and also the pomegranate, which Aphrodite was 
 said to have planted in Cyprus, and the cypress. 
 Phoenician names of places survived, whether 
 derived from ordinary words, as Samos, for “a 
 height,” or from names of deities, as Astyra, 
 which occurs in several places, from Astarte, 
 and Makaria from Makar ( = Melkar-t), the 
 “Phoenician Heracles. Recent archaeological 
 discoveries tend also to show that many of the 
 features which are found in the earliest Greek 
 art are due to Phoenician influence. 
 
 Of direct communication, however, between 
 the Hebrew and Greek peoples during the period 
 over which the O. T. Scriptures extend, there is 
 no evidence [but see p. 710, col. 2]. It is not in- 
 tended to be implied by this statement that they 
 were wholly ignorant of one another's existence. 
 It is highly probable that the name Javan, which 
 occurs in the Hebrew prophets from the time of 
 Joel onwards (Joel iii. 6; Is. Ixvi. 19; Ezek. 
 xxvii. 13, &.), is the same as Ἰάων or Ionian, 
 and signified the Greeks at large, just as Ἰάονες 
 did in the mouth of a Persian (Aesch. Pers. 178, 
 563; Aristoph. Acharn. 104); and for the same 
 reason, viz. that the Ionians were that branch 
 of the Greek race with which they were most 
 familiar. The passage from Joel just referred 
 to, which speaks of the Phoenicians as sellinz 
 the children of Judah to the sons of Javan, and 
 that from Ezekiel, in which Javan is repre- 
 sented as selling the persons of men to the 
 Tyrians, imply that through the slave-market 
 the two peoples may have been able to learn 
 something of one another; and this is corrobo- 
 rated by passages to the same effect from Homer 
 and Herodotus (Hom. Od. xv. 427-429; Herod. 
 i. 1), which speak of persons being kidnapped 
 for slaves from Syria to Greece and vice versd. 
 In Egypt also, whether through the Jonian 
 ‘mercenaries, who from an early period were 
 employed in the service of the Egyptian mon- 
 archs, or through the Greek traders, who were 
 ‘settled in that country, especially at the em- 
 ‘porium of Naucratis, some communication may 
 have taken place between them. But this 
 ‘amounts to little more than conjecture ; and on 
 the side of the Greeks there is hardly any trace 
 of acquaintance with the Jews as a separate 
 ‘people, for the Σύροι Παλαιστινοὶ of Herodotus 
 ‘ii. 5) would include all the nationalities of that 
 region, and the city of Cadytis, which he there 
 ‘mentions, is much more probably Gaza than 
 Jerusalem: and though, when the same writer 
 speaks elsewhere (ii. 104) of the Syrians of 
 Palestine as having borrowed the custom of cir- 
 ἜΣ from the Egyptians, the Jews seem to 
 be referred to, it is not likely that this informa- 
 
 ion was obtained at first-hand, or with definite 
 nowledge of their separate existence. The 
 me thing in all probability is true of his men- 
 ion of the defeat of Josiah by Pharaoh-necho at 
 egiddo as an overthrow of the Syrians at Mag- 
 olus (ii. 159). 
 Τὸ was through Alexander the Great that the 
 influence of Greece was directly brought to bear 
 pon Palestine, and that those causes began to 
 perate through which Greek civilisation con- 
 
 GREECE 1251 
 tributed to promote the reception of the Gospel. 
 Alexander himself visited Jerusalem after the 
 siege of Tyre, and Josephus has left us an 
 account (Ant. xi. 8, § 5) of his respectful treat- 
 ment of the high-priest and of the Jewish 
 religion on that occasion. That great prince, 
 whom history has been apt to regard as the 
 type of an ambitious youth, in accordance with 
 Juvenal’s lne,— 
 
 *Unus Pellaeo juveni non sufficit orbis” (x. 168)— 
 
 was in reality the noblest specimen of a far- 
 seeing conqueror, for everywhere it was a part 
 of his policy to follow up his victories by the 
 establishment of civil institutions, and to in- 
 augurate a system which should promote com- 
 merce and a community of interests among the 
 various peoples of his empire. In this respect 
 he has been more fairly judged by the natives 
 of Asia, for even at the present day, from the 
 Mediterranean to the Indus, the name of Alex- 
 ander is ranked with that of Solomon, as repre- 
 senting the most famous of sovereigns. In 
 pursuance of this design, he inaugurated the 
 system, which was subsequently carried out 
 more fully by his successors, ot establishing 
 Greek cities throughout Western Asia. Of the 
 extent of this clear evidence is found in the fre- 
 quency with which the names of Alexandria, 
 Seleucia, Antiochia, Ptolemais, and others of a 
 similar origin, appear in Asia Minor and Syria, 
 and even as far east as Bactria. In doing this 
 he seems to have anticipated and provided 
 against the dismemberment of his empire, which 
 took place at his death, for the organisation 
 which he set ‘on foot was independent of its 
 unity. By this means the seeds of Greek civi- 
 lisation were scattered broadcast over this 
 continent, and the Greek language became a 
 means of general communication. The import- 
 ance of this last point cannot be overrated, for 
 in all ages the multiplicity of languages pre- 
 sents one of the most formidable obstacles to 
 missionary enterprise. But what Arabic has 
 been to Northern Africa since the Mahometan 
 invasion of that country, that Greek was to 
 Western Asia during and subsequently to the 
 Macedonian period—the language of commerce 
 and cultivation, and an instrument of inter- 
 course between races separated from one another 
 by diversity of speech. To how great a degree 
 this influence had operated in certain districts, 
 we can see from the familiar use of Greek in 
 Palestine at the period of our Lord’s ministry. 
 At the same time the effect produced by Greek 
 modes of thought and Greek philosophy on the 
 Jewish mind, owing to the contact of the two 
 peoples, was pregnant with important results for 
 religion. In particular, the acquaintance with 
 these subjects which St. Paul had obtained in 
 the schools of Tarsus enabled that Apostle to 
 expound the doctrines of the Gospel in such a 
 manner as would commend it to intelligent 
 Gentiles ; and also, by the definiteness of state- 
 ment derived from this source, Christianity was 
 prevented from becoming a mystical theosophy, 
 or being otherwise assimilated to Oriental 
 religions. In Egypt also, where the newly- 
 founded city of Alexandria became the most 
 lasting memorial of the author of this revolu- 
 tion, the same contact produced other and not 
 less remarkable effects, to which we can but 
 41,2 
 
1252 GREEK LANGUAGE 
 
 briefly allude. Here it was that the Septuagint 
 Version arose, with all the incalculable influence 
 which it was to exercise both on the Jewish and 
 the Christian Church. Here, by the contact of 
 Platonic with Jewish teaching, the belief in the 
 immortality of the soul was developed into 
 fuller consciousness, as is seen especially in the 
 Book of Wisdom. Here the Sibylline oracles 
 were invented, by the agency of which frag- 
 ments of Hebrew belief passed into the litera- 
 ture of Rome. Here, too, originated the alle- 
 gorical system of interpretation, which was 
 destined to affect much; Cnristian theology (see 
 Stanley’s Jewish Church, iii. Lect. 47; Bigg, The 
 Christ. Platonists of Alexandria). 
 
 In conclusion we must not overlook the 
 greatest of all the advantages which Greece has 
 conferred on the cause of religion, viz. that it 
 has provided in the Greek language, and 
 especially in the peculiar form which it assumed 
 in Hellenistic Greek, the most fitting of all 
 vehicles for recording and transmitting the facts 
 and doctrines of Christianity. Of the surpassing 
 excellences of that language there is no need to 
 speak, for they are universally recognised ; but 
 the merits of the Greek of the Septuagint and 
 the New Testament have not been so fully 
 acknowledged. Yet it is not hard to see, that a 
 form of speech so nicely adapted to the peculi- 
 arities of the Greek mind as the classical tongue 
 was not well suited for general reception, and 
 that a religion which was to embrace the world 
 required a less artistic instrument for its 
 diffusion, ‘This was supplied by the Hellenistic 
 language, which is simpler in its modes of 
 expression, and therefore more easily intelligible 
 to ordinary minds; for which reason, also, that 
 which is written in it is more readily translate- 
 able into other languages. To this it may be 
 added that its more analytic form causes it to 
 be more nearly allied to modern languages, so 
 that it possesses an element of permanence as 
 well as of universality. [H. F. T.] 
 
 GREEK LANGUAGE. [HELLENIsT; LAN™ 
 GUAGE OF THE New TESTAMENT. | 
 
 GREYHOUND. The translation in the 
 text of the A. V. and Rh. V. (Prov. xxx. 31) of 
 the Hebrew words DYN WIN (zarzir moth- 
 πὰ ἴηι), i.e. “one girt about the loins.” But 
 R. V. margin gives war-horse, probably a 
 better rendering, as stateliness and majesty of 
 gait, which seem to be intended to be illus- 
 trated rather than speed, are exemplified in the 
 horse rather than in the greyhound (cp. 
 Strack in Strack u. Zéckler’s Agf. Komm. in 
 loco). The LXX. (A.) has the following 
 curious interpretation, ἀλέκτωρ ἐμπεριπατῶν 
 ἐν θηλείαις εὔψυχος, 1.6. “a cock as it proudly 
 struts amongst the hens.” Somewhat similar 
 is the Vulgate, gallus succinctus lumbos, and 
 Coverdale’s “a cock ready to fight.” Various 
 are the opinions as to what animal “comely in 
 going” is here intended. Some think “a 
 leopard,” others “an eagle,” or “a man girt 
 with armour,” or “a zebra,” &c. Gesenius 
 (Thes. p. 435), Schultens (Comment. ad Prov. 
 1. c.), Bochart (Hieroz. ii. 684), Rosenmiiller 
 (Schol. ad Prov. 1. c., and Not. ad Boch. 1. cas 
 Fuller (Miscell. Sac. 5, 12), support the ren- 
 dering of a “war-horse girt with trappings.” 
 
 GROVE 
 
 But, later, Maurer (Comment. Gram. in Vet. 
 Test. 1. c.) decides unhesitatingly in favour of 
 “a wrestler,” when girt about the loins for a 
 contest. He refers to Buxtorf (Lex. Chald. 
 Talm. p. 692) to show that zarzir is used in 
 the Talmud to express “fa wrestler,” and thus 
 concludes: “Sed ne opus quidem est hoe loco 
 quanquam minime contemnendo, quum accinc- 
 tum esse in neminem magis cadat quam in 
 luctatorem ita ut haec significatio certa sit per 
 se.” It is certainly possible that Maurer is 
 correct. The grace and activity of the practised 
 athlete agrees well with the notion conveyed by 
 the expression, “comely in going;” and the 
 suitableness of the Hebrew words, zarzir moth= 
 nayim, is obvious to every reader. Yet the 
 reading of the text of A. V. and ἢ. V. is ποῦ. 
 impossible (cp. Delitzsch in loco), The Persian: 
 greyhound is the one race of dogs, besides the 
 pariah, which has been known for ages in Syria 
 and the neighbouring countries, and is very 
 highly prized for the chase of the gazelle and 
 other desert antelopes. It 15 ἃ beautiful creature, 
 larger than our greyhound, with long silky hair 
 on the ears, and a long pendent fringe of the 
 same along the tail. (W.. H.] [iE SB 
 
 GROVE. <A word used in the A. V., with 
 two exceptions, to translate the Hebrew Asherah. 
 (TW). This term is examined under its 
 own head (p. 257), where it is observed that. 
 almost all modern interpreters agree that an 
 idol or image of some kind must be intended, 
 and not a grove, as our Translators render, 
 following the version of the LXX. (&Asos) 
 and of the Vulgate (/ucus). - This is evident 
 from many passages, and especially from 2 K. 
 xxiii. 6, where we find that Josiah ‘ brought 
 out the Asherah” (translated by our Version 
 “the grove”) “from the house of the Lord” 
 (cp. also Judg. 1. 7; 1 K. xiv. 23, xviii. 
 19). In many passages the “groves” are 
 grouped with molten and graven images in ἃ 
 manner that leaves no doubt that some idol was 
 intended (2 Ch. xxxiii. 19, xxxiv. 3, 4; Is. xvii. 
 8). There has been much dispute as to what 
 the Asherah was; but in addition to the views 
 set forth under ASHERAH, we must not omit to 
 notice a probable connexion between this symbol 
 or image—whatever it was—and the sacred 
 symbolic tree, the representation of which occurs 
 so frequently on Assyrian sculptures, and is 
 shown in the following woodcut. The con- 
 nexion is ingeniously maintained by Mr. Fer- 
 gusson in his Nineveh and Persepolis restored 
 (pp- 299-804), to which the reader is referred. 
 
 The two exceptions noticed above are Gen. 
 xxi. 33 and 1 Sam. xxii. 6 (margin), where 
 
 “srove” 1s employed to render the word Sui, 
 *eshel, which in the text of the latter passage, 
 and in 1 Sam. xxxi. 13, is translated * tree.’ 
 In these three passages ’éshel should be translated 
 
 “tamarisk” (R.V.), Sui being equivalent to the 
 
 Arabic ."} athl, “tamarisk.” No less than 
 
 six species of the Tamarisk family occur in 
 Palestine. One (7. Jordanis) fringes nearly the 
 whole course of the Jordan. Others are found 
 on the coast, and in the deserts, and by the 
 Dead Sea. All thrive, but in barren, sandy, and 
 salt situations, where they sometimes reach such 
 
GROVE 
 
 a size as to afford dense shade. The tamarisk is 
 a graceful tree, with long feathery branches, 
 clad with the minutest of leaves, and sur- 
 mounted in spring with long spikes of pink 
 blossom, which seem to envelope the whole tree 
 in one gauzy sheet of colour. Below Jabesh- 
 Gilead, where Saul and Jonathan were buried 
 under such a tree, the tamarisk is still plentiful. 
 Dr. Barth’s mention of his camping under a 
 tamarisk in Fezzan recalls Saul abiding under 
 an ’éshel in Ramah (1 Sam. xxii. 6). It is now 
 — however generally recognised (among others, see 
 Gesen. Thes. p. 500; Stanley, 8. ᾧ P. § 76, 3; 
 pp. 142 note, 220 note, and passim), that the 
 word ’éldn, iby, which is uniformly rendered 
 by the A. V. “plain,” signifies a grove or plan- 
 tation. Such were the Elon of Mamre (Gen. 
 xill, 18, xiv. 13, xvili. 1); of Moreh (Gen. xii. 
 6; Deut. xi. 30); of Zaanaim (Judg. iv. 11) 
 er Zaanannim (Josh. xix. 33); of the pillar 
 (Judg. ix. 6); of Meonenim (Judg. ix. 37); 
 and of Tabor (1 Sam. x. 3). In all these cases 
 the LXX. have δρῦς or βάλανος ; the Vulgate— 
 which the A. V. probably followed—vallis or 
 convallis, in the last three however quercus. 
 
 Aa ee 
 
 AG Nini 
 
 NYHA 
 lA 
 
 [e) 
 
 6 
 
 | 
 
 a 
 ins 
 =| 
 NK 
 
 Sacred symbolic Tree of the Assyrians. 
 
 1253 
 
 In the religions of the ancient Semites and 
 heathen world groves play a prominent part (ep. 
 R. Smith, Religion of the Semites, i. Index 5. n. 
 “'Trees”). Then altars only were erected to the 
 gods. It was thought wrong to shut up the 
 gods within walls, and trees were the first temples 
 (Tac. H. N. xii. 2, Germ. 9; Lucian, de Sacrific. 
 19; see Carpzov. App. Crit. p. 332). From the 
 earliest times groves are mentioned in connexion 
 with religious worship (Gen. xii. 6, 7, xiii, 18; 
 Deut. xi. 30; A.V. “plain”), Their high anti- 
 quity, refreshing shade, solemn silence, and awe- 
 inspiring solitude, as well as the striking illus- 
 tration they afford of natural life, marked them 
 out as the fit localities, or even the actual 
 objects of worship (“Lucos et in iis silentia 
 ipsa adoramus,” Plin, xii. 1; “Secretum luci 
 -..et admiratio umbrae fidem tibi numinis 
 facit,” Sen. Lp. xli.; “Quo posses viso dicere 
 Numen habet,” Ov. Fast. iii, 295; “Sacra 
 nemus accubet umbra,” Virg. Georg. iii. 334; 
 Ov. Met. viii. 743; Ezek. vi. 13; Is. lvii. 5; 
 Hos. iv. 13). This last passage hints at another 
 and darker reason why groves were opportune 
 for the degraded services of idolatry; their 
 shadow hid the atrocities and obscenities of 
 
 GROVE 
 
 ἦν ἘΝ ΕΣ 
 ν 7 ‘ar ey ΞΕ A 7 
 Ἵ ὴ , ‘ 
 
 tf δ 
 
 From Lord Aberdeen 5 biack stone. 
 
 (Fergusson’s Nineveh and Persepolis, p. 298.) 
 
 heathen worship. The groves were generally 
 found connected with temples, and often had 
 the right of affording an asylum (Tac. Germ. ix. 
 40; Herod. ii. 188, Virg. Aen. i. 441, ii. 512; 
 Sil. Ital. i. 81). Some have supposed that even 
 the Jewish Temple had a τέμενος planted with 
 palm and cedar (Ps. xcii. 12, 13) and olive 
 (Ps. lii. 8). This is more than doubtful; but 
 we know that a celebrated oak stood by the 
 sanctuary at Shechem (Josh. xxiv, 26; Judg. ix. 
 6; Stanley, 5. § P. p. 142). We find repeated 
 mention of groves consecrated with deep super- 
 stition to particular gods (Liv. vii. 25, xxiv. 3, 
 xxxv- 51; Tac. Ann. ii. 12, 51, &c., iv. 73, &c.). 
 For this reason they were stringently forbidden 
 to the Jews (Ex. xxxiv. 13; Jer. xvii. 2; Ezek. 
 xx. 28), and Maimonides even says that it is 
 forbidden to sit under the shade of any green 
 ‘tree where an idol-statue was (Fabric. Bibi. 
 Antiq. p. 290). Yet we find abundant indica- 
 tions that the Hebrews felt the influence of 
 groves on the mind (“the spirit in the woods,” 
 Wordsworth), and therefore selected them for 
 solemn purposes, such as great national meetings 
 (Judg. ix. 6, 37) and the burial of the dead 
 (Gen. xxxv. 8; 1 Sam. xxxi. 14). Those con- 
 nected with patriarchal history were peculiarly 
 
 liable to superstitious reverence (Amos v. 5, 
 vill. 13), and we tind that the groves of Mamre 
 were long a place of worship (Sozomen, H. ἢ. 
 ii. 4; Euseb. Vit. Constant. 81; Reland, Palaest. 
 p- 714). There are in Scripture many memora- 
 ble trees; e.g. Allon-bachuth (Gen. xxxv. 8), 
 the tamarisk in Gibeah (1 Sam. xxii. 6), the 
 terebinth in Shechem (Josh. xxiy. 26, under 
 which the Law was set up), the palm-tree of 
 Deborah (Judg. iv. 5), the terebinth of enchant- 
 ments (Judg. ix. 37), the terebinth of wanderers 
 (Judg. iv. 11), and others (1 Sam. xiv. 2, x. 3, 
 sometimes “ plain” in A. V., Vulg. convallis). 
 This admiration for particular trees was 
 among the heathen extended toa regular worship 
 of them. “ὁ Tree-worship may be traced from 
 the interior of Africa, not only into Egypt and 
 Arabia, but also onward uninterruptedly into 
 Palestine and Syria, Assyria, Persia, India, 
 Thibet, Siam, the Philippine Islands, China, 
 Japan, and Siberia; also westward into Asia 
 Minor, Greece, Italy, and other countries; and 
 in most of the countries here named it obtains 
 in the present day, combined as it has been in 
 other parts with various forms of idolatry ” 
 (Gen. of Earth and Man, p. 139). ‘ The wor- 
 ship of trees even goes back among the Irau- 
 
1254 GUARD 
 
 nians to the rules of Hom, called in the Zend- 
 Avesta the promulgator of the old law. We 
 know from Herodotus the delight which Xerxes 
 took in the great plane-tree in Lydia, on which 
 he bestowed golden ornaments, and appointed 
 for it a sentinel in the person of one of the 
 ‘immortal ten thousand.’ The early veneration 
 of trees was associated with that of sacred 
 fountains. In similar connexion with the early 
 worship of nature among the Hellenic nations 
 we read of the fame of the great palm-tree of 
 Delos, and of an aged platanus in Arcadia. The 
 Buddhists of Ceylon venerate the colossal Indian 
 fig-tree of Anurah-depura; those of Japan the 
 great pine-tree of Otzu... As single trees 
 thus became objects of veneration from the 
 beauty of their form, so did also groups of trees, 
 under the name of ‘groves of gods.’ Pausanias 
 (i. 21, § 9) is full of the praise of a grove 
 belonging to the temple of Apollo at Grynion in 
 Aeolis; and the grove of Colone is celebrated 
 in the renowned chorus of Sophocles ” (Hum- 
 boldt, Cosmos, ii. 96, Eng. ed.). The custom of 
 adorning trees “ with jewels and mantles ” was 
 very ancient and universal (Herod. Vil. ol s 
 Aelian, V. H. ii. 14; Theocr. Jd. xviii. ; Ov. 
 Met. viii. 723, 745; Arnob. adv. Gentes, i. 39), 
 and even still exists in the East. 
 
 The oracular trees of antiquity are well 
 known (Jl. xvi. 233; Od. v. 237; Soph. Trach. 
 754; Virg. Georg. ii. 16; Sil. Ital. 111. 11). 
 Each god had some sacred tree (Virg. Hcl. vii. 
 61 sqq.). The Etrurians are said to have wor- 
 shipped a palm, and the Celts an oak (Max. Tyr. 
 Dissert. 38, in Godwyn’s Mos. and Aar. ii. 4). 
 On the Druidic veneration of oak-groves, see 
 Pliny, H. N. xvi. 44; Tac. Ann. xiv. 30. In 
 the same way, according to the missionary 
 Oldendorp, the negroes “have sacred groves, the 
 abodes of a deity, which no negro ventures to 
 enter except the priests” (Prichard, Nat. Hist. 
 of Man, pp. 525-539, 3rd ed. ; Park’s Travels, 
 p. 65). So, too, the ancient Egyptians (Rawlin- 
 son’s Herod. ii. 298). Long after the introduc- 
 tion of Christianity it was found necessary to 
 forbid all abuse of trees and groves to the pur- 
 poses of superstition (Harduin, Act. Concil. i. 
 988; see Orelli, ad Tac. Germ. 9). [Ε΄ W. ΕΠ 
 
 GUARD. The Hebrew terms commonly used 
 had reference to the special duties which the 
 body-guard of a monarch had to perform. 
 
 1. Tubbach (NAD) originally signified “a 
 cook ;” and as butchering fell to the lot of the 
 cook in Eastern countries, it gained the secondary 
 sense of “executioner,” and is applied to the 
 body-guard of the kings of Egypt (Gen. xxxvii. 
 36 [A.V. and R.V. text “captain of the guard,” 
 ditto marg. chief of the eaecutioners|) and 
 Babylon (2 K. xxv. 8; Jer. xxxix. 9, xl. 1; Dan. 
 ii. 14 (A. V. and R. V. “ captain of the guard ” 
 in all these passages]). [EXECUTIONER. ] 
 
 2. Ras (j')) properly means “a runner,” 
 and is the ordinary term employed for the 
 attendants of the Jewish kings, whose office it was 
 to run before the chariot (2 Sam. xv. 1; 1 K. i. 
 5), like the cursores of the Roman Emperors 
 (Senec. Lp. 87,126), That the Jewish “run- 
 ners” superadded the ordinary duties of a mili- 
 tary “guard” appears from several passages 
 (1 Sam. xxii. 17; 2 K. x. 25, xi. 6; 2 Ch. xii. 
 10. Cp. A. V. and R. V. of these passages). It 
 
 GUNI 
 
 was their office also to carry despatches (2 Ch. 
 xxx. 6, A. V. and R. V. “posts ”). They had a 
 guard-room set apart for their use in the king’s 
 palace, in which their arms were kept ready for 
 use (1 K, xiv. 28; 2 Ch. xii. 11). [Foorman.] 
 3. The terms mishmereth (QUID) and mish- 
 mar (WowtD) express properly the act of watching, 
 but are occasionally transferred to the persons 
 who kept watch (Neh. iv. 9, vii. 3, xii. 9 
 [A. V. “ watches,” R. V. “ wards”); Job vii. 
 12). It is not necessary to suppose that the 
 A. V. substituted mishmartd (WWD) for the 
 present reading (JMYIOWID) in 2 Sam. xxiii. 23 or 
 1 Sam. xxii. 14. Benaiah was appointed “ cap- 
 tain of the guard,” as Josephus (Ant. vii. 14,§4) _ 
 relates, and not privy councillor: and the word 
 NYNwD easily acquires that meaning (cp. MV." 
 and Driver, Notes on the Heb. Text of the BB. of 
 Sam. on 1 Sam. xxii. 14). For his duties, see 
 CAPTAIN. [W. L. ΒΗ 
 
 GUD-GO'DAH (with the art. 773737; BA. 
 Tadyad, F. Γαλγα᾽ ; Gadgad), Deut. x. 7. [Hor 
 
 HaGipGAD. | 
 GUEST. ([Hospiratiry.] 
 GUL'LOTH (niba = bubdlings, a spring, 
 
 plural of m3), a Hebrew term of unfrequent 
 occurrence in the Bible, and used only in two 
 passages relating the same occurrence, to 
 denote a natural object, viz. the springs added 
 by the great Caleb to the south land in the 
 neighbourhood of Debir, which formed the 
 dowry of his daughter Achsah (Josh. xv. 19; 
 Judg. i. 15). The springs were “upper” and 
 “lower ”—possibly one at the top and the other 
 at the bottom of a ravine or glen; and they may 
 have derived their unusual name from their 
 appearance being different from that of the ordi- 
 
 nary springs of the country. The root ὍΣ) has 
 the force of rolling or tumbling over, and 
 perhaps this may imply that they welled up 
 in that round or mushroom form which is not 
 uncommon here, though apparently most rare 
 in Palestine. The rendering of the Vat. LXX. 
 (B.) is singular. In Josh. it has τὴν Βοθθανείς, 
 and τὴν Γοναιθλάν, the latter doubtless a mere 
 corruption of the Hebrew. The A. MS. follows 
 more closely the Hebrew text (Γωλαθμαίμ.. . Γω- 
 λάθ). In Judges both have λύτρωσις. The springs 
 were apparently known in St. Jerome’s day, for 
 he particularly mentions Paula’s visit to them, 
 and her astonishment at them ; magis mirabatur, 
 ἄς, (Ep. Paul. xi.). An attempt has been made 
 by Dr. Rosen to identify them with the ‘Ain Nun- 
 hur or el-Unkhur near Hebron (see Zeitschrift 
 der D. M. G. 1857); but they are more probably 
 the three remarkable groups of springs in the 
 Seil ed-Dilbeh to the north of Edh-Dhdheriyeh 
 (PEF. Mem. iii. 302). [Desir.] [G.] [W.] 
 
 GU'NI (218 [see MV.1"] ; B. Γωνί, 6 Tavvi, A. 
 Γωυνί; Guni). 1. A son of Naphtali (Gen. xlvi. 
 243; 1 Ch. vii. 13), the founder of the family of 
 the Gunites (Num. xxvi. 48). Like several others 
 of the early Israelite names, Guni is a patrony- 
 mic— Gunite; ” as if already a family at the 
 time of its first mention (cp. Arodi, Hushim, &c.). 
 
 a 
 
GUNITES, THE 
 
 2. A descendant of Gad; father of Abdiel, a 
 chief man in his tribe (1 Ch. v. 15). 
 
 GU'NITES, THE (93137; 6 Γαυνί ; Gunitae), 
 the “family” which sprang from Guni, son of 
 Naphtali (Num. xxvi. 48). There is not in the 
 Hebrew any difference between the two names, 
 of the individual and of the family. 
 
 GUE, THE GOING UP TO ΟΣ ΠΟ 
 =the ascent or steep of Gur, or the lion’s whelp, 
 er perhaps the inn or Kidn, Ges. Thes. p. 275 ; 
 ἐν τῷ ἀναβαίνειν Tat; ascensus Gaver), an ascent 
 or rising ground, at which Ahaziah received his 
 deathblow while flying from Jehu after the 
 slaughter of Joram (2 K. ix. 27). It is de- 
 scribed as at (2) Ibleam, and on the way between 
 Jezreel and Beth-hag-gan (A. V. “the garden- 
 house”). As the latter is identified with 
 tolerable probability with the present Jenin, 
 and it may be inferred from the narrative that 
 Ahaziah had not gone a very long distance before 
 he was overtaken and wounded, we may conclude 
 that the ascent of Gur was a hill between 
 Jezyeel and “the garden-house.” Such a place 
 there is midway between Zerin and Jenin, where 
 the direct road between the two places passes 
 over a spur upon which by the side of the road 
 stands the village of Jelameh, perhaps Ibleam. 
 By Josephus it is mentioned (Ant. ix. 6, ὃ 3) 
 merely as “ a certain ascent ” (ἔν τινι προσβάσει). 
 Neither it nor Ibleam have yet been certainly 
 recovered. 
 
 For the details of the occurrence, see JEHU. 
 For other ascents, see ADUMMIM, ACRABBIM, 
 Ziz. Roa Wicd 
 
 GUR BA’AL ya = the dwelling of 
 Baal; ἡἣ πέτοα ; Gurbaal), a place or district in 
 which dwelt Arabians, as recorded in 2 Ch. 
 xxvi. 7. It appears from the context to have 
 been in the country lying between Palestine 
 and the Arabian peninsula ; but no site has been 
 assigned to it. The Targum reads }*2N"T "NAW 
 4735—“ Arabs living in Gerar ”—suggesting 
 73 instead of 33; but there is no further 
 evidence to strengthen this supposition. [E.S. P.] 
 
 GUTTER, the A. V. translation of 13¥ (in 
 
 2 Sam. v. 8; R. V. “ watercourse ”’), a word the 
 sense of which is not certain (see MV.1"), occur- 
 ring in a passage “of which it is easier to say 
 what it does not mean than what it does” 
 (Driver, Notes on the Heb. Text of the BB. of 
 Samuel, in loco). [F.] 
 
 Η 
 
 HA-AHASH-TA’RI CORUNA, with the 
 article, = the Ahashtarite [possibly of Persian 
 signification, see MV.1']; B. ᾿Ασηράν, A. 
 ᾿Ασθηρά; Ahasthari), a man, or a family, im- 
 mediately descended from Ashur, “father of 
 Tekoa” by his second wife Naarah (1 Ch. iv. 6). 
 The name dees not appear agaiu, nor is there 
 any trace of a place of similar name. 
 
 HABAT'AH (30 = Jah hath hidden; B. 
 Λαβειά, A. ᾽Οβαία (Ezra); BA. Ἔβειά. N. ᾿Αβειά 
 (Neh.); Hobia, Habia). Bene-Chabajah were 
 among the sons of the priests who returned 
 
 HABAKKUK 1255 
 from Babylon with Zerubbabel, but whose gene- 
 alogy being imperfect, were not allowed to 
 serve (Ezra ii. 61; Neh. vii. 63). It is not 
 clear from the passage whether they were 
 among the descendants of Barzillai the Gilead- 
 ite. In the lists of 1 Esdras the name is given 
 as OBDIA. 
 
 HABAKKOUK, the eighth in order of the 
 Minor Prophets, 1. The name PipIn, not 
 found elsewhere in the O. T., means embrace or 
 embracing. Jerome (Prol. in Abacuc) renders 
 it amplecus; adding, “sive ut significantius 
 vertamus in Graecum περίληψις, id est amplex- 
 atio.” The form ᾿Αμβακοὺμ (in some MSS. ᾽3:β- 
 Bakovm) of the LXX. is derived from a different 
 pronunciation, PIPIN or PiPan, by resolution 
 of the doubled ὁ into mb, and assimilation of 
 the final consonant of the last syllable to the 
 final consonant of the first syllable; unless in- 
 deed the change is due to an ancient corruption. 
 The Latin forms are Ambacum, Abacuc, or Ha- 
 bacue. 
 
 2. Nothing is known about the Prophet’s 
 life. From the specific title “the prophet” in 
 chs. i. 1 and iii. 1, it has been inferred that he 
 held a recognised official position as a Prophet ; 
 and the expression “‘on my stringed instru- 
 ments” in the subscription to ch. 111. has been 
 thought to indicate that he was a member of 
 the Temple choir, and therefore a Levite, or 
 possibly a priest. This agrees with the title 
 prefixed to the Septuagint recension of Bel and 
 the Dragon (Tischendorf, ii. p. 614; Fritzsche, 
 Libri Apocr. Vet. Test. p. 863; Speaker’s Comm. 
 on the Apocrypha, ii. 350), ἐκ προφητείας ᾿Αμ- 
 βακοὺμ υἱοῦ Ἰησοῦ ἐκ τῆς φυλῆς Λευΐ: “ from 
 the prophecy of Ambacum the son of Jesus of 
 the tribe of Levi.” 
 
 Tradition makes up for the defects of history 
 with various inconsistent and fantastic legends. 
 According to one account, he was the son of the 
 Shunammite woman who was restored to life 
 by Elisha, an idea based on the connexion be- 
 tween the Prophet’s name and the word “ em- 
 brace”? in 2K. iv. 16. Another tradition saw 
 in Hab. ii. 1 a reference to Is. xxi. 6, 8, and 
 supposed the Prophet to be the sentinel set to 
 watch for the fall of Babylon. According to 
 Pseudo-Dorotheus (ap. Chron. Pasch. p. 150 c) 
 and Epiphanius (de Vitis Proph.), he belonged 
 to the tribe of Simeon, and was born at Beth- 
 zocher, by which possibly Beth-zacharias, where 
 Antiochus Eupator defeated Judas Maccabaeus 
 (1 Mace. vi. 32, 33), is meant, On the approach 
 of Nebuchadnezzar he fled to Ostracine on the 
 way to Egypt, but returned on the departure 
 of the Chaldaeans, and died and was buried in 
 his native place two years before the return 
 from the Captivity. His tomb was shown at 
 Keilah in the time of Eusebius and Jerome 
 (OS? p. 143, 19; p. 270, 33). Sozomen (H. £. 
 vii. 29) relates that the graves of Habakkuk 
 and Micah were made known to Zebennus 
 Bishop of Eleutheropolis by Divine Revelation. 
 But in the Middle Ages his tomb was shown at 
 Chukkok, now Yakuk, two leagues S.W. of Safed. 
 The best known legend about Habakkuk is that 
 found in “Bel and the Dragon,’ v. 33 sq. 
 He is there said to have been carried through 
 the air by an Angel from Judaea to Babylon to 
 feed Daniel, who had been thrown for the second 
 
1256 HABAKKUK 
 
 time into the lions’ den in the reign of Cyrus, 
 with the dinner which he had prepared for his 
 reapers. ‘The story appears to have existed in 
 the Midrashic literature at an early date (see 
 Ball’s “Introduction to Bel and the Dragon” 
 in the Speaker’s Comm, ii. 344 sq.). It is em- 
 bellished by Dorotheus and Epiphanius, and is 
 often referred to by the Fathers. 
 
 For a full collection of these traditions, see 
 Delitzsch, De Habacuci prophetae vita atque 
 actate, 1842. 
 
 3. Date—Habakkuk belongs, together with 
 Zephaniah and Jeremiah, to the Prophets of the 
 Chaldaean period. The date of his ministry is 
 n&t stated, but internal evidence fixes it within 
 comparatively narrow limits. 
 
 (a) The empire of the Chaldaeans has been 
 established, and has grown with incredible 
 rapidity. Their characteristics are well known. 
 Their insatiable lust of conquest, their irre- 
 sistible ferocity, their treachery, their wholesale 
 deportations of conquered peoples, their pride, 
 their drunkenness, their passion for magnificent 
 buildings, their love of hunting, their idola- 
 tries, are all described in forcible language 
 (i. 5-17; ii. 4-20). They are pressing forward 
 in their career of conquest. It was in B.c. 625 
 that Nabopolassar, by an act of treachery, seized 
 the throne, and established the independence of 
 Babylon. This date then is the terminus a quo 
 for Habakkuk’s prophecy; but it cannot be 
 placed so early, as time must be allowed for tie 
 vast development of the empire which has 
 clearly taken place. 
 
 (6) On the other hand, the Chaldaean invasion 
 of Judah, though imminent, appears to be still 
 future. Ewald indeed maintains that “at the 
 time of the prophecy of Habakkuk . . . the 
 Chaldaeans are in the Holy Land, cruelly 
 trampling down everything with irresistible 
 force ” (Prophets, iii. 27); but this view rests 
 on a misinterpretation of i, 2-4. There is 
 no hint that Jerusalem has been taken. And 
 if so, the prophecy must be placed shortly 
 before, or immediately after, the great battle of 
 Carchemish in the fourth year of Jehoiakim 
 (Riehm, B.c. 606; al. 605 or 604), in which 
 Nebuchadnezzar defeated Pharaoh Necho, and 
 secured the supremacy of Western Asia. If 
 it was clear that the “incredible work” re- 
 ferred to in Hab. i. 5 meant the Chaldaean 
 invasion of Jadah, then the prophecy must 
 have been published before the battle of Car- 
 chemish, for after that event such an invasion 
 must have been foreseen by everyone. But 
 if (with Delitzsch) the “incredible work” is 
 explained to be the sudden rise of the terrible 
 Chaldaean power, the prophecy may be placed 
 between Carchemish and Nebuchadnezzar’s in- 
 vasion of Judah. Some interval elapsed between 
 these events, as the death of his father obliged 
 Nebuchadnezzar to return to Babylon after the 
 battle; but the proclamation of a fast in the 
 ninth month of the fifth year of Jehoiakim 
 (Jer. xxxvi. 9) was probably prompted by the 
 advance of the Chaldaean army. 
 
 (c) The description of the internal condition 
 of Judah in ch. 1. 2-4 suits the reign of Je- 
 hoiakim. Jeremiah expressly charges him with 
 crimes similar to those denounced by Habakkuk, 
 and contrasts the just administration of his 
 father Josiah (xxii. 13-19); and in other pro- 
 
 HABAKKUK 
 
 | phecies of the same period the desperate moral 
 corruption of the nation is depicted. Cp. Jer. 
 vii. 1 sq., xxv. 1 sq., xxvi. 1 sq. 
 
 (d) ‘The whole tone of the prophecy reflects 
 the period of reaction and corruption under 
 Jehoiakim, and not the hopefulness of the 
 temporary amendment under Josiah (2 Κα. xxii. 
 18-20; xxiii. 25). The judgment is imminent 
 and inevitable. The pressing question is how 
 the faithful may be enabled to go through it 
 without losing their faith. 
 
 These reasons seem to be fairly conclusive for 
 fixing the date of Habakkuk 5 prophecy in the 
 reign of Jehoiakim, not later than his sixth 
 year (Driver, LOT. p. 316). The following 
 arguments, however, are urged in fayour of 
 placing this prophecy in the reign of Josiah ;— 
 (a) The position of Habakkuk in the series of 
 the Minor Prophets appears to represent an 
 early tradition that he preceded Zephaniah, who 
 prophesied in the reign of Josiah. (0) Zeph. i. 7 
 is supposed to be partly borrowed from Hab. 
 ii. 20. In favour of regarding Habakkuk as 
 the original and Zephaniah as his imitator, it 
 is urged that it is the habit of Zephaniah, like 
 Jeremiah, to borrow freely; that in particular 
 this verse is an obvious mosaic, pieced together 
 from Hab. ii. 20, Joel i, 15, Is. xxxiy. 6, xiii. 3. 
 Jeremiah’s earlier prophecies, moreover, are 
 thought to show traces of acquaintance with 
 Habakkuk (cp. Jer. iv. 13, v. 6, with Hab. i. 8). 
 (c) Habakkuk, it is said, belongs to the school of 
 Isaiah, Zephaniah to that of Jeremiah. (d) The 
 subscription to Hab. iii. implies that the Temple- 
 service was being carried on, and that there- 
 fore the Book cannot be dated earlier than the 
 twelfth year of Josiah, when the reformation 
 was commenced (2 Ch. xxxiv, 3). Zephaniah, 
 for various reasons, must be placed after the 
 eighteenth year of Josiah. Habakkuk’s ministry 
 must therefore be placed between the twelfth 
 and eighteenth years of Josiah. To the objection 
 that Hab. i. 2-4 describes a state of things 
 which is hardly conceivable under the rule of 
 such a good king, it is answered that Jeremiah, 
 even in his earlier prophecies, delivered from 
 the thirteenth year of Josiah onward (ii.—vi.), 
 
 and Zephaniah (i., iii. 1-6), both speak of the 
 deep and widespread corruption of the people. 
 
 To these arguments it may be replied, that 
 the Minor Prophets are certainly not arranged 
 in a strict chronological order: that the ‘argu- 
 ment from parallel passages’ is a precarious ἡ 
 one: that the modes of thought of two periods 
 frequently overlap: that the precise evils de- 
 scribed in Hab. i. 2-4 are really those of the 
 reign of Jehoiakim rather than Josiah. 
 
 The arguments for placing Habakkuk in the 
 reign of Josiah will be found stated with much 
 fulness and ingenuity in Delitzsch’s Commen- 
 tary (1843); in more recent works, however, 
 he inclines to place Habakkuk in the reign of 
 Manasseh (0. 7. Hist. of Redemption, 1881, 
 
 p- 126; cp. Zsaiah,* 1889, p. 15), on the ground 
 that the lament in i. 2 reflects the condition of 
 affairs described in 2 K. xxi. 16. 
 
 So early a date as the reign of Manasseh is, 
 however, clearly excluded by the fact that 
 Habakkuk describes the Chaldaean empire as 
 having already become the terror of the world, 
 and the arguments for placing the propheey in 
 the reign of Josiah are inconclusive compared 
 
HABAKKUK 
 
 with those urged for placing it under Je- 
 hoiakim. On the other hand, the fact that the 
 Chaldaean invasion does not appear to have 
 actually reached Judah, excludes so late a date 
 as the reign of Zedekiah. 
 
 4. Contents and plan.—The artistic arrange- 
 ment and essential unity of the Book will best 
 be shown by an analysis of the contents." It 
 falls into three main divisions. 
 
 a. Ch. i. The expostulation.—The Prophet ex- 
 postulates with Jehovah for allowing wrong to 
 triumph unrestrainedly in the land (1. 2-4)". 
 Jehoyah answers the Prophet’s complaint, ad- 
 dressing at the same time the people whose sins 
 call for punishment, by pointing to the marvel- 
 lous rise and terrible character of the Chaldaeans, 
 whom He has raised up to be His ministers of 
 judgment (vv. 5-11). But the answer involves 
 afresh perplexity. How can the pure and holy 
 God employ as His instruments these unscrupu- 
 lous, pitiless, selt-deifying invaders (vv. 12-17) Ὁ 
 
 ὁ. Ch. ii. The judyment of the oppressors.— 
 The Prophet pauses, waiting for an answer, and 
 considering how he may defend his bold challenge 
 of the Divine action (ii. 1). He is commanded 
 to write the vision for all to read. Though it 
 may be long deferred, its fulfilment will surely 
 come in due time (vv. 2,3). The oracle itself 
 (v. 4)° implies the destruction of the Chaldaeans, 
 and promises the preservation of the righteous ; 
 and the thought enigmatically expressed in the 
 first half of it is expanded in the rest of the 
 chapter (vv. 5-20). The debauchery, the pride, 
 the insatiable greed of the Chaldaeans will be 
 their ruin; and the voices of their victims are 
 heard heaping execrations on their oppressors, 
 and exulting in their fall. The plunderers shall 
 in their turn be plundered (vv. 6-8): their 
 magnificent buildings bear witness to their 
 crimes (vv, $-11): the state founded on injustice 
 will be destroyed, and make way for the king- 
 dom of Jehovah (vv, 12-14): their savage 
 triumph over the rnin of others will find appro- 
 priate punishment in their own utter disgrace ; 
 outraged nature will rise in judgment against 
 them (vv. 15-17). Idols are vain: let all the 
 earth keep silence before Jehovah, the living and 
 true God (vv. 18-20). 
 
 ὁ. Ch. iii, The Advent of the Deliverer.— 
 
 aStide (ZATW., 1884, pp. 154 sq.) maintains that 
 Hab. i. 2-ii. 8 is the only part of the Book that belongs 
 to the Chaldaean period. To this was added in post-exilic 
 times a description of a heathen or heathenishly dis- 
 posed enemy of the congregation, together with a 
 prayer of the congregation for help in a time of extreme 
 distress. But in our scanty knowledge of the post- 
 exilic history, it is idle to attempt to determine the time 
 at which the addition was made. The exegetical diffi- 
 culties of ii.8-20 may be admitted; but Stade’s criticism 
 is mere speculation, and creates more perplexities than 
 it solves. 
 
 » Ch, i. 2-4 certainly describes the prevailing cor- 
 ruption of Judah, and not the insolence of the Chal- 
 daean conquerors already occupying the land. ‘The 
 announcement of the judgment in v. 5 sq. is necessarily 
 preceded by a complaint about the sins which demand it. 
 
 e If the ‘* vision” was actually to be written on a 
 tablet to be hung in some public place (cp. Is. viii. 1; 
 Xxx. 8), it must have been brief and significant ; and it 
 seems best to regard v. 4 only as the ‘ vision,”’ on which 
 »v, 5-20 are a commentary, rather than to suppose that 
 the ““ vision” includes the whole passage, vv. 4-20. 
 
 HABAKKUK . 1257 
 
 The Prophet has heard the announcement of 
 the judgment impending over Israel, and the 
 retribution ultimately in store for their proud 
 oppressors. But he fears that the long delay 
 which seems to be anticipated in ii. 2,3 may 
 be too severe a trial of faith, and he prays 
 Jehovah to hasten His work, and shorten the 
 time of chastisement (v. 2). The answer 
 flashes upon him with the certainty of a sudden 
 intuition. He beholds in all its terrible splendour 
 the Advent of Jehovah for the deliverance of His 
 people and the destruction of their enemies 
 (vv. 3-15). The language in which it is described 
 recalls the great manifestations of Jehovah in 
 the past, at Sinai, at the Red Sea, at the Jordan, 
 which are at once types and pledges of this 
 great manifestation in the future.4 The Prophet 
 is convulsed with terror at the sight, yet it 
 teaches him calm resignation; and though in 
 the day of the Chaldaean invasion the land may 
 be utterly laid waste, he and the faithful few 
 whom he represents will rejoice in Jehovah, Who 
 is still the strength of His people, and will one 
 day restore them to the possession of their own 
 land (vv. 16-19). 
 
 From this analvsis it will be seen that though 
 “the prayer of Habakkuk” (ch. iii.) can be 
 regarded as a separate piece, and was possibly 
 intended for use in the Temple-worship, it is 
 by no means a mere appendix, but an integral 
 part of the Book, which is no mere aggregation 
 of separate prophecies, but a carefully constructed 
 and artistie work, from which no part can be 
 detached without destroying its completeness. 
 Though it can hardly be called an actual drama 
 (Ewald, Prophets, iii. 32), its dramatic character 
 is obvious. The dialogue in which the Prophet’s 
 questionings and Jehovah’s answers are expressed, 
 the bold expedient of summoning the victims of 
 Chaldaean cruelty to pronounce the tyrant’s 
 doom, the magnificent scene which is the dé 
 nouement of the whole, as well as the representa- 
 tion of the successive stages in this providential 
 government of the world, combine to give it 
 this character. 
 
 5. Style—Habakkuk was a poetical genius of 
 the highest order. The first two chapters are 
 rhythmical in form and poetical in expression : 
 the third is a poem which challenges comparison 
 with the noblest productions of Hebrew litera- 
 ture. “Great as Habakkuk is in thought, he is 
 no less so in language and literary skill; he is 
 the last Prophet belonging to the age preceding 
 the destruction of Jerusalem who is master of a 
 beautiful style, of powerful description, and an 
 artistic power that enlivens and orders everything 
 with charming effect ”’ (Ewald, Prophets, iii. 32). 
 
 6. The purpose of Habakkuk’s prophecy is to 
 vindicate the righteousness of Jehovah in His 
 government of the world, and thereby to offer 
 comfort to the faithful Israelite in the im- 
 pending time of distress. The problem of the 
 Divine toleration of evil could not but press 
 
 ἃ It is here assumed that the imperfects of the original 
 should be rendered by presents as in R. V. margin, and 
 taken to represent the scene as it develops before the 
 Prophet’s mental vision, If, however, they are under- 
 stood to refer to the past, as in A. V. and R. VY. text, 
 the general sense will not be substantially different. 
 The recollection of the great deliverances of the past is 
 offered as a ground of confidence for the future. 
 
1258 HABAZINIAH 
 
 hardly upon the Prophet and his godly con- 
 temporaries, when they contemplated the social 
 and religious corruption around them; and the 
 solution that judgment was speedily to be exe- 
 euted upon the guilty nation seemed to involve 
 a still worse perplexity, if the executioners of 
 the Divine sentence were to be monsters of pride 
 and violence. In spite of appearances, however, 
 he can still appeal to the character of Jehovah 
 (i. 12 sq.), and he is taught to understand that 
 the eternal laws of right and wrong are still in 
 force ; that the arrogance of the Chaldaeans has 
 in it the germ of ruin, while the constancy of 
 the just is a principle of life (ii. 4). And 
 the sublime poem of ch. iii., appealing to the 
 imagination as well as the reason, assures the 
 faithful heart that God will manifest His 
 sovereignty in the future no less victoriously 
 than in the past. 
 
 7. Strong as is Habakkuk’s originality, he yet 
 shows his dependence upon earlier Books of the 
 O.T. Cp. Hab. ii. 14 with Is. xi. 95; Hab. iii. 3 
 with Deut. xxxiil. 2, Judg. v. 4, 5, Ps. xviii. 7, 8. 
 That Hab. iii. 10-15 is related to Ps. Ixxvii. 16- 
 20 is evident, and Delitzsch after full investiga- 
 tion (Comm. pp. 119 sq.) decides that the Psalm 
 is the original. But Ewald, Hupfeld, and 
 Hitzig assign the priority to Habakkuk. (Cp. 
 also Hab. iii. 19 with Ps. xviii. 33. For further 
 parallels, see Delitzsch, p. 118 sq.) 
 
 8. WV. 7. quotations.—Hab. ii. 3b, 4, is quoted 
 in Heb. x. 37, 38 (from the LXX., which does not 
 agree with the Hebrew, and freely); and the 
 latter half of v. 4 is twice quoted by St. Paul 
 (Rom. i. 17; Gal. iii. 11). He does not, however, 
 follow either the Heb. or the LXX. exactly, and 
 he expands the truth implicitly contained in the 
 words, giving them “a spiritual meaning and a 
 general application.” The word MIVIN is no- 
 where else in the O.T. rendered “ faith,” and 
 denotes “ firmness, constancy, trustworthiness,” 
 rather than the active principle of “ faith.” 
 “But it will at times approach near to the 
 active sense: for constancy under temptation or 
 danger with an Israelite could spring only from 
 reliance on Jehovah. And something of this 
 transitional or double sense it has in the passage 
 of Habakkuk 11. +” (Bp. Lightfoot, Galatians, 
 p. 154, whose notes should be consulted). Hab. 
 i. 5 is also quoted by St. Paul in Acts xiii. 41, 
 from the LXX., which differs from the Heb., and 
 freely. 
 
 9. Literature.—Besides commentaries on the 
 Minor Prophets generally, the best special com- 
 mentary on Habakkuk is still that of Delitzsch 
 (Leipsic, 1843), and an exhaustive examination 
 of the traditions about the Prophet will be 
 found in the same writer’s De Habacuci Prophetae 
 vita atque aetate Commentatio historico-isagogica 
 cum diatriba de Pseudo-Dorothei et Pscudo- 
 Lpiphanii vitis Prophetarum (Leipsic, 1842). A 
 list of the older commentaries will be found in 
 Rosenmiiller’s Scholia; additions to it in Delitzsch, 
 Ῥ. xxiv. Later works are those of Gumpach 
 (1860); Reinke (1870); Orelli (1888). 
 
 [A. F. K.] 
 
 HABAZINI’AH (WISIN; BX. XaBacely ; 
 Habsania), apparently the head of one of the 
 families of the Recuapires: his descendant 
 Jaazaniah was the chief man among them in 
 the time of Jeremiah (Jer. xxxy. 3). 
 
 HABOR 
 
 HAB'BACUC (ApBakotu; Habacuc), the 
 form in which the name of the prophet HABAK- 
 KUK is given in the Apocrypha (Bel, vv. 33-39). 
 
 HABERGEON (A.-S. healsbeorga), a coat of 
 mail covering the neck and breast. The He- 
 brew terms are NONA, WW, and fw. The 
 first, tachra (R. V. “coat of mail”), occurs 
 only in Ex. xxviii. 32, xxxix. 23, and is noticed 
 incidentally to illustrate the mode of making 
 the aperture for the head in the sacerdotal me‘i. 
 It was probably similar to the linen corslet 
 (λινοθώρηξ), worn by the Egyptians (Her. ii. 182, 
 ili, 47) and the Greeks (J/. ii. 529, 890). The 
 second, shiryah, occurs only in Job xli. 26 [Heb. 
 v. 18], and has been regarded as another form of 
 shiryan (yw), a “breastplate ” (Is. lix. 17) 
 but the context requires offensive rather than de= 
 fensive armour (hence R. V. text “the pointed 
 shaft,” with Delitzsch* and Dillmann). Shiryan, 
 in fact, is the pausal form of the third, shiryon; 
 an article of defensive armour (1 Sam. xvii. 5; 
 2 Ch. xxvi. 14; Neh. iv. 10). [W. L. B.J [F.] 
 
 HA'BOR (130; A. ‘ABdp, B. ‘ABdp and 
 ᾿Αβιώρ; Habor), one of the rivers mentioned in 
 connexion with Gozan (2 K. xvii. 6, and xviiie 
 11), has been already shown not to be the Chebar | 
 or Chobar of Ezekiel [CHebar]. It is identified | 
 beyond all reasonable doubt with the famous 
 affluent of the Euphrates, which is called Aborrhas 
 CABéppas) by Strabo (xvi. 1, § 27) and Procopius 
 (Bell. Pers. ti. 5), Aburas ?ABodpas) by Isidore 
 of Charax (p. 4), Abora ?ABépa) by Zosimus 
 (iii. 12), and Chaboras (XaBépas) by Pliny and 
 Ptolemy (v. 18). The stream in question still 
 bears the name of the Khabour. It flows from 
 several sources in the mountain-chain, which in | 
 about the 37th parallel closes in the valley of | 
 the Tigris upon the south—the Mons Masius of : 
 Strabo and Ptolemy, at present the Kharej Dagh. | 
 The chief source is said to be “a little to the | 
 west of Mardin” (Layard, Nin. and Bab. p- 309, ᾿ 
 note); but the upper course of the river is stil} 
 very imperfectly known. The main stream was 
 seen by Sir H. Layard flowing from the north-west 
 as he stood on the conical hill of Koukab (about 
 lat. 36° 20’, long. 41°); and here it was joined 
 by an important tributary, the Jerujer, which 
 flowed down to it from Nisibis. Both streams 
 were here fordable, but the river formed by 
 their union had to be crossed by a raft. It 
 flowed in a tortuous course through rich meads 
 covered with flowers, having a general direction | 
 about S.S.W. to its junction with the Euphrates | 
 at Karkesia, the ancient Circesium. The country | 
 on both sides of the river was covered with 4 
 mounds, the remains of cities belonging to the | 
 Assyrian period. 
 
 The Habor is mentioned by Tiglath-pileser I., 
 king of Assyria, about 1120 B.c., who boasts of | 
 having killed ten mighty elephants in the land | 
 of Haran and on the banks of the Habor; and | 
 Assur-nasir-apli (885-860 8.6.), after crossing 
 the Tigris, and subjugating the people on the 
 banks of the river Harmi§, records that he con- 
 tinued his conquests on the banks of the Habor, 
 passing afterwards towards the Euphrates (piate 
 éa nar Habur, “the mouths of the river 
 Habor ”); and, from the words used, it would 
 seem that the waters of the river flowed into 
 
HACHALIAH 
 
 the Euphrates through several outlets. Ele- 
 phants frequented the neighbourhood at that 
 early period. [Geka (ls Ge Ε:] 
 
 HACHALI'AH cavon, of uncertain mean- 
 ing; B. Χελκειά, NA. ᾿Αχαλία [i. 1], BN. 
 ᾿Αχελιά, A. ᾿Αχαλιά [x. 1]; Hechlia, Hahelia, 
 Achelai), the father of Nehemiah (Neh. i. 1, 
 Kerk). 
 
 HACHI’LAH, THE HILL cabana nya, 
 hill of darkness, Ges.: in 1 Sam. xxiii. 19, BA. 
 ‘ExeAd; in xxvi. 1, B. Χελμάθ, Α.᾿Αχιλά : collis, 
 and Gabaa, Hachila), a hill apparently situated 
 in a wood* in the wilderness or waste land 
 (13719) in the neighbourhood of Ziph; in the 
 fastnesses or passes of which David and his six 
 hundred followers were lurking when the Ziphites 
 informed Saul of his whereabouts (1 Sam, xxiii. 
 19; ep. vv. 14, 15,18). The special topographical 
 note is added, that it was ‘on the right (xxiii. 
 19, A. V. and R. V. “south ”) of the Jeshimon,” 
 or, according to xxvi. 1-3, “facing the Jeshi- 
 
 mon ” (‘35 by, A.V. and R. V. “ before”); that 
 
 is, the waste barren district. On the first oc- 
 casion, David, on the approach of Saul, appears 
 to have removed to the wilderness of Maon, and 
 then to have gone down” to “ the cliff” (xxiii. 25, 
 
 vopn; R. V. “the rock ”’) in the same midbar, 
 
 On the second, David drew down from the hill 
 into the lower ground (xxvi. 3). Saul advanced 
 to the hill, and bivouacked there by the side of 
 the road (7), A. V. and R. V. “way ”), which 
 
 appears to haye run over the hill or close below 
 it. It was during this nocturnal halt that the 
 romantic adventure of the spear and cruse of 
 water took place. In xxiii. 14 and xxvi. 15 
 this hill would seem (though this is not quite 
 clear) to be dignified by the title of “the 
 mountain ” (i); in the latter, the A.V. has 
 
 “an hill;” in both the article missed by 
 the A. V. is emphasized in the R. V.).  Ziph 
 and Maon are now Tell ez-Zif and Tell M‘ain, 
 well-known places to the south of Hebron; 
 and their “ wildernesses” are apparently the 
 desert tracts N. and 8. of Wddy el-W<ar, which 
 for five miles of its course is a narrow gorge 
 with precipitous sides. Major Conder has 
 suggested that the hill Hachilah may be the 
 long flat-topped ridge, Dhahret el-Kolah, north 
 of W. el-W‘ar, which terminates in a high, 
 narrow, and almost isolated hill (PEF. Mem. 
 iii. 313). In this case ‘the rock ” would be the 
 precipice on the S. side of W. e/-W‘ar. The 
 character of the country, which bears no traces 
 of former cultivation or vegetation, is such as 
 to render the former existence of a forest 
 extremely improbable; and it seems not un- 
 likely that the true reading has been preserved 
 by the LXX. and Josephus. By Eusebius and 
 Jerome (OS. p. 261,33; p. 133, 15), Echela is 
 
 = For the ‘‘wood,” the LXX. of 1 Sam. xxiii. 19 
 have ἐν τῇ καινῇ, reading 4 for wan. And so, 
 too, Josephus. 
 
 Ὁ The Hebrew exactly answers to our expression 
 *«descended the cliff:” the “into” in the text of the 
 A.V. (R. V. “to’’) is derived from the LXX. εἰς and 
 the Vulgate ad. See Jerome’s explanation, ad petram, 
 id est, ad tutissimum locum, in his Quaest. Hebr. ad loc. 
 
 HADAD 1259 
 
 named as a village then standing; but the 
 situation—7 miles from Eleutheropolis, ic. 
 on the N.W. side of Hebron—would be too far 
 from Ziph and Maon; and as Reland has pointed 
 out, they probably confounded it with Keilah 
 (cp. OS? p, 143, 19, “Ceeilah;” and Reland, 
 p. 745). [G.] [W.] 
 
 HACHMO'NI, SON OF, and THE HACH- 
 MO'NITE (1 Ch. xxvii. 32, xi. 11), both render- 
 jngs—the former the correct one—of the same 
 Hebrew words (9}}13M7}A = son of a Hachmon- 
 ite: in 1 Ch. xxvii. 32, B. ‘Axamel, A. ‘Axapuavl : 
 in 1 Ch. xi. 11, B. ‘Ayauavel, &. “Αχαμαννί, 
 A. -avi: Achamoni). Two of the Bene- 
 Hachmoni are named in these passages; JEHIEL 
 in the former, and JASHOBEAM in the latter. 
 Hachmon or Hachmoni was no doubt the 
 founder of a family to which these men be- 
 longed: the actual father of Jashobeam was 
 Zabdiel (1 Ch. xxvii. 2), and he is also said to 
 have belonged to the Korhites (R. V. Korahites, 
 1 Ch. xii. 6), possibly the Levites descended 
 from Korah. But the name Hachmon nowhere 
 appears in the genealogies of the Levites. In 
 2 Sam. xxiii, 8 the name is altered to the 
 Tahchemonite (R. V. See Driver in loco). See 
 Kennicott, Diss. pp. 72, 82, who calls attention 
 to the fact that names given in Chronicles with 
 Ben are in Samuel given without the Ben, but 
 with the definite article. [G.] [W.] 
 
 HADA'D (ΤΊΠ; ᾿Αδάδ, Apad, ᾿Αδάρ, Χοδ- 
 δάν ; Hadad). This name occurs frequently in 
 the history of the Syrian and Edomite dynasties. 
 It was originally the indigenous appellation of a 
 deity among the Syrians (the Sun, according to 
 Macrob. Saturnal. i. 23 [cp. Bathgen, Beitr. z. 
 Semiten Religionsgeschichte, p. 66 sq.|; Plin. 
 xxxvii. 11), though little is known of the etymo- 
 logy of the name or of the attributes of the god ; 
 and was thence transferred to the king, us the 
 highest of early authorities, in the forms Hadad, 
 Benhadad (“worshipper of Hadad”), and Ha- 
 dadezer (“ assisted by Hadad,” Gesen. Thesawr. 
 p- 218). The title appears to have been an 
 official one for the kings of Damascus; and is 
 so used by Nicolaus Damascenus, as quoted 
 by Josephus (Ant. vii. 5, § 2), in reference to 
 the Syrian king who aided Hadadezer (2 Sam. 
 viii. 5). Josephus appears to have used the 
 name in the same sense, where he substitutes it 
 for Benhadad (Ant. ix. 8, § 7, compared with 
 2K. xiii.24). The name appears occasionally in 
 the altered form Hadar (Gen. xxv. 15, xxxvi. 39, 
 compared with 1 Ch. i, 30, 50). 
 
 1. The first of the name was a son of Ishmael 
 (Gen, xxv. 15; 1 Ch, i. 80). Of him nothing is 
 known (see Delitzsch [1887] and Dillmann’ on ~ 
 Gen. 1. c.). 
 
 2. (ΤΠἼΠ.) The second was a king of Edom, 
 who gained an important victory over the 
 Midianites on the field of Moab (Gen. xxxvi. 35 ; 
 1 Ch. i. 46): the position of his territory is 
 marked by his capital, Avith. [AVITH.] 
 
 8. (ΤἼΠ. The third was also a king of 
 Edom, with Pau for his capital (1 Ch. i. 50). 
 [Pau.] He was the last of the kings: the 
 change to the dukedom is pointedly connected 
 with his death in 1 Ch. i. 51. [Hapar.] 
 
1200 HADAD-EZER 
 
 4. (717.) The last of the name was a 
 member of the royal house of Edom (1 K. xi. 
 14 sq. Ine 17 it is given in the mutilated 
 form of TI). In his childhood he escaped the 
 massacre under Joab, in which his father ap- 
 pears to have perished, and fled with a band of 
 followers into Egypt. Some difficulty arises in 
 the account of his flight, from the words * they 
 arose out of Midian” (v. 18); Thenius (Comm. 
 in loco) surmises that the reading has been 
 corrupted from ΟἾΔ to ἢ) 12, and that the 
 place intended is Maon, i.e. the residence for the 
 time being of the royal family (see other sur- 
 mises in Klostermann in Strack u. Zickler’s Ayf. 
 Komm. in loco). Pharaoh, the predecessor of 
 Solomon’s father-in-law, treated him kindly, 
 and gave him his sister-in-law in marriage. 
 After David’s death Hadad resolved to attempt 
 the recovery of his dominion: Pharaoh in 
 vain discouraged him, and upon this he left 
 Egypt and returned to his own country (see 
 the addition to v. 22 in the LXX.). It does 
 not appear from the text, as it now stands, 
 how Hadad became subsequently to this an 
 “adversary unto Solomon” (r. 14), still less 
 how he gained the sovereignty over Syria (v. 25). 
 The LXX., however, refers the whole of v. 25 
 to him instead of to Rezon, and substitutes for 
 Aram, DIN (Syria), ᾿Εδώμ (Edom). This may 
 be said to reduce the whole to a consistent and 
 intelligible narrative. Hadad, according to this 
 account, succeeded in his attempt, and carried 
 on a border warfare on the Israelites from his 
 own territory. The substitution is, however, 
 unsupported. Josephus (Ant. viti.7, § 6) retains 
 the reading Syria, and represents Hadad as 
 having failed in his attempt on Idumaea, and 
 then haying joined Rezon, from whom he re- 
 ceived a portion of Syria. If the present text 
 be correct, the concluding words of v. 25 must 
 be referred to Rezon, and be considered as a re- 
 petition in an amplified form of the concluding 
 words of the previous verse. [W. L. B.] [ἘΠ 
 
 HADA’D-E’ZER (W110 = Hadad is help ; 
 ὁ ᾿Αδραα(άρ, in both MSS. [2 Sam. viii. 3-12; 
 1 K. xi. 291), king of Zobah, defeated by David. 
 The inscription on an Aramaic seal, and the 
 Assyrian equivalent Dad-idri, prove incontest- 
 ably that this, and not the reading Hadarezer 
 (cp. LXX.), is right (see Bithgen, Beitr. z. 
 Semit. Leligionsgeschichte, p. 67, and Driver, 
 Notes on the Heb. Text of the BB. of Sam. 
 in loco). [F.] 
 
 HADA’D-RIM’MON (9 335; κοπετὸς 
 po@ves; Adadremmon) is, according to the 
 ordinary interpretation of Zech. xii. 11, a place 
 in the valley of Megiddo, named after two 
 Syrian idols, where a national lamentation was 
 held for the death of king Josiah in the last of 
 the four great battles (see Stanley, 5. ¢ P. 
 ch. ix.) which have made the plain of Esdraelon 
 famous in Hebrew history (see 2 K. xxiii. 29; 
 2 Ch. xxxv. 23; Joseph. Ant. x. 5, § 1). The 
 ).XX. translate the second word “ pomegranate ;” 
 and the Greek commentators, using that Version, 
 see here no reference to Josiah. Jonathan, the 
 Chaldee interpreter, followed by Jarchi, under- 
 stands it to be the name of the son of king 
 Tabrimen who was opposed to Ahab at Ramoth- 
 
 HADAR-EZER 
 
 gilead, But it has been taken for the place at 
 which Josiah died by most interpreters since 
 Jerome, who states (Comm. in Zuch.) that it 
 was the name of a city which was called in his 
 time Maximianopolis, and was not far from 
 Jezreel. It is now usually identified with a 
 village south of Megiddo, called Rummaneh (see 
 Miihlau in Riehm’s HWS. 5. n.). See Wich- 
 manshausen, De planctu Hadadr. in the Nov. 
 Thes. Theol.-phil. i. 101. LW. 1. ΒΓ 
 
 HADA’R (1597; A. Χοδδάν, E. Χοδδάδ, 7). 
 Xadda; Hadar), a son of Ishmael (Gen. xxv. 
 15), a misreading for in 1 Ch. i. 30 Hadad (ὙΠ, 
 Χονδάν, Hadad). [Hapap, 1.] (F.] 
 
 2. (117, with a different aspirate to the 
 preceding ; A. ‘Apa@, D*" ‘Apad, D*'E. Βαράδ ; 
 Adar.) One of the kings of Edom, successor 
 of Baal-hanan ben-Acbor (Gen, xxxvi. 39). 
 In the parallel list in 1 Ch. i. he appears as 
 HADAD (3). [F.] 
 
 HADA’R-E'ZER (ΡΠ = whose help is 
 Hadar, Ges. ; BA. ᾿Αδρααζάρ; -Adarezer), son of 
 Rehob (2 Sam. viii. 3); the king of the Aramite 
 state of Zobar, who, while on his way to 
 “establish his dominion” at the Euphrates, 
 was overtaken by David, defeated with great 
 loss both of chariots, horses, and men (1 Ch. 
 xviii. 3, 4), and driven with the remnant of his 
 force to the other side of the river (xix, 16), 
 The golden weapons captured on this occasion 
 cody’, A.V. and R. V. “shields of gold”), a 
 thousand in number, were taken by David to 
 Jerusalem (xviii. 7), and dedicated to Jehovah. 
 The foreign arms were preserved in the Temple, 
 and were long known as king David’s (1 Ch. 
 xxiii. 9; Cant. iv. 4). [ARMs: Shelet.] 
 
 Not daunted by this defeat, Hadarezer seized 
 an early opportunity of attempting to revenge 
 himself; and after the first repulse of the 
 Ammonites and their Syrian allies by Joab, he 
 sent his army to the assistance of his kindred 
 the people of Maachah, Rehob, and Ishtob 
 (1 Ch. xix. 16; 2 Sam. x. 15, ep. v. 8). The 
 army was a large one, as is evident from the 
 numbers of the slain; and it was especially 
 strong in horse-soldiers (xix. 18). Under the 
 command of Shophach, or Shobach, the captain 
 
 of the host (ΝΠ Ἴ), they crossed the 
 
 Euphrates, joined the other Syrians, and en- 
 camped at a place called HeLaM. The moment 
 was a critical one, and David himself came from 
 Jerusalem to take the command of the Israelite 
 army. As on the former occasion, the rout 
 was complete, seven hundred chariots were 
 captured, seven thousand charioteers and forty 
 thousand horse-soldiers killed, the petty sove- 
 reigns who had before been subject to Hadar- 
 ezer submitted themselves to David, and the 
 great Syrian confederacy was, for the time, at 
 an end. 
 
 But one of Hadarezer’s more immediate re- 
 tainers, RezON ben-Eliadah, made his escape 
 from the army, and, gathering round him some 
 fugitives like himself, formed them into one of 
 those marauding ravaging “bands” (7573), 
 which found a congenial refuge in the thinly 
 peopled districts between the Jordan and the 
 Euphrates’ (2: K. v. 2: 1"Ch. γι, 18-22). 
 Making their way to Damascus, they possessed 
 
HADASHAH 
 
 themselves of the city. Rezon became king, 
 and at once began to avenge the loss of his 
 countrymen by the course of “mischief” to 
 Israel which he pursued down to the end of 
 Solomon’s reign, and which is summed up in 
 the emphatic words “he was an adversary (a 
 *Satan’) to Israel”... “he abhorred Israel ” 
 (1K, xi. 23-25). 
 
 In the narrative of David’s Syrian campaign 
 in 2 Sam. viii. 3-12, this name is given as 
 Hadad-ezer, and also in 1 K. xi. 23. But in 
 2 Sam. x., and in all its other occurrences in 
 the Hebrew text as well as in the LXX. (both 
 MSS.), and in Josephus, the form Hadarezer is 
 maintained. [G.] [W.] 
 
 HADA'SHAH (AUN = new [town]. Cp. 
 the Phoenic. and cuneiform parallels in MV."'; 
 B. ‘Adacav, A. -ά; Hadassa), one of the towns 
 of Judah, in the Shefelah or maritime low- 
 country, named between Zenan and Migdal- 
 gad, in the second group (Josh. xv. 37 only). 
 By Eusebius (OS.? p. 240, 6) it is erroneously 
 identified with the ADASA of the Maccabaean 
 history near Gophna. The site has not yet been 
 discovered. [6 [W.] 
 
 HADAS'SAH (AD30 = myrtle ; LXX. om. ; 
 Edissa), a name, probably the earlier name, of 
 Esther (Esth. ii. 7). Gesenius (Zhes. p. 366) 
 suggests that it is identical with “Atoooa, the 
 name of the daughter of Cyrus. 
 
 HADAT’TAH (ANT = new ; LXX, omits ; 
 nova). According to the A. V., one of the towns 
 of Judah in the extreme south — “ Hazor, 
 Hadattah, and Kerioth, and Hezron,” &c. (Josh. 
 xv. 25); but the Masoretic accents of the Hebrew 
 connect the word with that preceding it, as if 
 it were (as in R. V.) Hazor-hadattah, ie. New 
 Hazor, in distinction from the place of the same 
 name in v. 23. This reading is expressly 
 sanctioned by Eusebius and Jerome, who speak 
 (OS.? p. 238, 33 ; p. 125, 10) of “ New Hazor ” as 
 lying in their day to the east of and near 
 Ascalon (see also Reland, p. 708). But Ascalon, 
 as Robinson has pointed out (ii. 34, note), is in 
 the Shefelah, and not in the South, and would, 
 if named in Joshua at all, be included in the 
 second division of the list, beginning at v. 33, 
 instead of where it is, not far from Kedesh. 
 Tristram (Zand of Israel, p. 370) has suggested 
 its identification with Hadadah, aruined watch- 
 tower at the head of W. Zuweirah, S.W. of the 
 Dead Sea. {G.] [W.] 
 
 HADES. [HELL] 
 
 HA’DID (1M, ἐσ. “sharp,” possibly from 
 its situation on some craggy eminence, Gesen. 
 Thes. p. 446: in Ezra, B. Aodadi, A. λυδ- 
 δωνλοδαδίδ: in Neh. vii. Λοδαδίδ, A. λοδαδιά ; 
 in Neh. xi, LXX. omits: Hadid), a place 
 named, with Lod (Lydda) and Ono, only in 
 the later books of the history (Ezra ii. 33; 
 Neh. vii. 37, xi. 34), but yet so as to imply its 
 earlier existence. In the time of Eusebius (0 5.2 
 p. 240, 4) a town called Aditha, or Adatha, ex- 
 isted to the east of Diospolis (Lydda). This 
 was probably Hadid. About 3 miles east of 
 Lydda stands a village called el-Haditheh, which 
 is described by the old Jewish traveller ha-Parchi 
 as being “on the summit of a round hill,” and 
 identified by him, no doubt correctly, with 
 
 HADRACH 1261 
 
 Hadid. See Zunz, in Asher’s Benj. of Tudela, 
 ii. 439. It is probably identical with ADITHAIM, 
 and the ApIpA of the Maccabaean history 
 (PEP. Mem. ii. 297). (G.] [WJ 
 
 HAD'LAL (*55n =restiny; B. XodB, A. 
 ᾿Αδδί; Adali), a man of Ephraim; father of 
 Amasa, who was one of the chiefs of the tribe in 
 the reign of Pekah (2 Ch. xxviii. 12). 
 
 HADO’'RAM (O79 ; Ὃδοῤῥά [Gen. ; LXX. 
 om. in Ch.]; Aduram). 1. The fitth son of Joktan 
 (Gen. x. 27; 1 Ch. i. 21). His settlements, un- 
 like those of many of Joktan’s sons, have not 
 been identified (cp. Dillmann® on Gen. /. c.). 
 Bochart supposed that the Adramitae represented 
 his descendants; but afterwards believed, as 
 later critics have also, that this people was the 
 same as the Chatramotitae, or people of Hadra- 
 maut (Phaleg, ii. c. 17). [HAZARMAVETH.] 
 Other conjectures may be seen in Delitzsch on 
 Gen. /. c. [1887], or in MY". [F.] 
 
 2. (aN ; B. Ἱδουραάμ, &. ‘Idoupau, A. 
 Δουράμ ; Adoram), son of Toii king of Hamath. 
 He was his father’s ambassador to congratulate 
 David on his victory over Hadarezer king of 
 Zobah (1 Ch. xviii. 10), and the bearer of valu- 
 able presents in the form of articles of antique 
 manufacture (Joseph.), in gold, silver, and brass. 
 In the parallel narrative of 2 Sam. viii. 10 sq. 
 the name is given as Joram; but this being a 
 contraction of Jehoram, which contains the 
 name of Jehovah, is peculiarly an Israelite ap- 
 pellation, and we may therefore conclude that 
 Hadoram is the genuine form of the name, a 
 conclusion supported in part by the LXX. read- 
 ing of 2 Sam. /. c. (BA. Ἰεδδουράν). By Josephus. 
 (Ant. vii. 5, 4) it is given as ᾿Αδώραμος. 
 
 3. (ONT; B. ᾿Αδωνειράμ, A. Adwpdu; Adu- 
 ram.) The form assumed in Chronicles by the 
 name of the intendant of taxes under David, 
 Solomon, and Rehoboam, who lost his life in the 
 revolt at Shechem after the coronation of the 
 last-named prince (2 Ch. x. 18). He was sent 
 by Rehoboam to appease the tumult, possibly as. 
 being one of the old and moderate party; but 
 the choice of the chief officer of the taxes was 
 not a happy one. His interference was ineffec- 
 tual, and he himself fell a victim: “all Israel 
 stoned him with stones that he died.” In 1K. 
 iv. 6, v. 28, the name is given in the longer 
 form of ADONIRAM, but in Samuel (2 Sam. xx. 
 24) as ApoRAM; LXX., ᾿Αδωνειράμ. Adoniram 
 is probably the true name, Hadoram being pre- 
 sumably a Hamathite name (see Driver, Notes 
 on the Heb. Text of the BB. of Sam.1.c¢.). By 
 Josephus, in both the first and last case, he is. 
 called ᾿Αδώραμος. ΕΑ W.] [F-.] 
 
 HAD-RACH ΟΠ; Σεδρὰχ or Σεδράκ; Ha- 
 drach), a district of Syria, as appears from the 
 context in the only passage where it is men- 
 tioned :— 
 
 “The burthen of Jahvah’s word is upon the land of 
 
 Hadrach, 
 And Damascus is the resting-place thereof : 
 For to Jahvah belongeth the people of Aram,* 
 And (= as well as) all the tribes of Israel.” 
 (Zech. ix. 1.) 
 
 ® Reading DAN DY (Amosi. 5) for DIN ἢ). 
 
1202 HAGAB 
 The numerous attempts of former scholars to 
 identify the locality have been antiquated by 
 Schrader’s recognition of the name in the Assyrian 
 inscriptions. It 1s there variously called the 
 Land of Hatarakka, Hatarikka, and Hatarika ; 
 and is mentioned along with Damascus and 
 Hamath, just as it is in Zech. ix. 1, 2, as well 
 as with Zobah, Simyra, and Arka (see WAZ. ii. 
 52, 46b; iii. 10, No. 3. 34; Schrader’s AGI. 
 p. 122, and his AA Ζ.3 pp. 453, 482, 484). 
 
 [C. J. B.] 
 
 HA'GAB (23M = locust ; ᾿Αγάβ; -Hagab). 
 Bene-Hagab were among the Nethinim who 
 returned from Babylon with Zerubbabel (Ezra 
 ii. 46). In the parallel list in Nehemiah, this 
 and the name preceding it are omitted. In the 
 Apocryphal Esdras (ν. 30) it is given as AGABA. 
 
 HAGA’BA (S130; ᾿Αγαβά; Hagaba). Bene- 
 Hagaba were among the Nethinim who came 
 back from captivity with Zerubbabel (Neh. vii. 
 48). The name is slightly different in form 
 from 
 
 HAGA’BAH (930; ’"AyaBa; Hagaba), 
 
 under which it is found in the parallel list of 
 Ezra ii. 45. In Esdras it is given as GRABA. 
 
 HAGAR (311; ‘Aydp; Agar). An Egyptian 
 slave of Sarah, and an inferior wife of Abraham, 
 who, as the mother of Ishmael, is the reputed 
 ancestress of the Ishmaelite Arab stocks. The 
 oldest traditions about her, and the names of 
 the twelve tribes that claimed descent from her, 
 are preserved in Gen. xvi., xxi. 9-21, xxv. 12-18. 
 As might be expected, her name finds its pro- 
 bable explanation not in Hebrew but in Arabic, 
 
 AA 
 where we have the root iy hag’ara, “ to 
 separate from one’s friends or kindred,” with 
 S-0 
 
 the derivatives BS, hig'rah, “ separation,” 
 ed 
 
 the well-known designation of Muhammad’s 
 historic departure from Mecca to Medinah; 
 S-- 
 
 and , Hag'ar, a province of Arabia on 
 
 the Persian Gulf, which very possibly owes its 
 name to ancient settlements of Hagarenes, or 
 tribes descended from Hagar (Ps. Ixxxiii. 6; 
 1Ch. v. 10, 20: see Ewald, Hist. Isr. i. 315, 
 n. 2, Eng. Trans.). This etymology harmonizes 
 with the Biblical narratives of Hagar’s flight 
 from Sarah’s tyranny, and her wanderings in 
 the wilderness. But to derive the name of 
 Hagar from that of her descendants the Hagar- 
 enes or Hagrites, seems gratuitous; while the 
 opinion, recently advanced by a distinguished 
 Arabist (Dr. Ignaz Goldziher), that Hagar is 
 simply the noon-day sun, called poetically 
 3΄ “ue 
 
 3 ely) al-hag'irah, “the Flying One,” is an 
 
 arbitrary speculation, The sole meaning of that 
 phrase, according to the native lexicographers 
 (Kamis, al-G’auhari, Ibn Mukarram), is “the 
 period of the noon-day heat.” 
 
 The story of Hagar, in all likelihood, preserves 
 an historical memory of the separation of the 
 Ishmaelite Arabs from their kinsfolk, who after- 
 wards again divided into the peoples of Edom 
 
 HAGARENES, HAGARITES 
 
 and Israel (so Kautzsch, ap. Riehm, HWB.). 
 The fact that Hagar is a slave-wife, and of 
 Egyptian birth, indicates that the Ishmaelite 
 stocks were not of the purest strain of Abraham’s 
 blood, but crossed with foreign elements. In 
 accordance with similar ideas, Arab historians 
 have called the tribes of Ishmaelite origin 
 S- C70 9 Stee 
 
 BD prwe Ca) Ss, ‘Arab musta‘ribah, “natu- 
 ralized (literally, Arabized) Arabs,” as opposed 
 S- 
 
 =“ Si te, 
 
 to the Joktanites, who are δ 5 -» 
 
 ‘Arab ‘aribah, “ Pure (literally, Arabian) Arabs.” 
 Arab tradition (al-Baidawi, al-Bagawi) re- 
 Sey 
 
 lates that ee (Hag’ar) and Ishmael were 
 
 taken by Abraham to Mecca, and abandoned 
 
 there. ‘The holy well Zamzam by the Caaba is 
 the fountain that sprang up for the relief of 
 Ishmael, the ancestor of the Prophet. The 
 tribe of G’urhum allowed the fugitives to settle 
 among them; and Ishmael allied himself with 
 the G'urhumites by marrying a daughter of 
 Modad, and adopting their speech and manners; 
 so that his posterity were united with them into 
 a single nation. 
 
 In the time of Jerome a local tradition 
 pointed out Hagar’s Well (OS.? p. 135, 8). At 
 present, a well in the Wadi al-Muwailih, at 
 some distance to the south of Beersheba, and 
 some chambers in the rock (Lait Hag'ar, 
 “ Hagar’s House”), are connected with her 
 name by the Bedawis. (Robinson, Palestine, 
 i. 315; Palmer, Desert of the Exodus, ii. 354 ; 
 Ritter, xiv. 1086; Dillmann ° in loco). 
 
 St. Paul makes characteristic use of the story 
 of Hagar, finding therein an allegory of the Two 
 Covenants, but not necessarily, as some would 
 have us think (Stanley; Riehm, HWB.), as- 
 suming a connexion between the Arabic term 
 9σσ 
 
 , hag’ar, ‘a stone,” and the name Hagar 
 
 (see Lightfoot, ad Gat. iv. 21-31). The alle- 
 gorical application of the narrative is quite in 
 the manner of the Rabbinical reasonings of the 
 time. What is different is the new doctrine 
 which the argument illustrates and enforces. 
 It is the substance not the form, the spirit not 
 the letter, that is essential here as elsewhere in 
 the Scriptures. [C. J. B.] 
 
 HAGARE’NES, HAGARI’TES, HA- 
 GERI'TE, THE (CON IT, O90, 307: 
 B. τῶν “Αγαρηνῶν, οἱ “Αγεραῖοι; A. τῶν ‘Aya- 
 ραίων, οἱ “Αγοραῖοι, 1 Ch. ν. 19, 20; Β. ὁ 
 Γαρείτης, A. 6 “Αγαρίτης, 1 Ch. xxvii. 31; B. of 
 ‘Ayyapnvol, BT. ‘Ayapnvot, Ps. Ixxxiii. 6: 
 Agarei, Agareus, Agareni). One and the same 
 people, or group of nomadic Arabian tribes, 
 appears to be meant by these variant forms of 
 the same gentilic name, which, however, in 
 Hebrew reduce themselves to two, viz. Hagri’tm 
 and the contracted Hagrim (sing. Hagri). 
 According to a notice of them preserved ir 
 1 Ch. v. 10, 19, 20, as early as the time of 
 Saul the Hagrites * were a nomadic people, rich 
 
 aSo R.V., except in Ps. 1xxxiii. 6, where it has 
 Hagarenes (presumably to avoid a jingle with Ishmaelites 
 in the preceding line), with marg. Hagrites. 
 
 δ. 
 
Ι 
 ’ 
 ; 
 7 
 
 HAGARENES, HAGARITES 
 
 in flocks and herds,"whose pasture-grounds lay 
 on the eastern border of Gilead; a territory 
 from which they were expelled by the Israelite 
 tribes of Reuben, Gad, and Manasseh, which 
 held it until their own deportation by the 
 Assyrians (734 B.c.: see 2 K. xv. 29). The fact 
 that they were a pastoral people 15 incidentally 
 confirmed by another notice from an ancient 
 source, stating that “Jaziz the Hagerite,” or 
 rather Hagrite (11377 137»), had the charge of 
 David’s flocks of sheep and goats (JN¥): see 
 1 Ch. xxvii. 31.° 
 
 Hagrim, Hagrites, as the name of an Arab 
 people, at once suggests that of Hagar, the 
 mother of all Ishmaelite Arabs. It is hardly a 
 strong objection to this comparison, supported 
 as it is by linguistic equivalence and Jewish 
 tradition,° that the Hagrim seem to be dis- 
 tinguished from the Ishmaelites in Ps. lxxxiii, 6, 
 of whom, in fact, they were a branch (Kautzsch 
 ap. Riehm, HWB.). Why may not one group 
 of Hagrite Arabs have been known in antiquity 
 as the Hagrites, par excellence? This would 
 surely be no bar to recognising the claim of 
 other Arabian stocks, known by special designa- 
 tions, to descent from Hagar through Ishmael. 
 
 Three other Arab peoples were allied with the 
 Hagrites in the war of 1 Ch. ν. 19; viz. Jetur,4 
 Naphish, and Nodab. These are, in all pro- 
 bability, the last three of the twelve tribes of 
 Ishmael (Gen. xxv. 15), Nodab being either a 
 correction or a corruption of Kedemah.° 
 
 The position of Jetur, the modern G’eidir, 
 being known [ITURAEA], supplies another in- 
 dication of the original seats of the Hagrim, 
 which cannot have been very far off. They are 
 probably identical with the ’Aypato: or Agrei 
 of the classical geographers, whom Pliny 
 (vi. 28) twice mentions among the peoples of 
 Arabia; the second- time, along with the 
 Ammonii or Ammonites (Ps. Ixxxiii. 6, 7). See 
 “also Eratosthenes in Strabo, xvi. p. 767, where 
 they are mentioned with the Nabataeans, and 
 Ptolemy, v.19, where they appear as neighbours 
 of the Batanaeans (E. of the Haurdn), and Dio- 
 nysius Periegetes, v. 956, where they are called 
 "Aypées. Gesenius, to whom these references 
 are due (Thesaur. 5. vy. 91371), identifies the 
 
 -σ ΄ 
 
 Hagrites with the people of j=, Πᾶασ'αν, or 
 $ σοξωσ 
 
 eS Al-Ahsa, Lahsd, a province of Arabia 
 
 b In 1 Ch. xi. 38, ** Mibhar the son of Haggeri” [Heb. 
 Hagri)is due to confusion of similar Heb. letters, and 
 must be corrected, with Kennicott and most moderns, 
 from 2 Sam. xxiii. 36 (‘* of Zobah ; Bani the Gadite’’). 
 
 e «The sons of Hagar” (οἱ υἱοὶ ‘Aydp), Baruch iii. 
 23, may, as Kautzsch and others suppose, mean the 
 Hagrim. They are mentioned along with Thaiman and 
 Merran, the latter being probably a misreading of Heb. 
 
 Medan (Hitzig, Ewald). If Thaiman represents Heb. 
 Teman, the ‘‘sons of Hagar” are hardly in the right 
 neighbourhood for the Hagrim. But the LXX. also use 
 
 Thaiman for Tema (Gen. xxy. 15); that is, 208 Kr 
 
 on the route between Madyan and Hag’ar on the Persian 
 Gulf. 
 
 4 Instead of “‘ with Jetur” of A. V. and R. YV., the 
 Heb. text has *‘ and Jetur.” 
 
 9 Heb. 2711}, Nodab; 7{O7), Kedemah. An ill- 
 written [5 might be misread 4}, and Ἢ and 2 are often 
 indistinguishable in MSS. Kedemah is the reading of 
 1Ch. i. 31. 
 
 HAGGAL 1263 
 
 on the Persian Gulf (‘Die Landschaft Lachsa 
 oder Hadsjar,’ Niebuhr, Arabien, pp. 339-342). 
 Considering the migratory habits of Arabian 
 tribes, it seems likely enough that some portion of 
 the Hugrites in ancient times may have wandered 
 even so far to the south-east from their earlier 
 seats. 3ut the name is not uncommon else- 
 where in Arabia. The Arab geographers men- 
 tion places so called in Yemen, the Hig’az, and 
 Hadhramaut. (Cy 2.8 
 
 HAGGAT, the tenth in order of the Minor 
 Prophets. 
 
 1. The name (730; ’Ayyatos; Aggacus) is not 
 borne by anyone else in the O.T.; but the 
 similar names Haggi, Haggith, Haggiah are 
 found. It is generally supposed to mean festivus, 
 and may have been given him because he was 
 born on a festival, perhaps on the Feast, that of 
 Tabernacles. 
 
 2. Nothing is known of him beside the record 
 of his brief ministry for about four months in the 
 second year of Darius (B.C. 520), contained in his 
 Book, and supplemented by two notices in the 
 Book of Ezra, which couple his name with that 
 of Zechariah, as colleagues in persuading the 
 people to complete the restoration of the Temple 
 (v. 1, vi. 145 ep. 1 Esd. vi. 1, vii. 3). In the 
 absence of positive information it may plausibly 
 be conjectured that he was one of the exiles who 
 returned with Zerubbabel and Joshua. Ewald 
 would infer from ii, 3 that he was one of 
 the few survivors who had seen the first Temple 
 in its splendour. If so, he must have delivered 
 his prophetic message in extreme old age, and 
 left the younger Zechariah to continue the work 
 he had begun (Pusey, Introd. to Haggai). The 
 inference, however, is at best precarious: the 
 words of ii. 3 seem rather to be addressed toa 
 number of persons, of whom the Prophet him- 
 self was not one; and according to the tradi- 
 tions recorded by Pseudo-Dorotheus (ap. Chron. 
 Pasch. 151d) and Pseudo-Epiphanius (De Vitis 
 Prophetarum), Haggai was still a young man 
 when he returned from Babylon to Jeru- 
 salem. They add that he lived to see the 
 restoration of the Temple, and was buried with 
 honour near the sepulchres of the priests. One 
 Jewish tradition regards Haggai, Zechariah, and 
 Malachi as forming an intermediate link in the 
 chain of tradition between the prophets and the 
 “Great Synagogue;”’ another reckons them 
 among the members of that body, though it is 
 not supposed to have been founded until the time 
 of Ezra and Nehemiah, and Ezra did not arrive 
 in Jerusalem until sixty-two years after the 
 date of Haggai’s public ministry (see Carpzov’s 
 Introductio, and Meyer’s Seder Olam, p. 1076 sq.). 
 In St. Jerome’s day a notion existed, probably 
 among the Origenists, that Haggai was an angel 
 in human form (Comm. oni. 13). It was based on 
 a misinterpretation of ch. i. 13, the phrase “the 
 
 Lorp’s messenger” (ΠῚΠ᾿ sxbn) being identical 
 with “the angel of the LorD” in Zech. i. 11, 
 
 f The Arabic translator of the Psalms appears to have 
 been of this opinion. In Ps. Ixxxiii. 6 he has written 
 
 w © ; 
 or co a gentilic noun from Sol according 
 
 to Al-G’auhari, cited by Gesenius. 
 
120: 
 
 &e., and it seems to have had some currency, as 
 Cyril of Alexandria thought it worth while to 
 refute it in his Commentary. 
 
 3. The prophecies of Haggai are expressly 
 stated to have been delivered “in the second 
 year of Darius the king” (Hagg. i. 1, ii. 10; cp. 
 Ezra iv. 24, v. 1, vi. 14). This can only mean 
 Darius the son of Hystaspes, who reigned from 
 B.C. 521 to B.c.485. None who had seen the old 
 Temple (Hagg. ii. 5) could have been alive in 
 the time of Darius Nothus (n.c. 424-405). The 
 date of Haggai’s ministry is therefore fixed as 
 the year B.c. 520. Sixteen or seventeen years 
 had elapsed since the Return of the exiles under 
 the leadership of Zerubbabel and Joshua, with 
 an express commission from Cyrus to rebuild the 
 Temple of Jehovah at Jerusalem (Ezra i. 2 sq.). 
 
 In the seventh month of the first year of the 
 Return, the Altar was re-erected, the daily 
 sacrifice restored, and the Feast of Taber 
 nacles celebrated (Ezra iii. 1 sq.); and in the 
 second month of the second year (535) the 
 foundation of the Temple, for which preparations 
 had already been made (Ezra i. 4 sq., ii. 68 sq.), 
 was laid with solemn ceremonial amid general 
 rejoicings, chequered only by the sorrow of the 
 old men, who mournfully contrasted this in- 
 significant béginning with the grandeur of the 
 former Temple (Ezra iii. 8 sq.). ‘The work had 
 scarcely been commenced when the “ people of the 
 land,” i.e. the mixed population inhabiting what 
 had formerly been the Northern kingdom, ex- 
 pressed their desire to join in it (Ezra iv. 1 sq.). 
 The acceptance of the offer would have im- 
 perilled the purity of the faith in the new com- 
 munity, and it was resolutely refused. The 
 consequence of this refusal was active opposition. 
 By intrigue or bribery they seem to have pro- 
 cured from the Persian court a decree inhibiting 
 the Jews from proceeding with the building 
 (Ezra iv. 4,5). The work was at a standstill 
 during the remainder of the reign of Cyrus, and 
 during the reigns of Cambyses (B.C. 529-522) and 
 Pseudo-Smerdis (B.C. 521). We have no further 
 information about this period. The narrative 
 in Ezra iv. 6-23, which at first sight appears to 
 refer to it, is parenthetic, and relates the sub- 
 sequent opposition to the building of the walls 
 in the reigns of Ahasuerus, .6. Xerxes (B.C. 485- 
 465), and Artaxerxes I. Longimanus (B.c. 465- 
 425). To identify the Ahasuerus of Ezra iv. 6 
 with Cambyses, and the Artaxerxes of Ezra iv. 7 
 witn Pseudo-Smerdis, who only reigned for eight 
 months, is unreasonable [EZRA]. 
 
 But though history tells us no more than that 
 “the work of the house of God ceased” in con- 
 sequence of the opposition of external adversaries, 
 we may infer from Haggai’s prophecy that the 
 opposition was not such as could not have been 
 overcome by courage and resolution. He lays the 
 blame entirely on the negligence and apathy of 
 the people, and nowhere hints that circumstances 
 had made progress impossible. Initial difficulties 
 had paralysed their feeble energies ; and though 
 they had been able to rebuild their own houses 
 and even to decorate them (Hagg. i. 4, 9), they 
 had been reconciling themselves to the idea of 
 existence without that Temple, which they had 
 been commissioned by Cyrus and by their 
 countrymen in exile to rebuild. Some deliber- 
 ately excused their procrastination by ailirming 
 that the fitting time had not yet come (Hagg. i. 
 
 HAGGAI 
 
 HAGGAI 
 
 2). Chastisement was sent to arouse their 
 consciences, and the warnings and exhortations 
 of Haggai and Zechariah were given to recall 
 them to a sense of their duty. 
 
 No doubt the accession of Darius offered a 
 favourable opportunity for recommencing the 
 work ; and when, in the second year of his reign, 
 Haggai began his ministry, a change of policy 
 at the Persian court might well be hoped for. 
 Nor was the hope disappointed. The work soon 
 attracted the attention of ‘Tattenai, the satrap 
 of the trans-Euphratensian province, and Shethar- 
 bozenai, the governor of Samaria. They came 
 to Jerusalem, and challenged the Jews to produce 
 their authority. They pleaded the edict of 
 Cyrus, and the governors wrote to Darius, with- 
 out, however (so it was providentially ordered), 
 stopping the work in the meantime (Ezra y. 
 3 sq.). The edict of Cyrus was found among 
 the archives at Ecbatana, and Darius sent orders 
 to Tattenai and Shethar-bozenai not only to 
 permit the work to continue, but to provide for 
 the expenses out of the royal revenues, and to 
 furnish materials for sacrifice (Ezra vi. 1 sq.). 
 The «work prospered, and the Temple was com- 
 pleted and dedicated in the sixth year of Darius 
 (B.c. 516). 
 
 4. Such were the circumstances under which 
 Haggai’s ministry was exercised, and the results 
 to which it led. His Book contains five addresses, 
 delivered within a period of less than four 
 months. 
 
 (1.) i. 1-11. The Prophet’s first address was 
 delivered on the first day of the sixth month 
 (Elul=Aug.—Sept.), when the people would be 
 collected for the Festival of the New Moon. In 
 it he censures them for their selfish negligence 
 in letting the Temple lie desolate, while they 
 built luxurious houses for themselves. The 
 drought and scarcity which they were suffering 
 were the chastisement of their neglect. He 
 exhorts them at once to repair their error and 
 begin the work. ‘ 
 
 (2.) i. 12-15. The next section of the Book 
 records the immediate effect of his words. On 
 the twenty-fourth day of the same month the 
 work was begun. The Prophet was expressly 
 commissioned to deliver a brief but emphatic 
 message of encouragement, conveying the assur- 
 ance of God’s approval and assistance. “ I am 
 with you, saith the Lorp.” 
 
 (3.) ii. 1-9. The Messianic Hope of the New 
 Temple. The enthusiasm of the people seems to 
 have flagged, and, as at the laying of the 
 foundation-stone (Ezra iii. 12, 13), some depre- 
 ciated the new Temple by comparing its insig- 
 nificance with the glory of the Temple they had 
 known. On the twenty-first day of the seventh 
 month (Tisri), the seventh day of the Feast of 
 Tabernacles, Haggai re-animated their spirits 
 by a renewed assurance that God’s Presence was 
 with them, and by the prediction that through 
 the accession and offerings of all nations the 
 latter glory of the house would be greater than 
 the former glory. 
 
 (4.) ii. 10-19. For two months Haggai was 
 silent, and in this interval Zechariah began his 
 ministry (Zech. i. 1); but on the twenty-fourth 
 day of the ninth month he again addressed the 
 people. He explains the cause of their disasters, 
 and once more promises their removal. According 
 to the ceremonial law, those who carried. holy 
 
HAGGAT 
 
 things could not communicate holiness, while 
 those who were unclean communicated defile- 
 ment. So the neglect to rebuild the Temple 
 defiled the people and the land, nor could their 
 offerings avail to counteract the pollution. Hence 
 their disasters; but from this day forward they 
 should be blessed. 
 
 (5.) ii, 20-23. The fifth and last prophecy, 
 delivered on the same day as the preceding one, 
 is addressed to Zerubbabel, as the ruler of the 
 people and the representative of the house of 
 David. It assures him that in the midst of the 
 convulsions impending among the surrounding 
 nations he wili be preserved, and honoured with 
 singular distinction as the chosen of Jehovah. 
 
 5. The style of Haggai is tame and prosaic ; 
 it lacks the grace and poetry of the earlier 
 Prophets. It is no disrespect to say that he 
 was not a brilliant literary genius. But he gave 
 plain warnings and plain commands in strong, 
 simple, and straightforward words. Emphatically 
 he reiterates his message of warning, “* Consider 
 your ways,” “consider ” (i. 5, 7; ii. 15, 18); or 
 of exhortation, “ Be strong,” separately addressed 
 to prince and priest and people (ii. 4). The fre- 
 quent questions give force and earnestness to his 
 expostulations (i. 4, 9; ii. 3, 12, 13, 19); and 
 touches of vivid description are not wanting 
 (i. 6, 93; ii. 16). But his work is to be measured 
 by the success of his mission, and not by the 
 literary merits of his Book. Indeed, it is ex- 
 tremely probable that (as in the case of some 
 other Prophets) no more than mere outlines and 
 summaries were committed to writing, preserving 
 only the pith and point of the discourses actually 
 delivered. 
 
 The decay of the Hebrew language after the 
 Return is marked by departures from the older 
 usages and by awkwardnesses of expression (i. 6 ; 
 ime 6, 06, 17). 
 
 6. The importance of Haggai’s work is some- 
 times in danger of being overlooked. It was a 
 critical moment in the history of Israel. The 
 scanty “remnant of the people” (i. 14) which 
 had returned, disappointed perhaps at the non- 
 fulfilment of the glowing prophecies of a glorious 
 restoration, discouraged by weakness within and 
 opposition without, were in imminent danger of 
 coming to believe that the restoration of the 
 Temple might safely be neglected. Yet the 
 Temple was for the time the indispensable con- 
 dition of the fulfilment of their national calling. 
 
 _ Existence as an independent nation was no longer 
 
 possible for them. Their religion must be for 
 the future, as it should have been in the past, 
 the bond of national union. The Temple was 
 
 the sign, nay, the outward condition, of Jehovah’s , 
 
 Presence in their midst. It was the visible 
 symbol of the unity of their religion, the centre 
 round which all the loose elements of the nation 
 might rally. Haggai, seconded by his colleague, 
 Zechariah, roused his countrymen to a sense of 
 their duty, and saved the Jewish Church in a 
 crisis of peril. j 
 
 But his view was not limited to the present. 
 
 (10 In a truly “ Messianic ” prophecy * (ii. 7) he 
 
 was inspired to foresee the true glory of the Tem- 
 
 a It is hardly necessary to say that the reference of 
 this passage to the personal Messiah, to which the 
 Vulgate rendering, ‘‘ veniet desideratus cunctis genti- 
 bus,” has given wide currency, must be abandoned, 
 
 BIBLE DICT.—VOL. I. 
 
 HAGGI 1265 
 
 ple in the accession of the nations, repeating the 
 prophecies of Is. Ilx., lxi. The convulsions of 
 nature and of the nations would but promote 
 its glory, and in the midst of them all the 
 Divine gift of peace would be found there. 
 
 (2.) The promise to Zerubabbel, made to him 
 not as an individual, but as the worthy repre- 
 sentative of the family of David, is also a 
 Messianic prophecy. He was Jehovah’s chosen 
 servant, the type as well as the ancestor of Him 
 in Whom the prophecies were to be fulfilled, 
 and as such he receives a typical honour. In 
 the destruction of the kingdoms of the world, 
 he (and by implication his family and the nation 
 which he represented) were to be preserved 
 safely. He was to be made Jehovah’s signet, 
 not only a most prized possession in closest 
 association with Him, but the sign and attesta- 
 tion of His words and acts (see Orelli, 0. T. 
 Prophecy, p. 424 sq.). 
 
 7. Other writings of Haggai.—It has been 
 argued with much probability that a narrative 
 written by Haggai is embodied in Ezra ili. 2-iv. 
 5, iv. 24—vi. 22 [Ezra]. 
 
 The names of Haggai and Zechariah appear 
 in the LXX. in the titles of Pss. exxxvii. (exxxviii.) 
 (not in Cod. Sin.), exly.—cxlviii. (exlvi.—cxlviii.) ; 
 in the Vulgate in Pss. exi., exly., exlvi. (exlvi., 
 exlvii.). The unrevised Old Latin in Ps. lxiy. 
 (Ixv.) curiously joins Jeremiah and Haggai; ep. 
 the Peshitto Syriacin cxxy., exxvi.(cxxvi.,cxxvil.), 
 exly.-exlviii. (exlvi.-cxlviii.). These titles cannot 
 denote authorship, but may preserve a tradition 
 that Haggai and Zechariah adopted these Psalms 
 for use in the service of the Temple. There isa 
 curious and obscure passage in Pseudo-Epiphanius, 
 de Vitis Prophetarum, to the effect that “ Haggai 
 was the first to sing Alleluia there (at Jerusalem), 
 ...and Amen... Wherefore we say Alleluia, 
 which is the hymn of Haggai and Zechariah.” 
 
 8. There is a reference to Hagg. ii. 23 in 
 Ecclus. xlix. 11, and Hagg. ii. 6 is quoted in 
 Heb. xii. 26. 
 
 9. Literature——Beside the commentaries on 
 the Minor Prophets in general may be mentioned 
 among more recent works Kohler’s very thorough 
 Nacheailische Propheten, 1860; Reinke, Der 
 Prophet Haggai, 1868; T. T.‘Perowne in Camb. 
 Bible for Schools and Colleges, 1886. A full list 
 of older works will be found in Rosenmiiller : with 
 continuation in Reinke, p. 37 sq. [A. F. Κα 
 
 HAG-GERI, R. V. HAGRI (°730, ie. a 
 Hagarite; B. ‘Ayapet, A. ᾿Αταραί; Agarat). 
 “ MIBHAR, son of Haggeri,” was one of the 
 mighty men of David’s guard, according to 
 the catalogue of 1 Ch. xi. 38. The parallel 
 passage —2 Sam, xxiii. 36—has “Bani the 
 Gadite” (7371). This Kennicott decides to 
 have been the original, from which Haggeri 
 has been corrupted (Dissert. p. 214. Cp. Driver, 
 Notes on the Heb. Text of the BB. of Sam. in 
 loco). The Targum has Bar Geda (N13 13). 
 
 HAG’GI (30 = festive: A. ᾿Αγγεῖς ; in 
 Numb., B. ‘Ayyef, A. ‘Ayyl: Haggi, Aggi), 
 second son of Gad (Gen. xlvi. 16; Num. xxvi. 
 15), founder of the Haggites (9307). It will 
 be observed that the name, though given as that 
 of an individual, is really a patronymic, pre- 
 cisely the same as that of the family. 
 
 4) 
 
1206 HAGGIAH. 
 
 HAGGI'AH (7430; A. ‘Ayyla, B. ‘Aud; 
 Huggia), a Levite, one of the descendants of 
 Merari (1 Ch. vi. 30). 
 
 HAG’GITES, THE (300; B. 6 ‘Ayyel, 
 AF. -{; Agitae), the family sprung from Haggi, 
 second son of Gad (Num. xxvi. 15; LXX. v. 22). 
 
 HAG’GITH (N°3N,?=a dancer: ’Ayyi6; 
 A. Φενγίθ, Ayl0; B. Φεγγείθ, ᾿Αγγείθ ; Joseph. 
 ᾿Αγγίθη: Aggith, Haggith), one of David’s 
 wives, of whom nothing is told us except that 
 she was the mother of Adonijah, who is com- 
 monly designated as “the son of Haggith” 
 (2 Gam gee 1 as Ὁ, 11; ἃ. 135 1 Ch, 
 iii. 2). He was, like Absalom, renowned for 
 his handsome presence. In the first and last of 
 the above passages Haggith is fourth in order 
 of mention among the wives, Adonijah being 
 also fourth among the sons. His birth happened 
 at Hebron (2 Sam. iii. 2, 5) shortly after that of 
 Absalom (1 K.i. 6; where it will be observed 
 that the words [in A. V.] Ais mother are 
 inserted by the translators), [Gal "DWE 
 
 HAGIA (‘Ayfa; Aggia), 1 Esd. v. 34. 
 (Hatrit. ] 
 
 HA‘, R. V. ΑἹ CLIT = the heap of stones ; 
 *Ayyat; Hai). The form in which the well- 
 known place AI appears in the A. V. on its first 
 introduction (Gen. xii. 8, xiii. 3). It arises 
 from the translators having in these places, 
 and these only, recognised the definite article 
 with which At is invariably and emphatically 
 accompanied in the Hebrew; or it may have 
 come from the Vulgate, if Jer. xlix. 3 be not 
 an exception (see the Comm.). In the Samari- 
 tan Version of the above two passages, the 
 name is given in the first Aimah, and in the 
 second Cephrah, as if CePpHIRAH. ([G.] [W.] 
 
 HAIR. The Hebrews were fully alive to the 
 importance of the hair as an element of per- 
 sonal beauty, whether as seen in the “curled 
 (R. V. “bushy ”’) locks, black as a raven,” of 
 youth (Cant. v.11), or in the “ crown of glory ” 
 that encircled the head of old age (Prov. xvi. 
 31). The customs of ancient nations in regard 
 to the hair varied considerably: the Egyptians 
 allowed the women to wear it long, but kept the 
 heads of men closely shaved from early child- 
 hood (Her. ii. 36, iii. 12; Wilkinson’s Ancient 
 Egyptians, see Index [1878]). The Greeks ad- 
 mired long hair, whether in men or women, as 
 is evidenced in the expression καρηκομόωντες 
 ᾿Αχαιοΐ, and in the representations of their 
 divinities, especially Bacchus and Apollo, whose 
 long locks were a symbol of perpetual youth. 
 The Assyrians also wore it long (Herod. i. 195), 
 the flowing curls being gathered together in a 
 heavy cluster on the back, as represented in the 
 sculptures of Nineveh. The Hebrews on the 
 other hand, while they encouraged the growth 
 of hair, observed the natural distinction between 
 the sexes by allowing the women to wear it 
 long (Luke vii. 38 ; John xi. 2; 1 Cor. xi. 6 sq.), 
 while the men restrained theirs by frequent 
 clippings to a moderate length. This difference 
 between the Hebrews and the surrounding 
 nations, especially the Egyptians, arose no doubt 
 partly from natural taste, but partly also from 
 
 HAIR 
 
 legal enactments: clipping the hair in a certain 
 manner and offering the locks was, according to 
 the oldest Semitic usage, connected with re- 
 ligious worship. ΤῸ sacrifice the hair of child- 
 hood, both in Arabia and Syria, was the pre- 
 liminary to admission to the religious and social 
 status of manhood (Robertson Smith, Religion 
 of the Semites, i. 312). The Arabians practised 
 a peculiar tonsure in honour of their god Orotal 
 (Her. iii. 8, κείρονται περιτρόχαλα, περιξυροῦντες 
 τοὺς κροτάφους ; see Robertson Smith, 1. 307), 
 and hence the Hebrews were forbidden to ‘‘round 
 the corners (ANB, lit. the ewtremity) of their 
 heads ” (Lev. xix. 27), meaning the locks along 
 the forehead and temples, and behind the ears. 
 This tonsure is described in the LXX. by a 
 
 peculiar expression, σισόη (=the classical σκά- — 
 
 Φιον), possibly derived from the Hebrew ΓΝ 
 (cp. Bochart, Can. i. 6, p. 379. Fried. Delitzsch 
 compares the Assyrian sisw; see Baer’s ed. of 
 Ezekiel, p. xv. sq.). That the practice of the 
 Arabians was well known to the Hebrews, 
 appears from the expression IND SAS, “ that 
 
 have the corners of their hair polled” (R. V.), 
 by which they are described (Jer. ix. 26, xxv. 23, 
 xlix. 32; see marginal translation of the A. V.). 
 The prohibition against cutting off the hair on 
 the death of a relative (Deut. xiv. 1) was pro- 
 bably grounded on a similar reason. In addition 
 to these regulations, the Hebrews dreaded bald- 
 ness, as it was frequently the result of leprosy 
 (Ley. xiii. 40 sq.), and hence formed one of the 
 disqualifications for the priesthood (Lev. xxi. 20, 
 LXX.). [Baupness.] The rule imposed upon 
 the priests, and probably followed by the rest of 
 the community, was that the hair should be 
 polled (OD3, Ezek. xliv. 20), neither being shaved 
 
 nor allowed to grow too long (Lev. xxi. 5; Ezek. 
 l.c.). What was the precise length usually 
 worn, we have no means of ascertaining; but 
 from various expressions—such as WN po, 
 lit. to Jet loose the head or the hair (=solvere 
 crines, Virg. Aen. 111. 65, xi. 35 3 demissos lugentis 
 more capillos, Ov. Ep. x. 137) by unbinding the 
 head-band and letting it go dishevelled (Lev. x. 
 6, R.V. “let not the hair of your heads go loose’), 
 which was done in mourning (cp. Ezek. xxiv. 
 
 17); and again ᾿ξ 123, to uncover the ear, 
 previous to making any communication of im- 
 portance (1 Sam. xx. 2, 12, xxii. 8, A. V. and 
 R. V., margin), as though the hair fell over the 
 ear—we may conclude that men wore their hair 
 somewhat longer than is usual with us. The 
 word YB, used as = hair (Num. vi. 5; Ezek, 
 xliv. 20), is especially indicative of its free 
 growth (cp. Knobel-Dillmann, Comm. in Ley. xxi. 
 10). Long hair was admired in the case of 
 young men; it is especially noticed in the de- 
 scription of Absalom’s person (2 Sam. xiv. 26), 
 the inconceivable weight of whose hair, as given 
 in the text (200 shekels; Lucian [LXX.], 100), 
 has led to a variety of explanations (cp. Harmer’s 
 Observations, iv. 321): Josephus (Ant. vii. 8, § 5) 
 adds, that it was cut every eighth day. The 
 hair was also worn long by the body-guard of 
 Solomon, according to the same authority (Ant. 
 viii. 7, §3, μηκίστας καθειμένοι xalras). The 
 care requisite to keep the hair in order in such 
 cases must have been very great, and hence the 
 practice of wearing long hair was unusual, and 
 
 q 
 ᾿ 
 
 4 
 | 
 
HAIR 
 
 only resorted to as an act of religious observance, 
 in which case it was a “sign of humiliation and 
 self-denial, and of a certain religious slovenli- 
 ness ” (Lightfoot, Hxercit. on 1 Cor. xi. 14), and 
 was practised by the Nazarites (Num. vi. 5; 
 Judg. xiii. 5, xvi. 17; 1 Sam. i. 11), and occa- 
 sionally by others in token of special mercies 
 (Acts xviii, 18); it was not uyusual among the 
 Egyptians when on a journey (Diod. i. 18). 
 {[NazaritE.] In times of affliction the hair was 
 altogether cut off (Is. iii. 17, 24, xv. 2, xxii. 12; 
 Jer. vii. 29, xlviii. 37; Amos viii.10; Joseph. B. J. 
 ii. 15, ὃ. 1), the practice of the Hebrews being in 
 this respect the reverse of that of the Egyptians, 
 who let their hair grow long in time of mourn- 
 ing (Herod. ii. 36), shaving their heads when 
 the term was over (Gen. xli. 14); but resembling 
 that of the Greeks, as frequently noticed by 
 classical writers (e.g. Soph. Aj. 1174; Eurip. 
 Electr. 143, 241). Tearing the hair (Ezra ix. 3) 
 and letting it go dishevelled, as already noticed, 
 were similar tokens of grief. [MourNING.] The 
 practice of the modern Arabs in regard to the 
 length of their hair varies; generally the men 
 allow it to grow its natural length, the tresses 
 hanging down to the breast and sometimes to 
 the waist, affording substantial protection to the 
 head and neck against the violence of the sun’s 
 rays (Burckhardt’s Notes, i. 49; Wellsted’s 
 Travels, i. 33, 53, 73). The modern Egyptians 
 retain the practices of their ancestors, shaving 
 the heads of the men, but suffering the women’s 
 hair to grow long (Lane’s Modern Egypt. i. 52, 
 71). Wigs were commonly used by the latter 
 people (Wilkinson, ii. 324, &c. [1878]), but not 
 
 Egyptian Wigs. 
 
 (Wilkinson.) 
 
 by the Hebrews: Josephus (Vit. § 11) notices an 
 instance of false hair (περιθετὴ κόμη) being 
 used for the purpose of disguise. Whether the 
 ample ringlets of the Assyrian monarchs, as re- 
 presented in the sculptures of Nineveh, were 
 real or artificial, is doubtful (Layard’s Nineveh, 
 ii. 328). Among the Medes the wig was worn 
 by the upper classes (Xen. Cyrop. i. 3, § 2). 
 
 The usual and favourite colour of the hair 
 was black (Cant. v. 11), as is indicated in the 
 comparisons to a “flock of goats” and the 
 “tents of Kedar” (Cant. iv. 1, i. 5): a similar 
 hue is probably intended by the purple of Cant. 
 vii. 5, the term being broadly used (as the 
 Greek πορφύρεος in a similar application = 
 
 μέλας, Anacr. 28). A fictitious hue was occa- 
 
 sionally obtained by sprinkling gold-dust on the 
 hair (Joseph. Ant. viii. 7, §3). It does not 
 appear that dyes were ordinarily used; the 
 “Carmel” of Cant. vii. 5 (R. V.) has been 
 
 “understood as = Sop (A. V. margin, crimson), 
 
 but without good reason. Herod is said to 
 have dyed his grey hair for the purpose of con- 
 cealing his age (Ant. xvi. 8, § 1), but the practice 
 may have been borrowed from the Greeks or 
 
 ~ Romans, among whom it was common (Aristoph. 
 
 HAIR 1267 
 
 Eccles. 736; Martial, Ep. iii. 43; Propert. ii. 
 18, 24, 26): from Matt. v. 36, we may infer 
 that it was not usual among the Hebrews. 
 The approach of age was marked by a sprinkling 
 (PN, Hos. vii. 9; cp. a similar use of sparyere, 
 Propert. iii. 4, 24) of grey hairs, which soon 
 overspread the whole head (Gen. xlii. 38, xliv. 
 29; 1K. ii. 6,9; Prov. xvi. 31, xx. 29). The 
 reference to the almond in Eccles. xii.5 is explained 
 of the blossoms of that tree, as emblematic of 
 old age: these blossoms turn to a snowy white 
 before they fall from the tree (Wright, Zecclesi 
 astes, p. 259). Pure white hair was deemed 
 characteristic of the Divine Majesty (Dan. vii. 
 9; Rey. i. 14). 
 
 The chief beauty of the hair consisted in curs, 
 whether of a natural or artificial character. 
 The Hebrew terms are highly expressive: to 
 omit the word M)S,—rendered “Jocks ” in 
 Cant. iv. 1, 3, vi. 7, and Is. xlvii. 2, but more 
 probably meaning a veil (R. V.),—we have 
 
 pybmbn (Cant. v. 11), properly pendulous 
 flexible boughs (according to the LXX., ἐλάται, 
 the shoots of the palm-tree), which supplied an 
 image of the coma pendula; N¥'¥N (Ezek. viii. 3), 
 
 a similar image borrowed from the curve of a 
 blossom 3; P2Y (Cant. iv. 9), a lock falling over 
 the shoulders like a chain of ear-pendant (in 
 uno crine colli tui, Vulg., which is better than 
 the A. V. and ΒΕ. V., “with one chain of thy 
 neck”); DON) (Cant. vii. 5, A. V. “ galleries,” 
 R. V. “ tresses”), properly the channels by 
 which water was brought to the flocks, which 
 supplied an image either of the coma jluens, or of 
 the regularity in which the locks were arranged ; 
 
 ΠΡ (Cant. vii. 5), again an expression for coma 
 en 
 
 pendula, borrowed from the threads hanging 
 down from an unfinished woof; and lastly 
 NYPD ΠΟ (is. iii. 24, A. V. and R. V. “ well 
 set hair”), properly plaited work, i.e. gracefully 
 curved locks (see Delitzsch* and Dillmann® in 
 loco). With regard to the mode of dressing 
 the hair, we have no very precise information ; 
 the terms used are of a general character, as of 
 Jezebel (2 K. ix. 30), 2 ΤΣ, i.e. she adorned her 
 head; of Judith (x. 3), διέταξε, 1.6. arranged 
 (the E. V. has “braided,” and the Vulg. dis- 
 criminavit, here used in a technical sense in the 
 reference to the discriminale or hair-pin); ot 
 Herod (Joseph. Ant. xiv. 9, § 4), κεκοσμημένος 
 τῇ συνθέσει τῆς κόμης ; and of those who adopted 
 feminine fashions (B. J. iv. 9, ὃ 10), κόμας 
 συνθετιζόμενοι. The terms used in the N. T. 
 (πλέγμασιν, 1 Tim. ii. 9; ἐμπλοκῆς τριχῶν, 
 1 Pet. iii. 3) are also of a general character ; 
 Schleusner (Lew. s. v.) understands them ot 
 curling rather than plaiting. The arrangement 
 of Samson’s hair into seven locks, or more 
 
 properly braids cniepnn, from ON, to inter- 
 change; σειραί, LXX.; Judg. xvi. 13, 19), in- 
 volves the practice of plaiting, which was also 
 familiar to the Egyptians (Wilkinson, ii. 335 
 [1878]) and Greeks (Hom, J/. xiv. 176). The 
 locks were probably kept in their place by a 
 fillet as in Egypt (Wilkinson, J. c.). 
 
 Ornaments were worked into the hair, as 
 practised by the modern Egyptians, who “add 
 to each braid three black silk cords with little 
 
 4-M 2 
 
1268 HAIR 
 
 ornaments of gold” (Lane, i. 71): the LXX. 
 understands the term ppay is. iii. 18, A. V. 
 and R. V. “cauls”; R. V. marg. networks) | 
 as applying to such ornaments (ἐμπλόκια) ; 
 
 Egyptian Wigs. (Wilkinson.) 
 
 Schroeder (de Vest. Mul. Heb. cap. 2) approves 
 of this, and conjectures that they were sun- 
 shaped, i.e. circular, as distinct from the “round 
 tires like the moon,” i.e. the crescent-shaped 
 ornaments used for necklaces; but the true 
 meaning can hardly be said to be settled (see 
 Delitzsch* and Dillmann®), The Arabian women 
 attach small bells to the tresses of their hair 
 (Niebuhr, Voyage, i. 133). Other terms, some- 
 times understood as applying to the hair, are of 
 doubtful signification (consult on each Delitzsch* 
 and Dillmann’), e.g. DON (is. iii. 22; acus ; 
 “crisping-pins ”), more probably purses (R. V. 
 “satchels”), as in 2 K. ν. 23 (“bags”); Dw) 
 (Is. iii. 20, “‘head-bands”; R. V. “sashes ”), 
 bridal girdles, according to Schroeder and other 
 authorities; DINE (ls. iii. 20, discriminalia, 
 Vulg., z.e. pins used for keeping the hair parted; 
 cp. Jerome in Rujin. iii. cap. ult.), more probably 
 turbans (R. V. “ head-tires”). Combs and hair- 
 pins are mentioned in the Talmud ; the Egyptian 
 combs were made of wood and double, one side 
 having large and the other small teeth 
 (Wilkinson, ii, 343 [1878]); from the orna- | 
 mental devices worked on them we may infer 
 that they were worn in the hair. With regard 
 to other ornaments worn about the head, see 
 HEAD-DRESS. The Hebrews, like other nations 
 of antiquity, anointed the hair profusely with 
 ointments, which were generally compounded of 
 
 various aromatic ingredients (Ruth iii. 3; 2 
 
 Sam. xiv. 2: Ps, xxiii. 5, xlv. 7, xcii. 10; Eccles. 
 ix. 8; Is. iii. 24); more especially on occasion 
 
 HALAH 
 
 of festivities or hospitality (Matt. vi. 17, xxvi. 7; 
 Luke vii. 46; cp. Joseph. Ant. xix. 4, § 1, 
 χρισάμενος μύροις τὴν κεφαλήν, ws ἀπὸ συνου- 
 σία5). It is perhaps in reference to the glossy 
 appearance so imparted to it that the hair is 
 described as purple (Cant. vii. 5). 
 
 It appears to have been the custom of the 
 Jews in our Saviour’s time to swear by the hair 
 (Matt. ν. 36), much as the Egyptian women 
 still swear by the side-lock, and the men by 
 their beards (Lane, i. 52, 71, notes). 
 
 Hair was employed by the Hebrews as an 
 image of what was least valuable in man’s person 
 (1 Sam. xiv. 45; 2 Sam. xiv. 11; 1 K.1. 525 
 Matt. x. 30; Luke xii. 7, xxi. 18; Acts xxvii. 
 34), as well as of what was zmnumerable (Ps. xl. 
 12, lxix. 4), or particularly fine (Judg. xx. 16). 
 In Is. vii. 20, some writers consider the hair to 
 represent the various productions of the field, 
 trees, crops, &c.; like dpos κεκομημένον ὕλῃ of 
 Callim. Dian. 41, or the humus comans of Stat. 
 Theb. v. 502; but this interpretation is not in 
 favour with Delitzsch* or Dillmann’. Hair, “as 
 the hair of women” (Rey. ix. 8), is taken by 
 some to mean long and undressed hair, which 
 
 ᾿ in later times was regarded as an image of 
 barbaric rudeness (Hengstenberg, Comm. in loco), 
 | 
 
 (W. L. B.) ΠῚ 
 HAK-KA'TAN (Opi = the young or the 
 
 small; B. Ἅκαταν, A. ‘Akkatdy; Zecetan). 
 Johanan, son of Hakkatan, was the chief of the 
 Bene-Azgad who returned from Babylon with 
 Ezra (Ezra viii. 12). The name is probably 
 Katan, with the definite article prefixed. In 
 the Apocryphal Esdras it is ACATAN. 
 
 HAK-KOZ (j)p; B. 6 Kos, A. ᾿Ακκώς; 
 Accos), a priest, the chief of the seventh course 
 in the service of the sanctuary, as appointed by 
 David (1 Ch. xxiv. 10). In Ezra ii, 61 (8. 
 “Ακούς, A. ᾿Ακκὼς) the name occurs again as 
 that of a family of priests; though here the 
 prefix is taken by our translators—and no doubt 
 correctly—as the definite article, and the name 
 appears as Koz. The same thing also oceurs in 
 Neh. iii. 4 (BN. ‘Akos, A. ‘Ankds), 21 (B. ᾿Ακώβ, 
 A. ‘Axkés). In Esdras, Accoz. 
 
 HAKU’PHA (N5ipN, ?= bent; B. ‘Aged, 
 A. ‘Axouvod [Ezra]; B. ‘Axed, δὲ. ‘Axeipd, 
 A. ‘Axiga [Neh.]; Hacupha). Bene-Chakupha 
 were among the families of Nethinim who re- 
 turned from Babylon with Zerubbabel (Ezra ii. 
 51; Neh. vii. 53), In Esdras (v. 31) the name 
 is given as ACIPHA. 
 
 HA’LAH nbn; ’Aaaé, Χαλάχ; Hala), 
 which has nothing to do with the Calah of Gen. 
 x. 11 [CALA], is referred to as one of the 
 places where Shalmaneser or Sargon settled the 
 Israelites from Samaria (2 K. xvii. 6; xviii. 11: 
 cp. also 1 Ch. v. 26). Being mentioned with 
 Habor, on the river of Gozan, it has been 
 identified with the Chalcitis (XaAkiris) of 
 Ptolemy (v. 18), placed by him between Anthe- 
 musia (cp. Strabo, xxvi. 1, § 27) and Gauzanitis 
 {see GOZAN]. The Calachene mentioned by ~ 
 Strabo, upon the east side of the Tigris near 
 Adiabene and the borders of Armenia, are 
 regarded as lying too far north-eastwards ; but 
 it is worthy of notice that an Assyrian geo- — 
 
HALAK, THE MOUNT 
 
 graphical list mentions, between Arbaha (Arra- 
 pachitis) and Rasappa (Reseph), a city called 
 Halahhu (=Halahu), a name which corresponds 
 perfectly with the Hebrew Halah, and may, 
 therefore, be identified with it. Its exact 
 position can hardly be determined. [T. G. P.] 
 
 HA’LAK, THE MOUNT (with the article, 
 Pani ἽΠΠ = the smooth or bare mountain: 
 in Josh. xi. B. ‘AyéA, A. AAdK, F.’AadaK; in 
 xii. B. Xeaxd, A. ᾿Αλόκ, Ε΄, AAG: pars montis), 
 a mountain twice, and twice only, named as the 
 
 τ southern limit of Joshua’s conquests — “the Mount 
 Halak which goeth up to Seir ” (Josh. xi. 17, xii. 
 7), bat which has not yet been identified. It is 
 apparently the mountain range on the east side of 
 the ‘Arabah, or one of the bare mountain summits 
 in that range. The word which is at the root 
 of the name (supposing it to be Hebrew), and 
 which has the force of smoothness or baldness, 
 has ramified into other terms, as Helkah, an 
 eyen plot of ground, like those of Jacob (Gen. 
 xxxili. 19) or Naboth (2 K. ix. 25); ep. also 
 Helkath has-surim, the “field of the strong ” 
 (Stanley, S. § P., App. § 20). {G.] [W.] 
 
 HAL'HUL (Dindn; B. ᾿Αλουά, Α.᾿Αλοόλ; 
 Halhul), a town of Judah in the mountain 
 district, one of the group containing Bethzur 
 and Gedor (Josh. xv. 58). Jerome, in the 
 Onomasticon (under Elul, OS.? p. 152, 7), re- 
 ports the existence of a hamlet (vi//ula) named 
 “ Alula,” near Hebron.* The name still remains 
 unaltered, attached to a large village, Hulhul, on 
 a conspicuous hill a mile to the left of the road 
 from Jerusalem to Hebron, nearly 4 miles from 
 the latter. Opposite it, on the other side of the 
 road, is Beit Sur, the modern representative of 
 Bethzur, and further to the north is Jedur, the 
 ancient Gedor. The site is marked by numerous 
 rock-hewn tombs and by the ruins of walls and 
 foundations, among which stands a dilapidated 
 mosque bearing the name of Neby Yuéinis—the 
 prophet Jonah (Rob. 1. 216; PEF. Mem. iii. 
 329; Guérin, Judee, iii. 284 54.). In a Jewish 
 tradition quoted by Hottinger (Cippi Hebraici, 
 p- 32) it is said to be the burial-place of Gad, 
 David’s seer. See the citations of Zunz in 
 Asher’s Benj. of Tudela (ii. 437, n.). [G.] [W.] 
 
 HALY’ (OM = necklace; B. ᾿Αλέφ, A. (Ὁ 
 Oo0Ael; Chali), a town on the boundary of Asher, 
 named between Helkath and Beten (Josh. xix. 
 25). Nothing is known ofits situation. Schwarz 
 (p. 191) compares the name with Chelmon, the 
 
 equivalent in the Latin, of Cyamon in the Greek 
 of Judith vii. 3. Guérin (@alilée, ii. 62) proposes 
 to identify it with Kh. ‘Alia, about 13 miles 
 S.E. of Acre. [Gale Weil 
 
 _ HALICARNASSUS (‘AAikdpvacoos) in 
 CaRIA, a city of great renown, as being the 
 ‘birthplace of Herodotus and of the later his- 
 torian Dionysius, and as embellished by the 
 Mausoleum erected by Artemisia, but of no 
 Biblical interest except as the residence of a 
 Jewish population in the periods between the 
 Old and New Testament histories. In 1 Mace. 
 
 a It is not unworthy of notice that, though so far 
 from Jerusalem, Jerome speaks of it as ‘‘in the district 
 of Aelia.” 
 
 HAM 1269 
 
 xv. 23, this city is specified as containing such a 
 population. The decree in Joseph. Ant. xiv. 10, 
 § 23, where the Romans direct that the Jews 
 of Halicarnassus shall be allowed τὰς mpoo- 
 εὐχὰς ποιεῖσθαι πρὸς τῇ θαλάσσῃ κατὰ τὸ 
 πάτριον ἔθος, is interesting when compared with 
 Acts xvi. 13. This city was celebrated for its 
 harbour and for the strength of its fortifications ; 
 but it never recovered the damage which it suf- 
 ferred after Alexander’s siege in B.c. 334. A 
 plan of the site is given in Ross, Reisen auf den 
 Griech, Inseln (iv. 30). Many of the sculptures 
 of the Mausoleum are now in the British Mu- 
 seum, and are fully described by Sir C. Newton 
 in Discoveries at Halicarnassus. The modern 
 name of the place is Budrim. [. 5. Η.1 [W.] 
 
 HALL (αὐλή ; atrium), used of the court of 
 the high-priest’s house (Luke xxii. 55). αὐλὴ 
 isin A. V. Matt. xxvi. 69, Mark xiv. 66, John 
 xviii. 15, “ palace ;” Vulg. atrium ;—mpoaba.oy, 
 Mark xiv. 68, “ porch ;” Vulg. ante atrium. In 
 Matt. xxvii. 27, and Mark xv. 16, αὐλὴ is syn. 
 with πραιτώριον, which in John xviii. 28 is in 
 A. V. “judgment-hall.” Αὐλὴ is the equiva- 
 lent for ISM, an enclosed or fortified space 
 (Ges. p. 512), inmany places in O. T., where Vulg. 
 and A. V. have respectively villa or viculus, 
 “village,” or atrium, “court,” chiefly of the 
 Tabernacle or Temple. The hall or court of a 
 house or palace would probably be an enclosed 
 but uncovered space, impluvium, on a lower 
 level than the apartments of the lowest floor 
 which looked into it. The προαύλιον was the 
 vestibule leading to it, called also Matt. xxvi. 
 71, πυλών. [HOvsE.] ΠΡ - ἘΠῚ 
 
 ἨΑΙΤΟΉΞΒΗ (WMi5N = the whisperer or 
 exorcist ; B. ‘AAwhs, A. ᾿Αδώ; Alohes), one of 
 the “chief of the people ” who sealed the cove- 
 nant with Nehemiah (Neh. x. 24). The name 
 is Lochesh, with the definite article prefixed. 
 That it is the name of a family, and not of an 
 individual, appears probable from another pas- 
 sage in which it is given in the A. V. as 
 
 HALO'HESH (Wnibn; B. ‘Had, A. ‘AA- 
 λωής ; Alohes). Shallum, son of Hal-lochesh, 
 was “ruler of the half part of Jerusalem” at 
 the time of the repair of the wall by Nehemiah 
 (Neh. iii. 12). According to the Hebrew spell- 
 ing, the name is identical with HALLOHESH (so 
 R. V. here). ας 5 
 
 HAM (07; Χάμ; Cham). 1. The name of 
 one of the three sons of Noah, always holding the 
 middle place, when they are mentioned together 
 and in the list of their descendants in Gen. x., 
 where Japheth instead of Shem has the first 
 place. It is probably derived from DION, “to be 
 warm,” and may mean “swarthy ” or “sunburnt.” 
 
 The name of Ham alone of the three brothers 
 appears in that of a country, Egypt being called 
 the land of Ham (Ps. ev. 23, evi. 22; cp. “tents 
 
 -of Ham,” Ixxviili. 51). These are poetical 
 
 passages, and scarcely warrant our connecting 
 the name Ham with the common Egyptian name 
 of Egypt, Kemi, the “black” land. A more 
 plausible comparison is with the Egyptian word 
 Khem, the name of the god of generation, ac- 
 cording to most Egyptologists, which however 
 Mr. Renouf reads Ames. This divinity was 
 
1270 HAM 
 
 yegarded as the parent of the Negroes, the 
 Nehes-u, the race-name for the blacks, and as 
 having come from Punt, the Egyptian terrestrial 
 Paradise, Arabia Felix and the opposite coast of 
 Ethiopia (Lefébure, Le Cham et PAdam éyyp- 
 tiens: TSBA. ix. 167 sq.). It must, however, 
 be proved that Khem is the usual name of this 
 divinity before the comparison can be accepted. 
 The list of Ham’s descendants in Gen. x. is 
 peculiar in consisting of names of persons or 
 tribes not in ethnic form, in ethnic names in the 
 singular and plural, and for its historical inci- 
 dents. The order is first Cush, giving a list of 
 tribes occupying a zone from Babylonia to 
 Ethiopia above Egypt. [Cusu.] The next in 
 the list of sons is Mizraim, a name in dual form, 
 like Ephraim, but apparently not a personal 
 name, the singular Mazor occurring. The name 
 is commonly applied to Egypt, and the dual 
 form held probably to indicate the twofold 
 division of the country into the valley of Upper 
 Egypt and the plain of Lower Egypt, or the 
 Delta. The names of the Mizraite tribes which 
 follow are all in the plural, and therefore we 
 may here point ON!) in the pl. instead of 
 following the Masoretes in the dual pointing. 
 Brugsch has discovered in hieroglyphics the 
 transcription, letter for letter, of Mizraim in 
 Mazrima, the brother of the Hittite king Khe- 
 tasar, contemporary with Ramses II. (Geogr. 
 Inschrift. ii. p. 25, No. 77, pl. xviii). This 
 Hebrew name, if it be so, in the midst of Hittite 
 names of another stock of language, would be 
 most noteworthy, and would point to the use ~¢ 
 Hebrew in Egypt then prevalent, supposing 
 that the name was there given to the Hittite 
 prince. It is obvious that if this be an instance 
 of the use of the dual form Mizraim as a singu- 
 lar proper name, it would modify what has been 
 just said on the subject. The names of the 
 tribes are very hard to identify. It is clear 
 that their extension is along the North African 
 coast, and that of Phoenicia, and possibly the 
 Island of Crete. The first tribe, the Ludim, 
 have the same name as the Ludim mentioned in 
 Gen. x. under the name of their eponym, Lud 
 the son of Shem (v. 22). According to the 
 principle suggested in art. CusH, that the occur- 
 rence of the same names in different genealogies 
 indicates the settlement of the same tracts by 
 different races,—a principle which seems to be 
 proved in the case of the settlements in Arabia 
 in the art. referred to,—the Hamite and Shemite 
 Ludim would point to a double occupation of 
 some country by the dark and tawny races. 
 The Shemite Ludim have generally been identi- 
 fied with the Lydians, but only on account of 
 the close similarity of name. In certain passages 
 of the prophets Lud is mentioned with African 
 nations as supplying mercenaries to Egypt 
 (Jer. xlvi. 9; cp. Ezek. xxx. 4, 5). No African 
 nation can be suggested at this time, and it is 
 most likely that the Ionian and Carian mer- 
 cenaries of the Saite kings are intended. These 
 kings were allied with the Lydian sovereigns, 
 who could have sent them forces drawn from 
 their Ionian and Carian neighbours and ultimately 
 subjects. To conclude: it is possible that the 
 original text read Lubim instead of Ludim, 7 
 and 3 being similar in the old Hebrew character. 
 The Anamim have not been identified. [ANA- 
 miM.] The Lehabim have been supposed to be 
 
 HAM 
 
 the Lubim or Libyans, the Rebu or Lebu of the 
 Egyptian records, the elision of the weak gut- 
 tural being common in Hebrew. If, however, 
 the Ludim are Lubim, the Lehabim must be a 
 different tribe. [LeHaBiM.] The Naphtuhim 
 are probably to be traced in the Coptic 
 
 MIDAIAT, MIDAIAA, the name of the 
 city of Marea and the surrounding territory. 
 [NaputuHim.] Pathrusim, the ethnic of 
 Pathros, Pa-to-res, the south land, or Upper 
 Egypt, is a clear identification. It may be- 
 observed that Mazor in the sing. occurs in 
 apposition to Pathros, and that thus it would 
 seem that Mazor and even Mizraim, dual in 
 form but perhaps not dual in sense, may desig- 
 nate Lower Egypt. [PATHRUSIM; PATHROS.] 
 Casluhim has not been identified. [CasLUHiM. } 
 Caphtorim, the ethnic of Caphtor, may be Crete. 
 The nation corresponds, according to the 
 Egyptian data, to the Phoenicians. [CAPHTORIM ; 
 CapuTor.] The Philistines are mentioned as 
 emigrants from the Casluhim, but their nation- 
 ality seems fixed by their being apparently called 
 Caphtorim, and stated to have come out of 
 Caphtor [CAPHTOR; PHILISTINES]. Phut, the 
 third in order of the sons of Ham, is in the later 
 notices a nation conneeted with Egypt on the 
 side of Africa, for which no likely identification 
 has yet been proposed. Clearly the people were 
 closely allied with Egypt in the time of the 
 Assyrian and Babylonian wars, but more than 
 this we cannot say. De Rougé indeed proposed 
 to identify Phut with the Egyptian Punt, the 
 name of the country and people of Arabia Felix 
 and the opposite Ethiopian coast (Recherches sur 
 les Monuments, §c.: Mem. de I Institut, xxv. 2, 
 pp. 228, 229), Cesare de Cara, the latest writer 
 on the subject, rejects the identification on 
 philological grounds (Gli Hyksés, p. 170, note 2). 
 See PHUT. 
 
 The Canaanites, unlike the rest of the Hamites, 
 have been completely traced at least to their 
 settlements in the land of Canaan. Recently, 
 however, an important discovery has been made. 
 The phrase “ afterward were the families of the 
 Canaanite spread abroad’? (Gen. x. 18), inter- 
 vening between the list and the statement of the 
 limited extent of what we may call the first 
 Canaanite settlement, is now of striking signifi- 
 cance. Professor Sayce has restored to history 
 the lost fact of the great Hittite dominion. 
 From about B.c. 1400 for seven centuries the 
 Hittites ruled or controlled Northern Syria and 
 Asia Minor, being the most formidable rivals οὗ 
 the Egyptians; and thus at the same time the 
 Egyptians, only kept in check by the Hittites on 
 the east and the Libyans on the west, formed 
 the central Hamite power, while the Phoenician 
 merchants were already the carriers of the 
 commerce of the world. 
 
 The race characters of the Hamites are pro- 
 bably best defined by the Egyptian representa- 
 tions of themselves, the Punt or Ethiopians of 
 Arabia Felix and the opposite coast of Africa, 
 and the Phoenicians, whom they call Kefa. 
 They are brown, but fairer in the north, with 
 straight hair and scanty beards. The Libyans — 
 are, in very early monuments of about B.C. 2500, 
 of the same aspect, but in about B.c. 1400 of a 
 different type; white, more muscular, and with 
 fuller beards. This difference may have been 
 
HAMAN 
 
 due to the colonization of Northern Africa by 
 Iberians of the south of Europe, or pre-Hellenic 
 islanders. 
 
 The Hamitic languages mainly belong to the 
 Ethiopian stock, discussed in the Nubische Gram- 
 matik of Lepsius. The language of the Asiatic 
 Cushites has not been recovered. The Canaan- 
 ites all spoke Hebrew in Canaan, and the Phoe- 
 nician is merely a dialect of Hebrew. The 
 Hittites out of Canaan, however, spoke another 
 language, not yet classed, but undoubtedly not 
 Hebrew. It may therefore be doubted whether 
 τ Hebrew was not adopted by them in Palestine 
 from an older population, the extinct races of 
 Palestine, the Rephaim, &c.; but this is a very 
 obscure question. 
 
 An enguiry into Hamite civilization would 
 lead us beyond the limits of an article. If we 
 exclude the Libyans—who, as already shown, do 
 not seem in the time at which they play a part 
 in history, from B.c. 1400 downwards, to have 
 been pure Hamites—we trace in all the race a 
 power of administration, and thus of establishing 
 settled government; in fact the earliest states 
 seem to have been Hamite. Love of adventure 
 in war or commerce is marked. Of their reli- 
 gions we cannot yet generalize. -They certainly 
 played a great part in history, though they fell 
 before the vigour of the sons of Shem and the 
 intelligence of those of Japheth. [ERE 5: Ey 
 
 2. (DM, Gen. xiv. 5; Sam. OM, Cham.) Ac- 
 
 cording to the Masoretic text, Chedorlaomer and 
 his allies smote the Zuzim in a place called 
 Ham. If, as seems likely, the Zuzim be the 
 same as the Zamzummim, Ham must be placed 
 in what was afterwards the Ammonite territory. 
 Hence it has been conjectured by Tuch and 
 Delitzsch [1887], that Ham is but another form 
 of the name of the chief stronghold of the chil- 
 dren of Ammon, Rabbah, now Am-man. The 
 , LXX. and Vulg., however, throw some doubt 
 upon the Masoretic reading: the former has, 
 as the rendering of D2 DTN, καὶ ἔθνη 
 ἰσχυρὰ ἅμα αὐτοῖς ; and the latter, e¢ Zuzim 
 cum eis, which shows that they read Dij2: 
 but the Mas. rendering seems the more likely, 
 as each clause mentions a nation, and its 
 capital or stronghold. The place cannot be 
 identified for certain. 
 
 8. In the account of a migration of the 
 Simeonites to the valley of Gedor, and their de- 
 stroying the predecessors (see R. V.) of the 
 pastoral inhabitants, they are said to have been 
 “of Ham” (DMT}ID ; ἐκ τῶν υἱῶν Χάμ; de stirpe 
 Cham, 1 Ch. iv. 40). This may indicate that a 
 Hamite tribe was settled here, or, more pre- 
 cisely, that there was an Egyptian settlement. 
 Others understand by the term Canaanite no- 
 mads (see Keil and Oettli [Strack τ. Zoéckler’s 
 Δα. Komm.] in loco). [G.] [F-.] 
 
 HA'MAN (ὉΠ, meaning uncertain. Cp. 
 MV."'; *Audy; Aman), the chief minister or 
 vizier of king Ahasuerus (Esth. iii. 1). After 
 the failure of his attempt to cut off all the Jews 
 in the Persian empire, he was hanged on the 
 gallows which he had erected for Mordecai. It 
 is very improbable that he is the same Aman 
 who is mentioned as the oppressor of Achiacharus 
 (Tobit xiv. 10; see Speaker's Comm. in loco). 
 
 HAMATH 1271 
 
 interpret the description of him—the Agagite 
 —as signifying that he was of Amalekitish 
 descent ; but the opinion that he was of neces- 
 sity an enemy to Israel, because called a Mace- 
 donian by the LXX. in Esth. iv. 24 (ep. iii. 1; 
 Additions to Esther, xii. 6, xvi. 10), and therefore 
 also hostile to Jewish interests, is not now so uni- 
 versally accepted as of old (see Speaker’s Comm. 
 on “ Additions,” &c. d/. cc.). Prideaux (Con- 
 nection, anno 453) computes the sum which he 
 offered to pay into the royal treasury at more 
 than £2,000,000 sterling, [F.] 
 
 HA'MATH (MON [ fortress, citadel]; ‘Hudd, 
 "Hudd, Aiud@; Emath) was probably the prin- 
 cipal city of Upper Syria from the time of the 
 Exodus until that of the Prophet Amos. It is 
 situated in the valley of the Orontes, having, to 
 the north- and south-east, the district of Jebel- 
 al-A‘la, and on the west, the Nusairiyeh Moun. 
 tains (the Mons Bargylus of the ancients). The 
 Orontes, which flows through Hamath from 
 S.E. to N.W., forms a bend in the middle of 
 the town. To the S.W., above Tripoli, there 
 is an opening between the Nusairiyeh Moun- 
 tains and the northern point of the Lebanon 
 chain—the “‘entrance of Hamath,” as it is 
 called in Scripture, and the northern border of 
 the Promised Land (Num. xxxiv. 8; Josh. xiii. 
 5; Ezek. xlvii. 13-21). A similar opening, but 
 of much greater extent, occurs between the Anti- 
 Lebanon and the low hills which lie eastward of 
 Hamath. The valley of the Orontes runs N.E. 
 and S.W., the city of Homs being situated near 
 the intersection of the arms of the cross-shaped 
 depression or valley thus formed. Northward 
 the pass leads to Hamath, southward towards 
 Baal-Gad in Coele-Syria, eastward to the great 
 plain of the Syrian Desert, and westward to 
 Kal‘at-al-Hosn and the Mediterranean. The 
 whole of the tract around the city seems to have 
 formed the kingdom of Hamath during the time 
 of its independence, extending to the south of, 
 and including, Riblah. 
 
 The Hamathites, like the Hittites, were a 
 Hamitic race, and are included among the 
 descendants of Canaan (Gen. x. 18). Though 
 not in any way Semites, they possibly inter- 
 married with the Semitic nations around. 
 Being closely akin to the Hittites, whose 
 neighbours they were, they were naturally 
 often in alliance with them. The earliest 
 notices of the city (Num. xiii. 21, xxxiv. 8; 
 Josh. xiii. 5, &c.) show that it was a well- 
 known place, but no mention of its power occurs 
 until the time of David (2 Sam. viii. 10), when 
 we learn that Toi, king of Hamath, with whom 
 Hadadezer, king of Zobah, had “had wars,” 
 sent his son to David to congratulate him upon 
 his victory over that king—an act of homage 
 not without political significance. Hamath 
 seems afterwards to have come under the 
 dominion of Solomon (ep. 1 K. iv. 21-24 with 
 2 Ch. viii. 4), and its king was, no doubt, one of 
 the many princes over whom that monarch 
 ruled, who “brought presents and served 
 Solomon all the days of his life.” The “ store- 
 cities ” which Solomon built in Hamath (2 Ch. 
 viii. 4) were, perhaps, staples for trade, the 
 importance of the Orontes valley as a line of 
 traffic being always great. On the death of 
 
 The Targum and Josephus (Ant. xi. 6, § 5) | Solomon, and the division of his kingdom, 
 
1212 HAMATH 
 
 Hamath seems to have regained her inde- 
 pendence. In the Assyrian inscriptions of the 
 time of Shalmaneser II. (about 860 8.0.) it 
 appears as an independent power, under its own 
 king Irhuleni, in alliance with the Hittites, 
 Damascus (under Addu-idri)*, Ahab of Israel, 
 and several other states. About the year 
 810 B.c. Jeroboam the second “recovered Ha- 
 math” (2 K. xiv. 28). He seems to have dis- 
 mantled the place, and on this account the 
 prophet Amos (i. 1) couples “ Hamath the 
 great” with Gath, as an instance of desolation 
 (Amos vi. 2). Tiglath-pileser, about 730 B.C., 
 took tribute, among others, from Eni-ilu 
 
 Oxy), king of Hamath; and Sargon boasts 
 of having “ rooted out (?) the land of Hamath, 
 and dyed the skin of the foolish (Ὁ) Hu-bi’di 
 (variant Yau-bi’di) like wool.” Judging from 
 the words of Sennacherib’s Rabshakeh or “ chief 
 of the captains” (2 K. xviii. 34, xix. 13, &c.), 
 that king seems also to have captured the 
 place, but this may be simply a reference to 
 the exploits of Sargon. From this time, how- 
 ever, it seems to have ceased to be a place of 
 much importance. Antiochus Epiphanes changed 
 its name to Epiphaneia, under which it was 
 known to the Greeks and Romans from his time 
 to that of St. Jerome (Comment. in Ezek. xlvii. 
 16), and possibly later. The natives, however, 
 still called it Hamath; and its present name, 
 Hamah, is but very slightly altered from the 
 ancient form. In 639 Α.Ὁ. the city surrendered 
 without resistance to the Moslems. Abulfeda, 
 the eminent Arab scholar, a descendant of the 
 family of Saladin, was appointed governor of the 
 district in 1310, and with his death in 1331 
 Hamah’s prosperity declined. 
 
 Burckhardt visited Hamah in 1812. He 
 describes it as situated on both sides of the 
 Orontes, partly on a slope of a hill, partly on 
 the plain, and as divided into four quarters,— 
 Hadher, El Djisr, El Aleyat, and El Medine, 
 the last being the quarter of the Christians. 
 The city contained 4,446 houses, and the number 
 of male inhabitants was nearly 11,000. The 
 place has but few attractions. A number of 
 catacombs are said to exist on the right bank, 
 at some height above the river, and Burckhardt 
 mentions the so-called “Hamah-stones” (now 
 regarded as “ Hittite”) which have since at- 
 tracted the attention of scholars, but resisted 
 ail attempts at decipherment. These stones 
 are of black, close-grained basalt, and contain 
 five inscriptions, one evidently imperfect. The 
 town is dirty, the streets badly paved, and 
 most of the houses are built of mud. _ It is 
 remarkable for its water-wheels, some of which 
 are of huge dimensions, and are used for raising 
 the water of the Orontes to supply the houses 
 and gardens in the upper part of the town. 
 Though the town is unhealthy, the neighbour- 
 hood is very fruitful, and the commerce of the 
 place is still of some importance (Burckhardt, 
 Travels in Syria, pp. 146, 147; Pococke, Travels 
 in the East, vol. i.; Irby and Mangles, Travels, 
 p- 244; Stanley, 9. § P. pp. 406, 407; Murray’s 
 Handbook of Syria, pp. 538, 583.) 
 
 [G. Ray Gar 
 
 a Identified with Ben-Hadad, whose full name was 
 possibly Ben-Hadad-bidri. 
 
 HAMMEDATHA 
 
 HAMATH-ZO'BAH (ΠΣ ΠΠ; Βαι- 
 σωβά; [A. Αἰμὰθ SwBa;) Hmath-Suba) is 
 spoken of as having been attacked and con- 
 quered by Solomon (2 Ch. viii. 3). Many 
 scholars regard it as the same as Hamath, 
 looking upon it as being included in Aram- 
 Zobah—a geographical expression which has 
 usually a narrower meaning. It is possible, 
 however, that Hamath-Zobah was another Ha- 
 math, so named to distinguish it from “ Great 
 Hamath,” like Ramoth-Gilead, which is dis- 
 tinguished by the addition of Gilead from Ramah 
 in Benjamin. It has also been conjectured that, 
 at the time of Solomon’s attack, Hamath and 
 Zobah were united under the same king; hence 
 the joining of the two names. 
 
 [6.87 [1.G. Py 
 
 HAMA'THITEH, THE CMON 5 ὁ ᾿Αμαθί; 
 Amathaeus, Hamathaeus), one of the families de- 
 scended from Canaan, named last in the list (Gen. 
 x. 18; 1 Ch. i. 16, B.om.). The place of their 
 settlement was doubtless HAMATH. 
 
 HAMITAL, 2 K. xxiii. 31, the reading of 
 A. V. [1611] for HAmu’TAL. 
 warm spring; B. 
 
 HAM’MATH (nin = 
 ‘Ouabadaxé@—the last two syllables a corrup- 
 tion of the name following—A. ᾽Αμάθ ; math), 
 one of the fortified cities in the territory allotted 
 to Naphtali (Josh, xix. 35). It is not possible 
 from this list to determine its position, but the 
 notices of the Talmudists, collected by Lightfoot 
 in his Choroyraphical Century and Chor. Decad, 
 leave no doubt that it was near Tiberias, one 
 mile distant (Tal. Bab. Megilla, 2b) —in fact that 
 it had its name, Chammath, “hot baths,” be- 
 cause it contained those of Tiberias. In accord- 
 ance with this are the slight notices of Josephus, 
 who mentions it under the name of Emmaus as 
 a “village not far (κωμὴ . - - οὐκ ἄπωθεν) from 
 Tiberias ” (Ant. xviii. 2, § 3), and as where Ves- 
 pasian had encamped “ before (apd) Tiberias ” 
 (B. J. iv. 1, § 3). In both cases Josephus names 
 the hot springs or baths, adding in the latter, 
 that such is the interpretation of the name 
 ᾿Αμμαοῦς, and that the waters are medicinal. 
 The Hammam still send up their hot and sul- 
 phureous waters, at a spot rather more than ἃ mile 
 south of the modern town, at the extremity of 
 the ruins of the ancient city. The waters of the 
 several springs have a temperature of from 
 142°2 to 13202 Fahr., and are much used by 
 the Jews of Tiberias for rheumatism (Rob. ii. 
 383-4; Van de Velde, ii. 399; Wilson, Recovy. 
 of Jerusm. p. 362), These springs are sometimes 
 confused with the hot springs of Gadara, which 
 were situated at Hamtha in the valley of the 
 Yarmuk, a sabbath day’s journey from the town. 
 [GapARA.] The traveller Parchi mentions a 
 place called El-Hami, which he rightly identified 
 with Hamtha (Zunz’s Appendix to Benjamin of 
 Tudela, ii. 403). 
 
 In the list of Levitical cities given out of 
 Naphtali (Josh. xxi. 32) the name of this place 
 seems to be HAMMOTH-DOR, and in 1 Ch. vi. 76 
 it is further altered to Hammon. ([G.] [W.] 
 
 HAMMEDA’THA (ΘΠ; B. ᾿Αμαδάθος ; 
 A.’ Avapa0ddos, ᾿Αμαθάδος (ix. 24]; Amadathus), 
 father of the infamous Haman, and commonly de- 
 
HAMMELECH 
 
 signated as the “ Agagite ” (Esth. iii. 1, 10, viii. 
 5, ix. 24), though also without that title (ix. 10). 
 By Gesenius (Lew. 1855, p. 539; MV." s. n.) the 
 name is taken to be Medztha (Maddras), pre- 
 ceded by the definite article. For other expla- 
 nations, see Fiirst, ZW2., and Simonis, Ono- 
 masticon, p. 586. The latter derives it from a 
 Persian word meaning “double.” For the 
 termination, compare ARIDATHA. [G.] [F.] 
 
 HAMMELECH (p97 = the hing; τοῦ 
 Βασιλέως ; Amelech), rendered in the A. V. as a 
 proper name (Jer. xxxvi, 26, xxxvili. 6); but 
 there is no apparent reason for supposing it to 
 be any thing but the ordinary Hebrew word for 
 “ the king,” ἡ. in the first case Jehoiakim, and 
 in the latter Zedekiah., If this be so, it enables 
 us to connect with the royal family of Judah 
 two persons, Jerachmeel and Malciah, who do 
 not appear in the A, V, as members thereof. 
 R. V. reads “the king’s son” in the text, and 
 the son of H, in marg. [G.] [W.] 
 
 HAMMER. The Hebrew language has seve- 
 ral names for this indispensable tool. (1) Pat- 
 tish (WDD, connected etymologically with πα- 
 τάσσω, to strike), which was used by the gold- 
 beater (Is. xli. 7, A. V. and R. V. “carpenter ”) 
 to overlay with silver and “smooth ” the surface 
 of the image; as well as by the quarry-man 
 (Jer. xxiii, 29). (2) Magqgabah (apr. Cp. the 
 name Maccabee), properly a tool for hollowing, 
 hence a stonecutter’s mallet (1 K. vi. 7), and 
 generally any workman’s hammer (Judg. iv. 21; 
 Is. xliv. 12; Jer.x. 4). (8) Halmath (ΓΔ) 0), 
 used only in Judg. v. 26, and then with the 
 addition of the word “ workmen’s” by way 
 of explanation. It was probably of wood, 
 and “the hammer” kept for driving in tent- 
 pegs (see Bertheau® on iv. 21), (4) A kind 
 of hammer, named mappés (jt), Jer. li. 20 
 (A. V. “ battle-axe,” R. V. marg. Or, maul), or 
 méphis (Υ"5)2), Prov. xxv. 18 (A. V. and R. V. 
 
 “maul”), was used as a weapon of war. 
 “Hammer” is used figuratively for any over- 
 whelming power, whether worldly (Jer. 1. 23) 
 or spiritual (Jer. xxiii. 29). [W. L. B.] 
 
 HAMMOLE’KETH, R. V. HAMMOLE- 
 
 CHETH cnabian, with the article, = the 
 Queen [ep. Ham-melech]; 7 Μαλεχέθ ; Regina), 
 a woman introduced into the genealogies of 
 Manasseh as daughter of Machir and sister of 
 Gilead (1 Ch. vii. 17, 18), and as having among 
 her children ABI-EZER, from whose family sprang 
 the great judge Gideon, The Targum translates 
 
 the name by ἜΞΩ ‘J τῷ, who reigned. The 
 
 Jewish tradition, as preserved by Kimchi in his 
 commentary on the passage, is that “she used 
 to reign over a portion of the land which be- 
 longed to Gilead,” and that for that reason her 
 lineage has been preserved. [G.] [FJ 
 
 HAM’MON (}iSN=hot or sunny; B. Ἔμε- 
 μαών, A.’Auoy; Hamon, Ammon). 1. A city in 
 Asher (Josh. xix. 28), apparently not far from 
 Zidon-rabbah, or ‘“ Great Zidon.” Guérin (Galilee, 
 ii. 141) proposes to identify it with Ah. Umm. 
 el-‘ Amid, near the coast, about 11 miles 5. of Tyre, 
 
 HAMOR 1273 
 
 on the grounds that M. Renan found on the spot 
 a Phoenician inscription, dedicated to “the God 
 Hammon,” and that the name may be traced 
 in W. Hamil and ‘Ain Hamil close by. Dr. 
 Schultz had previously suggested its identifica- 
 tion with ‘Ain Hamil (Rob. iii. 66), but this is 
 doubtful both in etymology and position. There 
 is a similar objection to Major Conder’s sugges 
 tion (Hbk. to Bib. p. 413) that it was at Kh. οἰ- 
 Hima, to the E. of Hh. Umin el-‘Amid. Knobel 
 (5. v.) identifies it with Hammdna, in W. Ham- 
 mdna, E. of Beiriit, but this is too far north for 
 a town in Asher. 
 
 2. B. Xaude; A. Χαμών. <A city allotted 
 out of the tribe of Naphtali to the Levites 
 (1 Ch, vi. 76), and answering to the somewhat 
 similar names HAMMATH and HaMMorH-por 
 in Joshua. [G.] [W.] 
 
 HAM MOTH-DOR ΟΝ Nidan = warm 
 springs of Dor ; Νεμμάθ, A. ᾿Εμαθδώρ ; Ammoth 
 Dor), a city of Naphtali, allotted with its suburbs 
 to the Gershonite Levites, and for a city of refuge 
 (Josh. xxi. 32). Unless there were two places of 
 the same or very similar name in Naphtali, this 
 is identical with HAmMATH (see Dillmann? on 
 Josh. xix. 35). Why the suffix Dor is added it is 
 hard to tell, unless the word refers in some way 
 to the situation of the place on the coast, in 
 which fact only had it (as far as we know) any 
 resemblance to Dor, on the shore of the Medi- 
 terranean. In 1 Ch. vi. 76 the name is con- 
 tracted to HAMMON, [6] ν ἢ 
 
 HAMO'NAH (AI ; Πολύανδριον ; Amona), 
 
 the prophetic name of a city mentioned in a 
 highly obscure passage of Ezekiel (xxxix. 16); 
 apparently that of the place in or near which 
 the multitudes of Gog should be buried after 
 their great slaughter by God; hence its name 
 
 —“ multitude,” [G.] [W.] 
 
 HAMO'N-GOG, THE VALLEY OF (δὰ 
 wa fon = = the ravine of Gog’s multitude ; Tat 
 τὸ πολυάνδριον τοῦ Téy; vallis multitudinis 
 Gog), the name to be bestowed on a ravine or 
 glen, previously known as “the ravine of the 
 passengers on the east of the sea,” after the 
 burial there of “Gog and all his multitude ” 
 (Ezek. xxxix. 11, 15), 
 
 HAMO’R (7199, i.e. in Heb. a large he-ass, 
 the figure employed by Jacob for Issachar; 
 Ἔμμώρ ; Hemor), a Hivite (or according to the 
 LXX. of Gen. xxxiv. 2, 6 Xoppatos, a Horite), 
 who at the time of the entrance of Jacob on 
 Palestine was prince (Vas?) of the land and city 
 of Shechem, and father of the impetuous young 
 man of the latter name whose ill-treatment of 
 Dinah brought destruction on himself, his father, 
 and the whole of their city (Gen. xxxiii. 19; 
 xxxiv. 2, 4, 6, 8, 13, 18, 20, 24, 26). Hamor 
 would seem to have been a person of great 
 influence, because, though alive at the time, 
 the men of his tribe are called after him Bene- 
 Hamor, and he himself, in records narrating 
 events long subsequent to this, is styled Hamor- 
 Abi-Shechem (Josh. xxiv. 32;* Judg. ix. 28; Acts 
 
 a The LXX. have here read the word without its 
 initial guttural, and rendered it mapa τῶν ᾿Αμοῤῥαίων, 
 ‘© from the Amorites.’” 
 
1214 HAMUEL 
 
 vii. 16). In the second of these passages his 
 name is used as a signal of revolt, when the 
 remnant of the ancient Hivites attempted to 
 rise against Abimelech son of Gideon, [SHE- 
 cuem.] For the title Abi-Shechem, “father of 
 Shechem,” ep. “father of Bethlehem,” “ father 
 of Tekoah,” and others in the early lists of 1 Ch. 
 ii. iv. In Acts vil. 16 the name is given in the 
 Greek form of Emmor, and Abraham is said to 
 have bought his sepulchre from the “sons of 
 Emmor.” [G.] 
 
 HAMU-EL (i090, ic. Hammi’el [of un- 
 certain etymology]; B. om., A.’Awouna; Amuel), 
 a man of Simeon; son of Mishma, of the family 
 of Shaul (1 Ch. iv. 26, ed. Baer), from whom, 
 if we follow the records of this passage, it 
 would seem that the whole tribe of Simeon 
 located in Palestine were derived. 
 
 HAMUL (dyn = spared; Sam. SS119N; 
 Ἵεμουήλ ; Amul), the younger son of Pharez, 
 Judah’s son by Tamar (Gen. xlvi. 12; 1 Ch. ii. 
 5). Hamul was head of the family of the 
 Hamulites (Num. xxvi. 21; LXX. υ. 17; B. 
 Ἰαμούν, AF. Ἰαμουήλ), but none of the genea- 
 logy of his descendants is preserved in the 
 lists of 1 Chronicles, though those of the 
 descendants of Zerah are fully given. 
 
 HAMULI'TES, THE cbiona; B. Ἰαμουνεί, 
 A. Ἰαμουηλί, F. *Ieu-; Amulitae), the family 
 (ΠΠΞ Ὁ) of the preceding (Num. xxvi. 21). 
 
 HAMU'TAL (S210n; Amital), daughter of 
 Jeremia of Libnah; one of the wives of king 
 Josiah, and mother of the unfortunate princes 
 Jehoahaz (2 K. xxiii. 31, B. ‘Awerrat, A. “Αμι- 
 τὰλ) and Mattaniah or Zedekiah (2 K. xxiv. 
 18, B. Murat, A. ᾿Αμιτάθ : Jer. lii. 1, B. ‘Awes- 
 Tada, NA. ‘Aui-). In the last two passages the 
 
 name is given in the original text as Syvon, 
 Chamital. i 
 
 HANAM-EEL (Syn; ᾿Αναμεήλ ; Hana- 
 meel; R.V. Hanamel), son of Shallum, and 
 cousin of Jeremiah. When Judaea was occu- 
 pied by the Chaldaeans, Jerusalem beleaguered 
 and Jeremiah in prison, the Prophet (as Syd, 
 having the right of redemption, bought a 
 field of Hanameel in token of his assurance 
 that a time was to come when land should be 
 once more a secure possession (Jer. xxxii. 7, 8, 
 9, 12; and ep. v. 44). The suburban fields 
 belonging to the tribe of Levi could not be sold 
 (Ley. xxv. 34); but commentators see in 
 Hanameel’s invitation to Jeremiah that he 
 should purchase the field a desire that a Leyiti- 
 cal and priestly possession should not pass into 
 non-priestly hands. The restriction imposed by 
 the Law was less strictly observed as time went 
 on. Cp. the case of Barnabas, a Levite (see 
 Speaker’s Comm., note on Acts iv. 37). [8.1 
 
 HA'NAN (ἹἹΠ = gracious ; ‘avdy ; Hanan). 
 1. One of the chief people of the tribe of Ben- 
 jamin (1 Ch. viii. 23), 
 
 2. The last of the six sons of Azel, a de- 
 scendant of Saul (1 Ch. viii. 38, ix. 44), 
 
 3. “Son of Maachah,” 1.6. possibly a Syrian 
 of Aram-Maacah, one of the heroes of David’s 
 
 HANANI 
 
 guard, according to the extended list of 1 Ch. 
 xi, 43. 
 
 4. Bene-Chanan were among the Nethinim 
 who returned from Babylon with Zernbbabel 
 (Ezra ii. 46; Neh. vii. 49). In the parallel list, 
 1 Esd. v. 30, the name is given as ANAN. 
 
 5. (LXX. omits.) One of the Levites who 
 assisted Ezra in his public exposition of the Law 
 (Neh. viii. 7). The same person is probably 
 mentioned in x. 10 (B. om.; N@*@s) A. “Ανάν), as 
 sealing the covenant, since several of the same 
 names occur in both passages. 
 
 6. One of the “heads” of the “ people;” that 
 is, of the laymen, who also sealed the covenant 
 (x. 22). 
 
 7. (Αἰνάν; see Swete in loco.) Another of 
 the chief laymen on the same occasion (x. 26). 
 
 8. Son of Zaccur, son of Mattaniah, whom 
 Nehemiah made one of the storekeepers of the 
 provisions collected as tithes (Neh. xiii. 13). 
 He was probably a layman, in which case the 
 four storekeepers represented the four chief 
 classes of the people—priests, scribes, Levites, 
 and laymen. 
 
 9. Son of Igdaliah, the man of God” (Jer. 
 xxxv. 4). The sons of Hanan had a chamber in 
 the Temple. The LXX. B. gives the name twice 
 -Ιωνᾶν υἱοῦ ᾿Ανανίου : N. reads ‘Avvay υἱοῦ 
 
 ᾿Αννανίου. [G.] [FJ 
 
 HANA’NE-EL (ΕΒ. V. HANANEL), THE 
 
 TOWER OF (by2n Say; B. πύργος “Ανα- 
 vena, A. -u-, δὲ. (iii. 1) Ναεήλ ; turris Hana- 
 neel), a tower which formed part of the wall 
 of Jerusalem (Neh. iii. 1, xii. 39). From 
 these two passages, particularly from the for- 
 mer, it might almost be inferred that Hananeel 
 was but another name for the Tower of Meah 
 (ANDI=“ the hundred ;” R. V. Hammeah): at 
 
 any rate they were close together, and stood 
 between the sheep-gate and the fish-gate. This 
 tower is further mentioned in Jer. xxxi. 38, as 
 one of the limits of the restored Jerusalem, which 
 the Prophet is announcing shall be “ rebuilt to 
 Jehovah,” and “not be thrown down any more 
 for ever.” The remaining passage in which it 
 is named (Zech. xiv. 10) also connects this tower 
 with the “corner gate.” In the Targum of 
 Jonathan it is called Pekés or Pikkiis. [JERU- 
 SALEM. ] {G.] ἘΠῚ 
 
 HANA'NI ΟΣ, possibly contracted from 
 M337: B. omits from v. 4, and reads ‘Avavias 
 
 in v. 25; A. in both cases, Ανανί: Hanani). 
 1. One of the sons of Heman, David’s Seer, who 
 were separated for song in the house of the 
 Lord, and head of the eighteenth course of the 
 service (1 Ch. xxv. 4, 25). 
 
 2. B. ‘Avauel, A. ‘Avavt. A Seer who re- 
 buked Asa, king of Judah, for his want of faith 
 in God, which he had shown by buying off the 
 hostility of Benhadad I., king of Syria (2 Ch. 
 xvi. 7). For this he was imprisoned by Asa 
 (υ. 10). He (or another Hanani) was the father 
 of Jehu the Seer, who testified against Baasha 
 (1 K. xvi. 1,7) and Jehoshaphat (2 Ch. xix. 2, 
 xx. 34). 
 
 3. One of the priests who in the time of Ezra 
 were connected with strange wives (Ezra x. 20). 
 In Esdras the name is ANANIAS. 
 
 4. A brother of Nehemiah, who returned 
 
HANANTAH 
 
 B.c. 446 from Jerusalem to Suga (Neh. i. 2); 
 and was afterwards made governor of Jerusalem 
 under Nehemiah (vii. 2). 
 
 5. A priest mentioned in Neh. xii. 36 (B. 
 omits; A. ‘Avavt). [W.T. B.] [F.] 
 
 HANANT'AH (993 and 11993 = Jah is 
 gracious; B. [usually] ‘Avavlas; Ananias and 
 Hananias. In N. Τὶ ᾿Ανανίας ; Ananias). 
 
 1. One of the fourteen sons of Heman the 
 singer, and chief of the sixteenth out of the 
 twenty-four courses or wards into which the 
 288 musicians of the Levites were divided by 
 king David. The sons of Heman were especially 
 employed to blow the horns (1 Ch. xxv. 4, 5, 23). 
 
 2. One of the chief captains of the army of 
 king Uzziah (2 Ch. xxvi. 11). 
 
 8. Father of Zedekiah, one of the princes in 
 the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah (Jer. 
 xxxvi. 12). 
 
 4, Son of Azur, a Benjamite of Gibeon and a 
 false prophet in the time of Zedekiah king of 
 Judah. In the fourth year of his reign Hana- 
 niah withstood Jeremiah the Prophet, and pub- 
 licly prophesied in the Temple that within two 
 years Jeconiah and all his fellow-captives, with 
 the vessels of the Lord’s House which Nebuchad- 
 nezzar had taken away to Babylon, should be 
 brought back to Jerusalem (Jer. xxviii.): an 
 indication that treacherous negotiations were 
 already secretly opened with Pharaoh-Hophra 
 Γ[ΕΘΎΡῚ, p. 888, col. 1], and that strong hopes 
 were entertained of the destruction of the 
 Babylonian power by him. The preceding 
 chapter (xxvii. 3) shows further that a 
 league was already in progress between Judah 
 and the neighbouring nations of Edom, Am- 
 mon, Moab, Tyre and Sidon, for the purpose 
 of organising resistance to Nebuchadnezzar, 
 in combination no doubt with the projected 
 movements of Pharaoh-Hophra. Hananiah 
 corroborated his prophecy by taking from 
 off the neck of Jeremiah the yoke which he 
 wore by Divine command (Jer. xxvii., in token 
 of the subjection of Judaea and the neighbour- 
 ing countries to the Babylonian empire), and 
 breaking it, added, “Thus saith Jehovah, Even 
 so will I break the yoke of Nebuchadnezzar 
 king of Babylon from the neck of all nations 
 within the space of two full years.” But Jere- 
 miah was bidden to go and tell Hananiah that 
 for the wooden yokes which he had broken he 
 should make yokes of iron, so firm was the 
 dominion of Babylon destined to be for seventy 
 years. The Prophet Jeremiah added this rebuke 
 and prediction of Hananiah’s death, the fulfil- 
 ment of which closes the history of this false 
 prophet: “‘ Hear now, Hananiah; Jehovah hath 
 not sent thee; but thou makest this people to 
 trust in a lie. Therefore thus saith Jehovah, 
 Beheld I will send thee away from off the face 
 of the earth: this year thou shalt die, because 
 thou hast taught rebellion against Jehovah. So 
 Hananiah the prophet died the same year, in 
 the seventh month ” (Jer. xxviii. 15, 16, R. V.). 
 - The above history of Hananiah is of great 
 interest, as throwing much light upon the 
 Jewish politics of that eventful time, divided as 
 parties were into the partisans of Babylon on the 
 one hand, and of Egypt on the other. It also 
 exhibits the machinery of false prophecies, by 
 which the irreligious party sought to promote 
 
 HANANIAH 1275 
 
 their own policy, in a very distinct form. At 
 the same time that it explains in general the 
 sort of political calculation on which such false 
 prophecies were hazarded, it supplies an impor- 
 tant clue in particular by which to judge of the 
 date of Pharaoh-Hophra’s (or Apries’) accession 
 to the Egyptian throne, and the conimencement 
 of his ineffectual effort to restore the power of 
 Egypt (which had been prostrate since Necho’s 
 overthrow, Jer. xlvi. 2) upon the ruins of the 
 Babylonian empire. The leaning to Egypt, 
 indicated by Hananiah’s prophecy as having 
 begun in the fourth of Zedekiah, had in the 
 sixth of his reign issued in open defection from 
 Nebuchadnezzar, and in the guilt of perjury, 
 which cost Zedekiah his crown and his life (Ezek. 
 xvii. 12-20; the date being fixed by a compari- 
 son of Ezek. viii. 1 with xx. 1). The temporary 
 success of the intrigue which is described in 
 Jer. xxxvii. was speedily followed by the return 
 of the Chaldaeans and the destruction of the 
 city, according to the prediction of Jeremiah. 
 This history of Hananiah also illustrates the 
 manner in which the false prophets hindered 
 the mission, and obstructed the beneficent effects 
 of the ministry, of the true Prophets; and it 
 affords a remarkable example of the way in 
 which they prophesied smooth things, and said 
 peace when there was no peace (cp. 1 K. xxii. 
 11, 24, 25). 
 
 5. Grandfather of Irijah, the captain of the 
 ward at the gate of Benjamin who arrested 
 Jeremiah on a charge of deserting to the Chal- 
 daeans (Jer. xxxvii. 13). : 
 
 6. Head of a Benjamite house (1 Ch. viii. 
 24), 
 7. The Hebrew name of Shadrach. [SHap- 
 RACH.] He was of the house of David, accord- 
 ing to Jewish tradition (Dan. i. 3, 6, 7, 11, 19; 
 ii. 17). [ANANTAS.] 
 
 8. Son of Zerubbabel (1 Ch. iii, 19), from 
 whom Curist derived His descent. He is the 
 same person who is by St. Luke called Ἰωαννᾶς, 
 Joanna, and who, when Rhesa is discarded, ap- 
 pears there also as Zerubbabel’s son. [GENEA- 
 LOGY OF CHRIST.] The identity of the two 
 names Hananiah and Joanna is apparent im- 
 mediately we compare them in Hebrew. This 
 identification is of great importance, as bringing 
 St. Luke’s genealogy into harmony with the 
 Old Testament. Nothing more is known of 
 this Hananiah. 
 
 9. The two names Hananiah and Jehohanan 
 stand side by side (Ezra x. 28) as sons of Bebai, 
 who returned with Ezra from Babylon. 
 
 10. A priest, one of the “apothecaries” or 
 makers of the sacred ointments and incense 
 (Ex. xxx. 22-38; 1 Ch. ix. 30), who built a 
 portion of the wall of Jerusalem in the days of 
 Nehemiah (Neh. iii. 8). He may be the same as 
 the man mentioned in v. 30 as having repaired 
 another portion. If so, he was the son of 
 Shelemiah ; perhaps the same as is mentioned in 
 xii. 41. 
 
 11. Head of the priestly course of Jeremiah 
 in the days of Joiakim the high-priest (Neh. xii. 
 12). 4 
 
 12. Ruler of the place (WYANT WW; R. V. 
 “governor of the castle”) at Jerusalem under 
 Nehemiah. He is described as “a faithful man, 
 and one who feared God above many.” His office 
 seems to have been one of authority and trust, 
 
1270 HANDICRAFT HANDICRAFT 
 
 and was perhaps the same as that of Eliakim,| such handicraft trades as are mentioned in 
 who was “over the house” in the reign of | Scripture. 
 
 Hezekiah, [ELIAKIM.] The arrangements for 1. The preparation of iron for use either in 
 guarding the gates of Jerusalem were entrusted to | war, in agriculture, or for domestic purposes, 
 him with Hanani, the 
 Tirshatha’s brother. 
 The opinion that the 
 
 appointment of Hanani Ξ 
 and Hananiah indicates 3 
 that at this time Ne- Ξ 
 hemiah returned to ΕΙ 
 Persia, has no sufficient é 
 ground (see Hunter, = 
 After the Exile, ii. = 
 172). Nehemiah seems 
 to have been continu- 3 
 ously at Jerusalem for ΕἸ 
 some time after the FT 
 completion of the wall q 
 (vii. 5, 65; viii. 9; Ξ 
 χ. 1). If, too, the term 3 
 ΠΛ 3Π means, as Ge- = 
 o 
 
 senius supposes, and as 
 the use of it in Neh. 
 ii. 8 makes not impro- 
 
 will be found under 
 ANANIAS. (A.C. H.] 
 
 HANDICRAFT 
 (τέχνη, ἐργασία; ars, 
 artificium ; Acts xviii. 
 3, xix..253 Rev. xviii. 
 22). Although the 
 extent cannot be ascer- 
 tained to which those 
 arts whose invention 
 is ascribed to Tubal- 
 Cain were carried on, 
 it is probable that 
 this was proportionate 
 respectively to the no- 
 madic or settled habits 
 of the antediluvian 
 races. Among nomad 
 races, as the Bedouin 
 Arabs, or the tribes of 
 Northern and Central 
 Asia and of America, 
 the wants of life, as 
 well as the arts which 
 supply them, are few; 
 and it is only amon 
 the city-dwellers that both of them are mul-, was doubtless one of the earliest applications of 
 tiplied and make progress, This subject cannot, | labour; and, together with iron, working in 
 of course, be followed out here: in the present | brass, or rather copper alloyed with tin, bronze 
 article brief notices can only be given of (nym), Gesen. p. 875), is mentioned in the 
 
 <4 3 
 vo 
 
 ed 
 
 bable, not the palace, § ΓΕ 
 2 ΞΕ 
 
 but the fortress (see GY Zan 
 R. V.) of the Temple, ~* ΓΕ 
 called by Josephus Ε ἘΞ 
 . . Bo 
 
 βάρις, there is still less 53 
 reason to imagine Ne- ας τ 
 hemiah’s absence. In 3 Ξ 
 this case Hananiah 252 
 would be a_ priest, Sate 
 perhaps of the same 533 
 family as the pre- 3 oe 
 ceding. gee 
 13. An _ Israelite Be3 
 (Neh. x. 23; Heb. 852 
 υ. 24). [ANANTAS. ] 23 
 Other Hananiahs mS Ξ 
 ἀν Τ 
 
 : 
 
 Ξ 
 
 _ 
 
 3 
 
 ει 
 
 8, Blowing the fire for melting the gold. 
 
 Figs. 1, 2. Making jewellery. 
 
HANDICRAFT 
 
 same passage as practised in antediluvian times 
 (Gen. iv. 22). The use of this last is usually 
 considered as an art of higher antiquity even 
 than that of iron (Hesiod, Works § Days, 150; 
 Wilkinson, Anc. Hgypt. ii. p. 152 [1878]), and 
 there can be no doubt that metal, whether iron 
 or bronze, must have been largely used, either 
 in material or in tools, for the construction of 
 the ark (Gen. vi. 14, 16). Whether the weapons 
 for war or chase used by the early warriors of 
 Syria and Assyria, or the arrow-heads of the 
 archer Ishmael, were of bronze or iron cannot be 
 ascertained ; but we know that iron was used 
 for warlike purposes by the Assyrians (Layard, 
 Nin. § Bab. p. 194), and on the other hand that 
 stone-tipped arrows, as was the case also in 
 Mexico, were used in the earlier times by the 
 Egyptians as well as the Persians and Greeks, 
 and that stone or flint knives continued to be 
 used by them, and by the inhabitants of the 
 desert, and also by the Jews, for religious pur- 
 poses after the introduction of iron into general 
 use (Wilkinson, Anc. Hg. i. 353, 354, 11. 163 ; 
 Prescott, Memico, i. 118; Ex. iv. 25; Josh. νυ. 
 2; 1st Egypt. Room, Brit. Mus. case 36, 37). 
 In the construction of the Tabernacle, copper, 
 but no iron, appears to have 
 been used, though the use of 
 iron was at the same period 
 well known to the Jews, both 
 from their own use of it and 
 from their Egyptian education, 
 whilst the Canaanite inhabit- 
 ants of Palestine and Syria 
 were in full possession of its 
 use both for warlike and do- 
 mestic purposes (Ex. xx. 25, 
 xxy. 3, xxvii. 19; Num. xxxv. 
 16; Deut. iii. 11, iv. 20, vili. 9; 
 Josh. viii. 31, xvii. 16, 18). 
 After the establishment of the 
 Jews in Canaan, the occupation 
 of a smith (C1) became re- 
 cognised as a distinct employ- 
 ment (1 Sam. xiii, 19). The 
 designer of a higher order, such 
 as Bezaleel, Aholiab, and others, 
 appears to have been called 
 specially AWM (Gesen. p. 531; 
 Hxeexxxye 50, 30, XXXVI. 1, 2: 
 2 Ch. xxvi. 15; Saalschiitz, 
 Arch, Hebr. c. 14, § 16). The 
 smith’s work and its results 
 are often mentioned in Scrip- 
 ture (2 Sam. xii. 31; 1 K. vi. 
 7; 2 Ch. xxvi. 14; Is. xliv. 12, 
 liv. 14). Among the captives 
 taken to Babylon by Nebu- 
 chadnezzar were 1000 “crafts- 
 men” and smiths, who were 
 probably of the superior kind 
 (2 K. xxiv. 16; Jer. xxix. 2), 
 The worker in gold and silver 
 (ΠΝ ; ἀργυροκόπος, χωνευτής ; 
 
 HANDICRAFT 1277 
 
 ever skill the Hebrews possessed, it is quite clear 
 that they must have learned much from Egypt 
 
 Egyptian Blowpipe, and small fireplace with cheeks to confine and 
 reflect the heat. (Wilkinson.) 
 
 and its “ iron-furnaces,”’ both in metal-work and 
 in the arts of setting and polishing precious 
 stones ; arts which were turned to account both 
 in the construction of the Tabernacle and the 
 making of the priests’ ornaments, and also in the 
 casting of the golden calf as well as its de- 
 struction by Moses, probably, as suggested by 
 Goguet, by a method which he had learnt in 
 Egypt (Gen. xli. 42; Ex. 111. 22, xii. 35, xxxi. 
 
 = ΒΞ Tools of an Egyptian Carperiter. ilki i 
 argentarius, aurifex) must have : : Te ee 
 1 Figs. 1, 2, 8, 4. Chisels and drills. Fig. 9. Horn of oil. 
 found employment both among ὅ. Part of drill. 10. Mallet. 
 Hebrews and th oe 6. Nut of wood belonging to drill. 11. Basket of nails. 
 the e neigh , ἃ. Saws. 3 12. Basket which held them. 
 
 bouring nations in very early 
 
 times, as appears from the ornaments sent j 4, 5, xxxii. 2, 4,20, 24, xxxvii. 17, 24, xxxviii. 
 
 by Abraham to Rebekah (Gen. xxiv. 22, 53, 
 
 4, 8, 24, 25, xxxix. 6, 39; Neh. iii. 8; Is. xliv. 
 
 xxxy. 4, xxviii. 18; Deut. vii. 25). But, what- | 12). Various processes of the goldsmiths’ work 
 
1278 HANDICRAFT HANDICRAFT 
 
 are illustrated by Egyptian monuments (Wilkin- | soldering, which last had long feen known in 
 son, Anc. Hy. ii. 136, 152, 162 [1878)). Egypt; but the Phoenicians appear to have pos- 
 
 After the conquest frequent notices are found | sessed greater skill than the Jews in these arts, 
 both of moulded and wrought metal, including | at least in Solomon’s time (Judg. viii. 24, 27, 
 
 δ, aruler; and Ὁ, asenare, similar to those 
 
 Fig. 3 is applying the glue with a brush, p. 
 
 \ 
 
 WS 
 
 x 
 
 Ί 
 
 Bandaging mummies and making the cases. (Wilkinson.) 
 
 ec, wood ready for cutting. d, onions and other provisions, which occur 
 
 ies, 6, bringing the bandages. 9, mata the drill. 8, 10, and 11, painting and pol:shing the case. 
 
 (Willinson.) 
 r) 
 F\ 
 
 ὃ, adze, fixed into a block of wood of the same colour as ἢ, 
 
 ‘| 
 17 
 ; 
 
 A(\ 
 ”IN 
 53: 
 
 ὦ, glue pot on the fire. j, a piece of glue. 
 
 VIN 
 Pee 
 
 ἜΧΩ 
 ᾿ 
 
 Veneering and the use of glue. 
 
 a, a piece of dark wood applied to one of ordinary quality, b. 
 
 Fig. ὁ is grinding something. 
 , indicating the trade of a carpenter. 8, a man fallen asleep. 
 
 g, ἃ box. 
 
 = 
 t 
 
 W 
 
 =| XU 
 SE 
 
 xvii. 4; 1K. vii. 13, 45,46; 15, xli. 7; Wisd. | setting precious stones in gold (Ex. xxxix. 3, 
 xv. 4; Ecclus. xxxviii. 28; Bar. vi. 50, 55,57; | 6, &c.; Beckmann, Hist. of Inv. ii. 4145; Gesen. 
 Wilkinson, ii, p. 162). (ZarepHATH.] Even | p. 1229). 
 
 in the desert, mention is made of beating gold Among the tools of the smith are mentioned 
 
 into plates, cutting it into wire, and also of | —tongs (ΠΡ, λαβίς, forceps, Gesen. p. 761, 
 
 again at g, with vases, ff. 4, 5, and 7, binding mumm: 
 
 used by our carpenters. 
 
 [A 
 | 
 7 
 
 Fig. 1, sawing wood. 2, cutting the leg of a chair, ἢ, 
 
 : 
 
HANDICRAFT 
 
 Is. vi. 6), hammer (WOE, σφυρά, malleus, 
 Gesen. p. 1101), anvil (OB, Gesen. p. 1118), 
 bellows (NBD, φυσητήρ, suflatorium, Gesen. 
 p- 896; Is. xli. 7; Jer. vi. 29; Ecclus. xxxviii. 
 28; Wilkinson, ii. 316 [1878]). 
 
 In the N. Τὶ Alexander “the coppersmith ” 
 (ὁ χαλκεὺς) of Ephesus is mentioned, where 
 also was carried on that trade in “silver 
 shrines” (ναοὶ ἀργυροῖ) which was represented 
 by Demetrius the silversmith (4pyupoxdmos) as 
 being in danger from 
 the spread of Chris- 
 tianity (Acts xix. 24, 
 28; 2 Tim. iv. 14). 
 
 2. The work οὗ 
 the carpenter (WON 
 DSY, τέκτων, artifex 
 lignarius) is often men- 
 tioned in Scripture 
 (e.g. Gen. vi. 14; Ex. 
 xxxvii.; Is. xliv. 13). 
 In the palace built 
 by David for himself, 
 the workmen em- 
 ployed were chiefly 
 Phoenicians sent by 
 Hiram (2 Sam. v. 11; 
 1 Ch. xiv. 1), as most 
 probably were those, 
 or at least the prin- 
 cipal of those, who 
 were employed by 
 Solomon in his works 
 (1K. v. 6). But in 
 the repairs of the 
 Temple, executed un- 
 der Joash king of 
 Judah, and also in 
 the rebuilding under 
 Zerubbabel, no men- 
 tion is made of foreign 
 workmen, though in 
 the latter case ‘the 
 timber is expressly 
 said to have been 
 brought by sea to 
 Joppa by Sidonians 
 (ake sa. 11: 2 Ch. 
 xxiv. 12; Ezra iii. 7). 
 That the Jewish car- 
 penters must have 
 been able to carve 
 with some skill is 
 evident from Is. xli. 7, 
 xliv. 13, in which last 
 passage some of the 
 implements used in 
 the trade are men- 
 tioned: — the rule 
 (TY, μέτρον, norma, possibly a chalk pencil, 
 Gesen. p. 1337), measuring-line (1, Gesen. 
 p- 1201), compass (TMD, παραγραφίς, circinus, 
 Gesen. p. 450), plane, or smoothing instrument 
 (AVINPD, κόλλα, runcina, Gesen, pp. 1228, 
 1338), axe (}I93, Gesen. p. 302, or DT), 
 Gesen. p. 1236, ἀξίνη, securis). ; 
 
 The process of the work, and the tools used 
 by Egyptian carpenters, and also coopers and 
 wheelwrights, are displayed in Egyptian monu- 
 
 r drilling a hole in the seat of a chair, s. 
 
 HANDICRAFT 1279 
 
 ments and relics; the former, including dove- 
 tailing, veneering, drilling, glueing, varnishing, 
 and inlaying, may be seen in Wilkinson, Anc. 
 Τρ. ti, 111-119, Of the latter many specimens, 
 including saws, hatchets, knives, awls, nails, a 
 hone, and a drill, also turned objects in bone, 
 exist in the British Museum, Ist Egyp. Room, 
 case 42-43, Nos. 6046-6188. See also Wilkin- 
 son, ii. p. 113, fig. 395. 
 
 In the N. T. the occupation of a carpenter 
 | (τέκτων) is mentioned in connexion with Joseph 
 
 (Wilkinson.) 
 tt, legs of chair. τὸ τι, adzes. 
 w, man planing or polishing the leg of a chair. 
 
 Carpenters. 
 
 v. a square. 
 
 \ 
 
 Masons. (Wilkinson.) 
 
 Part 1 levelling, and Part 2 squaring, a stone, 
 
 the husband of the Virgin Mary, and ascribed to 
 our Lord Himseif by way of reproach (Mark 
 vi. 3; Matt. xiii, 55; and Just. Mart. Dial. 
 Tryph. c. 88). 
 
 3. The masons (0°73, wall-builders, Gesen. 
 p- 269) employed by David and Solomon, at 
 least the chief of them, were Phoenicians, as is 
 
 implied also in the word 53, men of Gebal, 
 | Jebail, Byblus (Gesen. p. 258; 1 K. νυν. 18; 
 
 | Ezek. xxvii. 9; Burckhardt, Syria, p. 179). 
 
1280 HANDICRAFT 
 
 Among their implements are mentioned the saw 
 (772, πρίων), the plumb-line (IN, Gesen. 
 p- 425), the measuring-reed (3°, κάλαμος, 
 calamus, Gesen. p. 1221). Some of these, and 
 also the chisel and mallet, are represented on 
 Egyptian monuments (Wilkinson, Anc. Eg. ii. 
 313, 314), or preserved in the Brit. Mus. 
 (1st Egyp. Room, Nos. 6114, 6038). The large 
 stones used in Solomon’s Temple are said by 
 Josephus to have been fitted together exactly 
 without either mortar or cramps, but the found- 
 ation stones to have been fastened with lead 
 (Joseph. Ant. viii. 3, § 2; xv. 11, § 8). For 
 ordinary building, mortar, T°? (Gesen. p. 1328), 
 was used; sometimes, perhaps, bitumen, as was 
 the case at Babylon (Gen. xi. 3), The lime, 
 clay, and straw of which mortar is generally 
 composed in the East, requires to be very care- 
 fully mixed and united so as to resist wet (Lane, 
 Mod. Eg. i. 27; Shaw, Trav. p. 206). The wall 
 “daubed with untempered mortar” of Ezekiel 
 (xiii. 10) was perhaps a sort of cob-wall of mud 
 
 or clay without lime aA, Gesen. p. 1516), 
 
 An Egyptian loom. (Wilkinson.) 
 
 kis a shuttle, not thrown, but put in with the hand. 
 
 which would give way under heavy rain. The 
 use of whitewash on tombs is remarked by our 
 Lord (Matt. xxiii. 27. See also Mishn. Maaser 
 Sheni, v. 1). Houses infected with leprosy 
 were required by the Law to be replastered 
 (Ley. xiv. 40-45). 
 
 4, Akin te the craft of the carpenter is that 
 of ship and boat building, which must have 
 been exercised to some extent for the fishing- 
 vessels on the lake of Gennesaret (Matt. viii. 23, 
 ix. 1; John xxi. 3, 8). Solomon built, at Ezion- 
 geber, ships for his foreign trade, which were 
 manned by Phoenician crews, an experiment 
 which Jehoshaphat endeavoured in vain to 
 renew (1 K. ix. 26, 27, xxii. 48; 2 Ch. xx. 
 36, 37). 
 
 5. The perfumes used in the religious ser- 
 vices, and in later times in the funeral rites of 
 monarchs, imply knowledge and practice in the 
 art of the “apothecaries” (DN, μυρεψοΐ, 
 pigmentarii), who appear to have formed a guild 
 or association (Ex. xxx. 25, 35; Neh. iii. 8; 
 2 Ch. xvi. 14; Eccles. vii. 1, x. 1; Ecelus. 
 ‘Xxxviil. 8). 
 
 It had a hook at each end. 
 
 HANDICRAFT 
 
 6. The arts of spinning and weaving both. 
 wool and linen were carried on in eariy times, 
 as they are still usually among the Bedouins, by 
 women. The women spun and wove goat’s hair 
 and flax for the Tabernacle, as in later times 
 their skill was employed in like manner for 
 idolatrous purposes. One of the excellences 
 attributed to the good housewife is her skill and 
 industry in these arts (Ex. xxxv. 25, 26; Levy. 
 xix. 19; Deut. xxii. 11; 2 K. xxiii. 7; Ezek. 
 xvi. 16; Prov. xxxi. 13, 24; Burckhardt, Notes 
 on Bed. i. 65: cp. Hom. Jl. i. 123; Od. i. 356, 
 ii. 104). The loom, with its beam ΟἿ, 
 μεσάντιον, liciatorium, 1 Sam. xvii. 7; Gesen. 
 p. 883), pin (ἼΠ", πάσσαλος, clavus, Judg. xvi. 
 14; Gesen. p. 643), and shuttle (JN, δρομεύς, 
 
 Job vii. 6; Gesen. p, 146), was, perhaps, intro- 
 duced later, but as early as David’s time (1 Sam. 
 xvii. 7), and worked by men, as was the case in 
 Egypt, contrary to the practice of other nations. 
 This trade also appears to have been practised 
 hereditarily (1 Ch. iv. 21; Herod. ii. 35; Soph. 
 Oed, Col. 339). 
 
 Together with weaving we read 
 also of embroidery, in which gold 
 and silver threads were interwoven 
 with the body of the stuff, some- 
 times in figure patterns, or with 
 precious stones set in the needle- 
 work (Ex. xxvi. 1, xxviii, 4, xxxix, 
 6-13). 
 
 7. Besides these arts, those of 
 dyeing and of dressing cloth were 
 practised in Palestine, and those also 
 of tanning and dressing leather 
 (Josh. ii. 15-18; 2 K. i. 8; Matt. 
 iii. 4; Acts ix. 43; Mishn. Megiill. 
 iii. 2). Shoemakers, barbers, and 
 tailors are mentioned in the Mishna 
 
 (Pesach, iv. 6): the barber (173; 
 koupevs, Gesen. p. 283), or his 
 occupation, by Ezekiel (τ. 1; Lev. 
 xiv. 8; Num. vi. 5; Josephus, Ant.. 
 xvi. 11, § 55 Bl ieee 
 Mishn. Shabb. i. 2), and the tailor 
 (i. 3): plasterers, glaziers, glass 
 vessels, painters, and goldworkers are mentioned 
 in the Mishna (Cel. viii. 9, xxix. 3-8; xxx. 1). 
 
 Tentmakers (σκηνοποιοὶ) are noticed in the 
 Acts (xviii. 3), and frequent allusion is made to 
 the trade of the potters. 
 
 8. Bakers (DYDN, Gesen. p. 136) are noticed 
 in Scripture as carrying on their trade (Jer. 
 xxxvii. 21; Hos. vii. 4; Mishn. Cel. xv. 2); 
 and the well-known valley Tyropoeon probably 
 derived its name from the occupation of the 
 cheese-makers, its inhabitants (Joseph. B. J. v. 
 4, 1). Butchers, not Jewish, are spoken of in 
 1 Cor. x. 25. 
 
 Trade in all its branches was much developed 
 after the Captivity; and for a father to teach 
 his son a trade was reckoned not only honour- 
 able but indispensable (Mishn. Pirke Abd. ii. 2; 
 Kiddush. iv. 14). Some trades, however, were 
 regarded as less honourable (Jahn, Bibl. Arch. 
 § 84). 
 
 Some, if not all trades, had special localities, 
 as was the case formerly in European, and is 
 now in Eastern, cities (Jer. xxxvii. 21; 1 Cor. 
 x. 25; Joseph. B. J. v. 4, § 1, and 8, § 1; 
 
: HANDKERCHIEF 
 
 Mishn. Becor. v. 1; Russell, Aleppo, i. 20; 
 Chardin, Voyages, vii. 274, 394; Lane, Mod. Ly. 
 ii. 145). 
 
 One feature, distinguishing Jewish from other 
 workmen, deserves peculiar notice, viz. that 
 they were not slaves, nor were their trades 
 necessarily hereditary, as was and is so often 
 the case among other, especially heathen nations 
 (Jahn, Bibl. Antig. c. v. §§ 81-84; Saalschiitz, 
 Hebr. Arch. c. 14; Winer, 5. v. Handwerke). 
 (MusicaL INsTRUMENTS; POTTERY; GLAss; 
 LEATHER. ] ΠΕ 5 ΕΗ 
 
 HANDKERCHIEF, NAPKIN, APRON. 
 Of these terms, as used in the A. V., the first 
 two = σουδάριον, the last = σιμικίνθιον : they 
 are classed together, inasmuch as they refer to 
 objects of a very similar character. Both words 
 are of Latin origin: covddpioy = sudarium from 
 sudo, “to sweat;” the Lutheran translation 
 preserves the reference to its etymology in its 
 rendering, Schweisstuch ; σιμικίνθιον = semicinc- 
 tium, ie. “a half girdle.” Neither is much 
 _ used by classical writers; the sudariwm is re- 
 ferred to as used for wiping the face (candido 
 frontem sudario tergeret, Quintil. vi. 3), or 
 hands (sudario manus tergens, quod in collo habe- 
 bat, Petron. in Fragm. Trugur. cap. 67); and 
 also as worn over the face for the purpose of 
 concealment (Sueton. in Neron. cap. 48); the 
 - word was introduced by the Romans into Pales- 
 tine, where it was adopted by the Jews, in the 
 form N17'D as=NMAYN, in Ruth iii. 15. The 
 sudarium is noticed in the N. T. as a wrapper in 
 which to fold up money (Luke xix. 20)—as 
 a cloth bound about the head of a corpse 
 (John xi. 44, xx. 7), being probably brought 
 from the crown of the head under the chin 
 ᾿ς «πὰ lastly as an article of dress that 
 could be easily removed (Acts xix. 12), proba- 
 bly a handkerchief worn on the head like the 
 heffich of the Bedouins. The semicinctium is no- 
 ticed by Martial xiv. Zpir. 153, and by Petron. 
 in Satyr. cap. 94. The distinction between the 
 cinctus and semicinctium consisted in its width 
 (Isidor. Orig. xix. 33): with regard to the 
 character of the σιμικίνθιον, the only inference 
 from the passage in which it occurs (Acts xix. 
 12) is that it was easily removed from the 
 person, and probably was worn next to the skin. 
 - According to Suidas, the distinction between the 
 sudarium and the semicinctium was very small, 
 for he explains the latter by the former, σιμι- 
 κίνθιον : φακιόλιον ἢ σουδάριον, the φακιόλιον 
 being a species οἵ head-dress: Hesychius like- 
 wise explains σιμικίνθιον by φακιόλιον. Accord- 
 ing to the scholiast (in Cod. Steph.), as quoted 
 by Schleusner (Lex. s. v. σουδάριον), the distinc- 
 tion between the two terms is that the sudariwm 
 was worn on the head, and the semicinctium 
 used as a handkerchief. The difference was 
 probably not in the shape, but in the use of the 
 article. We may conceive them to have been 
 bands of linen of greater or less size, which might 
 be adapted to many purposes, like the /ungi of 
 the Arabs, which is applied sometimes as a 
 girdle, at other times as a turban (Wellsted, 
 Travels, i. 321). τ BS] 
 
 ~HANDMAID. ([Concusine, Siave.] 
 
 _ HA'NES (030; Hanes), a place in Egypt, only 
 mentioned in Is, xxx. 4: “ For his princes are at 
 BIBLE DICT.—VOL. I. 
 
 1281 
 
 Zoan, and his ambassadors are come to Hanes.” 
 The LXX. has ὅτι εἰσὶν ἐν Τάνει ἀρχηγοὶ 
 ἄγγελοι πονηροί, evidently following an entirely 
 different reading. : 
 Two identifications have been proposed: (1) 
 with Tehaphnehes or Daphnae; (2) with Khi- 
 nensu or Heracleopolis Magna. It has been 
 argued (see the Ist edition of this Dict.) that 
 Hanes must have been on the eastern frontier. 
 When the princes had come to Zoan, the chief 
 royal city at the time, it is quite reasonable to 
 suppose that the ambassadors were at Daphnae. 
 The Chald. Paraph. may have been influenced by 
 this idea in choosing Tehaphnehes. But as ap 
 abbreviation of this name, Hanes seems out of 
 all analogy, and thus the identitication philolo- 
 gically too daring. On examining the text, the 
 alternative seems preferable. The verb 1}, used 
 of the ambassadors, both in Kal and in Hiphil, as 
 here, means primarily “ to touch ” or “reach to” ; 
 and in a secondary sense, “to come to.” If there- 
 fore we would be strictly literal, the verb pro- 
 bably implies that Hanes was beyond Zoan. The 
 old Egyptian civil name of Heracleopolis Magna, 
 Khinensu, in Assyrian Khi-ni-in-shi, is preserved 
 
 in the Coptic 9, NEC, MHC, Ce,Mec, 
 and the Arabic Ahnds-el-Medeeneh, ων) 
 
 δον the name of a modern village be- 
 
 lieved to mark the site. The city of Khinensu 
 was anciently the capital of two dynasties of 
 Heracleopolite kings, the ninth and tenth of 
 Manetho’s list, who intervened between the last 
 Memphite dynasty and the first Theban. They 
 have recently been identified by Mr. F. Ll. 
 Griffith, from the inscriptions of the tombs of 
 Asyoot (Report of Egypt Exploration Fund, 
 1889, p. 11 sq.). In later times Heracleopolis 
 does not seem to have played an important part 
 in history until the break-up of the Egyptian 
 monarchy, about B.c. 750, when the country 
 was resolved into its original elements, the 
 nomes ; a condition which lasted about a century, 
 until the successful effort of Psammetichus 1. 
 to reunite Egypt under a single sceptre. During 
 this period Khinensu was the seat of one of the 
 petty kings. At the date of the prophecy the 
 titular king of all Egypt had his seat at Zoan, 
 or Tanis, while the real over-lord was the Ethio- 
 pian of Napata. The rule of the Ethiopian 
 depended on his power to resist the strength of 
 Assyria. Consequently the phantom Pharaoh 
 of Zoan and the little kings of the nomes occa- 
 sionally rose to comparative importance. Ata 
 moment of this kind a neighbouring power 
 would naturally address itself to Zoan and to 
 one of the Upper Egyptian rulers, of whom the 
 prince of Khinensu was the most northern, and 
 would thus naturally represent the second chief 
 addressed by envoys from a Palestinian kingdom. 
 The princes would be more properly sent to 
 Pharaoh at Zoan, the ambassadors to the inferior 
 ruler of Hanes. We have still to determine 
 the date of the embassy. It was addressed to 
 Pharaoh (vv. 2, 3) and the Egyptians (vv. 2, 3, 7; 
 xxxi. 1,3). It therefore cannot be the embassy 
 of Hoshea, king of Israel, to So, or Shebek 
 (2 K. xvii. 4), the Ethiopian king or over-lord of 
 Egypt. The conditions suit the embassy of 
 Hezekiah to Pharaoh, to which Sennacherib 
 made contemptuous allusion in his message to 
 4N 
 
 HANES 
 
1282 HANGING 
 
 the king of udah (2 K. xviii. 20, 21). The 
 whole context of the two chapters of Is. xxx., 
 xxxi. points to Jerusalem and her miraculous 
 deliverance from Assyria. 5. (Pal 
 
 HANGING. ([PuNIsHMENT.] 
 HANGING; HANGINGS. These terms 
 
 represent both different words in the original, 
 and different articles in the furniture of the 
 
 Temple. (1.) The “hanging” (JD; ἐπίσπα- ᾿ 
 
 στρον ; tentorium) was a curtain or “ covering” 
 (as the word radically means) to close an en- 
 trance; one was placed before the door of the 
 Tabernacle (Ex. xxvi. 36, 37, xxxix. 38); it was 
 
 made of variegated stuff wrought with needle- | 
 
 work, and was hung on five pillars of acacia 
 wood: another was placed before the entrance 
 of the court (Ex. xxvii. 16, xxxviii. 18; Num. iv. 
 26); the term is also applied to the vail that 
 concealed the Holy of Holies, in the full ex- 
 pression “vail of the covering” (Ex. xxxv. 12, 
 xxxix. 34, xl. 21; Num. iv. 5). [CuRTAQNs, 2.] 
 (2.) The “hangings ” (D'VEP ; ἱστία ; tentoria) 
 were used for covering the walls of the court of 
 the Tabernacle, just as tapestry was in modern 
 times (Ex. xxvii. 9, xxxv. 17, xxxvili. 9; Num. 
 iii, 26, iv. 26). The rendering in the LXX. 
 implies that they were made of the same sub- 
 stance as the sails of a ship, i.e. (as explained 
 by Rashi) “ meshy, not woven:” this opinion 
 is, however, incorrect, as the material of which 
 they were constructed was “ fine twined linen.” 
 The hangings were carried only five cubits high, 
 or half the height of the walls of the court 
 (Ex. xxvii. 18; cp. xvi. 16), [TABERNACLE. ] 
 In 2 K. xxiii. 7, the term batizm, DMA, strictly 
 “houses” (A. V. and R. V. text “ hangings”), is 
 probably intended to describe tents (A. V. 
 marg.) used as portable sanctuaries. [W. L. B.] 
 
 HAN-I-EL O80, 1.6. Channiel, R. V. “ Han- 
 niel ”=gift (or grace) of God ; ‘Avena ; Haniel), 
 one of the sons of Ulla, a chief prince, and a 
 choice hero in the tribe of Asher (1 Ch. vii. 39). 
 
 HAN’NAH (13M =grace, or beauty ; “Avva; 
 Anna), one of the wives of Elkanah, and mother 
 of Samuel (1 Sam. 1. ii.); a prophetess of con- 
 siderable repute, though her claim to that title 
 is based upon one production only, viz. the 
 hymn of thanksgiving for the birth of her son. 
 The hymn is in the highest order of prophetic 
 poetry ; its resemblance to that of the Virgin 
 Mary (cp. 1 Sam. ii. 1-10 with Luke i. 46-55; 
 see also Ps. exiii.) has been noticed by com- 
 mentators; and it is specially remarkable as 
 containing the first designation of the Messiah 
 under that name. In the Targum it has been 
 subjected to a process of magniloquent dilution. 
 [SAMUEL.] Modern critics do not hesitate 
 to affirm that “in style and tone the Song 
 throughout bears the marks of a later age than 
 that of Hannah,” even if it be admitted that 
 “sober criticism” will “not assert categorically 
 that the Song cannot be by Hannah” (cp. 
 Driver, Notes on the Heb. Text of the BB. of 
 Sam., p. 21). [Τὸ Bale eal 
 
 HANNA’THON qinan, (?) = graceful; B. 
 
 ‘Audé, A.’Evva0éd ; Hanathon), one of the cities 
 of Zebulun, a point apparently on the northern 
 
 “Amis, 6 ἐκλεκτός σου. 
 
 HAPA 
 
 boundary (Josh. xix. 14). Major Conder has 
 proposed its identification with Kefr ‘Andn, S.W. 
 of Safed, which is mentioned in the Mishna 
 (Shebiith, ix. 2) as marking the northern limit 
 of Lower Galilee (PEF. Mem. i: 205). 
 [1 [WJ 
 HAN-NI-EL Own; *Avind; Hanniel), son 
 of Ephod; as prince (Nasi) of Manasseh, he 
 assisted in the division of the Promised Land 
 (Num. xxxiv. 23). The name is the same as 
 HANIEL. 
 
 HANO'CH (43M [see Enocn]; Ἐνώχ: 
 Henoch). 1. The third in order of the children 
 of Midian, and therefore descended from Abra- 
 ham by Keturah (Gen. xxv. 4). In the parallel 
 list of 1 Ch. i. 33, the name is given in the A. V. 
 as Henocn (R. V. “ Hanoch ”). 
 
 2. (JIN; Ἐνώχ; Henoch.) Eldest son of 
 
 Reuben (Gen. xlvi. 9; Ex. vi. 14; Num. xxvi. 
 5; 1 Ch. v. 3), and founder of the family of 
 
 HANO'CHITES, THE (93397; δῆμος τοῦ ἡ 
 
 Ἐνώχ; familia Henochitarum), Num. xxvi. 5. 
 
 HA'NUN (13 =he who hath received mercy ; 
 B. ‘Avyév, A. ‘Adv and ‘Avy [Sam.], BA. 
 ‘Avdy, ἐξ. sometimes ᾿Αννάν [Ch.]; Hanon; 
 Assyr. Hanunu). 1. Son of Nahash (2 Sam. x. 
 1, 2; 1 Ch. xix. 1, 2), king of Ammon, who dis- 
 honoured the ambassadors of David (2 Sam. x. 4), 
 and involved the Ammonites in a disastrous war 
 (2 Sam. xii. 31; 1 Ch. xix. 6). LW..t. Bul 
 
 2. A man who, with the people of Zanoah, 
 repaired the ravine-gate in the wall of Jerusalem 
 (Neh. iii. 13; ‘Avovv). 
 
 8. Aman specified as “the sixth son of Zalaph,” 
 who also assisted in the repair of the wall, appa- 
 rently on the east side (Neh. iii. 30; BA. “Avovp, 
 N. “Ανώμ). [We A- ἢ 
 
 HAPA (ΝΠ; “Amis). The name of the 
 Egyptian sacred bull Apis occurs in the LXX. 
 of Jer. xlvi. (LXX. xxvi.) 15, where the Masoretic 
 PVAN ANDI] pr, “Why are thy valiant 
 men swept away?” (A. V, “Why are thy 
 strong ones?” or marg. Why is thy strong one? 
 R. V.) is rendered by the LXX. διά τί ἔφυγεν 6 
 Hence it is conjectured 
 by Frankl that the text from which the LXX. 
 was translated read 99ND NBO DI 9) 
 (Studien ueber die Septuaginta und Peschito zu 
 Jeremia, pp. 14, 20, 21). This is certainly 
 agreeable with the imagery of this prophecy, 
 in which there are two other similar figures. 
 “Egypt is a very fair heifer; but destruction 
 [marg. Or, the gadfly] out of the north is come” 
 [marg. it is come upon her] (v. 20). The merce- 
 naries are also compared to “calves of the 
 stall”? (v. 21). The parallel allusion to the 
 sacred bull of Osiris, Apis, and to the sacred 
 cow Aha-t, sometimes represented as a heifer 
 (Lanzoni, Dizionario di Mitologia Egizia, pl. i. 
 1, 2), of the mother-goddesses Athor and Isis 
 (id. p. 3), is sufficiently remarkable; and if the 
 reading “gadfly” be correct, the reference to 
 the Graeco-Phoenician story of Io, or Aha-t, is 
 probable. But it may be argued that the re- 
 ference to the heifer led the LXX. translators to 
 imagine Apis, and there is no doubt that either 
 
' position is uncertain, 
 
 HAPHRAIM 
 
 they had a very different text here from the 
 Masoretic, or that they allowed themselves a 
 great liberty of translation. [R. S. P.] 
 
 HAPHRA’IM, R. V. and A. V. 1611 HA- 
 PHARA'IM (OSM, ic. Chaphardim; B. 
 ‘Ayelv, A. ’Adepaeiu; Hapharaim), a city of 
 Issachar, mentioned next to Shunem (Josh, xix. 
 19). The name possibly signifies “ two pits.” By 
 Eusebius and Jerome it is spoken of as still known 
 under the name of Afarea (Adpata) and as stand- 
 ing 6 miles north of Legio (OS. p. 241, 61; p. 130, 
 28). The Afarea of Eusebius and Jerome is now 
 apparently the important ruin, KA. el-Farriych, 
 δὲ Eng. miles N.W. of Lejjin. But this site 
 seems too far to the west for Haphraim, which 
 should be looked for nearer to Solam (the ancient 
 Shunem). Two miles west of this place stands 
 
 the village of el-‘Afileh (x3 gx) !), which may 
 be the representative of Chapharaim, Ain having 
 taken the place of the Cheth. MEST) IAT 
 
 HA’RA (810 = mountain land; LXX. om.; 
 
 Ara), a place mentioned with Halah, Habor, and 
 the river of Gozan, in connexion with the de- 
 portation into captivity of the Reubenites, 
 Gadites, and the half-tribe of Manasseh by the 
 king of Assyria (1 Ch. v. 26). It may be Media 
 magna (MV."); it is hardly probable that it 
 was the same as Harran. [F.] 
 
 HARA’DAH (1790), with the article, =the 
 trembling; Xapadadé; Arada), a desert station 
 of the Israelites (Num. xxxiii. 24, 25); its 
 
 HA’RAN. 1. (ἼΠ: ᾿Αῤῥάν; Jos. ᾿Αράνης : 
 Aran). The-third son of Terah, and therefore 
 youngest brother of Abram (Gen. xi. 26). Three 
 children are ascribed to him—Lot (vv. 27, 31), 
 and two daughters, viz. Milcah, who married her 
 uncle Nahor (v. 29), and Iscah (v. 29), of whom we 
 merely possess her name, though by some (e.g. 
 Josephus) she is held to be identical with Sarah. 
 
 _ Haran was born in Ur of the Chaldees, and he 
 
 died there while his father was still living (v. 28). 
 His sepulchre was still shown there when 
 Josephus wrote his history (Ant. i. 6, § 5). 
 The ancient Jewish tradition is that Haran was 
 burnt in the furnace of Nimrod for his wavering 
 conduct during the fiery trial of Abraham (see 
 the Targum Ps.-Jonathan; Jerome’s Quaest. in 
 Genesim, and the notes thereto in the edit. of 
 Migne). This tradition seems to have originated 
 in a translation of the word Ur, which in 
 Hebrew signifies “ fire.” It will be observed that 
 although this name and that of the country 
 appear the same in the A. V., there is in the 
 
 _ original a certain difference between them; the 
 
 latter commencing with the harsh guttural 
 Cheth. 
 
 2. (B. Aiddy, A.’Apdv; Aran.) A Gershonite 
 Levite in the time of David, one of the family of 
 Shimei (1 Ch. xxiii. 9). [G.] [W.] 
 
 HA’RAN (ἼΠ, LXX. Χαῤῥάν ; Haran) is the 
 
 name of the place to which Abraham migrated 
 
 _ from Ur of the Chaldees, and where the descend- 
 
 ants of his brother Nahor established themselves. 
 Haran is therefore called “the city of Nahor ” 
 
 HARAN 1283 
 
 (cp. Gen. xxiv. 10 with xxvii. 43), It is said to 
 be in Mesopotamia (Gen. xxiv. 10), or more 
 definitely in Padan-aram (xxv. 20), which is the 
 “cultivated district at the foot of the hills” 
 (Stanley, S. § P. p. 129 n.), a name well apply- 
 ing to the beautiful stretch of country which 
 lies below Mount Masius between the Ahabour 
 and the Euphrates [PADAN-ARAM]. Here, about 
 midway in this district, is a town still called 
 Harrdn, which really never seems to have 
 changed its appellation, and beyond any reason- 
 able doubt is the Haran or Charran of Scripture 
 (Bochart’s Phaleg, i. 14; Ewald’s Geschichte, i. 
 384). 
 
 The foundation of the city is lost in antiquity, 
 but Assyrian or Babylonian influence probably 
 predominated at an early date, as is indicated 
 by the fact that the name, in Assyro-Babylonian, 
 is Harran, meaning “ road,” and is written with 
 the ideograph expressing that word. It was 
 probably so called as the crossing-point of the 
 Syrian, Assyrian, and Babylonian trade-route. 
 It is often mentioned in cuneiform literature, 
 Tiglath-pileser I. (about 1120 B.c.) boasting of 
 having taken or killed elephants “in the land of 
 Haran (ina mat Harrani) and on the banks of 
 the Khabour ;” and Sargon says that he “ spread 
 out his shadow over the city Haran (eli dali 
 Harrana salulu-su itrusu), and as a soldier of 
 Anu and Dagon wrote its laws.’’ Sennacherib 
 (2 K. ix. 12) boasts of having conquered Gozan, 
 Haran, Reseph, and the Beni-Eden ; and the city 
 is mentioned as a considerable trading-centre in 
 Ezek. xxvii. 23. The patron-deity of the city 
 was the moon-god, called Sin by the Assyrians, 
 and the city was celebrated for his worship from 
 exceedingly ancient times, as is indicated by 
 Assurbanipal, and also by Nabonidus, who 
 relates that the god Sin was angry with Haran 
 and with his temple E-hulhul (“the house of 
 joy”’) within it, and he therefore allowed the 
 Umman-Manda (Medes or Scyths) to come and 
 destroy the temple. Nabonidus, however, re- 
 ceived (so he relates) from the gods Merodach 
 and Sin, in a dream, instructions to rebuild the 
 temple ; and when Nabonidus pointed out that 
 the Umman-Manda still surrounded the city, 
 the destruction of those hordes was revealed to 
 him, which destruction took place under Cyrus 
 three years later. Nabonidus was thus enabled 
 to continue and complete the work of Shal- 
 maneser IJ. and Assurbanipal with great mag- 
 nificence, and he adorned the city of Haran at 
 the same time. It was famous among the 
 Romans for being near the scene of the defeat of 
 Crassus (Plin. WV, H. v. 24). About the time of 
 the Christian era it appears to have formed part 
 of the kingdom of Edessa (Mos. Chor. ii. 32), 
 which was ruled by Abgarus. Afterwards it 
 passed with that kingdom under the dominion of 
 the Romans, and appears as a Roman city in the 
 wars of Caracalla (Mos. Chor. ii. 72) and Julian 
 (Jo. Malal. p. 329). It was the seat of a 
 bishopric in the 4th century, and possessed a 
 magnificent cathedral, the ruins of which still 
 remain. It is remarkable that the people of 
 Haran retained until a late date the Chaldean 
 language and the worship of Chaldean deities. 
 
 Haran lies on the Belias (Belich, ancient 
 Bilichus), a small affluent of the Euphrates, 
 which falls into it at about long. 39°. It now 
 consists of a low range of mounds or hills on 
 
 4N 2 
 
νος ey 
 
 1284 HARAN HARARITE, THE 
 
 both sides of the river. The ruins of the castle, , irregular. One of the gateways is flanked by 
 with its square columns 8 ft. thick supporting ‘three towers. Near the city. is a well, tra- 
 an arched roof 30 ft. high, are very conspicuous. | ditionally pointed out as the one at which 
 There are also several more modern ruins. The | Rebekah was met, and there is also a mosque 
 walls, though in a state of dilapidation, are | outside the walls, A fragment of an Assyrian 
 yet continuous throughout. They are very | lion has been found among the ruins of the town. 
 
 Haran, or Charran, showing the Ruins ot the Castle, with some of the houses in the shape of bee-hives around it, 
 
 The modern Haran isnowa small village inhabited In the A. V. of the New Testament the name 
 
 by a few families of Arabs (cp. Ainsworth, in | follows the Greek form, and is given as Charran 
 
 the PSBA., May 5, 1891, pp- 385-391). * (Acts vii. 2, 4), but the R. V. has Haran. 
 a. oo [G. ἘΠ [T. G. PJ 
 
 a Dr. Beke’s view, that Haran is to be identified with : 
 the village Haran-el-Awamad, about four hours east of HARA’RITE, THE ema, pelea (ἢ 
 
 Damascus, cannot be accepted.—[F. ] mountaineer, Ges. Thes. p. 392; de Arari, or 
 
— 
 
 HARBONA 
 
 Orori, Ararites): the designation of three men 
 connected with David’s guard. 
 
 1. (ὁ “Αρουχαῖος.) ‘AGER, a Hararite”’(R. V.), 
 father of Shammah, the third of the three chiefs 
 of the heroes (2 Sam, xxiii. 11. In the parallel] 
 passage, 1 Ch. xi., the name of this warrior is 
 entirely omitted). 
 
 2. (ὁ ᾿Αρωδίτης.) “SHAMMAH the Hararite ” 
 is named as one of the thirty in 2 Sam. xxiii. 33. 
 In 1 Ch. xi. 34 the name is altered to Shage 
 (Luc. Σαμαιά). Kennicott’s conclusion, from a 
 minute investigation, is that the passage should 
 stand in both, ‘Jonathan, son of Shammah the 
 Hararite” (2 Sam. xxiii. 11)—Shammah being 
 identical with Shimei, David’s brother (see 
 
 Driver, Notes on the Heb. Text of the BB. of | 
 
 Sam. in loco). 
 
 3. (Sapaoupirns, 6’Apopt.) “SHARAR (2 Sam. 
 xxiii. 33) or Sacar (1 Ch. xi. 35) the Hararite ”’ 
 (R. V. “the Ararite ”) was the father of Ahiam, 
 another member of the guard. Kennicott is 
 inclined to consider Sacar to be the correct 
 name. 
 
 HARBO’NA (825274, possibly from the 
 Pers, = ass-driver; BN. Θάῤῥα, A. *OapeBwd. ; 
 Harbona), the third of the seven chamberlains, 
 or eunuchs, who served king Ahasuerus (Esth. 
 i. 10), and who suggested Haman’s being hung 
 on his own gallows (vii. 9) In the latter 
 passage the name is 
 
 HARBO'NAH (723290; BA. Bovyaéur, 
 N*. -d, N° -ἀἀν ; _Harbona). 
 
 HARE (NID, ’arnebeth ; δασύπους ; lepus ; 
 Arab. en) »,); *arneb) occurs only in Ley. xi. 6 
 
 and Deut. xiv. 7, amongst the animals disallowed 
 
 HARE 1285 
 
 as food by the Mosaic Law. There is no doubt 
 at all that ’arnébeth denotes “a hare.” The hare 
 
 is at this day called arneb (9) by the 
 
 Arabs in Palestine and Syria (see Russell’s Nat. 
 Hist. of Aleppo,? ii. 154). The δασύπους, ἴ.6. 
 “rough foot,” is identical with λαγώς, and is 
 the term which Aristotle generally applies to 
 the hare: indeed he only uses the latter word 
 once in his History of Animals (viii. 27, § 4). 
 The rabbit (Z. cuniculus) was unknown to the 
 ancient Hebrews; nor is it known in Syria or 
 Palestine. It is indigenous only in Western 
 Europe and North Africa: wherever it is found 
 elsewhere, it has been introduced. It is doubtful 
 whether Aristotle was acquainted with the rabbit, 
 as he never alludes to any burrowing λαγὼς or 
 δασύπους ; but, on the other hand, see the passage 
 in vi. 28, ὃ 3, where the young of the δασύπους 
 are said to be “born blind,” which will apply 
 to the rabbit alone. Pliny (NW. Ἢ. viii. 55) 
 expressly notices rabbits (cuniculi), which occur 
 in such numbers in the Balearic Islands as to 
 destroy the harvests. He also notices the 
 practice of ferreting these animals, and thus 
 driving them out of their burrows. The hare 
 is considered by the Syrians as well as the Arabs 
 as an animal of the chase, and is pursued by 
 
 greyhounds, or more frequently, among the 
 Bedouin, by trained falcons. Its flesh is highly 
 prized by the Arabs, though some of the more 
 scrupulous of the Turks decline to eat it. But 
 the Moslems tell one that the hare chews the 
 cud, and therefore is clean. The Armenian Chris- 
 tians refuse to eat it, but not Greek Christians. 
 The hare was forbidden to the Israelites because 
 it has not a cloven hoof; the remark that it 
 chews the cud being only parenthetical. It was 
 generally believed that it chewed the cud from 
 
 its habit of constantly grinding its teeth and 
 moving its jaws, after the manner of ruminating 
 animals. But in rodents such as the hare, the 
 incisor teeth continue to grow through life, and 
 must be kept to the proper length, by this con- 
 stant grinding. If one tooth be accidentally 
 broken off, the tooth that meets it grows on, and 
 often by its length prevents the animal from 
 feeding. 
 
 Moses speaks of animals according to appear- 
 ances, and not with the precision of a com- 
 parative anatomist, and his object was to show 
 why the hare should be interdicted, though to 
 
 all appearance it chewed the cud, viz. because it 
 
 did not divide the hoof. 
 
 There are two species of hares natives of 
 different parts of Palestine, and two or three 
 others which occasionally occur near the borders 
 of the land :— 
 
 1. Lepus syriacus (Hemp. and Ehr. Symb. 
 Phys. ii. tab. 15).—This is the only species in 
 
 Greyhound and Hare. (From a bronze bowl, Nimrud.) 
 
 TN, 
 
 the wooded and cultivated districts of Palestine. 
 Down the coast it is found from Lebanon and 
 
1286 HARE 
 
 Hermon to Philistia. I have also found it every- 
 where in the wooded and mountainous regions 
 of Northern Syria, north of Lebanon. It is very 
 little smaller than the English hare, and very 
 like it in colour, being about 2 inches less in 
 total length, and with rather shorter ears. It 
 has four young at a birth. It has not been 
 observed beyond the limits of Syria. ᾿ 
 
 2. Lepus aegyptius (Geoftr. Descr. de Egypte, 
 Mamm. tab. 6).—The Egyptian is the common 
 hare of the southern region of Judaea, of the 
 wilderness of Beersheba, and of the Jordan 
 valley. It is smaller than our hare, the body 
 from tip of nose to root of tail measuring only 
 18 inches. The ears are very long, fringed 
 inside with white hairs. It is of a light sandy 
 or isabelline colour above, and almost white 
 beneath. It is found through all the desert 
 parts of Egypt, reaching Palestine from the 
 south-west, as the following species does from 
 the south-east. 
 
 3. Lepus sinaiticus (Hemp. and Ehr. Symb. 
 Phys. ii. tab. 15),—This species is smaller than 
 
 Lepus sinaiticus (Hemp. aud Ebr.). 
 
 the preceding, but with ears fully as long. It | 
 
 has a long and very narrow head, and the fur of 
 a sandy colour, but with a reddish hue which 
 distinguishes it from the Egyptian hare. It is 
 the hare of the Sinaitic Peninsula, and I never 
 obtained it in Palestine except in the wadys by 
 the Dead Sea. 
 
 4. Lepus isabellinus (Riipp, Atlas, p. 52, 
 tab. 20)—The Nubian hare is very rare, only 
 found in the sandy deserts of the South-East. 
 I possess one specimen which I procured there, 
 and I have never seen another, It is of a rich 
 yellowish fawn colour, lighter than that of the 
 Egyptian hare, which it generally resembles, but 
 is decidedly smaller. It is the hare of Nubia 
 and Sennaar, but not of Abyssinia and Egypt. 
 The distribution of these various hares seems to 
 be not so much geographical, as dependent on 
 the character of the soil, and their ranges over- 
 lap and cross each other most irregularly. 
 
 5. Lepus judaeus (Gray, Ann. and Mag. Nat. 
 Hist. 3xd ser. vol. xx. p. 222),—Dr. Gray named 
 as above a specimen collected by me and placed 
 it in a new genus (eulagos). But it seems to 
 me so like the Persian species, described by 
 Mr. Blanford (Zastern Persia, ii. p. 80) as Lepus 
 craspedotis, that I do not propose to separate 
 them. My specimen came from the N.E, corner 
 ot Palestine, near the Syrian desert. [H. B. T.] 
 
 HARHAS 
 
 HAR’EL (with the def. art. ONT; τὸ 
 ἀριήλ ; Ariel). In the margin of Ezek. xliii. 15 
 (A. V.) the word rendered “ altar” in the text 
 (R. V. “upper altar”) is given Harel, i.e. the 
 mountain of God. The LXX., Vulg., and Arab. 
 evidently regarded it as the same as “ Ariel” 
 in the same verse (see Delitzsch * on Is. xxix. 1, 
 whose opinion is not accepted by Dillmann 5). 
 Our translators followed the Targum of Jonathan 
 in translating it “altar.” Junius explains it of 
 the ἐσχάρα or hearth of the altar of burnt offer- 
 ing, covered by the network on which the sacri- 
 fices were placed over the burning wood. This 
 explanation Gesenius adopts, and brings for- 
 
 ward as a parallel the Arab. ὃν ireh, a hearth 
 
 or fireplace,” akin to the Heb. AN, 7ur, “ light, 
 flame.” The QPB.? (Ezek. /. c.), adopting the 
 sense of hearth, connects the text and marg. 
 rendering by taking “the altar to be the lesser 
 symbol of the mountain of the Elohim.” [F.] 
 
 HA’REPH Gn; B. ’Apetu, A. ’Apel; Ha- 
 riph), a name occurring in the genealogies of 
 Judah, as a son of Caleb, and as “ father of Beth- 
 gader” (1 Ch. ii. 51, only). In the lists of 
 Ezra 11. and Neh. vii. the similar name HARIPH 
 is found; but nothing appears to establish a 
 connexion between the two. [6.1 [FJ 
 
 HA’RETH (R. V. HERETH), THE 
 FOREST OF (NN WD'; ἐν πόλει " [reading 
 
 ΠΤ for WY], B. Σαρείκ, A. ’Apid®; in saltum 
 
 Haret), in which David took refuge, after, at 
 the instigation of the prophet Gad, he had 
 
 | quitted the “hold” or fastness of the cave 
 
 of Adullam—if indeed it was Adullam and not 
 
 | Mizpeh of Moab, which is not quite clear 
 
 (1 Sam. xxii. 5). Nothing appears in the 
 narrative by which the position of this forest, 
 which has long since disappeared, can be ascer- 
 tained, except the very general remark that it 
 was in the “land of Judah,” 1.6. according to 
 Josephus, the inheritance proper of that tribe, 
 τὴν κληρουχίαν τῆς φυλῆς, as opposed to the 
 “desert,” τὴν ἐρημίαν, in which David had before 
 been lurking (Ant. vi. 12, § 4). We might take 
 it to be the “wood” in the “wilderness of 
 Ziph” in which he was subsequently hidden 
 (xxiii. 15, 19), but that the Hebrew term is 
 different (choresh instead of ya‘ar). According 
 to Eusebius (0 8.2 p. 243, 21) Arith was in his day 
 the village Arath, to the west of Jerusalem. 
 The name is perhaps preserved in Khards, a 
 small village, surrounded by olive-trees, about 
 3 miles S.E. of ‘Aid el-Md, Adullam (PEF. 
 Mem. iii. 305). [61 [Ww] 
 
 HARHAI’AH (0; T’. ᾿Αραχίος, Swete 
 om.; Araia). Uzziel, son of Charhaiah, of the 
 goldsmiths, assisted in the repair of the wall of 
 Jerusalem under Nehemiah (Neh. iii. 8 [see Baer 
 in loco]). 
 
 HAR’HAS (0770; B. ‘Apads, B.? [Mai] 
 “Apdds, A. ‘Apds; Araas), an ancestor of Shal- 
 lum, the husband of Huldah, the prophetess in 
 
 a The same reading is found in Josephus (Ant. vi. 
 12, ὁ 4). This is one of three instances in this chapter 
 alone in which the reading of Josephus departs from the 
 Hebrew text, and agrees with the LXX. 
 
HARHUR 
 
 the time of Josiah (2 K. xxii. 14). In the 
 parallel passage in Chronicles the name is given 
 as HASRAH. 
 
 HAR’HUR (13M, ?=inflammation ; ‘Apotp 
 [Ezra]; /arhur), Bene-Charchur were among 
 the Nethinim who returned from Babylon with 
 Zerubbabel (Ezra ii. 51; Neh. vii. 53, B. “Αρούμ, 
 A. -p). In the Apocryphal 1 ἔβα, (ν. 31), the 
 name has become Assur. 
 
 — HA’RIM (8 Π). 1. (Ὁ. XaphB, A. Χαρήμ; 
 Harim.) A priest who had charge of the third 
 division in the house of God (1 Ch. xxiv. 8). 
 
 2. (B. om., A. ’Hpéu [Ezra]; B. Ἡράμ, &. 
 ‘Hpd [Neh.].) Bene-Harim, probably descendants 
 of the above, to the number of 1017, came up 
 from Babylon with Zerubbabel (Ezra ii. 39; 
 Neh. vii. 42). [CARME.] The name, probably 
 as representing the family, is mentioned amongst 
 those who sealed the covenant with Nehemiah 
 (Neh. x. 5, B. Eipdu [see Swete, /. c.]); and 
 amongst the priests who had to put away their 
 foreign wives were five of the sons of Harim 
 (Ezra x. 21, BNA. ‘Hpdu). In the parallel to 
 this latter passage in 1 Esd. ix. 21, the name is 
 given EANES (but see Speaker’s Comm. in loco). 
 
 3. (B. om., A. ‘Opéu.) It further occurs in a 
 list of the families of priests “who went up 
 with Zerubbabel and Jeshua,” and of those who 
 were their descendants in the next generation— 
 in the days of Joiakim the son of Jeshua (Neh. 
 ii. 15). In the former list (xii. 4; BA. om., 
 No-2022). Ῥεούμ) the name is changed to REHUM 
 (O57 to ON) by a not unfrequent transposition 
 of letters. [REHUM.] 
 
 4. Another family of Bene-Harim, 320 in 
 number, came from the Captivity in the same 
 caravan (Ezra 11. 32; Neh. vii. 35; ‘Hpdu). 
 These were laymen, and seem to have taken 
 their name from a place; at least the contiguous 
 names in the list are certainly those of places. 
 These also appear among those who had married 
 foreign wives (Ezra x. 31; Ἣράμ), as well as 
 those who sealed the covenant (Neh. x. 27; 
 BA. Ἡράμ, δὲ. Ρεούμ). [67 [1 
 
 HA’RIPH (FM; Hareph). 112 of the Bene- 
 Chariph returned from the Captivity with 
 Zerubbabel (Neh. vii. 24; B. ‘Apeld, A. -μ). 
 The name occurs again among the “heads of 
 the people” who sealed the covenant (x. 19; B. 
 “Αρείφ, see Swete, 1. c.). In the lists of Ezra ii. 
 18, and 1 Esd. v. 16, Hariph appears as JoRAH* 
 and AZEPHURITH respectively. An almost 
 identical name, Hareph, appears in the lists of 
 Judah (1 Ch. iii. 51; Β. ᾿Αρείμ, A. Apel) as the 
 father of Bethgader [Harupuitr]. [G.] [F.] 
 
 HARLOT (A731, often with NWN, ΠΡ 3), 
 
 mw). That this condition of persons existed 
 in the earliest states of society is clear from 
 Gen. xxxviii. 15. So Rahab (Josh. ii. 1), who is 
 said by the Chaldee paraph. (ad loc.) to have 
 
 a Dr. Hackett (B. ἢ. Am. ed. 8. n.), giving to Jorah 
 (77) the meaning of first or early rain, makes it = 
 x 
 
 Hariph, to which Gesenius gives the significance of 
 autumnal rain, or the early rain which begins to fall in 
 _ Palestine about the middle of October. 
 
 HARLOT 1287 
 
 been an innkeeper ;* but if there were such per- 
 sons, considering what we know of Canaanitish 
 morals (Lev. xviii. 27), we may conclude that 
 they would, if women, have been of this class. 
 The Law forbids (xix. 29) the father’s compelling 
 his daughter to sin, but does not mention it as 
 a voluntary mode of life on her part without 
 his complicity. It could indeed hardly be so. 
 The isolated act which is the subject of Deut. 
 xxii. 28, 29, is not to the purpose. Male rela- 
 tives > were probably allowed a practically un- 
 limited discretion in punishing family dishonour 
 incurred by their women’s unchastity (Gen. 
 xxxviii. 24). The provision of Ley. xxi. 9, rée- 
 garding the priest’s daughter, may have arisen 
 from the fact of his home being less guarded 
 owing to his absence when ministering, as well 
 as from the scandal to sanctity so involved. 
 Perhaps such abominations might, if not thus 
 severely marked, lead the way to the excesses 
 of Gentile ritualistic fornication, to which in- 
 deed, when so near the sanctuary, they might 
 be viewed as approximating (Michaelis, Laws of 
 Moses, art. 268). Yet it seems to be assumed 
 that the harlot class would exist; and the pro- 
 hibition of Deut. xxiii. 18, forbidding offerings 
 from the wages of such sin, is perhaps due to 
 the contagion of heathen example, in whose 
 worship practices abounded which the Israelites 
 were taught to abhor. The term ΠΡ (mean- 
 
 ing properly “consecrated”) points to one 
 description of persons, and M3) (“strange 
 woman”) to another, of whom this class mostly 
 consisted. The first term refers to the impure 
 worship of the Syrian* Astarte (Num. xxv. 1: 
 ep. Herod. i. 199; Justin, xviii. 5; Strabo, viii. 
 378, xii. 559; Val. Max. ii. 6, 15; August. de 
 Civ. Dei, iv. 4), whose votaries, as idolatry 
 progressed, would be recruited from the 
 daughters of Israel; hence the common men- 
 tion of both these sins in the Prophets, the one 
 indeed being a metaphor of the other (Is. i. 21, 
 Ivii. 8; Jer. ii. 20: ep. Ex. xxxiv. 15, 16; Jer. 
 iii, 1, 2, 6; Ezek. xvi., xxiii.; Hos. i. 2, ii. 4, 5, 
 iv. 11, 13-15, v.3). The latter class would 
 grow up with the growth of great cities and of 
 foreign intercourse, and would hardly enter into 
 the view of the Mosaic institutes. As regards 
 the fashions involved in the practice, similar 
 outward marks seem to have attended its earliest 
 forms to those which we trace in the classical 
 writers, e.g. a distinctive dress and a seat by 
 the wayside (Gen, xxxviii.14: cp. Ezek. xvi. 16, 
 25; Bar. vi. 43 ;4 Petron. Arb. Sat. xvi.; Juv. 
 vi. 118 sq. ; Dougtaei Analect. Sacr. Exc. xxiv.). 
 Public singing in the streets occurs also (Is. xxiii. 
 16; Ecclus. ix. 4). Those who thus published 
 their infamy were of the worst repute, others 
 had houses of resort, and both classes seem to 
 
 ® Deyling, Observ. Sacr. ii. 470, NTPTID, 1.6. 
 πανδοκευτρία. 
 
 b Philo (lib. de Spec. Legib. 6, 1) contends that whore- 
 dom was punished under the Mosaic Law with stoning ; 
 but this is by Selden (de Uz. Heb. iii. 18) shown to be 
 unfounded. 
 
 ¢ So at Corinth were 1,000 ἱεροδοῦλοι dedicated to 
 Apbrodite and the gross sins of her worship, and 
 similarly at Comana, in Armenia (Strabo, 1]. c.). 
 
 ἃ Αὕται at γυναῖκες ἐκ τῆς ὁδοῦ τοὺς παρίοντας Evvap- 
 πάζουσι (Theophr. Char. xxxi.). So Catullus (Carm. 
 xxxvii. 16) speaks conversely of semitarii moecht. 
 
 ᾿ 
 
1288 HARNEPHER 
 
 have been known among the Jews (Prov. vii. 
 8-12, xxiii. 28; Ecclus. 1x. 7, 8); the two 
 women in 1 K. iii. 16 lived as Greek hetaerae 
 sometimes did, in a house together (Dict. Gr. § 
 Rom. Ant. 5. v. Hetaera). The baneful fascina- 
 tion ascribed to them in Prov. v., vi., vii., may be 
 compared with what Chardin says of similar 
 effects among the young nobility of Persia 
 ( Voyages en Perse, i. 163, ed. 1711), as also 
 may Luke xv. 30, for the sums lavished on 
 them (ib. p. 162). In earlier times the price of a 
 kid is mentioned (Gen. xxxviii.), and great wealth 
 doubtless sometimes accrued to them (Ezek. xvi. 
 33, 39; xxiii. 26). But lust, as distinct from 
 gain, appears as the inducement in Proy, vii. 14, 
 15 (see Dougtaei Anal. Sacr. ad loc.), where the 
 victim is further allured by a promised sacrificial 
 banquet (cp. Ter. Hun. iii. 3). Some of the ex- 
 pressions in Prov. vii. 22-27, cp. v. 4, 5, seem to 
 point to private assassination as an object, to 
 which such women, used as a lure, were the 
 means—a practice known to have recently pre- 
 vailed among the Oriental Thugs. The ‘“‘harlots” 
 are classed with ‘publicans,” as those who lay 
 under the ban of society, in the N. T. (Matt. xxi. 
 32). No doubt they multiplied with the increase 
 of polygamy, and consequently lowered the esti- 
 mate of marriage. The corrupt practices im- 
 ported by Gentile converts into the Church 
 occasion most of the other passages in which 
 allusions to the subject there occur (1 Cor. v. 1, 
 9,11; 2 Cor. xii, 21; 1 Thess. iv. 3; 1 Tim. 1. 
 10). The decree in Acts xv. 29 has occasioned 
 doubts as to the meaning of πορνεία there, 
 chiefly from its context, which may be seen 
 discussed at length in Deyling’s Observ. Sacr. ii. 
 470 sq.; Schoettgen, Hor. Hebr. i. 468; Spencer 
 and Hammond, ad loc. The simplest sense, 
 however, seems the most probable. The children 
 of such persons were held in contempt, and could 
 not exercise privileges nor inherit (John viii. 41 ; 
 Deut. xxiii. 2; Judg. xi. 1, 2). On the general 
 subject see Michaelis’ Laws of Moses, Bk. v. art. 
 268; Selden, de Ux. Heb. i. 16, ii. 12, and de 
 Jur. Natur. v. 43 Schoettgen and the authori- 
 ties quoted by him. |. ΕΞ H.] 
 
 The words ἽΝ ΠῚ Mit, A. V. “and they 
 washed his armour” (1 K. xxii. 38), should be 
 (cp. R. V.) “now the harlots washed themselves 
 there,’ which is not only the natural render- 
 ing, but in accordance with the LXX. and 
 Josephus. 
 
 HARNE’'PHER (15); B. ‘Avappdp, A. 
 ‘Apvaddp ; Harnapher), one of the sons of Zophah, 
 of the tribe of Asher (1 Ch. vii. 36). 
 
 HARO’D, THE WELL OF (better “the 
 spring of Charod,” 1.6. “of the trembling,” ἢ) 
 ὙΠ ; B. πηγὴν ᾿Αράδ, A. τὴν γῆν Ἰαέρ ; fons qui 
 
 vocatur Harad), a spring by by) which Gideon 
 and his great army encamped on the morning of 
 the day which ended in the rout of the Midianites 
 (Judg. vii. 1), and where the trial of the people 
 by their modeof drinking apparently took place. 
 The word, slightly altered, recurs in the pro- 
 clamation to the host—“ Whosoever is fearful 
 and trembling (1M, charéd) let, him return” 
 (v. 3): but it is impossible to decide whether 
 the name Charod was, as Dean Stanley proposes, 
 bestowed on account of the trembling, or 
 
 HAROEH 
 
 whether the mention of the trembling was 
 suggested by the previously existing name of 
 the fountain: either would suit the parono- 
 mastic vein in which these ancient records so 
 delight. The word chdréd (A. V. “ was afraid ”) 
 recurs in the description of another event which 
 took place in this neighbourhood, possibly at 
 this very spot—Saul’s last encounter with the 
 Philistines—when he “was afraid, and his 
 heart trembled greatly,” at the sight of their 
 fierce hosts (1 Sam. xxviii. 5). The ‘Ain Jalid, 
 “spring of Goliath,” with which Dean Stanley 
 would identify Harod (S. & P.), is very suitable 
 to the circumstances, as being at present the 
 largest spring in the neighbourhood, and as 
 forming a pool of considerable size, at which 
 great numbers might drink (Rob. ii. 323; ep. 
 Guérin, Samarie, i. 308 sq.). But if at that 
 time so copious, would it not have been seized 
 by the Midianites before Gideon’s arrival? 
 However, if the ‘Ain Jalid be not this spring, 
 we are very much in the dark, since the “ hill 
 of Moreh,” the only landmark afforded us (vii. 
 1), has not been recognised. The only hill of 
 Moreh of which we have any certain knowledge 
 was by Shechem, 25 miles to the south. If “Aim 
 Jalid be Harod, then Jebel Duhy must be 
 Moreh. Riehm (s. v.) suggests that the spring 
 may be identical with “the fountain that is in 
 Jezreel ᾿ (1 Sam. xxix.1). Conder (Tent Work, 
 ii. 69) identifies it with ‘Ain el-Jem‘ain, “ spring 
 of the two assemblies,” at the foot of the 
 eastern slope of Mt. Gilboa. 
 
 Josephus (Ant. v. 6, § 3) seems to have believed 
 that Gideon assembled his men east of Jordan, and 
 tried them at “the river” that is at the Jordan, 
 on the left bank of which they encamped before 
 passing over. 
 
 It is quite possible that the name Jalid is a 
 corruption of Harod. In that case it is a good 
 example of the manner in which local names 
 acquire a new meaning in passing from one 
 language to another. Harod itself probably 
 underwent a similar process after the arrival of 
 the Hebrews in Canaan, and the paronomastic 
 turn given to Gideon’s speech, as above, may be 
 an indication of the change. On the other hand 
 Jalid may be a corruption of the name Gilead, 
 which seems to have been attached to a portion 
 of the range of Gilboa (Judg. vii. 3); or it may 
 have had its origin in a confusion between 
 Taluth and Jaluth, the Arab names of Saul and 
 Goliath. A curious tradition, perhaps due to 
 this confusion, existed in the 4th century (tin. 
 Hierosol.), that David killed Goliath near Jez- 
 reel. During the Crusades ‘Ain Jaliid was 
 known to the Franks as Tubania (Wm. of 
 Tyre, xxii. 26). [α.1 (nen 
 
 HARO’DITE, THE (°7710; B. 6 ‘Povdaios, 
 A. 6 ’Apovdaios, Ἐνακὰ 5 Αρωδαῖος ; de Harodi), 
 the designation of two of the thirty-seven war- 
 riors of David’s guard, SHAMMAH and ELIKA 
 (2Sam. xxiii. 25), doubtless derived from a place 
 named Harod, either that just spoken of or some 
 other. In the parallel passage of Chronicles 
 by a change of letter the name appears as 
 HARORITE. 
 
 HARO’EH (aN, ie. ha-RG’eh = the seer; — 
 B. Aid, A. ’Apad), a name occurring in the — 
 genealogical lists of Judah as one of the sons of. 
 
HARORITE, THE 
 
 “‘Shobal, father of Kirjath-jearim” (1 Ch. ii. 
 52). The Vulg. translates this and the follow- 
 ing words, qui videbat dimidium requietionum. A 
 somewhat similar name—REAIAH—is given in 
 iv. 2 as the son of Shobal, but there is nothiug 
 to establish the identity of the two. 
 
 HARO’RITE, THE (005; B. 6 ‘Adi, 
 A. @adt; Arorites), the title given to SHAMMOTH, 
 one of the warriors of David’s guard (1 Ch. 
 xi. 27). We have here an example of the 
 minute discrepancies which exist between these 
 two parallel lists. In this case it appears to 
 have arisen from an exchange of Ἵ, D, for 4, R, 
 and that at a very early date, since the LXX. is 
 in agreement with the present Hebrew text. 
 But there are other differences, for which see 
 SHAMMAH. 
 
 HARO’SHETH (NWN, Chardsheth=work- 
 ing in wood, stone, &c., Ges.: B. “Αρεισώθ, A. 
 ᾿Ασειρώθ; inv. 16, A. δρυμού: Haroseth), or rather 
 “Harosheth of the Gentiles,” as it was called 
 (probably for the same reason that Galilee was 
 similarly defined afterwards), from the mixed 
 races that inhabited it, was the residence of 
 Sisera, captain of Jabin, king of Canaan (Judg. 
 iv. 2), whose capital, Hazor, was one of the fenced 
 cities assigned to the children of Naphtali (Josh. 
 xix. 36). It was from Harosheth that Sisera 
 marched, with 900 chariots, when he heard that 
 Barak was at Mount Tabor (Judg. iv. 13); and 
 to the same place his discomtited host was 
 pursued by the victorious Israelites (v. 16). 
 Probably from intermarriage with the conquered 
 Canaanites, the name of Sisera became after- 
 wards a family name (Ezraii. 53). Neither is it 
 irrelevant to allude to this coincidence in con- 
 nexion with the moral effects of this decisive 
 victory ; for Hazor, once “ the head of all those 
 kingdoms ” (Josh. xi. 6, 10), had been taken 
 and burnt by Joshua; its king, Jabin I., put 
 to the sword; and the whole confederation of the 
 Canaanites of the north broken and slaughtered 
 in the celebrated battle of the waters of Merom 
 (Josh. xi. 5-14)—the first time that “ chariots 
 and horses” appear in array against the invad- 
 ing host, and are so summarily disposed of, 
 according to Divine command, under Joshua; 
 but which subsequently the children of Joseph 
 feared to face in the valley of Jezreel (Josh. 
 xvii. 16-18), and which Judah actually failed 
 before in the Philistine plain (Judg. i. 19). 
 Herein was the great difficulty of subduing 
 plains, similar to that beside which Harosheth 
 stood. It was not till the Israelites had asked 
 for and obtained a king, that they began “to 
 multiply chariots and horses” to themselves, 
 contrary to the express words of the Law (Deut. 
 xvii. 16), as it were to fight the enemy with his 
 own weapons. The first instance occurs in 2 Sam. 
 viii. 4, cp. 1 Ch. xviii. 4; next in the histories 
 of Absalom, 2 Sam. xv. 1, and of Adonijah, 1 K. 
 i. 53; while the climax was reached under 
 Solomon (1 K. iv. 26). And then it was that 
 their decadence set in! They were strong in 
 faith, when they hamstrung the horses, and 
 burned the chariots with fire, of the kings of 
 Hazor, of Madon, of Shimron, and of Achshaph 
 (Josh. xi. 1). And yet so rapidly did they 
 decline when their illustrious leader was no 
 more, that the city of Hazor had risen from its 
 
 1289 
 
 ruins; and in contrast to the kings of Meso- 
 potamia and of Moab (Judg. iii.), who were both 
 of them foreign potentates, another Jabin, the 
 territory of whose ancestors had been assigned 
 to the tribe of Naphtali, claimed the distinction 
 of being the first to revolt against and shake off 
 the dominion of Israel in his newly ‘acquired 
 inheritance. But the victory won by Deborah 
 and Barak was well worthy of the song of 
 triumph which it inspired (Judg. v.), and of 
 the proverbial celebrity which ever afterwards 
 attached to it (Ps. lxxxiii. 9,10). The whole 
 territory was gradually won back, to be held 
 permanently, as it would seem (Judg. iv. 24) ; 
 at all events we hear nothing more of Hazor, 
 Harosheth, or the Canaanites of the north, in 
 the succeeding wars. 
 
 The site of Harosheth has not yet been cer- 
 tainly identified; but el-Hdrithiyeh, first pro- 
 posed for it by Thomson (Land & Book, ii. 143), 
 and accepted by Riehm (8. v.), Conder (Tent 
 Work, i. 132), and Geikie (H. L. & the Bible, ii. 
 262), seems best to meet the requirements of 
 the Bible narrative. /£/-Hdrithiyeh, situated in 
 the gorge of the Kishon, and commanding the 
 road between the two plains of Acre and 
 Esdraelon, must have been a place of great 
 military importance, and one well adapted to be 
 the head-quarters of the commander of the king 
 of Canaan’s army. Dr. Thomson supposes that 
 Heber the Kenite was encamped on Esdraelon at 
 the time of the battle, and mentions (/. c.) in 
 support of this view, that, on one occasion, he 
 met Bedawin who had come down from the high 
 ground north of Nazareth to pass the cold 
 winter months on the plain. Conder (Zent 
 Work, i. 133) identifying Kedesh with Jh. 
 Kadish, near the sea of Galilee, and Zaanaim 
 with Besswm, places Heber’s camp on the 
 basaltic plain, Sahel el-Ahma; but it seems 
 scarcely probable that Sisera would have fled to 
 a place in rear of the victorious Israelites. 
 Stanley, who gives a graphic description of the 
 battle (Jewish Church, i. 322 sq.), supposes 
 Harosheth to have been in the north, “on the 
 outskirts of Lebanon,” and Sisera to have met 
 his death, three days after the battle, on the 
 plain near Kedesh Naphtali. Buta more natural 
 inference from the narrative (Judg. iv., v.) is 
 that Sisera was killed on the day of the battle, 
 and that the pursuit to Harosheth ended the 
 same day. Tristram (7b. Places, p. 278) identifies 
 Harosheth with Zell Hara, on a hill above the 
 el-Hileh lake, near Kades. [E.S.Ff.] [W.] 
 
 HARP is the uniform rendering in the A. V. 
 of the Hebrew Ainndr (1135), and is for the 
 first time mentioned in Gen. iv. 21. Yet, 
 although it is of all musical instruments the first 
 named in the Bible, it would be a mistake to 
 suppose that the Scriptures wished thereby to 
 convey the idea that Kinnor* was the oldest 
 musical instrument invented. On the contrary, 
 in the nature of things, proceeding from the 
 simple to the complicated, wind-instruments 
 must have preceded instruments of percussion, 
 as these again must have preceded stringed 
 
 HARP 
 
 a Kinnor, though not the oldest musical instrument, 
 by being a term for a contrivance from which all 
 stringed instruments have successively sprung, has 
 although of masculine gender itself, a feminine plural. 
 
1290 HARP 
 
 instruments. People first whistled, then sang, 
 then blew, then beat, and finally touched strings 
 with fingers, or plectron, or bow. [DANCE ; 
 FLUTE. } 
 
 The shape as well as the size of the Kinnor 
 differed not only in different ages and different 
 countries, but also on different occasions in the 
 same age and thesame country. In 1Sam.x.d 
 it is mentioned as one of the four musical in- 
 struments borne before the young prophets. 
 This would show that Kinndr was a portable 
 instrument, whilst it would appear from the 
 same book (xviii. 10) that it was an instrument 
 of somewhat large proportions, as it had to be 
 placed near a wall. 
 
 Although Kinnor is uniformly rendered by the 
 A. V. “harp,” it is yet a question to be settled 
 
 A NY 
 
 a LP SA 
 
 eS 
 
 ZI 
 
 ἘΞ ΡΣ 
 
 Ancient Assyrian harp. (Nimrud.) 
 
 whether it really means a “ harp,”’ or a “lute,” 
 or a “lyre,” or a “psaltery,” or a “guitar,” &c. 
 One of the Rabbis (Midrash Tehillim, lxxxi. 3) 
 identifies the Ainndér with the “psaltery” 
 (Webel), the only difference between the two being 
 the number of strings they respectively had. If 
 this were true, it would show both great poverty 
 of original invention, and great fertility in the 
 modification of old inventions, in the time of 
 David. For it must not be forgotten that there 
 were four thousand musicians (1 Ch. xxiii. 5) 
 
 > On the other hand, the Kinndréth ‘Al-Hassheminith 
 (1 Ch, xy. 21) cannot signify harps with eight strings, 
 or harps on, or set to, the Sheminith, as the Sheminith 
 is clearly a music-band (AlwELETH SHAHAR), and the 
 Kinnoroth were only played by the music-masters to 
 
 direct (M'g95) this eighth band ΓΑ ΤΑΜΟΤΗΊ, 
 
 HARP 
 
 and probably many somewhat different musical 
 instruments in existence at his time, and yet 
 
 ἡ 
 
 Νὴ 
 δὰ 
 Mh 
 
 ᾿ 
 Π 
 
 | 
 | 
 
 Mitineromm 
 117 11} Τ|} ΓΝ 
 
 Ι 
 
 δ 
 
 \ 
 \\ 
 
 Later Assyrian harp. (Kouyunjik.) 
 there are not twelve entirely different ones 
 mentioned. Hence there must have been various 
 
 Egyptian harp. (Thebes.) 
 
HARROW 
 
 kinds of Kinndrdth, even as we positively know 
 that there were at least ten kinds of Nebalim, 
 
 if not more, to which the expression “on the | 
 
 tenth Nebel” wy S393, Ps. xxiii. 2)° clearly 
 points. [This, of course, does not exclude the 
 possibility of the “tenth Nebel” having had ten 
 strings. | 
 
 King David must have been a musician of no 
 mean order on various instruments, as appears 
 from the Scriptures, but the Ainnér was his 
 favourite one. On it he composed his wonderful 
 rhythmical Psalms, and on it he chiefly excelled. 
 The Rabbis (Talmud Yerushalmi Berakhoth, i. 1; 
 Babli ibidem, leaf 3) suggested his partiality 
 for, and dexterity on, this instrument, by ascrib- 
 ing to his Ainnér the virtues of an Aeolian 
 harp, which played of its own accord under the 
 influence of the “ midnight air.” ([S. M. S.-S.] 
 
 HARROW. The word so rendered 2 Sam. 
 xii. 31, 1 Ch, xx. 3 (7M), is probably a thresh- 
 ing machine; the verb rendered “to harrow ” 
 (TY, Job xxxix. 10), and “to break clods” 
 (Is. xxviii. 24; Hos. x. 11), expresses apparently 
 this latter process, and is 
 so far analogous to our 
 harrowing: but whether 
 done by any such machine 
 as we call “a harrow,” is 
 very doubtful. Possibly 
 the instrument called 
 WII, “mattock,” in Is. 
 vii. 25 (specially there for 
 hill-culture), might have 
 been used. In modern 
 Palestine, oxen are some- 
 times turned in to trample 
 the clods, and in some 
 parts of Asia a bush of 
 thorns is dragged over 
 the surface ; but all these 
 processes, if used, occur 
 (not after, but) before the 
 seed is committed to the 
 
 soil. This is clearly shown in Is, xxviii. 24, 
 
 Hos. x. 11, where “ plow ” and “open and break | ; , 
 z " Ἐ | Southern Taurid, and Armenia, where in suitable 
 
 clods” are distinguished in the earlier verse, 
 and followed by “sow” in the next. [See 
 AGRICULTURE. | [ἢ H.] 
 
 HARSHA (NWN, MV." = deaf: in Neh. 
 BNA. ‘Adacdy; in Ezra, BA. ‘Apnod: Harsa). 
 
 Bene-Charsha, sons of Charsha, were among the wow Hound πη δ ἄν Gali cian ae 
 
 families of Nethinim who came back from 
 Babylon with Zerubbabel (Ezra 1i. 52; Neh. 
 vii. 54). In the parallel list in Esdras the name 
 is CHAREA. 
 
 HARSITH, THE GATE (Jer. xix. 2, R.V.). 
 In A. V. the text reads “east gate,” marg. 
 sun gate; R. V. marg. gate of potsherds. A 
 gate of Jerusalem which led to Tophet (ep. 
 
 ¢ “jy is, and cannot be anything else than, an 
 T: 
 
 thus: “And her brother and her mother said, Let the 
 damsel abide with us a year or a (the) tenth part 
 thereof.” That D5) may, and often does, mean a year 
 will be seen from Ex. xiii. 10; Lev. xxv. 29,&c. A 
 few days are called in Hebrew O°9MN O11) (Gen. 
 Xxix. 20). 
 
 HART, HIND 1291 
 
 vv. 6, 14) in the valley of Hinnom, and on 
 the S. side of the city [JERUSALEM]. [1 
 HART, HIND ΟΝ, DN ᾿αγγᾶ!, ᾿αγγᾶίᾶλι; 
 Arab, is wy); ἔλαφος ; cervus). All English 
 versions, hart, hind—the male and female of the 
 deer. The hart is mentioned incidentally among 
 clean animals in Deut. xii. 15, and from the 
 many allusions to it in Ὁ. Τὶ must have been 
 familiar to the Israelites. It is not mentioned 
 in the lists of clean and unclean animals in 
 Lev. or Deut.; for though well known in Egypt 
 and Palestine, it could not exist in the Arabian 
 desert, fitted only for antelopes, and not for 
 deer. No species of deer, except the more 
 diminutive roebuck, can be said to be common 
 in Palestine at the present day, though the 
 fallow deer, Cervus dama, L. (Dama vulgaris of 
 later writers), is not quite extinct in the north. 
 Hasselquist found it on Mount Tabor in the last 
 century, and we once met with it in some wood not 
 many miles N.W. of Safed. We believe there are 
 still a few on the banks of the Litany river and 
 in the wooded district behind Sidon. It must 
 
 ) 
 
 Deer on Assyrian monuments. 
 
 have been very common in ancient times, as it 
 is the native deer of Asia Minor, Cilicia, the 
 
 cover we found it still abundant; and if our 
 identification be correct, it is mentioned in 
 1 K. iv. 23, among the daily articles of food at 
 king Solomon’s table. Our English fallow deer, 
 never found except semi-domesticated, are de- 
 rived from Asia Minor; though the species is 
 It must 
 have existed in the Lebanon in very early times, 
 as its teeth have been found there in bone 
 breccia, in caves along with those of other 
 animals. It would be more easily exterminated 
 than the antelopes or the wild goats, from its 
 partiality for open glades, and the outskirts of 
 forests. 
 
 The only other deer to which ’ayyal can refer 
 is the red deer, Cervus claphus, L., of which we 
 found the teeth in considerable abundance in the 
 
 | breccia of caverns in Lebanon. As however these 
 
 ordinal. Genesis xxiv. 55 must therefore be translated | were mingl ed with those of the reindeer (Cervus 
 
 tarandus, L.) and the elk (Cervus alces, L.), they 
 probably belong tothe prehistoric period. But it 
 should be noted that though no red deer is now 
 
 | found in Egypt or its frontiers, yet we find it de- 
 
 picted in the temples at Beni-Hassan ; and a small 
 
1292 HART, HIND 
 
 race of red deer, which has been separated by 
 zoologists as Cervus barbarus, Bennet, is still 
 found in the Djereed in the south of Tunis, and 
 in parts of Algeria and Morocco, It is probably 
 this species which was known to the Egyptians, 
 and it is the only one of the Deer family which 
 exists in Africa. But there is no evidence that 
 the Barbary deer ever extended east of the Nile. 
 
 Barbary deer. 
 
 The name Ajalon, given to more than one 
 place in Palestine, means “the place of deer,” 
 and the many scriptural allusions to its habits 
 show that the deer was familiar to the inspired 
 writers. The first occurrence of the word in 
 Scripture is in Jacob’s blessing of his children: 
 ‘“*Naphtali is a hind let loose” (Gen. xlix. 21), 
 which has been explained as prophetic of the 
 gallant conduct of that tribe when, under 
 Barak, “ Zebulun and Naphtali jeoparded their 
 lives unto the death in the high places of the 
 field.” In the passage in Genesis the LXX. 
 
 have evidently read nD for nD, and ren- 
 dered it by στέλεχος ἀνείμενον, “a luxuriant 
 terebinth,” but in this they have not been 
 followed by the Vulgate. The inscription to 
 Ps. xxii, Aijeleth Shahar, translated in the 
 margin as “the hind of the morning,” has been 
 supposed to refer to some tune or melody known 
 by that name. [AIJELETH SHAHAR. | 
 
 Many characteristics of the deer are used as 
 illustrations inthe poetical Books of Scripture. 
 Its swiftness: “‘Then shall the lame man leap 
 as a hart” (Is. xxxy. 6). Behold, he cometh 
 leaping upon the mountains, skipping upon the 
 hills. My beloved is like a roe or a young 
 hart ” (Cant. ii. 8, 9). Its surefootedness: “ He 
 maketh my feet like hinds’ feet ” (2 Sam. xxii. 
 34; Ps. xviii. 33; Hab. iii. 19). Its activity is 
 the quality referred to in Jacob’s blessing of 
 Naphtali. Its gentle and affectionate disposition 
 is taxen by the wise man as an image of a 
 tender wife: “Let her be as the loving hind” 
 (Prov. v. 19). Its shyness and avoidance of the 
 haunts of men (Job xxxix. 1) are noted, and its 
 timidity, which causes it to cast its young at 
 the sound of thunder (Ps. xxix.9), Its maternal 
 affection is used by Jeremiah to illustrate the 
 dire pressure of famine upon Jerusalem, under 
 the misery of which “the hind also calved in 
 
 HASHABIAH 
 
 the field and forsook it, because there was 
 no grass” (xiv. 5). As the deer could only 
 obtain water at certain places in the wilder- 
 ness, and those far off, so the Psalmist could 
 only join in the ordinances of God at the Taber- 
 nacle, from which he was far distant: “As the 
 hart panteth after the water brooks, so panteth 
 my soul after Thee, O God” (Ps. xlii. 1). 
 All these traits correspond with the character 
 of the fallow deer better than with that of 
 any other. [ΕΞ ΌΣῚ 
 
 HARUM (O70, ὃ = elevated; BA. Ἰαρείμ; 
 Arum). A name occurring in one of the most 
 obscure portions of the genealogies of Judah, in 
 which Coz is said to have begotten “the 
 families of Aharhel son of Harum” (1 Ch. 
 iv. 8). 
 
 HARU’MAPH (219M = slit-nosed, Ges. ; 
 B. Ἐρωμάθ, A. -φ, N. Εἰωμάθ; Haromaph), 
 father or ancestor of Jedaiah, who assisted in the 
 repair of the wall of Jerusalem (Neh. iii. 10). 
 
 HARU’PHITE, THE (5110; B. 6 Xapa- 
 gel, A. ’Apovpl; Haruphites), the designation of 
 
 | Shephatiahu, one of the Korhites who repaired 
 
 to David at Ziklaz when he was in distress 
 (1 Ch. xii. 5). The Masorets read the word 
 Hariphite, and point it accordingly, °%5’7M- 
 (Harien.] The town of Haruph is perhaps 
 represented by Ah. Khariif, south of ‘Aid el-Mad, 
 Adullam (PEF. Mem. iii. 313). 
 
 HA’RUZ Οὗ ἽΠ = zealous ; ᾿Αροῦς ; Harus), 
 a man of Jotbah, father of Meshullemeth, queen 
 of Manasseh, and mother of Amon king of Judah 
 (2 K, xxi. 19). 
 
 HARVEST. [AeGricutrure.] 
 
 HASADI’AH (ΠΥ ΘΠ; B. ‘Acadia, A. ᾽Ασο- 
 βαεσδ᾽ ; Hasadia), one of a group of five persons 
 among the descendants of the royal line of 
 Judah (1 Ch. iii. 20), apparently sons of Zerub- 
 babel, the leader of the return from Babylon. 
 It has been conjectured that this latter half of 
 the family was born after the restoration, since 
 some of the names, and amongst them this one 
 —beloved of Jehovah—appear to embody the 
 hopeful feeling of that time. [AsSADIAS.] 
 
 HASENU’AH (18303, i.e. has-Sent’ah =the 
 hated; B. ‘Aavd, A. ᾿Ασανοῦα; Asana), a Ben- 
 jamite, of one of the chief families in the tribe 
 (1 Ch. ix. 7). The name is really Senuah, with 
 the definite article prefixed. 
 
 HASHABI’AH (737, and with final ὦ, 
 ΠΣ ΘΠ ; Hasabias, Hasabia, Hasebias, Hasebia), 
 a name signifying regarded of Jehovah, much in 
 request among the Levites, especially at the date 
 of the return from Babylon. 
 
 1. A Merarite Levite, son of Amaziah, in the 
 line of Ethan the singer (1 Ch. vi. 45, 
 Hebr. υ. 30; B. ᾿Ασεβεί, A. -1). 
 
 2. Another Merarite Levite (1 Ch. ix. 14; B. 
 ᾿ῬΑσαβιά, A. -Biov). 
 
 8. CHASHABIAHU: another Levite, the 
 fourth of the six sons of Jeduthun (the sixth is 
 omitted here, but is supplied in v. 17), who 
 
᾿ HASHABNAH 
 
 played the harp in the service of the house of | 
 
 God under David’s order (1 Ch. xxv. 3; B. 
 “Ασαβιά, A. -.as), and had charge of the twelfth 
 eourse (v. 19). 
 
 4. CHASHABIAHU: one of the Hebronites, 
 i.e. descendants of Hebron the son of Kohath, 
 one of the chief families of the Levites (1 Ch. 
 xxvi. 30; BA. ‘AoaBlas). He and the 1700 
 men of his kindred had superintendence for king 
 David over business both sacred and secular on 
 the west * of Jordan. 
 person as 
 
 5. The son of Kemuel, who was “prince 
 
 Possibly this is the same | 
 
 Ce’) of the tribe of Levi in the time of David | 
 
 (1 Ch. xxvii. 17; BA. ‘AoaBias). 
 
 6. CHASHABIAHU: another Levite, one of the | 
 
 “chiefs” ΟἿ) of his tribe, who officiated for 
 king Josiah at his great Passover-Feast (2 Ch. 
 xxxy. 9; ΒΑ. ᾿Ασαβιά). In the parallel account 
 of 1 Esdras the name appears as ASSABIAS. 
 
 7. A Merarite Levite who accompanied Ezra 
 from Babylon (Ezra viii. 19; B. ᾿Ασεβειά, A 
 τια). In 1 Esdras the name is ASEBIA. 
 
 8. One of the chiets of the priests (and there- 
 fore of the family of Kohath) who formed part 
 of the same caravan (Ezra viii. 24; B. “Ασαβιά, 
 Avid SaBia). In 1 Esdras the name is ASsANIAS. 
 
 9. “Ruler” (TY) of half the circuit or 
 
 environs (23) of Keilah ; he repaired a portion 
 
 of the wall of Jerusalem ἘΠΕ Nehemiah (Neh. 
 iii. 17; BNA. ‘AcaBia). 
 
 10. One of the Levites who sealed the 
 covenant of reformation after the return from 
 the Captivity (Neh. x. 11; B. om., No-#@e)A. 
 *EoeBias). Probably this is the person named as 
 one of the “chiefs” (LN) of the Levites in 
 the times immediately subsequent to the return 
 from Babylon (xii. 24; ep. v. 26). 
 
 11. Another Levite, son of Bunni (Neh. xi. 
 15; BA. om., Ne®™ssuP°AgaBias). Notwith- 
 standing the remarkable correspondence between 
 the lists in this chapter and those in 1 Ch. ix.— 
 and in none more than in this verse compared 
 with 1 Ch. ix. 14—it does not appear that they 
 can be identical, inasmuch as this relates to the 
 times after the Captivity, while that in Chroni- 
 cles refers to the original establishment of the 
 Ark at Jerusalem by.David, and of the Taber- 
 nacle (cp. vv. 19, 21, and the mention of Gibeon, 
 where the Tabernacle was at this time, in v. 35). 
 But see NEHEMIAH. 
 
 12. Another Levite in the same list of 
 attendants on the Temple; son of Mattaniah 
 (Neh. xi. 22; B. ‘AcaBia, &. -εια). 
 
 13. A priest of the family of Hilkiah in the 
 days of Joiakim son of Jeshua; that is, in the 
 generation after the return from the Captivity 
 (Neh. xii. 21, om. BN*A., Ne@msivf ‘AgaBlas ; 
 cp. vv. 1, 10, 26). 
 
 HASHAB/NAH (απ; 
 
 ΒΑ. ‘EoaBava 
 
 Lee Swete in loco]; Hasebna), one of the chief | 
 
 a This is one of the instances in which the word ‘ber 
 (beyond) is used for the west side of Jordan. To 
 remove the anomaly, the A. Y. has rendered it ‘‘on this 
 side” (R. V. ** beyond”’). 
 
 b This and the name following are considered by 
 Olshausen (Lehrb. d. Heb. Sprache, § 277 h) as forms 
 of 97° 3wWN (HasHasiAn).—[F.] 
 
 HASHUBAH 1293 
 
 (“heads”) of the “people” (ie. the laymen) 
 who sealed the covenant at the same time with 
 Nehemiah (Neh, x. 25). 
 
 HASHABNI‘AH (πϑπ; B. ᾿Ασαβανάμ, 
 A. ᾿Ασβανία; Hasebonia). 1, Father of Hat- 
 tush, who repaired part of the wall of Jerusalem 
 (Neh. iii. 10). 
 
 2. Hasebnia. A Levite who was among 
 those who officiated at the great fast under Ezra 
 and Nehemiah when the covenant was sealed 
 
 (Neh. ix. 5). This and several other names are 
 omitted in the LXX. 
 
 HASHBADA’NA (nI7awN, see Olshausen, 
 
 Lehrb. ὃ 277,k.4; B. om., A. ᾿Ασαβααμά, Neamse 
 ᾿Ασαβδανά ; ’ Hasbadana), one of the men (pro- 
 bably Levites) who stood on Ezra’s left hand 
 while he read the Law to the people in Jerusalem 
 (Neh. viii. 4). 
 
 HA’SHEM (ON; BN. om., A. ᾿Ασάμ; As- 
 
 sem). The sons of Hashem are aie amongst 
 the members of David’s guard in the catalogue 
 of 1 Ch. (xi. 34). In the parallel list of 2 Sam. 
 xxiii, 32, we find “‘the sons of Jashen.” The 
 text is corrupt, and is variously restored by 
 Driver (Heb. Teat of the BB. of Sam. 1.c.), and 
 
 | by Kennicott (Dissertation, pp. 198-203). 
 
 HASHMAN’NIM (0°3DWM = fat ones; 
 πρέσβεις ; legati). This word only occurs in the 
 Hebrew of Ps. Ixviii. 51: “ Princes [hashman- 
 nim] shall come out of Egypt; Ethiopia [Cush] 
 shall haste to stretch out her hands unto God” 
 (Β. V.). This has been thought to be an Egyp- 
 tian word, but the idea must now be abandoned 
 in favour of the rendering of the A. V. and 
 Rae [Rasa 1] 
 
 HASHMO’NAH (iawn =fruitfulness; B 
 Seauwva, A. ’AceAuwva; Hesmona), a station of 
 the Israelites, mentioned Num. xxxili. 29, as 
 next before Moseroth, which, from xx. 28 and 
 Deut. x. 6, was near Mount Hor; this tends to 
 indicate the locality of Hashmonah. Palmer 
 (Desert of the Exodus, ii. 509) takes Hash- 
 monah to be the same as Heshmon (Josh. xy. 21), 
 and locates it in the mountains of the ’Azdzi- 
 meh; but this is too far from Mount Hor. 
 
 (H.H.] [WJ 
 
 HASHU’B (33M, i.e. Chashshitb = intelli- 
 gent ; ‘AcovB ; Asub). The reduplication of the 
 Sh has been overlooked in the A. V., but re- 
 tained by the R. V., and the name is "identical 
 with that elsewhere more correctly given as 
 HASSHUB. 
 
 1. A son of Pahath-Moab who assisted in the 
 repair of the wall of Jerusalem (Neh. iii. 11). 
 
 Ὁ. Another man who assisted in the same 
 work, but at another part of the wali (Neh. 
 iii. 23). 
 
 8. The name is mentioned again among the 
 heads of the “ people” (that is, the laymen) who 
 sealed the covenant with Nehemiah (Neh. x. 
 23). It may belong to either of the foregoing. 
 
 4, A Merarite Levite (Neh. xi. 15). In 1 Ch. 
 ix, 14, he appears again as HASSHUB. 
 
 HASHU’BAH (awn = esteemed; Β. 
 ᾿Ασουβέ, A. ᾿Ασεβά; Hasaba), the first of a 
 
1294 HASHUM 
 
 group of five men, apparently the latter half of 
 the family of Zerubbabel (1 Ch. iii. 20). For 
 a suggestion concerning these persons, see 
 HASADIAH. 
 
 HA'SHUM (OWM=rich, distinguished: B. 
 “Ασέμ, A. (Ezra) ᾿Ασούμ; B. Ἡσάμ, A. -t (Neh.): 
 Hasum, Hasom, Hasem). 1. Bene-Chashum, 
 two hundred and twenty-three in number, came 
 back from Babylon with Zerubbabel (Ezra ii. 
 19; Neh. vii. 22). Seven men of them had 
 married foreign wives, from whom they had to 
 separate (Ezra x. 33). The chief man of the 
 family was among those who sealed the covenant 
 with Nehemiah (Neh. x. 18). 
 
 2. (A. ᾿Ασώμ, B. omits; Asum.) The name 
 occurs amongst the priests or Levites who stood 
 on Ezra’s left hand while he read the Law to 
 the congregation (Neh. viii. 4). In 1 Esd. ix. 44 
 the name is given corruptly as LorHasuBUs. 
 
 HASHU'PHA (NSWN = uncovered ; B. ‘Ac- 
 od, SA.’ Aceipd; Hasupha), one of the families 
 of Nethinim who returned from captivity in the 
 first caravan (Neh. vii. 46). The name is ac- 
 curately HASUPHA, as in Ezra ii. 43, [AsIpHa.] 
 
 HAS’RAH (DN ; B. Χελλής, A. Ἐσσερή ; 
 Hasra), the form in which the name HarRnas 
 is given in 2 Ch. xxxiv. 22 (cp. 2 K. xxii. 14). 
 
 HASSENA’AH (ANID; 8. ‘Acay, N. 
 ᾿Ασανάα, A. ’Acavd; Asnaa). The Bené-has- 
 sena’ih, “sons of Hassenaah,” rebuilt the fish- 
 gate in the repair of the wall of Jerusalem (Neh. 
 iii, 3), The name is doubtless that of the place 
 mentioned in Ezra ii. 35, and Neh. vii. 38— 
 SENAAH, with the addition of the definite article. 
 Perhaps it has some connexion with the rock or 
 cliff SENEH (1 Sam. xiv. 4). 
 
 HASSHU’B (ΔΊ ΦἪ = intelligent; ‘AcdB; 
 Assub), a Merarite Levite (1 Ch. ix. 14). He 
 appears to be mentioned again in Neh. xi. 15, 
 in what may be a repetition of the same genea- 
 logy ; but here the A. V. has given the name 
 as HASHUB. 
 
 HASU’PHA (SEAN =uncovered; B. ‘Acov- 
 φέ, A. -4; Hasupha).  Bené-Chasiipha were 
 among the Nethinim who returned from Babylon 
 with Zerubbabel (Ezra ii. 43). In Nehemiah 
 the name is inaccurately given in the A. V. 
 HAsHUPHA ; in Esdras it is ASIPHA. 
 
 HAT. [{Heap-press. ] 
 
 HATA’CH (JN; B. “Αχραθαῖος ; Athach), 
 one of the eunuchs (A. V. and ΒΕ. V. “chamber- 
 lains”) in the court of Ahasuerus, in immediate 
 attendance on Esther (Esth. iv. 5, 6, 9,10). The 
 LXX. alters v. 5 to τὸν εὐνοῦχον αὐτῆς. 
 
 HATHA’'TH (NNN = fearful; ᾿Αθάθ: Ha- 
 that), aman in the genealogy of Judah: one of 
 the sons of Othniel the Kenizzite, the well- 
 known judge of Israel (1 Ch. iv. 13). 
 
 HATIP’HA (NYDN, ? = captive: B. ‘Arov- 
 $d, Α.᾿Ατιφά; in Neh. BRA. ᾿Ατειφά: Hatipha). 
 
 HAURAN 
 
 Bene-Chatipha were among the Nethinim who 
 returned from Babylon with Zerubbabel (Ezra 
 ii, 54; Neh. vii. 56), [ATIPHA.] 
 
 HATITA (NOON: A. 'Ατιτά; in Ezra, Β. 
 ‘arnrd, in Neh. B. ‘Areird: Hatita). Bene- 
 Chatita were among the “ porters” or “ children 
 of the porters ” (ὩΣ Φ᾽ Π, ic. the gate-keepers), 
 a division of the Levites who returned from the 
 Captivity with Zerubbabel (Ezra ii. 42; Neh. 
 vii. 45). In Esdras the name is abbreviated to 
 TETA. 
 
 HAT’TIL wn: in Ezra, B. ‘Are:d, in Neh. 
 B. Ἑγήλ; in Ezra, A. ᾿Αττίλ, in Neh. ’Erra: 
 Hatil). Bene-Chattil, ‘sons of C.,” were among 
 the ‘children of Solomon’s slaves” who came 
 back from Captivity with Zerubbabel (Ezra ii. 
 57; Neh. vii. 59). [Hactra.] 
 
 HAT’TUSH (ΘΠ; B. Xarrods, A. Χετ- _ 
 Hattus). 1. A descendant of the kings of Judah, 
 apparently one of the “sons of Shechaniah” 
 (1 Ch. iii. 22), in the fourth or fifth generation 
 from Zerubbabel. A person of the same name, 
 expressly specified as one of the “sons of David 
 of the sons of Shechaniah,” accompanied Ezra 
 on his journey from Babylon to Jerusalem (Ezra 
 viii.2), whither Zerubbabel himself had also come 
 only seventy or eighty years before (Ezra ii. 1, 2). 
 Indeed in another statement Hattush is said to 
 have actually returned with Zerubbabel (Neh. 
 xil. 2), At any rate he took part in the sealing 
 of the covenant with Nehemiah (Neh. x. 4). To 
 obviate the discrepancy between these last-men- 
 tioned statements and the interval between 
 Hattush and Zerubbabel in 1 Ch. iii., Lord A. 
 Hervey proposes to read the genealogy in that 
 chapter as if he were the nephew of Zerubbabel, 
 Shemaiah in v, 22 being taken as identical with 
 Shimei in v. 19. For these proposals the reader 
 is referred to Lord H.’s Genealogies, pp. 103, 
 307, 322, &e, [Lerrus; SHECHANIAH.] 
 
 2. (BN. ᾿Ατούθ, A. Adrovs.) Son of Ha- 
 shabniah ; cue of those who assisted Nehemiah 
 in the repair of the wall of Jerusalem (Neh. 
 iti. 10). 
 
 HAURAN (010; Αὐρανῖτις ; the modern 
 so (Cf i 
 
 Arabic 
 
 ola 
 “a cave,” but possibly the meaning is “ hollow ” 
 or “vyale”). This word only occurs in Ezek. 
 xlvii. 16, 18, as the name of a region. It was 
 the eastern part of Bashan joining GOLAN 
 (which see), and formed one of the four pro- 
 vinces north of Gilead, which Josephus enume- 
 rates as Auranitis, Trachonitis, Gaulanitis, and 
 Batanea (Wars, i. 20, § 4), now called the dis- 
 tricts of Haurdn, Lejja, Jauldn, and El Butein. 
 It was part of the tetrarchy of Philip (Luke 
 ili. 1; Josephus, Ant. xvii. 11, § 4). The name 
 seems to occur in its Hebrew form in the Mishna 
 (fZosh hash-Shanah, ii. 4), and was never lost, 
 being well known to the Arab geographers and 
 to the Crusaders. 
 
 The passage in Ezekiel] is somewhat difficult 
 of translation ; it appears to draw the boundary 
 of the land of Israel between (}'219) Damascus 
 on the one side, and Hauran and Gilead on the 
 other (see the rendering of the R. V.). 
 
 Gesenius derives it from 9M, 
 
᾿ 
 
 HAURAN 
 
 The Hauran is a level plain of rich volcanic 
 arable soil, still celebrated for its corn, but 
 having little natural supply of water. In the 
 Roman period it supported a large population, 
 and it contains a great number of ruined sites 
 of cities and villages dating from the 2nd to 
 the 6th century A.D. The theory that these 
 are “giant cities” of the time of the Hebrew 
 conquest has no foundation: the remains are 
 not superior in size to those of the same period 
 found in other parts of Palestine and Syria, and 
 the age of the buildings is attested with un- 
 usual exactitude by the dates giving often the 
 day of the month as well as the year of their 
 erection. Of these Greek inscriptions no less 
 than twenty are known within the limits of the 
 Hauran, and a yet larger number in other parts 
 of Bashan (see Waddington, Jnscriptions Grecques 
 et Latines de la Syrie, Nos. 2392-2413). The 
 earliest belong to the time of Herod the Great ; 
 the latest perhaps is a Christian text of 641 A.D. 
 at the monastery of Job, in the traditional 
 “land of Uz,” which was in the 4th century 
 supposed to be in the Hauran, though clearly 
 placed in Edom by the O. T. account. Nothing 
 is known of the condition of this region before 
 the Christian era, with the exception of 
 the names of certain of its towns mentioned 
 in the Book of Joshua, The region is enu- 
 merated with Beth Ammon, Edom, Moab, and 
 Zobah on Cylinder A of the Annals of Assur- 
 bani-pal. It was conquered in 13 A.H. by the 
 Moslems, and its period of civilised prosperity 
 seems then to have passed away. It is described 
 in Burckhardt’s Travels and in the works of De 
 Vogiié and Waddington, and has also been well 
 described by G. Schumacher (Across the Jor- 
 dan) in 1886, though his journey did not 
 extend to the eastern part of the region, which 
 has, however, been frequently visited, and is 
 fairly well known. The name is often loosely 
 applied to the whole of Bashan, which included 
 the four provinces named above; but the strict 
 application is to the eastern part of the plain— 
 east of the Jaulan. Wetzstein’s Reisebericht 
 iiber den Haurdn, 1860, is one of the best books 
 on the subject, and Graham’s tour is given in 
 the Journal of the Royal Geographical Society, 
 xxviii. 226-263. The buildings standing in 
 ruins in the cities are well given in the plates 
 of De Vogiié’s Syrie Centrale, and many of these, 
 including Herod’s temple at Si‘ah, he discovered 
 in 1862. 
 
 The Hauran is remarkable for its subterranean 
 buildings, which are usually some 10 or 12 yards 
 in length by about 6 in breadth, and 10 ft. 
 high, often forming cave villages difficult of 
 access. The name of the region may perhaps 
 be derived from them, for they are mentioned 
 very early in a Greek text from Canatha (Wad- 
 dington, 2329), which includes the words, “ King 
 Agrippa, friend of Caesar and friend of the 
 Romans, says. ..of a life like that of wild 
 beasts. . . 1 know not how till now in many 
 parts of the country dwelling in caves...” 
 This custom is, however, not altogether peculiar 
 to the Hauran. Dolmens and other rude stone 
 monuments occur in the Haurin as in the 
 Jaulan, and in Gilead and Moab, which are 
 probably of high antiquity. The modern vil- 
 lages are poor and small, but the region being 
 1500 to 2000 feet above the sea, is healthy, 
 
 HAVILAH 1295 
 
 with a dry air and a constant breeze from the 
 sea. The inhabitants are mainly Druses or 
 nomadic Arab tribes (see Basuan). [C. R. C.] 
 
 HAVENS, FAIR. [Farr Havens.] 
 
 HAVILAH (MN; Εὐειλάτ, Εδιλάτ, Εὐειλά, 
 Εὑιλά; Hevila). 1. “The Land of the Havilah;” 
 a region famed for its products of fine gold, 
 “bdellium,” and “ onyx stone,” and surrounded 
 by the river Pison (Gen. ii. 11, 12). [EDEN.] 
 
 2. One of the five sons of Cush the son of 
 Ham (Gen. x. 7; 1 Ch. i. 9). Cush is the 
 Assyrian Aisu, Kushu; that is, Upper Egypt, 
 including Meroé or Ethiopia. 
 
 8. One of the thirteen sons of Joktan, a 
 descendant of Shem (Gen. x. 29; 1 Ch. i. 23). 
 The seats of the Joktanites appear to have lain 
 along the west and south sides of the great 
 peninsula of Arabia, where some of their tribal 
 names, notably Sheba and Hazarmaveth, the 
 Arabic Hadhramaut and Sabd, are identified with 
 certainty. This agrees fairly well with the 
 datum of Gen. xxv. 18, where Havilah appears 
 as the south-eastern limit of the Ishmaelite 
 Arabs; and with that of 1 Sam. xv. 7, where, 
 however, the reading is doubtful.* 
 
 That we should find indications of kindred 
 stocks on the opposite sides of a narrow sea 
 like the Arabian Gulf is not, perhaps, remark- 
 able. The existence of a Cushite or African 
 Havilah and Joktanite or Arabian Havilah may 
 be taken as evidence of an early connexion 
 between the peoples thus known by a common 
 designation. But when we come to ask whether 
 that name itself can be identified in later 
 geography, we are somewhat embarrassed by 
 the number of suggestions offered by modern 
 
 pM Sis 
 
 writers. Bochart thought of ws Khau- 
 
 lan; a district in Tihamah, midway between 
 Sana‘a and Mecca. K. Niebuhr (Beschr. von 
 Arabien, S. 270) and J. D. Michaelis (Spicileg. 
 202; Suppl. 685) agree with him.» Gesenius 
 
 (Thesaur. s. v.) is for Strabo’s Χαυλοταῖοι, the 
 Chaulotaeans, who were neighbours of the 
 Nabataeans and Hagarenes in Northern Arabia. 
 The uniform spelling of the Septuagint may, 
 however, indicate that the initial sound 
 
 of the Hebrew mon was the soft heth (ς» 
 
 rather than the harsh cheth (©) Εὑειλὰτ᾽ or 
 
 Εὑειλὰ may be contrasted with spellings like 
 
 Χεβρών. This suggestion derives some support 
 from the fact that the Arabic Version has 
 a a“ 
 
 Yog>, Hawila, with the soft letter (o> in 
 
 Gen. x. 29; 1 Sam. xv. 7. The name of the 
 
 a Wellhausen proposes Zelaim, comparing 1 Sam. 
 XXvii. 8. 
 
 b Niebuhr, referring to Gen. x. 7 and xxv. 18, 
 observes that ‘‘this little district” of Khaulan was 
 apparently the Havilah of the Cushites and “ {86 
 southern border of the Ishmaelites” (p. 270). He also 
 mentions another small district of the same name, 
 situate a few miles S.E. of Sana‘a, which he thinks may 
 may have been the Havyilah of Gen. x. 29. 
 
1296 HAVOTH-JAIR 
 town Rog>> Huwailah, in the district of 
 
 Lahs@ or Hag'ar, on the Persian Gulf, would 
 therefore agree better with the Hebrew Havilah, 
 with which, indeed, Kautzsch has compared it 
 (Riehm, 5. v. Havila). But this point perhaps 
 lies too far to the east for a Joktanite settlement. 
 No clear trace of the name Havilah has yet 
 been found in the cuneiform inscriptions. 
 
 A remarkable notice in Jacut’s Mu‘g’am 
 
 (vol. iii. p. 636) states that ks Aavil, 
 
 was the dialect spoken by “the descendants 
 of Midian, the.son of Abraham,” and by the 
 
 people of B ge Mahrah, the well-known dis- 
 
 trict situate to the east of Hadhramaut. This 
 looks like an unquestionable relic of the ancient 
 name Hayvilah. 
 
 The Cushite Havilah, on the other hand, 
 appears to have survived in the classical 
 Aualitae (Ptol. iv. 7; Plin. vi. 28); a people 
 
 “ve 
 
 with a town Aualis, now aL} Zeila’, on the 
 
 African coast, south of the straits of Bab-el- 
 
 Mandeb. As Gesenius points out, this may 
 
 have been the opinion of Saadiah, who tran- 
 en 
 
 scribes nbn by Rae) 4} Zawilah, in Gen. ii. 
 11, x. 7, xxv. 18; cp. 1 Ch. i. 9, 23. [C. J. B.] 
 
 HA'VOTH -JA-IR, R. V. HAVVOTH- 
 JA-IR (WN) NAN, zc. Chavvoth Jair, “ villages 
 of J.;” ἐπαύλεις and κώμαι Ἰαΐρ, Θαυώθ ; vicus, 
 Avoth Jair, viculus Jair), certain villages on 
 the east of Jordan, in Gilead or Bashan. ‘The | 
 word Chavvah, which occurs in the Bible in this 
 connexion only, is perhaps best explained by the 
 similar term in modern Arabic, which denotes a 
 
 small collection of huts or hovels in a country 
 place (see the citations in Gesenius, Zhes. p.451; 
 and Stanley, S. § P., App. § 84). 
 
 (1.) The earliest notice of the Havvoth-jair is 
 m Num. xxxii. 41, in the account of the settle- 
 ment of the Transjordanic country, where Jair, 
 son of Manasseh, is stated to have taken some 
 villages (A. V. “the small towns,” R. V. “the 
 towns”) of Gilead—which was allotted to his 
 tribe—and to have named them after himself, 
 Havvoth-jair. (2.) In Deut. iii. 14 (R. V.) it 
 is said that Jair “took all the region of Argob, 
 unto the border of the Geshurites and the 
 Maacathites; and called them, even Bashan, 
 after his own name, Havvoth-jair.” (3.) In the 
 records of Manasseh in Josh. xiii. 30, and 1 Ch. 
 li. 25 (A. V., in both “towns of Jair”), the 
 Havvoth-jair are reckoned with other districts 
 as making up sixty “cities” (DY). In 1K. 
 iv. 13 they are named as part of the com- 
 missariat district of Ben-geber, next in order 
 to the “sixty great cities” of Argob. They 
 had evidently become more important, as has 
 been the case in our own country with more 
 than one place still designated as a “ hamlet,” 
 though long since a populous town. (4.) No 
 less doubtful is the number of the Havvoth- 
 Jair. In 1 Ch. ii, 22 they are specified as 
 twenty-three, but in Judg. x. 4, as thirty. In 
 the latter passage, however, the allusion is to a 
 second Jair, by whose thirty sons they were | 
 
 HAWK 
 
 governed, and for whom the original number 
 may have been increased. The word oy, 
 
 “cities,” is perhaps employed here for the sake 
 
 of the play which it affords with DY), “ass- 
 colts.” (JaiR; BASHAN-HAVOTH-JaIR. ] 
 
 [6.1 ΓΝ 
 
 HAWK (7), nés; ἱέραξ; accipiter), the 
 
 translation of the above-named Hebrew term, 
 
 Falco saker. 
 
 which occurs in Ley. xi. 16 and Deut. xiv. 15 as 
 one of the unclean birds, and in Job xxxix. 26, 
 where it is asked, “Doth the πᾶς fly by thy 
 wisdom and stretch her wings towards the 
 south?” This may apply either to the migra- 
 tory habits of many of the smailer birds of prey, 
 or to their power of flying right in the sun’s 
 eye without being dazzled by its rays. The 
 ancients believed this to be a power peculiar to 
 eagles and hawks (Aelian, H. A. x. 14). Pliny 
 believed that all hawks except one were migra- 
 tory (x. 9). In this, however, he was in error. 
 Moreover many species are residents in one 
 country and migrants in another. The com- 
 monest of the smaller raptorial birds in Palestine 
 is the kestrel, Zinnunculus alaudarius (Gm.), 
 identical with our common but very beautiful 
 English bird. Inthe Jordan valley and in the 
 Eastern forests, among the ruins of Rabbath Am- 
 mon and Gerash, in the desolate gorges of the 
 Dead Sea up to the confines of the Southern 
 deserts, among the luxuriant gardens of the 
 coast and in the sacred recesses of the mosques 
 of Hebron and Jerusalem, it equally abounds. 
 [Ὁ is generally gregarious, ten or twenty pairs 
 nesting in the same ruins. It often builds in the 
 recesses of caverns occupied by griffons, and is 
 the only bird which the eagles appear to admit 
 as close neighbours, Another very pretty spe- 
 cies is the lesser kestrel (Zinnunculus cenchris, 
 Naum.), always distinguished by the natives, 
 and, unlike the last, only a spring and summer 
 resident. It lives in large colonies often in the 
 towns, as in the roofs of the old quarried caves 
 at Nazareth, or in the towers of mosques and 
 churches. It feeds entirely on insects, and may 
 
HAWK 
 
 be seen towards evening in the open glades, or | 
 ξ 5 ᾽ 
 
 in the lanes between the gardens about villages, 
 catching cockchafers in its claws on the wing. 
 It is distinguished by its white claws. The 
 word néts is doubtless generic, as appears from 
 the expression in Deut. and Lev. “after his 
 kind,” and includes various other species of the 
 smaller Falconidae, such as the sparrow-hawk 
 (Accipiter nisus, L.), which is very common in 
 the country districts, and a permanent resident ; 
 the rarer Levant sparrow-hawk (Accipiter 
 brevipes, Seyv.), the black-shouldered hawk 
 (Llanus caeruleus, Desf.), the hobby (Falco sub- 
 buteo, L.), the merlin (Falco acsalon, Tunst.), 
 Eleonora’s falcon (F. eleonorae, Géné), and a few 
 other rarer visitors. Besides the above-named 
 smaller hawks, the two magnificent species, 
 F. saker and F. lanarius, are summer visitors to 
 Palestine. On one occasion, while riding with 
 an Arab guide, I observed a falcon of large size 
 rise close to us. The guide, when I pointed it 
 out to him, exclaimed, ‘‘ Zair Saq’r.” Tair, the 
 Arabic for “bird,” is universally throughout 
 N. Africa and the East applied to those falcons 
 which are capable of being trained for hunting, 
 i.e. “the bird,” par excellence. These two species 
 of falcons, and perhaps the hobby and goshawk 
 (Astur palumbarius), are employed by the Arabs 
 in Syria and Palestine for the purpose of taking 
 partridges, sand-grouse, quails, herons, gazelles, 
 hares, &c. Dr. Russell (Nat. Hist. of Aleppo,? 
 ii, p. 196) has given the Arabic names of 
 several falcons, but it is probable that some at 
 least of these names apply rather to the different 
 sexes than to distinct species. See a very graphic 
 description of the sport of falconry, as pursued 
 by the Arabs of N. Africa, in the bis, i. p. 284; 
 and ep. Thomson, The Land and the Book, 
 p. 208. 
 
 Whether falconry was pursued by the ancient 
 Orientals or not, is a question we have been 
 unable to determine decisively. No represen- 
 tation of such a sport occurs on the monuments 
 of ancient Egypt (see Wilkinson, Anc. Ey. i. 
 221), neither is there any definite allusion to 
 falconry in the Bible. With regard, however, 
 to the negative evidence supplied by the monu- 
 ments of Egypt, we must be careful ere we draw 
 a conclusion ; for the camel is not represented, 
 though we have Biblical evidence to show that 
 this animal was used by the Egyptians as early 
 as the time of Abraham; still, as instances of 
 various modes of capturing fish, game, and wild 
 animals are not unfrequent on the monuments, 
 it seems probable the art was not known to the 
 Egyptians. Nothing definite can be learnt from 
 the passage in 1 Sam. xxvi. 20, which speaks of 
 “ἐᾷ partridge hunted on the mountains,” as this 
 may allude to the method of taking these birds 
 by “throw-sticks,” &c. [PARTRIDGE.] The 
 hind or hart “ panting after the water-brooks ” 
 (Ps. xlii. 1) may appear at first sight to refer to 
 the mode at present adopted in the East of 
 taking gazelles, deer, and bustards, with the 
 united aid of falcon and greyhound; but, as 
 Hengstenberg (Comment. on Ps. 1. 9.) has 
 argued, it seems pretty clear that the exhaus- 
 tion spoken of is to be understood as arising not 
 from pursuit, but from some prevailing drought, 
 as in Ps. ]xiii. 1, “ My soul thirsteth for Thee in 
 a dry land” (see also Joel i. 20). The poetical 
 version of Tate and Brady— 
 
 BIBLE DICT.—VOL, 1. 
 
 HAY 1297 
 
 “ As pants the hart for cooling streams 
 When heated in the chase,” 
 
 has therefore somewhat prejudged the matter. 
 For the question as to whether falconry was 
 known to the ancient Greeks, see Beckmann, 
 History of Inventions (i. 198-205, Bohn’s ed.), 
 (W. ΗΠ’ (H. Bota 
 
 HAY (WSN, chasir; ἐν τῷ πεδίῳ χλωρός, 
 χόρτος; prata, herba), the rendering of the 
 A. V. in Prov. xxvii. 25, and Is. xv. 6, of the 
 above-named Heb. term, which occurs frequently 
 im the O. T., and denotes “grass” of any kind, 
 from an unused root, “to be green,” (Grass. ] 
 In Num. xi. 5, this word is properly translated 
 “leeks.” [LEEK.] Harmer (Observat. i. 425, 
 ed. 1797), quoting from a MS. paper of Sir J. 
 Chardin, states that hay is not made anywhere 
 in the East, and that the foenum of the Vulg. 
 (aliis locis) and the “hay” of the A. V. are 
 therefore errors of translation. It is true that 
 the modern Orientals do not make hay in our 
 sense of the term; but they do mow thin grass 
 with a scythe, and that both when withered 
 and green, and lay it up in heaps for future use. 
 I have often seen a considerable quantity thus 
 piled up. The ancients did the same, as we 
 see from, Ps. xxxvii. 2, ‘They shall soon be cut 
 down (D1), and wither as the green herb; ” 
 Ps. Ixxii. 6, “Like rain upon the mown grass ” 
 (13). See alsc Amos vii. 1, “The king’s mow- 
 ings ” αρρπ 473); and Ps, exxix. 7, where of 
 the “grass upon the housetops”’ (Poa annua?) 
 it is said that “the reaper (ΝΡ) filleth not 
 his hand” with it, “ nor he that bindeth sheaves 
 his bosom.” We do not see therefore, with the 
 author of Fragments in Continuation of Calmet 
 (No. clxxviii.), any gross impropriety in our 
 version of Prov. xxvii. 25, or in that of Is. xv. 6. 
 “Certainly,” says this writer, “if the tender grass* 
 is but just beginning to show itself, the hay, 
 which is grass cut and dried after it has arrived 
 at maturity, ought by no means to be associated 
 with it, still less ought it to be placed before it.” 
 But (accepting the A.V. translation) where is 
 the impropriety? The tender grass (SW) 
 may refer to the springing after-grass, and the 
 “hay” to the hay-grass. However, in the two 
 passages in question, where alone the A, V. 
 renders chastr by “hay,” the word would cer- 
 tainly be better translated by “grass” (R. V. 
 marg.). We may remark that there is an 
 express Hebrew term for “dry grass” or 
 “hay,” viz. chdshash,” which, apparently from 
 an unused root signifying “to be dry,’® is 
 
 a ‘The hay appeareth (R. V. “is carried”’), and the 
 tender grass sheweth itself, and herbs of the mountains 
 are gathered” (Prov. xxvii. 25). e δ 
 
 b twin, allied to the Arabic Uae (cheshish), 
 All! a 
 
 which Freytag thus explains, “ Herba, pecwl. siccior : 
 
 scil. Papulum siccum, foenum (ut cub Σ᾽ viride et 
 recens).” y 2s 
 
 ¢ The Arabs of the desert always call the dry 
 juiceless herbage of the Sahara, which is ready-made 
 hay while it is growing, cheshish, in contradistinction 
 to the fresh grass of better soils.—[H. B. aps 
 
1298 HAZAEL 
 
 rendered in the only two places where the 
 word occurs (Is. v. 24 [R. V. “ dry grass ”], xxxiii. 
 11) “chaff” in the English Versions. We do 
 not, however, mean to assert that the chashash 
 of the Orientals represents our modern English 
 hay. The “dry grass” was not stacked, but 
 only cut in small quantities, and then con- 
 sumed. .The grass of “ the latter growth after 
 the king’s mowings ” (Amos vii. 1) or second crop 
 
 (windy, like our after-grass, denotes the mown 
 grass as it grows afresh after the first cutting ; 
 like the Chordum foenum of Pliny (N. #. viii. 
 28). CW. Haj; 1Ἐ 3: 1] 
 
 HAZA-EL ΟΝῚΠ-- σοά hath scons ᾿Αζαήλ; 
 Hazaél) was a king of Damascus, who reigned 
 from about B.c. 886 to B.c. 840. He appears 
 to have been previously a person in a high 
 position at the court of Benhadad, and was sent 
 by his master to Elisha, when that prophet 
 visited Damascus, to inquire if he would re- 
 cover from the malady under which he was 
 suffering. Elisha’s answer that Benhadad would 
 surely recover, but that he would also surely 
 die, and his announcement to Hazael that he 
 would one day be king of Syria, which seems 
 to have been the fulfilment of the commission 
 given to Elijah (1 K. xix. 15) to appoint Hazael 
 king, led to the murder of Benhadad by his 
 ambitious servant, who forthwith mounted the 
 throne (2 K. viii. 7-15. See BENHADAD). He 
 was soon engaged in hostilities with Ahaziah 
 king of Judah, and Jehoram king of Israel, for 
 the possession of the city of Ramoth-Gilead 
 (ibid. viii. 28). The Assyrian inscriptions show 
 that about this time a bloody and destructive 
 war was being waged between the Assyrians on 
 the one side, and the Syrians, Hittites, Hama- 
 thites, and Phoenicians on the other. [See 
 Damascus.] Benhadad had recently suffered 
 several severe defeats at the hands of the As- 
 
 _syrian king, Shalmaneser II.; and upon the ac- 
 cession of Hazael the war was speedily renewed. 
 Hazael took up a position in the fastnesses of 
 the Anti-Libanus, but was there attacked by 
 the Assyrians, who defeated him with great loss, 
 killing 16,000 of his warriors, and capturing 
 1121 chariots, with his camp. Hazael fled, and 
 was besieged by Shalmaneser in Damascus. 
 Three years later the Assyrians once more 
 entered Syria in force, and took possession of 
 some of his strongholds. After this, internal 
 troubles appear to have occupied the attention 
 of the Assyrians, who made no more expeditions 
 into these parts for about a century. The 
 Syrians rapidly recovered their losses; and to- 
 wards the close of the reign of Jehu, Hazael led 
 them against the Israelites (about B.c. 860), 
 whom he “smote in all their coasts” (2 K. x. 
 32), thus accomplishing the prophecy of Elisha 
 (ibid. viii. 12). His main attack fell upon the 
 eastern provinces, where he ravaged “all the 
 land of Gilead, the Gadites, and the Reubenites, 
 and the Manassites, from Aroer, which is by the 
 river Arnon [R. V. “by the valley of Arnon”, 
 even Gilead and Bashan” (ibid. x. 33). After 
 this he seems to have held the kingdom of 
 Israel in a species of subjection (ibid. xiii, 
 3-7, and 22); and towards the close of his 
 life he even threatened the kingdom of Judah. 
 
 Having taken Gath (ibid. xii. 17; cp. Amos | propensities. 
 
 HAZAR-MAVETH 
 
 i. 2), he proceeded to attack Jerusalem, de- 
 feated the Jews in an engagement (2 Ch. xxiv. 
 24), and was about to assault the city, when 
 Joash induced him to retire by presenting 
 him with “all the gold that was found in the 
 treasures of the house of the Lord, and in the 
 king’s house” (2 K. xii. 18). Hazael appears 
 to have died about the year B.c. 840 (ibid. xiii. 
 24), having reigned 46 years. He left his crown 
 to his son Benhadad (2 K. xiii. 3). His “house ” 
 at Damascus is alluded to in Amos i. 4, probably 
 as a well-known or beautiful palace, 
 
 [G.R] ΤΕ τὴ 
 
 ἨΑΖΑΙΑΗ (OM = Jah hath seen; B. 
 ‘O¢ed, A. -la; Hazia), a man of Judah of the 
 family of the Shilonites (R. V.; A. V. “ Shi- 
 loni’’), or descendants of SHELAH (Neh. xi. 5). 
 
 HAZAR-ADDAR, &c. [HAzER.] 
 
 HAZA’R-MA'VETH (yO 13N = the court of 
 death, Ges.: B. “Ασυρμώθ, A. ΣΣαρμώθ [Gen.]; B. 
 om., A. ᾿Αραρώθ [1 Ch.]: Asarmoth), the third, 
 in order, of the sons of Joktan (Gen, x. 265 ~ 
 1 Ch. 1. 20). The name is found on Sabaean 
 inscriptions, and is preserved, almost literally, 
 
 .οσσο = 
 
 in the Arabic Hadramaut (<» 9/2 pra )> and 
 
 as the appellation of a province and an ancient 
 people of Southern Arabia (cp. MV." 5, n.; 
 Delitzsch [1887], and Dillmann? on Gen, /. c.). 
 The province of Hadramaut is situate east of 
 the modern Yemen (anciently, as shown in 
 ARABIA, the limits of the latter province em- 
 braced almost the whole of the south of 
 the peninsula), extending to the districts of 
 Shihr and Mahreh. Its capital is Shibdm, a 
 very ancient city, of which the native writers 
 give curious accounts, and its chief ports are 
 Mirbat, Zafari [SepHaRr], and Kisheem, from 
 whence a great trade was carried on, in ancient 
 times, with India and Africa. Hadramaut itself 
 is generally cultivated, in contrast to the con- 
 tiguous sandy deserts (called El-Ahkaf, where 
 lived the gigantic race of ‘Ad); is partly moun- 
 tainous, with watered valleys, and is still 
 celebrated for its frankincense (El-Idrisi, ed. 
 Jomard, i. p. 54; Niebuhr, Descr. p. 245), ex- 
 porting also gum-arabic, myrrh, dragon’s blood, 
 and aloes; the latter, however, being chiefly from 
 Socotra, which is under the rule of the Sheykh 
 of Kesheem (Niebuhr, J. ὁ. sq.). The early 
 kings of Hadramaut were Joktanites, distinct 
 from the descendants of Yaarub, the progenitor 
 of the Joktanite Arabs generally; and it is 
 hence to be inferred that they were separately 
 descended from Hazarmaveth. They main- 
 tained their independence against the powerful 
 kings of Himyer, until the latter were subdued 
 at the Abyssinian invasion (Ibn-Khaldoon, 
 ap. Caussin, Zssai, i. 135 sq.). The Greeks 
 and Romans called the people of Hadramaut, 
 variously, Chatramotitae, Chatrammitae, &c. ; 
 and there is little doubt that they were the 
 same as the Adramitae. The modern people, 
 although mixed with other races, are strongly 
 characterised by fierce, fanatical, and restless 
 dispositions. They are enterprising merchants, 
 well known for their trading and travelling 
 [E.S P.J 
 
HAZAZON-TAMAR 
 
 HAZAZON-TAMAR, 2 Ch. xx. 2. 
 ZON-TAMAR. | 
 
 HAZEL. The translation in A. V. of 115, 
 liz; Ayvab. +,5, lauz. The R. V. renders it 
 “almond tree,” in Gen. xxx. 37, the only passage 
 where the word occurs, as one of the three trees 
 from which Jacob cut the rods which he peeled. 
 The LXX. render it by κάρυον, a generic term for 
 any kind of kernel fruit, and equally applicable 
 _to the almond and the hazel. The Vulgate 
 has virgas amygdalinas. There can be no 
 question that the identification of the Vulgate 
 and the R. V.is correct. We have for it the 
 high authority of Celsius, who has exhaustively 
 discussed the subject; and the fact of the 
 common Arabic name of the almond-tree being 
 identical should be conclusive. Besides which 
 the almond is indigenous in Palestine and in 
 Mesopotamia; the hazel is not found in these 
 countries, being a native of more northern and 
 western regions. [ALMOND.] (Ht. B. 1 
 
 HAZELELPO'NI ΟΥ̓ΒΟΌΝΠ, of uncertain 
 meaning; B. Ἑσηλεββών, A. ᾿Εσηλλελφών ; 
 Asalelphuni), the sister of the sons of Etam in 
 the genealogies of Judah (1 Ch. iv. 3). The 
 name has the definite article prefixed, and is 
 accurately “the Tzelelponite,” as of a family 
 rather than an individual. [F.] 
 
 HA’ZER CSN, ἐσ. Chisér, from TSM, to 
 surround or enclose), a word which is of not 
 unfrequent occurrence in the Bible in the sense 
 of a “court” or quadrangle to a palace®. or 
 other building, but which topographically seems 
 generally employed for the ‘villages ” of people 
 in a roving and unsettled life, the semi-perma- 
 nent collecticus of dwellings which are described 
 by travellers among the modern Arabs to consist 
 of rough stone walls covered with the tent 
 cloths, and thus holding a middle position 
 between the tent of the wanderer—so transitory 
 as to furnish an image of the sudden termina- 
 tion of life (Is. xxxviii. 12)—and the settled, 
 permanent town. 
 
 As a proper name it appears in the A. V.— 
 
 1. In the plural, Hazerim and HAZEROTH, 
 for which see below. 
 
 2. In the slightly different form of HAZor. 
 
 3. In composition with other words, giving a 
 special designation to the particular “village” 
 intended. When thus in union with another 
 word, the name is Hazar (Chasar). The follow- 
 ing are the places so named, and it should not 
 be overlooked that they are all in the wilderness 
 itself, or else quite on the confines of civilised 
 country :— 
 
 1, Hazar-appar (V8 VSM: in Num. ἔπαυ- 
 Aus ᾿Αράδ ; in Josh. B. Sapdda, A.’Addapa: Villa 
 nomine Adar, Addar), a place named as one of 
 the landmarks on the southern boundary of the 
 land promised to Israel, between Kadesh-barnea 
 and Azmon (Num. xxxiv.4). In the specification 
 of the south boundary of the country actually 
 _ possessed (Josh. xv. 3), the name appears in the 
 
 (HAZzE- 
 
 3 In 2K. xx. 4, the Masorets (Keri) have substituted 
 wn (A. V. ‘‘court’’) for the “ΟῚ of the original 
 text. The same change should probably be made in 
 Jer. xli.7, [See Isumakt, 6.1 
 
 HAZER 1299 
 shorter form of Addar (A. V. Adar), and an ad- 
 
 ditional place is named on each side of it. The 
 site of Hazar-addar does not appear to have been 
 encountered in modern times. Riehm (s. v.) 
 suggests that it may possibly be the same place 
 as Hezron (Josh. xy. 3). 
 
 The LXX. reading might lead to the belief 
 that Hazar-addar was identical with ARAD, a 
 Canaanite city which lay in this direction, but 
 the presence of the Ain in the latter name 
 forbids such an inference. 
 
 2. HAZAR-ENAN ΟἿ" WM = village of 
 springs ; in Num., B. ᾿Αρσεναείμ, AF. ’Acepvaty ; 
 Villa Enan, Atrium Enon, A. Enan), the place 
 at which the northern boundary of the land 
 promised to the children of Israel was to 
 terminate (Num. xxxiy. 9), and the eastern 
 boundary commence (v. 10). It is again men- 
 tioned in Ezekiel’s prophecy (xlvii. 17, xlviii. 1) 
 of what the ultimate extent of the land will 
 be. These boundaries are traced by Mr. Porter, 
 who would identify Hazar-enan with Kuryetein 
 = “the two cities,” a village more than 60 
 miles E.N.E. of Damascus, the chief ground for 
 the identification apparently being the presence 
 at Kuryetein of “large fountains,” the only ones 
 in that “vast region,”—e circumstance with 
 which; the name of Hazar-enan well agrees 
 (Porter, Damascus, i. 252, ii. 358). The great 
 distance from Damascus and the body of 
 Palestine is the main impediment to the recep- 
 tion of this identification. Keil (8. Ὁ.) suggests 
 the springs near the waterparting between the 
 Orontes and Leontes; Conder (Heth and Moab, 
 p- 8), ‘Ain el-‘Asy, one of the principal sources 
 of the Orontes. 
 
 3. HAZaR-GADDAH (173 V3; B. Σερεί, 
 A. ᾿Ασεργαδδά ; Aser-Gadda), one of the towns 
 in the southern district of Judah (Josh. xv. 27), 
 named between Moladah and Heshmon. No 
 trace of the situation of this place appears in 
 the Onomasticon, or in the works of modern 
 travellers. In the map of the PHF. (Sheet 
 xxv.) a site named e/-Ghurra is marked as close 
 to Moladah (e/-Mih), but it is perhaps too much 
 to assume that Gaddah has taken this form by 
 the change so frequent in the East of D to R. 
 
 4, Hazar-nat-ricon, R. V. Hazur-Hat- 
 TICON (JID°HI WM=the middle village; Αὐλὴ 
 τοῦ Σαυνάν, A. corrupt; Domus Tichon), a 
 place named in Ezekiel’s prophecy of the ulti- 
 mate boundaries of the land (Ezek. xlvii. 16), 
 and specified as being on the boundary (ON 
 23) of Hauran. It is not yet known; but 
 Wetzstein (Reisebericht, p. 100) suggests its 
 identification with Hadhar, to the north of 
 Jebel Druze, and on the east border of el-Lejah. 
 
 5. HAZAR-SHUAL copie ISM = fou-village: 
 B, Χολασεωλά, "ApowAd, Ἑσηρεουλάβ; A.’ Acap- 
 σουλά, Σερσουλά, "EcepooudaA: Hasersual, Hasar- 
 suhal), a town in the southern district of Judah, 
 lying between MHazar-gaddah and Beersheba 
 (Josh. xv. 28, xix. 35 1 Ch, iv. 28). It is 
 mentioned in the same connexion after the 
 return from the Captivity (Neh. xi. 27). The 
 site has not yet been conclusively recovered ; 
 but in the map of the PHF. (Sheet xxv.) a 
 site, Ah. S‘aweh, is marked at about the right 
 spot, which may be a corruption of the original 
 name. 
 
 402 
 
1300 HAZERIM 
 
 6. Hazar-susaH (NDID WM = horse-vil- 
 luge; B. Σαρσουσέν, A. ᾿Ασερσουσίμ; Haser- 
 susa), one of the “cities” allotted to Simeon in 
 the extreme south of the territory of Judah 
 (Josh. xix. 5). Neither it nor its companion 
 BETH-MARCABOTH, the “house of chariots,” are 
 named in the list of the towns of Judah in 
 chap. xv., but they are included in those of 
 Simeon in 1 Ch. iv. 31 (see v. 7), with the ex- 
 press statement that they existed before and up 
 to the time of David. Dean Stanley has sug- 
 gested (S. §& P. p. 160) that they were the 
 depéts and stations for the chariots and horses, 
 such as those which in Solomon’s time went to 
 and fro between Egypt and Palestine. This view 
 is supported by the inscriptions of Thothmes III., 
 and by the Zell Amarna letters which mention 
 Canaanite and Egyptian chariots in Palestine at 
 a very early period. The names, if not Hebrew, 
 are apparently Semitic. But they may perhaps 
 be in the former language of the country, adopted 
 by the Hebrews, and so altered as to bear a 
 meaning in Hebrew. This is exactly the process 
 which the Hebrew names have in their turn 
 undergone from the Arabs, and is in fact one 
 which is well known to have occurred in all 
 languages, though not yet recognised in the 
 particular case of the early local names of 
 Palestine. Guérin (Judeéc, iii. 172) suggests its 
 identification with Sisieh, E.N.E. of es-Semii‘a, 
 Eshtemoa; Tristram (Bibl. Places, p. 25) with 
 Beit Susin, on the caravan road from Gaza to 
 Egypt. 
 
 7. Hazar-susim (D'DID ISM = the village 
 of horses; B. Ἡμισυσεσοράμ, A. Ἡμισυεωσίμ ; 
 Hasarsusim), the form under which the pre- 
 ceding name appears in the list of the towns of 
 Simeon in 1 Ch, iv. 31. [α.1 Wid 
 
 HAZE'RIM. The Avis, or more accu- 
 rately the Avvim, a tribe commemorated in a 
 fragment of very ancient history, as the early in- 
 habitants of the south-western portion of Pales- 
 tine, are therein said to have lived (R. V.) “in 
 villages (A. V. “Hazerim,” DYVSN3; ᾿Ασηδώθ, 
 AF.’ Aonpéé; Haserim) as far as Gaza” (Deut. ii. 
 23), before their expulsion by the Caphtorim. 
 The word is the plural of Hazur, noticed above, 
 and, as far as we can now appreciate the signi- 
 ficance of the term, it implies that the Avvim 
 Were a wandering tribe who had retained in 
 their new locality the transitory form of en- 
 campment of their original desert life. Pro- 
 fessor Palmer (Desert of the Exodus, ii. 428) 
 points out that the Avvim were the southern- 
 most of the tribes inhabiting the Canaanitish 
 territory (Josh. xiii. 3, 4), and identifies Hazerim 
 with the mountains of the ’Azdzimeh, at the 
 southern extremity of the Negeb. [G.] [W.] 
 
 HAZE’ROTH (n}¥n=pastoral enclosures, 
 camping grounds ; «Ασηρώθ, in Deut. Αὐλῶν; 
 Haseroth: Num. xi. 35, xii. 16, xxxiii. 17 ; Deut. 
 Me 1), a station of the Israelites in the desert, 
 mentioned next to Kibroth-Hattaavah, and 
 
 perhaps recognisable in the Arabic $ a>, 
 Hudherah (Robinson, i. 151; Stanley, 8. & P. 
 pp- 81, 82), which lies about eighteen hours’ dis- 
 tance from Sinai on the road to ‘Akabah. For 
 a description of ‘Ain Hudherah, and the curious 
 
 HAZO 
 
 Bedawi legend connecting it with a lost caravan, 
 see Ordnance Survey of Sinai, i. 66, 122, 303; 
 and Palmer, Desert of the Exodus, i. 258 sq. 
 ([HAZER. ] [W.] 
 
 HAZEZO'N-TA’MAR and HAZAZO’'N- 
 TA'MAR (ἢ jyyn ; in Gen. ‘Acacay Θαμάρ, 
 in 2 Ch. B. ᾿Ασὰμ @auapd, A. ᾿Ανασὰν @'; Asason 
 Thamar), the names under which, at a very early 
 period of the history of Palestine, and in a docu- 
 ment believed by many to be the oldest of all these 
 early records, we first hear of the place which 
 afterwards became EN-GEDI. The Amorites 
 were dwelling at Hazazon-tamar when the 
 four kings made their incursion, and fought 
 their successful battle with the five (Gen. xiv. 
 7). The name occurs only once again—in the 
 records of the reign of Hezekiah (2 Ch. xx. 2)— 
 when he is warned of the approach of the 
 horde of Ammonites, Moabites, Mehunim, and 
 men of Mount Seir, whom he afterwards so 
 completely destroyed, and who were no doubt 
 pursuing thus far exactly the same route as the 
 four kings had done a thousand years before 
 them. Here the explanation, “which is En- 
 gedi,” is added.. The existence of the earlier 
 appellation, after En-gedi had been so long in 
 use, is a remarkable instance of the tenacity of 
 these old Oriental names, of which more modern 
 instances are frequent. See ACCHO, BETHSAIDA, 
 ὅς. The name possibly survives in Wady 
 Husdsah, north of ‘Ain Jidy, En-gedi. 
 
 Hazazon-tamar is interpreted in Hebrew to 
 mean the “pruning or felling of the palm” 
 (Gesen. Thes. p. 512). Jerome (Quaest. in Gen.) 
 renders it urbs palmarum. This interpretation 
 of the name is borne ont by the ancient reputa- 
 tion of the palms of En-gedi (Ecclus. xxiy. 14, 
 and the citations from Pliny, given under that 
 
 name). The Samaritan Version has 3 nbp 
 = the Valley of Cadi, possibly a corruption of 
 En-gedi. The Targums have En-gedi. 
 
 Perhaps this was “the city of palm-trees ” 
 (‘Ir hat-temarim) out of which the Kenites, the 
 tribe of Moses’ father-in-law, went up into the 
 wilderness of Judah, after the conquest of the 
 country (Judg. i. 16), If this were so, the 
 allusion of Balaam to the Kenite (Num. xxiv. 
 21) is at once explained. Standing as he was 
 on one of the lofty points of the highlands 
 opposite Jericho, the western shore of the Dead 
 Sea as far as Engedi would be before him, and 
 the cliff, in the clefts of which the Kenites had 
 fixed their secure “ nest,” would be a prominent 
 object in the view. This has been already 
 alluded to by Dean Stanley (S. § P. p. 225, 
 n. 4). The allusion may, however, be to CAIN, 
 Yukin, which forms a conspicuous point on the 
 horizon as seen from the Moabite hills (Conder, 
 
 MS. note). [G.] [W.] 
 
 HAZI-EL (Sy'tn=scen of God; B. Eferha, 
 A.’ACihA; Hosiel), a Levite in the time of king 
 David, of the family of Shimei, the younger 
 branch of the Gershonites (1 Ch, xxiii. 9). 
 
 HAZO!’ (iM; ‘Acad; Azan), a son of Nahor 
 by Milcah his wife (Gen. xxii. 22). The name 
 is compared by Friedrich Delitzsch (Paradies, 
 p- 307) with the cuneiform (mat) Ha-zu-u, 
 
 δὰ “τι. 
 
HAZOR 
 
 (the land) Hazai; a district bordering on 
 Northern Arabia, and mentioned in the inscrip- 
 tions along with Bazu, which is the Assyrian 
 equivalent of the Biblical Buz (Gen. xxii. 21), 
 The phonetic correspondence of the two names 
 is complete (Heb. 6 = Assyr, i). See also 
 Senrader, 14.1.3 p. 141, [C. J. B.] 
 
 HA’ZOR (WWM: ᾿Ασώρ; A. in 1K. ix. 15, 
 ᾿Ασέρ: Asor, Hasor). 1. A fortified city, which 
 on the occupation of the country was allotted 
 to Naphtali (Josh. xix. 36). Its position was 
 apparently between Ramah and Kedesh (ib. xii. 
 19), on the high ground overlooking the Lake 
 of Merom (ὑπέρκειται τῆς Sewexwvitidos λίμνης, 
 Joseph. Ant. v. 5,§ 1). There is no reason for 
 supposing it a different place from that of which 
 Jabin was king (Josh. xi. 1), both when Joshua 
 gained his signal victory over the northern con- 
 federation, and when Deborah and Barak routed 
 his general Sisera (Judg. iv. 2,17; 1 Sam. xii. 
 9). It was the principal city. of the whole 
 of North Palestine, “the head of all those 
 kingdoms ” (Josh. xi. 10, and see Onomasticon, 
 Asor). Like the other strong places of that 
 
 part, it stood. on an eminence (bn, Josh. xi. 13, 
 
 A. V. “strength,” R. V. “mounds ”), but the 
 district around must have been on the whole 
 flat, and suitable for the mancuvres of the 
 “very many ” chariots and horses which formed 
 part of the forces of the king of Hazor and his 
 confederates (Josh. xi. 4, 6, 9; Judg. iy. 3). 
 -Hazor was the only one of those northern cities 
 which was burnt by Joshua; doubtless it was 
 too strong and important to leave standing in 
 his rear. Whether it was rebuilt by the men 
 of Naphtali, or by the second Jabin (Judg. iv.), 
 we are not told, but Solomon did not overlook 
 so important a post; and the fortification of 
 Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer, the points of de- 
 fence for the entrance from Syria and Assyria, 
 the plain of Esdraelon, and the great maritime 
 lowland respectively, was one of the chief 
 pretexts for his levy of taxes (1 K. ix. 15). 
 Later still it is mentioned in the list of the 
 towns and districts whose inhabitants were car- 
 ried off to Assyria by Tiglath-pileser (2 K. xv. 
 29; Joseph. Ant. ix. 11,§ 1). It also not im- 
 probably occurs in Tobit i, 2, under the corrupt 
 form of ASER. We encounter it once more in 
 1 Mace, xi. 67, where Jonathan, after encamp- 
 ing for the night at the “ water of Gennesar,” 
 advances to the “plain of Asor” (Joseph. Ant. 
 xiii, 5,§ 7: the Greek text of the Maccabees 
 has prefixed an n from the preceding word, 
 πέδιον ; E. V. Nasor) to meet Demetrius, who 
 was in possession of Kadesh (xi. 63; Joseph. as 
 above). [Nasor.] 
 
 The site of Hazor has not yet been certainly 
 ascertained, but it has been proposed to identify 
 it with :—(1) Tell Harrah, a prominent isolated 
 hill, rising steeply above ‘Ain el-Mellahah, at 
 the N. end of the great plain Ard el-Kheit, and 
 1? miles from Lake Hiileh, “waters of Merom.” 
 On the top of the hill, which is 23 miles S.E. of 
 Kedesh, are extensive ruins of an old town, 
 with its enclosing wall and acropolis. Much of 
 the masonry, undressed blocks of stone set 
 without mortar, seems to be very old (Wilson, 
 PEF, Mem. i. 238; Guérin, Galilee, ii. 363 sq.). 
 
 (2) Tell el-Khureibeh, a hill at the S. end of the | HAZOR, with Ain in EN-HAZOR. 
 
 HAZOR 1501 
 
 Merj Kades, 24 miles from Kedesh, and 34 
 miles from Lake Zieh. The ruins on the hill 
 consist of shapeless heaps of stones, with no 
 trace of fortifications or large structures (Rob. 
 iii, 364-5; Riehm, 8. v.). (3) Conder has 
 pointed out (PHF. Mem. i. 204) that the name 
 Hadireh, the Arabic equivalent of Hazor, occurs 
 in Jebel Hadireh and Merj Iadireh, 34 miles 
 S.S.W. of Kedesh and δὲ miles from Lake Hileh. 
 Though Jebel Hadireh is close to the point at 
 which the main road to the north crosses the 
 deep, rocky W. Henddj, it does not appear to 
 have been occupied by a fortress, for no ruins 
 are mentioned in connexion either with the hill 
 or the plain, The distance from the lake is 
 also too great if the statement of Josephus be 
 accepted as correct. 
 
 Several places bearing names probably derived 
 from ancient Hazors, have been discovered in 
 this district. A list will be found in Rob. iii. 
 366, note (and cp. also Van de Velde, Syria & 
 P. ii. 178; Porter, Damascus, i, 304). But 
 none of these answer to the requirements of 
 this Hazor. 
 
 2. (B.‘Acopiwpvaiv, A. omits; Asor.) One of 
 the “cities” of Judah in the extreme south, 
 named next in order to Kedesh (Josh. xy. 23). 
 It is mentioned nowhere else, nor has it yet 
 been identified. The LXX. B. unites Hazor 
 with the name following it; which causes 
 Reland to maintain that they form but one 
 (Pal. pp. 144, 708): but the LXX. text of this 
 list is so corrupt, that it seems impossible to 
 argue from it. 
 
 3. (LXX. omits; Asor nova.) Hazor-Hadat- 
 tah, = “new MHazor,” possibly contra-distin- 
 guished from that just mentioned; another of 
 the southern towns of Judah (Josh. xv. 25). 
 The words are improperly separated in the A. V. 
 [HADATTAH. | 
 
 4. (B. ‘Acepay αὕτη “Ασώρ, A.’Acepmm κ-τ.λ.: 
 Aesron, haec est Asor.) ‘“Hezron which is 
 Hazor” (Josh. xv. 25); but whether it be in- 
 tended that it is the same Hazor as either of 
 those named before, or that the name was 
 originally Hazor, and had been changed to 
 Hezron, we cannot now decide. 
 
 5. (A. ᾿Ασώρ, B. omits; Asor.) A place in 
 which the Benjamites resided after their return 
 from the Captivity (Neh. xi. 53). From the 
 places mentioned with it, as Anathoth, Nob, 
 Ramah, &c., it would seem to have lain north 
 of Jerusalem, and at no great distance there- 
 from. It is perhaps Ah. Hazztr, E. of Neby 
 Samwil (PEF. Mem. iii. 43, 114); or the same 
 place with BAAL-HAzOR, though there is no 
 positive evidence beyond the name in fayour of 
 such an identification. 
 
 6. (ἡ αὐλή; Asor.) In Jer. xlix. 28-33 
 Hazor apparently denotes a region of Arabia 
 under several sheikhs, “kingdoms of 4H.” 
 (υ. 28; cp. xxv. 24), whose desolation is pre- 
 dicted in connexion with Kedar. The inhabit- 
 ants are described as dwelling, like the Bedawin 
 tribes of the present day, without gates or bars 
 (v. 31; cep. Ezek. xxxviii. 11, and see HAzeEr, 
 HAzERIM), from which circumstance the name 
 is perhaps derived (Winer, RWB. 5. v. Hazor; 
 Riehm, HW2S. 5. v.; Dict. of Bible, Amer. ed., 
 art. Hazor (6)). 
 
 The word is combined with Baal in BAAL- 
 
 [4] [WJ 
 
1902 HEAD-DRESS 
 HEAD-DRESS. The Hebrews do not appear 
 
 to have regarded a covering for the head as an 
 essential article of dress. The earliest notice 
 we have of such a thing is in connexion with 
 the sacerdotal vestments, and in this case it is 
 described as an ornamental appendage “for 
 glory and for beauty ” (Ex. xxviii. 40). The 
 absence of any allusion to a _head-dress in 
 passages where we should expect to meet with 
 it, as in the trial of jealousy (Num. y. 18) and 
 the regulations regarding the leper (Lev. xiii. 
 45), in both of which the “ uncovering of the 
 head ”’ refers undoubtedly to the hair, leads to 
 the inference that it was not ordinarily worn in 
 the Mosaic age; and this is confirmed by the 
 practice, frequently alluded to, of covering the 
 head with the mantle. Even in after-times it 
 seems to have been reserved especially for pur- 
 poses of ornament: thus the Séniph (*)'J¥) is 
 noticed as being worn by nobles (Job xxix. 14), 
 ladies (Is. iii. 23), and kings (ls. lxii. 3), while 
 the Pe’ér (IN5) was an article of holiday dress 
 (Is. lxi. 3, A. V. “beauty,” R. V. “garland; ” 
 Ezek. xxiv. 17, 23), and was worn at weddings 
 (Is. lxi. 10): the use of the μίτρα was restricted 
 to similar occasions (Judith xvi. 8; Bar. v. 2). 
 The former of these terms undoubtedly de- 
 scribes a kind of turban: its primary sense 
 ΟΣ ν, “to roll around”) expresses the folds of 
 
 linen wound round the head, and its form pro- 
 bably resembled that of the high-priest’s MMis- 
 népheth (a word derived from the same root, 
 and identical in meaning, for in Zech. iii. 5 
 Saniph = Misnéepheth), as described by Jose- 
 phus (Ané. iii. 7, §3). The renderings of the 
 term in the A. V., “ hood” (Is. iii. 23, R. V. 
 “turban ”), A. V. and R. V. “diadem” (Job 
 xxx, 14h. Vi. mare. turbans 15: 1xii.*3), 
 πον, and. WV.,<omitre (Zech: πὰ Ὁ 7K. Vv. 
 marg. turban), do not convey the right idea 
 of its meaning. The other term, Pe’ér, pri- 
 marily means an ornament, and is so rendered 
 in the A. V. (Is. lxi. 10; see also v. 3, “ beauty,” 
 R. V. “ garland” in both vv.), and is specifically 
 applied to ‘the head-dress from its ornamental 
 character. It is uncertain what the term 
 properly describes: the modern turban con- 
 sists of two parts—the Kaoof, a stiff, round cap 
 occasionally rising to a considerable height, and 
 the Shash, a long piece of muslin wound about 
 it (Russell, Aleppo, i. 104): Josephus’ account 
 of the high-priest’s head-dress implies a similar 
 construction ; for he says that it was made of 
 thick bands of linen doubled round many times, 
 and sewn together; the whole covered by a 
 piece of fine linen to conceal the seams. Saal- 
 schiitz (Archaeol, i. 27, note) suggests that the 
 Saniph and the θ᾽ δ)" represent the Shash and 
 the Kaook, the latter rising high above the 
 other, and so the more prominent and striking 
 feature. In favour of this explanation it may 
 be remarkel that the Pe’ér is more particularly 
 connected with the Miyba‘ah, the high cap of 
 the ordinary priests, in Ex. xxxix. 28; while 
 the Saniph, as we have seen, resembled the 
 high-priest’s mitre, in which the cap was con- 
 cealed by the linen folds. The objection, 
 however, to this explanation is that the 
 etymological force of Pe’ér is not brought out: 
 may not that term have applied to the jewels 
 and other ornaments with which the turban 
 
 HEAD-DRESS 
 
 is frequently decorated (Russell, i. 106), some 
 of which are represented in the illustra- 
 tions below taken from Lane’s Mod. Lygypt. 
 Appendix A? The term used for putting on 
 either the Saniph or the Pe’ér is WIN, “to 
 bind round ” (Ex. xxix. 9; Lev. viii. 13) hence 
 the words in Ezek. xvi. 10, “I girded thee about 
 
 Modern Syrian and Egyptian Head-dresses, 
 
 with fine linen,” are to be understood of the 
 turban ; and by the use of the same term Jonah 
 (ii. 5) represents the weeds as wrapped like a 
 turban round his head. The turban now worn in 
 
 Modern Egyptian Head-dresses, 
 
 (Lane.) 
 
 the East varies very much in shape; the most 
 prevalent forms are shown in Russell’s Aleppo, 
 i. 102. 
 
 If the Saniph and the Pe’ér were reserved 
 for holiday attire, it remains for us to inquire 
 whether any and what covering was ordinarily 
 worn over the head. It appears that frequently 
 the robes supplied the place of a head-dress, 
 being so ample that they might be thrown over 
 the head at pleasure: the Radid and the Tsa‘iph 
 at all events were so used [DReEs8], and the veil 
 served a similar purpose. [VEIL.] The ordi- 
 nary head-dress of the Bedouin consists of the 
 
HEARTH 
 
 hiffyeh, a square handkerchief, generally of red 
 and yellow cotton, or cotton and silk, folded so 
 that three of the corners hang down over the 
 back and shoulders, leaving the face exposed, 
 
 Bedouin Head-dress: the Kiffyeh. 
 
 and bound round the head by a cord (Burck- 
 hardt, Notes, i. 48). It is not improbable that 
 a similar covering was used by the Hebrews on 
 certain occasions: the “kerchief” in Ezek, xiii. 
 18 being understood by some as a kind of wrap 
 or head-covering (see Fried. Delitzsch in Baer’s 
 ed. of Ezekiel, p. xiii.); and the σιμικίνθιον 
 (Acts xix. 12, A. V. and R. V. “apron”), as 
 explained by Suidas (τὸ τῆς κεφαλῆς φόρημα), 
 was applicable to the purposes of a head-dress. 
 [HANDKERCHIEF.] Neither of these cases, 
 however, supplies positive evidence on the 
 point, and the general absence of allusions 
 leads to the inference that the head was 
 usually uncovered, as is still the case in many 
 parts of Arabia (Wellsted, Zravels, i. 73). 
 The introduction of the Greek hat (wéracos) by 
 Jason, as an article of dress adapted to the 
 gymnasium, was regarded as a national dis- 
 honour (2 Mace. iv. 12): in shape and material 
 the Petasus very much resembled the common 
 felt ‘hats of this country (Dict. of Gk. δ᾽ Rom. 
 Ant. art. Pileus). 
 
 The Assyrian head-dress is described in Ezek. 
 
 xxiii. 15 under the terms 0°33) ὙΠ Ρ, A. V. 
 “exceeding in dyed attire” (R. V. marg., with 
 dyed turbans). The R. V. marg. is the more 
 correct, tebiilim describing not the coloured 
 material of the head-dress, but a head-band or 
 turban (fasciis obvolvit, Gesen. Thesaur. p. 542 ; 
 cp. Fried. Delitzsch in Baer’s ed. of Ezek. /. c.). 
 The term s’raché expresses the flowing character 
 of the Eastern head-dress, as it falls down over 
 the back (Layard, Nineveh, ii. 308). The word 
 rendered A. V, “hats” (R. V. marg., turbans) 
 
 in Dan, iii. 21 (053) is more probably a cloak 
 (R. V. “tunics ”), [W.L. BJ [FJ 
 
 HEARTH. 1. FN; ἐσχάρα; arula (Ges. 
 p- 69), a pot or brazier for containing fire. 
 2. ἽΡΊ m. and Mp f.3 καύστρα, καῦσις ; 
 incendium (Ges. p. 620). 3. 8D, or 3 (Zech. 
 xii, 6); δαλός ; caminus; in dual, D9" (Lev. 
 xi. 35); χυτρόποδες ; chytropodes; A. V. and | 
 R. V. text “ranges for pots,” R. V. marg. | 
 stewpans (Ges. p. 672). 
 
 HEATH 1308 
 
 One way of baking much practised in the East 
 is to place the dough on an iron plate, either 
 Jaid on or supported on legs above the vessel 
 sunk in the ground, which forms the oven. 
 
 wel» 
 tajen; a word which has probably passed into 
 Greek in τήγανον. The cakes baked “on the 
 hearth ” (Gen. xviii. 6, ἐγκρυφίας, subcinericios 
 panes) were probably baked in the existing 
 Bedouin manner, on hot stones covered with 
 ashes. The “hearth” of king Jehoiakim’s 
 winter palace, Jer. xxxvi. 23, was possibly a pan 
 or brazier of charcoal (Burckhardt, Notes on 
 Bed. i. 58; P. della Valle, Viaggi, i. 437 ; Harmer, 
 Obs. i. p. 477, and note; Rauwolff, Travels, 
 ap. Ray, ii. 163; Shaw, Zravels, p. 231; Nie- 
 buhr, Desc. de ?Arabie, p. 45; Schleusner, Lea. 
 Vet. Test. τήγανον ; Gesen. 8. Ὁ. MW, p. 997): 
 
 [lire.] PE AW: Ρὴ 
 
 HEATH, A. V. and R. V. (WWW, ‘ara%r, 
 and “WW, ‘ar‘ar* ; ἡ ἀγριομυρίκη, ὄνος ἄγριος ; 
 myrica). The prophet Jeremiah compares the 
 man “who maketh flesh his arm, and whose 
 heart departeth from the Lord,” to the ‘ar‘ar 
 in the desert (xvii. 6; R. V. marg. a tamarisk 
 [see below]). Again, in the judgment of Moab 
 (xlviii. 6), to her inhabitants it is said, “ Flee, 
 save your lives, and be like the ‘dréd‘ér in 
 the wilderness,’ where the margin has a 
 naked tree, R. V. marg. as in xvii. 6. There 
 seems no reason to doubt Celsius’ conclusion 
 (Hierob. ii. 195), that the ‘ar‘ar is identical 
 
 S- t= 
 
 This plate or “hearth” is in Arabic 
 
 with the ‘ar‘ar ( ES) of Arabic writers, 
 
 which is a species of juniper. Robinson (Bid. 
 Res. ii. 125-6) states that when he was in 
 the pass of Nemela he observed juniper trees 
 (Arab. ‘ar‘ar) on the porphyry rocks above. 
 The berries, he adds, have the appearance 
 and taste of the common juniper, except that 
 there is more of the aromaof the pine. ‘ These 
 trees were ten or fifteen feet in height, and 
 hung upon the rocks even to the summits of 
 the cliffs and needles.” This is the Juniperus 
 Sabina, L., or savin, with small scale-like leaves, 
 which are pressed close to its gnarled stem, a 
 gloomy-looking bush of stunted appearance, and 
 cropped close by the wild goats, inhabiting the 
 most sterile soil (see English Cycl. N. Hist. iii. 
 311); a character which is obviously well 
 suited to the naked or destitute tree spoken of 
 by the prophet. The R. V. marg. has tamarisk 
 (MY.1?), on what ground it is difficult to conceive, 
 
 for the tamarisk is well known as the Gb, 
 
 tarfa, and not ‘ar‘ar. There is no true heath 
 in Palestine south of Lebanon. Rosenmiiller’s 
 explanation of the Hebrew word, which is also 
 adopted by Maurer, “qui destitutus versatur ” 
 (Schol. ad Jer. xvii. 6), is very unsatisfactory. 
 Not to mention the tameness of the comparison, 
 it is evidently contradicted by the antithesis in 
 v. 8: “Cursed is he that trusteth inman.. . 
 
 a From the root “yy, ‘to be naked,” in allusion to 
 the bare nature of the rocks on which the Juniperus 
 Sabina often grows. Cp. Ps. cii. 17, SYN nbpn. 
 “«the prayer of the destitute” (or ill clad). Polis" Oth 
 
1304 HEATHEN 
 
 he shall be like the juniper that grows on the 
 bare rocks of the desert. Blessed is the man 
 that trusteth in the Lord. . .he shall be asa 
 tree planted by the waters.” The contrast be- 
 tween the shrub of the arid desert and the tree 
 growing by the waters is very striking; but 
 Rosenmiiller’s interpretation appears to us to 
 spoil the whole. Even more unsatisfactory is 
 Michaelis (Supp. Lex. Heb. p. 1971), who thinks 
 “ouinea hens” (Numida meleagris) are in- 
 tended! Gesenius (Zhes. pp. 1073-4) under- 
 stands these two Hebrew terms to denote 
 “ parietinae, aedificia eversa” (ruins); but it is 
 more in accordance with the scriptural passages 
 to suppose that some tree is intended, which ex- 
 planation, moreover, has the sanction of the 
 LXX. and Vulgate, and of the modern use of a 
 kindred Arabic word. ΕΞ 1. ΠΕ 
 
 HEATHEN. The Hebrew words ‘3, D%3, 
 goi, goyim, together with their Greek equivalents 
 ἔθνος, ἔθνη (see Cremer, Bibl.-theolog. Worterb. ἃ. 
 NV. Tlichen Gricitat, s. n.), have been somewhat 
 arbitrarily rendered “ nations,” “ Gentiles,” and 
 “heathen” in the A. V. It will be interesting 
 to trace the manner in which a term, primarily 
 and essentially general [including the Jews 
 themselves] in its signification, acquired that 
 more restricted sense which was afterwards 
 attached to it. Its development is parallel with 
 that of the Hebrew people, and its meaning at 
 any period may be taken as significant of their 
 relative position with regard to the surrounding 
 nations. 
 
 1. While as yet the Jewish nation had no 
 political existence, gdytm denoted generally the 
 nations of the world, especially including the 
 immediate descendants of Abraham (Gen. xviii. 
 18; ep. Gal. iii. 16). The latter, as they grew 
 in numbers and importance, were distinguished 
 in a most marked manner from the nations by 
 whom they were surrounded, and were provided 
 with a code of laws and a religious ritual which 
 made the distinction still more peculiar. They 
 were essentially a separate people (Lev. xx. 23); 
 separate in habits, morals, and religion, and 
 bound to maintain their separate character by 
 denunciations of the most terrible judgments 
 (Lev. xxvi. 14-38; Deut. xxviii.) On their 
 march through the desert they encountered the 
 most obstinate resistance from Amalek, “ chief 
 of the goyim”’ (Num. xxiv. 20), in whose sight 
 the deliverance from Egypt was achieved (Lev. 
 xxvi. 45). During the conquest of Canaan and 
 the subsequent wars of extermination, which 
 the Israelites for several generations carried on 
 against their enemies, the seven nations of the 
 Canaanites—Amorites, Hittites, Hivites, Jebu- 
 sites, Perizzites, and Girgashites (Ex. xxxiv. 24), 
 together with the remnants of them who were 
 left to prove Israel (Josh. xxiii. 18 ; Judg. iii. 1; 
 Ps. xxviii. 55), and teach them war (Judg, iii. 
 2)--received the especial appellation of gayim. 
 With these the Israelites were forbidden to 
 associate (Josh. xxiii. 7), not in any spirit of 
 hatred, but as a defensive measure; inter- 
 marriages were prohibited (Josh, xxiii. 12; 1 K. 
 xi. 2); and as a warning against disobedience 
 the fate of the nations of Canaan was kept 
 constantly before their eyes (Ley. xviii. 24, 25; 
 Deut. xviii 12). They are ever associated with 
 the worship of false gods, and the foul practices 
 
 HEATHEN 
 
 of idolaters (Ley. xviii., xx.), and these consti- 
 tuted their chief distinctions, as goyim, from 
 the worshippers of the one God, the people of 
 Jehovah (Num. xv. 41; Deut. xxviii. 10). This 
 distinction was maintained in its full force 
 during the early times of the monarchy (2 Sam. 
 vii. 23; 1 K. xi. 4-8, xiv. 245; Ps. evi. 35). It 
 was from among the goyim, the degraded tribes 
 who submitted to their arms, that the Israelites 
 were permitted to purchase their bond servants 
 (Ley. xxv. 44, 45), and this special enactment 
 seems to have had the effect of giving to a 
 national tradition the force and sanction of a 
 law (cp. Gen. xxxi. 15), In later times this 
 regulation was strictly adhered to. To the 
 words of Eccles. ii. 7, “I bought men-servants 
 and maid-servants,’ the Targum adds, “ of the 
 children of Ham, and the rest of the foreign 
 nations.” : 
 
 And not only were the Israelites forbidden to 
 intermarry with these gdyim, but the latter 
 were virtually excluded from the possibility of 
 becoming naturalised. An Ammonite or Moab- 
 ite was shut out from the congregation of 
 Jehovah even to the tenth generation (Deut. 
 xxiii. 3), while an Edomite or Egyptian was 
 admitted in the third (vv. 7, 8). The necessity 
 of maintaining a separation so broadly marked 
 is ever more and more manifest as we follow 
 the Israelites through their history, and observe 
 their constantly recurring tendency to idolatry. 
 Offence and punishment followed each other 
 with all the regularity of cause and effect (Judg. 
 ii, 12, 111. 6-8, &c.j. On the other hand, 
 heathen who turned from their idolatrous and 
 evil ways to the purer faith, were assured of 
 God’s forgiveness and of a welcome from Israelites 
 (cp. Is. lvi. 3, 6, 7). 
 
 2. But, even in early Jewish times, the term 
 goymm received by anticipation a significance of 
 wider range than the national experience (Ley. 
 xxvi. 33, 38; Deut. xxx. 1); and as the latter 
 was gradually developed during the prosperous 
 times of the monarchy, the gdyim were the 
 surrounding nations generally, with whom the 
 Israelites were brought into contact by the ex- 
 tension of their commerce, and whose idolatrous 
 practices they readily adopted (Ezek. xxiii. 30; 
 Amos y. 26). Later still, it is applied to the 
 Babylonians who took Jerusalem (Neh. v. 8; 
 Ps. Ixxix. 1, 6, 10), to the destroyers of Moab 
 
 (Is. xvi. 8), and to the several nations among 
 whom the Jews were scattered during the Cap- 
 tivity (Ps. evi. 47; Jer. xlvi. 28; Lam. i. 3, 
 &e.), the practice of idolatry still being their 
 characteristic distinction (Is. xxxvi. 18; Jer. x. 
 2, 3, xiv. 22), This signification it retained 
 after the return from Babylon, though it was 
 used in a more limited sense as denoting the 
 mixed race of colonists who settled in Palestine 
 during the Captivity (Neh. v. 17), and who are 
 described as fearing Jehovah, while serving their 
 own gods (2 K, xvii. 29-33; Ezra vi. 21). 
 Tracing the synonymous term ἔθνη through 
 the Apocryphal writings, we find that it is 
 applied to the nations around Palestine (1 Mace. 
 i. 11), including the Syrians and Philistines of 
 the army of Gorgias (1 Mace. iii. 41; iv. 7, 11, 
 14), as well as the people of Ptolemais, Tyre 
 and Sidon (1 Mace. τ. 9, 10, 15). They were 
 
 image-worshippers (1 Mace. iii. 48; Wisd. xv. 
 | 15), whose customs and fashions the Jews seem 
 
HEATHEN 
 
 still to have had an unconquerable propensity 
 to imitate, but on whom they were bound by 
 national tradition to take vengeance (1 Mace. ii. 
 68; 1 Esd. viii. 85). Following the customs 
 of the goyim at this period denoted the neglect 
 or concealment of circumcision (1 Mace. i. 15), 
 disregard of sacrifices, profanation of the Sabbath, 
 eating of swine’s flesh and meat offered to idols 
 (2 Mace. vi. 6-9, 18; xv. 1, 2), and adoption of 
 the Greek national games (2 Mace. iv. 12, 14). 
 In all points Judaism and heathenism are 
 strongly contrasted. The “barbarous multi- 
 tude” in 2 Mace, ii. 21 are opposed to those 
 who played the man for Judaism, and the dis- 
 tinction now becomes an ecclesiastical one (cp. 
 Mait. xviii. 17). In 2 Esd. iii. 33, 34, the 
 “centes” are defined as those “ qui habitant in 
 seculo ” (cp. Matt. vi. 32; Luke xii. 30). 
 
 As the Greek influence became more exten- 
 sively felt in Asia Minor, and the Greek language 
 was generally used, Hellenism and heathenism 
 became convertible terms, and a Greek was syno- 
 nymous with a foreigner of any nation. This 
 is singularly evident in the Syriac of 2 Mace. 
 v..9, 10, 13: cp: John vii. 35; 1 Cor. x. 32; 
 2 Mace. xi. 2. 
 
 In the N. T. again we find various shades of 
 meaning attached to ἔθνη. In its narrowest 
 sense it is opposed to “those of the circumcision” 
 (Acts x. 45; cp. Esth. xiv. 15, where ἀλλοτρίος 
 ΞεἀπεριτμήτοΞ), and is contrasted with Israel, 
 the people of Jehovah (Luke ii. 32), thus repre- 
 senting the Hebrew OA at one stage of its 
 history. But, like goytm, it also denotes the 
 people of the earth generally (Acts xvii. 26; 
 Gal. iii. 14). In Matt. vi. 7 ἐθνικὸς is applied 
 to an idolater. 
 
 But, in addition to its significance as an 
 ethnographical term, goyim had a moral sense 
 which must not be overlooked. In Ps. ix. 5, 15, 17 
 (ep. Ezek. vii. 21) the word stands in parallelism 
 with DW, rasha‘, the wicked, as distinguished 
 by his moral obliquity (see Hupfeld on Ps. i. 1); 
 and in v. 17 the people thus designated are 
 described as “ forgetters of God,” that know not 
 Jehovah (Jer. x. 25). Again in Ps. lix. 5 it is 
 to some extent commensurate in meaning with 
 Ts “VIR, bog’dé ’aven, “iniquitous transgres- 
 sors;” and in these passages, as well as in Ps. 
 x. 15, it has a deeper significance than that of a 
 merely national distinction, although the latter 
 idea is never entirely lost sight of. 
 
 In later Jewish literature a technical definition 
 of the word is laid down which is certainly not 
 of universal application. Elias Levita (quoted 
 by Eisenmenger, Entdecktes Judenthum, i. 665) 
 explains the sing. gai as denoting one who is 
 not of Israelitish birth. This can only have 
 reference to its after signification; in the O. T. 
 the singular is never used of an individual, but 
 is a collective term, applied equally to the 
 Israelites (Josh. iii. 17) as to the nations of 
 - Canaan (Ley. xx. 23), and denotes simply a body 
 politic. Another distinction, equally unsup- 
 ported, is made between D3, goyim, and DDN, 
 ’ummim, the former being defined as the nations 
 who had served Israel, while the latter were 
 ‘those who had not (Jalkut Chadash, fol. 20, No. 
 20; Eisenmenger, i. 667). Abarbanel on Joel 
 iii. 2 applies the former to both Christians and 
 
 HEAVEN 1305 
 
 Turks, or Ishmaelites, while in Sepher Juchasin 
 (fol. 148, col. 2) the Christians alone are distin- 
 guished by this appellation. Eisenmenger gives 
 some curious examples of the disabilities under 
 which a σῦὶ laboured. One who kept sabbaths 
 was judged deserving of death (ii. 206), and the 
 study of the law was prohibited to him under 
 the same penalty ; but on the latter point the 
 doctors are at issue (ii. 209). On the other 
 hand, the Talmud has many beautiful passages 
 recognising the virtues and rights of the 
 heathen, and inspired by the same tenderness as 
 that of Isaiah lvi. (see Hamburger, RZ. s. n. 
 “ Heiden ”’). CW. A. W.) [Fe] 
 
 HEAVEN. There are four Hebrew words 
 thus rendered in the O. T., which we may 
 briefly notice. 1. DY) (στερέωμα; firmamen- 
 tum; Luth. Veste), a solid expanse, from 1) 
 “to beat out’’; a word used primarily of the 
 hammering out of metal (Ex. xxxix. 3; Num. 
 xvi, 38). The fuller expression is Down pp 
 (Gen. i. 14 sq.). That Moses understood it to 
 mean a solid expanse is clear from his repre- 
 senting it as the barrier between the upper and 
 lower waters (Gen. i. 6 sq.), i.e. as separating 
 the; reservoir of the celestial ocean (Ps. civ. 3, 
 xxix. 3) from the waters of the earth, or those 
 on which the earth was supposed to float (Ps. 
 cxxxvi. 6). Through its open lattices (ΓΞ δ, 
 Gen. vii. 11; 2 K. vii. 2, 19; cp. κόσκινον, 
 Aristoph. Nub. 373) or doors (Ὠ ΠΟῚ, Ps. 
 Ixxviii, 23) the dew and snow and hail are 
 poured upon the earth (Job xxxviii. 22, 37, 
 where we have the curious expression “ bottles 
 of heaven,” wtres coeli). This firm yault, 
 which Job describes as being “strong as a 
 molten looking-glass ” (xxxvii. 18), is trans- 
 parent, like pellucid sapphire, and splendid as 
 erystal (Dan, xii. 3; Ex. xxiv. 10; Ezek. i. 22; 
 Rey. iv. 6), upon which rests the throne of God 
 (Is. Ixvi. 1; Ezek. i. 26), and which is opened 
 for the descent of Angels, or for prophetic 
 visions (Gen. xxviii. 17; Ezek. i. 1; Acts vii. 
 56, x. 11). In it, like gems or golden lamps, 
 the stars are fixed to give light to the earth, 
 and regulate the seasons (Gen. i. 14-19); and 
 the whole magnificent, immeasurable structure 
 (Jer. xxxi. 37) is supported by the mountains as 
 its pillars, or strong foundations (Ps. xviii. 7; 
 2 Sam. xxii. 8; Job xxiv. 11). Similarly the 
 Greeks believed in an οὐρανὸς πολύχαλκος (Hom. 
 Il. ν. 504), or σιδήρεος (Hom. Od. xv. 328), or 
 ἀδάμαστος (Orph. Hymn. ad Coelum), which the 
 philosophers called στερέμνιον, or κρυσταλ- 
 λοειδές (Emped. ap. Plut. de Phil. plac. ii. 11; 
 Artemid. ap. Sen. Nat. Quaest. vii. 13; quoted 
 by Gesenius, s.v.). It is clear that very many 
 of the above notions were mere metaphors 
 resulting from the simple primitive conception, 
 and that later writers among the Hebrews had 
 arrived at more scientific views, although of 
 course they retained much of the old phrase- 
 ology, and are fluctuating and undecided in 
 their terms. Elsewhere, for instance, the 
 heavens are likened to a curtain (Ps. civ. 2; Is. 
 xl, 22). In A. V. “heaven” and “heavens” 
 are used to render not only 1), but also 
 DYDY, DVD, and ΘΓ), for which reason we 
 
 . 
 
 have thrown together’ under the former word 
 
1806 HEAVEN 
 
 the chief features ascribed by the Jewish writers 
 to this portion of the universe. } 
 
 2, DMI (Ch. 2) is derived from MDW, 
 “to be high.” This is the word used in the 
 expression “the heaven and the earth,” or “the 
 upper and lower regions” (Gen. i. 1), which was 
 a periphrasis to supply the want of a single 
 word for the Cosmos (Deut. xxxii. 1; Is. 1. 23 
 Ps. exlviii. 13), “Heaven of heavens” is the 
 Hebrew expression for infinity (Neh. ix. 6; 
 Ecelus. xvi. 18). 
 
 3. DIW, used for “heaven” in Ps. xviii. 16; 
 Jer. xxv. 303 Is. xxiv. 18 (A, V. “on high”). 
 Properly speaking, it means a mountain, as in 
 Ps. cii. 19, Ezek. xvii. 23. It must not, how- 
 ever, be supposed for a moment that the 
 Hebrews had any notion of a “Mountain of 
 Meeting,” like Albordsh, the northern hill of 
 Babylonish mythology (Is. xiv. 13), or the Greek 
 Olympus, or the Hindoo Meru, the Chinese 
 Kuenlun, or the Arabian Caf (see Kalisch, Gen. 
 p- 24, and the authorities there quoted), since 
 such a fancy is incompatible with the pure 
 monotheism of the Old Testament. 
 
 4, D'pny, “expanses,” with reference to the 
 extent of heaven, as the last two words were 
 derived from its height; hence this word is 
 often used together with DNDt, as in Deut. 
 xxxiii. 26; Job xxxv. 5. In the A. V. it is 
 sometimes rendered “ clouds,” for which the fuller 
 term is D‘PMY 31 (Ps. xviii. 12), The word 
 pnt’ means “first “to pound,” and then “to 
 wear out.’ So that, according to some, 
 “clouds”? (from the notion of dust) is the 
 original meaning of the word. Gesenius, how- 
 ever, rejects this opinion (Zhesaur. s.v.3 see 
 MV). 
 
 In one passage baby is rendered “ heaven” (Ps. 
 Ixxvii. 18), but the word means “a wheel,” as it 
 is everywhere else translated. The verse should 
 be rendered “‘ The voice of thy thunder was in 
 the rolling,” or “in the whirlwind ” (R. V.; in 
 Wirbel, Ewald, and so too Gesenius, Hitzig, &c.). 
 Kimchi, however, understands it of the globe or 
 sphere of heaven, and he is followed by Luther 
 and the A.V. Some have compared it to τροχὸς 
 τῆς γενέσεως (Jas. iii, 6), which has no connexion 
 with it. 
 
 In Ps, Ixviii. 4 NW is rendered ‘“ heavens,” 
 but the meaning is “ Him Who rideth through 
 the deserts” (R. V.). The Targum and Talmud 
 were here probably led astray by the analogy 
 of Deut. xxxiii. 26. The LXX. and the Vulg. 
 erroneously render it “the West” (Perowne on 
 the Psalms, in loco). 
 
 In Is. v. 80 Ὡ ΒΒ) is rendered “heavens.” 
 The R. V. renders it “clouds,” and the. marg. 
 gives destructions. The Hebrew text is here 
 doubtful. 
 
 In the N. T. we frequently have the word 
 ovpavol, which some consider to be a Hebraism, 
 or a plural of excellence (Schleusner, Lex. Nov. 
 Test. 5. v.). St. Paul’s expression ἕως τρίτου 
 οὐρανοῦ (2 Cor. xii. 2) has led to much con- 
 jecture. Grotius said that the Jews divided the 
 heaven into three parts: viz. 1. Nubiferum, the 
 air or atmosphere, where clouds gather; 2. 
 Astriferum, the firmament, in which the sun, 
 moon, and stars are fixed; 3. Empyreum, or 
 
 HEBER 
 
 Angeliferum, the upper heaven, the abode of 
 God and His Angels, i.e. 1. Saw pdwy (or DIP) ; 
 2. ann ΟῚ (or Ow); and 8, Dow 
 
 Syn (or “heaven of heavens,” DY wy). 
 This curiously explicit statement is entirely 
 unsupported by Rabbinic authority, but it is 
 hardly fair of Meyer to call it a fiction, for it 
 may be supposed to rest on some vague Biblical 
 evidence (cp. Dan. iv. 12, “the fowls of the 
 heaven;” Gen. xxii. 17, “the stars of the 
 heaven;” Ps. ii. 4, “He that sitteth in the 
 heavens,” &c.). The Rabbis spoke of two 
 heavens (cp. Deut. x. 14, “the heaven and the 
 heayen of heavens”), or seven (ἑπτὰ οὐρανοὺς 
 οὕς τινες GpiOmodot kat’ ἐπανάβασιν, Clem. Alex. 
 Strom. iv. 7, 636). ‘Resch Lakisch dixit 
 septem esse coelos, quorum nomina sunt, 1. 
 velum; 2. expansum; 3. nubes; 4. habita- 
 culum; 5. habitatio; 6. sedes fixa; 7. Ara- 
 both,” or sometimes “the treasury.” At the 
 sin of Adam, God ascended into the first; at the 
 sin of Cain, into the second; during the gene- 
 ration of Enoch, into the third, &c.; afterwards 
 God descended downwards into the sixth at the 
 time of Abraham, into the fifth during the life of 
 Isaac, and so on down to the time of Moses, 
 when He redescended into the first (see many 
 passages quoted by Wetstein, ad 2 Cor. xii. 2). 
 Of all these definitions and deductions we may 
 remark simply with Origen, ἑπτὰ δὲ οὐρανοὺς ἢ 
 ὅλως περιωρισμένον ἀριθμὸν αὐτῶν αἱ φερόμεναι 
 ἐν ταῖς ᾿κκλησίαις οὐκ ἀπαγγέλλουσι γραφαί 
 (c. Cels. vi. 289). 
 
 If nothing has here been said on the secondary 
 senses attached to the word “heaven,” the 
 omission is intentional. The object of this 
 article is not practical, but exegetical; not 
 theological, but critical and explanatory. A 
 treatise on the nature and conditions of future 
 beatitude would here be wholly out of place. 
 We may however remark that as heaven was 
 used metaphorically to signify the abode of 
 Jehovah, it is constantly employed in the N. T. 
 to signify the abode of the spirits of the just, 
 and is described by symbols suggestive of light, 
 and love, and peace (see for example Matt. v. 
 12, vi. 20; Luke x. 20, xii. 33% 2 Cor. v. 1; 
 Col. i. 5). [F. W. F.] 
 
 HEAVE-OFFERING. ([Sacririce.] 
 
 HE’BER (131), once 11M; Χόβωρ, XdBep, 
 “ABap*; Haber, Heber), a name wholly distinct 
 from EBER (12); Ἔβερ; Heber) and its cog- 
 nate HEBREW [EBER; HEBREW]. - 
 
 Heber occurs in the O. T. as the name of the 
 following individuals and houses :— 
 
 1. A grandson of Asher, and founder of a 
 leading house or clan of that tribe (Gen. xlvi. 
 17; Num. xxvi. 45), whose line is perhaps 
 
 a So 1 Ch. viii. 17, with a softer pronunciation of 
 the initial guttural. In 1 Ch. iv. 18, the name appears 
 as ᾿Αβεισά (B.), but “ABep (A.). In 1 Ch. v. 13, the 
 reading is corrupt; and in 1 Ch. viii. 22, the LXX, 
 
 .seems to have read “J}j, Obed. The Vulgate tran- 
 
 scribes both Heber and Eber by Heber, except in Judg. 
 vy. 11, 17, 21; v. 24, where it has Haber. Hence 
 the Heber of Luke iii. 35, A. V.; corrected to Eber, 
 RS Vi 
 
HEBERITES 
 
 carried down to the fifth or sixth generation in 
 1 Ch. vii. 32-39 (see notes on this passage in 
 Bp. Ellicott’s Commentary). 
 
 2. A Judaean chief, son of Mered and his 
 Jewish as distinct from his Egyptian wife, grand- 
 son of an otherwise unknown Ezra, and “ father ” 
 or rounder of Socho (1 Ch. iv. 18). [Socuo.] 
 
 8. The head of a Gadite house or clan, settled 
 in the Bashan (1 Ch. ν. 13). 
 
 4. An offshoot or subdivision of the Ben- 
 jaminite clan of Elpaal (1 Ch. ix. 17). 
 
 5. A subdivision of the Benjaminite clan of 
 Shashak (1 Ch, ix. 22). 
 
 6. The Kenite, the husband of Jael, the 
 heroine of the Song of Deborah (Judg. v. 24 sq.). 
 Heber was the head of a Kenite clan, belonging 
 to that branch of this interesting people which 
 τ claimed descent from Hobab, the brother-in- 
 law of Moses (Num. x. 29), and was settled in 
 the extreme south of Canaan (Judg. i. 16). 
 [Kenires.] He and his clan had migrated to 
 the north, and were encamped in the neighbour- 
 hood of Kedesh at the time of his wife’s famous 
 exploit (Judg. iv. 11,17). [Jar] [C. J. B.] 
 
 HEBERITES, THE C730; B. ὁ XoBepel, 
 AF. -1 (v. 29); Heberitac), descendants of Heber, 
 a branch of the tribe of Asher. 
 
 HEBREW, HEBREWS (12, 7°22, 
 MY. OI; Ἑβραῖος, Ἑβραϊκός ; Hebracus, 
 Hebraei, Hebraicus). In modern usage, “ He- 
 brews ” is asynonym of “ Jews ” or “ Israelites ” 
 (cp. Shakespeare’s “an Ebrewe Jew”), and He- 
 brew is the common designation of their ancient 
 language. In the Ὁ, T., the term is not used 
 at all in the latter sense. The sacred tongue is 
 either “ the lip (= speech) of Canaan” (Is. xix. 
 18), a fact which indicates what is otherwise 
 known from Phoenician inscriptions—the close 
 dialectical affinity of the language of Israel 
 with that of Tyre and Sidon; or “Jewish,” a 
 later appellation, dating from the time when 
 the southern kingdom had become the sole 
 surviving representative of the nation (2 K. 
 xviii. 26; Neh. xiii. 24). At a still later period, 
 when an Aramaic dialect had displaced the old 
 language of Judaea, the new vernacular was 
 called “‘Hebrew;” so that we find Aramaic 
 forms like Bethesda, Gabbatha, Golgotha, styled 
 Hebrew in the N. T. (John v. 2; xix. 13, 17).* 
 
 In this connexion we may note that the 
 Greek ‘EBpaios, whence the Latin Hebraeus and 
 our “ Hebrew,” was directly derived, not from 
 the old and strictly Hebrew term ‘73D, ‘Jb77, 
 
 but from the Aramaic 5N73Y, ‘Jbray ; bias, 
 ‘horaya. 3 
 
 a The psalms which were the war-songs of Judas 
 Maccabeus were, doubtless, some of those comprised in 
 the canonical collection (2 Macc. xii. 37). And an 
 official revival of Hebrew is attested by the coins of 
 the period. On the other hand, the words reported to 
 have been spoken by our Lord on certain solemn 
 occasions, e.g. Talitha kumi (Mark v. 41), are Aramaic; 
 and it seems probable that the “Hebrew” in which 
 St. Paul addressed the Jews (Acts xxi. 40, xxii. 2) was 
 Palestinian Aramaic. As distinguished from this 
 language, the true Hebrew came to be known as “the 
 
 sacred tongue” (ΡΠ ΠΩΣ 
 
 HEBREW, HEBREWS 1807 
 
 As a national name, the term “ Hebrew ” 
 (‘Jori) first appears in a very ancient historical 
 fragment preserved in the Book of Genesis, 
 where we read of “ Abram the Hebrew ” (Gen. 
 xiv. 13). According to analogy, this expression 
 can only refer to Abram’s tribal or national 
 extraction; that is, to his descent from Ay, 
 ‘Eber [EBER]. The Patriarch is called a He- 
 brew, or rather an Ibrite, to distinguish him 
 from his Amorite (Canaanite) allies. Whether 
 Eber was ever a strictly personal® or always a 
 tribal designation, is perhaps immaterial for 
 present purposes. It seems enough to note that 
 Shem is called, in the older source of Genesis 
 (J), “the father of all the bené ‘Eber” (Gen. x. 
 21), and that bené ‘Eber is as evidently a 
 national designation as bené Lot (Ps. lxxxiii. 8), 
 or bené Qédem (Job i. 3), or bené Yisrael. But 
 if we ask what tribes or peoples were included 
 under this designation, we find that it is a name 
 of the widest reference, including, according to 
 the same source (the Jahvist), Joktan and his 
 numerous sons (that is, the tribes of W. and S. 
 Arabia, and probably the eastern shore of the 
 Red Sea; Gen. x. 25-30), as well as all the 
 peoples which, like Ishmael, Edom, and Israel, 
 claimed descent from Abram the Ibrite. Fur- 
 ther, if Peleg (Gen. x. 25) denotes an Aramean 
 stock or country, as it appears to do from the 
 ethnographic genealogy given in what is pro- 
 bably a later source (the Priestly Legislation, 
 Gen. xi. 17 sqq., P), the bené ‘Hber included. 
 Aramean peoples beyond the Euphrates (Serug, 
 Nahor). With this may perhaps be compared 
 the obscure passage, Num. xxiv. 24, where 
 Asshur and Eber stand side by side. Another 
 passage of the Jahvist so far agrees with it, in 
 that Qemuel the son of Nahor, Abraham’s 
 brother, is there called “the father of Aram,” 
 i.e. of the Aramean peoples (Gen. xxii. 20 sq.).4 
 
 No positive results follow from the comparison 
 of 3, ‘Eber, the proper name (Gen. x. 21), 
 with its homophone AY, which, as a noun, 
 means “the country on the other side,” usually 
 of a river, τὸ πέραν. ἣ Περαία, whether the 
 Euphrates (1730 2Y, Is. vii. 20) or the Jor- 
 dan (J771'7 “AY, Gen. 1. 10, 11, and often). It 
 is obvious that the use of such an expression 
 must be relative to the position of the person 
 
 b The value of this narrative, as a whole, has of late 
 years received independent confirmation from cuneiform 
 research. See Schrader, ΚΑΤ." ad loc. 
 
 ¢ Some may think it a personal name in 1 Ch. y. 13, 
 viii, 12, 22; Neh. xii. 20. 
 
 4 According to P, Aram is a son of Shem, and brother 
 of Arpbaxad the grandfather of Eber (Gen. x. 22-24). 
 In the same list Eber is grandson of Arphaxad (vv. 13, 
 14). Ewald interpreted this to mean that the Hebrew 
 peoples had a tradition that their original home was in 
 Arrapachitis (Ptolemy, vi. 1), N. of Assyria. Without 
 assuming the identity of this name with Ur-Casdim (so 
 Kuenen, Religion of Israel, i, 114, note), which the 
 progress of cuneiform discovery has shown to be wrong, 
 we may still hold, with these great scholars, that other 
 names in the list, e.g. Serug, Nahor, Haran, mark stages 
 in the progress of the Hebrew migrations from the 
 north-east to the south and south-west. Ewald sees in 
 Abraham’s departure from Ur of the Chaldees [UR], and 
 in Jacob’s from Charran, ‘‘only continuations of the 
 migratory movements of this primitive people’’ (ist. 
 Isr., pp. 268 sq., 284-287, Eng. Tr.). 
 
1308 
 
 who uses it. Accordingly, in the passages just 
 cited it denotes the country east of the rivers ; 
 but in Num. xxxii. 19, 1 K. iv. 24, it designates 
 their western sides, Yet many, following the 
 Jewish interpreters (Midrash Bereshith Rabba ; 
 Rashi),° have supposed that Abram was ori- 
 ginally called “the Hebrew” (Ibrite) by the 
 Canaanites, because he came as an immigrant 
 into their country from the other side (‘éber) of 
 the Great River. They support their opinion 
 by the assertion that Hebrews continued to be 
 the name by which Abram’s descendants the 
 Israelites were known to foreigners, while Israel 
 or bené Israel was the title they preferred 
 among themselves. But it does not appear that 
 Abraham’s tribe was the first or the only one 
 that crossed the Euphrates and wandered into 
 Syria-Palestine (see note’). Similar movements 
 of nomadic tribes must have often occurred in 
 antiquity. Nor can the supposed distinction be 
 established from the usage of the O. T., where 
 foreigners often speak of “Israel.” Besides, if 
 throughout the Ὁ. Τ᾿ period the bené Israel were 
 known to foreigners as Hebrews, it would be 
 strange that no trace of this name should be 
 found in the contemporary records of Egypt and 
 Assyria. This, however, is actually the case.? 
 The simple truth is that Israel or bené Israel 
 was the collective name of the people whose 
 gentilic designation was Hebrews or Ibrites. 
 
 The term Israelite Odsene, fem. msds) is 
 of late origin, and occurs only in a single 
 
 passage (Ley. xxiv. 10, 11).8 [C. J. B.] 
 
 HEBREW LANGUAGE 
 
 HEBREW LANGUAG# [see ΘΗΕΜΙΤΙΟ 
 LANGUAGES]. 
 
 HEBREWESS (ΠΡ 2} ; Ἕβραιά ; Hebraca). 
 
 A Hebrew woman (Jer. xxxiv. 9). 
 
 e The LXX. renders $97] by ὃ περατής, as if the 
 svord were to be pointed ‘4M; cp. 1 Sam. xiii. 7; 
 οἰ δ 
 
 Sept. Aquila corrects into 6 περαΐτης, “the man from 
 the other side,” a term used by Josephus for a Peraean 
 (Bell. Jud. ii. 20, 4). 
 
 f The Aperiu, Apuriu, Apura, or Aper, of the 
 Egyptian monuments, a people famous for horse-breed- 
 ing and horsemanship, who were still settled in the 
 nome of Heliopolis long after the Exodus, are no longer 
 supposed to have anything to do with the Hebrews 
 (Ebers, Aegypten, i. 316; Brugsch, Egypt under the 
 Pharaohs, Eng. Tr. by M. Brodrick, pp. 318 sq.). Nor 
 hhas any trace of the name Hebrews been found in cunei- 
 form documents. The northern kingdom was the Land 
 or House of Chumri or Chumria, the southern the Land 
 of Yaidu or Yaidi, to the Assyrian invaders of Israel 
 and Judah. ‘Tiglath-Pileser II. calls Ahaz Yaudai, a 
 Jew; and so Hezekiah is styled Sennacherib. It is very 
 doubtful whether Achabbu mat Sir’ilai, ** Ahab the 
 Sir’ilite,” mentioned by Shalmaneser II., is to be identi- 
 fied with Ahab of Israel. We might transcribe Swulai, 
 as well as Sir’ila@i. On the other hand, Israel occurs 
 on the Moabite stone (9th cent. B.c.), as was only to 
 be expected, in the case of an inscription belonging to 
 a kindred people close at hand, and speaking the same 
 language. 
 
 & Cruden gives sixteen references for Israelite, Is- 
 raelites, and two for Israelitish, in the O. T. In 
 2 Sam. xvii. 25 the true reading is Ishmaelite, as cor- 
 rected by the Chronicler (1 Ch. ii. 17), In all the other 
 passages the Hebrew term is Israel, except Lev. U. c. 
 
 HEBREWS, THE EPISTLE TO 
 HEBREWS, THE EPISTLE TO. The 
 
 following points will be noticed in succession :— 
 
 PAGE 
 
 I. Text ξ 3 . . . Ξ . 1308 
 Il. Title . . . - 1309 
 111. Position . ς . 1309 
 IV. Original Language : a τ 81} 
 V. Destination ᾿ F Ξ 4. 1310 
 VI. Date = τ A . ci ᾿ . 1312 
 VII. Place of Writing . ᾿ A A Pape 867. 
 VIII. Style and Language . . A . 1312 
 IX. Plan A = Φ ik 
 { X. Characteristics . δ - 1314 
 XI. Use of Old Testament : 3 . 1316 
 XII. History and Authorship . ὃ Ξ - 1318 
 
 I. Text.—The original authorities for deter- 
 mining the text of the Epistle are, as in the 
 case of the other Books of the New Testament, 
 numerous and varied. There are, however, 
 from the circumstances of the history of the 
 Epistle, comparatively few quotations from it, 
 and these within a narrow range, during the 
 first three centuries. 
 
 The Epistle is contained in whole or in part in 
 the following sources :— 
 
 i. Manuscripts.—The entire Epistle is pre- 
 served in the Primary Uncials, 8, A, D,; in the 
 Secondary Uncials, K,, P,; and in nearly three 
 hundred cursive MSS., which are known more or 
 Jess completely. The Vatican MS. (B) is defec- 
 tive after ix. 14, καθα[ριεῖ]; and L, after xiii. 
 10, ἐκ ἔχουσιν. More or less considerable frag- 
 ments of the Epistle are found in C, H,, M,, N,, 
 and in two MSS. described by Dr. C. R. Gregory, 
 Ψ (nearly complete) and 2. 
 
 The Epistle is not contained in the Graeco- 
 Latin MSS. F,, ας. The Greek archetype of 
 these MSS. was mutilated before either of them 
 was written. 
 
 ii. Versions.—There are two distinct Latin 
 texts of the Epistle: the Old Latin, represented 
 by d (the Latin version of D,), of which e is a 
 copy with a few corrections; and the Vulgate 
 Latin. The Old Latin text is singularly cor- 
 rupt; and the Vulgate seems not to have been 
 made by the author of the translation of the 
 Epistles of ‘St. Paul. The Epistle is also con- 
 tained in the two Syriac Versions, the Peshitto 
 and the Harclean ; and the missing portion of the 
 latter Version, which is found in the Cambridge 
 MS., has recently been published by Prof. 
 Bensly (1889). The Peshitto text is supposed 
 to be the work of a distinct translator (Wichel- 
 haus, De Vers. Simp. p. 86). Of the three 
 Egyptian Versions of the Epistle, the Mem- 
 phitic (Coptic) is complete; of the Thebaic 
 (Sahidic) and the Bashmuric, which was derived 
 from the Thebaic, only fragments remain. 
 
 The Epistle is found entire in the later Ver- 
 sions, Armenian, <Aethiopic, Slavonic; but it 
 appears not to have been included in the Gothic 
 (Bernhardt, Vudlfila, &., 5. xxiv.). 
 
 The text of the Epistle is on the whole well 
 preserved, but there are some passages in which 
 it is not unlikely that primitive errors have 
 passed into all our existing copies: e.g. iv. 2; 
 xi, 4, 37; xii. 11; xiii. 21; see alsox. 1. Some 
 primitive errors have been corrected in later 
 MSS.: vii. 1; xi. 35. 
 
 The following passages offer variations of con~ 
 siderable interest, and serve as instructive 
 exercises on the principles of textual criticism: 
 
 4 
 
HEBREWS, THE EPISTLE TO 
 
 PEGs le Os Ve As Video ike 11: Σ 96. 
 Melos Xie 7. 
 
 The general contrast between the early and 
 later texts is well seen by an examination of the 
 readings in i. 2, 3, 12; ii. 1, 14; iii. 1, 9; 
 ea vis 10... 8.11.1 Wilt 4.11 Ix, 1, 0, 
 ΠΟ xi. 8, 18. χἱν 15. 18; 205. Χ]]}. 9. 
 
 II. Trrte.—In the oldest MSS. (BNA: C is 
 defective, but it has the subscription [POC 
 EBPAIOYC) the title of the Epistle, like that 
 of the other Epistles to Churches, is simply 
 ΠΡΟΟ E€BPAIOYC, “to Hebrews.” There is 
 no title or colophon to the Epistle in D,, but it 
 has a running heading MPOC EBPAIOYC. 
 The Egyptian Versions have the same simple 
 title, Zo the Hebrews. This inscription was 
 gradually enlarged. Later Greek MSS. give 
 Παύλου ἐπιστολὴ πρὸς Ἑβραίους, as in the 
 Epistle to the Romans &c. (P,), and, at greater 
 length, τοῦ ἁγίου καὶ πανευφήμου ἀποστόλου 
 Παύλου ἐπιστολὴ πρὸς Ἕ βραίους (1,2). Sometimes 
 historical statements are inwoven in the title: 
 ἐγράφη amd Ἰταλίας διὰ Τιμοθέου ἣ πρὸς ‘EBpatous 
 ἐπιστολὴ ἐκτεθεῖσα ὡς ἐν πίνακι (M,); Παῦλος 
 ἀπόστολος ‘EBpatois τάδε συγγενέσιν (f. Scr.). 
 
 The title forms no part of the original document ; 
 but it must have been given to the Book ata 
 very early date, when it first passed into public 
 use as part of a collection of apostolic letters. 
 And it was rightly given in regard to the per- 
 manent relation which the Book occupies to- 
 wards the whole message of the Gospel. For, 
 while the treatment of the subjects with which 
 it deals and the subjects themselves are of uni- 
 versal interest, the discussion is directed by 
 special circumstances. The arguments and 
 reflections in their whole form and spirit, even 
 more than in special details, are addressed to 
 “ Hebrews,”—men, that is, whose hearts were 
 filled with tiie thoughts, the hopes, the consola- 
 tions, of the Old Covenant, such perhaps as, 
 under another aspect, are described as of ἐκ 
 περιτομῆς (Acts x. 45, xi. 213 Gal. ii. 12; Col. 
 Valdes) Tits i: 10); 
 
 Tertullian has preserved an interesting notice 
 of another name, which was given to the 
 Epistle in North Africa, and which apparently 
 dates from a time earlier than the formation of 
 the collection of Apostolic Epistles. He quotes 
 it definitely as Barnabae titulus ad Hebraeos (de 
 Pudic. 20); and the number of στίχοι assigned 
 to the Epistle of Barnabas which is included in 
 the African (Latin) Stichometry contained in 
 the Cod. Clarom. (D,) proves beyond reasonable 
 doubt that the Epistle to the Hebrews is there 
 described by that name. There is not, how- 
 ever, the least evidence that this Epistle was 
 ever called “the Epistle to the Laodicenes” 
 (not in Philastr. Haer. 29 or Cod. Boern. Gs), 
 or “the Epistle to the Alexandrines” (Can. 
 Murat. : “ fertur etiam ad Laudicenses [epistola], 
 alia ad Alexandrinos Pauli nomine finctae ad 
 haeresem Marcionis, et alia plura quae in 
 Catholicam ecclesiam recipi non potest”), al- 
 though it might be described as “ directed to 
 meet (πρὸς τὴν αἵρεσιν) the teaching of Mar- 
 cion” (cp. Hist. of N. T. Canon, p. 537). 
 
 Wherever the nature of the Book is defined 
 by early writers it is called an “Epistle.” The 
 description is substantially correct, though the 
 construction of the writing is irregular. It 
 opens without any address or salutation (cp. 
 
 HEBREWS, THE EPISTLE TO 1309 
 
 1 John i, 1), but it closes with salutations (xiii. 
 24 sq.). There are indeed personal references 
 throughout, and in the course of the Book there 
 is a gradual transition from the form of an 
 “essay” to that of a “letter”: ii. 1; iii. 1, 
 {25 avy 1, 14; vi 115 vi 95x, 199 xa 
 22 sq. 
 
 The writer himself characterises his com- 
 position as λόγος παρακλήσεως (xiii, 22); and 
 the verb which he uses of his communication 
 (διὰ βραχέων ἐπέστειλα, ἴ. c.), while it does not 
 necessarily describe a letter, yet presupposes a 
 direct personal address, though personal re- 
 lationships are kept in the background till 
 the end. 
 
 ΠῚ. Postrion.—The places occupied by the 
 Epistle in different authorities indicate the 
 variety of opinions which were entertained in 
 early times as to its authorship. 
 
 In the oldest Greek MSS. (NABC) it comes 
 immediately before the Pastoral Epistles follow- 
 ing 2 Thess.; and this is the position which it 
 generally occupies’ in MSS. of the Memphitic 
 Version (Woide, App. Cod. Alex. N. T. p. 19; 
 Lightfoot ap. (Scrivener, Introd. pp. 386 sq., 
 390). This order is followed also by many 
 later MSS. (H,P, 17, &c.), and by many Greek 
 Fathers. 
 
 In Cod. Vat. (B) there is important evidence 
 that it occupied a different position in an early 
 collection of Pauline Epistles. In this MS. there 
 is a marginal numeration which shows that the 
 whole collection of Pauline Epistles was divided, 
 either in its archetype or in some earlier copy, 
 into a series of sections numbered consecutively. 
 In this collection the Epistle to the Hebrews 
 came between the Epistles to the Galatians and 
 to the Ephesians. 
 
 This arrangement preserved by B approxi- 
 mates to that of the Thebaic and Bashmuric 
 Versions, in which the Epistle comes between 
 2 Corinthians and Galatians (Zoega, Cat. Codd- 
 in Mus. Borg. pp. 186, 140; cp. Lightfoot ap. 
 Scrivener, ἦν ὁ. pp. 339, 404). Cassiodorus 
 (instit. 14) gives another arrangement of the 
 same type, placing the Epistle between Colos- 
 sians and 1 Thessalonians. 
 
 In the Syriac Versions the Epistle comes after 
 the Pastoral Epistles and Philemon; and this 
 order, which was followed in the mass of later 
 Greek MSS. (K, L,, &c.), probably under Syrian 
 influence, has passed into the “ Received text.” 
 Cp. Epiph. Haer. xlii. p. 373. 
 
 The same order is found in Latin MSS. For 
 in the West the Epistle did not originally form 
 part of the collection of the writings of St. 
 Paul; and other clear traces remain of the 
 absence of the Book from the apoStolic collection. 
 Thus in Cod. Clarom. D, the Epistle appears as 
 an appendix to the Pauline Epistles, being 
 separated from the Epistle to Philemon by the 
 Stichometry. The archetype of this MS., and 
 the original text from which the Gothic Version 
 was made, evidently contained only thirteex 
 Epistles of St. Paul. 
 
 Thus at the earliest date at which we find a 
 collection of St. Paul’s Epistles in circulation in 
 the Church, the Epistle to the Hebrews was by 
 some definitely included in his writings, occupy- 
 ing a place either among or at the close of the 
 Epistles to Churches: by others it was treated 
 as an appendix to them, being set after the 
 
1310 HEBREWS, THE EPISTLE TO 
 
 private letters: with others, again, it found no | 
 
 place at all among the apostolic writings. 
 
 IY. OrrgInaAL LANGUAGE.—The earliest di- 
 rect notice of the Epistle, quoted by Eusebius 
 (H. E. vi. 14) from Clement of Alexandria, 
 states that it “was written (by Paul) to 
 Hebrews in the Hebrew language (ie. the Ara- 
 maic dialect current in Palestine at the time, 
 Acts xxii. 2) and translated (into Greek) by 
 Luke.” This statement was repeated from 
 Eusebius (and Jerome who depended on' him), 
 as it appears, and not from Clement himself, by 
 a series of later writers both in the East and 
 West (Theodoret, Euthalius, John of Damascus, 
 cumenius, Theophylact, Primasius, Rabanus 
 Maurus, Thomas Aquinas: see Bleek, p. 8 sq. 3 
 Credner, Hinl. p. 533), but there is not the least 
 trace of any independent evidence in favour of 
 the tradition, nor is it said that any one had 
 ever seen the original Hebrew document. The 
 unsupported statement of Clement, which Origen 
 discredits by his silence, is thus the whole 
 historical foundation for the belief that the 
 Epistle was written in “Hebrew.” The opinion 
 however, which was incorporated in the Glossa 
 Ordinaria, became universally current in the 
 West in the Middle Ages; and it was main- 
 tained by one or two scholars in the last century 
 (J, Hallet, J. D. Michaelis). Lately it-has again 
 found a vigorous advocate in J. H. R. Biesen- 
 thal (Das Trostschreiben d. Ap. Paulus an d. 
 Hebriier, 1878; cp. Panek, Comm. in Ep. 
 Prolegg. § 2, 1882), who thinks that the Epistle 
 was written in ‘the dialect of the Mishna, the 
 language of the schools” in the Apostolic age, 
 into which he has again rendered the Greek. 
 
 Not to dwell on the insufficiency of the state- 
 ment of Clement, inthe absence of all collateral 
 external testimony, to justify the belief that the 
 Epistle was written in Hebrew, internal evidence 
 appears to establish absolutely beyond question 
 that the Greek text is original and not a trans- 
 lation from any form of Aramaic. The vocabu- 
 lary, the style, the rhetorical characteristics of 
 the work, all lead to the same conclusion. It is 
 (ior example) impossible to imagine any Aramaic 
 phrase which could have suggested to a trans- 
 lator the opening clause of the Epistle, πολυ- 
 μερῶς καὶ πολυτρόπως ; and similar difficulties 
 offer themselves throughout the Book in the 
 free and masterly use of compound words which 
 have no Aramaic equivalents (¢.g. μετριοπαθεῖν, 
 v. 23 εὐπερίστατος, xii. 1). The structure of 
 the periods is bold and complicated, and the 
 arrangement of the words is often singularly 
 expressive (6.0. ii. 9). Paronomasias (eg. i. 1; 
 li. 10; v. 8; vii. 23 sq.; ix. 28; x. 34, 38 sq.) 
 are at least more likely to have been due to the 
 writer than to have been introduced or imitated 
 by a translator, But on the other hand stress 
 must not be laid on a (falsely) assumed change 
 in the meaning of διαθήκη in ix? 15 sq., or the 
 obviously fortuitous hexameter in the common 
 text of xii, 13. 
 
 A still more decisive proof that the Greek 
 text is original lies in the fact that the quota- 
 tions from the O, T. are all (except x. 30 
 || Deut. xxxii. 35) taken from the LXX., even 
 when the LXX. differs from the Hebrew (6.0. 
 ii. 7, παρ᾽ ἀγγέλους; x. 38, καὶ ἐὰν ὑποστείληται ; 
 xii. 5 sq. μαστιγοῖ). And arguments are based 
 on peculiarities of the LXX., so that the quo- 
 
 HEBREWS, THE EPISTLE TO 
 
 tations cannot have been first introduced in the 
 translation from Aramaic to Greek (6.0. x. 5 54.» 
 σῶμα κατηρτίσω; xii. 26 sq., ἅπαξ). 
 
 V. DestinatTion.—The letter is described in 
 all existing copies as addressed “to Hebrews ” ; 
 and Tertullian, who assigned the authorship to 
 Barnabas, gave it the same destination (de Pudic, 
 20, “ Barnabae titulus ad Hebraeos”), There 
 is, as has been already seen (ὃ III.), no evidence 
 that it ever bore any other address. 
 
 In itself the title “ Hebrew” is not local but ~ 
 national. It describes a quality of race and not 
 of dwelling. But the Book itself enables us to 
 define more exactly the circumstances and cha- 
 racter of those to whom it was written. 
 
 There is no trace of any admixture of heathen 
 converts among them ; nor does the letter touch 
 on any of the topics of heathen controversy (not 
 xiii. 9). It is therefore scarcely possible that it 
 could have been written to a mixed Church gene- 
 rally, or to the Jewish section of a mixed Church. 
 In either case allusions to the relations of Jew 
 and Gentile could scarcely have been avoided. 
 
 They were a small body (v. 12), and they 
 were addressed separately from “ their leaders ” 
 (xiii. 24). At the same time they were in a 
 position to be generous, and for this trait they 
 were and had been distinguished (vi. 10). 
 
 Their special trials came through disappoint- 
 ment of their first expectations. They had 
 failed to grow under the discipline of experience, 
 and so had degenerated: v. 11 sq. (νωθροὶ γεγό- 
 vare); Vi. 13 x. 25. 
 
 The widening breach between the Church and 
 the Synagogue rendered it necessary at last to 
 make choice between them, and “the Hebrews ” 
 were in danger of apostasy: ii. 1,33 iii. 6, 12 sq.3 
 iv. 1, 3, 11; vi. 6; x. 25, 29, 39. They had 
 need therefore of effort and patience: iv. 14; 
 vi. 11 sq.; x. 23, 365 xii. 1, 3 sq., 12 sq. 
 
 In earlier days they had borne reproach and 
 hardships: x. 32 sq.; still they “had not yet 
 resisted unto blood”: xii. 3 sq.; though some 
 at least “in bonds” claimed their sympathy and 
 help: xiii. 3; and perhaps their former “leaders” 
 had suffered even to martyrdom (xiii. 7). 
 
 From these individual traits it is clear that 
 the letter is addressed to a definite Society and 
 not to ‘“ Hebrew” Christians generally. This 
 is proved yet more directly by the fact that the 
 writer hoped to visit them (xiii. 23), as he had 
 been with them before (xiii. 19). At the same 
 time, though he spoke of them as “brethren” 
 (iii. 1) and “ beloved ” (vi. 1), he does not speak 
 of them as “ children ” (τέκνα). 
 
 The living portraiture of the character and 
 position of this definite and marked Society will 
 repay careful study (v. 11 sq.; vi. 9sq.; x. 32sq.3; 
 xii, 3.sq.); and whatever obscurity may hang 
 over its local position, its spiritual features 
 stand out with vivid clearness. We have in 
 the Epistle to the Hebrews a picture of early 
 Christian life such as is drawn in detail nowhere 
 else (cp. 3 John), and which still, as we must 
 see, represents a necessary phase in the growth 
 of the Church. The first enthusiasm and the 
 first hope had passed away. Believers began to 
 reckon loss and gain. Some were inclined to 
 overrate the loss; and we learn elsewhere that 
 dark clouds hung over the close of the Apostolic 
 age. Cp. 2 Tim. i. 15; Apoc. ii, ili.; 2 Pet. 
 iii, 1 sq.; 1 John ii. 18 sq. 
 
HEBREWS, THE EPISTLE TO 
 
 We might have expected it to be otherwise, 
 and we do in fact uneonsciously clothe the first 
 centuries in light. But in this Letter the 
 reality of imperfection meets us; and in the 
 very sadness of the portraiture we feel with 
 fresh force that Christianity is historical, enter- 
 ing into life, and subject to the common influences 
 of life. 
 
 The phase of feeling traced in the Epistle has 
 been spoken of as a necessary one in the develop- 
 ment of Christian life. It is not difficult to see 
 how this was so. Those who suffered in the 
 
 ~ trial were Jews; and the narrative of the Acts 
 shows plainly with what loyal devotion the 
 first believers from among the Jews observed 
 the Law. Even at a later date St. Paul before 
 the Sanhedrin claimed to be a true Jew. For 
 a time this fellowship of the Church and Syna- 
 gogue was allowed on both sides (cp. Euseb. 
 H, E. ii. 23), Little by little the growth of 
 the Gentile element in the Church excited the 
 active hostility of the Jews against the whole 
 body of Christians, as it troubled the Jewish 
 converts themselves, This hostility could not 
 fail to be intensified in Palestine by the spread 
 of aggressive nationalism there shortly before 
 the outbreak of the Jewish war (cp. Jos. de B. J. 
 li. 23, 29 sq.; iv. 11 sq.); and it is not unlikely 
 that the solemn cursing of the heretics (/inim) 
 in the Synagogues, which became an established 
 custom after the fall of Jerusalem (Weber, 
 Altsynag. Theol. 147 sq.), may have begun from 
 that time (cp. Just. M. Dial. 16, and Otto’s 
 note; Epiph. Haer. xxix. 9, i. p. 124). 
 
 Meanwhile the Jewish converts had had 
 ample time for realising the true relations of 
 Christianity and Judaism. Devotion to Levitical 
 ritual was no longer innocent, if it obscured the 
 characteristic teaching of the Gospel. The 
 position which rightly belonged to young and 
 immature Christians was unsuited to those who 
 ought to have reached the fulness of truth 
 (vy. 11 sq.). Men who won praise for their faith 
 and constancy at the beginning of a generation, 
 which was emphatically a period of transition, 
 might well deserve blame and stand in peril of 
 apostasy, if at the end of it they simply remained 
 where they had been at first. While as yet the 
 national unbelief of the Jews was undeclared, it 
 was not possible to foresee that the coming of 
 Christ would bring the overthrow of the old 
 order, The approaching catastrophe is not 
 realised in the earlier Apostolic writings. In 
 the Epistle to the Hebrews it is shown to be 
 imminent. In the Gospel and Epistles of St. 
 John it is, as it were, lost in the fulness of the 
 life of the Church. 
 
 We can see then, generally, what was the 
 character of the body to whom the Letter was 
 addressed. Where can we look for such a body? 
 Some have found it in the “Hebrew” Christians 
 of Asia Minor generally, or in some special 
 congregation of Syria, Asia Minor, Greece, Italy, 
 or Africa, and more particularly at Antioch or 
 Rome or Alexandria. Lately the opinion that 
 the Letter was addressed to the Roman Church 
 
 has found considerable favour. But the domi- 
 nant conception of the Old Testament Institu- 
 tions as centering in sacrificial and priestly 
 ordinances seems to be fatal to all these theories, 
 which are not supported by any direct evidence, 
 for no conclusion can be fairly drawn as to the 
 
 HEBREWS, THE EPISTLE TO 1311 
 
 | original destination of the Epistle from the fact 
 
 that Clement of Rome was acquainted with it. 
 Such a view, unlike that of the observance of 
 special days or meats, must be generally depen- 
 dent in a large measure upon local eireumstances 
 of a narrow range. It is possible, indeed, that 
 special circumstances with which we are un- 
 acquainted may have influenced the feelings of a 
 small society, and there was in fact a “ Syna- 
 gogue of Hebrews ” at Rome (Schiirer, Gesch. d. 
 Jiid. Volkes, ii. 517); but we naturally look, if 
 there is nothing to determine our search other- 
 wise, to some place where Judaism would pre- 
 sent itself with practical force under this 
 aspect. 
 
 In this way our choice is limited to Egypt, 
 with the Temple at Leontopolis, and to Pale- 
 stine, with the Temple at Jerusalem. Nowhere 
 else would the images of sacrifice and inter- 
 cession be constantly before the eye of a Jew. 
 
 There is very little evidence to show that the 
 Temple at Leontopolis exercised the same power 
 over the Alexandrian Jews as that at Jerusalem 
 exercised over the Palestinian Jews and the 
 Jews generally. Even in Egypt the Temple at 
 Jerusalem was recognised as the true centre of 
 worship. Nor is there the least ground for 
 thinking that any of the divergences in the 
 Epistle from the details of the Temple cere- 
 monial coincide with peculiarities in the service 
 at Leontopolis. On the contrary the furniture 
 of the Temple at Jerusalem was more like that 
 of the Tabernacle, which is described in the 
 Epistle, than was that of the Egyptian Temple. 
 But on the other hand it is certain that the kind 
 of feeling which the Epistle is designed to meet 
 must have been powerful at Jerusalem, and in 
 its neighbourhood. The close connexion of the 
 early Church with the Temple, the splendour 
 and venerable majesty of the ritual, could not 
 fail to make the thought of severance from 
 Judaism most grievous to those who had hitherto 
 been able to share in its noblest services accord- 
 ing to the custom of their youth. Ὶ 
 
 Nor is it a serious objection to this conclusion 
 that the Temple is nowhere mentioned in the 
 Epistle, and that the ritual details are those of 
 the Tabernacle and not those of the second 
 Temple. The readers were influenced by the 
 actual form in which the Mosaic ordinances 
 were embodied. The writer, perhaps from his 
 external circumstances, or more probably in 
 order to lay his reasoning on its deepest founda- 
 tion, goes back to the first institution of the 
 system. He shows how the original design of 
 the priestly ritual of the Law, and therefore, of 
 necessity, of all partial and specific embodi- 
 ments of it, was satisfied by Christ. The Temple 
 service, with all its peculiarities, finally drew 
 its sanction from the Law. The ritual of the 
 Tabernacle was the divine type of which the 
 ritual of the Temple was the authoritative 
 representation. And, according to the popular 
 tradition, it was believed that ‘the Tabernacle ” 
 and its furniture, which had been removed by 
 Jeremiah from the first Temple before its de- 
 struction, would in due time be restored (2 Macc. 
 ii, 4 sq., and Grimm’s notes). 
 
 And further it must be added that the Temple, 
 like the kingdom with which it was co-ordinate, 
 was spiritually a sign of retrogression. It was 
 an endeavour to give fixity to that which was 
 
1512 HEBREWS, THE EPISTLE TO 
 
 essentially provisional. 
 the Epistle, by going back to the fundamental 
 legislation, significantly indicates that the 
 spirit of the Mosaic Law first found accomplish- 
 ment in Christ, and not in that outward Levitical 
 system in which it seemed superficially to receive 
 its perfect embodiment. 
 
 It is then most reasonable from general con- 
 siderations to find the Society to whom the Letter 
 was addressed in Jerusalem, or in the neigh- 
 bourhood of Jerusalem. 
 
 In accordance with this view, it may be added 
 that Eusebius speaks on written authority (ἐξ 
 ἐγγράφων) of the Church of Jerusalem as having 
 “been wholly composed of Hebrews” (συνε- 
 στάναι Thy πᾶσαν ἐκκλησίαν ἐξ Ἑ βραίων πιστῶν, 
 H. Ε. iv. 5; ep. vi. 14) up to the time of the 
 revolt under Hadrian. Up to the same date all 
 the Bishops were “ of the circumcision ” ((. c.). 
 
 So also in the Clementine Homilies (xi. 35), 
 “James that is called brother of the Lord” is 
 said to be “entrusted with the administration of 
 the Church of the Hebrews in Jerusalem” 
 (πεπιστευμένος ἐν ᾿Ιερουσαλὴμ τὴν Ἑβραίων 
 διέπειν ἐκκλησίαν) ; and “ the letter of Clement ” 
 prefixed to the same work, is addressed to 
 “James the lord and Bishop of Bishops, who 
 administers the holy Church of Hebrews in 
 Jerusalem ” (διέποντι Thy ἐν Ἰερουσαλὴμ ἁγίαν 
 “Ἑβραίων ἐκκλησίαν). 
 
 It may therefore be fairly concluded that 
 when the title πρὸς ‘EBpatovs was added to the 
 Epistle, it was an expression of the belief that 
 the letter was addressed to the Church of Jeru- 
 salem, or some sister Church in Palestine depen- 
 dent upon it. 
 
 The conclusion which has been reached is not 
 beyond doubt, but it satisfies the conditions of 
 the problem most simply. It is indeed possible 
 that exceptional circumstances which cannot 
 now be determined may have given occasion to 
 the Letter. It is, forexample, quite conceivable, 
 as has been already admitted, that a society of 
 “Hebrews” at Rome may have been led to 
 develop the sacrificial theory of Judaism and to 
 insist upon it, and so to call out “the word of 
 exhortation.” Such conjectures, however, need 
 not detain us. It is well to recognise how little 
 we can determine by the help of the data at 
 present available. That which is beyond doubt, 
 that which indeed alone concerns us, is the 
 spiritual character of the readers of the Epistle. 
 This we can clearly grasp wherever it may have 
 been developed. And it is unquestionable that 
 it would be likely—most likely—to be developed 
 in Palestine. 
 
 W. Grimm has discussed in considerable detail 
 (Zeitschrift wissensch. Theol., 1870, 19 sq.) the 
 claims of Rome, Jerusalem, and Alexandria to 
 be considered as the place to which the Epistle 
 was directed. He decides against all, and sug- 
 gests Jamnia. It is better to acquiesce in simply 
 recognising the conditions which the place must 
 satisfy. 
 
 VI. DatTe.—The date of the Epistle is fixed 
 within narrow limits by its contents. A genera- 
 tion of Christians had already passed away 
 (xiii. 7; ii. 3), There had been space for great 
 changes in religious feeling (x, 32), and for reli- 
 gious growth (vy. 11 sq.). 
 
 On the other hand, the Levitieal service ‘is 
 spoken of as still continued (viii. 4; ix. 6, 9; 
 
 And thus the writer of | 
 
 HEBREWS, THE EPISTLE TO 
 
 x. 1sq.3 xiii. 10 sq.); and, even if the references 
 to its present continuance could be explained 
 away (cp. Just. Dial. 117; Orig. ὁ. Cels. v. 25), 
 it is inconceivable that such a national calamity 
 as the Jewish war should be unnoticed if it had 
 already broken out, and still more, if it had 
 been decided. Indeed, the prospect of exclusion 
 from the privileges of the old service is the very 
 essence of the trial of “the Hebrews;” and the 
 severity of the trial is in itself a decisive proof 
 of the influence which the Temple ritual exer- 
 cised at the time. 
 
 The letter may then be placed in the critical 
 interval between A.D. 64, the government of 
 Gessius Florus, and 67, the commencement of 
 the Jewish war, and most probably just before 
 the breaking of the storm in the latter year, as 
 the writer speaks of the visible signs of the 
 approach of “ the day ” (x. 25; ep. viii. 13, ἐγγὺς 
 ἀφανισμοῦ); and indicates the likelihood of 
 severer trials for the Church (xii. 4, οὔπω 5 xiii. 
 13 sq.). 
 
 The theories which assign the Epistle to a 
 later date, after the persecution of Domitian, or 
 in the time of Trajan, seem to be utterly irre- 
 concilable with the conditions and scope of the 
 writing. 
 
 VII. Puace oF Writinc.—Tradition is silent 
 as to the place from which the Epistle was 
 written. No independent authority can be given 
 to the subscription which is found in A, ἐγράφη 
 ἀπὸ Ῥώμης. This, as in the case of similar sub- 
 scriptions to the other Epistles, appears to have 
 been a deduction from the Epistle itself (xiii. 
 23, 24). And so itis given in the words of the 
 text, and enlarged in later MSS.: e.g. P,, ἐγράφη 
 ἀπὸ ᾿Ιταλίας. Ky, ἐγράφη ἀπὸ ᾿Ιταλίας διὰ Τιμο- 
 @gov. H,, Παύλου ἀποστόλου ἐπιστολὴ πρὸς 
 Ἑβραίους ἐγράφη ἀπὸ ᾿Ιταλίας διὰ Τιμοθέου. 
 Nor again is there anything in the Epistle itself 
 which leads to a definite conclusion. No argu- 
 ment can be drawn from the mention of the 
 release of Timothy (xiii. 23), for nothing is 
 known of the event to which reference is made ; 
 and the phrase ἀσπάζονται ὑμᾶς of ἀπὸ τῆς 
 Ἰταλίας (xiii. 24), which seems at first sight to 
 promise more, gives no certain result; for the 
 words may be so rendered as to describe a body 
 of Christians in Italy (“those in Italy send 
 salutations from Italy,” or more simply “ those 
 who belong to Italy,” “ Italian Christians ”), or 
 a body of Italian Christians who were with the 
 writer in a foreign land (“those here from 
 Italy”). The place of writing must therefore 
 be left in complete uncertainty. 
 
 VIII. SryLe anp LancuacE.—The language 
 of the Epistle is both in vocabulary and in style 
 purer and more vigorous than that of any other 
 Book of the N. T. 
 
 i. The vocabulary is singularly copious. It 
 includes a large number of words which are not 
 found elsewhere in the apostolic writings, very 
 many which occur in this Book only among the 
 Greek Scriptures, and some which are not quoted 
 from any other independent source. Even when 
 allowance is made for the requirements of the 
 peculiar topics with which the writer deals, the 
 number of peculiar words is still remarkable. 
 In the Pastoral Epistles, however, the propor- 
 tion is still greater. 
 
 Dr. Thayer (Lexicon to N. TY.) reckons the 
 same number of peculiar words (168) in the 
 
HEBREWS, THE EPISTLE TO 
 
 Pastoral Epistles and the Epistle to the Hebrews, 
 but the latter is the longer in about the propor- 
 tion of 21 to 15. 
 
 The following words are not quoted from any 
 source independent of the Epistle: dayevea- 
 χόγητος (vii. 3); αἱματεκχυσία (ix. 22); ἔκτρο- 
 pos (xii. 21, marg.); εὐπερίστατος (xii. 1); 
 θεατρίζειν (x. 33: ἐκθεατρίζειν in Polyb.); 
 μισθαποδότης (xi. 6) and μισθαποδοσία (ii. 2; 
 x. 353 xi. 26) for the classical μισθοδότης and 
 μισθοδοσία; πρόσχυσις (xi. 28); συγκακουχεῖν 
 - (xi. 25) ; τελειωτής (xii. 2). 
 
 The list of classical words which are found in 
 the Epistle and in no other part of the Greek 
 Scriptures is large: ἀκλινής (x. 23); ἀκροθίνιον 
 (vii. 4); ἀλυσιτελής (xiii. 17); ἀμήτωρ, ἀπάτωρ 
 (vii. 8); ἀναλογίζεσθαι (xii. 3); ἀνασταυροῦν 
 (vi. 6); ἀνταγωνίζεσθαι (xii. 4); διόρθωσις (ix. 
 10); ἐκδοχή (x. 27); ἐκλανθάνειν (xii. 5); 
 ἐνυβρίζειν (x. 29); ἐπεισαγωγή (vii. 19); edape- 
 στως (xii. 28) ; κατάδηλος (vii. 15); κατα- 
 σκιάζειν (ix. 5); ὄγκος (xii, 1); παραπλησίως 
 (ii. 14); συμπαθεῖν (iv. 15; x. 34); συνεπιμαρ- 
 tupe (ii. 14); τομώτερος (iv. 12); ὑπείκειν 
 (xiii. 17). 
 
 Other words peculiar to the Epistle among 
 Biblical writings belong to the later stage of 
 Greek literature :— 
 
 ἀθέτησις (vii. 18; ix. 26); ἄθλησις (x. 32); 
 ἀκατάλυτος (vii. 16); ἀμετάθετος (vi. 17 sq.); 
 ἀπαράβατος- (vii. 24); ἀφορᾶν (xii. 2); δυσερμή- 
 νευτος (v. 11); εὐποία (xiii. 16); καταγωνί- 
 ζεσθαι (xi. 88); Aevitinds (vii. 11); μεσιτεύειν 
 (vi. 17); μετριοπαθεῖν (v. 2); πολυμερῶς, πολυ- 
 τρόπως (i. 1); σαββατισμός (iv. 9); τραχηλί- 
 (ew (iv. 19); τυμπανίζειν (xi. 35); ὑποστολή 
 (x. 39), 
 
 The absence of some words (e.g. πληροῦν, 
 εὐαγγέλιον, οἰκοδομεῖν, μυστήριον) is remark- 
 able. 
 
 ii. The style is even more characteristic of a 
 practised scholar than the vocabulary. It would 
 be difficult to find anywhere passages more exact 
 and pregnant in expression than i. 1-4; ii. 14— 
 18; vii. 26-28; xii. 18-24. The language, the 
 order, the rhythm, the parenthetical involutions, 
 all contribute to the total effect. The writing 
 shows everywhere traces of effort and care. In 
 many respects it is not unlike that of the Book 
 of Wisdom, but it is nowhere marred by the 
 restless striving after effect which not unfre- 
 quently injures the beauty of that masterpiece 
 of Alexandrine Greek. The calculated force of 
 the periods is sharply distinguished from the 
 impetuous eloquence of St. Paul. The author 
 is never carried away by his thoughts. He has 
 seen and measured all that he desires to convey 
 to his readers before he begins to write. In 
 
 HEBREWS,*THE EPISTLE TO 1313 
 
 writing he has, like an artist, simply to give life 
 to the model which he has already completely 
 fashioned. ‘This is true even of the noblest 
 rhetorical passages, such as ch. xi. Each element, 
 which seems at first sight to offer itself sponta- 
 neously, will be found to have been carefully 
 adjusted to its place, and to offer in subtle 
 details results of deep thought, so expressed as 
 to leave the simplicity and freshness of the 
 whole perfectly unimpaired. For this reason 
 there is perhaps no Book of Scripture in which 
 the student may hope more confidently to enter 
 into the mind of the author if he yields himself 
 with absolute trust to his words. No Book re- 
 presents with equal clearness the ,mature con- 
 clusions of human reflection. 
 
 The contrast of the style of the Epistle with 
 that of St. Paul may be noticed in the passages 
 which are quoted as echoes of St. Paul’s lan- 
 guage: ii. 10: cp. Rom. xi. 36; iii. 6: ep. Rom. 
 v. 2; xi. 12: cp. Rom. iv. 19. The richer ful- 
 
 ‘ness of expression is seen in corresponding 
 
 phrases: e.g. Col. iii. 1, compared with xii. 2. 
 
 The writer does not use St. Paul’s rhetorical 
 forms τί οὖν; τί γάρ; GAN ἐρεῖ Tis..., μὴ 
 γένοιτο, ἄρα οὖν, οὐκ οἴδατε (Credner, Linl., 
 p- 547). On the other hand, we notice the 
 peculiar phrases ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν, eis τὸ διηνεκές, 
 ἔλαθον ξενίσαντες. 
 
 The close resemblance of the language of the 
 Epistle to that of St. Luke was noticed by 
 Clement of Alexandria (ap. Euseb. H. Ε΄. vi. 14: 
 «ὦν Λουκᾶν [φησίν]... μεθερμηνεύσαντα ἐκδοῦναι 
 τοῖς Ἕλλησιν - ὅθεν τὸν αὐτὸν χρῶτα εὑρίσκε- 
 σθαι κατὰ τὴν ἑρμηνείαν ταὐτης τε THs ἐπιστολῆς 
 καὶ τῶν mpdgéewy—the form of expression is re- 
 markable), and his criticism was repeated by 
 later writers. The significance of the coinci- 
 dences may have been overrated, but no impar- 
 sial student can fail to be struck by the frequent 
 use of words characteristic of St. Luke among 
 the writers of the N. T., e.g. διαμαρτύρεσθαι 
 (ii. 6), ἀρχηγός (ii. 10), ὅθεν (ii. 17), ἱλάσκε- 
 σθαι (ii. 17), μέτοχος (iii. 1), περικεῖσθαι accus. 
 (v. 2), εὔθετος (vi. 7), καταφεύγειν (vi. 18), 
 πατριάρχης (vii. 4), εἰς τὸ παντελές (vii. 25), 
 σχεδόν (ix. 22), ἀνώτερον (x. 8), παροξυσμός 
 (x. 24), ὕπαρξις (x. 34), ἀναστάσεως τυγχάνειν 
 (xi. 35), ἔντρομος (xii. 21), ἀσάλευτος (xii. 28), 
 οἱ ἡγούμενοι (xiii. 7), ἀναθεωρεῖν (xiii. 7). 
 
 IX. PLAN.—The general progress of thought 
 in the Epistle is clear; but, at the same time, 
 in a writing so many-sided, where subjects are 
 naturally foreshadowed and recalled, differences 
 of opinion must arise as to the main divisions of 
 the argument. The following arrangement gives 
 at least an intelligible view of the main rela- 
 tions of the different parts of the Book. 
 
 Tue THEME OF THE EpistLE; THE FINALITY OF CHRISTIANITY: i. 1-4. 
 
 Tue SUPERIORITY OF THE SON, THE MEDIATOR OF THE NEW REVELATION, TO ANGELS: i. 5-1i. 18. 
 II. Moses, Josava, JEsus, THE FoUNDERS OF THE OLD EconoMy AND OF THE NEw: iii., iv. 
 
 . THE HIGH-PRIESTHOOD OF CHRIST, UNIVERSAL AND SOVEREIGN (MELCHIZEDEK): V.-Vii. 
 . THE FULFILMENT OF CHRIST’S PRIESTLY WORK: 
 
 viii. 1-x. 18. 
 
 VY. THE APPROPRIATION AND VITAL APPLICATION OF THE TRUTH LAID DOWN: Σ. 19-xii. 
 
 A PERSONAL EPILOGUE: xiii. 
 
 These chief divisions can be followed a little more in detail: 
 
 Tue THEME OF THE EpistLE; THE FINALITY OF CHRISTIANITY: i. 1-4. 
 i. The contrast of the Old Revelation and the New in method, time, persons (vv, 1, 2). : 
 ii. The nature and the work of the Son, in regard to His Divine Personality and to the Incarnation 
 
 (υ. 3). 
 
 iii. Transition to the development of the argument (v. 4). 
 
 BIBLE DICT.—VOL. I. 
 
 4 P 
 
1514 
 
 HEBREWS, THE EPISTLE TO 
 
 1. Tue SUPERIORITY OF THE SON, THE MEDIATOR OF THE NEW REVELATION, TO ANGELS: i, 5-ii, 18. 
 
 i. The testimony of Scripture (i. 5-14). 
 
 ii. The peril of rejecting the new revelation through the Son (ii. 1-4). 
 iii, The fulfilment of the divine destiny of man in the Son of man (Jesus) through suffering (ii. 5-18). 
 
 II. Moses, JosHua, JESUS: THE FOUNDERS OF THE Οὐ Economy AND OF THE NEW: iii., iv. 
 i. Moses and Jesus : the servant and the Son (iii. 1-6). 
 (1) A general view of the dignity of Jesus (vv. 1, 2). 
 (2) Moses represents a house: Jesus the maker of it (vv. 3, 4). 
 (3) Moses a servant: Jesus a Son (w. 5, 6). 
 ii. The promise and the people under the Old and the New Dispensations (iii. 7-iv. 13). 
 
 (1) The condition of faith (ii. 7-19). 
 
 (2) The promise remaining (iv. 1-13). 
 
 iii. Transition to the doctrine of the High-priesthood, resuming ii. 17, 18 (iv. 14-16). 
 
 ΠῚ. Tue HicH-PrresTHoop OF CHRIST, UNIVERSAL AND SOVEREIGN (MELCHIZEDEK): v.—Vii. 
 i. The characteristics of a High-priest, sympathy and divine appointment, Fulfilled in Christ 
 
 (v. 1-10). 
 
 ii. Progress through patient effort the condition of the knowledge of Christian mysteries (v. 11-vi.). 
 iii, The characteristics of Christ, as absolute High-priest, shadowed forth by Melchizedek (King-priest) 
 
 (vii.). 
 
 IV. Tae Fuuriement oF Curist’s PRIESTLY WORK: Vili. 1-x. 18. 
 i. A general view of the scheme and condition of Christ's High-priestly work (ch. viii.). 
 (1) The scheme of Christ’s work (viii. 1-6). 
 
 (2) The new Covenant (vv. 7-13). 
 
 ii. The Old Service and the New: the Atonement of the Law, and the Atonement of Christ (ch. ix.). 
 (1) The Sanctuary and Priests under the Old Covenant (ix. 1-10). 
 (2) The High-priestly Atonement under the New Covenant (vv. 11-28). 
 
 iii. The Old Sacrifices and the New ; abiding efficacy of Christ’s one Sacrifice (x. 1-18). 
 
 A summary of reassurance. 
 
 VY. THE APPROPRIATION AND VITAL APPLICATION OF THE TRUTH LAID DOWN: X. 19-xii. 29. 
 i. The privileges, perils, encouragements of the Hebrews (x. 19-39). 
 
 ii. The past triwmphs of Faith (xi.). 
 
 iii. The general application of the lessons of the past to the present season of trial (xii.). 
 
 A PERSONAL EPILOGUE: Xiii. 
 
 Detailed and specific instructions. Close. 
 
 One feature in this plan will strike the 
 student. The central portion of each of the 
 first three divisions is mainly occupied with 
 solemn warnings; while the last division is a 
 most grave and earnest exposition of the duties 
 which follow from the confession of Christ’s 
 priestly work. The writer is unwilling, even 
 in the development of truth, to allow the loftiest 
 conception of the Gospel to appear to be a theory 
 only. It is for him intensely practical; and 
 the note of entire and reverential awe closes 
 his description of the privileges of Christians 
 (xii. 28 sq.). 
 
 X. CHARACTERISTICS—The Epistle to the 
 Hebrews is one of three Books in the N. T. 
 specially addressed to those who were Jews by 
 descent, the other two being the Gospel accord- 
 ing to St. Matthew and the Epistle of St. James 
 (Jas. i. 1, ταῖς δώδεκα φυλαῖς). To these, how- 
 ever, 1 Peter, probably addressed to those who 
 had passed through Judaism to Christianity, 
 may be added (1 Pet. i. 1, ἐκλεκτοῖς παρεπιδή- 
 Mots διασπορᾶς Πόντου . . .). 
 
 Each of these Books is marked by a charac- 
 teristic view of the Faith. St. Matthew, according 
 to general consent, gives the lineaments of the 
 Davidic King. In St. James we have the power 
 of “a perfect law ” (Jas. i. 25; ii. 8): in St. Peter 
 the accomplishment of prophecy (1 Pet. i. 10- 
 12): in the Epistle to the Hebrews the efficacy 
 of an eternal priesthood (Heb. vii. 23 sq.). 
 
 This general connexion indicates the true 
 position of the Epistle, which is a final develop- 
 ment of the teacning of “the three,” and not a 
 special application of the teaching of St. Paul. 
 It is, so to speak, most truly inteiligible as the 
 last voice of the Apostles of the circumcision, 
 and not as a peculiar utterance of the Apostle 
 
 of the Gentiles (Gal. ii. 9 sq.). The Apostles of 
 the circumcision regarded Judaism naturally 
 with sympathy and even with affection, as that 
 through which they had been led little by little 
 to see the meaning of the Gospel. The Apostle 
 of the Gentiles, with all his love for his country- 
 men and all his reverence for the work wrought 
 through the Old Covenant, no less naturally 
 regarded Judaism, as it was, as a system which 
 had made him a persecutor of the Faith. For 
 St. Paul the Law is a code of moral ordinances ; 
 for the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews, it 
 is a scheme of typical provisions for atonement. 
 For the one it is a crushing burden; for the 
 other it is a welcome if imperfect source of con- 
 solation. And it is in virtue of this general 
 interpretation of the spirit of the Levitical sys- 
 tem that the unknown Apostle to whom we owe 
 the Epistle to the Hebrews was fitted to fulfil 
 for the Church the part which was providentially 
 committed to him. 
 
 The difference between St. Paul and the 
 writer of the Epistle in their view of the Law 
 may be presented in another light. St. Paul 
 regards the Law mainly in relation to the re-~ 
 quirements of man’s discipline; his fellow 
 Apostle in relation to the fulfilment of God’s | 
 counsel. For St. Paul the Law was an episode, 
 intercalated, as it were, in the course of revela- 
 tion (Rom. v. 20, παρεισῆλθεν); for the writer 
 of the Epistle, it was a shadow of the realities 
 to which the promise pointed. It is closely con- 
 nected with this fundamental distinctness of the 
 point of vision of the two teachers that St. Paul 
 dwells with dominant interest on the individual 
 aspect of the Gospel, the writer of the Epistle 
 on its social aspect: for the one the supreme 
 contrast is between flesh and spirit, for the other 
 
HEBREWS, THE EPISTLE TO 
 
 between the image and the reality, the imperfect 
 and the perfect ; for the one Christ is the direct 
 object of personal faith, for the other the fulfiller 
 of the destiny of man. 
 
 But this difference, however real and intel- 
 ligible, does not issue in any opposition between 
 the two writers, Both views are completely 
 satisfied by the Incarnation; and each writer 
 recognises the truth which the other develops. 
 In the Epistle to the Ephesians St. Paul gives 
 the widest possible expression to the social lessons 
 
 * of the Faith; and the writer to the Hebrews 
 emphasises with the most touching solemnity 
 the significance of personal responsibility (6.0. 
 ch. vi.). At the same time the writer to the 
 Hebrews suggests the unity, the harmonious 
 unfolding, of the Divine plan, in a way which is 
 foreign to the mode of thought of him who was 
 suddenly changed from a persecutor to an Apostle. 
 His eyes rest on one heavenly archetype made 
 known to men as they could bear the sight in 
 various degrees. He presupposes a divine ideal 
 of the phenomenal world and of outward wor- 
 ship. This, he argues, was shadowed forth in 
 the Mosaic system; and found its perfect em- 
 bodiment under the conditions of earth in the 
 Christian Church. He looks therefore with 
 deep sympathy upon the devotion with which 
 the Hebrews had regarded the provisions made 
 by the Law for dealing with the power and guilt 
 of sin. He enters into their feelings and points 
 out how Christ satisfied them by His Person 
 and His work. 
 
 This being so, the circumstances in which 
 the Hebrews were placed led him naturally to 
 
 _ develop the conception of Christ’s priestly office. 
 They had experienced a double disappointment. 
 
 _ The shame of the sufferings of the Messiah had 
 
 _ not been effaced, as many had hoped, by a 
 
 ΟΠ glorious Return. It became evident that the 
 Jews as a people would not receive Him. The 
 national unbelief of Israel, apart from all direct 
 persecution, brought with it a growing alienation 
 of the Synagogue from the Church. The right 
 of participation in the ministrations of the 
 Temple could not, it became more and more clear, 
 be retained by Christians who held their faith. 
 
 _ The Hebrew Christians therefore were con- 
 
 strained to ask, whether there was to be no 
 kingdom for Israel? Whether Christians were 
 to be deprived of the manifold consolations of 
 sacrificial worship and priestly atonement? 
 The Epistle is an answer to the questions. The 
 _ writer shows that the difficulty which arose 
 from the sufferings of the Son of man (Jesus) 
 included the solution of the difficulty which was 
 felt in exclusion from the Temple: that he who 
 remained a Jew outwardly could not but miss 
 in the end the message and the inheritance 
 of Christ, just as the Christian who under- 
 stands his position is essentially independent of 
 every support of the Old Covenant and heir of 
 all its promises: that which seemed to be the 
 
 weakness of the Gospel was revealed upon a 
 
 _ closer vision to be its strength. In proportion 
 
 as men can feel what Christ is (such is the 
 writer’s argument) they can feel also how His 
 death and His advocacy more than supply the 
 place of al] sacrifices and priestly intercessions, 
 ow they lay open the victory of humanity in 
 the Son of man over sin and death. In other 
 words, under this light the Death of Christ 
 
 HEBREWS, THE EPISTLE TO 1315 
 
 becomes intelligible in itself without regard to 
 the thought of a Return. The sense of His 
 present priestly action gains a new force. The 
 paradox of a suffering Messiah is disclosed in its 
 own glory. 
 
 At the same time the writer goes beyond 
 Judaism. The Gospel, as he presents it, is the 
 fulfilment of the purpose of Creation and not 
 only of the Mosaic system. Melchizedek is a 
 more prominent figure in his treatment of the 
 O. T. than Abraham. Thus the work of Judaism 
 is made to appear as a stage in the advance 
 towards a wider work which could not be 
 achieved without a preparatory discipline. So 
 regarded, the provisions of the Law can be seen 
 in their full meaning, and by the help of their 
 typical teaching a suffering Messiah can be 
 acknowledged by the true Jew in His Majesty. 
 
 Thus the immediate purpose of the writer was 
 fulfilled : and that which was an answer to the 
 difficulties of the Hebrew Christian has been 
 made the endowment of the whole Church. For 
 in this Epistle we have what is found in no 
 other Book of the N. T., that which may be 
 called a philosophy of religion, of worship, of 
 priesthood, centered in the Person of Christ. 
 The form of the doctrine is determined by the 
 QO. T. foundations, but the doctrine itself is 
 essentially new. In the light of the Gospel the 
 whole teaching of the O. T. is seen to be a 
 prophecy, unquestionable in the breadth and 
 fulness of its scope. 
 
 But while the thoughts of the absolute value 
 of Christ’s sufferings and of the application of 
 their virtue to men are brought out with pre- 
 vailing force, it is not argued that all difficulty 
 is removed from the present prospect of Chris- 
 tianity. There are still, the writer implies, 
 difficulties in the state of things which we see. 
 We cannot escape from them. But enough can 
 be discerned to enable men to wait patiently for 
 the appointed end. There is a triumph to 
 come ; and, in looking forward to this, Christians 
 occupy the position which the Saints have always 
 occupied, the position of faith, of faith under 
 trials. The heroic records of ch. xi. lead up to 
 the practical charge of xii. 1 sq. 
 
 Meanwhile the writer calls upon his readers 
 to make their choice boldly. Judaism was 
 becoming, if it had not already become, anti- 
 Christian. It must be given up (xiii. 19). It 
 was “near vanishing away ” (viii. 13). It was 
 no longer debated whether a Gentile Church 
 could stand beside the Jewish Church, as in the 
 first period of conflict in the apostolic age; or 
 whether a Jewish Church should stand beside 
 the Gentile Church, as in the next period. The 
 Christian Church must be one and independent. 
 And thus the-Epistle is a monument of the last 
 crisis of conflict out of which the Catholic 
 Church rose. 
 
 This view of the relation of the Church to 
 the Temple is the more impressive from the 
 prominence which is assigned in the Epistle to 
 the O. T., both to the writings and to the insti- 
 tutions which it hallows. There is not the least 
 tendency towards disparagement of the one or 
 the other. From first to last it is maintained 
 that God spoke to the fathers in the Prophets. 
 The message through the Son takes up and 
 crowns all that had gone before. In each 
 respect the New is the consummation of the 
 
 4P2 
 
1316 HEBREWS, THE EPISTLE TO 
 
 Old. It offers a more perfect and absolute 
 Revelation, carrying with it a more perfect and 
 absolute Mediation, and establishing a more per- 
 fect and absolute Covenant, embodying finally 
 the connexion of God andman. There is nothing 
 in the Old which is not taken up and trans- 
 figured in the New. 
 
 For it is assumed throughout the Epistle that 
 all visible theocratic institutions answer to a Di- 
 vine antitype (archetype). They are (so to speak) 
 a translation into a particular dialect of eternal 
 truths: a representation under special conditions 
 of an absolute ideal. In some sense which we can 
 feel rather than define, the eternal is declared 
 to lie beneath the temporal (xii. 27). In virtue 
 of this truth, the work of Christ and the hope 
 of the Christian are both described under Jewish 
 imagery, without the least admixture of the 
 millenarian extravagances which gained currency 
 in the second century. There is for the believer a 
 priestly consecration (x. 22), an altar (xiii. 10), 
 a sabbath-rest (iv. 9). 
 
 It follows therefore that in studying the 
 Levitical ritual we must recognise that there is 
 a true correspondence of the seen with the 
 unseen, a correspondence which extends to the 
 fulness of life, and not simply a correspondence 
 of a world of ideas ees νοητός), as Philo 
 supposed, to a world of phenomena. 
 
 The same principle holds still under the 
 Christian dispensation. We see the reality but 
 only in figures (e.g. Rev. xxi. 16). Judaism was 
 the shadow, and Christianity is the substance ; 
 yet both are regarded under the conditions of 
 earth. 
 
 But the figures have an abiding significance. 
 There is a heavenly city in the spiritual world, 
 an organised body of rational beings; “a con- 
 gregation ” (ἐκκλησία) which answers to the full 
 enjoyment of the privileges of social life: xi. 10 
 (H τοὺς θεμ. ex. πόλι5):; Xi. 165 xii. 22 sq. (cp. 
 viii. 11; xi. 10; xiii. 14). There is also a 
 heavenly sanctuary there, which was the pattern 
 of the earthly, to confirm the eternal duty and 
 joy of worship: viii. 2, 5. 
 
 In this aspect the Epistle fulfils a universal 
 work. It is addressed to Hebrews, and meets, 
 as we have seen, their peculiar difficulties, but 
 at the same time it deals with the largest views 
 of the Faith. This it does not by digression or 
 contrast. It discloses the catholicity of the 
 Gospel by the simple interpretation of its scope. 
 It does not insist on the fact as anything new or 
 strange. It does not dwell on “the breaking 
 down of the middle wall of partition ” (Ephes. ii. 
 14), or on “the mystery which in other ages 
 was not made known... that the Gentiles are 
 ... fellow-partakers of the promise in Christ 
 Jesus ” (Ephes. iii. 4sq.; Rom. xvi. 25sq.). The 
 equality of men as men in the sight of God is 
 implied in the declaration which is made of the 
 Person and the Work of Christ. Faith is the 
 condition of a divine fellowship, and that is 
 essentially universal. The truth that there is 
 no difference between Jew and Gentile has passed 
 beyond the stage of keen controversy. It is 
 acknowledged in the conception which has been 
 gained of the Incarnation. 
 
 Viewed in this light, the Epistle to the Hebrews 
 forms a complement to the Gospel of St. John. 
 Both Books assume the universality of Chris- 
 
 HEBREWS, THE EPISTLE TO 
 
 special argument (cp. John i. 12). Both regard 
 “the Jews ”»—the men who clung to that which 
 was transitory as if it were absolute and eternal 
 —as enemies of Christ. Both recognise com- 
 pletely the provisional office of the Old Dis- 
 pensation (John iv. 22). But they do this from 
 different sides. The Epistle to the Hebrews 
 enables us to see how Christianity is the absolute 
 fulfilment of the idea of the positive institutions 
 of the Law through which it was the good 
 pleasure of God to discipline men, while the 
 Fourth Gospel shows us in the Word become 
 flesh the absolute fulfilment of the idea of creation 
 which underlies the whole of the O. T. 
 
 One further observation must still be made. 
 The style of the Book is characteristically 
 Hellenistic.—perhaps we may say, as far as our 
 scanty evidence goes, Alexandrine; but the 
 teaching itself is, like that of St. John, charac- 
 teristically Palestinian. This is shown not only 
 by the teaching on details, on the heavenly 
 Jerusalem, and the heavenly Sanctuary, on 
 Satan as the king of death, on Angels, on the twe 
 ages (cp. Riehm, Lehrbegriff, pp. 248, 652 sq.), 
 but still more by its whole form. The writer 
 holds firmly to the true historical sense of the 
 ancient history and the ancient legislation. 
 Jewish ordinances are not for him, as for Philo, 
 symbols of transcendental ideas, but elements in . 
 a preparatory discipline for a Divine manifes- 
 tation upon earth. Christ is High-Priest not as 
 the eternal Word, but as the Incarnate Son Who 
 has lived and suffered and conquered as true man. 
 At the same time the Apostle teaches us to re- 
 cognise the Divine method in the education of 
 the world. He shows us how God has used (and, 
 as we are led to conclude, how He uses still) 
 transitory institutions to awaken, to develop, to 
 chasten, human thoughts of spiritual things. The 
 Epistle is, to sum up all most briefly, the seal of 
 the divine significance of all life. The interpre- 
 tation, given in its salient points, of the record 
 of the O. T., and of the training of Israel, is a 
 prophetic light for the interpretation of the 
 history of mankind. 
 
 XI. THe Use or THE OLD TESTAMENT.—The 
 use which is made of the O. T. in the Epistle 
 offers an interesting subject for study in regard 
 to (i.) the range of the quotations, (ii.) the mode 
 of citation, and (iii.) the principles of interpre- 
 tation which the writer assumes. 
 
 (i.) Of twenty-nine direct quotations, twenty- 
 three are taken from the Pentateuch and the 
 Psalms, the fundamental Law and the Book of 
 common devotion. The absence of detailed 
 illustrations from the history of the kingdom, 
 and the fewness of the references to the teaching 
 of the Prophets, are both striking facts. It is 
 yet more remarkable that, with two exceptions 
 (2 Sam. vii. 14; Is. viii. 17 sq.), all the primary 
 passages which are quoted to illustrate the true 
 nature of the Person and Work of Christ are 
 taken from the Psalms. No direct prophetic 
 word is quoted. Nor again is anything quoted 
 from the Prophets on the inefficiency of ritual 
 sacrifices. It is further to be noticed, as a mark 
 of the individuality of the writer, that of the 
 twenty-nine passages which are reckoned as 
 direct quotations, twenty-one are peculiar to 
 the Epistle. The text of the quotations agrees, 
 with three exceptions, with some form of the 
 
 tianity as the one religion of humanity without | LXX., and particularly with the text of Cod. 
 
΄ 
 
 HEBREWS, THE EPISTLE TO 
 
 Alex. (A). In eight passages it agrees with the 
 LXX. against the present Hebrew text. 
 
 (ii.) The quotations are without exception made 
 anonymously. There is no mention anywhere 
 of the name of the writer (iv. 7 is no exception 
 to the rule), God is presented as the jspeaker 
 through the person of the Prophet, except in 
 the one place where He is directly addressed (ii. 
 6 sq.): e.g. i. 5, 7 λέγει, 13; v. 5. In two places 
 the words are attributed to Christ (ii. 11, 13; 
 x. 5 sq.). In two other places the Holy Spirit 
 specially is named as the speaker (iii. 7 sq. ; 
 x. 15: ep. ix. 8). 
 
 This assignment of the written word to God, 
 as the Inspirer of the message, is most remark- 
 able when the words spoken by the Prophet in 
 his own person are treated as divine words, as 
 words spoken by Moses (i. 6; iv. 44 cp. vv. 5, 
 7, 8; x. 30) and by Isaiah (i. 13: cp. also 
 xiii. 5). 
 
 There is nothing really parallel to this general 
 mode of quotation in the other Books of the 
 N. T. Where the word λέγει occurs elsewhere, 
 it is for the most part combined either with the 
 name of the Prophet or with “ Scripture ” (Rom. 
 iv. 3; x. 16,19; xi. 9). And when God is the 
 subject, as is rarely the case, the reference is to 
 words directly spoken by God (2 Cor. vi. 2; 
 Rom. ix. 15, 25), 
 
 This “ personal” character of citation is the 
 more significant when it is remembered how 
 frequent elsewhere (in St. Paul for example) are 
 the forms (καθὼς) γέγραπται (sixteen times in 
 the Epistle to the Romans), 7 γραφὴ λέγει, and 
 the like, which never occur in the Epistle to 
 the Hebrews ; and whereas St. Paul not unfre- 
 quently quotes the words of God as “ Scripture ” 
 simply (6... Rom. ix. 17), it has been seen that 
 in this Epistle prophetic words recorded in 
 Scripture are treated as “ words of God.” 
 
 (iii.) It has been already observed that the 
 writer of the Epistle everywhere assumes that 
 there is a spiritual meaning in the whole record 
 of the O. T. This deeper sense is recognised in 
 the history both personal (vii. 1 sq.) and national 
 (iv. 1 sq.): in the Mosaic ritual (ix. 8): in the 
 experience of typical characters (ii. 13); and in 
 the general teaching (ii. 6 sq.). Every detail in 
 the record is treated as significant; and even 
 the silence of the narrative suggests important 
 thoughts (vii. 3). 
 
 Generally it may be said that Christ and the 
 Christian dispensation are regarded as the one 
 end to which the O. T. points, and in which it 
 finds its complete accomplishment, not as though 
 the Gospel were the answer to the riddle of the 
 Law (as is taught in the Letter of Barnabas), 
 but as being the consummation in life of that 
 which was prepared in life. They therefore 
 who acknowledged Jesus as the Christ, when 
 shey realised His Nature, could not fail to see 
 that He had abrogated the outward system of 
 Judaism by fulfilling it. 
 
 The use which the author makes of Holy 
 Scripture is, in other words, not dialectic or 
 rhetorical, but interpretative. The Christian 
 faith is assumed, and the Hebrews are taught 
 by him to recognise in the O. T. the foreshadow- 
 ings of that growing purpose which the Gospel 
 completes and crowns. This being so, his object 
 is not to show that Jesus fulfils the idea of the 
 Christ, and the Christian Church the idea of 
 
 HEBREWS, THE EPISTLE TO 1317 
 
 Israel, but, taking this for granted, to mark the 
 relation in which the Gospel stands to the 
 Mosaic system, as part of one Divine whole. 
 Looking back therefore over the course of the 
 Divine discipline of humanity, outlined in the 
 O. T., he marks how Christ, Lawgiver and - 
 Priest, fulfilled perfectly the offices which Moses 
 (ch. iii.),Aaron (ch. v.), and Melchizedek (ch. vii.) 
 held in typical and transitory forms. And yet 
 more than this, how as man He fulfilled the 
 destiny of fallen man through suffering (ch. ii.). 
 For he places the destiny of man in connexion 
 with the record of Creation. Man, he implies, 
 was made in order to enter into the rest of God; 
 and lest he should seem to have finally lost his 
 original inheritance by sin, he points out that 
 this was confirmed to him afterwards by a 
 promise. 
 
 The accomplishment of the Divine purpose 
 for man necessarily required a long preparation. 
 Even if he had not fallen, he would have needed 
 the discipline of life to reach the Divine likeness 
 through a free moral growth. The sinless Son 
 of man “learnt obedience” (v. 8). As it is, 
 the necessity of the discipline is twofold. Di- 
 vine gifts have to be exercised; and human 
 failures have to be repaired. The capacities and 
 needs of man have to be revealed and satisfied. 
 Thus the purpose of Ged for man indicated in 
 creation is wrought out in two ways, by that 
 which we may speak of as a natural growth 
 through the unfolding of the life of the nations, 
 and by a special discipline. Both elements are 
 recognised in the Epistle. Melchizedek is set 
 forth as the representative of the natural 
 growth of man in fellowship with the divine 
 spirit. The revelation to Israel (the “ Law’’) 
 is interpreted as the special preparation and 
 foreshadowing of a fellowship of man with God, 
 in spite of sin and death. 
 
 In marking the course of this special revela- 
 tion the writer distinguishes the work of the 
 Messianic people (Ex. xix. 5 sq.) and the work 
 of the personal Messiah, typified on the one 
 side by the Davidie king, and on the other 
 side by the afflicted and faithful Servant of the 
 Lord. 
 
 Both works are marked in the Epistle in 
 their main outlines. Especially it will be 
 observed that in dealing with the work of the 
 Messianic people the writer of the Epistle em- 
 phasises the three great stages in the deter- 
 mination of their privileges and their office: 
 i. The original promise to Abraham; ii. The 
 discipline of the Law; iii. The new promise. 
 These three crises mark three special forms of 
 the Divine Covenant (Dispensation, διαθήκη), by 
 which God is pleased to enter into a living 
 fellowship with His people, the Covenant of 
 grace, the Covenant of works, and the final 
 Covenant of Divine fellowship based on perfect 
 knowledge and sympathy. 
 
 The fulfilment of this last great promise (Jer. 
 xxxii.) leads up to the thought of the work of 
 the personal Messiah; and in no other Book of 
 the N. T. is the Messiah presented with equal 
 fulness of delineation. Each trait in the por- 
 traiture is connected with some preparatory 
 sign in the O. T. The Christ, revealed in the 
 Son of man, is shown to be all for which tne 
 people had looked, satisfying every hope and 
 claim, without change or loss. 
 
1318 HEBREWS, THE EPISTLE TO 
 
 Thus we can read how the manifold teachings 
 of the past in life and in institutions were con- 
 centrated on the final revelation of the Gospel. 
 These had their fulfilment at the Coming of the 
 Christ; and no less the spiritual experiences of 
 those to whom they were first given have an 
 application to Christians still. What was 
 written of encouragement to Israel on the 
 entrance into Canaan (xiii. 5), on the approach 
 to the sanctuary (xiii. 6), in the prophetic 
 delineation of the Messianic age (xii. 12 sq.), 
 and in the words of the wise (xii. 5 sq.), was 
 of force for the Hebrews in their crisis of trial, 
 and is of force for the Church in all time. 
 Counsels of patience (x. 37 sq.) and warnings 
 of judgment (x. 27) from the Prophets and 
 the Law are still addressed to those who are 
 under a Divine discipline. In one sense the 
 revelation given through the Son is final and 
 unchanging (xii. 26), but its meaning is brought 
 home to believers by a living voice, and we 
 also must listen heedfully if haply the voice 
 may sound in our ears “To-day” with a fresh 
 message for us (iii. 7, &c.). 
 
 XII. History anp AUTHORSHIP.—In discuss- 
 ing the history of any one of the writings of the 
 N. T. it is necessary to bear in mind the narrow 
 range of the scanty remains of the earliest 
 Christian literature, and the little scope which 
 they offer for definite references to particular 
 Books. It might perhaps have been expected 
 that the arguments of the Epistle to the 
 Hebrews would have given it prominence in the 
 
 first controversies of the Church, but this does | 
 
 not appear to have been the case. Traces of its 
 use occur indeed in the oldest Christian writing 
 outside the Canon, the letter written by Cle- 
 ment of Rome to the Corinthians, but it is not 
 referred to by name till the second half of the 
 second century. There can be no doubt that 
 Clement was familiar with its contents. He 
 not only uses its language (ad Cor. 17, 36), but 
 imitates its form in such a way (ad Cor. 9, 12, 
 45) as to show that he had the text before him; 
 but the adaptations of words and thoughts are 
 made silently, without any mark of quotation 
 or any indication of the author from whom they 
 are borrowed (cp. Euseb. H. 1]. iii. 38; Hier. de 
 Vir. ill, 15). The fact that the Book was known 
 at Rome at this early date is of importance, 
 because it was at Rome that the Pauline author- 
 ship was most consistently denied, and for the 
 longest period. In this connexion it is of in- 
 terest that there are several coincidences of 
 expression with the Epistle in the Shepherd of 
 Hermas, which seem to be sufficient to show 
 that Hermas also was acquainted with it. 
 
 The other evidence which can be alleged to 
 show that the Epistle was known by the earliest 
 Christian writers is less clear. Polycarp gives 
 the Lord the title of “ High-Priest ” (ch. 12, pon- 
 tifex), a title which is peculiar to this Epistle 
 among the apostolic writings, but it is not 
 possible to conclude certainly that he derived it 
 directly from the Book. So again when Justin 
 Martyr speaks of Christ as “ Apostle” (Apol. i. 
 12, 63; Heb. iii. 1), and applies Ps. ex. to Him 
 (Dial. 96,113), he may be using thoughts which 
 had become current among Christians, though 
 these correspondences with characteristic fea- 
 tures of the Epistle are more worthy of con- 
 sideration because Justin has also several coin- 
 
 HEBREWS, THE EPISTLE TO 
 
 cidences with its language (viii. 7 sq., Dial. 34; 
 ix. 13 sq., Dial. 13; xii. 18 sq., Dial. 67). 
 
 On the other hand, the Epistle was not in- 
 cluded among the apostolic writings received 
 by Marcion; nor does it find any place in the 
 Muratorian Canon, while by this catalogue it is 
 distinctly excluded from the Epistles of St. Paul 
 (“ septem scribit ecclesiis ’’). 
 
 Towards the close of the second century there 
 is evidence of a knowledge of the Epistle in 
 Alexandria, North Africa, Italy, and the West of 
 Europe. From the time of Pantaenus it was 
 held at Alexandria to be, at least indirectly, the 
 work of St. Paul and of canonical authority ; 
 and this opinion, supported in different forms 
 by Clement and Origen, came to be generally 
 received among the Eastern Greek Churches in 
 the third century. 
 
 Meanwhile a Latin translation of the Epistle 
 found a limited public recognition in North 
 Africa, but not as a work of St. Paul. So 
 Tertullian speaks of it as being “more widely 
 received among the Churches than The Shepherd” 
 (de Pudic. 20, “utique receptior apud ecclesias 
 illo apocrypho Pastore moechorum ”). Cyprian, 
 however, never quotes it, and, by repeating the 
 statement peculiar to Western writers that St. 
 Paul “wrote to seven churches” (de Exhort. 
 Mart. 11), he also implicitly denies its Pauline 
 authorship. 
 
 In Italy and Western Europe the Epistle was 
 not held to be St. Paul’s, and by consequence, as 
 it seems, it was not held to be canonical. Hip- 
 polytus (Lagarde, pp. 64, 89, 118, 149) and 
 Irenaeus (Euseb. H. Μ΄. v. 26) were acquainted 
 with it, but they held that it “was not Paul’s” 
 (Steph. Gobar. ap. Phot. Cod. 232); and if Ire- 
 naeus had held it to be authoritative Scripture, 
 he could hardly have failed to use it freely 
 in his ‘Book “against heresies.”” Caius also 
 reckoned only thirteen Epistles of St. Paul 
 (Euseb. H. E. vi. 20; Hier. de Vir. ill. 59); and 
 Kusebius, where he mentions the fact, adds that 
 the opinion was “still held by some Romans.” 
 
 It is impossible to decide certainly whether 
 the Epistle formed a part of the earliest Syriac 
 Version. The position which it holds in the 
 Peshitto at present shows at least that it was 
 not regarded strictly as one of St. Paul’s 
 Epistles, but as an appendix to the collection. 
 In accordance with this view it is called simply 
 the “Epistle to the Hebrews,” and not, after 
 the usage in the other Epistles, ‘the Epistle of 
 Paul to the Hebrews.” 
 
 This meagre account indicates all the inde- 
 pendent external evidence which has been 
 preserved by tradition as to the origin of the 
 Epistle. Later writers simply combine and 
 repeat the views which it represents in various 
 ways. To speak summarily, when the Book 
 first appears in general circulation three distinct 
 opinions about it had already obtained local 
 currency. At Alexandria the Greek Epistle was 
 held to be not directly but mediately St. Paul’s, 
 as either a free translation of his words or a 
 reproduction of his thoughts. In North Africa 
 it was known to some extent as the work of 
 Barnabas and acknowledged as a secondary 
 authority. At Rome and in Western Europe it 
 was not included in the collection of the 
 Epistles of St. Paul, and had no apostolic 
 weight. 
 
ele 
 
 HEBREWS, THE EPISTLE TO 
 
 In order to decide between these conflicting 
 judgments, and to account for their partial ac- 
 ceptance, it is necessary to examine the primary 
 evidence more in detail. 
 
 The testimony of Alexandria is the earliest 
 and the most explicit. It has been preserved by 
 Eusebius from lost writings of Clement and 
 Origen. Clement, he writes (1. Z. vi. 1+), says 
 in his “Outlines” (‘Yrorum@ces), “that the 
 Epistle is Paul's, and that it was written to 
 Hebrews inthe Hebrew language, and that Luke 
 translated it with zealous care and published it 
 to the Greeks; whence it is that the same com- 
 plexion of style is found in the translation of this 
 Epistle and in the Acts. [Further] that the 
 [ordinary] phrase ‘Paul an Apostle’ was not 
 placed at the head of the Epistle for good 
 reason; for, he says, in writing to Hebrews who 
 had formed a prejudice against him and viewed 
 him with suspicion, he was wise not to repel 
 them at the beginning by setting his name 
 there.” The last clause only is quoted in Cle- 
 ment’s own words, but there can be no doubt 
 that Eusebius has given correctly the substance 
 of what he said, as far as it goes, but much is 
 left undetermined which it would be important 
 to know. There is nothing to indicate the 
 source of Clement’s statement, or how far it 
 was the common opinion of the Alexandrine 
 Church at the time, or whether the hypothesis 
 of a Hebrew original was framed to explain the 
 peculiarities of the un-Pauline style. In part 
 this deficiency may be supplied by another quo- 
 tation from Clement, in regard to the Epistle, 
 which Eusebius makes in the same place: ‘The 
 blessed presbyter [Pantaenus] used to say: 
 since the Lord was sent to the Hebrews, as 
 being the Apostle of the Almighty, Paul through 
 modesty, as was natural since he had been sent 
 to the Gentiles, does not style himself Apostle 
 of the Hebrews, both for the sake of the honour 
 due to the Lord, and because it was a work of 
 supererogation for him to write to the Hebrews, 
 since he was herald and Apostle of the Gen- 
 tiles.” It appears then that the exceptional 
 character of the Epistle had attracted attention 
 at Alexandria in the generation before Clement, 
 and that an explanation was offered of one at 
 least of its peculiarities. It is possible there- 
 fore, though not probable, that Clement may 
 have derived from his master the idea of a 
 Hebrew original. At any rate the idea was 
 compatible with what he had learnt from Pan- 
 taenus as to the authorship of the Greek text. 
 
 The judgment of Origen is quoted by Eusebius 
 (H. E. vi. 25) in his own words. Every one 
 competent to judge of language must admit, he 
 remarks, that the style of the Epistle to the 
 Hebrews is not that of St. Paul, and he adds 
 that every one conversant with the Apostle’s 
 teaching must agree that the thoughts are 
 marvellous and in no way inferior to his ac- 
 knowledged writings, and then after a while 
 he continues: “If I were to express my own 
 opinion, I should say that the thoughts are 
 the thoughts of the Apostle, but the language 
 and the composition that of one who recalled 
 from memory and, as it were, made notes of 
 what was said by his master. If therefore any 
 Church holds this Epistle as Paul’s, let it be 
 approved for this also [as for holding unquestioned 
 truths], for it was not without reason that the 
 
 HEBREWS, THE EPISTLE TO 1319 
 
 men of old time have handed it down as 
 Paul’s [that is, as substantially expressing his’ 
 thoughts]. But who wrote the Epistle God only 
 knows certainly. The account that has reached 
 us is twofold: some say that Clement, who 
 became Bishop of the Romans, wrote the Epistle, 
 others that Luke wrote it, who wrote the Gospel 
 and the Acts. But on this I will say no more.” 
 
 The testimony is of the highest value as 
 supplementary to and in part explaining that 
 of Clement. Origen does not refer to any 
 “Hebrew ” original. It is not possible then 
 that this hypothesis formed part of the ancient 
 tradition of Alexandria. It was a suggestion 
 which Origen did not think it worth while to 
 discuss. He was aware that some Churches did 
 not receive the Epistle as St. Paul’s. In the 
 strictest sense of authorship he agreed with 
 them. At the same time he held that in a true 
 sense it could be regarded as St. Paul’s, as em- 
 bodying thoughts in every way worthy of him. 
 
 Thus Clement and Origen, both familiar witk. 
 the details of the tradition of “‘the men of old 
 time” to whom they refer, agree in regarding 
 the Greek Epistle as St. Paul’s only in a 
 secondary sense. Clement regards it as a free 
 translation of an original, so made by St. Luke 
 as to show the characteristics of his style: 
 Origen regards it as a scholar’s eloquent re- 
 production of his master’s teaching. Each view 
 must have been consistent with what was 
 generally received; and this can only have 
 been that the Epistle rightly had a place among 
 the apostolic letters, though its immediate 
 authorship was uncertain. The practice of 
 Clement and Origen is an application of this 
 judgment. Both use the Epistle as St. Paul’s 
 without any qualification, because it was na- 
 turally placed in connexion with his writings ; 
 and Origen once went so far as to say that he 
 was prepared to show that “the Epistle was 
 Paul’s ” in reply to those “ who rejected it as 
 not written by Paul” (Zp. ad Afric. 9); and in 
 another passage, preserved indeed only in a Latin 
 translation, he speaks of “fourteen Epistles of 
 St. Paul” (Hom. in Jos. vii.). 
 
 Looking back over the records of the first 
 three centuries, Eusebius expressed the judgment 
 to which the facts pointed plainly with all their 
 apparent discrepancies. In different places he 
 ranks the Epistle among “the acknowledged” 
 (iii. 25) and the “ controverted” Books (vi. 13). 
 He held himself that it was originally written 
 in “ Hebrew,” and that Clement of Rome (rather 
 than St. Luke) had translated it, on the ground 
 of its likeness to Clement’s own Letter both in 
 style and subject-matter (iii. 38). He used 
 the Greek text as St. Paul’s habitually; and 
 reckoned his Epistles as fourteen (H. J. iii. 3), 
 though he noticed that “some rejected the 
 Epistle to the Hebrews on the ground that it 
 was controverted (ἀντιλέγεσθαι) by the Roman 
 Church as not being Paul’s.” At the same time 
 this judgment was justified on the plea that it 
 was reasonable “on the ground of its antiquity 
 that it should be reckoned with the other 
 writings of the Apostle” (H. Z. iii. 38). Such 
 a statement would be inconsistent with the idea 
 that he held it to be St. Paul’s in the same sense 
 as the other Epistles. He held it to be canonical 
 Scripture and Pauline, so to speak, for eccle- 
 siastical use. Eusebius in other words, like 
 
1320 HEBREWS, THE EPISTLE TO 
 
 Origen, was chiefly concerned to maintain the 
 eanonicity of the Epistle, and he upheld its 
 ultimate Pauline authorship as connected with 
 its apostolic authority. ͵ 
 
 It will be evident from the facts which have 
 been given how slender is the historical evidence 
 for the Pauline authorship of the Epistle when 
 it is traced to the source. The unqualified 
 statements of later writers simply reproduce 
 the testimony of Clement or Origen as inter- 
 preted by their practice. But it is not clear 
 that any one among the earliest witnesses 
 attributed the Greek text to St. Paul. It is 
 certain that neither Clement nor Origen did so, 
 though they used the Epistle as his without 
 reserve. What they were concerned to affirm 
 for the Book was Pauline, or, we may say more 
 correctly, apostolic authority. 
 
 Viewed in this light, the testimony of Alex- 
 andria is not irreconcilable with the testimony 
 of the West. The difference between the two 
 springs from the different estimate which they 
 made of the two elements of the problem, 
 canonicity and authorship. The Alexandrines 
 emphasised the thought of canonicity, and, 
 assured of this, placed the Epistle in connexion 
 with St. Paul. The Western Fathers emphasised 
 the thought of authorship, and, believing that 
 the Epistle was not properly St. Paul’s, denied 
 its canonical authority. The former were wrong 
 in requiring Pauline authorship as the condition 
 of canonicity: the latter were wrong in denying 
 the canonicity of a Book of which St. Paul was 
 not recognised as the author. Experience has 
 shown us how to unite the positive conclusions 
 on both sides. We have been enabled to ac- 
 knowledge that the canonical authority of the 
 Epistle is independent of its Pauline authorship. 
 The spiritual insight of the East can be joined 
 with the historical witness of the West. And 
 if we hold that the judgment of the Spirit 
 makes itself felt through the consciousness of 
 the Christian Society, no Book of the Bible is 
 more completely recognised by universal consent 
 as giving a Divine view of the facts of the 
 Gospel, full of lessons for all time, than the 
 Epistle to the Hebrews. 
 
 The practical judgment of Alexandria found 
 formal expression in a Festal Epistle of Athanasius 
 (A.D. 367). Among the Books of the Old and 
 New Testaments which he reckons as “held 
 canonical and divine,” he enumerates “ fourteen 
 Epistles of the Apostle Paul” in the order of 
 the oldest MSS. (“...2 Thess., Hebrews, 1 Tim- 
 othy...”). And from his time this reckoning of 
 the “fourteen Epistles ” became universal among 
 Greek writers; but there is no reason to sup- 
 pose that either he or the other Fathers who 
 followed him wished to go beyond the testimony 
 of Clement and Origen and Eusebius. 
 
 From the 4th century the canonical authority 
 of the Epistle came to be recognised in the 
 West, and in part, as a consequence, its Pauline 
 authorship. Fathers like Hilary, who were 
 familiar with Greek writers, naturally adopted 
 little by little their mode of speaking of it. 
 Still the influence of the old belief remained; 
 and Jerome shows that the judgment which 
 Eusebius notes in his time still survived un- 
 changed. “The custom of the Latins,” he 
 says, ‘‘does not receive it among the canonical 
 Scriptures as St. Paul’s ” (Zp. ad Dard, 129). 
 
 HEBREWS, THE EPISTLE TO 
 
 And while he himself rightly maintained its 
 canonical authority and used it freely, he was 
 even scrupulously careful to indicate in his 
 quotations that he did not by so doing decide 
 the question of its authorship. Augustine 
 adopted the same general view as Jerome, and 
 under his influence lists of Books for use in 
 Church were authorised at three African Councils 
 —at Hippo in 393, and at Carthage in 397 and 
 419. In these the Epistle to the Hebrews was 
 included; and henceforward, while thé doubts 
 as to the authorship of the Epistle were noticed 
 from time to time, the canonical authority of 
 the Book was not again called in question in 
 the West till the time of the Reformation. The 
 Catalogue of the second Council of Carthage was 
 transcribed in a letter of Innocent I. to Exsupe- 
 rius, and became part of the Law of the Roman 
 Church. 
 
 It is needless to follow in detail the statements 
 of later writers. A few interesting traces of 
 old doubts survive. Some commentators deal 
 only with thirteen Epistles of St. Paul (Hilary 
 of Rome, Migne, P. Z. xvii. pp. 45 sq.; Pelagius, 
 P. L. xxx. pp. 645 sq.; ep. Cassiod. de Inst. div. 
 litt. iv. 8), though Hilary and Pelagius speak of 
 the Epistle to the Hebrews elsewhere as a Book 
 of the Apostle. But the notices as to the 
 authorship of the Book are for the most part 
 simple repetitions of sentences of Jerome. Here 
 and there a writer of exceptional power uses his 
 materials with independence, but without real 
 knowledge. Thomas Aquinas, for example, 
 marshals the objections to the Pauline author- 
 ship and the answers to them in a true scholastic 
 form, and decides in favour of the Pauline 
 authorship on the ground of ancient authority, 
 and because “Jerome receives it among the 
 Epistles of Paul.” 
 
 At the revival of Greek learning in Eurepe, 
 when “the Grammarians” ventured to re-open 
 questions of Biblical criticism, the authorship 
 and, in part, the authority of the Epistle was 
 called in question, On this, as on other similar 
 subjects, Card. Cajetan spoke freely. Erasmus, 
 with fuller knowledge, expressed his doubts 
 “not as to the authority, but as to the author 
 of the Epistle; doubts,” he added characteris- 
 tically, “which would remain till he saw a 
 distinct judgment of the Church upon the 
 point.” Luther denied the Pauline authorship — 
 of the Book without hesitation, and, referring 
 to the earlier traditions, conjectured that it 
 was more likely to have been written by Apollos 4 
 (cp. Bleek, p. 249 n.), Calvin, while maintaining — 
 the full apostolical authority of the Epistle, pro- 
 fessed that he “could not be brought to think 
 that it was St. Paul’s.” He thought that it 
 might be a work of St. Luke or of Clement. 
 Beza also held that it was written by a disciple 
 of St. Paul. At first he inclined to adopt 
 Luther’s conjecture as to the authorship, but 
 this opinion he afterwards withdrew silently. 
 
 The review of the historical evidence as to 
 the authorship of the Epistle will have shown 
 sufficiently that there was no clear or uniform 
 tradition on the subject in the early Church. 
 Obyious circumstances are adequate to explain 
 why the names of St. Paul and St. Luke, Barna- 
 bas and Clement, were connected with it; and 
 in no case is the external testimony of such a 
 character as to justify the belief that it was 
 
HEBREWS, THE EPISTLE TO 
 
 derived from a tradition contemporary in origin 
 with the Book. It remains therefore to consider 
 how far internal testimony helps towards the 
 solution of the question. The direct evidence 
 furnished by the Epistle is slight, though there 
 is not the least indication that the writer wished 
 to conceal his personality. He was intimately 
 acquainted with those whom he addressed: vi. 
 9 sq.; x. 34 (rots δεσμίοις συνεπαθήσατε); xiii. 
 7; xiii, 19 (ἵνα τάχιον ἀποκατασταθῶ ὑμῖν), but 
 the last clause does not necessarily imply that 
 he belonged to their society, or that he was 
 in confinement. He speaks of Timothy as a 
 common friend: xiii. 23 (γινώσκετε τὸν ἀδελφὸν 
 ἡμῶν T. ἀπολελυμένον), and there is no reason 
 to question the identity of this Timothy with 
 the companion of St. Paul. He places himself 
 in the second generation of believers, as one who 
 had received the Gospel from those who heard 
 the Lord (ii. 3). 
 
 This last statement has been justly held to be 
 a most grave (or indeed fatal) objection to the 
 Pauline authorship. It is not possible to recon- 
 cileit without unnatural violence with St. Paul’s 
 jealous assertion of his immediate discipleship to 
 Christ (contrast Gal. i. 1, 11 sq.). On the other 
 hand, these few notices might all apply equally 
 well to St. Luke or Barnabas or Clement. 
 
 The indirect evidence supplied by the Epistle 
 is important at least negatively. The language 
 and teaching offer materials for comparison with 
 writings of the four authors suggested by tra- 
 dition. With St. Luke the comparison is 
 practically confined to the language: with 
 Barnabas, if we assume that his letter is 
 authentic, Clement, and St. Paul, it embraces 
 both language and teaching. 
 
 It has been already seen that the earliest 
 scholars who speak of the Epistle notice its 
 likeness in style to the writings of St. Luke; 
 and when every allowance has been made for 
 coincidences which consist in forms of expression 
 which are found also in the LXX. or in other 
 writers of the N. T., or in late Greek generally, 
 the likeness is unquestionably remarkable. No 
 one can work independently at the Epistle with- 
 out observing it (cp. p. 1313). But it is not 
 possible to establish any sure conclusion on such 
 a resemblance. The author of the Epistle may 
 have been familiar with the writings of St. 
 Luke themselves, or he may have been in close 
 connexion with the Evangelist or with those 
 whose language was moulded by his influence. 
 In any case the likeness of vocabulary and 
 expression is not greater than that which exists 
 between 1 Peter and the Epistles of St. Paul. 
 If indeed it were credible that the Epistle was 
 originally written in “Hebrew,” then the 
 external and internal evidence combined would 
 justify the belief that the Greek text is due to 
 St. Luke. If that opinion is out of the question, 
 the historical evidence for St. Luke’s connexion 
 with the Epistle is either destroyed or greatly 
 weakened, and the internal evidence gives no 
 valid result. 
 
 The superficial resemblances between the 
 Epistle and the Letter of Clement, both in 
 vocabulary and form, are very striking. It 
 would be easy to draw up a list of parallelisms 
 in words and manner sufficient to justify the 
 judgment of Eusebius. But these parallelisms 
 are more than counterbalanced by differences in 
 
 HEBREWS, THE EPISTLE TO 1321 
 
 both respects. Clement has an unusually large 
 number of peculiar words; and his heaping 
 together of co-ordinate clauses (as 1, 3, 20, 35, 
 36, 45, 55), his frequent doxologies (20, 38, 43, 
 45, 50, 58, 59), and to a certain extent his 
 method of quotation, sharply distinguish his 
 writing from the Epistle to the Hebrews. 
 Moreover a closer examination of the parallel- 
 isms with the Epistle makes it clear that they 
 are due to a use of it, like the use which is 
 made of the Epistles of St. Paul (e.g. c. 49). And, 
 what is of far greater moment, the wide differ- 
 ence between the two works in range of thought, 
 in dogmatic depth, in prophetic insight, makes 
 it impossible to suppose that the Epistle to the 
 Corinthians could have been written after the 
 Epistle to the Hebrews by the same writer. 
 Clement is essentially receptive and imitative. 
 He combines, but he does not create. Even if 
 the external evidence for connecting him with 
 the Epistle were greater than it is, the internal 
 evidence would be incompatible with any other 
 connexion than that of a simple translator. 
 
 Some differences in style between the Epistle 
 and the writings of St. Paul have been already 
 noticed. A more detailed inquiry shows that 
 these cannot be adequately explained by differ- 
 ences of subject or of circumstances. They 
 characterise two men, and not only two moods 
 or two discussions. The student will feel the 
 subtle force of the contrast if he compares 
 the Epistle to the Hebrews with the Epistle 
 to the Ephesians, to which it has the closest 
 affinity. But it is as difficult to represent the 
 contrast by an enumeration of details as it is to 
 analyse an effect. It must be felt for a right 
 appreciation of its force. So it is also with the 
 dogmatic differences between the writer and 
 St. Paul. 
 
 There is unquestionably a sense in which 
 Origen is right in saying that “the thoughts” 
 of the Epistle are the thoughts of St. Paul. 
 The writer shows the same broad conception of 
 the universality of the Gospel as the Apostle 
 of the Gentiles, the same grasp of the age-long 
 purpose of God wrought out through Israel, 
 the same trust in the atoning work of Christ 
 and in His present sovereignty. He speaks 
 with the same conscious mastery of the Divine 
 Counsel. But he approaches each topic from a 
 different side. He looks at all as from within 
 Israel, and not as from without. He speaks as 
 one who step by step had read the fulfilment of 
 the Old Covenant in the New without any rude 
 crisis of awakening or any sharp struggle with 
 traditional errors. His Judaism has been all 
 along the Judaism of the prophets and not that 
 of the Pharisees, of the O. T. and not of the 
 schools (cp. p. 1314 sq.). 
 
 The differences between the Epistle and the 
 Epistle which bears the name of Barnabas 
 involve a contrast of principles and not simply 
 of details, both in the treatment of the O. T. 
 Scriptures and in the treatment of the Levitical 
 system. The spiritual interpretation of the 
 historical records in the Epistle of Barnabas is 
 arbitrary and trivial (6.0. cc. ix., xv.). The 
 Levitical legislation had, according to this writ- 
 ing, no historical, no disciplinary value what- 
 ever. The outward embodiment of the enigmatic 
 ordinances was a pernicious delusion. Chris- 
 tians alone had the key to their meaning. 
 
1322 HEBREWS, THE EPISTLE TO 
 
 We are left then with a negative conclusion. 
 The Epistle cannot be the work of St. Paul, and 
 still less the work of Clement. It may have 
 been written by St. Luke. It may have been 
 written by Barnabas, if the Epistle of Barna- 
 bas is apocryphal. The scanty evidence which 
 is accessible to us supports no more definite 
 judgment. 
 
 One conjecture, however, remains to be 
 noticed, not indeed for its own intrinsic worth, 
 but because it has found favour with many 
 scholars. Luther, as we have seen, with 
 characteristic originality conjectured that it 
 was the work of Apollos. The sole ground for 
 the conjecture is the brief description of Apollos 
 which is found in the N. T. (Acts xviii. 24 sq. ; 
 1 Cor. i. 12, iii. 4 sq.). But the utmost which 
 can be deduced from these notices is that 
 Apollos, so far as we know, might have written 
 the Epistle; just as what we know of Silas is 
 consistent with the opinion that he wrote it, and 
 has even suggested it. But on the other hand it 
 is to be remembered that there is not the least 
 evidence that Apollos wrote anything, or that he 
 was the only man or the only Alexandrian in 
 the Apostolic age who was “learned ... and 
 mighty in the Scriptures,” or that he possessed 
 these qualifications more than others among his 
 contemporaries, or that, in the connexion in 
 which they are noticed, they suggest the 
 presence of the peculiar power which is shown 
 in the Epistle. The wide acceptance of the 
 conjecture as a fact is only explicable by our 
 natural unwillingness to frankly confess our 
 ignorance on a matter which excites our 
 interest. 
 
 And yet in this case the confession of ignor- 
 ance is really the confirmation of an inspiriting 
 faith. We acknowledge the Divine authority of 
 the Epistle, self-attested and ratified by the 
 illuminated consciousness of the Christian 
 Society: we measure what would have been 
 our loss if it had not been included in our 
 Bible; and we confess that the wealth of 
 spiritual power was so great in the early 
 Church that he who was enabled to commit 
 to writing this view of the fulness of the 
 Truth has not by that conspicuous service 
 even left his name for the grateful reverence of 
 later ages. It was enough that the faith and 
 the love were there to render ministry to the 
 Lord (Matt. xxvi. 13). 
 
 In the course of this century the authorship 
 of the Epistle has been debated with exhaustive 
 thoroughness. Bleek’s Introduction to his Com- 
 mentary is a treasury of materials, arranged 
 and used with scrupulous fairness. It would be 
 difficult to make any important additions to his 
 view of the external facts. All the recent 
 Commentaries discuss the question more or less 
 fully. It will be enough to refer to some 
 representative writers who advocate the claims 
 of particular men to the authorship. The case 
 for St. Paul is maintained, with various modifi- 
 cations, by Ebrard, Hofmann, Biesenthal, Kay: 
 for St. Luke, by Deiitzsch: for Apollos, by 
 Alford, Kurtz, Farrar: for Barnabas, by Grau, 
 Renan, Zahn (cp. Holtzmann, Zinl. p. 318 sq.). 
 
 Commentaries. —The most important early 
 Commentaries are those of CHrysostom (xxxiv. 
 Homilies; Migne, P. Gr. 1xiii.), OxcuMENIUS 
 (Migne, P. Gr. cxix.), THEOpHYLAcT (Migne, 
 
 HEBRON 
 
 P. Gr. exxy.), EUTHYMIUS (ed. Calogeras, 1887), 
 among the Greeks; and of PRimasius (Migne, 
 P. Lat. \xviii., also under the name of Haymo, 
 td. cxvii.), HeERvVEUS BURGIDALENSIS (Migne, 
 P. Lat, clxxxi.), THOMAS AQUINAS, among the 
 Latins. 
 
 Of later commentators the following may be 
 named out of many as having a representative 
 value :— 
 
 16th cent.: Erasmus (1516), CALVIN (1539), 
 ΒΕΖΑ (1565). 
 
 17th cent.: Lup. Tona (1611), Corn. A 
 LAPIDE (1614), Esrrus (1614), Grorrus (1632), 
 SZLICHTING (1634), Hammonp (1653). 
 
 18th cent.: Wuirpy (1700), BENGEL (1742). 
 
 19th cent.: BLEEK (1828-40), THoLuck 
 (1836-1850), EBRARD (1850), DeLirzscu (1857), 
 Kurtz (1869), Ewaup (1870), HormANN (1873), 
 MOLL (1877, ed. 3), LUNEMANN (1878, ed. 4), 
 KeEIL (1885) (Germany). 
 
 In England many separate Commentaries have 
 been published in late years in addition to those 
 contained in Commentaries on the whole Ν, T.: 
 e.g. by Davidson (A. B., 1879), Edwards (T. C., 
 1892‘), Farrar (F. W., 1883), Rendal (F., 1885), 
 Vaughan (C. J., 1890), Westcott (B. F., 1889). 
 
 The work of Riehm (E. K. A.) on the teaching 
 of the Epistle (Der Lehrbegriff d. Hebraerbriefs 
 dargestelit, 1858, 1867) is of the highest value. 
 
 [B. F. W.] 
 
 HEB-RON (})031] = union: Χεβρών; in 
 1 Ch. xv. 9, B. Χεβρώμ : Hebron). 1. The third 
 son of Kohath, who was the second son of Levi; 
 the younger brother of Amram, father of Moses 
 and Aaron (Ex. vi. 18; Num. iii. 19; 1 Ch. vi. 
 2, 18, xxiii. 12). The immediate children of 
 Hebron are not mentioned by name (cp. Ex. vi. 
 21, 22), but he was the founder of a “ family ” 
 (Mishpachah) of Hebronites (Num. iii. 27, xxvi. 
 58; 1 Ch. xxvi. 23, 30, 31) or .Bene-Hebron 
 (1 Ch. xv. 9, xxiii. 19), who are often mentioned 
 in the enumerations of the Levites in the 
 passages above cited. JERIAH was the head of 
 the family in the time of David (1 Ch. xxiii. 19, 
 xxvi. 31, xxiv. 23: in the last of these passages 
 the name of Hebron does not now exist in the 
 Hebrew, but has been supplied in the A. V. and 
 R. V. from the other lists). In the last year of 
 David’s reign we find them settled at Jazer in 
 Gilead (a place not elsewhere named as a Leviti- 
 
 cal city), “mighty men of valour ” On 2), 
 2,700 in number, who were superintendents for 
 the king over the two and a half tribes in 
 regard to all matters sacred and secular (1 Ch. 
 xxvi. 31, 32). At the same time 1700 of the 
 family under Hashabiah held the same office on 
 the west * of Jordan (v. 30). 
 
 2. This name appears in the genealogical 
 lists of the tribe of Judah (1 Ch. ii. 42, 43), 
 where Mareshah is said to have been the 
 “father of Hebron,” who again had four sons, 
 
 a The expression here is (R. V.) ‘‘ had the oversight of 
 Israel beyond (74))D) Jordan westward (4 4))),” 
 &c. “Beyond Jordan” generally means ‘‘on the east ;”” 
 but here, induced probably by the word following, ‘* west- 
 ward,” our translators have rendered it ‘‘on this side” 
 (cp. Deut. i. 1, 5; Josh. ix. 1, ἄς. See Dillmann? 7. 
 cc.). Were Hashabiah and his brethren settled on the 
 western side of the Transjordanic country ? 
 
HEBRON 
 
 one of whom was Tappuach. The three names 
 just mentioned are those of places, as are also 
 many others in the subsequent branches of this 
 genealogy—Ziph, Maon, Bethzur, &c. But it 
 seems impossible to say whether these names 
 are those of the places themselves or of persons 
 who founded them. [6 Ὁ} 
 
 HEB-RON (Ἷ Ἴ2Π; Χεβρὼμ and Χεβρών ; 
 Hebron, 1 Mace. v. 65 Chebron ; Arab. Suis 
 
 = “the friend”). 1. A city of Judah (Josh. xy. 
 54), situated among the mountains (Josh. xx. 
 7, xxi. 11), 22 Roman miles south of Jerusalem 
 (Euseb. 8.0. ᾿Αρβώ, OS. p. 233, 65), and 20 miles 
 north of Beersheba (OS.? p. 248, 100). Hebron 
 is one of the oldest existing Bible towns; and 
 in this respect it is the rival of Damascus. [0 
 was built “seven years before Zoan in Egypt” 
 (Num. xiii. 22), or according to Josephus (B. J. 
 iv. 9, § 7), who says that it was in his day 
 _ 2,300 years old, before Memphis ; and it was a 
 well-known town when Abram pitched his tent 
 “by the oaks of Mamre,” after separating from 
 Lot on the heights of Bethel (Gen. xiii. 18). 
 Its original name was Kirjath-Arba, R. V. 
 Kiriath-A. ΟΣ ΤΡ; LXX., Κιριαθ-αρβοκ- 
 σεφέρ, Gen. xxiii. 2, xxxv. 27; Josh. xv. 54, 
 xx. 7; Judg. i. 10), “the city of Arba;” so 
 called from Arba, “ the greatest man among the 
 Anakim” (Josh. xiv. 15) and the father of 
 Anak (xy. 13, xxi. 11). [ANakim.] By later 
 writers it was interpreted as the “ city of four,” 
 which Jerome explains (OS.? p. 120, 9; Ep. 
 Paul. § 11) as referring to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, 
 and Adam, who were buried there. [KIRJATH- 
 ARBA.| Hebron was also sometimes called 
 Mamre (Gen. xxiii. 19, xxxv. 27), probably from 
 Abram’s friend and ally Mamre, the Amorite 
 (xiv. 13, 24), under the shadow of whose oaks 
 the Patriarch dwelt (xiii. 18, xiv. 13, xviii. 1). 
 [Mamre.] Its modern name, el-Khalil, ‘the 
 Friend,” i.e. of God, is that by which Muham- 
 madans call Abraham (cp. Is. ΣΧ]. 8; Jas. 
 ii. 23). 
 
 The chief interest of Hebron arises from its 
 having been the home and the burial-place of 
 the Patriarchs, and the scene of some of the 
 most remarkable events in their lives. Abram 
 
 dwelt there during the interval between his_ 
 
 sojourn at Bethel and Beersheba (Gen. xiii. 18), 
 and there his name was changed to Abraham 
 (xvii. 5). It was “by the oaks of Mamre,” at 
 Hebron, that Abraham entertained the Angels 
 unawares (xviii.); there Isaac was born; and 
 there Sarah died (xxiii. 2), and was buried in 
 the “ cave of the field of Machpelah,” which the 
 Patriarch bought from Ephron the Hittite as a 
 burial-place for his family (xxiii. 3-20). The 
 city then apparently belonged to the children of 
 Heth, who ratified by their presence (vv. 17, 18) 
 the contract between Abraham and Ephron. 
 (Hirrires.] It was also the home, for a portion 
 of their lives, of Isaac and Jacob (xxxv. 27; 
 xxxvii. 14); thence Jacob and his sons probably 
 went down to Egypt (xxxvii. 14; cp. xlvi. 1); 
 and there the three Patriarchs and their wives, ex- 
 cepting Rebecca, were buried (xlix. 30, 31 ; 1.13). 
 Hebron was visited by the twelve spies (Num. 
 xiii. 22); and after Joshua had killed the king 
 Hoham, destroyed the town, and put the in- 
 habitants to the sword (Josh. x. 3, 5, 23, 26, 
 
 HEBRON 1323 
 
 36-39; xi. 21; xii. 10), it was given to Caleb, 
 who drove out the Anakim (xiv. 13, xv. 13, 14; 
 Judg. i. 20; cp. 1 Ch. 11. 42, 43). It was one 
 of the six cities of refuge (Josh. xx. 7), and 
 was given to the Kohathite Levites (Josh. xxi. 
 11, 13; 1 Ch. vi. 2, 55, 57). During the time 
 of the Judges it is mentioned in connexion with 
 one of Samson’s exploits (Judg. xvi. 3). Hebron 
 acquired new importance when David, who, 
 whilst living in Philistia, maintained friendly 
 relations with its chiefs (1 Sam. xxx. 31), made 
 it the seat of government, and his place of 
 residence during the Τὰ years that he reigned 
 over Judah (2 Sam. ii. 1, ὃ, 11, 32; cp.1 Kings 
 ii. 11; 1 Ch. xxix. 27). There six sons were 
 born to David (2 Sam. 11. 5; 1 Ch. iii. 1-4); 
 there he was joined by the “‘ men-of-war”; and 
 there he was anointed king over all the tribes 
 of Israel (2 Sam. v. 1, 3; 1 Ch. xi. 1-3, xii. 
 23, 38). Hebron was the scene of the cruel 
 murder of Abner by Joab (2 Sam. iii. 27) and 
 the place of his burial (iii. 32, iv. 12); and 
 beside the pool the murderers of Ishbosheth 
 were hanged (iv. 12). At this time it contained 
 a sanctuary of Jehovah, to which pilgrimages 
 were made and offerings vowed (2 Sam. xv. 7), 
 possibly the ancient sepulchres of the founders 
 of the nation within the enclosure at Machpelah 
 (see Jerome, Quaest. Heb. on 2 Sam. xv. 7); or 
 perhaps the site of the altar erected by Abram 
 (Gen. xiii. 18). Josephus, indeed (Ant. viii. 2, 
 § 1), makes Hebron, and not Gibeon, the site of 
 the “high place” where Solomon prayed for 
 wisdom and knowledge (2 Ch. i. 3-13). Ab- 
 salom raised the standard of revolt at Hebron 
 (2 Sam. xv. 7-10); and at a later date it was 
 fortified by Rehoboam (2 Ch. xi. 10). It was 
 re-occupied after the Captivity (Neh. xi. 25), but 
 afterwards fell into the hands of the Edomites, 
 from whom it was captured by Judas Maccabaeus 
 (1 Macc. v. 65; Joseph. Ant. xii. 8, § 6). 
 During the interval ‘between the conquest of 
 Galilee by the Romans, and the final siege of 
 Jerusalem, it was seized by Simon Bar-Gioras, 
 but was shortly afterwards captured and burnt 
 by Cerealis, one of the commanders of Vespasian 
 (B. J. iv. 9, §§ 7,9). Early in the 4th century 
 Eusebius describes it (OS.? p. 233, 65) as a large 
 town, κώμη μεγίστη ; and it is mentioned -in 
 connexion with the tombs of the Patriarchs by 
 all the earlier pilgrims. In the 6th century it 
 was taken by the Arabs, when they conquered 
 Palestine, and during their occupation it was 
 visited by Arculf, who describes the city as 
 having been long destroyed (ii. 8), and by 
 Willibald, who calls it Aframia (EZ. T. p. 20). 
 In A.D. 1100, after the capture of Jerusalem, it 
 was occupied by the Crusaders; it had then 
 been destroyed by the Saracens, and lay for a 
 time in ruins, being known as castellum or 
 praesidium ad sanctum Abraham (Saewulf, FE. T. 
 p- 45; Albert Aq. vi. 15, 41, 43, x. 32, xii. 22). 
 In 1187 it was made the seat of a Latin bishop- 
 ric (Will. Tyr. xx. 3), but twenty years later it 
 reverted to the Moslems, in whose hands it has 
 ever since remained. It is now one of the four 
 sacred towns of Palestine, and has a population 
 of about 17,000 Moslems and 1200 Jews. 
 Modern Hebron is, for the most part, situated 
 on the left bank of a valley running from N.W. 
 to S.E., and is built partly on the hill slope and 
 partly in the valley. It has no walls, but the 
 
1324 HEBRON 
 
 ends of the main streets are closed by gates. 
 The town is divided into four quarters, and the 
 houses are built of stone, with flat roofs having 
 domes in the middle. It is well supplied with 
 water; there are six springs in its immediate 
 vicinity, and ten wells of large size. Amongst 
 
 amidst the olive-trees 
 85 ft. long and 
 larger one, 
 
 Ishbosheth were han ged 
 
 and gardens is a “ pool,” 
 59 ft. broad, and lower down a 
 133 ft. square and 21 ft. deep, which 
 is of ancient construction, and traditionally 
 supposed to be that by which the murderers of 
 
 (2 Sam. iv. 12). The 
 
 HEBRON 
 
 these are ‘Ain Keshkaleh, which perhaps retains 
 a trace of the name EsHcoL; ‘Ain el-Judeideh, a 
 fine spring in a vault where, according to a 
 mediaeval tradition, Adam and Eve mourned for 
 Abel; Bir Ibrahim, said to be as old as the time 
 of Abraham, and Bir γαλῆν. In the valley 
 
 RS 
 
 TK 
 Wy iN 
 ἐξ 
 
 Hebron. 
 
 N 
 yt i 
 mn 
 
 most conspicuous object in the town is the 
 Haram, or “ sacred area,” 197 ft. long and 111 ft. 
 broad, within which are the tombs of the 
 Patriarchs [MacHPELAH]. The masonry of the 
 enclosing walls is identical in character with 
 that of the Wailing Place at Jerusalem, 
 
HEBRON 
 
 and is therefore almost certainly Herodian. The 
 Haram at Hebron would almost seem to have 
 been a copy in miniature of that at Jerusalem. 
 In both a level platform is obtained by massive 
 walls of large stones with marginal drafts. At 
 Hebron the wall above the platform rises to a 
 height of 25 ft., and is ornamented with pilas- 
 ters; and this appears to have been the case at 
 JeRUSALEM, At the N.W. and S.E. corners of 
 the Haram there are lofty minarets ; and within 
 the enclosure are a mosque, originally a 12th- 
 —century church, and the shrines of the Patriarchs 
 
 7; 
 
 Y 
 
 UIT 
 
 € 
 Plan of the Mosque at Hebron. 
 
 a. Shrine of Abraham; b. of Sarah; c. of Isaac; d. of Rebecca; 
 e. of Jacob; f. of Leah: h. of Joseph. m, m. Minarets. 
 
 and their wives. (For the Haram, see Conder in 
 PEF. Mem. iii. 333 sq.; and, for the cave itself, 
 Cte. Riant, Archives del’ Orient Latin, ii. 411 sq.). 
 On the N.W. side of the Haram is a ruined 
 fortress. 
 
 The sides of the valley in which Hebron lies 
 are clothed with luxuriant vineyards, whilst 
 groves of grey olive and other fruit trees give 
 variety to the scene. Above ‘Ain el-Judeideh, 
 westward of the Haram, rise the terraced sides 
 of Jebel er-Rumeidy, on which are the Deir el- 
 Arbain, containing the traditional tombs of 
 Jesse and Ruth, and the Kabr Hebriin, held by 
 the Jews of Hebron to be the tomb of Abner. 
 At the foot of the hill is the Ager Damascenus, 
 from the red earth of which, according to 
 tradition, Adam was made; Theodoricus (xxxiv.) 
 and John of Wiirzburg (xxi.) state that the 
 earth was eaten by the inhabitants and exported 
 to Egypt. About 2 miles west of the Haram 
 is a fine Sindidn, called “ Abraham’s oak,” which 
 from the 12th century has been pointed out to 
 Christians as the tree beneath which Abraham 
 pitched his tent. 
 
 The Jews following ancient tradition place 
 the oak of Mamre at Haram Rdmet el-Khulil, 
 a remarkable ruin 2 miles north of Hebron, 
 which was formerly called Drys, Apis, or Tere- 
 binthus (Euseb. and Jerome, OS? p. 257, 27; 
 
 HEDGE 1325 
 
 p- 148, 16; Ztin. Hierosol.). Some of the earlier 
 pilgrims distinguished Hebron the old city from 
 the later town that had gathered round the 
 spelunca duplex in which the Patriarchs were 
 buried. Thus Theodosius (xxi.) makes Terebinthus 
 4 miles from the spelunca duplex, and the latter 
 2 miles from Hebron. Arculf (ii. 9) places the 
 cave 1 furlong E. of Hebron and the oak of 
 Mamre 1 mile to the north; Abbot Daniel 
 (liliii.) makes the cave 2 versts from the 
 ‘oak, which was on a high mountain, and half a 
 verst from Hebron; Benjamin of Tudela says 
 (Ε. T. p. 86) that the ancient city was situated 
 on the hill, and in ruins, whilst the modern town 
 was in the valley. Guérin suggests (Judée, iii. 
 243) that the ancient city of Hebron was on 
 Jebel er-Rumeidy. It may perhaps be inferred 
 from Gen. xxiii. 19 that the cave of Machpelah 
 was to the east of Hebron; but it seems un- 
 necessary to suppose that the town was on a 
 hill, Caleb’s portion, ‘the fields of the city” 
 (Josh. xxi. 12), probably included Wddy Tuffuh, 
 the traditionary Eshcol, and the whole network 
 of valleys near the town; and the “vale of 
 Hebron ” (Gen. xxxvii, 14), the valley that runs 
 down from “ Abraham’s oak” (PEF. Mem. iii. 
 305-308, 316, 322, 332 sq.; Rob. ii. 75 sq.; 
 Hbk. S.and P.; Sepp, Jerusalem und H. L.i. 594 
 sq.; Rosen, ZDMG. xii. 477; Guérin, Judee, iii. 
 214 sq.). [W.] 
 2. R. V. Epron (Δ) and f)72y; B. "EAB ar, 
 A. ᾿Αχράν ; Achran, later editions Abran). One 
 of the towns in the territory of Asher (Josh. xix. 
 28), on the boundary of the tribe, It is named 
 next to Rehob, and is apparently in the neigh- 
 bourhood of Sidon. By Eusebius and Jerome it 
 is merely mentioned (8. v. Achran, OS.” p. 242, 
 73; p. 130, 8), and no one in modern times 
 has discovered its site (see some conjectures in 
 Dillmann? in loco). It will be observed that 
 the name in the original is quite different from 
 that of Hebron, the well-known city of Judah 
 (No. 1), although in the A. V. they are the 
 same, our translators having represented the 
 Ain by H, instead of by G, or by the vowel only, 
 as is their usual custom. But, in addition, it is 
 not certain whether the name should not rather 
 be Ebdon or Abdon (}132), since that form is 
 found in many MSS. (Davidson, Hebr. Teat ; 
 Ges. Thes. p. 980), and since an Abdon is named 
 amongst the Levitical cities of Asher in other 
 lists, which otherwise would be unmentioned 
 here. On the other hand, the old Versions 
 (excepting only the Vat. LXX., which is 
 obviously corrupt) unanimously retain Ebron. 
 
 [Aspon. ] [61 [W.] 
 
 HEBRONITES, THE (31730; Hebroni, 
 Hebronitae). A family of Kohathite Levites, 
 descendants of Hebron, the son of Levi (Num. 
 iii, 47 [BA. Χεβρωνείς, F. om.], xxvi. 58 [Β. 
 Χεβρωνεί, A. -wv, F. -wvi]; 1 Ch. xxvi. 23, 
 Χεβρών). In the time of David, the chief of 
 the family west of Jordan was Hashabiah; while 
 on the east, in the land of Gilead, were Jerijah 
 and his brethren, “men of valour,” over the 
 Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half tribe of 
 Manasseh (1 Ch, xxvi. 30-32). cw. A. W.] 
 
 HEDGE 173, 174, WTI; MDD, T2019; 
 φραγμός). The first three words thus rendered 
 
1826 HEDGEHOG 
 
 in the A. V., as well as their Greek equivalent, 
 denote simply that which surrounds or encloses, 
 whether it be a stone wall (11a, géder, Prov. 
 
 xxiv, 31; Ezek. xlii. 10), or a fence of other 
 materials. 17a, gadér, and ΠΥ}, g’dérah, are 
 used of the hedge of a vineyard (Num. xxii. 24; 
 Ps. Ixxxix. 40; 1 Ch. iv. 23), and the latter is 
 employed to describe the wide walls of stone, or 
 fences of thorn, which served as a shelter for 
 sheep in winter and summer (Num. xxxii. 16). 
 The stone walls which surround the sheepfolds 
 of modern Palestine are frequently crowned with 
 sharp thorns (Thomson, Zand and the Book, i. 
 299), a custom at least as ancient as the time of 
 Homer (Od. xiy. 10), when a kind of prickly 
 pear (&xepdos) was used for that purpose, as 
 well as for the fences of corn-fields at a later 
 period: (Arist. Eccl. 355). In order to protect 
 the vineyards from the ravages of wild beasts 
 (Ps. Ixxx. 12), it was customary to surround 
 them with a wall of loose stones or mud (Matt. 
 xxi. 33; Mark xii. 1), which was a favourite 
 haunt of serpents (Eccles. x. 8), and a retreat for 
 locusts from the cold (Nah. iii.17). Such walls 
 are described by Maundrell as surrounding the 
 gardens of Damascus. “They are built of 
 great pieces of earth, made in the fashion of 
 brick and hardened in the sun. In their 
 dimensions they are each two yards long and 
 somewhat more than one broad, and half a yard 
 thick. Two rows of these, placed one upon 
 another, make a cheap, expeditious, and, in this 
 dry country, a durable wall ” (Early Trav. in 
 Pal. p. 487). A wall or fence of this kind is 
 clearly distinguished in Is. v. 5 from the tangled 
 hedge, MDW), m’sicah (Π3 Ὁ, Mic. vii. 4), 
 which was planted as an additional safeguard to 
 the vineyard (cp. Ecclus. xxviii. 24), and was 
 composed of the thorny shrubs with which 
 Palestine abounds. The prickly pear, a species 
 of cactus, so frequently employed for this 
 purpose in the East at present, is believed to be 
 of comparatively modern introduction, The 
 aptness of the comparison of a tangled hedge 
 of thorn to the difficulties which a slothful man 
 conjures up as an excuse for his inactivity, will 
 be at once recognised (Prov. xy. 195 cp. Hos, ii. 
 6). The narrow paths between the hedges of 
 the vineyards and gardens, with a fence on either 
 side (Num. xxii. 24), are distinguished from the 
 “highways,” or more frequented tracks, in 
 Luke xiv. 23. [W. A. W.} 
 
 HEDGEHOG. The rendering in Is, xxxiy. 
 12 in Coverdale’s translation’ of BP, hippad 5 
 ἐχῖνος πελεκάν, Aq. ; κύκνος, Theod. in Zeph. ii, 
 14; ericius. In R. V. « porcupine,” in this and 
 the other two passages where it occurs, viz. Is, 
 xiv. 23, Zeph. ii. 14. But A. V. has in all “bit 
 tern.” [ΒΙΤΤΒΕΝ.7 [H. B. 11 
 
 HE’GAI ΟΠ, Pers. name, Ges.; Tat; Egeus), 
 one of the eunuchs (A, V, « chamberlains ”’) of 
 the court of Ahasuerus, who had special charge 
 of the women of the harem (Esth. ii, 8, 15). 
 According to the Hebrew text, he was a distinct 
 person from the “keeper of the concubines ”— 
 Shaashgaz (v. 14), but the LXX, have the same 
 name in v. 14 as in v. 8, while in », 15 they omit 
 it altogether. In v. 3 the name is given under 
 the different form of 
 
 HEIR ; 
 HE’'GE, R. V. HEGAI (N11; Zgeus, pro- 
 
 bably a Persian name). Aja signifies eunuch in 
 Sanscrit, in accordance with which the LXX. 
 have τῷ εὐνούχῳ. Hegias, ‘Hylas, is mentioned 
 by Ctesias as one of the people about Xerxes 
 (Gesenius, Zhes. Addenda, p. 83 ὃ). 
 
 HEIFER (11932, 778; δάμαλις ; vaca). The 
 Hebrew language has no expression that exactly 
 corresponds to our heifer; for both ‘eglah and 
 
 parah are applied to cows that have calved 
 ; (1 Sam. vi. 7-12; Job xxi. 10; Is. vii. 21): 
 | indeed eglah means a young animal of any 
 species, the full expression being ‘eglath bagar, © 
 “heifer of kine” (Deut. xxi. 3; 1 Sam. xvi. 2; 
 Is. vii. 21). The heifer or young cow was not 
 commonly used for ploughing, but only ° for 
 treading out the corn (Hos. x. 11; but see 
 Judg. xiv. 18), when it ran about without any 
 “muzzle ” (Deut. xxv. 4); hence the expression 
 an “unbroken heifer” (Hos. iv. 16; A. V. 
 “backsliding,” R. V. “stubborn ”), to which 
 Israel is compared. A similar sense has been 
 attached to the expression “calf of three years 
 old,” i.e. wnsubdued, in Is. xy. Ὁ, Jer. xlviii. 34; 
 but it is much more probably to be taken, with 
 R. V., as a proper name, ‘Zglath Shelishiyah, such 
 names being not uncommon. The sense of 
 “dissolute ” is conveyed undoubtedly in Amos 
 iv. 1. The comparison of Egypt to a “ fair 
 heifer” (Jer. xlvi. 20) may be an allusion to 
 the well-known form under which Apis was 
 worshipped (to which we may also refer the 
 words in v, 15, as understood in the LXXx.,, 
 “Why is the bullock [μόσχος ἐκλεκτός swept: 
 away?”); the “destruction ” threatened being 
 the bite of the gad-fly (R. V. marg.), to which 
 the word géres would fitly apply. “To plough 
 with another man’s heifer” (Judg. xiv. 18) 
 implies that an advantage has been gained by 
 unfair means. The proper names Eglah, En- 
 eglaim, and Parah are derived from the Hebrew 
 terms at the head of this article. [W.L. ΒΩ 
 
 HEIR. The Hebrew institutions relative to 
 inheritance were of a very simple character (see 
 Bloch, Das Mos.-Talm. Erbrecht, Budapest, 
 1890). Under the Patriarchal system the pro- 
 perty was divided among the sons of the legiti- 
 mate wives (Gen, xxi. 10, xxiv. 36, xxv. 5), a 
 larger portion being assigned to one, generally 
 the eldest, on whom devolved the duty of 
 maintaining the females of the family. [Brrru- 
 RIGHT.] The sons of concubines were portioned 
 off with presents (Gen. xxv. 6): occasionally 
 they were placed on a par with the legitimate 
 sons (Gen. xlix. 1 sq.), but this may have been 
 restricted to cases where the children had been 
 adopted by the legitimate wife (Gen. xxx. 3). 
 At a later period the exclusion of the sons of 
 concubines was rigidly enforced (Judg. xi. 1 
 
 | sq.). Daughters had no share in the patrimony 
 
 (Gen. xxxi. 14), but received a marriage portion, 
 consisting of a maid-servant (Gen. xxix. 24, 29), 
 or some other property. As a matter of special 
 favour they sometimes took part with the sons 
 (Job xlii. 15). The Mosaic Law regulated the 
 succession to real property thus: it was to be 
 divided among the sons, the eldest receiving a 
 double portion (Deut. xxi. 17), the others equal 
 shares: if there were no sons, it went to the 
 daughters (Num. xxvii. 8), on the condition that 
 
HEIR 
 
 they did not marry out of their own tribe (Num. 
 . xxxvi. 6 sq.; Tob. vi. 12, vii. 13), otherwise the 
 patrimony was forfeited (Joseph. Ant. iv. 7, § 5). 
 If there were no daughters, it went to the 
 brother of the deceased; if no brother, to the 
 paternal uncle; and, failing these, to the next 
 of kin (Num. xxvii. 9-11). In the case of a 
 widow being left without children, the nearest 
 of kin on her husband’s side had the right of 
 marrying her, and in the event of his refusal 
 the next of kin (Ruth iii. 12, 13): with’ him 
 rested the obligation of redeeming the property 
 of the widow (Ruth iv. 1 sq.), if it had been 
 either sold or mortgaged: this obligation was 
 termed ΠΡ Π DBWID (“the right of redemp- 
 tion’), and was exercised in other cases besides 
 that of marriage (Jer. xxxii. 7 sq.). If none 
 stepped forward to marry the widow, the in- 
 heritance remained with her until her death, 
 and then reverted to the next of kin. The 
 object of these regulations evidently was to 
 prevent the alienation of the land, and to retain 
 it in the same family: the Mosaic Law en- 
 forced, in short, a strict entail. Even the as- 
 signment of the double portion, which under the 
 patriarchal régime had been at the disposal of 
 the father (Gen. xlviii. 22), was by the Mosaic 
 Law limited to the eldest son (Deut. xxi. 15-17). 
 The case of Achsah, to whom Caleb presented 
 a field (Josh. xv. 18, 19; Judg. i. 15), is an 
 exception: but perhaps even in that instance 
 the land reverted to Caleb’s descendants either 
 at the death of Achsah or in the year of Jubilee. 
 The land being thus so strictly tied up, the 
 notion of heirship, as we understand it, was 
 hardly known to the Jews: succession was a 
 matter of right, and not of favour—a state of 
 things which is embodied in the Hebrew language 
 itself, for the word W7 (A. V. “to inherit”) 
 implies possession, and very often forcible posses- 
 sion (Deut. ii. 12; Judg. i. 29, xi. 24), and a 
 similar idea lies at the root of the words Mins 
 
 and mbna, generally translated “inheritance.” 
 
 Testamentary dispositions were in ἃ sense 
 superfluous (Bloch, § 63): the nearest approach 
 _to the idea is the blessing, which in early times 
 conveyed temporal as well as spiritual benefits 
 (Gen. xxvii. 19, 37; Josh. xv. 19). The re- 
 ferences to wills in St. Paul’s writings are 
 borrowed from the usages of Greece and Rome 
 (Heb. ix. 17), whence the custom was intro- 
 duced into Judaea: several wills are noticed by 
 Josephus in connexion with the Herods (Ani. 
 xiii. 16, § 1, xvii. 3, § 2; B. J. ii. 2, § 3). 
 
 With regard to personal property, it may be 
 presumed that the owner had some authority 
 over it, at all events during his lifetime. The 
 admission of a slave toa portion of the inherit- 
 ance with the sons (Prov. xvii. 2) probably 
 applies only to the personalty. A presentation 
 of half the personalty formed the marriage 
 portion of Tobit’s wife (Tob. viii. 21), A dis- 
 tribution of goods during the father’s lifetime 
 is implied in Luke xv. 11-13: a distinction may 
 be noted between οὐσία, a general term appli- 
 cable to personalty, and κληρονομία, the landed 
 property, which could only be divided after the 
 father’s death (Luke xii. 13). 
 
 There is a striking resemblance between the 
 Hebrew and Athenian customs of heirship, 
 
 HELBON 1327 
 particularly as regards heiresses (ἐπίκληροι), 
 who were, in both nations, bound to marry 
 their nearest relation: the property did not 
 vest in the husband even for his lifetime, but 
 devolved upon the son of the heiress as soon as 
 he was of age, who also bore the name, not of 
 his father, but of his maternal grandfather. 
 The object in both countries was the same, 
 viz. to preserve the name and property of 
 every family (Dict. of Gk. and Rom. Ant., art. 
 Epikleros), [W. L. B.] ἘΠῚ 
 
 HEL-AH (ANPM=rust ; B. ᾿Αωδά, A. Aad; 
 Halaa), one of the two wives of Ashur, father of 
 Tekoa (1 Ch. iv. 5). Her three children are 
 enumerated in v. 7. In the LXX. the passage 
 is very much confused, the sons being ascribed to 
 wives different from those named in the Hebrew 
 text. 
 
 HE'LAM (05; Αἷλάμ; Helam), a place 
 east of the Jordan, but west of the Euphrates 
 (‘the river”), at which the Syrians were col- 
 
 ‘lected by Hadarezer, and at which David met 
 
 and defeated them (2 Sam. x. 16,17). In the 
 latter verse the name appears as Chelamah 
 
 (ΠΝ δ, but the final syllable is probably only 
 the particle of motion. This longer form, Xa- 
 λαμάκ, is inserted by the B. text * of the LXX. in 
 Ὁ. 16 as if the name of the river, but A. omits; 
 while in the two other places it has Α͵ΐλάμ, 
 corresponding to the Hebrew text (see Well- 
 hausen in loco). By Josephus (Ant. vii. 6, § 3) 
 the name is given as XaAaud, and as being that 
 of the king of the Syrians beyond Euphrates 
 —mpos Χαλαμὰν τὸν τῶν πέραν Ἐὐφράτου Σύρων 
 βασιλέα. 
 
 In the Vulgate no name is inserted after 
 jluvium ; but in v. 16, for “ came to Helam,” we 
 find adduxit exercitum eorum, reading Don, 
 “their army.” This too is the rendering of 
 the old translator Aquila—ey δυνάμει αὐτῶν--- 
 of whose version v. 16 has survived. In v. 17 
 the Vulgate agrees with the A. V. 
 
 Many conjectures have been made as to the 
 locality of Helam ; but to none of them does any 
 certainty attach. The most feasible perhaps is 
 that it is ‘identical with Alamatha, a town, 
 named by Ptolemy, on the west of the Euphrates 
 near Nicephorium. [61 [W.] 
 
 HEL’BAH (250, fat, and so fruitful; B. 
 Χεβδά, A. Sxediay; Helba), a town of Asher, 
 probably on the plain of Phoenicia, near Sidon 
 (Judg. i. 31). [W.] 
 
 HEL’BON (ji29M; T’. Χελβών, A. Χεβρών), 
 a place only mentioned once in Scripture. Ezekiel 
 (xxvii. 18), in describing the wealth and com- 
 merce of Tyre, says, “ Damascus was thy mer- 
 chant in the wine of Helbon.” The Vulgate 
 translates these words in vino pingui; and some 
 other ancient Versions also make the word de- 
 scriptive of the quality of the wine. There can 
 be no doubt, however, that Helbon is a proper 
 name. Strabo speaks of the wine of Chaly- 
 
 a This is probably a late addition, since in the LXX. 
 text, as it stood in Origen’s Herapla, Χαλαμὰκ was 
 omitted after ποταμοῦ (see Bardht, ad loc.). 
 
1328 HELCHIAH 
 
 bon (οἶνον ἐκ Συρίας τὸν Χαλυβώνιον) from 
 Syria as among the luxuries in which the kings 
 of Persia indulged (xv. 735); and Athenaeus 
 assigns it to Damascus (i. 22). Geographers 
 formerly represented Helbon as identical with 
 
 the city of Aleppo, called Haleb (, {\.) by 
 
 the Arabs; but there are strong reasons against 
 this. The whole force and beauty of the descrip- 
 tion in Ezekiel consists in this, that in the great 
 market of Tyre every kingdom and city found 
 ample demand for its own staple products. 
 Why, therefore, should the Damascenes supply 
 wine of Aleppo, conveying it a long and difficult 
 journey overland? If strange merchants had 
 engaged in this trade, we should naturally ex- 
 pect them to be some maritime people who could 
 carry it cheaply along the coast from the port of 
 Aleppo. 
 
 In 1853 the writer directed attention to a 
 village and district within a few miles of 
 
 Damascus, still bearing the ancient name Helbon 
 8 σ 
 
 the Arabic corresponds exactly to 
 
 the Hebrew app, and still celebrated as pro- 
 ducing the finest grapes in the country (see 
 Journal of Sac. Lit. July 1853, p. 260; Five 
 Years in Damascus, ii. 330 sq.). There cannot 
 be a doubt that this village, and not Aleppo, is 
 the Helbon of Ezekiel and Strabo. The village 
 is situated in a wild glen, high up in Antilebanon. 
 The remains of some large and beautiful struc- 
 tures are strewn around it. The bottom and 
 sides of the glen are covered with terraced 
 vineyards; and the whole surrounding country 
 is rich in vines and fig-trees (Handbk. for Syr. 
 and Pal. pp. 495-6 ; Wetzstein, ZDMG. xi. 490 ; 
 Rob. iii. 472). The wine of Helbon is men- 
 tioned in inscriptions of Nebuchadnezzar and 
 Assurbanipal (Schrader, KAT.? p. 425). The 
 Chalybon of Ptolemy (vy. 15) is probably Aleppo, 
 Haleb. [o> i. Bd 
 
 HELCHI’AH (Χελκίας, B. -κει- ; Helcias), 
 1 Esd. viii. 1. [HILKrAH.] 
 
 HELCHI'AS (Helcias), the same person as 
 the preceding, 2 Esd. i. 1, [HLk1an.] 
 
 HEL'DAL (297, (Ὁ = worldly ; B. Χολδειά, 
 A. Χολδαΐ; Holdai). 1. The twelfth captain 
 of the monthly courses for the Temple service 
 (1 Ch. xxvii. 15). He is specified as “the Neto- 
 phathite,”’ and as a descendant of Othniel. 
 
 2. An Israelite who seems to have returned 
 from the Captivity; for whom, with others, 
 Zechariah was commanded to make certain 
 crowns as memorials (Zech. vi. 10). In » 14 
 the name appears to be changed to HELEM. 
 The LXX. translate παρὰ τῶν ἀρχόντων. 
 
 HE'LEB (250 = milk; B. omits, A. ᾿Αλάφ; 
 Heled), son of Baanah, the Netophathite, one of 
 the heroes of king David’s guard (2 Sam. xxiii. 
 29). In the parallel list the name is given as 
 
 HE'LED (7n; B. Χθαόδ, A. Ἐλάδ ; Ποῖον, 
 in. 30. 
 
 HELEK (p>n=a portion; in Num. [v. 841, 
 B. Χέλεγ, A. Χελέκ, F. Χελέχ; in Josh., B. 
 
 HELI 
 
 Κέλεζς A. Φελέκ : Helec), one of the descend- 
 ants of Manasseh; the second son of Gilead 
 (Num. xxvi. 30), and founder of the family of 
 the HELEKITHS. The Bene-Chelek, “ children of 
 Helek,” are mentioned in Josh. xvii. 2 as of much 
 importance in their tribe. The name has not 
 however survived; at least it has not yet been 
 met with. 
 
 HE'LEKITES, THE ΟΡΌΠΠ, ie. “the 
 Chelkite;” B. 6 Χελεγεί, AF. ὃ Χελεκί ; familia 
 Helecitarum), the family descended from the 
 foregoing (Num. xxvi. 30; LXX. υ. 34). 
 
 HE'LEM (ΩΡ =a blow; B. Βαλαάμ, A. 
 Ἐλάμ; Helem). 1. A man named among the 
 descendants of Asher, in a passage evidently 
 much disordered (1 Ch. vii. 35). If it be in- 
 tended that he was the brother of Shamer, then 
 he may be identical with Hotham, in v. 32, the 
 name having been altered in copying; but this 
 is mere conjecture. Burrington (i. 265) quotes 
 two Hebrew MSS., in which the name is written 
 
 pbn, Cheles. 
 
 2. (LXX. τοῖς ὑπομένουσι.) Aman mentioned 
 only in Zech. vi. 14. Apparently the same who 
 is given as HELDAI in v. 10. 
 
 HE-LEPH (907; B. Moody, A. Μελέφ-- 
 both include the preposition prefixed; Heleph), 
 the place from which the boundary of the tribe 
 of Naphtali started (Josh. xix. 33), but where 
 situated, or on which quarter, cannot be ascer- 
 tained from the text. Van de Velde (Memoir, 
 p. 320) proposes to identify it with Beit Lif, a 
 village situated on a hill-top nearly mid-way 
 between Rds Abydd and Kades ; and on the edge 
 of a very marked ravine, which probably formed 
 part of the boundary between Naphtali and Asher 
 (Van de Velde, Syria, i. 233). The identifica- 
 tion, however, is uncertain. [Gh Wer 
 
 Afs—the initial S is probably from the end of the 
 preceding word—A. ‘EAAfs; 1 Ch. xxvii. 10, 
 B. Χέσλης, A. XeAAhs ; Heles, Helles). 1. One 
 of “the thirty” of David’s guard (2 Sam. xxiii, 
 26; 1 Ch. xi. 27: in the latter, yom), an 
 Ephraimite, and captain of the seventh monthly 
 course (1 Ch. xxvii. 10). In both these passages 
 of Chronicles he is called “the Pelonite,” of 
 which Kennicott decides that “the Paltite” of 
 Samuel is a corruption (Dissertation, &c., pp. 
 183-4; see, however, Driver on Sam. ἰ. ¢.). 
 [PALTITE. ] 
 
 2. (XéAAns ; Helles.) A man of Judah, son 
 of Azariah (1 Ch. ii. 39); a descendant of Jerah- 
 meel, of the great family of Hezron. 
 
 HE’LI (Ἡλί, Ἡλεί; Heli), the father of 
 Joseph, the husband of the Virgin Mary (Luke 
 iii, 23); maintained by Lord A. Hervey, the 
 investigator of the genealogy of Christ, to 
 have been the real brother of Jacob, the 
 father of the Virgin herself (Hervey, Genealo- 
 gies, pp. 130, 138). The name, as we possess it, 
 is the same as that employed by the LXX. in 
 
 the O. T. to render the Hebrew by, Ext the 
 
 high-priest. 
 9. The third of three names inserted between 
 
HELIAS 
 
 AcuiTos and AMARIAS in the genealogy of Ezra, 
 in 2 Esd. i. 2 (cp. Ezra vii. 2, 3). 
 
 HELI’AS, 2 Esd. vii. 39. 
 HELIODO’RUS (Ἡλιόδωρος), the treasurer 
 
 (6 ἐπὶ τῶν πραγμάτων) of Seleucus Philopator, 
 who was commissioned by the king, at the 
 instigation of Apollonius [APOLLONIUS], to carry 
 away the private treasures deposited in the 
 Temple at Jerusalem. According to the narra- 
 tive in 2 Mace. iii. 9 sq., he was stayed from 
 ~ the execution of his design by a “ great appari- 
 tion” (ἐπιφάνεια), in consequence of which he 
 fell down ‘compassed with great darkness,” 
 and speechless. He was afterwards restored at 
 the intercession of the high-priest Onias, and 
 bore witness to the king of the inviolable 
 majesty of the Temple (2 Mace. iii.). The full 
 details of the narrative are not supported by 
 any other evidence. Josephus, who was unac- 
 quainted with 2 Macc., takes no notice of it; 
 and the author of the so-called 4 Mace. attri- 
 butes the attempt to plunder the Temple to 
 Apollonius, and differs in his account of the 
 miraculous interposition, though he distinctly 
 recognises it (de Mucc. 4, οὐρανόθεν ἔφιπποι 
 προυφάνησαν ἄγγελοι . . . . καταπεσὼν δὲ ἡἣμι- 
 θανὴς ὃ ᾿Απολλώνιος ... .). Heliodorus after- 
 wards murdered Seleucus, and made an unsuc- 
 cessful attempt to seize the Syrian crown 
 B.c. 175 (App. Syr. 45). Cp. Wernsdorf, De 
 fide Libr. Mace. § liv. ; Speaker’s Comm. in loco ; 
 Stanley’s Lectt. on the Jewish Church, Lect. 
 xlviii. Raffaelle’s grand picture of ‘“ Helio- 
 dorus” will be known to many by copies and 
 engravings, if not by the original, [Β. F. W.] 
 
 HEL’KAI (pen, = ΠΡ ΓΙ =the Lords por- 
 tion ; BA. omit; Helci), a priest of the family of 
 Meraioth (or Meremoth, see v. 3), who was 
 living in the days of Joiakim the high-priest, 
 i.e. in the generation following the return from 
 Babylon under Jeshua and Zerubbabel (Neh. 
 xii. 155 cp. vv. 10, 12). 
 
 HEL'KATH (npn: in Josh. xix., B. Ἑλεκέθ, 
 A. XeAka0; in Josh. xxi., B. Χελκάτ, A. Θελκάθ: 
 Alcath and Elcath), the town named as the 
 starting-point for the boundary of the tribe of 
 Asher (Josh. xix. 25), and allotted with its 
 “suburbs” to the Gershonite Levites (xxi. 31). 
 The enumeration of the boundary seems to pro- 
 ceed from south to north; but nothing abso- 
 lutely certain can be said thereon, nor has any 
 traveller recovered the site of Helkath. Eusebius 
 and Jerome report the name much corrupted 
 (5. v. Ἐθαή, OS.? p. 261, 81; Hicath, p. 153, 30), 
 but evidently knew nothing of the place. 
 Schwarz (p. 191) suggests the village Yerka, 
 which lies about 84 miles east of ἄλλα (see 
 PEF. Map of Western Palestine, Sheet 111.) ; but 
 this is uncertain. 
 
 In the list of Levitical cities in 1 Ch. vi. 
 HUKOK is substituted for Helkath. [G.] [W.] 
 
 HEL’KATH HAZ’ZURIM (O° 80 npen; 
 μερὶς τῶν eriBovAwy—perhaps reading O'S; 
 Aquila, KAjjpos τῶν στερεῶν ; Ager robustorum), 
 @ smooth piece of ground, apparently close to 
 the pool of Gibeon, where the combat took 
 place between the two parties of Joab’s men 
 
 BIBLE DICT.—VOL. I. 
 
 (ELIsAn.] 
 
 HELL 1329 
 
 and Abner’s men, which ended in the death of 
 the whole of the combatants, and brought on a 
 general battle (2 Sam. ii. 16). [ΟἾΒΕΟΝ ; JoaB.] 
 Various interpretations are given of the name 
 (see Driver in loco). In addition to those given 
 above, Gesenius (7168. p. 485 a) renders it “ the 
 field of swords.” The margin of the A. V. has 
 the field of strong men, agreeing with Aquila and 
 the Vulgate. The margin of R. V. has the field 
 of the sharp knives. Ewald (G@esch. iii. 147), 
 “das Feld der Tiickischen.” [61] ἘΜ 
 
 HELKI’AS (Β. Χελκείας, BPA. Χελχίας ; 
 Vulg. omits). A fourth variation of the name 
 of Hilkiah the high-priest, 1 Esd. i. 8. [HrL- 
 KIAH. } 
 
 HELL. This is the word generally and unfor- 
 tunately used by the translators of 1611 to render 
 
 the Hebrew Shéol ines, or ΟΣ Αἵδης, and 
 once θάνατος, 2 Sam. xxii. 6; Inferi or Inferna, 
 or sometimes Mors). We say unfortunately, be- 
 cause—although, as St. Augustine truly asserts, 
 Sheol, with its equivalents Jnferi and Hades, are 
 never used in an absolutely good sense (De Gen. 
 ad Lit. xii. 33), yet-—the English word Hell is 
 mixed up with numberless associations entirely 
 foreign to the minds of the ancient Hebrews. 
 It would perhaps have been better to retain the 
 Hebrew word Sheol, or else render it always by 
 “the grave” or “the pit” (see the practice 
 adopted in the R. V., Preface), Ewald accepts 
 Luther’s word Héille ; even Unterwelt, which is 
 suggested by De Wette, involves conceptions too 
 human for the purpose. 
 
 Passing over the derivations suggested by 
 older writers, it is now generally agreed that 
 
 the word comes from the root Sy, “to make 
 hollow” (ep. Germ. Héille, “hell,” with Héhle, 
 “a hollow”), and therefore means the vast 
 hollow subterranean resting-place which is the 
 common receptacle of the dead (Gesen. Thes. 
 p- 1348; Bottcher, de Inferis, c. iv. p. 137 sq. 5 
 Ewald, ad Ps. p. 42). It is deep (Job xi. 8) and 
 dark (Job xi. 21, 22), in the centre of the earth 
 (Num. xvi. 30; Deut. xxxii. 22), having within 
 it depths on depths (Prov. ix. 18), and fastened 
 with gates (Is. xxxviii. 10) and bars (Job xvii. 
 16). Some have fancied (as Jahn, Arch. Pibdl. 
 § 203, Eng. ed.) that the Jews, like the Greeks, 
 believed in infernal rivers: thus Clemens Alex. 
 defines Gehenna as “a river of fire” (Fragm. 
 38), and expressly compares it to the fiery 
 rivers of Tartarus (Strom. v. 14, 92); and 
 Tertullian says that it was supposed to resemble 
 Pyriphlegethon (Apolog. cap. xlvii.). The 
 notion, however, is not found in Scripture, for 
 Ps. xviii. 4 (“torrents of wickedness ””) is a mere 
 metaphor. In this cavernous realm are the 
 souls of dead men, the Rephaim and ill-spirits 
 (Ps. Ixxxvi. 13, Ixxxix. 48 ; Prov. xxiii. 14; Ezek. 
 xxxi. 17, xxxii. 21). It is all-devouring (Prov. 
 i, 12, xxx. 16), insatiable (Is. v. 14), and re- 
 morseless (Cant. viii. 6). The shadows, not of 
 men only, but even of trees and kingdoms, are 
 placed in Sheol (Is. xiv. 9-20; Ezek. xxxi. 14— 
 18, xxxil. passim). 
 
 It is clear that in many passages of the O. T. 
 Sheol can only mean “ the grave,” and it is so ren- 
 dered in the A. V. (see, for example, Gen. xxxvii. 
 35, xlii. 38; 1 Sam. ii. 6; Job xiv. me In 
 
 4 
 
1330 
 
 other passages, however, it seems to involve a 
 notion of punishment, and is therefore rendered 
 in the A. V. by the word “ Hell.” But in many 
 cases this translation misleads the reader, It is 
 obvious, for instance, that Job xi. 8, Ps. exxxix. 
 8, and Amos ix. 2 (where “hell” is used as the 
 antithesis of “heaven”’), merely illustrate the 
 Jewish notions of the locality of Sheol in the 
 bowels of the earth. Even Ps. ix. 17, Prov. xv. 
 24, v. 5, ix. 18, seem to refer rather to the 
 danger of terrible and precipitate death than 
 to a place of infernal anguish. An attentive 
 examination of all the passages in which the 
 word occurs will show that the Hebrew notions 
 respecting Sheol were of a vague description. 
 The rewards and punishments of the Mosaic Law 
 were temporal, and it was only gradually and 
 slowly that God revealed to His chosen people a 
 knowledge of future rewards and punishments. 
 Generally speaking, the Hebrews regarded the 
 grave as the final end of all sentient and in- 
 telligent existence, “the land where all things 
 are forgotten” (Ps. vi. 5; Ps. Ixxxviii. 10-22 ; 
 Is. xxxviii. 9-205; Eccles. ix. 10; Ecclus. xvii. 27, 
 28). Even the righteous Hezekiah trembled 
 lest, ‘‘ when his eyes closed upon the cherubim 
 and the mercy-seat,’ he should no longer 
 “see the Lord, even the Lord in the land of the 
 living.” 
 
 In the N. T. the word Hades (like Sheol) 
 sometimes means merely “ the grave” (Rev. xx. 
 13; Acts ii. 31; 1 Cor. xv. 55), or in general 
 “the unseen world.” It is in this sense that 
 the creeds say of our Lord κατῆλθεν ἐν ἅδη or 
 eis Gov, descendit ad inferos, or inferna, meaning 
 “the state of the dead in general, without any 
 restriction of happiness or misery ” (Beveridge 
 on Art. iii.), a doctrine certainly, though only 
 virtually, expressed in Scripture (Ephes. iv. 9; 
 Acts ii. 25-31). Similarly Josephus uses Hades 
 as the name of the place whence the soul of 
 Samuel was evoked (Ant. vi. 14,8 2). Else- 
 where in the N. T. Hades is used of a place of 
 retribution (Luke xvi. 23; 2 Pet. ii. 4; Matt. 
 xi. 23, &c.). Consequently it has been the pre- 
 valent, almost the universal, notion that Hades 
 is an intermediate state between death and resur- 
 rection, divided into two parts, one the abode of 
 the blessed and the other of the lost. This was 
 the belief of the Jews after the Exile, who gave 
 to the places the names of Paradise and Gehenna 
 (Joseph. Ant. xviii. 1, § 3; cp. Otho, Lex. Rabb. 
 s. vv.), of the Fathers generally (Tert. de Anima, 
 c. ly.; Jerome in Eccl. iii.; Just. Mart. Dial. c. 
 Tryph. § 105, &c.; see Pearson on Creed, Art. 
 v.), and of many moderns (Trench on the Parables, 
 p- 467; Alford on Luke xvi. 23). In holding 
 this view, main reliance is placed on the parable 
 of Dives and Lazarus; but it is impossible to 
 ground the proof of an important theological 
 doctrine on a passage which confessedly abounds 
 in Jew‘sh metaphors. “Theologia parabolica 
 non est demonstrativa” is a rule too valuable 
 to be forgotten; and if we are to turn rhetoric 
 into logic, and build a dogma on every metaphor, 
 our belief will be of a vague and contradictory 
 character. “ Abraham’s bosom,” says Archbishop 
 Trench, “is not heaven, though it will issue in 
 heaven, so neither is Hades hell though to issue 
 in it, when death and Hades shall be cast into 
 the lake of fire which is the proper hell. It is 
 the place of painful restraint (φυλακή, 1 Pet. iii. 
 
 HELL 
 
 HELLENIST 
 
 19; ἄβυσσος, Luke viii. 31), where the souls of 
 the wicked are reserved to the judgment of the 
 great day.” But respecting the condition of the 
 dead whether before or after the resurrection 
 we know very little indeed; nor shall we know 
 anything certain until the awful curtains of 
 mortality are drawn aside. Dogmatism on this 
 topic appears to be peculiarly misplaced. [See 
 PARADISE. ] 
 
 The word most frequently used in the N. T. 
 for the place of future punishment is Gehenna 
 (yéevva), or Gehenna of fire (ἣ y. τοῦ πυρό5), and 
 this word we must notice only so far as our 
 purpose requires; for further information see 
 GEHENNA and Hinnom. The valley of Hinnom, 
 for which Gehenna is the Greek representative, 
 once pleasant with the waters of Siioa (“irrigua 
 et nemorosa, plenaque deliciis,” Hieron. ad Jer. 
 vii. 19, 31; Matt. v. 22), and which afterwards 
 regained its old appearance (‘“ hodieque hortorum 
 praebens delicias,” id.), was with its horrible 
 associations of Moloch-worship (Jer. vii. 31, xix. 
 2-6; 2 K. xxiii. 10) so abhorrent to Jewish 
 feeling that they adopted the word as a symbol 
 of disgust and torment. ‘The feeling was kept 
 up by the pollution which the valley underwent 
 at the hands of Josiah, after which it was made 
 the common sink of all the filth and corruption 
 in the city, ghastly fires being kept burning 
 (acc. to R. Kimchi) to preserve it from absolute 
 putrefaction (see authorities quoted in Otho, Lea. 
 Rabb. s. v. Hinnom, &c.). The fire and the 
 worm were fit emblems of anguish, and as such 
 had seized hold of the Jewish imagination (Is. 
 Ixvi. 24; Judith xvi. 17; Ecclus. vii. 17); hence 
 the application of the word Gehenna and its 
 accessories in Matt. v. 22, 29,30; Luke xii. 5. 
 
 A part of the valley of Hinnom was named 
 Tophet (2 K. xxiii. 10; for its history and 
 derivation see TOPHET), a word used for what is 
 defiled and abominable (Jer. vii. 31, 32; xix. 
 6-13). It was applied by the Rabbis to a place 
 of future torment (Targ. on Is. xxx. 33; Talm. 
 Erubin, f. 19, 1; Béttcher, pp. 80, 85), but does 
 not occur in the N. T. In the vivid picture of 
 Isaiah (xxx. 33), which is full of fine irony 
 against the enemy, the name is applied to 
 purposes of threatening (with a probable allusion 
 to the recent acts of Hezekiah; see Rosenmiiller 
 ad loc.). Besides the authorities quoted, see 
 Bochart (Phaleg, p. 528), Ewald (Proph. ii. 55), 
 Selden (de Dis Syris, p. 172 sq.), Wilson (Lands 
 of the Bible, i. 499), ἄς. The subject of the 
 punishment of the wicked and of Hell as a place 
 of torment belongs to a Theological rather than 
 to a Biblical Dictionary. (F..W. Ἐ.] 
 
 HELLENIST (Ἑλληνιστής; Graecus; cp. 
 ἝἙλληνισμός, 2 Macc. iv. 13). In one of the 
 earliest notices of the first Christian Church at 
 Jerusalem (Acts vi. 1), two distinct parties are 
 recognised among its members, ‘‘ Hebrews” and 
 “Hellenists ” (Grecians), who appear to stand 
 towards one another in some degree in a rela- 
 tion of jealous rivalry. So again when St. Paul 
 first visited Jerusalem after his conversion, he 
 “spake and disputed with the Hellenists ” (Acts 
 ix. 29), as if expecting to find more sympathy 
 among them than with the rulers of the Jews. 
 The term Hellenist occurs once again in the 
 N. T. according to the common text (retained by 
 Westcott and Hort), in the account of the 
 
HELLENIST 
 
 foundation of the Church at Antioch (Acts xi. 
 20), but there the context, as well as the form 
 of the sentence, seems to require the other 
 reading “ Greeks ” (Ἕλληνες ; Gebhardt), which 
 is supported by great external evidence, as the 
 true antithesis to “Jews” (Ἰουδαίοις, not 
 Ἑβραίοις, v. 19; see Speaker’s Comm. in loco). 
 The name, according to its derivation, whether 
 the original verb (Ἑλληνίζω) be taken, accord- 
 ing to the common analogy of similar forms 
 (μηδίζω, ἀττικίζω, Φιλιππίζω), in the general 
 
 sense of adopting the spirit and character of | 
 / than those which exist in the different Books of 
 the N. T. 
 
 Greeks, or, in the more limited sense of using 
 the Greek language (Xen. Anab. vii. 3, § 25), 
 marks a class distinguished by peculiar habits, 
 and not by descent. Thus the Hellenists as a 
 body included not only the proselytes of Greek 
 (or foreign) parentage (of σεβόμενοι “EAAnves, 
 Acts xvii. 4; of σεβόμενοι προσήλυτοι, Acts 
 xiii. 43; of σεβόμενοι, Acts xvii. 17), but also 
 those Jews who, by settling in foreign countries, 
 had adopted the prevalent form of the current 
 Greek civilisation, and with it the use of the 
 common Greek dialect, to the exclusion of the 
 Aramaic, which was the national representative 
 of the ancient Hebrew. Hellenism was thus a 
 type of life, and not an indication of origin. 
 Hellenists might be Greeks, but when the latter 
 term is used (Ἕλληνες, John xii. 20), the point 
 of race and not of creed is that which is fore- 
 most in the mind of the writer. 
 
 The general influence of the Greek conquests 
 in the East, the rise and spread of the Jewish 
 Dispersion, and the essential antagonism of Jew 
 and Greek, have been noticed in other articles 
 [ALEXANDER THE GREAT; ALEXANDRIA; DIs- 
 PERSION ; ANTIOCHUS IV. EPIPHANES], and it 
 remains only to characterise briefly the elements 
 which the Hellenists contributed to the lan- 
 guage of the N. T., and the immediate effects 
 which they produced upon the Apostolic teach- 
 ing :— 
 
 1. The flexibility of the Greek language 
 gained for it in ancient times a general currency 
 similar to that which French enjoys in modern 
 Europe; but with this important difference, 
 that Greek was not only the language of edu- 
 cated men, but also the language of the 
 masses in the great centres of commerce. 
 The colonies of Alexander and his successors 
 originally established what has been called the 
 Macedonian dialect throughout the East; but 
 even in this the prevailing power of Attic 
 literature made itself distinctly felt. Peculiar 
 words and forms adopted at Alexandria were 
 undoubtedly of Macedonian origin, but the later 
 Attic may be justly regarded as the real basis of 
 Oriental Greek. This first type was, however, 
 soon modified, at least in common use, by contact 
 with other languages. The vocabulary was en- 
 riched by the addition of foreign words, and the 
 syntax was modified by new constructions. In 
 this way a variety of local dialects must have 
 arisen, the specific characters of which were 
 determined in the first instance by the condi- 
 tions under which they were formed, and which 
 afterwards passed away with the circumstances 
 which had produced them, But one of these 
 dialects has been preserved after the ruin of the 
 people among whom it arose, by being conse- 
 crated to the noblest service which language 
 
 has yet fulfilled. 
 
 | and Western thought. 
 
 HELLENIST 1331 
 
 perished together with the communities who 
 used them in the common intercourse of life, 
 but in that of the Jews the Alexandrine Ver- 
 sion of the O. T., acting in this respect like the 
 great vernacular Versions of England and Ger- 
 many, gave a definiteness and fixity to the 
 popular language which could not have been 
 gained without the existence of some recognised 
 standard. The style of the LXX. itself is, 
 indeed, different im different parts, but the same 
 general character runs through the whole, and 
 the variations which it presents are not greater 
 
 The functions which this Jewish-Greek had 
 to discharge were of the widest application, and 
 the language itself combined the most opposite 
 features. It was essentially a fusion of Eastern 
 For disregarding pecu- 
 liarities of inflexion and novel words, the cha- 
 racteristic of the Hellenistic dialect is the com- 
 bination of a Hebrew spirit with a Greek body, 
 of a Hebrew form with Greek words. The 
 
 | conception belongs to one race, and the expres- 
 
 sion to another. Nor is it too much to say that 
 this combination was one of the most important 
 preparations for the reception of Christianity, 
 and one of the most important aids for the 
 adequate expression of its teaching. On the 
 one hand, by the spread of the Hellenistic 
 Greek, the deep, theocratic aspect of the world 
 
 | and life which distinguishes Jewish thought 
 
 was placed before men at large; and on the 
 other, the subtle truths which philosophy had 
 gained from the analysis of mind and action, and 
 enshrined in words, were transferred to the 
 service of Revelation. In the fulness of time, 
 when the great message came, a language was 
 prepared to convey it; and thus the very dialect 
 of the N. T. forms a great lesson in the true 
 philosophy of history, and becomes in itself a 
 monument of the providential government of 
 mankind. ; 
 
 This view of the Hellenistic dialect will at 
 once remove one of the commonest misconcep- 
 tions relating to it. For it will follow that its 
 deviations from the ordinary laws of classic 
 Greek are themselves bound by some common 
 law, and that irregularities of construction and 
 altered usages of words are to be traced to their 
 first source, and interpreted strictly according 
 to the original conception out of which they 
 sprang. A popular, and even a corrupt, dialect 
 is not less precise—or, in other words, is not less 
 human—than a polished one, though its inter- 
 pretation may often be more difficult from the 
 want of materials for analysis. But in the case 
 of the N. T., the Books themselves furnish an 
 ample store for the critic, and the Septuagint, 
 when compared with the Hebrew text, provides 
 him with the history of the language.which he 
 has to study. 
 
 2. The adoption of a strange language was 
 essentially characteristic of the true nature of 
 Hellenism. The purely outward elements of 
 the national life were laid aside with a facility 
 of which history offers few examples, while the 
 inner character of the people remained un- 
 changed. In every respect the thought, so to 
 speak, was clothed in a new dress. Hellenism 
 was, as it were, a fresh incorporation of Judaism 
 
 In other cases the dialects | according to altered laws of life and worship. 
 
 4Q2 
 
1332 HELLENIST 
 
 But as the Hebrew spirit made itself distinctly 
 visible in the new dialect, so it remained un- 
 destroyed by the new conditions which regulated 
 its action. While the Hellenistic Jews followed 
 their natural instinct for trade, which was 
 originally curbed by the Mosaic Law, and gained 
 a deeper insight into foreign character, and with 
 this a truer sympathy, or at least a wider 
 tolerance towards foreign opinions, they found 
 means at the same time to extend the know- 
 ledge of the principles of their divine faith, and 
 to gain respect and attention even from those 
 who did not openly embrace their religion. 
 Hellenism accomplished for the outer world 
 what the Return [Cyrus] accomplished for the 
 Palestinian Jews: it was the necessary step 
 between a religion of form and a religion of 
 spirit: it witnessed against Judaism as final and 
 universal, and it witnessed for it as the founda- 
 tion of a spiritual religion which should be 
 bound by no local restrictions. Under the in- 
 fluence of this wider instruction a Greek body 
 grew up around the Synagogue, not admitted 
 into the Jewish Church, and yet holding a 
 recognised position with regard to it, which was 
 able to apprehend the Apostolic teaching, and 
 ready to receive it. The Hellenists themselves 
 were at once missionaries to the heathen, and 
 prophets to their own countrymen. ‘Their lives 
 were an abiding protest against polytheism and 
 pantheism, and they retained with unshaken 
 zeal the sum of their ancient creed, when the 
 preacher had popularly occupied the place of 
 the priest, and a service of prayer and praise 
 and exhortation had succeeded in daily life to 
 
 the elaborate ritual of the Temple. Yet this 
 new development of Judaism was obtained 
 without the sacrifice of national ties. The con- 
 
 nexion of the Hellenists with the Temple was 
 not broken, except in the case of some of the 
 Egyptian Jews. [THe Disprrsion.] Unity 
 coexisted with dispersion; and the organisation 
 of a Catholig Church was foreshadowed, not only 
 in the widening breadth of doctrine, but even 
 externally in the scattered communities which 
 looked to Jerusalem as their common centre. 
 
 In another aspect Hellenism served as the 
 preparation for a Catholic creed. As it fur- 
 nished the language of Christianity, it supplied 
 also that literary instinct which vounteracted 
 the traditional reserve of the Palestinian Jews. 
 The writings of the Ν, T., and all the writings 
 of the Apostolic age, with the exception of the 
 original Gospel of St. Matthew, were, as far as 
 we know, Greek; and Greek seems to have 
 remained the sole vehicle of Christian litera- 
 ture, and the principal medium of Christian 
 worship, till the Church of North Africa rose 
 into importance in the time of Tertullian. The 
 Canon of the Christian Scriptures, the early 
 Creeds, and the Liturgies are the memorials of 
 this Hellenistic predominance in the Church, 
 and the types of its working; and if in later 
 times the Greek spirit descended to the investi- 
 gation of painful subtleties, it may be questioned 
 whether the fulness of Christian truth could 
 have been developed without the power of Greek 
 thought tempered by Hebrew discipline. 
 
 The general relations of Hellenism to Judaism 
 are weli treated in the histories of Ewald and 
 Jost (cp. also Riehm, H WB. ; Herzog, RE.? s. n.; 
 Farrar, St. Paul, ch. vii.; Schiirer, Geschichte 
 
 HEM OF GARMENT 
 
 d, jiid. Volkes im Zeitalter d. Jesus Christi, Index, 
 8.5. Hellenismus; but the Hellenistic language 
 has still, critically speaking, to be explored. 
 Winer’s Treatise on the Grammar of N. T. Greek,® 
 ed. Moulton, has done great service in estab- 
 lishing the idea of law in N. T. language, which 
 was obliterated by earlier interpreters, but even 
 Winer does not investigate the origin of the 
 peculiarities of the Hellenistic dialect. Hatch’s 
 Essays on Biblical Greek are a great step to- 
 wards this investigation, and much help may 
 be gathered from materials scattered through 
 the works of Field, Lagarde, Cornill, Hollenberg, 
 Vollers, Wellhausen, Kamphausen, ἅς. The 
 idioms of the N. T. cannot be discussed apart 
 from those of the LXX. (cp. Grinfield, W. JT. 
 Graec., ed. Hellenistica, and Scholia Hellenistica 
 in N. T.); and no explanation can be considered 
 perfect which does not take into account the 
 origin of the corresponding Hebrew idioms. 
 Yor this work the materials are gradually accu- 
 mulating. A good text of the LXX. is within 
 reach of all (cp. Swete’s edition), the photo- 
 graphing of the great MSS. B. A. δὲ, Q. having 
 at last rendered exact knowledge of forms 
 possible. Bruder’s Concordance leaves nothing 
 to be desired for the vocabulary of the N. T., 
 and the Oxford edition of Trommius’ Concordance 
 to the LXX. is proving itself both admirable in 
 method and trustworthy for critical purposes. 
 [B. F. W.] {ἢ 
 
 HELMET. [Arms, p. 241.] 
 
 HE’LON gon = strong; Χαιλών; Helon), 
 father of Eliab, who was the chief man of the 
 tribe of Zebulun, when the census was taken in 
 the wilderness of Sinai (Num. i. 9; ii, 7 ; vii. 24, 
 29); x. 16). 
 
 HEM OF GARMENT (ΠΥ Ν ; κράσπεδον : 
 finbria). The importance which the later Jews, 
 especially the Pharisees (Matt. xxiii. 5), attached 
 to the hem or fringe of their garments, was 
 founded upon the regulation in Num, xy. 38, 39, 
 which attached a symbolical meaning to it. 
 We must not, however, conclude that the fringe 
 owes its origin to that passage. It was in the 
 first instance the ordinary mode of finishing 
 the robe, the ends of the threads composing the 
 woof being left in order to prevent the cloth 
 from unravelling, just as in the Egyptian calasiris 
 (Her, ii. 81; Wilkinson’s Anc. Egypt. ii. 91, 322 
 [1878]), and in the Assyrian robes as represented 
 in the bas-reliefs of Nineveh: the blue riband 
 being added to strengthen the border. The 
 Hebrew word sistth is expressive of this fretted 
 edge: the Greek κράσπεδα (the etymology of 
 which is uncertain) applies to the edge of a 
 river or mountain (Xen. Hist. Gr, iii. 2, § 16; 
 iv. 6, § 8), and is explained by Hesychius as τὰ 
 ἐν τῷ ἄκρῳ Tod ἱματίου κεκλωσμένα ῥάμματα 
 καὶ τὸ ἄκρον αὐτοῦ. The δέσοα or outer robe 
 was a simple quadrangular piece of cloth, and 
 generally so worn that two of the corners hung 
 down in front: these corners were ornamented 
 with a “riband of blue,” the riband itself being, 
 
 as wemay conclude from the word used, bns 
 (R. V. “ cord”), as narrow as a thread or piece of 
 string. The Jews attached great sanctity to this 
 fringe (Matt. ix. 20, xiv. 36; Luke viii. 44), and 
 the Pharisees made it more prominent than it 
 
HEMAM 
 
 was originally designed to be, enlarging both the 
 fringe and the riband to an undue width (Matt. 
 xxiii. 5). Directions were given as to the num- 
 ber of threads of which it ought to be composed, 
 and other particulars, to each of which a sym- 
 bolical meaning was attached (Carpzov, Apparat. 
 p- 128). It was appended in later times to the 
 talith more especially, as being the robe usually 
 worn at devotions: whence the proverbial saying 
 quoted by Lightfoot (Zwercit. on Matt. v. 40), 
 “He that takes care of his fringes deserves a 
 _ good coat.” LW. L. ἘΣ 
 
 HE’MAM (01 = extermination; Aiudy; 
 Heman). Hori (ie. Horite) and Hemam were 
 sons (A. V. “children,” but the word is Bené) 
 of Lotan, the eldest son of Seir (Gen. xxxvi. 22). 
 In the list in 1 Ch. i. 39 the name appears as 
 Homam, which is probably the correct form. 
 
 HE/MAN (2 = pO¥ND = true, reliable). 
 1. Son of Zerah, 1 Ch. ii. 6 (B. Aiuoudy, A.’ Aucy) ; 
 1 K. iv. 31 (LXX. iv. 27, B. Aivdy, A. ‘Huav). 
 See following article. 
 
 2. Son of Joel, and grandson of Samuel the 
 prophet, a Kohathite. He is called “the singer” 
 (V2), rather the musician (1 Ch. vi. 33, 
 Heb. v. 18), and was the first of the three chief 
 Levites to whom was committed the vocal and 
 instrumental music of the Temple-service in the 
 reign of David, as we read 1 Ch. xv. 16-22; 
 Asaph and Ethan, or rather, according to xxv. 
 1, 3, Jeduthun,* being his colleagues. [JEDU- 
 THUN.] The genealogy of Heman is given in 
 1 Ch. vi. 33-88 (A. V.), but the generations 
 between Assir the son of Korah and Samuel 
 are somewhat confused, owing to two collateral 
 lines having got mixed. A rectification of this 
 genealogy will be found at p. 214 of The Genea- 
 logies of our Lord, where it is shown that Heman 
 is fourteenth in descent from Levi. A further 
 account of Heman is given in 1 Ch. xxv., where 
 he is called (v. 5) “ the king’s seer in the matters 
 of God,” the word MIN, “seer,” which in 2 Ch, 
 
 xxxv. 15 is applied to Jeduthun, and in xxix. 30 
 to Asaph, being probably used in the same sense 
 as is ND), “ prophesied,” of Asaph and Jeduthun 
 
 in xxv. 1-3. We there learn that Heman had 
 fourteen sonsand three daughters [HANANIAH, 11. 
 The sons all assisted in the music under their 
 father, and each of them was head of one of the 
 twenty-four wards of Levites, who “were in- 
 ‘structed in the songs of the Lord,” or rather in 
 sacred music. Whether or no this Heman is the 
 person to whom the 88th Psalm is ascribed is 
 ‘still a disputed question (see Delitzsch* in loco 
 and Schultz in Strack u. Zéckler’s Kgf. Kom. 
 z. A. T., ‘Hinl. z. Pss.’ p. 12). The chief reason 
 for supposing him to be the same is, that as 
 other Psalms are ascribed to Asaph and Jeduthun, 
 so it is likely that this one should be to Heman 
 the singer. But on the other hand he is there 
 called “the Ezrahite;” and the 89th Psalm is 
 ascribed to “Ethan the Ezrahite.”» But since 
 
 a {MN and ΟἿ ΓΙ ΠΥ are but two names of the same 
 ‘person. See also 2 Ch. xxix. 13, 14. 
 
 b St. Augustine’s copy read, with the LXX. (ed. 
 Swete), Israelite, for Hzrahite, in the titles to the 
 88th and 89th Psalms. His explanation of the title of 
 _ Ps. Ixxxviii. is a curious specimen of spiritualizing 
 _ interpretation. 
 
 HEMDAN 1335 
 
 Heman and Ethan are described in 1 Ch. ii. 6 
 as “sons of Zerah,” it is in the highest degree 
 probable that Ezrahite means “ of the family of 
 Zerah,” and consequently that Heman of the 
 88th Psalm is different from Heman the singer, 
 the Kohathite. In 1 K. iv. 31 again (Heb. v. 
 11), we have mention, as of the wisest of man- 
 kind, of Ethan the Ezrahite, Heman, Chalcol 
 and Darda, the sons of Mahol, a list correspond- 
 ing with the names of the sons of Zerah in 1 Ch. 
 ii. 6. The inference from which is that there 
 was a Heman, different from Heman the singer, 
 of the family of Zerah the son of Judah, and that 
 he is distinguished from Heman the singer, the 
 Levite, by being called the Ezrahite. As re- 
 gards the age when Heman the Ezrahite lived, 
 the only thing that can be asserted is that he 
 lived before Solomon, who was said to be “ wiser 
 than Heman,” and after Zerah the son of Judah. 
 His being called “son of Zerah” in 1 Ch. ii. 6, 
 indicates nothing as to the precise age when he 
 and his brother lived. They are probably men- 
 tioned in this abridged genealogy, only as having 
 been illustrious persons of their family. Nor is 
 anything known of Mahol their father. It is of 
 course uncertain whether the tradition which 
 ascribed the 88th Psalm to Heman’s authorship 
 is trustworthy. Nor is there anything in the 
 Psalm itself which clearly marks the time of its 
 composition. 
 
 If Heman the Kohathite, or his father, had 
 married an heiress of the house of Zerah, as the 
 sons of Hakkoz did of the house of Barzillai, and 
 was so reckoned in the genealogy of Zerah, then 
 all the notices of Heman might point to the 
 same person, and the musical skill of David’s 
 chief musician, and the wisdom of David’s seer, 
 and the genius of the author of the 88th Psalm, 
 concurring in the same individual, would make 
 him fit to be joined with those other worthies 
 whose wisdom was only exceeded by that of 
 Solomon. But it is impossible to assert that 
 this was the case. 
 
 Rosenm. Proleg. in Psalm. p. 
 hausen, on Psalms; Hinleit. p. 22; Kurzgef. 
 Exeg. Handb. [A. C. H.] 
 
 HEMA'TH, R. V. HAMATH (n10N; Αἰμάθ, 
 
 xvii.; J. Ols- 
 
 ΒΑ. Ἐμάθ; Emath). Another form—not war- 
 ' ranted by the Hebrew—of the well-known name 
 
 HAMATH (Amos vi. 14). 
 
 HEMATH (nah, #.e. as in R. V. Hammath ; 
 
 A. Aiudé, B. Meonud; Vulg. translates de 
 calore), a person, or a place, named in the 
 genealogical lists of Judah, as the origin of the 
 Kenites, and the “father” of the house of 
 RECHAB (1 Ch. ii. 55). 
 
 HEMDAN (Jf =pleasant ; ᾿Αμαδά; Am- 
 dam, or Hamdam, some copies Hamdan), the 
 eldest. son of Dishon, son of Anah the Horite 
 (Gen. xxxvi. 26). In the parallel list of 1 Ch. 
 (i. 41) the name is changed to Hamran (Ἰ Ὕ2Π), 
 which in the A. V. is given as AMRAM, probably 
 following the Vulgate Hamram, in the earliest 
 MSS. Amaran; but correctly in R. V. 
 
 The name Hemdan is by Knobel (Genesis, 
 p- 256) compared with those of Humeidy and 
 Hamady, two of the five families of the tribe of 
 Omran or Amran, who are located to the E. 
 and S.E. of ‘Akabah: also with the Bene- 
 
1334 HEMLOCK 
 
 Hamyde, who are found a short distance S. of 
 Kerak (S.E. corner of the Dead Sea); and from 
 thence to el-Busaireh, probably the ancient 
 BozRAH, on the road to Petra (see Burck- 
 hardt, Syria, &c., pp. 695, 407). 
 
 HEMLOCK. [Gat1.] 
 
 HEN (j; Hem). According to the render- | 
 
 ing of the passage (Zech. vi. 14) adopted in the 
 A. V. and R. V. (text), Hen (or accurately 
 Chen) is the name of a son of Zephaniah. But 
 by the LXX. (xdpis), Ewald (Gunst), and many 
 interpreters (see MV.1; Orelli in Strack u. 
 Zickler’s Kyf. Komm. z. A. T., in loco), the 
 words are taken to mean “for the favour of 
 (R. ¥. marg. for the kindness of) the son of 
 Zephaniah.” (F.] 
 
 HEN. The hen is nowhere noticed in the | 
 O. T. (see Riehm, HWE. 5. n. ‘ Hiihner’), and in 
 
 the N. T. only in the passages (Matt. xxiii. 37 ; 
 Luke xiii. 34) where our Saviour touchingly 
 compares His anxiety to save Jerusalem to the 
 tender care of a hen “gathering her chickens | 
 under her wings.” The word employed is ὄρνις, 
 which is used in the same specific sense in | 
 classical Greek (Aristoph. Av. 102; Vesp. 811). 
 That a bird, so intimately connected with the 
 household, and so common in Palestine, as we 
 know from Rabbinical sources, should receive 
 such slight notice, is certainly singular; it is 
 almost. equally singular that it is nowhere 
 represented in the paintings of ancient Egypt 
 (Wilkinson, i, 234 [1878]). On Babylonian 
 cylinders and seals the cock would seem to 
 symbolise some deity. [W.L. B.] ([F.] 
 
 HE'NA ΟἹ; ’Avd; Ana) seems to have 
 
 been one of the cities of a monarchical state 
 which the Assyrian kings had conquered some 
 time before the siege of Jerusalem by Sen- 
 nacherib (2 K. xix. 13; Is. xxxvii. 13). Its 
 being mentioned immediately after Sepharvaim 
 without the intervention of the words “and the | 
 king of,” would lead one to suppose that it lay 
 in the same province. As, however, Halévy has 
 shown (Zeitschrift fiir Assyriologie, vol. ii., 
 p- 401) that the site of Sepharvaim is uncertain, 
 the position of Hena must likewise be regarded 
 as doubtful. Fried. Delitzsch (Wo lag das 
 Paradies? p. 279) points out that Hena cannot, 
 for etymological reasons, be identified with 
 
 sols (“Anah or ‘Anat) on the Euphrates, and 
 
 suggests that it may be the city mentioned by 
 the Assyrian king ASSur-nasir-apli under the 
 name of An-at (Great Standard Inscription, 
 col. iii, I]. 15, 16). This city, which was 
 situated on an island in the Euphrates, has been 
 already identified with ‘Anah or ‘Anat (Fox 
 Talbot’s Assyrian Texts, p. 21; Layard’s Nineveh 
 and Bubylon, p. 355). Further uncertainty is 
 introduced by the fact that the modern Anat is 
 on the right bank of the stream, and that the 
 name is also attached to some ruins a little | 
 lower down on the left bank, but between them 
 is “a string of islands” (Chesney’s Euphrates 
 Expedition, i. 53), on one of which the ancient 
 city may have been situated. It appears as_ 
 ‘Anatho (᾿Αναθὼ) in Isidore of Charax (Mans. 
 Parth. p. 4). [G. Bo) ΠΠΡΌΣΡΗΝΙ 
 
 HEPHZIBAH 
 
 HEN-A'DAD (1731 = favour of Hadad ; 
 B. ‘Hvadd, A. ‘Hvaddd; Henadad, Enadad), the 
 head of a family of Levites who took a promi- 
 nent part in the rebuilding of the Temple under 
 Jeshua (Ezra iii. 9). Bavai and Binnui (Neh. 
 iii. 18, 24), who assisted in the repair of the wall 
 of the city, probably belonged to the same family. 
 The latter also represented his family at the 
 signing of the covenant (Neh. x. 9). 
 
 HE’NOCH (Π)Π; Ἐνώχ ; Henoch). 1. The 
 form in which the well-known name ENOCH is 
 given in the A. V. of 1 Ch. i. 3. The Hebrew 
 word is the same both here and in Genesis, viz. 
 Chanoc. Perhaps in the present case our trans- 
 lators followed the Vulgate. 
 also to have done in 1 Ch. i. 83 with a name 
 which in Gen. xxv. 4 is more accurately given 
 as HANOCH. 
 
 HEPHER (150 = α well; BAF. “Opep 5 
 Hepher). 1. A descendant of Manasseh. The 
 youngest of the sons of Gilead (Num. xxvi. 32; 
 LXX. v. 36), and head of the family of the 
 HeEPHERITES. Hepher was father of ZELO- 
 
 | PHEHAD (xxvi. 33; xxvii. 1; Josh. xvii. 2, 3), 
 
 whose daughters first raised the question of the 
 right of a woman, having no brother, to hold 
 the property of her father. 
 
 2. (Ἡφάλ; Hepher.) The second son of Naa- 
 rah, one of the two wives of Ashur, the “ father 
 of Tekoa” (1 Ch. iv. 6), in the genealogy of 
 Judah. 
 
 3. (B.”Opap.) The Mecherathite, one of the 
 heroes of David’s guard, according to the list of 
 1 Ch. xi. 36. In the catalogue of 2 Samuel this 
 name does not exist (see xxili. 34). 
 
 HE'PHER (151; “Ogep; Opher), a place 
 in ancient Canaan, which, though not mentioned 
 in the history of the conquest, occurs in the list 
 of conquered kings (Josh. xii. 17). It was on 
 the west of Jordan (cp. v. 7). So was also the 
 “land of Hepher” (‘ YIN, terra Lpher), 
 which is named with Socoh as one of Solomon’s 
 commissariat districts (1 K. iv. 10). To judge 
 from this catalogue it lay towards the south of 
 Central Palestine, at any rate below Dor: so 
 that there cannot be any connexion between it 
 and GATH-HEPHER, which was in Zebulun near 
 Sepphoris. [αὖ ΕἾ 
 
 HE’PHERITES, THE ΟἼΒΠΠ, ie. “ the 
 Hepherite;” AF. δ᾽ Οφερί, B. 6 ᾿Οφερεί ; familia 
 Hepheritarum), the family of Hepher the son of 
 Gilead (Num. xxvi. 32; LXX. v. 36). 
 
 HEPH’ZI-BAH (AIM S| 5 θέλημα ἐμόν; 
 voluntas mea in ea). 1. A name signifying 
 “ My delight in her,” and actually the name of 
 a queen (see No. 2), which is to be borne by 
 the restored Jerusalem (Is. Ixii. 4. Cp. De- 
 litzsch * and Dillmann *in loco). The succeeding 
 sentence contains a play on the word—‘“ for 
 Jehovah delighteth (VEN, chaphés) in thee.” 
 
 2. (B. ‘OWe:Ba, BY. ’A—, Α. ᾽Οφσιβά; Joseph. 
 ᾿Αχιβά; Haphsiba.) The name of the queen of 
 king Hezekiah, and the mother of Manasseh 
 (2 K. xxi. 1). In the parallel account (2 Ch. 
 xxxiii. 1) her name is omitted. No clue is given 
 as to the character of this queen. But if she 
 
 2. So they appear | 
 
HERALD 
 
 was an adherent of Jehovah—and this the wife 
 of Hezekiah could not fail to be—it is not im- 
 possible that the words of Is. xii. 4 may contain 
 a complimentary allusion to her. 
 
 HERALD (81173). The only notice of this 
 officer in the Ὁ. T. occurs in Dan. iii. 4; 
 the term there used being connected etymologi- 
 cally with the Greek κηρύσσω (on the Greek 
 words in Daniel, see s. n., p. 710) and with our 
 “cry.” There is an evident allusion to the 
 oftice of the herald in the expressions κηρύσσω, 
 κήρυξ, and κήρυγμα, which are frequent in the 
 N. T., and which are but inadequately rendered 
 by “preach,” &c. The term “herald” might 
 be substituted in J “im. ii. 7; 2 Tim. i. 11; 
 2 Pet. ii. 5. LW. L. B.] 
 
 HER’CULES (Ἡρακλῆς), the name com- 
 monly applied by the Western nations to the 
 tutelary deity of Tyre, whose national title was 
 
 Metkart (NPS, ἐσ. NIP BY, the hing of 
 the city = πολιοῦχος, Μελίκαρος," Phil. Bybl. ap. 
 Euseb. Praep. Lv. i. 10). The identification was 
 based upon a similarity of the legends and attri- 
 butes referred to the two deities, but Herodotus 
 (ii. 44) recognised their distinctness, and dwells 
 on the extreme antiquity of the Tyrian rite 
 (Herod. 1. c.: cp. Strabo, xvi. 757; Arr. Alex. 
 ii. 16; Joseph. Ant. viii. 5, ὃ 3; ὁ. Apion.i. 18). 
 The worship of Melkart was spread throughout 
 the Tyrian colonies, and was especially established 
 at Carthage (cp. Hamilcar), where it was cele- 
 brated with human sacrifices (Plin. A. UN. 
 xxxvi. 4 [δ]; cp: Jer. xix. 5). Mention is 
 made of public embassies sent from the colonies 
 to the mother state to honour the national god 
 (Arr. Alex. ii. 24; Q. Curt. iv. 25; Polyb. xxxi. 
 20), and this fact places in a clearer light the 
 offence of Jason in sending envoys (θεωροὺς) to 
 his festival (2 Mace. iv. 19 sq.). 
 
 There.can be little doubt but that Melkart is 
 
 the proper name of the Baal—the Lord yan) 
 
 —whose worship was introduced from Tyre by 
 Jezebel, Ahab’s queen (1 K. xvi. 31; cp. 2 K. xii. 
 18), after the earlier Canaanitish idolatry had 
 been put down (1 Sam. vii. 4; ep. 1 K. xi. 5-8). 
 Melkart (Hercules) and Astarte appear in the 
 same close relation (Joseph. Ant. 1. c.) as Baal 
 and Astarte. See Baudissin in Herzog, "1.2 
 8. ἢ. Baal; Bathgen, Beitr. z. Semit. Religions- 
 geschichte,,pp. 20 sq., 234. [B.F.W.] [Ε.] 
 
 HERD, HERDSMAN. The herd was 
 greatly regarded both in the patriarchal and 
 Mosaic periods. Its multiplying was considered 
 as a blessing, and its decrease as a curse (Gen. 
 ΧΙ, 2; Deut. vii. 14, xxviii. 4; Ps. cvii. 38, 
 exliv. 14; Jer. li. 23). The ox was the most 
 precious stock next to horse and mule, and 
 (since those were rare) the thing of greatest 
 value which was commonly possessed (1 K. xviii. 
 5). Hence we see the force of Saul’s threat 
 (1 Sam. xi. 7). The herd yielded the most 
 esteemed sacrifice (Num. vii. 3; Ps. lxix. 31; 
 Is. lxvi. 3); also flesh-meat and milk, chiefly 
 converted, probably, into butter and cheese 
 (Deut. xxxii. 14; 2 Sam. xvii. 29), which such 
 milk yields more copiously than that of small 
 cattle* (Arist. Hist. Anim. iii, 20). The full- 
 
 5. These were common, and are frequently alluded to. 
 The expression TPa-nihv, 2 Sam. xvii. 29, means 
 cv : 
 
 HERD, HERDSMAN 1335 
 
 grown ox is hardly ever slaughtered in Syria; 
 but, both for sacrificial and convivial purposes, 
 the young animal was preferred (Ex. xxix. 1)— 
 perhaps three years might be the age up to. which 
 it was so regarded (Gen. xv. 9)—and is spoken 
 of as a special dainty (Gen. xviii. 8; Amos vi. 4; 
 Luke xv. 23). The case of Gideon’s sacrifice 
 was one of exigency (Judg. vi. 25) and ex- 
 ceptional ; and that of the people (1 Sam. xiv. 
 32) was an act of wanton excess. The agri- 
 cultural and general usefulness of the ox, in 
 ploughing, threshing [AGRICULTURE], and as a 
 beast of burden (1 Ch. xii. 40; Is. xlvi. iy 
 made such a slaughtering seem wasteful; nor, 
 owing to difficulties of grazing, fattening, &c., 
 is beef the product of an Eastern climate. The 
 animal was broken to service probably in his 
 third year (Is. xv. 5°; Jer. xlviii. 34; cp. Plin. 
 NV. H. viii, 70, ed. Par.). In the moist season, 
 when grass abounded in the waste lands, 
 especially in the “ south ” region, herds grazed 
 there; e.g. in Carmel on the W. side of the 
 Dead Sea (1 Sam. xxv. 2; 2 Ch. xxvi. 10), 
 Dothan also, Mishor, and Sharon (Gen. xxxvii. 17: 
 cp. Robinson, iil. 122; Stanley, S. δ᾽ P. pp. 247, 
 260, 484-5; 1 Ch. xxvii. 29; Is. Ixv. 10) were 
 favourite pastures. For such purposes Uzziah 
 built towers in the wilderness (2 Ch. xxvi. 10). 
 Not only grass,° but foliage, is acceptable to the 
 ox, and the hills and woods of Bashan and 
 Gilead afforded both abundantly; on such up- 
 land (Ps. 1. 10, Ιχν. 12) pastures cattle might 
 graze, as also, of course, by river-sides, when 
 driven by the heat from the regions of the 
 “wilderness.” Especially was the Eastern table- 
 land (Ezek. xxxix. 18; Num. xxxii. 4) “a place 
 for cattle,” and the pastoral tribes of Reuben, 
 Gad, and half Manasseh, who settled there, re- 
 tamed something of the nomadic character and 
 handed down some image of the patriarchal life 
 (Stanley, 8. δ᾽ P. pp. 324-5). Herdsmen, &c., 
 in Egypt were a low, perhaps the lowest, caste ; 
 hence as Joseph’s kindred, through his position, 
 were brought into contact with the highest 
 castes, they are described as “an abomination ; ” 
 bnt of the abundance of cattle in Egypt, 
 and of the care there bestowed on them, there 
 is no doubt (Gen. xlvii. 6,17; Ex. ix. 4, 20). 
 Brands were used to distinguish the owner’s 
 herds (Wilkinson, i. 217, 218 [1878]). So the 
 plague of hail was sent to smite especially the 
 cattle (Ps. Ixxviii. 48), which also suffered 
 severely in the murrain and shared the boil, 
 and the firstborn of which also were smitten 
 
 cheese of cows’ milk ; ANON, Arab. ee Gen. xviii. 
 
 8, Is. vii. 15,2 Sam. xvii. 29, Job xx. 17, Judg. v. 25, 
 Prov. xxx. 33, is properly rendered ‘‘ butter” (which 
 Gesenius, 8. v., is mistaken in declaring to be ‘hardly 
 known to the Orientals, except as a medicine’’); and in 
 Prov. l.c. the process itself is referred to. The word 
 
 11313, Job x. 10, is the same as the Arab. 
 
 ᾽ 
 4. 
 
 applied by the Bedouins to their goats’ milk cheese. 
 > In R. V. here and at Jer. J. 6. note that this expres- 
 sion=“‘a heifer of three years’ is made a proper name— 
 needlessly ; but, if so taken, the name has none the less 
 its meaning, and that meaning supports the above view. 
 ¢ In Num, xxii. 4, the word J}, in A. V. “grass,” 
 
 really ‘‘ verdure,” includes all vegetation : cp. Ex. x. 
 15; Is. xxvii. 10; Cato, de R. R. c. 30; Varro, de R. R. 
 1..15 andii.5. YM, Job viii. 12, xl. 15, seems used 
 
 in a signification equally wide. 
 
1336 
 (Ex. xii. 
 
 HERD, HERDSMAN 
 
 29; Ps. exxxv. 8, cxix. 3-9). The 
 Israelites departing stipulated for (Ex. x. 26) 
 and took ‘much cattle” with them (xii. 38 ; 
 Num, xi. 22). [WILDERNESS OF WANDERING.] 
 
 HERES 
 
 Cattle formed thus one of the traditions of the 
 Israelitish nation in its greatest period, and be- 
 came almost a part of that greatness. They are 
 the subject of providential care and legislative 
 
 Egyptian farm-yard. (Wilkinson.) 
 
 ordinance (Ex. xx. 10,17, xxi. 28 sq.,? xxxiv. 
 19; Lev. xix. 19, xxv. 7; Deut. xi. 15, xxii. 1, | 
 4, 10, xxv. 4; Ps. civ. 14; Is. xxx. 23, 24; | 
 Jon. iv. 11), and even the Levites, though not 
 holding land, were allowed cattle (Num. xxxv. 
 2, 3). When pasture failed, a mixture of 
 
 Various grains (called, Job vi. 5, bya, rendered 
 “ fodder ” inthe A. V. and R. V., and, Is. xxx. 24, 
 
 “ provender;”° ep. the Roman farrago and ocy- 
 mum, Plin. xviii. 10 and 42) was used, as also J27),* 
 
 “chopped straw” (Gen. xxiv. 25; Is. xi. 7, Ixv. 
 
 A deformed oxherd, so represented to mark contempt. 
 
 25), which was torn in pieces by the threshing- 
 machine and used probably for feeding in stalls. 
 These last formed an important adjunct to 
 cattle-keeping, being indispensable for shelter at 
 certain seasons (Exod. ix. 19-21). The herd, 
 after its harvest-duty was done, which probably 
 caused it to be in high condition, was specially 
 worth caring for; at the same time most open 
 pastures would have failed because of the heat. 
 It was then probably stalled, and would continue 
 so until vegetation returned. Hence the failure 
 of “the herd” from “the stalls” is mentioned 
 as a feature of scarcity (Hab. iii. 17). “Calves 
 of the stall” (Mal. iv. 2; Prov. xv. 17) are the 
 objects of watchful care. The Reubenites, &c., 
 
 a Rabbis differ on the question whether the owner of 
 the animal was under this enactment liable or not liable. 
 See de R. R. Veterum Hebraeorum, c. ii.; Ugolini, 
 Xxix. 
 
 ¢ The word seems to be derived from bn, to mix; 
 
 used Judg. xix. 21 for ““ἴο give fodder ”’ to an animal. 
 The passage in Isaiah probably means that in the 
 abundant yield of the crops the cattle should eat of the 
 best, such as was usually consumed by man. 
 
 f With this is often found, as if a complementary or 
 inclusive term, NED, A. V. and R. V. ‘* provender,” 
 
 which also occurs alone, Gen, xlii. 27, xliii, 24, 
 
 (Wilkinson.) 
 
 bestowed their cattle “in cities” when they 
 passed the Jordan to share the toils of conquest 
 (Deut. iii. 19), ie. probably in some pastures 
 closely adjoining, like the “suburbs” appointed 
 for the cattle of the Levites (Num. xxxv. 2, 33 
 Josh. xxi. 2). Cattle were ordinarily allowed 
 as a prey in war to the captor (Deut. xx. 14; 
 Josh. viii. 2), and the case of Amalek is ex- 
 ceptional, probably to mark the extreme curse 
 to which that people was devoted (Ex. xvii. 14; 
 1 Sam. xv. 3). The occupation of herdsman 
 was honourable in early times. Saul himself 
 resumed it in the interval of 
 his cares as king; also Doeg was 
 certainly high in his confidence. 
 Pharaoh made some of Joseph’s 
 brethren “rulers over his cattle.” 
 David’s herd-masters were among 
 his chief officers of state (Gen. xlvii. 
 6; 1 Sam. xi. 5, σαὶ ἢν» ΡΠ 
 xxvii. 29, xxviii. 1). Cattle-keep- 
 ing must have greatly suffered 
 from the inroads of the enemies 
 to which the country under the 
 later kings of Judah and Israel 
 was exposed. Uzziah, however 
 (2 Ch. xxvi. 10), and Hezekiah 
 (xxxil. 28, 29), resuming command 
 of the open country, revived it. Josiah also 
 seems to have been rich in herds (xxxv. 7-9). 
 The prophet Amos at first followed this occupa- 
 tion (Amos i, 1, vii. 14). A goad was used 
 
 (Judg. iii. 31; 1 Sam. xiii, 21, 7959, 12:7), 
 being, as mostly, a staff armed with a spike. For 
 the word Herd as applied to camels, asses, and 
 swine, see CAMEL, Ass, SWINE (these, however, 
 were all “unclean ” by law, whereas the ox, &c. 
 were not so); and on the general subject, Ugo- 
 lini, xxix., de R. R. vett. Hebr. c. ii., which will 
 be found nearly exhaustive of it. ([H. H.] 
 
 HE’RES, MOUNT. One of the places in 
 the territory of Dan, which, like Aijalon and 
 Shaalbim, was occupied by the Amorites, and 
 tributary to Ephraim (Judg. i. 34, 35). It was 
 probably in the district Beni Hérith, N.E. of 
 Yalo, Aijalon, which appears to retain a trace of 
 the name. Seven miles E. of Jimzu, Gimzo, 
 there is a village called Khurbetha ibn Harith, 
 which may be connected with it. Riehm (8. v.) 
 suggests that instead of “in Mount Heres” 
 we should read “in Har Heres,” and that this 
 town may perhaps be Ir-Shemesh or Beth- 
 shemesh. [1 
 
 HE’RES (ls. xix. 18). [Ik-HA-HERES.] 
 
HERESH 
 
 HE’RESH (WN = artificer ; B. Ῥαραιήλ, A. 
 ᾿Αρές ; carpentarius), a Levite; one of the staff 
 attached to the Tabernacle (1 Ch, ix. 15). 
 
 HER’MAS (Ἑρμᾶς, from Ἑ μῆς, the “ Greek 
 god of gain,” or Mercury), the name of a person 
 to whom St. Paul sends greeting in his Epistle 
 to the Romans (xvi. 14), and consequently then 
 resident in Rome, and a Christian: and yet the 
 origin of the name, like that of the other four 
 mentioned in the same verse, is Greek. How- 
 ever, in those days, even a Jew, like St. Paul 
 himself, might acquire Roman citizenship. 
 Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Origen agree in at- 
 tributing to him the work called the Shepherd: 
 which, from the name of Clement occurring in 
 it, is supposed to have been written in the 
 pontificate of Clement 1., or quite early in the 
 second century ; while others affirm it to have 
 been the work of a namesake in the following 
 age, and brother to Pius I. (or about the middle 
 of the second century); others, again, have ar- 
 gued against its genuineness (Cave, Hist. Lit. 
 s. v.; Bull, Defens. Fid. Nic. i. 2, 3-6; 
 Dindorf, Praef. ad Hermae Past. See Dict. of 
 Christ. Biography, 5. u.; Salmon, Introd. to the 
 NV. T44 p. 579 sq.; Zahn, Der Hist. ἃ. Hermas 
 [1868]; and for text, &c., Gebhardt and Har- 
 nack’s Patres Apostolici [1877]. Consult also 
 C. Taylor, The Witness of Hermas to the Four 
 Gospels [1892]). From internal evidence, its 
 author, whoever he was, appears to have been 
 a married man and father of a family: a deep 
 mystic, but without ecclesiastical rank. Further, 
 the work in question is supposed to have been 
 originally written in Greek—in which language 
 it is frequently cited by the Greek Fathers— 
 though it now only exists entire in a Latin 
 Version. It was never received into the Canon; 
 but yet was generally cited with respect, only 
 second to that which was paid to the autho- 
 vitative Books of the N. T., and was held to be 
 in some sense inspired (Caillau’s Patres, tom. i. 
 p- 17). It may be styled the Pilgrim’s Progress 
 of ante-Nicene times; and is divided into three 
 parts: the first containing four visions, the second 
 twelve moral and spiritual precepts, and the 
 third ten similitudes, each intended to shadow 
 forth some verity (Caillau, ibid.). Every man, ac- 
 cording to this writer, is attended by a good and 
 bad angel, who are continually endeavouring to 
 affect his course through life; a doctrine which 
 forcibly recalls the fable of Prodicus ‘respecting 
 the choice of Hercules (Xenoph. Mem. ii. 1). 
 
 The Hermas of the Epistle to the Romans is 
 celebrated as a saint in the Roman calendar on 
 May 9 (Butler’s Lives of the Saints, May 9). 
 
 [E. 8. Ff.] [F.) 
 
 HER’MES (Ἑρμῆς), the name of a man 
 mentioned in the same Epistle with the pre- 
 ceding (Rom. xvi. 14). “According to the 
 Greeks,” says Calmet (Dict. 5. ν.), “he was one 
 of the Seventy disciples, and afterwards Bishop 
 of Dalmatia.” His festival occurs in their 
 calendar upon April 8 (Neale, Zastern Church, 
 ii. 774). [Ε΄ 5. Ff] 
 
 HERMES, Acts xiv. 12, R. V. marg. 
 [Mercury. ] 
 
 . HERMOG’ENES (Ἑρμογένης), a person 
 mentioned by St. Paul in 2 Tim. i. 15 (see 
 
 HERMON 1337 
 
 Alford’s Proleg. c. vii. ὃ 35), when “all in 
 Asia” (ie. those whom he had left there) 
 “had turned away from him,” and among their 
 number “ Phygellus and Hermogenes.” It does 
 not appear whether they had merely forsaken 
 his cause, now that he was in bonds, through 
 fear, like those of whom St. Cyprian treats in 
 his celebrated work De Lapsis; or whether, like 
 Hymenaeus and Philetus (2 Tim. ii, 18), they 
 had embraced false doctrine. It is just pos- 
 sible that there may be a contrast intended 
 between these two sets of deserters. According 
 to the legendary history, bearing the name of 
 Abdias (Fabricii Cod. Apocryph. N. 7. p. 517), 
 Hermogenes had been a magician, and was, with 
 Philetus, converted by St. James the Great, who 
 destroyed the charm of his spells. Neither the 
 Hermogenes who suffered in the reign of 
 Domitian (Hoffman, Lex, Univ. s.v.; Alford on 
 2 Tim.i.15), nor the Hermogenes against whom 
 Tertullian wrote—still less the martyrs of the 
 Greek calendar (Neale, astern Church, ii. 
 Ρ. 770, Jan. 24, and p. 781, Sept. 1)—are to 
 be confounded with the person now under notice, 
 of whom nothing more is known. [Ε. 5. ΕΠ] 
 
 HE’RMON (ji); ᾿Αερμών)), a remarkable 
 mountain, forming the north boundary of the 
 land of Israel. Gesenius compares the word 
 with the Arabic es 
 
 fk 
 nent peak of a mountain.” In the first passage 
 in which the mountain is mentioned, a geo- 
 graphical note in Deuteronomy (ili. 9), we are 
 informed that the Sidonians called it Sirion 
 (9) and that the Amorites called it Shenir 
 
 (73), both of which names have been rendered 
 
 “breastplate.” The first Gesenius compares 
 with the name θώραξ, “breastplate,” for a 
 mountain in Magnesia (ep. 1 Sam. xvii. 5, 38); 
 
 SG = 
 
 the second he compares with the Arabic < 
 Ρ ,.»» 
 
 , which means a “ promi- 
 
 “a coat of mail.” It may be legitimate to 
 doubt if the Canaanite names are of necessity 
 Semitic words. In Mongol speech Sir means 
 “snow,” and Sirion might mean “snowy,” the 
 modern name of Hermon being “ the snowy top.” 
 It appears that the name Shenir still survived as 
 
 Sinir Gadwe) in the 14th century A.D.; for ac- 
 
 cording to Abu-el-feda it then applied to a 
 mountain ridge north of Damascus (p. 164, ed. 
 Kohler, as quoted by Gesenius, Lex.). Another 
 name of Hermon was Sion ({N’¥), as noted in 
 Deuteronomy (iv. 48), meaning “ elevated,”—a 
 word having no connexion with Zion, though 
 seeming in the English form to be the same. It 
 would appear that Hermon is included in the 
 land of Israel in the Book of Joshua, for the 
 limit is placed (xi. 17, xii. 1, xiii, 5) at “ Baal- 
 gad, in the valley of Lebanon under Mount 
 Hermon:” this definition of the situation of 
 Baal-gad does not agree with the position of 
 that town at Banids, as proposed by Robinson, 
 since the latter is not in the valley of Lebanon, 
 but in the valley of Jordan, Baal-gad is evi- 
 dently to be sought on the north slopes of 
 Hermon, and the name probably survives at the 
 
 spring and plain called Jedcideh (S$X9d=)) 
 
1338 HERMON 
 
 on the road from Damascus to Beirut, and at , 
 
 the foot of the northern spurs of Hermon, at 
 the south end of the valley between Lebanon 
 and Anti-Lebanon. 
 
 From this point northwards the country be- 
 longed to the Phoenician Giblites and to the 
 
 read “ Baal-hermon, even Shenir, even Hermon.” 
 The term Baal is sometimes applied to mountains, 
 as in the case of Baal-hazor, a very prominent 
 summit, and in these cases perhaps means “ the 
 top” or “chief,” unless indeed it refer to the 
 
 HERMON 
 
 Hivites. In later passages Hermon is called Baal- 
 hermon (Judg. iii. 3; cp. 1 Ch. y. 23), and in the 
 second of these notices a distinction is apparently 
 made between Baal-hermon, Shenir, and Hermon. 
 As, however, the Hebrew particle often means 
 “even” instead of “and,” we may perhaps 
 
 Mount Hermon and Desert of Decapolis. 
 
 From two 
 
 sacred character of the mountains. 
 passages in the Psalms (xlii. 6, lxxxix. 12) we 
 may suppose that Hermon was a place of wor- 
 ship of Jehovah, like Carmel, Gerizim, and other 
 high places. The Psalmist speaks of “ remember- 
 
HERMON 
 
 ing” Jehovah on the mountains of “the Her- 
 monites” or “ Hermons” (D*3)9°1M); and the 
 Hebrew verb ‘to remember” means radically 
 to “make a memorial” or “monument.” In 
 the second passage we read that “Tabor and 
 Hermon” are to rejoice in the name of Jehovah, 
 which may also signify that they were considered 
 sacred places. There is at least no doubt that, 
 in Jeroboam’s time, one of the two chief sanctu- 
 aries of Israel was at Dan at the foot of Hermon, 
 and that the mountain was a sacred place in 
 later Roman times, and is still to some extent 
 considered sacred by the Druzes. 
 
 Another curious passage in the Psalms (exxxiii. 
 3) speaks of the “dew of Hermon ” as falling on 
 
 the hill of Zion (}}*¥), and it is apparent that | 
 
 Jerusalem is here intended from the termination 
 of the verse. There was a Zion (Sahytin) in 
 the Lebanon, but neither this nor the Zion at 
 Jerusalem has any connexion with the name 
 Sion, which applied to Hermon itself. Hermon 
 is remarkable for the mists which cover its 
 summit, and the passage may simply mean that 
 the clouds came from Hermon to Jerusalem ; 
 but the distance between the two sites has 
 given rise to curious speculations among Rab- 
 binical writers. In the Song of Solomon (iv. 8) 
 Shenir and Hermon are again distinguished, 
 unless we read “Shenir, even Hermon.” In 
 Ezekiel Senir is noted for its fir-trees (xxvii. 5), 
 and in Ecclesiasticus (xxiv. 13) for its cypresses. 
 If we follow the description of Abu-el-feda, 
 which makes Senir to have been a ridge north of 
 Damascus, this must be distinguished from 
 Hermon, which is an outlier of the Anti-Lebanon, 
 and Shenir would be the name of the Anti- 
 Lebanon ridge ; but the pine grows on Hermon 
 itself, whereas the main ridge of the north is 
 very barren, and the geological formation renders 
 it probable that it never had many trees upon 
 it. The name of Shenir had perhaps a wider 
 application than that of Hermon, but, as above 
 stated, Shenir was the Hivite name of Hermon, 
 according to the Book of Deuteronomy. 
 
 In the Talmudic writings (see Neubauer, Geog. 
 Tal., pp. 10, 39) Hermon is called “the Snowy 
 
 Mountain” ΩΝ 1); and this is one of its 
 AD hae, Jebel eth Thelj 
 
 “ Mountain of Snow ;” but the old name is still 
 known to some of the natives of the Lebanon. 
 
 It is also called Jebel esh Sheikh, ἐδ we: 
 
 modern names, 
 
 which means “Mountain of the Chiefy’ this | 
 
 name being of Druze origin, and arising from 
 the fact that it has always been the centre of 
 the Druze religion from the 10th century A.D., 
 and the place where their Sheikh or “Chief” 
 had his abode. The common explanation, “ chief 
 of mountains” or “chief mountain,’ is gram- 
 matically incorrect. 
 
 The exact position and height of Mount 
 Hermon were determined both trigonometrically 
 and astronomically, and by observations of the 
 mercurial barometer, by Sergt. Black, R.E., in 
 1873, by true bearing from Carmel, and by the 
 triangulation of the PEF. Survey. The height 
 is 9,200 feet above the Mediterranean, and the 
 mountain thus rises more than 5,000 feet above 
 the highest tops of Upper Galilee. It is conse- 
 quently a very conspicuous object in all views 
 
 HERMON 1339 
 
 in the north of Palestine. It is seen in the 
 Jordan valley from near Jericho, and is also 
 visible from Tell Astir in the confines of Benja- 
 min. It is not necessary therefore that Hebrew 
 writers, who introduce Hermon into their pictures 
 of scenery, should have written in the north of 
 the country, though it is clear that the Song of 
 Songs refers to Hermon, with Lebanon and 
 Amanus, as a summer resort. 
 
 The lower part of the mountain consists of 
 Nubian sandstone, which appears also in the 
 Lebanon. This is found high up on the western 
 pass which leads by Rashaiya to Damascus. The 
 upper part is a very rugged and barren dome of 
 hard grey fossiliferous dolomitic limestone, such 
 as underlies the chalk in Palestine. The action 
 of snow and frost has formed a sort of shingle, 
 
 | which covers the higher slopes between the 
 
 rocks and pinnacles of the mountain side. The 
 snow covers the whole of the summit in winter, 
 and feeds the Jordan and the Abana in spring; 
 but in autumn it sometimes quite disappears, 
 and in 1873 the whole mountain was free from 
 any snow. The Syrian bears, who live on the 
 summit and descend to eat grapes in the vine- 
 yards on the slopes, have been seen by some 
 travellers rolling in the snow in the early 
 summer. The panther is also mentioned in 
 Canticles as dwelling in caves on Hermon. The 
 vineyards on the north and west slopes stili 
 produce wine which is considered excellent, and 
 the wine of Helbon (Helbun, north of Damascus) 
 is noticed by Ezekiel (xxvii. 18). Hermon is 
 daily covered with clouds in summer, and the 
 mists are excellent for vine culture. In this 
 connexion it is interesting to notice that the 
 “high mountain” was apparently, according 
 to the First Gospel, somewhere near Caesarea 
 Philippi (Matt. xvi. 18), and that the Trans- 
 figuration would thus seem to be localised on 
 some part of Hermon. The very sudden for- 
 mation of cloud on the mountain (and on the 
 Lebanon also) thus perhaps illustrates the words 
 “a cloud overshadowed them.” The Gospel of 
 the Hebrews, indeed, identified Tabor as the 
 mountain in question, and this tradition has 
 been followed ever since by Oriental Christians ; 
 but it is hardly reconcilable with the notice of 
 Caesarea Philippi (Ganids) as above mentioned, 
 which lies at the foot of Hermon. The moun- 
 tain is still a place of retreat for the Druze 
 recluses, who inhabit a cave-dwelling on the 
 upper part of the slope towards the west. 
 
 The view from the summit is very remark- 
 able, extending over the gardens of Damascus to 
 the deserts near the Euphrates on the east, and 
 on the north-west across the Lebanon to the sea. 
 On the south, Palestine as far as Mount Tabor is 
 spread out like a map; the lakes of Merom and 
 Galilee, the ridges of Upper Galilee, and the 
 coasts near Tyre, Accho, and the Carmel bay, 
 being well seen. At sunrise the shadow of the 
 great dome is projected far west to the 
 Mediterranean, and at sunset (which occurs 
 long after the whole of Palestine is in dusky 
 shadow) it stretches over the eastern desert, 
 and stands up against the haze. The appearance 
 of the Jaulan craters, as seen from this point 
 some 7,000 feet above them, is very remarkable, 
 and the plains of Bashan are visible throughout, 
 with the northern part of Gilead. Fora detailed 
 description of this very magnificent view see, 
 
1840 HERMON 
 
 Tent Work in Palestine (chap. viii.). On the 
 slopes of the mountain, in 1873, wild rose, haw- 
 thorn, oak, and honeysuckle were observed, and 
 the fauna and flora alike present a very remark- 
 able contrast to those of the semi-tropical Jordan 
 valley, close at the foot of the mountain. On 
 the south, at about 1,000 feet above the sea, the 
 main stream of the Jordan bursts suddenly from 
 its cavern, and pours the snow waters from the 
 mountain in foaming cascades past the walls of 
 Caesarea Philippi. The oak and poplar are here 
 the main features of tree scenery, while higher 
 up is found the Aleppo pine, where the pictu- 
 resque glens of the sandstone formation are 
 strewn in places with basaltic boulders. 
 
 The mountain was covered in the 2nd cen- 
 tury A.D. with small Roman temples, facing the 
 rising sun. The more important of these have 
 been carefully planned by Sir C. Warren. At 
 Rukhleh on the north a church was built, in a 
 later century, out of the fragments of one of 
 these temples, and a large medallion represents 
 the face of the sun-god; but this is not older 
 than Roman times, and the Roman eagle formed 
 part of the adornment of this shrine, which, as 
 we learn from a Greek text on the spot, found 
 in 1873, had doors plated with silver. 
 
 The top of the mountain consists of a small 
 plateau with three limestone crags. The highest, 
 to the east, was surrounded in Roman times 
 with a circular wall of wrought stones, and it 
 would seem as if an altar had been placed on 
 the crag; while close by on the plateau is a 
 curious underground chamber, hewn in rock, 
 perhaps at one time a Mithraeum, for the sun- 
 god Mithra, whom the Romans worshipped as 
 well as the Persians, was adored by mysteries 
 in such vaults. The whole system of worship 
 in the Hermon temples seems to have been 
 connected with the remarkable views of the 
 rising sun obtained from the summit. The 
 shrine was still venerated in the 4th century 
 of our era; for Jerome, though he had apparently 
 never ascended Hermon, says, “ diciturque esse 
 in vertice ejus insigne templum, quod ab ethnicis 
 cultui habetur, e regione Paneadis et Libani” 
 (s.v. Aermon, OS? p. 126, 19). The same is 
 also stated by Hilarius (on Psalm exxxiii., as 
 quoted by Reland, Pal. 1, 323), the mountain 
 itself being sacred according to his view. An 
 early tradition made it the place where the sons 
 
 of God came down to visit the daughters of men. 
 That the region was sacred much earlier is 
 evident from the history of Jeroboam, as already 
 noticed; and the curious dolmen tables found in 
 1882, at Banids, may perhaps indicate a pre- 
 historic sanctuary at the foot of the mountain, 
 
 On the death of Hakem, the Druze chiefs 
 sought refuge in the Hermon valleys, and the 
 mountain is still hallowed by the memory of the 
 teachings here first proclaimed to them. They 
 have numerous Khalwehs or chapels on its slopes, 
 outside the thriving mountain villages, of which 
 the largest and most important is Rashaiya on 
 the north-west, about 4,000 feet above the sea— 
 the seat of government of the district. It was | 
 on Hermon in 1860 that the French discovered 
 the Sacred Books of the Druzes, which contain | 
 a complete account of the Moslem heresies which | 
 form their religion, the highest initiation in 
 which is a complete scepticism. 
 
 Medizval travellers as a rule when describing 
 
 HEROD 
 
 Hermon do not allude to the real mountain, but 
 to the conical hill of Neby Duhy, just south of 
 Tabor, which, for some unknown reason, was 
 pointed out to pilgrims as the true Hermon—a 
 view quite irreconcilable with the O.T. accounts 
 of its position. Good descriptions of Hermon 
 will be found in Robinson’s Later Biblical Re- 
 searches, and in the PEF. Mem. (volume of 
 Special Papers and Jerusalem volume, Appendix, 
 with Sir C. Warren’s plans of the Temples). 
 The present writer visited all the principal 
 points of interest in 1873 and 1882. [C. R. C.] 
 
 HERMONITES, THE (0)3}97; BNAT, 
 Ἕρμωνιείμ [xli. 7]; Hermoniim), Ps. xlii. 6, 
 changed by R. V. into “the Hermons,” the allu- 
 sion being to the summits of Mount Hermon. 
 
 [FJ 
 
 HEROD (Ἡρώδης, i.e. Herodes). Tue HE- 
 RODIAN FamiLy. The history of the Herodian 
 family presents one side of the last development 
 of the Jewish nation. The evils which had ex- 
 isted in the hierarchy which grew up after the 
 Return, found an unexpected embodiment in 
 the tyranny of a foreign usurper. Religion 
 was adopted as a policy; and the hellenizing 
 designs of Antiochus Epiphanes were carried 
 out, at least in their spirit, by men who pro- 
 fessed to observe the Law. Side by side with 
 the spiritual “kingdom of God,” proclaimed by 
 John the Baptist, and founded by the Lord, a 
 kingdom of the world was established, which in 
 its external splendour recalled the traditional 
 magnificence of Solomon. The simultaneous 
 realization of the two principles, national and 
 spiritual, which had long variously influenced 
 the Jews, in the establishment of a dynasty and 
 a church, is a fact pregnant with instruction. 
 In the fulness of time a descendant of Esau 
 established a false counterpart of the promised 
 glories of Messiah. 
 
 Various accounts are given of the ancestry of 
 the Herods; but neglecting the exaggerated 
 statements of friends and enemies,* it seems 
 certain that they were of Idumaean descent 
 (Joseph. Ant. xiv. 1, § 3), a fact which is indi- 
 cated by the forms of some of the names which 
 were retained in the family (Ewald, Geschichte, 
 iv. 477, note). But though aliens by race, the 
 Herods were Jews in faith. The Idumaeans had 
 been conquered and brought over to Judaism 
 by John Hyrcanus (8.6. 130, Joseph. Ant. xiii. 9, 
 § 1); and from the time of their conversion 
 they remained constant to their new religion, 
 looking upon Jerusalem as their mother city 
 
 SS Ὁ δ συ 
 
 5. The Jewish partisans of Herod (Nicolas Damascenus, 
 ap. Joseph. Ant. xiv. 1, § 3) sought to raise him to the 
 dignity of a descent from one of the noble families 
 which returned from Babylon ; and, on the other hand, 
 early Christian writers represented his origin as utterly 
 mean and servile. Africanus has preserved a tradition 
 (Routh, Rell. Sacr. ii. 235), on the authority of ‘‘ the 
 natural kinsmen of the Saviour,” which makes Anti- 
 pater, the father of Herod, the son of one Herod, a slave 
 attached to the service of a temple of Apollo at Ascalon, 
 who was taken prisoner by Idumaean robbers, and kept 
 by them as his father could not pay his ransom. The 
 locality (cp. Philo, Leg. ad Caium, § 30) no less than 
 the office was calculated to fix a heavy reproach upon 
 the name (cp. Routh, ad loc.). This story is repeated 
 with great inaccuracy by Epiphanius (Haer. xx.). 
 
HEROD 
 
 and claiming for themselves the name of Jews 
 (Joseph. Ant. xx. 7, ὃ 7; 8. J. i. 10, §4, iv. 
 4, § 4). 
 
 The general policy of the whole Herodian 
 family, though modified by the personal cha- 
 racteristics of the successive rulers, was the 
 same. It centred in the endeavour to found a 
 great and independent kingdom, in which the 
 power of Judaism should subserve the con- 
 solidation of a state. The protection of Rome 
 was in the first instance a necessity, but the 
 designs of Herod I. and Agrippa I. point to an 
 independent Eastern empire as their end, and 
 not to a mere subject monarchy. Such a 
 consummation of the Jewish hopes seems to 
 have found some measure of acceptance at first 
 {HerRoprans]; and by a natural reaction the 
 temporal dominion of the Herods opened the 
 way to the destruction of the Jewish nation- 
 ality. The religion which was degraded into 
 the instrument of unscrupulous ambition lost 
 its power to quicken a united people. The 
 high-priests were appointed and deposed by 
 Herod I. and his successors with such a reckless 
 disregard for the character of their office (Jost, 
 Gesch. d. Judenthums, pp. 322, 325, 421), that 
 the office itself was deprived of its sacred dig- 
 nity (cp. Acts xxiii. 2 sq.; Jost, p. 430, &c.). 
 The nation was divided, and amidst the conflict 
 of sects a universal faith arose, which more than 
 fulfilled the nobler hopes that found no satis- 
 faction in the treacherous grandeur of a court. 
 
 The family relations of the Herods are singu- 
 larly complicated from the frequent recurrence 
 of the same names, and the several accounts of 
 Josephus are not consistent in every detail. 
 The following table, however, seems to offer a 
 satisfactory summary of his statements. The 
 members of the Herodian family who are men- 
 tioned in the N. T. are distinguished by capitals 
 (see p. 1342). 
 
 Josephus is the one great authority for the 
 history of the Herodian family. The scanty 
 notices which occur in Hebrew and classic 
 writers throw very little additional light upon 
 the events which he narrates. Ewald has 
 treated the whole subject with the widest and 
 clearest view. Jost in his several works has 
 added to the records of Josephus gleanings from 
 later Jewish writers. Where the original 
 sources are so accessible, monographs are of 
 little use. [Some are quoted by Winer in his 
 RWB., and a complete list of authorities and 
 histories dealing with the period is given by 
 Schiirer, Gesch. d. jiid. Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu 
 Christi, Index s.un. Consult also Riehm, HWS. 
 s.n.; Herzog, ΚΕ. s.n.; Milman, Hist. of the 
 Jews,‘ ii. 52 54. ; Stanley, Lectures on the Jewish 
 Church [1883], Lecture 1. ; Edersheim, The Life 
 and Times of Jesus the Messiah, Index 5. n.—F.] 
 
 I. HEROD THE GREAT (‘Hpédns) was the 
 second son of Antipater, who was appointed 
 procurator of Judaea by Julius Caesar, B.c. 47, 
 and Cypros, an Arabian of noble descent (Joseph. 
 Ant. xiv. 7, ὃ 3). At the time of his father’s 
 elevation, though only fifteen years old, he 
 received the government of Galilee (Joseph. Ant. 
 xiv. 9, § 2), and shortly afterwards that of 
 Coele-Syria. When Antony came to Syria, B.C. 
 41, he appointed Herod and his elder brother 
 Phasael tetrarchs of Judaea (Joseph. Ant. xiv. 13, 
 § 1). Herod was forced to abandon Judaea next 
 
 HEROD 1341 
 
 year by an invasion of the Parthians, who sup- 
 ported the claims of Antigonus, the representa- 
 tive of the Hasmonaean dynasty, and fled to 
 Rome (B.c. 40), At Rome he was well received 
 by Antony and Octavian, and was appointed by 
 the senate king of Judaea to the exclusion of the 
 Hasmonaean line (Joseph. Ant. xiv. 14, § 4; 
 App. Bell. C. 39). In the course of a few years, 
 by the help of the Romans, he took Jerusalem 
 (B.C. 37), and completely established his author- 
 ity throughout his dominions. An expedition 
 which he was forced to make against Arabia 
 saved him from taking an active part in the 
 civil war, though he was devoted to the cause 
 of Antony. After the battle of Actium he 
 visited Octavian at Rhodes, and his noble bear- 
 ing won for him the favour of the conqueror, 
 who confirmed him in the possession of the 
 kingdom, B.C. 31, and in the next year increased 
 it by the addition of several important cities 
 (Jos. Ant. xv. 10, § 1 sq.), and afterwards gave 
 him the province of Trachonitis and the district 
 of Paneas (Joseph. Ant. 1. c.). The remainder of 
 the reign of Herod was undisturbed by external 
 troubles, but his domestic life was embittered 
 by an almost uninterrupted series of injuries 
 and cruel acts of vengeance. Hyrcanus, the 
 grandfather of his wife Mariamne, was put to 
 death shortly before his visit to Augustus. Ma- 
 riamne herself, to whom he was passionately 
 devoted, was next sacrificed to his jealousy. 
 One execution followed another, till at last in 
 B.C. 6 he was persuaded to put to death the 
 two sons of Mariamne, Alexander and Aristo- 
 bulus, in whom the chief hope of the people lay. 
 Two years afterwards he condemned to death 
 Antipater, his eldest son, who had been their 
 most active accuser, and the order for his 
 execution was among the last acts of Herod’s 
 life, for he himself died five days after the 
 death of his son, B.c. 4, in the same year which 
 marks the true date of the Nativity. [Jesus 
 CHRIST. } 
 
 These terrible acts of bloodshed which Herod 
 perpetrated in his own family were accompanied 
 by others among his subjects equally terrible, 
 from the numbers who fell victims to them. 
 The infirmities of his later years exasperated 
 him to yet greater cruelty ; and, according to 
 the well-known story, he ordered the nobles 
 whom he had called to him in his last moments 
 to be executed immediately after his decease, 
 that so at least his death might be attended by 
 universal mourning (Joseph. Ant. xvii. 7, § 5). 
 It was at the time of this fatal illness that he 
 must have caused the slaughter of the infants 
 at Bethlehem (Matt. ii. 16-18); and from the 
 comparative insignificance of the murder of a 
 few young children in an unimportant village 
 when contrasted with the deeds which he carried 
 out or designed, it is not surprising that Jo- 
 sephus has passed it over in silence. The 
 number of children in Bethlehem and “all the 
 borders thereof” (ἐν πᾶσιν τοῖς dptots) may be 
 estimated at about ten or twelve;” and the 
 
 b The language of St. Matthew offers an instructive 
 contrast to that of Justin M. (Dial. c. Tryph. 78): ὃ 
 Ἡρώδης ... πάντας ἁπλῶς τοῦς παῖδας τοὺς ἐν 
 Βηθλεὲμ ἐκέλευσεν ἀναιρεθῆναι. Cp. Orig. c. Cels. i. 
 p. 47, ed. Spenc.: ὁ δὲ Ἡρώδης ἀνεῖλε πάντα τὰ ἐν 
 Βηθλεὲμ. καὶ τοῖς ὁρίοις αὐτῆς παιδία. .. 
 
HEROD 
 
 1342 
 
 PL TA yreyy ῬΟΜΟΗ Ours 
 
 ΤΘΡΠΈΧΟΙΥ eddy snnqo sy eddidy 
 (9F) (9) (FF) (s#) 
 | ἘΒΒΘΡΉ JO Ἢ | | 
 xITIgZ = Ζτῖγ = 
 somBIsty, ΥὙΤΙΒΩῈΩ sar ies i τασα res bar seg Ξ 2 δ 
 (1#) (oF) 08) 88) 18) (98 
 [ae τ. | a ey | Ι | 
 (18) 
 θίπογυς = 
 snynqg 
 edujor -O}SUY 
 (69) (Fs) 
 snuauo snuup | 
 Ὴ -Tualog 
 sal | | 
 (89) | 
 aOInauag = 
 (ge) edujor (Ze) 
 soidip = snynq ouWeLiuyY = 
 ouUIBT Ivy auroleg ΒΘΙΠΈΧΣΤΙ, ΤΟΡΠῸΠΈΧΟΙΨ SVIGOWG FT Vadluoy τον ΒΘΡΟΧΘῊ 
 (se) (9) (08) (66) ia Gp wie mii 
 5 | 
 (82) (80) snopoyo 
 [022 (1g) svidoway = sviaoury—= αθγθἃ (g) aly 10 ‘p= (#2) 
 βϑιάσι 10 — eulo["s = snvt RBJOLY 10 "p= (αὐ πη 4) yy = jowseyg = aopue eotnelog = 
 solualog ydesor ΘΟ ὌΓΈΧΟΙ ΘῈὈΞΈΠΩ aud ΒΘΡΟΙΘῊ «=o seidurk[Q 9 -aHOUY SVdIINY ΒΘΡΟΧΘΗ. Βοιαζο ordueyeg -xoly Ἐπ Πα] ΟΊ θα αϑγθάτηταν 
 (2) (80) (60) (12) (00) ΚΝ =e = ov Ci me (Ὁ) τ { Ρ (6) 
 | ἘΝ ΠΣ ὉΠ πὸ στ t 
 sted + + | | | | TOUS JO *p Ι 
 eae Bis = eee ΡΞ ie ae sl = ἘΞ = ΠΝ "τ da Nai a (πϑηταθιπς ig Θοθη 91 = “ΘΕ ΉΤΙΌΜΙ = ΒΏΠΡΟΧΛῊ jo ῬΡΙΒΑΞ ‘ouureney = T fe = 
 Ξ | | 
 | =. ee 4 =: i ς a > : 3 5: 
 euLoleg SBIOOy ydasor' saaoua 
 (1) (9) (9) (F) 
 Ι | it ΣᾺΝ . 
 
 . ἜΤ Axx sjoy ‘nddraSy Bury (96) 
 
 “L TIX spoy “Bury ey) powrqT (12) 
 
 “LOST ‘GL STMT ORM T 1 ATX ἍΤ “04.0.79, ays porary (01) 
 ὦ Ἔ ΘΥΠΊ bs 1 Ἢ “eA Bury ey) posayT (F) 
 
 Ἢ 80 
 
 ΤΡ Ἢ 
 
 “6 Ἵ TAX 2} 
 Ἢ ‘9 Ὑπλχ ‘yup ‘qdesor ‘dp 
 
 (8 “2 “AIX "JUP ‘sop : αὐτήταν UR) sOIdhQ = 
 dJayednay 
 @ 
 
 @ 
 
 ΒΘΡΟΙΘῊ 
 (GF) 
 
 (gg) soidhp 
 BIpuUVBxelTy 
 JopuBxeTy 
 
 SopOie Hy 
 Joyedyuy 
 
 (στ) 
 orsdurepeg= 
 Peusudd 
 (8) 
 
HEROD 
 
 language of the Evangelist leaves in complete 
 uncertainty the method in which the deed was 
 effected (ἀποστείλας ἀνεῖλεν). The scene of 
 open and undisguised violence which has been 
 consecrated by Christian art is wholly at vari- 
 ance with what may be supposed to have been 
 the historic reality. At a later time the murder 
 of the children seems to have been connected 
 with the death of Antipater. Thus, according 
 to the anecdote preserved by Macrobius (c. A.D. 
 410), “ Augustus, cum audisset inter pueros quos 
 
 _ in Syria Herodes, Rex Judaeorum, intra bimatum 
 
 (Matt. ii. 16; ib. Vulg. a bimatu et infra) jussit 
 interfici, filium quoque ejus occisum, ait: Melius 
 est Herodis porcum esse quam filiwm” (Macrob. 
 Sat. ii. 4). But Josephus has preserved two 
 very remarkable references to a massacre which 
 Herod caused to be made shortly before his 
 death, which may throw an additional light 
 upon the history. In this it is said that Herod 
 did not spare “‘those who seemed most dear to 
 him” (Ant. xvi. 11, § 7), but “slew all those 
 of his own family who sided with the Pharisees ” 
 (6 Φαρισαῖος) in refusing to take the oath of 
 allegiance to the Roman emperor, while they 
 looked forward to a change in the royal line 
 (Joseph. Ant. xvii. 2,§ 6; cp. Lardner, Credibility, 
 &e., i. pp. 278 sq., 332 sq., 349 sq.). How far 
 this event may have been directly connected 
 with the murder at Bethlehem it is impossible 
 to say, from the obscurity of the details, but its 
 occasion and character throw a great light upon 
 St. Matthew’s narrative. 
 
 In dealing with the religious feelings or pre- 
 judices of the Jews, Herod showed as great 
 contempt for public opinion as in the execution 
 of his personal vengeance. He signalised his 
 elevation to the throne by offerings to the 
 Capitoline Jupiter (Jost, Gesch. d. Judenthums, 
 p- 318), and surrounded his person by foreign 
 mercenaries, some of whom had been formerly 
 in the service of Cleopatra (Joseph. Ant. xv. 7, 
 §3; xvii. 1, §1; 8, § 3). His coins and those of 
 his successors bore only Greek legends; and he 
 introduced heathen games within the walls of 
 Jerusalem (Joseph. Ant. xv. 8, ὃ 1). He displayed 
 ostentatiously his favour towards foreigners 
 (Joseph. Ant. xvi. 5, § 3), and oppressed the old 
 Jewish aristocracy (Joseph. Ant. xv. 1, 8.1). The 
 later Jewish traditions describe him as suc- 
 cessively the servant of the Hasmonaeans and 
 the Romans, and relate that one Rabbi only 
 survived the persecution which he directed 
 against them, purchasing his life by the loss of 
 sight (Jost, p. 319, &c.). 
 
 While Herod alienated in this manner the 
 affections of the Jews by his cruelty and disre- 
 gard for the Law, he adorned Jerusalem with 
 many splendid monuments of his taste and 
 magnificence. The Temple, which he rebuilt 
 with scrupulous care, so that it might seem to 
 be a restoration of the old building rather than 
 a new one (Joseph. Ant. xv. § 11), was the great- 
 est of these works. The restoration was begun 
 B.C. 20, and the Temple itself was completed in a 
 year and a half (Joseph. Ant. xv. 11, § 6). The 
 surrounding buildings occupied eight years more 
 (Joseph. Ant. xv. 11, § 5). But fresh additions 
 were constantly made in succeeding years, so 
 that at the time of the Lord’s visit to Jerusalem 
 at the beginning of His ministry, it was said 
 that the Temple was “built (φκοδομήθη) in 
 
 HEROD 1343 
 
 forty and six years” (John ii. 20), a phrase 
 which expresses the whole period from the 
 commencement of Herod’s work to the com- 
 pletion of the latest addition then made, for the 
 final completion of the whole building is placed 
 by Josephus (Ant. xx. 8, § 7, ἤδη δὲ τότε Kal τὸ 
 ἱερὸν ἐτετέλεστολ in the time of Herod Agrippa 
 Il. (ο. A.D. 50). 
 
 Yet even this splendid work was not likely to 
 mislead the Jews as to the real spirit of the king. 
 While he rebuilt the Temple at Jerusalem, he 
 rebuilt also the temple at Samaria (Joseph. 
 Ant. xv. 8, § 5), and made provision in his new 
 city Caesarea for the celebration of heathen wor- 
 ship (Joseph. Ant. xv. 9, § 5); and it has been 
 supposed (Jost, Gesch. d. Judenth. p. 323) that 
 the rebuilding of the Temple furnished him with 
 the opportunity of destroying the authentic 
 collection of genealogies which was of the 
 highest importance to the priestly families. 
 Herod, as appears from his public designs, 
 affected the dignity of a second Solomon, but he 
 joined the licence of that monarch to his mag- 
 nificence; and it was said that the monument 
 which he raised over the royal tombs was due 
 to the fear which seized him after a sacrilegious 
 attempt to rob them of secret treasures (Joseph. 
 Ant. xvi. 7, § 1). 
 
 It is, perhaps, difficult to see in the character 
 of Herod any of the true elements of greatness. 
 Some have even supposed that the title—the 
 great—is a mistranslation for the elder (N24, 
 Jost, p. 319, note; 6 μέγας, Ewald, Gesch. iv. 
 473, &c.) ; and yet on the other hand he seems 
 to have possessed the good qualities of our own 
 Henry VIII. with his vices. He maintained 
 peace at home during a long reign by the 
 vigour and timely generosity of his administra- 
 tion. Abroad he conciliated the goodwill of the 
 Romans under circumstances of unusual diffi- 
 culty. His ostentatious display and even his 
 arbitrary tyranny were calculated to inspire 
 Orientals with awe. Bold and yet prudent, 
 oppressive and yet profuse, he had many of the 
 characteristics which make a popular hero; and 
 the title which may have been first given in 
 admiration of successful depotism now serves to 
 bring out in clearer contrast the terrible price 
 at which the success was purchased. 
 
 Copper Coin of Herod the Great. 
 
 Oby. ἩΡΏΔΟΥ. Bunch of grapes. Rev. EONAPXO. 
 Macedonian helmet: in the field, caduceus, 
 
 II. Herop ANTIPAS (Ἀντίπατρος, ᾿ΑντίπαΞ5) 
 was the son of Herod the Great by Malthace, a 
 Samaritan (Joseph. Ant. xvii. 1, § 3). His father 
 had originally destined him as his successor in 
 the kingdom (cp. Matt. ii. 22; ARCHELAUS), but 
 by the last change of his will appointed him 
 “tetrarch of Galilee and Peraea” (Joseph. Ant. 
 xvii. 8, § 1, ‘Hp. 6 τετράρχης, Matt. xiv.1; Luke 
 iii. 19, ix. 7; Acts xiii. 1. Cp. Luke iii. 1, τε- 
 τραρχοῦντος τῆς Γαλιλαίας ‘Hp.), which brought 
 him a yearly revenue of two hundred talents 
 (Joseph. «ἀπὲ, xvii. 13, § 4; cp. Luke viii. 3, Xou¢a 
 
1944 HEROD 
 
 ἐπιτρόπου ‘Hp.). He first married a daughter 
 
 of Aretas, “king of Arabia Petraea,” but after | 
 
 some time (Joseph. Ant. xviii. 5, § 1) he made 
 
 overtures of marriage to Herodias, the wife of | 
 
 his half-brother Herod-Philip, which she re- 
 ceived favourably. Aretas, indignant at the 
 insult offered to his daughter, found a pretext 
 for invading the territory of Herod, and defeated 
 
 him with great loss (Joseph. /. c.). This defeat, | 
 according to the famous passage in Josephus | 
 
 (Ant. xviii. 5, § 2), was attributed by many to 
 the murder of John the Baptist, which had been 
 committed by Antipas shortly before, under the 
 
 influence of Herodias (Matt. xiv. 4 sq.; Mark vi. | 
 
 17 sq.; Luke iii. 19). At a later time the 
 ambition of Herodias proved the cause of her 
 husband’s ruin. She urged him to go to Rome 
 to gain the title of king (cp. Mark vi. 14, 6 
 
 βασιλεὺς ‘Hp. by courtesy), which had been | 
 
 granted to his nephew Agrippa; but he was 
 opposed at the court of Caligula by the emis- 
 saries of Agrippa [HEROD AGRIPPA], and con- 
 demned to perpetual banishment at Lugdunum, 
 A.D. 39 (Joseph. Ant. xviii. 7, § 2), whence he 
 appears to have retired afterwards to Spain 
 (B. J. ii. 9, § 6; but see note on p. 1347). He- 
 rodias voluntarily shared his punishment, and 
 he died in exile. [HEROpIAS.] 
 Pilate took occasion from our Lord’s residence 
 
 in Galilee to send Him for examination (Luke | 
 
 xxiii. 6 sq.) to Herod Antipas, who came up to 
 Jerusalem to celebrate the Passover (cp. Joseph. 
 Ant. xviii. 6, § 3), and thus heal the feud which 
 
 had existed between the tetrarch and himself, 
 Luke xiii. 1, περὶ τῶν 
 Γαλιλαίων, ὧν τὸ αἷμα Πίλατος ἔμιξεν μετὰ TOY 
 The share which Antipas thus | 
 took in the Passion is specially noticed in the | 
 Acts (iv. 27) in connexion with Ps, ii. 1, 2. | 
 
 (Luke xxiii. 123; cp. 
 
 θυσιῶν αὐτῶν). 
 
 His character, as it appears in the Gospels, 
 answers to the general tenor of his life. He 
 was unscrupulous (Luke iii. 19, περὶ πάντων ὧν 
 ἐποίησεν πονηρῶν), tyrannical (Luke xiii. 31), 
 and weak (Matt. xiv. 9). Yet his cruelty was 
 marked by cunning (Luke xiii. 32, τῇ ἀλώπεκι 
 ταύτῃ), and followed by remorse (Mark vi. 14). 
 In contrast with Pilate he presents the type of 
 an Eastern despot, capricious, sensual, and super- 
 stitious. This last element of superstition is 
 both natural and clearly marked. For a time 
 “he heard John gladly ” (Mark vi. 20), and was 
 anxious to see Jesus (Luke ix. 9, xxiii. 8), in the 
 expectation, as it is said, of witnessing some 
 miracle wrought by Him (Luke xiii. 31, xxiii. 8). 
 
 The city of Trpprras, which Antipas founded 
 and named in honour of the emperor, was the 
 most conspicuous monument of his long reign ; 
 but, like the rest of the Herodian family, he 
 showed his passion for building cities in several 
 places, restoring Sepphoris, near Tabor, which 
 had been destroyed in the wars after the death 
 of Herod the Great (Joseph. Ant. xvii. 12, § 9; 
 xviii. 2, § 1), and Betharamphtha (Beth-haram) 
 in Peraea, which he named Julias, “from the 
 wife of the emperor” (Jos. Ané. xviii. 2, 81; 
 Hieron. Euseb. Chron. a.p. 29, Livias). 
 
 III]. ARCHELAUS (᾿Αρχέλαος) was, like Herod 
 Antipas, the son of Herod the Great and Mal- 
 thace. He was brought up with his brother at 
 Rome (Joseph, Ant. xvii. 1, §3), and in con- 
 sequence of the accusations of his eldest brother 
 Antipater, the son of Doris, he was excluded by 
 
 HEROD 
 
 his father’s will from any share in his dominions. 
 Afterwards, however, by a second change, the 
 “ kingdom ” was left to him, which had been de- 
 signed for his brother Antipas (Joseph. Ant. xvii. 
 8, § 1), and it was this unexpected arrangement 
 which led to the retreat of Joseph to Galilee 
 (Matt. ii, 22). Archelaus did not enter on his 
 power without strong opposition and bloodshed 
 (Joseph. Ant. xvii. 9); but Augustus confirmed the 
 will of Herod in its essential provisions, and gave 
 Archelaus the government of “ Idumaea, Judaea, 
 and Samaria, with the cities of Caesarea, Sebaste, 
 Joppa, and Jerusalem” (Joseph. Ant. xvii. 13, 
 §5), which produced a revenue of 400 (Joseph. 
 δι J.ii. 6, § 3) or 600 talents (Ant. xvii. 13, § 5). 
 For the time he received the title of Ethnarch, 
 with the promise of that of king, if he proved 
 worthy of it (Joseph. /. c.). His conduct justi- 
 fied the fears which his character inspired. 
 After violating the Mosaic Law by the marriage 
 with Glaphyra, his brother’s widow (Joseph. 
 Ant. xvii. 13, §1), he roused his subjects by 
 his tyranny and cruelty to appeal to Rome for 
 redress. Augustus at once summoned him to his 
 presence, and after his cause was heard he was 
 banished to Vienne in Gaul (A.p. 7), where pro- 
 bably he died (Joseph. ἡ. c.; ep. Strab. xvi. 
 Ῥ. 765; Dio Cass. lv. 27); though in the time of 
 Jerome his tomb was shown near Bethlehem 
 (O8S.? p. 135, 12). 
 
 IV. Herop Pururpe I. (Φίλιππος, Mark vi. 
 17) was the son of Herod the Great and Ma- 
 riamne the daughter of a high-priest Simon 
 (Joseph. Ant. xviii. 6, § 4), and must be carefully 
 distinguished from the tetrarch Philip. [HrRop 
 Puiip II.] He married Herodias, the sister of 
 Agrippa I., by whom he had a daughter Salome. 
 Herodias, however, left him, and made an in- 
 famous marriage with his haif-brother Herod 
 Antipas (Matt. xiv. 3; Mark vi. 17; Luke iii. 
 19). He is called only Herod by Josephus, but 
 the repetition of the name Philip is fully justi- 
 fied by the frequent recurrence of names in the 
 Herodian family (6.0. Antipater). The two 
 Philips were confounded by Jerome (ad Matt. 
 l.c.); and the confusion was the more easy, 
 because the son of Mariamne was excluded from 
 all share in his father’s possessions (τῆς διαθή- 
 Kns ἐξήλειψεν) in consequence of his mother’s 
 treachery (Joseph. B. J. i. 30, §7), and lived 
 afterwards in a private station. 
 
 VY. Herop Puruip II. (Φίλιππος) was the son 
 of Herod the Great and Cleopatra (‘Iepoco- 
 λυμῖτι5). Like his half-brothers ° Antipas and 
 Archelaus, he was brought up at home (Joseph. 
 Ant. xvii. 1, § 3), and on the death of his father 
 advocated the claims of Archelaus before Au- 
 gustus (Joseph. B. J. ii. 6, § 1). He received as 
 his own government “ Batanaea, Trachonitis, 
 Auranitis (Gaulonitis), and some parts about 
 Jamnia ” (Joseph. B. J. ii. 6, 8.8), with the 
 title of tetrarch (Luke iii. 1, Φιλίππου... .. 
 τετραρχοῦντος τῆς ᾿Ιτουραίας καὶ Tpaxwviridos 
 xépas). His rule was distinguished by justice 
 and moderation (Joseph. Ant. xvii. 2, ὃ 4), and 
 he appears to have devoted himself entirely to 
 the duties of his office without sharing in the 
 intrigues which disgraced his family (Joseph, 
 
 ¢ Joseph. Ant. xvii. 8, § 1. Josephus calls Philip 
 ᾿Αρχελάου ἀδελφὸς γνήσιος ; but elsewhere he states ᾿ 
 their distinct descent. 
 
HEROD 
 
 Ant, xviii. 5, § 6). He built a new city on the 
 site of Paneas, near the sources of the Jordan, 
 which he called Caesarea (Katoapela 7 Φιλίππου, 
 Matt. xvi. 13; Mark viii. 27), and raised Beth- 
 saida (in Lower Gaulonitis) to the rank of a city 
 under the title of Julias (Joseph. Ant, ii. 9, § 1; 
 xviii, 2, §1), and died there A.D. 34 (xviii. 5, 
 § 6). He married Salome, the daughter of 
 Philip (1.) and Herodias (Ant. xviii. 6, § 4), but 
 as he left no children at his death his dominions 
 were added to the Roman province of Syria 
 (xviii. 5, § 6). 
 
 VI, Herop Aarippa I. (Ἡρώδης, Acts ; 
 ᾿Αγρίππας, Joseph.) was the son of Aristobulus 
 and Berenice, and grandson of Herod the Great. 
 He was brought up at Rome with Claudius and 
 Drusus, and after a life of various vicissitudes 
 (Joseph. Ant. xviii. 7) was thrown into prison 
 by Tiberius for an unguarded speech, where he 
 remained till the accession of Caius (Caligula) 
 A.D. 37. The new emperor gave him the govern- 
 ments formerly held by the tetrarchs Philip and 
 Lysanias, and bestowed on him the ensigns of 
 royalty and other marks of favour (Acts xii. 1, 
 ‘Hp. 6 βασιλεύς). The jealousy of Herod Anti- 
 pas and his wife Herodias was excited by these 
 distinctions, and they sailed to Rome in the 
 hope of supplanting Agrippa in the Emperor’s 
 favour. Agrippa was aware of their design, 
 and anticipated it by a counter-charge against 
 Antipas of treasonous correspondence with the 
 Parthians. Antipas failed to answer the accusa- 
 tion, and was banished to Gaul (A.D. 39), and 
 his dominions were added to those already held 
 by Agrippa (Joseph. Ant. xviii. 7, §2). After- 
 wards Agrippa rendered important services to 
 Claudius (Joseph. B. J. ii. 11, §§ 2, 3), and re- 
 ceived from him in return (A.D. 41) the govern- 
 ment of Judaea and Samaria; so that his entire 
 dominions eaualled in extent the kingdom of 
 Herod the Great. Unlike his predecessors, 
 Agrippa was a strict observer of the Law 
 (Joseph. Ant. xix. 7, §3), and he sought with 
 success the favour of the Jews.’ It is probable 
 that it was with this view® he put to death 
 James the son of Zebedee, and further imprisoned 
 
 - Peter (Acts xii. 1 sq.). But his sudden death, 
 
 ' 
 [ 
 
 which followed immediately afterwards, inter- 
 rupted his ambitious projects. 
 
 In the fourth year of his reign over the whole 
 of Judaea (A.D. 44), Agrippa attended some 
 games at Caesarea, held in honour of the Em- 
 peror. When he appeared in the theatre (Joseph. 
 Ant. xix. 8, §2, δευτέρᾳ τῶν θεωριῶν ἡμέρᾳ; 
 
 Acts xii. 21, τακτῇ ἡμέρᾳ) in “a robe of silver | 
 
 stuff” (ἐξ ἀργύρου πεποιημένην πᾶσαν, Joseph. ; 
 ἐσθῆτα βασιλικήν, Acts xii. 21), which shone in 
 the morning light, his flatterers saluted him as 
 a god; and suddenly he was seized with terrible 
 pains, and being carried from the theatre to the 
 palace died after five days’ agony (ἐφ᾽ ἡμέρας 
 πέντε TH τῆς γαστρὸς ἀλγήματι διεργασθεὶς 
 τὸν βίον κατέστρεψεν, Joseph. Ant. xix. 8: 
 
 ἃ Jost (Gesch. d. Judenthums, p. 420) quotes a legend 
 that Agrippa burst into tears on reading in a public 
 service Deut. xvii. 15; whereupon the people cried out, 
 
 ‘Be not distressed, Agrippa, thou art our brother; ” in | 
 virtue, that is, of his half-descent from the Hasmonaeans. | 
 
 e Jost (p. 421, &c.), who objects that these acts are | 
 inconsistent with the known humanity of Agrippa, | 
 
 entirely neglects the reason suggested by St. Luke 
 (Acts xii. 3). 
 BIBLE DICT.—VOL, I. 
 
 HEROD 1345 
 
 γενόμενος σκωληκόβρωτος ἐξέψυξεν, Acts xii. 
 28 ; cp. 2 Macc. ix. 5-9), 
 
 By a singular but now explained confusion 
 Eusebius (1. 2. ii. 10; cp. ἢ. 7 in loco, edd. 
 Wace and Schaff) reads for the owl, which, 
 according to Josephus, appeared to Herod as 
 a messenger of evil (4yyeAos kakwv), “the 
 Angel ” of the Acts, who was the unseen minister 
 of the Divine Will (Acts xii. 23, ἐπάταξεν αὐτὸν 
 ἄγγελος Κυρίου ; cp. 2 K. xix. 35, LXX.), 
 
 Various conjectures have been made as to the 
 occasion of the festival at which the event took 
 place. Josephus (/. 0.) says that it was “in 
 behalf of the Emperor’s safety,” and it has been 
 supposed that it might have been in connexion 
 with his return from Britain; but this is at least 
 very uncertain (cp. Wieseler, Chron. d. Apost. Zeit. 
 Ῥ. 131 sq.). Josephus mentions also the concourse 
 “of the chief men throughout the province ” 
 who were present on the occasion ; and though 
 he does not notice the embassy of the Tyrians 
 and Agrippa’s speech, yet his narrative is per- 
 fectly consistent with both facts. 
 
 Vil. Herop Acrippa II. (Αγρίππας, N. T.; 
 Joseph.) was the son of Herod Agrippa I. and 
 Cypros, a grand-niece of Herod the Great. At 
 the time of the death of his father in A.p. 44 he 
 was at Rome, and his youth (he was 17 years 
 old) prevented Claudius from carrying out his 
 first intention of appointing him his father’s 
 successor (Joseph. Ant. xix. 9, §§1, 2). Not long 
 afterwards, however, the Emperor gave him (c. 
 A.D. 50) the kingdom of Chalcis, which had 
 belonged to his uncle (who died a. Ὁ. 48; Joseph. 
 Ant. xx. 4, ὃ 2; B. J. ii. 12, ὃ 1); and then 
 transferred him (A.D, 52) to the tetrarchies 
 formerly held by Philip and Lysanias (Joseph. 
 Ant. xx. 6, 81; B. J. ii. 12, § 8), with the title 
 of king (Acts xxv. 13, ᾿Αγρίππας 6 βασιλεύς, 
 xxvi. 2, 7, &c.). 
 
 Nero afterwards increased the dominions of 
 Agrippa by the addition of several cities (Ant. 
 xx. 6, §4); and he displayed the lavish magni- 
 ficence which marked his family by costly 
 buildings at Jerusalem and Berytus, in both 
 cases doing violence to the feelings of the Jews 
 (Ant. xx. 7, § 115; 8,§ 4). The relation in which 
 he stood to his sister Berenice (Acts xxv. 13) 
 was the cause of grave suspicion (Joseph. Ant. 
 xx. 6, § 3), which was noticed by Juvenal (Sat. 
 vi. 155 sq.). In the last Roman war Agrippa 
 took part with the Romans, and after the fall of 
 Jerusalem retired with Berenice to Rome, where 
 he died in the third year of Trajan (A.D. 100), 
 being the last prince of the house of Herod 
 (Phot. Cod. 33). 
 
 Copper Coin of Herod Agrippa II. with Titus. 
 Obv. AYTOKPTITOC KAICAPCEBA. Head laureate to the 
 
 right. Rev. ETO KS BA ATPITIIIA (year 26). Victo.y 
 advancing to the right: in the field, a star. 
 
 The appearance of St. Paul before Agrippa 
 (A.D. 60) offers several characteristic traits. 
 4R 
 
1346 HERODIANS 
 
 Agrippa seems to have been intimate with Festus 
 (Joseph. Ant. xx. 7, §11); and it was natural 
 that the Roman governor should avail himself 
 of his judgment on a question of what seemed 
 to be Jewish law (Acts xxv. 18 sq., 263; cp. 
 Joseph. Ant. xx. 8, ὃ 7). The “pomp” (πολλὴ 
 φαντασία) with which the king came into the 
 audience chamber (Acts xxv. 23) was accordant 
 with his general bearing; and the cold irony 
 with which he met the impassioned words of 
 the Apostle (Acts xxvi. 27, 28) suits the temper 
 of one who was contented to take part in the 
 destruction of his nation. [B. F. W.] 
 
 VIII. BeReNIcE. [BERENICE.] 
 
 IX. Drusmia. [DRUSILLA.] 
 
 HERO'DIANS (Ἡρωδιανοί). Inthe account 
 which is given by St. Matthew (xxii. 15 sq.) 
 and St. Mark (xii. 13 sq.) of the last efforts 
 made by different sections of the Jews to obtain 
 from our Lord Himself the materials for His 
 accusation, a party under the name of Herodians 
 is represented as acting in concert with the 
 Pharisees * (Matt. xxii. 16; Mark xii. 13). St. 
 Mark mentions the combination of the two 
 parties for a similar object at an earlier period 
 (Mari: iii. 6) ; and, in another place (viii. 15 ; cp. 
 Luke xii. 1), he preserves a saying of our Lord, 
 in which “the leaven of Herod” is placed in 
 close connexion with “the leaven of the Phari- 
 sees.” In the Gospel of St. Luke, on the other 
 hand, the Herodians are not brought forward at 
 all by name. 
 
 These very scanty notices of the Evangelists 
 as to the position of the Herodians are not com- 
 pensated by other testimonies; yet it is not 
 difficult to fix their characteristics by a reference 
 to the condition of Jewish feeling in the Apo- 
 stolic age. There were probably many who saw 
 in the power of the Herodian family the pledge 
 of the preservation of their national existence 
 in the face of Roman ambition. In proportion 
 as they regarded the independent nationality of 
 the Jewish people as the first condition of the 
 fulfilment of its future destiny, they would be 
 willing to acquiesce in the dominion of men who 
 were themselves of foreign descent [HEROD], 
 and not rigid in the observance of the Mosaic 
 ritual. Two distinct classes might thus unite 
 in supporting what was a domestic tyranny as 
 contrasted with absolute dependence on Rome: 
 those who saw in the Herods a protection against 
 direct heathen rule, which was the one object of 
 their fear (cp. Juchas, f. 19, ap. Lightfoot, Harm. 
 Ev. p. 470, ed. Leusd.: “ Herodes etiam senem 
 Hillel magno in honore habuit; namque hi 
 homines regem illum esse non aegre ferebant ”), 
 
 5. Origen (Comm. in Matt. tom. xvii. § 26) regards this 
 combination of the Herodians and Pharisees as a com- 
 bination of antagonistic parties, the one favourable to 
 the Roman government (εἰκὸς yap ὅτι ἐν τῷ λαῷ τότε 
 οἱ μὲν διδάσκοντες τελεῖν τὸν φόρον Καίσαρι ἐκαλοῦντο 
 “Hpwiiavol ὑπὸ τῶν μὴ θελόντων τοῦτο γίνεσθαι .. .), 
 and the other opposed to it; but this view, which is 
 only conjectural (εἰκός), does not offer a complete 
 sulution of the various relations of the Herodians to the 
 other parties of the times. Jerome, following Origen, 
 limits the meaning of the term yet more: ‘‘ Cwm Hero- 
 dianis, id est, militibus Herodis, sew quos illudentes 
 Pharisaei, quia Romanis tributa solvebant, Herodianos 
 vocabant et non divino cultui deditos” (Hieron. Comm. 
 tn Matt. xxii. 15). 
 
 HERODIAS; 
 
 and those who were inclined to look with satis- 
 faction upon such a compromise between the 
 ancient faith and heathen civilisation, as Herod 
 the Great and his successors had endeavoured to 
 realise, as the true and highest consummation 
 of Jewish hopes.” On the one side the Herodians 
 —partisans of Herod in the widest sense of the 
 term—were thus brought into union with the 
 Pharisees; on the other, with the Sadducees. 
 Yet there is no reason to suppose that they 
 endeavoured to form any very systematic har- 
 mony of the conflicting doctrines of the two 
 sects, but rather the conflicting doctrines them- 
 selves were thrown into the background by 
 what appeared to be a paramount political 
 necessity. Such coalitions have been frequent 
 in every age; and the rarity of the allusions to 
 the Herodians, as a marked body, seems to show 
 that this, like similar coalitions, had no enduring 
 influence as the foundation of party. The 
 feelings which led to the coalition remained, but 
 they were incapable of animating the common 
 action of a united body for any length of time. 
 [B. F. W.] 
 
 HERO'DIAS (Ἡρωδίας, a female patronymic 
 from Ἡρώδης; on patronymics and gentilic 
 names in sas, see Matthiae, Gk. Gr. §§ 101, 103), 
 the name of a woman of notoriety in the N. T., 
 daughter of Aristobulus, one of the sons of 
 Mariamne and Herod the Great, and consequently 
 sister of Agrippa I. 
 
 She first married Herod, surnamed Philip, 
 another of the sons of Mariamne and the first 
 Herod (Joseph. Ant. xviii. 5, ὃ 4; cp. B. J. 
 i. 29, § 4), and therefore her full uncle; then 
 she eloped from him, during his lifetime (Ant. 
 ibid.), to marry Herod Antipas, her step-uncle, 
 who had been long married to, and was still 
 living with, the daughter of Aeneas or Aretas— 
 his assumed name—king of Arabia (2b. xvii. 9, 
 § 4).. Thus she left her husband, who was still 
 alive, to connect herself with a man whose wife 
 was still alive. Her paramour was indeed less 
 of a blood relation than her original husband ; 
 but being likewise the half-brother of that hus- 
 band, he was already connected with her by 
 affinity—so close that there was only one case 
 contemplated in the Law of Moses where it 
 could be set aside; namely, when the married 
 brother had died childless (Lev. xviii. 16 and 
 xx. 21. See for the exception Deut. xxv. 5 sq.). 
 Now Herodias had already had one child—Salome 
 
 b> In this way the Herodians were said to regard 
 Herod (Antipas) as ‘‘the Messiah”: ‘Hpwé:avot κατ᾽ 
 ἐκείνους τοὺς χρόνους ἦσαν ot τὸν Ἡρώδην Χριστὸν εἶναι 
 λέγοντες ὡς ἱστορεῖται (Vict. Ant. ap. Cram. Cat. in 
 Mare. p. 400). Philastrius (Haer. xxviii.) applies the 
 same belief to Herod Agrippa ; Epiphanius (Haer. xix.) 
 to Herod the Great. Jerome in one place (ad Matt. xxii. 
 15) calls the idea ‘a ridiculous notion of some Latin 
 writers, which rests on no authority (quod nusquam 
 legimus) ;”’ and again (Dial. c. Lucifer. xxiii.) mentions 
 it in a general summary of heretical notions without 
 hesitation. The belief was, in fact, one of general 
 sentiment, and not of distinct and pronounced con- 
 fession. 
 
 Others prefer to see in the Herodians ‘* a semi- 
 Roman and semi-Nationalist party;” differing, that 
 is, from the extreme section of the Pharisees who hated 
 Herod, on the one hand, and from the Nationalists pure, 
 on the other (cp. Edersheim, The Life and Times of 
 Jesus the Messiah, ii. 384; cp. i. 237-240).—[F.] 
 
HERODIAS HERON 1347 
 
 —by Philip (Ant. xviii. 5, § 4), and, as he was | (Gen. xl. 20; ep. Joseph. Ant. xii. 4, § 7), with 
 _ still alive, might have had more. Well, there- | the Persians (Herod. i. 133), with the Greeks— 
 fore, may she be charged by Josephus with the | even in the case of the dead, whence the Chris- 
 intention of confounding her country’s institu- | tian custom of keeping anniversaries of the 
 tions (ib. xviii. 5, § 4); and well may St. John | martyrs (Bahr ad Herod. iv. 26)—and with the 
 the Baptist have remonstrated against the enor- | Romans (Pers, Sat. ii. 1-3). Now the Herods 
 mity of such a connexion with the tetrarch, | may be said to have gone beyond Rome in the 
 whose conscience would certainly seem to have | observance of all that was Roman. Herod the 
 been a less hardened one (Matt. xiv. 9 says he | Great kept the day of his accession; Antipas— 
 “was sorry ;” Mark vi. 20 that he “feared” St. | as we read here—and Agrippa I., as Josephus 
 John, and “heard him gladly ”’). tells us (Ant. xix. 7, § 1), their birthdays, with 
 — The consequences both of the crime, and of | such magnificence, that the “birthdays of 
 the reproof which it incurred, are well known, | Herod” ( Herodis dies) had passed into a pro- 
 Aretas made war upon Herod for the injury | verb when Persius wrote (Sat. v. 180). 
 done to his daughter, and routed him with the 4. And yet dancing, on these festive occasions, 
 loss of his whole army (Ant. xviii. 5, § 1). The | was common to both Jew and Gentile; and was 
 head of St. John the Baptist was granted to the | practised in the same way—youths and virgins, 
 request of Herodias (Matt. xiv. 8-11; Mark | singly, or separated into two bands, but never 
 vi. 24-28). According to Josephus, the execu- | intermingled, danced to do honour to their deity, 
 tion took place in a fortress called Machaerus, | their hero, or to the day of their solemnity. 
 on the frontier between the dominions of Aretas | Miriam (Ex. xv. 20), the daughter of Jephthah 
 and Herod; according to Pliny (v. 15), looking | (Judg. xi. 34), and David (2 Sam. vi. 14) are 
 down uponjthe Dead Sea from the south (ep. ; familiar instances in Holy Writ: the Carmen 
 Robinson, i. 570, note). And it was to the | Saeculare of Horace, to quote no more, points 
 iniquity of this act, rather than to the immo- | to the same custom amongst Greeks and Romans. 
 rality of that illicit connexion, that, the his- | It is plainly owing to the elevation of woman 
 torian says, some of the Jews attributed the | in the social scale, that dancing in pairs (still 
 defeat of Herod. In the closing scene of her ; unknown to the East) has come into fashion. 
 career, indeed, Herodias exhibited considerable 5. The rash oath of Herod, like that of Jeph- 
 magnanimity: as she preferred going with | thahin the O. T., has afforded ample discussion 
 Antipas to Lugdunum,* and there sharing his , to casuists. It is now ruled that all such oaths, 
 exile and reverses, till death ended them, to the | where there is no reservation, expressed or im- 
 remaining with her brother Agrippa I., and | plied, in favour of the laws of God or man, are 
 partaking of his elevation (Ant. xviii. 7, § 2). illicit and without force. Solomon had long since 
 There are few episodes in the whole range of | decided thus (1 K. ii. 20-24; see Sanderson, De 
 the N. T. more suggestive to the commentator | Juram. Oblig. Praelect. iii. 16). [Ε΄ 5. Ff.] 
 
 than this one scene in the life of Herodias. ; ᾿ ‘ ν 
 1. It exhibits one of the most remarkable of | _ HERO DION (Ἡρωδίων ; Herodion), a rela- 
 the undesigned coincidences between the N. T. tive of St. Paul (τὸν συγγενῆ μου ; cognatus), to 
 whom he sends his salutation amongst the 
 
 and Josephus; that there are some discrepancies ἘΠῚ u 
 in the two accounts, only enhances their value. Christians of the Roman Church (Rom. xvi. 11). 
 Nothing appears to be certainly known of him. 
 
 More than this, it has led the historian into a : ὑπ ἢ 
 
 brief digression upon the life, death, and cha- By Hippolytus, however, he is said to have been 
 
 racter of the Baptist, which speaks volumes in Bishop of Tarsus; and by Pseudodorothe of 
 Patra (Winer, 8. 7.). [α.1 
 
 favour of the genuineness of that still more 
 celebrated passage, in which he speaks of | PRON. The rendering in A. V. and R. V. 
 “ Jesus,” that “wise man, if man He may be (but R. V. margin, “ibis”) of MHIN, ’anaphah ; 
 called” (Ant. xviii. 3, § 3; cp. xx. 9, § 1, un- Oe: Arp : 
 re : + χαραδριός ; charadrius, in Lev. xi. 19, Deut. xiv- 
 ΝΣ τ ττὐν genuine: by Euseh, Bet is. Ὄρος it occurs. It would appear to 
 
 "τυ. ., | have been well known, and also to include 
 eee ermly debated: whethen t various species, from the addition of the words 
 
 was the adultery, or the incestuous connexion, | , VR en «τ ᾿ ΕΝ 
 that drew down the reproof of the Baptist. It pee Hered ive Sa ea 
 has been alzeady a that pulse Waynusee tended as the heron, or they would have used its 
 “oe merited condemnation upon more grounds familiar name, ἐρώδιος ; but they at least took 
 8. The birthday feast is another undesigned it τ ots ele ne Red ue τὸ Hae: ὯῸΣ ae we 
 ABE ari - δριὸς is applicable to a irds frequenting 
 bet Scripture and profane his- | °P > , : 
 tory. ‘The Jews abhorred keeping birthdays as | SW@™py ground (ἐν χαράδραιε, though modern 
 a pagan custom (Bland on Matt xiv 6). On the naturalists, apply 16, ἴο the plover mike ae. 
 Ἢ S hand. it Ree ithe Revptians |:Hr0™S fancied derivation of the Greek ἀνοπαῖα, 
 aa: 88 ἀϑῦδου νυ SYI a species of eagle (ὄρνις δ᾽ ὧς ἀνοπαῖα διέπτατο, 
 
 τς fi Bochart and others ha 
 8 This town is probably Lugdunum Convenarum, a Od. i. 320), from NEN, ΒΞ aave 
 
 town of Gaul, situated on the right bank of the Garonne, supposed that some species of bird of prey was 
 at the foot of the Pyrenees, now St. Bertrand de Com- | intended. The guesses of the Talmudists are 
 minges (Murray, Handb. of France, 8. n.); Eusebius, | equally vague. Gesenius, deriving the name 
 H. Ἐ- i. 11, says Vienne, confounding Antipas with | from JN, suggests some irascible bird, and 
 _ Archelaus (see Euseb. l.c., edd. Wace and Schaff). | other commentators would make it the goose or 
 | eta ee pe mee ae a fat O, nie the parrot; both impossible, as neither of these 
 ᾿ ag 4 SUES Sn hay Pes | classes are found in those countries. Probably 
 
 j 
 
 is said to have died in Spain—apparently, from the ἃ 3 
 
 context, the land of his exile. A town on the frontiers, the local or archaic name was unknown to hod 
 therefore, like the above, would satisfy both passages. | dwellers in the city of ce Ἔσο they 
 
 Se 
 
1848 HESED 
 
 had a general idea that a marsh bird was 
 intended. Weighing all that has been written 
 on the subject, the rendering of our Versions seems 
 to have more to recommend it than any other 
 (see Knobel-Dillmann on Ley, ἰ. 96. MV." com- 
 pares Assyr. anpatu, which Friedy. Delitzsch 
 translates “the bird of light”). The heron tribe 
 is very abundant in Egypt and Palestine , there 
 are many different species, and they all affect 
 marshy situations. They are so numerous and 
 conspicuous that it is unlikely they should 
 not be mentioned in the list; while the plover 
 tribe there are neither numerous, varied, nor 
 conspicuous. There are no less than seven 
 species of heron all common in Egypt, and the 
 same are also found throughout Palestine in 
 suitable localities. They are the Common Heron 
 (Ardea cinerea, L.), the Purple Heron (Ardea 
 purpurea, L.), the Great White Heron (Ardea 
 alba, L.), found about the Lake of Gennesareth ; 
 the little Egret (Ardea garzetta, L.), the Buff- 
 backed Heron (Ardea bubulcus, Aud.), very com- 
 mon in pastures with cattle; the Squaceo (Ardea 
 ralloides, Scop.), and the Night Heron (Wycticorax 
 griseus, L.). Vast flocks of the buff-backed and 
 squacco herons live and breed in the swamps of 
 Huleh, the ancient Merom. The marginal 
 rendering of R. V., ibis, is fully justified, as 
 the Purple Ibis always consorts with the last- 
 named species, but in small numbers, reminding 
 one of the black members of a flock of sheep in 
 England. The food of all these birds is the 
 same, principally fish, frogs, and reptiles. The 
 smaller species also devour caterpillars and 
 beetles. (H. B. T.] 
 
 HE’SED (DM = grace ; Β. Ἐσώθ, A.”Eod; 
 Benesed). The son of Hesed, or Ben-Chesed, was 
 commissary for Solomon in the district of “the 
 Arubboth, Socoh, and all the land of Hepher” 
 (1 K. iv. 10). 
 
 HESH’BON (j)SUM, ? = prudence, al., 
 reckoning: Β. Ἑσβών, Α. Ἐσεβών, Josh. xxi. 39; 
 Joseph. "EooeBav: Hesebon), the capital of the 
 independent kingdom which Sihon, king of the 
 Amorites, established north of the Arnon after 
 he had driven out the Moabites (Num. xxi. 
 25-34; Deut. iv. 46; Josh. xii. 2, 5, xiii. 27). 
 The town passed into the hands of the Israelites 
 after the battle of Jahaz (Deut. ii. 32), in which 
 Sihon, who was the first to resist the invaders, 
 was defeated and killed (Num. xxi. 25; Deut. i. 
 4, li. 24, 30; ii. 256, xxix. ἢν Joshvix, 10); 
 Judg. xi. 19, 26; Neh. ix. 22; Judith v. 15). 
 It was situated, with its dependent cities, on the 
 level downs, mishor, east of the Dead Sea (Josh. 
 xiii. 17),—the “place for cattle” which the 
 pastoral tribes, Reuben and Gad, asked Moses to 
 give them for a possession (Num. xxxii. 3). It 
 was given to Reuben (Josh. xiii. 10, 17, 21), and 
 rebuilt by the tribe (Num. xxxii. 37); but was 
 so near the boundary between ‘Reuben and Gad 
 (Josh. xiii. 26) that, in the list of towns 
 assigned to the Merarite Levites, it is said to 
 have belonged to the latter tribe (Josh. xxi. 39; 
 1 Ch. vi. 81). In the time of Isaiah it was 
 apparently in the hands of the Moabites, to 
 whom it originally belonged (Num. xxi. 26); 
 and hence it is mentioned in the prophetic 
 denunciations against Moab (Is. xv. 4, xvi. 
 8, 9; Jer. xlviii. 2, 34, 45, xlix. 3) It is 
 
 HESRONITES 
 
 usually taken to be the same place as the 
 Casphor (Χασφὼρ) or Casphon (Χασφὼν) of 
 1 Mace, vy. 26, 36, and the Chasphoma 
 (Χάσφωμα)ν of Josephus (Ant. xii. 8, § 3), which 
 was captured by Judas Maccabaeus (Reland, 
 Pal. p. 719; Riehm, HWS. 5. v.); but the 
 operations of Judas, east of Jordan, were appa- 
 rently confined to the northern districts, and 
 did not extend southwards as far as Heshbon. 
 During the reign of Alexander Jannaeus it 
 was in the possession of the Jews (Joseph. 
 Ant. xiii. 15, § 4); and under Herod it was 
 restored, and garrisoned by cavalry (Ant. xv. 8, 
 § 5). At the commencement of the Jewish 
 War it was laid waste by the Jews (B. J. ii, 18, 
 § 1), but soon recovered. Ptolemy (vy. 17) 
 mentions it under the name Esbuta (EoBovra), 
 and the “Arabes Esbonitae” of Pliny (v. 12) 
 must be referred to this place. Eusebius says 
 (OS p. 259, 24) that it was in his day called 
 Esbus (Ἐσβοῦς), and was a famous city of 
 Arabia, situated in the mountains opposite 
 Jericho, and 20 M.P. from the Jordan. “It is 
 mentioned in the list of the Eparchies of Arabia 
 under the name Ἔσβους (Reland, Pail. p. 217), 
 and in the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon 
 as Πόλις ᾿Ἐσβούντων. According to Abu-l 
 Feda, it was in the 14th century a small town 
 and the capital of the Belkd province (Le Strange, 
 Pal. under the Moslems, p. 456). There are coins 
 of Nero and Caracalla; those of the latter 
 emperor have a temple of Astarte, or a ‘‘ Deus 
 Lunus” with a Phrygian cap, and the epigraph 
 ECBOY. 
 
 The ruins of Heshbon (see Tristram, Zand of 
 Tsrael,? p. 544), now called Hesbdn, lie on a 
 plateau quite bare of trees, about 16 miles 
 E. of the Pilgrims’ Bathing Place in the 
 Jordan. The nearest water is ‘Ain Hesbdn, in 
 a valley to the W., whence an ancient road 
 winds up to the plateau. The remains are 
 those of an important town, but none of them, 
 excepting the caves, cisterns, and rock cuttings, 
 «ppear. to be more ancient than the 2nd cen- 
 tury A.D. Heaps of fallen masonry cover the 
 sides of a high Tell, on the top of which there 
 was a large building; and on the ground to the 
 S.W. of this are numerous remains of houses, 
 some of which appear to have had considerable 
 architectural pretensions. There are many 
 caves and rock-hewn cisterns, and, on the S. 
 side of the Zell, a large ancient reservoir, which 
 calls to mind the passage in Cant. vii. 4, 
 “Thine eyes are like the fishpools (R. Y. pools) 
 of Heshbon by the gate of Bath-rabbim.” See 
 Burckhardt, Trav. in Syr. p. 365; Irby and 
 
 Mangles, p. 472; PEF. Mem. E. Pal. i. 104 sq.5__ 
 
 Riehm, HWS. s.v. [BATH-RABBIM. ] 
 
 (W.] 
 
 HESH’MON (iow =thriving, fruitfulness ; 
 both MSS. of LXX. omit; Hassemon), a place 
 named, with others, as lying between Moladah 
 and Beersheba (Josh. xv. 27), and therefore in 
 the extreme south of Judah. Nothing further 
 is known of it; but may it not be another form 
 of the name AZMON, given in Num. xxxiv. 4 as 
 one of the landmarks of the southern boundary 
 of Judah ? [ἃ] [1 
 
 HES’RON. [Hezron.] 
 HESRONITES. [Hezronites.] 
 
HETH 
 
 HETH (NN, i.e. Cheth, terror, giant; Χέτ; 
 Heth), the forefather of the nation of THE 
 Hittites. In the genealogical tables of Gen. x. 
 and 1 Ch. i., Heth is stated to be a son of Canaan, 
 younger than Zidon the firstborn, but preceding 
 the Jebusite, the Amorite, and the other 
 Canaanite families. Heth and Zidon alone are 
 named as persons; all the rest figure as tribes 
 (Gen. x. 15; 1 Ch. i. 13; LXX. τὸν Χετταῖον ; 
 and so Josephus, Ant. i. 6, ὃ 2: Vulg. He- 
 thaeum). 
 
 The Hittites were therefore a Hamite race, 
 neither of the “ country ” nor of the “ kindred ” 
 of Abraham and Isaac (Gen. xxiv. 3, 4; xxviii. 
 1, 2). In the earliest historical mention of the 
 nation—the beautiful narrative of Abraham’s 
 purchase of the cave of Machpelah—they are 
 styled, not Hittites, but Bené-Cheth (A. V. 
 “sons, and children of Heth,” Gen. xxiii. 3, 5, 
 7, 10, 16, 18, 20; xxv. 10; xlix. 32). Once we 
 hear of “‘daughters of Heth” (xxvii. 46), the 
 “daughters of the land;” at that early period 
 still called, after their less immediate progenitor, 
 “daughters of Canaan ” (xxviii. 1, 8, compared 
 with xxvii. 46 and xxvi. 34, 35). [G.] [W.] 
 
 HETH’LON (onn 429, “the way of Heth- 
 lon”; LXX. translates the name; Hethalon), 
 the name of a place on the northern border of 
 the “promised land.” It is mentioned only 
 twice in Scripture (Ezek. xlvii. 15, xlviii. 1). 
 In all probability the “ way of Hethlon” is the 
 pass at the northern end of Lebanon, from the 
 sea-coast of the Mediterranean to the great 
 plain of Hamath, and is thus identical with 
 “the entrance of Hamath” in Num. xxxiv. 
 8, ὧς. See Porter’s Five Years in Damascus, 
 ii. 356. ΠΡ ΡῚ ΓΝ] 
 
 HE’ZEKI (‘ptn, ie. Hizki, a short form 
 of Hizkiah, = Hezekiah, strength of Jah; 
 B. ‘A¢arel, A. -κι; Hezeci), a man in the 
 genealogies of Benjamin, one of the Bene-Elpaal, 
 a descendant of Shaaraim (1 Ch. viii. 17). 
 
 HEZEKT’AH (7), generally WPI, Hiz- 
 kiyahu, and also with initial %, WPI; LXX. 
 and Joseph. "E¢extas; LEzechias; = strength of 
 Jah, cp. Germ. Gotthard, Gesen.). 1. Twelfth 
 king of Judah, son of the apostate Ahaz and 
 Abi (or Abijah), ascended the throne at the age 
 of twenty-five, B.c. 726. Since, however, Ahaz 
 died at the age of thirty-six, some prefer to 
 make Hezekiah only twenty years old at his 
 accession (reading 3 for 3), as otherwise he 
 must have been born when Ahaz was a boy of 
 eleven years old. This indeed is not impossible 
 (Hieron. Ep. ad Vitalem. 132, quoted by Bochart, 
 Geogr. Sacr. p. 920: see Keil on 2 K. xviii. 1; 
 Knobel, Jes. p. 22, &c.); but, if any change be 
 desirable, it is better to suppose that Ahaz was 
 twenty-five and not twenty years old at his 
 accession (LXX., Syr., Arab., 2 Ch. xxviii. 1), 
 reading 3 for 3 in 2 K. xvi. 2. That some 
 change must be made is obvious, since 2 K. xviii. 
 10, 13 and 2 Ch. xxviii. 1 are not reconcilable 
 (as they stand) either with each other or with 
 Assyrian chronology. Ussher’s chronology gives 
 B.c. 726 as the date of Hezekiah’s accession. 
 Wellhausen and Kamphausen fix that date at 
 B.C. 715. Duncker, who is followed by many 
 
 HEZEKIAH 1349 
 
 English authorities, selects the date B.C. 728. 
 From the Assyrian cuneiform inscriptions we 
 arrive at the dates of three events in this 
 period :—(1.) Dethronement of Pekah by Tiglath- 
 pileser, and accession of Hoshea and of Ahaz in 
 Judah B.c. 734, (2.) Fall of Samaria, B.c. 722. 
 (3.) Campaign against Hezekiah, p.c. 701. If 
 these dates be adopted, Ahaz succeeded at the 
 age of twenty-five, and Hezekiah perhaps at 
 fifteen, (On these difficult questions, see W. R. 
 Smith, Prophets of Israel, pp. 416-419; Kamp- 
 hausen, Die Chronologie d. LHebr. Kénige; 
 Duncker, Hist. of Antiquity, E. T. iii. 16-18; 
 Schrader, The Cuneiform Inscriptions [E. 1.1, 
 and the inscriptions quoted and translated in 
 Records of the Past [Bagsters].) 
 
 Hezekiah was one of the three most perfect 
 kings of Judah (2 K. xviii. 5; Ecclus. xlix. 4). 
 His first act was to purge, and repair, and 
 re-open with splendid sacrifices and perfect cere- 
 monial, the Temple which had been despoiled 
 and neglected during the careless and idolatrous 
 reign of his father. This consecration was 
 accompanied by a revival of the theocratic spirit, 
 so strict as not even to spare “ the high places,” 
 which, although tolerated by many well-inten- 
 tioned kings, had naturally been profaned by the 
 worship of images and Asherahs (2 K. xviii. 4). 
 On the extreme importance and probable con- 
 sequences of this measure, see H1GH PLACES. 
 A still more decisive act was the destruction of a 
 brazen serpent, said to have been the one used by 
 Moses in the miraculous healing of the Israelites 
 (Num. xxi. 9), which had been removed to Je- 
 rusalem, and had become, “ down to those days,” 
 an object of adoration, partly in consequence of 
 its venerable character as a relic, and partly per- 
 haps from some dim tendencies to the ophiolatry 
 common in ancient times (Ewald, Gesch. iii. 622). 
 To break up a figure so curious and so highly 
 honoured showed a strong mind, as well as a 
 clear-sighted zeal, and Hezekiah briefly justified 
 his procedure by calling the image AWN, ta 
 brazen thing,” possibly with a contemptuous 
 play on the word WM}, “a serpent.” How 
 necessary this was in such times may be inferred 
 from the fact that ‘the brazen serpent ” is, or 
 was, still reverenced in the Church of St. Am- 
 brose at Milan (Prideaux, Connesxion, i. 19, Oxf. 
 ed.).* Hezekiah abandoned altogether the weak 
 and faithless policy of his father Ahaz, and re- 
 verted to the ideas of his great-grandfather, 
 Uzziah. He strengthened the city, and enabled 
 it to stand a siege by improving the water- 
 supply (2 K. xx. 20; 2 Ch. xxxii. 30); and of 
 these patriotic labours we have, probably, a 
 most interesting confirmation in the engineer’s 
 inscription, discovered in 1880, on the wall of 
 the rocky tunnel between the spring of Gihon 
 and the Pool of Siloam. The early part of his 
 reign was very prosperous. He encouraged 
 agriculture, the storage of produce, and proper 
 care for flocks and herds, so that he amassed 
 treasures which almost recall the days of Solomon 
 (2 Ch, xxxii. 27-30); and men saw in his wealth 
 and success a Divine reward for his pious deeds 
 (id. 32). His success was the more remarkable 
 
 * Un serpent de bronze qui selon une croyance 
 populaire serait celui que leva Moise, et qui doit siffler 
 ἃ la fin du monde.” (Itin. de U'Italie, p. 117.) 
 
1350 HEZEKIAH 
 
 because at his accession Judah had only been 
 evacuated six years by the forces of Rezin and 
 Pekah, and he found “ an empty treasury (2 K. 
 xvi. 8), a ruined peasantry, an unprotected fron- 
 tier, and a shattered army” (Driver’s Jsaiah, 
 p. 48). When the kingdom of Israel had fallen 
 (B.c. 722), Hezekiah extended his pious endeavours 
 to Ephraim and Manasseh, and by inviting the 
 scattered inhabitants to a peculiar Passover 
 kindled their indignation also against the idola- 
 trous practices which still continued among 
 them. This Passover was, from the necessities 
 of the case, celebrated at an unusual, though not 
 illegal (Num. ix. 10, 11) time ; and by an excess 
 of Levitical zeal, it was continued for the un- 
 precedented period of fourteen days. For these 
 latter facts the Chronicler (2 Ch. xxix., xxx., 
 xxxi.) is our sole authority, and he charac- 
 teristically narrates them at great length. It 
 would appear at first sight that this Passover 
 was celebrated immediately after the purification 
 of the Temple (see Prideaux, /. c.), but careful 
 consideration makes it almost certain that it 
 could not have taken place before the sixth year 
 of Hezekiah’s reign, when the fall of Samaria 
 had stricken remorseful terror into the heart of 
 Israel (2 Ch. xxxi. 1; xxx. 6, 9, and Keil on 
 2 K. xviii. 3). The Reformation wrought by 
 Hezekiah was less thorough and effectual than 
 that in the days of Josiah, but it pointed in the 
 right direction, and paved the way for later 
 efforts. From Is. xxx. 22, xxxi. 7 (which 
 belong to B.c. 702), some have inferred that this 
 re-establishment of the pure worship of Jehovah 
 was not fully carried out till later in his reign, 
 when he had triumphed over Assyria. 
 
 By a rare and happy providence the most 
 pious of kings was confirmed in his faithfulness, 
 and seconded in his endeavours, by the powerful 
 assistance of the noblest and most eloquent of 
 prophets. The influence of Isaiah was, however, 
 not gained without a struggle with the “ scorn- 
 ful” remnant of the former royal counsellors 
 (Is. xxviii. 14), who in all probability recom- 
 mended to the king such alliances and com- 
 promises as would be in unison rather with the 
 dictates of political expediency, than with that 
 sole unhesitating trust in the arm of Jehovah 
 which the Prophets inculcated. The leading 
 man of this cabinet was Shebna, who, from the 
 omission of his father’s name and the expression 
 in 15. xxii. 16 (see Blunt, Undes. Coincidences), 
 was probably a foreigner, perhaps a Syrian 
 (Hitzig). At the instance of Isaiah, he seems 
 to have been subsequently degraded from the 
 high post of prefect of the palace (which office 
 was given to Eliakim, Is. xxii. 21), to the in- 
 ferior, though still honourable, station of state- 
 secretary (JDD, 2 K. xviii. 18); the further 
 
 punishment of exile with which Isaiah had 
 threatened him (xxii. 18) being possibly forgiven 
 on his amendment, of which we have some traces 
 in Is. xxxvii. 2 sq. (Ewald, Gesch. iii. 617). 
 
 At the head of a repentant and united people, 
 Hezekiah ventured to assume the aggressive 
 against the Philistines, and in a series of victories 
 not only won back the cities which his father 
 had lost (2 Ch. xxviii. 18), but even dispossessed 
 them of their own cities except Gaza (2 K, xviii. 
 8) and Gath (Joseph. Ant. ix. 13, § 3). This 
 was his only military enterprise, It was perhaps 
 to the purposes of this war that he applied the 
 
 HEZEKIAH 
 
 money which would otherwise have been used 
 to pay the tribute exacted by Shalmaneser, 
 according to the agreement of Ahaz with his 
 predecessor, Tiglath-pileser. When, after the 
 capture of Samaria, the king of Assyria applied 
 for this impost, Hezekiah refused it, and in open 
 rebellion omitted to send even the usual presents 
 (2 K. xviii. 7), a line of conduct to which he 
 was doubtless encouraged by the splendid ex- 
 hortations of his prophetic guide. 
 
 We must here pause for a moment to say a 
 word about Assyria and her kings. According 
 to Mr. G. Smith’s Assyrian Discoveries, the 
 dates of the formidable conquerors of this epoch 
 were as follows :— 
 
 BIG. 
 Tiglath-pileser II. . 145-21 
 Shalmaneser IV. 727-722 
 Sargon . 722-705 
 Sennacherib . 705-681 
 
 To the first of these four monarchs belongs the 
 cruel policy of deportation of conquered peoples 
 and the use of subordinate generals (Tartans). 
 He took Arpad, received tribute from Menahem, 
 and was bribed by Ahaz to attack Rezin and 
 Pekah. He put Pekah to death, elevated Hoshea, 
 deported many Israelites, took Damascus, and 
 reduced Merodach-baladan to submission. When 
 Hoshea revolted against his successor, Shal- 
 maneser IV., that king began the siege of 
 Samaria, which was completed in 722 by Sargon, 
 who had perhaps been a rebel general. Sargon 
 was murdered by an unknown assassin in 705. 
 In one inscription he calls himself “a subjector 
 of the land of Judah,” but this can only be 
 an idle boast (Schrader, p. 188). Sennacherib, 
 whom Nahum calls “the breaker in pieces” 
 (Nah. ii. 1), was the first of the Sargonidae, and 
 reigned for twenty-five years. 
 
 When Hezekiah refused tribute to Shal- 
 maneser, instant war was averted by the heroic 
 and long-continued resistance of the Tyrians 
 under their king Elulaeus (Joseph. Ant. ix. 14), 
 against a siege, which was abandoned only in 
 the fifth year (Grote, Greece, iii. 359; 4th ed.), 
 when it was found to be impracticable. This 
 must have been a critical and intensely anxious 
 period for Jerusalem, and Hezekiah used every 
 available means to strengthen his position and 
 render his capital impregnable (2 K. xx. 20: 
 2 Ch, xxxii. 3-5, 30; Is. xxii. 8-11, xxxiii. 18 5 
 and to these events Ewald also refers Ps. xlviii. 
 13). But while all Judaea trembled with antici- 
 pation of Assyrian invasion, and while Shebna 
 and others were relying “in the shadow of 
 Egypt,” Isaiah’s brave heart did not fail, and he 
 even denounced the wrath of God against the 
 proud and sinful merchant-city (Is. xxiii.), which 
 now seemed to be the main bulwark of Judaea 
 against immediate attack. 
 
 It was probably during the siege of Samaria 
 that Shalmaneser died, and was succeeded by 
 Sargon, who, jealous of Egyptian influence in 
 Judaea, sent an army under a Tartan or general 
 (Is. xx. 1), which penetrated Egypt (Nah. iii. 
 8-10) and destroyed No-Amon; although it is 
 clear from Hezekiah’s rebellion (2 K. xviii. 7) 
 that it can have produced but little permanent 
 impression, Sargon’s capture of Hamath, and 
 the defeat of Egypt at Raphia (B.c. 720), were 
 practically forgotten in the course of six or seven 
 years during which he was engaged in other 
 
HEZEKIAH 
 
 directions. Sargon, in the tenth year of his 
 reign (which is the fourteenth year of the reign 
 of Hezekiah), made an expedition to Palestine ; 
 but his annals make no mention of any conquests 
 from Hezekiah on this occasion, and he seems to 
 have occupied himself in the siege of Ashdod 
 (Is. xx. 1) and in the inspection of mines (Rosen- 
 miiller, Bibl. Geogr. ix.). This must therefore 
 be the expedition alluded to in 2 K. xviii. 13, 
 Is. xxxvi. 1; an expedition which is merely 
 alluded to, as it led to no result. But if the 
 Scripture narrative is to be reconciled with the 
 records of Assyrian history, it seems necessary 
 to make a transposition in the text of Isaiah 
 (and therefore of the Book of Kings). That 
 some such expedient must be resorted to, if the 
 Assyrian history is trustworthy, is maintained 
 by Dr. Hincks in a paper On the rectification of 
 Chronology, which the newly-discovered Apis-steles 
 render necessary. ‘‘ The text,” he says, “as it 
 originally stood, was probably to this effect: 
 2 K. xviii. 13, ‘Now in the fourteenth year of 
 king Hezekiah the king of Assyria came up’ 
 {alluding to the attack mentioned in Sargon’s 
 Annals]; then followed xx. 1-19, ‘In those days 
 was king Hezekiah sick unto death, &c. After 
 which came, ‘And Sennacherib, king of Assyria, 
 came up against all the fenced cities of Judah, 
 and took them,’ &c., xviii. 13-xix. 37” (Dr. 
 Hincks, in Journ. of Sacr. Lit., Oct. 1858). Per- 
 haps some later transcriber, unaware of the 
 earlier and unimportant invasion, confused the 
 allusion to Sargon in 2 K. xviii. 13 with the 
 detailed story of Sennacherib’s attack (2 K. 
 xviii. 14—xix. 37); and, considering that the 
 account of Hezekiah’s illness broke the con- 
 tinuity of the narrative, removed it to the end. 
 According to this scheme, Hezekiah’s dangerous 
 illness (2 K. xx.; Is. xxxviii.; 2 Ch. xxxii. 24) 
 nearly synchronised with Sargon’s futile in- 
 vasion, in the fourteenth year of Hezekiah’s 
 reign, eleven years before Sennacherib’s invasion. 
 That it must have preceded the attack of Senna- 
 cherib is nearly obvious from the promise in 
 2 K. xx. 6, as well as from modern discoveries 
 (Layard, Nin. § Bab. i. 145); and such is the 
 view adopted by the Rabbis (Seder Olam, cap. 
 -exiii.), Ussher, and by most commentators, 
 except Vitringa and Gesenius (Keil, ad loc.; 
 Prideaux, i. 22). There seems to be no ground 
 whatever for the vague conjecture so confidently 
 advanced (Winer, s. v. Hiskias; Jahn, Hebr. 
 Common. § xli.) that the king’s illness was the 
 same plague which had destroyed the Assyrian 
 
 army. The word pny is not elsewhere applied 
 
 to the plague, but to carbuncles and inflam- 
 matory ulcers (Ex. ix. 9; Job ii. 1, &c.). Heze- 
 _kiah, whose kingdom was in a dangerous crisis, 
 who had at that time no heir (for Manasseh was 
 not born till long afterwards, 2 K. xxi. 1), and 
 who regarded death as the end of existence 
 (is. xxxviii.), “ turned his face to the wall and 
 wept sore” at the threatened approach of dis- 
 solution. God had compassion on his anguish, 
 and heard his prayer. Isaiah had hardly left 
 the palace when he was ordered to promise the 
 king immediate recovery, and a fresh lease of 
 life, ratifying the promise by a sign, and curing 
 the boil by a plaster of figs, which were often 
 used medicinally in similar cases (Gesen. Thes. 
 i. 311; Celsius, Hierobot. ii. 377; Bartholinus, 
 De Morbis Biblicis, x. 47). What was the exact 
 
 HEZEKIAH 1351 
 
 nature of the disease we cannot say ; according 
 to Meade, it was fever terminating in abscess. 
 For some account of the retrogression of the 
 shadow on the sundial of Ahaz, see DIAL. On 
 this remarkable passage we must be content to 
 refer the reader to Carpzov, App. Crit. p. 351 Sq. 5 
 Winer, s. vv. Hiskias and Uhren; Rawlinson, 
 Herod. ii. 332 sq.3; the elaborate notes of Keil 
 on 2 K. xx.; Rosenmiiller and Gesenius on Is. 
 XXXViil., and especially Ewald, Gesch. iii. 638. 
 
 Various ambassadors came with letters and 
 gifts to congratulate Hezekiah on his recovery 
 (2 Ch. xxxii, 23), and among them (perhaps 
 about B.C. 713) an embassy from Merodach- 
 baladan (or Berodach, 2 K. xx. 12; 6 Βάλαδας, 
 Joseph. /.¢.), the viceroy of Babylon, the Mardo- 
 kempados of Ptolemy’s canon. The ostensible 
 object of this mission was to compliment Hezekiah 
 on his convalescence (2 K. xx. 12; Is. xxxix. 1), 
 and “to inquire of the wonder that was done in 
 the land ” (2 Ch. xxxii. 31), a rumour of which 
 could not fail to interest a people devoted to 
 astrology. But its real purpose was to discover 
 how far an alliance between the two powers 
 was possible or desirable, for Mardokempados, 
 no less than Hezekiah, was in apprehension of 
 the Assyrians. In fact Sargon expelled this 
 bold patriot from the throne of Babylon (Records 
 of the Past, vii. 41, 46), although after the 
 assassination of Sargon he seems to have re- 
 turned and re-established himself for six months, 
 at the end of which he was murdered by 
 Belibos (Dr. Hincks, 7. c.; Rosenmiiller, Bibd. 
 Geogr. ch. viii.; Layard, Nin. § Bab. i. 141). 
 Community of interest made Hezekiah receive 
 the overtures of Babylon with unconcealed 
 gratification; and, perhaps, to enhance the 
 opinion of his own importance as an ally, he dis- 
 played to the messengers the princely treasures 
 which he and his predecessors had accumulated. 
 The mention of such rich stores is an additional 
 argument for supposing these events to have 
 happened before Sennacherib’s invasion (see 2 K. 
 xviii. 14-16), although they are related after 
 them in the Scripture historians. If ostentation 
 were his motive, it received a terrible rebuke, 
 for he was informed by Isaiah that from the 
 then tottering and subordinate province of 
 Babylon, and not from the mighty Assyria, 
 would come the ruin and captivity of Judah 
 (Is. xxxix. 5). This prophecy and the one of 
 Micah (Mic. iv. 10) are the earliest definition 
 of the locality of that hostile power, where the 
 clouds of exile so long threatened (Lev. xxvi. 33 ; 
 Deut. iv. 27, xxx. 3) were beginning to gather. 
 It is an impressive and fearful circumstance that 
 the moment of exultation was chosen as the 
 opportunity for warning, and that the prophecies 
 of the Assyrian deliverance are set side by side 
 with those of the Babylonish Captivity (Davi- 
 son On Prophecy, p. 256). The weak friend was 
 to accomplish that which was impossible to the 
 powerful foe. But, although pride was the sin 
 thus vehemently checked by the Prophet, Isaiah 
 was certainly not blind to the political motives 
 (Joseph. Ant. x. 2, § 2) which made Heze- 
 kiah so complaisant to the Babylonian ambas- 
 sadors. Into those motives he had inquired 
 in’ vain, for the king met that portion of his 
 question (“‘ What said these men?”) by emphatic 
 silence. Hezekiah’s meek answer to the stern 
 denunciation of future woe has been most 
 
1352 HEZEKIAH 
 
 unjustly censured as “ἃ false resignation which 
 combines selfishness with silliness” (Newman, 
 Hebr. Mon. p. 274). On the contrary it merely 
 implies a conviction that God’s decree could not 
 be otherwise than just and right, and a natural 
 thankfulness for even a temporary suspension of 
 its inevitable fulfilment. 
 
 Sargon was succeeded (B.c. 705) by his son 
 Sennacherib, whose two invasions occupy the 
 greater part of the Scripture records concern- 
 ing the reign of Hezekiah. The first of these 
 took place in the third year of Sennacherib 
 (B.c. 702), and occupies only four verses (2 K. 
 xviii. 13-16), though the route of the advancing 
 Assyrians may be traced in Is. x. 9, xi. The 
 rumour of the invasion redoubled Hezekiah’s 
 exertions, and he prepared for a siege by pro- 
 viding offensive and defensive armour, stopping 
 up the wells, and (perhaps at this time) divert- 
 ing the watercourses, conducting the water of 
 Gihon into the city by a subterranean canal 
 (Ecclus. xlviii. 17. For a similar precaution 
 taken by the Mohammedans, see Will. Tyr. 
 viii. 7, Keil). But the main hope of the political 
 faction was the alliance with Egypt, and they 
 seem to have sought it by presents and private 
 entreaties (Is. xxx. 6), especially with a view to 
 obtaining chariots and cavalry (Is. xxxi. 1-3), 
 which was the weakest arm of the Jewish ser- 
 vice, as we see from the derision which it excited 
 (2 K. xviii. 23). Such overtures kindled Isaiah’s 
 indignation, and Shebna may have lost his high 
 office by recommending them. The Prophet 
 clearly saw that Egypt was too weak and faith- 
 less to be serviceable, and the applications to 
 Pharaoh (who is compared by Rabshakeh to one 
 of the weak reeds of his own river) implied a 
 want of trust in the help of God. He says with 
 bitter scorn : 
 
 ** Egypt helpeth in vain, and to no purpose: 
 
 Therefore have I called her Rahab that sitteth still.” 
 
 (is. xxx. 7, R. V.) 
 
 But Isaiah did not disapprove of the sponta- 
 neously proffered assistance of the tall and 
 warlike Ethiopians (Is. xviii. 2, 7, acc. to 
 Ewald’s transl.) ; because he may have regarded 
 it as a providential aid. 
 
 The account given of this first invasion in the 
 Annals of Sennacherib is that he attacked Heze- 
 kiah because the Ekronites had sent their king 
 Padiya (or “ Haddiya” acc. to Sir H. Rawlinson) 
 as a prisoner to Jerusalem (cp. 2 K. xviii. 8); 
 that he took forty-six cities (“all the fenced 
 cities” in 2 K. xviii. 13 is apparently a general 
 expression, cp. xix. 8) and 200,000 prisoners; 
 that he besieged Jerusalem with mounds (cp. 
 2 K. xix. 32); and although Hezekiah promised 
 to pay 800 talents of silver (of which perhaps 
 300 only were ever paid) and 30 of gold (2 K. 
 xviii. 14; Is. xxxvi. 1; but see Layard, Nin. § 
 Lab. p. 145), yet not content with this he 
 mulcted him of a part of his dominions, and 
 gave them to the kings of Ekron, Ashdod, and 
 Gaza (Rawlinson, Herod. i. 475sq.). So im- 
 portant was this expedition that Demetrius, the 
 Jewish historian, even attributes to Sennacherib 
 the Great Captivity (Clem. Alex. Strom. p. 146, 
 ed. Sylb.). In the inscription on Bellino’s Cylin- 
 der in the British Museum and in the Bull- 
 inscription of Kouyunjik, Sennacherib boasts 
 that he first attacked and reduced the cities of 
 
 HEZEKIAH 
 
 Phoenicia, and those in the Shephelah; that he 
 reduced Ekron, which had sent to Hezekiah its 
 king Padi, who remained loyal to Assyria; that 
 he hewed and trampled down forty-six of Heze- 
 kiah’s cities, took a vast amount of spoil, deported 
 200,150 of his people, and shut him up in Jeru- 
 salem “ like a bird in a cage ;” and finally, on his 
 submission, carried off to Nineveh his daughters, 
 his harem, and his eunuchs. In almost every 
 particular this account agrees with the notice 
 in Scripture, and we may see a reason for so 
 great a sacrifice on the part of Hezekiah in the 
 glimpse which Isaiah gives us of his capital 
 city driven by desperation into licentious and 
 impious mirth (xxii. 12-14). This campaign 
 must at least have had the one good result of 
 proving the worthlessness of the Egyptian 
 alliance; for at a place called Altagi (? the 
 Eltekon of Josh. xv. 59) Sennacherib (B.c. 701) 
 inflicted an overwhelming defeat on the com- 
 bined forces of Egypt and Ethiopia, which had 
 come to the assistance of Ekron. But Isaiah 
 regarded the purchased treaty as a cowardly 
 defection, and the sight of his fellow-citizens 
 gazing peacefully from the house-tops on the 
 bright array of the car-borne and quiyered Assy- 
 rians, filled him with indignation and despair 
 (Is. xxii. 1-7, if the latest explanations of this 
 chapter be correct). 
 
 Hezekiah’s bribe (or fine) brought a temporary 
 release, for the Assyrians marched into Egypt, 
 where, if Herodotus (ii. 141) and Josephus (Ant. 
 x. 1-3) are to be trusted, they advanced without 
 resistance to Pelusium, owing to the hatred of 
 the warrior-caste against Sethos the king-priest 
 of Pthah, who had, in his priestly predilections, 
 interfered with their prerogatives. In spite of 
 this advantage, Sennacherib was forced to raise 
 the siege of Pelusium, by the advance of Tirhakah 
 or Tarakes, the ally of Sethos and Hezekiah, 
 who afterwards united the crowns of Egypt and 
 Ethiopia. This famous Ethiopian hero, who 
 had extended his conquests to the Pillars of Her- 
 cules (Strab. xv. 472), was indeed a formidable 
 antagonist. His deeds are recorded in a temple 
 at Medinet Haboo, but the jealousy of the Mem- 
 phites (Wilkinson, Anc. Egypt. i. 141 [1st ed.]) 
 concealed his assistance, and attributed the de- 
 liverance of Sethos to the miraculous interposi- 
 tion of an army of mice (Herod. ii. 141). This 
 story may have had its source, however, not in 
 jealousy, but in the use of a mouse as the 
 emblem of destruction (Horapoll. Hierogl. i. 50; 
 Rawlinson, Herod. ad loc.), and of some sort of 
 disease or plague (? 1 Sam. vi. 18; Jahn, Arch. 
 Bibl. § 185). The legend doubtless gained ground 
 from the extraordinary circumstances which 
 afterwards ruined the army of Sennacherib. We 
 say afterwards, because, however much ὑπ" 
 details of the two occurrences may have been 
 confused, we cannot agree with the majority of 
 writers (Prideaux, Bochart, Michaelis, Jahn, 
 Keil, Newman, &c.) in identifying the flight of 
 Sennacherib from Pelusium with the event de- 
 scribed in 2 K. xix. We prefer to follow Josephus 
 in making them allude to distinct events. 
 
 Returning from his futile expedition (ἄπραι- 
 Tos ἀνεχώρησε, Joseph. Ant. x. 1, § 4) Senna- 
 cherib “dealt treacherously ” with Hezekiah 
 (Is. xxxiii. 1) by attacking the stronghold of 
 Lachish. The siege of Lachish ( Um-ZLakis) and 
 
 | its submission are represented on the famous 
 
HEZEKIAH 
 
 bas-relief in the British Museum (Schrader, 
 p- 287; Stade, Geschichte, i. 620; Layard, 
 Nineveh and Babylon, pp. 148-152). This was 
 the commencement of that second invasion, re- 
 specting which we have such full details in 
 2 K. xviii. 17 sq.; 2 Ch. xxxii. 9 sq. ; Is. xxxvi. 
 That there were two invasions (contrary to the 
 opinion of Layard, Bosanquet, Vance Smith, &c.) 
 is clearly proved by the details of the first given 
 in the Assyrian annals (see Rawlinson, Herod. 
 i. p. 477; Schrader, pp. 208, 301; Records of 
 the Past, i. 35, vii. 59). Although the Annals 
 of Sennacherib, on the great cylinder in the 
 British Museum, reach to the end of his eighth 
 year, and this second invasion belongs to his 
 fifth year (B.C. 698, the twenty-eighth year of 
 Hezekiah), yet no allusion to it has been found. 
 So shameful a disaster as that in which it 
 ended was naturally concealed by national vanity. 
 From Lachish he had sent against Jerusalem an 
 army under his genera] (Tartan), his chamberlain 
 (Rab-Saris), and his cup-bearer the orator Rab- 
 shakeh, with a blasphemous and insulting sum- 
 mons to surrender, deriding Hezekiah’s hopes 
 of Egyptian succour, and apparently endeavour- 
 ing to inspire the people with distrust of his 
 religious innovations (2 K. xviii. 22, 25, 30). 
 The reiteration and peculiarity of the latter 
 argument, together with the Rabshakeh’s fluent 
 mastery of Hebrew (which he used to tempt the 
 people from their allegiance by a glowing pro- 
 mise, vv. 51, 32), give countenance to the supposi- 
 tion that he was an apostate Jew. Hezekiah’s 
 ministers were thrown into anguish and dismay ; 
 but the undaunted Isaiah hurled back threaten- 
 ing for threatening with unrivalled eloquence 
 and force. He even prophesied that the fires of 
 Tophet were already burning in expectancy of 
 the Assyrian corpses which were destined to 
 feed their flame. Meanwhile Sennacherib, hay- 
 ing taken Lachish (Um-Lakis), was besieging 
 Libnah (Tell es-Safiah, 12 miles nearer Jeru- 
 salem), when, alarmed by a “rumour” of Tirha- 
 kah’s advance in person (to avenge the defeat at 
 Altaqi?), he was forced to relinquish once more 
 his immediate designs, and content himself with 
 a defiant letter to Hezekiah. Whether on the 
 occasion he encountered and defeated the Ethio- 
 pians (as Prideaux precariously infers from 
 Is. xx.: Connex. i. p. 26), or not, we cannot tell. 
 The next event of the campaign, about which 
 we are informed, is that the Jewish king with 
 simple piety prayed to God with Sennacherib’s 
 letter outspread before him (cp. 1 Mace. iii. 48), 
 and received a prophecy of immediate deliver- 
 ance. Accordingly “that night the Angel of 
 the Lord went out and smote in the camp of the 
 Assyrians 185,000 men.” ‘The Biblical and 
 Assyrian accounts of Sennacherib’s campaign,” 
 says Prof. Driver, “ while in substantial agree- 
 ment, are both imperfect, and may be combined 
 in different ways. The essential difference be- 
 tween them is that while one narrates the entire 
 campaign [viz. (1) the subjection of the Phoeni- 
 cian cities; (2) the successes against Ekron and 
 the Egyptian forces; (3) the hostilities against 
 Judah], the other deals only with the stage 
 affecting Judah, and dwells principally upon 
 two episodes (2 K. xviii, 17—xix. 7; xix. 8-36), 
 belonging in fact to a fifth and subsequent stage 
 upon which the Assyrian account is silent ” 
 Csaiah, p. 82). 
 
 HEZEKIAH 1353 
 
 There is no doubt that some secondary cause 
 was employed in the accomplishment of this 
 event. We are certainly “not to suppose,” as 
 Dr. Johnson observed, “that the Angel went 
 about with a sword in his hand stabbing them 
 one by one, but that some powerful natural 
 agent was employed.” The Babylonish Talmud 
 and some of the Targums attribute it to storms 
 of lightning (Vitringa, Vogel, &c.); Prideaux, 
 Heine (de causé Stray. Assyr.), and Faber to the 
 simoom; R. Jose, Ussher, Preiss (de causé 
 clad. Assyr.), &c., to a nocturnal attack by 
 Tirhakah ; Paulus to a poisoning of the waters; 
 and finally Josephus, followed by an immense 
 majority of ancient and modern commentators, 
 including even Keil, to the pestilence (cp. 2 Sam. 
 xxiv. 15, 16). This would be a cause not only 
 adequate (Justin, xix. 11; Diodor. xix. p. 434: 
 see the other instances quoted by Rosenmiiller, 
 Winer, Keil, Jahn, &c.), but most probable in 
 itself from the crowded and terrified state of the 
 camp. There is therefore no necessity to adopt 
 the ingenious conjectures by which Déderlein, 
 Koppe, and Wessler endeavour to get rid of the 
 large number 185,000. 
 
 After this reverse Sennacherib fled precipi- 
 tately to Nineveh, where he revenged himself on 
 as many Jews as were in his power (Tob. i. 18), 
 and after twenty years (not fifty-five days, as 
 Tobit says, i. 21) was murdered by two of his sons 
 as he went to pray before his idol Dagon (Tob.) or 
 Nisroch (Assarac ?) his god (B.c. 681). He cer- 
 tainly lived till B.c. 680, for his 22nd year is 
 mentioned on a clay tablet (Rawlinson, /.c.) ; he 
 must therefore have survived Hezekiah by some 
 seventeen years. It is possible that several of 
 the Psalms (e.g. xlvi.-xlviii., 1xxvi.) allude to his 
 discomfiture. 
 
 Hezekiah only lived to enjoy for about one 
 year more his well-earned peace and glory. He 
 slept with his fathers after a reign of twenty- 
 nine years, in the 56th year of his age (8.6, 697), 
 and was buried with great honour and universal 
 mourning “in the chiefest of the sepulchres (or 
 “the road leading up to the sepulchres,” ἐν 
 ἀναβάσει τάφων, LXX., because, as Thenius con- 
 jectures, the actual sepulchres were full) of the 
 sons of David’? (2 Ch. xxxii. 33). He had found 
 time for many works of peace in the noble and 
 almost blameless course of his troubled life, and 
 to his pious labours we are indebted for at least 
 one portion of the present canon (Prov. xxv. 1; 
 Ecclus. xlviii. 17 sq.). He can have no finer 
 panegyric than the words of the son of Sirach, 
 ‘Even the kings of Judah failed, for they for- 
 sook the law of the Most High; all except 
 David, and Ezekias, and Josias failed.” In addi- 
 tion to his many merits, as a king faithful to 
 the covenant of Jehovah, and as one who followed 
 in the main the guidance of the great Prophet 
 Isaiah, Hezekiah did much for his kingdom in 
 every way. He was a poet, and one famous 
 song is preserved in Isaiah (xxxviii. 9-20), and 
 by his employment of scribes to copy fragments 
 of early literature he helped to preserve the 
 precious wisdom of earlier days. 
 
 Besides the many authors and commentators 
 who have written on this period of Jewish his- 
 tory (on which much light has been thrown 
 by Sir H. Layard, Sir G. Wilkinson, Sir H. 
 Rawlinson, Dr. Hincks, Prof. Sayce, Schrader, 
 and other scholars who have studied the Nineveh 
 
1354 HEZION 
 
 remains), see for continuous lives of Hezekiah, 
 Josephus (Ant. ix. 13—ix, 2), Prideaux (Con- 
 newion, ὅσο, i. 16-30), Jahn (Hebr. Com. § xli.), 
 Winer (s. v. Hiskias), Ewald (Gesch. iii. 614-644, 
 2nd ed.), and Stanley (History of the Jewish 
 Church, Lecture xxxviii.). 
 
 2. Son of Neariah, one of the descendants of 
 the royal family of Judah (1 Ch. iii. 23). 
 
 3. The same name, though rendered in the 
 A. V. Hizkrau, is found in Zeph. i. 1. 
 
 4. Arpr-or-Hez. [ArrR.] [F. W. F.] 
 
 HEZ-ION ("tf = sight ; B. ‘A¢etv, A. and 
 Luc. ᾿Αζαήλ; Hezion), a king of Aram (Syria), 
 father of Tabrimon, and grandfather of Ben- 
 hadad I. He and his father are mentioned only 
 in 1\K. xy. 18, and their names are omitted 
 by Josephus. In the absence of all informa- 
 tion, the natural suggestion is that he is iden- 
 tical with Rwzon, the contemporary of Solomon, 
 in 1 K. xi. 23; the two names being not dis- 
 similar in Hebrew, and still more so in other 
 Versions (cp. Arab. and Peshitto on the 
 latter passage); and indeed this conclusion has 
 been adopted by some translators and commen- 
 tators (Junius, Kéhler, Dathe, Ewald, Kloster- 
 mann, &c.), Against it are: (a.) That the number 
 of generations of the Syrian kings would then be 
 one less than those of the contemporary kings 
 of Judah. But then the reign of Abijam was 
 only three years, and in fact Jeroboam outlived 
 both Rehoboam and hisson. (b.) The statement 
 of Nicolaus of Damascus (Joseph. Ant. vii. 5, 
 § 2), that from the time of David for ten 
 generations the kings of Syria were one dynasty, 
 each king taking the name of Hadad, “as did 
 the Ptolemies in Egypt.” But this would 
 exclude, not only Hezion and Tabrimon, but 
 Rezon, unless we may interpret the last 
 sentence to mean that the official title of Hadad 
 was held in addition to the ordinary name of 
 the king. [Rezon; Taprimon.] [G.] [W.] 
 
 HE’ZIR (tN=swine; A. leCelp, B. ᾿Αφεσή ; 
 Hezir), 1. A priest in the time of David, 
 leader of the 17th monthly course in the service 
 (1 Ch. xxiv. 15). 
 
 2. (Help; Hazir.) One of the heads of 
 the people (laymen) who sealed the solemn 
 covenant with Nehemiah (Neh. x. 20). 
 
 HEZ’RAI (1080, ic. according to the Keri 
 of the Masorets, but the original reading of the 
 text, Ketib, has ΝΠ = Hezro; BA. ‘Acapat ; 
 Esra), a native of Carmel, perhaps of the 
 southern one, and in that case possibly once 
 a slave or adherent of Nabal; one of the thirty 
 heroes of David’s guard (2 Sam. xxiii. 85). In 
 the parallel list the name appears as 
 
 HEZ’RO G30; B. ‘Hoepé, ἐξ. ’Hoepal, A. 
 *Acapal; Asro), in 1 Ch. xi. 37. Kennicott 
 however (Dissertation, pp. 207-8) decides, on 
 the almost unanimous authority of the ancient 
 Versions, that Hezrai is the original form of the 
 name. 
 
 HEZ'RON ΟἿΣ; B. ‘Acpdy, in Num. A. 
 ᾿Ασρώμ; Hesron). 1. A son of Reuben (Gen. 
 xlvi. 9; Ex. vi. 14), who founded the family of 
 the Hezronites (Num. xxvi. 6). 
 
 2. A son of Pharez, and one of the direct 
 
 HIDDEKEL 
 
 ancestors of David (Gen, xlvi. 12, ‘Acpéy ; Ruth 
 iv. 18, B. Ἐφών, A. -μ, and so in Matt. i. 18. 
 In 1 Ch. ii. 9, 18, 21, 25, B. Ἑσερών, A. Ἑσρώμ; 
 ii. 5, iv. 1, B. Αρσών : Vulg. Hesron, in Ruth 
 Esron). [ΤῸ BE: Bo Se) 
 
 HEZ'’RON qnsn = enclosed; B. ᾿Ασωρών, 
 A.’Eopéu; Chetzron), a place on the south border 
 of Judah between Kadesh-barnea and Addar 
 (Josh, xv. 3). In Num. xxxiv. 4, the name is given 
 as Hazar-addar. Riehm suggests (s. Ὁ.) that 
 Hazar, or Hezron, and Addar were so near each 
 other that they could be called one place, Hazar- 
 addar. In the list of towns in the Negeb (Josh. 
 xy. 25), A. V. has “ Kerioth, and Hezron, which is 
 Hazor;” but the Hebrew text, which is followed 
 by R. V., has only one name, Kerioth-Hezron: 
 whether this be the same place as the Hezron 
 of v. 3, is uncertain. Conder has suggested 
 (bk, p. 257), as a possible identification, Jebel 
 Hadhird, near ‘Abdeh, Eboda, at the southern 
 extremity of the northern and highest terrace 
 of the Negeb, which he would make the 
 southern limit of Judah. But this is too far, 
 quite 50 miles, from Mount Hor; and it seems 
 more probable that the Promised Land extended 
 to the edge of the mountain plateau of Jebel 
 Magraéh, which rises abruptly from the desert 
 of et-Tih, and forms a natural boundary south- 
 ward (Palmer, Desert of the Exodus, map). 
 In this direction, then, a search should be made 
 for Hezron. Riehm (8. v.) identifies Kerioth- 
 Hezron with Kh. el-Kureitein, N. of Tell’ Ardd, 
 but the boundary of Judah must have been a 
 long way to the south of this place. [W.] 
 
 HEZRONITES, THE ΟΣ ἽΝΠΠ; 6 ‘Acpo- 
 vel; Hesronitae). A branch of the tribe of 
 Reuben (Num. xxvi. 21). The ed. of 1611 spelt 
 Hesronites. 
 
 HID'DAI (9; A. ᾿Αθθαί, B. omits: 
 Heddai), one of the thirty-seven heroes of 
 David’s guard (2 Sam. xxiii. 30), described as 
 “of the torrents of Gaash.” In the parallel 
 list of 1 Ch. (xi, 52) the name is given as 
 Hurat. Kennicott (Dissert. p. 194) decides in 
 favour of “ Hurai” on grounds for which the 
 reader must be referred to his work. 
 
 HID'DEKEL (p43; Τίγρις, Τίγρις: Ἐδδε- 
 KéA; Tygris, Tigris), one of the rivers of Eden, 
 the river which “ goeth eastward to Assyria” 
 (Gen. ii. 14), and which Daniel calls “the great 
 river” (Dan. x. 4), is rightly identified by the 
 LXX. with the Tigris. As the Akkadian and 
 Assyro-Babylonian forms are /digna and Idiklat 
 or Diklat respectively, it is difficult to account 
 for the initial N, except by supposing that these 
 two forms are weakened from Hidigna and 
 Hidikiat. The form Diglath (the first syllable 
 having disappeared) occurs in the Targums of 
 Onkelos and Jonathan, in Josephus (Ant. Jud. i. 
 1), in the Armenian Eusebius (Chron. Can. Pars, 
 i, c. 2), in Zonaras (Ann. i. 2), and in the Arme- 
 nian Version of the Scriptures. It is hardened 
 to Diglit (Diglito) in Pliny (ΗΠ. Ν. vi. 27). The 
 form now used by the inhabitants of Mesopotamia 
 is Dijlah. 
 
 Strabo (xi. 14, § 8), Pliny (oc. cit.), and other 
 writers tell us that the river received its 
 designation from its rapidity, the word Tigris 
 
HIEL 
 
 (Tigra) meaning, in the Medo-Persic language, | (1842), i. 507-522; 
 
 “an arrow.” ΑΒ far as the reference to its 
 rapidity goes, this is not improbably correct, one 
 of the ideographs for the stream being (id) 
 halhala, ‘the swiftly-running stream.” There 
 is hardly any doubt that the first component 
 part of the name /digna or Jdiklat is the Ak- 
 kadian word for “river” (hidi, hid, or id, also 
 abbreviated to 7). On one of the tablets there 
 is a reference to the properties and names of the 
 various rivers, that referring to the Tigris being, 
 
 — “Let him explain the Tigris as the bringer of 
 
 fertility” (babilat nuhii), Another Semitic 
 name of the river, when expressed by the ideo- 
 graph id Halhala, was Ammu. The star of the 
 river Tigris or Hiddekel was identified with 
 Anunitu™, the goddess of one of the Sipparas 
 (Sipar or Sippara of Anunitu). For its course 
 see under TIGRIS. [Ge RJ} [T. G. P.] 
 
 HI’EL (NN, perhaps for S99n¥ = God lives, 
 
 [Ges.], or for bss = brother of God (ep. Bith- 
 gen, Beitr. z. Sem. Religionsgeschichte, p. 156); 
 B. ᾿Αχειήλ, A. -t-; Hiel), a native of Bethel, 
 who rebuilt Jericho in the reign of Ahab 
 (1 K. xvi. 34); and in whom was fulfilled 
 the curse pronounced by Joshua (Josh. vi. 26). 
 Strabo speaks of this cursing of a destroyed 
 city as an ancient custom, and instances the 
 curses imprecated by Agamemnon and Croesus 
 (Grot. Annot. ad Josh. vi. 26); Masius compares 
 the cursing of Carthage by the Romans (Pol. 
 Syn.). To rebuild was an impiety (ep. Dill- 
 
 mann? in Joco). The term Bethelite ssn na) 
 is here rendered house or place of cursing (Ar. 
 
 Syr., and Chald. Verss.), MONT MYB (Jon.); but 
 
 there seems no reason for questioning the accu- 
 racy of the LXX. ὁ Βαιθηλείτης, which is ap- 
 proved by most commentators and sanctioned by 
 Gesen. (Lex. s. v.). The rebuilding of Jericho 
 was perhaps an intrusion upon the kingdom of 
 Jehoshaphat, but more emphatically a mark of 
 the irreligiousness of the time (Speaker’s Comm. 
 On LK, ἢ: 0). {ΒΗ {8 
 
 HIERAPOLIS (Ἱεράπολις = sacred city). 
 This place is mentioned only once in Scripture, 
 and that incidentally, viz. in Col. iv. 13, where 
 its church is associated with those of CoLossan 
 and LaopicrA. Such association is just what 
 we should expect ; for the three towns were all 
 in the valley of the Lycus, and within a few 
 miles of one another. It is probable that 
 Hierapolis was one of the “inlustres Asiae 
 urbes” (Tac. Ann. xiv. 27) which, with 
 Laodicea, were simultaneously desolated by an 
 earthquake about the time when Christianity 
 was established in this district. There is little 
 doubt that the Church of Hierapolis was 
 founded at the same time as that of Colossae, 
 and that its characteristics in the Apostolic 
 period were the same. Ramsay identifies Sibila 
 as the native name of Hierapolis (//istor. Geo- 
 graphy of Asia Minor, p.450). Its modern name 
 is Pambik-Kalesi. The most remarkable feature 
 of the neighbourhood consists of the hot cal- 
 careous springs, which have deposited the vast 
 and singular incrustations noticed by travellers. 
 See, for instance, Chandler, Zrav. in Asia Minor 
 (1817), i. 264-272; Hamilton, Res. in A. J. 
 
 1355 
 
 ; Lewin, Life and Epistles 
 of St. Paul, i. 204 sq. The situation of Hiera- 
 polis is extremely beautiful ; and its ruins are 
 considerable, the theatre and gymnasium being 
 the most conspicuous. (J. S. ἘΠΕ ΠΥ} 
 
 HIER’E-EL (‘lepefa ; Jeelech), 1 Esd. ix. 91. 
 (JeNIEL. ] 
 
 HIER'EMOTH (‘lepeude; Lrimoth). 1. 1 
 Esd. ix. 27,  (Jmuremoru.] 2 (Jerimoth.) 
 1 Esd. ix. 30. [Ramorn.] 
 
 HIERIE’LUS (A. le(pijaos, i.e. Iezrielos ; 
 B. Ἰεζόρικλος : Jezrelus), 1 Esd. ix. 27. This 
 answers to JEHIEL in the list of Ezra x.; but 
 whence the A. V. obtained the form of the name 
 does not appear 
 
 HIER’MAS (A. ’lepuds, B. Ἰερμά; Remias), 
 1 Esd. ix. 26. [RAmiau.] 
 
 HIERON’YMUS (Ἱερώνυμος ; Hieronymus), 
 a Syrian general in the time of Antiochus V. 
 Eupator (2 Mace. xii. 2), The name was made 
 distinguished among the Asiatic Greeks by 
 Hieronymus of Cardia, the historian of Alex- 
 ander’s successors. [B. F. W.] 
 
 HIERUSALEM, an early form (1611) for 
 
 Jerusalem. 
 
 HIGGAION 
 
 HIGGAION, or, more accurately, Higgayon, 
 occurs in the Hebrew text of the Psalms twice 
 (ix. 17; xcii. 4). It, and the words akin to 
 it, have various significations, all of which 
 however can be reduced to the common root 
 Hagoh (14i1),—to think, to think aloud, to 
 speculate, to speculate philosophically, to sepa- 
 rate, to pronounce, to play fantasias. Most of 
 these significations are to be met with in the 
 Bible itself; others are found either in the 
 canonical or non-canonical Mishnah (Mathnitha 
 Baraita), and others again in the writers of the 
 Middle Ages. 
 
 The word Higgayon is also found in com- 
 position, 7.e. with the word Shir (9) preceding 
 it. In that case, by combination and assimila- 
 tion, it stands as Shiggayon (Hay, Ps. vii., in 
 the superscription), and signifies a song express- 
 ing deep thought, i.e. a philosophico-religious 
 argument embodied in a Psalm, Inasmuch, 
 however, as one or more of the various singing 
 or music bands, which consisted of thousands of 
 persons [Harp], excelled in one kind of song 
 and music more than in another, that band or 
 those bands which executed best the Shiré /Hig- 
 gayon, was or were called, by further contraction, 
 
 --Ο.’ςΘἢὀἙἘΟο.͵....-ς.........-..- 
 
 ® That Shiggayon is a compound of Shir and Hig- 
 gayon is too patent, one would have thought, to be 
 questioned, as the verse itself shows (YW. . })*at)- 
 
 7 πον 
 
 Yet it has been actually questioned, chiefly on account 
 of three elisions that would necessarily have taken 
 place. But of these three elisions, the 9 and the 7 being 
 well known to be the weakest letters in the alphabet, 
 only one—that of the \—presents a difficulty. But 
 this even can only be a momentary one. See mM? Ψ, 
 
 which stands for and WN, PWD, which, of course, 
 stands for PWID7T- 
 
1356 HIGGAION HIGGAION 
 
 Shigyonoth (MAI*IW).» It is to the director of | shown by the phrase ‘A? Shigyonoth (Τὴ) by) 
 that band or those bands (Habakkuk himself) | at the beginning, and Lamenasséach Binegino- 
 
 that Habakkuk’s sublime prayer was given, to a ἢ b 
 be recited to the accompaniment of the pro- | tai ("2223 M¥I!D?) at the end. 
 
 phet’s own instrument Neginoth (M3233), as is Explanations differing from this are to be 
 
 Sy 
 
 : 
 δι 
 Ne 
 
 Hierapolis. 
 
 ic 
 
 found in the Targumist and in Rashi, both of | “sins” or “errors.” Ibn Ezra, of course, takes 
 whom, however much they may differ in the | Shigyonoth to be the commencement of a poem, 
 application of the word, render Shigyonoth by | the tune of which in ancient times was well 
 known. Qimchi says that this prayer was com- 
 
 Ὁ Shiggayon and Shigyondth are placed in close con- | posed in the style of one of the old hymns of the 
 nexion by David Qimchi (on Hab. iii. 1), Psalter, and that Shigyondth resembled Shiggayon 
 
HIGH PLACES 
 
 (see above). Others say that Shigydndth was a 
 musical instrument, All these explanations, how- 
 ever, must be rejected on grounds sufliciently 
 explained in AIJELETH SHAHAR, ALAMOTH, 
 AL-TASCHITH, and GITTITH. [S. M. 5.-5. 
 
 HIGH PLACES (ni103; in the historical 
 books, τὰ ὑψηλά, τὰ ὕψη; in the Prophets, 
 βωμοί; in the Pentateuch, στῆλαι, Lev. xxvi. 
 30, &c. ; and once εἴδωλα, Ezek. xvi. 16 ; Hwxcelsa, 
 
 _ fana). Other Hebrew words occasionally thus 
 
 ~ rendered are pind (Prov. viii. 2); ΠΡῚΝ (1 Sam. 
 xiii. 6); 19) (Ezek. xvi. 24), and 5.) (Num. 
 xxili. 3); but these words are never used in the 
 technical sense of Bdamdth. From the earliest 
 times it was the custom among all nations to 
 erect altars and places of worship on lofty and 
 conspicuous spots. We find that the Trojans 
 sacrificed to Zeus on Mount Ida (//. x. 171), and 
 we are repeatedly told that such was the 
 custom of the Persians, Greeks, Germans, &c., 
 because they fancied that the hill-tops were 
 nearer heaven, and therefore the most favourable 
 places for prayer and incense (Herod. i. 131; 
 Xen. Cyrop. viii. 7; Mem. iii. 8, § 10; Strab. xv. 
 732; Luc. de Sacrif.i. 4; Creuzer, Symb. i. 159 ; 
 Andrian, Der Hohencultus asiat. τι. europ. Vélke, 
 1891). To this general custom we find constant 
 allusion in the Bible (ls. lxv. 7; Jer. iii. 6 ; Ezek. 
 vi. 13, xviii. 6; Hos. iv. 13), and it is especially 
 attributed to the Moabites (Is. xv. 2, xvi. 12; Jer. 
 xlviii. 35), Even Abraham built an altar to the 
 Lord on a mountain near Bethel (xii. 7, 8; cp. 
 xxii. 2-4, xxxi. 54), which shows that the prac- 
 tice was then as innocent as it was natural ; 
 and although it afterwards became mingled with 
 idolatrous observances (Num. xxiii. 3), it was in 
 itself far less likely to be abused than the conse- 
 eration of groves (Hos. iv. 13). The external 
 religion of the Patriarchs was in some outward 
 observances different from that subsequently es- 
 tablished by the Mosaic Law, and therefore they 
 should not be condemned for actions which after- 
 wards became sinful only because they were 
 forbidden (Heidegger, Hist. Patr. 11. iii. § 58). 
 
 It is, however, quite obvious that if every 
 grove and eminence had been suffered to become 
 a place for legitimate worship, especially in a 
 country where they had already been defiled 
 with the sins of polytheism, the utmost danger 
 would have resulted to the pure worship of 
 the one true God (Hiivernick, Hinl. i. 592). It 
 would infallibly have led to the adoption of 
 nature-goddesses, and “gods of the hills” (1 K. 
 xx. 23). It was therefore implicitly forbidden 
 by the Law of Moses (Deut. xii. 11-14), which 
 also gave the strictest injunction to destroy 
 these monuments of Canaanitish idolatry (Lev. 
 xxvi. 30; Num. xxxiii. 52; Deut. xxxiii. 29; 
 ubi LXX. τραχήλων), without stating any 
 general reason for this command, beyond the 
 fact that they had been connected with such 
 associations. It seems, however, to be assumed 
 that every Israelite would perfectly understand 
 why groves and high places were prohibited, 
 and therefore they are only condemned by virtue 
 of the injunction to use but one altar for the 
 purposes of sacrifice (Lev. xvii. 3,4; Deut. xii. 
 passim, xvi. 21; John iv. 20). 
 
 HIGH PLACES 1357 
 
 tribes were settled in the Promised Land, and 
 “had rest from all their enemies round about.” 
 Thus we find that both Gideon and Manoah 
 built altars on high. places by Divine command 
 (Judg. vi. 25, 26; xiii, 16-23), and it is quite 
 clear from the tone of the Book of Judges that 
 the law on the subject was either totally for- 
 gotten or practically obsolete. Nor could the 
 unsettled state of the country have been pleaded 
 as an excuse, since it seems to have been most 
 fully understood, even during the life of Joshua, 
 that burnt-offerings could be legally offered on 
 one altar only (Josh. xxii. 29). It is more sur- 
 prising to find this Law absolutely ignored ai a 
 much later period, when there was no intelligible 
 reason for its violation—as by Samuel at Mizpeh 
 (1 Sam. vii. 10) and at Bethlehem (xvi. 5) ; by 
 Saul at Gilgal (xiii. 9) and at Ajalon (? xiv. 35); 
 by David (1 Ch. xxi. 26); by Elijah on Mount 
 Carmel (1 K. xviii. 30); and by other prophets 
 (1 Sam. x. 5). To suppose that in all these 
 cases the rule was superseded by a Divine intima- 
 tion appears to us an unwarrantable expedient, 
 the more so as the actors in the transactions do 
 not appear to be aware of anything extraordinary 
 in their conduct. The Rabbis have invented 
 elaborate methods to account for the anomaly : 
 thus they say that high places were allowed 
 until the building of the Tabernacle; that they 
 were then illegal until the arrival at Gilgal, 
 and then during the period while the Tabernacle 
 was at Shiloh; that they were once more per- 
 mitted whilst it was at Nob and Gideon (ep. 
 2 Ch. i. 3), until the building of the Temple at 
 Jerusalem rendered them finally unlawful (R. Sol. 
 Jarchi, Abarbanel, &c., quoted in Carpzov. App. 
 Crit. p. 333 sq.; Reland, Ant. Hebr. i. 8 sq.). 
 Others content themselves with saying that 
 until Solomon’s time all Palestine was con- 
 sidered holy ground, or that there existed a 
 recognised exemption in favour of high places 
 for private and spontaneous, though not for the 
 stated and public, sacrifices. 
 
 Such explanations are sufficiently unsatisfac- 
 tory; but it is at any rate certain that, whether 
 from the obvious temptations to the disobedience, 
 or from the example of other nations, or from 
 ignorance of any definite law against it, the 
 worship in high places was organised and all 
 but universal throughout Judea, not only during 
 (1 K. iii. 2-4), but even after the time of 
 Solomon. The convenience of them was obvious, 
 because, as local centres of religious worship, 
 they obviated the unpleasant and dangerous 
 necessity of visiting Jerusalem for the celebra- 
 tion of the yearly Feasts (2 K. xxiii. 9), The 
 tendency was engrained in the national mind; 
 and although it was severely reprehended by 
 the later historians, we have no proof that it 
 was known to be sinful during the earlier 
 periods of the monarchy, except of course where 
 it was directly connected with idolatrous abomina- 
 tions (1 K. xi. 7; 2 K. xxiii. 18). In fact the 
 high places seem to have supplied the need of 
 synagogues (Ps. lxxiv. 8), and to have obviated 
 the extreme self-denial involved in having but 
 one legalised locality for the highest forms of 
 worship. Thus we find that Rehoboam estab- 
 lished a definite worship at the high places, 
 with its own peculiar and separated priesthood 
 
 The command was a prospective one, and was | (2 Ch, xi. 15; 2 K. xxiii. 9), the members of 
 
 not to come into force until such time as the 
 
 which were still considered to be priests of 
 
1358 HIGH PLACES 
 
 Jehovah (although in 2 K. xxiii. 5 they are 
 called by the opprobrious term Ὁ) 722). It 
 was therefore no wonder that Jeroboam found 
 it so easy to seduce the people into his symbolic 
 worship at the high places of Dan and Bethel, 
 at each of which he built a chapel for his golden 
 calves. Such chapels were of course frequently 
 added to the mere altars on the hills, as appears 
 from the expressions in 1 Καὶ, xi. 7, 2 K. xvii. 9, 
 &c. Indeed the word nia became so common 
 
 that 1t was used for any idolatrous shrine even 
 in a valley (Jer. vii. 31), or in the streets of 
 cities (2 K. xvii. 9; Ezek. xvi. 31). These 
 chapels were probably not structures of stone, 
 but mere tabernacles hung with coloured tapes- 
 try (Ezek. xvi. 16; ἐμβόλισμα, Aqu., Theod. ; 
 Jer. ad loc.; εἴδωλον ῥαπτόν, LXX.), like the 
 σκηνὴ ἱερὰ of the Carthaginians (Diod. Sic. xx. 
 65; Gesen. Thes. i. 188), and like those mentioned 
 in 2 K. xxiii. 7, Amos v. 26 (cp. Piepenbring, 
 ‘Hist. ἃ. lieux d. culte en Israél’ in Kevue de 
 Vhist. d. Religions, 1891, pp. 1-60, 133-186). 
 
 Many of the pious kings of Judah were either 
 too weak or too ill-informed to repress the worship 
 of Jehovah at these local sanctuaries, while they 
 of course endeavoured to prevent it from being 
 contaminated with polytheism. It is therefore 
 appended as a matter of blame or a (perhaps 
 venial) drawback to the character of some of 
 the most pious princes, that they tolerated this 
 disobedience to the provision of Deuteronomy 
 and Leviticus. On the other hand it is men- 
 tioned as an aggravation of the sinfulness of 
 other kings that they built or raised high places 
 (2 Ch, xxi. 11; xxviii. 25), which are generally 
 said to have been dedicated to idolatrous pur- 
 poses. It is almost inconceivable that so direct a 
 violation of the theocratic principle as the per- 
 mitted existence of idol-worship at high places 
 should have been tolerated by kings of even 
 ordinary piety, much less by the highest sacer- 
 dotal authorities (2 K. xii. 3). When therefore 
 we find the recurring phrase, “ only the high 
 places were not taken away; as yet the people 
 did sacrifice and burn incense on the high 
 places” (2 K. xiv. 4, xv. 5, 35; 2 Ch. xv. 17, 
 &c.), we are forced to limit it (as above) to 
 places dedicated to Jehovah only. The subject, 
 however, is made more difficult by a double 
 discrepancy, for the assertion that Asa “took 
 away the high places” (2 Ch. xiv. 3) is opposed 
 to what is stated in the First Book of Kings 
 (xv. 14), and a similar discrepancy is found in 
 the case of Jehoshaphat (2 Ch. xvii. 6; xx. 33). 
 Moreover in both instances the chronicler is 
 apparently at issue with himself (xiv. 3; xv. 17; 
 xvii. 6; xx. 33). It is incredible that this should 
 have been the result of carelessness or oversight, 
 and we must therefore suppose, either that the 
 earlier notices expressed the will and endeavour 
 of these monarchs to remove the high places, 
 and that the later ones recorded their failure in 
 the attempt (Ewald, Gesch. iii. 468; Keil, Apolog. 
 Versuch. p. 290; Winer, s. vv. Assa, Josaphat) ; 
 or that the statements refer respectively to 
 Bamoth, dedicated to Jehovah and to idols 
 (Michaelis, Schulz, Bertheau on 2 Ch. xvii. 6, 
 &c.). “Those devoted to false gods were re- 
 moved, those misdevoted to the true God were 
 suffered to remain. The kings opposed impiety, 
 but winked at error ” (Bishop Hall). 
 
 HIGH-PRIEST, THE 
 
 At last Hezekiah set himself in good earnest 
 to the suppression of this prevalent corruption 
 (2 K. xviii. 4, 22), both m Judah and Israel 
 (2 Ch. xxxi. 1), although so rapid was the 
 growth of the evil, that even his sweeping 
 reformation required to be finally consummated 
 by Josiah (2 K. xxiii.), and that too in Jerusalem 
 and its immediate neighbourhood (2 Ch. xxxiy. 
 3). The measure must have caused a very vio- 
 lent shock to the religious prejudices of a large. 
 number of people, and we have a curious and 
 almost unnoticed trace of this resentment in 
 the fact that the Rabshakeh sent by Senna- 
 cherib appeals to the discontented faction, and 
 represents Hezekiah as a dangerous innovator 
 who had provoked God’s anger by his arbitrary 
 impiety (2 K. xviii. 22; 2 Ch. xxxii. 12). After 
 the time of Josiah we find no further mention 
 of these Jehovistic high places, [F. W. F.] 
 
 HIGH-PRIEST, THE., The rendering in 
 A. V. and R. V. of the title 217417 130, “The 
 
 great priest,” in Lev. xxi. 10, Num. xxxv. 
 25, 28, Josh. xx. 6; the only places in the 
 Hexateuch where the Hebrew phrase is found. 
 It occurs also in 2 K. xii. 10, xxii. 4, 8, xxiii. 
 4; 2 Ch. xxxiv. 9; Neh. iii. 1, 20, xiii. 28; 
 Hag. i. 1, 12,14, ii. 2,45; Zech. iii. 1, 8, vi. 11, 
 and on Maccabean coins: but is not found in 
 Judges and Samuel, nor in the great pre-exilic 
 Prophets. The LXX. renders it 6 ἱερεὺς 6 μέγας. 
 A synonymous expression is WNT 1113, 2 K. 
 xxv. 18; 2 Ch, xix. 11, xxiv. 11, xxvi. 20; Jer. 
 lii, 24: or WNT $030, 1 Ch. xxvii. 5, or 
 UN JD, 2 Ch. xxxi. 10, Ezra vii. 5, “The 
 head priest,” A. V. “The chief priest.” But 
 usually both in the Priestly Legislation and 
 elsewhere the principal or representative priest 
 is simply {M30, “the priest,” rendered 6 
 ἀρχιερεὺς only in Lev. iv. 3, LXX., though this 
 Greek term is frequent in Apocr.and N. T. (In 
 the last period ex-high-priests, and even mem- 
 bers of high-priestly families, are often so de- 
 signated.) Vulg. Sacerdos magnus, or primus 
 pontifex, princeps sacerdotum, 
 
 In treating of the office of high-priest among 
 the Israelites, it will be convenient to consider 
 it—I. Legally. 11. Theologically. III. His- 
 torically. 
 
 I. The legal view of the high-priest’s office 
 comprises all that the Levitical Code ordains 
 respecting it. The first distinct separation of 
 Aaron to the office of the priesthood is described 
 in Ex. xxviii. A partial anticipation of this 
 call occurs at the gathering of the manna (ch. 
 xvi. 33), when Moses bids Aaron take a pot of 
 manna, and lay it up before the Lord, and Aaron 
 lays it up “before the Testimony,” 1.6. the Ark 
 (the construction of which, however, is not pre- 
 scribed till ch. xxv.). The taking up of Nadab 
 and Abihu with their father Aaron to the Mount, 
 where they beheld the glory of the God of 
 Israel, may also have been intended as a pre- 
 paratory intimation of Aaron’s hereditary 
 priesthood (see also xxvii. 21). But it is not 
 till the completion of the directions for making 
 the Tabernacle and its furniture that the 
 distinct order is given to Moses, “Take thou 
 unto thee Aaron thy brother, and his sons with 
 him, from among the children of Israel, that he 
 may minister unto Me in the priest’s office, 
 
HIGH-PRIEST, THE 
 
 even Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and 
 Ithamar, Aaron’s sons” (Ex. xxviii. 1). And 
 after the order for the priestly garments to be 
 made “for Aaron and his sons,” it is added, 
 “and the priest’s office shall be theirs for a 
 perpetual statute; and thou shalt consecrate 
 Aaron and his sons,” and “TI will sanctify both 
 Aaron and his sons to minister to Me in the 
 priest’s office ” (xxix. 9, 44). 
 
 Aaron and his successors are distinguished 
 from the other priests in the following respects : 
 
 (1.) Aaron alone is anointed. ‘He poured 
 of the anointing oil upon Aaron’s head, and 
 anointed him to sanctify him ” (Lev. viii. 12): 
 whence one of the, distinctive epithets of the 
 high-priest is MWD 30, “the anointed 
 priest ” (only in Lev. iv. 3, 5, 16; vi. 22 [Heb. 
 15]: ep. Num. xxxv. 25).* So also in Ex. xxix. 
 29, 30, it is ordered that the one of the sons of 
 Aaron who succeeds him in the priest’s office 
 shall wear the holy garments that were Aaron’s 
 for seven days, to be anointed therein, and to be 
 installed in them, Hence Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. 
 i. 6; Dem. Evang. viii.) understands by the 
 “anointing” (χρῖσμα) of Dan. ix. 26, LXX., 
 that of the Jewish high-priests: “It means 
 nothing else than the succession of high-priests, 
 whom the Scripture commonly calls χριστούς, 
 anointed ;” and so too Tertullian and Theodoret 
 (Rosenm. ad /. c.). The anointing of the sons 
 of Aaron, 1.6. the common priests, seems to have 
 been confined to sprinkling their garments with 
 the anointing oil (Ex. xxix. 21, xxviii. 41, &c.), 
 though according to Kalisch on Ex. xxix. 8, and 
 Lightfoot, following the Rabbinical interpre- 
 tation, the difference consists in the abundant 
 pouring of oil (PS) on the head of the high- 
 
 priest, from whence it was drawn with the 
 finger into two streams, in the shape of a Greek 
 X, while the priests were merely marked with 
 the finger dipped in oil on the forehead (nw). 
 
 But this is probably a late invention of the 
 Rabbins. The anointing of the high-priest is 
 alluded to in Ps. cxxxiii. 2: “It is like the 
 precious ointment [oil; Ex. xxix. 7] upon the 
 head, that ran down upon the beard, even 
 Aaron’s beard, that went down to the skirts of 
 his garments.” The composition of this anoint- 
 ing oil, consisting of myrrh, cinnamon, calamus, 
 cassia and oil olive, is prescribed Ex, xxx. 
 22-25; and its use for any other purpose but 
 that of anointing the priests, the Tabernacle and 
 the vessels, is strictly prohibited (v. 33) on pain 
 of being “ cut off from one’s fellow-tribesmen.” 
 The manufacture of it was entrusted to certain 
 priests, called “ apothecaries ” (Neh. iii. 8). But 
 this oil is said to have been wanting under the 
 Second Temple (Prideaux, i. 151; Selden, 
 cap. ix.). 
 
 (2.) The high-priest has a peculiar dress, 
 which, as we have seen, passes to his successor 
 at his death. This dress consisted of eight 
 parts, as the Rabbins constantly note: the breast- 
 plate, the ephod with its “curious girdle,” the 
 robe of the ephod, the mitre, the broidered coat 
 or diaper tunic, and the girdle, the materials 
 being gold, blue, red, crimson, and fine (white) 
 linen (Ex. xxviii. 4). To the above are added, 
 
 a Lev. iv. may be of more recent origin than Ex. xxix. 
 See Driver, ZOZ., p. 40. 
 
 HIGH-PRIEST, THE 1359 
 
 v. 42, the breeches or drawers (Lev. xvi. 4) of 
 linen ; and to make up the number eight, some 
 reckon the high-priest’s mitre, or the plate 
 ΟΝ) separately from the bonnet ; while others 
 reckon the curious girdle of the ephod separ- 
 ately from the ephod.» 
 
 Of these eight articles of attire, four—viz., the 
 coat or tunic, the girdle, the breeches, and the 
 bonnet or turban, MWA, instead of the mitre, 
 ΤΡ ΝΟ *—belonged also to the common priests. 
 
 It is well known how, in the Assyrian sculp- 
 tures, the king is in like manner distinguished 
 by the shape of his head-dyess; and how in 
 Persia none but the king wore the cidaris or 
 erect tiara.4 On some Babylonian seals also 
 the priest wears a high conical hat or mitre, 
 surmounting a sort of turban. Taking the 
 articles of the high-priest’s dress in the order in 
 which they are enumerated above, we have (a) 
 the breastplate, or, as it is further named, vv. 15, 
 29, 30, the breastplate of judgment, or rather 
 decision, DBUID jL/N, τὸ λόγιον (or λογεῖον) τῶν 
 κρίσεων (or τῆς Kploews), “the Oracle of Deci- 
 sion,” in the LXX., and only in v. 4, τὸ περι- 
 στήθιον. It was, like the inner curtains of the 
 Tabernacle, the vail, and the ephod, of “ cunning 
 work,” JW Wy (strictly, “a work of a 
 weaver in colours”); “opus plumarium,” and 
 “arte plumaria,’ Vulg. [See EMBROIDERER. | 
 The breastplate was originally 2 spans long and 
 1 span broad, but when doubled it was square, 
 the shape in which it was worn. It was 
 fastened at the top by rings and chains of 
 wreathen gold to the two onyx stones on the 
 shoulders, and beneath with two other rings 
 and a lace of blue to two corresponding rings in 
 the ephod, to keep it fixed in its place, above the 
 curious girdle. But the most remarkable and 
 most important part of this breastplate were 
 the 12 precious stones, set in 4 rows, 3 ina row, 
 thus corresponding to the 12 tribes, and divided 
 in the same manner as their camps were; each 
 stone perhaps having the name of one of the 
 children of Israel engraved upon it. Whether 
 the order followed the ages of the sons of Israel, 
 or, as seems most probable, the order of the 
 encampment, may be doubted; but unless any 
 appropriate distinct symbolism of the different 
 tribes be found in the names of the precious 
 stones, the question can scarcely be decided. 
 According to Josephus, it was these stones which 
 constituted the Urim and Thummim; but Jose- 
 phus merely guesses, probably from the literal 
 meaning of the term Urim, the nature of things 
 which had ceased to exist centuries before his 
 time. His opinion, improved upon by the Rab- 
 bins, as to the manner in which the stones gave 
 out the oracular answer, by preternatural illumi- 
 nation, is, besides, intrinsically destitute of pro- 
 bability. That the Urim and Thummim were 
 
 b In Lev. viii. 7-12 there is a complete account of 
 the putting on of these garments by Aaron, and the 
 whole ceremony of his consecration and that of his sons. 
 It there appears distinctly that, besides the girdle 
 common to all the priests, the high-priest also wore 
 the curious girdle of the ephod. 
 
 ¢ Josephus, however, whom Bihr follows, calls the 
 bonnets of the priests by the name of 5) yr. See 
 
 below. she 
 ἃ Bahr compares also the apices of the flamen Dialis. 
 
1560 HIGH-PRIEST, THE 
 
 HIGH-PRIEST, THE 
 
 material objects is evident from the fact that | were also worn by other priests (1 Sam, xxii. 18),, 
 
 they were put into the Breastplate of Decision 
 (Ex. xxviii. 30; Lev. viii. 8). The Heb. names 
 DDN) DAN, “ Light and Conclusion” (=De- 
 cision),° rather describe their use or purpose than 
 their precise nature. It is, however, clear from 
 the context of various passages in the Historical 
 Books that the Urim and Thummim were 
 means of divining the Will of Jahvah, and 
 probably a species of sacred lot. The passage 
 which seems decisive is 1 Sam. xiv. 41, 42. 
 The former verse in the Heb. text is evidently 
 mutilated, but in the LXX. (and Vulgate) runs 
 as follows: “Ὁ Lord, the God of Israel, where- 
 fore hast Thou not answered Thy servant this 
 day? If the iniquity be in me, or in Jonathan 
 my son, give Urim; and if it be in Thy people 
 Israel, give Thummim.” After this prayer 
 Saul bids the priest (cp. v. 36) cast the sacred 
 lots between him and his son. Other passages 
 which should be compared with this are 1 Sam. 
 li. 18, 28; xiv. 3, 18 [LXX.]; xxi. 9; xxii. 18; 
 Exilil. 6, 9; xxx. 7; 2 Sam. vi. 14; 1 Ch. xy. 27; 
 Deut. xxxiii. 8 (see Kuenen, Rel. of Isr., i. 96-- 
 100).? 
 
 Apart from its ornamental purpose (Ex. 
 xxviii. 2, “ for glory and for beauty ”; cp. Ecclus. 
 xlv. 7 sq., 1.), the chief use of the breastplate 
 seems to have been to serve as a receptacle 
 for the Urim and Thummim. Its Heb. name 
 DaWINT jN, according to the opinion of 
 
 Gesenius, who connects JWN with ,, Il. 
 
 ornavit, covers both uses. The passage Ex. 
 xxvili. 30b, which belongs to the Priestly 
 Legislation, may be paraphrased: “ And Aaron 
 shall bear the oracle (strictly means of decision) 
 of the bené Israel upon his heart before Jahvah 
 continually.” ‘ 
 
 (6.) The Ephod (ISN). This consisted of 
 two parts, of which one covered the back, and 
 the other the front, i.e. the breast and upper 
 part of the body. These were clasped together 
 on the shoulder with two large onyx stones, 
 
 each having engraved on it six of the names | 
 
 of the tribes of Israel. It was further united 
 by a “curious girdle” (R. V. “cunningly woven 
 band ’’) of blue, purple, scarlet, and fine twined 
 old linen round the waist. Upon it was 
 placed the breastplate of judgment, which in 
 fact was a part of the ephod, and included in the 
 term in such passages as 1 Sam. ii. 28, xiv. 3, 
 xxiii. 9, and was fastened to it just above the 
 “curious girdle” of the ephod. Linen ephods 
 
 © The root ὩΣ denotes finishing and ending; so 
 that 25757), as the name of a sacred oracle, is practically 
 
 equivalent to 5w5, Judgment or Decision. The 
 LXX. rendering, δήλωσις καὶ ἀλήθεια, is somewhat 
 paraphrastic. . 
 
 f Kuenen argues, mainly from 1 Sam. ii. 28, Deut. 
 XxXxiii. 8, that in the earlier period the consultation of 
 Jahvah by Ephod and Urim and Thummim belonged 
 to the priests in general; giving oracles being the 
 
 ᾽ 
 
 priest’s proper task, as his name jn3 (= [ζ΄ 
 
 kahin, “soothsayer”) implied. On the question of the 
 form ofthe Urim and Thummin, he refers to Keil, HBA. 
 
 i. 169, and Knobel, Exodus und Levit. p. 288. Itisa ; 
 
 probable inference from Hos, iii. 4, Judg. xvii. 5 
 (cp. xviii. 5), that they were little images like the 
 Teraphim. 
 
 by Samuel, who was a temple servant (1 Sam. ii. 
 18), and by David when bringing up the Ark 
 (2 Sam. vi. 14). The expression for wearing an 
 ephod is “girded with a linen ephod.” The 
 ephod was also frequently used in the local and 
 family worship of the Israelites. See Judg. viii. 
 27, xvii. 5, xviii. 17-20; Hos. iii. 4. [Epnop; 
 GIRDLE.] (The inference which many have drawn 
 from these passages, that ephod also denoted ἃ 
 plated image, is neither necessary nor probable. 
 Cp. Kuenen, RJ. i. 99, 100.) 
 
 (c.) The Robe of the ephod (O'%). This was 
 of inferior material to the ephod itself, being all 
 of blue (v. 31), which implied its being only of 
 “woven work” (JIN MWDID, xxxix. 22). It was 
 worn immediately under the ephod, and was 
 longer than it, though not so long as the 
 “broidered coat,” or rather chequered tunic 
 (YAWVA INS), according to some statements 
 (Bahr, Winer, Kalisch, &c.). The Greek render- 
 ing, however, of Sey, modnpns, and Josephus’s 
 description of it (B. J. v. 5, § 7), seem to out- 
 weigh the reasons given by Bahr for thinking 
 the robe only came down to the knees, and to 
 make it improbable that the tunic should have 
 been seen below the robe. It seems likely 
 therefore that the sleeves of the tunic, of white 
 diaper linen, were the only parts of it which 
 were visible, in the case of the high-priest, when 
 he wore the blue robe over it. For the blue 
 robe had no sleeves, but only slits in the sides 
 for the arms to come through. It had a hole 
 for the head to pass through, with a border 
 round it of woven work, to prevent its being 
 rent. The skirt of this robe had a remarkable 
 trimming of pomegranates in blue, red, and 
 crimson, with a bell of gold between each pome- 
 granate alternately. The bells were to give a 
 sound when the high-priest went in and came 
 out of the Holy Place. Josephus in the Anti- 
 quities gives no explanation of the use of the bells, 
 but merely speaks of the studied beauty of their 
 appearance. In his Jewish War, however, he 
 tells us that the bells signified thunder, and 
 the pomegranates lightning. For Philo’s very 
 curious observations, see Lightfoot’s Works, ix. 
 
 . 25. 
 
 Neither does the son of Sirach very distinctly 
 explain it (Ecclus. xlv. 9), who in his description 
 of the high-priest’s attire seems chiefly impressed 
 with its beauty and magnificence, and says of 
 this trimming, “‘ He compassed him with pome- 
 granates and with many golden bells round 
 about, that as he went there might be a sound, 
 and a noise made that might be heard in the 
 temple, for a memorial (or reminder) to the 
 children of his people.” It is his gloss upon Ex. 
 xxviii. 35. Perhaps he means to intimate that 
 the use of the bells was to give notice to the 
 
 | people outside, when the high-priest went in 
 
 and came out of the sanctuary, as Whiston, 
 Vatablus, and many others have supposed, But 
 it would be quite consistent with the other 
 strong anthropomorphisms of the Pentateuch to 
 suppose that the object was to give due warning 
 to the Divine Occupant of the inner shrine. 
 
 (d.) The fourth article peculiar to the high 
 priest is the mitre or upper turban, with its 
 gold plate, engraved with HoLINEss TO THE 
 Lorp, fastened to it by a ribbon of blue. Jose- 
 
. 
 
 } 
 
 : 
 
 HIGH-PRIEST, THE 
 
 phus applies the term NDJ¥ID (μασναεμφθής) 
 to the turbans of the common priests as well, 
 but says that in addition to this, and sewn on to 
 the top of it, the high-priest had another turban 
 of blue; that besides this he had outside the 
 turban a triple crown of gold, consisting, that 
 is, of three rims one above the other, and ter- 
 minating at top in a kind of conical calyx, like 
 the inverted calyx of the herb hyoscyamus. 
 Josephus doubtless gives a true account of the 
 high-priest’s turban as worn in his day. It 
 may be fairly conjectured that the crown was 
 appended when the Hasmoneans united the tem- 
 poral monarchy with the priesthood, and that 
 this was continued, though in a modified shape,® 
 after the sovereignty was taken from them. 
 Josephus also describes the πέταλον, the lamina 
 or gold plate, which he says covered the fore- 
 head of the high-priest. In Ant. viii. 3, § 8, he 
 says that the identical gold plate made in the 
 days of Moses existed in his time; and Whiston 
 adds in a note that it was still preserved in the 
 time of Origen, and that the inscription on it 
 was engraved in “ Samaritan ” characters (Ant. 
 iii. 7, § 6). But this would be far indeed from 
 proving that the plate was as old as “the days 
 of Moses.” It may have been a relic of the 
 Maccabean revival. R. Eliezer, who flourished 
 in Hadrian’s reign, saw it at Rome. It was 
 doubtless placed, with other spoils of the Temple, 
 in the temple of Peace, which was burnt down 
 in the reign of Commodus. These spoils, how- 
 ever, are expressly mentioned as part of Alaric’s 
 plunder when he took Rome. They were carried 
 by Genseric into Africa, and brought by Beli- 
 sarius to Byzantium, where they adorned his 
 triumph. On the warning of a Jew the emperor 
 ordered them back to Jerusalem, but what 
 became of them is not known (Reland, de Spoliis 
 Templi). 
 
 (e.) The broidered coat (R. V. “ coat of chequer 
 work ἢ), Y2WA NN, was a tunic or long shirt 
 of linen with a tesselated or diaper pattern, 
 like the setting of a stone. The girdle, DIAN, 
 also of linen, was wound round the body several 
 times from the breast downwards, and the ends 
 hung down to the ankles. The linen (or cotton ?) 
 breeches or drawers, TW" 232 (= "D239 
 DAW», Ezek. xliv. 18), covered the loins and 
 thighs ; and the bonnet or ΠῸΞ Δ was a turban 
 of linen, partially covering the head, but not in 
 the form of a cone like that of the high-priest 
 when the mitre was added to it. These four 
 last were common to all priests. Josephus 
 speaks of the robes (ἐνδύματα) of the chief 
 priests, and the tunics and girdles of the priests, 
 as forming part of the spoil of the Temple 
 (B. J. vi. 8, ὃ 3). According to the Priestly 
 Code, Aaron, and at his death Eleazar (Num. 
 xx. 22-29 P.), and their successors in the high- 
 priesthood, were solemnly inaugurated into 
 their office by being clad in these eight articles 
 of dress on seven successive days. From the 
 time of the Second Temple, when the sacred oil 
 (said to have been hid by Josiah, and lost) was 
 wanting, this putting on of the garments was 
 
 & Josephus (Ant. xx. 10) says that Pompey would 
 not allow Hyrcanus to wear the diadem, when he 
 Testored him to the high-priesthood. 
 
 - BIBLE DICT.—VOL. 1... 
 
 HIGH-PRIEST, THE 1361 
 
 deemed the official investiture of the office. 
 Hence the robes, which had always been kept in 
 one of the chambers of the Temple, and were by 
 Hyrcanus deposited in the Baris, which he built 
 on purpose, were kept by Herod in the same 
 tower, which he called Antonia, so that they 
 might be at his absolute disposal. The Romans 
 did the same till the government of Vitellius in 
 the reign of Tiberius, when the custody of the 
 robes was restored to the Jews (Ant. xv. 11, 
 § 4; xviii. 4, § 3). 
 
 (3.) Aaron has peculiar functions assigned to 
 him in the Priestly Legislation. ‘fo him alone 
 it appertains, and he alone is permitted, to enter 
 the Holy of Holies, which he does once a year, 
 on the great Day of Atonement, when he 
 sprinkles the blood of the sin-offering on the 
 mercy-seat, and burns incense within the vail 
 (Ley. xvi.). He is said by the Talmudists, with 
 whom agree Lightfoot, Selden, Grotius, Winer, 
 
 ἢν, and many others, not to have worn his 
 full pontifical robes on this occasion, but to 
 have been clad entirely in white linen (Ley. xvi. 
 4, 32). It is singular, however, that on the 
 other hand Josephus says that the great fast 
 day was the chief, if not the only day in the 
 year, when the high-priest wore all his robes 
 (BL. J. v. 5, ὃ 7); and in spite of the alleged 
 impropriety of his wearing his splendid apparel 
 on a day of humiliation, it seems far more 
 probable that on the one occasion when he 
 performed functions peculiar to the high-priest, 
 he should have worn his full dress. Josephus 
 too could not have been mistaken as to the fact, 
 which he repeats (cont. Ap. lib. ii. § 8), where 
 he says the high-priests alone might enter into 
 the Holy of Holies, “propria stola circuma- 
 micti.” For although Selden," who strenuously 
 supports the Rabbinical statement that the 
 high-priest wore only the four linen garments 
 when he entered the Holy of Holies, endeavours 
 to make Josephus say the same thing, it is im- 
 possible to twist his words into this meaning. 
 It is true, on the other hand, that Lev. xvi. 
 distinctly prescribes that Aaron should wear the 
 four priestly garments of linen when he entered 
 into the Holy of Holies, and put them off im- 
 mediately he came out, and leave them in the 
 Temple; no one being present in the Temple 
 while Aaron made the atonement (v.17). Either 
 therefore in the time of Josephus this law was 
 not kept in practice, or else we must reconcile 
 the manifest contradiction by supposing that in 
 consequence of the great jealousy with which 
 the high-priest’s robes were kept by the civil 
 power at this time, the custom had arisen for 
 him to wear them, not even always on the three 
 great Festivals (Ant. xviii. 4, § 3), but only on 
 the great day of expiation. Clad in this 
 gorgeous attire, he would enter the Temple in 
 presence of all the people; and after having 
 performed in secret, as the Law required, the 
 rites of expiation in the linen dress, he would 
 resume his pontifical robes and so appear again in 
 public. Thus his wearing the robes would easily 
 come to be identified chiefly with the Day of 
 Atonement; and this is perhaps the most prob- 
 
 h Selden himself remarks (cap. vii. in jin.) that 
 Josephus and others always describe the pontifical 
 robes by the name of τῆς στολῆς ἀρχιερατικῆς. 
 
 4 
 
1902 HIGH-PRIEST, THE 
 
 able explanation.! In other respects the high- 
 priest performed the functions of a priest on 
 new moons and sabbaths and annual festivals 
 (Jos. B. J. v. 5, ὃ 7), and on such solemn occasions 
 as the dedication of the Temple under Zerubbabel. 
 [AToneMENT, Day or.] He was legally bound 
 to officiate only on the Day of Atonement ; 
 though later usage required him also to offer the 
 daily sacrifice throughout the previous week 
 (Joma, i. 2). Otherwise he was free to sacrifice 
 or not as he pleased (ibid.; Zamid, vii. 3). See 
 Schiirer, 11. i. p. 255. 
 
 (4.) The high-priest has a peculiar place in 
 the law of the manslayer, and his taking sanc- 
 tuary in the cities of refuge. The manslayer 
 might not leave the city of refuge during the 
 lifetime of the existing high-priest who was 
 anointed with the holy oil (Num, xxxv. 25, 28; 
 Josh, xx. 6). It was also forbidden to the high- 
 priest to follow a funeral, or rend his clothes 
 for the dead, according to the precedent in 
 Ley. x. 6. 
 
 The other respects in which the high-priest 
 exercised superior functions to the other priests 
 arose rather from his position and opportunities, 
 than from the legally defined duties of his 
 office, and they consequently varied with the 
 personal character and abilities of the high- 
 priest. Such were reforms in religion, restora- 
 tions of the Temple and its service (which, how- 
 ever, really depended on the royal will during the 
 period of the monarchy), the preservation of the 
 Temple from intrusion or profanation, taking 
 the lead in ecclesiastical or civil affairs, judging 
 the people, presiding in the Sanhedrin (which, 
 however, he is said by Lightfobt rarely to have 
 done), and other similar transactions, in which 
 we find the high-priest sometimes prominent, 
 sometimes not even mentioned (see the historical 
 part of this article). Even that portion of 
 power which most naturally and usually fell to 
 his share, the rule of the Temple, and the 
 government of the priests and Levites who 
 ministered there, did not invariably fall to the 
 share of the high-priest. For the title “Ruler 
 of the House of God,” pyioxa-n’a TA, 
 which usually denotes the high-priest, is some- 
 times given to those who were not high-priests, 
 as e.g. to Pashur the son of Immer in Jer. xx. 1 
 (cp. 1 Ch. xii. 27). The Rabbins speak very 
 frequently of one second in dignity to the high- 
 priest, whom they call the Sagan or Segen (a 
 term of Babylonian origin), and who often 
 acted in the high-priest’s room.* He is identified 
 
 i Only at that part of the service on the great Day of 
 Atonement at which he entered the Holy of Holies, he 
 wore a simple white dress, which however was made of 
 the most expensive Pelusian and Indian linen (or 
 cotton ἢ). Schiirer (a1. i. p. 256, Eng. Tr.), who refers 
 to Mishna, Joma, iii. 4, 6; vii. 1, 3, 4. 
 
 k There is a controversy as to whether the deputy 
 high-priest was the same as the Sagan. Lightfoot 
 thinks not. So also Schtirer, who points out that the 
 term, which in the 0. T. occurs only in the plural, is 
 mostly rendered στρατηγοὶ by the LXX., and identifies 
 the Sagan with the στρατηγὸς τοῦ ἱεροῦ, or ‘Captain of 
 the Temple,” Acts iy. 1; v. 24, 26 (see Schiirer, m. i. 
 237 sq.). ‘The word appears ‘to be identical with the 
 Assyrio-Babylonian Saknu, Sakan, ‘one appointed,” 
 ‘‘ officer,” “deputy,” or the like. See Is, xli., 25, and 
 Schrader, KAT’? ad loc. 
 
 HIGH-PRIEST, THE 
 
 (see Buxtorf, s. v.) with “the second priest” 
 2 K. xxiii. 4, xxv. 18). They say that Moses 
 was Sagan to Aaron; a summary mode of getting 
 rid of the difficulties inherent in the traditional 
 view of their official relations. Thus too it is 
 explained of Annas and Caiaphas (Luke iii. 2), 
 that Annas was Sagan. Ananias is also thought 
 by some to have been Sagan, acting for the 
 high-priest (Acts xxiii. 2), In like manner 
 they say (unhistorically) that Zadok and Abi- 
 athar were high-priest and Sagan in the time of 
 David. The Sagan is also very frequently called 
 Memunneh, or Prefect of the Temple; and upon 
 him chiefly lay the care and charge of the 
 Temple services (Lightfoot, passim). If the 
 high-priest was incapacitated from officiating by 
 any accidental uncleanness, the Sagan took 
 his place. Thus, eg., the Jerusalem Talmud 
 tells a story of Simon son of Kamith, that “on 
 the eve of the day of expiation [Atonement], 
 he went out to speak with the king, and some 
 spittle fell upon his garments and defiled him: 
 therefore Judah his brother went in on the day 
 of expiation, and served in his stead; and so 
 their mother Kamith saw two of her sons high- 
 priests in one day. She had seven sons, and 
 they all served in the high-priesthood ” (Light- 
 foot, ix. 35). It does not appear by whose 
 authority the high-priests were appointed to 
 their office before there were kings of Israel [see 
 under IIL. infra]. It was invariably done by 
 the civil power in later times; the principal 
 priest of the Temple of Jerusalem being, in » 
 fact, the servant of the sovereign, whose palace 
 adjoined the sanctuary, and who appointed and 
 deposed him at pleasure (cp. 1 Sam. ii, 35, 
 “mine Anointed” =the king; 1 WK. ii, 273 - 
 Ezek. xliii. 8). The installation and anointing ᾿ 
 of the high-priest or clothing him with the 
 eight garments, which was the formal investi- 
 ture, is naturally enough ascribed by Maimonides 
 to the Sanhedrin at all times (Lightfoot, ix. 22). 
 
 It should be added, that the usual age for 
 entering upon the functions of the priesthood, 
 according to 2 Ch, xxxi. 17, is considered to 
 have been twenty years, though a priest or 
 high-priest was not actually incapacitated if he 
 had attained to puberty, as appears by the 
 example of Aristobulus, who was high-priest at 
 seventeen. Onias, the son of Simon the Just, 
 could not be high-priest, because he was but a 
 child at his father’s death. Again, according to 
 Ley. xxi. 18-20, no one that had a blemish could 
 officiate at the altar. The twelve blemishes 
 there enumerated are expanded by the Talmud 
 into one hundred and forty-two. Josephus 
 relates how <Antigonus mutilated Hyreanus’s 
 ears, to incapacitate him for being restored to the 
 high-priesthood. Illegitimate birth was also a 
 bar to the high-priesthood, and the subtlety of 
 Jewish distinctions extended this illegitimacy to 
 being born of a mother who had been taken captive 
 by heathen conquerors (Joseph. ὁ. Apion. i. § 7). 
 Thus Eleazar said to John Hyrcanus (though, 
 Josephus says, falsely) that if he was a just 
 man, he ought to resign the pontificate, because 
 his mother had been a captive, and he was 
 therefore incapacitated. Ley. xxi. 13, 14 was 
 taken as the ground of this and similar dis- 
 qualifications. For a full account of this branch 
 of the subject, the reader is referred to Selden’s 
 learned treatises De Successionibus, &c., and De ~ 
 
HIGH-PRIEST, THE 
 
 Success. in Pontif. Ebraeor.; and to Prideaux, 
 ii, 306. It was the universal opinion of the 
 Jews that the deposition of a high-priest, which 
 became so common, was unlawful. Josephus 
 (Ant. xv. 3) says that Antiochus Epiphanes was 
 the first who did so, when he deposed Jesus or 
 Jason; Aristobulus, who deposed his brother 
 Hyrcanus, the second; and Herod, who took 
 away the high-priesthood from Ananelus to 
 give it to Aristobulus, the third. See the 
 story of Jonathan son of Ananus in Ant. xix. 6, 
 
 4, 
 ᾿ II. Theologically. The theological view of 
 the high-priesthood does not fall within the 
 scope of this Dictionary. It may, however, 
 be stated that suck a view would embrace 
 the consideration of the office, dress, functions, 
 and ministrations of the high-priest, considered 
 as typical of the priesthood of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ, and as setting forth under shadows the 
 truths which are openly taught under the 
 Gospel. This has been done to a great extent 
 in the Epistle to the Hebrews, and is occasionally 
 done in other parts of Scripture, as, e.g., Rev. i. 
 13, where the ποδήρης, and the girdle about the 
 paps, are distinctly the robe, and the curious 
 girdle of the ephod, characteristic of the high- 
 priest. It would also embrace all the moral 
 and spiritual teaching supposed to be intended 
 by such symbols. Philo (de vitd Mosis), Origen 
 (Homil. in Levit.), Eusebius (Demonst. Evang. 
 lib. iii.) ; Epiphanius (cont. Melchized. iv. &c.), 
 Gregory Nazianzen (Orat. i., Zliae Cretens., and 
 Comment. p. 195), Augustine (Quaest. in Exod.) 
 may be cited among many others of the ancients 
 who have more or less thus treated the subject. 
 Of moderns, Bihr (Symbolik des Mosaischen 
 Cultus), Fairbairn (Typology of Script.), Kalisch 
 (Comment. on Exod.) have entered fully into this 
 subject, both from the Jewish and Christian 
 point of view. 
 
 III. To pass to the historical view of the 
 subject. The history of the high-priests em- 
 braces a period of about fourteen centuries, and 
 a succession of about eighty high-priests, be- 
 ginning with Aaron and ending with Phannias, 
 according to the traditional view, which rests 
 ultimately upon the statements of the Priestly 
 Code. “The number of all the high-priests,”’ 
 says Josephus, “from Aaron... until Phanas 
 ... was eighty-three” (Ant. xx. 10, where he 
 gives a comprehensive account of them). They 
 naturally arrange themselves into three groups 
 —(a.) those before David; (6.) those from David 
 to the Captivity ; (0.) those from the return 
 from the Babylonish Captivity till the cessation 
 of the office at the destruction of Jerusalem. 
 The former two have come down to us in the 
 canonical Books of Scripture, and so have a few 
 of the earliest and the latest names of the third 
 group; but for by far the larger portion of the 
 latter group we have only the authority of 
 Josephus, the Talmud, and some other profane 
 writers. 
 
 (a.) The high-priests of the first group (or 
 those who are commonly regarded as such) are 
 —1. Aaron; 2. Eleazar; 3. Phinehas; 4. Eli; 
 5. Ahitub (1 Ch. ix. 11; Neh. xi. 11; 1 Sam. 
 xiv. 3); 6. Ahiah; 7. Ahimelech (on the as- 
 sumption that he was not identical with Ahiah 
 or rather Ahijah, which Ewald regards as 
 certain; cp. 1 Sam. xiv, 3, 18, xxi. 1, xxii. 9. 
 
 HIGH-PRIEST, THE 1363 
 
 See Ewald, 11]. ii. 415, n. 8). Phinehas the son 
 of Eli, and father of Ahitub, died before his 
 father, and so was not high-priest. Of the 
 above the first three succeeded in regular order ; 
 Nadab and Abihu, Aaron’s eldest sons, havin 
 
 died in the wilderness (Lev. x.). But Eli, the 
 fourth, was of the line of Ithamar according to 
 Josephus (Ant. v. 11, § 5; ep. 1 Ch. xxiv. 2, 3). 
 What was the exact interval between the death 
 of Phinehas and the accession of Eli, what led to 
 the transference of the chief priesthood from 
 the line of Eleazar to that of Ithamar, and 
 whether any, or which, of the descendants of 
 Eleazar between Phinehas and Zadok (seven in 
 number, according to 1 Ch, vi. 4-8, viz. Abishua, 
 Bukki, Uzzi, Zerahiah, Meraioth, Amariah, Ahi- 
 tub) were high-priests, we have no means of 
 determining from Scripture. In Judg. xx. 28, 
 we see Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, priest at 
 Beth-el (ep. v. 26); and 1 Sam. i. 3, 9, finds Eli 
 high-priest at Shiloh, with two grown-up sons 
 priests under him. ‘The only clue is to be found 
 in the genealogies, by which it appears that 
 Phinehas was sixth in succession from Levi, while 
 Eli, supposing him to be the same generation as 
 Samuel’s grandfather, would be tenth. If how- 
 ever Phinehas lived, as is possible, to a great 
 old age, and Eli, as his age admits, be placed 
 about half a generation backwarder, a very 
 small interval will remain. Josephus asserts 
 (Ant. viii. 1, § 3) that the father of Bukki— 
 whom he calls Joseph, and (Ant. v. 11, § 5) 
 Abiezer, instead of Abishua—was the last high- 
 priest of Phinehas’s line, before Zadok, This is 
 perhaps a true tradition, though Josephus, with 
 characteristic levity,’ does not adhere to it in 
 the above passage of his 5th book, where he 
 makes Bukki and Uzzi to have been both high- 
 priests, and Eli to have succeeded Uzzi; or in 
 bk. xx. 10, where he reckons the high-priests 
 before Zadok and Solomon to have been thirteen 
 (a reckoning which includes apparently all 
 Eleazar’s descendants down to Ahitub), and adds 
 Kli and his son Phinehas, and Abiathar, whom 
 he calls Eli’s grandson. If Abishua died, leaving 
 a son or grandson under age, Eli, as head of the 
 line of Ithamar, might have become high-priest 
 as a matter of course, or he might have been 
 appointed by the elders™ His having judged 
 Israel forty years (1 Sam. iv. 18) marks him as 
 aman of ability. If Ahiah and Ahimelech are 
 not variations of the name of the same person, 
 they must have been brothers, since both were 
 sons of Ahitub. The high-priests then before 
 
 1 Tt is impossible to reconcile Josephus either with 
 himself or with the Chronicler. In Ané. viii. 1, § 3, he 
 states that Bukki ‘son of Abishua the high-priest,’’ 
 Joatham son of Bukki, Meraioth son of Joatham, 
 “ Arophaeus ” son of Meraioth, and Ahitub, lived in a 
 private station, while the house of Ithamar held the 
 high-priesthood. Ewald remarks, ‘Thus carelessly 
 did Josephus quote his authorities ” (HZ. ii. 409, n. 2). 
 
 m No instance of such a mode of appointment can be 
 cited from the Historical Books. But the grand dif- 
 ficulty is that while on the one hand no trace is to be 
 found of the priesthood of Abishua, Bukki, &c., nor 
 even of their existence, in the Books of Judges and 
 Samuel, on the other hand the immediate predecessors 
 of Eli, and Eli himself and his successors in the priest- 
 hood, are omitted from the Chronicler’s apparently 
 complete list of hereditary high-priests from Aaron 
 to the Exile (1 Ch. vi, 8-15). 
 
 482 
 
1364 HIGH-PRIEST, THE 
 
 David’s reign may be set down as eight (but vid. 
 supr.) in number, of whom seven are inferred 
 from Scripture to have been high-priests, and 
 one is said to have been such by Josephus alone. 
 The bearing of this on the chronology of the times. 
 from the Exodus to David, tallying as it does with 
 the number of the ancestors of David, is too im- 
 portant to be passed over in silence. It must 
 also be noted that the Tabernacle, during the 
 high-priesthood of Aaron’s successors of this 
 first group, was pitched at Shiloh in the tribe 
 of Ephraim; a fact which marks the strong 
 influence which the temporal power already had 
 in ecclesiastical affairs, since Ephraim was 
 Joshua’s tribe, as Judah was Dayid’s (Josh. xxiv. 
 30, 33; Judg. xx. 27, 28, xxi. 21; 1 Sam. i. 3, 
 9,924, ive.3; 4, xiv. 3, &c.; Ps. Ixxviil. 60): 
 This strong influence and interference of the 
 secular power is manifest throughout the sub- 
 sequent history. This first period was also 
 marked by the calamity which befell the high- 
 priests as the guardians of the Ark, in its 
 capture by the Philistines. This probably sus- 
 pended all inquiries by Urim and Thummin, 
 which were made before the Ark (1 Ch, xiii. 3: 
 ep. Judg. xx. 27, 1 Sam. vii. 2, xiv. 18)," and 
 must have greatly diminished the influence of 
 the high-priests, on whom the largest share of 
 the humiliation which was popularly seen in 
 the name Ichabod ° would naturally fall. The 
 rise of Samuel as a prophet at this very time, 
 and his paramount influence and importance in 
 the State, to the entire eclipsing of Ahiah the 
 priest, coincides remarkably with the absence of 
 the Ark and the means of inquiring by Urim 
 and Thummim. 
 
 (b.) Passing to the second group, we begin 
 with the unexplained circumstance of there 
 being two priests in the reign of David, ap- 
 parently of nearly equal authority, viz. Zadok 
 and Abiathar (1 Ch. xv. 11; 2 Sam. viii. 17). 
 Indeed it is only from the deposition of Abia- 
 thar, and the placing of Zadok in his room, by 
 Solomon (1 K. ii. 35), that we are able to infer 
 that Abiathar was the high-priest, and Zadok 
 the second. Zadok was son of Ahitub,? of the 
 line of Eleazar (1 Ch. vi. 8), and the first 
 mention of him is in 1 Ch. xii. 28 as “a young 
 man, mighty in valour,” who joined David in 
 Hebron after Saul’s death, with twenty-two 
 captains of his father’s house. It is therefore 
 not unlikely that after the death of Ahimelech 
 and the secession of Abiathar to David, Saul 
 may have made Zadok priest, so far as it was 
 possible for him to do it in the absence of the 
 Ark and the high-priest’s robes, and that David 
 
 2 But the true reading of 1 Sam. xiv. 18 is preserved 
 by the Sept.: ‘* And Saul said unto Ahijah, Bring hither 
 the ephod; for he (Ahijah) wore the ephod at that 
 time before the bené Israel.” It does not appear that 
 the Ark was necessary to the consultation of Jahvah 
 by Urim and Thummim (1 Sam. xxiii. 6, 9; xxx. 
 7,83; xiv. 36-42. Vid. supr.). See Driver’s Samuel 
 ad loc. 
 
 © Ichabod is a name formed like Ithamar, and 
 probably means ‘‘man of glory” (Heb. ish kabod). 
 See Ewald, Lehrb. § 273. 
 
 P But Ahitub appears in 1 Sam. xiv. 3, xxii. 9, 20, as 
 father of Ahijah-Ahimelech and grandfather of Abia- 
 thar, Zadok’s rival, of the house of Eli and line of 
 Ithamar. 
 
 HIGH-PRIEST, THE 
 
 may have avoided the difficulty of deciding 
 between the claims of his faithful friend Abi- 
 athar and his new and important ally Zadok 
 (who perhaps was the means of attaching to 
 David’s cause the 4,600 Levites and the 3,700 
 priests who are said to have come under Jehoiada 
 their captain, vv. 26, 27),2 by appointing them 
 to a joint priesthood: the first place, with the 
 ephod, and Urim and Thummim, remaining 
 with Abiathar, who was in actual possession of 
 them. Certain it is that from this time Zadok 
 and Abiathar are constantly named together, 
 and singularly Zadok always first, both in the 
 Book of Samuel and that of Kings. We can, 
 however, trace very clearly up to a certain 
 point the division of the priestly offices and 
 dignities between them, coinciding as it did with 
 the divided state of the Levitical worship in 
 David’s time. For we learn from 1 Ch. xvi. 
 1-7, 37 compared with vv. 39, 40, and yet more 
 distinctly from 2 Ch. i. 3, 4, 5, that the Taber- 
 nacle and the Brazen Altar made by Moses and 
 Bezaleel in the wilderness were at this time at 
 Gibeon, while the Ark was at Jerusalem, in the 
 separate tent made for it by David. [GIBEON, 
 p- 1181.] Now Zadok the priest and his brethren 
 the priests were left ‘‘ before the Tabernacle... 
 at Gibeon ; to offer burnt-offerings unto the Lord 
 ... morning and evening, and to do according to 
 all that is written in the law of the Lord” (1 Ch. 
 xvi. 39,40). It is therefore obvious to conclude 
 that Abiathar had special charge of the Ark and 
 the services connected with it, which agrees 
 exactly with the possession of the ephod™ by 
 Abiathar, and his previous position with David 
 before he became king of Israel, as weil as with 
 what we are told in 1 Ch. xxvii. 34, that 
 Jehoiada and Abiathar were the king’s counsel- 
 lors next to Ahithophel. Residence at Jerusalem 
 with the Ark, and the privilege of inquiring of 
 the Lord before the Ark, both well suit his 
 ofice of counsellor. Abiathar, however, for- 
 feited his place by taking part with Adonijah 
 against Solomon, and Zadok was made high- 
 priest in his room. The pontificate was thus 
 again consolidated, and transferred permanently 
 from the line of Ithamar to that of Eleazar. 
 This is the only instance recorded of the de- 
 position of a high-priest (which became common 
 in later times, especially under Herod and the 
 Romans) during this second period. It was the 
 fulfilment of the prophetic denunciations of the 
 sin of Eli’s sons (1 Sam. ii., iii.). 
 
 The first considerable difficulty that meets 
 us in the historical survey of the high-priests 
 of the second group is to ascertain who was 
 high-priest at the dedication of Solomon’s 
 Temple. Josephus (Ant. x. 8, § 6) asserts that 
 Zadok was, and the Seder Olam makes him the 
 high-priest in the reign of Solomon. But first 
 it is very improbable that Zadok, who must 
 
 a The numbers are very surprising, in view of the 
 comparative paucity of priests in the preceding history 
 (Judges, Samuel). See Wellhausen, HI. p. 174. The 
 Chronicler and his principal source in all good faith 
 antedate many things, owing to the very natural desire 
 of finding an indefeasible sanction for present institu- 
 tions in the venerable past. 
 
 r But “Zadok and his brethren” at Gibeon must, as 
 priests, have worn the ephod (1 Sam. ii. 28, xxii. 18). 
 See Kuenen, RI. i. 97. 
 
HIGH-PRIEST, THE 
 
 have been very old at Solomon’s accession 
 (being David’s contemporary), should have lived 
 to the eleventh year of his reign; and next, 
 1 K. iv. 2 distinctly asserts that Azariah the 
 son of Zadok was priest under Solomon, and 
 1 Ch. vi. 10 tells us of Azariah,* “ he it is that 
 executed the priest’s office in the Temple that 
 Solomon built in Jerusalem,” obviously meaning 
 at its first completion. We can hardly there- 
 fore be wrong in saying that Azarian the son 
 (so 1 Ch. vi. 9; but brother, according to 
 2 Sam. xviii. 19, 1 K. iv. 2) of Ahimaaz was 
 the first high-priest of Solomon’s Temple. The 
 non-mention of him in the account of the dedi- 
 cation of the Temple, even where one would 
 most have expected it (as 1 Καὶ, vin. 3, 6, 10, 11, 
 14, 55, 62; 2 Ch. v. 7, 11, &c.), and the 
 prominence given to Solomon—the civil power 
 —are certainly remarkable. Cp. also 2 Ch. viii. 
 14, 15. The probable inference is that Azariah 
 had no great personal qualities or energy.t In 
 constructing the list of the succession of priests 
 of this group, our method must be to compare 
 the genealogical list in 1 Ch. vi. 8-15 (A. V.) 
 with the notices of high-priests in the sacred 
 history, and with the list given by Josephus, 
 who, it must be remembered, had access to the 
 lists preserved in the archives at Jerusalem: 
 testing the whole by the application of the 
 ordinary rules of genealogical succession. Now 
 as regards the genealogy, it is seen at once that 
 there is something defective; for whereas from 
 David to Jeconiah there are twenty kings, from 
 Zadok to Jehozadak there are but thirteen priests. 
 Moreover the passage in question was perhaps 
 not intended for a list of the actual high-priests, 
 but to give the pedigree of Jehozadak. ‘Then 
 again, while the pedigree in its first six genera- 
 tions from Zadok, inclusive, exactly suits the 
 history—for it makes Amariah the sixth priest, 
 while the history (2 Ch. xix. 11) tells us he 
 lived in Jehoshaphat’s reign, who was the sixth 
 king from David, inclusive ; and while the same 
 pedigree in its last five generations also suits 
 the history—inasmuch as it places Hilkiah the 
 son of Shallum fourth from the end, and the 
 history tells us he lived in the reign of Josiah, 
 the fourth king from the end—yet is there a 
 great gap in the middle. For between Amariah, 
 the high-priest in Jehoshaphat’s reign, and 
 Shallum the father of Hilkiah, the high-priest 
 in Josiah’s reign—an interval of over two cen- 
 turies—there are but two names, Ahitub and 
 Zadok, and these liable to the utmost suspicion 
 from their reproducing the same sequence which 
 occurs in the earlier part of the same genealogy 
 —Amariah, Ahitub, Zadok. Besides which they 
 are not mentioned by Josephus. This part 
 therefore of the pedigree is useless for our 
 purpose. But the narrative of Kings and 
 Chronicles supplies us with four or five names 
 for this interval, viz. Jehoiada in the reigns of 
 Athaliah and Joash, and probably still earlier ; 
 Zechariah his son; Azariah in the reign of 
 Uzziah; Urijah in the reign of Ahaz; and 
 
 ὁ The notice in 1 Ch. vi. 10 seems to belong to 
 Azariah ben Zadok, and not to the son of Johanan. 
 
 ὁ Yet this defect of character would hardly account 
 for the omission of his name on such an occasion, 
 especially as ‘‘the priests” are repeatedly mentioned 
 (1 K. viii. 3, 6, 10). 
 
 HIGH-PRIEST, THE 1364 
 
 Azariah in the reign of Hezekiah. If, however, 
 in the genealogy of 1 Ch. vi. 13, 14, Azariah 
 and Hilkiah have been accidentally transposed, 
 as is not unlikely, then the Azariah who was 
 high-priest m Hezekiah’s reign (2 Ch. xxx1. 10) 
 may possibly be that Azariah. Putting the 
 additional historical names at four, and de- 
 ducting the two suspicious names from the 
 genealogy, we have fifteen high-priests indicated 
 in Scripture as contemporary with the twenty 
 kings, with room, however, for one or two more 
 in the history." Turning to Josephus, we find 
 his list of seventeen high-priests (whom he 
 reckons as eighteen [ Ant. xx. LO], as do also the 
 Rabbins) in places exceedingly corrupt; a cor- 
 ruption sometimes caused by the end of one 
 name sticking on to the beginning of the fol- 
 lowing (as in Axioramus), sometimes apparently 
 by substituting the name of the contemporary 
 king or prophet for that of the high-priest, as 
 Joel and Jotham. Perhaps, however, Sudeas, 
 who corresponds to Zedekiah in the reign of 
 Amaziah in the Seder Olam Zutta, pp. 137, 139 
 (ed. G. Genebrardus, Basileae, 1580), and Odeas, 
 who corresponds to Hoshaiah in the reign of 
 Manasseh, according to the same Jewish 
 chronicle, may really represent high-priests 
 whose names have not been preserved in Scrip- 
 ture. This would bring up the number to 
 seventeen; or, if we retained Azariah as the 
 father of Seraiah (1 Ch. vi. 13, 14), to eighteen, 
 which would agree so far with the twenty 
 kings, 
 
 Reviewing the high-priests of this second group, 
 the following are some of the most remarkable 
 incidents related of their times :—(1) The transfer 
 of the seat of worship from Shiloh in the tribe 
 of Ephraim to Jerusalem in the tribe of Judah, 
 effected by David, and consolidated by the 
 building of the magnificent Temple of Solomon. 
 (2) The organization of the Temple-service under 
 the high-priests, and the division of the priests 
 and Levites into courses, who resided at the 
 Temple during their term of service—all which 
 necessarily put great power into the hands 
 of an able high-priest.* (3) The revolt of the 
 ten tribes from the dynasty of David and from 
 the worship at Jerusalem, and the setting up of 
 a schismatical priesthood at Dan and Beersheba 
 (1 K. xii. 31; 2 Ch. xiii. 9, &e), (4) The 
 overthrow of the usurpation of Athaliah, the 
 daughter of Ahab, by Jehoiada the high-priest, 
 whose near relationship to king Joash, added to 
 his zeal against the idolatries of the house of 
 Ahab, stimulated him to head the revolution with 
 the royal guards, according to 2 K. xi., or with 
 the force of priests and Levites at his command, 
 according to 2 Ch. xxii. (see Wellhausen, HZ. 
 pp. 196sqq.). (5) The boldness and success 
 with which according to the Chronicler—Kings 
 is silent upon the matter—the high-priest 
 Azariah withstood the encroachments of the 
 king Uzziah upon the office and functions of 
 
 ἃ Tt must, however, be borne in mind that Amariah 
 and Azariah find no place in the Book of Kings, and in 
 this respect are quite on a par with the two names 
 rejected above, Ahitub II. and Zadok 11. 
 
 x The sole ancient authority for these arrangements 
 is the Book of Chronicles, which appears to transfer 
 some of the institutions of the second Temple to the 
 period of David and Solomon. 
 
1366 HIGH-PRIEST, THE 
 
 the priesthood. (6) The repair of the Temple 
 by Jehoiada, in the reign of Joash, the restora- 
 tion of the Temple-services by Azariah in the 
 reion of Hezekiah, and the discovery of the 
 Book of the Law, and the religious reformation by 
 Hilkiah in the reign of Josiah. [DEUTERONOMY. ] 
 (7) In all these great religious movements, 
 however, excepting the one headed by Jehoiada, 
 it is remarkable how the civil power took the 
 lead. It was David who arranged all the 
 Temple-service, Solomon who directed the 
 building and dedication of the Temple, the 
 high-priest being not so much as named; 
 Jehoshaphat who sent the priests about to 
 teach the people, and assigned to the high- 
 priest Amariah his share in the work ; Hezekiah 
 who headed the reformation, and urged on 
 Azariah and the priests and Levites; Josiah 
 who encouraged the priests in the service of 
 the house of the Lord. On the other hand, we 
 read of no opposition to the idolatries of 
 Manasseh by the high-priest; and we know 
 how shamefully subservient Urijah the high- 
 priest was to king Ahaz, actually building an 
 altar according to the pattern of one at 
 Damascus, to displace the Brazen Altar, and 
 joining the king in his profane worship before it 
 (2 K. xvi. 10-16). The preponderance of the 
 civil over the ecclesiastical power, as an his- 
 torical fact, in the kingdom of Judah, seems to 
 be proved from these circumstances. 
 
 The priests of this series ended with Seraiah, 
 who was taken prisoner by Nebuzar-adan, and 
 slain at Riblah by Nebuchadnezzar, together 
 with Zephaniah the second priest or Sagan, 
 after the burning of the Temple and the plunder 
 of all the sacred vessels (2 K. xxv. 18). His 
 son Jehozadak or Josedech was at the same time 
 carried away captive (1 Ch. vi. 15). 
 
 The time occupied by these (say) eighteen 
 high-priests who ministered at Jerusalem, was 
 about 454 years, which gives an average of 
 something more than twenty-five years to each 
 high-priest. It is remarkable that not a single 
 instance is recorded after the time of David of 
 recourse to the Urim and Thummim as a means 
 of inquiring of the Lord, The ministry of the 
 prophets seems to have superseded that of the 
 high-priests (see e.g. 2 Ch. xv., xviii., xx. 14, 
 155 ὦ K. xix. 1, 2, xxii. 12-14; Jer. xxi. 1, 2). 
 Some think that Urim and Thummim ceased 
 with the theocracy ; others with the division of 
 Israel into two kingdoms. Nehemiah seems to 
 have expected the restoration of it (Neh. vii. 65), 
 and so perhaps did Judas Maccabaeus (1 Macc. 
 iv. 46: cp. xiv. 41); while Josephus athrms 
 that it had been exercised for the last time two 
 hundred years before he wrote, viz. by John 
 Hyreanus (Whiston, note on Ant. iii. 8, and 
 Prid. Conn. i. 150, 151). It seems therefore 
 scarcely true to reckon Urim and Thummim as 
 one of the marks of God’s Presence with Solo- 
 mon’s Temple, which was wanting to the second 
 Temple (Prid. 1. 138, 144 sq.). This early 
 cessation of answers by Urim and Thummim, 
 though the high-priest’s office and the wearing 
 of the breastplate continued in force during so 
 many centuries, seems to confirm the notion 
 that such answers were not the fundamental, 
 but only the accessory uses of the breastplate of 
 judgment. (But vid. supr. I. (2).) 
 
 (¢.) An interval of about fifty-two years 
 
 HIGH-PRIEST, THE 
 
 elapsed between the high-priests of the second 
 and third group, during which there was 
 neither Temple, nor Altar, nor Ark, nor priest. 
 Jehozadak, or Josedech, as it is written in 
 the A. V. of Haggai Gi. 1, 14, &e.; Sept. and 
 Vulg., Josedec; Heb. and R. V. Jehozadak), 
 who should have succeeded Seraiah, lived and 
 died a captive at Babylon. The pontifical 
 office revived in his son Jeshua, of whom 
 such frequent mention is made in Ezra and 
 Nehemiah, Haggai, and Zechariah, 1 Esd. and 
 Ecclus. ; and he therefore stands at the head of 
 this third and last series, honourably distin- 
 guished for his zealous co-operation with Zerub- 
 babel in rebuilding the Temple, and founding 
 the new religious community. His successors, 
 as far as the QO. T. guides us, were Joiakim, 
 Eliashib, Joiada, Johanan, Jonathan (so Herz- 
 feld and others), and Jaddua (see Neh. xii. 10, 
 11, 22, 23). Of these we find Eliashib hindering 
 rather than seconding the zeal of the devout 
 Tirshatha Nehemiah for the observance of Ged’s 
 law in Israel (Neh. xiii. 4, 7); and Johanan, 
 Josephus tells us, murdered his own brother 
 Jesus or Jeshua in the Temple, which led to its 
 further profanation by Bagoses, the general of 
 Artaxerxes Mnemon’s army (An#. xi. 7). Jaddua 
 was high-priest in the time of Alexander the 
 Great. Concerning him Josephus relates the 
 story that he went out to meet Alexander at 
 Sapha (probably the ancient Mizpeh) at the 
 head of a procession of priests; and that when 
 Alexander saw the multitude clothed in white, 
 and the priests in their linen garments, and the 
 high-priest in blue and gold, with the mitre on 
 his head, and the gold plate, on which was the 
 Name of God, he stepped forward alone and 
 adored the Name, and hastened to embrace the 
 high-priest (Ant. xi. 8, §5). Josephus adds 
 among other things that the king entered 
 Jerusalem with the high-priest, and went up 
 to the Temple to worship and offer sacrifice ; 
 that he was shown the “ prophecies of Daniel” 
 {see DANIEL] concerning himself, and at the, 
 high-priest’s intercession granted the Jews 
 liberty to live according to their own laws, 
 and freedom from tribute on the Sabbatical 
 years. The story, however, is undoubtedly 
 apocryphal in its details, though the main fact 
 may be historical (see Schtirer, 1. i. p. 187, 
 n. 1). It was the brother of this Jaddua, 
 Manasseh, who, according to the same authority, 
 was at the request of Sanballat made the first 
 high-priest of the Samaritan temple by Alex- 
 ander the Great. 
 
 Jaddua was succeeded by Onias I., his son, 
 and he again by Simon the Just, the last of 
 “the Men of the Great Synagogue,” to whom 
 the Jews ascribe the completion of the Canon 
 of the O. T. (Prideaux, Conn. i. 545). Of him 
 Jesus, the son of Sirach, speaks in terms of glow- 
 ing eulogy in Ecclus. 1., and ascribes to him the 
 repair and fortification of the Temple, with other 
 works. (Others, e.g. Schiirer, suppose that the 
 reference is to Simon II.) The passage (vv. 1- 
 21) contains a vivid account of the ministrations 
 of the high-priest, in all the pomp and splendour 
 of his office, as exhibited in the period of the 
 writer. Upon Simon’s death, his son Onias 
 being under age, Eleazar, Simon’s brother, 
 succeeded him. The high-priesthood of Eleazar 
 is memorable as being that under which the 
 
HIGH-PRIEST, THE 
 
 LXX. Version of the Scriptures was made at 
 Alexandria for Ptolemy Philadelphus, according 
 to the account of Josephus taken from Avristeas 
 (Ant. xii. 2), whose letter, however, is a forgery 
 [SepruaGinr}.” The translation of the Hebrew 
 Scriptures into Greek, valuable as it was with 
 reference to the wider interests of religion, and 
 marked as was the Providence which gave it to 
 the world during this period as a preparation 
 for the approaching Advent of Christ, yet 
 viewed in its relation to Judaism and the high- 
 priesthood, was a sign, and perhaps a helping 
 cause, of their decay. It marked a growing 
 tendency to Hellenize, utterly inconsistent with 
 the spirit of the Mosaic economy. Accordingly, 
 in the high-priesthood of Eleazar’s rival nephews, 
 Jesus and Onias, we find their very names 
 changed into the Greek ones of Jason and 
 Menelaus ; and with the introduction of this 
 new feature of rival high-priests we find one of 
 them, Menelaus, strengthening himself and 
 seeking support from the Syro-Grecian kings 
 against the orthodox party, by offering to 
 forsake the national Jaws and customs, and to 
 adopt those of the Greeks. ‘The building of a 
 gymnasium at Jerusalem for the use of these 
 apostate Jews, and their endeavour to conceal 
 their circumcision when stripped for the games 
 (i Mace. i. 14,15; 2 Macc. iv. 12-15; Joseph. 
 Ant. xii. 5, § 1), show the length to which this 
 spirit was carried. The acceptance of the 
 spurious priesthood of the temple of Onion from 
 Ptolemy Philometor by Onias (the son of Onias 
 the high-priest), who would have been the 
 legitimate high-priest on the death of Menelaus, 
 his uncle, is another striking indication of the 
 same degeneracy. By this flight of Onias into 
 Egypt the succession of high-priests in the 
 family of Jehozadak ceased; for although the 
 Syro-Grecian kings had introduced much un- 
 certainty into the succession, by deposing at 
 their will obnoxious persons, and appointing 
 whom they pleased, yet the dignity had never 
 gone out of the one family. Alcimus, whose 
 Hebrew name was, according to Ruflinus (ap. 
 Selden), Joachim, i.e. Joakim or Jehoiakim, of 
 which Ehakim (=Alkimus) is a natural variant 
 (cp. Judith iv. 6, Joakim, Greek = Eliakim, 
 Syriac and Vulg.), and who was made high- 
 priest by Antiochus Eupator on Menelaus being 
 put to death by him, was the first who was of 
 a different family; one, says Josephus, that 
 “was indeed of the stock of Aaron, but not of 
 this (Jehozadak’s) family.” 
 
 What, however, for a time saved the Jewish 
 Institutions, infused a new life and consistency 
 into the priesthood and the national religion, 
 and enabled them to fulfil their destined course 
 till the Advent of Christ, was the cruel and 
 impolitic persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes. 
 This thoroughly aroused the piety and national 
 spirit of the Jews, and drew together in defence 
 of their Temple and country all who feared 
 God and were attached to their nationai institu- 
 tions. The result was that after the high- 
 priesthood had been brought to the lowest 
 degradation by the apostasy and crimes of the 
 last Onias or Menelaus, and after a vacancy of 
 
 y Even the Seder Olam Zutta ascribes to “ Ptolemy” 
 no more than the Greek version of the Five Books of 
 the Law. 
 
 HIGH-PRIEST, THE 1567 
 
 seven years had followed the brief pontificate of 
 Alcimus, his no less infamous successor, a new 
 and glorious succession of high-priests arose in 
 the Hasmonean family, who united the dignity 
 of civil rulers, and for a time of independent 
 sovereigns, to that of the high-priesthood. 
 Josephus, who is followed by Lightfoot, Selden, 
 and others, calls Judas Maccabaeus “ high-priest 
 of the nation of Judah” (Ant. xii. 10, § 6); but, 
 according to the far better authority of 1 Mace. 
 x. 20, it was not till after the death of Judas 
 Maccabaeus that Alcimus himself died, and that 
 Alexander, king of Syria, made Jonathan, the 
 brother of Judas, high-priest. Josephus him- 
 self, too, speaks of Jonathan as “the first of the 
 sons of Asamoneus, who was high-priest ” (Vita, 
 § 1). It is possible, however, that Judas may 
 have been elected by the people to the office of 
 high-priest, though never confirmed in it by the 
 Syrian kings. The Hasmonean family were 
 priests of the course of Joiarib, the first of the 
 twenty-four courses (1 Ch. xxiv. 7), whose 
 return from Captivity is recorded 1 Ch. ix. 10, 
 Neh. xi. 10. They were probably of the house 
 of Eleazar, though this cannot be affirmed with 
 certainty ; and Josephus tells us that he him- 
 self was related to them, one of his ancestors 
 having married a daughter of Jonathan, the 
 first high-priest of the house. This Hasmonean 
 dynasty lasted from B.c. 153, till the family 
 was damaged by intestine divisions, and then 
 destroyed by Herod the Great. Aristobulus, 
 the last high-priest of his line, brother of 
 Mariamne, was murdered by order of Herod, his 
 brother-in-law, B.c. 35. The independence of 
 Judaea, under the priest-kings of this race, had 
 lasted till Pompey took Jerusalem, and sent 
 king Aristobulus II. Gvho had also taken the 
 high-priesthood from his brother Hyrcanus) a 
 prisoner to Rome, Pompey restored Hyrcanus 
 to the high-priesthood, but forbade him to 
 wear the diadem. Everything Jewish was now, 
 however, hastening to decay. Herod made men 
 of low birth high-priests, deposed them at his 
 will, and named others in their room. In this 
 he was followed by Archelaus, and by the 
 Romans when they took the government of 
 Judaea into their own hands; so that there were 
 no fewer than twenty-eight high-priests from 
 the reign of Herod to the destruction of the 
 Temple by Titus, a period of 107 years.* The 
 N. T. introduces us to some of these later and 
 oft-changing high-priests, viz. Annas and 
 Caiaphas—the former, high-priest at the com- 
 mencement of St. John Baptist’s ministry, with 
 Caiaphas as second priest ; and the latter high- 
 priest himself at our Lord’s crucifixion—and 
 Ananias, thought to be the same as Ananus, who 
 was murdered by the Zealots just before the 
 siege of Jerusalem, before whom St. Paul was 
 tried, as we read Acts xxiii., and of whom he 
 said, ‘God shall smite thee, thou whited wall.” 
 Theophilus, the son of Ananus, was the high- 
 priest from whom Saul received letters to the 
 synagogue at Damascus (Acts 1x. 1, 14, Kuinoel), 
 
 z Josephus tells us of one Ananus and his five sons 
 who all filled the office of high-priest in turn. One of 
 these, Ananus the younger, was deposed by king 
 Agrippa for the part he took in causing “‘ James the 
 brother of Jesus who was called Christ’”’ to be stoned 
 (Ant. xx. 9, §1). 
 
1908 HIGH-PRIEST, THE 
 
 Both he and Ananias seem certainly to have 
 presided in the Sanhedrin, and that officially, 
 nor is Lightfoot’s explanation (viii. 450 and 
 484) of the mention of the high-priest, though 
 Gamaliel and his son Simeon were respectively 
 presidents of the Sanhedrin, at all probable or 
 satisfactory (see Acts v. 17, &c.). The last 
 high-priest was appointed by lot by the Zealots 
 from the course of priests called by Josephus 
 Eniachim (probably a corrupt reading for Eli- 
 achim=E]l-jakim = Jakim, 1 Ch. xxiv. 12). He is 
 thus described by the Jewish historian: ‘ His 
 name was Phannias: he was the son of Samuel 
 of the village of Aphtha, a man not only not of 
 the number of the chief priests, but who, such 
 a mere rustic was he, scarcely knew what the 
 high-priesthood meant. Yet did they drag him 
 reluctant from the country, and, setting him 
 forth in a borrowed character as on the stage, 
 they put the sacred vestments on him, and 
 instructed him how to act on the occasion. 
 This shocking impiety, which to them was a 
 subject of merriment and sport, drew tears from 
 the other priests, who beheld from a distance 
 their Law turned into ridicule, and groaned over 
 the subversion of the sacred honours” (Jb. J. iv. 
 3, § 8). Thus ignominiously ended the series 
 of high-priests which had stretched in a scarcely 
 broken line, through nearly fourteen, or, ac- 
 cording to the common chronology, sixteen 
 centuries. The Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian, 
 Persian, Grecian, and Roman empires, which 
 the Jewish high-priests had seen in turn over- 
 shadowing the world, had each, except the last, 
 one by one withered away and died; and now 
 the last successor of Aaron was stripped of his 
 sacerdotal robes, and the Temple which he 
 served laid level with the ground to rise no more. 
 But this did not happen till the true High-priest 
 and King of Israel, the Minister of the Sanctuary 
 and of the true Tabernacle which the Lord 
 pitched, and not man, had offered His one sacri- 
 tice, once for all, and had taken His place at the 
 right hand of the Majesty in the heavens, to 
 continue a Priest for ever, in the Sanctuary 
 which shall never be taken down. 
 
 The subjoined table shows the succession of 
 high-priests, as far as it can be ascertained, and 
 of the contemporary civil rulers. 
 
 CIVIL RULER. HIGH-PRIEST. 
 
 Moses 5 Aaron. 
 
 Joshua . 4 Eleazar. 
 
 Othniel Phinehas. 
 
 Abishua . Abishua. 
 
 Eli . Eli. 
 
 Samuel Ahitub. 
 
 Saul ΛΒ Δ". 
 
 David : Zadok and Abiathar. 
 Solomon . . Azariah. [Zadok.]* 
 
 [Rehoboam Ahimaaz.] 
 
 Abijah Johanan. [Azariah.] 
 Asa -\zari bh. 
 
 ἃ The names added in square brackets are from the 
 Seder Olam Zutta, according to which Abiathar only was 
 high-priest under David, and Zadok under Solomon. 
 The names of Ahaz (= Jehoahaz), Pedaiah, Neriah, &c. 
 seem worthy of notice as an evidence of a dist ποῦ 
 tradition. That “ Jotham” should be high-priest under 
 Jotham, is hardly more remarkable than that ‘* Aza- 
 riah” should be high-priest under Azariah-Uzziah 
 (2 Ch. xxvi. 17). 
 
 HIGH-PRIEST, THE 
 
 CIVIL RULER. 
 Jehoshaphat . . . 
 
 HIGH-PRIEST. 
 Amariah. [Ahaz.] 
 
 Jehoram . ᾿ - - Jehoiada. [Jehoiarib.] 
 Ahaziah . Ξ 4 ε ἣν (Jehoshaphat. ] 
 Jehoash . ‘ - A Aa and Zechariah. 
 [Jehoiada, Pedaiah.] 
 Amaziah . : - : ? {Zedekiah. ] 
 Uzziah . é . Azariah, [Joel.] 
 Jotham . : : 5 ? (Jotham.] 
 Ahaz Urijah. 
 Hezekiah . Azariah. [Neriah.] 
 Manasseh Sballum. [Hoshaiah.] 
 Amon ὁ 4 5 5 a (Shallum,] 
 Josiah Hilkiah. [Hilkiah.] 
 Jehoiakim Azariah? [Azariah.] 
 
 Zedekiah . . . Seraiah. 
 Evil-Merodach . 5 - Jehozadak. 
 Zerubbabel (Cyrus and 
 
 Darius) : : Jeshua. 
 Mordecai? (Xerxes) . . Joiakim. 
 Ezra and Nehemiah (Arta- 
 
 Xerxes) 3 - Eliashib. 
 Darius Nothus . . Joiada, 
 Artaxerxes Mnemon Johanan, 
 Alexander the Great . Jaddua. 
 Onias I. (Ptolemy Soter, 
 
 Antigonus) . 5 - Onias I. 
 Ptolemy Soter . τ Simon I., the Just. 
 Ptolemy Philadelphu Eleazar. 
 
 + Ξε Ε - Manasseh. 
 Ptolemy Euergetes Onias II. 
 Ptolemy Philopator . . Simon 11. 
 Seleucus IV. and Antiochus 
 
 Epiphanes . ζ Onias ΠῚ. 
 
 (Joshua, or) Jason. 
 
 Onias III., or Menelaus. 
 Jacimus, or Alcimus. 
 Jonathan, brother of Judas. 
 Maccabaeus (Hasmnonean). 
 
 Simon (Hasmonean). 
 
 John Hyrcanus (Do.). 
 
 Aristobulus (Do.). 
 
 Antiochus Epiphanes . 
 
 39 39 . . 
 Demetrius = 5 Ἶ 
 Alexander Balas A 5 
 
 Simon (Hasmonean) . 
 John Hyrcanus (Hasm.) 
 King Aristobulus (Hasm.) 
 King Alexander Jannaeus 
 (Hasmonean) - 
 Queen Alexandra (Hasm.) 
 King Aristobulus 11. (Has- 
 monean) ° 4 Ε 
 Pompey the Great and 
 Hyrcanus, or _ rather, 
 towards the end of his 
 pontificate, Antipater 
 Pacorus the Parthian 
 Herod, k. of Judaea . Ξ 
 
 37 35 
 
 Alexander Jannaeus (Do.). 
 Hyrcanus II. (Do.). 
 
 Aristobulus IT. (Do.). 
 
 Hyrcanus II. (Do.). 
 
 Antigonus (Do.). 
 
 Ananelus, or Hananeel. 
 
 Aristobulus (last of Has- 
 moneans) murdered by 
 Herod. 
 
 ” 57) awe . Ananelus restored. 
 
 Herod the Great C Jesus, son of Phabes (7.e. 
 Pi-abi).> 
 
 Simon, son of Boethus, 
 
 35 99 . 
 father-in-law to Herod. 
 
 » 39 . Matthias, son of Theo- 
 philus. 
 
 » » : Joseph, son of Ellem or 
 Iilem. 
 
 Joazar, son of Boethus. 
 Eleazar, son of Boethus. 
 Jesus, son of Sie or Seé. 
 Joazar (second time). 
 
 ” 3 . 
 Archelaus, k. of Judaea 
 
 ” ” 
 
 ” 39 ~ 
 Cyrenius, governor of Syria, 
 second time , 5 . Ananus, or Annas, son of 
 
 Seth (= Seé 2). 
 Valerius Gratus, procurator 
 of Judaea . - . Ishmael, son of Phabi or 
 
 Pi-abi. 
 
 b This name Pi-abi ΟΝ ΛΘ or SIND, Φιαβί, Ant. 
 xx. 8, § 8) is interesting as a form parallel to Phinehas 
 (DM), Pi-nebas), also a priestly name. 
 
HILEN 
 
 CIVIL RULER. 
 
 Valerius Gratus, procurator 
 of Judaea . . . 
 
 HIGH-PRIEST, 
 
 Eleazar, son of Ananus or 
 Annas. 
 
 Simon, son of Kamithus 
 (i.e. Qamhith). 
 
 Joseph, called ; Caiaphas 
 (ha-Qayyaph). 
 
 Jonathan, son of Ananus. 
 
 Theophilus, brother of 
 Jonathan. 
 
 Simon Cantheras, son of 
 Boéthus. 
 
 Matthias, brother of Jona- 
 than, son of Ananus. 
 
 Elioneus, son of Cantheras. 
 
 Joseph, son of Camei or 
 Kemedes (=Kamithus). 
 
 Ananias, son of Nedebaeus. 
 
 Ishmael, son of Phabi or 
 Pi-abi. 
 
 Joseph, called Kabi, son of 
 ** Simon the high-priest:’” 
 (t.e. Cantheras 7), 
 
 Ananus, son of Ananus or 
 Ananias. 
 
 Jesus, son of Damnaeus 
 (Jos. Ant. xx. 9, § 4). 
 
 Jesus, son of Gamaliel. 
 
 Matthias, son of Theo- 
 philus. 
 
 Phannias or Phineesos (¢.e. 
 Phinehas), son of Samuel. 
 
 The latter part of the above list is taken 
 partly from Lightfoot, vol. ix. ch. iv.; also in 
 part from Josephus directly, and in part from 
 Whiston’s note on Ant. xv. 8, § 5. See also the 
 histories of Ewald, Kuenen, Wellhausen, Griitz, 
 and especially Schiirer, [A.C. H.] [C. J. B.] 
 
 HI'LEN (}0°; B. Σελνά, A. Νηλών ; Helon), 
 the name of acity of Judah allotted with its 
 “suburbs ” to the priests (1 Ch. vi. 58); and 
 which in the corresponding lists of Joshua is 
 called HOLON. Geil Wei] 
 
 HILKVAH (phn and ΠΡΡΌΠ = the Lord 
 is my portion; B. Χελκείας, A. -κίας; Helcias). 
 1. Hivkranu, father of Eliakim (2 K. xviii. 
 37; Is. xxii, 20, xxxvi. 22). [ELIAKIM.] 
 
 2. High-priest in the reign of Josiah (2 K. 
 Xxil. 4 sq.; 2 Ch. xxxiv. 9 sq.; 1 Esd. i. 8). 
 According to the genealogy in 1 Ch. vi. 13 
 (A. V.), he was son of Shallum, and, from 
 Ezra vii. 1, apparently the ancestor of Ezra the 
 scribe. His high-priesthood was rendered 
 particularly illustrious by the great reforma- 
 tion effected under it by king Josiah, by the 
 solemn Passover kept at Jerusalem in the 18th 
 year of that king’s reign, and above all by the 
 discovery which he made of the Book of the 
 Law of Moses in the Temple, probably deposited 
 by the side of the Ark of the covenant within 
 the vail (Deut. xxxi. 9, 26). 
 
 A difficult and interesting question arises, 
 What was the book found by Hilkiah ? Various 
 answers have been given, but modern criticism 
 is mostly in favour of the Book of Deuteronomy, 
 and probably other portions of the Law (Eders- 
 heim, Bible History, iv. 182 sq.), or—more 
 briefly—Deut. xii—xxvi. alone (Wellhausen, 
 Die Composition...d. Histor. BB. d. A. Ts., 
 Ῥ. 189; Stade, Gesch. d. Volkes Isr. p. 61). 
 All the actions of Josiah which followed the 
 
 ” ” τὶ 
 
 »” ΕΣ Φ 
 
 Vitellius, governor of Syria 
 
 ” 
 
 Herod Agrippal. . 
 
 ” ” bd - ἐν 
 Herod, king of Chalcis 
 
 Herod Agrippa II. 
 
 3) 39 
 
 Appointed by the people . 
 
 reading of the book found—the destruction of ; 
 
 1369 
 
 all idolatrous symbols, the putting away of 
 wizards and workers with familiar spirits, and 
 the keeping of the Passoyver—were such as would 
 follow from hearing chapters xvi., xviii., and 
 others of Deuteronomy, while there is not 
 one that points to any precept contained in the 
 other Books and not in Deuteronomy, Further, 
 it is well known how full the writings of 
 Jeremiah are of direct references and of points 
 of resemblance to the Book of Deuteronomy, 
 Now this is at once accounted for on the sup- 
 position of the Law thus found by Hilkiah being 
 that Book, which would thus naturally be an 
 object of special curiosity and study to the 
 Prophet, and as naturally influence his own 
 writings (cp. Jer. xi. 3-5 with Deut. xxvii. 26). 
 Surprise has been sometimes expressed at 
 the previous non-acquaintance with this book 
 on the part of Hilkiah, Josiah, and the people 
 generally, which their manner of receiving it 
 plainly evidences ; and some have argued from 
 hence that “the law of Moses” is not of older 
 date than the reign of Josiah:* in fact that 
 some unknown person invented it, and Hilkiah 
 pretended to have found a copy in the Temple 
 in order to give sanction to the reformation 
 which they had in hand. If the charge of 
 fraud or forgery may be at once dismissed, is 
 the “ needful illusion ” stipulated by some critics 
 in explanation of what took place, much better? 
 The following remarks will point out the true 
 inferences to be drawn from the narrative of 
 this remarkable discovery in the Books of Kings 
 and Chronicles. The direction in Deut. xxxi. 
 10-13 for the public reading of the Law at the 
 Feast of Tabernacles on each seventh year, or 
 year of release, to the whole congregation, as 
 the means of perpetuating the knowledge of 
 the Law, sufficiently shows that at that time 
 a multiplication of copies and a multitude of 
 readers were not contemplated. The same 
 thing seems to be implied also in the direction 
 given in Deut. xvii. 18, 19, concerning the copy 
 of the Law to be made, for the special use of 
 the king, distinct from that in the keeping of 
 the priests and Levites. And this paucity of 
 copies and of readers is just what one would 
 have expected in an age when the art of reading 
 and writing was confined to the professional 
 scribes, and to the very few others who, like 
 Moses, had learnt the art in Egypt (Acts vii. 22), 
 The troublous times of the Judges were obviously 
 more likely to obliterate than to promote the 
 study of letters. And whatever occasional 
 revival of sacred learning may have taken place 
 under such kingsas David, Solomon, Jehoshaphat, 
 Uzziah, Jotham, and Hezekiah, yet on the other 
 hand such reigns as that of Athaliah, the last 
 years of Joash, that of Ahaz, and above all the 
 long reign of Manasseh, with their idolatries 
 and national calamities, must have been most 
 unfavourable to the study of “the sacred 
 letters.” On the whole, in the days of Josiah 
 irreligion and ignorance had overflowed all the 
 dykes erected to stay their progress. In spite 
 of such occasional acts as the public reading of 
 
 HILKIAH 
 
 a The date preferred by Reuss, Kuenen, Dillmann (?) 
 and Cheyne (£zpositor, p. 95, Feb. 1892). Ewald, 
 Robertson Smith, Kittel, Driver (see LOT. p. 82, n. 2), 
 assign it to the reign of Manasseh ; Delitzsch and Riehm 
 (ἴηι. i. 246 sq.) to the reign of Hezekiah.—[F.] 
 
1370 HILLEL 
 
 the Law to the people, enjoined by Jehoshaphat 
 (2 Ch. xvii. 9), and such isolated evidences of 
 the king’s reading the Law, as commanded by 
 Moses, as the action recorded of Amaziah affords 
 (2 Κ. xiv. 6), and the yet more marked ac- 
 quaintance with the Law attributed to Hezekiah 
 (2 K. xvii. 5, 6) [GENEALOGY], everything in 
 Josiah’s reign indicates a very low state of know- 
 ledge. How then can we wonder that under 
 such circumstances the knowledge of the Law 
 had fallen into desuetude? or fail to see in the 
 incident of the startling discovery of the copy 
 of it by Hilkiah one of those many instances of 
 simple truthfulness which impress on the Scrip- 
 ture narrative such an unmistakable stamp of 
 authenticity, when it is read in the same guile- 
 less spirit in which it is written? In fact, the 
 ignorance of the Law of Moses which this his- 
 tory reveals is in most striking harmony with 
 the prevalent idolatry disclosed by the previous 
 history of Judaea, especially since its connexion 
 with the house of Ahab, as well as with the low 
 state of education which is apparent from so 
 many incidental notices. 
 
 The story of Hilkiah’s discovery throws no 
 light whatever upon the mode in which other 
 portions of the Scriptures were preserved, and 
 therefore this is not the place to consider it. 
 But Thenius truly observes that the expression 
 in 2 Κα. xxii. 8 clearly implies that the existence 
 of the Law of Moses was a thing well known to 
 the Jews. It is interesting to notice the con- 
 currence of the king with the high-priest in 
 the restoration of the Temple, as well as the 
 analogy of the circumstances with what took 
 place in the reign of Joash, when Jehoiada 
 was high-priest, as related in 2 Ch. xxiv. 
 (CHELCIAS. | [A. C. H.] 
 
 8. HILKIAH (B. om.; Helcias), a Merarite 
 Levite, son of Amzi, one of the ancestors of 
 Eruan (1 Ch. vi. 45; Heb. v. 30). 
 
 4. HILKIAHU; another Merarite Levite, second 
 son of Hosah; among the doorkeepers of the 
 Tabernacle in the time of king David (1 Ch. xxvi. 
 11; B. om.). 
 
 5. HILKIAH; one of those who stood on the 
 right hand of Ezra when he read the Law to the 
 people. Doubtless a Levite, and probably a 
 priest (Neh. viii. 45; B. Ἑλκειά, NS. Χελκιά, 
 A. -εια). He may be identical with the Hilkiah 
 who came up in the expedition with Jeshua and 
 Zerubbabel (xii. 7; om. BN*A.), and whose de- 
 scendant Hashabiah is commemorated as living 
 in the days of Joiakim (xii. 21; om. BN*A.). 
 
 6. HILKIAHU; a priest, of Anathoth, father 
 of the prophet JEREMIAH (Jer. i. 1). 
 
 7. HILKIAH, father of Gemariah, who was 
 one of Zedekiah’s envoys to Babylon (Jer. xxix. 
 
 3). CW. A. W.] 
 
 ἩΠ τ | Oba = he aa cea. 
 Ἑλλήλ, A. Σελλήμ, Joseph. “EAAnAos ; Iilel), 
 a native of Pirathon in Mount Ephraim, father 
 of ABDON, one of the judges of Israel (Judg. 
 xii. 13, 15). 
 
 HILLS. The structure and characteristics 
 of the hills of Palestine will be most con- 
 veniently noticed in the general description of 
 the features of the country. [PanesTine.] But 
 it may not be unprofitable to call attention here 
 to the various Hebrew terms for which the 
 word “hill” has been employed in the A. V. 
 
 HIN 
 
 1. Gibeah, M23, from a root akin to “23, 
 which seems to have the force of curvature or 
 humpishness. A word involving this idea is 
 peculiarly applicable to the rounded hills of 
 Palestine, and from it are derived, as has been 
 pointed out under GiBrAH, the names of several 
 places situated on hills. Our translators (A. V.) 
 have been consistent in rendering gibeah by 
 “hill;” in four passages only qualifying it as 
 “little hill,” doubtless for the more complete 
 antithesis to “ mountain ” (Pss. lxv. 12, Ixxii. 3, 
 cxiv. 4, 6, where R. V. has “little hills” in 
 exiv. 4, 6 only). 
 
 2. But they have also employed the same 
 English word for the very different term har, 
 1, which has a much more extended sense than 
 
 gibeah, meaning a whole district rather than an 
 individual eminence, and to which our word 
 “mountain” answers with tolerable accuracy. 
 This exchange is always undesirable, but it 
 sometimes occurs so as to confuse the meanin 
 ofa passage where it is desirable that the topo- 
 graphy should be unmistakable, For instance, 
 in Ex, xxiv. 4 the “hill” (R. V. “mount ”) is 
 the same which is elsewhere in the same 
 chapter (vv. 12, 13, 18, &e.) and Book, con- 
 sistently and accurately rendered “mount” 
 and “mountain.” In Num. xiv. 44, 45, the 
 “hill” is the “mountain” of v. 40, as also 
 in Deut. i. 41, 43, compared with wv. 24,44; 
 and in Josh. xv. 9, compared with the pre- 
 ceding verse. The country of the “ hills ” 
 (Rk. V. “hill country”) in Deut. i, 7, Josh. 
 ix. 1, x. 40, xi. 16, is the elevated district of 
 Judah, Benjamin, and Ephraim, which is cor- 
 rectly called “the mountain” in the earliest 
 descriptions of Palestine (Num. xiii. 29), and 
 in many subsequent passages. The “ holy hill ” 
 (Ps. iii. 4), the “hill of Jehovah” (xxiv. 3), 
 the “hill of God” (Ixviii. 15), are nothing 
 else than “Mount Sion.” In 2 K. i. 9 and 
 iv. 27, the use of the word “ hill” (retained in 
 R. V.) obscures the allusion to Carmel, which 
 in other passages of the life of the prophet 
 (e.g. 1 K. xviii. 19; 2 K. iv. 25) has the term 
 “mount” correctly attached to it. Other 
 places in the historical Books in which the same 
 substitution weakens the force of the narrative, 
 are as follows:—Gen. vii. 19; Deut. viii. 7; 
 Josh, xiii. 6, xviii. 13, 14; Judg. xvi. 3; 1 Sam. 
 xxili, 14, xxv. 20, xxvi. 13; 2 Sam, xiii, 34; 
 1 K. xx, 23, 28, xxii. 17, &. 
 
 3. On one occasion the word Ma‘aleh, ΠΟ, 
 is rendered “hill,” viz. 1 Sam. ix. 11, where it 
 would be better to employ “ascent” (as in 
 R. V.) or some similar term. 
 
 4. In the Ν. T. the word “hill” is employed 
 to render the Greek word βουνός ; but on one 
 occasion it is used for ὄρος, elsewhere “ moun- 
 tain,” so as to obscure the connexion between 
 the two parts of the same narrrative. The 
 “hill” (R. V. “ mountain”) from which Jesus 
 was coming down in Luke ix. 37, is the same as 
 “the mountain” into which He had gone for 
 His transfiguration the day before (cp. v. 28). 
 In Matt. v. 14, and Luke iv. 29, dpos is also 
 rendered “hill,” but without inconvenience. . 
 In Luke i. 39, the “hill country ” (7 ὀρεινὴ) 
 is the same “mountain of Judah” to which 
 reference is frequent inthe O.T. [G.] [W.] 
 
 HIN. [Measvrez.] 
 
vy" 
 
 HIND 
 
 HIND. [Harrt.] 
 
 HINGE. 1. WS, στρόφιγξ, cardo, with the 
 notion of turning (Ges. p. 1165). 2. NB, 
 θύρωμα, cardo, with the notion of insertion (Ges. 
 p. 1096). Both ancient-Egyptian and modern 
 Oriental doors were and are hung by means of 
 pivots turning in sockets both on the upper and 
 lower sides. In Syria, and especially the 
 Hauran, there are many ancient doors consist- 
 ing of stone slabs with pivots carved out of the 
 same piece, inserted in sockets above and below, 
 and fixed during the building of the house. The 
 allusion in Prov. xxvi. 14 is thus clearly ex- 
 plained. The hinges mentioned in 1 Καὶ, vii. 50 
 were probably of the Egyptian kind, attached 
 to the upper and lower sides of the door (Buck- 
 ingham, Arab Tribes, p. 177; Porter, Damascus, 
 ii. 22,192; Maundrell, Harly Travels, pp. 447, 
 448, Bohn; Shaw, Travels, p. 210; Lord 
 Lindsay, Letters, p. 292; Wilkinson, Anc. Ly. 
 i. 15 [1878)). ΓΗ ἘΣ] 
 
 HINNOM, VALLEY OF, otherwise called 
 “the valley of the son” or “children of Hin- 
 nom” (O33, or “AJA 3, once “ΠΤ 1A, 
 variously rendered by LXX. φάραγξ ’Evvop, 
 B. ‘Ovdu in Josh. xv. 8, or υἱοῦ ‘Evydp [2 Κα. xxiii. 
 10; Jer. vii. 29, 30, xxxii. 35], or B. Tasévva, 
 A. Tat ‘Ovvéu (Josh. xviii. 16]; also Β. ἐν 
 Γαιβενθόμ, A. ἐν Γηβεεννόμ [2 Ch. xxviii. 3]; 
 B. ἐν yé Bave ‘Evydp, A. ἐν γῇ Βεενόμ; τὸ πολυ- 
 ἄνδριον υἱῶν τῶν τέκνων αὐτῶν (Jer. xix. 2], π. 
 υἱοῦ ’Evvdu [v. 607); ἃ τανῖπο, gai, taking its name, 
 according to Dean Stanley, from “some ancient 
 hero, the son of Hinnom,” having encamped in 
 it (Stanley, S. δ᾽ P. p. 172). It was on the 
 south side of Jerusalem, and formed the bound- 
 ary between Judah and Benjamin; and to the 
 west of it there was a mountain which marked 
 the northern extremity of the vale, ‘émeg, of 
 Rephaim (Josh. xv. 8; xviii. 16). It is also 
 mentioned as the northern limit of the district 
 occupied by the “children of Judah” after the 
 Captivity (Neh. xi. 30), and as being near the 
 gate Harsith (R. V. marg. of potsherds; A. V. 
 “east gate,” marg. sun gate) of Jerusalem 
 (Jer. xix. 2). Ahaz and Manasseh burnt incense 
 and made their children “pass through the 
 fire ” in the valley of Hinnom (2 Ch. xxviii. 3, 
 ep. 2 K. xvi. 3; 2 Ch. xxxiit. 6, cp. 2 Καὶ, 
 xxi. 6); probably at the “high places of To- 
 phet ” or “of Baal,” which were specially built 
 in connexion with the fiendish custom of infant 
 sacrifice to Molech, the fire-god* (Jer. vii. 31, 
 xxxii. 35). [Topner.] To put an end to these 
 abominations the place was polluted by Josiah, 
 who rendered it ceremonially unclean by spread- 
 ing over it human bones and other corruptions 
 (2 K. xxiii. 10, 13, 14; 2 Ch. xxiv. 4, 5), from 
 which time it appears to have become the 
 common burial-place of the city, and to have 
 received the name of the Valley of Slaughter 
 (Jer. vii. 32, xix. 16). Most commentators 
 follow Buxtorf, Lightfoot, and others, in as- 
 serting that perpetual fires were here kept up 
 
 a In the immediate vicinity, if not at the same spot, 
 must have been the high place which Solomon built 
 “for Molech, the abomination of the children of 
 Ammon” (1 K, xi. 7). 
 
 HINNOM, VALLEY OF 1371 
 
 for the consumption of bodies of criminals, 
 carcases of animals, and whatever else was com- 
 bustible ; but the Rabbinical authorities usually 
 brought forward in support of this idea appear 
 insufficient, and Robinson declares (i. 274) that 
 “there is no evidence of any other fires than 
 those of Molech having been kept up in this 
 valley,” referring to Rosenmiiller, Diblisch. 
 Geogr. 11. 1. 156, 164, For the more ordinary 
 view, see Hengstenberg, Christol. ii. 454, iv. 41; 
 Keil on Kings ii. 147, Clark’s edit. ; and cp. Is. 
 xxx. 33, Ixvi. 24. 
 
 From its ceremonial defilement, and from the 
 detested and abominable fire of Molech, if not 
 from the supposed ever-burning funeral piles, 
 the later Jews applied the name of this valley 
 Ge Hinnom, Gehenna, to denote the place of 
 eternal torment, and some of the Rabbins here 
 fixed the “door of hell;” a sense in which it is 
 used by our Lord. [GEHENNA.] It gave its 
 name to the “ Valley gate ” of Jerusalem” (2 Ch. 
 xxvi. 9; Neh. ii. 13, 15, iii. 15); and it is per- 
 haps “the valley” kar’ ἐξοχήν (Jer. ii. 23), the 
 “valley of the shadow of death” (Ps. xxili. 4), 
 and the “valley of vision” (Is. xxii. 1, 5). In 
 Jer. xxxi. 40, it is apparently referred to as 
 the “valley, ‘@mee, of the dead bodies.” 
 
 The Valley of Hinnom has been variously 
 identified with—(1.) Wddy er-Rabdbeh, which 
 passes round the W. and S. sides of the spur on 
 which Jerusalem is built. This valley com- 
 mences in a broad shallow depression, or basin, 
 to the N.W. of the city, to which the term 
 ‘meq, used by Jeremiah (xxxi. 40) in his de- 
 scription of the boundary of the restored “ holy ” 
 Jerusalem, might well be applied. The basin 
 may possibly be the “valley of Shaveh, which 
 is the king’s dale” (Gen. xiv. 17), the “king’s 
 dale” (2 Sam. xviii. 18) in which Absalom 
 reared up a pillar that according to Josephus 
 (Ant. vii. 10, § 3) was only two stadia from 
 Jerusalem; and, perhaps, the “valley of Je- 
 hoshaphat ” (Joel iii. 2, 12), or “of decision ” 
 (v. 14), Almost in the centre of the depression 
 is the Birket Mamilla, a large open reservoir, 
 surrounded by Muhammadan tombs, which some 
 authorities have erroneously identified as the 
 “upper pool” of Gihon. [GrHon.] From this 
 reservoir the valley runs E.S.E. to a point 
 opposite the Jafla Gate, and in a distance of 
 550 yards falls 79 feet. It then follows a 
 southerly direction for 730 yards, and gradually 
 contracts, until, at the Birket es-Sultén, which 
 occupies its whole breadth, it begins to assume 
 the character of a ravine. Above this reservoir, 
 which is 141 feet below the Birket Mamilla, and 
 was called in the Middle Ages Germanus, the 
 aqueduct conveying water from “Solomon’s 
 Pools” to the Temple crosses the valley; and 
 at its lower end is the road from Jerusalem to 
 Bethlehem. About 130 yards below the Birket 
 es-Sultan the valley sweeps round to the E., and 
 descends rapidly, 320 feet in 1000 yards, to its 
 junction with the Kedron. It is now a deep 
 ravine between the steep slopes of the modern 
 Zion and the broken cliffs, honeycombed with 
 rock-hewn tombs, which, rising in a succession 
 of terraces, form the northern slopes of the 
 
 Eee 
 
 b It may also have given its name to the gate Gennath 
 (Ge-hennath) in the first wall (Joseph. B. J. v. 4, § 2). 
 
1372 HINNOM, VALLEY OF 
 
 “ Hill of Evil Counsel.” Amidst these tombs is 
 the traditional ACELDAMA ; and on the height 
 above tradition places the tree on which Judas 
 hanged himself. Where the valley joins the 
 Kedron there is an open plot of ground, occupied 
 by gardens, that may well be “the pleasant and 
 woody spot, full of delightful gardens watered 
 from the fountain of Siloah,” which Jerome 
 identified with Tophet, and which is perhaps 
 “the fields” of Jer. xxxi. 40. If, as seems pro- 
 bable, the Valley of Rephaim, which Josephus 
 says (Ant. vii. 12, § 4) extended towards Beth- 
 lehem, is that now called e/-Bukei‘a, over which 
 the road to Bethlehem runs, W. er-Rabdbeh 
 must be the Valley of Hinnom. It answers ex- 
 actly to the minute topographical description 
 in Josh. xy. 8, xvii, 16, and is one of the most 
 important features in the district. This view 
 has the support of Robinson (Phys. Geog. 
 p- 90 sq.), Stanley (S. § P. p. 172), Barclay (City 
 of the Great King, p. 90), Riehm (HWE. 5. v.); 
 Tobler (Yopog. ii. 39 sq.), Baedeker-Socin 
 (Hbk.), ὅκα. 
 
 (2.) The narrow ravine, called by Josephus 
 the Tyropoeon Valley, that divides the spur, on 
 which Jerusalem stands, into two unequal 
 halves, has been proposed by Professor Robertson 
 Smith (Znecyc. Brit. s. v. Jerusalem), Professor 
 Sayce (PEFQy. Stat. 1883, p. 213), Rev. W. 
 Birch (PEFQy. Stat. 1878, p. 179), and 
 Schwarz (Das H. ZL. p. 190). It is argued 
 in support of this view that pre-exilic Jerusalem 
 was confined to the eastern hill; that the 
 Tyropoeon is a veritable gai; and that a 
 boundary following its course would give 
 the western hill to Judah and the eastern to 
 Benjamin, thus meeting the supposed difficulty 
 in Josh. xv. 63, Judg. i. 3-8, 21, where Jeru- 
 salem is given to Judah. On the other hand, 
 the Tyropoeon is a minor topographical feature 
 compared with W. er-Rabdbeh and the Kedron, 
 and so not likely to have been selected as the 
 boundary between two tribes, or to have been 
 alluded to in the terms of Neh. xi. 30. Dean 
 Stanley has suggested (S. δ᾽ P. p.176) that the 
 ancient city stood on neutral ground, and was 
 excluded equally from the boundaries of each 
 tribe. [But see JERUSALEM.] It has been 
 suggested by Dr. Bonar (Jmp. Bib. Dict. s. v. 
 Jerusalem) that Josephus mistook gebeninnom 
 for cheese-makers, and translated it τυρόποιος, 
 the Hebrew words being so very similar, and 
 by M. Clermont-Ganneau (7718. note) that yn- 
 βενιννὼν in the primitive text of Josephus was 
 taken by an ignorant reader for the transcription 
 of Gebinin (cheeses), as if from gebindh, cheese, 
 and translated in the margin by τυροποίων. 
 
 (9.9) The Valley of the Kedron has been pro- 
 posed by Sir C. Warren (Recov. of Jer. p. 307), 
 who apparently bases his argument on the mis- 
 translation “east gate” of A. V. in Jer. xix. 2 
 (see above); and on Arab tradition, which 
 identifies the Kedron with Wady Jahannum (Le 
 Strange, Pal. under the Moslems, p. 218 sq.). 
 This was the view of Jerome (0.8.2 p. 160, 9); 
 and it appears to have been adopted by Dean 
 Stanley (Recov. of Jer. xiv.). It is true that 
 the lower part of the Kedron valley may well 
 be called a ravine, gai; but the distinction 
 between the valley (nachal) of the Kedron and 
 the ravine (gai) of the children of Hinnom is 
 apparently always maintained in the Bible; 
 
 HIRAM 
 
 and the Kedron valley does not meet the re- 
 quirements of Josh. xv- 8, xviii. 16. 
 
 A possible explanation of the difficulty is that 
 the true Valley of Hinnom, mentioned as a 
 geographical feature in Joshua and Nehemiah, 
 is the W. er-Rabdbeh ; and that after the intro- 
 duction of infant sacrifices the name was loosely 
 applied to those portions of the three valleys 
 nearest to Tophet. LW 
 
 HIPPOPOTAMUS. The marg. reading of 
 R. V. for MyoN3. [ΒΕΒΕΜΟΤΗ.] 
 
 HI'RAH (1M, ὃ = noble; Eipas ; Hiram), 
 an Adullamite, the friend (U9) of Judah (Gen. 
 xxxvili. 1,125 and see v. 20). For “ friend” 
 the LXX, and Vule. have “shepherd,” probably 
 reading ND. 
 
 HI'RAM, or HU’RAM (8 Π|, or DVN [see 
 Huram], probably for OUNN or ὩΣ, a 
 Phoenician title = brother of the exalted one ; 
 cp. Bathgen, Beitr. z. Semit. Religionsgeschichte, 
 p- 156 ; Χειράμ; Hiram). 1. The king of Tyre 
 who sent workmen and materials to Jerusalem, 
 first (2 Sam, v. 11, 1 Ch. xiv. 1) to build’a 
 palace for David, whom he ever loved (1 K. v. 
 1), and again (1 K. v. 10, vii. 13; 2 Ch. ii. 14, 
 16) to build the Temple for Solomon, with 
 whom he had a treaty of peace and commerce 
 (1 Κ΄ v. 11, 12). The contempt with which he 
 received Solomon’s present of Cabul (1 K. ix. 
 12) does not appear to have caused any breach: 
 between the two kings. He admitted Solomon’s 
 ships, issuing from Joppa, to a share in the 
 profitable trade of the Mediterranean (1 K. x. 
 22); and Jewish sailors, under the guidance of 
 Tyrians, were taught to bring the gold of India 
 (1 K. ix. 26) to Solomon’s two harbours on the 
 Red Sea (see Ewald, Gesch. Isr. iii. 345-347). 
 
 Eupolemon (ap. Euseb. Praep. Evang. ix. 30) 
 states that David, after a war with Hiram, 
 reduced him to the condition of a tributary 
 prince. Dius the Phoenician historian, and 
 Menander of Ephesus (ap. Joseph. c. Ap. i. 17, 
 18), assign to Hiram a prosperous reign of 34 
 years, and relate that his father was Abibal, 
 his son and successor Baleazar; that he rebuilt 
 various idol-temples, and dedicated some splen- 
 did offerings; that he was successful in war ; 
 that he enlarged and fortified his city; that he 
 and Solomon had a contest with riddles or dark 
 sayings (cp. Samson and his friends, Judg. xiv. 
 12), in which Solomon, after winning a large 
 sum of money from the king of Tyre, was 
 eventually outwitted by Abdemon, one of his 
 subjects. The intercourse of these great and 
 kindred-minded kings was much celebrated by 
 local historians. Josephus (Ant. viii. 2, §8) 
 states that the correspondence between them 
 with respect to the building of the Temple was 
 preserved among the Tyrian archives in his 
 days. With the letters in 1 K. v. and 2 Ch. 
 ii. may be compared not only his copies of the 
 letters, but also the still less authentic letters 
 between Solomon and Hiram, and _ between 
 Solomon and Vaphres (Apries?), which are 
 preserved by Eupolemon (ap. Euseb. Praep. 
 Evang. ix. 30), and mentioned by Alexander 
 Polyhistor (ap. Clem, Alex. Strom. 1. 21, p. 332). 
 Some Phoenician historians (ap. Tatian, cont. 
 
_ HIRCANUS 
 
 Grace. ὃ 37) relate that Hiram, besides sup- 
 plying timber for the Temple, gave his daughter 
 in marriage to Solomon (so Hamburger, RL. 
 s.n., referring to 1 K. xxxiii, 11, but Riehm, 
 HWE. s. n., rejects this as very improbable). 
 Jewish writers in less ancient times cannot 
 overlook Hiram’s uncireumcision notwithstand- 
 ing his services towards the building of the 
 Temple. Their legends relate (ap. Eisenm. nt. 
 Jud. i. 868) that because he was a God-fearing 
 man and built the Temple he was received alive 
 into Paradise; but that, after he had been there 
 a thousand years, he sinned by pride, and was 
 thrust down into hell. 
 
 The so-called Tomb of Hiram stands on the 
 hillside east of Tyre. The sarcophagus of 
 limestone rests on a massive pedestal, the whole 
 perfect if weather-beaten, “a solitary, vener- 
 able relic of remote antiquity ” (Porter, Hdbk. 
 ii. 395). Hiram’s name is also connected with 
 a fountain near Tyre, over which a massive 
 stone structure has been raised. ee 
 
 2. Hiram was the name of a man of mixed 
 race (1 K. vii. 13, 40), the principal architect 
 and engineer sent by king Hiram to Solomon ; 
 also called Huram in the Chronicles. On the 
 title of IN = “master,” or “ father,” given to 
 
 him in 2 Ch. ii. 13, iv. 16, see HurAM, No. 3. 
 EWG IB. (ea 
 
 HIRCA'NUS (‘Ypravés ; Hircunus), “a son 
 of Tobias,” who had a large treasure placed for 
 security in the treasury of the Temple at the 
 time of the visit of Heliodorus (0. 187 B.c.; 
 2 Mace. iii. 11). Josephus also mentions 
 “children of Tobias” (Ant. xii. 5, § 1, παῖδες 
 Τωβίου), who, however, belonged to the faction 
 of Menelaus, and notices especially a son of one 
 of them (Joseph) who was named Hyrcanus 
 (Ant. xii. 4, § 2 sq.). But there is no sufficient 
 reason for identifying (as Riehm prefers, HW. 
 s. n.) the Hyrcanus of 2 Mace. with this grand- 
 son of Tobias, either by supposing that the 
 ellipse (τοῦ Τωβίου) is to be so filled up 
 (Grotius, Calmet), or that the sons of Joseph 
 were popularly named after their grandfather 
 (Ewald, Gesch. iv. 309), which could scarcely 
 have been the case in consequence of the great 
 eminence of their father. 
 
 The name appears to be simply a local ap- 
 pellative, and became illustrious afterwards in 
 the Maccabean dynasty, though the circum- 
 stances which led to its adoption are unknown 
 (yet cp. Joseph. Ant. xiii. 8, § 4). [Macca- 
 BEES. | {bey Hea We 
 
 HITTITES (AN, pl. OMAN; fem. NAN, pl. 
 °F; Χετταῖοι), an important Canaanite tribe. 
 Gesenius compares the name with NN, “ fear,” but 
 
 the word is probably not of Semitic origin. In 
 Genesis (x. 15) Heth (MM) is mentioned as a son 
 
 of Canaan, son of Ham; and the original inha- 
 bitants of Sidon, Arka, Simyra, Hamath, and 
 other cities of Phoenicia, are attributed to the 
 same family, with Canaanite tribes of the south, 
 including Jebusites, Amorites, Girgashites, and 
 Hivites. The passage is of great ethnical im- 
 portance. The sons of Ham included Cush (in 
 Mesopotamia), Mizraim (in Egypt), Phut, and 
 Canaan. This population is carefully distin- 
 guished from the Semitic race (Shem) and from 
 
 | 
 
 HITTITES 1373 
 
 the white race (probably Aryan) of Asia Minor 
 and Armenia. It thus appears that the Hittites, 
 named as the first of Canaanite tribes, were of 
 the same stock as the conquering Cushites of 
 Chaldea, who advanced into Assyria, and among 
 whom Nimrod is mentioned as a celebrated 
 hero. To the same stock also certain tribes of 
 Mizraim (Egypt) are said to have belonged 
 (v. 13), including the Philistines. In later 
 times, we read (v. 18), “the families of the 
 Canaanites spread abroad ” (or “ swelled”) from 
 Sidon to Gaza, and as far east as the Jordan 
 valley. The account terminates (v. 20) with 
 the words, “ These are the sons of Ham according 
 to their families (or “ extensions”), and accord- 
 ing to their languages, in their countries, and 
 in their nations (or “multitudes ”).” It appears 
 natural to suppose that, as they themselves 
 were of a distinct stock, so also the ‘‘ languages” 
 here specified may have differed from those of 
 the sons of Shem. It would also seem to be 
 indicated that the original home of the Canaan- 
 ite (or “ lowlander’’) was in Northern Syria and 
 Phoenicia, where Sidon was the “first-born of 
 Canaan,” and that the extension of the race 
 was southwards towards Gaza. 
 
 Abram is said (Gen, xv. 18), on entering the 
 Land of Promise, to have found Hittites, with 
 other tribes, including Amorites, Rephaim, Ca- 
 naanites, Girgashites and Jebusites, and also 
 with the Kenites, Kadmonites and Kenizzites, 
 who dwelt south of Hebron, already possessing 
 the country ; and at Hebron (Gen. xxiii. 3, 7, 8: 
 cp. xxv. 10) the “sons of Heth” (NM %33) 
 
 were established as owners of a city with fields ; 
 they buried in tombs (Ὁ. 6) and possessed a 
 silver currency (v. 16); and merchants were 
 known to them—a civilised condition which 
 monumental evidence also shows to have existed 
 at this early period. This early extension of 
 the Hittites to the extreme south agrees with 
 the statement of Ezekiel (xvi. 3), which makes 
 the original Jebusite population in Jerusalem to 
 have been of mixed Amorite and Hittite origin 
 —‘thy father was an Amorite and thy mother 
 a Hittite.” The Hittites did not confine them- 
 selves to marriages within the limits of their 
 own tribe. Esau married two Hittite wives 
 (Gen. xxvi. 34), and a similar alliance was 
 feared in Jacob’s case (Gen. xxvii. 46). About 
 the time of the Exodus the Hittites (Num. xiii. 
 29) are said to have inhabited the mountains, 
 with Jebusites and Amorites, north of the 
 Amalekites. In Deuteronomy (vii. 1) they are 
 mentioned as one of the seven nations of Pales- 
 tine, and stand first as though the most im- 
 portant of all (cp. Ex. xxxiii. 2). In the Book 
 of Joshua they are, however, mentioned only in 
 the north of Syria (Josh. i. 4; cp. Judg. i. 26): 
 in “¢ Lebanon, even unto the great river, the river 
 Euphrates, all the land of the Hittites.” In 
 David’s time Uriah the Hittite (2 Sam. xii.) was 
 resident in Jerusalem, married to Bathsheba, 
 whose name is Semitic, and who may perhaps 
 have been a Hebrew woman. The census of 
 David’s dominions was carried on the north as 
 far as TAHTIM-HODSHI (2 Sam. xxiv. 6; cp. 
 Driver in loco), which should be read “(the 
 land of) the Hittites towards Kadesh,” sub- 
 stituting WIP ON; cp. Lucian’s recension, 
 εἰς γῆν Χεττιεὶμ Kadhs). In Solomon’s time the 
 “kings of the Hittites” are mentioned, with the 
 
1374 HITTITES 
 
 kings of Syria, as receiving, through the medium 
 of merchants, from Egypt, chariots at a price 
 of about £100, and horses valued at £25 each. 
 Solomon married Hittite wives (1 Kings xi. 1) 
 as well as women of Semitic race from Moab, 
 Edom, and Ammon, About 800 B.c. the “ kings 
 of the Hittites” were also feared by the Syrians 
 (2 K. vii. 6), who supposed an alliance with 
 Israel: “the king of Israel hath hired against 
 us the kings of the Hittites, and the kings of 
 the Egyptians.” They disappear after this date 
 from Hebrew history, and the explanation is 
 found in the monumental records of the destruc- 
 tion of their power by Sargon in 717 B.c. 
 There probably remained, however, much Hittite 
 blood in the veins of the population, for the 
 Hebrews early intermarried with the Canaanite 
 tribes (Judg. iii. 5), 
 
 The names of the Hittites mentioned in the 
 Bible are worthy of careful consideration, since 
 we have seen that the race was of a distinct 
 stock, not descendants of Shem. The names of 
 Ephron and Beeri (Gen. xxiii. 3; xxvi. 34) have 
 no proper meaning as Semitic words, nor has 
 that of Toi or Tou, king of Hamath in David’s 
 time (2 Sam. viii. 9, 10); while Zohar, Elon, 
 Judith, and Bashemath have been rendered as 
 Hebrew names (Gen. xxvi. 84). In David’s 
 time, Ahimelech (1 Sam. xxvi. 6) and Uriah 
 (2 Sam.) have names of which a Semitic render- 
 ing is possible. Mixture of race is probably 
 indicated by such names, and the simplest ex- 
 planation of the difficulty in finding an appro- 
 priate derivation in some cases appears to be 
 that the words, like many others in the Bible, 
 are not of Hebrew origin. Other references to 
 the Hittites as a Canaanite tribe are found in 
 the Pentateuch (Exod. iii. 8, 173 xiii. 55 xxiii. 
 28: ep. Josh. ix. 1), and the last passage again 
 connects them with Northern Syria. The result 
 of the Biblical notices is, therefore, that the 
 Hittites were a people akin to the Cushites of 
 Babylonia, spreading in early times over North- 
 ern Syria, and southwards to the Hebron moun- 
 tains, where they were settled and civilised ; 
 that they were still ruled by kings in the 
 Lebanon region in Solomon’s time, when they 
 traded with Egypt by aid of Hebrew and Phoe- 
 nician merchants ; that they intermarried with 
 the Hebrews, but remained independent in 
 David’s time, and finally that they disappear 
 from history after the reign of Ahab. 
 
 The monumental notices of the Hittites are 
 numerous and important, derived from both 
 Egyptian and Assyrian sources, and agreeing in 
 a remarkable manner with the Biblical account, 
 which they supplement with something ap- 
 proaching to a continuous history. Of the 
 various Canaanite tribes, as the exception of 
 the Amorites, the Hittites are the only nation 
 of which the name is monumentally preserved. 
 Both from the Bible and from the monuments 
 we gather that the Hittites were more powerful 
 and important than other Canaanite peoples, 
 and that they maintained their independence 
 in the north, while the rest were subdued by 
 the Hebrews in the south, allying themselves 
 to David as neighbours, and by marriage to 
 Solomon, who, if his mother Bathsheba (the 
 wife of Uriah) was of the same race as her 
 first husband, was himself half a Hittite by 
 birth. 
 
 HITTITES 
 
 The earliest historic notice of the region of 
 the Northern Lebanon, which was ruled by the 
 Hittites, is found in the recently translated 
 inscriptions of Tell Loh (on the Lower Tigris ; ep, 
 Records of the Past, N. S., ii. 75 sq.), in which 
 the Akkadian king Gudea, about 2500 B.c., 
 states that he ruled from the lower to the 
 upper sea, and cut cedars in Amanus (Northern 
 Lebanon), and brought diorite from J/akan, 
 which scholars agree—on account of other 
 notices of the region—in identifying with the 
 Sinaitic peninsula (see T. G. Pinches, Pro- 
 ceedings of the Victoria Institute, Jan, 1891). 
 This text makes it clear that the Akkadians, or 
 non-Semitic aborigines of Chaldea, who had 
 attained to an advanced civilisation, were ex- 
 tending their conquests even earlier than the 
 time usually assigned to Abraham’s migration, 
 at least as far as the north-east shores of the 
 Mediterranean, and were in communication with 
 the Sinaitic miners. The Akkadians are usually 
 regarded as representing the Cushite population 
 of Chaldea, already noticed, who were of the 
 same original stock as the Hittites, according 
 to the Book of Genesis; and their language, 
 as identified by Sir H. Rawlinson, and by 
 the numerous authorities who have accepted 
 his views, was an agglutinative Mongolic dia- 
 lect, represented in our own times by the 
 archaic Mongol and Turkic languages of Central 
 Asia. 
 
 Another early race, thought to have been of 
 the same stock, had advanced from Commagene, 
 or the region east of the Euphrates near the 
 Taurus, and had settled in Lower Egypt as early 
 as 2000 B.c. They are called the Men or Venti, 
 apparently the later MWZimni or Minyans, a well- 
 known tribe of Asia Minor, and described ag 
 living east of Ruten or Syria, and in the land 
 of Assyria, They were finally driven out by 
 the Theban kings, and are connected with the 
 Hyksos, whose portraits are now held by many 
 scholars to give strong evidence of Mongolic 
 derivation. According to Mariette and other 
 scholars, one of these Hyksos dynasties is to be 
 regarded as of Hittite origin. It is perhaps to 
 this element in the mixed population of Egypt, 
 which also included Semitic and African stocks, 
 that the Book of Genesis refers, in speaking of 
 Egyptian tribes akin to the other sons of Ham 
 in Chaldea and in Canaan. 
 
 With the rise of the great 18th Egyptian 
 dynasty the Asiatics were driven back to their 
 own countries, and Thothmes I. in the 17th 
 century B.C. (about 1666 B.c. according to 
 Brugsch) extended his conquests far north into 
 Ruten or Syria, and even into Naharaim (“the 
 two rivers”) or the region beyond the Euphrates. 
 Horses and chariots were among the spoils 
 which he took from the Syrians in this cam- 
 paign. In 1600 B.c., however, a formidable 
 league of Syrians encountered Thothmes IIL, 
 and attempted to throw off the Egyptian yoke. 
 A great battle was fought near Megiddo in 
 Central Palestine, and among the opponents was 
 the king of Kadesh, who, as will appear imme- 
 diately, may probably have been a Hittite. The 
 very remarkable list of spoils taken after the 
 Egyptian victory attests the wealth and civilisa- 
 tion of Syria at this early period (see Records of 
 the Past, O. S., ii. 37). The whole of Palestine, 
 except the hills of Jerusalem and Hebron, then 
 
HITTITES 
 
 held by the Amorites, fel] into the power of 
 Thothmes III. in consequence of this decisive 
 engagement, and 
 northwards to Tunep (Zennid) and Kadesh on 
 the Orontes—the Hittite capital, where trees 
 were cut down and the harvest carried off. 
 The Egyptian rule was re-established as far as 
 Naharaim, and even the king of Assyria became 
 tributary. Among the tributary princes the 
 chief of the Hittites is mentioned, from whom 
 was exacted tribute of gold, silver, negro slaves, 
 and boat-loads of ivory. 
 
 The country of the Hittites, with the regions 
 further south, remained subject to Egypt for a 
 century and a half after this conquest until the 
 time of Amenophis IV. 
 
 . The very remarkable 
 tablets found in 1887 in 
 Upper Egypt, at Tell Amarna, 
 written in the cuneiform 
 character, and in the 
 majority of cases ina Semitic 
 language, contain several 
 notices of the Hittites ( Zhon- 
 tafelfund von el <Amarna, \ 
 ed. H. Winckler, 1889-90). ////) 
 There are about 300 of these 
 letters: some from princes 
 of Assyria, Babylon, and 
 Syria; some from governors 
 appointed by the Pharaohs 
 in Palestine and Syria, and | 
 all addressed to Amenophis \\\ 
 II. and his son Amenophis ///{ 
 IV. In one of these the ἃ 
 king of Alosha (a Syrian — 
 region) begs the king of 
 
 Egypt not to make any treaty ~, 
 with the kings of the Hittites 
 or of Shinar. In another 
 letter the king of the Hit- 
 tites is said to have been 
 taken captive in the land of 
 Mitani, which was close to 
 Northern Syria, east of the 
 Euphrates. In other letters 
 the Egyptian governors or 
 allies say that the king of 
 the Hittites has seized the 
 town of Tunep (Zennib), and 
 has rebelled, devastating the 
 country, and that it is’ 
 feared he will overrun Phoe- 
 nicia. There are other no- 
 tices of the “land of the 
 Hittites” (hati); and in 
 the later reign, when the 
 
 dent, there are notices of 
 rebellion and of an attack on the Egyptian 
 governors by the Northern Hittites. The most 
 interesting letter in the collection, for our 
 present purpose, is, however, one from Tarkon- 
 dara, king of Rezeph, not far from Palmyra, 
 who calls himself king of the Hittites, and who 
 sends presents to Amenophis III., including tin, 
 precious stones, and choice woods. The language 
 of this letter, which includes 38 lines of writing, 
 has been recognised by Dr. Winckler and other 
 scholars to be probably that of the Hittites. 
 It is not Semitic, and several scholars have 
 pointed out that the forms of the verbs, 
 
 his victories were pushed | 
 
 by double ditches, over which are bridges (figs. 2 and 3). 
 
 HITTITES 
 
 the pronouns, and other words, serve to 
 show that the language of this letter is 
 connected with the Akkadian dialect of Lower 
 Chaldea. 
 
 After the fall of the 18th dynasty and the 
 loss of Syria, a reconquest was effected by 
 Seti I. after his defeat of the Amorites near 
 Hebron. He states in one of his inscriptions 
 (see Chabas, Voyage d’un Eqyptien, p- 327) that 
 he carried off “chiefs of the Rutennu (or 
 Syrians) from the land of the Kheta” or 
 Hittites; but these victories were transient, and 
 it was not until the accession of Rameses II. 
 (about 1360 B.c.) that a permanent reconquest 
 was effected. This great monarch, after taking 
 
 ἘΡ5Ε 1ην oa" 
 
 νυνὶ 
 
 E gyptian power was deca- Phalanx of the Hittites or Kheta, with the fortified town of Kadesh on the Orontes, surrounded 
 
 (Thebes.) 
 
 Ascalon and the towns of Upper Galilee, ad- 
 vanced by the sea-coast to the Dog River near 
 Beirfit, and crossed the Lebanon near Afka, 
 descending to the valley of the Orontes near the 
 Lake of Amuli (the present Lake of Yammiineh). 
 Here he took prisoners, who falsely represented 
 that the Hittites of Kadesh on the Orontes 
 (Kades) had fled to Aleppo; and pushing in front 
 of his army along the west bank of the Orontes, 
 he fell into an ambush, and nearly lost his life. 
 The Hittites were however driven back on the 
 arrival of Egyptian troops, and fled to Kadesh, 
 which, on the sculptures representing this event 
 
1376 HITTITES 
 
 (at Thebes), is pictured as a walled town with 
 towers, surrounded by the river. 
 fully accords with that of the present site of a 
 ruined town on the Orontes south of Emesa, 
 discovered in 1881 to still retain the name 
 Kades. This city, which appears to be the 
 Kadytis (ii. 159, 111. 5) in Syria of Herodotus, 
 was the southern capital of the Hittites; but 
 the troops of other Hittite princes, including 
 the ruler of Aleppo, were allied with the Prince 
 of Kadesh, and took part in the battle (see 
 Records of the Past, O. S., ii. 67). On the 
 sculptures the Hittites are represented armed 
 with shields and spears, each warrior driven in 
 a two-horsed chariot, having a charioteer beside 
 him. Corps of infantry, standing in regular 
 columns, are also shown near the city. After 
 Kadesh had been reduced, Rameses pushed his 
 way northwards, taking vengeance on the 
 Hittite allies, among whom the natives of 
 Aradus, Carchemish, Aleppo, and Naharaim 
 are enumerated, with the Mysians, Dardanians, 
 and other unknown tribes. The discovery of 
 the cartouche of Rameses II. on the rock bas- 
 relief of Mount Sipylus, near Smyrna, shows 
 that the Egyptian advance was pushed west- 
 wards to the shores of the Aegean. Another 
 text of the same reign (perhaps later) refers to 
 a dispute between the Hittites and the Egyp- 
 tians, concerning two statues of the Pharaoh 
 which had been set up in a Hittite city. Tunep 
 was conquered in the expedition which ensued, 
 and the Egyptians again reached Naharaim or 
 Mesopotamia (Brugsch, Hist. Egypt. ii. 63). The 
 result of these victories was an alliance, ce- 
 mented by marriage, between Rameses II. and 
 Kheta Sar, the king of the Hittites. His eldest 
 daughter so married to the Pharaoh received 
 the Egyptian name Ur-maa-noferu-ra. The 
 inscription states that “she herself knew not 
 the impression which her beauty made on the 
 heart ” of her royal husband (Brugsch, Hist. 
 Egypt. ii. 75, 86). Another very important 
 document of this reign is an Egyptian copy of 
 a treaty between Kheta Sar, king of the Hit- 
 tites, and Rameses II. (Records of the Past, 
 0. S., iv. 25; Chabas, Voyage dun Lgyptien, 
 p. 333): the original—which Chabas supposes 
 to have been in the Hittite language—is stated 
 to have been written ona silver plate, and on 
 the opposite side was a figure of Set, the Hittite 
 god, embracing the Hittite king, with an in- 
 scription commencing, “Ὁ image of Set, king of 
 heaven and earth, grant that the compact made 
 by Kheta Sar, prince of the Kheta...” The 
 Egyptian copy is unfortunately here mutilated. 
 The provisions of the treaty are very impor- 
 tant, and the document contains also historical 
 information and valuable religious indications. 
 It was sent by an envoy named Tartesebu from 
 Kheta Sar, son of Maurasar and grandson of 
 Saplili, Hittite kings. His elder brother Mautur 
 is said to have fought Seti 1. (breaking the 
 earlier treaty) and to have been killed, but it 
 was now desired to restore the condition of 
 peace and alliance existing in the time of Saplili 
 and of Mautur himself. Some of the clauses 
 regulate the extradition of criminals and fugi- 
 tives, and it is stipulated that such refugees 
 are to be restored by either party, and are not 
 to be punished by loss of eyes, feet or tongue, 
 nor are their wives, children, or mothers to be 
 
 The position | 
 
 HITTITES 
 
 punished, or any accusation brought against 
 them. ‘Skilled workmen” from Syria or from 
 Egypt, sent to the other country for special 
 work, are not to be retained. The alliance 
 in time of war is to be offensive as well as 
 defensive. The gods are called to witness the 
 treaty, including Ammon, Phra, Set, and Istar (or 
 Antarata), with a thousand gods and a thousand 
 goddesses on either side: and in addition the 
 mountains, rivers, sea, wind, and clouds are 
 invoked. This interesting document betokens 
 a settled condition of civilisation, and an ani- 
 mistic creed. 
 
 The previous conflict with the Kheta was 
 lightly regarded after peace was made, so that a 
 court scribe writes, ‘ History had nothing to 
 report of the Kheta people, but that they had 
 one ‘heart and one soul with Egypt” (Brugsch, 
 Hist. Egypt. ii. 86). In the reign of Meneptah 
 (1300 B.c.) a great inroad of tribes from the 
 north occurred, but the Hittites appear to have 
 remained friendly to Egypt, and mention is 
 made of wheat taken in ships from Egypt to 
 preserve the lives of the Kheta people—pro- 
 bably in a time of famine. A century later how- 
 ever another invasion, in which the Danau (or 
 Greeks) took part, was repulsed by Rameses III. 
 (1200 B.c.): the Hittites are said to have been 
 unable to withstand these northern hordes, who 
 encamped in the land of the Amorites. They 
 were however punished equally with others in 
 the return expedition, when the Egyptians con- 
 quered Cyprus, and took Carchemish, Aleppo, 
 Tarsus, and other places in the north. The 
 king of the Hittites was taken alive and made 
 a!prisoner, with the Amorite chief and with 
 others. 
 
 About 1120-1100 B.c., when the power of 
 Egypt had decayed, Tiglath-pileser I. began to 
 push westwards from Assyria, and attacked the 
 Hittite tribes, among whom the Kaskaya and 
 Hurunaya are specified as “warriors of the 
 Khati” (Records of the Past, v. 6) <A 
 hundred and twenty chariots were taken, and 
 the Assyrians, crossing the Euphrates on skin 
 rafts, reached “Carchemish, belonging to the 
 country of the Khati,” and advanced to the 
 Mediterranean or “upper sea of the setting 
 sun.” Iniel was king of Hamath at this time 
 (cp. Records of the Past, iii. 52), and Mitani 
 or Commagene, which was overrun, appears 
 to have been held by a race of the same 
 stock with the Hittites, judging from the lan- 
 guage of the Jong letter of Dusratta, king of 
 Mitani, to Amenophis II., which contains 500 
 lines of cuneiform writing. Further troubles 
 awaited the Hittites in the reign of Assur- 
 nasir-pal (883-858 B.c.), when their princes 
 were carried into captivity, and spoil taken by 
 the Assyrians, including silver, gold, tin, copper, 
 oxen, sheep, and horses: Carchemish was put 
 to tribute, and gold and linen vestments were 
 taken thence. From the Hittite chief Lubarna 
 were taken 20 talents of silver, 1 talent of 
 gold, 100 talents of tin, 1000 oxen, 10,000 
 sheep, with the precious vessels of the palace, 
 chariots, and engines of war. The Assyrians 
 again reached the Mediterranean, and took 
 Gebal, Arvad, Tyre and Sidon. Shalmaneser II. 
 (860-825 B.c.) also attacked these regions 
 (“Black Obelisk,” Records of the Past, v. 30), 
 and took Pethor, a “ Hittite city ” west of the 
 
HITTITES 
 
 Euphrates (cp. Num. xxii. 5): the “kings of 
 the Hittites” gave tribute, after Amanus (the 
 Northern Lebanon) and Aleppo had been taken. 
 The Hittite princes, with Irkhulena, king of 
 Hamath, had leagued themselves with Ben- 
 hadad of Syria to withstand this advance, but 
 in the great battle in the plains of Northern 
 Syria had been defeated, and the allies are said 
 to have lost 20,500 men, slain with arrows. 
 Carchemish was taken in 855 B.C., and six years 
 — later we again read of eighty-nine cities con- 
 quered, belonging to the “ Hittites of the land 
 of Hamath.” Twelve Hittite kings are enu- 
 merated as contemporary rulers at this time. 
 The final overthrow of their independence was 
 effected by Sargon (Records of the Past, vii. 31), 
 who found Pisiris, king of Carchemish, to have 
 made an alliance with Mita the Moschian. ' The 
 city was not only taken by the Assyrians in 
 717 B.C., but its inhabitants were carried off 
 (like the Israelites) as captives to Assyria, and 
 the town was repeopled with Assyrian colonists ; 
 gold and silver, treasures of the palace, 50 
 chariots, and 200 riders with 3000 foot-soldiers 
 were captured. The Hittite name thus dis- 
 appears from monumental history within a 
 century of the latest notice of their kings in 
 the Old Testament. It is curious, however, 
 that Sargon speaks of Ashdod, in Philistia, as a 
 Hittite city, as though some remnant of the 
 southern tribe still survived. At the present 
 day the name of the Hittites seems to linger at 
 
 the villages of Hatta (X=) and Kefr Hatta in 
 
 Philistia, as well as at the ruin of Zell Hatta, 
 not far from Kadesh on the Orontes. It is also 
 noticeable that the Jews of Persia in later 
 times believed that remnants of the Canaanite 
 
 ᾿ population survived in Central Asia, and that 
 Ptolemy (vi. 15, 16) speaks of the Khatae as a 
 people near Cashgar. He evidently refers to 
 the important Mongol people called the Khitai 
 (Royal Asiatic Society Journal, xiii. ii.), who 
 played a great part in the early history of 
 Turkestan, and who conquered Western China 
 about 900 A.D. They were conquered by 
 Genghiz Khan; and if the Hittites were a 
 Mongolic race, it is not impossible that some 
 connexion exists between the Khitai and the old 
 Kheta or Khati of the monuments. 
 
 WN ΝΣ σους. ᾿ 
 Sahu πος Ἑ 
 
 Head of Hittite. (Thebes.) 
 
 As regards the nationality of the Hittites, the 
 late Dr. Birch of the British Museum suggested 
 that the Kheta were Mongols. He was followed 
 by Rev. H. G. Tomkins (Zimes of Abraham, 
 1878) and by the present writer in 1883. 
 Dr. Sayce has recently (Zhe Hittites, 1888) 
 
 BIBLE DICT.— VOL. I. 
 
 HITTITES 1377 
 
 adopted the same view, and has well described 
 (p. 15) the appearance of the Kheta, as depicted 
 on the Egyptian monuments. “The Hittites,” 
 he says, “were a people with yellow skins, and 
 ‘Mongoloid’ features, whose receding foreheads, 
 oblique eyes, and protruding upper jaws are as 
 faithfully represented on their own monuments 
 as they are on those of Egypt.” The type may 
 be seen in our own times among the Tartars 
 of Turkestan, and even among the Turkish 
 peasants of the Taurus, close to the Hittite 
 country. The sculptures also represent them 
 as wearing pigtails—a Tartar custom imposed 
 on the Chinese at the time of the Tartar con- 
 quest. They wear boots similar to those of the 
 modern Turks and Arabs, and in some cases a 
 short jerkin, with a tall conical cap, such as 
 Herodotus ascribes to the Sacae (vii. 64), and 
 which was common among the Tartars of the 
 Middle Ages, and worn also by the Etruscans in 
 Italy (the tutulus of classic writers): the chiefs 
 are represented however in long robes, and 
 Kheta Sar is shown wearing a lofty tiara. 
 
 As regards the language of the Hittites, many 
 theories have been advanced: it has been com- 
 pared with Egyptian and Hebrew, though neither 
 of these views is now supported by any scholar 
 of eminence, Brugsch and Chabas having pro- 
 nounced it non-Semitic—a view in which Dr. 
 Sayce concurs. It has also been compared with 
 Armenian, Georgian, Basque, and Chinese; but 
 these languages are far too modern, and too 
 much decayed from their earlier forms, to be 
 considered legitimate subjects for comparative 
 study. The question at present depends on the 
 study of names of persons and places in the 
 Hittite country, which appear to be neither 
 Semitic nor Aryan, but are comparable with 
 ancient Turanian words; and on the under- 
 standing of the letter of Tarkondara the Hittite 
 prince, already mentioned as written in the 
 Hittite language, and in the well-known cunei- 
 form script. 
 
 The remains of an ancient native civilisation, 
 in the region which the Hittites ruled for so 
 many centuries, have very naturally been sup- 
 posed to show the workmanship of the Hittites 
 and of their allies of the same race; and this is 
 confirmed by the physiognomy of the people 
 represented, who are usually beardless, with 
 Mongol features, and in some cases wearing 
 pigtails. This theory of the origin of the Syrian 
 bas-reliefs and inscriptions was first put forward 
 by Dr. W. Wright in 1874, and soon after found 
 an advocate in Dr. Sayce. There is indeed no 
 known race to whom the carving of these 
 monuments can be attributed with greater pro- 
 bability than it may be to the Hittite popula- 
 tion. But the more distant examples, in Asia 
 Minor and Armenia, which appear to be later in 
 some cases than those of Carchemish and 
 Hamath, may have been executed by tribes of 
 the same stock, who cannot strictly be called 
 Hittites. History tells us nothing of any 
 “ Hittite empire,” for in the time of Rameses II. 
 and in the time of Sargon alike we find nume- 
 rous chiefs of the Hittites, ruling at different 
 cities, and allied to each other, under some daring 
 or powerful leader, against their foreign foes. — 
 
 The monuments so grouped represent a civili- 
 sation distinct from that of either Chaldea or 
 Egypt, but which has been pent to. supply 
 
1578 HITTITES 
 
 the early prototypes for Greek and Phoenician 
 art. The earliest discovery of Hittite inscrip- 
 tions was made by Burckhardt in 1812 at 
 Hamath. Since then many travellers have 
 added to what is now a constantly increasing 
 store of sculptures, inscriptions, seals, and 
 gems, marked by the hieroglyphic symbols, and 
 the peculiar features of a native art, which had 
 its home in Northern Syria and on the southern 
 slopes of the Taurus. Among such travellers 
 were Major Fischer, George Smith, Perrot, 
 Tyrwhitt Drake, Sir C. W. Wilson, and quite 
 recently HH. Humann and Puchstein; while 
 new and valuable finds have been made in 1890 
 by Prof. Ramsay and Mr. Hogarth. The regions 
 in which further finds may be expected have 
 not, however, yet been exhausted. The Hittite 
 monuments in Syria occur at Hamath, Aleppo, 
 and Carchemish, with one doubtful example at 
 Damascus. Further north they occur frequently 
 near Merash, and also at Samosata on the 
 Euphrates north of Edessa. On the west other 
 examples are known at Tyana, and near it at 
 Ibreez, also yet further west near Ephesus (on 
 the Weeping Niobe of Mount Sipylus) and in 
 the pass of Karabel, where the figures now found 
 are mentioned by Herodotus (ii. 106). Seals 
 with Hittite characters have been brought from 
 Lydia, and east of the Halys are the important 
 ruins of Pteria and Eyuk, where the same art 
 and the same system of hieroglyphic writing are 
 found. Similar seals have also been found in 
 Nineveh, and an inscribed bowl in Babylon, but 
 these may be spoils taken from another region 
 by Assyrians and later Babylonians. 
 
 As regards the age of these monuments, the 
 most important clue is that discovered by Dr. 
 Gollob in 1882. He found that the cartouche 
 of Rameses II. is incised on the ancient carving 
 called the “Weeping Niobe”—a bas-relief 
 having a few clearly Hittite symbols in relief 
 on the field. It is clear therefore that this 
 monument existed already in 1360 B.c., and it is 
 not improbable that the monuments of Hamath 
 and Carchemish may be referred to a more 
 remote date, contemporary with the earliest 
 Akkadian and Egyptian sculptures. 
 
 The subject of many of these bas-reliefs is 
 religious. Winged figures are represented, and 
 fabulous monsters, deities standing on various 
 animals—such as the lion, the hare, and the 
 two-headed eagle (which became a device in 
 later times among the Seljuks and Mongols). 
 The sphinx and the winged horse, the gryphon, 
 &e., are also found associated with Hittite 
 symbols, and demons are represented much as 
 among the Akkadians and Assyrians: the winged 
 sun, common also to Egyptians and Babylonians, 
 is a Hittite emblem. The figures as a rule are 
 clumsy, and recall the early art of Babylonia, 
 Greece, and Phoenicia, but they are perhaps 
 more archaic than any of these latter. The 
 Turkish boot, the conical cap, the pigtail, the 
 bow and spear and shield, and a very heavy 
 sword, are represented; while the females wear 
 a cylindrical hat and a robe in many pleats. 
 Some of the garments of kings and deities are 
 adorned with patterns said still to be in use in 
 Asia Minor. Most of the males are beardless, 
 but a few cases occur in which a long beard is 
 represented, with a shaven upper lip, as among 
 the Phoenicians and Cypriote Greeks. The best 
 
 HITTITES 
 
 executed reliefs yet found are from Carchemish. 
 The hieroglyphic characters accompanying these 
 sculptures represent the heads of animals (such 
 as the bull, stag, sheep, ram, ass, dog, lion, 
 camel, and hare), with a full figure of an 
 eagle, and human heads, legs, arms, feet and 
 hands, together with other less distinct emblems. 
 
 Monument from Jerabis. 
 
 The system included over a hundred signs, which 
 recur on all the texts. Some bear close resem- 
 blance in form, and probably in meaning, to the 
 emblems of Egypt and of the Akkadians, but 
 those which appear to denote grammatical 
 terminations are distinct from the signs of other 
 systems. The following particulars may be 
 stated as generally agreed upon by all scholars 
 who have given serious attention to the matter. 
 (1) The Hittite system is distinct and native. 
 (2) It must be studied on the same principles 
 which led to the recovery of the cuneiform and 
 Egyptian, being mainly syllabic as shown by the 
 number of signs in use. (3) It was probably 
 the origin of the syllabary used in Cyprus, and 
 from this syllabary the sounds proper to the 
 older emblems may in a few cases be recovered. 
 [But see Peiser, Die Hetitischen Inschriften, 
 p- xv.] (4) The lines read alternately from 
 right to left and left to right, as in early Greek. 
 (5) The syllables are arranged vertically in the 
 line, as in the early Akkadian inscriptions. 
 
 The questions which remain in dispute refer 
 to the proper sound and meaning of the emblems, 
 and to the language which should be used for 
 comparison. The view taken by Dr. Sayce (Zhe 
 Hittites, p. 134) is that the language spoken by 
 the tribes round Lake Van in the 9th century 
 
— language. 
 
 HITTITES 
 
 B.c. ‘may belong to the same family of speech.” 
 The objection taken to this view is that, in the 
 opinion of Dr. Mordtmann and of other scholars, 
 this Vannic language is an Aryan dialect, akin 
 to ancient Persian or to Armenian. If the 
 Hittites were, as Dr. Sayce has said, a “ Mon- 
 goloid” people, it seems improbable that their 
 language should have been Aryan, especially at 
 so early an historic period. Dr. Sayce, how- 
 ever, does not admit the Vannic to be an Aryan 
 [C. R. C.] 
 [The truth is that our knowledge of the 
 language represented by the rock-inscriptions of 
 Van is only less limited and precarious than our 
 knowledge of the language (or languages) re- 
 presented by the supposed Hittite inscriptions. 
 At present, whatever our more or less probable 
 conjectures, we do not certainly know the 
 sound of a single “Hittite” symbol. Hardly 
 any two investigators are agreed upon the read- 
 ing of the bilingual ‘ Boss of Tarkondemos,” of 
 which only a questionable cast is known to exist 
 (cp. Rylands’ remarks on the authenticity of 
 this relic, PSBA. Nov. 1880). The latest 
 handling of the “ boss,” that of Dr. F. E. Peiser 
 of Breslau, a well-known Assyrian scholar, 
 differs from all preceding attempts at decipher- 
 ment in the values assigned to several of the 
 six “Hittite” characters. The same may be 
 said of the new “bilingual” seal, found in 
 Cilicia, and now in the Ashmolean Museum 
 (Academy, Jan. 9, 1892; Nachtrag zur Peiser, 
 Die Hetitischen Inschriften, Berlin, 1892). The 
 cuneiform letter of Tarhun-daraus, king of Ar- 
 zapi(u), discovered at Tell al-Amarna, may or 
 may not be the letter of a “Hittite” prince 
 (Winckler doubtfully transcribes Tar-hu-un-da- 
 ra-du: see Der Thontafelfund von el Amarna, i. 
 No. 19; Academy, No. 916, p. 343 sq.). It is 
 uncertain whether Arzapi was the Biblical 
 Rezeph, which the Assyrians called Rasappa. 
 Halévy places it in Asia Minor (Journal Asia- 
 tique, 1890, i. p. 292), and Dr. Lehmann com- 
 pares an apparently gentilic Lycian name ‘5}N 
 (SamasSumukin, Nachtrége, p. 113, Leipz. 1892). 
 One thing is clear to every transcriber: if the 
 ietter of the king of Arzapi is “ Hittite,” the 
 vouch lenger letter of Dusratta of Mitani (p. 
 i376, col. 2) is not Hittite (Winckler, zbid., 
 No. 27). Moreover, the languages of these two 
 ancient letters are confessedly as remote from 
 the Semitic tongues as from each cther. But 
 all the Hittite proper names recorded in the Old 
 Testament are of a decidedly Semitic complexion, 
 and some of them, Jike Beeri and Uriah, are 
 transparent Hebrew. As Prof. Robertson Smith 
 has observed, with perfect justice, “Though the 
 so-called Hittite monuments, which have given 
 rise to so much speculation, may afford evidence 
 that a non-Semitic people from Asia Minor at 
 one time pushed its way into Northern Syria, it 
 is pretty clear that the Hittites of the Bible, 
 i.e. the non-Aramaic communities of Coele-Syria, 
 were a branch of the Canaanite stock, and that 
 the utmost concession that can be made to 
 modern theories on this subject is that they may 
 for a time have been dominated by a non- 
 Semitic aristocracy ” (Rel. of Semites, 1st ser. 
 pp. 11, 12). But if there is no consensus of 
 qualified opinion as to the language of the in- 
 scriptions, neither is there yet any general 
 agreement as to their probable date. 
 
 1379 
 
 from referring the stones from Hamath and 
 Jeribis to an earlier period than that of 
 Ramses II. (p. 1378, col. 1), Puchstein, who 
 holds that they are of Commagenian not Hittite 
 origin, assigns all the so-called Hittite sculp- 
 
 HIVITES, THE 
 
 tures to the period between the 7th and 10th 
 
 So far | 
 
 centuries B.C. Peiser repeats these dates; but, 
 with present information, it is futile to attempt 
 precision. 
 
 See Lenormant, Vrigines de [histoire ; Thomas 
 Tyler, The Inscription of Tarkutimme, and the 
 Monuments from Jerablus, PSBA. Noy. 1880 
 (see also Natwre, March, April, 1888); A. H. 
 Sayce, The Monuments of the Hittites, TSBA.,, 
 July 1881; The Hittites, the Story of a forgotten 
 Empire, 1888 ;—W. H. Rylands, Jnscribed Stones 
 from Jerabis, TSBA. vii. 1882; The Aleppo 
 Inscription, PSBA. June 1883; An Inscribed 
 Bowl, ibid., May 1885 ;—Perrot, Revue Archéo- 
 logique, December 1882 (on M. Schlumberger’s 
 terra-cotta seals, with supposed Hittite inscrip- 
 tions: ep. Rylands in PSBA. Feb. 1884, TSBA. 
 vili. 422 sqq., where these objects are figured 
 from the originals); Gollob, Wiener Studien, 
 1882 (on the inscriptions of the so-called Niobe 
 at Mount Sipylos: ep. Krall, zbid., who calls 
 attention to the fact that the cartouche of 
 Ramses II. is incorrect in several important 
 respects); Hommel, Die Kultur der Hethiter 
 (Semiten), Leipzig, 1883; also ZK. i. 330 sqq.. 
 1884; C. J. Ball, Zhe New Hieroglyphs of 
 Western Asia, CQR., July 1885 (cp. PSBA. June 
 1888); W. Wright, Empire of the Hittites, 1884; 
 Hirschfeld, Die Felsenreliefs in Kleinasien, Berlin, 
 1887; Halévy in the Revue des études juives, Oct., 
 Dec. 1887; C. R. Conder, Altaie Hieroglyphs 
 and Hittite Inscriptions, 1887 ; Ménant, Comptes 
 Rendus, &c., 1890, and in Maspéro’s Receuil, 
 vol. xiii.; Les Hittites, Paris, 1891; Puchstein, 
 Pseudo-Hethitische Kunst, Berlin, 1890; Degli 
 Hittim o Hethei et delle loro Migrazioni (re- 
 prints from the Civilta Cattolica), 1890-92, by 
 C, de?Cara; Léon de Lantsheere, De la race et 
 de la lanque des Hittites, Bruxelles, 1892; F. E. 
 Peiser, Die Hetitischen Inschriften, Berlin, 1892. 
 Specially on the Bilingual of Tarkondemos, 
 Sayce, TSBA., July 1888; Pinches, PSBA. 
 March 1885; Amiaud, ZA. i. 1886; Goleni- 
 scheff, PSBA., May 1888.] [CuJSseBe] 
 
 HI'VITES, THE ΟΠ, ie. the Chivvite: 
 6 Evatos; in Josh. ix. 7(LXX. v. 13), 6 Xoppatos, 
 and so A. in Gen. xxxiv. 2: Hevaeus). The 
 name is, in the original, uniformly found in the 
 sing. number, and is so givenin R. V. It never 
 has, like that of the Hittites, a plural, nor does 
 
 | it appear in any other form. Perhaps we may 
 
 assume from this that it originated in some 
 peculiarity of locality or circumstance, as in the 
 case of the Amorites— mountaineers:” and 
 not in a progenitor, as did that of the Ammon- 
 ites, who are also styled Bené-Ammon—children 
 of Ammon; or the Hittites, Bené-Cheth— 
 children of Heth. The name is explained by 
 Ewald (Gesch., i. 318) as Binnenldnder, that is, 
 “ Midlanders;” by Gesenius (7165. p. 451) as 
 pagani, “villagers.” In the following passages 
 the name is given in the A. V. in the singular— 
 THE HIvITE :—Gen. x. 17; Ex. xxiii 28, xxxiii. 
 2, Xxxive 1 ΠΟΙ πο τὶ 70 Chl i. 15; 
 also Gen. xxxiv. 2, xxxvi. 2. In all the rest it 
 is plural. 
 4T2 
 
1880 HIVITES, THE 
 
 1. In the genealogical tables of Genesis, “ the 
 Hivite ” is named as one of the descendants—the 
 sixth in order —of Canaan, the son of Ham (Gen. 
 x. 17; 1 Ch.i. 15). In the first enumeration 
 of the nations who, at the time of the call of 
 Abraham, occupied the Promised Land (Gen. xv. 
 19-21), the Hivites are omitted from the Hebrew 
 text (though in the Samaritan and LXX. their 
 name is inserted). This has led to the con- 
 jecture, amongst others, that they are identical 
 with the KADMONITES, whose name is found 
 there and there only (Reland, Pal. p. 140; 
 Bochart, Phal. iv. 36, Can. i. 19). But are not 
 the Kadmonites rather, as their name implies, the 
 representatives of the Bené-Kédem, or “ children 
 of the East”? The name constantly occurs in 
 the formula by which the country is designated 
 in the earlier Books (Ex. iii. 8, 17, xiii. 5, xxiii. 
 23, 28, xxxilil. 2, xxxiv. 11; Deut. vil. 1, xx. 17; 
 Josh. iii. 10, ix. 1, xii. 8, xxiv. 11), and also in 
 the later ones (1 K. ix. 20; 2 Ch. viii. 7; but 
 ep. Ezra ix. 1 and Neh. ix. 8). It is, however, 
 absent in the report of the spies (Num. xiii. 29), 
 a document which fixes the localities occupied 
 by the Canaanite nations at that time. Perhaps 
 this is owing to the then insignificance of the 
 Hivites, or perhaps to the fact that they were 
 indifferent to the special locality of their 
 settlements. 
 
 2. We first encounter the actual people of the 
 Hivites at the time of Jacob’s return to Canaan. 
 Shechem was then (according to the current 
 Hebrew text) in their possession, Hamor the 
 Hivite being the “ prince (N°L/3) of the land” 
 (Gen. xxxiv. 2). They were at this time, to 
 judge of them by their rulers, a warm and 
 impetuous people, credulous, and easily deceived 
 by the crafty and cruel sons of Jacob. The 
 narrative further exhibits them as peaceful and 
 commercial, given to “trade ” (vv. 10, 21), and to 
 the acquiring of “ possessions” of cattle and 
 other ‘ wealth ” (vv. 10, 23, 28, 29). Like the 
 Hittites, they held their assemblies or conferences 
 in the gate of their city (v. 20). We may also 
 see a testimony to their peaceful habits in the 
 absence of any attempt at revenge on Jacob for 
 the massacre of the Shechemites. Perhaps a 
 similar indication is furnished by the name of 
 the god of the Shechemites some generations 
 after this—Baal-berith—Baal of the league, or 
 the alliance (Judg. viii. 33, ix. 4, 46); by the 
 way in which the Shechemites were beaten by 
 Abimelech (v. 40); and by the unmilitary cha- 
 racter, both of the weapon which caused Abime- 
 lech’s death and of the person who discharged it 
 (ix. 53). 
 
 The A. MS., and several other MSS. of the 
 LXX., in the above narrative (Gen. xxxiy. 2) 
 substitute “ Horite ” for “ Hivite.” The change 
 is remarkable from the usually close adherence 
 of the A. Codex to the Hebrew text, but it is 
 not corroborated by any other of the ancient 
 Versions, nor is it recommended by other con- 
 siderations. No instances occur of Horites in 
 this part of Palestine, while we know, from a 
 later narrative, that there was an important 
 colony of Hivites on the highland of Benjamin 
 at Gibeon, &c., no very great distance from 
 Shechem. On the other hand, in Gen. xxxvi. 2, 
 where Aholibama, one of Esau’s wives, is said to 
 have been the daughter of the daughter of Zibeon 
 the Hivite, all considerations are in favour of 
 
 HIZKIJAH 
 
 reading “ Horite” for “ Hivite.” In this case 
 we fortunately possess a detailed genealogy of 
 the family, by comparison of which little doubt 
 is left of the propriety of the change (ep. vv. 20, 
 24, 25, 30, with τ. 2), although no ancient 
 Version has suggested it here. 
 
 3. We next meet with the Hivites during the 
 conquest of Canaan (Josh. ix. 7, xi. 19). Their 
 character is now in some respects materially 
 altered. They are still evidently averse to 
 fighting, but they have acquired—possibly by 
 long experience in traffic—an amount of craft 
 which they did not before possess, and which 
 enables them to turn the tables on the Israelites 
 in a highly successful manner (Josh. ix. 3-27). 
 The colony of Hivites,* who made Joshua and 
 the heads of the tribes their dupes on this 
 occasion, had four cities—Gibeon, Chephirah, 
 Beeroth, and Kirjath-jearim—situated, if our 
 present knowledge is accurate, at considerable 
 distances asunder. It is not certain whether 
 the last three were destroyed by Joshua or not 
 (xi. 19); Gibeon certainly was spared. In υ. 11 
 the Gibeonites speak of the “ elders” of their 
 city, a word which does not necessarily point to 
 any special form. of government, as is assumed 
 by Winer (Heviter), who uses the ambiguous 
 expression that they “lived under a republican 
 constitution ” (in republicanischer Verfassung)! 
 See also Ewald (Gesch. i. 318-9). 
 
 4. The main body of the Hivites, however, 
 were at this time living on the northern confines 
 of Western Palestine— under Hermon, in the 
 land of Mizpeh” (Josh. xi. 3)—“tin Mount 
 Lebanon, from Mount Baal-hermon to the 
 entering in of Hamath” (Judg. iii. 3). Some- 
 where in this neighbourhood they were settled 
 when Joab and the captains of the host, in their 
 tour of numbering, came to “all the cities of 
 the Hivites” near Tyre (2 Sam. xxiv. 7). in 
 the Jerusalem Targum on Gen. x. 17, they are 
 
 ealled Tripolitans Cri), a name which 
 points to the same general northern locality. 
 
 5. In speaking of the Avi, or Avvites, a 
 suggestion has been made by the writer that 
 they may have been identical with the Hivites. 
 This is apparently corroborated by the fact that, 
 according to the notice in Deut. ii., the name of 
 the Avites vanished before the Hivites appear 
 on the scene of the sacred history. It is per- 
 haps some corroboration of this that the LXX. 
 (both MSS.) unmistakably translate Avim by 
 Εὐαῖοι, Hivites. ° [Geil saves) 
 
 HIZKI'AH, R. V. HEZEKIAH (ΠΡ = 
 strength of Jah; ᾿Ἐζεκίας ; Zzechia), an an- 
 cestor of Zephaniah the prophet (Zeph. i. 1). 
 
 HIZKI'JAH, R. V. HEZEKIAH (ΠΡΡῚΠ: 
 ‘E(exla; Ezechia), according to the punctuation 
 of the A. V. and R. V.,a man who sealed the 
 covenant of reformation with Ezra and Nehemiah 
 (Neh. x. 17). But some think that the name 
 should be taken with that preceding it, as “ Ater- 
 Hizkijah,” a name given in the lists of those 
 who returned from Babylon with Zerubbabel. 
 Further, the two names following these in x. 17, 
 
 ® Here again the LXX. (both MSS.) have Horites for 
 ' Hivites; but we cannot accept the change without 
 ' £ rther consideration. : 
 
HOBAB 
 
 18 (Azzur, Hodijah) are by some considered 
 only corrupt repetitions of them. 
 
 This and the preceding name are identical 
 with, and are the same as those given in A. V. 
 as, HEZEKIAH. 
 
 HO'BAB (340, ὃ = beloved ; B. ᾽Οβάβ, A. 
 Ὦβάβ, in Judg. BA. Ἰωβάβ; Hobab). This 
 name is found in two places only (Num. x. 29; 
 Judg. iv. 11), and it seems doubtful whether it 
 denotes the father-in-law of Moses, or his son. 
 (1.) In favour of the latter are (a) the express 
 statement that Hobab was “the son of Raguel ” 
 (Num. x. 29); Raguel or Reuel—the Hebrew 
 word in both cases is the same—being identified 
 with Jethro, not only in Ex. ii. 18 (see Knobel- 
 Dillmann in loco; ep. iii. 1, &e.), but also 
 by Josephus, who constantly gives him that 
 name. (ὦ) The fact that Jethro had some time 
 previously left the Israelite camp to return to 
 his own country (Ex. xviii, 27). The words 
 ‘‘the father-in-law of Moses” in Num. x. 29, 
 though in most of the ancient Versions connected 
 with Hobab, will in the original read either 
 way, so that no argument can be founded on 
 them. (2.) In favour of Hobab’s identity with 
 Jethro are (a) the words of Judg. iv. 11; but 
 it should be remembered that this is (ostensibly) 
 of later date than the other, and altogether a 
 more casual statement. (6) Josephus in speak- 
 ing of Raguel remarks once (Andé. ii. 12, § 1) 
 that he “ had Iothor (1.6. Jethro) for a surname ” 
 (τοῦτο yap ἦν ἐπίκλημα τῷ Ῥαγούηλ). From 
 the absence of the article here, it is inferred by 
 Whiston and others that Josephus intends that 
 he had more than one surname, but this seems 
 hardly safe. 
 
 The Muhammadan traditions are certainly in 
 favour of the identity of Hobab with Jethro. 
 He is known in the Koran and elsewhere, and in 
 the East at the present day, by the name of 
 
 Shu‘aib (Cusxco), doubtless a corruption of 
 
 Hobab (Ewald, Geschichte, ii. 59, note), Accord- 
 ing to those traditions, he was the prophet of 
 God to the idolaters of Madyan (Midian), who 
 not believing his message were destroyed (Lane’s 
 Koran, pp. 179-181); he was blind (ib. p. 180, n.); 
 the rod of Moses was his gift,—it had once been 
 the rod of Adam, and was of the myrtle of 
 Paradise, &c. (ib. p. 190; Weil’s Bzbl. Legends, 
 pp- 107-109). The name of Shu‘aib still remains 
 attached to one of the Wadys on the east side of 
 the Jordan, opposite Jericho, through which, 
 according to the tradition of the locality 
 (Seetzen, Reisen, 1854, ii. 319, 376), the children 
 of Israel descended to the Jordan. [ΒΕΤῊ- 
 Nimrau.} According to this tradition, there- 
 fore, he accompanied the people as far as the 
 Promised Land, though whatever weight that 
 may possess is, when the statement of Ex. xviii. 
 27 is taken into account, against his identity 
 with Jethro. Other places bearing his name 
 and those of his two daughters are shown at 
 Sinai and on the Gulf of ‘Akabah (Stanley, 8. δ' 
 P. p. 33; Palmer, Desert of the Exodus, p. 75). 
 His tomb was shown at Tiberias (Ibn Batuta, ii.). 
 
 But whether Hobab was the father-in-law of 
 Moses or not, the notice of him in Num. x. 29- 
 32, though brief, is full of point and interest. 
 While Jethro is preserved to us as the wise and 
 practised administrator, Hobab appears as the 
 
 HODESH 1381 
 
 experienced Bedawi sheikh, to whom Moses 
 looked for the material safety of his cumbrous 
 caravan in the new.and difficult ground before 
 them. The tracks and passes of that “ waste 
 howling wilderness” were all familiar to him, 
 and his practised sight would be to them “ in- 
 stead of eyes” in discerning the distant clumps 
 of verdure which betokened the wells or springs 
 for the daily encampment, and in giving timely 
 warning of the approach of Amalekites or other 
 spoilers of the desert. [Jeruro.) [G.] [W.] 
 
 HO’BAH (Π3}Π = concealed, Ges. ; Χωβάλ : 
 Hoba), the place to which Abraham pursued the 
 kings who had pillaged Sodom (Gen. xiv. 15). 
 It was situated “to the north of Damascus” 
 
 ct Sxnwn). Josephus mentions a tradi- 
 tion concerning Abraham which he takes from 
 Nicolaus of Damascus: “ Abraham reigned at 
 Damascus, being a foreigner ...and his name 
 is still famous in the country; and there is 
 shown a village called from him The Habitation 
 of Abraham” (Ant. i. 7, § 2). It is remarkable 
 that in the village of Burzah, 3 miles north 
 of Damascus, there is a walt held in high 
 veneration by the Muhammadans, and called 
 after the name of the patriarch, Wasgid’ Ibrahim, 
 “the prayer-place of Abraham.” ‘The tradition 
 attached to it is that here Abraham offered 
 thanks to God after the total discomfiture of the 
 eastern kings. Behind the wai? is a cleft in the 
 rock, in which another tradition represents the 
 patriarch as taking refuge on one occasion from 
 the giant Nimrod. It is remarkable that the 
 word Hobah signifies “a hiding-place.” 
 
 The Jews of Damascus affirm that the village 
 of G’dbar, not far from Burzah, is the Hobah of 
 Scripture. They have a synagogue there dedi- 
 cated to Elijah, to which they make frequent 
 pilgrimages (see Handb. for Syr. and Pal.; 
 Stanley, 8. δ᾽ P.p. 414%). [J.L.P.] [W.] 
 
 HOD (ἿΠ = glory; BA. “Ὧδ; Hod), one of 
 the sons of Zophah, among the descendants of 
 Asher (1 Ch. vii. 37). 
 
 HODAI'AH (Ketib, 1719)0, altered in the 
 Keri to wT, ie. HopAVYAHU = praise ye 
 Jah, or his praise is Jah ; B.’O8oAla, A. “Ὡδουία; 
 Oduia), son of Elioenai, one of the last mem- 
 
 bers of the royal line of Judah; mentioned 1 Ch. 
 111. 24. 
 
 HODAVI'AH (INT = MITT; ΒΑ. Ὧδο- 
 via; Odoia). 1. A man of Manasseh, one of 
 the heads of the half-tribe on the east of Jordan 
 (1 Ch. v. 24). 
 
 2. (B. ‘Odud, A. ‘Q8oud; Oduia.) A man 
 of Benjamin, son of Has-senuah (1 Ch. ix. 7). 
 
 3. (Ὁ. Σοδουιά, A. Swdoud [the o having been 
 carried on from the previous word]; Oduavia.) 
 A Levite, who seems to have given his name 
 to an important family in the tribe—the Bene- 
 Hodaviah (Ezra ii. 40), In Nehemiah the name 
 appears as HODEVAH. Lord A. Hervey has called 
 attention to the fact that this name is closely 
 connected with Judah (Genealogies, p. 119). 
 This being the case, we probably find this 
 Hodaviah mentioned again in iii. 9. 
 
 HO'DESH wan = new moon; “Ada; Hodes), 
 a woman named in the genealogies of Benjami:! 
 
1382 HODEVAH 
 
 (1 Ch. vili. 9) as the wife of a certain Shaharaim, 
 and mother of seven children. Shaharaim had 
 two wives besides Hodesh, or possibly Hodesh 
 was a second name of one of those women 
 (v. 8). The LXX. by rendering Baara B. ᾿Ιβααδά, 
 A. Baadd, and -Hodesh ’ASd, seem to wish to 
 establish such a connexion, 
 
 HO'DEVAH (717, Keri AMIN; NA. 
 Οὐδουία, B. @ovdoud; Oduia), Bene-Hodevah, 
 a Levite family, returned from captivity with 
 Zerubbabel (Neh. vii. 43). In the parallel lists 
 it is given as HODAvIAH (No. 3) and Supras. 
 
 HODI'AH (79910 = glory of Jah; B. ἡ 
 
 ᾿Ιδουία, A. ἡ “lovdaia; Uduix), one of the two 
 
 wives of Ezra, a man of Judah, and mother to. 
 
 the founders of Keilah and Eshtemoa (1 Ch. 
 iv. 19). She is doubtless the same person as 
 Jehudijah (in v. 18; that is, “the Jewess;” 
 B. “Adeid, B. Ἰδιά); in fact, except the article, 
 which is disregarded in the A. V., the two 
 names are identical [cp. Hopaviau, No. 3]. 
 Hodiah is exactly the same name as Hopisau, 
 
 under which form it is given more than once in 
 the A. V. 
 
 HODI'JAH (PNT; BNA. ᾿Ωδουά; Odia, 
 Odaia). This is in the original precisely the same 
 name as the preceding, and is so given in R. V., 
 though spelt differently in the A. V. 
 
 1. A Levite in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah 
 (Neh. viii. 7; and probably also ix. 5, x. 10). 
 The name with others is omitted in the first two 
 of these passages in the LXX. 
 
 2. (B. Ὡδούμ, A. ὩὭὩδουά: Odaia.) Another 
 Levite at the same time (Neh. x. 13), 
 
 8. (BA. δουιά; Odaia.) A layman; one of 
 the “heads” of the people at the same time 
 (Neh. x. 18). 
 
 HOG’LAH απ = partridge; Β. Ἕγλά, 
 AF. Αἰγλά, [in Josh.] AiyAdu; Hegla), the 
 third of the five daughters of Zelophehad, in 
 whose favour the law of inheritance was altered 
 so that a daughter could inherit her father’s 
 estate when he left no sons (Num. xxvi. 33 
 [LXX. υ. 37], xxvii. 1, xxxvi. 11; Josh. xvii. 3). 
 
 The name also occurs in BETH-HOGLAH, which 
 see. 
 
 HO'HAM (O70, Ges. ; Αἰλάμ; Oham), king 
 of Hebron at the time of the conquest of Canaan 
 (Josh. x. 3); one of the five kings who were 
 pursued by Joshua down the pass of Bethhoron, 
 and who were at last captured in the cave at 
 Makkedah and there put to death. As king 
 of Hebron he is frequently referred to in Josh. x 
 but his name occurs in the above passage only. 
 
 HOLM-TREE (πρῖνος : dex) occurs only in 
 the apocryphal story of Susanna (v. 58). The 
 passage contains a characteristic play on the 
 names of the two trees mentioned by the elders in 
 their evidence. That on the mastich (σχῖνον... 
 ἄγγελος σχίσει ce) is noticed under that head 
 [MasticH]. That on the holm-tree (πρῖνον) 
 is “the Angel of God waiteth with the 
 sword to cut thee in two” (πρίσαι σε). For 
 the historical significance of these puns, see 
 SUSANNA. The πρῖνος of Theophrastus (ist. 
 Plant. iii. 7, § 3, and 16, § 1, and elsewhere) 
 and Dioscorides (i. 144) denotes, there can be no 
 
 | pt. il. pp. 381-387. 
 
 HOMAM 
 
 doubt, the Quercus coccifera, L., and the Q. pseudo- 
 coccifera, Desf., which is perhaps not specifically 
 distinct from the first-mentioned oak. The tlex 
 of the Roman writers was applied both to the 
 holm-oak (Quercus ilex, L.) and to the Q. cocei- 
 fera or kermes oak, See Pliny, NW. ἢ, xvi. 6. 
 For the oaks of Palestine, see a paper by 
 Dr. Hooker in the Zrans. of the Linn. Soc. xxiii. 
 (Oak. | LW. H.] 
 
 HOLOFER'NES, or, more correctly, Ono- 
 FERNES (Ολοφέρνης), was, according to the 
 book of Judith, a general of Nebuchadnezzar, 
 king of the Assyrians (Judith ii. 4), who was 
 slain by the Jewish heroine Judith during the 
 siege of Bethulia. [JupirH.] The name is a 
 debased form of Orophernes, a standing title of 
 the princes of Cappadocia. It occurs twice in 
 Cappadocian history, as borne by the brother of 
 Ariarathes I. (0. B.c, 350), and afterwards 
 by a pretender to the Cappadocian throne, 
 who was at first supported and afterwards 
 imprisoned by Demetrius Soter (¢. B.C. 158). 
 The termination (cp. Tissaphernes, &c.) points to 
 a Persian origin, but the meaning of the word 
 is uncertain. Ball compares the names of two 
 Median princes conquered by Esar-haddon, 
 Sidir-parna and E-parna. This illustrates the 
 
 Syriac rendering of Olophernes, bya\}, Ali- 
 pharnd. See Speaker’s Comm. on Judith 1. ὁ. 
 
 [Β. F.W.] [FJ 
 
 HO'LON (ΡΠ: Χαλού, [in Josh. xv.] BA. Xr 
 λουών ; (in Josh, xxi.] B. ἡ Γελλά, A. ᾿Ωλών : Olon, 
 Holon). 1. A town in the mountains of Judah; 
 one of the first group, of which Debir was appa- 
 rently the most considerable. It is named 
 between GOSHEN and Gio (Josh. xv. 51), and 
 was allotted with its “suburbs” to the priests 
 (xxi. 15). In the list of priests’ cities of 1 Ch. vi. 
 the name appears as HILEN. In the Onomasticon 
 (Ὠλώ, OS.’ p. 291, 2; Ocho, OS p. 176, 29) 
 it is mentioned, but not so as to imply its then 
 existence. The site has not yet been recovered, 
 but it may perhaps be Bait Aiila, on a spur N.W. 
 of Hebron and S.W. of Kh. Jala, Giloh. 
 
 2. qibn ; Χελών; Helon.) A city of Moab 
 (Jer. xlviii. 21, only). It was one of the towns 
 of the Mishor, the level downs (A. V. “plain 
 country’) east of Jordan, and is named with 
 Jahazah, Dibon, and other known places; but 
 no identification of it has yet taken place, nor 
 does it appear in the parallel lists of Num. xxxii. 
 and Josh. xiii. It is mentioned by Eusebius 
 (Χελὼν 7 καὶ Ἑλών, OS.? p. 290, 74) as a town 
 of Moab, without any indication of position. 
 
 : (6.1 Weal 
 
 HO'MAM (O11, (?)=extermination, Ges. ; 
 Aiudy ; Homan), the form under which in 1 Ch. i. 
 39 an Edomite name appears, which in Gen. 
 Xxxvi. 22 is given HEMAM. Homam is assumed 
 by Gesenius to be the original form (7765. 
 p- 385a). By Knobel (cp. Dillmann® on Gen. 
 l. c.), the name is compared with that of Ho- 
 
 maimah (S4d.2), ἃ town now ruined, though 
 
 once important, halfway between Petra and 
 Ailath, on the ancient road at the back of the 
 mountain. See Laborde, Journey, p. 207, 
 Ameimé; also the Arabie authorities mentioned 
 by Knobel. fGS] ver 
 
HOMER 
 HOMER. [Measures.] 
 
 HONEY. We have already noticed [Foon] 
 the extensive use of honey as an article of 
 ordinary food among the Hebrews: we shall 
 therefore in the present article restrict our- 
 selves to a description of the different articles 
 which passed under the Hebrew name of d’bash 
 (W271). (1.) In the first place it applies to the 
 _ product of the bee, to which we exclusively 
 —apply the name of honey. All travellers agree 
 in describing Palestine as a land “ flowing with 
 honey ” (Ex. iii. 8), bees being abundant even 
 in the remote parts of the wilderness, where 
 they deposit their honey in the crevices of the 
 rocks or in hollow trees. In some parts of 
 Northern Arabia the hills are so well stocked 
 with bees, that no sooner are hives placed than 
 they are occupied (Wellsted’s Zravels, ii. 123). 
 The Hebrews had special expressions to describe 
 the exuding of the honey from the comb, such 
 as ndpheth (M3), “dropping” (Cant. iv. 11; 
 Proy. v. 3, xxiv. 13); sph (ASN, “over- 
 flowing ” (Ps. xix. 10 ; Prov. xvi. 24), and ya‘ar 
 (AU = flowing honey) or yatdrah GT"; 1 Sam. 
 xiy. 27; Cant. v. 1)—expressions which answer 
 to the mel acetum of Pliny (xi. 15): the second 
 of these terms approaches nearest to the sense 
 of “honeycomb,” inasmuch as it is connected 
 with ndpheth in Ps. xix. 10, “the droppings of 
 the honeycomb” (R. V.). (2.) In the second 
 place, the term d’bash applies to a decoction of 
 the juice of the grape, which is still called dibs, 
 and which forms an article of commerce in the 
 East; it was this, and not ordinary bee-honey, 
 which Jacob sent to Joseph (Gen. xliii. 11), and 
 which the Tyrians purchased from Palestine 
 (Ezek. xxvii. 17). The mode of preparing it is 
 described by Pliny (xiv. 11): the must was 
 either boiled down to a half (in which case it 
 was called defrutwn), or to a third (when it 
 was called siracum, or sapa, the σίραιος οἶνος 
 and ἔψημα of the Greeks): it was mixed either 
 with wine or milk (Virg. Georg. i. 296; Ov. 
 Fast. iv. 780): it is still a favourite article of 
 nutriment among the Syrians, and has the 
 appearance of coarse honey (Russell, Aleppo, i. 
 82). (3.) A third kind has been described by 
 some writers as “vegetable” honey, by which 
 is meant the exudations of certain trees and 
 shrubs, such as the Tamarix mannifera, ‘found 
 in the Peninsula of Sinai or the stunted oaks of 
 Luristan and Mesopotamia. The honey which 
 Jonathan ate in the wood (1 Sam. yiv. 25), and 
 the “ wild honey ” which supported St. John the 
 Baptist (Matt. iii. 4), have been referred to this 
 species. We do not agree with this view: the 
 honey in the wood was in such abundance that 
 Jonathan took it up on the end of a stick; but 
 the vegetable honey is*found only in small 
 globules, which must be carefully collected and 
 strained before being used (Wellsted, ii. 50). 
 The use of the term ya‘ar in that passage is 
 decisive against this kind of honey, The μέλι 
 ἄγριον of Matthew need not mean anything else 
 than the honey of the wild bees, which we have 
 already stated to be common in Palestine, and 
 which Josephus (B. J. iv. 8, § 3) specifies among 
 the natural productions of the plain of Jericho: 
 
 the expression is certainly applied by Diodorus , 
 
 Siculus (xix. 94) to honey exuded from trees; 
 
 HOOK, HOOKS 1383. 
 
 but 1t may also be applied like the Latin 
 mel silvestre (Plin. xi. 16) to a particular kind 
 of bee-honey. (4.) A fourth kind is described 
 by Josephus (/. c.) as being manufactured from 
 the juice of the date. 
 
 The prohibition against the use of honey in 
 meat offerings (Lev. ii. 11) appears to have been 
 grounded on the fermentation produced by it, 
 honey soon turning sour, and even forming vinegar 
 (Plin. xxi. 48). This fact is embodied in the 
 Talmudical word hidbish = “to ferment,” de- 
 rived from @bash (cp. Knobel-Dillmann in loco). 
 Other explanations have been offered, as that 
 bees were unclean (Philo, De Sacrif. vi. App. 
 ii. 255), or that the honey was the artificial 
 dibs (Bihr, Symbol, ii. 828). (W.L. Β [FJ 
 
 HOOD. 15. iii. 23 (R. V. “turban ”). [Heap- 
 DRESS. | 
 
 HOOK, HOOKS. Various kinds of hooks 
 are noticed in the Bible, of which the following 
 are the most important :— 
 
 1. Fishing-hooks (ay, wD, Amos iy. 2; 
 MDM, Job xli, 25 Is. xix. 8; Hab. i. 15). The 
 first two of these Hebrew terms mean pri- 
 marily thorns, and secondarily fishing-hooks, from 
 the similarity in shape, or perhaps from thorns 
 having been originally used for the purpose; in 
 both cases the LXX. and Vulg. are mistaken in 
 their renderings, giving ὅπλοις and contis for 
 the first, λέβητας and ollis for the second: the 
 third term refers to the contraction of the mouth 
 by the hook. 
 
 2. Mn (A. V. “thorn,” R. V. “hook ”), pro- 
 perly a ring (ψέλλιον, circulus) placed through 
 the mouth of a large fish and attached by a 
 cord (2353) to a stake for the purpose of keep- 
 ing it alive in the water (Job xli. 2); the word 
 (in v. 2a) meaning the cord is rendered “ hook” 
 in the A. V. (R. V. “rope”) and = σχοῖνος. 
 
 Se nn and MN, generally rendered “hook” 
 in the A. V. after the LXX. ἄγκιστρον, but pro- 
 perly a ring (circulus), such as in our country is 
 placed through the nose of a bull, and similarly 
 used in the East for leading about lions (Ezek. 
 xix. 4, where the A. V. has “ with chains,” R. V. 
 “with hooks”), camels and other animals. A 
 similar method was adopted for leading prisoners, 
 as in the case of Manasseh, who was led with 
 rings (2 Ch. xxxiii, 11; ‘A. V. “among the 
 thorns,” R. V. “in chains,” marg. with hooks): 
 An illustration of this practice is found in a 
 bas-relief discovered at Khorsabad , (Layard, 
 ii. 8376). The expression is used several times 
 in this sense (2 K. xix. 28; Is. xxxvii. 29; 
 Ezek. xxix. 4, xxxviii. 4). The term WDD is 
 used in a similar sense in Job xl. 24 (A. V., 
 marg. bore his nose with a gin; R. V. text, 
 “‘pierce through his nose with a snare”), 
 
 9 
 
 Hook. (Layard’s Nineveh.) 
 4, O°), a term exclusively used .. reference 
 Η , 
 to the Tabernacle, rendered “hooks” in the 
 
 A. V. and R. Υ. The LXX. varies in its render- 
 
1384 
 
 ing, sometimes giving κεφαλίς, i.e. the capital of 
 the pillars, sometimes κρίκος and ἀγκύλη; the 
 expenditure of gold, as given in Ex, xxxvili. 28, 
 has led to this doubt ; they were, however, most 
 probably hooks (Ex. xxvi. 32, 37 5 xxvii. 10sq.; 
 xxxviii, 10 sq.): the word seems to have given 
 name to the letter ἡ in the Hebrew alphabet, 
 from a similarity of its form, both in the Hebrew 
 square character and m Phoenician, to a hook 
 (see MV."?). 
 
 5. MVD, a vine-dresser’s pruning-hook (Is. 
 ii. 4, xviii. 5; Micah iv. 3; Joel iii. 10). 
 
 6. 39ND and 3PM) (κρεάγρα), a flesh-hook for 
 getting up the joints of meat out of the boiling 
 pot (Ex. xxvii. 3; 1 Sam. n. 13, 14). 
 
 7. DIMDY (Ezek. xl. 43), a term of very 
 doubtful meaning, probably meaning “ hooks ” 
 (as in the text of A. V. and R. V.), used for the 
 purpose of hanging up animals to flay them 
 (paxilli bifurci, Gesen. Thesaur. p. 1470): other 
 meanings given are—ledges (R. V. marg. ; labia, 
 Vulg.); pens for keeping the animals previous 
 to their being slaughtered ; hearth-stones, as in 
 A. V. marg.; and lastly, gutters to receive and 
 carry off the blood from the slaughtered animals 
 (see Cornill and Orelli [in Strack u. Zéckler’s 
 Kgf. Komm.] in loco). [W. L. Β [F.] 
 
 HOPH'NI ΟΣΞΠ, ? = my fist [cp. the name 
 of Sabaean kings ὉΠ; see MV.!"]; “Οφνί) and 
 PHINEHAS, the two sons of Eli, who fulfilled 
 their hereditary sacerdotal duties at Shiloh. 
 Their brutal rapacity and lust, which seemed 
 to acquire fresh violence with their father’s in- 
 creasing years (1 Sam. ii. 22, 12-17), filled the 
 people with disgust and indignation, and pro- 
 voked the curse which was denounced against 
 their father’s house first by an unknown pro- 
 phet (vv. 27-36), and then by Samuel (1 Sam. iii. 
 11-14). They were both cut off in one day in 
 the flower of their age, and the Ark which they 
 had accompanied to battle against the Philistines 
 was lost on the same occasion (1 Sam. iv. 10, 11). 
 The predicted ruin and ejectment of Eli’s house 
 were fulfilled in the reign of Solomon. [ELr; 
 ZADOK.] The unbridled licentiousness of these 
 young priests gives us a terrible glimpse into 
 the fallen condition of the chosen people (Ewald, 
 Gesch. iu. 538-638; Stanley, Hist. of the Jewish 
 Church, Lecture xvii.). The Scripture calls them 
 “sons of Belial” (1 Sam. 1. 12); and to this 
 our great poet alludes in the words— 
 
 HOPHNI 
 
 —— ‘to him no temple stood 
 Or altar smoked ; yet who more oft than he 
 In temples and at altars, when the priest 
 Turns atheist, as did Eli’s sons, who filled 
 With lust.and violence the house of God?”’ 
 Par. Lost, i. 492. [F. W. F.j 
 
 HOR, MOUNT (993 ἽΠ, ie. “Hor the 
 mountain,” remarkable as the only case in which 
 the name comes first). 1. (“Op τὸ ὄρος ; Mons 
 Hor), the mountain on which Aaron died (Num. 
 xx, 25, 27, xxxiii. 38; Deut. xxxii. 50). The 
 word Hor is regarded by the lexicographers as 
 an archaic form of Har, the usual Hebrew term 
 for “mountain” (Gesenius, Thes. p. 3915), so 
 that the meaning of the name is simply “the 
 mountain of mountains,” as the LXX. have it 
 im another case (see below, No. 2), τὸ ὄρος τὸ 
 ὄρος ; Vulg. mons altissimus ; and Jerome (Ep. 
 
 HOR, MOUNT 
 
 | ad Fabiolam) non in monte simpliciter sed in 
 | montis monte. 
 
 The few facts given us in the Bible regarding 
 Mount Hor are soon told. It was “on the 
 boundary line ” (Num. xx, 23) or “at the edge” 
 
 | (xxxili. 37) of the land of Edom, It was the 
 next halting-place of the people after Kadesh 
 | (xx. 223; xxxiii. 37), and they quitted it for 
 Zalmonah (xxxiil. 41) in the road to the Red 
 Sea (xxi. 4). It was during the encampment at 
 Mount Hor that Aaron was gathered to his 
 fathers. At the command of Jehovah, he, his 
 brother, and his son ascended the mountain, in 
 the presence of the people, “in the eyes of all 
 the congregation.” The garments, and with the 
 garments the office, of high-priest were taken 
 from Aaron and put upon Eleazar, and Aaron 
 died there in the top of the mountain. In the 
 circumstances of the ascent of the height to die, 
 and in the marked exclusion from the Promised 
 Land, the end of the one brother resembled the 
 end of the other; but in the presence of the two 
 survivors, and of the gazing crowd below, there 
 is a striking difference between this event and 
 the solitary death of Moses. 
 
 Mount Hor “is one of the very few spots con- 
 nected with the wanderings of the Israelites 
 which admit of no reasonable doubt ” (Stanley, 
 S. § P.p.86). 10 is almost unnecessary to state 
 that it is situated on the eastern side of the 
 great valley of the ‘Arabah, the highest and 
 most conspicuous of the whole range of the 
 sandstone mountains of Edom, having close 
 beneath it on its eastern side—though, strange 
 to say, the two are not visible to each other— 
 the mysterious city of Petra. The tradition has 
 existed from the earliest date. Josephus does 
 not mention the name of Hor (Ant. iv. 4, § 7), 
 but he describes the death of Aaron as taking 
 place “on a very high mountain which sur- 
 rounded the metropolis of the Arabs,” which 
 latter “was formerly called Arke, but now 
 Petra.” In the Onomasticon of Eusebius and 
 Jerome (OS.? p.291, 88; p. 175, 14) it is Or mons 
 —‘a mountain in which Aaron died, close to the 
 city of Petra.” When it was visited by the 
 Crusaders (see the quotations in Robinson, 
 p- 521), the sanctuary was already on its top, 
 and there is little doubt that it was then what it 
 is now—the G’abal Nabi Haran, “the mountain 
 of the Prophet Aaron.” 
 
 Mount Hor is formed of beds of red sandstone 
 and conglomerate which have a gentle “ dip,” 
 or inclination -eastwards, towards Wadi Misa, 
 and rise in a precipitous wall of natural masonry, 
 tier above tier, with their faces to the west. 
 The base of the cliff of sandstone rests upon a 
 solid mass of granite and porphyry traversed by 
 dykes ; and against the western face of this, beds 
 of cretaceous limestone are thrown down by a 
 large fault which runs north and south. The 
 sandstone resting on the granite has the appear- 
 ance of “a mountain on a mountain,” and its 
 summit, crowned by the little white mosque 
 that covers the tomb of Aaron, is somewhat in 
 the form of a rude pyramid. ‘The mount is 
 flanked by two remarkable bastions of sandstone, 
 standing erect on the granitic base, and some- 
 what in advance of the mural cliffs.’ The 
 granite base on which the sandstone rests is the 
 “plain of Aaron,” beyond which Burckhardt 
 was, after all his toils, prevented from ascending 
 
HOR, MOUNT 
 
 (Travels in Syria and the H. L., pp. 429, 430). 
 From this place an ancient path, similar to that 
 on G'abal Misa, with worn steps made out of 
 boulders at difficult parts, leads up the mountain 
 to another level space, or platform, from which 
 the highest peak rises abruptly, and here sheep 
 are sacrificed to “the Prophet Aaron.” A flight 
 of steps cut out of the rock leads hence up a 
 steep precipice to the tomb itself, and about 
 halfway up these steps is a large cistern or 
 chamber covered in with arches, over which the 
 staircase is built. The altitude of Mount Hor 
 above the sea is about 4,580 ft., above Petra 
 
 about 1,325 ft., and above the Dead Sea about | 
 
 5,872 tt. (Hull, PEF. Mem. “ Geology,” p. 106, 
 with geological section; Hull and Kitchener, 
 Mount Seir, pp. 86, 95, 211; Palmer, Desert of the 
 Exodus, pp. 434, 435). 
 
 The mosque, an ordinary Muslim walt, is a 
 small square building, measuring inside about 
 28 ft. by 33 (Wilson, Lands, p. 295), with its 
 door in the 8.W. angle. Over the door is an 
 inscription, stating that the building was 
 
 | eggs are suspended over the chest. 
 
 HOR, MOUNT 1385 
 
 restored by ash-Shim‘ini, the son of Muhammad 
 Kaladn, Sultan of Egypt by his father’s orders, 
 AH. 739. The wali is built of rude stones, in 
 part broken columns; all of sandstone, but 
 fragments of granite and marble lie about. 
 Steps lead to the flat roof of the wali, from 
 which rises the usual white dome. The interior 
 consists of two chambers, one below the other. 
 The upper one has four large pillars and a stone 
 chest, or tombstone, like one of the ordinary 
 slabs in churchyards, but larger and higher, 
 and rather bigger at the top than at the bottom. 
 At its head is a high round stone, on which 
 sacrifices are made, and which retained, when 
 Stephens saw it, the marks of the smoke and 
 blood of recent offerings. “On the slab are 
 Arabic inscriptions, and it is covered with shawls, 
 chiefly red. One of the pillars is hung with 
 votive offerings of beads, &c., and two ostrich 
 Steps in the 
 N.W. angle lead down to the lower chamber, 
 
 ' which is partly in the rock, but plastered. It 
 
 is perfectly dark. At the end, apparently under 
 
 View of the summit of Mount Hor. 
 
 the stone chest above, is a recess guarded by a 
 grating. Within this is a rude protuberance, 
 whether of stone or plaster was not ascertainable, 
 resting on wood, and covered by a ragged pall. 
 This lower recess is no doubt the tomb, and 
 possibly ancient. What is above is only the 
 artificial monument and certainly modern.”* 
 In one of the walls of the upper chamber is a 
 “yound polished black stone,” one of those 
 mysterious stones of which the prototype is the 
 Kaaba at Mecca, and which, like that, would 
 appear to be the object of great devotion (Mar- 
 tineau, pp. 419-20). 
 
 The impression received on the spot is that 
 Aaron’s death took place in the small basin 
 between the two peaks, and that the people were 
 stationed either on the plain at the base of the 
 
 a According to Col. Kitchener, who visited Mount 
 Hor in 1883, the building contains only “the usual 
 carpet-covered cenotaph, with some ostrich eggs hanging 
 over it—allin an uncared-for condition ” (Mount Seir, 
 p. 211). 
 
 (From Laborde.) 
 
 peaks, or at that part of the Wadi Kusaibah 
 from which the top is commanded. Josephus 
 says that the ground was sloping downwards 
 (κατάντες ἦν τὸ χωρίον : Ant. iv. 4, § 7). But 
 this may be the mere general expression of a 
 man who had never been on the spot. The 
 greater part of the above information was 
 kindly communicated to the writer by Dean 
 Stanley. 
 
 The chief interest of Mount Hor will always 
 consist in the prospect from its summit—the 
 last view of Aaron—‘ that view which was to 
 him what Pisgah was to his brother.” It is 
 described at length by Irby (p. 134), Wilson (i. 
 292-9), Martineau (p. 420), and is well summed 
 up by Stanley in the following words:—“ We 
 saw all the main points on which his eye must 
 have rested. He looked over the valley of the 
 ‘Arabah countersected by its hundred water- 
 courses, and beyond, over the white mountains 
 of the wilderness they had so long traversed ; and 
 at the northern edge of it there must have been 
 visible the heights through which the Israelites 
 
1386 
 
 had vainly attempted to force their way into the 
 Promised Land. This was the western view. 
 Close around him on the east were the rugged 
 mountains of Edom, and far along the horizon 
 the wide downs of Mount Seir, through which 
 the passage had been denied by the wild tribes 
 of Esau who hunted over their long slopes.” On 
 the north lay the mysterious Dead Sea gleaming 
 from the depths of its profound basin (Stephens 
 Incidents). “A dreary moment, and a dreary 
 scene—such it must have seemed to the aged 
 priest... . The peculiarity of the view is the 
 combination of wide extension with the scarcity 
 of marked features. Petra is shut out by inter- 
 vening rocks. But the survey of the Desert on 
 one side, and the mountains of Edom on the 
 other, is complete; and of these last the great 
 feature is the mass of red bald-headed sandstone 
 rocks, intersected not by valleys but by deep 
 seams ” (S. δ' P. p. 87). Though Petra itself is 
 entirely shut out, one outlying building—if it 
 may be called a building—is visible, that which 
 goes by the name of the Dair, or Convent. Dean 
 Stanley has thrown out a suggestion on the 
 connexion between the two which is well worth 
 investigation. 
 
 2. (τὸ ὄρος τὸ ὄρος ; mons altissimus.) A 
 mountain, entirely distinct from the preceding, 
 named, in Num. xxxiv. 7, 8, only, as one of the 
 marks of the northern boundary of the land 
 which the children of Israel were about to con- 
 quer. The identification of this mountain has 
 always been one of the puzzles of Sacred Geo- 
 graphy. The Mediterranean was the western 
 boundary. The northern boundary started from 
 the sea; the first point in it was Mount Hor, 
 and the second the entrance of Hamath. Since 
 Sidon was subsequently allotted to the most 
 northern tribe—Asher, and was, so far as we 
 know, the most northern town so allotted, it 
 would seem probable that the northern boundary 
 would commence at about that point; that is, 
 opposite to where the great range of Lebanon 
 breaks down to the sea. The next landmark, 
 the entrance to Hamath, is the valley of the 
 ELEUTHERUS, Nahr al- Kabir, which rises not far 
 from Homs, the ancient Hamath, and divides the 
 Lebanon from the range to the north. Surely 
 “Mount Hor” then can be nothing else than the 
 great chain of Lebanon itself. Looking at the 
 massive character and enormous height of the 
 range, it is very difficult to suppose that any in- 
 dividual peak or mountain is intended and not 
 the whole mass, which takes nearly a straight 
 course between the two points just named, and 
 includes below it the great plain of the Bukd‘a 
 and the whole of Palestine properly so called. 
 
 The Targum Pseudojon. renders Mount Hor 
 by Umanos, probably intending Amana. The 
 latter is also the reading of the Talmud (Gittin 8, 
 quoted by Fiirst, sub voce), in which it is con- 
 nected with the Amana named in Cant. iv. 8. 
 But the situation of this Amana is nowhere in- 
 dicated by them. It cannot have any connexion 
 with the Amana or Abana river which flowed 
 through Damascus, as that is quite away from 
 the position required in the passage, By the 
 Jewish geographer Parchi (Benj. of Tudela, 
 413, &c.), for various traditional and linguistic 
 Teasons, a mountain is fixed upon very far tothe 
 north; in fact, though they do not say so, very 
 near the Mons Amanus of the classical geo- 
 
 HOR, MOUNT 
 
 HOR HAGIDGAD 
 
 graphers. But this is some 200 miles north of 
 Sidon and 150 above Hamath, and is surely an 
 unwarranted extension of the limits of the Holy 
 Land. Schwarz (pp. 6, 32) with greater proba- 
 bility identifies it with the bold promontory, 
 Rds esh-Shuk‘ah, known to the Greeks as Theo- 
 prosopon, to the south of Tripolis (see other 
 conjectures in Dillmann.2 For the views of 
 the Jewish commentators, see Neubauer, Geog. 
 du Talmud, p. 7 sq.). The great range of Leba- 
 non is so clearly the natural northern boun- 
 dary of the country, that there seems no reason 
 to doubt that the whole range is intended by 
 the term Hor. Robinson, however (Phys. Geog. 
 p- 314), limits this Hor “to the northern end 
 of Lebanon Proper, or a spur connected with 
 it.” [G.] [W.} 
 
 HO’RAM (D1 = elevated, great; BA. Αἰλάμ; 
 Horam), king of Grzer at the time of the con- 
 quest of the south-western part of Palestine 
 (Josh. x. 33). He came to the assistance of 
 Lachish, but was slaughtered by Joshua with all 
 his people. 
 
 HO’REB (1° =dry: Χωρήβ; A. in Deut. i. 
 19, Soxw0: Horeb). Ex. iii. 1, xvii. 6, xxviii. 
 6; Deut. i. 2, 6, 19, iv. 10, 15, v. 2, ix. 8, xviii. 
 16, xxix. 1; 1 K. viii. 9, xix. 8; 2 Ch. v. 10; 
 Ps. evi. 19; Mal.*iv. 4; Ecclus. xlviii. 7. 
 [SrNAI. ] 
 
 HORE’M (DN = dedicated : Β. Μεγαλααρείμ, 
 A. Μαγδαλιηωράμ, both by inclusion of the pre- 
 ceding name; Horem), an unidentified fortified 
 place in the territory of Naphtali; named with 
 Iron, Migdal-el, and Beth-anath (Josh. xix. 38). 
 Van de Velde (i. 178-9 ; Memoir, p. 322) suggests 
 Hurah (in PEF. lists Kh. el-Kurah) as the site 
 of Horem. It is an ancient site in the centre 
 of the country, half-way between the Rds en- 
 Ndhuirah and the Lake Merom. It is also in 
 favour of this identification that Hurah is near 
 Yartn, probably the representative of the ancient 
 IRON, named with Horem. Conder (Abk. p. 415) 
 suggests Kh. Harah, in the hills W. of Meis. 
 
 [61] (WJ 
 
 HOR HAGID’GAD, R. V. HOR HAG- 
 GIDGAD (3373 ἽΠ; τὸ ὄρος Ταδγάδ : Mons 
 Gadgad—both reading 13 for Ih), the name of 
 a desert station -where the Israelites encamped 
 (Num. xxxiii. 32, 33), probably the same as 
 Gudgodah (Deut. x. 7). In both passages it 
 stands in sequence with three others,—Moserah 
 or Moseroth, Beeroth, Bene Jaakan, and Jotbath 
 or Jotbathah ; but the order is not strictly pre- 
 served [see WILDERNESS OF WANDERING]. It is 
 observable that on the west side of the “Arabah 
 Robinson (vol. i., map) has a Wady Ghitdaghidh, 
 which may bear the same meaning; but as that 
 meaning might be perhaps applied to a great 
 number of localities, it would be dangerous ‘to 
 infer identity. The, junction of this wady with 
 the ‘Arabah would not, however, be unsuitable 
 for a station between Mount Hor, near which 
 Moserah lady (cp. Num. xx. 28, Deut. x. 6), and 
 Ezion-geber. Dillmann? (Num. /. 6.) argues 
 from the epithet Hor that it was in the land of 
 the Horites near Aaron’s burial-place. 
 
 (H. Η.1 [W.] 
 
HORI 
 
 ᾿ΗΟΉΙ. 1. (0, but in Ch. N= inhabitant 
 of caves, Ges., First; in Gen. A. Xoppet, in Ch. 
 A. Χοῤῥί, B. Xoppet; Hori), a Horite, as his name 
 betokens; son of Lotan the son of Seir, and 
 brother to Hemam and Homam (Gen. xxxvi. 22 ; 
 1 Ch. i. 39). No trace of the name appears to 
 have been met with in modern times. 
 
 9, (A. Χοῤῥεί ; Horracorum.) In Gen, xxxvi. 
 30, the name has in the original the defi- 
 nite article prefixed —*1N1 = “the Horite;” 
 and is in fact precisely the same word as that 
 which in the preceding verse, and also in », 21, 
 is rendered in the A. V. “ the Horites.” 
 
 8. (YIM; A. Σουρί, B. Soupel, the o being 
 carried on from the previous word; Huri.) A 
 man of Simeon, father of Shaphat, who repre- 
 sented that tribe among the spies sent up into 
 Canaan by Moses (Num. xiii. 5). 
 
 HO’RITES and HO’RIMS Ο ἽΠ, Gen. xiv. 6, 
 and OM, Deut. ii, 12; Xoppator; Chorraet, 
 Horraei: also ἩΟΒΙΤΕῈ in the sing., Gen. xxxvi- 
 20, Xoppatos ; Horraeus), the aboriginal inhabi- 
 tants of Mount Seir (Gen. xiv. 6), and probably 
 allied to the Emim and Rephaim. The name 
 Horite (71, “a troglodyte,” from NM, “ a hole ” 
 or “cave ”) appears to have been derived from 
 their habits as “ cave-dwellers.” Their excavated 
 dwellings are still found in hundreds in the 
 sandstone cliffs and mountains.of Edom, and 
 especially in Petra. [Epom and Epomires., It 
 may, perhaps, be to the Horites that Job refers in 
 xxx. 6, 7. They are only three times mentioned 
 in Scripture: first, when they were smitten by 
 the kings of the East (Gen. xiv. 6); then when 
 their genealogy is given in Gen. xxxvi. 20-30 
 
 -and 1 Ch, i. 38-42; and lastly when they were 
 exterminated by the Edomites (Deut. ii. 12, 22). 
 It is probable that they were not Canaanites, but 
 an earlier race, who inhabited Mount Seir before 
 the posterity of Canaan took possession of Pales- 
 tine (Ewald, Gesch. i. 304-5). [J. L. Ρ ΓΝ 
 
 town of a “king” of a Canaanitish tribe reduced 
 by Joshua (Josh. xii. 14; cp. Judg. 1. 17). It 
 was situated in the Negeb, or extreme south of 
 Palestine, and became a city of the territory of 
 Judah (Josh. xv. 30), but apparently belonged 
 to Simeon, whose territory is reckoned as part 
 of the former (Josh, xix. 4; ep. 1 Ch. iv. 30). 
 It was at or near the foot of the pass by which 
 the Israelites ttempted to enter Palestine, and 
 where they were defeated (Num. xiv. 45; Deut. 
 i. 44); and i: was afterwards captured and de- 
 stroyed by Judah and Simeon (Num. xxi. 3; 
 Judg. 17). The seeming inconsistency between 
 the two last passages may be relieved by sup- 
 posing that the vow made at the former period 
 was fulfilled at the latter, and the name (the root 
 of which, dan, constantly occurs in the sense 
 of “to devote to destruction,” or “utterly to 
 destroy ’’) given by anticipation. It is mentioned 
 in the lists of towns (Josh. xv. 30, xix. 4) next 
 
 HORN 1387 
 
 to Ziklag; and it was one of the places friendly 
 to David, to which a share of the spoil, taken 
 from the marauding Amalekites, was sent (1 Sam. 
 xxx. 30). Hormah would appear, from indica- 
 tions in the narrative, to have been not far from 
 Kadesh (cp. Num. xiii. 26, and xiv. 40-45), 
 and in the S.E. portion of the Negeb in the 
 vicinity of Seir (Deut. i. 44; ep. i. 2). But the 
 question of its site—of which, according to Dill- 
 
 f 
 Ruins of Hormah. 
 
 (Palmer.) 
 
 mann? (on Num. xiy. 45), no trace has been 
 found—forms part of a much larger one: viz., 
 the route by which the Israelites approached 
 the Holy Land [WILDERNESS OF WANDERING]. 
 Robinson (ii. 181) identifies Zephath with the 
 well-known pass Ls-Stfah, $lasa)\, by which 
 travellers from Petra to Hebron ascend to the 
 highest level of the Negeb. This view is chal- 
 lenged by Mr. Wilton (The Negeb, &c., pp. 199, 
 200) on account of theimpracticability of the pass, 
 for a host such as the Israelites were. Mr. Row- 
 lands (Williams’ Holy City, i. 464) identifies it 
 with Sebaita, to the S. of Khalasah ; and in this 
 he is supported by Prof. Palmer, who gives an 
 interesting description of the ruins (Desert of 
 the Exodus, pp. 373-380). [W.] 
 
 HORN. I. Literatu. (Josh. vi. 4, 55 ep. 
 Ex. xix. 13; 1 Sam. xvi. 1, 138; 1 K. i.393; Job 
 xlii. 14.)—T'wo purposes are mentioned in the 
 Scriptures to which the horn seems to have been 
 applied. Trumpets were probably at first merely 
 horns perforated at the tip, such as are still 
 used upon mountain-farms for calling home the 
 labourers at meal-time. If the A. V. and R. V. 
 (text) of Josh. vi. 4, 5 (“rams’ horns,” {72 
 
 Say) be correct, this would settle the ques- 
 tion, some critics taking bay with the Targ. 
 
 and Rabbis as equivalent to the Arabic xday, ram 
 (see Knobel-Dillmann on Ex. xix. 12), a signifi- 
 cation which Fried. Delitzsch (Proleg. eines neuen 
 Heb.-Aram. Worterb. z. A. T. p. 124, n. 2) finds 
 also in the Assyrian ibilu or dbilu, the ram as 
 leader of (wild) sheep. Others, however, seem 
 
 to think that Sais has nothing to do with ram 
 
 (cp. R. V. marg. of Josh. 1. α., jubile), and that 
 112, horn, serves to indicate an instrument which 
 
1888 HORN 
 
 originally was made of horn, though afterwards, 
 no doubt, constructed of different materials (cp. 
 Varr. LZ. LZ. ν. 24, 33, “cornua quod ea quae 
 nunc sunt ex aere tunc fiebant bubuloe cornu ’’). 
 (CorneET.] The horns which were thus made 
 into trumpets would probably be those of oxen 
 rather than of rams, the latter scarcely pro- 
 ducing a note sufficiently imposing to suggest 
 its association with the fall of Jericho. 
 
 The word horn is also applied to a flask, or 
 vessel made of horn, containing oi] (1 Sam. 
 xvi. 1,13; 1 K. i. 29), or used as a kind of 
 toilet-bottle, filled with the preparation of anti- 
 mony with which women tinged their eyelashes 
 (Keren-happuch = cosmetic-horn, name of one of 
 Job’s daughters, Job xlii. 14). So in English 
 drinking-horn (commonly called a horn). In 
 the same way the Greek κέρας sometimes signi- 
 fies bugle, trumpet (Xen. Anab. ii. 2, § 4), and 
 sometimes drinking-horn (vii. 2, § 23). In like 
 manner the Latin cornu means trumpet, also 
 oil-cruet (Hor. Sat. ii. 2, 61) and funnel (Virg. 
 Georg. iii. 509). 
 
 II. MerapnoricaL. 1. From similarity of 
 form.—tTo this use belongs the application of 
 the word horn to a trumpet of metal, as already 
 mentioned. Horns of ivory—that is, elephants’ 
 teeth—are mentioned in Ezek. xxvii. 15: either 
 metaphorically from similarity of form; or, as 
 seems more probable, from a vulgar error. The 
 horns of the altar (Ex. xxvii. 2) are not supposed 
 to have been made of horn, but to have been 
 metallic projections from the four corners (γωνίαι 
 κερατοειδεῖς, Joseph. B. J. v. 5,§ 6). [ALTar, 
 p- 101.] The peak or summit of a hill was 
 called a horn (Is. v. 1, where hill = horn in 
 Heb. [see A.V. and R.V. marg.]; ep. κέρας, Xen. 
 Anab. v. 6, § 7, and cornu, Stat. Theb. v. 532; 
 Arab, Kurtin Hattin, Robinson, bibl. Res. ii. 370 ; 
 Germ. Schreckhorn, Wetterhorn, Aarhorn; Celt. 
 cairn). In Hab. iii. 4 (‘he had horns coming 
 out of his hand ”’) the context implies rays (R. V. 
 text) of light. 
 
 The denominative {7p = “to emit rays,” is 
 used of Moses’ face (Ex. xxxiv. 29, 30, 35); so 
 all the Versions except Aquila and the Vulgate, 
 which have the translations κερατώδης ἦν, cor- 
 nuta erat (cp. Knobel-Dillmann in loco). This 
 curious idea has not only been perpetuated by 
 paintings, coins, and statues (Zornius, biblioth. 
 Antiq. i. 121), but has at least passed muster 
 with Grotius (Annot. ad loc.), who cites Aben- 
 Ezra’s identification of Moses with the horned 
 Mnevis of Egypt, and suggests that the pheno- 
 menon was intended to remind the Israelites of 
 the golden calf! Spencer (Leg. Hebr. iii., Diss. 
 i. 4) tries a reconciliation of renderings upon 
 the ground that cornua = radii lucis ; but Span- 
 heim (Diss. vii. 1), not content with stigmatiz- 
 ing the efforts of art in this direction as “ prae- 
 postera industria,” distinctly attributes to 
 Jerome a belief in the veritable horns of Moses. 
 Bishop Taylor, in all good faith, though of 
 course rhetorically, compares the “sun’s golden 
 horns ” to those of the Hebrew Lawgiver. 
 
 2. From similarity of position and use.—Two 
 principal applications of this metaphor will be 
 found—strength and honour. Of strength the 
 horn of the unicorn [Unicorn] was the most 
 frequent representative (Deut. xxxiii. 17, &c.), 
 but not always: cp. 1 K. xxii. 11, where horns 
 of iron, worn defiantly and symbolically on the 
 
 HORN 
 
 head, are possibly intended. Expressive of the 
 same idea, or perhaps merely a decoration, is 
 the Oriental military ornament mentioned by 
 Taylor (Calmet’s Frag. cxiv.), and the conical 
 cap observed by Dr. Livingstone among the 
 
 ES 
 
 Hair of South Africans ornamented with buffalo-horns. 
 (Livingstone, Travels, pp. 450, 451.) 
 
 natives of 5, Africa, and not improbably sug- 
 gested by the horn of the rhinoceros, so abun- 
 dant in that country (see Livingstone’s Zravels, 
 pp: 365, 450, 557 ; cp. Taylor, /. c.). Among the 
 Druses upon Mount Lebanon, the married women 
 wear silver horns on their heads. The spiral 
 coils of gold wire projecting on either side from 
 the female head-dress of some of the Dutch pro- 
 vinces are evidently an ornament borrowed from 
 the same original idea. 
 
 Heads of modern Asiatics ornamented with horns. 
 
 In the sense of honour, the word horn stands 
 for the abstract (my horn, Job- xvi. 15; all the 
 horns of Zsrael, Lam, ii. 3), and so for the supreme 
 authority (cp. the story of Cippus, Ovid, Met. 
 xv. 5653; and the horn of the Indian Sachem 
 mentioned in Clarkson’s Life of Penn). It also 
 stands for concrete, whence it comes to mean 
 king, kingdom (Dan. viii. 2, &c.; Zech. i. 18; 
 ep. Tarquin’s dream in Accius, ap. Cic. Div. 
 i. 22); hence on coins Alexander and the Seleu- 
 cidae wear horns (see drawing on p. 86), and 
 the former is called in Arabia two-horned 
 (Kor. xviii. 85sq.), not without reference to 
 Dan. viii. 
 
 Out of either or both of these two last meta- 
 phors sprang the idea of representing gods with 
 horns. Spanheim has discovered such figures 
 on the Roman denarius, and on numerous Egyp- 
 tian coins of the reigns of Trajan, Hadrian, and 
 the Antonines (Diss. v. p. 353). The Bacchus 
 Tavpokepws, or cornutus, is mentioned by Euri- 
 pides (bacch. 100), and among other pagan 
 absurdities Arnobius enumerates “ Dii cornuti” 
 (c. Gent. vi.). In like manner river-gods are 
 represented with horns (“tauriformis Aufidus,” 
 Hor. Od. iv. 14, 25; ταυρόμορφον ὄμμα Κηφι-. 
 
HORNET 
 
 σοῦ, Eur. Jon, 1261). For various opinions on 
 the ground-thought of this metaphor, see Notes 
 and Queries, i. 419, 456. Manx legends speak 
 of a tarroo-ushtey, i.e. water-bull (see Cregeen’s 
 Manz .Dict.). See Bochart, Hieroz. ii. 288 ; 
 and, for an admirable compendium, with re- 
 ferences, Zornius, Bibliotheca Antiquaria, ii. 
 106 sq. (T. E. B.] 
 
 HORNET (ADS, sir‘ah; σφηκία;; crabro; 
 Arab. yp} zanbir; Vespa crabro, L.). No 
 
 question has arisen as to the correctness of the 
 translation, although the word only occurs three 
 times in the 0. T. In each passage the sir‘ah 
 is spoken of as an instrument in God’s hand for 
 the punishment and expulsion of the Canaanites : 
 «J will send hornets before thee, which shall 
 drive out the Hivite, the Canaanite, and the 
 Hittite from before thee (ἔχ. xxiii. 28), “The 
 Lord thy God will send the hornet among them ” 
 (Deut. vii. 20). “I sent the hornet before you, 
 which drave them out from before you” (Josh. 
 xxiv. 12). Much has been written on the 
 question whether these passages are to be in- 
 terpreted literally, and whether swarms of 
 hornets did aid in compelling the flight of the 
 Canaanites; or whether their attacks are spoken 
 of metaphorically, as in the case of the expression, 
 “The Amorites.... came out against you, and 
 chased you as bees 40. So in classical writers 
 the oestrus or gadfly is metaphorically used to 
 signify “ terror ” or “madness.” The hornet, it 
 is suggested, may simply mean the panic and 
 alarm with which the approach of the hosts of 
 Israel would inspire the Canaanite. It has also 
 been observed that we have no recorded instance 
 in Scripture history of the intervention of 
 “hornets. ‘There does not, however, appear to be 
 much force in this negative argument, for there 
 are recorded instances in profane history of 
 hornets having multiplied to such a degree as 
 to become a pest to the inhabitants. Aelian gives 
 an account (xi. 28) of the people of Megara 
 having been on one occasion driven from their 
 city by a plague of mice, and the inhabitants of 
 Phaselis by swarms of wasps. Upon this Bochart 
 suggests that the story may have arisen from a 
 tradition handed down from their ancestors, as 
 Phaselis was a Phoenician colony, and even as 
 late as the time of Xerxes spoke the pure 
 Phoenician language; and these ancestors may 
 have been fugitive Canaanites. Antenor of 
 Crete, as quoted by Aelian (xvii. 35), tells how 
 the people of Rhaucus in that island were com- 
 pelled to leave their home in consequence of the 
 attacks of swarms of bees. Herodotus was told 
 that in one part of the Danube the bees occupied 
 the north bank in such numbers that it was 
 impossible to penetrate further. It is known 
 that the furious attacks of hornets, when their 
 nest has been disturbed, will drive cattle and 
 horses to madness, and have frequently caused 
 the death of the animals. In Palestine the 
 hornet is very abundant. That it was equally 
 so in early times we may infer from the name 
 Zoreah, i.e. “ place of hornets ” (Josh. xv. 23), as 
 well as from the frequent mention of the insect 
 in the Talmudical writers (see Lewysohn, Zool. 
 § 405). There are immense numbers of species 
 of hornet; which is really not a group dis- 
 tinguishable from the wasp, except for its size ; 
 
 HORONITE, THE 1389 
 
 and these species are distributed over the whole 
 world excepting the Arctic regions. The different 
 hornets are all included in the insect family 
 Diplopteryga, and sub-family Vespidae. They 
 vary much in the form and position of their 
 nests and combs. Some construct very large 
 nests underground, others in rocks; others 
 suspend their combs, as does the English Vespa 
 crabro, under slabs of stone or other secure 
 shelter. But all place their combs horizontally 
 with the mouths of the cells downwards. They 
 are never perpendicular, like the combs of bees. 
 I noticed four species of hornet very common 
 in the Holy Land, but did not meet with the 
 British Vespa crabro. All the species were 
 larger than our own. Two of them make nests 
 like our species, suspending them by a papier- 
 maché pillar from a beam or stone or the roof of 
 a cave; the horizontal combs being suspended 
 in the centre, one beneath the other, by a strong 
 papier-maché column. An _ umbrella-shaped 
 shield of the same material shelters the whole 
 string of combs. The two other species live in 
 larger communities, and construct their paper 
 nests underground, or in cavities of rocks with 
 their combs also placed horizontally. These 
 are sometimes two feet in diameter. Should a 
 horse tread on a nest, it is necessary to fly with 
 all speed, for the combined attack from such a 
 swarm has been known to be fatal. [H. B. T.] 
 
 HORONATM (0°31 = two caverns ; in Is. 
 ΤΙ ᾿Αρωνιείμ, A. ᾿Αδωνιείμ; in Jer. [v. 5, BNA.] 
 ᾿Ωρωναίμ, sometimes ᾿᾽Ορωναίμ, ἅτ. ; Oronaim), 
 a town of Moab named with Zoar and Luhith (Is. 
 xv. 53; Jer. xlviii, [LXX. xxxi.] 3, 5, 34), but 
 to the position of which no clue is afforded 
 either by the notices of the Bible or by men- 
 tion in other works. It seems to have been 
 on an eminence, and approached (like Beth- 
 horon) by a road which is styled the “way” 
 (477, Is. xv. 5), or the “ descent ” (17119, Jer. 
 xlviii. 5). From the occurrence of a similar 
 expression in regard to LuHITH, we might 
 imagine that these two places were sanctuaries, 
 on the high places to which the Eastern worship 
 of those days was so addicted. If we accept 
 the name as Hebrew, we may believe the dual 
 form of it to arise, either from the presence of 
 two caverns in the neighbourhood, or from there 
 having been two towns, possibly an upper and 
 a lower, as in the case of the two Beth-horons, 
 connected by the ascending road. It occurs on 
 the Moabite Stone under the form 1) ἽΠ (see 
 MV."') and as having been taken by king Mesha, 
 either from the Edomites or the Israelites (see 
 Records of the Past, N.S. ii. Ρ. 203); and it is 
 possibly the same place as the Opava: of Jose- 
 phus (Ant. xiii. 15, § 45 xiv. 1, § 4). Conder 
 (Heth § Moab, p. 403) connects it with Wady 
 Ghieir, wp which runs an ancient road. 
 
 From Horonaim possibly came Sanballat the 
 
 Horonite. {G.] ΓΝ] 
 
 HORO'’NITE, THE (137777; Β. ὁ 
 Horonites), the designation of Sanballat, who 
 was one of the principal opponents of Nehe- 
 miah’s works of restoration (Neh. ii- 10, 19 
 xiti. 28). It is derived by Gesenius ( Thes. p. 499) 
 from Horonaim the Moabite town, but by Furst 
 (Handwb.) from Horon, 1.96. Beth-horon. Which 
 
 ᾿Αρωνεΐ; 
 
1890 HORSE 
 
 of these is the more accurate is quite uncertain. 
 The former certainly accords well with the 
 Ammonite and Arabian who were Sanballat’s 
 comrades; the latter is perhaps more ety- 
 mologically correct. [Gay EW.) 
 
 HORSE. The most striking feature in the 
 Biblical notices of the horse is the exclusive 
 application of it to warlike operations ; in no 
 instance is that useful animal employed for the 
 purposes of ordinary locomotion or agriculture, 
 if we except Is. xxviii. 28, where we learn that 
 horses (A. V. “horsemen”) were employed in 
 threshing, not. however in that case put in the 
 gears, but simply driven about wildly over the 
 strewn grain. This remark will be found to 
 be borne out by the historical passages here- 
 after quoted; but it is equally striking in the 
 poetical parts of Scripture. The animated de- 
 scription of the horse in Job xxxix. 19-25, 
 applies solely to the war-horse; the “ quiver- 
 ing mane” (A. V. “ thunder”) which “ clothes 
 his neck ; ”’ his lofty bounds “as a grasshopper ; ” 
 his hoofs “digging in the valley ” with excite- 
 ment ; his terrible snorting—are brought before 
 us, and his ardour for the strife : 
 
 He swalloweth the ground with fierceness and rage ; 
 
 Neither believeth he that it is the sound of the trumpet. 
 
 He saith among the trumpets, Ha, ha! 
 
 And he smelleth the battle afar off, the thunder of the 
 captains, and the shouting (A. V.). 
 
 So again the bride advances with her charms to 
 an immediate conquest, “‘as a company of horses 
 (R. V. “a steed”) in Pharaoh’s chariots” 
 (Song of Sol. 1. 9); and when the Prophet 
 Zechariah wishes to convey the idea of perfect 
 peace, he represents the horse, no more mixing 
 in the fray as before (ix. 10), but bearing on his 
 bell (which was intended to strike terror into the 
 foe) the peaceable inscription “ Holiness unto 
 the Lord” (xiv. 20). Lastly, the characteristic 
 of the horse is not so much his speed or his 
 utility, but his strength (Ps. xxxiii. 17, cxlvii. 
 10), as shown in the special application of the 
 term abbir (AN), 1.6, strong, as an equivalent 
 for a horse (Jer. viii. 16; xlvii. 3; 1. 11). 
 
 The terms under which the horse is described 
 in the Hebrew language are usually sis and 
 parash (DID, ΖΞ). The origin of these terms 
 is not satisfactorily made out; Pott (Htym. 
 Forsch. i, 60) connects them respectively with 
 Susa and Pares, or Persia, as the countries 
 whence the horse was derived; and it is worthy 
 of remark that sis was also employed in Egypt 
 tor a mare, showing that it was a foreign term 
 there, if not also in Palestine. There is a 
 marked distinction between the s#s and the 
 parash: the former were horses for driving in 
 She war-chariot, of a heavy build; the latter 
 were for riding, and particularly for cavalry. 
 This distinction is not observed in the A. V. 
 from the circumstance that parash also signifies 
 “horseman;” the correct sense is essential in 
 the following passages: 1 Καὶ, iv. 26, “forty (see 
 below) thousand ... chariot horses and’ twelve 
 thousand cavalry horses” (A. V. “ horsemen”); 
 Ezek. xxvii. 14, “driving horses and riding 
 (Β. V. war-) horses” (A. V. “ horsemen ”’); Joel 
 ii. 4, “as riding horses (A. V. and R. V. text 
 “horsemen,” R. V. marg. war-horses), so shall 
 they run;” and Is. xxi. 7, “a train of -horses 
 
 HORSE 
 
 in couples” (A. V. “a chariot with a couple of 
 horsemen”; R. V. text, “a troop, horsemen in 
 pairs”). In addition to. these terms we have 
 réhesh (WD, of undoubted Hebrew origin) to 
 describe a swift horse, used for the royal post 
 (Esth. viii, 10, 14; A. V. mule”) and similar 
 purposes (1 K.iv. 28; A. V. “ dromedary,” R.V. 
 “swift steed”), or for a rapid journey (Mie. i. 
 13); rammak (712)), used once tor a mare (Esth. 
 viii. 10; A. V. “dromedary,” R.V. “the stud ”), 
 a Persian word %,; and stésah (DID) in Song 
 of Sol. i. 9, where it is regarded in the A. V. as 
 a collective term, “‘company of horses;” it 
 rather means, according to the received punctua- 
 tion, “my mare,” but still better, by a slight 
 alteration in the punctuation, “mares” (R. V. 
 text “a steed,” marg. stecds). 
 
 The Hebrews in the patriarchal age, as a 
 pastoral race, did not stand in need of the 
 services of the horse, and for a long period 
 after their settlement in Canaan they dispensed 
 with it, partly in consequence of the hilly 
 nature of the country, which only admitted of 
 the use of chariots in certain localities (Judg. i. 
 19), and partly in consequence of the prohibition 
 in Deut. xvii. 16, which would be held to apply 
 at all periods. Accordingly they hamstrung 
 the horses of the Canaanites (Josh. xi. 6, 9). 
 It was only on the maritime plains, in the 
 plain of Esdraelon and on the north-eastern 
 frontier, that chariots could be employed in 
 warfare to any purpose. In these, while Israel 
 had neither horses nor chariots, the Canaanites 
 were well supplied with both. Consequently 
 the usual order of successful invasions was 
 reversed. The aboriginal Canaanites were 
 driven out of the hills, but remained in the 
 plains. The mountains were the secure and 
 peaceful, the level and plain districts the 
 insecure, parts of the country. In the story of 
 the conquest by Joshua, we do not find chariots 
 mentioned till, after his subjugation of the 
 
 | central and hill country, Jabin king of Hazor 
 
 I 
 
 | 
 
 met him in the far north near the waters of 
 Merom, “ with horses and chariots very many ” 
 (Josh. xi. 4). This was a new feature in the 
 war, and Joshua then received the command 
 to “hough the horses and burn the chariots.” 
 
 | Again, after a lapse of another 150 years, the 
 
 horses of another-Jabin king of Canaan were a 
 terror to Israel; “for he had nine hundred 
 chariots of iron, and twenty years he mightily 
 oppressed the children of Israel” (Judg. iv. 3). 
 Then when the swamps and mud of the Kishon 
 had engulfed the chariot-wheels, the horsehoofs 
 were broken by the plunging and trampling of 
 their mighty ones. 
 
 David first established a force of cavalry and 
 chariots after the defeat of Hadadezer (2 Sam. 
 viii. 4), when he reserved a hundred chariots, 
 and, as we may infer, all the horses: for the 
 rendering “ houghed all the chariot horses” is 
 manifestly incorrect. Shortly after this Absalom 
 was possessed of some (2 Sam. xv. 1). But the 
 great supply of horses was subsequently effected 
 by Solomon through his connexion with Egypt ; 
 he is reported to have had “ forty thousand stalls 
 of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand 
 cavalry horses” (1 K. iv. 26), and it is worthy of 
 notice that these forces are mentioned parenthe- 
 
“---Ξ 
 
 HORSE 
 
 tically to account for the great security of life and 
 property noticed in the preceding verse. There 
 is probably an error in the former of these 
 humbers; for the number of chariots is given 
 in 1 K. x. 26, 2 Ch. i. 14, as 1400; and con- 
 sequently if we allow three horses for each 
 chariot, two in use and one as a reserve, as 
 was usual in some countries (Xen. Cyrop. vi. 1, 
 § 27), the number required would be 4,200, or, 
 in round numbers, 4,000, which is probably the 
 correct reading. Solomon also established a 
 very active trade in horses, which were brought 
 by dealers out of Egypt and resold at a profit to 
 the Hittites, who lived between Palestine and 
 the Euphrates. The passage in which this 
 commerce is described (1 K. x. 28, 29) is 
 unfortunately obscure; the tenor of v. 28 
 seems to be that there was a regularly estab- 
 lished traffic (R. V. “The horses which Solomon 
 had were brought out of Egypt”), the Egyptians 
 bringing the horses to a mart in the south of 
 Palestine and handing them over to the Hebrew 
 dealers at a fixed tariff. The price of a horse was 
 fixed at 150 shekels of silver, and that of a chariot 
 at 600 ; in the latter we must include the horses 
 (for an Egyptian war-chariot was of no great 
 value), and conceive, as before, that three horses 
 accompanied each chariot, leaving the chariot 
 itself at 150 shekels. In addition to this source 
 of supply, Solomon received horses by way of 
 tribute (1 K. x. 25), The force was maintained 
 by the succeeding kings, and frequent notices 
 occur both of riding horses and chariots (2 K. 
 ix. 21, 33, xi. 16), and particularly of war- 
 cuamots (ft K. xxi. 4; 2°K. ii, 7; Is. i. 7): 
 The force seems to have failed in the time of 
 Hezekiah (2 K. xviii. 23) in Judah, as it had 
 previously in Israel under Jehoahaz (2 K. 
 xiii. 7). The number of horses belonging to 
 the Jews on their return from Babylon is stated 
 as 736 (Neh. vii. 68). 
 
 The northern kingdom was better adapted 
 for the use of cavalry and chariots than the 
 southern; and Ahab, Jehoram, and Jehu are 
 repeatedly mentioned as using chariots for their 
 ordinary mode of travelling. But in the reign 
 of Jehoahaz the son of Jehu, a fatal blow was 
 struck at the power of the Israelitish kingdom, 
 by the annihilation of its cavalry and chariots, 
 only 50 horses and 10 chariots being left (2 K. 
 xiii. 7); and from the sneers of Rabshakeh, it 
 would seem that the southern kingdom was not 
 much better supplied with this military arm. 
 
 In the countries adjacent to Palestine, the use 
 of the horse was much more frequent. It was 
 introduced into Egypt probably by the Hyksos, 
 as it is not represented on the monuments 
 before the 18th dynasty ( Wilkinson, i. 386 
 {1878]). At the period of the Exodus horses 
 were abundant there (Gen. xlvii. 17, 1. 9; 
 Ex. ix. 3, xiv. 9, 23; Deut. xvii. 17), and 
 subsequently, as we have already seen, they 
 were able to supply the nations of Western 
 Asia. The Jewish kings squght the assistance 
 of the Egyptians against the Assyrians in this 
 respect (Is. xxxi. 1, xxxvi. 8: Ezek. xvii. 15). 
 The Canaanites were possessed of them (Deut. 
 xx. 1; Josh. xi. 4; Judg. iv. 3, v. 22, 28), and 
 likewise the Syrians (2 Sam. viii. 4; 1 K. xx. 
 1; 2 K. vi. 14, vii. 7, 10)—notices which are 
 confirmed by the pictorial representations on 
 Egyptian monuments (Wilkinson, i. 393, 397, 
 
 1391 
 
 401), and by the Assyrian inscriptions relating 
 to Syrian expeditions. But the cavalry of the 
 Assyrians themselves and other eastern nations 
 was regarded as miost formidable; the horses 
 themselves, were highly bred, as the Assyrian 
 sculptures. still testify, and fully merited the 
 praise bestowed on them by Habakkuk (i. 8), 
 “swifter than leopards, and more fierce than 
 the evening wolves.” Their riders “clothed in 
 blue, captains and rulers, all of them desirable 
 young men” (Ezek. xxiii. 6), armed with the 
 “bright sword and glittering spear” (Nah. iii. 
 3), made a deep impression on the Jews, who, 
 plainly clad, went on foot; as also did their 
 regular array, as they proceeded in couples, 
 contrasting with the disorderly troops of asses 
 and camels which followed with the baggage 
 (Is. xxi. 7, rékeb in this passage signifying rather 
 a train than a single chariot). The number em- 
 ployed by the Eastern potentates was very great, 
 Holofernes possessing not less than 12,000 (Jud. 
 ii. 15). At a later period we have frequent 
 notices of the cavalry of the Graeco-Syrian 
 monarchs (1 Mace. i, 18, iii. 39, &c.). 
 
 Under the Romans, that national genius for 
 road-making which has left its traces in the 
 remotest parts of Europe, greatly increased the 
 facilities for the employment of horses even in 
 the most rugged districts of Palestine. The 
 track of the chariot-road to Egypt (Acts viii. 
 28), first constructed by Solomon, was paved 
 by the Romans; and traces of the wheel-worn 
 pavement, both of this and of several other 
 roads among the hills near Hebron, are still to 
 be seen. In the wilds of Gilead and Bashan, and 
 in the pavement from the ruins of Gadara to tue 
 Jordan, and among the theatres and temples of 
 Rabbath Ammon, we mark the wheel-ruts and 
 the worn footholes of the horses, where wheeis 
 have never rolled for over 1000 years. 
 
 The best horses in Palestine are now supplied 
 from Arabia and Egypt. But the breed of the 
 latter country is now, and probably was in the 
 
 HORSE 
 
 Trappings of Assyrian horse. 
 
 (Layard.) 
 days when Solomon imported his horses thence, 
 
 of Arabian origin. East of Jordan almost every 
 man is mounted, and the horse has superseded 
 the dromedary in their predatory warfare. The 
 Syrian baggage horse is from a mixed race, and 
 though not often exceeding 15 hands in height, 
 and of no great speed, yet is endued with 
 wonderful powers of endurance. 
 
1892 HORSE 
 
 With regard to the trappings and manage- 
 ment of the horse, we have little information ; 
 the bridle (résen) was placed over the horse’s 
 nose (Is. xxx. 28), and a bit or curb (métheq) is 
 also noticed (2 K. xix. 28; Ps. xxxii. 9; Prov. 
 xxvi. 3; Is. xxxvii. 29. In the A. V. it is 
 incorrectly given “bridle,” with the exception 
 
 HORSELEACH 
 
 of Ps. xxxii.). The harness of the Assyrian 
 horses was profusely decorated, the bits being 
 gilt (1 Esd. iii. 6), and the bridles adorned with 
 tassels ; on the neck was a collar terminating in 
 a bell, as described by Zechariah (xiv. 20). 
 Saddles were not used until a late period: in 
 the annexed cut one with a pad is represented. 
 
 Assyrian horsemen of the time of Sennacherib. 
 
 The horsemen were armed with long spears 
 
 significant of victory (Rev. vi. 2; xix. 11, 14). 
 
 (“the glittering spear,” Nah. iii. 3), or with | Horses and chariots were used also in idolatrous 
 
 bows, as we see in the Assyrian sculptures. 
 The horses were not shod, and therefore hoofs 
 
 ‘ a ΒΕ. 
 Assyrian horse. (Nimrud.) 
 
 -as hard “as flint” (Is.-v. 28) were regarded 
 as a great merit. The chariot-horses were 
 covered with embroidered trappings—the “ pre- 
 cious clothes” manufactured at Dedan (Ezek. 
 xxvii. 20): these were fastened by straps and 
 buckles, and to this perhaps reference is made 
 in Prov. xxx. 31, in the term zarzir, “one 
 girded about the loins” (A. V. “ greyhound.” 
 See GREYHOUND). Thus adorned, Mordecai 
 rode in state through the streets of Shushan 
 (Esth. vi. 9). White horses were more par- 
 ticularly appropriate to such occasions, as being 
 
 processions, as noticed in regard to the sun (2 K. 
 
 xxiii. 11). (W.L.B.] [H. B. TJ 
 
 HORSELEACH (py, ‘aligah: 
 βδέλλα; sanguisuga; Arab. ws. 
 xals, ‘alagq, ‘alaqah) occurs once only, 
 
 viz. Prov. xxx. 15, “The horseleach 
 hath two daughters, crying, Give, 
 give.” There is no doubt from the 
 identity of the Hebrew and Arabic 
 words that ‘alaqah denotes some 
 species of. leech, or rather is the 
 generic term for any bloodsucking 
 annelid, such as Hirudo medicinalis, 
 L. (the medicinal leech), Haemopis 
 sanguisuga, L. (the horseleech), Bdella 
 Trochetia, and Aulastoma, all found 
 in the marshes and pools of the 
 Bible-lands. Schultens (Comment. in 
 Prov. 1. ¢.) and Bochart (Mieroz. 
 iii. 785) have endeavoured to show 
 that ‘aliqah is to be understood to 
 signify “fate,” or ‘impending mis- 
 fortune of any kind” (futwm unicuique 
 impendens); they refer the Hebrew 
 ~ term to the Arabic ‘aliq, res appensa, 
 affiza homini. 'The “two daughters ” 
 are explained by Bochart to signify Hades 
 (D'NW) and the grave, which are never satisfied. 
 This explanation is certainly very ingenious, but 
 where is the necessity to appeal to it, when the 
 important old Versions are opposed to any such 
 interpretation? The bloodsucking leeches, such 
 as Hirudo and Haemopis, were without a doubt 
 known to the ancient Hebrews; and as the leech has 
 been for ages the emblem of rapacity and cruelty, 
 there is no reason to doubt that this annelid is 
 denoted by ‘ulagah. The Arabs to this day 
 denominate the Limnatis Nilotica, ‘alag. As to 
 
" 
 ; 
 
 HORSE-GATE 
 
 the expression “two daughters,” which has been 
 by some writers absurdly explained to allude to 
 “the double tongue” of a leech—this animal 
 having no tongue at all—there can be no doubt 
 that it is figurative (cp. Delitzsch and Strack, 
 Comm. in loco), and is intended, in the lan- 
 guage of Oriental hyperbole, to denote its blood- 
 thirsty propensity, evidenced by the tenacity 
 with which a leech keeps its hold on the skin 
 (if Hirudo), or mucous membrane (if Haemopis). 
 Comp. Horace, Ep. ad. Pis. 476; Cicero, Ep. ad 
 
 - Atticum, i. 16; Plautus, Zpid. act iv.sc.4. The 
 etymology of the Hebrew word, from an unused 
 root which signifies “to adhere,” is eminently 
 suited to “a leech.” Gesenius (71:68. p. 1038) 
 reminds us that the Arabic ‘a/uk is explained in 
 Camus by ghil, “a female monster like a vampire 
 which sucked human blood.” The passage in 
 question, however, has simply reference to a 
 “leech.” The valuable use of the leech (Hirudo) 
 in medicine, though undoubtedly known to Pliny 
 and the later Roman writers, was in all pro- 
 bability unknown to the ancient Orientals ; still 
 they were doubtless acquainted with the fact 
 that leeches of the above-named genus would 
 attach themselves to the skin of persons going 
 barefoot in ponds; and they must have been 
 cognizant of the propensity horseleeches (Haemo- 
 pis) have of entering the mouth and nostrils of 
 cattle as they drink. The horseleech (Haemo- 
 pis sanguisuga, L.) is very common in all the 
 stagnant waters of Palestine, and our animals 
 frequently suffered from its attacks, as it attaches 
 itself firmly to the inside of the nostril or to 
 the palate, causing much pain and loss of blood. 
 It clings with such tenacity to its hold as to 
 be almost torn in two before it can be detached. 
 The medicinal leech (Hirudo medicinalis, L.) is 
 still more abundant, especially in clear streams, 
 where it is scarcely possible to turn a stone 
 without finding some adhering to its under- 
 surface. 
 
 The leeches or blood-sucking worms are 
 annelids with red blood, and no external organs 
 of respiration or branchiae. They can convert 
 the anterior extremity of the body into ἃ suctorial 
 cavity, or flattened disk round the mouth, which 
 is formed of three horny jaws. They have 
 usually ten eyes ; some species only eight. They 
 swim very rapidly, with a serpentine and sinuous 
 
 _ bounding of the body. ΕἾ Ἢ (He Bat 
 
 HORSE-GATE. [JERvsALEm.] 
 
 HO'SAH (ΠῸΠ = refuge; B. Ἰασείφ, A. 
 Zoved; Hosa), a city of Asher, not identified 
 (Josh. xix. 29), the next landmark on the 
 boundary to Tyre. Conder (PHF. Mem. i. 51) 
 
 has suggested e/-’Hzziyah, but this is very 
 doubtful. [ἃ ἘΝ 
 
 ῖ HO'SAH (DN = refuge; B. ὍὉσσά [N. 
 ὍὉσα] and Ἵοσσά, A. ᾽Ωσηὲ and "Nad; Hosa), a 
 man who was chosen by David to be one of the 
 first doorkeepers (A. V. “ porters”) to the Ark 
 after its arrival in Jerusalem (1 Ch. xvi. 38). 
 He was a Merarite Levite (xxvi. 10), with “sons 
 and brethren ” thirteen, of whom four were cer- 
 tainly sons (vv. 10, 11); and his charge was 
 especially the “gate Shallecheth,” and the 
 causeway, or raised road which ascended (v. 16, 
 
 naivy ΠΡΌ. 
 BIBLE DICT.—VOL. I. 
 
 HOSEA 1393 
 
 HOSAN’NA (écavvd; neo-Heb. NYY IN, 
 from N32 oy win, Ps. exviii. 25; σῶσον δή, as 
 Theophylact correctly interprets it), the cry of 
 the multitudes as they thronged in our Lord’s 
 triumphal procession into Jerusalem (Matt. xxi. 
 9,15; Mark xi. 9,10; John xii. 13). The Psalm 
 from which it was taken, the 118th, was one with 
 which they were familiar from being accustomed 
 
 _to recite the 25th and 26th verses at the Feast of 
 
 Tabernacles. On that occasion the Great Hallel, 
 consisting of Psalms cxiii.—cxviii., was chanted 
 by one of the priests, and at certain intervals 
 the multitudes joined in the responses, waving 
 their branches of willow and palm, and shout- 
 ing as they waved them, Hallelujah, or Hosanna, 
 or “O Lord, I beseech Thee, send now pros- 
 perity ” (Ps. cxviii. 25). This was done at the 
 recitation of the first and last verses of Ps. 
 exviii.; but, according to the school of Hillel, at 
 the words ‘“ Save now, we beseech Thee ” (v. 25). 
 The school of Shammai, on the contrary, say it 
 was at the words “Send now prosperity ” of the 
 same verse. Rabban Gamaliel and R, Joshua 
 were observed by R. Akiba to wave their branches 
 only at the words “ Save now, we beseech Thee ” 
 (Mishna, Succah, iii. 9). On each of the seven days 
 during which the Feast lasted, the people thronged 
 the court of the Temple, and went in proces- 
 sion about the Altar, setting their boughs bend- 
 ing towards it; the trumpets sounding as they 
 shouted Hosanna. But on the seventh day they 
 marched seven times round the Altar, shouting 
 meanwhile the great Hosanna to the sound of 
 the trumpets of the Levites (Lightfoot, Temple 
 Service, xvi. 2). The children also, who could 
 wave the palm branches, were expected to take 
 part in the solemnity (Mishna, Succah, iii. 15; 
 Matt. xxi. 15). From the custom of waving 
 the boughs of myrtle and willow during the 
 service the name Hosanna was ultimately trans- 
 ferred to the boughs themselves, so that accord- 
 ing to Elias Levita (Thisbi, s.v.), “ the bundles 
 of the willows of the brook which they carry at 
 the Feast of Tabernacles are called Hosannas.” 
 The term is frequently applied by Jewish writers 
 to denote the Feast of Tabernacles, the seventh 
 day of the Feast being distinguished as the great 
 Hosanna (Buxtorf, Lex. Talm. s.v. UU"). It was 
 not uncommon for the Jews in later times to 
 employ the observances of this Feast, which was 
 pre-eminently a feast of gladness, to express 
 their feelings on other occasions of rejoicing 
 (1 Mace. xiii. 51; 2 Mace. x. 6,7), and it is not, 
 therefore, matter of surprise that they should 
 have done so under the circumstances recorded 
 in the Gospels. cw. A. W.] 
 
 HOSE’A, the first in order of the Minor 
 Prophets. 1. His name (UWI; LXX. Qoné* 
 Vulg. Osee; hence A. V. Osee in Rom. ix. 25) 
 
 means deliverance or salvation. It is more cor- 
 rectly transliterated Hosea. It is identical 
 
 a According to Jerome (Comm. on i. 1), the MSS. of 
 the LXX. and Vet. Lat. in his day read Avoy, Ause. 
 Cheyne compares the form Aus?’ of the Assyrian in- 
 scriptions (Schrader, Keilinschriften, p. 255). This 
 reading is not found in any extant MS. of the LXX. 
 here, but in Num. xiii. 9, 17, all the MSS. read Αὐσὴ or 
 Αὐσής. Volck in Herzog? calls the reading ᾽Ωσηὲ “a 
 hexaplar correction.” ee 
 
1394 HOSEA 
 
 with the name originally borne by Joshua (Num. 
 xiii. 16) and that of the last king of Israel (2 K. 
 xv. 30). 
 
 2. Of Hosea’s life and personal history nothing 
 is known beyond what may be gathered from his 
 Book. But he there tells us of the Divine dis- 
 cipline by which he was educated for his pro- 
 phetic mission. “He had to understand the 
 principles of his country’s history by most fearful 
 passages in his own” (Maurice, Prophets and 
 Kings, p. 203). He took to wife Gomer the 
 daughter of Diblaim. There is no need to 
 suppose that she had already fallen into sin 
 when he married her. She is not directly called 
 “ aharlot,” but “a wife of whoredom,” a woman 
 with a tendency and inclination to sin. She 
 proved unfaithful to him. Then, as he meditated 
 on his bitter lot, he perceived that he had acted 
 as he had done by direction of Jehovah. He 
 recognised that the impulse which had led him to 
 marry her was a Divine voice (i. 2). He realised 
 that his own love for his erring wife, and her 
 
 unfaithfulness to him, were but a faint reflexion | 
 
 of Jehovah’s love for Israel and Israel’s unfaith- 
 
 fulness to Jehovah. The experience of his own | 
 life impressed upon him this double truth, which | 
 
 underlies the whole of his teaching. For years 
 he bore with her infidelity. She had children, 
 to whom he was directed to give names signifi- 
 cant of the judgment (Jezreel) and rejection 
 (Lo-ruhamah, Lo-ammi) of the guilty nation. 
 At last she deserted him altogether. She fell 
 (we are not told how) into slavery. Out of that 
 
 slavery he was directed to redeem her. He | 
 
 brings her home, and keeps her in seclusion, 
 deprived at once of opportunities for her old sins, 
 and of the legitimate rights of a wife. Mean- 
 while he waits with tender patience, if perchance 
 her love for him might return. This course of 
 action was designed to symbolise the unfailing 
 love of Jehovah for Israel, and the discipline of 
 exile by which He purposed to wean them from 
 their idolatries, and win back their allegiance. 
 It is hardly too much to say that the literal 
 interpretation of the narrative is the key to the 
 right understanding of the Book. If we would 
 enter into Hosea’s intensity of feeling, we must 
 realise how it had been generated. But it has 
 been so commonly maintained that the narra- 
 tive of chs. i—iii. is purely an allegory, that 
 the literal interpretation needs some defence. 
 First, it must be observed that there is no hint 
 in the narrative itself that it is anything but a 
 record of actual occurrences in the Prophet’s 
 life. Next, such actual circumstances would be 
 a far more forcible means of education to the 
 Prophet himself, and of instruction to his con- 
 temporaries, than any mere vision or allegory. 
 How was he led to represent the covenant 
 relation of Jehovah to Israel as a marriage 
 relation? Granted that the conception of the 
 marriage of the deity with his land was familiar 
 to Semitic nations, why was Hosea specially 
 
 induced to bring it into prominence, and give it | 
 
 a moral application? His own domestic history 
 supplies the answer. Further, if the narrative 
 were oniy an allegory, we should naturally expect 
 the wife to bear a significant name as well as 
 the children. But while Jezreel, Lo-ruhamah, 
 and Lo-ammi tell their own story, Gomer bath- 
 Diblaim bafiles all attempts to extract from it a 
 reasonable meaning. The natural inference is 
 
 HOSEA 
 
 that it was the actual name of a woman, not 
 part of an allegory. Lastly, the literal inter- 
 pretation is supported by the parallel of Isaiah’s 
 family with their significant names (Is. viii. 1 sq., 
 | 185 ep. vii. 3). 
 ᾿ς The only serious objection to the literal inter- 
 | pretation is the moral objection. How, it is 
 argued, could God, consistently with His holiness, 
 have commanded the Prophet to take an unchaste 
 wife? How could the Prophet, consistently with 
 | the fundamental principles of morality, have 
 _ recognised the command as Divine? The ob- 
 jection is formidable, but it falls to the ground 
 _ if Gomer had not fallen into sin when Hosea mar- 
 ried her. This view, as has already been pointed 
 out, is actually suggested by the language used, 
 ' and it isin harmony with the symbolism. Her 
 character, like that of Israel when Jehovah 
 chose it to be His people, was still undeveloped. 
 That God should command His servant to enter 
 lona marriage which was to result in a lifelong 
 | sorrow is no matter for surprise. It is but an 
 illustration of the principle of sacrifice. Hosea 
 must learn through suffering, that he might be 
 able to teach. 
 
 Another, but hardly satisfactory solution of 
 | the “ moral objection” is offered by some inter- 
 | preters (¢.g., Dr. Pusey, following Jerome and 
 | Augustine). Hosea, they suppose, married Gomer 
 | with full knowledge of her character, in the 
 hope of reforming her. This, it is urged, would 
 not be immoral, but an act of self-denial. There 
 | is, however, no hint of such a purpose in the 
 narrative, nor does it suit the symbolism so well 
 | as the view taken above. 
 
 The “ moral objection” is indeed an objection 
 to the allegorical not less than to the literal 
 interpretation if the action commanded was one 
 repugnant to the moral sense. And if the 
 Prophet had a faithful wife, it seems incredible 
 that he should expose her to suspicion by an 
 allegory which certainly does not bear its 
 allegorical character on the face of it. 
 
 Another objection to the literal interpretation 
 is based on the mistaken view that the woman 
 of ch. iii. is not Gomer, but another. The com- 
 | mand to take another wife proves, it is said, 
 that no real marriage is intended. But the 
 natural sense of the passage is that Hosea was 
 to take means to recover Gomer, in spite of her 
 infidelity ; and the symbolism absolutely requires 
 this interpretation. Jehovah did not purpose 
 to choose another nation to be His people, but 
 to take steps to recall Israel to its allegiance 
 to Him. 
 
 For a full discussion see Nowack, Hosea, pp. 
 | 48 sq. Cp. Wellhausen in his ed. of Bleek’s 
 | Einleitung, § 208; Prof. Robertson Smith’s Pro- 
 | phets of Israel, pp. 178 sq.; Dean Plumptre’s 
 _ suggestive poem “ Gomer,” in Lazarus and other 
 Poems. 
 
 The narrative of his unhappy marriage, and 
 one or two possible allusions to opposition and 
 persecution met with in the fulfilment of his 
 ministry (iv. 4; ix. 7, 8), are the only personal 
 details. In this respect the Book is a remark- 
 able contrast to that of Amos. Yet what is told 
 is enough to bring us into touch and sympathy 
 with the Prophet. 
 
 3. It is plain that the sphere of Hosea’s 
 ministry was the Northern kingdom. Judah is 
 only mentioned incidentally. In i. 7 the mercy. 
 
HOSEA 
 
 refused to Israel is promised to Judah; in xi. 
 12—if the precarious rendering of A.V. and 
 R. V. text is retained—Judah is commended for 
 its faithfulaess in contrast to the apostasy of 
 Israel. In iv. 15 Judah is bidden to take 
 warning from Israel; in i. 11 the ultimate 
 reunion of the divided kingdoms is predicted. 
 But for the most part Judah is only incidentally 
 introduced as sharing the guilt and destined to 
 share the punishment of Israel (v. 5, 10-14; vi. 
 4, 11; viii. 14; x. 11; xi. 12[R. V. marg., which 
 is probably right]; xii. 2). Jerusalem is not once 
 mentioned. On the other hand, Israel, Ephraim, 
 and Samaria are constantly before the Prophet’s 
 eyes. It is to them that his prophecy is 
 addressed. 
 
 It is equally clear that he was himself a 
 native of the Northern kingdom, and not, like 
 Amos, sent there on a temporary mission. This 
 is evident not so much from particular ex- 
 pressions referring to his own experience (vi. 10, 
 ‘In the house of Israel J have seen a horrible 
 thing ”) or betraying his nationality (i. 2, “the 
 land” =the land of Israel; vii. 5, “ owr king ”= 
 the king of Israel), but from the whole tone and 
 contents of the prophecy. “He knows this 
 kingdom, as every line betrays, from personal 
 acquaintance, and in all its relations and cir- 
 cumstances, its joys and its calamities, in the 
 very heart of its aims and its prospects... He is 
 acquainted with it from the depths of his heart, 
 and follows all its doings, aims, and fortunes, 
 with the profound feeling gendered of such a 
 sympathy as is conceivable in the case of a 
 native prophet only ” (Ewald’s Prophets of the 
 Old Testament, i. 211, Eng. tr.). He shows 
 complete familiarity with the internal condition 
 of the kingdom; with the depth and hopeless- 
 ness of its social corruption; with the crimes of 
 its kings and nobles and priests; with the in- 
 trigues ofits politicians for alliances with Egypt 
 or Assyria; with the religious apostasy which 
 united a nominal worship of Jehovah with 
 idolatry and Baal-worship and an utter disregard 
 of morality. The picture is drawn with a force 
 and feeling which attest an eye-witness, who 
 felt intensely and bitterly that his own country 
 was being dragged down to ruin by the sins 
 which he rebuked but could not check. 
 
 The impression produced by the general tone 
 of the prophecy is confirmed by the geographical 
 references, and by the language of the Book. 
 The places mentioned all belong to the Northern 
 kingdom. Mizpah in Gilead, and Tabor in 
 Galilee, describe the extent of the kingdom from 
 east to west ; Samaria is frequently mentioned 
 (vii. 1; viii. 5, 6 ; x. 5, 7; xiii. 16); Jezreel (i. 4, 
 5, 11; ii. 22); Shechem (vi. 9): Gilead (vi. 8; 
 xii. 11); Gilgal (iv. 15; ix. 15; xii. 11); Bethel, 
 sometimes sarcastically called Beth-aven (iv. 15; 
 π᾿ δ x. ὃ; 8. 15); Gibeah (v.) δι: ix. 9.5>x, 9); 
 Ramah (vy. 8). 
 imagery (xiv. 5-7). 
 
 Peculiarities of language indicate Northern 
 
 authorship. The forms ‘DM (vi. 9) and mbann 
 (xi. 3) are Aramaean; and the words A} 
 (y. 13), δ: (viii. 6), NN (xiii. 1), not found 
 elsewhere in the O, T., are also Aramaean. 
 
 There can then be no reasonable doubt that 
 
 Hosea not only prophesied to Israel, but was a 
 native and citizen of the Northern kingdom. 
 
 Lebanon supplies him with | 
 
 HOSEA 1395 
 
 Ewald, indeed, maintains that he wrote his 
 Book in Judah, whither he had been compelled 
 to flee from the persecutions of his countrymen. 
 His grounds for this view are as follows. (1) In 
 his earlier prophecies (i.-iii.) Hosea speaks hope- 
 fully of Judah (i. 7); in his later prophecies 
 (iii-xiv.) Judah is represented as corrupt and 
 in danger of falling along with Israel (v. 5, 10, 
 12-14; vi. 11; viii. 14; x. 11; xi. 12; xii. 2), 
 This change of view was due to closer acquaint- 
 ance with Judah, gained from actual residence 
 there. (2) The word “there,” in vi. 7, 10, ix. 
 15, xiii. 8, indicates thatthe writer surveyed the 
 kingdom of Israel from outside. (3) In νυ. 884. 
 the alarm proceeds from South to North. These 
 arguments are not conclusive. The second and 
 third certainly do not prove that the writer 
 was resident in Judah; and as for the first, it is 
 admitted that chs. iv.-xiv. belong to a later 
 period than chs. i-iii.; Judah was rapidly 
 deteriorating, and the sterner tone of the Pro- 
 phet’s language was justified. It would seem 
 that the Prophet had become better acquainted 
 with the condition of the Southern kingdom ; 
 but it is rash to assume that this could not 
 have been the case without his actually residing 
 there. 
 
 Duhm’s conjecture (Zheologie der Propheten, 
 p- 130 sq.) that Hosea was a priest can only be 
 mentioned here. His reasons are ingenious, but 
 not convincing (cp. Nowack, Hosea, p. viii.). 
 
 4. Later traditions about Hosea possess no 
 historical value. His father, Beeri, was identi- 
 fied with the Reubenite prince Beerah, carried 
 captive by Tiglath-pileser (1 Ch. v. 6; Yuchasin, 
 f. 12a), and, according to the Jewish canon 
 that when a prophet’s father is mentioned he 
 was also a prophet, Beeri was himself a prophet, 
 though he only uttered two words of prophecy, 
 which are incorporated in Is. viii. 19 and Job 
 xxvill. 25 b (Vayyikra Rabba, c. 15). The . 
 patristic accounts name Baalmoth (Ephraim the 
 Syrian on Hos. i. 1) or Belemoth (Pseudo-Epi- 
 phanius, de Vitis Proph.; Isidore of Seville, 
 de Vita et Obitu Sanctorum, c. 41), or Belemon 
 (Pseudo-Dorotheus, ap. Chron. Pasch. p. 147), in 
 the tribe of Issachar, as Hosea’s birthplace, and 
 relate that he died in peace and was buried in 
 his own land. On the other hand, the Jewish 
 work Shalsheleth haqqgabbdbah (f. 19) relates 
 that he died in Babylon, leaving directions 
 that he should be buried in his native country ; 
 that his body was accordingly placed on a 
 camel, which forthwith conveyed it to Safed in 
 Galilee, where it was buried. An Arabic tra- 
 dition says that he was buried at Almenia near 
 Tripoli; while the traveller Burckhardt relates 
 that his grave was shown by the Arabs in the 
 neighbourhood of the ancient Ramoth-gilead. 
 The student curious in such matters may consult 
 Carpzov’s Introduction, part iii. p. 274 sq., or 
 Wiinsche’s Comm. p. iii. sq. 
 
 5. The title prefixed to the Book (i. 1) assigns 
 as the date of Hosea’s ministry “the days of 
 Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of 
 Judah, and the days of Jeroboam the son of 
 Joash, king of Israel.” According to the com- 
 monly received chronology, Jeroboam II. reigned 
 from 825 to 784 B.c.; Uzziah from 810 to 758 
 B.c.; Hezekiah from 726 to 698 B.c. Recent 
 investigations, however, make it all but certain 
 that Jeroboam’s reign must be placed later, and 
 
 4U 2 
 
1396 HOSEA 
 
 that he did not die until 764 B.c. at the earliest. 
 [CuronoLoGy.] Two interregnums are assumed 
 in the history of the Northern kingdom during 
 this period: one of eleven years between the 
 death of Jeroboam II. and the accession of Zecha- 
 riah; and one of nine years after the death of 
 Pekah. These interregnums are inferred from 
 the synchronisms or cross references between 
 the regnal years of the kings of Israel and 
 Judah. But the actual history gives no hint of 
 them. It is implied in 2 Kings xiv. 29 that 
 Zechariah sueceeded his father in the usual way ; 
 and in 2 Kings xv. 30 that Hoshea ascended the 
 throne immediately after his murder of Pekah. 
 It seems to be tolerably certain that these in- 
 terregnums should be cut out. Some chrono- 
 logists go further, and infer from a comparison 
 of the dates on the Assyrian monuments that 
 Jeroboam reigned till 750 B.c. or even later. 
 The period between the death of Jeroboam 
 and the fall of Samaria is thus shortened by 
 twenty or possibly thirty-four years. The de- 
 cline of Israel was more rapid, and its final 
 ruin followed the denunciations of Hosea more 
 closely, than has commonly been supposed. 
 
 How far, it must now be asked, does the 
 statement of the title agree with the internal 
 evidence of the Book ? 
 
 (1) The prophecies contained in chs. i-iii. 
 must belong to a period before the extinction 
 of the house of Jehu by the murder of Zechariah 
 (i. 4: cp. Amos vii. 9, 11; 2 K. xv. 10-12). 
 But they cannot be placed later than the time 
 of Jeroboam. The prosperity which marked 
 the reign of that powerful monarch was still 
 unbroken (ii. 5-12); but it had borne evil 
 fruit, and the nation was ripe for punishment. 
 We can hardly be wrong in assigning this part 
 of the Book to the closing years of the reign 
 of Jeroboam. 
 
 (2) The rest of the Book (iv.—xiv.) belongs to 
 a later period. It reflects the state of anarchy 
 into which Israel fell after Jeroboam’s death, 
 when Zechariah, after six months’ reign, was 
 murdered by Shallum, and Shallum in turn, 
 after a month’s reign, was murdered by Menahem, 
 who inflicted horrible vengeance on those who 
 refused to support him, and could only maintain 
 himself on the throne by becoming the vassal 
 of Assyria (2 K. xv. 13 sq.). 
 
 The state of affairs described in Hosea corre- 
 sponds strikingly to these circumstances. When 
 once the strong hand of Jeroboam had been 
 removed, evils of every kind broke out with- 
 out restraint. The king and his court are de- 
 scribed as encouraging one another in wicked- 
 ness, and sunk in debauchery (vii. 3, 5). They 
 pervert justice; they are not leaders but mis- 
 leaders (iv. 18, v.10). The priests, instead of 
 rebuking the people’s sin, encourage it, because 
 it augments their revenues (iy. 8). Nay, the 
 priest actually turns bandit on his own account 
 (vi. 9). Foul immoralities are shamelessly 
 practised (iv. 10 sq.); fidelity, humanity, piety, 
 have vanished; falsehood and violence are 
 universal (iv. 1 sq.; vi. 8 sq.; vii. 1; x. 4). 
 Men profess to worship Jehovah (viii. 2), and 
 think to propitiate Him by sacrifice (v. 6); but 
 they ignore His real requirements (vi. 6), and 
 are besotted with their senseless idolatries (iy. 
 17; viii. 4; xiii. 2). The root evil of all is 
 ‘that in their prosperity they have forgotten 
 
 HOSEA 
 
 Jehovah (iv. 7; viii. 14; xiii. 6); so when 
 danger threatens they look to Assyria and 
 Egypt instead of turning in penitence to Him 
 (v. 4, 13; vii. 11 sq.; viii. 9). They will not 
 tolerate rebuke (iv. 4), but despise and persecute 
 the prophet (ix. 7,8). For such a nation nothing 
 remains but sharp and speedy judgment. 
 
 At the latest these prophecies were all de- 
 livered before the fall of Samaria (xiii. 16); 
 but indeed the terminus ad quem of Hosea’s 
 ministry may be fixed considerably earlier. The 
 confederacy of Pekah and Rezin against Ahaz 
 drove him to appeal to Assyria for help (2 K. 
 xvi. 7).  Tiglath-pileser accordingly invaded 
 the kingdom of Israel, and ravaged and depopu- 
 lated Northern Palestine, Galilee, and Gilead 
 (2 K. xv. 29), B.c. 734. 
 
 Of this invasion, and of this change in the 
 relation between Israel and Assyria, there is no 
 trace in Hosea. He speaks of Gilead as still a 
 part of the Northern kingdom (vy. 1; vi. 8; 
 xii. 11; contrast Micah vii. 14), while Assyria 
 is nowhere spoken of as an enemy, but as a 
 worthless and dangerous ally (v. 13; vii. 11; 
 vili. 9; xii. 1; xiv. 3). There is no trace in 
 Hosea of the circumstances which called forth 
 the great prophecies of Isaiah vii. sq.; and his 
 public ministry does not appear to have been 
 continued beyond the reign of Menahem in Israel, 
 and Jotham in Judah. He was thus the con- 
 temporary of Amos, Isaiah, and Micah; but the 
 work of Amos was probably ended before that 
 of Hosea began, and Hosea’s ministry had closed 
 before Isaiah and Micah had come into promi- 
 nence.” 
 
 One allusion, indeed, has been supposed to 
 mark a later date. Shalman, who sacked Beth- 
 arbel (x. 14), has been thought to be Shalman- 
 eser IV., the successor of Tiglath-pileser. The 
 reference is too obscure to outweigh the other 
 evidence, and Schrader (KATZ? p. 440), after 
 stating the objections to the identification of 
 Shalman with any of the Assyrian kings named 
 Shalmaneser, points out that Salamana occurs 
 in an inscription of Tiglath-pileser as the 
 name of a king of Moab. There was an Arbela 
 near Pella on the east of the Jordan, and 
 the reference may be to some well-known 
 episode in the disordered times after the death 
 of Jeroboam. A recent event close at hand 
 would most naturally be mentioned thus inci- 
 dentally. 
 
 How then is the statement of the title to be 
 reconciled with the conclusions drawn from 
 internal evidence, if, on the one hand, the 
 greater part of the Book must be assigned to 
 the period after the reign of Jeroboam, and, on 
 the other hand, no part of it can be placed so 
 late as the time of Hezekiah or even Ahaz? 
 The most probable explanation is that “in the 
 days of Jeroboam” was the original title to the 
 first section of the Book only (i.-iii.), and that 
 “in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and 
 Hezekiah ” is an addition by a later editor, who 
 wished to mark that Hosea belonged to the same 
 age as Isaiah and Micah (ep. Is. i. 1; Micah 
 i. 1), without necessarily implying that his 
 
 b Prof. Sayce in the Jewish Quarterly Review, i. 162 56.» 
 endeavours, but upon insufficient grounds, to show that 
 chs. iv. sq. are as late as the reign of Hoshea. 
 
HOSEA 
 
 prophetic work extended throughout the whole 
 of the period. 
 
 6. Contents and plan.—The two fundamental 
 ideas of the Book are the unfaithfulness of Israel 
 to Jehovah, and the unquenchable love of 
 Jehovah for Israel. In the first division of the 
 Book (i.-iii.) these ideas are symbolically ex- 
 pressed by the circumstances of the Prophet’s 
 domestic life, which have already been discussed. 
 
 The same ideas underlie the second division 
 of the Book (iy.-xiv.). It contains a series of 
 discourses, in which the sins of the people in all 
 ranks of life are exposed and censured ; warning 
 is given of the inevitable chastisement which 
 must follow; yet hope of final pardon and re- 
 storation is held out. 
 
 The two divisions are clearly separated. The 
 circumstances of the Prophet’s life out of which 
 the teaching of chs. i.-iii. directly springs, are 
 not referred to in chs. iv.—xiv. Internal evi- 
 dence shows that the first part must be assigned 
 to the closing years of the reign of Jeroboam ; 
 the second part to the period subsequent to his 
 death. 
 
 Attempts have been made (as by Volck, in 
 Herzog, KE.*, following in the main an art. by 
 Delitzsch in the Zeitsch. f. Protestant. u. Kirche, 
 for 1854, xxviii. 98 sq.) to trace a chronological 
 arrangement in thesecond part. They are, how- 
 ever, unsatisfactory. Some plan and progress of 
 thought may be marked, but no precise and exact 
 division of subject is to be looked for in a Prophet 
 like Hosea, inspired by intense feeling, burning 
 with shame and indignation at the sights he saw, 
 yet yearning with a tender love for the guilty 
 nation. The ideas of Israel’s sin and impending 
 punishment are interlaced. The Prophet circles 
 round and round his theme, and constantly 
 recurs to the same thoughts. Three groups of 
 prophecies may perhaps be distinguished. In 
 the first (iv.-viii.), Israel’s guilt ; in the second 
 (ix.-xi. 11), Israel’s punishment; in the third 
 (xi. 12-xiv.), Israel’s hope of restoration, come 
 into special prominence. 
 
 The following analysis may be a help to 
 study :— 
 
 Part I., chs. 1.—-iii. 
 
 (1) The Prophet’s domestic relations, sym- 
 bolical of the unfaithfulness, judgment, and 
 rejection of Israel (i. 2-9), Yet this doom 
 shall one day be reversed and Israel restored 
 (i. 10-ii. 1)... Abruptly the Prophet reverts to 
 the present, chides Israel for her faithlessness in 
 deserting Jehovah and ascribing her prosperity 
 to the Baalim, and predicts the punishment 
 which awaits her (ii. 2-13). But punishment 
 is for reformation, not destruction. There will 
 be a second Exodus, a fresh wilderness-discipline, 
 a new covenant of universal peace. The ideal 
 relation of Israel to her God will in the end be | 
 realised (ii. 14-23). 
 
 (2) An interval has elapsed. Gomer has 
 deserted Hosea, and fallen into slavery. But 
 Hosea, at God’s command, redeems her and | 
 retains her in a state of virtual widowhood, 
 
 waiting till her affection for him may return. 
 | ¢ Prof. Cheyne, following Steiner and Heilprin, would 
 Ὶ 
 
 So in captivity Israel will be cut off at once 
 from its idolatries and from the worship of | 
 _ transpose this section to the end of ch. ii., in order to 
 avoid the extreme abruptness of the transitions. 
 : 
 
 HOSEA 1397 
 
 | Jehovah, until punishment has done its work 
 and the people repent (iii. 1-5), 
 
 Part II., chs. iv.—xiv. 
 
 (1) Israel’s guilt. The accusation (iv.—viii.) . 
 
 ῳ The corruption of the nation as a whole 
 iv.). 
 
 The prevalent immorality (wv. 1-5) is traced 
 to its source in ignorance, for which selfish 
 and unprincipled priests are to blame, and ἡ 
 will suffer (vv. 6-10). The people are wholly 
 abandoned to idolatry and licentiousness (vv. 
 11-14). Let Judah take warning from the sin 
 of Israel. It is incurable and ripe for punish- 
 ment (vv. 15-19). 
 
 (Ὁ) The universal godlessness of the nation, 
 from its rulers downward, and its impending 
 punishment (v.—vii.). 
 
 Priests and rulers, instead of helping the 
 nation to amend its ways, have drawn it into 
 sin (v. 1-7). The threatened storm of judg- 
 ment breaks over Israel and Judah. In vain do 
 they seek help from Assyria. They cannot 
 escape from Jehovah’s hand. He will with- 
 draw His presence until they repent, and with 
 contrite hearts turn to Him Who alone can 
 heal (v. 8-vi. 3). But from such a hope the 
 Prophet turns sadly back to the actual present. 
 Israel’s goodness is transitory, evanescent. The 
 means by which Jehovah has endeavoured to 
 bring them to repentance have borne no lasting 
 fruit. Their corruption is inveterate (vv. 4-11). 
 The desperate condition of Israel is disclosed 
 when any attempt at reform is made. The 
 rulers delight in the wickedness»of the people. 
 The people in turn intrigue against their kings 
 (vii. 1-7). The suicidal policy of seeking help 
 from foreign nations will issue in ruin (vv. 8- 
 16). 
 
 (c) Fresh declaration of Israel’s sin and 
 punishment (viii.). 
 
 The enemy is at hand to avenge the broken 
 covenant. Self-willed secession from the house 
 of David led to idolatry. The idols cannot help, 
 but will themselves be destroyed (viii. 1-7). 
 Their Assyrian alliance will be their ruin. 
 False and formal worship will not avail them. 
 The cities in which they trust will be consumed 
 with fire (vv. 8-14). 
 
 (2) Israel’s punishment. 
 Xie 11}. 
 
 Speedily will Israel be driven from its own 
 land into a joyless exile (ix. 1-9). All their 
 past history testifies to the ingratitude with 
 which they have requited Jehovah’s love. Re- 
 jection is the inevitable result of such continued 
 rebellion (vv. 10-17). Israel’s idolatry has in- 
 creased in proportion to its prosperity. King, 
 idols, altars shall share a common ruin (x. 1-8). 
 Israel has sinned as in ancient days. ‘They have 
 perverted the Divine laws of right. Nation and 
 
 The sentence (ix.— 
 
 | king shall perish together (vv. 9-15). From the 
 
 first Jehovah had chosen and guided Israel with 
 loving care; but they abandoned Him, and now 
 they must be punished. Yet He cannot utterly 
 destroy them, and He will one day restore them 
 to their own land (xi. 1-11). 
 
 (3) Redemption through judgment. 
 Restoration (x1. 12—xiv.). 
 
 The faithlessness of Israel, and even of Judan, 
 is shown by their idolatries and foreign alliances. 
 Yet the history of their ancestor Jacob should 
 have taught them to trust Jehovah (xi, 12- 
 
 The 
 
1398 HOSEA 
 
 xii. 6). The chosen people has become no better 
 than a Canaanite, whose only aim is gain; there- 
 fore they must return to the wilderness. They 
 have not been left without warning, yet the 
 land is full of idols. Once more the history of 
 Jacob should have taught them Jehovah’s good- 
 ness. For such flagrant ingratitude nothing 
 _ remains but punishment (vv. 7-14). 
 
 Israel was a mighty nation, but idolatry is its 
 ruin. Jehovah has preserved them from Egypt 
 onwards, yet the more they prospered the more 
 they forsook Jehovah, and now He will turn 
 against them (xiii. 1-8). Israel is doomed; 
 they have turned against their only help. Their 
 self-chosen king cannot save them. Samaria 
 shall be captured with all the worst horrors of 
 war (vv. 9-16). Yet let Israel repent and turn 
 from their sins; Jehovah’s love will go out to 
 them as of old, and with His blessing the nation 
 will once more flourish (xiv.). 
 
 7. Style and literary characteristics.—“ Osee,” 
 writes St. Jerome, “commaticus est et quasi 
 per sententias loquens ” (Praef. ad Os.). “ Ho- 
 seam perlegentes,” says Lowth, “nonnunquam 
 videmur in sparsa quaedam Sibyllae folia inci- 
 dere ” (Praelectiones, p. 220). This abruptness 
 and want of connexion may in part be due to 
 the form in which Hosea’s prophecies have come 
 down to us. Even if they were reduced to writ- 
 ing by the Prophet himself (which there seems 
 no reason to doubt, though it is incapable of 
 proof), and not preserved through the recol- 
 lections of his disciples, they can be but an ab- 
 stract and outline of the discourses originally 
 delivered, at different times and under different 
 circumstances. 
 
 But in the main the style of the Prophet un- 
 questionably reflects his character, and the con- 
 ditions under which he worked. The tender 
 sensitiveness of his nature had been developed by 
 the discipline of his life. His loyalty to Jehovah 
 fills him with holy indignation at the monstrous 
 ingratitude of his countrymen. He cannot be 
 blind to the enormity of their corruption. He 
 sees that repentance is impossible; that only 
 judgment remains. But he yearns over them 
 with an infinite love and pity. “A divine 
 amazement, anger, and sorrow give him words 
 which roll on in exhaustless stream. Feel- 
 ing, not reason, guides his pen. He is in no 
 mood for calm reflexion and measured periods. 
 His heart is too full of painful emotion, of 
 heavy foreboding, to unfold his thoughts in 
 long calm sentences, to arrange his words in 
 close and intimate connexion. The thought is 
 too full, the sentence too hasty and abrupt. The 
 discourse often breaks off, as it were, into sobs ” 
 (Ewald, Prophets, i, 218). Hence the obscure 
 allusions, the ideas thrown out and left without 
 explanation, the abrupt transitions, which make 
 the Book one of the most difficult in the O. T. 
 
 Hosea was gifted with an acute power of 
 observation and rich poetical fancy. He is re- 
 markable for the abundance and boldness of 
 his figures. His language is characterised 
 by striking originality, which disdains to be 
 fettered by too rigid laws of language and 
 grammar. Inversions, anacolutha, ellipses, are 
 frequent, together with paronomasias and plays 
 on words. Peculiar words, or common words 
 in peculiar senses, rare orthographies, unusual 
 constructions, are frequently found. Some at 
 
 HOSEA 
 
 least of these characteristics may be due to his . 
 Northern origin (see Simson, p. 35 sq.; Nowack, 
 p- xix.sq. ; Cheyne, p. 32 sq.). 
 
 8. It is generally thought that Hosea was 
 acquainted with the Book of Amos. Hos. iv. 3 
 may refer to Amos viii. 8; Hos. iv. 15, x. 5, 8, 
 to Amos i. 5, v. 5 (Beth-aven for Beth-el); 
 Hos. viii. 14 to the refrain in Amos i. 4, 7, 10, 
 12, 14, ii. 2, 5; Hos. xi. 10 to Amos i. 2 (simile 
 of lion). Hos. xiv. 5-9 may reflect the imagery 
 of Canticles. 
 
 Hosea shows, and presumes in his hearers, an 
 intimate knowledge of the past history of Israel. 
 He refers perhaps to the Fall (vi. 7, R. V. text), 
 though the allusion is doubtful; to the destruc- 
 tion of the “ cities of the plain ” (xi. 8); to Jacob’s 
 history (xii, 3, 4,12); to the Exodus (ii. 15; 
 xi. 1; xii.9,13; xiii. 4); to the wanderings in 
 the wilderness (ix. 10, xiii. 5); to the sin of 
 Baal-peor (ix. 10); to the trespass of Achan 
 (ii. 15); to the sin of Gibeah (ix. 9, x. 9); to 
 the self-willed demand for a king (xiii. 10, 11). 
 
 A number of parallelisms to the thought and 
 language of the Pentateuch and earlier Historical 
 Books may be collected. Whether Hosea was 
 acquainted with these Books in their present 
 form, or only with documents and traditions out 
 of which they were compiled, is an interesting 
 question which cannot be discussed here (see 
 Sharpe’s Hosea, pp. 83 sq., for a full list of pas- 
 sages, and Cheyne’s Hosea, pp. 34 sq., for some 
 necessary cautions). But of far more importance 
 than the question of the exact literary form in 
 which Hosea knew it, is the plain fact that 
 Hosea unquestionably regards the past history 
 of Israel as possessing unique religious 
 significance. 
 
 9. Numerous allusions in later Books indicate 
 acquaintance with Hosea. Jeremiah, who was 
 in many ways a kindred spirit, appears to have 
 been specially influenced by the Book. The 
 figure of the marriage relation between Jehovah 
 and Israel is taken up and developed in Is. ].» 
 liv.; Jer. ii., iii.; Ezek. συ) xxi. ἀπ 
 Is. i. 23 with Hos. ix. 153 Jer. iii. 18, 22 with 
 Hosea i. 11, xiv. 2,5; Jer. iv. 3 with Hosea x. 
 12; Jer. viii. 5 with Hosea xi. 5; Jer. ix. 12 
 with Hosea xiv. 9; Jer. xiv. 10 with Hosea 
 viii. 13, ix. 9; Jer. xxx. 9 with Hosea iii. 5; 
 Ezek. xxxiv. 23 sq. with Hosea iii. 5, ii. 18 sq. ; 
 Zech. x. 9 with Hosea ii. 23; Zech. xiii. 2 with 
 Hosea ii. 17; and other passages. 
 
 10. Quotations in the N. I.—Hosea xi. 1 is 
 quoted.as “ fulfilled ” in Matt. ii. 15. Our Lord 
 twice appeals to Hosea vi. 6 in Matt. ix. 13, xii. 7 : 
 and uses the words of x. 8 in Luke xxiii. 30 (ep. 
 Rey. vi. 16). St. Paul combines Hosea ii. 23 and 
 i. 10 in Rom. ix. 25, 26; and quotes xiii. 14 in 
 1 Cor. xv. 55. 1 Pet. ii. 10 is a reminiscence of 
 Hosea i. 6,93 ii. 1,23. Cp. also Hosea vi. 2 with 
 1 Cor. xv. 4; xiv. 2 with Heb. xiii. 15. 
 
 11. Hosea’s teaching is based on the funda- 
 mental truth of the covenant which Jehovah has 
 made with Israel (vi. 7; viii. 1); and the nation 
 is regarded as an individual, possessing a con- 
 tinuity of life, and responsible for its acts. This 
 covenant dates from the Exodus (1.8; xi. 1; 
 xii. 9,135 xiii. 4: cp. Ex. iv. 22), though even 
 in earlier days Jehovah had preserved their 
 ancestor Jacob (xii. 3-5, 12). The intimacy ~ 
 of the relation between Jehovah and Israel is 
 expressed by the two figures of marriage and 
 
HOSEA 
 
 sonship. The figure of sonship implies, on the | 
 
 one hand, paternal care, on the other filial obe- 
 dience ; the figure of marriage (impressed on the 
 Prophet’s mind by the experience of his own 
 life) adds the thought of an intimate fellowship, 
 a close and indissoluble union, originating in 
 Jehovah’s free love and choice, and demanding 
 a response of love from Israel. The obligations 
 of the covenant were embodied in a law, which 
 the priests had neglected to teach (iv. 6), and 
 which Israel had transgressed and despised 
 (viii. 1,12). The moral requirements of Jehovah 
 are summed up under the heads of “ truth, 
 mercy, and the knowledge of God ” (iv. 1, vi. 6); 
 “righteousness and mercy” (x. 12); “mercy 
 and judgment ” (xii. 6): compare the terms of 
 the new betrothal of the purified people (ii. 19, 
 20). Specially characteristic of Hosea’s teach- 
 ing is the word fAésed (TDM), ii. 19; iv. 1; vi. 
 4, 6; x. 12; xii. 6). It is rendered “ loving- 
 kindness,”’ “mercy,” or “ goodness,” and it in- 
 cludes the ideas of “love” (ἀγάπη), “ piety,” 
 or “dutiful regard” of man to his fellow-man. 
 “Jehovah and Israel form, as it were, one 
 community, and hésed is the bond by which 
 the whole community is knit together. It is 
 not necessary to distinguish Jehovah’s hésed 
 to Israel, which we would term His grace, 
 Israel’s duty of hésed to Jehovah, which we 
 would call piety, and the relation of hésed 
 between man and man, which embraces the 
 duties of love and mutual consideration. To 
 the Hebrew mind these three are essentially one, 
 and all are comprised in the same covenant. 
 Loyalty and kindness between man and man are 
 not duties inferred from Israel’s relation to 
 Jehovah, they are parts of that relation; love 
 to Jehovah and love to one’s brethren in Jeho- 
 vah’s house are identical (cp. iv. 1 with vi. 
 4, 6.” (Robertson Smith, Prophets of Israel, 
 p- 162.) It is characteristic of the difference 
 between Amos and Hosea that Amos never uses 
 the word. Amos is astern preacher of righteous- 
 ness. He represents Jehovah as the judge of 
 Israel. Hosea goes deeper, and deals with the 
 springs of action. He reveals another side of 
 the Divine character, and introduces the motive 
 of love. 
 
 Israel’s sins are all summed up in its apostasy 
 from Jehovah. The desertion of Jehovah for 
 Baal and other false gods (i. 2; ii. 2 sq.3 iv. 
 12 sq.; v. 3sq.3 ix. 1); the calf-worship which 
 Hosea condemns as no better than Baal-worship 
 (viii. 5 sq. ; xiii. 2); the hankering for foreign 
 alliances, which implied distrust of Jehovah, 
 their natural protector (vii.~t1, 13; viii. 9, 10: 
 ep. v. 13; xii. 1; xiv. 3), are all so many acts 
 of unfaithfulness to the marriage tie. The 
 separation of the kingdoms was equally an act 
 of apostasy. The unity of the nation corre- 
 sponded to the unity of God. Jehovah’s spouse 
 should be one people. And idolatry had been 
 the direct consequence of the separation (viii. 4). 
 The deep moral corruption of the nation, about 
 which in its manifold forms Hosea has so much 
 to say, is traced also to the absence of the know- 
 ledge of God (iv. 6). It was intimately con- 
 nected with false worships, for the Phoenician 
 nature worship was essentially immoral. 
 
 Hosea’s view of Jsrael’s future is rooted in his 
 conviction of the imperishableness of Jehovah’s 
 love for Israel (xi. 8 sq.). Chastisement must 
 
 HOSHAMA 1399 
 
 indeed come, but it will be for correction, not for 
 destruction. The kingdom of Israel must come 
 to an end (iii. 4; x. 3, 7; xiii. 10); Samaria 
 must be destroyed (xiii. 16); Ephraim shall 
 return to Egyptian bondage (ix. 3), and go into 
 captivity in Assyria (ix. 3; xi. 5). But the day 
 of restoration will come (xi. 10 sq.): Israel and 
 Judah will be reunited under the house of 
 David (i. 11; iii. 5); false worship and idolatry 
 will cease (ii. 17; xiv. 8); there will be no 
 more coquetting with foreign nations (xiv. 3); 
 the nation will once more dwell in its own land 
 in peace and prosperity, in perfect harmony 
 with nature and with its God (ii. 18 sq.; iii. 5; 
 xiv. 5 sq.). 
 
 The heathen world 
 Hosea’s prospect. His prophecy is limited to 
 Israel. He leaves it to his successors, Isaiah 
 and Micah, to speak of the time when the nations 
 will stream up to Jerusalem to learn Jehovah’s 
 law (Is. ii. 2-4; Mic. iv. 1-3); when even 
 Assyria and Egypt, the bitterest enemies of the 
 chosen people, will serve Jehovah (Is. xix. 16 sq.). 
 
 12. Commentaries.—A full list of the older com- 
 mentaries will be found in Rosenmiiller’s Scholia, 
 vii. 1, pp. 8 sq., 32 54. ; and of the literature of 
 this century down to 1880 in Nowack’s Com- 
 mentary, pp. xxxv.sq. Of special commentaries 
 on Hosea it may suffice here to mention those of 
 Simson (1851); Wiinsche (1868), mteresting 
 for its constant reference to Jewish exegesis ; 
 Nowack (1880), most thorough and careful ; 
 Scholz (1882): in English, Sharpe, Notes and 
 Dissertations on the Prophecy of Hosea (1884) ; 
 Cheyne, in Zhe Cambridge Bible for Schools and 
 Colleges (1884), sympathetic and suggestive ; 
 and (unrivalled as a general survey) Prof. 
 Robertson Smith’s Prophets of Israel, Lect. IV. 
 Cp. also Driver, LOT. ch. vi. [A. F. K.] 
 
 HOSEN (Dan. iii. 21), plur. form of A.-S. 
 hose. The word originally meant any kind of 
 covering for the legs, and not merely stockings 
 as now (Lumby, Glossary of Bible Words, s. n., 
 in Eyre and Spottiswoode’s “ Teacher’s Bible ”’). 
 
 is not included in 
 
 HOSHAI’AH (YWIN = Jah hath saved; 
 
 Osaias). 1. (ΩὩσαιά.) A man who assisted in 
 the dedication of the wall of Jerusalem after 
 it had been rebuilt by Nehemiah (Neh. xii. 
 32). He led the princes ΟἿ) of Judah in the 
 
 procession, but whether he himself was one of 
 them we are not told. 
 
 2. The father of a certain Jezaniah, or Aza- 
 riah, who was a man of note after the destruc- 
 tion of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar (Jer. xlii. 
 [LXX. xlix.] 1 [T.7 Maacatos, A. Macaids, δὲ. 
 ‘Qoatos], xliii. [LXX. 1.1 2 [T.7 and A. as before, 
 N.1 Μαασσαίος, X-75 Mvaco-]). 
 
 HOSHA’MA (DWI = Jah hath heard ; 
 B. Ὡσαμώθ, A. Ὡσαμώ; Sama), one of the 
 sons of Jeconiah, or Jehoiachin, the last king 
 of Judah but one (1 Ch. iii. 18). It is worthy 
 of notice that, in the narrative of the cap- 
 ture of Jeconiah by Nebuchadnezzar, though 
 the mother and the wives of the king are men- 
 tioned, nothing is said about his sons (2 K. xxiv. 
 12,15). Inagreement with this is the denuncia- 
 tion of him as a childless man in Jer. xxii. 30. 
 There is good reason for suspecting some confusion 
 
1400 
 
 in the present state of the text of the genealogy 
 of the royal family in 1 Ch. 111. ; and these facts 
 would seem to confirm it. 
 
 HOSHE’A (U1 = healing ; ’Qené3 Osee), 
 the 19th, last, and best king of Israel. He suc- 
 ceeded Pekah, whom he slew in a successful 
 conspiracy, thereby fulfilling a prophecy of 
 Isaiah (Is. vii. 16). Although Josephus calls 
 Hoshea a friend of Pekah (φίλου τινὸς ἐπιβου- 
 λεύσαντος αὐτῷ, Ant. ix. 13, §1), we have no 
 ground for calling this “a treacherous murder ” 
 (Prideaux, i. 16). It took place B.c. 737, “in 
 the twentieth year of Jotham” (2 K. xv. 30), 
 ie. “in the twentieth year after Jotham became 
 sole king,” for he only reigned sixteen years 
 (2 K. xv. 33). But there must have been an 
 interregnum of at least eight years before 
 Hoshea came to the throne, which was not till 
 B.c. 729, in the twelfth year of Ahaz (2 K. 
 xvil. 1: we cannot, with Clericus, read fourth 
 for twelfth in this verse, because of 2 K. xviii. 
 9). This way of reconciling the apparent dis- 
 crepancy between the passages has been adopted 
 by Ussher, Des Vignoles, Tiele, &c. (Winer, s. v. 
 Hoseas), The other methods suggested by 
 Hitzig, Lightfoot, &c., are mostly untenable 
 (Keil on 2 K. xv. 30). 
 
 The true aspect of Hoshea’s elevation comes to 
 us from the Assyrian inscriptions. Tiglath- 
 pileser records that in his twelfth year (B.c. 734) 
 he advanced as far as Gaza, capturing Gal[eed] 
 and [A}bel on the way (see 2 K. xv. 29, 30), 
 and “the land of the house of Omri, the dis- 
 tant ...the whole of its inhabitants with 
 their possessions to Assyria I deported. Pekah, 
 their king, I slew. Hosea over them I appointed. 
 Ten. . . I received from them” (Schrader, Cu- 
 neiform Inscriptions, p. 255). It appears from 
 this inscription that Hoshea was raised to the 
 throne because he stood at the head of the 
 
 HOSHEA 
 
 Assyrian party in Ephraim, whereas Pekah was | 
 
 in alliance with Rezin, king of Damascus. 
 lath-pileser took Damascus in 732, and Hoshea 
 was probably one of the vassal kings who there 
 waited upon him, though he is not mentioned 
 as Ahaz (‘‘ Joahaz”) is by the conqueror. 
 
 It is expressly stated (2 K. xvii. 2) that 
 Hoshea was not so sinful as his predecessors. 
 According to the Rabbis, this superiority con- 
 sisted in his removing from the frontier-cities 
 the guards placed there by his predecessors to 
 prevent their subjects from worshipping at 
 Jerusalem (Seder Olam Rabba, cap. 22, quoted 
 by Prideaux, i. 16), and in his not hindering the 
 (sraelites from accepting the invitation of Heze- 
 kiah (2 Ch. xxx. 10), nor checking their zeal 
 against idolatry (id. xxxi. 1). This encomium, 
 however, is founded on the untenable sup- 
 position that Hezekiah’s Passover preceded the 
 _fali of Samaria [HEZEKIAH], and we must be 
 content with the general fact that Hoshea 
 showed a more theocratic spirit than the former 
 kings of Israel. The compulsory cessation of the 
 calf-worship may have removed his greatest 
 temptation, for Tiglath-pileser had carried off 
 the golden calf from Dan some years before 
 (Sed. Ol. Rab. 22), and that at Bethel was 
 taken away by Shalmaneser in his first invasion 
 (2 K. xvii. 3; Hos. x. 14; Prideaux, J. ¢.). But, 
 whatever may have been his excellences, he 
 still “did evil in the sight of the Lord,” and 
 
 Tig- | 
 
 HOSHEA 
 
 it was too late to avert retribution by any 
 improvements. 
 
 In the third year of his reign (8.0. 726) Shal- 
 maneser IV., impelled probably by mere thirst 
 of conquest, came against him, cruelly stormed 
 the strong caves of Beth-arbel (Hos. x. 14), and 
 made Israel tributary (2 K. xvii. 3) for three 
 years. At the end of this period, encouraged 
 perhaps by the revolt of Hezekiah, Hoshea 
 entered into a secret alliance with So, king of 
 Egypt (who was either the Sevexos of Manetho, 
 and son of Σαβακῶς, Herod. ii. 137; Keil, 
 Vitringa, Gesenius, &c.; Jahn, Hebr. Com. 
 § xl.; or else Sabaco himself, Wilkinson, Ane. 
 Ἐν. i. 308 [1878]; Ewald, Gesch. iii. 610), to throw 
 off the Assyrian yoke. The alliance did him no 
 good; it was revealed to the court of Nineveh 
 by the Assyrian party .in Ephraim, and Hoshea 
 was immediately seized as a rebellious vassal, 
 shut up in prison, and apparently treated with 
 the utmost indignity (Mic. v. 1). If this 
 happened before the siege (2 K. xvii. 4), we 
 must account for it either by supposing that 
 Hoshea, hoping to dissemble and gain time, had 
 gone to Shalmaneser to account for his conduct, 
 or that he had been defeated and taken prisoner 
 in some unrecorded battle. That he disappeared 
 very suddenly, like “ foam upon the water,” we 
 may infer from Hos. x. 7, xiii. 11. The siege of 
 Samaria lasted three years; for that “ glorious 
 and beautiful city ” was strongly situated like 
 ἐᾷ crown of pride” among her hills (Is. xxviii. 
 1-5). During the course of the siege Shal- 
 maneser must have died, for it is certain that 
 Samaria was taken by his successor Sargon in 
 B.C. 722, who thus laconically describes the 
 event in his Annals :—“ Samaria I looked at, I 
 captured ; 27,280 men (families?) who dwelt in 
 it I carried away. I constructed fifty chariots in 
 their country . . . 1 appointed a governor over 
 them, and continued upon them the tribute of 
 the former people” (Botta, 145, 11, quoted by 
 Dr. Hincks, J. of Saer. Lit. Oct. 1858; Layard, 
 Nin. and Bab. i. 148). This was probably B.c. 
 721 or 720. For the future history of the un- 
 happy Ephraimites, the places to which they 
 were transplanted by the policy of their con- 
 queror and his officer, “the great and noble 
 Asnapper ” (Ezra iv. 10), and the nations by 
 which they were superseded, see SAMARIA. Of 
 the subsequent fortunes of Hoshea we know 
 nothing. He came to the throne too late, and 
 governed a kingdom torn to pieces by foreign 
 invasion and intestine broils. Sovereign after 
 sovereign had fallen by the dagger of the 
 assassin; and we see from the dark and terrible 
 delineations of the contemporary Prophets 
 (Hosea, Mican, Isatau], that murder and 
 idolatry, drunkenness and Just, had eaten like 
 “an incurable wound” (Mic. i. 9) into the 
 inmost heart of the national morality. Ephraim 
 was dogged to its ruin by the apostate policy of 
 the renegade who had asserted its independ- 
 ence (2 K. xvii.; Joseph. Ant. ix. 14; Prideaux, 
 i. 15 sq.; Keil, On Kings, ii. 50 sq., Engl. ed. ; 
 Jahn, Hebr. Com. § xl.; Ewald, Gesch. iii. 607- 
 613; Rosenmiiller, Bibl. Geogr. ch. ix., Engl. 
 transl.; Rawlinson, Herod. i. 149). [Ε΄ W. F.] 
 
 HOSHE’A (DIN =healing. The name is pre- 
 cisely the same as that of the Prophet known to 
 us as HosEA). 1. The son of Nun, i.e. Joshua 
 
Oe Ce 
 
 HOSPITALITY 
 
 (Deut. xxxii. 44; and also in Num. xiii. 8, A. V. 
 OsHEA, R. V. Hoshea). It was probably his ori- 
 ginal name, to which the Divine name of Jah was 
 afterwards added —Jehoshua, Joshua—* Jeho- 
 vah’s help.” The LXX. in this passage misses 
 the distinction, and have Ἰησούς ; Vulg. Josue. 
 
 2%. (Qe; Osee.) Son of Azaziah (1 Ch. 
 xxvii. 20); like his great namesake, a man of 
 Ephraim, ruler (ndgid) of his tribe in the time 
 of king David. 
 
 3. (B. ’Nonbd, A. ᾽Ωσηέ; Osee.) One of 
 the heads of the “ people”—i.e. the laymen— 
 who sealed the covenant with Nehemiah (Neh. 
 x. 23). ΓΑ] [i<j 
 
 HOSPITALITY. The rites of hospitality 
 are to be distinguished from the customs pre- 
 vailing in the entertainment of guests [Foon ; 
 MEALS], and from the laws and practices relat- 
 ing to charity, almsgiving, &c. Hospitality was 
 regarded as one of the chief virtues by most 
 nations of the ancient world, and especially by 
 peoples of the Semitic stock; but that it was 
 not characteristic of the latter alone is amply 
 shown by the usages of the Greeks and even of the 
 Romans. Race undoubtedly influences its exer- 
 cise, and it must also be ascribed in no small 
 degree to the social state of a nation. Thus the 
 desert tribes have always placed the virtue 
 higher in their esteem than the townsfolk of the 
 same descent as themselves; and in our own 
 day, though an Arab townsman is hospitable, 
 he entertains notions on the subject different 
 from those of the Arab of the desert (the Bedawi). 
 The former has fewer opportunities of showing 
 his hospitality; and when he does so, he does 
 it not so much with the feeling of discharging 
 an obligatory act as of performing a social duty. 
 With the advance of civilisation the calls of 
 hospitality become less and less urgent. The 
 dweller in the wilderness, however, finds the 
 entertainment of wayfarers to be a part of his 
 daily life, and that to refuse it is to deny a com- 
 mon humanity. Viewed in this light, the 
 notions of the Greeks and of the Romans must be 
 appreciated as the recognition of the virtue 
 where its necessity was not of the urgent cha- 
 racter that it possesses in the more primitive 
 lands of the East. The ancient Egyptians re- 
 sembled the Greeks; but, with a greater exclu- 
 siveness, they limited their entertainments to 
 their own countrymen, being constrained by the 
 national and priestly abhorrence and dread of 
 foreigners. This exclusion throws some obscurity 
 on their practices in the discharge of hospitality ; 
 but otherwise their customs in the entertain- 
 ment of guests resembled those well known to 
 classical scholars—customs probably derived in 
 a great measure from Egypt. 
 
 While hospitality is acknowledged to have 
 been a wide-spread virtue in ancient times, we 
 must concede that it flourished chiefly among 
 the race of Shem. The O. T. abounds with 
 illustrations of the religious ordinance to use 
 hospitality, and of the strong national belief in 
 its importance: so, too, in the writings of the 
 N. T.; and though the Eastern Jews of modern 
 times dare not entertain a stranger lest he be 
 an enemy, and the long oppression they have 
 endured has begotten that greed of gain that 
 has made their name a proverb, the ancient 
 hospitality still lives in their hearts. The 
 
 HOSPITALITY 1401 
 
 desert, however, is yet free; it is as of old a 
 howling wilderness; and hospitality is as neces- 
 sary and as freely given as in patriarchal times. 
 Among the Arabs we find the best illustrations 
 of the old Bible narratives, and among them 
 see traits that might beseem their ancestor 
 Abraham. 
 
 The laws respecting strangers (Lev. xix. 33, 
 34) and the poor (Ley. xxv. 14 sq.; Deut. xv. 7), 
 and concerning redemption (Lev. xxv. 23 sq.), 
 &c., are framed in accordance with the spirit of 
 hospitality ; and the strength of the national 
 feeling regarding it is shown in the incidental 
 mentions of its practice. In the Law, compas- 
 sion to strangers is constantly enforced by the 
 words, ‘‘for ye were strangers in the land of 
 Egypt ” (ep. Ley. xix. 34). And before the Law, 
 Abraham’s entertainment of the Angels (Gen. 
 xviii. 1 sq.), and Lot’s (xix. 1), are in exact 
 agreement with its precepts and with modern 
 usage. So Moses was received by Jethro, the 
 priest of Midian, who reproached his daughters, 
 though he believed him to be an Egyptian, say- 
 ing, ‘‘ And where is he? why is it that ye have 
 left the man? call him, that he may eat bread” 
 (Ex. ii. 20). The story of Joseph’s hospitality 
 to his brethren, although he knew them to be 
 such, appears to be narrated as an ordinary 
 occurrence ; and in like manner Pharaoh received 
 Jacob with a liberality not merely dictated by 
 his relationship to the benefactor of Egypt. 
 Like Abraham, “ Manoah said unto the Angel of 
 the Lord, I pray thee, let us detain thee until 
 we shall have made ready a kid for thee” 
 (Judg. xiii. 15); and, like Lot, the old man of 
 Gibeah sheltered the Levite when he saw him, 
 “a wayfaring man in the street of the «ity: and 
 the old man said, Whither goest thou? and 
 whence comest thou? ... Peace be with thee ; 
 howsoever, let all thy wants lie upon me; only 
 lodge not in the street. So he brought him 
 into his house, and gave provender unto the 
 asses; and they washed their feet, and did eat 
 and drink ” (Judg. xix. 17, 20, 21). 
 
 In the N. T. hospitality is yet more markedly 
 enjoined; and in the more civilised state of 
 society which then prevailed, its exercise became 
 more a social virtue than a necessity of patri- 
 archal life. The good Samaritan stands for all 
 ages as an example of Christian hospitality, 
 embodying the command to love one’s neigh- 
 bour as oneself; and Christ’s charge to the 
 disciples strengthened that command: “ He that 
 receiveth you receiveth Me, and he that receiveth 
 Me receiveth Him that sent Me... And who- 
 soever shall give to drink unto one of these 
 little ones a cup of cold water [only], in the 
 name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, he 
 shall in no wise lose his reward” (Matt. 
 x. 42). The neglect of Christ is symbolised by 
 inhospitality to our neighbours, in the words 
 “JT was a stranger, and ye took Me not in” 
 (Matt. xxv. 43). The Apostles urged the Church 
 to ““ follow after hospitality,” using the forcible 
 words τὴν φιλοξενίαν διώκοντες (Rom. xii. 13 ; 
 cp. 1 Tim. v. 10); to remember Abraham’s ex- 
 ample, “ Be not forgetful to entertain strangers, 
 for thereby some have entertained Angels un- 
 awares ” (Heb. xili. 2); to “use hospitality one 
 to another without grudging ” (1 Pet. iv. 9); 
 while a Bishop must be a “ lover of hospitality ” 
 (Tit. i. 8; ep. 1 Tim. iii, 2). The practice of 
 
1402 HOSPITALITY 
 
 the early Christians was in accord with these 
 precepts. They had all things in common, and 
 their hospitality was a characteristic of their 
 belief. 
 
 If such has been the usage of Biblical times, 
 it is in the next place important to remark how 
 hospitality was shown. In the patriarchal ages 
 we may take Abraham’s example as the most 
 fitting, as we have of it the fullest account; 
 and by the light of Arab custom we may see, 
 without obscurity, his hasting to the tent-door 
 to meet his guests, with the words, “ My lord, 
 if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass 
 not away, I pray thee, from thy servant: let a 
 little water, I pray you, be fetched, and wash 
 your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree, 
 and I will fetch a morsel of bread, and comfort 
 ye your hearts.” And,” to continue the 
 narrative in the vigorous language of the A.V., 
 “ Abraham hastened into the tent unto Sarah, 
 and said, Make ready quickly three measures of 
 fine meal, knead it, and make cakes upon the 
 hearth. And Abraham ran unto the herd, and 
 fetched a calf tender and good, and gave it unto 
 a young man, and he hasted to dress it. And 
 he took butter and milk, and the calf which he 
 had dressed, and set it before them; and he 
 stood by them under the tree, and they did 
 eat.” A traveller in the Eastern desert may 
 see, through the vista of ages, this far-off ex- 
 ample in its living traces. “ Hospitality,” says 
 Lane, “is a virtue for which the natives of the 
 East in general are highly and deservedly ad- 
 mired; and the people of Egypt are well enti- 
 tled to commendation on this account, A word 
 which signifies literally ‘a person on a journey ἢ 
 (musiafir) is the term most commonly employed 
 in this country in the sense of a visitor or guest. 
 There are very few persons here who would 
 think of sitting down to a meal, if there was a 
 stranger in the house, without inviting him to 
 partake of it, unless the latter were a menial, in 
 which case he would be invited to eat with the 
 servants. It would be considered a shameful 
 violation of good manners if a Muslim abstained 
 from ordering the table to be prepared at the 
 usual time because a visitor happened to be 
 present. Persons of the middle classes in this 
 country, if living in a retired situation, some- 
 times take their supper before the door of their 
 house, and invite every passenger of respectable 
 appearance to eat with them.* This is very 
 commonly done among the lower orders. In 
 cities and large towns claims on hospitality are 
 infrequent, as there are many wakdalahs or 
 khans, where strangers may obtain lodging ; 
 and food is very easily procured: but in the 
 villages travellers are often lodged and enter- 
 tained by the Sheykh or some other inhabitant ; 
 and if the guest be a person of the middle or 
 higher classes, or even not very poor, he gives 
 a present to the host’s servants, or to the host 
 himself. In the desert, however, a present is 
 seldom received from a guest. By a Sunnah 
 law a traveller may claim entertainment, of 
 
 a “ΤῸ is said to have been a custom of some of the 
 Barmekees (the family so renowned for their generosity) 
 to keep open house during the hours of meals, and to 
 allow no one who applied at such times for admission 
 to be repulsed.”—Lane’s Thousand and One Nights, 
 ch. v. note 97. 
 
 HOSPITALITY 
 
 any person able to afford it to him, for three 
 days. The account of Abraham’s entertaining 
 the three Angels, related in the Bible, presents 
 a perfect picture of the manner in which a 
 modern Bedawi sheykh receives travellers 
 arriving at his encampment. He immediately 
 orders his wife or women to make bread, 
 slaughters a sheep or some other animal, and 
 dresses it in haste, and bringing milk and any 
 other provisions that he may have ready at 
 hand, with the bread and the meat which he 
 has dressed, sets them before his guests. If 
 these be persons of high rank, he stands by 
 them while they eat, as Abraham did in the 
 case above alluded to. Most Bedawis will suffer 
 almost any injury to themselves or their families 
 rather than allow their guests to be ill-treated 
 while under their protection. There are Arabs 
 who even regard the chastity of their wives as 
 not too precious to be sacrificed for the gratifica- 
 tion of their guests (see Burckhardt’s Notes on 
 the Bedouins, &c., 8vo ed., i. 179, 180); and at 
 an encampment of the Bisharin, I ascertained 
 that there are many persons in this great tribe 
 (which inhabits a large portion of the desert 
 between the Nile and the Red Sea) who offer 
 their unmarried daughters (cp. Gen. xxi. 8; 
 Judg. xix. 24) to their guests, merely from 
 motives of hospitality, and not for hire” (Mod. 
 Eq. ch. xiii.). Lane adds that there used to be 
 a very numerous class of persons, called Tufai- 
 lis, who lived by spunging, presuming on the 
 well-known hospitality of their countrymen, 
 and going from house to house where entertain- 
 ments were being given. The Arabs along the 
 Syrian frontier usually pitch the Sheykh’s tent 
 towards the west, that is, towards the inhabited 
 country, to invite passengers and lodge them on 
 their way (Burckhardt’s Notes on the Bedouins, 
 &e., 8vo ed., i. 33); it is held to be disgraceful 
 to encamp in a place out of the way of travel- 
 lers; and it is a custom of the Bedawis to 
 light fires in their encampments to attract 
 travellers, and to keep dogs which, besides watch- 
 ing against robbers, may, in the night-time, 
 guide wayfarers to their tents. Hence a hos- 
 pitable man is proverbially called “‘one whose 
 dogs bark loudly.” Approaching an encamp- 
 ment, the traveller often sees several horsemen 
 coming towards him, and striving who shall be 
 first to claim him as a guest. The favourite 
 national game of the Arabs before Islam illus- 
 trates their hospitality. It was called ‘“ Maisir,” 
 and was played with arrows, some notched and 
 others without marks. A young camel was 
 caught and killed, and divided into twenty-four 
 portions: those who drew marked arrows had 
 shares in proportion to the number of notches ; 
 those who drew blanks paid the cost of the camel 
 among them. Neither party, however, ate of 
 
 Ὁ The time of entertainment, according to the precept 
 of Mohammad, is three days, and he permitted a guest 
 to take this right by force; although one day and one 
 night is the period of the host’s being “ kind ” to him 
 (Mishkat el-Musabih, ii. 329). Burckhardt (Notes on 
 the Bedouins, &c. i. 178, 179) says that a stranger 
 without friends in a camp alights at the first tent, where 
 the women, in the absence of the owner, provide for his 
 refreshment. After the lapse of three days and four 
 hours, he must, if he would avoid censure, either 
 assist in household duties, or claim hospitality at 
 another tent. 
 
HOTHAM 
 
 HOUR 1403 
 
 the flesh of the camel, which was always given | occurs several times in the Apocrypha (Judith 
 
 to the poor; and “this they did out of pride and 
 ostentation,” says Sale, “it being reckoned a 
 shame for a man to stand out, and not venture 
 his money on such an occasion.” Sale, how- 
 ever, is hardly philosophical in this remark, 
 which concerns only the abuse of a practice 
 originally arising from a national virtue: but 
 Mohammad forbade the game, with all other 
 games. of chance, on the plea that it gave rise 
 to quarrels, &c. (Sale’s Preliminary Discourse, 
 p- 96, ed. 1836, and Koran, ch. ii. and v.). 
 
 The Oriental respect for the covenant of bread 
 and salt, or salt alone, certainly sprang from 
 the high regard in which hospitality was held. 
 Even accidentally to taste another’s salt imposes 
 this obligation; and to so great an extent is 
 the feeling carried thata thief has been known 
 to give up his booty in obedience to it. Thus 
 Al-Laith As-Saffar, when a robber, left his booty 
 in the passage of the royal treasury of Sig’istan ; 
 accidentally he stumbled over, and, in the dark, 
 tasted a lump of rock-salt: his respect for his 
 covenant gained his pardon, and he became the 
 founder of a royal dynasty. The Arab pecu- 
 liarity was carried into Spain by the so-called 
 Moors. 
 
 For the customs of the Greeks and Romans in 
 the entertainment of guests, and the exercise of 
 hospitality generally, the reader is referred to 
 the Dict. of Gr. § Rom. Antig., art. Hospitium. 
 They are incidentally illustrated by passages in 
 the N. T., but it is difficult to distinguish be- 
 tween those so derived and the native Oriental 
 customs which, as we have said, are very similar. 
 To one of the customs of classical antiquity a 
 reference is supposed to exist in Rev. ii, 17: 
 _ “To him that overcometh will I give to eat of 
 the hidden manna, and will give him a white 
 stone, and in the stone a new name written, 
 which no man knoweth, saving he that receiveth 
 
 [it].” ΓΕ. 8. P.] 
 
 HO'THAM (OnjN= signet ring ; B. Χωθάν, 
 A. Χωθάμ; Hotham), a man of Asher; son of 
 Heber, of the family of Beriah (1 Ch. vii. 32). 
 
 HO'THAN, R. V. HOTHAM (Onin; 
 B. Κωθάν, A. Χωθάν ; Hotham), a man of Aroer, 
 father of Shama and Jehiel, two of the heroes 
 of David’s guard (1 Ch. xi. 44). The substitu- 
 tion of Hothan for Hotham is an error which has 
 been retained in the A. V. from the edition of 
 1611 till now. Cp. the rendering of the LXX. 
 both of this and the preceding name. 
 
 HO’THIR (N10, ? = fulness ; B. “Ωθηρεί, 
 ‘HOei, A. ᾿Ιωεθιρί, “Ἰεθιρί; Othir), the thirteenth 
 son of HEMAN, “the king’s seer ” (1 Ch. xxv. 4), 
 and therefore a Kohathite Levite. He had the 
 charge of the twenty-first course of the musicians 
 in the service of the Tabernacle (xxv. 28). 
 
 HOUGH (pron. hock) from the A.-S. hoh = 
 the ham of the leg. The word is applied in 
 Josh. xi. 6,9; 2 Sam. viii. 4, to cutting the 
 hamstrings of an animal and thus disabling it 
 (see Lumby, Gloss. of Bible Words, s. n., in Eyre 
 and Spottiswoode’s “ Teacher’s Bible”). [F.] 
 
 HOUR (vw, NNYL’, Chald.). This word is 
 first found in Dan. iii. 6, iv. 19, 33, v. 5; and it 
 
 xiv. 8; 2 ἔβα, ix. 44). It seems to be a vague 
 expression for a short period, and the frequent 
 phrase “in the same hour” means “ immedi- 
 ately”: hence we find mw substituted in the 
 Targum for yy, “in a moment” (Num. xvi. 
 21, &.). “Opa is frequently used in the same 
 way by the N. T. writers (Matt. viii. 13; Luke 
 xii. 39, &c.). It occurs in the LXX. as a 
 rendering for various words meaning time, just 
 as it does in Greek writers long before it ac- 
 quired the specific meaning of our word “hour.” 
 Sa‘ah is still used in Arabic both for an hour 
 and a moment. 
 
 The ancient Hebrews were probably unac- 
 quainted with the division of the natural day into 
 twenty-four parts. The general distinctions of 
 “morning, evening, and noonday ” (Ps. ly. 17) 
 were sufficient for them at first, as they were 
 for the early Greeks (Hom. Z/. xxi. 111); after- 
 wards the Greeks adopted five marked periods 
 of the day (Jul. Pollux, Onom. i. 68; Dio 
 Chrysost. Orat. ii. de Glor.), and the Hebrews 
 parcelled out the period between sunrise and 
 sunset into a series of minute divisions distin- 
 guished by the sun’s course [Day], as is still 
 done by the Arabs, who have stated forms of 
 prayers for each period (Lane’s Mod. Ey. i. 
 ch. 3). 
 
 The early Jews appear to have divided the 
 day into four parts (Neh. ix. 3), and the night 
 into three watches (Judg. vii. 19) [Day; 
 Wa'TCHES], and even in the N. T. we find a 
 trace of this division in Matt. xx. 1-5. There 
 is, however, no proof of the assertion sometimes 
 made, that ὥρα in the Gospels may occasionally 
 mean a space of three hours. 
 
 The Greeks adopted the division of the day 
 into twelve hours from the Babylonians (Herod. 
 ii. 109; cp. Rawlinson, Herod. ii. p. 334). At 
 what period the Jews became first acquainted 
 with this way of reckoning time is unknown, 
 but it is generally supposed that they too learnt 
 it from the Babylonians during the Captivity 
 (Waehner, Ant. Hebr. § v. ch. i. 8,9). They may 
 have had some such division at a much earlier 
 period, as has been inferred from the fact that 
 Ahaz erected a sun-dial in Jerusalem, the use of 
 which had probably been learnt from Babylon. 
 There is, however, the greatest uncertainty as 
 to the meaning of the word nibynp (A. V. “de- 
 grees,” Is, xxxviii. 8). [DIAL.] It is strange 
 that the Jews were not acquainted with this 
 method of reckoning even earlier; for, although 
 a purely conventional one, it is naturally 
 suggested by the months in a year. Sir G. 
 Wilkinson thinks that it arose from a less 
 obvious cause (Rawlinson, Herod. ii. 334). In 
 whatever way originated, it was known to the 
 Egyptians at avery early period. They had twelve 
 hours of the day and of the night (called Nau= 
 hour), each of which had its own genius, drawn 
 with a star on its head. The word is said by 
 Lepsius to be found as far back as the 5th 
 dynasty (Rawlinson, Herod. ii. 135). 
 
 (The Romans had two methods of reckoning 
 the hours of the day: one, in common with other 
 nations and in general use, from sunrise to sun- 
 set; the other, peculiar to themselves ana 
 adapted to legal and technical purposes (Bil- 
 finger, Der biirgerliche Tag, p. 198 sq.), from 
 
1404 
 
 midnight to midnight. St. John is usually 
 thought to have adopted this latter reckoning, 
 but the question is very complicated. See 
 Westcott on St. John xix., Add. note ; Cross in 
 Class. Rev., June 1891; and Dods, The Gospel of 
 St. John, i. 1382.—F.] 7 
 
 There are two kinds of hours, viz. (1) the as- 
 tronomical or equinoctial hour, z.e. the twenty- 
 fourth part of a civil day, which, although 
 “known to astronomers, was not used in the 
 affairs of common life till towards the end of the 
 4th century of the Christian era” (Dict. of Gr. δ' 
 Rom. Ant. 5. v. Hora): and (2) the natural hour 
 (which the Rabbis called YI}, καιρικαὶ or tem- 
 porales), i.e. the twelfth part of the natural day, or 
 of the time between sunrise and sunset. These are 
 the hours meant in the N. T., Josephus, and the 
 Rabbis (John xi. 9, &c.; Joseph. Ant. xiv. 4, § 3), 
 and it must be remembered that they perpetually 
 vary in length, so as to be very different at 
 different times of the year. Besides this, an 
 hour of the day would always mean a different 
 jength of time from an hour of the night except 
 at the equinox. From the consequent un- 
 certainty of the term there arose the proverbial 
 expression “not all hours are equal” (R, Joshua 
 ap. Carpzov. App. Crit. 345). At the equinoxes 
 the third hour would correspond to 9 o’clock ; 
 the sixth would always be at noon. To find the 
 exact time meant at other seasons of the year 
 we must know when the sun rises in Palestine, 
 and reduce the hours to our reckoning accord- 
 ingly. [Day.] (Winer, 5. vv. Zag, Uhren; Jahn, 
 Arch. Bibl. § 101.) What horologic contrivances 
 the Jews possessed in the time of our Lord is 
 uncertain; but we may safely suppose that 
 they had gnomons, dials, and clepsydrae, all of 
 which had long been known to the Persians and 
 other nations with whom they had come in 
 contact. Of course the first two were inaccurate 
 and uncertain indications, but the water-clock 
 by ingenious modifications, according to the 
 season of the year, became a very tolerable 
 assistance in marking time. Mention is also 
 made of a curious invention called NUW TN1¥, 
 
 by which a figure was constructed so as to drop 
 a stone into a brazen basin every hour, the 
 sound of which was heard for a great distance 
 and announced the time (Otho, Lex. Rab. 5. v. 
 Hora). 
 
 For the purposes of prayer the old division of 
 the day into four portions was continued in the 
 Temple service, as we see from Acts ii. 15, iii. 
 1, x. 9. The Jews supposed that the third hour 
 had been consecrated by Abraham, the sixth by 
 Isaac, and the ninth by Jacob (Kimchi; Schoett- 
 gen, Hor. Hebr. ad Acts iii. 1). It is probable 
 that the canonical hours observed by the Ro- 
 man Catholics (of which there are eight in the 
 twenty-four) are derived from these Temple 
 hours (Moses and Aar. iii. 9). 
 
 The Rabbis pretend that the hours were 
 
 divided into 1080 ὉΠ (minutes) and 56,848 
 OVI (seconds), which numbers were chosen 
 because they are so easily divisible (Gem. Hier. 
 Berachoth, 2, 4; in Reland, Ant. Hebr. iv. 1, 
 § 19). [F. W. F.] 
 
 HOUSE (ΓΞ; οἶκος ; domus; Chald. n}3, 
 
 to pass the night, Gesen. Thes. p. 191 b),a dwell- 
 ing in general, whether literally, as house, tent, 
 
 HOUSE 
 
 HOUSE 
 
 palace, citadel, tomb; derivatively, as taberna- 
 cle, temple, heaven; or metaphorically, as family. 
 Although, in Oriental language, every tent 
 (see Gesen. p. 32) may be regarded as a house 
 (Harmer, Obs. i. 194), yet the distinction be- 
 tween the permanent dwelling-house and the 
 tent must have taken rise from the moment of 
 the division of mankind into dwellers in tents 
 and builders of cities, i.e. of permanent habita- 
 tions (Gen. iv. 17, 20; Is. xxxviii. 12), The 
 Hebrews did not become habitually dwellers in 
 cities till the sojourn in Egypt and after the 
 conquest of Canaan (Gen. xlvii. 3; Ex. xii. 7; 
 Heb. xi. 9), while the Canaanites as well as the 
 Assyrians were from an earlier period builders 
 and inhabitants of cities, and it was into the 
 houses and cities built by the former that the 
 Hebrews entered to take possession after the con- 
 quest (Gen. x. 11, 19, xix. 1, xxiii. 10, xxxiv. 20; 
 Num. xi. 27; Deut. vi. 10, 11). The private 
 dwellings of the Assyrians and Babylonians have 
 altogether perished, but the solid material of the 
 houses of Syria, east of the Jordan, may perhaps 
 have preserved entire specimens of the ancient 
 dwellings, even of the original inhabitants of 
 that region (Porter, Damascus, ii. 195, 196; 
 Graham in Camb. Essays, 1859, p. 160, ὥς. ; ep. 
 Buckingham, Arab Tribes, pp. 171, 172). 
 
 In inferring the plan and arrangement of 
 ancient Jewish or Oriental houses, as alluded to 
 in Scripture, from existing dwellings in Syria, 
 Egypt, and the East in general, allowance must 
 be made for the difference in climate between 
 Egypt, Persia, and Palestine, a cause from which 
 would proceed differences in certain cases of 
 material and construction, as well as of domestic 
 arrangement. | 
 
 1, The houses of the rural poor in Egypt, as 
 well as in most parts of Syria, Arabia, and 
 Persia, are for the most part mere huts of mud, 
 or sun-burnt bricks. In some parts of Palestine 
 and Arabia stone is used, and in certain districts 
 caves in the rock are used as dwellings (Amos y. 
 11; Bartlett, Walks, &., p. 117; CAvES). The 
 houses are usually of one story only, viz. the 
 ground-floor, and sometimes contain only one 
 apartment. Sometimes a small court for the 
 cattle is attached; and in some cases the cattle 
 are housed in the same building, or the people 
 
 _live on a raised platform, and the cattle round 
 
 | them on the ground (1 Sam. xxviii. 24; Irby 
 
 and Mangles, p. 70; Jolliffe, Letters, i. 43; 
 Buckingham, Arab Tribes, p. 170; Burckhardt, 
 Travels, ii. 119; Tristram, Land of Israel, p.72). 
 In Lower Egypt the oxen occupy the width of 
 the chamber farthest from the entrance, which 
 is built of brick or mud, about four feet high, 
 and the top is often used as a sleeping-place in 
 winter. The windows are small apertures high 
 up in ‘the walls, sometimes grated with wood 
 (Burckhardt, Travels, i. 241, ii. 101, 119, 301, 
 329; Lane, Mod. Εν. i. 44). The roofs are com- 
 monly but not always flat, and are usually formed 
 of a plaster of mud and straw laid upon boughs or 
 rafters ; and upon the flat roofs, tents or “ booths ” 
 of boughs or rushes are often raised to be used 
 as sleeping-places in summer (Irby and Mangles, 
 p- 71; Niebuhr, Descr. pp. 49, 53; Layard, Nin. 
 g Bab. p. 112; Nineveh, i. 176; Burckhardt, 
 Syria, p. 280; Travels, i. 190; Van Egmont, ii. 32; 
 Malan, Magdala § Bethany, p. 15). To this de- 
 scription the houses of ancient Egypt and also 
 
 —— ΟΝ ὌΝΩΝ 
 
HOUSE 
 
 of Assyria, as represented in the monuments, in 
 great measure correspond (Layard, Monwments 
 of Nineveh, pt. ii. pl. 49, 50; bas-relief in Brit. 
 Mus. Assyrian Room, No. 49; 1st Egypt. Room, 
 case 17; Wilkinson, Anc. Zy. i. 13 [1878]; 
 
 Ξῷ mae Ch OES 
 
 IM ee : 
 
 A Nestorian House, with stages upon the roof for sleeping. 
 (Layard, Nineveh, i. 177.) 
 
 Martineau, Hast. Life, i. 19,97). In the towns 
 the houses of the inferior kind do not differ much 
 from the above description, but they are some- 
 times of more than one story, and the roof- 
 terraces are more carefully constructed. In 
 Palestine they are often of stone (Jolliffe, i. 26). 
 
 2. The difference between the poorest houses 
 and those of the class next above them is greater 
 than between these and the houses of the first 
 
 Assyrian House, Kouyunjik. 
 
 rank. The prevailing plan of Eastern houses of 
 this class presents, as was the case in ancient 
 Egypt, a front of wall, whose blank and mean 
 appearance is usually relieved only by the door 
 and a few latticed and projecting windows 
 (Views in Syria, ii. 25). Within this is a court 
 or courts with apartments opening into them. 
 Some of the finest houses in the East are to be 
 found at Damascus, where in some of them are 
 seven such courts. When there are only two, 
 the innermost is the harim, in which the women 
 and children live, and which is jealously secluded 
 from the entrance of any man but the master of 
 the house (Burckhardt, Travels, i. 188; Van 
 Egmont, ii. 246, 253; Shaw, p. 207; Porter, 
 Damascus, i. 34, 37, 60; Chardin, Voyages, vi. 6; 
 Lane, Mod. Eg. i. 179, 207). Over the door is a 
 projecting window with a lattice more or less 
 elaborately wrought, which, except in times of 
 
 pregeesetey oe oy 
 
 HOUSE 1405 
 
 public celebrations, is usually closed (2 K. ix. 30; 
 Shaw, Zravels, p. 207, Lane, Mod. Ly. i. 27). 
 The doorway or door bears an inscription from 
 
 Entrance to House in Cairo. (Lane, Modern Egyptians.) 
 
 the Kur’an, as the ancient Egyptian houses had 
 inscriptions over their doors, and as the Israelites 
 were directed to write sentences from the Law 
 over their gates. [GATE.] The entrance is 
 usually guarded within from sight by a wall or 
 some arrangement of the passages. In the pas- 
 sage is a stone seat for the porter and other ser- 
 vants (Lane, Mod. Eq. i. 32; Shaw, Zrav. p. 207; 
 Chardin, Voy. iv. 111). Beyond this passage is 
 an open court like the Roman impluvium, often 
 paved with marble. Into this the principal apart- 
 ments look, and are either open to it in front, or 
 are entered from it by doors. An awning is 
 sometimes drawn over the court, and the floor 
 
 Inner court of House in Cairo, with Mak‘ad. 
 (Lane, Modern Egyptians.) 
 strewed with carpets on festive occasions (Shaw, 
 p. 208). On the ground-floor there is generally 
 an apartment for male visitors, called mandarah, 
 
1406 HOUSE 
 
 having a portion of the floor sunk below the rest | 
 called durka‘ah. This is often paved with marble 
 or coloured tiles, and has in the centre a foun- 
 tain. The rest of the floor is a raised platform 
 called Jivdén, with a mattress and cushions at 
 the back on each of the three sides. This seat 
 or sofa is called diwan. Every person on en- 
 trance takes off his shoes on the durka‘ah before 
 stepping on the /iwan (Ex. iii. 5; Josh. v. 15; 
 Luke vii. 38). The ceilings over the liwan 
 and durka‘ah are often richly panelled and 
 ornamented (Jer. xxii. 14). [Ceriinec.] The 
 stairs to the upper apartments are in Syria 
 usually in a corner of the court (Robinson, iii. 
 302). When there is no upper story, the lower 
 rooms are usually loftier. In Persia they are 
 open from top to bottom, and only divided from 
 the court by a low partition (cp. Wilkinson, Anc. 
 Eq. i. 8-10 [1878]; Chardin, iv.119; Burckhardt, 
 Traveis, i. 18, 19; Views in Syria, i. 56). | 
 Around part, if not the whole, of the court is 
 a verandah, often nine or ten feet deep, over 
 which, when there is more than one floor, runs | 
 a second gallery of like depth with a balustrade 
 (Shaw, p. 208). Bearing in mind that the re- 
 ception room is raised above the level of the 
 court (Chardin, iv. 118; Views in Syria, i. 56), 
 we may, in explaining the circumstances of the | 
 
 Court of House at Antioch. 
 
 miracle of the paralytic (Mark ii. 3; Luke 
 y. 18), suppose, 1. that our Lord was standing 
 under the verandah, and the people in front in 
 the court. The bearers of the sick man ascended | 
 the stairs to the roof of the house, and taking 
 off a portion of the boarded covering of the 
 verandah, or removing the awning over the im- 
 pluvium, τὸ μέσον, in the former case let down 
 
 the bed through the verandah roof, or in the 
 latter, down by way of the roof, διὰ τῶν κεράμων, 
 and deposited it before the Saviour (Shaw, p. 212). 
 2. Another explanation presents itself in con- 
 sidering the room where the company were 
 assembled as the ὑπερῷον, and the roof opened 
 for the bed to be the true roof of the house 
 (Trench, Miracles, p. 199; Lane, Mod. Ey. i. 39). 
 3. And one still more simple is found in regard- 
 ing the house as one of the rude dwellings now 
 to be seen near the Sea of Galilee, a mere room 
 “10 or 12 feet high and as many or more 
 square,” with no opening except the door. The 
 roof, used as a sleeping-place, is reached by a 
 ladder from the outside, and the bearers of the | 
 paralytic, unable to approach the door, would 
 thus have ascended the roof, and, having un- 
 covered it (ἐξορύξαντε5), let him down into the 
 
 HOUSE 
 
 room where our Lord was (Miss Rogers, Dom, 
 Life in Palestine, p. 47; Malan, /. ¢.). 
 
 The stairs to the upper apartments or to 
 the roof are often shaded by vines or creeping 
 plants, and the courts, especially the inner ones, 
 planted with trees. ‘The court has often a well 
 or tank in it (Ps. exxviii. 3; 2 Sam. xvii. 18; 
 Russell, Aleppo, i. 24, 32; Wilkinson, i. 6-8- 
 Lane, Mod. Eg. i. 32; Views in Syria, i. 56). 
 
 f——— J 
 
 — 
 = ;—}——*". πὸ 
 Fr / TOT ALLAN FU SMART EE UE OTL 73 N 
 ΓΈΕΞ- ΕΣ AA, δι | 
 
 Ka‘ah of House in Cairo, (Lane.) 
 
 Besides the mandarah, there is sometimes a 
 second room, either on the ground or upper 
 floor, called Ka‘ah, fitted with diwdns, and δῇ. 
 the corners of these rooms portions taken off 
 and enclosed form retiring rooms (Lane, 1. 39; 
 Russell, i. 31, 33). 
 
 When there is no second floor, but more than 
 one court, the women’s apartments, ari, 
 
 i, ἀπ Oe. 
 harem or haram ( @ > and 
 
 prohibited, with ,.which may be compared the 
 Hebrew Armon, 2 Ἰδὲ, Stanley, S. δ᾽ P. App. 
 § 82), are usually in the second court; other- 
 wise they form a separate building within the 
 general enclosure, or are above on the first floor 
 (Lane, Mod. Eg. i. 179, 207; Views in Syria, 
 i. 56). The entrance to the harem is crossed 
 by no one but the master of the house and the 
 domestics belonging to the female establish- 
 ment. Though this remark would not apply 
 
 5 
 
 δ > secluded, or 
 
 Interior of House (harem) in Damascus. 
 
HOUSE 
 
 in the same degree to Jewish habits, the privacy 
 of the women’s apartments may possibly be 
 indicated by the “inner chamber” (ὙΠ: 
 ταμιεῖον ; cubiculum) resorted to as a hiding- 
 place (1 K. xx. 30, xxii, 25; see Judg. xv. 1). 
 Solomon, in his ‘marriage with a foreigner, 
 introduced also foreign usage in this respect, 
 which was carried farther in subsequent times 
 (1 K. vii. 8; 2 K. xxiv. 15). [(Women.] The 
 harem of the Persian monarch (2 N'A; ὁ 
 γυναικών ; domus feminarum) is noticed in the 
 Book of Esther (ii. 3). 
 
 When there is an upper story, the Ka‘ah forms 
 the most important apartment, and thus 
 probably answers to the ὑπερῷον, which was 
 often the ‘guest-chamber” (Luke xxii. 12; 
 Acts i. 18, ix. 37, xx. 8; Burckhardt, Trav. i. 
 154; Miss Rogers, pp. 130, 177; Robinson, ii. 
 229). The windows of the upper rooms often 
 project one or two feet, and form a kiosk or 
 latticed chamber, the ceilings of which are 
 elaborately ornamented (Lane, i. 27; Russell, 
 i, 102; Burckhardt, Zrav. i. 190). Such may 
 
 have been the “chamber in the wall” (δ: 
 ὑπερῷον ; coenaculum; Gesen. p. 1030) made, or 
 rather set apart for 
 Elisha, by the Shu- 
 nammite woman (2 K. 
 iv. 10, 11). So also 
 the ‘‘summer par- 
 lour ” of Eglon (Judg. 
 ili. 20, 23, but see 
 Wilkinson, i. 11), the 
 “loft ” of the widow 
 of Zarephath (1 K. 
 xvii. 19). The “ lat- 
 tice” GID ; δικ- 
 
 τυωτόν; — cancelli) 
 through which Aha- 
 ziah_ fell, perhaps 
 
 belonged to an upper 
 chamber of this kind 
 (2 K. i. 2), as also 
 the “third loft ” (rpi- 
 oreyov) from which 
 Eutychus fell (Acts 
 XX ὯΙ ECON 761: 
 xxii. 13). There are 
 usually no special 
 7 bed-rooms in Eastern 
 houses, and thus the 
 room in which Ishbo- 
 sheth was murdered 
 was probably an 
 : : ordinary room with 
 eo aie (From a diwan, on which 
 he was _ sleeping 
 during the heat of the day (2 Sam. iv. 5, 6; 
 Lane, i. 41). 
 
 Sometimes the diwan is raised sufficiently to 
 allow of cellars underneath for stores of all 
 kinds (ταμιεῖα, Matt. xxiv. 26; Russell, i. 32). 
 
 The outer doors are closed with a wooden 
 
 lock, but in some cases the apartments are di-: 
 
 vided from each other by curtains only (Lane, 
 i, 42; Chardin, iv. 123; Russell, i. 21). 
 
 There are no chimneys, but fire is made when 
 required with charcoal in a chafing-dish; or a 
 fire of wood might be kindled in the open court 
 of the house (Luke xxii. 55; Russell, i. 21; 
 
 HOUSE 1407 
 
 Lane, i. 41; Miss Rogers, p. 153; Chardin, 
 iv. 120). 
 
 Besides the mandarah, some houses in Cairo 
 have an apartment.called mak‘ad, open in front 
 to the court, with two or more arches, and 
 a railing; and a pillar to support the wall 
 above (Lane, i. 38). It was in a chamber of 
 this kind, probably one of the largest size to be 
 found in a palace, that our Lord was being ar- 
 raigned before the high-priest, at the time 
 when the denial of Him by St. Peter took place. 
 He “‘turned and looked” on Peter as he stood 
 by the fire in the court (Luke xxii. 56, 61; 
 John xviii. 24), whilst He Himself was in the 
 “hall of judgment,” the mak‘ad. Such was the 
 “porch of judgment” built by Solomon (1 K. 
 vii. 7), which finds a parallel in the golden alcove 
 of Mohammed Uzbek (Ibn Batuta, Zrav. p. 76, 
 ed. Lee). 
 
 Before quitting the interior of the house, we 
 may observe that on the diwan the “ corner” is 
 the place of honour (cp. Amos iii. 12, the 
 “couch” [R. V.] being the divan), which is 
 never quitted by the master of the house in re- 
 ceiving strangers (Russell, i. 27; Miss Rogers, 
 pp- 168-171; Malan, Zyre and Sidon, p. 38). The 
 roofs of Eastern houses are, as has been said, 
 mostly flat, though there are sometimes domes 
 over some of the rooms. * The flat portions are 
 plastered with a composition of mortar, tar, 
 ashes, and sand, which in time becomes very 
 hard, but when not laid on at the proper 
 season is apt to crack in winter, and the rain 
 is thus admitted. In order to prevent this, 
 every roof is provided with a roller, which is 
 set at work after rain. In many cases the 
 terrace roof is little better than earth rolled 
 hard. On ill-compacted roofs grass is often 
 found springing into a short-lived existence 
 (Prov. xix. 13, xxvii, 15; Ps. exxix. 6, 75 Is. 
 xxxvii. 27; Shaw, p. 210; Lane, i. 27 ; Robinson, 
 iii. 39, 44, 60). 
 
 In no point do Oriental domestic habits differ 
 more from European than in the use of the roof. 
 Its flat surface is made useful for various house- 
 hold purposes, as drying corn, hanging up linen, 
 and preparing figs and raisins (Shaw, p. 211; 
 Burckhardt, Zrav. i. 191). The roofs are used 
 as places of recreation in the evening, and often 
 as sleeping-places at night (2 Sam. xi. 2, xvi. 22; 
 Dan. iv. 29; 1 Sam. ix. 25, 26; Job xxvii. 18; 
 Proy. xxi.9; Shaw, p. 211; Russell, i. 35 ; Char- 
 din, iv. 116; Layard, Nineveh, i. 177; Robinson, 
 ii. 234). They were also used as places for de- 
 votion, and even idolatrous worship (Jer. xxxii. 
 29, xix. 18; 2 K. xxiii. 12; Zeph. i. 55 Acts x. 
 
 | 9). At the time of the Feast of Tabernacles, 
 , booths were erected by the Jews on the tops of 
 
 their houses, as in the present day huts of 
 boughs are sometimes erected on the housetops 
 as sleeping-places, or places of retirement from 
 the heat in summer time (Neh. viii. 16; Burck- 
 hardt, Syria, p. 280). As among the Jews the 
 seclusion of women was not carried to the extent 
 of Mohammedan usage, it is probable that the 
 house-top was made, as it is among Christian 
 inhabitants, more a place of public meeting, 
 both for men and women, than is the case among 
 Mohammedans, who carefully seclude their 
 roofs from inspection by partitions (Burckhardt, 
 Trav. i. 1913 cp. Wilkinson, i. 23). The 
 Christians at Aleppo, in Russell’s time, lived 
 
1408 HOUSE OF GOD 
 
 contiguous, and made their house-tops a means 
 of mutual communication to avoid passing 
 through the streets in time of plague (Russell, 
 i. 35). In the same manner the house-top 
 might be made a means of escape by the stairs 
 by which it was reached without entering any 
 of the apartments of the house (Matt. xxiv. 17, 
 x. 27; Luke xii. 3). 
 
 Both Jews and heathens were in the habit 
 of wailing publicly on the house-tops (Is. xv. 
 3, xxii. 1; Jer. xlviii. 38). Protection of the 
 roof by parapets was enjoined by the Law 
 (Deut. xxii. 8). The parapets thus constructed, 
 of which the types may be seen in ancient 
 Egyptian houses, were sometimes of open work, 
 and it is to a fall through or over one of these 
 that the injury by which Ahaziah suffered is 
 sometimes ascribed (Shaw, p. 211). To pass over 
 roofs for plundering purposes, as well as for 
 safety, would be no difficult matter (Joel ii. 9). 
 In ancient Egyptian and also in Assyrian houses 
 a sort of raised story was sometimes built above 
 the roof, and in the former an open chamber, 
 roofed or covered with awning, was sometimes 
 erected on the house-top (Wilkinson, i. 9; 
 Layard, Mon. of Nin. ii. pl. 49, 50). 
 
 There are usually no fire-places, except in the 
 kitchen, the furniture of which consists of a 
 sort of raised platform of brick with receptacles 
 in it for fire, answering to the “ boiling places” 
 cmibvian ; μαγειρεῖα ; culinae) of Ezekiel (xlvi. 
 23; Lane, i. 41; Gesen. p. 249; Miss Rogers, 
 p- 153). 
 
 Special apartments were devoted in larger 
 houses to winter and summer uses (Jer. Xxxvi. 
 22; Amos iii. 15; Chardin, iv. 119). 
 
 The ivory house of Ahab was probably a 
 palace largely ornamented with inlaid ivory. 
 [ PALACE. ] 
 
 The circumstance of Samson’s pulling down 
 the house by means of the pillars, may be ex- 
 plained by the fact of the company being as- 
 sembled on tiers of balconies above each other, 
 supported by central pillars on the basement ; 
 when these were pulled down, the whole of the 
 upper floors would fall also (Judg. xvi. 26; 
 Shaw, p. 211). 
 
 Houses for jewels and armour were built 
 and furnished under the kings (2 K. xx. 13). 
 The draught house (MN IND; κοπρών ; latrinae) 
 was doubtless a public latrine, such as exists 
 in modern Eastern cities (2 K. x. 27; Russell, 
 i, 34). 
 
 Leprosy in the house was probably a nitrous 
 efilorescence on the walls, which was injurious 
 to the salubrity of the house, and whose re- 
 moval was therefore strictly enjoined by the 
 Law (Ley. xiv. 34, 55; Kitto,’ Phys. Geogr. of 
 Pal., p. 112; Winer, 5. v. Hauser; Michaelis, 
 Laws of Moses, iii. 297: see Defoe, Plague of 
 London, p. 137). 
 
 The word N° is prefixed to words consti- 
 tuting a local name, as Bethany, Bethhoron, 
 &c. In modern names it is represented by Beit, 
 as Beitlahm. [H. W. P.] 
 
 _ HOUSE OF GOD. The expression occurs 
 in the A. V. of Judg. xx. 18, 26, xxi. 2, as a 
 
 translation of Dyna. The R. V. renders the 
 
 Hebrew more correctly “Bethel” (see δ. D., 
 Amer. ed.), 
 
 HUMTAH 
 
 HUK’KOK (Ppn, ? = rock excavation; B 
 Ἰακᾶνα, A. “Inéx; Hucuca), a place on the 
 boundary of Naphtali (Josh. xix, 34) named next 
 to Aznoth-Tabor. It is mentioned by Eusebius 
 and Jerome (0.5.2 p. 261, 82; p. 166, 7; Εἰκώκ, 
 Icoc), but in such a manner as to show that 
 they knew nothing of it but from the text. By 
 Hap-Parchi in 1320, and in this century by 
 Wolcott and by Robinson, Hukkok has been 
 recovered in Yakuk, a village in the mountains 
 of Naphtali, west of the upper end of the Sea of 
 Galilee, about 7 miles S.S.W. of Safed, and at 
 the head of Waddy el-‘Amud, though Dillmann? 
 considers this too far north. An ancient 
 Jewish tradition locates here the tomb of Ha- 
 bakkuk (Zunz, in B. Tudela, ii. 421; Schwarz, 
 p- 182; Robinson, iii. 81, 82; PHF. Mem. i. 
 364; Guérin, Galilée, i. 354 sq.). [G.] [W.] 
 
 HU’KOK (ppin; B. “κάκ, A. Ἰακάκ ; Hucac), 
 a name which in 1 Ch. vi. 75 is substituted 
 for Helkath in the paralle? list of the Gershonite 
 cities in Asher, in Josh. xxi. 31. 
 
 HUL (3n; ova, in 1 Ch. B. om, A. O88; 
 Hul; cp. 1 Ch. i. 17), the second son of Aram, 
 and grandson of Shem (Gen. x. 23). The geo- 
 graphical position of the people whom he repre- 
 sents is not well decided. Josephus (ἀπέ. i. 6, 
 § 4) and Jerome fix it in Armenia; Schulthens 
 (Parad. p. 262) on etymological grounds (as 
 
 though the name =bin, sand) proposes the 
 southern part of Mesopotamia (cp. the name 
 of the district Hulija in the Assyrian inserip- 
 tions; see Delitzsch [1887] and Dillmann*® in 
 loco); Von Bohlen (Introd. to Gen. ii. 249) 
 places it in the neighbourhood of Chaldaea. 
 Some favour the district about the roots of 
 Lebanon, where the names Ard el-Hiileh, a dis- 
 trict to the north of Lake Merom; Οὔλαθα. a 
 town, or locality, noticed by Josephus (Ant. xv. 
 10, § 3), between Galilee and Trachonitis; and 
 Golan, and its modern form Jauldn, bear some’ 
 affinity to the original name of Mul, or, as it should 
 rather be written, Chul. [1 Bale awe} 
 
 HUL/DAH (172M; “Oadav; Olda), a pro- 
 phetess, whose husband Shallum was keeper of 
 the wardrobe in the time of king Josiah, and 
 who dwelt in the suburb (Rosenmiiller ad Zeph. 
 i. 10) of Jerusalem. While Jeremiah was still 
 at Anathoth, a young man unknown to fame, 
 Huldah was the most distinguished person for 
 prophetic gifts in Jerusalem ; and it was to her 
 that Josiah had recourse when Hilkiah found a 
 book of the Law, to procure an authoritative 
 opinion on it (2 K. xxii. i4; 2 Ch. xxxiv. 22). 
 The name is found in Palmyrene inscriptions 
 (MY.1!), and on coins such as that of a Naba- 
 tean queen contemporary with Pompey (Riehm, 
 HWB. 5. n.). [W.. τ. 8.1 ἘΕῚῚ 
 
 HUM'TAH (A191; B. Εὑμά, A. Χαμματά; 
 Athmatha), a city of Judah, one of those in the 
 mountain-district, the next to Hebron (Josh. xv. 
 54). It was not known to Eusebius and Jerome 
 (see OS2 p. 241, 53; p. 180, 20; ᾿Αμμαθά, 
 Amatthar), nor has it since been identified. 
 There is some resemblance between the name and 
 that of Kimath (Kiud@), one of the places added 
 by the Vat. LXX. to the list in the Hebrew 
 text of 1 Sam. xxx. 27-31. [6] EWa 
 
HUNTING 
 
 HUNTING. The objects for which hunting 
 is practised, indicate the various conditions of 
 society and the progress of civilisation. Hunt- 
 ing, as a matter of necessity, whether for the 
 extermination of dangerous beasts, or for pro- 
 curing sustenance, betokens a rude and semi- 
 civilised state; as an amusement, it betokens an 
 advanced state. In the former, personal prowess 
 and physical strength are the qualities which 
 elevate a man above his fellows and fit him for 
 dominion, and hence one of the greatest heroes 
 of antiquity is described as a “mighty hunter 
 before the Lord ” (Gen. x. 9), while Ishmael, the 
 progenitor of a wild race, was famed as an 
 archer (Gen. xxi. 20), and Esau, holding a simi- 
 jar position, was “a cunning hunter, a man of 
 the fiell” (Gen. xxv. 27). The latter state 
 may be exemplified, not indeed from Scripture 
 itself, but from contemporary records. Among 
 the accomplishments of Herod, his skill in the 
 chase is particularly noticed; he kept a regular 
 stud and a huntsman (Joseph, Ant. xvi. 10, § 3), 
 followed up the sport in a wild country (Ant. 
 xv. 7, §7) which abounded with stags, wild 
 asses, and bears, and is said to have killed as 
 many as forty head in a day (B. J. i. 21, § 13). 
 The wealthy in Egypt and Assyria followed the 
 sports of the field with great zest; they had 
 their preserves for the express purpose of pre- 
 serving and hunting game (Wilkinson’s Anc. 
 Egypt. i. 215 [1878]; Xen. Cyrop. i. 4, § 5, 14), 
 and drew from hunting scenes subjects for de- 
 corating the walls of their buildings, and even 
 the robes they wore on state occasions, 
 
 The Hebrews, as a pastoral and agricultural 
 people, were not given to the sports of the 
 
 _ field; the density of the population, the earnest- 
 ness of their character, and the tendency of their 
 
 : ritual regulations, particularly those affecting 
 food, all combined to discourage the practice of 
 
 _ Aunting; and perhaps the examples of Ishmael 
 
 ——e αᾶἕης 
 
 and Esau were recorded with the same object. 
 _ There was no lack of game in Palestine; on 
 their entrance into the land, the wild beasts 
 were so numerous as to be dangerous (Ex. xxiii. 
 29); the utter destruction of them was guarded 
 against by the provisions of the Mosaic Law 
 (Ex. xxiii. 11; Lev. xxv. 7). Some of the 
 fiercer animals survived to a late period, as lions 
 (Judg. xiv. 5; 1 Sam. xvii. 34; 2 Sam. xxiii. 
 20; 1K. xiii. 24, xx. 36) and bears (1 Sam. 
 xvii. 34; 2 K. 11. 24). Jackals (Judg. xv. 4) and 
 foxes (Cant. ii. 15) were also numerous; hart, 
 roebuck, and fallow deer (Deut. xii. 15; 1 Καὶ. 
 iv. 23) formed a regular source of sustenance, 
 and were possibly preserved in enclosures. The 
 manner of catching these animals was either 
 by digging a pitfall (Mt), which was the 
 usual manner with the larger animals, as the 
 lion (2 Sam. xxiii. 20; Ezek. xix. 4, 8); or 
 secondly by a trap (M5), which was set under 
 ground (Job xviii. 10), in the run of the animal 
 (Prov. xxii. 5), and caught it by the leg (Job 
 xviii. 9); or lastly by the use of the net, of 
 which there were various kinds, as for the 
 gazelle (Ὁ) (Is. li. 20, A. V. “wild bull,” R. V. 
 
 “antelope”’), and other animals of that class. 
 {Ner.] The method in which the net was 
 applied is familiar to us from the descriptions 
 
 in Virgil (Aen. iv. 121, 151 sq., x. 707 sq.); it 
 was placed across a ravine or narrow valley, 
 BIBLE DICT.—VOL. I. 
 
 — SS). 
 
 ἵ 
 Ν 
 ’ 
 
 Ἷ 
 
 HUR 1409 
 
 frequented by the animals for the sake of water, 
 and the game was driven in by the hunters and 
 then despatched either with bow and arrow, or 
 spears (cp. Wilkinson, i. 214), The game selected 
 was generally such as was adapted for food 
 (Prov. xii. 27), and care was taken to pour out 
 the blood of these as well as of tame animals 
 (Lev. xvii. 13). 
 
 Birds formed an article of food among the 
 Hebrews (Lev. xvii. 13), and much skill was 
 exercised in catching them. ‘The following were 
 the most approved methods. (1) The trap (NB), 
 which consisted of two parts: a net, strained 
 over a frame, and a stick to support it, but so 
 placed that it should give way at the slightest 
 touch ; the stick or springe was termed vpn 
 (Amos iii. 5, “gin;” Ps. Ixix. 22, “trap”); 
 this was the most usual method (Job xviii. ὁ ; 
 Eccles. ix. 12; Prov. vii. 23). (2) The snare 
 (OD¥, from DD’, to braid; Job xviii. 9, A. V. 
 “robber,” R. V. “gin”), consisting of a cord 
 (53n, Job xviii. 10; ep. Ps. xviii, 5, exvi 3, 
 cxl. 5), so set as to catch the bird by the leg. 
 (8) The net, which probably resembled those 
 used in Egypt, consisting of two sides or frames, 
 over which network was strained, and so ar- 
 ranged that they could be closed by means of a 
 cord: the Hebrew names are various. [NET.] 
 (4) The decoy, to which reference is made in 
 Jer. v. 26, 27—a cage of a peculiar construc- 
 
 tion (a15>)—was filled with birds, which acted 
 as decoys; the door of the cage was kept open 
 by a piece of stick acting as a springe (NNW), 
 and closed suddenly on the entrance of a bird. 
 
 The partridge appears to have been used as a 
 decoy (Ecclus. xi. 30), [W. L. B.] 
 
 HU’PHAM (O54, (?) = inhabitant of the 
 coast, Ges.; LXX. om.; Hupham), a son of 
 Benjamin, founder of the family (Mishpachah) 
 of the HupHamires (Num. xxvi. 39). In the 
 lists of Gen. xlvi. and 1 Ch. vii. the name is 
 given as HUPPIM, which see. 
 
 HUPHAMITES, THE CODINI; LXX. 
 om.; Huphamitae), descendants of HupHAm of 
 the tribe of Benjamin (Num. xxvi. 39). 
 
 HUP'PAH (MBM=a covering ; B. “Οχχοφρά, 
 A. ‘Opod; Hoppha), a priest in the time of 
 David, to whom was committed the charge of 
 the thirteenth of the twenty-four courses in the 
 service of the House of God (1 Ch. xxiv. 13). 
 
 HUP’PIM (ΒΓ =corerings: Gen. xlvi. 21, 
 A. ‘Ogpmtv, D. ‘Oppety; Ophim: 1 Ch. vii. 12, 
 B. ‘Amgely, A. ‘Agdelu; Hapham), head of a 
 Benjamite family. According to the text of the 
 LXX. in Gen. a son of Bela [Beta], but 
 according to Ch. a son of Ir or Iri, who was one 
 of the sons of Bela. The sister of Huppim mar- 
 ried into the tribe of Manasseh. ΕΑ C. Η.] 
 
 HUR (1M, Hur). 1. (Ὧρ; Joseph. Ὦρος.) 
 A man who is mentioned with Moses and Aaron 
 on the occasion of the battle with Amalek at 
 Rephidim (Ex. xvii. 10), when with Aaron he 
 stayed up the hands of Moses (v. 12), He is men- 
 tioned again in xxiv, 14, as being, with Aaron, 
 
 4X 
 
1410 HUR 
 
 left in charge of the people by Moses during his 
 ascent of Sinai. It would appear from this that 
 he must have been a person connected with the 
 family of Moses and of some weight in the camp. 
 The latter would follow from the former. The 
 Jewish tradition, as preserved by Josephus 
 (Ant. iii. 2, § 4), is that he was the husband of 
 Miriam, and (iii. 6, § 1) that he was identical 
 with 
 
 2. (‘Np.) The grandfather of Bezaleel, the 
 chief artificer of the Tabernacle—“ son of Uri, 
 son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah” (Ex. xxxi. 2, 
 xxxv. 30, xxxviii. 22), the full genealogy being 
 given on each occasion (see also 2 Ch. i. 5). In 
 the lists of the descendants of Judah in 1 Ch. 
 the pedigree is more fully preserved. Hur there 
 appears as one of the great family of Pharez. 
 He was the son of Caleb ben-Hezron, by a second 
 wife, Ephrath (ii. 19, 20; cp. v. 5, also iv. 1), the 
 first fruit of the marriage (ii. 50, iv. 4), and the 
 father, besides Uri (v. 20), of three sons, who 
 founded the towns of Kirjath-jearim, Beth-lehem, 
 and Beth-gader (v. 51). Hur’s connexion with 
 Beth-lehem would seem to have been of a closer 
 nature than with the others of these places, for 
 he himself is emphatically called “ Abi-Beth- 
 lehem ”—the “father of Bethlehem” (iv. 4). 
 Certainly Beth-lehem enjoyed, down to a very 
 late period, a traditional reputation for the arts 
 which distinguished his illustrious grandson. 
 Jesse, the father of David, is said to have been 
 a weaver of the vails of the Sanctuary (Targ. 
 Jonathan, 2 Sam. xxi. 19), and the dyers were 
 still lingering there when Benjamin of Tudela 
 visited Bethlehem in the 13th century. 
 
 In the Targum on 1 Ch. ii. 19 and iv. 4, 
 Ephrath is taken as identical with Miriam: but 
 this would be to contradict the more trustworthy 
 tradition given above from Josephus. 
 
 In his comments on 1 Ch. iv. 1 (Quaest. Hebr. 
 in Paralip.), Jerome overlooks the fact that the 
 five persons there named as “sons” of Judah 
 are really members of successive generations ; 
 and he attempts, as his manner is, to show that 
 each of them is identical with one of the im- 
 mediate sons of the Patriarch. Hur he makes 
 to be another name for Onan. 
 
 3. (Οὕρ, Joseph. Ovpns.) The fourth of the 
 five “ kings ” ond; LXX. and Joseph. Ané. iv. 
 7, § 1, βασιλεῖς) of Midian, who were slain with 
 Balaam after the “matter of Peor” (Num. xxxi. 
 8). Ina later mention of them (Josh. xiii. 21) 
 they are called “princes” (NWI) of Midian 
 and “dukes” (*3°D); not the word commonly 
 rendered “duke,” but probably with the force 
 of dependence, see Keil on Josh. 7. c. and Dill- 
 mann? on Num. l.c.; LXX. ἔναρα) of Sihon king 
 of the Amorites, who was killed at the same 
 time with them. No further light can be 
 obtained as to Hur. 
 
 4. (BA. omit.) Father of Rephaiah, who 
 
 was ruler of half of the environs CDE, ASLV 
 “part,” R. V. “district ”) of Jerusalem, and 
 assisted Nehemiah in the repair of the wall 
 (Neh. iii. 9). 
 
 5. (Ὁ. Baidép). The “son of Hur ”—Ben-Chur 
 —was commissariat officer for Solomon in Mount 
 Ephraim (1 K. iv. 8). The LXX. A. gives the word 
 Ben both in its original and its translated form 
 (Βὲν vids “Qp), ἃ not infrequent custom with 
 
 ! ntries. 
 
 HUSHAH 
 
 them. Josephus (Ané. viii. 2, § 3) has Οὔρης as 
 the name of the officer himself. The Vulg. 
 (Benhur) follows the Hebrew, and is in turn 
 followed in the margin of the A. V. It is 
 remarkable that the same form is observed in 
 giving the names of no less than five out of the 
 twelve officers in this list. [ἃ ἢ 
 
 HU'RAI (310; B. Οὐρεί, A. -ρι; Hurai), 
 one of David’s guard—Hurai of the torrents of 
 Gaash—according to the list of 1 Ch. xi. 82. In 
 the parallel catalogue of 2 Sam. xxiii. 30 the 
 R is changed to D, as is frequently the case, and 
 the name stands as Hippat. Kennicott has ex- 
 amined the discrepancy, and, influenced by the 
 readings of some of the MSS. of the LXX., 
 decides in favour of Hurai as the genuine name 
 (Dissert. p. 194). 
 
 HU’RAM (O71N, Ges. [MV."'=nobly born, 
 but possibly an abbreviation for DUNN, or 
 "ΠΝ; Assyr. Hirummu; B. ‘Oty, A. Ἰωίμ; 
 Huram). 1. A Benjamite ; son of Bela, the first- 
 born of the Patriarch (1 Ch. viii. 5), 
 
 2. The form in which the name of the king of 
 Tyre in alliance with David and Solomon—and 
 elsewhere given as HIRAM—appears in Chroni- 
 cles. (a.) At the time of David’s establishment 
 at Jerusalem (1 Ch. xiv. 1). In the A. V. and 
 R. V. the name is Hiram, in accordance with the 
 Ketib or original Hebrew text (Ὡ 77}; but in 
 the marginal correction of the Masorets (Qeri) 
 it is altered to Huram (0)N), the form which 
 is maintained in all its other occurrences in these 
 Books. The LXX. Χειράμ, Vulg. Hiram, and 
 Targum, all agree with the A/etib. (b.) At the 
 accession of Solomon (2 Ch. ii. 3, 11, 12; viii. 2, 
 18; ix. 10, 21: in each of these cases also the 
 LXX. has BA. Xeipdu, and the Vulg. Hiram). 
 
 9. The same change occurs in Chronicles in 
 the name of Hiram the artificer, which is given 
 as Huram in the following places: 2 Ch. ii 13 ; 
 iv. 11, 16. In the first and last of these a 
 singular title is given him —the word Ab, 
 “father ”»—“ Huram my father,’* and “ Huram 
 his father.” No doubt this denotes the respect 
 and esteem in which he was held, according to 
 the similar custom of the people of the Hast at 
 the present day.” There also the LXX. and 
 Vulgate follow the form Hiram. (G.] [ΕΠ 
 
 HU’RI (NN = linen-weaver; B. Odpet, A. 
 Oipt; Huri), a Gadite ; father of Abihail, a chief 
 man in that tribe (1 Ch. v. 14). 
 
 HU’SHAH (navn = haste ; ‘Qodv; Hosa), a 
 name which occurs in the genealogies of the 
 tribe of Judah (1 Ch. iv. 4)—“ Ezer, father of 
 
 a The A. V. and R. V. (text) of 2 Ch. ii. 13 take 
 the words ‘of Huram my father’s”? to mean the late 
 king; but this is unnecessary, and the Hebrew will well 
 bear the rendering given above (R. V. marg.). 
 
 b Analogous to this, though not exactly similar, is 
 Joseph’s expression (Gen. xly. 8), ‘*God hath made 
 me a father unto Pharaoh.” Cp. also 1 Macc. xi. 323. 
 where note the use of the twoterms “cousin” (συγγενής, 
 τ. 31) and ‘‘ father” (v. 32). Somewhat analogous, too, 
 is the use of terms of relationship—* brother,” ‘‘cousin” 
 —in legal and official documents of our own and other — 
 
HUSHAT 
 
 Hushah.” It may well be the name of a place, 
 like Etam, Gedor, Beth-lehem, and others, in the 
 preceding and succeeding verses; but we have 
 no means of ascertaining the fact, since it occurs 
 nowhere else. For a patronymic possibly derived 
 froim this name, see HUSHATHITE. 
 
 HU’/SHAL (WAN =quick ; B. Χουσεί, A. [some- 
 times] and Joseph. Xovol; Chusai), an Archite, 
 i.e. possibly an inhabitant of a place called Erec 
 (2 Sam. xv. 32 sq.; xvi. 16 sq.). He is called 
 the “friend” of David (2 Sam. xv. 37: in 
 1 Ch. xxvii. 33, the word is rendered “ com- 
 panion;” cp. Joseph. Ant. vii. 9, § 2: the LXX. 
 has a strange confusion of Archite and ἀρχι- 
 εταῖρος = chief friend). To him David confided 
 the delicate and dangerous part of a pretended 
 adherence to the cause of Absalom. His advice 
 was preferred to that of Ahithophel, and speedily 
 brought to pass the ruin which was intended. 
 His son Baana was one of Solomon’s commissariat 
 officers (1 K. iv. 16). Hushai himself was pro- 
 bably no longer living; at any rate his office 
 was filled by another (1 K. iv. ὅδ. [Τ᾿ E. B.] 
 
 HU'SHAM (OM, in Chronicles DWN 
 = quick ; “Ασόμ; Husam), one of the kings of 
 Edom, before the institution of monarchy in 
 Israel (Gen. xxxvi. 34, 35; 1 Ch. i. 45, 46), 
 He is described as ‘‘Husham of the land of the 
 Temanite;” and he succeeded Jobab, who is 
 taken by the LXX. in their addition to the Book 
 of Job to be identical with that Patriarch. 
 
 HU’SHATHITE, THE ΟΠ ΠΠ, and twice 
 
 in Chronicles wn ; de Husati, Husathites), 
 
 the: designation of two of the heroes of David’s 
 
 guard. 1. ῬΊΒΒΕΟΗΑΙ (2 Sam. xxi. 18 [Β. 6 
  “Αστατωθεί, A. ᾿Αουσαστωνεεί]ῆ; 1 Ch. xi. 29 
  [8. ὁ “Αθεί, ἐξ. ὁ ᾿Ιαθεί, A. 6 ᾿Ασωθί], xx. 4 [B. 
 Θωσαθεί, A. ὃ Οὐσαθῇ, xxvii. 11 [Β. 6 ᾿Ισαθεί, 
 _ A. om.]). In the last of these passages he is 
 said to have belonged to the Zarhites; that is, 
 (probably) to the descendants of Zerah of the 
 tribe of Judah. So far this is in accordance 
 with a connexion between this and HUSHAH; a 
 name, apparently of a place, in the genealogies of 
 Judah. Josephus, however (Ant. vii. 12, § 2), 
 mentions Sibbechai as a Hittite. 
 
 2. (B. ᾿Ανωθείτης [bis], A. ᾿Αναθωθείτης and 
 ᾿Ασωθείτης ; de Husati.) A patronymic ap- 
 plied to one ΜΈΒΟΝΝΑΙ (2 Sam. xxiii. 27), a 
 corruption of SIBBECHAI (see Driver, Notes on 
 the Heb. Text of the BB. of Samuel, in loco). 
 
 HU'SHIM. 1.(0°UN; ‘Acdu; Husim.) In 
 Gen. xlyi. 23, “the children of (23) Dan” are 
 said to have been Hushim. The name is plural, 
 as if of a tribe rather than an individual, which 
 perhaps is one way of accounting for the use of 
 the plural in “children” (for another view see 
 Knobel in Dillmann® on Gen. xxxvi. 25). In the 
 
 list of Num. xxvi. 42 the name is changed to 
 
 | SHUHAM. 
 
 _ Hushim figures prominently in the Jewish 
 
 traditions of the recognition of Joseph, and of 
 
 Jacob’s burial at Hebron. See the quotations 
 
 from the Midrash in Weil’s Bib. Legends, p. 88, 
 “note, and the Targum Pseudojon. on Gen. 1. 13. 
 
 & In the latter he is the executioner of Esau. 
 
 " 
 
 HUSKS 1411 
 
 2. (OWN, ἐσ. Chushshim; B. om., A. ’AodB, 
 Hasim), « member of the genealogy of Benjamin 
 (1 Ch, vii. 12); and here again apparently (as 
 the text now stands) the plural nature of the 
 name is recognised, and Hushim is stated to be 
 “the sons of (Bene) Aher” (see Bertheau in 
 Laeg. Hdbuch. ad loc.). 
 
 3. (WIN and DWN: B. in v. 8, Σωσίν, 
 in v. 11 'Ωσιμέν, A. ᾽Ωσίμ; Husim, but in v. 11 
 Mehusim, by inclusion of the Hebrew particle.) 
 The name occurs again in the genealogy of Ben- 
 jamin, but there as that of one of the two wives 
 of Shaharaim (1 Ch. viii. 8), and the mother of 
 two of his sons (Ὁ. 11). In this case the plural 
 significance of the name is not alluded to. 
 
 HUSKS. By this word the A. V. and R. V. 
 texts have rendered κεράτια in Luke xy. 16, cor- 
 rectly explained in the R. V. margin, pods of the 
 carob tree. The tree is mentioned in this single 
 passage in Scripture. It is also known as the 
 locust tree (Ceratoria siliqua, L.), belonging to the 
 botanical order Leguminosae. The name carob 
 tree is derived from the Talmudic 2)7N, charab; 
 
 Ww 
 Arabic Ls 75 ς- re >>, charriib, churnib, 
 
 whence too the Italian carouba. It is one of the 
 most common trees in Egypt and in Palestine 
 from Hebron northwards, and is a very con- 
 spicuous and attractive feature in the landscape, 
 with its dense, deep-green foliage. The leaves 
 are pinnate, like those of our ash-tree, but more 
 ovate and very dark, glossy, and evergreen. The 
 carob blossoms in February, and from April to 
 June yields enormous quantities of pods. These 
 are flat and narrow, from 6 to 10 inches in 
 length, and shaped like a horn, whence the 
 Greek name. When ripe, they are of a dark 
 
 Pods of the Carob Tree. 
 
 purple colour ; but when green and tender, they 
 
 have an agreeable, sweet taste. They are often 
 
 chewed, or steeped in water to supply a pleasant 
 
 drink, like the tamarind of the West Indies, 
 
 which they somewhat resemble in flavour. 
 1 cS 
 
 2 “ 
 
1412 HUZ 
 
 Pliny (v. 24) writes, “Haud procul abesse vide- 
 antur, et predulces silique, nisi quod in iis cortex 
 ipse manditur.” The Mishna mentions the 
 carob beans as common food for cattle (Shabb. 24, 
 § 2). Columella in his treatise on husbandry 
 speaks of the carob tree as affording food for 
 swine: “Nemora sunt convenientissima quae 
 vestiuntur ... . tamaricibus” (ie. the carob) 
 (De Re Rust. vii. 9). Our Lord in the parable 
 represents the prodigal, when reduced to the 
 most abject misery, as fain to fill his belly with 
 the husks: and so we find it spoken of in classical 
 authors as the food of the very poorest. Horace 
 writes of the poor poet, “ Vivit siliquis et pane 
 secundo” (Zp. τι. i. 123). So Persius of the 
 youths who hand themselves oyer to the training 
 of the Stoics— 
 
 ** Insomnis quibus et detonsa juventus 
 Invigilat, siliquis et grandi pasta polenta.” 
 (Sat. iii. 54.) 
 
 And Juvenal, “Sed laudem siliquas occultus 
 ganeo ” (xi. 58). 
 
 These “husks” are still to be seen on the stalls 
 in every Eastern bazaar, and are still especially 
 used by the Christians for feeding pigs. The 
 writer has seen in the woods north-east of Acre, 
 herds of swine feeding under the carob trees. The 
 earob tree is grown in al] the countries bordering 
 on the Mediterranean. Large quantities of the 
 beans are exported from Malta to England, for 
 feeding horses, under the name of locust beans. 
 The tree is sometimes called “St. John’s bread,” 
 from the tradition that its fruit was the locusts 
 on which the Baptist was sustained in the 
 wilderness. But the locust of the Gospel 
 history was, as all commentators now are agreed, 
 the ordinary insect of that name, and which the 
 Arabs commonly use as food, (H. B. T.] 
 
 HUZ (jv, tc. Uz, as in R. V., in which form 
 the uame is uniformly given elsewhere in the 
 A. V.; A. *&3; Hus), the eldest son of Nahor 
 and Milcah (Gen. xxii. 21). [Buz; Uz.] 
 
 HUZ'ZAB ΩΝ; ἡ ὑπόστασις ; miles cap- 
 tivus) was, according to the general opinion of 
 the Jews (Buxtorf’s Lexicon ad voc. 2¥), the 
 queen of Nineveh at the time when Nahum 
 delivered his prophecy (ii. 7). This view was 
 also adopted by the A. V. (text) and R. V. 
 (text), and has been defended by Ewald. Many 
 modern expositors, however, incline to the 
 belief that Huzzab here is not a proper name at 
 all, but the Hophal of the verb 1¥) (Buxtorf, 
 
 Gesenius), and this is allowed as possible by the 
 marginal reading of the A. V., that which was 
 established, and of the R. V., it is decreed, follow- 
 ing Gesenius. The Assyrian historical inscrip- 
 tions reveal to us no such royal name as Huzzab, 
 either of king or queen, so that the marginal 
 renderings (cp. also the LXX.), which translate 
 the word, are certainly to be preferred. 
 
 (GB) [1G Py 
 
 HYAENA. Authorities are at variance as to 
 whether the term sabi‘a (VID¥) in Jer. xii. 6 
 
 means a “hyaena,” as the LXX. has it (éaivn), 
 or a “speckled bird,” as in the Vulgate, A. V. 
 and R. V. The etymological force of the word 
 is equally adapted to either, the hyaena being 
 restaked. The only other instance in which it 
 
 HYMENAEUS 
 
 occurs is as a proper name, Zeboim (1 Sam. 
 xiii, 18, “the valley of hyaenas,” Aquila; 
 Neh. xi. 34). The Talmudical writers describe 
 the hyaena by no less than four names, of which 
 sabu‘a is one (Lewysohn, Zool., ὃ 119). The 
 
 Arabic name exo dhabu‘, seems allied to it, The 
 
 opinions of Bochart (Hieroz. ii, 163) and Gesenius 
 (Thes. p. 1149) are in favour of the same view ; 
 nor could any room for doubt remain, were it 
 not for the word ‘ayit (OD; A, V. “bird ”) con- 
 nected with it, which in al! other passages refers 
 toa bird. The hyaena was common in ancient 
 as in modern Egypt, and is constantly depicted 
 on monuments (Wilkinson, i. 213, 225 [1878)). 
 The sense of the passage in Jeremiah implies a 
 fierce strong beast, not far below the lion in the 
 parallel passage (vy. 8): the hyaena fully answers 
 to this description. Though cowardly in his 
 nature, he is very savage when once heattacks, and 
 the strength of his jaws is such that he can crunch 
 the thigh-bone of an ox (Livingstone’s Travels, 
 p- 600). The striped hyaena (Hyaena striata, L.) 
 is very common in every part of Palestine. 1 
 have met with it in localities as distinct in 
 character as Beersheba, the Jordan Valley, Jeru- 
 salem, Mount Carmel, and Tabor. The country 
 affords it peculiar facilities, for its favourite home 
 is in caves or rock-hewn tombs, with which the 
 land is honeycombed. But where these are not, it 
 resides indifferently in woods, thickets or deserts. 
 It rarely attacks living prey, unless very hard 
 driven by hunger, but feeds on carrion and 
 especially on bones, which it collects and stores 
 in its caves. I have found seven camels’ skulls 
 together in a hyaena’s den. But it is detested 
 as the most unclean of animals, more particularly 
 from its habit of prowling about burial-grounds 
 and exhuming the corpses. Even when the 
 graye is protected by heavy stones, the hyaenas 
 will burrow alongside, and so drag forth the 
 body. The hyaena is in fact the Oriental in- 
 carnation of a ghoul: and I know not a sound 
 more ghostly than the wail of this beast in 
 the dead of night, when encamped in some 
 lonely desert. [wW. L. B.] [H. B. T.]j 
 
 HYDAS’PES (‘Tdaorns), a river noticed in 
 Judith i. 6, in connexion with the Euphrates 
 and Tigris. It is uncertain what river is 
 referred to; the well-known Hydaspes of India 
 (the Jhelam of the Panjab) is too remote to 
 accord with the other localities noticed in the — 
 context. It may be an error for the Choaspes 
 of Susiana. The Syriac has Ulai, the Eulaeus 
 of Pliny (Hist. Nat. vi. 31; cp. Dan. viii. 2), 
 which Ball thinks to be probably the original 
 word here (see Speaker’s Comm. on Judith, /. c.). 
 Zickler (“ Die Apokryphen d. A. T.” in Strack 
 τ. Zéckler’s Kgf. Komm., in loco) thinks that 
 the choice lies between the Choaspes and the 
 Eulaeus, cw. L. B.] [Ej 
 
 HYMENAE’US (Ὑμέναιος), the name of a 
 person occurring twice in the Pastoral letters 
 which, we believe, were written by St. Paul to- 
 Timothy ; the first time classed with Alexander, — 
 and with him “delivered to Satan, that they — 
 might learn not to blaspheme” (1 Tim. i. 20); 
 and the second time classed with Philetus, and 
 with him charged with having “ erred concern- 
 ing the truth, saying that the resurrection is 
 
HYMENAEUS 
 
 past already,” and with having thereby “ over- 
 thrown the faith of some” (2 Tim. ii. 17, 18). 
 These latter expressions, coupled with “the 
 shipwreck of faith ”’ attributed to Hymenaeus 
 in the context of the former passage (v. 19), 
 surely warrant our understanding both pas- 
 sages of the same person, notwithstanding the 
 interval between the dates of the two letters. 
 When the first was written, he had already 
 made one proselyte; before the second was 
 penned he had seduced another: and if so, the 
 only points further to be considered are, the 
 error attributed to him, and the sentence im- 
 posed upon him. 
 
 I. The error attributed to him was one that 
 had been in part appropriated from others, and 
 has frequently been revived since with additions. 
 What initiation was to the Pythagoreans, wis- 
 dom to the Stoics, science to the followers of 
 Plato, contemplation to the Peripatetics, that 
 “ knowledge ” (γνῶσις) was to the Gnostics. As 
 there were likewise in the Greek schools those 
 who looked forward to a complete restoration of 
 all things (ἀποκατάστασις, v. Heyne ad Virg. 
 ποῖ. iv. 5, ep. Aen. vi. 745): so there was 
 “a regeneration” (Jit. iii. 5; Matt. xix. 28), 
 “a new creation” (2 Cor. v. 17, see Alford ad 
 loc.; Rey. xxi. 1), “a kingdom of heaven and of 
 Messiah or Christ” (Matt. xiii.; Rev. vii.)—and 
 herem popular belief among the Jews coincided 
 —unequivocally propounded in the N. T.; but 
 here with this remarkable difference, namely, 
 that, in a great measure, it was present as well 
 as future—the same thing in germ that was to 
 be had in perfection eventually. “The king- 
 dom of God is within you,” said our Lord (Luke 
 xvii. 21). “He that is spiritual judgeth all 
 things,” said St. Paul (1 Cor. ii. 15). ‘ He that 
 is born of God cannot sin,” said St. John (1 Ep. 
 iii. 9). There are likewise two deaths and two 
 resurrections spoken of in the N. T.; the first 
 of each sort, that of the soul to and from sin 
 (John iii. 3-8), “ the hour which now is ” (ibid. 
 v. 24, 25, on which see Aug. De Civ. Dei, xx. 
 6); the second, that of the body to and from 
 corruption (1 Cor. xv. 36-44; also John ν. 28, 
 29), which last is prospective. Now as the doc- 
 trine of the resurrection of the body was found 
 to involve immense difficulties even in those 
 ‘early days (Acts xvii. 32; 1 Cor. xv. 35: how 
 keenly they were pressed may be seen in St. 
 Aug. De Civ. Dei, xxii. 12 sq.), while on the 
 other hand there was so great a predisposition 
 in the then current philosophy (not even extinct 
 now) to magnify the excellence of the soul above 
 that of its earthly tabernacle, it was at once 
 the easier and more attractive course to insist 
 upon and argue from the force of those passages 
 of Holy Scripture which enlarge upon the 
 glories of the spiritual life that now is, under 
 Christ, and to pass over or explain away alle- 
 gorically all that refers to a future state in 
 connexion with the resurrection of the body. In 
 this manner we may derive the first errors of 
 the Gnostics, of whom Hymenaeus was one of 
 the earliest. They were on the spread when 
 St. John wrote; and his grand-disciple, St. 
 Irenaeus, compiled a voluminous work against 
 them (Adv. Haer.). A good account of their 
 full development is given by Gieseler, EZ. H., 
 Per. I. Div. I. § 44 sq. 
 
 II. As regards the sentence passed upon him 
 
 HYMENAEUS 1413 
 
 —it has been asserted by some writers of emi- 
 nence (see Corn. ἃ Lapide ad 1 Cor. vy. 5), that 
 the “delivering to Satan” isa mere synonym 
 for ecclesiastical excommunication. Such can 
 hardly be the case. The Apostles possessed 
 many extraordinary prerogatives, which none 
 have since arrogated. Even the title which 
 they bore has been set apart to them ever since. 
 The shaking off the dust of their feet against a 
 city that would not receive them (Matt. x. 
 14), even though the same injunction was 
 afterwards given to the Seventy (Luke x. 11), 
 and which St. Paul found it necessary to act 
 upon twice in the course of his ministry (Acts 
 xiii. 51 and xviii. 6), has never been a pract.ce 
 since with Christian ministers. ‘ Anathema,” 
 says Bingham, “is a word that occurs fre- 
 quently in the ancient canons” (Antig. xvi. 2, 
 16), but the form “ Anathema Maranatha” is 
 one that none have ever ventured upon since 
 St. Paul (1 Cor. xvi. 22). As the Apostles 
 healed all manner of bodily infirmities, so they 
 seem to have possessed and exercised the same 
 power in inflicting them,—a power far too 
 perilous to be continued when the manifold 
 exigencies of the apostolical age had passed 
 away. Ananias and Sapphira both fell down 
 dead at the rebuke of St. Peter (Acts vy. 5, 10); 
 two words from the same lips, “ Tabitha, arise,” 
 sufficed to raise Dorcas from the dead (ibid. ix. 
 40). St. Paul’s first act in entering upon his 
 ministry was to strike Elymas the sorcerer with 
 blindness, his own sight having been restored to 
 him through the medium of a disciple (ibid. ix. 
 
 17, xiii. 11); while soon afterwards we read 
 of his healing the cripple of Lystra (ibid. xiv. 
 8). Even apart from actual intervention by the 
 Apostles, bodily visitations are spoken of in the 
 case of those who approached the Lord’s Supper 
 unworthily, when as yet no discipline had been 
 established: ‘For this cause many are weak 
 and sickly among you, and a good number 
 (ἱκανοί, in the former case it is πολλοί) sleep ἢ 
 (1 Cor. xi. 80). 
 
 On the other hand, Satan was held to be the 
 instrument or executioner of all these visitations. 
 Such is the character assigned to him in the 
 Book of Job (i. 6-12, ii. 1-7). Similar agencies 
 are described in 1 K. xxii, 19-22 and 1 Ch. xxi. 
 1. In Ps. Ixxviii. 49, such are the causes to 
 which the plagues of Egypt are assigned. Even 
 our Lord submitted to be assailed by him more 
 than once (Matt. iv. 1-10: Luke iv. 13 says, 
 “departed from Him fur a season”); and “a 
 messenger of Satan was sent to buffet” the very 
 Apostle whose act of delivering another to the 
 same power is now under discussion. At the 
 same time large powers over the world of spirits 
 were authoritatively conveyed by our Lord to 
 His immediate followers (to the Twelve, Luke 
 ix. 1; to the Seventy, as the results showed, 
 ibid. x. 17-20). 
 
 It only remains to notice five particulars con- 
 nected with its exercise, which the Apostle 
 himself supplies. 1. That i# was no mere 
 prayer, but a solemn authoritative sentence, 
 pronounced in the Name and power of Jesus 
 Christ (1 Cor. ν. 3-5). 2. That it was never 
 exercised upon any without the Church: “ them 
 that are without God judgeth” (ibid. ν. 13), he 
 
 says in express terms. 3. That it was “for the 
 ' destruction of the flesh,” i.c. some bodily visi- 
 
1414 HYMN 
 
 tation. 4. That it was for the improvement of 
 the offender; that “his spirit might be saved in 
 the day of the Lord Jesus” (ibid. v. 5); and 
 that “he might learn not to blaspheme” while 
 upon earth (1 Tim. i. 20). 5. That the Apostle 
 could in a given case empower others to pass 
 such sentence in his absence (1 Cor. v. 3, 4). 
 Thus, while the “delivering to Satan” may 
 resemble ecclesiastical excommunication in some 
 respects, it has its own characteristics likewise, 
 which show plainly that one. is not to be con- 
 founded or placed on the same level with the 
 other. Nor again does St. Paul himself deliver to 
 Satan all those in whose company he bids his con- 
 verts “not even to eat” (1 Cor. v. 11). Seean able 
 review of the whole subject by Bingham, Antzq. 
 vi. 2,15. [Excommunication.] [Κ΄ 5. Ff.] 
 
 HYMN. This word is not used in the Eng- 
 lish Version of the O. T., and only twice in the 
 N. T. (Ephes. v. 19; Col. iii. 16); though in the 
 original of the latter the derivative verb occurs 
 in three places (Matt. xxvi. 30, cp. Mark xiv. 
 26; Acts xvi. 25; Heb. ii. 12). The LXX.,, 
 however, employ it freely in translating the Heb. 
 names for almost every kind of poetical composi- 
 tion (Schleusn. Lex. ὕμνος). In fact the word 
 does not seem to have had for the LXX. any 
 very special meaning; and they called the Heb. 
 book of Tehillim the Book of Psalms, not of 
 Hymns. Accordingly the word psalm had for the 
 later Jews a definite meaning, while the word 
 hymn was more or less vague in its application, 
 and capable of being used as occasion should 
 arise. Ifa new poetical form or idea should be 
 produced, the name of hymn, not being embarrassed 
 by a previous determination, was ready to asso- 
 ciate itself with the fresh thought of another 
 literature. And this seems to have been actually 
 the case. 
 
 Among Christians the Hymn has always been 
 something different from the Psalm: a different 
 conception in thought, a different type in com- 
 position. There issome dispute about the hymn 
 sung by our Lord and His Apostles on the occa- 
 sion of the Last Supper; but even supposing it 
 to have been the Ha//é/, or Paschal Hymn, consist- 
 ing of Pss. cxiii—cxviii., it is obvious that the 
 word Aymn is in this case applied not to an 
 individual Psalm, but to a number of Psalms 
 chanted successively, and altogether forming a 
 kind of devotional exercise which is not unaptly 
 called a hymn. The prayer in Acts iv. 24-30 is 
 not ahymn, unless we allow non-metrical as well 
 as metrical hymns. It may have been a hymn 
 as it was originaily altered; but we can only 
 judge by the Greek translation, and this is 
 without metre, and therefore not properly a 
 hymn. In the jail at Philippi (Acts xvi. 25), 
 Paul and Silas “ sang hymns ” (R. V.; “praises,” 
 A.V.) unto God, and so loud was their song that 
 their fellow-prisoners heard them. This must 
 have been what we mean by singing, and not 
 merely recitation. It was in fact a veritable 
 singing of hymns. And it is remarkable that 
 the noun hymn is only used in reference to the 
 services of the Greeks, and in the same passages 
 is clearly distinguished from the psalm (Ephes. v. 
 19; Col. iii. 16), “psalms, and hymns, and 
 spiritual songs.” 
 
 It is probable that no Greek version of the 
 Psalms, even supposing it to be accommodated to 
 
 HYMN 
 
 the Greek metres, would take root in the affec- 
 tions of the Gentile converts. It was not only a 
 question of metre, it was a question of tune; and 
 Greek tunes required Greek hymns. So it was in 
 Syria. Rieher in tunes than Greece, for Greece 
 had but eight, while Syria had 275 (Benedict. 
 Pref. vol. v. Op. Eph. Syr.), the Syrian hymno- 
 graphers revelled in the varied luxury of their 
 native music; and the result was that splendid 
 development of the Hymn, as moulded by the 
 genius of Bardesanes, Harmonius, and Ephrem 
 Syrus. In Greece the eight tunes which seem 
 to have satisfied the exigencies of church-music 
 were probably accommodated to fixed metres, 
 each metre being wedded to a particular tune. 
 This is also the case in the German hymnology, 
 where certain ancient tunes are recognised as 
 models for the metres of later compositions, and 
 their names are always prefixed to the hymns in 
 common use. 
 
 It is worth while inquiring what profane 
 models the Greek hymnographers chose to work 
 after. In the old religion of Greece the word 
 hymn had already acquired a sacred and liturgical 
 meaning, which could not fail to suggest its 
 application to the productions of the Christian 
 muse. So much for the name. The special 
 forms of the Greek hymn were various. The 
 Homeric and Orphic hymns were written in the 
 epic style, and in hexameter verse. Their metre 
 was not adapted for singing; and therefore, 
 though they may have been recited, it is not 
 likely that they were sung at the celebration of 
 the mysteries. We turn to the Pindaric hymns, 
 and here we find a sufficient variety of metre, 
 and a definite relation to music. These hymns 
 were sung to the accompaniment of the lyre; 
 and it is very likely that they engaged the 
 attention of the early hymn-writers. The 
 dithyramb, with its development into the 
 dramatic chorus, was sufficiently connected 
 with musical traditions to make its form a 
 fitting vehicle for Christian poetry ; and there 
 certainly is a dithyrambic savour about the 
 earliest known Christian hymn, as it appears in 
 Clem. Alex. pp. 312, 313, ed. Potter. 
 
 The first impulse of Christian devotion was 
 to run into the moulds ordinarily used by the 
 worshippers of the old religion. This was more 
 than an impulse, it was a necessity, and a two- 
 fold necessity. The new spirit was strong ; but 
 it had two limitations: the difficulty of conceiy- 
 ing a new musico-poetical literature; and the 
 quality so peculiar to devotional music, of 
 lingering in the heart after the head has been 
 convinced and the belief changed. The old 
 tunes would be a real necessity to the new life ; 
 and the exile from his ancient faith would 
 delight to hear on the foreign soil of a new 
 religion the familiar melodies of home. Arch- 
 bishop Trench has indeed laboured to show that 
 the reverse was the case, and that the early 
 Christian shrank with horror from the sweet, 
 but polluted, enchantments of his unbelieving 
 state. We can only assent to this in so far as 
 we allow it to be the second phase in the history 
 of hymns. When old traditions died away, and 
 the Christian acquired not only a new belief, but 
 a new social humanity, it was possible, and it 
 was desirable too, to break for ever the attenuated 
 thread that bound him to the ancient world. 
 And so it was broken; and the trochaic and 
 
HYSSOP 
 
 iambic metres, unassociated as they were with 
 heathen worship, though largely associated with 
 the heathen drama, obtained an ascendant in the 
 Christian Church. In 1 Cor. xiy. 26 allusion is 
 made to improvised hymns, which being the out- 
 burst of a passionate emotion would probably 
 assume the dithyrambie form. But attempts 
 have been made to detect fragments of ancient 
 hymns conformed to more obvious metres in 
 Ephes. v. 14; Jas. i, 17; Rev. i. 8 sq., xv. 3. 
 These pretended fragments, however, may with 
 much greater likelihood be referred to the swing 
 of a prose composition unconsciously culminating 
 into metre. It was in the Latin Church that 
 the trochaic and iambic metres became most 
 deeply rooted, and acquired the greatest depth 
 of tone and grace of finish. As an exponent of 
 Christian feeling they soon superseded the ac- 
 centual hexameters; they were used mnemoni- 
 cally against the heathen and the heretics by 
 Commodianus and Augustine. The introduction 
 of hymns into the Latin Church is commonly 
 referred to Ambrose. But it is impossible to 
 conceive that the West should have been so far 
 behind the East: similar necessities must have 
 produced similar results; and it is more likely 
 that the tradition is due to the very marked 
 prominence of Ambrose as the greatest of all the 
 Latin hymnographers. 
 
 The trochaic and iambic metres, thus im- 
 pressed into the service of the Church, have 
 continued to hold their ground, and are in fact 
 the 7’s, S.M., C.M., and L.M. of our moaern 
 hymns; many of which are translations, or at 
 any rate imitations, of Latin originals. These 
 metres were peculiarly adapted to the grave and 
 sombre spirit of Latin Christianity. Less ecstatic 
 than the varied chorus of the Greek Church, 
 they did not soar upon the pinion of a lofty 
 praise, so much as they drooped and sank into 
 the depths of a great sorrow. They were sub- 
 jective rather than objective; they appealed to 
 the heart more than to the understanding; and 
 if they contained less theology, they were fuller 
 ofa rich and Christian humanity. Cp. Daniel’s 
 Thesaurus Hymnologicus, Halis et Lipsiae, 1841— 
 1855; Lateinische Hymnen, &c., by Ε΄, G. Mone ; 
 Gestinge Christlicher Vorzeit, by C. Fortlage, 
 Berlin, 1844; Sacred Latin Poctry, by R. Ὁ. 
 Trench ; Zphrem Syrus, by Dr. Burgess ; Hahn’s 
 BLardesanes ; Julian’s Dict. of Hymmnology. 
 
 [T. E. B.] 
 
 AYSSOP (ΔἸ, ’éz0b ; ὕσσωπος). Perhaps 
 no plant mentioned in the Scriptures has given 
 rise to greater differences of opinion than this. 
 The question of the identification of the ’@z0b of 
 the Hebrews with any plant known to modern 
 botanists was thought by Casaubon “ adeo diffi- 
 cilis ad explicandum, ut videatur Esaias expec- 
 tandus, qui certi aliquid nos doceat.” Had the 
 botanical works of Solomon survived, they might 
 have thrown some light upon it. The chief 
 difficulty arises from the fact that in the LXX. 
 the Greek ὕσσωπος is the uniform rendering of 
 the Hebrew éz0b, and that this rendering is 
 endorsed by the Apostle in the Epistle to the 
 Hebrews (ix. 19, 21), when speaking of the 
 ceremonial observances of the Levitical law. 
 Whether, therefore, the LXX. made use of the 
 Greek ὕσσωπος as the word most nearly re- 
 sembling the Hebrew in sound, as Stanley 
 
 EYSSOP 1415 
 
 suggests (S. § P. p. 21, note), or as the true 
 representative of the plant indicated by the 
 latter, is a point which, in all probability, will 
 never be decided. Botanists differ widely even 
 with regard to the identification of the ὕσσωπος 
 of Dioscorides. ‘The name has been given to the 
 Satureia Graeca and the S. Juliana, to neither of 
 which it is appropriate, and the hyssop of Italy 
 and South France is not met with in Greece, 
 Syria, or Egypt. Daubeny (Lect. on Rom. 
 Husbandry, p. 313), following Sibthorpe, iden- 
 tifies the mountain-hyssop with the Zhymbra 
 spicata, but this conjecture is disapproved of 
 by Κύμη (Comm. in Diosc. iii. 27), who in the 
 same passage gives it as his opinion that the 
 Hebrews used the Origanum Aegyptiacum in 
 Egypt, the O. Syriaeum in Palestine, and that 
 the hyssop of Dioscorides was the 0. Smyrnaeum. 
 The Greek botanist describes two kinds of 
 hyssop, ὀρεινὴ and κηπευτή, and gives πεσαλὲμ 
 as the Egyptian equivalent. The Talmudists 
 make the same distinction between the wild 
 hyssop and the garden-plant used for food. 
 
 The ’€z0b was used to sprinkle the doorposts of 
 the Israelites in Egypt with the blood of the 
 Paschal lamb (Ex. xii. 22); it was employed in 
 the purification of lepers and leprous houses 
 (Lev. xiv. 4, 51), and in the sacrifice of the red 
 heifer (Num. xix. 6). In consequence of its 
 detergent qualities, or from its being associated 
 with the purificatory services, the Psalmist 
 makes use of the expression, “ purge me with 
 *ézob” (Ps. li. 7). It is described in 1 Καὶ, iv. 33 
 as growing on or near walls. In John xix. 29 
 the phrase ὕσσώπῳ περιθέντες corresponds to 
 περιθεὶς καλάμῳ in Matt. xxvii. 48 and Mark 
 xv. 36. If therefore καλάμῳ be the equivalent 
 of ὑσσώπῳ, the latter must be a plant capable 
 of producing a stick three or four feet in length. 
 
 Five kinds of hyssop are mentioned in the 
 Talmud. One is called AN simply, without 
 any epithet: the others are distinguished as 
 Greek, Roman; wild hyssop, and hyssop of 
 Cochali (Mishna, Negaim, xiv. 6). Of these the 
 four last mentioned were profane; that is, not 
 to be employed in purifications (Mishna, Parah, 
 xi. 7). Maimonides (de Vacca Rufa, iii. 2) says 
 that the hyssop mentioned in the Law is that 
 which was used as a condiment. According to 
 Porphyry (De Abstin. iv. 7), the Egyptian 
 priests on certain occasions ate their bread mixed 
 with hyssop; and the sa‘tar, or wild marjoram, 
 with which it has been identified, is often an 
 ingredient in a mixture called dukkah, which is 
 to this day used as food by the poorer classes in 
 Egypt (Lane, Mod. Κρ. i. 200). It is not im- 
 probable, therefore, that this may have been the 
 hyssop of Maimonides, who wrote in Egypt ; 
 more especially as R. D. Kimchi (Lez. s. v.), 
 who reckons seven different kinds, gives as the 
 
 equivalent the Arabic χαρῶ, sa‘tar, origanum> 
 
 or marjoram, and the German Dosten or Wohl- 
 gemuth (Rosenm. Handb.). With this agrees 
 the Tanchum Hieros. MS. quoted by Gesenius. 
 So in the Judaeo-Spanish version, Ex. xii. 22 is 
 translated κυ tomarédes manojo de origano.” 
 But Dioscorides makes a distinction between 
 origanum and hyssop when he describes the 
 leaf of a species of the former as resembling the 
 latter (cp. Plin. xx. 67), though it is evident 
 that he, as well as the Talmudists, regarded 
 
1410 HYSSOP 
 
 them as belonging to the same family. In the 
 
 HYSSOP 
 
 rupestribus.” The caper-plant was believed to 
 
 Syriac of 1 K. iv. 33 hyssop is rendered by | be possessed of detergent qualities. According 
 
 Joa, lafo, “houseleek,” although in other 
 passages it is represented by ΟἽ; τα δ, which 
 the Arabic translation follows in Ps, li. 9 and 
 Heb. ix. 19, while in the Pentateuch it has 
 zattar for the same. Patrick (on 1 K. iv. 33) 
 was of opinion that ’ézdb is the same as the 
 Ethiopic ’azab (’azab, or ’azdb), which represents 
 the hyssop of Ps. li. 9, as well as ἡδυόσμον, or 
 mint, in Matt. xxiii. 23. 
 
 Bochart decides in favour of marjoram, or 
 some’plant like it (Hieroz. i. Ὁ. 2, c. 50), and to 
 this conclusion, it must be admitted, all ancient 
 tradition points. The monks on Jebel Musa 
 give the name of hyssop to a fragrant plant 
 called ja’deh, which grows in great quantities 
 on that mountain (Robinson, Bibl. Res. i. 157). 
 Celsius (Hierobot. i. 423), after enumerating 
 eighteen different plants, thyme, southernwood, 
 rosemary, French lavender, wall rue, and the 
 maidenhair fern among others, which have been 
 severally identified with the hyssop of Scripture, 
 concludes that we have no alternative but to 
 accept the Hyssopus officinalis, “nisi velimus 
 apostolum corrigere qui τὸ AVIN ὕσσωπον reddit 
 Heb. ix. 19. He avoids the difficulty in John 
 xix. 29 by supposing that a sponge filled with 
 vinegar was wrapped round a bunch of hyssop, 
 and that the two were then fastened to the end 
 of a stick. Dr. Kitto conceived that he had 
 found the peculiarities of the Hebrew ’éz6b in 
 the Phytolacca decandra, a native of America. 
 Tremellius and Ben Zeb render it by moss.” 
 It has been reserved for the ingenuity of a 
 German to trace a connexion between Aesop, the 
 Greek fabulist, and the ’éz6) of 1 K. iv. 33 
 (Hitzig, Die Spriiche Salomo’s, Einl. § 2). 
 
 An elaborate and interesting paper by the 
 late Dr. J. Forbes Royle, On the Hyssop of 
 Scripture, in the Journ. of the Roy. As. Soc. 
 viii. 193-212, goes far to throw light upon this 
 difficult question. Dr. R., after a careful inyes- 
 tigation of the subject, arrived at the conclusion 
 that the hyssop is no other than the caper- 
 plant, or Capparis spinosa of Linnaeus. The 
 Arabic name of this plant, ’asaf, by which it is 
 sometimes, though not commonly, described, 
 bears considerable resemblance to the Hebrew. 
 It is found in Lower Egypt (Forskal, Flor. Zg.- 
 Arab.; Plin. xiii. 44). Burckhardt (TZrav. in 
 Syr. p.536) mentions the ’aszef as a tree of fre- 
 quent occurrence in the valleys of the peninsula 
 of Sinai, “the bright green creeper which 
 climbs out of the fissures of the rocks” 
 (Stanley, 8, & P. p. 21, &.), and produces a fruit 
 of the size of a walnut, called by the Arabs 
 Felfel Jibbel, or mountain pepper (Shaw, Spec. 
 Phytogr. Afr. 39). Dr. R. thought this to be 
 undoubtedly a species of capparis, and probably 
 the caper-plant. The Capparis spinosa was 
 found by M. Bové (Rel. d’un Voy. Botan. en Ey., 
 &c.) in the desert of Sinai, at Gaza, and at 
 Jerusalem. Lynch saw it in a ravine near the 
 convent of Mar Saba (Exped. p. 388). It is thus 
 met with in all the localities where the ’ézdb is 
 mentioned in the Bible. With regard to its 
 habitat, it grows in dry and rocky places and 
 on walls: “quippe quum capparis quoque 
 seratur siccis maxime” (Plin, xix. 48). De 
 Candolle describes it as found “in muris et 
 
 to Pliny (xx. 59), the root was applied to the 
 cure of a disease similar to the leprosy. La- 
 marck (Enc. Botan. art. Caprier) says, “ Les 
 capriers ... sont regardés comme. . . anti- 
 scorbutiques.” Finally, the caper-plant ἰδ. 
 capable of producing a stick three or four feet 
 in length. Pliny (xiii. 44) describes it in Egypt 
 as “ firmioris ligni frutex,” and to this property 
 Dr. Royle attaches great importance, identi- 
 fying as he does the ὑσσώπῳ of John xix. 29 
 with the καλάμῳ of Matthew and Mark. He 
 thus concludes: “A combination of circum- 
 stances, and some of them apparently too 
 improbable to be united in one plant, I cannot. 
 believe to be accidental, and have therefore 
 considered myself entitled to infer, what I hope 
 I have succeeded in proving to the satisfaction 
 of others, that the caper-plant is the hyssop of 
 Scripture.” Whether his conclusion is sound or 
 not, his investigations are well worthy of atten- 
 tion; but it must be acknowledged that, setting 
 aside the passage in John xix., which may 
 possibly admit of another solution, there seems 
 no reason for supposing that the properties of 
 the ’ézob of the Hebrews may not be found in 
 some one of the plants with which the traditiom 
 of centuries has identified it. That it may have 
 been possessed of some detergent qualities which 
 led to its significant employment in the puri- 
 factory service is possible; but it does not 
 appear from the narrative in Leviticus that its. 
 use was such as to cal] into action any medicinal 
 properties by which it might have been chardc- 
 terised. In the present state of the evidence, 
 therefore, there does not seem sufficient reason 
 for departing from the old interpretation, which 
 identified the Greek ὕσσωπος with the Hebrew 
 Jin. (W. A. Κ 1 
 Admitting the identity of DIN and ὕσσωπος, 
 
 there seems no historical or other ground, beyond 
 the conjectures of modern botanists, for identify- 
 ing the ὕσσωπος of the ancients with the genus 
 of labiate plants to which the name of Hyssopus 
 has been applied ; or Satureia, allied to the mints.. 
 
 The rendering of At by ὕσσωπος seems to have 
 
 had no stronger foundation than the similarity 
 of sound. But surely the key to the significatiom 
 of the Hebrew should first be looked for in its 
 
 cognate Arabic. And here we find ὃ 2} ατειῇ, 
 
 the identical word as the name of the familiar 
 and well-known caper (Capparis spinosa, L.).. 
 Next, comparing all the passages in which 
 *ézob is mentioned, we find that it was a plant 
 that grew in Egypt, that it grew also in the 
 desert of Sinai and in Palestine, that it grew 
 out of chinks in walls and cliffs—for “Solomon 
 spake of trees, from the cedar tree that is in 
 Lebanon, even unto the hyssop that springeth 
 out of the wall” (1 K. iv. 33)—and that it 
 was capable of producing a stem of some length. 
 None of these conditions meet in any species: 
 of Satureia or Hyssopus, but they do in el 
 asaf of the Arabs, The caper is plentiful im 
 the chinks of ruins in Egypt. It is a striking 
 feature in the Sinaitic desert. Dean Stanley 
 remarks, “ The lasaf or asaf, the caper plant, the 
 bright green creeper, which climbs out of the 
 fissures of the rocks in the Sinaitie valleys, has 
 
IBHAR 
 
 been identified, on grounds of great probability, 
 with the hyssop or ’éz0b of Scripture, and thus 
 explains whence came the green branches used, 
 even in the deserts, for sprinkling the water 
 over the tents of the Israelites ” (S. ¢ P. p. 21). 
 So in the deserts of North Africa, after travelling 
 for hours without detecting a green leaf, I have 
 often in some desolate gorge been arrested by 
 the patches of deepest green clinging here and 
 there to the face of the cliff, in startling contrast 
 to all around, and without a trace of moisture 
 to nourish their verdure. The caper hangs from 
 the walls of Jerusalem, and especially about the 
 old Temple area. It clings to the rocks in the 
 gorge of the Kedron. On the face of the Mons 
 Quarantania, overhanging Jericho, it lets down 
 its festoons of gauzy blossom in the month of 
 January. It trails its branches, several feet 
 long, on the sands of the plain of Shittim, and at 
 the south-east of the Dead Sea. The leaves of 
 the caper are ovate, and the stem has short 
 recurved spines below the junction of each leaf. 
 The blossom is very, open, loose, and white, with 
 many long straggling lilac stamens. ‘The fruit 
 is a pod, of the shape and size of a walnut. The 
 blossom bud is the caper of commerce. 
 Caper-berry is the rendering in R. V. of 
 ΠΝ, ’abiyonah, A. V. “desire,” κάππαρις, 
 capparis, in Eccles. xii. 5, “The grasshopper 
 shall be a burden, the caper-berry shall fail,” the 
 only passage where the word occurs. The 
 Revisers are supported by Vallesius, Ursinus, 
 and other critics. The sense according to this 
 rendering is that the caper, which was eaten 
 before meals as a provocative to appetite, shall 
 fail to stimulate the declining powers of the 
 aged. On this use of the caper Plutarch re- 
 marks: Πολλοὶ τῶν ἀποσίτων, ἐλαίων ἁλμάδα 
 λαμβάνοντες, ἢ κάππαριν γευσάμενοι ταχέως 
 ἀνέλαβον καὶ παρεστήσαντο τὴν ὕρεξιν (Sympos, 
 vi. 2). {H. B. 1} 
 
 I 
 
 IB'HAR (193) = [God] chooses: in Sam. 
 B. Ἰβεάρ, A. Ἰεβάρ ; in Ch. B. Badp, A. Ἰεβαάρ: 
 Syr. Jucobor ; Jebahar, Jebaar), one of the sons 
 of David, mentioned in the lists next after 
 Solomon and before Elishua (2 Sam. v. 15; 
 1 Ch. iii. 6, xiv. 5). Ibhar was born in 
 Jerusalem, and from the second of these pas- 
 sages it appears that he was the son of a wife 
 and not of a concubine. He never comes forward 
 in the history in person, nor are there any 
 traditions concerning him. For the genealogy 
 of David’s family, see DAvip. 
 
 IB'LEAM (Opa): in Josh. B. and A. omit; 
 in Judg. ᾿ἸΙεβλαάμ: in 2 K. B. Ἐκβλαάμ, A. 
 Ἰβλαάμ: Jeblaam), a city of Manasseh, with 
 villages or towns (Heb. “ daughters ”) dependent 
 on it (Judg. i. 27). Though belonging to Ma- 
 nasseh, it appears not to have lain within the 
 limits allotted to that tribe, but to have been 
 situated in the territory of either Issachar or 
 Asher (Josh. xvii. 11). It is not said which of 
 the two, though there is no doubt from other 
 indications that it was the former. The ascent 
 of Gur, the spot at which Ahaziah received his 
 
 ICONIUM 1417 
 
 death-wound from the soldiers of Jehu, was 
 “at (2) Ibleam ” (2 K. ix. 27), somewhere near 
 the present Jenin, probably to the north of it, 
 about where the village Jelameh now stands. 
 Conder (/bk. p. 407), Tristram (Holy Places, p. 
 221), Riehm (HWB.), and others (cp. Dillmann? 
 on Josh. /. c.) identify it with Bel‘ameh to the 
 south of Jenin; but neither of these places meet 
 the requirements of the narrative so well as 
 Jelameh, which is on the natural road from 
 Jezreel to Judah. 
 
 In the list of cities given out of Manasseh ta 
 the Kohathite Levites (1 Ch. vi. 70), Brine AM is 
 mentioned, answering to Gath-rimmon in the 
 list of Josh. xxi. Bileam is possibly a mere alter- 
 ation of Ibleam, though this is not certain. 
 
 [G.] [W.] 
 
 IBNEV’AH (1323 = Jah builds; B. Ba- 
 vadu, A. Ἰεβναά ; Jobania), son of Jeroham, 
 a Benjamite, who was a chief man in the 
 
 tribe apparently at the time of the first settle- 
 ment in Jerusalem (1 Ch. ix. 8). 
 
 IBNI'JAH (933% = Juh builds; B. Ba- 
 vaid, A. "IeBavaal ; Jebania), a Benjamite (1 Ch. 
 ix. 8). 
 
 IB'RI (720; B.’ABai, A. ᾿Ωβδί; Hebri), a 
 Merarite Levite of the family of Jaaziah (1 Ch. 
 xxiv. 27), in the time of king David, concerned 
 in the service of the house of Jehovah. 
 
 The word is precisely the same as that else- 
 where rendered in the A. V. “ Hebrew.” 
 
 IB'ZAN (j33N; B. ᾿Αβαισάν, A. ᾿Εσεβών ; 
 Joseph. ᾿Αψάνης ; Abesan), a native of Bethlehem, 
 who judged Israel for seven years after Jephthah 
 (Judg. xii. 8, 10). He had thirty sons and thirty 
 daughters, and took home thirty wives for his 
 sons, and sent out his daughters to as many 
 husbands abroad. He was buried at Bethlehem. 
 From the non-addition of ‘ Ephratah,” or 
 “Judah,” after Bethlehem, and from Ibzan 
 having been succeeded by a Zebulonite, it seems 
 pretty certain tnat the Bethlehem here meant 
 is that in the tribe of Zebulun (Josh. xix. 15; 
 see Joseph. Ant. v. 7, ὃ 73). [Néldeke and 
 Budde (Die BB. Richter u. Samuel, p. 97) are 
 disposed to attach but little value to Ibzan’s 
 history.—F.] There is not a shadow of pro- 
 bability in the notion which has been broached 
 as to the identity of Ibzan with Boaz (V3). 
 
 The history of his large family is singularly at 
 variance with the impression of Boaz given us 
 in the Book of Ruth. [A. C. H.] 
 
 I-CHABO’D (ADs, from "δὲ [shortened 
 from ἢ) 51, the ordinary negative in Ethiopia 
 and Phoenician [cp. R. V. marg. and see MV.!"], 
 and 23, “glory,” Gesen. p. 79, inglorious ; 
 B. Οὐαιβαρχαβώθ, A. Οὐαιχαβώθ, which seems 
 to be derived fromm IN, “woe” [cp. οὐαὶ in 
 1 Sam. iv. 8, Gesen. p. 39]; Jchabod), the son 
 of Phinehas, and grandson of Eli. In giving 
 birth to him his mother died of grief at the 
 news of the sudden deaths of her husband and. 
 father-in-law. His brother’s name was Ahijalu 
 (1 Sam. iv. 21; xiv. 3). (H. W. P.] 
 
 ICO'NIUM (Ἰκόνιον), the modern Konieh, is 
 situated in the western part of an extensive 
 
1418 ICONIUM 
 
 plain, on the central table-land of Asia Minor, 
 and not far to the north of the chain of Taurus. 
 This level district was anciently called Lyca- 
 onrA. Xenophon (Anab. i. 2, 19) reckons 
 Iconium as the most easterly town of PHRYGIA; 
 but all other writers speak of it as being in 
 Lycaonia, of which it was practically the capi- 
 tal. It was on the great line of communication 
 between Ephesus and the western coast of the 
 peninsula on one side, and Tarsus, Antioch, and 
 the Euphrates on the other. We see this indi- 
 cated by the narrative of Xenophon (/. c.) and 
 the letters of Cicero (ad Fam, iii. 8, v. 20, 
 xv. 4). When the Roman provincial system 
 was matured, some of the most important roads 
 intersected one another at this point, as may be 
 seen from the map in Leake’s Asia Minor. 
 These circumstances should be borne in mind, 
 when we trace St. Paul’s journeys through the 
 district. Iconium was a well-chosen place for 
 missionary operations. The Apostle’s first visit 
 was on his first circuit, in company with Bar- 
 nabas; and on this occasion he approached it 
 from Antioch in Pisidia, which lay to the west. 
 From that city he had been driven by the per- 
 secution of the Jews (Acts xiii. 50, 51). There 
 were Jews in Iconium also; and St. Paul’s first 
 efforts here, according to his custom, were made 
 in the synagogue (xiv. 1). The results were 
 considerable both among the Hebrew and Gentile 
 population of the place (¢.). We should notice 
 that the working of miracles in Iconium is 
 emphatically mentioned (xiv. 3). The intrigues 
 of the Jews again drove him away; he was in 
 danger of being stoned, and he withdrew to 
 LystrA and DERBE, in the eastern and wilder 
 part of Lycaonia (xiv. 6). Thither also the 
 enmity of the Jews of Antioch and Iconium 
 pursued him; and at Lystra he was actually 
 stoned and left for dead (xiv. 19). After an 
 interval, however, he returned over the old 
 zyound, revisiting Iconium and encouraging the 
 Church which he had founded there (xiv. 21, 22). 
 These sufferings and difficulties are alluded to 
 in 2 Tim. iii. 11; and this brings us to the 
 consideration of his next visit to this neigh- 
 bourhood, which was the occasion of his first 
 practically associating himself with St. Timorny. 
 Paul left the Syrian Antioch, in company with 
 Silas (Acts xv. 40), on his second missionary 
 circuit; and travelling through CILIcIA (xy. 
 41), and up through the passes of Taurus into 
 Lycaonia, approached Iconium from the east, by 
 Derbe and Lystra (xvi. 1, 2). Though appa- 
 rently a native of Lystra, Timothy was evidently 
 well known to the Christians of Iconium (xvi. 
 2); and it is not improbable that his cireum- 
 cision (xvi. 3) and ordination (1 Tim. i. 18, 
 iv. 14, vi. 12; 2 Tim. i. 6) took place there. 
 On leaving Iconium, St. Paul and his party tra- 
 velled to the N.W.; and the place is not 
 mentioned again in the sacred narrative, though 
 there is little doubt that it was visited by the 
 Apostle again in the early part of his third 
 ecireuit (Acts xviii. 23). From its position it 
 could not fail to be an important centre of 
 Christian influence in the early ages of the 
 Church. The curious apocryphal legend of 
 St. Thecla, of which Iconium is the scene, must 
 not be entirely passed by. The “ Acta Pauli et 
 Theclae” are given in full by Grabe (Spicil. 
 vol. i.) and by Jones (On the Canon, vol. ii. 
 
 IDDO 
 
 353-411). It 1s natural here to notice one 
 geographical mistake in that document, viz. 
 that Lystra is placed on the west instead of the 
 south. In the declining period of the Roman 
 empire, Iconium was made a colonia. In the 
 Middle Ages it became a place of great con- 
 sequence, as the capital of the Seljuk sultans. 
 Hence the remains of Seljuk architecture, which 
 are conspicuous here, and which are described 
 by many travellers. Aonieh is still a town of 
 considerable size (Leake, Tour in Asia Minor, 
 p- 49; Hamilton, Researches in Asia Minor, ii. 
 205; Texier, Asie Mineure, p. 661 sq.; Murray, 
 Hbk. to Asia Minor ; Ramsay, The Histor. Geo- 
 graphy of Asia Minor, pp. 332, 377-8, 393-5). 
 [J Soe ΠῚ 
 
 ID/ALAH (APN; B. Ἰερειχώ, A. ᾿αδηλά; 
 Jedala and Jerala), one of the non-identified 
 cities of the tribe of Zebulun, named between 
 Shimron and Bethlehem (Josh. xix. 15; see 
 Dillmann? in loco). Neubauer (Géog. du 
 Talmud, p. 189) gives the name as Yidalah, or 
 “according to the Talmud, Hiriyeh.” Schwarz 
 (ἢ. L. p. 187) and Van de Velde (Map, 1866) 
 would identify it with Ah, Kireh, 8. of Tell 
 Keimin, Jokneam. But this is too far from 
 Shimron and Bethlehem, and Conder (PEF. 
 Mem. i. 288) identifies it, with more probability, 
 with the ruins el-Huwdrah, south of Beit Lahm, 
 Bethlehem. It is not named in the Ono- 
 masticon. [αὐ 
 
 ID'BASH (W271); B. Ἰαβάς, A. Ἰγαβής 5 
 Jedebos), one of the three sons of Abi-Etam— 
 “the father of Etam ”’—among the families 
 of Judah (1 Ch. iv. 3). The Selelponite is 
 named as his sister. This list is probably a 
 topographical one, a majority of the names 
 being those of places. 
 
 ID'DO. 1. (NAY; B. ᾿Αχέλ, A. Σαδώκ: 
 Addo.) The father of Abinadab, one of 
 Solomon’s monthly purveyors (1 K. iv. 14). 
 
 2. (IY; A. Addi, Β. ᾿Αδεί; Addo). A de- 
 scendant of Gershom, son of Levi (1 Ch. vi. 21). 
 In the reversed genealogy (v. 41) the name is 
 altered to UDAIAH, and we there discover that 
 he was one of the forefathers of Asaph the seer. 
 
 3. (17); BA. Ἰαδδαί ; Jaddo.) Son of Zecha- 
 riah, ruler (ndgid) of the tribe of Manasseh east 
 of Jordan in the time of David (1 Ch. xxvii. 21). 
 
 4, CAD), i.e. Ye‘doi; but in the correction of 
 the Keri 17)’, Ye‘do; BA. Ἰωήλ; Addo.) A 
 seer (ΠῚΠ) whose “visions” (Mit) against 
 Jeroboam incidentally contained some of the 
 acts of Solomon (2 Ch. ix. 29). He also 
 appears to have written a chroniclé or story 
 (Midrash, Gesen. p. 357; Driver, LOT. p. 497) 
 relating to the life and reign of Abijah (2 Ch. 
 xiii. 22), and also a book “concerning genea- 
 logies,” in which the acts of Rehoboam were 
 recorded (xii. 15). These books are lost, but 
 they may have formed part of the foundation 
 of the existing Books of Chronicles (Bertheau, 
 Chron. Introd. § 3). The mention of his having 
 prophesied against Jeroboam probably led to his 
 identification in the ancient Jewish traditions 
 (Jerome, Quaest. Hebr. in 2 Ch, xii. 15, Jaddo; 
 Joseph. Ant. viii. 3, § 5, Ἰαδὼνν with the “ man 
 
IDOL, IMAGE 
 
 of God” out of Judah who denounced the altar 
 of that king (1 K. xii. 1). He has also been 
 identified with Oded (see Jerome on 2 Ch. xy. 1), 
 and by the best texts of the LXX. (see above) 
 with Joel. 
 
 5. (NVI, in Zech. TY; in Ezra, B. ᾿Αδώ, 
 A.?Ad56; Addo.) The grandfather of the Prophet 
 Zechariah (Zech. i. 1, 7), although in other 
 places Zechariah is called “the son of Iddo” 
 (Ezra ν. 1, vi. 14). Iddo returned from Baby- 
 Jon with Zerubbabel and Jeshua (Neh. xii. 4), 
 and in the next generation — the “days of 
 Joiakim,” son of Jeshua (vv. 10, 12)—his house 
 was represented by Zechariah (v. 14). In 1 Esd. 
 vi. 1, the name is ADDO. 
 
 6. QIN; LXX. om.; Eddo.) The chief of 
 those who assembled at Casiphia, at the time 
 of the second caravan from Babylon, in the 
 reign of Artaxerxes Longimanus B.c. 458. He 
 was one of the Nethinim, of whom 220 re- 
 sponded to the appeal of Ezra to assist in the 
 Return to Judaea (Ezra viii. 17; ep. v. 20). In 
 the Apocr. Esdras the name is SADDEUS and 
 DADDEUS. [G.] ἘΝῚ 
 
 IDOL, IMAGE. As no less than twenty- 
 one different Hebrew words have been rendered in 
 the A. V. either by “ idol” or “image,” and that 
 by no means uniformly, it will be of some ad- 
 vantage to attempt to discriminate between 
 them, and assign, as nearly as the two languages 
 will allow, the English equivalents for ezch. 
 But, before proceeding to the discussion of those 
 words which in themselves indicate the objects 
 of false worship, it will be necessary to notice 
 a class of abstract terms, which, with a deep 
 moral significance, express the degradation as- 
 sociated with it, and stand out as a protest of 
 the language against the enormities of idolatry. 
 Such are— 
 
 1. JS, ’aven, rendered elsewhere “nought,” 
 
 τ vanity,” “iniquity,” “ wickedness,” “sorrow,” 
 
 &c., and—once only—‘ idol” (Is. Ixvi. 3). The 
 primary idea of the root seems to be emptiness, 
 nothingness, as of breath or vapour; and, by a 
 natural transition, in a moral sense, wickedness 
 in its active form of mischief, and then, as the 
 result, sorrow and trouble. Hence ’dven denotes 
 a vain, false, wicked thing, and expresses at 
 once the essential nature of idols, and the con- 
 sequences of their worship. The character of 
 the word may be learnt from its associates. It 
 stands in parallelism with DBS, ’éphes (Is. xli. 
 29), which, after undergoing various modifica- 
 tions, comes at length to signify “ nothing ; ” 
 
 with ban, hebel, “breath” or “vapour,” itself 
 
 applied as a term of contempt to the objects of 
 idolatrous reverence (Deut. xxxii. 21; 1 K. xvi, 
 to ῬΕΣΣΣΙ. 6: Jer. vill. 19, σ᾿ 8): with Sv, 
 shaw, “nothingness,” “ vanity ;” and with pty, 
 sheger, “ falsehood ” (Zech. x. 2): all indicating 
 the utter worthlessness of the idols to whom 
 homage was paid, and the false and delusive 
 nature of their worship. It is employed in an 
 abstract sense to denote idolatry in general in 
 1 Sam. xy. 23. There is much significance in 
 the change of name from Bethel to Bethaven, 
 the great centre of idolatry in Israel (Hos. iv. 
 
 15, x. 5). Cp. also the use of J} for JIN (Helio- 
 
 IDOL, IMAGE 1419 
 
 sense seit to that of “pe, ee που ᾿ 
 with which it stands in par allelism in Job xiii. 4, 
 and would therefore much resemble "aven, as 
 applied to an idol. Delitzsch (on Hab. ii. 18) 
 
 derives it from the negative particle Ox, al, “ die 
 Nichtigen ” (cp. MV." s, .. bby, 1) he 
 
 word occurs in the Seeder ‘inscriptions under 
 
 the form nbxby, as the plural of by, gods (ep. 
 Biithgen, Beitr. z. Semit. Religionsgeschichte, 
 p- 129), and this may be said to strengthen 
 
 the contention of those who make Obs a di- 
 
 minutive of On, “god,” the additional syllable 
 indicating the greatest contempt. In this case 
 the signification above mentioned is a subsidiary 
 one. The word is applied to the idols of Egypt 
 and Phoenicia (Is. xix. 3; Jer. xiv. 14), Noph or 
 Memphis (Ezek. xxx. 13). In strong contrast 
 with Jehovah it appears in Ps. xe. 5, xevii. 7; 
 the contrast probably being heightened by the 
 resemblance between ’é/i/tm and ’élohim. A some- 
 what similar play upon words is observable in 
 
 Hab. ii, 18, DDoS Odd, velit ᾿ΠΙδηΐῖηι 
 of dumb idols,” A. V.). io 
 3. TID "N, "emah, in plural DDN, “ terrors ” 
 
 (RV. marg.), and hence an object of horror or 
 terror (Jer. 1. 38), in reference either to the 
 hideousness of the idols or to the gross character 
 of their worship. In this respect it is closely 
 connected with— 
 
 4, ny2an, miphléscth, a “ fright,” “ horror,” 
 applied to the idol of Maachah, probably of 
 wood, which Asa cut down and burned (1 K. xv. 
 18}: ὃ Ch. xv. 16; in both places, R. V. “an 
 abominable image”), The opinion, advanced 
 by Movers, that this was the Phallus, the symbol 
 of the productive power of nature (Phoen. i. 
 571), cannot be maintained (cp. Keil on 1 K. 
 l. 6., and Robertson Smith, Religion of the 
 Semites, i, 437). In 2 Ch. xv. 16, the Vulg. 
 rendering ‘simulacrum Priapi” (cp. Hor., 
 “furum aviumque maxima formido”) does not 
 bear such an application. The LXX. had a 
 different reading, which it is not easy to deter- 
 mine. They translate in 1 K. xv. 13 the same 
 word both by σύνοδος (with which corresponds 
 
 0 
 the Syr. als, “ido, “a festival,” reading per- 
 
 haps ΠΣ, ‘asereth, as in 2 K. x. 205 Jer. ix. 
 2) and Kanab ets (Lue. καταλύσει5), ‘aan © in 
 Chronicles it is εἴδωλον. Possibly in 1 K. xy. 
 13 they may have read ANDY", mésullathah 
 (see other conjectures in Klostermann in loco 
 
 [Strack u. Zéckler, Kgf. Komm.]), for AAYPBN, 
 miphlastah, as the Vuig. specum, of which 
 “ simulacrum turpissimum ” is a correction. 
 
 With this must be noticed, though not actually 
 rendered “image” or “ idol,” 
 
 5. nwa, bosheth, * ane.” or ‘shameful 
 thing ” (B. V.; Jer. iii. 24, xi. 13; Hos. ix. 10), 
 applied to Baal or Baal-Peor, as characterising 
 the obscenity of his worship. 
 
1420 IDOL, IMAGE 
 With ’é/i is found in close connexion— 
 
 6. δὴ), gillalim, also a term of contempt, 
 but of uncertain origin (Ezek. xxx. 13). The 
 Rabbinical authorities, referring to such passages 
 as Ezek. iv. 2, Zeph. i. 17, have favoured the in- 
 terpretation given in the margin of the A. V. to 
 Deut. xxix. 17, “dungy gods” (Vulg. sordes, 
 sordes idolorum, 1 K. xv. 12).  Gesenius 
 (Thes.) gives his preference to the rendering 
 “stones, stone gods,” thus deriving it from ba, 
 gal, “a heap of stones,” while MV."' prefers 
 “clods.” Idols were frequently symbolized in 
 the conical stone (e.g. of Astarte) or in the cairn 
 of stones, alike animated by a god (see Robertson 
 Smith, i. 189 sq.). The expression is applied, 
 principally in Ezekiel, to false gods and their 
 symbols (Deut. xxix. 17 ; Ezek. viii. 10, &c.). It 
 stands side by side with other contemptuous 
 terms in Ezek. xvi. 36, xx. 8; as for example 
 γνῷ, shéges, “ filth,” “ abomination ” (Ezek. viii. 
 10), and ; 
 
 7. The cognate PW, shiqgis, “ filth,” “im- 
 purity,” especially applied, like sheges, to that 
 which produced ceremonial uncleanness (Ezek. 
 xxxvii. 23; Nah. iii. 6), such as food offered in 
 sacrifice to idols (Zech. ix. 7; cp. Acts xv. 20, 
 29), As referring to the idols themselves, it 
 primarily denotes the obscene rites with which 
 their worship was associated, and hence, by 
 metonymy, is applied both to the objects of 
 worship and also to their worshippers, who 
 partook of the impurity, and thus “ became 
 loathsome like their love,” the foul Baal-Peor 
 (Hos. ix. 10). 
 
 We now come to the consideration of those 
 words which more directly apply to the images 
 or idols, as the outward symbols of the deity 
 who was worshipped through them. These 
 may be classified according as they indicate that 
 the images were made in imitation of external 
 objects, and to represent some idea or attribute ; 
 or as they denote the workmanship by which 
 they were fashioned. To the first class belong— 
 
 8. Sp, sémel, or Sip, sémel (with which 
 
 Gesenius compares as cognate nby, sélem, the 
 Lat. simitis, the Greek ὁμαλός), signifies a 
 “likeness,” “semblance,” especially that of a 
 statue (Baudissin in MV."), It is used in the 
 same sense both of male and females in Phoeni- 
 cian inscriptions (MV.!!). The Targ. in Deut. 
 iv. 16 gives NUS, sura, “ figure,” as the 
 equivalent; while in Ezek. viii. 3, 5 it is rendered 
 
 by Dey, séldm, “image.” In the latter passages 
 
 0 0 
 the Syriac has ἾΔίο. ο, qoimtd, “a statue” 
 (the στήλη of the LXX.), which more properly 
 corresponds to massébah (see No. 15 below); 
 
 and in Deut. a: génés, “kind” =(-yévos). 
 
 The word in 2 Ch. xxiii. 7 Opn SDB) is 
 rendered by the Syriac “images of four faces,” 
 the latter words representing the one under 
 consideration. In 2 Ch. xxxiii. 15 the Syriac 
 adopts “carved images,” following the LXX. 
 τὸ γλυπτόν. On the whole the Gk. εἰκὼν of 
 
 Deut. iv. 16, 2 Ch. xxxiii. 7, and the simula- | 
 
 IDOL, IMAGE 
 
 crum of the Vulgate (2 Ch, xxxiii. 15), most 
 nearly resemble the Hebrew sémel. 
 
 8. nby, sélem (Ch. nby, sélém; Assyr. 
 salmu) is by lexicographers connected with by, 
 sél, “a shadow.” It is the “image” of God 
 in which man was created (Gen. i. 27; ep. Wisd. 
 ii, 23), distinguished from NAD, démith, or 
 “likeness,” as an “image” is distinguished 
 from the “idea” which it represents (Schmidt, 
 de Imag. Dei in Hom. p. 84), though it would 
 be rash to insist upon this distinction, In the 
 N. T. εἰκὼν appears to represent the latter 
 (Col. iii. 10; ep. LXX. of Gen. ν. 1), as ὁμοίωμα 
 the former of the two words (Rom. 1. 23, 
 viii. 29; Phil. ii. 7), but in Heb. x. 1 εἰκὼν 
 is opposed to σκία as the substance to the 
 unsubstantial form, of which it is the perfect 
 representative. The LXX. render démiuth by 
 ὁμοίωσις, ὁμοίωμα, εἰκών, ὕμοιος, and seélene 
 most frequently by εἰκών, though ὁμοίωμα, 
 εἴδωλον, and τύπος also occur. But whatever 
 abstract term may best define the meaning of 
 sélem, it is unquestionably used to denote the 
 visible forms of external objects, and is applied 
 to figures of gold and silver (1 Sam. vi. 5; 
 Num. xxxiii. 52; Dan. iii. 1), such as the golden 
 image of Nebuchadnezzar, as well as to those 
 painted upon walls (Ezek. xxxiii. 14). “ Image” 
 perhaps most nearly represents it in all passages. 
 In Sabaean and Palmyrene inscriptions it repre- 
 sents an “image” (MV."), but in the Teima 
 inscriptions it is the name of a god probably 
 imported from Aramaic belief, whose picture is 
 portrayed on a stele (Bithgen, pp. 80-1). nby, 
 applied to the human countenance (Dan. iii. 19), 
 signifies the “expression,” and corresponds 
 to the ἰδέα of Matt. xxviii. 3, though démiath 
 agrees rather with the Platonic usage of the 
 latter word. 
 
 10. ADOA, témiunah, rendered “image” (R. We 
 “ form”) in Job iv. 16; elsewhere “similitude ” 
 (Deut. iv. 12), likeness ” (Deut. v. 8): “form” 
 or “shape” would be better. In Deut. iv. 16 
 
 | jt is in parallelism with ‘JN, tabnith, literally 
 
 “built ; ? hence “ plan,” or “model ” (2 K. xvi. 
 10; cp. Ex. xx. 4; Num. xii. 8). 
 
 11. ANY, ‘asab,512. ANY, ‘éseb (Ver. xxiic 
 28), or 13. ay, ‘oseb (Is. xlviii. 5), “a figure,” 
 all derived from a root ASV, ‘asdb, “to work,” 
 
 or “fashion” (akin to 2$n, chasab, and the- 
 
 like), are terms applied to idols as expressing 
 that their origin was due to the labour of man. 
 The verb in its derived senses indicates the 
 sorrow and trouble consequent upon severe 
 labour, but the latter seems to be the radical 
 idea. If the notion of sorrow were the more 
 prominent, the words as applied to idols might 
 be compared with ’dven above. In Is. lviii. 3 it 
 is rendered in the Peshitto “idols” (A. V. and 
 R. V. “labours”), but the reading was evidently 
 different. In Ps. exxxix. 24, 2¥D qT, derek 
 ‘aseb, is “ idolatry.” i 
 
 14. ἬΝ, sir, once only applied to an idol (Is. 
 xlv. 16; LXX. νῆσοι, as if DYN, “tyim). The 
 word usually denotes “a pang,” but in this 
 instance is probably connected with the roots 
 WS, sur, and TY), yasdr, and signifies “a 
 shape” or “ mould,” and hence an “ idol.” 
 
 a 
 
IDOL, IMAGE 
 
 15. TID, masgebah, anything set up, Δ] 
 
 “statue ” (=2'N9, négid, Jer. ΧΙ, 13; A V. 
 “images ” [marg. statues], R. V. “pillars ” [marg, 
 obelisks}), applied variously ; e.g toa monolithic 
 pillar or a memorial stone like those erected by 
 Jacob on four several occasions (Gen xxviii. 18 
 [see Dillmann® in loco; Dillmann? on Deut. 
 xvi. 22], xxxi. 45, xxxv. 14, 15) to commemorate 
 a crisis in his life, or to mark the grave of 
 Rachel; or to such cairns of stones as were set 
 up by Joshua (Josh. iv. 9) after the passage of 
 the Jordan and at Shechem (xxiv. 26), and by 
 Samuel when victorious over the Philistines (1 
 Sam. vii. 12), When solemnly dedicated, they 
 were anointed with oil, and libations were 
 poured upon them. The word is applied to 
 denote the obelisks which stood at the entrance 
 to the temple of the Sun at Heliopolis (Jer. 
 xliii. 13; see R. V. marg.), two of which were 
 a hundred cubits high and eight broad, each of 
 a single stone (Her. ii. 111). It is also used of 
 the statues of Baal (2 K. iii. 2), whether of 
 stone (2 K. x. 27) or wood (v. 26), which stood 
 in the innermost recess of the temple at Samaria. 
 Movers (Phoen. i. 674) conjectures that the 
 latter were statues or columns distinct from 
 that of Baal, which was of stone and conical 
 (p. 673), like the “ meta” of Paphos (Tac. Hist. 
 ii. 3), and probably therefore belonging to other 
 deities who were his mapedpo: or σύμβωμοι. 
 The Phoenicians consecrated and anointed stones 
 like that at Bethel, which were called, as seme 
 think, from this circumstance Bactylia. Many 
 such are said to have been seen on the Lebanon, 
 near Heliopolis, dedicated to various gods, and 
 many prodigies are related of them (Damascius 
 in Photius, quoted by Bochart, Canaan, ii. 2). 
 The same authority describes them as aérolites, 
 of a whitish and sometimes purple colour, sphe- 
 rical in shape, and about a span in diameter. 
 The Palladium of Troy, the black stone in the 
 Kaaba at Mecca, said to have been brought from 
 heaven by the Angel Gabriel, the cone of Elaga- 
 balus at Emesa, and the stone at Ephesus “ which 
 fell down from Jupiter” (Acts xix. 35), are 
 examples of the belief, anciently so common, 
 that the gods dwelt in the stone; and, at the 
 sanctuary, established stated relations with men 
 and accepted their service (Robertson Smith, i. 
 190). In the older worship of Greece, stones, 
 according to Pausanias (vil. 22, §4), occupied 
 the place of images. Those at Pharae, about 
 thirty in number and quadrangular in shape, 
 near the statue of Hermes, received divine 
 honours from the Pharians, and each had the 
 name of some god conferred upon it. The stone 
 in the temple of Jupiter Ammon (wmbilico 
 maxime similis), enriched with emeralds and 
 gems (Curt. iv. 7, §31); that at Delphi, which 
 Saturn was said to have swallowed (Paus. Phoc. 
 24, § 6); the black stone of pyramidal shape in 
 the temple of Juggernaut, and the holy stone 
 at Pessinus in Galatia, sacred to Cybele, show 
 how widely spread and almost universal were 
 these ancient objects of worship (cp. Dillmann‘ 
 and Delitzsch [1887] on Gen. xxvii. 18). 
 
 Closely connected with these “statues” of 
 Baal, whether in the form of obelisks or other- 
 wise, were 
 
 16. D’21dn, chammadnim, rendered in the mar- 
 gin of most passages swn-images. The word has 
 
 IDOL, IMAGE 1421 
 
 given rise to considerabie discussion, much of 
 Which is now obsolete (see Ist edit. of this work). 
 In the Vulgate it is translated thrice simulacra, 
 thrice delubra, and once fana. The LXX. give 
 τεμένη twice, εἴδωλα twice, ξύλινα χειροποίητα, 
 βδελύγματα, and τὰ ὑψηλά. With one ex- 
 ception (2 Ch. xxxiv. 4, which is evidently cor- 
 rupt) the Syriac has vaguely either “ fears,” ie. 
 objects of fear, or “idols.” The Targum in all 
 passages translates it by N°DID IN, chdnis- 
 nésayyd, “ houses for star-worship,” a rendering 
 which Rosenmiiller supports. Chamman is now 
 recognised as a title of Baal in the Phoenician and 
 Palmyrene inscriptions in the sense of “ Dominus 
 
 Solaris,” and Chammdnim is the term descriptive 
 
 of the statues or columns erected for his worship 
 (cp. Spencer, de Legg. Hebr. ii. 25; Michaelis, 
 Suppl. ad Lex. Hebr. s. v.), like the pyramids or 
 obelisks of Egypt. Movers, in his discussion of 
 Chammanim, says, “These images of the fire-god 
 were placed on foreign or non-Israelitish altars, 
 in conjunction with the symbols of the nature- 
 goddess Asherah, as σύμβωμοι (2 Ch. xiv. 3, 5, 
 xxxlv. 4, 7; Is. xvii. 9, xxvii. 9), as was other- 
 wise usual with Baal and Asherah” (Phoen. i. 
 441. Cp. Bithgen, p. 25 sq.). They are men- 
 tioned with the Asherim, and the latter are 
 coupled with the statues of Baal (1 K. xiv. 23; 
 2K. xxiii. 17). The chammdnim and statues are 
 used promiscuously (ep. 2 K. xxiii. 14, and 2 Ch. 
 xxiv. 45; 2 Ch. xiv. 3.and 5), but are never spoken 
 of together. He is supported by the Palmyrene 
 inscription at Oxford, alluded to above, which 
 has been thus rendered: “ This column (N31DN, 
 Chammand), and this‘altar, the sons of Malchu, 
 &c., have erected and dedicated to the Sun.” 
 The Veneto-Greek Version leaves the word un- 
 translated in the strange form ἀκάβαντες. 
 From the expressions in Ezek. vi. 4, 6, and Ley. 
 xxvi. 30, it may be inferred that these columns, 
 which perhaps represented a rising flame of fire 
 and stood near or upon the altar of Baal (2 Ch. 
 xxxiv. 4), were of wood or stone. Dillmann® 
 (on Is. xvi. 22) defines the Chammdnim as idola- 
 trous Masseboth (No. 15) specially connected 
 with Baal. 
 
 17. MDW, maskith, occurs in Lev. xxvi. 1; 
 Num. xxiii. 52; Ezek. viii. 12: “device ” most 
 nearly suits all passages (cp. Ps. Ixxiii. 7; Prov. 
 xviii, 11, xxv. 11). This word has been the 
 fruitful cause of as much dispute as the pre- 
 ceding. The general opinion appears to be that 
 "D JAN, ’eben maskhith, signifies a stone with 
 figures graven upon it. Ben Zeb explains it as 
 “a stone with figures or hieroglyphics carved 
 upon it,” and so Michaelis; and it is maintained 
 by Movers (Phoen. i. 105) that the baetylia or 
 columns with painted figures, the “ lapides effi- 
 giati ” of Minucius Felix (c. 3), are these “stones 
 of device,” and that the characters engraven on 
 them are the ἱερὰ στοιχεῖα, or characters sacred to 
 the several! deities. The invention of these cha- 
 racters, which is ascribed to Taaut, he conjectures 
 originated with the Seres. Gesenius explains it 
 as a stone with the image of an idol, Baal or 
 Astarte, and refers to his Mon. Phoen. 21-24 for 
 others of similar character (see MV.1!s. n.). 
 The Targum and Syr., Ley. xxvi. 1, give “stone 
 of devotion,” and the former in Num. xxxili. 52 
 has “ house of their devotion,” where the Syr. 
 only renders “their objects of devotion.” For 
 
IDOL, IMAGE 
 
 the former the LXX. have λίθος σκοπός (Vulg. 
 lapis insignis), and for the latter τὰς σκοπιὰς 
 αὐτῶν (Vulg. tituli), connecting the word with 
 the root MD, “to look,” a circumstance which 
 has induced Saalschiitz (Mos. Recht. pp. 382- 
 385) to conjecture that ’eben maskith was origin- 
 ally a smooth elevated stone employed for the 
 
 purpose of obtaining from it a freer prospect, | 
 
 and of offering prayer in prostration upon it 
 to the deities of heaven. Hence, generally, he 
 concludes that it signifies a stone of prayer or 
 devotion, and that the “chambers of imagery” 
 of Ezek. viii. 7 are “chambers of devotion.” 
 
 The renderings of the last-mentioned passage in _ 
 
 the LXX. and Targum are curious, as pointing 
 to a variant reading inswn, or more probably 
 Ἰ2ΞΦ Ὁ. Saalschiitz’s idea—if simplified to 
 suggest a stone visible from a distance, or a 
 stone which attracts attention (cp. Knobel-Dill- 
 mann on Ley. /. c.)—is preferred by some to 
 that of Gesenius. 
 
 18. DDN, teraphim. [ΤΈΒΑΡΠΙΜ.} 
 
 The terms which follow have regard to the 
 material and workmanship of the idol rather 
 than to its character as an object of worship. 
 
 19. bpp, pésel, and 20. ods, pesilim, 
 usually translated in the A. V. “graven or 
 carved images.” In two passages the latter is 
 ambiguously rendered “quarries” (Judg. iii. 
 19, 26, A. V. and R. V.), following the Targum, 
 but there seems no reason for departing from 
 the ordinary signification. In the majority of 
 instances the LXX. have γλυπτόν, once γλύμμα. 
 The verb is employed to denote the finishing 
 which the stone received at the hands of the 
 masons, after it had been rough-hewn from the 
 quarries (Ex. xxxiv. 4; 1 K. v. 32). It is 
 probably a later usage which has applied pésel* 
 to a figure cast in metal, as in Is. xl. 19, xliv. 
 10. These “sculptured ” images were apparently 
 of wood, iron, or stone, covered with gold or 
 silver (Deut. vii. 25; Is. xxx. 22; Hab. ii. 19), 
 the more costly being of solid metal (Is. xl. 19). 
 They could be burnt (Deut. vii. 5; Is. xlv. 20; 
 2 Ch. xxxiv. 4), or cut down (Deut. xii. 3) and 
 pounded (2 Ch. xxxiv. 7), or broken in pieces 
 (Is. xxi. 9). In making them, the skill of the 
 wise iron-smith (Deut. xxvii. 15; Is. xl. 20) or 
 carpenter, and of the goldsmith, was employed 
 (Judg. xvii. 3, 43; Is. xli. 7), the former sup- 
 plying the rough mass of iron beaten into shape 
 on his anvil (Is. xliv. 12), while the latter over- 
 laid it with plates of gold and silver, probably 
 from Tarshish (Jer. x. 9), and decorated it with 
 silver chains. The image thus formed received 
 the further adornment of embroidered robes 
 (Ezek. xvi. 18), to which possibly allusion may be 
 made in Is. iii. 19. Brass and clay were among 
 the materials employed for the same purpose 
 (Dan. ii. 33, v. 23). A description of the three 
 great images of Babylon on the top of the 
 temple of Belus will be found in Diod. Sie. ii. 9 
 (cp. Layard, Nin. ii. 433). The several stages 
 of the process by which the metal or wood 
 
 ἃ. Possibly pésel denotes by anticipation the molten 
 image in a later stage, after it had been trimmed into 
 shape by the caster. 
 
 Ὁ Images of glazed pottery have been found in Egypt 
 Of gta Anc. Hg. iii. 90 [large ed.]; cp. Wisd. 
 xv. 8). 
 
 IDOL, IMAGE 
 
 became the “graven image” are so vividly 
 described in Is. xliv. 10-20, that it is only 
 necessary to refer to that passage, and we are 
 at once introduced to the mysteries of idol 
 manufacture, which, as at Ephesus, ‘ brought 
 no small gain unto the crattsmen.” 
 
 21. 9D3, nések, or Ἢ), nések, and 22. MB, 
 
 masséhah, are evidently synonymous (Is. xli, 29, 
 xlviii. 5; Jer. x. 14) in later Hebrew, and de- 
 
 | note a “molten” image. Massékah is frequently 
 
 used in distinction from pésel or pestlim (Deut. 
 xxvii. 15; Judg. xvii. 3, &c.). The golden calf 
 which Aaron made was fashioned with “the 
 graver” (OM, chéret), but it is not quite clear 
 for what purpose the graver was used (Ex. xxxii. 
 4). The cheret (cp. Gk. xapdrtw) appears to 
 have been a sharp-pointed instrument, used like 
 the stylus for a writing implement (Is. viii. 1). 
 Whether then Aaron, by the help of the cheret, 
 gave to the molten mass the shape of a calf, or 
 whether he made use of the graver for the 
 purpose of carving hieroglyphics upon it, has 
 
 0 ΟΝ 
 been thought doubtful. The Syr. has macy, 
 ἐπρδῦ (τύπος), “the mould,” for chéret. But 
 the expression 134, wayydasar, decides that it 
 was by the cheret, in whatever manner em- 
 ployed, that the shape of a calf was given to the 
 metal. 
 
 In N. T. εἰκὼν is the “image” or head of the 
 emperor on the coinage (Matt. xxii. 20). 
 
 Among the earliest objects of worship, re- 
 garded as symbols of deity, were, as has been 
 said above, the meteoric stones which the 
 ancients believed to have been the images of the 
 gods fallen down from heaven (cp. Robertson 
 Smith, i. pp. 185-195). From these they trans- 
 ferred their regard to rough unhewn blocks, to 
 
 stone columns or pillars of wood, in which the’ 
 
 divinity worshipped was supposed to dwell, and 
 
 which were consecrated, like the sacred stone at 
 
 Delphi, by being anointed with oil, and crowned 
 with wool on solemn days (Paus. Phoc. 24, § 6). 
 Tavernier (quoted by Rosenmiiller, Alt. ᾧ N. 
 Morgenland, i. § 89) mentions a black stone in 
 the pagoda of Benares which was daily anointed 
 with perfumed oil, and such are the ‘‘ Lingams ” 
 in daily use in the Siva worship of Bengal (ep. 
 Arnobius, i. 39; Min. Fel. c. 3). Such customs 
 are remarkable illustrations of the solemn con- 
 secration by Jacob of the stone at Bethel, as 
 showing the religious reverence with which 
 these memorials were regarded. And not only 
 were single stones thus honoured, but heaps of 
 stone were, in later times at least, considered as 
 sacred to Hermes (Hom. Od. xvi. 471; ep. Vulg. 
 of Proy. xxvi. 8, “sicut qui mittit lapidem in 
 acervum Mercurii”’), and to these each passing 
 traveller contributed his offering (Creuzer, Symb. 
 i. 24). The heap of stones which Laban erected 
 to commemorate the solemn compact between 
 himself and Jacob, and on which he invoked the 
 gods of his fathers, is an instance of the inter- 
 mediate stage in which such heaps were as- 
 sociated with religious observances before they 
 became objects of worship. Jacob, for his part, 
 dedicated a single stone as his memorial, and 
 called Jehovah to witness, thus holding himself 
 aloof from the rites employed by Laban, which 
 may have partaken of his ancestral idolatry. 
 [ JEGAR-SAHADUTHA. ] 
 
 ; 
 
IDOL, IMAGE 
 
 Of the forms assumed by the idolatrous images 
 we have not many traces in the Bible.® Ka, 
 the water-god of the Babylonians, was a human 
 figure terminating in a fish [DAGON]; and that 
 the Syrian deities were represented in later 
 times in a symbolical human shape we know for 
 certainty. ‘The Hebrews imitated their neigh- 
 bours in this respect as in others (Is. xliv. 13; 
 Wisd. xiii. 13), and from various allusions we 
 may infer that idols in human forms were not 
 uncommon among them, though they were more 
 anciently symbolised by animals (Wisd. xiii. 14), 
 as by the calves of Aaron and Jeroboam, and the 
 brazen serpent which was afterwards applied to 
 idolatrous uses (2 K. xviii. 4; Rom. i. 29). 
 When the image came from the hands of the 
 maker, it was decorated richly with silver and 
 gold, and sometimes crowned (Epist. Jer. 9); 
 clad in robes of blue and purple (Jer. x. 9), like 
 the draped images of Pallas and Hera (Miiller, 
 Hand, d. Arch. εἰ. Kunst, § 69), and fastened in 
 the niche appropriated to it by means of chains 
 and rails (Wisd. xiii. 15), in order that the 
 influence of the deity which it represented 
 might be secured to the spot. So the Ephesians, 
 when besieged by Croesus, connected the wall 
 of their city by means of a rope to the temple 
 of Aphrodite, with the view of ensuring the aid 
 of the goddess (Her. i. 26); and for a similar 
 object the Tyrians chained the stone image of 
 Apollo to the altar of Hercules (Curt. iv. 3, §15). 
 Some images were painted red (Wisd. xiii. 14), 
 like those of Dionysus and the Bacchantes, of 
 Hermes, and the god Pan (Paus. ii. 2, § 5; 
 Miller, Hand. d. Arch. d. Kunst, § 69). This 
 colour was formerly considered sacred. Pliny 
 relates, on the authority of Verrius, that it was 
 customary on festival days to colour with red- 
 lead the face of the image of Jupiter, and the 
 bodies of those who celebrated a triumph (xxxiii. 
 36). The figures of Priapus, the god of gardens, 
 were decorated in the same manner (“ruber 
 custos,” Tibull. i. 1, 18). Among the objects 
 of worship enumerated by Arnobius (i. 39) are 
 bones of elephants, pictures, and garlands sus- 
 pended on trees, the “rami coronati” of Apu- 
 leius (de Mag. c. 56). 
 
 When the process of adorning the image was 
 completed, it was placed in a temple or shrine 
 appointed for it (οἰκία, Epist. Jer. 12, 19; 
 οἴκημα, Wisd. xiii, 15; εἰδωλεῖον, 1 Cor. viii. 10; 
 see Stanley’s note on the latter passage). In 
 Wisd. xiii. 15, οἴκημα is thought to be used 
 contemptuously, as in Tibull. i. 10, 19, 20— 
 “cum paupere cultu stabat in exigua ligneus 
 aede deus” (Fritzsche and Grimm, Handb. in 
 loco), but the passage quoted is by no means a 
 good illustration. From these temples the idols 
 were sometimes carried in procession (Epist. 
 Jer. 4, 26) on festival days. Their priests 
 were maintained from the ido] treasury, and 
 feasted upon the meats which were appointed 
 for the idol’s use (Bel and the Dragon, vv. 3, 
 13; see Speaker’s Comm. in loco). These sacri- 
 ficial feasts formed an important part of the 
 idolatrous ritual [IpoLatRy], and were a great 
 stumbling-block to the early Christian converts. 
 They were to the heathen, as Dean Stanley has 
 
 © Some hideous forms are given in Riehm’s HWA. 
 8. ἢ. ‘*Gitzendienste.” See also Babelon, Manuel 
 @ Archéologie Orientale, p. 294 sq. 
 
 IDOLATRY 1423 
 
 well observed, what the observance of circumci- 
 sion and the Mosaic ritual were to the Jewish 
 converts, and it was for this reason that St. 
 Paul especially directed his attention to the 
 subject, and laid down the rules of conduct 
 contained in his First Letter to the Corinthians 
 (viii.-x.). [W.. A. ΠῚ 
 
 IDOLATRY (the A. V. rendering of DS FA, 
 téraphim, R. V. “teraphim,” in 1 Sam. xv. 23), 
 strictly speaking, denotes the worship of deity 
 in a visible form, whether the images to which 
 homage is paid are symbolical representations of 
 the true God, or of the false divinities which 
 have been made the objects of worship in His 
 stead. With its origin and progress the present 
 article is not concerned. ‘The former is lost 
 amidst the dark mists of antiquity,* and the 
 latter is rather the subject of speculation than 
 of history. But under what aspect it is presented 
 to us in the Scriptures, how it affected the 
 Mosaic legislation, and what influence it had on 
 the history of the Israelites, are questions which 
 may be more properly discussed, with some hope 
 of arriving at a satisfactory conclusion. Whether, 
 therefore, the deification of the powers of nature, 
 and the representation of them under tangible 
 forms, preceded the worship of departed heroes, 
 who were regarded as the embodiment of some 
 virtue which distinguished their lives, is not in 
 this respect of much importance. Some Jewish 
 writers, indeed, grounding their theory on a 
 forced interpretation of Gen. iv. 26, assign to 
 Enos, the son of Seth, the unenviable notoriety 
 of having been the first to pay divine honours 
 to the host of heaven, and to lead others into 
 the like error (Maimon. de Jdol.i. 1). R. Solo- 
 mon Jarchi, on the other hand, while admitting 
 the same verse to contain the first account of 
 the origin of idolatry, understands it as implying 
 the deification of men and plants. Arabic tra- 
 dition, according to Sir W. Jones, connects the 
 people of Yemen with the same apostasy. The 
 third in descent from Joktan, and therefore a 
 contemporary of Nahor, took the surname of 
 ‘Abdu Shams, or “ servant of the sun,” whom he 
 and his family worshipped, while other tribes 
 honoured the planets and fixed stars (Hales, 
 Chronol. ii. 59, 4to ed.). Nimrod, again, to 
 whom is ascribed the introduction of Sabianism, 
 was after his death transferred to the con- 
 stellation Orion, and on the slender foundation 
 of the expression “ Ur of the Chaldees” (Gen. xi. 
 31) is built the fabulous history of Abraham 
 and Nimrod, narrated in the legends of the 
 Jews and Mussulmans (Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrash, 
 i, 23; Weil, Bibl. Leg. pp. 47-74; Hyde, Rel. 
 Pers. δὲ 2). 
 
 I. But, descending from the regions of fiction 
 to sober historic narrative, the first undoubted 
 allusion to idolatry or idolatrous customs in the 
 Bible is in the account of Rachel’s stealing her 
 father’s teraphim (Gen. xxxi. 19), a relic of the 
 worship of other gods, whom the ancestors of 
 the Israelites served “on the other side of the 
 
 a Consult Tylor, Primitive Culture ; Robertson Smith, 
 The Religion of the Semites,i.; Stade, Gesch. ἃ. Volk. 
 Israel, pp. 405 sq., 428 sq. The last two writers adopt 
 the historic sequence and development of idolatry pre- 
 ferred by Kuenen and Wellhausen. See, on the other 
 hand, Bithgen, Beitr. 2 Semit. Religionsgeschichte, 
 
 pp. 131 sq. 
 
1424 IDOLATRY 
 
 river, in old time” (Josh. xxiv. 2). By these 
 household deities Laban was guided, and these 
 he consulted as oracles (obs. AWM, Gen. xxx. 
 27, A. V. “learned by experience,” R. V. 
 ““divined”’), though without entirely losing 
 sight of the God of Abraham and the God of 
 Nahor, to Whom he appealed when occasion 
 offered (Gen. xxxi. 53), while he was ready, in 
 the presence of Jacob, to acknowledge the 
 benefits conferred upon him by Jehovah (Gen. 
 xxx. 27). Such, indeed, was the character of 
 most of the idolatrous worship of the Israelites. 
 Like the Cuthean colonists in Samaria, who 
 “feared Jehovah and served their own gods” 
 {2 Κ΄. xvii. 33), they blended in a strange 
 manner a theoretical belief in the true God 
 with the external reverence which, in different 
 stages of their history, they were led to pay to 
 the idols of the nations by whom they were 
 surrounded. For this species of false worship 
 they seem, at all times, to have had an in- 
 <redible propensity. On their journey from 
 Shechem to Bethel, the family of Jacob put 
 away from among them “the gods of the 
 foreigner :” not the teraphim of Laban, but the 
 gods of the Canaanites through whose land they 
 passed, and the amulets and charms which were 
 worn as the appendages of their worship (Gen. 
 xxxy. 2, 4). And this marked feature of the 
 Hebrew character is traceable throughout the 
 entire history of the people. During their long 
 residence in Egypt, the country of symbolism, 
 they defiled themselves with the idols of the 
 land, and it was long before the taint was re- 
 moved (Josh. xxiv. 14; Ezek. xx. 7). To these 
 gods Moses, as the herald of Jehovah, flung 
 down the gauntlet of defiance (Kurtz, Gesch. d. 
 Alt. B. ii. 86), and the plagues of Egypt smote 
 their symbols (Num. xxxiii. 4). Yet, with the 
 memory of their deliverance fresh in their 
 minds, their leader absent, the Israelites cla- 
 moured for some visible shape in which they 
 might worship the God Who had brought them 
 up out of Egypt (Ex. xxxii.), Aaron lent him- 
 self to the popular cry, and chose as the symbol 
 of deity one with which they had long been 
 familiar—the calf—embodiment of Apis, and 
 emblem of the productive power of nature. 
 But, with a weakness of character to which his 
 greater brother was a stranger, he compromised 
 with his better impulses by proclaiming a 
 solemn feast to Jehovah (Ex. xxxii. 5). How 
 much of the true God was recognised by the 
 people in this brutish symbol it is impossible to 
 conceive; the festival was characterised by all 
 the shameless licentiousness with which idola- 
 trous worship was associated (v. 25), and which 
 seems to have constituted its chief attraction. 
 But on this occasion, as on all others, the trans- 
 ‘gression was visited with swift vengeance, and 
 three thousand of the offenders were slain. For 
 a while the erection of the Tabernacle, and the 
 establishment of the worship which accompanied 
 at, satisfied that craving for an outward sign 
 which the Israelites constantly exhibited; and 
 for the remainder of their march through the 
 desert, with the dwelling-place of Jehovah in 
 the midst of them, they did not again degenerate 
 ‘into open apostasy. But it was only so long as 
 their contact with the nations was of a hostile 
 character that this seeming orthodoxy was 
 maintained. The charms of the daughters of 
 
 IDOLATRY 
 
 Moab, as Balaam’s bad genius foresaw, we.e 
 potent for evil: the Israelites were “ yoked to 
 Baal-Peor ” in the trammels of his fair wor- 
 shippers, and the character of their devotions 
 is not obscurely hinted at (Num. xxyv.). The 
 great and terrible retribution which followed 
 left so deep an impress upon the hearts of the 
 people that, after the conquest of the Promised 
 Land, they looked with an eye of terror upon 
 any indications of defection from the worship of 
 Jehovah, and denounced as idolatrous a memorial 
 so slight as the altar of the Reubenites at the 
 passage of Jordan (Josh. xxii. 16). 
 
 During the lives of Joshua and the elders 
 who outlived him, they kept true to their 
 allegiance; but the generation following, who 
 knew not Jehovah, nor the works He had done 
 for Israel, swerved from the plain path of their 
 fathers, and were caught in the toils of the 
 foreigner (Judg. ii.). From this time forth their 
 history becomes little more than a chronicle of 
 the inevitable sequence of offence and punish- 
 ment. “They provoked Jehovah to anger... 
 and the anger of Jehovah was hot against 
 Israel, and He delivered them into the hands of 
 spoilers that spoiled them” (Judg. ii, 12, 14). 
 The narratives of the Book of Judges, contempo- 
 raneous or successive, tell of the fierce struggle 
 maintained against their hated foes, and how 
 women forgot their tenderness and forsook their 
 retirement to sing the song of victory over the 
 oppressor. By turns each conquering nation 
 strove to establish the worship of its national 
 god. During the rule of Midian, Joash the 
 tather of Gideon had an altar to Baal, and an 
 Asherah (Judg. vi. 25), though he proved but 
 a lukewarm worshipper (v. 31). Even Gideon 
 himself gave occasion to idolatrous worship ; 
 yet the ephod which he made from the spoils of 
 the Midianites was perhaps but a votive offering 
 to the true God (Judg. viii. 27). It is not im- 
 probable that the gold ornaments of which it 
 was composed were in some way connected with 
 idolatry (cp. Is. iii. 18-24); and that from their 
 having been worn as amulets, some superstitious 
 virtue was conceived to cling to them even in 
 their new form. But though in Gideon’s life- 
 time no overt act of idolatry was practised, he 
 was no sooner dead than the Israelites again 
 returned to the service of the Baatim; and, as 
 if in solemn mockery of the covenant made with 
 Jehovah, chose from among them Baal Berith, 
 “ Baal of the Covenant” (ep. Ζεὺς dpktos), as 
 the object of their special adoration (Judg. viii. 
 33). Of this god we know only that his temple, 
 probably of wood (Judg. ix. 49), was a strong- 
 hold in time of need, and that his treasury was 
 filled with the silver of the worshippers (ix. 4). 
 Nor were the calamities of foreign oppression 
 confined to the land of Canaan. ‘The tribes on 
 the east of Jordan went astray after the idols of 
 the land, and were delivered into the hands of 
 the children of Ammon (Judg. x. 8). But they 
 put away, from among them “the gods of the 
 foreigner,” and with the baseborn Jephthah for 
 their leader gained a signal victory over their 
 oppressors. ‘The exploits of Samson against the 
 Philistines, though achieved within a narrower 
 space and with less important results than those 
 of his predecessors, fill a brilliant page in his 
 country’s history. But the tale of his mar- 
 vellous deeds is prefaced by that ever-recurring 
 
 Ι 
 
29 2} atl 
 
 Mosaic ritual. 
 
 IDOLATRY 
 
 phrase, so mournfully familiar, “ the children of 
 Israel did evil again in the eyes of Jehovah, and 
 Jehovah gave them into the hand of the Philis- 
 tines.” Thus far idolatry is a national sin. 
 The episode of Micah, in Judg. xvii.—xviii., sheds 
 a lurid light on the secret practices of indi- 
 viduals, who without formally renouncing Jeho- 
 vah, though ceasing to recognise Him as the 
 theocratic King (xvii. 6), linked with His 
 worship the symbols of ancient idolatry. The 
 house of God, or sanctuary, which Micah made 
 in imitation of that at Shiloh, was decorated 
 with an ephod and teraphim dedicated to God, 
 and with a graven and molten image consecrated 
 to some inferior deities (Selden, de Dis Syris, 
 synt. i, c. 2). It is a significant fact, showing 
 how deeply rooted in the people was the ten- 
 dency to idolatry, that a Levite, who, of all 
 others, should have been most sedulous to main- 
 tain Jehovah’s worship in its purity, was found 
 to assume the office of priest to the images of 
 Micah; and that this Levite, priest afterwards 
 to the idols of Dan, was no other than Jonathan, 
 the son of Gershom, the son of Moses. Tradition 
 says that these idols were destroyed when the 
 Philistines defeated the army of Israel and took 
 from them the Ark of the covenant of Jehovah 
 (1 Sam. iv.). The Danites are supposed to have 
 carried them into the field, as the other tribes 
 bore the Ark, and the Philistines the images of 
 their gods, when they went forth to battle 
 (2 Sam. v. 21; Lewis, Orig. Hebr. v. 9). But 
 the Seder Olam Rabba (c. 24) interprets “the 
 captivity of the land” (Judg. xviii. 30) of the 
 captivity of Manasseh; and Benjamin of Tudela 
 mistook the remains of later Gentile worship 
 for traces of the altar or statue which Micah 
 had dedicated, and which was worshipped by 
 the tribe of Dan (Selden, de Dis Syr. synt. 1. 
 c. 2; Stanley, S. g P. p. 398). In later times 
 the practice of secret idolatry was carried to 
 greater lengths. 
 corn-floors, in the wine-vats, and behind the 
 doors of private houses (Is. lvii. 8; Hos. ix. 1, 
 2); and to check this tendency the statute in 
 Deut. xxvii. 15 was originally promulgated. 
 Under Samuel’s administration a fast was 
 held, and purificatory rites performed, to mark 
 the public renunciation of idolatry (1 Sam. vii. 
 3-6). But in the reign of Solomon all this was 
 forgotten. Each of his many foreign wives 
 brought with her the gods of her own nation; 
 and the gods of Ammon, Moab, and Zidon were 
 openly worshipped. Three of the summits of 
 Olivet were crowned with the high-places of 
 Ashtoreth, Chemosh, and Molech (1 K. xi. 7; 
 2 K. xxiii. 13), and the fourth, in memory of 
 his great apostasy, was branded with the op- 
 probrious title of the ‘ Mount of Corruption.” 
 Rehoboam, the son of an Ammonite mother, 
 perpetuated the worst features of Solomon’s 
 idolatry (1 K. xiv. 22-24); and in his reign 
 took place the great schism in the national 
 religion; when Jeroboam, fresh from his recol- 
 lections of the Apis worship of Egypt, erected 
 golden calves at Bethel and at Dan, and by this 
 crafty state-policy severed for ever the kingdoms 
 of Judah and Israel (1 K. xii. 26-33). To their 
 use temples were consecrated, and the service in 
 their honour was studiously copied from the 
 High-priest himself, Jeroboam 
 ordained priests from the lowest ranks (2 Ch. 
 BIBLE DICT.—VOL. I. 
 
 Images were set up on the’ 
 
 IDOLATRY 1425 
 
 xi. 15); incense and sacrifices were offered, and 
 a solemn festival appointed, closely resembling 
 the Feast of Tabernacles (1 K. xii. 23, 33; cp. 
 Amos iv. 4,5). [Jeropoam.] The worship of 
 the calves, “the sin of Israel” (Hos. x. 8), 
 which was apparently associated with the goat- 
 worship of Mendes (2 Ch. xi. 15; Herod. ii. 46) 
 or of the ancient Sabii (Lewis, Orig. Hebr. v. 3), 
 and the Asherim (1 K. xiv. 15; A. V. “ groves”), 
 ultimately spread to the kingdom of Judah, and 
 centred in Beersheba (Amos ν. 5, vii. 9). At 
 what precise period it was introduced into the 
 latter kingdom is not certain. ‘The Chronicles 
 tell us how Abijah taunted Jeroboam with his 
 apostasy, while the less partial narrative in 
 1 Kings represents his own conduct as far from 
 exemplary (1 K. xv. 3). Asa’s sweeping reform 
 spared not even the idol of his grandmother 
 Maachah, and, with the exception of the high- 
 places, he removed all relics of idolatrous wor- 
 ship (1 K. xv. 12-14), with its accompanying 
 impurities. His reformation was completed by 
 Jehoshaphat (2 Ch. xvii. 6). 
 
 The successors of Jeroboam followed in his 
 steps, till Ahab, who married a Sidonian princess, 
 at her instigation (1 K. xxi. 25) built a temple 
 and altar to Baal, and revived all the abomina- 
 tions of the Amorites (1 K. xxi. 26). For this 
 he attained the bad pre-eminence of having done 
 ‘‘more to provoke Jehovah, the God of Israel, 
 to anger than all the kings of Israel that were 
 before him” (1 K. xvi. 33). Compared with 
 the worship of Baal, the worship of the calves 
 was a venial offence, ‘probably because it was 
 morally less detestable and also less anti-national 
 (1 K. xii. 28; 2 K.x. 28-31). [Exisau, p. 907.] 
 Henceforth Baal-worship became so completely 
 identified with the northern kingdom that it is 
 described as walking in the way or statutes of 
 the kings of Israel (2 K. xvi. 3; xvii. 8), as 
 distinguished from the sin of Jeroboam, which 
 ceased not till the Captivity (2 K. xvii. 23), and 
 the corruption of the ancient inhabitants of the 
 land. The idolatrous priests became a numerous 
 and important caste (1 K. xviii. 19), living under 
 the patronage of royalty, and fed at the royal 
 table. The extirpation of Baal’s priests by 
 Elijah, and of his followers by Jehu (2 K. x.), 
 in which the royal family of Judah shared 
 (2 Ch. xxii. 7), was a deathblow to this fornt 
 of idolatry in Israel, though other systems still 
 remained (2 K. xiii. 6). But while Israel thus 
 sinned and was punished, Judah was more 
 morally guilty (Ezek. xvi. 51). The alliance of 
 Jehoshaphat with the family of Ahab transferred 
 to the southern kingdom, during the reigns of 
 his son and grandson, all the appurtenances of 
 Baal-worship (2 K. viii. 18, 27). In less than 
 ten years after the death of that king, in whose 
 praise it is recorded that he “sought not the 
 Baalim,” nor walked “ after the deed of Israel ” 
 (2 Ch. xvii. 3, 4), a temple had been built for 
 the idol, statues and altars erected, and priests 
 appointed to minister in his service (2 K. xi. 18). 
 Jehoiada’s vigorous measures checked the evil 
 for a time, but his reform was incomplete, and 
 the high-places still remained, as in the days of 
 Asa, a nucleus for any fresh system of idolatry 
 (2 K. xii. 8). Much of this might, be due to the 
 influence of the king’s mother, Zibiah of Beer- 
 sheba, a place intimately connected with the 
 idolatrous defection of Judah (Amos viii. 14). 
 
 4Y 
 
1420 
 
 After the death of Jehoiada, the princes prevailed 
 upon Joash to restore at least some portion of 
 his father’s idolatry (2 Ch. xxiv. 18). The con- 
 quest of the Edomites by Amaziah introduced 
 the worship of their gods, which had disappeared 
 since the days of Solomon (2 Ch. xxy. 14, 20). 
 After this period even the kings who did not 
 lend themselves to the encouragement of false 
 worship had to contend with the corruption 
 which still lingered in the hearts of the people 
 (2 Κ. xv. 35; 2 Ch. xxvii. 2). Hitherto the 
 Temple had been kept pure. The statues of 
 Baal and the other gods were worshipped in 
 their own shrines, but Ahaz, who “sacrificed 
 unto the gods of Damascus, which smote him ” 
 (2 Ch, xxviii. 23), and built altars to them at 
 every corner of Jerusalem, and high-places in 
 every city of Judah, replaced the brazen Altar 
 of burnt-offering by one made after the model of 
 “the altar ” of Damascus, and desecrated it to 
 his own uses (2 K. xvi. 10-15), 
 
 The conquest of the ten tribes by Shalmaneser 
 was for them the last scene of the drama of 
 abominations which had been enacted unin- 
 terruptedly for upwards of 250 years. In the 
 northern kingdom no reformer arose to vary the 
 Jong line of royal apostates; whatever was 
 effected in the way of reformation, was done by 
 the hands of the people (2 Ch. xxxi. 1). But 
 even in their captivity they helped to perpetuate 
 the corruption. The colonists, whom the As- 
 syrian conquerors placed in their stead in the 
 cities of Samaria, brought with them their own 
 gods, and were taught at Bethel by a priest of 
 the captive nation “the manner of the God of 
 the land,” the lessons thus learnt resulting in a 
 strange admixture of the calf-worship of Jero- 
 boam with the homage paid to their national 
 deities (2 K. xvii. 21-41). Their descendants 
 were in consequence regarded with suspicion by 
 the elders who returned from the Captivity 
 with Ezra, and their offers of assistance rejected 
 (Ezra iy. 3). 
 
 The first act of Hezekiah on ascending the 
 throne was the restoration and purification of 
 the Temple, which had been dismantled and 
 closed during the latter part of his father’s 
 life (2 Ch. xxviii. 24, xxix. 3). The multitudes 
 who flocked to Jerusalem to celebrate the Pass- 
 over, so long in abeyance, removed the idolatrous 
 altars of burnt-offering and incense erected by 
 Ahaz (2 Ch. xxx. 14). The iconoclastic spirit 
 was not confined to Judah and Benjamin, but 
 spread throughout Ephraim and Manasseh (2 Ch. 
 xxxi, 1), and to all external appearance idolatry 
 was extirpated. But the reform extended little 
 below the surface (Is. xxix. 13). Among the 
 leaders of the people there were many in high 
 position who conformed to the necessities of the 
 
 IDOLATRY 
 
 > The Syr. supports the rendering of. spd in 
 
 Ὁ. 15, which the A. V. and R. V. have adopted—‘to 
 enquire by”: but Keil translates the clause, ‘*it will be 
 for me to consider,” 7.e. what shall be done with the 
 altar, in order to support his theory that this altar 
 erected by Ahaz was not directly intended to profane 
 the Temple by idolatrous worship. But it is clear that 
 something of an idolatrous nature had been introduced 
 jnto the Temple, and was afterwards removed by Heze- 
 kiah (2 Ch. xxix. 5; cp. Ezra vi. 21, ix. 11). It is 
 possible that this might have reference to the brazen 
 serpent. 
 
 IDOLATRY 
 
 time (Is. xxviii. 14), and under Manasseh’s 
 patronage the false worship, which had been 
 merely driven into obscurity, broke out with 
 tenfold virulence. Idolatry of every form, and 
 with all the accessories of enchantments, divina- 
 tion, and witchcraft, was again rife; no place 
 was too sacred, no associations too hallowed, to 
 be spared the contamination. If the conduct of 
 Ahaz in erecting an altar in the Temple-court 
 is open to a charitable construction, Manasseh’s 
 was of no doubtful character. The two courts 
 of the Temple were profaned by altars dedicated 
 to the host of heaven, and the image of the 
 Asherah polluted the holy place (2 K. xxi. 7; 
 2 Ch. xxxiii. 7,15; cp. Jer. xxxii. 34). Even in 
 his late repentance he did not entirely destroy — 
 all traces of his former wrong. The people, 
 easily swayed, still burned incense on the high 
 places; but Jehovah was the ostensible object of 
 their worship. ‘The king’s son sacrificed to his 
 father’s idols, but was not associated with him 
 in his repentance, and in his short reign of two 
 years restored all the altars of the Baalim, and 
 the images of the Asherah. With the death of 
 Josiah ended the last effort to revive among the 
 people a purer ritual, if not a purer faith, The 
 lamp of David, which had long shed but a 
 struggling ray, flickered for a while and then 
 went out in the darkness of Babylonian 
 Captivity. 
 
 But foreign exile was powerless to eradicate 
 the deep inbred tendency to idolatry. One of 
 the first difficulties with which Ezra had to 
 contend, and which brought him well-nigh to 
 despair, was the haste with which his country- 
 men took them foreign wives of the people of 
 the land, and followed them in all their abomi- 
 nations (Ezra ix.). The priests and rulers, to 
 whom he looked for assistance in his great 
 enterprise, were among the first to fall away 
 (Ezra ix. 2, x. 18; Neh. iv. 17, 18, xiii. 23). 
 Even during the Captivity the devotees of false 
 worship plied their craft as prophets and diviners 
 (Jer. xxix. 8; Ezek. xiii.), and the Jews who fled 
 to Egypt carried with them recollections of the 
 material prosperity which attended their idola- 
 trous sacrifices in Judah, and to the neglect of 
 which they attributed their exiled condition 
 (Jer. xliv. 17, 18). The conquests of Alexander 
 in Asia caused Greek influence to be extensively 
 felt, and Greek idolatry to be first tolerated, and 
 then practised, by the Jews (1 Mace. i. 43-50, 
 54). The attempt of Antiochus to establish this 
 form of worship was vigorously resisted by 
 Mattathias (1 Mace. ii. 23-26), who was joined 
 in his rebellion by the Assidaeans (v. 42), and 
 destroyed the altars at which the king com- 
 manded them to sacrifice (1 Mace. ii. 25, 45). 
 The erection of synagogues (cp. Schiirer, Gesch. 
 d. jiid. Volkes im Zeitalt. J. Christi, ii. 358) has 
 been assigned as a reason for the comparative 
 purity of the Jewish worship after the Captivity 
 (Prideaux, Conn. i. 374), while another cause 
 has been discovered in the hatred for images 
 acquired by the Jews in their intercourse with 
 the Persians. 
 
 It has been a question much debated whether 
 the Israelites were ever so far given up to idolatry 
 as to have lost all knowledge of the true God. It 
 would be hard to assert this of any nation, and 
 still more difficult to prove. That there always 
 remained among them a faithful few, who in the 
 
IDOLATRY 
 
 face of every danger adhered to the worship of 
 Jehovah, may readily be believed, for even at a 
 time when Baal-worship was most prevalent 
 there were found 7,000 in Israel who had 
 not bowed before his image (1 Κα. xix. 18). But 
 there is still room for grave suspicion that 
 among the masses of the people, though the 
 idea of a Supreme Being—ot Whom the images 
 they worshipped were but the distorted repre- 
 sentatives—was not entirely lost, it was so 
 obscured as to be but dimly apprehended. And 
 not only were the ignorant multitude thus led 
 astray, but the priests, scribes, and prophets 
 became leaders of the apostasy (Jer. ii. 8). 
 Warburton, indeed, maintained that they never 
 formally renounced Jehovah, and that their 
 defection consisted “in joining foreign worship 
 and idolatrous ceremonies to the ritual of the 
 true God” (Div. Leg. B. v. ὃ 3). But one 
 passage in their history, though confessedly 
 obscure, seems to point to a time when, under 
 the rule of the judges, “ Israel for many days 
 had no true God, and no teaching priest, and no 
 law” (2 Ch. xv. 3). There can be no doubt 
 that much of the idolatry of the Hebrews con- 
 sisted in worshipping the true God under an 
 image, such as the calves at Bethel and Dan 
 (905. Ant. viii. 8, § 5; δαμάλεις ἐπωνύμους τῷ 
 Θεῷ), and by associating His worship with 
 idolatrous rites (Jer. xli. 5) and places conse- 
 crated to idols (2 K. xviii. 22). From the 
 peculiarity of their position they were never 
 distinguished as the inventors of a new pan- 
 theon, nor did they adopt any one system of 
 idolatry so exclusively as ever to become 
 identified with it.° But they no sooner came 
 
 in contact with other nations than they readily 
 
 adapted themselves to their practices, the old 
 spirit of antagonism died rapidly away, and 
 
 intermarriage was one step to idolatry. 
 
 II. The old religion of the Semitic races con- 
 sisted, in the opinion of Movers (Phoen. i. c, 5), 
 
 in the deification of the powers and laws of 
 
 nature; these powers being considered either 
 as distinct and independent, or as manifestations 
 of one supreme and all-ruling being. In most 
 instances the two ideas were co-existent. The 
 deity, following human analogy, was conceived 
 ‘as male and female: the one representing the 
 active, the other the passive principle of nature; 
 the former’the source of spiritual, the latter of 
 physical life. The transference of the attributes 
 of the one to the other resulted either in their 
 mystical conjunction in the hermaphrodite, as 
 the Persian Mithra and Phoenician Baal, or the 
 two combined to form a third, which symbolized 
 the essential unity of both. With these two 
 supreme beings all other deities are identical ; 
 so that in different nations the same nature- 
 worship appears under different forms, repre- 
 senting the various aspects under which the 
 
 ¢ As the Moabites with the worship of Chemosh 
 (Num. xxi. 29). 
 _ 4 This will explain the occurrence of the name of 
 Baal (see’s. n.) with the masculine and feminine articles 
 im the LXX.: ep. Hos. xi. 2; Jer. xix.5; Rom. xi. 4. 
 Philochorus, quoted by Macrobius (Sat. iii. 8), says 
 that men and women sacrificed to Venus or the Moon, 
 ith the garments of the sexes interchanged, because 
 he was regarded both as masculine and feminine 
 (ee Selden, de Dis Syr. ii. 2). Hence Lunus and 
 Luna: 
 ἱ 
 
 λ 
 ' 
 
 IDOLATRY 1427 
 
 idea of the power of nature is presented. The 
 sun and moon were early selected as outward 
 symbols of this all-pervading power, and the 
 worship of the heavenly bodies was not only the 
 most ancient but the most prevalent system of 
 idolatry. Taking its rise, according to a probable 
 hypothesis, in the plains of Chaldea, it spread 
 through Egypt, Greece, Scythia, and even 
 Mexico and Ceylon. It was regarded as an 
 offence amenable to the civil authorities in the 
 days of Job (xxxi. 26-28), and one of the 
 statutes of the Mosaic Law was directed against 
 its observance (Deut. iv. 19; xvii. 3); the 
 former referring to the star-worship of Arabia, 
 the latter to the concrete form in which it 
 appeared among the Syrians and Phoenicians. 
 It is probable that the Israelites learnt their 
 first lessons in sun-worship from the Egyptians, 
 in whose religious system that luminary, as 
 Osiris, held a prominent place. The city of 
 On (Bethshemesh or Heliopolis) took its name 
 from his temple (Jer. xliii. 13), and the wife of 
 Joseph was the daughter of his priest (Gen. xli. 
 45). The Phoenicians worshipped him under 
 the title of “Lord of heaven,” py bya, 
 Batal-shamayim (βεελσάμην, acc. to Sanchoniatho 
 in Philo-Byblius ; cp. Biithgen, p. 23, and Index, 
 s. n. “ Sonnengottheit ”), and Adon (cp. Bathgen, 
 p. 41), the Greek Adonis, and the Thammuz of 
 Ezekiel (viii. 14). [Tuammuz.] Under the 
 form of appellatives the Sun was worshipped as 
 Molech or Milcom by the Ammonites, and as 
 Chemosh by the Moabites. The Hadad of the 
 Syrians is by some thought to be the same 
 deity [see Hapap], whose name is traceable in 
 Benhadad, Hadadezer, and Hadad or Adad, the 
 Edomite. The Assyrian Bel or Belus is another 
 form of Baal. According to Philo (de Vit. Cont. 
 § 3; but see p. 998, col. 2), the Essenes 
 were wont to pray to the sun at morning and 
 evening (Joseph. B. J. ii. 8, § 5). By the later 
 kings of Judah, sacred horses and chariots were 
 dedicated to the sun-god, as by the Persians 
 (2 K. xxiii. 11; Bochart, Hieroz. pt. 1, b. ii. 
 ec. xi.; Selden, de Dis Syr. ii. 8), to march in 
 procession and greet his rising (R. Sol. Jarchi 
 on 2 K. xxiii. 11). The Massagetae offered 
 horses in sacrifice to him (Strabo, xi. Ρ. 513), 
 on the principle enunciated by Macrobius (Sat. 
 vii. 7), “like rejoiceth in like” (“similibus 
 similia gaudent;” cp. Her. i, 216), and the 
 custom was common to many nations. 
 
 The moon, worshipped by the Phoenicians 
 under the name of Astarte (Lucian, de Dea Syra, 
 ο. 4. Cp. Bathgen, p. 31, &.), or Baaltis, the 
 passive power of nature, as Baal was the active 
 (Movers, i. 149), and known to the Hebrews as 
 Ashtoreth (see 8. n.), the tutelary goddess of the 
 Sidonians, appears early among the objects of 
 Israelitish idolatry. But this Syro-phoenician 
 worship of the sun and moon was of a grosser 
 character than the pure star-worship of the 
 Magi, which Movers distinguishes as Upper 
 Asiatic or Assyro-Persian, and was equally re- 
 moved from the Chaldean astrology and Sabianism 
 of later times. The former of these systems 
 tolerated no images or altars, and the contem- 
 plation of the heavenly bodies from elevated 
 spots constituted the greater part of its ritual. 
 
 But, though we have no positive historical 
 account of star-worship before the Assyrian 
 
 4Y 2 
 
1428 IDOLATRY 
 
 period,® we may infer that it was early practised 
 in a concrete form among the Israelites from the 
 allusions in Amos v. 26 and Acts vii. 42, 43. 
 Even in the desert they are said to have been 
 given up to worship the host of heaven, while 
 Chiun and Remphan have on various grounds 
 been identified with the planet Saturn. It was 
 to counteract idolatry of this nature that the 
 stringent law of Deut. xvii. 3 was enacted; and 
 with the view of withdrawing the Israelites 
 from undue contemplation of the material uni- 
 verse, Jehovah, the God of Israel, is constantly 
 placed before them as Jehovah Zebaoth, Jehovah 
 of Hosts, the King of Heaven (Dan. iv. 35, 37), 
 to Whom the heaven and heaven of heavens 
 belong (Deut. x. 14). However this may be, 
 Movers (Phoen. i. 65, 66) contends that the 
 later star-worship, introduced by Ahaz and 
 followed by Manasseh, was purer and more 
 spiritual in its nature than the Israelite-Phoe- 
 nician worship of the heavenly bodies under 
 symbolical forms, as Baal and Asherah ; and that 
 it was not idolatry in the same sense that the 
 latter was, but of a simply contemplative cha- 
 racter. He is supported, to some extent, by the 
 fact that we find no mention of any images of 
 the sun or moon or the host of heaven, but 
 merely of vessels devoted to their service (2 K. 
 xxiii. 4). But there is no reason to believe 
 that the divine honours paid to the ‘Queen of 
 Heaven,” A. V. text and R. V. (or as others 
 render, “the frame” or “structure of the 
 heavens;” see A. V. marg.)f were equally dis- 
 sociated from image worship. Sir H. Layard 
 (Nin. ii, 451) discovered a bas-relief at Nimroud, 
 which represented four idols carried in pro- 
 cession by Assyrian warriors. One of these 
 figures he identifies with Hera, the Assyrian 
 Astarte, represented with a star on her head 
 (Amos v. 26), and with the “ queen of heaven,” 
 who appears on the rock-tablets of Pterium 
 “standing erect on a lion, and crowned with a 
 tower, or mural coronet,” as in the Syrian 
 temple of Hierapolis (Jd. p. 456; Lucian, de Dea 
 Syra, 31, 32). But, in his remarks upon a 
 figure which resembles the Rhea of Diodorus, 
 Sir H. Layard adds, “The representation in a 
 human form of the celestial bodies, themselves 
 originally but a type, was a corruption which 
 appears to have crept at a later period into the 
 mythology of Assyria; for, in the more ancient 
 bas-reliets, figures with caps surmounted by 
 stars do not occur, and the sun, moon, and planets 
 stand alone” (Jd. pp. 457, 458). 
 
 The allusions in Job xxxviii. 31, 32 (see Dill- 
 mann‘ in loco) are too obscure to allow any 
 inference to be drawn as to the mysterious in- 
 fluences which were held by the old astrologers 
 to be exercised by the stars over human destiny, 
 
 e Bithgen, p. 107, points out.the existence of star- 
 worship among the Nabataeans of Sinai. 
 f Jer. vii. 18; xlix. 19. In the former passage 
 
 some MSS. have ΤΟΝ for nobp (see Baer’s text 
 of Jeremiah, p. 89), a reading supported by the LXX., 
 τῇ στρατίᾳ, as well as by the Syr. QQ, piilchin, 
 its equivalent. But in the latter they both agree in 
 the rendering “queen.” The “queen of heaven’’ is 
 identified with Athar-Astarte, which as Atar-Samain is 
 frequently mentioned in the inscriptions of Assurbani- 
 
 pal, and was the goddess of the N. Arabian Kedarenes 
 (cp. Schrader, KAT.,” p. 414; Buthgen, p. 69). 
 
 IDOLATRY 
 
 nor is there sufficient evidence to connect. them 
 with anything more recondite than the astro- 
 nomical knowledge of the period. The same 
 may be said of the poetical figure in Deborah’s 
 chant of triumph, “the stars from their high- 
 ways warred with Sisera” (Judg. ν. 20). In 
 the later times of the monarchy, Mazzaloth, the 
 planets, or the zodiacal signs, received, next to 
 the sun and moon, their share of popular adora- 
 tion (2 K. xxiii. 5); and the history of idolatry 
 among the Hebrews shows at all times an 
 intimate connexion between the deification of 
 the heavenly bodies, and the superstition which 
 watched the clouds for signs, and used divination 
 and enchantments. It was but a step frona 
 such culture of the sidereal powers to the wor- 
 ship of Gad and Meni, Babylonian divinities — 
 (see Biithgen, pp. 79, 80), symbols of Venus or 
 the moon, as the goddess of luck or fortune, 
 Under the latter aspect, the moon was reverenced 
 by the Egyptians (Macrob. Sat. i. 19); and the 
 name Baal-gad has been thought to be an 
 example of the manner in which the worship of 
 the planet Jupiter as the bringer of luck was 
 grafted on the old faith of the Phoenicians. 
 The false gods of the colonists of Samaria were 
 sometimes connected with Eastern astrology: 
 Adrammelech, Movers regards as the sun-fire— 
 the Solar Mars—and Anammelech the Solar 
 Saturn (Phoen. i. 410, 411), but modern re- 
 search seems opposed to this identification (see 
 Pinches, 8. nn. ADRAMMELECH, ANAMMELECH). 
 The Vulgate rendering of Proy. xxvi. 8, “sicut 
 qui mittit lapidem in acervum Mercurii,” follows. 
 the Midrash on the passage quoted by Rashi, 
 and requires merely a passing notice (see Selden, 
 de Dis Syris, ii. 15; Maim. de Idol. ili. 2; 
 
 Buxtorf, Lex. Talm. s. v. p*dyprn). 
 
 Beast-worship, as exemplified in the calves ef 
 Jeroboam and the dark hints which seem to 
 point to the goat of Mendes, has already been 
 alluded to (cp. Robertson Smith, i. 278 sq.)- 
 There is no actual proof that the Israelites ever 
 joined in such worship,® though Ahaziah sent 
 stealthily to Baalzebub, the fly-god of Ekron 
 (2 K. i.), and in later times the brazen serpent 
 became the object of idolatrous homage (2 K. 
 xviii. 4). But whether the latter was regarded 
 with superstitious reverence as a memorial of 
 their early history, or whether incense was 
 offered to it as asymbol of some power of nature, 
 cannot now be exactly determined. The threaten- 
 ing in Ley. xxvi. 30, “I will put your carcases 
 upon the carcases of your idols” (ep. Knobel-_ 
 Dillmann in loco), may possibly be a protest 
 against the tendency to regard animals, as im 
 Egypt, as the symbols of deity (Robertson Smith, 
 i, pp. 208, 283). Certain it is that “all the 
 great deities of the Northern Semites had their 
 sacred animals, and were themselves worshipped 
 in animal form, or in association with animal 
 symbols, down to a late date” (Robertson Smith, 
 i. 270). 
 
 Of pure hero-worship among the Semitic races 
 
 & Some have explained the allusion in Zeph. i. 9, 
 as referring to a practice connected with the worship — 
 of Dagon; cp. 1 Sam. v. 5. The allusion is more likely — 
 a mere proverbial expression (see Orelli on Zeph. 1. c. 
 in Strack u. Zéckler’s Kgf. Komm.). The Syrians, on 
 the authority of Xenophon (Anab. i. 4, § 9), paid divine 
 honours to fish (see Robertson Smith, i. 160, n. 1). 
 
} 
 
 IDOLATRY 
 
 we find no trace. Moses, indeed, seems to have 
 entertained some dim apprehension that his 
 countrymen might, after his death, pay him 
 more honours than were due to man; and the 
 anticipation of this led him to review his own 
 conduct in terms of strong reprobation (Deut. 
 iy. 21, 22). ‘The expression in Ps. ον]. 28, 
 “they ate the sacrifices of the dead,” is in all 
 probability metaphorical (see Delitzsch? in loco), 
 and Wisd. xiv. 15 refers to a later practice due 
 to Greek influence. The rabbinical commen- 
 
 tators discover in Gen. xlvili. 16 an allusion to 
 
 the worshipping of Angels (cp. Col. ii. 18), while 
 they defend their ancestors from the charge of 
 regarding them inany other light than mediators, 
 or intercessors with God (Lewis, Orig. Hebr. 
 y. 3). Jt is needless to add that their inference 
 and apology are equally groundless. With like 
 probability has been advanced the theory of the 
 demon-worship of the Hebrews, the only founda- 
 tion for it being two highly poetical passages 
 (Deut. xxxii. 17 [see Dillmann? in loco]; Ps. evi. 
 37). Itis possible that the Persian dualism is 
 hinted at in Is. xlv. 7 (Delitzsch*), but not 
 probable (Dillmann 5). 
 
 But if the forms of the false gods were mani- 
 fold, the places devoted to their worship were 
 almost equally numerous. ‘The singular reve- 
 rence with which trees have in all ages been 
 honoured (see Robertson Smith, i. Index, s. v. 
 Trees) is not without example in the history of 
 the Hebrews. The terebinth at Mamre, beneath 
 which Abraham built an aitar (Gen. xil. 7, xiii. 
 18), and the memorial grove planted by him at 
 Beersheba (Gen. xxi. 33), were intimately con- 
 nected with patriarchal worship, though in 
 after-ages his descendants were forbidden to do 
 that which he did with impunity, in order to 
 avoid the contamination of idolatry." As a 
 symptom of their rapidly degenerating spirit, 
 tthe oak of Shechem, which stood in the sanc- 
 tuary of Jehovah (Josh. xxiv. 26), and beneath 
 which Joshua set up the stone of witness, per- 
 haps appears in Judges (ix. 37; cp. Bertheau*) 
 as (R. V.) “the oak (not “ plain,” as in A. V.) 
 of Meonenim” (R. V. marg. avgurs).' Mountains 
 and high places were chosen spots for offering 
 sacrifice and incense to idols (1 K. xi. 7, xiv. 
 23); and the retirement of gardens and the 
 thick shade of woods offered great attractions to 
 their worshippers (2 K. xvi. 4; Is. i. 295; Hos. 
 iv. 13). It was the ridge of Carmel which 
 Elijah selected as the scene of his contest with 
 the priests of Baal, fighting with them the 
 battle of Jehovah as it were on their own 
 ground. [Carmet.] Carmel was regarded by 
 
 h Jerome (OS.2 p. 148, 16, 8. v. Drys) mentions an oak 
 near Hebron which existed in his infancy, and was 
 the traditional tree beneath which Abraham dwelt. It 
 was regarded with great reverence, and was made an 
 object of worship by the heathen. Modern Palestine 
 abounds with sacred trees. They are found ‘all over 
 the land covered with bits of rags from the garments of 
 passing villagers, hung up as acknowledgments or as 
 deprecatory signals and charms: and we find beautiful 
 clumps of oak trees sacred to a kind of beings called 
 Jacob’s daughters” (Thomson, The Land and the Book, 
 di. 151). [See Grovr.] 
 
 1 Unless this be a relic of the ancient Canaanitish 
 worship; an older name associated with idolatry, which 
 tthe conquering Hebrews were commanded and en- 
 
 _ deavoured to obliterate (Deut. xii. 3). 
 
 IDOLATRY 1429 
 
 the Roman historians as a sacred mountain of 
 the Jews (Tac. //. ii. 78; Suet. Vesp. 7). The 
 host of heaven was worshipped on the housetop 
 (2 K. xxiii. 12; Jer. xix. 3, xxxii. 293; Zeph. 1. 
 5). In describing the sun-worship of the Naba- 
 taeans, Strabo (xvi. p. 784) mentions two charac- 
 teristics which strikingly illustrate the worship 
 of Baal. They built their altars on the roofs of 
 houses, and offered on them incense and libations 
 daily. On the wall of his city, in the sight of 
 the besieging armies of Israel and Edom, the 
 king of Moab offered his eldest son as a burnt- 
 offering. The Persians, who worshipped the 
 sun under the name of Mithra (Strabo, xv. 
 p. 732), sacrificed on an elevated spot, but built 
 no altars or images. 
 
 The priests of the false worship are some- 
 times designated Kemarim (Ὁ 23; see MY.1), 
 a word of Syriac origin, to which different 
 meanings have been assigned. It is applied to 
 the non-Levitical priests who burnt incense on 
 the high-places (2 K. xxiii. 5) as well as to the 
 priests of the calves (Hos. x. 5); and the corre- 
 sponding word is used in the Peshitto (Judg. 
 xviii. 80) of Jonathan and his descendants, priests 
 to the tribe of Dan, and in Targ. Onkelos (Gen. 
 xlvii. 22) of the priests of Egypt. The Rabbis, 
 followed by Gesenius, have derived it from a 
 root signifying “to be black,” and without any 
 authority assert that the name was given to 
 idolatrous priests from the black vestments 
 which they wore. But white was the distinc- 
 tive colour in the priestly garments of all 
 nations from India to Gaul, and black was only 
 worn when they sacrificed to the subterranean 
 gods (Bahr, Sym. ii. 87, &c.). That a special 
 
 dress was adopted by the Baal-worshippers, as 
 
 well as by the false prophets (Zech. xiii. 4), is 
 evident from 2 K. x. 22; the vestments were 
 kept in an apartment of the idol temple, under 
 the charge probably of one of the inferior 
 priests. Micah’s Levite was provided with 
 appropriate robes (Judg. xvii. 11). The 
 “strange (R. V. “ foreign”) apparel” men- 
 tioned in Zeph. i. 8 refers doubtless to a similar 
 dress, adopted by the Israelites in defiance of 
 the sumptuary law in Num. xv. 37-40. 
 
 In addition to the priests there were other 
 persons intimately connected with idolatrous 
 rites, and the impurities from which they were 
 inseparable. Both men and women consecrated 
 themselves to the service of idols (Robertson 
 Smith, i. 133): the former as DWP, gedéshim, 
 for which there is reason to believe the A. V. 
 (Deut. xxiii. 17; see the Heb. or R. V. marg.) 
 has not given too harsh an equivalent; the 
 
 latter as nivap, gedéshoth, who wove shrines 
 for Astarte (2 K. xxiii. 7), and resembled the 
 éralpa of Corinth, of whom Strabo (viii. p. 378) 
 says there were more than a thousand attached 
 to the temple of Aphrodite. Egyptian prosti- 
 tutes consecrated themselves to Isis (Juv. vi- 
 489, ix. 22-24). The same class of women 
 existed among the Phoenicians, Armenians, 
 Lydians, and Babylonians (Her. i. 93, 199; 
 Strabo, xi. p. 532; Epist. of Jerem. v. 43). 
 They are distinguished from the public prosti- 
 tutes (Hos. iv. 14) and associated with the per- 
 formances of sacred rites, just as in Strabo (xii. 
 p- 559) we find the two classes co-existing at 
 
 Comana, the Corinth of Pontus, much frequented 
 
1430 
 
 by pilgrims to the shrine of Aphrodite) The 
 wealth thus obtained flowed into the treasury of 
 the idol temple, and against such a practice the 
 injunction in Deut. xxiii. 18 is directed. The 
 class of persons alluded to was composed of 
 foreigners (Lucian, de Syra Dea, ¢. 5); and from 
 the juxtaposition of prostitution and the idol- 
 atrous rites against which the laws in Lev. xix. 
 are aimed, it is probable that, next to its im- 
 morality, one main reason why it was visited 
 with such stringency was its connexion with 
 idolatry (cp. 1 Cor. vi. 9). 
 
 But, besidés these accessories, there were the 
 ordinary rites of worship which idolatrous 
 systems had in common with the religion of the 
 Hebrews. Offering burnt sacrifices to the idol 
 gods (2 K. ν. 17), burning incense in their 
 honour (1 K. xi. 8), and bowing down in worship 
 before their images (1 K. xix. 18) were the 
 chief parts of their ritual; and from their 
 very analogy with the ceremonies of true wor- 
 ship were more seductive than the grosser forms. 
 Nothing can be stronger or more positive than 
 the language in which these ceremonies were 
 denounced by Hebrew Law. Every detail of 
 idol-worship was made the subject of a separate 
 enactment, and many of the laws, which in 
 themselves seem trivial and almost absurd, 
 receive from this point of view their true signi- 
 ficance. We are told by Maimonides (Mor. Neb. 
 ec. 12) that the prohibitions against sowing a 
 field with mingled seed, and wearing garments 
 of mixed material, were directed against the 
 practices of idolaters, who attributed a kind of 
 magical influence to the mixture (Lev. xix. 19; 
 Spencer, de Leg. Hebr. ii. 18. Cp. Knobel-Dill- 
 mann in loco). Such, too, were the precepts 
 which forbade that the garments of the sexes 
 should be interchanged (Deut. xxiii. 5; Maimon. 
 De Idol. xii. 9). According to Macrobius (Sat. 
 iii. 8), other Asiatics when they sacrificed to 
 their Venus changed the dress of the sexes. The 
 priests of Cybele appeared in women’s clothes, 
 and used to mutilate themselves (Creuzer, Symb. 
 11. 34, 42): the same custom was observed “ by 
 the Ithyphalli in the rites of Bacchus, and by 
 the Athenians in their Ascophoria” (Young, 
 Idol. Cor. in Rel. i. 1053; ep. Lucian, de Dea 
 Syra, c. 15). The Israelites were prohibited 
 for three years after their conquest of Canaan 
 from eating of the fruit-trees of the land 
 (Ley, xix. 23), Some interpret this as a protec- 
 tion against contamination, the cultivation of 
 the trees having been attended with magical 
 rites ; others consider it and such prohibitions 
 as follow precautions to propitiate the Divine 
 powers (Robertson Smith, i. 148-9, 444). They 
 were forbidden to “round the corner of the 
 head,” and to “mar the corner of the beard ” 
 (Ley. xix. 27), as the Arabians did in honour of 
 their gods (Her. iii. 8, iv. 175). Hence, the 
 phrase AND SIP, gesiisé phé’ah, (literally) 
 “shorn of the corner,” is especially applied to 
 idolaters (Jer. ix. 26, xxv. 23; Robertson Smith, 
 1. 307). Spencer (de Leg. Hebr. ii. 9, ὃ 2) 
 
 IDOLATRY 
 
 j An illustration, though not an example, of this is 
 found in the modern history of Europe. At a period 
 of great profligacy and corruption of morals, licentious- 
 mess was carried to such an excess in Strasburg that 
 the public prostitutes received the appellation of the 
 swallows of the cathedral (Hiller, Phil. of Hist. ii. 441). 
 
 IDOLATRY 
 
 explains the law forbidding the offering of honey 
 (Lev. ii. 11; see ἨΟΝΕΥ) as intended to oppose 
 an idolatrous practice. Strabo describes the 
 Magi as offering in all their sacrifices libations 
 of oil mingled with honey and milk (xv. p. 733). 
 Oiferings in which honey was an ingredient 
 were made to the inferior deities and the dead 
 (Hom. Od. x. 519; Porph. de Antr. Nymph- 
 c. 17). So also the practice of eating the flesh 
 of sacrifices ‘‘over the blood” (Lev. xix. 26; 
 Ezek. xxxiii. 25, 26) was, according to Maimo- 
 nides, common among the Zabii (Robertson 
 Smith, i. 324). Spencer gives a double reason 
 for the prohibition: that it was a rite of divina- 
 tion, and divination of the worst kind, a species 
 of necromancy by which they attempted to raise 
 the spirits of the dead (cp. Hor. Sat i. 8). 
 There are supposed to be allusions to the prac- 
 tice of necromancy in Is. lxv. 4, or at any rate 
 to superstitious rites in connexion with the 
 dead (see Delitzsch* in loco). The grafting of 
 one tree upon another was forbidden, because 
 among idolaters the process was accompanied by 
 gross obscenity (Maim. Mor. Neb. c. 12). Cut- 
 ting the flesh for the dead (Ley. xix. 28; 1 K. 
 xviii. 28), and making a baldness between the 
 eyes (Deut. xiv. 1), were associated with idola- 
 trous rites; the latter being a custom among 
 the Syrians (Sir G. Wilkinson in Rawlinson’s 
 Herod. ii. 158, note. Cp. Robertson Smith, i. 
 304). The thrice-repeated and much - vexed 
 passage, “Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his 
 mother’s milk ” (Ex. xxiii. 19, xxxiv. 26; Deut. 
 xiv. 21), interpreted by some as a precept of 
 humanity, but more probably a prohibition 
 against some ancient form of sacrifice (Robert- 
 son Smith, i. 204), is explained by Cudworth by 
 means of a quotation from a Karaite commen- 
 tary which he had seen in MS.:—“It was a 
 custom of the ancient heathens, when they had 
 gathered in all their fruit, to take a kid and 
 boil it in the dam’s milk, and then in a magical 
 way go about and besprinkle with it all the 
 trees and fields and gardens and orchards; 
 thinking by this means they should make them 
 fructify, and bring forth again more abundantly 
 the following year” (On the Lord’s Supper, 
 c. 2). The law which regulated clean and un- 
 clean meats (Lev. xx. 25-26) may be considered 
 both as a sanitary regulation and also as having 
 a tendency to separate the Israelites from the 
 surrounding idolatrous nations. It was with 
 the same object, in the opinion of Michaelis, 
 that while in the wilderness they were pro- 
 hibited from killing any animal for food without 
 first offering it to Jehovah (Laws of Moses, 
 trans. Smith, art. 203). The mouse, one of the 
 unclean animals of Leviticus (xi. 29), was sacri- 
 ficed by the ancient Magi (Is. Ixvi. 17; Movers, 
 Phoen. i. 219). It may have been some such 
 reason as that assigned by Lewis (Orig. Hebr. 
 v. 1), that the dog was the symbol of an 
 Egyptian deity, which gave rise to the prohibi- 
 tion in Deut. xxiii. 18. Movers says that the dog 
 was offered in sacrifice to Moloch (i. 404), as 
 
 k Dr. Thomson mentions a favourite dish among the 
 Arabs called lebn immi, to which he conceives allusion 
 is made (The Land and the Book, i. 135). 
 
 1 The swine, the dog, fish, the mouse, the horse, and 
 the dove were unclean animals sacrificed among Semites 
 (Robertson Smith, i. 272 sq.). 
 
IDOLATRY 
 
 swine to the moon and Dionysus by the Egyp- 
 tians, who afterwards ate of the flesh (Her. iii. 
 47; Is. Ixy. 4). Eating of the things offered 
 Was a necessary appendage to the sacrifice (cp. 
 Ex. xviii. 12, xxxii. 6, xxxiv. 15; Num. xxv. 2, 
 &c.). Among the Persians the victim was eaten 
 by the worshippers, and the soul alone left for 
 the god (Strabo, xv. 732). ‘ Hence it is that 
 the idolatry of the Jews in worshipping other 
 gods is so often described synecdochically under 
 the notion of feasting. Is. lvii. 7, ‘Upon a 
 high and lofty mountain thou hast set thy bed, 
 and thither wentest thou up to offer sacrifice ;’ 
 for in those ancient times they were not wont to 
 sit at feasts, but lie down on beds or couches. 
 Ezek. xxiii. 41; Amos ii. 8, ‘They laid them- 
 selves down upon clothes laid to pledge by 
 every altar,’ i.c. laid themselves down to eat of 
 the sacrifice that was offered on the altar: cp. 
 Ezek. xviii. 11” (Cudworth, ut supra, c. 1; ep. 
 1 Cor. viii. 10). The Israelites were forbidden 
 “to print any mark upon them ” (Lev. xix. 28; 
 in symbol of self-dedication to a deity; cp. 
 Robertson Smith, i. 316, n. 1), because it was a 
 custom of idolaters to brand upon their flesh 
 some symbol of the deity they worshipped, as 
 the ivy-leaf of Bacchus (3 Mace. ii. 29). Ac- 
 cording to Lucian (de Dea Syra, 59) all the 
 Syrians wore marks of this kind on their necks 
 and wrists (cp. Is. xliv. 5; Gal. vi. 17; Rev. 
 xiv. 1,11). Many other practices of false wor- 
 ship are alluded to, and made the subjects of 
 rigorous prohibition, but none are more fre- 
 quently or more severely denounced than those 
 which peculiarly distinguished the worship of 
 Molech. The worship of this idol was polluted 
 by the foul stain of human sacrifice (Deut. xii. 
 ΚΕ αἴ 97. Jer. vii. Sli) Ps.) ἀν 3%; 
 Ezek. xxiii. 39: ep. Mic. vi. 7). Nor was this 
 practice confined to the rites of Molech; it 
 extended to those of Baal (Jer. xix. 5), and the 
 king of Moab (2 K. iii. 27) offered his son as a 
 burnt-offering to his god Chemosh. The Phoe- 
 nicians, we are told by Porphyry (de Abstin. ii. 
 c. 56), on occasions of great national calamity 
 sacrificed to Kronos one of their dearest friends. 
 This custom cannot be denied, if it may be ex- 
 plained as a “straining the gift-theory of sacri- 
 fice to cover rites to which it had no legitimate 
 application” (Robertson Smith, i. 376). Kissing 
 the images of the gods (1 K. xix. 18; Hos. xiii. 
 2), hanging votive offerings in their temples 
 (1 Sam. xxxi. 10), and carrying them to battle 
 (2 Sam. v. 21), as the Jews of Maccabaeus’ army 
 did with the things consecrated to the idols of 
 the Jamnites (2 Mace. xii. 40), are usages con- 
 nected with idolatry which are casually men- 
 tioned, though not made the objects of express 
 legislation. But soothsaying, interpretation of 
 dreams, necromancy, witchcraft, magic, and 
 other forms of divination, are alike forbidden 
 (Deut. xviii. 9; 2 K. i. 25 Is. Ixv. 43 Ezek. xxi. 
 21). The history of other nations—and indeed 
 the too common practice of the lower class of 
 the population of Syria at the present day— 
 shows us that such a statute as that against 
 bestiality (Lev. xviii. 23) was not unnecessary 
 (cp. Her. ii. 46; Rom. i. 26). Purificatory rites 
 in connexion with idol-worship, and eating of 
 forbidden food, were visited with severe retribu- 
 tion (Is. xvi. 17). It is evident, from the con- 
 text of Ezek. viii. 17, that the votaries of the 
 
 | 
 
 IDOLATRY 1431 
 
 sun, who worshipped with their faces to the 
 east (v. 16), and “ put the branch to their nose,” 
 did so in observance of some idolatrous rite. 
 Movers (Phoen. i. 66) unhesitatingly affirms 
 that the allusion is to the branch Barsom, the 
 holy branch of the Magi (Strabo, xv. p- 733; 
 Spiegel, Lran. Alterthumskunde, iii. 571), and is 
 followed by most modern commentators. The 
 waving of a myrtle branch, says Maimonides 
 (de Idol. vi. 2), accompanied the repetition of a 
 magical formula in incantations. An illustra- 
 tion of the usage of boughs in worship will be 
 found in the Greek ἱκετηρία (Aesch. Lum. 43, 
 Suppl. 192; Schol. on Aristoph. Plut. 383; 
 Porphyr. de Ant. Nymph. c. 33). For detailed 
 accounts of idolatrous ceremonies, reference must 
 be made to the articles upon the several idols. 
 ΠῚ. It remains now briefly to consider the 
 light in which idolatry was regarded in the 
 Mosaic code, and the penalties with which it 
 was visited. If one main object of the Hebrew 
 polity was to teach the unity of God, the ex- 
 termination of idolatry was but a subordinate 
 end. Jehovah, the God of the Israelites, was 
 the civil head of the State. He was the theo- 
 cratic King of the people, Who had delivered 
 them from bondage, and to Whom they had 
 taken a willing oath of allegiance. They had 
 entered into a solemn league and covenant with 
 Him as their chosen King (cp. 1 Sam. viii. 7), by 
 Whom obedience was requited with temporal 
 blessings, and rebellion with temporal punish- 
 ment. This original contract of the Hebrew 
 government, as it has been termed, is contained 
 in Ex. xix. 3-8, xx. 2-5; Deut. xxix. 10-xxx.; 
 the blessings promised to obedience are enu- 
 merated in Deut. xxviii. 1-14, and the wither- 
 ing curses on disobedience in vv. 15-68. That 
 this covenant was faithfully observed it needs 
 but slight acquaintance with Hebrew history to 
 perceive. Often broken and often renewed on 
 the part of the people (Judg. x. 10; 2 Ch. xv. 
 12,13; Neh. ix. 38), it was kept with unwaver- 
 ing constancy on the part of Jehovah. To 
 their kings He stood in the relation, so to speak, 
 of a feudal superior: they were His representa- 
 tives upon earth, and with them, as with the 
 people before, His covenant was made (1 K. iii. 
 14, vi. 11). Idolatry, therefore, to an Israelite 
 was a state offence (1 Sam. xv. 23),™ a political 
 crime of the gravest character, high treason 
 against the majesty of his King, It was a 
 transgression of the covenant (Deut. xvii. 2), 
 “the evil” pre-eminently in the eyes of Jehovah 
 (1 K. xxi. 25), opp. to TWiT, “ the right ” (2 Ch. 
 xxvii. 2). But it was much more than all this. 
 While the idolatry of foreign nations is stig- 
 matised merely as an abomination in the sight 
 of God, which called for His vengeance, the sin 
 of the Israelites is regarded as of more glaring 
 enormity and greater moral guilt. In the 
 figurative language of the Prophets, the relation 
 between Jehovah and His people is represented 
 as a marriage bond (ls. liv. 5; Jer. iii. 14), and 
 
 m The point of this verse is lost in the A. V.: it 
 should be “for the sin of witchcraft (is) rebellion ; and 
 idolatry (lit. vanity) and teraphim (are) stubborn- 
 ness” (cp. R. V.). The Israelites, contrary to com- 
 mand, had spared of the spoil of the idolatrous Amale- 
 kites to offer to Jehovah, and thus associated His 
 worship with that of idols. 
 
1452 IDOLATRY 
 
 the worship of false gods with all its accompani- 
 ments (Ley. xx. 56) becomes then the greatest 
 of social wrongs (Hos. ii. ; Jer. iii., &e.). This 
 is beautifully brought out in Hos. ii. 16, where 
 the heathen name Baali, “ my master,’’ which 
 the apostate Israel had been accustomed to 
 apply to her foreign possessor, is contrasted 
 with Ishi, “my man,” “my husband,” the 
 native word which she is to use when restored 
 to her rightful husband, Jehovah. Much of the 
 significance of this figure was unquestionably 
 due to the impurities of idolaters, with whom 
 such corruption was of no merely spiritual 
 character (Ex. xxxiv. 16; Num. xxv. 1, 2, &c.), 
 
 but manifested itself in the grossest and most | 
 
 revolting forms (Rom. i. 26-32). 
 
 Regarded in a moral aspect, false gods are 
 called “ stumbling blocks ” (Ezek. xiv. 3), “ lies” 
 (Amos ii. 4; Rom. i. 25), “ horrors ” or “ frights ” 
 (1K. xv. 13; Jer. 1.38), “ abominations ” (Deut. 
 pexaxs gly xxx. Los) 1 K. xi. ὃ; ἃ Καὶ, χχῖῖ,, 19). 
 “onilt ” (abstract for concrete, Amos viii. 14, 
 TOWN, ’ashmah, cp. 2 Ch, xxix. 18, perhaps with 
 a play on Ashima, 2 K. xvii. 30. Cp. Schrader, 
 KAT? p. 283); and with a profound sense of 
 the degradation consequent upon their worship, 
 they are characterised by the Prophets, whose 
 mission it was to warn the people against them 
 (Jer. xliv. 4), as “ shame” (Jer. xi. 13; Hos. ix. 
 10). As considered with reference to Jehovah, 
 they are “other gods” (Josh. xxiv. 2, 16), 
 “strange gods” (Deut. xxxii. 16), “new gods” 
 (Judg. v. 8), “ devils,—not God” (Deut. xxxii. 
 17; 1 Cor. x. 20, 21); and, as denoting their 
 foreign origin, “gods of the foreigner” (Josh, 
 xxiv. 14, 15)." Their powerlessness is indicated 
 by describing them as “ gods that cannot save” 
 (is. xlv. 20), “that made not the heavens ” (Jer. 
 x. 11), “nothing” (Is. xli. 24; 1 Cor. viii. 4), 
 ““wind and emptiness” (Is. xli. 29), “ vanities 
 of the heathen” (Jer. xiv. 22; Acts xiv. 15); 
 and yet, while their deity is denied, their 
 personal existence seems to have been acknow- 
 ledged (Kurtz, Gesch. d. A. B. ii. 86, &c.), 
 though not in the same manner in which the 
 pretensions of local deities were reciprocally 
 recognised by the heathen (1 K. xx. 23, 28; 
 2 K. xvii. 26). Other terms of contempt are 
 
 employed with reference to idols, pdx, *elilim 
 (Lev. xix. 4), and D*a53, gildalim (Deut. xxix. 
 17), to which different meanings have been 
 assigned, and many which indicate ceremonial 
 uncleanness. [IDOL, pp. 1419, 1420.] 
 
 Idolatry, therefore, being from one point of 
 view a political offence, could be punished with- 
 out infringement of civil rights. No penalties 
 were attached to mere opinions. For aught we 
 know, theological speculation may have been as 
 rife among the Hebrews as in modern times, 
 though such was not the tendency of the Semitic 
 mind. It was not, however, such speculations, 
 heterodox though they might be, but overt acts 
 
 In the A. V. the terms 4}, za@r, “strange,” and 
 935 or $453, nékar or nokri, fe foreign,”’ are not uni- 
 ὅγαν. ny 
 formly distinguished, and the point of a passage is 
 frequently lost by the interchange of one with the 
 other, or by rendering both by the same word. So 
 
 Ps. Ixxxi. 9 should be, “" There shall not be in thee 
 a strange god, nor shalt thou worship a foreign god.” 
 
 ! 
 
 | 
 
 IDOLATRY 
 
 of idolatry, which were made the subjects of 
 legislation (Michaelis, Laws of Moses, art. 245, 
 246). The first and second commandments are 
 directed against idolatry of every form. In- 
 dividuals and communities were equally amen- 
 able to the rigorous code. The individual 
 offender was devoted to destruction (Ex. xxii. 
 20); his nearest relatives were not only bound 
 to denounce him and deliver him up to punish- 
 ment (Deut. xiii. 2-10), but their hands were to 
 strike the first blow when, on the evidence of 
 two witnesses at least, he was stoned (Deut. 
 xvii. 2-5). To attempt to seduce others to 
 false worship was a crime of equal enormity 
 (Deut. xiii. 6-10). An idolatrous nation shared 
 a similar fate. No facts are more strongly in- 
 sisted on in the O. T. than that the extermina- 
 tion of the Canaanites was the punishment of 
 their idolatry (Ex. xxxiv. 15,16; Deut. vii., xii. 
 29-31, xx. 17), and that the calamities of the 
 Israelites were due to the same cause (Jer. ii. 
 17). A city guilty of idolatry was looked upon 
 as a cancer of the State; it was considered to 
 be in rebellion, and treated according to the 
 laws of war. Its inhabitants and all their 
 cattle were put to death. No spoil was taken, 
 but everything it contained was burnt with it; 
 nor was it allowed to be rebuilt (Deut. xiii. 
 13-18; Josh. vi. 26). Saul lost his kingdom, 
 Achan his life, and Hiel his family, for trans- 
 gressing this Law (1 Sam. χν. ; Josh. vii.; 1 K. 
 xvi. 54). The silver and gold with which the 
 idols were covered were accursed (Deut. vii, 25, 
 27). And not only were the Israelites for- 
 bidden to serve the gods of Canaan (Ex. xxiii. 
 24), but even to mention their names; that is, 
 to call upon them in prayer or any form of 
 worship (Ex. xxiii, 13; Josh. xxiii. 7). On 
 taking possession of the land, they were to 
 obliterate all traces of the existing idolatry ; 
 statues, altars, pillars, idol-temples, every per- 
 son and everything connected with it, were to 
 be swept away (Ex. xxiii. 24, 32, xxxiv. 13; 
 Deut. vii. 5, 25, xii. 1-3, xx. 17), and the name 
 and worship of the idols blotted out. Such were 
 the precautions taken by the framer of the 
 Mosaic code to preserve the worship of Jehovah, 
 the true God, in its purity. Of the manner in 
 which his descendants have “ put a fence” about 
 “the Law” with reference to idolatry, many 
 instances will be found in Maimonides (de Jdol.). 
 They were prohibited from using vessels, scarlet 
 garments, bracelets, or rings, marked with the 
 sign of the sun, moon, or dragon (vii. 10); 
 trees planted or stones erected for idol-worship 
 were forbidden (viii. 5, 10); and, to guard 
 against the possibility of contamination, if the 
 image of an idol were found among other images 
 intended for ornament, they were all to be cast 
 into the Dead Sea (vii. 11). 
 
 IV. Much indirect evidence on this subject 
 might be supplied by an investigation of proper 
 names. Sir H. Layard has remarked, “ Accord- 
 ing to a custom existing from time immemorial 
 in the East, the name of the Supreme Deity was 
 introduced into the names of men. This custom 
 prevailed from the banks of the Tigris to the 
 Phoenician colonies beyond the Pillars of Her- 
 cules; and we recognise in the Sardanapalus of 
 the Assyrians, and the Hannibal of the Cartha- 
 ginians, the identity of the religious system of 
 the two nations, as widely distinct in the time 
 
IDOLATRY 
 
 of their existence as in their geographical posi- 
 tion” (Win. ii. 450). The hint which he has 
 given can be but briefly followed out ,here. 
 ‘Traces of the sun-worship of the ancient Ca- 
 naanites remain in the nomenclature of their 
 country. Beth-Shemesh, “house of the sun,” 
 En-Shemesh, “spring of the sun,” and Ir- 
 Shemesh, “city of the sun,” whether they be 
 the original Canaanitish names or their He- 
 brew renderings, attest the reverence paid to 
 the source of light and heat, the symbol of 
 the fertilising power of nature. Samson, the 
 Hebrew national hero, took his name from the 
 same luminary, and was born in a mountain- 
 village above the modern ‘Ain Shems (En- 
 Shemesh: Thomson, 716 Land and the Book, ii. 
 361). The name of Baal, the sun-god, is one of 
 the most common occurrence in compound words, 
 and is often associated with places consecrated 
 to his worship, and of which perhaps he was 
 the tutelary deity. Bamoth-Baal, “the high- 
 places of Baal ;” Baal-Hermon, Beth-Baal-Meon, 
 Baal-Gad, Baal-Hamon, in which compound the 
 names of the sun-god of Phoenicia and Egypt 
 are associated; Baal-Tamar, and many others, 
 are instances of this.° Nor was the practice 
 confined to the names of places: proper names 
 are found with the same element. Esh-baal, Ish- 
 baal, &c., are examples. The Amorites, whom 
 Joshua did not drive out, dwelt on Mount Heres, 
 in Aijalon, “the mountain of the sun” [ΤῚν»- 
 NATH-HERES]. Here and there we find traces 
 of the attempt made by the Hebrews, on their 
 conquest of the country, to extirpate idolatry. 
 Thus Baalah or Kirjath-Baal, “the town of 
 Baal,” became Kirjath-Jearim, “the town of 
 forests” (Josh. xv. 60). The Moon, Astarte or 
 Ashtaroth, gave her name to a city of Bashan 
 (Josh, xiii. 12, 31), and it is not improbable that 
 the name Jericho may have been derived from 
 being associated with the worship of this god- 
 dess. [JERICHO.] Nebo, whether it be the 
 mame under which the Chaldeans worshipped 
 the Moon or the planet Mercury, enters into 
 many compounds: Nebu-zaradan, Samgar-nebo, 
 and the like. Bel is found in Belshazzar, Belte- 
 shazzar, and others. Baladan, in Merodach- 
 Baladan, is simply the Babylonian abil-iddina, 
 ““gave a son.” The father of Merodach- 
 Baladan, whose name was probably the same, 
 is called Baladan, as in Heb. El-nathan 
 might be called Nathan (see KAT7.*, p. 339). 
 Hadad, Hadadezer, Benhadad, are derived 
 from the tutelar deity of the Syrians, and in 
 Nergalsharezer we recognise the god of the 
 Cushites. Chemosh, the fire-god of Moab, 
 appears in Carchemish, and Peor in Beth-Peor. 
 Maleam, a name which occurs but once, and 
 then of a Moabite by birth, may have been 
 connected with Molech and Milcom, the abomi- 
 nation of the Ammonites. A glimpse of star- 
 worship may be seen in the name of the city 
 
 ° That temples in Syria, dedicated to the several 
 divinities, did transfer their names to the places where 
 they stood, is evident from the testimony of Lucian, 
 an Assyrian himself. His derivation of Hiera from 
 the temple of the Assyrian Hera shows that he was 
 familiar with the circumstance (de Dea Syr. c. 1). 
 Baisampsa (= Bethshemesh), a town of Arabia, de- 
 rived its name from the sun-worship (Vossius, de 
 Theol. Gent. ii. c. 8), like Kir Heres (Jer. xlviii. 31) 
 in Moab, 
 
 IGEAL 1433 
 
 | Chesil, the Semitic Orion, and the month Chisleu, 
 without recognising in Rahab “the glittering 
 fragments of the sea-snake trailing across the 
 northern sky.” It. would perhaps be going too 
 far to trace in Engedi, “spring of the kid,” 
 any connexion with the goat-worship of Mendes, 
 or any relics of the wars of the giants in Rapha 
 and Rephaim. But there are fragments of an- 
 cient idolatry in other names in which it is not 
 so impalpable. Ishbosheth is identical with Esh- 
 baal, and Jerubbesheth with Jerubbaal, and 
 Mephibosheth and Meribbaal are but two names 
 for one person (cp. Jer. xi. 13). The worship of 
 the Syrian Rimmon appears in the names Hadad- 
 Rimmon and Tabrimmon; and if, as some 
 suppose, it be derived from 119, Limmon, “a 
 pomegranate-tree,” we may connect it with 
 the towns of the same name in Judah and 
 Benjamin, with En-Rimmon and the prevailing 
 tree-worship. It is impossible to pursue here 
 this investigation: the hints which have been 
 thrown out may prove suggestive (ep. Robertson 
 Smith, i, Index, 8... Ὁ. “Theophorous proper 
 names ;” Bithgen, p. 140). [(W. A.W.) [1] 
 
 IDU’EL (Ἰδονῆλος ; Lecelon), 1 Esd. viii. 43. 
 (ARIEL, 1.] 
 
 IDUM ZA (Mark iii. 8), or 
 
 IDUME’A, R. V., in each case, Evom (DIT ; 
 7 ᾿Ιδουμαία ; dumaea, Edom), Is. xxxiy. 5, 6; 
 Ezek. xxxv. 15, xxxvi. 5; 1 Mace. iv. 15, 29, 
 61, v. 3, vi. 31; 2 Mace. xii. 82. [Epom.] 
 
 IDUME’ANS (of Ἰδουμαῖοι; 
 2 Mace. x. 15, 16. [Epom.] 
 
 IG-AL (oxen) = [God] redeems). 1. (LXX. 
 [v. 8], B. Ἰλαάλ, AF. Iya; Tgal, Igaal.) Son 
 of Joseph, of the tribe of Issachar; chosen by 
 Moses to represent that tribe among the spies 
 who went up from Kadesh to search the Promised 
 Land (Num. xiii. 7). 
 
 2. One of the heroes of David’s guard, son of 
 Nathan of Zobah (2 Sam, xxiii. 36, Tada). In 
 the parallel list of 1 Ch, the name is given as 
 “Joel the brother of Nathan” (xi. 38, Ἰωήλ). 
 Kennicott, after a minute examination of the 
 passage both in the original and in the ancient 
 Versions, decides in favour of the latter as most 
 like the genuine text (Dissertation, pp. 212-214), 
 
 This name is really identical with IGEAL. 
 
 IGDALY’AH aman = Jehovah is great ; 
 Γοδολίας ; Jegedelias), a prophet or holy man— 
 “the man of God ”—named once only (Jer. 
 xxxy. 4), as the father of Hanan, in the chamber 
 of whose sons, the Bene-Hanan, in the house of 
 Jehovah, Jeremiah had that remarkable inter- 
 view with the Rechabites which is recorded in 
 that chapter. 
 
 IG-EAL, R. V.IGAL (ONY ; Ἰωήλ ; Jegaal), 
 a son of Shemaiah; a descendant of the royal 
 house of Judah (1 Ch. iii. 22). According to 
 the present state of the text of this difficult 
 genealogy, he is fourth in descent from Zerub- 
 babel; but, according to Lord A. Hervey’s 
 plausible alteration, he is the son of Shimei, 
 brother to Zerubbabel, and therefore but one 
 
 Idumaei), 
 
 generation distant from the latter (Gencalogy of 
 our Lord, pp. 107-109). The name is identical 
 
1484 TIM 
 
 with IGAL; and, as in 1 Ch. xi. 38, the LXX. 
 give it as Joel. 
 
 T'IM, R. V. TYIM (OY = stone heaps). 
 1. (fai; Lieabarim.) The partial or contracted 
 form of the name IJE-ABARIM, one of the later 
 stations of the Israelites on their journey to 
 Palestine (Num. xxxiii. 45). In the Samaritan 
 Version Jim is rendered by Caphrani, “ villages;” 
 and in the Targum Pseudojon. by Megizatha, 
 “narrow passes” (die Engpisse). But in no 
 way do we gain any clue to the situation of 
 the place. 
 
 2. (LXX. υ. 29, B. Βακώκ, A. Avefu; Tim.) 
 A town in the extreme south of Judah, named 
 in the same group with Beersheba, Hormah, &c. 
 (Josh. xv. 28). The Peshitto Syriac Version 
 has Elin, 
 
 been discovered in this direction. 
 
 No trace of the name has yet 
 {G.] [W.] 
 
 IJE-ABA’RIM, Rk. V. TYE-ABA’'RIM 
 (O°73yN YY, with the definite article, lye ha- 
 Abarim = the heaps, or ruins, of the further 
 regions [as distinct from the Ijim of Judah, Josh. 
 xv. 29]; Jerome ad Fabiolam, acervos lapidum 
 transeuntium ; in xxi. B. Χαλγλεί, AFM. "Ayea- 
 γαί, in xxxiii. BA. Tat; Jeabarim and Lieabarim), 
 one of the later halting-places of the children of 
 Israel as they were approaching Palestine (Num. 
 xxi. 11, xxxiii. 44). It was next beyond Oboth, 
 and the station beyond it again was the Wady 
 Zared—the torrent of the willows—probably one 
 of the streams which run into the S.E. angle of 
 the Dead Sea. Between Ije-abarim and Dibon- 
 gad, which succeeds it in Num. xxxiii., the Zared 
 and the Arnon have to be inserted from the 
 parallel accounts of xxi, and Deut. ii.; Dibon- 
 gad and Almon-Diblathaim, which lay above 
 the Arnon, having in their turn escaped from 
 the two last-named narratives. Ije-abarim was 
 on the boundary—the E. or S.E. boundary—of 
 the territory of Moab; not on the pasture-downs 
 of the Mishor, the modern Bela, but in the 
 midbar, the waste uncultivated ‘ wilderness ” on 
 its skirts (xxi. 11). Moab they were expressly 
 forbidden to molest (Deut. ii. 9-12) ; but we may 
 perhaps be allowed to conclude from the terms 
 of v. 13, “now rise up” (19/2), that they had 
 
 remained on his frontier in Ije-abarim for some 
 length of time. Nothing more than a general 
 identification of its situation has been attempted 
 (cp. Dillmann? on Num. xxi. 11, “somewhere 
 near the Wady el Ahsa”), nor has the name 
 been found lingering in the locality, which, 
 however, has yet to be explored. If there is any 
 connexion between the Ije-abarim and the Har- 
 abarim, the mountain-range opposite Jericho, 
 then Abarim is doubtless a general appellation 
 for the whole of the highland east of the Dead 
 Sea. [Abarm.] 
 
 The rendering given by the LXX. is remark- 
 able. Tal is no doubt a version of Iye (see this 
 developed in OS.? p. 241, 57)—the Ain being 
 converted into G: but whence does the ᾿Αχὲλ 
 come? Can it be the vestige of a nachal— 
 “torrent ” or “ widy ”—once attached to the 
 name? The Targum Pseudojon. has Megizath 
 ‘Ibdra@’é, “the narrow pass of Abarim.” 
 
 In Num. xxxiii. 45 it is given in the shorter 
 form of Im. [51 [W.] 
 
 IMMANUEL 
 
 ΤΟΝ (}i*Y=ruin; in 1 and 2 K., B. ’Aly, A. 
 Ναίν ; in 2 Ch., B. Ἰώ, A. Aiéy; Ahion, Aion), a 
 town in the north of Palestine, belonging to the 
 tribe of Naphtali. It was taken and plundered 
 by the captains of Benhadad, along with Dan 
 and other store-cities of Naphtali (1 K. xv. 20; 
 2 Ch. xvi. 4). It was plundered a second time 
 by Tiglath-pileser (2 K. xv. 29). We find no 
 farther mention of it in history. At the base of 
 the mountains of Naphtali, a few miles N.W. of 
 the site of Dan, is a fertile and beautiful little 
 
 plain called Merj ‘Ayiin, Cay ga Pam the 
 
 Arabic word ω 425 though different in mean- 
 ing, is radically identical with the Heb. 0,30): 
 and near its northern end is a large mound 
 
 called Tell Dibbin. This, in all probability, is 
 the site of the long-lost Ijon (Robinson’s Pa- 
 
 | lestine, iii. 375; Porter, Hbk. to 8. and P.; 
 
 Guérin, Galilée, ii. 280; Riehm, HWB. 5. v.). 
 Conder (Hbk. p. 415) suggests el-Khidm, a village 
 N.E. of the Merj ‘Ayin. (J.-L: Boo: [8] 
 
 IK’KESH (py = perverse; in 2 Sam. B. 
 Eioxd, A. Ἐκκάς, in 1 Ch. xi. LXX. om.,, in 
 xxvii. BA. ’Exxns; Acces), the father of Ira the 
 Tekoite, one of the heroes of David’s guard 
 (2 Sam. xxiii, 26; 1 Ch. xi. 28, xxvii. 9). 
 
 T'LAL (OY =? most high; BN. Ἠλεί; Iai), 
 an Ahohite, one of the heroes of David’s guard 
 (1 Ch. xi. 29). In the list of 2 Sam, xxiii. the 
 name is given as ZALMON (Luc. ᾿Αλιμάν). 
 Kennicott (Dissertation, pp. 187-9) examines 
 the variations at length, and decides in favour 
 of Ilai as the original name. 
 
 ILLYRICUM (Ἰλλυρικόν), an extensive 
 district lying along the eastern coast of the 
 Adriatic from the boundary of Italy on the 
 north to Epirus on the south, and contiguous to 
 Moesia and Macedonia on the east: it was 
 divided by the river Drilo into two portions,— 
 Illyris Barbara, the northern, and Illyris Graeca, 
 the southern, Within these limits was in- 
 cluded Dalmatia, which appears to have been 
 used indifferently with Illyricum for a portion, 
 and ultimately for the whole of the district. 
 St. Paul records that he preached the Gospel 
 “yound about unto Illyricum” (Rom. xv. 19): 
 he probably uses the term in its most extensive 
 sense, and the part visited (if indeed he crossed 
 the boundary at all) would have been about 
 Dyrrachium. (Dict. of Gr. and Rom. Geog. s. v.) 
 
 (W.L.B.J [ΓΝ 
 IMAGE. [Ipo1.] 
 
 IM’LA aby = fulness; B. Ἴεμαάς (v. 7), 
 -ά (v. 8), A. Ἰεμλά ; Jemla), father or progenitor 
 of Micaiah, the prophet of Jehovah, who was 
 consulted by Ahab and Jehoshaphat before their 
 fatal expedition to Ramoth-gilead (2 Ch. xviii. 
 7, 8). The form 
 
 IM'LAH (ΠΡ); Β. Ἰεμίας [v. 8], -α [0. 9]. 
 A. Ἰεμαά; Jemia) is employed in the parallel 
 narrative (1 K. xxii. 8, 9). 
 
 IMMANUEL (PN3319Y, or in two words in 
 many MSS. and editions, os ΩΝ; Ἐμμανουήλ; 
 
Se 
 
 IMMANUEL 
 
 Emmanuel), the symbolical name given by the 
 prophet Isaiah to the child who was announced 
 to Ahaz and the people of Judah, as the sign 
 which God would give of their deliverance from 
 their enemies (Is. vii. 14). It is applied by the 
 Apostle St. Matthew to the Messiah, born of 
 the Virgin (Matt. i. 23). By the LXX. in one 
 passage (ls. vii. 14), and in both passages by 
 the Vulg., Syr., and ‘larg., it is rendered as a 
 proper name ; but in Is. viii. 8 the ΠΧ ΧΟ trans- 
 late it literally μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν 6 θεός. The verses 
 in question have been the battle-field of critics 
 for centuries, and in their discussions there has 
 been no lack of the odiwm theologicum. As 
 early as the times of Justin Martyr the Christian 
 interpretation was attacked by the Jews, and 
 the position which they occupied has of late 
 years been assumed by many continental theo- 
 logians. Before proceeding to a discussion, or 
 rather to a classification, of the numerous 
 
 theories of which this subject has been the ; 
 
 fruitful source, the circumstances under which 
 the prophecy was delivered claim especial con- 
 sideration. — 
 
 In the early part of the reign of Ahaz the 
 kingdom of Judah was threatened with anni- 
 hilation by the combined armies of Syria and 
 Israel. A hundred and twenty thousand of the 
 choice warriors of Judah, all “sons of might,” 
 had fallen in one day’s battle. The Edomites 
 and Philistines had thrown off the yoke (2 Ch. 
 xxiii.). Jerusalem was menaced with a siege; 
 the hearts of the king and of the people “shook, 
 as the trees of a forest shake before the wind” 
 Cs. vii. 2). The king had gone to “the conduit 
 of the upper pool,” probably to take measures 
 for preventing the supply of water from being 
 cut off or falling into the enemy’s hand, when 
 the Prophet met him with the message of con- 
 solation. Not only were the designs of the 
 hostile armies to fail, but within sixty-five years 
 the kingdom of Israel would be overthrown. In 
 confirmation of his words, the Prophet bids 
 Ahaz ask a sign of Jehovah, which the king, 
 with pretended humility, refused to do. After 
 administering a severe rebuke to Ahaz for his 
 obstinacy, Isaiah announces the sign which 
 Jehovah Himself would give unasked : “ Behold! 
 
 the virgin (ΠΟΘΙ, ha-falmah)* is with child 
 and beareth a son, and she shall call his name 
 Immanuel.” 
 
 The interpreters of this passage are naturally 
 divided into three classes, each of which admits 
 of subdivisions, as the differences in detail are 
 numerous. The first class consists of those who 
 refer the fulfilment of the prophecy to a 
 historical event, which followed immediately 
 upon its delivery. The majority of Christian 
 writers, till within the last fifty years, form a 
 second class, and apply the prophecy exclusively 
 
 . 
 
 a ‘Almah denotes a girl of marriageable age, but not 
 married, and therefore a virgin by implication. It is 
 
 never even used, as πὸ M3, bethalah, which more 
 Ne Ξ 
 
 directly expresses virginity, of a bride or betrothed wife 
 (Joel i. 8). ‘Almah and bethilah are both applied to 
 Rebekah (Gen. xxiv. 16, 43), as apparently convertible 
 terms ; and in addition to the evidence from the cognate 
 languages, Arabic and Syriac, we have the testimony of 
 Jerome (on Is, vii. 14) that in Punic Alma denoted a 
 Virgin. 
 
 IMMANUEL 1435 
 
 to the Messiah; while a third class, almost 
 equally numerous, agree in considering both 
 these explanations true, and hold that the 
 prophecy had an-immediate and literal fulfil- 
 ment, but was completely accomplished in the 
 miraculous conception and birth of Christ. 
 Among the first are numbered the Jewish 
 writers of all ages, without exception. Jerome 
 refutes, on chronological grounds, a theory 
 which was current in his day amongst the Jews 
 that the prophecy had reference to Hezekiah, 
 the son of Ahaz, who, from a comparison of 2 K. 
 xvi. 2 with xviii. 2, must have been nine vears 
 | old at the time it was delivered. The force of 
 | his argument is somewhat weakened by the 
 | evident obscurity of the numbers in the passages 
 in question, from which we must infer that 
 Ahaz was eleven years old at the time of 
 | Hezekiah’s birth. By the Jews in the Middle 
 | Ages this explanation was abandoned as un- 
 tenable, and in consequence some, as Rashi and 
 Aben Ezra, refer the prophecy to a son of Isaiah 
 himself, and others to a son of Ahaz by another 
 wife, as Kimchi and Abarbanel. In this case, 
 the ‘almah is explained as the wife or betrothed 
 wife of the Prophet, or as a later wife of Ahaz. 
 Kelle (Ges. Comm. iiber den Jesaia) degrades her 
 to the third rank of ladies in the harem (ep. 
 Cant. vi. 28).  Hitzig (Der Proph. Jesaia) 
 rejects Gesenius’ application of ‘almah to a 
 second wife of the Prophet, and interprets it of 
 the prophetess mentioned in viii. 3. Hendewerk 
 (Des Proph. Jesaia Weissag.) follows Gesenius. 
 In either case the Prophet is made to fulfil his 
 own prophecy. Isenbiehl, a pupil of Michaelis, 
 defended the historical sense with considerable 
 learning, and suffered unworthy persecution for 
 expressing his opinions. The ‘alma in his view 
 was some Hebrew girl who was present at the 
 colloquy between Isaiah and Ahaz, and to whom 
 the Prophet pointed as he spoke. This opinion 
 was held by Bauer, Cube, and Rosenmiiller 
 (ist ed.). Michaelis, Eichhorn, Paulus, and 
 Ammon, give her a merely ideal existence ; 
 whilst Umbreit allows her. to be among the by- 
 standers, but explains the pregnancy and birth 
 as imaginary only. Interpreters of the second 
 class, who refer the prophecy solely to the 
 Messiah, of course understand by the ‘almah 
 the Virgin Mary. Among these, Vitringa (Obs. 
 Sacr. v. c. 1) vigorously opposes those who, like 
 Grotius, Pellicanus, and Tirinus, conceded to 
 the Jews that the reference to Christ Jesus was 
 not direct and immediate, but by way of typical 
 allusion. For, he maintains, a young married 
 woman of the time of Ahaz and Isaiah could not 
 be a type of the Virgin, nor could her issue by 
 her husband be a figure of the child to be born 
 of the Virgin by the operation of the Holy 
 Ghost. Against this hypothesis of a solely 
 Messianic reference, it is objected that the birth 
 of the Messiah could not be a sign of deliverance 
 to the people of Judah in the time of Ahaz. 
 In reply to this, Theodoret advances the opinion 
 that the birth of the Messiah involved the 
 conservation of the family of Jesse, and therefore 
 by implication of the Jewish state. Cocceius 
 argues on the same side, that the sign of the 
 Messiah’s birth would intimate that in the 
 interval the kingdom and state of the Jews 
 could not be alienated from God, and besides it 
 confirms v. 8, indicating that before the birth 
 
1436 IMMANUEL 
 
 of Christ Judaea should not be subject to Syria, 
 as it was when Archelaus was removed, and it 
 was reduced to the form of a Roman province. 
 Of all these explanations Vitringa disapproves 
 and states his own conclusion, which is also that 
 of Calvin and Piscator, to be the following :— 
 In vv. 14-16, the Prophet gives a sign to the 
 pious in Israel of their deliverance from the 
 impending danger, and in v, 17, &c. announces 
 the evils which the Assyrians, not the Syrians, 
 should inflict upon Ahaz and such of his people 
 as resembled him. As surely as Messiah would 
 be born of the Virgin, so surely would God 
 deliver the Jews from the threatened evil. The 
 principle of interpretation here made use of is 
 founded by Calvin on the custom of the Prophets, 
 who confirmed special promises by the assurance 
 that God would send a redeemer. But this 
 explanation involves another difficulty, besides 
 that which arises from the distance of the event 
 predicted. Before the child shall arrive at 
 years of discretion the Prophet announces the 
 desolation of the land whose kings threatened 
 Ahaz. By this Vitringa understands that no 
 more time would elapse before the former event 
 was accomplished than would intervene between 
 the birth and youth of Immanuel, an argument 
 too far-fetched to have much weight. Heng- 
 stenberg (Christology, ii. 44-66, Eng. trans.) 
 supports to the full the Messianic interpretation, 
 and closely connects vii. 14 with ix. 6. He 
 admits frankly that the older explanation of 
 vv. 15, 16 has exposed itself to the charge of 
 being arbitrary, and confidently propounds his 
 own method of removing the stumbling-block. 
 “In v. 14 the Prophet had seen the birth of the 
 Messiah as present. Holding fast this idea and 
 expanding it, the Prophet makes him who has 
 been born accompany the people through all the 
 stages of its existence. We have here an ideal 
 anticipation of the real incarnation... . What 
 the Prophet means, and intends to say here is, 
 that, in the space of about a twelvemonth, the 
 overthrow of the hostile kingdoms would already 
 have taken place. As the representative of the 
 contemporaries, he brings forward the wonderful 
 child who, as it were, formed the soul of the 
 popular life. ...In the subsequent prophecy, 
 the same wonderful child, grown up into a 
 warlike hero, brings the deliverance from Asshur, 
 and the world’s power represented by it.” The 
 learned Professor thus admits the double sense 
 in the case of Asshur, but denies its application 
 to Immanuel. It would be hard to say whether 
 text or commentary be the more obscure. 
 
 In view of the difficulties which attend these 
 explanations of the prophecy, the third class of 
 interpreters above alluded to have recourse to a 
 theory which combines the two preceding, viz. 
 the hypothesis of the double sense. They 
 suppose that the immediate reference of the 
 Prophet was to some contemporary occurrence, 
 but that his words received their true and full 
 accomplishment in the birth of the Messiah. 
 Jerome (Comm. in Esaiam, vii. 14) mentions an 
 interpretation of some Judaizers that Immanuel 
 was the son of Isaiah, born of the prophetess, 
 as a type of the Saviour, and that his name 
 indicates the calling of the nations after the 
 Word became flesh and dwelt among us, Some- 
 thing of the same kind is proposed by Dathe; 
 in his opinion “the miracle, while it immedi- 
 
 IMMER 
 
 ately respectea the times of the Prophet, was a 
 type of the birth of Christ of the Virgin Mary.” 
 Dr. Pye-Smith conjectured that it had an im- 
 mediate reference to Hezekiah, “the virgin” 
 being the queen of Ahaz; but, like some other 
 prophetic testimonies, had another and a de- 
 signed reference to some remoter circumstance, 
 which when it occurred would be the real 
 fulfilment, answering every feature and filling 
 up the-entire extent of the original delineation 
 (Script. Test. to the Messiah, i. 357, 3rd ed.). 
 A serious objection to the application of the 
 prophecy of Hezekiah has already been men- 
 tioned, Kennicott separates v. 16 from the 
 three preceding, applying the latter to Christ, 
 the former to the son of Isaiah (Sermon on 
 Is. vii. 13-16). 
 
 Such in brief are some of the principal opinions 
 which have been held on this important ques- 
 tion [see also the summary in Delitzsch* and 
 Dillmann® on Is. vii. 14; cp. Isatan, p. 1457]. 
 From the manner in which the quotation occurs 
 in Matt. i. 23, there can be no doubt that the 
 Evangelist did not use it by way of accom- 
 modation, but as having in view its actual 
 accomplishment. Whatever may have been his 
 opinion as to any contemporary or immediate 
 reference it might contain, this was completely 
 obscured by the full conviction that burst upon 
 him when he realised its completion in the 
 Messiah. What may have been the light in 
 which the promise was regarded by the Prophet’s 
 contemporaries, we are not in a position to 
 judge; the hypothesis of the double sense 
 satisfies most of the requirements of the problem, 
 and as it does less violence to the text than the 
 others which have been proposed, and is at the 
 same time supported by the analogy of the 
 Apostle’s quotations from the O. T. (Matt. ii. 15, 
 18, 23; iv. 15), we accept it as approximating 
 most nearly to the true solution. [MzrssIaH; 
 PROPHECY. } [W. A. W.] 
 
 IM'MER. 1. (DN, ? = eloquent: in 1 Ch. ix. 
 12, B. Ἐμήρ, A. Ἐμμήρ; in Neh. xi. 13, BA. omit: 
 Fmmer), apparently the founder of an important 
 family of priests, although the name does not 
 occur in any genealogy which allows us to dis- 
 cover his descent from Aaron (1 Ch. ix. 12; 
 Neh. xi. 13). This family had charge of, and 
 gave its name to, the sixteenth course of the 
 service (1 Ch. xxiv. 14). From them came 
 Pashur, chief governor of the Temple in Jere- 
 miah’s time, and his persecutor (Jer. xx. 1). 
 They returned from Babylon with Zerubbabel 
 and Jeshua (Ezra ii. 37; Neh. vii. 40). Zadok 
 ben-Immer repaired his own house (Neh. iii. 29), 
 and two other priests of the family put away 
 their foreign wives (Ezra x. 20). But it is 
 remarkable that the name is omitted from the 
 list of those who sealed the covenant with 
 Nehemiah, and also of those who came up with 
 Zerubbabel and Jeshua, and who are stated 
 to have had descendants surviving in the next 
 generation—the days of Joiakim (see Neh. xii. 1, 
 10, 12-21). [EmmMeEr.] Different from the 
 foregoing must be 
 
 2. (In Ezra B. Ἐμήρ, A. Ἐμμήρ; in Neh. 
 B. Ἰεμήρ, A. ’Eunp: Emer, Emmer), apparently 
 the name of a place in Babylonia from which 
 certain persons returned to Jerusalem with the 
 first caravan, who could not satisfactorily prove 
 
IMNA 
 
 their genealogy (Ezra ii. 59; Neh. vii. 61). 
 1 Esdras the name is given as ’AaAdp. 
 
 IM'NA (319'=holding back ; Ἵμανά; Jemna), 
 a descendant of Asher, son of Helem, and one of 
 the “chief princes ” of the tribe (1 Ch. vii. 35; 
 ep. v. 40). 
 
 IM'NAH (11219, ? = good fortune; A. "leurd, 
 B. Ἰνινά; Jemna). 1. The first-born of Asher 
 (1 Ch. vii. 80). In the Pentateuch the name 
 (identical with the present) is given in the A. V. 
 as JIMNAH. 
 
 2. (Ὁ. Aiudy, A. Ἰεμνά.) Kore ben-Imnah, 
 the Levite, assisted in the reforms of Hezekiah 
 (2 Ch. xxxi. 14). 
 
 IMPLEAD (Acts xix. 38), a technical term 
 (like the ἐγκαλεῖν of the Greek text), replaced 
 in the R. V. and explained by “accuse.” —[F.] 
 
 IM’RAH (ΠῚ) = obstinacy; B. Ἰμαρή, A. 
 "Ieupd; Jamra), a descendant of Asher, of the 
 family of ZopHAH (1 Ch. vii. 36), and named as 
 one of the chiefs of the tribe. 
 
 IM’RI (WON = eloquent). 1. (B. ᾿Αμρεί, 
 A.-pt; Omrai.) A man of Judah of the great 
 family of Pharez (1 Ch. ix. 4). 
 
 2. (BN. ᾿Αμαρεί, A. Miapi; Amri.) Father 
 or progenitor of ZACCUR, who assisted Nehemiah 
 in the rebuilding of the wall of Jerusalem 
 (Neh. iii. 2). 
 
 INCENSE, ΩΡ (qetorah), Deut. xxxiii, 
 10; ΠΡ (getoreth), Ex. xxv. 6, xxx. 1, ἄς. ; 
 
 maid (lebonah), Is. xiii. 25, lx. 6, ἄς. The 
 incense employed in the service of the Taber- 
 nacle was distinguished as DDN NOP 
 (getoreth hassammim, Ex. xxy. 6), from being 
 compounded of the perfumes stacte, onycha, 
 galbanum, and pure frankincense. All incense 
 which was not made of these ingredients was 
 called ΠῚ MNOP (qetorah zarah, Ex. xxx. 9), 
 and was forbidden to be offered. According to 
 Rashi on Ex. xxx. 34, the above-mentioned per- 
 fumes were mixed in equal proportions, seventy 
 manehs being taken of each. They were com- 
 pounded by the skill of the apothecary, to 
 whose use, according to Rabbinical tradition, 
 was devoted a portion of the Temple, called, 
 from the name of the family whose especial 
 duty it was to prepare the incense, “the house 
 of Abtines.” So in the large temples of India 
 “is retained a man whose chief business it is to 
 distil sweet waters from flowers, and to extract 
 oil from wood, flowers, and other substances ” 
 (Roberts, Orient. Illus. p. 82). The priest or 
 Levite to whose care the incense was entrusted, 
 was one of the fifteen D399 (memunnim), 
 or prefects of the Temple. Constant watch was 
 kept in the house of Abtines that the incense 
 might always be in readiness (Buxtorf, Lez. 
 Talm. s. v. DINDAN). 
 
 In addition to the four ingredients already 
 mentioned Jarchi enumerates seven others, thus 
 making eleven, which the Jewish doctors affirm 
 were communicated to Moses on Mount Sinai. 
 Josephus (B. J. v. 5, § 5) mentions thirteen. 
 The proportions of the additional spices are 
 given by Maimonides (Aelé hammiqdash, ii. 2, 
 
 In 
 
 INCENSE £437 
 
 | ὃ 3) as follows :—Of myrrh, cassia, spikenard, 
 and saffron, sixteen manehs each; of costus 
 twelve manehs, cinnamon nine manehs, sweet 
 bark three manehs. The weight of the whole 
 confection was 368 manehs. To these was 
 added the fourth part of a cab of salt of 
 Sodom, with amber of Jordan, and a herb called 
 
 “the smoke-raiser ”’ quy που, πιαιἄϊδλ ‘ashan)y, 
 known only to the cunning in such matters, to 
 whom the secret descended by tradition. In the 
 ordinary daily service one maneh was used, half 
 in the morning and half in the evening. Al- 
 lowing then one maneh of incense for each day 
 of the solar year, the three manehs which re- 
 mained were again pounded, and used by the 
 high-priest on the Day of Atonement (Ley. xvi- 
 12). A store of it was constantly kept in the 
 Temple (Jos. B. J. vi. 8, § 3). 
 
 The incense possessed the threefold character- 
 istic of being salted (not tempered as in A. V.), 
 pure, and holy. Salt was the symbol of incor- 
 ruptness, and nothing, says Maimonides, was 
 offered without it, except the wine of the drink- 
 offerings, the blood, and the wood (cp. Lev. ii. 
 13). The expression 122 ἽΞ (bad bebad, Ex. 
 xxx. 34) is interpreted by the Chaldee “ weight 
 by weight,”—that is, an equal weight of each 
 (cp. Jarchi in loco); and this rendering is 
 adopted by our Versions (A. V. and R. V. “like 
 weight.” Cp. Knobel-Dillmann in loco). Others 
 however, and among them Aben Ezra and 
 Maimonides, consider it as signifying that each 
 of the spices was separately prepared, and that 
 all were afterwards mixed. The incense thus 
 compounded was specially set apart for the ser- 
 vice of the sanctuary: its desecration was 
 punished with death (Ex. xxx. 37, 38); as im 
 some part of India, according to Michaelis 
 (Mosaisch. Recht, art. 249), it was considered 
 high treason for any person to make use of the 
 best sort of Calambak, which was for the service 
 of the king alone. 
 
 Aaron, as high-priest, was originally ap- 
 pointed to offer incense, but in the daily service 
 of the second Temple the office devolved upon 
 the inferior priests, from among whom one was 
 chosen by lot (Mishna, Yoma, ii. 4; Luke i. 9), 
 each morning and evening (Abarbanel on Ley. 
 x. 1). A peculiar blessing was supposed to be 
 attached to this service; and in order that all 
 might share in it, the lot was cast among those 
 who were “new to the incense,” if any re- 
 mained (Mishna, Yoma, 1. c.; Bartenora on 
 Tamid, ν. 2). Uzziah was punished for his 
 presumption in attempting to infringe the 
 prerogatives of the descendants of Aaron, who 
 were consecrated to burn incense (2 Ch. xxvi. 
 16-21; Joseph. Ant. ix. 10, §4). The officiating 
 priest appointed another, whose office it was to 
 take the fire from the brazen Altar. Ac- 
 cording to Maimonides (Zmid. Umus. ii. 8, iii. 
 5), this fire was taken from the second pile, 
 which was over against the S.E. corner of the 
 Altar of burnt-offering, and was of fig-tree 
 wood. A silver shovel (AM, machtah) was 
 first filled with the live coals, and afterwards 
 emptied into a golden one, smaller than the 
 former, so that some of the coals were spilled 
 (Mishna, Zamid, v. 5, Yoma, iv. 4; ep. Rev. 
 viii. 5). Another priest cleared the golden 
 
 Altar from the cinders which had been left at 
 
1438 INCENSE 
 the previous offering of incense (Mishna, Tamid, 
 iii. 6, ΘΕ vie 1). 
 
 The times of offering incense were specified 
 in the instructions first given to Moses (Ex. 
 xxx. 7, 8). The morning incense was offered 
 when the lamps were trimmed in the Holy 
 place, and before the sacrifice, when the watch- 
 men set for the purpose announced the break 
 of day (Mishna, Yoma, iii. 1, 5). When the 
 lamps were lighted “between the evenings,” 
 after the evening sacrifice and before the drink- 
 offerings were offered, incense was again burnt 
 on the golden Altar, which “belonged to the 
 oracle ” (1 K. vi. 22), and stood before the veil 
 which separated the Holy place from the Holy 
 of Holies, the Throne of God (Rey. vill. 4; 
 Philo, de Anim. Idon. § 3). 
 
 When the priest entered the Holy place with 
 the incense, all the people were removed from 
 the Temple, and from between the porch and 
 the Altar (Maimon. Zmid. Umus. iii. 33 cp. 
 Luke i. 10). The incense was then brought 
 from the house of Abtines in a large vessel of 
 gold called 3 (Aaph), in which was a phial 
 (]'t2, bazik, properly “a salver”) containing 
 the incense (Mishna, Zamid, vy. 4). The assis- 
 tant priests who attended to the lamps, the 
 clearing of the golden Altar from the cinders, 
 and the fetching fire from the Altar of Burnt- 
 offering, performed their offices singly, bowed 
 towards the Ark of the covenant, and left the 
 Holy place before the priest, whose lot it was 
 to offer incense, entered. Profound silence 
 was observed among the congregation who 
 were praying without (cp. Rev. viii. 1), and 
 at a signal from the prefect the priest cast the 
 incense on the fire (Mishna, Zamid, vi. 3), and 
 bowing reverently towards the Holy of Holies 
 retired slowly backwards, not prolonging his 
 prayer that he might not alarm the congrega- 
 tion, or cause them to fear that he had been 
 struck dead for offering unworthily (Lev. xvi. 
 13; Luke i. 21; Mishna, Yoma, v. 1). When 
 he came out, he pronounced the blessing in 
 Num. vi. 24-26, the “ magrephah” sounded, 
 and the Levites burst forth into song, accom- 
 panied by the full swell of the Temple-music, 
 the sound of which, say the Rabbins, could 
 be heard as far as Jericho (Mishna, Tamid, iii. 
 8). It is possible that this may be alluded to 
 in Rey. viii. 5. The priest then emptied the 
 eenser in a clean place, and hung it on one of 
 the horns of the Altar of Burnt-offering. 
 
 On the Day of Atonement the service was 
 different. The high-priest, after sacrificing the 
 bullock as a sin-offering for himself and his 
 family, took incense in his left hand and a 
 golden shovel filled with live coals from the 
 west side of the brazen Altar (Jarchi on Lev. 
 xvi. 12) in his right, and went into the Holy of 
 Holies. He then placed the shovel upon the 
 Ark between the two bars. In the second 
 Temple, where there was no Ark, a stone was 
 substituted. Then sprinkling the incense upon 
 the coals, he stayed till the house was filled 
 with smoke, and walking slowly backwards 
 came without the veil, where he prayed for a 
 short time (Maimonides, Yom hakkippur, quoted 
 by Ainsworth on Ley. xvi.; Outram, de Sacri- 
 ficiis, i. 8, § 11). 
 
 The offering of incense has formed a part of 
 the religious ceremonies of most ancient nations 
 
 INCENSE 
 
 (see the useful note in Knobel-Dillmann on 
 Ex. xxx. 854). The Egyptians burnt resin in 
 honour of the sun at its rising, myrrh when in 
 its meridian, and a mixture called Kuphi at its 
 setting (cp. Wilkinson, Anc. Hy, i. 265). Plu- 
 tarch (de Is. et Os. cc. 52, 80) describes Kuphi 
 as a mixture of sixteen ingredients. ‘In the 
 temple of Siva incense is offered to the Lingam 
 six times in twenty-four hours ” (Roberts, Orient. 
 Jilus. p. 468). It was an element in the ido- 
 latrous worship of the Israelites (Jer. xi. 12, 17, 
 xlviii. 35; 2 Ch. xxxiv. 25). 
 
 With regard to the symbolical meaning of 
 incense, opinions have been many and widely 
 differing, | While Maimonides regarded it 
 merely as a perfume designed to counteract 
 the efiluvia arising from the beasts which were 
 slaughtered for the daily sacrifice, other inter- 
 preters have allowed their imaginations to run 
 riot, and vied with the wildest speculations of 
 the Midrashim. Philo (Quis rer. div. haer. sit. 
 § 41, p. 501) conceives the stacte and onycha to 
 be symbolical of water and earth; galbanum 
 and frankincense of air and fire. Josephus, 
 following the traditions of his time, believed 
 that the ingredients of the incense were chosen 
 from the products of the sea, the inhabited and 
 the uninhabited parts of the earth, to indicate that 
 all things are of God and for God (δ. J. v. 5, 
 § 5). As the Temple or Tabernacle was the 
 palace of Jehovah, the theocratic King of Israel, 
 and the Ark of the covenant His throne, so the 
 incense, in the opinion of some, corresponded to 
 the perfumes in which the luxurious monarchs 
 of the East delighted. It may mean all this, 
 but it must mean much more. Grotius, on 
 Ex. xxx. 1, says the mystical signification is 
 “sursum habenda corda.” Cornelius ἃ Lapide, 
 on ἔχ. xxx. 34, considers it as an apt emblem of 
 propitiation, and finds a symbolical meaning in 
 the several ingredients. Fairbairn (Zypology of 
 Scripture, ii. 320), with many others, looks 
 upon prayer as the reality of which incense is 
 the symbol, founding his conclusion upon Ps. 
 exli, 2; Rev. v. 8, viii. 3, 4. Bahr CSymb. ἃ. 
 Mos. Cult. vol. i., 6. vi. § 4) opposes this view of 
 the subject, on the ground that the chief thing 
 in offering incense is not the producing of the 
 smoke, which presses like prayer towards 
 heaven, but the spreading of the fragrance. 
 His own exposition may be summed up as 
 follows. Prayer, among all Oriental nations, 
 signifies calling upon the name of God. The 
 oldest prayers consisted in the mere enumera- 
 tion of the several titles of God. The Scripture 
 places incense in close relationship to prayer, so 
 that offering incense is synonymous with wor- 
 ship. Hence incense itself is a symbol of the 
 name of God. The ingredients of the incense 
 correspond severally to the perfections of God, 
 though it is impossible to decide to which of the 
 four names of God each belongs. Perhaps 
 stacte corresponds to min (Jehovah), onycha to 
 
 DSN (Llokim), galbanum to "Π (chai), and 
 frankincense to WTP (qadosh). Such is Biihr’s 
 exposition of the symbolism of incense, rather 
 ingenious than logical. Looking upon incense 
 in connexion with the other ceremonial observ- 
 ances of the Mosaic ritual, it would rather seem 
 to be symbolical, not of prayer itself, but of 
 that which makes prayer acceptable, the inter- 
 
INDIA 
 
 cession of Christ. In Rey. viii. 3, 4, the incense 
 is spoken of as something distinct from, though 
 offered with, the prayers of all the saints (cp. 
 Luke i. 10); and in Rey. ν. 8 it is the golden 
 
 . . Β | 
 vials, and not the odours or incense, which are | 
 
 said to be the prayers of saints. Ps. exli. 2, at 
 first sight, appears to militate against this con- 
 clusion ; but if it be argued from this passage 
 that incense is an emblem of prayer, it must 
 also be allowed that the evening sacrifice has 
 the same symbolical meaning. [W.A.W.] [ΕΠ 
 
 INDIA (154, ie. Hoddi; ἡ ᾿Ινδική ; India). 
 
 before the Book of Esther, where it is noticed as 
 the limit of the territories of Ahasuerus in the 
 east, as Ethiopia was in the west (i. 1; viii. 9); 
 the names are similarly connected by Herodotus 
 (ii. 9). The Hebrew form “ Hoddu” is an 
 abbreviation of Hondu, which is identical with 
 the indigenous names of the river Indus,‘‘ Hindu” 
 or “Sindhu,” and again with the ancient name 
 of the country as it appears in the Vendidad, 
 “Hapta Hendu” (see MV.!!). The native form 
 “Sindus” is noticed by Pliny (vi. 23). The 
 India of the Book of Esther is not the peninsula 
 of Hindostan, but the country surrounding the 
 Indus—the Panjab, and perhaps Scinde—the 
 India which Herodotus describes (iii. 98) as 
 forming part of the Persian empire under Darius, 
 and the India which at a later period was con- 
 quered by Alexander the Great. The name 
 occurs in the inscriptions of Persepolis and 
 Nakhsh-i-Rustam, but not in those of Behistin 
 (Rawlinson, Herod. ii. 485). In 1 Mace. viii. 8 
 India is reckoned among the countries which 
 Eumenes, king of Pergamus, received out of the 
 former possessions of Antiochus the Great. It 
 is clear that India proper cannot be understood, 
 inasmuch as this never belonged either to 
 Antiochus or Eumenes. Rawlinson (Speaker's 
 Comm. in loco) and Zéckler (Agf. Komm. in 
 loco) consider the expression a mistake due to 
 the ignorance of the writer or historically in- 
 correct. Other explanations offered are not 
 satisfactory: the Eneti of Paphlagonia have been 
 suggested, but these people had disappeared long 
 before (Strab. xii. 534): the India of Xenophon 
 (Cyrop. i. 5, § 3; iii. 2, § 25), which may have 
 been above the Carian stream named Indus 
 (Plin. v. 29, probably the Calbis), is more likely ; 
 and the emendation “ Mysia and Ionia” for 
 Media and India is but a guess. [IontaA.] A 
 more authentic notice of the country occurs 
 in 1 Mace. vi. 37, where Indians are noticed as 
 the drivers of the war-elephants introduced into 
 the army of the Syrian king (see also 1 Esd. 
 iii. 2; Esth. xiii. 1, xvi. 1). 
 
 But though the name of India occurs so seldom, 
 the people and productions of that country must 
 have been tolerably well known to the Jews. 
 There is undoubted evidence that an active trade 
 was carried on between India and Western Asia: 
 the Tyrians established their depéts on the shores 
 of the Persian Gulf, and procured “horns of 
 ivory and ebony,” “broidered work and rich 
 apparel ” (Ezek. xxvin. 15, 24), by a route which 
 crossed the Arabian desert by land, and then 
 followed the coasts of the Indian Ocean by 
 sea. The trade opened by Solomon with Ophir 
 through the Red Sea chiefly consisted of Indian 
 articles, and some of the names even of the 
 
 | Peninsula. 
 The name of India does not occur in the Bible | 
 
 INN 1439 
 
 articles—'algummim, “sandal wood ;” géphim, 
 “apes ;” tukkiyim, “peacocks” (1 K. x. 22)— 
 are of Tamul origin (Humboldt, Aosmos, ii. 
 133); to which we may add the Hebrew name 
 of the “topaz,” pitdah, derived from the 
 Sanscrit pita. There is a strong probability 
 that productions of yet greater utility were 
 furnished by India through Syria to the 
 shores of Europe, and that the Greeks derived 
 both the term κασσίτερος (cp. the Sanscrit 
 kastira), and the article it represents, “ tin,” 
 from the coasts of India, or of the Malayan 
 (For many notices relating to 
 trade routes between the E. and W., see Yule, 
 Cathay and the Way thither.) The connexion 
 thus established with India led to the opinion 
 that the Indians were included under the ethno- 
 logical title of Cush (Gen. x. 6), and hence the 
 Syrian, Chaldaean, and Arabic Versions fre- 
 quently render that term by India or Indians, as 
 in.2 Che xxis 185, Is. ated xvii. ds Jer. xiii. 
 23; Zeph. iii. 10. For the connexion which 
 some have sought to establish between India 
 and Paradise, see EDEN. [W.L. B.] [W.] 
 
 INFIDEL. The word occurs in the A. V. 
 of 2 Cor. vi. 15 and 1 Tim. y. 8. The R. V. 
 replaces it in both cases by “ unbeliever,” a 
 term which is more correct, and in the passage 
 in 2 Cor. preserves the alliteration, ΠῚ 
 
 INHERITANCE. [Π πὶ] 
 INK, INKHORN. [Wruttvc.] 
 
 INN qirn, malon ; κατάλυμα, πανδοκεῖον). 
 The Hebrew word thus rendered literally signi- 
 fies ‘a lodging-place for the night.”* Inns, in 
 our sense of the term, were, as they still are, 
 unknown in the East, where hospitality is re- 
 ligiously practised. The khans, or caravanserais, 
 are the representatives of European inns, and 
 these were established but gradually. It is 
 doubtful whether there is any allusion to them 
 in the O.T. The halting-place of a caravan was 
 selected originally on account of its proximity 
 to water or pasture, by which the travellers 
 pitched their tents and passed the night. Such 
 was undoubtedly the “inn” (R. V. “ lodging- 
 place”) at which occurred the incident in the 
 life of Moses, narrated in Ex. iv. 24. It was 
 probably one of the halting-places of the Ishmael- 
 itish merchants who traded to Egypt with their 
 camel-loads of spices. Moses was on his journey 
 from the land of Midian, and the merchants in 
 Gen. xxxvii. are called indiscriminately Ishmael- 
 ites and Midianites. At one of these stations, 
 too, the first which they reached after leaving 
 the city, and no doubt within a short distance 
 from it, Joseph’s brethren discovered that their 
 money had been replaced in their wallets (Gen. 
 xlii. 27). 
 
 Increased commercial intercourse, and in later 
 times religious enthusiasm for pilgrimages,” gave 
 
 a In the language of the A. V. ‘‘to lodge ” has, the 
 force of remaining for the night. The word > is 
 
 rendered in 1 K. xix. 9 “ lodge; ” in Gen. xix. 2 ‘‘ tarry 
 all night; ” cp. also Jer. xiv. 8, &c. 
 
 b The erection of hospitals in the Middle Ages was 
 due to the same cause. Paula, the friend of Jerome, 
 built several on the road to Bethlehem ; and the Scotch 
 and Irish residents in France erected hospitals for the 
 
1440 INN 
 
 rise to the establishment of more permanent 
 accommodation for travellers. On the more 
 frequented routes, remote from towns (Jer. ix. 
 2), caravanserais were in course of time erected, 
 often at the expense of the wealthy. The 
 following description of one of those on the 
 road from Baghdad to Babylon will suffice for 
 all:—“It is a large and substantial square 
 building, in the distance resembling a fortress, 
 being surrounded with a lofty wall, and flanked 
 by round towers to defend the inmates in case 
 of attack. Passing through a strong gateway, 
 the guest enters a large court, the sides of which 
 are divided into numerous arched compartments, 
 open in front, for the accommodation of separate 
 parties and for the reception of goods. In the 
 centre is a spacious raised platform, used for 
 sleeping upon at night, or for the devotions of 
 the faithful during the day. Between the outer 
 wall and the compartments are wide vaulted 
 arcades, extending round the entire building, 
 where the beasts of burden are placed. Upon 
 the roof of the arcades is an excellent terrace, 
 and over the gateway an elevated tower con- 
 taining two rooms—one of which is open at the 
 sides, permitting the occupants to enjoy every 
 breath of air that passes across the heated plain. 
 The terrace is tolerably clean; but the court 
 and stabling below are ankle-deep in chopped 
 straw and filth ” (Loftus, Chaldea, p. 13). The 
 great khans established by the Persian kings 
 and great men, at intervals of about six miles 
 on the roads from Baghdad to the sacred places, 
 are provided with stables for the horses of the 
 pilgrims. “ Within these stables, on both sides, 
 are other cells for travellers” (Layard, Vin. and 
 Bab. p. 478, note). The “stall” or “ manger,” 
 mentioned in Luke ii. 7, was probably in a 
 stable of this kind (see Edersheim, Life and 
 Times of Jesus the Messiah, i. 184; Farrar, Life 
 of Christ, p. 2 [pop. 4.7). Such khans are 
 sometimes situated near running streams, or 
 have a supply of water of some kind, but the 
 traveller must carry all his provisions with him 
 (Ouseley, Zrav. in Persia, i. 261, note). At 
 Damascus the khans are, many of them, sub- 
 stantial buildings; the small rooms which 
 surround the court, as well as those above them 
 which are entered from a gallery, are used by 
 the merchants of the city for depositing their 
 goods (Porter’s Damascus, i. 33). The wekdlehs 
 of modern Egypt are of a similar description 
 (Lane, Mod. Eg. ii. 10), 
 
 “‘The house of paths” (Prov. viii. 2, ἐν οἴκῳ 
 διόδων, Vers. Ven.), where Wisdom took her 
 stand, is understood by some to refer appropri- 
 ately to a khan built where many ways met 
 and frequented by many travellers. A similar 
 meaning has been attached to OND M174, 
 gériith Kimham, “ the hostel of Chimham ” (Jer. 
 xli, 17) beside Bethlehem, built by the liberality 
 of the son of Barzillai for the benefit of those 
 who were going down to Egypt (Stanley, S. & P. 
 Ρ. 163; App. § 90). The Targum says, ‘which 
 David gave to Chimham, son of Barzillai the 
 Gileadite” (cp. 2 Sam. xix. 37, 38). With re- 
 gard to this passage in Jer., the ancient Versions 
 are strangely at variance. The LXX. (xlviii. 17) 
 
 use of pilgrims of their own nation, on their way to Rome 
 (Beckmann, Hist. of Inv. ii. 457). Hence hospital, 
 hostel, and finally hotel. 
 
 INSTANT, INSTANTLY 
 
 had evidently another reading with 3 and 2 
 transposed, which they left untranslated, 7 
 γαβηρωχαμάα, A. γηβηρωθχαμάαμ, &. ynBanpw- 
 xaud. The Vulgate, if intended to be literal, 
 must have read ‘J323 O13, peregrinantes in 
 Chanaam. The Arabic, following the Alexan- 
 drian MS,, read it ἐν γῇ Βηρωθχαμάαμ, “in the 
 land of Berothchamaam.” ‘The Syriac has 
 alo, δ᾽ αν, “in the threshing-floors,” as if 
 ΤῚΣ 23, begornoth, Josephus had ἃ reading 
 different from all, nj1733, begidroth, “in the 
 folds of” Chimham; for he says the fugitives 
 went “to a certain place called Mandra” 
 (Μάνδρα λεγόμενον, Ant. x. 9, § 5), and in this 
 he was followed by Aquila and the Hexaplar 
 Syriac. 
 
 The πανδοκεῖον (Luke x. 54) probably differed 
 from the κατάλυμα (Luke ii. 7) in having a 
 “host ” or “innkeeper ” (πανδοκεύς, Luke x. 35), 
 who supplied some few of the necessary pro- 
 visions, and attended to the wants of travellers 
 left to his charge. The word has been adopted 
 in the later Hebrew, and appears in the Mishna 
 (Yebamoth, xvi. 7) under the form P7315, pin- 
 dak, and the host is P73\5, pindakt. The Jews 
 were forbidden to put up their beasts at estab- 
 lishments of this kind kept by idolaters (Aboda 
 Zara, ii. 1). It appears that houses of enter- 
 tainment were sometimes, as in Egypt (Her. ii. 
 35), kept by women, whose character was such 
 that their evidence was regarded with suspicion. 
 In the Mishna (Yebamoth, xvi. 7) a tale is told 
 of a company of Levites who were travelling to 
 Zoar, the City of Palms, when one of them fell 
 ill on the road and was left by his comrades at 
 an inn, under the charge of the hostess (M'p73)5, 
 pindekith = πανδοκευτρία). On their return to 
 enquire for their friend, the hostess told them 
 he was dead and buried, but they refused to 
 believe her till she produced his staff, wallet, 
 and roll of the Law. In Josh. ii. 1, 73}, zonah, 
 
 the term applied to Rahab, is taken by Josephus 
 (Ant. v. 1, § 2) to mean an innkeeper, and it is 
 rendered in the Targum of Jonathan NN'P7)}5, 
 pindekitha, a term both for the zdndh and “a 
 woman who keeps an inn” (according to Dill- 
 mann*). So in Judg. xi. 1, of the mother of 
 Jephthah; of Delilah (Judg. xvi. 1) and the 
 two women who appealed to Solomon (1 K. iii. 
 16). The words, in the opinion of Kimchi on 
 Josh, ii. 1, appear to have been synonymous. 
 
 In some parts of modern Syria a nearer ap- 
 proach has been made to the European system. 
 In all villages not provided with a khan, the 
 Sheikh’s house (menzoul) becomes the place of 
 entertainment of all strangers who are not 
 visiting at the house of friends. The stranger 
 is supplied with provisions and fodder if required, 
 which he pays for at the usual rates (see B. D., 
 Amer. ed.), (W. A. W.] [FJ 
 
 INSTANT, INSTANTLY. A word em- 
 ployed by our translators in the N. T. with the 
 force of urgency or earnestness, to render five 
 distinct Greek words. We still say “at the 
 instance of;”’ but as that sense is no longer 
 attached to “ instant ”’—though it is still to the 
 verb “insist,” and to other compounds of the 
 same root, such as “persist,” “ constant ”—it 
 has been thought advisable to notice its occur- 
 rences. They afford an interesting example, if 
 
IONTA 
 
 an additional one be needed, of the close con- | 
 
 nexion which there is between the Authorised 
 Version and the Vulgate; the Vulgate having, 
 as will be seen, suggested the word in three out 
 of its five occurrences. 
 
 1. σπουδαίως --- “ they besought Him in- 
 stantly ” (Luke vii. 4). This word is elsewhere 
 commonly rendered * earnestly,” and is so ren- 
 alered here by Rf. \ 
 
 2. ἐπέκειντο, from ἐπίκειμαι, to lie upon :— 
 « they were instant with loud voices” (Vulg. 
 instabant), Luke xxiii. 23. This might be ren- 
 dered “ they were pressing ” (as in v. 1). 
 
 3. ἐν ἐκτενείᾳ, “instantly (R. V. ὁ earnestly ’) 
 serving God ” (Acts xxvi. 7). 
 the root of this word is that of stretching—on 
 the stretch. Elsewhere in the A. Y. it is repre- 
 sented by “ fervently.” 
 
 4. προσκαρτεροῦντες, “continuing instant” 
 (Rom. xii. 12); Vulg. instuntes. Here the ad- 
 jective is hardly necessary, the Ww ord being else- 
 where rendered by “continuing,” or, to Daeeetys 
 the rhythm of so familiar a ‘sentence, * con- 
 tinuing stedfastly ” (as Acts ii. 42), and so R. V. 
 in Rom. 
 
 5. ἐπίστηθι, from ἐφιστάναι, to stand by or 
 upon—* be instant in season, out of season” 
 Ὁ Tim. iv. 2); Vulg. insta. Four verses further 
 on it is rendered “is at hand.” The sense is 
 “stand ready ”’—* be alert ” for whatever may 
 happen. Of the five words this is the only one 
 which contains the same metaphor as “instant.” 
 
 In Luke ii. 38, “ that instant ” is literally, as 
 in R. V., “that very hour,”—aity τῇ ὥρᾳ. 
 
 Gaile al 
 
 IO’NIA (Ἰωνία). The substitution of this 
 word for ἣ Ἰνδικὴ in 1 Mace. viii. 8 (Ε. V. 
 “India ”) is a conjecture of Grotius without any 
 authority of MSS. It must be acknowledged, 
 however, that the change removes a great diffi- 
 culty, especially if, as “the same commentator 
 suggests, Mucia [Mysra] be substituted for 
 Μηδεία or Μηδία in the same context. The 
 passage refers to the cession of territory which 
 the Romans forced Antiochus the Great to make ; 
 and it is evident that India and Media are 
 nothing to the purpose, whereas Jonia and Mysia 
 were among the districts cis Taurum, w hich 
 were given up to Eumenes. 
 
 As to the term Ionia, the name was given in 
 early times to that part of the western coast of 
 Asia Minor which lay between Aeolis on the 
 north and Doris on the south. ‘These were pro- 
 perly ethnological terms, and had reference to 
 the tribes of Greek settlers along this shore. 
 Jonia, with its islands, was celebrated for its 
 twelve, afterwards thirteen, cities; five of which, 
 Ephesus, Smyrna, Miletus, Chios, and Samos, 
 are conspicuous in the N. T. In Roman times 
 Ionia ceased to have any political significance, 
 being absorbed in the province of Asia. The 
 term, however, i still occasionally used, as in 
 Joseph. Ant. xvi. 2, § 3, from which passage we 
  Jearn that the Jews were numerous inthis district. 
 _ This whole chapter in Josephus is very interest- 
 _ ing, as a geographical illustration of that part of 
 the coast. [JAVAN.] ἘΞ: ἘΠῚ LW] 
 
 ΤΡΗΒΌΕΤ ΑΗ ore = (whom) Jehovah 
 
 frees; B. “lepepend, A. ᾿Ιεφαδία ; Jephdain), 
 
 a descendant of Benjamin, one of the Bene- 
 
  Shashak (1 Ch. viii. 25); specially named as a 
 BIBLE DICT.—VOL. I. 
 
 The metaphor at | 
 
 | Elpas.) 
 
 IR-HA-HERES 1441 
 
 chief of the tribe, and as residing in Jerusalem 
 (cp. v. 28). 
 
 IN (WY, (?)=city, town ; B. Ῥαώμ, A. ?’ Opa 
 Hir), 1 Ch. vii. 12. [I rr.) 
 
 IRA (NVY = watchful; Ira). 1, (BA. 
 “The Jairite,” named in the catalogue 
 of David’s great officers (2 Sam. 26) as 
 “priest to David” (jd ; in’) eves 
 A. V. “a chief ruler”). The Peshitto Versior 
 for “Jairite” has “from Jathir,” i.e. probably 
 Jarrim, where David had found: friends during 
 his troubles with Saul. [Jarrire.) If this can 
 be maintained, and it certainly has an air of 
 probability, then this Ira is identica] with 
 
 2. (In Sam. BA. Ezpas ; in Ch. B.’Ipd, A. -as, 
 ἐξ. Id.) “Tra the Ithrite” (as in R. V., 9050; 
 A.V. omits the article), that is, the Jattirite, 
 one of the heroes of David’s guard (2 Sam. xxiii. 
 38; 1Ch. xi. 40). (Irurire; Jarrvin; JETHER. | 
 
 3. (In Sam. BA. Εἴρας ; in 1 Ch. xi. BRA. ’Qpat, 
 in 1 Ch. xxvii. B. ‘OSouvias, A. Evpa; Hira.) 
 Another member of David’s guard, a Tekoite, 
 son of Ikkesh (2 Sam. xxiii. 26; 1 Ch. xi. 28). 
 Ira was leader of the sixth monthly course of 
 24,000, as appointed by David (1 Ch. xxvii. 9). 
 
 I'RAD (TYY, (?)=swift [see MV." ] ; Γαιδὰδ 
 in both MSS.; Joseph. "Iapédns; Syr. Idar ; 
 
 Trad), son of Enoch; grandson of Cain, and 
 father of Mehujael (Gen. iy. 18). 
 
 XxX. 
 and so 
 
 TRAM (OVD; A. Ζαφωεί, DE. Zapwely in 
 
 Gen. 1. c.; but B. Ζαφωείν, Α. ᾽Ηρὰμ in Ch. |. ο.; 
 Hiram), an Edomite “duke,” or rather emir 
 or tribal prince (Gen. xxxvi. 43; 1 Ch. i. 54). 
 The list of eleven (originally doubtless twelve*) 
 tribal princes of Esau in Gen. xxxvi. 40-43, a 
 section assigned to P, is expressly stated to give 
 the names “according to their clans,” and 
 “their places” or “seats.” Thus Iram, for 
 instance, is the designation at once of the emir, 
 of his clan or tribe, and of their territory in the 
 land of Edom. 
 
 The name of Tram, as the present writer 
 believes, is identical with that of the king of 
 Edom, who paid tribute to Sennacherib, and 
 whom he calls Ai-ram-mu mat U-du-um-ma-ai, 
 “Airim the Edomite” (Taylor Cylinder, 2 2, 54). 
 See Bab. and Or. Record, 1889, p. 55. [C. J. B.] 
 
 TR-HA-HE'RES (DVI WY, DIN VY; 
 
 πόλις cedex; Civitas Solis), an appellation or 
 name of a city in Egypt (Is. xix. 18). © The 
 reading D1 WY, “City of destruction,” 
 has the weight of manuscript authority ; the 
 reading DIMI WY, “City of the Sun,” is not 
 without manuscript support besides that of 
 the Vuleate and Talmud. {The LXX., in fact, 
 supports it; for its reading ἀσεδὲκ is only an 
 inversion of DM, which the translator read 
 MIO (for -- κ, cp. MDD, pacer). | 
 
 The prophecy in which Ir-ha-heres is men- 
 
 a As Ewald has pointed out, the Septuagint Zaphoi or 
 Zaphoin is not really the equivalent of Iram, but pre- 
 serves the name of the missing twelfth chieftain and his 
 clan, viz. ZerHo (Heb. SDN, vv. 11, 15), Iram being 
 
 accidentally omitted. 
 
 4Z 
 
1442 
 
 tioned is the close of “the burden of Egypt,” | 
 or is a separate prediction; the separate part 
 or new prophecy being contained in vv. 16 or 
 
 18-25. It has even been held to be of the 
 
 Maccabaean period, in consequence of the sup- 
 
 posed reference to the temple of Onias. This | 
 view requires the assumption that in this period 
 
 there was a reasonable prospect of the religious 
 
 harmony of Israel, Rgypt, and Syria, by which | 
 we are to understand the Assyria of the 
 
 prophecy. The party of Onias may have had | 
 some hopes of proselytism in Egypt, but there 
 
 is not a trace of any such idea as to Syria. The 
 
 prediction is clearly Messianic, and did not | 
 receive its fulfilment in a Jewish sense. The 
 
 critical questions that have arisen being how- 
 
 ever due to the building of the temple of 
 
 Onias, the history of that event must be noticed 
 
 in brief. During the Syrian oppression, a 
 
 certain Onias, of the stock of the high-priests, 
 
 fled to Egypt. He had been prevented from 
 
 holding the high-priesthood by Antiochus Epi- 
 
 phanes, and Ptolemy Philometor kindly received 
 
 him, and granted him permission to build a 
 
 temple for the Egyptian Jews at a place in the 
 
 east of the Delta. No doubt a large emigration 
 
 had taken place in B.c. 170 and for a short time 
 
 after, as the settlement of a colony and the 
 
 consequent building of a temple must have | 
 preceded the cleansing and dedication of the 
 Temple at Jerusalem by Judas Maccabaeus in 
 p.c. 165, and must certainly have followed its 
 desecration in B.c. 168. The Jewish establish- 
 ment in the west of the Delta was manifestly 
 schismatic, and there is no trace of any relation 
 with the powerful and learned community of 
 Alexandria, which was always anxious that the 
 central authority of Jerusalem should regard it | 
 as orthodox, in order that its freedom in philo- 
 sophy might not be limited. Our knowledge of 
 the colony of Onias is derived from Josephus, 
 who evidently uses traditionary material in the 
 narrative of the foundation of the temple. 
 Evidently it produced no literature: all that 
 has survived has been discovered by Mr. Naville 
 in the inscriptions in the necropolis of the city 
 of Onias. Pending their publication, more cannot 
 be ventured on than this, that the names seem | 
 rather Palestinian than Alexandrian, but that 
 the use of πίστις and χάρις, both in the Alexan- 
 drian sense, point to the influence of the great 
 Egyptian colony. 
 
 According to the tradition reported by Jose- 
 phus, Onias pointed to the prophecy of Isaiah as 
 a prediction and justification of his project. 
 Great use has been made of this in the criticism 
 as to the origin of the different names of the 
 city spoken of by the Prophet. According to 
 Geiger, the LXX. retains the true reading, 
 ‘“‘yighteousness,” altered into “destruction ” in 
 disparagement, and again changed to “sun” by 
 the Egyptian Jews. Cheyne remarks on this: 
 “To me the Sept. reading iooks more like a 
 retort upon the Palestine Jews for expounding 
 Ir-ha-heres in a manner uncomplimentary to 
 Onias.” He adds this bold remark: ‘Very 
 possibly the Book of Isaiah was translated into 
 Greek at Leontopolis” (Zhe Prophecies of Isaiah, 
 ii. 4th ed. p. 152). It must be remarked that 
 we have no evidence of literary activity in this 
 
 IR-HA-HERES 
 
 colony, and that it is impossible that the same 
 translator should have rendered the same Hebrew 
 
 IRON 
 
 appellation by πόλις δικαιοσύνης of Jerusalem in 
 i, 26, and by πόλις ἀσεδὲκ of the Egyptian city 
 in xix. 18, when he had changed the text to 
 introduce the epithet he thus left untranslated. 
 It is possible that the more liberal views which 
 prevailed after the fall of the Jewish polity 
 induced some editors to see a fulfilment of the 
 prophecy in the settlement of the colony of 
 Onias, and even in its temple: hence perhaps the 
 alternative reading, supported by the nearness 
 of the city of Onias to Heliopolis. [R. 5, P.} 
 
 1 Esd. 
 This name answers to URIAH in Ezra 
 
 IRI (B. Οὐρειά, A. Ovdpi; Jorus). 
 Vill. 62. 
 (viii. 33). 
 
 IRI'JAH (TMNT = Jehovah seeth ; Zapovta, — 
 A. Sapourds; Jerias), son of Shelemiah, a 
 
 “captain of the ward” (ΠΡ by), who met 
 Jeremiah in the gate of Jerusalem called the 
 “gate of Benjamin,” accused him of being about 
 to desert to the Chaldeans, and led him back to 
 the princes (Jer. xxxvii. 13, 14). 
 
 IR-NA’HASH (ΠΣ = serpent-city; πό- 
 Ais Naas; Urbs Naas; R. V. marg., the city 
 of Nahash), a name which, like many other 
 names of places, occurs in the genealogical lists 
 of Judah (1 Ch. iv. 12). Tehinnah Abi T- 
 nahash—“ father of Jy-nahash””—was one of 
 the sons of Eshton, all of them being descendants 
 of Chelub (v. 11). But it seems impossible to 
 connect this special genealogy with the general 
 genealogies of Judah, and it has the air of being 
 a fragment of the records of some other family, 
 related, of course, or it would not be here, but 
 not the same. May not “Shuah, the brother 
 of Chelub ” (v. 11), be Shuah the Canaanite, by 
 whose daughter Judah had his three eldest sons 
 (Gen. xxxviii. 2, &c.), and these verses be a 
 fragment of Canaanite record preserved amongst 
 those of the great Israelite family, who then 
 became so closely related to the Canaanites? 
 True, the two Shuahs are written differently in 
 Hebrew—DIY and MM’; but considering the 
 early date of the one passage and the corrupt 
 and incomplete state of the other, this is 
 perhaps not irreconcilable. 
 
 No trace of the name of Ir-nahash attached 
 to any site has been discovered. Jerome’s in- 
 terpretation (Qu. Hebr. ad loc.)—whether his 
 own or a tradition, he does not say—is that Ir- 
 nahash is Bethlehem, Nahash being another 
 name for Jesse. Conder (Hbk, p. 415) suggests 
 as a possible identification Deir Nakhkhds, near 
 Beit Jilrin. [Nawasu.] [G.] [W.] 
 
 IR-ON (N71; B. Kepwé, A. Ἰαριών ; Jeron), 
 one of the cities of Naphtali, named between 
 En-hazor and Migdal-el (Josh. xix. 58): it is 
 now Ydrtin (PEF. Mem. i. 258). [G.] [2 
 
 TRON (5y73, barzel; Ch. NPMIB, parz'las 
 σίδηρος), mentioned with brass as the earliest 
 of known metals (Gen. iv. 22). As it is rarely 
 found in its native state, but generally in com-— 
 bination with oxygen, the knowledge of the art 
 of forging iron, which is attributed to Tubal 
 Cain, argues an acquaintance with the difficulties 
 which attend the smelting of this metal. Iron 
 
IRON 
 
 melts at a temperature of about 3000° Fahren- 
 heit, and to produce this heat large furnaces 
 supplied by a strong blast of air are necessary. 
 But, however difficult it may be to imagine a 
 knowledge of such appliances at so early a 
 period, it is perfectly certain that the use of 
 iron is of extreme antiquity, and that therefore 
 some means of overcoming the obstacles in ques- 
 tion must have been discovered, What the pro- 
 cess may have been is left entirely to conjecture ; 
 a method is employed by the natives of India, 
 
 extremely simple and of great antiquity, which, 
 though rule, is very effective, and suggests the 
 possibility of similar knowledge in an early 
 age of civilization (Ure, Dict. Arts and Sciences, 
 art. Steel). The smelting furnaces of Aethalia, 
 described by Diodorus (v. 13), correspond roughly 
 with the modern bloomeries, remains of which 
 still exist in this country (Napier, Metallurgy 
 of the Bible, p. 140). Malleable iron was in com- 
 mon use, but it is doubtful whether the ancients 
 were acquainted with cast-iron. The allusions 
 in the Bible supply the following facts :— 
 
 The natural wealth of the soil of Canaan is 
 indicated by describing it as “a land whose 
 stones are iron,” 1.6. iron-stones (Deut. viii. 9). 
 By this Winer (RWB. art. Lisen), followed by 
 modern critics (see Dillmann 2 in loco), wnder- 
 stands the basalt which predominates in the 
 Hauran. It was the material of which Og’s 
 bedstead (Deut. iii. 11) was made, and contains 
 a large percentage of iron. Some consider 
 that the expression is a poetical figure. Pliny 
 (xxxvi. 11), who is quoted as an authority, says 
 indeed, that basalt is “ ferrei coloris atque duri- 
 tiae,” but does not hint that iron was ever ex- 
 tracted from it. The Book of Job contains 
 passages which indicate that iron was a metal 
 well known. Of the manner of procuring it, 
 
 we learn that “iron is taken from dust” 
 (xxviii. 2). It does not follow from Job xix. 24, 
 that it was used for a writing implement, 
 though such may have been the case, any more 
 _ than that adamant was employed for the same 
 purpose (Jer. xvii. 1), or that shoes were 
 shod with iron and brass (Deut. xxxiii. 25). 
 Indeed, iron so frequently occurs in poetic 
 figures, that it is difficult to discriminate be- 
 tween its literal and metaphorical sense. In 
 such passages as the following, in which a 
 “yoke of iron” (Deut. xxviii. 48) denotes hard 
 service; “a rod of iron” (Ps. ii. 9), a stern 
 government; “a pillar of iron” (Jer. i. 18), a 
 strong support; “and threshing instruments of 
 iron” (Amosi. 3), the means of cruel oppression, 
 —the hardness and heaviness (Ecelus. xxii. 15) of 
 iron are so clearly the prominent ideas, that 
 _ though it may have been used for the instru- 
 ‘ments in question, such usage is not of necessity 
 indicated. The “ furnace of iron ” (Deut. iv. 28 ; 
 1K. viii. 51) is a figure which vividly expresses 
 _ hard bondage, as represented by the severe 
 labour which attended the operation of smelt- 
 ing. Iron was used for chisels (Deut. xxvii. 5), 
 or something of the kind ; for axes (Deut. xix. 5; 
 Ὁ K.vi. 5,6; Is.x.34; Hom. 7]. iv. 485); for 
 harrows and saws (2 Sam. xii. 31; 1 Ch. xx. 3); 
 for nails (1 Ch. xxii. 3), and the fastenings of 
 the Temple; for weapons of war (1 Sam. xvii. 7 ; 
 Job xx. 24), and for war chariots (Josh. xvii. 16, 
 18; Judg. i. 19, iv. 3, 13). The latter were 
 plated or studded with it. Its usage in defen- 
 
 IRON 1443 
 
 sive armour is implied in 2 Sam. xxiii. 7 (cp. 
 Rey. ix. 9), and as a safeguard in peace 
 it appears in fetters (Ps. ev. 18), prison-gates 
 (Acts xii. 10), and bars of gates or doors (Ps. 
 ΟἹ, 16; Is. xlv. 2), as well as for surgical pur- 
 poses (1 Tim. iv. 2).. Sheet-iron was used for 
 cooking utensils (itzek. iv. 3°; cp. Lev. vii. 9), 
 and bars of hammered iron are mentioned in 
 Job xl. 18, though here the LXX. perversely 
 render σίδηρος χυτός, ‘cast-iron.’ That it was 
 plentiful in the time of David appears from 
 1 Ch. xxii. ὃ. It was used by Solomon, accord- 
 ing to Josephus, to clamp the large rocks with 
 which he built up the Temple mount (Ant. 
 xv. 11, § 3); and by Hezekiah’s workmen to 
 hew out the conduits of Gihon (Ecclus. xlviii. 
 17). Images were fastened in their niches in 
 later times by iron brackets or clamps (Wisd. 
 xii. 15). Agricultural implements were early 
 made of the same material. In the treaty made 
 by Porsena was inserted a condition like that 
 imposed on the Hebrews by the Philistines, that 
 no iron should be used except for agricultural 
 purposes (Plin. xxxiv. 39). 
 
 The market of Tyre was supplied with bright 
 or polished iron by the merchants of Dan and 
 Javan (Ezek. ‘xxvii. 19). Some, as the LXX. 
 and Vulg., render this “wrought iron:” so De- 
 Wette, “geschmiedetes Eisen.’ The Targum 
 has “bars of iron,” which would correspond 
 with the stricturae of Pliny (xxxiv. 41). But 
 Kimchi (Lez. s.v.) expounds DW, ‘ashoth, as 
 “pure and polished” (= Span. acéro, steel), in 
 which he is supported by R. Sol. Parchon, and 
 by Ben Zeb, who gives “gliinzend” as the 
 equivalent (cp. the Homeric αἴθων σίδηρος, Il. 
 vii. 473), If the Javan alluded to were Greece, 
 and not, as Bochart (Phaleg, ii. 21) seems to- 
 think, some place in Arabia (so Orelli in loco, in 
 Strack τι. Zéckler’s Agf. Komm. z. A. T.), there 
 might be reference to the iron mines of Mace- 
 donia, spoken of in the decree of Aemilius Paulus. 
 (Liv. xlv. 29); but Bochart urges as a very 
 strong argument in support of his theory that, 
 at the time of Ezekiel’s prophecy, the Tyrians 
 did not depend upon Greece for a supply of 
 cassia and cinnamon, which are associated with 
 iron in the merchandise of Dan and Javan, but 
 that rather the contrary was the case. Pliny 
 (xxxiv. 41) awards the palm to the iron of 
 Serica, that of Parthia being next in excellence. 
 The Chalybes of the Pontus were celebrated as 
 workers in iron in very ancient times (Aesch. 
 Prom. 733). They were identified by Strabo 
 with the Chaldaei of his day (xii. 549), and the 
 mines which they worked were in the mountains 
 skirting the sea-coast. The produce of their 
 labour is supposed to be alluded to in Jer. xy. 12, 
 as being of superior quality. Jron mines are 
 still in existence on the same coast, and the ore 
 is found “in small nodular masses in a dark 
 yellow clay which overlies a limestone rock” 
 (Smith’s Geog. Dict., art. Chalybes). 
 
 It was for a long time supposed that the 
 Egyptians were ignorant of the use of iron, and 
 that the allusions in the Pentateuch were ana- 
 chronisms, as no traces of it have been found in 
 their monuments; but in the sepulchres at 
 
 a The passage of Ezekiel is illustrated by the screens 
 behind which the archers stand in the representations of 
 a siege on the Nimroud sculptures, 
 
 4Z2 
 
1444 
 
 Thebes butchers are represented as sharpening 
 their knives on a round bar of metal attached 
 to their aprons, which from its blue colour is 
 presumed to be steel. The steel weapons on the 
 tomb of Rameses III. are also painted blue; those 
 of bronze being red (Wilkinson, Anc. Ly. ii. 155 
 [1878]). One iron mine only has been dis- 
 covered in Egypt, which was worked by the 
 ancients. It is at Hammami between the Nile 
 and the Red Sea; the iron found by Mr. Burton 
 was in the form of specular and red ore (/d. 
 iii, 246). That no articles of iron should have 
 been found is easily accounted for by the fact 
 that it is easily destroyed by exposure to the air 
 and moisture. According to Pliny (xxxiv. 43), 
 it was preserved by a coating of white lead, 
 gypsum, and liquid pitch. Bitumen was pro- 
 bably employed for the same purpose (xxxy. 52). 
 The Egyptians obtained their iron almost exclu- 
 sively from Assyria Proper in the form of bricks 
 or pigs (Layard, Nin. ii. 415). Specimens of 
 Assyrian iron-work overlaid with bronze were 
 discovered by Sir H. Layard, and are now in 
 the British Museum (Nin. and Dab. p. 191). 
 Iron weapons of various kinds were found at 
 Nimroud, but fell to pieces on exposure to the 
 air. Some portions of shields and arrow-heads 
 (id. pp. 194, 596) were rescued, and are now in 
 
 IRON 
 
 England. A pick of the same metal (/d. p. 194) 
 was also found, as well as part of a saw 
 
 (p. 195), and the head of an axe (p. 357), and 
 remains of scale-armour and helmets inlaid with 
 copper (Nin. i. 340). It was used by the 
 
 Etruscans for offensive weapons, as bronze for | 
 
 defensive armour. The Assyrians had daggers 
 and arrow-heads of copper mixed with iron, and 
 hardened with an alloy of tin (Layard, Nin. 
 ii. 418). So in the days of Homer war-clubs 
 were shod with iron (Z/. vii. 141); arrows were 
 tipped with it (Z/. iv. 123); it was used for the 
 axles of chariots (//. v. 723), for fetters (Ud. 
 ji. 204), for axes and bills (1|. iv. 485; Od. 
 xxi. 3, 81). Adrastus (Z/. vi. 48) and Ulysses 
 (Od. xxi. 10) reckoned it among their treasures, 
 the iron weapons being kept in a chest in the 
 treasury with the gold and brass (Od. xxi. 61). 
 In Od. i. 184, Mentes tells Telemachus that he 
 is travelling from Taphos to Tamese to procure 
 brass in exchange for iron, which Eustathius 
 says was not obtained from the mines of the 
 island, but was the produce of piratical excur- 
 sions (Millin, MJineral. Hom. p. 115, 2nd ed.). 
 Pliny (xxxiv. 40) mentions iron as used sym- 
 bolically for a statue of Hercules at Thebes (cp. 
 Dan. ii. 33, v. 4), and goblets of iron as among 
 the offerings in the temple of Mars the Avenger, 
 at Rome. Alyattes the Lydian dedicated to 
 the oracle at Delphi a small goblet of iron, the 
 workmanship of Glaucus of Chios, to whom the 
 discovery of the art of soldering this metal is 
 attributed (Her. i. 25). The goblet is described 
 by Pausanias (x. 16). From the fact that such 
 offerings were made to the temples, and that 
 Achilles gave as a prize of contest a rudely- 
 shaped mass of the same metal (//. xxiii. 826), 
 it has been argued that in early times iron was 
 so little known as to be greatly esteemed for its 
 rarity. That this was not the case in the time 
 of Lycurgus is evident, and Homer attaches to it 
 -no epithet which would denote its preciousness 
 (Millin, p. 106). There is reason to suppose 
 
 that the discovery of brass preceded that of iron | 
 
 ISAAC 
 
 (Luer, vy. 1292), though little weight can be 
 attached to the line of Hesiod often quoted as 
 decisive on this point (Vp. et Dies, 150). The 
 Dactyli Idaei of Crete were supposed by the 
 ancients to have the merit of being the first to 
 
 | discover the properties of iron (Plin. vii. 57; 
 
 Diod. Sic. v. 64), as the Cyclopes were said to 
 have invented the iron-smith’s forge (Plin. 
 vii. 57). According to the Arundelian Marbles, 
 iron was known B.c. 1370, while Lareher 
 (Chronol. d'Hérod. 570) assigns a still earlier 
 date, B.c. 1537. Enough has been said to prove 
 that the allusions to iron in the Pentateuch and 
 other parts of the O. T. are not anachronisms. 
 
 There is considerable doubt whether the 
 ancients were acquainted with cast-iron. ὙΠῸ 
 rendering given by the LXX. of Job xl. 18, as 
 quoted above, seems to imply that some method 
 nearly like that of casting was known, and is 
 supported by a passage in Diodorus (y. 13). The 
 inhabitants of Aethalia traded with pig-iron in 
 masses like large sponges to Dicaearchia and 
 other marts, where it was bought by the smiths 
 and fashioned into various moulded forms (πλάσ- 
 ματα παντοδαπά). 
 
 In Ecclus. xxxviii. 28, we have a picture of 
 the interior of an iron-smith’s (Is. xliy. 12) 
 workshop. The smith, parched with the smoke 
 and heat of the furnace, sits beside his anvil 
 
 | and contemplates the unwrought iron, his ears 
 
 | his eyes are fixed 
 
 are deafened with the din of the heavy hammer, 
 on his model, and he 
 
 | never sleeps till he has accomplished his task. 
 
 (STEEL. ] ΕΝ A. W.] 
 
 IR-PE-EL ONS} = Jehovah heals; Καφάν, 
 A. Ἰερφαήλ ; Jarephel), one of the cities of Ben- 
 jamin (Josh. xviii. 27), occurring in the list 
 between Rekem and Taralah. No certain trace 
 has yet been discovered of its situation, but 
 Major Conder has suggested the village of Rafat, 
 north of el-Jth, Gibeon (PEF. Mem. iii. 13, 154). 
 It will be observed that the Ir in this name is 
 radically different from that in the names Ir- 
 nahash, Ir-shemesh, &c. σι αι 
 
 IR-SHE’MESH (WY WY = city of the 
 sun; B. πόλεις Saupads, A. πόλις Σαμές ; Her- 
 semes, id est, Civitas Solis), a city of the Danites 
 (Josh. xix. 41), probably identical with Beru- 
 SHEMESH, ‘Ain Shems, and, possibly, connected 
 with Mount Heres (πᾶς, i. 35), the “ mount 
 of the sun.’ Beth-shemesh is probably the 
 later form of the name. In other cases Beth 
 appears to have been substituted for other older 
 terms [see BAAL-MEON, &e.], such as Ir or Ar, 
 a very ancient word. [GALE 
 
 I'RU (1); Β. Ἤρ, A.”Hpa; Hir), the eldest 
 son of the great Caleb son of Jephunneh (1 Ch. 
 iv. 15.) The name is probably Ir, the vowel 
 at the end being merely the conjunction 
 “and,” properly belonging to the following 
 name. 
 
 ISAAC (PTS, or pniyy : Ἰσαάκ; Isaac ᾿ 
 “the Laugher,” i.e. the Joyous or Happy One), 
 
 Oo Rely Ι 
 
 2 Cp. the Syriac form Onc}. Is-hag. The 
 corresponding Hebrew form occurs only in Amos vii. 
 9,16; Jer, xxxiii. 26; Ps. cv. 9. 
 
ISAAC 
 
 the son born to Abraham and Sarah in their 
 old age, to be the “ Heir of the Promises,” to 
 the exclusion of Hagar’s son Ishmael (Gen. xv. 
 1-6 5 xviii. 9 sqq.; xxi. 12). 
 
 The Biblical recollections of Isaac are far less 
 lively and copious than those of Abraham 
 and of Jacob. The life is comprised in Gen. 
 yxi.-xxxy. 29; but the greater part of these 
 chapters is concerned less with Isaaec’s own 
 fortunes than with those of his parents and 
 progeny. The narratives relating to this 
 patriarch are, as usual, of a composite cha- 
 racter [GuNEsIS]; and though the hand of 
 the compiler nas pruned away some of the 
 discrepancies between the various traditions, 
 others have been suffered to survive in the 
 ultimate form of the story. Let us first con- 
 sider the reasons assigned or suggested for the 
 
 | 
 name of Isaac, “the Laugher,” or “he who 
 
 laughs” (ΠΝ, from PNY, “to laugh ”), 
 According to P (Gen. xvii. 17), “ Abraham fell 
 on his face and lawyhed,’ when he heard that 
 a son was to be born to him; whence, as the 
 story implies (Ὁ. 19), the child was to be called 
 Isaac (Heb. Yie-haq), qs. “Laughter.” Ac- 
 cording to J (Gen. xviii. 12), Sarah laughed to 
 herself when she overheard the promise to her 
 husband, and then denied the fact through fear. 
 According to K (Gen. xxi. 6), Sarah exclaimed 
 at the birth of her son: “ Laughter (ΠΝ) 
 hath Elohim made for me ” (= perhaps, “ Elohim 
 hath made me to laugh,’ as A. V.; or else, 
 “Elohim hath caused laughter at me”; ep. 
 the next clause, which Budde with some reason 
 assigns to J, assuming that it originally fol- 
 lowed v. 7: “ whoever heareth of it will laugh 
 at me,” καταγελάσεταί μου, LXX.). But pre- 
 sently E gives another glance at the meaning 
 of -the name. In v. 9, Sarah sees Ishmael 
 PMS, either “laughing” (Kautzsch) or 
 “ jesting ” (xix. 14), or “ playing ” (add, “with 
 Isaac her son,’ LXX. παίζοντα μετὰ ᾿Ισαὰκ 
 τοῦ υἱοῦ ἑαυτῆ 5). 
 
 These divergences, which are characteristic 
 enough of the Oriental indifference to verbal 
 consistency of statement so long as picturesque 
 allusions are secured, troubled the mind of St. 
 Jerome in the fourth century, who argues man- 
 fully for the suggestion of P (Quaest. Heb. in 
 Gen.), while Josephus in the first had affirmed 
 that of J (Ant. i. 12, § 2). 
 
 It is, doubtful whether Isaac, which does not 
 occur as the name of any other individual in 
 either Testament, although like Abraham, 
 Jacob, David, and other great names of the 
 heroic past, it was revived in the later period 
 of Judaism, was originally a theophoric name, 
 as Jacob appears to have been [JAcoB]. No 
 trace of a proper name formed by composition 
 of the root PMY with either El or Jah (Jeho-, 
 or -jahu, -jah) is to be found. Not that such a 
 combination of ideas would necessarily have 
 been repugnant to the ancient Hebrew mind. 
 Indeed an approach to it is seen in the words of 
 Ps. ii. 4: PHY? DMA Aw, “He that sitteth 
 in the heavens Jdaugheth.” Goldziher, who 
 cites this line, supposes that Isaac was origin- 
 
 ally the smiling sun of myths and _ poetry 
 
 - 
 
 (Myth. Heb. pp. 92 sqq., E. Tr.). The name, 
 however, may very well have had an original 
 
 mythical reference, and yet be that of a | 
 
 historical personage or people, or of a famous 
 
 ISAAC 1445 
 
 | chief and his tribe. And it must be said that 
 | the learned Arabist’s attempts to explain or 
 claim as mythical features such very natural 
 details as Isaac’s marriage with Rebekah,” his 
 preference for Esau, his blindness in old age, are 
 far trom striking one as inevitable or con- 
 vincing (op. cit. pp. 106 sqq.). In any case, 
 little is gained in the way of insight into the 
 Biblical narratives or illustration of their 
 sources, by a precarious comparison of these 
 old national and tribal designations® and 
 | reminiscences with the meagre and monotonous 
 conceptions of solar mythology. 
 
 Other grounds have been alleged for recog- 
 nising in the story of Isaac a sort of Euhemer- 
 istic treatment of primitive legends about the 
 gods and heroes, and thus resolving the Hebrew 
 patriarch into a metamorphosed deity. An 
 original identity has been assumed of the 
 Biblical relation of the sacrifice of Isaac with 
 a somewhat apocryphal Phoenician counterpart. 
 The legend of “ΕἸ offering his only son Jeud 
 upon the mountains of Canaan” (Sayce; ep. 
 Selden, de dis Syris, Syutagma i. 97) has been 
 supposed to supply the primitive basis of the 
 narrative which in Gen. xxii. has been brought 
 down from the world of gods to that of men. 
 The Phoenician legend is given by Eusebius 
 (Praep. Evang. iv. 163 i. 10) as an extract 
 from Sanchoniathon; and without committing 
 ourselves to the questionable assertion that it is 
 only “a singular and inaccurate version of the 
 offering of Isaac,” we may at least mention that 
 the work of Sanchoniathon was a late forgery 
 by Philo of Byblus (see Von Gutschmid, 
 Encyc. Brit. art. Phoenicia, Lcligion). The 
 mere fact that a myth was current in Byblus, 
 to the effect that the divine founder of the 
 town was the first to sacrifice “an only son or 
 a virgin daughter to the supreme god,” does 
 not seem to carry us far on the road to a 
 positive identification of the much older narra- 
 tive in Genesis with a local Phoenician legend 
 obviously intended to lend a religious sanction 
 to child-sacrifice. The moral of the Hebrew 
 story is the exact contrary (vid. infr.). 
 
 Prof. Robertson Smith thinks there is a 
 sacrificial air about the scene in which Jacob 
 approaches his father with the dish of young 
 goats’ flesh in order to win his blessing. In 
 particular, the wearing of the skins of the 
 slaughtered kids recalls a similar feature of 
 heathen ritual. The Assyrian Dagon-wor- 
 shipper offered the mystic fish-sacrifice to the 
 Fish-god draped ina fish-skin, and the Cypriotes 
 wore sheep-skins when offering a sheep to the 
 
 Ὁ Explained as the marriage of the Sun with “ the 
 fruitful, rich earth,” after C. P. Tiele. 
 
 Ὁ Isaac appears as a national designation in Amos, 
 | who calls the people of the northern kingdom ‘* House 
 of Isaac,’’ and their sanctuarics *‘the high places of 
 Isaac ” (Amos vii. 9, 16), Isolated as these expressions 
 are, they are important as implying a nomenclature 
 which may have been familiar in the days of Amos (8th 
 cent. B.c.). The passages Amos v. 5, viij. 14, indicate a 
 reference to Bethel, Gilgal, Samaria, Dan, as well as 
 Beersheba, in the latter phrase. 
 
 That Isaac was something more than a private 
 | individual is evident from his alliance on equal terms 
 with the king of Gerar. It is remarkable that, save in 
 the single passage Jer. xxxiii. 26, Isaac is not named 
 again in the whole volume of the Prophets. 
 
1440 ISAAC 
 
 Sheep-goddess. According to Philo Byblius 
 (Euseb. Praep. Evang. i. 10, 10), it was the god 
 Usoiis (that is, Esau, as Sealiger suggested) 
 who first taught men to clothe themselves in 
 the skins of beasts taken in hunting, and to 
 pour out their blood sacrificially before sacred 
 stones (Robertson Smith, Religion of the Semites, 
 pp- 417, 418). 
 
 If, however, we are to recognise in these 
 traits of the story glimpses of some old myth 
 about the Father of Israel and Edom, it must 
 be admitted that neither of the two old Hebrew 
 writers (J, E) whose accounts are so curiously 
 interwoven in Gen. xxvii, appears to have had 
 any perception of the true significance of the 
 story. It is, in fact, evident that their inten- 
 tion was to illustrate, as in the subsequent 
 aecount of the shepherd tricks by which Jacob 
 contrived to transfer to himself the ownership 
 of Laban’s flocks and herds, the supreme craft 
 of Jacob’s character, which on this occasion 
 secured the blessing of a reluctant father. 
 The broad fact of history which lay before 
 these Israelite chroniclers was the former great- 
 ness (Gen. xxxvi.) and subsequent decline of 
 Edom, Israel’s elder brother; in other words, 
 the transfer of Divine favour from the elder 
 to the younger people: and what they have 
 given us is apparently the traditional expla- 
 nation of the fact current and popular in 
 their day. 
 
 To return to the narrative: after Isaac’s birth 
 we are told of his weaning feast, and of the 
 dismissal of Hagar and Ishmael at Sarah’s 
 bidding, sanctioned by Elohim on the ground 
 that Isaac was to be the father of Abraham’s 
 true offspring (Gen. xxi. 8-12, ὃ). At the 
 time, Abraham was living at Beer-sheba (Ὁ. 33, 
 J; ep. xxii. 19, E). Then follows immedi- 
 ately? what may be called the one distinctive 
 event in the otherwise somewhat colourless life 
 of Isaac; the sacrifice begun but not consum- 
 mated on the unnamed mountain in ‘the land 
 of Moriah” (xxii. 1-14, E; 15-18, J, perhaps 
 expanded or recast by the compiler of JE; 
 v. 19, E. So Driver, LOT.; see note’ znfr.). 
 The beautiful narrative of the obedience of 
 Abraham, the childlike submission of Isaac, 
 the sudden arrest of the bloody rite at the 
 moment of execution by the Angel of Jahvah, 
 and the substitution of a ram for the human 
 victim, has naturally been a favourite with 
 Christian writers of all ages, many of whom 
 have seen in Isaac a type of our Lord (for the 
 Apostolic use of the incident, see Heb. xi. 17- 
 19). Here, it seems necessary to ask what the 
 narrative signified to the original narrator; a 
 question on which there is, happily, little or no 
 difference of opinion among scholars. The 
 
 ἃ In this case, Isaac’s fondness for “‘savoury meat ”— 
 which as a man and a pastoral chief he would share with 
 most nomads—becomes an instance not of a human 
 failing (‘ Schwachheit sinnlicher Wohlschmeckerei,” 
 HW28.), but of the liking of gods for the κνῖσα or 
 Mmm} M5, the reek and savour of the sacrifice; a 
 conception common to ancient religions. Cp. Dani 
 iginu irisa ilani icinu iriza taba, ** The gods snuffed in 
 the savour, The gods snuffed in the sweet savour” 
 (Chaldean Legend of the Flood, 1. 151). 
 
 e Josephus, probably from a Haggadie source, says 
 that Isaac was twenty-five years old at this time 
 (Ant. . 13, § 2). 
 
 ISAAC 
 
 intervention of JAHVAH at the crisis of Isaac’s 
 fate (xxii. 11), whereas Elohim who had in- 
 stigated the sacrifice is alone mentioned up to 
 that point (vv. 1, 3, 8, 9), can hardly be 
 accidental. It is, in fact, quite clear that the 
 intention is to reveal Jahvah, the God of Israel, : 
 as opposed to the dreadful rites of human_ 
 sacrifice which were commonly rendered to: 
 the elohim of Canaan, and which the bené 
 Israel were from time to time tempted to copy. 
 With this agrees the memorial name which 
 Abraham gives to the high place, Jahvah-jir’eh 
 (in contrast with, e.g., Zl-clohé-Israel, xxxiii. 
 20), which is evidently the author’s resolution 
 of Moriah (Mori-jah = Mor'i-Jah, as if, “ Pro- 
 vided of Jah ’’).* 
 
 It was, perhaps, hardly possible in the writer’s 
 time to represent the conflict of religious ideas 
 in any more direct way. The impulse to sacri- 
 fice children was not a thing of mere antiquarian 
 speculation even in the time of the literary pro- 
 phets and the later monarchy (Mic. vi. 7; 2K. 
 iii. 27, xvi. 3, xvii. 17, xxiii. 10; ep. Lev. xviii. 
 21; Judg. xi. 51, 39). And if in some perilous 
 
 f The LXX. renders 99}975 YN: “the land of 
 Moriah,” by ‘‘ the lofty land,” τὴν γῆν τὴν ὑψηλήν : cp. 
 
 Gen. xii. 6, where for [41D yoy, “oak of Moreh,” it 
 gives τὴν δρῦν τὴν ὑψηλήν. Hence Bleek, Tuch, and 
 other critics would restore ΠῚ ys: “the land of 
 Moreh,” in Gen. xxii. 2. Moreh was the name of a hill 
 at Shechem (Judg. vii. 1); and hence it is supposed that 
 ha-Moreh was altered in the Hebrew text to ha-Moriyah, 
 in the interest of the Jerusalem Temple as against the 
 Samaritan one. The Samaritan Pentateuch, however, 
 reads NON, which is interpreted by the Samaritan 
 Targum as meaning ΤΠ ΓΠ, ‘‘ vision.” Moreover, the 
 Chronicler calls the Temple Mount “the hill of Moriah” 
 (2 Ch. iii. 1); cp. Jos. Ant. i. 13, §§ 1, 2. The Targ. 
 Jerus. agrees with this; while the rendering of Onkelos 
 
 NS) nip DON, “the land of worship,” obviously takes 
 
 ΠῚ as equivalent to δὰ 72. ‘‘fear,” perbaps reading 
 
 M1 (cp. Ps. ix. 20). The rarity or rather the 
 Ἢ τὶ 
 
 total absence of local names compounded with Jah is a 
 fact which militates strongly against the traditional 
 form of the name. The Syriac ‘‘ land of the Amorites” 
 may be right. 
 
 Kautzscho and Socin think ΓΙ is due to R (either 
 of JE or of P), ascribing the etymology in v. 14 to R, 
 and vv. 14-18 to the same hand. But the explanation 
 TM 7D=PINN 1D) is quite in the manner of J; in fact, if 
 ΓΟ «be omitted, a characteristic feature of the 
 narrative will be eliminated, and the point of the allu- 
 sions (Ὁ. 8) “God will provide him the lamb” 
 (yb=7y099), and (ὦ. 14) “ Abraham called the name of 
 that place Jahvah-jir’?h,” will be quite lost. It would 
 seem, therefore, that Driver’s analysis is preferable. 
 
 Perhaps the proverb current in the writer’s day 
 (υ. 14) should rather be pointed Ὁ ayy mn V2) “Tn 
 
 the mountain Jahvah will provide;””” ‘the mountain 
 being a metaphorical designation of a difficulty which 
 can only be overcome by Divine intervention (Zech. 
 iv. 7; Matt. xxi.21). Otherwise, keeping the traditional 
 pointing of the verb as a reflexive, we might render, * In 
 the mountain Jahvah is seen ” (or, ‘‘letteth Himself be 
 seen”), i.e. revealeth His Will, as in the matter of 
 child-sacrifice on this occasion; as if Moriah meant 
 ‘vision of Jah.” So the LXX. has ἐν τῷ ὄρει κύριος 
 ὥφθη. 
 
 Perhaps, however, the true sense of v. 14 Ὁ is ** which 
 name is still given to 6 for 3) the hill where Jahvah 
 appeareth ’' (cp. 2 Ch. iii. 1); a gloss on the preceding 
 words. ; 
 
ISAAC 
 
 juncture of public affairs a zealot for the honour 
 of Jahvah, in advocating such an extreme proof 
 of devotion, could appeal te an oracle of Elohim, 
 could cite some ancient law prescribing these 
 dreadful rites, could even relate a tradition 
 
 that in the remote past the great father of | 
 
 Israel had been moyed to offer his only son for 
 a burnt-offering at a well-known high place, 
 and had only been stayed from his purpose by 
 the direct interposition of the satisfied Deity; a 
 more enlightened teacher, putting a different 
 construction on the facts, might affirm that this 
 very tradition proved that the Gotl of Israel, 
 the Merciful and Compassionate, had by that 
 intervention once for all dispensed his people 
 from such an inhuman obligation, and, as in the 
 ease of Abraham, would always accept the will 
 for the deed. 
 
 It is difficult to read the narrative of Gen. 
 xxii. without recalling a famous passage of the 
 prophet Micah (vi. 1-8), which, although refer- 
 ring to another historical episode, may yet be 
 held to include the present one in its outlook. 
 As Abraham is directed by Elohim—that is to 
 say, either by an oracle in His Name, or by an 
 inward impulse—to offer his son “upon one of 
 the mountains”; so Micah apostrophizes the 
 mountains (vi. 1, 2), which were the scene of 
 the popular sacrifices, calling upon them to hear 
 an old prophetic declaration of the futility of 
 that worship with its rites of blood. A ram is 
 accepted in the stead of Isaac: but the Prophet 
 affirms that no burnt offerings, whether of 
 thousands of rams, or even of the first-born son, 
 can ayail to atone for sin. What Jahvah really 
 requires of man is not these, but. doing justice 
 and loving merey and walking humbly with 
 God. 
 
 To resume the thread of the story of Isaac. 
 Abraham ‘while he yet lives” dismisses the 
 sons of his inferior wives, to settle in ‘* the east 
 country” at a distance from Isaac his heir. 
 Isaac dwells by the well Lahai-roi, in the 
 vicinity of Beersheba (Gen. xxv. 1-6, 11 b; J).” 
 Then, in his extreme age, Abraham sends his 
 principal slave to Aram-Naharaim, to the city 
 of Nachor, to take a wife for Isaac of his own 
 Aramean kindred. The man _ successfully 
 accomplishes his mission, and returns with 
 Rebekah, or rather Ribkah, bath Bethue] ben 
 Nachor. There is nothing in the whole idyllic 
 story of the servant’s journey and its incidents 
 and results, which can be fairly said to contra- 
 dict the truth of Oriental ways and ideas, nor 
 the facts of pious experience (ch. xxiy., J). 
 
 5 See Ex. xxii. 29, ‘* The firstborn of thy sons shalt 
 thou give unto Me,’ and compare the commutation of 
 the ruthless demand of the older Law, Ex. xiii. 2, 13. 
 See also Kuenen, RI. i. 237-240; Geiger, Das Juden- 
 thum, i. 51; Goldziher, Myth. Hebr. pp. 45 sqq. 
 
 h We assume, with Driver (cp. Wellhausen, and 
 Kautzsch and Socin), that an accidental transposition has 
 occurred in Gen. xxiv.-xxvi. The original order is thus 
 restored: xxv. 1-6, 11b; xxiv. (for xxiv. 36 presupposes 
 Xxy. 5); xxvi. 1-33; xxv. 21-26a, 27-34, upon which 
 XxXvii. naturally follows. 
 
 i The Heb. text at the close of the narrative has 
 unfortunately suffered some degree of corruption (cer- 
 
 tainly in v. 62a; cp. the LXX. and Sam.). Some 
 critics, as Wellhausen, Kautzsch and Socin, suppose a 
 gap at the end of ». 61, after the words, ‘‘ and the servant 
 took Rebekah and went....” It is sugg-sted that R 
 
 ISAAC 1447 
 
 We pass on to the story of the famine and 
 Isaac’s sojourn in Gerar (xxvi. 1-33, mostly 
 J).* The statement of v. 2 that Jahvah ap- 
 
 | peared unto Isaac may best be understood of a 
 
 dream or “vision of the night” (cp. τ. 34). In 
 Gerar Isaac imitates the timid ruse which his 
 father is said to have practised on two similar 
 occasions, once in Egypt (Gen. xii.) and again 
 in Gerar (Gen. xx.), and evasively declares that 
 Rebekah is his “sister.” He is found out by 
 Abimelech the king of Gerar, who rebukes him 
 for the deceit, and then charges his people not 
 to molest him. It is needless to attempt to 
 palliate Isaaec’s conduct, which does not seem 
 to have greatly shocked the old narrators 
 of Genesis (E and J). We will only observe 
 that it would be a moral and theological ana- 
 chronism to assume in the case of Isaac or of 
 Abraham that strict sense of the obligation of 
 veracity which belongs to a far more advanced 
 stage of religious culture. Indeed, there are 
 many indications that throughout the O. T. 
 period verbal deceit was not looked upon with 
 any high degree of reprobation (e.g. Josh. ii. 4, 
 sqq.; Judg. iv. 18, v. 24; 1 Sam. xvi. 2, xx. 5, 
 6, 28; Jer. xxxvili. 26, 27). 
 
 The truth of the incident itself has been 
 doubted, because of the similarity of the three 
 narratives (Gen. xii., xx., xxvi.). Muenen, how- 
 ever, asks, “‘ Why should there be no historical 
 fact at the foundation of the threefold tradition 
 of the violation [sic] of Abraham’s or Isaac's 
 wife?” (AI. i. 113). And Ewald, who considers 
 that the narrative “as it stands in Gen. xx. is 
 Canaanitish and primeval” (HZ. i. 293, Eng. 
 Tr.), sees nothing unsuited to the times in the 
 story ; though he holds that Gen. xii. is merely 
 a modification of the passage in Gen, xx., and 
 Gen, xxvi. 7-11 “an application by others of 
 the same story to Rebekah also.” Wellhausen 
 remarks: ‘The stories about Abraham and 
 those about Isaac are so similar that they 
 cannot possibly be held to be independent of 
 each other. The stories about Isaac, however, 
 are more original, as may be seen in a striking 
 way on comparing Gen, xx. 2-16 with xxvi. 
 6-12. The short and profane (?) version, of 
 which Isaac is the hero, is more lively and 
 pointed; the long and edifying version in which 
 Abraham replaces Isaac, makes the danger not 
 possible but actual, thus necessitating the inter- 
 vention of the Deity and so bringing about a 
 glorification of the patriarch, which he little 
 deserved ” (HJ. p. 320, n.1). To us, this contrast 
 of E with J appears to be somewhat subjective. 
 
 omitted J’s account of the death of Abraham, because he 
 wished to insert P’s account of the same event a little 
 further on in the narrative (xxv. 7-lla, P). The 
 
 obscure term mwd (v. 63) is rendered ‘*to lament,”’ 
 i.e. for his father’s death (correcting }§N, “his 
 father,” for Δ δ. ‘‘ his mother,” in v. 67); a sense which 
 it may bear (cp. Job vii. 11, Ps. lv. 17), and which 
 appears, upon the whole, preferable (Ewald, Knobel, 
 Dillmann) to the “meditate” of LXX., Vulgate, and 
 Ἂν Ves 
 
 k Ascribed to J, with a few insertions by R; e.g. the 
 Redactor has added a note to v. 1, to the effect that this 
 famine was not the same as the one which happened in 
 Abraham’s time: see xii. 10 sqq. ‘The preliminary 
 Divine Promise to Isaac, xxyi. 3 b-4, would also appear 
 to have been “expanded or recast”? by the same 
 hand. 
 
1448 ISAAC 
 
 ISAAC 
 
 The Divine care of Isaac is certainly implied in | cession for his barren wife, and of the pre- 
 
 the second narrative (xxvi. 12; cp. vv. 2a, 3a, 
 10), and it is difficult to see the relevance of the 
 epithet “ profane,” or that the one account is 
 more lively and pointed than the other. Why, 
 moreover, may not the same or a similar tradi- 
 tion have been preserved about the behaviour 
 
 monitory struggle of the twin babes within her; 
 
 ‘of the oracle about their future, and the circum- 
 
 of both patriarchs under similar or identical | 
 
 circumstances 2} 
 Isaac’s sowing and reaping in the land of Gerar, 
 
 The narrative further tells of | 
 
 and growing so rich in flocks and herds and | 
 
 slaves as to stir the envy of the Philistines. The 
 statements (vv. 15, 18) that they had stopped up 
 the wells dug by Abraham, and that Isaac dug 
 these wells again, and gave them the names that 
 his father had given them, are thought to have 
 been added by R, for the sake of harmony with 
 the previous account of Abraham’s digging the 
 wells (xxi. 25 sqq. See Driver, LOT.; Kautzsch 
 and Socin, ad loc.). The ill-feeling culminates in 
 Abimelech’s request that Isaac would depart ; 
 and Isaac removes his camp to a distance. His 
 camping-grounds are marked by the successive 
 digging of the wells Esek (Strife), Sitnah 
 (Enmity), and Rehoboth (Room), which he so 
 names because the men of Gerar quarrelled for 
 possession of the former two, but not for the 
 third. The patriarch finally removes to Beer- 
 sheba.. Jahvah appears to him “in that night ” 
 (the night of his arrival), and promises him 
 numerous offspring for Abraham’s sake. He 
 builds an altar, pitches tent, and digs a well 
 there. (Perhaps xxi. 33 originally belonged 
 here.) Abimelech and his wazir Achuzzath and 
 his general Pikol now pay him a visit, and make 
 a treaty with him (against Egypt ὃ). The same 
 day Isaac’s slaves tell him, “We have found 
 water.” Isaac names the new well Sheba (an 
 allusion to the slebu‘oth or oaths with which the 
 treaty was ratified); whence the place gets its 
 name, Beer-sheba (Gen. xxvi. lac, 2a, 5a, 6-33 ; 
 J). With this should be compared E’s account 
 of the origin of the name (xxi. 22—32)." Upon 
 the entire narrative (Gen. xxvi.3 cp. xil. 10 546.» 
 Xx., xxi. 22 sqq.) Riehm observes that it, for the 
 most part, consists only of side-pieces to tradi- 
 tions about Abraham ; showing “ how the special 
 relation into which God had entered with 
 Abraham and his posterity manifested itself 
 plainly in the life of Isaac, and how the promises 
 were, in a measure, already fulfilled to him, so 
 that even envious and quarrelsome neighbours 
 recognised in him the blessed of Jehovah, and 
 had to seek his alliance (cp. especially xxvi. 
 28 sq., as the beginning of the fulfilment of the 
 promise given in xii. 2 sq., and appropriated to 
 Isaac in xxvi. 4).” 
 
 There follows a brief mention of Isaac’s inter- 
 
 1 Wellhausen holds that Abraham is “ perhaps the 
 youngest figure in the company ” of the three patriarchs. 
 But although Amos does mention Isaac and does not 
 mention Abraham, we have an early mention of 
 Abraham in Micah (vii. 20), which cannot be said with 
 certainty “to belong to the Exile” (see Driver, LOT. 
 Micah). And as to Is. xxix. 22, see Ewald, ΠΙ. 3181. 
 Must every enigma be an interpolation in these ancient 
 texts ? 
 
 m Sheba, ‘‘ seven,’ was perhaps the designation of a 
 god, as in Babylonian (3 R 66, 12d). So Arba, * four,” 
 denoted a god, in the name Arba-ilu, Arbela (ep. Kirjath- 
 Arba); and *‘six’’ denoted Rimmon, ‘ fifteen ” Ishtar, 
 and 50 on. 
 
 | Jacob. 
 
 stances of their birth (xxv. 21-26a, J). Inthe 
 anecdote of Jacob’s purchase of the birthright 
 (wv. 27-34, J), the only reference to Isaac is the 
 statement that he preferred the elder twin Esau, 
 for venison was to his taste (v. 28). Then we 
 have, in a graphic narrative, compounded from 
 
 | J and E, the account of Jacob’s winning by fraud 
 
 the blessing of Isaac (xxvii. 1-45), who was now 
 old and blind with age, and whose death was 
 expected in the near future (vv. 2, 10, 41). 
 Because of Esau’s anger, Rebekah, who had 
 planned the deception, bids Jacob fly to her 
 brother Laban at Charran, who, according to 
 Oriental ideas, would be bound to give him an 
 asylum. 
 
 From this point, the composite narrative of 
 Genesis is mainly occupied with the fortunes of 
 In the older sections (J, E) the name of 
 Isaac occurs only in such expressions as ‘the 
 God of Isaac” (xxviii. 135 ‘cp. xxxii- 10379), 
 “the Dread of Isaac ” (xxxi. 53 5 ep. v. 423 E). 
 It would seem to have been taken for granted 
 by the older accounts that Isaac had died during 
 the long interval of Jacob’s sojourn in Paddan- 
 Aram ; perhaps, indeed, soon after the Blessing 
 of Jacob, which gives the impression of the 
 closing scene of Isaac’s lite (cp. the parallel, 
 ch. xlviii.). On the other hand, the narrative of 
 P represents Isaac himself as sending Jacob to 
 Paddan-Aram, through apprehension not of 
 Esau’s vengeance but of a Canaanitish marriage 
 (xxviii. 1 sqq., P). This account appears to 
 be wholly independent of JE’s episode of the 
 Blessing of Jacob in the previous chapter. ‘The 
 author knows nothing of the wiles by which 
 Jacob secured it, to the indignation, one would ὦ 
 have supposed, of Isaac, whose good intentions 
 towards his favourite Esau were thus thwarted 
 for ever, At this time, according to P, Isaac 
 was a hundred years old (cp. xxvi. 94. sq. with 
 xxv. 26b). According to the same source, when 
 Jacob left Paddan-Aram, his purpose was “ to go 
 to Isaac his father in the land of Canaan ” (xxxi- 
 18); and the life of Isaac is concluded in the 
 following terms (xxxv. 27-29): “And Jacob 
 came unto Isaac his father, unto Mamre, unto 
 Kirjath-Arba, which is Hebron, where Abraham 
 and Isaac sojourned. And the days of Isaac 
 were an hundred and fourscore years. And 
 Isaac gave up the ghost, and died, and was 
 gathered unto his fellow tribesmen, being old 
 and full of days: and his sons Esau and Jacob 
 buried him.” Now, according to E (xxxi. 38, 
 41), Jacob had served Laban “full twenty 
 years.” Even after allowing a period of several 
 years for the homeward journey of Jacob’s by ΠΟ’ 
 means inconsiderable following, there is still a 
 wide difference between the numbers of P and 
 E. The former makes Isaac a hundred years 
 old when Jacob goes to Paddan-Aram, and a 
 hundred and eighty when he dies, immediately, 
 as it would seem, after Jacob’s return, Thus 
 Jacob’s absence covers some eighty years instead 
 of the twenty of E. And further, the Jong 
 
 πὸ An unique phrase, not cccurring elsewhere. Cp. Is. 
 
 viii, 12, 13; and the Aramean snbnr, “ Pear’= 
 « god.” 
 
ISAAC 
 
 period (whether of eighty or of twenty years) | 
 
 during which Isaac survives after Jacob’s 
 departure, though nothing is said of him or his 
 doings throughout the entire interval, is hardly 
 consistent with the indications of ch. xxvil, 
 where Isaac in old age and blindness lies expect- 
 ing his death (v. 2: “I know not the day of my 
 death ’’?), and desires, as was the custom, to give 
 the last blessing to his elder son before he dies 
 (v. 4: “that my soul may bless thee before I 
 die”; cp. also vv. 7, 10, 41). Here again there 
 is evident a conflict of tradition. 
 thought to get rid of the difficulty by the idea 
 of Isaac’s unexpected recovery from a dangerous 
 illness. But his extreme age and blindness and 
 general decrepitude, and the survival of his 
 appetite for venison and wine (v. 25), are cir- 
 cumstances which do not seem to agree very 
 well with such a view; while the entire absence 
 of any statement either of his having fallen sick, 
 or of his recovery, or of the incidents of his 
 renewed existence during the twenty (or eighty) 
 years that followed, is decidedly against it. 
 Eighty, or, for that matter, twenty years, is a 
 long time even in a comparatively uneventful 
 life ; and must surely have been marked hy some 
 incidents as worthy of notice as those previously 
 recorded of Isaac.° But it is perfectly evident 
 that the traditions left us are only the stray 
 relics of far more opulent treasures of ancient 
 story. 
 
 If it is necessary to indicate the general 
 impression left upon the mind by the figure of 
 Isaac, so far as it is possible to realize his 
 personality without drawing too much upon 
 imagination or upon the expanding and har- 
 monizing work of later ages, we may borrow 
 Wellhausen’s language so far as to say that he 
 is a peace-loving shepherd, inclined to live 
 quietly beside his tents, anxious to steer clear of 
 strife and clamour, and to avoid appeals to force. 
 He serves Jehovah in essentially the same way 
 as his descendants in historical times; religion 
 with him does not consist of sacrifice alone, but 
 also of an upright conversation and trustful 
 resignation to God’s Providence (HZ. p. 320 sq.). 
 As Riehm has observed, Isaac is “ Jehovah’s 
 servant’ (Ex, xxxii. 13; Deut. ix. 27), who 
 stands continually under God’s guidance, and 
 follows it with willing faithfulness (xxvi. 2); 
 who receives revelations and promises (xxvi. 
 24), whose prayers are answered (xxv. 21), 
 and who remains the prophetic mouth- 
 piece of the counsels of God, not only in the 
 blessing which he utters knowingly and in- 
 tentionally (xxvii. 39 sqq.), but also and even 
 in that which he pronounces involuntarily 
 (xxvil. 27 sqq.; ep. John xi. 51). He evinces a 
 tender attachment, outlasting death, for the 
 mother (xxiv. 67, if the reading be sound) who 
 had been so zealous for his rights and welfare 
 (xxi. 10), and a pious memory of his father 
 Abraham (xxvi. 18). He is an example of single 
 
 © If Isaac lived to a hundred and eighty, he must, 
 according to the chronological data of Genesis, have 
 outlived the sale of Joseph by some twelve or thirteen 
 years, and have survived pretty nearly if not quite to 
 the time of his grandson’s elevation in Egypt! As 
 Riebm observes, the figures belong to different sources, 
 and therefore must not be combined as if they belonged 
 to one and the same account. 
 
 Some have | 
 
 ISAAC 1449 
 
 wedlock, in marked contrast with his father and 
 his sons (see Riehm, // WJZ.). The unconscious 
 irony of the episode in which against his will he 
 is made to execute the Divine Purpose by 
 blessing his vounger son, is remarkable. Like 
 the story of Joseph, the narrative seems to 
 enforce the moral of many another Oriental tale ; 
 the moral that human opposition is powerless to 
 | thwart the decrees of Heaven, and is, in fact, 
 made use of to accomplish them. 
 
 The following remarks from the former edition 
 of this work are valuable, as illustrating the 
 various modes in which the religious thought of 
 the past has Jaboured to find prophetic types 
 and allegories in the incidents recorded of Isaac = 
 —“The typical view of Isaac is barely referred 
 to in the N. T.; but it is drawn out with minute 
 particularity by Philo and those interpreters of 
 Scripture who were influenced by Alexandrian 
 philosophy. Thus in Philo, Isaac=laughter= 
 the most exquisite enjoyment=the soother and 
 cheerer of peace-loving souls, is foreshadowed in 
 the facts that his father had attained 100 years 
 (the perfect number) when he was born, and that 
 he is specially designated as given to his parents 
 by God, His birth from the mistress of Abra- 
 ham’s household symbolizes happiness proceeding 
 from predominant wisdom. His attachment to 
 one wife (Rebekah=perseverance) is contrasted 
 with Abraham’s multiplied connexions and witlr 
 Jacob’s toil-won wives, as showing the superiority 
 of Isaac’s heaven-born, self-suflicing wisdom, to 
 the accumulated knowledge of Abraham and the 
 painful experience of Jacob. In the intended 
 sacrifice of Isaac Philo sees only a sign that 
 lauchter=rejoicing is the prerogative of God, 
 and is a fit offering to Him, and that He gives 
 back to obedient man as much happiness as is 
 good for him. Clement of Rome (ch. 31), with 
 characteristic soberness, merely refers to Isaac 
 as an example of faith in God. In Tertullian he 
 is a pattern of monogamy and a type of Christ 
 bearing the cross. But Clement of Alexandria 
 finds an allegorical meaning in the incidents 
 which connect Abimelech with Isaac and Rebekah 
 (Gen. xxvi. 8) as well as in the offering of Isaac. 
 In this latter view he is followed by Origen, and 
 by Augustine, and by Christian expositors gene- 
 rally. The most minute particulars of that 
 transaction are invested with a spiritual meaning 
 by such writers as Rabanus Maurus, in Gen- 
 § iii. Abraham is made a type of the First 
 Person in the blessed Trinity, Isaac of the 
 Second; the two servants dismissed are the 
 Jewish sects who did not attain to a perception 
 of Christ in His humiliation; the ass bearing 
 the wood is the Jewish nation, to whom were 
 committed the oracles of God which they failed 
 to understand; the three days are the Patriar- 
 chal, Mosaic, and Christian dispensations; the 
 ram is Christ on the Cross; the thicket they 
 who placed Him there. Modern English writers 
 hold firmly the typical significance of the trans- 
 action, without extending it into such detail (see 
 Pearson on the Creed, i. 348, 251, ed. 1843; 
 Fairbairn’s Typology, i. 332). A recent writer 
 (A. Jukes, Types of Genesis), who has shown 
 much ingenuity in attaching a spiritual meaning 
 to the characters and incidents in the Book of 
 Genesis, regards Isaac as representing the spirit 
 of sonship, in a series in which Adam represents 
 | human nature, Cain the carnal mind, Abel the 
 
1450 
 
 spiritual, Noah regeneration, Abraham the spirit 
 of faith, Jacob the spirit of service, Joseph 
 suffering or glory. With this series may be 
 compared the view of Ewald (Gesch. i. 387-400), 
 in which the whole patriarchal family is a 
 prefigurative group, comprising twelve members 
 with seven distinct modes of relation: 1. Abra- 
 ham, Isaac, and Jacob are three fathers, re- 
 spectively personifying active power, quiet en- 
 joyment, success after struggles, distinguished 
 trom the rest as Agamemnon, Achilles, and 
 Ulysses among the heroes of the Iliad, or as 
 the Trojan Anchises, Aeneas, and <Ascanius, 
 and mutually related as Romulus, Remus, and 
 Numa; 2. Sarah, with Hagar, as mother and 
 mistress of the household; 3. Isaac as child; 
 4. Isaac with Rebekah as the type of wedlock 
 (ep. Alterthiimer, p. 233); 5. Leah and Rachel 
 the plurality of coequal wives; 6. Deborah as 
 nurse (cp. Anna and Caieta, Aen. iv, 654, and 
 vii. 1); 7. Eliezer as steward, whose office is 
 compared to that of the messenger of the 
 Olvmpie deities.’—[W. T. B.] 
 
 Upon a review of the whole account of Isaac 
 preserved in Genesis, it is clear (1) that it 
 supplies but a fragmentary and episodical 
 narrative,—a mosaic composed of unequal pieces 
 collected from independent sources; (11) that 
 the data of the various sources sometimes con- 
 flict with each other in a remarkable manner. 
 The facts certainly suggest that, while fuller 
 accounts relating to Isaac must have once been 
 known to popular tradition,” the historians of 
 Israel only thought it to the purpose to give a 
 few reminiscences by way of introduction to the 
 life of Jacob, their own special ancestor. Isaac 
 was the father of Edom as well as of Israel: he 
 represents a stage of national development when 
 the two brother stocks had not yet separated 
 into distinct and rival peoples. Perhaps, there- 
 fore, if the lost “wisdom” of Edom had sur- 
 vived, we might have been able to fill up the 
 blanks in the Biblical story of the common 
 Father of the two nations. That wisdom can 
 hardly have been entirely of the gnomic order ; 
 nor is it likely that it was exhibited only in the 
 concerns of statecraft. The kingdom of Edom 
 doubtless had its patriotic poets and annalists, 
 as had the younger kingdom of Israel (Gen. 
 xxxvi. 31-39; Jer. xlix. 7; Obad. v. 8; Job 
 iv. 1). 
 
 ISAAC 
 
 Ρ Ewald thinks not; on the ground that ‘if Isaac 
 was in truth what his name—‘the Laughing,’ that is 
 the kind and gentle—implies; if he, among the three 
 Patriarchs, passed pre-eminently for the type of that 
 kindly and quiet nature which preserves the possession 
 of its inherited share of worldly goods through unpre- 
 tending goodness and constant fidelity, the old legends 
 could hardly have anything very remarkable or varied 
 torelate of him. As rightful son and heir, he had no 
 need by great deeds or great qualities to win for himself 
 what was already his” (HJ. i. 339). But, we may ask, 
 whence then the long relations of the sacrifice, and of the 
 servant’s journey to Charran to woo a wife for Isaac? 
 And whence the metrical oracle to Rebekah concerning 
 her unborn babes? These things certainly resemble 
 extracts from older and fuller traditional histories. ‘The 
 casual mention of Deborah, Rebekah’s nurse, who dies 
 in Jacoh’s camp (xxxy. 8, E), and whose memory is 
 perpetrated by the Allon-bakuth near Bethel, points in 
 the same direction. How came she to be in Jacob’s 
 company? and why is she mentioned at all, unless more 
 were once known and told about her? 
 
 ISATAH 
 
 As Isaac represents the stage before the part- 
 ing of the two peoples, it seems worthy of note 
 that the narratives of Genesis place the patriarch 
 exactly where this fact would lead us to look 
 for him. Isaac dwells not in the north nor in 
 middle Palestine, but always in the Negeb or 
 south country ; a dry parched region in which a 
 few oases and wells made life possible for a 
 pastoral chief and his tribe. From the neigh- 
 bourhood of the well Lahai-roi he moves west- 
 ward to Gerar; then follows the course of the 
 Wady in a south-eastern direction; then pro- 
 ceeds to Rehoboth, and thence NE. to BEERSHEBA, 
 whose ancient sanctuary is the only one which 
 tradition ascribed to his special foundation (xxv. 
 11 : xxvi. 1, 6, 17, 22-25; xxiv. 62,ep. xxr 
 33; J). There are, moreover, certain indications 
 of an advance from the purely pastoral and 
 nomadic stage of life. Isaac is not, indeed, 
 represented as permanently settled in any one of 
 his southern haunts; but he practises husbandry 
 with profit where occasion serves (xxvi. 12), and 
 he is a wine-drinker (xxvii. 25, with which 
 contrast the milk, curdled and sweet, of xviii. 
 8), and used to daintier fare than is customary 
 with the mere wandering shepherd (xxvii. 3; 4, 
 9, 14). [C. J. BA 
 
 ISAIAH. The name Isaiah (A7YL?) signifies 
 either Jahu saves (UW, hal, for hiphil, as in 
 MULT, &e.), or MT VW, σωτηρία Κυρίου, 
 the salvation or help of Jahveh. A reference to 
 the meaning of the name is probably found in 
 Is, viii, 18. The name itself was common 
 (1 Ch. xxv. 35,153 xxvi. 25). The shortened 
 form, VL", is employed in 1 Ch. iii. 21; Ezra 
 viii. 7,19; Neh. xi. 7. In the latter passages 
 the R. V. gives the name Jeshaiah, The LXX. 
 usually transliterate it Ἡσαΐας, occasionally also 
 Ἰσέας, ᾿Ισίας, ᾿Ιεσίας, ᾿Ιωσία, ᾿Ιωσίας, ᾿Ωσαΐας. 
 The Vulg. write Jsaias, or in various editions 
 Esaias, and Osaias. According to Klostermann, 
 the analogies of such names as Jaazaniah 
 QGiMITN*), Ishinael, and Ishmaiah, Jahaziel 
 
 CNM) and Jahzeiah (AM), with others, 
 which names are prayers for children so named, 
 point rather to a derivation from MUU, to behold, 
 to have respect to (Gen. iv. 4). In that case the 
 name should be pointed ἡ δ, Imp», or 
 shortened TDL. Isaiah corresponds in signifi- 
 
 cation with pers, Elisha, although the latter 
 fact is no proof that it was compounded of MUL; 
 the yy in Elisha being probably derived from 
 pw or Dw. Hence the traditional vocalisation 
 is preferable. . 
 Isaiah the prophet was son of Amoz (DN), 
 which signifies strong. The latter is not to be 
 identified with Amos (DOP, burden-bearer), who 
 lived much earlier. The LXX. transliterated 
 both names ’Auws, and hence the confusion. 
 Nothing is known of Isaiah’s father. The Rabbis 
 maintained that he was a prophet, on the assump- 
 tion that whenever the name of a prophet’s 
 father occurs in Scripture, that father was also 
 a prophet. The notion that Amoz and Amaziah 
 | (TMSTDN) the king of Judah were brothers was 
 
ISATAH 
 
 suggested by the ‘similarity of name, but is 
 unsupported by any evidence. 
 
 Isaiah’s house was situated in the lower part 
 of Jerusalem (see 2 K, xx. 4, R. V.). Hence 
 Ewald and Knobel supposed the name “ valley 
 of vision” was given to that quarter of the city, 
 where probably other prophets also lived. It 
 is, however, more likely the name refers to the 
 “valley ” in which the final struggle of ch. xxii. 
 is depicted. })MM NS, “valley of vision,” is 
 analogous to the yn POY, “valley of de- 
 cision” (Joel iv. 14), although the meaning of 
 decision is not, with Bredenkamp, to be extracted 
 from an. 
 
 The wife of Isaiah is termed a prophetess 
 (viii. 3), although it is not clear whether she was 
 so called merely because her husband was a 
 prophet, or because she herself was endowed with 
 the gift of prophecy, like Huldah (2 K. xxii. 14) 
 and other women. Isaiah’s two sons, who were 
 regarded as gifts from God, were given names 
 which contained a summary of Isaiah’s mission. 
 ‘These were Shear-jashub, “a@ remnant shall re- 
 turn” (vii. 3), and Maher-shalal-hash-baz, 
 “haste spoil, speed booty” (viii. 3). Some 
 maintain that Isaiah had a third son, named 
 Immanuel (vii, 14), the child of a second 
 wife, in which case that son must have been 
 born before Maher-shalal-hash-baz. But there 
 are weighty reasons against that conjecture. 
 
 In i. 1 it is stated that Isaiah “saw” his 
 visions concerning Judah and Jerusalem in the 
 days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah. 
 An account is given in ch. vi. of the “ vision” 
 by which Isaiah was called to the prophetic 
 office. The vision was “seen” “in the year 
 that king Uzziah died.” The year in question 
 has been variously reckoned as 1.0, 758 or 740, 
 the Jatter being the more probable, for Isaiah 
 was probably not an old man at the time of the 
 inyasion of Sennacherib (3.c. 701). As no men- 
 tion is made of “the days of Manasseh,” it has 
 often been maintained that Isaiah died prior to 
 the close of Hezekiah’s reign. All, however, 
 that can be affirmed from the superscription 
 in Is. i, 1, assuming its correctness, is that the 
 Book to which it was aflixed contains no vision 
 later than the reign of Hezekiah. The tradition 
 concerning his death, referred to in the Talmud, 
 and current in the Christian Church, is that he 
 was slain during the bloody persecution in the 
 early days of Manasseh (2 K. xxi. 16; xxiv. 4), 
 having been “sawn asunder.” Heb. xi. 37 pro- 
 bably refers to that tradition, for no other 
 instance of such a death is recounted in legend. 
 
 The story of Isaiah’s martyrdom has been 
 highly embellished by later tradition. It was 
 known to Justin Martyr (Dial. ο. Tryph. 120), 
 Tertullian (De patientia, 14), and other early 
 Christian writers. The wooden sav (πρίονι 
 ξυλίνῳ) of Justin Martyr may be a legendary 
 embellishment of a woodman’s saw. The apocry- 
 phal work, Zhe Ascension of Isaiah, which 
 narrates the whole story, is, as Dillmann has 
 satisfactorily proved, a pseudepigraph written 
 in Christian times. The legend has been still 
 further improved on in fragments of Targums 
 (ep. that given in Lagarde’s Proph. Chald., 
 1872, p. xxxiii.). 
 
 Chapter vi. is the only chapter of Isaiah which 
 can with any degree of probability be assigned 
 
 Ε΄. 
 
 ISAIAH 1451 
 
 tothe reign of Uzziah. The bulk of his pro- 
 phecies in their present shape belong to Heze- 
 kiah’s reign. Several were composed in the 
 reign of Ahaz, notably chs. vii—ix., and possibly 
 chs. ii—v. None of the prophecies contained in 
 the Book bear the impress of Jotham’s reign. 
 It is, however, possible that several prophecies 
 delivered in Jotham’s reign may have been 
 revised at a later time by the Prophet. Such re- 
 edited prophecies would naturally bear the im- 
 press of the later, not that of the earlier, period. 
 
 In the Jewish canon the Books of Isaiah, 
 Jeremiah, and Ezekiel are arranged in the order 
 of historical sequence. The same order is fol- 
 lowed in the LXX., save that the Book of the 
 Twelve Minor Prophets is placed before the 
 three great Prophets; the Books of Baruch, 
 Lamentations, and the Epistle of Jeremiah being 
 put hetween Jeremiah and Ezekiel in their sup- 
 posed historical order. The historical arrange- 
 ment is as old as the days of Ben Sira (see Ecclus. 
 xlviii. 22-25, xlix. 6-10). Another order is 
 mentioned in Baba Bathra, 14a; namely, Jere- 
 miah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, and the Minor Prophets. 
 But, as Klostermann has pointed out, the latter 
 arrangement is simply based on the principle 
 of placing the longer Books before the shorter 
 Isaiah exceeds Jeremiah in the number of chap- 
 ters (having 66 chapters in place of the 52 
 of the latter), although, if the number of the 
 verses or pages be considered, the Book of 
 Jeremiah exceeds Isaiah. Jeremiah (exclusive 
 of Lamentations) contains 1365 verses, Isaiah 
 1295, Ezekiel 1273, and the Book of the Twelve 
 1050. Thus caleulated, Isaiah stands second. 
 If, however, the actual size of the first three 
 Books be computed by pages, Isaiah ranks third, 
 and the list would stand in the order given in 
 Baba Bathra. The number of the Sedarim, into 
 which the Books are divided in the Hebrew, 
 corresponds with the result drawn from pagina- 
 tion. Jeremiah contains 31 Sedarim, Ezekiel 29, 
 Isaiah 26, and the Book of the Twelve 21. Hence 
 the order of Laba Lathra is that of length or 
 size. Other more artificial reasons have, how- 
 ever, been assigned. The passage of Baba Bathra 
 will be found translated and commented on in 
 the Excursus on The Yalmud and the Old Test. 
 Canon, appended to my commentary on the 
 Book of Koheleth. 
 
 Lightfoot and others have unsuccessfully made 
 use of the order in Baba Bathra to get over the 
 difficulty connected with the quotation from 
 Jeremiah in Matt. xxvii. 9. Equally mistaken 
 are the attempts of Gesenius, &c., to construct 
 thereon an argument for the post-exilian redac- 
 tion of Isaiah. 
 
 Three portions of 2 Kings—namely, chs. xviii. 
 15, 17-57, xix., xx.—are quoted almost verbatim 
 from Is. xxxvi.-xxxix. The psalm of Heze- 
 kiah is peculiar to the Book of Isaiah. Reference 
 is made to Isaiah in 2 Ch. xxvi. 22 and xxxii. 32. 
 In the former Isaiah is said to have written 
 “the acts of Uzziah, first and last.” The read- 
 ing of that passage is uncertain (see LXX. and 
 Vulg.). In 2 Ch. xxyii., “the vision of Isaiah, 
 the son of Amoz the prophet,” is evidently the 
 Book of Isaiah’s prophecies. The difficulty in 
 the second part of that verse, connected with, 
 
 | the reading '§3) 75D by, does not aflect the 
 
 statement of the first part. 
 
1402 ISAIAH 
 
 The superscription in Is. i. 1 presents serious 
 difficulties. It does not adeyuately describe 
 even the prophecies of the first portion (chs. 1.-- 
 xxxv.). ‘Those chapters contain not only prophe- 
 cies “concerning Judah and Jerusalem,” but 
 prophecies also concerning Ephraim or Israel 
 and the surrounding nations, with others of 
 wider scope. Nor does the title suit even the 
 first chapter (the second chapter has a title of 
 its own); for the words “in the days of Uzziah, 
 Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah” prove that that 
 
 superscription was designed to be the title of | 
 
 the entire Book. It cannot, therefore, be re- 
 garded in its present shape as genuine. 
 
 The opening chapter is well characterised by 
 Ewald as “the great Arraignment.” Heaven 
 and earth are called upon to judge the cause 
 between Jehovah and His people. The chapter 
 vividly describes Israel’s sin, and announces the 
 Divine vengeance, which was however to lead to 
 the purification of Israel and the transformation 
 of Zion into a city of righteousness. The storm 
 described had already burst forth. Ali Judah, 
 with the exception of Jerusalem, was in the hands 
 of the enemy. Hence the original composition of 
 the chapter can scarcely (as Caspari and Nay sup- 
 pose) be assigned to the times of Jotham and 
 Uzziah when Judah was in a state of prosperity. 
 At such a time the prophecy, even as a vision of 
 coming judgment, would scarcely have been 
 intelligible. According to Gesenius, Knobel, 
 Delitzsch, and Dillmann, the vision was composed 
 in the days of Ahaz, during the invasion of 
 Judah by the united Syrian and Israelite army. 
 Vitringa, Hitzig, Ewald, Niigelsbach, and Well- 
 hausen preferably assign the chapter to the 
 time of Hezekiah. It cannot have been com- 
 posed after the invasion of Sennacherib. The 
 chapter expresses only a general hope of de- 
 liverance, and contains no reference to the 
 victorious overthrow of the Assyrians. Not- 
 withstanding the arguments adduced by Cheyne, 
 the prophecy cannot well be assigned to the 
 time of Sargon’s invasion, but must have been 
 composed when the tenced cities of Judah had 
 all successively fallen before the foe, and when 
 the city of Jerusalem was the last remaining 
 bulwark of the land. 
 
 We are therefore disposed, with Breden- 
 kamp, to regard the prophecy as composed 
 when Sennacherib, as stated in his own inscrip- 
 tion, had shut up Hezekiah “as a bird in 
 a cage at Jerusalem,” and had even given part 
 of Jewish territory to the kings of the Philis- 
 tines. But, though originally composed at that 
 period, there is no difficulty in regarding the 
 chapter as placed in its present position by 
 Isaiah himself as a suitable introduction to his 
 collected prophecies, Alterations may have been 
 made in its phraseology when thus re-edited. 
 The picture is too vivid to be regarded as an 
 
 ! 
 Ι 
 | 
 / 
 | 
 
 ideal sketch painted in the prosperous days of | 
 
 Uzziah or Jotham. It is natural to suppose 
 that Isaiah put forth a collection of his prophe- 
 cies after the overthrow of the Assyrian foe, 
 which was the grandest victory vouchsafed 
 since the deliverance of Israel from Egyptian 
 Londage. Isaiah’s subsequent prophecies derive 
 no small portion of their imagery from that 
 wondrous manifestation of the “God of judg- 
 ment ” (Is. xxx. 18) in aid of His people. We 
 are indisposed, therefore, to lay stress on every 
 
 ISAIAIL 
 
 expression, or to argue on the assumption that 
 the prophecies were necessarily preserved even 
 by the Prophet himself in the exact form in 
 which they were originally delivered. 
 
 In the historical notices of the Book of Kings 
 no mention is made of the fenced cities of Judah 
 having been burned with fire. Such an ad- 
 ditional detail, however, presents no difficulty. 
 The description in Is. i. of the deeds of murder 
 and villainy practised by judges and nobles, ana 
 of the prevalent idolatry, has often been regarded 
 as inconsistent with the composition of the 
 piece in the reign of Hezekiah. But though 
 
 | generally suppressed, such malpractices may 
 
 have even then been common, and Isaiah would 
 naturally regard the Assyrian invasion os a 
 
 | judgment for such trangression, whether past or 
 
 present. The public practice of idolatry in 
 gardens and groves dedicated to Asherah was 
 put an end to by Hezekiah. But idolatry must 
 have been still practised in private, and have 
 been popular with the nobility, if we are to 
 account for the fearful outbreak which took 
 place in the beginning of Manasseh’s reign. 
 
 The second chapter of Isaiah has no connexion 
 with ch. i. It commences with a superseription 
 of its own, which was probably intended to in- 
 clude chs. ii-iv. inclusive. The vision must have 
 been originally composed at a period of prospe- 
 rity. ‘The land of Judah is described as full of 
 silver and gold. Horses and chariots were in 
 abundance everywhere. The daughters of Zion, 
 proud and haughty, revelled in all kinds of 
 luxury and display. Idolatry was rife among 
 both rich and poor; magic and divination were 
 largely practised. ‘The nation still owned its 
 “ships of Tarshish.” Consequently Elath, the 
 sea-port on the north end of the Gulf of Akaba 
 which had been recovered by Uzziah (2 K. xiv. 
 22), had not then ceased to belong to the kingdom 
 of Judah, as related in 2 K, xvi. 6. The reading 
 in that passage is, however, to be corrected as 
 in the margin of the R. V. The prophecy must 
 therefore have been delivered in the early part 
 of the reign of Alaz, prior to the reverses which 
 befel the nation in the latter years of that 
 monarch. It cannot have been delivered during 
 the reigns of Uzziah or Jotham, who discouraged 
 idolatry ; for the idolatry denounced was not 
 idolatry practised in secret by the few, but 
 idolatry common among the nation. 
 
 The opening verses of ch. ii., namely verses 
 2-4, are almost identical with Micah iy. 1-3. 
 As Micah and Isaiah were contemporary Prophets, 
 the phenomenon has been variously explained. 
 Critics have maintained that Isaiah quoted from 
 Micah, not only because the passage harmonizes 
 better with the context of Micah, but also be- 
 cause of certain peculiarities of expression in 
 the original which tend to show that it is a 
 quotation, Micah’s prophecy was, however, 
 delivered in “the days of Hezekiah, king of 
 Judah ” (Jer, xxvi. 18; Micah iii. 12); and as 
 Is. ii. cannot (from the reasons already set forth) 
 have been composed later than the early part of 
 the reign of Ahaz, Isaiah could not have quoted 
 the passage from that special prophecy of Micah. 
 Similar instances of quotations occur in other 
 parts of Scripture (cp. Obad. rv. 5, 6 with Jer. 
 xlix. 9,10; 1 Pet. v. 5-9 with Jas. iv. 6-10; or 
 2 Pet. ii. with the Epistle of Jude). It is probable 
 that the view defended by Cheyne and others 
 
ISATAH 
 
 is correct: namely, that Isaiah and Micah made | tween two portions of this prophecy. 
 
 use of the words of an earlier prophet, whose 
 closing words (Micah iv. 4) were omitted by 
 Isaiah as unsuited to the solemn denunciations 
 he had to tack on to the quotation. If, as 
 Bredenkamp observes, ch. i. begins with what 
 may be regarded almost as a quotation from 
 Moses (cp. i. 2 with Deut. xxxii. 1), why 
 should not ch. ii. similarly commence with a 
 prediction of one of the older prophets ? 
 
 No objection can be made to Cheyne’s transla- 
 tion, “the mountain of Jehovah’s house shall be 
 fixed at the head of the mountains,” so far as 
 the rendering of the preposition in WN12 is 
 concerned (cp. 1 Sam. ix. 22; Amos vi. 7). But 
 that translation presents too realistic a picture, 
 and suggests an allusion to heathen mythology 
 which is wholly unnecessary. The picture, like 
 those in v. 26, xi. 10, is purely poetical. The 
 Prophets Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Zechariah use lan- 
 guage in their ideal descriptions of the future, 
 which, if taken literally, would predict the actual 
 elevation of the temple mountain above all the 
 other mountains. Such language, however, was 
 only used figuratively. 
 
 The future predicted by Isaiah and Micah was 
 a future which must have appeared to “the men 
 of the world” at that time as the veriest day- 
 dream. It was that “a jaw would go forth 
 from Zion, and the word of Jehovah from Jeru- 
 salem ;” that Israel and the Nations would ulti- 
 mately form one united community, of which 
 Jehovah would be the Judge and King; that 
 under His rule and arbitration wars would ulti- 
 mately cease, and universal peace prevail. The 
 marvellous fulfilment of the first portion of this 
 prophecy in the salvation which has come from 
 the Jews to the Gentile world needs here only 
 to be referred to. 
 
 In his further discowrse, the Prophet con- 
 trasts the fallen state of Israel with its glorious 
 future, and urges the house of Jacob to walk 
 themselves “in the light” vouchsafed to them 
 by Jehovah. He describes how Israel had fallen 
 short of the ideal presented in the Law. In 
 place of being a hardy agricultural race, satis- 
 fied with the riches providel by nature, Israel 
 had become “like all the nations” (1 Sam. viii. 
 20), and had followed them on the way to ruin. 
 Luxury had overspread the land. Wealth pro- 
 duced love of display. Magic and divination 
 were introduced from “the east.” “The land 
 was full of idols,’ to be seen alike in the houses 
 of the poor and in the palaces of the rich. 
 The wicked walked on every side, and vileness 
 was exalted among the sons of men (Ps. xii. 8). 
 Men, high and low, basely prostrated themselves 
 before the works of their own hands, and thus 
 dragged down upon themselves heavy chastise- 
 ment. Jehovah would, therefore, arise to shake 
 terribly the land. Nature and art, both alike 
 made subservient to idolatry, would be given 
 over to destruction. Lofty mountains would be 
 abased, trees felled, high towers overthrown. 
 Strong walls, ships of Tarshish, treasures of 
 art, would all alike perish, levelled in the dust 
 or otherwise destroyed, in the universal ruin 
 brought about by “ the day of Jehovah.” 
 
 The ejaculation “Cease ye from man in whose 
 nostrils is (only) a breath, for at what ought he 
 to be accounted?” is suitably interposed be- 
 
 1453 
 What- 
 
 ever earthly riches or glory man may have, 
 without God, apart trom God, man is of no 
 account. The verse is omitted in the LXX., 
 and Diestel and Cheyne regard it as an inter- 
 polation, harmonizing badly with the deserip- 
 tion of the day of Jehovah. Dillmann, how- 
 ever, observes that there is no object for an 
 interpolation in the passage, while the thought 
 expressed in the verse is striking and fully 
 worthy of Isaiah. Dillmann compares ii. 9, 
 ον ΠΟ Σ  χῖν Θὲ 
 
 The details of the judgment of “the day of 
 Jehovah ” are given in ch. iii. The common- 
 wealth would be overthrown, every “stay and 
 staff” broken. The leaders of the people in the 
 field and in the council-chamber would be cut 
 off. Among the latter the prophets and diviners 
 are mentioned. Children become princes, babes 
 bear rule. Anarchy and confusion follow, until 
 any decently-attired man begged to act as ruler 
 of the ruined land would be forced to decline 
 the task, inasmuch as even such ἃ person 
 would be forced to confess that in spite of out- 
 ward appearance, his house, too, would be found 
 equally destitute of bread or clothing. For the 
 abrupt manner in which the illustration is in- 
 troduced, compare Zech. xiii. 3-6. 
 
 “The day of Jehovah” would affect not only 
 men, but also women. Delicately brought-up 
 women experience then in full measure the de- 
 scent of Jehovah’s retributive justice. Their 
 pride and haughtiness are abased to the dust, 
 their ornaments stripped off, their bodies afflicted 
 with disease. As the men are described looking 
 vainly about for a ruler, so the women are 
 depicted as looking out eagerly for merely 
 nominal husbands. 
 
 “The day of Jehovah” would thus be ter- 
 rible to all. Yet, to use the expression of 
 Zechariah, ‘‘in the eventide there would be 
 light.”” Mercy would succeed judgment, a day of 
 building up would follow a day of casting down. 
 A remnant would be saved, who would trust in 
 Jehovah, and not in carved images, who would 
 return to the simplicity commended in the Law, 
 and at last reap the blessing from above. The 
 barren and devastated land would yield its in- 
 crease, the hills and valleys be covered with 
 beauteous shoots, “the fruit of the land be 
 excellent and comely for the escaped of Israel.” 
 The old signs of Jehovah’s Presence would be 
 again vouchsafed. Guilt removed, sin washed 
 away, there would be a new creation; the 
 cloudy pillar by day and the shining of flaming 
 fire by night would again be seen; and over all 
 the glory an abiding canopy. 
 
 The exposition of “the branch of Jehovah” 
 in iv. 2, as the personal Messiah, in accord- 
 ance with the later usage of Jeremiah and 
 Zechariah, cannot be proved to be the original 
 signification of the prophecy. The parallel ex- 
 pression “the fruit of the land” shows that the 
 passage in Isaiah really refers to vegetation. 
 The human nature of our Lord is not pointed 
 at under the expression “the fruit of the land,” 
 nor can that interpretation be justified by a 
 reference to Ezek. xvii. 5. But though not in 
 accordance with Isaiah’s mode of thought, the 
 use of similar phraseology in a metaphorical 
 sense by the later prophets justifies such an 
 allegorical accommodation of the passage, inas- 
 
 ISATAH 
 
1454 ISAIAH 
 much as similar language is employed in Rev. 
 xxii. 2. 
 
 The fifth chapter is an independent prophecy, 
 unconnected, save in the expression of somewhat 
 similar ideas, with those which precede or follow. 
 The closing sentence of vy. 25 is, however, em- 
 ployed afterwards as the refrain of a later 
 prophecy (ix. 12, 215 x. 4, 12, 17, 21). 
 
 Chapter v. is a vision of judgment, in which 
 no ray of promise appears. It opens with a 
 striking parable in the form of a love-song. 
 That song of unrequited love is succeeded by 
 six woes pronounced against national sins. 
 (1) Against covetous land-grabbers, vv. 8-10. 
 (2) Against drunkards and revellers, vv. 11-17. 
 The first two woes are described in detail. 
 The great mansions built by avaricious land- 
 owners will become a desolation; the curse of 
 barrenness is to rest upon the ill-gotten fields. 
 The revellers are to be carried off into cap- 
 tivity; starvation follows after gluttony; in 
 place of a multitude of drunkards are seen 
 crowds of persons parched with thirst. Sheol, 
 or the Under-world, opens her mouth without 
 measure for an ungodly people, and into its 
 yawning abyss descend their splendour and 
 multitude and joy. (3) The third woe is against 
 ungodly scoffers, vv. 18, 19. (4) The fourth 
 Woe is pronounced on those who dare impiously 
 to confound the distinction between good and 
 evil, v. 20. (5) The fifth is directed against 
 those who are wise in their own eyes, and whose 
 folly’? becomes ‘“ evident unto all men” (see 
 v. 21). (6) The sixth and last is directed against 
 corrupt judges, and men of might whose strength 
 was exhibited only in their ability to imbibe 
 strong drink, and who shamelessly sold justice 
 tor bribes, vv. 22, 23. The fire of the Divine 
 indignation burns up as stubble all such un- 
 righteous judges. They are “left neither root 
 nor branch;” the roaring flame consumes the 
 branches above, and rottenness destroys the roots 
 below (cp. Mal. iii. 19). 
 
 The closing verses (vv. 25-30) describing 
 the hurricane of wrath sweeping oyer the nation 
 are particularly fine. Jehovah lifts up a banner 
 to marshal the avengers, to draw together 
 nations from far against His degenerate people. 
 Like a bee-master with his pipe, the Lord col- 
 lects the foes in swarms against His land. No 
 warrior is missing in those hostile ranks, no one 
 stumbles in the way. The anxiety of the foe 
 for battle is so intense that they do not slumber 
 or sleep ; no one looses the girdle from his loins, 
 or unbinds his sandals. With arrows sharpened, 
 bows bent, horses’ hoofs hard as flint, the adver- 
 saries of Israel enter the land, the noise of their 
 chariot-wheels like the whirlwind. The roar of 
 the approaching enemies is like the roaring of 
 lions,—like the thundering roar of the waves of 
 the sea dashing over the land. Thesun of Judah 
 and Israel sinks in blood below the horizon. 
 Everywhere are darkness and sorrow; the light 
 is darkened above, by means of the thick clouds 
 which cover the heavens with a darkness which 
 can be felt. 
 
 Isaiah’s call to the prophetic office forms the 
 subject of ch. vi., although that chapter has 
 been less fitly explained as only describing 
 Isaiah’s call to a particular mission. The 
 vision was beheld in the year that king Uzziah 
 
 ISAIAH 
 
 If the reading of 2 Ch. xxvi. 22 be correct, 
 Isaiah wrote a history of the events of Uzziah’s 
 /veign, Uzziah reigned fifty years, and during 
 his reign the kingdom of Judah flourished, while 
 the kingdom of Israel for a great portion of 
 the same period was the scene of anarchy and 
 | confusion. Uzziah succeeded in the wars which 
 he undertook, and so powerfuliy strengthened 
 the defences of Judah that “his name spread 
 far abroad.” Ἵ 
 
 Although young, Isaiah appears to have been 
 a person of some importance during the reign of 
 Uzziah, and probably regarded the condition of 
 Judah with pride and satisfaction. The vision 
 recorded in ch. vi. showed him that God “ seeth 
 not as man seeth.” In spite of its outward 
 prosperity the Jewish state was honeycombed 
 with corruption, and tottering to ruin. 
 
 The incidents recorded in the chapter were 
 presented not in a dream, but in an ecstatic 
 vision, during which the prophet was “in the 
 spirit” (ἐν πνεύματι), and “saw ” and “ heard ἢ 
 what could not have been perceived with the 
 natural senses. It is probable that the Hebrew 
 prophets “saw” in visions much concerning 
 which they afterwards “ spoke,” and their pro- 
 phetic discourses may in many cases haye been 
 but the interpretation of what was “seen” in 
 the ecstatic state. 
 
 In the vision of ch. vi. Isaiah was transported 
 to the Temple above, of which the Temple in 
 Jerusalem was but a representation. The scene 
 presented was not that of an Oriental monarch 
 on his throne, attended by courtiers. There is 
 no trace in the vision of reports being pre- 
 sented from different countries (as in Zechariah’s 
 vision of the angelic riders), nor is it necessary 
 to explain Ὁ. 8 as a consultation of the king 
 with his trusted servants. Such a view is 
 wholly inadequate. In the heayenly Temple 
 the symbols of the Ark of the covenant and 
 its mercy-seat were not seen, but “the things 
 signified” thereby—namely, the throne of Je- 
 hovah “high and lifted up ”—were “ beheld” by 
 the prophet. Seraphim took the place of 
 Cherubim. The latter were probably the em- 
 blems of creation in its highest form, and cor- 
 responded with “the four living creatures” of 
 Ezekiel, and τὰ τέσσαρα (Ga of the Apocalypse. 
 Seraphim are nowhere else mentioned; but in 
 the vision they acted as “ ministering spirits ? 
 attending on Jehovah’s commands, and for that 
 purpose hovered over and below the throne. 
 
 Friedr. Delitzsch connects the patty of Isaiah 
 
 | with the Dawn own, fiery serpents, of 
 
 Num. xxi. 6, and Cheyne regards the prophet as 
 making use of the symbol of seraphim, which, 
 in the “popular mythic” form of speech, re- 
 presented “the serpent-like lightning.’ But 
 Isaiah’s opening vision suggests a contrast be- 
 tween the earthly and the heavenly Temples. 
 In the Holy of Holies on earth Jehovah was 
 supposed to be throned above or upon the 
 
 Cherubim, whose eyes were directed toward the 
 mercy-seat, which covered the tables of the 
 covenant. In the Temple of Isaiah’s vision there 
 was no distinction between the Holy place and 
 
 the most Holy. There was but one ban or 
 ναός, which was completely filled with the train 
 
 died, probably before the death of that monarch. | of Jehovah’s robe. In the sanctuary above the 
 
ISATAH 
 
 Altar of Incense was the sole furniture ; while 
 the golden Altar of Incense was the most con- 
 
 spicuous piece which belonged to the 27 of 
 
 the Temple in Jerusalem. Hence we adhere to 
 
 the view which connects the name seraphim 
 - ae 
 
 with the Arabic to be hiyh, to be noble, 
 Fs yn, 
 
 with Bredenkamp the 
 
 9o 
 =<, oF 
 
 and would compare 
 DD), or high ones, mentioned Job xxi. 
 
 the princes, pwn, spoken of in Dan. x. 13. 
 
 The cry of the se1 raphim, “ Holy, holy, holy 
 is Jahveh Tzebaoth, the whole earth is full of 
 His glory,” corresponds in its first clause with 
 that of “the four living beings,” in Rev. iy. 8, 
 “who have no rest day and night, saying, Holy, 
 holy, holy is the Lord God, the Almighty. ” For 
 Κύριος in the latter PSssAze is the rendering of 
 
 17°; ὁ Θεὸς is the mON understood in the 
 Keaianic phrase; and 6 παντοκράτωρ, the Almighty, 
 is the seine _ desilering of NINAY (cp. Amos 
 iv. 13; Jer. v. 14, xv. 16, &e.). The close con- 
 nexion of iain vi. 3 ‘with Ps, xxix. 10 is also not 
 to be lost sight of. 
 
 In whatever manner the expression “hosts ” 
 may be explained, it is clear that the phrase 
 
 ΤΊΝΩΝ AW is an abbreviation of the fuller 
 
 ΓΊΝΩ ΝΣ "πον m1, Jehovah the God of hosts. 
 The full Prt occurs in 2 Sam. v. 10;1 K. xix. 
 10, 145 Jer. τ. 14, xv. 16, xxxv. 17, xliv. 7; 
 ΤΉΝ ρα ἐν ὃν anes Ve LO; visn8 2 Ps: ess. 9: 
 Writers who use the full phrase also make use 
 of abbreviated forms. Thus ΠΊΝΩΝ AN fre- 
 
 quently occurs in Jeremiah, while MINAS smby, 
 with the omission of Jehovah, occurs in Amos 
 iy. 13, v. 14, 27 3 Jers Sxxvin.wl7) AS still 
 fuller phraseology is found in Amos y. 16, ΠῚ) 
 
 SIN MINDY TON, Jehovah, the God of hosts, 
 the Lord ; and in Amos iii. 13, ΠῚ ΠῚ “JTN7ODNI 
 
 MS3ayn πον, The utterance of the Lord 
 Jehovah, the God of hosts. The same phrase 
 occurs in Amos vi. 14 with the omission of 93 δ 
 (μονα); and, with ‘JN (Lord) at the begin- 
 
 ning, and the omission of snbys (God) in the 
 middle, in Amos ix. 5. Other phrases into 
 which Jehovah Tzelaoth enters are NINIS 1)" 
 
 ose by obs, Jehovah of hosts is God over 
 Israel, 2 Sam. vii. 26; or ΟΝ MN A 
 
 Sew, Jehovah of hosts is the God of Israel, 1Ch. 
 xvii. 24; and in several passages of Jeremiah, 
 e.g. xiii. 15, 18. Isaiah uses MINDY ΠῚ ΠῚ ἡ) δ, 
 the Lord Jehovah of hosts, in ch. iii. 15, x. 23, 24, 
 &c., which also oceurs in Jer. xlvi. 10. Unique 
 is DINAS DIN PINT in Is. x. 16. In the 
 
 Psalms we find minay ods mim’, Pss. lix. 6, 
 Hexx, 5, 20)\Ixxxiv. 9; and in’ Ps. Ixxx. 8, 15, 
 
 ΓΝ Ων ponbre. These instances in the Psalter 
 are the only passages which tell in favour of 
 Luzzatto’s view ; namely, that Tzebaoth in pro- 
 cess of time was regarded as a proper name, as 
 it is notably in the LXX. The “ hosts” have 
 been variously explained to mean (1) the angels, 
 (2) the armies of Israel, and (8) the stars of 
 heaven, the last being perhaps the most pro- 
 bable view, in which case the formula “ Jehovah 
 
 | 10). 
 
 ISATAH 
 
 the God of hosts” is like “the God of heaven,” 
 
 an affirmation that the stars and all other powers 
 are entirely under the control of God as their 
 Creator. 
 
 At the ery of the Seraphim ΟΣ ΡΠ, either 
 collective, or as Cheyne explains it, “ of each 
 one that cried Ἢ, the foundations of the thresh- 
 olds were moved, and the house (M37, i,q. 
 
 3») was filled with smoke (jWY, similar in 
 some respects, though not ‘donde’ al with the 
 IV mentioned in Ex. x]. 34, 35, and 1 K. viii. 
 The smoke may haye come from the Altar 
 of Incense, although that is somewhat uncertain. 
 It must not be identified with the smoke men- 
 tioned in Rey. viii. 5, 4, which was occasioned 
 by the petitions of saints below. The “ smoke ” 
 in Isaiah’s vision accompanied the songs of 
 praise of the Seraphim. Cheyne compares Rey. 
 
 xv. 8, where it should be noted that the language 
 of Ex, x]. 34 is partly quoted. 
 
 The proclamation of Jehovah’s holiness con- 
 vineed Isaiah of his own sin and of that of his 
 people. The conviction found expression in the 
 ery of v. 5. The Targum considers that Isaiah 
 had contracted the guilt referred to by not 
 reproving Uzziah for the sin recorded in 2 Ch. 
 xxvi. 16-21. This exegesis is founded upon an 
 erroneous connexion of the verb ("2 2). “7 
 
 am undone”) with the idea of dumbness, silence 
 (as if, “I was dumb”), Isaiah’s ery of “ woe” 
 was immediately followed by the Divine exhibi- 
 tion of mercy. One of the Seraphim flew 
 straightway to the Prophet with a live coal 
 taken with the tongs from the Altar of Incense. 
 The application of the coal of fire (cp. Jer. i. 9) 
 had a purifying effect (similar to that caused by 
 the wa MM, the spirit of bwning, mentioned 
 in iv. 4), “Lo this hath touched thy lips, and 
 thine iniquity is taken away and thy sin is 
 covered.” The load of guilt being thus removed, 
 Isaiah, when invited, boldly accepted the Divine 
 conimission, and became the Prophet of Jehovah. 
 
 The word ΠΕΣ, generally translated coal, is 
 a noun of unity, indicating a single hot stone, 
 from ἢ. The two Hebrew words have their 
 corresponding equivalents in Arabic; namely, 
 
 Str 
 
 oer Gnas ear 
 RO; BLO 
 
 name of Saul’s concubine (Rizpak), is found only 
 in this passage; and ὮΝ Ἴ, the name of an As- 
 syrian city, Rezeph, occurs as an ordinary noun 
 only in the plural in the expression DAS) na ay 
 (1 K. xix. 6), α cake baked upon hot stones. The 
 Rabbinical authorities explain both words to 
 mean coals (cp. ἀνθρακιά, John xxi. 9), and so 
 the LXX. But the other Greek translators in 
 Isaiah have more precisely ψῆφος (Vulg. calculus). 
 As the fire in the heavenly Temple was a Divine 
 emanation, whence its purifying power, the 
 word seems deliberately used in Isaiah in the 
 technical signification hot-stone, in which it is 
 commonly employed in Arabic. There is no 
 allusion, as Ewald and Cheyne suppose, to the 
 unhewn stones of which altars were originally 
 built (Ex. xx. 25). For although NaS, with 
 raphé, is used in Ezekiel and elsewhere in the 
 sense of a pavement composed of stones, the ns) 
 
 of Isaiah was not any part of the Altar itself, 
 
 - IBY, save as the proper 
 
1456 ISATAH 
 but 2 Aot-stone which took the place of coals, 
 and which is distinctly stated to have been 
 
 taken with the tongs “ from off by) the 
 altar.” 
 
 The section of Isaiah’s prophecies which com- | 
 prises chs. vii.—xii. has been suitably designated | 
 {ἘΠ Book of Immanuel.” The first portion of 
 these, including chs. vii.-ix. 6, probably belongs 
 to the time of the Syro-Ephraimitic war. It 
 commences with an historical introduction, which, | 
 owing to the employment of the third person, 
 has been by some critics considered not to have | 
 been the work of Isaiah. Cp., however, Is. xx. ; 
 Hos. i. 23 Amos vii. 12, 14, ἄς. On account of | 
 the fragmentary character belonging to these | 
 prophecies, and their looseness in style, Guthe, 
 Stade, Cheyne, and others, suppose them to have 
 been collected by Isaiah’s disciples, and thus to 
 lack the arrangement of the master. The force 
 of such critical arguments is, however, justly 
 denied by Dillmann. Ewald conjectures that 
 the historical notices met with in these chapters 
 were originally fuller. 
 
 The Syro-Ephraimitish war took place B.c. 
 737-734. According to the Assyrian inscrip- 
 tion (see Schrader, Die Keilinschriften u. A. T., 
 English translation by Whitehouse, on 2 K. xv.), 
 Tiglath-pileser commenced his campaign against 
 Palestine with the capture of Gaza in 754, after 
 which he overran the land of Israel. Pekah 
 king of Israel, an enemy of Assyria, was slain 
 by Hoshea, who, placing himself at the head of a 
 party favourably disposed to Assyria, succeeded 
 to the throne of Israel and became a nominal 
 vassal of Tiglath-pileser. In the following years 
 the Assyrian monarch crushed Rezin king of 
 Syria, and put an end to the kingdom of which 
 Damascus was the capital. ‘The alliance, there- 
 fore, between Pekah king of Israel and Rezin 
 king of Syria, and the war which they jointly 
 waged against Judah, must have occurred prior 
 to 734. 
 
 The coalition between the kings of Syria and | 
 Israel had for its primary object the conquest of 
 Judah. ‘The allied monarchs conspired together 
 to overthrow the Davidie dynasty, and intended 
 to place on the throne of Judah an obscure 
 chieftain, known as the Son of Tabeel. They 
 appear also to have designed to throw off the 
 yoke of Assyria, of which empire, according to 
 Assyrian inscriptions, both were nominal vassals. 
 Rezin assisted in the capture of Elath, the Jewish 
 port on the Gulf of Akaba, which was restored 
 by him to Edom; for it is tolerably clear that 
 in 2 K. xvi. 6 the reading DTS (Edom) is to be 
 
 preferred to that of DIN (Aram or Syria). The 
 probable object, therefore, of the coalition was 
 to weld together the Philistines, Edomites, and 
 possibly Egypt also (cp. vii. 18), into a strong 
 confederacy against the advance of Assyria. 
 
 In endeavouring as a king of Northern Israel, 
 for the first time since the great disruption, to 
 root out the Davidie dynasty in Judah, Pekah 
 may have sought to give a deathblow to the 
 Messianic expectations cherished more or less in 
 the sister-kingdom. It is not a little significant 
 that, notwithstanding the idolatry re-established 
 by Ahaz, Isaiah should have been bidden at that 
 crisis to proffer the help of Jehovah. He was 
 accompanied on the occasion by his son Shear-ja- 
 shub, whose name (a-Remnant-shall-return) was | 
 
 ISATAH 
 
 a standing prediction of combined judgment and 
 mercy. 
 
 The Prophet boldly informed the Jewish 
 monarch that the alliance between Syria and 
 Israel would not stand. He described Rezin anil 
 Pekah as “two tails of smoking firebrands,” 
 destined soon to die out, however brightly they 
 might blaze up for a moment. ‘ Within sixty 
 and five years” Ephraim, strangely leagued with. 
 an idolatrous nation for the extinction of the 
 Messianic hope, would be “ broken in pieces that 
 it be not a people.” This denunciation has 
 often presented a difficulty to crities. What, 
 under such circumstances, was Ahaz likely to 
 care for what might happen in sixty-five years ? 
 But the prophecy was not given with the object 
 of winning over Ahaz. lt was a solemn de- 
 claration that the kingdom of Israel had filled 
 up the measure of its iniquity. The words with 
 which the Prophet concluded the announcement 
 (see v. 9) contained a solemn warning to the 
 Divinely-established House of David, Sixty and 
 five years from 736, the second year of Ahaz’s 
 reign (14 of Ahaz + 29 of Hezekiah + 22 of 
 Manasseh = 65), span the period up to the times 
 of Esarhaddon (2 K. xvii. 24; Ezra iv. 2) and 
 of Assurbanipal . (identical with Asnapper, Ezra 
 iv. 10), his co-regent and successor, when the 
 kingdom of Samaria was colonised with a mix- 
 ture of Gentile nations, and Ephraim ceased to 
 be a people. It is needless to mention that the 
 passage has been rejected by some critics as an 
 interpolation, and adduced by others as a proof 
 that the whole prophecy must have been com- 
 posed after that exile. 
 
 Ahaz gave little heed to the Prophet. It is 
 possible that, although greatly alarmed at the 
 confederacy, he had some reliance on the military 
 strength of the kingdom, which as organized by 
 Uzziah had been so strong as to deter Tiglath- 
 pileser from assailing Judah (see Schrader, p. 253, 
 Eng. trans., vol. i. p. 245). Moreover Ahaz had 
 already probably opened communciations with 
 the great king of Assyria. Whatever were his 
 expectations, the opening of the campaign was 
 disastrous. The account given in Chronicles 
 (2 Ch. xxviii.) is not generally relied on, al- 
 though, due allowance being made for the mis- 
 takes in numbers, Caspari in his monograph 
 gives strong arguments in support of its credi- 
 bility. The Chronicler states that the Jewish 
 army was almost annihilated, one of the king’s 
 sons was slain on the field, and a huge number 
 of prisoners were taken captive. A subsequent 
 siege of Jerusalem proved, however, unsuc- 
 cessful (2 K. xvi. 5). Hence the Syrians and 
 Israelites, who appear to have carried on sepa- 
 rate warlike operations, retired for a short time 
 from Jewish territory. Their southern allies, 
 however, the Edomites and Philistines (2 Ch. 
 xxviii. 17, 18), invaded the land, and Judah was 
 greatly distressed. 
 
 Under such national trials, Isaiah seems a 
 second time to have sought an interview with 
 Ahaz, when he offered to adduce a sign of his 
 Divine commission. “ either in the depth or in 
 the height above.” According to the narrative, 
 Ahaz never doubted the possibility of the sign 
 being afforded, but feared to behold it (J. D. 
 Michaelis). Already in league with the king 
 of Assyria, whose armies were on the march 
 to his assistance, he “dealt wantonly in Judah, 
 
. (ὦ Κ΄. xvii. ὃ 
 
 - yevealed in troublous times. 
 
 ISAIAH 
 
 and trespassed sore against the Lord” (2 Ch. | 
 
 xxviii. 19). He refused the Prophet’s offer, 
 hypoeritically pretending that he would not 
 commit the sin for which Israel in early days 
 had been punished so severely (Ex. xvii. 
 Deut. vi. 10). Notwithstanding the idolatries 
 of that monarch, Isaiah had spoken to him of 
 “ Jehovah thy God.” ‘The worship of Jehovah 
 never seems to have been abandoned during all 
 the apostasies of Israel and Judah. They, like 
 the colonists ᾧ Samaria, were eclectics in religion 
 The Prophet now addressed him 
 csapiak family in different language: 
 “Hear ye now, House of David! Is it a small 
 thing that ye should weary men” (alluding to 
 the gross acts of injustice committed in the land) 
 “that ye will weary my God also? Therefore 
 Jehovah Himself shall give you a sign: Behold 
 the maiden shall conceive and bear a son, and 
 shall call his name lmimanuel.” 
 
 The “sign from heaven” once rejected was 
 offered no more. Another “sign,” attended not 
 with “ outward show,” would in due season be 
 vouchsafed to those that waited for redemption 
 in Israel (ep. viii. 16-18). Even the iniquity 
 of the House of David would not keep back the 
 ‘“‘cift’ from being bestowed in its season, “ for 
 the gifts and calling of God are without repent- 
 ance ” (Rom. xi. 29). Messiah, the Child of the 
 House of David, and the Child of Israel, also, in 
 consequence of the sin both of the family of 
 David and of the people of Israel, would be 
 The “salvation of 
 Jehovah” would be granted in a day of dire 
 affliction. A day of darkness would come upon 
 the land, more gloomy than that. of the great 
 schism which rent the twelve tribes of Israel 
 into two antagonistic kingdoms. Ere a day of 
 grace would dawn, the land would be treated 
 like a leper covered with leprosy (Lev. xiv. 9). 
 Before the day of its recovery, Jehovah would 
 shave it clean with “the razor” of the king of 
 Assyria, “ hired ” by Ahaz in his infatuation. The 
 armies of Egypt and Assyria would both cover the 
 land, numerous as flies and bees, until it would 
 be wasted and its cities destroyed. Immanuel 
 would be born in a day of adversity; and when 
 old enough to discern between good and evil, 
 that royal Child, the Jong-expected One, would, 
 in a wasted land, be forced to subsist on sour 
 milk and honey. Made like in all things to His 
 people, He would learn, like them, obedience in 
 the school of suffering. Messiah’s advent to an 
 unbelieving people would be preceded by, and 
 accompanied with, bitter sorrows. A day of 
 wrath would precede the day of mercy. 
 
 The prophecy was thus an ideal description. 
 The picture of the future was painted upon the 
 lines of the Prophet’s own present. The Mes- 
 sianic character of the prophecy, often denied, is 
 now generally acknowledged. The supposed 
 reference to the Virgin-birth in Is. vii. 14 was 
 long regarded as the main point of the prophecy. 
 That point is not now considered to possess the 
 importance assigned to it by the older commenta- 
 tors. The significance of the prophecy does not 
 
 and the 
 
 rest mpen the translation of mbyn as “the 
 virgin.” With the glorious light "cast upon 
 our Lord’s histor y after His Resurrection by the 
 fact of His miraculous Incarnation, then only 
 
 Tey 
 
 made known to the disciples in general, it was | 
 
 BIBLE DICT,—VOL. I. 
 
 1457 
 
 natural to see a deeper meaning in the terms of 
 the O. T. prediction. But the Hebrew student 
 must admit that the idea of virginity is not con- 
 veyed by the word made use of; and there are 
 other weighty reasons which lead to the conelu- 
 sion that such cou!d not have been the “ sign” 
 referred to. Like the Hebrew prophets i in gene eral, 
 
 and the Apostles in later days, Isaiah cherished 
 the hope of witnessing himself the dawn of the 
 Messianic day. All attempts, however, to ex- 
 plain “ the maiden” as the consort of Ahaz, or as 
 a second wife of the Prophet, are now generally 
 discarded. The most satisfactory view is that 
 which considers the mother of the Messiah to 
 be distinctly pointed to, and hence the article is 
 used, although the particular individual signified 
 was unknown. She whose Son, as ** the seed of the 
 woman,” was to bruise the serpent’s head, was 
 fitly designated “the Maiden,” as the link by 
 which the blessing was to descend. The Book 
 of Immanuel describes in ideal terms the Messiah 
 as born in adversity, the predestined Child of 
 the maiden of the House of David (ch. vii.), and 
 the Child too of the people of Israel born for 
 adversity. The Child Himself is therefore ad- 
 dressed as He to Whom the land rightfully 
 belonged; for Isaiah’s ejaculation (ch. viii. 8) 
 may well be regarded in one aspect as a Divinely 
 inspired cry to Immanuel, that He would look 
 in pity upon the sorrows of His own country 
 (cp. John i. 11, R. V.; see Westcott). 
 
 God would not cast off His people. Deliverance 
 would be vouchsafed, for the sake of the Child 
 who was to be born, the Son that was to be 
 given. The Assyrian invader, after a time of 
 success, would be overthrown suddenly, as in 
 “the day of Midian ” (ch, ix.). A vivid descrip- 
 tion is next drawn of the victorious march of 
 the Assyrian through the Jand to his grave in 
 sight of Jerusalem (ch. x.). For from the stump 
 of Jesse’s tree, felled though it was on account 
 of long-continued sins, a Shoot would come forth, 
 and a Branch out of its roots would bear glorious 
 fruit (ch. xi.). The redemption would be in due 
 season complete and final; the long-looked-for 
 King would redecm Israel from all their ene- 
 mies, and unite in one the scattered people. 
 The world would be subject to His sway, 
 and universal peace brought in. ‘The redemp- 
 tion when completed would cast into the shade 
 the great deliverance vouchsafed to Israel at 
 the Red Sea, and in praise thereot the Book 
 of Immanuel closes with a song of salvation 
 (ch. xii.). 
 
 It must not be forgotten that Micah, the con- 
 temporary of Isaiah, represents the Messiah as 
 the Child ἣν Israel. ‘The travailing woman of 
 Micah iv. 9, 10, is the community or Church of 
 Israel, ies "described in Is. Ixvi. 7, 8, as bringing 
 forth children. Hence there is much to be said 
 in favour of the view adopted by von Hofmann, 
 Kéhler, and Weir, that ‘the maiden” of Is. vii. 
 is Israel viewed as the bride of Jehovah. Cheyne’s 
 objection that “ this figure of speech is reserved 
 for the higher style of prophecy,” is of little 
 weight when it is remembered that Micah and 
 Isaiah were fellow-Prophets, and that the 
 imagery of the one might well be employed 
 by the other, even in comparatively prosaic 
 
 passages. It may also be questioned whether 
 
 such an ideal description of the future as that 
 
 in Is. vii. 14, viewed in connexion with the 
 5A 
 
 ISAIAH 
 
458 ISATAH 
 subsequent context, is not itself an instance of | 
 “the higher style.” 
 
 The prophecies in chs. xiii—xxiii. treat chiefly 
 of the Gentile nations. Isaiah’s prophecies con- 
 cerning the nations, like the similar predictions 
 in Jeremiah (xlvi.-li.) and Ezekiel (xxv.-xxxii.), 
 are grouped together. The prophecy of ch. xxii. 
 is exceptional in its character. Such an arrange- 
 ment of prophecies according to subject-matter, 
 and not in chronological order, is suggestive of 
 the hand of an editor. 
 
 Several of the prophecies in this group are 
 assigned by critics of eminence to a post-exilian 
 date. It has been plausibly argued that in the 
 time of Isaiah the power hostile to Judah was 
 Assyria, and not Babylon. It is, therefore, 
 somewhat strange that Isaiah should denounce 
 Babylon (chs. xiii., xiv.) as the oppressor and 
 ruler of all the kingdoms of the earth, when 
 Babylon never attained such a position in his life- 
 time. It is still more strange that the Prophet 
 should speak of Babylon as a power actually keep- 
 ing the Jews in exile, at a time when the people 
 of Judah had not yet been carried into captivity. 
 
 Reference is unquestionably made in ch. xi. to 
 a wholesale deportation of Israel from Palestine, 
 and among the countries mentioned from whence 
 the exiles were to be restored the land of 
 Shinar or Babylonia is not forgotten. Critics, 
 however, like Stade and Giesebrecht, have main- 
 tained that chs. xi. 10-xii. 6 are not Isaianic. 
 Among the points unfavourable to its genuine- 
 ness Giesebrecht adduces the “combination of 
 the idea of the Messiah and of the idea of uni- 
 versalism”’ in v.11; the sense in which the 
 expression “remnant of the people” is em- 
 ployed in vv. 11 and 16; the countries in “the 
 four corners of the earth’? from whence the 
 Israelites were to be restored; together with 
 the union of contradictory ideas, such as the 
 universal monarchy of the prophetic Son of 
 David with the notion of a narrow Israelitish 
 kingdom, described in v. 14. Hence Giesebrecht 
 assigns the passage to an imitator of Isaiah in 
 post-exilian days. 
 
 On the other hand it may be argued that the 
 whole passage bears the impress of pre-exilian 
 times. Shinar, though mentioned, occupies a 
 subordinate place to Assyria. Assyria and 
 Egypt are spoken of as the chief foes of Israel ; 
 the name of Babylon does not occur in the 
 prophecy; while the Philistines, with Edom 
 and Moab, are brought into a prominence which 
 a writer of post-exilian times could not have 
 
 dreamed of assigning to them. 
 
 That Isaiah foresaw the wholesale deportation 
 of Israel is plain from passages admittedly 
 genuine, such as vi. 11, 12, vii. 17, viii. 4-7. 
 The Babylonian Captivity is alluded to distinctly 
 in the historical appendix to the first part of 
 Isaiah at ch. xxxix. Hence it is not after all 
 so strange that the Prophet, in a collected 
 edition of his prophecies put forth probably 
 some time after the deliverance from Senna- 
 cherib, should have also predicted Babylon’s 
 overthrow. If the captivity of Judah was fore- 
 seen by him, it was necessary that he should 
 also speak of a restoration. That Jehovah 
 would not for ever forsake His people was a 
 truth enunciated by Samuel (1 Sam. xii. 22), 
 and never lost sight of by the subsequent pro- 
 phets. It was an article of Israel’s faith. 
 
 ISAIAH 
 
 Isaiah’s prophecies concerning the nations 
 
 deal mainly with the nations mentioned in the 
 
 close of ch. xi.—although the order in which 
 they are mentioned is not the same as in that 
 chapter. Thus Assyria is spoken of in xiv. 
 24-27; Philistia in xiv. 28-32; Moab in 
 chs. xv., xvi.; Cush or Ethiopia in ch. xviii. ; 
 Egypt in chs. xix., xx. In the later chapters of 
 the group Elam is mentioned in combination 
 with Media (xxi. 2,-xxii. 65 cp. xi. 17), 
 and Edom in xxi. 11, 12. The prophecy 
 against Damascus in ch. xvii. is one which very 
 naturally follows the Book of Immanuel, where 
 Syria comes so prominently on the scene; and 
 Tyre, against which the prophecy of ch. xxiii. is 
 directed, may be regarded as included in “the 
 coast lands” referred to in xi. 11. , 
 
 Babylon was not in Isaiah’s time regarded as 
 a different empire from that of Assyria, although, 
 like many other provinces of the Assyrian 
 empire, Babylon might be restive under the 
 Assyrian yoke. Tiglath-pileser, king of Assyria, 
 after his campaign against Chaldea, assumed 
 the title of “king of Sumir and Akkad,” 1.6, 
 of Babylonia (Schrader, KA7\* p. 249). Con- 
 sequently it is not strange that after the pre- 
 diction of the overthrow of Assyria in the Book 
 of Immanuel, the Book of the Nations should 
 begin with the prediction of Babylon’s downfall 
 (ch. xiii.), or even that the dirge over Babylon 
 (xiv. 3-23) should immediately be followed 
 by an utterance concerning the overthrow of 
 the Assyrian upon the holy mountains (xiv. 
 24-27). 
 
 It is easy to assert that those passages are but 
 instances in which prophecies, widely differing 
 in date, have been pieced together by a post- 
 exilian editor. But the Jews of ;post-exilian 
 days clearly distinguished between the empires 
 of Assyria and Babylon. It was very different 
 in the time of Isaiah. It mattered little to 
 a Jew of that period whether the centre of 
 the great Eastern empire—which, like a huge 
 boa constrictor, was strangling the Jewish na- 
 tionality—were fixed at Nineveh on the Tigris 
 or at Babylon on the Euphrates. 
 
 It has been argued that Isaiah predicted only 
 the overthrow of a particular Assyrian king, 
 and not the overthrow of the Eastern empire. 
 If however, as we maintain, the second half of 
 ch. xi. be genuine, the overthrow of both the 
 Assyrian and Egyptian powers is predicted as 
 among the results connected with the coming 
 forth of the Shoot out of the stem of Jesse. 
 Micah, Isaiah’s contemporary, similarly predicts . 
 the overthrow of Assyria as brought about by 
 Messiah (Micah vy. 4-6). And alongside of that 
 prophecy, Micah further speaks of the poor 
 daughter of Zion forced in her pains of travail 
 to go forth out of the city of Jerusalem, com- 
 pelled to dwell in the field, carried off as a 
 captive to Babylon, and there finally rescued 
 and redeemed from the hands of her enemies 
 (Micah iv. 10). 
 
 Consequently, according to the evidence οὗ 
 the received texts of Isaiah and Micah, no 
 marked distinction was drawn in the days of 
 Hezekiah between Assyria and Babylon. <A 
 critic is not justified in tampering with the 
 prophetic text, on the ground of a theoretical 
 assumption of interpolations, so as to force it 
 into harmony with his theories. On the other 
 
ISAIAH 
 
 hand, if the general integrity of the prophetical 
 books is to be upheld, attention must be 
 called to the fact that the prophecies of the Old 
 Testament contain more of the ideal element 
 than popularly imagined. The reader of the 
 Bible must be trained to observe that literal 
 predictions are the exception and not the rule. 
 The glowing prophecy of Isaiah which depicts 
 Sennacherib’s march upon Jerusalem (Is. x. 28- 
 34), and his equally grand description of the 
 overthrow of the Assyrian king before its walls 
 
 > (Is. xxxi. 27-33), were not literally fulfilled. 
 Sennacherib probably did not march against 
 Jerusalem by the route described in ch. x., while 
 all the details of the latter passage (ch. xxxi.) 
 did not actually ‘ake place (see Driver’s 
 Isaiah, Life and Times, pp. 61,73). No attempt 
 was ever made in later days to “touch up” 
 those prophecics of Isaiah, in order to make 
 them coincide better with the actual facts of 
 history, which fact speaks volumes for the 
 general integrity of she text. Such details 
 were regarded by the Prophet and his disciples 
 as but the pictorial filling up of the picture 
 “seen” in prophstic “vision.” ‘These ideal 
 portions are of the utmost importance, because 
 they are evidences that the prophecies were 
 delivered prior to tho events predicted. The 
 “‘supernatural ” element in each prophecy is to 
 be looked for in the prophecy viewed as a 
 whole, and not in its mere descriptive details, 
 which are, more or less, simply pictorial. 
 
 It would, if space permitted, be easy to 
 show that the prophecies concerning Babylon in 
 chs. xiii. and xiv. present marked characteristics 
 of Isaiah’s diction, Although some weight is to 
 be assigned to arguments drawn from such 
 peculiarities, the critic must be on his guard 
 against the attempt so constantly made to assign 
 “to each prophet his own Lexicon” (Breden- 
 kamp). It is therefore more important to 
 observe that this prophecy about Babylon is not 
 deficient in the purely ideal element. When 
 Cyrus captured Babylon with his army of Medes 
 and Persians, he did not destroy that city. The 
 prophecy of ch. xiii. was not fulfilled in the 
 letter, but fully accomplished in the spirit. If 
 written prior to Babylon’s capture, it exhibits all 
 the marks of supernatural inspiration. Babylon 
 after its capture by Cyrus sank to rise no more. 
 That city never regained the position of being 
 the capital of anempire. Strabo describes it as 
 lying waste in the century prior to the Christian 
 era, although centuries later it became a seat 
 of Jewish learning, Bredenkamp calls attention 
 to the fact that in the predictions of Babylon’s 
 downfall by Isaiah or Jeremiah, the union of 
 Elam and Media is not spoken of, although Cyrus 
 
 was a Persian (Elamite). The fact is a strong 
 argument in favour of the composition of those 
 predictions prior to the Exile. For it is scarcely 
 necessary to observe that the prediction in Is. 
 xxi. 2 does not refer to the final successful 
 coalition against Babylon. 
 
 The ideas presented in the opening of ch. xiv. 
 are peculiar, and scarcely harmonize with those 
 of ch. xiii. They may, however, have heen 
 
 written by the Prophet at a later period to form 
 ἃ kind of framework in which to insert his 
 dirge over Babylon. That dirge is assigned by 
 many critics to the time of Nebuchadnezzar, 
 - there is no serious difficulty in the way 
 
 : 
 
 1459 
 
 of regarding it as Isaianic. The details given 
 in xiv, 19, 20, are purely ideal. The king 
 of Babylon is only a personification of the em- 
 pire over which that king ruled. There is no 
 evidence to show that the sceae pourtrayed of 
 the royal corpse cast forth from its grave was 
 realised as a fact of history. 
 
 The superscription assigns the prophecy 
 against Philistia (xiv. 28-32) to the year of 
 Ahaz’s death, “The rod” (3t”) which smote 
 the Philistines is often interpreted of Ahaz, who 
 with the aid of Assyria repelled the Philistine 
 invasion. It is, however, preferably explained 
 as a prophecy not of any particular king but of 
 the House of David. The Davidic family for 
 centuries (2 Ch. xxvi. 6, 7) kept the Philistines 
 in subjection. The rod or sceptre of David was 
 “broken” by the “serpent” of Assyria (Tiglath- 
 pileser, or Shalmaneser), although Assyria had 
 been “hired” (cp, vii. 20) to uphold the 
 Davidie throne. Judah had become an Assyrian 
 vassal. The “adder” and “the fiery-flying 
 serpent” are best explained (with Cheyne and 
 Driver) as referring to Sargon (see Schrader, 
 KAT? p. 396), or even Sennacherib, for those 
 Assyrian monarchs crushed the Philistines under 
 foot. In the expressions “from the root” 
 (WWD) and also “and his fruit” (59), dis- 
 tinct allusions seem made to xi. 1, though 
 not altogether identical in meaning. The “rod” 
 (DALY) and its smiting are mentioned in xi. 
 4. Delitzsch, after the Targum, explains the 
 “fiery-flving serpent ” of Messiah. The “rod” 
 in the hand of the Assyrian, wherewith he 
 “smote”? the Philistines, was ‘Jehovah’s in- 
 dignation” (see x. 5, cp. vv. 24-26); and the 
 Messiah, whether recognised or not, was the 
 real source of all deliverances vouchsafed to the 
 Lord’s people, and hence was appealed to by the 
 Prophet in the day of calamity (viii. 8) as one 
 able to deliver His land, or one for whose sake 
 Jehovah might grant deliverance. 
 
 Chs. xv., xvi. contain a prophecy against 
 Moab. The prophecy in xvi. 13, 14 is gene- 
 rally admitted to be Isaianic. Most crities, 
 however, think that the rest of chs. xv., xvi. is 
 the work of an earlier prophet re-edited by 
 Isaiah (cp. the R. V. xvi. 13). The. prophecy 
 is later than the time of Mesha, although seven 
 of the proper names here mentioned are found 
 on the Mesha-stone. Ch. xvi. 1 refers to the 
 tribute once paid by Mesha to Judah (2 Κὶ. iii. 4), 
 which Moab is now advised again to pay. The 
 Moabites according to the prophecy were in 
 possession of territory north of the Arnon which 
 formerly belonged to the tribes of Reuben and 
 Gad. This fact is, as Bredenkamp remarks, in 
 favour of the Isaianic composition. For the 
 tribes of Reuben and Gad had been carried away 
 captive by Tiglath-pileser, and Moab was after- 
 wards free to extend her territories in that 
 direction. Sennacherib boasts (Schrader, AA 1.2 
 p. 291) that Camosnadab king of Moab paid him 
 tribute. Nothing has yet been discovered which 
 casts light upon the events predicted in xvi. 14. 
 
 Ch. xvii. 1-11 depicts “the burden upon 
 Damascus.’ That title only describes part of 
 the prediction, which is mainly occupied with a 
 description of the overthrow of the kingdom of 
 Israel, united with Syria against Judah (ch. vii.). 
 | The propheey was probably composed about the 
 5 A 2 
 
 ISAIAH 
 
1100 
 
 time of Tiglath-pileser’s campaign against Syria | 
 and Israel. Israel’s ruin is predicted, but notes 
 of merey mingle with those of judgment in 
 vv. 6-8. 
 
 The passage that follows (xvii. 12-14) is 
 one of considerable beauty. It does not seem to 
 be connected with the prophecy which precedes, 
 and does not belong to that which follows. It) 
 is one of Isaiah’s striking miniatures of the 
 overthrow of Sennacherib’s army. ‘There is no 
 necessity to regard it as a fragment of some 
 larger prophecy. The Prophet probably inserted 
 the piece in this place of his gallery to mark 
 the contrast between the fates of Israel and of 
 Judah when they severally came into collision 
 with the might of Assyria, The moral of the 
 lesson is too evident to need comment. 
 
 The following chapter (ch. xviii.) contains a 
 yeference to the same grand event. The picture 
 describes Ethiopia with its swarms of flies. 
 Isaiah appears well acquainted with the land 
 and its inhabitants: for v. 2 in a few master- 
 strokes delineates the appearance of the Ethi- 
 opians, the general features of their Jand, and 
 their fleet of papyrus canoes. Shabataka, then 
 monarch of Egypt, was more of an Ethiopian 
 than an Egyptian prince (Cheyne). The Prophet 
 represents the king of Ethiopia in the act of 
 collecting an army to co-operate against the 
 king of Assyria when startled by the news of | 
 the disaster before Jerusalem. The victory ot | 
 Jehovah is described as announced by an ensign 
 lifted up on the mountain, and by the blowing 
 of the trampet in the land. In consequence of 
 that overthrow many. nations brought gifts unto 
 Jerusalem (2 Ch. xxxii. 23), and among them 
 were probably the representatives of Ethiopia. 
 
 The next prophecy concerns Egypt: xix. 
 1-15 describes the judgment; xix. 16-25 its 
 results. The former is regarded by most critics 
 as Isaianic, although some dispute that point. 
 ‘The Egyptian and Assyrian inscriptions have 
 thrown considerable light upon the historical 
 references of the chapter (Cheyne), although the 
 points of contact cannot here be noticed. The 
 drying up of the Nile is not a literal prediction ; 
 but a symbolical description of the wasting 
 away of that once mighty empire. Egypt was 
 symbolised by the Nile, while the Euphrates in 
 viii. 7, 8 is the symbol of Assyria. 
 
 The authorship of the second part (xix. 
 16-25) is called in question by many critics. 
 The commendatory manner in which Ὁ. 19 speaks 
 of “an altar” in the land of Egypt, and of the 
 erection of a sacred “pillar ” (732), notwith- 
 
 standing the prohibitions as to pillars in Lev. 
 xvii. and Deut. xii. 3, 4, has occasioned no little 
 difficulty. It must, however, be observed that 
 the Prophet regards the “pillar” only as “a 
 sign,” or pillar of remembrance, and by no 
 means as the mark of “a high place.” The 
 “altar” he speaks of was in like manner only 
 an altar of “witness,” like that of ‘Ed. The 
 reference to Josh. xxii. is unmistakable. Both 
 the “altar” and “ pillar’ in the prophetic picture 
 were “signs” that Egypt would in future days 
 be a centre of pure worship. By the “ pillar at 
 the border thereof,” Egypt was ecclesiastically 
 annexed to Canaan; as were the territories across 
 the Jordan by the altar of ‘Ed (Josh. xxii.). 
 Hence the prediction of five cities speaking the 
 language of Canaan (cp. Zeph. 111. 9) is simply 
 
 ISATAH 
 
 ISATAH 
 
 an illustration of that spiritual annexation. It 
 must not be viewed as a literal prediction, The 
 reading of v. 18 seems corrupt. The prophecy, 
 though purely symbolical, was no doubt made 
 use of in later times to support the erection of 
 a Jewish temple in Egypt in B.c. 160. The 
 LXX. referred the prophecy to that event, and 
 accordingly altered the phrase “city of destruc- 
 tion” in v. 18 into PISA WY, “city of right- 
 eousness.” The manner in which Assyria and. 
 Egypt are spoken of in vv. 23-25 forcibly recails. 
 the picture in xiv. 2. They are not, however, 
 identical. The reference to Assyria would haye 
 been an anachronism in B.C. 160, 
 
 Ch. xx., though following ch, xix., contains an 
 earlier prophecy of Isaiah concerning the con- 
 quest of Egypt by Assyria. The Tartan, or 
 Assyrian commander-in-chief, is not to be identi- 
 fied with the Tartan mentioned in 2 K. xviii. 17- 
 The title “the Tartan” does not occur in the 
 parallel passage in Is. xxxvi. 2. ‘* The Tartan” 
 of ch. xx. was sent by Sargon, the predecessor of 
 Sennacherib, against the Philistines prior to the 
 Assyrian operations against Egypt. An influ- 
 ential party in Jerusalem relied on an alliance 
 with Egypt and Ethiopia as the strongest bul- 
 wark against Assyria. To indicate the downfall 
 of Egypt and Ethiopia, Isaiah for three years 
 walked up and down in the garb of a captive in 
 the streets of Jerusalem, having laid aside both 
 his outer rough garment of sackcloth (“ naked,” 
 cp. 1 Sam. xix. 24, Amos ii. 16, Micah i. 8) and his. 
 sandals. On the ditheulties connected with the 
 reading ‘‘three years,” and on the attempts to 
 obviate them, whether by the Hebrew punctua- 
 tors, who disconnect the word * barefoot ” from 
 the “three years” following, or by critics who 
 conjecturally read “three days” in the place of 
 * three years,” see Cheyne’s Commentary. __ 
 
 The prophecy against Babylon (xxi. 1-10) 
 probably refers to the siege which happened in 
 Isaiah’s lifetime, when Sargon captured that 
 city and defeated Merodach-baladan. ‘The latter 
 monarch afterwards recovered much of his former 
 power, and was formidable in the reign of Sen- 
 nacherib (Is. xxxix.). At the time of this pro- 
 phecy many Jewish statesmen longed for the 
 success of Merodach-baladan, as a check to the 
 growing power of Assyria. Isaiah, however, 
 predicted the failure of that monarch’s attempts 
 against Assyria. The language used by Isaiah 
 shows his sympathy with the natural sentiments 
 of his nation, though from a higher standpoint 
 he recognised the need of Judah’s being taught 
 by bitter experience to lean only on her God, 
 
 The superscription (xxi. 1) is somewhat 
 enigmatical, though picturesque like the pro- 
 phecy itself. The Euphrates, like the Nile 
 
 (xviii. 2; xix. 5), was sometimes styled “a 
 sea.” The land of Chaldea was termed the 
 
 “sea-land” (mdt tidm-tiv, DIN, Schrader, — 
 KAT p. 353). Few prophecies so distinctly 
 convey the impression that what is described 
 was actually “seen” in prophetic vision, and 
 afterwards recalled to mind and expounded. 
 The pictures presented to the Prophet’s view 
 did not represent what actually took place αὖ 
 the conquest of Babylon. ‘The details, like 
 similar details in the Apocalypse, are ideal ; 
 the prophecy true, but symbolical. iy: 
 Ch. xxi. 11-17 contains two prophecies, the 
 first of Edom under the symbolical appellatio 
 
-ilescended upon Jerusalem. 
 
 ; 
 
 ISAIAH 
 
 of Dumah, silence ; the second concerning Arabia, 
 i.e. Tema and Kedar. The answer to inquiring 
 
 Edomites was to the eflect that their day of | 
 
 prosperity would soon close in night, but that 
 a day of grace was not yet over, if they were 
 disposed to make use of it. Nothing definite is 
 known as to the events noted in the second pre- 
 diction as shortly to come to pass. 
 
 Ch. xxii. is also concerned with the nations 
 who suffered bitterly from the ‘ overwhelming 
 scourge ” which passed through them, and then 
 This is probably 
 the reason why the prophecy occupies its special 
 position in the Book. It is, however, strictly 
 speaking, a “domestic prediction.” “The valley of 
 vision ” has sometimes been explained to signify 
 the low-lying quarter of the city in which the 
 Prophet beheld his “ visions,” or some ‘ valley ” 
 in prophetic ‘‘ vision” where the contest here 
 described seemed to take place. ‘The prophecy 
 depicts Jerusalem. It may refer to some event 
 which occurred during the invasion of Sen- 
 nacherib, or (as Cheyne supposes) during the 
 earlier invasion of Sargon. That monarch styles 
 himself *“*he who subdued the land of Judah 
 whose position is remote” (Schrader, p. 188). 
 The history, however, of that campaign is not 
 given in the Kings, and all details are wanting. 
 
 Ch. xxii. 15-25 contains a denunciation of 
 Shebna, who was then over the treasury. ‘That 
 statesman’s deposition is predicted, and the pro- 
 motion of Eliakim to office. 
 integrity of the latter is praised, he was solemniy 
 warned that his partiality for his relations would 
 iu turn bring about his own downfall. There 
 are no means of tracing the accomplishment of 
 these particular prophecies. 
 
 The “Book of the Nations” closes with a 
 description of the fate of Tyre (ch. xxiii.). The 
 authorship of this highly-finished piece is much 
 disputed, chiefly because of the mention made of 
 the Chaldeans in τ. 15. The language is, how- 
 ever, decidedly Isaianic, and no convincing argu- 
 ments have been adduced against the traditional 
 view. The date of the prophecy cannot be 
 absolutely determined, nor can the fulfilment 
 of the prediction in all its details be pointed 
 out. No light has yet been cast upon the pre- 
 dictions of the closing verses. It may, however, 
 safely be affirmed (even against Ewald and 
 Cheyne) that the seventy years of Tyre’s desola- 
 tion (vv. 15-17) have no connexion with the 
 seventy years of Judah’s exile predicted by 
 Jeremiah. 
 
 The next section of the Book, comprising 
 chs. xxiv.—xxvii. inclusive, might almost be styled 
 the Apocalypse of Isaiah. It has, as Delitzsch 
 justly remarks, no counterpart in the O. T., 
 except Zech. ix.—xiv., and that only to a partial 
 extent. Though admirably suited to the place 
 it occupies in the Book, it is not placed in its 
 chronological order, whether as regards its 
 composition or subject-matter. The Isaianic 
 authorship of the portion has been disputed, 
 “because the historical situation depicted does not 
 correspond with the events of Isaiah’s time. 
 Moreover the character of the section, although 
 confessedly abounding with phrases peculiar to 
 Isaiah, wholly differs from the other Isaianic 
 prophecies. 
 
 These arguments, however, are not conclusive. 
 
 While the personal | 
 
 | 
 
 The prominence given to Moab (xxv. 10-12) | 
 
 | is in favour of Isaiah’s authorship. 
 
 | that the writer lived at Jerusalem. 
 
 | in the grandest sense ideal. 
 
 ISAIAH 1461 
 If Isaiah 
 really predicted the Babylonish Captivity, the 
 reference to Israel’s three great enemies—Lgypt. 
 Assyria, and Babylon—in xxvii. 1 agrees with 
 his historical standpoint, and xxv. 6 proves 
 Wellhausen 
 maintains that the ideal of the older prophets 
 was the establishment of the Davidie kingdom 
 and monarchy on a grander scale, and that the 
 Prophets only dreamed Apocalyptic dreams 
 when they lost hold of that historical environ- 
 ment (/Proleg., pp. 444-5). If Wellhausen’s 
 canon be accepted, the genuineness of the pro- 
 phecy is indefensible. But that canon is purely 
 arbitrary. Wellhausen summarily rejects as 
 interpolations all the passages which can be 
 adduced as evidence against his theory. ‘There 
 is, however, nothing really opposed to the admis- 
 sion of the Isaianic authorship of the prophecy, 
 unless it be assumed that whatever savours of 
 “the supernatural” is necessarily spurious. 
 
 The prophecy is, however, not literal. It is 
 It does not describe 
 the devastation only of “the land” of Israel 
 or Judah. That “land,” indeed, is not for- 
 gotten; it is prominently before the Prophet’s 
 mind. But the thought which filled his soul 
 
 | was that of a world an) collapsing into ruin. 
 
 The days of Noah are recalled to mind: “the 
 windows on high are opened” (xxiy. 18), “the 
 everlasting covenant” then made is now * dis- 
 solved” (xxiv. 5), and the curse devours the 
 earth once more (Ὁ. 6), chaos (1M) coming again 
 into view (v. 10). 
 
 The catastrophe being thus world-wide, “the 
 remnant ” of vv. 13-15 is not exclusively that 
 of the Jewish nation. Few are left ” among 
 the peoples (ODN), vv. 6, 13 (cp. Matt. xxiv. 
 22). Hence the voices of the remnant that 
 
 escape arise from the western sea and from the 
 
 lands of the rising sun (Delitzsch). The city of 
 confusion (171A) is neither Babylon nor Jerusa- 
 Jem, but the idealised “capital of the God- 
 estranged world ” (Delitzsch), distinguished only 
 for pictorial effect from the world with which in 
 many aspects it may be identified. A world 
 estranged from God has ever a tendency to 
 relapse into the chaos from whence it arose. 
 The final victory described by the Prophet is 
 delineated by him as achieved both in heaven 
 above and in earth beneath. Angels and kings 
 are described as hurled together into the prison, 
 from whence they are to be brought forth to 
 judgment, when order and beauty are re-esta- 
 blished, and Jehovah “shall reign before His 
 ancients gloriously.” 
 
 This picture of “the last things ” is unique. 
 There is, however, nothing improbable in such 
 a vision of final victory being revealed to 
 the Prophet for his consolation after the Assy- 
 rian deliverance, when led to contemplate the 
 dark storm-clouds which soon began again to 
 gather over the horizon. 
 
 The bymn of praise which follows (xxv. 
 1-5) describes Jehovah’s mercy in the midst of 
 trouble, and the feast made for all peoples on 
 Mount Zion. Zion is not always to be a stone 
 of stumbling, but a source of rejoicing. All 
 peoples are to rejoice in her. Death will be 
 swallowed up, and the veil of ignorance and 
 sorrow drawn off from all eyes. 
 
1462 ISAIAH 
 
 Beneath the mountain on which the joyous ! Rey. xx. 13). 
 
 feast is held, a striking contrast is depicted. At 
 the close of ch. xxx. “tabrets and harps” are 
 represented as sending forth melody on the 
 mountain above, while at its foot the funeral 
 pile is made ready for the Assyrian king. It 
 is kindled by the breath of Jehovah “like a 
 stream of brimstone.” Similarly in ch. xxv., 
 Moab, Israel’s haughty foe, is seen trodden 
 down, at the foot of the mountain, like straw in 
 the water of earth’s dung-pit. Im vain Moab 
 spreads forth his hands to swim, for he is 
 trampled under, and stifled beneath the fetid 
 water. 
 
 A third hymn of praise follows (xxvi. 1- 
 7). Zion is described as surrounded by the 
 walls and bulwarks of salvation. The ideas 
 presented under other phraseology in xxxiil. 
 20, 21, are repeated almost in identical lan- 
 guage in lx. 18. Through the gates and 
 doors of the city, stream in “the righteous 
 nation which keepeth truth.” Vv. 8-11 
 describe either the Prophet’s past or present 
 trials, the thoughts of which dimmed awhile 
 the view of future glory. Faith, however, 
 bursts forth victoriously from v. 12 onwards, 
 rising almost to the level of New Testament 
 revelation. “The dead” of v. 14 are not 
 merely Israel’s oppressors. The Prophet’s gaze 
 is fixed on the distant future. The faith that 
 believes in Jehovah bringing His people down to 
 Sheol is compelled to athrm a bringing up from 
 Hades (1 Sam. ii. 6), in the same way that the 
 faith that foresaw the national captivity pro- 
 phesied a glorious Return. Hofmann rightly 
 maintains (Schriftbeweis, ii. 461) that a belief 
 in the resurrection of the dead is no mere pro- 
 duct of exilian days. It is no light borrowed 
 trom Zoroaster. The revivification of the dead 
 was often obscured by the clouds that shut out 
 the world beyond. The awakening of the dead to 
 consciousness and life was, perhaps, thought of 
 in Old Testament days as limited to Israel, and 
 the resurrection of all men was not clearly 
 revealed. But the fact of a life beyond the 
 grave, and of deliverance from Sheol, was 
 surely, though slowly, recognised as a necessity 
 of faith. 
 
 The language in which Old Testament Psalm- 
 ists and Prophets speak of the state of the dead 
 in the Under-world is not, indeed, to be regarded 
 as literal. The Church of Hades is described 
 in Is. xxvi. as a woman travailing with child, 
 awaiting the time of her delivery. Bredenkamp 
 calls attention to the fact that Isaiah’s simili- 
 tude is expanded in 4 Ezra (2 Esdras) iv. 35-42. 
 As Daniel. looked forward, after a period of 
 rest, to stand in his lot at the end of the 
 days (Dan. xii. 13), so in an ecstasy of believing 
 rapture, Isaiah cries out to the longing Church 
 of Hades (cp. 1 Thess. iv. 14-18): “Thy dead 
 shall live, my dead body ” (there is no necessity 
 to view the expression as collective) “ shall 
 arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in the 
 dust, for thy dew (the dew of Jehovah) is as 
 a dew of herbs!” It is a dew which falls 
 upon the grass, and makes it spring up 
 luxuriously, or “a dew of lights” (cp. Jas. 
 i. 17), “so full of the light of life that it draws 
 forth the shades even from the dark womb of 
 the Under-world” (Cheyne). “The earth shall 
 east forth the dead,” also from its womb (ep. 
 
 ISAIAH 
 
 Numerous as the dew-drops from 
 the womb of the morning, are the youths that 
 range themselves under the banner of Messiah 
 (Ps. ex. 3). So the dew of Jehovah, in the 
 morning of Resurrection, shall bring forth a 
 mighty army from the womb of Earth and 
 Hades. - 
 
 The burst of rapture is succeeded (vv. 20, 21) 
 by an exhortation to the people of Jehovah. A 
 further descent in the sobriety of language 
 marks ch. xxvii., the Prophet being actuated by 
 the principle enunciated by St. Paul in 2 Cor. vy. 
 13. Ch. xxvii., however, possesses beauties of 
 its own, and the fourth song of thanksgiving 
 (contained in vv. 2-5) is not a little striking. 
 The rest of the chapter is devoted to setting 
 forth practical lessons, and is finally brought to 
 an end by another picture, not so apocalyptic in 
 its colouring, of the day of deliverance. 
 
 The next group of prophecies comprises chs, 
 xyviii-xxxv.  Delitzsch terms xxvilii—xxxiii. 
 “the book of woes,” owing to tle five woes with 
 which each of these five chapters severally — 
 begins; these prophecies were delivered at 
 various times, but were placed together owing 
 to the similarity in their contents. The internal 
 evidence of xxviii. 1-6 proves, as Driver re- 
 marks, the chapter to “have been written prior 
 to the fall of Samaria in 722, and therefore 
 during the reign of Shalmaneser IV.” Jerusa- 
 lom is warned of Samaria’s sin and of her 
 approaching ruin. The words of mockery and 
 scorn with which the prophet’s messages were 
 received by the people of Jerusalem are re- 
 echoed, and turned back upon those .mockers 
 “with a new and terrible significance.” The 
 exact significance of the monosyllabic words 
 used in v. 10, and repeated in v. 13, is a matter 
 of some uncertainty. Their general meaning 
 is clear, The Jews were warned that, if they 
 despised the repetition of Jehovah’s message as. 
 monotonous, they would as captives in a strange 
 land and in a strange tongue be compelled to 
 hearken to the harsh monotones of commands 
 from the lips of foreign taskmakers. Judah 
 relied on the help of Egypt in her struggle 
 against Assyria. That hope, the Prophet pointed 
 out, was a delusion. She had, however, if she’ 
 only knew it, surer ground of confidence. Je- 
 hovah had laid in Zion “for a foundation a 
 stone, a tried stone, a precious cornerstone of 
 sure foundation.” This was not Zion itself, or 
 her Temple, but the Davidice house, from whence 
 Messiah was to arise. The N. T. interpretation 
 gives the true explanation of v. 16 (Rom. ix. 
 33; 1 Pet. ii. 6). The nation of Israel was 
 eternal, the Dayidic throne indestructible, if the 
 nation only relied on her God. If not, she 
 would be compelled to learn in days of sorrow 
 the lessons which might have been learned in 
 days of prosperity. Prophetic lessons of wisdom — 
 for the present and of consolation for the future 
 are presented by the common operations of 
 husbandry, for what seems the severest treat- 
 ment of the grain tends to provide bread for the 
 use of man. Similarly “the holy seed,” purified 
 by afiliction and taught in adversity, will one 
 day be perfected, and become a blessing to the 
 nations (vv. 23-29), The Apostle Paul’s ex- 
 clamation (Rom. xi, 33-36) is a fitting parallel 
 to, and commentary upon, v. 29. 
 
 Ch, xxix., though referring also to the As- 
 
ISAIAH 
 
 syrian invasion, was written at a later period, 
 and predicts the desolation which Sennacherib’s 
 invasion would bring on the land. Ariel, which 
 more probably signifies “hearth of God” (cp. 
 xxxi. 9) than “ lion of God,” is used to designate 
 Jerusalem, which, though highly favoured, would 
 be brought down by sin, and afterwards redeemed 
 by God’s mercy. The Prophet denounces the 
 secret plottings with Egypt (v. 15), which were 
 bringing the country to the verge of ruin; 
 though he predicts a marvellous deliverance 
 within the course of a year (xxxix. 1), which 
 mons be accompanied with blessed beanies: In 
 
 the Prophet: who points out the disobedient cha- 
 racter of the people who desired to have “Ἢ smooth 
 things” spoken to them. The consequence of 
 their folly would be, that they would be com- 
 pelled to experience God’s heavy chastisements 
 before the day of repentance and of mercy. At 
 the close of the chapter, Isaiah’s finest imagery 
 is employed to sketch the path along which the 
 nations were to be lured to destruction, when 
 Jahveh would go forth for the redemption of 
 His people. He is described as an indignant hero 
 striding forth to the battle-field, a mightier 
 than Samson, whose arms would bring salvation. 
 Amid the storm stroke upon stroke descends 
 upon the mighty foe. And as those mighty 
 blows break the enemy in pieces, tabrets and 
 harps resound with melody from the walls of 
 Jerusalem, where the afflicted people recognise 
 that their Lord has gone forth to the battle. 
 The funeral pile is depicted as already con- 
 structed for the reception of the carcases of the 
 fallen foes, for the king and his glorious host. 
 In the valley of Tophet beneath the holy city, 
 the pile is lighted to consume the relics of the 
 enemy. The prophecy is highly figurative and 
 not literal, though in very essence fulfilled : “ The 
 Assyrian soldiers, cut down in their ranks like 
 sheaves of corn, were gathered in that spot into 
 the threshing-floor (Micah iv. 12), and laid in 
 their last earthly beds along the sides of that 
 deep valley. Sennacherib’s death at Nineveh 
 was the direct result of his discomfiture before 
 Jerusalem” (Wright’s Biblical Essays, p. 126). 
 The same thoughts under different imagery 
 form the subject of ch. xxxi., while ch. xxxii. 
 depicts the salutary result of this judgment and 
 deliverance upon both king and people. The 
 opening verses of ch. xxxii. were by the older 
 commentators generally regarded as Messianic, 
 but they are not Messianic in their primary sig- 
 nification, although some of the features charac- 
 teristic of Messianic times (ch. xi.) reappear 
 here. All temporal deliverances, however, 
 more or less distinctly foreshadow that final 
 salvation. Some critics, like Stade, regard the 
 chapter as post-exilian, but there is no real 
 necessity for such a supposition. Although we 
 have no historical narrative to cuide us, we may 
 fairly assume that Hezekiah was, after that 
 “crowning mercy,” enabled to rule with a 
 firmer hand, and suppressed many of the oppres- 
 sions whereby the nobles of Jerusalem unjustly 
 and ignobly oppressed their poorer brethren. 
 True nobility for a season at least was seen to 
 consist in executing righteousness. The rebukes 
 administered to the careless women of Jerusalem 
 at the close of the chapter (vv. 9-20), and the 
 manner in which Isaiah insists on the necessity 
 
 1463 
 
 of an outpouring of the Spirit from on high on 
 all the people, all show plainly that, although 
 he could vividly paint the ideal, the Prophet 
 was not forgetful of, the low spiritual character 
 of the people in general. 
 
 Ch. xxxiii, presents another grand picture of 
 the same period. The fresh details here depicted 
 upon the prophetic canvas are interesting. The 
 scorn with which Hezekiah’s messengers of peace 
 were received by the Assyrian king, and the 
 lamentation of the people when all attempts at 
 negotiations with the cruel foe proved to be in 
 vain, are vividly set forth. In v. 14 the dejec- 
 tion caused by the sight of the perpetual burn- 
 ings of cities and villages is well pourtrayed. 
 Never was a grander illustration afforded of 
 the truth that man’s day of adversity is God’s 
 day of opportunity (ep. xxx. 18, xxxiii. 10, 
 11). The closing verses of the chapter, with 
 the description of Jahveh as the judge, the 
 general, the king, and deliverer of His people, 
 are peculiarly fine. 
 
 The next two chapters (xxxiv. and xxxy.) 
 differ considerably from the preceding, and are 
 in many respects of an apocalyptic character. 
 They are, therefore, assigned by critics who 
 follow Wellhausen’s dictum to the post-exilian 
 age. ‘There are no doubt “striking parallels 
 between chs. xxxiv., xxxv. and Zephaniah, and 
 between ch. xxxiv. and parts of Jeremiah (xlvi. 
 3-12, xxv., 1. and li.), which are of great critical 
 importance” (Cheyne). But as Caspari has 
 pointed out, and others before and after him, 
 not a few eschatological points are to be found 
 in the previous chapters of Isaiah. Cp. the 
 healing of the deaf and blind (xxix. 18; xxxii. 
 5, 4), the transformation of the wilderness 
 (xxxii. 15), the springing up of water (xxx. 
 25). Cp. also the marvellous pictures in chs. 
 XXiV.-XxXxvli., and especially the contraste¢ pic- 
 ture in ch. xxvi, The favourite style of criti- 
 cism is a kind of reasoning in a circle. It is 
 assumed, first of all, as an axiom, that the 
 second portion of Isaiah is post-exilian; and 
 next that every part of the first portion of 
 the Book which presents any similarities to the 
 second is also non-Isaianic. The argument fre- 
 quently proceeds upon a number of unproved 
 assertions, while those who ask for proofs are 
 accused of the lack of “sound judgment,” and 
 informed that the question has been finally 
 decided. 
 
 Many wrongs committed by the Edomites 
 against Judah were fresh in the memory of the 
 men of Isaiah’s time. This makes it easy to 
 understand why Edom is used in ch. xxxiy. to 
 designate the foes of Jahveh’s people, and why 
 the different fates of the two kindred peoples 
 are so often contrasted. The story of Gen. xix. 
 and the Song of Moses in Deut. xxxii. (ep. 
 especially vv. 41-43) were distinctly in the 
 Prophet’s mind. The ideal character of chs. 
 xxxiv. and xxxv. must be insisted on. It is 
 impossible to regard such statements as designed 
 to be understood literally. 
 
 Chs. xxxvi.-xxxix. are an historical supplement 
 to the first part of the Book of Isaiah. This 
 appendix presents not a few difficulties. Its 
 outlines may have been drawn up by the Pro- 
 phet; but if so, it has certainly been added to by 
 later writers. The murder of Sennacherib, 
 recorded in ch. xxxvii., took place in 8.0. 682-1, 
 
 ISAIAH 
 
110: ISATAH 
 
 after the death of Isaiah. The narrative is in 
 the main identical even in verbiage with that 
 in the Kings. There are, however, notable 
 differences. The three verses 2 K. xviii. 14-16 
 do net occur in Isaiah, and are different in style, 
 the name of Hezekiah himself being there 
 spelled in a peculiar manner. The psalm of 
 Hezekiah (Is. xxxviii. 9-20) is peculiar to Isaiah, 
 while the account of Hezekiah’s sickness is 
 shorter than that in the Kings. The prophecy 
 (xxxix. 22-35) is certainly Isaianic. The nar- 
 rative in the Kings appears to be the original, 
 that in Isaiah the copy. The latter, however 
 admirably suited it may be to the place it 
 occupies, dates in its present shape from post- 
 exilian days. 
 
 The account of Sennacherib’s campaign pre- 
 sented in the Assyrian inscriptions differs in 
 some respects from the Biblical. Driver regards 
 both accounts as imperfect, though in substantial 
 agreement. ‘The Assyrian inscriptions deal with 
 the entire campaign; the Biblical account is 
 mainly concerned with the expedition against 
 Judah. It is not improbable that the Assyrian 
 account has, as Schrader supposes, transposed 
 the order of events so as to gloss over the disaster 
 before Jerusalem. η 
 
 The chief difficulty is in reference to the time 
 when the invasion occurred. The Bible places it 
 in the fourteenth year of Hezekiah ; that monarch 
 reigned only twenty-nine years. His life was, 
 according to ch. xxxviii., prolonged for fifteen 
 years after the overthrow of Sennacherib. But 
 the Assyrian account places the invasion in the 
 spring of 70L; that is, in the very last year of 
 Hezekiah. Consequently Hezekiah must have 
 reigned considerably longer, and Manasseh’s 
 reign (stated at fifty-five years) must be reduced, 
 or the events recorded in chs. xxxvViil., XXXix. as 
 having occurred after Sennacherib’s defeat must 
 have preceded that event. There is much to be 
 said in favour of the former hypothesis, though 
 the latter is adopted by Delitzsch, v. Orelli, and 
 others. 
 dan’s embassy from Babylon to have preceded 
 the invasion of Sennacherib. Following up the 
 hints originally given by Hincks, Cheyne sup- 
 poses the events of 2 K. xviii. 14-16 to refer to 
 an invasion in the reign of Sargon. There are as 
 yet scarcely sufficient data on which to base any 
 definite conclusion on these points. The embassy 
 of Merodach-baladan, so far as the history of 
 that remarkable antagonist of Assyria is known 
 to us, may just as well have followed as preceded 
 the defeat of Sennacherib. 
 
 The second part of the Book of Isaiah, con- 
 taining chs. xl.-Ixvi., is generally regarded by 
 modern critics as the work of another writer. 
 This is the view now almost universally adopted. 
 Scholars of unimpeachable orthodoxy, who firmly 
 believe in the Divine inspiration of the Book (as 
 Delitzsch, Oehler, v. Orelli, and Bredenkamp), 
 and some who long defended the genuineness of 
 this portion, have at last yielded to the preva- 
 lent opinion. The arguments in support of the 
 theory are in themselves cumulative, and derived 
 from three distinct lines of evidence: namely, 
 (1) the subject-matter of the prophecy, (2) its 
 literary style, and (3) the theological ideas which 
 characterise it. 
 
 1, The theme of the chapters is the restora- 
 tion of Israel from Babylon, 
 
 ISAIAH 
 
 | no reference is made to the existence of thé 
 
 | 
 
 Cheyne, too, considers Merodach-bala- | 
 
 Assyrian empire, which was so powerful in thé 
 days of Isaiah. The Babylonian empire is spoken 
 of as bearing rule over Israel. ‘The Assyrian 
 empire is, however, in one place referred to as 
 having oppressed Israel in days gone by (lii. 
 4). ‘The “old waste places” of Jerusalem are 
 repeatedly mentioned (lviii. 12), along with 
 “the waste cities and the desoiations of former 
 generations ” (xi. 4). In a prayer addressed 
 to Jahveh, the lamentation is put into the lips 
 of the nation: ‘The holy and beautiful house 
 where our fathers praised Thee is burned with 
 fire, and all our pleasant things are laid waste” 
 (xiv. 10). Israel is throughout depicted as 
 actually in captivity, while there is no prophecy 
 of the Exile as an event still future. The op- 
 pression of the Chaldaeans is so keenly felt 
 that Zion exclaims, “The Lord hath forgotten 
 me” (xlix. 14). The very days of exile are 
 described as almost over; the destined deli- 
 verer, Cyrus, is at hand, whom the Almighty 
 had been leading on in a wondrous career 
 of victory (xli. 1-7), in order that ‘he 
 might burst open Babylon’s gates of brass 
 (xly. 1-4), overturn her idols (ch. xlvi.), 
 and dash to the ground the “virgin daugh- 
 ter of Babylon.” All those events, too, are 
 stated to have been pre-arranged with the object 
 of Jacob’s deliverance (xlv. 4), and of the 
 restoration of Israel “not for price, nor for 
 reward.” The coming deliverer was even to 
 build the walls of Jerusalem, and to lay the 
 foundations of the temple. Cyrus and Babylon, 
 however, entirely disappear from view after 
 ch. xlix. Grander and loftier visions then float 
 
 | before the Prophet’s eye, who winds up his pre- 
 
 dictions with a picture of the future Zion. 
 thoughts of which again and again have crossed 
 his mind at various portions of the earlier 
 chapters. 
 
 _ To ascribe a prophecy possessing such pecu- 
 liarities to Isaiah, who lived in the Assyrian 
 period, is, it is argued, contrary to all analogy. 
 
 | Prophets do, indeed, occasionally throw them- 
 
 selves forwards to an ideal standpoint, and from 
 it depict the future. Such transferences are, how- 
 ever, only transient. ‘No such sustained trans- 
 ference to the future” can be pointed out “as 
 would be implied if these chapters were by 
 Isaiah, or for the detailed and definite description 
 of the circumstances of a distant age ” (Driver). 
 If other Prophets predict the Restoration, they 
 predict also the Exile, as in the cases of Jeremiah 
 and Ezekiel. But in the second part of Isaiah 
 the Captivity is spoken of as something present 
 under which Israel was then suffering. 
 
 On the other hand, it may be fairly asked, If 
 the second portion be supposed to have beén 
 written by the writer of the first portion of the 
 Book, what need was there for that Prorhet to 
 repeat again and again his predictions of a 
 coming exile? If, as is abundantly proved from 
 passages in the first portion, the Prophet was 
 able to transfer himself for a “ transient ” period 
 
 ‘to the standpoint of the future, what improba- 
 bility is implied in the supposition that, after 
 long pondering over the subject, he should have 
 _ composed prophecies written entirely from that 
 
 In these chapters | portion of Isaiah is a work sui generis. 
 
 standpoint ? It must be borne in mind, whatever 
 theory of authorship be adopted, the second 
 It is not 
 
"δὰ μα 
 
 ISATAH 
 
 a work which would have been expected from 
 a writer at Babylon prior to the Restoration, and | 
 still less one who lived after that event. ‘To 
 this point we shall presently allude. 
 
 There are many passages in the first portion 
 of the Book which predict a coming exile and a 
 future restoration. Such thoughts underlie | 
 portions of the introductory chapters (cp. iii. | 
 25, 26). The Captivity is distinctly spoken of 
 at the end of the song of the vineyard (vy. 
 ὦ sq.) and in the verses which follow after | 
 (τ. 15-17). It is referred to in Isaiah’s open- | 
 ing vision (vi. 11, 12). Captivity and restora- 
 tion are mentioned in ii. 11 sq. We do not | 
 refer to the sayings in xxx. 12 or xxxii. 14, | 
 because they have probably a different force. 
 
 If ch. xiii. be Isaianic, the judgment on Baby- | 
 
 lon is there distinctly predicted; and Israel's 
 Captivity in Babylon must have Leen prophesied 
 by Isaiah, if xxxix. 6, 7 be regarded as_his- 
 torically true. 
 
 There are, moreover, portions in the second | 
 
 part of the Book which have distinctly a pre- 
 exilian stamp. Ewald and Bleek regard ch. lyi. 
 and a portion of ch. lvii. as predictions of an age 
 prior to the Exile. Ch. lix, and most of ch. Ixy. 
 have also been assigned by other critics to the 
 same period. The phenomena of the second 
 part of the Book (if that portion be regarded 
 as a whole) are not so very distinct from those 
 of the other Prophets. The writer does occasion- 
 ally refer to the circumstances of his age, and 
 
 permits us now and then to see that, though | 
 | p. 80). 
 
 generally writing from the standpoint of the 
 
 ixile, he was himself living before the event had | 
 
 actually taken place, which he yet foresaw to 
 be certain. 
 
 The fact must also be borne in mind, to 
 which Bredenkamp and others have called 
 attention, that the author of the second part, 
 amid all his denunciations against idolatry, 
 does not show that acquaintance with the land 
 or religion of Babylon which an exile in Baby- 
 lon would naturally have displayed, and which 
 15. actually shown by Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and 
 other Prophets. 
 
 If moreover we compare these chapters of 
 Isaiah with the prophecies of Micah, the con- | 
 temporary of Isaiah, the substance of their 
 prophecies appears to be the same. Micah gives | 
 the same vivid picture of the future glory (iv. 
 1-6), found in the early part of Isaiah. He 
 then transfers himself to the days of gloom and 
 captivity, speaks of a coming restoration (iv. 
 6-7), predicts the recovery by Zion of her former 
 dominion forfeited because of sin (iv. 8), depicts 
 Zion in sorrow and travail (iv. 9), which bitter 
 “pains ” were to be the birth-throes of a glorious 
 
 future (iv. 10)—a picture somewhat similar to 
 
 that in Isaiah Ixvi. 5-9. The nation, however, 
 must go to Babylon, and in that place its re- 
 demption would take place (iv. 10). The | 
 designs of Israel’s foes are sketched out (Micah | 
 iy. 11), which they in their blindness fancy they 
 ean carry out (Micah iv. 12; ep. Is. li. 17-23). 
 Then follows a prediction of the sudden and 
 unexpected victory of Zion (cp. Is. lvi. 5, 6 with 
 Micah iy. 12. 13 and y. 18). Zion would be | 
 victorious, though brought into great ex- 
 tremities—the Deliverer would come at last 
 (Micah iv. 13—y. 5). Later on in the prophecy, | 
 the ruin of Israel, then actually impending, is 
 
 substantially to one and the same era. 
 
 ISAIAH 1465 
 
 spoken of (Micah v. 10-15). And it is worthy 
 of note that if Isaiah does not forget to allude 
 to the oppression of the Assyrian (in lii, 4), 
 the thoughts of Isaiah’s contemporary also recur 
 to that Assyrian foe, as an enemy which would 
 only be completely vanquished by the Messiah 
 (Micah ν. 5, 6). 
 
 ἣν ξ : 
 
 The fact is that in both the first and second 
 portions of Isaiah, and in Micah, the same 
 apocalyptic “dreams” are to be found. Visions 
 of mercy and' judgment strangely commingle,— 
 visions which come and go, and again reappear, 
 but by no means always in chronological order, 
 
 This argument is, of course, based on the text 
 of the Prophet Micah as handed down to us; 
 not on that Prophet’s writings as revised by 
 critics. We are aware that critics would erase 
 from the page of Micah the clause that speaks 
 of the Babylonish Captivity, on the ground 
 of its want of harmony with the immediate 
 context. We cannot coincide with that opinion. 
 We look with suspicion on the plan of revising 
 old texts with the view of bringing them into 
 harmony with modern critical conjectures, and 
 thus unduly tampering with documentary evi- 
 dence. There is too great a tendency to treat 
 the Books of the Prophets as heaps of broken 
 fragments, thrown to a great extent promis- 
 cuously together, out of which the critic has to 
 select according to fancy those “remains” which 
 appear to him to be genuine. Such is the 
 position taken up by no less a critic than 
 Giesebrecht in his Beitrige zur Jesaialritik (ep. 
 One may confidently predict that 
 criticism wiil return at no distant time to safer 
 and surer principles. 
 
 2. Another independent line of argument 
 which, it is affirmed, leads also to a conclusion 
 fatal to the Isaianic authorship of this portion, 
 is drawn from its literary style. It ought, 
 however, to be clearly understood that the 
 critics of to-day do not affirm that the Hebrew 
 of the second portion of Isaiah belongs necessarily 
 to a later period. From a purely linguistic point 
 of view, it may now safely be affirmed that the 
 Hebrew of both portions as we have it belongs 
 The 
 difference in literary style between the first 
 
 'and the second portions is, however, undeni- 
 
 able, and that difference can be well under- 
 stood by students of the Bible who may be 
 acquainted only with English.  Isaiah’s style 
 exhibits certain marked peculiarities. He makes 
 use cf allusions and illustrations found in no 
 other O, 'T. writer. It can be shown that a 
 number of these occur in the first part of the 
 book, and are conspicuously absent from the 
 second, in which portion “new images and 
 phrases are found instead.” <A list of these 
 phenomena will be found in Driver’s Jntroduc- 
 tion. Some of them may be fairly accounted for 
 by the change of both subject and standpoint; 
 but the force of the argument of course lies in 
 its cumulative character. 
 
 We admit the fact of the existence of such 
 phenomena, but question the conclusions drawn 
 therefrom. In the earlier portion of bis life, 
 Isaiah had to denounce prevalent sins, especially 
 that of idolatry, and to predict coming judg- 
 ment. The Prophet was then one of the fore- 
 most counsellors of the state. He spoke of 
 “the judge standing at the door,” of the execu- 
 
1466 
 
 tors of God’s wrath as having already begun 
 their fatal work. Denunciation was the staple 
 theme then of his discourses. Terse, sharp, and 
 compact sentences were well fitted to such a 
 mission. Foree and power had to be called into 
 play. But, on the hypothesis of the Isaianic 
 composition of the second part, the circum- 
 stances were completely altered when the Pro- 
 phet in his old age penned those predictions. 
 He was no longer a leader of the people. Though 
 in or about Jerusalem, he had retired from 
 public life, to some spiritual ‘* Patmos,” where 
 he brooded over the future, and on the mount 
 of vision dreamed apocalyptic dreams and jotted 
 down those musings.’ Transported in thought 
 to the distant future, he sat down “in spirit ” 
 among the exiles of Israel, and, the storm 
 having already spent its violence, consoles them 
 with bright hopes of the future. It was quite 
 natural for the Prophet then to speak of 
 Jahveh’s majesty in opposition to the vain gods 
 of the heathen. Like Paul in the shipwreck, 
 he reminds the people of the future of Jahveh’s 
 faithfulness to His ancient covenant, which was 
 not forgotten notwithstanding that He had “ hid 
 for a moment His face” from His people. The 
 theme of the Prophet at that time was of the 
 days of restoration which he had previously 
 predicted, but which were now to be set forth as 
 close at hand. In such descriptions a “ warm 
 and impassioned rhetoric,” a ‘“ flowing style,” 
 “pathos ” in all its depth and winsomeness, were 
 what was essentially required. 
 
 3. It is further argued, that “the theological 
 ideas” presented in the second part of the 
 Book, “in so far as they are not of that funda- 
 mental kind common to the Prophets generally,” 
 when compared with those of the former por- 
 tion are “much larger and fuller; ” and further, 
 that those truths are not merely “affirmed,” 
 but are “made the subject of reflexion and 
 argument” (Driver). But such phenomena are 
 not opposed to the traditional hypothesis. If a 
 nation, which it was foreseen would be driven 
 into captivity because of aggravated offences, 
 was at last to be raised from the position of 
 slaves to that of free men, would it not be 
 necessary to dilate somewhat fully on the 
 absolute vanity of the gods of their conquerors, 
 and on the might, majesty, and infinity of the 
 Most High? It was not the Divine plan when 
 rescuing His people from captivity “ta second 
 time” to do so by a display of miraculous 
 power. The comparatively brief period during 
 which the nation was in captivity in Baby- 
 lon, compared with the centuries of Egyptian 
 bondage, and the comparative liberty enjoyed 
 under that second period of serfdom, may have 
 rendered external miracles unnecessary in the 
 day of “glorious Return.” But if the Most 
 High was to work by stirring “the hearts of 
 His faithful people,” it was necessary that some 
 Prophet, in anticipation of that day of liberty, 
 should draw out from the admitted principles of 
 revelation the lessons likely to awaken, elevate, 
 comfort, and console the exiles of Israel at the 
 great foreseen crisis. It mattered not for that 
 special purpose whether the work were performed 
 by an Isaiah of Jerusalem or an Isaiah of Baby- 
 lon. But we object to inventing a new prophet, 
 of whose existence history and tradition are 
 alike silent, and to dub the new creature of 
 
 ISAIAH 
 
 ISAIAH 
 
 | critical invention by the name of “the great 
 | Unknown,” or even by that of “Isaiah of 
 Babylon.” 
 
 If Isaiah could project himself, as it were, 
 into the future, and under Divine inspiration 
 lay up store for the coming days of spiritual 
 dearth, there is little difficulty to be found in 
 the fact that the picture of the Messianic King, 
 so often presented before, should be let to drop 
 out of sight; and that he should be led on to 
 paint for those in servitude that masterpiece of 
 “the suffering Servant,’ wounded for offences 
 not His own, Who was to * make intercession for 
 the transgressors.” The second part of Isaiah 
 moves unquestionably ‘‘in a different region of 
 thought ;”" but this phenomenon, often dwelt 
 upon as if it were a discovery of modern times, 
 has at all times been more or less observed, and 
 is quite consistent with the hypothesis that 
 Isaiah was the author also of the second part. 
 
 Certain characteristics common to both por- 
 tions have induced critics who have abandoned 
 the idea of Isaiah’s authorship to maintain that 
 the writer of the second portion was one of the 
 later scholars of Isaiah. The following list, 
 which might considerably be added to, is given 
 by Bredenkamp:—‘“The commencement of 
 ch. xl. sounds almost like a continuation of the 
 close of the first part (xxxv. ὃ sq.). The 
 close of both portions presents a judgment upon 
 Edom (cp. ch. xxxiv. with ch. Ixiii.), Two 
 sentences, almost word for word, are found 
 in -both parts: cp. Ixv. 25 with xi 9) 
 and ly. 11 with xxxv.. 10. Many thoughts 
 peculiar to Isaiah found in the first portion 
 recur in the second, and expressions such as the 
 
 Holy One of Israel ONY” WIP), King GP), 
 used of God; the figure anadiplosis (ep. vii. 
 9, xviii. 2, 7, xxi. 11, xxvili. 10. 19. ΑΚ ΕΥ 
 xl. 1, xli, 24, xliii. 11, 25, xlviii. 11, &c.) are 
 met with in both parts.” The second portion 
 does not present the appearance of being one 
 continuous prophecy, although the prophecies 
 which it contains run mainly on one grand 
 theme. Those prophecies are most certainly no’ 
 vaticinia post eventum. For no one who had 
 witnessed the scenes of the Return, as narrated 
 in the pages of Ezra and Nehemiah, could have 
 indulged in the gorgeous ideal pictures of the 
 second part of Isaiah. And although we admit 
 that glosses pointing out fulfilments are occa- 
 sionally to be found in the text, and on such a 
 principle would explain the mention of Cyrus 
 by name, we cannot regard the second portion 
 as nen-Isaianic. 
 
 The difficulties which beset the theory that 
 the name of a prophet of the very foremost 
 rank (like the author of these chapters) could 
 have entirely vanished from the memory of the 
 people who were awakened and aroused to 
 action by his songs are much more serious than 
 those which attend on the traditional view. 
 
 The second part of Isaiah falls into three 
 divisions: — (1) chs. xl.-xlviii. treat of the 
 Return, the mission of “the Servant of Jah- 
 veh’? in general, the mission of Cyrus in 
 particular, Babylon’s downfall, and the folly 
 of idolatry. (2) chs. xlix.-lv., the Servant and 
 His mission in more detail, with Israel’s weak- 
 ness and sin. To this are added several chapters 
 (Ivi.-lix.) loosely connected together. (3) chs. 
 
ISAIAH 
 
 ]Ix.-Ixvi. describe the Zion of the future, its 
 light and glory—the inner and the outer re- 
 storation and purification. 
 
 (1) The mission of comfort—ch. xl. Con- 
 trast the ideas with those in Lam. i. 2, 9, 16, 
 17, 21, &c. Jahveh returns to His people; 
 hence days of mourning are at an end.. A way 
 is made for Hiin in the wilderness. Valleys are 
 exalted, mountains levelled, crooked paths made 
 straight. The glory of the Lord is revealed, 
 and all flesh together behold it. A voice cries: 
 Israel’s foes are mortal, while Jahveh’s word 
 stands fast. His promises are irrevocable. His 
 messengers on the mountains proclaim to Jeru- 
 salem and her sister cities, “ Behold thy God.” 
 The arm of the Mighty has wrought salvation. 
 Israel is brought back as the reward of victory. 
 Jahveh leads them along gently, as a shepherd 
 does sheep, not to be overdriven (Gen. xxxiii. 
 15). He is wise and strong, though the idols to 
 which men liken Him are very vanity. He 
 gives strength to the faint, and to those that 
 wait on Him. 
 
 Ch. xli. 1-7 depicts a judgment scene. Jah- 
 veh commands silence. The nations are sum- 
 moned to reply. Who stirred up Cyrus, the 
 conqueror from the East? Who prepared him 
 for his work and led him on to victory? The 
 answer is: “I Jahveh, the first and the last, 
 lam He.” ‘The terrified nations made “new 
 gods” (cp. Judg. v. 8), but Cyrus’ course of 
 conquest and victory was arrested by no such 
 devices. 
 
 While the nations are alarmed, Israel is com- 
 forted. Israel, Jahveh’s servant (v. 8), is not 
 forgotten. His Redeemer remembers the “worm 
 Jacob;” and, while nations are trodden like straw 
 (cp. xxv. 10), Zion is “a sharp threshing instru- 
 ment, which shall thresh the mountains and 
 beat them small” (v. 15; ep. Micah iy. 11-13), 
 Israel is apparently victorious on a battle-field, 
 but the scene is rapidly transformed: caravans 
 of exiles, poor and needy, traverse a wilderness, 
 seeking water but finding none, when suddenly 
 springs burst forth, and along their path plants 
 and trees appear with grateful shade. Israel 
 once more recognises that it is Jahveh Who is 
 leading them through the wilderness. 
 
 But the judgment scene reappears (ali. 
 21sq.). The nations and their gods are sum- 
 moned; “Jahyeh judgeth among the gods” 
 (Ps) Ixxxii. 25 cp. Ps. xcv. 3, xevi. 4, 5, xevii. 
 6-9). But those “things of nothing” cannot 
 speak. Their work is nought, they cannot show 
 that they are gods (v. 25). Jahveh as Judge 
 answers (vv. 25-29): “I have raised up one 
 from the north, and he is come.” Cyrus is 
 represented (v. 25) as already present. His 
 victories were foreknown and predicted by 
 Jahveh, Who is the first that gives to Zion (so 
 Dillmann) a “behold, behold them (ic. thy 
 children, xlix. 18; Ix, 4), and to Jerusalem 
 one that brings good tidings” (see xl. 9). 
 Of all the gods of the nations not one can utter 
 a word. 
 
 “The Servant of Jahveh” (spoken of in xli. 
 8, 9) now appears on the scene (xlii. 1 sq.). 
 The same appellation is applied to Israel 
 (xls 85.9';> x]ii. 195 xliv. 1, 2,21; xlv.43; xlviii. 
 20), but the Personal Servant is a distinct cha- 
 racter. Israel and “the Servant” are the two 
 
 witnesses (xliii. 10) adduced to give evidence. | 
 
 ISATAH 1467 
 
 Verses 1-7 reveal “the Servant” as distinct 
 from the nation. His mission concerned Israel 
 and the nations. [5:16] was, indeed, chosen as 
 Jahveh’s servant, to be a blessing to all the 
 nations. But Israel failed to perform that 
 mission, fainted, and was weary (xl. 27 sq.). The 
 personal “Servant” would not fail nor be dis- 
 couraged until His work was done (xii, 4). 
 Israel longed to destroy her adversaries (Num. 
 xxiv. 8); this Servant would bless them alto- 
 gether (xlii. 1-3, 6, 7), for He teaches the 
 Gentiles religion and restores Israel (cp. xlix. 
 6). Such are the points referred to, and “the 
 far-reaching prevision of the prophet deserves 
 notice” (Driver). The Servant is called, upheld 
 and kept by Jahveh “to be a covenant of the 
 people” (v. 6). Jahveh will not give His 
 glory to another, nor His praise unto graven 
 images (v. 8). 
 
 “The former things” (xlii. 9) are the Divine 
 prophecies fulfilled in former days, and not pre- 
 dictions concerning Cyrus’ early victories. God’s 
 prophecies were fulfilled in the past, and the 
 fresh predictions now uttered would be accom- 
 plished in their season (Bredenkamp). Op. 
 Klin, 125 13; 18719: 
 
 The “new song” in xlii, 10-12 reminds 
 one of xxiv. 14-16. Verses 13-17 depict 
 Jahveh going forth as “the mighty man” 
 (345) to execute vengeance. Before Him 
 mountains are laid waste, all herbage withers, 
 rivers become islands, pools are dried up, that 
 He may bring the blind by a way they know 
 not, and lead back His people. The expression 
 “1 will not forsake thee ” (v. 16) is a quotation 
 from Josh. i. 6. A comparison is mentally 
 drawn between the deliverance out of Egypt 
 and that from Babylon (cp. xi. 11 sg.). ‘The 
 pictures presented in vv. 22-25 recall incidents 
 of the days of the Judges. 
 
 The description of the blindness and perverse- 
 ness of Israel in the character of Jahveh’s 
 servant harmonises with its context. The 
 “deaf” and “blind” servant of vv. 19, 20 is 
 not Messiah, but the nation which had promised 
 obedience at Sinai, and is consequently described 
 as “he who is at peace with Me” (R. V. Cp. 
 xxvii. 5). The part. pual, povin (δ. 19: 
 found there only), is explained by Ewald, 
 Cheyne, &c., as synonymous with Joslem, sur- 
 rendered (to God’s service). But the verb, as 
 Dillmann notes, occurs in that meaning only ‘in 
 Arab, and Aram.; and in those languages only 
 in hiphil. Hence the translation of the R. V. 
 (“he that is at peace with Me”) is better, and 
 is that of Gesenius, Delitzsch, and Dillmann. 
 The Personal Servant of Jahveh opens blind 
 eyes, but the nation is blind; the nation is hid 
 in prison houses (v. 22), but the Servant leads 
 prisoners out of captivity. He is the Deliverer, 
 Israel the delivered. ‘The “ practical incompe- 
 tence” of Israel to perform such duties necessi- 
 tated His mission. 
 
 But however blind and weak Israel is, although 
 punished (wv. 24, 25) for her offences, Divine 
 mercy begins with her. Ch. xliii. describes 
 Jahveh leading forth His people. According to 
 the Divine plan, the Persian must set them free, 
 even though Egypt, Ethiopia, and Seba (Meroe 
 in Ethiopia) be granted as Cyrus’ reward (cp. 
 Ezek. xxix. 20). ‘The blind must see, the deaf 
 
1408 
 
 hear (v. 8). Another judgment session is pic- 
 tured (vv. 8-13). Nations and peoples assemble. 
 They are called on to produce their witnesses of 
 similar fulfilments, “that they may be justi- 
 fied” by the witnesses listening to the state- 
 ments and affirming their truth. No witnesses 
 can be adduced. Jahveh’s two witnesses, Israel 
 and His Servant, are again produced, that by 
 comparison of prophecy and accomplishment 
 nen may acknowledge that Jahveh is “the 
 same ” (S171 928, “1 am He”), present “ yester- 
 
 day” in prophecy, “to-day ” (OVD, xliii. 13) 
 in redemption, i OF eyer ” His 
 
 ISAIAH 
 
 working for 
 
 people. Heb. xiii. 8 seems an imitation of this 
 passage, 
 The march from Babylon to Jerusalem 15 
 
 again (xl. 14-21) described in words which re- 
 call Israel’s ancient history. The transforma- 
 tion scenes, before depicted in ch. xxxv., xli. 
 17-20, reappear. The closing verses (22-28) 
 are not a polemie against the sacrificial ritual, 
 but prove that the neglect of God’s outward 
 worship shows that the redemption granted is 
 an act of grace. The absence of all reference 
 
 to the fact that sacrifices could not be offered to | 
 
 Jahveh in Babylon is in favour of the Isaianic 
 authorship. 
 
 Ch. xliv. shows that notwithstanding Israel's 
 sin the Unchangeable did not forget His chosen. 
 Blessings were in store for them. Water would 
 be poured upon the thirsty, streams upon the 
 dry ground, language which is explained of a 
 pouring out of the Spirit of God. Hence Israel’s 
 young men (cp. Ps, ex. 3) range themselves on 
 the side of Jahyeh (v. 5). Israel need not fear. 
 Her King and Redeemer promises prosperity, and 
 {srael is witness that there is no god beside Him 
 (vv. 6-8). Idols are nothing; they cannot aid 
 their votaries. The folly of idolatry is again 
 dwelt on, more fully than in xl. 18 sq., or in 
 sli. 5-7. God’s forgiving grace is set forth 
 in magnificent language in vv. 21-23, and the 
 chapter closes with the Divine commission given 
 to Cyrus as Jahveh’s Shepherd to lead home His 
 Hock. Cyrus is here first mentioned by name 
 (vv. 24-28). 
 
 While we admit the possibility of the revela- 
 tion to the Prophet of the name of Cyrus, an 
 examination of the passages in which it occurs 
 favours the view that not only the name Cyrus 
 hut some of the details in those prophecies are 
 Jater insertions belonging to a time when text 
 and comments were interwoyen together. The 
 “calling by name” spoken of in xly. 3, 4, 
 means more than a prediction of the name of 
 the conqueror, as the use of that expression in 
 reference both to Israe] and the Personal Servant 
 might suflice to prove (cp. Kites Lys, ἐστιν. 1). 
 
 The commission to Cyrus is given in 
 1-8. To the title of honour, “my shepherd,” 
 there added Iw (ally... 1)» 18 anointed,” 
 This is the only place in Isaiah where Messiah 
 occurs, and the only passage where a heathen 
 king is called by that term. Cyrus was prob- 
 ably a mouotheist, although for political reasons 
 represented in his cylinder as a worshipper of 
 Bel, Nebo, and Merodach, the gods of Babylon. 
 In the light of recent discover y it is questionable 
 whether “the older interpreters were correct in 
 expounding xliv. 27 of the literal drying up 
 of the Euphrates (cp. the figurative use of that 
 
 ay 
 
 | 
 
 | 
 
 | 
 
 | would ruin all Hebrew prophecy. 
 
 ISAIAH 
 
 expression in Zech. x. 11), or whether xlvi. 
 1, 2 can be regarded as predicting literally the 
 carrying of the gods of Babylon into captivity. 
 
 The expression “though thou hast not known 
 Me,” repeated twice for emphasis (xly. 4, 5), 
 ought to have warned commentators against 
 supposing that Cyrus was a worshipper of 
 Jahveh. His employment of the sacred Name in 
 the proclamation (set forth Ezra i, 2 sq.), if an 
 exact copy of Cyrus’ edict be there given, was 
 but another case of political expediency. The 
 expressions used in v. 7, interpreted in the light 
 of Lam. iii. 88 and Amos iii. 6, contain no 
 reference to the Persian theological dualisin. 
 
 Verse 8 is a short hymn of great beauty. 
 Vv. 9-17 condemn those who murmur against 
 the Divine method of Israel's redemption by the 
 instrumentality of a heathen monarch (see Dill- 
 mann’s Commentary). It is absurd for a potsherd 
 to dictate to the potter how to perform his work. 
 The simile is common to both parts of Isaiah 
 (xxix. 16, lxiv. 7), and occurs in Jer. xviii. 6, xix. 
 1 sq., Rom. ix. 20 sq. Jahveh chose His own 
 instrument, and through Cyrus He accomplished 
 Israel’s deliverance. 
 
 Cyrus did not, however, himself rebuild Jeru- 
 salem or the Temple. Bald literal exposition 
 The state- 
 ments respecting the Sabeans (Ὁ. 14) also cannot 
 be understood literally. The Sabeans, as repre- 
 sentatives of the Gentiles, are described as 
 voluntarily becoming Israel's slaves by adopting 
 her religion, and thus recognising that there is 
 no other God and that Israel is His people. So 
 correctly Hitzig, Delitzsch, Cheyne, and Dillmann. 
 
 The references to the history of creation in 
 Genesis in xly. 18-20 are noteworthy. If 
 creation began with chaos (17M, v. 18) earth was 
 not left in that condition or in darkness qqwn, 
 
 Gen. i. 2). Jahveh’s creative word said not to 
 “the seed of Jacob... seek Me in a waste 
 
 ΟΠ). Creation and redemption reveal a God 
 Who speaks and it is done, Who commands and it 
 stands fast. Israel’s redemption is eternal, “an 
 everlasting salvation ” (v. 17), and consequently, 
 as Cheyne observes, is “spiritual as well as 
 temporal.” Hence the salvation that comes 
 from the Jews, and is designed for “ all the ends 
 of the earth” (v. 22), is applied by St. Paul 
 (Rom. xiv. 9-12) to the eternal kingdom of the 
 Lord’s Christ. The Pauline comparison of 
 creation and redemption (2 Cor. iy. 5, 6) is 
 perhaps borrowed from Isaia’. 
 
 'dolatry has, indeed, reduced earth to chaos 
 and darkness, for there can be no deliverance so 
 long as men “ pray to a god that cannot save” 
 (xlv. 20), to idols which can be carried on the 
 backs of beasts of burden (xlvi. 1), and go 
 themselves into captivity (see before on xlvi. 
 1). Idolaters carry their idols, but Jahveh 
 carries His people (vv. 3 sq.). He can carry, aye 
 He can deliver them. Cp. Num. xi. 12; Deut. 
 ὑπ  αχχῖν 11: Hos, πο 
 
 The folly of idolaters is depicted again in 
 vv. 6, 7. These remarks are closely connected 
 with the subject treated of. Idolatry is con- 
 demned not so dissimilarly in i, 29-3135 ii. 
 18-21 5 xvii. 7-11; xxi. 9; xxx. 225, xxi. 657 
 The play upon words in xlvi. 1, the expression 
 “house of Jacob and all the remnant of the 
 house of Israel,’ the irony that pervades the 
 
ISAIAH 
 
 whole passage—all these are indicative of Isaiah’s 
 pen. ‘lo him the land of the Persian conqueror 
 was “a. far country”? (v 11, ep. xili. 5). A 
 post-exilian prophet would hardly thus have ex- 
 pressed himself. ‘The use of aby to indicate the 
 Divine purpose, and its combination with the 
 other verbs in that verse, are Isaianic touches 
 (cp., with Delitzsch, xxii, 11; xxxvii. 26). It 
 would have been strange if the text had not 
 been interlarded with post-exilian comments— 
 comments so frequently repeated for the con- 
 solation of the exiles that they were regarded 
 at last as part of the original. Cyrus is forcibly 
 described as a ravenous bird or vulture from 
 the east descending upon the Babylonian carcase, 
 though it may be fanciful to see any reference 
 here to the standard of Cyrus, the golden spread 
 eagle on the lofty spear (Xenoph. Cyropaed. vii. 
 cap. i. 4). 
 
 The song (ch. xlvii.) on the downfall of Baby- 
 lon is particularly fine. The proud daughter of 
 the Chaldeans is commanded by Jahveh to 
 descend from her throne, and take the place of 
 the meanest slave. Stripped of her veil and 
 train, she is compelled to grind the meal, to bare 
 her legs, to wade through waters, and to endure 
 dishonour, Verse 4 is no doubt a later insertion 
 from “a marginal note”? (Cheyne), for the 
 speaker throughout ch. xlvii. is Jahveh. The 
 song is Isaianic; Ὁ. 4, and probably v. 6, later 
 insertions. Verse 5 may be compared with 
 xiii. 19; and v. 14 recalls v. 24 and other 
 passages. Verse 8 is quoted by Zephaniah ii. 
 15—not the only quotation which that Prophet 
 makes from Isaiah. No enchantments can avert 
 the Divine judgment; not even the world-wide 
 commerce of Babylon can rescue her from her 
 doom (vv. 12-15). 
 
 Ch, xlviii. is a comment on the previous 
 prophecies. The phraseology is Isaianic, worked 
 
 comment being so intermixed that they cannot 
 be separated. Verse 1 does not distinguish 
 between Israel and Judah, but claims for Judah 
 the title and inheritance of Israel. Such ex- 
 pressions need not indicate a pre-exilian author. 
 The idea of “the ten lost tribes” is purely 
 mythical. All Israelites after the Exile were 
 termed ‘ Jews,” and one-fourth of the first 
 returning exiles were not members of the two 
 tribes (see my Bampton Lectures, p. 278 sq.). 
 The expression “holy city’? (Dan. ix. 24; Neh. 
 xi. 1) occurs in v. 2, lii. 1, and in plur. in 
 Ixiv. 10 (ep. Zech. ii. 16). The “ former things ” 
 (υ. 3) need not be limited to the prophecies 
 concerning the Assyrian invasion (Klost., Bre- 
 denkamp). The “new things” (v. 6) refer to 
 the deliverance through Cyrus, Idolatry was 
 rife enough among Israel in Babylon (v. 53 ep. 
 Ezek. xx. 30 sq.). The accomplishment of the 
 “former things” should lead Israel to trust in 
 the “new things” promised (υ, 6). According 
 to v. 7, the fulfilment had already begun. 
 Hence the use of N13. Israel did not hear or 
 
 know of such things before; it did not compre- 
 hend the meaning of the events then transpiring. 
 The nation was still unfaithful. Captivity had 
 not purified it. God melted the nation in that 
 furnace, “but not for silver” produced thereby. 
 Ewald and Dillmann regard D323 (v. 10) as 
 the 2 pretii; Delitzsch, Cheyne, and R. V., less 
 
 ] 
 
 | Suitably, as 2 essentiae (“ not as silver”), 
 
 | there depicted. 
 | described as a polished shaft from the Divine 
 
 ISATAIL 1469 
 
 See 
 i, 22, 25, and cp. Jer. vi. 29, 30. The restora- 
 tion was an act of grace performed for the 
 glory of God, and not for the merit of Israel. 
 
 The hand of the post-exilian enlarger is seen 
 in the exhortations vv. 12-22. But the thoughts 
 and verbiage are still mainly Isaiauic. The ex- 
 pression concerning Cyrus, “Jahveh hath loved 
 him” (v. 14), is striking. Cyrus would execute 
 Jahveh’s purposes upon Babylon, and the arm 
 of the Almighty judgment would descend on the 
 Chaldeans. We can touch but lightly on much 
 that is remarkable. Dillmann is right in main- 
 taining that, notwithstanding v. 16 b, Jahveh is 
 throughout the speaker. If Jahveh rained 
 down brimstone and fire out of heaven from 
 Jahveh (Gen. xix. 24), why should not Jahveh 
 be represented as sending Jahyeh and His 
 Spirit on a mission of mercy to teach and to 
 redeem His people? Prophetic poetry often 
 expresses profound theology. ‘The path of 
 peace is that of obedience (v. 18), and “ there 
 is no peace, saith Jahveh, unto the wicked.” 
 
 (2) In the second portion, chs. xlix—lix., the 
 names of Babylon, Israel’s oppressor, and that of 
 Cyrus, her Gentile deliverer, completely vanish. 
 A greater than Cyrus and a grander mission are 
 The Servant of Jahveh is 
 quiver, called, like Jeremiah (i. 5), from the 
 womb to be a prophet to the isles and peoples; 
 his mouth is a sharp sword (vv. 1, 2) to slay 
 the wicked (cp. xi. 4). The coming Prophet is 
 distinguished from Israel (vv. 6, 8, 9), and yet 
 addressed as “ My servant Israel” (x. 3). That 
 appellation, though unique, presents πὸ diffi- 
 culty. Why should not Messiah be called by 
 the name of Israel as well as by that of Adam 
 or of David? The title Servant of Jahyeh is 
 bestowed alike on prophet and people; and the 
 
 \ “4 name Israel may well be given to one described 
 over by a later hand, prophetic text and prophetic | 
 
 in this prophecy as having “power with God 
 and prevailing ” (Gen. xxxii. 28), 
 
 The Servant is the Restorer of Israel 
 (xlix. 5). But that is not large enough for His 
 powers. He is to be the Light of the Gentiles, 
 the Saviour of the world (v. 6). Despised by 
 man, abhorred by Israel, a servant of rulers, 
 kings and princes yet fall down before Him 
 (v. 7). Described (xlii. 4) as never failing 
 nor discouraged, He complains (xlix. 4) that 
 His labour is in vain. The “crying” is heard 
 and answered (v. 8), for the Servant’s work 
 cannot be unsuccessful. Notice how early those 
 dark shadows appear which envelope the Ser- 
 vant in ch. 111. The delineation is throughout 
 a strange blending of humiliation and glory. 
 
 The Servant was given “as a covenant to 
 the people” (xlix. 8). This is repeated from 
 xlii. 6. The Restoration of Israel is described 
 (vr. 9-12) in language like that of ch. xxxv. 
 The multitude of rescued Israelites gathered 
 from all quarters (as in xi. 10-16) is exhibited 
 to Zion’s astonishment, who imagined that the 
 Lord had forgotten her. Here also is a strange 
 blending of opposites. The nations carry back 
 in their bosoms or on their shoulders the sons 
 and daughters of Israel (vv. 22, 23); but the 
 captives are also spoken of (vv. 24—26) as torn 
 by the arm of the Mighty One of Israel from 
 the grasp of their foes. 
 
 Jahveh had not cast off His people. The 
 
1470 ISAIAH 
 
 temporary divorce was Israel's act (I. 1, 2). 
 Though when called back Israel did not hearken, 
 the Unchangeable was still omnipotent to save 
 (vv. 3, 4). The Servant is re-introduced again 
 (in vv. 4, 5). He speaks and explains His 
 actions. Divine inspiration was imparted to 
 
 Him, not only in night visions, but in daily | 
 
 open intercourse with Jahveh. Bitter were 
 His sorrows, disgraceful His treatment by men 
 (vv. 6, 7). Undismayed, however, by sufferings, 
 the Servant knows that Jahveh will help and 
 justify, and therefore boldly defies all His ad- 
 versaries (vv. 7-9). The note of defiance sounded 
 by the Master was caught up by the great 
 disciple (Rom. viii. 31sq.). Both the ecclesia 
 pressa of the Old and New Testament days have 
 similar experiences, and therefore their sorrows 
 and joys may be expressed in the same language. 
 The Servant of v. 10 is not, as Cheyne suggests, 
 the writer of the prophecy, but the speaker of 
 vv. 4-5. To His speech, however, the writer 
 utters an Amen in the exhortation (vv. 10, 11), 
 in which, like the Psalmist (ii. 10-12), he 
 urges to faith and obedience. Those who gird 
 themselves with fire-brands to destroy God’s 
 people (Ps. vii. 13) shall be driven into the 
 destruction they deserve. 
 
 Ch. li. is addressed to Israel κατὰ πνεῦμα. 
 Jahveh, or the Servant as His Representative, 
 is the speaker. Vo. 7, 8 are an echo of the 
 Servant’s words inl. 9. The analogy of Heb. i. 
 10 sq. would justify a similar explanation of 
 vv. 4-6. In v. 5 the phraseology employed in 
 veference to the Servant in xlii. 4 recurs, and 
 in v. 16 that found before in xlix. 2,3. The 
 stories of Eden (v. 3), of Abraham and Sarah 
 {v. 2), of the Law (v. 4), Egypt’s overthrow 
 (v. 9) and of the passage of the Red Sea 
 (vv. 10-15), are all alluded to as reasons for 
 comfort. Heaven and earth pass away (v. 6), 
 God’s words stand fast (cp. Luke xxi. 33). The 
 ideas of v. 11 are a repetition of xxxy. 10. 
 The passage is Isaianic, though portions are 
 like Jeremiah. Cp. v. 15 with Jer. xxxi. 35; 
 and the scenes presented in Jer. xxv. 15-18, 
 27, 28, with vv. 17, 21-23. Jeremiah may have 
 quoted from Isaiah. 
 
 In lii. 1-12 Zion is aroused by a new cry 
 to awake, for salvation is nigh at hand. The 
 day of liberty has dawned. No compensation 
 will be made to her oppressor for releasing her 
 from bondage. Egypt and Assyria both op- 
 pressed her without cause, and so did Babylon. 
 God’s Name was blasphemed; that Name would 
 now be honoured. Part of the scene is ideally 
 laid in Palestine. Zion in ruins is the slum- 
 bering Jerusalem awakened by watchers on the 
 mountains surrounding _ her, who announce, 
 “Thy God reigneth.” These are not, as 
 Cheyne suggests, “ideal supersensible beings,” 
 “‘angelic remembrancers.” It may be well to 
 caution some that Dan. iv. 17 (in Heb. v. 14) is 
 not analogous, for “‘ watchers” there is a very 
 different word. A part of the scene is laid in 
 Babylon. The Israelites are bidden to go forth 
 from thence, and carry back “the vessels of 
 Jahveh” to Jerusalem. ‘he Levitical ritual 
 is alluded to in v. 11; the march from Babylon 
 being there contrasted with, and compared to, 
 the memorable march out of Egypt (v. 12). 
 
 With the 3y D°3u" TIN of Iii, 13 a 
 new sub-section commences, which ends with 
 
 ISAIAH 
 
 liii, 12. The passage is theologically connected 
 with the preceding, but otherwise marked oif 
 from it. The subject is different. The linguistic 
 peculiarities of the piece are so striking that 
 some critics have regarded it as an interpolation. 
 The style is “ obscure and awkward”? (Delitzsch), 
 notwithstanding that several phrases already 
 used of the Servant reappear. The passage 
 breaks the connexion between lii. 12 and ch. 
 liv. It was probably composed by the Prophet 
 after some vision which he “ saw,” but which, 
 however, he does not describe but expound. 
 Believers in the N. T. revelation may well 
 imagine that the Prophet himself did not 
 understand its full import (1 Pet. i. 11, 12). 
 The enigma could not be solved until seen in 
 the light of the Cross. 
 
 It is impossible to attempt a satisfactory 
 sketch of the exegesis of the passage. We 
 agree with those (1) who view it as a distinct 
 Messianic prophecy. It may, perhaps (as 
 Ewald suggests), contain reminiscences of a 
 martyr scene in the days of Manasseh. The 
 marked individuality of the description has led 
 (2) able commentators to expound it of indi- 
 vidual kings or prophets. Of such explanations 
 the only one really worthy of mention is that 
 of R. Saadiah, who considered Jeremiah its 
 
 subject. Parallel passages in Jeremiah can be 
 adduced which correspond strikingly with 
 its expressions. Grotius upheld this view, 
 
 and afterwards Bunsen, whose exposition is 
 commended though ποῦ entirely endorsed 
 by Rowland Williams (Zssays and Reviews). 
 (3) The attempt to explain the section of 
 the Hebrew prophets is now abandoned. 
 (4) Equally hopeless is the attempt to interpret 
 it of Israel in general, as the guiltless martyr- 
 nation of the world. The idea is opposed to 
 the view of Israel as the “sinful nation” 
 given in both parts of the Book. (5) Some 
 critics still, however, maintain that the picture 
 drawn is that of the righteous in Israel, the 
 Israel κατὰ πνεῦμα. The doctrine of v. 6 is, as 
 Cheyne observes, fatal to that theory. (6) The 
 opinion generally held by modern critics is that 
 the ideal and not the actual Israel is here 
 depicted, purified by afflictions and made an 
 instrument of blessing to the world. This ideal 
 Israel, amid all national apostasies or disasters, is 
 regarded as always present before God and con- 
 templated by Him with pleasure. This view is 
 substantially that of Wellhausen, Cheyne, and 
 Dillmann, though with modifications of detail. 
 Bredenkamp remarks well that this picture of a 
 mere abstraction “ corresponds well with the 
 meditation of a philosopher, but not with that 
 of a Prophet.” 
 
 Against the Messianic interpretation it is 
 maintained that Messiah is not mentioned in the 
 second part of Isaiah (lv. 4is questionable), and 
 that there is no passage which distinctly iden- 
 tifies Messiah with the Servant. It must be 
 remembered, however, that a victorious King 
 and an afflicted sin-bearing Sufferer could not 
 be depicted in one view. The identification of 
 the two ex hypothesi was not possible prior to 
 the Resurrection of our Lord. It is further 
 urged that the Servant is represented not as 
 a future individual but as one actually present. 
 That, however, does not hinder the passage 
 from being a prophecy of futuredays. For both 
 
‘which we heard 
 
 ISATAH 
 
 the sufferings and exaltation are represented 
 as simultaneously present to the prophetic eye. 
 The Prophet saw in the one picture the 
 sufferings borne, the work done, the reward 
 
 bestowed, the portion assigned, the — spoil 
 divided. This does not prove that the Prophet 
 
 depicted events of his own time. The passage 
 can in no wise represent the state of Israel in 
 the day of the Restoration from Babylon. 
 
 Much may be said in favour of each of the 
 views defended by critics. The Messianic 
 interpretation unites all those points together. 
 
 The Prophet evidently describes what he 
 “saw.” Every description of Messiah’s suf- | 
 ferings must to some extent describe the 
 
 sufferings of His nation, or of those individual 
 followers who follow in His steps, as the 
 Messiah does in theirs. The passages from 
 Jeremiah adduced by Bunsen might be utilised 
 in favour of the Isaianic authorship. Altheugh 
 the passage as a whole cannot be explained 
 of the sufferings of the righteous, the Book 
 of Daniel (xii. 5) apparently refers to liii, 
 11 as illustrating their work. The sporadic 
 references to the Isaianic prophecy of the 
 Servant in the Book of Wisdom (chs. ii. iii. iv. 
 v.) show that the prophecy was then explained 
 of the righteous in Israel. The LXX. trans- 
 lation of the prophecy follows in the same 
 track, and modifies passages accordingly. Such 
 was the natural line of exegesis prior to Christ. 
 The perplexed inquiry of every deep thinker is, 
 however, summed up in the question of the 
 eunuch, who reading the passage with the 
 comment of the LXX. asked, “ΟΥ̓ whom speaketh 
 the Prophet this? of himself, or of some 
 other?” (Acts vii. 34). That earnest student 
 saw clearly that the sufferings of an individual, 
 and of an individual only, were pourtrayed upon 
 the sacred page. 
 
 All the men of the N. T. expound the passage 
 of Messiah. John the Baptist refers to it in his 
 exclamation recorded in Johni. 29; St. Matthew 
 regards it as a prediction of Christ, the healer 
 of disease (Matt. viii. 17). Our Lord alludes to 
 the prophecy on several occasions (Mark ix. 12 ; 
 Luke xxii. 37; prob. also Luke xxiv. 26). Both 
 St. Paul (Rom. iv. 25) and St. Peter (1 Ep. ii. 
 21-25) quote it. See also the references in 
 Acts iii. 13, 26 (“His Servant,” R. V.), iv. 27; 
 ieCors xv: 3, ὅσ. 
 
 The section depicts a stricken leper, disfigured 
 so as to be scarcely human. Hence the Baby- 
 lonian Talmud gives “the Leprous One” as a 
 name of Messiah (Sanh. 985). But the wisdom 
 of the “stricken” Sufferer followed by His exal- 
 tation “startles many nations.” The translation 
 “sprinkle,” despite its difficulties, has much to 
 commend it. Kings shut their mouths in 
 astonishment at what they see and hear; while 
 penitent Israel mourns its ill-treatment of the 
 Sufferer. Including himself among his people 
 (cp. vi. 5), the Prophet breaks into lamenta- 
 tions (liii. 1-3): “ Who among us believed that 
 ” in the prophecies concern~ 
 To whom was the 
 
 ing this Righteous One? 
 in His exaltation ? 
 
 arm of the Lord revealed 
 
 “For He srew up before Him (Jahveh) as a 
 
 (slender) twig.” The Servant was under Jah- 
 veh’s protection in both His humiliation and 
 glory. The statement is not “strangely incon- 
 sistent ” (Cheyne) ; although if purely conjectu- 
 
 1471 
 
 ral emendations were admissible, and in such a 
 prophecy they are scarcely so, the emendation 
 suggested by Ewald and Cheyne, “before us,’ 
 
 ic. in our streets, is perhaps more natural. The 
 description “as a root out of a dry ground” is 
 peculiarly Isaianic (cp. on the “root” xi. 1, 
 10, and Rev. νυ. 5, xxii, 6). The dry ore 
 corresponds to the stump of Jesse’s tree. “He 
 hath no form nor comeliness, and when we see Him 
 there is no beauty that we should desire Him.” 
 This historic present may be also rendered as a 
 past, for 'the ill-treatment in τ. 3 is described as 
 something already past. “He was despised and 
 rejected of men,” or rather “ deserted of men” 
 (Cheyne), as Job xix. 14 explains the passage. 
 The use of DLN shows that the reference is 
 
 to the conduct of the great ones in Israel 
 (Delitzsch). ‘A man of sorrows and acquainted 
 with grief;” or rather, ‘a man of pains and 
 familiar with sickness ” (Cheyne). The objec- 
 tions of the Jewish controversialists against the 
 Christian interpretation are casily met. Luke 
 vi. 19, viii. 46, with Matt. viii. 17, show that 
 our Lord’s exertion of His healing power was 
 not without having an effect on His own bodily 
 frame. Moreover, “familiar with sickness ” is 
 part of the picture of the stricken leper from 
 whom men averted their faces (ep. Job xxx. 
 10, xix. 13-19; Lam. iv. 15). The “mystery” 
 is partly explained in vv. 4-6. The Servant’s 
 sufferings were vicarious, endured for His people. 
 Wiinsche enumerates the twelve distinct asser- 
 tions contained in the chapter “of the vicarious 
 character of the suflerings of the Servant” 
 (Cheyne). Such language proves the prophecy 
 to depict an individual. 
 
 The lamentation of Israel closes with the 
 recognition that the Servant’s sufferings were 
 endured for her sake. The Prophet then nar- 
 rates at length the Servant’s siniessness and the 
 indignities He endured (vv. 7-9). ‘‘ He was op- 
 
 ISAIAH 
 
 pressed,” as if by slave-drivers (W3]; cp. Exod. 
 iii. 7; Job iii. 18), “ yet he humbled himself” 
 (Niphal tolerativum; see Delitzsch, Cheyne), 
 ‘Cand opened not his mouth” (cp. Ps. xxxviii. 14; 
 xxxix. 9). “As a lamb that is led to the 
 slaughter, and as a sheep that before her shearers 
 is dumb ; yea, He opened not His mouth” (R. V.). 
 Jeremiah in xi. 9 seems to refer to this passage. 
 But the conclusion of that verse forbids us to see 
 in him the accomplishment of the prophecy. The 
 Servant’s humiliation was voluntary; there was 
 a restraint of “power,” a restraint of love (ep. 
 Matt. xxvi. 53). ‘Through oppression, and 
 through a judgment”—a judicial sentence— 
 “He was taken away,” condemned to death; 
 
 “and as for His generation,” or those who liy ed 
 in His day (ep. Jer. ii. 31), “ who among them 
 
 | considered that He was cut off from the ‘land of 
 
 the living? For the transgression of My people 
 was He stricken!” The Messianic interpretation 
 
 is quite unaffected whether Tay) in the last 
 
 clause be viewed as singular or plural. If the 
 translation “ who shall declare His generation ἢ 
 be preferred, Ps. xxii. 30 supplies a sutlicient 
 commentary. The prophecy is ico striking to 
 be regarded only as “ἐᾷ presentiment of thie ‘his- 
 torical Redeemer.” 
 
 With our present text, v. 9 must be rendered, 
 “and one assigned His grave with the wicked 
 
1472 ISATAH 
 
 (plural), and with a rich (man) in his deaths 
 (emphatic plural, of violent death), because (or 
 ‘although’) He had done no violence, neither 
 was any deceit in His mouth.” ich is not, 
 indeed, a suitable parallel to wicked, while 
 the form of the sentence does not admit of its 
 being explained as containing a contrast. The 
 clause simply connects the two statements, 
 which coincide remarkably with the Gospel his- 
 tory, and ought not to be tampered with by 
 critical conjectures. 
 
 The concluding verses unfold the Divine pur- 
 pose in such sufferings. The Servant is mysti- 
 cally identified with Israel, and therefore can 
 offer Himselfvas a sin-offering. His vicarious 
 sin-offering (O88) expiates their guilt; His 
 trespass- offering (OUR, v. 10) makes satisfaction 
 (see Delitzsch). Cheyne well compares v. 10 
 with the phrase used by our Lord, τιθέναι τὴν 
 ψυχήν (John x. 11). Mediaeval Jewish contro- 
 versialists argued from v. 10, that Messiah would 
 have children. The original, however, is “a 
 seed,” not “his seed” (cp. Ps. xxii. 30). The 
 closing verses speak of the Servant’s exaltation 
 anticipated in 11. 13, 14. O24, many, ought 
 to be uniformly translated throughout. It is 
 anarthous in lii. 14, and liii. 12 at end. It has 
 the article in liii. 11, and in the beginning of 
 v. 12; and qualifies “nations” in lii. 15. 
 The Pauline use of of πολλοὶ in Rom. vi. 15-19 
 is the key to its meaning. The Servant’s con- 
 tinued intercession (2°35), ὁ. 12; ep. Jer. xv. 11) 
 is affirmed. Cp. Luke xxiii. 34; Acts v. 31. 
 The Hebrew Prophets were not restrained by 
 modern ideas of literary harmony ; and if clauses 
 occur in such a prophecy more suitable to 
 priest than victim, they should be left intact, 
 for the Redeemer is pourtrayed under both 
 characters. 
 
 The six chapters which follow (ch. liv.—lix.) 
 are not closely connected. Ch. liv. would 
 suitably follow lii, 12. The ideal or spiritual 
 Zion is addressed throughout. ‘The Servant 
 of Jahveh” oceurs no more, though “ servants 
 of Jahveh” are spoken of (v. 173 cp. Ixv. 
 13 sq.). ‘The sutlering and glory of the Ser- 
 vant and the servants are similar, but not iden- 
 tical” (Bredenkamp). Wellhausen regards ch. 
 liv. to lvi. 8 “to some extent as a sermon 
 on the text 11]. 13—liii. 12;” but this is, as 
 Cheyne observes, in the interests of his theory 
 that the Servant is not an individual. There 
 is nothing in ch. liv. opposed to the Isaianic 
 authorship. 
 
 Chapter ly. is complete in itself. It is a 
 discourse designed to stir up faith in coming 
 deliverance. God’s purposes are sure, and the 
 exiles shall return (vv, 8-13). It may have also 
 a higher meaning. The similarity to ch. xxxv. 
 is in favour of the authorship of Isaiah. Critics 
 differ whether Day.d or Messiah is the subject of 
 v. 5. The tormer is the better view (ep. 2 Sam. 
 vii. 12-16). Ps. Ixxxvi. may serve as com- 
 mentary. The Davidie covenant is, however, 
 only fulfilled in Messiah, By virtue of his 
 religion (Ps. xviii. 43) David was a witness as 
 well as a ruler. Rev. i. 5, iii. 14 refer to this 
 passage, and Hengstenberg has properly called 
 attention to Christ’s words before Pilate (John 
 xviii. 37). 
 
 Chapter lvi. 1-8 refers to the Israelites in 
 
 \ 
 
 Ϊ 
 
 ISAIAH 
 Babylon, where some of them were forcibly 
 made eunuchs. Isaiah’s prophecy (ch. xxxix. 7) 
 
 makes it natural for him to drop some words of 
 comfort for those that would be so cruelly treated. 
 Eunuchs were shut out from the congregation of 
 Israel (Deut. xxiii. 1). But the restrictions of 
 the Mosaic law, both as to eunuchs and foreigners, 
 
 | are represented as abolished for those who keep 
 
 the Lord’s sabbaths. ‘The advent of the day is 
 
 | predicted when Israel's outcasts, with ‘the 
 
 nations,” would worship in the Temple. The 
 conceptions of the Prophet are identical with 
 those in ii. 2, 3. 
 
 Very different in character is lvi. 9— 
 lvii. 21. It seems out of place here. Ewald, 
 with other critics, 1egard it as decidedly pre- 
 exilian, if not Isaianic. It speaks of Israel’s 
 watchmen as dumb dogs. ‘The wild beasts are 
 invited to devour the flock. The righteous 
 perish, and idolatry in its vilest and most cruel 
 form erects its head. Verse 14 seems an in- 
 terpolation; but lvii. 15-21 is a prophecy of 
 final salvation, probably Isaianic, and inserted 
 here in order that Israel, after contemplating 
 her sin, might yet have hope in God. 
 
 Chapter !viii. is a penitential discourse wholly 
 different. Formality in religion, trust in ex- 
 ternal fasts, combined with neglect of the poor 
 and afilicted, is here denounced. The subject- 
 matter harmonizes with i. 10-20. If the 
 chapter be Isaianic, υ. 12 must be a later in- 
 sertion. The need of θρησκεία καθαρὰ καὶ 
 ἀμίαντος (Jas. i. 27) is a doctrine not peculiarly 
 
 | suggestive of a time of exile. 
 
 Many critics regard ch. lix. as a continuation 
 of ch. viii. But this is scarcely possible. The 
 sins described are crimes of violence, murder, 
 and robbery. Ewald long ago maintained the 
 colouring to be pre-exilic. The correspondence 
 with Isaianic portions is very marked. Byeden- 
 kamp notes that v. 18 re-echoes i. 24b, and 
 v. 20 reminds of i. 27. Vv. 19, 20 recall 
 xxx. 27, 28, 33. The mention of serpents, 
 bears, doves, &c., and the description of armour 
 are all Isaianic. ‘The section speaks no doubt of 
 judgment, leading to repentance, and v. 12 sq. 
 is a penitential confession of sin. But the same 
 mention of mercy and judgment, of the destruc- 
 tion of sinners, and of the salvation of the 
 penitent, is exhibited in i. 27, 28. Verse 20 
 is regarded as Messianic in Rom. xi. 26, and 
 referred to the Second Advent. A Redeemer 
 
 xia) is to come to Zion, to a repentant people, 
 
 for, as Cheyne observes, “the Messianic promises. 
 to Israel are only meant for a converted and 
 regenerated people.” 
 
 The Jast seven chapters of Isaiah (chs. lx.— 
 Ixvi.) describe the renovated Jerusalem. As 
 Babylon was commanded to descend trom the 
 throne to the dungeon (ch. xlvii.), Zion is 
 bidden to arise from slavery, and behold light 
 and glory streaming in upon her, There is 
 more predicted than the return of Solomonic 
 
 | prosperity (cp. v. 17 with 1 K. x. 91), The 
 
 vision is of the last things seen in Old Test. 
 light. Zion’s walls are rebuilt by the nations 
 who once demolished them in anger. For the 
 nations with their kings, willing or unwilling 
 (v. 10), bring back to Jerusalem Israel’s exiles, 
 with silver and gold, and sacrifices innumerable. 
 
 | Vv. 18-20 describe, however, more thar earthly 
 
ISAIAH 
 
 glory, and the Seer of Patmos has, therefore, 
 employed Isaiah’s language in relating his 
 N. T. visions (Rev. xxi, 23-265 xxii. 5). The 
 similitudes of vv. 6, 7 are pre-exilian, though 
 some have imagined a reference (in v. 8) to the 
 names of the walls of Babylon (cp. Schrader, 
 KAT? on 1 K. vii. 21). The actual appears 
 amid the ideal; for amid strains of peace there 
 are notes of war (see v. 12 and ep. Zech. xiv. 
 17, 18). 
 
 The speaker in ch. lxi. is probably the 
 Prophet himself, although the words suit the 
 Servant who is also Prophet; and consequently 
 were suitably quoted as fulfilled in the syna- 
 gogue of Nazareth (Luke iv. 16-22. Cp. Heb. i. 
 1sq.). The statement in reference to the Gentiles 
 in v. 5 is in a lower strain than in other places 
 (ep. Ixvi. 21). The reference to the old ruins 
 in v. 4 is not necessarily post-Babylonian. 
 The Prophet is also speaker in lxii, 1-5, the 
 language of which is Isaianic and highly figu- 
 rative. The name Hephzibah, mentioned v. 4, 
 was that of Hezekiah’s queen (2 K. xxi. 1). 
 The “watchers” in v. 6 are not Angels (Ewald 
 and Cheyne). It is, as Bredenkamp observes, 
 not ruins which are there spoken of, but the 
 walls of a city actually standing. In the name 
 ἧς Forsaken One” (v. 40; ep. v. 12) there may 
 lurk a reference to some lost tale concerning 
 Jehoshaphat’s mother (1 K. xxi. 42). Note 
 the recurrence in v. 11 of the words of xl. 10, 
 and in vw, 12 of the ideas presented in iv. 3, 
 xxxv. 10. 
 
 Ch. Ixiii. 1-6 is a fitting parallel to ch. xxxiv. 
 Its Isaianic character is confessed even by 
 some modern critics. A post-exilian author 
 would scarcely express himself thus. There are 
 several of the plays upon words so characteristic 
 of Isaiah. Calvin long ago protested against the 
 ideathat these verses were prophetical of Calvary. 
 It,is a prophecy of a day of vengeance on Edom 
 and on the nations (v. 6). Their downfall must 
 precede Israel’s revival. The language and 
 phraseology reappear in Rey. xix. It is prob- 
 able that Ixiii. 7-14 with Ixivy. is a post- 
 exilian meditation. Vv. 18, 19, with Ixiv. 
 9-12, must have been composed at the close 
 ofthe Babylonian Captivity. The references 
 in the prayer to Israel’s ancient history are 
 most interesting. 
 
 Ch. Ιχν. 1-7 is not, properly speaking, an 
 answer to the prayer of the preceding chapter, 
 though possibly inserted by the editor with 
 that intent. The whole style of thought is 
 pre-exilian. The sins described are those so 
 common in the last days of Israel’s common- 
 wealth. Ezekiel speaks of such as then 
 practised in Jerusalem. Judgments are de- 
 nounced upon the guilty idolaters, though 
 God’s “ servants” are remembered in mercy, 
 and “the remnant” protected. For the 
 righteous days of blessing are predicted—new 
 heavens and-a new earth (vv. 17, 18). The 
 scenery of ch. xi. is repeated. No mention is 
 made here of exiles, of rebuilding the walls of 
 Jerusalem. A fairer vision floats before the 
 Prophet’s view, that of a world with the curse 
 removed. 
 
 It is not easy to assign a satisfactory date to 
 ch. Ixvi., or to summarize it in a few sentences. 
 If composed after the Return, its statements 
 would-have been too glaringly opposed to what 
 
 BIBLE DICT.—VOL. I, ; ; 
 
 ISAIAH 1473 
 
 men’s eyes then beheld. It appears to us 
 Isaianic, though probably “ worked over” by a 
 later hand. It describes the glories of the 
 Return, and the exclusion of the sinners from 
 the congregation of the holy. The destruction 
 of these ungodly is represented as taking place 
 on earth. But the visions, though connected 
 with the real, are concerned with matters 
 beyond those of earth. Both in describing 
 blessings and judgments there is no fixed line 
 of demarcation between the things seen and 
 those not seen. 
 
 Literature—It is impossible here to give 
 anything like a complete survey of the ex- 
 tensive literature of the Book. Passing over 
 the Patristic commentaries, among the Jewish 
 may be mentioned those of Abarbanel (Lat. 
 transl. 1520), Rashi (Lat. transl. by Breithaupt, 
 1713), Kimchi (Lat. transl. 1774), Ibn Ezra 
 (transl. into Engl. by Friedliinder, 1875-1877). 
 Calvin’s Comm. is still of value; Vitringa’s, 
 2 vols. fol., 1714, 1720, and 1715, 1722. Bp. 
 Lowth’s Comm, is antiquated ; Gesenius, Comm. 
 1821; Hitzig, 1833; Drechsler, began 1845, 
 compl. 1857; P. Schegg, 2 vols., 1850; Hen- 
 derson (English), 1857; and still better J. A. 
 Alexander, 2 vols. 1846, and edit. by Eadie, 
 1865; S. D. Luzzato (Italian), 1855-1866 ; 
 Ewald’s Propheten, 1867, 1868, translated into 
 English, and published by Williams & Norgate ; 
 A. Knobel, 1861, revised by Diestel, 1872, and 
 re-written as an independent work by Dillmann, 
 1890. This latter is most important. Niigels- 
 bach’s Comm. in Lange’s Bibelwerk, 1877, con- 
 tains much that is important; it has been 
 translated into English. Kay wrote in the 
 Speaker's Comm., and T. R. Birks independently. 
 Franz Delitzsch’s great Comm. has been often 
 revised; the 4th edit. appeared in 1889, and 
 has been transl. and edited in English with a 
 preface by S. R. Driver, 1890, 1891. The ablest 
 English Comm. is that of T. K. Cheyne, 2 vols., 
 5th edit., 1889. Bredenkamp’s Comm., short but 
 suggestive, appeared in 1887. The Comm. of 
 von Orelli in 1887, transl. into English, and 
 publ. by T. & Τὶ Clark. Myrberg, in Swedish, 
 1888. Canon Rawlinson has written on Isaiah 
 in the Pulp. Comm. Fresh and interesting are 
 the vols. of G. A. Smith, 1889, Important, too, 
 in this matter, is the new translation of . the 
 Bible by distinguished scholars (Die AHeilige 
 Schrift des A. T.,1890-2), edited by Kautzsch, 
 with critical notes on the dates of each portion. 
 
 The student should consult all the various 
 Introductions, especially that of Driver, 1891, 
 4th edit., 1892; and though brief, that of 
 Cornill, 1891, if its conclusions are far too 
 negative: also Driver’s Isaiah, Life and Times, 
 1888; <A. H. Sayce, with similar title, 
 1889; Sir Εν Strachey, Jewish Hist. and 
 Politics, 2nd edit. 1874; Klosterman’s article 
 in Herzog-Plitt ; Cornill, in Stade’s Zeitschrift, 
 1884. Among the most important monographs 
 are the 2 vols. on Isaiah 1111. according to the 
 Jewish Interpreters, Text by A. Neubauer, 
 transl. by Driver and Neubauer, edit. by Pusey, 
 1876, 1877; Urwick, The Servant of Jehovah, 
 1877; Prof. Forbes of Aberdeen, On the Servant 
 of the Lord, in Isaiah xl.-lxvi., 1890; J. Barth, 
 Beitrage, 1885, and Εἰ, Giesebrecht’s Beitrdge, 
 1890; H. Guthe, Das Zukunftsbild des Jes. 
 1885; Griitz in Donatschrift, 1886, and in 
 
 5B 
 
1474 ISCAH 
 
 Jewish Quarterly, 1891 (on Is. xxxiv., xxxv.)35 | 
 
 T. K. Cheyne in same Review, on the Critical 
 Problems of Second Part ; Léhr on Is. xl.-xlvi., 
 1878-1880. A. Wiinsche,° Leiden des Messias, 
 1870, and G. F. Dalman, Jsaiah liii., 1890, 
 are highly important. C 
 1848, and his Syr. Zph. Krieg, 1849, are still 
 valuable; Reinke’s Mess. Weissagungen, von 
 Hofmann’s works, and Hengstenberg’s Christ- 
 ology contain much that is still worth study. 
 (Ot Wei} 
 
 IS-CAH (13D; Ἰεσχά ; Jesca), daughter of 
 Haran the brother of Abram, and sister of 
 Mileah and of Lot (Gen. xi. 29). In the Jewish 
 traditions as preserved by Josephus (Ant. i. 6, 
 § 5), Jerome (Quaest. in Genesim), and the 
 Targum Pseudo-jonathan 
 writers—she is identified with SARAI; an iden- 
 tification not now maintained (see Dillmann® 
 in loco). 
 
 ISCARTIOT. [Jupas Iscarror.] 
 Gaddahel), 1 Esd. v. 
 
 IS’'DAEL (Ἰσδαήλ ; 
 33. [GIDDEL, 2.] 
 
 ISH-BAH (30 = praising; A. Ἰεσαβά, 
 B. Mapé@; Zesba), a man in the line of Judah, 
 commemorated as the “father of Eshtemoa” 
 (1 Ch. iv. 17); but from whom he was im- 
 mediately descended is, in the very confused 
 state of this part of the genealogy, not to be as- 
 certained. The most plausible conjecture is that 
 he was one of the sons of Mered by his Egyptian 
 wife ΒΙΤΗΙΑΗ (see Bertheau, Chronik, in loco ; 
 accepted by Keil, Oettli, &c.). 
 
 ISH-BAK (p32; A. Ἰεσβόκ, D. "lec Bovr, 
 B. SoBd« ; Jesboc), a people of Northern Arabia, 
 whose origin is attributed to the marriage of 
 Abraham with Keturah (ΠΡ, “incense”’); Gen. 
 xxv. 2; 1 Ch.i.32. An Assyrian inscription en- 
 ables us to identify Ishbak. In his first year 
 (859 8.6.) Shalmaneser II. crossed the Orontes in 
 Northern Syria, to operate against Sapalulme, 
 king of the Patinai, amongst whose allies he 
 names Sa(n)gara (Shamgar) of Carchemish, Pi- 
 chirim of Cilicia, and Bur-anate (perhaps 
 ΤΣ, “son of Anath;” cp. “Shamgar, son 
 of Anath,” Judg. ν. 6) of the land of Iasbuk* 
 (mat Ja-as-bu-qa-ai: 3 R. 7, 54).  Ishbak 
 probably adjoined Shuah (the Assyrian Sav), 
 his brother tribe, whose seats lay along the 
 west bank of the Euphrates between the 
 Balich and the Habor, on the confines of Coele- 
 Syria, and near the caravan route from Damas- 
 cus through Palmyra to the Great River (see 
 Friedrich Delitzsch, Assyriologische Notizen 
 zum alten Testament, ZK, ii. 92). [c: J. B.] 
 
 ISHBI-BENO'B (252 12, Qeri =*BW = 
 my delling is in Nob; B. *lecBet, A. Ἰεσβῖ ἐν 
 Νόβ ; Jesbi-benob), son of Rapha, one of the race 
 of Philistine giants, who attacked David in 
 
 ® The spelling agrees with the LXX. variants 
 *IegBovx, Ἰεσβόκ, and indicates that the Hebrew point- 
 ing should rather be DRY. In the same way the 
 spelling Hirom (1 K. vii. 40) instead of Hiram is con- 
 firmed by the Assyrian Hiram (Hi-ru-um-mu), as well 
 as by the Ἐἵρωμος of Josephus, 
 
 C. P. Caspari, Deitrage, | 
 
 not to mention later | 
 
 ISHBOSHETH 
 
 battle, but was slain by Abishai (2 Sam. xxi. 
 
 16,17). The words 233 13% are now, how- 
 
 ever, usually read not as a man’s name, but 
 
 (S53 2) “they dwelt in Gob,” and are 
 
 placed after YOU (“with him”) in v. 15 (ep. 
 
 Wellhausen and Driver, Notes on the Heb. Text . 
 of the BB. of Sam. in loco). [F.] 
 
 ISH-BO'SHETH (NUD WN; Ἰεβοσθές 
 TIsboseth), the youngest of Saul’s four sons, and 
 his legitimate successor. His name appears 
 (1 Ch. viii. 33, ix. 39) to have been originally 
 
 Esh-baal, Sya-wyy, “the man' of Baal.” 
 Whether this indicates that Baal was used as. 
 equivalent to Jehovah, or that the reverence 
 for Baal still lingered in Israelitish families, is 
 uncertain; but it can hardly be doubted that 
 the name (Ish-bosheth, “the man of skame’’). 
 by which he is commonly known must have 
 been substituted for the original word, with a 
 view of removing the scandalous sound of Baal 
 from the name of an Israelitish king, and super- 
 seding it by the contemptuous word (Bosheth= 
 “shame”) which was sometimes used as its 
 equivalent in later times (Jer. iii. 24, xi. 13; 
 Hos. ix. 10). A similar process appears in the 
 alteration of Jerubbaal (Judg. viii. 35) into 
 Jerubbesheth (2 Sam. xi. 21); Meri-baal (2 
 Sam. iv. 4) into Mephibosheth (1 Ch. viii. 34, 
 ix. 40). The last three cases all occur in Saul’s 
 family. He was thirty-five years of ageat the time 
 of the battle of Gilboa, in which his father and 
 three eldest brothers perished; and therefore, 
 according to the law of Oriental though not of 
 European succession, ascended the throne, as the 
 eldest of the royal family, rather than Mephi- 
 bosheth, son of his elder brother Jonathan, who. 
 was a child of five years old, He was imme- 
 diately taken under the care of Abner, his 
 powerful kinsman, who brought him to the 
 ancient sanctuary of Mahanaim on the east of 
 the Jordan, beyond the reach of the victorious 
 Philistines (2 Sam. ii. 8). There was a mo- 
 mentary doubt even in those remote tribes 
 whether they should not close with the offer 
 of David to be their king (2 Sam. ii. 7, iii. 17). 
 But this was overruled in favour of Ishbosheth 
 by Abner (2 Sam. iii. 17), who then for five 
 years slowly but effectually restored the do- 
 minion of the house of Saul over the Trans- 
 jordanic territory, the plain of Esdraelon, the 
 central mountains of Ephraim, the frontier tribe 
 of Benjamin, and eventually “over all Israel” 
 (except the tribe of Judah, 2 Sam. iii. 9). Ish- 
 bosheth was then “ forty years old when he began 
 to reign over Israel, and reigned two years” 
 (2 Sam. iii. 10). This form of expression is 
 used only for the accession of a fully recognised 
 sovereign (cp. in the case of David, 2 Sam. ii. 
 4 and ν. 4). 
 
 During these two years he reigned at 
 Mahanaim, though only in name. The wars 
 and negotiations with David were entirely 
 carried on by Abner (2 Sam. ii. 12; iii. 6, 12). 
 At length Ishbosheth accused Abner (whether 
 rightly or wrongly does not appear) of an 
 attempt on his father’s concubine, Rizpah ; 
 which, according to Oriental usage, amounted 
 to treason (2 Sam. iii. 7: ep. 1 K. ii. 13; 2 Sam. 
 xvi. 21, xx. 3), Abner resented this suspicion 
 in a burst of passion, which vented itself in a 
 
A 
 / 
 
 7 
 
 ISHI 
 
 solemn vow to transfer the kingdom from the 
 house of Saul to the house of David.  Ish- 
 bosheth was too much cowed to answer; and 
 when, shortly afterwards, through Abner’s nego- 
 tiation, David demanded the restoration οὐ his 
 former wife, Michal, he at once tore his sister 
 from her reluctant husband, and committed 
 her to Abner’s charge (2 Sam, iii. 14, 15). 
 
 The death of Abner deprived the house of 
 Saul of their last remaining support. When 
 Ishbosheth heard of it, “his hands were feeble 
 and all the Israelites were troubled” (2 Sam, 
 tye): 
 
 τ this extremity of weakness he fell a 
 victim to a revenge, probably, for a crime of 
 his father. The guard of Ishbosheth, as of 
 Saul, was taken from their own royal tribe of 
 Benjamin (1 Ch. xii. 29). But amongst the 
 sons of Benjamin were reckoned the descendants 
 of the old Canaanitish inhabitants of Beeroth, 
 one of the cities in league with Gibeon (2 Sam. 
 iv. 2, 3). Two of the Beerothites, Baana and 
 Rechab, in remembrance, it has been conjec- 
 tured, of Saul’s slaughter of their kinsmen 
 the Gibeonites, determined to take advantage of 
 the helplessness of the royal house to destroy 
 the only representative that was left, ex- 
 cepting the child Mephibosheth (2 Sam. iv. 4). 
 They were “chiefs of the marauding troops ” 
 which used from time to time to attack 
 the territory of Judah (cp. 2 Sam. iv. 2, 
 iii. 22; where the same word i713 is used; 
 Vulg. principes latronum). [BENJAMIN ; GIT-. 
 TAIM.] They knew the habits of the king and 
 court, and acted accordingly. In the stillness 
 of an Eastern noon they entered the palace, as 
 if to carry off the wheat which was piled up 
 near the entrance. The female slave, who, as 
 usual in Eastern houses, kept the door, and was 
 herself sifting the wheat, had, in the heat of the 
 day, fallen asleep at her task (2 Sam. iv. 5, 6, 
 in LXX. and Vulg.). They stole in, and passed 
 into the royal bedchamber, where Ishbosheth 
 was asleep on his couch. They stabbed him in 
 the stomach, cut off his head, made their 
 escape, all that afternoon, all that night, down 
 the valley of the Jordan (Arabah, A. V. 
 “plain : 2 Sam. iv. 7), and presented the head 
 to David as a welcome present. They met 
 with a stern reception. David rebuked them 
 for the cold-blooded murder of an inno- 
 cent man, and ordered them to be executed ; 
 their hands and feet were cut off, and their 
 bodies suspended over the tank at Hebron. 
 The head of Ishbosheth was carefully buried in 
 the sepulchre of his great kinsman Abner, at 
 the same place (2 Sam. iv. 9-12)" [A. P.S.] 
 
 ISH-I Οὐ = my help ; Jesi). 1. (B. Ἰσε- 
 pind; A. *Ieoel.) A man of the descendants 
 of Judah, son of Appaim (1 Ch. ii. 31); one of 
 the great house of Hezron, and therefore a near 
 connexion of the family of Jesse (cp. vv. 9-13). 
 The only son here attributed to Ishi is Sheshan. 
 
 2. (B. eet; A. “Es.) In a subsequent 
 genealogy of Judah we find another Ishi, with a 
 son Zoheth (1 Ch. iv. 20). There does not 
 appear to be any connexion between the two. 
 
 3 In Dryden’s Absalom and Ahithophel, ‘foolish 
 Ishbosheth ” is ingeniously taken to represent Richard 
 Cromwell. 
 
 ISHMAEL 1475 
 
 3. (B. Ἰεσειθέν ; A. "Ievel.) Four men of 
 the Bene-Ishi, of the tribe of Simeon, are 
 named in 1 Ch. iv. 42 as having headed an 
 expedition of 500 of their brethren, who took 
 Mount Seir from the Amalekites, and made it 
 their own abode. 
 
 4. (B. Seel; A. *Iecel.) One of the heads 
 of the tribe of Manasseh on the east of Jordan 
 (1 Ch, v. 24). 
 
 T-SHI (WN; ὁ ἀνήρ pov; Vir meus). This 
 word has no connexion whatever with the fore- 
 going. It occurs in Hos. ii. 16, and signifies 
 ‘““my man,” “my husband.” It is the Israelite 
 term, in opposition to Baaut, the Canaanite 
 term, with the same meaning, though with a 
 significance of its own. See p. 1399, where 
 the nature of the difference between the two 
 appellations is connected with the general 
 teaching. 
 
 ISHI’AH, R. V. ISSHIAH (AY, i.e. Is- 
 shiyah=Jehovah lends; B. Eiow, A. Ἰεσία), 
 the fifth of the five sons of Izrahiah; one of 
 the heads of the tribe of Issachar in the time 
 of David (1 Ch. vii. 3). 
 
 The name is identical with that elsewhere 
 given as IsHIJAH, ISSHIAH, JESIAH. 
 
 ISHI'JAH, R. V. ISSHIJAH (70; B. 
 Ἰεσσειά, A. Ἰεσσία ; Josue), a lay Israelite of 
 the Bene-Harim, who had married a foreign 
 wife, and was compelled to relinquish her (Ezra 
 x. 31). In Esdras the name is ASEAS, 
 
 This name appears in the A. V. under the 
 various forms of ISHIAH, ISSHIAH, JESIAH. 
 
 ISH-MA (NU = waste, desert, Ges. ; Ἰεσμάν, 
 B. Ῥαγμά, A. Ἰεσμά ; Jesema), a name in the 
 genealogy of Judah (1 Ch. iv. 3). The passage 
 is very obscure, and in many cases it is difficult 
 to know whether the names are the names of 
 persons or of places. Ishma and his companions 
 appear to be closely connected with Bethlehem 
 (see v. 4). 
 
 ISH'MAEL ΟΝ ΝΟ = God heareth ; Ἰσ- 
 panda; Ismael; cp. Gen. xvi. 11), the son of 
 Abraham by Hagar, his concubine, the Egyptian ;. 
 born, according to P, when Abraham was four- 
 score and six years old (Gen. xvi. 15, 10). Ish- 
 mael was the first-born of his father: of whom 
 (ch. xv.) we read that he was then childless, and 
 there is no apparent interval for the birth of 
 any other child; nor does the teaching of the 
 narrative, besides the precise enumeration of the 
 sons of Abraham as the father of the faithful, 
 admit of the supposition. The saying of Sarah, 
 also, when she gave him Hagar, supports the 
 inference that until then he was without 
 children. When we are told that Abraham 
 “again took a wife” (xxv. 1, J), viz. Keturah, 
 no note of time is added; but it appears to be 
 implied that it was after the death of Sarah. 
 The conception of Ishmael led to the flight of 
 Hagar [HaGAR]; and it was during her wander- 
 ing in the wilderness that the Angel of the Lord 
 commanded her to return to her mistress, and 
 gave her the promises, “I will multiply thy seed 
 exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for 
 multitude ” (Gen, xvi. 10, R); “ Behold, thou art 
 
 5B 2 
 
1476 ISHMAEL 
 
 with child, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call 
 his name Ishmael, because the Lord hath heard 
 thy affliction. And he will be a wild man; his 
 hand will be against every man, and every man’s 
 hand against him; and he shall dwell in the pre- 
 sence of all his brethren” (xvi. 11,12, J). The 
 well Lahai-roi is said to have got its name from 
 Hagar’s vision, as though the name Beer lahai 
 roi meant “‘ Well of the Living One that seeth 
 me,” or “ Well of living after seeing (God).” It 
 is not, however, necessary to regard such sug- 
 gestions as more than illustrative plays ,on 
 similar-sounding words. It has been con- 
 jectured that Lahai-roi really means “ Jawbone 
 of the antelope”; rot being perhaps an obsolete 
 term akin to the Arabic ’arwiyya (cp. Reh, 
 roe): see Judg. xv. 17 sqq.; Wellhausen, H/. 
 p- 326. 
 
 Ishmael was born in Abraham’s house, when 
 he dwelt “by the oaks (or terebinths) of 
 Mamre” (xiii. 18; xviii. 1, J); and was circum- 
 cised at the age of thirteen (xvii. 25, P). With 
 the institution of the covenant, God renewed His 
 promise respecting Ishmael. In answer to 
 Abraham’s entreaty, when he cried, “ Oh that 
 Ishmael might live before Thee! ” God assured 
 him of the birth of Isaac, and said, “As for 
 Ishmael, I have heard thee: behold, I have 
 blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and 
 will multiply him exceedingly ; twelve princes 
 (or emirs, tribal chiefs) shall he beget, and I will 
 make him a great nation”? (xvii. 18,20. The 
 whole chapter belongs to P). Before this time, 
 Abraham seems to have regarded his first-born 
 child as the heir of the promise, his belief in 
 which was counted unto him for righteousness 
 (xv. 6, J); and although that faith shone yet 
 more brightly after his passing weakness when 
 Isaac was first promised, his love for Ishmael is 
 recorded in the narrative of Sarah’s expulsion of 
 the latter: “And the thing was very grievous 
 in Abraham’s sight because of his son” (xxi. 
 11, E). 
 
 Ishmael does not again appear in the narrative 
 until the weaning of Isaac. The latter was born, 
 according to P, when Abraham was a hundred 
 years old (xxi. 5); and as the weaning, accord- 
 ing to Eastern usage, would take place when the 
 child was between two and three years old, 
 Ishmael must be supposed to have been then 
 between fifteen and sixteen years of age. This 
 necessary inference from the chronological data 
 of P does not, however, agree very well with the 
 statement of E (xxi. 14), which according to 
 the LXX. should be read as follows: “And 
 Abraham rose early in the morning, and took 
 bread and a skin of water, and gaye them to 
 Hagar; and the boy he set upon her shoulder, 
 and sent her away.” The present Hebrew text 
 is obviously faulty, and appears to be due to 
 some transcriber who felt the difficulty of 
 putting a lad of sixteen upon his mother’s 
 shoulder. But the subsequent statement that 
 “she threw the boy under one of the shrubs” 
 (Ὁ. 15), seems to imply that she was carrying 
 him; and the language of v. 20 hardly allows 
 us to suppose that Ishmael was already a young 
 man. When the difference of sources is recog- 
 nised, such discrepancies of statement cease to 
 embarrass us [Isaac]. 
 
 At the “great feast”? made in celebration of 
 the weaning, Sarah had seen Ishmael “ laugh- 
 
 \ 
 ISHMAEL 
 
 ing” (A. V. “ mocking”; R. V. marg. “ play- 
 ing”’).* Thereupon, she urged Abraham to cast 
 out him and his mother. The patriarch, com- 
 furted by God’s renewed promise that of Ishmael 
 He would make a nation, sent them both away, 
 and they departed and wandered in the wilder- 
 ness of Beersheba. Here the water being spent 
 in the bottle, Hagar cast her son under one of 
 the desert shrubs, and went away a little 
 distance, “ for she said, Let me not see the death 
 of the child,” and wept. “And God heard the 
 voice of the lad, and the Angel of the Lord called 
 to Hagar out of heaven,” renewed the promise 
 already thrice given, “I will make him a great 
 nation,” and “opened her eyes, and she saw a 
 well of water.” Thus miraculously saved from 
 perishing by thirst, “ God was with the lad; and 
 he grew, and dwelt in the wilderness; and 
 became an archer.” It is doubtful whether the 
 wanderers halted by the well, or at once con- 
 tinued their way to the “ wilderness of Paran,” 
 where, we are told in the next verse to that just 
 quoted, he dwelt, and where “his mother took 
 him a wife out of the land of Egypt ” (Gen. xxi. 
 9-21,E). This wife of Ishmael is not elsewhere ~ 
 mentioned ; she was, we must infer, an Egyptian ; 
 
 and this second infusion of Hamitic blood into 
 
 the progenitors of the Arab nation, Ishmael’s 
 
 sons, is a fact that has been generally overlooked. 
 
 No record is made of any other wife of Ishmael, 
 
 and failing such record, the Egyptian would 
 
 seem to have been the mother of his twelve sons, _ 
 
 and one daughter (cp. the twelve sons and one 
 daughter assigned to Israel also). This daughter, 
 however, is called the “sister of Nebajoth ” 
 (Gen. xxviii. 9); a limitation of the parentage 
 of the brother and sister which probably points 
 to a different mother for Ishmael’s other sons.” 
 It must not be forgotten that terms denoting 
 various degrees of blood-relationship are used in 
 these narratives to express the local and political 
 relations of kindred tribes and their subdivisions. 
 In O. T. language, the founder of a town, or the 
 eponymous chief of the tribe that was settled 
 there, is called the “father”’ of the place; and the 
 outlying dependencies are called its “ daughters.” 
 A newer or otherwise inferior clan or tribe in a 
 confederacy is regarded as sprung from the 
 common ancestor through a foreign wife or ἃ 
 “concubine.” The old Arab writers use a 
 similar terminology. 
 
 Of the later life of Ishmael nothing is related © 
 in the older sections of Genesis (J, E). Accord- 
 ing to P, he was present with Isaac at the 
 burial of Abraham (Gen. xxv. 9); and Esau con- 
 tracted an alliance with him when he “ took 
 unto the wives which he had Mahalath, the 
 daughter of Ishmael Abraham’s son, the sister of 
 Nebajoth, to be his wife; ” and this did Esau 
 because the daughters of Canaan pleased not 
 Isaac and Rebekah, and Jacob in obedience to 
 
 =e: 
 
 a St. Paul appears to follow Jewish tradition or 
 exegesis, when he speaks of Ishmael as ‘‘ persecuting ” 
 Isaac (Gal. iv. 29). Sarah’s motive was perhaps a 
 mother’s jealousy. 
 
 b According to Rabbinical tradition, Ishmael put away 
 his wife and took a second; and the Arabs, probably 
 borrowing from the above, assert that he twice married ; 
 the first wife being an Amalekite, by whom he had no 
 issue ; and the second, a Joktanite, of the tribe of Jur- 
 hum (Mir-at ’az-Zaman, MS., quoting a tradition of 
 Muhammad Ibn-Is-hak.) 
 
 . 
 
απ δ ἀν 
 
 ISHMAEL 
 
 their wishes had gone to Laban to obtain of his 
 
 daughters a wife (xxviii. 6-9, P). The death of 
 Ishmael is recorded in a previous chapter, after 
 the enumeration of his sons, as having taken 
 place at the age of a hundred and thirty-seven 
 years (xxv. 17, P). 
 
 It remains for us to consider, 1, the place of 
 Ishmael’s dwelling; and, 2, the names of his 
 children, with their settlements, and the nation 
 sprung from them. 
 
 1. Krom the narrative of his expulsion, we 
 learn that Ishmael first went into the wilderness 
 of Beersheba, and thence, but at what interval 
 of time is uncertain, removed to that of Paran. 
 His continuance in these or the neighbouring 
 places seems to be proved by his having been 
 
 be remembered that in the East sepulture 
 follows death after a few hours’ space—and by 
 Esau’s marrying his daughter at a time when he 
 (Esau) dwelt at Beersheba: the tenor of the 
 narrative of both these events favouring the 
 inference that Ishmael settled not far from the 
 neighbourhood of Abraham and Isaac. There 
 are, however, other passages which must be 
 taken into account. It is prophesied of him 
 (xvi. 12, J) that “he shall dwell in face of all his 
 brethren” (i.c. near them, but independent of 
 them. Hart vor ihnen, Dillmann; others, as 
 Tuch and Delitzsch, dstlich von, “eastward of.” 
 Cp. also xxv. 18, which, however, is hopelessly 
 obscure, and probably corrupt). He was the 
 first Abrahamic settler in the east country. In 
 xxv. 6 (R) it is said, “But unto the sons of 
 the concubines, which Abraham had, Abraham 
 gave gifts, and sent them away from Isaac his 
 son, while he yet lived, eastward, unto the east 
 country.” The “east country” perhaps was 
 restricted in early times to the wildernesses of 
 Beersheba and Paran, and it afterwards seems to 
 have included those districts (though neither 
 supposition necessarily follows from the above 
 passage) ;° or, Ishmael removed to that east 
 country, northwards, without being distant from 
 his father and his brethren; each case being 
 agreeable with Gen. xxv. 6. The appellation of 
 the “east country” became afterwards applied 
 to the whole desert extending from the frontier 
 of Palestine east to the Euphrates, and south 
 probably to the borders of Egypt and the 
 Arabian peninsula (cp. Dillmann, ad loc. cit., 
 who says that Arabia in general, including 
 Arabia Deserta and the Syrian desert, is in- 
 tended). This question is discussed in art. 
 Bene-KeDEM; and it is interwoven, though 
 obscurely, with the next subject, that of the 
 names and settlements of the sons of Ishmael. 
 See also KETURAH, &c.; for the “brethren ” of 
 Ishmael, in whose presence he dwelt, included 
 the sons of Keturah. 
 
 2. The sons of Ishmael were, Nebajoth his 
 first-born, Kedar, Adbeel, Mibsam, Mishma, 
 Dumah, Massa, Hadar, Tema, Jetur, Naphish, 
 Kedemah (Gen. xxv. 13-15, P), and he had a 
 daughter named Mahalath (axviii. 9, P), the 
 sister of Nebajoth, before mentioned.’ The sons 
 
 ee 
 
 ς In Gen. xxxvi. 3, the Redactor speaks of Basémath 
 the daughter of Ishmael, the sister of Nebajoth, as a wife 
 of Esau (cp. also vv. 10, 17). In xxvi. 34, P had written 
 «« Basémath, the daughter of Elon the Hittite.” As 
 
 ISHMAEL 1477 
 are enumerated with the statement that “these 
 are their names, in their villages, and in their 
 encampments; twelve emirs according to their 
 kindreds ” (or tribal communities, NDS; origi- 
 nally perhaps, motherhoods), xxv. 16, P. The 
 sons of Ishmael here appear as partly settled in 
 open country places, and partly living in 
 temporary camping-grounds like the Bedawis at 
 the present day. ‘“ They dwelt from Havilah 
 unto Shur, that is before (ic. east of) Egypt, as 
 thou goest unto Assyria” (xxv. 18) [but see the 
 remark on this passage, above]; and it is 
 certain, in accordance with this statement of 
 their limits [see HAviiau, Suur], that they 
 stretched in very early times across the desert 
 
 | to the N.W. coast of the Persian Gulf, peopled 
 present at the burial of Abraham—for it must | : ee 
 
 the north and west of the Arabian peninsula, 
 and eventually formed the chief element of the 
 Arab nation. Their language, which is generally 
 acknowledged to have been the Arabic commonly 
 so called, has been adopted with insignificant 
 exceptions throughout Arabia. It has been said 
 that the Bible requires the whole of that nation 
 to be sprung from Ishmael, and the fact of a 
 large admixture of Joktanite and even Cushite 
 peoples in the south and south-east has been 
 regarded as a suggestion of scepticism. Yet not 
 only does the Bible contain no warrant for the 
 assumption that all Arabs are Ishmaelites; but 
 the characteristics of the Ishmaelites, strongly 
 marked in all the more northern tribes of 
 Arabia, and perfectly according with the oracle 
 (Gen. xvi. 12), “he will be a wild man; his 
 hand will be against every man, and every man’s 
 hand against him,” become weaker in the south, 
 and can scarcely be predicated of all the peoples 
 of Joktanite and other descent. Some of the 
 bené Ishmael, indeed, became settled, and 
 attained to a certain degree of civilisation 
 [Duman, Nepasotu, Tema]. The true Ish- 
 maelites, however, and even tribes of very mixed 
 race, have always been, for the most part, 
 thoroughly “wild men,” living by warlike 
 forays and plunder; dreaded by their neigh- 
 bours; dwelling in tents, with hardly any 
 household chattels, but rich in flocks and herds, 
 migratory, and recognising no law but the 
 authority of the chiefs of their tribes. Even the 
 religion of Muhammad is held in light esteem 
 by many of the more remote tribes, among whom 
 the ancient usages of their people obtain in 
 almost their old simplicity, besides idolatrous 
 practices altogether repugnant to Muhamma- 
 danism as they are to the faith of the patriarchs ; 
 practices which may be ascribed to the influence 
 of the Canaanites, of Moab, Ammon, and Edom, 
 with whom, by intermarriages, commerce, and 
 war, the tribes of Ishmael must have had long 
 and intimate relations. ’ 
 
 The term ΙΒΗΜΆΑΕΙΤΕ coxpneiy) occurs on 
 several occasions: Gen. xxxvii, 25, 27, 28, xxxix. 
 1; Judg. viii. 24; Ps. Ixxxiii.6. From the con- 
 text of the first two instances, it seems to have 
 been a comprehensive name for the Abrahamic 
 
 Dillmann observes, the divergences presented by these 
 passages are to be traced to differences of tradition or 
 of theory, rather than to be explained away by the as- 
 sumption that Esau had five wives, or that their names 
 were changed, or that they had double names, or that the 
 names have been corrupted by copyists. 
 
1478 
 
 peoples of the east country, the Bene-Kedem, or 
 the northern Arabs generally, so that the 
 Midianites might be included under it. In the 
 third instance the name is applied in its strict 
 sense to the Ishmaelites. It is also applied to 
 Jether, the father of Amasa by David’s sister 
 Abigail (1 Ch. ii, 17.) [Ivura; Jeruer.] Cp. 
 also 1 Ch. xxviii. 30. 
 
 The notions of the Arabs respecting Ishmael 
 
 ages 
 (jus : wo\) are partly derived from the Bible, 
 ΓΗ τι 
 
 ῥοῦ ad 
 
 partly from the Jewish Rabbis, and partly from 
 native traditions. The origin of many of these 
 traditions is obscure, but a great number may 
 be ascribed to the fact of Muhammad’s having 
 for political reasons claimed Ishmael for his 
 ancestor, and striven to make out an impossible 
 pedigree ; while both he and his followers haye, 
 as a consequence of accepting this assumed de- 
 scent, sought to exalt that ancestor. Another 
 reason may be safely found in Ishmael’s acknow- 
 ledged headship of the naturalised Arabs, and 
 this cause existed from the very period of his 
 settlement. [ARABIA.] Yet the rivalry of the 
 Joktanite kingdom of Southern Arabia, and its 
 intercourse with classical and medieval Europe, 
 the wandering and unsettled habits of the 
 Ishmaelites, their having no literature, and as 
 far as we know only a meagre oral tradition, all 
 contributed, till the importance it acquired with 
 the promulgation of Al-Islim, to render our 
 knowledge of the Ishmaelitic portion of the people 
 of Arabia, before Muhammad, lamentably defec- 
 tive. That they maintained, and still maintain, 
 a patriarchal and primitive form of life is known 
 to us. Their religion, at least in the period 
 immediately preceding Muhammad, was in 
 Central Arabia chiefly the grossest fetishism, 
 probably learnt from aboriginal inhabitants of 
 the land; southwards it diverged to the cosmic 
 worship of the Joktanite Himyarites (though 
 these were far from being exempt from fetishism), 
 and northwards (so at least in ancient times) to 
 an approach to that true faith which Ishmael 
 may be supposed to have carried with him, and 
 which his descendants thus gradually lost 
 [see Wellhausen, Encyc. Brit. xvi. 546 sq. |. 
 This last point is curiously illustrated by the 
 numbers who, in Arabia, became either Jews 
 (Caraites) or Christians (though of a very cor- 
 rupt form of Christianity), and by the movement 
 in search of the faith of the patriarchs which 
 had been put forward, not long before the birth 
 of Muhammad, by men not satisfied with Judaism 
 or the corrupt form of Christianity with which 
 alone they were acquainted. This movement 
 first aroused Muhammad, and was afterwards 
 the main cause of his success. 
 
 The Arabs believe that Ishmael was the first- 
 born of Abraham, and the majority of their 
 doctors (but the point is in dispute) assert that 
 this son, and not Isaac, was offered by Abraham 
 in sacrifice.4 The scene of this sacrifice is Mount 
 Arafat, near Mecca, the last holy place visited 
 by pilgrims, it being necessary to the completion 
 of pilgrimage to be present at asermon delivered 
 there on the 9th of the Muhammadan month 
 
 ISHMAEL 
 
 * ἃ With this, and some other exceptions, the Muslims 
 have adopted the chief facts of the history of Ishmael 
 recorded in the Bible. 
 
 ISHMAEL 
 
 Dhu-l-Haggah, in commemoration of the offering, 
 and to sacrifice a victim on the following evening 
 after sunset, in the valley of Mina. The sacri- 
 fice last mentioned is observed throughout the 
 Muslim world, and the day on which it is made 
 is called “ The Great Festival ” (Mr. Lane’s Mod. 
 Egypt. ch. iii.). Ishmael, say the Arabs, dwelt 
 with his mother at Mecca, and both are buried 
 in the place called the Higr, on the north-west 
 (termed by the Arabs the north) side of the 
 Caaba, and enclosed by a curved wall called the 
 Hatim. Ishmael was visited at Mecea by Abra- 
 ham; and they together rebuilt the temple, which 
 had been destroyed by a flood. At Mecca, Ishmael 
 married a daughter of Mudad or Al-Mudad, 
 chief of the Joktanite tribe G’urhum [ALMODAD; 
 ARABIA], and had thirteen children (Mir-at ’az- 
 Zaman MS.); which agrees with the Biblical 
 number, if we include the daughter. 
 
 Muhammad's descent from Ishmael is totally 
 lost, for an unknown number of generations 
 before ’Adnan, of the twenty-first generation 
 before the prophet: from him downwards the 
 latter’s descent is, if we may believe the gene- 
 alogists, fairly proved. But we have evidence 
 far more trustworthy than that of the gene- 
 alogists; for while most of the natives of 
 Arabia are unable to trace up their pedigrees, it 
 is scarcely possible to find one who is ignorant 
 of his race, seeing that his very life often depends 
 upon it. The law of blood-revenge necessitates 
 his knowing the names of his ancestors for four 
 generations, but no more; and this law, obtain- 
 ing from time immemorial, has made any con- 
 fusion of race almost impossible. This law, it 
 should be remembered, is not a law of Mu- 
 hammad, but an old pagan law that he en- 
 deavoured to suppress, but could not. In casting 
 doubt on the prophet’s pedigree, we must add 
 that this cannot affect the proofs of the chief 
 element of the Arab nation being Ishmaelite 
 (and so too the tribe of Quraish, of which was 
 Muhammad). Although partly niixed with 
 Joktanites, they are more mixed with Keturites 
 and other races; the characteristics of the Jck- 
 tanites, as before remarked, are widely different 
 from those of the Ishmaelites; and whatever 
 theories may be adduced to the contrary, we 
 believe that the Arabs, from physical charac- 
 teristics, language, the concurrence of native 
 traditions (before Muhammadanism made them 
 untrustworthy), and the testimony. of the Bible, 
 are mainly and essentially Ishmaelite. 
 
 (E.:S. Βῇ ΤΟ ΒΗ 
 
 2. One of the sons of Azel, a descendant of 
 Saul through Merib-baal, or Mephibosheth (1 
 Ch. viii. 38, ix. 44). See the genealogy, under 
 SAUL. 
 
 8. (B. omits; Jsmahel.) A man of Judah, 
 whose son or descendant ZEBADIAH was ruler 
 (W342) of the house of Judah in the time of 
 Jehoshaphat (2 Ch. xix. 11). 
 
 4, Another man of Judah, son of Jehohanan ; 
 one of the “captains ("]) of hundreds ” who 
 assisted Jehoiada in restoring Joash to the 
 throne (2 Ch. xxiii. 1). 
 
 5. (Ὁ. Samana, &. -αιήλ, A. Ἰσμαήλ.) A 
 priest of the Bene-Pashur, forced by Ezra to 
 relinquish his foreign wife (Ezra x. 22). [15- 
 MAEL, 2.} 
 
 8. The son of Nethaniah; a perfect marvel 
 
ISHMAEL 
 
 of craft and villainy, whose treachery forms 
 
 one of the chief episodes of the history of | 
 the period immediately succeeding the first fall 
 
 of Jerusalem. His exploits are related in Jer. 
 
 xl. 7-xli. 15, with a short summary in 2 K. xxv. 
 
 23-25, and they read almost like a page from 
 
 the annals of the Indian mutiny. 
 
 His full description is “Ishmael, the son of 
 Nethaniah, the son of Elishama, of the seed 
 royal’”’* of Judah (Jer. xli. 1; 2 K. xxv. 
 25). Whether by this is intended that he 
 was ‘actually a son of Zedekiah, or one of 
 the later kings, or, more generally, that he 
 had royal blood in his veins—perhaps a de- 
 scendant of EnisHama, the son of David (2 
 Sam. v. 16)—we cannot tell. During the siege 
 of the city he had, like many others of his 
 countrymen (Jer. xl. 11), fled across the Jordan, 
 where he found a refuge at the court of Baatlis, 
 the then king of the Bene-Ammon (Jos. Ant. x. 
 9, § 2). Ammonite women were sometimes 
 found in the harems of the kings of Jerusalem 
 (1 K. xi. 1), and Ishmael may have been thus 
 related to the Ammonite court on his mother’s 
 side. At any rate he was instigated by Baalis 
 to the designs which he accomplished but too 
 successfully (Jer. xl. 14; Ant. x. 9, ὃ 3). 
 Several bodies of Jews appear to have been lying 
 under arms in the plains on the S.E. of the 
 Jordan, during the last days of Jerusalem, 
 watching the progress of affairs in Western 
 Palestine, commanded by “ princes ” (107; R. V. 
 
 “ captains”), the chief of whom were Ishmael 
 and two brothers, Johanan and Jonathan, sons 
 of Kareah. Immediately after the departure of 
 the Chaldean army these men moved across the 
 Jordan to pay their respects to GEDALIAH, whom 
 the king of Babylon had left as superintendent 
 (PD) of the province. Gedaliah had taken up 
 his residence at Mizpan, a few miles north of 
 Jerusalem, on the main road, where Jeremiah the 
 prophet resided with him (xl. 6), The house 
 would appear to have been isolated from the rest 
 of the town. We can discern a high enclosed 
 courtyard and a deep well within its precincts. 
 The well was certainly (Jer. xli. 9; cp. 1 K. xv. 
 22), and the whole residence was probably, a 
 relic of the military works of Asa king οἵ 
 Judah. 
 
 Ishmael made no secret of his intention to 
 
 e aaybpn poy. Jerome (Qu. Hebr. on 2 Ch. 
 Xxviii. 7) inferprets this expression as meaning “of the 
 seed of Molech.” He gives the same meaning to the 
 words ‘‘the king’s son” applied to Maaseiah in the 
 above passage. The question is an interesting one, and 
 has been revived by Geiger (Urschrift, &c. p. 307), who 
 extends it to other passages and persons. [ΝΟ ΕΘΗ. 
 Jerome (as above) further says—perhaps on the strength 
 of a tradition that Ishmael was the son of an Egyptian 
 slave, Gera: as a reason why the “seed royal” should 
 bear the meaning he gives it. This the writer has not 
 hitherto succeeded in elucidating. 
 
 f So perhaps, taking it with the express statement of | 
 xl. 11, we may interpret the words ‘‘the forces which 
 were in the field” (Jer. xl. 7, 13), where the term 
 rendered ‘‘the field” (23) is one used to denote 
 
 the pasture-grounds of Moab—the modern Belka— 
 
 oftener than any other district (see Gen. xxxvi. 35; 
 Num. xxi. 20; Ruth i. 1, and passim ; 1 Ch. viii. 8; and 
 
 Stanley’s S. & P. App. § 15). The persistent use of the 
 
 word in the semi-Moabite Book of Ruth is alone envugh 
 . to fix its meaning. 
 
 1479 
 
 kill the superintendent, and usurp his position. 
 Of this Gedaliah was warned in express terms 
 by Johanan and his companions; and Johanan, 
 in a secret interview, foreseeing how irreparable 
 a misfortune Gedaliah’s death would be at this 
 juncture (Jer. xl. 15), offered to remove the 
 danger by killing Ishmael. This, however, Ge- 
 daliah, a man evidently of a high and unsus- 
 pecting nature, would not hear of (xl. 16. See 
 the amplification in Jos. Ant. x. 9,§ 3). They all 
 accordingly took leave. Thirty days after (Ant. 
 x. 9, § 4), in the seventh month (xli. 1), on the 
 third day of the month—so says the tradition— 
 Ishmael again appeared at Mizpah, this time 
 accompanied by ten men, who were, according to 
 the Hebrew text, “ princes (R.V. “chief officers’’) 
 
 of the king” (097 3), though this is 
 omitted by the LXX. and by Josephus. Gedaliah 
 entertained them at a feast (xli. 1). According 
 to the statement of Josephus, this was a very 
 lavish entertainment, and Gedaliah became 
 much intoxicated. It must have been a private 
 one, for before its close Ishmael and his followers 
 had murdered Gedaliah and all his attendants 
 with such secrecy that no alarm was given out- 
 side the room. The same night he killed all 
 Gedaliah’s establishment, including some Chal- 
 dean soldiers who were there. Jeremiah appears 
 fortunately to have been absent, and, incredible 
 as it seems, so well had Ishmael taken his pre- 
 cautions that for two days the massacre remained 
 perfectly unknown to the people of the town. 
 On the second day Ishmael perceived from his 
 elevated position a large party coming south- 
 ward along the main road from Shechem and 
 Samaria. He went out to meet them. They 
 proved to be eighty devotees, who with rent 
 clothes, and with shaven beards, mutilated 
 bodies, and other marks of heathen devotion, and 
 weeping 5 as they went, were bringing frankin- 
 cense and oblations to the ruins of the Temple. At 
 his invitation they turned aside to the residence 
 of the superintendent. And here Ishmael put 
 into practice the same stratagem which on a 
 larger scale was employed by Muhammad Ali in 
 the massacre of the Mamelukes at Cairo in 1806. 
 As the unsuspecting pilgrims passed into the 
 courtyard" he closed the entrances behind them, 
 and there he and his band butchered the whole 
 number: ten only escaped by the offer of heavy 
 ransom for their lives. The seventy corpses 
 were then thrown into the well which, as at 
 Cawnpore, was within the precincts of the house, 
 and which was completely filled with the bodies. 
 It was the same thing that had been done by 
 Jehu—a man in some respects a prototype of 
 Ishmael—with the bodies of the forty-two 
 relatives of Ahaziah (2 K. x. 14). This done he 
 descended to the town, surprised and carried off 
 the daughters of king Zedekiah, who had been 
 sent there by Nebuchadnezzar for safety, with 
 their eunuchs and their Chaldean guard (xli. 10, 
 
 ISHMAEL 
 
 & This is the LXX. version of the matter—avdrot 
 ἐπορεύοντο καὶ ἔκλαιον. The statement of the Hebrew 
 text and A. V. that Ishmael wept is unintelligible. 
 
 h The Hebrew has —‘‘the city” (A. V. υ. 7). 
 
 > TF 
 
 This bas been read by Josephus \YM—‘ courtyard.” 
 TT 
 
 The alteration carries its genuineness in its face. The 
 same change has been made by the Masorets (671) in 
 2. Σξ. 4. 
 
1480 ISHMAIAH 
 
 16), and all the people of the town, and made 
 off with his prisoners to the country of the 
 Ammonites. Which road he took is not quite 
 clear ; the Hebrew text and LXX. say by Gibeon, 
 —that is, north ; but Josephus, by Hebron, round 
 the southern end of the Dead Sea. The news of 
 the massacre had by this time got abroad, and 
 ishmael was quickly pursued by Johanan and 
 his companions. Whether north or south, they 
 soon tracked him and his unwieldy booty, and 
 found them reposing by some copious waters 
 (3 DY). He was attacked, two of his 
 bravoes slain, the whole of the prey recovered, 
 and Ishmael himself, with the remaining eight 
 of his people, escaped to the Ammonites, and 
 thenceforward passes into the obscurity from 
 which it would have been well if he had never 
 emerged. 
 
 Johanan’s foreboding was fulfilled. The result 
 of this tragedy was an immediate panic. The 
 small remnants of the Jewish commonwealth— 
 the captains of the forces, the king’s daughters, 
 the two prophets Jeremiah and Baruch, and all 
 the men, women, and children—at once took 
 flight into Egypt (Jer. xli. 17; xiii. 5-7); and 
 all hopes of a settlement were for the time at 
 an end. The remembrance of the calamity was 
 perpetuated by a fast—the fast of the seventh 
 month (Zech. vii. 5; viii. 19), which is to this 
 day strictly kept by the Jews on the third of 
 Tishri (see Reland, Antig. iv. 10; Kimchi on 
 Zech. vii. 5). The part taken by Baalis in this 
 transaction apparently brought upon his nation 
 the denunciations both of Jeremiah (xlix. 1-6) 
 and the more distant Ezekiel (xxv. 1-7), but we 
 have no record how these predictions were 
 accomplished. [αὐ Εν ἢ 
 
 ISHMATAH ΟΠ ΡΣ, ie, Ishmayahu, 
 = Jehovah hears; Sauaias; Jesmaias), son of 
 Obadiah: the ruler of the tribe of Zebulun in 
 the time of king David (1 Ch. xxvii. 19). 
 
 ISH'MEELITE anp ISH’MEELITES, 
 R.V. ISH’MAELITE anp ISH’MAELITES 
 Coxe and DYONWIL respectively; LXX. 
 ᾿Ισμαηλείτης, -ra [usually]; Ismahelithes, Is- 
 maélitae); the form—in agreement with the 
 vowels of the Hebrew—in which the descen- 
 dants of Ishmael are given in a few places 
 jn the A.V.: the former in 1 Ch. ii. 173 the 
 latter in Gen, xxxvii, 25, 27, 28, xxxix, 1. 
 
 ISH’MERAL (100, if = ΠΥ 2 95 = whom 
 Jehovah heeps ; B. Σαμαρεί, A. Ἰεσαμαρί ; Jesa- 
 mari), a Benjamite; one of the family of Elpaal, 
 
 and named as achief man in the tribe (1 Ch. viii. 
 18). 
 
 ISH-OD (NWN, ie. Ish-hod=man of 
 renown: B. ἸἸσαδέκ, A. Bov5; virum decorum), 
 one of the tribe of Manasseh on the east of 
 Jordan, son of Hammoleketh, 1.6. the Queen, 
 and, from his near connexion with Gilead, evi- 
 dently an important person (1 Ch. vii. 18), 
 
 ISH-PAN (jBW*; B. Ἰσφάν, A. Ἐσφάν; 
 Jespham), a Benjamite, one of the family of 
 
 Shashak; named as a chief man in his tribe 
 (i Ch. viii. 22). 
 
 “ISLE 
 
 ISH-TOB (21D°U"S ; B. Εἰστωβ, ... Ἰστώβ, 
 Jos. Ἴστωβος ; 750"), apparently one of the 
 small kingdoms or states which formed part of 
 the general country of Aram, named with Zobah, 
 Rehob, and Maacah (2 Sam. x. 6, 8), and pro- 
 bably situated east of Jebel Haurdn. [ARAM.] 
 In the parallel account of 1 Ch. xix. Ishtob is 
 omitted. By Josephus (Ant. vii. 6, § 1) the 
 name is given as that ofa king. But though in 
 the ancient Versions the name is given as one 
 word, it is probable that it should be rendered, 
 as in R. V., “the men of Tos,” a district men- 
 tioned also in connexion with Ammon in the 
 records of Jephthah, and again perhaps, under 
 the shape of ἸΌΒΙΕ or TUBIENT, in the history of 
 the Maccabees. [ΟΠ Ewe 
 
 ISHU’AH, R. V. ISH’VAH (TW =peaceful 
 [M.V.1]; A. Ἰεσσαί, D. "lecovd; Jesua), the 
 second son of Asher (Gen. xlvi. 17). In the 
 genealogies of Asher in 1 Ch. vii. 30 (B. Ἰσουά, 
 A. Ἰεσουά) the name, though identical in the 
 original, is in the A. V. given as Isuan (R. V. 
 Ishvah). In the lists of Num. xxvi., however, 
 Ishuah is entirely omitted. 
 
 ISH’UAI, R. V. ISH’VI (1 =peaceful ; 
 B. Ἰσουί, A. Ἰεσουί; Jessui), the third son of 
 Asher (1 Ch. vii. 30), founder of a family bearing 
 his name (Num. xxvi. 44; A. V. “ Jesuites,” R. V- 
 “Ishvites”). His descendants, however, are not 
 mentioned in the genealogy in Chronicles. His 
 name is elsewhere given in the A. Ὗ. as Isut, 
 JESUI, and (another person) IsHUI. 
 
 ISH'UI, R. V. ISH’VI (IY? =peaceful ; Β. 
 Ἰεσσιούλ, A. ᾿ἸΙσουεί, Joseph. Ἰεσοῦς ; Jessut), 
 the second son of Saul by his wife Ahinoam 
 (1 Sam. xiv. 49, cp. v.50): his place in the family 
 was between Jonathan and Melchishua. In the 
 list of Saul’s genealogy in 1 Ch. viii. and ix., 
 however, the name of Ishui is entirely omitted ; 
 and in the sad narrative of the battle of Gilboa 
 his place is occupied by Abinadab (1 Sam. xxxi. 
 2). We can only conclude that he died young. 
 
 The same name is elsewhere given in the 
 A. V. as Isur and IsHuAt. [Ga Ewes 
 
 ISLE ΟΝ; more frequently in the plural, 
 DN: νῆσος). The radical sense of the Hebrew 
 
 word seems to be land places, as opposed to 
 water, and in this sense it occurs in Is, xhi. 15. 
 Hence it means secondarily any maritime district, 
 whether belonging to a continent or to an 
 island: thus it is used of the shore of the 
 Mediterranean (Is. xx. 6 [R. V. “ coastland ”], 
 xxiii. 2, 6 [R. V. marg. coastland]), and of the 
 coasts of Elishah (Ezek. xxvii. 7), ie. of Greece 
 and Asia Minor. In this sense it is more 
 particularly restricted to the shores of the 
 Mediterranean, sometimes in the fuller ex- 
 pression “islands of the sea” (Is. xi. 11), or 
 “isles of the Gentiles” (Gen. x. 5; cp. Zeph. ii. 
 11), and sometimes simply as “ isles” (Ps. Ixxii. 
 10; Ezek. xxvi. 15, 18, xxvii. 3, 35, xxxix. 6; 
 Dan, xi, 18): an exception to this, however, 
 occurs in Ezek. xxvii. 15, where the shores of the 
 Persian Gulf are intended. Occasionally the 
 word is specifically used of an island, as of 
 Caphtor or Crete (Jer. xlvii. 4), and Chittim or 
 Cyprus (Ezek. xxvii. 6; Jer. ii. 10), or of islands 
 
ISMACHIAH 
 
 as opposed to the mainland (βίῃ, x. 1). But 
 more generally it is applied to any region 
 separated from Palestine by water, as fully 
 described in Jer. xxv. 22, “the isles which are 
 beyond the sea,” which were hence regarded as 
 the most remote regions of the earth (Is. xxiv. 
 15, xlii. 10, lix. 18; compare the expression in 
 Is. lxvi. 19, “‘the isles afar off”) and also as 
 large and numerous (Is, xl. 15; Ps. xevii. 1): 
 the word is more particularly used by the 
 Prophets (see J. D. Michaelis, Spicilegium, i. 
 131-142). In many of the above passages the 
 It. V. uses the term ‘ coastlands,” either in the 
 margin or in the text. CW. L. B.} 
 
 ISMACHI’AH (A7°319D', te. Ismac-yahu 
 =whom Jehovah supports; B. Σαμαχειά, A. 
 -x1a; Jesmachias), a Levite who was one of the 
 overseers (O°)5) of offerings, during the 
 revival under king Hezekiah (2 Ch. xxxi. 13). 
 
 ISMAEL. 1. Clopana; Ismaél.) Judith ii. 
 23. Another form for the name ISHMAEL, son 
 of Abraham. 
 
 2. (Ἰσμαῆλος ; Hismaenis.) 1 Esd. ix. 22. 
 (IsuMAEL, 5.] 
 
 ISMAI’AH, R. V. ISHMAT’AH (Ὁ) 
 = Jehovah hears; BA. Σαμαίας, δὲ, Σαμεάς ; 
 Samaias), a Gibeonite, one of the chiefs of 
 those warriors who relinquished the cause of 
 Saul, the head of their tribe, and joined them- 
 selves to David, when he was at Ziklag (1 Ch. 
 xii. 4). He is described as “a hero (Gibbor) 
 among the thirty and over the thirty ”—ie. 
 David’s body-guard: but his name does not 
 appear in the lists of the guard in 2 Sam. xxiii. 
 and 1 Ch. xi. Possibly he was killed in some 
 encounter before David reached the throne. 
 
 IS-PAH, R. V. ISH-PAH (ΠΕ: [see 
 ~MV.1"); B. Σαφάν, A. "Ecpax; Jespha), a Ben- 
 jamite, of the family of Beriah; one of the 
 heads of his tribe (1 Ch. viii. 16). 
 
 ISRAEL ON; Ἰσραήλ; Israel). In 
 times strictly historical, the collective or 
 national designation of the brother tribes who 
 came out of Egypt (Hos. ii. 15, xi. 1, xii. 9, 13), 
 and whose eponymous ancestor was Jacob- 
 Israel, after whom they called themselves Béné 
 Yisr@él, “the sons of Israel,” or simply 
 Israel (cp. Gen. xxxiv. 7; xlviii. 20; xlix. 7). 
 According to an exquisitely beautiful and pro- 
 foundly significant tradition, preserved in the 
 older stratum of Genesis (Gen. xxxii. 25- 
 32, J), and cited with one or two important 
 variations by the early prophet Hosea (Hos. 
 xii. 3, 4), Jacob, “the wandering Aramean ” 
 (TAN ON) of the Deuteronomist (Deut. 
 xxvi. 5), received this name of Israel after his 
 mysterious conflict at Penuel or Peniel, upon 
 the borders of the Holy Land [Jacop]. Since in 
 the monarchical period the northern and larger 
 group of Israelitish tribes was designated Israel, 
 in distinction from the kingdom of Judah, it 
 might be conjectured that Israel was, in fact, 
 an ancient name of middle and northern Pales- 
 tine; but as no trace of this has been found in 
 Egyptian records, nor in the oldest cuneiform 
 
 ‘documents that refer at all to the country 
 
 ISRAEL 1481 
 
 (HebRew],* we seem obliged to conclude that 
 Israel was not a name indigenous to Canaan, 
 but really peculiar to the confederacy of tribes 
 that emerged from the Sinaitic peninsula, and 
 gradually effected its conquest. 
 
 The etymological meaning of this name, so 
 glorious in the records of revelation, is not easy 
 to determine. According to the analogy of 
 similar proper names, it might be EU striveth 
 or doeth battle (Es streitet Gott,’ Nestle, 
 Israel. Eigennamen, p. 60 sq.); ep. Jerubbaal 
 
 |e. Sy 34%, “Baal contendeth”), If we 
 
 prefer to regard the first element as a verbal 
 noun (like Izhar or Vishar, Isaac or Yischaq), 
 we may render 18 warrior or Soldier of God 
 (“pugnator, miles Dei,’ Gesen. 7168. 1338 b; 
 “ Gotteskiimpfer,” Kautzsch; so Ewald, H. 1. i. 
 944). This would suit very well with the 
 implications of the fragmentary reference, Gen. 
 xlvili. 22 (E), where Jacob speaks of having 
 wrested Shechem from the Amorites with sword 
 and bow; and some such reason as this may 
 perhaps have been assigned for the name in the 
 original form of the passage, Gen. xxxyv. 10 (P). 
 On the other hand, Zl striveth or is a warrior 
 is in perfect harmony with such expressions 
 as “ Jahvah is a Man of War” (Ex, xv. 3; cp. 
 Hos, xii. 6); “The God of the hosts of Israel "ἢ 
 (1 Sam. xvii. 45); and the frequent Jahvah 
 Seba’ oth (i.e. Jahvah elohé S€ba’oth), * The Lord 
 (God) of Hosts.” But it can hardly be said 
 that the interpretation put upon the name both 
 by the Jahvist (Gen. xxxii. 29) and by the 
 
 Prophet Hosea (Hos. xii. 4: omoy-ns mw, 
 “he strove with Elohim”) is grammatically 
 impossible (cp. Ewald, Lehrb. ὃ 282). That 
 Israel was the name of the undivided nation 
 in the time of the first kings (Saul, David, 
 Solomon) hardly requires proof (see 2 Sam. i. 
 24, xxiii. 3). After the division of the king- 
 dom, the northern monarchy came to be known 
 as Israe] and the House of Israel (cp. the As- 
 syrian designation of it, ‘House of Omri”); 
 while the Davidic kingdom of the south 
 was called Judah or the House of Judah 
 (Hos. i. 4, 6, iv. 15, v. 5, 125 Amos ii. 4, 6, 
 v. 1, vii. 11, 17; but ep. iii. 1, ix. 7). Naturally, 
 however, where the contrast was necessary, the 
 same restriction of the title Israel was observed 
 even in the previous time (6.9. 1 Sam. xi. 23 
 2 Sam. i. 12, ii. 4, xx. 1). Indeed the partial 
 isolation of Judah may be traced back through 
 the period of the Judges to the beginnings of the 
 conquest of the land west of the Jordan, Judah 
 
 ' 4 The earliest occurrence of the name Israel in As- 
 syrian records is the mention of Ahab of Israel (Ahabbu 
 mat Sir’ilai or Sir’ilaa) by Shalmaneser (circ. 854 B.c.), 
 if Schrader’s transcription be accepted as correct. In 
 the same century the northern kingdom is called Israel 
 by Mesha king of Moab, who names both Omri and 
 Ahab in his famous inscription. : 
 
 > The strange explanation, ‘“‘the man that sees God,” 
 which St. Jerome says was in vogue in his day, may be 
 accounted for by a confusion of the roots su, ‘‘to 
 strive” (4)%% ; Hor. xii. 5), and sar, “to see” (δ); 
 Num. xxiy. 17), which in the unpointed text are exactly 
 alike. In his own view, he combines the sense of 9)’, 
 **to be a prince” (Judg. ix. 22; but also ‘‘to strive,” 
 Hos. xii. 5), with that of Ft, “‘to strive,” though he 
 renders the name “ Prince with God ” (Quaest. Heb. in 
 Gen. }—a curious instance of exegetical vacillation. 
 
1482 ISRAEL, KINGDOM OF 
 
 was the first to part company with the other 
 tribes, and to win possession of that hill-country 
 which was to be his permanent territory (Judg. 
 i. 3, 19). Neither he, nor “ his brother Simeon ” 
 who had shared in the enterprise, is named in 
 the Song of Deborah (Judg. v.). Wellhausen 
 accordingly thinks that this “secession” of 
 Judah, Simeon, (and Levi) from the remaining 
 tribes was the origin of the division of the 
 nation into Israel and Judah (H. J. p. 441). 
 But the primal unity, however loose, was never 
 forgotten; and Isaiah could speak of “ the two 
 houses of Israel” (Is. viii. 14), and could call 
 Judah “ the remnant of Israel” (Is. x. 20). 
 
 The, latest historian, whose compilation is 
 dismembered in the Canon into the Books of 
 Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah, sometimes calls 
 the Judean state Israel, even when referring 
 to the pre-exilic period (2 Ch. xi. 3, xii. 1, xv. 17, 
 xix. 8, xxi. 2, 4, xxiii, 2; Ezra ii. 2, iii. 1, ix. 1; 
 but cp. 2 Ch. xxx. 1, 5, 10; Ezra x.:7, 9). 
 The Chronicler has also a peculiar use of the 
 term “Israel,” to denote the lay folk as 
 distinct from the priestly orders (1 Ch. ix. 2; 
 Ezra vi. 16, ix. 1; Neh. xi. 3). In the Macca- 
 bean age, the old name, so rich in inspiring 
 memories, was naturally revived (1 Macc. i. 11, 
 20, 30 sq., ii. 70, iii. 35, iv. 11, 30 sq.); and 
 the coins of the Hasmonean princes bore the 
 legend “shekel of Israel.” Israel, in truth, 
 never ceased to be the name to which the 
 highest associations of religious and patriotic 
 feeling clung inseparably; hence the psalms 
 of every age almost without exception (Ps. 
 Ixxvi. 1) speak of Israel, not of Judah. The 
 later prophetic use of the term Israel (e.g. Is. 
 xlix. 3) prepared the way for St. Paul’s distinc- 
 tion between “Israel after the flesh” and the 
 true spiritual Israel (cp. John i. 47). [C. J. B.] 
 
 ISRAEL, KINGDOM OF.* 1. The prophet 
 Ahijah of Shiloh, who was commissioned in the 
 latter days of Solomon to announce the division 
 of the kingdom, left one tribe (Judah) to the 
 House of David, and assigned ten to Jeroboam 
 (1 K. xi. 31, 35). These were probably Joseph 
 {= Ephraim and Manasseh), Issachar, Zebulun, 
 Asher, Naphtali, Benjamin, Dan, Simeon, Gad, 
 and Reuben; Levi being intentionally omitted. 
 Eventually, the greater part of Benjamin, and 
 probably the whole of Simeon and Dan, were 
 included as if by common consent in the kingdom 
 of Judah. With respect to the conquests of 
 David, Moab appears to have been attached to 
 the kingdom of Israel (2 K. iii. 4); so much of 
 Syria as remained subject to Solomon (see 1 K. 
 xi. 24) would probably be claimed by his 
 successor in the northern kingdom; and Ammon, 
 though connected with Rehoboam as his mother’s 
 native Jand (2 Ch. xii. 13), and though after- 
 wards tributary to Judah (2 Ch. xxvii. 5), was 
 at one time allied (2 Ch. xx. 1), we know not 
 I ΒΕ 
 
 © So far as they belong to the period of the Judean 
 monarchy, this may, perhaps, be partly explained by 
 the fact that the house of David never formally sur- 
 rendered its claim to rule the entire nation. 
 
 * The political aspect of the periods included in this 
 article is presented by Wellhausen (summarily) in 
 “Israel” (Hncycl. Brit.2), by Stade (more in detail) in 
 his Gesch. d. Volkes Israel, and by Edersheim, Bible 
 History. The student will further turn to Edersheim 
 for a careful presentment of the religious aspect. 
 
 ISRAEL, KINGDOM OF 
 
 how closely, or how early, with Moab. The 
 sea-coast between Accho and Japho remained in 
 the possession of Israel. 
 
 2. The population of the kingdom is not ex- 
 pressly stated; and in drawing any inference 
 from the numbers of fighting-men, we must 
 bear in mind that the numbers in the Heb. text 
 of the O. T. are strongly suspected to have been 
 subjected to extensive, perhaps systematic, cor- 
 ruption. Forty years before the disruption the 
 census taken by direction of David gave 800,000 
 according to 2 Sam. xxiv. 9, or 1,100,000 
 according to 1 Ch. xxi. 5, as the number of 
 fighting-men in Israel. Jeroboam, B.C. 938, 
 brought into the field an army of 800,000 men 
 (ὦ Ch. xiii. 3), The small number of the army 
 of Jehoahaz (2 Κα, xiii. 7) is to be attributed to 
 his compact with Hazael; for in the next reign 
 Israel could spare a mercenary host ten times as 
 numerous for the wars of Amaziah (2 Ch. xxv. 
 6). If in B.c. 957 there were actually under 
 arms 800,000 men of “twenty years old and 
 above” (Num. i. 3; 2 Ch. xxv. 5) in Israel, the 
 whole population may perhaps have amounted 
 to at least three millions and a half. Later 
 observers have echoed the disappointment with 
 which Jerome from his cell at Bethlehem con- 
 templated the small extent of this celebrated 
 country (Zp. 129, ad Dardan. § 4). The area of 
 Palestine proper, from Dan to Beersheba, was 
 —west of the Jordan—6,000 square miles, or 
 about the size of the Principality of Wales; east 
 of the Jordan the habitable district was about 
 4,000 square miles. At the time of the disrup- 
 tion the area claimed for Israel would have been 
 about 7,500 square miles, not including Syria 
 (cp. Conder, Handbook to the Bible, p. 204; and 
 for remarks on the density of the population, 
 pp. 271-3, 281). 
 
 3. SHECHEM was the first capital of the new 
 kingdom (1 K. xii. 25), venerable for its tradi- 
 tions, and beautiful in its situation. Subse- 
 quently Tirzah, whose loveliness had fixed the 
 wandering gaze of Solomon (Cant. vi. 4), became 
 the royal residence, if not the capital, of Jero- 
 boam (1 K. xiv. 17) and of his successors (xv. 
 33; xvi. 8, 17, 23). Samaria, uniting in itself 
 the qualities of beauty and fertility, and a 
 commanding position, was chosen by Omri (1 K. 
 xvi. 24), and remained the capital of the kingdom 
 until it had given the last proof of its strength 
 by sustaining for three years the onset of the 
 hosts of Assyria. Jezreel was probably only a 
 royal residence of some of the Israelitish kings. 
 It may have been in awe of the ancient holiness 
 of Shiloh, that Jeroboam forbore to pollute the 
 secluded site of the Tabernacle with the golden 
 calves. He chose for the religious capitals of 
 his kingdom Dan, the old home of northern 
 schism, and Bethel,’ a Benjamite city not far 
 from Shiloh, and marked out by history and 
 situation as the rival of Jerusalem. 
 
 4. The disaffection of Ephraim and the northern 
 tribes having grown in secret under the pros- 
 perous but burdensome reign of Solomon, broke 
 out at the critical moment of that great 
 monarch’s death. It was just then that Ephraim, 
 the centre of the movement, found in Jeroboam 
 an instrument prepared to give expression to 
 
 > On these seven places see Stanley’s S. & P., chs. iv. 
 v. and xi. : 
 
ISRAEL, KINGDOM OF 
 
 the rivalry of centuries, with sufficient ability 
 and application to rise him to high station, with 
 the stain of treason on his name, and with the 
 bitter recollections of an exile in his mind. 
 Judah and Joseph were rivals from the time 
 that they occupied the two prominent places, 
 and received the amplest promises in the blessing 
 of the dying patriarch (Gen. xlix. 8, 22), When 
 the twelve tribes issued from Egypt, only Judah 
 and Joseph could each muster above 70,000 
 warriors. In the desert and in the conquest, 
 Caleb and Joshua, the representatives of the two. 
 tribes, stand out side by side eminent among the 
 leaders of the people. The blessing of Moses 
 (Deut. xxxiii. 13) and the divine selection of 
 Joshua inaugurated the greater prominence of 
 Joseph for the next three centuries, Othniel, 
 the successor of Joshua, was from Judah: the 
 last, Samuel, was born among the Ephraim- 
 ites. Within that period Ephraim supplied at 
 Shiloh (Judg. xxi. 19) a resting-place for the 
 Ark, the centre of divine worship; and a 
 rendezvous or capital at Shechem (Josh. xxiv. 1; 
 Judg. ix. 2) for the whole people. Ephraim 
 arrogantly claimed (Judg. viii. 1, xii. 1) the 
 exclusive right of taking the lead against in- 
 vaders. Royal authority was offered to one 
 dweller in Ephraim (viii. 22), and actually 
 exercised for three years by another (ix. 22). 
 After a silent, perhaps sullen, acquiescence in 
 the transfer of Samuel's authority with additional 
 dignity to a Benjamite, they resisted for seven 
 years (2 Sam. ii. 9-11) its passing into the 
 hands of the popular Jewish leader, and yielded 
 reluctantly to the conviction that the sceptre 
 which seemed almost within their grasp was 
 reserved at last for Judah. Even in David’s 
 reign their jealousy did not always slumber 
 (2 Sam. xix. 43); and though Solomon’s alliance 
 and intercourse with Tyre must have tended to 
 increase the loyalty of the northern tribes, they 
 took the first opportunity to emancipate them- 
 selves from the rule of his son. Doubtless the 
 length of Solomon’s reign, and the clouds that 
 gathered round the close of it (1 K. xi, 14-25), 
 and possibly his increasing despotism (Ewald, 
 Gesch. Isr. iii, 395), tended to diminish the 
 general popularity of the house of David; and 
 the idolatry of the king alienated the affection 
 of religious Israelites. But none of these was 
 the immediate cause of the disruption. No 
 aspiration after greater liberty, political privi- 
 leges, or aggrandizement at the expense of 
 other powers, no spirit of commercial enterprise, 
 no breaking forth of pent-up energy seems to 
 have instigated the movement. Ephraim proudly 
 longed for independence, without considering 
 whether or at what cost he could maintain it. 
 Shechem was built as a capital, and Tirzah as a 
 residence, for an Ephraimite king, by the people 
 who murmured under the burden imposed upon 
 them by the royal state of Solomon. Ephraim 
 felt no patriotic pride in a national splendour 
 of which Judah was the centre. The dwelling- 
 place of God when fixed in Jerusalem ceased to 
 be so honourable to him as of old. It was 
 ancient jealousy rather than recent provocation, 
 the opportune death of Solomon rather than 
 unwillingness to incur taxation, the opportune 
 return of a persecuted Ephraimite rather than 
 any commanding genius for rule which Jeroboam 
 possessed, that finally broke up the brotherhood 
 
 ISRAEL, KINGDOM OF 1483 
 
 of the children of Jacob. It was an outburst of 
 human feeling so soon as that divine influence 
 which restrained the spirit of disunion was 
 withdrawn in consequence of the idolatry of 
 Solomon, so soon as that stern prophetic Voice 
 which had called Saul to the throne under a 
 protest, and David to the throne in repentance, 
 was heard in anger summoning Jeroboam to 
 divide the kingdom. 
 
 5. The kingdom of Israel developed no new 
 power. It was but a portion of Dayid’s kingdom 
 deprived of many elements of strength. Its 
 frontier was as open and as widely extended as 
 before; but it wanted a capital for the seat of 
 organised power. Its territory was as fertile 
 and as tempting to the spoiler, but its people 
 were less united and patriotic. A corrupt 
 religion poisoned the source of national life. 
 When less reverence attended on a new and 
 unconsecrated king, and less respect was felt for 
 an aristocracy reduced by the retirement of the 
 Levites, the army which David found hard to 
 control rose up unchecked in the exercise of its 
 wilful strength; and thus eight houses, each 
 ushered in by a revolution, occupied the throne 
 in quick succession. Tyre ceased to be an ally 
 when the alliance was no longer profitable to 
 the merchant-city. Moab and Ammon yielded 
 tribute only while under compulsion. A power- 
 ful neighbour, Damascus, sat armed at the gate 
 of Israel; and, beyond Damascus, might be 
 discerned the rising strength of the first great 
 monarchy of the world. 
 
 These causes tended to increase the mis- 
 fortunes and to accelerate the early end of the 
 kingdom of Israel. It lasted 216 years, from 
 B.c. 938 to B.c. 722, about two-thirds of the 
 duration of its more compact neighbour Judah. 
 
 But it may be doubted whether the division 
 into two kingdoms greatly shortened the inde- 
 pendent existence of the Hebrew race, or inter- 
 fered with the purposes which, it is thought, 
 may be traced in the establishment of David’s 
 monarchy. If among those purposes were the 
 preservation of the true religion in the world, 
 and the preparation of an agency adapted for 
 the diffusion of Christianity in due season, then 
 it must be observed—first, that as a bulwark 
 providentially raised against the corrupting 
 influence of idolatrous Tyre and Damascus, 
 Israel kept back that contagion from Judah, and 
 partly exhausted it before its arrival in the 
 south ; next, that the purity of Divine worship 
 was not destroyed by the excision of those tribes 
 which were remote from the influence of the 
 Temple, and by the concentration of priests and 
 religious Israelites within the southern kingdom; 
 and lastly, that to the worshippers at Jerusalem 
 the early decline and fall of Israel was a solemn 
 and impressive spectacle of judgment,—the 
 working out of the great problem of God’s 
 toleration of idolatry. This prepared the heart 
 of Judah for the revivals under Hezekiah and 
 Josiah, softened them into repentance during 
 the Captivity, and strengthened them for their 
 absolute renunciation of idolatry, when after 
 seventy years they returned to Palestine, to 
 teach the world that there is a spiritual bond 
 more efficacious than the occupancy of a certain 
 soil for keeping up national existence, and to be- 
 come the channel through which God’s greatest 
 gift was conveyed to mankind. [Caprivity.] 
 
1484 
 
 6. The detailed history of the kingdom of | 
 Israel will be found under the names of its 
 nineteen kings. [See also EPHRAIM.] A sum- 
 mary view may be taken in four periods :— 
 
 (a.) B.C. 938-888. Jeroboam had not sutfli- 
 cient force of character in himself to make a 
 lasting impression on his people. A king, but 
 not a founder of a dynasty, he aimed at nothing 
 beyond securing his present elevation. Without 
 any ambition to share in the commerce of Tyre, 
 or to compete with the growing power of 
 Damascus, or even to complete the humiliation 
 of the helpless monarch whom he had deprived 
 of half a kingdom, Jeroboam acted entirely on a 
 defensive policy. He attempted to give his 
 subjects a centre which they wanted for their 
 political allegiance, in Shechem or in Tirzah. 
 He sought to change merely so much of their 
 ritual as was inconsistent with his authority 
 over them. But as soon as the golden calves 
 were set up, the priests and Levites and many 
 religious Israelites (2 Ch. xi. 16) left their 
 country, and the disastrous emigration was not 
 effectually checked even by the attempt of 
 Baasha to build a fortress (2 Ch. xvi. 6) at 
 Ramah. <A new priesthood was introduced 
 (1 K. xii. 31) absolutely dependent on the king 
 (Amos vii. 13), not forming as under the Mosaic 
 law a landed aristocracy, not respected by the 
 people, and unable either to withstand the 
 oppression or to strengthen the weakness of a 
 king. A priesthood created and a ritual devised 
 for secular purposes had no hold whatever on 
 the conscience of the people. To meet their 
 spiritual cravings a succession of prophets was 
 raised up, great in their poverty, their purity, 
 their austerity, their self-dependence, their moral 
 influence, but imperfectly organised,—a rod to | 
 correct and check the civil government, not, as 
 they might have been under happier circum- 
 stances, a staff to support it. The army soon 
 learned its power to dictate to the isolated | 
 monarch and disunited people. Baasha in the | 
 midst of the army at Gibbethon slew the son | 
 and successor of Jeroboam; Zimri, a captain | 
 of chariots, slew the son and successor of 
 Baasha; Omri, the captain of the host, was 
 chosen to punish Zimri; and after a civil war of 
 four years he prevailed over ‘Tibni, the choice of 
 half the people. 
 
 (b.) B.C. 888-843. For forty-five years Israel | 
 was governed by the house of Omri, the 
 second founder of the kingdom. That sagacious | 
 king pitched on the strong hill of Samaria 
 as the site of his capital. Damascus, which 
 in the days of Baasha had proved itself more | 
 than a match for Israel, now again assumed 
 a threatening attitude. Edom and Moab showed 
 a tendency to independence, or even aggression. 
 Hence the princes of Omri’s house cultivated an 
 alliance with the contemporary kings of Judah, 
 which was cemented by the marriage of Jehoram 
 and Athaliah, and marked by the community of 
 names among the royal children. Ahab’s Tyrian 
 alliance strengthened him with the counsels of | 
 the masculine mind of Jezebel, but brought him 
 no farther support. The subsequent rejection 
 of the God of Abraham, under the disguise of 
 abandoning Jeroboam’s unlawful symbolism, and 
 adopting Baal as the god of a luxurious court 
 and subservient populace, led to a reaction in 
 the nation, to the moral triumph of the prophets 
 
 ISRAEL, KINGDOM OF 
 
 ISRAEL, KINGDOM OF 
 
 in the person of Elijah, and to the extinction of 
 the house of Ahab in obedience to the bidding of 
 Elisha. 
 
 (c.) B.C. 843-743. Unparalleled triumphs, 
 but deeper humiliation, awaited the kingdom of 
 Israel under the dynasty of Jehu. The worship 
 of Baal was abolished by one blow; but, so 
 long as the kingdom lasted, the people never 
 rose superior to the debasing form of religion 
 established by Jeroboam, Hazael, the successor 
 of the two Benhadads, the ablest king of 
 Damascus, reduced Jehoahaz to the condition of 
 a vassal, and triumphed for a time over both 
 the disunited Hebrew kingdoms. Almost the 
 first sign of the restoration of their strength 
 was a war between them; and Jehoash, the 
 grandson of Jehu, entered Jerusalem as the 
 conqueror of Amaziah. Jehoash also turned the 
 tide of war against the Syrians ; and Jeroboam 
 II., the most powerful of all the kings of Israel, 
 captured Damascus, and recovered the whole 
 ancient frontier from Hamath to the Dead Sea. 
 In the midst of this long and seemingly glorious 
 reign the prophet Amos uttered his warnings. 
 The short-lived greatness expired with the last 
 king of Jehu’s line. 
 
 (d.) B.c. 745-722. Military violence, it would 
 seem, broke off the hereditary succession after 
 the obscure and probably convulsed reign of 
 Zachariah. An unsuccessful usurper, Shallum, 
 was followed by the cruel Menahem, who, being 
 unable to make head against the first attack of 
 Assyria under Pul (Tiglath-pileser II.), became 
 the agent of that monarch for the oppressive 
 taxation of his subjects. Yet his power at home 
 was sufficient to insure for his son and successor 
 Pekahiah a ten years’ reign, cut short by a 
 bold usurper, Pekah. Abandoning the northern 
 and Transjordanie regions to the encroaching 
 power of Assyria under Tiglath-pileser, he was 
 very near subjugating Judah, with the help of 
 Damascus, now the coequal ally of Israel. But 
 Assyria interposing summarily put an end to 
 the independence of Damascus, and perhaps was 
 the indirect cause of the assassination of the 
 bafled Pekah. The irresolute Hoshea, the next 
 and last usurper, became tributary to his in- 
 vader, Shalmaneser IV., betrayed the Assyrian 
 to the rival monarchy of Egypt, and was 
 punished by the loss of his liberty, and by the 
 capture by Sargon, after a three years’ siege, of 
 his strong capital, Samaria. Some gleanings of 
 the ten tribes yet remained in the land after so 
 many years of religious decline, moral debase- 
 ment, national degradation, anarchy, bloodshed, 
 and deportation. Even these were gathered up 
 
 | by the conqueror and carried to Assyria, never 
 
 again, as a distinct people, to occupy their 
 portion of that goodly and pleasant land which 
 their forefathers won under Joshua from the 
 heathen. [Wolo Bal (ia 
 
 7. The following table gives the chronology 
 of the periods as now generally accepted (see 
 tiehm’s HW2B., 5. ἢ. “Zeitrechnung”). The 
 chronology of Ussher, &c. will be found in the 
 1st ed. of this work, and in Edersheim’s Bitte 
 History, vol. v. end. 
 
 DrvIsIoN OF THE KINGDOMS, B.C. 938. 
 Judah. ἢ 
 
 938-922 Rehoboam. 
 
 921-919 Abijah. 
 
 Israel. 
 938-917 Jeroboam I. 
 917,916 Nadab. 
 
ISRAELITE 
 Israel. Judah. 
 
 916-893 Baasha. 918-878 Asa, 
 $93,892 Elah. 
 
 892 Zimri. 
 892-888 Tibni. 
 $88-877 Omri. 
 877-856 Ahab. 877-853 Jehoshaphat. 
 $56,855 Ahaziah, 
 $55-844 Joram. $52-815 Jehoram. 
 
 844 Abaziah. 
 
 843-816 Jehu. 843-838 Athaliah. 
 815-799 Jehoahaz. 837-798 Jehoash. 
 798-783 Jehoash. 797-769 Amaziah. 
 783-743 Jeroboam II. 730-739 Uzziah. 
 
 743 Zachariah, Shallum. 
 742-738 Menahem. 750-735 Jotlam. 
 738,737 Pekahiah. 
 736-731 Pekah. 735-715 Ahaz. 
 730-722 Hoshea. 
 
 722 Fall of Samaria. [F.] 
 
 ISRAELITE CON ; B. Ἰσραηλείτης ; de 
 Jesraéli). In 2 Sam. xvii. 25, Ithra is called 
 “the Israelite” (hk. V. and LXX. B.). The 
 true reading is “the Ishmaelite” (cp. LXX. 
 A. and 1 Ch. ii. 17). “Israelite” is also the 
 
 A.V. rendering of NYY BAN (RLV. man 
 of Israel”) in Num. xxv. 14, and of Ἰσραηλείτης 
 in John 1. 47, Rom. xi. 1. “Israelites” is the 
 
 translation of ON, used collectively in many 
 passages (6.4. Ex. ix. 7; Josh. iii. 17; 1 Sam. 
 fees 2 ame av. 1. 2). ii, 24s ie Ch: 
 ix. 2) ;—of Ἰσραὴλ in Bar. iii. 4; 1 Mace. i. 43, 
 &e.;—of viol Ἴσρ. in Judith vi. 14; 1 Mace. 
 vii. 23;—and of ᾿Ισραηλεῖται in Rom. ix. 4; 
 2 Cor. xi. 22. [F.] 
 
 ISRAELITISH (NON WW, B. Ἰσραηλεῖτις ; 
 Israelitis). .The designation of a woman whose 
 son was stoned for blasphemy (Ley. xxiv. 10). 
 
 IS'SACHAR ΟΣ, ac. Isascar—such is 
 the invariable spelling of the name in the 
 Hebrew, the Samaritan Codex and Version, the 
 Targums of Onkelos and Pseudojonathan, but 
 the Masorets have pointed it so as to supersede 
 the second §, "abe, Issa[s]ear: Ἰσσάχαρ; 
 Rec. Text of N. T. Ἰσασχάρ, but Cod. C. Ἰσα- 
 xp; Joseph. Ἰσσάχαρις : Jsachar), the ninth 
 son of Jacob and the fifth of Leah; the first 
 born to Leah after the interval which occurred 
 in the births of her children (Gen. xxx. 17; 
 ep. xxix. 35). As is the case with each of the 
 sons, the name is recorded as bestowed on account 
 of a circumstance connected with the birth. 
 
 But, as may be also noticed in more than one of 
 
 the others, two explanations seem to be com- 
 bined in the narrative, which even then is not 
 in exact accordance with the requirements of 
 
 the name. “God hath given me my hire Ose, 
 sacar) ...and she called his name Issdchar,” is 
 the record; but in τ. 18 that “hire” is for the 
 surrender of her maid to her husband—while 
 in vv. 14-17 it is for the discovery and be- 
 stowal of the mandrakes. Besides, as indicated 
 above, the name in its original form—Isascar— 
 rebels against this interpretation, an interpreta- 
 tion which to be consistent requires the form 
 subsequently imposed on the word, Is-sachar.* 
 
 ® The words occur again almost identically in 2 Ch. 
 
 ISSACHAR - 1455 
 
 The allusion is not again brought forward as it 
 is with Dan, Asher, &c., in the blessings of Jacob 
 and Moses. In the former only it is perhaps 
 allowable to discern a faint echo of the sound of 
 “Issachar” in the word shicmo— shoulder ” 
 (Gen, xlix. 15). 
 
 Of Issachar the individual we know nothing. 
 In Genesis he is not mentioned after his birth, 
 and the few verses in Chronicles devoted to the 
 tribe contain merely a brief list of its chief 
 men and heroes in the reign of David (1 Ch. 
 vii. 1-5). 
 
 At the descent into Egypt four sons are 
 ascribed to him, who founded the four chief 
 families of the tribe (Gen. xlvi. 13; Num. xxvi. 
 23,253; 1 Ch. vii. 1). Issachar’s place during 
 the journey to Canaan was on the east of the 
 Tabernacle with his brothers Judah and Zebulun 
 (Num. ii. 5), the group moving foremost in the 
 march (x. 15), and having a common standard 
 which, according to the Rabbinical tradition, 
 was of the three colours of sardine, topaz, and 
 carbunele, inscribed with the names of the three 
 tribes, and bearing the figure of a lion’s whelp 
 (see Targum Pseudojon. on Num. ii. 3). At this 
 time the captain of the tribe was Nethaneel 
 ben-Zuar (Num. i. 8, ii. 5, vii. 18, x. 15). He 
 was succeeded by Igal ben-Joseph, who went as 
 representative of his tribe among the spies 
 (xiii. 7), and he again by Paltiel ben-Azzan, 
 who assisted Joshua in apportioning the land of 
 Canaan (xxxiv. 26). Issachar was one of the 
 six tribes who were to stand on Mount Gerizim 
 during the ceremony of blessing and cursing 
 (Deut. xxvii. 12). He was still in company 
 with Judah, Zebulun being opposite on Ebal. 
 The number of the fighting men of Issachar 
 when taken in the census at Sinai was 54,400. 
 During the journey they seem to have steadily 
 increased, and after the mortality at Peor they 
 amounted to 64,300, being inferior to none but 
 Judah and Dan—to the latter by 100 souls only. 
 The numbers given in ‘1 Ch. vii. 2, 4, 5, pro- 
 bably the census of Joab, amount in all to 
 145,600. 
 
 The Promised Land once reached, the con- 
 nexion between Issachar and Judah seems to 
 have closed, to be renewed only on two brief 
 occasions, which will be noticed in their turn. 
 The intimate relation with Zebulun was, how- 
 ever, maintained. The two brother-tribes had 
 their portions close together, and more than 
 once they are mentionedincompany. The allot- 
 ment of Issachar lay above that of Manasseh. 
 The specification of its boundaries and contents 
 is contained in Josh. xix. 17-23. But to the 
 towns there named must be added Daberath, 
 given in the catalogue of Levitical cities (xxi. 28: 
 Jarmuth here is possibly the Remeth of xix. 21), 
 and five others—Beth-shean, Ibleam, En-dor, 
 Taanach, and Megiddo. These last, though the 
 property of Manasseh, remained within the 
 limits of Issachar (Josh. xvii. 11; Judg. i. 27), 
 
 xy. 7 and Jer. xxxi. 16: “οἷν ay there is a 
 
 che 
 reward for,” A. V. ‘*shall be rewarded.” 
 
 An expansion of the story of the mandrakes, with 
 curious details, will be found in the Testamentum 
 Isachar, Fabricius, Cod. Pseudepigr. pp. 620-23. They 
 were ultimately deposited ‘*in the house of the Lord,” 
 whatever that expression may mean. 
 
1480 
 
 and they assist us materially in determining 
 his boundary. In the words of Josephus (Ant. 
 v. 1, § 22), “it extended in length from Carmel 
 to the Jordan, in breadth to Mount Tabor.” In 
 
 ISSACHAR 
 
 fact it consisted of the plain of Esdraelon or | 
 
 Jezreel, and probably that 
 The south boundary we can trace by En-gannim, 
 
 which form the southern enclosure to the Plain; 
 and then further westward by Taanach and 
 Megiddo, the authentic fragments of which still 
 stand on the same heights as they trend away 
 to the hump of Carmel. On the north the 
 territory ceased with the plain, which is there 
 bounded by Tabor, the outpost of the hills of 
 Zebulun. East of Tabor the hill-country con- 
 
 tinued so as to screen the tribe from the Sea of | 
 Galilee, but a wide and gently sloping valley on 
 the S.E. led to Bethshean and the upper part of | 
 richest land in Palestine. 
 
 the Jordan valley. West of Tabor again, a little 
 
 of Dothan also. | 
 
 ISSACHAR 
 
 to the south, is Chesulloth, the modern Jsdi, 
 close to the traditional ‘‘ Mount of Precipita- 
 tion ;” and hence the boundary probably ran in 
 a slanting course till it joined Mount Carmel, 
 where the Kishon (Josh. xix. 20) worked its 
 
 way below the eastern bluff of that mountain— 
 
 _and thus completed the triangle at its western 
 the modern Jenin, at the foot of the heights | 
 
 apex. Nazareth lies among the hills, a few 
 miles north of the so-called Mount of Precipita- 
 tion, and therefore escaped being in Issachar. 
 Almost in the centre of the territory stood 
 Jezreel, on a low swell, attended on the one 
 hand by the eminence of Mount Gilboa, on the 
 other by that now called ed-Duhy, or “little 
 Hermon,” the latter having Shunem, Nain, and 
 Endor on its slopes,—names which recall some 
 of the most interesting and important events in 
 the history of Israel. 
 
 This territory was, as it still is, among the 
 Westward was the 
 
 famous plain which derived its name, the “ seed- 
 plot of God ”—such is the signification of Jezreel 
 —from its fertility, and the very weeds of which 
 at this day testify to its enormous powers of pro- 
 duction (Stanley, 8. § P., p. 348). [EsDRAELON; 
 JEZREEL.] On the north is Tabor, which even 
 under the burning sun of that climate retains the 
 glades and dells of an English wood (ib. p. 350). 
 On the east, behind Jezreel, is the opening which 
 conducts to the plain of Jordan—to that Beth- 
 shean which was proverbially among the Rabbis 
 the gate of Paradise for its fruitfulness. It is 
 this aspect of the territory of Issachar which 
 appears to be alluded to in the Blessing of Jacob. 
 The image of the “strong-boned he-ass” (71M 
 
 D‘}3)—the large animal used for burdens and 
 field-work, not the lighter and swifter she-ass 
 
 for riding—“ couching down between the two 
 hedge-rows”» (R. V. “ sheepfolds ”), chewing the 
 cud of stolid ease and quiet—is very applicable, 
 not only to the tendencies and habits, but to the 
 very size and air of a rural agrarian people, 
 while the sequel of the verse is no less sugges- 
 tive of the certain result of such tendencies when 
 unrelieved by any higher aspirations: “He 
 saw a resting-place that was good and the land 
 that it was pleasant ; and he bowed his shoulder 
 to bear and became a servant under task 
 
 » The word here rendered “hedge-rows ” is one which 
 only occurs in Judg. v. 16. The sense there is evidently 
 similar to that in this passage. But as to what that 
 sense is all the authorities differ. See Gesenius, Ben 
 Zev, &c. The rendering given seems to be nearer the 
 real force than any. In each case R. Y. renders “‘ sheep- 
 folds,” 
 
ἘΣ 
 
 ISSACHAR 
 
 work *” (R. V.)—the task-work imposed on him 
 by the various marauding tribes who were 
 attracted to his territory by the richness of the 
 crops. The Blessing of Moses completes the 
 picture. He is not only “in tents”—in nomad 
 or semi-nomad life—but “rejoicing” in them; 
 and it is perhaps not straining a point to observe 
 that he has by this time begun to lose his in- 
 dividuality. He and Zebulun are mentioned 
 together as having part possession in the holy 
 mountain of Tabor, which was on the frontier 
 line of each (Deut. xxxiii. 18, 19). We pass from 
 this to the time of Deborah: the chief struggle 
 in the great victory over Sisera took place on 
 the territory of Issachar, “by Taanach at the 
 waters of Megiddo” (Judg. v. 19); but the 
 allusion to the tribe in the song of triumph 
 is of the most cursory nature, not consistent 
 with its having taken any prominent part in the 
 action. 
 
 One among the Judges of Israel was from 
 Issachar—Toua (Judg. x. 1); but beyond the 
 length of his sway we have only the fact re- 
 corded that he resided out of the limits of his 
 own tribe—at Shamir in Mount Ephraim. By 
 Josephus he is omitted entirely (see Ant. v. 7, 
 § 6). The census of the tribe taken in the 
 reign of David has already been alluded to. It 
 is contained in 1 Ch, vii. 1-5, and an expression 
 occurs in it which testifies to the nomadic 
 tendencies above noticed. Out of the whole 
 number of the tribe no less than 36,000 were 
 marauding mercenary troops—“ bands” (2°73) 
 —a term applied to no other tribe in this enu- 
 meration, though elsewhere to Gad, and uni- 
 formly to the irregular bodies of the Bedawi 
 nations round Israel.4 This was probably at 
 the close of David’s reign. Thirty years before, 
 when two hrndred of the head men of the tribe 
 had gone to Hebron to assist in making David 
 king over the entire realm, different qualifica- 
 tions are noted in them—they “had under- 
 standing of the times to know what Israel ought 
 to do...and all their brethren were at their 
 commandment.” What this “understanding 
 of the times” was we have no clue. By the 
 later Jewish interpreters it is explained as skill 
 in ascertaining the periods of the sun and moon, 
 the intercalation of months, and dates of solemn 
 feasts, and the interpretation of the signs of the 
 heavens (Targum ad loc. ; Jerome, Quaest. Heb.). 
 Josephus (Ant. vii. 2, § 2) gives it as “ knowing 
 the things that were to happen; ” and he adds 
 that the armed men who came with these leaders 
 were 20,000. One of the wise men of Issachar, 
 according to an old Jewish tradition preserved 
 by Jerome (Quaest. Heb. on 2 Ch. xvii. 16), was 
 Amasiah, son of Zichri, who with 200,000 men 
 offered himself to Jehovah in the service of 
 
 ΔΘ ΒΗ) ppb. By the LXX. rendered ἀνὴρ γεωργός. 
 Cp. their similar rendering of 9'J9))(A. V. “servants” 
 LS 
 
 and ‘husbandry ’’) in Gen. xxvi. 14. 
 
 4 The word “ bands,’”’ which is commonly employed 
 in the A. V. to render Gedoodim, as above, is unfortu- 
 nately used in 1 Ch. xii. 23 for a very different term, by 
 which the orderly assembly of the fighting men of the 
 tribes is denoted when they visited Hebron to make 
 David king. This term is ‘N54 = “heads.” We 
 may almost suspect a mere misprint, especially as the 
 Vulgate has principes. 
 
 ISSACHAR 1487 
 
 Jehoshaphat (2 Ch. xvii. 16): but this is very 
 questionable, as the movement appears to have 
 been confined to Judah and Benjamin. The 
 ruler of the tribe at this time was Omri, of the 
 great family of Michael (1 Ch. xxvii. 18; ep. 
 vii. 3). May he not have been the forefather 
 of the king of Israel of the same name—the 
 founder of the “house of Omri” and of the 
 “house of Ahab,” the builder of Samaria, pos- 
 sibly on the same hill of Shamir on which the 
 Issacharite judge, Tola, had formerly held his 
 court? But whether this was so or not, at 
 any rate one dynasty of the Israelite kings 
 was Issacharite. BAaswa, the son of Ahijah, 
 of the house of Issachar, a member of the 
 army with which Nadab and all Israel were 
 besieging Gibbethon, apparently not of any 
 standing in the tribe (ep. 1 K. xvi. 2), slew the 
 king, and himself mounted the throne (1 K. 
 xv. 27, &c.). He was evidently a fierce and 
 warlike man (xvi. 29; 1 Ch. xvi. 1), and an 
 idolater like Jeroboam. ‘he Issacharite dynasty 
 lasted during the twenty-four years of his reign 
 and the two of his sonElah. At the end of that 
 time it was wrested from Elah by the same 
 means that his father had acquired it, and 
 Zimri, the new king, commenced his reign 
 by a massacre of the whole kindred and con- 
 nexions of Baasha—he left him “not even so 
 much as a dog” (xvi. 11). ELisHa, being 
 from Abel-meholah, may be said to have been 
 of Issachar. 
 
 One more notice of Issachar remains to be 
 added to the meagre information already col- 
 lected. It is fortunately a favourable one. 
 There may be no truth in the tradition just 
 quoted that the tribe was in any way connected 
 with the reforms of Jehoshaphat, but we are 
 fortunately certain that, distant as Jezreel was 
 from Jerusalem, they took part in the Passover 
 with which Hezekiah sanctified the opening of 
 his reign. On that memorable occasion a multi- 
 tude of the people from the northern tribes, and 
 amongst them from Issachar, although so long 
 estranged from the worship of Jehovah as to 
 have forgotten how to make the necessary 
 purifications, yet by the enlightened wisdom of 
 Hezekiah were allowed to keep the Feast; and 
 they did keep it seven days with great gladness 
 —with such tumultuous joy as had not been 
 known since the time of Solomon, when the 
 whole land was one. Nor did they separate till 
 the occasion had been signalised by an immense 
 destruction of idolatrous altars and symbols, 
 “in Judah and Benjamin, in Ephraim and 
 Manasseh,” up to the very confines of Issachar’s 
 own land—and then “all the children of Israel 
 returned every man to his possession into their 
 own cities ” (2 Ch. xxxi. 1). It is a satisfactory 
 farewell to take of the tribe. A few years later 
 Sargon king of Assyria had taken Samaria after 
 three years’ siege, and with the rest of Israel had 
 carried Issachar away to his distant dominions. 
 There we must be content to leave them until, 
 with the rest of their brethren of all the tribes 
 of the children of Israel (Dan only excepted), the 
 twelve thousand of the tribe of Issachar shall be 
 sealed in their foreheads (Rev. vii. 7). 
 
 2. A Korhite Levite, one of the doorkeepers 
 (A. V. “porters”) of the house of Jehovah, 
 seventh son of OBED-EDOM (1 Ch, xxvi. 5). 
 
 [G.] [WJ 
 
1488 ISSHIAH 
 
 ISSHI'AH (7*Y¥=whom Jehovah leads). 1. 
 (B. omits, A. “leclas; Jesias.) A descendant 
 of Moses by his younger son Eliezer; the 
 head of the numerous family of Rehabiah, 
 in the time of David (1 Ch. xxiv. 213 ep. xxiii. 
 17, xxvi. 25). His name is elsewhere given as 
 JESHAIAH. 
 
 2. (Β. Ἰσιά, A.’Aota; Jesia.) A Levite of the 
 house of Kohath and family of Uzziel; named in 
 the list of the tribe in the time of David (1 Ch. 
 xxiv. 25). 
 
 ISSUE RUNNING (Δ 211). The texts 
 
 Lev. xv. 2, 3, xxii. 4: Num. v. 2 (and 2 Sam. 
 iii. 29, where the malady is invoked as a curse), 
 are probably to be interpreted of gonorrhoea. 
 In Ley. xv. 3a distinction is introduced, which 
 merely means that the cessation of the actual 
 flux does not constitute ceremonial cleanness, 
 but that the patient must bide the legal time, 
 seven days (v. 13), and perform the prescribed 
 purifications and sacrifice (v. 14). See, however, 
 Surenhusius’s preface to the treatise Zabim of 
 the Mishna, where another interpretation is 
 given, As regards the specific varieties of this 
 malady, it is generally asserted that its most 
 severe form (gon. virulenta) is modern, having 
 first appeared in the 15th century. Chardin 
 {Voyages en Perse, ii. 200) states that he 
 observed that this disorder was prevalent in 
 Persia, but that its effects were far less severe 
 than in Western climates. If this be true, it 
 would go some way to explain the alleged 
 absence of the gon. virul. from ancient nosology, 
 which found its field of observation in the East, 
 Greece, &c.; and to confirm the supposition 
 that the milder form only was the subject of 
 Mosaic legislation: ep. Num. xxv. 1, 9; Josh. 
 xxli. 17, where at any rate some persistent 
 malady is intended. But, beyond this, it is 
 probable that diseases may appear, run their 
 course, and disappear, and, for want of an 
 accurate observation of their symptoms, leave 
 no trace behind them. The “ bed,” “seat,” &e. 
 (Ley. xv. 5, 6, &c.), are not supposed by that 
 law to have been contagious, but the defilement 
 is extended to them merely to give greater 
 prominence to the ceremonial strictness with 
 which the case was ruled. In the woman’s 
 “issue” (v. 19) the ordinary menstruation 
 seems alone intended, supposed prolonged (v. 25) 
 to a morbid extent. The scriptural handling of 
 the subject not dealing, as in the case of leprosy, 
 in symptoms, it seems gratuitous to detail them 
 here: those who desire such knowledge will 
 find them in any compendium of therapeutics 
 (see Biblisch - Talmudische Medicin, iii., B, ὁ). 
 The reff. are Joseph. de B. J. v. 5, 6, vi. 9, 8: 
 Mishna, Zabim. ii. 2, Chelim. i. 3, 8; Maimon, 
 ad Zabim. ii. 2: whence we learn that persons 
 thus affected might not ascend the Temple 
 mount, nor share in any religious celebrations, 
 nor even enter Jerusalem, See also Michaelis, 
 Laws of Moses, iv. 282. [Η. H.] 
 
 ISTALCU’RUS. In 1 Esd. viii. 40, the “son 
 of Istalcurus” (A. Ἰσταλκούρος, B. Ἰστακάλ- 
 kos) is substituted for “and Zabbud” of the 
 corresponding list in Ezra (viii. 14). The Qeri 
 has Ziccur instead of Zabbud, and of this there 
 is perhaps some trace in Istalcurus. 
 
 ITHAMAR 
 
 IS'UAH, R. V. ISHVAH (71, peaceful ; - 
 
 B. Ἰσουά, A. "Iecova; Jesua), second son of 
 Asher (1 Ch. vii. 30). Elsewhere in the A. Y. 
 his name, though the same in Hebrew, appears 
 as ISHUAH. 
 
 IS‘UI, R. V. ISHVI (1; BA. *leova; 
 Jessui), third son of Asher (Gen. xlvi. 17); 
 founder of a family called after him, though in 
 the A. V. appearing as THE JESUITES (Num. 
 xxvi, 44; hk. V, “Ishvites”). Elsewhere the 
 name also appears as ISHUAI. 
 
 ITALIAN BAND (Acts x. 1. [ARMy.] 
 
 ITALY (Ἰταλία; Italia). This word is used 
 in the N. T. in the usual sense of the period, 
 i.e. in its true geographical sense, as denoting 
 the whole natural peninsula between the Alps 
 and the Straits of Messina. For the progress of 
 the history of the word, first as applied to the 
 extreme south of the peninsula, then as extended 
 northwards to the right bank of the Po, see the 
 Dict. of Gk. § Rom. Geogr.2 s. n. From the 
 time of the close of the Republic it was em- 
 ployed as we employ it now. Inthe N. T. it 
 occurs three, or indeed, more correctly speaking, 
 four times. In Acts x. 1, the Italian cohort at 
 Caesarea (7 σπεῖρα ἣ καλουμένη ᾿Ιταλική, A. V. 
 “Italian band”), consisting, as it doubtless did, 
 of men recruited in Italy, illustrates the military 
 relations of the imperial peninsula with the 
 provinces. [ARMy.] In Acts xviii. 2, where 
 we are told of the expulsion of Aquila and 
 Priscilla with their compatriots “from Italy,” 
 we are reminded of the large Jewish population 
 which many authorities show that it contained. 
 Acts xxvii. 1, where the beginning of St. Paul’s 
 voyage “to Italy ” is mentioned, and the whole 
 subsequent narrative, illustrate the trade which 
 subsisted between the peninsula and other parts 
 of the Mediterranean. And the words in Heb. 
 xiii, 24, “They of Italy (of ἀπὸ τῆς Ἰταλίας) 
 salute you,” whatever they may prove for or 
 against this being the region in which the letter 
 was written, are interesting as a specimen of the 
 progress of Christianity in the West. 
 
 [J-S. Ha] Swell 
 
 I-THAT (T'S; B. Aiped, ἐξ. Aidel, A. Ἠθού ; 
 Lthai), a Benjamite, son of Ribai of Gibeah, 
 one of the heroes of David’s guard (1 Ch. xi. 31). 
 In the parallel list of 2 Sam. xxiii. 29 the 
 name is given as Itrar. Kennicott decides 
 
 that the form Ithai is the original (Dissertation, 
 ad loc.). 
 
 I-THAMAR (10'S; Ἰθαμάρ; Ithamar), 
 the youngest son of Aaron (Ex. vi. 23). After 
 the deaths of Nadab and Abihu (Lev. x. 1), 
 Eleazar and Ithamar, having been admonished to 
 show no mark of sorrow for their brothers’ loss, 
 were appointed to succeed to their places in the 
 priestly office, as they had left no children (Ex. 
 xxviii. 1, 40, 43; Num. iii. 3,4; 1 Ch. xxiv. 2). 
 In the distribution of services belonging to the 
 Tabernacle and its transport on the march of 
 the Israelites, the Gershonites had charge of the 
 curtains and hangings, and the Merarites of the 
 pillars, cords, and boards, and both of these 
 departments were placed under the superine - 
 
ITHIEL 
 
 tendence of Ithamar (Ex. xxxviii. 21; Num. iv. 
 21-33). These services were continued under 
 the Temple system, so far as was consistent with 
 its stationary character, but, instead of being 
 appropriated to families, they were divided by 
 lot; the first lot being taken by the family of 
 Eleazar, whose descendants were more numerous 
 than those of Ithamar (1 Ch. xxiv. 4, 6). The 
 high-priesthood passed into the family of Itha- 
 mar in the person of Eli, but for what reason 
 we are not informed. It reverted into its 
 original line in the person of Zadok, in conse- 
 quence of Abiathar’s participation in the rebel- 
 lion of <Adonijah. Thus was fulfilled the 
 prophecy delivered to Samuel against Eli 
 (1 Sam. ii. 31-35; 1 K. ii, 26, 27, 35; Joseph. 
 Ant. viii. 1, § 3). 
 
 A descendant of Ithamar, by name Daniel, is 
 mentioned as returning from captivity in the 
 time of Artaxerxes (Ezra viii. 2). [H. W. P.] 
 
 I-THLEL (ON), ?2=98 AN = God is with 
 me; BA, Αἰθιήλ, N. Σεθιήλ; LEtheel) 1. A 
 Benjamite, son of Jesaiah (Neh. xi. 7). 
 
 2. (LXX. omits; Vulg. translates, cum quo est 
 Deus.) One of two persons—Ithiel and Ucal—to 
 
 whom Agur ben-Jakeh delivered his discourse 
 (Prov. xxx. 1). [Ucat.] 
 
 ITH-MAH (ΠΏ ἢ", (?) = orphanhood; BN. 
 Ἐθεμά, A. Ἰεθεμά ; Jethma), a Moabite, one of 
 the heroes of David’s guard, according to the 
 enlarged list of Chronicles (1 Ch. xi, 46). 
 Possibly he attached himself to David when 
 David visited the king of Moab at Mizpeh with 
 his father and mother. 
 
 ITH-NAN (2); in both MSS. of the LXX. 
 the name is corrupted by being attached to that 
 next it: B. ‘Acopiwvaw, A. ᾿Ιθναζίφ : Jethnam), 
 one of the towns in the extreme south of Judah 
 (Josh. xv. 23), named with Kedesh and Telem 
 (cp. 1 Sam. xv. 4), and therefore probably on 
 the borders of the desert, if not actually in the 
 desert itself. No trace of its existence has yet 
 
 been discovered ; nor does it appear to have been 
 known to Jerome. {G.] [W.] 
 
 ITH-RA (N1N', ἢ = abundance: in Sam. B. 
 ᾿Ἰοθέρ, A. Ἰοθόρ, in Ch. vice versé; Joseph. 
 Ant. vii. 10, § 1, Ἰεθάρσος : Jetra), an Israelite 
 (2 Sam. xvii. 25) or Ishmaelite (1 Ch. ii. 17, 
 “ Jether the Ishmeelite”); the father of Amasa 
 by Abigail, David’s sister. He was thus brother- 
 in-law to David and uncle to Joab, Abishai, and 
 Asahel, the three “sons of Zeruiah.” There is 
 no absolute means of settling which of these— 
 Israelite or Ishmaelite—is correct: but there 
 can be little doubt that the latter is so (so A. in 
 2 Sam.); the fact of the admixture of Ishmaelite 
 blood in David’s family being a fit subject for 
 notice in the genealogies, whereas Ithra’s being 
 an Israelite would call for no remark. [JETHER. ] 
 Another Ishmaelite is mentioned among David’s 
 subjects in 1 Ch. xxvii. 30, {G.J] [W.] 
 
 ITH-RAN (jn). 1. A. Ἰεθράν, B. Γεθράμ 
 (1 Ch. i. 41); Jethram, Jethran. Ithran ben 
 Dishon ben Seir was a clan or sub-tribe of the 
 Horites or Troglodyte aborigines of the hill- 
 
 BIBLE DICT,—VOL. I, 
 
 ITTAT 1489 
 
 country of Seir, whom the Edomites dispos- 
 sessed (Gen. xxxvi. 20, 21, 26; Deut. ii. 12). 
 
 2. B. @cpd, A. “1ébep; Jethran. Ithran (or 
 Jether) ben Zophah ben Helem (or Hotham ?) 
 ben Heber ben Beriah ben Asher; a chief and 
 house or clan of the tribe of Asher (1 Ch. vii. 
 37, 38. The list in this chapter, vv. 30-39, 
 was once probably continuous). The corruptions 
 of some of the names can be explained; 6.6. 
 Hotham for Helem is due to a copyist’s eye 
 having wandered to ‘ahotham, “their sister,” 
 v. 30 or v. 32 (see the notes ad loc. in Bp. 
 Ellicott’s O. 7. Commentary). 
 
 The names Jethro (see Ex. iv. 18) and Ithra 
 (2 Sam. xvii. 25; cp. 1 K. ii. 5) as well as 
 Ithran (cp. 1 Ch. vii. 38) are only variations of 
 Jether. [C..J. B.] 
 
 ITH-RE-AM (QUIN = residue of the people: 
 in 2 Sam. B. Ἰεθεραάμ, A. EieBepadu; in 1 Ch. 
 B. Ἰθαράμ, A. Ἰεθράμ; Joseph. Γεθραάμης: 
 Jethraam), a son of David, born to him in 
 Hebron, and distinctly specified as the sixth, 
 and as the child of “Eglah, David’s wife” 
 (2 Sam. iii, 5; 1 Ch. iii. 3). In the ancient 
 Jewish traditions Eglah is said to have been 
 Michal, and to have died in giving birth to 
 Ithream. 
 
 ITH’RITE, THE (9M: in 2 Sam. B. 
 Αἰθειραῖος, A. 6 ’E@paios, in 1 Ch. Β. ᾿Ηθηρεί, 
 N.710-, A. ᾿Ιεθερί : Jethrites, Jethraeus), the native 
 of a place, or descendant of a man, called Iether 
 (according to the Hebrew mode of forming 
 derivatives); the designation of two of the 
 members of David’s guard, Ira and Gareb 
 (2 Sam. xxiii. 38; 1 Ch. xi. 40). The Ithrite 
 (A. V. “Ithrites;” BA. Αἰθαλείμ; Jethrei) 
 is mentioned in 1 Ch. 11. 53 as among the 
 “families of Kirjath-jearim;” but this does 
 not give us much clue to the derivation of 
 the term, except that it fixes it as belonging 
 to Judah, The two Ithrite heroes of David’s 
 guard may have come from JATTIR, in the 
 mountains of Judah, one of the places which 
 were the “haunt” of David and his men in 
 their freebooting wanderings, and where he 
 had “ friends ” (1 Sam, xxx. 27; cp. v.31). Ira 
 has been supposed to be identical with “Ira the 
 Jairite,” David’s priest (2 Sam. xx. 26)—the 
 Syriac Version reading “from Jatir” in that 
 place. But nothing more than conjecture can 
 be arrived at on the point (see Driver, Notes on 
 the Heb. Text of the BB. of Samuel, in loco). 
 
 IT’TAH - KA’ZIN, R. V. ETH-KAZIN 
 (PSP OY: B. ἐπὶ πόλιν Κατασέμ; A...... 
 
 Kaolu: Thacasin), one of the landmarks of the 
 boundary of Zebulun (Josh. xix. 13), named 
 next to Gath-hepher. Like that place (A. V. 
 “‘Gittah-hepher”), the name is probably Eth- 
 kazin (as in R. V.), with the Hebrew particle of 
 motion (ah) added—i.e. “to Eth-kazin.” Taken 
 as Hebrew, the name may bear the interpre- 
 tation time of a judge (Ges. Thes. p. 1088 ὁ. 
 See Dillmann? in loco), It has not been 
 identified. [G.] [W.] 
 
 IT’TAI (AN). 1. (EO, and so Josephus ; 
 B. Σεθθεί, A. Ἐθθεί: Ethai.) “Irrar THE 
 GITTITE,” 1.9. the native of Gath, a Philistine 
 in the army of king David. He appears only 
 
 5 C 
 
1490 ITTAI 
 
 during the revolution of Absalom. We first 
 discern him on the morning of David’s flight, 
 while the king was standing under the olive- 
 tree below the city, watching the army and the 
 people defile past him. [See Davip, p. 730.} 
 Last in the procession came the 600 heroes who 
 had formed David’s band during his wanderings 
 in Judah, and had been with him at Gath 
 (2 Sam. xv. 18; cp. 1 Sam. xxiii, 13, xxvii. 2, 
 xxx. 9, 10; and see Joseph. Ant. vii. 9, § 2). 
 Amongst these, apparently commanding them, 
 was Ittai the Gittite (v.19). He caught the 
 eye of the king, who at once addressed him and 
 besought him as “a stranger and an exile,” and 
 as one who had but very recently joined his 
 service, not to attach himself to a doubtful 
 cause, but to return “with his brethren ”’ and 
 abide with the king * (vv. 19, 20). But Ittai is 
 firm; he is the king’s slave (13, A. V. “ser- 
 vant”), and wherever his master goes he will 
 go. Accordingly he is allowed by David to 
 proceed, and he passes over the Kedron before 
 the king (xv. 22, LXX. See Driver in loco), 
 with all his men, and “all the little ones that 
 
 were with him.” These “little ones ” ai->3, 
 
 “ all the children ”) must have been the families 
 of the band, their “households” (1 Sam. 
 xxvii. 3). They accompanied them during their 
 wanderings in Judah, often in great risk (1 Sam. 
 xxx. 6), and they were not likely to leave them 
 behind in this fresh commencement of their 
 wandering life. 
 
 When the army was numbered and organised 
 by David at Mahanaim, Ittai again appears, 
 now in command of a third part of the force, 
 and (for the time at least) enjoying equal rank 
 with Joab and Abishai (2 Sam. xviii. 2, 5, 12). 
 But here, on the eve of the great battle, we 
 take leave of this valiant and faithful stranger ; 
 his conduct in the fight and his subsequent fate 
 are alike unknown to us. Nor is he mentioned 
 in the lists of David’s captains and of the heroes 
 of his body-guard (see 2 Sam. xxiii.; 1 Ch. 
 xi.), lists which are possibly of a date previous 
 to Ittai’s arrival in Jerusalem. 
 
 An interesting tradition is related by Jerome 
 (Quaest. Hebr. on 1 Ch, xx. 2). “David took 
 the crown off the head of the image of Milcom 
 (A. V. ‘their king’). But by the Law it was 
 forbidden to any Israelite to touch either gold or 
 silver of an idol. Wherefore they say that Ittai 
 the Gittite, who had come to David from the 
 Philistines, was the man who snatched the crown 
 from the head of Milcom ; for it was lawful for 
 a Hebrew to take it from the hand of a man, 
 though not from the head of the idol.” The 
 main difficulty to the reception of this legend 
 lies in the fact that if Ittai was engaged in the 
 Ammonite war, which happened several years 
 before Absalom’s revolt, the expression of David 
 (2 Sam. xv. 20), “thou camest but yesterday,” 
 loses its force. However, these words may be 
 merely a strong metaphor, implying that he was 
 not a native of Israel. 
 
 From the expression “ thy brethren ” (xv. 20) 
 we may infer that there were other Philistines 
 besides Ittai in the six hundred; but this is 
 
 “5 The meaning of this is doubtful. ‘‘ The king” may 
 be Absalom, or it may be Ittai’s former king, Achish. 
 By the LXX. the words are omitted. 
 
 ITURAEA 
 
 uncertain. Ittai was not exclusively a Philistine 
 name, nor does “Gittite”—as in the case of 
 Obed-edom, who was a Levite—necessarily im- 
 ply Philistine parentage. Still David’s words, 
 ‘¢ stranger and exile,” seem to show that he was 
 not an Israelite. 
 
 2. (8. Ἐσθαεί, A."AAdp; Zthai.) Son of Ribai, 
 from Gibeah of Benjamin; one of the thirty 
 heroes of David’s guard (2 Sam. xxiii. 29), In 
 the parallel list of 1 Ch. xi. the name is given as 
 ITHAI. [αὐ “Way 
 
 ITURAE’A (‘Irovpaia), a district on the 
 north-eastern border of Palestine (Strabo, xvi. 2, 
 § 18; Pliny, v. 19), which, with Trachonitis, 
 belonged to the tetrarchy of Philip (Luke iii. 1). 
 The Ituraeans were descended from JETUR 
 (710), a son of Ishmael, who gave his name, 
 
 like the rest of his brethren, to the little pro- 
 vince he colonised (Gen. xxv. 15, 16; ep. 1 Ch. 
 i. 31). They therefore belonged to the Arab 
 race; and Strabo couples them with the Ara- 
 bians, whilst Dion Cassius calls them Arabs. 
 After the Israelites had settled in Canaan, a war 
 broke out between the tribes east of Jordan and 
 the Hagarites (or Ishmaelites), Jetur, Nephish, 
 and Nodab. The latter were conquered, and the 
 children of Manasseh “ dwelt in the land: they 
 increased from Bashan unto Baal-Hermon and 
 Senir, and unto Mount Hermon” (1 Ch. v. 19- 
 23). Jetur is not again mentioned in the 
 Bible; but during the Asmonaean period, 
 according to Josephus, the Ituraeans were con- 
 quered by Aristobulus I. (B.c. 105), who took 
 part of their territory, and compelled them to 
 fly or to be circumcised (Ant. xiii. 11, § 3). 
 The mountain district was in the hands of 
 Ptolemaeus, ruler of Chalcis, who combined with 
 other petty princes in raids that rendered the 
 whole country, from Byblus and Berytus to 
 Damascus, unsafe (Strabo, xvi. 2, §§ 10, 18, 20; 
 Joseph. Ant. xiii. 16, § 3; xiv. 7, § 4). When 
 Pompey came into Syria, Ituraea was ceded to 
 the Romans (Appian, Mithr. 106), but Ptole- 
 maeus was allowed, on payment of 1,000 talents, 
 to retain his position as a vassal chief (Ant. 
 xiv. 3, § 2). Ptolemaeus was succeeded by his 
 son Lysanias, who was killed by M. Antonius 
 at the instigation of Cleopatra, to whom the 
 province, called by Dion Cassius (xlix. 32) 
 “‘Ituraean Arabia,” was given (Ant. xv. 4, § 1; 
 Appian, B. C. v. 7). At a later date Ituraea 
 passed into the hands of a certain Zenodorus, 
 who, to increase his income, made common cause 
 with the robbers. Augustus, consequently, took 
 (B.c. 23) Auranitis, Batanea, and Trachonitis 
 away from him and gave them to Herod (Ant. 
 xv. 10, § 1); and on the death of Zenodorus, 
 three years later, added those of his possessions 
 which lay between Trachonitis and Galilee, and 
 contained Ulatha and Paneas (Ant. xv. 10, § 3). 
 It is omitted by Josephus from the list of 
 districts received by Philip on his father’s death, 
 unless it be included under the term Paneas 
 (Ant. xvii. 8, §1; B. J. ii. 6, § 3). According 
 to Dion Cassius (lix. 12), it was given by Cali- 
 gula to a certain Soemus, after that emperor 
 had granted the greater portion of the tetrarchy 
 of Philip to Agrippa (Ant. xviii. 6, § 10; xix. 8, 
 § 2). Finally, under Claudius, it became part 
 of the province of Syria (Tac. Ann. xii. 23; 
 Dion Cass. /. ¢.). 
 
IVAH 
 
 Ituraea was a mountainous country with 
 numerous large caverns (Strabo, /. c.); and its 
 inhabitants, a bold robber race, were daring 
 plunderers and skilful archers (Cicero, Phil. 
 li. 44; Virgil, Georg. ii. 448; Lucan, vii. 230, 
 514), Apuleius (lor. i. 6) calls them frugum 
 pauperes [tyraei; and their modern representa- 
 tives appear to be the Druses. The boundaries 
 of Ituraea cannot be defined with precision; but 
 the district apparently lay between the Upper 
 Jordan and Damascus, and included the southern 
 slopes of Anti-Libanus. 
 
 In this position, 5.W. of Damascus, is the 
 
 modern province of Jeidir Garam) which 
 
 corresponds to the Hebrew Jetur (7109). Wetz- 
 stein (Reisebericht, p. 90 sq.) identifies Ituraea 
 with Jebel Driz in the Hauran; Riehm (H WB. 
 s. v.) considers Libanus and Anti-Libanus to have 
 been the special possession of the Ituraeans; and 
 Reland (Pal. p. 106) and Lightfoot (Hor. Heb. 
 s. v. Jtwraea) suppose that it was included in 
 Auranitis. Jedir is table-land with an undu- 
 lating surface, and has little conical and cup- 
 shaped hills at intervals. The southern section 
 of it has a rich soil, well watered by numerous 
 springs and streams from Hermon. The greater 
 part of the northern section is wild and rugged. 
 The rock is all basalt, and the formation similar 
 to that of the Lejah. [Arcos.] There are 
 about twenty inhabited villages (Burckhardt, 
 Trav. p. 286; Porter, Damascus, ii. 272: see 
 also Minter, de Reb. Itur. Havre, 1824; 
 Schenkel, Bib. Lex. 5. v.; Kiepert, Lehrb. d. alt. 
 Geog. p. 169). ΠΕΡ (aval 
 
 T’VAH (IV’VAH) or A’VA (AV’VA) (iD 
 or NIP; ᾿Αβὰ or ’Aid; Ava). Ivah is men- 
 tioned twice (2 K. xviii. 34 and xix. 13; ep. 
 also Is. xxxvii. 13), both times in connexion 
 with Hena and Sepharvaim. Ava is mentioned 
 once (2 K. xvii. 24), in connexion with Babylon 
 and Cuthah, as one of the places from which 
 the Assyrian king Sargon transplanted the in- 
 habitants to Samaria. Ivah and Ava have 
 generally been regarded as one and the same 
 place, and have been identified with the modern 
 Hit (the “Is of Herodotus), with the Ahava 
 (MAN) of Ezra viii. 15, &c. These identifica- 
 
 tions, however, are very doubtful, for it cannot 
 be regarded as certain whether the city lay, 
 like Arpad and Hamath, in Syria, or, like 
 Cuthah, in Babylonia. Its position, however, is 
 probably limited to one or other of these two 
 districts. 
 
 Notwithstanding the likeness of the forms 
 Ava and Ivah, it is not impossible that two 
 distinct places are really meant, and to this 
 possibility colour is given by the fact that the 
 LXX. puts Aba for Ivah, and Aia for Ava. The 
 inhabitants of the latter place (Awwim, DY, 
 
 Gr. Evato:) are mentioned (2 K. xvii. 31) as 
 having been transplanted to Samaria, whither 
 they toos ine worship of their two principal 
 gods, Nibenaz and Tartak. [?, G. P.] 
 
 IVORY (j¥, shén, in all passages except 1 K. 
 x. 22, and 2 Ch. ix. 21, where D'DMI, shen- 
 habbim, is so rendered). The word shén literally 
 signifies the “tooth” of any animal, and hence 
 
 IVORY 1491 
 
 more especially denotes the substance of the 
 projecting tusks of elephants. There is no 
 sufficient reason for believing the ancients to 
 have been ignorant of the fact that ivory is a 
 tusk and not a horn. Critics are now generally 
 agreed that D’3 is identical with the Sanskrit 
 ibhas, “an elephant,” a name preserved with 
 searcely any change in the Cingalese of Ceylon 
 and the modern vernacular of Malabar; identi- 
 fied conjecturally by Sir H. Rawlinson with 
 habba, which occurs in Assyrian inscriptions, 
 and which he interprets as meaning “ elephant.” 
 But the Assyrian term is al-ab, and “ ivory ” is 
 shin al-ab, “tooth of elephant” (see Schrader, 
 KAT. on 1K. x. 22). Keil(on 1 K. x. 22) derives 
 the Hebrew from the Coptic eboy. The name in 
 1 K, x. 22 shows that the Israelites as early as 
 the time of Solomon were aware of the fact 
 that ivory was a tusk, not a horn. It is true 
 that at a much later date, Ezekiel speaks of 
 jY MiP (xxvii. 15), but the term “horn” 
 is merely applied to the shape of the tusk, not 
 to its growth, and the expression is literally 
 “horns of tooth.” The classical writers from 
 the earliest times seem to have been aware of 
 the true character of ivory. Pliny, 6.0.» 
 speaking (viii. 4) of ivory says, “Quae Juba 
 cornua appellat, Herodotus tanto antiquior, et 
 consuetudo melius, dentes.” It was suggested 
 in Gesenius’ Thesaurus (s. v.) that the original 
 reading may have’ been Dn 1, “ivory, 
 ebony ” (cp. Ezek. xxvii. 15), but Gesenius after- 
 wards stated his preference for the present text, 
 “ Magis hoc placet, quam quod olim suspicabar ” 
 (Lexicon, p. 1026). Hitzig (Isaiah, p. 643), with- 
 out any authority, renders the word “ nubischen 
 Zahn.” The Targum Jonathan on 1 K. x. 22 
 
 has py 1, “elephant’s tusk,” while the 
 Peshitto gives simply “elephants.” In the 
 Targum of the Pseudo-Jonathan, Gen. ]. 1 is 
 translated, “‘ and Joseph placed his father upon 
 
 a bier of }*D3W” (shindaphin), which is con- 
 jectured to be a valuable species of wood, but 
 for which Buxtorf, with great probability, 
 
 suggests as another reading bias 10, “ivory.” 
 The Assyrians appear to have carried on a 
 great traffic in ivory. Their early conquests in 
 India had made them familiar with it, and 
 (according to one rendering of the passage) 
 their artists supplied the luxurious Tyrians 
 with carvings in ivory from the isles of Chittim 
 (Ezek, xxvii. 6). On the obelisk in the British 
 Museum the captives or tribute-bearers are 
 represented as carrying tusks. Among the 
 merchandise of Babylon, enumerated in Rey. 
 xviii. 12, are included “all manner vessels of 
 ivory.” The skilled workmen of Hiram, king 
 of Tyre, fashioned the great ivory throne of 
 Solomon, and overlaid it with pure gold (1 K. 
 x. 18; 2 Ch. ix. 17). The ivory thus employed 
 was supplied by the caravans of Dedan, a tribe 
 of merchant traffickers, settled somewhere in 
 the deserts of Mesopotamia (Is. xxi. 13; Ezek. 
 xxvii. 15), or was brought with apes and pea- 
 cocks by the navy of Tharshish (1 K. x. 22). 
 The Egyptians at a very early period made use 
 of this material in decoration. The cover of a 
 small ivory box in the Egyptian Collection at 
 the Louvre is “inscribed with the praenomen 
 5 C 2 
 
1492 IVORY 
 
 Nefar-ka-re, or Neper-cheres, adopted by a 
 dynasty found in the upper line of the tablet of 
 Abydos, and attributed by M. Bunsen to the 
 fifth. ..In the time of Thothmes II. ivory 
 was imported in considerable quantities into 
 Egypt, either ‘in boats laden with ivory and 
 ebony” from Ethiopia, or else in tusks and 
 cups from the Ruten-nu. ... The celebrated 
 car at Florence has its linch-pins tipped with 
 ivory ” (Birch, in Trans. of Roy. Soc. of Lit. iii. 
 2nd series). The specimens of Egyptian ivory 
 work, which are found in the principal mu- 
 seums of Europe, are, most of them, in the 
 opinion of Dr. Birch, of a date anterior to the 
 Persian invasion, and some even as old as the 
 18th dynasty. 
 
 The ivory used by the Egyptians was princi- 
 pally brought from Ethiopia (Herod. iii. 114), 
 though their elephants were originally from 
 Asia. The Ethiopians, according to Diodorus 
 Siculus (i. 55), brought to Sesostris “ebony 
 and gold, and the teeth of elephants.” Among 
 the tribute paid by them to the Persian kings 
 were “twenty large tusks of ivory” (Herod. 
 iii. 97). In the Periplus of the Red Sea (c. 4), 
 attributed to Arrian, Coloe (Callaz) is said to 
 be “the chief mart for ivory.” It was thence 
 carried down to Adouli (Zulla, or Thuilla), a 
 port on the Red Sea, about three days’ journey 
 from Coloe, together with the hides of hippo- 
 potami, tortoise-shell, apes, and slaves (Plin. 
 vi. 34). The elephants and rhinoceroses, from 
 which it was obtained, were killed further up 
 the country, and few were taken near the sea, 
 or in the neighbourhood of Adouli. At Ptolemais 
 Theron was found a little ivory like that of 
 Adouli (Peripl. c. 3). Ptolemy Philadelphus 
 made this port the depot of the elephant trade 
 (Plin. vi. 34). According to Pliny (viii. 10), 
 ivory was so plentiful on the borders of Ethiopia 
 that the natives made door-posts of it, and even 
 fences and stalls for their cattle. The author of 
 the Periplus (c. 16) mentions Rhapta as another 
 station of the ivory trade, but the ivory brought 
 down to this port is said to have been of an in- 
 ferior quality, and “for the most part found in 
 the woods, damaged by rain, or collected from 
 animals drowned by the overflow of the rivers 
 at the equinoxes” (Smith, Dict. Geogr. art. 
 Rhapta). The Egyptian merchants traded for 
 ivory and onyx stones to Barygaza, the port to 
 which was carried down the commerce of 
 Western India from Ozene (Peripl. c. 49). 
 
 In the early ages of Greece ivory was fre- 
 quently employed for purposes of ornament. 
 The trappings of horses were studded with it 
 (Hom. J/. v. 584): it was used for the handles 
 of keys (Od. xxi. 7), and for the bosses of 
 shields (Hes. Sc. Here. 141, 142). An 
 interesting allusion to the use of ivory is 
 found in Ps. xly. 8, “ivory palaces,” which 
 probably mean boxes or cases veneered with 
 ivory, an art in which the Phoenicians excelled, 
 and in which boxes the robes of the wealthy were 
 stored, along with perfumes, myrrh, aloes, and 
 cassia. The “ivory house” of Ahab (1 K. xxii. 
 39) was probably a palace, the walls of which 
 were panelled with ivory, like the palace of 
 Menelaus described by Homer (Odys. iv. 73; cp. 
 Eur. Iph. Aul. 583, ἐλεφαντοδέτοι δόμοι. In 
 this fashion Ahab was followed by his luxu- 
 rious nobles. Cp. Amos iii. 15). Beds inlaid or 
 
 IZHAR 
 
 veneered with ivory were in use among the 
 Hebrews (Amos vi. 4. I have seen a chamber in 
 a wealthy house, both in Damascus and Tarablis, 
 panelled with alternate veneers of ebony and 
 ivory to the height of 3 or 4 feet from the 
 floor. Such doubtless was the ivory palace of 
 Ahab: cp. Hom. Od. xxiii. 200), as also among 
 the Egyptians (cp. Wilkinson, Anc. Zg. ii. 111). 
 The practice of inlaying and veneering wood 
 with ivory and tortoise-shell is described by 
 Pliny (xvi. 84). The great ivory throne of 
 Solomon, the work of the Tyrian craftsmen, has 
 been already mentioned (cp. Rev. xx. 11); but 
 it is difficult to determine whether the “tower 
 of ivory ” of Cant. vii. 4 is merely a figure of 
 speech, or whether it had its original among 
 the things that were. By the luxurious 
 Phoenicians ivory was employed to ornament 
 the boxwood rowing benches (or “hatches ” 
 according to some) of their galleys (Ezek. xxvii. 
 6). Many specimens of Assyrian carving in 
 ivory have been found in the excavations at 
 Nimroud, and among the rest some tablets 
 “richly inlaid with blue and opaque glass, 
 lapis-lazuli, &c.” (Bonomi, Nineveh and its 
 Palaces, p. 334; ep. Cant. v. 14). Part of an 
 ivory staff, apparently a sceptre, and several 
 entire elephants’ tusks, were discovered by 
 Sir H. Layard in the last stage of decay, and 
 it was with extreme difficulty that these in- 
 teresting relics could be restored (Win. § Bab. 
 p- 195). [W.. A. We) ΠΕ Τὴ 
 
 IVY (κισσός ; hedera), the common Hedera 
 helix, of which the ancient Greeks and Romans 
 describe two or three kinds, which appear to be 
 only varieties. Mention of this plant is made 
 only in 2 Mace. vi. 7, where it is said that the 
 Jews were compelled, when the feast of Bacchus 
 was kept, to goin procession carrying ivy to this 
 deity, to whom it is well known this plant was 
 sacred. Ivy, however, though not mentioned by 
 name, has a peculiar interest to the Christian, as 
 forming the “corruptible crown” (1 Cor. ix. 
 25) for which the competitors at the great. 
 Isthmian games contended, and which St. Paul 
 so beautifully contrasts with the “ incorruptible 
 crown” which shall hereafter encircle the brows 
 of those who run worthily the race of this 
 mortallife. Inthe Isthmian contests the victor’s 
 garland was either ivy or pine. Ivy can scarcely 
 be included among the plants of Palestine, as it 
 only occurs in Lebanon, and not further south. 
 Its range extends over the whole of Southern 
 and Central Europe, the lower ranges of the 
 Himalayas, North China, and Japan. ([H. B. T.] 
 
 IZ’EHAR. The form in which the name 
 Ishar is given in the A. V. of Num. iii. 19 only. 
 In v. 27 the family of the same person is given 
 as Izeharites. The Hebrew word is the same as 
 IZHAR. 
 
 IZEHARITES. [Izuarires.] 
 
 IZ-HAR (spelt by A. V. Izehar in Num. iii. 
 19, 27; in Heb. always ws? =" oils TEXEX vars 
 Ἰσσαὰρ and Ἰσαάρ; Jesuar, Isaar), son of ~ 
 Kohath, grandson of Levi, uncle of Aaron and 
 Moses, and father of Korah (Ex. vi. 18, 21; 
 Num. iii. 19, xvi. 1; 1 Ch. vi. 2, 18). But in 
 1 Ch. vi, 22 (see in Swete the var. readings of 
 
IZHARITES 
 
 the LXX.) Amminadab is substituted for Zzhar, 
 as the son of Kohath and father of Korah, in 
 the line of Samuel ‘his, however, must be an 
 accidental error of the scribe, as in v. 38, where 
 the same genealogy is repeated, Izhar appears 
 again in his right place (see Burrington’s 
 Genealogies of the O. T.). Izhar was the head 
 of the family of the IZHARITES or IZEHARITES 
 (Num. iii. 27; 1 Ch. xxvi. 23, 29), one of the 
 four families of the Kohathites. [Aseria 
 
 IZHARITES ΟΠ ΝΠ), a family of Koha- 
 
 thite Levites, descended from Izhar, the son of 
 Kohath (Num. iii. 27; B. ὃ Sapiels, B®. Ἴσσα- 
 pets). In the reign ‘of David, Shelomith was 
 the chief of the family (1 Ch. xxiv. 22; B. 
 Ἰσσαρεί, A. Ἰσσααρί), and with his brethren had 
 charge of the treasure dedicated to the use of 
 the Temple (1 Ch. xxvi. 23 [B. Ἰσσάαρ, A. -ἢ, 
 29 [B. Ἰσσαρεί, A. Ἰκααρίη). 
 
 IZRAHT’AH ΤΠ iy will cause to 
 
 spring forth; B. Zapeid, A Ἰεφία; Izrahia), 
 a man of Issachar, one of the Bene-Uzzi, and 
 father of four, or ‘five—which, is not clear—of 
 the principal men in the tribe ἀ Ch. vii. 3). 
 
 IZ'RAHITE, THE (nn, ae. “the Iz- 
 rach” = 1S [Tregelles]; B. 6 Ἐσρᾶε, A. 
 "leCpdeA ; Jezer ‘ites), the designation of Sham- 
 huth, the captain of the fifth monthly course 
 as appointed by David (1 Ch. xxvii. 8). The 
 Hebrew name is probably equivalent to 711 
 (v. 13), ie. the interpretation put on it in the 
 A.V. Its real force is Zerahite, or one. of the 
 great Judaic family of Zerah—the Zarhites. 
 
 IZRI CUS, te. “the Itsrite;” B. 
 Ἰεσδρεί, A. -pd; Isari), a Levite, leader of the 
 fourth course or ward in the service of the 
 House of God (1 Ch. xxv. 11). In v. 3 he is 
 called ZERIT. 
 
 J 
 
 JA’AKAN (0); BA. Ἰακείμ; Jacan), the 
 forefather of the Bene-Jaakan, round whose 
 wells the children of Israel encamped after they 
 left Mosera, and from which they went on to 
 Hor-Hagidgad (Deut. x. 6). Jaakan was son of 
 Ezer, the son of Seir the Horite (1 Ch, i. 42; 
 B. om., A. Ἰωακάν). The name is here given in 
 the A. V. as JAKAN, though without any reason 
 for the change. In Gen. xxxvi. 27 it is in the 
 abbreviated form of AKAN. The site of the 
 wells has not been identified. Some suggestions 
 will be seen under BENE-JAAKAN. [G.] [W.] 
 
 JAAKO’BAH (MAPY ; B. Ἰωκαβά, A. 
 Ἰακαβά ; Jacoba), one of the princes (ONY?) 
 of the families of Simeon (1 Ch. iv. 36). Ex- 
 
 cepting the termination, the name is identical 
 with that of JAcos. 
 
 JA'ALA (NPD! = wild she-goat; B. Ἰελήλ, NA. 
 Ἰεαήλ 3 Jahala). Bene-Jaala were among the 
 descendants of **Solomon’s slaves” who returned 
 from Babylon with Zerubbabel (Neh. vii. 58). 
 The name also occurs as 
 
 1493 
 
 B. Ἰεηλά, A. Ἰελά; Jala), 
 and in Esdras as JEELI. 
 
 JAASAU 
 JA'ALAH (by); 
 
 Ezra ii. 56; 
 
 JA’ALAM (Ody; AD. Ἰεγλόμ; Thelon, The- 
 lom), a “son” of Esau by his wife AHOLIBAMAH 
 (Gen. xxxvi. 5, 14, 18; cp. 1 Ch. i. 35), and an 
 Edomite phylarch (A. V. “duke’’) or chief of a 
 hiya (a subdivision of the ‘tribe’; ep. Micah 
 
 2). From Gen. xxxvi. 2 (reading with 
 Michaelis and most modern cxities “ Horite ” 
 for “Hivite”: cp. vv. 20, 24, 25), it would 
 appear that Jaalam was a clan of mixed Horite 
 and Edomite origin. [C. J. B.] 
 
 JA'ANAT ΟΝ), for 9D) = Jehovah answers ; 
 B. Ἰανείν, A. Ἰαναί ; Janai), a chief man in the 
 tribe of Gad (1 Ch. v. 12). The LXX. have 
 connected the following name, Shaphat, to 
 Jaanai, and rendered it ‘lavely 6 γραμματεύς. 
 
 JA’ARE-O’REGIM (0°}78 wiv’; BA. 
 ᾿Αριωργείμ; Saltus polymitarius), according to 
 the present text of 2 Sam. xxi. 19, a Beth- 
 lehemite, and the father of Elhanan who slew 
 Goliath (the words “the brother of” are added 
 in the A. V.). In the parallel passage, 1 Ch. 
 xx. 5, besides other differences, Jair is found 
 instead of Jaare, and Oregim is omitted. Oregim 
 is not elsewhere found as a proper name, nor 
 is it a common word; and occurring as it does 
 without doubt at the end of the verse (A. V. 
 “weavers ”’), in a sentence exactly parallel to 
 that in 1 Sam. xvii. 7, it is not probable 
 that it should also occur in the middle of the 
 same (see Driver, Notes on the Heb. Text of the 
 BB. of Samuel in loco). The conclusion of 
 Kennicott (Dissertation, p. 80) appears a just 
 one—that in the latter place it has been inter- 
 polated from the former, and that Jair or Jaor 
 is the correct reading instead of Jaare. [EL- 
 HANAN, p. 899.] Still the agreement of the 
 ancient Versions with the present Hebrew text 
 affords a certain corroboration to that text, and 
 should not be overlooked. [Jatr. ] 
 
 The Peshitto, followed by the Arabic, substi- 
 tutes for Jaare-Oregim the name “ Malaph the 
 weaver,” to the meaning of which we have no 
 clue. The Targum on the other hand, doubtless 
 anxious to avoid any apparent contradiction of 
 the narrative in 1 Sam. xvii., substitutes David 
 for Elhanan, Jesse for Jaare, and is led by the 
 word Oregim to relate or possibly to invent a 
 statement as to Jesse’s calling—“ And David 
 son of Jesse, weaver of the veils of the house of 
 the sanctuary, who was of Bethlehem, slew 
 Goliath the Gittite.’ By Jerome Jaare is 
 translated by saltus, and Oregim by polymitarius 
 (cp. Quaest. Hebr. on both passages). In 
 Josephus’s account (Ant. vii. 12, § 2) the Israelite 
 champion is said to have been “ Nephan the 
 kinsman of David” (Νεφάνος ὁ συγγενὴς αὐτοῦ); 
 the word kinsman perhaps referring to the 
 Jewish tradition of the identity of Jair and 
 Jesse, or simply arising from the mention of 
 Bethlehem. 
 
 In the received Hebrew text Jaare is written 
 with a small or suspended R, showing that in 
 the opinion of the Masorets that letter is uncer- 
 
 tain. few [F.] 
 JA'ASAU, ΒΕ. V. JAASU Οὗ», but the 
 
 Qeri has wy, ie. Jaasai = Jehovah works 
 
1494 JAASIEL 
 
 [MV."]; and so the Vulg. Jasi), one of the 
 Bene-Bani who had married a foreign wife, and 
 had to put her away (Ezra x. 37). In the 
 parallel list of 1 Esdras the name is not recog- 
 nisable. The LXX. supplied different vowels,— 
 
 καὶ ἐποίησαν = aby. 
 
 JA-ASVYEL Owyy = God works; B. 
 ᾿Ασειήρ, Ἀ. ᾿Ασιήλ ; Jasiel), son of the great 
 Abner, ruler (7°33) or “prince” (WY) of his 
 tribe of Benjamin, in the time of David (1 Ch. 
 xxvii. 21). 
 
 B. ’O(ovias ; Jezonias), one of the “ captains of 
 the forces” who accompanied Johanan ben- 
 Kareah to pay his respects to Gedaliah at Miz- 
 pah after the fall of Jerusalem (2 K. xxv. 23), 
 and who appears afterwards to have assisted 
 in recovering Ishmael’s prey from his clutches 
 (cp. Jer. xli. 11). After that he probably 
 went to Egypt with the rest (Jer. xliii. 4, 5). 
 He is described as the “‘son of the (not ‘a’) 
 Maachathite.” In the narrative of Jeremiah the 
 name 15 slightly changed to JEZANIAH. 
 
 2. YAAZAN-YAHU (Ἰεχονίας, A. Ἰεζονίας ; Je- 
 zonias), son of Shaphan: leader of the band of 
 seventy of the elders of Israel, who were seen 
 by Ezekiel worshipping before the idols on the 
 wall of the court of the House of Jehovah (Ezek. 
 viii. 11). It is possible that he is identical 
 with 
 
 3. YAAZAN-YAH (Ἰεχονίας ; Jezonias), son of 
 Azur; one of the “ princes ” (1) of the people 
 against whom Ezekiel was directed to prophesy 
 (Ezek. xi. 1). 
 
 4, YAAZAN-YAH (Ἰεχονίας ; Jezonias), a Re- 
 chabite, son of Jeremiah. He appears to have 
 been the sheikh of the tribe at the time of 
 Jeremiah’s interview with them (Jer. xxxv. 3). 
 [JEHONADAB. ] (G.] [FJ 
 
 JA’AZER and JA’ZER=helper, Ges. The 
 form of this name is much varied both in the 
 A. V. and the Hebrew, though the one does not 
 follow the other. In Num. xxxii. it is twice 
 given Jazer, and once (v. 35) Jaazer (R. V. 
 
 Jazer), the Hebrew being in all three cases Tf)’. - 
 
 In Num. xxi. 32 it is Jaazer (R. V. Jazer); 
 but in Josh. in 2 Sam. xxiv., Isaiah, and 
 Jeremiah, Jazer: the Hebrew in all these is 
 Wy’. In Chronicles it is also Jazer; but here 
 the Hebrew is in the extended form of VD 
 a form which the Samar. Codex also presents in 
 Num. xxxii. The LXX. have Ἰαζήρ, but once, 
 2 Sam. xxiv. 5, Ἐλιέζερ, A. ’EAid(np—includ- 
 ing the affixed Heb. particle; and, in 1 Ch. vi. 
 81, B. Ta¢ép; xxvi. 31, B. Ῥιαζήρ, A. Ἰαζρ; 
 Joseph. Ἰαζωρός ; Ptolem. Τάζωρος : Vulg. Jazer, 
 Jaser, Jezer. A town on the east of Jordan, 
 m or near to Gilead (Num. xxxii. 1, 3; 1 Ch. 
 xxvi. 31). We first hear of it as being in the 
 possession of the Amorites, and as taken by 
 Israel after Heshbon, and on their way from 
 thence to Bashan (Num. xxi. 32). It was 
 rebuilt subsequently by the children of Gad 
 
 * In Num. xxi. 24, where the present Hebrew text 
 has w (A. V. “strong ”), the LXX. have Ἰαζήρ. 
 
 JAAZIEL 
 
 (xxxii. 35), and was on or near their frontier 
 and a prominent place in their territory (Josh. 
 ΧΙ, 25; 2 Sam. xxiv. 5). It was allotted to 
 the Merarite Levites (Josh. xxi. 39; 1 Ch. vi. 
 81), but in the time of David it would appear 
 to have been occupied by Hebronites, ie, de- 
 scendants of Kohath (1 Ch, xxvi. 31). It seems 
 to have given its name to a district of dependent 
 or “daughter” towns (Num. xxi. 32, A. V. 
 “villages ;” 1 Mace. v. 8), the “land of Jazer” 
 (Num. xxxii. 1). In the “burdens ” proclaimed 
 over Moab by Isaiah and Jeremiah, Jazer is 
 mentioned so as to imply that there were vine- 
 yards there, and that the cultivation of the vine 
 had extended thither from Srpman (ls. xvi. 8, 
 9; Jer. xlviii. 32). In the latter passage, as 
 the text at present stands, mention is made of 
 the “Sea of Jazer” (TD D’). This may have 
 been some pool (Delitzsch* on Is. /. 0.) or lake 
 of water, or possibly is an ancient corruption 
 of the text, the LXX. having a different reading 
 - πόλις “I. (see Gesenius, Jesaia, p. 550; Dill- 
 mann® in loco). Jazer was taken and burnt 
 by Judas Maccabaeus after he had defeated the 
 Ammonites under Timotheus (Joseph. Ant. xii. 
 8, § 1). 
 
 Jazer was known to Eusebius and Jerome, and 
 its position is laid down with minuteness in thé 
 Onomasticon as 10 (or 8, 8. voc. *A¢wp) Roman 
 miles west of Philadelphia ((Ammdn) and 15 
 from Heshbon, and as the source of a river which 
 falls into the Jordan (08,2 p. 267, 98; p. 235, 
 25). The Jazer of Eusebius is either the exten- 
 sive ruin Kh. Sadr, westward of ‘Amman, or Kh. 
 es-Sireh, immediately west of the perennial spring 
 “Ain es-Sir, the head of the stream in W. es-Sir, 
 which answers to the ποταμὺς μέγιστος of Euse- 
 bius(PEF. Mem. East. Pal. p. 153). Seetzen, who 
 first noticed these places in 1806 (Reisen, 1854, 
 
 i. 397-8) calls them Szar and Szir Go) 5 
 
 ep. Burckhardt (Syr. p. 364). Merrill (1. of 
 Jordan, p. 405) mentions “two ponds or little 
 lakes” near Jazer (Sadr). Conder (PEF. Mem. 
 East. Pal. p. 91) proposes to identify Jazer with 
 Beit Zer‘ah, about 24 m. N.E. of Heshbon, but 
 this seems too near that place to meet the 
 requirements of Num. xxi. 24-32, and to be 
 called “J. of Gilead” (1 Ch. xxvi. 32). Burck- 
 hardt (p. 355) suggests ‘Ain Hazeir, a fine spring 
 S. of es-Salt, the water of which runs to Wédy 
 Sh‘aib. In the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, Jazer 
 is identified with Machaerus (Neubauer, (Geog. 
 du Tal. p. 28). [67 Ee 
 
 JA-AZI'AH (17D, i.e. Ya‘aziyahu = Jehovah 
 comforts; A. ’O¢ia, B. Ὀζειά; Ozian), appa- 
 rently a third son, or a descendant, of Merari 
 the Levite, and the founder of an independent 
 house in that family (1 Ch. xxiv. 26, 27); 
 neither he nor his descendants are mentioned 
 elsewhere (cp. the lists in xxiii, 21-23; Ex. 
 vi. 19, &c.). The word Beno (23), which 
 follows Jaaziah, should probably be translated 
 “his son” (cp. the LXX.), i.e. the son of Merari. 
 
 JA-AZV'EL (Sx = God comforts; B. 
 ’OCerha, A. "Inova; Jaziel), one of the Levites 
 of the second order who were appointed by 
 David to perform the musical service before the 
 Ark (1 Ch. xv. 18). If AzreL in v. 20 is a 
 contracted form of the same name—and there is 
 
JABAL 
 
 no reason to doubt it (cp. Jesharelah and 
 Asharelah, 1 Ch. xxv. 2, 14)—his business was 
 to “sound the psaltery on Alamoth.” 
 
 JA'BAL (O3)=a leader [MV."] A. Ἰωβέλ, 
 KE. -n5; Jabel), son of Lamech and Adah, brother 
 of Jubal, father of such as dwell in tents and 
 have cattle (Gen. iv. 20). Abel before him had 
 kept sheep, but Jabal, as remarked by Bochart, 
 is to be regarded as having commenced the 
 pastoral life in its nomad or more extended 
 sense, not simply feeding sheep about a settled 
 home, in a farm as we might say, but leading 
 flocks and various herds about from pasture to 
 pasture, encamping patriarchicatly among them 
 (Bochart, Hierozoicon, lib. ii. c. 34, vol. i. 
 pp- 517, 518, ed. Rosenmiiller, 1793). Other 
 etymologies and deductions may be seen in 
 Delitzsch [1887] and Dillmann’ in loco. 
 
 [W.L: B.] [C. ΗΠ 
 
 JAB'BOK (P3), a play upon “the wrestling” 
 [ep. MV."]; *IaBox; Juboc, Jeboc), a stream 
 which intersects the hill-country of Gilead (cp. 
 Josh. xii. 2 and 5), and falls into the Jordan about 
 21 miles N. of the Dead Sea. There is some 
 difficulty in interpreting two or three passages 
 of Scripture in which the Jabbok is spoken of as 
 “the border of the children of Ammon.” The 
 following facts may perhaps thrgw some light 
 upon them:—The Ammonites at one time pos- 
 sessed the whole country between the r’vers 
 Arnon and Jabbok, from the Jordan on the west 
 to the wilderness on the east. They were driven 
 out of it by Sihon king of the Amorites; and he 
 was in turn expelled by the Israelites. Yet 
 long subsequent to these events, the country 
 was popularly called “the land of the Ammon- 
 ites,” and-was even claimed by them (Judg. 
 xi. 15-22). For this reason the Jabbok is still 
 called “‘the border of the children of Ammon” 
 in Deut. iii. 16 and Josh. xii. 2, Again, when 
 the Ammonites were driven out by Sihon from 
 their ancient territory, they took possession of 
 the eastern plain, and of a considerable section 
 of the eastern defiles of Gilead, around the 
 sources and upper branches of the Jabbok. 
 Rabbath-Ammon, their capital city (2 Sam. xi.), 
 stood within the mountains of Gilead, and on 
 ‘the banks of a tributary to the Jabbok. This 
 explains the statement in Num. xxi. 24—“ Israel 
 possessed his (Sihon’s) land from Arnon unto 
 Jabbok, unto the children of Ammon (*JA7-7) 
 
 jiDY), for the border of the children of Ammon 
 
 was strong ”—the border among the defiles of 
 the upper Jabbok was strong. This also illus- 
 trates Deut. ii. 37, “Only to the land of the 
 children of Ammon thou camest not near; all 
 the side of the river Jabbok (PA? ὑπ 71°03), 
 and the cities of the hill country, and wheresoever 
 the Lord our God forbad us” (R. V.). 
 
 It was on the north bank of the Jabbok thot 
 Jacob, after a night of wrestling with God, 
 received the name Israel (Gen. xxxii. 22); and 
 this river afterwards became, towards its western 
 part, the boundary between the kingdoms of 
 Sihon and Og (Josh. xii. 2, 5). Eusebius rightly 
 places it between Gerasa and Philadelphia (0 8.2 
 p- 266, 78); and at the present day it separates 
 the province of Belka from Jebel ‘Ajlun. Its 
 modern name is Wady Zerka. It rises in the 
 
 JABESH-GILEAD 1495 
 
 platean east of Gilead, and receives many tribu- 
 taries from both north and south in the eastern 
 declivities of the mountain-range—one of these 
 comes from Gerasa, another from Rabbath- 
 Ammon (‘Ammdn). The stream from ‘Ain 
 ‘Amman, which is well stocked with fish, disap- 
 pears, in autumn, about 14 m. below the town. 
 It reappears at ‘Ain Ghazal, and, after flowing 
 5 m., again sinks below the ground. It is only 
 at “Ain ez-Zerka, near Kal‘at ez-Zerka, that it 
 becomes perennial, and it is there a broad, rapid 
 and clear stream, running through a deep valley 
 to the Jordan. Throughout the lower part of 
 its course it is fringed with thickets of cane and 
 oleander, and the banks above are clothed with 
 oak-forests. In the Jordan Valley it is a broad 
 stream, but fordable (PHF. Mem. E. Pal. p. 5; 
 Robinson, Phys. Geog. p. 161; Merrill, 10. of 
 Jordan, p. 269 sq.). The “ford” of Jabbok was 
 probably close to the spot at which the river 
 issues from the hills, where there is now a 
 ford. (J.-L. P.j [WJ 
 
 JA’BESH. (3): ἄνν : B. Ἰαβείς, A. ’ABels 
 [v. 10], ᾿Ιαβείς ; Joseph. Ἰαβήσος : Jabes). 1. 
 Father of SuaLium, the fifteenth king of Israel 
 (2 K. xv. 10, 13, 14). 
 
 2. B. "laBeis; A. in 1 Sam. EiaBels, in 1 Ch. 
 *IaBels. The short form of the name JABEsH- 
 GILEAD (1 Sam. xi. 1, 3, 5, 9, 10; xxxi. 12, 13; 
 and 1 Ch. x. 12). 
 
 JA'BESH-GIL'EAD aw} vias, also 
 wr), 1 Sam. xi. 1, 9, ὅδ. = dry, from Ὁ 2", 
 “to be dry;” Judg. xxi. 8-14, 1 Sam. xi. 1, 
 2 Sam. xxi. 12, [BA. “IaBels] Γαλαάδ: 1 Sam. 
 xi. 9, [B. ᾿Ιαβεὶς, A. EiaBels] Γαλαάδ: 1 Sam. 
 xxxi. 11, 2 Sam. ii. 4, 5, [B. "IaBels, A. 
 ElaBels] τῆς Γαλααδίτιδος [B. -δεί-Ἴ ; 1 Ch. x. 
 11, Γαλαάδ: Joseph. Ἰάβισος : Jabes Galaad), 
 or Jabesh in the territory of Gilead [GrLEaD]. 
 It is first mentioned in connexion with the 
 cruel vengeance taken upon its inhabitants 
 for not coming up to Mizpeh on the occasion 
 of the fierce war between the children of 
 Israel and the tribe of Benjamin. Every 
 male of the city was put to the sword, 
 and all virgins—to the number of 400—seized 
 to be given in marriage to the 600 men of 
 Benjamin that remained (Judg. xxi. 8-14). 
 Nevertheless the city survived the loss of its 
 males; and being attacked subsequently by 
 Nahash the Ammonite, gave Saul an opportunity 
 of displaying his prowess in its defence, and 
 silencing all objections made by the children of 
 Belial to his sovereignty (1 Sam. xi. 1-10). 
 Neither were his exertions on behalf of this city 
 unrequited ; for when he and his three sons 
 were slain by the Philistines in Mount Gilboa, 
 the men of Jabesh-Gilead came by night and 
 took down their corpses from the walls of 
 Bethshan, where they had been exposed as 
 trophies; then burnt the bodies, and buried 
 the bones under a tree near the city—observing 
 a strict funeral fast for seven days (1 Sam. 
 xxxi, 11-13; i Ch. x. 11,12). David does not 
 forget to bless them for this act of piety to- 
 wards his old master and his more than 
 brother (2 Sam. ii. 4, 5); though he afterwards 
 had their remains translated to the ancestral 
 sepulchre in the tribe of Benjamin (2 Sam. xxi. 
 12-14). The site of the city is not defined in 
 
1496 JABEZ 
 
 the 0. T.; and Josephus only mentions that it 
 
 was the chief town of the Gileadites, and noted | 
 in his day for the courage and strength of its 
 
 people (Ant. vi. 5, §1; 14, ὃ 8). Eusebius, | 
 however (0.3 p. 242, 97; p. 269, 81), places it | 
 beyond Jordan, 6 miles from Pella on the moun- | 
 tain-road to Gerasa; where its name is probably 
 preserved in the Wddy el-Yabis, which, flowing 
 from the east, enters the Jordan below Beth- 
 shan or Scythopolis. According to Dr, Robinson 
 (Bibl. Res. iii. 319), the ruin ed-Deir, on the 
 S. side of the Wady, still marks its site (Tris- 
 tram, Bib. Places, p. 327; Riehm, HWB. 5. v.). Ὁ 
 Merrill (American PES. 4th stat. p. $1) sug- 
 
 gests Miryamin, about 5 miles from Pella on | 
 the road to Gerasa, [E. S. Ff] [W.] | 
 
 JA'BEZ. 1. ΟΞ)", of same meaning as 1¥U" 
 [ep. 2]; B. Γαμές, A. Γαβής ; Jabes). Apparently | 
 a place at which the families of the scribes | 
 (DD) resided, who belonged to the families | 
 of the Kenites (1 Ch. ii. 55) It occurs | 
 among the descendants of Salma, who was of 
 Judah, and closely connected with Bethlehem 
 (v. 51), possibly the father of Boaz; and also 
 —though how is not clear—with Joab. The 
 Targum states some curious particulars, which, | 
 however, do not much elucidate the difficulty, 
 and which are probably a mixture of trust- 
 worthy tradition and of mere invention based 
 on philological grounds. Rechab is there 
 identified with Rechabiah the son of Eliezer, 
 Moses’ younger son (1 Ch. xxvi. 25), and Jabez 
 with Othniel the Kenizzite, who bore the name 
 of Jabez “because he founded by his counsel 
 (ΤΥ) a school (N¥'2N) of disciples called | 
 Tirathites, Shimeathites, and Sucathites.” See 
 also the quotations from Talmud, Zemurah, in 
 Buxtorf’s Zev. col. 966, where a similar deriva- 
 tion is given. 
 
 2.. (8. Ἰγαβής; A.’ layBhs, Γαβής.) The name 
 occurs again in the genealogies of Judah (1 Ch. | 
 iv. 9, 10), in a passage of remarkable and | 
 almost Talmudic detail inserted in a genealogy 
 again connected with Bethlehem (v. 4). Here | 
 a different force is attached to the name. It is_ 
 made to refer to the sorrow (ANY, ‘otzeb) witn 
 
 which his mother bore him, and also to his 
 prayer that evil may not grieve (AY) him. 
 Jabez was “more honourable than his brethren,” 
 though who they were is not ascertainable. It 
 is very doubtful whether any connexion exists 
 between this genealogy and that in ii, 50-55. 
 Several names appear in both—Hur, Ephratah, 
 Bethlehem, Zareathites (in A. V. iv. 2, inaccu- 
 rately, “ Zorathites”), Joab, Caleb; and there 
 is much similarity between others, as Rechab 
 and Rechah, Eshton and Eshtaulites; but any 
 positive connexion seems undemonstrable. The 
 Targum repeats its identification of Jabez and 
 Othniel. [G.] [W.] 
 
 JA'BIN ("3) = intelligent; B. ᾿Ιαβείς, F. 
 
 *IaBely; Jabin). 1. King of Hazor, a royal city 
 in the north of Palestine, near the waters of 
 Merom, who organised a confederacy of the 
 northern princes against the Israelites (Josh. xi. 
 1-3). He assembled an army, which the Scrip- 
 ture narrative merely compares to the sands for 
 multitude (v. 4), but which Josephus reckons at 
 300,000 foot, 10,000 horse, and 20,000 chariots. 
 Joshua, encouraged by God, surprised this vast 
 
 JABNEEL 
 
 army of allied forces “ by the waters of Merom ” 
 (v. 7; near Kedesh, according to Josephus), 
 utterly routed them, cut the hoof-sinews of 
 their aorses, and burnt their chariots with fire 
 at a place which from that circumstance may 
 have derived its name of MisREPHOTH-MAIM 
 (Hervey, Genealogies of our Lord, p. 228). [Mis- 
 REPHOTH-Maim.] It is probable that in con- 
 sequence of this battle the confederate kings, 
 and Jabin among them, were reduced to vassal- 
 age, for we find immediately afterwards that 
 Jabin is safe in his capital. But during the 
 ensuing wars (which occupied some time, Josh. 
 xi. 18), Joshua “turned back,” and, perhaps on 
 some fresh rebellion of Jabin, inflicted on him 
 a signal and summary vengeance, making Hazor 
 an exception to the general rule of not burning 
 the conquered cities of Canaan (xi. 1-14; Joseph. 
 Ant. v. 1, §18; Ewald, Gesch. ii. 328). 
 
 2. (B. Ἰαβείν, A. Ἰαμείν ; Jabin.) A king of 
 Hazor, whose general Sisera was defeated by 
 Barak, whose army is described in much the 
 same terms as that of his predecessor (Judg. iv. 
 3, 13), and who suffered precisely the same 
 fate. The similarity between the two narra- 
 tives (Josh. xi.; Judg. iv. v.) is great, and an 
 attentive comparison of them with Josephus 
 (who curiously omits the name of Jabin alto- 
 gether in his mention of Joshua’s victory, 
 although his account is full of details) supplies 
 further points of resemblance. [BARAK; DE- 
 BORAH.] It is indeed by no means impossible 
 that in the course of 150 years Hazor should 
 have risen from its ashes, and even re-assumed 
 its pre-eminence under sovereigns who still bore 
 the old dynastic name (cp. Keil on Judg. /. ¢.). 
 But entirely independent considerations show 
 that the period between Joshua and Barak could 
 not have been 150 years, and indeed tend to 
 prove that those two chiefs were contemporaries 
 (Hervey, Geneal. p. 228); and we are therefore 
 led to regard the two accounts of the destruction 
 of Hazor and Jabin as really applying to the 
 same monarch, and the same event. There is 
 no ground whatever to throw doubts on the 
 historical veracity of the earlier narrative, as is 
 done by Hasse (p. 129), Maurer (ad Joc.), Studer 
 (on Judges, p. 90), De Wette (Zinl. p. 231), and 
 by Rosenmiiller (Schol. Jos. xi. 11); but when 
 the chronological arguments are taken into con- 
 sideration, we do not (in spite of the difficulties 
 which still remain) consider Havernick success- 
 ful in removing the improbabilities which beset 
 the common supposition that this Jabin lived 
 long after the one which Joshua defeated. On 
 the whole subject see Bertheau® on Judges, 
 Ρ. 82. Budde (Die BB. Richter u. Samuel, p. 105) 
 rejects the narrative as unhistorical. [F. W. F.] 
 
 JAB'NE-EL (5x92) = God builds). The 
 name of two towns in Palestine. 
 
 1. (in O. T. B. Acuva, A. Ἰαβνήλ; in 
 Apocr. *Iauveta: Jebneel, Jabnia, Jamnia.) One 
 of the points on the northern boundary of 
 Judah, not quite at the sea, though near it* 
 (Josh. xv. 11). There is no sign, however, of 
 its ever having been occupied by Judah. Jose- 
 
 aIn Josh. xv. 46, after the words “" from Ekron,” 
 the LXX. adds Ἰεμναί, Jabneh, instead of ‘‘even unto 
 the sea;” probably reading [1 for the present word 
 
 nee 
 
JABNEEL 
 
 JACHIN 1497 
 
 phus [(Ant. v. 1, ὃ 22) attributes it to the | line of Counts, one of whom, Jean d’Ibelin, 
 
 Danites. There was a constant struggle going 
 on between that tribe and the Philistines for 
 the possession of all the places in the lowland 
 plain [Dan], and it is not surprising that the 
 next time we meet with Jabneel it should be in 
 the hands of the latter (2 Ch. xxvi. 6). Uzziah 
 dispossessed them of it, and demolished its 
 fortifications, Here it is in the shorter form 
 of JABNEH. In Judith ii. 28, the people of 
 JEMNAAN (BA. Ἰεμνάαν, N*. ᾿Αμμᾶ), doubtless 
 Jamnia, are represented as trembling at the 
 approach of Holofernes. In its Greek garb, 
 IAMNIA, it is frequently mentioned in the 
 Maccabees (1 Mace. iv. 15, v. 58, x. 69, xv. 
 40), in whose time it was again a strong place. 
 According to Josephus (Ant. xii. 8, § 6), 
 Gorgias was governor of it; but the text of 
 the Maccabees (2 Mace. xii. 32) has Idumaea. 
 At this time there was a harbour on the 
 coast, to which, and the vessels lying there, 
 Judas set fire, and the conflagration was seen 
 at Jerusalem, a distance of about 28 miles 
 (2 Mace. xii. 8, 9, 40). The harbour is also 
 mentioned by Pliny (HZ. WV. v. 13), who in con- 
 sequence speaks of the town as double—dwae 
 Jammes (see the quotations in Reland, p. 823); 
 and by Ptolemy (v.16). Like Ascalon and Gaza, 
 the harbour bore the title of Majumas, perhaps 
 a Coptic word, meaning the “ place on the sea” 
 (Reland, p. 590, ἕο. ; Raumer, pp. 174 n., 184 n. ; 
 Kenrick, Phoenicia, pp. 27, 29). It is now known 
 as Minet Rubin (PEF. Mem. ii. 268). Jamnia was 
 taken by Simon Maccabaeus (Ant. xiii. 6, §7; 
 B. J.i. 2, §2), and was apparently one of the 
 “strongholds” that he fortified (Ant. xiii. 5, 
 §10). In B.c. 63 Pompey took it away from 
 the Jews and handed it over to its own inhabi- 
 tants (Ant. xiv. 4, §4); and a few years later, 
 having apparently suffered during the war, it 
 was restored and repeopled by order of Gabinius 
 (B. J. i. 8, § 4). Augustus gave it to Herod, 
 who left it by will to his sister Salome (Ant. 
 xvii. 8, §1); and she in turn bequeathed it to 
 Livia, the wife of Augustus (Ant. xviii. 2, §2; 
 B. J. ii. 9, 81). Jamnia was one of the towns 
 occupied by Vespasian, as a preliminary to the 
 siege of Jerusalem (B. J. iv. 3, 82; 8, §1). 
 At this time it was one of the most populous 
 places of Judaea (Strabo, xvi. 2, § 28; Philo, de 
 Legat. ad Cajum ; Reland, p. 823), and contained 
 a Jewish school of great fame, whose learned 
 doctors are often mentioned in the Talmud 
 (Lightfoot, Opp. ii. 141 sq.; Graetz, Gesch. der 
 
 uden, vol. iv.; Neubauer, Géog. du Talmud, p. 73 
 sq.). The great Sanhedrin was also held here. 
 In this holy city, according to an early Jewish 
 tradition, was buried the great Gamaliel; or, 
 
 according to Sepp (Jer. u. das h. Land, ii. 594), | 
 
 his grandson, the younger Gamaliel. His tomb 
 was visited by Parchi in the 14th cent. (Zunz, 
 in Asher’s Benj. of Tudela, ii. 439, 440; also 
 p- 98). In the time of Eusebius, however, it had 
 dwindled to a small place, πολίχνη; merely re- 
 quiring casual mention (0 8.2 p. 268, 35). Jerome 
 (OS. p. 164, 27) gives the name as Zamnel. One 
 of its Bishops took part in the Council of Nicaea ; 
 and in the 6th cent., under Justinian, it was 
 still the seat of a Christian Bishop (Epiphanius, 
 ado. Haer. 110. ii. 730). Under the Crusaders, 
 who supposed the site to be Gath, it bore the 
 corrupted name of Ibelin, and gave a title toa 
 
 about 1250, restored to efficiency the famous 
 code of the “‘ Assises de Jérusalem ” (Gibbon, ch. 
 58, ad fin.; also the citations in Raumer, Pa- 
 listina, p. 185). 
 
 According to Josephus (B. J. iv. 11, §5), 
 Titus marched from Ascalon to Jamnia, and 
 thence to Joppa. Jamnia was MP. 20 from 
 Ascalon, and MP. 12 from Diospolis (/tin. 
 Ant.); or MP. 10 from Azotus, and MP. 12 
 from Joppa (Zab. Peut.). It is now Yebna, or 
 
 more accurately Jbna (Gas), a village about 
 2 miles from the sea on a slight eminence just 
 south of the Nahr Ribin. It is about 12 miles 
 south of Jaffa, 18 from Ascalon, 9 from Esdid 
 (Azotus),* and 10} from Ludd (Diospolis). The 
 village stands in a conspicuous position on a 
 hill; and there are some interesting remains of 
 a church and other buildings erected by the 
 Crusaders and Saracens (PEF. Mem. ii. 414, 441; 
 Guérin, Judeée, ii. 55 sq.). 
 
 2. (B. Ἰεφθαμαί, A. ᾿Ιαβνήλ ; Jebnaél.) One 
 of the landmarks on the boundary of Naphtali 
 (Josh. xix. 33, only). It is named next after 
 Adami-Nekeb, and had apparently Lakkum 
 between it and the “ outgoings” of the boundary 
 at the Jordan. But little or no clue can be 
 got from the passage to its situation. Possibly 
 it is the same place which, as ᾿Ιαμνεία (Vita, 
 § 37) and ἸΙαμνίθ (B. J. ii. 20, § 6), is mentioned 
 by Josephus among the villages in Upper Galilee, 
 which, though strong in themselves (πετρώδεις 
 οὔσας), were fortified by him in anticipation of 
 the arrival of the Romans. The other villages 
 named by him in the same connexion are Meroth, 
 Achabare, or the rock of the Achabari, and Seph. 
 It appears to have belonged to Zenodorus, and 
 later to the Tetrarchy of Philip (B. J. ii. 6, §3: 
 ep. Ant, xv. 10, §3; xvii. 11, § 4); and is 
 placed by Riehm (s, v.) near Lake Hiileh. The 
 later name of Jabneel was Kefr Yamah,® the 
 “village by the sea” (Tal. Jer. Megilla,70 a), a 
 village which Schwarz (p. 144) places on the 
 southern shore of the Sea of Galilee, and Neu- 
 bauer (Géog. du Talmud, p. 225) identifies with 
 Kefr Yamah, between Mount Tabor and the Lake. 
 This last place is evidently the Yemma, which 
 Guérin (Galilée, i. 268) and Conder (PEF. Mem. 
 i. 365) identify with the Kefr Yamah of the 
 Talmud ; but it lies beyond the limits of Upper 
 Galilee, and is not a naturally strong position, 
 such as the Jamnia of Josephus appears to have 
 occupied. [G.] [W.] 
 
 JAB-NEH (7133); B. ᾿Αβεννήρ, A. *IaBels ; 
 Jabnia), 2 Ch. xxvi. 6. [JABNEEL.] 
 
 JA-CHAN ΟΞ"; T.7 ᾿Ιωαχάν, B. Χιμά, A. 
 Ἰαχάν ; Jachan), one of seven chief men of the 
 tribe of Gad (1 Ch. v. 18). 
 
 JA'CHIN (}*3" = [God] establishes. Cp. the 
 nbw> of the Phoenician inscriptions [MV.1"] : 
 in Gen. B. Ἰαχείμ, ΑἸ ᾿Αχείμ, D. *laxeiv; 
 in Ex. B. Ἰαχείν, A. Ἰαχεί: Jachin). 1. Fourth 
 son of Simeon (Gen. xlvi. 10; Ex. vi. 15); 
 founder of the family of the JACHINITEs (Num. 
 xxvi, 12). [9 ΔΕ18.] 
 
 b Can the name in the Vat. LXX. (given above) be a 
 corruption of this? It can hardly be corrupted from 
 Jamnia or Jabneel. 
 
1498 JACHINITES, THE 
 
 2. Head of the 21st course of priests in the 
 time of Dayid (1 Ch. ix. 10 [BA. Ἰαχείν], 
 xxiv. 17 [B. Γαμούλ, A. Ἰαχείν}7). A priest of 
 this name returned from Babylon (Neh. xi. 10). 
 Aleimus (“AAkimos, 1 Macc. vii. 5), to whom 
 Josephus gives an alternative name, Jacimus 
 ΑἸάκιμος, Ant. xii. 9, § 7), high-priest in the 
 Maccabean period, may possibly have been in 
 Hebrew Jachin, though the Greek more properly 
 suggests Jakim. 
 
 ᾿Αχείμ, Achim (Matt. i. 14), seems also to be 
 the same name. fA. C.H.] [Cao] 
 
 JA’CHINITES, THE (99337; B. ᾿Ιαχινεί, 
 A. 6 Ἰαχεινί; familia Jachinitarum), the family 
 founded by JAcHIN, son of Simeon (Num. 
 xxvi. 12). 
 
 JACINTH (ὕάκινθος, hyacinthus ; of jacinth, 
 ὑακίνθινος, hyacinthinus), a precious stone in the 
 Apocalypse, where there are mentioned breast- 
 plates “of fire, of jacinth, and of brimstone ” 
 (ix. 17, it being usually considered that colours 
 or appearances rather than actual substances 
 are here referred to); while a jacinth consti- 
 tutes the eleventh foundation of the New 
 Jerusalem (xxi. 20). The word does not occur 
 in the A..V. of the Old Testament, but in the 
 
 LXX. it stands for nbsp (A. V. blue), a colour 
 in textile work, at Ex. xxv. 4, xxvi. 1, 31, 36, 
 and many other places. We find also ὑακίνθινος 
 in Ex. xxvi. 14 and ὕάκινθος in Ezek. xvi. 10, to 
 mention no other passages, representing the 
 WM; in A. V. badger’s skin; R. V. seal’s skin. 
 By ὑάκινθος the Rabbins translate 2 (Ex. 
 xxviii. 19, A. V. agate) the eighth breastplate 
 stone (H. Emanuel, ubi infra, p. 43). About 
 the commencement of the Christian era, Philo- 
 Judaeus, apparently referring to the stone, twice 
 speaks of the hyacinth as being compared to, or 
 as being the symbol of, air (ἀήρ), this being dark 
 by nature (μέλας φύσει. De Congressu, and De 
 Mose lib. iii, Op. ed. Mangey, 1742, i. 536, 
 1. 16; ii, 148, 1. 40). Pliny, about the period 
 of St. John, describes the hyacinth as allied to 
 the amethyst, but much differing from it in 
 having the violet diluted (WV. H. xxxvii. § 122, 
 Sillig). Solinus speaks of the hyacinth as blue 
 (nitore caerulo), and as highly prized when 
 faultless, but as very subject to imperfection, 
 being for the most part either diluted with 
 violet, or clouded, or melting to a watery 
 paleness; ill adapted for engraving, owing to 
 its hardness, but yielding to the diamond 
 (adamante. Polyhistor., cap. 30, § 32, ed. 1794). 
 Epiphanius in the fourth century (De ΧΙ. 
 Gemmis, sec. vii. in Patrol. Gr. xliii. p. 293) 
 says that hyacinths are of different sorts, the 
 most excellent being purplish (ὑποπορφυρίζων), 
 and he eonjectures that the obscure stone called 
 ligure in the high-priest’s breastplate (Ex. 
 xxxvili. 19) refers to the hyacinth, a view 
 concurred in by ΒΕ. F. C. Rosenmiiller (Miner- 
 alogy and Botany of the Bible, p. 35). Late in 
 the same century Heliodorus (Aethiopica, lib. ii. 
 ο. 30, 1. 41, in Erotici Scriptores, 1856) likens 
 the colour of the hyacinth to that of the sea- 
 shore under a lofty cliff tinging all below with 
 purple. Isidore of Seville in the seventh cen- 
 tury (Htymol. lib. xvi. c. 9, § 3, in Pat. Lat. 
 Ixxxii. 574) writes that the hyacinth, so called 
 
 JACOB 
 
 after the flower of that name, is found in 
 Ethiopia, having a blue colour (caeruleum 
 colorem), very hard to be engraved, but cut by 
 a diamond (adamante). 
 
 These various accounts represent the pre- 
 vailing colour of the ancient jacinth as in- 
 clining to purple; but since Solinus has 
 represented that tint as a fault and the normal 
 colour blue, the hardness also exceptional, some 
 have been led to identify the stone with the 
 modern sapphire (C. W. King, Precious Stones, 
 pp- 194, 195, 1865). The ancient jacinth and 
 the ancient sapphire, however, could not have 
 been identical, since both occur in the founda- 
 tions of the New Jerusalem. 
 
 Modern jacinth is described by Rosenmiiller 
 (δὲ supr.) as orange-yellow-red; by E. W. 
 Streeter (Precious Stones, p. 199, 1877) as 
 orange-red ; by Augusto Castellani (Gems, tr. 
 by Mrs. Brogden, p. 115, 1871) as fine reddish 
 yellow; by Madame Barrera (Gems and Jewels, 
 p. 193, 1860) as of the garnet family, and 
 having when perfect a beautiful orange tint, 
 with a shade of scarlet; by H. Emanuel 
 (Diamonds and Precious Stones, p. 43, 1867) as 
 possessing, in the most valued specimens, the 
 glowing hue of a burning coal. The jacinths at 
 South Kensington are placed within the family 
 of Zircon (oxygen, zirconium, silicon—Zr Si O,); 
 and of the nine specimens (the largest being 
 nearly the size of a shilling) one might be 
 compared to sherry wine and the rest to port. 
 By A. L. Millin de Grandmaison our stone is 
 described as of a golden red, resembling dark 
 amber, different from the one known by the 
 ancients as hyacinth, which was akin to the 
 amethyst and of a light violet tint (De ?Arche- 
 ologie des Pierres Gravées, p. 123, ed. 1826). 
 Augusto Castellani considers that the hyacinth 
 of the ancients was not our jacinth, but a 
 corundum, which is crystallized aluminum 
 coloured by an oxide. 
 
 The evidence of ancient texts and the opinions 
 of modern experts seem to point to the following 
 conclusion, broadly stated, that the jacinth of 
 the apostolic period was crystallized aluminum, 
 blue in the finest kind, turning to purple in the 
 inferior. Modern jacinth is crystallized zircon 
 and silicon, orange in the most valued speci- 
 mens, dark pink in the commoner. [C. H.J 
 
 JACKAL. R. V. marginal rendering for 
 byaw’. [Fox,] 
 
 JACOB (Av, seldom 31PY" ; ᾿Ιακώβ Jacob). 
 The people whom we best know as Israel or 
 the Children of Israel (bené Israel) are often 
 styled and addressed as Jacob, or the Sons 
 of Jacob, or the Seed of Jacob, by their own 
 Psalmists and Prophets. The name Jacob is, 
 in fact, freely used in the O. T. as a poetical 
 and rhetorical equivalent of Israel (e.g. Num. 
 xxili. 7, 10, 21; xxiv. 5, 17). The precise 
 original meaning of these national designations 
 is difficult to determine. The Biblical allusions 
 are more in the nature of dusus verborum than 
 scientific etymologies. Consequently different 
 implications are seen in both names by different 
 writers, and even by the same writer in different 
 parts of his work (Gen. xxv. 26, xxvii. 36; Hos. 
 xii. 4). An ancient trace of Jacob, as a Pales- 
 tinian local name, is preserved in the inscriptions 
 
JACOB 
 
 of the great Egyptian sovereign, Thothmes III. 
 (1503-1449 B.c. Mahler, Zeitsch. Ag. Spr. xxvii. 
 2, 97 sqq.). In the three lists of captured towns, 
 sculptured on the pylons of the temple at Kar- 
 nak, the 102nd name is I-a-q-b 4-e-l (Mariette, 
 
 Karnak); that is, probably, Sy-app, Jacob-el. 
 
 But although Sys-apy, Jacob-el, may be the 
 true Canaanite original of the Egyptian Iaqeb- 
 del, it cannot mean “Jacob the god” (Sayce, 
 Hibbert Lectures, p. 51), but ‘ El is (or does)” 
 —whatever is signified by the root APY, “αφαῦ. 
 It is a tenable and highly probable opinion that 
 the name Jacob is a familiar abbreviation which 
 has displaced an original Jacob-el; just as 
 Nathan in common use represented Nathan-el 
 or El-nathan, and Hanan El-hanan or Hanan-el. 
 And a local name Jacob-el would be quite parallel 
 to Jiphthah-el, as compared with Jephthah 
 
 Sycnnb», Josh. xix. 14, 27. Cp. mMND). As 
 a personal designation, Jacob(el) would then 
 belong to the large class of what are called 
 theophoric names. The names ΠῚ 1), ‘Akabiah 
 (Aboth, iii. 1), and ‘Aqabi-ya’wa (ἰ ΠῚ ΠΡ), re- 
 cently found in a Babylonian contract (PSBA. 
 Noy. 1892), confirm this view. Such a fact, 
 however, affords no basis for the opinion that 
 the Jacob of Genesis is only an old Canaanitish 
 god who has been metamorphosed or euhemerized 
 into the father of the bené Israel. The suggestion 
 is at once disposed of by the consideration that in 
 
 this case 1D) is predicative, just as DY (Joseph) 
 is in the fuller MAD (Josiphiah). The same 
 objection is fatal to Goldziher’s identification 
 
 of Jacob as “the Follower” (that is, as he 
 explains, the Night who follows on the Day), 
 
 because the root 49S (IP) means “to 
 
 follow.” It is EL (not Night) who “ follows,” 
 if Jacob = Jacob-el; and Et is “God” in old 
 Hebrew use (e.g. Gen. xxxv. 1, E.), even if, ac- 
 cording to the apocryphal Sanchoniathon and his 
 creator Philo Byblius, it was a proper name in 
 Phoenician, corresponding to the Greek Kronos. 
 
 The Arabic root Cane, ‘agaba, does, however, 
 
 suggest what may be the true original sense of 
 the name Jacob. For this verb, which is strictly 
 Ss σ 
 a denominative from ugs, ‘agib, “heel,” 
 meaning “to strike a man’s heel,” and then 
 “to follow at his heels,” has also the senses of 
 retribution and requital (iii., iv.). A vestige 
 of this meaning of the root is preserved in the 
 Heb. pv, ‘éqeb, “reward” (Ps. xix. 11.), It 
 seems possible, therefore, that Jacob (or Jacob- 
 el) as a personal name originally meant “ ΕἸ 
 rewardeth ” ; a perhaps likelier view than that 
 which saw in the patriarch’s name an anticipation 
 of his crafty conduct. On the other hand, craft 
 and cunning by which he outwits his foes would 
 hardly have seemed to primitive men an im- 
 proper attribute of the Deity (cp. Job v. 13; 
 Ps. xviii. 24, 26); so that, after all, this may 
 be the original import of the name Jacob* (cp. 
 
 a Tf Jacob-el means “ΕἸ rewardeth,” it is like 
 Meshelemiah, ‘‘Jah recompenseth,” to which Shallum 
 appears to be related as 1}, ‘Akkub, to Jacob. 
 
 Gesenius compared the Samaritan a1 ΔΝ) with 
 
 JACOB 1499 
 
 Ewald, /ist. i, 346. So Reuss). If Jacob is he 
 who follows at the heels of his foe, or who way- 
 lays and overcomes him by fraud (nachfolgt, 
 nachspiirt, nachstellt, belistet)—ideas expressed 
 by the root ‘agab (Knobel, Dillmann)—the name 
 may preserve a reminiscence of the old desert 
 life of Israel. It may perhaps be due to 
 the sinister meaning associated by tradition 
 with the name of Jacob, that it does not re- 
 appear as a personal name throughout the O. ΤΡ 
 That, however, may rather be a consequence of 
 the fact that, in the popular mind and speech, 
 Jacob commonly denoted the nation. Like many 
 other venerable names of antiquity, its use was 
 revived in the later age of Judaism. [For the 
 N. T. period, see JAMES. | 
 
 In the Book of Genesis (our only source, apart 
 from incidental allusions in the Prophets and 
 Psalmists; for nothing which Rabbinical fancy 
 has added to the primary traditions is of the 
 slightest worth) Jacob is the proper father of 
 the Israelitish nation, in contrast with Abraham, 
 who is the common ancestor of Arabian and 
 Aramean stocks as well as of Israel, and with 
 Isaac, the father of the brother-peoples Israel 
 and Edom. Like Abraham and Isaac, Jacob is 
 a peace-loving nomadic chief, “dwelling in 
 tents ” (Gen. xxv. 2; xlvii. 3 sqq.), and moving 
 his camp from one pasturage to another, as 
 need required; but sometimes sowing grain 
 and reaping the crop (Gen. xxxvii. 7), as the 
 wandering Bedawi tribes occasionally do at the 
 present day. The story of his life appears, 
 roughly speaking, to be the result of a com- 
 bination of two principal narratives, which 
 originated in different periods, and are dis- 
 tinguished by striking differences of language 
 and thought, of style and scope [GENESIS]. 
 The more ancient source told how when Isaac 
 was dwelling by the well Beer-lahai-roi (in the 
 neighbourhood of Beersheba), his childless wife 
 became fruitful in consequence of his prayer to 
 Jahvah. Even before birth the twin fathers of 
 Israel and Edom struggled together in the 
 womb ; and when the mother went in to inquire 
 of Jahvah, she received in response an oracular 
 foreshadowing of the history of the rival 
 peoples (Gen. xxv. 23) :— 
 
 “Two nations are in thy womb, 
 
 And two peoples from thy bowels forth will part! 
 
 And people shall be stronger than people, 
 
 And elder shall serve younger.” 
 
 In due time she bears the twin brethren, the 
 first “red,” or ruddy (1 Sam. xvi. 12, xvii. 42 ; 
 ‘JOIN, ’admoni, with an allusion to the name 
 DTN, ’ Edom), * all of him like a hairy mantle ” 
 (Zech, xiii. 4; “WY, sear, “hair,” with an allu- 
 
 Hebrew 3)y, *‘reward.” This pronunciation recalls 
 Prof. Friedrich Delitzsch’s interesting suggestion that 
 the well-known clan or tribal name Egibi, which occurs 
 so often in Babylonian business documents of the 6th 
 cent. B.c., is cognate with the Hebrew Jacob. An 
 exact transcription of Jacob is seen in Iqub (1-qu-bu) 
 son of Nabia-nasir; the name of a witness in a tablet 
 dated in the 18th year of Darius (in the writer’s pos- 
 session). Egibi (Egibu), on the other hand, formally 
 
 corresponds to the Arabic proper name Cala, 
 
 al-‘Aqib, cited by Goldziher. 
 b Jacobah, A. V. Jaakobah, occurs as the name of a 
 Simeonite chief (1 Ch. iv. 36). 
 
1500 JACOB 
 
 sion to the name yy, Sé%r, Seir), whence he 
 
 cs 
 was called Esau OUD: cp. Pa “hairy 3” 
 
 «ἀρ» chars Sync, “long hair”); the 
 other was born “ with his hand clutching Esau’s 
 heel” (APY, ‘aged, “ heel”), whence his name of 
 Jacob (APY, Ya‘aqob; as if, Heel-grasper). 
 
 The story passes from infancy to manhood 
 with the brief statement that “the boys grew 
 up, and Esau became a cunning hunter, a man 
 of the field, but Jacob a perfect (gentle or quiet) 
 man, a dweller in tents.” It is added that 
 Isaac loved Esau, for venison was to his taste, 
 but the mother preferred Jacob. It is clear 
 from the context that the term “ perfect” (DM) 
 
 is not used in any high ethical sense, but chiefly 
 connotes the peace-loving temper of the gentle 
 shepherd. It may perhaps include the idea of 
 piety and assiduous worship, which is through- 
 out a feature of Jacob, but does not exclude his 
 equally characteristic love of gain, and the false 
 wiles by which he overreaches his brother, his 
 father, and his father-in-law. This side of him 
 is immediately illustrated by the incident of his 
 purchase of the rights of the first-born. Esau 
 ‘comes in from the field, ready to die with 
 hunger; but Jacob will give him none of his 
 red lentile pottage, till he has sworn to part 
 with the birthright (Gen. xxv. 11}, 18, 21- 
 26a, 27-34). It is instructive to note Esau’s 
 cry, “ Prithee let me swallow some of that red, 
 red fare!” andthe comment, ‘“ Therefore was he 
 called Edom,” or the Red. If the reading 
 “red” be original in v. 25, this is another 
 reason for the name, and that from the pen of 
 the same writer. A discrepancy which did not 
 trouble him need not trouble us; not even 
 when we remember that mountainous Edom is 
 distinguished by its red or ruddy cliffs [Epom]. 
 We are next told of the trickery by which Jacob 
 contrived to rob Esau of the Blessing (xxvii.). 
 Here the actual difference in the physical charac- 
 teristics of the lands of Israel and Edom is well 
 brought out in Isaac’s contrasted utterances 
 over his two sons. On the one hand, “the 
 Jand flowing with milk and honey,” the fruitful 
 fields and rich pastures and sunny vine-covered 
 slopes: “*See, the smell of my son is like the 
 smell of a field which Jahvah hath blessed. 
 And God give thee of the dew of heaven and of 
 the fat lands of the earth, and plenty of corn 
 and new wine!” On the other, the arid cliffs 
 and rocky defiles of Idumea, and the life of the 
 robber-chief: ‘Lo, far from the fat lands of 
 the earth shall thy dwelling be, and far from 
 the dew of heaven above! And by thy sword 
 shalt thou live” (cp. Mal. i. 2,3; Obad. v. 3). 
 So also the historical fortunes of each people 
 are again foreshadowed; and the progress of 
 the story is marked by the somewhat fuller 
 detail with which this is done (cp. xxv. 23). 
 To Jacob it is said: “Let peoples serve thee, 
 and kindreds bow down to thee! Become 
 a master unto thy brethren, and let thy 
 mother’s sons bow down to thee! Thy cursers 
 be each accurst, and thy blessers blest!” 
 The conquest of Edom by David is plainly 
 meant, just as the final success of Edomitish 
 rebellion is intimated in the words to Esau: 
 
 JACOB 
 
 “And thy brother thou shalt serve; and it 
 shall befal, what time thou strainest hard (?), 
 thou wilt burst his yoke from off thy neck ” 
 (xxvii. 40; cp. 2 Sam. viii. 13, 14; ep. 1 Καὶ. 
 xi. 22, 25, LXX.). 
 
 In the course of the story, the writer returns 
 to the name Jacob as expressing in brief the 
 character of the younger brother. “And he 
 (Esau) said, Is not he rightly named Jacob, in 
 that he hath Jacob’d (outwitted) me now 
 twice?” Before, Jacob grasped his brother’s 
 heel; now his name has a moral rather than a 
 physical reference. 
 
 It seems unnecessary to follow in detail the 
 inimitable narrative which occupies the entire 
 latter half of the Book of Genesis, and which is 
 imprinted indelibly upon the memory of every 
 reader. It may be more useful to ask how far 
 it can be regarded as historical in the modern 
 sense of the word, even though we may not find 
 ourselves able to give any very decided answer 
 to that question. Some critics, as we saw, are 
 disposed to seek the foundation of the whole in 
 a myth which has been mistaken for history. 
 But the story of Jacob is no simple self- 
 consistent mythus of the primitive age. Many 
 traditions of the past relating to local sanc- 
 tuaries, famous monuments and memorials, 
 sacred trees and wells, are here blended with 
 fragments of ancient popular poetry and true 
 reminiscences of Hebrew history into an ex- 
 quisite literary unity. To analyse and interpret 
 this narrative is a difficult task, for which an 
 adequate knowledge of Semitic archaeology and 
 philology is one indispensable qualification. 
 
 It is clear that even if Jacob were the name of an 
 old deity of the Canaanites, that fact alone would 
 not suffice to resolve the Jacob of Genesis into 
 a purely mythical personage. In antiquity the 
 names of gods were often borne by real men and 
 women. Whether any mythical elements from 
 the common stock of Semitic folk-lore have 
 been received into the popular traditions about 
 the prime fathers of Israel is another question. 
 That vestiges of primitive mythology are trace- 
 able in isolated passages of the O. T., is not 
 to be denied (cp. Is. xiv. 9, 13, xix. 1, xxiv. 
 21 sqq., xxvii. 1; Job xxvi. 12, 13; above 
 all, Gen. ii. 4 b-iii, 245; vi. 1-4, &.). And 
 it is well known that a halo of legend 
 often surrounds and obscures important his- 
 torical characters, even of what may be called 
 the modern period. Yet the critics who have 
 done most to revolutionize current conceptions 
 of early Hebrew history have not denied out- 
 right the possibility of Jacob’s individual 
 existence. But it is now pretty generally 
 recognised by professional students of Hebrew 
 and Oriental antiquity that the Biblical ac- 
 counts of the patriarchs have “ an ethnological 
 at least quite as much as a personal signifi- 
 cance.” No one who has consulted such works as 
 the Avsab al-Aghani, or indeed any of the Arabic 
 historiographers, can fail to appreciate the fact, 
 even if owing to the surviving romance of 
 childhood he has missed the abundant indica- 
 tions of it which present themselves in the too 
 familiar texts of Scripture. The practical 
 difficulty in all such ambiguous relations is to 
 
 ¢ Kuenen, Hist. of Israel, i. 113; Ewald, Hist. i. 
 342; Robertson Smith, Zncycl. Brit., art. JACOB. 
 
JACOB 
 
 separate the personal from the ethnic or tribal 
 history. It is a difficulty due mainly to the 
 natural difference between Eastern and Western 
 modes of thought and speech; and is by no 
 means to be got rid of summarily, by the 
 popular but groundless assumption of the 
 identity of things that are essentially dissimilar. 
 On the other hand, bearing in mind the usual 
 character of Oriental histories, we may be 
 inclined to think that some of the objections 
 raised by critics against the patriarchal tra- 
 ditions are exaggerated. A closer scrutiny of 
 the stories about Jacob, for instance, will 
 perhaps hardly bear out the assertion that he 
 is represented as “πού inferior to the prophets 
 of the 8th century B.C. in pureness of 
 religious insight and inward spiritual piety.” 
 This may be the ordinary conception of Jacob. 
 Unhistorical religion has read a good deal 
 besides this into the Biblical narratives. But 
 Jacob’s piety, his prayers and faith in a pro- 
 tecting Deity, his dreams, his vows, his set- 
 ting up masséboth or sacred stones and pouring 
 oil on them, are religious phenomena which 
 were doubtless as common in the 18th as in 
 the 8th century before our era. Parallel 
 facts might easily be adduced from contem- 
 porary monuments of Egypt and Babylon. We 
 see nothing anachronistic, and much that is 
 perfectly compatible with the ideas and cus- 
 toms of his supposed period, in the older history 
 of Jacob. The superior cunning by which he 
 overreaches all his kin, his marriage with two 
 sisters at the same time (prohibited by the law 
 of Ley. xviii. 18), his sustained disregard of vera- 
 city (xxvii. 19 sqq., xxx. 33, 37 sqq., xxxi. 8, 
 10-12), are certainly no proofs of “pureness of 
 religious insight and inward spiritual piety.” 
 The writer whose words we have quoted finds 
 another strong objection in “the familiar 
 intercourse of the Deity with the patriarchs.” 
 But here, again, what has rather struck us in 
 the traditional history of Jacob has been the 
 general absence of what Dr. Kuenen’s words 
 imply. No doubt, Jacob receives Divine 
 guidance in warnings and promises. But if 
 it be asked in what way, we shall probably not 
 greatly err if we answer by the means known 
 from the later histories, by dreams and priestly 
 oracles and lots.4 This is surely presupposed, 
 even when it is not expressly stated, as it is in 
 the case of the important vision at Bethel 
 (xxviii. 10-22). In both J and E that theo- 
 phany is represented as occurring in sleep; and 
 even in classical times and countries sleeping in 
 the sanctuary was a recognised method of com- 
 munion with the Unseen. 
 
 It is true that “‘ among most of the nations of 
 antiquity we find the belief that many centuries 
 ago the inhabitants of heaven have associated 
 with dwellers upon earth; ” and that “ we are 
 not in the habit of accepting as history the 
 legends and myths which afford evidence of that 
 belief” (Kuenen, Rel. of 7157. 1. 109). But the 
 classical ;stories are only superficially parallel 
 to the Israelite traditions in their existing form ; 
 and any earlier more decidedly mythical form is 
 a matter of pure conjecture. Leaving on one 
 side the accounts of Abraham, let us take the 
 
 4 So, eg., Rebekah ‘‘ went to inquire of Jahvah,” 
 Gen. xxv. 22. 
 
 JACOB 1501 
 
 story of the mysterious conflict of Jacob at 
 Penuel (Gen. xxxii. 24-33), to which Kuenen 
 refers. 
 
 If the theophany of Beth-el was a dream, 
 may not a dream lie at the basis of this 
 famous episode also? It is in a dream that 
 “the Angel of Elohim” speaks to Jacob, bidding 
 him return to Canaan (xxxi. 11 sqq.); and it is 
 “in the visions of night’ that Elohim bids him 
 go down into Egypt (xlvi. 2). It seems a fair 
 inference that, on other occasions also when Jacob 
 is brought into contact with the Unseen, the 
 writer means us to understand the medium of 
 the dream, The fact is evident from the mode 
 in which the vision at Bethel is referred to 
 (xxxv. 1, 7). When we read that “ Elohim said 
 to Jacob, Arise, go up to Bethel, and dwell 
 there; and make there an altar to the God (E/) 
 who appeared unto thee, when thou fleddest 
 before thy brother Esau”; we see at once that 
 the italicized words,.which, apart from the 
 fuller account of xxviii. 11, 12, would inevitably 
 suggest a literal and sensible apparition, indi- 
 cate, when taken in connexion with that pas- 
 sage, the proper interpretation of similar state- 
 ments elsewhere. As for the opening state- 
 ment “Elohim said to Jacob,” this may simply 
 be understood of an impulse of conscience (cp. 
 xxviii. 20 sqq.). The patriarch is conceived as 
 his own priest and prophet. Otherwise it 
 would be perfectly agreeable to ancient thought 
 and language to understand the mediation of a 
 priestly oracle. 
 
 It is, indeed, a striking fact that the older 
 narrative of Jacob’s life contains so little of the 
 marvellous. Any one who will look through the 
 sections attributed to JE, can verify this for 
 himself.° J¢ is nowhere said, nor perhaps im- 
 plied, that Elohim or Jahvah appeared to Jacob 
 except in dreams. ven the wrestling at Penuel 
 occurs in the night, which suggests the same 
 intention.’ It is easy and perhaps natural to 
 exaggerate the general impression of the super- 
 natural made upon ourselves by the story of 
 Jacob. The restraint in this matter noticeable 
 in the older history (JE) ought to be taken 
 into account in any critical estimate of its cre- 
 dibility. 
 
 But, this much premised, it stands to reason 
 and common sense that we must make all allow- 
 ances for literary form and for the individual 
 freedom of writers dealing with a thing so 
 variable as tradition, when we come to consider 
 the details of the story. Here again we are met 
 by verbal assonances which certainly do not 
 suggest a literal record of objective facts. The 
 wrestling (DAN, way-y@abék, v. 24; ΡΩΝ ΠΣ, 
 béhe’abékd, v. 25) occurs by the Jabbok (PX), 
 Yabbék, v. 22); and it is thus hinted that the 
 name of the watercourse means “ Wrestler,”’ or 
 “Wrestling.” The name Israel is connected 
 with Jacob’s victory, as though it meant “He 
 
 e In Driver, Introduction to the Literature of the 
 Old Testament, or Kautzsch and Socin’s Die Genesis. 
 
 f This is also the most natural explanation of the 
 brief notice, xxxii. 1, 2(H). The name of Mahanaim, 
 which doubtless like Bethel was an ancient sanctuary, 
 is referred to Jacob’s vision of Angels, and his exclama- 
 tion, “ This is Elohim’s camp!” But allusion to this 
 name (Two camps) is again made in a different sense 
 (vv. 7,10. Jacob was still at Mahanaim, v. 14). 
 
1802 JACOB 
 
 hath striven with El,” whereas “ El striveth ” 
 would be more in accordance with the analogy 
 of such formations (cp. Seraiah, “Jah hath 
 striven”; Jerubbaal, “ Baal contendeth”; and 
 Ex. xv. 3, Ps. xxiv. 8). And as Ewald suggests, 
 the incident of the spraining of Jacob’s hip may 
 be atrace of “some ancient notion of this patriarch 
 as Limping, connected with the idea of his crafti- 
 ness and crookedness,” taking Jacob to mean “ the 
 Crafty ;” a common association of ideas in folk- 
 lore. The local name Penuel further illustrates 
 the use that the Hebrew spirit could make of 
 materials lying ready to its hand. Like Bethel, 
 Mizpah, and Mahanaim, Penuel (Judg. viii. 8) was 
 probably an ancient holy place, which was thus 
 adopted, as it were, by Israelite religion. The 
 name is not peculiar to the land of Israel. A Phoe- 
 nician promontory was also called ‘ El’s Face ” or 
 
 “ Presence ” (ONID, θεοῦ πρόσωπον, Strabo, xvi. 
 2, 6, 16, cited by Ewald); and “ Presence of the 
 
 lord [Baal] ” v5) was a title of the goddess 
 Ashtoreth. But how different the associations of 
 the name in the Biblical story ! As in the second 
 account of Creation, elements furnished by ancient 
 Semitic conceptions are moralised and spiritual- 
 ised in a manner peculiar to the religion of 
 Israel; so here, if Ewald is right, old materials 
 have been worked up into an unique parable of 
 the loftiest spiritual experience. The religious 
 significance of the episode—the meaning it had 
 for a prophet of the 8th cent. B.c.—is brought 
 out clearly though briefly by Hosea (xii. 3, 4): 
 
 «© In the womb he held his brother’s heel (‘aqab), 
 and in his manhood he strove (sarah; Yisr@él) with 
 Elohim: 
 Yea, he strove against an Angel, and prevailed: 
 He wept and made supplication unto him. 
 At Bethel He did find him, 
 And there He spake with him.” 
 
 Thus in the prophet’s estimation the wrestling 
 with Elohim was a wrestling of prayer, in which 
 the agony of fear and remorse was overcome by 
 the final triumph of faith. Weeping and suppli- 
 cation, indeed, are incidents hardly congruous 
 with the idea of a merely physical struggle. 
 This addition is further important, in that it 
 seems to prove either that other and fuller 
 versions of the episode existed in Hosea’s time, 
 or that he felt at liberty to modify the rela- 
 tion of Genesis for his own purposes. What- 
 ever may be our opinion of the matter, upon a 
 calm survey of the entire patriarchal history, 
 from Gen. xii. onwards, we can hardly fail 
 to be struck by the fact that while visions in 
 broad daylight, theophanies in the strictest 
 sense, seem to be connected with the name of 
 Abraham, nothing of the sort is told of Isaac; 
 and that in spite of the far greater length and 
 richness of detail that distinguish the traditions 
 about Jacob, only a single isolated story can in 
 his case be claimed as a record of an objectively 
 Supernatural experience: while, finally, in the 
 life of Joseph the atmosphere of mystery is 
 almost wholly withdrawn, fading like the glories 
 of sunrise into the light of common day. 
 
 It is clear that the original tradition does not 
 treat Jacob’s successful wiles with Esau and 
 
 OO  ΄“"Ἕ"Ἕ. -. 
 
 & In ch. xxxv. 10, the Levitical source (P) connects 
 the name with another occasion. 
 
 JACOB’S WELL 
 
 Isaac and Laban as morally reprehensible. It 
 rather recounts them with the same undisguised 
 admiration that an Arab story-teller of to-day 
 might evince in similar narratives. Nor is any 
 hint of disapproval of his polygamous marriages 
 to be detected by the closest scrutiny of any one 
 of the old writers whose hands are discernible 
 in the composition of Genesis. How indeed 
 could we expect it, in face of the immemorial 
 usage of the East? Polygamy, however, has 
 consequences in family life, which must have 
 some representation in every picture that is 
 true to nature; and these may easily be dis- 
 cerned in the story of Jacob. Throughout his 
 family history, indeed, we may perhaps be per- 
 mitted to see an unavowed purpose of showing 
 how the patriarch’s spiritual nature was puri- 
 fied by sorrowful experience, largely due to 
 the reappearance in his sons of those very faults 
 which darkened his own character in earlier 
 life. His old deceits, practised even upon a 
 blind and bedridden father, come home to him 
 in the treachery of Simeon and Levi (Gen. 
 xxxiv.), in the conspiracy against Joseph and the 
 deceit of the bloody coat (ch. xxxvii.). In later 
 times Jewish faith unquestionably drew these 
 and other moral and religious lessons from the 
 life-story of Jacob. His long servitude in 
 Paddan-Aram, for instance, was regarded as a 
 heayen-sent discipline (Judith viii. 26). But 
 the grand lesson of the whole seems to be 
 enunciated in the words of Joseph: “So now it 
 was not you that sent me hither, but Elohim ” 
 (xlv. 8); “As for you, ye meant evil against 
 me, but Elohim meant it for good” (1. 20). 
 The Divine purpose of grace cannot be thwarted ; 
 human opposition only furthers it (ep. Riehm, 
 HWEB., 5. v. Jacob). 
 
 True, therefore, as it is that the character of 
 Jacob mirrors the historical character of the 
 Israelite people, and that the great events of 
 his life reflect the historical relations of that 
 people with neighbouring and kindred nations ; 
 we need not hesitate to use the composite his- 
 tory of the eponymous father of Jacob-Israel 
 in the manner indicated by St. Paul, “ for teach- 
 ing, for reproof, for correction, for instruction 
 in righteousness ” (2 Tim. iii. 16); in short, for 
 all purposes of religious edification. The idyllic 
 beauty, the majestic simplicity, the broad faith- 
 fulness to antique humanity, everywhere evi- 
 dent in this wonderful blend of manifold tradi- 
 tions, but, above all, the diviner meanings with 
 which they have been imbued under the in- 
 fluence of the holy spirit of Hebrew religion, are 
 things which criticism cannot touch, and which 
 no sober critic desires to touch. [C. J. B.J 
 
 JACOB’S WELL (πηγὴ τοῦ *laxrdéB), the 
 scene of Christ’s discourse with the Samaritan 
 woman (John iv. 1-42), was made by the 
 patriarch Jacob (v. 12). It was very deep 
 (υ. 11); near the road from Judaea, through 
 Samaria, to Galilee (vv. 3, 4); outside of a city 
 called Sychar; and near the plot of ground in 
 which Joseph was buried (v. 5: ep. Gen. xlviii. 
 22; Josh. xxiv. 32). There is every reason to 
 believe that Bir Y‘akiib, “ Jacob’s well,” near 
 Nablus, is the place mentioned. It lies at the 
 N.E. foot of Gerizim, near the road, through 
 the hills, from Judaea to Galilee, and there is 
 nowhere else a deep well at which Jesus could 
 
JACOB’S WELL 
 
 have rested when He sent His disciples into the 
 city to buy food (ve. 6, 9). The surroundings 
 are in perfect harmony with the words of 
 Christ. To the Εν and 8. the eye rests on the 
 
 fertile plain of e/-Mukhnah,—once the pasture- | 
 
 ground of Jacob (Gen. xxxiii. 18; cp. xxxvii. 
 12), and, when Jesus looked upon it, covered 
 with waving corn ripe for the sickle (υ, 35), 
 Northward rises the imposing mass of Mount 
 Ebal, with the village of *Askar, possibly 
 SycHaR, at its base, and opposite to it towers 
 Mount Gerizim with the ruins of the Samaritan 
 temple (vv. 20, 21) on its summit. The tradi- 
 tional tomb of Joseph lies in the plain a short 
 distance to the north, and Shechem, though 
 hidden from view by a swell of the ground, is 
 only 13 miles distant to the north-west. 
 
 In April 1866 a descent of the well was made 
 
 JACOB'S WELL 1503 
 
 by Major Anderson, R.E., who found it to be 
 75 feet deep, and 7 feet 6 inches in diameter. 
 It was then dry, but on the stones at the 
 bottom lay an unbroken earthenware pitcher, 
 which must have fallen when there was some 
 depth of water. The upper portion of the well 
 is sunk through the soil of the valley and is 
 neatly lined with masonry, the lower through 
 compact beds of limestone. Above the mouth 
 of the well is a vaulted chamber, and around 
 it are the ruins of the churches which once 
 covered it (PHF. Mem. ii. 174 sq.). In 1697 
 the depth according to Maundrell (2. 7. p, 435) 
 was 105 ft., and there were 15 ft. of water. 
 There can be little doubt that, although the 
 water does not now always rise above the rub- 
 bish that has accumulated in it, the well, if 
 cleared out, would possess an unfailing supply. 
 
 Jacob’s Well. 
 
 In 1881, what appears to have been the ori- 
 ginal stone over the mouth of the well was 
 uncovered (PEF Qy. Stat. 1881, p. 212). 
 
 The tradition respecting Jacob’s Well, in 
 which Christians, Jews, Samaritans, and Mus- 
 lims agree, goes back at least to the time of 
 Eusebius in the early part of the 4th century 
 (OS. p. 286, 26, 8. v. Suxdp; Itin. Hierosol.). 
 Neither of these writers mentions a church, 
 but Jerome makes Paula visit a church “ erected 
 round the well” (Zp. S. Paul. xvi.; cp. OS? 
 p- 185, 31). This church is mentioned, A.D. 
 570, by Antoninus Martyr (vi.), who states 
 that the well was in front of the altar, and 
 that many sick were healed there. It is de- 
 scribed, A.D. 670, by Arculfus as cruciform, and 
 the well was then in the centre of the church 
 
 and said to be 40 orgyiae, or about 240 ft. deep 
 (ii. 19). The well and church are mentioned, 
 A.D. 754, by Willibald (Hod.); but Saewulf, 
 A.D. 1102, and Abbot Daniel, A.D. 1106, only 
 mention the well, the water of which, the latter 
 says, was ‘very cold and pleasant to the taste” 
 (p. Ixxii.). The church would thus appear to 
 have been destroyed prior to the Crusades, but, 
 according to an anonymous writer, circa A.D. 
 1130, it must have been rebuilt early in the 
 12th century (De Vogiié, Hy. de 1. S. App. 
 pp. 424, 425), and Idris?, a.p. 1154, alludes to 
 it as “a fine church” (Le Strange, Pal. under 
 the Moslems, pp. 511, 512). This later church 
 was probably destroyed after the battle of 
 Hattin, A.D. 1187, as subsequent pilgrims only 
 mention ruins. The altar, however, appears to 
 
1504 JACUBUS 
 
 have been in existence as late as the 17th cen- 
 tury (Quaresmius, ii. 800). 
 
 It may appear strange that Jacob should have 
 made a well at this spot when there was such 
 an abundant supply of water close at hand in 
 the valley of Shechem; but such a course 
 would not be out of keeping with the custom 
 of nomads. It is characteristic of the prudence 
 and forethought of the Patriarch that, having 
 obtained a parcel of ground at the entrance to 
 the vale, he should have secured, by dint of 
 great toil, a perennial supply of water at a 
 time when the adjacent springs were in the 
 hands of unfriendly, if not openly hostile, 
 neighbours. The action of the woman in going 
 at mid-day to obtain cold fresh water from a 
 deep well is quite natural, and there is no 
 reason to suppose with Furrer (Schenkel, Bid. 
 Lex. s. v.) that Christ’s discourse is framed in 
 an ideal picture not drawn with strict accuracy 
 of detail. Cp. Robinson, iii. 107 sq.3 Guérin, 
 Samarie, i. 376 sq.3; Sepp, ii. 55-57; Riehm, 
 8. Ὁ. (W.] 
 
 JACU’BUS (B. Ἰαρσούβοος, A. Ἰάκουβος ; 
 Accubus), 1 Esd. ix. 48. [AkkuB, 4.] 
 
 JA'DA (UT) = [God] hath known ; B. ᾿Ἰαδᾶε, 
 and at v. 52, B. Ἰδουδά, A. ᾿Ιεδδαέ), son of Onam, 
 and brother of Shammai, in the genealogy of the 
 sons of Jerahmeel by his wife Atarah (1 Ch. ii. 
 28, 32). This genealogy is very corrupt in the 
 LXX., especially in the Vatican Codex. 
 
 [A. C. H.] 
 
 JA'DAU (17, but the Qeri has 9"), 1.9. Yad- 
 dai; B. Διά, A.’Iadel; Jedd), one of the Bene- 
 Nebo who had taken a foreign wife, and was 
 compelled by Ezra to relinquish her (Ezra x. 43), 
 
 JAD'DUA (WIT = known; B. Ἰαδού, δὲ. 
 Ἰδούα; Jeddoa), 1. Son and successor in the 
 high-priesthood of Jonathan or Johanan. He 
 is the last of the high-priests mentioned in 
 the O. T., and probably altogether the latest 
 name in the Canon (Neh. xii. 11, 22), at 
 least if 1 Ch, iii, 22-24 is admitted to be 
 corrupt (see Hervey, Geneal. of our Lord, 
 pp- 101, 107). His name marks distinctly the 
 time when the latest additions were made to 
 the Book of Nehemiah and the Canon of Scrip- 
 ture, and perhaps affords a clue to the age of 
 Malachi the Prophet. All that we learn con- 
 cerning him in Scripture is the fact of his 
 being the son of Jonathan, and high-priest. We 
 gather also pretty certainly that he was priest 
 in the reign of the last Persian king Darius, 
 and that he was still high-priest after the 
 Persian dynasty was overthrown, 1.6. in the 
 reign of Alexander the Great. For the ex- 
 pression “ Darius the Persian” (Neh. xii. 22) 
 must have been used after the accession of the 
 Grecian dynasty ; and had another high-priest 
 succeeded, his name would most likely have 
 been mentioned. Thus far then the Book of 
 Nehemiah bears out the truth of Josephus’s 
 history, which makes Jaddua high-priest when 
 Alexander invaded Judaea (Ant. xi. 8, §§ 4, 5). 
 But the story of his interview with Alexander 
 [HiGH-PRIEST, p. 1366] does not on that account 
 deserve credit, nor the story of the building of 
 the temple on Mount Gerizim during Jaddua’s 
 
 JAEL 
 
 pontificate, at the instigation of Sanballat (Jos. 
 Ant. xi. 8, §§ 2,4), both of which, as well as the 
 accompanying circumstances, are probably de- 
 rived from some apocryphal book of Alexandrian 
 growth, since lost, in which chronology and 
 history gave way to romance and Jewish vanity. 
 Josephus seems to place the death of Jaddua 
 afser that of Alexander (Ant. xi. 8, § 7). Euse- 
 bius assigns 20 years to Jaddua’s pontificate 
 (Chronicon, lib. ii., sub ann. Abrah. 1678, 1698, 
 in Patrol. Gr, xix. 487, 491); upon which point 
 may further be consulted Selden, De Successione 
 in Pontificatum Ebraeorum, lib. i. cap. Vi., 
 Works, ii. pt. i. 112, ed. 1726; Prideaux, Con- 
 nexion, i, 540, 541, ed. 1838; Hervey, Geneal. 
 of our Lord, p. 323. [A. CL Boi) [ΟΣ ΤῊ 
 
 2. (B. om., N* Ἰεδδούα, A. ἸἸεδδούκ ; Jed- 
 dua), one of the chiefs of the people, 1.6. of the 
 laymen, who sealed the covenant with Nehemiah 
 (Neh. x. 21). 
 
 JA'DON (j)7) = judge; LXX. om. ; Jadon), 
 a man who, in company with the Gibeonites 
 and the men of Mizpah, assisted to repair the 
 wall of Jerusalem (Neh. iii. 7). His title, “ the 
 Meronothite” (cp. 1 Ch. xxvii. 30), and the 
 mention of Gibeonites, would seem to point to 
 a place Meronoth, and that in the neighbour- 
 hood of Gibeon; but no such place has yet been 
 traced. 
 
 Jadon (Ἰαδὼν) is the name attributed by 
 Josephus (Ant. viii. 8, § 5) to the man of God 
 from Judah who withstood Jeroboam at the 
 altar at Bethel—probably intending Ippo the 
 seer. By Jerome (Qu. Hebr. on 2 Ch. ix. 29, 
 in Pat. Lat. xxiii. 1390) that seer, who jis also 
 identified with the man of God from Judah, is 
 named Jaddo. 
 
 JA’EL ὦν»; Hex. Syr. Anael; Ἰαήλ; Joseph. 
 *IdAn; Jahel), the wife of Heber the Kenite. 
 Heber was the chief of a nomadic Arab clan, 
 who had separated from the rest of his tribe, 
 and had pitched his tent under the oak, which 
 had in consequence received the name (R. V.) of 
 “oak in Zaanaim” (A. V. “plain of Zaanaim,” 
 Judg. iv. 11), in the neighbourhood of Kedesh- 
 Naphtali. [Heper; Kenires.} The tribe of 
 Heber had secured the quiet enjoyment of their 
 pastures by adopting a neutral position in a 
 troublous period. Their descent from Jethro 
 secured them the favourable regard of the 
 Israelites, and they were sufficiently important 
 to conclude a formal peace with Jabin king of 
 Hazor. 
 
 In the headlong rout which followed the 
 defeat of the Canaanites by Barak, Sisera, aban- 
 doning his chariot the more easily to avoid 
 notice (cp. Hom. J/. v. 20), fled unattended, 
 and in an opposite direction from that taken 
 by his army, to the tent of the Kenite chief- 
 tainess. ‘The tent of Jael” is expressly men- 
 tioned, either because the harem of Heber was 
 in a separate tent (Rosenmiiller, Morgen. iii. 
 22), or because the Kenite himself was absent 
 at the time. In the sacred seclusion of this 
 almost inviolable sanctuary, Sisera might well 
 have felt himself absolutely secure from the 
 incursions of the enemy (Calmet, Vragm. xxv.) ; 
 and although he intended to take refuge among 
 the Kenites, he would not have ventured so 
 
JAEL 
 
 openly to violate all idea of Oriental propriety 
 by entering a woman’s apartments (D’Herbelot, 
 Bibl. Orient. s. v. Haram), had he not received 
 Jael’s express, earnest, and respectful entreaty 
 to do so. He accepted the invitation, and she 
 flung the tent-rug* (B. ἐπιβολαῖον ; A. deppis) 
 over him as he lay wearily on the floor. When 
 thirst prevented sleep, and he asked for water, 
 she brought him buttermilk in her choicest 
 vessel, thus ratifying with the semblance of 
 officious zeal the sacred bond of Eastern hos- 
 pitality. Wine would have been less suitable 
 to quench his thirst, and may possibly have 
 been eschewed by Heber’s clan (Jer. xxxv. 2). 
 Buttermilk, according to the quotations in 
 Harmer, is still a favourite Arab beverage 
 (lebbén), and that this is the drink intended 
 we infer from Judg. v. 25, as well as from 
 the direct statement of Josephus (γάλα διεφ- 
 Bopds ἤδη, Ant. v. 5, § 4), although there is 
 no reason to suppose with Josephus and the 
 Rabbis (Ὁ. Kimchi, Jarchi, &c.) that Jael pur- 
 posely used it because of its soporific qualities 
 (Bochart, Hieroz. i. 473). But anxiety still 
 prevented Sisera from composing himself to 
 rest, until he had exacted a promise from his 
 protectress that she would faithfully preserve 
 the secret of his concealment; till at last, with 
 a feeling of perfect security, the weary and 
 unfortunate general resigned himself to the 
 deep sleep of misery and fatigue. Then it was 
 that Jael took in her left hand one of the great 
 wooden” pins (A. V. “nail”) which fastened 
 down the cords of the tent (Ex. xxvii. 19; Is. 
 xxii. 23, liv. 2), and in her right hand the 
 mallet (A. V. “a hammer”) used to drive it 
 into the ground, and, creeping up to her 
 sleeping and confiding guest, with one terrible 
 blow dashed it through Sisera’s temples deep 
 into the earth (cp. Judith xiii. 2, 7, 8). With 
 one spasm of fruitless agony, with one con- 
 tortion of sudden pain, “at her feet he bowed, 
 he fell; where he bowed, there he fell down 
 dead” (Judg. v. 27). In the A. MS. of the 
 LXX. is found the gloss, ‘‘He was convulsed 
 (ἀπεσκάρισεν) between her knees, and fainted, 
 and died.” She then waited to meet the pur- 
 suing Barak, and led him into her tent that she 
 might in his presence claim the glory of the deed ! 
 
 Many have supposed that by this act she 
 fulfilled the saying of Deborah, that God would 
 sell Sisera into the hand of a woman (Judg. iv. 
 §; Joseph. v. 5, ὃ 4); and hence they have 
 asserted that Jael was actuated by some Divine 
 and hidden influence. But the Bible gives no 
 hint of such an inspiration, and it is at least 
 equally probable that Deborah merely intended 
 to intimate the share of the honour which 
 would be assigned by posterity to her own 
 exertions. (If further we eliminate the supposi- 
 tion that Jael’s act was “not the murder of a 
 sleeping man, but the use of a daring stratagem ” 
 ΟὟ. R. Smith,? Zhe O. T. in the Jewish Church, 
 
 a “Mantle” is here inaccurate, as is the Vulg. pallio 
 and Luther’s Mantel. The word is 2 2 2 —with the 
 
 definite article. It is not found elsewhere, and it is 
 uncertain what the Semicah was; but the Syriac 
 
 0.0 
 Taxon suggests something to lie upon. The ᾧ" 
 is for D, according to Jewish tradition. 
 > πάσσαλος, LXX.; but, according to Josephus, 
 σιδήρεον ἧλον. 
 BIBLE DICT.—VOL. I. 
 
 1505 
 
 p- 132), that act wili appear murder in all 
 its naked atrocity—F.] A fugitive had asked 
 and received dakheel (or protection) at her 
 hands,—he was miserable, defeated, weary,— 
 he was an ally of her husband,—he was her 
 invited and honoured guest,—he was in the 
 sanctuary of the harem,—above all, he was 
 confiding, defenceless, and asleep;—yet she 
 broke her pledged faith, violated her solemn 
 hospitality, and murdered a trustful and un- 
 protected slumberer. Surely we require the 
 clearest and most positive statement that Jael was 
 instigated to such a murder by Divine suggestion. 
 
 But it may be asked, “ Has not the deed of 
 Jael been praised by au inspired authority?” 
 “ἐ Blessed above women shall Jael the wife of 
 Heber the Kenite be; blessed shall she be above 
 women in the tent” (Judg. v. 24). Without 
 stopping to ask when and where Deborah claims 
 for herself any infallibility, or whether, in the 
 passionate moment of patriotic triumph, she 
 was likely to pause in such wild times to 
 scrutinise the moral bearings of an act which 
 had been so splendid a benefit to herself and her 
 people, we may question whether any moral 
 commendation is directly intended. What De- 
 borah stated was a fact, viz. that the wives of 
 the nomad Arabs would undoubtedly regard 
 Jael as a public benefactress, and praise her as 
 a popular heroine. If in the mind of Deborah 
 the passionate exultation for natural deliverance 
 overpowered all finer considerations, her words 
 are exactly analogous to the terrible verses of 
 Ps, exxxvii. 8, 9: “O daughter of Babylon, 
 happy shail be he that taketh and dasheth thy 
 little ones against the stones.” If, in the 19th 
 century after Christ, there were many who 
 could give to Charlotte Corday the title of “the 
 Angel of assassination,” it is not strange that 
 a thousand years before Christ Jael would find 
 many to extenuate and even to praise her crime. 
 The providence of God sometimes permits the 
 instrumentality of crime in carrying out the 
 Divine purposes, though the moral responsibility 
 of the crime rests (as we see in the case of 
 Jehu) upon its perpetrator. At the same time 
 we must not judge the rude impassioned Be- 
 douin chieftainess by the moral standard of 
 Christianity, or even of later Judaism. She 
 must not be classed with women actuated by a 
 wild thirst for vengeance, like Criemhild in 
 the Niebelungenlied, or even with Aretophila, 
 whom Plutarch so emphatically praises; but 
 rather with a woman like Judith, actuated by 
 an overpowering patriotic impulse.° 
 
 The suggestion of Gesenius (7165. p. 608 ὃ), 
 Hollmann, and others, that the Jael alluded to 
 in Judg. v. 6 is not the wife of Heber, but 
 some unknown Israelitish judge, appears to us 
 extremely unlikely, especially as the name Jael 
 must almost certainly be the name of a woman 
 (Prov. v. 19, A. V.“ roe”; cp. Tabitha, Dorcas) 
 —‘‘a fit name for a Bedouin’s wife, especially for 
 one whose family had come from the rocks of 
 Engedi, the spring of the wild-goat or chamois.” 
 At the same time it must be admitted that the 
 phrase “in the days of Jael” is one which we 
 should hardly have expected. [F. W. ΕΠ 
 
 JAEL 
 
 © See Mozley,2 Ruling Ideas in Early Ages, Lecture 
 VIII., ‘The Connexion of Jael’s act with the Morality 
 of her Age.”—[F.] 
 SD 
 
1506 JAGUR 
 
 JA'GUR (W3t= lodging place; B. om., A 
 ἸΙαγούρ ; Jagur), a town of Judah, one of thosf 
 furthest to the south, on the frontier o- 
 Edom (Josh. xv. 21). Kabzeel, one of its com 
 panions in the list, recurs subsequently; but 
 Jagur is not again met with, nor has the name 
 been encountered in the imperfect explorations 
 of that dreary region. The Jagur, mentioned 
 in the Talmud (Neubauer, p. 69) as one of the 
 boundaries of the territory of Ashkelon, must 
 have been farther to the N.W. [6.1] [W.] 
 
 JAH (δ᾽; Κύριος : Dominus). See ΦΕΗΟΥ ΑΗ. 
 
 An abbreviated form of ‘‘ Jehovah,” or rather 
 Jahveh or Jahvah, used only in poetry. It 
 occurs frequently in the Hebrew of the later 
 Psalms, especially in the liturgical phrase Hal- 
 léli-Jah, “Praise ye Jah!” (Yah); but with 
 a single exception (Ps. lxviii. 4) is rendered 
 Lorp in the A. V. The identity of Jah and 
 Jehovah is strongly marked in two passages of 
 Isaiah (xii. 2, xxvi. 4), the force of which is 
 greatly weakened by the English rendering “the 
 Lorp.” The former of these should be translated 
 “for my strength and song is JAH JEHOVAH” 
 (cp. Ex, xv. 2); and the latter, “Trust ye in 
 Jehovah for ever, for in JAH JEHOVAH is the 
 rock of ages.” ‘Praise ye the LorD,” or Halle- 
 lujah, should be in all cases “praise ye Jah.” 
 In Ps. Ixxxix. 8 [9] Jah stands in parallelism 
 with “ Jehovah the God of hosts” in a passage 
 which is wrongly translated in the A. V. It 
 should be “O Jehovah, God of hosts, who like 
 Thee is strong, Ο Jah!” Cp. R. V. 
 
 CW. As ΠΣ tee Β7 
 
 JA'HATH (1M; see MV.1!). 1. (B. Ἰέεθ; 
 A. “Ie; Jahath.) Son of Libni, the son of 
 Gershom, the son of Levi (1 Ch. vi. 20, A. V.). 
 He was ancestor to Asaph (v. 43). 
 
 2. (BA. Ἴεθ; Leheth). Head of a later house 
 in the family of Gershom, being the eldest son 
 of Shimei, the son of Laadan. The house of 
 Jahath existed in David's time (1 Ch. xxiii. 10, 
 11). [A. C. H.] [C..H.] 
 
 3. (B. Ἴεθ, A. corrupt [see Swete]; Jahath.) 
 A man in the genealogy of Judah (1 Ch. iv. 2), 
 son of Reaiah ben-Shobal. His sons were 
 Ahumai and Lahad, the families of the Zora- 
 thites. If Reaiah and Haroeh are identical, 
 Jahath was a descendant of Caleb ben-Hur. 
 [HAROER. ] 
 
 4, (BA. Ἰνάθ). A Levite, son of Shelo- 
 moth, the representative of the Kohathite 
 family of IzHaR in the reign of David (1 Ch. 
 xxiv. 22). 
 
 5. (B. Ἰέ, A. Ἴεθ.) A Merarite Levite in the 
 reign of Josiah, one of the overseers of the 
 repairs to the Temple (2 Ch. xxxiy. 12). 
 
 JA'HAZ, also JAHA’ZA, JAHA'ZAH, and 
 JAH’ZAH. Under these four forms are given 
 in the A. V. the name of a place which in the 
 Hebrew appears as Ὁ) and MYM, the ΠῚ being 
 
 in some cases—as Num. and Deut.—the particle 
 of motion, but elsewhere an integral addition to 
 the name. It has been uniformly so taken 
 by the LXX., who have Ἰασσά, and twice 
 Ἶασά. JAHAZ is found in Num. xxi. 23; Deut. 
 li, 832; Judg. xi. 20; Is, xv. 4; Jer. xlviii. 34. 
 In the two latter only is it ὙΠ, without the 
 
 JAHAZ 
 
 final 7. In Judg. xi. 20, A. reads Ἰσραήλ. 
 The Samaritan Cod. has $M); Vulg. Jasa. 
 
 At Jahaz the decisive battle was fought 
 between the children of Israel and Sihon king 
 of the Amorites, which ended in the overthrow 
 of the latter and in the occupation by Israel of 
 the whole pastoral country included between the 
 Arnon and the Jabbok, the Belka of the modern 
 Arabs (Num, xxi. 23 ; Deut. ii. 32; Judg. xi. 20). 
 It was in the allotment of Reuben (Josh. xiii. 
 18), though not mentioned in the catalogue of 
 Num. xxxii.; and it was given with its suburbs 
 to the Merarite Levites (1 Ch. vi. 78; and Josh. 
 xxi. 36, though here omitted in the ordinary 
 Hebrew text). 
 
 Jahazah occurs in the denunciations of Jere- 
 miah and Isaiah on the inhabitants of the 
 “plain country,” i.e. the Mishor, the modern 
 Belka (Jer. xlviii. 21, 34; Is. xv. 4); and the 
 fact that at this period it was in the hands of 
 Moab agrees with the inscription on “the Moab- 
 ite stone,” in which king Mesha ‘states that he 
 took it from the king of Israel (Records of the 
 Past, N. §., ii. 202). 
 
 From the terms of the narrative in Num. xxi. 
 it would appear that Jahaz was situated N. of 
 the Arnon (v.11); in the vicinity of Pisgah 
 (v. 20); and on or near “the king’s highway ” 
 
 (v. 22) by which the Israelites were advancing 
 
 upon Palestine,—that is, the road from Dibon- 
 gad, through Almon-diblathaim, to the moun- 
 tains of Abarim, before Nebo (Num. sxxxiii. 
 45-47). The narrative in Deut. ii. also places 
 Jahaz N. of the Arnon; in v. 24 the Israelites 
 are directed to pass over the valley of Arnon, 
 and begin to possess the land of Sihon and 
 contend with him in battle (ep. v. 31); and 
 messengers were not sent to ask Sihon’s per- 
 mission for their passage through his territory 
 until they reached the wilderness (midbar) of 
 Kedemoth (v. 26), a town of Reuben mentioned 
 in the same group with Jahaz (Josh. xiii. 18). 
 The sequence of events seems clear. The Israel- 
 ites after crossing the Arnon, W. Mojib, camped 
 at Dibon, Dhibdn, and thence marched directly 
 upon Heshbon by the road through Medeba, 
 Mddeba, which must always have been an im- 
 portant thoroughfare, and later, during the 
 Roman period, became one of the great lines of 
 communication from north to south. At Jahaz, 
 between Kedemoth and Heshbon, and not very far 
 from the latter place and Elealeh, e/-‘A) (Is. xv. 4; 
 Jer. xlviii. 34), they met and defeated the army 
 which Sihon had assembled for the defence of 
 his capital. In agreement with this view is the 
 statement of Eusebius (OS? p. 267, 94) that 
 Jahaz (Jeood) was existing in his day between 
 Medeba and! Δηβοῦς, or, adopting the reading 
 suggested by Reland (p. 825), ᾿Εσβοῦς, Heshbon. 
 The site has not been recovered, but it was 
 possibly at el-Jereineh, or Kefeir Abu Sarbit 
 (PEF. Mem. E. Pal. pp. 110, 134, and map). 
 Riehm (HWB. 5. v.) places it between Medeba 
 and Dibon ; Schwarz (H. L. p. 180) has suggested 
 Jazaza, a village S.W. of Dhibén ; Tristram 
 (Bib. Places, p. 355) and Palmer (Desert of 
 Exodus, map), Muhatel el-Haj, on the S. side 
 of the Arnon; Merrill, Ziza, 10 miles S.E. of 
 Hesbén ; and Conder, Rujm Makhsiyeh, 9 miles 
 N.E. of the same place (PEF. Mem. E. Pal. 
 p- 279, note. See also Ewald, Geschichte, ii, 
 267, 271). Ge]: Wel 
 
JAHAZA 
 
 JA-HA'ZA, ΒΕ. V. JAHAZ (ΠΥ), ἐσ. Yah- 
 
 tzah; B. Βασάν, A. Ἰασσά; Jassa), Josh. xiii. 18. 
 [JAMAzZ,] 
 
 JA-HA’ZAH, R. V. JAHAZ (739; in Jer. 
 ‘Pepds, in both MSS. ; Jaser, Jas), Josh. xxi. 
 36 (though omitted in the Rec. Hebrew Text, 
 and not recognisable in the LXX.), Jer. xlviii. 
 21 (R. V. Jauzan). [JAHAZ.] 
 
 JA-HA-ZI’'AH aan’ = = Jehovah seeth; A. 
 
 Ἰαζίας, B. Λαζειά, N*.-as; Jaasia), son of 
 Tikvah, apparently a priest; commemorated as 
 one of the four who originally sided with Ezra 
 in the matter of the. foreign wives (zra x. 
 15). In Esdras the name becomes EzEcuIAs. 
 
 JA-HA-ZI’-EL ONIN =whom God strength- 
 
 lenses 1. (Α. π᾿ Β. Ἰεζήλ ; Jeheziel.) One 
 of the heroes of Benjamin who deserted the 
 cause of Saul and joined David when he was at 
 Ziklag (1 Ch. xii. 4). 
 
 2. (A. ᾽οἀήλ, Β. ᾽ο(φειήλ ; Jaziel.) A priest 
 in the reign of David, whose office it was, in con- 
 junction with Benaiah, to blow the trumpet at 
 the ministrations before the Ark, when David 
 had brought it to Jerusalem (1 Ch. xvi. 6), 
 (HicH-pRrest. ] 
 
 8. (A. Ἰαζήλ, B. ?OCiA, Ἰασή; Jahaziel.) 
 A Kohathite Levite, third son of Hebron. His 
 house is mentioned in the enumeration of the 
 Levites in the time of David (1 Ch. xxiii. 19, 
 xxiv. 23). ἀπ ἘΠ Sell 
 
 4. (A. ᾽οὗήλ, Β. ᾿Ο(ζεήλ; Jahaziel.) Son of 
 Zechariah, a Levite of the Bene-Asaph, who was 
 inspired by the Spirit of Jehovah to animate 
 Jehoshaphat and the army of Judah in a 
 moment of great danger; namely, when they 
 were anticipating the invasion of an enormous 
 horde of Moabites, Ammonites, Mehunims, and 
 other barbarians (2 Ch. xx. 14). Ps. Ixxxiii. is 
 entitled a Psalm of Asaph; and this, coupled 
 with the mention of Edom, Moab, Ammon, and 
 others, in hostility to Israel, has led some to 
 connect it with the above event. \[GEBAL.] 
 But, however desirable, this is very uncertain. 
 
 5. (LXX. omits; Lzechiel.) The “son of 
 Jahazie!”’ was the chief of the Bene-Shecaniah 
 who returned from Babylon with Ezra, accord- 
 ing to the present state of the Hebrew text 
 (Ezra viii. 5). But according to the LXX. of, 
 and the parallel passage in, 1 Esd. (viii. 32), a 
 name has escaped from the text, and it should 
 read, “of the Bene-Zathoe (probably Zarrv), 
 Shecaniah son of Jahaziel ” (for the Septuagintal 
 variations, see Swete). Inthe latter place the 
 name appears as JEZELUS. 
 
 JAH-DAI Can, ?= MIT), whom Jehovah 
 
 leads; B. Ἰησοῦ, in Ἰαδαΐ; " Jahoddai), a man 
 who appears to be thrust abruptly into the 
 genealogy of Caleb, as the father of six sons 
 (1 Ch. ii. 47). Various suggestions regarding 
 the name have been made: as that Gazez, the 
 name preceding, should be Jahdai; that Jahdai 
 was a concubine of Caleb, &.: but these are 
 mere groundless suppositions (see Burrington, 
 i. 216; Bertheau, ad loc.). 
 
 JAH-DI’-EL xan) = whom God makes joy- 
 ful; B. ᾿Ελειήλ, A. EAA; Jedicl), one of the 
 
 JAIR 1507 
 
 heroes who were heads of the half-tribe of 
 Manasseh on the east of Jordan (1 Ch. ν. 24). 
 
 JAH'DO (jan): 
 had originally been “I 5 cp. JAASAU, JADAU; 
 B. Ἰουρεί : Jeddo), a Gadite named in the gene- 
 
 alogies of his tribe (1 Ch. ν. 14) as the son of 
 Buz and father of Jeshishai. 
 
 JAH-LE-EL Oxbm) = tops. in Gods in. 
 Gen, A. ᾿Αλοήλ, D.’EnA; in Num. B. ’AAAAA ; 
 Jahelel, Jahel), the third of three sons of 
 Zebulun (Gen. xlvi. 14; Num. xxvi. 26, LXX. 
 v. 22), founder of the family of JANLEELITES. 
 Nothing is heard of him or of his descendants. 
 
 JAH-LE-F’LITES, THE @bydmin; Β. 
 ᾿Αλληλεί ; Jalelitae). A branch of the tribe of 
 Zebulun, descendants of Jahleel (Num, xxvi. 26, 
 LXX. υ. "92 
 
 JAH-MAT ΟΠ", ? = = NOM, whom Jehovah 
 
 guards ; B. Εἰϊκάν, A. Ἰεμοῦ; ‘Jemai), a man of 
 Issachar, one of the heads of the house of Tola 
 (1 Ch. vii, 2). 
 
 JAH-ZAH (7377); 
 Vie 78. [Janaz.] 
 
 JAH-ZE-EL (MYM = God apportions ; 
 ‘AoA; Jasiel), the first of the four sons of 
 Naphtali (Gen. xlvi. 24), founder of the family 
 
 of THE JAHZEELITES (}PNYM, Num. xxvi. 48). 
 
 His name is once again mentioned (1 Ch. vii. 13; 
 B, Sana, AF. “Ασιήλ) in the slightly different 
 form of JAHZIEL. 
 
 JAH-ZE-E’LITES, THE CONYMIN; Β. 6 
 Σαηλί, AF. ὁ ᾿Ασιηλί; Jesielitae). A branch of 
 the Naphtalites, descended from Jahzeel (Num. 
 xxvi. 48). 
 
 JAH-ZE/RAH (TM; Β. Ἰεδριάς, Α. 
 
 Ἰεζριάς : Jezras), a priest, of the house of 
 Immer; ancestor of Maasiai (read Maaziah), 
 one of the courses which returned (1 Ch. ix. 12). 
 (JEHOIARIB.] In Neh. xi. 13 he is called 
 ‘TON, AnASAI, and all the other names are 
 
 (A.C. ΗΠ [Ὁ HJ 
 
 JAH-ZI'-EL ΟΝ ΝΠ = God beholds ; A. 
 
 Ἰασιήλ, B. Teron ; Jasiel), the form in which 
 the name of the first of Naphtali’s sons, else- 
 where given JAHZEEL, appears in 1 Ch. vii. 13 
 only. 
 
 JA'IR Sie ee. Jehovah enlightens ; B. 
 
 Ἰαείρ, A Ἰαείρ, “Hp, -ip; Jair). 1. A man 
 who on his father’s side was descended from 
 Judah, and on his mother’s from Manasseh. 
 His father was Segub, son of Hezron the son of 
 Pharez, by his third wife, the daughter of the 
 great Machir, a man so great that his name is 
 sometimes used as equivalent to that of Ma- 
 nasseh (1 Ch. ii. 21,22). Thus on both sides he 
 was a member of the most powerful family of 
 each tribe. By Moses he is called the “son of 
 Manasseh” (Num. xxxii. 41; Deut. iii. 14), and 
 according to the Chronicles (1 Ch, ii. 23) he 
 was one of the “sons of Machir the father of 
 5 D2 
 
 A. Ἰεδδαί, as if the name 
 
 A. Ἰασά; Jassa), 1 Ch. 
 
 much varied. 
 
1508 JAIRITE 
 Gilead.” This designation from his mother 
 yatber than his father, perhaps arose from his 
 having settled in the tribe of Manasseh, east of 
 Jordan. During the conquest he performed one 
 of the chief feats recorded. He took the whole of 
 the tract of ARGOB (Deut. iii. 14), the naturally 
 inaccessible Trachonitis, the modern Lejah ; 
 and in addition possessed himself of some nomad 
 villages in Gilead, which he called after his 
 own name, Havvoru-Jair (R. V. Num. xxxii. 415 
 1 Ch. ii. 23).2 None of his descendants are men- 
 tioned with certainty ; but it is perhaps allow- 
 able to consider IRA THE JAIRITE as one of 
 them. Possibly another was 
 
 2. (BA. Ἰαείρ.) JAIR THE GILEADITE, who 
 judged Israel for two and twenty years (Judg. 
 x. 3-5). He had thirty sons who rode thirty 
 asses (ov) and possessed thirty “cities” 
 (OVP) i in the land of Gilead, which, like those 
 of their namesake, were called Harrotns Jair. 
 Possibly the original twenty-three formed part 
 of these. Josephus (Ant. v. 7, §6) gives the 
 name of Jair as Ἰαείρης ; he declares him to 
 have been of the tribe of Manasseh, and his 
 burial-place, CAMON, to have been in Gilead. 
 [Havoru-JArr. | 
 
 8. (B. Ἰαείρος, A. Ἰατρός.) A Benjamite, 
 son of Kish and father of Mordecai (Esth. ii. 5). 
 In the Apocrypha his name is given as JAIRUS. 
 
 4, (7°), a totally different name from the 
 preceding ; B. Ἰαείρ, A. ’Adeip; Saltus.) The 
 father of Elhanan, one of the heroes of David’s 
 army, who killed Lachmi the brother of Goliath 
 (1 Ch. xx. 5). In the original Hebrew text 
 (Kethib) the name is Jaor (1). In the paral- 
 lel narrative of Samuel (2 Sam. xxi. 19) Jaare- 
 Oregim is substituted for Jair. The arguments 
 for each will be found under ELHANAN and 
 JAARE-OREGIM. 
 
 In the N. Test., as in the Apocrypha, we en- 
 counter Jair under the Greek form of JAIRUS. 
 
 [ΑἹ [W.] 
 JATRITE, THE CAN; B. Ἰαρείν, A 
 
 6 "Iaepet; Jairites). IRA the Jairite was a 
 priest (JM5, A. V. “chief ruler”) to David 
 (2 Sam. xx. 26). If “priest” is to be taken 
 here in its sacerdotal sense, Ira must have 
 been a descendant of Aaron, in whose line 
 however no Jair is mentioned. But this is not 
 imperative [see Priest], and he may therefore 
 have sprung from the great Jair of Manasseh, 
 or some lesser person of the name. 
 
 JAIRUS. 1. (Idepos), a ruler of a syna- 
 gogue, probably in some town near the western 
 shore of the Sea of Galilee. He was the father 
 of the maiden whom wer restored to life 
 (Matt. ix. 18; Mark. v. Luke viii. 41). 
 The name is pr obably the Gricised form of the 
 Hebrew Jair. ([Jarr, 3.1 CW. 15,3.) 
 
 JA’KAN (9); Β. ᾽Ωνάν, A. Οὐκάμ ; Jacan), 
 son of Ezer the’ Horite (1 Ch. i. 42). The name 
 
 * This verse would seem not to refer to the original 
 conquest of these villages by Jair, as the A. V. repre- 
 sents, but rather to their recapture. The accurate 
 rendering is as in R. V., ** And Geshur and Aram took 
 the towns of Jair from them, with Kenath and the 
 villages thereof, even’ threescore cities” (see also 
 Bertheau, Chronik, p. 16). 
 
 JAMES 
 
 is identical with that more commonly expressed 
 | in the A. V. as JAAKAN. And see AKAN. 
 
 JA’KEH (772', and in some MSS. NP, whicly 
 is followed by a MS. of the Targum in the Cam- 
 bridge Univ. Libr., and was evidently the 
 reading of the Vulgate, where the whole clause 
 is rendered sy mbolically— “‘ Verba Congregantis 
 filii Vomentis”). The A. V. and ΕΒ. V. of Prov. 
 xxx. 1, following the authority of the Targum 
 and Syriac, have represented this as the proper 
 name of the father of Agur, whose sayings are 
 collected in Proy. xxx., and such is the natural 
 interpretation. But beyond this we have no 
 clue to the existence of either Agur or Jakeh. 
 See under AGUR. 
 
 JA’KIM (0% = [God] establishes; B. Ἶα- 
 ἯΙ A. Ἐλιακείμ ; Jacim). 1. Head of the 
 12th course of priests in the reign of David 
 (1 Ch. xxiv. 12), [JenorartB; JACHIN (2).] 
 
 2. (Ἰακείμ.) A Benjamite, one of the Bene- 
 Shimhi (1 Ch. viii. 19). ΓΑ C. H.] [C. H.] 
 
 JA’LON (2), ἡ ?=a ledger; B. ᾿Αμών, A. 
 "laddy ; Jalon), one of the sons of Ezrah (Heb.)-; 
 a person named in the genealogies of Judah 
 (1 Ch. iv. 17). 
 
 JAM’BRES. [JAnnes and JAMBRES.] 
 
 JAM’BRI. Shortly after the death of 
 Judas Maccabaeus (B.C. 161), “the children of 
 Jambri” are said to have made a predatory 
 attack on a detachment of the Maccabaean 
 forces and to have suffered reprisals (1 Mace. ix. 
 36-41). The name does not occur elsewhere, 
 and the variety of readings is considerable: 
 B. Ἰαμβρί; A. Ἰαμβρεῖΐν ; alii, "AuBpol, ᾿Αμβρί > 
 Syr. Ambrei. Josephus (Ant. xiii. 1, § 2) reads 
 οἱ ᾿Αμαραίου παῖδες, and it seems almost certain 
 that the true reading is ᾿Αμρί (- εἴ), a form 
 which occurs elsewhere (Joseph. Ant. viii. 13, 
 | § 5, ᾿Αμαρῖνος; 1 Ch. xxvii. 18, Heb. "WDD, 
 B. ᾿Αμβρεί, A. ’Apapl; Vulg. Amri; 1 Ch. ix. 4 
 Appel). 
 
 It has been conjectured (Drusius, Michaelis, 
 Grimm, 1 Mace. ix. 36) that the original text 
 was ON 132, “the sons of the Amorites,” and 
 that the reference is to a family of the Amorites. 
 who had in early times occupied the town 
 Medeba (v. 36) on the borders of Reuben (Num. 
 xxi. 30, 31). [B. F. Weil) ΠΟ ἘΠῚ 
 
 JAMES (Ἰάκωβος ; Jacobus),* the name of 
 
 two or more persons mentioned in the N. T. 
 
 a The name itself will perhaps repay a few moments’ 
 consideration. As borne by the Apostles and their con- 
 temporaries in the N. T., it was of course JAcos, and it 
 is somewhat remarkable that in them it reappears for 
 the first time since the patriarch himself. In the un- 
 changeable East St. James is still St. Jacob—Mar 
 Yakoob ; but no sooner had the name left the shores of 
 Palestine than it underwent a series of curious and 
 interesting changes probably unparalleled in any other 
 case. Tothe Greeks it became ᾿Ιάκωβος, with the accent 
 on the first syllable; to the Latins, Jacobus, doubtless 
 similarly accented, since in Italian it is Zdcomo or 
 Gidcomo. In Spain it assumed two forms, apparently 
 of different origins :—ZJago—in modern Spanish Diego, 
 Portuguese Tiago—and Xayme or Jayme, pronounced 
 Hayme, with a strong initial guttural. In France it 
 | became Jacques; but avother form was Jame, which 
 
JAMES 
 
 1. JAmes THE SON OF ZEBEDEE. This is the 
 only one of the Apostles of whose life and death 
 we can write with certainty. The little that 
 we know of him we have on the authority of 
 Scripture. All else that is reported is idle 
 legend, with the possible exception of one tale, 
 handed down by Cleraent of Alexandria to Eu- 
 sebius, and by Eusebius to us. With this single 
 exception the line of demarcation is drawn clear 
 and sharp. There is no fear of confounding the 
 St. James of the New Testament with the hero 
 of Compostella. 
 
 Of St. James’s early life we know nothing. 
 We first hear of him A.D. 27, when he was 
 called to be our Lord’s disciple; and he dis- 
 appears from view A.D. 44, when he suffered 
 martyrdom at the hands of Herod Agrippa I. 
 We proceed to thread together the several 
 pieces of information which ho inspired writers 
 have given us respecting him during these 
 seventeen years, 
 
 J. His history.—In the spring or summer of 
 the year 27, Zebedee, a fisherman, but possessed 
 at least of competence (M«:k i. 20), was out on 
 the Sea of Galilee, with his two sons, James and 
 John, and some boatmen, whom either he had 
 hired for the occasion, or who more probably 
 were his usual attendants. He was engaged in 
 his customary occupation of fishing, and near 
 him was another boat belonging to Simon and 
 Andrew, with whom he and his sons were in 
 partnership (Luke v. 7, 10). Finding themselves 
 wansuccessful, the occupants of both boats came 
 ashore, and began to wash their nets. At this 
 time the new Teacher, who had now been 
 ministering about six months, and with whom 
 Simon and Andrew, and in all probability John, 
 were already well acquainted (John i. 35- 
 41), appeared upon the beach. He requested 
 Jeave of Simon and Andrew to address the 
 crowds that flocked around Him from their 
 boat, which was lying at a convenient distance 
 from the shore. The discourse being com- 
 pleted, and the crowds dispersing, JESUS 
 desired Simon to put out into the deeper water, 
 and to try another cast for fish. Though reluc- 
 tant, Simon did as he was desired, through the 
 awe which he already entertained for One Who, 
 he thought, might possibly be the promised 
 Messiah (John i. 41, 42), and whom even now 
 he addressed as “‘ Rabbi” (ἀπιστάτα, Luke vy. ὃ, 
 
 appears in the metrical life of St. Thomas 4 Becket by 
 Garnier (A.D. 1170-74), quoted in Robertson’s Becket, 
 p. 139, note. From this last the transition to our James 
 iseasy. When it first appeared in English, or through 
 what channel, the writer has not been able to trace. 
 Possibly it came from Scotland, where the name was a 
 favourite one. It exists in Wycliffe’s Bible (1381). In 
 Russia, and in Germany and tbe countries more im- 
 mediately related thereto, the name has retained its 
 original form, and accordingly there alone there would 
 seem to be no distinction between Jacob and James; 
 which was the case even in mediaeval Latin, where 
 Jacob and Jacobus were always discriminated. Its 
 modern dress, however, sits very lightly on the name; 
 and we see in ‘* Jacobite” and “ Jacobin” how ready it 
 is to throw it off, and, like a true Oriental, reveal its 
 original form.—{G.] 
 
 b An écclesiastical tradition, of uncertain date, places 
 the residence of Zebedee and the birth of St. James at 
 Japhia, now Yafa, near Nazareth. Hence that village 
 is commonly known to the members of the Latin Church 
 in that district as San Giacomo. [JAPHIA.] 
 
 JAMES 1509 
 
 the word used by this Evangelist for Ῥαββῶ. 
 Astonished at the success of his draught, he 
 beckoned to his partners in the other boat to 
 come and help him and his brother in landing 
 the fish caught. The amazement communicated 
 itself to the sons of Zebedee, and flashed con- 
 viction on the souls of all the four fishermen. 
 They had doubted and mused hefore; now they 
 believed. At His call they left all, and became, 
 once and for ever, His disciples, hereafter to 
 catch men. 
 
 This is the call of St. James to the discipleship. 
 It will be seen that we have regarded the events 
 narrated by St. Matthew and St. Mark (Matt. 
 iv. 18-22; Mark i. 16-20) as identical with 
 those related by St. Luke (Luke νυ. 1-11), in 
 accordance with the opinion of Hammond, John 
 Lightfoot, Maldonatus, Lardner, Trench, Words- 
 worth, Mansel, &c.; not as distinct from them, 
 as supposed by Alford, Greswell, Carr, &c. 
 
 For a full year we lose sight of St. James. 
 He is then, in the spring of 28, called to the 
 apostleship with his eleven brethren (Matt. x. 
 2; Mark iii. 14; Luke vi. 13; Actsi.13). In 
 the list of the Apostles given us by St. Mark, 
 and in the Book of Acts, his name occurs second, 
 next to that of Simon Peter; in the Gospels of 
 St. Matthew and St. Luke it comes third, after 
 SS. Peter and Andrew. It is clear that in these 
 lists the names are not placed at random. In all 
 four, the names of SS. Peter, Andrew, James, and 
 John are placed first ; and it is plain that these 
 four Apostles were at the head of the twelve 
 throughout. Thus we see that SS. Peter, James, 
 and John alone were admitted to the miracle 
 of the raising of Jairus’s daughter (Mark v. 37 ; 
 Luke viii. 51). The same three Apostles alone 
 were permitted to be present at the Trans- 
 figuration (Matt. xvii. 1; Mark ix. 2; Luke 
 ix. 28). The same three alone were allowed 
 to witness the Agony (Matt. xxvi. 37; Mark 
 xiv.33). And it was SS. Peter, James, John, and 
 Andrew who asked our Lord for an explanation 
 of His dark sayings with regard to the end of 
 the world and His second coming (Mark xiii. 5). 
 It is worthy of notice that in all these places, 
 with one exception (Luke ix. 28), the name of 
 St. James is put before that of St. John, and 
 that St. John is twice described as “ the brother 
 of James” (Mark v. 37; Matt. xvii. 1). This 
 would appear to imply that James, either from 
 age or character, took a higher position than 
 his brother. On the last occasion on which 
 St. James is mentioned (Acts xii. 2) we find 
 this position reversed. That the prominence of 
 these three Apostles was founded on personal 
 character (as out of every twelve persons there 
 must be two or three to take the lead), and that 
 it was not an office held by them “quos Dominus, 
 ordinis servandi causa, caeteris praeposuit,” as 
 King James I. has said (Praefat. Monitoria 
 [Ρ. 53] to Apol. pro Jur, Fid. ed. 1609), can 
 scarcely be doubted (cp. Eusebius, ii. 14). 
 
 It would seem to have been at the time of the 
 appointment of the Twelve Apostles that the 
 name of Boanerges [BOANERGES] was given to 
 the sons of Zebedee, as to the reasons for which 
 several Greek patristic opinions will be found 
 cited in Suicer’s Thesaurus, s. v. βροντή. It 
 might, however, like Simon’s name of Peter, 
 have been conferred before, and formally con- 
 | firmed on their appointment as Apostles, This 
 
1510 
 
 name plainly was not bestowed upon them 
 because “divina illorum praedicatio magnum 
 quendam et illustrem sonitum per terrarum 
 orbem datura erat” (Victor of Antioch on 
 Mark iii. 17 in La Bigne, Diblioth. Patr., Paris 
 1609, t. viii. 8250¢.), nor ὡς μεγαλοκήρυκας καὶ 
 θεολογικωτάτους (Lheophylact on Mark iii. 17, 
 in Pat. Gr. exxiii. 523 D), but it was, like the 
 name given to Simon, at once descriptive andl 
 prophetic. The “ Rock-man” had a natural 
 strength, which was described by his title, 
 and he was to have a Divine strength, predicted 
 by the same title. In the same way the “Sons 
 of Thunder” had a burning and impetuous 
 spirit, which twice exhibits itself in its un- 
 chastened form (Luke ix. 54; Mark x. 37; 
 Jerom. ὁ. Pelag. ii. 15, Pat. Lat. xxiii. 5518), 
 and which, when moulded by the Spirit of 
 God, taking different shapes, led St. James to 
 be the first apostolic martyr, and St. John to 
 become in an especial manner the Apostle of 
 Love. 
 
 The first occasion on which this natural cha- 
 racter manifested itself in St. James and his 
 brother was at the commencement of our Lord’s 
 last journey to Jerusalem in the year 30. He 
 was passing through Samaria; and now courting 
 rather than avoiding publicity, He “sent mes- 
 sengers before His face” into a certain village, 
 ““to make ready for Him ” (Luke ix. 52). The 
 Samaritans, with their old jealousy strong upon 
 them, refused to receive Him, because He was 
 going to Jerusalein instead of to Gerizim; and 
 in exasperation James and John asked their 
 Master that they might, after the example of 
 Elijah, call down fire to consume them. “ But 
 He turned and rebuked them ” ° (Luke ix. 55), 
 
 At the end of the same journey a similar 
 spirit appears again. As they went up to 
 Jerusalem our Lord declared to His Apostles the 
 circumstances of His coming Passion, and at the 
 same time strengthened them by the promise 
 that they. should sit on twelve thrones judging 
 the twelve tribes of Israel. These words seem 
 to have made a great impression upon Salome, 
 and she may have thought her two sons quite 
 as fit as the sons of Jonas to be the chief 
 ministers of their Lord in the mysterious king- 
 dom which He was about to assume. She 
 approached therefore, and besought, perhaps 
 with a special reference in her mind to St. Peter 
 and St. Andrew, that her two sons might sit on 
 the right hand and on the left in His kingdom, 
 1.6. according to a Jewish form of expression ¢ 
 
 JAMES 
 
 ¢ The words ‘even as Elias did,” in v. 54, are 
 omitted by the Sinaitic and the Vatican MSS., and are 
 rejected by Tischendorf and Tregelles and the R. V. 
 Whether they are to stand or no, the reference by the 
 Apostles to the example of Elijah is undoubted. The 
 words of the rebuke as given in the A. V., ‘‘ Ye know 
 not what manner of spirit ye are of” (v. 55), are not 
 found in the Sinaitic, the Vatican, the Alexandrine 
 codices, or in the Codex Ephraemi, but they are in the 
 Codex Bezae. The remaining words, “For the Yon of 
 Man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save 
 them” (v. 56), have not the authority of the Sinaitic, 
 the Vatican, the Alexandrine, the Ephraemi, or the 
 Bezae. Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, and the R. V. 
 omit the whole of the rebuke; Griesbach and Meyer the 
 last clause of it. 
 
 4 The same form is common throughout the East. 
 See Lane’s Arab. Nights, iii. 212, ἕο, | 
 
 JAMES 
 
 (Joseph. Ant. vi. 11, § 9), that they might be 
 next to the King in honour (Matt. xx. 20), The. 
 two brothers joined with her in the prayer 
 (Mark x. 35), The Lord passed by their petition 
 with a mild reproof, showing that the request. 
 had not arisen from an evil heart, but from a 
 spirit which aimed too high. He told them 
 that they should drink His cup and be baptized 
 with His baptism of suffering, but turned their 
 minds away at once from the thought of future 
 pre-eminence: in His kingdom none of His 
 Apostles were to be lords over the rest. The 
 indignation felt by the ten would show that they 
 regarded the petition of the two brothers as an 
 attempt at infringing on their privileges as 
 much as on those of $8. Peter and Andrew. 
 
 From the time of the Agony in the Garden, 
 A.D. 30, to the time of his martyrdom, A.D. 44, 
 we know nothing of St. James, except that after 
 the Ascension he persevered in prayer with the 
 other Apostles, and the women, and the Lord’s 
 brethren (Acts i. 13). In the year 44 Herod 
 Agrippa I., son of Aristobulus, was ruler of all 
 the dominions which after the death of his 
 grandfather, Herod the Great, had been divided 
 between Archelaus, Antipas, Philip, and Ly- 
 sanias. He had received from Caligula, Tra- 
 chonitis in the year 37, Galilee and Peraea in 
 the year 40. On the accession of Claudius, in 
 the year 41, he received from him Idumaea, 
 Samaria, and Judaea. This sovereign was at 
 once a supple statesman and a stern Jew (Joseph. 
 Ant. xviii. 6, § 7, xix. 5-8): a king with not a 
 few grand and kingly qualities, at the same time 
 eaten up with Jewish pride—the type of a lay 
 Pharisee. ‘He was very ambitious to oblige 
 the people with donations,” and “he was exactly 
 careful in the observance of the laws of his 
 country, keeping himself entirely pure, and not 
 allowing one day to pass over his head without 
 its appointed sacrifice” (Ant. xix. 7, § 3). 
 Policy and inclination would alike lead such a 
 monarch “to vex certain of the Church” (Acts 
 xii. 1); and accordingly, when the Passover of 
 the year 44 had brought multitudes to Jeru- 
 salem, he “ killed James the brother of John with 
 the sword” (Acts xii. 2). This is all that we 
 know for certain of his death. We may notice 
 respecting it, that he perished not by stoning, 
 but by the sword. The Jewish law laid down 
 tnat if seducers to strange worship were few, 
 they should be stoned; if many, that they should 
 be beheaded. Either therefore Herod intended 
 that James’s death should be the beginning of a 
 sanguinary persecution, or he merely followed 
 the Roman custom of putting to death from 
 preference (see Dr. John Lightfoot in loco). 
 
 The death of so prominent a champion left a 
 huge gap in the ranks of the infant society, 
 
 e The great Armenian convent at Jerusalem on the 
 so-called Mount Zion is dedicated to ‘* St. James the son 
 of Zebedee.” The church of the convent, or rather a 
 small chapel on its north-east side, occupies the tradi- 
 tional site of his martyrdom. This, however, can 
 hardly be the actual site (Williams, Holy City, ii. 558). 
 Its most interesting possession is the chair of the 
 Apostle, a venerable relic, the age of which is perhaps 
 traceable as far back as the fourth century (Williams, 
 p- 560) But as it would seem that it is believed to 
 have belonged to *‘ the first Bishop of Jerusalem,” it is 
 doubtful to which of the two Jameses the tradition 
 would attach it. 
 
JAMES 
 
 which was filled partly by St. James, the 
 brother of our Lord, who steps forth into 
 greater prominence in Jerusalem, and partly by 
 St. Paul, who had now been seven years a con- 
 vert, and who shortly afterwards set out on his 
 first apostolic journey. 
 
 II. Chronological recapitulation. — Τὰ the 
 spring or summer of the year 27 St. James was 
 called to be a disciple of Christ. In the spring 
 of 28 he was appointed one of the Twelve 
 Apostles, and at that time probably received, 
 with his brother, the title of Boanerges. In 
 the autumn of the same year he was admitted 
 to the miraculous raising of Jairus’s daughter. 
 In the spring of ‘the year 29 he witnessed the 
 Transfiguration. Very early in the year 30 he 
 asked his Lord to let him call down fire from 
 heaven to consume the Samaritan village. 
 About three months later in the same year, 
 just before the final arrival in Jerusalem, he 
 and his brother made their ambitious request 
 through their mother Salome. On the night 
 before the Crucifixion he was present at the 
 Agony in the Garden. On the day of the 
 Ascension he is mentioned as persevering with 
 the rest of the Apostles and disciples in 
 prayer at Jerusalem. Shortly before the day 
 of the Passover, in the year 44, he was put to 
 death. Thus during fourteen out of the seven- 
 teen years that elapsed between his call and his 
 death we do not even catch a glimpse of him. 
 
 Ill. Traditions respecting him.—Clement. of 
 Alexandria, in the seventh book of the Hypo- 
 typoseis, relates, concerning St. James’s martyr- 
 dom, that the prosecutor was so moved by wit- 
 nessing his hold confession that he declared 
 himself a Christian on the spot: accused and 
 accuser were therefore hurried off together, and 
 on the road the latter begged St. James to grant 
 him forgiveness; after a moment’s hesitation, 
 the Apostle kissed him, saying, “ Peace be to 
 thee!” and they were beheaded together. This 
 tradition is preserved by Eusebius (1. JZ. ii. 9). 
 There is no internal evidence against it, and the 
 external evidence is sufficient to make it credible, 
 for Clement flourished as early as A.D. 195, and 
 he states expressly that the account was given 
 him by those who went before him. 
 
 Epiphanius, without giving or probably 
 having any authority for or against his state- 
 ment, reports that St. James died unmarried 
 (S. Epiph. adv. Παρ». ii. 4, p. 491, Paris, 1622), 
 and that, like his namesake, he lived the life of a 
 Nazarite (ibid. iii. 2, 13, p. 1045). 
 
 The legends which connect St. James with 
 Spain are of two classes, independent of each 
 other and springing from different sources. The 
 first represent him as preaching in the Peninsula 
 during his lifetime ; the second tell of the con- 
 veyance of his body after his death to Ivia 
 Flavia, and its subsequent discovery, loss, and 
 rediscovery. The first mention of his preaching 
 in Spain is found in a treatise attributed to 
 Isidore, Bishop of Seville, A.D. 600-636. This 
 legend found its way into the Roman Breviary 
 in the following form:—‘ Afterwards he tra- 
 velled through Spain, and, after preaching the 
 Gospel there, returned to Jerusalem.” Baronius, 
 knowing that St. James did not make and could 
 not have made any such visit to Spain, induced 
 Clement VIII., in 1602, to change the reading of 
 the Breviary into: “That he afterwards went 
 
 JAMES 1511 
 
 to Spain, and there made some converts to the 
 faith, is a tradition of the Church of that pro- 
 vince,” which in 1608 took the form of: “That 
 he afterwards went to Spain, and made some 
 converts to the faith, is said to be believed 
 among the Spaniards.” But on the protest 
 of the Spanish Church this was altered in 1625 
 to: “Afterwards he went to Spain, and there 
 made some converts to Christ, of whom seven 
 were subsequently ordained Bishops by the 
 Blessed Peter, and were the first to be sent to 
 Spain; then he returned to Jerusalem.” This 
 reading, which makes a compromise between 
 Spanish dignity and Roman claims, holds its 
 place in the Breviary at present, together with 
 a statement that “his body was afterwards 
 translated to Compostella, where it is worshipped 
 by vast crowds.” The second class of legends, 
 relating to the miraculous translation of his 
 body to Spain, originated with Theodomir, 
 bishop of Iria, in the year 772, and they were 
 confirmed by Pope Leo III. about A.p. 800 in an 
 epistle, in which he says that, after the martyr- 
 dom of the Apostle, his disciples took his body 
 to Joppa, where they found a ship waiting for 
 them, in which they placed the body, and sailed 
 to Iria; there they disembarked and proceeded 
 to Liberum Donum (Libredun, afterwards Com- 
 postella), destroyed an idol’s temple and buried 
 St. James’s body in a crypt, his two companions, 
 Theodore and Athanasius, being afterwards 
 buried with him. These three bodies Theodomir 
 found in 772, guided by “a brilliant star which 
 seemed nailed to the sky above the crypt, point- 
 ing with its flashing ray to the spot where the 
 sacred remains were buried ” (Apostolic Letters 
 of Leo XIII, 1880). Over them Alfonso the 
 Chaste built a church, which was transformed 
 into a cathedral by Diego Galmirez in 1112. 
 The cathedral was ravaged and destroyed by the 
 Moors and by the heretical English, but in 1879 
 Archbishop Paya y Rico discovered a stone chest 
 full of bones, so broken that there was not a 
 single entire bone (Recuerdos), Out of these 
 pieces were formed three skeletons, and on Nov. 
 1, 1880, Pope Leo XIII. formally and solemnly 
 declared, as a matter of certain knowledge and 
 a thing that no one might controvert, that these 
 were the skeletons of St. James, Theodore, and 
 Athanasius. See the Roman Breviary (in Fest. 
 S. Jac. Ap.); the fourth book of the Apostolical 
 History written by Abdias, the (pseudo) first 
 bishop of Babylon (Abdiae, Babyloniae primi 
 Episcopit ab Apostolis constituti, de historia cer- 
 taminis Apostolici, Libri decem, Paris, 1566); 
 Isidore, De vita et obitu SS. utriusque Test. 
 No. LXXIII. (Hagonoae, 1529); Pope Callixtus 
 II.’s Four Sermons on St. James the Apostle 
 (Bibl. Patr. Magn. xv. p. 324); Mariana, De 
 adventu Jacobi Apostoli Majoris in Hispaniam 
 (Col. Agripp. 1609); Baronius, Martyrologium 
 Romanum ad Jul. 25, p, 325 (Antwerp, 1589); 
 Bollandus, Acta Sanctorum, 25 Jul. vi. § iv. p. 12, 
 ed. 1868; Estius, Comm. in Act. Ap. c. xii. ; 
 Annot. in difficiliora loca 5. Script. (Col. Agripp. 
 1622); Tillemont, Wémoires pour servir ἃ I His- 
 toire Ecclésiastique des six premiers siécles, tom. i. 
 p- 899 (Brussels, 1706); Gams, Die Kirchen- 
 geschichte von Spanien (Regensburg, 1862); 
 Menendez y Pelayo, Historia de los Heterodosos 
 Espaiioles, vol. i. p. 47 (Madrid, 1880); Fita, 
 Recuerdos de un viaje a Santiago de Galicia 
 
1512 JAMES 
 
 (Madrid, 1880); Fereiro, Monwmentos Antiguos 
 de la Iglesia Compostellana (Madrid, 1883). The 
 
 Apostolic Letters of Pope Leo XLII. will he | 
 
 found in the Boletin of the Royal Academy of 
 History of Madrid, tom. vi. Feb. 1885; and in 
 
 English in the Foreign Church Chronicle (London, | 
 1885). As there is no shadow of foundation | 
 
 for any of the legends here referred to, we 
 pass them by without further notice. Baronius 
 shows himself ashamed of them; Estius gives 
 
 reject them with as much contempt as _ their 
 position will allow them to show; and Déllin- 
 ger, in a lecture at Munich in 1884, says, “ That 
 the Apostle James the Great came to Spain to 
 preach the faith contradicts equally the Bible 
 and history. ... That his body was landed from 
 Palestine on the coast of Galicia, and is there 
 preserved, after having circumnavigated Spain, 
 is a somewhat later invented fable.” On the 
 other hand, Popes Leo III. and XIII. have pro- 
 nounced ex cathedra in their favour. 
 
 2. JAMES OF ALPHAEUS. Matt. x. 3; Mark 
 iii. 18; Luke vi. 15; Acts i. 13. 
 
 38. JAMES THE BROTHER OF THE LorpD (Gal. 
 i. 19); and also of Joses,* Simon, Jude, and 
 some sisters (Matt. xili. 55; Mark vi. 3). 
 
 4, James or Mary (Luke xxiv. 10); son of 
 Mary and brother of Joses (Matt. xxvii. 56; 
 Mark xv. 40). Also called tue Lirrte (Mark 
 xy. 40). 
 
 5. JAmeEs, of whom Jude is brother. Jude 1. 
 
 6. James, of whom Jude is brother or son, 
 Luke vi. 16; Acts i. 18. 
 
 7. JAMES (1 Cor. xv. 7), shown by the context 
 to be a Church officer at Jerusalem. Acts xii. 
 is -xy. 13, xxi. 18; Gal: 11. 9, 12: 
 
 8. JAMES THE SERVANT OF GOD AND OF THE 
 Lorp Jesus Curist. James i. 1. 
 
 Are these distinct personages, or are they the 
 same person differently designated ? 
 
 We reserve the question of the authorship of 
 the Epistle for the present. 
 
 St. Paul identifies for us the Church officer at 
 Jerusalem with the brother of the Lord; that is, 
 No. 7 with No. 3 (see Gal. ii. 9 and 12 compared 
 with i. 19). 
 
 If we may translate ᾿Ιούδας ᾿Ιακώβου, Judas 
 the brother, rather than the son of James, we may 
 conclude that 5 and 6 are identical. And that 
 we may so translate it, is proved, if proof were 
 needed, by Winer (Grammar of the Idioms of 
 τ NV. T., translated by Agnew and Ebbeke, 
 
 New York, 1850, § lxvi.), by Hanlein (Handb. 
 der Einl. in die Schriften des Neuen Test., 
 
 * The reading Joseph may be disregarded. In Matt. 
 xiii. 55, the Vatican Codex and the Codex Ephraemi 
 read Ἰωσήφ ; the Codex Bezae with seven other uncial 
 MSS. read Ἰωάννης. In the Codex Sinaiticus Ἰωάννης 
 was apparently first written, and this was changed into 
 Ἰωσὴφ by the first corrector. In Matt. xxvii. 56, 
 Ἰωσὴφ is found in Codex Bezae and the Codex Regius 
 Parisiensis, and the Sinaitic MS. has Mapia ἡ Ἰωσὴφ 
 for Ἰωσῆ μήτηρ. In Mark vi. 3, which is the parallel 
 passage with Matt. xiii. 55, the Sinaitic and two cursive 
 MSS. read ᾿Ιωσήφ. In Mark xv. 40, which is the parallel 
 passage with Matt. xxvii. 56, all the MSS. read Ἰωσῆτος 
 or Ἰωσῆ. It is evident that a scribe would be more 
 likely to write the commoner name Ἰωσὴφ in error than 
 the rarer Ἰωσής. There is almost as much authority 
 for ᾿Ιωάννης as for ᾿Ιωσήφ. 
 
 JAMES 
 
 Erlangen, 1809), and by Arnaud (Recherches Cri- 
 
 tiques sur 1 Epitre de Jude, Strasbourg, 1851). 
 
 We may identify the James of whom Jude 
 was brother with the Lord’s brother; that is, 
 Nos. 5 and 6 with No. 3, because we know. that 
 James the Lord’s brother had a brother named 
 Jude. 
 
 We may identify James the son of Mary with 
 the Lord’s brother; that is, No. 4 with No. 3, 
 
 | because James the son of Mary had a brother 
 them up as hopeless; Tillemont and Gams | 
 
 named Joses, and so also had James the Lord’s 
 brother. 
 
 Thus there remain two only, James the son of 
 Alphaeus (No. 2), and James the brother of the 
 Lord (No, 3). Can we, or can we not, identify 
 them? This requires a longer consideration. 
 
 I. The Evangelists tell us—(1) that James 
 called the Little and Joses were the sons of 
 Mary (Matt. xxvii. 56; Mark xy. 40), which 
 Mary was the wife of Clopas (John xix. 25); 
 and St. John seems to tell us (but here his words 
 are not free from ambiguity)® that she was the 
 sister of the Blessed Virgin. The Evangelists 
 tell us—(2) that there were two brothers, 
 James and Joses, who with two other brothers, 
 Jude and Simon,. and some sisters, lived at 
 Nazareth with the Virgin Mary (Matt. xiii. 55; 
 Mark vi. 3). They tell us (3) that there were 
 two brothers, James and Jude, who were 
 Apostles. It would certainly be natural to think 
 that we have here but one family of four 
 brothers and three or more sisters, the children 
 of Clopas and Mary, nephews and nieces of the 
 Virgin Mary. There are difficulties, however, 
 in the way of this conclusion. For (1) the four 
 brethren in Matt. xiii. 55 are described as the 
 brothers (ἀδελφοὶ) of JESUS, not as His cousins; 
 (2) they are found living as at their home with 
 the Virgin Mary, which seems unnatural if she 
 were their aunt, their mother being, as we know, 
 still alive; (3) James the Apostle is described 
 as the son not of Clopas, but of Alphaeus; (4) 
 
 & In John xix. 25, we read, ‘“* Now there stood by the 
 cross of Jesus His mother, and His mother’s sister, Mary 
 the wife of Ciopas, and Mary Magdalene.” Probably 
 it would not have been doubted that three women are 
 here designated—1, the mother of our Lord ; 2, her sister, 
 Mary wife of Clopas; 3, Mary Magdalene—had it not 
 been for the difficulty of two sisters being thus repre- 
 sented as bearing the same name of Mary. To obviate 
 this difficulty, it has been suggested that four persons 
 are intended—1, the mother of our Lord; 2, her sister ; 
 3, Mary wife of Clopas; 4, Mary Magdalene; and the 
 sister of St. Mary the Virgin is identified by some with 
 Salome (see Kitto, Lange, Wiescler, Davidson, Meyer, 
 Westcott, Plummer). But first it is not certain that 
 the names of St. Mary the Virgin and of Mary the wife 
 of Clopas were the same, the former being not universally 
 indeed but most generally represented by the word 
 Mariam, the latter by Maria, where the difference in sound 
 would be as great as that between our Marianne and Mary, 
 and greater than that between Marion and Mary (which 
 might well be the name of two sisters); secondly, 
 the improbability of two sisters, called perhaps after 
 Miriam, bearing the same name, is far less than has been 
 supposed [see Many or CLeopHas}; and thirdly, Mary of 
 Clopas and St. Mary may have been sisters, as being the 
 wives of two brothers, Clopas and Joseph having been 
 brothers according to the statement of Hegesippus, whose 
 testimony Bishop Lightfoot “sees no reason for doubt- 
 ing,” as he was a younger contemporary, “and is likely 
 to have been well informed” (Dissertation appended to 
 Epist. ad Galat.). 
 
JAMES 
 
 the “brethren of the Lord” (who are plainly 
 James, Joses, Jude, and Simon) appear to be 
 excluded from the Apostolic band by their 
 declared unbelief in his Messiahship (John vii. 
 5-5) and by being formally distinguished from 
 the disciples by the Gospel-writers (Matt. xii. 
 48; Mark iii. 33; John ii. 12; Acts i. 14); (5) 
 James and Jude are not designated as the Lord’s 
 brethren in the lists of the Apostles; (6) Mary 
 is designated as mother of James and Joses, 
 whereas she would have been called mother of 
 James and Jude, had James and Jude been 
 Apostles, and Joses not an Apostle (Matt. xxvii. 
 46). 
 
 These are the six chief objections which may 
 be made to the hypothesis of there being but 
 one family of brethren named James, Joses, 
 Jude, and Simon. ‘The following answers may 
 be given :— 
 
 Objection 1.— They are called brethren.” It 
 is a sound rule of criticism that words are to be 
 understood in their most simple and literal 
 acceptation; but there is a limit to this rule. 
 When greater difficulties are caused by adhering 
 to the literal meaning of a word than by inter- 
 preting it more liberally, it is the part of the 
 critic to interpret more liberally rather than to 
 cling to the ordinary and literal meaning of a 
 word. Now it is clearly not necessary to under- 
 stand ἀδελφοὶ as “brothers” in the nearest 
 sense of brotherhood. It need not mean more 
 than relative (cp. LXX. Gen. xiii. 8, xiv. 14, 
 xx. 12, xxix. 12, xxxi. 23; Lev. xxv. 48; Deut. 
 ΕΠ 6. 700 xix. 13, xlit. 11; Xen. Cyrop. i. 5, 
 ὃ 47; Isocr. Paneg. 20; Plat. Phaed. 57, Crit. 
 16; see also Cic. ad Att. 15; Tac. Ann. iii. 38; 
 Quint. Curt. vi. 10, § 34; comp. Suicer and 
 Schleusner in voc.). But perhaps the circum- 
 stances of the case would lead us to translate it 
 brethren? On the contrary, such a translation 
 appears to produce very grave difficulties. For, 
 first, it introduces two sets of first-cousins, two 
 of them bearing the name of James, two of 
 them that of Joses, without anything to show 
 which are the sons of Clopas and Mary, and 
 which are their cousins ; and secondly, it drives 
 us to take our choice between three doubtful 
 and improbable hypotheses as to the parentage 
 of this second James and Joses. There are 
 three such hypotheses :—(a.) The Eastern hy- 
 pothesis, that they were the children of Joseph 
 by a former wife. This notion originated, 
 according to Origen (on Matt. xiii. 55, Comment. 
 in Matt. t. x. §17, Op. t. iii. p. 463, in Pat. Gr. 
 xiii. 876 0), who adopts it, in the apocryphal 
 Gospel of Peter. Through Origen, and through 
 Epiphanius, who agreed with him (Adv. Haer. 
 lib. i. t. iii. p. 115, Haer. xxviii. §7, Pat. Gr. 
 xli. 385), the notion was handed on to the 
 later Greek Church. (%.) The Helvidian hy- 
 pothesis, put forward at first by Bonosus, 
 Helvidius, and Jovinian, and revived by Strauss 
 and Herder in Germany, and by Davidson and 
 Alford in England, that James, Joses, Jude, 
 Simon, and the three sisters, were children of 
 Joseph and Mary. This notion is opposed, 
 whether rightly or wrongly, to the general 
 sentiment of the Christian body in all ages of 
 the Church; like the other iwo hypotheses, it 
 creates two sets of cousins with the same name : 
 it seems to be scarcely compatible with our 
 Lord’s recommending His mother to the care of 
 
 1515 
 
 St. John at His own death (see Jerome, Op. 
 tom. ii. p. 10); for if, as has been suggested, 
 though with great improbability, her sons 
 might at that time have been unbelievers (Blom, 
 Disp. Theol. p. 67, Lugd. Bat.; Neander, Plant- 
 ing, &c., iv. 1; Davidson, Introd. to N. 7. iii. 
 306, Lond. 1851), Jesus would have known that 
 that unbelief was only to continue for a few 
 days. The argument derived from the expres- 
 sion * first-born son,” πρωτότοκος υἷος, in Luke 
 ii. 7, is not now often urged, nor does the ἕως οὗ 
 ἔτεκε of Matt. i, 25 necessarily imply the birth 
 of after children (see Pearson, On the Creed, i. 
 304, ii. 220). (0.) The Levirate hypothesis may 
 be passed by. It was a mere attempt made in 
 the eleventh century to reconcile the Greek and 
 Latin traditions by supposing that Joseph and 
 Clopas being brothers, Joseph raised up seed to 
 his dead brother (Theoph. in Matt. xiii. 56; 
 Op. tom, i. p. 71, Pat. Gr. exxiii. 293 A). 
 
 Objection 2.—“ The four brothers and their 
 sisters are always found living and moving 
 about with the Virgin Mary.” If they were 
 the children of Clopas, the Virgin Mary was 
 their aunt by blood or marriage. Her own 
 husband would appear to have died at some time 
 between A.D. 8 and A.D. 26. Nor have we any 
 reason for believing Clopas to have been alive 
 during our Lord’s ministry. (We need not 
 pause here to prove that the Cleophas of Luke 
 xxiv. is an entirely different person and name 
 from Clopas.) What difficulty is there in sup- 
 posing that the two widowed sisters should 
 have lived together, the more so as one of them 
 had but one son, and he was often taken from 
 her by his ministerial duties? And would it 
 not be most natural that two families of first 
 cousins thus living together should be popu- 
 larly looked upon as one family, and spoken of 
 as brothers and sisters instead of cousins? The 
 same thing occurs commonly in our country 
 villages. 
 
 Objection 3.—* James the Apostle is said to 
 be the son of Alphaeus, not of Clopas.” But 
 Alphaeus and Clopas are the same name rendered 
 into the Greek language in two different but 
 ordinary and recognised ways, from the Ara- 
 
 LA 
 
 maic yspbn OF wa aN. (See Mill, Accounts 
 of Our Lord’s Brethren vindicated, &e., p. 236, 
 who compares the two forms Clovis and Aloy- 
 sius. 
 
 Objection 4.—Dean Alford considers John vii. 
 5, compared with vi. 67-70, to decide that none 
 of the brothers of the Lord were of the number 
 of the Twelve (Proleg. to Ep. of James, G. T. iv. 
 88, and comm. in loc.). Dr. Plummer takes the 
 same view (Camb. Gk. Test. 1882). If this 
 verse, as Alford states, makes “the crowning 
 difficulty ” to the hypothesis of the identity of 
 James the son of Alphaeus, the Apostle, with 
 James the brother of the Lord, the difficulties 
 are not too formidable to be overcome. Many 
 of the disciples having left Jesus, St. Peter 
 bursts out in the name of the Twelve with a 
 warm expression of faith and love (vi. 67-70); 
 and after that—very likely (see Greswell’s 
 Harmony) fully six months afterwards — the 
 Evangelist states that “ neither did His brethren 
 believe on Him” (vii. 5). Does it follow from 
 hence that all His brethren disbelieved? Let 
 us compare other passages in Scripture. St. 
 
 JAMES 
 
1514 JAMES 
 
 Matthew and St. Mark state that the thieves 
 railed on our Lord upon the cross, Are we 
 therefore to disbelieve St. Luke, who says that 
 one of the thieves was penitent, and did not rail? 
 (Luke xxiii. 39, 40.) St. Luke and St. John say 
 that the soldiers offered vinegar. Are we to 
 believe that all did so? or, as St. Matthew and 
 St. Mark tell us, that only one did it? (Luke 
 xxiii. 36; John xix. 29; Mark xv. 36; Matt. 
 xxvii. 48.) St. Matthew tells us that ‘“ His dis- 
 ciples” had indignation when Mary poured the 
 ointment on the Lord’s head. Are we to suppose 
 this true of all? or of Judas Iscariot, and per- 
 haps some others, acoording to John xii. 4 and 
 Mark xiv. 4? It is not at all necessary to sup- 
 pose that St. John is here speaking of all the 
 brethren. If Joses, Simon, and the three sisters 
 disbelieved, it would be quite sufficient ground 
 for the statement of the Evangelist. The same 
 may be said of Matt. xii. 47, Mark iii. 32, where 
 it is reported to Him that His mother and His 
 brethren, designated by St. Mark (iii. 21) as of 
 map’ αὐτοῦ, were standing without. Nor does it 
 necessarily follow that the disbelief of the 
 brethren was of sucha nature that St. James and 
 St. Jude, Apostles though they were, and vouched 
 for half a year before by the warm-tempered 
 St. Peter, could have had no share init. ‘The 
 phrase need not mean more,” says Dr. Westcott, 
 “than that they did not sacrifice to absolute 
 trust in Him all the fancies and prejudices 
 which they cherished as to Messiah’s office” 
 (Speaker’s Commentary, 1880). With regard to 
 John ii. 12, Acts i. 14, we may say that “ His 
 brethren ” are no more excluded from the dis- 
 ciples in the first passage, and from the Apostles 
 in the second, by being mentioned parallel with 
 them, than St. Peter is excluded from the Apo- 
 stolic band by the expression “the other 
 Apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and 
 Cephas ” (1 Cor. ix. 5). 
 
 Objection 5.—“ If the title of brethren of the 
 Lord had belonged to SS. James and Jude, they 
 would have been designated by it in the list of 
 the Apostles.” The omission of a title is so 
 slight a ground for an argument that we may 
 pass this by. 
 
 Objection 6.—That Mary the wife of Clopas 
 should be designated by the title of Mary “the 
 mother of James and Joses,” to the exclusion of 
 St. Jude, if SS. James and Jude were Apostles, 
 appears to Dr. Davidson (Introd. to N. T,, iii. 
 495) and to Dean Alford (Prol. to Ep. of James, 
 G. T., iv. 90) extremely improbable. There is 
 no improbability in it, if Joses was, as would 
 seem likely, an elder brother of St. Jude, and 
 next in order to St. James.” 
 
 II. We have hitherto argued that the hypo- 
 thesis which most naturally accounts for the 
 facts of Holy Scripture is that of the identity of 
 St. James the Little, the Apostle, with St. James 
 the Lord’s brother. We have also argued that 
 the six main objections to this view are not 
 valid, inasmuch as they may either be altogether 
 met, or at best throw us back on other hypo- 
 theses which create greater difficulties than that 
 under consideration. We proceed to point out 
 
 h (The opposite view that St. James was the real 
 brother of our Lord is maintained by Dr. Farrar in 
 the art. BRoTHER, p. 461, and with great learning by 
 Mr. Mayor in the Introduction to his ed. of the Ep. of 
 St. James, Lond. 1892.—Tue Epirors.] 
 
 JAMES 
 
 some further confirmations of our original hypo- 
 thesis. 
 
 1. It would be unnatural that St. Luke, in a 
 list of twelve persons, in which the name οἱ 
 James twice occurred, with its distinguishing 
 patronymic, should describe one of the last per- 
 sons on his list as brother to “ James,” without 
 any further designation to distinguish him, 
 unless he meant the James whom he had just 
 before named. The James whom he had just 
 before named is the son of Alphaeus ; the person 
 designated by his relationship to him is Jude. 
 We have reason therefore for regarding Jude as 
 the brother of the son of Alphaeus; on other 
 grounds (Matt. xiii. 55; Mark vi. 3) we have 
 reason for regarding him as the brother of the 
 Lord: therefore we have reason for regarding 
 the son of Alphaeus as the brother of the Lord, 
 
 2. It would be unnatural that St. Luke, after 
 having recognised only two Jameses throughout 
 his Gospel and down to the twelfth chapter’ of 
 the Acts of the Apostles, and having in that 
 chapter narrated the death of one of them 
 (James the son of Zebedee), should go on in 
 the same and following chapters to speak of 
 ‘“‘ James,” meaning thereby not the other James, 
 with whom alone his readers are acquainted, but 
 a different James not yet mentioned by him. 
 
 3. St. James is represented throughout the 
 Acts as exercising great authority among, or even 
 over, Apostles (Acts xii. 17, xv. 13, xxi. 18); 
 and in St. Paul's Epistles he is placed before 
 even Cephas and John, and declared to be a 
 pillar of the Church with them (Gal. ii, 9-12). 
 It is more likely that an Apostle would hold 
 such a position, than one who had not been a 
 believer till after the Resurrection. 
 
 4, St. Paul says (Gal. i. 19), “Other of the 
 Apostles saw I none, saye James the Lord’s 
 brother” (Ἕτερον δὲ τῶν ἀποστόλων ovK εἶδον 
 εἰ μὴ Ἰάκωβον τὸν ἀδελφὺν τοῦ Κυρίου). This 
 passage seems to assert distinctly that James 
 the Lord’s brother was an Apostle—and if so, he 
 was identical with the son of Alphaeus—but it 
 cannot be taken as an incontrovertible statement 
 to that effect, for it is possible that amooréAwy 
 may be used in the looser sense (Meyer), though 
 this is not agreeable with the line of defence 
 which St. Paul is here maintaining, viz. that he 
 had received his commission from God, and not 
 from the Twelve (see Thorndike, i. p. 5, Oxf. 
 1844), And again, εἰ μὴ may qualify the whole 
 sentence, and not only the word ἀποστόλων 
 (Mayerdorff, Hist. krit. Linlcit. in die Petrin, 
 Schr. p. 52, Hamb. 1833; Neander, Michaelis, 
 Winer, Alford, Davidson). Still this is not 
 often, if ever, the case, when ef μὴ follows 
 ἕτερον (Schneckenburger, Adnot. ad Epist. Jac. 
 perpet. p. 144, Stuttg. 1832: see also Winer, 
 Grammatik, 5th ed., p. 647, and Meyer, comm. 
 ad loc.); and if St. Paul had not intended to 
 include St. James among the Apostles, we should 
 rather have expected the singular ἀπόστολον 
 than the plural τῶν ἀποστόλων (Arnaud, Re- 
 cherches, &c.). The more natural interpretation 
 of the verse would be that which includes 
 James among the Twelve, identifying him with 
 the son of Alphaeus; but, as we have said, such 
 a conclusion does not necessarily follow. Com- 
 pare, however, this verse with Acts ix. 27, and 
 the probability is increased by several degrees. 
 St. Luke there asserts that St. Barnabas brought 
 
JAMES 
 
 Paul to the Apostles, πρὸς τοὺς ἀποστόλους. St. 
 Paul, as we have seen, asserts that during that 
 visit to Jerusalem he saw St. Peter, and none 
 other of the Apostles, save St. James the Lord’s 
 brother. SS. Peter and James, then, were the 
 two Apostles to whom St. Barnabas brought St. 
 Paul. Of course, it may be said here also that 
 ἀπόστολοι is used in its lax sense; but it appears 
 to be a more natural conclusion that James the 
 Lord’s brother was one of the νον Apostles, 
 being identical with James the son of Alphaeus, 
 or James the Little. 
 
 III. We must now turn from Scripture to the 
 early testimony of uninspired writers. Here 
 we find four hypotheses—the Hegesippian, the 
 Apocryphal, the Hieronymian, the Helvidian. 
 1. The Hegesippian, so called after Hegesippus, 
 a Hebrew Christian born about A.D. 100, repre- 
 sents Joseph and Clopas (or Alphaeus) as bro- 
 thers. Joseph’s wife, St. Mary, and Clopas’ wife, 
 Mary, were therefore sisters-in-law. James, 
 Joses, Jude, and Simon were the children of 
 Clopas and Mary, nephews and nieces of Joseph, 
 and first cousins of our Lord. Hegesippus states 
 in direct terms that Symeon or Simon, the 
 second Bishop of Jerusalem, was the cousin 
 (ἀνέψιος) of the Lord because son of Clopas, who 
 was His uncle (θείου), and he speaks of Jude 
 not as the brother but as the so-called brother 
 of our Lord (τοῦ κατὰ σάρκα χεγομένου αὐτοῦ 
 ἀδελφοῦ : Euseb. Hist. Heel. iii, 20, 32, iv. 22). 
 The genealogy according to this hypothesis 
 would be as follows :— 
 
 Jacob 
 | 
 
 | 
 Clopas (or Alphaeus)=Mary 
 | 
 
 τ: 
 Joseph=Mary 
 
 | | | | 
 James Joses Jude Simon Three 
 or more 
 sisters 
 
 JESUS 
 
 On this hypothesis James the brother of our 
 Lord and James the son of Alphaeus are the 
 same person, being the first cousin of JESUS on 
 the paternal side. 
 
 2. The Apocryphal or Origenistic or Epi- 
 phanian hypothesis, called Epiphanian by Bishop 
 Lightfoot from its having been warmly advocated 
 by Epiphanius, bishop of Constantia in Cyprus, in 
 the year 367, but better called Apocryphal be- 
 cause originating with the Apocryphal Gospels,’ 
 or Origenistic because transported from them 
 into the Church by Origen A.D. 250. This 
 represents James, Joses, Jude, Simon, and the 
 sisters to be the children of Joseph by a former 
 wife, and to be called brethren of the Lord in the 
 same way that Joseph was called His father. 
 The genealogy on this hypothesis is— 
 
 Joseph = Mary Clopas (or Alphaeus) ἜΣ 
 
 James— 
 Joses— 
 Jude— 
 Simon— 
 Sisters— 
 vESUS —— 
 James— 
 Joses—' 
 
 Epiphanius adds to this genealogical tree by 
 recognising Joseph and Clopas as brothers, sons 
 of Jacob, son of Panther. On this hypothesis, 
 James the brother of our Lord and James the 
 
 i Hence said by Jerome to be founded on the “ delira- 
 menta apocryphorum.” 
 
 JAMES 1515 
 
 son of Alphaeus were different persons, not 
 related to one another, so far as we are informed 
 by the Apocryphal Gospels, but according to 
 Epiphanius cousins, one of them being the son, 
 the other the nephew, of Joseph. 
 
 3. The Hieronymian hypothesis, so called 
 because warmly advocated by St. Jerome, A.D. 
 382. This represents James, Joses, Jude, Simon, 
 and their sisters to be the children of Mary the 
 sister of St. Mary, and therefore nephews and 
 nieces of St. Mary and first cousins of our Lord 
 on the maternal side. The genealogy on this 
 hypothesis is— 
 
 Joseph=Mary Clopas (or Alphaeus)=Mary 
 Ϊ | 
 
 | 
 
 | | | 
 JESUS James Joses Jude Simon Sisters 
 
 . 
 
 On this hypothesis James the brother of the 
 Lord and James the son of Alphaeus are the 
 same person, being the first cousins of Jesus on 
 the mother’s side. 
 
 4, The Helvidian hypothesis, so called from 
 Helvidius, who advocated it in a book published 
 about A.D. 380. This represents James, Joses, 
 Jude, Simon, and their sisters to be the children 
 of Joseph and Mary, younger brothers and 
 sisters of Jesus. The genealogy on this hypo- 
 thesis is— 
 
 Mary = Joseph Clopas (or oh wr tt ene 
 | 
 
 Jesus eae Joses Jude Shon Sisters bode Joses 
 
 On this hypothesis, James was real brother to 
 Jesus, and James the son of Alphaeus was no 
 relation to him, so far as we know. 
 
 We have to consider with regard to these 
 hypotheses: 1. Which of them is beset with 
 fewest objections and solves most difficulties. 
 2. What authority they each stand on. We 
 have already argued that the hypothesis which 
 makes James to be the first cousin of our Lord 
 (whether paternal or maternal matters not 
 for the present) is freer from objections than 
 that which makes him His brother, whether as 
 the child of Joseph by a former marriage, or as 
 the child of Joseph and Mary. We have now to 
 consider the authority which can be claimed for 
 each of the four hypotheses. 
 
 The Helvidian hypothesis is first found in 
 Tertullian, if it is found there. Tertullian’s 
 words are ambiguous (de Carne Christi, 7, 23; 
 de Monogam. 8; adv. Marc. iv. 19); but as 
 Jerome does not repudiate Helvidius’ statement 
 that Tertullian entertained his view, merely 
 saying that he was not a Churchman (adv. 
 Helvid, 17), it is to be supposed that Helvidius 
 was justified in claiming him. Next it was 
 maintained by the Antidicomarianites in Arabia 
 about A.D. 375 (Epiphan. Haeres. 78, 79). 
 Thirdly, it was urged for controversial reasons by 
 Bonosus in Macedonia, and by Helvidius and 
 Jovinian in Italy about the year 380. 
 
 The Hieronymian hypothesis rests on the 
 authority of Jerome,’ who wrote at once against 
 
 J It has been usual to attribute this hypothesis to 
 Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, as its originator, in virtue 
 of a MS. in the Bodleian Library supposed to have been 
 written by him, and quoted by Grabe and Routh as his. 
 But Bishop Lightfoot has shown that this MS. can only 
 claim a Psvidv ofthe elev enth century for its author. 
 
1510 JAMES 
 
 Helvidius and the Apocryphal hypothesis about 
 the year 382; of Augustine, A.D. 354-430, 
 (contr. Faust, xxii. 35); of Chrysostom, A.D. 347— 
 407 (in Gal. i. 19); and of Theodoret, A.D. 386— 
 458. The weight of the authority of such great 
 names as Augustine and Chrysostom is sought 
 to be lightened by a supposition that they 
 accepted Jerome’s view ; they may have accepted 
 it, but in that case they must have considered 
 themselves right in doing so, after an examina- 
 tien of the question into which they would have 
 been led by the perusal of his treatise. Theodoret 
 not only adopts the Hieronymian theory, but in 
 set terms rejects the other. The Western 
 Church in general accepted Jerome’s view. 
 
 The Apocryphal, Origenistic, or Epiphanian 
 hypothesis originated with the Apocryphal 
 Gospels of the second and third centuries—the 
 Gospel of Peter, the Protevangelium, and the 
 yest—all of which show a desire of exhibiting 
 Josephas an old man at the time of his marriage, 
 lest a doubt or a slur should be thrown on 
 St. Mary’s virginity. These Apocryphal state- 
 ments were taken over and planted within the 
 Church’s borders at the end of the third century 
 by Origen. ‘Some persons,” he says, ‘on the 
 ground of a tradition in the Gospel according to 
 Peter, as it is entitled, or the Book of James 
 (i.e. the Protevangelium), say that the brothers 
 of Jesus were Joseph’s sons by a former wife, to 
 whom he was married before Mary. Those who 
 held this view wish to preserve the honour of 
 Mary in virginity throughout .. . And I think 
 it reasonable that as Jesus was the first-fruit of 
 purity and chastity among men, so Mary was 
 among women; for it is not seemly to ascribe 
 the first-fruit of virginity to any other woman 
 but her” (in Matt. xiii. 55, Lightfoot’s transla- 
 tion). Thus we see that a statement up to this 
 time confined to those early heretics whose chief 
 object it was to magnify St. Mary, was adopted 
 by Origen, not on the ground of its according 
 with the Church tradition or with Scripture, but 
 because it was “seemly” to ascribe perpetual 
 virginity to St. Mary, and this appeared to be 
 the way to do it. After Origen we find the 
 Apostolical Constitutions (vi. 12) and Victorinus 
 the Philosopher (in Gal. i. 19, apud Maii Script. 
 Vet. nov. coll. Romae, 1828) distinguishing 
 between the brother of the Lord and the Apostle. 
 Hilary of Poitiers accepts the Apocryphal view, 
 A.D. 368 (Comm. in Matt. i. 1). So apparently 
 does Ambrosiaster, about the year 375. Gregory 
 Nyssen at the end of the fourth century follows 
 in the same track, and tries to account for the 
 second pair of Jameses and Joseses (the sons ot 
 Mary of Clopas) by identifying their mother 
 Mary with St. Mary, called their mother because 
 she was their stepmother (Op. tom. ii. p. 844, 
 Paris, 1618). Epiphanius’ treatise was written 
 against the Antidicomarianites about the year 
 375, Itis for the most part a bald reproduction 
 of the Apocryphal legends, to which he makes 
 some additions from “ the traditions of the Jews,” 
 and combines with both of these the Church 
 tradition, derived no doubt from Hegesippus, 
 that Clopas and Joseph were brothers, children 
 of Jacob, whom he represents (again from 
 Apocryphal sources) as the son of Panther. He 
 further states in one place that the names of the 
 sisters were Mary and <Auna, and in another 
 that they were Mary and/Salome. St. Ambrose, 
 
 | 
 
 JAMES 
 
 A.D. 392, doubtfully accedes to the Epiphanian 
 view (de Inst. Virg.; Up. tom. ii. p. 260, ed. 
 Din.), which is also supported by Cyril of 
 Alexandria at the beginning of the fifth century 
 (Glaph. in Gen. vii.), and became the generally 
 accepted view of the Oriental Church. 
 
 The Hegesippian hypothesis rests on the au- 
 thority of Hegesippus, and Hegesippus’ evidence 
 on this point is such as to outweigh that of all 
 those that have been quoted. In date he is the 
 earliest witness, having probably been a younger 
 contemporary of the sons of Clopas, being born 
 about the year 100; his means of information 
 were infinitely superior to those of others, as he 
 was a Palestinian converted Jew ; he had no pur- 
 pose to serve, like the writers of the Apocryphal 
 Gospels, who are the authors of the Origenistic 
 or Epiphanian hypothesis; and his statement 
 contains within it only one difficulty, namely, that 
 two women should be called by St. John sisters 
 because they were the wives of two brothers. 
 This difficulty, if it be one, is as nothing compared 
 with the difficulty on one side of two sisters 
 bearing the same or nearly the same name, which 
 the Hieronymian hypothesis requires, and, on the 
 other side, of there being two pairs of Jameses 
 and Joseses, which the Apocryphal and the Hel- 
 vidian hypotheses alike make necessary.* Clement 
 of Alexandria, A.D. 200, has been claimed as a 
 supporter of the Epiphanian view, but he is 
 quoted by Eusebius as saying that “there are 
 two Jameses, one the Just who was thrown down 
 from the pinnacle and beaten to death by a 
 fuller’s pole, and another who was beheaded ” 
 (Hypotyposeis, vii. apud Euseb. Hist. Eccl. ii. 1). 
 The word used for “ are” in that sentence is not 
 merely the copula, but it is γεγόνασι. The 
 writer therefore must have held that there were 
 only two Jameses in all, and in that case the son 
 of Alphaeus and the brother of the Lord must 
 have been identical. It is possible that the 
 passage may be a comment of Eusebius on 
 Clement rather than Clement’s own, and this 
 was the opinion of Bishop Pearson (Lect. iv. in 
 Acta Apost., Minor Theol. Works, p. 150, Oxf. 
 1844), though Bishop Lightfoot is doubtful on 
 the point. Whoever wrote it—that is, either 
 Clement or Eusebius—must be regarded as a 
 supporter of one or other of the two theories 
 which identify the two Jameses. It must be 
 allowed that after Hegesippus himself, the Hege- 
 sippian view is not found in its developed form. 
 But this is what might not unreasonably have 
 been expected. For with Hegesippus’ generation 
 the memory of the relationship between Joseph 
 and Clopas perished, nor were Hegesippus’ writ- 
 ings sufficiently well known to keep it alive. 
 
 k Hegesippus is sometimes represented as inconsistent 
 with himself, or as not identifying Clopas and Alphaeus, 
 because he uses the expression ‘* The Church was com- 
 mitted, in conjunction with the Apostles (μετὰ τῶν 
 ᾿Αποστόλων)), to the charge of the Lord’s brother James.” 
 Here, it is argued, he distinguishes James the brother of 
 the Lord from the Apostle, and therefore he could not 
 have regarded him as the son of Alphaeus, who is 
 acknowledged to be an Apostle. This, however, is not 
 so; for, as Bishop Lightfoot admits, “from this passage 
 no inference can be safely drawn; for, supposing the 
 term ‘Apostles’ to be here restricted to the Twelve, 
 the expression μετὰ τῶν ᾿Αποστόλων may distinguish 
 St. James not from but among the Apostles, as in 
 Acts v. 29, ‘Peter and the Apostles.’” (Dissertation.) 
 
JAMES 
 
 Room was thus made for the other theories, each 
 
 of which may be regarded as the product of 
 
 ingenious minds seeking to account for the state- 
 ment of Scripture after the clue supplied by 
 Hegesippus was lost. We rank them in the 
 following order in respect to the degree of pro- 
 bability attaching to them:—1l. he Hege- 
 sippian. 2. The Hieronymian. 3. The Hel- 
 vidian. 4, The Apocryphal. 
 
 English theological writers have been divided 
 almost equally into those that hold, and those 
 that deny, the identity of the son of Alphaeus 
 and the brother of our Lord, with, however, a 
 preference on the whole for the first hypothesis. 
 See, for example, Hooker, Hecl. Pol. vii. 4, 2, 
 Oxf. 1836; Cosin, Notes, Works, v. p. 198, Oxf. 
 1855; Lardner, vi. 495, Lond. 1788; Pearson, 
 Minor Works, i. 350, Oxf. 1844, and On the 
 Creed, i. 308, ii. 224, Oxf. 1833; Thorndike, 
 Works, i. 5, Oxf. 1844; Horne, Introd. to H. ὃ. 
 iv. 427, Lond. 1834; Wordsworth, Greek Test. 
 Lond. 1868; Scott, in the Speaker’s Com- 
 mentary, N. T. iv. 112, Lond. 1881; Punchard, 
 in Ellicott’s New Testament Commentary, iii. 
 352—who are in favour of the identity. On the 
 same side are the elder Lightfoot, Witsius, 
 Lampe, Baumgarten, Semler, Gabler, Eichhorn, 
 Hug, Bertholdt, Guericke, Schneckenburger, 
 Meier, Steiger, Hengstenberg, Gieseler, Theile, 
 Lange. On the other hand, Hammond (On Schism, 
 p- 231, Oxf. 1839), Jeremy Taylor (“piscopacy 
 Asserted, § 13, Works, v. p. 50, Lond. 1849), 
 Nelson (Fasts and Festivals, p. 191, Lond. 1805), 
 Bishop Thos. Wilson (Notes on St. James, Works, 
 vi. p. 673, Oxf. 1859), Cave (Life of St. James), 
 Bishop Lightfoot (£pistle to the Galatians, 
 p- 252, Lond. 1884), are in favour of their 
 being distinct persons, with Vossius, Basnage, 
 Valesius, Grotius, and Olshausen. The Helvidian 
 theory is held by Dr. Davidson (Jntr. N. T. 
 vol. iii.) and by Dean Alford (Greek Test. 
 iv. 87), with Herder, Bleek, Blom, Schaff, 
 Mayer, Wieseler, Laurent. 
 
 The chief treatises on the subject are Blom’s 
 De τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς et ταῖς ἀδελφαῖς τοῦ Κυρίου, 
 Leyden, 1839; Dr. Philip Schati’s Das Verhdit- 
 niss des Jakobus Bruders des Herrn zu Jakobus 
 Alphdi, Berlin, 1842, with which however 
 must be compared the same author’s Hist. of the 
 Apost. Ch. vol. ii. p. 35, Edinb. 1854, modifying 
 his previous view ; Wieseler, Studien u. Kritiken : 
 Ueber die Briider des Herrn, 1842, p. 71; Dr. 
 Mill’s Accounts of our Lord’s brethren vindicated, 
 Cambridge, 1843 ; Alford, as above referred to; 
 Lange’s article in Herzog’s Real-Encyklopidie 
 fiir protestantische Theologie und Kirche, Stutt- 
 gart, 1856; Schneckenburger’s Annotatio ad 
 Lipist Jac. perpetua, Stuttgart, 1832; Arnaud’s 
 Recherches Critiques sur ? Epitre de Jude, Stras- 
 bourg, 1851; Bishop Lightfoot’s Dissertation on 
 the Brethren of the Lord appended to the Epistle 
 to the Galatians, Lond. 1884. 
 
 Had we not identified James the son of Al- 
 phaeus with the brother of the Lord, we should 
 have but little to write of him. When we had 
 said that his name appears twice in the cata- 
 logue of the Twelve Apostles, our history of him 
 would be complete. In like manner the early 
 
 1 The author of the article on the ‘Brethren of our 
 Lord” takes a different view from the one given above 
 (see note h, p. 1514). 
 
 JAMES 1517 
 
 history of the Lord’s brother would be confined 
 to the fact that he lived and moved from plaee 
 to place with his brothers and sisters, and with 
 the Virgin Mary. 
 
 JAMES THE, LITrLe, THE SON OF ALPHAEUS, 
 THE BROTHER OF THE LoRD.—Of James’ father 
 
 dn, rendered by St. Matthew and St. Mark 
 Alphaeus (᾿Αλφαῖος), and by St. John Clopas 
 (KAwmds), we know only (1) that, according to 
 the testimony of Hegesippus (who was likely to 
 be fully informed) and of Epiphanius (who pro- 
 bably retained the ancient tradition on the point 
 and reproduced it, though giving no support to 
 the theory that he was advocating), he was the 
 brother of Joseph and son of Jacob; (2) that he 
 married a Mary, who was either sister by blood 
 to the Virgin Mary, or was regarded as her 
 sister because the two women had married two 
 brothers; (3) that he had by her four sons and 
 three or more daughters. He appears to have 
 died before the commencement of our Lord’s 
 ministry, and after his death it would seem that 
 his wife and St. Mary, a widow like herself, and 
 in poor circumstances, lived together in one 
 house, generally at Nazareth (Matt. xiii. 55), 
 but sometimes also at Capernaum (John ii. 12) 
 and Jerusalem (Acts i. 14). It is probable that 
 these cousins (or, as they were usually called, 
 brothers and sisters) of the Lord were older than 
 Himself; as on one occasion we find them, with 
 His mother, indignantly declaring that He was 
 beside Himself, and going out to “lay hold on 
 Him ” and compel Him to moderate His zea] in 
 preaching, at least sutliciently “‘to eat bread” 
 (Mark iii, 20, 21, 31). This looks like the 
 conduct of elders towards one younger than 
 themselves. 
 
 Of St. James individually we know nothing till 
 the spring of the year 28, when we find him, to- 
 gether with his younger brother St. Jude, called 
 to the Apostolate. It has been noticed that in all 
 the four lists of the Apostles St. James holds the 
 same place, heading perhaps the third class, con- 
 sisting of himself, Jude, Simon, and Iscariot; as 
 St. Philip heads the second class, consisting of 
 himself, Bartholomew, Thomas, and Matthew ; 
 and Simon Peter the first, consisting of himself, 
 Andrew, James, and John (Alford, in Matt. x. 2). 
 The fact of St. Jude being described by reference 
 to St. James (Ἰούδας ᾿Ιακώβου : that is, “‘ James” 
 St. Jude”) shows the name and reputation which 
 St. James had, either at the time of the calling of 
 the Apostles or at the time when St. Luke wrote. 
 
 It is not likely (though far from impossible) 
 that SS. James and Jude took part with their 
 brothers and sisters and the Virgin Mary, in 
 trying “to lay hold on” Jesus in the autumn of 
 the same year (Mark iii. 21); and it is likely 
 that it is of the other brothers and sisters, 
 without these two, that St. John says, “ Neither 
 did His brethren believe on Him” (John vii. 5), 
 in the autumn of A.D. 29; but the unbelief here: 
 attributed to the brethren was not of such a 
 nature as to make it impossible for Apostles to. 
 have participated in it. “They ventured to 
 advise and urge when Faith would have been 
 content to wait” (Westcott). 
 
 We hear no more of St. James till after the 
 Crucifixion and the Resurrection. At some 
 time in the forty days that intervened between 
 the Resurrection and the Ascension the Lord ap- 
 
1518 JAMES 
 
 peared to him. This is not related by the Evan- 
 gelists, but it is mentioned by St. Paul (1 Cor. 
 xv. 7); and there never has been any doubt that 
 it was to this St. James rather than to the son of 
 Zebedee that the manifestation was vouchsafed. 
 We may conjecture that it was for the purpose 
 of strengthening him for the high position which 
 he was soon to assume in Jerusalem, and of 
 giving him the instructions on “the things 
 pertaining to the kingdom of God” (Acts i. 3) 
 which were necessary for his guidance, that the 
 Lord thus showed Himself to James." We can- 
 not fix the date of this appearance. It was pro- 
 bably only a few days before the Ascension ; 
 after which we find SS. James, Jude, and the 
 rest of the Apostles, together with the Virgin 
 Mary, St. Simon, and St. Joses, in Jerusalem, 
 awaiting in faith and prayer the outpouring of 
 the Pentecostal gift. 
 
 Again we lose sight of St. James for ten years, 
 and when he appears once more it is in a far 
 higher position than any that he has yet held. 
 In the year 37 occurred the conversion of Saul. 
 Three years after his conversion he paid his first 
 visit to Jerusalem, but the Christians recollected 
 what they had suffered at his hands, and feared 
 to have anything to do with him. St. Barnabas, 
 at this time of far higher reputation than him- 
 self, took him by the hand, and introduced him 
 to St. Peter and St. James (Acts ix. 27; Gal. 
 i, 18, 19), and by their authority he was ad- 
 mitted into the society of the Christians, and 
 allowed to associate freely with them during the 
 fifteen days of his stay. Here we find St. James 
 on a level with St. Peter, and with him de- 
 ciding on the admission of St. Paul into fellow- 
 ship with the Church at Jerusalem; and from 
 henceforth we always find him equal, or in his 
 own department superior, to the very chiefest 
 Apostles, SS. Peter, John, and Paul. For 
 by this time he had been appointed (at what 
 exact date we know not) to preside over the 
 infant Church in its most important centre, in a 
 position equivalent to that of Bishop. This pre- 
 eminence is evident throughout the after history 
 of the Apostles, whether we read it in the Acts, 
 in the Epistles, or in ecclesiastical writers. Thus 
 in the year 44, when Peter is released from 
 prison, he desires that information of his escape 
 may be given to “James, and to the brethren ” 
 (Acts xii. 17). In the year 49 he presides at the 
 Apostolic Council, and delivers the judgment of 
 the Assembly, with the expression διὸ ἀγὼ κρίνω 
 (Acts xv. 13,19; see St. Chrys. in loc.). In the 
 same year (or perhaps in the year 51, on his 
 fourth visit to Jerusalem) St. Paul recognises 
 James as one of the pillars of the Church, to- 
 gether with Cephas and John (Gal. ii. 9), and 
 
 -----ο--- ee νυν 
 
 m The Gospel according to the Hebrews says that the 
 cause of this appearance was that “James had sworn 
 not to eat bread from the time that he had drunk the 
 Lord’s cup (or that the Lord had drunk the cup) till he 
 saw Him risen from the dead,” and therefore Jesus 
 “took bread and blessed it and gave it to James the Just, 
 and said to him, My brother, eat thy bread, for the Son 
 of Man has risen from the dead” (Jerome, de Vir. 
 Ilust.). If the reading Domini be tight, we may notice 
 that the writer of this Gospel, which Lightfoot describes 
 as “one of the earliest and most respectable of the 
 apocryphal narratives,” supposed James to have been 
 present at the Last Supper, which indicates, though it 
 does not prove, a belief that he was one of the Apostles, 
 
 JAMES 
 
 places his name before them both. Shortly 
 afterwards it is “ certain who came from James,” 
 that is, from the mother-Church of Jerusalem, 
 designated by the name of its Bishop, who Jead 
 St. Peter into tergiversation at Antioch. And 
 in the year 57 St. Paul pays a formal visit to St. 
 James in the presence of all his presbyters, after 
 having been previously welcomed with joy the 
 day before by the brethren in an unofficial 
 manner (Acts xxi. 18). 
 Entirely accordant with these notices of Serip- 
 ture is the universal testimony of Christian 
 antiquity to the high office held by St. James in 
 the Church of Jerusalem. That he was formally 
 appointed Bishop of Jerusalem by the Lord Him- 
 self, as reported by Epiphanius (Haeres. lxxviii.), 
 Chrysostom (Hom. xi. in 1 Cor. vii.), Proclus of 
 Constantinople (de Trad. Div. Liturg.), and 
 Photius (Zp. 157), is not certain. Eusebius fol- 
 lows this account in a passage of his history, but 
 says elsewhere that he was appointed by the 
 Apostles (Hist. Eccl. ii. 23). Clement of Alex- 
 andria is the first author who speaks of his 
 episcopate (Hypotyposeis, Bk. vi. ap. Euseb. 
 Hist. Eccl. ii. 1), and he alludes to it as a thing 
 of which the chief Apostles, SS, Peter, James, and 
 John, might well have been ambitious. The 
 same Clement reports that the Lord, after His Re- 
 surrection, delivered the gift of knowledge to St. 
 James the Just, to St. John, and to St. Peter, who 
 delivered it to the rest of the Apostles," and they 
 to the Seventy. This at least shows the estima- 
 tion in which St. James was held. Theauthor to 
 whom we are chiefly indebted for an account of 
 the life and death of St. James is Hegesippus. His 
 narrative gives us such an insight into the position 
 of St. James in the Church of Jerusalem that it 
 is best to let him relate it in his own words :— 
 Tradition respecting James, as given by Hege- 
 sippus.—* With the Apostles, James the brother 
 of the Lord succeeds to the charge of the Church 
 —that James who has been called Just from 
 the time of the Lord to our own days, for there 
 were many of the name of James. He was holy 
 from his mother’s womb ; he drank not wine or 
 strong drink, nor did he eat animal food 3 ἃ razor 
 came not upon his head; he did not anoint him- 
 self with oil; he did not use the bath. He 
 alone might go into the holy place; for he wore 
 no woollen clothes, but linen. And alone he 
 used to go into the Temple, and there he was 
 commonly found upon his knees, praying for for- 
 giveness for the people, so that his knees grew 
 dry and thin [generally translated hard] like a 
 camel’s, from his constantly bending them in 
 prayer, and entreating forgiveness for the people. 
 On account therefore of his exceeding righteous- 
 ness he was called ‘Just’ and ‘Oblias,’ which 
 means in Greek ‘the bulwark of the people,’ and 
 ‘righteousness,’ as the prophets declare of him. 
 Some of the seven sects then that I have men- 
 tioned enquired of him, ‘What is the door of 
 Jesus?” And he said that this man was the 
 Saviour, wherefore some believed that Jesus is 
 the Christ. Now the forementioned sects did 
 not believe in the Resurrection, nor in the 
 coming of One Who shall recompense every man 
 according to his works; but all who became 
 
 ες------  Ἀἀ ὠὡὠ ὁ ΘΕ τ 
 
 This expression implies that Clement of Alexandria 
 regarded James the Just as one of the Apostles, and 
 
 ‘| therefore identical with the son of Alpbaeus. 
 
JAMES 
 
 believers believed through Jasaes, When many 
 therefore of the rulers believed, there was a 
 disturbance among the Jews, and Scribes, and 
 Pharisees, saying, ‘There is a risk that the 
 whole people will expect Jesus to be the Christ.’ 
 They came together therefore to James, and 
 said, ‘We pray thee, stop the people, for they 
 have gone astray after Jesus as though He were 
 the Christ. We pray thee to persuade all that 
 come to the Passover concerning Jesus: for we 
 all give heed to thee, for we and all the people 
 testify to thee that thou art just, and acceptest 
 not the person of man. Persuade the people 
 therefore not to go astray about Jesus, for the 
 whole people and all of us give heed to thee. 
 Stand therefore on the gable of the Temple, that 
 thou mayest be visible, and that thy words may 
 be heard by all the people; for all the tribes 
 and even the Gentiles are come together for the 
 Passover.’ Therefore the forementioned Scribes 
 and Pharisees placed James upon the gable of 
 the Temple, and cried out to him, and said, ‘O 
 Just one, to whom we ought all to give heed, 
 seeing that the people are going astray after 
 Jesus who was crucified, tell us what is the door 
 of Jesus?’ And he answered with a loud voice, 
 ‘Why ask ye me about Jesus the Son of Man? 
 He sits in heaven on the right hand of great 
 power, and will come on the clouds of heaven,’ 
 And many were convinced and gave glory on the 
 testimony of James, crying, Hosannah to the Son 
 of David! Whereupon the same Scribes and 
 Pharisees said to each other, ‘We have done ill 
 in bringing forward such a witness to Jesus ; 
 but let us go up, and throw him down, that they 
 may be terrified, and not believe on him.’ And 
 they cried out, saying, ‘Oh! oh! even the Just 
 is. gone astray.’ And they fulfilled that which 
 is written in Isaiah, ‘ Let us take away the just 
 man, for he is displeasing to us; therefore shall 
 they eat of the fruit of their deeds.’ They went 
 up, therefore, and threw down the Just one, and 
 said to one another, ‘Let us stone James the 
 Just.’ And they began to stone him, for he was 
 not killed by the fall; but he turned round, and 
 knelt down, and cried, ‘I beseech thee, Lord God 
 Father, forgive them, for they know not what 
 they do.’ And whilst they were stoning him, 
 one of the priests, of the sons of Rechab, a son of 
 the Rechabites to whom Jeremiah the prophet 
 bears testimony, cried out and said, ‘Stop! 
 What are you about? The Just one is praying 
 for you!’ Then one of them, who was a fuller, 
 took the club with which he pressed the clothes, 
 and brought it down on the head of the Just 
 one. And so he bore his witness. And they 
 buried him on the spot by the Temple, and the 
 column still remains by the Temple. This man 
 was a true witness to Jews and Greeks that 
 Jesus is the Christ. And immediately Vespa- 
 sian commenced the siege” (Euseb. ii. 23, and 
 Routh, Rel. Sacr. p. 208, Oxf. 1846). 
 
 For the difficulties which occur in this ex- 
 tract, reference may be made to Routh’s Reli- 
 quiae Sacrae (vol. i. p. 228), and to Stanley’s 
 Apostolical Age (p. 319, Oxf. 1847). It repre- 
 sents St. James to us in his life and in his death 
 more vividly than any modern words could 
 picture him. We see him, a married man 
 perhaps (1 Cor. ix. 5), but a rigid and ascetic 
 follower after righteousness, keeping the Naza- 
 rite rule, like Anna the prophetess (Luke ii. 37), 
 
 JAMES 1519 
 
 serving the Lord in the Temple “ with fastings 
 and prayers night and day,” regarded by the 
 Jews themselves as one who had attained to the 
 sanctity of the priesthood, though not of the 
 priestly family ‘or tribe, and as the very type 
 of what a righteous or just man ought to be. 
 If any man could have converted the Jews as a 
 nation to Christianity, it would have been St. 
 James. 
 
 Josephus’ narrative of his death is apparently 
 somewhat different. He says that in the interval 
 between the death of Festus and the coming of 
 Albinus, Ananus the high-priest assembled the 
 Sanhedrin, and “brought before it James the 
 brother of him who is called Christ, and some 
 others, and, having charged them with breaking 
 the laws, delivered them over to be stoned.” 
 But if we are to reconcile this statement with 
 that of Hegesippus, we must suppose that they 
 were not actually stoned on this occasion. The 
 historian adds that the better part of the citizens 
 disliked what was done, and complained of 
 Ananus to Agrippa and Albinus, whereupon 
 Albinus threatened to punish him for having 
 assembled the Sanhedrin without his consent, 
 and Agrippa deprived him of the high-priesthood 
 (Ant. xx. 9, § 1). The words “brother of him who 
 is called Christ,” are judged by LeClere, Lardner, 
 &c., to be spurious. 
 
 Epiphanius gives the same account that Hege- 
 sippus does in somewhat different words, having 
 evidently copied it for the most part from him. 
 He adds a few particulars which are probably 
 mere assertions or conclusions of his own (Haeres. 
 xxix. 4, and Ixxviii. 13), Considering St. James to 
 have been the son of Joseph by a former wife, he 
 calculates that he must have been 96 years old 
 at the time of his death; and adds, on the 
 authority, as he says, of Eusebius, Clement, and 
 others, that he wore the πέταλον on his fore- 
 head, in which he perhaps confounds him with 
 St. John (Polyer. apud Euseb. Hist. Eccl. ν. 24. 
 But see Valesius’ note on Eusebius /. ¢, and 
 Cotta, de lam. pont. App. Joan. Jac. et Marci, 
 Tub. 1755). : 
 
 Gregory of Tours reports that he was buried, 
 not where he fell, but on the Mount of Olives,° in 
 a tomb in which he had already buried Zacharias 
 and Simeon (De glor. Mart. i. 27). Eusebius 
 tells us that his chair was preserved down to his 
 time; on which see Heinichen’s Excursus (Lc. 
 xi. ad Euseb. Hist. Eccl. vii. 19, vol. iv. p. 957, 
 ed. Burton). 
 
 ° The monument—part excavation, part edifice— 
 which is now commonly known as the ‘* Tomb of St. 
 James,” is on the east side of the so-called Valley of 
 Jehoshaphat, and therefore at a considerable distance 
 from the spot on which the Apostle was killed, which 
 the narrative of Hegesippus would seem to fix as some- 
 where under the south-east corner of the wall of the 
 Haram, or perhaps further down the slope nearer the 
 “Fountain of the Virgin.” [En-roGeL.] It cannot at 
 any rate be said to stand “ by the Temple.” The tradi- 
 tion about the monument in question is that St. James 
 took refuge there after the capture of Christ, and re- 
 mained, eating and drinking nothing, until our Lord 
 appeared to him on the day of His Resurrection (sce 
 Quaresmius, Terrae Sanctae Elucidatio, 1639, lib. iv. 
 cc. 10, 11, t. ii. 258, quoted in Titus Tobler, Die Siioah- 
 quelle u. der Oelberg, 1852, p. 299). The legend of his 
 death there seems to be first mentioned by Maundeville 
 (A.D. 1320: see Harly Trav. p. 176). By the old tra- 
 
 : vellers it is often called the ** Church of St. James.” 
 
1520 JAMES, GENERAL EPISTLE OF 
 
 We must add a strange Talmudic legend, 
 which appears to relate to James. It is found 
 in the Midrash Koheleth, or Commentary on 
 Ecclesiastes, and also in the Tract Abodah Zarah 
 of the Jerusalem Talmud. It is as follows: 
 “R. Eliezer, the son of Dama, was bitten by a 
 serpent ; and there came to him Jacob, a man of 
 Capher Secama, to heal him by the name of Jesu 
 the son of Pandera; but R. Ismael sufiered him 
 not, saying, ‘That is not allowed thee, son of 
 Dama.’ He answered, ‘Suffer me, and I will 
 produce an authority against thee that it is 
 lawful ;’ but he could not produce the authority 
 before he expired. And what was the autho- 
 rity 2—This: ‘Which if a man do, he shall live 
 in them’ (Lev. xviii. 5). But it is not said that 
 he shall die in them.” The son of Panderais the 
 name that the Jews have always given to our 
 Lord, when representing Him as a magician. 
 The name of Panther is given in Epiphanius 
 (Haeres. \xxviii.) to the grandfather of Joseph, 
 and by John Damascene (de Fide Orth. iv. 15) 
 to the grandfather of Joachim, the supposed 
 father of the Virgin Mary. For the identifica- 
 tion of James of Secama (a place in Upper 
 Galilee) with James the Just, see Dr. W. H. Mill 
 (Historic. Criticism of the Gospel, pp. 225, 360, 
 Camb. ed. 1861). The short passage quoted by 
 Origen and Eusebius as from Josephus, which 
 speaks of the death of James being one of the 
 causes of the destruction of Jerusalem, is not 
 now found in that author, and seems to be 
 spurious (Orig. in Matt. xiii. 55; Euseb. Hist. 
 eel, ii. 23). » 
 
 It is possible that there may be a reference to 
 James in Heb. xiii. 7 (see Theodoret in Joc.), 
 which would fix his death at some time previous 
 to the writing of that Epistle. His appre- 
 hension by Ananus was probably about the year 
 62 or 63 (Lardner, Pearson, Mill, Whitby, Le 
 Clerc, Tillemont). There is nothing to fix the 
 date of his martyrdom as narrated by Hege- 
 sippus, except that it must have been shortly 
 before the commencement of the siege of Jeru- 
 salem. We may conjecture that he was between 
 70 and 80 years old.? LF. M.] 
 
 JAMES, GENERAL EPISTLE OF. 
 
 I. Zitle—The Epistles of SS. James, Peter, 
 John, Jude, were known under the name of the 
 Seven Catholic Epistles, by the end of the third 
 century. Eusebius, A.D. 287, speaks of St. James’s 
 Epistle as “the first of those that bear the 
 name of Catholic Epistles,” and states that those 
 Epistles were seven in number, describing them 
 as “the Seven that are called Catholic” (ist. 
 Eccl. ii, 23), St. Athanasius in his Catalogue 
 of the Books of the Bible contained in his 39th 
 Festal Letter, written A.D. 365, in like manner 
 speaks of “those that are called the Catholic 
 Epistles of the Apostles, seven in number.” 
 Gregory of Nazianzus, A.D. 328, and his con- 
 temporary Amphilochius, use a similar expres- 
 sion. Cyril of Jerusalem, who is of about the 
 same date, in giving his Catalogue of the Books 
 of the Bible, writes, ““The Seven Catholic Epis- 
 
 P It is almost unnecessary to say that the Jacobite 
 churches of the East—consisting of the Armenians, the 
 Copts, and other Monophysite or Eutychian bodies—do 
 not derive their title from St. James, but from Jacob 
 Baradaeus, who died Bishop of Edessa in 588, 
 
 JAMES, GENERAL EPISTLE OF 
 
 tles of James, and Peter, and John, and Jude” 
 (Catech. Lect. iv. 36). The same list was ap- 
 pended to the Canons of the Council of Laodicea 
 held a.p. 363. Didymus of Alexandria wrote a 
 Commentary on the “Seven Catholic Epistles ” 
 about A.D. 350, and Euthalius about a century 
 later. Before the number Seven was fixed as 
 that of the Catholic Epistles, the name Catholic 
 was applied to one or more of them. Origen 
 speaks of “the Catholic Epistle of John,” “ the 
 Catholic Epistle of Peter,” “the Catholic Epistie 
 of Jude;” and his pupil Dionysius, of “the 
 Catholic Epistle of John” (Euseb. Hist. Zeel. 
 vii. 25). 
 
 What was meant by the term Catholic, 
 whether applied to the Seven Epistles or to any 
 one of them, is rightly explained by Leontius 
 of Byzantium towards the end of the sixth cen- 
 tury, when he says, “They are called Catholic 
 or General, because they are not written to one 
 nation, as those of St. Paul, but generally to 
 all” (de Sectis, ii.). Oecumenius in like manner 
 in the tenth century says: “They are called 
 Catholic as being encyclical, for they are not 
 addressed particularly to one nation or city, but 
 generally (καθόλου) to the faithful (Zap. ia 
 septem illas quae Catholicae dicuntur Epistolas : 
 in Jac. i. p. 115, Frankf. 1610). The Catholic 
 Epistles follow the Acts in the Alexandrine and 
 Vatican Codices, preceding the Epistles of 
 St. Paul. In the Sinaitic MS. they also follow 
 the Acts, the Epistles of St. Paul being placed 
 before the Acts. The Apostolical Constitutions 
 appear to include the Catholic Epistles with the 
 Acts of the Apostles, under the simple name of 
 the Acts (Const. ii. 57). They are also joined 
 with the Acts by Philastrius, bishop of Brescia, 
 in the middle of the fourth century, in his 
 treatise on Heresies (//aer. lxxxviii.); and in the 
 Karkaphensian Syrian Version, at the conclusion 
 of the Catholic Epistles, come the words “The 
 end of the Acts.” This close connexion is pro- 
 bably owing to the general or catholic character 
 of James, 1 and 2 Peter, 1 John, and Jude. The 
 authorship of 2 and 3 John (when it came to be 
 acknowledged) was sufficient to cause those 
 Epistles to be classed with 1 John as Catholic, 
 though in their case the word is used with some 
 inexactness. 
 
 Origen’s title for St. James’s Epistle is ἢ pepo- 
 μένη ᾿Ιακώβου ἐπιστόλη (Comm. in Joan.), where 
 there is a question whether φερομένη means 
 “ascribed to” (as it probably does), or “ cur- 
 rent.’’ Eusebius in like manner calls it 7 Aeyo- 
 μένη Ἰακώβου ἐπιστόλη (Hist. Eccl. iii. 25). 
 
 II. Author.—There are, as we have argued, 
 only two Jameses in the New Testament, James 
 the son of Zebedee and James the son of Al- 
 phaeus or Clopas, known as James the Just, and 
 called the brother of the Lord, being his first 
 cousin. The author of the Epistle must be one 
 or other of these two, unless he is an unknown 
 James (Luther); the likelihood of which last 
 hypothesis falls to the ground as soon as the 
 canonical character of the Epistle is admitted. 
 James the son of Zebedee could not have written 
 it, because the date of his death, only seven 
 years after the martyrdom of Stephen, does not 
 give time for the growth of a sufficient number 
 of Jewish Christians, “scattered abroad.” Ex- 
 ternal evidence (see Huseb. Hist. Eccl. ii. 23; 
 Alford, Greek Test. iv. p. 23) and internal 
 
JAMES, GENERAL EPISTLE OF 
 
 evidence (see Stanley, Apost. Age, p. 292) point 
 unmistakably to James the Just as the writer, 
 to whom the care of the Jewish Christians, 
 whether residing at Jerusalem or living scat- 
 tered among the Gentiles, and only visiting that 
 city from time to time, especially belonged in 
 his character of Bishop of Jerusalem. 
 Authenticity —In the third book of his 
 Ecclesiastical History, where Eusebius makes 
 his well-known division of the books, or pre- 
 tended books, of the New Testament into four 
 classes, he places the Gospels, the Acts, the 
 Pauline Epistles, the First Epistle of St. John, 
 the First Epistle of St. Peter, and perhaps the 
 Apocalypse, under the head of ὁμολογούμενα, 
 or “acknowledged” books. In the class of 
 ἀντιλεγόμενα or “controverted” he places the 
 Epistle of St. James, the Second and Third 
 Epistles of St. John, and the Epistle of St. 
 Jude. Amongst the νόθα or “spurious” he 
 enumerates the Acts of St. Paul, the Shepherd, 
 the Apocalypse of St. Peter, the Epistle of Bar- 
 nabas, the Teachings of the Apostles, the Gospel 
 according to the Hebrews, and perhaps the 
 Apocalypse. The αἱρετικὰ or “ heretical ” books 
 consist of the Gospels of Peter, Thomas, Mat- 
 thias, and others; the Acts of Andrew, John, and 
 others. The ἀντιλεγόμενα, among which he 
 places the Epistle of St. James, are, he says, γνώ- 
 ριμα ὅμως τοῖς πολλοῖς, whether the expression 
 means that they were acknowledged by, or 
 merely that they were known to, the majority 
 (Hist. Eccl. iii. 25). Elsewhere he says that the 
 Epistle is regarded by some as belonging to the 
 class of νόθα, for this is the meaning of νοθεύ- 
 era: μέν (see the notes of Valesius and Hei- 
 nichen); but he bears witness that it was 
 publicly read in most Churches as genuine (//ist. 
 Keel. ii. 23), and as such accepts it himself. 
 This then was the state of the question in the 
 time of Eusebius: the Epistle was accepted as 
 canonical, and as the writing of St. James, the 
 brother of the Lord, by the majority, but not 
 universally. In the previous century Origen 
 bears the same testimony as Eusebius (tom. iv. 
 p. 306), and probably, like him, himself accepted 
 the Epistle as genuine (tom. iv. p. 535, &c.). 
 Before this date evidence of its acceptance is 
 supplied in the East by the Peshitto Version, 
 made for Syrian Christians at the beginning of 
 the 2nd century; and in the West, Clement of 
 Rome (Zp. ad Cor. x.), Hermae Pastor (lib. ii., 
 Mand. xii. 5), and Irenaeus (adv. Haer. iv. 16, 2) 
 show themselves acquainted with it. 
 other hand, it is ignored by the Muratorian 
 Canon and by Tertullian. The antiquity of the 
 Epistle Dr. Salmon judges to be sufficiently 
 established hy external evidence, particularly 
 by the use made of it in Hermas; but at the 
 same time he thinks it had a very limited 
 circulation in early times, and in Alexandria or 
 the West was little known (Introd. to N. T. 
 pp- 562, 565, ed. 1885). It is acknowledged by 
 almost all the Fathers of the fourth century, 
 e.g. Athanasius, Cyril, Gregory Nazianzen, Epi- 
 phanius, Amphilochius, Philastrius, Ruffinus, 
 Jerome, Augustine, and Chrysostom. In 397 the 
 Council of Carthage accepted it as canonical, 
 and from that time there has been no further 
 question of its genuineness on the score of 
 external testimony. But at the time of the 
 Reformation the question of its authenticity was 
 BIBLE DICT.—VOL. I. 
 
 On the | 
 
 JAMES, GENERAL EPISTLE OF 1521 
 
 again raised, and then upon the ground of in- 
 ternal evidence. Erasmus and Cardinal Cajetan 
 in the Church of Rome, Cyril Lucar in the Greek 
 Church, Luther and the Magdeburg Centu- 
 riators among Protestants, all objected to it. 
 Luther pronounced it “a right strawy Epistle,” 
 compared with the Gospel and First Epistle of 
 St. John, the Epistles of St. Paul, and the First 
 Epistle of St. Peter, which he called “the 
 capital Books of the New Testament,” as being 
 sufficient to instruct a Christian fully in the 
 mysteries of the Faith. Accordingly he places 
 the Epistle to the Hebrews, James, Jude, and 
 the Apocalypse after the other Books of the New 
 Testament in his translation, and declines to 
 regard the Epistle of James as apostolic, though 
 he “admires” it “and holds it as good,” and 
 “will forbid no one to place and elevate it as he 
 pleases” (Werke, xiv. 104, 150. See Westcott, 
 The Bible in the Church, ch.x.). The chief objec- 
 tion on internal grounds is a supposed opposition 
 between St. Paul and St. James on the doctrine 
 of Justification, concerning which we shall 
 presently make some remarks. At present we 
 need only say that it is easy to account for the 
 non-universal reception of the Epistle in the 
 early Church, by the fact that it was meant 
 only for Jewish believers, and was not likely 
 therefore to circulate widely among Gentile 
 Christians, for whose spiritual necessities it was 
 primarily not adapted; and that the objection 
 on internal grounds proves nothing except 
 against the objectors, for it really rests on a 
 mistake. 
 
 Ill. Date and Place.—The Epistle was written 
 from Jerusalem, which St. James does not seem to 
 have. ever left. There is internal evidence that 
 the writer was one familiar with Palestine and 
 had listened to our Lord’s teaching. The time 
 at which he wrote it has been fixed as late as 62, 
 and as early as 44. Those who see in its writer 
 a desire to counteract the effects of a miscon- 
 struction of St. Paul’s doctrine of Justification 
 by faith, in ii. 14-26 (Wiesinger), and those 
 who see a reference to the immediate destruc- 
 tion of Jerusalem in y. 1 (Macknight), and an 
 allusion to the name Christians in ii. 7 (De 
 Wette), argue in favour of the later date. 
 Bishop Chr. Wordsworth, regarding the Epistle 
 as subsequent to St. Paul’s Epistle to the Ro- 
 mans, is in favour of the year 60. The earlier 
 date is advocated by most recent writers, chiefly 
 on the ground that the Epistle could not have 
 been written by St. James after the Council in 
 Jerusalem, without some allusion to what was 
 there decided, and because the Gentile Christian 
 does not yet appear to be recognised. On these 
 grounds Punchard (Bp. Ellicott’s Commentary 
 on the New Test.) assigns it to the year 44. It 
 is now generally recognised as being the earliest 
 portion of the N. Τὶ (Mayor, Ep. of St. James, 
 p- exxiv.). 
 
 IV. Persons addressed.—St. James tells us 
 that his Epistle is addressed to “the Twelve 
 Tribes scattered abroad” (A. V.), “the Twelve 
 Tribes which are of the Dispersion” (R. V.). 
 The Jewish Dispersion or Diaspora plays a most 
 important part in the spread of the Gospel 
 throughout the world. There were four di- 
 visions of this Diaspora in the apostolic times— 
 the Babylonian, the Egyptian, the Syrian, and 
 the Roman. The Babylonian was far the most 
 
 5 E 
 
1522 JAMES, GENERAL EPISTLE OF 
 
 ancient of the four. It owed its existence to 
 the policy of the Assyrian kings (1 Ch. ν. 26; 
 2 K. xvii. 6, xviii. 11) and the Babylonish Cap- 
 tivity (2 K. xxiv. 16; xxv. 11). The Hebrews 
 carried away by the Assyrians and Babylonians 
 were scattered through Media, Persia, and Par- 
 thia, in bodies of varying size, and Babylon 
 became at a later date a famous seat of Jewish 
 learning. Alexander the Great and the Ptolemies 
 formed the Egyptian Diaspora by settling Jews 
 in Egypt, whence they spread along the coast to 
 Cyrene and Tripoli. The Syrian Diaspora owed 
 its existence to Seleucus Nicator, who established 
 colonies of Jews in Syria, whence they passed in 
 considerable numbers to Armenia, Asia Minor, 
 and Greece. The Roman Diaspora was of later 
 date than the Epistle of St. James, originating 
 with the conquest of Judaea by Pompey in the 
 year 63. The Jews belonging to the Diaspora, 
 while they were on the one hand “scattered 
 abroad” throughout the length and breadth of 
 the Roman empire, on the other kept up a close 
 connexion with Jerusalem, paying their Temple 
 dues and looking to the High Priest for direction 
 until the fall of the city. Those Jews of the 
 Diaspora that were converted to Christianity 
 would therefore naturally look to the Bishop of 
 Jerusalem as their instructor, and he would feel 
 himself to be their natural guide. It was to 
 them that he addressed this Epistle; not to the 
 unbelieving Jews (Lardner, Macknight, Hug, 
 &c.), but only to believers in Christ, as is proved 
 by i. 1; ii. 1,7; v.7. The rich men of v. 1 
 may be the unbelieving Jews (Stanley, p. 299), 
 but it does not follow that the Epistle was 
 written to them, as it is not unusual for an 
 orator, in denouncing, to use the second person. 
 
 V. Contents and Character —The main object 
 of the Epistle is not to teach doctrine, but to 
 improve morality St. James is the moral 
 teacher of the N. T.; not in such sense a moral 
 teacher as not to be at the same time a main- 
 tainer and teacher of Christian doctrine, but 
 yet mainly in this Epistle a moral teacher, like 
 the author of the Teaching of the Apostles, 
 a generation later. There are two ways of 
 explaining this characteristic of the Epistle. 
 Some commentators and writers see in St. 
 James a man who had not realised the essential 
 principles and peculiarities of Christianity, but 
 was in a transition state, half-Jew and half- 
 Christian. Schneckenburger thinks that Chris- 
 tianity had not penetrated his spiritual life. 
 Neander is of much the same opinion (Pflanzung 
 und Leitung, p. 579). And the same notion may 
 perhaps be traced in Dean Stanley and Dean 
 Alford. But there is another and more natural 
 way of accounting for the fact. St. James was 
 writing for a special class of persons, and knew 
 what that class especially needed; and there- 
 fore, under the guidance of God’s Spirit, he 
 -adapted his instructions to their capacities and 
 wants. Those for whom he wrote were, as we 
 have said, the Jewish Christians whether in 
 Jerusalem or abroad. St. James, living in the 
 centre of Judaism, saw what were the chief sins 
 and vices of his countrymen; and, fearing that 
 his flock might share in them, he lifted up his 
 voice to warn them against the contagion from 
 which they not only might, but did in part, 
 suffer. This was his main object ; but there is 
 another closely connected with it. As Christ- 
 
 JAMES, GENERAL EPISTLE OF 
 
 ians, his readers were exposed to trials which 
 they did not bear with the patience and 
 faith that would have become them. Here then 
 are the two objects of the Epistle—1l, to warn 
 against the sins to which as Jews they were 
 most liable; 2, to console and exhort them 
 under the sufferings to which as Christians they 
 were most exposed. The warnings and consola- 
 tions are mixed together, for the writer does 
 not seem to have set himself down to compose an 
 essay or a letter of which he had previously 
 arranged the heads; but, like one of the old 
 Prophets, to have poured out what was upper- 
 most in his thoughts, or closest to his heart, 
 without waiting to connect his matter, or to 
 throw bridges across from subject to subject. 
 While, in the purity of his Greek and the vigour 
 of his thoughts, we mark a man of education, in 
 the abruptness of his transitions and the un- 
 polished roughness of his styie we may trace 
 one of the family of the Davideans, who dis- 
 armed Domitian by the simplicity of their minds 
 and by exhibiting their hands hard with toil 
 (Hegesipp. apud Euseb. iii. 20). 
 
 The Jewish vices against which he warns 
 them are—Formalism, which mace the service 
 (θρησκεία) of God consist in washings and out- 
 ward ceremonies, whereas he reminds them 
 (i. 27) that it consists rather in Active Love 
 and Purity (see Coleridge’s Aids to Reflection, 
 Aph. 23; note also that the “ Active Love” of 
 St. James is analogous in the religious sphere to 
 Bishop Butler’s ‘‘ Benevolence” in morals; and St. 
 James’s “‘ Purity” answers to while it transcends 
 Bishop Butler’s “‘Temperance”); Fanaticism, 
 which under the cloak of religious zeal was 
 tearing Jerusalem to pieces (i. 20); Fatalism, 
 which threw its sins on God (i. 13) ; Meanness, 
 which crouched before the rich (ii. 2); False- 
 hood, which had made words and oaths play- 
 things (iii. 2-12); Partisanship (iii. 14); Evil- 
 speaking (iv. 11); Boasting (iv. 16); Oppres- 
 sion (v. 4). The great lesson which he teaches 
 them, as Christians, is Patience—Patience in 
 trial (i. 2); Patience in good works (i. 22-25) ; 
 Patience under provocations (iii. 17); Patience 
 under oppression (v. 7); Patience under perse- 
 cution (v. 10): and the ground of their 
 Patience is, that the Coming of the Lord draw- 
 eth nigh, which is to right all wrongs (v. 8). 
 
 There are two points in the Epistle which 
 demand a somewhat more lengthened notice. 
 These are (a) ii. 14-26, which has been repre- 
 sented as a formal opposition to St. Paul’s doc- 
 trine of Justification by Faith, and (0) v. 14, 15, 
 which is quoted as the authority for the Sacra- 
 ment of Extreme Unction. 
 
 (a) Justification being an act not of man but 
 of God, both the phrases ‘“ Justification by 
 Faith” and “ Justification by Works” are in- 
 exact. Justification must either be by Grace, 
 or of Reward. Therefore our question is, Did or 
 did not St. James hold Justification by Grace ? 
 If he did, there is no contradiction between the 
 Apostles. Now there is not one word in St, 
 James to the effect that a man can earn his 
 justification by works; and this would be 
 necessary in order to prove that he held Justifi- 
 cation of Reward. Still St. Paul does use the 
 expression “justified by faith” (Rom. v. 1), 
 and St. James the expression “justified by 
 works, not by faith only.” And here is an 
 
JAMES, GENERAL EPISTLE OF 
 
 apparent opposition. But, if we consider the 
 meaning of the two Apostles, we see that there 
 is no contradiction either intended or possible. 
 St. Paul was opposing the Judaizing party, 
 which claimed to earn acceptance by good works, 
 whether the works of the Mosaic Law, or works 
 of piety done by themselves. In opposition to 
 these, St. Paul lays down the great truth that 
 acceptance cannot be earned by man at all, but 
 is the free gift of God to the Christian man, for 
 the sake of the merits of Jesus Christ, appro- 
 priated by each individual, and made his own by 
 the instrumentality of faith. St. James, on the 
 other hand, was opposing the old Jewish tenet 
 that to be a child of Abraham was all in all; 
 that godliness was not necessary; so that the 
 belief was correct. This presumptuous confi- 
 dence had transferred itself, with perhaps 
 double force, to the Christianized Jews. They 
 had said, “Lord, Lord,” and that was enough, 
 without doing the Father’s will. They had re- 
 cognised the Messiah: what more was wanted ? 
 They had faith: what more was required of 
 them? It is plain that their “faith” was a 
 totally different thing from the “ faith” of St. 
 Paul. St. Paul tells us that what he means by 
 “faith” is a “faith that worketh by love;” 
 but the very characteristic of the “ faith ” which 
 St. James is attacking, and the very reason why 
 he attacked it, was that it did not work by love, 
 but was a bare assent of the head, not influencing 
 the heart,—a faith such as devils can have, and 
 tremble. St. James tells us that faith which 
 does not influence practice is not sufficient on 
 the part of man for Justification; St. Paul tells 
 us that faith which does influence practice by 
 aifecting the heart is sufficient : and the reason 
 why the first will not justify us is, according to 
 St. James, because it lacks that special quality, 
 the addition of which makes it to be the last. 
 See on this subject Bull’s Harmonia Apostolica 
 et Examen Censurae; Jeremy Taylor’s Sermon 
 on “ Faith working by Love,” vol. viii. p. 284, 
 Lond. 1850; and, as a corrective of Bull’s view, 
 Laurence’s Bampton Lectures, iv. v. vi., Oxf. 
 1820. Dr. Salmon (/ntrod. p. 575 sq.) has some 
 valuable remarks showing the perfect consis- 
 tency of St. Paul and St. James in their teach- 
 ing on Justification. 
 
 (Ὁ) With respect to v. 14, 15, it is enough to 
 say that the ceremony of Extreme Unction and 
 the ceremony described by St. James differ both 
 in their subject and in their object. The sub- 
 ject of Extreme Unction is a sick man who is 
 about to die; and its object isnot hiscure. The 
 subject of the ceremony described by St. James 
 is a sick man who is not about to die; and its 
 object is his cure, together with the spiritual 
 benefit of absolution. St. James is plainly giv- 
 ing directions with respect to the manner of 
 administering one of those extraordinary gifts of 
 the Spirit with which the Church was endowed 
 only in the Apostolic age and the age imme- 
 diately succeeding the Apostles. 
 
 VI. Bibliography.—The following expository 
 works on St. James’s Epistle may be mentioned 
 as worthy of notice. The Commentary of Oecu- 
 menius in Greek, Jacobi Apostoli Epistola Ca- 
 tholica, in Pat. Gr. cxix. 455; Thos. Manton, 
 Practical Commentary on the Epistle of James, 
 1651; Dr. George Benson’s Paraphrasis in 
 Epist. 8. Jacob., ed. by J. D. Michaelis, Halae 
 
 ἱ 
 
 JAMLECH 1523 
 
 Magdeburgicae, 1746; Ὁ), J. S. Semler’s Para- 
 phrasis Epist, Jac., Halae, 1781; 5. F. N. Morus, 
 Praelectiones in Jacobi ct Petri Epistolas, Lipsiae, 
 1794; Schneckenburger’s Annotatio ad Lpist. 
 Jac. perpetua, Stuttg. 1832; C. G. G. Theile, 
 Commentaria in Epistolam Jacobi, Lips. 1833 ; 
 Davidson’s Introduction to the New Test. vol. iii. 
 Ῥ. 296 sq., Lond. 1851; Alford’s Greek Test. 
 vol. iv. p. 274, Lond. 1859; Wordsworth’s Greek 
 Test., Lond. 1860; The Speaker’s Commentary, 
 N. T., iv. p. 105, Lond. 1881; Ellicott’s WV. 7. 
 Commentary, iii. p. 351, Lond, (without date) ; 
 ¥. Tilney Bassett, Epistle of St. James, with 
 revised Text and Translation, and Notes Critical 
 and Explanatory, 1876; Dr. George Salmon, A 
 Historical Introduction to the Study of the Buoks 
 of the New Testament, 1885, pp. 558 sqq. 
 
 The following spurious works have been at- 
 tributed to St. James:—1. The Gospel of James 
 or Protevangelium. 2. Historia de Nativitate 
 Mariae. 3. De miraculis infantiae Domini nostri, 
 ὅς, Of these, the Protevangelium is worth a 
 passing notice, not for its contents, which are a 
 mere parody on the early chapters of St. Luke, 
 transferring the events which occurred at our 
 Lord’s Birth to the birth of St. Mary His 
 mother, but because it appears to have been 
 known so early in the Church. It is possible 
 that Justin Martyr (Dial. cum Tryph. ο. 78) and 
 Clement of Alexandria (Strom. lib. viii.) refer 
 to it. Origen speaks of it (in Matt. xiii. 55); 
 Gregory Nyssen (Op. p. 346, ed. Paris), Epi- 
 phanius (Haer, 1xxix.), John Damascene (Orat. i. 
 ii. in Nativ. Mariae), Photius (Orat. in Nativ. 
 Mariae), and others allude to it. ThejProtevan- 
 gelium and other apocryphal writings are the 
 unsuspected source of many legends and beliefs. 
 Thence came, as we have seen that St. Jerome 
 complains, the hypothesis of James, Joses, Jude, 
 Simon, and their sisters being the children of 
 Joseph by a previous marriage, adopted from 
 them by Origen and Epiphanius. Thence too 
 were borrowed all the miraculous and legendary 
 features of the story of St. Mary, which were 
 admitted into the Church after the Nestorian 
 controversies. The Protevangelium was first 
 published in Latin in 1552, in Greek in 1564, 
 The oldest MS. of it now existing is of the 
 10th century (see J. C. Thilo’s Codes Apocry- 
 phus Novi Testamenti, tom.i. pp. 45, 108, 159, 
 337, Lips. 1832; Salmon’s Introd. p. 229; 
 Mayor, Ep. of St. James, Lond. 1892). [F. M.] 
 
 JAMIN (ΩΣ = right hand?: B. ᾿Ιαμείν, 
 ἸἸαμείμ; A. Ἰαμίν : Jumin). 1. Second son of 
 Simeon (Gen. xlvi. 10; Ex. vi. 15; 1 Ch. iv. 24), 
 founder of the family of the Jaminites (Num. 
 xxvi. 12). 
 
 2. (Ὁ. Ἰαμείν ; A. Ἰαβείν.) Aman of Judah, 
 of the great house of Hezron; second son of 
 Ram the Jerahmeelite (1 Ch. ii. 27). 
 
 3. One of the Levites who under Ezra and 
 Nehemiah read and expounded the Law to the 
 people (Neh. viii. 7). By the LXX. he and 
 most others in this passage are omitted. 
 
 JA'MINITES, THE (93°35; B. 6 Ἰαμινεί, 
 
 A. Ἰαμινί; familia Jaminitarum), the descendants 
 of JAMIN the son of Simeon (Num. xxvi. 12). 
 
 JAM'LECH (41) = God makes to reign; 
 B. Ἰεμολόχ, A. ᾿Αμαλήκ ; Jemlech), one of the 
 5 E 2 
 
1524 JAMNIA 
 
 chief men (ONY), A. V. “ princes”) of the | 
 tribe of Simeon (1 Ch. iv. 34), probably in the | 
 time of Hezekiah (see v. 41). 
 
 JAM'NIA (Iapvia, Ἰάμνεια ; Joseph. Ant. ix. 
 10, § 3, and freq., Ἰάμνεια ; Jamnia), 1 Mace. 
 iv. 15; v. 58; x. 69; xv. 40. [JABNEEL.] 
 
 JAM'NITES, THE (οἱ ἐν Ἰαμνείᾳ, of Ἰαμ- 
 νῖται; Jamnitae, qui erant Jamniae, qui apud 
 Jamniam fuerunt), 2 Mace. xii. 8, 9, 40. [JaB- 
 NEEL. | 
 
 JAN’NA (Clavvd, Ἰανναί), son of Joseph, and 
 father of Melchi, in the genealogy of Christ 
 (Luke iii. 24). 10 is perhaps only a variation of 
 Joannes or John. [A. C. H.] 
 
 JANNES and JAMBRES (Ἰαννῆς καὶ Ἴαμ- 
 βρῆς, al. Μαμβρῆς ; Jannes et Mambres), the 
 Egyptian magicians who withstood Moses at the 
 court of Pharaoh. They are so named by St. 
 Paul (2 Tim. iii. 8), though in the early account 
 (Ex. vii. 11) neither their names nor their num- 
 ber are recorded. In the apostolic age Pliny (ZZ. Ν. 
 xxx. 1,8 11) mentions Jannes (the reading adopted 
 in the latest and best editions, e.g. Detlefsen’s, 
 1871) thus: “ Est et alia factio a Mose et Janne et 
 Lotape ac Judaeis pendens, sed multis milibus 
 annorum post Zoroastrem.” About the middle 
 of the 2nd century Apuleius (Apol. p. 544, ed. 
 Flor.) places Moses and Jannes among the cele- 
 brated magi who lived after Zoroaster. In the 
 period of the Antonines the Pythagorean phi- 
 losopher Numenius (as quoted by Eusebius, 
 Praep. Ev. ix. 8) in his treatise De Bono made 
 mention of Jannes and Jambres as writers 
 on the religion of Egypt and skilled in magic, 
 
 resisting Moses. In the middle of the 3rd 
 century the opinion of Origen was (Jn Matth. 
 ὃ 117 fin. in Pat. Gr. xiii. 1769 0) that St. 
 Paul’s information was derived from an apocry- 
 phal book (Jiber secretus) entitled Jannes et 
 Jambres Liber, of which nothing is now known; 
 though it, or some similar work, was circulating 
 in 494 when Pope Gelasius included among the 
 apocryphal books that were to be rejected one 
 bearing the title Poenitentia Jamnae et Mambrae 
 (Gelas. Epist. et Decret. in Pat. Lat. lix. 163 4; 
 Mansi, Conci/. viii. 151 B). Theodoret (on 2 Tim. 
 iii. 8, in Pat. Gr. lxxxii. 847) considered that 
 St. Paul learnt the two names from Jewish un- 
 written teaching (non scripta doctrina); and 
 this opinion has been adopted by many modern 
 writers. D’Herbelot (in his Biblioth. Orient. 
 pp- 648, 649, ed. 1697, art. Moussa ben Amran) 
 mentions a tradition from Arabic sources that 
 the principal magicians called in to oppose 
 Moses were two brothers, Sabour and Gadour, 
 while two others were Giaath and Mosfa, these 
 latter representing, as D’Herbelot conceives, 
 Jannes and Jambres. Some of the older learning 
 of this subject was collected by J. A. Fabricius, 
 in his Codex Epigraphus Vet. Test., 1713 (vol. ii. 
 pt. 2, p. 813), where the apocryphal book Jannes 
 and Jambres is dealt with. The Rabbinical 
 branch of the subject will be found discussed in 
 Buxtorf’s Hebrew and Talmudical Leaxicon, For- 
 scher’s new edition (1869-75), under the heading 
 NDI) NAM, Jochanna et Mamre, p. 481. 
 Several passages in Hebrew are adduced showing 
 various readings of the names. The Targum of | 
 
 JANOHAH 
 
 Jonathan (Ex. vii. 11) gives the names as D3’ 
 D711"), Jannes et Jambres (Janis and Jamheres, 
 J. W. Etheridge’s Version of the Taryums of 
 the Pentateuch, 1862, i. 461); whereas in the 
 Talmud they are called N19191 NIN’, Jochana 
 et Mamre. Buxtorf considers that the first of 
 the two names has been corrupted from an 
 original jn, Jochanan, whence Johannes. 
 Riehm likewise (17 WB., 1884, 5. v.) recognises 
 this difference between the Targumistic and 
 Talmudic forms. To the view which would 
 make the two names indicate the “ children of 
 Jambri” (1 Mace. ix. 36, 37) he rightly objects 
 the high probability that the reading there 
 ought to be Ambri. He has no doubt that both 
 Jambres and Mambres have their root in the 
 hiphil form of the Hebrew ΠῚ, “to rebel” ; 
 while as to Jannes he seeks to show that it is a 
 mutilated form of Jochanan (%. g. Johannes), 
 with a probable meaning of ‘“‘seducer.” For an 
 illustration of his argument, he points to the 
 name Jannaeus borne by the Jewish king Alex- 
 ander, B.c. 104. On the other hand, there is 
 thought to be some evidence of an Egyptian 
 origin of these names. Naville, in the eighth 
 Memoir of the Lgypt Exploration Fund, 1891, 
 which is devoted to the recent excavations of 
 Bubastis, mentions (p. 23) his discovery of the 
 name of a king read by him as Ian-Ra. This 
 king he considers to have been one of the Hyksos 
 dynasty, and his conclusion with regard to his 
 identity is that he was the Ἰανιᾶς or ᾿ἈΑννᾶς, 
 perhaps to be read as Ἰανρᾶς, mentioned in a 
 fragment of Manetho preserved by Josephus. 
 The place in Josephus is Contr. Apion. lib. i. 
 c.14; and in the Paris edition of that author, 
 1845-7, the reading is Ἰανίας. In the same 
 passage as given by Miiller in his Hragmenta 
 Historicorum Graec. (Paris, 1848, vol. ii. p. 510) 
 the readings are ᾿Ιαννὰς and Ἰανίας. The ce- 
 semblance of these names (including the one 
 discovered at Bubastis) to Ἰαννῆς and Ἰαμβρῆς 
 may be thought to afford some probability in 
 assigning to the latter an early Egyptian an- 
 tiquity. For a discussion of the Egyptian ma- 
 gicians, see MAGIC. [Ὁ. H.] 
 
 JANO’AH (M3'; B. ᾿Ανιώχ, A. Ἰανώχ; 
 Janoe), a place apparently in the north of 
 Galilee, or the “land of Naphtali”—one of 
 those taken by Tiglath-pileser in his first in- 
 cursion into Palestine (2 Κὶ, xv. 29). No trace 
 of it appears elsewhere. By Eusebius and 
 Jerome (0.5.2. p. 268, 59; p. 165, 20), and even 
 by Reland (Pal. p, 826), it is confounded with 
 Janohah, in the centre of the country. It is 
 now possibly Ydnth, a village E. of Tyre 
 (PEF. Mem. i. 51). [α1 [W.] 
 
 JANO'HAH, R. V. JANOAH (712), ἐσ. 
 
 Yanochah: B. in v. 6 Ἰανωκά, but inv. 7 Maye; 
 A. Ἰανώ: Janoé), a place on the boundary of 
 Ephraim (apparently that between it and Ma- 
 nasseh). It is named between Taanath-Shiloh 
 and Ataroth, the enumeration proceeding from 
 west to east (Josh. xvi. 6,7). Eusebius (08.* 
 Ρ. 268, 59) places it in Acrabattine, 12 miles 
 east of Neapolis. About 8 miles from Ndb/us, 
 and about S.E. in direction, 2 miles from 
 ‘Akrabeh, is the village of Ydniin, doubtless 
 identical with the ancient Janohah. It seems 
 to have been first visited in modern times by 
 
JANUM 
 
 Van de Velde (ii. 303, May 8, 1852; see also | 
 
 1525 
 
 By far the most interesting question however 
 
 JAPHIA 
 
 Rob. iii. 297). It is on the edge of a deep valley | relating to this patriarch is that arising from 
 
 descending sharply eastward towards the Jordan. 
 The modern village is very small, but there are 
 numerous rock-hewn cisterns and caverns of 
 ancient. date. On a rocky hill to the E. is a 
 small building sacred to Neby Nun (PEF. Mem. 
 ii. 387; Guérin, Samarie, ii. 6). [Gu] Weil 
 
 JA'NUM, R. V. JANIM (013), following 
 the Qeri of the Masorets, but in the Kethib 
 it is O°)’, Janim = slumber; B. Ἰεμάειν, A. 
 "Iavovu; Janum), a town of Judah in the moun- 
 tain district, apparently not far from Hebron, 
 and named between Eshean and Beth-tappuah 
 (Josh. xv..55). It was not known to Eusebius 
 and Jerome (OS.? p, 268, 46; p. 165, 8), nor 
 does it appear to have been yet met with by 
 any modern investigator. Conder has suggested 
 as a possible identification Beni N‘aim, a large 
 village about 3 miles E. of Hebron (PEF. Mem. 
 iii. 303, 504). ΟῚ 
 
 JA'PHETH (B. Ἰάφεθ), Judith ii. 2ὅ ; one of 
 the countries to the borders of which Holofernes 
 marched with his army. It was toward the 
 south, “over against Arabia,” and was possibly 
 the district of which Javan was the capital. 
 {[JAvAN, 2.] For other identifications, see 
 Speaker’s Comm. in loco. 
 
 JAPHETH (N53; Ἰάφεθ; Japheth), one of 
 the three sons of Noah, considered by some to 
 have been the eldest, by others the second, 
 and by others the youngest. The last opinion 
 is based on the fact that in every mention 
 of the three together, the order is Shem, 
 Ham, Japheth (Gen. v. 32, vi. 10, vii. 13, 
 ix. 18, x. 1; 1 Ch. i. 4). The reasons for 
 thinking him the eldest are these. (1) When 
 the posterities of the three sons are enumerated, 
 the line of Japheth is taken up first, that of 
 Ham second, and that of Shem third (Gen. x. 
 2,6, 21). But the position of Shem here can 
 be otherwise accounted for; namely, by the fact 
 that in his line stands Abraham, whose descent 
 and posterity it is the historian’s ultimate object 
 to relate; which being the case, the inversion of 
 the usual order of the brothers, enabling the 
 history to proceed uninterruptedly, was but 
 natural. (2) In Gen. x. 21, Shem is called 
 “the brother of Japheth the elder” (A.V., sup- 
 ported by the LXX. and other ancient autho- 
 rities). But this rendering of the Hebrew is 
 disputed, other Versions, including the Vulgate, 
 making it “the elder brother of Japhet,” and 
 this is adopted in the text of the R. V., which 
 relegates the A.V. to the margin. (3) In Gen. 
 ix. 24, Ham (though not named) appears the one 
 alluded to as the “ younger son” of Noah; but 
 against this it is argued (vid. Speaker’s Comm. 
 in loc.) that the expression, which is literally 
 “little son,” could have pointed to Canaan 
 the grandson. On the whole the reason given 
 for regarding Japheth as the third son seems 
 decidely to outweigh the arguments against it, 
 though the point cannot be considered decided 
 (see Delitzsch [1887] and Dillmann® on the 
 passages in Genesis). Japheth, like his two 
 brothers, was born about a century before the 
 Flood (Gen. v. 32; vi. 11), as Josephus also 
 says, placing them in the order—Shem, Japheth, 
 Ham (Ant. i. 4, ὃ 1). 
 
 the prophetic passage (Gen. ix. 27), “God shall 
 enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents 
 of Shem, and Canaan shall be his servant.” The 
 letters for “shall enlarge” and “ Japheth,” 
 ΓΞ", are the very same, if the vowel-points be 
 disregarded. In the Targum of Onkelos the 
 prophecy is thus explained— The Lord shall 
 enlarge Japheth, and He [se. the Lord] shall 
 make His Shekinah to dwell in the taber- 
 nacles of Shem, and Kenaan shall be servant 
 unto them.” In the Targum of Jonathan 
 the comment is—“The Lord shall beautify 
 the borders of Japhet, and his sons shall be 
 proselyted and dwell in the schools of Shem, 
 and Kenaan shall be a servant unto them” 
 (J. W. Etheridge’s Version of the Targums, 
 1862, i. 54, 185}. In Jonathan the “enlarge- 
 ment”? appears pretty much confined to the 
 advantage the Japhetan race was to receive 
 from intercourse with Shem, viz. its religious 
 enlightenment, and this interpretation strik- 
 ingly harmonizes with such prophecies as Gen. 
 xxii, 18 and Is. Ix. 3 sq. The sacred writer 
 when concluding the earlier posterities adds 
 an ethnographical summary for each of the 
 brothers, and the ethnography is in the main 
 still recognisable. In the case of Japheth the 
 dispersion was through seven sons,—Gomer, 
 Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Meshech, Tiras, 
 which names may be separately consulted, and 
 the summary is: ‘By these were the isles of 
 the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one 
 after his tongue, after their families, in their 
 nations ” (Gen. x. 5). This description is com- 
 monly understood to indicate the European and 
 N.W. Asiatic coast lands of the Mediterranean, 
 which are to a large extent insular and penin- 
 sular. That was as much as the view of the 
 historian at the time of his writing embraced. 
 Josephus (Ant. i. 4, §6) gives the ethnography 
 of the subject as apprehended by him. Re- 
 searches of later ages have led ethnologists to 
 regard the Indo-European collection of peoples 
 (including of course their distant oceanic develop- 
 ments of more recent times) as now substantially 
 representing the Japhetan race. <A speculation 
 as to how the religious ideas of this great family 
 may be supposed to have been developed from 
 the times of their Noachian progenitor, previous 
 to their enlightenment through direct propaga- 
 tion among them of the knowledge revealed to 
 the line of Shem, may be seen worked out in 
 Alexander William Earl of Crawford’s Creed of 
 Japhet, 1891. LC. H.] 
 
 JAPHI'A (δ) = splendid; B. Φαγγαί, A. 
 Ἰαφαγαί; Japhic). The boundary of Zebulun 
 ascended from Daberath to Japhia, and thence 
 passed to Gath-hepher (Josh. xix. 12). Daberath 
 is now Debirich, at the foot of Mount Tabor, and 
 Gath-hepher is probably ef Mesh-hed, 22 miles 
 N. of Nazareth. Japhia is now Yadfa,* 13 miles 
 S.W. of Nazareth. There are few remains of the 
 old town, but a system of domed subterranean 
 chambers, in three storeys, hewn out of the rock, 
 
 2 It should be remarked that Yifa, Lb, is the 
 
 modern representative of both 15)», ὁ.6. Joppa, and 
 55, Japhia, two names originally very distinct. 
 
1520 JAPHIA 
 
 is interesting (Rob. ii. 343-4; PEF. Mem. i. 353 ; | 
 Guérin, Galilé, i. 103 ; Sepp, J. und h. L. ii. 137). 
 Eusebius (OS.? p. 269, 69, Ἰάφεθ) identifies it 
 with Haifa, Sycaminon (‘Hpd); but this identifi- 
 cation, though endorsed by Reland (Pal. p. 826), 
 is neither etymologically nor topographically ad- 
 missible. Ydfa is probably also the same as the 
 ᾿Ἰαφὰ which was occupied by Josephus during 
 his struggle with the Romans—“a very large 
 village of Lower Galilee, fortified with walls 
 and full of people” (Vita, § 45; cp. 37, 52, and 
 
 B. J. ii. 20, § 6), of whom 15,000 were killed 
 and 2,130 taken prisoners by the Romans (B. J. 
 iii. 7, § 31); though if Jefat be Jotapata, this 
 can hardly be, as the two are about 10 miles 
 apart, and he expressly says that they were 
 neighbours to each other. 
 
 A tradition, which first appears in Innomi- 
 natus iv. (6. 1270) and afterwards in Marino 
 Sanuto and in Sir John Maundeville, makes 
 
 ‘afa the birthplace of Zebedee and of the 
 Apostles James and John, his sons. Hence it is 
 called by the Latin monks of Nazareth “San 
 Giacomo” (see Quaresmius, Hlucidatio, ii. 843 ; 
 and Early Trav. p. 186). Maundeville calls it 
 the “Castle of Saffra.” So too Von Harff, 
 A.D. 1498: “Saffra, eyn casteel van wylcheme 
 Alpheus und Sebedeus geboren waren” (Pilger- 
 fahrt, 195). [G.] [W.] 
 
 JAPHIA (8) = brilliant ; B. Ἰεφθᾶ, A. 
 Ἰαφιέ; Japhia). 1. King of Lachish at the 
 time of the conquest of Canaan by the Israelites 
 (Josh. x. 3); one of the five “kings of the 
 Amorites ” who entered into a confederacy 
 against Joshua, and who were defeated at Beth- 
 horon, and lost their lives at Makkedah. The 
 king of Lachish is mentioned more than once 
 in this narrative (vv. 5, 23), but his name occurs 
 only as above. 
 
 2, (In 2 Sam. B. Ἰεφιές, A. ᾿Αφιέ; in 1 Ch. Β. 
 *lavove, Ἰανουού, A. Ἰαφιέ : Japhia.) One of the 
 sons of David, tenth of the fourteen born to him 
 by his wives after his establishment in Jeru- 
 salem (2 Sam. v. 15; 1 Ch. iii. 7, xiv. 6). In 
 the Hebrew form of this name there are no 
 variations. The Peshitto has Nephia, and, in 
 1 Ch. iii., Nepheg. In the list given by Jose- 
 phus (Ant. vii. 3, § 3) it is not recognisable: it 
 may be ’Hyvapfy, or it may be Ἴεναέ. There 
 do not appear to be any traditions concerning 
 Japhia. The genealogy is given under DAvID, 
 p- 729. Galerie 
 
 JAPH-LET (oda = whom God delivers : Ἴα- 
 φλήτ; B. Ἰφαμήλ, ᾿Αφαλήχ, and Ἰαφαλήλ; A. 
 ᾿ἸΙαφαλήτ: Jephiat), a descendant of Asher 
 through Beriah, his youngest son; named as 
 the father of three Bene-Japhlet (1 Ch. vii. 32, 
 33). 
 
 JAPHLE'TI, R. V. JAPHLETITES, THE 
 CDRE A = “the Japhletite;” B. ᾿Απταλείμ, 
 A. τοῦ ᾿Ιεφαλθί; Jephicti). The “boundary 
 of the Japhletite” is one of the landmarks 
 on the south boundary-line of Ephraim (Josh. 
 xvi. 3), west of Beth-horon the lower, and 
 between it and Ataroth. Who “the Japh- 
 letite” was who is thus perpetuated we 
 cannot ascertain. Possibly the name preserves 
 the memory of some ancient tribe who at a 
 
 JAREB 
 
 remote age dwelt on these hills, just as the 
 former presence of other tribes in the neighbour- 
 hood may be inferred from the names of Zema- 
 yaim, Ophni (the Ophnite), Cephar ha-Ammonai, 
 and others. [BENJAMIN, p. 395, note.] We can 
 hardly suppose any connexion with JAPHLET of 
 the remote Asher (Dillmann? in loco); but the 
 name may be compared with that of Palti 
 (Φαλτὶ) son of Raphu, a Benjamite who was 
 one of the twelve spies (Num. xiii. 9). No 
 trace of the name has yet been discovered in 
 the district. [1 
 
 JA'PHO, R. V. JOPPA (8), beauty ; Ἰόππη; 
 Joppe). This word occurs in the A. V. but once, 
 Josh. xix. 46. It is the accurate representation 
 of the Hebrew word which on its other occur- 
 
 rences is rendered by the better known form 
 of Joppa (2 Ch. ii. 16; Ezra iii. 7; Jon. i. 3). 
 
 In its modern garb it is Yafa (sb), which is 
 also the Arabic name of JAPHIA, a very dif- 
 ferent word in Hebrew. [Joppa; JOPPE.] 
 
 JA'RAH (ΠῚ 5, probably a corruption for 
 ΠῚ; “Lada 5 Jara), one of the descendants 
 
 of Saul; son of Micah, and great-grandson 
 of Meribbaal, or Mephibosheth (1 Ch. ix. 42, 
 ep. v.40). In the parallel list of ch. viii. the 
 name is materially altered to JEHOADAH. 
 
 JA’REB (1): Ἰαρείμ, as if D', ia both 
 Hos. v. 13 and x. 6;* though Theodoret gives 
 Ἰαρεὶβ in the former passage, and “Iapelu in the 
 latter; and Jerome has Jarib for the Greek 
 equivalent of the LXX.), a name occurring 
 twice: as, ‘When Ephraim saw his sickness 
 and Judah saw his wound, then went Ephraim 
 to the Assyrian, and sent to king Jareb; yet 
 could he not heal you” (Hos. v. 13); Samaria 
 ‘shall be carried unto Assyria for a present 
 to king Jareb” (Hos. x. 6). As alternatives for 
 “king Jareb” the A. V. margin gives “the 
 king of Jareb,” or “the king that should 
 plead.” The R. V. retains the same text, with 
 only one marginal alternative, “a king that 
 should contend; ” the translators of both Ver- 
 sions following a correct grammatical instinct 
 in making Jareb a proper name. The Syriac 
 
 00 
 gives Opa, yrdb, as the name of a country, 
 which is applied by Ephrem Syrus to Egypt, 
 and the renderings of the Vulgate, “avenger” 
 (“ad regem wultorem”), which follows Sym- 
 machus, as well as those of Aquila (δικαζόμενον) 
 and Theodotion, “judge,” are justified by Jerome 
 by a reference to Jerubbaal, the name of Gideon 
 (see the first edition of this work for these and 
 other opinions) ; but it is best to accept the fact 
 that Hosea calls a contemporaneous monarch of 
 Assyria by the name of Jareb. Such a name 
 has not yet, however, been met with on the 
 monuments of Assyria. Some therefore have 
 identified this monarch with Assurdan (Schrader, 
 KAT? p. 439), others with Pul (or Tiglath- 
 pileser II.: cp. Orelli in loco in Strack u. 
 Zockler’s Κα. Komm.); while Sayce (Bab. 
 Record, ii. 18, 127, 145) considers it the original 
 
 a As an instance of the contrary, see Νεβρὼδ for 
 Nimrod. 
 
JARED 
 
 name of Sargon. ‘The riddle of the name must | 
 still be considered unsolved. 
 
 Two mystical interpretations, alluded to by 
 Jerome as current among commentators in his 
 ‘time, are remarkable for the singularly opposite 
 conclusions at which they arrived; the one re- 
 ferring the word to the devil, the other to 
 Christ. CW. A.W.) (F.] 
 
 JA’/RED (17), ic. Jered, as the name is | 
 given in A. V. of Ch., but in pause 7°)’, from 
 which the present form may have been derived, 
 though more probably from the Vulgate: LXX. 
 sometimes Ἰάρεδ, sometimes *Idper [see Swete 
 in loco]; N. T. ᾿Ιάρεθ [Westcott and Hort]; 
 Joseph. ᾿ἸἸαρέδης : Jared), one of the antedi- 
 luvian patriarchs, the fifth from Adam; son of 
 Mahalaleel, and father of Enoch (Gen. v. 15, 16, 
 18, 19, 20; Luke iii. 37). In the lists of Chro- 
 nicles the name is given in the A. V. JERED. 
 
 JARESI’AH, R. V. JAARESHIAH 
 
 whom nothing is recorded (1 Ch. viii. 27). 
 
 JAR-HA (991; Ἰωχήλ ; Jeraa), the Egyp- 
 tian servant of Sheshan, about the time of Eli, 
 to whom his master gave his daughter [AHLAT] 
 and heiress in marriage, and who thus became the 
 founder of a chief house of the Jerahmeel'tes, 
 which continued at least to the time of king 
 Hezekiah, and from which sprang several 
 illustrious persons, such as Zabad in the reign 
 of David, and Azariah in the reign of Joash 
 (1 Ch. ii. 31 sq.). [ΓΑΖΑΒΙΛΉ, 13; Zapap.] 
 Some, however (cp. Speaker’s Comm. in loc.), 
 consider Ahlai the name of a son who died 
 before the daughter was married to Jarha. It 
 may be noticed as an undesigned coincidence that 
 Jarha the Egyptian was living with Sheshan, a 
 Jerahmeelite, and that the Jerahmeelites had 
 their possessions on the side of Judah nearest to 
 Egypt (1 Sam. xxvii. 10: ep. 2 Sam. xxiii. 20, 
 21; Josh. xv. 21; 1 Ch. iv. 18). [JERAHMEEL; 
 JEHUDIJAH.] The etymology of Jarha’s name 
 is quite unknown. ΓΑ Ο Ea Cs ΠῚ 
 
 JA'RIB (Δ = adhering; B. “lapel, A. 
 *Iape(B; Jarib). 1. Named in the list of 1 Ch. 
 iv. 24 only, as a son of Simeon. He occu- 
 pies the same place as JACHIN in the parallel 
 lists of Gen. xlvi., Ex. vi., and Num. xxvi., and 
 the name is possibly a corruption from that (see 
 Burrington, i. 55). 
 
 2. (A. Ἰαρίβ ; B.’ApéB.) One of the “ chief 
 men” (DIN, “heads ”) who accompanied 
 Ezra on his journey from Babylon to Jerusalem 
 (Ezra yiii. 16); whether Levite or layman is not 
 clear. In 1 Esdras the name is given as JORIBAS. 
 
 3. (A. Ἰαρίβ; B. Ἰαρείμ, ἐξ. "Iwpelu.) A 
 priest of the house of Jeshua the son of Jozadak, 
 who had married a foreign wife, and was com- 
 pelled by Ezra to put her away (Ezra x. 18). 
 In 1 Esdras the name is Jorrpus. 
 
 4. (Ἰαρίβ, A. Ἰωαρίβ; 1 Macc. xiv. 29.) A 
 contraction or corruption of the name JOARIB, 
 which occurs correctly in ii. 1. 
 
 JARI'MOTH (Ἰαριμώθ, B. Ἰαρειμώθ: Lari- 
 
 moth), 1 Esd. ix, 28. [JEREMOTH. | 
 
 JASHEN 1527 
 
 JAR-MUTH (Mi = height ; Jarimuth). 
 1. Β. in Josh, x. and xii. Ἱερειμούθ: A. in Josh. 
 xii. 11, ᾿Ιεριμού; in Neh. BA. Ἰριμούθ: Jeri- 
 moth, Jerimuth). A town in the Shefelah or 
 
 | low country of Judah, named in the same 
 
 group with Adullam, Socoh, and Azekah (Josh. 
 xv. 35). Its king, Prram, was one of the 
 five who conspired to punish Gibeon for having 
 made alliance with Israel (Josh. x. 3, 5), and 
 who were routed at Beth-horon and put to 
 death by Joshua at Makkedah (v. 23). In this 
 narrative, and also in the catalogue of the 
 “yoyal cities ” destroyed by Joshua, Jarmuth is 
 named next to Hebron, which, however, was 
 quite in the mountains. In Neh. xi. 29 it is 
 named as having been the residence of some of 
 the children of Judah after the return from the 
 Captivity. Eusebius and Jerome either knew 
 two places of this name, or an error has crept 
 into the text of the Onomasticon;: for under 
 ᾿Ιαβεῖς, Jurimuth, they state it to be near Esh- 
 taol, 4 miles from Eleutheropolis (OS.? p. 267, 24 ; 
 
 | p. 164, 16); while under ἸἹερμοῦς, Jermus, they 
 
 gave it as 10 miles from Eleutheropolis, on the 
 road going up to Jerusalem, and state that it 
 was then called ᾿Ιερμοχώς, Jermucha(OS.? p. 268, 
 38; p. 164, 31). It is now Kh. el- Yarmik, a mass 
 of shapeless ruins, with cisterns, about 8 miles 
 N. of Beit Jibrin, Eleutheropolis, and close to 
 Shuweikeh, Socoh, and Zakariyah, Azekah. Its 
 distance from Eshtaol is 53 miles (Robinson, 
 ii. 17; PEF. Mem. iii. 128; Guérin, Jude, ii. 
 371 sq.; Tobler, Dritte Wanderung, pp. 120, 162- 
 3; Riehm, HWB. 5. v.). 
 
 2. (B. Ῥεμμάθ, A. Ἰερμώθ: Jaramoth.) A 
 city of Issachar, alloted with its suburbs to 
 the Gershonite Levites (Josh. xxi. 29). In the 
 specification of the boundaries of Issachar, no 
 mention is made of Jarmuth (see Josh. xix. 
 17-23), but a REMETH is mentioned there (v. 20) ; 
 and in the duplicate list of Levitical cities (1 Ch. 
 vi. 73) RAMOTH occupies the place of Jarmuth. 
 The two names are modifications of the same 
 root, and might without difficulty be inter- 
 changed. This Jarmuth does not appear to 
 have been yet identified. Conder proposes er- 
 Rdmeh, a village 53 miles N. of Samaria, near 
 which, at Neby Hazkin, there is a Samaritan 
 tradition that Issachar was buried (PEF. Mem. 
 ii. 154-5, 219). Riehm, however, considers an 
 identification with er-Rdmeh impossible, and 
 that a more probable though doubtful site is 
 el-Mazar, on the summit of Mount Gilboa and 
 not far from Engannim, with which it is named 
 
 (HWE. 5. v.). [RAMOTH.] {G.] [W.] 
 
 JARO’AH (Mi; B. Ἰδαί, A. ᾿Αδαΐ; Jara), 
 a chief man of the tribe of Gad (1 Ch. v. 14). 
 
 JA’SAEL (BA. ᾿Ασαῆλος; Azabus), 1 Esd. 
 ix. 80. [SHEAL.] 
 
 JA'SHEN (jt; ᾿Ασάν; Jasen). Βεπο- 
 Jashen—“ sons of Jashen”—are named in the 
 catalogue of the heroes of David’s guard in 
 2 Sam. xxiii. 32. In the Hebrew, as accented 
 by the Masorets, the words have no necessary 
 connexion with the names preceding or following 
 them; but in the A. V. they are attached to the 
 latter— of the sons of Jashen, Jonathan.” The 
 passage has every appearance of being imper- 
 fect, and accordingly, in the parallel list in 
 
1528 
 
 Chronicles, it stands, “the sons of Hashem the 
 Gizonite ” (1 Ch. xi. 34). Kennicott has examined 
 it at length (Dissertation, pp. 198-203. Cp. 
 Driver, Heb. Text of the BB. of Samuel, in loco), 
 and has shown good cause for believing that a 
 name has escaped, and that the genuine text was, 
 
 JASHER, BOOK OF 
 
 “of the Bene-Hashem, Gouni; Jonathan ben- | 
 
 Shamha.” In the list given by Jerome in his 
 Quaestiones Hebraicae, Jashen and Jonathan are 
 both omitted. τὰς W.] [F.] 
 
 JA'SHER, BOOK OF (πὶ ἼΒ0), or, as 
 the margin of the A. V. and R. V. gives it, the 
 book of “the upright,” is a record alluded to 
 in two passages only of the O. T. (Josh. x. 13 
 and 2 Sam. i. 18), and the subject of much 
 dispute. The former passage is omitted in the 
 LXX., while in the latter the expression is 
 rendered βιβλίον τοῦ εὐθοῦς : the Vulgate has 
 liber justorum in both instances. The Peshitto 
 in Joshua has “the book of praises or hymns,” 
 reading wn for TW, and a similar transposi- 
 tion will account for the rendering of the same 
 Version in Samuel, “the book of Ashir.” The 
 Targum interprets it “the book of the law,” and 
 this is followed by Jarchi, who gives, as the 
 passage alluded to in Joshua, the prophecy of 
 Jacob with regard to the future greatness of 
 Ephraim (Gen. xlviii. 19), which was fulfilled 
 when the sun stood still at Joshua’s bidding. 
 Further diversity of opinions proves, if it prove 
 nothing more, that no book was known to have 
 survived which could lay claim to the title of 
 the book of Jasher. 
 
 That the book of Jasher was one of the 
 writings which perished in the Captivity was 
 held by R. Levi ben Gershom, and his opinion 
 has been adopted by Junius, Hottinger (Thes. 
 Phil. ii. 2, § 2), and other writers (Wolfii Bub. 
 Heb, ii. 223). What the nature of the book 
 may have been can only be inferred from the 
 two passages in which it is mentioned and 
 their context; and, this being the case, there 
 is clearly wide room for conjecture.* Lowth 
 (Praelect. pp. 306, 307) imagined that the book 
 was a collection of national songs (cp. Ex. xv. 1); 
 and his view of the question, that of the Syriac 
 and Arabic translators, was adopted by Herder. 
 The more general opinion is that it was this and 
 something more, a book containing also deeds of 
 valour recorded of brave Israelites, and put 
 together somewhere about the time of Solomon 
 (see Dillmann? on Joshua, /. c., and the authori- 
 ties named there). Dr. Donaldson, in the preface 
 to his Jashar, or Fragmenta Archetypa Carminum 
 Hebraicorum in Masorethico Veteris Testamenti 
 textu passim tessellata, advanced a scheme for 
 the restoration of this ancient record, in accord- 
 ance with his own idea of its scope and contents. 
 The attempt has been universally condemned as 
 a failure needing no refutation.” 
 
 There are also extant, under the title of “ the 
 Book of Jasher,” two Rabbinical works (cp. 
 Davidson, op. cit.) : one a moral treatise, written 
 in A.D. 1394 by R. Shabbatai Carmuz Levita, of 
 which a copy in MS. exists in the Vatican 
 
 ® It is superfluous to repeat these conjectures. Many 
 of them are enumerated in the 1st ed. of this work. 
 
 b His scheme is briefly but sufficiently described by 
 Dr. Wright in the ist ed. of this work, and by Dr. 
 Davidson in Kitto’s Cyclop. of Bib. Lit.3 s. n. 
 
 JASHUB 
 
 Library ; the other, by R. Tham, treats of the 
 
 laws of the Jews in eighteen chapters, and was. 
 
 printed in Italy in 1544, and at Cracow in 1586. 
 | An anonymous work, printed at Venice and 
 | Prague in 1625, and said to have made its first 
 | appearance at Naples, was believed by some 
 Jews to be the record alluded to in Joshua. It 
 contains the historical narratives of the Penta- 
 | teuch, Joshua, and Judges, with many fabulous 
 additions. R. Jacob translated it into German, 
 _and printed his version at Frankfort-on-the- 
 Maine in 1674. It is said in the preface to the 
 first edition to have been discovered at the 
 destruction of Jerusalem, by Sidrus, one of the 
 officers of Titus, who, while searching a house 
 for the purpose of plunder, found in a secret 
 chamber a vessel containing the Books of the 
 Law, the Prophets, and Hagiographa, with many 
 others, which a venerable man was reading. 
 Sidrus took the old man under his protection 
 and built for him a house at Seville, where the 
 books were safely deposited. The book in 
 question is probably the production of a Spanish 
 Jew of the 13th cent. (Abicht, De libr. Recti, in 
 Thes. Nov. Theol. Phil. i, 525-534). A clumsy 
 forgery in English, which first appeared in 1751 
 under the title of “the Book of Jasher,” deserves 
 notice solely for the unmerited success with 
 which it was palmed off upon the public. It pro- 
 fessed to be a translation from the Hebrew into 
 English by Alcuin of Britain, who discovered it 
 in Persia during his pilgrimage. It was re- 
 printed at Bristol in 1827 and again in 1833, 
 in each case accompanied by a fictitious com- 
 mendatory note by Wiclif. ,, [W. A. W.] [F.] 
 
 JASHOBE’AM (O30: B. ᾿Ιεσεβαδά, Σο- 
 βοκάμ, Σοβάλ; &. Ἰεσσαιβαδά; A. Ἰσβαάμ, 
 Ἰεσβαάμ, ᾿Ἰσβοάμ: Jesbaam, Jesboam). It is 
 possibly one and the same follower of David, 
 bearing this name, who is described as a Hach- 
 monite (or son of Hachmon, marg.), who slew 
 three hundred, and was first of the mighty men 
 (1 Ch. xi. 11); as a Korhite who joined David 
 at Ziklag (1 Ch. xii. 6), and as son of Zabdiel, 
 captain of the first monthly course of soldiers, 
 numbering 24,000 (1 Ch. xxvii. 2). Hachmonite 
 would denote his descent from Hachmon, Korhite 
 his family [JenrEeL, 5]. In 2 Sam. xxiii. 8, his 
 name seems to be erroneously transcribed, 
 NAVA ALY (Ὁ. Ἰεβόσθε, t-e. NVA VN. Cp. 
 Luc. Ἰεσβαάλ, 1.6. bya ws). The original 
 name was probably Syayis or "δὲ (ὃν. being 
 altered into ΓΙ), the name being otherwise 
 obscured in 1 Ch. xix. xxvii. Cp. Driver, Heb. 
 Text of the BB. of Sam. and the summary of 
 
 | Kennicott’s view in the Speaker’s Comm, on 
 2 Sam. /. ὁ. (Ww. T. B.] ἘΞ 
 
 JA'SHUB (A3Y=he who returns; in the 
 Kethib of 1 Ch. vii. 1 it is 2°, in the Samaritan 
 Cod. of Num. xxvi. IW": Ἰασούβ ; B. in 1 Ch. 
 Ἰασσούρ : Jasub). 1. The third son of Issachar, 
 and founder of the family of the Jashubites 
 (Num. xxvi. 24; 1 Ch. vii. 1). In the list of 
 Gen. xlvi. the name is given (possibly in a con- 
 tracted or erroneous form, Gesen. Zhes. p. 583) as 
 Jos; but in the Samaritan Codex—followed by 
 the LXX.—Jashub. 
 
 2. (B. Ἰασούδ.) One of the sons of Bani, 
 a layman in the time of Ezra who had to put 
 
JASHUBILEHEM 
 
 away his foreign wife (Ezra x. 29). 
 the name is JASUBUS. 
 
 JASHU’BL-LE’HEM (OM? ‘20%, in some 
 
 copies ih δ Ὁ"; καὶ ἀπέστρεψεν αὐτούς ; et qui 
 reversi sunt in Lahem), a person or ἃ place 
 named among the descendants of Shelah, the 
 son of Judah by Bath-shua the Canaanitess 
 (1 Ch. iv. 22). The name does not occur again. 
 It is probably a place, and we should infer from 
 its connexion with Maresha and Chozeba—if 
 Chozeba be Chezib or Achzib—that it lay on 
 the western side of the tribe, in or near the 
 Shefelah. The Jewish explanations of this and 
 the following verse are very curious. ‘They may 
 be seen in Jerome’s Quaest. Hebr. on this pas- 
 sage, and, in a slightly different form, in the 
 Targum on the Chronicles (ed. Wilkins, 29, 30). 
 The mention of Moab gives the key to the whole. 
 Chozeba is Elimelech; Joash and Saraph are 
 Mahlon and Chilion, who “had the dominion in 
 Moab ” from marrying the two Moabite damsels: 
 Jashubi-Lehem is Naomi and Ruth, who re- 
 turned (Jashubi, from Δ δ᾽, “to return”) to 
 bread, or to Beth-/ehem, after the famine: and 
 the “ancient words” point to the Book of Ruth 
 as the source of the whole. [G.] [W.] 
 
 JASHU'BITES, THE ΟΠ; Samaritan, 
 win; A. 6 Ἰασουβί, B. -Ber; familia Jasubita- 
 rum). The family founded by Jashub the son 
 of Issachar (Num. xxvi. 24). [JasHuB, 1.] 
 
 In Esdras 
 
 JASVEL ὦν ivy = God creates ; Β. Ἐσσειήλ, 
 A. Ἐσσιήλ ; Jasicl), the last named on the 
 increased list of David’s heroes in 1 Ch. xi. 47. 
 He is described as the MEsopaITE. Nothing 
 more is known of him. 
 
 JA'SON (Ἰάσων ; Jason), a common Greek 
 name which was frequently adopted by Helleni- 
 zing Jews as the equivalent of Jesus, Joshua 
 (Inodus; cp. Joseph. Ant. xii. 5, § 1),* pro- 
 bably with some reference to its supposed con- 
 nexion with ἐᾶσθαι (i.e. the Healer). A parallel 
 change occurs in Alcimus (Eliakim); while 
 Nicolaus, Dositheus, Menelaus, &c., were direct 
 translations of Hebrew names. 
 
 1. JASON THE SON OF ELEAZER (cp. Ecclus. 1. 
 27, Ἰησοῦς υἱὸς Sipax ᾿Ελεάζαρ, Cod. A.) was 
 one of the commissioners sent by Judas Macca- 
 baeus to conclude a treaty with the Romans 
 B.C. 161 (1 Mace. viii. 17; Joseph. Ané. xii. 10, 
 
 6). 
 
 : 2. JASON THE FATHER OF ANTIPATER, which 
 last was an envoy to Rome at a later period 
 (1 Mace. xii. 16, xiv. 22), is probably the same 
 person as No. 1. 
 
 3. JASON OF CYRENE, a Jewish historian who 
 wrote “in five books” a history of the Jewish 
 war of liberation, which supplied the chief 
 materials for the Second Book of Maccabees. 
 His name and the place of his residence seem to 
 mark Jason as a Hellenistic Jew, and it is pro- 
 bable on internal grounds that his history was 
 written in Greek. This narrative included the 
 wars under Antiochus Eupator, and Jason must 
 therefore have written after B.c. 162; but 
 
 s Jason and Jesus occur together as Jewish names | ut \ 
 | robe (Ezek. xxviii. 13), But only in one of these 
 
 in the history of Aristeas (Hody, De Text. p. vii.). 
 
 JASPER 1529 
 
 nothing more is known of him than can be 
 gathered from 2 Mace. ii. 19-23. 
 
 4. Jason THE HicH-priest, the second son of 
 Simon IJ., and brother of Onias Ill. He suc- 
 ceeded in obtaining the high-priesthood from An- 
 tiochus Epiphanes (c. 175 B.c.) to the exclusion of 
 his elder brother (2 Mace. iv. 7-26), and changed 
 his name from Jesus to Jason (Joseph. Ant. xii. 
 5,§1). He laboured in every way to introduce 
 Greek customs among the people, and that with 
 great success (2 Mace. iv.; Joseph. J. c.). In 
 order to give permanence to the changes which 
 he designed, he established a gymnasium at 
 Jerusalem, and even the priests neglected their 
 sacred functions to take part in the games 
 (2 Mace. iv. 9, 14), and at last he went so far 
 as to send a deputation to the Tyrian games in 
 honour of Hercules. [HERCULES.] After three 
 years (6. B.C. 172), being in turn supplanted in 
 the king’s favour by his own emissary Menelaus 
 [MENELAUS], who obtained the office of high- 
 priest from Antiochus by the offer of a larger 
 bribe, Jason was forced to take refuge among 
 the Ammonites (2 Mace. iv. 26). On a report 
 of the death of Antiochus (c. 170 B.c.) he made 
 a violent attempt to recover his power (2 Mace. 
 v. 5-7), but was repulsed, and again fled to the 
 Ammonites. Afterwards he was compelled to 
 retire to Egypt, and thence to Sparta, whither 
 he went in the hope of receiving protection 
 “in virtue of his being connected with them by 
 το (ὦ Mace: van Sai ον tue Vigcc. xl mf 
 Frankel, Monatsschrift, 1853, p. 456), and 
 there “perished in a strange land” (2 Mace. 
 l. c.5 ep. Dan. xii. 30 sq.; 1 Mace. i. 12 sq.). 
 
 [B. F. W.] [C. H.] 
 
 5. JASON THE THESSALONIAN, who enter- 
 tained Paul and Silas, and was in consequence 
 attacked by the Jewish mob (Acts xvii. 5, 6, 
 7, 9). He is probably the same as the Jason 
 mentioned in Rom. xvi. 21, as a companion of 
 the Apostle, and one of his kinsmen (συγγενεῖς) 
 or fellow-tribesmen. Jason and the other dis- 
 ciples had to give security (τὸ ἱκανόν), which 
 probably means that they became bound against 
 all further disturbance, and that explains the 
 departure of the Apostles during the night. 
 Chrysostom on the other hand considers that 
 Jason answered for the production of the 
 Apostles; so that, by sending them away, he 
 in fact endangered his own life on their behalf 
 (37th Homily on the Acts, § 2, p. 283, in Pat. 
 Gr. |x. 265). LWA. Wil, (Casal 
 
 JASPER (ΠΡ ; ἴασπις ; iaspis), a precious 
 stone mentioned in the O. and N. T. In the 
 high-priest’s breastplate it stands, under its 
 Hebrew and English names, last of the twelve, 
 third in the fourth row (Ex. xxviii. 20, xxxix. 
 13), and under both names it adorns the robe of 
 the king of Tyre (Ezek. xxviii. 13). 
 
 Plato mentions as among highly-prized stones 
 σάρδια, ἰάσπιδες, σμάραγδοι (Phaed. p. 110 s. f.); 
 and Theophrastus specifies the σάρδιον, the ἴασπις, 
 the σάπφειρος, as stones engraved for seals and 
 as beautiful to the eye (de Lapid., sect. iv., § 23, 
 p. 343, ed. Wimmer). Before B.C. 285, sub- 
 sequently to the two last-named writers, the 
 
 | Septuagint Version was begun, in which ἴασπις 
 
 occurs twice, viz. in the high-priest’s breast- 
 plate (Ex. xxviii, 18) and in the Tyrian royal 
 
1530 
 
 places does it correspond in position with the 
 Hebrew, Yashépheh (A. V. jasper) ; namely, in the 
 robe, where it stands sixth. In the breastplate, 
 where it again stands sixth, the corresponding 
 Hebrew is Yahalom (A. V. diamond); while 
 twelfth, where the Hebrew is Yashépheh (A. V. 
 jasper), the Greek is ὀνύχιον. But it does not 
 follow that the LXX. translated Yahalom by 
 Yaoms and Yashépheh by ὀνύχιον ; for the order 
 of the words may have got misplaced. 
 
 Its earliest Latin occurrence is, we believe, in 
 Virgil (Aen. iv. 261), and here also we find it 
 for the first time described in appearance. 
 Aeneas wears a sword stellatus iaspide fulvd, in 
 which words we see a sparkling gold-coloured 
 
 em. 
 τ To about the same period belongs an epistle 
 quoted by Macrobius, wherein Augustus ad- 
 dressed Maecenas as Pearl of the Tiber, Emerald 
 of the Cilnii, Iaspis of Potters (Iaspi figulorum), 
 Beryl of Porsena (Macrob. ii. 4, § 12). 
 
 In the apostolic and sub-apostolic period this 
 stone is further mentioned and described. In 
 the Apocalypse the Divine Being on the throne 
 was to look upon like a jasper and a sardine 
 stone (iv. 3). The luminary (φωστὴρ) of the 
 New Jerusalem resembled the jasper, a stone 
 most precious (τιμιώτατος), clear as crystal 
 (κρυσταλλίζων, xxi. 11). The wall of the city 
 was of jasper (v. 18), as was also its first founda- 
 tion (v. 19). Josephus in his two accounts of the 
 breastplate (Ant. iii. 7, §5; B. J. v. 5, § 7) puts 
 taoms in the fifth place, where the Hebrew is 
 sappir (A. V. sapphire), though i does not 
 follow again that he was translating sappir by 
 taomis. 
 
 Pliny (WV. H. xxxvii. § 115, Sillig), treating 
 of Gemmae, says, “ viret et saepe translucet 
 iaspis;”’ but there was much variety of colour, 
 such as emerald-iike, bluish grey, air-like, caeru- 
 lean, purple, turbid, according to where the 
 stone was found, the best kind being purplish, 
 the second best rather rose-coloured, the third 
 somewhat of emerald tint. For magnitude Pliny 
 had seen an iaspis of fifteen (al. lec. eleven) 
 unciae carved into a breastplated figure of Nero. 
 
 Martiai said that Stella wore on his finger 
 sardonyxes, emeralds, diamonds, zaspides (v. 11, 
 1). Another was seeking out genuine sardo- 
 nyxes and fixing the value of great daspides (ix. 
 60, 19, 20). 
 
 Dioscorides (v. 159, al. 160) described the 
 ἴασπις as of various kinds, resembling emerald, 
 or crystal, or air, smoky, having bright white 
 veins, resembling turpentine. Dionysius Perie- 
 getes (vv. 724, 782, 1120) describes it as of the 
 colour of air and of water (ἠερόεσσα, ὑδατόεσσα), 
 
 JASPER 
 
 and mentioning it after the diamond makes it | 
 
 pale green and translucent (χλωρὰ διαυγάζουσαν). 
 
 Epiphanius describes the iaspis thus, in Rosen- 
 miiller’s translation: “The colour of some has a 
 greenish shade; these are more soft and im- 
 perfectly transparent. The internal mass 15 
 green; it resembles the rust of the nobler 
 metals and has several rows of strata. Another 
 species is of a light sea-green colour, with a 
 paler lustre. A third ... its bluish red is 
 somewhat diaphanous, and has also a wine and 
 amethyst colour... There is also a green 
 jasper having no iustre; and another still, 
 resembling snow and lithomarge, which is called 
 the old jasper” (Epiphan. De XII. Gemmis, 
 
 JATTIR 
 
 sect. vi. in Pat. Gr. xliii. 297, 332; E. F.C. 
 Rosenmiiller, Mineralogy and Botany of the 
 Bible, p. 41). Epiphanius, enumerating the 
 twelve stones in the order of the LXX., places 
 the daspis sixth. 
 
 Coming now to the jasper of the moderns, we 
 notice that Andreas Baccius, 1603, describes its 
 beautiful combination of many excellent greens 
 and whites (De Gemmis, c. 8, p. 70). A. R. 
 Millin de Grandmaison makes it the chief of the 
 opaque silicious stones, coloured green, yellow, 
 brown, black, grey; and he notices the blood 
 jasper, a green sort spotted with red (Arché- 
 ologie des Pierres Gravées, ed. 1826, p. 134). 
 Madame Barrera speaks of its lustreless fracture, 
 its complete lack of transparency, its advan- 
 tageous use in mosaics on account of its variety 
 of colour (Gems and Jewels, 1860, p. 201). 
 
 Augusto Castellani describes jasper as a dark 
 quartz, very compact and capable of receiving a 
 beautiful polish; white, brown, black jasper 
 being rare; red, blue, violet, screen, abundant ; 
 green the most common; blood jasper much 
 sought for engraving (Gems, tr. by Mrs. Brog- 
 den, 1871, p. 102). Streeter says it is found in 
 compact kidney-shaped masses, and in pebbles; 
 its colours, green, yellow, red, rarely blue}: near 
 Cairo it occurs in masses; in the Vatican there 
 are a vase of red jasper with white veins, 
 and one of black jasper with yellow veins 
 (Precious Stones and Gems, 1877, p. 201). At 
 South Kensington there are amorphous speci- 
 mens of porcelain jasper, polished agate jasper, 
 and riband jasper. 
 
 Mr. C. W. King draws the following general 
 conclusion :—“ Greenness and more or less trans- 
 parency were (according to Pliny) the two 
 essential characters of the ancient jaspis. Ac- 
 cording to all ancient testimony, the ancient 
 jaspis was exactly the opposite to the modern 
 jasper, the latter being always opaque and 
 corresponding to the achates of the Romans. 
 The jaspis of the ancients was our chalcedony 
 (silica and alumina); in its primary sense the 
 variety coloured green by nickel, now called 
 plasma, but in after-times embracing the blue, 
 the purple, the yellow, and whity-brown shades 
 of the same substance” (Precious Stones, 1865, 
 pp- 202, 203, 206). It must be observed that if 
 the jaspis of the ancients was our chalcedony, 
 this latter could not have been the ancient 
 chalcedony, since both jaspis and chalcedony are 
 named in the New Jerusalem. [σ. H.] 
 
 JASU’BUS (Ἰασοῦβος ; Jasub), 1 Esd. ix. 30. 
 [JASHUB, 2.] 
 
 JA'TAL (BA. ’Ardp; Azer), 1 Esd. v. 28. 
 The form in A. V. is adopted from the Aldine 
 Version, after the Bishops’ Bible. [ATER, 1.] 
 
 JATHNI'-EL ON yn'=whom God bestows; 
 B. Ἰενουήλ ; Jathanaél), a Korhite Levite, and 
 a doorkeeper (A. V. “ porter”) to the House of 
 Jehovah, z.c. the Tabernacle; the fourth of the 
 family of Meshelemiah (1 Ch. xxvi. 2). 
 
 JAT’TIR (WF, in Josh. xv. 48; elsewhere 
 WY = very great, eminent ; B. εθθάρ, A. Ἰεθέρ 
 Εἰεθέρ; Jether), a town of Judah in the 
 mountain district (Josh. xv. 48), one of the 
 group containing Socoh, Eshtemoh, &c.; it was 
 among the nine cities which with their suburbs 
 
JAVAN 
 
 were allotted out of Judah to the priests 
 (xxi. 14; 1 Ch. vi. 57), and was one of the 
 places in the south which David used to haunt 
 in his freebooting days, and to his friends in 
 which he sent gifts from the spoil of the enemies 
 of Jehovah (1 Sam. xxx. 27). By Eusebius and 
 Jerome (0.8.3 p. 268, 42; p. 165, 3) it is spoken 
 of as a very large place, inhabited only by 
 Christians, in the middle of Daroma, near Mala- 
 tha, and 20 miles from Eleutheropolis. It is 
 named by Hap-Parchi, the Jewish traveller ; 
 but the passage is defective, and little can be 
 gathered from it (Zunz in Asher’s Benj. Tudela, 
 ii. 442). By Robinson (i. 494-5) it is identified 
 with ‘Attir, 94 miles N. of Molada, Jh. el-Milh, 
 and 12 miles 5.S.W. of Hebron, and having the 
 probable sites of Socoh, Eshtemoh, and other 
 southern towns within short distances. This 
 identification may be accepted, notwithstanding 
 the discrepancy in the distance of “Attir from 
 Eleutheropolis, which is by road much more 
 than 20 Roman miles, though in a direct line it 
 is about that distance. Possibly Eusebius may 
 have confounded ‘Attir with Yuttah, which, by 
 road, is about 20 miles from B. Jibrin. There 
 are many caves, foundations, and masses of stones, 
 and a kubbeh standing on a knoll (ΡῈ. Mem. 
 iii. 404, 408; Guérin, Judee, iii. 197 ; Tristram, 
 Land of Israel, p. 383 sq.). Robinson notices 
 that it is not usual for the Jod with which 
 Jattir commences to change into the Ain of 
 ‘Attir (Bib. Res. i. 494, note). 
 
 The two Ithrite heroes of David’s guard were 
 probably from Jattir, living memorials to him 
 of his early difficulties. [6 DSW] 
 
 JA'VAN (j}): in Gen. Ἰωύαν; in 15. and Ezek. 
 ‘EAAds; in Dan. and Zech.“EAAnves: Graecia, 
 Graeci, Javan). 1. A son of Japheth, and the 
 father of Elishah and Tarshish, Kittim and 
 Dodanim (Gen. x. 2, 4). The name appears in 
 Is. Ixvi. 19, where it is coupled with Tarshish, 
 Pul, and Lud, and more particularly with Tubal 
 and the “isles afar off,” as representatives of 
 the Gentile world: again, in Ezek. xxvii. 13, 
 where it is coupled with Tubal and Meshech, as 
 carrying on considerable commerce with the 
 Tyrians, who imported from these countries 
 slaves and brazen vessels; in Dan. viii. 21, x. 20, 
 xi. 2 (A. V. Grecia, R. V. Greece), in reference 
 to the Macedonian empire; and, lastly, in Zech. 
 ix.13(A.V. and R. V. Greece), in reference to the 
 Graeco-Syrian empire. From a comparison of 
 these various passages there can be no doubt 
 that Javan was regarded as the representative 
 of the Greek race: the similarity of the name 
 to that branch of the Hellenic family with which 
 the Orientals were best acquainted, viz. the 
 Jonians, particularly in the older form in which 
 their name appears (Idwy), is too close to be 
 regarded as accidental: and the occurrence of 
 the name in the cuneiform inscriptions of the 
 time of Sargon (about B.c. 709), in the form of 
 Javanu [MV."], as descriptive of the isle of 
 Cyprus, where the Assyrians first came in contact 
 with the power of the Greeks, further shows that 
 its use was not confined to the Hebrews, but was 
 widely spread throughout the East. The name* 
 
 3 In Gen. the name probably signifies the Island of 
 Cyprus, which was visited by the Babylonians at a very 
 early period (circ. B.C. 3750). 
 
 | 
 
 JAVAN, SONS OF 1531 
 
 was probably introduced into Asia by the Phoe- 
 nicians, to whom the Ionians were naturally 
 better known than any other of the Hellenic 
 races, on account of their commercial activity 
 and the high prosperity of their towns on the 
 western coast of Asia Minor. The extension of 
 the name westward to the general body of the 
 Greeks, as they became known to the Hebrews 
 through the Phoenicians, was but a natural 
 process. The discovery of the name of a 
 “Yivana” or Ionian in the Tel-el-Amarna 
 tablets, serving “in the country of Tyre,” 
 points to acquaintance between Greek and 
 Canaanite a century before the Exodus; and 
 it is illustrative of the communication which 
 existed between the Greeks and the East, that 
 among the artists who contributed to the orna- 
 mentation of Esarhaddon’s palaces, the names of 
 several Greek artists appear in one of the in- 
 scriptions (Rawlinson’s Herod. i. 483). At a 
 later period the Hebrews must have gained con- 
 siderable knowledge of the Greeks through the 
 Egyptians. Psammetichus (B.c. 664-610) em- 
 ployed Ionians and Carians as mercenaries, and 
 showed them so much favour that the war-caste 
 of Egypt forsook him in a body: the Greeks 
 were settled near Bubastis, probably at Tah- 
 panhes, Zell Defenneh, in a part of the country 
 with which the Jews were familiar (Herod. 
 ii. 154). It is possible that the Greek garrison 
 of Tahpanhes accompanied Pharaoh Necho and 
 took part in the fight at Megiddo (Jer. ii. 16). 
 At any. rate, during the troubled period 607— 
 587 B.C., when there was a large migration to 
 Egypt, there must have been constant inter- 
 course between the Jews and the Greek frontier 
 garrison at Tahpanhes, under circumstances that 
 would give opportunity for the permeation of 
 Greek words and Greek ideas among the upper 
 classes of the Jewish nation (Flinders Petrie, 
 Lygypt Explor.Fund, 4th Memoir, p. 48 sq.). The 
 policy of Psammetichus was followed by the suc- 
 ceeding monarchs, especially Amasis (571-525), 
 who gave the Greeks Naucratis as a commercial 
 emporium. The Greeks themselves were very 
 slightly acquainted with the southern coast of 
 Syria until the invasion of Alexander the Great. 
 The earliest notices of Palestine occur inthe works 
 of Hecataeus (B.C. 549-486), who mentions only 
 the two towns Canytis and Cardytus; the next 
 are in Herodotus, who describes the country as 
 Syria Palaestina, and notices incidentally the 
 towns Ascalon, Azotus, Ecbatana (Batanaea ?), 
 and Cadytis, the same as the Canytis of Heca- 
 taeus, probably Gaza. These towns were on the 
 border of Egypt, with the exception of the 
 uncertain Ecbatana; and it is therefore highly 
 probable that no Greek had, down to this late 
 period, travelled through Palestine. 
 
 2. (BA. omit; Graecia.) A town in the 
 southern part of Arabia (Yemen), whither the 
 Phoenicians traded (Ezek. xxvii. 19): the con- 
 nexion with Uzal decides in favour of this place 
 rather than Greece, as in the Vulg. For con- 
 jectures as to the origin of the name, see Orelli 
 in loco (in Strack τ. Zickler’s Kgf. Komm.) ; 
 and Riietschi in Herzog, REL, s.v. 
 
 Wiens B.) EW.) 
 
 JA'VAN, SONS OF (0933917 323 ; viol τῶν 
 Ἑλλήνων ; filii Graecorum), in A. V. “the 
 Grecians,” in R. V. and A. V. marg. the sons 
 
1592 
 
 of the Grecians (Joel iii. 6). The view gene- 
 rally adopted is that the lonians or Greeks 
 are here intended. [GREECE; GREEKS; GRE- 
 CIANS. ] [W.] 
 
 JAVELIN. [Arms.} 
 
 JA'ZAR (B. Ἰαζήρ, A. 
 1 Mace. v. 8. [JAAZER.] 
 
 JA’ZER (Ἰαζήρ; 2 Sam. Ἐλιέζερ ; in 2 Sam. 
 A.’ λιαζής ; in 1 Ch. B. Γαζέρ, ‘Pia¢np, A. Γαζήρ: 
 Jazer, Jaser, Jezer), Num. xxxii. 1, 3; Josh. 
 xxi. 39; 2 Sam. xxiv.5; 1 Ch. vi. 81, xxvi. 31; 
 Is. xvi. 8, 9; Jer. xlviii. 32. [JAAZER.] 
 
 JA'ZIZ ("Ὁ = shining ; B. Ἰαζείς, A. Ἰωσ- 
 ¢i¢; Jaziz), a Hagarite who had charge of the 
 “flocks,” i.e. the sheep and goats (ἴδ 1), of 
 king David (1 Ch. xxvii. 31), which were pro- 
 bably pastured on the east of Jordan, in the 
 nomad country where the forefathers of Jaziz 
 had for ages roamed (cp. v. 19-22). 
 
 JEA’RIM, MOUNT (O79; B. πόλις 
 Ἰαρείν, A. "Iapiu; Mons Jarim), a place named 
 in specifying the northern boundary of Judah 
 (Josh. xv. 10). The boundary ran from Mount 
 Seir to “the shoulder of Mount Jearim, which 
 is Chesalon ”’—that is, Chesalon was the land- 
 mark on the mountain. es/a stands, 94 miles 
 due west of Jerusalem, “on a high point 
 on the north slope of the lofty ridge between 
 Wady Ghurdb and W. Ism‘ain. The latter 
 of these is the south-western continuation of 
 W. Beit; Hannina, and the former runs parallel 
 to and northward of it, and they are separated 
 by this ridge, which is probably Mount Jearim ” 
 (Rob. iii. 154). If Jearim be taken as Hebrew, 
 it signifies “forests.” Forests in our sense of 
 the word there are none: but we have the testi- 
 mony of one traveller that “such thorough 
 woods, both for loneliness and obscurity, he had 
 not seen since he left Germany” (Tobler, Wan- 
 derung, 1857, p. 178; see also PEF. Mem. 
 iii, p. 253; and Conder, Hb. p. 259). Kirjath- 
 Jearim—whether it be Kuryet el- Enab, towards 
 the north, or Ah. Erma, towards the south—is 
 not far distant. [CHESALON. ] [G.] [W.] 
 
 JEA'TERAL (AN); A. Ἰεθρί, B. ᾿Ἰεθρεί ; 
 Jethrai), a Gershonite Levite, son of Zerah (1 Ch. 
 vi. 21); apparently the head of his family at 
 the time that the service of the Tabernacle was 
 instituted by David (cp. v. 31). In the reversed 
 genealogy of the descendants of Gershom, Zerah’s 
 son is stated as ETHNI (‘JMN, v. 41). The two 
 names have quite similarity enough to allow 
 of the one being a corruption of the other, 
 though the fact is not ascertainable. 
 
 JEBERECHI’AH ἃ MINA? = whom Jehovah 
 blesses; Bapaxtas; Barachias), probably the 
 same name as Berechiah. Nothing is known 
 of him. ᾿ς iE] 
 
 JEBU'S (D1); Ἰεβούς ; Jebus), one of the 
 names of Jerusalem, the city of the Jebusites, 
 also called Jesust. It occurs only twice . first 
 in connexion with the journey of the Levite and 
 his unhappy concubine from Bethlehem to 
 Gibeah (Judg. xix. 10, 11); and secondly, in the 
 
 JAVELIN 
 
 Ἰαζήν; 
 
 Gazer), 
 
 JEBUSITE 
 
 narrative of the capture of the place by David 
 in 1 Ch. xi. 4,5. In 2 Sam. y. 6-9 the name 
 Jerusalem is employed. By Gesenius (7165. 
 p- 189, DID) and Fiirst (Handwb. p. 477) Jebus 
 is interpreted to mean a place dry or down- 
 trodden like a threshing-floor ; an interpretation 
 which by Ewald (iii. 155) and Stanley (S. & P. 
 p- 177) is taken to prove that Jebus must have 
 been the south-western hill, the “ dry rock” of 
 the modern Zion, and “not the Mount Moriah, 
 the city of Solomon, in whose centre arose the 
 perennial spring.” But in the great uncertainty 
 which attends these ancient names, this is, to 
 say the least, very doubtful. Jebus was the 
 city of the Jebusites. Either the name of the 
 town is derived from the name of the tribe, or 
 the reverse. If the former, then the inter- 
 pretation just quoted falls to the ground. If 
 the latter, then the origin of the name of Jebus 
 is thrown back to the very beginning of the 
 Canaanite race—so far at any rate as to make 
 its connexion with a Hebrew root extremely 
 
 uncertain. [ἃ [W.]J 
 
 JEBU’SI (DIAN = the Jebusite ; Jebusacus, 
 Jebus), the name employed for the city of JEBUS, 
 only in the ancient document describing the 
 landmarks and the towns of the allotment of 
 Judah and Benjamin (Josh. xv. 8 [BA. *IeBods], 
 xviii. 16 [B. Ἰεβουσαί, A. *IeBovs], 28 [BA. 
 *IeBods]). In the first and last place the explana- 
 tory words, “which is Jerusalem,” are added. 
 In each place R. V. reads “ the Jebusite ;” A. V. 
 in the first only. 
 
 A parallel to this mode of designating the 
 town by its inhabitants is found in this very 
 list in Zemaraim (xviii. 22), Avim (v. 23), Ophni 
 (v. 24), and Japhletite (xvi. 3), &e. [6. [W.] 
 
 JEBUSITE, JEBUSITES, THE. Al- 
 though these two forms are indiscriminately 
 employed in the A. V. and R. V., yet in the 
 original the name, whether applied to indi- 
 viduals or to the nation, is never found in the 
 plural; always singular. The usual form is 
 ‘DAT; but in a few places—viz., 2 Sam. τ. 6, 
 xxiv. 16,18; 1 Ch. xxi. 18 only—it is 5571: 
 Without the article, "1", it occurs in 2 Sam. 
 
 v. 8; 1 Ch. xi. 6; Zech. ix. 7. In the first two 
 of these the force is much increased by removing 
 the article introduced in the A. V., and reading 
 “and smiteth a Jebusite.” Wedo not hear of a 
 progenitor to the tribe, but the name which 
 would have been his had he existed has attached 
 itself to the city in which we meet with the 
 Jebusites in historic times. [Jesus.] The 
 LXX. A. gives the name *IeBovoaios in Judg. 
 xix. 11, B. Ἰεβουσσείν ; in Ezra ix. 1, BA. -σει; 
 Vulg. Jebusaeus. 
 
 1. According to the table in Genesis x. “the 
 Jebusite” is the third son of Canaan. His 
 place in the list is between Heth and the 
 Amorites (Gen. x. 16; 1 Ch. i. 14), a position 
 which the tribe maintained long after (Num. 
 xiii. 29; Josh. xi, 3); and the same connexion 
 is traceable in the words of Ezekiel (xvi. 3, 45), 
 who addresses Jerusalem as the fruit of the 
 union of an Amorite with a Hittite. But in 
 the formula by which the Promised Land is so 
 often designated, the Jebusites are uniformly 
 placed last, which may have arisen from their 
 
 J 
 
JEBUSITE 
 
 small number, or their quiet disposition. 
 Gen; xv. 21; Ex. iii, 8) 17, xii. 5, xxiii. 23, 
 ¥xxili. 2, xxxiv. 11; Deut. vii. 1, xx. 17; Josh. 
 iii. 10, ix. 1, xii. 8, xxiv. 11; 1 K. ix. 20; 2 Ch. 
 viii. 7; Ezra ix. 1; Neh. ix. 8. 
 
 2. Our first glimpse of the actual people is in 
 the invaluable report of the spies—“ the Hittite, 
 and the Jebus?te, and the Amorite dwell in the 
 mountain ” (Num. xiii. 29). This was forty 
 years before the entrance into Palestine, but no 
 change in their Aabitat had been made in the 
 interval; for when Jabin organised his rising 
 against Joshua, he sent amongst others “to the 
 Amorite, the Hittite, the Perizzite, and the 
 Jebusite in the mountain” (Josh. xi. 3), A 
 mountain-tribe they were, and a mountain-tribe 
 they remained. “Jebus, which is Jerusalem,” 
 lost its king in the slaughter of Beth-horon 
 (Josh. x. 1, 5, 263; cp. xii. 10)—was sacked and 
 burnt by the men of Judah (Judg. i. 21), and 
 its citadel finally scaled and occupied by David 
 (2 Sam. ν. 6); but still the Jebusites who in- 
 habited Jerusalem, the “inhabitants of the 
 land,” could not be expelled from their moun- 
 tain-seat, but continued to dwell with the 
 children of Judah and Benjamin to a very late 
 date (Josh. xv. 8, 63; Judg. i. 21, xix. 11). 
 This obstinacy is characteristic of mountaineers, 
 and the few traits we possess of the Jebusites 
 show them to have been a warlike people. Before 
 the expedition under Jabin, Adoni-zedek, the king 
 of Jerusalem, had himself headed the attack on 
 the Gibeonites, which ended in the slaughter of 
 Beth-horon, and cost him his life on that eventful 
 evening under the trees at Makkedah (Josh. x.).* 
 That they were established in the strongest 
 natural fortress of the country in itself says 
 much for their courage and power; and when 
 they lost it, if was through bravado rather 
 than from any cowardice on their part. 
 (JERUSALEM. ] 
 
 After this they emerge from the darkness but 
 once, in the person of Araunah? the Jebusite, 
 “Araunah the king” αρρη MN), who 
 appears before us in true kingly dignity in his 
 well-known transaction with David (2 Sam. 
 xxiv. 23; 1 Ch. xxi. 23). The picture presented 
 us in these well-known passages is a very inter- 
 esting one. We see the fallen Jebusite king and 
 his four sons on their threshing-floor on Mount 
 Moriah, treading out their wheat Wa; Aa 
 “threshing ”) by driving the oxen with the 
 heavy sledges (Ὠ 3 2; A. V. “ threshing instru- 
 ments”) over the corn, round the central heap. 
 We see Araunah on the approach of David fall 
 on his face on the ground, and we hear him ask, 
 “Wherefore is my lord the king come to his 
 slave?” followed by his offer of all his pro- 
 perty. But this reveals no traits peculiar to 
 
 a In v.5 the king of Jerusalem is styled one of the 
 “five kings of the Amorites.” But the LXX. (both 
 MSS.) have τῶν ᾿Ιεβουσαίων of the Jebusites, 
 
 b By Josephus (Ant. vii. 13, § 9) Araunah is said to 
 have been one of Dayid’s chief friends (ἐν τοῖς μάλιστα 
 Aavidov), and to have been expressly spared by him 
 when the citadel was taken. If there is any truth in 
 this, David no doubt made his friendship during his 
 wanderings, when he also acquired that of Uriah the 
 Hittite, Ahimelech, Sibbechai, and others of his asso- 
 ciates who belonged to the old nations, 
 
 See | 
 
 JECOLIAH 1533 
 
 the Jebusites, or characteristic of them more 
 than of their contemporaries in Israel, or in the 
 other nations of Canaan. The early judges and 
 kings of Israel threshed wheat in the wine-press 
 (Judg. vi. 11), followed the herd out of the 
 field (1 Sam. xi. 5), and were taken from the 
 sheepcotes (2 Sam. vii. 8); and the courtesy of 
 Araunah is closely paralleled by that of Ephron 
 the Hittite in his negotiation with Abraham. 
 
 We are not favoured with further traits of 
 the Jebusites, nor with any clue to their reli- 
 gion or rites; but these last were no doubt very 
 similar to those of the CANAANITES and Ηπτ- 
 TITES, with whom they were closely allied. 
 
 Two names of individual Jebusites are pre- 
 served. In ADONIZEDEK the only remarkable 
 thing is its Hebrew form, in which it means 
 “Lord of justice.” 
 
 That of ARAUNAH is much more uncertain— 
 so much so as to lead to the belief that we 
 possess it more nearly in its original shape. In 
 the short narrative of Samuel alone the Hebrew 
 name is given in three forms—‘the Avarnah ”’ 
 (v. 16, Qeri; the Aravnah, Ahetib); Araneah 
 (v. 18, Qeri; Aravnah, Khetib); Aravnah (vv. 
 20, 21). In 1 Ch. xxi. 15 it is Ornan, while 
 with the LXX. it is ᾽Ορνά, and with Josephus 
 ᾿Ορόννα. {ARAUNAH; ORNAN.] 
 
 To these, if Jerusalem be Salem, may perhaps 
 be added MELCHIZEDEK. 
 
 In the Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles the 
 ashes of St. Barnabas, after his martyrdom in 
 Cyprus, are said to have been buried in a cave, 
 “where the race of the Jebusites formerly 
 dwelt ;”’ and previously to this is mentioned 
 the arrival in the island of a “pious Jebusite, a 
 kinsman of Nero” (Act. Apost. Apocr. pp. 72, 
 73, ed. Tisch.). [6.1 [W.] 
 
 JECAMV'AH ("Dp" = may Jehovah set up, 
 ie. Jekamiah, as the name is elsewhere given ; 
 BA. Ἰεκενιά; Jecemia), one of a batch of seven, 
 including Salathiel and Pedaiah, who were 
 introduced into the royal line, on the failure of 
 it in the person of Jehoiachin (1 Ch. iii. 18). 
 They were all apparently sons of Neri, of the 
 line of Nathan, since Salathiel certainly was so 
 (Luke iii. 27). [GENEALOGY OF JESUS CHRIST, 
 p. 1148 a.] ΓΑ Ο ἘΠῚ 
 
 JECHOLYAH (13, with the final ὦ, 
 = Jehovah is powerful: B. Χαλειά, A. léxeua 3. 
 Joseph. Ant. ix. 10, § 3, ᾿Αχιάλας : Jechelia), 
 wife of Amaziah king of Judah, and mother 
 of Azariah or Uzziah his successor (2 K. xy. 2). 
 Both this queen and Jehoaddan, the mother of 
 her husband, are specified as “of Jerusalem.” 
 In the A. V. of Chronicles her name is given as 
 JECOLIAH. 
 
 JECHONI’AS (Ἰεχονίας ; Jechonias). 1. 
 The Greek form of the name of king JECHO-. 
 NIAH, followed by the translators in the books 
 rendered from the Greek, viz. Esth. xi. 4; Bar. 
 i. 3, 9; Matt. i. 11, 12. 
 
 2. 1 Esd, viii. 92. [SmecHANIAH.] 
 
 3. 1 Esd. i. 9. The same as CONANTAH. 
 
 JECOLI'AH (7993); B. Χααιά, A. Ἰεχελία; 
 Jechelia), 2 Ch. xxvi. 3 [R. V. Jechiliah]. In 
 the original the name differs from its form in 
 the parallel passage in Kings, only in not having 
 the final ὦ. [JECHOLIAN. ] 
 
1584 JECONIAH 
 
 JECONTAH (222) ; excepting once, i193)» 
 with the final @, Jer. xxiv. 1; and once in Khetib, 
 31D, Jer. xxvii. 20: Ἰεχονίας : Jechonias), an 
 altered form of the name of JEHOIACHIN, last 
 but one of the kings of Judah, which is found 
 in the following passages :—1 Ch. iii. 16, 17; 
 Jer. xxiv. 1, xxvii. 20, xxviii. 4, xxix. 1; Esth. 
 ii. 6. It is still further abbreviated to Coniah. 
 See also JECHONIAS and JOACIM. 
 
 JECONT'AS (Ἰεχονίας ; Jechonias), 1 Esd, 
 i. 9. [CONANTAH.] 
 
 JEDAIAH [9 syll.] (MYT = Jehovah hath 
 known: B. ᾿Αναιδειά, Ἰωδᾶε, Ἰεουδά, Δαδειά, 
 Ἰεδδούς; A. Ἰδειά, Ἰδιά, Ἰαδιά, ᾿Ἰεδδουά ; 
 N. Ἰδειάς, Δαλειά: Idaia, Jedaia, Jadaia, 
 Joiada, Jedei, Jeddu). 1. Head of the second 
 course of priests, as they were divided in 
 the time of David (1 Ch. xxiv. 7). Some of 
 them survived to return to Jerusalem after the 
 Babylonish Captivity, as appears from Ezra ii. 
 36, Neh. vii. 39—‘the children of Jedaiah, of 
 the house of Jeshua, 973.” The addition “ of 
 the house of Jeshua”’ indicates that there were 
 two priestly families of the name of Jedaiah, 
 which it appears from Neh. xii. 6, 7, 19, 21, was 
 actually the case. If these sons of Jedaiah had 
 for their head JEsHUA, the high-priest in the 
 time of Zerubbabel, as the Jewish tradition says 
 they had (Thos. Lewis’s Orig. Heb. bk. ii. ch. 
 vii., Lond. 1724, Oxf. 1835), this may be the 
 reason why, in 1 Ch. ix. 10 and Neh. xi. 10, 
 the course of Jedaiah is named before that of 
 Joiarib, though Joiarib’s was the first course. 
 But perhaps Jeshua was another priest descended 
 from Jedaiah, from whom this branch sprung. 
 It is certainly a corrupt reading in Neh. xi. 10 
 which makes Jedaiah son of Joiarib. 1 Ch. 
 ix. 10 preserves the true text. In Esdras the 
 name is JEDDU. 
 
 2. (οἱ ἐπεγνωκότες; Idaia.) A priest in 
 the time of Jeshua the high-priest (Zech. vi. 
 10, 14). [A. C. H.] 
 
 JEDAVAH (WV=he praiseth or confesseth 
 Jah). This is a different name from the last, 
 though the two are identical in the A. V. 
 
 1. (B. ἸἸδιά, A. Ἐδιά;: Jdaia.) A man 
 named in the genealogies of Simeon as a fore- 
 father of Ziza, one of the chiefs of the tribe, 
 apparently in the time of king Hezekiah (1 Ch. 
 iv. 37). 
 
 2. ἃ *Tedaid, N. ᾿Τεδδειά ; Jedaiah.) Son of 
 Harumaph ; a man who did his part in the re- 
 building of the wall of Jerusalem (Neh. iii. 10). 
 
 JED'DU (Ἰέδδους ; Jeddus), 1 Esd. v. 24. 
 
 JEDE'US (Ἰεδαῖος ; Jeddeus), 1 Esd. ix. 30. 
 [Aparag, 5.] 
 
 JEDI'A-EL ONY = known of God: B. 
 ᾿Ασβήλ, ᾿Ασυβήρ, ᾿Αδειήλ, ᾿Αριήλ, Σαβά; A. 
 ᾿Ιαδιήλ,᾿Ασβήλ : Jadihel). 1. A chief patriarch 
 of the tribe of Benjamin, from whom sprang 
 many Benjamite houses of fathers, numbering 
 17,200 mighty men of valour, in the days of 
 Dayid (1 Ch. vii. 6, 11). 
 that Jediael is the same as Ashbel (Gen. xlvi. 21; 
 Num. xxvi. 38; 1 Ch. viii. 1). But though this 
 may be so, it cannot be affirmed with certainty. 
 (BecnER; BELA.} Jediael might be a later 
 
 It is usually assumed |! 
 
 JEDUTHUN 
 
 descendant of Benjamin not mentioned in the 
 Pentateuch, but who, from the fruitfulness of his 
 house and the decadence of elder branches, rose 
 
 | to the first rank. 
 
 2. (B. Ἰδερήλ, A. Ἰαδιήλ ; Jadihel.) Second 
 son of Meshelemiah, a Levite, of the sons of 
 Ebiasaph the son of Korah. One of the door- 
 keepers of the Temple in the time of David 
 (1 Ch. xxvi. 1, 2). (A. C. H.] 
 
 3. (B. ᾿Ελθειήλ, A. Ἰεδιήλ ; Jedihel.) Son of 
 Shimri; one of the heroes of David’s guard in the 
 enlarged catalogue of Chronicles (1 Ch. xi. 45). 
 In the absence of further information, we cannot 
 decide whether or not he is the same person as 
 
 4. (B. Ῥωδιήλ, A. Ἰεδιήλ ; Jedihel.) One of 
 the chiefs (lit. “ heads”) of the thousands of 
 Manasseh who joined David on his march from 
 Aphek to Ziklag when he left the Philistine 
 army on the eve of the battle of Gilboa, and 
 helped him in his revenge on the marauding 
 Amalekites (1 Ch. xii, 20 ; cp. 1 Sam. xxix. xxx.), 
 
 JEDI'DAH (ΠῚ) = beloved ; B. Ἰεδεία, A. 
 ἜἘδιδά; Jdida), queen of Amon, and mother of 
 
 the good king Josiah (2 K. xxii. 1). She was a 
 native of Bozkath near Lachish, the daughter of 
 
 /acertain Adaiah. By Josephus (Ant. x. 4, ὃ 1) 
 
 her name is given as “Iedls. 
 JEDIDI'AH (ΠΡῚΝ) = beloved of Jehovah 
 
 [ep. the Sabaean name, Sea, MV.!']; B. Ἰδεδεί, 
 A. Εἰεδιδιά ; Amabilis Domino), the name _be- 
 stowed, through Nathan the prophet, on David’s 
 son Solomon (2 Sam. xii. 25). 
 
 Bathsheba’s first child had died—‘ Jehovah 
 struck it” (v. 15). A second son was born, and 
 David—whether in allusion to the state of his 
 external affairs, or to his own restored peace of 
 mind—called his name Sheloméh (“ Peaceful ””); 
 and Jehovah loved the child. And David sent 
 by the hand of Nathan, to obtain through him 
 some oracle or token of the Divine favour on the 
 babe, and the babe’s name was called JEDID-JAH. 
 It is then added that this was done “ for the 
 Lord’s sake” (R. V.). The clue to the meaning 
 of these last words, and indeed of the whole 
 circumstance, seems to reside in the fact that 
 “ Jedid” and “ David” are both derived from 
 the same root, or from two very closely related 
 (see Gesen. Thes. p. 565 a—“'T), idem quod 
 713”). To us these plays on words have little 
 or no significance; but to the old Hebrews, as 
 to the modern Orientals, they were full of mean- 
 ing. To David himself, the “darling” or “ be- 
 loved” of his family and his people, no more 
 happy omen, no more precious seal of his re- 
 storation to the Divine favour after his late 
 fall, could have been afforded than this an- 
 nouncement by the prophet, that the name of 
 his child was to combine his own name with 
 that of Jehovah — Jepip-JAu, “darling of 
 Jehovah.” 
 
 The practice of bestowing a second name on 
 children, in addition to that given immediately 
 on birth—such second namé having a religious 
 bearing, as ΝΣ ed-Din, Saleh ed-Din (Saladin), 
 &c.—still exists in the East. [61 We] 
 
 JEDITHIN. [Jepuruun.] 
 
 JEDU'THUN (ny (2) = praise ; with the 
 final }}, except in 1 Ch. xvi. 38, Neh. xi. 17, 
 
JEDUTHUN 
 
 Ps. xxx. title, and Ixxvii. title, where it is 
 pn, ie. Jedithun: B, ᾿Ιδειθούμ, ᾿ἸΙδιθούμ, 
 
 ᾿ἸΙδειθούν, ᾿Ιδιθούν, ᾿Ιδιθώμ, ᾿Εδειθώμ, ᾿Ιδειθών, 
 Ἰωθών; A. Ἰδιθούμ, ᾿Ιδιθούν, ᾿Ιδιθοῦ, ᾿Ιδουθών ; 
 N. ᾿Ιδιθώμ, ᾿Ιδιθών, ᾿Ιδεθών, ᾿Ιδιθούν : 71αϊέλιιη, 
 Idithum), a Levite, of the family of Merari, 
 who was associated with Heman the Kohathite, 
 and Asaph the Gershonite, in the conduct 
 of the musical service of the Tabernacle, in 
 the time of David; according to what is said 
 in 1 Ch. xxiii. 6, that David divided the Levites 
 “into courses among the sons of Levi, namely, 
 Gershon, Kohath, and Merari.” The proof of 
 his being a Merarite depends upon his identifi- 
 cation with Ethan in 1 Ch. xv. 17, who, we 
 learn from that passage as well as from the 
 genealogy in vi. 44 (A. V.), was a Merarite 
 [HemMAN]. But it may be added that the very 
 circumstance of Ethan being a Merarite, which 
 Jeduthun must have been (since the only rea- 
 son of there being three musical chiefs was to 
 have one for each division of the Levites), is a 
 strong additional proof of this identity. Another 
 proof may be found in the mention of Hosah 
 (xvi. 38, 42), as a son of Jeduthun* and a gate- 
 keeper, compared with xxvi. 10, where we read 
 that Hosah was of the children of Merari. 
 Assuming then that, as regards 1 Ch. vi. 44, 
 xy. 17, 19, {IS is a mere clerical variation for 
 
 j1N°!—which a comparison of xv. 17, 19 with 
 
 xvi. 41, 42, xxv. 1, 3, 6, 2 Ch. xxxv. 15, makes 
 almost certain—we have Jeduthun’s descent as 
 son of Kishi, or Kushaiah, from Mahli, the son 
 of Mushi, the son of Merari, the son of Levi, 
 being the fourteenth generation from Levi in- 
 clusive (1 Ch. vi. 44-47). His office was gene- 
 rally to preside over the music of the Temple 
 service, consisting of the nebel, or nablium, the 
 cinnor, or harp, and the cymbals, together with 
 the human voice (the trumpets being confined 
 to the priests). But his peculiar part, as well 
 as that of his two colleagues Heman and Asaph, 
 was “to sound with cymbals of brass,” while 
 the others played on the nablium and the harp 
 (1 Ch. xv. 16,17). This appointment to the 
 
 office was by election of the chiefs con) of the 
 
 Levites at David’s command, each of the three 
 divisions probably choosing one. The first occa- 
 sion of Jeduthun’s ministering was when David 
 brought up the Ark to Jerusalem. He then took 
 his place in the procession, and played on the 
 cymbals (1 Ch. xv. 17,19, Ethan). But when 
 the division of the Levitical services took place, 
 owing to the Tabernacle being at Gibeon and the 
 Ark at Jerusalem, while Asaph and his brethren 
 were appointed to minister before the Ark, it 
 fell to Jeduthun and Heman to be located with 
 Zadok the priest, to give thanks “before the 
 Tabernacle of the Lord in the high place that 
 was at Gibeon,” still by playing the cymbals in 
 accompaniment to the other musical instruments 
 (1 Ch. xvi. 39-42, cp Ps. cl. 5). In the 
 account of Josiah’s Passover reference is made 
 (2 Ch. xxxv. 15) to the singing as conducted in 
 accordance with the arrangements made by 
 
 3 The reason ;why ‘‘son of Jeduthun” is especially 
 attached to the name of Obed-Edom in this verse, is to 
 distinguish him from the other Obed-Edom the Gittite 
 (2 Sam. vi. 10) mentioned in ‘the same verse, who was 
 probably a Kohathite (Josh. xxi. 24). 
 
 1535 
 David, and by Asaph, Heman, and Jeduthun the 
 hing’s seer Cen mtn). [HemMan.] Perhaps 
 the phrase rather means the king’s adviser in 
 matters connected with the musical service, 
 The sons of Jeduthun were employed (1 Ch, 
 xxv. 1, 3, 6) partly in music, viz. six of them, 
 who prophesied with the harp—Gedaliah, head 
 of the 2nd ward; Zeri, or Izri, of the 4th; Je- 
 shaiah of the 8th, Shimei of the 10th,” Hasha- 
 biah of the 12th, and Mattithiah of the 14th— 
 and partly as gatekeepers (A. V. “ porters ”’) 
 (xvi. 42), viz. Obed-Edom and Hosah (v. 38), 
 which last had thirteen sons and brothers (xxvi. 
 11). The triple division of the Levitical musi- 
 cians seems to have lasted as long as the Temple, 
 and each to have been called after their respec- 
 tive leaders. At the dedication of Solomon’s 
 Temple “the Levites which were the singers, all 
 of them of Asaph, of Heman, of Jeduthun,” 
 performed their proper part (2 Ch. v.12). In 
 the reign of Hezekiah, again, we find the sons 
 of Asaph, the sons of Heman, and the sons of 
 Jeduthun, taking their part in purifying the 
 Temple (2 Ch. xxix. 13, 14); they are men- 
 tioned, we have seen, in Josiah’s reign, and so 
 late as in Nehemiah’s time we still find de- 
 scendants of Jeduthun employed about the sing- 
 ing (Neh. xi. 17; 1 Ch. ix. 16). His name stands 
 at the head of the 39th, 62nd, and 77th Psalms, 
 indicating probably that they were to be sung 
 by his choir. (A. C. H.] [C. H.} 
 
 JEE'LI (B. Ἰειηλεί, A. Ἰεηλί; Celi), 1 Esd. 
 y. 33. [JAALAH.] 
 
 JEE’LUS (B. Ἰέηλος, A. 
 1 Esd. viii. 92. [JEHIEL, 9.1 
 
 JEGAR SAHADUTHA 
 
 Ἰεήλ; Jehclus), 
 
 ᾿Αχιέζερ ; Jizer), the form assumed in the list in 
 Numbers (xxvi. 30 [LXX. v.34]) by the name of a 
 descendant of Manasseh, eldest son of Gilead, and 
 founder of one of the chief families of the tribe. 
 (JEEZERITES.| In parallel lists the name is given 
 as ABI-EZER, and the family as the ABIEZRITES 
 —the house of Gideon. Whether this change 
 has arisen from the accidental addition or 
 omission of a letter, or is an intentional varia- 
 tion, akin to that in the case of Abiel and 
 Jehiel, cannot be ascertained. The LXX. per- 
 haps read ἽΝ. 
 
 JEE'ZERITES, THE CUNT; ᾿Αχιεζερί, 
 B.’AxueCeiper ; familia Hiezeritarum), the family 
 of the foregoing (Num. xxvi. 30). 
 
 JEGA’R SAHADU’THA (NITY 5", 
 “ Mound of the testimony”; βουνὸς τῆς μαρ- 
 tuptas, but A. βουνὸς μάρτυς ; tumulum testis), 
 the name said (Gen. xxxi. 47) to have been 
 given by Laban the Aramean to a heap of stones 
 which he erected as a memorial of the com- 
 pact between Jacob and himself, while Jacob 
 commemorated the same by setting up a “ pillar” 
 (magcébah ; v. 45). Galeed, “ Mound of testi- 
 mony ” (cp. Ex. xx. 16), is given as the Hebrew 
 equivalent of the western Aramaic yégdr sdhd- 
 ditha. The fluctuation of the LXX. shows that 
 
 b Omitted in v. 3, but necessary to make up the 
 six sons. τ 
 
1536 JEHALELEEL 
 some doubt was felt about the exact rendering | 
 of the Heb. IY, which means both “testifier ” | 
 
 and “ testimony,” like our own term “ witness.” 
 The Vulgate, oddly enough, has rightly trans- 
 lated Galeed by acervum testimonii, and Jegar 
 Sahadutha wrongly by éwmulum testis (but ep. 
 v.48). In the mind of the Hebrew writer the 
 two names were evidently identical in meaning. 
 It should perhaps be added that Galeed (Heb. 
 Gal‘éd) appears to convey a characteristic allu- 
 sion to the name of the hill-country of Gilead 
 (Heb. Gil‘ad), which was the scene of the meeting 
 between Jacob and Laban. Ewald even supposes 
 that in the original story “the mound was the 
 rocky mountain-range of Gilead itself” (H. 1. 
 i, 347). [c. J. Ball 
 
 JEHAL/EL-EEL Ox99m) =e praises God ; 
 R. V. Jehallelel; B. Γεσεήλ, A. Ἰαλλελήλ; 
 Jaleleel). Four men of the Bene-Jehallelel are 
 introduced abruptly into the genealogies of 
 Judah (1 Ch. iv. 16). The name is identical 
 with that rendered in the A. V. JEHALELEL. 
 The more correct form is given by R. V. 
 
 JEHAL'EL-EL Ox 25n=he praises God; 
 R. V. Jehallelel; B. ‘EAA, A. Ἰαλλήλ; Jala- 
 leel), a Merarite Levite, whose son Azariah took 
 part in the restoration of the Temple in Heze- 
 kiah’s time (2 Ch. xxix. 12). 
 
 JEHDEVAH (AIM, ce. Yechde-yahu= 
 Jehovah is glad). 1. (B. Ἰεδεία, A. Ἰαδαία, 
 ᾿Αραδαία; Jehedeia.) The representative of the 
 Bene-Shubael—descendants of Gershom, son of 
 Moses—in the time of David (1 Ch. xxiv. 20). 
 But in xxvi. 24, a man of the name of Shebuel 
 or Shubael is recorded as the head of the house ; 
 unless in this passage the family itself, and not 
 an individual, be intended. 
 
 2. (ladias; Jadias.) A Meronothite who 
 had charge of the she-asses—the riding and 
 breeding stock—of David (1 Ch. xxvii. 30). 
 
 JEHEZ’EKEL Oxpin ; Β. V. Jehezkel ; | 
 6 Ἑζκήλ; Hezechiel), a priest to whom was 
 given by David the charge of the twentieth of 
 the twenty-four courses in the service of the 
 House of Jehovah (1 Ch. xxiv. 16). 
 
 The name in the original is the same as that 
 rendered EZEKIEL. 
 
 JEHVAH (1°) = Jehovah lives ; B. Ἰεία, 
 N. Eid, A. Ἰεαία ; Jehias). He and Obed-edom 
 were “doorkeepers for the Ark ἢ (δ, the 
 word elsewhere expressed by “ porters ”) at the 
 time of its establishment in Jerusalem (1 Ch. 
 xv. 24). The name does not recur, but it is 
 possible it may be exchanged for the similar 
 JEHIEL or JEIEL in xvi. 5. 
 
 JEHV'EL (yn = God tives). 1. (Β. Ἰειήλ, 
 Εἰθήλ, Εἰειήλ ; A. ἸΙθιήλ, Ἰειήλ : Jahiel, Jehiel.) 
 One of the Levites appointed by David to assist 
 in the service of the house of God (1 Ch. xv. 
 18, 20; xvi. 4). 
 
 2. (B. ἸἸήλ, A. Ἰειήλ ; Jahicl.) One of the 
 sons of Jehoshaphat king of Judah, who was put | 
 
 to death by his brother Jehoram shortly after 
 his becoming king (2 Ch. xxi. 2). 
 
 JEHIEL 
 
 3. (Jena; Juhiel.) One of the rulers of the 
 house of God at the time of the reforms of 
 Josiah (2 Ch. xxxv. 8). [SYELUs.] 
 
 4. (B. Ἰήλ, Βεσιήλ; A. Ἰειήλ : Jahiel.) A 
 Gershonite Levite, head of the Bene-Laadan in 
 
 | the time of David (1 Ch. xxiii. 8), who had 
 
 charge of the treasures (xxix. 8). His family— 
 J®HIELI, i.e. Jehielite, or, as we should say 
 now, Jehielites—is mentioned in xxvi. 21. 
 
 5. (Ὁ. “lena, A. Ἰεριήλ ; Jahiel.) Son of 
 Hachmoni, or of a Hachmonite, named in the 
 list of David’s officers (1 Ch. xxvii. 32) as “ with 
 (OY) the king’s sons,” whatever that may mean. 
 The mention of Ahithophel (v. 33) seems to fix 
 the date of this list as before the revolt. In 
 Jerome’s Quaestiones Hebraicae on this passage, 
 Jehiel is said to be David’s son Chileab or 
 Daniel ; and “‘Achamoni,” interpreted as Sapien- 
 tissimus, is taken as an alias of David himself. 
 His being called a son of a Hachmonite brings 
 him into some connexion with Jashobeam (1 Ch. 
 τ 11. 
 
 6. (In the original text, ὈΝῚΠΝ, Jehuel—the 
 A. V. follows the alteration of the Qeri; Ἰειήλ ; 
 Jahiel.) A Levite of the Bene-Heman, who 
 took part in the restorations of king Hezekiah 
 (2 Ch. xxix. 14). 
 
 7. (B. Εἰήλ, A. Ἰειήλ; Jahiel.) Another 
 Levite at the same period (2 Ch. xxxi. 13), one 
 of the “overseers” (ΡΞ) of the offerings 
 dedicated to Jehovah. His parentage is not 
 mentioned. 
 
 8. (B. Ἰεμά, A. Ἰεειήλ; Jahiel.) Father of 
 Obadiah, who headed 218 men of the Bene-Joab 
 in the return from Babylon with Ezra (Ezra 
 viii. 9). In 1 Esd. viii. 35 the name is JEZELUS, 
 and the number of his clan is stated at 212. 
 
 9. (Ὁ. Ἰεήλ, A. Ἰεειήλ ; Jehiel.) One of the 
 Bene-Elam. His son Shechaniah encouraged 
 Ezra to put away the foreign wives of the 
 people (Ezra x. 2). In 1 Esd. viii, 92, it is 
 JEELUS. 
 
 10. (B. Ἰαήλ, δῇ. Ἰαειήλ, A. Δἰειήλ; Jehiel.) 
 A member of the same family, if not the same 
 person, who had himself to part with his wife 
 (Ezra x. 26). [HIERIELUS. ] 
 
 11. (B. Ἰεήλ, A. Ἰϊειήλ ; Jehiel.) A priest, 
 one of the Bene-Harim, who also had to put 
 away his foreign wife (Ezra x. 21). [Htm@REBL.] 
 
 (C. H.] 
 
 JEHIEL,* a perfectly distinct name from 
 the last, though the same in the A. V. 1, 
 
 (dsyy; BV. Jeiel; so the Qeri, but the Khetib 
 
 has ON’, ie. Jeuel; B. ἮΝ N. “lefa, A. 
 Ἰειήλ ; Jehiel), a man described as Abi-Gibeon, 
 father of Gibeon; a forefather of king Saul 
 (1 Ch. ix. 35). His wife was Maachah. In 
 viii. 29 the name is omitted. The presence of 
 the stubborn letter Ain in Jehiel seems to forbid 
 our identifying it with Abiel in 1 Sam. ix. 1, as 
 some have been tempted to do. 
 
 2. (In Hebrew the same two variations. B. 
 Ted, N. Eid, A. Ἰειήλ ; Jehiel.) One of the sons 
 of Hotham the Aroerite ; a member of the guard 
 of David, included in the extended list of 1 Ch. 
 xi. 44, [C. Η.] 
 
 a Here the A. V. represents Ain by H, unless it 
 simply follows the Vulgate. Cp. JencsH, MEHUNIM. 
 
JEHIELI 
 JEHI-E'LI οὗν τιν; B. Ἰειήλ, A. Ἰεήλ; 
 
 Jehieli), according to the A. V. a Gershonite 
 Levite of the family of LAADAN. The Bene- 
 Jehieli had charge of the treasures of the house 
 of Jehovah (1 Ch. xxvi. 21, 22). In other lists 
 it is given as JenieL (4). The name appears to 
 be strictly a patronymic—Jehielite. For a 
 discussion of the text and a proposed slight 
 emendation of the Hebrew, see Speaker's Comm. 
 in loco. [Οὐ H.] 
 
 JEHIZKI’AH (1PM), te. Yechizki-yahu ; 
 same name as Hezekiah: Ἑζεκίας ; /zechias), 
 son of Shallum, one of the heads of the tribe 
 of Ephraim in the time of Ahaz, who at the 
 instance of Oded, the prophet, nobly withstood 
 the attempt to bring into Samaria a large 
 number of captives and much booty, which the 
 Israelite army under king Pekah had taken in 
 the campaign against Judah. By the exertions 
 of Jehizkiahu and his fellows the captives were 
 clothed, fed, and tended, and returned to Jericho 
 en route for Judah (2 Ch. xxviii. 12; cp. vv. 8, 
 13, 15). 
 
 JEHO-AD’AH (T7YIN) = Jehovah is the 
 
 adornment, i.e. Jehoaddah [R. V.]; B. Ἰαδά, 
 A. Ἰωιαδά ; Joada), one of the descendants of 
 Saul (1 Ch. viii. 36); great grandson to 
 Meribbaal, i.e. Mephibosheth. In the duplicate 
 genealogy (ix. 42) the name is changed to 
 JARAH. 
 
 JEHO-AD'DAN (}7}7', Chron.; but in 
 Kings the original text has }*4D11"; B. Ἰωαδείμ, 
 *Iwvad, A. Ἰωαδείν, Ιωαδέν ; Joadan, Joaden). 
 “ Jehoaddan of Jerusalem” was queen to king 
 Joash, and mother of Amaziah of Judah (2 K. 
 xiv. 2; 2 Ch. xxv. 1). [C. H.] 
 
 JEHO-AHAZ (IMN817"=VJehovah preserves ; 
 B. Ἰωαχάς, A. Ἰωαχάς; Joachaz). 1. The son 
 and successor of Jehu; reigned 17 years (B.c. 
 856-840; al. 815-799) over Israel in Samaria. 
 His inglorious history, commencing in the 23rd 
 year of Joash king of Judah, is given in 2 K. 
 xiii. 1-9. Josephus (Ant. ix. 8, §5) puts his 
 accession in the 21st of Jehoash. Throughout 
 his reign (v. 22) he was kept in subjection by 
 Hazael king of Damascus, who, following up 
 the successes which he had previously achieved 
 against Jehu, compelled Jehoahaz to reduce his 
 army to 50 horsemen, 10 chariots, and 10,000 
 infantry. His submission to Syria continued 
 under Benhadad (v. 3). Jehoahaz maintained 
 the idolatry of Jeroboam ; but in the extremity 
 of his humiliation he besought Jehovah; and 
 Jehovah gave Israel a deliverer—probably either 
 Jehoash (vv. 23 and 25), or Jeroboam II. (2 K. 
 xiv. 24, 25; see Keil, Commentary on Kings). 
 The prophet Elisha survived Jehoahaz; and 
 Ewald (Gesch. Isr. iii. 357) is disposed to place 
 in his reign the incursions of the Syrians men- 
 tioned in 2 K. ν. 2, vi. 8, and of the Ammonites 
 mentioned in Amos i. 13. 
 
 2. Jehoahaz, otherwise called SHALLUM, the 
 fourth (ace. to 1 Ch. iii. 15), or third, if Zede- 
 kiah’s age be correctly stated (2 Ch. xxxvi. 11), 
 son of Josiah, whom he succeeded as king of 
 Judah. He was chosen by the people in prefer- 
 ence to his elder (cp. 2 K. xxiii. 33, 36) brother, 
 
 BIBLE DICT.—vVOL, I. : 
 
 JEHOHANAN 1537 
 
 B.C. 610, and he reigned three months in Jeru- 
 salem. His anointing (v. 30) was probably 
 some additional ceremony, or it is mentioned 
 with peculiar emphasis, as if to make up for his 
 want of the ordinary title to the throne. He is 
 described by his contemporaries as an evil-doer 
 (2 K. xxiii. 52) and (under the figure of a lion’s 
 whelp) as an oppressor (Ezek. xix. 3), and such 
 is his traditional character in Josephus (Ant. 
 x. 5, § 2); but his deposition seems to have been 
 lamented by the people (Jer. xxii. 10, and Ezek. 
 xix. 1). Pharaoh-necho on his return from 
 Carchemish, perhaps resenting the election of 
 Jehoahaz, sent to Jerusalem to depose him, and 
 to fetch him to Riblah. There he was cast into 
 chains, and from thence he was taken into 
 Egypt, where he died (see Prideaux, Connection, 
 anno B.c. 610; Ewald, Gesch. Isr. iii. 719; 
 Rosenmiiller, Schol. in Jerem. xxii. 11). 
 
 3. (B. ’Oxo€elas, A. "Oxo clas; Johachaz.) 
 The name given (2 Ch. xxi. 17) during his 
 father’s lifetime (Bertheau) to the youngest son 
 of Jehoram king of Judah. As king he is known 
 by the name of AHAzIAH, which is written 
 Azariah in the present Hebrew text of 2 Ch. 
 xxii. 6, perhaps through a transcriber’s error. 
 The Hebrew components of Jehoahaz (TMN17)) 
 and Ahaziah (1M°IMN) are identical, but stand 
 in inverse order. DWaele Be ΓΟ ΈΚΙ 
 
 JEHO’ASH (δ ΝΠ", of uncertain meaning 
 {see MV." ]; "Iwas; Joas), the original uncon- 
 tracted form of the name which is more com- 
 monly found compressed into JoasH. The two 
 forms appear to be used quite indiscriminately ; 
 sometimes both occur in one verse, in Hebrew 
 as well as in English (e.g. 2 K. xiv. 17). 
 
 1. The seventh king of Judah after Solomon ; 
 son of AHAZIAH (2 K. xi. 21; xii. 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 
 18; xiv. 13). [Joasn, 1.] 
 
 2. The twelfth king of Israel ; son of JEHO- 
 AHAZ (2 K. xiii. 10, 255 xiv. 8, 9, 11, 13, 15, 
 16, 17). [Joasn, 2.] [C. H.] 
 
 JEHO-HA’NAN qaniny = Jehovah is gra- 
 cious, answering to Theodore; Ἰωανάν ; Johanan), 
 a name much in use, both in this form and in 
 the contracted shape of JOHANAN in the later 
 periods of Jewish history. It has come down to 
 us as JOHN, and indeed is rendered by Josephus 
 *Iwavyijs (Ant. viii. 15, § 2). 
 
 1. (B. Ἰωνᾶς, Α. Ἰωνᾶ.) A Levite, one of the 
 doorkeepers (R. V.; in A, V. “ porters”) to the 
 house of Jehovah, i.e, the Tabernacle, according 
 to the appointment of David (1 Ch. xxvyi. 3; 
 cp. xxv. 1). He was the sixth of the seven sons 
 of Meshelemiah ; a Korhite,—that is, descended 
 from Korah, the founder of that great Kohathite 
 house. He is also said (v. 1) to have been of the 
 Bene-Asaph; but this Asaph is a contraction for 
 Ebiasaph, as is seen from the genealogy in ix. 
 19. The well-known Asaph, too, was not a 
 Kohathite, but a Gershonite. 
 
 2. (Ἰωανάν.) One of the principal men of 
 Judah, under king Jehoshaphat ; he commanded 
 280,000 men, apparently in and about Jerusalem 
 (2 Ch. xvii. 15; cp.vv.13 and 19), He is named 
 second on the list, and is entitled “tm, “the 
 
 captain ” (A. V. and R. V,), a title also given to 
 
 Adnah in the preceding verse, though there 
 
 rendered “the chief” in A. V., but “captain ” 
 5 ἘΝ 
 
1538 JEHOIACHIN 
 
 inR. V. The Hebrew is often rendered “ prince.” 
 He is probably the same person as 
 
 8. (Ἰωανάν) Father of Ishmael, Ishmael 
 being one of the “ captains ον, as before) of 
 hundreds ”—evidently residing in or near Jeru- 
 salem—whom Jehoiada the priest took into his 
 confidence about the restoration of the line of 
 Judah (2 Ch, xxiii. 1). 
 
 4. (Iwavdy.) One of the Bene-Bebai, a lay 
 Israelite who was forced by Ezra to put away 
 his foreign wife (Ezra x. 28). In 1 Esd. ix. 29 
 the name is JOHANNES. 
 
 5. (Iwavdy.) A priest (Neh. xii. 13), the 
 representative of the house of Amariah (cp. v. 2), 
 daring the high-priesthood of Joiakim (v. 12) ; 
 that is to say, in the generation after the first 
 return from Captivity. 
 
 6. (LXX. B. omits; N. Ἰωανάν.) A priest 
 who took part in the musical service of thanks- 
 giving, at the dedication of the wall of Jerusalem 
 by Nehemiah (Neh. xii. 42). 
 
 In two other cases this name is given in the 
 A. V. as JOHANAN. 
 
 JEHOI'ACHIN (fDi? = Jehovah  estab- 
 lisheth ; once only, Ezra i. 2, contracted to 7.3)": 
 Ἰωακείμ; Joseph. Ἰωάχιμος : Joachin). LElse- 
 where the name is altered to JECONIAH and 
 CoNIAH. See also JECHONIAS, JOIAKIM, and 
 JOACIM. 
 
 Son of Jehoiakim and Nehushta, and for three 
 months and ten days (8.c. 599) king of Judah, 
 after the death of his father, being the nineteenth 
 king from David, or twentieth, counting Jehoa- 
 haz. According to 2 K. xxiv. 8, Jehoiachin was 
 eighteen years old at his accession; but 2 Ch. 
 xxxvi. 9, as well as 1 Esd. i. 43, has the far 
 more probable reading eight years,* which fixes 
 his birth to the time of his father’s captivity, 
 according to Matt. i. 11. 
 
 Jehoiachin came to the throne at a time when 
 Egypt was still prostrate in consequence of the 
 victory at Carchemish, and when the Jews had 
 been for three or four years harassed and dis- 
 tressed by the inroads of the armed bands of 
 Chaldeans, Ammonites, and Moabites, sent against 
 them by Nebuchadnezzar in consequence of Je- 
 hoiakim’s rebellion. [JENOIAKIM.] Jerusalem 
 at this time, therefore, was quite defenceless, 
 and unable to offer any resistance to the regular 
 army which Nebuchadnezzar sent to besiege it in 
 the eighth year of his reign, and which he seems 
 to have joined in person after the siege had 
 commenced (2 Κα. xxiv. 10, 11). In a very short 
 time, apparently, and without any losses from 
 famine or fighting which would indicate a 
 serious resistance, Jehoiachin surrendered at 
 discretion ; and he, and the queen-mother, and 
 all his servants, captains, and officers, came out 
 and gave themselves up to Nebuchadnezzar, who 
 carried them, with the harem and the eunuchs, 
 
 5. Many commentators prefer the reading ‘‘ eighteen,” 
 as agreeing better with the language of Jeremiah. But 
 the words ὑϑηλᾷ and 433, applied to Jehoiachin in 
 
 Jer. xxii. 28, 30, imply sex rather than age, and are both 
 actually used of infants. See Gesen. Thes. s. vv. The 
 words ‘‘his seed” may also be taken in the wider sense 
 of family or kindred (Dan. i. 3). And so Josephus 
 seems to have understood it, rendering it τοὺς συγγενεῖς 
 (Ant. x. 7, δ 1). 
 
 J EHOIACHIN 
 
 to Babylon (Jer. xxix. 2; Ezek. xvii. 12, xix. 9). 
 All the king’s treasures, and all the treasure of 
 the Temple, were seized; and the golden vessels 
 of the Temple, which the king of Babylon had left 
 when he pillaged it in the fourth year of Jehoi- 
 akim, were now either cut up or carried away 
 to Babylon, with all the nobles, and men of war, 
 and skilled artisans, none but the poorest and 
 weakest being left behind (2 K, xxiv. 13; 2 Ch. 
 xxxvi. 19). According to 2 K. xxiy. 14, 16, the 
 number taken at this time into captivity was 
 10,000, viz. 7000 soldiers, 1000 craftsmen and 
 smiths, and 2000 whose calling is not specified. 
 But, according to Jer. lii. 28 (a passage which 
 is omitted in the LXX.), the number carried 
 
 | away captive at this time (called the seventh of 
 Nebuchadnezzar, instead of the eighth, as in ~ 
 
 2 K. xxiv. 12) was 3023. Whether this difference 
 arises from any corruption of the numerals, or 
 whether only a portion of those originally taken 
 captive were actually carried to Babylon, the 
 others being left with Zedekiah upon his swearing 
 allegiance to Nebuchadnezzar, cannot perhaps 
 be decided. The numbers in Jeremiah are cer- 
 tainly very small, only 4,600 in all, whereas the 
 numbers who returned from captivity, as given 
 in Ezra ii. and Neh. vii., were 42,360. However, 
 Jehoiachin was himself led away captive to 
 Babylon, and there he remained a prisoner, 
 
 actually in prison ends ΓΞ), and wearing 
 prison garments, for thirty-six years, viz. till 
 the death of Nebuchadnezzar, when Evil-Mero- 
 dach, succeeding to the throne of Babylon, treated 
 him with much kindness, brought him out of 
 prison, changed his garments, raised him above 
 the other subject or captive kings, and made 
 him sit at his own table. Whether Jehoiachin 
 outlived the two years of Evil-Merodach’s reign 
 or not does not appear, nor have we any par- 
 ticulars of his life at Babylon. The general 
 description of him in 2 K. xxiv. 9, “ He did evil 
 in the sight of Jehovah, according to all that 
 his father had done,” seems to apply to his 
 character at the time he was king, and but a 
 child; and so does the prophecy of Jeremiah 
 (xxii. 24-30; ep. Ezek. xix. 5-9). Wealso learn 
 from Jer. xxviii. 4, that four years after Jehoi- 
 achin had gone to Babylon, there was a great 
 expectation at Jerusalem of his return, but it 
 does not appear whether Jehoiachin himself 
 shared this hope at Babylon. [HANANTAH, 4.] 
 The tenor of Jeremiah’s letter to the elders of 
 
 the Captivity (xxix.) would, however, indicate — 
 
 that there was a party among the Captivity, 
 encouraged by false prophets, who were at this 
 time looking forward to Nebuchadnezzar’s over- 
 throw and Jehoiachin’s return; and perhaps the 
 fearful death of Ahab the son of Kolaiah (ib. υ. 
 22), and the close confinement of Jehoiachin 
 through Nebuchadnezzar’s reign, may have been 
 the result of some disposition to conspire against 
 Nebuchadnezzar on the part of a portion of those 
 ofthe Captivity. But neither Daniel nor Ezekiel, 
 who were Jehoiachin’s fellow-captives, make any 
 further allusion to him, except that Ezekiel 
 dates his prophecies by the year of king Jehoi- 
 achin’s captivity (i. 2, viii. 1, xxi. 1, xxiv. 1, 
 xxvi. 1, xxix. 1, xxx..1, xxxil, ΠΕ 1 the 
 latest date being “the twenty-seventh year” 
 (xxix. 17). We also learn from Esth. ii. 6, that 
 Kish, the ancestor of Mordecai, was Jehoiachin’s 
 
JEHOIACHIN 
 
 fellow-captive. But the apocryphal books are 
 more communicative. Thus the author of the 
 book of Baruch (i. 33; see Speaker’s Comm. in 
 loco) introduces “ Jechonias the son of Joachim 
 king of Judah” into his narrative, and repre- 
 sents Baruch as reading his prophecy in his ears, 
 and in the ears of the king’s sons, and the 
 nobles and elders and people at Babylon. At 
 the hearing of Baruch’s words, it is added, they 
 wept and fasted and prayed, and sent a collection 
 of silver to Jerusalem to Joachim the son of 
 _Hilkiah, the son of Shallum the high-priest, 
 with which to purchase burnt-offerings and 
 sacrifice and incense, bidding them pray for the 
 prosperity of Nabuchodonosor and Balthasar his 
 son. The history of Susanna and the Elders also 
 apparently makes Jehoiachin an important per- 
 sonage ; for, according to the author, the husband 
 of Susanna was Joacim, a man of great wealth, 
 and the chief person among the captives, to 
 whose house all the people resorted for judg- 
 ment, a description which suits Jehoiachin (see 
 Ball’s note on Hist. Sus. v. 1, and Introd. to that 
 book, p. 328 in Speaker’s Comm. on the Apocry- 
 pha, 1888). Africanus (Lp. ad Orig. ; Routh, 
 Rel. Sac. ii. 113) expressly calls Susanna’s 
 husband king, and says that the king of Babylon 
 had made him his royal companion (σύνθρονοΞ). 
 He is also mentioned in 1 Esd. v. 5, but the text 
 seems to be corrupt. It probably should be 
 “ Zorobabel, the son of Salathiel, the son of 
 Joacim,” i.e. Jehoiachin, It does not appear 
 certainly from Scripture, whether Jehoiachin 
 was married or had any children. That Zede- 
 kiah, who in 1 Ch. iii. 16 is called “his son,” is 
 the same as Zedekiah his uncle (called “his 
 brother,” 2 Ch. xxxvi. 10), who was his successor 
 on the throne, seems certain. But it is not 
 impossible that Assir (ΘΝ = captive), who is 
 reckoned among the “ sons of Jeconiah”’ in 1 Ch. 
 iii. 17, may have been so really, and either have 
 died young or been made an eunuch (Is. xxxix. 7). 
 This is quite in accordance with the term 
 “ childless,” 7), applied to Jeconiah by Jere- 
 
 miah (xxii. 30). [GmENEALOGY oF JESUS 
 CuRIsrT. } 
 
 Jehoiachin was the last of Solomon’s line; and 
 on its failure in his person, the right to suc- 
 cession passed to the line of Nathan, whose 
 descendant Shealtiel, or Salathiel, the son of 
 Neri, was consequently inscribed in the gene- 
 alogy as of “the sons of Jehoiachin.” Hence 
 his place in the genealogy of Christ (Matt. i. 
 11, 12). For the variations in the Hebrew 
 forms of Jeconiah’s name, see HANANIAH, 8; and 
 for the confusion in Greek and Latin writers 
 ‘between Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin, Ἰωαχεὶμ and 
 Ἰωακείμ, see GENEALOGY OF JESUS CHRIST, and 
 Hervey’s Genealogy, pp. 71-73. 
 
 N.B. The compiler of 1 Esd. gives the name 
 of Jechonias to Jehoahaz the son of Josiah, who 
 reigned three months after Josiah’s death, and 
 was deposed and carried to Egypt by Pharaoh- 
 Necho (1 Esd. i. 34; 2 K. xxiii. 30). He is 
 followed in this blunder by Epiphanius (vol. i. 
 p- 21), who says “Josiah begat Jechoniah, who 
 is also called Shallum. This Jechoniah begat 
 Jechoniah, who is called Zedekiah and Joakim.” 
 It has its origin doubtless in the confusion of 
 the names when written in Greek by writers 
 ignorant of Hebrew. [A. C. H.] 
 
 JEHOIADA 1539 
 
 JEHOI'ADA yn = Jehovah Inows; 
 Joseph. Ἰώαδος ; Joiada). In the later Books 
 the name is contracted to JOIADA. 
 
 1. (Ὁ. Ἰωδᾶε, Ἰανάκ, ᾿Αχειλούθ; A. Ἰωιαδᾶε, 
 Ἰωδᾶε.) Father of David’s well-known warrior 
 BENAIAH (2 Sam. viii. 18, xx. 23, xxiii. 20, 22; 
 1 K. 1, 8, 26, 32, 36, 38, 44, ii. 25, 29, 30, 
 34, 35, 46; 1 Ch. xi. 22, xviii. 17, xxvii. 5). 
 The “son of a mighty man” in 2 Sam. xxiii. 20, 
 1 Ch, xi. 22, means, according to a well-known 
 Hebrew usage, simply “a mighty man,” and 
 refers to Benaiah. From 1 Ch. xxvii. 5, where 
 a chief priest is rather the chief priest (R. V. 
 and the Heb.), we learn that Benaiah’s father 
 was the chief priest (not to be understood as 
 high-priest, cp. No. 5), and he is therefore doubt- 
 less identical with— 
 
 2. (Ὁ. Twadds, ἐξ. Τωαδᾶε, A. "Iwadae.) Leader 
 (732) of the Aaronites (accurately “of Aaron”), 
 1.6. the priests; who joined David at Hebron, 
 bringing with him 3,700 priests (1 Ch. xii. 27). 
 
 9. (Ὁ. Ἰωδᾶε, A. Ἰωαδᾶε.) According to 1 Ch. 
 xxvii. 34, son of Benaiah, and one of David’s 
 chief counsellors, apparently having succeeded 
 Ahithophel in that office. Many suppose that 
 Benaiah the son of Jehoiada is meant, by a 
 transposition similar to that which has arisen 
 with regard to Ahimelech and Abiathar (1 Ch. 
 xviii. 16, 2 Sam. viii. 17). Others however see 
 no reason why a son of Benaiah named after his 
 grandfather may not be intended. 
 
 4, (B. Ἰωδᾶε; A. Ἰωάδᾶε, Ἰωιαδᾶε, Ἰωιαδά.) 
 High-priest at the time of Athaliah’s usurpation 
 of the throne of Judah (B.c. 884-878 ; al. 843- 
 838), and during the greater portion of the 
 forty years’ reign of Joash. It does not appear 
 when he first became high-priest, but it may 
 have been as early as the latter part of Jeho- 
 shaphat’s reign, Anyhow, he probably suc- 
 ceeded Amariah. [HIGH-PRIEST.] He married 
 JEHOSHEBA, or Jehoshabeath, daughter of king 
 Jehoram, and sister of king Ahaziah (2 Ch. 
 xxii. 11); and when Athaliah slew all the seed 
 royal of Judah after Ahaziah had been put to 
 death by Jehu, he and his wife stole Joash from 
 among the king’s sons, and hid him for six 
 years in the Temple, and eventually placed 
 him on the throne of his ancestors (2 K. xi. 3; 
 2 Ch. xxii. 12). (JoasH; Aruatian.] In 
 effecting this happy revolution, by which both 
 the throne of David and the worship of the 
 true God according to the Law of Moses were 
 rescued from imminent danger of destruction, 
 Jehoiada displayed great ability and prudence. 
 Waiting patiently till the tyranny of Athaliah, 
 and, we may presume, till her foreign practices 
 and preferences, had produced disgust in the 
 land, he at length, in the seventh year of her 
 reign, entered into secret alliance with the 
 chief supporters of the house of David and 
 of the true religion. He also collected at 
 Jerusalem the Levites from the different cities 
 of Judah and Israel, probably under cover of 
 providing for the Temple services, and then 
 concentrated a large and concealed force in the 
 Temple, by the expedient of not dismissing the 
 old courses of priests and Levites when their 
 successors came to relieve them on the Sabbath. 
 By means of the consecrated shields and spears 
 which David had taken in his wars, and which 
 were preserved in the treasury of the Temple 
 
 5 F 2 
 
 - 
 
1540 JEHOIADA 
 
 (cp. 1 Ch. xviii. 7-11, xxvi. 20-28; 1 Καὶ. xiv. 
 26, 27), he supplied the captains of hundreds 
 with arms for their men. Having then divided 
 the priests and Levites into three bands, which 
 were posted at the principal entrances, and filled 
 the courts with people favourable to the cause, 
 he produced the young king before the whole 
 assembly, and crowned and anointed him, and pre- 
 sented to him a copy of the Law according to Deut. 
 xvii. 18-20. [Hr~xrau.] The excitement of the 
 moment did not make him forget the sanctity of 
 God’s House. None but the priests and minis- 
 tering Levites were permitted by him to enter 
 the Temple; and he gave strict orders that 
 Athaliah should be carried without its precincts 
 before she was put to death. In the same spirit 
 he inaugurated the new reign by a solemn 
 covenant between himself, as high-priest, and 
 the people and the king, to renounce the Baal- 
 worship which had been introduced by the 
 house of Ahab, and to serve Jehovah. This was 
 followed by the immediate destruction of the 
 altar and temple of Baal, and the death of 
 Mattan his priest. He then took measures for 
 the due celebration of the Temple service, and at 
 the same time for the perfect re-establishment 
 of the monarchy (2 K. xi. 17-21; 2 Ch. xxiii. 
 16-21); all which seems to have been effected 
 with great vigour and success, and without any 
 cruelty or violence. For Joash, as he grew to 
 man’s estate, Jehoiada selected two wives (2 Ch. 
 xxiv. 3), having had probably in view the exter- 
 mination of the royal lineage of which Athaliah 
 had been guilty. The young king himself, 
 under this wise and virtuous counsellor, ruled 
 his kingdom well and prosperously, and was 
 forward in works of piety, during the lifetime 
 of Jehoiada. The reparation of the Temple in 
 the twenty-third year of his reign, of which a 
 full and interesting account is given in 2 Κα. xii. 
 and 2 Ch. xxiv., was one of the most important 
 works at this period. At length, however, 
 Jehoiada died, and, though far advanced in 
 years, too soon for the welfare of his country 
 and the weak unstable character of Joash. The 
 text of 2 Ch. xxiv. 15, supported by the LXX. 
 and Josephus, makes him 130 years old when he 
 died. But supposing him ‘to have lived to the 
 thirty-fifth year of Joash (which leaves only 
 five years for all the subsequent events of the 
 reign), he would in that case have been ninety- 
 five at the time of the insurrection against 
 Athaliah; and fifteen years before, when Je- 
 horam, whose daughter was his wife, was only 
 thirty-two years old, he would have been eighty: 
 than which nothing can be more’ improbable. 
 There must therefore be some early corruption 
 of the numeral. Perhaps we ought to read 
 
 newly Dv3in¥ (83), instead of DW ΣᾺ TAN. 
 
 Even 103 (as suggested, Geneal. of our: Lord, 
 p- 304) would leave an improbable age at the 
 two above-named epochs. If eighty-three at 
 his death, he would have been thirty-three years 
 old at Joram’s accession. For his signal services 
 to his God, his king, and his country, which 
 have earned him a place among the very fore- 
 most well-doers in Israel, he had the unique 
 honour of burial among the kings of Judah in 
 the city of David. He was probably succeeded 
 by his son Zechariah. In Josephus’ list (Ant. 
 x. 8, § 6) the name of INAEAS by an easy 
 
 JKHOIAKIM 
 
 corruption is transformed into 61AEAS, and in 
 the Seder Olam into Phadea. It has been 
 thought that Jehoiada’s alliance with the royal 
 house, and his tenure of supreme authority as 
 regent for so many years during the minority, 
 left its mark in time to come on the high-priest- 
 hood itself, bringing it into greater civil pro- 
 minence, and even increasing the authority in 
 public life of the entire Levitical order. See 
 Notes in the Speaker’s Comm. on 2 Κὶ. xii. 2, 10. 
 
 In Matt. xxiii. 35, Zechariah the son of 
 Jehoiada is mentioned as the “ son of Barachias,” 
 ie. Berechiah. This is omitted in Luke (xi. 51), 
 and has probably been inserted from a confusion 
 between this Zechariah and the prophet, who 
 was son of Berechiah; or with the son of Je- — 
 berechiah (Is. viii. 2). 
 
 5. Second priest, or (as the Rabbins entitle 
 him) sagan, to Seraiah the high-priest. He 
 was deposed at the beginning of the reign of 
 Zedekiah, prohably for adhering to the prophet 
 Jeremiah ; when Zephaniah was appointed sagan 
 in his room* (Jer. xxix. 25-29; 2 K. xxv. 18). 
 This is a clear instance of the title ‘“‘ the priest ” 
 being applied to the second priest. The passage 
 in Jeremiah shows the nature of the sagan’s 
 authority at this time, when he was doubtless 
 “yuler of the house of Jehovah” (MD 193) 
 n°). [Hicu-prresr.] Winer (Realwb.) has 
 quite misunderstood the passage, and makes 
 Jehoiada the same as the high-priest in the 
 reign of Joash. 
 
 6. (YPN, ie. Joiada; B. Ἰοειαά, A. Ἰοειδά ; 
 Joiada), son of Paseach, who assisted to repair 
 the “old gate ” of Jerusalem (Neh. iii. 6). ὶ 
 
 [A. C. ΗΕ] 
 
 JEHO!AKIM (Op) = Jehovah raises 
 up; Ἰωακείμ, Joseph. Ἰωάκιμος ; Joakim), 18th 
 (or, counting Jehoahaz, 19th) .king of Judah 
 from David inclusive ; twenty-five years old at 
 his accession, and originally called ELIAKiM. 
 He was the son of Josiah and Zebudah, daughter 
 of Pedaiah of Rumah, possibly identical with 
 Arumah of Judg. ix. 41 (where the Vulg. has 
 Rumah), and in that case in the tribe of Man- 
 asseh. His younger brother Jehoahaz, or 
 Shallum, as he is called in Jer. xxii. 11, was in 
 the first instance made king by the people of 
 the land on the death of his father Josiah, 
 probably with the intention of following up 
 Josiah’s policy, which was to side with Nebu- — 
 chadnezzar against Egypt, being, as Prideaux — 
 thinks, bound by oath to the kings of Babylon 
 (Conn. i. 57, ann. B.c. 610, ed. 1838). Pharaoh- 
 Necho, therefore, having borne down all resist- 
 ance with his victorious army, immediately 
 deposed Jehoahaz, and had him brought in 
 chains to Riblah—where, it seems, he was—on 
 his way to Carchemish (2 K. xxiii. 33, 34; 
 Jer. xxii. 10-12). He then set Eliakim his 
 elder brother upon the throne, changing his 
 name to Jehoiakim; and having charged him 
 with the task of collecting a tribute of 100 
 talents of silver, and 1 talent of gold=nearly 
 40,0007, in which he mulcted the land for 
 the part Josiah had taken in the war with 
 Babylon, he eventually returned to Egypt, taking 
 
 8. It: is, however, possible that Jehoiada vacated the 
 office by death. 
 
JEHOIAKIM 
 
 Jehoahaz with him, who died there in captivity 
 (2 K. xxiii. 34; Jer. xxii. 10-12; Ezek. xix. 
 4)" Pharaoh-Necho also himself returned no 
 more to Jerusalem, for after his great defeat at 
 Carchemish in the fourth year of Jehoiakim he 
 lost all his Syrian possessions (2 K. xxiv. 7: 
 Jer. xlvi. 2), and his successor Psammis (Herod. 
 ii. 161) made no attempt to recover them. 
 Egypt, therefore, played no part in Jewish 
 politics during the seven or eight years of 
 Jehoiakim’s reign. After the battle of Car- 
 ~ chemish Nebuchadnezzar invaded Palestine as 
 one of the Egyptian tributary kingdoms, the 
 capture of which was the natural fruit of his 
 victory over Necho. He found Jehoiakim quite 
 defenceless. After a short siege he entered 
 Jerusalem, took the king prisoner, bound him 
 in fetters to carry him to Babylon, and took 
 also some of the precious vessels of the Temple 
 and carried them to the land of Shinar to the 
 temple of Bel his god. It was at this time, in the 
 fourth, or, as Daniel (i. 1; see Speaker’s Comm.” 
 in loco) reckons, in the third year of his 
 reign, that Daniel, and Hananiah, Mishael, 
 and Azariah, were taken captives to Babylon; 
 but Nebuchadnezzar seems to have changed 
 his purpose as regarded Jehoiakim, and to 
 have accepted his submission, and reinstated 
 him on the throne, perhaps in remembrance of 
 the fidelity of his father Josiah. What is 
 certain is, that Jehoiakim became tributary to 
 Nebuchadnezzar after his invasion of Judah, 
 and continued so for three years, but at the 
 end of that time broke his oath of allegiance 
 and rebelled against him (2 K. xxiv. 1; 2 Ch. 
 vi. 7). What moved or encouraged Jehoiakim 
 to this rebellion it is difficult to say, unless it 
 were the restless turbulence of his own bad 
 disposition and the dislike of paying the tribute 
 to the king of Babylon, which he would have 
 rather lavished upon his own luxury and pride 
 (Jer. xxii. 13-17), for there is nothing to bear 
 out Winer’s conjecture, or Josephus’s assertion, 
 that there was anything in the attitude of 
 Egypt at this time to account for such a step. 
 It seems more probable that seeing Egypt 
 entirely severed from the affairs of Syria since 
 the battle of Carchemish, and the king of 
 Babylon wholly occupied with distant wars, he 
 hoped to make himself independent. But what- 
 ever was the motive of this foolish and wicked 
 proceeding, which was contrary to the repeated 
 warnings of the Prophet Jeremiah, it is certain 
 that it brought misery and ruin upon the king 
 and his country. Though Nebuchadnezzar was 
 not able at that time to come in person to 
 chastise his rebellious vassal, he sent against 
 him numerous bands of Chaldeans, with Syrians, 
 Moabites, and Ammonites, who were all now 
 subject to Babylon (2 K. xxiv. 2, 7), and who 
 cruelly harassed the whole country. It was 
 perhaps at this time that the great drought 
 described in Jer. xiv. 1-6 (cp. Jer. xv. 4 with 
 2 K. xxiv. 2,3) occurred. In his fourth year 
 Israel’s seventy years’ Captivity was predicted 
 by Jeremiah (xxv. 1-11). The closing years of 
 this reign must have been a time of extreme 
 
 8 It does not appear from the narrative in 2 K. xxiii. 
 (which is the fullest) whether Necho went straight to 
 Egypt from Jerusalem, or whether the calamitous 
 <ampaign on the Euphrates intervened. 
 
 JEHOIAKIM 1541 
 
 misery. The Ammonites appear to have over- 
 run the land of Gad (Jer. xlix. 1), and the other 
 neighbouring nations to have taken advantage of 
 the helplessness of Israel to ravage their land 
 to the utmost (Ezek. xxv.). There was no rest 
 or safety out of the walled cities. We are not 
 acquainted with the details of the close of the 
 reign. Probably as the time approached for 
 Nebuchadnezzar himself to come against Judaea, 
 the desultory attacks and invasions of his troops 
 became more concentrated. Either in an 
 engagement with some of these forces, or else 
 by the hand of his own oppressed subjects, who 
 thought to conciliate the Babylonians by the 
 murder of their king, Jehoiakim came to a 
 violent end in the eleventh year of his reign. 
 His body was cast out ignominiously on the 
 ground; perhaps thrown over the walls to 
 convince the enemy that he was dead; and 
 then, after being left exposed for some time, 
 was dragged away and buried “with the 
 burial of an ass,” without pomp or lamentation, 
 “beyond the gates of Jerusalem” (Jer. xxii. 18, 
 19; xxxvi. 30). Within three months of his 
 death Nebuchadnezzar arrived, and put an end 
 to his dynasty by carrying Jehoiachin off to 
 Babylon. [Jemoracuin.] All the accounts 
 we have of Jehoiakim concur in ascribing to 
 him a vicious and irreligious character. The 
 writer of 2 K. xxiii. 37 tells us that “he did 
 that which was evil in the sight of Jehovah,” 
 a statement which is repeated in xxiv. 9 and in 
 2 Ch. xxxvi. 5. The Chronicler uses the yet 
 stronger expression, ‘the acts of Jehoiakim, 
 and the abominations which he did” (v. 8). 
 But it is in the writings of Jeremiah that we 
 have the fullest portraiture of him. If, as is 
 probable, the xixth chapter of Jeremiah be- 
 longs to this reign, we have a detail of the 
 abominations of idolatry practised at Jerusalem 
 under the king’s sanction, with which Ezekiel’s 
 vision of what was going on six years later, 
 within the very precincts of the Temple, exactly 
 agrees: incense offered up to “abominable 
 beasts ; ” ‘‘ women weeping for Thammuz;” and 
 men in the inner court of the Temple, ‘ with 
 their backs towards the Temple of the Lord,” 
 worshipping “the sun towards the east ” (Ezek. 
 viii.). The vindictive pursuit and murder of 
 Urijah the son of Shemaiah, and the indignities 
 offered to his corpse by the king’s command, in 
 revenge for his faithful prophesying of evil 
 against Jerusalem and Judah, are samples of 
 his irreligion and tyranny combined. Jeremiah 
 only narrowly escaped the same fate (Jer. xxvi. 
 20-24), The curious notice of him in 1 Esd. 
 i. 38, that he put his nobles in chains and 
 caught Zaraces his brother in Egypt” and 
 brought him up thence (to Jerusalem), also 
 points to his cruelty. His daring impiety in 
 cutting up and burning the roll containing 
 Jeremiah’s prophecy, at the very moment when 
 the national fast was being celebrated, is 
 another specimen of his character, and drew 
 
 b The passage seems to be corrupt. The words τὸν 
 ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ seem to be repeated from the preceding 
 line but one, and Ζαράκην is a corruption of Οὐρίαν. 
 συλλαβὼν ἐξήγαγεν is a paraphrase of the Alexandrian 
 Codex of Jer. xxxiii, 23 (xxvi. 23, A. V.), συνελάβοσαν 
 αὐτὸν, καὶ ἐξήγαγον. See the note on 1 Esd. i. 38, in 
 the Speaker’s Comm. on the Apocrypha, 1888. 
 
1542 JEHOIAKIM 
 
 down upon him the sentence, “‘He shall have 
 none to sit upon the throne of David” (Jer. xxxvi. 
 23, 30. Cp. Stanley’s Hist. of the Jewish Church, 
 ii, 452, &c. [1883]). His oppression, injustice, 
 covetousness, luxury, and tyranny, are most 
 severely rebuked (xxii. 13-17); and it has been 
 frequently observed, as indicating his thorough 
 selfishness and indifference to the sufferings of 
 his people, that at a time when the land was so 
 impoverished by the heavy tributes laid upon it 
 by Egypt and Babylon in turn, he should have 
 squandered large sums in building luxurious 
 palaces for himself (xxii. 14, 15). Josephus’s 
 history of Jehoiakim’s reign is consistent neither 
 with Scripture nor with itself. His account of 
 Jehoiakim’s death and Jehoiachin’s accession 
 appears to be only his own inference from the 
 Scripture narrative. According to Josephus 
 (Ant. x. 6, § 1), Nebuchadnezzar came against 
 Judaea in the eighth year of Jehoiakim’s reign, 
 and compelled him to pay tribute, which he did 
 for three years, and then revolted in the eleventh 
 year, on hearing that the king of Babylon had 
 gone to Egypt.° He then inserts the account 
 of Jehoiakim’s burning Jeremiah’s prophecy in 
 his fifth year, and concludes by saying, that a 
 little time afterwards the king of Babylon made 
 an expedition against Jehoiakim, who admitted 
 Nebuchadnezzar into the city upon certain 
 conditions, which Nebuchadnezzar immediately 
 broke ; that he slew Jehoiakim and the flower 
 of the citizens, and sent three thousand captives 
 to Babylon, and set up Jehoiachin for king, but 
 almost immediately afterwards was seized with 
 fear lest the young king should avenge his 
 father’s death, and so sent back his army to 
 besiege Jerusalem; that Jehoiachin, being ἃ 
 man of just and gentle disposition, did not like 
 to expose the city to danger on his own account, 
 and therefore surrendered himself, his mother, 
 and kindred, to the king of Babylon’s officers on 
 condition of the city suffering no harm; but 
 that Nebuchadnezzar, in direct violation of the 
 conditions, took 10,832 prisoners, and made 
 Zedekiah king in the room of Jehoiachin, whom 
 he kept in custody (Ant, x. 7, ὃ 1)—a statement 
 the principal portion of which seems to have no 
 foundation whatever in fact. The account 
 given above is derived from the various state- 
 ments in Scripture, and seems to agree perfectly 
 with the probabilities of Nebuchadnezzar’s 
 movements and with what the most recent 
 discoveries have brought to light concerning 
 
 ¢ Nothing can be more improbable than an invasion 
 of Egypt by Nebuchadnezzar at this time. All the 
 Syrian possessions of Egypt fell into the power of 
 Babylon soon after the victory at Carchemish, and the 
 king of Egypt retired thenceforth into his own country. 
 His Asiatic wars seem to have engrossed Nebuchad- 
 nezzar’s attention for the next seven years; and in like 
 manner the king of Egypt seems to have confined him- 
 self to Ethiopian wars. The first hint we have of Egypt 
 aiming at recovering her lost influence in Syria is at the 
 accession of Pharaoh-Hophra, in the 4th of Zedekiah. 
 [HANANIAH, 4.1 He made several abortive attempts 
 against Nebuchadnezzar in Zedekiah’s reign, and detached 
 the Ammonites, Moabites, Edomites, Tyrians, and Zido- 
 nians from the Babylonish alliance (Jer. xxvii.). In 
 consequence, Nebuchadnezzar, after thoroughly sub- 
 duing these nations, and devoting thirteen years to the 
 siege of Tyre, at length invaded and subdued Egypt in 
 the thirty-fifth year of his reign (Ezek. xxix. 17). 
 
 JEHOIARIB 
 
 him. [NEBUCHADNEZZAR.] The reign of Je- 
 hoiakim extends from B.C, 609 to 8.6. 598, or 
 as some reckon 599. 
 
 The name of Jehoiakim appears in a contracted 
 form in JOIAKIM, a high-priest. [A. Ὁ H.] 
 
 JEHO-IA’RIB (2°), (?) = Jehovah will 
 plead, 1 Ch. ix. 10, xxiv. 7, only; elsewhere, 
 both in Hebrew and A. V., the name is ab- 
 breviated to JoraR1IB: B. "Iwapefu, Ἰαρείμ; A. 
 *IwapelB, Ἰαρείβ : Joiarib), head of the first of 
 the twenty-four courses of priests, according to 
 the arrangement of king David (1 Ch. xxiv. 7). 
 Some of his descendants returned from the Baby- 
 lonish captivity, as we learn from 1 Ch. ix. 10, 
 Neh. xi. 10. [JepArAH.] Their chief in the 
 days of Joiakim the son of Jeshua was Mattenai 
 (Neh. xii. 6, 19). They were probably of the 
 house of Eleazar. To the course of Jehoiarib 
 belonged the Asmonean family (1 Mace. ii. 1; 
 Jos. Ant. xii. 6, § 1) and Josephus, as he informs 
 us (Life, § 1). [HiGH-prrest.] Prideaux in- 
 deed (Connection, i. 149, ann. B.C. 536, ed. 1838), 
 following the Jewish tradition, affirms that only 
 four of the courses returned from Babylon, 
 Jedaiah, Immer, Pashur, and Harim—for which 
 last, however, the Babylonian Talmud has Joiarib 
 —hbecause these four only are enumerated in 
 Ezra ii. 36-39, Neh. vii. 39-42. He accounts 
 for the mention of other courses, as of Joiarib 
 (1 Mace. ii. 1) and Abiah (Luke i. 5), by saying 
 that those four courses were subdivided into six 
 each, so as to keep up the old number of twenty- 
 four, which took the names of the original 
 courses, though not really descended from them. 
 But this is probably an invention of the Jews, 
 to account for the mention of only these four 
 families of priests in the list of Ezra ii. and 
 Neh. vii. However difhcult it may be to say 
 with certainty why only those four courses 
 are mentioned in that particular list, we have 
 the positive authority of 1 Ch. ix. 10 and Neh. 
 xi. 10 for asserting that Joiarib did return; 
 and we have two other lists of courses, one of 
 the time of Nehemiah (Neh. x. 2-8), the other 
 of Zerubbabel (Neh. xii. 1-7); the former 
 enumerating twenty-one, the latter twenty-two 
 courses; and the latter naming Joiarib as one 
 of them,* and adding, at v. 19, the name of the 
 chief of the course of Joiarib in the days of 
 Joiakim. So that there can be no reasonable 
 doubt that Joiarib did return. The notion of 
 the Jews does not receive any confirmation from ~ 
 the statement in the Latin version of Josephus 
 (cont. Apion. ii. 7), that there were four 
 courses of priests, as it is a manifest corruption 
 of the text for twenty-four, as Whiston and 
 others have shown (note to Life of Josephus, § 1). 
 The subjoined table gives the three lists of 
 courses which returned, with the original list 
 in David’s time to compare them by :— 
 
 8. It is, however, very singular that the names after 
 Shemaiah in Neh. xii. 6, including Joiarib and Jedaiah, 
 have the appearance of being added on to the previously 
 existing list, which ended with Shemaiah, as does that 
 in Neh. x. 2-8. For Joiarib’s is introduced with the 
 copula “‘and;” it is quite out of its right order as the © 
 first course; and, moreover, these names are entirely 
 omitted in the LXX. till we come to the times οὗ 
 Joiakim at vv. 12-21. Still the utmost that could be — 
 concluded from this is, that Joiarib returned later than — 
 the time of Zerubbabel. 
 
JEHONADAB 
 COURSES OF PRIESTS. 
 In David's Ξ In Nehemiah’s | In Zerubbabel's 
 reign, τὰ = = ri time, time, | 
 1Ch. xxiv. ge) bs ahh Neh. x. Neh. xii. 
 1. Jehoiarib, | -- -- Joiarib, 
 1 Ch. ix. 10, . 
 Neh. xi. 10. | 
 2. Jedaiah. Children of -- Jedaiah. 
 Jedaiah, 
 8, Harim. Children of Harim. Rehum 
 Harim. . (Harim, νυ, 15). 
 4. Seorim. - - 
 5. Malchijah. | Children of Malchijah, -- 
 Pashur, 1 Ch. 
 ix. 12. 
 6. Mijamin. -- Mijamin. Miamin 
 (Miniamin,v. 17) 
 7. Hakkoz. -- Meremoth, son | Meremoth 
 of Hakkoz, (Meraioth, 
 Neh. iii. 4 υ. 15). 
 4. V.). 
 8. Abijah. - Abijah. Abijah. 
 9. Jeshuah, House of = - 
 Jestua (9), 
 Ezra ii. 36, 
 Neh. vii. 32. 
 10, Shecaniah. - Shebaniah, Shechaniah 
 (Shebaniah, 
 v. 14). 
 11. Eliashib. -- - - 
 12, Jakim. - ττὶ -- 
 18. Huppah. -- -- - 
 14. Jeshebeab. -- -- -- 
 15. Bilgah. - Bilgai. Bilgah. 
 16. Immer. } Children of Amariah, Amariah. 
 immer. 
 17. Hezir. - - -- 
 18. Aphses. -- -- -- 
 19. Pethahiah. -- -- -- 
 20. Jehezekel. -- - -- 
 21. Jachin, - -- --- 
 Neh. xi. 10, 
 1 Ch, ix. 10. 
 22. Gamul. -- -- -- 
 23. Delaiah. -- -- -- 
 24. Maaziah. -- Maaziah Maadiah 
 (Moadiah, v, 17). 
 
 The courses which cannot be identified with 
 the original ones, but which are enumerated as 
 existing after the Return, are as follows :— 
 
 Neh. x. Neh. xii. Neh. xi., 1 Ch. ix. 
 Seraiah. Seraiah, Seraiah (?). 
 Azariah. Ezra. Azariah. 
 Jeremiah. Jeremiah. - 
 Pashur. -- -- 
 Hattush. Hattush. -- 
 Malluch. Malluch. -- 
 Obadiah. Iddo. Adaiah (?). 
 Daniel. - -- 
 Ginnethon. Ginnetho. - 
 Baruch. - -- 
 Meshullam, - -- 
 Shemaiah. Shemaiah. -- 
 
 Sallu. 
 Amok. 
 Hilkiah. 
 
 | Jedaiah (2). 
 
 For the courses, see Lewis’s Orig. Hebr. ii. 
 ch. vii. ; Schiirer, Gesch. d. Jiid. Volkes, ii. 182 sq. 
 
 In 1 Esd. i. 44, ix. 19, the name is given as 
 JORIBAS, JORIBUS. (ASG. Ἢ. [ἘΠ 
 
 JEHO-NA’DAB, and JON’ADAB (the 
 longer form, 37317) = Jehovah hath incited, is 
 employed in 2 K. x. and Jer. xxxv. 8, 14, 16, 18; 
 the shorter one, 273)’, in Jer. xxxv. 6, 10, 19: 
 Ἰωναδάβν), the son of Rechab, founder of the 
 Rechabites. It appears from 1 Ch. ii. 55, that 
 his father or ancestor Rechab (“a rider ”’) 
 belonged to a branch of the Kenites; the 
 Arabian tribe which entered Palestine with 
 the Israelites. One settlement of them was 
 to be found in the extreme north, under 
 the chieftainship of Heber (Judg. iv. 11), re- 
 taining their Bedouin customs under the oak 
 which derived its name from their nomadic 
 habits. The main settlement was in the south. 
 Of these, one branch had nestled in the cliffs of 
 
 JEHONADAB 1543 
 
 Engedi (Judg. i. 16; Num. xxiv. 21). Another 
 had returned to the frontier of their native 
 wilderness on the south of Judah (Judg. i. 16). 
 A third was established, under a threefold 
 division, at or near the town of Jabez in 
 Judah (1 Ch. ii, 55). To these last belonged 
 techab and his son Jehonadab [RecHapires]. 
 The Bedouin habits, which were kept up by 
 the other branches of the Kenite tribe, were 
 inculcated by Jehonadab with the utmost 
 minuteness on his descendants; the more so, 
 perhaps, from their being brought into closer 
 connexion with the inhabitants of the settled 
 districts. The vow or rule which he prescribed 
 to them is preserved to us: ‘ Ye shall drink no 
 wine, neither ye nor your sons forever. Neither 
 shall ye build houses, nor sow seed, nor plant 
 vineyard, nor have any: but all your days ye 
 shall dwell in tents; that ye may live many 
 days in the land where ye be strangers” (Jer. 
 xxxv. 6,7). This life, partly monastic, partly 
 Bedouin, was observed with the tenacity with 
 which from generation to generation such 
 customs are continued in Arab tribes; and 
 when, many years after the death of Jehonadab, 
 the Rechabites (as they were called from his 
 father) were forced to take refuge from the 
 Chaldean invasion within the walls of Jerusa- 
 lem, nothing would induce them to transgress 
 the rule of their ancestor; and in consequence 
 a blessing was pronounced upon him and them 
 by the Prophet Jeremiah (xxxv. 19): “ Jonadab 
 the son of Rechab shall not want a man to stand 
 before Me for ever.” [RECHABITES. ] 
 
 Bearing in mind this general character of 
 Jehonadab as an Arab chief, and the founder οἵ 
 a half-religious sect, perhaps in connexion with 
 the austere Elijah, and the Nazarites mentioned 
 in Amos ii. 11 (see Ewald, Alterthiimer, p. 118, 
 3rd ed. 1869; p. 88 of Solly’s Engl. tr., 1876), 
 we are the better able to understand the single 
 occasion on which he appears before us in the 
 historical narrative. 
 
 ’ Jehu was advancing, after the slaughter of 
 Beth-eked, on the city of Samaria, when he 
 suddenly met the austere Bedouin coming to- 
 wards him (2 K. x. 15). It seems that they 
 were already known to each other (Jos. Ant. ix. 
 6, § 6). The king was in his chariot; the Arab 
 was on foot. It is not clear, from the present 
 state of the text, which was the first to speak. 
 The Hebrew text—followed by the A. V.— 
 implies that the king blessed (A. V. “saluted ”) 
 Jehonadab. The LXX. and Josephus (Ant. ix. 
 6, § 6) imply that Jehonadab blessed the king. 
 Each would have its peculiar appropriateness. 
 The king then proposed their close union, “Is 
 thy heart right,as my heart is with thy heart ?” 
 The answer of Jehonadab is slightly varied. In 
 the Hebrew text he vehemently replies, “It is, 
 it is: give me thine hand.” In the LXX., and 
 in the A. V. and R. V., he replies simply, “ It 
 is;” and Jehu then rejoins, “If it is, give me 
 thine hand.” The hand, whether of Jehonadab or 
 Jehu, was offered and grasped (see QPB.?). The 
 king lifted him up to the edge of the chariot, 
 apparently that he might whisper his secret 
 into his ear, and said, “Come with me, and see 
 my zeal for Jehovah.” It was the first indica- 
 tion of Jehu’s design upon the worsltip of Baal, 
 for which he perceived that the stern zealot 
 would be a fit coadjutor. Having entrusted 
 
1544 JEHONATHAN 
 
 him with the secret, he (LXX., or his attendants, 
 Heb., A. V., R. V.) causes Jehonadab to proceed 
 with him to Samaria in the royal chariot. 
 
 So completely had the worship of Baal become 
 the national religion, that even Jehonadab was 
 able to conceal his purpose under the mask of 
 conformity. No doubt he acted in concert with 
 Jehu throughout; but the only occasion on 
 which he is expressly mentioned is when (prob- 
 ably from his previous knowledge of the secret 
 worshippers of Jehovah) he went with Jehu 
 through the temple of Baal to turn out any 
 that there might happen to be in the mass of 
 Pagan worshippers (2 K. x. 23). ([Junu.] 
 This is the last we hear of him (Stanley, 
 Lectures on the Jewish Church, ii. 287 [1883]). 
 
 [ASE 22] 
 
 JEHO-NA'THAN (jN37? = Jehovah hath 
 given ; ᾿Ιωναθάν ; Jonathan): the more accurate 
 rendering of the Hebrew name, which is most 
 frequently given in the A. V. as JONATHAN. It 
 is ascribed to three persons :— 
 
 1. Son of Uzziah; superintendent of certain 
 of king David’s storehouses (MIV¥N: the word 
 rendered “treasures” earlier in the verse [R. V. 
 “treasuries ”], and in ov. 27, 28 “cellars’’); 
 1 Ch. xxvii. 25. 
 
 2. One of nine Levites who, along with five 
 princes and two priests, were sent by Jehosha- 
 phat, in the third year of his reign, through the 
 cities of Judah, with a book of the Law, to teach 
 the people (2 Ch. xvii. 8). 
 
 8. A priest (Neh. xii. 18): the representative 
 of the family of Shemaiah (v. 6), when Joiakim 
 was high-priest ; that is, in the next generation 
 after the return from Babylon under Zerubbabel 
 and Jeshua. 
 
 JEHO’RAM (ain? = Jehovah is exalted. 
 Cp. the Phoen. Ὁ.) [MV.""]; Ἰωράμ ; Joseph. 
 
 ἸἸώραμος : Joram). The name is more often 
 found in the contracted form of JORAM. 
 1. Son of Ahab king of Israel. In the second 
 year of Jehoram king of Judah (2 K. i. 17), 
 and in the eighteenth of Jehoshaphat king of 
 Judah (2 K. iii. 1), he succeeded his brother 
 Ahaziah (who had no son) upon the throne at 
 Samaria, B.c. 896-884 (Riehm, 855-844). His 
 history is related in the Second Book of Kings, 
 there being but a passing mention of him in 
 2 Ch, xxii. 5-7. During the first four years of 
 his reign his contemporary on the throne of 
 Judah was Jehoshaphat, and for the next seven 
 years and upwards Jehoram the son of Jehosha- 
 phat, and for the last year, or portion of a year, 
 Ahaziah the son of Jehoram, who was killed 
 the same day that he was (2 K. ix. 27). The 
 alliance between the kingdoms of Israel and 
 Judah, commenced by his father and Jehosha- 
 phat, was very close throughout his reign. We 
 first find Jehoram associated with Jehoshaphat 
 and the king of Edom, at that time a tributary 
 of the kingdom of Judah, in a war against the 
 Moabites (2 K. iii.). Mesha their king, on the 
 death of Ahab, had revolted from Israel, and 
 refused to pay the customary tribute of 100,000 
 lambs and 100,000 rams. Jehoram asked and 
 obtained Jehoshaphat’s help to reduee him to 
 his obedience, and accordingly the three kings, 
 of Israel, Judah, and Edom, marched threugh 
 
 JEHORAM 
 
 the wilderness of Edom to attack him. The 
 three armies were in the utmost danger of 
 perishing for want of water. The piety of 
 Jehoshaphat suggested an inquiry of some 
 prophet of Jehovah, and Elisha the son of 
 Shaphat, at that time and since the latter part 
 of Ahab’s reign Elijah’s attendant (2 K. iii. 11; 
 1 K. xix. 19-21), was found with the host. 
 When the three kings went down to him, 
 Jehoram received a severe rebuke, and was 
 bidden to inquire of the prophets of his father 
 and mother, the prophets of Baal. Never- 
 theless for Jehoshaphat’s sake Elisha inquired of 
 Jehovah, and received the promise of an abun- 
 dant supply of water, and of a great victory 
 over the Moabites: a promise which was im- 
 mediately fulfilled. The same water which, 
 filling the valley and the trenches dug by the 
 Israelites, supplied the whole army and all their 
 cattle with drink, appeared to the Moabites, 
 who were advancing, like blood, when the 
 morning sun shone upon it. Concluding that 
 the allies had fallen out and slain each other, 
 they marched incautiously to the attack, and 
 were put tothe rout. The allies pursued them 
 with great slaughter into their own land, which 
 they utterly ravaged and destroyed with all its 
 cities. Kirhareseth alone remained, and there 
 the king of Moab made his last stand. An 
 attempt to break through the besieging army 
 having failed, he resorted to the desperate ex- 
 pedient of offering up his eldest son, the heir to 
 his throne, as a burnt-offering, upon the wall of 
 the city, inthe sight of the enemy. Upon this 
 the Israelites retired and 1eturned to their own 
 land (2 K. iii.). It was perhaps in consequence 
 of Elisha’s rebuke, and of the above remarkable 
 deliverance granted to the allied armies ac- 
 cording to his word, that Jehoram, on his return 
 to Samaria, put away the image of Baal which 
 Ahab his father had made (2 K. iii. 2). For in 
 2 K. iv. 13 we have an evidence of Elisha’s being 
 on friendly terms with Jehoram, in the offer 
 made by him to speak to the king in favour of 
 the Shunammite. The impression on the king’s 
 mind was probably strengthened by the subse- 
 quent incident of Naaman’s cure, and the tem- 
 porary cessation of the inroads of the Syrians, 
 which doubtless resulted from it (2 K. v.). <Ac- 
 cordingly when, a little later, war broke out 
 between Syria and Israel, we find Elisha be- 
 friending Jehoram. The king was made ac- 
 quainted by the prophet with the secret counsels 
 of the king of Syria, and was thus enabled to 
 defeat them (2 K. vi. 8-12); and on the other 
 hand, when Elisha had Jed a large band of 
 Syrian soldiers, whom God had blinded, into the 
 midst of Samaria, Jehoram reverentially asked 
 him, “ My father, shall I smite them?” and, at 
 the prophet’s bidding, not only forbore to kill 
 them, but made a feast for them, and then sent 
 them home unhurt. This procured another 
 cessation from the Syrian invasions for the 
 Israelites (2 K. vi. 19-25). What happened 
 after this to change the relations between the 
 king and the prophet we can only conjecture. 
 But in view of the general bad character given 
 of Jehoram (2 K. iii. 2, 3), together with the 
 fact of the prevalence of Baal-worship at the 
 end of his reign (2 K. x. 21-28), it seems pro- 
 bable that when the Syrian inroads ceased, and 
 he felt less dependent upon the aid of the 
 
JEHORAM 
 
 prophet, he—relapsing into idolatry—was re- 
 buked by Elisha, and threatened with a return of 
 the calamities from which he had escaped. Upon 
 his refusing to repent, a fresh invasion by the 
 Syrians, and a close siege of Samaria, actually 
 came to pass (2 K. vi. 24, 25), according 
 probably to the word of the prophet. Hence, 
 when the terrible incident arose, in consequence 
 of the famine, of a woman boiling and eating 
 her own child, the king * immediately attributed 
 the evil to Elisha the son of Shaphat, and de- 
 termined to take away his life (vv. 26-31). The 
 message which he sent by the messenger whom 
 he commissioned to cut off the prophet’s head, 
 “ Behold, this evil is from Jehovah; why should 
 I wait for Jehovah any longer?” coupled with 
 the fact of his having on sackcloth at the time 
 (2 K. vi. 30, 33), also indicates that many 
 remonstrances and warnings, similar to those 
 given by Jeremiah to the kings of his day, had 
 passed between the prophet and the weak and 
 unstable son of Ahab. The providential inter- 
 position by which both Elisha’s life was saved 
 andthe city delivered is narrated in 2 K. vii., and 
 Jehoram appears to have returned to friendly 
 feelings towards Elisha (2 K. viii. 4). His life, 
 however, was now drawing to its close. It was 
 very soon after the above events that Elisha 
 went to Damascus, and predicted the revolt of 
 Hazael, and his accession to the throne of Syria 
 in the room of Benhadad; and it was during 
 Elisha’s absence, probably, that the conversation 
 between Jehoram and Gehazi, and the return of 
 the Shunammite from the land of the Philistines, 
 recorded in 2 K. viii. 1-6, took place. Jehoram 
 seems to have thought the revolution in Syria, 
 which immediately followed Elisha’s prediction, 
 a good opportunity to pursue his father’s 
 fayourite project ot recovering Ramoth-Gilead 
 from the Syrians. He accordingly made an 
 alliance with his nephew Ahaziah, who had just 
 succeeded Jehoram on the throne of Judah, and 
 the two kings proceeded to occupy Ramoth- 
 Gilead by force. The expedition was an un- 
 fortunate one. Jehoram was wounded in battle, 
 and obliged to return to Jezreel to be healed of 
 his wounds (2 K. viii. 29; ix. 14, 15), leaving 
 his army under Jehu to hold Ramoth-Gilead 
 against Hazael. Jehu, however, and the army 
 under his command, revolted from their al- 
 legiance to Jehoram (2 K. ix.), and, hastily 
 marching to Jezreel, surprised Jehoram, wounded 
 and defenceless as he was. Jehoram, going out 
 to meet him, fell pierced by an arrow from 
 Jehu’s bow on the very “ plat ” of ground which 
 Ahab had wrested from Naboth the Jezreelite ; 
 thus fulfilling to the letter the prophecy of 
 Elijah (1 K. xxi. 21-29). With the life of 
 Jehoram ended the dynasty of Omri. 
 
 Jehoram’s reign was rendered very remark- 
 able by the two eminent prophets who lived in 
 it, Elijah and Elisha. The former seems to have 
 survived till the sixth year of his reign; the 
 latter to have begun to be conspicuous quite in 
 the beginning of it. For the famine which 
 Elisha foretold to the Shunammite ἢ (2 Κα, viii. 1), 
 
 3 Some prefer to consider “the king” to have been 
 not Jehoram, but Jehoahaz the son of Jehu. 
 
 b The ‘“‘then” of the A. V. of 2 K. viii. 1 is a 
 thorough misrepresentation of the order of the events. 
 Instead of ““ Then spake Elisha,” the R. V. reads ‘‘ Now 
 
 JEHORAM 1545 
 
 and which seems to be the same as that alluded 
 to iv. 38, must have begun in the sixth year of 
 Jehoram’s reign, since it lasted seven years, and 
 ended in the twelfth year. In that case his 
 acquaintance with the Shunammite must have 
 begun not less than five or at least four years 
 sooner, as the child must have been as much as 
 three years old when it died; which brings us 
 back at latest to the beginning of the second 
 year of Jehoram’s reign. Elisha’s appearance 
 in the camp of the three kings (2 K. iii. 11) 
 was probably as early as the first year of Je- 
 horam. With reference to the very entangled 
 chronology of this reign, it is important to 
 remark that there is no evidence whatever to 
 show that Elijah the prophet was translated 
 at the time of Elisha’s first prophetic ministra- 
 tions. The history in 2 K., at this part of it, 
 having much the nature of memoirs of Elisha, 
 and the active ministrations of Elijah having 
 closed with the death of Ahaziah, it was very 
 natural to complete Elijah’s personal history 
 with the narrative of his translation in ch. ii. 
 before beginning the series of Elisha’s miracles. 
 But it by no means follows that ch. ii. is really 
 prior in order of time to ch. iii., or that, though 
 the raising from the dead of the Shunammite’s 
 son was subsequent, as it probably was, to 
 Elijah’s translation, therefore all the preliminary 
 circumstances related in ch. iv. were so likewise. 
 Neither again does the expression (2 K. iii. 11), 
 “Here is Elisha, which poured water on the 
 hands of Elijah,”* imply that this ministration 
 had at that time ceased, and still less that 
 Elijah was removed from the earth. We learn, 
 on the contrary, from 2 Ch. xxi. 12, that he was 
 still on earth in the reign of Jehoram son of 
 Jehoshaphat, who did not begin to reign till the 
 fifth of Jehoram (2 K. viii. 16); and it seems 
 highly probable that the note of time in2 K. 
 i. 17, “in the second year of Jehoram the son 
 of Jehoshaphat,” which is obviously and cer- 
 tainly out of its place where it now is, properly 
 belongs to the narrative in ch. ii. With regard 
 to the other discordant dates at this epoch, it 
 must suffice to remark that all attempts to 
 reconcile them are vain, That which is based 
 upon the supposition of Jehoram having been 
 associated with his father in the kingdom for 
 three or seven years, is of all perhaps the most 
 unfortunate, as being utterly inconsistent with 
 the history, annihilating his independent reign, 
 and after all failing to produce even a verbal 
 consistency. The table given below is framed 
 on the supposition that Jehoshaphat’s reign 
 really lasted only twenty-two years, and Ahab’s 
 only nineteen, as appears from the texts cited ; 
 that the statement that Jehoshaphat reigned 
 twenty-five years is caused by the probable cir- 
 cumstance of his having taken part in the govern- 
 ment during the last three years of Asa’s reign, 
 when his father was incapacitated by the disease 
 in his feet (2 Ch. xvi. 12); and that three years 
 were then added to Ahab’s reign, to make the whole 
 
 Elisha had spoken.” The narrative goes back seven 
 years, merely to introduce the woman’s return at this 
 time. The king’s conversation with Gehazi was doubt- 
 less caused by the providential deliverance related in 
 ch. vii. 
 
 e The use of the perfect tense in Hebrew often 
 implies the habit or the repetition of an action, as 
 e.g. Ps. i. 1, ii. 1, &e. 
 
1546 
 
 number of the years of the kings of Israel agree 
 with the whole number of those of the kings of 
 Judah, thus unduly lengthened by an addition 
 of three years to Jehoshaphat’s reign. This 
 arrangement, it is believed, reconciles the 
 greatest number of existing texts, agrees best 
 with history, and especially coincides with what 
 is the most certain of all the elements of the 
 chronology of this time, viz. that the twelve 
 years’ reign of Jehoram son of Ahab, and the 
 few months’ reign of Ahaziah, the successor of 
 Jehoram son of Jehoshaphat, ended simul- 
 taneously at the accession of Jehu.4 
 
 KINGS OF JUDAH. 
 
 KINGS OF ISRAEL. 
 Ahab (reigned 19 yrs.) Ist yr. = { ee ὁ ee 41 yrs), 38th, 
 
 Khab. . . 4hyr.= § Jehoshaphat ( eigned 22 yrs.), 
 
 ὶ Ast, 1K. xxii. 41. 
 Ahab. . lastand 19th yr.= Jehoshaphat - 16th, ib. 51. 
 Ahaziah (reigned 2yrs.)lstyr.= Jehoshaphat, 17th, 1 K. xxii. 51. 
 Ahaziah. . . . .2ndyr. 
 and = >Jehoshaphat, 18th, 2 Ἐ. iii. 1. 
 Jehoram (reigned 12 yrs.) 1st yr- 
 
 JEHORAM 
 
 Jehoshaphat, Jast and 22nd; 
 Jehoram . 5th yr.= { and [viii. 16. 
 
 Jehoram (reigned 8 yrs.) Ist, 2K. 
 Jehoram eo, (OL ur pe { Jehoram, 2nd, 2 K. 1. 17, ii; 
 Elijah carried up to heaven § ~ ἃ 2Ch. xxi. 12, 
 
 Jehoram, 8th, 2 K. viii. 17; 
 Jehoram 12th yr. = and [2 K. viii. 26. 
 
 Ahaziah (reigned 1 yr.), 1st, 
 
 2. King of Judah, the eldest son of Jehosha- 
 phat, in whose lifetime, and in the fifth year of 
 Jehoram king of Israel, he began to reign, 
 at the age of thirty-two, and he reigned eight 
 years (2 K. viii. 16, 17; 2 Ch. xxi. 1-5), from 
 B.C. 893-2—885—-4 [Riehm, 852-845]. [7πηο- 
 RAM, 1.1 Jehosheba his daughter was wife to 
 the high-priest Jehoiada. The ill effects of his 
 marriage with Athaliah the daughter of Ahab 
 (2 K. viii. 18; 2 Ch. xxi. 6), and the influence 
 of that second Jezebel upon him, were imme- 
 diately apparent. As soon as he was fixed on 
 the throne, he put his six brothers to death, 
 with many of the chief nobles of the land 
 (2 Ch. xxi. 4, 13). He then proceeded to estab- 
 lish the worship of Baal and other abominations, 
 and to enforce the practice of idolatry by 
 persecution. A prophetic writing from the 
 aged Elijah (2 Ch. xxi. 12), the last recorded 
 act of that prophet, reproving him for his 
 crimes and his impiety, and foretelling the 
 most grievous judgments upon his person and 
 his kingdom, failed to produce any good effect 
 upon him. This was in the first or second 
 year of his reign. The remainder of it was a 
 series of calamities. First the Edomites, who 
 had been tributary to Jehoshaphat, revolted 
 from his dominion, and established their perma- 
 nent independence (2 K. viii. 20-22; 2 Ch. xxi. 
 8-10). It was as much as Jehoram could do, by 
 a night-attack with all his forces, to extricate 
 himself from their army, which had surrounded 
 him. Next, the priestly city Libnah, one of the 
 strongest fortified cities in Judah (2 K. xix. 8), 
 indignant at his cruelties, and abhorring his 
 apostasy, rebelled against him (2 K. viii. 22; 
 2 Ch. xxi. 10). Then followed invasions of 
 armed bands of Philistines and of Arabians (the 
 same who paid tribute to Jehoshaphat, 2 Ch. 
 xvii. 11), who burst into Judaea, stormed the 
 king’s palace, put his wives and all his children, 
 except his youngest son Ahaziah, to death 
 (2 Ch. xxii. 1), or carried them into captivity, 
 and plundered all his treasures (2 Ch. xxi. 16, 
 
 ἃ See another table in Riehm, HW8., “ Zeitrech- 
 nung,” p. 1822,—F. 
 
 JEHOSHAPHAT 
 
 17). To crown all, a terrible and incurable 
 disease in his bowels fell upon him, of which 
 after two years of misery he died, unregretted. 
 He went down to a dishonoured grave in the 
 prime of life, without either private or public 
 mourning, and, though buried in the city of 
 David, without a resting-place in the sepulchres 
 of his fathers (2 Ch. xxi. 18-20). He died early 
 in the twelfth year of his brother-in-law Jeho- 
 ram’s reign over Israel, and was succeeded b 
 his son Ahaziah. (A. C. H.] (C. Hj 
 3. (Ὁ. Ἰωράν, A. Ἰωράμ; Joran.) One of two 
 priests sent by king Jehoshaphat in the third 
 year of his reign, along with nine Levites and 
 five princes, to teach the, Law in the cities of 
 Judah (2 Ch. xvii. 8). [ὦ H.] 
 
 JEHOSHABE’ATH (nya; B. Ἰωσα-" 
 Beé, A.*IwoaBed ; Josabeth): the form in which 
 the name of JEHOSHEBA is given in 2 Ch. xxii. 11, 
 where only we are informed that she was the 
 wife of Jehoiada the high-priest. [JEHOSHEBA.] 
 
 JEHO-SHA’PHAT (DAWN = Jehovah hath 
 judged; "Iwcapdr ; Josaphat). 1. King of 
 Judah; the son of Asa and Azubah (1 K. xxii. 
 42; 2 Ch. xx. 31). He succeeded Asa, in the 
 fourth year of Ahab king of Israel (1 K. xxii. 
 41), when he was thirty-five years old and 
 reigned twenty-five years (Riehm, B.c. 877-- 
 853). His history is to be found among the 
 events recorded in 1 Καὶ, xv. 24, xxii.; 2 K. iii. 
 7-14, xii. 18; and in a continuous and fuller 
 narrative in 2 Ch. xvii.xxi. The rest of his 
 acts were recorded in the Book of the Chro- 
 nicles of the Kings of Judah (1 K. xxii. 45) and 
 in the Book of Jehu the son of Hanani (1 Ch. 
 xx. 34). He was contemporary with Ahab, 
 Ahaziah, and Jehoram, kings of Israel. _ At first 
 he strengthened himself against Israel by forii- 
 fying and garrisoning the cities of Judah and 
 the Ephraimite conquests of Asa. But soon 
 afterwards the two Hebrew kings, perhaps 
 appreciating their common danger from Da- 
 mascus and the tribes on their eastern frontier, 
 came to an understanding. Israel and Judah 
 drew together (1 K. xxii. 2-4; 2 Ch. xviii. 2, 3) 
 for the first time since they parted at Shechem 
 sixty years previously. Jehoshaphat’s eldest 
 son Jehoram married Athaliah, the daughter of 
 Ahab and Jezebel (1 K. viii. 18; 2 Ch. xxi. 6). 
 A comparison of dates. and ages shows that the 
 marriage occurred in the lifetime of Jehoshaphat, 
 but it does not appear how far he encouraged it. 
 The closeness of the alliance between the two 
 kings is shown by many circumstances :—Elijah’s 
 reluctance when in exile to set foot within the 
 territory of Judah (Blunt, Und. Coine. ii. § 19, 
 p- 199); the identity of names given to the 
 children of the two royal families; the admis- 
 sion ef names compounded with the name of 
 Jehovah into the family of Jezebel, the zealous 
 worshipper of Baal; and the extreme alacrity 
 with which Jehoshaphat afterwards accompanied 
 Ahab to the field of battle. 
 
 But in his own kingdom Jehoshaphat ever 
 showed himself a zealous follower of the com- 
 mandments of God: he tried, it would seem 
 not quite successfully, to put down the high 
 places in which the people of Judah used to 
 burn incense (1 K. xxii. 43; 2 Ch. xix. 3, xx. 
 33). The Chronicler adds much that is interest- 
 
JEHOSHAPHAT 
 
 ing, and which is not to be set aside as the 
 projection of later ideas on early times. In 
 his third year, apprehending perhaps the evil 
 example of Israelitish idolatry, and considering 
 that the Levites were not fulfilling satistact- 
 orily their function of teaching the people, 
 Jehoshaphat sent out a commission of certain 
 princes, priests, and Levites, to go through 
 the cities of Judah, teaching the people out of 
 the Book of the Law (2 Ch. xvii. 7-9). He 
 made separate provision for each of his sons as 
 they grew up, perhaps with a foreboding of 
 their melancholy end (2 Ch, xxi. 4). Riches and 
 honours increased around him. He teceived 
 tribute from the Philistines and Arabians, and 
 kept up a large standing army in Jerusalem 
 (2 Ch. xvii. 10-19). 
 
 It was probably about the 16th year of his 
 reign when he went to Samaria to visit Ahab 
 and to become his ally in the great battle of 
 Ramoth-gilead (1 K. xxii. 2-33; 2 Ch. xviii. 
 2-52)—not very decisive in its result, and 
 fatal to Ahab. From thence Jehoshaphat re- 
 turned to Jerusalem in peace; and, after re- 
 ceiving a rebuke from the prophet Jehu, went 
 himself through the people “ from Beersheba to 
 Mount Ephraim,” reclaiming them to the Law of 
 God (2 Ch, xix. 1-4). He also took measures 
 for the better administration of justice, ecclesi- 
 astical and civil, throughout his dominions 
 (wv. 5-11); on which see Selden, De Synedriis, 
 ii. cap. 8, § 4. Turning his attention to foreign 
 commerce, he built at Ezion-geber, with the 
 help of Ahaziah, a navy designed to go to 
 Tarshish (ep. Speaker’s Comm., Keil, and Oettli 
 on 2 Ch. xx. 36); but in accordance with a 
 prediction of a prophet Eliezer, it was wrecked 
 at Ezion-geber (2 Gi. xx. 35-37) ; and Jehosha- 
 phat resisted Ahaziah’s proposal to renew their 
 joint attempt. 
 
 Before the close of his reign he was engaged 
 in two additional wars. He was miraculously 
 delivered from a threatened attack of the people 
 of Ammon, Moab, and Seir (2 Ch. xx. 1-28); the 
 result of which is thought by some critics to be 
 celebrated inPss. xlviii. and xcii., and to be alluded 
 to by the Prophet Joel (iii. 2, 12). Those invaders 
 coming by the ascent of Ziz must have entered 
 Judah from the Salt Sea at Engedi; and the 
 Israelite army, advancing from Jerusalem some 
 ten miles southward towards the Wilderness of 
 Tekoa, saw them dead in the valley of Berachah 
 midway between Bethlehem and Hebron. After 
 this, perhaps, must be dated the war which 
 Jehoshaphat, in conjunction with Jehoram king 
 of Israel and the king of Edom, carried on 
 against the rebellious king of Moab (2 K. iii. 
 4-27). The kings of Israel and Judah reached 
 Moab, not at the north of that country, at the 
 Aynon border, but at the south of it, arriving 
 by way of Hebron and round the lower bay of 
 the Salt Sea at the Wady Kurahy or Ahsy at 
 the S.E. corner, where they would unite with 
 Edom, which was there divided from Moab. 
 After this the realm of Jehoshaphat was quiet. 
 In his declining years the administration of 
 affairs was placed in the hands of his son Jeho- 
 ram ; to whom, as Ussher conjectures, the same 
 charge had been temporarily committed during 
 Jehoshaphat’s absence at Ramoth-gilead. 
 
 Like the prophets with whom he was brought 
 into contact, we cannot describe the character 
 
 JEHOSHAPHAT, VALLEY OF 1547 
 
 of this good king without a mixture of blame. 
 Kminently pious, gentle, just, devoted to the 
 spiritual and temporal welfare of his subjects, 
 active in mind and body, he was wanting in 
 firmness and consistency. 
 
 2. (Ὁ. Ἰωσαφάτ, Ἰωσαφάθ: A. lwcapdr, Ἴω- 
 σάφ.) Son of Ahilud, who filled the office of re- 
 corder or annalist in the court of David (2 Sam. 
 viii. 16, xx. 24; 1 Ch. xviii. 15), and afterwards 
 of Solomon (1 K. iv. 3), The marginal alter- 
 natives of “recorder” are in A. V. “remem- 
 brancer,” “writer of chronicles;” in R. V. 
 “ chronicler.” [RECORDER.] Such officers are 
 found not only in the courts of the Hebrew 
 kings, but also in those of ancient and modern 
 Persia, of the Eastern Roman Empire (Gesenius), 
 of China, &c. (Keil). An instance of the use 
 made of their writings is given in Esth. vi. 1. 
 
 3. Clwoapdr.) One of seven priests (1 Ch. 
 xv. 24) appointed by David to blow trumpets 
 before the Ark in its transit from the house of 
 Obed-edom to Jerusalem. 
 
 4. (B. omits, A. Ἰωσαφάτ.) Son of Paruah ; 
 one of the twelve purveyors of king Solomon 
 (1 Κ. iv. 17), his district being Issachar. 
 
 5. (Ὁ. Ἰωσαφάθ, A. Ἰωσαφάτ.) Son of Nimshi, 
 and father of king Jehu (2 K. ix. 2, 14). 
 
 L Weel. Bil iC aren 
 
 JEHO-SHA’PHAT, VALLEY OF (ppv 
 DALIM; Κοιλὰς Ἰωσαφάτ: Vallis Josaphat), 
 a valley mentioned by the prophet Joel only, as 
 the spot in which, after the return of Judah 
 and Jerusalem from captivity, Jehovah would 
 gather all the heathen (Joel iii. 2; Heb. iv. 2), 
 and would there sit to judge them for their 
 misdeeds to Israel (iii. 12; Heb. v. 4). The 
 passage is one of great boldness, abounding in 
 the verbal turns in which Hebrew poetry so 
 much delights, and in particular there is a 
 play between the name given to the spot— 
 Jehoshaphat, i.e. “ Jehovah’s judgment ”—and 
 the “ judgment” there to be pronounced. The 
 Hebrew Prophets often refer to the ancient 
 glories of their nation: thus Isaiah speaks of 
 “the day of Midian,” and of the triumphs of 
 David and of Joshua in “ Mount Perazim ” and 
 in the “ Valley of Gibeon;” and in like manner 
 Joel, in announcing the vengeance to be taken 
 on the strangers who were annoying his country 
 (iii. 14), seems to have glanced back to that 
 triumphant day when king Jehoshaphat, the 
 greatest king the nation had seen since Solomon, 
 and the greatest champion of Jehovah, led out 
 his people to a valley in the wilderness of Tekoah, 
 and was there blessed with such a victory over 
 the hordes of his enemies as was without a 
 parallel in the national records (2 Ch. xx.). 
 
 But though such a reference to Jehoshaphat 
 is both natural and characteristic, it is .not 
 certain that it is intended (cp. Orelli in Strack 
 u. Zoéckler’s Kgf. Komm. on Joel U. c.). The 
 name may be only an imaginary one conferred 
 on a spot which existed nowhere but in the 
 vision of the Prophet. Such was the view of 
 some of the ancient translators. Thus Theodo- 
 tion renders it χώρα κρίσεως; and so the Targum 
 of Jonathan—“the plain of the division of 
 judgment.” Michaelis (Bibel fiir Ungelehrten, 
 Remarks on Joel) takes a similar view, and 
 considers the passage to be a prediction of the 
 Maccabean victories. By others, however, the 
 
1548 JEHOSHAPHAT, VALLEY OF 
 
 Prophet has been supposed to have the end of 
 the world in view. And not only this, but the 
 scene of ‘“ Jehovah’s judgment” has been 
 localised, and the name has come down to us 
 attached to the deep ravine which separates 
 Jerusalem from the Mount of Olives. At 
 what period the name was first applied to 
 this spot is not known. There is no trace 
 of it in the Bible or in Josephus. In both 
 the only name used for this gorge is KIDRON 
 (N. T. Capron). We first encounter its new 
 title in the middle of the 4th century in the 
 Onomasticon of Eusebius and Jerome (5. v. Κοιλὰς 
 Ἰωσαφάτ, OS? p. 272, 89; p. 145, 13); in the 
 Commentary of the latter Father on Joel; and in 
 the Itin. Hierosol. Eucherius (c. A.D. 440) has 
 Geennon sive vallis Josaphat, and in the 6th cent. 
 it was also known as the “ Valley of Geth- 
 semane” (Ant. Mart. xvii.). Since that time the 
 name has been recognised and adopted by tra- 
 vellers of all ages and aJl faiths. It is used by 
 Christians—as Arculf about 670 (Zarly Trav. 
 Ῥ. 4), the author of the Citez de Iherusalem in 
 1187 (Rob. ii. 562), and Maundrell in 1697 (Z. 
 Trav. p.469); and by Jews, as Benjaminof Tudela, 
 about 1170 (Asher, i. 71; and see Reland, Pal. 
 p- 356). By the Muslims it is called Wady Jahan- 
 num, but it is commonly known as the W. Sitti 
 Maryam, from the “Tomb of the Virgin”; or 
 W. el-Jés, possibly an abbreviation of Jehosha- 
 phat. According to Seetzen (ii. 23, 26) it bears 
 the name of W. Jushafat or Shafat. Both Mus- 
 lims and Jews believe that the last judgment is 
 to take place there. To find a grave there is the 
 dearest wish of the latter (Briggs, Heathen and 
 Holy Lands, p. 290); and the former show—as 
 they have shown for certainly two centuries— 
 the place on which Muhammad is to be seated 
 at the Last Judgment, a stone jutting out 
 from the east wall of the Haram ayvea near 
 the south corner, one of the pillars* which once 
 adorned the churches of Helena or Justinian, 
 and of which multitudes are now embedded in 
 the rude masonry of the more modern walls 
 of Jerusalem. The steep sides of the ravine, 
 wherever a level strip affords the opportunity, 
 are crowded—in places almost paved—by the 
 sepulchres of the Muslims, or by the simpler 
 slabs of the Jewish tombs, alike awaiting the 
 assembly of the Last Judgment. 
 
 So narrow and precipitous’ a glen is quite 
 unsuited for such an event; but this incon- 
 sistency does not appear to have disturbed those 
 who framed, or those who hold, the tradition. 
 It is however implied in the Hebrew terms em- 
 
 @ This pillar is said to be called et-Tarik, “the road” 
 (De Saulcy, Voyage, ii. 199). From it will spring the 
 Bridge of es-Sirdt, the crossing of which is to test the 
 ‘true believers. Those who cannot stand the test will 
 drop off into the abyss of Gehenna in the depths of the 
 valley (Ali Bey, 224--5; Mejr ed-Din in Rob. i. 269). 
 According to Muslim tradition, all mankind will be 
 assembled for judgment on the plain es-Sadhirah, near 
 the Church of the Ascension (Mukadassi) or to the north 
 of Jerusalem (Mejr ed-Din). 
 
 Ὁ St. Cyril (of Alexandria) eitner did not know the 
 spot, or has another Valley in his eye; probably the 
 former. He describes it as not many stadia from Jeru- 
 salem; and says he is told (φησὶ) that it is “bare and 
 apt for horses” (ψιλὸν καὶ ἱππήλατον, Comm. on Joel, 
 quoted by Reland, p. 355). Perhaps this indicates that 
 the tradition was not at that time quite fixed. 
 
 JEHOSHAPHAT, VALLEY OF 
 
 ployed in the two cases. That by Joel is ‘Hmek 
 (P'QV), a word applied to spacious valleys, such 
 
 as those of Esdraelon or Gibeon (Stanley, S. & P. 
 App. §1). On the other hand the ravine of the 
 
 Kidron is invariably designated by Nachal na), 
 
 answering to the modern Arabic Waddy. There 
 is no instance in the O. T. of these two terms 
 being convertible, and this fact alone would 
 warrant the inference that the tradition of the 
 identity of the Emek of Jehoshaphat and the 
 Nachal Kedron did not arise until Hebrew had 
 begun to become a dead language.° The grounds 
 on which it did arise were probably two:—l. 
 The frequent mention throughout this passage 
 of Joel of Mount Zion, Jerusalem, and the 
 Temple (ii. 32 ; iii. 1, 6, 16, 17, 18), may have 
 led to the belief that the locality of the great 
 judgment would be in their immediate neigh- 
 bourhood. This would be assisted by the men- 
 tion of the Mount of Olives in the somewhat 
 similar passage in Zechariah (xiv. 3, 4). 
 
 2. The belief that Christ would reappear in 
 judgment on the Mount of Olives, from which 
 He had ascended. This was at one time a 
 received article of Christian belief, and was 
 grounded on the words of the Angels, “He 
 shall so come in like manner as ye have seen 
 Him go into heaven” 4 (Adrichomius, Theatr. 
 Ter. Sanctae, Jerusalem, ὃ 192; Corn. ἃ Lapide 
 on Acts i.). 
 
 There is the alternative that the valley 
 of Jehoshaphat was really an ancient name 
 of the Valley of the Kedron; and that, from 
 the name, the connexion with Joel’s pro- 
 phecy and the belief in its being the scene of 
 Jehovah’s last judgment have followed. This 
 may be so; but then we should expect to find 
 some trace of the existence of the name before 
 the 4th century after Christ. It was certainly 
 used as a burying-place as early as the reign of 
 Josiah (2 Κι. xxiii. 6), but no inference can fairly 
 be drawn from this. 
 
 But whatever originated the tradition, it has 
 held its ground most firmly. (a.) In the valley 
 itself, one of the four remarkable monuments 
 which exist at the foot of Olivet was at a very 
 early date connected with Jehoshaphat. At 
 Arculf’s visit (about 670) the name appears to 
 have been borne by that now called “ Absalom’s 
 tomb,” but then the “tower of Jehoshaphat; ” 
 whilst the present “tomb of Jehoshaphat ” was 
 assigned to Simeon and Joseph (Z£. Trav. p.4). In 
 the time of Maundrell the “tomb of Jehosha- 
 phat ” was, what it still is, an excavation, with 
 an architectural front, in the face of the rock 
 behind “ Absalom’s tomb” (1. Trav, p. 469). 
 A photograph of the tomb has been published 
 in the series of the Palestine Exploration Fund. 
 The name may, as already observed, really point 
 to Jehoshaphat himself, though not to his tomb, 
 as he was buried, like the other kings, in the city 
 
 ¢ It appears in the Targum on Cant. viii. 1. 
 
 4 In Sir John Maundeville a different reason is given 
 for the same. ‘*Very near this”—the place where 
 Christ wept over Jerusalem—“ is the stone on which 
 our Lord sat when He preached; and on that same 
 stone shall He sit on the day of doom, right as He said 
 Himself.” Bernard the Wise, in th2 8th century, speaks 
 of the church of St. Leon, in the Valley, ‘‘ where our 
 Lord will come to judgment ” (Early Trav. p. 28). 
 
JEHOSHEBA 
 
 of David (2 Ch. xxi, 1). (0.) One of the gates 
 of the city in the east wall, opening on the 
 valley, bore the same name. ‘his is plain from 
 the Citez de Iherusalem, where the present St. 
 Stephen’s Gate is called the Porte de Josafas, 
 and the street leading westward from it the 
 Rue de Josafas (§§ 22-24; ep. J. of Wiirzburg, 
 xvi.). Mention is also made in the Citez de J. 
 (8 13) of a “postern,”’ called the Porte de 
 Josafas, which was to the left, or north of the 
 Golden Gate, and probably the same gate as 
 that just mentioned. It cannot be the supposed 
 walled-up doorway, 50 ft. south of the Golden 
 Gate, to which M. de Saulcy has given the name 
 Péterne de Josaphat. 
 a doorway, is of comparatively modern date, 
 and perhaps marks the position of the Bab οἰ- 
 Burak of Mejr ed-Din (Notes to O. S. of Jeru- 
 salem, p. 25; and PEF. photograph). 
 
 The name would seem to be generally confined 
 by travellers to the upper part of the glen, 
 from about the “Tomb of the Virgin” to the 
 south-east corner of the wall of Jerusalem. 
 
 [Tomss.] [41] ΓΝ] 
 
 JEHO-SHEBA (VIWiN); LXX. Ἰωσάβεε, 
 Joseph. Ἰωσαβεθή), daughter of Jehoram king 
 of Israel, and wife of Jehoiada the high-priest 
 (2 K. xi. 2; 2 Ch. xxii. 11), Her name in the 
 Chronicles is given JEHOSHABEATH. It thus 
 exactly resembles the name of the only two 
 other wives of Jewish priests who are known to 
 us, viz. ELISHEBA (LXX. and Ν, T. Ἐλισαβέτ, 
 whence our Elisabeth), the wife of Aaron, Ex. 
 vi. 23, and the wife of Zechariah, Luke i, 7. 
 In the former case the word signifies ‘‘ Jehovah’s 
 oath ;”’ in the second, “ God’s oath.” 
 
 As she is called (2 K. xi. 2) “the daughter of 
 Joram, sister of Ahaziak,” it has been conjec- 
 tured that she was the daughter, not of Atha- 
 liah, but of Jehoram, by another wife; and 
 Josephus (Ané. ix. 7, § 1) calls her ’Oxo¢ia 
 ὁμοπάτριος ἀδελφή. This may be; but it is 
 also possible that the omission of Athaliah’s 
 name may have been occasioned by the detesta- 
 tion in which it was held,—in the same way us 
 modern commentators have, for the same reason, 
 eagerly embraced this hypothesis. That it is 
 not absolutely needed is shown by the fact that 
 the worship of Jehovah was tolerated under the 
 reigns both of Jehoram and Athaliah—and that 
 the name of Jehovah was incorporated into both 
 of their names. 
 
 She is the only recorded instance of the mar- 
 riage of a princess of the royal house with a 
 high-priest. On this occasion it was a provi- 
 dential circumstance (“for she was the sister of 
 Ahaziah,” 2 Ch. xxii. 11), as inducing and pro- 
 bably enabling her to rescue the infant Joash 
 from the massacre of his brothers. By her, he 
 and his nurse were concealed in the palace, and 
 afterwards in the Temple (2 K. xi. 2,3; 2 Ch. 
 xxii. 11), where he was brought up probably 
 with her sons (2 Ch. xxiii. 11), who assisted at 
 his coronation. One of these was Zechariah, 
 who succeeded her husband in his office, and 
 was afterwards murdered (2 Ch. xxiv. 20). The 
 “bed-chamber ” of this narrative is explained 
 as the “ chamber of mattresses ” in the palace, 
 a room belonging to an Eastern abode at this 
 day, wherein those articles and what pertained 
 to them were stored, a convenient refuge for 
 
 This ‘ postern,”’ if it be 
 
 JEHOVAH 1549 
 
 the child in the first moments of danger (Keil, 
 Comm. in loc.; Ewald, Hist. of Isr. in loc. ; 
 Stanley, Jewish Ch. ii. 39 [1883]). ‘With 
 her hid in the house of the Lord,” may refer to 
 the high-priest’s abode in the Temple precincts 
 (Keil), or to some building in the high-priest’s 
 charge adjoining the Temple (Ewald). 
 (A. F283] [ΟΣ ἫΝ 
 
 JEHO-SHU'A (WIT); Ἰησοῦς ; Josue). In 
 this form—contracted in the Hebrew, but fuller 
 than usual in the A. V.—is given the name of 
 Joshua in Num. xiii. 16, on the occasion of its 
 bestowal by Moses. The addition of the name 
 of Jehovah probably marks the recognition by 
 Moses of the important part taken in the affair 
 of the spies by him, who till this time had been 
 Hoshea, “help,” but was henceforward to be 
 Jeho-shua, “ Jehovah is help ” (Ewald, ii. 306). 
 Once more only the name appears in its full 
 form in the A. V.—this time with a redundant 
 letter—as 
 
 JEHO-SHU’AH (the Heb. is as above; 
 Ἰησοῦε, in both MSS. ; Josue), in the genealogy 
 of Ephraim (1 Ch. vii. 27). We should be 
 thankful to the translators of the A. V. for 
 giving the first syllables of this great name 
 their full form, if only in these two cases ; 
 though why in these only it is difficult to under- 
 stand. Nor is it easier to see whence they got 
 the final ὦ in the latter of the two. [G.] 
 
 JEHO'VAH (17'; so the word is usually 
 pointed, with the vowels of ΔΝ; but when 
 the two occur together, the former is pointed 
 min- that is, with the vowels of orndy, as in 
 Obad. i. 1, Hab. iii. 19. The LXX. generally 
 render it by Κύριος, the Vulgate by Dominus ; 
 and in this respect they have been followed by 
 the A. V., where it is translated “The Lorp ”). 
 The true pronunciation of this Name, which, 
 strictly speaking, is the proper Name of the God 
 of Israel, has been entirely lost, the Jews them- 
 selves scrupulously avoiding every mention of 
 it, and reading in its stead one or other of the 
 words with whose proper vowel-points it may 
 happen to be written. This custom, which had 
 its origin in reverence, but degenerated into a 
 superstition, was founded upon an erroneous 
 construction of Lev. xxiv. 16 (see Targ. Onk. ad 
 loc.), from which it was inferred that the mere 
 utterance of the Name constituted a capital 
 offence. In the Rabbinical writings it is dis- 
 tinguished by various euphemistic expressions ; 
 as simply “the Name,” or “the Name of four 
 letters” (the Greek tetragrammaton); “the 
 great and terrible Name;” “the peculiar 
 Name,” 1.6. appropriated to God alone; ‘the 
 separate Name,” 1.6. either the Name which is 
 separated or removed from human knowledge, 
 or, as some render, ‘‘ the Name which has been 
 
 interpreted or revealed” (ΒΟ DW, shem 
 hammephorash). The Samaritans followed the 
 same custom, and in reading the Pentateuch 
 substituted for Jehovah xy, shéma, “the 
 
 Name,” at the same time perpetuating the 
 practice in their alphabetical poems and later 
 writings (cp. Geiger, Urschrift, p. 262). Ac- 
 cording to Jewish tradition, it was pronounced 
 but once a year by the high-priest on the day 
 
1550 JEHOVAH 
 
 of Atonement when he entered the Holy of 
 Holies ; but on this point there is some doubt, 
 Maimonides (Mor. Web. i. 61) asserting that the 
 use of the word was confined to the blessings of 
 the priests, and restricted to the sanctuary, 
 without limiting it still further to the high- 
 priest alone. On the same authority we learn 
 that its use ceased with Simeon the Just (Yad. 
 Chaz. c. 14, § 10), having lasted through two 
 generations, that of the men of the Great Syna- 
 gogue and the age of shemed (i.e. apostasy or 
 persecution) ; while others include the generation 
 of Zedekiah among those who possessed the use 
 of the shem hammephérash (Midrash on Ps. xxxvi. 
 11, quoted by Buxtorfin Reland’s Decas Exercit.). 
 But even after the destruction of the second 
 Temple we meet with reports of individuals 
 who were credited with knowledge of the secret. 
 A certain Bar Kamzar is mentioned in the 
 Mishna (Joma, iii. § 11) who was able to write 
 this Name of God; but even on such evidence 
 we may conclude, that after the second siege of 
 Jerusalem, and probably at an earlier period, 
 the Divine Name had passed altogether out of 
 popular use. Josephus, who was a priest, pro- 
 fesses a religious scruple about revealing this 
 holy Name (Ant. ii. 12, § 4); and Philo states 
 (de Vit. Mos. iii. p. 519) that for those 
 alone whose ears and tongue were purged by 
 wisdom ‘was it lawful to hear or utter it. 
 It is evident therefore that no reference to 
 Jewish writers can be expected to decide the 
 question of its exact sound. At the same 
 time the discussion of the probable ancient 
 pronunciation may prove to be interesting ; 
 and as: it is one in which great names 
 are ranged on both sides, it would for this 
 reason alone be impertinent to dismiss it with 
 a cursory notice. In Reland’s Decade of Dis- 
 sertations, Fuller, Gataker, and Leusden do 
 battle for the pronunciation Jehovah, against 
 such formidable antagonists as Drusius, Amama, 
 Cappellus, Buxtorf, and Alting, who, it is 
 searcely necessary to say, fairly beat their 
 opponents out of the field; the only argument, 
 in fact, of any weight, which is employed by the 
 advocates of the pronunciation of the word as it 
 is written, being that derived from the form in 
 which it appears in proper names, such as 
 Jehoshaphat, which, however, is simply due to 
 the shifting of the- accent. Their antagonists 
 make a strong point of the fact that, as has 
 been noticed above, two different sets of vowels 
 are applied to the same consonants according to 
 circumstances. To this Leusden, of all the 
 champions on his side, but feebly replies. The 
 same may be said of replies to the argument 
 
 derived from the fact that the letters 25240, 
 when prefixed to i)’, take, not the vowels 
 which they would regularly receive were the 
 present punctuation true, but those with which 
 they would be written if 258, ’adonai, were the 
 reading ; and that the letters ordinarily taking 
 dagesh lene when following 117° would, accord- 
 ing to the rules of the Hebrew points, if Jehovah 
 were correctly vocalized, be written without 
 dagesh, whereas it is uniformly inserted.. What- 
 ever, therefore, be the true pronunciation of the 
 word, the usage of the Masorets themselves 
 indicates that it is not Jehovah, 
 
 In Greek writers it appears under the several 
 
 - 
 
 JEHOVAH 
 
 forms of Ἰαῶ (Diod. Sic. i. 94; Irenaeus, i. 4, 
 § 1), Ἰευώ (Porphyry in Eusebius, Praep, Evan. 
 i. 9, § 21), *Iaod (Clem. Alex. Strom. v. p. 666), 
 and in a catena to the Pentateuch in a MS. at 
 Turin Ἰὰ ové. Both Theodoret (Quaest. 15 in 
 Exod.) and Epiphanius (Adv. Haer. 20) give 
 "IaBe, the former distinguishing it as the pro- 
 nunciation of the Samaritans, while *Aia repre- 
 sented that of the Jews. Of these forms, Ἰαῶ 
 and Ἰαού may both have arisen from ὙΠ) (yah), 
 
 the second element in so many Hebrew proper 
 names ; ᾿Ιευώ is perhaps an attempt to render a 
 pronunciation ΠῚ) ( Yehwoh) which might have 
 succeeded Mi} (Yahwah); cp. Ni, Jehu, 
 Assyrian Ya-u-a. ᾿Αἱά has the look of a Greek 
 imitation of TYAN (ἀμ, or ’ehyeh), “1 am” 
 (Ex. iii. 14), but another MS. reads “Id, that is, 
 apparently, FI’, Jah (Yah), which occurs in the 
 O. T. as an independent Name; while Ἰαβέ 
 seems to preserve the pronunciation i}? (Yah- 
 wih or Yahweh), as nearly as Greek writing 
 allows. Epiphanius, in fact, expressly states 
 that *IaBé was the Name interpreted by God 
 Himself to Moses (Ex. vi. 3). Lastly, the Jaho 
 of pseudo-Jerome (Brev. in Psalt. Ps. viii.) seems 
 to be only a Latin modification of ’Iaé. 
 
 The conjectures of the moderns may next be 
 reviewed. It will be better perhaps to ascend 
 from the most improbable hypotheses to those 
 which carry with them more show of reason, 
 and thus prepare the way for the considerations 
 which will follow. 
 
 I. Von Bohlen unhesitatingly asserts that 
 beyond all doubt the word Jehovah is not 
 Semitic in its origin. Pinning his faith upon 
 the Abraxas gems of the Gnostics, in which he 
 finds it in the form Jao, he connects it with 
 the Sanscrit devas, the Greek Διός, and Latin 
 Jovis or Diovis. But, apart from the considera- 
 tion that his authority is at least questionable, 
 he omits to explain the striking phenomenon 
 that the older form which has the d@ should be 
 preserved in the younger languages, the Greek 
 and ancient Latin, while not a trace of it appears 
 in the Hebrew. It would be desirable also, 
 before a philological argument of this nature is 
 admitted, that the relation between the Semitic 
 and Aryan families of speech should be more 
 clearly established. In the absence of this, any 
 inferences which may be drawn from apparent 
 resemblances (the resemblance in the present 
 case not being even apparent) will lead to 
 certain error. That the Hebrews learned the 
 Name of their God from the Egyptians is a 
 theory which has found some advocates. The 
 foundations for this theory are sufficiently 
 slight. As has been mentioned above, Diodorus 
 (i. 94). gives the Greek form *Ia@; and from 
 this it has been inferred that ᾿Ιαῶ was a deity 
 of the Egyptians, whereas nothing can be clearer 
 from the context than that the historian is 
 speaking specially of the God of the Jews. 
 Again, in Macrobius (Sat. i. c. 18), a line is 
 quoted from an oracular response of Apollo 
 Clarius, 
 
 . ” ᾽ ~ 
 φράζεο τὸν πάντων ὕπατον θεὸν ἔμμεν᾽ ᾿Ιαῶ, 
 
 which has been made use of for the same 
 purpose. But Fablonsky (Panth. Aeg. ii. § 5) 
 has proved incontestably that the author of the 
 
JEHOVAH 
 
 verses from which the above is quoted, was one 
 of the Judaizing Gunostics, who were in the 
 habit of making the names "Ia@ and Σεβαώθ the 
 subjects of mystical speculations. The Ophites, 
 who were Egyptians, are known to have given 
 the name Ἰαῶ to the moon (Neander, Gnost. 252), 
 but this, as Tholuck suggests, may have arisen 
 from the fact that in Coptic the moon is called 
 toh (Verm. Schriften, Th. i. 385); just as the 
 absurd fable that the Jews worshipped an ass 
 or the head of an ass probably arose from the 
 fact that toh is Coptic for ass. Movers (Phoen. 
 i. 540), while defending the genuineness of the 
 passage of Macrobius, connects ᾿Ιαῶ, which de- 
 notes the Sun or Dionysus, with the root 71M, 
 so that it signifies “ the life-giver”(?). In any 
 case, the fact that the name ᾿Ιαῶ is found among 
 the Greeks and Egyptians, or among the Orientals 
 of Further Asia, in the 2nd or 3rd century, 
 cannot be made use of as an argument that the 
 Hebrews derived their knowledge of the Name 
 of their own God from any one of these nations. 
 On the contrary, there can be but little doubt 
 that the process in reality was reversed, and 
 that in this case the Hebrews were, not the 
 borrowers, but the lenders. We have indis- 
 putable evidence that it existed among them, 
 whatever may have been its origin, many 
 centuries before it is found in other records; of 
 the contrary we have no evideice whatever. 
 Rémusat supposed that a Chinese phonetic 
 spelling of “ Jehovah ” was actually to be found 
 in the 14th chapter of the Tao Teh King of 
 Lao Tsze, the contemporary of Confucius (Mém. 
 sur la Vie et les Opinions de Ldo-Tsze, Paris, 
 1823). M. Rémusat translates the passage as 
 follows :—‘*Celui que vous regardez et que 
 vous ne voyez pas, se nomme 7: celui que vous 
 écoutez et que vous n’entendez pas, se nomme 
 ffi; celui que yotre main cherche et qu’elle ne 
 peut pas saisir, se nomme Wei. Ce sont trois 
 étres qu’on ne peut comprendre, et qui, con- 
 fondus, n’en font qu’un.” This strange mis- 
 application of three technical terms of Chinese 
 metaphysics, which appears to have originated 
 with certain Romish missionaries in the 17th cen- 
 tury, was exploded by Stanislas Julien in his 
 version of the Tao Teh King (Le Livre de la Voie 
 et de la Vertu, Paris, 1842. See Legge, Encyc. 
 Britann. s. vy. Lao-Tsze). Equally groundless is 
 the identification suggested in a letter from 
 the missionary Plaisant to the Vicar Apostolic 
 Boucho, dated 18th Feb. 1847, which mentions 
 a tradition existing among a tribe in the jungles 
 of Burmah, that the divine being was called 
 Jova or Kara-Jova, and that the peculiarities 
 of the Jehovah of the Old Testament were at- 
 tributed to him (Reinke, Beitrdge, iii. 65). The 
 inscription in front of the temple of Isis at Sais 
 quoted by Plutarch (de 75. et Os. § 9), “I am 
 al] that hath been, and that is, and that shall 
 be,” which has been employed as an argument 
 to prove that the Name Jehovah was known 
 among the Egyptians, is mentioned neither by 
 Herodotus, Diodorus, nor Strabo; and Proclus, 
 who does allude to it, says it was in the adytum 
 of the temple. But, even if it be genuine, its 
 authority is worthless for the purpose for which 
 it is adduced. For, supposing that Jehovah is 
 the Name to which such meaning is attached, it 
 follows rather that the Egyptians borrowed it 
 and learned its significance from the Jews, 
 
 JEHOVAH 1551 
 
 unless it can be proved that both m Egyptian 
 and Hebrew the same combination of letters con- 
 veyed the sameidea, Without, however, having 
 recourse to any hypothesis of this kind, the 
 peculiarity of the inscription is sufficiently 
 explained by the Pantheism which is known to 
 have characterised the decline of Egyptian 
 religion (Renouf, Hibbert S.ect., pp. 230 sqq.). 
 The advocates of the Egyptian origin of the 
 Name have shown no lack of ingenuity in 
 summoning to their aid authorities the most 
 unpromising. A passage from a treatise on 
 interpretation (περὶ ἑρμηνείας, ὃ 71), written 
 by one Demetrius, in which it is said that the 
 Egyptians hymned their gods by means of the 
 seven vowels, has been tortured to give evidence 
 on the point. Scaliger was in doubt whether 
 it referred to Serapis, called by Hesychins 
 “Serapis of seven letters” (τὸ ἑπταγράμματον 
 Zapams), or to the exclamation MA SAN, hi? 
 yehovah, “He is Jehovah.” But the gloss in 
 Hesychius is Ἑπταγράμματον. τὸ ὀργίλον. ἢ 
 σκληρόν. καὶ Σάραπιν ; which may be explained 
 like the Latin phrase homo triwm literarum (i.e. 
 fur). Sarapis, like the two disparaging epithets 
 which precede it in the gloss, is a hepta- 
 gram or word of seven letters, including vowels 
 and consonants. The citation, therefore, has 
 clearly no bearing on our subject. Gesner took 
 the seven Greek vowels, and, arranging them in 
 the order IEHQOYA, found therein Jehovah. 
 But he was triumphantly refuted by Didymus, 
 who maintained that the vowels were merely 
 used for musical notes, and in this very probable 
 conjecture he is supported by the Milesian in- 
 scription elucidated by Barthélemy and others. 
 In this the invocation of God is denoted by the 
 seven vowels five times repeated in different 
 arrangements, Aeniouw, Ἑηιουωα, Hiovwae, lov- 
 waen, Ovuwaent: each group of vowels precedes 
 a “holy ” (ἅγιε), and the whole concludes with 
 the following: “The city of the Milesians and 
 all the inhabitants are guarded by Archangels.” 
 Miller, with much probability, concludes that 
 the seven vowels represented the seven notes of 
 the octave. Another argument for the Egyptian 
 origin of Jehovah is found in the circumstance 
 that Pharaoh changed the name of Eliakim to 
 Jehoiakim (2 K. xxiii. 34), which it is asserted 
 is not in accordance with the practice of con- 
 querors towards the conquered, unless the 
 Egyptian king imposed upon the king of Judah 
 the name of one of his own gods. But the 
 same reasoning would prove that the origin of 
 the word was Babylonian, for the king of 
 Babylon changed the name of Mattaniah to 
 Zedekiah (2 K. xxiv. 17). Of late, again, it 
 has been suggested that MM, “He Who Is” 
 or ““ Becometh,” is a Hebrew version of the 
 Egyptian Chepera, the god who is always 
 “becoming,” 1.6. the Sun, symbolised by the 
 scarabaeus, which in Egyptian was also called 
 chepera, But evidence of connexion between 
 the two names is entirely wanting; apart from 
 the fact that the original meaning of the Hebrew 
 Name is far from certain (see also Renouf, Hib. 
 Lect. pp. 243 sqq.). 
 
 But many, abandoning as untenable the theory 
 of an Egyptian origin, have sought to trace the 
 Name among the Phoenicians and Canaanitish 
 tribes. In support of this, Hartmann brings 
 forward a passage from a pretended fragment 
 
1552 
 
 of Sanchoniathon quoted by Philo Byblius, a 
 writer of the age of Nero. But it is now 
 generally admitted that the so-called frag- 
 ments of Sanchoniathon, the ancient Phoenician 
 chronicler, are impudent forgeries concocted by 
 Philo Byblius himself. Besides, the passage 
 to which Hartmann refers is not found in Philo 
 Byblius, but is quoted from Porphyry by Euse- 
 bius (Praep. Evan. i. 9, § 21), and, genuine or 
 not, evidently alludes to the Jehovah of the 
 Jews. It is there stated that the most trust- 
 worthy authority in matters connected with 
 the Jews was Sanchoniathon of Beyrout, who 
 received his information from Hierombalos 
 (Jerubbaal), the priest of the god Ἰευώ. From 
 the occurrence of Jehovah as a compound in the 
 proper names of many who were not Hebrews, 
 Hamaker (7150. Phoen., p. 174, &c.) contends 
 that it must have been known among heathen 
 peoples. But such knowledge, if it existed, was 
 no more than might have been obtained by 
 their necessary contact with the Hebrews. The 
 names of Uriah the Hittite, of Araunah or 
 Aranjah the Jebusite, of Tobiah the Ammonite, 
 and of the Canaanitish town Bizjothjah, may 
 thus be all explained without having recourse 
 to Hamaker’s hypothesis. Besides, Araunah is 
 doubtful, as its variants show, and Bizjothjah 
 is a mere corruption of MNJ), “and her 
 daughters,” as the LXX. shows (Josh. xv. 28). 
 No certain instance, in fact, can be adduced of 
 Jah compounded with a local name. Of as 
 little value is his appeal to 1 K. v. 7, where we 
 find the Name Jehovah in the mouth of Hiram, 
 king of Tyre. Apart from the consideration 
 that Hiram would necessarily be acquainted 
 with the Name as that of the Hebrews’ national 
 God, its occurrence is sufficiently explained by 
 the tenor of Solomon’s message (1 K. ν. 3-5). 
 Another point on which Hamaker relies for 
 support is the name ᾿Αβδαῖος, which occurs as 
 that of a Tyrian suffete in Menander (Joseph. 
 c. Apion. i. 21), and which he identifies with 
 Obadiah (a 130). But both Fiirst and Hengsten- 
 berg represent it in Hebrew characters by "2, 
 ‘abdai, which even Hamaker thinks more pro- 
 bable.* While, however, it must be admitted 
 that no trace of [ΠῚ 17), as a Canaanitish deity, can 
 be specified, and while therefore we agree with 
 Kuenen and others that this Name, in fact, 
 designates the national God of Israel as distinct 
 from the gods of Canaan, the same can hardly 
 be affirmed of M’ and 471‘, which are usually 
 regarded as contractions of the fuller form 
 mi. Already in the tablets of Zell al-Amarna 
 (15th cent. B.c.) we meet with such names as 
 Arzau-ya, Wid(?)-ya (governor of Ashkelon), 
 and Bi-i-ya (i.e. perhaps Abi-yah), which seem 
 to imply that Yahu or Yah really was a Divine 
 name known to the peoples of Canaan before the 
 Exodus. The evidence of numerous Babylonian 
 contract tablets of a later period points likewise 
 to the conclusion that this Name was known to 
 other Semitic nations besides Israel. It is 
 difficult to suppose that all such names as Aittia 
 or Kittiya, “son of Ea’s priest ”—to cite a tablet 
 in the writer’s collection (PSBA, Feb. 1892)— 
 
 JEHOVAH 
 
 ® 97), however, may represent FY or FAY; 
 and ᾿Αβδαῖος may be compared with ZeBedaios=F "7 3}. 
 ene 
 
 JEHOVAH 
 
 are those of Jews settled in Babylonia. ittiya, 
 from hittu, “righteousness,” is an exact Baby- 
 lonian parallel to the Hebrew Zedekiah (Sidgtya). 
 Quite recently Mr. Pinches has found the name 
 Bel- Yaii in one of these documents, which means, 
 
 apparently, “ Bel is Yah,” like the Heb. mbya, 
 “ Baal is Jah.” (See PSBA. Nov. 1892.) 
 
 II. Such are the principal hypotheses which 
 have been constructed in favour of a non- 
 Hebraic origin of Jehovah. To attribute much 
 value to them requires a large share of faith. 
 It remains now to examine the theories on the 
 opposite side; for on this point authorities are 
 by no means agreed, and have frequently gone 
 to the contrary extreme. 95. Ὁ, Luzzatto — 
 (Anim. in Jes. Vat. in Rosenmiiller’s Compend. 
 xxiv.) advanced with singular simplicity the ex- 
 traordinary statement that Jehovah, or rather 
 1)i7) divested of points, is compounded of two 
 interjections, ΠῚ, vah, of pain, and ὙΠ, yahi, of 
 joy, and denotes the author of good and evil. 
 Such an etymology, from one who was un- 
 questionably among the first of modern Jewish 
 scholars, is a remarkable phenomenon. Ewald, 
 referring to Gen. xix. 24, suggested as the 
 
 s 
 
 origin of Jehovah, the Arab. \ 
 
 fies “the air ;”’ a not impossible suggestion, in 
 view of the fact that the atmospheric pheno- 
 mena of storm and thunder and lightning were 
 looked upon as special manifestations of His 
 Presence (¢.g- Hab. iii.; Ps. xxix.). Ewald 
 refers to Gen. xix. 24 (ΠῚ) MND) and to Micah 
 γ. 7, and cites the later designation of Jehovah 
 as “The God of Heaven” (HZ. ii. 157, Eng. 
 Trans.). But most have taken for the basis of 
 their explanations, and the different modes of 
 punctuation which they propose, the passage 
 Ex. iii, 14; according to which, when Meses 
 received his commission to be the deliverer of 
 Israel, the Almighty, Who appeared in the 
 burning bush, communicated to him the Name 
 which he should give as the credentials of his 
 mission: ‘And God said unto Moses, I am 
 THAT I AM (TIAN WR MIN, Vchyeh *ashér 
 ’ehyéh); and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto 
 the children of Israel, 1 Am hath sent me unto 
 you.” That this passage was intended to 
 indicate the etymology of Jehovah, as under- 
 stood by the Hebrews, no one has ventured 
 to doubt. According to this view then, [ΠῚ 
 must be formed from the Srd sing. mase. 
 impf. of the substantive verb [ΠΡ the older 
 form of which was 1M, still found in the 
 
 Chaldee MM, and Syriac loon, a fact which 
 
 will be referred to hereafter in discussing the 
 antiquity of the Name. If this etymology be 
 correct, and there seems little reason to call it 
 in question, one step towards the true punc- 
 tuation and pronunciation is already gained. 
 Many learned men, and among them Grotius, 
 Galatinus, Crusius, and Leusden, in an age 
 when such fancies were rife, imagined that, 
 reading the Name with the vowel-points usually 
 attached to it, they discovered an indication of 
 the eternity of God in the fact that the Name 
 by which He revealed Himself to the Hebrews 
 was compounded of the Present Participle, and 
 the Future and Praeterite tenses of the sub- 
 stantive verb. The idea may have been sug- 
 
 , Which signi- 
 
JEHOVAH 
 
 gested by the expression in Rev. iv. 8 (6 ἦν καὶ 
 ὁ ὧν καὶ ὃ ἐρχόμενος), and received apparent 
 confirmation from the Targ. Jon. on Deut. 
 xxxii. 39, and Targ. Jer. on Ex. iii. 14, These 
 passages, however, throw no light upon the 
 composition of the Name, and merely assert 
 that in its significance it embraces past, present, 
 and future. But having agreed to reject the 
 present punctuation, it is useless to discuss any 
 theories which may be based upon it, had they 
 even greater probability in their favour than 
 ΟΠ the one just mentioned. As one of the forms 
 in which Jehovah appears in Greek characters 
 is Ιαῶ, it was proposed by Cappellus to punc- 
 tuate it nin, yahvoh, which is clearly contrary 
 
 to the analogy of 1 verbs. Gussetius sug- 
 gested Mi}, yeheveh, or MYT, yihveh, in the 
 former of which he is supported by Fiirst; and 
 Mercer and Corn. ἃ Lapide read it ΠῚ), yehved : 
 but on all these suppositions we should have 
 ΠῚ for 47% in the terminations of compound 
 proper names. The suffrages of others are 
 divided between 1}i1, or i111’, supposed to be 
 represented by the Ἰαβέ of Epiphanius above 
 mentioned, and i117}. or MT, which First 
 
 wrongly holds to be the *Ievé of Porphyry, or 
 the Ἰαού of Clemens Alexandrinus. Caspari 
 (Micha, p. 5, &c.) decides in favour of the 
 former on the ground that this form only would 
 give rise to the contraction 4/1? in proper names, 
 and opposes both Fiirst’s punctuation ΠῚ) or 
 Mi’, as well as that of ΠῚ ΠΣ or ΠῚ), which 
 
 ete τ 
 
 would naturally be contracted into a7. “Gesenius 
 punctuates the word 11}/1), from which, or from 
 i), may be derived the abbreviated form rs 
 yah, used in poetry, and the form 7 = = 
 ΠῚ (so “1 becomes %1), which occurs at the 
 commencement of compound proper names (Hit- 
 zig, Jesaia, p. 4). Delitzsch once maintained 
 that, whichever punctuation be adopted, the 
 quiescent sheva under 7 is ungrammatical, and 
 Chateph Pathach is the proper vowel. He 
 therefore wrote it MM’, yahdvah, with which 
 he compared the ’Aid of Theodoret; the last 
 vowel being Kametz instead of Segol, according 
 to the analogy of proper names derived from 
 
 1” verbs (e.g. ΤΠ", 7719’, 13D, and others). 
 Afterwards, he adopted the pronunciation Jahve 
 (i.e. Yahve), as agreeing best with patristic and 
 Talmudic tradition (Comm. tiber den Psalter, 
 Hinl.). There remains to be noticed the sug- 
 gestion of Gesenius that the form i)’, which 
 
 he adopted, might be the Hiph. impf. of the 
 substantive verb. Of the same opinion was 
 Reuss. The objection is that a Hiphil of this 
 verb does not exist. Others again would make 
 it Piel, and read 740), against which a similar 
 objection may be urged. Fiirst (Handw. 5. v.) 
 mentions some other etymologies which affect 
 the meaning rather than the punctuation of the 
 name; such, for instance, as that it is derived 
 from a root M17, “to overthrow,” and signifies 
 “the destroyer or storm-sender” (cp. the 
 
 Arabic sg? “to fall from a height,” causa- 
 tive “to throw down,” “ruin,” used of God’s 
 
 overthrow of Sodom, Qur'an, Surah, 53, 54, 
 BIBLE DICT.—VOL. I. 
 
 JEHOVAH 1553 
 
 cited by W. H. Green), or that it denotes ‘ the 
 light or heaven,” from a root M17 = MD, 
 “to be bright,” or “the life-giver,” from the 
 root = MN, “to live.” We have practically 
 to decide between {ΠῚ} or mi’. The former, 
 that is, Jahveh or Yahveh, has been very gener- 
 ally adopted by modern scholars. But perhaps 
 Jahvah or Jahivah has a better claim, if, as 
 seems most probable, the names Gamar-ya-a-wa, 
 Aqabi-ya-a-wa, recently found on Babylonian 
 tablets in the British Museum, are really tran- 
 scriptions of the Hebrew Gemariah and Akabiah 
 (Aboth, iii. 1). 
 
 Ill. The next point for consideration is of 
 vastly more importance: what is the meaning 
 of Jehovah, and what does it express of the 
 Being and Nature of God, more than or in 
 distinction from the other Names applied to the 
 Deity in the O. Τοῦ That there was some 
 distinction in these different appellations was 
 early perceived, and various explanations were 
 employed to account for it. Tertullian (adv. 
 Hermog. ¢. 3) observed that God was not called 
 Lord (κύριος) till after the Creation, and in con- 
 sequence of it; while Augustine found in it an 
 indication of the absolute dependence of man 
 upon God (de Gen. ad lit. viii. 2). Chrysostom 
 (Hom. xiv. in Gen.) considered the two Names, 
 Lord and God, as equivalent, and the alternate 
 use of them arbitrary. But all their argu- 
 ments proceed upon the supposition that the 
 κύριος of the LXX. is the true rendering of the 
 original, whereas it is merely the translation of 
 ‘JIN, *ddondi, whose points it bears. With 
 
 regard to pdx, *elohim, the other chief Name 
 
 by which the Deity is designated in the O. T., 
 it has been held by many, and the opinion does 
 not even now want supporters, that in the 
 plural form of the word was shadowed forth 
 the plurality of Persons in the Godhead, and the 
 mystery of the Trinity was inferred therefrom. 
 Such, according to Peter Lombard, was the true 
 significance of Elohim. But Calvin, Mercer, 
 Drusius, and Bellarmine have given the weight 
 of their authority against an explanation so 
 fanciful and arbitrary. Among the Jewish 
 writers of the Middle Ages the question much 
 more nearly approached itssolution. R. Jehuda 
 Hallevi (12th cent.), the author of the book 
 Cozri, found in the usage of Elohim a protest 
 against idolaters, who call each personified 
 
 power midy, *éloah, and all collectively Elohim. 
 He interpreted it as the most general Name of 
 the Deity, distinguishing Him as manifested in 
 the exhibition of His power, without reference 
 to His personality or moral qualities, or to any 
 special relation which He bears to man. Je- 
 hovah, on the contrary, is the revealed and 
 known God. While the meaning of the former 
 could be evolved by reasoning, the true signi- 
 ficance of the latter could only be apprehended 
 “by that prophetic vision by which a man is, 
 as it were, separated and withdrawn from his 
 own kind, and approaches to the angelic, and 
 another spirit enters into him.” In like 
 manner Maimonides (Mor. Neb. i. 61, Buxt.) 
 saw in Jehovah the Name which teaches of the 
 substance of the Creator, and Abarbanel (quoted 
 by Buxtorf, de Nom. Dei, § 39) distinguishes 
 Jehovah, as denoting God according to what He 
 5G 
 
1554 JEHOVAH 
 
 is in Himself, from Elohim which conveys the 
 idea of the impression made by His power. In 
 the opinion of Astruc, a Belgian physician, with 
 whom the documentary hypothesis of Genesis 
 originated, the alternate use of the two Names 
 was arbitrary, and determined by no essential 
 difference. Hasse (Zntdeckungen) considered them 
 as historical Names, and Sack (de usu nom. dei, 
 &c.) regarded Elohim as a vague term denoting 
 “a certain infinite, omnipotent, incomprehensible 
 existence, from which things finite and visible 
 have derived their origin;” while to God, as 
 
 revealing Himself, the more definite title of 
 
 Jehovah was applied. Ewald, in his tract on 
 the composition of Genesis (written when he 
 was nineteen), maintained that Elohim denoted 
 the Deity in general, and is the common or 
 lower Name, while Jehovah was the national 
 God of the Israelites. But in order to carry 
 out his theory he was compelled in many places 
 to alter the text, and was afterwards induced to 
 modify his statements, which were opposed by 
 Gramberg and Stiihelin. Doubtless Elohim 15 
 used in many cases of the gods of the heathen, 
 who included in the same title the God of the 
 Hebrews, and denoted generally the Deity when 
 spoken of as a supernatural being, and when no 
 national feeling influenced the speaker. It was 
 Elohim who, in the eyes of the heathen, delivered 
 the Israelites from Egypt (1 Sam. iv. 8), and the 
 Egyptian had adjured David by Elohim, rather 
 than by Jehovah, of Whom he would have no 
 knowledge (1 Sam. xxx. 15). So Ehud announces 
 to the Moabitish king a message from Elohim 
 (Judg. iii, 20); to the Syrians the Jehovah of 
 the Hebrews was only their national God, one 
 of the Elohim (1 K. xx. 23, 28), and in the 
 mouth of a heathen the Name Jehovah would 
 conyey no more intelligible meaning than this. 
 It is to be observed also that when a Hebrew 
 speaks with a heathen he uses the more general 
 term Elohim. Joseph, in addressing Pharaoh 
 (Gen, xli. 16), and David, in appealing to the 
 king of Moab to protect his family (1 Sam. xxii. 
 3), designate the Deity by the less specific 
 title; and on the other hand the same rule is 
 generally followed when the heathen are the 
 speakers, as in the case of Abimelech (Gen. xxi. 
 23), the Hittites (Gen. xxiii. 6), the Midianite 
 (Judg. vii, 14), and Joseph in his assumed 
 character as an Egyptian (Gen. xlii. 18). But, 
 although this distinction between Elohim, as 
 the general appellation of Deity, and Jehovah, 
 the national God of the Israelites, contains some 
 superficial truth, the real nature of their differ- 
 ence must be sought for far deeper, and as a 
 foundation for the arguments which will be 
 adduced recourse must again be had to ety- 
 mology. 
 
 iV. With regard to the derivation of pirby, 
 *elohim, the pl. of mon, etymologists are divided 
 in their opinions; some connecting it with Os, 
 el, and the unused root Sas, al, “to be strong” 
 (“vorn sein,” Néldeke), while others refer it to 
 
 ΄“Ξ “~-& 
 
 the Arabic a}\, ’aliha, a}\, ’alaha, “to wor- 
 
 = 
 ship, adore ;” Elohim thus denoting the Supreme 
 Being Who was worthy of all worship and 
 adoration, the dread and awful One. First 
 takes the noun in this case as the primitive from 
 
 JEHOVAH 
 
 which is derived the idea of worship contained. 
 
 in the verb, and gives as the true root moy=dix, 
 TT 
 
 “to be strong.” Delitzsch would prefer a root 
 
 moy τε πίον = DIN (Symb. ad Psalm. illustr. 
 p- 29). The connexion with Oy seems doubtful, 
 
 in view of forms like Syrdyy, MPN ; ep. also 
 the Assyrian ilu, itu, “ god,” “ goddess,” with f. 
 From whatever root, however, the word may be 
 derived, most are of opinion that the primary 
 idea contained in it is that of strength, power; 
 so that Elohim is the proper appellation of the 
 Deity, as manifested in His creative and univer- 
 sally sustaining agency, and in the general 
 divine guidance and government of the world. 
 Hengstenberg, who adheres to the derivation 
 above-mentioned from the Arab., ’aliha, ’alaha, 
 deduces from this etymology his theory that 
 Elohim indicates a lower and Jehovah a higher 
 stage of the knowledge of God, on the ground 
 that “the feeling of fear is the lowest which can 
 exist in reference to God, and merely in respect 
 of this feeling is God marked by this designation.” 
 But the same inference might also be drawn on 
 the supposition that the idea of simple power or 
 strength is the most prominent in the word; 
 and it is more natural that the Divine Being 
 should be conceived of as strong before He 
 became the object of fear and adoration. To 
 this view Gesenius accedes, when he says that 
 the notion of worshipping and fearing is rather 
 derived from the power of the Deity which is 
 expressed in His Name. The question now arises, 
 What is the meaning to be attached to the plural 
 form of the word? As has been already men- 
 tioned, some have discovered here the mystery of 
 the Trinity, while others maintain that it points 
 to polytheism. The Rabbis generally explain it 
 as the plural of majesty; Rabbi Bechai, as 
 signifying the lord of all powers. Abarbanel 
 and Kimchi consider it a title of honour, in 
 accordance with the Hebrew idiom, of which 
 examples will be found in Is. liv. 5, Job xxxv. 
 10, Gen. _xxxix. 20, xlii. 30. In Prov. ix. 1, the 
 plural NYO3N, chokmoth, “‘ wisdoms,” is used for 
 
 wisdom in the abstract, as including all the 
 treasures of wisdom and knowledge. Hence it 
 is probable that the plural form Elohim, instead 
 of pointing to polytheism, is applied to God as 
 comprehending in Himself the fulness of all 
 power, and uniting in a perfect degree all that 
 which the Name signifies, and all the high attri- 
 putes which the heathen ascribe to the several 
 
 divinities of their pantheon. The singular mioN, 
 
 *eloah, with few exceptions (Neh. ix. 17; 2 Ch. 
 xxxii. 15), occurs only in poetry. It will be 
 found, upon examination of the passages in 
 which Elohim occurs, that it is chiefly in places 
 where God is exhibited only in the plenitude of 
 His power, and where no especial reference is 
 made to His unity, personality, or holiness, or to 
 His relation to Israel and the theocracy (see 
 Ps. xvi. 1; xix. 1, 7, 8). Hengstenberg’s ety- 
 mology of the word is disputed by Delitzsch 
 (Symb. ad Pss. illustr. p. 29), who refers it, as 
 has been mentioned above, to a root indicating 
 power or might, and sees in it an expression not 
 of what men think of God, but of what He is in 
 Himself, in so far as He has life omnipotent in 
 Himself, and according as He is the beginning 
 
JEHOVAH 
 
 JEHOVAH 1555 
 
 and end of all life. For the true explanation of 1 Sam. xviii. 17); their enemies are the enemies 
 
 the Name he refers to the revelation of the 
 mystery of the Trinity. But it is at least ex- 
 tremely doubtful whether to the ancient Israel- 
 ites any idea of this nature was conveyed by 
 Elohim ; and in making use of the more advanced 
 knowledge supplied by the New Testament, there 
 is some danger of discovering more meaning and 
 a more subtle significance than was ever in- 
 tended to be expressed. 
 
 - V. But while Elohim exhibits God displayed 
 in His power as the Creator and Governor of the 
 physical universe, the Name Jehovah designates 
 His nature as He stands in relation to man, as 
 the only, almighty, true, personal, holy Being, 
 a Spirit, and “ the Father of spirits ” (Num. xvi. 
 22; ep. John iv. 24), Who revealed Himself to 
 His people, made a covenant with them, and 
 became their Lawgiver, and to Whom all 
 honour and worship are due. If the etymology 
 above given be accepted, and the Name be de- 
 rived from the impf. tense of the substantive 
 verb, it would denote, in accordance with the 
 general analogy of proper names of a similar 
 form, “ He that is,” “the Being,” Whose chief 
 attribute is eternal existence. Jehovah is re- 
 presented as eternal (Gen. xxi. 53; cp. 1 Tim. 
 vi. 16), unchangeable (Ex. iii. 14; Mal. iii. 6), 
 the only Being (Josh. xxii. 22; Ps, 1. 1), Creator 
 and Lord of all things (Ex. xx. 11; cp. Num. 
 xvi. 22 with xxvii. 16 ; Is. xlii.5). It is Jehovah 
 Who made the covenant with His people (Gen. x7. 
 18; Num. x. 33, &.). In this connexion Elohim 
 occurs but once (Ps. Ixxviii. 10); and even with 
 the article, Ha-Elohim, which expresses more 
 personality than Elohim alone, is found but 
 seldom (Judg. xx. 27; 1 Sam. iv. 4). The 
 Israelites were enjoined to observe the com- 
 mandments of Jehovah (Ley. iv. 27, &c.), to 
 keep His Law, and to worship Him alone. Hence 
 the phrase “to serve Jehovah ” (Ex. x. 7, 8, &.) 
 is applied to denote true worship, whereas “ to 
 serve Ha-Elohim ” is used but once in this sense 
 (Ex. iii. 12), and Elohim occurs in the same 
 association only when the worship of idols is 
 spoken of (Deut. iv. 28; Judg. iii. 6). As Jeho- 
 vah, the only true God, is the only object of 
 true worship, to Him belong the sabbaths and 
 festivals, and all the ordinances connected with 
 the religious services of the Israelites (Ex. x. 9, 
 xii. 11; Lev. xxiii. 2). His are the altars on 
 which offerings are made to the true God; the 
 priests and ministers are His (1 Sam. ii. 11, xiv. 
 8), and so exclusively that a priest or Elohim is 
 always associated with idolatrous worship. To 
 Jehovah alone are offerings made (Ex. viii. 8); 
 and if Elohim is ever used in this connexion, it 
 is always qualified by pronominal suffixes, or 
 some word in construction with 1f so as to 
 indicate the true God; in all other cases it 
 refers to idols (Ex. xxii. 20, xxxiv. 15). It 
 follows naturally that the Temple and Tabernacle 
 are Jehovah’s; and if they are attributed to 
 Elohim, the latter is in some manner restricted 
 as before. The prophets are the prophets of 
 Jehovah, and their announcements proceed from 
 Him, seldom from Elohim. The Israelites are 
 the people of Jehovah (Ex. xxxvi. 20), the con- 
 gregation of Jehovah (Num. xvi. 3), as the 
 Moabites are the people of Chemosh (Jer. xlviii. 
 46). Their king is the anointed of Jehovah; 
 their wars are the wars of Jehovah (Ex. xiv. 25; 
 
 of Jehovah (2 Sam. xii. 14); it is the hand of 
 Jehovah that delivers them up to their foes 
 (Judg. vi.1, xiii. 1, &c.), and He it is Who raises 
 up for them deliverers and judges, and on whom 
 they call in times of peril (Judg. ii. 18, iii, 9, 
 15; Josh. xxiv. 7; 1 Sam. xvii. 37). In fine, 
 Jehovah is the Divine King of His people 
 (Judg. viii. 23); by Him their kings reign and 
 achieve success against the national enemies 
 (1 Sam. xi, 13, xiv. 23). Their heroes are in- 
 spired by His Spirit (Judg. iii. 10, vi. 34), and 
 their hand steeled against their foes (2 Sam. vii. 
 23); the watchword of Gideon was “ The Sword 
 of Jehovah, and of Gideon!” (Judg. vii. 20.) 
 The day on which God executes judgment on the 
 wicked is the day of Jehovah (ls. ii. 12, xxxiv. 8; 
 cp. Rev. xvi. 14). As the Israelites were in a 
 remarkable manner distinguished as the people of 
 Jehovah, Who became their Lawgiver and Supreme 
 Ruler, it is not strange that He should be put in 
 strong contrast with Chemosh (Judg. xi. 24), 
 Ashtaroth (Judg. x. 6), and the Baalim (Judg. iii. 
 7), the national deities of the surrounding nations, 
 and thus be pre-eminently distinguished as the 
 tutelary Deity of the Hebrews in one aspect of 
 His character. [For the Moabite view of Chemosh, 
 see the Stone of Dibon.] Such and no more was 
 He to the heathen (1 K. xx. 23); but all this 
 and much more to the Israelites, to whom 
 Jehovah was the living God, Who reveals Himself 
 to man by word and deed, helps, guides, saves, 
 and delivers, in all the exigencies of life. Jeho- 
 vah was no abstract Name, but thoroughly 
 practical, and stood in intimate connexion with 
 the religious life of the people. While Elohim 
 represents God only in His most outward relation 
 to man, and distinguishes Him as recognised in 
 His omnipotence, Jehovah describes Him accord- 
 ing to His innermost being. In Jehovah the 
 moral attributes are presented as constituting 
 the essence of His nature; whereas in Elohim 
 there is no reference to personality or moral 
 character. The relation of Elohim to Jehovah 
 has been variously explained. The former, in 
 Hengstenberg’s opinion, indicates a lower, and 
 the latter a higher, stage of consciousness of 
 God; Elohim becoming Jehovah by an historical 
 process, and to show how He became so, being 
 the main object of the sacred history. Kurtz 
 considers the two names as related to each other 
 as power and evolution: Elohim the God of the 
 beginning, Jehovah of the development ; Elohim 
 the Creator, Jehovah the Mediator. Elohim is 
 God of the beginning and end, the Creator and 
 the Judge ; Jehovah the God of the middle, of the 
 development which lies between the beginning 
 and end (Die Hinheit der Gen.). That Jehovah 
 is identical with Elohim, and not a separate 
 Being, is indicated by the joint use of the 
 names Jehovah-Elohim (see also Kuenen, HZ. i. 
 39 sqq.; W, R. Smith, Prophets, pp. 33, 49 sq.). 
 VI. The antiquity of the Name Jehovah among 
 the Hebrews has formed the subject of much 
 discussion. That it was not known before the 
 age of Moses has been inferred from Ex. vi. 3; 
 while Von Bohlen assigned to it a much more 
 recent date, and contended that we have “no 
 conclusive proof of the worship of Jehovah 
 anterior to the ancient hymns of David” (Jn. 
 to Gen. i. 150, Eng. tr.). But, on the other 
 hand, we might be inclined to infer from the tra-- 
 5 G2 
 
1556 JEHOVAH. 
 
 ditional etymology of the word that it originated 
 in an age long prior to that of the Pentateuch, 
 in which the root 1 has already been dis- 
 
 placed by ΠΡ. From the Aramaic form in 
 which it appears (cp. Chald. 11; Syr. loon, 
 Jahn refers to the earliest times of Abraham 
 for its date, and to Mesopotamia or Ur of 
 the Chaldees for its birthplace. [It is now 
 known that Ur was in ὃ. Babylonia, and 
 that the language of Ur was not Aramaic 
 but Accadian first, and then Assyrio-Baby- 
 lonian.] Its usage in Genesis cannot be ex- 
 plained, as Le Clere suggests, by supposing it to 
 be employed by anticipation, for it is introduced 
 where the persons to whom the history relates 
 are speaking, and not only where the narrator 
 adopts terms familiar to himself; and the 
 same difficulty remains whatever hypothesis be 
 assumed with regard to the original documents 
 which formed the basis of the history.” At the 
 same time it is distinctly stated in Ex. vi. 3, 
 that to the patriarchs God was not known by 
 the Name Jehovah. If, therefore, this passage 
 has reference to the first revelation of Jehovah 
 simply as a Name and Title of God, there is 
 clearly a discrepancy which requires to be 
 explained. In renewing His promise of deliver- 
 ance from Egypt, “God spake unto Moses and 
 said unto him, I am Jehovah; and I appeared 
 unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by 
 (the ame of) God Almighty (HI Shaddai, 
 IY ON), but by My Name Jehovah was I not 
 
 known to them.” It follows then that, if the 
 reference were merely to the Name as a Name, 
 the passage in question would prove equally 
 that before this time Elohim was unknown as an 
 appellation of the Deity, and God would appear 
 uniformly as El Shaddai in the patriarchal 
 history. [This assumes that ’é/ohim is a “Name” 
 in the same sense as Yahvah or the obscure 
 ’El Shaddai, which is hardly the case.] But 
 although it was held by Theodoret (Quaest. 15 
 in Ex.) and many of the Fathers, who have 
 been followed by a long list of moderns, that 
 the name was first made known by God to 
 Moses, and then introduced by him among the 
 Israelites, the contrary was maintained by 
 Cajetan, Lyranus, Calvin, Rosenmiiller, Heng- 
 stenberg, and others, who deny that the passage 
 in Ex. vi. alludes to the introduction of the 
 Name. Calvin saw at once that the knowledge 
 there spoken of could not refer to the syllables 
 and letters, but to the recognition of God’s 
 glory and majesty. It was not the Name, but 
 the true depth of its significance which was 
 unknown to and uncomprehended by the 
 Patriarchs. They had known God as *£/ 
 Shaddai (Gen. xvii. 1, xxviii. 3), the Ruler of the 
 physical universe, and of man as one of His 
 creatures; as a God eternal, immutable, and 
 true to His promises He was yet to he revealed. 
 In the character expressed by the Name Jehovah 
 He had not hitherto been fully known; His true 
 attributes had not been recognised (cp. Rashi 
 on Ex. vi. 3) in His working and acts for Israel. 
 Aben Ezra explained the occurrence of the 
 Name in Genesis as simply indicating the know- 
 
 > The truth is that J uses [7 from the beginning ; 
 P consistently eschews it till Ex. vi. 3 (Driver), 
 
 JEHOVAH 
 
 ledge of it as a proper name, not as a qualifi- 
 cative expressing the attributes and qualities of 
 God. Referring to other passages in which the 
 phrase “the Name of God” occurs, it is clear 
 that something more is intended by it than a 
 mere appellation, and that the proclamation of 
 the Name of God is a revelation of His moral 
 attributes, and of His true character as Jehovah 
 (Ex. xxxiii. 19; xxxiv. 6, 7), the God of the 
 covenant. Maimonides (Mor. Web. i. 64, ed. 
 Buxtorf) explains the Name of God as signifying 
 His essence and His truth, and Olshausen (on 
 Matt. xviii. 20) interprets “name” (ὄνομα) as 
 denoting “personality and essential being, and 
 that not as it is incomprehensible or unknown, 
 but in its manifestation.” 
 represents the thing itself so far as it can be 
 expressed in words. That Jehovah was not a 
 new Name Hiivernick concludes from Ex. iii. 14, 
 where “the Name of God Jehovah is evidently 
 presupposed as already in use, and is only 
 explained, interpreted, and applied...It is 
 certainly not a new Name that is introduced; on 
 the contrary, the MIN WS M8 am that 
 I am) would be unintelligible, if the Name itself 
 were not presupposed as already known. The 
 old Name of antiquity, whose precious signifi- 
 cance had been forgotten and neglected by the 
 children of Israel, here as it were rises again to 
 life, and is again brought home to the con- 
 sciousness of the people” (Jntrod. to the Pent. 
 p. 61). The same passage supplies an argument 
 to prove that by “name” we are not to under- 
 stand merely letters and syllables, for Jehovah 
 appears at first in another form, ’ehyéh (MN). 
 The correct collective view of Ex. vi. 3, 
 Hengstenberg conceives to be the following :— 
 “Hitherto that Being, Who in one aspect was 
 Jehovah, in another had always been Elohim. 
 The great crisis now drew nigh in which 
 Jehovah Elohim would be changed into Jehovah. 
 In prospect of this event God solemnly an- 
 nounced .Himself as Jehovah.” 
 
 Great stress has been laid, by those who deny 
 the antiquity of the Name Jehovah, upon the 
 fact that proper names compounded with it 
 occur but seldom before the age of Samuel and 
 David, It is undoubtedly true that, about this 
 period, proper names so compounded did become 
 more frequent ; but if it could be shown that 
 prior to the time of Moses any such names existed, 
 
 it would be sufficient to prove that the Name. 
 
 Jehovah was not entirely unknown. Among 
 those which have been quoted for this purpose 
 are Jochebed the mother of Moses, and daughter 
 of Levi, and Moriah, the mountain on which 
 Abraham was commanded to offer up Isaac. 
 Against the former it is urged that Moses might 
 have changed her name to Jochebed after the 
 Name Jehovah had been communicated by God, 
 as he changed Hoshea to Joshua; but this is 
 very improbable, as he was at this time eighty 
 years old, and his mother in all probability 
 dead. If this only be admitted as a genuine 
 instance of a name compounded with Jehovah, it 
 takes us at once back into the patriarchal age, 
 and proves that a word which was employed in 
 forming the proper name of Jacob’s grand- 
 daughter could not have been unknown to that 
 patriarch himself. [Ewald, on the ground of 
 the name Jochebed, and the language of Ex. xv. 
 
 The name ofathing - 
 
 4 
 
JEHOVAH-JIREH 
 
 2, supposed that Jahveh was a Name of God 
 current in the family of Moses. Kénig agrees 
 with him (Hiuptprobl. p. 27). Stade, Tiele, and 
 Wellhausen think that Jahveh may have been 
 originally the god of the Kenites, The evidence, 
 upon the whole, appears to justify a suspicion 
 that at least in the forms Yahu, Yah, the 
 name was once current among Israel’s heathen 
 neighbours.] The name Moriah (79110) is of 
 
 more importance, for in one passage in which 
 it occurs it is accompanied by an etymology 
 intended to indicate what was then understood 
 by it (2 Ch. iii. 1). Hengstenberg regarded it as 
 a compound of MND, the Hoph. Part. of ON) 
 and mt, the abbreviated form of m7; so that, 
 
 according to this etymology, it would signify 
 “ shown by Jehovah.” [It is, however, a serious 
 objection, that MND could hardly become 
 
 min, and, moreover, a place-name compounded 
 
 with ΠῚ is otherwise unknown.] Gesenius, 
 adopting the meaning of MN in Gen. xxii. 8, 
 renders it “ chosen by Jehovah,” but suggests at 
 the same time what he considers a more pro- 
 bable derivation, according to which Jehovah 
 does not form a part of the compound word. 
 But there is reason to believe from various 
 allusions in Gen. xxii. that the former was 
 regarded as the true etymology. [Isaac.] 
 
 Having thus considered the origin, signifi- 
 cance, and antiquity of the Name Jehovah, the 
 reader will be in a position to judge how much 
 of truth there is in the assertion of Schwind 
 (quoted by Reinke, Beitr. iii. 135, n. 10) that 
 the terms Elohim, Jehovah Elohim, and then 
 Jehovah alone applied to God, show “to the 
 philosophic inquirer the progress of the human 
 mind from a plurality of gods to a superior god, 
 and from this to a single Almighty Creator and 
 Ruler of the world.” 
 
 The principal authorities which have been 
 - made use of in this article are Hengstenberg, On 
 the Authenticity of the Pentateuch, i. 213-307, 
 Eng. trans.; Reinke, Phil. histor. Abhandlung 
 tiber den Gottesnamen Jehova, Beitrage, vol. iii. ; 
 Tholuck, Vermischte Schriften, Th. i. pp. 377- 
 405; Kurtz, Die Hinheit der Genesis xliii—liii. ; 
 Keil, Ueber die Gottesnamen im Pentateuche, in 
 Rudelbach and Guericke’s Zeitschrift; Ewald, 
 Die Composition der Genesis; Gesenius, The- 
 saurus ; Bunsen, Bibelwerk ; and Reland, Decas 
 exercitationum philologicarum de vera pronuntia- 
 tione nominis Jehova; besides those already 
 quoted. 
 
 The more recent authorities are cited by 
 Driver, Studia Biblica, i. Oxford, 1885. Among 
 them may be mentioned Bandissin, Studien, 
 pp. 181 sqq. (1876); Knobel-Dillmann, Fzodus 
 (1880) ; Friedrich Delitzsch, Paradies, pp. 158 
 sqq- (1881); Kénig, Hauptprobleme d. altisr. 
 ae: pp- 29 sqq. (1884); Lagarde (cr. OS? 
 p. 192). ΓΑ. W.] [Ὁ J.B] 
 
 JEHO'VAH-JIR’EH (187! mi; anes 
 εἶδεν ; Dominus videt), i.e. “ Jehovah will see,’ 
 or provide, the name given by Abraham to the 
 place on which he had been commanded to offer 
 Isaac, commemorating the interposition of the 
 Angel of Jehovah, who prevented the sacrifice 
 (Gen. xxii. 14) and provided another victim. 
 The immediate allusion is to the expression in 
 the 8th verse, “ God will look out for Himself a 
 
 JEHOVAH-SHALOM 1557 
 
 lamb for a burnt offering,” but it is not unlikely 
 that there is at the same time a covert reference 
 to Moriah, the scene of the whole occurrence. 
 The play upon words is followed up in the 
 latter clause of v. 14, which appears in the form 
 of a popular proverb: “ as it is said this day, In 
 the mountain of Jehovah, He will be seen,” or 
 “provision shall be made.” Such might be the 
 rendering if the received punctuation be accepted, 
 but on this point there is a division of opinion. 
 The ἐν τῷ ὄρει Κύριος ὥφθη of the LXX. implies 
 wy mn ‘Wa, “on the mountain Jehovah 
 appeareth ; “» and the same, with the exception of 
 MN)? for the last word, must have been the 
 
 reading of the Vulgate and Syriac. The Targum 
 of Onkelos is obscure. [Isaac. 
 Ewe A.W.) [Cou Ba 
 
 JEHO'VAH-NIS’'SI (8) min; Κύριος κα’ 
 ταφυγή μου; Dominus exaltatio red), 1.6. % Jes 
 hovah is my banner,” the name given by Moses 
 to the altar which he built in commemoration 
 of the discomfiture of the Amalekites by Joshua 
 and his chosen warriors at Rephidim (Ex. xvii. 
 15). It was erected either upon the hill over- 
 looking the battle-field, upon which Moses sat 
 with the staff of God in his hand, or upon the 
 battle-field itself. According to Aben Ezra, it 
 was on the Mount Horeb. The Targum of On- 
 kelos paraphrases the verse thus :—‘“‘ Moses built 
 an altar and worshipped upon it before Jehovah, 
 Who had wrought for him miracles” (}*D*), 
 nissin). Such too is Rashi’s explanation of the 
 name, as referring to the miraculous inter- 
 position of God in the defeat of the Amalekites. 
 The LXX. in their translation, “the Lord my 
 refuge,” evidently supposed nisst to be derived 
 from the root Dij, nis, “to flee,” and the Vul- 
 gate traced it to NW, “to lift up” (cp. Ps. iv. 
 7, Heb.). The significance of the name is 
 probably contained in an allusion to the staff 
 which Moses held in his hand as a banner during 
 the engagement, and the raising or lowering of 
 which turned the fortune of battle in favour of 
 the Israelites or their enemies. God is thus 
 recognised in the memorial altar as the deliverer 
 of His people, Who leads them to victory, and 
 is their rallying-point in time of peril. [The 
 Hebrew of v. 16, which assigned the reason for 
 the name, is corrupt (see R. V., which follows 
 the Jewish expositors). We may perhaps re- 
 
 store: “ And he said nondpn po 5.) 5, The 
 banner of warfare shall be lifted up unto Jahvah 
 against Amalek from generation to generation ” 
 (cp. Cant. v. 10, vi. 4; Ps. xx. 5).] On the 
 figurative use of “ banner,” see Ps. lx. 4, Is. 
 xi. 10. ΓΑ Cas B] 
 
 JEHO'VAH-SHA’LOM (D409 AIT; εἰρήνη 
 Κυρίου ; Domini pax), i.e. “ Jehovah is peace,” 
 or, with the ellipets of mds, “ Jehovah is the 
 God of peace.” The altar erected by Gideon in 
 Ophrah was so called in memory of the saluta- 
 tion addressed to him by the Angel of Jehovah, 
 “Peace be unto thee” (Judg. vi. 24). The 
 LXX. and Vulg. appear to have inverted the 
 words as they stand in the present Hebrew text, 
 
 and to have read mm nib, but they are 
 
 supported oe no MS. authority. 
 Ἢ (Ww. A. W.] [C. J. B.} 
 
1558 JEHOVAH-SHAMMAH 
 
 JEHO'VAH-SHAMMAH (Πρ Tin; 
 A. Κύριος ἐκεῖ, B. om.; Dominus ibidem), “ Je- 
 hovah is there” (shda’mmdh, “ illuc ” for ‘ illic,” 
 as in Jer, xviii. 2); the name of the New Jeru- 
 salem of Ezekiel’s prophetic visions (Ezek. 
 xlviii. 35; marg. A. V.): cp. Rev. xxiii. 3. 
 
 [6. J. B.] 
 
 JEHO'VAH-TSIDKE'NU ΟΣ ΡῚν Ain; 
 AB. :Ἰωσεδέκ, S*. “Iwoerkelu; Dominus justus 
 noster = 3) 1, defective), “Jehovah is our 
 Righteousness”: (1) The name of the Messianic 
 king, whose coming is announced in Jer. xxiii. 
 5,6. There appears to be an allusion to the 
 name of Zedekiah ΟΠ ΡΝ), “ Righteousness of 
 Jah,” the last native sovereign of Judah; not in 
 the sense that the Prophet ever expected such 
 a glorious future for that unhappy prince, but 
 rather by way of suggesting that the Divine 
 Righteousness which required the imminent or 
 already realized overthrow of his kingdom 
 would not rest there, but would in its own 
 time accomplish the promises as well as the 
 menaces of prophecy. The LXX. translation 
 connects MM’ with the preceding verb as its 
 subject: “And this is his name, whereby the 
 Lord will call him: Josedek.” It may be that 
 the last two letters of 1JP7¥ were effaced in 
 the translator’s MS., or that the name was 
 abbreviated thus, ΓΝ)", or thus, ΤῚΝ). 
 The vocalisation Ἰωσεδὲς [see JEHOZADAK] 
 implies a Hebrew punctuation, ἽΝ ΠῚ or 
 ΡΝ", a form like Melchizedek, and essentially 
 like Zedekiah. 
 
 (2) The name of the restored Jerusalem, in 
 the similar prophecy, Jer. xxxiii. 16. [C. J. B.] 
 
 JEHO-ZA’BAD (3 π᾿ = Jehovah hath 
 given; Jozabad). 1. (Β. Ἰωζαβάθ: ΔΑ. Ἰωζαβάδ.) 
 A Korahite Levite, second son of Obed-edom, 
 and one of the porters or doorkeepers of the 
 south gate of the Temple, and of the storehouse 
 there (D'SDN M3), in the time of David 
 (1 Ch. xxvi. 4, 15, compared with Neh. xii, 25). 
 
 2. (Ἰωζαβάδ ; Joseph. °OxdBaros.) A Ben- 
 jamite, captain of 180,000 armed men, in the 
 days of king Jehoshaphat (2 Ch, xvii. 18 ; Joseph. 
 Ant. viii. 15, § 2). 
 
 8. (Ἰεζεβούθ, Ζωζαβέδ; Α. Ἰωζαβέδ; Josabad.) 
 Son of Shomer or Shimrith, a Moabitish woman, 
 and possibly a descendant of the preceding, who 
 with another, Jozachar or Zabad, conspired 
 against king Joash and slew him in his bed 
 ( Κ. xii. 21; 2 Ch. xxiv. 26). ([JoasH.] The 
 
 similarity in the names of both conspirators and Ὁ 
 
 their parents is worth motice. 
 This name is commonly abbreviated in the 
 Hebrew to JozABAD. [A. C. H.] [C. H.] 
 
 JEHO-ZA/DAK (PIS ; B. Ἰωσαδάκ, A. 
 Ἰωσεδέκ; Josedec), son of the high-priest 
 SERAIAH (1 Ch. vi. 14, 15) in the reign of 
 Zedekiah. When his father was slain at Riblah 
 by order of Nebuchadnezzar, in the 11th of 
 Zedekiah (2 K. xxv, 18, 21), Jehozadak was led 
 away captive to Babylon (1 Ch. vi. 15), where 
 he doubtless spent the remainder of his days. 
 He himself never attained the high-priesthood, 
 the Temple being burnt to the ground, and so 
 continuing, and he himself being a captive all 
 
 JEHU 
 
 his life, But he was the father of JesnHua the 
 high-priest who with Zerubbabel headed the 
 Return from Captivity, and in whom the succes- 
 sion continued till the pontificate of Alcimus 
 (Ezra iii. 2, 8, v. 2, x. 18; Neh. xii. 26; Hagg. i. 
 1, 12, 14, ii. 2,4; Zech. vi. 11). [Hieu-prrssr.] 
 Nothing more is known about him. It is per- 
 haps worth remarking that his name is com- 
 pounded of the same elements, and has nearly the 
 same meaning, as that of the contemporary king 
 Zedekiah (PT¥1', M°PT¥)—“ Jehovah is right- 
 eous;” and that the righteousness of Jehovah 
 was signally displayed in the simultaneous sus- 
 pension of the throne of David and the priest- 
 hood of Aaron, on account of the sins of Judah. 
 This remark perhaps acquires weight from the 
 fact of his successor Jeshua, who restored the 
 priesthood and rebuilt the Temple, having the 
 same name as Joshua, who brought the nation 
 into the land of promise, and JESUS, a name 
 significative of salvation. 
 
 In Haggai and Zechariah, though the name 
 in the original is exactly as above, yet the 
 A. V., following the Greek form, presents it as 
 JoseDECH. In the R. V. it is JEHOZADAK. 
 
 In Ezra and Nehemiah it is abbreviated, in 
 Hebrew, A. Y., and R. V., to JOZADAK. 
 
 [A. C. H.] [C. ἘΠῚ 
 
 JE'HU. 1. (817, probably = δὴ ΠῚ ΠῚ = 
 Jehovah is He; B. Eiov, A. *Inod, Joseph. "nods ; 
 Jehu.) The founder of the fifth dynasty of 
 the kingdom of Israel (Riehm, B.c, 843-816), 
 His history* was told in the lost “Chronicles 
 of the Kings of Israel” (2 K. x. 34). His 
 father’s name was Jehoshaphat (2 K. ix. 2, 
 14); his grandfather’s (which, as being better 
 known, was sometimes affixed to his own—2 K, 
 ix.) was Nimshi. In his youth he had been one 
 of the guards of Ahab. His first appearance in 
 history is when, with a comrade in arms, Bidkar, 
 
 or Bar-Dakar (Ephrem Syr. £uxplan. in iv. . 
 
 Regum, cap. iv. sec. 2, Op. t. ii. 125, ed. Caillau, 
 1842), he rode» behind Ahab on the fatal journey 
 from Samaria to Jezreel, and heard, and laid up 
 in his heart, the warning of Elijah against the 
 murderer of Naboth (2 K. ix. 25). But he had 
 already, as it would seem, been known to Elijah 
 as a youth of promise, and, accordingly, in the 
 vision at Horeb he is mentioned as the future 
 king of Israel, whom Elijah is to anoint as the 
 minister of vengeance on Israel (1 K. xix. 16, 17). 
 This injunction, for reasons unknown to us, 
 Elijah never fulfilled. It was reserved long 
 afterwards for his successor Elisha. 
 
 Jehu meantime, in the reigns of Ahaziah and 
 Jehoram, had risen to importance. The same 
 activity and vehemence which had fitted him 
 for his earlier distinctions still continued, and 
 he was known far and wide as a charioteer whose 
 
 8 Modern criticism finds but little fault with. the 
 section dealing with Jehu and his revolution. See a 
 summary in Kittel, Gesch. d. Hebrder, ii. 186 (and 
 Index), 1892.—[F.] 
 
 Ὁ The Hebrew word is D'4¥; usually employed 
 
 Mee 
 
 for the coupling together of oxen. This the LXX. 
 understands as though the two soldiers rode in separate 
 chariots—émBeByxéres ἐπὶ Cévyn (2 K. ix. 25); Josephus 
 (Ant. ix. 6, § 3) as though they sat in the same chariot 
 with the king (καθεζομένους ὄπισθεν τοῦ ἅρματος τοῦ 
 
 ᾿Αχάβου). 
 
JEHU 
 
 rapid driving, as if of a madman® (2 K. ix. 20), 
 could be distinguished even from a distance. 
 He was, under the last-named king, captain of 
 the host in the siege of Ramoth-Gilead. Accord- 
 ing to Ephrem Syrus (who omits the words 
 “saith the Lord” in 2 Καὶ, ix. 26, and makes 
 “TI” yefer to Jehu) he had, ina dream the night 
 before, seen the blood of Naboth and his sons 
 (see Ephr. Syr. τ. s.). Whilst in the midst of 
 the officers of the besieging army a youth sud- 
 denly entered, of wild appearance (2 K. ix. 11), 
 and insisted on a private interview with Jehu. 
 They retired into a secret chamber. The youth 
 uncovered a phial of the sacred oil, as Josephus 
 puts it (Ant. ix. 6, 1; Stanley, Jewish Ch, ii. 
 283 [1883]), which he had brought with him, 
 poured it over Jehu’s head,and after announcing 
 to him the message from Elisha, that he was 
 appointed to be king of Israel and destroyer of 
 the house of Ahab, rushed out of the house and 
 disappeared (2 K. ix. 1-10; 2 Ch. xxii. 7). 
 Jehu’s countenance, as he re-entered the 
 assembly of officers, showed that some strange 
 tidings had reached him. He tried at first to 
 evade their questions, but then revealed the situa- 
 tion in which he found himself placed by the pro- 
 phetic call. Ina moment the enthusiasm of those 
 present took fire. They threw their garments— 
 the large square Beged, similar to a wrapper or 
 plaid—under his feet, so as to form a rough 
 carpet of state, placed him on the top of the 
 stairs,t as on an extempore throne, blew the 
 royal salute on their trumpets, and thus pro- 
 claimed him king. He then cut off all communi- 
 cation between Ramoth-Gilead and Jezreel, and 
 set off, full speed, with his ancient comrade Bid- 
 kar, whom he had made his chief officer (Stanley, 
 Jew. Ch. ii, 285 [1883]), and a band of horsemen. 
 From the tower of Jezreel a watchman saw the 
 cloud of dust (NUDW, κονιορτόν; A. V.and R. V. 
 
 “company ”) and announced his coming (2 K, 
 ix. 17). The messengers that were sent out to 
 him he detained, on the same principle of secrecy 
 which had guided all his movements. It was 
 not till he had almost reached the city, and 
 was identified by the watchman, that alarm 
 was taken. But even then it seems as if the 
 two kings in Jezreel anticipated news from 
 the Syrian war rather than a revolution at 
 home. It was not till, in answer to Jehoram’s 
 question, “Is it peace, Jehu?” that Jehu’s 
 fierce denunciation of Jezebel at once revealed 
 
 ¢’ This is the force of the Hebrew word which the 
 LXX. translate ἐν παραλλαγῇ. Josephus (Ant. ix. 6, 
 § 3) says σχολαίτερον δὲ καὶ μετ᾽ εὐταξίας wdevev. 
 
 ἃ The expression translated ‘‘on the top of the 
 stairs” (R. V. marg. on the bare steps) is one the clue 
 to which is lost. The word is gerem, ὩΣ i, ὦ.6. a bone, 
 
 and the meaning appears to be that they placed Jehu 
 
 on the very stairs themselves—if γον be stairs— 
 
 without any seat or chair below him. The Stairs doubt- 
 less ran round the inside of the quadrangle of the house, 
 as they do still, for instance, in the ruin called the 
 house of Zacchaeus at Jericho, and Jehu sat where 
 they joined the flat platform which formed the: top or 
 roof of the house. Thus he was conspicuous against 
 the sky, while the captains were below him in the open 
 quadrangle. The LXX. repeats the Hebrew word, ἐπὶ 
 τὸ yape τῶν ἀναβάθμων, Which Lucian’s Version 
 renders intelligible by ἐπὶ μίαν τῶν ἀναβαθμίδων. By 
 Josephus it is avoided. 
 
 JEHU 1559 
 
 the dangér.. Jehu seized his opportunity, and 
 taking full aim at Jehoram, with the bow 
 which, as captain of the host, he had always with 
 him, shot him through the heart (ix. 24). The 
 body was thrown out on the fatal field, and 
 whilst his soldiers pursued and killed the king 
 of Judah (2 K. ix. 27, 28; 2 Ch. xxii. 9) at 
 Beth-gan (A. V. and R. V., “ the garden-house,” 
 LXX. Βαιθάν), probably Engannim, Jehuadvanced 
 to the gates of Jezreel and fulfilled the divine 
 judgment on Jezebel as already on Jehoram. 
 [JEZEBEL.} He then entered on a work of ex- 
 termination hitherto unparalleled in the history 
 of the Jewish monarchy. All the descendants 
 of Ahab that remained in Jezreel, together with 
 the officers of the court and hierarchy of 
 Astarte, were swept away. His next step was 
 to secure Samaria. Every stage of his progress 
 was marked with blood. At the gates of 
 Jezreel he found the heads of seventy princes of 
 the house of Ahab, ranged in two heaps, sent to 
 him as a propitiation by their guardians in 
 Samaria, whom he had defied to withstand him, 
 and on whom he thus threw the responsibility 
 of destroying their own royal charge. Next, at 
 “the shearing-house ” (or Betheked, LXX. Baiéd- 
 καθ) between Jezreel and Samaria he encoun- 
 tered forty-two sons or nephews (2 K. x. 13, 14; 
 2 Ch. xx. 8) of the late king of Judah, and. 
 therefore connected by marriage with Ahab, on 
 a visit of compliment to their relatives, of whose 
 fall, seemingly, they had not heard. These also 
 were put to the sword at the fatal well, as in 
 the later history, of Mizpah (2 K. x. 14), and, 
 in our own days, of Cawnpore. [ISHMAEL, 6.] 
 As he drove on he encountered a strange figure, 
 such as might have reminded him of the great 
 Elijah. It was Jehonadab, the austere Arabian 
 sectary, the son of Rechab. In him his keen 
 eye discovered a ready ally. He took him into 
 his chariot, and they concocted their schemes as 
 they entered Samaria (x. 15, 16). [JEHONADAB. ] 
 Some stragglers of the house of Ahab in that 
 city still remained to be destroyed. But the 
 great stroke was yet to come; and it was con- 
 ceived and executed with that union of intrepid 
 daring and profound secrecy which marks the 
 whole career of Jehu. Up to this moment there 
 was nothing which showed anything beyond a 
 determination to exterminate in all its branches 
 the personal adherents of Ahab. Jehu might still 
 have been at heart, as he seems up to this time 
 to have been in name, disposed to tolerate, if not 
 to join in, the Phoenician worship. ‘“ Ahab 
 served Baal a little, but Jehu shall serve him 
 much.” There was to be a new inauguration 
 of the worship of Baal. A solemn assembly, 
 sacred vestments, innumerable victims, were 
 ready. The vast temple at Samaria raised by 
 Ahab (1 K. xvi. 32; Joseph. Ant. ix. 7, § 6) was 
 crowded from end to end. The chief sacrifice was 
 offered, as if in the excess of his zeal, by Jehu 
 himself. Jehonadab joined in the deception: 
 There was some apprehension lest worshippers 
 of Jehovah might be found in the temple; such, 
 it seems, had been the intermixture of the two 
 religions. As soon, however, as it was ascer- 
 tained that all, and none but, the idolaters were 
 there, the signal was given to eighty trusted 
 guards, and a sweeping massacre removed at 
 one blow the male heathen population of the 
 kingdom of Israel, The innermost sanctuary of 
 
1560 JEHU 
 
 the temple (A. V. and R. V. “the city of the 
 house of Baal”) was stormed, the great stone 
 statue of Baal was demolished, the wooden 
 figures of the inferior divinities sitting round 
 him were torn from their places and burnt 
 (Ewald, Gesch. iii. 526), and the site of the 
 sanctuary itself became the public resort of the 
 inhabitants of the city for the basest uses. This 
 is the last public act recorded of Jehu. The 
 remaining twenty-seven years of his long reign 
 are passed over in a few words, in which two 
 points only are material:—He did not destroy 
 the calf-worship of Jeroboam: the Trans- 
 jordanic tribes suffered much from the ravages 
 of Hazael (2 K. x. 29-33). With reference to 
 this second point, cuneiform discovery has much 
 to suggest. Jehu’s name is found on the Black 
 Obelisk discovered at Nimrud (Layard, Nineveh, 
 i. 396) and now in the British Museum, amongst 
 the kings who are bringing tribute (in this 
 case gold and silver, and articles manufactured 
 in gold) to Shalmaneser II. His name is given 
 as “ Yahua the son of Khumri” (Omri) (Black 
 Obelisk of Shalmaneser, tr. by Sayce in Records 
 of the Past, v. 41,1875. Cp. Schrader, KAT? 
 p- 208 sq.; Keilinschriftl. Bibliothek, i. 151). 
 This substitution of the name of Omri for that 
 of his own father may be accounted for, either 
 by the importance which Omri had assumed as 
 the second founder of the northern kingdom, or 
 by the name of “ Beth-Khumri,” only given to 
 Samaria in these monuments as “the House or 
 Capital of Omri” (Layard, Nineveh and Babylon, 
 p. 613, ed. 1853; Rawlinson’s Herodot. i. 469, 
 3rd ed. 1875).° 
 
 Jehu’s appearance in this may be thus ex- 
 plained. Under Jehoram Israel had held its own 
 against its Syrian foes. [ἢ B.c. 842, Shalmaneser 
 directed an expedition against Damascus and 
 Hazael; and when he did so, Jehu lost no time 
 in sending his ambassadors, bearing tribute, to 
 enlist the protection of the Assyrian. He had 
 but just ascended the throne, and every step 
 had been marked in blood; and he may have 
 felt that Assyrian protection was needed by 
 himself personally, even more than by his 
 people. For a time his policy probably secured 
 the desired end; but the Assyrian expedition 
 was practically unsuccessful. On the retire- 
 ment of the Assyrians, the Syrians once more 
 turned against the Israelites, and the havoc and 
 cruelty foretold by Elisha (2 K. viii. 12), and so 
 summarily stated by the historian (2 K. x. 32-3), 
 took place. 
 
 e The Black Obelisk is figured large in Layard’s 
 Monuments of Nineveh (fol., Ser. I., 1849, No. 53), 
 small in Layard’s Nineveh (1849, 8vo, p. 347); and in 
 both volumes there are descriptions, but not translations. 
 The name JEuv was first discovered on this monument 
 in 1851 by Dr. Hincks. His name is also found, ac- 
 cording to Norris, upon an unpublished fragment of 
 another inscription of Shalmaneser (Norris, Assyr. 
 Dict., Pt. ii, p. 467). It was for some while the 
 earliest in Scripture history yielded by the Assyrian 
 records, and was so represented in the former edition 
 of this Dictionary. But about 1867 the earlier king 
 AuHAB was found in the Monolith Inscription of Shal- 
 mameser from Kurkh (see its entire translation by Sayce 
 in Records of the Past, iii., 1874 ; ep. Norris, Assyr. Dict., 
 Pt. i. p. 25), and he now holds the priority, as noticed 
 by Prof. Sayce (Witness of Ancient Monuments, 1884, 
 Pp. 9; see also the Introductions to his above translations), 
 
 JEHU 
 
 The character of Jehu is not difficult to 
 understand, if we take it as a whole, and judge 
 it from a general point of view. 
 
 He must be regarded, like many others in 
 history, as an instrument for accomplishing 
 great purposes rather than as great or good in 
 himself, In the long period during which his 
 destiny—though known to others and perhaps 
 to himself—lay dormant; in the suddenness of 
 his rise to power; in the ruthlessness with 
 which he carried out his purposes; in the union 
 of profound silence and dissimulation with a 
 stern, fanatic, wayward zeal,—he has not been 
 without his likeness in modern times. The 
 Scripture narrative, although it fixes our at- 
 tention on the services which he rendered to 
 the cause of religion by the extermination of 
 a worthless dynasty and a degrading worship, 
 yet on the whole leaves the sense that it was a 
 reign barren in great results. His dynasty, in- 
 deed, was firmly seated on the throne longer 
 than any other royal house of Israel (2 K. x. 30), 
 and under Jeroboam II. it acquired a high name 
 amongst the Oriental nations. But Elisha, who 
 had raised him to power, as far as we know 
 never saw him. In other respects it was a 
 failure; the original sin of Jeroboam’s worship 
 continued; and in the Prophet Hosea there 
 seems to be a retribution exacted for the blood- 
 shed by which he had mounted the throne: “1 
 will avenge the blood of Jezreel upon the house 
 of Jehu” (Hos. i. 4), as in the similar condem- 
 nation of Baasha (1 K. xvi. 2). See a striking 
 poem to this effect on the character of Jehu in 
 the Lyra Apostolica. 
 
 2. (B. Εἰού, Ἰού, Ἰησοῦ; A. Einov, Ἰηού.) 
 Jehu, son of Hanani; a prophet of Judah, but 
 whose ministrations were chiefly directed to 
 Israel. His father was probably the seer who 
 reproved Asa (2 Ch. xvi. 7). He must have 
 begun his career as a prophet when very young. 
 He first denounced Baasha, both for his imitation 
 of the dynasty of Jeroboam, and also (as it 
 would seem) for his cruelty in destroying it 
 (1 K. xvi. 1, 7), and then, after an interval of 
 thirty years, reappears to denounce Jehoshaphat 
 for his alliance with Ahab (2 Ch. xix. 2, 3). 
 He survived Jehoshaphat and wrote his life 
 (xx. 34). From an obscurity in the text of 
 1 K. xvi. 7, the Vulgate has represented him as 
 killed by Baasha. But this is not required by 
 the words, and (except on the improbable hypo- 
 thesis of two Jehus, both sons of Hanani) is 
 contradicted by the later appearance of this 
 prophet. 
 
 8. (B. Ἰησοῦς, A. Ἰηού; Jehu.) A man of 
 Judah of the house of Hezron (1 Ch. ii. 38). 
 He was the son of a certain Obed, descended 
 from the union of an Egyptian, JARHA, with 
 the daughter of Sheshan, whose slave Jarha 
 was (cp. v. 34), 
 
 4. (Inov.) A Simeonite, son of Josibiah 
 (1 Ch. iv. 35). He was one of the chief men of 
 the tribe, apparently in the reign of Hezekiah 
 (cp. v. 41). 
 
 5. (Ιηοὐλ.) Jehu the Antothite (A. V.; Ana- 
 thothite, R. V.), i.e. native of Anathoth, was one 
 of the chief of the heroes of Benjamin, who for- 
 sook the cause of Saul for that of David when 
 the latter was at Ziklag (1 Ch. xii. 3).. He 
 does not appear in any of the later lists. 
 
 (A. P.S.] [(C. HJ 
 
JEHUBBAH 
 
 JEHUB'BAH (13M, (?)= hidden ; B. 'Ωβάβ, 
 A.’OBd; Haba), a man of Asher; son of Shamer 
 or Shomer, of the house of Beriah (1 Ch. vii. 34). 
 
 JEHU’CAL S21), perhaps a contraction of 
 bsyiny = Jehovah is able [MV."]; B. Ἰωάχαλ, 
 A. Ἰωαχάζ; Juchal), son of Shelemiah, sent 
 with Zephaniah by king Zedekiah to Jeremiah, 
 to entreat his prayers and advice (Jer, xxxvii. 
 3). His name is also given as JUCAL, and he 
 appears to have been one of the “ princes of the 
 king ” (ep. xxxviii. 1, 4). 
 
 JE’HUD (17); B. ‘Aap, A. Ἰούθ; Jud), one 
 of the towns of the tribe of Dan (Josh. xix. 
 45), named between Baalath and Bene-berak, 
 Jin Ibrak. By Eusebius and Jerome Jehud is 
 not named. It has been identified by Robinson 
 (ii. 242) and Schwarz (p. 110) with el- Yehiidiych, 
 a large mud village, surrounded by palm trees, 
 on the plain about & miles east of Jaffa. Ac- 
 cording to the Samaritans, it is the burial-place 
 of Neby Hidah, Judah (PEF. Mem. ii. 258). 
 Possibly Jehud, and not Jerusalem, as Prof. 
 Sayce has suggested, may be the Judah-Melek of 
 Shishak’s inscription at Karnak. [G.] [W.] 
 
 JEHU'DI (10) = Jew; BN. om. υ. 14; 
 A. Ἰουδεί, BNA. Ἰουδεὶν in vv. 21, 23; Judi), son 
 of Nethaniah, employed by the princes of 
 Jehoiakim’s court to bring Baruch before them 
 with the roll of Jeremiah’s denunciation. When 
 this had been read to them by Baruch and after- 
 wards laid up in the chamber of Elishama, 
 Jehudi fetched it therefrom by command of the 
 king and read it to him and the princes; but 
 after Jehudi had read three or four leaves the 
 king cut the roll and cast it into the fire 
 (Jer. xxxvi. [LXX. xliii.] 14, 21, 23). 
 
 JEHUDI'JAH (Π5ἼΠΠ}; B. ᾿Αδειά, A. Ἰδιά ; 
 Judaia). There is really no such name in the 
 Hebrew Bible as that which our A. V. exhibits 
 in 1Ch.iv.18. It is rather an appellative, “the 
 Jewess,” as in the A. V. margin, the R. V. text, 
 and modern commentators generally. As far as 
 ‘an opinion can be formed on so obscure and 
 apparently corrupt a passage, Mered, a descend- 
 ant of Caleb the son of Jephunneh, and whose 
 towns (Gedor, Socho, and Eshtemoa) lay in the 
 south of Judah, married two wives; one a Jewess, 
 the other an Egyptian, a daughter of Pharaoh. 
 The Jewess was sister of Naham, the founder of 
 the cities of Keilah and Eshtemoa. The descend- 
 ants of Mered by his two wives are given in 
 vv. 18, 19, and perhaps in the latter part of 
 v.17. Hodijah in v. 19 may be a corruption of 
 Ha-jehudijah, “the Jewess,” though the R. V. 
 and modern critics retain it as a proper name. 
 If the full stop at the end of v. 18 be removed, 
 the passage may be read, “These are the sons 
 of Bithiah, the daughter of Pharaoh, which 
 Mered took (for his wife), and the sons of his 
 wife, the Jewess, the sister of Naham (which 
 Naham was), the father of Keilah, whose in- 
 habitants are Garmites, and of Eshtemoa, whose 
 inhabitants are Maachathites;” the last being 
 named possibly from Maachah, Caleb’s concu- 
 ‘bine, as the Ephrathites were from Ephratah. 
 Bertheau (Chronik) arrives at the same general 
 result, by proposing to place the closing words 
 
 JEKAMIAH 1561 
 
 of v.'18 before the words “ And she bare Miriam,” 
 &c., in v.17, and with him agree Keil, Oettli, 
 &e. in loco, See also Vatablus in loco in Bp. 
 Pearson’s Critici Sacri, 1660, t. ii. col. 2661. 
 
 (A. C. H.] ΤΟΣ ἘΠῚ 
 
 JEHU’SH, R. V. JEUSH (iy; “Ids, B. 
 Γάγ, Α.. Ἰδιάς : Jehus), son of Eshek, a remote 
 descendant of Saul (1 Ch. viii. 39). The parallel 
 genealogy in ch. ix. 43, 44 stops short of this 
 man. 
 
 JEVEL (Ny); Jehiel). 1, Clwha.) A 
 chief man among the Reubenites, one of the 
 house of Joel (1 Ch. v. 7). 
 
 2. (Ἰεϊήλ; A. once Ἰθιήλ) A Merarite 
 Levite, one of the gate-keepers (D/WiW; A. V. 
 “porters” and “doorkeepers”) to the sacred 
 tent, at the first establishment of the Ark in 
 Jerusalem (1 Ch. xv. 18). His duty was also 
 to play the harp (v. 21), or the psaltery and 
 harp (xvi. 5), in the service before the Ark. 
 
 5. CEAcina, B. ᾿Ἐλαλεήλ, A. Ἐλεήλ) A 
 Gershonite Levite, one of the Bene-Asaph, fore- 
 father of JAHAZIEL in the time of king Jehosha- 
 phat (2 Ch. xx. 14). 
 
 4, Oxi, ie. Jeuel, but the A. V. and 
 R. V. follow the correction of the Qeri; Ἰειήλ.) 
 
 The scribe (75}D7) who kept the account of 
 
 the numbers of king Uzziah’s irregular pre- 
 datory warriors (0773, A. V. “bands,” 2 Ch. 
 xxvi. 11). i 
 
 5. (Jeuel, as in the preceding, but the A. V. 
 again follows the Keri, whilst R. V. reads Jeuel; 
 Ἰειήλ ; Jahiel.) A Gershonite Levite, one of 
 the Bene-Elizaphan, who assisted in the restora- 
 tion of the house of Jehovah under king Heze- 
 kiah (2 Ch, xxix. 13). 
 
 6. (B. Ἰωήλ, A. Ἰεϊήλ.) One of the chiefs 
 of Cw) the Levites in the time of Josiah, and 
 an assistant in the rites at his great Passover 
 (2 Ch. xxxv. 9). 
 
 7. (Jeuel as above, but in Qeri and A. V. 
 Jeiel; in R. V. Jeuel: ἸἸεήλ; B. Eveid, A. 
 Εἰήλ.) One of the Bene-Adonikam who formed 
 part of the caravan of Ezra from Babylon to 
 Jerusalem (Ezra viii. 13). In Esdras the name 
 is JEUEL. 
 
 8. (Ἰαήλ, A. Ἰεειήλ.) A layman, of the 
 Bene-Nebo, who had taken a foreign wife and 
 had to relinquish her (Ezra x. 43). In Esdras it 
 is omitted from the Greek and A. V., though 
 the Vulgate has Jdelus. 
 
 JEKAB-ZE-EL (N¥3);B. omits, A. Καβ- 
 cena; Cabseel), a fuller form of the name of 
 KABZEEL, the most remote city of Judah on the 
 southern frontier. This form occurs only in 
 the list of the places re-occupied after the Cap- 
 tivity (Neh. xi. 25), 105 site is unknown. 
 
 [6] [WJ 
 
 JEKAM-EAM (Ov1Dp%, (?)=[God] raises up 
 the people: B. Ἰκεμιάς, Ἰοκόμ; A. ἸἹεκεμιά: 
 Jecmaam, Jecmaan), a Levite in the time of king 
 David: fourth of the sons of Hebron, the son of 
 Kohath (1 Ch. xxiii. 19; xxiv. 23), 
 
 JEKAMI'AH (5), (?)=May Jehovah up- 
 raise; Β. Ἰεχεμίας, A; Ἰεκομιάς ; camia), son of 
 
1562 JEKUTHIEL 
 
 Shallum, in the line of Ahlai, about contemporary 
 with king Ahaz. In another passage the same 
 name, borne by a different person, is given as 
 
 JECAMIAH (1 Ch.ii.41). [Jarnna.] [A.C. H.] 
 
 JEKU’THIEL ON'MP», @)= the protection 
 of God [MV.1]; B. 6 Χετιήλ, A. Ἰετθμήλ; 
 Icuthiel), a man recorded in the genealogies 
 of Judah (1 Ch. iv. 18) as the son of a certain 
 Ezrah by his Jewish wife (A. V. Jehudijah), 
 and in his turn the father, or founder, of 
 the town of Zanoah. This passage in the Tar- 
 gum is not without a certain interest. Jered 
 is interpreted to mean Moses, and each of the 
 names following are taken as titles borne by 
 him. Jekuthiel—“ trust in God ”—is so applied 
 “ because in his days the Israelites trusted in the 
 God of heaven for forty years in the wilderness.” 
 
 In a remarkable prayer used by the Spanish 
 and Portuguese Jews in the concluding service 
 of the Sabbath, Elijah is invoked as having had 
 “tidings of peace delivered to him by the hand 
 of Jekuthiel.” This is explained to refer to 
 some transaction in the life of Phineas, with 
 whom Elijah is, in the traditions of the Jews, 
 believed to be identical’ (see the quotations in 
 Modern Judaism, p. 229). 
 
 JEMIMA (Π 2) ; Ἡμέρα; Dies, as if from 
 
 0 0 =x 
 Dy’, “a day:” ep. kako}, imama, day), the 
 eldest of the three daughters born to Job after 
 the restoration of his prosperity (Job xlii. 14). 
 Gesenius and Dillmann identify the name with 
 an Arabic word signifying “dove.” [W. T. B.] 
 
 JEM'NAAN (Ἱεμναάν ; Vulg. omits), men- 
 tioned among the places on the sea-coast of 
 Palestine to which the panic of the incursion of 
 Holofernes extended (Judith ii. 28). No doubt 
 Jabneel—generally called Jamnia by the Greek 
 writers—is intended. The omission of Joppa; 
 however, is remarkable. FG.) νὴ 
 
 JEMU'EL (N10): B, Ἰεμουήλ, Ἰεμιήλ; A. 
 Ἰεμονήλ : Jemuel, Jamucl), the eldest son of 
 Simeon (Gen. xlvi. 10; Ex. vi. 15). In the 
 lists of Num. xxvi. and 1 Ch. iv. the name is 
 given as NEMUEL, which Gesenius decides to be 
 the corrupted form. 
 
 JEPHTHA’E (Ἰεφθάε; Jephte), Heb. xi. 32. 
 The Greek form of the name JEPHTHAH. 
 
 JEPH’THAH (MAD* = [God] opens or 
 makes free [M.V."] or = the breaker through 
 [Edersheim]; Ἰεφθάε; Jephte), a judge. His 
 history is contained in Judg. xi. 1-xii. 7, He 
 was a Gileadite, the son of Gilead and a con- 
 cubine. Driven by the legitimate sons from 
 his father’s inheritance, he went to Tob, and 
 became the head of a company of freebooters 
 in a debatable land probably belonging to 
 Ammon (2 Sam. x. 6). The idolatrous Israelites 
 in Gilead were at that time smarting under the 
 oppression of an Ammonitish king ; and Jephthah 
 was led, as well as by the unsettled character of 
 the age as by his own family circumstances, to 
 adopt a kind of life unrestrained, adventurous, 
 and insecure as that of a Scottish border-chieftain 
 in the Middle Ayes. It was not unlike the life 
 which David afterwards led at Ziklag, with this 
 
 JEPHTHAH 
 
 exception, that Jephthah had no friend among 
 the heathen in whose land he lived. His fame 
 as a bold and successful captain was carried 
 back to his native Gilead; and when the time 
 was ripe for throwing off the yoke of Ammon, 
 the Gileadite elders sought in vain for any leader 
 who in an equal degree with the base-born out- 
 cast could command the confidence of his coun- 
 trymen. Jephthah consented to become their 
 captain, on the condition—solemnly ratified be- 
 fore the Lord in Mizpeh—that in the event of 
 his success against Ammon he should still remain 
 as their acknowledged head. Messages, urging 
 their respective claims to occupy the trans- 
 Jordanic region, were exchanged between the 
 Ammonitish king and Jephthah. Then the 
 Spirit of the Lord came upon Jephthah. He 
 collected warriors throughout Gilead and Ma- 
 nasseh, the provinces which acknowledged his 
 authority. And then he vowed his vow unto 
 the Lord, “ Whatsoever cometh forth of the doors 
 of my house to meet me, when 1 return in peace 
 from the children of Ammon, it shall be the 
 Lord’s, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering ” 
 (R. V.). The Ammonites were routed with 
 great slaughter.. Twenty cities, from Aroer on 
 the Arnon to Minnith and to Abel Keramim, 
 were taken from them. But as the conqueror 
 returned to Mizpeh there came out to meet him 
 a procession of damsels with dances and timbrels, 
 and among them—the first person from his own 
 house—his daughter and only child. ‘Alas! 
 my daughter, thou hast brought me very low,” 
 was the greeting of the heart-stricken father. 
 But the high-minded maiden was ready for any 
 personal suffering in the hour of her father’s 
 triumph. Only she asked for a respite of two 
 months to withdraw to her native mountains, 
 and in their recesses to weep with her virgin- 
 friends that she was to die unmarried. When 
 that time was ended, she returned to her father ; 
 and “ he did unto her his vow.” 
 
 But Jephthah had not long leisure, even if he 
 were disposed, for the indulgence of domestic 
 grief, The proud tribe of Ephraim challenged 
 his right to go to war, as he had done without 
 their concurrence, against Ammon; and they 
 proceeded to vindicate the absurd claim by in- 
 vading Jephthah in Gilead. They did but add 
 to his triumph which they envied. He first 
 defeated them, then intercepted the fugitives at 
 the fords of Jordan, and there, having insultingly 
 identified them as Ephraimites by their peculiar 
 pronunciation, he put forty-two thousand men 
 to the sword. 
 
 The eminent office for which Jephthah had 
 stipulated as the reward of his exertions, and 
 the glory which he had won, did not long abide 
 with him. He judged Israel six years and died. 
 
 It is generally conjectured that his jurisdic- 
 tion was limited to the trans-Jordanic region. 
 
 That the daughter of Jephthah was really 
 offered up to God in sacrifice, slain by the hand of 
 her father and then burned, is a horrible conclu- 
 sion; but one which it seems impossible te avoid 
 (ep. Wordsworth, Holy Bible, with notes, in loco). 
 This was understood to be the meaning of the 
 text by Jonathan the paraphrast, and Rashi, by 
 Josephus (Ant. ν. 7, § 10), and by perhaps all the 
 early Christian fathers, as Origen, in Joannem, 
 tom. vi. cap. 36; Chrysostom, Hom. ad pop. 
 Antioch. xiv. 3, Opp. ii. 145; Theodoret, Quaest. 
 
JEPHUNNE 
 
 in Jud. xx.; Jerome, Zp. ad Jul.118, Opp. i. 791, 
 &c,; Augustine, Quaest. in Jud. viii. § 49, Opp. 
 iii, 1, p. 610. For the first eleven centuries of the 
 Christian era this was the current, perhaps the 
 universal, opinion of Jews and Christians. Yet 
 none of them extenuate the act of Jephthah. 
 Josephus calls it neither lawful nor pleasing to 
 God, Jewish writers say that he ought to have 
 referred it to the high-priest ; but either he failed 
 to do so, or the high-priest culpably omitted to 
 prevent the rash act. Origen strictly confines 
 his praise to the heroism of Jephthah’s daughter. 
 
 Another interpretation was suggested by 
 Joseph Kimchi. He supposed that, instead of 
 being sacrificed, she was shut up in a house 
 which her father built for the purpose, and that 
 she was there visited by the daughters of Israel 
 four days in each year so long as she lived. 
 This interpretation has been adopted by many 
 eminent men, as by Levi ben Gersom and Bechai 
 among the Jews, and by Drusius, Grotius, Estius, 
 de Dieu, Bishop Hall, Waterland, Dr. Hales, and 
 others, And this opinion has found favour with 
 Many modern critics (cp. Cassel in Herzog, RE? 
 s.n. “Iefta”; Kohler, Konig, Hauptprobl. p. 74 ; 
 Edersheim, Bible History, ii. 159, &c.). Support 
 for these opinions respectively is deduced from 
 the original text and the customs of the day 
 (see them stated in the first edition of this work), 
 and theological opinions have sometimes had the 
 effect of leading men to prefer one view of 
 Jephthah’s vow to another. The act itself is, 
 however, one which the Scripture relates in all 
 its baldness, and leaves judgment upon it un- 
 pronounced. There is no necessity to turn in 
 explanation of it to foreign analogies, such as 
 have been sought in the sacrifice of his son by 
 Idomeneus or in the intention of Agamemnon to 
 offer Iphigenia; still less is the act to be set 
 aside as mythological and unhistorical. The 
 commendation of Jephthah’s faith (Heb. xi. 32) 
 leaves unaffected acts which, if reprobated to-day, 
 are not incompatible with the belief of the age 
 in which they are alleged to have occurred 
 (cp. Mozley, Ruling Ideas in Early Ages and 
 their relation to O. T. faith, Lectures ii., iii, and 
 Χ..). 
 
 The views of the modern school upon the 
 sources and text of Jephthah’s history may be 
 seen summed up in Kittel, Gesch. d. Hebréer, ii. 
 80 sq., 1892. (WwW. L. B.] ΕΠ] 
 
 JEPHUN’NE (Ἰεφοννῇ ; Jephone), Ecclus. 
 xlvi. 7. [JEPHUNNEH.] 
 
 JEPHUN’NEH (735); Jephone). 1. (le- 
 φοννή.) Father of Caleb the spy, who is usually 
 designated as “Caleb the son of Jephunneh.” 
 He appears to have belonged to an Edomitish 
 tribe called Kenezites, from Kenaz their founder ; 
 but his father or other ancestors are not named. 
 (Cates, 2; Kenaz.] (See Num. xiii. 6, &c., 
 xxxii. 12, &e.; Josh. xiv. 14, &c.; 1 Ch. iv. 15.) 
 
 2. (Ὁ. Ἰφινά, A. Ἰεφιήλ.) A descendant of 
 Asher, eldest of the three sons of Jether (1 Ch. 
 vii. 38). (A. C. H.] 
 
 JE'RAH (ΠῚ, Yerach ; in Gen. A. Ἰάραδ, 
 F.Idped; Jare), the fourth of the thirteen sons 
 of Joktan (Gen. x. 26; 1 Ch. i. 20 [BA. om.}), 
 who appear to represent the eponymous ancestors 
 or founders of a group of related tribes in Western 
 
 JERAHMEEL 1563 
 
 and Southern Arabia. The name Jerah, however, 
 has not been certainly identified, either locally 
 or ‘in Arab genealogical traditions. Bochart, 
 indeed, suggested that Mm}. was not the actual 
 name of the Joktanide clan in question, but 
 a Hebrew translation of it, and that the clan 
 was, in fact, the Bani Hilal, “Sons of the 
 New Moon,” in Northern Yemen, whom he 
 further identified with the Alilaei mentioned 
 by Agatharchides (ap. Diod. Sic. iii. 45), But 
 the assumption of a translation instead of 
 a transcription of the name is unsatisfactory ; 
 and, in any case, Mm} is not Heb, for “ New 
 
 Moon” (M1), nor even “moon,” but “ month,” * 
 And it is known that the Bani Hilal got their 
 name from an ancestor of the Prophet, belong- 
 ing to the tribe of Kais, and therefore have 
 nothing to do with the Alilaei (Caussin de 
 Perceval, Essai, Tab. XA; Abul-Fida, Ρ. 194, 
 ed. Fleischer, cited by E. S. Poole). 
 
 In the Hebrew list, Jerah follows Hazar- 
 maveth, the modern Hadhramaut. J. 1). 
 Michaelis, therefore, while adopting Bochart’s 
 
 στωα ὦ " 
 
 main idea, compared =) Cas, Ghubbul- 
 
 Kamar, “The Coast of the Moon,” and 
 σ΄. I-7 
 
 et} >, G'abalwl-Kamar, “The Moun- 
 
 tain of the Moon,” both E. of Hadhramaut. 
 eee er 
 Mr. E. S. Poole compared εἰ Be Yarakh, a 
 
 fortress of the Nig’ad, in Mahrah (Marasid, s, v. 
 Yarakh); Prof. D. H. Miller, Warakh, an inha- 
 bited mountain in the district of al-‘Aud, W. 
 of Hadhramaut (Hamdané, G’azirat al-‘Arab, 
 pp- 178 sq.). But we can hardly feel assured 
 of the Hebrew reading of the name, in face of 
 the LXX. variant Jarad or Jared; and it is 
 possible that K. Niebuhr’s hesitating comparison 
 
 of ρὲ yp Jarim, a very ancient town of Hadhra- 
 [C. J. B.] 
 
 JERAH'ME-EL (xpny = God hath 
 mercy: B. Ἰραμεήλ, Ἱερεμεῆλ, Ἰερεμαήλ, Ῥα- 
 μεήλ; <A. Ἰερεμεήλ, Ἰερεμιήλ: Jeramecl). 
 1. First-born son of Hezron, the son of Pharez. 
 the son of Judah (1 Ch. ii. 9). His wives and 
 descendants are given at length in vv. 25-33. 
 and nowhere else, [AZARIAH, 13; ZABAD.} 
 They inhabited the southern border of Judah. 
 [JERAHMEELITES. ] 
 
 2. CIpauand.) A Merarite Levite; the re- 
 presentative, at the time of the organisation of 
 the Divine service by king David, of the family 
 of Kish the son of Mahli (1 Ch, xxiv. 29; ep. 
 xxiii. 21). 
 
 3. Clepeuena.) Son of Hammelech, or as the 
 LXX., R.V., A.V. margin, render it, “son of the 
 king,” z.e. a prince of the blood. He was em- 
 ployed by Jehoiakim to make Jeremiah and 
 Baruch prisoners, after the roll of Jeremiah’s 
 prophecy had been burnt (Jer. xxxvi. [LXX. 
 xliii.] 26). ΕΟ ΣῊ Ὁ. H.) 
 
 maut, is correct (Arabien, p. 291). 
 
 84 The kindred term f[) is ‘‘moon;” although, like 
 ues 
 the Assyrian ar}, its formal equivalent, 4) doubtless 
 originally denoted ‘‘ moon,” and then ‘* month.” 
 
1564 JERAHMEELITES 
 
 JERAH’MEELITES, THE Οὔ ΟΠ Π: 
 Ἰεσμεγά, ὁ Ἱερεμεήλ ; Β. in xxx. 29, Ἰσραήλ: 
 A. Ἰσραμηλεί, Ἰεραμηλεί: Jerameel). The tribe 
 descended from the first of the foregoing persons 
 (1 Sam. xxvii. 10). Their cities were also named 
 amongst those to which David sent presents 
 from his Amalekite booty (xxx. 29), although 
 to Achish he had represented that he had 
 attacked them. 
 
 JER'ECHUS (‘lépexos, B. *Iepéxov; 
 *Ieperxov ; Ericus), 1 ἔβα. v. 22, [JERICHO.] 
 
 JE'RED, R. V. JARED (1)}}=descent ; 
 Ἰάρεδ ; Jared). 1. One of the patriarchs before 
 the Flood, son of Mahalalee] and father of Enoch 
 (1 Ch. i. 2), In Genesis the name is given as 
 JARED. 
 
 2. (Jaret.) One of the descendants of Judah 
 signalised as the “ father—i.e. the founder—of 
 Gedor ” (1 Ch. iv. 18). He was one of the sons 
 of Ezrah by his wife Ha-Jehudijah, 1.9. the 
 Jewess. The Jews, however, give an allegorical 
 interpretation to the passage, and treat this and 
 other names therein as titles of Moses—Jered 
 because he caused the manna to descend. Here 
 —as noticed under Jabez—the pun, though 
 obvious in biblical Hebrew, where Jarad (the 
 root of Jordan) means “to descend,” is concealed 
 in the rabbinical paraphrase, which has NMS, 
 —a word with the same meaning, but without 
 any relation to Jered, either for eye or ear. 
 
 [61 [W.] 
 
 JERE/MAI ΟἿ" ; B. Ἱεραμείμ, A. Ἰερεμί, 
 N. Ἰεραμεί; Jermai), alayman; one of the Bene- 
 Hashum, who was compelled by Ezra to put 
 away his foreign wife (Ezra x. 33). In the lists 
 of Esdras it is omitted. 
 
 Bs, 
 
 JEREMI’AH, BOOK OF. 1. Title." 
 the usual form, but iD) occurs, besides ‘the 
 heading tothe Book, in xxvii. 1, xxviii. 5, 10, 11, 
 15, xxix. 1; so Dan. ix. 2: LXX. Ἱερεμίας ; Vulg. 
 Jeremias; St. Jerome and others, Hieremias. 
 Conjectures as to the meaning of the name are 
 (a) “the Lord’s exalted one” (St. Jerome, and 
 so Simonis, Onomast. p. 535); (0) “the Lord’s 
 appointed one” (Gesen. TZhes. 5. v., ‘“jecit, id 
 est, collocavit, constituit,” referring it to the 
 sense of the root which appears probably in Dan. 
 vii. 9, “placed,” marg. cast down, R. V.); 
 (c) “the Lord throws (down) ” (Hengst. Christo- 
 logie des A. B., Clark’s Library, ii. 361, tracing 
 this use of the root to Ex. xv. 1, and making 
 the application in Jeremiah’s case to be to the 
 work spoken of in i. 10). This last perhaps 
 accords most closely with the analogues 1')2%, 
 ΓΞ, TMs yet the ill omen which it suggests 
 is hardly in accordance with the fact that the 
 name was far from uncommon. 
 
 2. Authorship and Authenticity.— An un- 
 varying tradition ascribes the Book to Jeremiah 
 the Prophet, and the strong impress of the writer’s 
 individuality, which is apparent throughout the 
 greater part, confirms us in this conclusion.* 
 
 Ὁ For the strange view which places the writing of 
 this and of the other Prophetical Books in the 2nd cent. 
 B.c., see Ἐς Havet in Revue des deux Mondes, 1889, iv. 
 p. 516, &c. (answered by De Lagarde, Mittheilungen, 
 
 JEREMIAH 
 
 We must however at once except ch. lii. because 
 of (i.) the last words of li. ; (ii.) a certain pecu- 
 liarity of style, e.g. the use of the name Jehoia- 
 chin instead of Coniah or Jeconiah; (iii.) the 
 contents of vv. 31-34. Other portions in which 
 the authorship has been doubted or denied are 
 viii. 10-12; x. 1-16;° xv. 11-14; xvii. 19- 
 27; xxv. 12-14; xxvii. 7," 16-22; xxx.—xxxiii. 5 
 αχχῖχ ὙΠ να [011]. 10. ἢν ᾿ 
 
 The chief of those who have denied or doubted 
 the genuineness of one or more of the above 
 passages are Berthold, Cheyne, Ewald, Graf, 
 Hitzig, Knobel, Meier, Movers, Naegelsbach, 
 Schnurrer, Struensee, Venema; while amongst 
 their defenders are Hengstenberg, Keil, and 
 Payne Smith. 
 
 It would seem unlikely that Baruch was in 
 any sense the author of portions of the Book, 
 with the possible exception of the historical 
 appendix (lii.), carefully distinguished (see li. 
 64) from Jeremiah’s own words. 
 
 Parts of the LXX. in this Book present start- 
 ling exceptions to its general rule of adherence 
 with tolerable fidelity to the Massoretic text. 
 Hence has arisen the question, whether the 
 Heb. or the Greek text of Jeremiah is to be 
 considered the more authentic. We may con- 
 veniently classify their divergencies under two 
 heads. 
 
 (1.) Matter—In the LXX., besides a certain 
 amount of alteration of a kind to affect the 
 sense, while little is added, there is an immense 
 number of trifling omissions besides some of more 
 importance. The longest of these last—none of 
 them, we may observe, of a character to be easily 
 omitted by accident—are xxix. 16-203; xxxiii. | 
 14-26; xxxix. 4-13; liii. 28-30. On the whole 
 about an cighth of the Heb. text is wanting. 
 
 (2.) Arrangement.—The position of the pro- 
 phecies against foreign nations differs.4 In the 
 LXX. instead of coming near the end of the 
 Book (xlvi.-li.) they follow upon xxv. 13, and 
 therefore immediately precede the section of 
 kindred subject-matter which begins at xxv. 15. 
 Also the order of sequence of these prophecies 
 among themselves ὃ differs. 
 
 It is not a case of two independent recensions, 
 for then (a) the striking differences would not 
 be confined to certain parts of the Book, and 
 (b) we should not find the peculiar form of 
 Introduction (i. 1-3),* virtually the same, and 
 111, added in both. Further we must suppose 
 both forms of the Book to have existed very 
 early, as it would be impossible that one already 
 for any length of time in possession (a thing 
 which would naturally take place in a very - 
 
 vol. iv.), and Maurice Vernes, Précis d@’ Histoire Juive 
 depuis les Origines jusqu’a lV’ Epoque Persane, 1890. 
 
 b Omitted in LXX. 
 
 e And v, 11, on the special ground that it is in 
 Chaldee. 
 
 4 Noticed as early as Origen, Zp. ad Afric., Migne, 
 p. 56; Hieron. Praef. in Jerem. 
 
 e See e.g. Naegelsbach, in translation of Lange’s 
 Commentary, &c. (T. and T. Clark, Edinb.), Introd. 
 p. 13. The Heb. order is preferable from internal con- 
 siderations. 
 
 f Implying repeated alteration from the original 
 shape. Vv. 1, 2 are the natural heading of a prophecy 
 including only the utterances of Josiah’s reign. V. 3 is 
 evidently added with a further group, but still does not 
 cover Χ].-Σ]ῖν. : are 
 
JEREMIAH 
 
 brief period with a Prophet, illustrious and 
 honoured as Jeremiah became) should admit 
 another so different to be on anything like an 
 equal footing. 
 
 Views as to the causes of variation may be 
 thus classified: § (a) errors of copyists (St. Jerome, 
 Grabe), (0) negligence or caprice of LXX. (Spohn, 
 Naegelsbach, Wichelhaus, Keil, Graf), (c) two or 
 more recensions of the Hebrew (J. D. Michaelis, 
 Movers, Hitzig, Bleek, and Workman" holding 
 that that followed by the LXX. is nearer the 
 original text, while Ewald, ? Hivernick, Schrader, 
 and Kuenen consider that, while on the whole 
 the Massoretic text is to be preferred, the Greek 
 translation, in spite of manifold errors and 
 caprices, now and then gets nearer to the 
 original), Against the LXX. are pleaded (a) the 
 arbitrary character of an immense number of 
 the renderings, alike affecting letters, syllables, 
 words, and verses ; (Ὁ) the omissions, especially 
 those which do not materially affect the sense, 
 viz. the words “the prophet,” “ saith the Lord,” 
 “the Lord of hosts the God of Israel,” &c. 
 Hence it has been suggested that Baruch, desiring 
 on the death of Jeremiah to return to Palestine 
 and to carry with him the original writings, 
 allowed several persons to transcribe the pro- 
 phecies in all haste, and that the LXX. preserves 
 for us this form of the Book. On behalf of 
 the LXX. are pleaded (a) its more important 
 omissions (see above).as not of a character to be 
 accidentally left out; (Ὁ) the use of cipher * in 
 the Heb. text (mot recognised in the LXX.); 
 (c) the position given in the Greek text to the 
 prophecies directed against foreign nations, as 
 one which they are more likely to have occupied 
 in Jeremiah’s roll.!~ On the whole it would 
 appear that the text which formed the basis of 
 the Greek translators’ work was, both in accuracy 
 and inthe arrangement of its matter, superior to 
 the Massoretic text, while the numerous errors 
 which disfigure the LXX. Version of the Book 
 are to be charged (we know not with what precise 
 distribution of blame) to slips on their own part, 
 and to errors, obscurities, lacunae, &c. in the 
 Heb. MSS. on which they worked. 
 
 3. Date and Ilace.—This subject has been 
 of necessity discussed already under the heading 
 of authenticity. Either before, or very soon 
 after Jeremiah’s death in Egypt (? A.D. 575 ™), 
 Baruch, we may conjecture, put together the 
 Prophet’s writings, and, as well through dis- 
 
 & This classification is taken in the main from article 
 Jeremiah (Cheyne) in 9th ed. of Encycl. Brit. 
 
 h See the careful treatise of the last-named writer 
 (Edinb. 1889). 
 
 i See Speaker's Comm. (Payne Smith), Introd. to Jer. 
 
 k Ch. xxv. 26, li. 1, 41, and cp. v. 64. In defence of 
 the probability of Jeremiah’s use of a Kabbalistic system 
 of writing (Atbash) in these passages, see Plumptre’s 
 note on xxxii. 9 in Bp. Ellicott’s 0. T. Comm. for Eng- 
 lish Readers. 2, 
 
 1 See Naegelsbach, Introd. p. xiii., with reff. to his 
 Commentary there given. 
 
 m About ten years after his arrival in Egypt. The 
 traditional notices are slender and even inconsistent. 
 The Christian account is given by Tertullian, adv. 
 Gnost. 8, ** Jeremias lapidatur ; ” so Hieron. adv. Jov. ii. 
 37. The Jewish is that Nebuchadnezzar brought him 
 
 and Baruch from Egypt to Babylon cody kaa |) 
 ἢ ΜΝ Δ), but Rashi (on xliv. 14) says that he died 
 in Judaea. 
 
 JEREMIAH 1565 
 
 like of the princes who had brought him 
 thither as in deferenge to his master’s unvarying 
 opinion (ii. 36; xxxvii. 7; xlii. 9-22), returned 
 with the Book to Palestine. 
 
 4. Persons addressed. — A. His own nation. 
 Even the reformation-work of Josiah seems to 
 have been but superficial. Jeremiah was called 
 upon to seek to convince of sin and stir up toa 
 sense of the requirements of the Divine Law the 
 followers of Baal and Astarte (i. 16; ii. 5, 11, 
 13, 20, 23, 27, 28; iii. 1sq.; vii. 18; ix. 14), and 
 of the unholy pleasures to which that worship 
 ministered (v. 7, 8),—men devoted to magical arts 
 (xxvii. 9) and steeped in habits of dishonesty 
 (v. 1, 26-28; vi. 13; vii. 8; ix. 3-6, 8), false 
 swearing (v. 2; xxiii. 10), violence (vi. 7; vii. 
 5, 6; xxi. 12), and infanticide (viii. 31; xix. 5; 
 XXxii. 35).” 
 
 Many of his rebukes are directly addressed to 
 the priests and false prophets. For Jeremiah, 
 unlike certain of his predecessors, had to meet 
 the united hostility of these two classes,° who, 
 as we see (v. 31; vi. 135; viii. 10; xxiii. 11), 
 played into each other’s hands.P The main 
 object of the former was to ensure the external 
 prosperity of the Temple, as the substantial 
 symbol of the theocracy, and the source of their 
 own gains; while the prophets, closely joined 
 with them by a common interest in the main- 
 tenance of the status quo, supported the priest- 
 hood by their optimistic teachings, which were 
 delivered with an air of the utmost confidence 
 and bolstered up by pretended revelations ob- 
 tained by incantation and magical arts (which 
 Deut. xviii. 10-14 had stringently forbidden), and 
 uncontrolled by the Spirit of God (Jer. xiv. 14). 
 Jeremiah, “by each of his callings naturally led 
 to sympathize with both, was the doomed anta- 
 gonist of both.’4 For his language towards 
 them, besides the passages given above, see ii. 
 8, 26 sevice 146: 6: Villa, 19. χῖτ 19... χῖν" 
 13-17; xviii. 18; xxvi. 7, 12-15; xxvii. 9, 
 14, 16; xxix. 21-32; xxxii. 32; xxxiv. 19; 
 xxxvii. 19. 
 
 On the other hand, the “princes” were 
 friendly to Jeremiah in his earlier time (xxvi.), 
 and not unfriendly even in the fourth year of 
 Jehoiakim (xxxvi.). Later (xxxvii. 15 sq.) they 
 were decidedly hostile. 
 
 Lastly, from none of the kings did the Prophet 
 meet with any active or continuous opposition, 
 although the fate of the roll (xxxvi. 23) and the 
 treatment to which Zedekiah allowed the Prophet 
 to be subjected, show that the warnings which 
 he addressed to Jehoiakim and his successors by 
 no means always induced them to bow to the 
 authority which he claimed. 
 
 B. Heathen nations. Jeremiah addresses the 
 nations " through their ambassadors both by word 
 and acted symbol, warning them of the crushing 
 
 π See also vii. 9, xxix. 23, and many other passages. 
 
 © The “wise,” joined with these two as a third min- 
 isterial class in the Jewish state (xviii. 18, but cp. vii. 
 9), seem to have been naturally on friendly terms with 
 Jeremiah. See Canon Cheyne’s Jer. his Life and Times, 
 p. 90. : 
 
 P See Stanley, Jewish Church, ii. 441, for contrast 
 between Jeremiah’s position in this respect and that of 
 Isaiah or Amos. 
 
 a Stanley’s Jewish Church, ii. 440. 
 
 r Probably heads of prominent families. 
 
 8 For this custom see Ewald, Hist. of Isr. iv. 196. 
 
1566 JEREMIAH 
 
 power of the growing empire of Babylon 
 (xxvii. 1-11). This was early in the reign of 
 Zedekiah. In the fourth year of Jehoiakim he had 
 addressed to the nations similar warnings, empha- 
 sized by the symbol of the wine-cup (xxv. 8-38), 
 and to the same date belongs the greater part of 
 the prophecies relating to foreign nations, which 
 are comprised in xlvi—xlix. The prophecy 
 against Babylon (1., li.) is probably later. 
 
 5. Contents and character.—A. Contents. 
 (i.) Jercmiah’s early life. He was a priest and 
 son of Hilkiah (i. 1). If with some (6... St. 
 Clem. Alex., St. Jer., Theodoret, Kimchi, Abar- 
 banel, Eichhorn, Von Bohlen, Umbreit) we assume 
 that his father is identical with the high-priest * 
 who five years (cp. i. 2 with 2 K. xxii. 3-8) 
 after Jeremiah’s call “found the book of the 
 law in the house of the Lord,” we can the more 
 clearly picture to ourselves the Prophet’s train- 
 ing as son of the man who held not only the 
 chief position in religious matters, but also the 
 foremost place in Josiah’s reformation. In 
 favour of this view are (i.) the respect with which 
 the Prophet was treated by the kings and the 
 princes of Judah, and (ii.) the fact that Baruch, 
 a man of good birth," and brother of Seraiah, 
 a prince (li. 59), was willing to be his scribe. 
 Against it is the fact that Hilkiah was descended 
 from Eleazar (1 Ch. vi. 4-13), but the priests of 
 Anathoth through Abiathar from Ithamar (1 K. 
 ii. 26; 1 Ch. xxiv. 3).. It is however not im- 
 possible, nor even, for aught we know, very 
 improbable, that members of both lines of de- 
 scent should reside in the same priestly city, and 
 it is certainly likely that the dominant family 
 would secure for its high-priest a dwelling in 
 a place so conveniently near (“three Roman 
 miles,” St. Jer. oni. 1; “ twenty Roman stadia,” 
 Jos. Ant. x. 7, § 3) to Jerusalem.* 
 
 Jeremiah speaks of himself at the time of his 
 4811 as “a child” (U2, i. 6). The same word 
 
 is used of Joshua (Ex. xxxiii. 11) at a time when 
 he appears to have been forty-five years of age.¥ 
 In the case of Jeremiah, however, the length of 
 his prophetic ministry shows that he must have 
 been very youthful at its commencement. The 
 period from about B.c. 626 (thirteenth year of 
 Josiah) till B.c. 586 (destruction of Jerusalem) 
 gives us forty years, while he survived for a con- 
 siderable time the fall of the city. 
 
 That he was a Nazarite has been inferred by 
 some, but hardly with sufficient reason, from 
 (a) the reverence with which he regards the 
 Rechabites (xxxv.); (0) the improbability that 
 one trained in the house of a devout priest 
 would be unmindful of such passages as Is. 
 xxviii, 7, Amos ii, 11,12; (c) Lam. iv. 7. In 
 this connexion it has been pointed out also that 
 a Rechabite is named Jeremiah (xxxv. 3). 
 
 The Biblical narrative suggests that Jeremiah 
 
 t So Targum of ‘‘ Jonathan” on Lam. begins thus: 
 «* Jeremiah the prophet and chief priest (N34 S373) 
 said.” rat OF ee 
 
 = Josephus, Ant. x. 9, ὁ 1, ἐξ ἐπισήμου σφόδρα οἰκίας. 
 
 x Hilkiah is not the only name common to the 
 historical and prophetic record. We have also Shallum 
 (sxxii.7; 2K. xxiii. 14) and Ahikam (xxvi. 24; 2K. 
 xxii. 12). 
 
 y Solomon (1 K, iii. 7) when about twenty years of 
 age calls himself jO?P 9. 
 
 id mace 
 
 JEREMIAH. 
 
 was prepared for his life-work rather by the’ 
 instruction and associations of Anathoth than by 
 any formal training in the “schools of the pro- 
 phets,” and that he was thence called direct to 
 the task of declaring the will of God to His 
 disobedient people.” 
 
 (ii.) His relations to Josiah (B.c. 638-608). 
 His attachment to the person of Josiah, as 
 shown by his lamentation* over his death in 
 battle (2 Ch. xxxv. 25), as well as the strong 
 sympathy with which he regarded the war 
 waged by the king against idolatry and its 
 attendant defilements, neither hindered him from 
 looking with disquietude upon the traditionary 
 policy of seeking an alliance with Egypt (ii. 36), 
 nor yet prevented him from seeing that hitherto 
 it was but the surface of the nation’s pollutions 
 which had been touched. In fact, as far as his 
 extant prophecies are concerned, Josiah’s work 
 of reformation might have been wholly non- 
 existent, while on the other hand there is no 
 mention of Jeremiah in the historical record. 
 The mass of the people, and even the main 
 body of the priests and prophets themselves, 
 were unmoved, and it therefore behoved him 
 unceasingly to preach the message with which 
 he was charged. 
 
 During the gradual progress of this outward 
 and partial reformation, and five years before 
 its sudden and great development in connexion 
 with the discovery of “the book of the law,” 
 the Prophet’s actual call occurred, and in a 
 form evidently altogether unlooked for (cp. Is. 
 vi.; Ezek. i.). He shrinks from the prospect, 
 but the Lord reassures him, touches his mouth 
 and sends him forth as His Prophet.» The more 
 important portion of his task is to consist in 
 rebuke and threatening, “to root out, and to 
 pull down, and to destroy, and to throw down ” 
 (i. 10), while out of the ruins a better and more 
 hopeful state of things shall spring, “ to build 
 and to plant” (ibid.). 
 
 Now and to the end of his ministry idolatry 
 is the foundation sin that he denounces. In the 
 valley of Hinnom, close to Jerusalem, at any rate 
 up to the time of Josiah’s reforms, children 
 were offered to Baal or Molech (vii. 31; xix. 5; 
 xxxli. 35; the two being identified in this last 
 passage); while “the queen of heaven ” (vii. 18 ; 
 xliv. 17, 18, 19, 25), the Atar-Samain of Assur- 
 banipal’s inscription,° received moon-shaped cakes 
 from female worshippers. ‘The Prophet dwells 
 with perpetual iteration upon this indictment, 
 and upon the overthrow that must ensue. 
 Tokens of that overthrow are already to be seen 
 in the shape of drought and famine (v. 25; 
 xiv. 1). The power “ from the north ” (i. 13 sq. ; 
 111,185 iv. 65 vi. 22; x. 225 xiii. 20; xvi. 15; 
 xxiii. 8),4 subsequently defined as the Chaldeans 
 
 z See Canon Cheyne, Jer., his Life, &c. pp. 31-35. 
 
 4 Possibly his earliest appearance as a writer. Some, 
 but without sufficient grounds, identify Lam. iv. with 
 this elegy. 
 
 b Observe, however, that he is not called a δ") till 
 
 ik 
 
 the great crisis of xxv. 2. 
 ¢ But Stade, Zeitschr. 7. A. JT. Wissensch. 1886, 
 
 p. 123 sq., makes n3by)=dominion, ie. a general ex- 
 
 pression for the heavenly powers (sun, moon, and stars). 
 ἃ These passages have been supposed by some to 
 
 tefer to the Scythian invasion (Herod. i. 103, &c.), _ 
 
JEREMIAH 
 
 (xxv. 9), shall consummate the work of 
 destruction. Nevertheless, for the people of 
 God, redemption shall at length succeed punish- 
 ment (iv. 27; v.18; xvi. 14, 15; xxiii. 8; xxv. 
 125 xxvii. 22; xxix. 10; xxx. ὃ; xxxii. 37); while 
 for their enemies victory shall be followed by 
 judgment (li.). 
 
 (iii.) His relations to the kings subsequent to 
 Josiah. There was now no longer even a sem- 
 blance of observance paid to Josiah’s covenant ; 
 while those who attributed the king’s death to 
 the anger of the gods, whose shrines he had 
 overthrown at the Prophet’s instigation, were 
 naturally full of wrath against Jeremiah for the 
 supposed results of his policy. 
 
 Of Shallum’s brief reign Jeremiah speaks 
 with kindness and sorrow (xxii. 10-12). Con- 
 trast the stern rebuke administered to his suc- 
 cessor (vv. 13-19). 
 
 Jehoiakim, hitherto called Eliakim, the eldest 
 son, succeeds (2 K. xxiii. 34), and now Jere- 
 miah occupies a very important position. The 
 favour of the court was no longer, as in the days 
 of Josiah, on the side of the godly. Self-indul- 
 gence, covetousness, the shedding of innocent 
 blood, violence, the exaction of forced labour 
 and of exorbitant tribute, these (xxii. 13, 14, 17) 
 were Jehoiakim’s characteristics. The Prophet, 
 in charging him with these sins, exasperates also 
 the priests and false prophets. Between him 
 and them it is henceforth war ἃ outrance, 
 Persecution from his own people (xi. 19) is now 
 (xxvi. 7-24, probably=vii.) followed by an 
 attempt at his judicial murder in Jerusalem. 
 
 Jeremiah illustrated his declaration that “ al] 
 these lands are given into the hands of Nebu- 
 chadnezzar,” God’s “servant ” (xxv. 9, xxvii. 6 ; 
 ep. xliii. 10 and Ezek. xxix. 18-20), by the 
 symbol of the moulding and remoulding of the 
 potter’s clay, and by the solemn breaking of an 
 earthen vessel] in the valley of Hinnom, in pre- 
 sence of the chief of the priests and people 
 (xviii., xix.). This excited the wrath of Pashur, 
 son of Immer (to be distinguished from the 
 Pashur son of Melchiah, of xxi. 1), who had 
 assumed to himself the functions of a prophet, 
 but “prophesied lies” (xx. 6) in the name 
 of the Lord. At his hands Jeremiah underwent 
 ignominious treatment (xx. 2), including appa- 
 rently imprisonment for a time. 
 
 In regard both to the history of the East and 
 
 to Jeremiah’s prophetic life, the fourth year of 
 
 Jehoiakim (B.c. 604), as the year of Nebuchad- 
 nezzar’s victory over Pharaoh-neco at Carche- 
 mish, was a turning-point.° There are few 
 things in history so remarkable as the rapidity 
 of the rise of the Chaldean power (Hab. i. 5, 6). 
 “Tn 3B.c, 609 Babylon had still two seemingly 
 vigorous rivals, Assyria and Egypt; in B.c. 604 
 it had the undisputed mastery of the Βαβι. ἢ 
 
 seeing that Babylon is not north, but rather south-east of 
 Palestine. That invasion, however, was too early (circ. 
 B.C. 635) to be referred to here, as is also shown by the 
 language of iii. 18, v.19. The recollection of these in- 
 roads, and those of other savage bands, more or less 
 subject to the Assyrian and Babylonian powers, may, 
 however, have affected the form (“ from the north ”’) of 
 his prophecy. 
 
 e «Bpochemachend in Geschichte und Weissagung,”’ 
 Orelli in Strack’s Kurzgef. Comm. 
 
 f Cheyne, Introd. to Jer., Pulpit Comm. p. v. 
 
 JEREMIAH 1567 
 
 Ch. xxv., Jeremiah’s earliest closely dated 
 prophecy (v. 1), was delivered apparently 
 between the news of the victory and the arrival 
 of the Chaldean army beneath the walls of 
 Jerusalem. The special detail which marks the 
 introduction to xxv., the definite date, the 
 application to himself of the title Prophet 
 (N23) for the first time, and the compre- 
 
 hensive glance which he casts at his whole 
 previous ministry, all show that he considers 
 this to form a decided crisis. Accordingly he 
 apparently reckons the seventy years’ servitude 
 (xxv. 11, xxix. 10; cp. xxvil 7) as beginning 
 from this time. 
 
 Nebuchadnezzar plunders the Temple of its 
 sacred vessels, carries away Daniel and others to 
 Babylon (2 Ch, xxxvi. 6, 7 ; Dan. i. 3), and then, 
 hearing of his father’s illness, hastens his 
 return, in order to secure the throne. The 
 Jews failed to profit by the warning, and in the 
 fifth> year (B.c. 593) of Jehoiakim (xxxvi.) 
 Jeremiah, himself hidden in some retreat from 
 the expected wrath of the king, sent his trusted 
 follower Baruch with a roll‘ to be read in the 
 Temple on a fast day in the ears of all the 
 people. The substance of it was reported to the 
 king; the roll was fetched by his order, and read 
 before him: whereupon, in spite of the inter- 
 cession of certain of the princes, Jehoiakim 
 burned it piece by piece. Baruch then at the 
 Prophet’s dictation wrote and communicated to 
 the king another roll, containing in addition to 
 the contents of the former a rebuke to him for 
 his impious act, and further announcements of 
 God’s vengeance. 
 
 To this time is most fitly to be referred the 
 acted symbol of the linen girdle (xiii.).* Com- 
 mentators differ on the question whether Jere- 
 miah on this occasion actually visited the 
 Euphrates or not. On behalf of the former 
 view, which on the whole appears the more 
 probable (so Keil, Naegelsbach, Orelli), it is 
 pointed out that (i.) the narrative is apparently 
 quite straightforward and meant to be taken 
 literally ; (ii.) in fact Jeremiah may well have 
 been at or near Babylon in the later years of 
 
 Ε See remarks in Naegelsbach’s Jntrod. p. 5. 
 
 h The LXX. reads ‘‘ eighth,” which agrees with the 
 statement of Josephus that Jehoiakim paid tribute to 
 Nebuchadnezzar in his eighth year, viewed in con- 
 nexion with 2 K. xxiv. 1, “‘In his days Nebuchadnezzar 
 king of Babylon came up, and Jehoiakim became his 
 servant three years,” 1.6. till his rebellion towards the 
 close (eleventh year) of his reign. That rebellion was 
 naturally followed by the siege, which, however, actually 
 fell in the short reign of his successor. See Cheyne, 
 Pulpit Comm. on xxxvi. 9 (where, however, the order 
 of the vassalage and rebellion is accidentally trans- 
 posed), and Gritz, Monatsschrift, &c., Bd. xxiii. p. 300. 
 
 i The word nba) occurs only in Jeremiah and later 
 
 Books (Ezek. ii. 9, iii. 1; Zech. v.1, 2). Ps. xl. 8 is a 
 possible exception. The prophecy as read on this oc- 
 casion probably consisted of the main part of ch. xxv. 
 Cp. the contents of that chapter with the statement in 
 xxxvi. 29. So Cheyne, and Gratz, Monatssch. Bd. 
 xxiii. 298 sq. 
 
 k The date (at the close or immediately after the 
 reign of Jehoiakim) is almost certainly settled by the 
 mention in v. 18 of ‘*the queen (mother),’’ Nehushta, 
 carried captive to Babylon with her son Jehoiachin 
 (xxix. 2). Some, however, take her to be Jedidah (2 K. 
 xxii. 1), mother of Josiah. 
 
1568 
 
 Jehoiakim’s reign, as we have no account of him 
 during that period; (iii.) Jonah and probably 
 Nahum had been there; (iv.) Jeremiah may 
 have desired for his country’s sake to become 
 acquainted with its destined conquerors; (v.) 
 if his visit was subsequent to the first depor- 
 tation of Jews (third year of Jehoiakim, Dan. i. 1), 
 he may have had the further object of visiting 
 Ezekiel or Daniel. The former Prophet, as 
 associated with Jeremiah at Jerusalem during 
 the earlier part of Jehoiakim’s reign, shows in 
 his teaching many traces of Jeremiah’s in- 
 fluence ;! (vi.) the kindly feeling shown towards 
 him by Nebuchadnezzar at the capture of Jeru- 
 salem points to an earlier acquaintance, Against 
 the view are pleaded (by Graf, Rosenmiiller, and 
 others), (i.) the absence of the usual prefix “ the 
 river”’; (ii.) the silence of the narrative as to the 
 length of the journey ; (iii.) the absence of rocks 
 on the Euphrates; (iv.) the needlessness of going 
 so far merely to prove that a girdle buried in 
 the ground would become unfit for use. Hence 
 Ewald and Birch have both suggested, instead of 
 Euphrates, Forah (involving however a change 
 of the text from NB to 118), a few miles 
 
 N.E. of Jerusalem and of Anathoth, Birch 
 (Quart. Statement, PEF. Oct. 1880, p. 236) 
 identifying it with the Parah of Josh. xviii. 23. 
 Others (e.g. Bochardt, Venema, Dathe, Hitzig) 
 holdthat NNB=NIAS = Bethlehem, or the Beth- 
 
 lehem district with its limestone hills. It 
 is best, however, to take the word in its literal 
 sense. The river which runs through Babylon, 
 about to be the city of exile, is naturally chosen 
 as that on the banks of which the girdle should 
 rot. Jeremiah and Baruch probably found it 
 unsafe to return till the close of the reign of 
 Jehoiakim, who came to a violent end and a dis- 
 honoured burial in accordance with Jeremiah’s 
 prophecy (xxii. 18, 19; cp. xxxvi. 30). 
 
 Jehoiachin (= Jeconiah of xxiv. 1, xxvii. 20, 
 xxviii. 4, xxix. 2; 1 Ch. iii. 16; Esth. ii. 6, and 
 =Coniah™ of xxii. 24, 28, xxxvii. 1), his son, 
 succeeded to the throne (B.C. 597) at the age of 
 eighteen® (2 K. xxiv. 8), and, like Jehoahaz, 
 reigned but three months. Of Jeremiah’s prophe- 
 cies undoubtedly relating to this reign (excluding 
 therefore xiii.), we have only his lament over 
 the king’s fate in xxii. 24-30. 
 
 Mattaniah, Josiah’s youngest son, was placed 
 on the throne by the king of Babylon, and as- 
 sumed the name of Zedekiah, “the righteousness 
 of the Lord,” apparently meant to identify him 
 with the teaching of xxiii. 6, however sad and 
 pathetic was to be the contrast with such aspira- 
 tions which was afforded by the history of his 
 reign. He was well meaning, but utterly weak, 
 a “poor roi fainéant.”° His whole reign was 
 spent in a policy of vacillation between the 
 course urged by the Prophet and the suggestions 
 of the princes. To this time belongs Jeremiah’s 
 letter of advice (xxix. 4-23) to the exiles, in 
 which he counsels them to submit, and await 
 restoration. The letter is received at Babylon 
 with much indignation on the part of the false 
 
 JEREMIAH 
 
 1 Cp. Ezek. xiii. and Jer. xxiii. 9 sq.3 Ezek. xviii. 2 
 and Jer. xxxi. 29; Ezek. xxxiv. 11-13 and Jer. xxxiii. 
 
 m All three names mean, ‘‘ The Lord will establish.” 
 
 n 2 Ch. xxxvi. 9 says eight, probably by a scribe’s 
 error. 
 
 © Cheyne’s Jer., his Life, &c. p. 160. 
 
 JEREMIAH 
 
 prophets (see xxix. 25-32, and cp. m1. 24; 2 K. 
 xxv. 18). There was an impression prevalent 
 both at Jerusalem (xxviii. 1-11) and at Babylon 
 (xxix.), that Jehoiachin and the rest would soon 
 return from exile. It was probably in conse- 
 quence of this, and as an act of homage to 
 Nebuchadnezzar, that Zedekiah in the fourth 
 year of his reign (B.C. 593) visited Babylon 
 (li. 59, but the LXX. text does not make him 
 visit that city). On that occasion Jeremiah 
 sends by Seraiah, Baruch’s brother (ep. xxxii. 
 12), the prophecy (]., li. 1-58) of the over- 
 throw of the city that now holds his countrymen 
 captive. 
 
 A Chaldean army now (Β.σ. 589) approached 
 Jerusalem. The wealthiest of the people (in 
 particular probably those in the rural parts), 
 who had apparently long taken advantage of the 
 distressed condition of their land to enslave their 
 brethren, consented under this pressure (xxxiv. 
 8-10) to release them. But on the departure 
 of the besieging army to meet that of Pharaoh- 
 Hophra, which was thought to be about to 
 attempt the raising of the siege, the princes with- 
 drew their boon from the manumitted (v. 11), 
 an act which Jeremiah denounced in the strongest 
 terms (vv. 17-22). The Prophet had already 
 several years previously (xxvii. 2) appeared in the 
 streets with a yoke upon his neck to symbolize 
 the impending servitude of the nation ; and when 
 Hananiah, who had prophesied deliverance in 
 two years (xxviii. 3), had broken the yoke, 
 Jeremiah foretold his speedy death (vv. 16, 17). 
 His attempt during a temporary absence of the 
 besiegers, by a visit to Anathoth, to secure him- 
 self in the possession of a portion of land near 
 that. town (xxxvii. 12)? gave his enemies the 
 opportunity of seizing ‘him and putting him in 
 prison as a deserter (vv. 13-16). There he was 
 visited by Zedekiah, and after “many days” set 
 at liberty, and given a daily supply of food (v. 21). 
 Although still declaring the speedy overthrow 
 of Jerusalem, he also foretold plainly its restora- 
 tion (xxxii. 15; xxxiii. 11, 15-18), and gave 
 practical proof of his belief that brighter days 
 were in store for his countrymen.t But the 
 captains, unmoved by these distant prospects, 
 cast the Prophet into a miry cistern, to be 
 presently rescued by Ebed-melech, an Ethiopian 
 eunuch (vv. 7-13), whose foreign birth kept him 
 clear of all temptation to hostile feelings. 
 Another interview followed, first with the 
 feeble-minded king (xxxviii. 14), and then with 
 Pashur (son of Melchiah, to be distinguished 
 from the son of Immer of xx. 1), and Zephaniah 
 (xxi. 1 sq.), sent by the king to ask for ἃ 
 further declaration of the future. To this date 
 belong the utterances of mingled warnings and 
 hope contained in chs. xxi.—xxiv. 
 
 At length in the eleventh year of Zedekiah 
 (B.C. 586) the city was sacked, the Temple burnt, 
 and the king and his attendants taken prisoners 
 while in the act of flight (xxxix.: ep. lii.; 2 K. 
 xxy.). At Riblah (xxxix. 5; ep. xxxii. 4 and 
 
 P This seems the best explanation. The Hebrew is 
 difficult. 
 
 a His purchase (cp. Livy, xxvi. 11) of a portion of a 
 field for seventeen shekels (about £2 2s. 6d., but repre- 
 senting a much larger amount according to the present 
 value of money) shows us that Jeremiah could not even 
 
 then have been in needy circumstances. 
 
JEREMIAH 
 
 xxxiv. 3) Zedekiah’s sons are slain in his presence, 
 and, his eyes being then put out (xxxix. 6, 7 ; cp. 
 Ezek. xii. 13), he is brought to Babylon and 
 immured in a dismal dungeon, apparently till 
 his death." As for Jeremiah, he was rescued 
 from the court of the guard (A. V. “ prison”), 
 taken in chains with the other captives to 
 Ramah, and offered his choice of remaining under 
 Gedaliah, the new governor, or living in an 
 honourable captivity at Babylon. The Prophet 
 adopted the former course, as we should expect, 
 inasmuch as Gedaliah was son of Ahikam and 
 grandson of Shaphan, the friend of Hilkiah the 
 high-priest (xl. 5: cp. xxxvi. 10; 2 K. xxii. 12). 
 But within two months " Gedaliah was murdered 
 by Ishmael, a prince of the blood royal. 
 
 From Tahpanhes, a town near the E. border of 
 Lower Egypt, whither he had evidently been 
 carried by his fellow-countrymen, we draw the 
 last certain notice which we possess of his life 
 (between B.c. 585 and 572). He declares that 
 Nebuchadnezzar’s throne shall be set up at the 
 entry of Pharaoh’s house (sliii. 9, 10),‘ and 
 makes a dying protest (xliv.) against the 
 idolatrous moon-worship practised by his 
 countrymen. We have no notice in the Scrip- 
 tures of his death." 
 
 (iv.) Arrangement of the Contents. The pro- 
 phecies of Jeremiah cover a period of at least 
 some thirty years, and, in the shape in which 
 they have come down to us, in the main ap- 
 proximate to a chronological order, but with 
 some very marked exceptions, where the group- 
 ing of prophecies of various dates may be 
 accounted for by resemblances in subject-matter 
 or other considerations. Prophecies uttered in 
 the reign of Zedekiah occur in the midst of 
 those relating to Jehoiakim. The Jewish cap- 
 tives carried to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar are 
 addressed in words of comfort several chapters 
 earlier than the mention of the announce- 
 ment made to Jehoiakim that that exportation 
 is imminent, while most, if not all, of the pro- 
 phecies concerning foreign nations (xlvi—li.) 
 were delivered before the final overthrow of the 
 city and kingdom. 
 
 The following is an approximation to a chro- 
 nological arrangement of the contents of the 
 Book* :— 
 
 r For the deportations recorded in Jeremiah and 
 2 Kings, see Gardiner’s Introd. to Ezekiel in Bp. 
 Ellicott’s 0. 7. Comm. for Eng. Readers. 
 
 5 Gritz, however, Monatssch. Bd. 19, pp. 268 sq., Shows 
 reasons for believing that the interval was much longer, 
 and puts it at five years. See Pulpit Comm. (Cheyne) 
 on xii. 1. 
 
 t For a very interesting description of ‘‘ Pharaoh’s 
 house in Tahpanhes,” see article in the Times (since 
 reprinted), June 18, 1886. See also for a translation of 
 a contemporary Egyptian inscription, said to supply 
 evidence of an actual conquest of Egypt by Nebu- 
 chadnezzar, Wiedeman in Zeitschrift fiir <Aegypt. 
 _ Sprache, 1878, i. 2 sq., or Cheyne on xlvi. 13; and 
 ep. Rey. P. Thomson, Zzpositor, 1st Ser. vol. x. (1879), 
 397 sq. 
 
 u See traditional (Christian and Jewish) notices 
 brought together in Camb. Bible for Schools, &c., 
 Jeremiah, Appendix,’ Note I. References to Jeremiah 
 in Apocryphal books are, Ecclus. xlix. 7; 2 Mace. ii. 
 1-7, xv. 12-16. 
 
 x For a very full analysis, see Naegelsbach, Introd. 
 p. 129. 
 
 BIBLE DICT.—VOL. I. 
 
 JEREMIAH 1569 
 Chaps. 
 
 i-xii. . . Josiah, 
 xiv.-xx. . Jehoiakim. 
 xxvi. . Ist year of Jehoiakim. 
 =XV.. 5 Py ds gee os 
 xivi.-xlixy . wae fs 
 XXXV., XXXVi. . » " 
 Χὶν.. ae ” ” 
 mtg ὦ . Jehoiachin. 
 po a . (Ὁ lst year of) Zedekiah. 
 ΣΉ < Oey arr ᾿ a 
 Liege Uel Se . 4th year of Zedekiah. 
 xxviii. . a Fn Ἂ 
 xxi.-xxiv.2 oth ,, sf 
 XEXVs nahn F ay 
 XEXvil 3 < . 9th (10th) year of Zedekiah. 
 xxx.-xxxiii. . 10th year of Zedekiah. 
 
 XExvills, ἐπ 
 ΠΣ ΝΞ 
 xxxix.—xliv. 
 
 ” ΕΣ 
 
 ‘a ” 
 . lith as 
 . Period of exile. 
 
 Such being the arrangement of the contents, 
 we are supplied by xxxvi. 2, 32 with a clue to 
 the explanation, and shown the nucleus of the 
 present Book, although, as we see from the 
 above Table, i—xxxvi. cannot have been wholly 
 contained in the roll. It is probable that at 
 some earlier period than that treated of in 
 xxxvi., Jeremiah had written the substance of 
 one or more discourses, which would no doubt 
 be incorporated by him with what was new 
 in the roll.* Again, by the close of Zedekiah’s 
 reign, much fresh matter was ready to be intro- 
 duced into the Book. The circumstances of the 
 times might well prevent it from being inserted 
 in chronological order. The duty of compiling 
 and issuing the prophecies fell, we may conjec- 
 ture, to Baruch, and so we have certain portions 
 of Jeremiah’s later prophecies (xiii., xxi., &c.) 
 inserted in the earlier roll. Thus the very lack 
 of order, so far as it exists, serves a valuable 
 end, as making it at least probable that we 
 possess the Prophet’s words, not as modelled and 
 fitted to men’s notions by a subsequent genera- 
 tion, but as they fell from the inspired lips 
 themselves, and as put together in the same 
 troublous days in which they were spoken. 
 
 B. Character—Jeremiah may well be con- 
 sidered as the most interesting of the Prophets, 
 because, unlike the others, he opens to us the 
 inmost recesses of his mind.» The various 
 qualities which made up the man are quickly 
 and easily gathered from his own lips. His 
 office was to utter and reiterate warnings, 
 though all the time sensible that the sentence 
 of condemnation was passed and intercession of 
 no avail (vii. 16; xiv. 11,12; xv.1). His work 
 was not to persuade, but rather to testify. And 
 yet he was by nature of a shy and timid dis- 
 position; and, further, he seems, at one time at 
 least, to have asked himself, had he the creden- 
 tials granted to his predecessors and marking a 
 true Prophet? No miracle was wrought to 
 attest his words. No prediction of his was 
 
 y Except xlvi. 13-28. . . Period of exile. 
 » Xlix. 34-39 . . 1st year of Zedekiah. 
 
 z But originally spoken at various times. See xxii. 1. 
 
 » Perhaps with a certain amount of adaptation of 
 earlier notices (e.g. of the Scythian invasion) to later 
 events. 
 
 b “His life is at once the most natural and the most 
 supernatural in the Old Testament.’’ (Cheyne’s Jer., &c. 
 
 p- 36.) 
 5 H 
 
1570 JEREMIAH 
 
 fulfilled with speed. Such is the bitterness of 
 his sufferings that he resolves to keep silence, 
 and yet he cannot (xx. 8, 9). He has been 
 likened (a) to Cassandra, whose predictions, 
 though always true, failed to gain credence ; 
 (Ὁ) to Phocion and to Demosthenes, who main- 
 tained that, if Athens were to escape worse 
 evils, she must submit to the growing power of 
 Macedon ; (c) to Dante, inasmuch as Florence 
 was in relation to France and the Empire as 
 Palestine to Egypt and Babylon, while the poet, 
 like the Prophet, could only protest without 
 effect; (d) to Milton and (6) to Savonarola.° Yet 
 throughout all he heartily loved his people 
 (viii. 21, 22; cp. 2 Mace. xv. 14), even extend- 
 ing this affection to the northern kingdom a 
 century after their exile (iii. 11).¢ 
 
 His style corresponds closely with what we 
 should expect from his nature and position. It 
 displays (a) absence of ornament ;° (Ὁ) frequent 
 repetition ;* (c) numerous parallels in thought 
 and phraseology with prophetical and other 
 Books, especially with Deuteronomy; (4) fre- 
 quent use of images by way of illustration, 
 including sometimes a peculiar way of mingling 
 the image and the thing signified; (6) onomato- 
 poeia and play on words; (/) insertion of a 
 bright thought among gloomy ones. 
 
 The following passages of Jeremiah either are 
 quoted in the N. T. (distinguished by italics), 
 or contain germs of N. T. thoughts:—iv. 3, 
 Matt. xiii. 7 sq.3; vii. 11, Matt. xxi. 13 (ep. 
 Luke xix. 46); viii. 8, Matt. xxiii. 3 sq.; 
 viii. 13, Luke xiii. 6-9 (cp. Matt. xxi. 19); 
 ix. 4, Matt. x. 36; ix. 20, Luke xxiii. 27, 28; 
 ix.‘ 24, 1 Cor.'i. 31, 2 Cor. x. 173 ix. 25, 26, 
 Rom. ii. 25-29; wi. 20, Rev. ii. 23; xii. 6, Matt. 
 xii. 57 (cp. Luke iv. 24, John iv. 44); xiii. 16, 
 John xi. 10, xii. 355; xiv. 8, Acts xxviii. 20; 
 xvii. 16 (possibly, though with change in ap- 
 plication of the figure), Matt. iv. 19; xvii. 13, 
 John viii. 6; xxv. 10, Rev. xvili. 22, 23; 
 φωτὶ, 15, Matt. ii. 18; xxxi. 31-34, Heb. viii. 
 8-12 (cp. Matt. xxvi. 28; John vi. 45, 1 Cor. 
 xi. 25, 2 Cor. iii. 3-6); 1. 8, li. 6, 45, Rev. 
 xviii. 4; li. 7, Rev. xiv. 8, xvii. 4, 53 li. 25, 
 Rey. viii. 8.5 
 
 In our Lord’s time one of the phases which 
 Messianic hope had assumed was the belief that 
 Jeremiah’s work on earth was not yet done, and 
 Deut. xviii. 18 seems to have been thought to 
 refer to him. See Matt. xvi. 14, and cp. John 
 i, 21, vi. 14, vii. 40. 
 
 Jeremiah’s attitude to the Ceremonial Law and 
 the Sabbath—His unvarying theme is that in 
 God’s sight the Moral always takes precedence 
 of the Ceremonial Law.2 This he applies to the 
 people’s reverence for the Ark (iii. 16) and the 
 Tables of the Law (xxxi. 31 sq.; cp. xxxii. 40), 
 to circumcision (iv. 4, vi. 10, ix. 26), to the 
 
 ¢ See Cheyne, Jer., &c., p. 203, 
 
 ἃ Naegelsbach, p. 7. 
 
 © Contrast the artificial style of Habakkuk, as a 
 Prophet of about the same period, and see for further 
 remarks on this point Ewald, Hist. of Isr. iv. 282 sq. 
 
 7 See Speaker’s Comm., Introd. to Jer., p. 326. 
 
 5 For Matt. xxvii. 9, see Lightfoot, Hor. Hebr., and 
 Expositor, 3rd Series, vol. iii. (1886), p. 151. 
 
 h Laxity, however, in Sabbath observance (cp. Ezek. 
 xx. 12-24, Neh. xiii. 15-22) is sharply rebuked in xvii. 
 19-27. 
 
 JEREMIAH 
 
 Temple (vii. 4, 10sq.; xi. 15; xvii. 3; xxvi. 6, 
 9, 12; xxvii. 16), to sacrifices (vi. 20, vii. 21 sq., 
 xi. 15, xiv. 12). His language in reference to 
 these last in vii. 21, 22 has been thought by 
 some (e.g. Graf, Kuenen) inconsistent with the 
 traditional date of their institution. But (i.) 
 regularly instituted sacrifices are expressly men- 
 tioned, xxxiii. 18 (wv. 14-26 of this ch. are 
 however omitted in LXX.), as well as referred 
 to in the passages quoted above and in xvii. 26, 
 xxxi, 14, xxxili. 11; (ii.) Hosea (iv. 8, vi. 6, viii. 
 11-13) and Amos (iv. 4, 5; ν. 21-25) and 
 Micah (vi. 6), all Prophets prior in date to 
 Jeremiah, testify the same; (iii.) the frequent 
 censure of sacrifice, when offered as a perfunctory 
 task, shows that an institution, on the efficacy 
 of which men placed such reliance, was a power- 
 ful one ; (iv.) the discovery of the “ book of the 
 law” (whatever portion of the “Books of 
 Moses” it may have included) some, probably 
 many, years before this prophecy, together with 
 the feeling which it produced, is opposed to 
 such a supposition, The passage is therefore, 
 like vi. 20a, an exaggeration for the sake of 
 rhetorical effect. Jeremiah’s phraseology‘ seems 
 to make it clear that he had in his mind the 
 promulgation of the Decalogue. There we find 
 no direction concerning sacrifice, and, moreover, 
 it was the only body of precepts which was 
 treasured in the Ark, and thus from the first 
 received the place of honour. Cp. further for 
 the thought of this passage, 1 Sam. xy. 22; 
 Ps. xl. 6 sq., 1. 8-15, li. 18, 19; Prov. xxi. 27; 
 Is. lviii. 3 sq., Ixvi. 3. 
 
 Other references in Jeremiah to the enact- — 
 ments of the Law are: xvi. 6 (see also vii. 29, 
 xli. 5, ep: Lev. xix. 28, xxi. 5, Deut. xiv. 1; 
 xxxii. 7, cp. Lev. xxv. 24, 25; xxxiv. 8, cp. Ex. § 
 xxi. 2, Lev. xxv. 39-55, Deut. xv. 12. To these 
 may be added xxxiv. 18, 9, cp. Gen. xy. 10. 
 
 We may further note that in many of the 
 passages where the Law is mentioned, the Pro- 
 phet is more or less certainly describing the oral 
 teaching given by priests (Deut. xvii. 11) and 
 prophets to those who consulted them on points 
 of ritual or practice.* See for this sense ii. 8, 
 ix. 13, xviii. 18, xxvi. 4, 5. 
 
 The Messianic passages——The most striking 
 illustration of the Prophet’s tendency (remarked 
 on above) to insert a bright thought among 
 gloomy ones, is undoubtedly to be found in the 
 fact that at the most terrible period of his 
 country’s fortunes his Messianic hopes are 
 clearest in their expression. Those hopes are — 
 gathered round (a) the Davidic house, (6) Jeru- 
 salem. 
 
 “In those days” (iii. 16, v. 18, xxxiii. 16, 
 1, 20) was the ordinary phrase for the times of 
 the Messiah. Cp. “the days come” in xxiii. 
 5 sq. 
 
 The chief Messianic passages are deserving of 
 close study, as indicating the gradually increasing 
 clearness of the hope. They are as follows: 
 (i.) xvii. 25, 26 ; (ii.) xxiii. 5-8"; (111.) xxx. 9; 
 
 i This appears from v. 23, where we find an expres- 
 sion, ‘‘in all the ways,’ which occurs elsewhere only 
 immediately after “the Ten Words” as given in Deut. 
 (Vv. 33). 
 
 k See Cheyne on viii. 8. 
 
 1 Ewald, v. 32. 
 
 m See Cheyne on 2. 6, 
 
JEREMIAH 
 
 (iv.) xxx. 21, (v.) xxxiii. 14-18 (not however in 
 LXX.). A passage inadmissible to this list is 
 xxxi. 31-44 (so, too, xxxi. 22), except in so far 
 as its thought attains completion only in the 
 Incarnation of the Divine Son." 
 
 Jeremiah viewed as a type of Christ.—St. 
 Jerome (on Jer. xxiii. 9) says that this Prophet 
 prefigured Christ (i.) as leading a single life, 
 (ii.) as a Prophet, (iii.) as sanctified from the 
 womb, (iv.) in his name, the Lord’s exalted one. 
 To state the parallel further in the words of a 
 modern writer®?:—‘In both there is the same 
 early manifestation of the consciousness of a 
 Divine mission (Luke ii. 49)... His protests 
 against the priests and prophets are the fore- 
 runners of the woes against the scribes and 
 Pharisees (Matt. xxiii.). His lamentations over 
 the coming miseries of his country answer to 
 the tears that were shed over the Holy City by 
 the Son of Man. His sufferings come nearest, 
 ot those of the whole army of martyrs, to those 
 of the Teacher, against Whom princes and priests 
 and elders and people were gathered together. 
 He saw more clearly than others that New 
 Covenant, with all its spiritual gifts of life and 
 power, which was proclaimed and ratified in the 
 death upon the Cross.” 
 
 6. BrBuiocgRAPHY. (Works marked thus* 
 include the Lamentations.) 
 
 Patristic.—Origen, Homilies, Migne, xiii.; Id. 
 Hom. on Jer., Venice, 1513.? St. Jerome (1.-- 
 xxxii. only), Migne, xxiy., and Version of 
 Origen’s Hom., Migne, xxv. *Ephrem Syrus, 
 Petrus Benedictus, Rome, 1740. St. Paterius, 
 Testimonia in J., Migne, |xxix.. *Theodoret, 
 Migne, lxxxi. (omits Lam. v.). St. Isidorus 
 Hisp., Prooemia de J. libro, Migne, 1]xxxiii. 
 *Rabanus Maurus, Migne, cxi. Walafrid Strabo, 
 Migne, cxiv. St. Peter Dam., Migne, cxlv. 
 *Rupert v. Deutz, Migne, clxvii. A comm. by 
 St. Odo of Clugny, said (Watt’s Biblioth. Brit.) 
 to be preserved in the Clugny library. 
 
 Rabbinic.—Targum of Jonathan, with Kimchi, 
 in Rabb. Bible, first printed, Venice, 1517; 
 Ibid., with Rashi, Venice, 1524. Rashi on the 
 Prophets and other Books, Latine, J. F. Breit- 
 haupt, Gotha, 1714. *Moses Ὁ. Issachar the 
 Levite, Prague, 1604. Abarbanel, Amst., 1461. 
 S. Schmidt, Frankf., 1706. Moses al-Sheikh, 
 Mar’oth Hattzob’oth (on later Prophets), Jess- 
 nitz, 1720; IMWtzudoth David and MWtzudoth 
 Tziyyon, Berlin, 1770. Meir b. Isaac Arama, 
 Sepher Urim οὐ Thummim, a comm. on Is. and J., 
 Jer. ix. by David Ottenzoser, xi. to end by 
 Schalom Hacohen; it also contains Rashi’s and 
 Midlal Jophi’s Comm., Fiirth, 1810. Abraham 
 Dob (Bir) Lebensohn, Biurim Chadashim, Wilna, 
 1858. Moses b. Shesheth, ed. by 5. R. Driver, 
 London, 1871. See also *Jacob b. Isaac of 
 Janowa, Proph. § Hugiogr., Amst., 1699; Ibid., 
 ed. by H. Arnheim, M. Sachs, J. Fuerst, and 
 L. Zunz, Firth, 1842-7. 
 
 Romanist.—*Th. Aquinas, Parma, 1852-1868. 
 Joy(e), Is. and J. tr. into Eng., Strasb. 1531; 
 
 Ὁ See Bruce in Expositor, 1st Ser., vol. xi. (1880), 
 p. 65. 
 
 9 In art. Jeremiah in Ist edit. of this Dict. of Bible 
 (Plumptre). 
 
 P This collection was also published under the name 
 of Cyril Alex. from a MS. of the Escurial by B. 
 Corderius, Antw. 1648. 
 
 ‘ JEREMIAH 1571 
 
 Id., J. tr., 1534. Joachim Floris (=J. Abbas), 
 Ven., 1525, and Col., 1577. Theodorus Grami- 
 neus, Col., 1577. Franc. Zichemius, Col., 1559. 
 Hector Pintus, Leyden, 1561. *Andreas Capella, 
 Tarracona, 1586. *Franc. Panicarola, Verona, 
 1586, Petrus Figueiro, Leyden, 1596, *Martin. 
 Anton, del Rio (Jesuit), Leyden, 1608. *Christof. 
 de Castro (Jesuit), Paris, 1609. Joh. Mal- 
 donatus, Paris, 1610. Joannes a Jesu Maria, 
 Co]l., 1611. Casp. Sanctius (Jesuit), Leyden, 
 1611. Bened. Mandina, Naples, 1620. *Mich. 
 Ghislerus, Leyden, 1623. Fabricius Paulutius, 
 Rome, 1625. Thomas de Beira, Lisbon, 1633. 
 Guillebert, Paris, 1644. *Thomas Malvenda, 
 Leyden, 1650. *J. G. Carpzovius, Leipzig, 
 1731. ἜΤ. A. Dereser, Frankf., 1869. 
 Reformed.i—M. Bucer, Ziirich, 1531. Η. 
 Zwinglius, Ziirich, 1531. *Joh. Oecolampadius, 
 Strasb., 1533. *Bugenhagius, Wittenb., 1546. 
 *Calvin, Geneva, 1563, &c. *Nicolaus Sel- 
 neccerus, Leipzig, 1565. Victorinus Strigelius, 
 Leipzig, 1566. *H. Bullinger, Ztirich, 1575. 
 Lucas Osiander, Tiib., 1578. Joh. Brent, Tiib., 
 1580. *Ludoy. Lavaterus, Geneva, 1581. *Dan. 
 Tossanus, Frankf., 1581. Joh. Pappus, Frankf., 
 1593. Hugh Broughton, Geneva, 1606. *Aman- 
 dus Polanus, Basel, 1608.  Jsaias, Jeremias, 
 Ezechiel et duodecim prophetae, hebraice et 
 latine, cura B, Aviae Montani, Antwerp, 1610. 
 *Joh. Piscator, Herborn, 1614. *Joh. Hiilse- 
 mann, Rudolphst., 1663. Joh. Forster, Wittenb., 
 
 1672. Abraham Calovius, Frankf., 1673. Seb. 
 Schmidt, Strasb., 1685. Jac. Altingius, Amst., 
 1685. Joh. Clericus, Amst., 1696. ᾿ Elbert 
 
 Noordbeck, Franeker. 1701. *W.Lowth, London, 
 1718 (2nd ed.). J. Friedrich Burscher, Leipzig, 
 1756. Hermann Venema, Lewarden, 1765. 
 Christ. Gottfr. Struensee, Halberstadt, 1777. 
 *Benj. Blayney, Oxford, 1784. *J. D. Michaelis, 
 ed. and enlarged by J. F. Schleusner, Gott., 
 1793. ©. F. Schnurrer)) Tub: 1793; ) Gels 
 Spohn, i., Leipzig, 1794; ii., ed. by F. A. G. 
 Spohn, Leipzig, 1824. <A. F. W. Leiste (in 
 Sylloge Commentationum Theologarum), Gott. 
 1794; Id., ed. and enlarged by Pott and Ruperti, 
 Helmst., 1801. Dathe, ed. by Rosenmiiller, 
 Leipzig, 1796. Hensler, Leipzig, 1805. Eich- 
 horn, Die hebr. Proph. (aw. Band, Jer. u. s. 
 Zeitgenossen), 1819. J. F. Gaab, Tiib., 1824. 
 Dahler (Jérémie), Strasb. 1825. Rosenmiiller, 
 Leipzig, 1826. Maurer, Leipzig, 1835. A. 
 Kueper, Berlin, 1837. F. B. Késter, Leipzig, 
 1838. J. L. Kénig, Berlin, 1839. Hitzig 
 (Handbuch), Leipzig, 1841, and (Die proph. 
 Biicher ἃ. A. T. itibersetzt) Leipzig, 1854. 
 Nigelsbach, Der proph. J. u. Babylon, Erlangen, 
 1850; Id., art. “ Jerenvia” in Herzog’s Real- 
 Encycl.; *Id., Der proph. J. (in Lange’s Bibel- 
 werk), Bielefeld and Leipzig, 1868, and Schaff’s 
 Eng. ed., Edinburgh, 1871. Umbreit, Hamburg, 
 1842. *Henderson, London, 1851, and Andover, 
 U.S.A., 1868. *Arts. Jer. and Lam. in Kitto’s 
 Cyclop., Edinb., 1856. Wilhelm Neumann, 
 Leipzig, 1858. S. Davidson, London, 1862. 
 C. H. Graf, Leipzig, 1862. J. Diedrich, Neu- 
 Ruppin, 1863. Ernst Meir, Stuttg., 1863. 
 E. H. Plumptre (Sm. Bibl. Dict.), 1863. F. Bleek 
 (2nd ed.), Berlin, 1865, tr. by G. H. Venables, 
 London, 1869. Hitzig, 1866. Keil and Delitzsch, 
 1868 (and in T. and T. Clark’s Library). G. R. 
 Noyes, Boston, U.S.A., 1868. H. Cowles, New 
 York, 1869. De Wette (8th ed.), Berlin, 1869. 
 b He 2 
 
1572 JEREMIAH 
 *Chr. Wordsworth, London, 1869. *Payne 
 Smith (Speaker’s Comm.), London, 1871. *J. M. 
 
 Fuller (Student’s Comm. = Speaker’s Comm. 
 abridged), London, 1872. *Keil, Leipzig, 1872 ; 
 Id., Clark’s Series, Edinb., 1873. F. Késtlin, 
 Berlin, 1879. Ant. Scholz, 1880. A. W. Streane 
 (in Camb. Bible for Schools), Camb., 1882. 
 T. K. Cheyne (in Pulpit Comm.), London, 1883. 
 E. H. Plumptre (in Bp, Eillicott’?s Comm.), Lon- 
 don, 1884. J. Knabenhauer, 1889. K. Marti, 
 Basel, 1889. (Ὁ. J. Ball (in ELxpositor’s Bible), 
 London, 1890. 5. R. Driver (in Introd. to Lit. 
 of O. T.), Edinburgh, 1891. 
 
 The following works may be added as bearing 
 on special branches of the subject, or on in- 
 dividual passages, or as otherwise illustrating 
 the Prophet’s teaching :— 
 
 Quinquarboreus (Cinq-arbres), Zargum of 
 Jonathan ὃ. Uzziel, ty. in Latin with notes, 1549, 
 Th. Nao-george (Kirchmayer), Hieremias, Tra- 
 goedia nova, Basel, 1551. H. Bullinger, Jn J. 
 sermonem primum (i.—vi.), &e., Ziirich, 1557. 
 Jeremias, Hebr. et Hispan., Thessal., 1569. 
 *Calvin, Praelectiones in Jer. et Lam., Geneva, 
 1589. *John Kromayer (A.D. 1576-1643), 
 Paraphrase on Jer. and Lam. in Bible of Weimar. 
 *John Aylmer, Musae Sacrae (Jer., Lam., and 
 Jonah in Greek verse), Oxford, 1652. Th. 
 Gataker, Annotations on Jer., Utrecht, 1653. 
 Tillemont (P. le Nain de, A.D. 1640-1713), Hom. 
 onJer. Geo. Calixtus, Scholia proph. ex Praelect. 
 in Is., Jer., &c., Quedlinburg, 1715. Fr. Joubert 
 (a priest of Montpellier, 1689-1763), Zaplana- 
 tions of the Prophecies of Jer. J. A. M. Nagel, 
 Dissert. in var. lect. 25 capp. priorum Jer., &c., 
 Altorf, 1772. Scholtz u. Bauer, Scholia in 
 V. T., Nuremberg, 1783. Mich. Weber, Jntem- 
 pestiva emendandae lectionis cura e Jer. illustrata, 
 Wittenb., 1785. G. L. Spohn, J. vates e versione 
 Judacorum Alex. emendatus, Leipzig, 1824. 
 Taco Roorda, Gréningen, 1824. N. L. Zinzen- 
 dorf, J. ein Prediger der Gerechtigheit, Berlin, 
 1830. Knobel, Jeremias Chaldaizans, 1831. 
 F. C. Movers, De utriusque recensione vat. J. 
 indole, &c., Hamburg, 1837. Heim u. Hoffmann, 
 Die vier grossen Proph. &c., Stuttg., 1839. 
 Rédiger, Ersch andjGruber’s Zncycl., art. “ Je- 
 remia.” ΚΕ. Kihl, Das Verhdltniss der Massora 
 zur LXX. in J. Ἐς Schwally, Die Reden d. Buches 
 J. gegen die Heiden. HUiivernick, Hinleitung, &c. 
 Caspari, J. ein Zeuge f. d. Aechtheit v. Is. xxxiv., 
 &e., in Zeitschr. f. Luth. Theol. in Kirche, 1843, 
 Wichelhaus, De J. Versione Alex., Halle, 1846. 
 Stahelin, in Zeitschr. d. deutsch Morgeni. Gesell., 
 1849. E. Meier, Gesch. d. poet. Nat. Lit., &c., 
 Leipzig, 1856 (pp. 385-409). F.E. Vilmar, Der 
 proph. J., Jena, 1869,.a preface to Beweis des 
 Glaubens. A. Kohler, Die Wirksamkeit d. proph. 
 J., &e., in Beweis d. Gl. Ant. Scholtz, Der Mas. 
 Text τ. die LXX. Uebers. d. pr. J., Ratisbon, 
 1875. Guthe, De foederis notione Jeremiana, 
 Leipzig, 1877. K. Zimmer, Aramaismi Jer., 
 Halle, 1880. L. A. Schneedorpher, Prague, 
 1881. W. Robertson Smith, The Prophets of 
 Israel, &c., Edinb., 1882. Graetz, a series of 
 arts. in Haegetische Stud. in Monatssch. f. Gesch. 
 u. Wiss. d. Jud., 1883, pp. 49 sq. C. H. Cornill 
 on ch. li. in Stade’s Zeitschr. f. A. T. Wiss., 
 1584, pp. 105 sq. F. Field on viii. 22, in Journal 
 of Phil. No. xxv. (1884), pp. 114 sq. Stade on 
 xxxii. 11-14, in his Zeitschr., &c., 1885, pp. 175 
 584. ; Id. on “ the Queen of Heaven” in Zeitsch. 
 
 JEREMOTH 
 
 1886, pp. 123 sq. H. P. Smith’s The Text of J. 
 in Hebraica, July 1887. T. K. Cheyne’s Jere- 
 miah, his Life and Times, London, 1888. G. C. 
 Workman, Zhe Text of Jer. &c., Edinb., 1889. 
 S. Baer, Masoretic text, with preface by Franz 
 Delitzsch, Leipzig, 1890. W.Campe, Das Ver- 
 hiltniss J. zu den Psalmen, Halle, 1891. 
 
 [A. W. S.J 
 
 JEREMI’AH. Seven other persons bearing 
 the same name as the Prophet are mentioned in 
 the O. T. 
 
 1, (Ἱερεμίας ; Jeremias.) Jeremiah of Lib- 
 nah, father of Hamutal, wife of Josiah (2 K. 
 xxiii. 31), 
 
 2, 3, 4. The Greek MSS. vary much in the 
 spelling of the name (see Swete in loco). Three 
 warriors—two of the tribe of Gad—in David’s 
 army (1 Ch. xii. 4, 10, 13). 
 
 5. (B. *lepueta.) One of the “mighty men 
 of valour” of the trans-Jordanic half-tribe of 
 Manasseh (1 Ch. v. 24). 
 
 6. (BA. Ἱερμιά; in xii. 34, A, Ἱερεμίας.) A 
 priest of high rank, head of the second or third 
 of the twenty-one courses which are apparently 
 enumerated in Neh. x. 2-8. He is mentioned 
 again, i.e. the course which was called after 
 him is, in Neh. xii. 1; and we are told at v. 12 
 that the personal name of the head of this 
 course in the days of Joiakim was HANANIAH. 
 This course, or its chief, took part in the dedica- 
 tion of the wall of Jerusalem (Neh. xii. 34). 
 
 7. (Iepeuly.) The father of Jaazaniah the 
 Rechabite (Jer. xxxv. 3). 
 
 JEREMI’AS (Ἱερεμίας, in Ecclus. A. ‘Inpe- 
 plas; Jeremias, Hieremias). 1. The Greek 
 form of the name of Jeremiah the Prophet, used 
 in the E. V. of Ecclus. xlix. 6; 2 Macc. xv. 15; 
 Matt. xvi. 14 (R. V. Jeremiah). [JEREMIAH ;_ 
 JEREMY. 
 
 2. 1 Esd. ix. 34. [JEREMAI.] 
 
 JERE’MOTH (nid) = heights). 1. (B. 
 Ἰαρειμώθ, A.’lapiuovd; Jerimoth). A Benjamite 
 chief, a son of the house of Beriah of Elpaal, 
 according to an obscure genealogy of the age of 
 Hezekiah (1 Ch. viii. 14; ep. vv. 12 and 18). 
 His family dwelt at Jerusalem, as distinguished 
 from the other division of the tribe, located at 
 Gibeon (υ. 28). ᾿ 
 
 2. (B. ᾿Αρειμώθ, A. Ἰαριμώθ; Jerimoth.) A 
 Merarite Levite, son of Mushi (1 Ch. xxiii. 23); 
 in xxiv. 30 called Jerimoth [Jermoru (4)]. 
 
 3. (B. ἸἹερεμώθ, Ἐρειμώθ: A. Ἰεριμούθ, Ἴερι- 
 oO: Jerimoth.) Son of Heman; head of the 
 15th of the twenty-four courses of musicians in 
 the Divine service (1 Ch. xxv. 22), Inv. 4 the 
 name is Jerimoth [JERIMOTH (5)]. 
 
 4, (B. Ἰαρειμοίθ, A. Ἰεριμώθ, XN. Ἰαριμώθ ; 
 Jerimoth.) One of the sons of Elam, and, 5. (B. 
 ᾿Αμών, A. Ἰαρμώθ, δὲ. ᾿Αρμών ; Jerimuth), one of 
 the sons of Zattu, who had taken strange wives; 
 but put them away, and offered each a ram for 
 a trespass offering, at the persuasion of Ezra 
 (Ezra x. 26, 27). In 1 Esd. ix. 27, 28 the 
 names are respectively HIEREMOTH and JARI- 
 MOTH. 
 
 6. (B. Μημών, NS. Μηνών, A. ‘Pnudd; Ramoth.) 
 The name which appears in the same list (Ezra 
 x.) as “and RamoruH” (v. 29)—following the 
 correction of the Qeri—is in the original text 
 
JEREMY 
 
 Jeremoth, in which form also it stands in 1 Esd. 
 ix. 30, Ἱερεμώθ, A. V. Hreremotu. [A. C. H.] 
 
 JEREMY (Ἱερεμίας ; in 2 Mace. ii. 7, A. 
 Ἱερεμείας ; Jeremias, Hieremias), the Prophet 
 Jeremiah (1 Esd. i. 28, 32, 47, 57, ii. 1; 
 2 Esd. ii. 18; 2 Mace. ii. 1, 5,7; Matt. ii. 17, 
 xxvii. 9, R. V. Jeremiah). (JEREMIAH ; JERE- 
 MIAS.] These abbreviated forms were much in 
 favour about the time that the A. V. was trans- 
 lated. Elsewhere we find Esay for Isaiah; and 
 in the Homilies such abbreviations as Zachary, 
 Toby, &c., are frequent. 
 
 JEREMY, EPISTLE OF. [Barucu, THE 
 Book oF.] 
 
 JERI AH ΟΠ", ἐσ. Yeri-yahu, (?)=fownda- 
 tion of Jehovah: B. Ἰδούδ, Ἰηδειμού; A. Ἰεριά, 
 Ἰεδιού : Jeriau), a Kohathite Levite, chief of the 
 great house of Hebron when David organised 
 the service (1 Ch. xxiii. 19, xxiv. 23: in the 
 latter passage the name of Hebron has been 
 omitted both in the Hebrew and LXX.). The 
 same man is mentioned again, though with a 
 slight difference in his name, as JERIJAH. 
 
 JERIBAL (12°, if=39=Jehovah de- 
 fends ; ᾿Ἰαριβί, B. Ἰαριβεί, A. Ἰαριβαΐ; Jeribat), 
 one of the Bene-Elnaam, named among the 
 
 heroes of David’s guard in the supplemental list 
 of 1 Ch. (xi. 46). 
 
 JERICHO (iN, Jrecho, Num. xxii. 1; 
 also 1M", Pricho, Josh. ii. 1, 2,3; and AM, 
 Prichoh, 1 K. xvi. 34; \s.)\, Eriha* ; “ place 
 of fragrance,” from M7, Ruach, “to breathe,” 
 mn, “to smell;” older commentators derive 
 it from ny, Jareach, “the moon”;” also from 
 AY, Ravach, “to be broad,” as in a wide plain : 
 Ἱεριχώ; B. Ἰερειχώ, exc. Ezra ii. 34, Ἰερειά ; 
 A. Ἰερειχώ, in 1 Ch. vi. 78, Ezra ii. 34, Neh. 
 iii, 2, vii. 86: Josephus, ‘Iepsxods; Strabo, 
 ‘Iepixods: Jericho), a city of high antiquity 
 and, for those days, of considerable importance, 
 situated near the foot of the mountains, in the 
 valley of the Jordan, and exactly over against 
 the point at which that river was crossed by the 
 Israelites under Joshua (Josh. iii. 16, xxiv. 11). 
 
 ch was either its vicinity, or the extent of 
 its territory, that Gilgal, which formed their 
 primary encampment, stood in its east border 
 (iv. 19). That it had a king is a very secondary 
 consideration, for almost every small town had 
 one (xii. 9-24); in fact monarchy was the only 
 form of government known to those primitive 
 times—the government of the people of God 
 presenting a marked exception to prevailing 
 usage. But Jericho was further enclosed by 
 - walls—a fenced city; its walls were so con- 
 siderable that at least one person (Rahab) had a 
 
 a Eriha comes from the Hebrew by weakening of the 
 first letter, as in the case of Zerin from Jezreel, and 
 Steimeh from Jesimoth. 
 
 b In which case it would probably be a remnant of 
 the old Canaanitish worship of the heavenly bodies, 
 which has left its traces in such names as Chesil, 
 Bethshemesh, and others (see IpoLarry, p. 1433), which 
 may have been the head-quarters of the worship in- 
 dicated in the names they bear. 
 
 JERICHO 1573 
 
 house upon them (ii. 15), and its gates were 
 shut, as throughout the East still, ‘ when it 
 was dark” (v. 5).. Again, the spoil that was 
 found in it betokened its affluence—Ai, Mak- 
 kedah, Libnah, Lachish, Eglon, Hebron, Debir, 
 and even Hazor, evidently contained nothing 
 worth mentioning in comparison : besides sheep, 
 oxen, and asses, we hear of vessels of brass and 
 iron. These possibly may have been the first- 
 fruits of those brass foundries “in the plain of 
 Jordan ” of which Solomon afterwards so largely 
 availed himself (2 Ch. iv. 17). Silver and gold 
 were found in such abundance that one man 
 (Achan) could appropriate stealthily 200 shekels 
 (100 oz, avoird.: see Lewis, Heb. Rep. vi. 57) of 
 the former, and “a wedge of gold of 50 shekels 
 (25 02.) weight.” A goodly Babylonish gar- 
 ment,” purloined in the same dishonesty, may 
 be adduced as evidence of a then existing com- 
 merce between Jericho and the far East (Josh. 
 vi. 24, vii. 21). In fact, its situation alone—at 
 the edge of a fertile plain, and close to an 
 abundant supply of water—would bespeak its 
 importance in a country where these natural 
 advantages have been always so highly prized, 
 and in an age when people depended so much 
 more upon the indigenous resources of nature 
 than they are compelled to do now. It was also 
 close to the entrance to the important passes 
 leading up through the hills to Jerusalem and 
 Bethel. But for the curse of Joshua (vi. 26) 
 doubtless Jericho might have proved a more 
 formidable counter-charm to the city of David 
 than even Samaria. 
 
 Jericho is first mentioned in the formula “in 
 the plains of Moab by the Jordan at Jericho” 
 (Num. xxii. 1, xxvi. 3, 63, xxxi. 12, xxxiii. 
 48, 50, xxxve 15 χα 19... 09 Πι, ΓΙ oz. 
 cp. xx. 8; 1 Ch. vi. 78); it was on the opposite 
 side of the Jordan to the inheritance of the two 
 and a half tribes (xxxiv. 15), over against Mount 
 Nebo (Deut. xxxii. 49; xxxiv. 1), and was seen 
 by Moses from the top of Pisgah (xxxiv. 3). 
 Joshua sent two spies to the city from Shittim : 
 they were lodged in the house of Rahab the 
 harlot upon the wall, and departed, having first 
 promised to save her and al] that were found 
 in her house from destruction (ii. 1-21). In 
 the annihilation of the city that ensued this 
 promise was religiously observed. Her house 
 was recognised by the scarlet line bound in the 
 window from which the spies were let down, 
 and she and her relatives were taken out of it, 
 and “lodged without the camp ” (v., vi.) ; but 
 it is nowhere said or implied that her house 
 escaped the general conflagration. That she 
 “dwelt in Israel” for the future; that she 
 married Salmon, son of Naasson, ‘“ prince of the 
 children of Judah,” and had by him Boaz, the 
 husband of Ruth and progenitor of David and 
 of our Lord; and lastly, that she is the first 
 and only Gentile name that appears in the list 
 of the faithful of the O. T. given by St. Paul 
 (Josh. vi. 25; 1 Ch. ii. 10; Matt. i. 5; Heb. 
 xi. 31), all these facts surely indicate that she 
 did not continue to inhabit the accursed site: 
 and, if so, and in absence of all direct evidence 
 from Scripture, how could it ever have been 
 inferred that her house was left standing? 
 From Jericho, after its capture, spies were sent 
 to Ai (Josh. vii. 2), which was to be destroyed 
 as that city had been(viii. 2). The fall of those 
 
1574 JERICHO 
 
 two places produced a profound impression upon 
 the princes of the country (ix. 3; x. 1), of 
 whom several were to share the fate of the king 
 of Jericho (x. 28, 30). 
 
 Jericho is mentioned in connexion with the 
 
 i Mi 
 
 ] 
 il 
 Ud tM Mo NX 
 
 hy 
 Ι i 
 
 !. lh 
 Wh " i 
 ᾿ id ly " 
 
 li 
 yf 
 { (A 
 i Yr) 7 ἡ 
 OR i: 0} 
 
 JERICHO 
 
 boundary of the children of Joseph (Josh. xvi. 
 1,7) and of Benjamin, to which tribe it was 
 allotted by Joshua (xviii. 12,21). From this 
 
 time a long interval elapses before it appears 
 again upon the scene. 
 
 It is only incidentally 
 
 The tower on the right is the only stone building remaining of Jericha, 
 
 Bite of Jericho. (From a photograph.) 
 
 On the left are the Mountains of Benjamin. 
 
 mentioned in the life of David in connexion with 
 his embassy to the Ammonite king (2 Sam. x. 55 
 1 Ch. xix. 5). And the solemn manner in which 
 its second foundation under Hiel the Bethelite 
 is recorded—upon whom the curse of Joshua is 
 
 said to have descended in full force (1 K. xvi. 34) 
 —would certainly seem to imply that up to that 
 time its site had been uninhabited. It is true 
 that mention is made of “a city of palm-trees” 
 (Judg. i, 16 and iii, 13) in existence apparently 
 
JERICHO 
 
 at the time when spoken of; and that Jericho is 
 twice—once before its first overthrow, and once 
 after its second foundation—designated by that 
 name (see Deut. xxxiv. 3, and 2 Ch. xxviii, 15). 
 But the city mentioned in the Book of Judges 
 was probably not built on the site of the town 
 destroyed by Joshua. However, once actually 
 rebui?., Jericho rose again slowly into conse- 
 quence. In its immediate vicinity the sons of 
 the prophets sought retirement from the world : 
 Elisha “healed the spring of the waters;” 
 and over and against it, beyond Jordan, Elijah 
 “went up by a whirlwind into heaven” (2 K. 
 ii. 1-22). In its plains Zedekiah fell into the 
 hands of the Chaldeans (2 K. xxv. 53; Jer. 
 xxxix. 5, lii. 8). By what may be called a re- 
 trospective account of it, we may infer that 
 Hiel’s restoration had not utterly failed; for in 
 the return under Zerubbabel the “children of 
 Jericho,” 345 in number, are comprised (Ezra 
 ii. 34; Neh. vii. 36); and it is even implied 
 that they removed thither again, for the men 
 of Jericho assisted Nehemiah in rebuilding that 
 part of the wall of Jerusalem that was next to 
 the sheep-gate (Neh. iii. 2). Jericho was one of 
 the places to which messengers were sent by the 
 Jews of Judaea on the approach of Holofernes 
 (Judith iv. 4); and its fort was repaired by 
 Bacchides after his fight with Jonathan Macca- 
 baeus on the banks of the Jordan (1 Mace. ix. 50). 
 Tt was whilst visiting Jericho that Simon 
 Maccabaeus was treacherously murdered at 
 Docus (1 Mace. xvi. 11, 14). We now enter 
 upon its more modern phase. The Jericho of 
 the days of Josephus was distant 150 stadia 
 from Jerusalem, and 50 from the Jordan. It 
 lay in a plain, overhung by a barren mountain 
 whose roots ran northwards towards Scytho- 
 polis, and southwards in the direction of Sodom 
 and the Dead Sea. These formed the western 
 boundaries of the plain. Eastwards, its barriers 
 were the mountains of Moab, which ran parallel 
 to the former. In the midst of the plain—the 
 great plain, as it was called—flowed the Jordan, 
 and at the top and bottom of it were two lakes: 
 Tiberias, proverbial for its sweetness, and Asphal- 
 tites for its bitterness. Away from the Jordan 
 it was parched and unhealthy during summer ; 
 but during winter, even when: it snowed at 
 Jerusalem, the inhabitants here wore linen 
 garments. Hard by Jericho—bursting forth 
 close to the site of the old city, which Joshua 
 took on his entrance into Canaan—was a most 
 exuberant fountain, whose waters, before noted 
 for their contrary properties, had received, pro- 
 ceeds Josephus, through Elisha’s prayers, their 
 then wonderfully salutary and prolific efficacy. 
 Within its range—70 stadia (Strabo says 100) 
 by 20—the fertility of the soil was unexam- 
 pled; palms of various names and properties, 
 some that produced honey scarce inferior to that 
 of the neighbourhood—opobalsamum, the choicest 
 of indigenous fruits—cyprus (Ar. e/-henna) and 
 myrobalanum (zakkum) throve there beautifully, 
 and were thickly dotted about in pleasure-grounds 
 (B. J. iv. 8, §§ 2, 3). Wisdom herself did not 
 disdain comparison with “the rose-plants of 
 Jericho” (Ecclus. xxiv. 14). Well might Strabo 
 (Geogr. xvi. 2, ὃ 41, ed. Miiller) conclude that 
 its revenues were considerable. By the Romans 
 Jericho was first visited under Pompey: he en- 
 camped there for a single night, and subse- 
 
 JERICHO 1575 
 
 quently destroyed two forts, Threx and Taurus, 
 that commanded its approaches (Strabo, ibid. 
 § 40). Gabinius, in his re-settlement of Judaea, 
 made it one of the five seats of assembly (Joseph. 
 Ant. xiv. 5, § 4; B.J.i. 8,§ 5). With Herod 
 the Great it rose to still greater prominence ; 
 it had been found full of treasure of all kinds, as 
 in the time of Joshua, so by Herod’s Roman allies 
 who sacked it (ibid. i, 15, § 6); and its revenues 
 were eagerly sought, and rented by the wily 
 tyrant from Cleopatra, to whom Antony had 
 assigned them (Ant. xv. 4, § 2). Not long after- 
 wards he built a fort there, which he called 
 “Cypros” in honour of his mother (ibid. xvi. 5, 
 § 2; B. J. i. 21, § 9); several palaces, some of 
 which he named after his friends (B. J. i. 21, 
 § 4), and perhaps also an amphitheatre (Ant. 
 xvii. 6, § 5), and other public buildings. There 
 were also reservoirs for water, in one of which 
 he caused Aristobulus to be drowned (Ant. 
 xv. 3, ὃ 8). If he did not make Jericho his 
 habitual residence, he at least retired to it to die 
 —and to be mourned, if he could have got his 
 plan carried out—and it was in the amphi- 
 theatre of Jericho that the news of his death 
 was announced to the assembled soldiers and 
 people by Salome (B. J. i. 33, § 8). Soon after- 
 wards the palace was burnt, and the town plun- 
 dered by one Simon, a revolutionary who had 
 been slave to Herod (Ant. xvii. 10, § 6); but 
 Archelaus rebuilt the former sumptuously— 
 founded a new town in the plain, that bore his 
 own name—and, most important of all, diverted 
 water from a village called Neaera, to irrigate 
 the plain which he had planted with palms 
 (Ant. xvii. 13, § 1). Thus Jericho was once 
 more “a city of palms” when our Lord visited 
 it ; such as Herod the Great and Archelaus had 
 left it, such He saw it. As the city that had so 
 exceptionally contributed to His own ancestry 
 —as the city which had been the first to fall, 
 amidst so much ceremony, before “ the captain 
 of the Lord’s host, and His servant Joshua ”— 
 we may well suppose that His eyes surveyed it 
 with unwonted interest. It is supposed to have 
 been on the rocky heights overhanging it (hence 
 called by tradition the Quarantana) that He 
 was assailed by the Tempter; and over against 
 it, according to tradition likewise, He had been 
 previously baptized in the Jordan. Here He 
 restored sight to the blind (two certainly, per- 
 haps three, St. Matt. xx. 30; St. Mark x. 46: 
 this was on leaving Jericho. St. Luke says, “ As 
 He was come nigh unto Jericho,” &c., xviii. 35). 
 Here the descendant of Rahab did not disdain 
 the hospitality of Zacchaeus the publican—an 
 office which was likely to be lucrative enough in 
 so rich a city. Finally, between Jerusalem and 
 Jericho was laid the scene of His story of the 
 good Samaritan, which, if it is not to be regarded 
 as a real occurrence throughout, at least derives 
 interest from the fact, that robbers have ever 
 been the terror of that precipitous road; and so 
 formidable had they proved only just before the 
 Christian era, that Pompey had been induced to 
 undertake the destruction of their strongholds 
 (Strabo, as before, xvi. 2, § 40; cp. Joseph. Ant. 
 xx. 6, ὃ 1 et seq.). Dagon, or Docus (1 Mace. 
 xvi. 15; ep. ix. 50), where Ptolemy assassinated 
 his father-in-law, Simon the Maccabee, may 
 have been one of these, 
 
 Posterior to the Gospels the chronicle of 
 
1510 JERICHO 
 
 Jericho may be briefly told. After their victory 
 over Cestius, the Jews appointed Joseph son of 
 Simon governor of Jericho (B. J. ii. 20, § 4). 
 Vespasian found it one of the toparchies of 
 Judaea (B. J. iii. 3, § 5), but deserted by its 
 inhabitants in a great measure when he en- 
 camped there (ib. iv. 8, § 2). He left a garri- 
 son on his departure—not necessarily the 10th 
 Legion, which is only stated to have marched 
 through Jevricho—which was still there when 
 Titus advanced upon Jerusalem. Is it asked 
 how Jericho was destroyed? Evidently by 
 Vespasian; for Josephus, rightly understood, 
 is not so silent as Dr. Robinson (Bibl. Res. i. 
 566, 2nd ed.) thinks. The city pillaged and 
 burnt in B, J. iv. 9, § 1, was clearly Jericho 
 with its adjacent villages, and not Gerasa, as 
 may be seen at once by comparing the language 
 there with that of c. 8, § 2, and the agent was 
 Vespasian. Eusebius and St. Jerome (0 8." 
 p- 267, 10; p. 163, 31) say that it was destroyed 
 when Jerusalem was besieged by the Romans. 
 They further add that it was afterwards rebuilt 
 —they do not say by whom—and still existed 
 in their day; nor had the ruins of the two 
 preceding cities been obliterated. Could Hadrian 
 possibly have planted a colony there when he 
 passed through Judaea and founded Aelia? 
 (Dio Cass. Hist. Ixix. c. 11, ed. Sturz; more 
 at large Chron. Paschal. 254, ed. Du Fresne). 
 The discovery which Origen made there of a 
 version of the O. T. (the 5th in his Hexapla), 
 together with sundry MSS., Greek and Hebrew, 
 suggests that it could not have been wholly 
 without inhabitants (Euseb. Δ, H. vi. 16; S. 
 Epiphan. Lib. de Pond. et Mensur. circa med.) ; 
 or again, as is perhaps more probable, did a 
 Christian settlement arise there under Constan- 
 tine, when Baptisms in the Jordan began to be 
 common? ‘That Jericho became an episcopal 
 see about that time under Jerusalem appears 
 from more than one ancient Notitia (Geograph. 
 S. a Carolo Paulo, 306, and the Parergon ap- 
 pended to it; cp. William of Tyre, Hist. lib. 
 xxiii. ad f.). Its Bishops subscribed to various 
 councils in the 4th, 5th, and 6th centuries (ibid. 
 and Le Quien’s Oriens Christian. iii. 654). Jus- 
 tinian, we are told, restored a hospice there, and 
 likewise a church dedicated to the Virgin 
 (Procop. De Aedif. v. 9). As early as A.D. 333, 
 when the Bordeaux Pilgrim (ed. Wesseling) 
 visited it, a house existed above the fountain at 
 Old Jericho which was pointed out, after the 
 manner of those days, as the house of Rahab. 
 This was roofless when Arculfus saw it ; and not 
 only so, but the third city was likewise in 
 ruins, and the site was planted with corn and 
 vines (ii. ὃ 12).° Had Jericho been visited by 
 an earthquake, as Antoninus reports (xiii. xiv.), 
 and as Syria certainly was, in the 27th year of 
 Justinian, A.D. 553? If so, we can well under- 
 stand the restorations already referred to; and 
 when Antoninus adds that the house of Rahab 
 had now become a hospice and oratory, we 
 might almost pronounce that this was the very 
 hospice which had been restored by that emperor 
 (cp. Theodosius, § 16). Again, it may be asked, 
 
 ¢ Antoninus (Xiv.) mentions a strong wine which was 
 given to persons suffering from fever; and that the 
 grapes from a certain vine were sold at Jerusalem on 
 Ascension Day. 
 
 JERICHO 
 
 did Christian Jericho receive no injury from the 
 Persian Romizan, the ferocious general of Chos- 
 roes II. A.D. 614? (Bar-Hebrati Chron. 99, Lat. 
 γ. ed. Kirsch). It would rather seem that there 
 were more religious edifices in the 7th than in 
 the 6th century round about it. According to 
 Arculfus, one church marked the site of Gilgal ; 
 another the spot where our Lord was supposed to 
 have deposited His garments previously to His 
 Baptism; a third within the precincts of a vast 
 monastery dedicated to St. John, situated upon 
 some rising ground overlooking the Jordan 
 (Arculfus, ii. §§ 12-14; ep. Antoninus, xi.—xyv., 
 and App. to Eng. ed. pub. by the P. P. Text Soc.). 
 Under the Muslims Jericho became a place of 
 some importance. Ya‘kibi (891 A.D.) calls it 
 the capital of the Ghor, or Jordan Valley. 
 Mukaddasi (985 A.D.) identifies it with the 
 “City of the Giants,” mentioned in the Kuran. 
 Excellent indigo was grown there ; bananas, date 
 palms, and flowers of fragrant odour were 
 plentiful ; snakes, scorpions, and fleas abounded ; 
 and the serpent whose flesh was used in the 
 preparation of the celebrated antidote for ve- 
 nomous bites (Zheriack) was common. The heat 
 was excessive, and. the people, spoken of by 
 Arculfus as “diminutive men of the race οἵ 
 Canaan,” were brown-skinned and swarthy. 
 Yakat (1225 a.p.) alludes to the number of 
 palm-trees, and adds that sugar-cane was largely 
 grown, and that the best sugar in the Ghor was 
 made there (Le Strange, Pal. under the Moslems, 
 pp- 396, 397). The beauty of the gardens and 
 the palms are also mentioned in 1294 A.D. by 
 Riccoldus de Monte Crucis. 
 
 Jericho does not seem to have been ever re- 
 stored as a town by the Crusaders; it is called 
 
 by the Abbot Daniel (1106-7 A.D.) “only a 
 
 Saracen village, in which was the house of 
 Zacchaeus,’ probably the “square tower or 
 castle” first distinctly mentioned by Willibrand 
 in 1211 A.p. Its plains, however, had not ceased 
 to be prolific, and were extensively cultivated 
 and laid out in vineyards and gardens by the 
 monks (Phocas ap. Leon. Allat. Suupurr. c. 20, 
 p- 31). They seem to have been included in 
 the domains of the patriarchate of Jerusalem, 
 and as such were bestowed by Arnulf upon his 
 niece as a dowry (Wm. of Tyre, Hist. xi. 15). 
 Twenty-five years afterwards we find Melisendis, 
 wife of king Fulco, assigning them to the con- 
 vent of Bethany, which she had founded A.D. 
 1137. After the fall of the Latin kingdom, 
 Jericho is described as a “ vile place ” (Brocardus, 
 A.D. 1230), and as a “ poor nasty village ” (Maun- 
 drell, A.D. 1697), and such it has since remained. 
 
 The site of ancient (the first) Jericho is at 
 Tell es-Sultdén, not quite 13 m. north of the 
 mouth of Wddy Kelt. The mound is from 
 20 ft. to 30 ft. high, and at its foot well up the 
 waters of ‘Ain es-Sultdn, Elisha’s fountain. The 
 mound, according to Sir C. Warren, is formed, 
 for the most part, of a light yellow clay, which, 
 on being touched, crumbles into an impalpable 
 powder ; there were large quantities of pottery, 
 and “two layers of bituminous stuff ᾧ to 2 in. 
 thick.” The fountain runs out into a shallow 
 reservoir, and then flows away in numberless 
 channels to irrigate the plain to the east. North 
 of the mound are many traces of ruins, some οὗ 
 which show that the place was occupied in early 
 
 | Christian times; and to the E. and S.E. there 
 
JERICHO 
 
 are extensive ruins on the way to Hrtha, which 
 is 14 τὴ, distant. Behind Zell es-Sultén rises 
 Jebel Kuruntul, the “Mons Quarantana,” or 
 “Mount of Temptation,”—a precipitous cliff, 
 1000 ft. high, which is honeycombed with the 
 cells and chapels of early and mediaeval anchor- 
 ites. The second or Roman Jericho (the city of 
 the N. Τὶ and of Josephus) was at the foot of 
 the hills close to the mouth of W. Kelt (see 
 Itin. Hierosol.). There are here mounds and a 
 large reservoir, but the palaces and other 
 buildings of Herod, haying apparently been 
 constructed of soft friablestone, have completely 
 disappeared. The mounds were excavated by 
 Sir C. Warren, but nothing of importance was 
 discovered. The third or mediaeval Jericho, 
 now Zrtha, is 14 m. east of the last, and lies on 
 the N. bank of W. elt. It is a miserable mud 
 hamlet, with a few black tents pitched among 
 the houses, which are surrounded by hedges of 
 the thorny nebk. The inhabitants are a mixed 
 and very degraded race, and have not sufficient 
 energy to cultivate their own lands. Here is 
 the square tower, known as the “House of 
 Zacchaeus,” and in its vicinity was at one time 
 shown the tree into which he had climbed 
 (Luke xix. 1-10). 13 m. eastward of Hrtha 
 is Birket Jiljulieh, marking the site of Gilgal. 
 The plain of Jericho was formerly irrigated by 
 an elaborate system of conduits and aqueducts. 
 The water was derived from six large springs, and 
 there were twelve separate aqueducts, of which 
 some are late Roman or Byzantine, and others 
 are either in whole or in part the work of 
 Crusaders or Saracens. Most of the water now 
 runs to waste, and the site of the celebrated 
 gardens is occupied by a dense jungle, covering 
 an area 1% miles square. The palm, the opo- 
 balsamum, and the sugar-cane have disappeared, 
 but the natural fertility of the soil has not 
 changed. Figs, pomegranates, vines, indigo, 
 cotton, wheat, and barley grow luxuriantly 
 where cultivated : and amongst other shrubs and 
 plants are the Zizyphus spina Christi, the 
 Z. Lotus, the Balanites Acgyptiaca (Zakkim) 
 from which the false “ balm of Gilead” or “oil 
 of Zacchaeus” is extracted; the sweet-smelling 
 Acacia Farnesiana, the Acacia vera, the beautiful 
 parasite Loranthus indicus, the Agnus casti, a 
 large flowering bamboo, and the “Apple of 
 Sodom,” Solanum Melongena, with its potato 
 blossom, and its bright yellow but poisonous 
 fruit. All these are products of a sub-tropical 
 climate, such as that which prevails in the Jor- 
 dan Valley, which at Jericho is 800 ft. below 
 the Mediterranean. Several curious native 
 traditions relating to the capture of Jericho by 
 Joshua have been collected by M. Clermont- 
 Ganneau (PEF. Mem. iii. 172, 173, 179, 201, 
 222 sq.; Tristram, Land of Israel, p. 201 sq.; 
 Guérin, Samarie, i. 33-53, 132-149; Sepp, Jer. 
 u. d. H. Land, i. 720 sq. ; Baedeker-Socin, Hbz.), 
 [E. S. Ff] [W.] 
 
 JERICHO, PLAINS OF. 2 K. xxv. 5; 
 Jer, xxxix. 5, 111. 8. The part of the Jordan 
 Valley extending from the mountains behind 
 Jericho to the Jordan. [JERICHO.] 
 
 JERVEL (ON = foundation of God; B. 
 ‘Perna, A. ἸἹερεήλ ; Jeriel), a man of Issachar, 
 one of the six heads of the house of TOLA at 
 
 JERIOTH 1577 
 
 the time of the census in the time of David 
 (1 Ch. vii. 2), 
 
 JERI'JAH (ΠΡ = foundation of Jehovah ; 
 
 B. Tovdelas, A. Ἰωρίας ; Jeria), in 1 Ch. xxvi. 31. 
 The same person as JERIAH. 
 
 JERIMOTH (N39 = heights). 1. (B. 
 ᾿Αρειμώθ, A. ᾿Ιεριμούθ ; Jerimoth.) Son or de- 
 scendant of Bela, according to 1 Ch. vii. 7, and 
 founder of a Benjamite house, which existed in 
 the time of David (v. 2). He is perhaps the 
 same as 
 
 2. (B. ’Αρειμούθ, A. ᾿Ιαριμούθ, N. ᾿Αρθμούς ; 
 Jerimuth), who joined David at Ziklag (1 Ch. 
 xii. 5). [BExa.] 
 
 3. (25, ic. Jeremoth; B. Αὐρημώθ, A. 
 Ἰεριμώθ; Jerimoth.) A son of Becher (i Ch. 
 vii. 8), and head of another Benjamite house. 
 (BECHER. | 
 
 4. (Ὁ. ᾿Αρειμώθ, A. Ἰεριμώθ ; Jerimoth.) Son 
 of Mushi, the son of Merari, and head of one of 
 the families of the Merarites which were counted 
 in the census of the Levites taken by David 
 (1 Ch. xxiv. 30). [See JerEmMoTH, 2.] 
 
 5. (B. Ἰερεμώθ, Ἐρειμώθ; A. Ἰεριμώθ, Ἴερι- 
 μούθ: Jerimoth.) Son of Heman, head of the 
 15th ward οὗ musicians (1 Ch. xxv. 4, 22). In 
 the latter verse he is called Jeremoth. [HEMAN ; 
 JEREMOTH (3).] 
 
 6. (Ὁ. Ἐρειμώθ, A. Ἰεριμούθ; Jerimoth.) Son 
 of Azriel, “ruler” (7°33) of the tribe of Naph- 
 tali in the reign of David (1 Ch. xxvii. 19). 
 The same persons, called rulers, are in v. 22 
 called ‘ princes” (8) of the tribes of Israel. 
 
 1. (Ὁ. ἸἹεριμούθ, A. Ἔρμούθ ; Jerimoth.) Son 
 of king David, whose daughter Mahalath was 
 one of the wives of Rehoboam, her cousin Abihail 
 being the other (2 Ch. xi. 18). As Jerimoth is 
 not named in the list of children by David’s 
 wives in 1 Ch. iii. or xiv. 4-7, it is fair to infer 
 that he was the son of a concubine, and this in 
 fact is the Jewish tradition (Jerome, Quaestiones, 
 ad loc.). It is, however, questionable whether 
 Rehoboam would have married the grandchild 
 of a concubine even of the great David. The 
 passage 2 Ch. xi. 18 is not quite clear, since 
 the word “daughter” is a correction of 
 the Keri: the Keri, LXX., and Vulg. read 2, 
 t.e. “son.” 
 
 8. (Ὁ. Ἰερειμώθ, A. Ἰεριμώθ:;: Jerimoth.) A 
 Levite in the reign of Hezekiah, one of the over- 
 seers of offerings and dedicated things placed in 
 the chambers of the Temple, who were under 
 Cononiah and Shimei the Levites, by command 
 of Hezekiah, and Azariah the high-priest (2 Ch. 
 xxxi. 13). (A.C. H.] [C. H.] 
 
 JERI'OTH (niv' = curtains ; B. Ἐλιώθ, 
 A. Ἰεριώθ ; Jerioth), according to our A. V. and 
 the LXX., one of the elder Caleb’s wives (1 Ch. 
 ii. 18); but, according to the Vulgate, she was his 
 daughter by his first wife Azubah. The Hebrew 
 text seems evidently corrupt, and will not make 
 sense; but the probability is that Jerioth was 
 a daughter of Caleb the son of Hezron. (In 
 
 this case we ought to read MIA ἢ bin 
 JAWN.) The Latin Version of Santes Pagninus, 
 which makes Azubah and Jerioth both daughters 
 of Caleb, and the note of Vatablus, which makes 
 
1578 JEROBOAM 
 
 Ishah (A. V. “ wife”) a proper name and a 
 third daughter, are clearly wrong, as it appears 
 from v. 19 that Azubah was Caleb’s wife. Cp. 
 Oettli in Strack u. Zéckler’s Καὶ. Hdbk. in loco. 
 [A. C. ἘΠῚ ΤΟ; H.] 
 
 JEROBO’AM (O¥3°) = Yarob‘am; Ἴερο- 
 Bodu, Joseph. Ἱεροβόαμος : Jeroboam). The 
 name, if taken to mean whose people is many, 
 has nearly the same meaning as REHOBOAM, 
 enlarger of the people. MY." prefers pleader for 
 the people. Both names appear for the first time 
 in the reign of Solomon, and were perhaps 
 suggested by the increase of the Jewish people 
 at that time. 
 
 1. The first king of the divided kingdom of 
 Israel (Riehm, B.c. 938-917). The ancient 
 authorities for his reign and his wars were 
 “the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel” (1 K. 
 xiv. 19), and “the visions of Iddo the seer 
 against Jeroboam the son of Nebat” (2 Ch. 
 ix. 29). The extant account of his life is given 
 in two versions, very different from each other. 
 The one usually followed is that contained in the 
 Hebrew text, and in one portion of the LXX. 
 The other is given in a separate account inserted 
 by the LXX. at 1 K. xi. 43 and xii. 24, The 
 lattec was preferred by Ranke, the historian, to 
 the former, and is—in this article—taken as the 
 basis of the biography of this remarkable man. 
 Modern scholars prefer the Hebrew narrative 
 (cp. Kittel, Gesch. d. Hebrder, ii. 178). 
 
 I. He was the son of an Ephraimite of the 
 name of Nebat;* his father had died whilst he 
 was young; but his mother, who had been a 
 person of loose character (LXX. πόρνη, v. 24 b), 
 lived in widowhood, trusting apparently to 
 her son for support. Her name is variously 
 given as ZERUAH (Heb.), or Sarira (LXX. 
 Σαρεισά, v. 24), and the place of their abode 
 on the mountains of Ephraim is given either as 
 ZEREDA, or (LXX. Σαρειρά, v. 24b) as Sarira: 
 in the latter case, indicating that there was 
 some connexion between the wife of Nebat and 
 her residence. 
 
 At the time when Solomon was constructing 
 the fortifications of Millo underneath the citadel 
 of Zion, his sagacious eye discovered the strength 
 and activity of a young Ephraimite who was 
 employed on the works, and he raised him to 
 the rank of superintendent over the taxes and 
 labours exacted from the tribe of Ephraim 
 (i K. xi. 28). This was Jeroboam. He made 
 the most of his position. He completed the 
 fortifications, and was long afterwards known 
 as the man who had “enclosed the city of 
 David” (1 K. xi. 24; LXX. xii. 24). He 
 then aspired to royal state. Like Absalom 
 before him, in like circumstances, though now 
 on a grander scale, in proportion to the enlarge- 
 ment of the royal establishment itself, he kept 
 300 chariots and horses (LXX. xii. 24 b), and at 
 last was perceived by Solomon to be aiming at 
 the monarchy. 
 
 These ambitious designs were probably fostered 
 
 a According to the old Jewish tradition preserved by 
 Jerome (Quaest. Hebr. 2 Sam. xvi. 10), Nebat, the father 
 of Jeroboam, was identical with Shimei of Gera, who 
 was the first to insult David in his flight, and the 
 “* first of all the house of Joseph” to congratulate him 
 on his return. 
 
 JEROBOAM 
 
 by the sight of the growing disaffection of the 
 great tribe over which he presided, as well as 
 by the alienation of the Prophetic order from 
 the house of Solomon. According to the version 
 of the story in the Hebrew text (Joseph. Ant. 
 viii. 7, § 7), this alienation was made evident to 
 Jeroboam very early in his career. He was 
 leaving Jerusalem, and he encountered on one of 
 the black-paved roads which ran out of the city, 
 Ahijah, “the prophet ” of the ancient sanctuary 
 of Shiloh. Ahijah drew him aside from the 
 road into the field (LXX.), and, as soon as they 
 found themselves alone, the prophet, who was 
 dressed in a new outer garment, stripped it off, 
 and tore it into twelve shreds, ten of which he 
 gave to Jeroboam, with the assurance that on 
 condition of his obedience to His laws, God 
 would establish for him a kingdom and a 
 dynasty equal to that of David (1 K. xi. 29-40). 
 
 The attempts of Solomon to cut short Jero- 
 boam’s designs occasioned his flight into Egypt. 
 There he remained during the rest of Solomon’s 
 reign—in the court of Shishak (LXX. Σουσα- 
 kelu, xii. 24), or Sheshonq, the founder of a 
 new Egyptian dynasty, and therefore not allied 
 with Solomon, who is here first named in the 
 sacred narrative. On Solomon’s death, he de- 
 manded Shishak’s permission to return. The 
 Egyptian king seems, in his reluctance, to have 
 offered any gift which Jeroboam chose, as a 
 reason for his remaining, and the consequence 
 was the marriage with Ano (Av), the elder 
 sister of the Egyptian queen, Tahpenes (LXX. 
 Thekemina, Θεκεμείνα, v. 24 6), and of another 
 princess (LXX.) who had married the Edomite 
 chief, Hadad. A year elapsed, and a son, Abijah 
 CABid, v. 24e) (or Abijam), was born. Then 
 Jeroboam again requested permission to depart, 
 which was granted; and he returned with his 
 wife and child to his native place, Sarira or 
 Zereda, which he fortified, and which in conse- 
 quence became a centre for his fellow tribes- 
 men (1 K. xi. 41, LXX. xii. 24 f). Still there 
 was no open act of insurrection, and it was in 
 this period of suspense (according to the LXX. 
 xii. 24 ¢) that a pathetic incident darkened his 
 domestic history. His infant son fell sick. The 
 anxious father sent his wife to inquire of God 
 concerning him. Jerusalem would have been 
 the obvious place to visit for this purpose. But 
 no doubt political reasons forbade. The ancient 
 sanctuary of Shiloh (S7A@) was nearer at hand ; 
 and it so happened that a prophet was now re- 
 siding there, of the highest repute. It was 
 Ahijah (Ayerd, υ. 24h)—the same who, accord- 
 ing to the common version of the story, had 
 already been in communication with Jeroboam, 
 but who, according to the authority we are 
 now following, appears for the first time on 
 this occasion. He was sixty years of age—but 
 was prematurely old, and his eyesight had 
 already failed him. He was living, as it would 
 seem, in poverty, with a boy who waited on 
 him, and with his own little children. For him 
 and for them, the wife of Jeroboam brought 
 such gifts as were thought likely to be accept- 
 able; ten loaves, and two rolls (κολλύρια) for 
 the children (LXX. v. 24h), a bunch of raisins 
 (LXX. σταφυλήν, ib.), and a jar of honey. She 
 had disguised herself, to avoid recognition; and 
 perhaps these humble gifts were part of the 
 plan, But the blind prophet, at her first 
 
JEROBOAM 
 
 approach, knew who was coming; and bade 
 his boy go out to meet her, and invite her to 
 his house without delay. There he warned her 
 of the uselessness of her gifts. There was a 
 doom on the house of Jeroboam, not to be 
 averted; those who grew up in it and died 
 in the city would become the prey of the 
 hungry dogs; they who died in the country 
 would be devoured by the vultures. This child 
 alone would die before the calamities of the 
 house arrived: “They shall mourn for the 
 child, Woe, O Lord, for in him there is found a 
 good word regarding the Lord” (LXX, v, 24m) 
 —or, according to the Hebrew version, “all 
 Israel shall mourn for him, and bury him; for 
 he only of Jeroboam shall come to the grave, 
 because in him there is found some good thing 
 toward Jehovah the God of Israel in the house 
 of Jeroboam” (1 K. xiv. 13). The mother re- 
 turned. As she re-entered the town of Sarira 
 (Heb. Tirzah, 1 K. xiv. 17), the child died. The 
 loud wail of her attendant damsels greeted her 
 on the threshold (LXX. v. 24n). The child was 
 buried, as Ahijah had foretold, with all the 
 state of the child of a royal house. “ All Israel 
 mourned for him” (1 K. xiv. 18). This inci- 
 dent, if it really occurred at this time, seems to 
 have been the turning point in Jeroboam’s career. 
 It drove him from his ancestral home, and it 
 gathered the sympathies of the tribe of Ephraim 
 round him. He left Sarira and came to Shechem 
 (Σίκιμα, v.24 n). The Hebrew text describes that 
 he was sent for. The LXX. speaks of it as 
 his own act. However that may be, he was 
 thus at the head of the northern tribes, when 
 Rehoboam, after he had been on the throne for 
 somewhat more than a year, came up to be in- 
 augurated in that ancient capital. Then (if we 
 may take the account already given of Ahijah’s 
 interview as something separate from this), for 
 the second time, and in a like manner, the 
 Divine intimation of his future greatness is 
 conveyed to him. The prophet Shemaiah 
 (Sapmatas) the Enlamite (?) (6 Ἐνλαμεί, LXX. 
 Ὁ. 24.0) addressed to him the same acted parable, 
 in the ten shreds of a new unwashed garment 
 (LXX.). Then took place the conference with 
 Rehoboam (Jeroboam appearing in it, in the 
 Hebrew text, but not” in the LXX.), and the 
 final revolt;° which ended (expressly in the 
 Hebrew text, in the LXX. by implication) in 
 the elevation of Jeroboam to the throne of the 
 northern kingdom. Shemaiah remained on the 
 spot and deterred Rehoboam from an attack. 
 Jeroboam entered at once on the duties of his 
 new situation, and fortified Shechem as his 
 capital on the west, and Penuel (close by the 
 old Transjordanic capital of Mahanaim) on the 
 east (1 K. xii. 25). 
 
 II. Up to this point there had been nothing 
 to disturb the anticipations of the Prophetic 
 Order and of the mass of Israel as to the glory 
 of Jeroboam’s future. But from this moment 
 one fatal error crept, not unnaturally, into his 
 policy, which undermined his dynasty and 
 tarnished his name as the first king of Israel. 
 
 b This omission is however borne out by the Hebrew 
 text, 1 K. xii. 20, “ when all Israel heard that Jeroboam 
 was come again.” 
 
 9 The cry of revolt, 1 K. xii. 16, is the same as that | 3 : OF sac : 
 _ A further allusion is made to this incident in 
 
 in 2 Sam. xx. 1. 
 
 JEROBOAM 1579 
 
 The political disruption of the kingdom was 
 complete; but its religious unity was as yet 
 unimpaired. He feared that the yearly pil- 
 grimages to Jerusalem would undo all the work 
 which he had effected, and he took the bold step 
 of vending it asunder. Two sanctuaries of 
 venerable antiquity existed already—one at the 
 southern, the other at the northern, extremity 
 of his dominions. These he elevated into seats 
 of the national worship, which should rival the 
 newly established Temple at Jerusalem. As 
 Abderrahman, caliph of Spain, arrested the 
 movement of his subjects to Mecca, by the 
 erection of the holy place of the Zecca at 
 Cordova, so Jeroboam trusted to the erection of 
 his shrines at Dan and Bethel. But he was not 
 satisfied without another deviation from the 
 Mosaic idea of the national unity. His long 
 stay in Egypt had familiarised him with the 
 outward forms under which the Divinity was 
 there represented ; and now, for the first time 
 since the Exodus, was an Egyptian element 
 introduced into the national worship of Pales- 
 tine. A golden figure of Mnevis, the sacred 
 calf of Heliopolis, was set up at each sanctuary, 
 with the address, “ Behold thy God (‘Elohim ’ 
 —cp. Neh. ix. 18) which brought thee up out of 
 the land of Egypt.” The sanctuary of DAN, as 
 the most remote from Jerusalem, was estab- 
 lished first (1 K. xii. 30) with priests from the 
 distant tribes, whom he consecrated instead of 
 the Levites (xii. 31; xiii. 33). The more im- 
 portant one, as nearer the capital and in the 
 heart of the kingdom, was BETHEL, The wor- 
 ship and the sanctuary continued till the end of 
 the northern kingdom. The priests were sup- 
 plied by a peculiar form of consecration—any 
 one from the non-Levitical tribes could procure 
 the office on sacrificing a young bullock and 
 seven rams (1 K. xiii. 833; 2 Ch. xi. 15, xiii. 9). 
 For the dedication of this he copied the pre- 
 cedent of Solomon in choosing the Feast of 
 Tabernacles as the occasion; but postponing it 
 for a month, probably in order to meet the 
 vintage of the most northern parts. On the 
 fifteenth day of this month (the 8th), he went 
 up in state to offer incense on the altar which 
 was before the calf. It was at this solemn and 
 critical moment that a prophet from Judah 
 suddenly appeared, whom Josephus with great 
 probability identifies with Iddo the Seer (he 
 calls him Jad6n, ᾿Ιαδών, Ant. viii. 8, § 5; and 
 see Jerome, Qu. Hebr. on 2 Ch. x. 4), who 
 denounced the altar, and foretold its desecration 
 by Josiah, and violent overthrow. It is not 
 clear from the account whether it is intended 
 that the overthrow took place then or in the 
 earthquake described by Amos (ix. 1). Another 
 sign is described as taking place instantly. The 
 king stretching out his hand to arrest the 
 prophet felt it withered and paralysed, and 
 only at the prophet’s prayer saw it restored, 
 and acknowledged his Divine mission (xiii. 6). 
 Josephus adds, but probably in conjecture from 
 the sacred narrative, that the prophet who 
 seduced Iddo on his return, did so in order to 
 prevent his obtaining too much influence over 
 Jeroboam, and endeavoured to explain away the 
 miracles to the king, by representing that the 
 altar fell because it was new, and that his hand 
 was paralysed from the fatigue of sacrificing. 
 
1580 JEROBOAM 
 
 the narrative of Josephus (Ant. viii. 15, § 4), 
 where Zedekiah is represented as contrasting 
 the potency of Iddo in withering the hand of 
 Jeroboam with the powerlessness of Micaiah to 
 wither the hand of Zedekiah. The visit of Ano 
 to Ahijah, which the common Hebrew text 
 (1 K. xiv. 18) places after this event, and with 
 darker intimations in Ahijah’s warning only 
 suitable to a later period, has already been 
 described. 
 
 Jeroboam was at constant war with the 
 house of Judah, but the only act distinctly 
 recorded is a battle with Abijah, son of Reho- 
 boam; in which—in spite of a skilful ambush 
 made by Jeroboam, and of much superior force 
 —he was defeated, and for the time lost three 
 important cities, Bethel, Jeshanah, and Ephraim.4 
 The calamity was severely felt; he never re- 
 covered the blow, and soon after died, in the 
 twenty-second year of his reign (2 Ch. xiii. 20), 
 and was buried in his ancestral sepulchre (1 K. 
 xiv. 20). His son Nadab, or (LXX. Ναβάτ) 
 Nebat (named after the grandfather), succeeded, 
 and in him the dynasty was closed. The name 
 of Jeroboam long remained under a cloud as the 
 king who “had caused Israel to sin.” At the 
 time of the Reformation, it was a common 
 practice of Roman Catholic writers to institute 
 comparisons between his separation from the 
 sanctuary of Judah, and that of Henry VIII. 
 from the see of Rome. 
 
 [In his Lectures on the Jewish Church (ii. 239, 
 1883) Dean Stanley analyses the intention of 
 Jeroboam in establishing his rites at Dan and 
 Bethel. He considers that the golden calves 
 were honestly designed as visible representations 
 of the Supreme Deity, with a view to pre- 
 serving the belief in the unity of God; but that 
 with every desire thus to uphold the sanctity of 
 the First Commandment, he violated the Second, 
 tampering with the spiritual conception of the 
 national worship, and thus accustoming the 
 Israelites to the very sin against which it was 
 his object to provide a safeguard. So likewise 
 Ewald understands (Hist. Jsr.? iv. 26, 1878). 
 The Speaker’s Comm. (Notes on 1 K. xii. 26, 
 28) gives Jeroboam unqualified blame; and Keil 
 in his comments on this reign (Clark’s F. 7. L. 
 xxxiii., 185, 186) credits him with the sole 
 design of securing his own throne.—C. H.] 
 
 2. JeroBoam II., the son of his predecessor 
 Joash and the fourth of the dynasty of Jehu. 
 The most prosperous of the kings of Israel. 
 The contemporary accounts of his reign are, 
 (1) in the “Chronicles of the Kings of Israel ” 
 (2 K. xiv. 28), which are lost, but of which the 
 substance is given in 2 K. xiv. 23-29; (2) in 
 the contemporary Prophets Hosea and Amos, 
 and (perhaps) in the fragments found in Is, xv., 
 xvi. It had been foretold in the reign of Jeho- 
 ahaz that a great deliverer should come, to 
 rescue Israel from the Syrian yoke (cp. 2 K. 
 xiii. 4, xiv. 26, 27), and this had been expanded 
 into a distinct prediction of Jonah, that there 
 should be a restoration of the widest dominion 
 of Solomon (xiv. 25). This “saviour” and 
 
 ἃ The Targum on Ruth iv. 20 mentions that Jero- 
 boam had stationed guards on the roads, which guards 
 were slain by the people of Netophah; but what is here 
 alluded to, or when it took place, we have at present no 
 clue to. 
 
 JEROHAM 
 
 “yestorer”’? was Jeroboam. He not only re- 
 pelled the Syrian invaders, but took their 
 capital city Damascus (2 K. xiv. 28; Amos i. 
 3-5), and recovered the whole of the ancient 
 dominion from Hamath to the Dead Sea (xiv. 
 25; Amos vi. 14). Ammon and Moab were 
 reconquered (Amos i. 13, ii. 1-3); the Trans- 
 jordanic tribes were restored to their territory 
 (2 K. xiii. 5; 1 Ch. v. 17-22). 
 
 But it was merely an outward restoration. 
 The sanctuary at Bethel was kept up in royal 
 state (Amos vii. 13), but drunkenness, licentious- 
 ness, and oppression prevailed in the country 
 (Amos ii. 6-8, iv. 1, vi. 6; Hos. i. 2, iv. 12-14), 
 and idolatry was united with the worship of 
 Jehovah (Hos. iv. 13, xiii. 6). 
 
 Amos prophesied the destruction of Jeroboam 
 and his house by the sword (Amos vii. 9, 17), and 
 Amaziah, the high-priest of Bethel, complained 
 to the king (Amos vii. 10-13). The effect does 
 not appear. Hosea (Hos. i. 1) also denounced 
 the crimes of the nation. The prediction of 
 Amos was not fulfilled as regarded the king 
 himself. He was buried with his ancestors in 
 state (2 K. xiv. 29). 
 
 Ewald (Hist. of Isr.2 iv. 124, note, 1878) 
 supposes that Jeroboam was the subject of 
 Ps. xly. (A. P. 8.] 
 
 JERO’HAM (OM1'=beloved ; Jeroham). 1. 
 (B. Ἰερεμεήλ, Ἰδαέρ, "HadA; A. Ἰεροάμ, Ἰερεάμ, 
 Ἰεροβοάμ.) Father of Elkanah, the father of 
 Samuel, of the house of Kohath. His father is 
 called Eliab at 1 Ch. vi. 27, Eliel at υ. 34, and 
 Elihu at 1 Sam.i. 1. Jeroham must have been 
 about the same age as Eli. [A. C. H.] 
 
 2. (Ipodu, B. Ἰραάμ, A. Ἰεροάμ.) A Benja- 
 mite, and the founder of a family of Bene-Jero- 
 ham (1 Ch. viii. 27). They were among the 
 leaders of that part of the tribe which lived in 
 Jerusalem, and which is here distinguished from 
 the part which inhabited Gideon. Probably the 
 same person is intended in 
 
 3. (Ἰεροβοάμ, B. Ἰραάμ, A. Ἰεροάμ.) Father 
 (or progenitor) of Ibneiah, one of the leading 
 Benjamites of Jerusalem (1 Ch. ix. 8; cp. vv. 3 
 and 9). 
 
 4. (Ipadu, A. *Iepadu; in Neh. B. omits, A. 
 *Iepodu.) A descendant of Aaron, of the house 
 of Immer, the leader of the sixteenth course of 
 priests; son of Pashur and father of Adaiah 
 (1 Ch. ix. 12). He appears to be mentioned 
 again in Neh. xi. 12 (a record curiously and 
 puzzingly parallel to that of 1 Ch. ix., though 
 with some striking differences), though there he 
 is stated to belong to the house of Malchiah, 
 who was leader of the fifth course (and ep. Neh. 
 xi. 14). 
 
 5. (Ἰροάμ, B. ‘Padu, A. “Iepodu.) Jeroham 
 of Gedor (7}73717}D), some of whose ‘‘ sons” 
 
 joined David when he was taking refuge from 
 Saul at Ziklag (1 Ch. xii. 7). The list purports 
 to be of Benjamites (see v. 2, where the word 
 “even ” is interpolated, and the last five words 
 belong to v. 3), But then how can the presence 
 of Korhites (v. 6), the descendants of Korah the 
 Levite, be accounted for? 
 
 6. (Ἰρωάβ, BA. Ἰωράμ.) A Danite, whose 
 son or descendant Azareel was head of his tribe 
 in the time of David (1 Ch. xxvii. 22). 
 
 7. Clwpdu.) Father of Azariah, one of the 
 
JERUBBAAL 
 
 “ captains of hundreds ” in the time of Athaliah ; 
 one of those to whom Jehoiada the priest con- 
 fided his scheme for the restoration of Joash 
 
 (2 Ch. xxiii. 1). [41] [WwW] 
 
 JERUB'BAAL ΟΞ», probably = he that 
 
 striveth with Baal]. Cp. the Phoen. yaw 
 [M.V.1"]: B. chiefly Ἱεροβάαλ, but also once each 
 Ἰεαροβάαλ, Ἰαρβάλ, ᾿Αρβαάλ, and in 1 Sam. xii. 
 11 "IepoBodu; A. δικαστήριον τοῦ Bada, Judg. 
 vi. 32, Ἱροβάαλ in vii. 1: Jerobaal), the sur- 
 name of Gideon which he acquired in con- 
 sequence of destroying the altar of Baal, when 
 his father defended him from the vengeance 
 of the Abi-ezrites. In the A. and R. V. of 
 Judg. vi. 32, “he called him Jerubbaal,” im- 
 plying that the surname was given by Joash, 
 means, in accordance with a well-known Hebrew 
 idiom, “ one called him,” ¢.e. he was called by 
 the men of his city. The LXX. in the same 
 passage have ἐκάλεσεν αὐτό, “he called it,” 
 ae. the altar mentioned in the preceding verse; 
 but as in all other passages they recognise 
 Jerubbaal as the name of Gideon, the reading 
 should probably be αὐτόν. In Judg. viii. 35 the 
 Vulg. strictly follows the Heb., Jerobaal Gedeon. 
 The Alex. Version omits the name altogether 
 from Judg. ix.57. The name is also found in 
 Judg. vii. 1, viii. 29, ix. 1, 5, 16, 19, 24, 28, 
 and 1 Sam. xii. 11. It is not a little remayk- 
 able that Josephus (And. v. 6) omits all men- 
 tion both of the change of name and of the 
 event it commemorates. Gideon’s act was one 
 of putting away all sin and rebellion against 
 God from his own house, before he entered upon 
 the holy war to which God had called him. 
 Ἂν We.) [( ἘΠ] 
 
 JERUB'BESHETH (ΠΥ 3}; Ἰεροβοάμ ; 
 Jerobaal), a name of Gideon (2 Sam. xi. 21). 
 A later generation probably abstained from pro- 
 nouncing the name (Ex. xxiii. 13) of a false god 
 (Baal), and therefore changed Gideon’s name 
 (Judg. vi. 32) of Jerubbaal=fe that striveth with 
 Baal, into Jerubbesheth = he that striveth with 
 shame (=the idol). Cp. similar changes (1 Ch. 
 viii. 33, 34) of Eshbaal for Ishbosheth, and 
 Meribbaal for Mephibosheth. See Ewald in 
 ] vo. ΒΗ ΠΕΣ 
 
 JERU’EL, THE WILDERNESS OF 
 Ox? TANS; ἡ ἐρήμος Ἰεριήλ ; Jeruel), the 
 place in which Jehoshaphat was informed by 
 Jahaziel the Levite that he should encounter 
 the hordes of Ammon, Moab, and the Mehunim, 
 who were swarming round the south end of the 
 Dead Sea to the attack of Jerusalem: ‘ Ye shall 
 find them at the end of the valley (wddy), 
 facing the wilderness of Jeruel” (2 Ch. xx. 
 16). The “wilderness” contained a watch- 
 tower (v. 24), from which many ἃ similar 
 incursion had probably been descried. It was a 
 well-known spot, for it has the definite article. 
 Or the word (75157) may mean a commanding 
 
 ridge,* below which the “wilderness” lay open | 
 
 to view. The name has not been met with, but 
 the “ wilderness”? was apparently a part of the 
 JESHIMON in the neighbourhood of Tekoa and 
 
 ® ἐπὶ τῆς ἀναβάσεως, λεγομένης δ᾽ ἐξοχῆς, Joseph. Ant. 
 ix. 1, ὁ 2. 
 
 JERUSALEM 1581 
 
 Berachah (perhaps Bereihkiit), east of the road 
 between Urtds and Hebron. (G.] [1 
 
 JERU'SALEM (O90, ic. Yérishalaim; 
 or, in the more extended form, odin, in 
 1 Ch. iii. 5, 2 Ch. xxv. 1, xxxii. 9, Esth. ii. 6, 
 Jer. xxvi, 18, only; in the Chaldee passages of 
 Ezra and Daniel, DW), ic. Yérdshélem : LXX. 
 Ἱερουσαλήμ; N. T. apparently indifferently 
 Ἱερουσαλὴμ and τὰ Ἱεροσόλυμα: Vulg. Cod. 
 Amiat. Hierusalem and Hierosolyma, but in 
 other old copies Jerusalem, Jerosolyma. In the 
 A. V. of 1611 it is “Jerusalem,” in O. T. and 
 Apocr.; but in Ν, T. “ Hierusalem ”).* 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 PAGE 
 The name . . . . . 4 . 1581 
 Geographical position. ° ° . . 1582 
 Topographical features F ᾿ ὁ . 1584 
 Geology . ἃ . 3 δ 4 ϊ 1588 
 Roads : Ξ . . 5 . . 1538 
 Gates . δ . . ὃ 1588 
 Burial-grounds . . : . 1589 
 Woods; Gardens ᾽ ° 1559 
 Water Supply . . . 5 1590 
 Streets, Houses . . . . . 1593 
 Climate . 0 . δ . 1596 
 History :— 
 Before the Captivity 1596 
 After the Captivity 1605 
 The Siege of Titus 1622 
 After the Siege 1626 
 Ancient Jerusalem . : 5 1631 
 Topography according to Josephus 1632 
 Site of Temple . . . . Ξ 5 ε 1684 
 The Antonia . < : . + 1643 
 The Acra . é Ζ Ξ - 2 . 1644 
 Hippicus . . . . . a ᾿ . 1644 
 The Walls ° . . . Α 1645 
 Population é - 5 1647 
 Pre-exilic Jerusalem Ἢ ᾿ 1648 
 Zion . - - Ε : - 5 1650 
 Topography of the Book of Nehemiah 1651 
 Site of the Holy Sepulchre . ‘ : 1652 
 Buildings—Constantine to Godfrey 1656 
 Mediaeval Jerusalem . « 1658 
 
 a Other names borne by Jerusalem are as follows: 
 1, ARIEL, the “‘ lion of God,” or, according to another 
 
 ; interpretation, the “‘hearth of God” (Is. xxix. 1, 2, 73 
 
 cp. Ezek. xliii. 15). For the former signification cp. 
 Ps. Ixxvi.1, 2 (Stanley, 5. @ P. Ρ. 111). 2. ἡ ayia πόλις, 
 **the holy city,” Matt. iv. 5 and xxvii. 53 only. Both 
 these passages would seem to refer to Zion—the sacred 
 portion of the place, in which the Temple was situated. 
 It also occurs—y 7. ἡ ay.—Rev. xi. 2. 3. Aelia Capito- 
 lina, the name bestowed by the Emperor Hadrian (Aelius 
 Hadrianus) on the city as rebuilt by him, a.p, 135-136. 
 These two names of the emperor are inscribed on the 
 well-known stone in the south wall of the Mosque el- 
 Aksa, one of the few Roman relics about which there 
 can be no dispute. This name is usually employed by 
 Eusebius (Αἰλία) and Jerome, in their Onomasticon. 
 By Ptolemy it is given as Καπιτωλιάς (Reland, Pal. 
 p. 462). 4. The Arabic names are el-Kuds, ‘‘ the holy,” 
 or Beit el-Mukaddas or Beit el-Mukdis, “the holy 
 house,” ‘‘the sanctuary.” The first is that in ordinary 
 use at present. The latter is found in Arabic chronicles. 
 It is also called Iliyé (Yakit, iv. 592), and is referred 
 to in poetry as el-Baldt, **the court” (Le Strange, Pal. 
 under the Moslems, p. 84). ‘The name esh-Sherif, ‘‘ the 
 venerable,” or ‘* the noble,” is also quoted by Schultens 
 in his Index Geogr. in Vit. Salad. 5. Yakut mentions 
 (i. 402, iii. 315, iv. 590) the forms Urishallum, Uri- 
 
1582 JERUSALEM 
 
 On the derivation and signification of the 
 name considerable difference exists among the 
 authorities. The Rabbis state that the name 
 Shalem was bestowed on it by Shem (identical 
 in their traditions with Melchizedek), and the 
 name Jireh by Abraham, after the deliverance 
 of Isaac on Mount Moriah,® and that the two 
 were afterwards combined, lest displeasure 
 should be felt by either of the two Saints at 
 the exclusive use of one (Beresh. Rab. in Otho, 
 Lex. Rab. 5. v., also Lightfoot). Others, quoted 
 by Reland (p. 833), would make it mean “ fear of 
 Salem,” or “sight of peace.” The suggestion of 
 Reland himself, adopted by Simonis (Onom. 
 p- 467) and Ewald (Gesch. iii. 155, note), is V7 
 
 now, “inheritance of peace,” but this is ques- 
 tioned by Gesenius (7168. p. 6286) and First 
 
 (Handwb. p. 547b), who prefer poy 17), the 
 “foundation of peace.” ὃ Another derivation, 
 proposed by the fertile Hitzig (Jesaia, p. 2), is 
 named by the two last great scholars only to 
 condemn it. Others again, looking to the name 
 of the Canaanite tribe who possessed the place 
 at the time of the conquest, would propose 
 Jebus-salem (Reland, p. 834), or even Jebus- 
 Solomon, as the name conferred on the city by 
 that monarch when he began his reign of tran- 
 quillity. 
 
 Another controversy relates to the termination 
 of the name—Jerushalaim—the Hebrew dual; 
 and which, by Simonis and Ewald, is unhesi- 
 tatingly referred to the double formation of the 
 city, while reasons are shown against this by 
 Reland and Gesenius. It is certain that on the 
 two occasions where the latter portion of the 
 name appears to be given for the whole (Gen. 
 xiv. 18; Ps. Ixxvi. 2), it is Shalem, and not 
 Shalaim; also that the five places where the 
 vowel-points of the Masorets are supported by 
 the letters of the original text, are of a late 
 date, when the idea of the double city, and its 
 reflection in the name, would have become 
 familiar to the Jews. In this conflict of 
 authorities the suggestion will perhaps occur to 
 a bystander that the original formation of the 
 name may have been anterior to the entrance of 
 the Israelites on Canaan, and that this was the 
 case seems clear from the cuneiform tablets 
 found in the ruins of Tell el-Amarna. Most of 
 these letters were written towards the close of 
 the reign of Amenéphis IV., a century before 
 the Israelites entered Canaan; and some of 
 them are from Ebed-tob (Abdu-dhabba), the 
 priest-king of Uru-’salim, Jerusalem. It would 
 appear that Jerusalem was the seat of the 
 worship and oracle of the god *Salim, whose 
 
 shalum, and Shallum as the names of the Holy City 
 in the days of the Jews. Edrisi also once gives it the 
 name Awrashalim (ed. Jaubert, i. 345). 6. In the 
 cuneiform inscriptions one form of the name appears 
 as Ur-sa-li-im-mu (Schrader, ἢ. Keilinschriften wu. d. 
 Α. Τ.΄ Ῥ. 161). 
 
 b The question of the identity of Morran with 
 Jerusalem will be examined under that head. 
 
 ¢ Such mystical interpretations as those of Origen, 
 τὸ πνεῦμα χάριτος αὐτῶν (from [ΠῚ and nbt), or ἱερὸν 
 εἰρήνης, Where half the name is interpreted as Greek 
 and half as Hebrew, curious as they are, cannot be 
 examined here. (See the catalogues preserved by 
 Jerome.) 
 
 JERUSALEM 
 
 temple stood on “the mountain” of Moriah, 
 and that the word signifies “the city of the 
 god ’Salim,” i.e. “ of the god of Peace ” (Records 
 of the Past, New Series, v. 60, 61). Jerushalaim 
 then may be regarded as the Hebrew form of 
 the original archaic name. Centuries after- 
 wards, when Hebrews in their turn gave way 
 to Greeks, attempts were made to twist Jeru- 
 shalaim into a shape which should be intel- 
 ligible to Greek ears.4 ‘Iepo σολυμά, “the 
 holy Solyma” (Joseph. B. J. vi. 10), Ἱερὸν 
 Sarou@vos,* the ‘holy place of Solomon” 
 (Eupolemus, in Euseb. Pr. Hv. ix. 34), and the 
 curious fancy quoted by Josephus (0. Ap. i. 34, 
 35) from Lysimachus—epéovaa, “spoilers of 
 temples.” 
 
 The subject of Jerusalem naturally divides 
 itself into three heads :— 
 
 I. The place itself: its origin, position, and 
 physical characteristics. 
 
 II. The annals of the city. 
 
 III. The topography of the town; the re- 
 lative localities of its various parts; the sites of 
 the “ Holy Places,”’ ancient and modern, &c. 
 
 I. THE PLACE ITSELF. 
 
 The arguments—if arguments they can be 
 called—for and against the identity of the 
 “Salem” of Melchizedek (Gen. xiv. 18) with 
 Jerusalem—the “Salem ” of a late Psalmist (Ps. 
 Ixxvi. 2)—are almost equally balanced. In 
 favour of it are the unhesitating statement of 
 fee (Ant. i. 10, § 2; vii. 3, § 2; B. J. vi. 
 
 107) and Eusebius (OS? p. 267, 18, ‘epou- 
 σαλήμ), the recurrence of the name Salem i in the 
 Psalm just quoted, where it undoubtedly means 
 Jerusalem,® and the general consent in the identi- 
 fication. On the other hand is the no less positive 
 statement of Jerome, grounded on more reason 
 than he often vouchsafes for his statements > 
 (Ep. ad Evangelum, § 7), that “Salem was not 
 Jerusalem, as Josephus and all Christians (nostri 
 omnes) believe it to be, but a town near Scytho- 
 polis, which to this day is called Salem, where 
 the magnificent ruins of the palace of Melchizedek 
 are still seen, and of which mention is made in a 
 subsequent passage of Genesis—‘ Jacob came to 
 Salem, a city of Shechem’‘ (Gen. xxxiii. 18).” 
 Elsewhere (0.8.2 p. 282, 84; p. 180, 15) Eusebius 
 and he identify it with Shechem itself. This 
 question will be discussed under the head of 
 
 ἃ Other instances of similar Greek forms given to 
 Hebrew names are Ἱεριχὼ and Ἱερομάξ. 
 
 e Philo carries this a step further, and, bearing in 
 view only the sanctity of the place, he discards the 
 Semitic member of the name, and calls it Ἱερόπολις. 
 It is exactly the complement of πόλις ΞΣολύμα (Pausa~ 
 nias, viii. 16). 
 
 f In this passage he even goes so far as to say that 
 Melchizedek, ‘‘ the first priest of God,” built there the 
 first temple, and changed the name of the city from 
 Soluma to Hierosoluma. 
 
 & A contraction analogous to others with which we 
 are familiar in our own poetry; eg. Edin, or Edina, 
 for Edinburgh. 
 
 h Winer is wrong in stating (RWB. ii. 79) that 
 Jerome bases this statement on a Rabbinical tradition. 
 The tradition that he quotes, in § 5 of the same Ep., 
 is as to the identity of Melchizedek with Shem. 
 
 i R. V. translates ‘‘ Jacob came in peace to the city of 
 Shechem 
 
JERUSALEM 
 
 Satem. Here it is sufficient to say (1) that 
 Jerusalem suits the circumstances of the narra- 
 tive as well as any place further north, or more 
 in the heart of the country. It would be quite 
 as much in Abram’s road from the sources of 
 Jordan to his home under the oaks of Hebron, 
 and it would be quite as suitable for the visit of 
 the king of Sodom. (2) It is perhaps some con- 
 firmation of the identity, at any rate it is a 
 remarkable coincidence, that the king of Jeru- 
 salem in the time of Joshua should bear the title 
 Adoni-zedek—almost precisely the same as that 
 of Melchi-zedek.* 
 
 The question of the identity of Jerusalem 
 with “ Cadytis, a large city of Syria,” ‘almost 
 as large as Sardis,” which is mentioned by 
 Herodotus (ii. 159, iii. 5) as having been taken 
 by Pharaoh-Necho, need not be investigated in 
 this place.’ It is examined in Rawlinson’s 
 Herod. ii. 246; Blakesley’s Herod.—Excursus on 
 Bi, iii. ch. 5 (both against the identification); and 
 in Kenrick’s Egypt, ii. 406, and Dict. of Gk. and 
 Rom. Geogr. ii. 17 (both for it). 
 
 Nor need we do more than refer to the tra- 
 ditions—if traditions they are, and not mere 
 individual speculations—of Tacitus (Hist. v. 2) 
 and Plutarch (15. et Osir. ch. 31), of the founda- 
 tion of the city by a certain Hierosolymus, a 
 son of the Typhon (see Winer’s note, i. 545), 
 All certain information as to the early history 
 of Jerusalem must be gathered from the books 
 of the Jewish historians alone. 
 
 It is during the conquest of the country that 
 Jerusalem first appears in definite form on the 
 scene in which it was destined to occupy so 
 prominent a position, The earliest notice is 
 probably that in Josh. xv. 8 and xviii. 16, 28, 
 describing the landmarks of the boundaries of 
 Judah and Benjamin. Here it is styled Ha- 
 Jebusi, i.c., as in R. V., “the Jebusite” (A. V. 
 Jebusi), after the name of its occupiers, just as 
 is the case with other places in these lists. 
 (JeBusi.] Next, we find the form Jesus (Judg. 
 xix. 10, 11)—‘“‘ Jebus, which is Jerusalem .. . 
 the city of the Jebusites;” and lastly, in docu- 
 ments which profess to be of the same age as 
 the foregoing, we have Jerusalem (Josh. x. 1, 
 &e., xii. 10; Judg. i. 7, &.).™ To this we have 
 a parallel in Hebron, the other great city of 
 Southern Palestine, which bears the alternative 
 title of Kirjath-Arba in these very same 
 documents. 
 
 It is one of the obvious peculiarities of Jeru- 
 salem—but to which Dean Stanley appears to 
 have been the first to call attention—that it did 
 
 k From a passage in one of the Tell el-Amarna 
 tablets, it seems possible that the god of Jerusalem was 
 worshipped under the title of Tsedeq, or ‘* Righteous- 
 ness”; so that the names of the two kings would have 
 meant “‘ Tsedeq is lord,” “" Tsedeq is king ” (Records of 
 the Past, N.S., ν. 63). Cp. the Phoenician god, Sydek. 
 
 1 Kadytis may perhaps be Kadesh on the Orontes, 
 which would be on the road from Megiddo to Carchemish. 
 
 m It would appear from the Zell el-Amarna tablets 
 that the original name was Uru-’salim, Jerusalem; and 
 Professor Sayce has suggested (Records of the Past, 
 New Series, v. 60) that it only received the name Jebus 
 after its conquest by the Hittites and Amorites. When 
 the Israelites entered Canaan, ‘‘ they found Jerusalem a 
 stronghold of the Jebusite tribe of Amorites. It had 
 ceased for a while to be Jerusalem, and had become 
 Jebus, the ‘ Jebusite ’ city.” 
 
 JERUSALEM 1583 
 
 not become the capital till a comparatively late 
 date in the career of the nation. Bethel, 
 Shechem, Hebron, had their beginnings in the 
 earliest periods of national life; but Jerusalem 
 was not only not a chief city, it was not even 
 possessed by the Israelites till they had gone 
 through one complete stage of their life in 
 Palestine, and the second—the monarchy—had 
 been fairly entered on (see Stanley, 3. & P. 
 p- 169). 
 
 The explanation of this is no doubt in some 
 measure to be found in the fact that the seats 
 of the government and the religion of the 
 nation were originally fixed farther north—first 
 at Shechem and Shiloh; then at Gibeah, Nob, 
 and Gibeon; but it is also no doubt partly due 
 to the natural strength of Jerusalem. The 
 heroes of Joshua’s army who traced the boundary- 
 line which was to separate the possessions of 
 Judah and Benjamin, when, after passing the 
 spring of En-rogel, they went along the “ ravine 
 of the son of Hinnom,” and looked up to the 
 “southern shoulder of the Jebusite” (Josh. 
 xv. 7, 8), must have felt that to scale heights 
 so great and so steep would have fully tasked 
 even their tried prowess. We shall see, when 
 we glance through the annals of the city, that 
 it did effectually resist the tribes of Judah and 
 Simeon not many years later. But when, after 
 the death of Ishbosheth, David became king of 
 a united and powerful people, it was necessary 
 for him to leave the remote Hebron and ap- 
 proach nearer to the bulk of his dominions. At 
 the same time it was impossible to desert the 
 great tribe to which he belonged, and over 
 whom he had been reigning for seven years. 
 Out of this difficulty Jerusalem was the natural 
 escape, and accordingly at Jerusalem David fixed 
 the seat of his throne and the future sanctuary 
 of his nation. 
 
 The boundary between Judah and Benjamin, 
 the north boundary of the former and the 
 south of the latter, ran at the foot of the hill 
 on which the city stands, so that the city itself 
 was actually in Benjamin, while by crossing 
 the narrow ravine of Hinnom you set foot on 
 the territory of Judah. That it was not far 
 enough to the north to command the continued 
 allegiance of the tribe of Ephraim, and the 
 others which lay above him, is obvious from 
 the fact of the separation which at last took 
 place. It is enough for the vindication of David 
 in having chosen it to remember that that 
 separation did not take place during the reigns 
 of himself or his son, and was at last precipitated 
 by misgovernment, combined with feeble short- 
 sightedness. And if not actually in the centre 
 
 « This appears from an examination of the two 
 corresponding documents, Josh. xv. 7, 8, and xviii. 
 16, 17. The line was drawn from En-shemesh— 
 probably ‘Ain Haud, below Bethany—to En-rogel—the 
 Fountain of the Virgin; thence it went by the ravine of 
 Hinnom and the southern shoulder of the Jebusite—the 
 steep slope of the modern Zion; climbed the heights on 
 the west of the ravine, and struck off to the spring at 
 Nephtoah. The other view, which is made the most of 
 by Blunt in one of his ingenious ‘‘ coincidences "ἢ (Pt. ii. 
 17), and is also favoured by Stanley (S. & P. p 176), is 
 derived from a Jewish tradition, quoted by Lightfoot 
 (Prospect of the Temple, ch. 1), to the effect that the 
 Altars and Sanctuary were in Benjamin, the courts of 
 the Temple were in Judah. 
 
1584 JERUSALEM 
 
 of Palestine, it was yet virtually so. “It was 
 on the ridge, the broadest and most strongly 
 marked ridge of the backbone of the complicated 
 hills which extend through the whole country 
 from the Plain of Esdraelon to the Desert. 
 Every wanderer, every conqueror, every traveller 
 who has trod the central route of Palestine 
 from N. to 5. must have passed through the 
 table-land of Jerusalem. It was the watershed 
 between the streams, or rather the torrent-beds, 
 which find their way eastward to the Jordan 
 (correctly Dead Sea), and those which pass 
 westwarf to the Mediterranean” (Stanley, S. δ᾽ 
 P. p. 176). 
 
 This central position, as expressed in the 
 words of Ezekiel (v. 5), “I have set Jerusalem 
 in the midst of the nations and countries round 
 about her,” led in later ages to a definite belief 
 that the city was actually in the centre of the 
 earth—in the words of Jerome, “ umbilicus 
 terrae,” the central boss or navel of the world ° 
 (see the quotations in Reland, Pal, pp. 52 and 
 838; Joseph. B. J. iii. 3, § 5; also Stanley, S. 
 g§ P. p. 116). 
 
 At the same time it should not be overlooked 
 that, while thus central to the people of the 
 country, it had the advantage of being remote 
 from the great high road of the nations which 
 so frequently passed by Palestine, and therefore 
 enjoyed a certain immunity from disturbance. 
 The only practicable route for a great army, 
 with baggage, siege-trains, &c., moving between 
 Egypt and Assyria, was by the low plain which 
 bordered the sea-coast from Pelusium to Tyre. 
 From that plain the central table-land on which 
 Jerusalem stood was approached by valleys and 
 passes generally too intricate and precipitous 
 tor the passage of large bodies. Two roads 
 there were less rugged than the rest—that from 
 Jaffa and Lydda up the pass of the Bethhorons to 
 Gibeon, and thence over the hills to the north 
 side of Jerusalem; and that from Gaza and 
 Bethshemesh up the long ascent to Solomon’s 
 Pools, and thence by Rachel’s Tomb, and the 
 Plain of Rephaim to the west side of the {city. 
 By these routes, with few, if any, exceptions, 
 armies seem to have approached the city.P On 
 the other hand, we shall find, in tracing the 
 annals of Jerusalem, that great forces frequently 
 passed between Egypt and Assyria, and battles 
 were fought in the plain by large armies, 
 nay, that sieges of the towns on the Medi- 
 terranean coast were conducted, lasting for 
 years, without apparently affecting Jerusalem 
 the least. 
 
 Jerusalem stands in latitude 31° 46’ 45” 
 North, and longitude 35° 13’ 444 East of 
 Greenwich. It is 33 miles distant from the sea, 
 and 181 from the Jordan; 19 from Hebron, and 
 
 ° This is prettily expressed in a Rabbinical figure 
 quoted by Otho (Lex, 266) :—** The world is like to an 
 eye: the white of the eye is the ocean surrounding the 
 world; the black is the world itself; the pupil is 
 Jerusalem; and the image in the pupil, the Temple.” 
 
 P The principal roads from the maritime plain, and 
 the valley of the Jordan, to the hill-country, avoided the 
 narrow beds of the deep ravines, and, for obvious motives 
 of precaution against hostile attack and winter torrents, 
 followed the crests of the intervening spurs. 
 
 4 This position is from the triangulation of the 
 PEF. Survey, and depends on the Admiralty longitude of 
 Jaffa. 
 
 JERUSALEM 
 
 35 from Samaria. It is emphatically a mountain 
 city. Situated in the heart of the hill-country, 
 which extends from the plain of Esdraelon to 
 the southern limit of the Promised Land, sur- 
 rounded on all sides by limestone hills that are 
 seamed by countless ravines, and only approached 
 by rough mountain roads, its position is one of 
 great natural strength. The importance attached 
 to the surrounding hills as a protection from 
 hostile attack may be inferred from the words 
 of Ps. exxy. 2: ‘As the mountains are round 
 about Jerusalem, so the Lord is round about 
 His people.” ‘In several respects,” says Dean 
 Stanley, “its situation is singular among the 
 cities of Palestine. Its elevation is remarkable ; 
 occasioned not from its being on the summit οὗ 
 one of the numerous hills of Judaea, like most 
 of the towns and villages, but because it is on 
 the edge of one of the highest table-lands of the 
 country.” From the north and from the south 
 the approach to Jerusalem is by a slight descent. 
 But “to the traveller approaching the city from 
 the E. or W. it must always have presented the 
 appearance beyond any other capital of the then 
 known world—we may say beyond any impor- 
 tant city that has ever existed on the earth—of 
 a mountain city; breathing, as compared with 
 the sultry plains of Jordan, a mountain air; 
 enthroned, as compared with Jericho or Damas- 
 cus, Gaza or Tyre, on a mountain fastness” 
 (S. § P. pp. 170-1). 
 
 The elevation of Jerusalem is a subject of 
 constant reference and exultation by the Jewish 
 writers. Their fervid poetry abounds with 
 allusions to its height," to the ascent thither of 
 the tribes from all parts of the country. It was 
 the habitation of Jehovah, from which “ He 
 looked upon all the inhabitants of the world ” 
 (Ps. xxxiii. 14): its kings were “higher than 
 the kings of the earth” (Ps. Ixxxix. 27). In 
 the later Jewish literature of narrative and de- 
 scription this poetry is reduced to prose, and in 
 the most exaggerated form. Jerusalem was se 
 high that the flames of Jamnia were visible 
 from it (2 Macc. xii. 9). From the tower of 
 Psephinus, at the N.W. corner of the walls, 
 could be discerned on the one hand the Mediter- 
 ranean Sea, on the other the country of Arabia 
 (Joseph. B. J. v. 4, § 3). Hebron could be seen 
 from the roofs of the Temple (Lightfoot, Chor. 
 Cent. xlix.). The same thing can be traced in 
 Josephus’s account of the environs of the city, 
 in which he has exaggerated what is in truth a 
 remarkable ravine, to a depth so enormous that 
 the head swam and the eyes failed in gazing into 
 its recesses (Ant. xv. 11, § 5). 
 
 In exemplification of these remarks it may be 
 said that the highest point within the walls of 
 the city is 2,582 feet above the level of the sea. 
 The Mount of Olives rises slightly above this— 
 2,647 feet. Beyond the Mount of Olives, how- 
 ever, the descent is remarkable; Jericho—143 
 miles off—being no less than 3,467 feet below, 
 viz. 820 feet under the Mediterranean. On the 
 north, Bethel, at a distance of 10} miles, is 308 
 feet above Jerusalem. On the west Ramleh— 
 25 miles—is 2,230 feet below. On the south, 
 Hebron is 458 feet above. A table of the 
 heights of the various parts of the city and 
 environs is given further on. 
 
 τ See the passages quoted by Stanley (S. ὦ P. p. 171), 
 
JERUSALEM 
 
 JERUSALEM 1585 
 
 The situation of the city in reference to the | an hour and a half from the latter city. On 
 rest of Palestine has been described by Dr. | again reaching the high ground on its eastern 
 
 Robinson in a well-known passage, which is so | 
 
 complete and graphic a statement of the case, 
 that we take the liberty of giving it entire. 
 
 “ Jerusalem lies near the summit of a broad 
 mountain ridge. This ridge or mountatnous 
 tract extends, without interruption, from the 
 plain of Esdraelon to a line drawn between the 
 
 south end of the Dead Sea and the S.E. corner | 
 
 of the Mediterranean: or more properly, perhaps, 
 
 it may be regarded as extending as far south as | 
 
 to Jebel ’Ardif in the desert; where it sinks 
 down at once to the level of the great western 
 plateau. This tract, which is everywhere not 
 less than from 20 to 25 geographical miles 
 in breadth, is in fact high uneven table-land. 
 It everywhere forms the precipitous western 
 wall of the great valley of the Jordan and 
 the Dead Sea; while towards the west it 
 sinks down by an offset into a range of lower 
 hills, which lie between it and the great plain 
 along the coast of the Mediterranean. The 
 surface of this upper region is everywhere 
 rocky, uneven, and mountainous ; and is more- 
 over cut up by deep valleys which run east or 
 west on either side towards the Jordan or the 
 Mediterranean. The line of division, or water- 
 shed, between the waters of these valleys,—a 
 
 term which here applies almost exclusively to | 
 the waters of the rainy season,—follows for the | 
 most part the height of land along the ridge; | 
 yet not so but that the heads of the valleys, | 
 
 which run off in different directions, often in- 
 terlap for a considerable distance. Thus, for 
 example, a valley which descends to the Jordan 
 often has its head a mile or two westward of the 
 commencement of other valleys which run to 
 the western sea. 
 
 “From the great plain of Esdraelon onwards 
 
 towards the south, the mountainous country | 
 
 rises gradually, forming the tract anciently | 
 
 known as the mountains of Ephraim and Judah ; 
 until in the vicinity of Hebron it attains an 
 elevation of nearly 3,000 Paris feet * above the 
 level of the Mediterranean Sea. Further north, 
 on a line drawn from the north end of the Dead 
 Sea towards the true west, the ridge has an 
 elevation of only about 2,500 Paris feet; and 
 here, close upon the water-shed, lies the city of 
 Jerusalem. 
 
 “Six or seven miles N. and N.W. of the city 
 is spread out the open plain or basin round 
 about e/-Jib (Gibeon), extending also towards 
 el-Bireh (Beeroth); the waters of which flow off 
 at its S.E. part through the deep valley here 
 called by the Arabs Wady Beit Hanina ; but to 
 which the monks and travellers have usually 
 given the name of the Valley of Turpentine, or 
 of the Terebinth, on the mistaken supposition 
 that it is the ancient Valley of Elah. This 
 great valley passes along in a S.W. direction an 
 hour or more west of Jerusalem; and finally 
 opens out from the mountains into the western 
 plain, at the distance of 6 or 8 hours S.W. 
 from the city, under the name of Wady es-Surar. 
 The traveller, on his way from Ramleh to Jeru- 
 salem, descends into and crosses this deep valley 
 at the village of Kulénieh on its western side, 
 
 8 The altitude of Hulhul, near Hebron, is 3,270 feet. 
 - BIBLE DICT.—VOL. I. 
 
 side, he enters upon an open tract sloping 
 gradually downwards towards the south and 
 east; and sees before him, at the distance of a 
 mile and a half, the walls and domes of the 
 Holy City, and beyond them the higher ridge or 
 summit of the Mount of Olives. 
 
 “The traveller now descends gradually to- 
 wards the city along a broad swell of ground,* 
 having at some distance on his left the shallow 
 northern part of the Valley of Jehoshaphat; and 
 close at hand on his right the basin which forms 
 the beginning of the Valley of Hinnom. Upon 
 the broad and elevated promontory within the 
 fork of these two valleys, lies the Holy City. 
 All around are higher hills: on the east, the 
 Mount of Olives; on the south, the Hill of Evil 
 Counsel, so called, rising directly from the Vale 
 of Hinnom; on the west, the ground rises 
 gently, as above described, to the borders of the 
 great Wady; while on the north, a bend of the 
 ridge connected with the Mount of Olives bounds 
 the prospect at the distance of more than a mile. 
 Towards the S.W. the view is somewhat more 
 open; for here lies the plain of Rephaim, already 
 described, commencing just at the southern 
 brink of the Valley of Hinnom, and stretching 
 off S.W., where it runs to the western sea. In 
 the N.W., too, the eye reaches up along the 
 upper part of the Valley of Jehoshaphat; and 
 from many points can discern the mosque of 
 Neby Samuil, situated on a lofty ridge beyond 
 the great Wady, at the distance of two hours ” 
 (Robinson’s Bibl. Researches, i. 258-260). 
 
 So much for the local and political relation of 
 Jerusalem ¢o the country in general. To convey 
 an idea of its individual position, we may say 
 roughly, and with reference to the accompanying 
 plan (Plate I.), that the city occupies the lower 
 extremity of a smal] plateau which slopes gently 
 southward from the ridge that parts the waters 
 of the Mediterranean from those of the Dead Sea. 
 The little table-land is not more than 1000 acres 
 in extent, and on its west, south, and east sides 
 it is cut off from the surrounding country by 
 ravines more than usually deep and precipitous. 
 These ravines take their rise, within a short 
 distance of each other, in the higher ground to 
 the north-west of the city, and falling, at first 
 
 | gradually, then rapidly, form a junction below 
 
 its south-east corner. The eastern one—the 
 Valley of the Kedron, commonly known as the 
 Valley of Jehoshaphat—after running eastward 
 for a mile and a half, changes its direction and 
 runs nearly due south. The western one—the 
 Valley of Hinnom—which, at its head, widens 
 out into a broad shallow basin, follows a 
 southerly course for a mile and a quarter, and 
 then turns eastward to meet the Valley of the 
 Kedron. After their junction the two valleys, 
 now called the Wddy en-Nar, “ Valley of Fire,” 
 run off through the Wilderness of Judaea to the 
 Dead Sea. How rapid is their descent may be 
 gathered from the fact that the point of junction 
 is 672 feet below the starting-point, though the 
 two points are scarcely one and three quarter 
 
 t The “ broad swell of ground” is now, in great part, 
 covered with houses; but the features so clearly described 
 by Dr. Robinson can still be easily recognised. 1 
 
 5 
 
1586 JERUSALEM JERUSALEM 
 
 highest parts of the city; on the other three 
 sides the ravines fall so steeply, their character 
 is so trench-like, and they keep so close to the 
 
 miles apart. Thus, while on the north there is 
 no material difference between the general level 
 of the country outside the walls and that of the 
 
 —= — = = 
 
 SSS 
 
 View of Jerusalem, from the south. 
 
 AML WLM PER 
 
 ars 
 = 
 SS 
 
 promontory, at whose feet they run, that they 
 leave upon the beholder almost the impression 
 of a ditcn at the foot of a fortress. 
 
 The plateau thus encircled is itself intersected 
 by a ravine which, rising to the north of the 
 city, runs southward to join the Kedron Valley 
 
JERUSALEM 
 
 at Siloam, and divides the central mass into two 
 spurs of unequal size that terminate in abrupt 
 broken slopes. Of these two spurs, that on the 
 west—the Upper City of the Jews, the Mount 
 Zion of modern tradition—is the higher and 
 more massive; that on the east—Mount Moriah, 
 the “ Akra” or “ Lower City ” of Josephus, now 
 occupied by the great Muhammadan sanctuary 
 with its mosques and domes—is at once con- 
 siderably lower and smaller, so that, to a spec- 
 tator from the south, the city appears to slope 
 sharply to the east." About 700 yards above 
 Siloam this central valley is joined, almost at 
 right angles, by asmaller one, which falls rapidly 
 in its course eastward from the vicinity of the 
 present Jaffa Gate. Opinions differ as to whether 
 the straight valley north and south, or its 
 southern half, with the branch just spoken of, 
 was the “Tyropoeon valley ” of Josephus. The 
 question will be examined in Section III. under 
 the head of the Topography of the Ancient City. 
 
 A fourth valley, the rugged nature of which 
 was only disclosed by excavation, rises in the 
 eastern half of the plateau, and falls into the 
 Kedron a short distance north of the Golden 
 Gate. Part of this depression—apparently “ the 
 valley called Kedron,” of Josephus—is still 
 preserved in the large reservoir, Birket Israil, 
 usually called the Pool of Bethesda, near the St. 
 Stephen’s Gate. 
 
 The Tyropoeon and the fourth valley are so 
 filled with the débris of ancient Jerusalem that 
 neither their form nor their true course can now 
 be distinguished. The bed of the former is 
 sometimes more than 90 feet, and that of the 
 latter, where it underlies the north-east corner 
 of the Haram esh-Sherif, no less than 125 feet 
 below the present surface of the ground. The 
 rocky sides of the Kedron and Hinnom valleys, 
 which, below the city walls, were cut away in 
 cliffs from 10 to 20 feet high to give additional 
 security, are now so concealed by debris that 
 ‘they present the appearance of steep continuous 
 slopes, broken only by a few terraced gardens. 
 
 This rough sketch of the terrain of Jerusalem 
 will enable the reader to appreciate the two 
 great advantages of its position. On the one 
 hand the ravines which entrench it on the west, 
 south, and east—out of which, as has been said, 
 the rocky slopes of the city rise almost like the 
 walls of a fortress out of its ditches—must have 
 rendered it impregnable on those quarters to the 
 warfare of the old world. On the other hand, 
 its junction with the more level ground on its 
 north and north-west sides afforded an oppor- 
 tunity of expansion, of which we know advantage 
 was taken, and which gave it remarkable 
 superiority over other cities of Palestine, and 
 especially of Judah, which, though secure on 
 their hill-tops, were unable to expand beyond 
 them (Stanley, 8. ¢ P., pp. 174-5). 
 
 The heights of the principal points in and 
 round the city, above the Mediterranean Sea, as 
 determined by the Ordnance Survey~* in 1864-65, 
 are as follows :— 
 
 ἃ The character of the ravines and the eastward 
 slope of the site are well shown in the Ordnance Survey 
 photographs of Jerusalem ; and in Section 1, Plan No. 2, 
 Ῥ. 1637. 
 
 x The levels are given on the 0.8, ΠΩΣ of Jerusalem 
 on the 25 in. and 6 in. scales. 
 
 JERUSALEM 1587 
 
 Feet. 
 
 Water-parting N.W. οἵ οἷν... « ὁ 2880 
 N.W. corner of the city (Kalat 6 |Salad) δια 4. ean 
 Church of Holy Sepulchre. . ὁ 2418 
 Upper City (Armenian Monastery i « ὁ 2544 
 Mount Moriah (Haram esh-Sherif) . o 6 « 2419 
 Bridge over the Kedron, near Gethsemane. . . 2270 
 Pool of Siloam . - 2087 
 
 Bir Eyib, at the confluence of ‘Hinnom and 
 
 Kedron 1979 
 Mount of Olives, Church of Annetanse on summit 2641 
 Hill of Evil Counsel 2549 
 
 From these figures it will +e seen ‘that the 
 spur on which the western half of the city is 
 built, is tolerably level from north to south ; 
 that the eastern hill is more than a hundred 
 feet lower; and that from the latter the de- 
 scent to the floor of the valley at its feet—the 
 Bir Eytb—is a drop of 440 feet. 
 
 The Mount of Olives overtops even the highest 
 part of the city by nearly 100 feet, and the 
 Temple-hill by no less than 220. Its northern 
 and southern outliers—the Viri Galilaei, Scopus, 
 and Mount of Offence—bend round slightly 
 towards the city, and give the effect of 
 “standing round about Jerusalem.” Especially 
 would this be the case to a worshipper in the 
 Temple. ‘It is true,” says Dean Stanley, “that 
 this image is not realised, as most persons 
 familiar with European scenery - would wish 
 and expect it to be realised. . . . Any one facing 
 Jerusalem westward, northward, or southward, 
 will always see the city itself on an elevation 
 higher than the hills in its immediate neighbour- 
 hood, its towers and walls standing out against 
 the sky, and not against any high background, 
 such as that which encloses the mountain towns 
 and villages of our own Cumbrian or West- 
 moreland valleys. Nor again is the plain on 
 which it stands enclosed by a continuous, though 
 distant, circle of mountains like Athens or 
 Innspruck. The mountains in the neighbour- 
 hood of Jerusalem are of unequal height, and 
 only in two or three instances—WNeby-Samuil, 
 er-Ram, and Tuleil el-Ful—rising to any con- 
 siderable elevation. Still they act as a shelter ; 
 they must be surmounted before the traveller 
 can see, or the invader attack, the Holy City; 
 and the distant line of Moab would always 
 seem to rise as a wall against invaders from the 
 remote east. It is these mountains, expressly 
 including those beyond the Jordan, which are 
 mentioned as‘ standing round about Jerusalem’ 
 in another and more terrible sense, when, on 
 the night of the assault of Jerusalem by the 
 Roman armies, they ‘echoed back’ the screams 
 of the inhabitants of the captured city, and the 
 victorious shouts of the soldiers of Titus. The 
 situation of Jerusalem was thus not unlike, on 
 a small scale, to that of Rome, saving the great 
 difference that Rome was in a well-watered 
 plain, leading direct to the sea, whereas Jerusa- 
 lem was on a bare table-land, in the heart of 
 the country. But each was situated on its own 
 cluster of steep hills; each had room for future 
 expansion in the surrounding level; each, too, 
 had its nearer and more remote barriers of 
 protecting hills—Rome its Janiculum hard by, 
 and its Apennine and Alban mountains in the 
 distance ; Jerusalem its Olivet hard by, and on 
 the outposts of its plain, Mizpeh, Gibeon, and 
 Ramah, and the ridge which divides it from 
 Bethlehem ” (8. δ᾽ P. pp. 174-5). 
 
 12 
 
1588 JERUSALEM 
 
 Geology.—The strata of the limestone plateau 
 on which Jerusalem stands have ἃ general 
 easterly dip of about 10 degrees, and there is 
 therefore an ascending series from the western 
 hill to the Mount of Olives. Dr. Fraas (Aus 
 dem Orient., p. 50 sq.) has shown that the strata 
 consist of the following in descending order :—1. 
 Nummulitic limestone, composed of soft white 
 limestone with bands of flints and fossils, locally 
 known as Kakili. 2. Upper Hippurite lime- 
 stone, or Nerinaean marble, composed of beds 
 of hard reddish and grey stone, capable of 
 taking a good polish, called MJisseh, 3. Lower 
 Hippurite limestone, a soft easily-worked stone, 
 called Melekeh, a name which recalls the banc 
 royal of French quarrymen; and 4. Zone des 
 Ammonites rhotomagensis, composed of pink and 
 white strata of indurated chalk. 
 
 The UVelekeh bed, which is from 30 to 40 feet 
 thick, underlies the whole city, and has played 
 an important part in its history. All the great 
 subterranean reservoirs, nearly all the tombs, 
 the Siloam aqueduct, and the caverns at the 
 village of Siloam have been hewn out of it ; and 
 the extensive underground quarries near the 
 Damascus Gate show that it was largely used 
 for building purposes. Many of the large 
 blocks in the walls of the Temple enclosure are 
 from this bed, and the stone where free from 
 flaws and not exposed to rain has worn well. 
 The Misseh beds, however, have yielded most of 
 the material for these walls, and the edges of 
 the stones are frequently as sharp and perfect 
 as when they left the mason’shands. The stone 
 from both beds weathers a dull grey, and this 
 gives the whole city an appearance of antiquity 
 which harmonizes well with its history (Lartet, 
 Géologie de la Palestine, pp. 175, 176). 
 
 Roads.—There appear to have been four 
 main approaches to the city. 1. From the 
 Jordan valley by Jericho and the Mount of 
 Olives. This was the route commonly taken 
 from the north and east of the country—as from 
 Galilee by our Lord (Luke xvii. 11; xviii. 35 ; 
 xix. 1, 29, 45, &.), from Damascus by Pompey 
 (Joseph. Ant. xiv. 3, § 4; 4, καὶ 1), to Mahanaim 
 by David (2 Sam. xv., xvi.). It was also the 
 route from places in the central districts of the 
 country, as Samaria (2 Ch. xxviii. 15). The 
 latter part of the approach, over the Mount of 
 Olives, as generally followed at the present day, 
 is identical with what it was, at least in one 
 memorable instance, in the time of Christ. A 
 road there is over the crown of the hill, to the 
 north of the Church of the Ascension, but the 
 common route still runs more to the south, 
 round the shoulder of the principal summit 
 (see S. δ' P. p. 193). The insecure state of the 
 Jordan valley has thrown this route very much 
 into disuse, and has diverted the traffic from the 
 north to a road along the central ridge of the 
 country. 2. From Joppa, and the northern 
 portion of the great maritime plain. This road 
 led by the two Bethhorons up to the high 
 ground at Gibeon, whence it turned south, and 
 came to Jerusalem by Gibeah, and over the 
 ridge north of the city. This route is still 
 much used, though a shorter but more precipi- 
 tous road is usually taken by travellers between 
 Jerusalem and Jaffa, In tracing the annals we 
 shall find that it was the route by which large 
 bodies, such as armies, always approached the 
 
 JERUSALEM 
 
 city from Caesarea and Ptolemais on the north, 
 and sometimes from Gaza on the south. 3. 
 From Egypt and the Plain of Philistia. This 
 road ran by Bethshemesh, and thence up the 
 long slope to ““ Solomon’s Pools,” where it turned 
 northwards and, after passing Bethlehem, crossed 
 the Plain of Rephaim to Jerusalem. Another 
 road followed the Valley of Elah to Socoh, and 
 there branched off on the one hand to Bethlehem, 
 and on the other to Bethzur, on the road from 
 Hebron to Jerusalem. These roads were fre- 
 quently followed by the Philistines, who camped 
 on the Plain of Rephaim, and, at one time, 
 garrisoned Bethlehem. During the wars of the 
 Maccabees the contending armies appear to have 
 followed the more southerly road, passing by 
 Bethzur. 4. From Samaria and Shechem. 
 This road kept closely to the line of the water- 
 parting from N. to S., and passed by Bethel. 
 It was apparently followed by the kings of 
 Israel in their campaigns against Judah. 5. 
 The communication with the mountainous 
 districts of the south was less complete. But 
 there was a road by Hebron and Beersheba to 
 Egypt, which seems to have been at one time 
 much used. 
 
 The roads out of Jerusalem were a special 
 subject of Solomon’s care. He paved them with 
 black stone—possibly the basalt of the Trans- 
 jordanic districts, or the bituminous limestone 
 from the hills between the city and the Dead 
 Sea (Joseph. Ant. viii. 7, § 4). 
 
 Gates.—The situation of the various gates of 
 the city is examined in Section II]. It may, 
 however, be desirable to supply here a complete 
 list of those which are named in the Bible and 
 Josephus, with the references to their occur- 
 rences :— 
 
 1. Gate of Ephraim. 2 K. xiv. 13; 2 Ch. 
 xxv. 23; Neh. viii. 16, xii.39. This is perhaps 
 the same as the 
 
 2. Gate of Benjamin.y Jer. xx. 2, xxxvii. 
 13, xxxviii. 7; Zech. xiv. 10. If so, it was- 
 400 cubits distant from the 
 
 3. Corner gate. 2 K. xiv. 13; 2 Ch. xxv. 23, 
 xxvi. 9; Jer. xxxi. 385 Zech. xiv. 10. 
 
 4. Gate of Joshua, governor of the city. 2 Καὶ, 
 xxiii. 8. 
 
 5. Gate between the two walls. 
 Jer. xxxix, 4, lii, 7. 
 
 6. Horse gate. Neh. iii. 28; 2 Ch. xxiii. 15: 
 ep. 2 K. xi. 16; Jer. xxxi. 40; Joseph. Ant. ix. 
 7, § 3, gate of the king’s mules. 
 
 7. Ravine gate (i.e. opening on the ravine of 
 
 2K. xxv. 4: 
 
 Hinnom). 2 Ch. xxvi. 9; Neh. ii. 13, 15, 
 iii. 13. 
 8. Fish gate. 2 Ch. xxxiii. 14; Neh. iii, 3, 
 
 xii. 39; Zeph. i. 10. 
 
 9. Dung gate. Neh. ii. 13; iii, 13, 143 xii. 
 31. Cp. the “place called Bethso” (8. J. v. 
 4, § 2). 
 
 10. Sheep gate. 
 John vy. 2 in R. V. 
 
 11. East gate. Neh. iii. 29. 
 
 12. Miphkad (R. V. Ham-miphkad). 
 iii. 51. 
 
 13. Fountain gate (Siloam 3). Neh. ii. 
 iii. 155 xii. 37. 
 
 Neh... iii., 1,, (32,7 τὰν τ" 
 
 Neh. 
 
 14; 
 
 y One of the gates on the east side of the future 
 Jerusalem was to be called the Gate of Benjamin 
 (Ezek. xlviii. 32). 
 
JERUSALEM 
 14, Water gate. Neh. iii. 26, viii. 1, 3, 16; 
 xii. 37. 
 
 15. Old gate. Neh. iii. 6; xii. 39. 
 
 16. Prison gate (R. V. Gate of the guard). 
 Neh. xii. 39. 
 
 17. Gate Harsith (sun gate, or R. V. marg. 
 the gate of potsherds; A. V. Kast gate), Jer. 
 xix. 2. 
 
 18. First gate. 
 
 19. Middle gate. 
 
 20. Gate Gennath (garden). 
 v. 4, § 2. 
 
 21. Essenes’ gate. Joseph. B. J. v. 4, § 2. 
 
 22. Gate where water was brought into the 
 tower Hippicus (B. J. v. 7, § 3). Perhaps the 
 same as the 
 
 23. Obscure gate, near Hippicus (B. J. v. 
 6, § 5). 
 
 2 these should be added the following gates 
 of the Temple :— 
 
 Gate Sur. 2 K.xi. 6. Called also 
 
 Gate of the foundation. 2 Ch. xxiii. 5. 
 
 Gate of the guard, or behind the guard. 
 xi. 6,19. Called the 
 
 High (R. V. upper) gate. 2 Ch. xxiii. 20, 
 xxvii. 3; 2 K. xv.35: cp. Joseph. Ant. ix. 7, ὃ 2. 
 
 Gate Shallecheth (R. V. marg. casting forth). 
 1 Ch. xxvi. 16. 
 
 East gate. Ezek. x. 19; xi. 1. 
 
 New gate. Jer. xxvi. 10, xxxvi. 10. 
 
 The following gates of Herod’s Temple are 
 mentioned in the Bible, Josephus, and the 
 
 Zech. xiv. 10. 
 Jels χχχίχ. ὃ. 
 
 Joseph. 8, J. 
 
 2 K. 
 
 Mishna :— 
 Beautiful gate. Acts iii. 2, 10. 
 East gate. Ant, xv. 11, § 7. 
 
 Gate leading to the king’s palace. Ant. xv. 11, § 5. 
 Gates leading to the suburbs. Ant. xv. 11, § 5. 
 Gate leading to the other city. Amt. xv. 11, § 5. 
 Huldah gates. Mid. i. 3, op. Ant. xv. 11, § 5. 
 Gate Kipunus. Mid. i. 3. 
 
 Gate Tadi. Mid. i. 3. 
 
 Gate Shushan. Mid. i. 3. 
 
 Gate Nicanor. Mid. i. 4. 
 
 Burial-qrounds.—The main cemetery of the 
 city seems from an early date to have been 
 where it is still—on the steep slopes of the 
 valley of the Kedron. Here it was that the 
 fragments of the idol abominations, destroyed 
 by Josiah, were cast on the “graves of the 
 children of the people” (2 K. xxiii. 6), and the 
 valley was always the receptacle for impurities 
 of all kinds. There Maachah’s idol was burnt 
 by Asa (1 K. xv. 13); there, according to 
 Josephus, Athaliah was executed ; and there the 
 “filthiness” accumulated in the sanctuary, by 
 the false-worship of Ahaz, was discharged (2 Ch. 
 ‘xxix. 5, 16). But in addition to this, and 
 although there is only a slight allusion in the 
 Bible to the fact (Jer. vii. 32), many of the 
 tombs now existing in the face of the ravine of 
 Hinnom, on the south of the city, must be as old 
 as Biblical times; and, if so, show that this was 
 also used as a cemetery. The monument of 
 Ananus the high-priest (Joseph. B. J. v. 12, § 2) 
 would seem to have been in this direction. 
 
 The tombs of the kings were in the city of 
 David, which, as will be shown in the concluding 
 section of this article, was on the eastern hill, 
 Moriah. The royal sepulchres were probably 
 chambers containing separate recesses for the suc- 
 cessive kings; and it is possible that the cham- 
 
 JERUSALEM 1589 
 
 bers were, as in many Phoenician tombs, at the 
 bottom of a deep shatt. (‘lomps.] Of some of 
 the kings it is recorded that, not being thought 
 worthy of a resting-place there, they were 
 buried in separate or private tombs in the city 
 of David (2 Ch. xxi. 20, xxiv. 25; 2 K. xv. 7). 
 Ahaz was not admitted to the city of David at 
 all, but was buried in Jerusalem (2 Ch. xxviii, 
 27); and Manasseh and Amon were buried in 
 the garden of Uzza (2 K. xxi. 18, 26). Other 
 spots also were used for burial. Somewhere to 
 the north of the Temple, and not far from the 
 wal], was the monument of king Alexander 
 (Joseph. B. J. v. 7, § 3). Near the north-west 
 corner of the city was the monument of John 
 the high-priest (Joseph. v. 6, § 2, &c.), and to the 
 north-east the “monument of the fuller’’ (Joseph. 
 B. J. v.4, § 2). On the north, too, were the 
 monuments of Herod (v. 3, § 2) and of queen 
 Helena (ν. 2, ὃ 2; 3, § 3), the former close to 
 the “Serpent’s Pool.” 
 
 Excepting in the Kedron and Hinnom valleys, 
 where the ancient tombs form large cemeteries, 
 the custom of burying in gardens appears to 
 have been very general. There are large 
 numbers of ancient tombs, isolated or in small 
 groups, on the plateau to the north of the city, 
 on the slopes of Olivet, and in the W. en-Nar, 
 below Bir Hyub. The only known rock-hewn 
 tombs within the city are those in and near 
 the Church of the Holy Sepulchre; none have 
 yet been found on the eastern and western 
 hills. 
 
 Woods; Gardens.—We have very little evi- 
 dence as to the amount of wood and of culti- 
 vation that existed in the neighbourhood of 
 Jerusalem. The king’s gardens of David anil 
 Solomon seem to have been in the bottom formed 
 by the confluence of the Kedron and Hinnom 
 (Neh. iii. 15; Joseph. Ant. vii. 14, § 45 ix. 10. 
 § 4). The gardens of Uzza (2 K. xxi. 18) and. 
 of Joseph of Arimathea (John xix. 41) are 
 mentioned without any indication of position. 
 The Mount of Olives, as its name and those of 
 various places upon it seem to imply, was a 
 fruitful spot. At its foot was situated the 
 Garden of Gethsemane. At the time of the 
 final siege the space north of the wall of Agrippa 
 was covered with gardens, groves, and planta- 
 tions of fruit-trees, enclosed by hedges and walls; 
 and to level these was one of Titus’s first 
 operations (B. J. v. 3, § 2). We know that the 
 gate Gennath (ae. “of the garden”’), in the first 
 wall, opened on this side of the city (B. J. v. 4, 
 § 2). The Valley of Hinnom was, in Jerome’s 
 time, “a pleasant and woody spot, full of de- 
 lightful gardens watered from the fountain of 
 Siloah ” (Comm. in Jer. vii. 30). In the Tal- 
 mud mention is made of a certain rose-garden 
 outside the city, which was of great fame, but 
 no clue is given to its situation (Otho, Lex. Rab. 
 p- 266). [GARDEN.] The sieges of Jerusalem 
 were too frequent during its later history to 
 admit of any considerable growth of wood near 
 it, even if the thin soil which covers the rocky 
 substratum would allow of it. And the scarcity 
 of earth again necessitated the cutting down of 
 all the trees that could be found for the banks 
 and mounds with which the ancient sieges were 
 conducted. This is expressly said in the accounts 
 of the sieges of Pompey and Titus. In the 
 latter case the country was swept of its timber 
 
1590 
 
 for a distance of 8 or 9 miles from the city 
 (B. J. vi. 8, § 1, &e.). 
 
 Water Supply.—Numerous traces remain of 
 the works connected with the ancient water 
 supply of the city. This supply was derived 
 from springs, wells, rain-water collected during 
 the rainy seasons and stored in reservoirs and 
 cisterns, and water brought from a distance by 
 aqueducts and preserved in tanks. 
 
 (1.) The only known spring is the ‘Ain umm 
 ed-deraj, or “ Virgin’s fountain,” in the Kedron 
 Valley close to the village of Siloam. The 
 water from this spring, which has an inter- 
 mittent flow, now passes through a rock-hewn 
 tunnel, that dates from the time of the Kings, to 
 the Upper Pool of Siloam. But the remains of 
 a rock-hewn conduit in the valley seem to 
 indicate that, at an earlier period, the water 
 was carried along the foot of the hill to the 
 Lower Pool of Siloam (Birket el-Hamra), where 
 
 JERUSALEM 
 
 JERUSALEM 
 
 it was probably stored for the irrigation of the 
 king’s gardens [StLoaAmM]. At three other places, 
 —outside the Damascus Gate, and near the 
 Hammam esh-Shefa, in the Tyropoeon Valley; 
 and in the fourth valley, near the Church of 
 St. Anne,—the topographical features and the 
 geological formation favour the existence of 
 small springs; and at each water is known to 
 run to waste, during several months of the 
 year, beneath the rubbish that fills the valleys. 
 (2.) The principal well is Bir EHyib, “Job’s 
 well,” which is situated a little below the 
 junction of the Kedron and Hinnom valleys, 
 and is 125 ft, deep. It rarely runs dry, and 
 occasionally, after four or five days’ continuous 
 rain, its waters overflow and run a few yards 
 down the valley. The esh-Shefa well, near the 
 Suk el-Kattanin, is only a shaft in the rubbish, 
 that gives access to a small basin in which the 
 water running down the Tyropoeon Valley, 
 
 Jerusalem and Siloam. 
 
 perhaps from a small spring, collects, and is 
 not an ancient well. On the western hill 
 there are several very old wells; but as they 
 derived their supply of water from infiltration 
 and are not deep, they could never have been of 
 much importance. On the eastern hill, beneath 
 the Sakhrah, there is the so-called Bir el-Arwah, 
 “well of spirits,’ but whether it be a well or 
 not is uncertain. 
 
 (8.) The chief supply of the early inhabitants 
 must have been rain-water, collected as at 
 present within the area of the town and stored 
 in cisterns. There seems to be an allusion to 
 this in 2 K. xviii. 31; and the remains of 
 cisterns are found in every part of the city. 
 The quantity preserved in this way would not, 
 however, have been sufficient for all purposes, 
 and the question of improving the water supply 
 must soon have forced itself upon the attention 
 of the people. The first step would naturally be 
 to construct reservoirs (κολυμβήθραι, piscinae) 
 
 for catching the surface drainage of the valleys 
 that embrace and intersect the plateau; and sites 
 would, where possible, be selected whence the 
 water could run down to the city by the force 
 of gravity alone. This plan appears to have 
 been adopted. Near the head of the Valley of 
 Hinnom is the Birket Mamilla, which still holds 
 water, and lower down in the same valley is the 
 B. es-Sultan. In the upper part of the Kedron 
 Valley, to the north of the “Tombs of the 
 Kings,” there is a reservoir, now filled with soil ; 
 and there was probably a pool, below the Virgin’s 
 Fountain, in which the flood-waters of the Kedron 
 were stored for the irrigation of gardens at a 
 lower level. At the mouth of the Tyropoeon 
 Valley there are the Upper and Lower Pools of 
 Siloam, and there are some slight grounds for 
 supposing that there was a reservoir a little 
 higher up the valley, and another near its head 
 outside the Damascus Gate. In the fourth valley 
 are the B, Jsratl, and the pool near the Church 
 
JERUSALEM 
 
 of St. Anne which was formerly called Bethesda. 
 There are also, without the walls, the B. Sitti 
 Miriam, near St. Stephen’s Gate ; and within the 
 walls the B. Hammdm el-Batrak, “ Hezekiah’s 
 Pool,” which receives the surplus water of the 
 B. Mamilla, the “Twin Pools,” beneath the 
 street at the N.W. corner of the Haram esh- 
 Sherif, and the B. el-Burak constructed in the 
 rubbish beneath ‘ Wilson’s Arch.” Tradition 
 has also preserved the sites of two other pools— 
 near the Bab el-Kattanin in the west wall of the 
 H. esh-Sherif, and near the Jaffa Gate—but both 
 appear to have been of much later date than the 
 Roman siege. 
 
 (4.) The institution of the Temple services, 
 with their frequent ceremonial ablutions, must 
 have rendered a large and constant supply of 
 water necessary; and this could only have been 
 -secured by bringing it from a distance by 
 aqueducts. The principal supply was derived 
 from “Solomon’s Pools,” near Urtds, about 
 7 miles from Jerusalem, and from springs in 
 the vicinity. The three pools are cleverly and 
 well constructed, and the great tunnel or Kariz, 
 about 4 miles long, in W. Bidr, is one of the 
 most remarkable works in Palestine. The 
 water was conveyed from the pools to Jeru- 
 salem by the “ Low Level Aqueduct,” about 13 
 miles long, that crossed the Valley of Hinnom 
 above the B. es-Sultan, which it probably filled, 
 and, winding round the western hill, passed over 
 the causeway and Wilson’s Arch to Mount 
 Moriah and the Temple enclosure. Here it was 
 stored in large subterranean reservoirs, excavated 
 in the soft bed of limestone (melekeh) which, 
 at a depth of only 3 to 4 feet, underlies the 
 harder strata (missae). These storage reservoirs 
 may still be seen in the Haram esh-Sherif, and 
 one of them has a capacity of about 3,000,000 
 gallons. They were connected by an elaborate 
 system of conduits, and the overflow was 
 through one of the rock-hewn passages beneath 
 the Triple Gate. The tradition that ascribes 
 one at least of the pools, the aqueduct, and one 
 or more of the subterranean reservoirs to 
 Solomon, is probably correct. The supply was 
 afterwards increased by constructing a reservoir 
 in W. Arrib, whence the water was conveyed to 
 “Solomon’s Pools” by an aqueduct about 28 
 miles long, which was apparently made by 
 Pontius Pilate.* From the Pools the water 
 flowed through the “ Low Level Aqueduct ” to 
 the Temple enclosure, and this perhaps explains 
 Pilate’s application of the Corban to the con- 
 struction of the new aqueduct. 
 
 Another aqueduct which exhibits a degree of 
 engineering skill that could scarcely be sur- 
 passed at the present day conveyed the water of 
 the “Sealed Fountain,” above Solomon’s Pools 
 to Jerusalem. This “ High Level Aqueduct” 
 crossed the valley between Bethlehem and Mar 
 
 z Josephus (Ant. xviii. 3, § 2) gives the distance of 
 the source from which the water was derived as 
 200 stadia; and (B. J. ii. 9, § 4) as 400 stadia. He 
 apparently refers in the first case to the distance between 
 Solomon’s Pools and W. Arrdb, and in the latter to the 
 total distance from Jerusalem. The necessity for in- 
 creasing the supply was probably due to the diversion of 
 the waters of the ‘‘Sealed Fountain’’ above Solomon’s 
 Pools, from the Temple enclosure to Herod’s Palace on 
 the completion of the ‘‘ High Level Aqueduct.” 
 
 “1591 
 
 ELlyas by an inverted syphon, and was capable of 
 delivering water at an elevation of 20 ft. above 
 the sill of the Jaffa Gate. All trace of it is 
 lost on the “Plain of Rephaim,” but it pro- 
 bably ran to the B. Mamilla, and thence to the 
 cisterns in the Citadel, near the Jaffa Gate, and 
 to ‘“Hezekiah’s Pool.” This aqueduct was 
 apparently made by Herod to supply water to 
 his palace, and to the fountains and ponds which 
 were a marked feature of the palace gardens 
 (Joseph. B. J. v. 4, § 4); and it entered the city 
 at the Tower Hippicus (8. J. v. 7, § 3). The 
 ancient conduit beneath Christ Church Rectory, 
 which was possibly made in the first instance to 
 convey the water of the B, Mamilla to the Temple 
 enclosure, appears to have connected the High 
 and Low Level aqueducts within the city.* A 
 third conduit passed through the grounds of the 
 Russian Convent, and entered the city near the 
 N.W. angle of the wall, but the source from 
 which it derived its supply is unknown (PEF Qy. 
 Stat. 1891, p. 279). A fourth aqueduct, which 
 entered the city to the east of the Damascus Gate, 
 has been traced to the “" Twin Pools,” and thence 
 southwards to the wall of the Haram esh-Sherif 
 which has been built across it. The course of 
 this aqueduct is broken by the deep fosse 
 which lies between Jeremiah’s Grotto and “the 
 Quarries,” by the ditch which separated Antonia 
 from Bezetha, and by the wall of the Haram esh- 
 Sherif. It must therefore have been in existence 
 when these important works were executed, and 
 it is probably one of the oldest conduits in the 
 city. Whether it derived its supply from a 
 spring, or from a pool,near the head of the 
 Tyropoeon Valley, is uncertain; but it was 
 capable of supplying the whole of the eastern 
 hill, and apparently followed its western face at 
 a high level. Another rock-hewn conduit, 
 at a much lower level, was discovered by 
 Sir C. Warren on the west side of the Tyropoeon 
 ravine, beneath “ Robinson’s Arch.” It is cut 
 through by the west wall of the Haram, and is 
 therefore older than the reconstruction of the 
 Temple by Herod. Apparently it was connected 
 with the conduit at the foot of the Hamman esh- 
 Shefa well, and carried water from a small 
 spring, or Kariz, in the Tyropoeon Valley, along 
 the base of the western hill. The tunnel con- 
 necting the Virgin’s Fountain with the Pool of 
 Siloam has already been noticed. The following 
 altitudes above the sea indicate the quarters of 
 the city supplied by the several pools and 
 aqueducts :— 
 
 JERUSALEM 
 
 Western Hill. Feet. 
 Sill of Jaffa Gate . Ἶ Ξ : 2028 
 High Level Aqueduct at Solomon’s 
 
 Pools . δ . . . 5 2616 
 Outlet B. Mamilla . . ‘ . 2517 
 
 Eastern Hill. 
 
 Level of Haram Enclosure . P - 2419 
 Low Level Aqueduct at Solomon’s 
 
 Pools . A ° δ E 2467 
 Aqueduct east of Damascus Gate - 2462 
 Pool north of the Tombs of the Kings 2449 
 Aqueduct under Robinson’s Arch 2313 
 
 2 This gave rise to the belief, in the Middle Ages, 
 that the Birket Israil was supplied with water by a 
 Fons Sion close to the Turris David on the western hill 
 (see Marino Sanuto’s plan of Jerusalem in Tobler’s 
 Planography of Jerusalem). 
 
1592 JERUSALEM 
 Feet. 
 Overflow B. Zsrail . Ξ ἐ a 2345 
 Outlet B. es-Sultan . : d ἃ 2352 
 Siloam Pool ° 4 F - F 2087 
 
 What has been said above may explain some 
 of the difficulties in understanding the allusions 
 inthe Bible and Josephus to the water-supply of 
 the city. Excepting the reference to EN-ROGEL, 
 now the Virgin’s Fountain, as a point on the 
 common boundary of Judah and Benjamin (Josh. 
 xv. 23 xviii. 16), the earliest distinct allusion 
 to the water-supply is the command to Isaiah to 
 meet Ahaz “at the end of the conduit of the 
 
 JERUSALEM 
 
 upper pool, in the highway of the fuller’s field’ 
 Cs. vii. 3). The messengers sent by Sennacherib 
 to summons Hezekiah to surrender (2 K. xviii. 
 17; Is. xxxvi. 2) stood by the same conduit 
 when they spoke to the people on the wall; and 
 if there be any connexion between the fuller’s 
 field and the “ monument of the fuller” men- 
 tioned by Josephus (B. J. v. 4, § 2), the conduit 
 must have entered the city from the north. 
 Possibly it was the conduit east of the Damascus 
 Gate, and in this case the Upper Pool must have 
 been either that to the north of the “Tombs of 
 the Kings,” or a pool at the head of the Tyro- 
 
 Pool of Siloam. 
 
 poeon Valley ; and the Assyrian messengers must 
 have delivered their summons in front of the 
 citadel that occupied the ground upon which 
 the Macedonian Acra was afterwards built.” In 
 expectation of an attack from the Assyrians, 
 
 b According to another view, which derives some 
 support from the position generally assigned to the 
 “Camp of the Assyrians” in the N.W. quarter of the 
 present city, the Birket Mamilla was the Upper Pool. 
 In the 7th century one of the city gates, to the west 
 of the existing Damascus Gate, was called Porta Villae 
 (or Viae) Fullonis (Arculfus, i. 1); but this may have 
 been a late tradition, 
 
 Hezekiah is said to have “stopped all the foun- 
 tains and the brook that ran through the midst 
 of the land ” (2 Ch. xxxii. 4) ; he also on this or 
 upon another occasion stopped “ the upper spring 
 of the waters of Gihon, and brought it straight 
 down to (or on) the west side of the city of 
 David ” (2 Ch. xxxii. 30); “made a pool and a 
 conduit, and brought water into the city” (2 K. 
 xx. 20); and “fortified his city, and brought 
 water into the midst thereof; he digged the hard 
 rock with iron, and made wells for water” 
 (Ecclus. xlviii. 17). The work of Hezekiah is 
 also, apparently, alluded to in the passages “ Ye 
 gathered together the waters of the lower pool” 
 
 δα. 
 
JERUSALEM 
 
 (Is. xxii. 9), and “ Ye made also a ditch between 
 the two walls for the water of the old pool” 
 (xxii. 11). Any identification of these springs 
 and pools must be purely conjectural; the 
 
 “brook ” (ὑπ) of 2 Ch. may be the overflow 
 from the Virgin's Fountain ;° the spring of Gihon 
 may be the Virgin’s Fountain, brought down by 
 the rock-hewn tunnel to the Pool of Siloam at 
 the southern extremity of the eastern hill; or it 
 may be a spring near the head of the Tyropoeon 
 Valley whose waters were brought down on the 
 west side of the same hill by the aqueduct east 
 of the Damascus Gate [Grnon]. The pool made 
 by Hezekiah was perhaps the 8, Mamilla, and 
 the conduit that passing beneath the Jaffa Gate 
 and Christ Church Rectory to the Temple 
 enclosure; the lower pool of Isaiah may have 
 been the B. e/-Hamra at Siloam, and the old pool 
 a reservoir higher up. the Tyropoeon Valley. 
 Nehemiah mentions the DraGcon WELL, or 
 spring (Neh. ii. 13), possibly an outflow from 
 the “ Low Level” aqueduct above the B. es- 
 Sultan; a fountain, apparently Siloam,’ from 
 which one of the city gates took its name (Neh. 
 ii. 14; iii. 15; xii. 837); the Pool of Siloah (iii. 
 15) or Siloam (John ix. 7), which received the 
 “waters of Shiloah ” (Is. viii. 6) [Srtoam], and 
 is perhaps the King’s Pool of Neh. ii. 14; and 
 the “pool that was made” (Neh. iii. 16), 
 apparently in the Kedron Valley below the 
 Virgin’s Fountain, where Josephus (B. J. v. 4, 
 δ 2) places Solomon’s Pool. The only other 
 pool mentioned in the Bible is BETHESDA, which 
 appears to have been either the “ Twin Pools,” 
 or the pool near the Church of St. Anne. 
 Josephus adds to the above the Serpent’s Pool 
 (B. J. v. 3,§ 2), now the B. Mamilla, which 
 may have derived its name from the serpentine 
 character of the High Level Aqueduct that dis- 
 charged water into it; the Pool Amygdalon 
 (8. J. v. 11, § 4), perhaps Tower (Jfigdol) Pool, 
 from the three great towers in its immediate 
 vicinity, which is now “ Hezekiah’s Pool”; and 
 the pool Struthius® (8. J. v. 11, § 4), near 
 Antonia, now the “Twin Pools” at the N.W. 
 angle of the Haram esh-Sherif. The fountain 
 (πηγὴ) held by Simon (B. J. v. 6, § 1) is 
 apparently Siloam. Josephus alludes more than 
 once to the conduits and subterranean reservoirs 
 within and without the city; and it was pro- 
 bably into one of the latter in the Temple 
 enclosure, the pit “in the court of the prison” 
 (Jer. xxxviii. 6), that Jeremiah was let down. 
 Aristeas mentions subterranean reservoirs, 
 supplied by a spring and rain-water, which 
 oceupied a space of 5 stadia round the Temple, 
 and were connected by pipes of lead (Gal- 
 landii Bibl. Vet. Patr. ii. 805). Strabo (xvi. 2, 
 § 40) describes Jerusalem as being well supplied 
 with water within, but externally parched with 
 drought; and Tacitus (Hist. v. 12) writes of the 
 
 © Can the “brook” be the stream passing through 
 **Solomon’s,” the ‘*‘ Low Level” aqueduct, the only 
 Tunning water near Jerusalem? 
 
 ἃ Siloam is also called a spring by Josephus (B. J. 
 v. 4, $$ 1, 25 9, § 4). 
 
 e According to Bonar (Imp. Bib. Dict. 8. v. Jeru- 
 salem), ‘‘the Struthius” or “sparrow-pool”” may be 
 “flock-pool” or “sheep-pool” (HA RWY, Ashtoreth = 
 flock). Χ 
 
 JERUSALEM 1593 
 
 fons perennis aquae, cavati sub terra montis ; et 
 piscinae cisternaeque servandis imbribus. There 
 are several allusions in the Talmud to the 
 plentiful supply of water in the Temple 
 enclosure, and to the caverns, beneath the courts, 
 in which it was stored. Eusebius and Jerome 
 (08. p. 266, 72; p. 189, 14) mention a “ pool of 
 the fuller,” probably J/irket el-Hamra, near 
 Tophet and Aceldama; and the λίμναι διδύμοι, 
 or “twin pools” of Bethesda (0.5.2 p, 251, 15; 
 p- 142, 9), which the Bordeaux Pilgrim places 
 further in the city than two other large pools. 
 Constantine constructed reservoirs, one of which 
 still exists, near the basilica that he built at 
 Jerusalem (/tin. Hieros.). All later pilgrims 
 allude, with more or less fulness, to the 
 numerous pools and cisterns; and Antoninus 
 mentions (xxiii.) that in front of the ruins of 
 the Temple of Solomon, under the street, water 
 ran down to the fountain of Siloam. 
 
 It is evident, from what has been said, that 
 every effort was made to ensure a plentiful 
 supply of water; and in the many sieges that 
 the city underwent, there are only two known 
 instances in which the besieged suffered from 
 want of water: that alluded to by Ezekiel (iv. 
 16,17), and that by Antiochus (Joseph. Ant. xiii. 
 8, § 2). The mean annual rainfall which is such 
 an important element in the water supply is 
 22°76 inches (Dr. Chaplin in PEF Qy. Stat. 1883, 
 
 p- 9). 
 
 Streets, Houses, &e.—Of the nature of these 
 in the ancient city we have only the most scat- 
 tered notices. The “East street,” R.V. the 
 “ broad place on the East ”’ (2 Ch. xxix. 4); the 
 “street of the city,” R.V. the “broad place 
 at the gate of the city” (xxxii. 6); the “street 
 facing the water gate,” R. V. “the broad place 
 that was before the water gate” (Neh. viii. 1, 
 3, 16) or, according to the parallel account in 
 1 Esd. ix. 38, the “broad place (εὐρύχωρον) of 
 the Temple towards the East ” (cp. 2 Ch. xxix. 
 4; Joseph. Ant. xi. 5, §5), perhaps the same as 
 the street of the house of God, R. V. the “ broad 
 place before the house of God” (Ezra x. 9); 
 the “street of the gate of Ephraim,” R. V. the 
 “broad place of the gate of EH.” (Neh. viii. 16) ; 
 and the “open place of the first gate towards 
 the East’ (1 Esd. v. 47), must have been not 
 “streets” in our sense of the word, so much as 
 the open spaces found in Eastern towns round 
 the inside of the gates. This is evident, not 
 only from the word used, Rechob, which has the 
 force of breadth or room, but also from the 
 nature of the occurrences related in each case. 
 The same places are intended in Zech. viii. 5. 
 Streets, properly so called (Chutzoth), there 
 were (Jer. v. 1; xi. 13, &.), but the name of 
 only one, “ the bakers’ street ” (Jer. xxxvii. 21), 
 is preserved to us. This is conjectured, from 
 the names, to have been near the tower of ovens 
 (Neh. xii. 38; “ furnaces” is incorrect), Jeru- 
 salem, like other ancient cities, was probably 
 divided into quarters by main streets that passed 
 out to the country through gates, one of which 
 at least—the “Gate of Ephraim’—took its 
 name from the district to which the road led. 
 The principal streets must, from the nature of the 
 ground, have run from north to south, and these 
 must have been connected by cross-streets, form- 
 ing insulae, which were no doubt intersected by 
 numberless narrow winding lanes, Such in fact 
 
1594 JERUSALEM 
 
 was the arrangement of the streets in the 3rd 
 century B.c.; and in character they were not 
 unlike those of Pompeii. There was a roadway 
 for camels, beasts of burthen, and mounted 
 persons ; and on either side of it a high trottoir 
 for the convenience of those on foot. Perhaps, 
 as the words of Aristeas (see p. 1608) seem to 
 suggest, the raised pavement was reserved for 
 the use of certain classes of the population. The 
 bazaars, always a prominent feature in an Oriental 
 city, are mentioned by Aristeas; and Josephus 
 states (B. J. v. 8, §1) that Titus breached the 
 second wall at the point where the cloth, brass, 
 and wool bazaars abutted on the wall. Josephus 
 frequently alludes to the maze of narrow lanes 
 (Ant. xiv. 16, § 2 ;—B. J. ii. 14, § 9; v. 8, $1; 
 vi. 6, ὃ 3, &c.), and mentions a market-place 
 (B. J. i. 13, § 2) in which a fight took place 
 between the adherents of Herod and those of 
 Aristobulus; the ‘upper market-place” (ii. 14, 
 § 9), plundered by the soldiers of Florus, which 
 must have been on the western hill (v. 4, ὃ 1); 
 and the “timber market,” apparently on the 
 eastern hill (ii. 19, § 4), which was burnt by 
 Cestius. 
 
 It may be inferred from the tendency of main 
 streets to preserve their original direction and 
 position through many centuries, and from the 
 peculiarity of the topographical features, that 
 the principal streets of the modern city repre- 
 sent those of Herodian, and perhaps in some 
 measure those of pre-exilic, Jerusalem. The 
 more important modern streets that appear to 
 retain the lines of older ones are: (1) The 
 street that follows the course of the Tyropoeon 
 Valley from the Damascus Gate to the Dung 
 Gate, and Siloam. (2) That which runs, almost 
 ina straight line, from the Damascus Gate to 
 the south wall of the city, and once passed 
 through a gate to the Valley of Hinnom.£ This 
 street, there is some reason to believe, was at 
 one period, possibly the Herodian, adorned with 
 columns like the streets at Samaria, Gadara, 
 Gerasa, ἕο. (3) That leading southward from 
 the market-place, in front of the “Tower of 
 David,” which apparently separated Herod’s 
 palace and gardens from the remainder of the 
 town, and ran to the postern and rock-hewn 
 steps in the English cemetery. (4) The two 
 streets leading northward from the Turkish 
 barracks, at the N.E. angle of the Haram, to 
 the Bab ez-Zahireh. One of these marks the 
 line of the road that, prior to the building of 
 the third wall, ran northward from Antonia, 
 without descending into the valley, and joined 
 the lower road, up the Tyropoeon Valley, near 
 the “Tombs of the Kings.” This road may 
 possibly be the true Via Dolorosa (see p. 1656). 
 
 The name δοκῶν ἀγορά, “Timber Market,” is 
 perhaps derived from duchan, the rabbinical word for the 
 desk or pulpit from which the priests blessed and 
 addressed the people. There is no other reference to a 
 timber market in Jerusalem, but the Rabbins speak 
 very frequently of the place called Dukana, where the 
 priests blessed the people when assembled together 
 (Bonar, in Imp. Bib. Dict., s. v. Jerusalem). 
 
 & The present Zion Gate only dates from the rebuild- 
 ing of the walls in the 16th century; the earlier Zion 
 Gate was at the end of the street, mentioned above, 
 which apparently led to the * Gate of the Essenes” in the 
 old wall. 
 
 JERUSALEM 
 
 (5) The Tarik Bab es-Silsileh, which passes inte 
 the Haram over “ Wilson’s Arch,” and retains, 
 in part, the line of the street leading from the 
 Temple to Herod’s palace ; and (6) the street N. 
 of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, which 
 apparently connected the tower Psephinus with 
 Antonia. 
 
 To the houses we have even less clue. The 
 ease with which they were burned, and the 
 rapidity and extent of the fires during the 
 Roman siege (Joseph. B. J.i. 7, §4; v. 6, § 13 vi. 
 6, § 3, &c.), appear to indicate that they were 
 largely built of wood. On the other hand the 
 scarceness of timber, and the abundance of 
 excellent stone in the quarries close at hand, 
 seem to suggest houses of a more permanent 
 character. Possibly, whilst the residences of the 
 wealthy were substantially built, story upon 
 story, like those of Tyre and Zabulon (B. J. ii. 
 18, § 9), the mass of the population lived in 
 small rudely constructed houses clustered round 
 the palaces and public buildings.® Such public 
 buildings are frequently alluded to by Josephus ; 
 and one important point where the palace of 
 Agrippa and Berenice, the house of the high- 
 priest, and the Record Office were situated, is 
 called by him ‘the “nerves of the city” (B. J. 
 ii. 17, § 6). The precise form and character of 
 pre-exilic Jerusalem is unknown; but there is 
 no reason to suppose that the general aspect of 
 the city prior to its capture by Titus differed 
 very materially from that of the modern town, 
 shorn of the suburbs that have spread beyond the 
 walls during the last twenty-five years. No 
 doubt the ancient city did not exhibit that air of 
 mouldering dilapidation which is now so promi- 
 nent there—that sooty look which gives its 
 houses the appearance of “having been burnt 
 down many centuries ago” (Richardson in 
 S. & P. p. 183), and which, as it is characteristic 
 of so many Eastern towns, must be ascribed to 
 Turkish neglect. In another respect, too, the 
 modern city must present a different aspect from 
 the ancient—the dull monotony of colour which, 
 at least during autumn, pervades the slopes of 
 the hills and ravines outside the walls. Not 
 only is this the case on the west, where the 
 city does not relieve the view, but also on the 
 south. A dull leaden ashy hue overspreads all. 
 No doubt this is due, wholly or in part, to the 
 enormous quantities of débris of stone and 
 mortar which have been shot over the precipices 
 after the numerous demolitions of the city. The 
 whole of the slopes south of the Haram area 
 (the ancient Ophel), and the modern Zion, and 
 the west side of the valley of Jehoshaphat, 
 especially south of the St. Stephen’s Gate and 
 near the S.E. angle of the wall, are covered 
 with these débris, lying as soft and loose as 
 the day they were poured over, and presenting 
 the appearance of gigantic mounds of rubbish. 
 
 In this point at least the ancient city stood in 
 favourable contrast with the modern, but in 
 some others the resemblance must have been 
 strong. The nature of the site compels the 
 walls in several places to retain their old posi- 
 
 h The houses appear to have closely adjoined the 
 Temple (Ant. xiv. 4, ὁ 23 13, § 3). 
 
 i The character of the débris as disclosed by Sir 
 C. Warren’s excavations varies in different localities 
 (Recovery of Jerusalem, pp. 95-188). 
 
JERUSALEM. 1595 
 
 ay 4 
 ἡ 
 ΝΜ 
 
 te ἢ 
 VJ 
 
 hi 
 Mt mT 
 
 Jerusalem from the Mount of Olives, 
 
1596 JERUSALEM 
 
 tions. The southern part of the summit of the 
 Upper city and the slopes of Ophel are now bare, 
 where previous to the final siege they were 
 covered with houses; but, on the other hand, 
 the West and East and the western corner of the 
 North wall are approximately what they always 
 were. And the look of the walls and gates, 
 especially the Jaffa Gate, with the “ Citadel ” 
 adjoining, is probably little changed from 
 what it was. True, the minarets, domes, and 
 spires, which give such a variety to the modern 
 town, must have been absent; but their place 
 was supplied by the four great towers at the 
 north-west part of the wall, by the upper 
 stories and turrets of Herod’s palace, the palace 
 of the Asmoneans, and the other public build- 
 ings; while the lofty fortress of Antonia, tower- 
 ing far above the neighbouring buildings,™ and 
 itself surmounted by the keep on its south-east 
 corner, must have formed a feature in the view 
 not altogether unlike (though more prominent 
 than) the “ citadel ” of the modern town. The 
 flat roofs and the absence of windows, which 
 give an Eastern city so startling an appearance to 
 a Western traveller, probably existed then as now. 
 
 But the greatest resemblance must have been 
 on the south-east side, towards the Mount of 
 Olives. Here the precinct of the Haram esh- 
 Sherif, with its domes and sacred buildings, 
 some of them clinging to the very spot formerly 
 occupied by the Temple, must preserve what we 
 may call the personal identity of this quarter 
 of the city, but little changed in its general 
 features from what it was when the Temple 
 stood there. Nay, more: in the substructions 
 of the enclosure, those massive and venerable 
 walls, which once to see is never to forget, is 
 the very masonry itself, its lower courses undis- 
 turbed, which was laid there by Herod the 
 Great, and by Agrippa, possibly even by still 
 older builders. 
 
 Climate.—The climate of Jerusalem differs 
 in no respect from that of the hill-country 
 of Judaea and Samaria. A long dry season, 
 lasting from May to October, is regularly 
 followed by a rainy season divided into three 
 periods: the early rain, M19 ; the heavy winter 
 
 rain, OW; and the latter rain, wipdn. Snow falls 
 two years out of three, but soon melts. The 
 deepest fall in recent years was 17 in. in 1879. 
 The prevailing winds are from the west, and are 
 moist. The north winds are cold, the east dry, 
 and the south warm. In summer, when the 
 whole country is arid, the westerly winds dis- 
 charge the moisture, with which they are laden, 
 in copious dew. The sirocco blows from the S.E. 
 and lasts from three to twenty or even thirty 
 days. Earthquakes, but not of any great severity, 
 are occasionally felt. The results of twenty-two 
 years’ continuous observations give :— 
 
 Mean. Max. Min. 
 Bar. 27°398 27°816 26°972 
 Temp. 62°8 112° 25° 
 Rain . 22°76 in. 42°93 in. 12°27 in. 
 No. of rainy 
 es sd 52 7 37 
 
 The mean monthly temperature is lowest in 
 February and highest in August. The unhealthy 
 
 k “Conspicuo fastigio turris Antonia” (Tac. Hist. 
 v. 11). 
 
 JERUSALEM 
 
 period during which climatic diseases are most 
 prevalent extends from May to October inclusive 
 (Dr. Chaplin in PEF Qy. Stat. 1883, pp. 8-40). 
 
 Environs of the City—The various spots in 
 the neighbourhood of the city will be described 
 at length under their own names, and to them 
 the reader is accordingly referred. See EN- 
 Roget; Hinnom; ΚΕΡΒΟΝ ; OLIVES, MouNT OF, 
 &e. ὅσ. 
 
 II. Toe ANNALS OF THE CITY. 
 
 In considering the annals of the city of Jeru- 
 salem, nothing strikes one so forcibly as the 
 number and severity of the sieges which it 
 underwent. We catch our earliest glimpse of it — 
 in the brief notice of the 1st chapter of Judges, 
 which describes how the “children of Judah 
 smote it with the edge of the sword, and set the 
 city on fire ;”’ and almost the latest mention of 
 it in the New Testament is contained in the 
 solemn warnings in which Christ foretold how 
 Jerusalem should be “ compassed with armies ” 
 (Luke xxi. 20), and the abomination of desolation 
 be seen standing in the Holy Place (Matt. xxiv. 
 15). In the fifteen centuries which elapsed 
 between those two points the city was besieged 
 no fewer than seventeen times; twice it was 
 razed to the ground; and on two other occasions 
 its walls were levelled. In this respect it stands 
 without a parallel in any city ancient or modern, 
 The fact is one of great significance. The 
 number of the sieges testifies to the importance 
 of the town as a key to the whole country, and 
 as the depository of the accumulated treasures 
 of the Temple, no less forcibly than do the 
 severity of the contests and their protracted 
 length to the difficulties of the position and the 
 obstinate enthusiasm of the Jewish people. At 
 the same time the details of these operations, 
 scanty as they are, throw considerable light on 
 the difficult topography of the place; and on 
 the whole they are in every way so character- 
 istic, that it has seemed not unfit to use them 
 as far as possible as a framework for the fol- 
 lowing rapid sketch of the history of the city. 
 
 The first siege appears to have taken place 
 almost immediately after the death of Joshua 
 (c. 1400 B.c.). Judah and Simeon had been 
 ordered by the divine oracle at Shiloh or Shechem 
 to commence the task of actual possession of 
 the portions distributed by Joshua. As they 
 traversed the region south of these, they en- 
 countered a large force of Canaanites at Bezek. 
 These they dispersed, took prisoner Adoni-bezek, 
 a ferocious petty chieftain, who was the terror 
 of the country, and swept on their southward 
 road. Jerusalem was soon reached.! It was 
 evidently too important, and also too near the 
 actual limits of Judah, to be passed by. ‘“ They 
 fought against it and took it, and smote it with 
 the edge of the sword, and set the city on fire ” 
 (Judg. i. 8). To this brief notice Josephus 
 (Ant. v. 2, § 2) makes a material addition. He 
 tells us that the siege lasted some time (σὺν 
 χρόνῳ); that the part which was taken at last, 
 and in which the slaughter was made, was the 
 lower city; but that the upper city was so 
 
 1 According to Josephus, they did not attack Jeru- 
 salem till after they had taken many other towns— 
 πλείστας Te λαβόντες, ἐπολιόρκουν ‘I. 
 
JERUSALEM. 
 
 Scale—Three inches to a mile. - Prater I. 
 
 RQ Νὰ LZ YY UY Ls WSS gga 
 a 
 
 SE SN 
 +) ANS 
 ny | | ᾿ ᾿ 
 
 y Wy yy 
 SSS δ 
 
 ΞΟ πο SS 
 ᾿ SVN 
 ; SS δ 
 Ἧ 
 
 Ricca 
 
 <= 
 zo 
 — 
 
 a, 
 ETE 
 
 ee 
 ἤ 
 
 SS = 
 
 a : ue Wp Ki Ξ Ν eS 
 t= 7); Ζ UGS ΞΖ. Ξ 
 SIZ 5 \ 
 ES Z ᾿ 
 
 ith 
 ZU conv) 
 iy 
 
 2 
 we 
 
 Zip ᾿ 
 Tu face p. 1596. 
 
 Plan of Site and Walls of Modern City. 
 
aC’ ia aa ale 
 a Tae Ta an ἢ ” 
 
JERUSALEM 
 
 strong, “by reason of its walls and also of the 
 nature of the place,” that they relinquished the 
 attempt and moved off to Hebron (Ant. v. 2, 
 §§ 2, 3). These few valuable words of the old 
 Jewish historian reveal one of those topographi- 
 cal peculiarities of the place—the possession of 
 an upper as well as a lower. city—which differ- 
 enced it so remarkably from the other towns 
 of Palestine, which enabled it to survive so 
 many sieges and partial destructions, and which 
 in the former section we have endeavoured to 
 explain. It is not to be wondered at that these 
 characteristics, which must have been impressed 
 with peculiar force on the mind of Josephus 
 during the destruction of Jerusalem, of which 
 he had only lately been a witness, should have 
 recurred to him when writing the account of the 
 earlier sieges." There are, however, strong 
 grounds for supposing that the city of the 
 Jebusites was almost entirely confined to the 
 eastern hill. This question is discussed in 
 Section ΠῚ. (p. 1648). 
 
 As long as the citadel remained in the hands 
 of the Jebusites, they practically had possession 
 of the whole; and a Jebusite city in fact it 
 remained for a long period after this. The 
 Benjamites followed the men of Judah to Jeru- 
 salem, but with no better result. They could 
 not drive out the Jebusites, “but the Jebusites 
 dwell with the children of Benjamin in Jeru- 
 salem unto this day” (Judg. i, 21). At the 
 time of the sad story of the Levite (Judg. xir.) 
 —which the mention of Phinehas (xx. 28) fixes 
 as early in the period of the Judges—Benjamin 
 can hardly have had even so much footing as 
 the passage just quoted would indicate ; for the 
 Levite refuses to enter it, not because it was 
 hostile, but because it was “the city of a 
 stranger, and not of Israel.” And this lasted 
 during the whole period of the Judges, the reign 
 of Saul, and the reign of David at Hebron. 
 Owing to several circumstances—the residence 
 of the Ark at Shiloh; Saul’s connexion with 
 Gibeah, and Davyid’s with Ziklag and Hebron ; 
 the disunion of Benjamin and Judah, symbolised 
 by Saul’s persecution of David—the tide of 
 affairs was drawn northwards and southwards, 
 and Jerusalem, with the places adjacent, was 
 left in possession of the Jebusites. But as soon 
 as a man was found to assume the rule over all 
 Israel, both north and south, so soon was it 
 necessary that the seat of government should be 
 moved from the remote Hebron nearer to the 
 centre of the country, and the choice of David 
 at once fell on the city of the Jebusites. 
 
 David advanced to the siege at the head of 
 the men of war of all the tribes who had come 
 to Hebron “to turn the kingdom of Saul to 
 him.” They are stated as 280,000 men, choice 
 warriors of the flower of Israel (1 Ch. xii. 23- 
 39). No doubt they approached the city from 
 the south. The ravine of the Kedron, the Valley 
 of Hinnom, the hills south and south-east of the 
 town, the uplands on the west, must have 
 swarmed with these hardy warriors. As before, 
 the lower city was immediately taken, and, as 
 before, the citadel heid out. The undaunted 
 Jebusites, believing in the impregnability of 
 
 m See this noticed and contrasted with the situation 
 of the villages in other parts by Dean Stanley (S. ὦ P. 
 pp. 161, 577, &c.). 
 
 1597 
 
 their fortress, manned the battlements “ with 
 lame and blind” ™ (Joseph. Ant. vii. 3, § 1); or, 
 according to 2 Sam, v. 6 (R. V. marg., ep. 
 Luther’s translation), taunted David, saying, 
 “Thou shalt not come in hither, the blind and 
 the lame shall drive thee away” (cp. i Ch. xi. 
 5, “Thou shalt not come hither”). But they, 
 little understood the temper of the king or of 
 those he commanded. David’s anger was tho- 
 roughly roused by the insult (ὀργισθείς, Joseph.), 
 and he at once proclaimed to his host that the 
 first man who would scale the rocky side of the 
 fortress and kill a Jebusite should be made 
 chief captain of the host. A crowd of warriors 
 (πάντες, Joseph.) rushed forward to the attempt, 
 but Joab’s superior agility gained him the day,® 
 and the citadel, the fastness of ZION, was taken 
 (c. 1046 B.c.). It is the first time that that 
 memorable name appears in the history. 
 
 David at once proceeded to secure himself in 
 his new acquisition. He enclosed the whole of 
 the city with a wall, and connected it with the 
 citadel. In the latter he took up his own 
 quarters, and the Zion of the Jebusites became 
 “the city of David.”? [Z1on; Mitio.] The 
 rest of the town was left to the more immediate 
 care of the new captain of the host (Ant. 
 vii. 3, § 2). 
 
 The sensation caused by the fall of this im- 
 pregnable fortress must have been enormous. 
 It reached even to the distant Tyre, and before 
 long an embassy arrived from Hiram, the king 
 of Phoenicia, with the characteristic offerings of 
 artificers and materials to erect a palace for 
 David in his new abode. The palace was built, 
 and occupied by the fresh establishment of wives 
 and concubines which David acquired. Two 
 attempts were made—the one by the Philistines 
 alone (2 Sam. v. 17-21; 1 Ch. xiv. 8-12), the 
 other by the Philistines with all Syria and 
 Phoenicia (Joseph. Ant. vii.4, §1; 2 Sam. vy. 22- 
 25)—to attack David in his new situation, but 
 they did not affect the city, and the actions 
 were fought in the “ Valley of Giants,” appa- 
 rently the open valley e/-Bukei‘a, west of Jeru- 
 salem, and extending towards Bethlehem. The 
 arrival of the Ark, however, was an event of 
 great importance. The old Tabernacle of 
 Bezaleel and Aholiab being now pitched on the 
 height of Gibeon, a new tent had been spread 
 by David in the “ city or David” for the recep- 
 tion of the Ark; and here, “in its place,” it 
 
 JERUSALEM 
 
 n The passage which forms the latter clause of 
 2 Sam. v. 8 is generally taken to mean that the blind 
 and the lame were excluded from the Temple. But 
 where is the proof that this was the fact? On one 
 occasion at least we know that ‘‘tbe blind and the 
 lame” came to Christ in the Temple, and He healed 
 them (Matt. xxi. 14). And indeed what had the 
 Temple, which was not founded till long after this, 
 to do with the matter? The explanation, which is 
 in accordance with the accentuation of the Masorets, 
 would seem to be that it was a proverb used afterwards 
 with regard to any impregnable fortress—‘‘ The blind 
 and the lame are there; let him enter the place if he 
 can.” 
 
 ° A romantic legend is preserved in the Midrash 
 Tehillim, on Ps. xviii. 29, of the stratazem by which 
 Joab succeeded in reaching the top of the wall (see it 
 quoted in Hisenmenger, i. 476-7), ; 
 
 P In the N. T. ‘the city of David” means Beth- 
 lebem. 
 
1898 
 
 was deposited with the most impressive cere- 
 monies, and Zion became at once the great sanc- 
 tuary of the nation. It now perhaps acquired 
 the name of Beth ha-har, the “house of the 
 mount,” of which we catch a glimpse in the 
 LXX. addition to 2 Sam. xv. 24. In this tent 
 the Ark remained, except for its short flight to 
 the foot of the Mount of Olives with David 
 (xv. 24-29), until it was removed to its per- 
 manent resting-place in the Temple of Solomon. 
 
 In the “city of David,” too, was the sepul- 
 chre of David, which became also that of most 
 of his successors. 
 
 The only works of ornament which we can 
 ascribe to David are the “royal gardens,” as 
 they are called by Josephus, which appear to 
 have been formed by him in the level space 
 south-east of the city, formed by the confluence 
 of the valleys of Kedron and Hinnom, screened 
 from the sun during part of the day by the 
 shoulders of the enclosing mountains, and irri- 
 gated by the Virgin’s Fountain and the flood- 
 waters of the Kedron stored in one or more 
 pools (Joseph. Ant. vii. 14, § 4; ix. 10, § 4). 
 
 Until the time of Solomon we hear of no 
 additions to the city. His three great works 
 were the Temple, with its east wall and cloister 
 (Joseph. B. J. v. 5, § 1), his own palace, and the 
 Wall of Jerusalem. The two former will be 
 best described elsewhere, [PALACE ; SOLOMON ; 
 TempLe.] Of the last there is an interesting 
 notice in Josephus (Ané. vill. 2,§ 1; 6,§ 1; 
 7, § 7), from which it appears that David’s wall 
 was a mere rampart without towers, and only 
 of moderate strength and height. One of the 
 first acts of the new king was to make the walls 
 larger—probably extend them so as to include 
 both the western and the eastern hills—and 
 strengthen them (1 K. iii. 1, with the explana- 
 tion of Josephus, viii. 2,§ 1). But on the com- 
 pletion of the Temple he again turned his 
 attention to the walls, and both increased their 
 height and constructed very large towers along 
 them (ix. 15, and Joseph. Ant. viii. 6,§ 1). An- 
 other work of his in Jerusalem was the repair or 
 fortification of Millo, whatever that strange 
 term may signify (1 K. ix. 15, 24). It was in 
 the works at Millo and the city of David—it is 
 uncertain whether the latter consisted of closing 
 breaches (as in A. V.) or filling a ditch round 
 ‘the fortress (the Vulg. and others)—that Jero- 
 boam first came under the notice of Solomon 
 (1 K. xi. 27; cp. Ant. viii. 7, § 7). Another 
 was a palace for his Egyptian queen—of the 
 situation of which all we know is that it was 
 not in the city of David (1 K. vii. 8, ix. 24, with 
 the addition in 2 Ch. viii. 11); and was there- 
 fore, presumably, on the western hill. But 
 there must have been much besides these to fill 
 up the measure of “all that Solomon desired to 
 build in Jerusalem” (2 Ch. viii. 6): the vast 
 harem for his 700 wives and 300 concubines, 
 and their establishment—the colleges for the 
 priests of the various religions of these women 
 —the stables for the 1400 chariots and 12,000 
 riding horses. Outside the city, probably on 
 the Mount of Olives, there remained, down to 
 the latest times of the monarchy (2 K. xxiii. 13), 
 the fanes which he had erected for the worship 
 of foreign gods (1 K. xi. 7), and which have 
 still left their name clinging to the “ Mount of 
 Offence.” 
 
 JERUSALEM 
 
 JERUSALEM 
 
 His care of the roads leading to the city is 
 the subject of aspecial panegyric from Josephus 
 (Ant. viii. 7, § 4). They were, as before ob- 
 served, paved with black stone, perhaps the 
 hard basalt from the region of Argob, on the 
 east of Jordan, where he had a special resident 
 officer. 
 
 As long as Solomon lived, the visits of foreign 
 powers to Jerusalem were those of courtesy and 
 amity; but with his death this was changed. 
 A city in the palaces of which all the vessels 
 were of pure gold ; where spices, precious stones, 
 rare woods, and curious animals were accumulated 
 in the greatest profusion; where silver was no 
 more valued than the stones of the street, and 
 considered too mean a materia] for the com- 
 monest of the royal purposes—such a city, 
 governed by such a fainéant prince as Rehoboam, 
 was too tempting a prey for the surrounding 
 kings. He had only been on the throne four 
 years (c. 970 B.C.) before Shishak, king of 
 Egypt, invaded Judah with an enormous host, 
 took the fortified places,t and advanced to the 
 capital. Jerusalem was crowded with the chief 
 men of the realm who had taken refuge there 
 (2 Ch. xii. 5), but Rehoboam did not attempt 
 resistance. He opened his gates apparently on 
 a promise from Shishak that he would not 
 pillage (Joseph. Ant. viii. 10, § 3). However, ἡ 
 the promise was not kept, the treasures of the 
 Temple and palace were carried off, and special 
 mention is made of the golden bucklers (2) 
 
 which were hung by Solomon in the house of 
 the forest of Lebanon (1 K. xiv. 25, 26; 2 Ch. 
 ΧΙ 9. seen) Καὶ σ᾿ ΜΠ}: 
 
 Jerusalem was again threatened in the reign 
 of Asa (grandson of Rehoboam), when Zerah the 
 Cushite, or king of Ethiopia (Joseph. Ané. viii. 12, 
 § 1) [Cusu], probably incited by the success οἱ 
 Shishak, invaded the country with an enormous 
 horde of followers (2 Ch. xiv. 9). He came by 
 the road through the low country of Philistia, 
 where his chariots could find level ground. But 
 Asa was more faithful and more valiant than 
 Rehoboam had been. He did not remain to be 
 blockaded in Jerusalem, but went forth and met 
 the enemy at Mareshah, and repulsed him with 
 great slaughter (c. 940). The consequence of 
 this victory was a great reformation extending 
 throughout the kingdom, but most demonstra- 
 tive at Jerusalem. A vast assembly of the men 
 of Judah and Benjamin, of Simeon, even of 
 Ephraim and Manasseh — now “strangers” 
 (O°73)—was gathered at Jerusalem. Enormous 
 sacrifices were offered ; a prodigious enthusiasm 
 seized the crowded city, and amidst the clamour 
 of trumpets and shouting, oaths of loyalty to 
 Jehovah were exchanged, and threats of instant 
 death denounced on all who should forsake His 
 service. The Altar of Jehovah in front of the 
 porch of the Temple, which had fallen into 
 
 a On the walls of the ruined Temple of Karnak are 
 long rows of embattled shields, within each of which is 
 the name of a vanquished Jewish city. One of the cities 
 called Judah-Melek, or “ Judah-King,”’ may perhaps be 
 intended for Jerusalem. 
 
 r According to Josephus, he also carried off the arms 
 which David had taken from the king of Zobah; but 
 these were afterwards in the Temple, and aid service 
 at the proclamation of king Joash. [Anrms, Shelet, 
 p- 242.] 
 
JERUSALEM 
 
 decay, was rebuilt ; the horrid idol of the queen- 
 mother—the mysterious Asherah, doubtless an 
 abomination of the Syrian worship of her grand- 
 mother—was torn down, ground to powder, and 
 burnt in the valley (nachal) of the Kedron. At 
 the same time the vessels of the Temple, which 
 had been plundered by Shishak, were replaced 
 from the spoil taken by Abijah from Ephraim, 
 and by Asa himself from the Cushites (2 Ch. 
 xv. 8-19; 1 K. xv. 12-15). This prosperity 
 lasted for more than ten years, but at the end 
 of that interval the Temple was once more 
 despoiled, and the treasures so lately dedicated 
 to Jehovah were sent by Asa, who had himself 
 dedicated them, as bribes to Benhadad at 
 Damascus, where they probably enriched the 
 temple of Rimmon (2 Ch. xvi. 2,3; 1K. xv. 18). 
 Asa was buried in a tomb excavated by himself 
 in the royal sepulchres in the city of David. 
 
 The reign of his son Jehoshaphat, though of 
 great prosperity and splendour, is not remark- 
 able as regards the city of Jerusalem. We hear 
 of a “new court” to the Temple, but have no 
 clue to its situation or its builder (2 Ch. xx. 5). 
 An important addition to the government of 
 the city was made by Jehoshaphat in the esta- 
 blishment of courts for the decision of causes 
 both ecclesiastical and civil (2 Ch. xix. 8-11). 
 
 Jehoshaphat’s son Jehoram was a prince of a 
 different temper. He began his reign (0. 887) 
 by a massacre of his brethren and of the chief 
 men of the kingdom. Instigated no doubt by 
 his wife Athaliah, he re-introduced the profligate 
 licentious worship of Ashtaroth and the high 
 places (2 Ch. xxi. 11), and built a temple for 
 Baal (2 Ch. xxiii. 17 ; Joseph. Ant. ix. 7, § 4). 
 Though a man of great vigour and courage, he 
 was overcome by an invasion of one of those 
 huge hordes which were now almost periodical. 
 The Philistines and Arabians attacked Jerusalem, 
 broke into the palace, spoiled it of all its trea- 
 sures, sacked the royal harem, killed or carried 
 off the king’s wives, and all his sons but one. 
 This was the fourth siege. Two years after it 
 the king died, universally detested, and so strong 
 was the feeling against him that he was denied 
 a resting-place in the sepulchres of the kings, 
 but was buried without ceremony in a private 
 tomb in the city of David (2 Ch. xxi. 20). 
 
 . The next events in Jerusalem were the 
 massacre of the royal children by Jehoram’s 
 widow Athaliah, and the six years’ reign of 
 that queen. During her sway the worship of 
 Baal was prevalent, and that of Jehovah pro- 
 portionately depressed. The Temple was not 
 only suffered to go without repair, but was even 
 mutilated by the sons of Athaliah, and its trea- 
 sures removed to the temple of Baal (2 Ch. 
 xxiv. 7). But with the increasing years of 
 Joash, the spirit of the adherents of Jehovah 
 returned, and the confederacy of Jehoiada the 
 priest with the chief men of Judah resulted in 
 the restoration of the true line. The king was 
 crowned and proclaimed in the Temple. Atha- 
 liah herself was hurried out from the sacred pre- 
 cincts to the valley of the Kedron (Joseph. Ant. 
 ix. 7, § 3), and was executed at “the entry of 
 the horse gate* to the king’s house” (2 Ch. 
 
 ᾿Β The horse-gate is mentioned again in connexion 
 with Kedron by Jeremiah (xxxi. 40). Possibly the 
 Mame was perpetuated in the gate Susan (Sus = horse) 
 
 JERUSALEM 1599 
 
 xxili. 15, R. V.; cp. 2 K. xi. 16). The temple 
 of Baal was demolished ; his altars and images 
 destroyed, his priests put to death, and the reli- 
 gion of Jehovah was once more the national 
 religion. But the restoration of the Temple 
 advanced but slowly, and it was not till three- 
 and-twenty years had elapsed, that through the 
 personal interference of the king the ravages of 
 the Baal worshippers were repaired (2 K. xii. 6- 
 16), and the necessary vessels and utensils fur- 
 nished for the service of the Temple (2 Ch. 
 xxiv. 14, But see 2 K. xii. 13; Joseph. Ant. iv. 
 8, § 2). But this zeal for Jehovah soon expired. 
 The solemn ceremonial of the burial of the good 
 priest in the royal tombs, among the kings, can 
 hardly have been forgotten before a general 
 relapse into idolatry took place, and his son 
 Zechariah was stoned with his family* in the 
 very court of the Temple for protesting. 
 
 The retribution invoked by the dying martyr 
 quickly followed. Before the end of the year 
 (c. 838), Hazael, king of Syria, after possessing 
 himself of Gath, marched against the much 
 richer prize of Jerusalem. The visit was 
 averted by a timely offering of treasure from 
 the Temple and the royal palace (2 K. xii. 18; 
 2 Ch. xxiv. 23; Joseph. Ant. ix. 8, § 4), but not 
 before an action had been fought, in which a 
 large army of the Israelites was routed by a 
 very inferior force of Syrians, with the loss of a 
 great number of the principal people and of a 
 vast booty. Nor was this all. These reverses 
 so distressed the king as to bring on a dangerous 
 illness, in the midst of which he was assassinated 
 by two of his own servants, sons of two of the 
 foreign women who were common in the royal 
 harems. He was buried in the city of David, 
 though, like Jehoram, denied a resting-place in 
 the royal tombs (2 Ch. xxiv. 25). The pre- 
 dicted danger to the city was, however, only 
 postponed. Amaziah began his reign (B.c. 837) 
 with a promise of good; his first act showed 
 that while he knew how to avenge the murder 
 of his father, he could also restrain his wrath 
 within the bounds prescribed by the Law of 
 Jehovah. But with success came deterioration. 
 He returned from his victories over the Edom- 
 ites, and the massacre at Petra, with fresh idols 
 to add to those which already defiled Jerusalem 
 —the images of the children of Seir, or of the 
 Amalekites (Josephus), which were erected and 
 worshipped by the king. His next act was a 
 challenge to Joash, the king of Israel, and now 
 the danger so narrowly escaped from Hazael 
 was actually encountered. The battle took 
 place at Bethshemesh of Judah, at the opening 
 
 of the second Temple, the only gate on the east side of 
 the outer wall, upon which, according to the Mishna 
 (Middoth, i. 3), the palace of Shushan or Susan was 
 portrayed (Lightfoot, Prosp. of Temple, iii.). 
 
 t From the expression in xxiv. 25, ‘*sons of Je- 
 hoiada,” we are perhaps warranted in believing that 
 Zechariah’s brethren or his sons were put to death 
 with him. The LXX. and Vulg. have the word in the 
 singular number, “son;” but, on the other hand, 
 the Syr. and Arabic and the Targum all agree with 
 the Hebrew text, and it is specially mentioned in 
 Jerome’s Qu. Hebr. It is perhaps supported by tbe 
 special notice taken of the exception made by Amaziah 
 in the case of the murderers of his father (2 K. xiv. 6; 
 2 Ch. xxv. 4). The case of Naboth is a parallel. [See 
 ELIJAq, p. 910.] 
 
1600 JERUSALEM 
 
 of the hills, about 143 miles west of Jerusalem. 
 It ended in a total rout. Amaziah, forsaken by 
 his people, was taken prisoner by Joash, who 
 at once proceeded to Jerusalem and threatened 
 to put his captive to death before the walls, if 
 he and his army were not admitted. The gates 
 were thrown open, the treasures of the Temple 
 —still in the charge of the same family to 
 whom they had been committed by David—and 
 the king’s private treasures were pillaged, and 
 for the first time the walls of the city were 
 injured. A clear breach was made in them of 
 400 cubits in length “ from the gate of Ephraim 
 to the corner gate,” and through this Joash 
 drove in triumph, with his captive in the 
 chariot, into the city." This must have been on 
 the north side of the first wall, and probably 
 towards its eastern extremity. 
 
 The long reign of Uzziah (2 K.xv. 1-7; 2 Ch. 
 xxvi.) brought about a material improvement in 
 the fortunes of Jerusalem. He was a wise and 
 good * prince (Joseph. ix. 10, § 3), very warlike, 
 and a great builder. After some campaigns 
 against foreign enemies, he devoted himself to 
 the care of Jerusalem for the whole of his life 
 (Josephus). The walls were thoroughly re- 
 paired, the portion broken down by Joash was 
 rebuilt and fortified with towers at the corner 
 gate; and other parts which had been allowed 
 to go to ruin—as the gate opening on the 
 Valley of Hinnom,’ a spot called the “ turn- 
 ing ” (see Neh. iii. 19, 20, 24), and others—were 
 renewed and fortified, and furnished for the first 
 time with machines, then expressly invented for 
 shooting stones and arrows against besiegers. 
 Later in this reign happened the great earth- 
 quake, which, although unmentioned in the 
 historical books of the Bible, is described by 
 Josephus (ix. 10, § 4), and alluded to by the 
 prophets (Amos i. 1; Zech. xiv. 5) as a kind of 
 era (see Stanley, S. δ' P. pp. 184, 185). A-serious 
 breach was made in the Temple itself, and below 
 the city a large fragment of rock, or landslip, 
 rolling down from the hill at En-rogel* blocked 
 up the roads, overwhelmed the king’s gardens, 
 and rested against the bottom of the slope of 
 Olivet. After the leprosy of Uzziah, he left the 
 sacred precincts, and resided in the hospital or 
 lazar-house, outside the city, till his death.* 
 He was buried in the city of David with the 
 kings (2 K. xv. 7); not in the sepulchre itself, 
 but in a garden or field attached to the spot. 
 
 u This is an addition by Josephus (ix. 9, ᾧ 9). Since 
 the time of Solomon, chariots would seem to have 
 ‘become unknown in Jerusalem, At any rate we should 
 infer, from the notice in 2 K. xiv. 20, that the royal 
 establishment could not at that time boast of one. 
 
 x The story of his leprosy at any rate shows his zeal 
 for Jehovah. 
 
 y 2 Ch. xxvi. 9. The word rendered ‘the valley” 
 is 8°37, always employed for the valley on the west 
 
 and south of the town, as bn) is for that on the east. 
 
 z This will be the eastern hill, or Ophel, south of the 
 “Virgin’s Fountain.” Josephus calls the place Eroge 
 CEpwyn), and it has been suggested (Bonar, Imp. Bib. 
 Dict. s. v. Jerusalem) that this is the Hebrew 771) ) 
 
 Ἵ =e 
 
 (‘Aragah), a garden, or spice-bed, and not En-rogel. 
 
 aMWSnn Nd. The interpretation given above 
 is that of Kimchi, adopted by Gesenius, Fiirst, and 
 Bertheau. Keil (on 2 K. xv. 5) and Hengstenberg, 
 however, contend for a different meaning, 
 
 JERUSALEM 
 
 Jotham (c. 756) inherited his father’s saga- 
 city, as well as his tastes for architecture and 
 warfare. His works in Jerusalem were building 
 the upper gateway to the Temple—apparently 
 a gate communicating with the palace (2 Ch. 
 xxiii. 20)—and also porticoes leading to the 
 same (Ant. ix. 11, ὃ 2). He also bnilt much on 
 Ophel—probably on the south of Moriah (2 K. 
 xv. 35; 2 Ch. xxvii. 3)—repaired the walls 
 wherever they were dilapidated, and strength- 
 ened them by very large and strong towers 
 (Joseph.). Before the death of Jotham (B.c. 740) 
 the clouds of the Syrian invasion began to 
 gather. They broke on the head of Ahaz, his 
 successor: Rezin, king of Syria, and Pekah, 
 king of Israel, joined their armies and invested — 
 Jerusalem (2 K. xvi. 5), where there appears to 
 have been a party in their favour (ls. viii. 6). 
 The fortifications of the two previous kings 
 enabled the city to hold out during a siege of 
 great length (ἐπὶ πολὺν χρόνον, Joseph.). During 
 its progress Rezin made an expedition against 
 the distant town of Elath on the Red Sea, from 
 which he expelled the Jews, and handed it over 
 to the Syrians, or (R. V. marg.) Edomites (2 K. 
 xvi. 6; Ané. ix. 12,§1). [Ana4z.] Finding on 
 his return that the place still held out, Rezin 
 ravaged Judaea and returned to Damascus with 
 a multitude of captives, leaving Pekah to con- 
 tinue the blockade. 
 
 Ahaz, thinking himself a match for the 
 Israelite army, opened his gates and came 
 
 forth. A tremendous conflict ensued, in which 
 
 the three chiefs of the government next to the 
 king, and 120,000 of the able warriors of the 
 army of Judah, are stated to have been killed, 
 and Pekah returned to Samaria with a crowd 
 of captives, and a great quantity of spoil col- 
 lected from the Benjamite towns north of Jeru- 
 salem (Joseph.). Ahaz himself escaped, and there 
 is no mention in any of the records, of the city 
 having been plundered. The captives and the 
 spoil were, however, sent back by the people of 
 Samaria—a fact which, as it has no bearing on 
 the history of the city, need here only be re- 
 ferred to, because from the narrative it may 
 perhaps be inferred that the most convenient 
 route from Samaria to Jerusalem at that time 
 was not, as now, along the plateau of the coun- 
 try, but by the depths of the Jordan Valley, 
 and through Jericho (2 K. xvi. 5; 2 Ch. xxviii. 
 3-15; Joseph. Ant. ix. 12, § 2). 
 
 To oppose the confederacy which had so injured 
 him, Ahaz had recourse to Assyria. He appears 
 first to have sent an embassy to Tiglath-pileser 
 with presents of silver and gold taken from the 
 treasures of the Temple and the palace (2 K. 
 xvi. 8), which had been recruited during the 
 last two reigns, and with a promise of more if 
 the king would overrun Syria and Israel (Ant. 
 ix. 12, ὃ 3). This Tiglath-pileser did. He 
 marched to Damascus, took the city, and killed 
 Rezin. While there, Ahaz visited him, to make 
 his formal submission of vassalage,” and gave 
 him the further presents. To collect these he 
 went so far as to lay hands on part of the per- 
 
 > This follows from the words of 2 K. xviii. 7; and 
 his name, under the form Jehoahaz, appears in the 
 list of tributary princes in the Assyrian inscriptions 
 (Schrader, Die Keilinschriften κι. ἃ. A. 1. p. 257; Sayce,_ 
 Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments, p. 113). 
 
JERUSALEM 
 
 manent works of the Temple—the original con- 
 structions of Solomon, which none of his pre- 
 decessors had been bold enough or needy enough 
 to touch. He cut off the richly-chased panels 
 which ornamented the brass bases of the cisterns, 
 dismounted the large tank or “sea” from the 
 brazen bulls, and supported it on a pedestal of 
 stone, and removed the “cover for the sabbath,” 
 and the ornamental stand on which the kings 
 were accustomed to sit in the Temple (2 K. xvi. 
 iY, 18). 
 
 Whether the application to Assyria relieved 
 Ahaz from one or both of his enemies, is not 
 clear. From one passage it would seem that 
 Tiglath-pileser actually came to Jerusalem 
 (2 Ch. xxviii. 20). At any rate the intercourse 
 resulted in fresh idolatries, and fresh insults to 
 the Temple. A new brazen altar was made 
 after the profane fashion of one he had seen at 
 Damascus, and was set up in the centre of the 
 court of the Temple, to occupy the place and 
 perform the functions of the original Altar of 
 Solomon, now removed to a less prominent posi- 
 tion (see 2 K. xvi. 12-15, with the explanation 
 
 of Keil); the very sanctuary itself 2m, and 
 ὉΠ) was polluted by idol-worship of some 
 kind or other (2 Ch. xxix. 5, 16). Horses 
 dedicated to the sun were stabled at the entrance 
 to the court, with their chariots (2 K. xxiii. 11). 
 Altars for sacrifice to the moon and stars were 
 erected on the flat roofs of the Temple (ib. v. 12). 
 Such consecrated vessels as remained in the 
 House of Jehovah were taken thence, and either 
 transferred to the service of the idols (2 Ch. 
 xxix. 19) or cut up and re-manufactured ; the 
 lamps of the sanctuary were extinguished ° 
 (xxix. 7), and for the first time the doors of the 
 Temple were closed to the worshippers (xxviii. 
 24), and their offerings seized for the idols 
 (Joseph. Ant. ix. 12, § 3). The famous sun-dial 
 was erected at this time, possibly in the Temple.* 
 When Ahaz at last died, it is not wonderful that 
 a meaner fate was awarded him than that of 
 even the leprous Uzziah. He was excluded not 
 only from the royal sepulchres, but from the 
 precincts of Zion, and was buried “in the city— 
 in Jerusalem.”® The very first act of Hezekiah 
 (B.c. 724) was to restore what his father had 
 desecrated (2 Ch. xxix. 3; and see v. 36, “sud- 
 denly ᾽). The Levites were collected and in- 
 spirited; the Temple freed from its impurities 
 both actual and ceremonial; the accumulated 
 abominations being discharged into the valley 
 of the Kedron. The full musical service of the 
 Temple was re-organised, with the instruments 
 and the hymns ordained by David and Asaph ; 
 and after a solemn sin-offering for the late 
 transgressions had been offered in the presence 
 of the king and princes, the public were allowed 
 
 ¢ Τὴ the old Jewish Calendar the 18th of Ab was 
 kept as a fast, to commemorate the putting out of the 
 western light of the great candlestick by Ahaz. 
 
 ἃ There is an ἃ priori probability that the dial 
 would be placed in a sacred precinct; but may we not 
 infer, from comparing 2 K. xx. 4 with 9, that it was 
 in the ** middle court,” and that the sight of it there as 
 he passed through had suggested to Isaiah the “sign” 
 which was to accompany the king’s recovery ? 
 
 6 Such is the express statement of 2 Ch. xxviii. 27. 
 The Book of Kings repeats itsregular formula. Josephus 
 omits all notice of the burial. 
 
 BIBLE DICT.—VOL. I. 
 
 JERUSALEM 1601 
 
 to testify their acquiescence in the change by 
 bringing their own thank-offerings (2 Ch. xxix. 
 1-36). This was done on the 17th of the first 
 month of his reign. The regular time for 
 celebrating the Passover was therefore gone by. 
 But there was a law (Num. ix. 10, 11) which 
 allowed the Feast to be postponed for a month 
 on special occasions, and of this law Hezekiah 
 took advantage, in his anxiety to obtain from the 
 whole of his people a national testimony to 
 their allegiance to Jehovah and His laws (2 Ch. 
 xxx. 2,3). Accordingly at the special invitation 
 of the king a vast multitude, not only from his 
 own dominions, but from the northern kingdom, 
 even from the remote Asher and Zebulun, as- 
 sembled at the capital. Their first act was to 
 uproot and efface all traces of the idolatry of 
 the preceding and former reigns. High-places, 
 altars, the mysterious and obscene symbols of 
 Baal and Asherah, the venerable brazen serpent 
 of Moses itself, were torn down, broken to pieces, 
 and the fragments cast into the valley of the 
 Kedron’ (2 Ch. xxx. 14; 2 K. xviii. 4). This 
 done, the Feast was kept for two weeks, and the 
 vast concourse dispersed. The permanent service 
 of the Temple was next thoroughly organised, 
 the subsistence of the officiating ministers 
 arranged, and provision made for storing the 
 supplies (2 Ch. xxxi, 2-21). It was probably 
 at this time that the decorations of the Temple 
 were renewed, and the gold or other precious 
 plating® which had been removed by former 
 kings re-applied to the doors and pillars (2 K. 
 xviii. 16). 
 
 And now approached the greatest crisis which 
 had yet occurred in the history of the city: the 
 dreaded Assyrian army was to appear before its 
 walls. Hezekiah had apparently entered into 
 an alliance with Merodach-baladan, king of 
 Babylon (2 K. xx. 12; Is. xxxix. 1), and, with 
 Edom and Moab, joined the Philistines in their 
 revolt against Assyria, then ruled by Sargon. 
 The Tartan was ordered to besiege Ashdod, and 
 another army, perhaps led by the great king in 
 person, pushed southwards through the mountain 
 passes, and halted at Nob, within sight of the 
 “daughter of Zion, the hill of Jerusalem ” (Is, 
 x. 28-32). It has been suggested (Sayce, Fresh 
 Light from the Anct. Monts. pp. 117, 118) that 
 Jerusalem was taken in this the 14th year of 
 Hezekiah’s reign (c. 711 B.C.), and that its 
 capture is referred to in Is. x. 6, 12, 22, 24, 34, 
 and xxii. But this is in direct contradiction to 
 the promise made to Hezekiah (Is. xxxviii. 6; 
 cp. xxxix. 8), and there is no record of the 
 conquest of the city by Sargon in the Assyrian 
 inscriptions. Ten years later Jerusalem was 
 again threatened by an Assyrianarmy. Trusting 
 to the support of Tirhakah, king of Egypt, 
 Hezekiah threw off his allegiance to Assyria. 
 and re-asserted his supremacy over the cities of 
 Philistia. Sennacherib advanced to quell the 
 revolt (0, 701 B.c.), and from:Lachish sent 
 the Tartan or commander-in-chief, the Rab- 
 shakeh or prime minister, and the Rabsaris or 
 
 f And yet it would seem, from the account of Josiah’s 
 reforms (2 K. xxiii. 11, 12), that many of Ahaz’s 
 intrusions survived even the zeal of Hezekiah. 
 
 s The word “gold” is supplied by our translators: 
 but the word “overlaid” (ΠΝ) shows that some 
 
 =e 
 
 metallic coating is intended. 
 Dis 
 
1602 JERUSALEM 
 
 chamberlain, with a large army to Jerusalem. 
 The details of the invasion will be found under 
 the separate heads of HEZEKIAH and SENNA- 
 CHERIB. The Assyrian king states in an in- 
 scription (Schrader, Die Keilinschriften u. d. A. 
 T., pp. 288-294), that he shut up Hezekiah 
 
 shoot an arrow against Jerusalem, nor come 
 before it with shield, nor cast a bank against 
 it. It is certain, however, that the Assyrian 
 army was encamped before the walls, and that 
 the Rabshakeh held a conversation with Heze- 
 kiah’s chief officers, outside the walls—probably | 
 
 JERUSALEM 
 
 “like a bird in a cage in Jerusalem, his royal 
 city ; and that he raised a line of forts against 
 him, and prevented any exit from the chief gate 
 of the city. This is probably an exaggeration, 
 for it is in contradiction to the words of Isaiah 
 (xxxvii. 33), that the king of Assyria shouid not 
 
 er i) 
 iM Hi N 
 
 ii! 
 
 Jerusalem from the Wall near St, Stephen’s Gate. 
 
 near the Turkish Barracks, on the eastern hill, 
 or near the Jaffa Gate—while the wall above was 
 crowded with the anxious inhabitants. At the 
 time of Titus’s siege the name of “the Assyrian 
 Camp ” was still attached to a spot north of the 
 old wall of the city in remembrance either of this 
 
JERUSALEM 
 
 or thesubsequent visit of Nebuchadnezzar (Joseph. 
 B. J. ν. 12, § 2). But though untaken—though 
 the citadel was still the “‘virgin-daughter of 
 Zion ”—yet Jerusalem did not escape unharmed. 
 Hezekiah’s treasures had to be emptied, and the 
 costly ornaments he had added to the Temple 
 were stripped off to make up the tribute. 
 
 It was previous to one of these invasions, or 
 perhaps in the interval between them, that 
 Hezekiah took steps to place the city in a 
 thorough state of defence. The movement was 
 made a national one. A great concourse came 
 together, The springs round Jerusalem were 
 stopped—that is, their outflow was prevented, 
 and the water diverted underground to the 
 interior of the city (2 K. xx. 20; 2 Ch. xxxii. 4), 
 This was particularly the case with the spring 
 which perhaps formed the source of the stream 
 of the Kedron," elsewhere called the “ upper 
 spring of the waters of Gihon ” (2 Ch. xxxii. 30; 
 A. V. most incorrectly, “ water-course oy dic 
 was led down by a subterraneous channel 
 “through the hard rock” (2 Ch. xxxii. 30; 
 Ecclus. xlviii. 17), to, or on, the west side of the 
 city of David (2 K. xx. 20); that is, into the 
 valley which separated the Mount Moriah and 
 Zion from the Upper City (see Water Supply, 
 Ρ. 1593). This done, he carefully repaired the 
 walls of the city, furnished them with additional 
 towers, and built a second wall (2 Ch. xxxii. 5; 
 Is, xxii. 10). The water of the reservoir, called 
 the “old pool,” was diverted to a new tank in 
 the city between the two walls! (Is. xxii. 11). 
 Nor was this all: as the struggle would cer- 
 tainly be one for life and death, he strengthened 
 the fortifications of the citadel (2 Ch. xxxii. 55 
 “Millo ;” Is. xxii. 9), and prepared abundance 
 of ammunition. He also organised the people, 
 and officered them, gathered them together in 
 the open place at the gate, and inspired them 
 with confidence in Jehovah (2 Ch. xxxii. 6). 
 
 The death of this good and great king was 
 indeed a national calamity, and so it was con- 
 sidered. He was buried in “the chiefest (RLV. 
 ascent) of the sepulchres of the sons of David,” 
 _and a vast concourse from the country, as well 
 
 as of the citizens of Jerusalem, assembled to 
 join in the wailings at the funeral (2 Ch. 
 xxxii. 33), 
 
 The reign of Manasseh (B.c. 696) must have 
 been an eventful one in the annals of Jerusalem, 
 though only meagre indications of its events are 
 to be found in the documents. He began by 
 ‘plunging into all the idolatries of his grand- 
 father—restoring all that Hezekiah had de- 
 
 ‘Stroyed, and desecrating the Temple and the city 
 ‘with even more offensive idolatries than those of 
 “Ahaz (2 Ch. xxxiii, 2-9; 2 K. xxi. 2-9). In 
 this career of wickedness he was stopped by an 
 invasion of the Assyrian army, by whom he was 
 ή 
 et EE ed Ὁ 
 [ h The authority for this is the use here of the word 
 Wachal, which is uniformly applied to the valley east 
 of the city, as Ge is to that west and south ; but see 
 THON. Similar measures were taken by the Moslems 
 on the approach of the Crusaders (Will. of Tyre, 
 
 . 4, 7). 
 
 Ε The = between the Jaffa Gate and the 
 vhurch of the Sepulchre, now usually called the Pool 
 
 f Hezekiah, cannot be either of the works alluded 
 to above; but it is probably the Pool Amygdalon of 
 Josephus, 
 
 4 
 
 ΨΥ 
 
 JERUSALEM 1603 
 
 taken prisoner and carried to Babylon, where 
 he remained for some time.* The rest of his 
 long reign was occupied in attempting to remedy 
 his former misdoings, and in the repair and 
 conservation of the city (Joseph. Ant. x. 3, § 2). 
 He built an outer wall to the city of David, 
 “from the west side of Gihon-in-the-valley to 
 the Fish gate,” i.e, apparently along the western 
 side of the Kedron Valley. He also continued 
 the works which had been begun by Jotham at 
 Ophel, and raised that fortress or structure to 
 a great height (2 Ch, xxxiii. 14). On his death 
 he was buried in a private tomb in the garden 
 attached to his palace, called also the garden of 
 Uzza (2 K. xxi. 18; 2 Ch. xxxiii. 20). Here 
 also was interred his son Amon after his violent 
 death, following an uneventful but idolatrous 
 reign of two years (2 Ch. xxxiii. 21-25; 2 K, 
 xxi. 19-26), 
 
 The reign of Josiah (B.c. 639) was marked by 
 a more strenuous zeal for Jehovah than even that 
 of Hezekiah had been. He began his reign at 
 eight years of age, and by his 20th year (12th 
 of his reign—2 Ch. xxxiv. 3) commenced a 
 thorough removal of the idolatrous abuses of 
 Manasseh and Amon, and even some of Ahaz, 
 which must have escaped the purgations of 
 Hezekiah' (2 K. xxiii. 12). As on former 
 occasions, these abominations were broken up 
 small and carried down to the bed of the 
 Kedron—which seems to have served almost the 
 purpose of a common sewer—and there calcined 
 and dispersed. The cemetery, which still paves 
 the sides of that valley, had already begun to 
 exist, and the fragments of the broken altars 
 and statues were scattered on the graves that 
 they might be effectually defiled, and thus 
 prevented from further use. On the opposite 
 side of the valley, somewhere on the Mount of: 
 Olives, were the erections which Solomon had 
 put up for the deities of his foreign wives. Not 
 one of these was spared; they were all annihi- 
 lated, and dead bones scattered over the places 
 where they had stood. These things occupied 
 six years, at the expiration of which, in the 
 first month of the 18th year of his reign (2 Ch. 
 xxxv. 1; 2 K. xxiii. 23), a solemn Passover was 
 held, emphatically recorded to have been the 
 greatest since the time of Samuel (2 Ch. xxxv. 
 18). This seems to have been the crowning 
 ceremony of the purification of the Temple; and 
 it was at once followed by a thorough renoya- 
 tion of the fabric (2 Ch. xxxiv. 8; 2 K. xxii, 5). 
 The cost was met by offerings collected at the 
 doors (2 K. xxii. 4), and also throughout the 
 country (Joseph. Ant. x. 4, § 1), not only of 
 Judah and Benjamin, but also of Ephraim and the 
 other northern tribes (2 Ch. xxxiy. 9). It was 
 during these repairs that the Book of the Law 
 was found; and shortly after all the people 
 
 k In the Assyrian inscriptions Manasseh is mentioned 
 among the tributaries of both Esarhaddon and Agsur- 
 banipal (Schrader, Die Keilinschriften u. d. A. T. 
 pp. 354-357). 
 
 1 The narrative in Kings appears to place the destruc- 
 tion of the images after the king’s solemn covenant in 
 the Temple, i.e. after the completion of the repairs. 
 But, on the other hand, there are the dates given in 
 2Ch. xxxiv. 8, χχχν. 1, 19, which fix the Passover to 
 the 14th of the 1st month of his 18th year, too early in 
 the year for the repair which was begun in the same 
 year to have preceded it, 
 
 5 K 2 
 
1604 
 
 were convened to Jerusalem to hear it read, and 
 to renew the national covenant with Jehovah.™ 
 The mention of Huldah the prophetess (2 Ch. 
 xxxiv. 22; 2 K. xxii. 14) introduces us to a 
 part of the city called “ the Mishneh ” (1)W1D17, 
 A. V. “college,” or R. V. “second quarter ”)." 
 ‘The name also survives in the Book of Zephaniah, 
 a prophet of this reign (i. 10), who seems to 
 recognise “ the Fish gate,” “ the second quarter,” 
 and “the hills” as the three prominent features 
 of the city. 
 
 Josiah’s death took place at a distance from 
 Jerusalem; but he was brought there for his 
 burial, and was placed in “his own sepulchre” 
 (2 K. xxiii. 30), or “in the sepulchre of his 
 fathers ” (2 Ch. xxxv. 24; Joseph. Ant. x. 5, $1), 
 perhaps that already tenanted by Manasseh and 
 Amon. (See 1 Esd. i. 31.) 
 
 Josiah’s rash opposition to Pharaoh-necho cost 
 him his life, his son his throne, and Jerusalem 
 much suffering. Before Jehoahaz (B.C. 608) had 
 been reigning three months, the Egyptian king 
 found opportunity to send to Jerusalem from 
 Riblah, where he was then encamped, a force 
 sufficient to depose and take him prisoner, to 
 put his brother Eliakim on the throne, and to 
 exact a heavy fine from the city and country, 
 which was paid in advance by the new king, 
 and afterwards extorted by taxation (2 K. xxiii. 
 33, 35). 
 
 The fall of the city was now rapidly ap- 
 proaching. During the reign of Jehoiakim— 
 such was the new name which at Necho’s order 
 Eliakim had assumed—Jerusalem was visited 
 by Nebuchadnezzar, with the Babylonian army 
 lately victorious over the Egyptians at Car- 
 
 JERUSALEM 
 
 chemish. ‘The visit was possibly repeated once, | 
 
 or even twice.° A siege there must have been ; 
 but of this we have no account. We may infer 
 how severe was the pressure on the surrounding 
 country, from the fact that the very Bedawin 
 were driven within the walls by “the fear of 
 the Chaldeans and of the Syrians” (Jer. xxxv. 
 11). We may also infer that the Temple was 
 entered, since Nebuchadnezzar carried off some 
 of the vessels therefrom for his temple at Babylon 
 (2 Ch. xxxvi. 7), and that Jehoiakim was treated 
 with great indignity (ib. 6). In the latter part 
 of this reign we discern the country harassed 
 and pillaged by marauding bands from the east 
 of Jordan (2 K. xxiv. 2). 
 
 Jehoiakim was succeeded by his son Jehoia- 
 chin (B.c. 597). Hardly had his short reign 
 begun before the terrible army of Babylon re- 
 appeared before the city, again commanded by 
 Nebuchadnezzar (2 K. xxiv. 10, 11). Jehoia- 
 chin’s disposition appears to have made him shrink 
 from inflicting on the city the horrors of a long 
 siege (B. J. vi. 2,§ 1), and he therefore sur- 
 rendered in the third month of his reign. The 
 
 m This narrative has some interesting correspondences 
 with that of Joash’s coronation (2 K. xi.). Amongst 
 these is the singular expression the king stood ‘‘on the 
 
 pillar.” In the present case Josephus understands this Ϊ 
 
 8.8 an Official spot—émt τοῦ βήματος. 
 
 n See Keil on 2 K. xxii. 14. 
 
 © It seems impossible to reconcile the accounts of this 
 period in Kings, Chronicles, and Jeremiah, with Josephus 
 and the other sources. For one view, see JEHOIAKIM, 
 For an opposite one, see Rawlinson’s Herodotus, i. 
 509-514. 
 
 JERUSALEM 
 
 treasures of the palace and Temple were pillaged ; 
 certain golden articles of Solomon’s original 
 establishment, which had escaped the plunder 
 and desecrations of the previous reigns, were 
 cut up (2 K. xxiv. 13); and the more desirable 
 objects out of the Temple carried off (Jer. xxvii. 
 19). The first deportation that we hear of from 
 the city now took place. The king, his wives, 
 and the queen-mother, with their eunuchs and 
 whole establishment, the princes, 7,000 warriors, 
 and 1,000 artificers—in all 10,000 souls—were 
 carried off to Babylon (2 Κι. xxiv. 14-16), The 
 uncle of Jehoiachin was made king in his stead, 
 by the name of Zedekiah, under a solemn oath 
 (“by God’) of allegiance (2 Ch. xxxvi. 13; 
 Ezek. xvii. 13, 14, 18). Had he been content to 
 remain quiet under the rule of Babylon, the 
 city might have stood many years longer; but 
 he was not. He appears to have been tempted 
 with the chance of relief afforded by the acces- 
 sion of Pharaoh-hophra, and to have applied to 
 him for assistance (Ezek. xvii. 15). Upon this 
 Nebuchadnezzar marched in person to Jerusalem, 
 arriving in the 9th year of Zedekiah, on the 
 10th day of the 10th month? (B.c. 588), and at 
 once began a regular siege, at the same time 
 wasting the country far and near (Jer, xxxiv. 7). 
 The siege was conducted by erecting forts on 
 lofty mounds round the city, from which, on the 
 usual Assyrian plan,‘ missiles were discharged into 
 the town, and the walls and houses in them 
 battered by rams (Jer. xxxii. 24, xxxiii. 4, 111, 4; 
 Ezek. xxi. 22; Joseph. Ant. x. 8, ὃ 1). The city 
 was also surrounded with troops (Jer. lii. 7). 
 The siege was once abandoned, owing to the 
 approach of the Egyptian army (Jer. xxxvii. 5, 
 11), and during the interval the gates of the 
 city were re-opened (ib. v. 13). But the relief was 
 only temporary, and in the 11th of Zedekiah 
 (B.c. 586), on the 9th day of the 4th month 
 (Jer. lii. 6), being just a year and a half from 
 the first investment, the city was taken. Ne- 
 buchadnezzar had in the meantime retired from 
 Jerusalem to Riblah to watch the more im- 
 portant siege of Tyre@then in the last year of 
 its progress. The besieged seem to have suffered 
 severely both from hunger and disease (Jer. 
 xxxii. 24), but chiefly from the former (2 K. 
 xxv. 3; Jer. li. 6; Lam. v. 10). But they 
 would perhaps have held out longer had not a 
 breach in the wall been effected on the day 
 named. It was at midnight (Joseph.). The 
 
 whole city was wrapt in the pitchy darkness* 
 
 characteristic of an Eastern town, and nothing 
 was known by the Jews of what had happened 
 till the generals of the army entered the Temple 
 (Joseph.) and took their seats in the middle 
 gate ® (Jer. xxxix. 3; Joseph. Ant. x. 8, § 2). Then 
 the alarm was given to Zedekiah, and collecting 
 his remaining warriors, they stole out of the city 
 by a gate at the south side, in the great bend 
 of the wallabove Siloam, passed by the royal 
 
 p According to Josephus (Ant. x. 7, § 4), this date 
 was the commencement of the final portion of the siege. 
 
 But there is nothing in the Bible records to support 
 
 this. 
 
 a For the sieges, see Layard’s Vineveh, ii. 366, &c. 
 
 r The moon being but nine days old, there can bave 
 been little or no moonlight at this hour. 
 
 8 This was the regular Assyrian custom at the con 
 clusion of a siege (Layard, Nineveh, ii. 375). 
 
JERUSALEM 
 
 gardens, and took the road to the Jordan Valley. 
 At break of day information of the flight was 
 brought to the Chaldeans by some deserters. 
 A rapid pursuit was made: Zedekiah was over- 
 taken near Jericho, his people were dispersed, 
 and he himself captured and reserved for a 
 miserable fate at Riblah. Meantime the wretched 
 inhabitants suffered all the horrors of assault 
 and sack: the men were slaughtered, old and 
 young, prince and peasant, the women violated 
 m Mount Zion itself (Lam. ii. 43 v. 11, 12). 
 
 On the 7th day of the following month (2 K. 
 xxv. 8), Nebuzaradan, the commander of the 
 king’s body-guard, who seems to have been 
 charged with Nebuchadnezzar’s instructions as 
 to what should be done with the city, arrived. 
 Two days were passed; probably in collecting 
 the captives and booty; and on the 10th (Jer. 
 lii. 12) the Temple, the royal palace, and all the 
 more important buildings of the city were set 
 on fire, and the walls thrown down and left as 
 heaps of disordered rubbish on the ground (Neh. 
 iv. 2). The spoil of the city consisted ap- 
 parently of little more than the furniture of 
 the Temple. A few small vessels in gold* and 
 silver, and some other things in brass, were 
 carried away whole—the former under the 
 especial eye of Nebuzaradan himself (2 K. xxv. 
 15; ep. Jer. xxvii. 19). But the larger objects, 
 Solomon’s huge brazen basin or sea with its 
 twelve bulls, the ten bases, the two magnificent 
 pillars, Jachin and Boaz, too heavy and too 
 cumbrous for transport, were broken up. The 
 pillars were almost the only parts of Solomon’s 
 original construction which had not been muti- 
 lated by the sacrilegious hands of some Baal- 
 worshipping monarch or other, and there is 
 quite a touch of pathos in the way in which the 
 Chronicler lingers over his recollections of their 
 height, their size, and their ornaments—capitals, 
 wreathen work, and pomegranates, “all of 
 brass.” 
 
 The previous deportations, and the sufferings 
 endured in the siege, must to a great extent 
 have drained the place of its able-bodied people, 
 and thus the captives on this occasion were but 
 few and unimportant. The high-priest and 
 four other officers of the Temple, the com- 
 manders of the fighting men, five" people of the 
 court, the mustering officer of the army, and 
 sixty selected private persons, were reserved to 
 be submitted to the king at Riblah. The 
 daughters of Zedekiah, with their children and 
 establishment (Jer. xli. 10, 16; cp. Ant. x. 9, 
 § 4), and Jeremiah the Prophet (Jer. xl. 5), were 
 placed by Nebuzaradan at Mizpah under the 
 charge of Gedaliah ben-Ahikam, who had been 
 appointed as superintendent of the few poor 
 labouring people left to carry on the necessary 
 husbandry and vine-dressing. In addition to 
 these were some small bodies of men in arms, 
 who had perhaps escaped from the city before 
 the blockade, or in the interval of the siege, and 
 who were hovering on the outskirts of the 
 country watching what might turn up (Jer. xl. 
 7, 8). ({isHmMaxL, 6.] The remainder of the 
 population—numbering, with the seventy-two 
 
 t Josephus (x. 8, § 5) says the candlestick and the 
 golden table of shewbread were taken now; but these 
 were doubtless carried off on the previous occasion. 
 
 ἃ Jeremiah (111. 25) says ‘‘seven.”’ 
 
 JERUSALEM 1605 
 
 above named, 832 souls (Jer. lii. 29)—were 
 marched off to Babylon, About two months 
 atter this Gedaliah was murdered by Ishmael, 
 and then the few people of consideration left 
 with Jeremiah went into Egypt. Thus the 
 land was practically deserted of all but the 
 very poorest class. Even these were not allowed 
 to remain in quiet. Five years afterwards—the 
 23rd of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign—the insatiable 
 Nebuzaradan, on his way to Egypt (Joseph. Ant. 
 x. 9, §7), again visited the ruins, and swept 
 off 745 more of the wretched peasants (Jer. 
 lii. 30). 
 
 Thus Jerusalem at last had fallen, and the 
 Temple, set up under such fair auspices, was a 
 heap of blackened ruins.* The spot, however, 
 was none the less sacred because the edifice was 
 destroyed, and it was still the resort of devotees, 
 sometimes from great distances, who brought 
 their offerings—in strange heathenish guise 
 indeed, but still with a true feeling—to weep 
 and wail over the holy place (Jer. xli. 5). It 
 was still the centre of hope to the people in 
 Captivity, and the time soon arrived for their 
 return to it. The decree of Cyrus authorizing 
 the rebuilding of the “house of Jehovah, God 
 of Israel, which is in Jerusalem,” was issued 
 B.C. 536. In consequence thereof a very 
 large caravan of Jews arrived in the country. 
 The expedition comprised all classes—the royal 
 family, priests, Levites, inferior ministers, lay 
 people belonging to various towns and families 
 -—and numbered 42,3609 in all. They were well 
 provided with treasure for the necessary outlay ; 
 and—a more precious burden still—they bore 
 the vessels of the old Temple which had been 
 preserved at Babylon, and were now destined 
 again to find a home at Jerusalem (Ezra v. 14, 
 vi. 5). 
 
 A short time was occupied in settling in their 
 former cities, but on the 1st day of the 7th 
 month (Ezraiii. 6) a general assembly was called 
 together at Jerusalem in * the open place of the 
 first gate towards the east ” (1 Esd. v. 47); the 
 Altar was set up, and the daily morning and 
 evening sacrifices commenced. Other festivals 
 were re-instituted, and we have a record of the 
 celebration of at least one anniversary of the 
 day of the first assembly at Jerusalem (Neh. 
 viii. 1, &c.). Arrangements were made for stone 
 and timber for the fabric, and in the 2nd year 
 after their return (B.C. 534), on the Ist day of 
 
 x The events of this period are kept in memory by 
 the Jews of the present day by various commemorative 
 fasts, which were instituted immediately after the 
 occurrences themselves. These are:—the 10th Tebeth, 
 the day of the investment of’the city by Nebuchadnezzar ; 
 the 10th Ab, destruction of the Temple by Nebuzaradan, 
 and subsequently by Titus; the 3rd Tisri, murder of 
 Gedaliah ; 9th Tebeth, when Ezekiel and the other 
 captives at Babylon received the news of the destruction 
 of the Temple. The entrance of the Chaldees into the 
 city is commemorated on the 17th Tamuz, the day of 
 the breach of the Antonia by Titus. The modern dates 
 will be found in the Jewish almanack for the year. 
 
 y Josephus says 42,462. 
 
 z The Feast of Tabernacles is also said to have been 
 celebrated at this time (Ezra iii. 4; Josep!, Ant. xi. 4, 
 § 1); but this is in direct opposition to Neh. viii. 17, 
 which states that it was first celebrated when Ezra was 
 present (cp. v. 13), which he was not on the former 
 occasion. 
 
1600 JERUSALEM 
 
 the 2nd month (1 Esd. ν. 57), the foundation of 
 the Temple was laid amidst the songs and music 
 of the priests and Levites (according to the old 
 rites of David), the tears of the old men and 
 the shouts of the young. But the work was 
 destined to suffer material interruptions. The 
 chiefs of the people by whom Samaria had been 
 colonised, finding that the Jews refused their 
 offers of assistance (Ezra iv. 2),annoyed and hin- 
 dered them in every possible way; and by this 
 and some natural drawbacks—such as violent 
 storms of wind by which some of the work had 
 been blown down (Hag. i. 9), drought and con- 
 sequent failure of crops, and mortality amongst 
 both animals and men—the work was protracted 
 through the rest of the reign of Cyrus, and that 
 of Ahasverus, till the accession of Artaxerxes 
 (Darius I.) to the throne of Persia (Β.σ. 522). 
 The Samaritans then sent to the court at Baby- 
 lon a formal memorial (a measure already tried 
 without success in the preceding reign), repre- 
 senting that the inevitable consequence of the 
 restoration of the city would be its revolt from 
 the empire. This produced its effect, and the 
 building entirely ceased for a time. In the 
 meantime houses of some pretension began to 
 spring up—ceiled houses ” (Hag. i. 4),—and 
 the enthusiasm of the builders of the Temple 
 cooled (ib. v. 9). But after two years the delay 
 became intolerable to the leaders, and the work 
 was recommenced at all hazards, amidst the en- 
 couragements and rebukes of the two Prophets, 
 Zechariah and Haggai, on the 24th day of the 
 6th month of Darius’ 2nd year. Another at- 
 tempt at interruption was made by the Persian 
 governor of the district west of the Euphrates * 
 (Ezra v. 3), but the result was only a con- 
 firmation by Darius of the privileges granted by 
 his predecessor (vi. 6-13), and an order to render 
 all possible assistance. ‘The work now went on 
 apace, and the Temple was finished and dedicated” 
 in the 6th year of Darius (B.C. 616) on the 3rd 
 (or 23rd, 1 Esd. vii. 5) of Adar—the last month, 
 and on the 14th day of the new year the first 
 Passover was celebrated. The new Temple 
 was 60 cubits less in altitude than that of 
 Solomon (Joseph. Ant. xv. 11, § 1); but its 
 dimensions and form—of which there are only 
 scanty notices—will be best considered elsewhere. 
 (Tempie.] All this time the walls of the city 
 remained as the Assyrians had left them (Neh. 
 ii. 12, &c.). A period of 58 years now passed 
 of which no accounts are preserved to us; but 
 at the end of that time, in the year 457, Ezra 
 arrived from Babylon with a caravan of priests, 
 Levites, Nethinims, and lay people, among the 
 latter some members of the royal family, in all 
 1777 persons (Ezra vii. viii.), and with valuable 
 offerings from the Persian king and his court, as 
 well as from the Jews who still remained in 
 Babylonia (7b. vii. 14, viii. 25). He left Babylon 
 on the 1st day of the year and reached Jeru- 
 salem on the 1st of the 5th month (Ezra vii. 9, 
 Viii. 32). 
 
 amins Wpy=—beyond the river, but in A.V. 
 rendered ‘‘ on this side,” as if speaking from Jerusalem 
 (see Ewald, iv. 110, n.). 
 
 b Psalm xxx. by its title purports to have been used 
 on this occasion (Ewald, Dichter, i. 216, 223). Ewald 
 also suggests that Ps. Ixviii. was finally used for this 
 festival (Gesch. iv. 127, n.). 
 
 JERUSALEM 
 
 Ezra at once set himself to correct some irre- 
 gularities into which the community had fallen. 
 The chief of them was the practice of marrying 
 the native women of the old Canaanite nations. 
 The people were assembled at three days’ notice, 
 and harangued by Ezra—so urgent was the 
 case—in the midst of a pouring rain, and in 
 very cold weather, in the broad place, or court, 
 before (i.e. east of) the Temple (Ezra x. 9; 
 1 Esd. ix. 6). His exhortations were at once 
 acceded to, a form of trespass-offering was 
 arranged, and no less than seventeen priests, ten 
 Levites, and eighty-six laymen renounced their 
 foreign wives, and gave up an intercourse which 
 had been to their fathers the cause and the 
 accompaniment of almost all their misfortunes. 
 The matter took three months to carry out, and 
 was completed on the Ist day of the new year: 
 but the practice was not wholly eradicated 
 (Neh. xiii. 23), though it never was pursued as 
 before the Captivity. 
 
 We now pass another period of eleven years 
 until the arrival of Nehemiah, about B.c. 445. 
 He had been moved to come to Jerusalem by the 
 accounts given him of the wretchedness of the 
 community, and of the state of ruin in which 
 the walls of the city continued (Neh. i. 3). 
 Arrived there, he kept his intentions quiet for 
 three days, but on the night of the third he 
 went out by himself, and, as far as the ruins 
 would allow, made the circuit of the place 
 (ii. 11-16). On the following day he collected 
 the chief people and proposed the immediate re- 
 building of the walls. One spirit seized them. 
 Priests, rulers, Levites, private persons, citizens 
 of distant towns,° as well as those dwelling on 
 the spot, all put their hand vigorously to the 
 work. And notwithstanding the taunts and 
 threats of Sanballat, the ruler of the Samaritans, 
 and Tobiah the Ammonite, in consequence of 
 which one-half of the people had to remain 
 armed while the other half built, the work was 
 completed in fifty-two days, on the 25th of Elul. 
 The wall thus rebuilt was that of the city of 
 Jerusalem as well as the city of David or Zion, 
 as will be shown in the next section, where the 
 account of the rebuilding is examined in detail 
 (Section III.). At this time the city must have 
 presented a forlorn appearance ; but few houses 
 were built, and large spaces remained unoccu- 
 pied, or occupied but with the ruins of the 
 Assyrian destructions (Neh. vii. 4). In this 
 respect it was not unlike much of the modern 
 city. Thesolemn dedication of the wall, recorded 
 in Neh. xii. 27-43, probably took place at a 
 later period, when the works had been com- 
 pletely finished. 
 
 Whether Ezra was here at this time is uncer- 
 tain.4 [Ezra, p. 1041.] But we meet him dur- 
 ing the government of Nehemiah, especially on 
 one interesting occasion—the anniversary, it 
 would appear, of the first return of Zerubbabel’s 
 caravan—on the 1st of the 7th month (Neh. 
 
 ¢ Among these we find Jericho, Bethzur, near Hebron, 
 Gibeon, Bethhoron, perhaps Samaria, and the cther side 
 of Jordan (see iv. 12, referring to those who lived near 
 Sanballat and Tobiah). 
 
 ἃ The name occurs among those who assisted in the 
 dedication of the wall (xii. 33); but so as to make us 
 believe that it was some inferior person of the same 
 
 name. 
 
JERUSALEM 
 
 viii. 1). He there appears as the venerable and 
 venerated instructor of the people in the for- 
 gotten Law of Moses, amongst other reforms re- 
 instituting the Feast of Tabernacles, which we 
 incidentally learn had not been celebrated since 
 the time that the Israelites originally entered on 
 the land (viii. 17). 
 
 Nehemiah remained in the city for twelve 
 years (v. 14, xiii. 6), during which time he held 
 the office and maintained the state of governor 
 of the province (ν. 14) from his own private 
 resources (vy. 15). He was indefatigable in his 
 regulation and maintenance of the order and 
 dignity both of the city (vii. 3, xi. 1, xiii. 15, 
 &e.) and Temple (x. 32, 39, xii. 44); abolished 
 the excessive rates of usury by which the richer 
 citizens had grievously oppressed the poor 
 (v. 6-12); kept up the genealogical registers, 
 at once so characteristic of, and important to, 
 the Jewish nation (vii. 5, xi. xii.); and in 
 various other ways showed himself an able and 
 active governor, and possessing a complete 
 ascendency over his fellow-citizens. At the 
 end of this time he returned to Babylon; but it 
 does not appear that his absence was more than 
 a short one,° and he was soon again at his post, 
 as vigilant and energetic as ever (xiii. 7). Of 
 his death we have no record. 
 
 The foreign tendencies of the high-priest 
 Eliashib and his family had already given 
 Nehemiah some concern (xiii. 4, 28); and when 
 the checks exercised by his vigilance and good 
 sense were removed, they quickly led to serious 
 disorders, unfortunately the only occurrences 
 which have come down to us during the next 
 epoch. Eliashib’s son Joiada, who succeeded 
 him in the high-priesthood (apparently a few 
 years before the death of Nehemiah), had two 
 sons, the one Jonathan (Neh. xii. 11) or Johanan 
 (Neh. xii. 22; Joseph. Ant. xi. 7, § 1), the other 
 Joshua (Joseph. ibid.). Joshua had made interest 
 with the general of the Persian army that he 
 should displace his brother in the priesthood: 
 the two quarrelled, and Joshua was killed by 
 Johanan in the Temple (8.6. ο. 366): a horrible 
 occurrence, and even aggravated by its conse- 
 quences; for the Persian general made it the 
 excuse not only to pollute the sanctuary (ναὸς) 
 by entering it, on the ground that he was cer- 
 tainly less unclean than the body of the mur- 
 dered man—but also to extort a tribute of 50 
 darics on every lamb offered in the daily sacri- 
 fice for the next seven years (Joseph. Ant. 
 ibid.). 
 
 Johanan in his turn had two sons, Jaddua 
 (Neh. xii. 11, 22) and Manasseh (Joseph. Ant. 
 xi. 7, § 2). Manasseh married the daughter of 
 Sanballat the Horonite,® and eventually became 
 the first priest of the Samaritan temple on 
 Gerizim (Joseph. Ant. xi. 8, §§ 2,4). But at 
 first he seems to have been associated in the 
 priesthood of Jerusalem with his brother (Joseph. 
 
 e Prideaux says five years; but his reasons are 
 not satisfactory, and would apply to ten as well as to 
 five. 
 
 f According to Neh. xiii. 28, the man who married 
 Sanballat’s daughter was ‘‘son of Joiada;” but this 
 is in direct contradiction to the circumstantial state- 
 ments of Josephus, followed in the text; and the word 
 **son” is often used in Hebrew for ‘‘ grandson,” or even 
 ἃ more remote descendant (see, e.g., CARMI). 
 
 JERUSALEM 1607 
 
 μετέχειν τῆς ἀρχιερωσύνης), and to have relin- 
 quished it only on being forced to do so on 
 account of his connexion with Sanballat. The 
 foreign marriages against which Ezra and Nehe- 
 miah had acted so energetically had again be- 
 come common among both the priests and lay- 
 men. A movement was made by a reforming 
 party against the practice; but either it had 
 obtained a firmer hold than before, or there was 
 nothing to replace the personal influence of 
 Nehemiah, for the movement only resulted in a 
 large number going over with Manasseh to the 
 Samaritans (Joseph. Ant. xi. 8, §§ 2,4). Dur- 
 ing the high-priesthood of Jaddua occurred the 
 famous visit of Alexander the Great to Jeru- 
 salem. Alexander had invaded the north of 
 Syria, beaten Darius’s army at the Granicus, and 
 again at Issus, and then, having besieged Tyre, 
 sent a letter to Jaddua inviting his allegiance, 
 and desiring, assistance in men and provisions. 
 The answer of the high-priest was, that to 
 Darius his allegiance had been given, and that 
 to Darius he would remain faithful while he 
 lived. Tyre was taken in July B.c. 331 (Ken- 
 rick’s Phoenicia, p.431),and then the Macedonians 
 moved along the flat strip of the coast of Pales- 
 tine to Gaza, which in its turn was taken in 
 October. The road to Egypt being thus secured, 
 Alexander had leisure to visit Jerusalem, and 
 deal in person with the people who had ventured 
 to oppose him. This he did apparently by the 
 route through Beth-horon and Gibeon. The 
 “Sapha” at which he was met by the high- 
 priest must be Scopus—the high ridge to the 
 north of the city, which is crossed by the 
 northern road, and from which the first view— 
 and that a full one—of the city and Temple is 
 procured. The result to the Jews of the visit 
 was an exemption from tribute in the Sabbatical 
 year: a privilege which they retained for long.® 
 
 We hear nothing more of Jerusalem until it 
 was taken by Ptolemy Soter, about B.c. 320, 
 during his incursion into Syria. The account 
 given by Josephus (Ant. xii. 1; c. Apion. i. ὃ 22), 
 partly from Agatharchides, and partly from 
 some other source, is extremely meagre, nor is 
 it quite consistent with itself. But we can 
 discern one point to which more than one 
 parallel is found in the later history—that the 
 city fell into the hands of Ptolemy because the 
 Jews would not fight on the Sabbath. Great 
 hardships seem to have been experienced by the 
 Jews after this conquest, and a large number 
 were transported to Egypt and to Northern 
 Africa, 
 
 A stormy period succeeded, that of the strug- 
 gles between Antigonus and Ptolemy for the 
 possession of Syria, which lasted until the defeat 
 of the former at Ipsus (8.c. 301), after which 
 
 & The details of this story, and the arguments for 
 and against its authenticity, are given under ALEXx- 
 ANDER; see also HicH-prrest. It should be observed 
 that the part of the Temple which Alexander entered, 
 and where he sacrificed to God, was not the vads, into 
 which Bagoas had forced himself after the murder of 
 Joshua, but the iepé6y—the court only (Joseph. Ant. 
 xi. 8,§5). The Jewish tradition is that he was induced 
 to put off his shoes before treading the sacred ground 
 of the court, by being told that they would slip on 
 the polished marble (Meg. Taanith, in Reland, Antig. 
 i. 8, 5), 
 
1008 
 
 the country came into the possession of Ptolemy. 
 The contention, however, was confined to the 
 maritime region of Palestine,» and Jerusalem 
 appears to have escaped. Scanty as is the in- 
 formation we possess concerning the city, it yet 
 indicates a state of prosperity; the only out- 
 ward mark of dependence being an annual tax 
 of twenty talents of silver payable by the high- 
 priests. Simon the Just, who followed his 
 father Onias in the high-priesthood (0. B.C. 
 300), is one of the favourite heroes of the Jews, 
 Under his care the sanctuary (vads) was repaired, 
 and some retaining walls of great height added 
 round the Temple, possibly to gain a larger 
 surface on the top of the hill (Ecclus. 1. 1, 2). 
 The large cistern or “sea” of the Temple, which 
 hitherto would seem to have been but tempo- 
 rarily or roughly constructed, was sheathed in 
 brass‘ (ib. v. 3); the walls of the city were more 
 strongly fortified to guard against such attacks 
 as those of Ptolemy (ib. v. 4); and the Temple 
 service was maintained with great pomp and 
 ceremonial (ib. vv. 11-21). His death was marked 
 by evil omens of various kinds presaging dis- 
 asters * (Otho, Lex. Rab. “ Messias”). Simon’s 
 brother Eleazar succeeded him as high-priest 
 (B.c. 291), and Antigonus of Socho as president 
 of the Sanhedrin! (Prideaux). The disasters 
 presaged did not immediately arrive, at least in 
 the grosser forms anticipated. The intercourse 
 with Greeks was fast eradicating the national 
 character, but it was at any rate a peaceful 
 intercourse during the reigns of the Ptolemies 
 who succeeded Soter, viz. Philadelphus (8.c. 
 285) and Euergetes (B.C. 247). It was Philadel- 
 phus who, according to the story preserved by 
 Josephus, had the translation of the Septuagint ™ 
 made, in connexion with which he sent Aristeas 
 to Jerusalem during the priesthood of Eleazar. 
 He also bestowed on the Temple very rich gifts, 
 consisting of a table for the shewbread, of won- 
 derful workmanship, basins, bowls, phials, &c., 
 and other articles both for the private and public 
 use of the priests (Joseph. Ant. xii. 2, §§ 5-10, 
 15). <A description of Jerusalem at this period 
 under the name of Aristeas still survives," which 
 
 JERUSALEM 
 
 h Diod. Sic. xix. ; Hecataeus in Joseph. c. Apion. i. 22. 
 
 i So the A. V., apparently following a different text 
 from either LXX. or Vulgate, which state that the 
 reservoir was made smaller. But the passage is 
 probably corrupt. 
 
 k One of the chief of these was that the scapegoat was 
 not, as formerly, dashed in pieces by his fall from the 
 rock, but got off alive into the desert, where he was 
 eaten by the Saracens. 
 
 1 Simon the Just was the last of the illustrious men 
 who formed ‘the Great Synagogue.” Antigonus was 
 the first of the Tanaim, or expounders of the written 
 law, whose dicta are embodied in the Mishna. From 
 Sadoc, one of Antigonus’s scholars, is said to have 
 sprung the sect of the Sadducees (Prideaux, ii. 2; 
 Ewald, Gesch. iv. 313). It is remarkable that Anti- 
 gonus is the first Jew we meet with bearing a Greek 
 name. 
 
 m The legend of the translation by seventy-two 
 interpreters is no longer believed; but it probably rests 
 on some foundation of fact. The sculpture of the table 
 and bowls (lilies and vines, without any figures) seems 
 to have been founded on the descriptions in the Law. 
 In 5 Mace. ii. 14, &c., it is said to have had also a map 
 of Egypt upon it. 
 
 » It is to be found in the Appendix to Havercamp’s 
 Josephus, and in Gallandii Bibl. Vet. Patr. ii. 805. An 
 
 JERUSALEM 
 
 supplies a lively picture of both Temple and 
 city. The Temple was “enclosed with three 
 walls 70 cubits high, and of proportionate thick- 
 ness..... The spacious courts were paved 
 with marble, and beneath them lay immense 
 reservoirs of water, which by mechanical con- 
 trivance was made to rush forth, and thus wash 
 away the blood of the sacrifices.” The city was 
 “of moderate extent, being about 40 stadia in 
 circuit.” The main streets appear to have run 
 north and south; some “along the brow... 
 others lower down but parallel, following the 
 course of the valley, with cross streets connect- 
 ing them.” They were “ furnished with raised 
 pavements,” such as may still be seen in some 
 Oriental towns, either for the convenience of 
 those on foot, or, if we may believe Avisteas, to 
 enable the passengers to avoid contact with 
 persons or things ceremonially unclean. The 
 bazaars were then, as now, a prominent feature ot 
 the city. There were to be found gold, precious 
 stones, and spices brought by caravans from the 
 East, and other articles imported from the West 
 by way of Joppa, Gaza, and Ptolemais, which 
 served as its commodious harbour. It is not 
 impossible that among these Phoenician impor- 
 tations from the West may have figured the 
 dyes and the tin of the remote Britain. 
 
 Eleazar was succeeded (c. B.C. 276) by his 
 uncle Manasseh, brother to Onias I.; and he 
 again (c. 250) by Onias II. Onias was a son 
 of the great Simon the Just; but he inherited 
 none of his father’s virtues, and his ill-timed 
 avarice at length endangered the prosperity of 
 Jerusalem. The payment of the annual tax 
 to the court of Egypt having been for several 
 years evaded, Ptolemy Euergetes, about 226, 
 sent a commissioner to Jerusalem to enforce the 
 arrears (Joseph. Ant. xii. 4, § 1; Prideaux). 
 Onias, now in his second childhood (Anté. xii. 4, 
 § 3), was easily prevailed on by his nephew 
 Joseph to allow him to return with the com- 
 missioner to Alexandria, to endeavour to arrange 
 the matter with the king. Joseph, a man evi- 
 dently of great ability,° not only procured the 
 remission of the tax in question,? but also per- 
 suaded Ptolemy to grant him the lucrative 
 privilege of farming the whole revenue of 
 Judaea, Samaria, Coele-Syria, and Phoenicia—a 
 privilege which he retained till the province was 
 taken from the Ptolemies by Antiochus the 
 Great. Hitherto the family of the high-priest 
 had been the most powerful in the country ; but 
 Joseph had now founded one able to compete 
 with it, and the contention and rivalry between 
 the two—manifesting itself at one time in 
 enormous bribes to the court, at another in 
 fierce quarrels at home—at last led to the inter- 
 ference of the chief power with the affairs of a 
 city which, if wisely and quietly governed, 
 might never have been molested. 
 
 Onias II. died about 217, and was succeeded 
 by Simon II. In 221 Ptolemy Philopator had 
 succeeded Euergetes on the throne of Egypt. He 
 had only been king three years when Antiochus 
 
 extract is given in article ‘* Jerusalem” (Dict. of Geogr. 
 ii. 25, 26). 
 
 © The story of the stratagem by which he made his 
 fortune is told in Prideaux (anno 226), and in Milman’s 
 Hist. of the Jews (ii. 34). 
 
 Ρ At least we hear nothing of it afterwards. 
 
JERUSALEM 
 
 the Great attempted to takeSyriafrom him, Anti- 
 ochus partly succeeded, but ina battle at Raphia, 
 south of Gaza, fought in the year 217 (the same 
 as that of Hannibal at Thrasymene), he was 
 completely routed and forced to fly to Antioch. 
 Ptolemy shortly after visited Jerusalem. He 
 
 repulse Ptolemy never forgave, and the Jews 
 of Alexandria suffered severely in consequence. 
 Like the rest of Palestine, Jerusalem now be- 
 came alternately a prey to each of the contend- 
 ing parties (Joseph. Ant. xii. 3, § 3). In 203 it 
 was taken by Antiochus. In 199 it was retaken 
 by Scopas, the Alexandrian general, who left a 
 
 JERUSALEM 1609 
 
 offered sacrifice in the court of the Temple, an’ 
 would have entered the sanctuary, had he not 
 been prevented by the firmness of the high- 
 priest Simon, and also by a supernatural terror 
 which struck him and stretched him paralysed on 
 the pavement of the court (3 Mace. ii. 22).4 This 
 
 Mount of Olives. 
 
 Dome of the Rock, 
 
 In the following year 
 
 garrison in the citadel. 
 Antiochus again beat the Egyptians, and then 
 
 a The Third Book of the Maccabees, though so called, 
 has no reference to the Maccabean heroes, but is taken 
 up with the relation of this visit of Ptolemy to Jern- 
 salem, and its consequences to the Jews. 
 
1610 JERUSALEM 
 
 the Jews, who had suffered most from the latter, 
 eladly opened their gates to his army, and as- 
 sisted them in reducing the Egyptian garrison. 
 This service Antiochus requited by large pre- 
 sents of money and articles for sacrifice, by an 
 order to Ptolemy to furnish cedar and other 
 materials for cloisters and other additions to 
 the Temple, and by material relief from taxa- 
 tion. He also published a decree affirming the 
 sacredness of the Temple from the intrusion of 
 strangers, and forbidding any infractions of the 
 Jewish law (Joseph. Ant. xii. 3, §§ 3, 4). 
 
 Simon was followed in 195 by Onias III. In 
 187 Antiochus the Great died, and was suc- 
 ceeded by his son Seleucus Soter (Joseph. Ant. 
 xii. 4, § 10). Jerusalem was now in much 
 apparent prosperity. Onias was greatly re- 
 spected, and governed with a firm hand; and 
 the decree of the late king was so far observed, 
 that the whole expenditure of the sacrifices was 
 borne by Seleucus (2 Mace. iii. 1-3). But the 
 city soon began to be much disturbed by the 
 disputes between Hyrcanus, the illegitimate son 
 of Joseph the collector, and his elder and legiti- 
 mate brothers, on the subject of the division of 
 the property left by their father. ‘The high- 
 priest Onias, after some hesitation, seems to 
 have taken the part of Hyrcanus, whose wealth 
 —after the suicide of Hyrcanus (about B.c. 180) 
 —he secured in the treasury of the Temple. 
 The office of governor (mpoorarns) of the Temple 
 was now held by one Simon, who is supposed to 
 have been one of the legitimate brothers of 
 Hyrcanus. By this man Seleucus was induced 
 to send Heliodorus to Jerusalem to get posses- 
 sion of the treasure of Hyrcanus. How the at- 
 tempt failed, and the money was for the time 
 preserved from pillage, may be seen in 2 Mace. 
 iii. 24-30, and in the well-known picture of 
 Raffaelle Sanzio. 
 
 In 175 Seleucus Soter died, and the kingdom 
 of Syria came to his brother, the infamous 
 Antiochus Epiphanes. His first act towards 
 Jerusalem was to sell the office of high-priest— 
 still filled by the good Onias II.—to Onias’ 
 brother Joshua (2 Mace. iv.7; Ant. xii. 5, § 1). 
 Greek manners had made many a step at Jeru- 
 salem, and the new high-priest was not likely 
 to discourage their further progress. His first 
 act was to Grecise his own name, and to become 
 “‘Jason;” his next to set up a gymnasium— 
 that is, a place where the young men of the 
 town were trained naked—to introduce the 
 Greek dress, Greek sports, and Greek appella- 
 tions. Now (1 Mace. i. 13, &c.; 2 Mace. iv. 9, 
 12) for the first time we hear of an attempt to 
 efface the distinguishing mark of a Jew—again 
 to “become uncircumcised.” The priests quickly 
 followed the example of their chief (2 Macc. 
 iv. 14), and the Temple service was neglected. 
 A special deputation of the youth of Jerusalem 
 —‘ Antiochians” they were now called—was 
 sent with offerings from the Temple of Jehovah 
 to the festival of Hercules at Tyre. In 172 
 Jerusalem was visited by Antiochus. He entered 
 the city at night by torch-light and amid the 
 acclamations of Jason and his party, and after a 
 short stay he returned * (2 Macc. iv. 22), And 
 
 τ This visit is omitted in 1 Macc. Josephus men- 
 tions it, but says that it was marked by a great 
 slaughter of the Jewish party and by plunder (Ant. 
 
 JERUSALEM 
 
 now the treachery of Jason was to be requited 
 to him. His younger brother, also called Onias, 
 who had assumed the Greek name of Menelaus, 
 in his turn bought the high-priesthood from 
 Antiochus, and drove Jason out to the other 
 side of the Jordan (2 Mace. iv. 26). To pay the 
 price of the office, Menelaus had laid hands on 
 the consecrated plate of the Temple. This be- 
 came known, and a riot was the consequence 
 (2 Mace. iv. 32, 39, 40). ᾿ 
 
 During the absence of Antiochus in Egypt, 
 Jason suddenly appeared before Jerusalem with 
 a thousand men, and whether by the fury of his 
 attack, or from his having friends in the city, 
 he entered the walls, drove Menelaus into the 
 citadel, and slaughtered the citizens without 
 mercy. Jason seems to have failed to obtain 
 any of the valuables of the Temple, and shortly 
 after retreated beyond Jordan, where he miser- 
 ably perished (2 Macc. v. 7-10). But the news 
 of these tumults reaching Antiochus on his way 
 from Egypt brought him again to Jerusalem 
 (B.c. 170), He appears to have entered the city 
 without much difficulty. An indiscriminate 
 massacre of the adherents of Ptolemy followed, 
 and then a general pillage of the contents of 
 the Temple. Under the guidance of Menelaus, 
 Antiochus went into the Sanctuary, and took 
 from thence the golden altar, the candlestick, 
 the magnificent table of shewbread, and all the 
 vessels and utensils, with 1800 talents out of 
 the treasury. These things occupied three days. 
 He then quitted for Antioch, carrying off, besides 
 his booty, a large train of captives, and leaving, 
 as governor of the city, a Phrygian named 
 Philip, a man of a more savage disposition than 
 himself (1 Macc. i. 20-24; 2 Mace. ν. 11-22; 
 Joseph." Ant. xii. 5, § 3; B. Jui. 1, So) abut 
 something worse was reserved for Jerusalem 
 than pillage, death, and slavery, worse than 
 even the pollution of the presence of this mon- 
 ster in the holy place of Jehovah. Nothing less 
 than the total extermination of the Jews was 
 resolved on, and in two years (B.C. 168) an army 
 was sent under Apollonius to carry the resolve 
 into effect. He waited till the Sabbath, and 
 then for the second time the entry was made 
 while the people were engaged in their devo- 
 tions. Another great slaughter took place; the 
 city was now in its turn pillaged and burnt, and 
 the walls destroyed (2 Macc. v. 24-26). 
 
 The foreign garrison took up its quarters in 
 what had from the earliest times been the 
 strongest part of the place—the ancient city 
 of David (1 Mace. i. 33, vii. 32), and built a 
 citadel on an eminence adjoining* the North 
 wall of the Temple, and so high as to overlook 
 it (Ant. xii. 5,§ 4). This hill was now fortified 
 with a very strong wali with towers, and within 
 it the garrison secured their booty, cattle, and 
 
 xii. 5, §3). This, however, does not agree with the 
 festal character given to it in 2 Macc., and followed 
 above. 
 
 8 There is a great discrepancy between the accounts of 
 1 Macc., 2 Macc., and Josephus. 
 
 t This may be inferred from many of the expressions 
 concerning this citadel; but Josephus expressly uses 
 the word ἐπέκειτο (Ant. xii. 9, §3), and says it was on 
 an eminence in the lower city, i.e. the Eastern hill, 
 as contradistinguished from the Western hill or upper 
 city. 
 
 a 
 
JERUSALEM 
 
 other provisions, the women of their prisoners, 
 and a certain number of the inhabitants of the 
 city friendly to them. 
 
 Antiochus next issued an edict to compel 
 heathen worship in all his dominions, and one 
 Atnenaeus was sent to Jerusalem to enforce 
 compliance. As a first step, the Temple was 
 reconsecrated to Zeus Olympius (2 Mace. vi. 2). 
 The worship of idols (1 Mace. i. 47), with its 
 loose and obscene accompaniments (2 Mace. vi. 4), 
 was introduced there—an altar to Zeus was set 
 up on the brazen altar of Jehovah, pig’s-flesh 
 offered thereon, and the broth or liquor sprinkled 
 about the Temple (Joseph. Anf. xiii. 8, § 2). 
 And while the Jews were compelled not only to 
 tolerate, but to take an active part in these 
 foreign abominations, the observance of their 
 own rites and ceremonies—sacrifice, the sabbath, 
 circumcision—was absolutely forbidden. Many 
 no doubt complied (Ant. xii. 5, § 4); but many 
 also resisted, and the torments inflicted, and the 
 heroism displayed in the streets of Jerusalem at 
 this time, almost surpass belief. But though a 
 severe, it was a wholesome discipline, and under 
 its rough teaching the old spirit of the people 
 began to revive. 
 
 The battles of the Maccabees were fought on 
 the outskirts of the country, and it was not till 
 the defeat of Lysias at Bethzur that they 
 thought it safe to venture into the recesses of 
 the central hills. Then they immediately turned 
 their steps to Jerusalem. On ascending the 
 Mount Moriah, and entering the quadrangle of 
 the Temple, a sight met their eyes, which proved 
 at once how complete had been the desecration, 
 and how short-lived the triumph of the idola- 
 ters; for while the altar still stood there with 
 its abominable burden, the gates in ashes, the 
 priests’ chambers in ruins, and, as they reached 
 the inner court, the very sanctuary itself open 
 and empty—yet the place had been so long 
 disused that the whole precincts were full of 
 vegetation, “the shrubs grew in the courts as 
 in a forest.” The precincts were at once 
 cleansed, the polluted altar put aside, a new one 
 constructed, and the holy vessels of the sanc- 
 tuary replaced, and on the third anniversary of 
 the desecration—the 25th of the month Chisleu, 
 in the year B.c. 165—the Temple was dedicated 
 with a feast which lasted for eight days." After 
 this the outer wall of the Temple * was very 
 much strengthened (1 Mace. iv. 60), and it was 
 in fact converted into a fortress (cp. vi. 26, 
 61, 62), and occupied by a garrison (iv. 61). 
 The Acra was still held by the soldiers of An- 
 tiochus. One of the first acts of Judas on enter- 
 ing the Temple had been to detach a party to 
 watch them, and two years later (B.c. 163) so 
 frequent had their sallies and annoyances become 
 —particularly an attempt on one occasion to 
 confine the worshippers within the Temple en- 
 closure ¥ (1 Mace. vi. 18)—that Judas collected 
 
 u The Feast of the Dedication is alluded to in John x. 
 22. Chisleu was the mid-winter month. 
 
 xIn 1 Mace. iv. 60 it is said that they builded up 
 “Mount Sion;” but in the parallel passages, vi. 7, 26, 
 the word used is “" sanctuary,” or rather ‘‘ holy places,” 
 ἁγίασμα. The meaning probably is the entire enclosure. 
 Josephus (Ant, xii. 7, § 7) says ‘‘ the city.” 
 
 Y συγκλείοντες τὸν ᾿Ισραὴλ κύκλῳ τῶν ἁγίων. The 
 E. Y., ‘‘shut up the Israelites round about the sanc- 
 
 1611 
 
 his people to take it, and began a siege with 
 banks and engines. In the meantime Antiochus 
 had died (B.c. 164), and was succeeded by his 
 son Antiochus Eupator, a youth. The garrison 
 in the Acra, finding themselves pressed by 
 Judas, managed to communicate with the king, 
 who brought an army from Antioch and at- 
 tacked Bethzur, one of the fortified positions 
 of the Maccabees. This obliged Judas to give 
 up the siege of the Acra, and to march south- 
 wards against the intruder (1 Mace. vi. 32; 
 Joseph. Ant. xii. 9, § 4. Antiochus’s army 
 proved too much for his little force ; his brother 
 Eleazar was killed, and he was compelled to fall 
 back on Jerusalem and shut himself up in the 
 Temple. Thither Lysias, Antiochus’s general— 
 and later, Antiochus himself — followed him 
 (vi. 48, 51, 57, 62) and commenced an active 
 siege. How long it lasted we are not informed, 
 but the provisions ofthe besieged were rapidly 
 becoming exhausted, and famine had driven 
 many to make their escape (vi. 54), when news 
 of an insurrection elsewhere induced Lysias to 
 advise Antiochus to offer terms to Judas (vi. 
 55-58). The terms, which were accepted by 
 him, were liberty to live after their own laws, 
 and immunity to their persons and their fortress. 
 On inspection, however, Antiochus found the 
 place so strong that he refused to keep this part 
 of the agreement; and before he left, the walls 
 were pulled down (vi. 62; Ant. xii. 9, § 7). 
 Judas apparently remained in Jerusalem for 
 the next twelve months. During this time 
 Antiochus and Lysias had been killed, and the 
 throne seized by Demetrius (B.C. 162), and the 
 new king had dispatched Bacchides and Alcimus, 
 the then high-priest—a man of Grecian prin- 
 ciples—with a large force, to Jerusalem. Judas 
 was again within the walls of the Temple, which 
 in the interval he must have rebuilt. He could 
 not be tempted forth, but sixty of the Assideans 
 were treacherously murdered by the Syrians, 
 who then moved off, first to a short distance 
 from the city, and finally back to Antioch 
 (1 Mace. vii. 1-25; Ant. xii. 10, §§ 1-3). Deme- 
 trius then sent another army under Nicanor, but 
 with no better success. An action was fought 
 αὖ Caphar-salama, an unknown place not far 
 from the city. Judas was victorious, and Nicanor 
 escaped and took refuge in the Acra at Jeru-. 
 salem. Shortly after Nicanor came down from 
 the fortress and paid a visit to the Temple, where 
 he insulted the priests (1 Mace. vii. 33, 34; 
 2 Mace. xiv. 31-33). He also caused the death 
 of Razis, one of the elders of Jerusalem, a man 
 greatly esteemed, who killed himself in the 
 most horrible manner, rather than fall into 
 his hands (2 Mace. xiv. 37-46). He then pro- 
 cured some reinforcements, met Judas at Adasa, 
 now Kh. ’Adaseh, 8 miles south of Gophna, was 
 killed, and his army thoroughly beaten. Nica- 
 nor’s head and right arm were brought to Jeru- 
 salem. The head was nailed on the wall of the 
 Acra, and the hand and arm on a conspicuous 
 spot facing the Temple (2 Macc. xv. 30-35), 
 where their memory was perhaps perpetuated 
 in the name of the gate Nicanor, the eastern 
 entrance to the Great Court (Reland, Antiq. 
 i. 9, 4). 
 
 JERUSALEM 
 
 tuary,” does not here give the sense, which seems to be 
 as above. 
 
1612 JERUSALEM 
 
 The death of Judas took place in 161. After 
 it Bacchides and Alcimus again established them- 
 selves at Jerusalem in the Acra (Joseph. Ané. xiii. 
 1, § 3), and, in the intervals of their contests 
 with Jonathan and Simon, added much to its 
 fortifications, furnished it with provisions, and 
 . confined there the children of the chief people 
 of Judaea as hostages for their good behaviour 
 (1 Mace. ix. 50-53). In the second month 
 (May) of 160 the high-priest Alcimus began to 
 make some alterations in the Temple, apparently 
 doing away with the enclosure between one 
 court and another, and in particular demolishing 
 some wall or building to which peculiar sanctity 
 was attached as “the work of the prophets” 
 (1 Mace. ix. 54). The object of these alterations 
 was doubtless to lessen the distinction between 
 Jew and Gentile. But they had hardly been 
 commenced before he was taken suddenly ill and 
 died. 
 
 Bacchides now returned to Antioch, and Jeru- 
 salem remained without molestation for a period 
 of seven years. It does not appear that the 
 Maccabees resided there ; part of the time they 
 were at Michmash, in the entangled country 
 about 8 miles north of Jerusalem, and part of 
 the time fighting with Bacchides at Beth-basi 
 in the Jordan Valley near Jericho. All this 
 time the Acra was held by the Macedonian 
 garrison (Ant. xiii. 4. § 9) and the malcontent 
 Jews, who still held the hostages taken from 
 the other part of the community (1 Mace. x. 6). 
 In the year 153 Alexander Balas, the real or 
 pretended son of Antiochus Epiphanes, having 
 landed at Ptolemais, Demetrius sent a com- 
 munication to Jonathan with the view of keeping 
 him attached to his cause (1 Mace. x. 1, &c.; 
 Ant. xiii. 2, § 1). Upon this Jonathan moved 
 up to Jerusalem, rescued the hostages from the 
 Acra, and began to repair the city. The de- 
 structions of the last few years were remedied, 
 the wall round Mount Zion particularly being 
 rebuilt in the most substantial manner, as a 
 recular fortification (x. 11). From this time 
 forward Jonathan received privileges and pro- 
 fessions of confidence from both sides. First, 
 Alexander authorized him to assume the office of 
 high-priest, which had not been filled up since 
 the death of Alcimus (cp. Ant. xx. 10, § 1). 
 This he took at the Feast of Tabernacles, in the 
 autumn of the year 153, and at the same time 
 collected soldiers and ammunition (1 Mace. x. 21). 
 Next, Demetrius, amongst other immunities 
 granted to the country, recognised Jerusalem 
 and its environs as again “holy and free,” 
 relinquished all right to the Acra—which was 
 henceforward to be subject to the high-priest 
 (xs. 31, 32)—endowed the Temple with the 
 revenues of Ptolemais, and also with 15,000 
 shekels of silver charged in other places, and 
 ordered not only the payment of the same sum, 
 in regard to former years, but the release of an 
 annual tax of 5,000 shekels hitherto exacted 
 from the priests. Lastly, he authorized the 
 repairs of the holy place, and the building 
 and fortifying of the walls of Jerusalem to 
 be charged to the royal accounts, and gave 
 the privilege of sanctuary to all persons, even 
 mere debtors, taking refuge in the Temple or in 
 its precincts (1 Macc. x. 31, 32, 39-45). 
 
 The contentions between Alexander and Deme- 
 trius, in which he was actively engaged, pre- 
 
 JERUSALEM 
 
 vented Jonathan from taking advantage of these 
 grants till the year 145. He then began to 
 invest the Acra (xi. 20; Ant. xiii. 4, § 9), but, 
 owing partly to the strength of the place, and 
 partly to the constant dissensions abroad, the 
 siege made little progress during fully two 
 years. It was obvious that no progress could 
 be made so long as the inmates οἵ the Acra 
 could get into the city or the country, and there 
 buy provisions (xiii. 49), as hitherto was the 
 case; and, therefore, at the first opportunity, 
 Jonathan built a wall or bank at the base of the 
 citadel-hill, so as to cut off all communication 
 with the city, and completed the investmenteon 
 all sides (xii. 365; cp. xiii. 49). At the same 
 time the wall of the Temple enclosure was 
 repaired and strengthened, especially on the 
 east side, towards the valley of Kedron. In the 
 meantime Jonathan was killed at Ptolemais, and 
 Simon succeeded him both as chief and as high- 
 priest (xiii. 8, 42). The investment of the 
 Acra proved successful, but three years still 
 elapsed before this enormously strong place 
 could be reduced, and at last the garrison capi- 
 tulated only from famine (xiii. 49; cp. v. 21). 
 Simon entered it on the 23rd of the 2nd month 
 B.c. 142. The fortress was then entirely de- 
 molished, and the eminence on which it stood 
 lowered, so that the Temple might be higher 
 than it. The last operation occupied three 
 years (Ant. xiii. 6, § 7). The valley between 
 Acra and the “third hill” was -probably filled 
 up at this time (B. J. ν. 4, ὃ 1). A fort was 
 then built on the north side of, and in close 
 proximity to,” the Temple, so as directly to com- 
 mand the site of the Acra, and here Simon and 
 his immediate followers resided (xiii. 52). This 
 was the Baris—so called after the Hebrew word 
 Birah—which, after having been rebuilt by Herod 
 and called Antonia, became so prominent a 
 feature of the city. Simon’s other achieve- 
 ments, and his alliance with the Romans, must 
 be reserved for another place. We hear of no 
 further occurrences at Jerusalem during his life 
 except the placing of two brass tablets, com- 
 memorating his exploits on Mount Zion, in the 
 precinct of the sanctuary (xiv. 27, 48). In 135 
 Simon was murdered at Docus, ‘Ain Duk, near 
 Jericho, and then all was again confusion in 
 Jerusalem (xvi. 15, 16). 
 
 One of the first steps of his son John Hyrcanus 
 was to secure both the city and the Temple 
 (Joseph. Ant. xiii. 7, § 4). The people were 
 favourable to him, and repulsed Ptolemy, Simon’s 
 murderer, when he attempted to enter (Joseph. 
 Ant. xiii. 7, § 4; B.J. i. 2, § 3). Hyrcanus 
 was made high-priest. Shortly after this, 
 Antiochus Sidetes, king of Syria, brought an 
 army into Southern Palestine, ravaged and 
 burnt the country, and attacked Jerusalem. To 
 invest the city, and cut off all chance of escape, 
 it was encircled by a girdle of seven camps. 
 The active operations of the siege were carried 
 on as usual at the north, where the ground 
 within and without the walls was on nearly the 
 same Jevel. Here a hundred towers of attack 
 were erected, each of three stories, from which 
 projectiles were cast into the city, and a double 
 
 z It was perhaps joined to the north wall of the 
 Temple (B. J. i. 5, § 4). 
 
JERUSALEM 
 
 ditch, broad and deep, was excavated before 
 them to protect them from the sudden sallies 
 which the besieged were constantly making. On 
 one occasion the wall of the city was under- 
 mined, the supporting timber burnt, and thus a 
 temporary breach effected (5 Mace. xxi, 5). For 
 the first and last time we hear of a want of 
 water inside the city, but from this a seasonable 
 rain relieved them. In other respects the be- 
 sieged seem to have been very well off. Hyr- 
 canus however, with more prudence than hu- 
 manity, anticipating a long siege, turned out of 
 the city all the infirm and non-fighting people. 
 The Feast of Tabernacles had now arrived, and, 
 at the request of Hyrcanus, Antiochus, with a 
 moderation which gained him the title of “the 
 Pious,” agreed to atruce. This led to further 
 negotiations, which ended in the siege being 
 relinquished. Antiochus wished to place a garri- 
 son in the city, but this the late experience of 
 the Jews forbade, and hostages and a payment 
 were substituted. The money for this subsidy 
 was obtained by Hyrcanus from the sepulchre of 
 David, the outer chamber of which he is said to 
 have opened, and to have taken 3000 talents of 
 the treasure which had been buried with David 
 and had hitherto escaped undiscovered (Ant. vii. 
 15, § 8; xiii. 8, ὃ 4; B.J.i.2, § 5). After 
 Antivchus’s departure Hyrcanus carefully re- 
 paired the damage done to the walls (5 Macc. 
 xxi. 18); and it may have been at this time that 
 he enlarged the Baris or fortress adjoining the 
 Temple, which had been founded by his father, 
 and which he used for his own residence and for 
 the custody of his sacred vestments worn as 
 high-priest (Joseph. Ant. xviii. 4, § 3). 
 
 During the rest of his long and successful 
 reign John Hyrcanus resided at Jerusalem, ably 
 administering the government from thence, and 
 regularly fulfilling the duties of the high-priest 
 (see 5 Mace, xxiii. 3; Joseph. Ant. xiii. 10, § 3). 
 The great sects of Pharisees and Sadducees first 
 appear in prominence at this period. Hyrcanus, 
 as a Maccabee, had belonged to the Pharisees, 
 but an occurrence which happened near the end 
 of his reign caused him to desert them and join 
 the Sadducees, and even to persecute his former 
 friends (see the story in Joseph. Ant. xiii. 10, 
 § 5; 5 Macc. xxv. 7-11; Milman, ii. 73). He 
 died in peace and honour (Ant. xiii. 10, § 7). 
 There is no mention of his burial, but it is 
 nearly certain that the “monument of John the 
 nigh-priest,” which stood near the north-west 
 corner of the city and is so frequently referred 
 to in the account of the final siege, was his 
 tomb; at least no other high-priest of the 
 name of John is mentioned. [H1IGH-PRIEST, 
 p. 1368.} 
 
 Hyrcanus was succeeded (B.C. 107) by his son 
 Avistobulus.* Like his predecessors, he was 
 high-priest ; but, unlike them, he assumed the 
 title as well as the power of a king (Joseph. 
 Ant. xiii. 11, § 1; 5 Macc. xxvii. 1). . Aristo- 
 bulus resided in the Baris (Ant. xiii. 11, § 2). 
 A passage, or vaulted gateway, dark and sub- 
 terraneous (B. J. i. 3, § 3), led from the Baris 
 to the Temple; this passage, or gateway, was 
 
 Ὁ The adoption of Greek names by the family of the 
 Maccabees, originally the great opponents of everything 
 Greek, shows how much and how unconsciously the 
 
 JERUSALEM 1613 
 
 called “Strato’s Tower,” and here Antigonus, 
 brother of Aristobulus, was murdered by his 
 order.” Aristobulus died very tragically im- 
 mediately after, having reigned but one year. 
 His brother Alexander Jannaeus (8.0. 105), who 
 succeeded him, was mainly engaged in wars at a 
 distance from Jerusalem, returning thither how- 
 ever in the intervals (Ant. xiii. 12, § 3, ad fin.). 
 About the year 95 the animosities of the Phari- 
 sees and Sadducees came to an alarming ex- 
 plosion. Like his father, Alexander belonged to 
 the Sadducees. The Pharisees had never for- 
 given Hyrcanus for having deserted them, and 
 at the Feast of Tabernacles, as the king was 
 officiating, they invited the people to pelt him 
 with the citrons which they carried in the 
 feast (Joseph. Ant. xiii. 13, § 5; cp. 10, ὃ 5; 
 Reland, Ant. iv. 5,§ 9). Alexander retaliated, 
 and 6,000 persons were at that time killed 
 by his orders. But the dissensions lasted for six 
 years, and no fewer than 50,000 are said to have 
 lost their lives (Ant. xiii. 18, § 5; 5 Mace. 
 xxix. 2). These severities made him extremely 
 unpopular with both parties, and led to their 
 inviting the aid of Demetrius Euchaerus, king of 
 Syria, against him. The actions between them 
 were fought at a distance from Jerusalem; but 
 the city did not escape a share in the horrors of 
 war; for when, after some fluctuations, Alex- 
 ander returned successful, he crucified publiciy 
 800 of his opponents, and had their wives and 
 children butchered before their eyes, while he 
 and his concubines feasted in sight of the whole 
 scene (Ant. xiii. 14, § 2). Such an iron sway 
 as this was enough to crush all opposition, and 
 Alexander reigned till the year 79 without 
 further disturbances. He died while besieging 
 a fortress called Ragaba, somewhere beyond 
 Jordan. He is commemorated as having, at the 
 time of his disputes with the people, erected a 
 wooden screen round the altar and the sanctuary 
 (ναός), as far as the parapet of the priests’ 
 court, to prevent access to him as he was 
 ministering °* (Ant. xiii. 13, § 5). The “ monu- 
 ment of king Alexander” was doubtless his 
 tomb. It stood somewhere near, but outside, the 
 north wall of the Temple (8. J. v. 7,§ 3). In 
 spite of opposition the Pharisees were now by 
 far the most powerful party in Jerusalem, and 
 Alexander had therefore before his death in- 
 structed his queen, Alexandra—whom he left to 
 succeed him with two sons—to commit herself 
 to them. She did so, and the consequence was 
 that though the feuds between the two great 
 parties continued at their height, yet the go- 
 vernment, being supported by the strongest, 
 was always secure. ‘The elder of the two sons, 
 Hyrcanus, was made high-priest, and Aristobulus 
 had the command of the army. The queen 
 lived till the year 70. On her death, Hyrcanus 
 attempted to take the crown, but was opposed 
 by his brother, to whom in three months he 
 yielded its possession, Aristobulus becoming 
 
 Ὁ For the story of his death, and the accomplishment 
 of the prediction that he should die in Strato’s Tower— 
 i.e. Caesarea—compare the well-known story of the death 
 of Henry IV. in Jerusalem, 7.e. the Jerusalem Chamber 
 at Westminster, 
 
 ¢ Josephus’s words are not very clear:—épv¥¢axrov 
 ξύλινον περὶ τὸν βωμὸν Kal τὸν ναὸν βαλλόμενος LEXP! 
 
 Jews were now departing from their ancient standards. | τοῦ θριγκοῦ, εἰς ὃν μόνοις ἐξῆν τοῖς ἱερεῦσιν εἰσιέναι. 
 
1014 
 
 king in the year θ9, Before Alexandra’s death 
 she had imprisoned the family of Aristobulus in 
 the Baris (. J. i. 5, § 4). There too Hyrcanus 
 took refuge during the negotiations with his 
 brother about the kingdom, and from thence 
 had attacked and vanquished his opponents who 
 were collected in the Temple (Ant. xiv. 1, § 2). 
 Josephus here speaks of it as the Acropolis,* and 
 (xiii. 16, § 5) as being above the Temple (ὑπὲρ 
 τοῦ ἱεροῦ). Afterthe reconciliation Aristobulus 
 took possession of the royal palace (τὰ βασίλεια). 
 This can hardly be other than the “ palace of 
 the Asmoneans,” of which Josephus gives some 
 notices at a subsequent part of the history (Ant. 
 xx. 8, ὃ 11; B. J. ii. 16, §3). From these it 
 appears that it was situated west of the Temple, 
 on the east side of the upper city (the modern 
 Zion), immediately facing the Temple enclosure, 
 and at the west end of the bridge which led from 
 the Temple to the Xystus. 
 
 The brothers soon quarrelled again, when 
 Hyrcanus called to his assistance Aretas, king 
 of Damascus. Before this new enemy Aristo- 
 bulus fled to Jerusalem and took refuge within 
 the fortifications of the Temple. And now was 
 witnessed the strange anomaly of the high-priest 
 in alliance with a heathen king besieging the 
 priests in the Temple. Suddenly a new actor 
 appears on the scene; the siege is interrupted 
 and eventually raised by the interference of 
 Scaurus, one of Pompey’s lieutenants, to whom 
 Aristobulus paid 400 talents for the relief. 
 This was in the year 65. Shortly after Pom- 
 pey himself arrived at Damascus. Both the 
 brothers came before him in person (Ant. xiv. 
 3, § 2), and were received with moderation and 
 civility. Avistobulus could not make up his 
 mind to submit, and after a good deal of shuffling 
 betook himself to Jerusalem and prepared for 
 resistance. Pompey advanced by way of Jericho. 
 As he approached Jerusalem, Aristobulus, who 
 found the city too much divided for effectual 
 resistance, met him and offered a large sum of 
 money and surrender. Pompey sent forward 
 Gabinius to take possession of the place; but 
 the bolder party among the adherents of 
 Aristobulus had meantime gained the ascendency, 
 and he found the gates closed. Pompey on this 
 threw the king into chains and advanced on 
 Jerusalem. Hyrcanus was in possession of the 
 city and received the invader with open arms. 
 The Temple on the other hand was held by the 
 party of Aristobulus, which included the priests 
 (xiv. 4, § 3). They cut off the bridges and 
 causeways which connected the Temple with the 
 town, and prepared for an obstinate defence. 
 Pompey put a garrison into the palace of the 
 Asmoneans, and into other positions in the upper 
 city, and fortified the houses adjacent to the 
 Temple. The north side was the most practic- 
 able, and there he commenced his attack. But 
 even there the Temple was protected by an 
 artificial ditch in addition to a very deep natural 
 valley, above which rose a wall defended by 
 lofty towers (Ant. xiv. 4,§ 2; 8. J.i. 7, § 1). 
 
 Pompey appears to have stationed some part 
 of his force on the high ground south-west of 
 the city (Joseph. B. /. v. 12, § 2), but he him- 
 
 JERUSALEM 
 
 a He also here applies to it the term φρούριον (Ant. 
 xiil. 16, §5; 8. «7. 1. 6, ὁ 4), which he commonly uses 
 for smaller fortresses. 
 
 JERUSALEM 
 
 self commanded in person at the north. The 
 first efforts of his soldiers were devoted to filling 
 up the ditch ® and the valley, and to constructing 
 the banks on which to place the military engines, 
 for which purpose they cut down all the timber 
 in the environs. These had in the meantime 
 been sent for from Tyre, and as soon as the 
 banks were sufficiently raised the balistae were 
 set to work to throw stones over the wall into 
 the crowded courts of the Temple; and lofty 
 towers were erected, from which to discharge 
 arrows and other missiles. But these opera- 
 tions were not carried on without great difficulty, 
 for the wall of the Temple was thronged with 
 slingers, who most seriously interfered with the 
 progress of the Romans. Pompey, however, 
 remarked that on the seventh day the Jews 
 regularly desisted from fighting (Ant. xiv. 4, 
 § 2; Strab. xvi. p. 763), and this afforded the 
 Romans a great advantage, for it gave them the 
 opportunity of moving the engines and towers 
 nearer the walls, filling up the trenches, adding 
 to the banks, and in other ways making good 
 the damage of the past six days without the 
 slightest molestation. In fact Josephus gives it 
 as his opinion, that but for the opportunity 
 thus afforded, the necessary works never could 
 have {been completed. In the Temple itself, 
 however fierce the attack, the daily sacrifices 
 and other ceremonials, down to the minutest 
 detail, were never interrupted, and the priests 
 pursued their duties undeterred, even when men 
 were struck down near them by the stones and 
 arrows of the besiegers. At the end of three 
 months the besiegers had approached so close to 
 the wall that the battering-rams could be 
 worked, and a breach was effected in the largest 
 of the towers, through which the Romans 
 entered, and, after an obstinate resistance and 
 loss of life, remained masters of the Temple. 
 Many Jews were killed by their countrymen of 
 Hyrcanus’s party who had entered with the 
 Romans; some in their confusion set fire to the 
 houses which abutted on a portion of the 
 Temple walls, and perished in the flames, while 
 others threw themselves over the precipices 
 (δ. J. i. 7, § 4). The whole number slain is 
 reported by Josephus at 12,000 (Ant. xiv. 4, § 4). 
 During the assault the priests maintained the 
 same calm demeanour which they had displayed 
 during the siege, and were actually slain at 
 their duties while pouring their drink-offerings 
 and burning their incense (δ. J. 1. 7, § 4). It 
 should be observed that in the account of this 
 siege the Baris is not once mentioned; the 
 attack was on the Temple alone, instead of on 
 the fortress, as in Titus’s siege. The inference 
 is that at this time it was either in the hands 
 of the followers of Hyrcanus, or was a small 
 and unimportant adjunct to the main fortifica- 
 tions of the Temple. 
 
 Pompey and many of his people explored the 
 recesses of the Temple, and the distress of the 
 Jews was greatly aggravated by their holy 
 places being thus exposed to intrusion and 
 profanation (B. J. i. 7, § 6). In the sanctuary 
 were found the great golden vessels—the table 
 of shewbread, the candlestick, the censers, and 
 other articles proper to that place. But what 
 
 © The size of the ditch is given by Strato as 60 feet 
 deep and 250 wide (xvi. p. 763). 
 
JERUSALEM 
 
 most astonished the intruders, on passing beyond 
 the sanctuary, and exploring the total darkness 
 of the Holy of Holies, was to find in the 
 adytum neither image nor shrine. It evidently 
 caused much remark (“inde vulgatum”), and 
 was the one fact regarding the Temple which 
 the historian thought worthy of preservation— 
 “nulla intus deum effigie; vacuam sedem et 
 inania arcana” (Tacitus, Hist. v. 9). Pompey’s 
 conduct on this occasion does him great credit. 
 He left the treasures thus exposed to his view— 
 even the spices and the money in the treasury— 
 untouched ; and his examination over, he ordered 
 the Temple to be cleansed and purified from the 
 bodies of the slain, and the daily worship to be 
 resumed. Hyrcanus was continued in his high- 
 priesthood, but without the title of king (Ant. 
 xx. 10); a tribute was laid upon the city, the 
 walls were entirely demolished (κατασπάσαι 
 ....7& τείχη πάντα, Strabo, xvi. p. 763), and 
 Pompey took his departure for Rome, carrying 
 with him Aristobulus, his sons Alexander and 
 Antigonus, and his two daughters. The Temple 
 was taken in the year 63, in the 3rd month 
 (Sivan), on the day of a great fast (Ant. xiv. 4, 
 § 3); probably that for Jeroboam, which was 
 held on the 23rd of that month. 
 
 During the next few years nothing occurred 
 to affect Jerusalem, the struggles which de- 
 solated the unhappy Palestine during that time 
 having taken place away from its vicinity. In 
 56 it was made the seat of one of the five 
 senates or Sanhedrin, to which under the 
 constitution of Gabinius the civil power of the 
 country was for a time committed. Two years 
 afterwards (B.c. 54) the rapacious Crassus 
 visited the city on his way to Parthia, and 
 plundered it not only of the money which 
 Pompey had spared, but of a considerable 
 treasure accumulated from the contributions of 
 Jews throughout the world, in all a sum of 
 10,000 talents, or about 2,000,000/. sterling. 
 The pillage was aggravated by the fact of his 
 having first received from the priest in charge 
 of the treasure a most costly beam of solid gold, 
 on condition that everything else should be 
 spared (Ant. xiv. 7, § 1). 
 
 During this time Hyrcanus remained at 
 Jerusalem, acting under the advice of Antipater 
 the Idumean, his chief minister. The assistance 
 which they rendered to Mithridates, the ally of 
 Julius Caesar, in the Egyptian campaign of 
 48-47, induced Caesar to confirm Hyrcanus in 
 the high-priesthood, and to restore him to the 
 civil government under the title of Ethnarch 
 (Ant. xiv. 10). At the same time he rewarded 
 Antipater with the procuratorship of Judaea 
 (Ant. xiv. 8, § 5), and allowed the walls of the 
 city to be rebuilt (Ant. xiv. 10, § 5). The year 
 47 is also memorable for the first appearance of 
 Antipater’s son Herod in Jerusalem, when, a 
 youth of fifteen (or more probably * twenty-five), 
 he characteristically overawed the assembled 
 Sanhedrin. In B.c. 43 Antipater was murdered 
 in the palace of Hyrcanus by one Malichus, who 
 was very soon after himself slain by Herod (Ant. 
 xiv. 11, §§ 4, 6). The tumults and revolts con- 
 sequent on these murders kept Jerusalem in 
 commotion for some time (B. J. i. 12). But a 
 more serious danger was at hand, Antigonus, 
 
 f See the reasons urged by Prideaux, ad loc. 
 
 1615 
 
 the younger and now the only surviving son of 
 Aristobulus, suddenly appeared in the country 
 supported by a Parthian army. Many of the 
 Jews of the district about Carmel and Joppa*® 
 flocked to him, and he instantly made for 
 Jerusalem, giving out that his only object was 
 to pay a visit of devotion to the Temple (5 Mace. 
 xlix. 5). So sudden was his approach, that he 
 got into the city and reached the king’s palace 
 without resistance. Here however he was met 
 by Hyrcanus and Phasaelus (Herod’s brother) 
 with a strong party of soldiers. A fight ensued 
 in the market-place, which ended in Antigonus 
 being driven over the bridge into the Temple, 
 where he was constantly harassed and annoyed 
 by Hyrcanus and Phasaelus from the city. 
 Pentecost arrived, and the city and the im- 
 mediate environs of the Temple were crowded 
 with peasants and others who had come up to 
 keep the feast. Herod too arrived, and with a 
 small party occupied the palace. Phasaelus 
 kept the wall. Some of Antigonus’ people seem 
 (though the account is very obscure) to have 
 got into the suburbs to the north of the city. 
 Here Herod and Phasaelus attacked, dispersed, 
 and cut them up. At the earnest request of 
 Antigonus, Pacorus, the Parthian general, and 
 500 horse were admitted, ostensibly to mediate. 
 The result was, that Phasaelus and Hyrcanus 
 were outwitted, and Herod overpowered, and 
 the Parthians got possession of the place. Anti- 
 gonus was made king, and as Hyrcanus knelt a 
 suppliant before him, the new king—with all 
 the wrongs which his father and himself had 
 suffered full in his mind-—bit off the ears of his 
 uncle, so as effectually to incapacitate him from 
 ever again taking the high-priesthood. Pha- 
 saelus killed himself in prison. Herod alone 
 escaped (Ant. xiv. 13). 
 
 Thus did Jerusalem (8.c. 40) find itself in the 
 hands of the Parthians. 
 
 In a few months Herod returned from Rome 
 king of Judaea, and in the beginning of 39 
 appeared before Jerusalem with a force of 
 Romans, commanded by Silo, and pitched his 
 camp on the west side of the city (B. J. i. 15, 
 § 5). Other occurrences, however, called him 
 away from the siege at this time, and for more 
 than two years he was occupied elsewhere. In 
 the meantime Antigonus held the city, and had 
 dismissed his Parthian allies. In 37 Herod 
 appeared again, now driven to fury by the 
 death of his favourite brother, Joseph, whose 
 dead body Antigonus had shamefully mutilated 
 (B. J. i. 17, § 2). He came, as Pompey had 
 done, from Jericho, and, like Pompey, he pitched 
 his camp and made his attack on the north side 
 of the Temple. The general circumstances of 
 the siege seem also very much to have resembled 
 the former, except that there were now ap- 
 parently two walls north of the Temple, and 
 that the driving of mines was a great feature in 
 the siege operations (J. J. i. 18, δ 1; Ant. xiv. 
 16, § 2). The Jews distinguished themselves 
 by the same reckless courage as before; and 
 although it is not expressly said that the services 
 of the Temple were carried on with such minute 
 regularity as when they excited the astonish- 
 
 JERUSALEM 
 
 5 At that time, and even as late as the Crusades, 
 called the Woodland or the Forest country (Δρυμοί, 
 Joseph. Ant. xiv. 13, § 3). 
 
1616 JERUSALEM 
 
 ment of Pompey, yet we may infer it from the 
 fact that, during the hottest of the operations, 
 the besieged desired a short truce in which to 
 bring in animals for sacrifice (Ant. xiv. 16, § 2). 
 In one respect—the factions which raged among 
 the besieged—this siege somewhat foreshadows 
 that of Titus. 
 
 For a short time after the commencement of 
 the operations Herod absented himself for his 
 marriage at Samaria with Mariamne. On his 
 return he was joined by Sosius, the Roman 
 governor of Syria, with a force of from 50,000 
 to 60,000 men, and the siege was then resumed 
 in earnest (Ant. xiv. 16). 
 
 The first wall was taken in forty days, and 
 the second in fifteen more.2 Then the outer 
 court of the Temple and the lower city were 
 taken, and the Jews were driven into the inner 
 parts of the Temple and to the upper city. At 
 this point some delay seems to have arisen, as 
 the siege is distinctly said to have occupied in 
 all five months (B. J. i. 18, § 2; see also Ant. 
 xiv. 16, § 2). At last, losing patience, Herod 
 allowed the place to be stormed; and an indis- 
 criminate massacre ensued, especially in the 
 crowded narrow streets, which was only termi- 
 nated at his urgent and repeated solicitations. 
 Herod and his men entered first, and, in his 
 anxiety to prevent any plunder and desecration 
 of the Temple, he himself hastened to the 
 entrance of the sanctuary, and there, standing 
 with a drawn sword in his hand, threatened to 
 cut down any of the Roman soldiers who at- 
 tempted to enter. 
 
 Through all this time the Baris had remained 
 impregnable: there Antigonus had taken refuge, 
 and thence, when the whole of the city was in 
 the power of the conquerors, he descended, and 
 in an abject manner craved his life from Sosius. 
 It was granted, but only to be taken from him 
 later at the order of Antony. 
 
 Antigonus was thus disposed of, but the As- 
 monean party was still strong both in numbers 
 and influence. Herod’s first care was to put it 
 down. The chiefs of the party, including the 
 whole of the Sanhedrin but two,* were put to 
 death, and their property, with that of others 
 whose lives were spared, was seized. The appoint- 
 ment of the high-priest was the next considera- 
 tion. Hyrcanus returned from Parthia soon 
 atter the conclusion of the siege; but even if his 
 mutilation had not incapacitated him for the 
 office, it would have been unwise to appoint a 
 member of the popular family. Herod therefore 
 bestowed the office (B.C. 36) on one Ananel, a 
 former adherent of his and a Babylonian Jew 
 (Ant. xv. 3, § 1), a man without interest or 
 influence in the politics of Jerusalem (xv. 2, § 4). 
 Ananel was soon displaced through the machi- 
 nations of Alexandra, mother of Herod’s wife 
 Mariamne, who prevailed on him to appoint her 
 son Aristobulus, a youth of sixteen. But the 
 
 h These periods probably date from the return of 
 Herod with Sosius, and the resumption of more active 
 hostilities. 
 
 i True, he was one of the same race who at a former 
 sack of Jerusalem had cried, ‘*Down with it, down with 
 it even to the ground!” But times had altered since 
 then. 
 
 k These two were Hillel and Shammai, renowned in 
 the Jewish literature as the founders of the two great 
 rival schools of doctrine and practice. 
 
 JERUSALEM 
 
 young Asmonean was too warmly received by 
 the people (B. J. i. 22, § 2) for Herod to allow 
 him to remain. Hardly had he celebrated his 
 first feast before he was murdered at Jericho, 
 and then Ananel resumed the office (Ant. xv. 
 3, § 3). 
 
 The intrigues and tragedies of the next thirty 
 years are too complicated and too long to be 
 treated of here. A general sketch of the events 
 of Herod’s life will be found under his name, 
 and other opportunities will occur for noticing 
 them. Moreover, a great part of these occur- 
 rences have no special connexion with Jerusalem, 
 and therefore have no place in a brief notice 
 like the present of those things which more 
 immediately concern the city. 
 
 In many respects this period was a repetition 
 of that of the Maccabees and Antiochus Hpi- 
 phanes. True, Herod was more politic, and more 
 prudent, and also probably had more sympathy 
 with the Jewish character than Antiochus. But 
 the spirit of stern resistance to innovation and 
 of devotion to the Law of Jehovah burnt no less 
 fiercely in the breasts of the people than it had 
 done before; and it is curious to remark how 
 every attempt on Herod’s part to introduce foreign 
 customs was met by outbreak, and how futile 
 were all the benefits which he conferred both 
 on the temporal and ecclesiastical welfare of the 
 people when these obnoxious intrusions were in 
 question} 
 
 In the year 34 the city was probably visited 
 by Cleopatra, who, having accompanied Antony 
 to the Euphrates, was-now returning to Egypt 
 through her estates at Jericho (Ant. xv. 4, 
 § 2). 
 
 In the spring of 31, the year of the battle of 
 Actium, Judaea was visited by an earthquake, 
 the effects of which appear to have been indeed 
 tremendous: 10,000 (Ant. xv. 5, § 2) or, ac- 
 cording to another account (Bb. J. i. 19, § 3), 
 20,000 persons were killed by the fall of build- 
 ings, and an immense quantity of cattle. The 
 panic at Jerusalem was very severe; but it was 
 calmed by the arguments of Herod, then depart- 
 ing to a campaign on the east of Jordan for the 
 interests of Cleopatra. 
 
 The following year was distinguished by the 
 death of Hyrcanus, who, though more than 
 eighty years old, was killed by Herod, ostensibly 
 for a treasonable correspondence with the Ara- 
 bians, but really to remove the last remnant of 
 the Asmonean race, who, in the fluctuations of 
 the times, and in Herod’s absence from his 
 kingdom, might have been dangerous to him. 
 He appears to have resided at Jerusalem since 
 his return; and his accusation was brought 
 before the Sanhedrin (Ant. xv. 6, §§ 1-3). 
 
 Mariamne was put to death in the year 29, 
 whether in Jerusalem or in the Alexandreion, in 
 which she had been placed with her mother 
 when Herod left for his interview with Octavius, 
 is not certain. But Alexandra was now in 
 Jerusalem again; and in Herod’s absence, ill, at 
 Samaria (Sebaste), she began to plot for pos- 
 session of the Baris, and of another fortress 
 situated in the city. The attempt, however, 
 cost her her life. The same year saw the execu- 
 
 1 The principles and results of the whole of this later 
 period are ably summed up in Merivale’s Romans, iii. 
 
 ch. 29. 
 
JERUSALEM 
 
 tion of Costobarus, husband of Herod’s sister 
 Salome, and of several other persons of distinc- 
 tion (Ant. xv. 7, §§ 8-10). 
 
 Herod now began to encourage foreign practices 
 and usages, probably with the view of “ counter- 
 balancing by a strong Grecian party the turbu- 
 lent and exclusive spirit of the Jews.” Amongst 
 his acts of this description was the building of a 
 theatre™ at Jerusalem (Ant. xv. 8, ὃ 1). Of its 
 situation no information is given, nor have any 
 certain indications yet been discovered. It was 
 ornamented with the names of the victories of 
 Octavius, and with trophies of arms conquered 
 in the wars of Herod. Quinqueunial games in 
 honour of Caesar were instituted on the most 
 magnificent scale, with racing, boxing, musical 
 contests, fights of gladiators and wild beasts. 
 The zealous Jews took fire at these innovations, 
 but their wrath was specially excited by the 
 trophies round the theatre at Jerusalem, which 
 they believed to contain figures of men. Even 
 when shown that their suspicions were ground- 
 less, they remained discontented. The spirit of 
 the old Maccabees was still alive, and Herod 
 only narrowly escaped assassination, while his 
 would-be assassins endured torments and death 
 with the greatest heroism. At this time he 
 occupied the old palace of the Asmoneans, which 
 crowned the eastern face of the upper city, and 
 stood adjoining the Xystus at the end of the 
 bridge which formed the communication between 
 the north part of the Temple and the upper city 
 (xy. 8, ὃ 5; cp. xx. 8, §11, and Δ. J. ii. 16, § 3). 
 This palace was not yet so magnificent as he 
 afterwards made it, but it was already most 
 vichly furnished (xv. 9, ὃ 2). Herod had now 
 also completed the reconstruction of the Baris— 
 the fortress built by John Hyreanus on the 
 foundations of that of Simon Maccabaeus—which 
 he had enlarged and strengthened at great ex- 
 pense, and named Antonia, after his friend Mark 
 Antony." A description of this celebrated for- 
 tress will be given in treating of the TEMPLE, 
 with which, as reconstructed by Herod, it was 
 closely connected. It stood near the N.W. 
 corner of the Temple, with which it was con- 
 nected by cloisters. See Section HI. p. 1643. 
 
 m The theatre is perhaps the hippodrome (8. J. ii. 3, 
 9 1) which lay to the south of the Temple, and of which 
 there appear to be traces to the south of the ‘Double 
 Gate.’ The remains of a theatre, which faced the 
 Temple, have been found on the steep slope of a hill on 
 the right bank of the Wady en-Ndr, below Bir Eyitb, 
 PEFQy. Stat. 1887, p. 161; but this can scarcely be one 
 of those mentioned by Josephus. 
 
 The amphitheatre “in the plain” mentioned in this 
 passage is commonly supposed to have been also at 
 Jerusalem (Barclay, City of Great King, p. 174, and 
 others); but this is not a necessary inference. The 
 word πεδίον is generally used of the plain of the Jordan 
 near Jericho, where we know there was an amphi- 
 
 ' theatre (B. J. i. 33, ὁ 8). From another passage (B. J. 
 i. 21,§8) it appears there was one at Caesarea. Still the 
 comparatively level ground north of Jerusalem is called 
 “the plain” in B. J. ii. 1, ὁ 831 and even as late as the 
 15th century it was apparently known as the Meidan 
 (Ff. Fabri), or as the plain of the Sadhkirah (Le Strange, 
 Palestine under the Moslems, p. 220). 
 
 n The name was probably not bestowed later than 
 B.C. 34 or 33—the date of Herod’s closest relations with 
 Antony: and we may therefore infer that the alterations 
 to the fortress had been at least seven or eight years in 
 progress. 
 
 BIBLE DICT.—VOL. I. 
 
 JERUSALEM 1617 
 
 The year 25—the next after the attempt on 
 Herod’s life in the theatre—was one of great 
 misfortunes. A long drought, followed by un- 
 productive seasons, involved Judaea in famine, 
 and its usual consequence, a dreadful pestilence 
 (Ant. xv. 9, § 1). Herod took a noble and at 
 the same time a most politic course. He sent 
 to Egypt for corn, sacrificing for the purchase 
 the costly decorations of his palace and_ his 
 silver and gold plate. He was thus able to 
 make regular distribution of corn and clothing, 
 on an enormous scale, for the present necessities 
 of the people, as well as to supply seed for the 
 next year’s crop (Ant. xv. 9, ὃ 2). The result 
 of this was to remove to a great degree the 
 animosity occasioned by his proceedings in the 
 previous year. 
 
 In this year or the next Herod took another 
 wife, the daughter of an obscure priest of 
 Jerusalem named Simon. Shortly before the 
 marriage Simon was made high-priest in the 
 rooin of Joshua, or Jesus, the son of Phaneus, 
 who appears to have succeeded Ananel, and was 
 now deposed to make way for Herod’s future 
 father-in-law (Ant. xv. 9, § 3). It was probably 
 on the occasion of this marriage that he built a 
 new and extensive palace® immediately adjoining 
 the old wall, at the north-west corner of the 
 upper city (BD. J. v. 4, § 4), about the spot now 
 occupied by the Citadel and Barracks, in which, 
 as memorials of his connexion with Caesar and 
 Agrippa, a large apartment—superior in size to 
 the Sanctuary of the Temple—was named after 
 each (B. J. i. 21, § 1). This palace was very 
 strongly fortified; it communicated with the 
 three great towers on the wall erected shortly 
 after, and it became the citadel, the special 
 fortress (ἴδιον φρούριον, B. J. v. 5, § 8), of the 
 upper city. A road led to it from one of the 
 gates in the west wall of the Temple enclosure 
 (Ant. xv. 14, ὃ 5). But all Herod’s works in 
 Jerusalem were eclipsed by the rebuilding of 
 the Temple in more than its former extent and 
 magnificence. He announced his intention in 
 the year 19, probably when the people were 
 collected in Jerusalem at the Passover. At 
 first it met with some opposition from the fear 
 that what he had begun he would not be able 
 to finish, and the consequent risk involved in 
 demolishing the old Temple. This he overcame 
 by engaging to make all the necessary prepa- 
 rations before pulling down any part of the 
 existing buildings. Two years appear to have 
 been occupied in these preparations—among 
 which Josephus mentions the teaching of some 
 of the priests and Levites to work as masons 
 and carpenters—and then the work began (xy. 
 11, § 2). Both Sanctuary and Cloisters—the 
 latter double in extent and far larger and loftier 
 than before—were built from the very founda- 
 tions (8. Ji i. 21, 8 ΤΥ Δ ἐν 1 δ ον 
 [TemMpLe.] The Holy House itself (vaés)—i.e. 
 the Porch, Sanctuary, and Holy of Holies—was 
 finished in a year and a half (xv. 11, § 6). Its 
 completion on the anniversary of Herod’s inau- 
 guration, B.C. 16, was celebrated by lavish sacri- 
 fices and a great feast. Immediately after this 
 Herod made a journey to Rome to fetch home 
 
 ο The old palace of the Asmoneans continued to be 
 known as “* the royal palace,” τὸ βασίλειον (Ant. Xx. 8, 
 
 11). 
 § 11) mae 
 
1018 
 
 his two sons, Alexander and Aristobulus—with 
 whom he returned to Jerusalem, apparently in 
 the spring of 15 (Ant. xvi. 1, § 2). In the 
 autumn of this year he was visited by his friend 
 Marcus Agrippa, the favourite of Augustus. 
 Agrippa was well received by the people of 
 Jerusalem, whom he propitiated by a sacrifice of 
 a hundred oxen and by a magnificent entertain- 
 ment (Ant. xvi. 2, § 1). Herod left again in 
 the beginning of 14 to join Agrippa in the 
 Black Sea. On his return, in the autumn or 
 winter of the same year, he addressed the people 
 assembled at Jerusalem—for the Feast of Taber- 
 nacles—and remitted them a fourth of the 
 annual tax (xv. 2, ὃ 4). Another journey was 
 followed by a similar assembly in the year 11, 
 at which time Herod announced Antipater as 
 his immediate successor (xvi. 4, ὃ 6; B. J. i. 
 23, § 4). 
 
 About B.c. 9—eight years from the com- 
 mencement—the court and cloisters of the 
 Temple were finished (Ant. xv. 11, § 5), and 
 the bridge leading to the south cloister was 
 doubtless now built with that massive masonry 
 of which some remains still survive (see the 
 woodcut, p. 1638). At this time equally magni- 
 ficent works were being carried on in another 
 part of the city, viz. in the old wall at the 
 north-west corner, contiguous to the palace, 
 where three towers of great size and magnifi- 
 cence were erected on the wall, and one as an 
 outwork to the north. The latter was called 
 Psephinus (B. J. v. 4, §§ 2, 3, 4); the three 
 former were Hippicus, after one of his friends— 
 Phasaelus, after his brother—and Mariamne, 
 after his queen (Ant. xvi. 5, §2; B. J. v. 4, 
 § 3). Fortheir positions, see Section III. p. 1644. 
 Phasaelus appears to have been erected first of 
 the three (Ant. xvii. 10, § 2), though it cannot 
 have been begun at the time of Phasaelus’s 
 death, as that took place some years before 
 Jerusalem came into Herod’s hands. 
 
 About this time occurred—if it occurred at 
 all, which seems more than doubtful (Prideaux, 
 Anno 134)—Herod’s unsuccessful attempt to 
 plunder the sepulchre of David of the remainder 
 of the treasures left there by Hyrcanus (Joseph. 
 Ant. xvi. 7, § 1). 
 
 In or about the year 7 occurred the affair of 
 the golden eagle,—a parallel to that of the 
 theatre, and, like that, important, as showing 
 how strongly the Maccabean spirit of resistance 
 to innovations on the Jewish Law still existed, 
 and how vain were any concessions in the other 
 direction in the presence of such innovations. 
 Herod had fixed a large golden eagle, the 
 symbol of the Roman empire, of which Judaea 
 was now a province, over the entrance to the 
 Sanctuary, probably at the same time that he 
 inscribed the name of Agrippa on the gate 
 (8. J. i. 21, §8). As a breach of the second 
 commandment—not as a badge of dependence— 
 this had excited the indignation of the Jews, 
 and especially of two of the chief rabbis, who in- 
 stigated their disciples to tear it down. A false 
 report of the king’s death was made the occasion 
 of doing this in open day, and in the presence of 
 a large number of people. Being taken before 
 Herod, the rabbis defended their conduct and 
 were burnt alive. The high-priest Matthias 
 was deposed, and Joazar took his place. 
 
 This was the state of things in Jerusalem 
 
 JERUSALEM 
 
 JERUSALEM 
 
 when Herod died, in the year 4 B.c. of the 
 common chronology (Dionysian era), but really 
 a few months after the birth of Christ (see 
 p- 1663), 
 The government of Judaea, and therefore of 
 Jerusalem, had by the will of Herod been be- 
 queathed to Archelaus. He lost no time after 
 the burial of his father in presenting himself 
 in the Temple, and addressing the people on the 
 affairs of the kingdom—a display of confidence 
 and moderation, strongly in contrast to the 
 demeanour of the late king. It produced an 
 instant effect on the excited minds of the Jews, 
 still smarting from the failure of the affair of 
 the eagle, and from the chastisement it had 
 brought upon them; and Archelaus was be- 
 sieged with clamours for the liberation of the 
 numerous persons imprisoned by the late king, 
 and for remission of the taxes. As the people 
 collected for the evening sacrifice the matter 
 became more serious, and assumed the form of 
 a public demonstration, of lamentation for the 
 two martyrs, Judas and Matthias, and indigna- 
 tion against the intruded high-priest. So loud 
 and shrill were the cries of lament that they 
 were heard over the whole city. Archelaus 
 meanwhile temporised and promised redress 
 when his government should be confirmed by 
 Rome. The Passover was close at hand, and 
 the city was fast filling with the multitudes of 
 rustics and of pilgrims (ἐκ τῆς ὑπερορίας), who 
 crowded to the great Feast (B. J. ii. 1, §3; 
 Ant. xvii. 9,§3). These strangers not being 
 able or willing to find admittance into the 
 houses, pitched their tents (τοὺς αὐτόθι ἐσκηνω- 
 κότας) on the open ground around the Temple 
 (Ant. ibid.). Meanwhile the tumult in the 
 Temple itself was maintained and increased 
 daily; a multitude of fanatics never left the 
 courts, but continued there, incessantly clamouz- 
 ing and imprecating. 
 
 Longer delay in dealing with such a state of 
 things would have been madness; a small party 
 of soldiers had already been roughly handled by 
 the mob (B, J, ii. 1, § 3), and Archelaus at last 
 did what his father would have done at first. 
 He despatched the whole garrison, horse and 
 foot, the foot-soldiers by way of the city to 
 clear the Temple, the horse-soldiers by a detour 
 round the level ground north of the town, to 
 surprise the pilgrims on the eastern slopes of 
 Moriah, and prevent their rushing to the 
 succour of the fanatics in the Temple. The 
 movement succeeded: three thousand were cut 
 up and the whole concourse dispersed over the 
 country. 
 
 During Archelaus’ absence at Rome, Jeru- 
 salem was in charge of Sabinus, the Roman 
 procurator of the province, and the tumults— 
 ostensibly on the occasion of some exactions of 
 Sabinus, but doubtless with the same real 
 ground as hefore—were renewed with worse 
 results. At the next Feast, Pentecost, the 
 throng of strangers was enormous. They 
 formed regular encampments round the Temple 
 and on the western hill of the upper city, and 
 besieged the Romans, who appear to have 
 occupied Antonia? and Herod’s palace with its 
 
 P Sabinus, who was no doubt living in Herod’s palace 
 when the outbreak occurred, appears to have been 
 taken by surprise and to have been unable to reach the 
 
JERUSALEM 
 
 three towers (Ant. xvii. 9,§3; 10,§1; B. J. 
 ii. 2,$2). At last the soldiers in the Antonia 
 made a sally and cut their way into the Temple. 
 The struggle was desperate, a great many Jews 
 were killed, the cloisters of the outer court 
 burnt down, and the sacred treasury plundered 
 of immense sums. But no reverses could quell 
 the fury of the insurgents, and matters were 
 not appeased till Varus, the prefect of the 
 province, arrived from the north with a large 
 force and dispersed the strangers. On this 
 quiet was restored. 
 
 In the year 3 5.6. Archelaus returned from 
 Rome ethnarch of the southern province. He 
 immediately displaced Joazar, whom his father 
 had made high- priest after the affair of the 
 eagle, and put Joazar’s brother Eleazar in his 
 stead. This is the only event affecting Jeru- 
 salem that is recorded in the ten years between 
 the return of Archelaus and his summary de- 
 parture to trial at Rome (A.D. 6). 
 
 Judaea was now reduced to an ordinary 
 Roman province; the procurator of which 
 resided, not at Jerusalem, but at Caesarea on 
 the coast (Joseph. Ant. xviii. 3,§1). The first 
 appointed was Coponius, who accompanied 
 Quirinus to the country immediately on the 
 disgrace of Archelaus. Quirinus (the CYRENIUS 
 of the N. T.)—now for the second time prefect 
 of Syria—was charged with the unpopular 
 measure of thesenrolment or assessment of the 
 inhabitants of Judaea. Notwithstanding the 
 riots which took place elsewhere, at Jerusalem 
 the enrolment was allowed to proceed without 
 resistance, owing to the prudence of Joazar 
 (Ant. xviii. 1, §1), again high-priest for a 
 short time. One of the first acts of the new 
 governor had been to take formal possession of 
 the state vestments of the high-priest, worn 
 on the three Festivals and on the Day of 
 Atonement. Since the building of the Baris 
 by the Maccabees these robes had always been 
 kept there, a custom continued since its recon- 
 struction by Herod. But henceforward they 
 were to be put up after use in an underground 
 stone chamber, under the seal of the priests, and 
 in charge of the captain of the guard. Seven 
 days before use tney were brought out, to 
 be consigned again to the chamber after 
 the ceremony was over (Joseph. Ant. xviii. 4, 
 § 3). 
 
 Two incidents at once most opposite in their 
 character, and in their significance to that age 
 and to ourselves, occurred during the procu- 
 ratorship of Coponius. First, in the year 8, the 
 finding of Christ in the Temple. Annas had 
 been made high-priest about a year before. 
 The second occurrence must have been a most 
 distressing one to the Jews, unless they had 
 become inured to such things. But of this we 
 cannot so exactly fix the date. It was nothing 
 less than the pollution of the Temple by some 
 Samaritans, who secretly brought human bones 
 and strewed them about the cloisters during 
 the night of the Passover.1 Up to this time 
 
 Antonia where the legion was quartered. He conse- 
 quently ascended the tower Phasaelus, which adjoined 
 the palace, and thence gave the signal for the attack on 
 the Temple. 
 
 ᾳ The mode of pollution adopted by Josiah towards 
 the idolatrous shrines (see p. 1603). 
 
 JERUSALEM 1619 
 
 the Samaritans had been admitted to the 
 Temple ; they were henceforth excluded. 
 
 In or about A.D. 10, Coponius was succeeded 
 by M. Ambivius, and he by Annius Rufus. In 
 14 Augustus died, and with Tiberius came a 
 new procurator—Val. Gratus, who held office 
 till 26, when he was replaced by Pontius Pilate. 
 During this period the high-priests had been 
 numerous," but it is only necessary here to say 
 that when Pilate arrived at his government the 
 office was held by Joseph Caiaphas, who had 
 been appointed but a few months before. The 
 freedom from disturbance which marks the 
 preceding twenty years at Jerusalem, was 
 probably due to the absence of the Roman 
 troops, who were quartered at Caesarea out of 
 the way of the fierce fanatics of the Temple. 
 But Pilate transferred the winter quarters of 
 the army to Jerusalem (Ant. xviii. 3, §1), and 
 the very first day there was a collision. The 
 offence was given by the Roman standards—the 
 images of the emperor and of the eagle—which 
 by former commanders had been kept out of the 
 city. A representation was made to Pilate; 
 and so obstinate was the temper of the Jews on 
 the point, that he yielded, and the standards 
 were withdrawn (Ant. ibid.). He afterwards, 
 as if to try how far he might go, consecrated 
 some gilt shields—not containing figures, but 
 inscribed simply with the name of the deity and 
 of the donor—and hung them in the palace at 
 Jerusalem. This act again aroused the re- 
 sistance of the Jews; and on appeal to Tiberius 
 they were removed (Philo, πρὸς Γαίον, Mangey, 
 ii. 589). 
 
 Another riot was caused by his appropriation 
 of the Corban—a sacred revenue arising from 
 the redemption of vows—to the cost of an 
 aqueduct which he constructed for bringing 
 water to the city from a distance of 200 (Ant. 
 xviii. 3, §2) or 400 (B. J. ii. 9, § 4) stadia. 
 This aqueduct is that leading from Wady Arrib to 
 *Solomon’s Pools” at Urtdés, and thence to the 
 Temple hill ( Water Supply, p. 1591). 
 
 A.D, 29. At the Passover of this year our 
 Lord made His first recorded visit to the city 
 since His boyhood (John ii. 13). 
 
 A.D. 33. At the Passover of this year, 
 occurred His Crucifixion and Resurrection. 
 
 In A.D. 37, Pilate having been recalled te 
 Rome, Jerusalem was visited by Vitellius, the 
 prefect of Syria, at the time of the Passover. 
 Vitellius conferred two great benefits on the 
 city. He remitted the duties levied on produce, 
 and he allowed the Jews again to have the free 
 custody of the high-priest’s vestments. He re- 
 moved Caiaphas from the high-priesthood, and 
 gave it to Jonathan son of Annas. He then 
 departed, apparently leaving a Roman officer 
 (φρούραρχος) in charge of the Antonia (Ant. 
 xviii. 4, § 3). Vitellius was again at Jerusalem 
 this year, probably in the autumn, with Herod 
 the tetrarch (xviii. 5, § 3); while there he again 
 changed the high-priest, substituting for Jo- 
 nathan, Theophilus his brother. The news of 
 the death of Tiberius and the accession of 
 Caligula reached Jerusalem at this time. Mar- 
 cellus was appointed procurator by the new 
 
 τ Their names and succession will be found under 
 HiGH Priest, pp. 1368-9. See also ANNAS. 
 5 L 2 
 
1620 
 
 emperor. In the following year Stephen was 
 stoned. The Christians were greatly persecuted, 
 and all, except the Apostles, driven out of Jeru- 
 salem (Acts viii. 1, xi. 19). 
 
 In a.p. 40 Vitellius was superseded by P. 
 Petronius, who arrived in Palestine with an 
 order to place in the Temple a statue of 
 Caligula. This order was ultimately, by the 
 intercession of Agrippa, countermanded, but not 
 until it had roused the whole people as one man 
 (Ant. xviii. 8, §§ 2-9; and see the admirable 
 narrative of Milman, ist. of Jews, bk. x.). 
 
 With the accession of Claudius in 41 came an 
 edict of toleration to the Jews. Agrippa 
 arrived in Palestine to take possession of his 
 kingdom, and one of his first acts was to visit 
 the Temple, where he offered sacrifice and 
 dedicated the golden chain which the late 
 emperor had presented him after his release 
 from captivity. It was hung over the treasury 
 (Ant. xix. 6, § 1). Simon was made high- 
 priest ; the house-tax was remitted. 
 
 Agrippa resided very much at Jerusalem, and 
 added materially to its prosperity and con- 
 venience. The city had for some time been 
 extending itself towards the north, and a large 
 suburb had come into existence on the high 
 ground north of the Temple, and outside of the 
 “second wall,’ which enclosed the portion of the 
 city immediately west of the street e/- Wad. 
 Hitherto the outer portion of this suburb— 
 which was called Bezetha, or “ New town,” 
 and had grown up very rapidly—was unpro- 
 tected by any formal wall, and practically lay 
 open to attack. This defenceless condition 
 attracted the attention of Agrippa, who, like the 
 first Herod, was ,a great builder, and he com- 
 menced enclosing it in so substantial and mag- 
 nificent a manner as to excite the suspicions of 
 the Prefect, at whose instance it was stopped by 
 Claudius (Ané. xix. 7, § 2; B. J. ii. 11, § 6; 
 v. 4, § 2). Subsequently the Jews seem to have 
 purchased permission to complete the work 
 (Tac. Hist. v. 12; Joseph. B. J. v. 4, ὃ 2ad fin.). 
 This new wall, the outermost of the three which 
 enclosed the city on the north, started from the 
 old wall at the Tower Hippicus, close to the 
 Jaffa Gate. It ran northward, bending by a 
 large circuit to the east, and at last, returning 
 southward, joined the old wall at the “valley 
 called Kedron.” Thus it enclosed not only the 
 new suburb, but also the valley north-east of the 
 Temple, which up to the present date had lain 
 open to the country. 
 
 The year 43 is memorable as that of St. Paul’s 
 first visit to Jerusalem after his conversion. 
 The year 44 began with the murder of St. 
 James by Agrippa (Acts xii. 1), followed at the 
 Passover by the imprisonment and escape of 
 St. Peter. Shortly after Agrippa himself died. 
 Cuspius Fadus arrived from Rome as procurator, 
 and Longinus as prefect of Syria. An attempt 
 was made by the Romans to regain possession of 
 the pontifical robes; but on reference to the 
 emperor the attempt was abandoned. In 45 
 commenced a severe famine which lasted two 
 years (Ewald, Gesch. vi. 409, note). To the 
 
 JERUSALEM 
 
 = The statements of Josephus are not quite recon- 
 cilable. In one passage he says distinctly that Bezetha 
 
 lay quite naked (B. J. v. 4, § 2), in another that it had 
 some kind of wall (Ant. xix. 7, ᾧ 2). 
 
 JERUSALEM 
 
 people of Jerusalem it was alleviated by the 
 presence of Helena, queen of Adiabene, a convert 
 to the Jewish faith, who visited the city in 46 
 and imported corn and dried fruit, which she 
 distributed to the poor (Ant. xx. 2, § 5; 5, § 2). 
 During her stay Helena constructed, at a dis- 
 tance of three stadia from the city, a tomb, 
 marked by three pyramids, to which her 
 remains, with those of her son, were afterwards 
 brought (Ant. xx. 4, ὃ 3). It was situated to 
 the north, and is one of the points referred to by 
 Josephus in his description of the course of the 
 third wall (B. J. v. 4, § 2). At the end of this 
 year 
 second time. 
 
 A.D. 48. Fadus was succeeded by Ventidius 
 Cumanus. A frightful tumult happened at 
 the Passover of this year, caused, as on former 
 occasions, by the presence of the Roman soldiers 
 in the Antonia and in the courts and cloisters 
 of the Temple during the Festival. Ten (or, 
 according to another account, twenty) thousand 
 are said to have met their deaths, not by the 
 sword, but trodden to death in the crush 
 through the narrow lanes which led from the 
 Temple down into the city (Ant. xx. 5, ὃ ὃ; 
 B. J. ii. 12, § 1). Cumanus was recalled, and 
 FELIX appointed in his room (Ant. xx. 7, § 1; 
 B. J. ii. 12, § 8), partly at the instance of 
 Jonathan, the then high-priest (Ant. xx. 8, § 5). 
 A set of ferocious fanatics, whom Josephus calls 
 Sicarii, had lately begun to make their appearance 
 in the city, whose creed it was to rob and murder 
 all whom they judged hostile to Jewish interests. 
 Felix, weary of the remonstrances of Jonathan 
 on his vicious life, employed some of these 
 wretches to assassinate him. He was killed in 
 the Temple, while sacrificing. The murder was 
 never inquired into, and, emboldened by this, 
 the Sicarii repeated their horrid act, thus 
 adding, in the eyes of the Jews, the awful crime 
 of sacrilege tothat of murder (B. J. ii. 18, § 3; 
 Ant. ibid.). The city, too, was filled with 
 impostors pretending to inspiration, but inspired 
 only with hatred to all government and order. 
 Nor was the disorder confined to the lower 
 classes: the chief people of the city, the very 
 high-priests themselves, robbed the threshing- 
 floors of the tithes common to all the priests, 
 and led parties of rioters to open tumult and 
 fighting in the streets (Ant. xx. 8, § 8). In 
 fact, not only Jerusalem, but the whole country 
 far and wide, was in the most frightful con- 
 fusion and insecurity. 
 
 At length a riot of the most serious descrip- 
 tion at Caesarea caused the recall of Felix, and 
 in the end of 60 or the beginning of 61 Porcrus 
 Festus succeeded him as procurator. Festus 
 was an able and upright officer (B. J. ii. 14, 
 § 1), and at the same time conciliatory towards 
 the Jews (Acts xxv. 9). In the brief period of 
 his administration he kept down the robbers 
 with a strong hand, and gave the province a 
 short breathing time. His interview with St. 
 Paul (Acts xxv., xxvi.) took place, not at Jeru- 
 salem, but at Caesarea. On one occasion both 
 Festus and Agrippa came into collision with the 
 Jews at Jerusalem. Agrippa—who had been 
 appointed king by Nero in 52—had added an 
 apartment to the old Asmonean palace on the 
 eastern brow of the upper city, which com- 
 manded a full view into the interior of the 
 
 St. Paul arrived in Jerusalem for the 
 
 δον ee ,, 
 
JERUSALEM 
 
 courts of the Temple (Ant. xx. 8, § 11). This 
 view the Jews intercepted by building a wall on 
 the exhedra of the western wall of the inner 
 court of the Temple. But the wall not only 
 intercepted the view of Agrippa, it also interfered 
 with the view from the.western cloisters of the 
 outer court where the Roman guard was stationed 
 during the festivals. Both Agrippa and Festus 
 interfered, and required it to be pulled down; 
 but the Jews pleaded that once built it was a part 
 of the Temple, and entreated to be allowed to 
 appeal to Nero. Nero allowed their plea, but 
 retained as hostages the high-priest and trea- 
 surer, who had headed the deputation. Agrippa 
 appointed Joseph, called Cabi, to the vacant 
 priesthood. In 62 (probably) Festus died, and 
 was succeeded by Albinus; and very shortly 
 afterwards Joseph was replaced in the high- 
 priesthood by Annas or Ananus, son of the Annas 
 before whom our Lord was taken. Before the 
 arrival of Albinus a persecution was commenced 
 against the Christians at the instance of the new 
 high-priest, a rigid Sadducee, and St. James and 
 others were arraigned before the Sanhedrin 
 (Joseph. Ant. xx. 9,§1). They were “ delivered 
 to be stoned,” but St. James at any rate appears 
 not to have been killed till a few years later. 
 The act gave great offence to all, and cost Annas 
 his office after he had held it but three months. 
 Jesus (Joshua), the son of Damneus, succeeded 
 him. Albinus began his rule by endeavouring 
 
 to keep down the Sicarii and other disturbers of 
 
 the peace ; and indeed he preserved throughout 
 a show of justice and vigour (Ant. xx. 11, § 1), 
 though in secret greedy and rapacious. But 
 before his recall he pursued his end more openly, 
 and priests, people, and governors alike seem to 
 have been bent on rapine and bloodshed: rival 
 high-priests headed bodies of rioters, and stoned 
 each other, and in the words of Josephus, “ all 
 things grew from worse to worse” (Ant. xx. 9, 
 § 4). The evils were aggravated by two occur- 
 rences—first, the release by Albinus, before his 
 departure, of all the smaller criminals in the 
 prisons (Ant. xx. 9, § 5); and secondly, the 
 sudden discharge of an immense body of work- 
 men, on the completion of the repairs to the 
 Temple (xx. 9, § 7). An endeavour was made 
 to remedy the latter by inducing Agrippa to 
 rebuild the eastern cloister; but he refused to 
 undertake a work of such magnitude, though he 
 consented to pave the city with white stone. 
 The repairs of a part of the sanctuary that had 
 fallen down, and the renewal of the foundations 
 of some portions, were deferred for the present, 
 but the materials were collected and stored in 
 one of the courts (B. J. v. 1, § 5). 
 
 Bad as Albinus had been, Gessius Florus, who 
 succeeded him in 65, was worse. In fact, even 
 Tacitus admits that the endurance of the 
 oppressed Jews could last no longer—duravit 
 
 _patientia Judaeis usque ad Gessium Florum 
 (Hist. v. 10). So great was his rapacity, that 
 whole cities and districts were desolated, and 
 the robbers openly allowed to purchase im- 
 
 t No one in Jerusalem might build so high that his 
 house could overlook the Temple. It was the subject 
 of a distinct prohibition by the Doctors. See Maimo- 
 nides, quoted by Otho, Lex. Rab. 266. Probably this 
 furnished one reason for so hostile a step to so friendly 
 a person as Agrippa. 
 
 JERUSALEM, 1621 
 
 munity in plunder. At the Passover, probably 
 in 66, when Cestius Gallus, the prefect of Syria, 
 visited Jerusalem, the whole assembled people “ 
 besought him for redress; but without effect. 
 Florus’ next attempt was to obtain some of the 
 treasure from the Temple. He demanded 17 
 talents in the name of the emperor. The 
 demand produced a frantic disturbance, in the 
 midst of which he approached the city with both 
 cavalry and foot-soldiers. That night Florus took 
 up his quarters in the royal palace—that of Herod 
 near the “ Jaffa Gate.” On the following morn- 
 ing he took his seat on the Bema, and the high- 
 priest and other principal people being brought 
 before him, he demanded that the leaders of the 
 late riot should be given up. On their refusal 
 he ordered his soldiers to plunder the upper city. 
 This order was but too faithfully carried out; 
 every house was entered and pillaged, and the 
 Jews driven out. In their attempt to get 
 through the narrow streets many were caught 
 and slain, others were brought before Florus, 
 scourged, and then crucified. No grade or class 
 was exempt. Jews who bore the Roman 
 equestrian order were among the victims treated 
 with most indignity. Queen Bernice herself 
 (BL. J. ii. 15, § 1)—vesiding at that time in the 
 Asmonean palace, in the very midst of the 
 slaughter—was so affected by the scene, as to 
 intercede in person and barefoot before Florus, 
 but without avail, and in returning she was 
 herself nearly killed, and only escaped by taking 
 refuge in her palace and calling her guards 
 about her. The further details of this dreadful 
 tumult must be passed over.* Florus was foiled 
 in an attempt to force his way through the city 
 to the Antonia—whence he would have had 
 nearer access to the treasures—and finding that 
 the Jews had broken down the cloisters which 
 joined the fortress to the Temple, and so de- 
 stroyed the means of communication between 
 them, he relinquished the attempt and withdrew 
 to Caesarea (B. J. ii. 15, § 6). 
 
 Cestius Gallus, the prefect, now found it 
 necessary to visit the city in person. He sent 
 one of his lieutenants to announce him, but 
 before he himself arrived events had become past 
 remedy, Agrippa had shortly before returned 
 from Alexandria, and had done much to calm 
 the people. At his instance they rebuilt the 
 part of the cloisters which had been demolished, 
 and collected the tribute in arrear, but the mere 
 suggestion from him that they should obey 
 Florus until he was replaced, produced such a 
 storm that he was obliged to leave the city 
 (8. J. ii. 16,§ 5; 17,§ 1). The seditious party 
 in the Temple, led by young Eleazar, son of 
 Ananias, rejected the offerings of the Roman 
 emperor, which since the time of Julius Caesar 
 had been regularly made. This, as a direct 
 renunciation of allegiance, was the true begin- 
 ning of the war with Rome (B. J. ii. 17, § 2). 
 Such acts were not done without resistance from 
 the older and wiser people. But remonstrance 
 was unavailing ; the mnovators would listen to 
 no representations. The peace party, therefore, 
 despatched some of their number to Florus and 
 
 u Josephus says three millions in number! But this 
 must be a great exaggeration. 
 x The whole tragic story is most forcibly told by 
 
 Milman (ii. 219-224), 
 
1622 JERUSALEM 
 
 to Agrippa, and the latter sent 3,000 horse- 
 soldiers to assist in keeping order. 
 
 Hostilities at once began. The peace party, 
 headed by the high-priest, and fortified by 
 Agrippa’s soldiers, threw themselves into the 
 upper city. The insurgents held the Temple 
 and the lower city. In the Antonia was a small 
 Roman garrison. Fierce contests lasted for 
 seven days, each side endeavouring to take pos- 
 session of the part held by the other. At last 
 the insurgents, who behaved with the greatest 
 ferocity, and were reinforced by a number of 
 Sicarii, were triumphant. They gained the 
 upper city, driving all before them—some of 
 the high-priests and leaders into vaults and 
 subterranean passages; others, amongst whom 
 were Ananias, the high-priest, with the soldiers, 
 into Herod’s palace. The Asmonean palace, 
 the high-priest’s house, and the repository of 
 the Archives—in Josephus’s language, “ the 
 nerves of the city” (B. J. ii. 17, § 6)—were 
 set on fire. Antonia was next attacked, and in 
 two days they had effected an entrance, sabred 
 the garrison, and burnt the fortress. ‘The 
 balistae and catapults found there were preserved 
 for future use (v. 6, § 3). The soldiers in 
 Herod’s palace were next besieged; but so 
 strong were the walls, and so stout the re- 
 sistance, that it was three weeks before an 
 entrance could be effected. The soldiers were 
 at last forced from the palace into the three 
 great towers on the adjoining wall with great 
 loss; and ultimately were all murdered in the 
 most treacherous manner. The high-priest and 
 his brother were discovered hidden in the aque- 
 duct of the palace; they were instantly put to 
 death. Thus the insurgents were now com- 
 pletely masters of both city and Temple. But 
 they were not to remain so long. After the 
 action at Gabao (Gibeon), which checked the 
 advance of the Roman army under Cestius 
 Gallus, dissensions began to arise, and it soon 
 became known that there was still a large 
 moderate party. Cestius took advantage of 
 this to move his camp to Scopus, whence, after 
 waiting three days in the vain hope that the 
 Jews would submit, he advanced upon the city. 
 He made his way through Bezetha, the new 
 suburb north of the Temple,y and through the 
 wood-market, δοκῶν &yopa (see p. 1594), burning 
 everything as he went (B. J. ii. 19, § 4; v. 7, 
 § 2), and at last encamped in the upper city, 
 opposite the palace, and close to the second wall. 
 The Jews retired to the inner part of the city 
 and to- the Temple. For five days Cestius 
 assaulted the wall without success; on the 
 sixth he resolved to make one more attempt, 
 this time at a different spot—the north wall of 
 the Temple, east of and behind the Antonia. 
 The Jews, however, fought with such fury from 
 the top of the cloisters, that he could effect 
 nothing, and when night came he drew off to 
 his camp at Scopus. Thither the insurgents 
 followed him, and in three days gave him one 
 of the most complete defeats that a Roman 
 army had ever undergone. His catapults and 
 
 y It is remarkable that nothing is said of any resist- 
 ance to his passage through the great wall of Agrippa, 
 which encircled Bezetha. Apparently there were 
 breaches in it which were afterwards repaired by 
 Ananus (B. J. ii. 20, § 3; 22, § 1). 
 
 JERUSALEM 
 
 balistae were taken from him, and reserved by 
 the Jews for the final siege (v. 6, § 3). This 
 occurred on the 8th of Marchesvan (beginning 
 of November), 66. 
 
 The war with Rome was now inevitable, and 
 it was evident that the siege of Jerusalem was 
 only a question of time. Ananus, the high- 
 priest, a moderate and prudent man, took the 
 lead; the walls were repaired, arms and warlike 
 instruments and machines of all kinds fabricated, 
 and other preparations made. In this atti- 
 tude of expectation—with occasional diversions, 
 such as the expedition to Ascalon (B. J. ili. 2, 
 §§ 1, 2), and the skirmishes with Simon Bar- 
 Gioras (ii. 22, § 2)—the city remained while 
 Vespasian was reducing the north of the country, 
 and till the fall of Giscala (Oct. or Nov. 67), 
 when John, the son of Levi, escaped thence to 
 Jerusalem, to become one of the most prominent 
 persons in the future conflict. 
 
 From the arrival of John, two years and a 
 half elapsed till Titus appeared before the walls 
 of Jerusalem. The whole of that time was 
 occupied in contests between the moderate party, 
 whose desire was to take such a course as might 
 yet preserve the nationality of the Jews and the 
 existence of the city, and the Zealots or fanatics, 
 the assertors of national independence, who 
 scouted the idea of compromise, and resolved 
 to regain their freedom or perish. The Zealots, 
 being utterly unscrupulous, and resorting to 
 massacre on the least resistance, soon triumphed, 
 and at last reigned paramount, with no re-~ 
 sistance but such as sprang from their own 
 internal factions. For the repulsive details of 
 this frightful period of contention and outrage, 
 the reader must be referred to other works.? 
 It will be sufficient to say that at the beginning 
 of 70, when Titus made his appearance, the Zealots 
 themselves were divided into two parties: that 
 of John of Giscala and Eleazar, who held the 
 Temple and its courts, the Antonia, Ophla, 
 and the ‘valley called Kedron,” in which the 
 Rirket Isratl is situated—8,400 men; that of 
 Simon Bar-Gioras, whose head-quarters were in 
 the tower Phasaelus (vy. 4, § 3), and who held 
 the upper city, from the present Coenaculum to 
 the Aal’at Jalid, the third wall, and Bezetha, 
 the fountain of Siloam, and the lower city on 
 the eastern hill—10,000 men, and 5,000 Idu- 
 means (B. J. v. 6, § 1), in all a force of between 
 23,000 and 24,000 soldiers trained in the civil 
 encounters of the last two years to great skill 
 and thorough recklessness.» The numbers of 
 the other inhabitants, swelled as they were by 
 the strangers and pilgrims who flocked from the 
 country to the Passover, it is extremely difficult 
 to decide. Tacitus, doubtless from some Roman 
 source, gives the whole at 600,000. Josephus 
 states that 1,100,000 perished during the siege 
 
 z Dean Milman's History of the Jews, bks. xiv., xv., 
 xvi.; and Merivale's History of the Romans, vi. ch. 59. 
 To both of these works the writer begs leave to express 
 his obligations throughout the above meagre sketch of 
 **the most soul-stirring struggle of all ancient history.” 
 Of course the materials for all modern accounts are in 
 Josephus only, excepting the few touches—strong, but 
 not always accurate—in the 5th book of Tacitus’ — 
 Histories. 
 
 a These are the numbers given by Josephus ; but it is 
 probable that they are greatly exaggerated. 
 
JERUSALEM 1623 
 
 putation of the numbers at about 1,200,000. 
 Reasons are given in the third section of this 
 article for believing that even the smaller of 
 these numbers is very greatly in excess, and 
 that the population cannot have exceeded 70,000 
 
 JERUSALEM 
 
 (B. J. vi. 9, § 8; cp. v. 13, § 7), and that 
 more than 40,000 were allowed to depart into 
 the country (vi. 8, § 2), in addition to an 
 “immense number” sold to the army, and who 
 of course form a proportion of the 97,000 
 
 “carried captive during the whole war” (vi. 9, 
 
 § 3). 
 
 We may therefore take Josephus’s com- 
 
 (see p. 1647). 
 Titus’s force consisted of four legions, and 
 
 " 
 δὰ 
 
 View of Jerusalem and the Upper Kedron Valley from Mount of Olives, 
 
 [ 
 
 | | "" 
 it | I 
 
 some auxiliaries—probably about 30,000 men 
 (B. J. v.1, § 6). These were disposed on their 
 first arrival in three camps—the 12th and 15th 
 legions at Scopus, seven stadia north of the city ; 
 the 5th, three stadia to the rear; and the 10th 
 on the top of the Mount of Olives (v. 2, §§ 3, 5), 
 to guard the road to the Jordan Valley. The 
 
 | v. 6, § 8). 
 
 army was well furnished with artillery anc 
 machines of the latest and most approved in- 
 vention—“ cuncta expugnandis urbibus, reperta 
 apud veteres, aut novis ingeniis,” says Tacitus 
 (Hist. v. 18); and those of the 10th legion are 
 specially mentioned for their excellence (B. J. 
 The first operation was to level the 
 
1024 
 
 ground between Scopus and the north wall of 
 the city—fell the timber, destroy the fences of 
 the gardens which fringed the wall, and cut 
 away the rocky protuberances. This occupied 
 four days. After it was done the three legions 
 were marched forward from Scopus, and en- 
 camped near the north-west corner of the walls, 
 stretching from the Tower Psephinus to opposite 
 Hippicus. The first step was to get possession 
 of the outer wall. The point of attack chosen 
 was in Simon’s portion of the city, at a low and 
 comparatively weak place near the monument 
 of John Hyrcanus (v. 6, § 2), and close to the 
 junction of the three walls. Round this spot 
 the three legions erected banks, from which 
 they opened batteries, pushing up the rams and 
 other engines of attack to the foot of the wall. 
 One of the rams, more powerful than the rest, 
 went among the Jews by the sobriquet of Nikén,” 
 “the conqueror.” Three large towers, 75 feet 
 high, were also erected, overtopping the wall. 
 Simon and his men did not suffer these works to 
 go on without molestation. The catapults, both 
 those taken from Cestius and those found in 
 the Antonia, were set up on the wall, and con- 
 stant desperate sallies were made. At last the 
 Jews began to tire of their fruitless assaults. 
 They saw that the wall must fall, and, as they 
 had done during Nebuchadnezzar’s siege, they 
 left their posts at night and went home. A 
 breach was made by the redoubtable Nikén on 
 the 7th Artemisius (c. April 15); and here the 
 Romans entered, driving the Jews before them 
 to the second wall. A great length of the 
 wall was then broken down; such parts of 
 Bezetha as had escaped destruction by Cestius 
 were levelled, and a new camp was formed 
 within the city, on the spot formerly occupied 
 by the Assyrians, and still known as the 
 ‘¢ Assyrian camp.” ὃ 
 
 This was a great step in advance. Titus now 
 occupied the ground within the third wall, from 
 the neighbourhood of John’s monument to the 
 valley of the Kedron; and was in a position to 
 attack the second wall. A battering-ram was 
 pushed forward to the middle tower of the 
 north side of the wall; and a war of missiles 
 raged almost continuously from the Temple on 
 the east to the Tower Hippicus on the west. 
 Simon was no less reckless in assault, and no 
 less fertile in stratagem, than before; but, not- 
 withstanding all his efforts, in five days a breach 
 was again effected. The district into which the 
 Romans had now penetrated was that between 
 the wall of the Haram and Christian street, 
 occupied then, as it is still, by an intricate mass 
 of narrow and tortuous lanes, and containing 
 the markets of the city—no doubt very like the 
 present bazaars. Titus’s breach was where the 
 
 JERUSALEM 
 
 Do Νίκων ... ἀπὸ τοῦ πάντα νικᾶν (B. J. ν. 7, § 2). 
 It has been suggested (Bonar, Imp. Bib. Dict. s. v. 
 Jerusalem) that in this case, as in some others, J osephus 
 has translated inaccurately. It is possible that the 
 Jews named the battering-ram “ the smiter,” from J) 
 
 TT 
 
 (to smite). So also they probably cried out jAN Na, 
 “the stone cometh,” and not {25 N35, ‘the son 
 
 cometh” (yios ἔῤχεται, B. J. v. 6, § 3) at the approach Ϊ 
 
 of the formidable missile from the Roman balista. 
 ¢ Compare Mahaneh-Dan, “camp of Dan” (Judg. 
 Xviii, 12). 
 
 JERUSALEM 
 
 wool, cloth, and brass bazaars came up to the 
 wall (v. 8,§ 1). This district was held by the 
 Jews with the greatest tenacity. Knowing, as 
 they did, every turn of the lanes and alleys, 
 they had an immense advantage over the Romans, 
 and it was only after four days’ incessant fighting, 
 much loss, and one thorough repulse, that the 
 Romans were able to make good their position. 
 However, at last Simon was obliged to retreat, 
 and then Titus demolished the wall. This was 
 the second step in the siege. 
 
 Meantime some shots had been interchanged 
 in the direction of the Antonia, but no serious 
 attack was made. Before beginning there in 
 earnest, Titus resolved to give his troops a few 
 days’ rest, and the Jews a short opportunity for 
 reflection. He therefore called in the 10th 
 legion from the Mount of Olives, and reviewed 
 the whole army on the ground within the third 
 wall—full in view of both the Temple and the 
 upper city, every wall and house in which were 
 crowded with spectators (2. J. v. 9, 8. 1). But 
 the opportunity was thrown away upon the 
 Jews, and after four days orders were given to 
 recommence the attack. Hitherto the assault 
 had been almost entirely on the city: it was 
 now to be simultaneous on city and Temple. 
 Accordingly four banks were constructed for 
 the battering-rams, two in front of Antonia and 
 two in front of the first wall, near the monu- 
 ment of John Hyrcanus. The first two were 
 erected by the 5th and 12th legions near the 
 pool Struthius—probably the present sowterrains 
 
 at the N.W. corner of the Haram; the re- 
 maining two by the 10th and 15th, at the pool 
 called Amygdalon—apparently that now known 
 as the Pool of Hezekiah—and at the high-priest’s 
 monument (vy. 11, § 4). These banks seem to 
 have been constructed in the usual manner with 
 earth, stones, and wood. They absorbed the 
 incessant labour of seventeen days, and were 
 completed on the 29th Artemisius (c. May 7). 
 John in the meantime had not been idle; he had 
 employed the seventeen days’ respite in driving 
 mines, through the solid limestone of the hill,® 
 from within the fortress (v. 11, § 4; vi. 1, § 3) 
 to below the banks. The ground above the 
 mines was supported with beams of wood, and 
 the galleries partially filled with inflammable 
 materials. When the banks were quite complete, 
 and the engines placed upon them, the timber 
 of the galleries was fired, the superincumbent 
 ground gave way, and the labour of the Romans 
 was totally destroyed. At the other point 
 Simon had maintained a resistance with all his 
 former intrepidity, and more than his former 
 success. He had now greatly increased the 
 number of his machines, and his people were 
 much more expert in handling them than before, 
 so that he was able to impede materially the 
 progress of the works. And when they were 
 completed, and the battering-rams had begun 
 to make ἃ sensible impression on the wall, 
 he made a furious assault on them, and suc- 
 ceeded in firing the rams, with their protecting 
 framework of hurdles, seriously damaging the 
 
 4 The thin strata of hard limestone (misseh) over- 
 | lying the thick stratum of softer stone (melekeh) offered 
 | peculiar facilities for mining operations at this point 
 | (see Geology, p. 1588). 
 
JERUSALEM 
 
 - other engines, and destroying the banks (v. 11, 
 §§ 5, 6). 
 
 It now became plain to Titus that some other 
 measures for the reduction of the place must be 
 adopted. It would appear that hitherto the 
 southern and western parts of the city had not 
 been closely invested, and on that side a certain 
 amount of communication was kept up with the 
 country, which, unless stopped, might prolong 
 the siege indefinitely (2. J. v. 12, §1; 10, § ὃ; 
 11, §1; 12, §3). The number who thus 
 escaped is stated by Josephus at more than five 
 hundred a day (v. 11, 81). <A council of war 
 was therefore held, and it was resolved: to en- 
 compass the whole place with a wall, and then 
 recommence the assault. The wall began at 
 the Roman camp—probably in the N.W. quarter 
 of the present city. From thence it went to 
 the lower part of Bezetha—about St. Stephen’s 
 Gate; then across Kedron to the Mount of 
 Olives; thence south by a rock called Peri- 
 stereon, the “ Pigeon’s ‘rock,’’—possibly in the 
 modern village of Siloam—to the Mount of 
 Offence. It then turned to the west; again 
 crossed the Kedron, ascended its right bank, by 
 the tomb of Ananus, the high-priest, to the 
 Mount of Evil Counsel, and then, passing by a 
 village called ἐρεβίνθων οἰκός (perhaps Beth- 
 Rabinoth in the Hebrew), ran outside of 
 Herod’s monument to its starting-point at the 
 camp. Its entire length was 39 furlongs,— 
 very near,5 miles; and it contained thirteen 
 stations or guard-houses. The whole strength 
 of the army was employed on the work, and it 
 was completed in the short space of three days. 
 The siege was then vigorously pressed. The 
 attack on the first wall was abandoned, and the 
 whole force concentrated on the Antonia (12, 
 §4). Four new banks of greater size than 
 before were constructed; and as all the timber 
 in the neighbourhood had been already cut 
 down, the materials had to be procured from 
 a distance of 11 miles (vi. 1, $1). Twenty-one 
 days were occupied in completing the banks. 
 Their position is not specified, but it is evident, 
 from the allusion to John’s mining operations, 
 that they were erected at, or near the site of, 
 those which had been destroyed by the Jews 
 during the previous attack (vi. 1, §3). At 
 length, on the 1st Panemus or Tamuz (0. 
 June 7), the fire from the balistae and catapults 
 commenced, under cover of which the rams were 
 set to work, and that night a part of the wall 
 fell at a spot where the foundations had been 
 weakened by the mines employed against the 
 former attacks. Still this was but an outwork, 
 and between it and the fortress itself a new 
 wall was discovered, which John had taken the 
 precaution to build. At length, after two 
 desperate attempts, this wall and that of the 
 inner fortress were scaled by a bold surprise, 
 and on the 5th® Panemus (June 11) the Antonia 
 was in the hands of the Romans (vi. 1, §7). 
 Another week was occupied in breaking down 
 the outer walls of the fortress for the passage 
 
 e Josephus contradicts himself about this date, since in 
 vi. 2, ὁ 1, he says that the 17th Panemus was the “ very 
 day” that Antonia was entered. The date given in the 
 text agrees best with the narrative. But, on the other 
 hand, the 17th is the day commemorated in the Jewish 
 Calendar. 
 
 JERUSALEM 1625 
 
 of the machines, and a further delay took place 
 in erecting new banks, on the fresh level, for 
 the bombardment and battery of the Temple. 
 During the whole of this time—the miseries of 
 which are commemorated in the traditional 
 name of yomin deéha, “days of wretchedness,” 
 applied by the Jews to the period between the 
 17th Tamuz and the 9th Ab—the most des- 
 perate hand-to-hand encounters took place, 
 some in the cloisters connecting the Antonia 
 with the Temple, some in the Temple cloisters 
 themselves, the Romans endeavouring to force 
 their way in, the Jews preventing them. But 
 the Romans gradually gained ground. First 
 the western, and then the whole of the northern 
 external cloister was burnt (27th and 28th 
 Pan.), and then the wall enclosing the court of 
 Israel and the Holy House itself. In the 
 interval, on the 17th Panemus, the daily 
 sacrifice had failed, owing to the want of 
 officiating priests; a circumstance which had 
 greatly distressed the people, and was taken 
 advantage of by Titus to make a further though 
 fruitless invitation to surrender. At length, on 
 the 10th day of Lous or Ab (July 15), by the 
 wanton act of a soldier, contrary to the inten- 
 tion of Titus, and in spite of every exertion he 
 could make to stop it, the sanctuary itself was 
 fired (vi. 4, §§ 5-7). It was, by one of those rare 
 coincidences that sometimes occur, the very 
 same month and day of the month that the first 
 Temple had been burnt by Nebuchadnezzar 
 (vi. 4, §8). John, and such of his party as 
 escaped the flames and the carnage, made their 
 way to the upper city. The whole of the 
 cloisters that had hitherto escaped, including 
 the magnificent triple colonnade of Herod on 
 the south of the Temple, the treasury chambers, 
 and the rooms round the outer courts, were 
 now all burnt and demolished. Only -the 
 edifice of the sanctuary itself still remained. On 
 its solid masonry the fire had had comparatively 
 little effect, and there were still hidden in its 
 recesses a few faithful priests who had contrived 
 to rescue the most valuable of the utensils, 
 vessels, and spices of the sanctuary (vi. 6, §1; 
 8, § 3). 
 
 The Temple was at last gained; but it 
 seemed as if half the work remained to be done. 
 The upper city, higher than Moriah, enclosed 
 by the first wall, and on all sides precipitous 
 except at the north, where it was defended by 
 the wall and towers of Herod, was still to be 
 taken. Titus first tried a parley—he standing 
 on the east end of the bridge between the 
 Temple and the upper city, and John and Simon 
 on the west end. His terms, however, were 
 rejected, and no alternative was left him but to 
 force on the siege. The whole of the lower city 
 —the crowded lanes of which we have so often 
 heard—was burnt, in the teeth of a frantic 
 resistance from the Zealots (vi. 7, § 1), together 
 with the council-house, the repository of the 
 records (doubtless occupied by Simon since its 
 former destruction), the palace of Helena, the 
 place called Ophlas, and the houses as far as 
 Siloam on the lower slopes of the Temple mount. 
 
 It took eighteen days to erect the necessary 
 works for the siege; the four legions were once 
 more stationed at the west or north-west corner 
 where Herod’s palace abutted on the wall, and 
 where the three magnificent and impregnable 
 
1626 JERUSALEM 
 
 towers of Hippicus, Phasaelus, and Mariamne 
 rose conspicuous (vi. 8, 8. 1, and ὃ 4 ad fin.). 
 This was the main attack. Opposite the 
 Temple, the precipitous nature of the slopes 
 of the upper city rendered it unlikely that any 
 serious attempt would be made by the Jews, 
 and this part accordingly, between the bridge 
 and the Xystus, was left to the auxiliaries. 
 
 IVDAEA CAPTA, 8. O, 
 
 The attack was commenced on the 7th of 
 Gorpiaeus (c. Aug. 11), and by the next day 
 a breach was made in the wall, and the Romans 
 at last entered the city. During the attack 
 John and Simon appear to have stationed them- 
 selves in the towers just alluded to; and had 
 they remained there, they would probably have 
 been able to make terms, as the towers were 
 considered impregnable (vi. 8, §4). But on 
 the first signs of a breach, they took flight, 
 and, traversing the city, descended into the 
 valley of Hinnom below Siloam, and endeavoured 
 to make their escape. On being repulsed they 
 took refuge apart in some of the subterraneous 
 caverns or sewers of the city. John shortly 
 after surrendered himself; but Simon held out 
 for several weeks, and did not make his ap- 
 pearance until after Titus had quitted the city. 
 They were reserved for the Triumph at Rome. 
 
 The city being taken, such parts as had 
 escaped the former conflagrations were burned, 
 and the whole of both city and Temple was 
 ordered to be demolished, excepting the west 
 wall of the upper city, and Herod’s three great 
 towers at the north-west corner, which were 
 left standing as memorials of the massive nature 
 of the fortifications. 
 
 Of the Jews, the aged and infirm were killed ; 
 the children under seventeen were sold as 
 slaves; the rest were sent, some to the 
 Egyptian mines, some to the provincial amphi- 
 theatres, and some to grace the Triumph of the 
 Conqueror. Titus then departed, leaving the 
 10th legion under the command of Terentius 
 Rufus to carry out the work of demolition. 
 Of this Josephus assures us that “the whole® 
 
 f The prisoners were collected for this final partition 
 in the Court of the Women. Josephus states that 
 during the process 11,000 died! It is a good instance 
 of the exaggeration in which he indulges.on these 
 matters; for taking the largest estimate of the Court of 
 the Women (Lightfoot’s), it contained 35,000 square 
 feet, {.6. little more than 3 square feet for each of those 
 who died, not to speak of the living. 
 
 & The word used by Josephus—repiBodos τῆς πόλεως 
 
 va 
 sy ap ὕω 
 
 ψΗ 
 Coin (sestertius) of Vespasian, recording the capture of Jerusalem. 
 
 -Obv. Head of Vespasian, laureate: IMP. CAESAR VESPASIAN AVG. P. Μ΄. TR. P.P.P. OOS. 
 mm. Rev. Palm-tree: on left captive (Simon), on right woman (Judaea) weeping: 
 
 JERUSALEM 
 
 was so thoroughly levelled and dug up that no 
 one visiting it would believe it had ever been 
 inhabited ” (8. J. vii. 1, § 1). [ὦ [W.] 
 From its destruction by Titus to the present 
 time.—For more than fifty years after its de- 
 struction by Titus, Jerusalem disappears from 
 history. During the revolts of the Jews in 
 Cyrenaica, Egypt, Cyprus, and Mesopotamia, 
 which disturbed the latter years of 
 Trajan, the recovery of their city 
 was never attempted. There is 
 indeed reason to believe that Lucuas, 
 the head of the insurgents in Egypt, 
 Ἃ led his followers into Palestine, 
 § where they were defeated by the © 
 Roman general Turbo, but Jeru- 
 salem is not once mentioned as the 
 scene of their operations. Of its 
 annals during this period we know 
 nothing. Three towers and part of 
 the western wall alone remained of 
 its strong fortifications to protect 
 the cohorts who occupied the con- 
 quered city, and the soldiers’ huts 
 were long the only buildings on its 
 site. But inthe reign of Hadrian it again emerged 
 from its obscurity, and became the centre of an 
 insurrection, which the best blood of Rome was 
 shed to subdue. In despair of keeping the Jews 
 in subjection by other means, the Emperor had 
 formed a design to restore Jerusalem, and thus 
 prevent it from ever becoming a rallying-point 
 for this turbulent race. In furtherance of his 
 plan he had sent thither a colonyof veterans, 
 in numbers sufficient for the defence of a position 
 so strong by nature against the then known 
 modes of attack. To this measure Dio Cassius 
 (Ixix. 12) attributes a renewal of the insurrec- 
 tion, while Eusebius asserts that it was not 
 carried into execution till the outbreak was 
 quelled. Be this as it may, the embers of 
 revolt, long smouldering, burst into a flame 
 soon after Hadrian’s departure from the East 
 in A.D. 132. The contemptuous indifference of 
 the Romans, or the secrecy of their own plans, 
 enabled the Jews to organise a wide-spread 
 conspiracy. Bar Cocheba, their leader,—the 
 third, according to Rabbinical writers, of a 
 dynasty of the same name, princes of the 
 Captivity,—was crowned king at Bether by the 
 Jews who thronged to him, and by the populace 
 was regarded as the Messiah. His armour- 
 bearer, R. Akiba, claimed descent from Sisera, 
 and hated the Romans with the fierce rancour 
 of his adopted nation. All the Jews in Palestine 
 flocked to his standard. At an early period in 
 the revolt they became masters of Jerusalem, 
 and attempted to rebuild the Temple. The 
 exact date of this attempt is uncertain, but the 
 fact is inferred from allusions in Chrysostom 
 (Or. 3 in Judaeos), Nicephorus (ZH. £. iii. 24), 
 and George Cedrenus (Hist. Comp. 249), and the 
 collateral evidence of a coin of the period. 
 Hadrian, alarmed at the rapid spread of the in- 
 
 walls, or the precinct of the Temple. The statements of 
 the Talmud perhaps imply that the foundations of the 
 Temple only were dug up (see the quotations in 
 Schwarz, p. 385): and even these seem to have been in 
 existence in the time of Chrysostom (Ad Judaeos, 
 iii. 431). That the demolition of the walls was in many 
 
 —amy mean either the whole place, or the enclosing | places only partial is attested by existing remains. 
 
JERUSALEM 
 
 surrection, and the ineffectual efforts of his troops 
 to suppress it, summoned from Britain Julius 
 Severus, the greatest general of his time, to 
 take the command of the army of Judaea, 
 Two years were spent in a fierce guerilla war- 
 fare before Jerusalem was taken, after a des- 
 perate defence in which Bar Cocheba perished. 
 The courage of the defenders was shaken by the 
 falling in of the vaults on Mount Zion, and the 
 Romans became masters of the position (Milman, 
 Hist. of Jews, iii. 122), But the war did not 
 end with the capture of the city. The Jews in 
 great force had occupied the fortress of Bether, 
 and there maintained a struggle with all the 
 tenacity of despair against the repeated onsets 
 of the Romans. At length, worn out by famine 
 and disease, they yielded on the 9th of the 
 month Ab, A.D. 135, and the grandson of 
 Bar Cocheba was among the slain. The 
 slaughter was frightful. The Romans, say 
 the Rabbinical historians, waded to their horse- 
 bridles in blood, which flowed with the fury of 
 a mountain torrent. The corpses of the slain, 
 according to the same veracious authorities, 
 extended for more than thirteen miles, and re- 
 mained unburied till the reign of Antoninus. 
 Five hundred and eighty thousand are said to 
 have fallen by the sword, while the number of 
 victims to the attendant calamities of war was 
 countless. On the side of the Romans the loss 
 was enormous, and so dearly bought was their 
 victory, that Hadrian, in his letter to the 
 Senate, announcing the conclusion of the war, 
 did not adopt the usual congratulatory phrase. 
 Bar Cocheba has left traces of his occupation of 
 Jerusalem in coins which were struck during 
 the first two years of the war. Four silver 
 coins, three of them undoubtedly belonging to 
 Trajan, have been discovered, restamped with 
 Samaritan characters. But the rebel-leader, 
 amply supplied with the precious metals by the 
 contributions of his followers, afterwards coined 
 his own money. The mint was probably during 
 the first two years of the war at Jerusalem; 
 the coins struck during that period bearing the 
 inscription “to the freedom of Jerusalem,” or 
 “ Jerusalem the holy.” They are mentioned in 
 both Talmuds. 
 
 Hadrian’s first policy, after the suppression 
 of the revolt, was to obliterate the existence of 
 Jerusalem as a city. The ruins which Titus had 
 left were razed to the ground, and the plough 
 passed over the foundations of the Temple. A 
 colony of Roman citizens occupied the new city 
 which rose from the ashes of Jerusalem, and 
 their number was afterwards augmented by the 
 Emperor’s veteran legionaries. A temple to the 
 Capitoline Jupiter was erected on the site of 
 the sacred edifice of the Jews, and among the 
 ornaments of the new city were a theatre, two 
 market-places (δημόσια), a building called τε- 
 τράνυμφον, and another called κόδρα." The city 
 was divided into seven quarters, each of which 
 had its own warden. Mount Zion lay without 
 the walls (Jerome, Mic. iii. 12; Jtin. Heros. 
 p- 592, ed. Wesseling), That the northern wall 
 enclosed the so-called sacred places, though 
 
 h The Chronicon Alexandrinum (p. 254) mentions 
 τὰ δύο δημόσια, καὶ τὸ θέατρον, Kai τὸ τρικάμερον, καὶ τὸ 
 τετράνυμφον, καὶ τὸ δωδεκάπυλον τὸ πρὶν ὀνομαζόμενον 
 ἀναβαθμοΐί, καὶ τὴν κόδραν. 
 
 JERUSALEM 1627 
 
 asserted by Deyling, is regarded by Miinter as a 
 fable of a later date. A temple to Astarte, the 
 Phoenician Venus, on the site afterwards identi- 
 fied with the Sepulchre, appears on coins, with 
 four columns and the inscription C. A. C., Colonia 
 Aelia Capitolina, but it is doubtful whether it 
 was erected at this time. The worship of 
 Serapis was introduced from Egypt. <A statue 
 of the emperor was raised on the site of the 
 Holy of Holies (Niceph. H. 2. iii. 24); and it 
 must have been near the same spot that the 
 Bordeaux Pilgrim saw two statues of Hadrian, 
 not far from the “lapis pertusus” which the 
 Jews ef his day yearly visited and anointed 
 with oil (Jtin. Hicros, p. 591). 
 
 It was not, however, till the following year, 
 A.D. 136, that Hadrian, on celebrating his Vi- 
 cennalia, bestowed upon the new city the name 
 of Aelia Capitolina, combining with his own 
 family title the name of Jupiter of the Capitol, 
 the guardian deity of the colony. Christians 
 and pagans alone were allowed to reside. Jews 
 were forbidden to enter on pain of death, and 
 this prohibition, though occasionally relaxed, 
 remained in force in the time of Tertullian. 
 But the conqueror, though stern, did not descend 
 to wanton mockery. The swine sculptured by 
 the Emperor’s command over the gate leading 
 to Bethlehem (Euseb. Chron. Hadr. Ann. xx.), 
 was not intended as an insult to the conquered 
 race to bar their entrance to the city of their 
 fathers, but was one of the signa militaria of 
 the Roman army. Abont the middle of the 4th 
 century the Jews were allowed to visit the 
 neighbourhood, and afterwards, once a year, to 
 enter the city itself, and weep over it on the 
 anniversary of its capture. Jerome (on Zeph. 
 1. 15) has drawn a vivid picture of the wretched 
 erowds of Jews who in his day assembled at the 
 wailing-place by the west wall of the Temple 
 to bemoan the loss of their ancestral greatness. 
 On the 9th of the month Ab might be seen the 
 aged and decrepit of both sexes, with tattered 
 garments and dishevelled hair, who met to weep 
 over the downfall of Jerusalem, and purchased 
 permission of the soldiery to prolong their 
 lamentations (“et miles mercedem postulat ut 
 illis flere plus liceat ”’). 
 
 So completely were all traces of the ancient 
 city obliterated that its very name was in pro- 
 cess of time forgotten. It was not till after 
 Constantine built the Martyrion on the supposed 
 site of the Crucifixion, that its ancient appella- 
 tion was revived. In the 7th canon of the Council 
 of Nicaea the Bishop of Aelia is mentioned ; but 
 Macarius, in subscribing to the canons, de- 
 signated himself bishop of Jerusalem. The 
 name Aelia occurs as late as Adamnanus (A.D. 
 697), and is even found in Edrisi and Mejr ed- 
 Din about 1495. 
 
 After the inauguration of the new colony of 
 Aelia the annals of the city again relapse into 
 an obscurity which is only represented in history 
 by a list of twenty-three Christian Bishops, 
 who filled up the interval between the election 
 of Marcus, the first of the series, and Macarius 
 in the reign of Constantine. Already in the 
 3rd century the Holy Places had become objects 
 of enthusiasm, and the pilgrimage of Alexander, 
 a Bishop in Cappadocia, and afterwards of Jeru- 
 salem, is matter of history. In the following 
 century such pilgrimages became more common. 
 
1628 JERUSALEM 
 
 The aged Empress Helena, mother of Constan- 
 tine, visited Palestine in A.D. 326, and, according 
 to tradition, erected magnificent churches at 
 Bethlehem and on the Mount of Olives. Her 
 son, fired with the same zeal, swept away the 
 shrine of Astarte, which occupied the supposed 
 site of the Resurrection, and founded in its 
 stead a “house of prayer-on a scale of rich and 
 imperial costliness.” On the east of this was a 
 large court, the eastern side being formed by 
 the Basilica, erected on the spot where the Cross 
 was said to have been found. The latter of 
 these buildings is that known as the Martyrion ; 
 the former was the church of the Anastasis, or 
 Resurrection: their locality will be considered 
 in the following section (p. 1653), The Mar- 
 tyrion was completed A.D, 335, and its dedi- 
 cation celebrated by a great Council of Bishops, 
 first at Tyre and afterwards at Jerusalem, at 
 which Eusebius was present. In the reign of 
 Julian (A.D. 362) the Jews, with the permission 
 and at the instigation of the Emperor, made an 
 abortive attempt to rebuild the Temple. From 
 whatever motive, Julian had formed the design 
 of restoring the Jewish worship on Mount 
 Moriah to its pristine splendour, and during his 
 absence in the East the execution of his project 
 was entrusted to his favourite, Alypius of Anti- 
 och. Materials of every kind were provided at 
 the Emperor’s expense, aud so great was the 
 enthusiasm of the Jews that their women took 
 part in the work, and in the laps of their gar- 
 ments carried off the earth which covered the 
 ruins of the Temple. But a sudden whirlwind 
 and earthquake shattered the stones of the 
 former foundations; the workmen fled for 
 shelter to one of the neighbouring churches (ἐπί 
 τι τῶν πλήσιον ἱερῶν, Greg. Naz. Or. iv. 111), 
 the doors of which were closed against them by 
 an invisible hand, and a fire issuing from the 
 Temple-mount raged the whole day and con- 
 sumed their tools. Numbers perished in the 
 flames. Some who escaped took refuge in a 
 portico near at hand, which fell at night and 
 crushed them as they slept (Theodor. H. J. iii. 
 15; Sozomen, v. 21; see also Ambros, Epist. ad 
 Theodosium, lib. ii. ep. 17). Whatever may 
 have been the colouring which this story re- 
 ceived as it passed through the hands of the 
 ecclesiastical historians, the impartial narrative 
 of Ammianus Marcellinus (xxiii. 1), the friend 
 and companion in arms of the Emperor, leaves 
 no reasonable doubt of the truth of the main 
 facts that the work was interrupted by fire, 
 which all attributed to supernatural agency. 
 In the time of Chrysostom the foundations of 
 the Temple still remained, to which the orator 
 could appeal (Ad Judaeos, iii. 431 ; Paris, 1636). 
 The event was regarded as a judgment of God 
 upon the impious attempt of Julian to falsify 
 the predictions of Christ: a position which 
 Bishop Warburton defends with great skill in his 
 treatise on the subject. 
 
 During the 4th and 5th centuries Jerusalem 
 became the centre of attraction for pilgrims 
 from all regions‘; and its bishops contended 
 
 i One of these pilgrims, S. Silvia, σ. 385 A.D., gives 
 a most interesting picture of the ritual of the Church at 
 Jerusalem towards the close of the 4th century (see Pil- 
 grimage of S. Silvia, translated by Rev. J. H. Bernard 
 for P. P. Text Society). 
 
 JERUSALEM 
 
 | with those of Caesarea for the supremacy ; but 
 it was not till after the Council of Chalcedon 
 (451-453) that it was made an independent 
 patriarchate. In the theological controversies 
 which followed the decision of that Council with 
 regard to the two natures of Christ, Jerusalem 
 bore its share with other Oriental churches, and 
 two of its Bishops were deposed by Monophysite 
 fanatics. The Synod of Jerusalem in A.D. 536 
 confirmed the decree of the Synod of Constanti- 
 nople against the Monophysites. 
 
 In A.D. 438 the Empress Enudocia visited 
 Jerusalem, and there, when exiled from Con- 
 stantinople, she passed the last sixteen years of 
 her life. She founded churches, monasteries, 
 and almshouses, and rebuilt the walls of the 
 city (Suc. H. £. vii. 47; Evag. H. Ε΄. i. 20-22); 
 and two of her works—the basilica of St. 
 Stephen, in which she was buried, and the city 
 wall enclosing the Fountain of Siloam—are 
 mentioned by Antoninus (xxy.). To this 
 period, one of great building activity, may 
 perhaps be assigned the Church of St. Sophia, 
 or of the Praetorium, and the Churches of St. 
 Mary (in probatica), the pinnacle of the Temple, 
 Siloam, &c., which are mentioned by writers in 
 the 6th century (see the Breviarium, Theodo- 
 sius, and Antoninus). 
 
 In 529 the Emperor Justinian founded at 
 Jerusalem a splendid church in honour of the 
 Virgin, which has been identified by some 
 writers with the building known in modern 
 times as the Mosque el-Aksa, but of which 
 probably no remains now exist (see p. 1657). 
 Procopius, the historian, ascribes to the same 
 emperor the erection of ten or eleven monas- 
 teries in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem and 
 Jericho. Eutychius adds that he built a hospital 
 for strangers in Jerusalem, and that the church 
 above mentioned was begun by the patriarch 
 Elias, and completed by Justinian. Later in the 
 same century Gregory the Great (590-604) sent 
 the abbot Probus to Jerusalem with a large sum 
 of money, and endowed a hospital for pilgrims, 
 which Robinson suggests is the same as that now 
 used by the Muslims for the like purpose, and 
 called by the Arabs et-Takiyeh. It was however, 
 more probably, close to the Church of the Holy 
 Sepulchre, perhaps on the site afterwards granted 
 to the merchants of Amalfi. 
 
 For nearly five centuries the city had been 
 free from the horrors of war. The merchants of 
 the Mediterranean sent their ships to the coasts 
 of Syria, and Jerusalem became a centre of 
 trade as well as of devotion. But this rest 
 was roughly broken by the invading Persian 
 army under Chosroes II., who swept through 
 Syria, drove the imperial troops before them, 
 and, after the capture of Antioch and Damascus, 
 marched upon Jerusalem. <A multitude of Jews 
 from Tiberias and Galilee followed in their train. 
 The city was invested, and taken by assault in 
 June 614; thousands of the monks and clergy 
 were slain; the suburbs were burnt, churches 
 demolished, and that of the Holy Sepulchre 
 injured, if not consumed, by fire.* The invading 
 army in their retreat carried with them the 
 patriarch Zacharias, and the wood of the true 
 Cross, besides multitudes of captives. During 
 
 κ᾿ Ἐμπίπραται τὸ Δεσποτικὸν μνῆμα καὶ οἱ περιβόητοι 
 τοῦ θεοῦ ναοί (Chron. Alex. p. 385). 
 
JERUSALEM 
 
 the exile of the patriarch, his vicar Modestus, 
 supplied with money and workmen by the muni- 
 ficent John Eleemon, patriarch of Alexandria, 
 restored the churches of the Resurrection and 
 Calvary, and also that of the Assumption.! 
 After a struggle of fourteen years the imperial 
 arms were again victorious, and in 628 Heraclius 
 entered Jerusalem on foot, at the head of a 
 triumphal procession, bearing the true Cross. on 
 his shoulder. The restoration of the churches 
 is with greater probability attributed by William 
 of Tyre to the liberality of the emperor (/ist. 
 ἂν 1). 
 
 The dominion of the Christians in the Holy 
 City was now rapidly drawing to a close. After 
 an obstinate defence of four months, in the 
 depth of winter, against the impetuous attacks 
 of the Arabs, the patriarch Sophronius sur- 
 rendered to the Khalif Omar in person A.D. 637. 
 The valour of the besieged extorted unwilling 
 admiration from the victors, and obtained for 
 them terms unequalled for leniency in the 
 history of Arab conquest. The Khalif, after 
 ratifying the terms of capitulation, which se- 
 cured to the Christians liberty of worship in the 
 churches which they had, but prohibited the 
 erection of more, entered the city, and was met at 
 the gates by the patriarch. Sophronius received 
 him with the uncourteous exclamation, “ Verily 
 this is the abomination of desolation, spoken of 
 by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy 
 place!” and the chronicler does not forget 
 to record the ragged dress and “satanic hy- 
 pocrisy ” of the hardy Khalif (Cedrenus, Hist. 
 Comp. 426). Omar then, in company with the 
 patriarch, visited the Church of the Resurrec- 
 tion, and at the Muslim time of prayer knelt 
 down on the eastern steps of the Basilica, 
 refusing to pray within the buildings, in order 
 that the possession of them might be secured 
 to the Christians. Tradition relates that he 
 requested a site whereon to erect a mosque 
 for the Muhammadan worsnip, and that the 
 patriarch assigned him the spot occupied by the 
 reputed stone of Jacob’s vision: over this he is 
 said to have built the mosque afterwards known 
 by his name (Eutych. Chron. ii. 285; Ockley, 
 Hist. of Sar. pp. 205-214, Bohn), and which tra- 
 dition still points out in the S.E. corner of the 
 Aksa. Henceforth Jerusalem became for Muslims, 
 as well as Christians, a sacred place, and the 
 
 Mosque of Omar shared the honours of pilgrim- | 
 
 age with the renowned Kaaba of Mecca. 
 
 Towards the close of the 7th century the 
 Khalif Abd ul-Melik, wishing, from politica] mo- 
 tives, to set up another place of pilgrimage to 
 replace the Kaaba, brought the Sakhrah within 
 the precincts of the Moslem Sanctuary, and 
 either built the existing “Dome of the Rock” 
 over it, or, more probably, restored and covered 
 by a dome a previously existing church. His 
 son El-Walid completed the work by extending 
 the Haram to the north so as to bring the Dome 
 of the Rock into the centre of the sacred area 
 (Eutychius, Annal. ii. 365, 373). 
 
 In the reign of Charlemagne (771-814) am- 
 
 1 According to Eutychius (Anmal. ii. 219) the churches 
 restored were those of the Resurrection, of the Sepulchre, 
 of the Calvary, and of St. Constantine A description of 
 the churches is given by Arculfus, who visited Jerusalem 
 towards the close of the 7th century. 
 
 = 
 
 JERUSALEM 1629 
 
 bassadors were sent by the emperor of the 
 West to distribute alms in the Holy City, and 
 on their return were accompanied by envoys 
 from the enlightened Khalif Hartin er-Rashid, 
 bearing to Charlemagne the keys of Calvary and 
 of the Holy Sepulchre. But these amenities were 
 not of long continuance. The dissensions which 
 ensued upon the death of the Khalif spread to 
 Jerusalem, and churches and convents suffered 
 in the general anarchy. About the same period 
 the feud between the Joktanite and Ishmaelite 
 Arabs assumed an alarming aspect. The former, 
 after devastating the neighbouring region, made 
 an attempt upon Jerusalem, but were repulsed 
 by the signal valour of its garrison. In the 
 reign of the Khalif El-Maman the buildings of 
 the Haram esh-Sherif were thoroughly restored 
 at great cost; and in that of E]-Motasem Jeru- 
 salem was held for a time by the rebel chief 
 Tamin Abu-Hareb. 
 
 With the fall of the Abassides the Holy City 
 passed into the hands of the Fatimite conqueror 
 Muez, who fixed the seat of his empire at Musr 
 el-Kahirah, the modern Cairo (A.D. 969). Under 
 the Fatimite dynasty the sufferings™ of the 
 Christians in Jerusalem reached their height, 
 when el-Hakim, the third of his line, ascended 
 the throne (A.D. 996). The Church of the Holy 
 Sepulchre, which had been twice dismantled and 
 burnt within the previous seventy years (Eutych. 
 Ann. ii. 529, 530; Cedren. Hist. Comp. p. 661), 
 was again demolished (Ademari Chron. a.D. 1010), 
 and its successor was not completed till a.p. 
 1048. A small chapel (“oratoria valde modica,”’ 
 Will. Tyr. viii. 3) supplied the place of the 
 magnificent Basilica on Golgotha. 
 
 The pilgrimages to Jerusalem in the 11th 
 century became a source of revenue to the Mus- 
 lims, who exacted a tax of a byzant from every 
 visitor to the Holy Sepulchre. Among the 
 most remarkable pilgrimages of this century 
 were those of Robert of Normandy (1035), Liet- 
 bert of Cambray (1054), and the German Bishops 
 (1065). 
 
 In 1077 Jerusalem was pillaged by Atsiz the 
 Kharezmian, commander of the army sent by 
 Melik Shan against the Syrian dominions of the 
 Khalif. About the year 1084 it was bestowed 
 by Tutush, the brother of Melik Shah, upon 
 Urtuk, chief of a Turkman horde under his 
 command. From this time till 1091 Urtuk was 
 Emir of the city, and on his death it was held 
 as a kind of fief by his sons el-Ghazi and Suk- 
 man, whose severity to the Christians became 
 the proximate cause of the Crusades. Rudhwan, 
 son of Tutush, made an ineffectual attack upon 
 Jerusalem in 1096. The city was ultimately 
 taken, after a siege of forty days, by Afdal, vizir 
 of the Khalif of Egypt, and for eleven months 
 had been governed by the Emir Iftikar ed-Dau- 
 leh, when, on the 7th of June, 1099, the 
 Crusading army appeared before the walls. 
 After the fall of Antioch in the preceding year 
 the remains of their numerous host marched 
 along between Lebanon and the sea, passing 
 
 τὰ Tt is worthy of notice that Mukaddasi (A.D. 985) 
 describes the Christians and Jews as having the upper 
 hand at Jerusalem; and it was probably about this 
 period that the merchants of Amalfi were allowed to 
 found a monastery near the Holy Sepulchre (William of 
 Tyre, xviii. 4, 5). 
 
1080 
 
 Byblos, Beirut, and Tyre on their road, and so 
 through Lydda, Ramleh, and the ancient Em- 
 maus-Nicopolis, to Jerusalem. The Crusaders, 
 40,000 in number, but with little more than 
 20,000 effective troops, reconnoitred the city, and 
 determined to attack it on the north. Their 
 camp extended from the Gate of St. Stephen 
 (Damascus Gate) to that beneath the Tower of 
 David. Godfrey of Lorraine occupied the extreme 
 left (East) ; next him was Count Robert of Flan- 
 ders; Robert of Normandy held the third place ; 
 and Tancred was posted at the N. W. corner tower, 
 afterwards called by his name. Raymond of 
 Toulouse originally encamped against the west 
 gate, but afterwards withdrew half his force to 
 the part between the city and the church of 
 Zion. At the tidings of their approach the 
 Khalif of Egypt gave orders for the repair of 
 
 JERUSALEM 
 
 JERUSALEM 
 
 the towers and walls; the fountains and wells 
 for five or six miles round (Will. Tyr. vii. 23), 
 with the exception of Siloam, were stopped, as 
 in the days of Hezekiah, when the city was 
 invested ky the Assyrians. On the fifth day 
 after their arrival the Crusaders attacked the 
 city and drove the Saracens from the outworks, 
 but were compelled to suspend their opera- 
 tions till the arrival of the Genoese engineers. 
 Another month was consumed in constructing 
 engines to attack the walls, and meanwhile the 
 besiegers suffered all the horrors of thirst in a 
 burning sun. At length the engines were 
 completed and the day fixed for the assault. 
 On the night of the 13th of July Godfrey had 
 changed his plan of attack, and removed his 
 engines to a weaker part of the wall between 
 the Gate of St. Stephen (Damascus Gate) and the 
 
 St. Stephen's Gate. 
 
 corner tower overlooking the valley of Jehosha- 
 phat on the north. At break of day the city 
 was assaulted in three points at once. Tancred 
 and Raymond of Toulouse attacked the walls 
 opposite their own positions. Night only 
 separated the combatants, and was spent by 
 both armies in preparations for the morrow’s 
 contest. Next day, after seven hours’ hard 
 fighting, the drawbridge from Godfrey’s tower 
 was let down. Godfrey was first upon the wall, 
 followed by the Count of Flanders and the Duke 
 of Normandy; the northern gate was thrown 
 open, and at 3 o’clock on Friday the 15th of 
 July Jerusalem was in the hands of the 
 Crusaders. Raymond of Toulouse entered with- 
 out opposition by the Zion gate. The carnage 
 was terrible: 10,000 Muslims fell within the 
 sacred enciosure. Order was gradually restored, 
 and Godfrey of Bouillon elected king (Will. 
 
 Tyr. viii.). Churches were established, and for 
 eighty-eight years Jerusalem remained in the 
 hands of the Christians. In 1187 it was retaken 
 by Saladin after a siege of several weeks. Five 
 years afterwards (1192), in anticipation of an 
 attack by Richard of England, the fortifications 
 were strengthened and new walls built, and the 
 supply of water again cut off (Barhebr. Chron. 
 Ρ. 421). During the winter of 1191-2 the work 
 was prosecuted with the utmost vigour. Fifty 
 skilled masons, sent by Alaeddin of Mosul, 
 rendered able assistance, and two thousand 
 Christian captives were pressed into the service. 
 The Sultan rode round the fortifications each 
 day encouraging the workmen, and even brought 
 them stones on his horse’s saddle. His sons, 
 his brother el-Melik el-Adil, and the Emirs 
 ably seconded his efforts, and within six months 
 the works were completed, solid and durable as 
 
JERUSALEM 
 
 a rock (Wilken, Areuzztige, iv. 457, 458). The 
 walls and towers were demolished by order of 
 the Sultan el-Melik el-Mo‘azzem of Damascus 
 in 1219, and in this defenceless condition the 
 city was ceded to the Christians by virtue of 
 the treaty with the Emperor Frederick Il. An 
 attempt to rebuild the walls in 1239 was frus- 
 trated by an assault by Dayid of Kerak, who 
 dismantled the city anew. In 1243 it again 
 came into the hands of the Christians, and in 
 the following year sustained a siege by the wild 
 Kharezmian hordes, who slaughtered the priests 
 and monks who had taken refuge in the Church 
 of the Holy Sepulchre, and after plundering 
 the city withdrew to Gaza. After their de- 
 parture Jerusalem again reverted to the Mu- 
 hammadans, in whose hands it still remains. 
 The defeat of the Christians at Gaza was followed 
 by the occupation of the Holy City by the forces 
 of the Sultan of Egypt. 
 
 In 1277 Jerusalem was nominally annexed to 
 the kingdom of Sicily. In 1517 it passed under 
 the sway of the Ottoman Sultan Selim I., whose 
 successor Suleiman built the present walls of 
 the city in 1542. Muhammad Ali, the Pasha 
 of Egypt, took possession of it in 1832. In 
 1834 it was seized and held for a time by the 
 Fellahin during the insurrection, and in 1840, 
 after the bombardment of Acre, was again 
 restored to the Sultan. 
 
 Such in brief is a sketch of the chequered 
 fortunes of the Holy City since its destruction 
 by Titus. The details will be found in Gibbon’s 
 Decline and Fall; Prof. Robinson’s Bibl. Res. i. 
 365-407 ; the Rev. G. Williams’ Holy City, 
 vol. i.; Wilken’s Gesch. der Kreuzziige; Dey- 
 ling’s Diss. de Aeliae Capitolinae orig. et historia ; 
 Bp. Miinter’s History of the Jewish War under 
 Trajan and Hadrian, translated in Robinson’s 
 Bibliotheca Sacra, pp. 393-455; Besant and 
 Palmer’s Jerusalem the City of Herod and Sala- 
 din; and Le Strange’s Palestine under the Mos- 
 lems. Ne AS Wiel 1a iol 
 
 III. ToroGRAPHY OF THE CITY. 
 
 There is perhaps no city in the ancient world 
 the topography of which ought to be so easily 
 determined as that of Jerusalem. In the first 
 place, the city was always small, and surrounded 
 by deep valleys; whilst the form of the ground 
 within its limits was so strongly marked that 
 there should apparently be no great difficulty 
 in ascertaining its general extent, or in fixing 
 its more prominent features. On the other 
 hand we have in the works of Josephus a more 
 full and complete topographical description of 
 this city than of almost any other in the ancient 
 world. It is certain that he was intimately 
 acquainted with the localities he describes; and 
 as his copious descriptions can be tested by com- 
 paring them with the details of the siege by 
 Titus which he afterwards narrates, there ought 
 to be no difficulty in settling at least all the 
 main points. Nor would there ever have been 
 any, but for the circumstance that, for a long 
 period after the destruction of the city by Titus, 
 the place was practically deserted by its original 
 inhabitants, and the continuity of tradition con- 
 sequently broken; and that after this, when 
 it again appears in history, it is as a sacred city, 
 and at a period the most uncritical of any known 
 
 JERUSALEM 1631 
 
 in the modern history of the world. During at 
 least ten centuries of what are called most 
 properly the Dark ages, it was thought necessary 
 to find a locality for every event mentioned in 
 the sacred Seriptures which had taken place 
 within or near its walls. These were in most 
 instances fixed arbitrarily, there being no con- 
 stant tradition to guide the topographer, so that 
 the confusion which has arisen has become per- 
 plexing, to a degree that can only be appreciated 
 by those who have attempted to unravel the 
 tangled thread ; and now that long centuries of 
 constant tradition have added sanctity to the 
 localities, it is extremely difficult to shake one- 
 self free from its influence, and to investigate 
 the subject in that critical spirit which is 
 necessary to elicit the truth so long buried in 
 obscurity. The question is further complicated 
 by the enormous quantity of rubbish, the débris 
 of ancient Jerusalem, which has turned the 
 deep Tyropoeon ravine into a shallow depression, 
 has completely covered the “Upper Market 
 Place” and the “Via Dolorosa,’ and has 
 obliterated many of the ancient landmarks. 
 
 It is only by piecing together the results of 
 excavation, and by a careful comparison of-:the 
 ample historical materials with the local indica- 
 tions, that we can hope to arrive at a solution 
 of the many difficult problems connected with 
 the topography of ancient Jerusalem. Much 
 has already been done, but there are still no 
 satisfactory data for the determination of some 
 of the most important points at issue. It is 
 true that we now know within very narrow 
 limits the position of the Tower Hippicus, and 
 the course of the walls leading thence east- 
 ward to the Temple enclosure, and soutaward 
 above the Valley of Hinnom. But the sites 
 of the Temple, of the Tombs of the Kings, and of 
 the Tower Psephinus, as well as the courses 
 of the second and third walls, and of the first 
 wall above Siloam, are still uncertain, and will 
 remain so until the excavations carried out by 
 Sir C. Warren™ for the Palestine Exploration 
 Fund are resumed. 
 
 Numerous attempts have been made to solve 
 the disputed questions, but so uncertain are the 
 data available that the views advanced differ 
 widely from each other in many essential 
 features. The two sites of greatest interest are 
 those of the Temple, and of the Church of the 
 Holy Sepulchre. The Temple, according to 
 Messrs. Fergusson, Thrupp and Lewin, Prof. 
 Robertson Smith, and others, occupied a square 
 of about 600 ft. at the S.W. angle of the Haram 
 esh-Sherif, and this is the view adopted in the 
 present article. On the other hand, Dr. Robin- 
 son, Rey. G. Williams, Sir C. Warren, Major 
 Conder, and all French and German authorities, 
 maintain that it was near the centre of that 
 enclosure. Four distinct views have been ad- 
 vanced with regard to the site of the Holy 
 Sepulchre. 
 
 1. The first of these theories is the most 
 obvious, and has at all events the great merit 
 of simplicity. It consists in the belief that all 
 the sacred localities were correctly ascertained 
 in the early ages of Christianity ; and, what is 
 
 n The final results of Sir C. Warren’s excavations are 
 given in PEF. Mem., Jerusalem vol., with the portfolio 
 of plans and sections. 
 
1632 JERUSALEM 
 
 still more important, that none have been 
 changed during the dark ages that followed, 
 or in the numerous revolutions to which the 
 city has been exposed: consequently inferring 
 that all which the traditions of the Middle Ages 
 have handed down to us may be implicitly 
 relied upon. The advantages of this theory are 
 so manifest, that it is little wonder that it 
 should be so popular and find so many advocates. 
 
 The first person who ventured publicly to 
 express his dissent from this view was Korte, a 
 German printer, who travelled in Palestine 
 about the year 1728. On visiting Jerusalem, 
 he was struck with the apparent impossibility 
 of reconciling the site of the present Church of 
 the Holy Sepulchre with the exigencies of the 
 Bible narrative, and on his return home he pub- 
 lished a work denying the authenticity of the 
 so-called sacred localities. His heresies excited 
 very little attention at the time, or for long 
 afterwards; but the spirit of enquiry which 
 has sprung up during the present century has 
 revived the controversy which has so long been 
 dormant, and many pious and earnest men, both 
 Protestant and Catholic, have expressed with 
 more or less distinctness the difficulties they 
 feel in reconciling the assumed localities with 
 the indications in the Bible. The arguments in 
 favour of the present localities being the correct 
 ones, were well summed up by the Rev. George 
 Williams in his work on the Holy City, and with 
 the assistance of Professor Willis all was said 
 that could be urged in favour of their authen- 
 ticity. The admitted difficulties of the case 
 were explained with great ingenuity; but no 
 new facts were brought forward to counter- 
 balance the significance of those urged on the 
 other side. 
 
 2. Dr. Robinson, on the other hand, in his 
 elaborate works on Palestine, brought together 
 all the arguments which existed in his day 
 against the authenticity of the mediaeval sites 
 and traditions. The result of his researches was 
 the conclusion that the site of the Holy Sepulchre 
 was now, and must in all probability for ever 
 remain, a mystery. The effect was, that those 
 who were opposed to his views clung all the 
 more firmly to those they before entertained, 
 preferring a site and a sepulchre which had 
 been hallowed by the tradition of ages rather 
 than launch forth on the shoreless sea of specula- 
 tion which Dr. Robinson’s negative conclusion 
 opened out before them. 
 
 3. The third theory is that which was put 
 forward by Mr. James Fergusson.° It agrees 
 generally with the views urged by all those, 
 from Korte to Robinson, who doubt the authen- 
 ticity of the present site of the sepulchre ; but 
 instead of acquiescing in the view taken by the 
 latter, it goes on to assert, that the building 
 within the Huram esh-Sherif, known as the 
 Kubbet es-Sakhrah, “Dome of the Rock,” is the 
 identical church which Constantine erected over 
 the Rock that contained the Tomb of Christ; 
 and that the site of the Holy Sepulchre was 
 transferred from the eastern to the western hill 
 after the death of el-Hakem in the first half of 
 the 11th century. Mr. Fergusson supported 
 
 JERUSALEM 
 
 his views by arguments drawn from the archi- 
 tectural details of the “* Dome of the Rock,” and 
 his great reputation as a writer upon architecture 
 gave them an importance which they would not 
 otherwise have possessed. They were never re- 
 ceived with much favour, and, when first 
 enounced, gave rise to bitter controversy. 
 
 4. The fourth theory is that the site now 
 occupied by the Church of the Holy Sepulchre 
 is that which Constantine believed to be the 
 scene of Christ’s Crucifixion and burial, and the 
 one upon which he built his churches; but that 
 the true site of the Crucifixion must be looked 
 for outside the north wall of the modern city, 
 either on the hill above “ Jeremiah’s Grotto,” 
 or on the hill to the east. The first of these 
 views has been brought prominently to notice 
 by Major Conder and the late General Gordon ; 
 the second, and perhaps the more correct view, 
 is that which was held by Bishop Gobat of 
 Jerusalem. 
 
 The most satisfactory way of investigating the 
 subject will probably be to commence at the 
 time of the greatest prosperity of Jerusalem, 
 immediately before its downfall, which also 
 happens to be the period when we have the 
 greatest amount of knowledge regarding its 
 features. If we can determine what was then 
 its extent, and fix the more important localities 
 at that period, there will be no great difficulty 
 in ascertaining the proper sites for the events 
 which may have happened either before or after. 
 All that now remains of the ancient city of 
 course existed then; and the descriptions of 
 Josephus, in so far as they are to be trusted, 
 apply to the city as he then saw it; so that the 
 evidence is at that period more complete and 
 satisfactory than at any other time, and the 
 city itself being then at its greatest extent, it 
 necessarily included all that existed either before 
 or afterwards. > 
 
 It will not be necessary here to dwell upon 
 the much disputed point of the veracity of the 
 historian on whose testimony we must princi- 
 pally rely in this matter. It will be sutficient 
 to remark that every new discovery, every im- 
 proved plan that has been made, has served more 
 and more to confirm the testimony of Josephus. 
 and to give a higher idea of the accuracy of 
 his local knowledge. In no one instance has he 
 yet been convicted of any material error in 
 describing localities in plan. Many difficulties 
 which were thought at one time to be insuper- 
 able have disappeared with a more careful 
 investigation of the data; and now that the city 
 has been carefully mapped? and partially ex- 
 plored by excavation, there seems a greater 
 probability of our being able to reconcile all his 
 descriptions with the appearance of the existing 
 localities. So much indeed is this the case that 
 one cannot help suspecting that, though writing 
 at Rome, Josephus had before him data which 
 checked and guided him in all that he said as to 
 horizontal dimensions. This becomes more pro- 
 bable when we consider how moderate all these 
 are, and how consistent with existing remains, 
 and compare them with his exaggerated state- 
 ments whenever he speaks of heights or de- 
 
 °In his “Essay on the Ancient Topography of 
 Jerusalem ;”’ his ‘* Temples of the Jews,” his article in 
 the first edition of this Dictionary, and other works. 
 
 P The results of the most recent surveys are embodied 
 in the plans of the Ordnance Suryey of Jerusalem 
 (Revised edition). 
 
JERUSALEM 
 
 scribes the arrangement of buildings which had 
 been destroyed in the siege, and of which it may 
 be supposed no record or correct description 
 then existed. He seems to have felt himself at 
 liberty to indulge his national vanity in respect 
 to these, but to have been checked when speak- 
 ing of what still existed, and could never be 
 falsified. The consequence is, that in almost all 
 instances we may rely on anything he says with 
 regard to the plan of Jerusalem, and as to any- 
 thing that existed or could be tested at the time 
 he wrote, but must receive with the greatest 
 caution any assertion with regard to what did 
 not then remain, or respecting which no 
 accurate evidence could be adduced to refute his 
 statement. 
 
 In attempting to follow the description of 
 Josephus it is necessary, in the first place, to 
 consider how far his remarks on the topogra- 
 phical features are in accordance with local 
 indications; and in the next to fix the positions 
 of the Temple and the Tower Hippicus. 
 
 1. Zopography.—Jerusalem stands, as already 
 stated (p. 1585), on the southern extremity of a 
 small plateau which is intersected by two 
 ravines, and almost encircled by the valleys of 
 the Kedron and of Hinnom. Within the limits 
 of the city walls the ravines are almost filled 
 with, and their slopes, where not precipitous, 
 are completely covered by, the ruins of ancient 
 Jerusalem ; whilst, even at the higher levels, 
 the rubbish has in places accumulated to a 
 height of more than 30 feet. The natural 
 features of the ground are thus partially con- 
 cealed; and their true forms and relative im- 
 portance to each other can only be ascertained 
 by excavation. Thus far excavation has thrown 
 much light on the character of the larger 
 features ; but the original form of:the ground is 
 still undetermined at several important points, 
 and little is yet known of those minor features 
 which must have influenced the trace of the 
 fortifications, the selection of sites for important 
 buildings, and the direction of the streets.1 The 
 most marked feature of the Jerusalem plateau is 
 the ravine, the larger of the two, which breaks 
 it up into two spurs of unequal size. The western 
 spur is broad-backed, and much straighter and 
 higher than the eastern spur,—a narrow rocky 
 ridge, with steep almost precipitous sides,— 
 which sweeps round in a bold curve (Joseph. ἀμ- 
 φίκυρτος) facing the west. The ravine itself 
 rises as a broad shallow depression outside the 
 Damascus Gate, and, gradually contracting as it 
 descends, runs in a south-east direction to 
 Wilson’s Arch. Hereabouts it is joined by a 
 small ravine* or gully, which, rising near the 
 Jaffa Gate on the west, indicates very clearly 
 the line of the first or old wall, and the limits 
 of that portion of the western hill called by 
 Josephus “the Upper Market Place.” A little 
 below Wilson’s Arch the ravine changes its 
 direction to the south, and falls rapidly to its 
 junction with the Kedron Valley below the Pool 
 of Siloam. It was this well-marked topogra- 
 phical feature, and not the little gully running 
 
 a The plan of Jerusalem represents the original form 
 of the ground as nearly as it can be reconstructed from 
 existing data. 
 
 ΓΚ The character of this ravine is not yet clearly 
 known. 
 
 BIBLE DICT.—VOL. I. 
 
 JERUSALEM 1633 
 
 down from the Jaffa Gate, which Josephus had 
 in his mind when he wrote (2. J. v. 4, § 1) that 
 Jerusalem “was built on two hills opposite to 
 one another, but divided in the middle by a 
 ravine”; and that this ravine, called the Tyro- 
 poeon, extended as far as Siloam, and “ separated 
 the hill of the Upper City from that of the 
 Lower.” Of these hills he writes (see Plate II. 
 and Plan No. 2, sections 1, 2, 3, p. 1637) that 
 externally, except on the north, they were 
 bounded by inaccessible ravines, and that the 
 one which “contained the Upper City was much 
 higher, and in length more direct,” whilst the 
 other, “*which was called Acra, and supported the 
 Lower City, was curved like the moon in her 
 third quarter” (ἀμφίκυρτος). The language 
 could scarcely be more precise. The second 
 ravine rises in the eastern half of the plateau, to 
 the N. of “Jeremiah’s Grotto,” and pursuing a 
 S.E. course enters the Valley of the Kedron to 
 the north of the Golden Gate. This ravine, of 
 which the exact form has not yet been ascer- 
 tained, is apparently the “ Valley called Kedron” 
 (τὴν Kedpava καλουμένην φάραγγα), which is 
 mentioned by Josephus as having, with the 
 Temple and Ophla, been occupied during the 
 Roman siege by John, and which must there- 
 fore have been within the walls (B. J. v. 6, 
 § 1); as the point at which the wall of Agrippa 
 joined the old wall (4, § 2); and as being below 
 the N.E. angle of the Temple cloisters (vi. 3, § 2). 
 
 The western hill or spur is divided into two 
 parts, which differ somewhat in character, by 
 the gully running eastward from the Jaffa Gate. 
 The ground south of the gully falls abruptly on 
 the W. and S. to the Valley of Hinnom, and on 
 these sides the hill was made practically in- 
 accessible by cutting the rock vertically down- 
 wards so as to leave cliffs or scarps with here 
 and there narrow flights of rock-hewn steps. 
 On the east side there is a natural cliff, and at 
 its foot, bordering the Tyropoeon Valley, lies a 
 strip of comparatively level ground. Above the 
 cliff stood the Palace of the Asmoneans, in 
 which Agrippa lived (B. J. ii. 16, § 3; 17, § 5); 
 and along its edge, perhaps, ran a wall for 
 the defence of the Upper City. On the lower 
 ground at the foot of the cliff, possibly the 
 Parbar of 1 Ch. xxvi. 18 and “the suburbs” 
 of Josephus (Ant. xv. 11, § 5), was the Xystus 
 (B. J. ii. 16, § 3; v. 4, § 23 vi. 6, § 2). 
 On the north side lay the gully, which was 
 apparently rugged and deep towards the east, 
 and connected with the Valley of Hinnom, on 
 the west, by a rock-hewn ditch, which is now, 
 in part, represented by the ditch of the citadel 
 near the Jafia Gate. This portion of the western 
 hill was thus protected on all sides by natural or 
 artificial scarps of rock, and it was, as Josephus 
 correctly states (B. J. vi. 8, § 1), “so precipitous 
 that it could not possibly be taken without 
 raising earthworks.” The ground immediately 
 to the north of the gully falls sharply, but not 
 abruptly, to the Valley of Hinnom on the west, 
 and more gradually towards the Tyropoeon 
 Valley on the east; its form is that of a small 
 spur projecting eastward between the gully and 
 the Tyropoeon. Near the middle of the spur 
 stands the Church of the Holy Sepulchre; and 
 some authorities maintain that at its eastern 
 extremity there was at one time a large knoll, or 
 mamelon, upon which the Macedonian Acra was 
 
 5 M 
 
1084 
 
 built. There is, however, no conclusive evidence 
 of the existence of a knoll at this spot, and the 
 lower portion of the spur would rather seem to 
 be the “third hill,’ which, according to 
 Josephus (B. J. v. 4, § 1), was opposite to 
 (ἀντικρύ), but naturally lower than Acra, and 
 formerly parted from it by a broad valley. 
 This valley, filled up by the Asmoneans when 
 they levelled the Acra, is apparently that part 
 of the Tyropoeon immediately west of the Bab 
 en-Ndazir of, the Haram. The high ground to 
 the west, between the Jaffa Gate and Kalat 
 Jalid, is called by Josephus (B. J. ii. 19, § 4) 
 “the Upper City,” whilst the lower ground to 
 the east, or “ third hill,” was probably occupied 
 by “the other city,” * to which one of the gates of 
 the Temple enclosure led (Ant. xv.11,§ 5). All 
 the higher ground of the western hill was thus 
 called “the Upper City,” whilst the lower 
 slopes were known on the S. as “the suburbs,” 
 and on the N. as ‘“*the third hill.” At δαί αὐ 
 Jalid the wall is protected by a shallow rock- 
 hewn ditch which runs eastward towards the 
 Damascus Gate, and southwards towards the 
 Jaffa Gate; but it is evident, as indeed may be 
 inferred from Josephus, that the defences on this 
 side of the city were weak, and not to be com- 
 pared with those of the “ Upper Market Place” 
 to the south. 
 
 The eastern hill runs in a S.E. direction from 
 the knoll above “ Jeremiah’s Grotto” to the 
 Triple Gate of the Haram, and thence southerly 
 to its termination near the Pool of Siloam. Its 
 crest was originally continuous, but the rock 
 has been cut away in several places, and this has 
 given an appearance of prominence and isolation 
 to certain points, such as the SakArah, which 
 they did not at one time possess. On the east 
 the ground falls abruptly to the “ Valley called 
 Kedron,” and to the Kedron itself, and on the west 
 it falls no less steeply to the Tyropoeon; whilst 
 on the south, in the vicinity of Siloam, the rock 
 has apparently been scarped for purposes of de- 
 fence. The exact form of the hill, however, is 
 not known at several important points, and this 
 is more especially the case where the features are 
 concealed by the massive masonry of the sacred 
 enclosure of the Muslims,—the Haram esh-Sherif. 
 Between “ Jeremiah’s Grotto,” on the north, and 
 the city wall there is a broad and deep rock- 
 hewn ditch, which is connected with and origin- 
 ally formed part of the extensive subterranean 
 quarries known as the “Cotton Grotto,” and 
 called by Josephus (B. J. v. 4, § 2) “the Royal 
 caverns” (Plan No. 2, section 2). To the south of 
 the ditch lies that part of the hill named Bezetha, 
 which extends southwards to the ““ Ecce Homo 
 Arch,” where the continuity of the ridge is 
 again broken by the rock-hewn ditch that 
 separated Bezetha from the Castle of Antonia. 
 About 90 ft. south of this ditch the rock has 
 been cut away to a depth of some 23 ft., 
 leaving an isolated mass of rock upon which 
 the Turkish Barracks now stand. Further 
 south there are traces of a third ditch, which 
 was cut across the ridge at its narrowest point, 
 and is perhaps alluded to by Josephus in his 
 account of the attack upon the Temple by 
 
 JERUSALEM 
 
 8 Probably so called because it lay between the second 
 and the first walls, and formed a separate quarter of 
 the city. 
 
 JERUSALEM 
 
 Pompey (Ant. xiv. 4,§ 2; 8. J.i. 7,§ 2). The 
 space between the second and third ditches was 
 occupied by the Macedonian Acra, and later by 
 the Castle of Antonia. About600 ft., or, accord- 
 ing to some views, directly south of the third 
 ditch, lay the Temple, and beyond its southern 
 cloisters the hill was thickly covered with houses 
 as far as Siloam. The position of Bezetha, which 
 Josephus calls “the fourth hill” of Jerusalem, 
 is clearly defined. It was opposite to the Castle 
 of Antonia, and separated from it by a rock-hewn 
 ditch; the Antonia lay between it and the 
 Temple, and it was the highest of all the hills, 
 and the only one that shut out the view of the 
 Temple from the north (B. J. ii. 15, § 5; 19, 
 § 4; v. 4, § 2; 5, § 8). This description can 
 only apply to the northern part of the eastern 
 hill; it would appear, however, that in a wider 
 sense Bezetha was held to include the quarter 
 called Coenopolis or “ New Town,” enclosed by 
 the wall of Agrippa, which spread beyond the 
 limits of the hill. Acra is the name given by 
 Josephus (B. J. 1. 1, § 4; v. 4, § 15 6, ὃ 1) to 
 the hill upon which the Lower City was built ; 
 and it was no doubt so called from the Mace- 
 donian fortress (Acra) which stood upon it, in 
 close proximity to the Temple (Ant. xii. 5, § 4). 
 The hill was gibbous in form, and separated 
 from the Upper City by a valley which reached 
 as far as Siloam,—a description that applies per- 
 fectly to the eastern hill (see Plate II.), Although 
 the term Acra included that portion of the hill 
 upon which the Macedonian fortress and the 
 Temple stood, it was more especially applied to 
 the quarter of the city lying between the Temple 
 cloisters and Siloam (B. J. v. 6, 81; vi. 6, § 3; 
 7,§ 2). Josephus may possibly include the low- - 
 lying ground, elsewhere called “the suburbs,” 
 within the limits of the Lower City ; but there 
 is no single instance in which he speaks of that 
 portion of the city which occupied the “ third ” 
 hill, and lay between the second and first walls,* 
 as Acra, or the Lower City. 
 
 The hill to the east of the “Valley called 
 Kedron,” on which the Church of St. Anne now 
 stands, is not mentioned by Josephus. It can 
 never have been of much importance, and the wall 
 was apparently extended in this direction for the 
 protection of the two large pools in the valley, 
 and not with the object of enclosing the hill. 
 
 2. Site of the Temple.—Without any ex- 
 ception al] topographers are agreed that the 
 Temple stood within the limits of the great 
 enclosure now known as the Haram esh-Sherif, 
 though few are agreed as to the portion of that 
 space which it covered. It is certain that the 
 Holy House and Altar in the times of Zerubbabel 
 and Herod occupied the site of the Temple and 
 altar of Solomon (Joseph. Ant. xi. 4, § 1; 
 Maimonides, Beth Hab. ii. 2); and that if the 
 position of the outer court of the Temple, as 
 rebuilt by Herod, could be determined, there 
 would be no difficulty in fixing, within narrow 
 limits, the sites of the original Temple and 
 Altar of the Jews. Of Herod’s Temple there are 
 two independent descriptions: one in the works — 
 
 t The omission of any allusion to Acra, or to the 
 Lower City, in the account of the capture of the second 
 wall, and the events which immediately followed it, is 
 inexplicable if Acra were in the position assigned to it 
 by some authorities. 
 
JERUSALEM 1635 
 
 λον 
 τρῇ85 --- [ 24052 B 
 -| 
 
 = Amy 
 
 Lf ἘΞ pert 
 
 BI NAGS AAS ESR δ σοσσοο ΣΝ a 
 
 [1 
 ΒΑΒ i 
 EN-NAZIR 4 
 2419. i 
 @ 
 f 
 
 2389+ GOLDEN 
 Co SATE 
 
 i 
 4 
 ἢ NEN WN 
 \ 
 LAMA 
 \X 
 Ἐξ δὰ 
 Δ LC 
 GES 
 a 
 S Engli 
 Feet 100 50 eeyet nel i 490 Feet 
 No. 1.—Plan of Haram esh-Sherif. (From the Ordnance Survey.) 
 5M 2 
 
1636 JERUSALEM 
 
 of Josephus, the other in the treatise Middoth. 
 There are also remains of Herodian and, perhaps, 
 of older masonry. in the retaining walls of the 
 Haram, and many rock-hewn tanks and conduits. 
 Josephus, who was personally familiar with the 
 Temple and its precincts, treats fully of the 
 arrangement and dimensions of the several 
 courts and buildings. In so far as the plan of 
 the Temple is concerned, he appears to be 
 singularly accurate ; but when he has to describe 
 elevation, he shows a marked tendency to ex- 
 aggeration. The writers of the Mishna made a 
 special study of the Temple measurements, and 
 quote the recollections of men who had taken 
 part, as Levites,in the Temple services. But 
 they wrote long after the fall of Jerusalem; 
 none of them had seen the Temple, and their 
 description of it, in the Middoth, is less full in 
 several particulars than that of the Jewish 
 historian. They may be more accurate in 
 matters of detail, such as the height and breadth 
 of steps; but in all that relates to the general 
 arrangement and external dimensions of the 
 sacred buildings, their evidence cannot have 
 the same weight as the direct testimony of 
 Josephus. 
 
 The Haram esh-Sherif (Plan No. 1) is a quad- 
 rangular enclosure, with walls of massive 
 masonry, within which lies the central portion 
 of the eastern hill. The sides are unequal, 
 but two of the angles, at the S.W. and ΝΕ, 
 corners, are right angles. The west side 
 measures 1590 feet, the east 1525 feet, the 
 south 921 feet, and the north 1036 feet. 
 The included area is about 35 acres. The 
 surface has been roughly levelled, partly by 
 filling up hollows, partly by cutting away the 
 rock, and partly by building supporting vaults 
 of masonry. The general level is 2,419 feet 
 above the Mediterranean; but in front of the 
 Golden Gate there is a deep hollow; and in the 
 centre there is a raised platform, above which 
 the Sakhrah rises to an altitude of 2,440 feet. 
 The crest of the hill runs southward across the 
 Haram from a point about 60 feet east of the 
 N.W. angle, where its altitude is 2,462 feet, to 
 the Triple Gate in the south wall, where it has 
 an altitude of 2,378 feet. If the hill were 
 stripped of the mask that conceals it, and re- 
 stored to its original form, it would appear as a 
 ridge of bare rock, with abrupt slopes on either 
 side. The narrowest point would be a little 
 east of Bab en-Nazir, and the broadest part that 
 covered by the platform. At the N.W. corner 
 of the Haram the rock has been cut away so as 
 to leave a scarp 23 feet high beneath the Turkish 
 Barracks, and the upper strata have been com- 
 pletely removed as far as the raised platform. 
 This excavation is no doubt that made by the 
 Asmoneans, when they levelled the hill upon 
 which the Acra stood (Ant. xiii. 6, § 7). About 
 90 feet north of the scarp is the ditch, 165 feet 
 wide, that separated Antonia from Bezetha; 
 and 280 feet south of it, where the ridge is 
 narrowest, there appears to have been a ditch, 
 153 feet wide, which may possibly have formed 
 part of the defences of the Acra, and have been 
 filled up by Herod when he built the Castle of 
 Antonia. 
 
 The raised platform probably dates from the 
 erection of the ‘“‘ Dome of the Rock,” above the 
 Sakhrah, as it was evidently designed to give 
 
 JERUSALEM 
 
 additional importance to that building. It is 
 quadrilateral in form, and has unequal sides." 
 Its surface is from 15 feet to 19 feet above the 
 general level, and its area is about 52 acres. 
 The rock is visible on the surface at the N.W. 
 corner, and the Sakhrah, which is a portion of 
 the ridge, rises 4 feet 9 inches above the plat- 
 form. The length of the Sakhrah is about 56 feet, 
 and its breadth about 40 feet ; and beneath it is 
 a small cave, under the floor of which, according 
 to Muslim tradition, there is a well, the Bir el- 
 Arwah, or “ Well of the Spirits.” The “Dome 
 of the Rock” is generally considered to be the 
 work of the Khalif Abd ul-Melik: but it seems 
 
 rather to be the “ Church of St. Sophia” which, — 
 
 in the 6th century, stood upon the supposed 
 site of the Praetorium (Ant. Mart. xxiii. ; Theo- 
 desius, vii.; Brev. de Hierosol.), Possibly the 
 church was built at the close of the 5th or 
 commencement of the 6th century, and was 
 restored and turned into a mosque in the 7th 
 century, when Abd ul-Melik enlarged the pre- 
 cincts of the Muslim sanctuary, and brought 
 the Sakhrah within its limits- (Eutych. Ann. 
 ii. 365). 
 
 The N.E. corner of the Haram has been 
 formed by filling up a deep ravine, “the ravine 
 called Kedron ” of Josephus (δ. J. v. 4, § 2; 6, 
 § 1; vi. 3, § 2), which here crosses the enclosure. 
 There are several indications, such as the ac- 
 cumulation of rubbish on the N. side of the 
 Golden Gate, that the ravine was wholly or 
 partially filled up at a comparatively recent 
 date—perhaps by El-Walid, son of Abd ul-Melik, 
 when he enlarged the Haram so as to bring 
 the Sakhrah into the centre of the sacred area 
 (Eutych. Ann. ii. 373), The bed of the ravine 
 is 144 feet below the present surface, and its 
 sides must be steep and rocky. The S.W. 
 corner is also made ground, and its surface is 
 from 82 feet to 129 feet above the bed of the 
 Tyropoeon valley which runs beneath it. Here 
 there is every reason to believe that the hollow 
 space was filled up solidly when Herod enlarged 
 the Temple enclosure. At the S.E. corner, on 
 the other hand, the ground is supported by a 
 
 series of weak vaults of masonry, which may © 
 
 possibly be as old as the time of Justinian. 
 Amongst the most remarkable features of the 
 Haram are the rock-hewn cisterns in which the 
 water required for the Temple services was 
 stored. They are from 25 feet to 50 feet deep, 
 and 
 
 them. The largest, called the “Great Sea,” 
 would hold between two and three million 
 gallons. The cisterns were supplied by the 
 aqueduct from Solomon’s Pools, which crossed 
 the Tyropoeon Valley on the causeway, and then 
 ran in a S.E. direction towards the fountain 
 El-Kas. .The cisterns were connected with each 
 other by conduits, and there was apparently an 
 overflow beneath the Triple Gate. It may be 
 remarked, as bearing upon the site of the 
 Temple, that all the large rock-hewn cisterns 
 
 it is estimated that more than twelve © 
 million gallons of water could be stored in © 
 
 —— ΝΗ 
 
 ον, ...»,. 
 
 except one are situated to the south of {πὸ 
 
 raised platform. 
 The retaining walls of the Haram have a 
 
 height of from 30 feet to 170 feet, and they are 
 
 u The north side 516 feet, the south 419 feet, the west 
 
 552 feet, and the east 528 feet. 
 
1637 
 
 JERUSALEM 
 
 « THOTBMLIAP YU SMONRAMOT ,, ‘SMT “THA Woy suOTOg—"z, ‘ON 
 
 HOUV SiNOSTIM HONOYHL LSAM ¥ LSVA NOILORS “8 οὖν oof cle sia oS Ly 
 
 ᾿Ξ yoa Jo ογθος 
 48 £ 
 
 HVIYON LNA OW 
 
 A3ZT1IVA NOYCRY 
 
 ΡΝ μ4θχ5!: ἢ 
 ; ΜΠ ΠΑΡ 7 = 
 5 J HAYMASNYO 3HL 
 
 ΚΣ 
 a 
 
 a ὉΠ 8 
 
 Hie siect 3, νη 
 
 Οοοῖ 00g 009 oot o0z Cor 0 OSoCor 
 γ90.7 JO οἴθος 
 
 ASTIVA ΝΟΒΟΞῚ SHLOL OLLOUD SIHVINAYSP? WOYS MOOY ΞΗ. JO SWOd Ξ3Ξη.. HONOYHL NOILORS ‘z 
 
 ; Yon sors) . Sip AS 
 7» 7}. 7 LY LT " 7 a YL LY y 
 00K “TL PS Ha = LLY LEAL EL 
 
 te 
 eel, 
 
 ἢ a 
 {89 
 
 ΟΟΗ 3H1 30 ZWOG 3η. 
 
 nea a: τὸ 1PM syonaing 
 
 0001 fo) oob Zz O01 OOSCOT 
 
 HOUV SiINOSNIPOY HOAOYHL LSSM © LOVE NOILOAS ‘1 aq Jo avog 
 
 ALID ΞΜ ΟΊ 
 HYINOW 
 
 1998 g SN SG 
 
 a Se eee LUT, 
 
 ee ee . 
 
 LMM MYT 
 
 NOIZ NHY300W 
 
1638 JERUSALEM 
 
 perhaps the finest examples of mural masonry in 
 the world. Partially concealed as they are, 
 here by 60 feet, there by 130 feet of rubbish, 
 they still fill the traveller with admiration ; 
 and their great height and the magnificence of 
 their masonry almost justify the glowing terms 
 in which they are described by Josephus (Ant. 
 xy. 11, §§ 1-5; B. J. v. 5, ὃ 1). The stones 
 are of great size,* and set so closely together 
 that the blade of a pen-knife can hardly be 
 inserted between them. 
 
 margins, and their faces are either finely dressed, 
 or, when not intended to be seen, left rough. 
 The grey stones of to-day were originally white, 
 and the massive masonry of the Temple plat- 
 form, when fresh from the builder’s hands, 
 must, under the brilliant sun of Palestine, have 
 presented a most imposing and dazzling ap- 
 pearance. 
 tion 6, p. 1642) has only been examined for 600 
 feet from the S.W. angle, but it is apparently of 
 one building period throughout, and is probably 
 the work of Herod. The architect conceived 
 the bold scheme of extending the Temple area 
 westward across the bed of the Tyropoeon; and, 
 in laying the foundations of the massive re- 
 taining wall, he cut through an ancient rock- 
 hewn conduit (p. 1591). The wall formed the 
 western limit of the Temple enclosure and 
 of the Antonia; and above the level of the 
 Haram it appears to have been ornamented with 
 pilasters similar to those of the wall of the 
 Haram at Hebron.’ It also closed the west 
 
 end of the ditch within the Haram, which was 
 probably filled in when the wall was built. 
 The remains of four ancient approaches to the 
 
 Those of the older | 
 masonry have a chiselled draft round their | 
 
 The west wall (Plan No. 3, Eleva- | 
 
 - JERUSALEM 
 
 through the passage from ‘‘Warren’s Gate.’ 
 The first and third must have been on a level 
 with the outer court of the Temple; the second 
 and fourth pierced the retaining wall at a lower 
 level, and reached the surface by steps or a ramp. 
 In the south wall (Plan No. 3, Section 4) the 
 older masonry is of two, if not three, different 
 periods. From the S.W. angle to the “ Double 
 Gate ” it is probably Herodian ; beyond this point 
 it is marked by a course of stones of double 
 height, and is supposed by Sir C. Warren to be 
 the work of Solomon, but by others to be possibly 
 as late as the reign of Justinian. The wall is 
 pierced by two ancient gateways: the ‘ Double 
 Gate,” which opens into a vestibule, whence a 
 passage leads to the surface of the Haram; and 
 the “Triple Gate,” which, in its original form, 
 was a double gate with a passage to the en- 
 closure similar to that from the “ Double Gate.” 
 Beneath the “Triple Gate” are rock-hewn 
 passages through which the blood from the 
 Altar and the overflow from the cisterns may 
 have passed to the Kedron Valley (see Middoth, 
 iii. 2). At the S.E. angle there appears to 
 have been a massive tower, 108 feet square, of 
 older date than the adjoining portions of the 
 wall, and it was on the stones at the base of 
 this tower that Sir C. Warren found the Phoeni- 
 cian letters which were considered by Mr. E. 
 Deutsch to be “ partly letters, partly numerals, 
 and partly special mason’s or quarry signs.”” At 
 this point a small vase* was found in a hole cut 
 out of the rock, where it may possibly have been 
 placed when the wall-was built. The east wall 
 (Plan No. 3, Elevation 5) has only been examined 
 for 161 feet from the S.E. angle, and 179 feet 
 from the N.E. angle; between these two points, 
 or for a distance of 1185 feet, the masonry has 
 nowhere been seen below the surface of the 
 ground. There is, however, some reason to 
 suppose that between the S.E. angle and a 
 point 50 feet or 60 feet north of the Golden 
 
 , Gate the wall is older than it is to the north 
 
 of the latter point. About 132 feet south of 
 the ΝΑ. angle the wall is carried across the 
 bed of the “ravine called Kedron,” and it 
 is here 168 feet high. The only entrance to 
 
 | the Haram on the east side, of which traces 
 
 ‘|; remain, is the “Golden Gate,”"—a Byzantine 
 
 Robinson’s Arch. (S.W. angle of Haram.) 
 
 enclosure have been discovered in connexion 
 with the west wall—over ‘“ Robinson’s Arch,” 
 through the passage from “ Barclay’s Gate,” 
 over the causeway and “ Wilson’s Arch,” and 
 
 x One stone 38 ft. 9 in. long, 4 ft. high, and 10 ft. 
 deep, has been built into the wall at a height of 85 ft. 
 from the surface. 
 
 y The close resemblance between the masonry of the 
 Haram at Hebron, and that of the west wall of the 
 Haram at Jerusalem, seems to indicate that they were 
 built by the same person—Herod. Pilasters are shown 
 in the Comte de Vogiié's restoration of the Temple 
 (Le Temple de Jérusalem, Planch. xvi.). 
 
 structure of uncertain date, which has been 
 closed for several centuries. Its floor is from 
 30 feet to 40 feet above the natural surface of 
 the ground, and it appears to have had in front 
 of it a terrace whence there was a descent to 
 the Kedron by steps. The north boundary of 
 the Haram is formed partly by the rock-scarp 
 at the N.W. angle, and partly by the wall, of 
 unknown but presumably late date, that forms 
 the southern side of the Birket IJsratl. The 
 Haram esh-Sherif is thus girt on three sides by 
 walls which, if entirely exposed to view, would 
 
 z According to Rabbi Obadiah of Bartenora, the blood 
 and water was sold to the gardeners for use as 
 manure. 
 
 a This vase is said by various authorities to be of 
 **a common Graeco-Phoenician type,” to be possibly 
 ‘*as old as the 4th or 5th century B.c.,” and to date from 
 the period of the Jewish monarchy. 
 
 b There was, apparently, a second gate in the east 
 wall before it was remodelled by Sultan Suleiman, but 
 its position is unknown. 
 
JERUSALEM 
 
 present unbroken faces of solid masonry from 
 920 feet to 1590 feet long, and, for a large 
 portion of those distances, from 100 feet to 160 
 feet in height.° On the north side alone there 
 is no imposing mass of masonry, but here, in 
 the time of Josephus, lay the deep, rugged 
 “ravine called Kedron,” unfilled by the ac- 
 cumulations of centuries, and the great Castle 
 of Antonia rising high above the surrounding 
 buildings. 
 
 The difficulty experienced in fixing the exact 
 position of the Temple (ἱερὸν) arises from the 
 fact that it has completely disappeared,“—not 
 
 ΜΗΘΕΝΑΛΛΛΟΓΕΝΉΕΙΣΓΙΟ 
 ΡΕΥΕΣΘΑΙΕΝΤΟΣΤΟΥΠΕ 
 ΒΙΓΟΙΕΡΟΝΤΡΥΦΑΚΤΟΥΚΑΙ 
 NEPIBOAOYOLAANAH 
 @OHEAYT QIAITIOLES 
 TAIAIAT OE =AKOAOY 
 ©EINO ANATON 
 
 Inscription from Herod’s Temple. 
 
 one stone has been left upon another. The 
 local indications have been so differently inter- 
 preted by the numerous writers on the subject, 
 that it is maintained on the one hand that the 
 Temple occupied the S.W. corner of the Haram, 
 and on the other that it stood near the centre 
 of the enclosure. Both views are surrounded 
 by difficulties that can only be completely solved 
 by excavation. 
 
 (1.) According to Josephus (Ant. xv. 11, § 3; 
 8. J. vi. 5, § 4) and the Mishna (Jiddoth, ii. 1), 
 the Temple was a square, and the only right 
 angles in the ancient masonry of the Haram are 
 the S.W. and N.E. angles. The masonry of the 
 S.W. angle, and of the wall for some distance 
 to the north and east, is generally admitted to 
 
 (CTL 
 
 JERUSALEM 1639 
 
 be Herodian, and it must have formed part of 
 the west and south walls of the Temple en- 
 closure. Ifthe Temple was in the centre of the 
 Haram, Herod’s object in building this massive 
 wall at great cost and labour, and in the face of 
 considerable engineering difficulties, is not clear ; 
 but it is easily explained on the supposition that 
 the Temple (vads) stood near the S.W. angle, 
 and that he could not othemwise obtain a firm 
 foundation for the cloisters that he added on 
 its west and south sides, Josephus states 
 directly and indirectly that each side of the 
 Temple was a stadium (Ant. xv. 11, §§ 3, 5), or 
 400 cubits (Ant. xx. 9, § 7). Now 588 feet 
 east of the S.W. angle is the “Triple Gate,” 
 where the ground commences to fall rapidly to- 
 wards the east, and the solid character of the area 
 gives place to a series of vaults erected in com- 
 paratively recent times (Plan No. 3, Section 4) ; 
 and 586 feet north ef the same point is “" Wilson’s 
 Arch,” which marks the position of one of the 
 principal approaches to the Temple. These 
 dimensions differ, it is true, from a stadium ; but 
 it is impossible to suppose, as some contend, 
 that the statement of Josephus refers to the whole 
 Haram area, which is approximately 13 stadia 
 wide and 25 long. Further, Josephus mentions 
 (Ant. xv. 11, § 5) that on the south front of 
 the Temple stood the Royal Cloister, Stoa 
 Basilica, with three aisles, which reached “ from 
 the east valley unto that on the west, for it was 
 impossible it should reach any further ” (west- 
 ward). This cloister was 1 stadium long, and had 
 “ pillars that stood in four rows, one over against 
 the other all along ;” the number of pillars was 
 162, and their capitals were of the Corinthian 
 order. The breadth of each side aisle was 30 
 feet, and of the central aisle 45 feet; and these 
 dimensions agree very closely with the position 
 and width of “ Robinson’s Arch,” which must 
 have led to the central aisle. It is quite 
 certain that the Stoa terminated at the “‘ Triple 
 Gate,” for, as shown in the annexed diagram, 
 
 Section of vaults in 8.E. angle of Haram. 
 
 it could never have extended over the weak, 
 irregularly spaced vaults at the S.E. angle of 
 the Haram. ‘Had it done so, some piers or 
 foundations must have remained to indicate 
 
 how it was supported, but there is absolutely 
 nothing.” It may convey some idea of the 
 dimensions of this the most remarkable feature 
 of Herod’s Temple, “if we compare it with 
 
 ¢ Detailed descriptions of the masonry of the Haram 
 wall will be found in PEF. Mem., Jerusalem vol. ; and 
 in The Masonry of the Haram Wall, by Sir C. Wilson, 
 PEFQy. Stat. 1880, pp. 9-65. 
 
 4 The only authentic relic of Herod’s Temple is the 
 tablet with a Greek inscription forbidding strangers, 
 
 under pain of death, to pass the balustrade (τρύφακτος) 
 round the Temple (ἱερόν), which was discovered by 
 M. Clermont-Ganneau in 1871 (Une stéle du Temple de 
 Jérusalem ; PEFQy. Stat. 1871, p. 132). This inscrip- 
 tion affords strong evidence of the general accuracy of 
 Josephus, 
 
1640 JERUSALEM 
 
 York, the largest of our English cathedrals. 
 1 the transepts of that church were removed 
 from the centre and added to the ends, we should 
 have a building of about the same length, and 
 nearly also of the same section, and, barring the 
 style, not differing much in material and con- 
 struction” (Fergusson, Zemples of the Jews, 
 pp- 75, 83). Again, Josephus states (Ant. xv. 
 11, § 5) that on the west side of the enclosure 
 there were four gates, and this agrees with the 
 existing remains. The first gate, which “led to 
 the king’s palace, and went to a passage over 
 the intermediate valley,” must have been above 
 Wilson’s Arch, which connects the Haram with 
 the remains of the old causeway across the 
 valley (Plan No. 2, Section 3). The road from 
 Herod’s palace, now represented by “ David’s 
 Street,” which passed over the causeway and 
 bridge, must have been one of the principal 
 approaches to the Temple; and the tradition 
 that places the “" Beautiful Gate” at the Bab 
 es-Silsileh, above Wilson’s Arch, may perhaps 
 be correct. ‘This may also be the Gate Kipunus, 
 the only entrance on the west side mentioned in 
 the Mishna (JMddoth, i.3). Two other gates led 
 to the suburbs, or Parbar, apparently the strip of 
 low-lying and comparatively level ground which 
 lay between the cliff of the Upper City and 
 the wall of the Temple enclosure (Plan No. 2, 
 Section 1; No. 3, Section 4), These gates are 
 represented by Barclay’s Gate, at the entrance of 
 a subway leading, apparently, to the Court of 
 the Gentiles; and the gate above Robinson’s 
 Arch, whence there was probably a descent to 
 the valley, partly by a viaduct, and partly by 
 steps or a ramp. The fourth gate leading “to 
 the other city (eis τὴν ἄλλην πόλιν), where 
 the road descended down into the valley by a 
 great number of steps, and thence up again by 
 the ascent,” was apparently Warren’s Gate, 
 through which the “other city” lying between 
 the causeway and the second wall could be 
 easily reached from the cloisters connecting 
 Antonia with the Temple. The south front of 
 the Temple, Josephus says, had “ gates at about 
 the middle,” and these still exist as the “ Double 
 Gate,” from which a double passage leads up to 
 the Haram area by a gentle incline. It is 
 certain that the Double Gate and the vestibule 
 within are really parts of the substructures of 
 the Stoa Basilica which Herod added to the 
 Temple, and they probably represent the Gate 
 Huldah, which led direct to the Water Gate of 
 the Inner Temple, and thence to the Altar 
 (Middoth, i. 3, 4; Lightfoot, p. 350). If, as 
 the Mishna seems to indicate, there were two 
 Huldah or “Mole” Gates® in the south wall, 
 
 the second must have been at the Triple Gate, i 
 
 whence a passage leads upwards at an angle 
 
 that would have brought it to the surface : 
 
 in front of the central point of the eastern 
 cloister of the Temple. The gates Shushan in 
 the east and Tadi in the north wall (Middoth, 
 i. 3) are not mentioned by Josephus, possibly 
 
 5. According to Lightfoot (i. 1054), the Huldah Gates 
 were so placed as to be at equal distances from each other 
 and from the two ends of the walls. This is only 
 approximately correct of the Double and Triple Gates, 
 which divide the south wall of the Haram into three 
 sections, respectively 352 feet, 256 fect, and 312 feet. 
 
 JERUSALEM 
 
 because they did not lead to the inhabited 
 quarters of the city. 
 
 The south-west corner of the Haram has a 
 perfectly level surface, and is solid throughout 
 except where pierced by gateways, and where 
 hollowed out into cisterns such as are known to 
 have existed beneath the Temple courts ( Water 
 Supply, p. 1591). A large proportion of it is made 
 ground, and within its limits are nearly all the 
 large cisterns. This agrees with the description 
 which Josephus gives (Ant, viii. 8, § 9; xv. 11, 
 §3; B. J. v. 5, 8 1) of the construction of the 
 Temple platform; and the statement in the 
 Mishna (Parah, iii. 3), that “the mountain of 
 the house and the courts were hollow under- 
 neath,” lest there should be a hidden grave — 
 beneath. Josephus also writes (B. J. v. 3, § 1) 
 of the ‘‘ subterranean caverns of the Temple.” 
 
 The Temple was connected with the Upper 
 City by a bridge, which also led to the Xystus 
 (Ant. xiv. 4, § 2;—B. J. i. 7, § 25 ii. 16, § 3; 
 vi. 6, § 2), at or close to the point at which the 
 first wall joined the western cloister (B. J. vy. 4, 
 § 2). This bridge must have been that connecting 
 the Temple with the causeway at Wilson’s Arch, 
 where the first wall ended, and the Xystus was 
 apparently commensurate with the west side of 
 the Temple. 
 
 It may be inferred from the absence of any 
 indication in Josephus that the Antonia, which 
 stood on a higher level than the Temple, 
 ever served as a vantage-ground for the dis- 
 charge of missiles against the defenders of the 
 Temple cloisters, that the Castle and the Temple 
 were at least a bow-shot distant from each 
 other. It would also appear (B. J. i. 7, § 4) 
 that, at the time of Pompey’s siege, there was 
 an interval of open ground between the Temple 
 and the north wall of the enclosure, which, at 
 that time, seems to have run along the north 
 
 side of the platform on which the “ Dome of the 
 
 Jews’ wailing place. 
 
 Rock” stands, and above the “Valley called 
 Kedron” (Ant. xiv. 4,§ 2; B. J. i. 7, §3). Jo- 
 | sephus, moreover, states (Ant. xx. 8, § 11) that 
 the Jews erected a high wall upon the exhedra 
 of the west wall of the inner Temple, to shut out 
 the view of the sacrifices from Agrippa’s palace, 
 on the brow of the western hill; and it may be 
 added that the aqueduct from “Solomon’s Pools,” — 
 which passes over the causeway to the Haram, 
 
JERUSALEM 
 
 runs towards the S.E. after its entrance. All 
 that has been said above is in favour of the 
 position assigned to the Temple at the S.W. 
 angle; and it may be remarked that, in this 
 case, the present “‘ Wailing Place” of the Jews 
 would be opposite to the site of the Holy of 
 Holies, and in closer proximity to it than any 
 other spot outside the enclosure. 
 
 The earlier pilgrims mention the site of the 
 Temple without distinct reference to its position; 
 but it may be inferred from Antoninus (xxiii.) 
 that the “ Dome of the Rock,” which he identities 
 with the Praetorium, was not considered to be 
 within the Temple area. It is known from 
 Arculfus (i.) and Theophanes (Chron. 281) that 
 the first Muslim mosque was built on what was 
 pointed out to Omar as the site of the Temple, 
 and from Eutychius (ii. 289) that that mosque 
 lay to the south of the Sakhrah, “which was 
 not embraced in the precincts of the Muslim 
 sanctuary till the reign of Abd ul-Melik” (ii. 
 365). In accordance with this, is the modern 
 Muslim tradition which points to the Mosque of 
 Omar, above the south wall of Haram, as the 
 spot where Omar first prayed. 
 
 According to the above view, the Temple 
 enclosure occupied a square of about 588 feet in 
 the S.W. corner of the Haram. On the west 
 there were approaches over Wilson’s and Robin- 
 son’s Arches to the northern and southern 
 cloisters, and through “ Barclay’s Gate” to the 
 Court of the Gentiles. On the south there ‘vas 
 an ascent from the old City of David to the 
 Temple enclosure by the passage from the 
 “Double Gate,” and to the central gate of the 
 eastern cloister by the ancient passage from the 
 Triple Gate. It has been objected to this con- 
 clusion, that if the Temple were only 600 feet 
 square, it would be impossible to find space 
 within its walls for all the courts and buildings 
 mentioned by Josephus and in the Talmud. 
 This difficulty, however, has no real foundation 
 in fact, and the mode in which the interior may 
 have been arranged so as to meet all the exi- 
 gencies of the case will be explained in treating 
 of the TEMPLE. It has also been urged that the 
 S.W. corner is the lowest part of the Haram ; 
 but it is nowhere stated that the Temple was 
 built upon a mount or isolated eminence. Jose- 
 phus says (B. J. v. 5, ὃ 1) that it was erected 
 upon a strong hill (ἐπὶ λόφου καρτεροῦ, where 
 λόφος simply refers to the eastern hill, Moriah); 
 and the Antonia certainly stood on higher ground 
 (Ant. xiii. 16, § 5; xv. 11, §4;—B. J. v. 5, § 8) 
 and on the “top of the hill” (B. J. vi. 1, § 5). 
 It is more important to notice that Josephus 
 states that the eastern cloister of the outer 
 court was situated in a deep valley (Ant. xx. 9, 
 § 7), and (B. J. vi. 3, § 2) that the N.E. angle 
 of the cloisters was above the “Valley called 
 Kedron,” apparently the ravine that crosses the 
 N.E. angle of the Haram. These statements 
 
 f The distance from the S.W. angle to the north side 
 of “ Wilson’s Arch,” and to the east side of the ancient 
 passage from the ‘‘ Triple Gate,” is, in each case, 
 630 feet; and, if we may suppose the Temple to have 
 been a square of 630 feet, the roadway over ‘* Wilson’s 
 Arch” would have led directly to the northern cloister, 
 and the passage from the “Triple Gate” would have 
 risen to the surface near the centre of the eastern 
 cloister. 
 
 JERUSALEM 1641 
 
 cannot easily be reconciled with the view that 
 the Temple was at the S.W. corner of the 
 Haram ; unless we may suppose that Josephus 
 refers here to the outer enclosure (Plate II.). 
 
 According to the Mishna (Middoth, ii. 1), the 
 “mountain of the house” was 500 cubits by 
 500 cubits, but it is possible that these dimen- 
 sions are due to a misconception of the statement 
 of Ezekiel (xlii. 16-20), that the boundaries of 
 the sanctuary were 500 reeds each way. It is 
 further stated that “the mount was far larger 
 than 500 cubits square, but only so much was 
 taken in for the holy ground” (Pisk. Tesaph ad 
 Midd. quoted by Lightfoot, i. 1050). The Temple, 
 it is evident, only occupied a portion of the area 
 enclosed by Herod. There was open ground 
 upon which the people pitched their tents at the 
 time of the Passover (Ant. xvii. 9, § 3); and 
 even at an earlier period there was a “ broad 
 place,” or open space, to the east of the Temple 
 (2 Ch. xxix. 4, Ezra x. 9; cp. Ant. xi. 5, § 5), 
 and in front of the Water Gate (Neh. viii. 1). 
 Some portions of the enclosure appear to have 
 been built over, as houses are mentioned in close 
 proximity to the Temple (Ant. xiv. 4, § 2; 13, 
 ὃ 3 ;—B. J. i. 13, 8.2; v. 1, § 4: ep. Ezek. xliii. 
 8); and the “ Valley called Kedron,” where the 
 outcrop of the melekeh stratum must have offered 
 great facilities for the excavation of tombs, 
 was possibly used as a place of burial (B. J. v. 
 7, § 3). 
 
 (2.) The alternative view that the Temple 
 was situated near the centre of the Haram, on 
 the ground now covered by the platform of the 
 “Dome of the Rock,” is maintained by many 
 authorities, but opinion differs widely as to the 
 exact position that it occupied. Robinson, 
 Thomson, Williams, Tobler, Furrer, Perrot, and 
 Guérin place the Altar on the Sakhrah; Sepp 
 and Conder identify the Sakhrah with the “stone 
 of foundation”; and whilst De Vogtié places 
 the Altar to the north of the Sakhrah, Warren 
 places it to the south. It has been urged that. 
 as the Temple courts descended in terraces round 
 the Holy House, the Temple and Altar must 
 have been on the top of the hill, and that the 
 levels of the various courts, ascertained by the 
 number of steps leading to them, can be brought 
 into accordance with the actual levels of the 
 rock in this part of the Haram, and nowhere 
 else; that, from the description of the sacrifice 
 of the red heifer (Wid. ii. 4), the Temple must 
 have been opposite the summit of the Mount of 
 Olives; that the Sakhrah is either the “stone 
 of foundation” upon which the Ark rested 
 (Yoma, v. 2), or the site of the Altar; that the 
 cistern immediately north of the “ Dome of the 
 Rock” is part of the passage running under the 
 Chel, from the Gate-house Moked to the Gate 
 Tadi; and that Muslim tradition has always 
 associated the Sakhrah with the sacred site of 
 the Jews. 
 
 The principal objections to these arguments 
 are that the Temple is nowhere stated to have 
 been on the top of a hill, except possibly in 
 Ezek. xliii. 12; that the rock being everywhere 
 near the surface of the platform, there is ample 
 space for the erection of a small building like 
 the Temple without great foundations such as 
 those indicated by Josephus (Ané. xv. 11, § 3° 
 B. J. v. 5, § 1); that there is no such complete 
 accordance between the levels of the several 
 
——— es -»ν 
 
 —" ὙΠΟ Εἴ 4B SHOMVALOXG,, ‘soy Za τιον stonwacyy pu¥ uoTIg—g ‘oN 
 O δ᾽ oof οος oor ὁ οἱ οὐ ; 
 yaq 10 seas 
 
 SINSHS-HSA WVYVH ΞΗ.: 30 TIVM LSAM ΞΗ. 4O ΝΟΙΙΥΛΞῚΞ 19 
 
 cae WN ᾿ ee 3 {π| ποτ 7 Dy Ly Yi ly ΞΞ Zi ae 
 
 ἕ 
 jn Ἰϑαῖοὶ 31.020 N307105 
 
 JERUSALEM 
 
 ua 
 
 AO; =I 
 
 ALIO ΞΕ ΕΠ 
 ΟΡ] 
 
 ----.- .. 
 
 [042 
 
JERUSALEM 
 
 courts and the actual level of the rock as has 
 been suggested;* and that there is little trace 
 in this part of the Haram of the substructures, 
 vaults, cisterns, &c., which are said (Parah, 
 iii. 3; Maimonides, Beth Hab. v. 1) to have 
 existed beneath the Temple and its courts. The 
 omission of any allusion by Josephus to such a 
 remarkable work as the viaduct which is sup- 
 posed to have connected Mount Moriah with 
 the Mount of Olives is calculated to raise a 
 doubt as to the accuracy of the description of 
 the sacrifice of the red heifer; but, in any case, 
 a building on the platform would not be more 
 directly opposite the summit of the Mount of 
 Olives, than one at the S.W. angle. The “stone 
 of foundation” was not a portion of the rocky 
 ridge of Moriah, but was a movable stone 
 (ja), and it was so regarded by Jewish tra- 
 dition;® besides, the Holy of Holies, only 20 
 cubits square, could scarcely have included the 
 Sakhrah, which is 56 feet long and 40 feet wide. 
 There is no indication in Josephus or the 
 Mishna that the Altar was erected over a cave 
 such as that beneath the Sakhrah; and there is 
 no evidence that the cistern, north of the ‘“*‘ Dome 
 of the Rock,” was ever part of a subterranean 
 passage. According to Professor Robertson 
 Smith (Zncyc. Brit. s.v. Temple) the first person 
 to identify the Sakhrah with the “stone of 
 foundation,” or to associate it with the Temple, 
 was the Muslim Jew Wahb ibn Monabbih, who 
 enriched Islam with so many Jewish fables, and 
 died a century after Jerusalem was taken by 
 the Arabs (Tabari, p. 571; Ibn al-Fakih, p. 97). 
 It may be added that if the Temple were on 
 the platform it would have been within easy 
 range of and completely commanded by the 
 Castle of Antonia, and its situation with refer- 
 ence to the approaches to the enclosure from the 
 south and west would have been awkward and 
 inartistic. 
 
 3. Antonia.—The Tower or Castle (φρούριον) 
 of Antonia, which replaced the citadel of the 
 Asmoneans, was on the north side of the Temple, 
 but did not cover the whole of it (Ant. xv. 
 11, ὃ 4;—B. J. i. 5, § 4; 21, §1; v. 7, §3). 
 is more particularly defined as having been at 
 the north-west corner of the Temple; and it 
 was connected with the cloisters of the Temple 
 by two parallel cloisters, called “limbs” or 
 “legs,” by which the Roman guards went down, 
 fully armed, to their posts during the Jewish 
 festivals, One of the two cloisters was a con- 
 tinuation of the western cloister of the Temple, 
 and the demolition of both of them made the 
 Temple a square (B. J. ii. 15, § 6; 16,§ 5; v. 
 5, ὃ 8; vi. 2, § 9; 5, 8 4). The Antonia was 
 near the Temple, but there was a certain space 
 between them which was the scene of some hard 
 fighting between the Jews and the Romans 
 
 & Isolated levels are taken to indicate the general 
 level of the rock over large spaces hidden from view; and 
 in the outer court the rock rises, in places, from 9 feet to 
 15 feet above the assumed level. 
 
 h See the traditions as given by Dr. Chaplin in PEFQy. 
 Stat. 1885, pp. 50, 581. There is no instance in which 
 the term “" Eben” is applied to solid rock, and the Eben 
 Shithiah, “stone of foundation,” may be compared with 
 the ‘‘ Ebens ”’ mentioned in the Bible ; though whether it 
 stood upright, or lay on its face, is uncertain. It was 
 possibly the lapis pertusus mentioned in the Jtin. 
 Hierosol. 
 
 JERUSALEM 1643 
 
 during the siege, The distance between the two 
 buildings was greater than the effective range 
 of the darts and stones thrown by the Roman 
 engines of war; and it was possibly a stadium ἡ 
 (Ant. xv. 8, ὃ 5; xviii. 4, ὃ 3;—B. J. v. 5, § 2; 
 vi. 2, §§ 5-7). The Castle was at a higher level 
 than the Temple, and, being built on “the top 
 of the hill,’”’ on a precipitous rock 50 cubits 
 high, was very conspicuous (ἀπέ. xiii. 16, § 5; 
 xv. 11, §4;—B. J. v. 5, § 8; vi. 1, ὃ ὅ Acts 
 xxi. 30-40; Tacitus, v. 11). It occupied the 
 whole ridge so completely that the walls had to 
 be partially thrown down before Titus could 
 bring up his engines of war and attack the 
 Temple; and it was generally regarded as the 
 most important feature in the defences of the 
 city (Ant. xv. 7, ὃ 8 ;—B. J. ii. 15, §§ 5, 6; v. 5, 
 § 8; vi. 2, §§ 1-7). It adjoined Bezetha, and 
 the “‘ New Town,” from which it was separated 
 by a deep ditch; was near the Pool Struthion, 
 and was the point at which the second wall 
 terminated (B. J. v. 4, § 2; 5, § 8; 11, § 4). 
 The Antonia must have covered a large area. 
 It is said to have resembled both “a city ” and 
 “a royal palace,” and to have contained rooms, 
 cloisters, places for bathing, and broad spaces 
 for camps; and the Roman garrison of Jeru- 
 salem, an entire legion, was quartered in it. 
 The Castle was rectangular in form, and at each 
 angle there was a tower. The walls were 40: 
 cubits high, whilst three of the towers were 50 
 cubits, and that at the S.E. corner, which 
 appears to have been more particularly called 
 the “ Tower of Antonia,’ was 70 cubits high. 
 The construction was similar to that of the still 
 existing Tower of Phasaelus (Tower of David),— 
 a sloping scarp of smooth stone surmounted by a 
 breastwork, and behind the breastwork a chemin 
 des rondes, and the solid masonry of the walls 
 and towers. A secret subterranean passage led 
 from the Castle to a tower over the eastern gate- 
 of the inner Temple (Ané. xv. 11, §§ 4, 7 ;—B. J. 
 Io 22S 1. Wer 5) 8 85) 
 
 The citadel (ἀκρόπολι5) which Herod enlarged 
 and named Antonia, in honour of Antony, was 
 called by the Asmoneans the Baris. It was 
 originally built by Hyrcanus, possibly on or near 
 the site of the earlier “castle (Birah) that 
 appertaineth to the house” (Neh. ii. 8, R. V.); 
 and was used as a royal residence, and sometimes. 
 as a prison. The Baris was well fortified, and 
 of extraordinary strength; and it was approached 
 from the Temple side by the dark passage or 
 gateway know as Strato’s Tower,* in which 
 Antigonus was killed. The vestments of the 
 high-priest were kept in it; and this custom 
 was continued in the later Antonia. Herod’s - 
 object in enlarging and strengthening the old 
 citadel was to ‘secure and guard the Temple ” 
 and the greatest importance was afterwards 
 attached, by friend and foe alike, to the posses- 
 sion of the new fortress (Anf. xiii. 11, § 2; xiv. 
 
 i The meaning of Josephus (B. J. v. 5, § 2) appears to 
 be that the cloisters which enclosed the square of the 
 Temple were four stadia, and that with the addition of 
 the two cloisters joining the Temple to Antonia they 
 were six stadia. The two connecting cloisters would 
 therefore be a stadium each. 
 
 k Tt has been suggested (Imp. Bib. Dict., s. v. Jeru- 
 salem) that there was here an old tower called Ashtoreth, 
 or flock tower; and that ** Ashtoreth’”’ was confounded 
 with ** Strato.” 
 
1644 JERUSALEM 
 16, § 2; xv. 11, 8. 4; xviii. 4, §3;—B. i. 3, 
 § ὃ; 5, § 4). 
 
 The Antonia was certainly situated in the 
 N.W. corner of the Haram area; but no trace 
 of its foundations has yet been found, and the 
 space that it occupied is unknown. Its western 
 limit is defined by the line of the western wall, 
 and its northern by the rock-hewn ditch that 
 separated it from Bezetha; its southern and 
 eastern limits must fer the present remain con- 
 jectural. 
 
 4, The Acra (A. V. “stronghold,” “fortress,” 
 “tower ”) was built or restored by Antiochus 
 Epiphanes, ὁ. B.C. 168-7, and was situated in 
 the “ Lower City,” i.e. on the eastern hill, upon 
 a rocky height that was afterwards cut down 
 and levelled (1 Macc. i. 33; Joseph. Ané. xii. 5,§ 4; 
 xiii. 6, § 7). It was in close proximity to and 
 overlooked the Temple (1 Mace. iv. 41, xiii. 52; 
 Ant, xii. 5, § 4; 9, § 3; 10, § 5); and was 
 within the limits of the “City of David” 
 (1 Mace. i. 33; xiv. 365 vii. 32: cp. Ant. xii. 
 10, § 4). Its walls and towers were originally 
 great and strong (1 Mace. i. 33; Ant. xii. 5, 
 § 4); and they were afterwards specially 
 strengthened by Bacchides (1 Mace. ix. 52; 
 Ant, xiii. 1, § 3). The Acra, until it was de- 
 stroyed by Simon Maccabaeus, was regarded as 
 the Citadel or Acropolis of Jerusalem! (1 Mace. 
 vi. 26, ix. 53, x. 32, xi. 41; And. xii. 6, § 2; 
 xiii. 2, § 1); and it is frequently mentioned, often 
 in connexion with the Temple, in the history of 
 the wars of the Maccabees (1 Mace. iii. 45; iv. 
 2; vi. 18, 24-27, 32; ix. 52, 53; x. 6, 7, 9, 32; 
 xi. 20, 21, 23, 415 xii. 36; xiii. 49, 50, 525 xiv. 
 7, 36; 2 Mace. xy. 31-35). The gymnasium 
 built by Antiochus Epiphanes was “under the 
 Acra” (2 Mace. iv. 12; ep. 1 Mace. i. 14; Ant. 
 xii. 5, § 1); and it was apparently in the same 
 locality that Jonathan Maccabaeus afterwards 
 built a wall or mound to shut off the Macedonian 
 garrison in the Acra from the market-place 
 (ἀγορὰ) in the city (1 Mace. xii. 36; Ant. xiii. 
 5, § 11). 
 
 With very few exceptions™ writers on the 
 topography of Jerusalem place the Acra in the 
 N.W. corner of the Haram, where there is 
 abundant evidence of the levelling operations 
 of Simon Maccabaeus (Ant. xiii. 6, § 7). This 
 position, strong by nature and improved by art, 
 was, prior to the construction of the Acra, 
 occupied by a fortress which is described by 
 Aristeas as standing on a commanding eminence 
 to the N. of the Temple, fortified with towers to 
 
 the summit of the hill, and censtructed with 
 enormous stones (Williams, Holy City, i. 73, 74); 
 
 ‘and this fortress again was probably built on the 
 foundations of the citadel of Pre-Exilic Jeru- 
 salem, and of the Acropolis of the Jebusites.™ 
 After the destruction of the Acra, Simon Macca- 
 baeus fortified the “hill of the Temple” near it, 
 and there “dwelt with his company ” (1 Mace. 
 
 1 Josephus calls it indifferently “the Acra” and ‘the 
 Acropolis.” 
 
 m Warren, Underground Jerusalem, p. 54, and Conder, 
 Hbk. to Bible, p. 346, place the Acra on a presumed 
 knoll between the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and the 
 Tyropoeon Valley. 
 
 n Josephus (Ant. vii. 3, ὁ 1,2) uses the word *Akpa 
 
 ’ for the citadel which David took ; and the LXX. in every 
 case except 2 Ch. xxxii. 5 render “ Millo” by ἡ ἄκρα. 
 
 JERUSALEM 
 
 xiii. 52). At a later date, Hyrcanus built the 
 Baris, near the Temple, and made it his place of 
 residence (Ant. xviii. 4, § 8). The Baris is 
 called by Josephus the fortress (τὸ φρούριον) 
 that was above the Temple (Ant. xiii. 16, § 5), 
 and the Acropolis (xiv. 1, § 2; xv. 11, § 4); 
 and after its reconstruction by Herod, it received 
 the name of Antonia. 
 
 The view suggested is that the Acropolis of 
 the Jebusites was situated at the N.W. corner 
 of the Haram, and that it was enlarged and 
 strengthened by David and his successors. After 
 the return from the Captivity the citadel was 
 rebuilt in the form in which it was seen by 
 Aristeas, and it was afterwards more strongly 
 fortified by Antiochus Epiphanes. When the 
 Macedonians were finally expelled from Jeru- 
 salem, Simon Maccabaeus demolished the citadel 
 and cut away the higher part of the ridge on 
 which it stood. At the same time he built a 
 new, or restored an existing, wall (Ant. xiii. 6, 
 § 4) that ran along the northern end of the 
 platform of the “ Dome of the Rock ” (Ant. xiv. 
 4, §§ 1,2; B. Ji. 7, §§ 1, 3, 4), and protected 
 it by towers, in one of which he lived (1 Mace. 
 xiii. 52). During the prosperous reign of Hyr- 
 canus a portion of the site of the Acra was 
 re-occupied and the Baris built, and in this 
 condition the defences on the N. side of the 
 Temple remained until they were remodelled by 
 Herod. That king threw down the wall erected 
 by Simon, filled up the ditch to the north of the 
 platform, built the west wall of the Haram, and 
 included the north-west corner of the Haram 
 within the walls of the Castle of Antonia, which 
 thus formed part of the Temple precincts. It 
 may be observed that until the reign of Herod 
 only one citadel, that on the eastern hill, is 
 mentioned in connexion with Jerusalem; but 
 after the erection of the three towers and tlie 
 palace, near the Jaffa Gate, a distinction is made 
 between the citadel belonging to the city and 
 that belonging to the Temple (Ant. xv. 7, § 8; 
 B. J. ii. 8, § 1). The latter—the Antonia— 
 was always occupied by the garrison of Jeru- 
 salem; the only soldiers in Herod’s palace and 
 the towers were those forming the guard of the 
 Procurator or Roman governor. 
 
 5. Hippicus.—The position of the Tower Hip- 
 picus—the point at which Josephus commences 
 his description of the fortifications of Jerusalem 
 (B. J. v. 4, 881, 2)—is a question of great 
 importance, and one fortunately to which there 
 can be but one answer. It was close to the 
 Jaffa Gate, and its site is now occupied by one 
 of the towers of the citadel. Hippicus® was 
 one of the three royal towers (B. J. ii. 17, § 8) 
 —the others being Phasaelus and Mariamne— 
 which Herod built in connexion with his palace, 
 and together they formed the citadel (τὸ φρού- 
 ριον) of the western hill (B. J. ii. 3, § 25 v. 5, 
 § 8). The towers stood in the line of the old 
 wall that ran along the northern face of that 
 portion of the western hill which is called by 
 
 oe ee, ,)... -.- 
 
 4 
 
 i 
 Ἑ 
 Ἷ 
 ὶ 
 
 ο The Chaldee Paraphrast gives Migdal-Pikus as 
 another name for the tower of Hananeel in Jer. xxxi. 38 
 and Zech. xiv. 10 (Lightfoot, Cent. Chorogr.); and 
 according to Schwarz (H. L. p. 206) the targumist 
 Jonathan ben Usiel renders Hananeel by Migdal-Pikus, 
 which ‘‘is certainly Hippicus.” Hananeel, however, 
 was on the eastern hill, ; 
 
JERUSALEM 
 
 Josephus the “Upper Market Place;” and ad- 
 joinining them, on the south, was the Royal 
 Palace (B. J. v. 4, ὃ 4). They were built with 
 great magnificence, and were “for largeness, 
 beauty, and strength, beyond all that were in 
 the habitable earth” (v. 4, ὃ 3). Hippicus was 
 25 cubits square and 80 cubits high; Phasaelus 
 was 40 cubits square and 90 cubits high, and 
 resembled in appearance the Pharos at Alexan- 
 dria (Ant. xvi. 5, § 2); and Mariamne was 
 20 cubits square and 50 cubits high. The stones 
 used in their construction were of great size, 
 and so perfect was the masonry that the joints 
 between the stones were scarcely visible, and 
 each tower looked like a mass of rock fashioned 
 by the hand of a sculptor (B. J. v. 4, ὃ 4; vi. 
 9, § 1). After the capture of the city, the 
 towers were left standing by Titus, ‘as a monu- 
 ment of his good fortune” (vi. 9, § 1; viii. 1, 
 § 1); but only one, the well-known “Tower of 
 David,” now remains. This tower corresponds, in 
 size and construction, very closely to Phasaelus, 
 and the beautiful masonry at its base is dis- 
 tinctly Herodian in character. During the siege 
 one of the legions camped two stadia from 
 Hippicus (v. 3, § 5); and it was through a 
 postern close to that tower that the Jews made 
 a desperate sally at the commencement of the 
 siege, and attempted to destroy the siege works 
 thrown up by the Romans against the third or 
 outer wall (v. 6, ὃ 5). The cisterns of Hippicus, 
 which were supplied by an aqueduct that en- 
 tered the city at a neighbouring gate (vi. 7, 
 § 3), are still used. Thev lie beneath the tower 
 at the Jaffa Gate, and traces of the conduit, 
 which conveyed water to them, have been found 
 (0.8. Notes, p. 47). The position of Mariamne 
 is uncertain; if Josephus be taken literally, it 
 must have been east of the “Tower of David,” 
 but it is possibly represented by the existing 
 tower to the south. 
 
 6. The Walls, §c.—Josephus states (B. J. v. 
 4, § 1) that where Jerusalem was girt by impas- 
 sable ravines it was defended by only one wall, 
 and that on those sides which had no natural 
 defences it was protected by three walls. The first 
 or old wall (Plate II.), which Josephus (δ 2) as- 
 eribes to David and his successors, began at the 
 Towe1 Hippicus, and, extending to the Xystus, 
 joined the council house, and ended at the west 
 cloister of the Temple. That is, starting from 
 the Jaffa Gate, it ran eastward along the northern 
 face of modern Sion, where traces of it have been 
 found (Lewin, Siege of J., pp. 215-17), crossed the 
 Tyropoeon Valley, possibly on the causeway, and 
 ended at the Haram wall, at or near “ Wilson’s 
 Arch.” Its southern course from Hippicus is 
 described as passing through Bethso to the Gate 
 of the Essenes; then, facing the south, it made 
 a bend above the Fountain of Siloam, where it 
 again turned, facing the east, at Solomon’s Pool, 
 and, extending as far as a certain place called 
 Ophlas, it united itself to the cloister of the 
 Temple which faces the east. The line of this 
 wall, south of the Jaffa Gate, is marked by the 
 scarped rock in the Protestant cemetery, at the 
 S.W. corner of modern Sion, where there appears 
 to have been a descent to the Valley of Hinnom, 
 by flights of rock-hewn steps. This spot may 
 possibly be Bethso, “the dung place”; which 
 we may perhaps identify with Bethson, “the 
 place of the scarp.” The next point, the “Gate 
 
 1645 
 
 of the Essenes,” was probably at the southern 
 end of the long street which, commencing at 
 the Damascus Gate, runs southward, almost in 
 a straight line, through and beyond the city 
 to the brink of the Valley of Hinnom. ‘This 
 street, a continuation of the great road from 
 the north, must always have been one of the 
 principal thoroughfares of Jerusalem, and it is 
 possible that the name of the sect of the Essenes 
 has been confounded with the Hebrew word 
 Yeshanah, “Old,” which the LXX., in Neh. iii. 6, 
 give as a proper name, Ἰασαναί. The ‘Gate 
 of the Essenes ” would thus be “the old gate” 
 or “the gate of the old wall.” Above the 
 Fountain of Siloam, which was outside the 
 fortifications (B. J. v. 9, § 4), the wall curved 
 inwards so as to cross the Tyropoeon Valley at a 
 more convenient altitude.? This loop or bend 
 is perhaps referred to by Tacitus in the ex- 
 pression, “muri per artem obliqui aut introrsus 
 sinuati” (Hist. v. 11); and between its walls 
 ran “the way of the king’s garden” (Jer. 
 xxxix. 4, 111. 7; 2 K. xxv. 4). The place called 
 Ophlas (B. J. ii. 17, § 9; v. 6, § 1), which may 
 have given the name of Ophel (2 Ch. xxvii. 3, 
 xxxiii. 14; Neh. 111. 26, 27, xi. 21) to that part 
 of the eastern hill immediately south of the 
 Haram, was a public building, close to but 
 distinct from the Temple, that was burnt by 
 the Romans during the siege (B. J. vi. 6, § 3). 
 It appears to have been at the S.E. corner of 
 the Haram, and the city wall, on reaching 
 this point, was connected with the east cloister 
 of the Temple by the south wall of the Haram. 
 The second wall commenced at the Gate Gen- 
 nath, which was in the first wall, and, encircling 
 the quarter that lay to the north, went up to 
 Antonia. No certain trace of this wall has yet 
 been found, and it is matter of dispute whether 
 the ground now occupied by the Church of the 
 Holy Sepulchre was included or excluded, The 
 wall must have run along the S. side of the 
 ditch that separated Antonia from Bezetha, 
 and the point at which it ended is therefore 
 known within narrow limits. Another point of 
 the wall is perhaps indicated by the ruined 
 gateway seen by Felix Fabri (A.D. 1483) between 
 the Damascus Gate and the Church of the Holy 
 Sepulchre, and called the Porta Judiciaria 
 (p. 136); Eng. Trans., p. 440). The position 
 of the Gate Gennath' is uncertain, but it was 
 
 JERUSALEM 
 
 p The wall probably ran along the edge of the cliff 
 above the Pool of Siloam ; and, instead of crossing the 
 valley in a straight line, kept northwards, on the same 
 level, until it met the bed of the Tyropoeon, where it 
 tarned southwards and passed along the eastern face of 
 modern Sion. The Pools of Siloam were first included 
 within the limits of the city by the Empress Eudocia, 
 between A.D. 438-450 (Ant. Mart. xxv.). 
 
 a The city wall, or “‘ wall of Ophel,” which has been 
 partially traced by Sir C. Warren (PEF. Mem. Jerusalem, 
 226 sq.) and Prof. H. Guthe (ZDPV. vol. v.), is at a 
 much lower level than that of the Haram, and there is 
 a straight joint between the two walls, indicating that 
 they belong to two distinct building periods. This may 
 perhaps account for the obscurity in the description of 
 Josephus. 
 
 T lt has been suggested that Gennath is equivalent to 
 Ge-hennath, and that the gate led to the valley of 
 Hinnom ; but the usual explanation that it derived its 
 name from the rose garden mentioned in the Mishna 
 (Maaseroth, ii. §5), or from the fact of its leading to gardens 
 
1040 
 
 evidently to the east of Herod’s three towers, 
 and not far from them, It may also, perhaps, 
 be inferred from B. J. ν. 11, § 4, compared with 
 6, § 2, and 7, § 3, that the Pool Amygdalon 
 and John’s monument were situated between 
 the second wall and the third, which commenced 
 at Hippicus. In this case the Gate Gennath 
 must have been near the south end of ‘“ Chris- 
 tian street,” and Plate II. shows the wall running 
 along that street and including the Church of 
 the Holy Sepulchre. The alternative view is 
 that the wall excluded the church, and that 
 traces of its ditch exist in the great cistern of 
 Constantine and other excavations near it. In 
 the quarter of the town between the second and 
 first walls—the “ other city ” of Josephus (Ant. 
 xv. 11, § 5)—were the bazaars (B. J. v. 8, § 1), 
 occupying the same position, near the middle of 
 the second wall (7, § 4), that they do now. 
 
 The third wall was not commenced till twelve 
 years after the Crucifixion, when it was under- 
 taken by king Herod Agrippa. It was in- 
 tended to enclose the suburbs that had grown 
 out on the northern sides of the city, which 
 before this had been left exposed (8. J. vy. 4, 
 § 2). It began at the Tower Hippicus and ran 
 towards the north quarter of the city as far as 
 the Tower Psephinus; it then passed opposite 
 the monuments of Helena, queen of Adiabene, 
 and, running across the Royal Caverns, turned 
 at the corner tower, near the spot known as the 
 Monument of the Fuller, and joined the old 
 wall at the valley called Kedron. The wall was 
 constructed of large stones, so fitted to each 
 other that they could scarcely have been under- 
 mined by iron tools or shaken by engines; and 
 had it been completed, the city would have been 
 impregnable, Agrippa, however, left off build- 
 ing through fear of Claudius Caesar, and the 
 wall was hurriedly finished before the siege. 
 Various opinions have been expressed with re- 
 gard to the direction of this wall. Robinson, 
 Schultz, Fergusson, Thrupp, and Tobler, carry it 
 so far north as to pass close to the “Tombs of 
 the Kings.” Warren and Conder place Psephinus 
 near the Russian Cathedral beyond the N.W. 
 angle of the city, and carry the wall thence, 
 eastward and southward, to join the existing 
 wall at the Quarries, near the Damascus Gate. 
 Krafft, Lewin, Sepp, De Vogiié, De Saulcy, Menke, 
 Caspari, Furrer, and Wilson, identify the third 
 wall with the present north wall of the city. 
 The principal, and almost conclusive, argument 
 against the first two theories is that, although 
 the ground supposed to have been included has 
 been largely built over during the last twenty- 
 tive years, no trace of a city wall or of a rock- 
 hewn ditch has been found to the north of the 
 existing fortifications. 
 
 ‘The Tower Psephinus was at the N.W. corner 
 of the wall, and opposite to Hippicus. It was 
 octagonal, and was 70 cubits high, and from it 
 could be seen Arabia, and the utmost limits of 
 the land of the Hebrews as far as the sea (B. J. 
 v. 3, §5; 4, § 3). The view is exaggerated, 
 but the description is otherwise applicable to a 
 tower at or near Kal’at Jalid, in the N.W. angle 
 of the city. The name is perhaps derived from 
 
 JERUSALEM 
 
 between the second and third walls, is probably more 
 accurate. 
 
 JERUSALEM 
 
 ἦν, “north,” or MD¥, “to watch,” thus 
 meaning the ‘watch tower,” rather than from 
 ψῆφος, ‘“apebble,” because it was built of rubble 
 masonry. The monuments of Helena were three 
 stadia from Jerusalem (Ant. xx. 4, § 3), and 
 opposite to a gate protected by the ‘ women’s 
 towers” (B, J. v. 2, § 2). They were well known 
 to Eusebius (1. Z#. ii. 12); were on the left-hand 
 side of a traveller approaching the city from 
 the north (Jerome, Lp. Paul. vi.); and the 
 tomb was closed by a stone door that could only 
 be opened by a concealed mechanical contrivance 
 (Paus. viii. 16, 8 5). The στῆλαι that sur- 
 mounted the sepulchre have disappeared, but the 
 “Tombs of the Kings,” although four and not 
 three stadia from the wall, is no doubt the place 
 intended. The gate (B. J. v. 2, § 2) would be 
 that by which the great road from the north 
 entered the city,—the Damascus Gate,—and the 
 Women’s Towers (γυναικείοι πύργοι, either an 
 altered form or an attempted translation of a 
 Hebrew word) were the flanking towers on 
 either side. The Royal Caverns were the great 
 quarries, near the Damascus Gate; and they 
 were probably so called from their vast extent, 
 as the Royal Cloister south of the Temple was 
 so named from its superior size and magnifi- 
 cence. The corner tower was that at the N.E. 
 angle of the city, and the existence near it of a 
 fuller’s monument may be explained by the 
 proximity of the large pool near the Church of 
 St. Anne, and possibly of the aqueduct that 
 supplied it. The valley called Kedron was evi- 
 dently within the walls (B. J. v. 6, ὃ 1), and 
 must have been the ravine running across the 
 N.E. corner of the Haram. The point at which 
 the third joined the old wall is, however, uncer- 
 tain. It would appear from Sir C. Warren’s 
 excavations to have been south of the St. Ste- 
 phen’s Gate, but may have been on the other 
 side of the ravine near the Golden Gate.* Jo- 
 sephus, it may be observed, does not mention 
 the east wall of the Haram, which he appears to 
 have regarded as the outer wall of the Temple 
 precincts, and not as a portion of the city wall 
 proper. 
 
 After describing the three walls, Josephus 
 adds that the third had 90 towers, 200 cubits 
 apart, the second 14, and the first 60 towers ; 
 and that the city was 33 stadia in circumfer- 
 ence. Taking the distance of the towers as 
 150 feet, or 100 cubits, from centre to centre, 
 which is probably near the truth on the 
 average, the extent of the first wall would be 
 9,150 feet, and this is roughly the length of the 
 wall from “‘ Wilson’s Arch” to the Jaffa Gate, 
 and thence round by Siloam to the S.E, corner 
 of the Haram, as shown on Plate II. In the 
 same way the extent of the second wall would 
 be 2,250 feet, which corresponds with the 
 length shown on Plate IJ. The third wall 
 with its 90 towers would be 13,650 feet, and 
 
 8 The stone from this quarry is known as melekeh, 
 “royal” stone. 
 
 t Possibly the great wall, 166 feet high, which closes 
 the gorge of the ‘‘valley called Kedron,” at the N.E. 
 angle of the Haram (PHF. Mem. Jerusalem, pp. 134 
 sq.), was that which was built by Agrippa, and attracted 
 the notice of Claudius Caesar. In this case the junc- 
 tion of the third with the old wall must have been 
 about 50 feet north of the Golden Gate. 
 
JERUSALEM. 
 
 Scale—Three inches to a mile. ῬΙΑΤΕ II. 
 
 7 j YY; ἢ ΓΦ 
 OM MYA) GF 
 ἤ "᾿ς " δ GZ 
 
 (K | 
 \\ τ 
 
 —— SETPeENt s 
 Ξ 
 
 > 
 ᾿ 
 1, = 
 “ 
 / 
 fe ——— 
 / Sa 
 ihe 
 “ 
 
 Diy hy, 
 Hy) 
 Ni iN 
 
 To face p. 1646. 
 
 Topography of Josephus, 
 
JERUSALEM 
 
 this distance is so nearly equal to the combined 
 lengths of the third wall from the N.E. corner 
 of the Haram to the Jaffa Gate and of the first 
 wall thence to the S.E. corner of the Haram, 
 that it is reasonable to suppose that Josephus 
 has here given the total number of towers in the 
 whole circuit of the outer wall. Ifthe state- 
 ment of Josephus (2B. J. v. 12, § 1) be correct, 
 that the wall of circumvallation, which ran 
 along the further sides of the valleys of Kedron 
 and Hinnom, was only 39 stadia, the cir- 
 cumference of the city, which lay within 
 those valleys, could not have been as much as 
 33 stadia, and was probably not more than 
 25 stadia. 
 
 Several places of interest are mentioned by 
 Josephus as being within or near the city. 
 The palace built by Herod (Ant. xv. 9, §3; 
 B. J. i. 21, §1), sometimes called the “royal 
 palace” (B. J. ii. 19, §4; vi. 8, 81), was 
 situated immediately to the south of the three 
 great towers Hippicus, Phasaelus, and Mariamne 
 (v. 4, § 4), and formed with them the citadel of 
 the upper city (v. 5, §8; vi. 8, 8.4). It was 
 constructed with great magnificence (v. 4, § 4), 
 and two of its spacious chambers were named 
 Caesarium and Agrippium (i. 21, §1). After 
 the death of Herod, it became the residence of 
 the Roman governor (ii. 3,§ 2; 14, ὃ 8). The 
 palace of Agrippa, originally built by the 
 Asmomean princes (Ant. xx. 8, 811; B. J. ii. 
 16, §3), and sometimes distinguished as the 
 “ King’s palace” (Ant. xv. 11, §5; xvii. 10, 
 §2), was situated on the western hill (Ant. 
 xvii. 10,§ 2; Δ. J. ii. 3, 8 2), on an eminence 
 whence there was a fine view of the city, and 
 whence the Temple courts and the Altar were 
 visible (Ant. xx. 8, §11). The palace, which 
 was burnt by the insurgents under Eleazar 
 (B. J. ii. 17, § 6), was near and above the 
 Xystus, at the street leading to the upper city 
 where the bridge joined the Xystus to the 
 Temple (Ant. xx. 8, 811: 8. J. ii. 16, §3), 
 and one of the west gates of the Temple led to 
 it by a causeway (Ant. xv. 11, §5). From 
 these indications it is clear that the palace 
 stood on the brow of the cliff above the Tyro- 
 poeon Valley a little S. of “ David’s Street.” 
 The palace of Helena was S. of the Temple, in 
 the middle of Acra (8. J. v. 6, $15 vi. 6, §3). 
 In the lower part of the same quarter, not far 
 from Siloam, was the palace of Monobazus 
 (v. 6, 81); and in the upper part, apparently 
 close to the Temple, was the palace of Grapte 
 (iv. 9,§1). In the vicinity of Agrippa’s palace 
 were the house of Ananias," the high-priest, 
 the Record Office (ii. 17, § 6), the Council House 
 (v. 4, §2; vi. 6, § 3), and the Xsytus, which 
 appears to have stretched southwards from the 
 causeway that leads to Wilson’s Arch (ii. 16, 
 §3;5 iv. 9, §12; v. 4, §2; vi. 8, 82; 6, § 2). 
 Closely connected with the Temple were the 
 Treasury (John viii. 20; Ant. xix. 6, §1; Δ. J. 
 v. 5, § 2) and the Pastophoria (iv. 9, § 12). 
 The Hippodrome, perhaps the same place as the 
 Theatre (Ant. xv. 8, ὃ 1), was south of the 
 Temple (Ant. xvii. 10, §2; B. J. ii. 8, §1), 
 
 ἃ Possibly this was the official residence of the high- 
 priest, and the same place as the house of Caiaphas 
 (Matt. xxvi. 58; Mark xiv. 54; Luke xxii. 54; John 
 xviii. 5). 
 
 JERUSALEM 1647 
 
 apparently below the mosque e/-Aksa; and the 
 Camp of the Assyrians, where ‘Titus pitched his 
 camp, was within the third wall (v. 7, § 3), 
 between the N.W. angle of the city and the 
 Church of the Holy Sepulchre. The tomb of 
 King Alexander, near the Antonia and the north 
 cloister of the Temple (v. 7, §3), was possibly 
 in the valley called Kedron; that of John the 
 High Priest was 30 cubits from the Pool 
 Amygdalon, between the second and third 
 walls, and close to the first wall and Hippicus 
 (v. 6, §2; 7, §3; 9, 82; 11, ὃ 4); and that 
 of Ananus the High Priest was on the west side 
 of the Kedron ravine (vy. 12, §2). The tomb of 
 Herod, possibly that prepared for Aristobulus 
 (Ant. xv. 3, § 4), and that in which Pheroras 
 was afterwards buried (Ant. xvii. 3, §3), was 
 near the Serpent’s Pool (B. J. v. 3, § 2), and 
 included in the wall of circumvallation thrown 
 up by Titus (12, §2). It is clear from the 
 context that the tomb must have been close 
 to the Birket Mamilla, but no trace of it has 
 yet been found. 
 
 7. Population.—There is no point in which 
 the exaggeration in which Josephus occasion- 
 ally indulges is more apparent than in speaking 
 of the population of the city. The inhabitants 
 were dead; no record remained; and to mag- 
 nify the greatness of the city was a compliment 
 to the prowess of the conquerors. Still the 
 assertions that the numbers assembled at the 
 Passover were sometimes 2,700,000 (B. J. vi. 
 9, §3), and sometimes 3,000,000 (ii. 14, § 3); 
 that 600,000 dead bodies were cast out of the 
 gates (v. 13, §7); that 1,100,000 perished 
 during the siege; that 97,000 were taken 
 captive (vi. 9, § 3), besides 40,000 set at 
 liberty (8, §2), are so childish that it is sur- 
 prising that anyone could ever have repeated 
 them. Even the more moderate calculation of 
 Tacitus (v. 13) of 600,000 inhabitants is far 
 beyond the limits of probability.* 
 
 No town in the East can be pointed out 
 where each inhabitant has not at least 50 
 square yards on an average allowed to him. 
 In some of the crowded cities of the West, such 
 as parts of London, Liverpool, Hamburg, &c., 
 the space is reduced to about 30 yards, and in 
 very limited areas to 9% yards, to each in- 
 habitant; but this only applies to the poorest 
 and more crowded places, with houses many 
 stories high, not to cities containing palaces 
 and public buildings. The area of the plateau 
 upon which Jerusalem stands, does not exceed 
 5,000,000 square yards; and this, allowing 
 30 square yards for each inhabitant, only 
 gives a population of 166,666. At the time 
 of the Roman siege, however, when the city 
 covered a greater extent of ground than it 
 did before or afterwards, its area did not 
 exceed 1,379,980 square yards; this gives a 
 population of 46,000, and if a deduction be 
 made for the space occupied by the Temple, the 
 palaces and the gardens, the total may be reduced 
 to 40,000. The population of Jerusalem, in 
 its days of greatest prosperity, may thus have 
 
 x It is instructive to compare these with the moderate 
 figures of Jeremiah (lii. 28-30), where he enumerates the 
 number of persons carried into captivity by Nebuchad- 
 nezzar in three deportations from both city and province 
 
 8 only 4,600. 
 
1048 JERUSALEM 
 
 amounted to at most 46,000 souls; and as- 
 suming that in times of Festival there was 
 an addition of one-half to these numbers, which 
 is an extreme estimate, there may have been 
 about 70,000 in the city when Titus came 
 up against it. As no one would stay in a be- 
 leaguered city who had a home to flee to, it 
 is hardly probable that the men who came 
 up to fight for the defence of the city would 
 equal the number of women and children who 
 would seek refuge elsewhere; so that the 
 probability is that about the usual population 
 of the city were in it at that time. 
 
 It may also be mentioned that the army 
 which Titus brought up against Jerusalem did 
 not exceed from 25,000 to 30,000 effective men 
 of all arms, which, taking the probabilities of 
 the case, is about the number that would be 
 required to attack a fortified town defended by 
 from 8,000 to 10,000 men capable of bearing 
 arms. Had the garrison been more numerous, 
 the siege would have beenimprobable. Josephus 
 indeed states (LB. J. v. 6, 81) that the number 
 of fighting men was 23,400, but, taking the 
 
 whole incidents of his narrative, there is nothing ' 
 
 to lead us to suppose that the Jews could ever 
 have mustered 10,000 combatants at any period 
 of the siege; 7,000 or 8,000 is probably nearer 
 the truth. Hadthe besieged been more numerous, 
 Titus would never have broken up his army 
 into three divisions, and posted them at such 
 widely spaced intervals as he did (v. 3, 8. 5); nor 
 would the Jews have been unable to break 
 through the long wall of circumvallation. 
 
 8. Pre-exilic Jerusalem, according to Jose- 
 phus (B. J. v. 4, §§ 1, 2), covered the eastern 
 and western hills, and this is the generally 
 accepted view. It has, however, been contested 
 by Prof. Robertson Smith (Zncyc. Brit. s. v. 
 Jerusalem) and by Prof. Sayce (PEF Qy. Stat. 
 1883, p. 215 sq.), who maintain that, prior to the 
 Captivity, the city had not spread beyond the 
 limits of the eastern hill. This theory is open 
 to the objections that the area of the eastern 
 hill’ is insufficient for the population that must 
 have been present in Jerusalem during the 
 prosperous reigns of Solomon and ‘some of his 
 successors; and that there is no indication in 
 the books of Maccabees, or in Josephus, that 
 any important additions were made to the city 
 between the rebuilding of the walls by Nehe- 
 miah and the reign of Herod. 
 
 Jerusalem, when it first comes into view, 
 bears the name Jebus (Josh. xv. 8, xviii. 28; 
 Judg. xix. 10). It was then a royal city of 
 the Canaanites (Josh. x. 1, 23); but, excepting 
 that its king, who was nearest to the point of 
 danger, took the lead in the league against the 
 Gibeonites, there is no indication that it was of 
 more importance, or of greater size, than the 
 other towns whose chiefs, or kinglets, opposed 
 the advance of the Israelites. In fact the 
 Jebusites are always mentioned last, as if of 
 least importance, in the formula by which the 
 Promised Land is designated; and they appear 
 to have occupied a very limited tract of 
 country. 
 
 y The eastern hill has an area of 255,939 square yards, 
 which at 50 square yards for each inhabitant, a low esti- 
 mate when the nature of the ground is considered, 
 would give a population of 5,100. 
 
 JERUSALEM 
 
 There is no reason to suppose that the 
 growth of Jerusalem differed, in any material 
 respect, from that of other ancient cities. The 
 first colony would naturally settle on the 
 eastern hill, in close proximity to the spring 
 at its foot, and the western hill would be 
 gradually occupied as wealth and population 
 increased. The view adopted in the present 
 article is that when the Israelites entered 
 Palestine Jebus was confined to the eastern 
 hill, and that it then consisted of an acropolis, 
 and of a walled town covering the rocky 
 slopes of the hill above Siloam. Perhaps too, 
 as some ancient rock-hewn chambers seem to 
 suggest, there was a small suburb on the S.E. 
 slope of the western hill; but it is impro- 
 bable that the whole of that hill was covered 
 with buildings at such an early period. Jebus 
 was attacked by Judah, and by Benjamin, and, 
 upon one occasion, the lower or walled town 
 was captured and burned (Judg. i. 8). The 
 Acropolis, however,—the stronghold or mountain 
 fortress (ΠῚ 2) of Zion,—held out and resisted 
 
 all attempts at capture, until David carried it 
 by storm (2 Sam. v. 7; 1 Ch. xi. 5). David 
 strengthened the Acropolis with new walls, and 
 made it his place of residence. Hence it was 
 called the “ city of David ” (2 Sam. v. 9; 1 Ch. 
 xi. 7), a name originally confined to the Acro- 
 polis, but afterwards, as in the similar case of 
 the Macedonian Acra, applied to all that portion 
 of the city that lay on the eastern hill.* 
 
 After its capture Jerusalem became the re- 
 ligious and political centre of the Jews; and 
 during the reign of Solomon it was enlarged ~ 
 and fortified (1 K. iii. 1, ix. 153; Joseph. Ant. 
 viii. 2, § 15; 6,§1), and adorned with a Temple 
 and palace (1 K. vii.; Ant. viii. 5, 881, 2). 
 It was probably during this period, one of 
 great commercial activity, when there was a 
 large and rapid increase of wealth and pros- 
 perity, that the western hill was enclosed by 
 walls and joined to the “ City of David.” This 
 new quarter was no doubt, at first, largely 
 composed of the houses and gardens of the 
 wealthy; and here, apparently, was the house 
 built by Solomon for the daughter of Pharaoh 
 (1 K. ix. 24; 2 Ch. viii. 11). The fortifications 
 were afterwards repaired and strengthened by 
 Uzziah, Jotham, Hezekiah, and Manasseh; and 
 the two last kings added new walls to the city 
 (2 Ch. xxvi. 9, xxvii. 3, xxxii. 5, xxxili. 143 
 Joseph. Ant. ix. 10, §35; 11, §2; x. 3, §2). 
 Hezekiah greatly improved the water supply 
 (2 K. xx. 20; 2 Ch. xxxii. 30); and it was 
 possibly during his reign that the “second 
 wall” (p. 1603) was built (2 Ch. xxxii. 5). 
 
 Pre-exilic Jerusalem, according to the above 
 view, occupied the same area that the city did 
 in the time of Christ,—that is, before Agrippa 
 added the third wall; and the division into two 
 quarters, corresponding apparently to the upper 
 and lower cities, was already recognised (2 K. 
 
 z The passages in which the City of David is men- 
 tioned are: 2 Sam. vi. 12,16; 1K. ii. 10, iii. 1, viii. 1, 
 ix, 24, xi. 27, 43, xiv. 31, xv. 8, 24, xxii. 50; 2K. viii. 24, 
 ix. 28, xii. 21, xiv. 20, xv. 7, 38, xvi. 20; 1 Ch. xiii. 13, 
 xv. I, 29: 2 Ch. v. 2, ὙΠΠ1 11, ix. 51, ΖΡ 16. Ξιντ 
 xvi. 14, xxi. 1, 20, xxiv. 16, 25, xxvii. 9, xxxii. 5,30, 33, 
 xxxiii. 14; Neh. iii. 15, xii. 37; 1 Mace. i. 33, vii. 32, 
 xiv. 36; Joseph. Ant. vii. 3, § 2. 
 
 a’ —— 
 
JERUSALEM 
 
 xxii, 14; Zeph. i. 10: cp. 2 K. xx. 45 Neh. iii. 
 9). There is no indication in the Bible of the 
 character of the fortifications or of the archi- 
 tectural features of the. houses; but the walls 
 were provided with towers, especially at the 
 gates and corners, and with battlements (2 Ch. 
 xxvi. 9, 15, xxxii. 5; Ps. xlviii. 12,13; Ant. 
 x. 3, § 2). One tower only, Hananeel (R. V. 
 Hananel), is specially mentioned (Jer, xxxi. 38; 
 Zech. xiv. 10); and this, from the later descrip- 
 tion in Nehemiah (iii. 1, xii. 39), appears to 
 have been to the north of and close to the Temple 
 (see Plate III.). Closely connected with the forti- 
 fications was MILLo (2 Sam, vy. 9; 1 K. ix. 15, 
 δι τι 27; 2 K. xii. 20; 1 Ch. xi. 8; 2 Ch. 
 xxxli. 5), an archaic word, perhaps of Canaanite 
 origin, which, except in one case (2 Ch. xxxii. 5), 
 is translated by the LXX. ἡ &«pa,—a word that 
 they employ nowhere else in the O. T., and that 
 is used throughout the books of Maccabees for 
 the fortress on Mount Zion (p. 1644). Some 
 authorities suppose Millo to have been a place 
 of assembly, others an embankment, a tower on 
 a mound, or a valley (Lightfoot, Cent. Chor. 
 xxiv.). The view taken here is that it was 
 either the Acropolis or one of its towers, and 
 that it stood on or near the site of the later 
 Acra. In close proximity to the south wall of 
 the Temple was the place or quarter called 
 “the OPHEL,” which derived its name from, or 
 gave it to, an important tower in the line of 
 fortifications above the Kedron (2 Ch. xxvii. 3, 
 xxxiii. 14; Is. xxxii. 14 [Heb.]; Mic. iv. 8 
 [Heb.]; ep. Tal. Jer. Zaanith, iii. 11). Ophel 
 . was the residence of the Nethinim (Neh. iii. 
 26, 27); and it is mentioned by Josephus in his 
 account of the last days of Jerusalem as “the 
 Ophla ” CB. J. ii. 17, §9; v. 4.32: 6,§15 vi. 
 6, § 3). 
 
 The gates, those important features of 
 an Oriental city, are referred to generally in 
 Ps. ix. 14, Ixxxvii. 2; Jer. xvii. 19. They 
 would naturally be at the ends of the principal 
 streets, and the names of several of them are 
 specially mentioned. (1) The Gate of Ephraim 
 was 400 cubits from the Corner Gate (2 K, xiv. 
 13; 2 Ch. xxv. 23), and, according to Nehemiah 
 (viii. 16, xii. 39), was between the Old Gate 
 and the broad wall, and at the end of a street 
 of the same name. Jerome (Quaest. Heb.) 
 identifies it with the Valley Gate; but there can 
 be little doubt that it was the gate, on the 
 north side of the city, through which the road 
 to the north ran, and it may be placed with 
 some degree of certainty near the junction of 
 the “Via Dolorosa,’ with the street from the 
 Damascus Gate, where the porta judiciaria was 
 shown in the Middle Ages. (2) The Gate of 
 Benjamin, by which Jeremiah left the city 
 (Jer. xxxvii. 13), must also have been in the 
 north wall. It is mentioned again (Zech. xiv. 
 10), and was perhaps the same as the Gate of 
 Ephraim." There was a Temple gate of the 
 same name (Jer. xx. 2, xxxvili. 7; ep. v. 14), 
 apparently the Miphkad of Nehemiah (iii. 31) ; 
 and there was to be a Gate of Benjamin on the 
 east side of the restored, noiy Jerusalem (Ezek. 
 xlviii. 32). (3) The First Gate is mentioned, 
 
 8. Some of the earlier pilgrims, probably from Ezek. 
 xlviii. 32, place the Gate of Benjamin on the east side 
 of Jerusalem. (Theodosius, i. ; Arculfus, i.-1.) 
 
 BIBLE DICT.—VOL. I. 
 
 JERUSALEM 1649 
 
 apparently in order, between the Gate of 
 Benjamin and the Corner Gate (Zech. xiv. 10), 
 and is perhaps the same as (4) the Middle Gate, 
 in which the princes of Babylon sat after the 
 capture of Jerusalem (Jer, xxxix. 3), and as 
 the Old Gate (Neh. iii. 6). In this case the 
 First Gate would be at the north end of the 
 street running up the Tyropoeon Valley. 
 (5) The Fish Gate (2 Ch. xxxiii. 14), which 
 occupied a prominent position (Zeph. i. 10), 
 was between the Tower of Hananeel and the 
 Old Gate (Neh. iii. 1-6, xii. 39); and if the 
 position assigned to the Tower of Hananeel, at 
 the N.W. corner of the Haram, be correct, it 
 must have been the gate through which the 
 direct road from the eastern hill to the north, 
 now Tarik bab ez-Zahire, passed. It was per» 
 haps so called from its vicinity to the fish market, 
 where the Tyrian merchants sold their fish 
 (Neh. xiii. 16); Jerome (Quaest. Heb.) identi- 
 fies it with the Jaffa Gate, but this is inad- 
 missible if he refers to the modern gate of that 
 name, (6) The Corner Gate (2 K. xiv. 3; 
 2 Ch. xxv. 23, xxvi. 9; Zech. xiv. 10) is 
 mentioned in connexion with the Tower of 
 Hananeel (Jer. xxxi. 38), and was possibly the 
 same as the Fish Gate. (7) The Horse Gate, by 
 which horses entered “the king’s house,’’ was 
 near the Temple (2 K. xi. 16; 2 Ch. xxiii. 15), 
 close to a corner of the east wall (Jer. xxxi. 40) 
 and to the wall of Ophel (Neh. iii. 27, 28), and 
 according to Josephus (Ant. ix. 7, § 3) it opened 
 on to the Kedron Valley. It must have been 
 near the §.E. corner of the Haram area. 
 (8) The gate between the two walls was close 
 to the king’s gardens (2 K. xxv. 4; Jer. xxxix. 
 4), and is apparently identical with the Fountain 
 Gate (Neh. iii. 15), which was near the same 
 place. (9) The Gate Harsith, which led to the 
 Valley of Hinnom (Jer, xix. 2), was perhaps 
 the later Dung Gate (Neh. iii. 14), and Gate of 
 the Essenes (Joseph. B. J. v. 4, § 2), at the end 
 of the main street running southward, over 
 the western hill, from the Gate of Ephraim. 
 (10) The Valley Gate, or Gate of the Ravine, 
 gai (2 Ch. xxvi. 9), which, from its name, must 
 have led to the Valley of Hinnom, was between 
 the Tower of the Furnaces and the Dung Gate, 
 and apparently opposite to or near the “ dragon’s 
 well” (Neh. ii. 13-15, 111. 11-13). It was 
 possibly a gate in the west wall to the south of 
 the present citadel. (11) The Gate of Joshua, 
 the governor of the city, is mentioned (2 K. 
 xxiii. 8), without any indication of position. 
 Other gates are referred to in connexion with 
 the king’s house and the Temple (2 K. xi. 6, 
 19. xv. 853-1) Ch. ix) 18) αὐὐν ΤΟ eae 
 xxiii, 5, 20; Jer. xxvi. 10, xxxvi. 10; Ezek. 
 ix, 2), but no traces of them now exist. There 
 were open spaces and bazdirs in the city (2 Ch. 
 xxxii. 6; Jer. xxxvii. 21); reservoirs, or tanks 
 supplied by conduits (p. 1591); and, in the 
 valley below Siloam, gardens kept green and 
 fresh by irrigation. 
 
 The pre-exilic Temple and its courts covered 
 a much smaller area than the Temple of Herod, 
 but the altars of both temples were erected on 
 the same spot, near the 8.W. corner of the 
 Haram (p. 1641). The position of the royal 
 palaces is uncertain. David, who at first 
 resided in the Acropolis, moved afterwards to 
 a “house of cedar” built for him by Tyrian 
 
 ΟΝ 
 
1650 JERUSALEM 
 
 workmen (2 Sam. v. 9-11; 1 Ch. xiv. 1), 
 which appears to have been in sight of, and 
 at a lower level than, the threshing-floor of 
 Araunah (2 Sam. xxiv. 16, 18; 1 K. viii. 1, 6). 
 In the time of Nehemiah the traditional house 
 of David stood on the eastern hill, not far from 
 the Temple (Neh. xii. 37); and in the same 
 quarter was the Armoury (iii. 19), which was 
 no doubt the “tower of David builded for an 
 armoury, whereon there hang a_ thousand 
 bucklers, all the shields of the mighty men” 
 (Cant. iv. 4). It is possible that the more 
 magnificent house of Solomon (1 K. vii. 1-12) 
 was an enlargement or reconstruction of David’s 
 “house of cedar,” and that it afterwards became 
 the “king's house,” or royal palace. This 
 “king’s house” was in close proximity to the 
 Temple (2 K. xi. 5, 16, 19, 20; 2 Ch. xxiii. 15, 
 20; Ezek. xliii. 7, 8), and apparently within 
 its precincts (2 K. xxiii. 11). It was connected 
 by a covered way with the outer court (2 K. 
 xvi. 8), and lay partly under the treasury 
 (Jer. xxxviii, 11), which, as at a later period 
 (John viii. 10; Joseph. Ant. xix. 6, 81; 8, J. 
 v. 5, § 2), appears to have been an adjunct of the 
 Temple. The same palace is probably alluded to 
 as the “ king’s high house ” (Neh. ili. 25), which 
 was near the wall of Ophel. There was also 
 a “winter house” (Jer. xxxvi. 22), and a 
 “house ” for the daughter of Pharaoh (p. 1598). 
 According to the Mishna (Parah, iii. 2) it was 
 the custom to bury inside the walls at the time 
 of the first Temple, 1.6. during the pre-exilic 
 period; and this accords with the statements in 
 the Bible with regard to the burial of David 
 and most. of his successors (1 K. ii. 10, xi. 
 43, xv. 24, xxii. 50, &c.). At a later date all 
 the tombs, i.e. the bones in them, excepting 
 those of the family of David, and that of 
 Huldah, appear to have been removed outside 
 the city (Tosefta Baba Bathra,i.). The position 
 of the tomb of David, which became the burial- 
 place of the kings of Judah, is uncertain. It is 
 distinetly stated to have been in the “City of 
 David” (7. ¢.), that is, on the eastern hill; and 
 this is not only confirmed by Nehemiah, who 
 mentions it (iii. 15, 16) after Siloam in a 
 description proceeding from west to east, but 
 by a curious Jewish tradition that the tombs of 
 the kings were connected by a hollow way or 
 tunnel with the Kedron Valley (quoted by 
 Dr. Chaplin, PEFQy. Stat. 1885, p. 192, note). 
 The locality seems to have been well known up 
 to the time of the destruction of Jerusalem by 
 Titus (Acts ii. 29; Joseph. Ant. xvi. 7, §1); 
 and it was apparently within the walls when 
 the city was besieged by Antiochus (Joseph. 
 Ant. vii. 15, §3; xiii. 8, §4; B. J. i. 2, §5). 
 Many suggestions have been made with regard 
 to the position of the tomb, and of these the 
 most plausible is perhaps that of M. Clermont- 
 Ganneau. He supposes that the sepulchre of 
 David was a pit-tomb of the Phoenician type,— 
 a sepulchral chamber or chambers, reached from 
 the surface by a shaft,—and that it was at the 
 southern extremity of the eastern hill, in the 
 bend made by the rock-hewn conduit between 
 the Fountain of the Virgin and the Pool of 
 Siloam. The statement of Josephus (Ant. xvi. 
 7,§1) that Herod built a monument on the 
 mouth, ἐπὶ τῷ στομίῳ, of David’s tomb seems to 
 favour the view that it was a pit-tomb; and 
 
 JERUSALEM. 
 
 Epiphanius, Theodoret, Nicolas of Damascus, and 
 the Paschal Chronicle connect the Siloam con- 
 duit with the tomb (Revue Critique, 1887). 
 Eusebius and Jerome, on what authority is not 
 stated, place the tomb of David at Bethlehem 
 (OS. p. 246, 223; p. 135, 5). [Ὁ is now shown, 
 outside the Sion Gate, on the western hill of 
 Jerusalem. 
 
 9. Zion—One of the most difficult points 
 connected with the topography of ancient Jeru- 
 salem is the correct fixation of the locality of 
 the sacred Mount of Zion, Unfortunately the 
 name Zion is not found in the works of Josephus, 
 so that we have not his assistance, which would 
 be invaluable in this case, and there is no 
 passage in the Bible which directly asserts 
 the identity of the hills Moriah and Zion, 
 though many that cannot well be understood 
 without this assumption. The cumulative 
 proof, however, is such as almost to supply 
 this want. 
 
 From the passages in 2 Sam. v. 7, 9, 1 Καὶ. 
 viii. 1, 1 Ch. xi. 5, 7, and 2 Ch. v. 2, it is quite 
 clear that Zion and the City of David were 
 identical, for it is there said, “ David took the 
 strong hold of Zion; the same is the City of 
 David” (R. V.); “and David dwelt in the 
 strong hold, and called it the City of David” 
 (R. V.). When David moved from the strong- 
 hold to the palace of cedar which the Tyrian 
 craftsmen built for him, the names Zion and 
 City of David were no doubt, as in the parallel 
 case of the Macedonian Acra, applied both to 
 the Acropolis and to the town beneath its walls. 
 Mount Zion originally, and in a narrow sense, 
 was the hill upon which Zion, the City of David, 
 was built; and, as the Temple apparently stood 
 above the City of David (2 Sam. xxiv. 18; 
 1K. viii. 1, 4; 2 Ch. v. 2), it follows that 
 Mount Zion must haye been the lower or 
 eastern, and not the higher or western hill of 
 Jerusalem. The name Zion is, it is true, often 
 applied to the whole of the city (Ps. liii. 6, 
 exxvi. 1, cxlvi. 10; Is. i. 27, σῖν: 99. δεῦπν 
 4), and is sometimes a mere reduplication of 
 Jerusalem ; but, as a rule, a distinction is made 
 between the two places. In the following pas- 
 sages, for instance, Zion is apparently spoken of 
 as a different city, or quarter, from Jerusalem: 
 “For out of Jerusalem shall go forth a rem- 
 nant, and they that escape out of Mount Zion” 
 (2 K. xix. 81). “Do good in thy good pleasure 
 unto Zion; build thou the walls of Jerusalem ” 
 (Ps. li. 18). “For the people shall dwell in Zion 
 at Jerusalem ” (Is. xxx. 19). “Thy holy cities 
 are a wilderness, Zion is a wilderness, Jerusalem 
 a desolation” (Is. lxiv. 10). Zion shall be 
 plowed like a field, and Jerusalem shall become 
 heaps” (Jer. xxvi. 18; Mic. iii. 12). “The 
 Lord shall roar out of Zion, and utter His voice 
 from Jerusalem ” (Joel iii. 16; Amosi.2). “The 
 Lord shall get comfort in Zion, and shall yet 
 choose Jerusalem ” (Zech. i. 17). This quality 
 of designation indicates precisely the twofold 
 character of the city,—the Acropolis (Zion) with 
 the houses and palaces (Ps. xlviii. 3) clustering 
 round it,—the “lower city” of Josephus,—on 
 
 Ὁ See also 1 K. viii. 1; 2 K. xix. 21; Ps, exxviii. 5, 
 exlvii. 12; Is. ii. 3, xxiv. 23, xxxi. 4, 5, XXxvii. 32, 
 lii. 1; Mic. iv. 2, xxiv. 10,11; and after the Captivity, 
 Ecclus. xxxvi. 13, 14. 
 
JERUSALEM 
 
 JERUSALEM 1651 
 
 the eastern hill; and the town itself (Jera- {the writers of the books of Maccabees, Esdras, 
 
 salem)—the “ upper city ” of the same author— 
 on the western hill. There are also numerous 
 passages in which Zion is spoken of as a Holy 
 place in such terms as are never applied to 
 Jerusalem, and which can only be understood on 
 the supposition that they apply to the Holy 
 Temple Mount. As, for instance, “ I set my king 
 on my holy hill of Zion” (Ps. ii. 6), “The Lord 
 loveth the gates of Zion more than all the dwell- 
 ings of Jacob” (Ps. lxxxvii. 2). “The Lord has 
 chosen Zion ” (Ps. exxxii. 13). “The city of the 
 Lord, the Zion of the Holy One of Israel ” (Is. 
 Ix. 14). ‘Arise ye, and let us go up, to Zion to 
 the Lord” (Jer. xxxi. 6). “Thus saith the Lord, 
 [am returned to Zion” (Zech. viii. 3). “I am 
 the Lord thy God, dwelling in Zion, my holy 
 mountain” (Joel ili, 17). ‘For the Lord 
 dwelleth in Zion” (Joel iii. 21); and other 
 passages® which will occur to every one at all 
 familiar with the Scriptures. Though these 
 cannot be taken as absolute proof, they certainly 
 amount to strong presumptive evidence that 
 Zion and the Temple hill were one and the same 
 place. There is one curious passage, however, 
 which is scarcely intelligible on any other hypo- 
 thesis than this. It is known that the sepul- 
 chres of David and his successors were on 
 Mount Zion, or in the City of David, but the 
 wicked king Ahaz for his crimes was buried in 
 Jerusalem, “in the city,” and “not in the 
 sepulchres of the kings” (2 Ch. xxviii. 27). 
 Jehoram (2 Ch. xxi. 20) narrowly escaped the 
 same punishment, and the distinction is so 
 marked that it cannot. be overlooked. It also 
 follows from Neh. iii. 15, 16, that the name 
 Zion was applied to the eastern hill. 
 
 When from the Old Testament we turn to 
 the books of the Maccabees, we find passages, 
 written by persons who certainly were ac- 
 quainted with the localities, which seem to fix 
 the site of Zion with a considerable amount of 
 certainty; as, for instance, “(They) went up 
 into Mount Zion. And when they saw the 
 sanctuary desolate, and the altar profaned, and 
 the gates burned up, and shrubs growing in the 
 courts as in a forest” (1 Mace. iv. 37, 38; 
 cp. v. 60). “After this went Nicanor up to 
 Mount Zion, and there came out of the sanc- 
 tuary certain of the priests” (1 Mace. vii. 33; 
 ep. 2 Mace. xiv. 31). “They went up to Mount 
 Zion with joy and gladness, where they offered 
 burnt * offerings” (1 Macc. v. 54). See also 
 1 Mace. vi. 48, 51, xiv. 27; cp. v. 48, &. These 
 
 passages leave no doubt that at that time 
 
 ) 
 
 j 
 
 , 
 
 Zion and the Temple Hill were considered one 
 and the same place. In agreement with this 
 are also the references in Ecclus. xxiv. 10; 
 1 Esd. viii. 81; 2 Esd. v. 25; Judith ix. 13. 
 Josephus, it is true, places the “City of David” 
 and the citadel stormed by Joab on the western 
 hill, and clearly identifies them with the “ Upper 
 City ” (Ant. vii. 3, §§ 1, 23 cp. B. J. v. 4, § 1); 
 but the statements of the Jewish historian cannot 
 be regarded as equal in authority to those of 
 
 © Ps. ix. 11, 1. 2, Ixxiv. 2, 3, Ixxvi. 2, lxxviii. 68, 
 69, ixxxiv. 7, xcix. 2, cxxxiv. 3; Is. viii. 18, xviii. 7; 
 
 : Jer. viii. 19, 1. 28; Obad. v. 17. It should be re- 
 _ membered, with reference to the expressions in some of 
 
 the Psalms, that the Ark was in the City of David, on 
 Mount Zion, for many years during David’s reign. 
 
 4 
 
 and Ecclesiasticus. 
 
 The question whether the stronghold of Zion 
 was to the north or to the south of the Temple 
 cannot be solved with our present knowledge. 
 Lightfoot (Op. i. 553; ii. 187) is in favour of 
 the former, and refers to the words, “ Beautiful 
 for situation, the joy of the whole earth, is Mount 
 Zion, on the sides of the north, the city of the 
 great king” (Ps. xlviii. 2), and also to Is. xiv. 13 
 and Ezek. xl. 2. Reland (Pal. p. 846 sq.) con- 
 troverts this view, and argues in favour of the 
 identification of Zion with the “ Upper City ” of 
 Josephus. The more probable view seems to be 
 that the author of the First Book of Maccabees 
 was right in identifying Zion with the Temple 
 Mount and its stronghold with the Acra (i, 31- 
 33, 36; iii. 453 vii. 32). 
 
 During the first four centuries after Christ 
 the name Zion was applied sometimes to the 
 eastern and sometimes to the western hill. 
 From the 5th century inclusive the latter only 
 has been known as Zion. The Rabbis with one 
 accord place the Temple on Mount Zion; and 
 though their authority in matters of doctrine 
 may be valueless, still their traditions ought to 
 have been sufliciently distinct to justify their 
 being considered as authorities on a merely 
 topographical point of this sort. Lightfoot 
 (Fall of Jerusalem, § 1) quotes from the Talmud: 
 “The wicked Turnus Rufus ploughed up the 
 place of the Temple, and the places about it, to 
 accomplish what is said, Zion shall become a 
 ploughed field.” Origen (in Joan. iv. 19, 20) 
 clearly identifies Zion with the Temple Mount, 
 and so do Eusebius (in Js. xxii. 1) and apparently 
 Jerome (in Js. xxii. 1, 2). On the other hand, 
 Eusebius and Jerome in the Onomasticon (OS? 
 p- 257, 21; p. 162, 25; p. 134, 20) and in other 
 places refer to the western hill as Zion, and so 
 does the Bordeaux Pilgrim (/tin. Hieros.). 
 
 It has been suggested that the name Zion was 
 originally applied to the western hill, that after 
 the return from Captivity it was transferred to 
 the eastern hill, and that in the 4th century 
 A.D. it was retransferred to the western hill; 
 but this theory is quite untenable. A more 
 probable view is that the eastern hill was 
 regarded as Zion until Christianity became the 
 religion of the State, and that, when Constan- 
 tine built “* New Jerusalem ” (1.96. the Church of 
 the Anastasis, and the Basilica) over against the 
 one celebrated of old (i.e. the Jewish Temple), the 
 name Zion was transferred to the western hill. 
 It may be added that, the Antonia having been 
 completely demolished, the great towers attached 
 to Herod’s palace, which were left standing 
 by Titus, would naturally become in the eyes 
 of an uncritical age the ancient Acropolis of 
 Jerusalem,—the stronghold of Zion. 
 
 10. Topography of the Book of Nehemiah.— 
 The only description of the ancient city of Jeru- 
 salem which exists in the Bible, so extensive in 
 form as to enable us to follow it as a topo- 
 graphical description, is that found in the Book of 
 Nehemiah ; and although it is hardly sufficiently 
 distinct to enable us to settle all the moot 
 points, it contains such valuable indications 
 that it is well worthy of the most attentive 
 examination. 
 
 The easiest way to arrive at any correct 
 conclusion regarding it, is to take first the 
 
 5 N 2 
 
1652 JERUSALEM 
 
 description of the Dedication of the Walls in 
 ch. xii. (31-40), and, drawing such a diagram as 
 this, we easily get at the main features of the 
 old wall at least. 
 
 FISH GATE 
 
 TOWERNOF HANANEEL 
 
 GATE OF/EPHRAIM TTOWER\OF MEAH 
 
 SHEEP\ GATE 
 
 BROAD Ὲ PRISON GATE 
 
 Ε TOWER OF FURNACES 
 
 DUNG GATE 
 
 Diagram of places mentioned in dedication of walls, 
 
 The order of procession was that the princes 
 of Judah went up upon the wall at some point 
 as nearly as possible opposite to the Temple, 
 and one half of them, turning to the right, 
 went towards the Dung Gate, “and at the 
 fountain gate, which was over against them” 
 (“by the fountain gate, and straight before 
 them,” R. V.), or, in other words, on the opposite 
 or Temple side of the city, “went up by the 
 stairs of the city of David at the going up of 
 the wall, above the house of David, even unto 
 the water-gate eastward.” The Water Gate, 
 therefore, was one of the southern gates of the 
 Temple (iii. 26; viii. 1, 3, 16), and the stairs 
 that led up towards it are here identified with 
 those of the city of David, and consequently 
 with Zion. ‘ 
 
 The other party turned to the left, or north- 
 wards, and passed from beyond (“ above,” R. V.) 
 the Tower of the Furnaces even “ unto the broad 
 wall,” and passing the Gate of Ephraim, the Old 
 Gate, the Fish Gate, the towers of Hananeel and 
 Meah, to the Sheep Gate, “stood still in the 
 prison-gate ” (“gate of the guard,” R. V.), as 
 the other party had in the Water Gate. ‘So 
 stood the two companies of them that gave 
 thanks in the house of God.” 
 
 If from this we turn to the 3rd chapter, 
 which gives a description of the repairs of the 
 wall, we have no difficulty in identifying all 
 the places mentioned in the first sixteen verses 
 with those enumerated in the 12th chapter. 
 The repairs began at the Sheep Gate on the 
 north side, and in immediate proximity to the 
 Temple, and all the places named in the dedica- 
 tion, excepting the Gate of Ephraim, are again 
 named, but in the reverse order, till we come to 
 the Tower of the Furnaces, which must have 
 stood on or near the site afterwards occupied 
 by the Tower Hippicus (p. 1644). Mention is 
 then made, but now in the direct order of the 
 dedication, of “the valley-gate,” the “dung- 
 gate,” “the fountain-gate;” and lastly, the 
 “stairs that go down from the city of David.” 
 Between these last two places we find mention 
 made of the Pool of Siloah and the king’s garden, 
 
 JERUSALEM 
 
 so that we have long passed the so-called 
 sepulchre of David on the modern Zion, and 
 have crossed the valley that separates it from 
 the hill upon which the Temple stood. What 
 follows is most important (v. 16), “After him 
 repaired Nehemiah, the son of Azbuk, the ruler 
 of the half part of Bethzur, unto the place over 
 against the sepulchres of David, and to the 
 pool that was made, and unto the house of the 
 mighty.” This passage, when taken with the 
 context, seems in itself quite sufficient to set at 
 rest the question of the position of the city of 
 David, of the sepulchres of the kings, and con- 
 sequently of Zion, all which could not be men- 
 tioned after Siloah if placed where modern 
 tradition has located them, 
 
 In the enumeration of the places repaired, in 
 the last part of the chapter, we have two 
 which we know, from the description of the 
 dedication, really belonged to the Temple. The 
 prison-court (‘court of the guard,” R. V., iii. 
 25), which must have been connected with the 
 prison-gate (“gate of the guard,” R. V.), and 
 which, as shown by the order of the dedication, 
 must have been on the north side of the Temple, 
 is here also connected with the king’s high or 
 upper house; all this apparently referring to the 
 Castle of David, which originally occupied the 
 site of the Turris Antonia. We have on the 
 opposite side the ‘‘ water-gate,” mentioned in 
 the next verse to Ophel, and consequently as 
 clearly identified with-the southern gate of the 
 Temple. We have also the Horse Gate, that by 
 which Athaliah was taken out of the Temple 
 (2 K. xi. 16; 2 Ch. xxiii. 15), which Josephus 
 states led to the Kedron (Ant. ix. 7, § 3), and 
 which is here mentioned as connected with the 
 priests’ houses, and probably, therefore, in close 
 proximity to the Temple. Mention is also made 
 of the house of Eliashib, the high-priest, and of 
 the eastern gate, probably that of the Temple. 
 In fact, no place is mentioned in these last 
 verses which cannot be more or less directly 
 identified with the localities on the Temple 
 hill, and not one which can be located in Jeru- 
 salem, on the western hill. The whole of the 
 City of David, however, was so completely 
 rebuilt and remodelled by Herod, that there are 
 no local indications to assist us in ascertaining 
 the line which the order of description of the 
 places mentioned after v. 16 follows. It is 
 enough to know that the description in the 
 last seventeen verses applies to Zion, or the City 
 of David; as this is sufficient to explain almost 
 all the difficult passages in the Old Testament 
 which refer to the ancient topography of the city. 
 
 11. Site of the Holy Sepulchre—tThree im- 
 portant questions have to be considered in con- 
 nexion with the site of the Holy Sepulchre. 
 First, did Constantine, and those who acted 
 with him, possess sufficient information to enable 
 them to ascertain exactly the precise localities 
 of the Crucifixion and Burial of Christ ? Second, 
 does the present Church of the Holy Sepulchre 
 stand upon the ground once occupied by the 
 Churches of Constantine? Third, where should 
 the site of Christ’s tomb be sought ὃ 
 
 Eusebius, who was present at the consecration 
 of Constantine’s churches, A.D. 335, states that, 
 in order to hide the “ Divine cave” from the 
 eyes of men, and so conceal the truth, certain 
 
 | ungodly and impious persons had covered up the 
 
JERUSALEM 
 
 whole place with earth, paved it with stone, 
 and erected above it a temple dedicated to 
 Aphrodite. Constantine, “inspired by the 
 Divine Spirit,” ordered the temple to be de- 
 stroyed, and the soil to be dug up to a consider- 
 able depth. When this was done, the cave, “ con- 
 trary to all expectation,” became visible. This 
 discovery the emperor regarded as a miracle 
 which it was beyond the capacity of man to 
 understand (Vit. Const. iii. 25-28). Elsewhere 
 Eusebius writes (Zheophania, Lee’s Translation, 
 p- 199): “It is astonishing to see even the rock 
 standing out erect and alone on a level land, 
 and having only one cave in it ; lest, had there 
 been many, the miracle of Him who overcame 
 death might have been obscured.” No other 
 writer in the 4th century alludes to the cir- 
 cumstances attending the recovery of the Holy 
 Sepulchre, but all the historians of the following 
 century describe the discovery of the Tomb and 
 the Cross as having been miraculous, and the 
 act of the Empress Helena. The erection of 
 the temple of Aphrodite is at the same time 
 generally ascribed to the enemies of Christianity 
 πο Ἢ -H,01. 17: Theod. 2. Ε΄, i. 18: Soz. 
 Hf, E. ii. 1). 
 
 With regard to the “Invention of the 
 Cross” which is so intimately connected with 
 the discovery of the Tomb by historians of the 
 5th and succeeding centuries, Eusebius, who 
 mentions (Orat. de Laud. Const. ix.) that the 
 Basilica was dedicated to the Cross, and the 
 Bordeaux Pilgrim, who visited Jerusalem in 
 A.D. 333, are silent. Yet twenty years later 
 Cyril speaks of its existence as a well-known 
 fact, and before the close of the century it 
 played an important part in the ritual of the 
 Church at Jerusalem? (S. Silviae Ag. Per. ad 
 L. S., pp. 66, 67). 
 
 It has been urged (Chateaubriand, Jtin. 2° 
 Mém., i. p. 122 sq.) that the members of the 
 first Christian Church must have been well 
 acquainted with the site of the Holy Sepulchre, 
 and that, as there was a regular succession of 
 bishops from the Apostle James to Hadrian’s 
 reign, the tradition could not have been lost. 
 Also that the erection of a temple by Hadrian 
 on the site is a proof that it was well known 
 in his time. That the early Christians knew 
 the position of the tomb is true, but there is no 
 evidence in the N. T., or in the history of the 
 primitive Church, that they attached the slight- 
 est importance to it. The regular succession of 
 bishops from James to Hadrian’s time rests on 
 the authority of Eusebius, who states (H. £. 
 iv. 5) that he wrote from report, and not from 
 documentary evidence. Jerome, it is true, 
 hints (Zp. 49, ad Paul.) that the temple 
 was one of the many buildings with which 
 Hadrian adorned Aelia; but there is no cer- 
 tainty that he built it, that he did so at the 
 place known as Golgotha in his day, or that 
 he intentionally erected a temple above the 
 tomb of Christ. As Dean Stanley well says 
 (S. and P. p. 458), “It is hardly conceivable that 
 
 ἃ Tt appears that special precautions had to be taken 
 to prevent pilgrims biting pieces out of the cross when 
 kissing it on Good Friday (8. Sil. 1. c.). 
 
 e The arguments for and against the existence of any 
 tradition respecting the site of the Tomb are given by 
 Robinson (ii. 70 sq.). 
 
 JERUSALEM 1653 
 
 Hadrian could have had any motive in such a 
 purpose, when his whole object in establishing 
 his new city of Aelia was to insult, not the 
 Christians, but the Jews, from whom, in Pales- 
 tine at that time, the Christians were em- 
 phatically divided.” 
 
 It has been suggested (Finlay, On the Site of 
 the Holy Sepulchre) that, as the Romans made 
 accurate maps and plans of the principal locali- 
 ties in their conquered proyinces, Constantine 
 could have had no difficulty in ascertaining the 
 exact position of Golgotha. To this it may be 
 objected that, unless Golgotha were the public 
 place of execution, the spot at which three men 
 were crucified would not have been of sufficient 
 importance to be shown on a map; and that 
 if the finders of the Tomb had been guided by 
 a map, they would not have spoken of its dis- 
 covery as miraculous. Possibly a tradition may 
 have lingered as to the general direction, but 
 that the exact spot was unknown seems to 
 follow from the silence of Eusebius with regard 
 to the place of Christ’s burial in his earlier 
 writings.’ 
 
 The view (Conder, PHFQy. Stat., 1883, 
 p. 69 sq.) that the cave beneath the temple 
 of Aphrodite was a natural cavern,® connected 
 with the mysteries of Venus, which was adopted 
 by Macarius as the Sepulchre of Christ, and re- 
 consecrated as a Christian Holy Place, derives 
 some support from the statement of Jerome 
 that from the time of Hadrian onwards Adonis 
 had been worshippea in the Grotto at Bethlehem 
 (Zp. xlix. ad Paulin.), and from the manner in 
 which the “ three holy caves ” are alluded to by 
 Eusebius (de Laud. Const. ix.). On the other 
 hand, if there had been any doubt as to the 
 authenticity of the site, Julian would probably 
 have brought it forward as an instance of 
 Christian duplicity. It is only natural to sup- 
 pose that those who discovered the Tomb of 
 Christ made every effort to ascertain the true 
 site; yet it is difficult to resist the conclusion 
 that they were guided by no definite tradition 
 and by no trustworthy historical evidence. 
 
 The identity of the traditional Holy Sepulchre 
 with the cave discovered by Constantine may be 
 regarded as certain. Eusebius and Jerome (OS.? 
 p. 257, 22; p. 162, 25) place Golgotha to the north 
 of Mount Zion, evidently the western hill; the 
 Bordeaux Pilgrim passing from Zion, along the 
 main street of the ancient city, to the “ Gate of 
 Neapolis,” at or near the Damascus Gate, had 
 Golgotha on his left hand and the Praetorium 
 on his right (Jtin. Hieros.): and 5. Paula, after 
 leaving the Sepulchre, ascends Zion (Zp. Paul. 
 
 f Eusebius, writing ten or more years before the jour- 
 ney of Helena, refers to pilgrimages to the cave on the 
 Mount of Olives in which Christ taught His disciples, 
 and mentions the cave of the Nativity at Bethlehem 
 (Demonst. Ev. vi. 18, p. 288; vii. 2, p. 343); and it is 
 difficult to believe that he would not have alluded to the 
 Tomb if its site had been known. 
 
 & Itis to be observed that Eusebius always speaks of 
 the sepulchre as τὸ ἄντρον, which usually implies a 
 natural cavern, rather than an excavated tomb (Vit. 
 Const. iii. 25-33) ; and that he uses the same word when 
 writing of the grotto of the Nativity at Bethlehem, and 
 the cave of the Apostles on the Mount of Olives (iii. 43 ; 
 Orat. de Laud. Const. ix.). The word used in the N. T. 
 is generally μνημεῖον. Matt. xxvii. 61, xxviii. 1, has 
 alsv τάφος 
 
1654 JERUSALEM 
 
 vii.). Eucherius, c. A.D. 530 (§§ 1-5), distinctly 
 places Golgotha to the north of modern Zion, 
 and no other position is assigned to it by subse- 
 quent writers. 
 
 The Tomb was richly decorated by Constan- 
 tine, who, in A.D. 326-335, erected over and 
 near it two great churches: one, the Anastasis 
 or Church of the Resurrection, contained the 
 Sepulchre ; the other, the Basilica or Martyrium, 
 was dedicated to the Cross. There was also a 
 smaller church of Golgotha or Calvary, which, 
 though not mentioned by Eusebius, must have 
 been built at the same time or soon afterwards. 
 The Basilica stood in an open court with cloisters 
 on three sides, and to the east of it were an 
 atrium, with ewedrac, and a porch. These 
 buildings remained intact until 614, when they 
 are said to have been destroyed or greatly 
 injured by the Persians. They are described by 
 Eusebius (Vit. Const. iii. 25-42), who was pre- 
 sent at their dedication, and they were seen, 
 whilst in a perfect state, by several pilgrims 
 who have left records, more or less full, of what 
 they saw (Itin. Hieros.; 5. Silviae Ag. Per.; 
 Jerome, Per. S. Paulae ; Eucherius, De Loc. Sanct. 
 i-vili.; Brev. de Hieros.; Theodosius, De Sit. 
 T. 8. §3 1-14; Antoninus, De Loc. Sanct. xvi— 
 xxvii.). After the Persian invasion and before 
 the capture of the city by the Arabs, 4.D. 637, 
 the churches were repaired or rebuilt by Mo- 
 destus, and in this state they were seen by Ar- 
 culfus, c. 670-80, who, besides giving a detailed 
 description of the buildings, is the first pilgrim 
 to furnish a plan (De Loc. Sanct. i. 2-13); by 
 Willibald (Hodoep.) ; and by Bernard (/tin.). 
 
 It is clear from a careful comparison of these 
 ancient records, and especially of the plan of 
 Arculfus, with the present Church of the Holy 
 Sepulchre and its adjuncts, that many traces of 
 the original churches remain. The relative 
 position of the churches is the same; the cir- 
 cular Church of the Anastasis has preserved its 
 form; the south wall of the Basilica can be 
 traced from “Calvary ” eastward; portions of 
 the paved court have been brought to light; and 
 one of the large cisterns constructed by Con- 
 stantine has been discovered. The original 
 surface of the ground inclined to the S.E., and a 
 level platform was obtained by cutting away the 
 rock at the western end to a depth of about 
 30 ft. below the level of Christian Street. At 
 the same time the rock masses of the Tomb 
 and “ Calvary ” were isolated so as to stand out 
 prominently above the general level. This ex- 
 plains the remark of Dositheus (ii. 1, $ 7), that 
 on account of the hill there was only the wall 
 of the enclosure on the west side of the Sepulchre; 
 and it is probable that the isolation of the rock 
 at “Calvary” gave rise to the term “ Mount” 
 (Monticulus) Calvary. The existence of two 
 rock-hewn tombs, one to the west, the other 
 to the north-east of the Holy Sepulchre, shows 
 that this locality was used by the Jews as a 
 place of burial, and that the Sepulchre may 
 well have formed part of an ancient tomb. 
 Cyril expressly states (Cat. xiv. 9) that the 
 outer cave was cut away to facilitate the decora- 
 tion of the Tomb itself, and there would have 
 been no difficulty in doing this (Willis, Holy 
 Sepulchre ; Wilson, PEF Qy. Stat., 1877, p. 130 
 sq.), though it is somewhat surprising that 
 Eusebius does not mention an excavation of such 
 
 JERUSALEM 
 
 magnitude. Many attempts have been made 
 to restore the plan upon which Constantine’s 
 
 oe Ye, 
 
 “o 
 
 Caan 
 
 ment pe eed lees 
 
 ws 
 >> δ: 
 
 Ss 
 SS 
 
 ΓΑ 
 coe 
 
 mea ae jie 
 τ΄, ἯΙ. 
 
 | hae 
 
 | OF THE 
 | CROSS 
 
 PORCH 
 
 BS B B 8 
 MARKET PLAGE 
 Plan of Constantine's Churches. 
 
 churches were originally built, and very different 
 views have been advanced on the subject ;5 but 
 no successful restoration can be made until the 
 ground round the existing church has been 
 examined by excavation. 
 
 The view that the Church of the Holy Sepul- 
 chre stands upon the site once occupied by Con- 
 stantine’s churches was contested by the late 
 Mr. James Fergusson, who maintained, chiefly 
 upon architectural grounds, that the original 
 churches were situated within the Haram area, 
 that the ‘‘ Dome of the Rock ” was the Church of 
 the Resurrection, and that there was a transfer- 
 ence of site during the first half of the 11th 
 century (Essay, p. 154; D. of B. 1st ed. 5. v. 
 Jerusalem, Sect. x.; Temples of the Jews, p. 258 
 sq.) This theory, which from its novelty and 
 from the heat imparted to the controversy by 
 its originator and his opponents attracted much 
 attention at the time, was not very favourably 
 received, and the fuller information of the 
 present day shows it to be quite untenable. 
 
 The history of the churches since their re- 
 storation by Modestus may be briefly told. About 
 A.D. 1010 the Church of the Sepulchre was 
 razed to its foundations (usque ad solum diruta, 
 W. of Tyre, Hist. i. 4), and an attempt made to 
 
 h The plan in the text is an attempt to reconcile the 
 various descriptions with the existing remains. A good 
 summary of the subject will be found in Hayter Lewis’ 
 Churches of Constantine at Jerusalem, P. P. Text 
 Society Series ; and Hayter Lewis’ Holy Places at Jeru- 
 salem. 
 
JERUSALEM. 
 
 Scale—Three inches to a mile. Prate III. 
 ΔΝ OU ee SS 77 - " 
 37 4 7, Hh Vy, 7 Soggy Ay ) Ν SS 
 AAI NK YACHT "Wy Ι ZF 
 Νὰ ΖΞ Up» 
 AKIN i | 2 
 
 :15.: 
 γ2:.----2-- 
 A 
 ——— 
 
 “Ξ-.-. 5. 
 
 δὰ \ \ 
 δ Νὰ ἽΝ 
 i) WRN t} 
 
 δὰ ὴ Ὶ 
 δ 
 
 SSS ——— 
 
 — 
 
 SS = SS δὰ 
 SEEN \“\ WAS 
 =~ ΝΞ 
 
 ee 
 = 
 
 i 
 
 ia 
 Wily 
 Nis Lip pre 
 
 UY Lge 
 Wifey iy ree = 
 ΖΖΞΞΟΣΞΡ 
 --ΞΞ: a 
 — ....-. en = 
 SS ἘΞΞ 
 
 = 
 
 “5:1 =. 
 
 ETH 
 
 lan 
 
 ANY, Ξ 
 \ ‘ ᾿Ξ 
 a vo 
 
 Topography of the Bible. To face p. 1654. 
 
 — 
 
ws 
 
 JERUSALEM 
 
 destroy the Tomb itself by order of the Fatimite 
 Khalif el-Hakim. The restoration of the churches 
 was completed in A.D. 1048, and a few years 
 after the capture of Jerusalem by the Crusaders 
 the buildings were seen and described by Saewulf 
 (P. P. Text Soc. Series) and Abbot Daniel (the 
 same series). During the Latin occupation of 
 the city the church was reconstructed so as to 
 bring all the Holy Places under one roof; and 
 this building, of which there are many detailed 
 descriptions, existed until it was partially de- 
 stroyed by fire in 1808.1 The restoration of 
 the church in its present form was completed 
 in 1810. 
 
 The determination of the true sites of Golgotha 
 and the Tomb of Christ must rest chiefly on 
 topographical considerations, and unfortunately 
 the information to be obtained from the Bible on 
 this head is most meagre. We are told that Jesus 
 was led away from Gethsemane to the house of 
 the High Priest, possibly his official residence, 
 and the same as that mentioned by Josephus (2. 
 J.ii. 17, § 6); and that at daybreak next morn- 
 ing He was questioned by the Sanhedrin (Luke 
 xxii. 66), which probably sat in the ‘Council 
 House,” between the Xystus and the western 
 cloister of the Temple (2. J. v. 4, § 2), close to 
 “Wilson’s Arch.” From the council chamber 
 Jesus was taken to the Praetorium, and brought 
 before Pilate (John xviii. 28, 29), who, after 
 judgment, delivered Him to the Roman soldiers 
 to be crucified. He was then led away to 
 Golgotha and crucified with two malefactors. 
 
 The Praetorium could only have been one of 
 two places,—the palace of Herod, on the western 
 hill, or the Castle of Antonia, north of the 
 Temple. The first was certainly occupied by 
 Gessius Florus, who, Josephus says, in words 
 that are almost an echo of the Gospels, “had 
 his tribunal set before it, and sat upon it, when 
 the High Priests, and the principal people, and 
 all those of the greatest eminence in the city, 
 came before his tribunal” (B. J. ii. 14, § 8). 
 How long previously the palace had been the 
 residence of the Roman Procurators is uncertain, 
 but it is scarcely probable that Pilate, whose 
 wife was with him, would have' lived with the 
 soldiers of the garrison in the Antonia, when 
 Herod’s palace, with its gardens and banqueting 
 halls, was at his disposal. On the other hand, a 
 tradition at least as old as the 4th cent. (/tin. 
 Hieros.) places the Praetorium to the east of 
 the Sepulchre; Theodosius and Antoninus in the 
 6th century mention that the Church of St. 
 Sophia occupied the site of the Praetorium, 
 apparently that on which the “Dome of the 
 Rock ” now stands; and later tradition identifies 
 it with the Antonia, which stood at the N.W. 
 angle of the Haram. A possible explanation is 
 that Jesus was in the first place taken to Herod’s 
 palace,—the Praetorium, in which Pilate resided; 
 that after judgment He was taken by the Roman 
 soldiers to the Antonia, which was at once the 
 head-quarters of the garrison and the state 
 prison; and that from thence He was led out 
 with the two thieves to be crucified. 
 
 The place of the Crucifixion was in a garden 
 (John xix. 41), without the gate (Heb. xiii. 12: 
 ep. Matt. xxvii. 32; Mark xv. 20; John xix. 
 
 Ὁ In the British Museum there is an interesting model 
 of the church made prior to the fire of 1808, 
 
 JERUSALEM 1655 
 
 17), and nigh to the city (John xix. 20), yet not 
 necessarily close to it, for the Mount of Olives 
 is said (Acts i. 12) to have been “nigh” to the 
 city, and the transference of the cross, and the 
 visits of the disciples and the women, give the 
 idea of distance. It was near a frequented 
 thoroughfare leading from one of the city gates 
 to the country (Matt. xxvii. 39; Mark xy. 21, 
 29; Luke xxiii. 26), and was visible from afar 
 off (Mark xv. 40; Luke xxiii. 49), and presum- 
 ably from the Temple, or some point of vantage 
 whence the high priests could look on without 
 the risk of ceremonial defilement (Matt. xxvii. 
 41; Mark xv. 31; cp. John xviii. 28). Possibly 
 also, as the sin offering was to be burned some 
 distance from the camp, and to the north of the 
 Altar (Lev. i. 10, 11; iv. 21: cp. Heb. xiii. 11, 
 12), Christ the Antitype suffered in the same 
 position. In the garden in which He was cruci- 
 fied was the rock-hewn tomb in which “never 
 man had yet lain” (Matt. xxvii. 60; Mark xv. 
 46; Luke xxiii. 53; John xix. 41). 
 
 In discussing the site of Golgotha, it is 
 necessary to bear in mind that, at the time of 
 the Crucifixion, the third wall, or that of Agrippa 
 (as shown on Plate Il.), had not been built ; 
 and that of the main roads entering the city, 
 the one from the north, after passing the 
 “Tombs of the Kings,” probably led by three 
 separate ways to the Antonia, to the principal 
 gate of the second wall, and to the Gate Gennath 
 and Herod’s palace. The sites that have been 
 suggested are :— 
 
 (i.) The traditional spot is now well within 
 the city, and has not yet been proved to have 
 been without the walls at the time of the Cruci- 
 fixion. Nothing is yet certainly known of the 
 course of the second wall; and the question 
 whether it ran so as just to exclude or just to 
 include the present site, can only be solved by 
 excavation. The discoverers of the Sepulchre 
 apparently believed that it was outside the 
 walls, and that it was brought within their 
 limits by Hadrian when he rebuilt the city. 
 Amongst the arguments in favour of the site are 
 the early tradition, the existence of rock-hewn 
 tombs in the immediate vicinity, and the easy 
 access, through the Gate Gennath, from Herod’s 
 palace, supposing that building to have been the 
 Praetorium and the starting-point of the way to 
 Golgotha. On the other hand, the tradition is 
 not wholly reliable, the presence of tombs does 
 not necessarily imply that the spot was outside 
 the wall, and the position is west rather than 
 north of the Haram esh-Sherif, in which the 
 Temple stood. 
 
 (ii.) The site in the Haram advocated by 
 Mr. Fergusson is too close to the position he 
 assigned to the Temple, and it was apparently 
 within the wall of Herod. The historical 
 evidence is decisive against it, and there is no 
 evidence that the cave beneath the Sakhrah was 
 ever used as a place of burial. 
 
 (iii.) M. Renan (Vie de Jésus, p. 269) considers 
 that the site of the Crucifixion must have been 
 to the north or north-west of the city, on the 
 plateau between the Kedron and the Hinnom 
 valleys ; and he is inclined to place it near the 
 N.W. angle of the present wall, or on the hill 
 side above the Birket Mamillia. This position, 
 suitable in many respects, is too far to the west 
 to meet the requirements of Ley. i. 10, 11. 
 
1656 JERUSALEM 
 
 (iv.) The proximity of the knoll above “ Jere- 
 miah’s Grotto” to the great road from the 
 north, its prominence, and its northerly position 
 with regard to the Temple led Otto Thenius, as 
 early as 1849, to identify it with Golgotha; and 
 this view has since been strongly advocated by 
 Felix Howe (1871), the late General Gordon, 
 Major Conder, and other English and American 
 writers. The principal argument in its favour, 
 
 in addition to those just mentioned, is that | 
 
 according to modern Jewish tradition it is the 
 place of execution by stoning, called in the 
 Talmud the Beth has-Sekilah, or ‘‘ House of 
 Stoning.” The existence of a cliff, the legends 
 connected with the valley to the east, and the 
 very early belief that St. Stephen suffered 
 
 martyrdom outside the Damascus Gate, support | 
 
 the view that this spot was the “House of 
 
 Stoning ;” and if Christ had been condemned | 
 
 by the Sanhedrin for an offence against the reli- 
 gious law, He would probably have suffered death 
 here. It must, however, be remembered that 
 He was condemned by Pilate and crucified by 
 Roman soldiers ; and there is not the least evi- 
 dence that the Roman place of crucifixion and the 
 Jewish “ House of Stoning” were identical. The 
 contrary seems the more reasonable supposition. 
 The Roman custom was to carry out executions 
 beside a public highway, and the soldiers would 
 scarcely have selected a place of execution so 
 peculiarly Jewish. It is hardly probable either 
 that the garden of Joseph of Arimathea in- 
 cluded the “‘ House of Stoning,” or that Joseph 
 would have made a new tomb in such close 
 proximity to the common Jewish place of exe- 
 cution. 
 
 (v.) There are now no means of ascertaining 
 the true site of the Crucifixion, but it may well 
 be that Christ, having been brought - from 
 Herod’s palace to the Antonia, was led out, with 
 the two thieves, along that branch of the north 
 road which kept to the eastern hill without de- 
 scending into the Tyropoeon valley. The line 
 of this road is clearly marked, within and with- 
 out the city, and somewhere close to it the 
 
 Interior of Golden Gateway. (From a photograph.) 
 
 JERUSALEM 
 
 third wall. Perhaps the view which best meets 
 all the requirements of the case is that which 
 was held by the late Bishop Gobat of Jerusalem, 
 who maintained that Christ suffered directly 
 to the north of the Temple, on the hill or spur 
 to the east of Jeremiah’s Grotto. 
 
 12. Buildings: Constantine to Godfrey.—The 
 attempt of Julian, “the Apostate,” to rebuild 
 the Temple of the Jews was commenced about 
 six months before his death; and according to 
 
 = a 
 
 Frontispiece of Julian in south wall of Haram, 
 
 Mr. Fergusson, traces of his work may still be 
 seen in the south wall of the Haram. “The 
 great tunnel-like vault under the Mosque el- 
 Aksa, with its four-domed vestibule, is almost 
 certainly part of the temple of Herod [see 
 TEMPLE], and coeval with his period; but 
 externally to this, certain architectural deco- 
 rations have been added (see above), and 
 that so slightly, that daylight can be perceived 
 between the old walls and the subsequent deco- 
 rations, except at the points of attachment.” 
 From their classical forms these adjuncts cannot 
 be so late as the time of Justinian; and they 
 may with very tolerable certainty be ascribed to 
 the age of Julian. Above them an inscription 
 bearing the name of Hadrian has been inserted in 
 the wall, but turned upside down; and the 
 whole of the masonry being of an intermediate 
 character between that which we know to be 
 ancient, and that which we easily recognise 
 as the work of the Muhammadans, there can 
 be little doubt but that it belongs to this 
 
 three crosses were possibly erected. The hill of | period. 
 
 Bezetha, forming as it does a prolongation of 
 the ridge of Mount Moriah, would appear to béa 
 suitable spot, but it must at that time have 
 been covered with the “new town,” which soon 
 afterwards necessitated the construction of the 
 
 The principal bearing of Julian’s attempt on 
 the topography of Jerusalem consists in the fact 
 of its proving not only that the site of the 
 Jewish temple was perfectly well known at this 
 p*riod—a.D. 362—but that the spot was then, 
 
JERUSALEM 
 
 as always, held accursed by the Christians, and 
 as doomed by the denunciation of Christ Himself 
 never to be re-established. 
 
 During the reign of Constantine two churches 
 were erected on the Mount of Olives, and there 
 was a church on Mount Zion, which was called 
 the mater omnium ecclesiarum, and was said to 
 date from the time of Hadrian * (Epiphanius, De 
 M. et P. 153; Theodosius, ὃ 6). The tract of 
 Eucherius (c. A.D. 440) mentions no other 
 churches, but the visit of the Empress Eudocia to 
 Jerusalem, A.D. 439, appears to have initiated 
 a period of great building activity. To this 
 period belonged the Church of St. Stephen, 
 outside the Damascus Gate, and many of the 
 churches mentioned by writers in the 6th cen- 
 tury. The most important of these were 
 St. Peter’s, once the house of Caiaphas; St. 
 Mary’s, at the Pool of Bethesda; and the 
 churches of the Tomb of the Virgin, Siloam, 
 and the pinnacle of the Temple. The Church 
 of St. Sophia or of the Praetorium, which, from 
 the description given of it, must have stood on 
 the site now occupied by “the Dome of the 
 Rock,” was apparently built towards the close 
 of the 5th or commencement of the 6th century. 
 It is only mentioned in documents of the 6th 
 eentury (Brev. de Hieros.; Theodosius; and 
 Antoninus), and was probably, with the Mary 
 Church of Justinian close to it, destroyed during 
 the Persian invasion. 
 
 Nearly two centuries after the attempt of 
 Julian to rebuild the Temple, Justinian, accord- 
 ing to Mr. Fergusson, “erected a church at 
 Jerusalem ; of which, fortunately, we have so 
 full and detailed an account in the works of 
 Procopius (de Aedificiis Const.) that we can have 
 little difficulty in fixing its site, though no 
 remains (at least above ground) exist to verify 
 our conjectures. The description given by 
 Procopius is so clear, and the details he gives 
 with regard to the necessity of building up the 
 substructure point so unmistakably to the spot 
 near to which it must have stood, that almost 
 all topographers have jumped to the conclusion 
 that the Mosque el-Aksa is the identical church 
 referred to. The architecture of that building 
 is, however, alone sufficient to refute any such 
 idea. No seven-aisled basilica was built in that 
 age, and least of all by Justinian, whose 
 favourite plan was a dome on _pendentives, 
 which in fact, in his age, had become the type of 
 an Oriental Church. Besides, the Aksa has no 
 apse, and, from its situaticn, never could have 
 had either that or any of the essential features 
 of a Christian basilica, Its whole architecture 
 is that of the end of the 7th century, and its 
 ordinance is essentially that of a mosque. It is 
 hardly necessary to argue this point, however, as 
 the Aksa stands on a point which was perfectly 
 known at the time to be the very centre of the 
 site of Solomon’s Temple. Not only is this 
 
 k Possibly there was also a church near the site of the 
 Temple, the ἱερὸν to which Julian’s workmen fled when 
 driven from their works by the globes of fire that issued 
 from the foundations of the Temple (Gregory Nazianzen, 
 ad Jud. et Gent. 7,1, and confirmed by Sozomen). It 
 is a question, however, whether the building referred to 
 was not that mentioned by the Bordeaux Pilgrim as 
 standing on the site of the Temple, possibly the temple 
 erected by Hadrian. 
 
 JERUSALEM 1657 
 
 shown from Julian’s attempt, but all the his- 
 torians, Christian and Muhammadan, who refer 
 to Omar’s visit to Jerusalem, relate that the 
 Sakhrah was covered with filth and abhorred by 
 the Christians ; and more than this, we have the 
 direct testimony of Eutychius, writing in the 
 9th century, from Alexandria (Annales, ii, 289), 
 ‘That the Christians had built no church within 
 the area of the Temple on account of the 
 denunciations of the, Lord, and had left it in 
 ruins.’ 
 
 “ Notwithstanding this, there is no difficulty in 
 fixing on the site of this church, inasmuch as the 
 vaults that fill up the south-eastern angle of the 
 Haram area are almost certainly of the age οἵ 
 Justinian (woodcuts, pp. 1635, 1639), and are just 
 such as Procopius describes; so that if it were 
 situated at the northern extremity of the vaults, 
 all the arguments that apply to the Aksa 
 equally apply to this situation.” After a care- 
 ful re-examination of the whole question, Prof. 
 Hayter Lewis has come to the same conclusion 
 with regard to the position of the church (Holy 
 Places, p. 88). 
 
 The “Hostel” and Church of St. Mary 
 founded by Charlemagne in the first years of 
 the 9th century complete the list of Christian 
 buildings of interest. 
 
 The Muslims are said to have built two 
 important mosques at Jerusalem—the Kubbet 
 es-Sakhrah, “Dome of the Rock,” and the 
 Mosque e/-Aksa. ‘The erection of the first is 
 ascribed by Arab historians to the Khalif Abd 
 ul-Melik, and a Cufic inscription in the mosque 
 states that it was built A.H. 72, or A.D. 691. 
 The building is so perfect in form, and so 
 classical in detail, that doubts have, from time 
 to time, arisen with regard to its Arab origin. 
 Mr. Fergusson believed that it was the original 
 church of the Anastasis erected by Constantine 
 (Temples of the Jews, p. 192 sq.) ; whilst Prof. 
 Sepp considers it to be the work of Justinian 
 (Die Felsenkuppell eine Just. Sophien Kirche). 
 The supporters of the Arab origin of the mosque 
 maintain that it was designed for the Arabs by 
 a Byzantine or Persian architect, and built by 
 Persian or Byzantine workmen, before the Arabs 
 had developed any definite style of art of their 
 own (Hayter Lewis, Holy Places, p. 72). The fact 
 that the Arabs never erected a building so purely 
 classical in feeling elsewhere gives rise to the 
 suspicion that Abd ul-Melik did nothing more 
 than restore a Christian church. There is pro- 
 bably no more foundation for the assertion that 
 he was the builder of the ‘‘ Dome of the Rock” 
 than there is for the statement that el-Walid 
 built the mosque at Damascus when he only 
 restored and enlarged a church. It may be 
 suggested that the ‘“‘Dome of the Rock” was 
 originally the Church of St. Sophia, built on 
 the supposed site of the Praetorium; that it 
 was destroyed by the Persians; that it was 
 rebuilt with the old material by Abd ul-Melik, 
 who covered it with a dome; and that it was 
 again repaired and redecorated by el-Mamin. 
 The Mosque e/-Aksa was built, c. 690, on the 
 site of the Mosque of Omar, by Abd ul-Melik, 
 on a scale of great grandeur out of the ruins of 
 Justinian’s Church of St. Mary. In 746 or 755 
 it was partly thrown down by an earthquake, 
 and it was afterwards rebuilt by el-Mahdi 
 (775-785) with fifteen aisles, of which seven 
 
1658 JERUSALEM 
 
 only now remain (Hayter Lewis, H. P. p. 82 
 sq.; Le Strange, Pal. under the Moslems, 
 p- 91 sq.). 
 
 13. Mediaeval Jerusalem.—tThere are so many 
 descriptions of Jerusalem during the Latin 
 occupation that it is possible to construct a 
 plan of the city at that time with considerable 
 accuracy. The walls, afterwards partly re- 
 modelled by Suleiman the Magnificent, did not 
 differ greatly from those of the present day. 
 The Gate of David is now the Jaffa Gate; the 
 Postern of St. Lazarus was in the north wall to 
 the west of the Damascus (then called St. Ste- 
 
 εἴ. Sttephyr ῃ ἣ 
 Sj 
 
 Plan of Jerusalem 
 
 at the north end of the bazaars, which, then as 
 now, were three covered streets; at the south 
 end of the bazaars was the “ Latin Exchange,” 
 whence Mount Zion Street led directly to the 
 Zion Gate. Parallel to and east of Mount Zion 
 Street was the Street of the Arch of Judas, in 
 which Judas was said to have hanged himself; 
 and further east was the Street of the Germans. 
 An unnamed street ran from St. Stephen’s Gate 
 down the valley and under “ Wilson’s Arch” to 
 the Postern of the Tannery, and this was joined 
 near the Austrian Consulate by the Street of 
 Jehoshaphat. From David Street, the Street of 
 the Patriarch (now Christian Street) led north- 
 ward past the gate of the Hospital, the west 
 end of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, and 
 the house of the Patriarch to the Street of the 
 Sepulchre. To the south of the great church, 
 with its cloisters and dormitories, were the 
 Hospital of the Knights of St. John, and the 
 churches of St. Mary the Latin and St. Mary 
 the Great, occupying, with their adjuncts, the 
 Muristén. Within the Haram enclosure were 
 the “Templum Domini,” Aubbet es-Sakhrah, the 
 
 JERUSHA 
 
 phen’s) Gate; the Madeleine Postern is now 
 “ Herod’s Gate,” and the Gate of Jehoshaphat that 
 of St. Stephen. The Golden Gate was open, and 
 processions passed through it to the Holy Places 
 on the slopes of Olivet; the Postern of the Tan- 
 nery is the present Dung Gate, and the Zion 
 Gate was to the east of the modern gate of the 
 same name. From David’s Gate a street in part 
 called David Street and in part Temple Street 
 ran eastward to the Haram, which it entered 
 by the “Beautiful Gate,” now Bab es-Silsileh. 
 From St. Stephen’s Gate a street of the same 
 name ran southward to the “Syrian Exchange ” 
 
 tedroy. = 
 
 in the 12th century. 
 
 “Templum Salomonis,” Mosque el-Aksa, the 
 Chapel of St. James (now the “Dome of the 
 Chain ’’), and, at the S.E. angle, the Chapel of 
 “the Cradle.” Outside the walls on the north 
 were the Church of St. Stephen, the Lepers’ 
 Hospital, and the Anerie, in which the asses and 
 horses of the Hospitallers and pilgrims were 
 stabled; on the south were the Coenaculum, 
 the Church of St. Saviour, and the Church of 
 St. Peter in Gallicante; and on the east Geth- 
 semane and the Church of St. Mary of Jeho- 
 shaphat. Within the city were also the 
 churches of St. Anne, St. Mary Magdalene, St. 
 James of Galicia, St. Caristo, St. Peter ad Vin- 
 cula, and St. Martin. 
 
 Descriptions of Modern Jerusalem will be found 
 in Murray’s and Baedeker’s Handbooks to Syria 
 and Palestine. 8.6] 
 
 JERU’SHA (ἐν = taken in possession ; 
 ‘lepovad, B. Ἐρούς, A. ‘lepods; Jerusa), daughter 
 of Zadok, queen of Uzziah, and mother of Jo- 
 tham king of Judah (2 Kings xy. 33). In 
 
JERUSHAH 
 
 Chronicles the name is given under the altered 
 form of 
 
 JERU'SHAH (ΠΡ); ‘Iepovod, B. Ἰερουσ- 
 σά; Jerusa), 2 Ch. xxvii. 1. See the preceding 
 article. 
 
 JESAI'AH, R. V. JESHAIAH (ιν; 
 B. Ἰσαβά, A. Ἰεσειά; VJeseias). 1. Son of 
 Hananiah, brother of Pelatiah, and grandson 
 of Zerubbabel (1 Ch. iii. 21), But according to 
 the LXX. and the Vulgate, he was the son of 
 Pelatiah. For an explanation of this genealogy, 
 and the difficulties connected with it, see Lord 
 A, Hervey’s Genealogies of our Lord, ch. iv. § v. 
 
 2. (MDL, i.e. Jeshaiah, as in R. V.3; Ἰεσία, 
 
 A. Ἰεσσεία, N. Ἰεσσιά; 75αἴα.) A Bex tamite, 
 whose descendants were among those chosen by 
 lot to reside in Jerusalem after the return from 
 Babylon (Neh. xi. 7). 
 
 JESHAI’AH. 1. Qe = salvation of Je- 
 
 hovah: B. Σαιὰ καὶ Σεμεεὶ in 1 Ch. xxv. 3, and 
 Ἰωσία, B. Ἰωσειὰ in v. 15; in the former iA. has 
 Ἰεεία καὶ Σεμεί, and in the latter Ἰσίας : the 
 Vulg. has Jeseias and Jesaias.) One of the six 
 sons of Jeduthun, set apart for the musical 
 service of the Temple, under the leadership of 
 their father, the inspired minstrel: he was the 
 chief of the eighth division of the singers. 
 The Hebrew name is identical with that of 
 the prophet Isaiah. 
 
 2. (BA. ᾿Ωσαίας ; Isatas.) A Levite in the 
 reign of David, eldest son of Rehabiah, a descend- 
 ant of Amram through Moses (1 Ch. xxvi. 25). 
 He is called Isshiah (7575) in 1 Ch. xxiv. 21, in 
 
 A. V. and R. V., though the Hebrew is merely 
 another form of the name. Shebuel, one of his 
 ancestors, appears among the Hemanites in 
 1 Ch. xxy. 4, and is said in Targ. on 1 Ch. 
 xxvi. 24 to be the same as Jonathan the son of 
 Gershom, the priest of the idols of the Danites, 
 who afterwards returned to the fear of Jehovah. 
 
 3. (TDL ; B. "loved, A. Ἦσαΐα; Isuias.) 
 
 The son of Athaliah and chief of the house of 
 the Bene Elam who returned with Ezra (Ezra 
 viii. 7). In 1 Esd. viii. 33 he is called Josias. 
 
 4. (B. ’Noaias; Isaias.) A Merarite, who 
 returned with Ezra (Ezra viii. 19). He is called 
 Osaias in 1 Esd. viii. 48. 
 
 JESHA’NAH (TI = ancient ; B. Kavd, A. 
 
 *Avd, Joseph. 7 Ἰσανά, Euseb. Ἰασανά; Je- 
 sana), a town which, with its dependent villages 
 (Heb. and LXX. A. “daughters ”), was one of 
 the three taken from Jeroboam by Abijah (2 Ch. 
 xiii. 19; cp. Joseph. Ané. viii. 11, ὃ 3). The 
 other two were Bethel and Ephrain (R. V. 
 Ephron), and Jeshanah is named between them. 
 A place of the same name (7 ‘Iodvas) was the 
 scene of an encounter between Herod and Pappus, 
 the general of Antigonus’ army, related by 
 Josephus with curious details (Ant. xiv. 15, 
 § 12), which however convey no indication of 
 its position. It is not mentioned in the Ono- 
 masticon, unless we accept the conjecture of 
 Reland (Pal. p. 861) that Jerome’s “ Jethaba, urbs 
 antiqua Judaeae” (0.8.3 p. 166, 30), is at once a 
 corruption and a translation of the name Jeshana, 
 which signifies “old.” It has been identified 
 by M. Clermont-Ganneau with the village of 
 
 JESHIMON 1659 
 
 ‘Ain Sinia, which stands on an ancient site 
 about 3} miles N. of Bethel (PEF Qy. Stat. 1877, 
 Ρ. 206). There are here abundant springs, and 
 many rock-hewn tombs, on the door of one of 
 which there is an inscription in ancient Hebrew 
 
 character (PEF. Mem, ii. 291, 802). [G.] [W.] 
 
 JESHARE'LAH (ASW; B. Ἰσεριήλ, 
 A. Ἰσρεηλά ; Isreela), head of the seventh of the 
 twenty-four wards into which the musicians of the 
 Levites were divided (1 Ch. xxv. 14). [Heman; 
 JeDUTHUN.] He belonged to the house of 
 Asaph, and had twelve of his house under him. 
 In v. 2 his name is written Asarelah, with an 
 initial ἐξ instead of 4; in the LXX. B. Ἐραήλ, 
 A. Ἰεσιήλ. [A. C. H.] 
 
 JESHEB-E-AB (A832 = the Father bring- 
 
 eth back ; B. TeABd, A . Ἰσβαάλ; Isbaab), head of 
 the fourteenth course of priests ‘a Ch. xxiv. 13). 
 [JEHOIARIB. | [A. ΟΣ H.] 
 
 JH/SHER (Wr= uprightness ; BA. Ἰωάσαρ; 
 Jaser), one of the sons of Caleb Mi son of 
 Hezron by his wife Azubah (1 Ch. 18). In 
 two of Kennicott’s MSS. it is ee n, 
 Jether, from the preceding verse, and in one 
 MS. the two names are combined. The Peshitto 
 Syriac has Oshir, the same form in which Jasher 
 is represented in 2 Sam. i, 18. 
 
 JESHI’MON qiown = the waste : in Num. 
 
 ἣ epfhuos; in Sam. 6 Ἰεσσαιμός and Ἰεσσεμός ; 
 A. Εἰεσσαιμός : desertum, solitudo, Jesimon), a 
 name which occurs in Num. xxi. 20 and xxiii. 
 28, in designating the position of Pisgah and 
 
 Peor: both described as “facing eap-by) the 
 Jeshimon”; R. V. “that looketh down upon the 
 desert.”” Not knowing more than the general 
 locality of either Peor or Pisgah, this gives us 
 no clue to the situation of Jeshimon. But it is 
 elsewhere used in a similar manner with refer- 
 ence to the position of two places very distant 
 from both the above—the hill of Hachilah, “ on 
 the south of” or “ facing the Jeshimon ” (1 Sam. 
 xxiii. 19, xxvi. 1, 3), and the wilderness of Maon, 
 also south of it (xxiii. 24), Ziph (xxiii. 15) and 
 Maon are known at the present day. They lie 
 a few miles south of Hebron, so that the district 
 strictly north of them is the hill-country of 
 Judah. But a line drawn between Maon and 
 the probable position of Peor—on the high 
 country opposite Jericho—passes over the 
 dreary, barren waste of the hills lying im- 
 mediately on the west of the Dead Sea. To this 
 district the name, if interpreted as a Hebrew 
 word, would be not inapplicable. It would also 
 suit as to position, as it would be full in view 
 from an elevated point on the highlands of Moab, 
 and not far from north of Maon and Ziph. On 
 the other hand, the use of the word ha-‘Arabah, 
 in 1 Sam. xxiii. 24, must not be overlooked, 
 meaning, as that elsewhere does, the sunk dis- 
 trict of the Jordan and Dead Sea, the modern 
 Ghor. Beth-Jeshimoth too, which by its name 
 ought to have some connexion with Jeshimon, 
 would appear to have been on the lower level, 
 somewhere near the mouth of the Jordan. 
 (Bern-JesHimoTH.] In R. V. the word is al- 
 ways translated “the desert;” and it is doubtful 
 whether it should be taken to be a proper name. 
 
1660 JESHISHATI 
 
 In that case the particular desert mentioned in 
 Numb. would not be the same as that referred 
 to in 1 Samuel xxiii. The passages in which it 
 is first mentioned are indisputably of very early 
 date, and it is quite possible that it is an archaic 
 name found and adopted by the Israelites (PEF. 
 Mem. iii. 299; Tristram, Land of Israel, 
 p- 535). [61 Ὁ. 
 
 JESHI'SHAI (UW, (?) = old (gray); B. 
 σαί, A.*Ieocal; Jesisi), one of the ancestors 
 of the Gadites who dwelt in Gilead, and whose 
 genealogies were made out in the days of 
 Jotham king of Judah (1 Ch. v. 14). In the 
 Peshitto Syriac the latter part of the verse is 
 omitted. 
 
 JESHOHA'IAH (MMU, (?)=bowing before 
 Jehovah; BA. Ἰασουιά; Isuhaia), a chief of one 
 of the families of that branch of the Simeonites 
 which was descended from Shimei, and was 
 more numerous than the rest of the tribe 
 (1 Ch. iv. 36). He was concerned in the raid 
 upon the Hamites in the reign of Hezekiah. 
 
 JESHU’A (10%; Ἰησοῦς; Jeshue and Jo- 
 shue), a later Hebrew pronunciation of Joshua, 
 implied by Jehoshua. [JEHOSHUA.] 
 
 1. Joshua, the son of Nun, is called Jeshua 
 in one passage (Neh. viii. 17). [JosHuA.] 
 
 2. R. A priest in the reign of David, to 
 whom the ninth course fell by lot (1 Ch. xxiv. 
 11). He is called Jeshuah in the A. V. One 
 branch of the house, viz. the children of 
 Jedaiah, returned from Babylon (Ezra ii. 36; 
 but see JEDATAH). 
 
 3. One of the Levites in the reign of Hezekiah, 
 after the reformation of worship, placed in trust 
 in the cities of the priests in their classes, to 
 distribute to their brethren of the offerings of 
 the people (2 Ch. xxxi. 15). 
 
 4. Son of Jehozadak, first high-priest of the 
 third series, viz. of those after the Babylonish 
 Captivity, and ancestor of the fourteen high- 
 priests his successors down to Joshua or Jason, 
 and Onias or Menelaus, inclusive. [HIGH- 
 PRIEST.] Jeshua, like his contemporary Zerub- 
 babel, was probably born in Babylon, whither 
 his father Jehozadak had been taken captive 
 while young (1 Ch. vi. 15, A. V.). He came up 
 from Babylon in the first year of Cyrus with 
 Zerubbabel, and took a leading part with him 
 in the rebuilding of the Temple, and in the 
 restoration of the Jewish Commonwealth. 
 Everything we read of him indicates a man of 
 earnest piety, patriotism, and courage. One of 
 less faith and resolution would never have sur- 
 mounted all the difficulties and opposition he 
 had to contend with. His first care on arriving 
 at Jerusalem was to rebuild the Altar, and 
 restore the daily sacrifice, which had been 
 suspended for some fifty years. He then, in 
 conjunction with Zerubbabel, hastened to col- 
 lect materials for rebuilding the Temple, and 
 was able to lay the foundation of it as early as 
 the second month of the second year of their 
 return to Jerusalem (8.c. 536). The services 
 on this occasion were conducted by the priests 
 in their proper apparel, with their trumpets, 
 and by the sons of Asaph, the Levites, with 
 their cymbals, according to the ordinance of 
 king David (Ezra iii.). However, the progress 
 
 JESHUA 
 
 of the work was hindered by the enmity of the 
 Samaritans, who bribed the counsellors of the 
 kings of Persia so effectually to obstruct it that 
 the Jews were unable to proceed with it till the 
 second year of Darius Hystapes—an interval of 
 about fourteen years. In that year, B.c. 520, 
 at the prophesying of Haggai and Zechariah 
 (Ezra v. 1, vi. 14; Hage. i. 1, 12, 14, ii. 1-9; 
 Zech. i.—viii.), the work was resumed by Jeshua 
 and Zerubbabel with redoubled vigour, and was 
 happily completed on the third day of the 
 month Adar (= March), in the sixth of Darius 
 (B.c. 516). The dedication of the Temple, and 
 the celebration of the Passover, in the next 
 month, were kept with great solemnity and re- 
 joicing (Ezra vi. 15-22), and especially “ twelve 
 he-goats, according to the numberof the tribes 
 of Israel,” were offered as a sin-offering for all 
 Israel. Jeshua’s zeal in the work is commended 
 by the Son of Sirach (Ecclus. xlix. 12). Besides 
 the great importance of Jeshua as a historical 
 character, from the critical times in which he 
 lived, and the great work which he accom- 
 plished, his name (= Jesus), his restoration of 
 the Temple, his office as high-priest, and 
 especially the two prophecies concerning him 
 in Zech. iii. and vi. 9-15, point him out as an 
 eminent type of Christ. [H1GH- PRIEST.] 
 Nothing is known of Jeshua later than the 
 seventh year of Darius, with which the narra- 
 tive of Ezra ivi. closes. Josephus, who says 
 tnat the Temple was seven years in building, and 
 places the dedication of it in the ninth year of 
 Darivs, contributes no information whatever 
 concerning him: his history here, with the 
 exception of the 9th sect. of b. xi. ch. 4, being 
 merely a paraphrase of Ezra and 1 Esdras, 
 especially the latter. [ZERUBBABEL.] Jeshua 
 had probably conversed often with Daniel and 
 Ezekiel, and may or may not have known 
 Jehoiachin at .Babylon in his youth. He 
 probably died at Jerusalem (see Hunter, 
 After the Eile, ch. iii. sq.). His name is 
 written Jeshoshua in Zech. iii. 1, 3, &c.; Hagg. 
 Hertha, ὅσο: 
 
 5. Head of a Levitical house, one of those 
 which returned from the Babylonish Captivity, 
 and took an active part under Zerubbabel, Ezra, 
 and Nehemiah. The name is used to designate 
 either the whole family or the successive chiefs 
 of it (Ezra ii. 40, iii. 9; Neh. iii. 19.» viii. 7, 
 ix. 4, 5, xii. 8, &c.). Jeshua, and Kadmiel, with 
 whom he is frequently associated, were both 
 “sons of Hodaviah ” (called Judah, Ezra iii. 9), 
 but Jeshua’s more immediate ancestor was 
 Azaniah (Neh. x. 9). In Neh. xii. 24 “ Jeshua 
 the son of Kadmiel” should probably be 
 “ Jeshua (and) Kadmiel.” The LXX. read καὶ 
 viol Kaduna. It is more likely that {2 is an 
 accidental error for ἢ. 
 
 6. A branch of the family of Pahath-Moab, 
 one of the chief families, probably, of the tribe 
 of Judah (Neh. vii. 11, x. 14, &c.; Ezra x. 30). 
 His descendants were the most numerous of all 
 the families which returned with Zerubbabel. 
 Neh. vii. 11, “The children of Pahath-Moab, 
 
 a The connexion with Bani, Hashabiah (or Hashab- 
 niah), Henadad, and the Levites (vv. 17-19), indicates 
 that Jeshua, the father of Ezer, is the same person as 
 in the other passages cited. 
 
JESHUA 
 
 of the children of Jeshua and Joab,” represents 
 Pahath-Moab (i.e. governor of Moab) as the 
 head of the family. [A. C. ἘΠῚ] 
 
 JESHU'A (VI ; Ἰησοῦ ; Jesue), one of the 
 towns re-inhabited by the people of Judah after 
 the return from Captivity (Neh. xi. 26). Being 
 mentioned with Moladah, Beersheba, &c., it was 
 apparently in the extreme south. It does not, 
 however, occur in the original lists of Judah 
 and Simeon (Josh, xv., xix.), nor is there any 
 name in those lists of which this would be pro- 
 bably a corruption. It is not mentioned else- 
 where. Conder (PHF. Mem. iii. pp. 404, 409) 
 has suggested Ah. S‘aweh, an important site on 
 
 - the edge of the Beersheba desert. [G.] [W-] 
 
 JESHU’AH wie, contr. form of DLAM; 
 
 *Inoods ; Jesua), a priest in the reign of David 
 ( Ch, xxiv. 11), the same as Jesuua, No. 2 
 
 JESHU’RUN, and once by mistake in A. V. 
 JESU’RUN, 15, xliv. 2 CTW ; ὃ ἠγαπημένος, 
 once with the addition of Ἰσραήλ, which the 
 Arabic of the Lond. Polyglot adopts to the 
 exclusion of the former; dilectus, rectissimus), a 
 symbolical name for Israel in Deut. xxxii. 15, 
 xxxili. 5, 26; Is. xliv. 2. The Targum and 
 Peshitto Syriac uniformly render Jeshurun by 
 “ Tsrael.”* The termination 7" is intensive, as 
 the Vulgate takes it, and not an affectionate 
 diminutive (see Dillmann? on Deut. xxxii. 15, 
 and Delitzsch* on Is. /. ¢.). [F.] 
 
 JESI’AH, R. V. ISSHIAH (17°, ie, Yish- 
 shiyahu = whom Jehovah lends; B. ᾿Ιησουνεΐ, 
 A. Ἰεσιά; Jesia). 1. A Korhite, one of the 
 mighty men, “helpers of the battle,” who 
 joined Davyid’s standard at Ziklag during his 
 flight from Saul (1 Ch. xii. 6). 
 
 2. (TW ; B. Ἰσειά, A. Ἰεσσιά.) The second 
 son of Uzziel, the son of Kohath (1 Ch. xxiii. 
 20). He is the same as Isshiah, whose repre- 
 sentative was Zechariah (1 Ch. xxiv. 25); but 
 in A. VY. the translators in the present instance 
 followed the Vulg., as they have too often done 
 in the case of proper names. 
 
 JESLMI’'EL ONY; T?. Ἰσμαήλ, B. omits; 
 Tsmiel), a Simeonite, descended from the prolific 
 family of Shimei, and a prince of his own branch 
 of the tribe, whom he led against the peaceful 
 Hamites in the reign of Hezekiah (1 Ch. iv. 36). 
 
 JES'SE Οὗ, ic. Yishai;® Ἰεσσαί, Joseph. 
 Ἰεσσαῖος ; Isai : in the margin of 1 Ch. x. 14, the 
 A.V. translators have given the Vulgate form), 
 the father of David, and thus the immediate 
 progenitor of the whole line of the kings of 
 Judah, and ultimately of Christ. He is the 
 only one of his name who appears in the sacred 
 records. Jesse was the son of OBED, who again 
 was the fruit of the union of Boaz and the 
 Moabitess Ruth. Nor was Ruth’s the only 
 
 a The name is formed from ww (Ps. xxv. 21), 
 
 like WAP PINT from bap and Ny). 
 
 b Jerome (Liber de Nominibus) gives the strange 
 interpretation of insulae libamen. 
 
 JESSE 1661 
 
 foreign blood that ran in his veins; for his great- 
 grandmother was no less a person than Rahab 
 the Canaanite, of Jericho (Matt. i. 5). _Jesse’s 
 genealogy® is twice given in full in the Old 
 Testament,—viz. Ruth iv. 18-22, and 1 Ch. ii. 
 5-12. We there see that long before David had 
 rendered his family illustrious, it belonged to 
 the greatest house of Judah, that of Pharez, 
 through Hezron his eldest son. One of the links 
 in the descent was Nahshon (N. T., R. V.), 
 chief man of the tribe at the critical time of the 
 Exodus. In the N.T. the genealogy is also twice 
 given (Matt. i. 3-5; Luke iii, 32-34), 
 
 He is commonly designated as “ Jesse the 
 Bethlehemite” (1 Sam. xvi. 1, 18). So he is 
 called by his son David, then fresh from home 
 (xvii. 58); but his full title is “the Ephrathite 
 of Bethlehem-Judah ” (xvii. 12). The double 
 expression and the use of the antique word 
 Ephrathite perhaps imply that he was one of the 
 oldest families in the place. He is an “old man” 
 when we first meet with him (1 Sam. xvii. 12), 
 with eight sons (xvi. 10, xvii. 12), residing at 
 Bethlehem (xvi. 4, 5). It would appear, how- 
 ever, from the terms of xvi. 4, 5, and of Josephus 
 (Ant. vi. 8, § 1), that Jesse was not one of the 
 “elders” of the town. 
 
 The few slight glimpses we can catch of him 
 are soon recalled. According to an ancient 
 Jewish tradition, recorded in the Targum on 
 2 Sam. xxi. 19, Jesse was a weaver of the vails 
 of the sanctuary; but as there is no contra- 
 diction, so there is no corroboration, of this 
 in the Bible, and it is possible that it was sug- 
 gested by the occurrence of the word oregim, 
 “weavers,” in connexion with a member of his 
 family. [JAARE-OREGIM.] Jesse’s wealth seems 
 to have consisted of a flock of sheep and goats 
 QN¥, A. V. “sheep ”), which were under the 
 care of David (xvi. 11; xvii. 34, 35). Of the 
 produce of this flock we find him on two occa- 
 sions sending the simple presents which in those 
 days the highest persons were wont to accept— 
 milk cheeses to the captain of the division of 
 the army in which his sons were serving (xvii. 
 18), and a kid to Saul (xvi. 20); with the 
 accompaniment in each case of parched corn from 
 the fields of Boaz, loaves of the bread from which 
 Bethlehem took its very name, and wine from 
 the vineyards which still enrich the terraces of 
 the hill below the village. 
 
 When David’s rupture with Saul had finally 
 driven him from the court, and he was in the 
 cave of Adullam, “his brethren and all his 
 father’s house” joined him (xxii. 1). His 
 “brother ” (probably Eliab) is mentioned on a 
 former occasion (xx. 29) as taking the lead in 
 the family. This is no more than we should 
 expect from Jesse’s great age. David’s anxiety 
 at the same period to find a safe refuge for his 
 parents from the probable vengeance of Saul, is 
 also quite in accordance with their helpless con- 
 dition. He took his father and his mother into 
 the country of Moab, and deposited them with 
 
 ¢ This genealogy is embodied in the ‘* Jesse tree,” 
 not unfrequently to be found in the reredos and east 
 windows of English churches. One of the finest is at 
 Dorchester, Oxon. The tree springs from Jesse, who is 
 recumbent at the bottom of the window, and contains 
 twenty-five members of the line, culminating in our 
 Lord. 
 
1662 JESSUE 
 
 the king, and there they disappear from our 
 view in the records of Scripture. But another 
 old Jewish tradition (Rabboth Seder, NW3, 256, 
 col. 2) states that after David had quitted the 
 hold, his parents and brothers were put to death 
 by the king of Moab, so that there remained, 
 besides David, but one brother, who took refuge 
 with Nahash, king of the Bene-Ammon. In the 
 4th century Jesse’s tomb was shown near Beth- 
 Jehem, (/tin. Hierosol.); it is now pointed out, 
 with that of Ruth, in the Deir el-Arb‘ain close 
 to Hebron. In the 12th century the “ house of 
 Jesse? was shown at Bethel, a bow-shot east of 
 Bethlehem (Abbot Daniel, Pilg. xlix.). 
 
 Who the wife of Jesse was we are not told. 
 His eight sons will be found displayed under 
 Davin, p. 721. The family contained in addition 
 two female members, Zeruiah and Abigail, 
 but it is uncertain whether these were Jesse’s 
 daughters; for though they are called the 
 sisters of his sons (1 Ch. ii. 16), yet Abigail is 
 said to have been the daughter of Nahash 
 (2 Sam. xvii. 25). Of this two explanations 
 have been proposed. (1.) The Jewish—that 
 NaHASH was another name for Jesse (Jerome, 
 Q. Hebr. on 2 Sam. xvii. 25°). (2.) Dean 
 Stanley’s—that Jesse’s wife had been formerly 
 wife or concubine to Nahash, possibly the king of 
 the Ammonites [Davip, p. 722]. 
 
 An English reader can hardly fail to remark 
 how often Jesse is mentioned long after the 
 name of David had become famous enough to 
 supersede that of his obscure ana humble parent. 
 While David was a struggling outlaw, it was 
 natural that to friend and foe—to Saul, Doeg, 
 and Nabal, no less than to the captains of Judah 
 and Benjamin—he should be merely the “son of 
 Jesse” (1 Sam. xxii. 9,13: cp. xxiv. 16, xxv. 
 10; 1 Ch. xii. 18); but that Jesse’s name 
 should be brought forward in records of so late a 
 date as 1 Ch. xxix. 26 and Ps. Ixxii. 20, long 
 after the establishment of David’s own house, is 
 certainly worthy of notice. Especially is it to 
 be observed that it is in his name—the “ shoot 
 out of the stem of Jesse....the root of Jesse 
 which should stand as an ensign to the people” 
 (Is. xi. 1, 10), that Isaiah announces the most 
 splendid of his promises, intended to rouse and 
 cheer the heart of the nation at the time of its 
 deepest despondency. eed] Lal 
 
 JESSU’E (Ἰησοῦς, B. ᾿Ἰησουείς, A. Ἰησουέ; 
 Jesu), a Levite, the same as Jeshua (1 Esd. 
 v. 26; cp. Ezra ii. 40). 
 
 JE/SU ΟἸησοῦς, A. Ἰησοῦ ; Jesu), the same 
 as Jeshua the Levite, the father of Jozabad 
 (1 Esd. viii. 63; see Ezra viii. 33), also called 
 Jessue and Jesus. 
 
 4 This is given also in the Targum to Ruth iv. 22. 
 «« And Obed begat Ishai (Jesse), whose name is Nachash, 
 because there were not found in him iniquity and 
 corruption, that he should be delivered into the hand 
 of the Angel of Death that he should take away his 
 soul from him; and he lived many days until was 
 brought to mind before Jehovah the counsel which the 
 Serpent gave to Chavvah the wife of Adam, to eat of the 
 tree, of the fruit of which when they did eat they were 
 able to discern between good and evil; and by reason of 
 this counsel all the inhabiters of the earth became guilty 
 of death, and in that iniquity only died Ishai the 
 righteous.” 
 
 JESUS THE SON OF SIRACH 
 
 JESU’, R. V. ISHVI (1; Ἰεσού, A. 
 Ἰεσουΐ; Jessui), the son of Asher, whose de- 
 scendants THE JESUITES were numbered in the. 
 plains of Moab at the Jordan of Jericho (Num. 
 xxvi. 44). He is elsewhere called Isui, R. V. 
 Ishvi (Gen. xlvi. 17), and Ishuai, R. V. Ishvi 
 ( Ch. vii. 30). 
 
 JESU'ITES, THE ΟἿΣ Π; 6 *lecout; Jes- 
 suitae). A family of the tribe of Asher (Num. 
 xxvi. 44). 
 
 JESU’RUN. [Jesuurun.] 
 
 JE'SUS (Ἰησοῦς, B. Ἰησοῦν ; Jesu, Jesus, 
 Josue), the Greek form of the name Joshua or 
 Jeshua, a contraction of Jehoshua (wn), that 
 is, “Jehovah is help” or ‘Saviour ” (Num. xiii. 
 16). [JEHOSHUA. ] 
 
 1. Joshua the priest, the son of Jehozadak 
 (1 Esd. v. 5, 8, 24, 48, 56, 68, 70, vi. 2, ix. 19; 
 
 Ecclus. xlix.12). Also called Jeshua, [JESHUA, 
 No. 4.] 
 
 2. (Jesus.) Jeshua the Levite (1 Esd. ν. 58, 
 ix. 48). 
 
 8. Joshua the son of Nun (2 Esd. vii. 37 ; 
 Ecclus. xJvi. 1; 1 Macc. ii. 55; Acts vii. 455 
 Heb. iv. 8). [JosHua.] 
 
 JESUS THE FATHER OF SIRACH. 
 [JESUS THE SON OF SIRACH. ] 
 
 JESUS THE SON OF SIRACH (Ἰησοῦς 
 υἱὸς Σειράχ ; Jesus filius Sirach) is described in 
 the text of Ecclesiasticus (1. 27) as the author 
 of that book, which in the LXX., and generally, 
 except in the Western Church, is called by his 
 name, the Wisdom of Jesus the son of Sirach, or 
 simply the Wisdom of Sirach. The same passage 
 speaks of him as a native of Jerusalem (Ecclus. 
 l.c.); and the internal character of the book 
 confirms its Palestinian origin. The name Jesus 
 was of frequent occurrence, and was often repre- 
 sented by the Greek Jason. In the apocryphal 
 list of the 72 commissioners sent by Eleazar 
 to Ptolemy it occurs twice (Arist. Hist. ap. 
 Hody, De text. p. vii.); but there is not the 
 slightest ground for connecting the author of 
 Ecclesiasticus with either of the persons there 
 mentioned. The various conjectures which have 
 been made as to the position of the son of Sirach 
 from the contents of his book—as, for instance, 
 that he was a priest (from vii. 29 sq., xlv. 
 xlix., 1.), or a physician (from xxxviii. 1 sq.)— 
 are equally unfounded. 
 
 Among the later Jews the “Son of Sirach ” 
 was celebrated under the name of Ben Sira as a 
 writer of proverbs, and some of those which 
 have been preserved offer a close resemblance to 
 passages in Ecclesiasticus ; but in the course of 
 time a later compilation was substituted for the 
 original work of Ben Sira (Zunz, Gottesd. Vortr. 
 d. Juden, p. 100 sq.), and tradition has pre- 
 served no authentic details of his person or 
 his life. ; 
 
 The chronological difficulties which have been 
 raised as to the date of the Son of Sirach are 
 noticed elsewhere [ECCLESIASTICUS]. 
 
 According to the first prologue to the book 
 of Ecclesiasticus, taken from the Synopsis of the 
 Pseudo-Athanasius (iv. p. 377, ed. Migne), the 
 translator of the book bore the same name as 
 
JESUS 
 
 the author of it. It is, however, most likely 
 that the last chapter, “" The prayer of Jesus the 
 son of Sirach,” gave occasion to this conjecture. 
 The prayer was attributed to the translator, 
 and then the table of succession followed neces- 
 sarily from the title attached to it [see EccLE- 
 SIASTICUS]. LB. F. W.] 
 
 JE’SUS, called JUSTUS, a Christian who 
 was with St. Paul at Rome, and joined him in 
 sending salutations to the Colossians. He was 
 one of the fellow-workers who were a comfort 
 to the Apostle (Col. iv. 11). In the Acta Sanct. 
 Jun. iv. 67, he is commemorated as bishop of 
 Eleutheropolis. Εν. τ Bil] 
 
 JESUS CHRIST." The name Jesus (Ἰησοῦς) 
 signifies Saviour. Its origin is explained above, 
 and it seems to have been not an uncommon 
 name among the Jews. It is assigned in the 
 N. T. (1) to our Lord Jesus Christ, Who “saves 
 His people from their sins ” (Matt. i. 21); also 
 (2) to Joshua the successor of Moses, who 
 brought the Israelites into the land of promise 
 (Num. xxvii. 18; Acts vii. 45; Heb. iv. 8); and 
 (3) to Jesus surnamed Justus, a converted Jew, 
 associated with St. Paul (Col. iv. 11). 
 
 The name of Christ (Χριστός, from xpiw, I 
 anoint) signifies Anointed. Priests were anointed 
 amongst the Jews, as their inauguration to their 
 office (1 Ch. xvi. 22; Ps. ev. 15), and kings also 
 (2 Mace. i. 24; Ecclus. xlvi. 19). In the N. T. 
 the name Christ is used as equivalent to Messiah 
 (Greek Μεσσίας; Hebrew MWD, John i. 41), 
 
 the name given to the long-promised Prophet 
 and King Whom the Jews had been taught by 
 their Prophets to expect; and therefore = 6 
 ἐρχόμενος (Acts xix. 4; Matt. xi. 3), The use 
 of this name as applied to the Lord has always 
 a reference to the promises of the Prophets. In 
 Matt. ii. 4, xi. 2, it is assumed that the Christ 
 when He should come would live and act in a 
 certain way, described by the Prophets. So 
 Matt. xxii. 42, xxiii. 10, xxiv. 5, 23; Mark xii. 
 35, xiii. 21; Luke iii, 15, xx. 41; John vii. 27, 
 31, 41, 42, xii. 34, in all which places there is a 
 reference to the Messiah as delineated by the 
 Prophets. That they had foretold that Christ 
 should suffer appears from Luke xxiv. 26, 46. The 
 name of Jesus is the proper Name of our Lord, 
 and that of Christ is added to identify Him with 
 the promised Messiah. Other names are some- 
 times added to the Names Jesus Christ, or Christ 
 Jesus: thus “Lord” (frequently), “a King” 
 (added as a kind of explanation of the word 
 Christ, Luke xxiii. 2), “King of Israel ” (Mark 
 xv. 32), Son of David (Mark xii. 35; Luke xx. 
 41), chosen of God (Luke xxiii. 35). 
 
 Remarkable are such expressions as “the 
 Christ of God” (Luke ii. 26, ix. 20; Rev. xi. 15, 
 xii. 10); and the phrase “in Christ,” which 
 occurs about 78 times in the Epistles of St. 
 Paul, and is almost peculiar to them. But the 
 germ of it is to be found in the words of our 
 Lord Himself, “ Abide in Me, and I in you. As 
 the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it 
 abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye 
 abide in Me” (John xv. 4, also 5, 6, 7, 9, 10). 
 
 5. This article, by the late Archbishop of York, is 
 Yreprinted without change. A literary supplement is 
 placed at the end of it.—Eprrors. 
 
 JESUS CHRIST 1663 
 
 The idea that all Christian life 1s not merely an 
 imitation and following of the Lord, but a living 
 and constant union with Him, causes the Apostle 
 to use such expressions as “fallen asleep in 
 Christ” (1 Cor. xv, 18), “I knew a man in 
 Christ” (2 Cor. xii. 2), “I speak the truth in 
 Christ” (1 Tim. ii. 7), and many others (see 
 Schleusner’s Lexicon ; Wahl’s Clavis; Fritzsche 
 on St. Matthew; De Wette’s Commentary ; 
 Schmidt’s Greek Concordance, &c.). 
 
 The Life, the Person, and the Work of our 
 Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ occupy the whole 
 of the New Testament. Of this threefold subject 
 the present article includes the first part, namely, 
 the Life and Teaching ; the Person of our Lord 
 will be treated under the article Son or Gop; 
 and His Work will naturally fall under the 
 word SAVIOUR. 
 
 Towards the close of the reign of Herod the 
 Great, arrived that “fulness of time” which 
 God in His inserutable wisdom had appointed 
 for the sending of His Son; and Jesus was born 
 at Bethlehem, to redeem a sinful and ruined 
 world, According to the received chronology, 
 which is in fact that of Dionysius Exiguus in 
 the 6th century, this event occurred in the year 
 of Rome 754, But modern writers, with hardly 
 an exception, believe that this calculation places 
 the Nativity some years too late; although they 
 differ as to the amount of error. Herod the 
 Great died, according to Josephus, in the thirty- 
 seventh year after he was appointed king (Ant. 
 xvii. 8,§ 1; B. J. i. 33, § 8). His elevation 
 coincides with the consulship of Cn. Domitius 
 Calvinus and C. Asinius Pollio, and this de- 
 termines the date A.u.c. 714 (Joseph. Ant. xiv. 
 14, § 5). There is reason to think that in such 
 calculations Josephus reckons the years from 
 the month Nisan to the same month; and also 
 that the death of Herod took place in the be- 
 ginning of the thirty-seventh year, or just before 
 the Passover (Joseph. Ant. xvii. 9, § 3); if then 
 thirty-six complete years are added, they give 
 the year of Herod’s death a.v.c. 750 (see Note 
 on Chronology at the end of this article). As 
 Jesus was born during the life of Herod, it 
 follows from these data that the Nativity took 
 place some time before the month of April 750; 
 and if it took place only a few months before 
 Herod’s death, then its date would be four 
 years earlier than the Dionysian reckoning 
 (Wieseler). 
 
 Three other chronological data occur in the 
 Gospels, but the arguments founded on them are 
 not conclusive. 1. The Baptism of Jesus was 
 followed by a Passover (John ii. 13), at which 
 certain Jews mention that the restoration of 
 their Temple had been in progress for forty-six 
 years (ii. 20), Jesus Himself being at this time 
 “about thirty years of age ” (Luke iii. 23). As 
 the date of the Temple-restoration can be ascer- 
 tained, it has been argued from these facts also 
 that the Nativity took place at the beginning of 
 A.U.C. 750. But it is sometimes argued that 
 the words that determine our Lord’s age are not 
 exact enough to serve as the basis for such a 
 calculation. 2. The appearance of the star to 
 the wise men has been thought likely, by the 
 aid of astronomy, to determine the date. But 
 the opinion that the star in the East was a re- 
 markable conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in 
 the sign Pisces, is now rejected. Besides the 
 
1664 JESUS CHRIST 
 
 difficulty of reconciling it with the sacred 
 narrative (Matt. ii. 9), it would throw back the 
 birth of our Lord to A.U.c. 747, which is too 
 early. 3. Zacharias was “a priest of the course 
 of Abia ” (Luke i. 5), and he was engaged in the 
 duties of his course when the birth of John the 
 Baptist was foretold to him; and it has been 
 thought possible to calculate, from the place 
 which the course of Abia held in the cycle, the 
 precise time of the Saviour’s birth. All these 
 data are discussed below (p. 1700). 
 
 In treating of the Life of Jesus, a perfect 
 record of the events would be no more than a 
 reproduction of the four Gospels, and a discussion 
 of those events would swell to the compass of a 
 voluminous commentary. Neither of these 
 would be appropriate here, and in the present 
 article a brief sketch only of the Life can be 
 attempted, drawn up with a view to the two 
 remaining articles, on the SON OF GOD and 
 SAVIOUR. 
 
 The Man Who was to redeem all men and do 
 for the human race what no one could do for 
 his brother, was not born into the world as 
 others are. The salutation addressed by the 
 Angel to Mary His mother, “ Hail! thou that 
 art highly favoured,” was the prelude to a new 
 act of Divine creation; the first Adam that 
 sinned was not born but created; the second 
 Adam, that restored, was born indeed, but in 
 supernatural fashion. ‘The Holy Ghost shall 
 come upon thee, and the power of the Highest 
 shall overshadow thee; therefore also that holy 
 thing which shall be born of thee shall be called 
 the Son of God” (Luke i. 35). Mary received 
 the announcement of a miracle, the full import 
 of which she could not have understood, with 
 the submission of one who knew that the message 
 came from God; and the Angel departed from 
 her. At first, her betrothed husband, when he 
 heard from her what had taken place, doubted 
 her, but a supernatural communication convinced 
 him of her purity, and he took her to be his 
 wife. Not only was the approaching birth of 
 Jesus made the subject of supernatural com- 
 munications, but that of John the Baptist the 
 forerunner also. Thus before the birth of either 
 had actually taken place, a small knot of persons 
 had been prepared to expect the fulfilment of 
 the Divine promises in the Holy One that should 
 be born of Mary (Luke i.). 
 
 The prophet Micah had foretold (vy. 2) that 
 the future king should be born in Bethlehem of 
 Judaea, the place where the house of David had 
 its origin; but Mary dwelt in Nazareth. <Au- 
 gustus, however, had ordered a general census 
 of the Roman Empire ; and although Judaea, not 
 being a province of the Empire, would not 
 necessarily come under ‘such an order, it was 
 included, probably because the intention was 
 already conceived of reducing it after a time to 
 the condition of a province (see note on Chron- 
 ology). That such a census was made we know 
 from Cassiodorus (Var. iii. 52). That in its 
 application to Palestine it should be made with 
 reference to Jewish feelings and prejudices, being 
 carried out no doubt by Herod the Jewish king, 
 was quite natural; and so Joseph and Mary 
 went to Bethlehem, the city of David, to be 
 taxed. From the well-known and much-can- 
 vassed passage in St. Luke (ii. 2) it appears that 
 the taxing was not completed till the time of 
 
 JESUS CHRIST 
 
 Quirinus [CyRENIUS], some years later; and 
 how tar it was carried now, cannot be deter- 
 mined; all that we learn is that it brought 
 Joseph, who was of the house of David, from 
 his home to Bethlehem, where the Lord was 
 born. As there was no room in the inn, a 
 manger was the cradle in which Christ the 
 Lord was laid. But signs were not wanting of 
 the greatness of the event that seemed so unim- 
 portant. Lowly shepherds were the witnesses 
 of the wonder that accompanied the lowly 
 Saviour’s birth; an Angel proclaimed to them 
 “ good tidings of great joy;” and then the ex- 
 ceeding joy that was in heaven amongst the 
 Angels about this mystery of love broke through 
 the silence of night with the words—“ Glory to 
 God in the highest, and on earth peace, good 
 will towards men” (Luke ii. 8-20). We need 
 not suppose that these simple men were cherish- 
 ing in their hearts the expectation of the 
 Messiah which others had relinquished; they 
 were chosen from the humble, as were our 
 Lord’s companions afterwards, in order to show 
 that God “ hath chosen the weak things of the 
 world to confound the things which are mighty ” 
 (1 Cor. i. 26-31), and that the poor and meek 
 could apprehend the message of salvation to 
 which kings and priests could turn a deaf ear. 
 
 The subject of the Genealogy of our Lord, as 
 given by St. Matthew and St. Luke, is discussed 
 fully in another article. [See GENEALOGY OF 
 our Lorp JEsus Curist.] 
 
 The child Jesus is circumcised in due time, is 
 brought to the Temple, and the mother makes 
 the offering for her purification. That offering 
 wanted its peculiar meaning in this case, which 
 was an act of new creation, and not a birth after 
 the common order of our fallen nature. But 
 the seed of the new kingdom was to grow un- 
 discernibly as yet; no exemption was claimed 
 by the “highly favoured” mother, and no 
 portent intervened. She made her humble 
 offering like any other Judaean mother, and 
 would have gone her way unnoticed; but here 
 too God suffered not His beloved Son to be 
 without a witness, and Simeon and Anna, taught 
 from God that the object of their earnest long- 
 ings was before them, prophesied of His Divine 
 work: the rejoicing that his eyes had seen the 
 salvation of God, and the other speaking of 
 Him “to all that looked for redemption in 
 Jerusalem ” (Luke ii, 28-38). 
 
 Thus recognised amongst His own people, the 
 Saviour was not without witness amongst the 
 heathen. ‘ Wise men from the East ”’—that is, 
 Persian magi of the Zend religion, in which the 
 idea of a Zoziosh or Redeemer was clearly known 
 —guided miraculously by a star or meteor 
 created for the purpose, came and sought out 
 the Saviour to pay Him homage. We have said 
 that in the year 747 occurred a remarkable 
 combination of the planets Jupiter and Saturn, 
 and this is supposed to be the sign by which the 
 wise men knew that the birth of some great 
 one had taken place. But, as has been said, the 
 date does not agree with this view, and the 
 account of the Evangelist describes a single star 
 moving before them and guiding their steps. 
 We must suppose that God saw good to speak 
 to the Magi in their own way: they were 
 seeking light from the study of the stars, 
 whence only physical light could be found, and 
 
JESUS CHRIST 
 He guided them to the Source of spiritual light, 
 
 ’ to the cradle of His Son, by a star miraculously 
 
 made to appear to them, and to speak intelligibly 
 to them through their preconceptions. The 
 offerings which they brought have been regarded 
 as symbolical: the gold was tribute to a king, 
 the frankincense was for the use of a priest, and 
 the myrrh for a body preparing for the tomb. 
 ** Aurea nascenti fuderunt munera regi, 
 Thura dedere Deo, myrrham tribuere sepulto,” 
 
 says Sedulius: but in a more general view 
 these were at any rate the offerings made by 
 worshippers, and in that light must the Magi be 
 regarded. The events connected with the Birth 
 of our Lord are all significant, and here some of 
 the wisest of the heathen kneel before the Re- 
 Aeemer as the first-fruits of the Gentiles, and as 
 a sign that His dominion was to be not merely 
 Jewish, but as wide as the whole world (see 
 Matt. ii. 1-12; Miinter, Star of the Wise Men, 
 Copenhagen, 1827 ; the Commentaries of Alford, 
 Williams, Olshausen, and Heubner, where the 
 opinions as to the nature of the star are dis- 
 cussed). 
 
 A little child made the great Herod quake 
 upon his throne. When he knew that the Magi 
 were come to hail their King and Lord, and 
 did not stop at his palace, but passed on toa 
 hiumbler roof, and when he found that they 
 would not return to betray this child to him, 
 he put to death all the children in Bethlehem 
 tthat were under two years old. ‘The crime was 
 great ; but the number of the victims, in a little 
 place like Bethlehem, was small enough to 
 escape special record amongst the wicked acts 
 of Herod from Josephus and other historians, as 
 it had no political interest. A confused indi- 
 cation of it, however, is found in Macrobius 
 (Saturn. ii. 4). 
 
 Joseph, warned by a dream, flees to Egypt 
 with the young child, beyond the reach of 
 “Herod’s arm. This flight of cur Lord from His 
 own land to the land of darkness and idolatry— 
 ‘a land associated even to a proverb with all 
 that was hostile to God and His people—im- 
 presses on us the reality of His humiliation. 
 Herod’s cup was well-nigh full; and the doom 
 ‘that soon overtook him could have arrested him 
 then in his bloody attempt: but Jesus, in 
 accepting humanity, accepted all its incidents. 
 He was saved, not by the intervention of God, 
 but by the obedience of Joseph; and from the 
 storms of persecution He had to use the common 
 means of escape (Matt. ii. 13-23; Thomas a 
 Kempis, iii. 15, and Commentaries). After the 
 death of Herod, in less than a year, Jesus re- 
 turned with His parents to their own land, and 
 went to Nazareth, where they abode. 
 
 Except as to one event the Evangelists are 
 silent upon the succeeding years of our Lord’s 
 life down to the commencement of His ministry. 
 When He-was twelve years old He was found in 
 the Temple, “ hearing” the doctors “and asking 
 them questions ” (Luke ii. 40-52). We areshown 
 this one fact that we may know that at the 
 time when the Jews considered childhood to be 
 passing into youth, Jesus was already aware of 
 His mission, and consciously preparing for it, 
 although years elapsed before its actual com- 
 mencement. This fact at once confirms and 
 illustrates such a general expression as “ Jesus 
 
 BIBLE DICT.—VOL. I. 
 
 JESUS CHRIST 1665 
 increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour 
 with God and man” (Luke 11, 52). His public 
 ministry did not begin with a sudden impulse, 
 but was prepared for by His whole life. The 
 consciousness of His Divine nature and power 
 grew, and ripened and strengthened until the 
 time of His showing unto Israel. 
 
 Thirty years had elapsed from the Birth of 
 our Lord to the opening of His ministry. In 
 that time great changes had come over the 
 chosen people. Herod the Great had united 
 under him almost all the original kingdom of 
 David; after the death of that prince it was 
 dismembered for ever. Archelaus succeeded to 
 the kingdom of Judaea, under the title of 
 Ethnarch; Herod Antipas became tetrarch of 
 Galilee and Peraea, and Philip tetrarch of 
 Trachonitis, Gaulonitis, Batanaea, and Paneas. 
 The Emperor Augustus promised Archelaus the 
 title of king, if he should prove worthy; but in 
 the tenth year of his reign (A.U.c. 759) he was 
 deposed in deference to the hostile feelings of 
 the Jews, was banished to Vienne in Gaul, and 
 from that time his dominions passed under the 
 direct power of Rome, being annexed to Syria, 
 and governed by a procurator. Neither king nor 
 ethnarch held Judaea afterwards, if we except 
 the three years when it was under Agrippa I. 
 Marks are not wanting of the irri¢ation kept up 
 in the minds of the Jews by the sight of a 
 foreigner exercising acts of power over the 
 people whom David once ruled. The publicans 
 (portitores) who collected tribute for the Roman 
 Empire were everywhere detested; and as a 
 marked class is likely to be a degraded one, the 
 Jews saw everywhere the most despised among 
 the people exacting from. them all, and more 
 than all (Luke iii. 13), that the foreign tyrant 
 required. Constant changes were made by the 
 same power in the office of high-priest, perhaps 
 from a necessary policy. Josephus says that 
 there were twenty-eight high-priests from the 
 time of Herod to the burning of the Temple 
 (Ant. xx. 10). The sect of Judas the Gaulonite, 
 which protested against paying tribute to Caesar, 
 and against bowing the neck to an alien yoke, 
 expressed ἃ conviction which all Jews shared. 
 The sense of oppression and wrong would tend 
 to shape all the hopes of a Messiah, so far as 
 they still existed, to the conception of a warrior 
 who should deliver them from a hateful political 
 bondage. 
 
 It was in the fifteenth year of Tiberius the 
 Emperor, reckoning from his joint rule with 
 Augustus (Jan. A.U.c. 765), and not from his sole 
 rule (Aug. A.U.c. 767), that John the Baptist 
 began toteach. In this year (A.U.C. 779) Pontius 
 Pilate was procurator of Judaea, the worldly 
 and time-serving representative of a cruel and 
 imperious master; Herod Antipas and Philip 
 still held the tetrarchies left them by their 
 father. Annas and Caiaphas are both described 
 as holding the office of high-priest ; Annas was 
 deposed by Valerius Gratus in this very year, 
 and his son-in-law Joseph, called also Caiaphas, 
 was appointed, after some changes, in his room ; 
 but Annas seems to have retained after this 
 time (John xviii. 13) much of the authority of 
 the office, which the two administered together. 
 John the Baptist, of whom a full account is 
 given below under his own name, came to preach 
 in the wilderness. He was the last representa- 
 
 5 O 
 
1666 JESUS CHRIST 
 
 tive of the prophets of the Old Covenant ; and 
 his work was twofold—to enforce repentance 
 and the terrors of the old Law, and to revive the 
 almost forgotten expectation of the Messiah 
 (Matt. iii. 1-10; Mark i. 1-8; Luke iii. 1-18). 
 Both these objects, which are very apparent in 
 his preaching, were connected equally with the 
 coming of Jesus, since the need of a Saviour 
 from sin is not felt but when sin itself is felt to 
 be a bondage and aterror. The career of John 
 seems to have been very short; and it has been 
 asked how such great influence could have been 
 attained in a short time (Matt. iii. 5). But his 
 was a powerful nature which soon took posses- 
 sion of those who came within its reach; and 
 his success becomes less surprising if we assume 
 with Wieseler that the preaching took place in 
 a sabbatical year (Baumgarten, (Geschichte Jesu, 
 p- 40). It is an old controversy whether the 
 baptism of John was a new institution, or an 
 imitation of the baptism of proselytes as practised 
 by the Jews. But at all events there is no 
 record of such a rite, conducted in the name of 
 and with reference to a particular person (Acts 
 xix. 4), before the ministry of John. Jesus 
 came to Jordan with the rest to receive this 
 rite at John’s hands: first, in order that the 
 Sacrament by which all were hereafter to be 
 admitted into His kingdom might not want His 
 example to justify its use (Matt. iii. 15); next, 
 that John might have an assurance that his 
 course as the herald of Christ was now completed 
 by His appearance (John 1. 33); and last, that 
 some public token might be given that He was 
 indeed the Anointed of God (Heb. vy. 5). A 
 supposed discrepancy between Matt. iii. 14 and 
 John i. 81, 33, disappears when we remember 
 that from the relationship between the families 
 of John and our Lord (Luke i.), John must 
 have known already something of the power, 
 goodness, and wisdom of Jesus ; what he did not 
 know was, that this same Jesus was the very 
 Messiah for Whom he had come to prepare the 
 world. Our Lord received the rite of baptism 
 at His servant’s hands, and the Father attested 
 Him by the Voice of the Spirit, Which also was 
 seen descending on Him in a visible shape: 
 “This is My Beloved Son, in Whom I am well 
 pleased”? (Matt. 1. 13-17; Mark i. 9-11; 
 Luke iii. 21, 22). 
 
 Immediately after this inauguration of His 
 ministry Jesus was led up of the Spirit into the 
 wilderness to be tempted of the devil (Matt. 
 iv. 1-11; Mark i. 12,13; Luke iv. 1-13). As 
 the baptism of our Lord cannot have been for 
 Him the token of repentance and intended re- 
 formation which it was for sinful men, so does 
 our Lord’s sinlessness affect the nature of His 
 temptation; for it was the trial of One Who 
 could not possibly have fallen. This makes 
 a complete conception of the temptation im- 
 possible for minds wherein temptation is always 
 associated with the possibility of sin. But 
 whilst we must be content with an incom- 
 plete conception, we must avoid the wrong 
 conceptions that are often substituted for it. 
 Some suppose the account before us to describe 
 what takes place in a vision or ecstasy of our 
 Lord; so that both the temptation and its 
 answer arise from within, Others think that 
 the temptation was suggested from within, 
 but in ἢ state, not of sleep or ecstasy, but of 
 
 JESUS CHRIST 
 
 complete consciousness. Others consider this . 
 narrative to have been a parable of our Lord, of 
 which He has made Himself the subject. ΑἸ} 
 these suppositions set aside the historical testi- 
 mony of the Gospels: the temptation as there 
 described arose not from the sinless mind of the 
 Son of God, where indeed thoughts of evil could 
 not have harboured, but from Satan, the enemy 
 of the human race. Nor can it be supposed 
 that this account is a mere parable, unless we 
 assume that St. Matthew and St. Luke have 
 wholly misunderstood their Master’s meaning. 
 The story is that of a fact, hard indeed to be 
 understood, but not to be made easier by ex- 
 planations such as would invalidate the only 
 testimony on which it rests (Heubner’s Practical 
 Commentary on Matthew). 
 
 The three temptations are addressed to the 
 three forms in which the disease of sin makes 
 its appearance on the soul—to the solace of 
 sense, and the love of praise, and the desire of 
 gain (1 John ii. 16). But there is one element. 
 common to them all—they are attempts to call 
 up a wilful and wayward spirit in contrast toa 
 patient self-denying one. 
 
 In the first temptation the Redeemer is an 
 hungered and when the Devil bids Him, if He 
 be the Son of God, command that the stones 
 may be made bread, there would seem te be 
 no great sin inthis use of Divine power to over- 
 come the pressing human want. Our Lord’s 
 answer is required to show us where the essence 
 of the temptation lay. He takes the words of 
 Moses to the children of Israel (Deut. viii. 3), 
 which mean, not that men must dispense with 
 bread and feed only on the study of the Divine 
 word, but that our meat and drink, our food 
 and raiment, are all the work of the creating 
 hand of God; and that a sense of dependence out 
 God is the duty of man. He tells the Tempter 
 that as the sons of Israel standing in the wilder- 
 ness were forced to humble themselves and to 
 wait upon the hand of God for the bread from 
 heaven which He gave them, so the Son of Man, 
 fainting in the wilderness from hunger, will be 
 humble and will wait upon His Father in heaven 
 for the word that shall bring Him food, and 
 will not be hasty to deliver Himself from that 
 dependent state, but will wait patiently for the 
 gifts of His goodness. In the second temptation, 
 it is not probable that they left the wilderness, 
 but that Satan was allowed to suggest to our 
 Lord’s mind the place, and the marvel that 
 could be wrought there. They stood, as has 
 been suggested, on the lofty porch that over- 
 hung the valley of Kedron, where the steep side 
 of the valley was added to the height of the 
 Temple (Joseph. Ant. xv. 11, § 5), and made a 
 depth that the eye could scarcely have borne to 
 look down upon. “Cast Thyself down ”—per- 
 form in the Holy City, in a public place, a wonder 
 that will at once make all men confess that none 
 but the Son of God could perform it. A passage 
 from Psalm xci. is quoted to give a colour 
 to the argument. Our Lord replies by an 
 allusion to another text that carries us back 
 again to the Israelites wandering in the wilder- 
 ness: “ Ye shall not tempt the Lord your God, 
 as ye tempted Him in Massah” (Deut. vi. 16). 
 Their conduct is more fully described by the 
 Psalmist as a tempting of God: “ They tempted 
 God in their heart by asking meat for their 
 
JESUS CHRIST 
 
 lust; yea, they spake against God: they said, 
 Can God furnish a table in the wilderness? Be- 
 hold He smote the rock that the waters eushed 
 out, and the streams overflowed. Can He give 
 bread also? Can He provide flesh for His 
 people?” (Ps. Ixxviii.) Just parallel was the 
 temptation here :—‘ God has protected Thee so 
 far, brought Thee up, put His seal upon ‘Thee 
 hy manifest proofs of His favour. Can He do 
 this also? Can He send the angels to buoy 
 Thee up in Thy descent? Can He make the 
 air thick to sustain, and the earth soft to receive 
 Thee?” The appropriate answer is, “Thou shalt 
 not tempt the Lord thy God.” In the third 
 temptation it is not asserted that there is any 
 mountain from which the eyes of common men 
 can see the world and its kingdoms at once 
 displayed ; it was with the mental vision of One 
 Who knew all things that these kingdoms and 
 their glory were seen. And Satan has now 
 begun to discover, if he knew not from the 
 beginning, that One is here Who can become the 
 King over them all. He says, ‘“ All these things 
 will I give Thee if Thou wilt fall down and 
 worship me.” In St. Luke the words are fuller: 
 All this power will I give Thee, and the glory 
 of them, for that is delivered unto me, and to 
 whomsvever I will I give it;” but these words 
 are the lie of the Tempter, which he uses to 
 mislead. ‘‘ Thou art come to be great—to he 
 a King on the earth; but 1 am strong, and will 
 resist Thee. Thy fellowers shall be imprisoned 
 and slain; some of them shall fall away through 
 fear; others shall forsake Thy cause, loving 
 this present world. Cast in Thy lot with me; 
 Jet Thy kingdom be an earthly kingdom, only 
 the greatest of all—a kingdom such as the Jews 
 seek to see established on the throne of David. 
 Worship me by living as the children of this 
 world live, and so honouring me in Thy life: 
 then all shall be Thine.” The Lord knows that 
 the Tempter is right in foretelling such trials to 
 Him ; but though clouds and darkness hang 
 over the path of His ministry, He must work 
 the work of Him that sent Him, and not another 
 work: He must worship God and none other. 
 “Get thee hence, Satan; for it is written, Thou 
 shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only 
 shalt thou serve.” As regards the order of the 
 temptations, there are internal marks that the 
 account of St. Matthew assigns them their 
 historical order: St. Luke transposes the two 
 last, for which various reasons are suggested by 
 commentators (Matt. iv. 1-11; Mark i. 12, 13; 
 Luke iv. 1-13). 
 Deserting for a time the historical order, we 
 shal] find that the records of this first portion 
 of His ministry, from the Temptation to the 
 _ Transfiguration, consist mainiy—(1) of miracles, 
 which prove His Divine commission; (2) of 
 discourses and parables on the doctrine of “the 
 kingdom of heaven”; (3) of incidents showing 
 the behaviour of various persons when brought 
 into contact with our Lord. The two former 
 _ may require some general remarks, the last will 
 unfold themselves with the narrative. 
 1. Tie Miracles—The power of working 
 miracles was granted to many under the Old 
 Covenant: Moses (Ex. iii. 20, vii.—xi.) delivered 
 the people of Israel from Egypt by means of 
 them; and Joshua, following in his steps, en- 
 _joyed the same power for the completion of his 
 
 r 
 } 
 J 
 
 JESUS CHRIST 1667 
 
 work (Josh. iii. 13-16). Samson (Judg. xv. 19), 
 Elijah (1 K. xvii. 10, &c.), and Elisha (2 K. 
 ii.—vi.) possessed the same gift. The Prophets 
 foretold that the Messiah, of Whom Moses was 
 the type, would show signs and wonders as he 
 had done. Isaiah, in describing His kingdom, 
 says—‘ Then the eyes of the blind shall be 
 opened, and the ears of the deaf shall be un- 
 stopped. ‘Then shall the lame man leap as an 
 hart, and the tongue of the dumb sing ” (xxxv. 
 5, 6). According to the same Prophet, the 
 Christ was called “to open the blind eyes, to 
 bring out the prisoners from the prison, and 
 them that sit in darkness out of the prison- 
 house ” (xlii. 7). And all who looked for the 
 coming of the Messiah expected that the power 
 of miracles would be one of the tokens of His 
 commission. When John the Baptist, in his 
 prison, heard of the works of Jesus, he sent his. 
 disciples to inquire, “Art Thou He that should 
 come (ὁ épxéuevos=the Messiah), or do we look: 
 for another?” Our Lord, in answer to this,. 
 only points to His miracles, leaving. to John the 
 inference from them, that no one could do such 
 works except the promised One. When our: 
 Lord cured a blind and dumb demoniac, the 
 people, struck with the miracle, said, “Is not 
 this the Son of David?” (Matt. xii. 23). On, 
 another like occasion it was asked, “ When 
 Christ cometh, will He do more miracles than. 
 these which this man hath done?” (John vii. 31). 
 So that the expectation that Messiah would 
 work miracles existed amongst the people, and 
 was founded on the language of prophecy. Our 
 Lord’s miracles are described in the New Testa- 
 ment by several names: they are signs (σημεῖα), 
 wonders (τέρατα), works (ἔργα, most frequently 
 in St. John), and mighty works (δυνάμεις),. 
 according to the point of view from which they 
 are regarded. They are indeed astonishing 
 works, wrought as signs of the Might and 
 Presence of God; and they are powers or mighty 
 works because they are such as no power short 
 of the Divine could have effected. But if the- 
 object had been merely to work wonders, with-- 
 out any other aim than to astonish the minds. 
 of the witnesses, the miracles of our Lord would 
 not have been the best means of producing the 
 effect, since many of them were wrought for 
 the good of obscure people, before witnesses 
 chiefly of the humble and uneducated class, and 
 in the course of the ordinary life of our Lord, 
 which lay not amongst those who made it their 
 special business to inquire into the claims of a 
 prophet. When requests were made for a more 
 striking sign than those which He had wrought, 
 for “a sign from heaven” (Luke xi. 16), it was 
 refused. When the Tempter suggested that He 
 should cast Himself down from the pinnacle of 
 the Temple before all men, the temptation was. 
 rejected. The miracles of our Lord were to be, 
 not wonders merely, but signs; and not merely 
 signs of preternatural power, but of the scope 
 and character of His ministry, and of the Divine 
 Nature of His Person. This will be evident 
 from an examination of those which are more 
 particularly described in the Gospels. Nearly 
 forty cases of this kind appear; but that they 
 are only examples taken out of a very great 
 number, the Evangelists frequently remind us 
 (John ii. 23; Matt. viii. 16 and parall., iv. 23, 
 xii. 15 and parall.; Luke vi. 19; Matt. xi. 5, 
 50 2 
 
1668 JESUS CHRIST 
 
 xiii, 58, ix. 35, xiv. 14, 36, xv. 30, xix. 2, 
 xxi. 14). These cases might be classified. There 
 are three instances of restoration to life, each 
 under peculiar conditions: the daughter of 
 Jairus was lately dead; the widow's son at 
 Nain was being carried out to the grave; and 
 Lazarus had been four days dead, and was re- 
 turning to corruption (Matt. ix. 18; Luke vii. 
 11, 12; John xi. 1, &c.). There are about six 
 cases of demoniac possession, each with its own 
 circumstances: one in the synagogue at Caper- 
 naum, where the unclean spirit bore witness to 
 Jesus as “the Holy One of God” (Mark i. 24); 
 a second, that of the man who dwelt among the 
 tombs in the country of the Gadarenes, whose 
 state is so forcibly described by St. Mark (v. 2), 
 and who also bore witness to Him as “ the Son 
 of the Most High God”; a third, the case of a 
 dumb man (Matt. ix. 32); a fourth, that of a 
 youth who was brought to Him as He came 
 down from the Mount of Transfiguration (Matt. 
 xvii. 15), and whom the disciples had vainly 
 tried to heal; a fifth, that of another dumb 
 man, whom the Jews thought he had healed 
 “through Beelzebub the prince of the devils” 
 (Luke xi. 15); and a sixth, that of the Syro- 
 Phoenician girl whose mother’s faith was so 
 tenacious (Matt. xv. 22). There are about 
 seventeen recorded cases of the cure of bodily 
 sickness, including fever, leprosy, palsy, in- 
 veterate weakness, the maimed limb, the issue 
 of blood of twelve years’ standing, dropsy, 
 blindness, deafness, and dumbness (John iv. 47 ; 
 Matt. viii. 2, 14, ix. 2; John v. 5; Matt. xii. 10, 
 viii. 5, ix. 20, 27; Mark viii. 22; John ix. 1; 
 Luke xiii. 10, xvii. 11, xviii. 35, xxii. 51). These 
 three groups of miracles all pertain to one class ; 
 they ail brought help to the suffering or 
 sorrowing, and proclaimed what love the Man 
 that did them bore towards the children of men. 
 There is another class, showing a complete 
 control over the powers of nature: first by acts 
 of creative power, as when in the beginning of 
 His ministry He made the water wine; and 
 when He fed at one time five thousand, and at 
 another four, with bread miraculously provided 
 (John ii. 7, vi. 10; Matt. xv. 32); secondly, by 
 setting aside natural laws and conditions—now 
 in passing unseen through a hostile crowd 
 (Luke iv. 30); now in procuring miraculous 
 draughts of fishes, when the fisher’s skill had 
 failed (Luke v. 4; John xxi. 6); now in stilling 
 a tempest (Matt. viii. 26); now in walking to 
 His disciples on the sea (Matt. xiv. 25); now in 
 the transformation of His countenance by a 
 heavenly light and glory (Matt. xvii. 1); and 
 again in seeking and finding the shekel for the 
 customary tribute to the Temple in the fish’s 
 mouth (Matt. xvii. 27). In a third class of 
 these miracles we find our Lord overawing the 
 wills of men; as when He twice cleared the 
 Temple of the traders (John ii. 13; Matt. xxi. 
 12); and when His look staggered the officers 
 that came to take Him (John xviii. 6). And in 
 a fourth subdivision will stand one miracle only, 
 where His power was used for destruction—the 
 case of the barren fig-tree (Matt. xxi. 18), The 
 destruction of the herd of swine does not pro- 
 perly rank here; it was a permitted act of the 
 devils which He cast out, and is no more to be 
 laid to the account of the Redeemer than are all 
 the sicknesses and sufferings in the land of the 
 
 JESUS CHRIST 
 
 Jews which He permitted to waste and destroy, 
 having, as He showed by His miracles, abundant 
 power to prevent them. All the miracles of 
 this latter class show our Lord to be One Who 
 wields the power of God. No one can suspend 
 the laws of nature save Him Who made them: 
 when bread is wonderfully multiplied and the 
 fickle sea becomes a firm floor to walk on, the 
 God of the Universe is working the change, ἡ 
 directly or through His deputy. Very remark- 
 able, as a claim to Divine power, is the mode in 
 which Jesus justified acts of healing on the 
 Sabbath—“ My Father worketh hitherto, and [ 
 work”? (John v. 17): which means, “As God 
 the Father, even on the Sabbath-day, keeps all 
 the laws of the universe at work, making the 
 planets roll, and the grass grow, and the animal 
 pulses beat, so do I My work; I stand above the 
 law of the Sabbath, as He does.” » 
 
 On reviewing all the recorded miracles, we 
 see at once that they are signs of the nature of 
 Christ’s Person and mission. None of them are 
 done merely to astonish; and hardly any of 
 them, even of those which prove His power 
 more than His love, but tend directly towards 
 the good of men in some way or other. They 
 show how active and unwearied was His love; 
 they also show the diversity of its operation. 
 Every degree of human need—from Lazarus 
 now returning to dust—through the palsy that 
 has seized on brain and nerves, and is almost 
 death—through the leprosy which, appearing 
 on the skin, was really a subtle poison that had 
 tainted every drop of blood in the veins—up to 
 the injury to the particular limb—received 
 succour from the powerful word of Christ ; and 
 to wrest His buried friend from corruption and 
 the worm was neither more nor less difficult 
 than to heal a withered hand or restore to its 
 place an ear that had been cut off. And this 
 intimate connexion of the miracles with the 
 work of Christ will explain the fact that faith 
 was in many cases required as a condition for 
 their performance. According to the common 
 definition of a miracle, any one would seem to 
 be a capable witness of its performance: yet 
 Jesus sometimes refrained from working wonders 
 before the unbelieving (Mark vi. 5, 6), and 
 sometimes did the work that was asked of Him 
 because of the faith of them that asked it (Mark 
 vii. 29). The miracles were intended to attract 
 the witnesses of them to become followers of 
 Jesus and members of the kingdom of heaven. 
 Where faith was already so far fixed on Him as 
 to believe that He could do miracles, there was 
 the fit preparation for a faith in higher and 
 heavenly things. If they knew that He could 
 heal the body, they only required teaching to 
 enlarge their view of Him into that of a healer 
 of the diseased spirit, and a giver of true life to 
 
 b The Saviour’s miracles are — 
 f In raising the dead. 
 I. Of love In curing mental disease. 
 
 \ In healing the body. 
 
 ( In creating. 
 In destroying. 
 
 TL. Of power 35 ἐ ΤΩ setae the ordinary laws of being. 
 
 In overawing the opposing wills of men. 
 
 In the account in the text, the miracles that took place 
 after-the Transfiguration have been included, for the 
 sake of completeness. 
 
JESUS CHRIST 
 
 those that are dead in trespasses and sins. On 
 the other hand, where men’s minds were in a 
 state of bitterness and antagonism against Him, 
 to display miracles before them would but 
 increase their condemnation. “If I had not 
 done among them the works which none other 
 man did, they had not had sin; but now have 
 they both seen and hated both Me and My 
 Father” (John xv. 24). This result was in- 
 evitable: in order to offer salvation to those 
 who are to be saved, the offer must be heard by 
 some of those who will reject it. Miracles then 
 have two purposes—the proximate and sub- 
 ordinate purpose of doing a work of love to 
 them that need it, and the higher purpose of 
 revealing Christ in His own Person and nature 
 as the Son of God and Saviour of men. Hence 
 the rejection of the demand for a sign from 
 heaven—for some great celestial phenomenon 
 which all should see and none could dispute. 
 He refused to give such a sign to the “ genera- 
 tion” that asked it: and once He offered them 
 instead the fact that Jonah was a type of Him 
 as to His Burial and Resurrection, thus refusing 
 them the kind of sign which they required. So 
 again, in answer to a similar demand, He said, 
 “ Destroy this Temple and in three days I will 
 raise it up ”—alluding to His Death and Resur- 
 rection. It is as though He had said, “" All the 
 miracles that I have been working are only in- 
 tended to call attention to the one great miracle 
 of My Presence on earth in the form of a servant. 
 No other kind of miracle will I work. If you 
 wish for a greater sign, I refer you to the great 
 miracle about to be wrought in Me—that of My 
 Resurrection.” The Lord’s words do not mean 
 that there shall be no sign; He is working 
 wonders daily : but that He will not travel out 
 of the plan He has proposed for Himself. <A 
 sign in the sun and moon and stars would prove 
 that the power of God was there; but it would 
 not teach men to understand the mission of God 
 Incarnate, of the loving and suffering Friend 
 and Brother of men. The miracles which He 
 wrought are those best suited to this purpose ; 
 and those who had faith, though but in small 
 measure, were the fittest to behold them. They 
 knew Him but a little; but even to think of 
 Him as a Prophet Who was able to heal their 
 infirmity was a germ of faith sufficient to make 
 them fit hearers of His doctrine and spectators 
 of His deeds. But they gained nothing from 
 the Divine work who, unable to deny the evi- 
 dence of their eves and ears, took refuge in the 
 last argument of malice, ‘He casteth out devils 
 through Beelzebub the prince of the devils.” 
 What is a miracle? A miracle must be either 
 something done in contravention of all law, or it 
 is a transgression of all the laws known to us, 
 but not of some law which further research may 
 discover for us; or it is a transgression of all 
 natural laws, whether known now or to be 
 known hereafter, on account of some higher law 
 whose operation interferes with them. Only 
 the last of these definitions could apply to the 
 Christian miracles. God having chosen to govern 
 the world by laws, having impressed on the face 
 of nature in characters not to be mistaken the 
 great truth that He rules the Universe. by law 
 and order, would not adopt in the kingdom of 
 grace a different plan from that which in the 
 kingdom of nature He has pursued. If the seen 
 
 1669 
 
 universe requires a scheme of order, and the 
 spiritual world is governed without a scheme 
 (so to speak) by caprice, then the God of Nature 
 appears to contradict the God of Grace. Spinoza 
 has not failed to make the most of this argu- 
 ment; but he assails not the true Christian idea 
 of a miracle, but one which he substitutes for it 
 (Tract. Theol, Polit. 6). Nor can the Christian 
 miracles be regarded as cases in which the 
 wonder depends on the anticipation only of some 
 law that is not now understood, but shall be so 
 hereafter. In the first place many of them go 
 beyond, in the amount of their operation, all 
 the wildest hopes of the scientific discoverer. 
 In the second place, the very conception of a 
 miracle is vitiated by such an explanation. All 
 distinction in kind between the man who is 
 somewhat in advance of his age in physical 
 knowledge, and the worker of miracles, would 
 be taken away; and the miracles of one age, as 
 the steam-engine, the telegraph-wire, become 
 the tools and toys of the next. It remains then 
 that a miracle is to be regarded as the over- 
 ruling of some physical law by some higher law 
 that is brought in. We are invited in the 
 Gospels to regard the miracles not as wonders, 
 but as the wonderful acts of Jesus of Nazareth. 
 They are identified with the work of redemption. 
 There are even cautions against teaching them 
 separately—against severing them from their 
 connexion with His work. Eye-witnesses of His 
 miracles were strictly charged to make no report 
 of them to others (Matt. ix. 30; Mark. v. 43, 
 vii. 36). And yet when John the Baptist sent 
 his disciples to ascertain whether the Messiah 
 were indeed come or not, the answer they took 
 back was the very thing which was forbidden to 
 others—a report of miracles. The expianation 
 of this seeming contradiction is that wherever a 
 report of the signs and wonders was likely to be 
 conveyed without a right conception or the 
 Person of Christ and the kind of doctrine which 
 He taught, there He suffered not the report to 
 be carried. Now, had the purpose been to reveal 
 His Divine Nature only, this caution would not 
 have been needed, nor would faith have been a 
 needful preliminary for the apprehension of 
 miracles, nor would the temptations of Satan in 
 the wilderness have been the cunning snares 
 they were intended to be, nor would it have 
 been necessary to refuse the convincing sign 
 from heaven to the Jews that asked it. but 
 the part of His work to which attention was to 
 be directed in connexion with the miracles, was 
 the mystery of our redemption by One “ Who 
 being in the form of God, thought it not robbery 
 to be equal with God, but made Himself of no 
 reputation, and took upon Him the form of a 
 servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 
 and being found in fashion as a man, He humbled 
 Himself, and became obedient unto death, even 
 the death of the Cross” (Phil. ii. 5-8). Very 
 few are the miracles in which Divine power is 
 exercised without a manifest reference to the 
 purpose of assisting men. He works for the 
 most part as the Power of God in a state of 
 humiliation for the good of men. Not insignifi- 
 cant here are the cases in which He condescends 
 to use means, wholly inadequate indeed in any 
 other hands than His; but still they are a token 
 that He has descended into the region where 
 means are employed, from that in which even 
 
 JESUS CHRIST 
 
1670 
 
 the spoken word can control the subservient 
 agents of nature. He laid His hand upon the 
 patient (Matt. viii. 3, 15, ix. 29, xx. 34; Luke 
 vii. 14, xxii. 51). He anointed the eyes of 
 the blind with clay (John ix. 6), He put His 
 finger into the ear and touched the tongue of 
 the deaf and dumb sufferer in Decapolis (Mark 
 vii. 38, 54). He treated the blind man at 
 Bethsaida in like fashion (Mark viii. 29). Even 
 when He fed the four and five thousand, He did 
 not create bread out of nothing, which would 
 have been as easy for Him, but much bread out 
 of little; and He looked up to heaven and 
 blessed the meat as a thankful man would do 
 (Matt. xiv. 19; John vi. 11; Matt. xv. 36).” At 
 the grave of Lazarus He lifted up His eyes and 
 gave thanks that the Father had heard Him 
 (John xi. 41, 42), and this great miracle is 
 accompanied by tears and groanings, that show 
 how One so mighty to save has truly become a 
 man with human soul and sympathies. The 
 worker of the miracles is God become Man; 
 and as signs of His Person and work are they to 
 be measured. Hence, when the question of the 
 credibility of miracles is discussed, it ought to 
 be preceded by the question, Is redemption from 
 the sin of Adam a probable thing? Is it 
 probable that there are spiritual laws as well as 
 natural, regulating the relations between us and 
 the Father of our spirits?: Is it probable that, 
 such laws existing, the needs of men and the 
 goodness of God would lead to an expression of 
 them, complete or partial, by means of revela- 
 tion? If these questions are all decided in 
 the affirmative, then Hume’s argument against 
 miracles is already half overthrown. ‘No 
 testimony,” says Hume, “‘is sufficient to establish 
 a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a 
 kind that its falsehood would be more miraculous 
 than the fact which it endeavours to establish ; 
 and even in that case there is a mutual destruc- 
 tion of arguments, and the superior only gives 
 us an assurance suitable to that degree of 
 force which remains after deducting the inferior” 
 (Essays, vol. ii. p. 130). If the Christian 
 miracles are parts of a scheme which bears 
 other marks of a Divine origin, they point to the 
 existence of a set of spiritual laws with which 
 Christianity is connected, and of which it is the 
 expression; and then the difficulty of believing 
 them disappears. They are not “against nature,” 
 but above it; they are not the few caprices of 
 Providence breaking in upon ages of order, but 
 they are glimpses of the Divine spiritual cosmos 
 permitted to be seen amidst the laws of the 
 natural world, of which they take precedence, 
 just as in the physical world one law can 
 supersede another. And as to the testimony for 
 them let Paley speak :—“ If twelve men, whose 
 probity and good sense I had long known, should 
 seriously and circumstantially relate to me an 
 account of ἃ miracle wrought before their eyes, 
 and in which it was impossible they should be 
 deceived; if the governor of the country, hearing 
 a rumour of this account, should call those men 
 into his presence, and offer them a short proposal, 
 either to confess the imposture or submit to be 
 tied up to a gibbet; if they should refuse with 
 one voice to acknowledge that there existed any 
 falsehood or imposture in the case; if this threat 
 Were communicated to them separately, yet 
 with no different effect; if it was at last 
 
 JESUS CHRIST 
 
 JESUS CHRIST 
 
 executed, if I myself saw them one after another 
 consenting to be racked, burnt or strangled, 
 rather than give up the truth of their account ; 
 ... there exists not a sceptic in the world who 
 would not believe them, or who would defend 
 such incredulity "ἢ (Evidences, Introduction, p. 6). 
 In the theory of a “mutual destruction” of 
 arguments so that the belief in miracles would 
 represent exactly the balance between the evi- 
 dence for and against them, Hume contradicts 
 the commonest religious, and indeed worldly, 
 experience ; he confounds the state of delibera- 
 tion and examination with that of conviction. 
 When Thomas the Apostle, who had doubted the 
 great central miracle of the Resurrection, was 
 allowed to touch the Saviour’s wounded side, 
 and in an access of undoubting faith exclaimed, 
 “My Lord and my God!” who does not see 
 that at that moment all the former doubts were 
 wiped out, and were as though they had never 
 been? How could he carry about those doubts 
 or any recollection of them, to be a set-oif 
 against the complete conviction that had suc- 
 ceeded them? It is so with the Christian life 
 in every case; faith, which is “the substance of 
 things hoped for, the evidence of things not 
 seen,” could not continue to weigh and balance 
 evidence for and against the truth; the convic- 
 tion either rises to a perfect moral certainty, or 
 it continues tainted and worthless as a principle 
 of action. 
 
 The lapse of time may somewhat alter the 
 aspect of the evidence for miracles, but it does 
 not weaken it. It is more difficult (so to speak) 
 to cross-examine witnesses who delivered their 
 testimony ages ago; but another kind of evi- 
 dence has been gathering strength in successive 
 ages. The miracles are all consequences and 
 incidents of one great miracle, the Incarnation ; 
 and if the Incarnation is found true, the rest 
 become highly probable. But this very doctrine 
 has been thoroughly proved through all these 
 ages. Nations have adopted it, and they are the 
 greatest nations of the world. Men have lived 
 and died in it, have given up their lives to 
 preach it; have found that it did not disappoint 
 them, but held true under them to the last. 
 The existence of Christianity itself has become 
 an evidence. It is a phenomenon easy to under- 
 stand if we grant the miracle of the Incarnation, 
 but is an effect without an adequate cause if 
 that be denied. 
 
 Miracles then are offered us in the Gospels, 
 not as startling violations of the order of nature, 
 but as consequences of the revelation of Himself 
 made by Jesus Christ for men’s salvation, and as 
 such they are not violations of order at all, but 
 interferences of the spiritual order with the 
 natural. They are abundantly witnessed by 
 earnest and competent men, who did not aim at 
 any earthly reward for their teaching; and 
 they are proofs, together with His pure life and 
 holy doctrine, that Jesus was the Son of God 
 (see Dean Trench on the Miracles, an important 
 work; Baumgarten, Leben Jesu; Paley’s Lvi- 
 dences; Butler’s Analogy; Hase, Leben Jesu ; 
 with the various Commentaries on the New 
 Testament). 
 
 2. The Parables.—In considering the Lord’s 
 teaching we turn first to the parables. In all 
 ages the aid of the imagination has been sought 
 to assist in the teaching of abstract truth, and 
 
JESUS CHRIST 
 
 that in various ways: in the parable, where 
 some story of ordinary doings is made to convey 
 4 spiritual meaning, beyond what the narrative 
 itself contains, and without any assertion that 
 the narrative does or does not present an actual 
 occurrence: in the fable, where a story, for the 
 most part an impossible one, of talking beast 
 and reasoning bird, is made the vehicle of some 
 shrewd and prudent lesson of worldly wisdom : 
 in the allegory, which is a story with a moral 
 or spiritual meaning, in which the lesson taught 
 is so prominent as almost wholly to supersede 
 the story that clothes it, and the names and 
 actions are so chosen that no interpreter shall 
 be required for the application: and lastly, in 
 the proverb, which is often only a parable or a 
 fable condensed into a few pithy words [PArR- 
 ABLE] (Ernesti, Lex. Zech. Graecwn, under 
 παραβολή, λόγος, &AAnyopia; Trench, On the 
 Parables; Alford on Matt. xiii. 1, and other 
 Commentators; Hase, Leben Jesu, § 67, 4th edit. ; 
 Neander, Leben Jesu, Ὁ. 568 sq.). Nearly fifty 
 parables are preserved in the Gospels, and they 
 are only selected from a larger number (Mark 
 iv. 33). Each Evangelist, even St. Mark, has 
 preserved some that are peculiar to himself. 
 St. John never uses the word parable, but that 
 of proverb (παροιμία), which the other Eyan- 
 gelists nowhere employ. In reference to this 
 mode of teaching, our Lord tells the disciples, 
 “‘Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of 
 the kingdom of God; but to others in parables, 
 that seeing they might not see, and hearing 
 they might not understand” (Luke viii. 10): 
 and some have hastily concluded from this that 
 the parable—the clearest of all modes of teaching 
 —was employed to conceal knowledge from 
 those who were not susceptible of it, and that 
 this was its chief purpose. But it was chosen 
 not for this negative object, but for its positive 
 advantages in the instruction of the disciples. 
 The nature of the kingdom of heaven was not 
 understood even by disciples; hard even to 
 them were the sayings that described it, and the 
 hearing of them caused many to go back and 
 walk no more with Him (John vi. 66). If there 
 was any mode of teaching better suited than 
 another to the purpose of preserving truths for 
 the memory that were not yet accepted by the 
 heart—for keeping the seed sate till the time 
 should arrive for the quickening Spirit to come 
 down and give it growth—that mode would be 
 the best suited to the peculiar position of the 
 disciples. And any means of translating an 
 abstract thought into sensuous language has 
 ever been the object of poet and teacher in all 
 countries. He who can best employ the symbols 
 of the visible world for the deeper acts of 
 thought has been the clearest and most suc- 
 <esstul expositor. The parable affords just such 
 an instrument as was required. Who could 
 banish from his mind, when once understood, 
 the image of the house built on the sand, as the 
 symbol of the faithless soul unable to stand by 
 the truth in the day of temptation? To whom 
 does not the parable of the prodigal son bring 
 back the thought of God’s merciful kindness 
 towards the erring? But without such striking 
 images it would have been impossible (to use 
 mere human language) to make known to the 
 disciples in their half-enlightened state the 
 mysteries of faith in the Son of God as a 
 
 JESUS CHRIST 1671 
 
 principle of life, of repentance from sin, and of 
 an assurance of peace and welcome from the God 
 of mercy. Eastern teachers have made this 
 mode of instruction familiar ; the originality of 
 the parables lay not in the method of teaching 
 by stories, but in the profound and new truths 
 which the stories taught so aptly. And Jesus 
 had another purpose in selecting this form of 
 instruction: He foresaw that many would re- 
 ject Him, and on them He would not lay a 
 heavier burden than they needs must bear. He 
 did not offer them daily and hourly, in their 
 plainest form, the grand truths of sin and atone- 
 ment, of judgment and heaven and hell, and in 
 so doing multiply occasions of blaspheming. 
 “Those that were without ” heard the parable ; 
 but it was an aimless story to them if they 
 sought no moral purpose under it, and a dark 
 saying, passing comprehension, if they did so 
 seek. When the Lord gathered round Him those 
 that were willing to be His, and explained to 
 them at length the parable and its application 
 (Matt. xiii. 10-18), then the light thus thrown 
 on it was not easy to extinguish in their memory. 
 And amongst those without there was no doubt 
 a difference; some listened with indifferent, and 
 some with unbelieving and resisting minds; and 
 of both minds some remained in their aversion, 
 more or less active, from the Son of God unto 
 the end, and some were converted after He was 
 risen. ‘lo these we may suppose that the 
 parables which had rested in their memories as 
 vivid pictures, yet still a dead letter, so far as 
 moral import is concerned, became by the Holy 
 Spirit, Whose business it was to teach men all 
 things and to bring all things to their remem- 
 brance (John xiv. 26), a quick and powerful 
 light of truth, lighting up the dark places with 
 a brightness never again to fade from their eyes. 
 The parable unapplied is a dark saying; the 
 parable explained is the clearest of all teaching. 
 When language is used in Holy Scripture which 
 would seem to treat the parables as means of 
 concealment rather than of instruction, it must 
 be taken to refer to the unexplained parable —to 
 the cypher without the key—the symbol with- 
 out the interpretation. 
 
 Besides the parables, the more direct teaching 
 of our Lord is conveyed in many discourses, 
 dispersed through the Gospels; of which three 
 may be here selected as examples,—the Sermon 
 on the Mount (Matt. v.-vii.), the discourse after 
 the feeding of the five thousand (John vi. 22— 
 65), and the final discourse and prayer which 
 preceded the Passion (John xiv.—xvii.). These 
 are selected principally because they mark three 
 distinct periods in the ministry of Jesus,—the 
 opening of it, the principal change in the tone 
 of its teaching, and the solemn close. 
 
 Notwithstanding the endeavour to establish 
 that the Sermon on the Mount of St. Matthew 
 is different from the Sermon on the Plain of 
 St. Luke, the evidence for their being one and 
 the same discourse greatly preponderates. If 
 so, then its historical position must be fixed 
 from St. Luke; and its earlier place in St. Mat- 
 thew’s Gospel must be owing to the Evangelist’s 
 wish to commence the account of the ministry 
 of Jesus with a summary of His teaching; an 
 intention further illustrated by the mode in 
 which the Evangelist has wrought in with his 
 report of the discourse several sayings which 
 
1012 JESUS CHRIST 
 
 St. Luke connects with the various facts which 
 on different occasions drew them forth (cp. 
 Luke xiv. 34, xi. 53, xvi. 17, xii. 58, 59, xvi. 18, 
 with places in Matt. v.; also Luke xi. 1-4, 
 xii. 33, 34, xi. 34-36, xvi. 13, xii. 22-31, with 
 places in Matt. vi.; also Luxe xi. 9-13, xiii. 24, 
 25-27, with places in Matt. vii.). Yet this is 
 done without violence to the connexion and 
 structure of the whole discourse. St. Matthew, 
 to whom Jesus is ever present as the Messiah, 
 the Anointed Prophet of the chosen people, the 
 successor of Moses, sets at the head of His 
 ministry the giving of the Christian law with 
 its bearing on the Jewish. From St. Luke we 
 learn that Jesus had gone up into a mountain to 
 pray, that on the morning following He made 
 up the number of His twelve Apostles, and 
 solemnly appointed them, and then descending 
 He stood upon a level place (καταβὰς μετ᾽ αὐτῶν 
 ἔστη ἐπὶ τόπου πεδινοῦ, Luke vi. 17), not neces- 
 surely at the bottom of the mountain, but where 
 the multitude could stand round and hear; and 
 there He taught them in a solemn address the 
 laws and constitution of His new kingdom, the 
 kingdom of Heaven. He tells them who are 
 meet to be citizens of that heavenly polity, and 
 in so doing rebukes almost every quality on 
 which the world sets a value. The poor in 
 spirit, that is the lowly-minded, the mourners 
 and the meek, those who hunger and thirst for 
 righteousness, the merciful, the pure, the peace- 
 makers, are all “blessed,” are all possessed of 
 the temper which will assort well with that 
 heavenly kingdom, in contrast to the proud, the 
 confident, the great and successful, whom the 
 world honours. (St. Luke adds denunciations 
 of woe to the tempers which are opposed to the 
 Gospel, which St. Matthew omits.) This novel 
 exordium startles all the hearers, for it seems 
 to proclaim a new world, new hopes, and new 
 virtues; and our Lord then proceeds to meet 
 the question that rises up in their minds—“ If 
 these dispositions and not a literal obedience to 
 minute precepts constitute a Christian, what 
 then becomes of the Law?” Answering this 
 tacit objection, the Lord bids them “think net 
 that I am come to destroy (καταλῦσαι, abolish) 
 the Law and the Prophets, I am not come to 
 destroy but to fulfil” (πληρῶσαι, complete, Matt. 
 v.17). He goes on to tell them that not one 
 point or letter of the Law was written in vain ; 
 that what was temporary in it does not fall 
 away till its purpose is answered, what was of 
 permanent obligation shall never be lost. He 
 then shows how far more deep and searching a 
 moral lawgiver He is than was Moses His proto- 
 type, who like Him spoke the Mind of God. The 
 eternal principles which Moses wrote in broad 
 lines, such as a dull and unspiritual people must 
 read, He applies to deeper-seated sins and to all 
 the finer shades of evil. Murder was denounced 
 by the Law; but anger and provoking speech 
 are of the same stock. It is not only murder, 
 but hate, that is the root of that poisonous fruit 
 which God abhors. Hate defiles the very offer- 
 ing that a man makes to God; let him leave 
 his gift unoffered and get the hate cast out, and 
 not waste his time in an unacceptable sacrifice. 
 Hate will affect the soul for ever, if it goes out 
 of the world to meet its Judge in that defiling 
 garment: “‘ Agree with thine adversary quickly, 
 whiles thou art in the way with him ” (v. 25). 
 
 JESUS CHRIST 
 
 The act of adultery is deadly, and Moses forbad 
 it. But to permit the thought of lust to rest 
 in the heart, to suffer the desire to linger there: 
 without combating it (βλέπειν πρὸς τὸ ἐπι-- 
 θυμῆσαι) is of the same nature, and shares the 
 condemnation. The breach of an oath (Lev. 
 xix. 12) was forbidden by the Law; and the 
 rabbinical writers had woven a distinction be- 
 tween oaths that were and oaths that were not 
 binding (Maimonides in Lightfoot, Hor. Heb. ii- 
 p- 127). Jesus shows that all oaths, whether 
 they name the Creator or not, are an appeal to. 
 Him, and all are on that account equally bind- 
 ing. But the need of an oath “cometh of evil ;” 
 the bare asseveration of a Christian should be 
 as solemn and sacred to him as the most binding 
 oath. That this in its simple literal application 
 would go to abolish all swearing is beyond a 
 question; but the Lord is sketching out a 
 perfect Law for a perfect kingdom; and this is. 
 not the only part of the Sermon on the Mount 
 which in the present state of the world cannot 
 be carried out completely. Men there are on 
 whom a word is less binding than an oath; and 
 in judicial proceedings the highest test must be 
 applied to them to elicit the truth; therefore 
 an oath must still form part of a legal process, 
 and a good man may take what is really kept 
 up to control the wicked. Jesus Himself did 
 not refuse the oath administered to Him in the 
 Sanhedrin (Matt. xxvi. 63). And yet the need 
 of an oath “cometh of evil,” for among men 
 who respect the truth it would add nothing to. 
 the weight of their evidence. Almost the same 
 would apply to the precepts with which our 
 Lord replaces the much-abused law of retalia- 
 tion, “ An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a 
 tooth ” (Ex. xxi. 24). To conquer an enemy by 
 submission where he expected resistance is of 
 the very essence of the Gospel; it is an exact 
 imitation of our Lord’s own example, Who, 
 when He might have summoned more thar 
 twelve legions of Angels to His aid, allowed the 
 Jews to revile and slay Him. And yet it is not 
 possible at once to wipe out from our social 
 arrangements the principle of retribution. The 
 robber who takes a coat must not be encouraged 
 to seize the cloak also; to give to every one 
 that asks all that he asks would be an en- 
 couragement to sloth and shameless impor- 
 tunity. But yet the awakened conscience will 
 find out a hundred ways in which the spirit ot 
 this precept may be carried out, even in our 
 imperfect social state; and the power of this. 
 loving policy will be felt by those who attempt 
 it. Finally, our Lord sums up this portion of 
 His Divine law by words full of sublime wis- 
 dom. Τὸ the cramped and confined love of the 
 Rabbis, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour and 
 hate thine enemy,” He opposes this nobler rule 
 —<Love your enemies, bless them that curse 
 you, do good to them that hate you, and pray 
 for them which despitefully use you and per- 
 secute you, that ye may be the children of your 
 Father Which is in heaven; for He maketh His. 
 sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and 
 sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust .. . 
 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father 
 Which is in heaven is perfect ” (Matt. v. 44, 
 45, 48). To this part of the sermon, which 
 St. Luke has not preserved, but which St. 
 Matthew, writing as it were with his face 
 
JESUS CHRIST 
 
 turned towards his Jewish countrymen, could 
 not pretermit, succeed precepts on almsgiving, 
 on prayer, on forgiveness, on fasting, on trust 
 in God’s providence, and on tolerance; all of 
 them tuned to one or two notes: that a man’s 
 whole nature must be offered to God, and that 
 it is man’s duty to do to others as he would 
 have them do to him, An earnest appeal on 
 the difficulty of a godly life, and the worthless- 
 ness of mere profession, cast in the form of a 
 parable, concludes this wonderful discourse. 
 The differences between the reports of the two 
 Evangelists are many. In the former Gospel 
 the sermon occupies one hundred and seven 
 verses; in the latter, thirty. ‘The longer report 
 includes the exposition of the relation of the 
 Gospel to the Law: it also draws together, as 
 we have seen, some passages which St. Luke 
 reports elsewhere and in another connexion; 
 and where the two contain the same matter, 
 that of St. Luke is somewhat more compressed. 
 But in taking account of this, the purpose of 
 St. Matthew is to be borne in mind: the 
 morality of the Gospel is to be fully set forth 
 at the beginning of our Lord’s ministry, and 
 especially in its bearing on the Law as usually 
 received by the Jews, for whose use especially 
 this Gospel was designed. And when this dis- 
 course is compared with the later examples to 
 which we shall presently refer, the fact comes 
 out more distinctly, that we have here the Code 
 of the Christian Lawgiver, rather than the 
 whole Gospel; that the standard of Christian 
 duty is here fixed, but the means for raising 
 men to the level where the observance of such a 
 law is at all possible are not yet pointed out. 
 The hearers learned how Christians would act 
 and think, and to what degree of moral purity 
 they would aspire, in the state of salvation ; but 
 how that state was to be purchased for them, and 
 conveyed over to them, is not yet pointed out. 
 The next example of the teaching of Jesus 
 must be taken from a later epoch in His 
 ministry. It is probable that the great dis- 
 course in John vi. took place about the time of 
 the Transfiguration, just before which He began 
 to reveal to the disciples the story of His suffer- 
 ings (Matt. xvi. and paraliels), which was the 
 special and frequent theme of His teaching until 
 the end. The etiect of His personal work on 
 the disciples now becomes the prominent sub- 
 ject. He had taught them that He was the 
 Christ, and had given them His law, wider and 
 deeper far than that of Moses. But the objection 
 to every law applies more strongly the purer and 
 higher the law is; and “how to perform that 
 which I will” is a question that grows more 
 difficult to answer as the standard of obedience 
 is raised. It is that question which our Lord 
 proceeds to answer here. The feeding of the 
 tive thousand had lately taken place; and from 
 this miracle He preaches yet a gyeater, namely, 
 that all spiritual life is imparted to the disciples 
 from Him, and that they must feed on Him that 
 their souls may live. He can feed them with 
 something more than manna, even with Him- 
 self; ‘for the Bread of God is He Which 
 cometh down from heaven and giveth life unto 
 the world” (John vi. 26-40). The Jews mur- 
 mur at this hard doctrine, and He warns them 
 that it is a kind of test of those who have been 
 with Him: “ Noman can come to Me except the 
 
 - JESUS CHRIST 1673 
 
 Father Which hath sent Me draw him.” He 
 repeats that He is the bread of Life; and they 
 murmur yet more (wv. 41-52). He presses i: 
 on them still more strongly: “ Verily, verily 1 
 say unto you, Except ye eat the Flesh of the 
 Son of man and drink His Blood, ye have no life 
 in you. Whoso eateth My Flesh and drinketh 
 My Blood hath eternal Life; and I will raise 
 him up at the last day. For My Flesh is meat. 
 indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed. He that 
 eateth My Flesh, and drinketh My Blood, dwell- 
 eth in Me and I in him, As the living Father 
 hath sent Me, and I live by the Father, so he 
 that eateth Me, even he shall live by Me” 
 (vv. 53-57). After this discourse many of the 
 disciples went back and walked no more with 
 Him. They could not conceive how salvation 
 could depend on a condition so strange; nay, 
 even so revolting. However we may blame 
 them for their want of confidence in their 
 Teacher, it is not to be imputed to them as a 
 fault that they found a doctrine, which in itself 
 is difficult, and here was clothed in dark and 
 obscure expressions, beyond the grasp of their 
 understanding at that time. Vor that doctrine 
 was, that Christ had taken our fleshly nature, 
 to suffer in it, and to shed His Blood in it; and 
 that those to whom the benefits of His atoning 
 death are imparted find it to ke their spiritual 
 food and life, and the condition of their resur- 
 rection to life everlasting. 
 
 Whether this passage refers, and in what 
 degree, to the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, 
 is a question on which commentators have been 
 much divided, but two observations should in 
 some degree guide our interpretation: the one, 
 that if the primary reference of the discourse 
 had been to the Lord’s Supper, it would have 
 been uttered at the institution of that rite, 
 and not before, at a time when the disciples 
 could not possibly make application of it to a 
 Sacrament of which they had never even heard ; 
 the other, that the form of speech in this dis- 
 course comes so near that which is used in in- 
 stituting the Lord’s Supper, that it is impossible 
 to exclude all reference to that Sacrament. The 
 Redeemer alludes here to His Death, to the Body 
 which shall suffer on the Cross, and to the Blood 
 which shall be poured out. This great sacrifice 
 is not only to be looked on, but to be believed; 
 and not only believed, but appropriated to the 
 believer, to become part of his very heart and 
 life. Faith, here as elsewhere, is the means of 
 apprehending it: but when it is once laid hold 
 ot, it will be as much a part of the believer 
 as the food that nourishes the body becomes in- 
 corporated with the body. In three passages in 
 the other Evangelists, in which our Lord about 
 this very time prepares them for His sufferings, 
 He connects with the announcement a warning 
 to the disciples that all who would come after 
 Him must show the fruit of His death in their 
 lives (Matt. xvi., Mark viii., Luke ix.). And 
 this new principle, infused into them by the life: 
 and death of the Redeemer, by His taking our 
 flesh and then suffering in it (for neither of 
 these is excluded), is to believers the seed of 
 eternal life. ‘The believer “hath eternal life ; 
 and I will raise him up at the last day” (John 
 vi. 54). Now the words of Jesus in instituting 
 the Lord’s Supper come very near to the ex 
 pressions in this discourse: “This is My Body 
 
167 JESUS CHRIST “ 
 which is given for you (ὑπὲρ tuwv)... This 
 cup is the new testament in My Blood, which 
 is shed for you” (Luke xxii. 19, 20). That the 
 Lord’s Supper is a means of applying to us 
 through faith the fruits of the Incarnation and 
 the Atonement of Christ, is generally admitted ; 
 and if so, the discourse before us will apply 
 to that Sacrament, not certainly to the ex- 
 clusion of other means of appropriating the 
 saving Death of Christ, but still with great 
 force, inasmuch as the Lord’s Supper is the most 
 striking symbol of the application to us of the 
 Lord’s Body. Here in a bold figure the disciples 
 are told that they must eat the Flesh of Christ 
 and drink His Blood; whilst in the Sacrament 
 the same figure becomes an act. Here the 
 language is meant to be general; and there it 
 finds its most striking special application, but not 
 its only one. And the uttcring of these words at 
 an epoch that preceded by some months the 
 first celebration of the Lord’s Supper was pro- 
 bably intended to preclude that special and 
 limited application of it which would narrow 
 it down to the Sacrament only, and out of which 
 much false and even idolatrous teaching has 
 grown (cp. Commentaries of Alford, Liicke, 
 Meyer, Stier, Heubner, Williams, Tholuck, and 
 others, on this passage). It will still be asked 
 how we are to account for the startling form in 
 which this most profound Gospel-truth was put 
 before persons to whom it was likely to prove 
 an offence. The answer is not difficult. Many 
 had companied with the Lord during the early 
 part of His ministry, to see His miracles, perhaps 
 .to derive some fruit from them, to talk about 
 Him, and to repeat His sayings, who were quite 
 unfit to go on as His followerstotheend. There 
 was a wide difference between the two doctrines, 
 that Jesus was the Christ, and that the Christ 
 must hang upon the tree, as to their effects on 
 unregenerate and worldly minds. For the 
 latter they were not prepared: though many of 
 them could possibly accept the former. Now 
 this discourse belongs to the time of transition 
 from the easier to the harder doctrine. And we 
 may suppose that it was meant to sift the 
 disciples, that the good grain might remain 
 in the garner and the chatf be scattered to the 
 wind. Hence the hard and startling form in 
 which it was cast; not indeed that this figure 
 of eating and drinking in reference to spiritual 
 things was wholly unknown to Jewish teachers; 
 for Lightfoot, Schéttgen, and Wetstein have 
 shown the contrary. But hard it doubtless was; 
 and if the condition of discipleship had been 
 that they should then and there understand 
 what they heard, their turning back at this time 
 would have been inevitable. But even on the 
 twelve Jesus imposes no such condition. He 
 only asks them, “ Will ye also go away?” Ifa 
 beloved teacher says something which overturns 
 the previous notions of the taught, and shocks 
 their prejudices, then whether they will continue 
 by his side to hear him explain further what 
 they find difficult, or desert him at once, will 
 depend on the amount of their confidence in 
 him. Many of the disciples went back and 
 walked no more with Jesus, because their con- 
 viction that He was the Messiah had no real 
 foundation. The rest remained with Him for 
 the reason so beautifully expressed by Peter: 
 “Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the 
 
 JESUS CHRIST 
 
 words of eternal life. And we believe and are 
 sure that Thou art that Christ, the Son of the 
 living God” (John vi. 68, 69). The sin of the 
 faint-hearted followers who now deserted Him 
 was not that they found this difficult; but that 
 finding it difficult they had not confidence enough 
 to wait for light. 
 
 The third example of our Lord’s discourses 
 which may be selected is that which closes His 
 ministry —“ Now is the Son of Man glorified, 
 and God is glorified in Him. If God be glorified 
 in Him, God shall also glorify Him in Himself, 
 and shall straightway glorify Him” (John xiii. 
 31,52). This great discourse, recorded only by 
 St. John, extends from the xiiith to the end of the 
 xviith chapter. It hardly admits of analysis. It 
 announces the Saviour’s departure in the fulfil- 
 ment of His mission; it imposes the “ new com- 
 mandment” on the disciples of a special love to- 
 wards each other which should be the outward 
 token to the world of their Christian profession ; 
 it consoles them with the promise of the Com- 
 forter Who should be to them instead of the 
 Saviour; it tells them all that He would do for 
 them, teaching them, reminding them, reproving 
 the world and guiding the disciples into all 
 truth. It offers them, instead of the Bodily 
 Presence of their beloved Master, free access to 
 the throne of His Father, and spiritual blessings 
 such as they had not known before. Finally, 
 it culminates in that sublime prayer (ch. xvii.) 
 by which the High-Priest, as it were, consecrates 
 Himself the Victim; and, so doing, prays for 
 those who shall hold fast and keep the benefits 
 of that Sacyifice, offered for the whole world, 
 whether His disciples already, or to be brought 
 to Him thereafter by the ministry of Apostles. 
 He wills that they shall be with Him and behold 
 His glory. He recognises the righteousness of 
 the Father in the plan of salvation, and in the 
 result produced to the disciples; in whom that 
 highest and purest love wherewith the Father 
 loved the Son shall be present, and with and in 
 that love the Son Himself shall be present with 
 them. “With this elevated thought,” says 
 Olshausen, “the Redeemer concludes His prayer 
 for the disciples, and in them for the Church 
 through all ages. He has compressed into the 
 last moments given Him for intercourse with 
 His own the most sublime and glorious senti- 
 ments ever uttered by human lips. Hardly has 
 the sound of the last word died away when 
 Jesus passes with His disciples over the brook 
 Kedron to Gethsemane; and the bitter conflict 
 draws on. The seed of the new world must be 
 sown in death that thence life may spring up.” 
 
 These three discourses are examples of the 
 Saviour’s teaching—of its progressive character 
 from the opening of His ministry to the close. 
 The first exhibits His practical precepts as Law- 
 giver of His people; the second, an exposition of 
 the need of His Sacrifice, but addressed to the 
 world without, and intended to try them rather 
 than to attract; and the third, where Christ, 
 the Lawgiver and the High-Priest, stands before 
 God as the Son of God, and speaks to Him of 
 His inmost counsels, as One Who had known 
 them from the beginning. They will serve as 
 illustrations of the course of His doctrine ; 
 whilst others will be mentioned in the narrative 
 as it proceeds. 
 
 The scene of the Lord’s ministry.—As to the 
 
JESUS CHRIST 
 
 scene of the ministry of Christ, no less than as 
 to its duration, the three Evangelists seem at 
 first sight to be at variance with the fourth. 
 St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke record only 
 our Lord’s doings in Galilee; if we put aside a 
 few days before the Passion, we find that they 
 never mention His visiting Jerusalem. St. John, 
 on the other hand, whilst he records some acts 
 in Galilee, devotes the chief part of his Gospel 
 to the transactions in Judaea. But when the 
 supplemental character of St. John’s Gospel is 
 borne in mind, there is little difficulty in ex- 
 plaining this. The three Evangelists do not 
 profess to give a chronology of the ministry, but 
 rather a picture of it: notes of time are not 
 frequent in their narrative. And as they chiefly 
 confined themselves to Galilee, where the Re- 
 deemer’s chief acts were done, they might natu- 
 rally omit to mention the Feasts, which being 
 passed by our Lord at Jerusalem, added nothing 
 to the materials for His Galilean ministry. St. 
 John, on the other hand, writing later, and 
 giving an account of the Redeemer’s life which 
 is still less complete as a history (for more than 
 one-half of the fourth Gospel is occupied with 
 the last three months of the ministry, and 
 seven chapters out of twenty-one are filled with 
 the account of the few days of the Passion), 
 vindicates his historical claim by supplying 
 several precise notes of time: in the occurrences 
 aiter the Baptism of Jesus, days and even hours 
 are specified (i. 29, 35, 39, 43, ii. 1); the first 
 miracle is mentioned, and the time at which it 
 was wrought (ii. 1-11). He mentions not only 
 the Passovers (ii. 13, 23; vi. 43 xiii. 1, and 
 perhaps y. 1), but also the Feast of Tabernacles 
 (vii. 2) and of Dedication (x, 22); and thus it 
 is ordered that the Evangelist who goes over the 
 least part of the ground of our Lerd’s ministry 
 is yet the same who fixes for us its duration, and 
 enables us to arrange the facts of the rest more 
 exactly in their historical places. It is true 
 that the three Gospels record chiefly the occur- 
 rences in Galilee; but there is evidence in them 
 that labours were wrought in Judaea. Fre- 
 quent teaching in Jerusalem is implied in the 
 Lord’s lamentation over the lost city (Matt. xxiii. 
 57). The appearance in Galilee of Scribes and 
 Pharisees and others from Jerusalem (Matt. iv. 
 25, xv. 1) would be best explained on the sup- 
 position that their enmity had been excited 
 against Him during visits to Jerusalem. The in- 
 timacy with the family of Lazarus (Luke x. 38, 
 &c.), and the attachment of Joseph of Arimathea 
 to the Lord (Matt. xxvii. 57), would imply, 
 most probably, frequent visits to Jerusalem. 
 But why was Galilee chosen as the principal 
 scene of the ministry ? The question is not easy 
 to answer. The Prophet would resort to the 
 Temple of God; the King of the Jews would go 
 to His own royal city ; the Teacher of the chosen 
 people would preach in the midst of them. But 
 their hostility prevented it.” The Saviour, Who, 
 accepting all the infirmities of “the form of a 
 servant’ which He had taken, fled in His child- 
 hood to Egypt, betakes Himself to Galilee to avoid 
 Jewish hatred and machinations, and lays the 
 foundations of His Church amid a people of im- 
 pure and despised race. To Jerusalem He comes 
 occasionally, to teach and suffer persecution, and 
 finally to die: “ for it cannot be that a prophet 
 perish out of Jerusalem” (Luke xiii. 33). It 
 
 JESUS CHRIST 1675 
 
 was upon the first outbreak of persecution against 
 Him that He left Judaea: “*When Jesus had 
 heard that John was cast into prison, He departed 
 into Galilee” (Matt. iv. 12). And that this 
 persecution aimed at Him also we gather from 
 St. John: “When therefore the Lord knew how 
 that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made 
 and baptized more disciples than John .. . He 
 lett Judaea and departed into Galilee” (iv. 1,3). 
 If the light of the Sun of Righteousness shone 
 on the Jews henceforward from the far-off 
 shores of the Galilean lake, it was because they 
 had refused and abhorred that light. 
 
 Duration of the Ministry.—It is impossible to 
 determine exactly from the Gospels the number 
 of years during which the Redeemer exercised 
 His ministry before the Passion; but the doubt 
 lies between two and three; for the opinion, 
 adopted from an interpretation of Isaiah ]xi. 2 
 by more than one of the ancients, that it jasted 
 only one year, cannot be borne out (Euseb. iii. 
 24; Clem. Alex. Strom. 1; Origen, Princ. 4, 5). 
 The data are to be drawn from St. John. This 
 Evangelist mentions six Feasts, at five of which 
 Jesus was present: the Passover that followed 
 His Baptism (ii. 13); “a Feast of the Jews” 
 (ἑορτὴ without the article, v. 1); a Passover 
 during which Jesus remained in Galilee (vi. 4) ; 
 the Feast of Tabernacles to which the Lord went 
 up privately (vii. 2); the Feast of Dedication 
 (x. 22); and lastly the Feast of Passover, at 
 which He suffered (xii. xiii.) There are cer- 
 tainly three Passovers, and it is possible that 
 “a Feast” (vy. 1) may be a fourth. Upon this 
 possibility the question turns. Liicke in his 
 Commentary (vol. ii. p. 1), in collecting with 
 great research the various opinions on this place, 
 is unable to arrive at any definite conclusion 
 upon it, and leaves it unsolved. But if this 
 Feast is not a Passover, then no Passover is 
 mentioned by St. John between the first (ii. 13) 
 and that which is spoken of in the sixth chapter ; 
 and the time between those two must be assumed 
 to be a single year only. Now, although the 
 record of John of this period contains but few 
 facts, yet when all the Evangelists are com- 
 pared, the amount of labour compressed into 
 this single year would be too much for its 
 compass. The time during which Jesus was 
 baptizing (by His disciples) near the Jordan 
 was probably considerable, and lasted till John’s 
 imprisonment (John iii. 22-36, and see below). 
 The circuit round Galilee, mentioned in Matt. 
 iv. 23-25, was a missionary journey through a 
 country of considerable population, and con- 
 taining two hundred towns; and this would 
 occupy some time. But another such journey, 
 of the most comprehensive kind, is undertaken 
 in the same year (Luke viii. 1), in which He 
 “went throughout every city and village.” 
 And a third circuit of the same kind, and 
 equally general (Matt. ix. 35-38), would close 
 the same year. Is it at all probable that Jesus, 
 after spending a considerable time in Judaea, 
 would be able to make three circuits of Galilee 
 in the remainder of the year, preaching and 
 doing wonders in the various places to which Ilo 
 came? This would be more likely if the journeys 
 were hurried and partial; but all three are 
 spoken of as though they were the very opposite. 
 It is, to say the least, easier to suppose that the 
 “Feast ” (John v. 1) was a Passover, dividing 
 
1676 JESUS CHRIST 
 
 the time into two, and throwing two ὁ, these 
 circuits into the second year of the ministry; 
 provided there be nothing to make this inter- 
 pretation improbable in itself. The words are, 
 “ After this there was a Feast of the Jews; and 
 Jesus went up to Jerusalem.” These two facts 
 are meant as cause and effect ; the Feast caused 
 the visit. If so, it was probably one of the 
 three Feasts at which the Jews were expected to 
 appear before God at Jerusalem. Was it the 
 Passover, the Ventecost, or the Feast of Taber- 
 nacles? In the preceding chapter the Passover 
 has been spoken of as “the Feast ” (v. 45); and 
 if another Feast were meant here, the name of 
 it would have been added, as in vii. 2, x. 22. 
 The omission of the article is not decisive, for it 
 occurs in other cases where the Passover is cer- 
 tainly intended (Matt. xxvii. 15; Mark xv. 6); 
 nor is it clear that the Passover was called the 
 Feast, as the most eminent, although the Feast 
 of Tabernacles was sometimes so described. All 
 that the omission could prove would be that the 
 Evangelist did not think it needful to describe 
 the Feast more precisely. The words in John iy. 
 35, ‘ There are yet four months and then cometh 
 harvest,” would agree with this, for the barley 
 harvest began on the 16th Nisan, and reckoning 
 back four months would bring this conversation 
 to the beginning of December, i.e. the middle of 
 Kisleu. If it be granted that our Lord is here 
 merely quoting a common form of speech 
 (Alford), still it is more likely that He would 
 use one appropriate to the time at which He 
 was speaking. And if these words were uttered 
 in December, the next of the three great Feasts 
 occurring would be the Passover. The shortness 
 of the interval between v. 1 and vi. 4 would 
 afford an objection, if it were not for the scanti- 
 ness of historical details in the early part of 
 the ministry in St. John: from the other 
 Evangelists it appears that two great journeys 
 tight have to be included between these verses. 
 Upon the whole, though there is nothing that 
 amounts to proof, it is probable that there were 
 four Passovers, and consequently that our Lord’s 
 ministry lasted somewhat more than three 
 years, the “beginning of miracles”? (John ii.) 
 having been wrought before the first Passover. 
 On data of calculation that have already been 
 mentioned, the year of the first of these Pass- 
 overs was U.C. 780, and the Baptism of our Lord 
 took place either in the beginning of that year 
 or the end of the year preceding. The ministry 
 of John the Baptist began in u.c. 779 (see Com- 
 mentaries on John vy. 1, especially Kuinoel and 
 Liicke. Also Winer, Realwérterbuch, art. Jesus 
 Christ ; Greswell, Dissertations, i., Diss. 4, ii. 
 Diss. 22). 
 
 After this sketch of the means, the scene, and 
 the duration of the Saviour’s ministry, the his- 
 torical order of the events may be followed 
 without interruption. 
 
 Our Lord has now passed through the ordeal 
 of temptation, and His ministry has begun. At 
 Bethabara, to which He returns, disciples begin 
 to be drawn towards Him ; Andrew and another, 
 probably John, the sole narrator of the fact, 
 see Jesus, and hear the Baptist’s testimony con- 
 cerning Him. Andrew brings Simon Peter to 
 see Him also; and he receives from the Lord 
 the name of Cephas. Then Philip and Nathanael 
 are brought into contact with our Lord. ΑἹ] 
 
 “ 
 
 JESUS CHRIST 
 
 these reappear as Apostles, if Nathanael he. as 
 has often been supposed, the same as Bartholo- 
 mew; but the time of their calling to that 
 office was not yet. But that their minds, even 
 at this early time, were wrought upon by the 
 expectation of the Messiah appears by the con- 
 fession of Nathanael: “Thou art the Son of God ; 
 Thou art the King of Israel” (John i. 35-51), 
 The two disciples last named saw Him as ‘He 
 was about to set out for Galilee, on the third 
 day of His sojourn at Bethabara. The third 
 day after his interview Jesus is at Cana in 
 Galilee, and works His first miracle, by making 
 the water wine (John 1. 29, 35, 43; ii. 1). All 
 these particulars are supplied from the fourtis 
 Gospel, and come in between the 11th and 12th 
 verses of the fourth chapter of St. Matthew. 
 They show that our Lord Jeft Galilee expressiy 
 to be baptized and to suffer temptation, and 
 returned to His own country when these were 
 accomplished. He now betakes Himself to 
 Capernaum, and, after a sojourn there of “not. 
 many days,” sets out for Jerusalem to the Pass- 
 over, which was to be the beginning of His 
 ministry in Judaea (John ii. 12, 13). 
 
 The cleansing of the Temple is associated by 
 St. John with this first Passover (ii. 12-22), 
 and a similar cleansing is assigned to the last 
 Passover by the other Evangelists. ‘These two 
 cannot be confounded without throwing discredit. 
 on the historical character of one narrative or 
 the other; the notes of time are too precise. 
 But a host of interpreters have pointed out the 
 probability that an action symbolical of the 
 power and authority of Messiah should be twice 
 performed, at the opening of the ministry and at 
 its close. The expulsion of the traders was not. 
 
 likely to produce a permanent effect, and at the 
 
 end of three years Jesus found the tumult and 
 the traffic defiling the court of the Temple as 
 they had done when He visited it before. Be- 
 sides the difference of time, the narrative of St. 
 John is by no means identical with those of the 
 others; he mentions that Jesus made a scourge 
 of small cords (φραγέλλιον ἐκ σχοινίων, ii. 15) 
 as a symbol—vwe need not prove that it could be 
 no more—of His power to punish; that here He 
 censured them for making the Temple “a house 
 of merchandise,” whilst at the last cleansing it 
 was pronounced “a den of thieves,” with a dis- 
 tinct reference to the two passages of Isaiah and 
 Jeremiah (Is. lvi. 7; Jer. vii. 11). Writers like 
 Strauss would persuade us that “tact and good 
 sense” would prevent the Redeemer from 
 attempting such a violent measure at the begin- 
 ning of His ministry, before His authority was 
 admitted. The aptness and the greatness of the 
 occasion have no weight with such critics, The 
 usual sacrifices of the Law of Jehovah, and the 
 usual half-shekel paid for tribute to the Temple, 
 the very means that were appointed by God to 
 remind them that they were a consecrated people, 
 were made an excusé for secularising even the 
 Temple; and in its holy precincts all the busi- 
 ness of the world went on. It was a time when 
 “the zeal of God’s house” might well supersede 
 the “tact” on which the German philosopher 
 lays stress; and Jesus failed not in the zeal, nor 
 did the accusing consciences of the traders fail 
 to justify it, for at the rebuke of one man they 
 retreated from the scene of their gains. Their 
 hearts told them, even though they had been 
 
JESUS CHRIST 
 
 long immersed in hardening traffic, that the 
 House of God could belong to none other but 
 God; and when a Prophet claimed it for Him, 
 conscience deprived them of the power to resist. 
 Immediately after this, the Jews asked of Him 
 asign or proof of His right to exercise this 
 authority. He answered them by a promise of 
 a sign by which He would hereafter confirm 
 His mission, “ Destroy this Temple and in three 
 days I will raise it up” (John ii. 19), alluding, 
 as the Evangelist explains, to His Resurrection. 
 But why is the name of the building before 
 them applied by our Lord so darkly to Himself ? 
 There is doubtless a hidden reference to the 
 Temple as a type of the Church, which Christ 
 by His Death and Resurrection would found and 
 raise up. He Who has cleared of buyers and 
 sellers the courts of a perishable Temple made 
 with hands, will prove hereafter that He is the 
 Founder of an eternal Temple made without 
 hands, and their destroying act shall be the 
 cause. The reply was indeed obscure; but it 
 was meant as a refusal of their demand; and to 
 the disciples afterwards it became abundantly 
 clear. At the time of the Passion this saying 
 was brought against Him, in a perverted form— 
 “ At the last came two false witnesses, and said, 
 This fellow said, I am able to destroy the Temple 
 of God, and to build it in three days” (Matt. 
 xxvi. 61). +They hardly knew perhaps how 
 utterly false a small alteration in the tale had 
 made it. They wanted to hold Him up as one 
 who dared to think of the destruction of the 
 Temple; and to change “destroy ” into “I can 
 destroy,” might seem to do no great violence to 
 the truth. But those words contained not a 
 mere circumstance but the very essence of the 
 saying, “ You are the destroyers of the Temple ; 
 you that were polluting it now by turning it 
 into a market-place shall destroy it, and also 
 your city, by staining its stones with My Blood.” 
 Jesus came not to destroy the Temple but to 
 widen its foundations; not to destroy the Law 
 but to complete it (Matt. v. 17). Twosyllables 
 changed their testimony into a lie. 
 
 The visit of Nicodemus to Jesus took place 
 about this first Passover. It implies that our 
 Lord had done more at Jerusalem than is re- 
 corded of Him even by St. John; since we haye 
 here a Master of Israel (John iii. 10), a member 
 of the Sanhedrin (John vii. 50), expressing his 
 belief in Him, although too timid at this time 
 to make an open profession. The object of the 
 visit, though not directly stated, is still clear: 
 he was one of the better Pharisees, who were 
 expecting the kingdom of Messiah, and, having 
 seen the miracles that Jesus did, he came to 
 enquire more fully about these signs of its 
 approach. This indicates the connexion between 
 the remark of Nicodemus and the Lord’s reply : 
 “You recognise these miracles as signs of the 
 kingdom of God; verily I say unto you, no one 
 can truly see and know the kingdom of God, 
 unless he be born again” (ἄνωθεν, from above ; 
 see Lightfoot, Hor. Hebr. in loc., vol. iv.). The 
 visitor boasted the blood of Abraham, and ex- 
 pected to stand high in the new kingdom in 
 virtue of that birthright. He did not wish to 
 surrender it and set his hopes upon some other 
 birth (cp. Matt. iii. 9); and there is something 
 of wilfulness in the question— How can a man 
 be born when he is old?” (» 4). Our Lord 
 
 JESUS CHRIST 1677 
 
 again insists on the necessity of the renewed 
 heart, in him who would be admitted to the 
 kingdom of heaven. The new birth is real 
 though it is unseen, like the wind which blows 
 hither and thither though the eye cannot watch 
 it save in its effects. Even so the Spirit sways 
 the heart towards good, carries it away towards 
 heaven, brings over the soul at one time the 
 cloud, at another the sunny weather. The 
 sound of Him is heard in the soul, now as the 
 eager east wind bringing painand remorse; now 
 breathing over it the soft breath of consola- 
 tion. In all this He is as powerful as the wind ; 
 and as unseen is the mode of His operations. 
 For the new birth, of water and of the Holy 
 Ghost, without which none can come to God, 
 faith in the Son of God is needed (v. 18); and 
 as implied in that, the renouncing of those evil 
 deeds that blind the eyes to the truth (wv. 19, 
 20). It has been well said that this discourse 
 contains the whole Gospel in epitome; there is 
 the kingdom of grace into which God will receive 
 those who have offended Him, the new truth 
 which God the Holy Spirit will write in all 
 those who seek the kingdom; and God the Son 
 crucified and slain that all who would be saved 
 may look on Him when He is lifted up, and find 
 health thereby. The three Persons of the Trinity 
 are all before us carrying out the scheme of man’s 
 salvation. If it be asked how Nicodemus, so 
 timid and half-hearted as yet, was allowed to 
 hear thus early in the ministry what our Lord 
 kept back even from His disciples till near the 
 end of it, the answer must be, that, wise as it 
 was to keep back from the general body of the 
 hearers the doctrine of the Crucifixion, the 
 Physician of souls would treat each case with 
 the medicine that it most required. Nicodemus 
 was an enquiring spirit, ready to believe all the 
 Gospel, but for his Jewish prejudices and his 
 social position. He was one whom even the 
 shadow of the Cross would not estrange; and 
 the Lord knew it, and laid open to him all the 
 scheme of salvation. Not in vain. The tra- 
 dition, indeed, may not be thoroughly certain, 
 which reports his open conversion and _ his 
 baptism by Peter and John (Phot. Biblioth. Cod. 
 171). But three years after this conversation, 
 when all the disciples have been scattered by 
 the death of Jesus, he comes forward with Joseph 
 of Arimathaea, at no little risk, although with a 
 kind of secrecy still, to perform the last offices 
 for the Master to Whom his soul cleaves (John 
 Σῖσ. 59). 
 
 After a sojourn at Jerusalem of uncertain 
 duration, Jesus went to the Jordan with His 
 disciples; and they there baptized in His name. 
 The Baptist was now at Aenon near Salim; and 
 the jealousy of his disciples against Jesus drew 
 from John an avyowal of his position, which is 
 remarkable for its humility (John iii. 27-30), 
 “Α man can receive nothing except it be given 
 him from heaven. Ye yourselyes bear me 
 witness, that I said, 1 am not the Christ, but 
 that I have been sent before Him. He that 
 hath the bride is the bridegroom; but the 
 friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and 
 heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the 
 bridegroom’s voice: this my joy therefore is 
 fulfilled. He must increase, but I must de- 
 crease.” The speaker is one who has hitherto 
 enjoyed the highest honour and popularity, a 
 
1678 JESUS CHRIST 
 
 prophet extolled by all the people. Before the 
 Sun of Righteousness his reflected light is turn- 
 ing pale; it shall soon be extinguished. Yet no 
 word of reluctance, or of attempt to cling toa 
 temporary and departing greatness, escapes him. 
 “He must increase, but I must decrease.” It 
 had been the same ‘before; when the Sanhedrin 
 sent to enquire about him, he claimed to be no 
 more than “the voice of one crying in the 
 wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, 
 as said the Prophet Esaias” (John i. 23); there 
 was One “Who coming after me is preferred 
 before me, Whose shoe’s latchet I am not worthy 
 to unloose” (i. 27). Strauss thinks this height 
 of self-renunciation beautiful, but impossible 
 (Leben Jesu, ii. 1, ὃ 46); but what Divine 
 influence had worked in the Baptist’s spirit, 
 adorning that once rugged nature with the 
 erace of humility, we do not admit that 
 Dr. Strauss is in a position to measure, 
 
 How long this sojourn in Judaea lasted is 
 uncertain. But in order to reconcile John iv. 1 
 with Matt. iv. 12, we must suppose that it was 
 much Jonger than the “twenty-six or twenty- 
 seven” days to which the learned Mr. Greswell 
 upon mere conjecture would limit it. From 
 the two passages together it would seem that 
 John was after a short time cast into prison 
 (Matt.), and that Jesus, seeing that the enmity 
 directed against the Baptist would now assail 
 Ilim, because of the increasing success of His 
 ministry (John), resolved to withdraw from its 
 reach. 
 
 In the way to Galilee Jesus passed by the 
 shortest route, through Samaria. This country, 
 peopled by men from five districts, whom the 
 king of Assyria had planted there in the time οἵ 
 Hoshea (2 K. xvii. 24, &e.), and by the residue 
 of the ten tribes that was left behind from the 
 Captivity, had once abounded in idolatry, though 
 latterly faith in the true God had gained ground. 
 The Samaritans even claimed to share with the 
 people of Judaea the restoration of the Temple 
 at Jerusalem, and were repulsed (Ezra iv. 1-3). 
 In the time of our Lord they were hated by the 
 Jews even more than if they had been Gentiles. 
 Their corrupt worship was a shadow of the 
 true; their temple on Gerizim was a rival to 
 that which adorned the hill of Zion. “He that 
 eats bread from the hand of a Samaritan,” says 
 a Jewish writer, “is as one that eats swine’s 
 flesh.” Yet even in Samaria were souls to be 
 saved; and Jesus would not shake off even that 
 dust from His feet. He came in His journey 
 to Sichem, which the Jews in mockery had 
 changed to Sychar, to indicate that its people 
 were drunkards (Lightfoot), or that they followed 
 idols (1p, Reland; see Hab. ii. 18). Wearied 
 and athirst, He sat on the side of Jacob’s well. 
 A woman from the neighbouring town came to 
 draw from the well, and was astonished that a 
 Jew should address her as a neighbour, with a 
 request for water. The conversation that 
 ensued might be taken for an example of the 
 mode in which Christ leads to Himself the souls 
 ofmen. The awakening of her attention to the 
 privilege she is enjoying in communing with 
 Him (John iy. 10-15); the self-knowledge and 
 self-conviction which He arouses (vv. 15-19), 
 and which whilst it pains does not repel; the 
 complete revelation of Himself, which she 
 cannot but believe (vv. 19-29), are effects that 
 
 JESUS CHRIST 
 
 He has wrought in many another case. The 
 woman’s lightness and security, until she finds 
 herself in the presence of a Prophet, Who 
 knows all her past sins; her readiness after- 
 wards to enter on a religious question, which 
 perhaps had often been revolved in her mind in 
 a worldly and careless way, are so natural that 
 they are almost enough of themselves to establish 
 the historical character of the account. 
 
 In this remarkable dialogue are many things 
 to ponder over. The living water whith Christ 
 would give; the announcement of a change in 
 the worship of Jew and Samaritan; lastly, the 
 confession that He Who speaks is truly the 
 Messiah, are all noteworthy. ‘The open avowal 
 that He is the Messiah, made to the daughter 
 of an abhorred people, is accounted for if we 
 remember that this was the first and last time 
 when He taught personally in Samaria, and that 
 the woman showed a special fitness to receive it, 
 for she expected in the Christ a spiritual teacher 
 not a temporal prince: “When He is come, He 
 will tell us all things” (v. 25). The very absence 
 of national pride, which so beset the Jews, 
 preserved in her a right conception of the 
 Christ. Had she thought—had she said, *“* When 
 He is come, He will restore the kingdom to 
 Israel, and set His tullowers in high places, on 
 His right and on His left,” then He could not 
 have answered, as now, “1 that speak unto thee 
 am He.” The words would have conveyed a 
 faisehood to her. The Samaritans came out to 
 Him on the report of the woman; they heard 
 Him and believed: “We have heard Him our- 
 selves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, 
 the Saviour of the world” (v. 42). Was this 
 great grace thrown away upon them? Did it 
 abide by them, or was it lost? In the perseen- 
 tion that arose about Stephen, Philip “went 
 down to a city of Samaria (not “ the city,” as in 
 A. V. [and R. V.]), and preached Christ unto 
 them” (Acts viii. 5). We dare not pronounce 
 as certain that this city was Sychar; but the 
 readiness of the Samaritans to believe (viii. 6) 
 recalls the candour and readiness of the men of 
 Sychar, and it is difficult not to connect the two 
 events together. 
 
 Jesus now returned to Galilee, and came to 
 Nazareth, His own city. In the Synagogue He 
 expounded to the people a passage from Isaiah 
 (xi. 1), telling them that its fulfilment was now 
 at handin His Person. The same truth that had 
 filled the Samaritans with gratitude, wrought 
 up to fury the men of Nazareth, who would 
 have destroyed Him if He had not escaped out 
 of their hands (Luke iv. 16-30), He came now 
 to Capernaum. On His way thither, when He 
 had reached Cana, He healed the son of one of 
 the courtiers of Herod Antipas (John iv. 46-54), 
 who “himself believed, and his whole house.” 
 This was the second Galilean miracle. At Caper- 
 naum He wrought many miracles for them that 
 needed. Here two disciples who had known 
 Him before, namely, Simon Peter and Andrew, 
 were called from their fishing to become “ fishers 
 of men” (Matt. iv. 19), and the two sons of 
 Zebedee received the same summons. After 
 healing on the Sabbath a demoniac in the 
 Synagogue, a miracle which was witnessed by 
 many, and was made known everywhere, He 
 returned the same day to Simon’s house, and 
 healed the mother-in-law of Simon, who was 
 
JESUS CHRIST 
 
 sick of a fever. At sunset, the multitude, now 
 fully aroused by what they had heard, brought 
 their sick to Simon’s door to get them healed. 
 He did not refuse His succour, and healed them 
 all.(Mark i. 29-34). He now, after showering 
 down on Capernaum so many cures, turned His 
 thoughts to the rest of Galilee, where other 
 “Jost sheep ” were scattered :—* Let us go into 
 the next towns (κωμοπόλεις) that I may preach 
 there also, for therefore came I forth” (Mark 
 i. 38). The journey through Galilee, on which 
 He now entered, must have been a general 
 circuit of that country. His object was to call 
 on the Galileans to repent and believe the 
 Gospel. This could only be done completely by 
 taking such a journey that His teaching might 
 be accessible to all in turn at some point or 
 other. Josephus mentions that there were two 
 hundred and four towns and villages in Galilee 
 (Vita, 45): therefore such a circuit as should 
 in any real sense embrace the whole of Galilee 
 would require some months for its performance. 
 “The course of the present circuit,’ says 
 Mr. Gresswell (Dissertations, ii. 293), “‘ we may 
 conjecture, was, upon the whole, as follows :— 
 Kirst, along the western side of the Jordan, 
 northward, which would disseminate the fame 
 of Jesus in Decapolis; secondly, along the 
 confines of the tetrarchy of Philip, westward, 
 which would make Him known throughout 
 Syria; thirdly, by the coasts of Tyre and Sidon, 
 southward ; ‘and lastly, along the verge of 
 Samaria, and the western region of the lake 
 of Galilee—the nearest points to Judaea proper 
 and to Peraea—until it returned to Caper- 
 naum.” In the course of this circuit, besides 
 the works of mercy spoken of by the Evangelists 
 (Matt. iv. 23-25; Mark i. 32-34; Luke iv. 
 40-44) He had probably called to Him more 
 of His Apostles. Four at least were His com- 
 panions from the beginning of it. The rest 
 (except perhaps Judas Iscariot) were Galileans, 
 and it is not improbable that they were found 
 by their Master during this circuit. Philip of 
 Bethsaida and Nathanael or Bartholomew were 
 already prepared to become His disciples by an 
 earlier interview. On this circuit occurred the 
 first case of the healing of a leper; it is selected 
 for record by the Evangelists, because of the 
 incurableness of the ailment. So great was 
 the dread of this disorder—so strict the precau- 
 tions against its infection—that even the 
 raising of Jairus’ daughter from the dead, 
 which probably occurred at Capernaum about 
 the end of this circuit, would hardly impress the 
 beholders more profoundly. 
 
 Second yeur of the Ministry. —Jesus went up 
 to Jerusalem to “a feast of the Jews,” which 
 we have shown (p. 1675) to have been probably 
 the Passover. At the pool Bethesda (=house of 
 mercy), which was near the sheep-gate (Neh. 
 iii. 1) on the north-east side of the Temple, 
 Jesus saw many infirm persons waiting their 
 turn for the healing virtues of the water 
 (John v. 1-18. On the ene of the 
 fourth verse, see Scholz, ‘NV. . L.; Tischendorf, 
 eer. 5) and. ‘Liicke, in loc, It is wanting in 
 three out of the four chief MSS.; it is singu- 
 larly disturbed with variations in the MSS. 
 that insert it, and it abounds in words which 
 do not occur again in this Gospel). Among 
 them was a man who had had an infirmity 
 
 JESUS CHRIST 1679 
 thirty-eight years: Jesus made him whole by a 
 word, bidding him take up his bed and walk. 
 The miracle was done on the Sabbath; and the 
 Jews, by which name in St. John’s Gospel we 
 are to understand the Jewish authorities who 
 acted against Jesus, rebuked the man for carry- 
 ing his bed. It was a labour; ; and, as such, 
 forbidden (Jer. xvii. 21). The answer of the 
 man was too logical to be refuted: “He that 
 made me whole, the same said unto me, Take up 
 thy bed and walk” (v. 11). If He had not 
 authority for the latter, whence came His 
 power to do the former? Their anger was now 
 directed against Jesus for healing on the 
 Sabbath, even for well-doing. They sought to 
 put Him to death. In our Lord’s justification 
 of Himself, ‘My Father worketh hitherto, and 
 I work” (vy. 17), there is an unequivocal claim 
 to the Divine Nature. God the Father never 
 rests: if sleep could visit His Eyelids for an 
 instant; if His Hand could droop for a moment’s 
 rest, the Universe would collapse in ruin. He 
 rested on the seventh day from the creation of 
 new beings; but from the maintenance of those 
 that exist He never rests. His love streams 
 forth on every day alike; as do the impartial 
 beams from the sun that He has placed in the 
 heavens. ‘The Jews rightly understood the 
 saying: none but God ‘could utter it; none 
 could quote God’s example, as setting Him over 
 and above God’s law, save One Who was God 
 Himself. They sought the more to kill Him. 
 He expounded to them more fully His relation 
 to the Father. He works with the strength of 
 the Father and according to His will. He can 
 do all that the Father does. He can raise mem 
 out of bodily and out of spiritual death; and 
 He can judge all men. John bore witness to 
 Him ; the works that He does bear even stronger 
 witness. The reason that the Jews do not 
 believe is their want of discernment of the 
 meaning of the Scriptures; and that comes 
 from their worldliness, their desire of honour 
 from one another. Unbelief shall bring con- 
 demnation ; even out of their Law they ean be 
 condemned, since they believe not even Moses, 
 who foretold that Christ should come (John 
 γ. 19-47). 
 
 Another discussion about the Sabbath arose 
 from the disciples plucking the ears of corn as 
 they went through the fields (Matt. xii. 1-8). 
 The time of this is somewhat uncertain: some 
 would place it a year later, just after the third 
 Passover (Clausen); but its place is much more 
 probably here (Newcome, Robinson, &c.). The 
 needy were permitted by the Law (Deut. 
 xxxili. 25) to pluck the ears of corn with their 
 hand, even without waiting for the owner’s per- 
 mission. The disciples must have been living a 
 hard and poor life to resort to such means of 
 sustenance. But the Pharisees would not allow 
 that it was lawful on the Sabbath-day. Jesus 
 reminds them that David, whose example they 
 are not likely to challenge, ate the sacred shew- 
 bread in the Tabernacle, which it was not lawful 
 to eat. The priests might partake of it, but not 
 a stranger (Ex. xxix. 33; Lev. xxiv. 5, 9). David, 
 on the principle that mercy was better than 
 sacrifice (Hos. vi. 6), took it and gave it to the 
 young men that were with him that they might 
 not perish for hunger. In order further to 
 show that a literal mechanical observance of the 
 
1080 JESUS CHRIST 
 
 law of the Sabbath would lead to absurdities, 
 Jesus reminds them that this law is perpetually 
 set aside on account of another: “The priests 
 profane the Sabbath and are blameless ” (Matt. 
 xii.5). The work of sacrifice, the placing of the 
 shewbread, go on on the Sabbath, and Jabour 
 even on that day may be done by priests, and 
 may please God. It was the root of the Phari- 
 sees’ fault that they thought sacrifice better 
 than mercy, ritual exactness more than love: 
 “If ye had known what this meaneth, I will 
 have mercy and not sacrifice, ye would not have 
 condemned the guiltless. For the Son of Man is 
 Lord even of the Sabbath-day ” (Matt. xii. 7, 8). 
 These last words are inseparable from the mean- 
 ing of our Lord’s answer. In pleading the -ex- 
 ample of David, the king and prophet, and of 
 the priests in the Temple, the Lord tacitly im- 
 plies the greatness of His own position. He is 
 indeed Prophet, Priest, and King; and had He 
 been none of these, the argument would have 
 been not merely incomplete, but misleading. It 
 is undeniable that the law of the Sabbath was 
 very strict. Against labours as small as that of 
 winnowing the corn a severe penalty was set. 
 Our Lord quotes cases where the Law is super- 
 seded or set aside, because He is One Who has 
 power to do the same. And the rise of a new 
 law is implied in those words which St. Mark 
 alone has recorded: “ The Sabbath was made 
 for man, and not man for the Sabbath.” The 
 jaw upon the Sabbath was made in love to men, 
 to preserve for them a due measure of rest, to 
 keep room for the worship of God. The Son of 
 Man has power tu readjust this law, if its work 
 is done, or if men are fit to receive a higher. 
 
 This may have taken place on the way from 
 Jerusalem after the Passover. On another Sab- 
 bath, probably at Capernaum, to which Jesus 
 had returned, the Pharisees gave a far more 
 striking proof of the way in which their hard 
 and narrow and unloving interpretation would 
 turn the beneficence of the Law into a blighting 
 oppression. Our Lord entered into the syna- 
 gogue, and found there a man with a withered 
 hand—some poor artisan perhaps whose handi- 
 work was his means of life. Jesus was about to 
 heal him—which would give back life to the 
 sufferer—which would give joy to every beholder 
 who had oné touch of pity in his heart. The 
 Pharisees interfere: ‘Is it lawful to heal on the 
 Sabbath-day?”” Their doctors would have al- 
 lowed them to pull a sheep out of a pit; but 
 they will not have a man rescued from the depth 
 of misery. Rarely is that loving Teacher wroth, 
 but here His anger, mixed with grief, showed 
 itself: He looked round about upon them “ with 
 anger, being grieved at the hardness of their 
 hearts,” and answered their cavils by healing the 
 man (Matt. xii, 9-14; Mark iii, 1-6; Luke vi. 
 6-11). 
 
 In placing the ordination or calling of the 
 Twelve Apostles just before the Sermon on the 
 Mount, we are under the guidance of St. Luke 
 (vi. 13,17). But this more solemn separation 
 for their work by no means marks the time of 
 their first approach to Jesus. Scattered notices 
 prove that some of them at least were drawn 
 gradually to the Lord, so that it would be diffi- 
 cult to identify the moment when they earned 
 the name of disciples. In the case of St. Peter, 
 five degrees or stages might be traced (John i. 
 
 JESUS CHRIST 
 
 41-43; Matt. iv. 19, xvi. 17-19; Luke xxii 
 31, 32; John xxi. 15-19), at each of which he 
 came somewhat nearer to his Master. That 
 which takes place here is the appointment of 
 twelve disciples to be a distinct body, under the 
 name of Apostles. They are not sent forth to 
 preach until later in the same year. The num- 
 ber twelve must have reference to the number 
 of the Jewish tribes: it is a number selected on 
 account of its symbolical meaning, for the work 
 confided to them might have been wrought by 
 more or fewer. ‘Twelve is used with the same 
 symbolical reference in many passages of the 
 O. T. Twelve pillars to the Altar which Moses 
 erected (Ex. xxiv. 4); twelve stones to comme- 
 morate the passing of the Ark over Jordan (Josh. 
 iv. 3); twelve precious stones in the breastplate 
 of the priest (Ex. xxviii. 21); twelve oxen 
 bearing up the molten sea in the Temple of 
 Solomon (1 K. vii. 25); twelve officers over 
 Solomon’s household (1 K. iv. 7): all these are 
 examples of the perpetual repetition of the 
 Jewish number. θην (Symbolik, vol. i.) has 
 accumulated passages from various authors to 
 show that twelve, the multiple of four and 
 three, is the type or symbol of the Universe, 
 but it is enough here to say that the use of the 
 number in the foundation of the Christian 
 Church has a reference to the tribes of the 
 Jewish nation. Hence the number continues to 
 be used after the addition of St. Paul and St. 
 Barnabas had made it inapplicable. The Lord 
 Himself tells them that they “shall sit on 
 thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel” 
 (Matt. xix. 27, 28). When He began His minis- 
 try in Galilee, He left His own home at Nazareth, 
 and separated Himself from His kinsmen after 
 the flesh, in order to devote Himself more com- 
 pletely to His prophetical office; and these 
 Twelve were “to be with Him ” (Mark), and to 
 be instead of family and friends. But the en- 
 mity of the Jews separated Him also from His 
 countrymen. Every day the prospect of the 
 Jews receiving Him as their Messiah, to their 
 own salvation, became more faint; and the 
 privileges of the favoured people passed gradu- 
 ally over to the new Israel, the new Church, the 
 new Jerusalem, of which the Apostles were the 
 foundation. The precise day in which this de- 
 fection was completed could not be specified. 
 The Sun of Righteousness rose on the world, and 
 set for the Jews, through all the shades of twi- 
 light. In the education of the Twelve for their 
 appointed work, we see the supersedure of the 
 Jews; in the preservation of the symbolical 
 number we see preserved a recognition of their 
 original right. 
 
 In the four lists of the names of the Apostles 
 preserved to us (Matt. x., Mark iii., Luke vi., 
 Acts i.), there is a certain order preserved, 
 amidst variations. The two pairs of brothers, 
 Simon and Andrew, and the sons of Zebedee, are 
 always named the first; and of these Simon 
 Peter ever holds the first place. Philip and 
 Bartholomew, Thomas and Matthew, are always 
 in the next rank; and of them Philip is always 
 the first. In the third rank James the son of 
 Alphaeus is the first, as Judas Iscariot is always 
 the last, with Simon the Zealot and Thaddaeus 
 between. The principle that governs this ar- 
 rangement cannot be determined very positively ; 
 but as no doubt Simon Peter stands first because 
 
JESUS CHRIST 
 
 of his zeal in his Master’s service, and’ Judas 
 ranks last because of his treason, it is natural 
 to suppose that they are all arranged with some 
 reference at least to their zeal and fitness for 
 the apostolic office. Some of the Apostles were 
 certainly poor and unlearned men ; it is probable 
 that the rest were of the same kind. Four of 
 them were fishermen, not indeed the poorest of 
 their class; and a fifth was a “ publican,” one 
 of the portitores, or tax-gatherers, who collected 
 the taxes farmed by Romans of higher rank. 
 Andrew, who is mentioned with Peter, is less 
 conspicuous in the history than he, but he en- 
 joyed free access to his Master, and seems to 
 have been more intimate with him than the rest 
 (John vi. 8, xii. 22, with Mark xiii. 3). But 
 James and John, who are sometimes placed above 
 him in the list, were especially distinguished by 
 Jesus. They were unmarried ; and their mother, 
 of whose ambition we have a well-known in- 
 stance, seems to have had much influence over 
 them. ‘The zeal and fire of their disposition is 
 indicated in the name of Boanerges bestowed 
 upon them. One seems hardly to recognise in 
 the fierce enthusiasts who would have called 
 down fire from heaven to consume the inhospit- 
 able Samaritans (Luke ix. 52-56) the Apostle of 
 Love and his brother. It is probable that the 
 Bartholomew of the Twelve is the same as 
 Nathanael (John i.) ; and the Lebbaeus or Thad- 
 daeus the same as Judas the brother of James. 
 Simon the Zealot was so called probably from 
 his belonging to the sect of Zealots, who, from 
 Num. xxv. 7, 8, took it on themselves to punish 
 crimes against the Law. If the name Iscariot 
 (=man of Cariot=Kerioth) refers the birth of 
 the traitor to Kerioth in Judah (Josh. xv. 25), 
 then it would appear that the traitor alone was 
 of Judaean origin, and the eleven faithful ones 
 were despised Galileans. 
 
 From henceforth the education of the twelve 
 Apostles will be one of the principal features of 
 the-Lord’s ministry. First He instructs them ; 
 then He takes them with Him as companions of 
 His wayfaring; then He sends them forth to 
 teach and heal for Him. The Sermon on the 
 Mount, although it is meant for all the disciples, 
 seems to have a special reference to the chosen 
 Twelve (Matt. v.11, &.). Its principal features 
 have been sketched already; but they will miss 
 their full meaning if it is forgotten that they 
 are the first teaching which the Apostles were 
 called on to listen to after their appointment. 
 
 About this time it was that John the Baptist, 
 long a prisoner with little hope of release, sent 
 his disciples to Jesus with the question, “ Art 
 thou He that should come, or do we look for 
 another?” In all the Gospels there is no more 
 touching incident. Those who maintain that it 
 was done solely for the sake of the disciples, 
 and that John himself needed no answer to sup- 
 port his faith, show as little knowledge of the 
 human mind as exactness in explaining the 
 words of the account. The great privilege of 
 John’s life was that he was appointed to recog- 
 nise and bear witness to the Messiah (John i. 31). 
 After languishing a year in a dungeon, after 
 learning that even yet Jesus had made no steps 
 towards the establishment of His kingdom of 
 the Jews, and that His following consisted of 
 only twelve poor Galileans, doubts began to 
 cloud over his spirit. Was the kingdom of 
 
 BIBLE DICT.—VOL. I, 
 
 JESUS CHRIST 1681 
 
 Messiah as near as he had thought? Was Jesus 
 not the Messiah but some forerunner of that 
 Deliverer, as he himself had been? There is no 
 unbelief; he does not suppose that Jesus has 
 deceived; when the doubts arise, it is to Jesus 
 that he submits them. But it was not without 
 great depression and perplexity that he put the 
 question, “ Art thou He that should come?” 
 The scope of the answer given lies in its recalling 
 John to the grounds of his former confidence. 
 The very miracles are being wrought that were 
 to be the signs of the kingdom of heaven; and 
 therefore that kingdom is come (Is. xxxv. 5; 
 xlii. 6, 7). There is more of grave encourage- 
 ment than of rebuke in the words, “ Blessed is 
 he who shall not be offended in me ” (Matt. xi. 6). 
 They bid the Forerunner to have a good heart, 
 and to hope and believe to the end. He has 
 allowed sorrow, and the apparent triumph of 
 wickedness, which is a harder trial, to trouble 
 his view of the Divine plan; let him remember 
 that it is blessed to attain that state of confi- 
 dence which these things cannot disturb; and 
 let the signs which Jesus now exhibits suffice 
 him to the end (Matt. xi. 1-6; Luke vii. 18-23). 
 
 The testimony to John which our Lord gra- 
 ciously adds is intended to reinstate him in that 
 place in the minds of His own disciples which 
 he had occupied before this mission of doubt. 
 John is not a weak waverer; not a luxurious 
 courtier, attaching himself to the new dispensa- 
 tion from worldly motives; but a prophet, and 
 more than a prophet, for the prophets spoke of 
 Jesus afar off, but John stood before the Messiah, 
 and with his hand pointed Him out. He came 
 in the spirit and power of Elijah (Mal. iii. 1, 
 iv. 5), to prepare for the kingdom of heaven. 
 And yet great as he was, the least of those in 
 the kingdom of heaven when it is completely 
 planted should enjoy a higher degree of religious 
 illumination than he (Matt. xi. 7-11; Luke vii. 
 24-28). 
 
 Now commences the second circuit of Galilee 
 (Luke viii. 1-3), to which belong the parables in 
 Matt. xiii.; the visit of our Lord’s mother and 
 brethren (Luke viii. 19-21), and the account of 
 his reception at Nazareth (Mark vi. 1-6). 
 
 During this time the twelve have journeyed 
 with Him. But now a third circuit in Galilee 
 is recorded, which probably occurred during the 
 last three months of this year (Matt. ix. 35-38) ; 
 and during this circuit, after reminding them 
 how great is the harvest and how pressing the 
 need of labourers, He carries the training of the 
 disciples one step further by sending them forth 
 by themselves to teach (Matt x., xi.). Sucha 
 mission is not to be considered as identical in 
 character with the mission of the Apostles after 
 the Resurrection. It was limited to the Jews; 
 the Samaritans and heathen were excluded; but 
 this arose, not from any narrowness in the limits 
 of the kingdom of heaven (Matt. xxviii. 19; 
 Mark xvi. 15), but from the limited knowledge 
 and abilities of the Apostles. They were sent 
 to proclaim to the Jews that “the kingdom of 
 heaven,” which their Prophets taught them to 
 look for, was at hand (Matt. x. 7); but they 
 were unfit as yet for the task of explaining to 
 Jews the true nature of that kingdom, and still 
 more to Gentiles who had received no prepara- 
 tion for any such doctrine. The preaching of 
 the Apostles whilst Jesus was yet on earth was 
 
 Lyd os 
 
1082 JESUS CHRIST 
 
 only ancillary to His and a preparation of the 
 way for Him. It was probably of the simplest 
 character. ‘As ye go, preach, saying, The king- 
 dom of heaven is at hand.” Power was given 
 them to confirm it by signs and wonders; and 
 the purpose of it was to throw the minds of 
 those who heard it into an inquiring state, so 
 that they might seek and find the Lord Him- 
 self. But whilst their instructions as to the 
 matter of their preaching were thus brief and 
 simple, the cautions, warnings, and encourage- 
 ments as to their own condition were far more 
 full. They were to do their work without 
 anxiety for their welfare. No provision was to 
 be made for their journey; in the house that 
 first received them in any city they were to 
 abide, not seeking to find the best. Dangers 
 would befall them, for they were sent forth “as 
 sheep in the midst of wolves” (Matt. x. 16): 
 but they were not to allow this to disturb their 
 thoughts. The same God Who wrought their 
 miracles for them would protect them; and 
 those who confessed the name of Christ before 
 men would be confessed by Christ before the 
 Father as His disciples. These precepts for the 
 Apostles even went somewhat beyond what their 
 present mission required; it does not appear 
 that they were at this time delivered up to 
 councils, or scourged in synagogues. But in 
 training their feeble wings for their first flight 
 the same rules and cautions were given which 
 would be needed even when they soared the 
 highest in their zeal and devotion to their cru- 
 cified Master. There is no difficulty here, if we 
 remember that this sending forth was rather a 
 training of the Apostles than a means of con- 
 verting the Galilean people. 
 
 They went forth two and two; and our Lord 
 continued His own circuit (Matt. xi. 1), with 
 what companions does not appear. By this time 
 the leaven of the Lord’s teaching had begun 
 powerfully to work among the people. Herod, 
 we read, ‘‘was perplexed, because that it was 
 said of some, that John was risen from the dead, 
 and of some that Elijah had appeared; and of 
 others, that one of the old Prophets was risen 
 again” (Luke ix.7,8). The false apprehensions 
 _about the Messiah that He shoufd be a temporal 
 ruler, were so deep-rooted, that whilst all the 
 rumours concurred in assigning a high place to 
 Jesus as a Prophet, none went beyond to recog- 
 nise Him as the King of Israel—the Saviour 
 of His people and the world. 
 
 After a journey of perhaps two months’ 
 duration the Twelve return to Jesus, and give 
 an account of their ministry. The third 
 Passover was now drawing near; but the Lord 
 did not go up to it, because His time was 
 not come for submitting to the malice of the 
 Jews against Him; because His ministry in 
 Galilee was not completed; and especially, 
 because He wished to continue the training of 
 the Apostles for their work, now one of the 
 chief objects of His ministry. He wished to 
 commune with them privately upon their work, 
 and, we may suppose, to add to the instruotion 
 they had already received from Him (Mark vi. 
 20, 31). He therefore went with them from 
 the neighbourhood of Capernaum to a mountain 
 on the eastern shore of the Sea of Tiberias, near 
 Bethsaida Julias. not far from the head of the 
 cea. Great multitudes pursued them; and here 
 
 JESUS CHRIST 
 
 the Lord, moved to compassion by the hunger 
 and weariness of the people, wrought for them 
 one of His most remarkable miracles. Out of 
 tive barley loaves and two small fishes, He 
 produced food for five thousand men besides 
 women and children. The act was one of 
 creation, and therefore was both an assertion 
 and a proof of Divine power; and the discourse 
 which followed it, recorded by St. John only, 
 Was an important step in the training of the 
 Apostles, for it hinted to them for the first time 
 the unexpected truth that the Body and Blood 
 of Christ, that is, His Passion, must become the 
 means of man’s salvation. This view of the 
 doctrine of the kingdom of heaven which they 
 had been preaching, could not have been under- 
 stood; but it would prepare those who still 
 clave to Jesus to expect the hard facts that 
 were to follow these hard words. The discourse 
 itself has already been examined (p. 1673). 
 After the miracle, but before the comment on 
 it was delivered, the disciples crossed the sea 
 from Bethsaida Julias to Bethsaida of Galilee, 
 and Jesus retired alone to a mountain to com- 
 mune with the Father. They were toiling at 
 the oar, for the wind was contrary, when, as the 
 night drew towards morning, they saw Jesus 
 walking to them on the sea, having passed the 
 whole night on the mountain, They were 
 amazed and terrified. He came into the ship 
 and the wind ceased. They worshipped Him at 
 this new proof of Divine power—* Of a truth 
 Thou art the Son of God” (Matt. xiv. 33). The 
 storm had been another trial of their faith 
 (cp. Matt. viii. 23-26), not in a present Master, 
 as on a former occasion, but in an absent one. 
 But the words of St. Mark intimate that even 
 the feeding of the five thousand had not built 
 up their faith in Him,—“for they considered 
 not the miracle of the loaves: for their heart 
 was hardened” (vi. 52). St. Peter, however, 
 as St. Matthew relates, with his usual zeal 
 wishing to show that he really possessed that 
 faith in Jesus which perhaps in the height of 
 the storm had been somewhat forgotten, requests 
 Jesus to bid him come to Him upon the water. 
 When he made the effort, his faith began to fail, 
 and he cried out for succour. Christ’s rebuke, 
 “© thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou 
 doubt ?” does not imply that he had no faith, or 
 that it wholly deserted him then. All the 
 failings of Peter were of the same kind; there 
 was a faith full of zeal and eagerness, but it was 
 not constant. He believed that he could walk 
 on the waters if Jesus bade him; but the roar 
 of the waves appalled him, and he sank from 
 the same cause that made him deny his Lord 
 afterwards. 
 
 When they reached the shore of Gennesaret, 
 the whole people showed their faith in Him as a 
 Healer of disease (Mark vi. 53-56); and He per- 
 formed very many miracles on them. Nothing 
 could surpass the eagerness with which they 
 sought Him. Yet on the next day the great 
 discourse just alluded to was uttered, and 
 “trom that time many of His disciples went 
 back and walked no more with Him” (John 
 vi. 66). 
 
 Third year of the Ministry—Hearing perhaps 
 that Jesus was not coming to the feast, Scribes 
 and Pharisees from Jerusalem went down to see 
 Him at Capernaum (Matt. xy. 1). ‘They found 
 
Ο remark. 
 
 Ν 
 
 JESUS CHRIST 
 
 fault with His disciples for breaking the tradi- 
 tion about purifying, and eating with unwashen 
 hands. It is not necessary to suppose that they 
 came to lie in wait for Jesus. The objection 
 was one which they would naturally take. Our 
 Lord in His answer tries to show them how far 
 external rule, claiming to be religious, may lead 
 men away from the true spirit of the Gospel. 
 “* Ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or 
 his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou 
 mightest be profited by me; and honour not his 
 father or his mother, he shall be free” (Matt. xv. 
 5, 6). They admitted the obligation of the 
 fifth commandment, but had introduced a means 
 of evading it, by enabling a son to say to his 
 father and mother who sought his help that 
 he had made his property “a gift” to the 
 Temple, which took precedence of his obligation, 
 Well might He apply to a people where such a 
 miserable evasion could find place, the words 
 of Isaiah (xxix. 15): “This people draweth nigh 
 unto Me with their mouth, and honoureth Me 
 with their lips, but their heart is far from Me. 
 But in vain they do worship Me, teaching for 
 doctrines the commandments of men.” 
 
 Leaving the neighbourhood of Capernaum, our 
 Lord now travels to the north-west of Galilee, 
 to the region of Tyre and Sidon. The time is 
 not strictly determined, but it was probably the 
 early summer of this year. It does not appear 
 that He retired into this heathen country for 
 the purpose of ministering; more probably it 
 was a retreat from the machinations of the 
 Jews. A woman of the country, of Greek edu- 
 cation (Ἑλληνὶς Συροφοινίκισσα, Mark), came to 
 entreat Him to heal her daughter who was 
 tormented with an evil spirit. The Lord at 
 first repelled her by saying that He was not sent 
 but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel; but 
 not so was her maternal love to be bafHled. She 
 sought Him again and was again repelled; the 
 bread of the children was not to be given to 
 dogs. Still persisting, she besought His help 
 even as one of the dogs so despised: “the dogs 
 eat of the crumbs that fall from the master’s 
 table.” Faith so sincere was not to be resisted. 
 Her daughter was made whole (Matt. xv. 21-28 ; 
 Mark vii. 24-30). 
 
 Returning thence, He passed round by the 
 
 north of the sea of Galilee to the region of 
 Decapolis on its eastern side (Mark vii. 31-37). 
 In this district He performed many miracles, 
 and especially the restoration of a deaf man who 
 had an impediment in his speech, remarkable 
 for the seeming effort with which He wrought 
 it. To these succeeded the feeding of the four 
 thousand with the seven loaves (Matt. xv. 32). 
 He now crossed the Lake of Magdala, where the 
 Pharisees and Sadducees asked and were refused 
 a “sign;” some great wonder wrought expressly 
 for them to prove that He was the Christ. He 
 answers them as He had answered a similar 
 request before: “‘the sign of the Prophet Jonas” 
 was all that they should have. His own Resur- 
 rection after a death of three days should be the 
 great sign, and yet in another sense no sign 
 should be given them, for they should neither 
 see it nor believe it. The unnatural alliance 
 between Pharisee and Sadducee is worthy of 
 The zealots of tradition and the 
 political partisans of Herod (for “leaven of the 
 Sadducees,” in Matt. xvi. 6=“leaven of Herod, 
 
 q 
 
 1683 
 
 Mark viii. 15) joined together for once with a 
 common object of hatred. After they had de- 
 parted, Jesus crossed the lake with His disciples, 
 and, combining perhaps for the use of the dis- 
 ciples the remembrance of the feeding of the 
 four thousand with that of the conversation 
 they had just heard, warned them to “ beware 
 of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the leaven 
 of Herod” (Mark viii. 15). So little however 
 were the disciples prepared for this, that they 
 mistook it for a reproof for having brought only 
 one loaf with them! They had forgotten the 
 five thousand and the four thousand, or they 
 would have known that where He was, natural 
 bread could not fail them. It was needful to 
 explain to them that the leaven of the Pharisees 
 was the doctrine of those who had made the 
 Word of God of none effect by traditions which 
 appearing to promote religion really overlaid 
 and destroyed it, and the leaven of the Sadducees 
 was the doctrine of those who, under the show 
 of superior enlightenment, denied the founda- 
 tions of the fear of God by denying a future 
 state. At Bethsaida Julias, Jesus restored sight 
 to a blind man; and here, as in a former case, 
 the form and preparation which He adopted are 
 to be remarked. As though the human Saviour 
 has to wrestle with and painfully overcome the 
 sufferings of His people, He takes him by the 
 hand, and leads him out of the town, and spits 
 on his eyes and asks him if he sees aught. At 
 first the sense is restored imperfectly; and 
 Jesus lays His hand again upon him and the 
 cure is complete (Mark viii. 22-26). 
 
 The ministry in Galilee is now drawing to its 
 close. Through the length and breadth of that 
 country Jesus had proclaimed the kingdom of 
 Christ, and has shown by mighty works that He 
 is the Christ that was to come. He begins to 
 ask the disciples what are the results of all 
 His labour. ‘Whom say the people that I 
 am?” (Luke ix. 18). It is true that the answer 
 shows that they took Him for a Prophet. But 
 we are obliged to admit that the rejection of 
 Jesus by the Galileans had been as complete as 
 His preaching to them had been universal. 
 Here and there a few may have received the 
 seeds that shall afterwards be quickened to 
 their conversion. But the great mass had heard 
 without earnestness the preached word, and for- 
 gotten it without regret. ‘ Whereunto shall I 
 liken this generation?” says Christ. “It is like 
 children sitting in the market, and calling unto 
 their fellows, and saying, We have piped unto you, 
 and ye have not danced ; we have mourned unto 
 you, and ye have not lamented ” (Matt. xi. 16, 
 17). This is a picture of a wayward people 
 without earnest thought. As children, from 
 want of any real purpose, cannot agree in their 
 play, so the Galileans quarrel with every form 
 of religious teaching. The message of John and 
 that of Jesus they did not attend to; but they 
 could discuss the question whether one was 
 right in fasting and the other in eating and 
 drinking. He denounces woe to the cities where 
 He had wrought the most—to Chorazin, Beth- 
 saida, and Capernaum—for their strange insensi- 
 bility, using the strongest expressions. ‘Thou, 
 Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt 
 be brought down to hell; for if the mighty 
 works, which have been done in thee, had been 
 done in Sodom, it would have remained until 
 
 5 P 2 
 
 JESUS CHRIST 
 
1084 JESUS CHRIST 
 
 this day. But I say unto you, that it shall be 
 more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day 
 of judgment than for thee” (Matt. xi. 23, 24). 
 Such awful language could only be used to 
 describe a compléte rejection of the Lord. And 
 in truth nothing was wanting to aggravate that 
 rejection. The lengthened journeys through 
 the land, the miracles, far more than are 
 recorded in detail, had brought the Gospel 
 home to all the people. Capernaum was the 
 focus of His ministry. Through Chorazin and 
 Bethsaida He had no doubt passed with crowds 
 behind Him, drawn together by wonders that 
 they had seen, and by the hope of others to 
 follow them. Many thousands had actually 
 been benefited by the miracles; and yet of all 
 these there were only twelve that really clave 
 to Hin, and one of them was Judas the traitor. 
 With this rejection an epoch of the history is 
 connected. He begins to unfold now the doc- 
 trine of His Passion more fully. First inquiring 
 whom the people said that He was, He then put 
 the same question to the Apostles themselves. 
 Simon Peter, the ready spokesman of the rest, 
 answers, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the 
 living God.” It might almost seem that such 
 a manifest inference from the wonders they had 
 witnessed was too obvious to deserve praise, did 
 not the sight of a whole country which had 
 witnessed the same wonders, and despised them, 
 prove how thoroughly callous the Jewish heart 
 was. “Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: for 
 flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, 
 but My Father Which is in heaven. And I also 
 say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this 
 rock I will build My Church; and the gates of 
 hell shall not. prevail against it. And I will 
 give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of 
 heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on 
 earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever 
 thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in 
 heaven” (Matt. xvi. 16-20). We compare the 
 language applied to Capernaum for its want of 
 faith with that addressed to St. Peter and the 
 Apostles, and we see how wide is the gulf 
 between those who believe and those who do 
 not. Jesus now in the plainest language tells 
 ‘them what is to be the mode of His departure 
 from the world: “how that He must go unto 
 Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders 
 and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and 
 be raised again the third day ” (Matt. xvi. 21). 
 St. Peter, who had spoken as the representative 
 of all the Apostles before, in confessing Jesus as 
 the Christ, now speaks for the rest in offering to 
 our Lord the commonplace consolations of the 
 children of this world toa friend beset by danger. 
 The danger they think will be averted: such 
 an end cannot befall one so great. The Lord, 
 “when He had turned about and looked on His 
 disciples” (Mark), to show that He connected 
 Peter’s words with them all, addresses Peter as 
 the tempter—“ Get thee behind Me, Satan; thou 
 art an offence unto Me.” These words open up 
 to us the fact that this period of the ministry 
 was a time of special trial and temptation to the 
 sinless Son of God :—“ Escape from sufferings 
 and death! Do not drink the cup prepared of 
 Thy Father ; it is too bitter ; it is not deserved.” 
 Such was the whisper of the prince of this world 
 at that time to our Lord; and St. Peter has 
 been unwittingly taking it into his mouth. The 
 
 JESUS CHRIST 
 
 doctrine of a suffering Messiah, so plainly ex- 
 hibited in the Prophets, had receded from sight 
 in the current religion of that time. ‘The 
 announcement of it to the disciples was at once 
 new and shocking. By repelling it, even when 
 offered by the Lord Himselt, they fell into a 
 deeper sin than they could have conceived. The 
 chief of them was called “Satan,” because he 
 was unconsciously pleading on Satan’s side 
 (Matt. xvi. 21-25). 
 
 Turning now to the whole body of those who 
 followed Him (Mark, Luke), He published the 
 Christian doctrine of self-denial. The Apostles 
 had just shown that they took the natural view 
 of suffering, that it was an evil to be shunned. 
 They shrank from conflict, and pain, and death, 
 as it is natural men should. But Jesus teaches 
 that, in comparison with the higher life, the 
 life of the soul, the life of the body is valueless. 
 And as the renewed life of the Christian implies. 
 his dying to his old wishes and desires, suffering, 
 which causes the death of earthly hopes and 
 wishes, may be a good. “If any man will come 
 after Me, Jet him deny himself, and take up his. 
 Cross and follow Me. For whosoever will save 
 his life shall lose it, and whosoever will lose his. 
 life for My sake shall find it. For what is aman 
 profited, if he should gain the whole werld, and. 
 lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in 
 exchange for his soul?” (Matt. xvi.). From 
 this part of the history to the end we shall not 
 lose sight of the sufferings of the Lord. The 
 Cross is darkly seen at the end of our path ; 
 and we shall ever draw nearer that mysterious 
 implement of human salvation (Matt. xvi. 21— 
 28; Mark viii. 31-38; Luke ix. 22-27). 
 
 The Transfiguration, which took place just a 
 week after this conversation, is to be understool 
 in connexion with it. The minds of the Twelve 
 were greatly disturbed at what they had heard. 
 The Messiah was to perish by the wrath of men. 
 The Master Whom they served was to be takem 
 away from them. Now, if ever, they needed 
 support for their perplexed spirits, and this 
 their loving Master failed not to give them. 
 He takes with Him three chosen disciples— 
 St. Peter, St. John, and St. James—who formed 
 as it were a smaller circle nearer to Jesus than 
 that of the rest, into a high mountain apart by 
 themselves. There are no means of determining 
 the position of the mountain ; although Caesarea 
 Philippi was the scene of the former conver- 
 sations, it does not follow that this occurred on 
 the eastern side of the lake, for the intervening 
 week would have given time enough for a long 
 journey thence. There is no authority for the 
 tradition which identifies this mountain with 
 Mount Tabor, although it may be true. The 
 three disciples were taken up with Him, who 
 should afterwards be the three witnesses of His 
 Agony in the garden of Gethsemane: those who 
 saw His glory in the holy mount would be 
 sustained by the remembrance of it when they 
 beheld His lowest humiliation. The calmness 
 and exactness of the narrative preclude all 
 doubt as to its historical character. It is no 
 myth, nor vision; but a sober account of a 
 miracle. When Jesus had come up into the 
 mountain, He was praying; and as He prayed, 
 a great change came over Him. “His face did 
 shine as the sun (Matt.); and His raiment — 
 became shining, exceeding white as snow; so 
 
JESUS CHRIST 
 
 as no fuller on earth can white them’? (Mark). 
 Beside Him appeared Moses the great Lawgiver, 
 and Elijah, great amongst the Prophets ; and 
 they spake of His departure, as though it was 
 something recognised both’ by Law and Prophets. 
 The three disciples were at first asleep with 
 weariness; and when they woke, they saw the 
 glorious scene. As Moses and Elijah were 
 departing (Luke), St. Peter, wishing to arrest 
 them, uttered those strange words, “ Lord, it is 
 good for us to be here, and let us make three 
 tabernacles, one for Thee, and one for Moses, 
 and one for Elijah.” They were the words of 
 “one astonished and somewhat afraid, yet of one 
 who felt a strange peace in this explicit testi- 
 mony from the Father that Jesus was His. It 
 was good for them to be there, he felt, where 
 mo Pharisees could set traps for them, where 
 neither Pilate nor Herod could take Jesus by 
 force. Just as he spoke a cloud came over 
 them, and the voice of the Heavenly Father 
 attested once more His Son—‘ This is My 
 beloved Son; hear Him.” ‘There has_ been 
 much discussion on the purport of this great 
 wonder. But thus much seems highly probable. 
 First, as it was connected with the prayer of 
 Jesus, to which it was no doubt an answer, it 
 is to be regarded as a kind of inauguration of 
 Him in His new office as the High-Priest Who 
 should make atonement for the sins of the 
 people with His own Blood. The mystery of 
 His trials and temptations lies too deep for 
 speculation: but He received strength against 
 human infirmity—against the prospect of suf- 
 ferings so terrible—in this His glorification. 
 Secondly, as the witnesses of this scene were 
 the same three disciples who were with the 
 Master in the garden of Gethsemane, it may be 
 assumed that the one was intended to prepare 
 them for the other, and that they were to be 
 borne up under the spectacle of His Humiliation 
 by the remembrance that they had been eye- 
 witnesses of His Majesty (2 Pet. i. 16-18). 
 
 As they came down from the mountain He 
 charged them to keep secret what they had 
 seen till after the Resurrection; which shows 
 that this miracle took place for His use and for 
 theirs, rather than for the rest of the disciples. 
 This led to questions about the meaning of His 
 wising again trom the dead, and in the course of 
 it, and arising out of it, occurred the question, 
 “Why then (οὖν, which refers to some pre- 
 ceding conversation) say the Scribes that Elias 
 must first come?” They had been assured by 
 what they had just seen that the time of the 
 kingdom of God was now come; and the ob- 
 jection brought by the Scribes, that before the 
 Messiah Elijah must reappear, seemed hard to 
 reconcile with their new conviction. Our Lord 
 answers them that the Scribes hve rightly 
 understood the prophecies that Elijah would 
 first come (Mal. iv. 5, 6), but have wanted the 
 discernment to see that this prophecy was 
 already fulfilled. ‘Elias is come already, and 
 they kuew him not, but have done unto him 
 whatever they listed.” In John the Baptist, 
 who came in the spirit and power of Elijah, 
 were the Scriptures fulfilled (Matt. xvii. 1-13 ; 
 Mark ix. 2-13 ; Luke ix. 28-36). 
 
 Meantime amongst the multitude below a 
 scene was taking place which formed the 
 
 JESUS CHRIST 1685 
 
 which they had witnessed, and which seemed io 
 justify Peter’s remark, “It is good for us to be 
 here.” A poor youth, lunatic and possessed by 
 a devil—for here as elsewhere the possession is 
 superadded to some known form of that bodily 
 and mental evil which came in at first with sin 
 and Satan+-was brought to the disciples who 
 were not with Jesus, to be cured. They could 
 not prevail; and when Jesus appeared amongst 
 them, the agonized and disappointed father ap- 
 pealed to Him, with a kind of complaint of the 
 impotence of the disciples. “Ὁ faithless and 
 perverse generation!” said our Lord; ‘ how 
 long shall I be with you? how long shall 
 I suffer you?” The rebuke is not to the 
 disciples, but to all, the father included; for 
 the weakness of faith that hindered the miracle 
 was in them all. St. Mark’s account, the most 
 complete, describes the paroxysm that took 
 place in the lad.on our Lord’s ordering him to 
 be brought; and also records the remarkable 
 saying, which well described the father’s state, 
 “Lord, I believe; help Thou my unbelief!” 
 What the disciples had failed to do, Jesus did 
 at a word. He then explained to them that 
 their want of faith in their own power to heal, 
 and in His promises to bestow the power upon 
 them, was the cause of their inability (Matt. 
 xvii, 14-21; Mark ix. 14-29; Luke ix. 37-43). 
 
 Once more did Jesus foretell His sufferings 
 on their way back to Capernaum; but “they 
 understood not that saying, and were afraid to 
 ask Him” (Mark ix. 30-32). 
 
 But a vague impression seems to have been 
 produced on them that His kingdom was now 
 very near. It broke forth in the shape of a 
 dispute amongst them as to which should rank 
 the highest in the kingdom when it should 
 come. Taking a little child, He told them 
 that, in His kingdom, not ambition, but a 
 childlike humility, would entitle to the highest 
 place (Matt. xviii. 1-5; Mark ix. 33-37; Luke 
 ix. 46-48). The humility of the Christian is 
 so closely connected with consideration for the 
 souls of others, that the transition to a warning 
 against causing offence (Matt., Mark), which 
 might appear abrupt at first, is most natural. 
 From this Jesus passes naturally to the subject 
 of a tender consideration for “ the lost sheep ; ” 
 thence to the duty of forgiveness of a brother. 
 Both of these last points are illustrated by 
 parables. These, and some other discourses 
 belonging to the same time, are to be regarded 
 as designed to carry on the education of the 
 Apostles, whose views were still crude and 
 unformed, even after all that had been done for 
 them (Matt. xviil.). 
 
 From the Feast of Tabernacles, Tiird Year.— 
 The Feast of Tabernacles was now approaching. 
 For eighteen months the ministry of Jesus had 
 been confined to Galilee; and His brothers, not 
 hostile to Him, yet only half-convinced about 
 His doctrine, urged Him to go into Judaea that 
 His claims might be known and confessed on a 
 more conspicuous field. ‘This kind of request, 
 founded in human motives, was one which our 
 Lord would not assent to: witness His answer 
 to Mary at Cana in Galilee when the first 
 miracle was wrought. He told them that, 
 whilst all times were alike to them, whilst 
 they could always walk among the Jews 
 
 strongest contrast to the glory and the peace , without danger, His appointed time was not 
 
1686 JESUS CHRIST 
 
 come. They set out for the feast without Him, 
 and He abode in Galilee for a few days longer 
 (John vii, 2-10). Afterwards He set out, taking 
 the more direct but less frequented route by 
 Samaria, that His journey might be “in secret.” 
 It was in this journey that James and John 
 conceived the wish—so closely parallel to facts 
 in the Old Covenant, so completely at variance 
 with the spirit of the New—that fire should be 
 commanded to come down from heaven to con- 
 sume the inhospitable Samaritans (Luke ix. 
 51-62). 
 
 St. Luke alone records, in connexion with 
 this journey, the sending forth of the seventy 
 disciples. This event is to be regarded in a 
 different light from that of the twelve. The 
 seventy had received no special education from 
 our Lord, and their commission was of a tem- 
 porary kind. The number has reference to the 
 Gentiles, as twelve had to the Jews; and the 
 scene of the work, Samaria, reminds us that 
 this is a movement directed towards the 
 stranger. It takes place six months after the 
 sending forth of the twelve; for the Gospel was 
 to be delivered to the 'Jew first and afterwards 
 to the Gentile. In both cases probably the 
 preaching was of the simplest kind—‘ The 
 kingdom of God is come nigh unto you.” The 
 instructions given were the same in spirit ; but, 
 on comparing them, we see that now the danger 
 was becoming greater and the time for labour 
 shorter (Luke x. 1-16). 
 
 After healing the ten lepers in Samaria, He 
 came “about the midst of the feast” to Jeru- 
 salem. Here the minds of the people were 
 strongly excited and drawn in different ways 
 concerning Him. The Pharisees and rulers 
 sought to take Him; some of the people, 
 however, believed in Him, but concealed their 
 opinion for fear of the rulers. ΤῸ this division 
 of opinion we may attribute the failure of the 
 repeated attempts on the part of the San- 
 hedrin to take One Who was openly teaching 
 in the Temple (John vii. 11-53; see esp. wv. 
 30, 32, 44, 45, 46). The officers were partly 
 afraid to seize in the presence of the people the 
 favourite Teacher; and they themselves were 
 awed and attracted by Him. They came to 
 seize Him, but could not lift their hands against 
 Him. Notwithstanding the ferment of opinion, 
 and the fixed hatred of those in power, He 
 seems to have taught daily to the end of the 
 Feast in the Temple before the people. 
 
 The history of the woman taken in adultery 
 belongs to this time. But it must be premised 
 that several MSS. of highest authority omit 
 this passage, and that in those which insert it 
 the text is singularly disturbed (see Liicke in 
 loc., and Tischendorf, Gr. Test., ed. vii.). The 
 remark of Augustine is perhaps not far from 
 the truth, that this story formed a genuine 
 portion of the apostolic teaching, but that mis- 
 taken people excluded it from their copies of 
 the written Gospel, thinking it might be per- 
 verted into a license to women to sin (Ad 
 Pollent. ii. ch. 7). That it was thus kept apart, 
 without the safeguards which Christian vigi- 
 lance exercised over the rest of the text, and 
 was only admitted later, would at once account 
 for its absence from the MSS. and for the 
 various forms assumed by the text where it is 
 given. But the history gives no ground for 
 
 JESUS CHRIST 
 
 such apprehensions. The Law of Moses gave 
 the power to stone women taken in adultery. 
 But Jewish morals were sunk very low, like 
 Jewish faith; and the punishment could not be 
 inflicted on a sinner by those who had sinned in 
 the same kind: “ Etenim non est ferendus accu- 
 sator is qui quod in altero vitium reprehendit, 
 in eo ipso deprehenditur” (Cicero, c. Verrem, 
 iii.). Thus the punishment had passed out of 
 use. But they thought, by proposing this case 
 to our Lord, to induce Him either to set the 
 Law formally aside, in which case they might 
 accuse Him of profaneness; or to sentence the 
 guilty wretch to die, and so become obnoxious 
 to the charge of cruelty. From such tempta- 
 tions Jesus was always able to escape. He 
 threw back the decision upon them; He told 
 them that the man who was free from that sin 
 might cast the first stone at her. Conscience 
 told them that this was unanswerable, and one 
 by one they stole away, leaving the guilty 
 woman alone before One Who was indeed her 
 Judge. It has been supposed that the words 
 ‘“‘Neither do I condemn thee” convey an abso- 
 lute pardon for the sin of which she had just 
 been guilty. But they refer, as has Jong since 
 been pointed out, to the doom of stoning only. 
 “As they have not punished thee, neither do I; 
 go, and let this danger warn thee to sin no 
 more ” (John viii. 1-11). 
 
 The conversations (John viii. 12-59) show in 
 a strong light the perversity of the Jews in 
 misunderstanding our Lord’s words. They re- 
 fuse to see any spiritual meaning in them, and 
 drag them as it were by force down to a low 
 and carnal interpretation. Our Lord’s remark 
 explains the cause of this, “Why do ye not 
 understand My speech [way of speaking]? Even 
 because ye cannot hear My word” (v. 43). His 
 mode of expression was strange to them, because 
 they were neither able nor willing to understand 
 the real purport of His teaching. To this place 
 belongs the account, given by John alone, of 
 
 the healing of one who was born blind, and the 
 
 consequences of it (John ix. 1-41, x. 1-21), 
 The poor patient was excommunicated for re- 
 fusing to undervalue the agency of Jesus in 
 restoring him. He believed on Jesus; whilst. 
 the Pharisees were only made the worse for 
 what they had witnessed. Well might Jesus 
 exclaim, ‘For judgment I am come into this 
 world, that they which see not might see; and 
 that they which see might be made blind” 
 (ix. 39). The well-known parable of the Good 
 Shepherd is an answer to the calumny of the 
 Pharisees, that He was an impostor and breaker 
 of the law, “This man is not of God, because He 
 keepeth not the Sabbath day ” (ix. 16). 
 
 We now approach a difficult portion of the 
 sacred history. The note of time given us by 
 St. John immediately afterwards is the Feast of 
 the Dedication, which was celebrated on the 
 25th of Kisleu, answering nearly to December. 
 According to this Evangelist, our Lord does not 
 appear to have returned to Galilee between the 
 Feast of Tabernacles and that of Dedication, but 
 to have passed the time in and near Jerusalem. 
 St. Matthew and St. Mark do- not allude to the 
 Feast of Tabernacles. St. Luke appears to do 
 so in ix. 51; but the words there used would 
 imply that this was the last journey to Jeru- 
 salem. Now in St. Luke’s Gospel a large section, 
 
JESUS CHRIST 
 
 from ix. 51 to xviii. 14, seems to belong to the 
 time preceding the departure from Galilee; and 
 the question is, How is this to be arranged, so 
 that it shall harmonize with the narrative of 
 St. John? In most Harmonies a return of our 
 Lord to Galilee has been assumed, in order to 
 find a place tor this part of Luke’s Gospel. 
 “But the manner,” says the English editor of 
 Robinson’s Harmony, “in which it has been 
 arranged, atter all, is exceedingly various. 
 Some, as Le Clere (/farm. Evang. p. 264), insert 
 nearly the whole during this supposed journey. 
 Others, as Lightfoot, assign to this journey only 
 what precedes Luke xiii. 23; and refer the 
 remainder to our Lord’s sojourn beyond Jordan, 
 John x. 40 (Chron. Temp. N. T., Opp. ii. pp. 37, 
 39). Greswell (ii. Dissert. xvi.) maintains that 
 the transactions in Luke ix. 51-xviii, 14 all 
 belong to the journey from Ephraim (through 
 Samaria, Galilee, and Peraea) to Jerusalem, 
 which he dates in the interval of four months, 
 between the Feast of Dedication and our Lord’s 
 last Passover. Wieseler (Chron. Synops. p. 328) 
 makes a somewhat different arrangement; ac- 
 cording to which, Luke ix. 51-xiii. 21 relates 
 to the period from Christ’s journey from Galilee 
 to the Feast of the Tabernacles till after the 
 Feast of Dedication (parallel to John vii. 10- 
 x. 42). Luke xiii. 22-xvii. 10 relates to the 
 interval between that time and our Lord’s stay 
 at Ephraim (parallel to John xi. 1-54); and 
 Luke xvii. 11-xviii. 14 relates to the journey 
 from Ephraim to Jerusalem, through Samaria, 
 Galilee, and Peraea” (Robinson’s Harmony, 
 English ed. p. 92). Ifthe table of the Harmony 
 of the Gospels given above is referred to 
 [GosPELs], it will be found that this great 
 division of St. Luke (x. 17-xviii. 14) is inserted 
 entire between John x. 21 and 223; not that this 
 appeared certainly correct, but that there are 
 no points of contact with the other Gospels to 
 assist us in breaking it up. That this division 
 contains partly or chiefly reminiscences of occur- 
 rences in Galilee pricr to the Feast of Taber- 
 nacles, is untenable. A journey of some kind is 
 implied in the course of it (see xiii. 22), and 
 beyond this we shall hardly venture to go. It 
 is quite possible, as Wieseler supposes, that part 
 of it should be placed before, and part after the 
 Feast of Dedication. Notwithstanding the un- 
 certainty, it is as the history of this period of 
 the Redeemer’s career that the Gospel of St. 
 Luke possesses its chief distinctive value for us. 
 Some of the most striking parables, preserved 
 only by this Evangelist, belong to this period. 
 The parables of the good Samaritan, the pro- 
 digal son, the unjust steward, the rich man and 
 Lazarus, and the Pharisee and publican, all 
 peculiar to this Gospel, belong to the present 
 section. The instructive account of Mary and 
 Martha, on which so many have taken a wrong 
 view ot Martha’s conduct, reminds us that there 
 are two ways of serving the truth, that of active 
 exertion and that of contemplation. The pre- 
 ference is given to Mary’s meditation, because 
 Martha’s labour belonged to household cares, 
 and was only indirectly religious. ‘The miracle 
 of the ten lepers belongs to this portion of the 
 narrative. Besides these, scattered sayings that 
 occur in St. Matthew are here repeated in a 
 new connexion. Here too belongs the return of 
 the seventy disciples, but we know not precisely 
 
 JESUS CHRIST 1687 
 
 where they rejoined the Lord (Luke x. 17-20). 
 They were full of triumph, because they found 
 even the devils subject to them through the 
 weight of Christ’s word. In anticipation of the 
 victory, which was now begun, over the powers 
 of darkness, Jesus replies, “1 beheld Satan as 
 lightning fall from heaven.” He sought how- 
 ever to humble their triumphant spirit, so near 
 akin to spiritual pride: “ Notwithstanding, in 
 this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto 
 you; but rather rejoice, because your names are 
 written in heaven.” 
 
 The account of the bringing of young chil- 
 dren to Jesus unites again the three Evangelists. 
 Here, as often, St. Mark gives the most minute 
 account of what occurred. After the announce- 
 ment that the disposition of little children was 
 the most meet for the kingdom of God, “ He 
 took them up in His arms, put His hands upon 
 them and blessed them.” ‘The childlike spirit, 
 which in nothing depends upon its own know- 
 ledge but seeks to be taught, is in contrast with 
 the haughty pharisaism with its boast of learn- 
 ing and wisdom; and Jesus tells them that the 
 former is the passport to His kingdom (Matt. 
 xix. 18-15; Mark x. 13-16; Luke xviii. 15-17). 
 
 The question of the ruler, “ What shall I do 
 to inherit eternal life?” was one conceived 
 wholly in the spirit of Judaism. The man asked 
 not how he should be delivered from sin, but 
 how his will, already free to righteousness, 
 might select the best and most meritorious line 
 of conduct. The words, ‘ Why callest thou Me 
 good ? there is none good but One, that is God,” 
 were meant first to draw him down toa humbler 
 view of his own state; the title good is easy to 
 give, but hard to justify, except when applied 
 to the One Who is all good. Jesus by no means 
 repudiates the title as applied to Himself, but 
 only as applied on any other ground than that 
 of a reference to His true Divine Nature. Then 
 the Lord opened out to him all the moral law, 
 which in its full and complete sense no man 
 has observed ; but the ruler answered, perhaps 
 sincerely, that he had observed it all from his 
 youth up. Duties however there might be 
 which had not come within the range of his 
 thoughts; and as the demand had reference to 
 his own special case, our Lord gives the special 
 advice to sell all his possessions and to give to 
 the poor. Then for the first time did the man 
 discover that his devotion to God and his yearn- 
 ing after the eternal life were not so perfect as 
 he had thought; and he went away sorrowful, 
 unable to bear this sacrifice. And Jesus told 
 the disciples how hard it was for those who had 
 riches to enter the kingdom. St. Peter, ever 
 the most ready, now contrasts, with somewhat 
 too much emphasis, the mode in which the 
 disciples had left all for Him, with the conduct 
 of this rich ruler. Our Lord, sparing him the 
 rebuke which he might have expected, tells 
 them that those who have made any sacrifice 
 shall have it richly repaid even in this Jife in 
 the shape of a consolation and comfort, which 
 even persecutions cannot take away (Mark); 
 and shall have eternal life (Matt. xix. 16-30; 
 Mark x. 17-31; Luke xviii. 18-30). Words 
 of warning close the narrative, “‘ Many that are 
 first shall be last, and the last shall be first,” 
 lest the disciples should be thinking too much 
 of the sacrifices, not so very great, that they 
 
1088 JESUS CHRIST 
 
 had made. And in St. Matthew only, the well- 
 known parable of the labourer of the vineyard 
 is added to illustrate the same lesson. What- 
 ever else the parable may contain of reference 
 to the calling of the Jews and Gentiles, the first 
 lesson Christ was to give was one of caution to 
 the Apostles against thinking too much of their 
 early calling and arduous labours. They would 
 see many, who, in comparison with themselves, 
 were as the labourers called at the eleventh 
 hour, who should be accepted of God as well as 
 they. But not merit, not self-sacrifice, but the 
 pure love of God and His mere bounty, con- 
 ferred salvation on either of them: “Is it not 
 lawful for me to do what I will with my own?” 
 (Matt. xx. 1-16). 
 
 On the way to Jerusalem through Peraea, to 
 the Feast of Dedication, Jesus again puts before 
 the minds of the twelve what they are never 
 now to forget, the sufferings that await Him. 
 They “understood none of these things "ἢ (Luke), 
 for they could not reconcile this foreboding of 
 suffering with the signs and announcements of 
 the coming of His kingdom (Matt. xx. 17-19; 
 Mark x. 32-34; Luke xviii. 31-34). In conse- 
 quence of this new, though dark, intimation of 
 the coming of the kingdom, Salome, with her 
 two sons, James and John, came to bespeak the 
 two places of highest honour in the kingdom. 
 Jesus tells them that they know not what they 
 ask; that the places of honour in the kingdom 
 shall be bestowed, not by Jesus in answer to a 
 chance request, but upon those for whom they 
 are prepared by the Father. As sin ever pro- 
 vokes sin, the ambition of the ten was now 
 aroused, and they began to be much displeased 
 with James and John. Jesus once more recalls 
 the principle that the childlike disposition is 
 that which He approves. “ Ye know that the 
 princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over 
 them, and they that are great exercise authority 
 upon them. But it shall not be so among you: 
 but whosoever will be great among you, let him 
 be your minister; and whosoever will be chief 
 among you, let him be your seryant: even as 
 the Son of Man came not to be ministered unto 
 but to minister, and to give His life a ransom 
 for many ” (Matt. xx. 20-28, Mark x. 35-45). 
 
 The healing of the two blind men at Jericho 
 is chiefly remarkable among the miracles from 
 the difficulty which has arisen in harmonizing 
 the accounts Matthew speaks of two blind 
 men, and of the occasion as the departure from 
 Jericho; Mark of one, whom he names, and of 
 their arrival at Jericho; and Luke agrees with 
 him. This point has received much discussion ; 
 but the view of Lightfoot finds favour with 
 many eminent expositors, that there were two 
 blind men, and both were healed under similar 
 circumstances, except that Bartimaeus was on 
 one side of the city, and was healed by Jesus as 
 He entered, and the other was healed on the 
 other side as they departed (see Greswell, Diss. 
 xx. ii.; Wieseler, Chron. Syn. p. 332; Matt. xx. 
 29-34; Mark x. 46-52; Luke xviii. 35-43). 
 
 The calling of Zacchaeus has more than a 
 mere personal interest. He was a publican, one 
 of a class hated and despised by the Jews. But 
 he was one who sought to serve God; he gave 
 largely to the poor, and restored fourfold where 
 he had injured any man. Justice and love were 
 the law of his life. From such did Jesus wish 
 
 JESUS CHRIST 
 
 to call His disciples, whether they were publicans 
 or not. ‘‘This day is salvation come to this 
 house, for that he also is a son of Abraham. 
 For the Son of Man is come to seek and to save 
 that which was lost” (Luke xix. 1-10). 
 
 We have reached now the Feast of Dedication 
 but, as has been said, the exact place of the 
 events in St. Luke about this part of the ministry 
 has not been conclusively determined. After 
 being present at the Feast, Jesus returned to 
 Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John had 
 formerly baptized, and abode there. The place 
 which the beginning of His ministry had con- 
 secrated, was now to be adorned with His 
 Presence as it drew towards its close, and the 
 scene of John’s activity was now to witness the 
 presence of the Saviour Whom he had so faith- 
 fully proclaimed (John x. 22-42). The Lord 
 intended by this choice to recall to the minds of 
 many the good which John had done them, and 
 also, it may be, to prevent an undue exaltation 
 of John in the minds of some who had heard 
 him only. “Many,” we read, “resorted to 
 Him, and said John did no miracle: but all 
 things that John spake of this man were true. 
 And many believed on Him there (ev. 41, 42). 
 
 How long He remained here does not appear. 
 It was probably for some weeks. The sore need 
 of a family in Bethany, who were what men 
 call the intimate friends of our Lord, called 
 Him thence. Lazarus was sick, and his sisters 
 sent word of it to Jesus, whose power they well 
 knew. Jesus answered that the sickness was 
 not unto death, but for the glory of God and of 
 the Son of God. This had reference to the 
 miracle about to be wrought; even though he 
 died, not his death but his restoration to life 
 was the purpose of the sickness. But it was a 
 trial to the faith of the sisters to find the 
 words of their friend apparently falsified. Jesus 
 abode for two days where He was, and then 
 proposed to the disciples to return. The rage 
 of the Jews against Him filled the disciples 
 with alarm; and Thomas, whose mind leant 
 always to the desponding side, and saw nothing 
 in the expedition but certain death to all of 
 them, said, “ Let us also go that we may die 
 with Him.” It was not till Lazarus had been 
 four days in the grave that the Saviour appeared 
 on the scene. The practical energy of Martha, 
 and the retiring character of Mary, show them- 
 selves here, as once before. It was Martha who 
 met Him, and addressed to Him words of sorrow- 
 ful reproach. Jesus probed her faith deeply, 
 and found that even in this extremity of sorrow 
 it would not fail her. Mary now joined them, 
 summoned by her sister ; and she too reproached 
 the Lord for the delay. Jesus does not resist 
 the contagion of their sorrow, and as a Man He 
 weeps true human tears by the side of the grave 
 of a friend. But with the Power of God He 
 breaks the fetters of brass in which Lazarus 
 was held by death, and at His word the man on 
 whom corruption had already begun to do its 
 work, came forth alive and whole (John xi. 
 1-45). It might seem difficult to account for 
 the omission of this, perhaps the most signal of 
 the miracles of Jesus, by the three synoptical 
 Evangelists. No doubt it was intentional, and 
 the wish not to direct attention, and perhaps 
 persecution, to Lazarus in his lifetime may go 
 far to account for it. But it stands well in the 
 
JESUS CHRIST 
 
 pages of St. John, whose privilege it has been 
 to announce the highest truths connected with 
 the Divine Nature of Jesus, and who is now also 
 permitted to show Him touched with sympathy 
 for a sorrowing family with whom He lived in 
 intimacy. 
 
 A miracle so public—for Bethany was close to 
 Jerusalem, and the family of Lazarus well 
 known to many people in the mother-city—could 
 not escape the notice of the Sanhedrin. <A 
 meeting of this Council was called without loss 
 ef time, and the matter discussed, not without 
 symptoms of alarm, for the members believed 
 that a popular outbreak, with Jesus at its head, 
 was impending, and that it would excite the 
 jealousy of the Romans and lead to the taking 
 away of their “place and nation.” Caiaphas 
 the high-priest gave it as his opinion that it 
 was expedient for them that one man should die 
 for the people, and that the whole nation should 
 not perish. The Evangelist adds that these 
 words bore a prophetic meaning, of which the 
 speaker was unconscious: “This spake he not 
 of himself, but being high-priest that year he 
 prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation.” 
 That a bad and worldly man may prophesy, the 
 ease of Balaam proves (Num. xxii.); and the 
 Jews, as Schéttgen shows, believed that prophecy 
 might also be unconscious. But the connexion 
 of the gift of prophecy with the office of the 
 high-priest offers a difficulty. It has been said 
 that, though this gift is never in Scripture 
 assigned to the high-priest as such, yet the 
 popular belief at this time was that he did 
 enjoy it. There is no proof, however, except 
 this passage, of any such belief; and the Evan- 
 gelist would not appeal to it except it were true, 
 and, if it were true, then the O. Ἵν would contain 
 some allusion to it. The endeavours to: escape 
 from the difficulty by changes of punctuation 
 are not to be thought of. The meaning of the 
 passage seems to be this :—The Jews were about 
 to commit a crime, the real results of which 
 they did not know, and God overruled the 
 words of one of them to make him declare the 
 reality of the transaction, but unconsciously ; 
 and as Caiaphas was the high-priest, the highest 
 minister of God, and therefore the most con- 
 spicuous in the sin, it was natural to expect 
 that he and not another would be the channel 
 ef the prophecy. The connexion between his 
 office and the prophecy was not a necessary 
 one; but if a prophecy was to be uttered by 
 unwilling lips, it was natural that the high- 
 priest, who offered for the people, should be the 
 person compelled to utter it. The death of 
 Jesus was now resolved on, and He fled to 
 Ephraim for a few days, because His hour was 
 not yet come (John xi. 45-57). 
 
 We now approach the final stage of the 
 history, and every word and act tend towards 
 the great act of suffering. The hatred of the 
 Pharisees, now converted into a settled purpose 
 ef murder, the vile wickedness of Judas, and 
 the utter fickleness of the people, are all dis- 
 played before us. Each day is marked by its 
 own events or instructions. Our Lord entered 
 into Bethany on Friday the 8th of Nisan, the 
 eve of the Sabbath, and remained over the 
 Sabbath. 
 
 Saturday the 9th of Nisan (April 1st).—As 
 He was at supper in the house of one Simon, 
 
 1689 
 
 surnamed “the leper,” a relation of Lazarus, 
 who was at table with Him, Mary, full of 
 gratitude for the wonderful raising of her 
 brother from the dead, took a vessel_containing 
 a quantity of pure ointment of spikenard and 
 anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped His feet 
 with her hair, and anointed His head likewise. 
 She thought not of the cost of the precious 
 ointment, in an emotion of love which was 
 willing to part with anything she possessed to 
 do honour to so great a Guest, so mighty a 
 Benefactor. Judas the traitor, and some of the 
 disciples (Matt., Mark), who took their tone 
 from him, began to murmur at the waste: “It 
 might have been sold for more than three 
 hundred pence, and have been given to the 
 poor.” But Judas cared not for the poor; 
 already he was meditating the sale of his Master’s 
 life, and all that he thought of was how he 
 might lay hands on something more, beyond the 
 price of blood. Jesus, however, who knew how 
 true was the love which had dictated this 
 sacrifice, silenced their censure. He opened out 
 a meaning in the action which they had not 
 sought there: ‘* She is come aforehand to anoint 
 My Body to the burying.” 
 
 Passion Week. Sunday the 10th day of 
 Nisan (April 2nd).—The question of John the 
 Baptist had no doubt often been repeated in the 
 hearts of the expectant disciples:—“ Art Thou 
 He that should come, or do we look for an- 
 other?” All His conversations with them of 
 late had been filled, not with visions of glory, 
 but with forebodings of approaching death. 
 The world thinks them deceived, and its mockery 
 begins to exercise some influence even over them. 
 They need some encouraging sign under in- 
 fluences so depressing, and this Jesus affords 
 them in the triumphal entry into Jerusalem. 
 If the narrative is carefully examined, it will be 
 seen how remarkably the assertion of a kingly 
 right is combined with the most scrupulous care 
 not to excite the political jealousy of the Jewish 
 powers. When He arrives at the Mount of 
 Olives, He commands two of His disciples to go 
 into the village near at hand, where they would 
 find an ass and a colt tied with her. They 
 were neither to buy nor hire them, and “if any 
 man shall say aught unto you, ye shall say, 
 The Lord hath need of them; and straightway 
 he will send them.” With these beasts, im- 
 pressed as for the service of a king, He was to 
 enter into Jerusalem. The disciples spread 
 upon the ass their ragged cloaks for Him to 
 sit on. And the multitudes cried aloud before 
 Him, in the words of the cxviii. Psalm, 
 “Hosanna (Save now)! blessed is He that 
 cometh in the Name of the Lord.” This 
 Messianic Psalm they applied to Him, from a 
 belief, sincere for the moment, that He was the 
 Messiah. It was a striking and to the Pharisees 
 an alarming sight; but it only serves in the 
 end to show the feeble hearts of the Jewish 
 people. The same lips that cried Hosanna will 
 before long be crying, “ Crucify Him, crucify 
 Him!” Meantime, however, all thoughts were 
 carried back to the promises of a Messiah. The 
 very act of riding in upon an ass revived an 
 old prophecy of Zechariah (ix. 9). Words of 
 prophecy out of a Psalm sprang unconsciously 
 to their lips. All the city was moved. Blind 
 and lame came to the Temple when He arrived 
 
 JESUS CHRIST 
 
1690 JESUS CHRIST 
 
 there and were healed. The august conspirators 
 of the Sanhedrin were sore displeased. But all 
 these demonstrations did not deceive the Divine 
 insight of Christ. He wept over the city that 
 was hailing Him as its King, and said, “If 
 thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this 
 thy day, the things which belong unto thy 
 peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes” 
 (Luke). He goes on to prophesy the destruction 
 of the city, just as it afterwards came to pass. 
 After working miracles in the Temple, He re- 
 turned to Bethany. ‘The 10th of Nisan was the 
 day for the separation of the paschal lamb 
 (Ex. xii. 3). Jesus, the Lamb of God, entered 
 Jerusalem and the Temple on this day; and 
 although none but He knew that He was the 
 Paschal Lamb, the coincidence is not undesigned 
 (Matt. xxi. 1-11, 14-17; Mark xi. 1-11; 
 Luke xix. 29-44; John xii. 12-19). 
 
 Monday the 11th of Nisan (April 3rd).—The 
 next day Jesus returned to Jerusalem, again to 
 take advantage of the mood of the people to in- 
 struct them. On the way He approached one of 
 the many fig-trees which grew in that quarter 
 (Bethphage = house of figs), and found that it 
 was full of foliage, but without fruit. He said, 
 “No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever!” 
 and the fig-tree withered away. This was no 
 doubt a work of destruction, and as such was 
 unlike the usual tenor of His acts. But it is 
 hard to understand the mind of those who 
 stumble at the destruction of a tree which 
 seems to have ceased to bear by the word of God 
 the Son, yet are not offended at the famine or 
 the pestilence wrought by God the Father. 
 The right of the Son must rest on the same 
 ground as that of the Father. And this was 
 not a wanton destruction; it was a type and a 
 warning. The barren fig-tree had already been 
 made the subject of a parable (Luke xiii. 6), and 
 here it is made a visible type of the destruction 
 of the Jewish people. He had come to them 
 seeking fruit, and now it was time to pronounce 
 their doom as a nation—there should beno fruit 
 on them for ever (Matt. xxi. 18, 19; Mark 
 xi. 12-14). Proceeding now to the Temple, He 
 cleared its court of the crowd of traders that 
 gathered there. He had performed the same 
 act at the beginning of His ministry, and now 
 at the close He repeats it, for the house of 
 prayer was as much a den of thieves as ever. 
 With zeal for God’s house His ministry began, 
 with the same it ended (see p. 1676; Matt. xxi. 
 12, 13; Mark xi. 15-19; Luke xix. 45-48). 
 In the evening He returned again to Bethany. 
 
 Tuesday the 12th of Nisan (April 4th)—On 
 this the third day of Passion week Jesus went 
 into Jerusalem as before, and visited the Temple. 
 The Sanhedrin came to Him to call Him to 
 account for the clearing of the Temple. “By 
 what authority doest Thou these things?” 
 The Lord answered their question by another, 
 which, when put to them in their capacity of 
 judges of spiritual things, and of the pretensions 
 of prophets and teachers, was very hard either 
 to answer or to pass in silence—what was their 
 opinion of the baptism of John? If they replied 
 that it was from heaven, their own conduct 
 towards John would accuse them; if of men, 
 then the people would not listen to them even 
 when they denounced Jesus, because none doubted 
 that John was a prophet. They refused to 
 
 JESUS CHRIST 
 
 answer, and Jesus refused in like manner to 
 answer them. In the parable of the Two Sons, 
 given by Matthew, the Lord pronounces a strong 
 condemnation on them for saying to God, 
 “T go, Sir.” but not going (Matt. xxi. 23-32; 
 Mark xi. 27-33 ; Luke xx. 1-8). Inthe parable 
 of the wicked husbandmen the history of the 
 Jews is represented, who had stoned and killed 
 the prophets, and were about to crown their 
 wickedness by the death of the Son. In the 
 parable of the wedding garment the destruction 
 of the Jews, and the invitation to the Gentiles 
 to the feast in their stead, are vividly repre- 
 sented (Matt. xxi. 33-46, xxii. 1-14; Mark sii. 
 1-12; Luke xx. 9-19). 
 
 Not content with their plans for His death, 
 the different parties try to entangle Him in 
 argument and to bring Him into contempt. 
 First come the Pharisees and Herodians, as if to 
 ask Him to settle a dispute between them. “Is 
 it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or not?” 
 The spirit of the answer of Christ lies here: 
 that, since they had accepted Caesar’s money, 
 they had confessed his rule, and were bound to 
 render to the civil power what they had con- 
 fessed to be due to it, as they were to render to 
 God and to His Holy l'emple the offerings due to 
 it. Next appeared the Sadducees, who denied a 
 future state, and put before Him a contradiction 
 which seemed to them to arise out of that 
 doctrine. Seven brethren in succession married 
 a wife (Deut. xxv. 5): whose wife should she be 
 in a future state? The answer was easy to find. 
 The law in question referred obviously to the 
 present time: it would pass away in another 
 state, and so would all such earthly relations, 
 and all jealousies or disputes founded on them. 
 Jesus now retorts the argument on the Sadducees. 
 Appealing to the Pentateuch, because His hearers 
 did not acknowledge the authority of the later 
 Books of the Bible, He recites the words, “I am 
 the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and 
 the God of Jacob,” as used to Moses, and draws 
 from them the argument that these men must 
 then have been alive. Although the words would 
 not at first sight suggest this inference, they 
 really contain it; for the form of expression im- 
 plies that He still exists and they still exist 
 (Matt. xxii. 15-33; Mark xii. 13-27; Luke xx. 
 20-40). Fresh questions awaited Him, but His 
 wisdom never failed to give the appropriate 
 answer. And then He uttered to all the people 
 that terrible denunciation of woe to the Pharisees 
 with which we are familiar (Matt. xxiii. 1-39). 
 If we compare it with our Lord’s account of His 
 own position in reference to the Law, in the 
 Sermon on the Mount, we see that the principles 
 there Jaid down are everywhere violated by 
 the Pharisees. Their almsgiving was ostenta- 
 tion; their distinctions about oaths led to false- 
 hood and profaneness; they were exact about 
 the small observances and neglected the weightier 
 ones of the Law; they adorned the tombs of the 
 Prophets, saying that if they had lived in the 
 time of their fathers they would not have slain 
 them; and yet they were about to fill up the 
 measure of their fathers’ wickedness by slaying 
 the greatest of the Prophets, and persecuting 
 and slaying His followers. After an indignant 
 denunciation of the hypocrites who, with a show 
 of religion, had thus contrived to stifle the true 
 spirit of religion and were in reality its chief 
 
JESUS CHRIST 
 
 persecutors, He apostrophizes Jerusalem in words 
 full of compassion, yet carrying with them a 
 sentence of death: “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, 
 thou that killest the Prophets and stonest them 
 which are sent unto thee, how often would I 
 have gathered thy children together, even as a 
 hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and 
 ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto 
 you desolate. For I say unto you, Ye shall not 
 see Me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed 
 is He that cometh in the Name of the Lord” 
 (Matt. xxiii.). 
 
 Another great discourse belongs to this day, 
 which, more than any other, presents Jesus as 
 the great Prophet of His people. On leaving the 
 Temple His disciples drew attention to the beauty 
 of its structure, its “ goodly stones and gifts,” 
 their remarks probably arising from the threats 
 of destruction which had so lately been uttered 
 by Jesus. ‘Their Master answered that not one 
 stone of the noble pile should be left upon 
 another. When they reached the Mount of 
 Olives, the disciples, or rather the first four 
 (Mark), speaking for the rest, asked Him when 
 this destruction should be accomplished. To 
 understand the answer it must be borne in mind 
 that Jesus warned them that He was not giving 
 them an historical account such as would enable 
 them to anticipate the events. “Of that day 
 and hour knoweth no man, no, not the Angels 
 of heaven, but My Father only.” Exact data 
 of time are to be purposely withheld from 
 them. Accordingly, two events, analogous in 
 character but widely sundered by time, are so 
 treated in the prophecy that it is almost impos- 
 sible to disentangle them. The destruction of 
 Jerusalem and the day of judgment—the national 
 and the universal days of account—are spoken 
 of together or alternately without hint of the 
 great interval of time that separates them. 
 Thus it may seem that a most important fact is 
 omitted; but the highest work ot prophecy is 
 
 not to fix times and seasons, but to disclose the | 
 
 Divine significance of events. What was most 
 important to them to know was that the de- 
 struction of Jerusalem followed upon the pro- 
 bation and rejection cf her people, and that the 
 Crucifixion and that destruction were connected 
 as cause and effect (Matt. xxiv.; Mark xiii.; 
 Luke xxi.). The conclusion which Jesus drew 
 from His own awful warning was, that they 
 were not to attempt to fix the date of His 
 return: ‘ Therefore be ye also ready, for in such 
 an hour as ye think not the Son of Man cometh.” 
 The lesson of the parable of the Ten Virgins is 
 the same ; the Christian soul is to be ever in a 
 state of vigilance and preparation (Matt. xxiv. 
 44, xxy. 15). And the parable of the ‘Talents, 
 here repeated in a modified form, teaches how 
 precious to souls are the uses of time (xxv. 
 14-30). In concluding this momentous discourse, 
 our Lord puts aside the destruction of Jerusalem, 
 and displays to our eyes the picture of the final 
 judgment. There will He Himself be present, 
 and will separate all the vast family of mankind 
 into two classes, and shall appraise the works of 
 each class as works done to Himself, present in 
 the world though invisible; and men shall see, 
 some with terror and some with joy, that their 
 life here was spent either for Him or against 
 Him, and that the good which lay before them 
 to do was provided for them by Him, and not 
 
 JESUS CHRIST 1691 
 
 by chance, and the reward and punishment shall 
 be apportioned to each (Matt. xxv. 31-46). 
 
 With these weighty words ends the third day ; 
 and whether we consider the importance of His 
 recorded teaching, or the amount of opposition 
 and of sorrow presented to His mind, it was one 
 of the greatest days of all His earthly ministra- 
 tions, The general reflections of John (xii. 37— 
 50), which contain a retrospect of His ministry 
 and of the strange reception of Him by His 
 people, may well be read as if they came in 
 here. 
 
 Wednesday the 13th of Nisan (April 5th).— 
 This day was passed in retirement with the 
 Apostles. Satan had put it into the mind of one 
 of them to betray Him; and Judas Iscariot made 
 a covenant to betray Him to the chief priests tor 
 thirty pieces of silver. The character of Judas, 
 and the degrees by which he reached the abyss 
 of guilt in which he was at last destroyed, 
 deserve much attention. There is no reason to 
 doubt that when he was chosen by Jesus he 
 possessed, like the rest, the eapacity of being 
 saved, and was endued with gifts which might 
 have made him an able minister of the New 
 Testament. But the innate worldliness and 
 covetousness were not purged out from him. 
 His practical talents made him a kind of steward 
 of the slender resources of that society, and no 
 doubt he conceived the wish to use the same 
 gifts on a larger field, which the realization of 
 “the kingdom of Heaven” would open out 
 before him. ‘These practical gifts were his ruin. 
 Between him and the rest there could be no real 
 harmony. His motives were worldly, and theirs 
 were not. ‘They loved the Saviour more as they 
 knew Him better. Judas, living under the con- 
 stant tacit rebuke of a most holy example, grew 
 to hate the Lord; for nothing, perhaps, more 
 strongly draws out evil instincts than the en- 
 forced contact with goodness. And when he 
 knew that his Master did not trust him, was 
 not deceived by him, his hatred grew more in- 
 tense. But this did not break out into overt 
 act until Jesus began to foretell his own Cruci- 
 fixion and Death. If these were to happen, all 
 his hopes that he had built on following the 
 Lord would be dashed down. If they should 
 crucify the Master, they would not spare the 
 servants ; and, in place of a heavenly kingdom, 
 he would find contempt, persecution, and pro- 
 bably death. It was high time, therefore, to 
 treat with the powers that seemed most likely 
 to prevail in the end; and he opened a negotia- 
 tion with the high-priests in secret, in order 
 that, if his Master were to fall, he might be the 
 instrument, and so make friends among the 
 triumphant persecutors. And yet, strange con- 
 tradiction, he did not wholly cease to believe 
 in Jesus: possibly he thought that he would so 
 act that he might be safe either way. If Jesus 
 was the Prophet and Mighty One that he had 
 once thought, then the attempt to take Him 
 might force Him to put forth all His resources. 
 and to assume the kingdom to which He laid 
 claim, and then the agent in the treason, even if 
 discovered, might plead that he foresaw the result : 
 if He were unable to save Himself and His dis- 
 ciples, then it were well for Judas to betake 
 himself to those who were stronger. The bribe 
 of money, not very considerable, could not have 
 been the chief motive; but as two vicious appe- 
 
1692 JESUS CHRIST 
 tites could be gratified instead of one, the thirty 
 pieces of silver became a part of the temptation. 
 Vhe treason was successful, and the money paid; 
 but not one moment’s pleasure did those silver 
 pieces purchase for their wretched possessor, not 
 for amoment did he reap any fruit from his detest- 
 able guilt. After the Crucifixion, the avenging 
 belief that Jesus was what He professed to be 
 rushed hack in full force upon his mind. He 
 went to thos? who had hired him; they derided 
 his remorse. He cast away the accursed silver 
 pieces, defiled with the “innocent blood ” of the 
 Son of God, and went and hanged himself (Matt. 
 xxvi. 14-16; Mark xiv. 10-11; Luke xxii. 1-6). 
 Thursday the 14th of Nisan (April 6th).—On 
 “the first day of unleavened bread,” when the 
 Jews were wont to put away all leaven out of 
 their houses (Lightfoot, Hor. Heb. on Mark xiv. 
 12), the disciples asked their Master where they 
 were to eat the Passover. He directed Peter 
 and John to go into Jerusalem, and to follow a 
 man whom they should see bearing a pitcher of 
 water, and to demand of him, in their Master’s 
 name, the use of the guestchamber in his house 
 for this purpose. All happened as Jesus had 
 told them, and in the evening they assembled to 
 celebrate, for the last time, the paschal meal. 
 The sequence of the events is not quite clear 
 from a comparison of the Evangelists ; but the 
 difficulty arises with St. Luke, and there is ex- 
 ternal evidence that he is not following the chro- 
 nological order (Wieseler, Chron. Syn. p. 399). 
 The order seems to be as follows. When they had 
 taken their places at table and the supper hal 
 begun, Jesus gave them the first cup to divide 
 amongst themselves (Luke). It was customary 
 to drink at the paschal supper four cups of wine 
 mixed with water; and this answered to the 
 first of them. There now arose a contention 
 among the disciples which of them should be 
 the greatest; perhaps in connexion with the 
 places they had taken at this feast (Luke). 
 After a solemn warning against pride and ambi- 
 tion, Jesus performed an act which, as one of 
 the last of His life, must ever have been re- 
 membered by the witnesses as a great lesson of 
 humility. He rose from the table, poured water 
 into a basin, girded Himself with a towel, and 
 proceeded to wash the disciples’ feet (John). It 
 avas an office for siaves to perform, and from Him, 
 knowing, as He did, “that the Father had given 
 all things into His Hand, and that He was come 
 from God and went to God,” it was an unspeak- 
 able condescension. But His love for them was 
 infinite; and if there were any way to teach 
 them the humility which as yet they had not 
 learned, He would not fail to adopt it. Peter, 
 with his usual readiness, was the first to refuse 
 to accept such menial seryice—* Lord, dost Thou 
 wash my feet ?” When he was told that this act 
 was significant of the greater act of humiliation 
 by which Jesus saved His disciples and united 
 them to Himself, his scruples vanished. After 
 all had been washed, the Saviour explained to 
 them the meaning of what He had done. “If I, 
 your Lord and Master, have washed your feet, 
 ye also ought to wash one another’s feet. For I 
 have given you an example, that ye should do as 
 I have done to you.” But this act was only 
 the outward symbol of far greater sacrifices for 
 them than they could as yet understand. It was 
 a small matter to wash their feet ; it wasa great 
 
 JESUS CHRIST 
 
 one to come down from the yvlories of heaven to 
 save them. Later the Apostle Paul put this 
 same lesson of hamility into another form, and 
 rested it upon deeper grounds. “ Let this mind 
 be in you which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, 
 being in the form of God, thought it not robbery 
 to be equal with God: but made Himself of no 
 reputation, and took upon Him the form of a 
 servant, and was made in the likeness of men, 
 and being found in fashion as a man He humbled 
 Himself and became obedient unto death, even 
 the death of the cross” (Phil. ii. 5-8; Matt. 
 xxvi. 17-20; Mark xiy. 12-17; Luke xxii. 
 7-30; John xiii. 1-20). 
 
 From this act of love it does not seem that 
 even the traitor Judas was excluded. But his 
 treason was thoroughly known; and now Jesus 
 denounces it. One of them should betray Him. 
 They were all sorrowful at this, and each asked 
 “Ts it 1?” and even Judas asked and received an 
 affirmative answer (Matt.), but probably in an 
 undertone, for when Jesus said, “ That thou doest 
 do quickly,” none of the rest understood. The 
 traitor having gone straight to his wicked object, 
 the end of the Saviour’s ministry seemed already 
 at hand. “ Now is the Son of Man glorified, and 
 God is glorified in Him.” He gave them the 
 new commandment, to love one another, as though 
 it were a last bequest to them. To Jove was not 
 a new thing, it was enjoined in the old Law; 
 but to be distinguished for a special Christian 
 love and mutual devotion was what He would 
 have, and this was the new element in the com- 
 mandment. Founded by a great act of love, the 
 Church was to be marked by love (Matt. xxvi. 
 21-25; Mark xiv. 18-21; Luke xxii. 21-23; 
 John xiii. 21-35). 
 
 Towards the close of the meal Jesus instituted 
 the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. He took 
 bread, and gave thanks and brake it, and gave 
 to His disciples, saying, “This is My Body which 
 is given for you; this do in remembrance of Me.” 
 He then took the cup, which corresponded to 
 the third cup in the usual course of the paschal 
 supper, and, after giving thanks, He gave it to 
 them, saying, “ This is My Blood of the new testa- 
 ment [covenant] which is shed for many.” It was 
 a memorial of His Passion and of this last supper 
 that preceded it; and in dwelling on His Passion 
 in this Sacrament, in true faith, all believers 
 draw nearer to the Cross of His sufferings and 
 taste more strongly the sweetness of His love 
 and the efficacy of His atoning Death (Matt. 
 xxvi. 26-29; Mark xiv. 22-25; Luke xxii. 19, 
 20; 1 Cor. xi. 23-25). 
 
 The denial of St. Peter is now foretold, and 
 to no one would such an announcement be more 
 incredible than to St. Peter himself. ‘ Lord, 
 why cannot I follow Thee now ? I will lay down 
 my life for Thy sake.” ‘The zea] was sincere, 
 and as such did the Lord regard it; but here, 
 as elsewhere, St. Peter did not count the cost. 
 By and by, when the Holy Spirit has come 
 down to give them a strength not their own, 
 St. Peter and the rest of the disciples will be 
 bold to resist persecution, even to the death. 
 It needs strong love and deep insight to view 
 such an act as this denial wich sorrow and not 
 with indignation (Matt. xxvi. 31-35; Mark xiv. 
 27-31; Luke xxii. 31-38; John xiii. 36-38). 
 
 That great final discourse, which St. John 
 alone has recorded, is now delivered. Although 
 
JESUS CHRIST 
 
 in the middle of it there is a mention of de- 
 parture (John xiy. 31), this perhaps only implies 
 that they prepared to go; and then the whole 
 discourse was delivered in the house before they 
 proceeded to Gethsemane. Of the contents of 
 this discourse, which is the voice of the Priest 
 in the holy of holies, something has been said 
 already (p. 1674; John xiv.-xvii.). 
 
 Friday the 15th of Nisan (April 7), including 
 part of the eve of it—‘* When they had sung a 
 hymn,” which perhaps means, when they had 
 sung the second part of the Hallel, or song of 
 praise, which consisted of Psalms exv.—exviii., 
 the former part (Psalms exiii.—cxiv.) having been 
 sung at an earlier part of the supper, they went 
 out into the Mount of Olives. They came to a 
 place called Gethsemane (oi/-press), and it is 
 probable that the place now pointed out to 
 travellers isthe real scene of that which follows, 
 and even that its huge olive-trees are the Jegiti- 
 mate successors of those which were there when 
 Jesus visited it. A moment of terrible agony is 
 approaching, of which all the Apostles need not 
 be spectators, for He thinks of them, and wishes 
 to spare them this addition to their sorrows. 
 So He takes only His three proved companions, 
 St. Peter, St. James, and St. John, and passes 
 with them farther into the garden, leaving the 
 rest seated, probably near the entrance. No 
 pen can attempt to describe what passed that 
 night in that secluded spot. He tells them, 
 “My Soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto 
 death ; tarry ye here and watch with Me,” and 
 then leaving even the three He goes further, and 
 in solitude wrestles with an inconceivable trial. 
 The words of St. Mark are still more expressive 
 —‘ He began to be sore amazed, and to be very 
 heavy ” (ἐκθαμβεῖσθαι καὶ ἀδημονεῖν, xiv. 33). 
 The former word means that He was struck with 
 a great dread; not from the fear of physical 
 suffering, however excruciating, we may well 
 believe, but from the contact with the sins of 
 the world, of which, in some inconceivable way, 
 He here felt the bitterness and the weight. He 
 did not merely contemplate them, but bear and 
 feel them. It is impossible to explain this 
 scene in Gethsemane in any other way. If it 
 were merely the fear of the terrors of death 
 that overcame Him, then the martyr Stephen 
 and many another would surpass Him in 
 constancy. But when He says, “ Abba, Father, 
 all things are possible unto Thee; take away 
 this cup from Me: nevertheless not what I will 
 but what Thou wilt ” (Mark), the cup was filled 
 with a far bitterer potion than death; it was 
 flavoured with the poison of the sins of all man- 
 kind against its God. Whilst the sinless Son is 
 thus carried two ways by the present horror 
 and the strong determination to do the Father’s 
 Will, the disciples have sunk to sleep. It was 
 in search of consolation that He came back to 
 them, The disciple who had been so ready to 
 ask, “Why cannot I follow Thee now?” must 
 hear another question, that rebukes his former 
 confidence—“ Couldest not thou watch one 
 hour?” A second time He departs and wrestles 
 in prayer with the Father; but although the 
 words He utters are almost the same (Mark 
 says “the same’), He no longer asks that the 
 cup may pass away from Him—“If this cup 
 may not pass away from Me except I drink it, 
 Thy will be done” (Matt.). A second time He 
 
 1693 
 
 returns and finds them sleeping. The same 
 scene is repeated yet a third time; and then all 
 is concluded. Henceforth they may sleep and 
 take their rest ; never more shall they be asked 
 to watch one hour with Jesus, for His ministry 
 in the flesh is atan end. ‘The hour is at hand, 
 and the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands 
 of sinners” (Matt.). The prayer of Jesus in 
 this place has always been regarded, and with 
 reason, as of great weight against the Monothe- 
 lite heresy. It expresses the natural shrinking 
 of the human will from a horror which the 
 Divine nature has admitted into it, yet without 
 sin. Never does He say, “I will flee;” He 
 says, “If it be possible;” and leaves that to. 
 the decision of the Father. That horror and 
 dread arose from the spectacle of human sin; 
 from bearing the weight and guilt of human 
 sin as about to make atonement for it; and 
 from a conflict with the powers of darkness. 
 Thus this scene is in complete contrast to the 
 Transfiguration. The same companions wit- 
 nessed both; but there there was peace, and 
 glory, and honour, for the sinless Son of God ; 
 here fear and conflict ; there God bore testimony 
 to Him; here Satan tur the last time tempted 
 Him. (On the account of the Agony see Krum- 
 macher, Der Leidende Christus, p. 206; Matt.. 
 xxvi. 36-46; Mark xiv. 32-42; Luke xxii. 
 39-46 ; John xviii. 1.) 
 
 Judas now appeared to complete his work. 
 In the doubtful light of torches, a kiss from 
 him was the sign to the officers whom they- 
 should take. St. Peter, whose name is first 
 given in St. John’s Gospel, drew a sword and 
 smote a servant of the high-priest, and cut off 
 his ear; but his Lord refused such succour, and 
 healed the wounded man. He treated the seizure 
 as a step in the fulfilment of the prophecies 
 about Him, and resisted it not. All the dis- 
 ciples forsook Him and fled (Matt. xxvi. 47-56 ; 
 Mark xiv. 43-52; Luke xxii. 47-53 ; John xviii. 
 2-12). 
 
 There is some difficulty in arranging the 
 events that immediately follow, so as to embrace 
 all the four accounts.—The data will be found 
 in the Commentary of Olshausen, in Wieseler 
 (Chron. Syn. p. 401 sqq.), and in Greswell’s. 
 Dissertations (iii. 200 sqq.). On the capture of 
 Jesus He was first taken to the house of Annas, 
 the father-in-law of Caiaphas (see p. 1665) the 
 high-priest. It has been argued that as Annas 
 is called, conjointly with Caiaphas, the high- 
 priest, he must have held some actual office in 
 connexion with the priesthood, and Lightfoot 
 and others suppose that he was the vicar or 
 deputy of the high-priest, and Selden that he 
 was president of the Council of the Sanhedrin ; 
 but this is uncertain.© It might appear from: 
 the course of St. John’s narrative that the ex- 
 amination of our Lord, and the first denial of 
 St. Peter, took place in the house of Annas: 
 (John xviii. 13, 14). But the 24th verse is. 
 retrospective— Now Annas had sent Him bound! 
 unto Caiaphas the high-priest” (ἀπέστειλε, 
 aorist for pluperfect : see Winer’s Grammar) ; 
 and probably al/ that occurred after v, 14 took 
 place not at the house of Annas, but at that of 
 
 JESUS CHRIST 
 
 ¢ Mr. Greswell sees no uncertainty, and asserts as 8 
 fact that he was the high-priest, vicar, and vice-president 
 of the Sanhedrin (p. 200). 
 
1694 JESUS CHRIST 
 
 Caiaphas. It is not likely that St. Peter gained 
 admittance to two houses in which two separate 
 judicial examinations took place with which he 
 had nothing ostensibly to do, and this would be 
 forced on us if we assumed that St. John 
 described what took place before Annas, and the 
 other Evangelists what took place before Caiaphas. 
 The house of the high-priest consisted probably, 
 like other Eastern houses, of an open central 
 court with chambers round it. Into this court 
 a gate admitted them, at which a woman stood 
 to open. St. Peter, who had fled like the rest 
 from the side of Jesus, followed afar off with 
 another disciple, probably St. John, and the 
 latter procured him admittance into the court 
 of the high-priest’s house. As he passed in, the 
 lamp of the portress threw its light on his face, 
 and she took note of him; and afterwards, at. 
 the fire which had been lighted, she put the 
 question to him, “Art not thou also one of 
 this man’s disciples?” (John.) All the zeal 
 and boldness of St. Peter seem to have deserted 
 him. This was indeed a time of great spiritual 
 weakness and depression, and the power of 
 darkness had gained an influence over the 
 Apostle’s mind. He had come as in secret; he 
 is determined so to remain, and he denies his 
 Master! Feeling now the danger of his situa- 
 tion, he went out into the porch, and there some 
 one, or, looking at all the accounts, probably 
 several persons, asked him the question a second 
 time, and he denied more strongly. About an 
 hour after, when he had returned into the 
 court, the same question was put to him a third 
 time, with the same result. Then the cock 
 erew; and Jesus, Who was within sight, prob- 
 ably in some open room communicating with 
 the court, “turned and looked upon Peter. 
 And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, 
 how He had said unto him, Before the cock crow, 
 thou shalt deny Me thrice. And Peter went 
 out and wept bitterly” (Luke). Let no man 
 who cannot fathom the utter perplexity and 
 distress of such a time presume to judge the 
 zealous disciple hardly. He trusted too much to 
 his own strength; he did not enter into the full 
 meaning of the words, “ Watch and pray lest ye 
 enter into temptation.” Self-confidence betrayed 
 him into a great sin; and the most merciful 
 Lord restored him after it. “Let him that 
 thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall” 
 (1 Cor x. 12; Matt. xxvi. 57, 58, 69-75; Mark 
 xiv. 53, 54, 66-72 ; Luke xxii. 54-62; John xviii. 
 13-18, 24-27). 
 
 The first interrogatory to which our Lord was 
 subject (John xviii. 19-24) was addressed to Him 
 by Caiaphas (Annas ἢ, Olshausen, Wieseler), pro- 
 bably before the Sanhedrin had time to assemble. 
 It was the questioning of an inquisitive person 
 who had an important criminal in his presence, 
 rather than a formal examination. The Lord’s 
 refusal to answer is thus explained and justified, 
 When the more regular proceedings begin, He is 
 ready to answer. A servant of the high-priest, 
 knowing that he should thereby please his 
 master, smote the cheek of the Son of God with 
 the palm of his hand. But this was only the 
 beginning of horrors. At the dawn of day the 
 Sanhedrin, summoned by the high-priest in the 
 course of the night, assembled, and brought their 
 band of false witnesses, whom they must have 
 had ready before These gave their testimony 
 
 JESUS CHRIST 
 
 (see Psalm xxvii. 12), but even before this unjust 
 tribunal it could not stand; it was so full of 
 contradictions. At last two false witnesses 
 came, and their testimony was very like the 
 truth. They deposed that He had said, “I will 
 destroy this temple, that is made with hands, 
 and within three days I will build another made 
 without hands ” (Mark xiv. 58). The perversion 
 is slight but important; for Jesus did not say 
 that He would destroy (see John ii. 19), which 
 was just the point that would irritate the Jews. 
 Even these two fell into contradictions. The 
 high-priest now with a solemn adjuration asks 
 Him whether He is the Christ the Son of God. 
 He answers that He is, and foretells His return 
 in glory and power at the last day. This is 
 enough for their purpose. They pronounce Him 
 guilty of a crime for which death should be the 
 punishment. It appears that the Council was 
 now suspended or broken up; for Jesus is de- 
 livered over to the brutal violence of the people, 
 which could not have occurred whilst the 
 supreme court of the Jews was sitting. The 
 Prophets had foretold this violence (Is. 1. 6), and 
 also the meekness with which it would be borne 
 (Is, liii. 7). And yet this “lamb led to the 
 slaughter” knew that it was He that should 
 judge the world, including every one of His 
 persecutors. The Sanhedrin had been within 
 the range of its duties in taking cognizance of 
 all who claimed to be Prophets. If the question 
 put to Jesus had been merely, Art Thou the 
 Messiah ? this body should have gone into the 
 question of His right to the title, and decided 
 upon the evidence. But the question was really 
 twofold, ‘‘Art Thou the Christ, and in that 
 Name dost Thou also call Thyself the Son of 
 God?” There was no blasphemy in claiming 
 the former name, but there was in assuming the 
 latter. Hence the proceedings were cut short. 
 They had closed their eyes to the evidence, 
 accessible to all, of the miracles of Jesus, that 
 He was indeed the Son of God, and without 
 these they were not likely to believe that He 
 could claim a title belonging to no other among 
 the children of men (John xviii. 19-24; Luke 
 xxii. 63-71; Matt. xxvi. 59-68; Mark xiy. 
 55-65). 
 
 Although they had pronounced Jesus to be 
 guilty of death, the Sanhedrin possessed no 
 power to carry out such a sentence (Josephus, 
 Ant. xx. 6). So as soon as it was day they took 
 Him to Pilate, the Roman procurator. The hall 
 of judgment, or praetorium, was probably a 
 part of the Tower of Antonia near the Temple, 
 where the Roman garrison was. Pilate, hearing 
 that Jesus was an offender under their Law, was 
 about to give them leave to treat him accord- 
 ingly ; and this would have made it quite safe 
 to execute Him. But the council, wishing to 
 shift the responsibility from themselves, from a 
 fear of some reaction amongst the people in 
 favour of the Lord, such as they had seen on 
 the first day of that week, said that it was not 
 lawful for them to put any man to death; and 
 having condemned Jesus for blasphemy, they 
 now strove to have Him condemned by Pilate 
 for a political crime, for calling Himself the 
 King of the Jews. But the Jewish punishment 
 was stoning; whilst crucifixion was a Roman 
 punishment, inflicted occasionally on those who 
 were not Roman citizens; and thus it came 
 
JESUS CHRIST 
 
 about that the Lord’s saying as to the mode of 
 His Death was fulfilled (Matt. xx. 19, with 
 John xii. 32,33). From the first Jesus found 
 favour in the eyes of Pilate; His answer that 
 His kingdom was not of this world, and there- 
 fore could not menace the Roman rule, was 
 accepted, and Pilate pronounced that he found 
 no fault in Him. Not so easily were the Jews 
 to be cheated of their prey. They heaped up 
 accusations against Him as a disturber of the 
 public peace (Luke xxiii. 5), Pilate was no 
 match for their vehemence. Finding that Jesus 
 was a Galilean, he sent Him to Herod to be 
 dealt with; but Herod, after cruel mockery 
 and persecution, sent Him back to Pilate. Now 
 commenced the fearful struggle between the 
 Roman procurator, a weak as well as cruel man, 
 and the Jews. Pilate was detested by the Jews 
 as cruel, treacherous, and oppressive. Other 
 records of his life do not represent him merely 
 as the weakling that he appears here. He had 
 violated their national prejudices, and had used 
 the knives of assassins to avert the consequences. 
 But the Jews knew the weak point in his breast- 
 plate. He was the merely worldly and profes- 
 sional statesman, to whom the favour of the 
 Emperor was life itself, and the only evil of 
 life a downfall from that favour. It was their 
 policy therefore to threaten to denounce him to 
 Caesar for Jack of zeal in suppressing a rebellion, 
 the leader of which was aiming at a crown. 
 In his way Pilate believed in Christ; this the 
 greatest crime of a stained life was that with 
 which his own will had the least todo. But he 
 did not believe so as to make him risk delation 
 to his Master and all its possible consequences. 
 He yielded to the stronger purpose of the Jews, 
 and suffered Jesus to be put to death. Not 
 many years after, the consequences which he 
 had stained his soul to avert came upon him. 
 He was accused and banished, and like Judas, 
 the other great accomplice in this crime of the 
 Jews, put an end to his own life. [See PmaTe.] 
 The well-known incidents of the second inter- 
 view are soon recalled. After the examination 
 by Herod, and the return of Jesus, Pilate pro- 
 posed to release Him, as it was usual on the 
 Feast-day to release a prisoner to the Jews out 
 ' of grace. Pilate knew well that the priests and 
 rulers would object to this; but it was a covert 
 appeal to the people, also present, with whom 
 Jesus had so lately been in favour. The multi- 
 tude, persuaded by the priests, preferred another 
 prisoner, called Barabbas. In the meantime 
 the wife of Pilate sent a warning to him to 
 have nothing to do with the death of “that 
 just man,” as she had been troubled in a dream 
 on account of Him. Obliged, as he thought, to 
 yield to the clamours of the people, he took 
 water and washed his hands before them, and 
 adopting the phrase of his wife, which perhaps 
 represented the opinion of both of them formed 
 before this time, he said, “1 am innocent of the 
 blood of this just person; see ye to it.” The 
 people imprecated on their own heads and those 
 of their children the blood of Him Whose doom 
 was thus sealed. 
 
 Pilate released unto them Barabbas, “ that for 
 sedition and murder was cast into prison, whom 
 they had desired” (cp. Acts iii. 14), This was 
 no unimportant element in their crime. The 
 choice was offered them between one who had 
 
 JESUS CHRIST 1695 
 
 broken the laws of God and man, and One Who 
 had given His whole life up to the doing good 
 and speaking truth amongst them. They con- 
 demned the latter to death, and were eager for 
 the deliverance of the former. “And in fact 
 their demanding the acquittal of a murderer is 
 but the parallel to their requiring the death of 
 an innocent person, as St. Ambrose observes :— 
 for it is but the very law of iniquity, that they 
 which hate innocence should love crime. They 
 rejected therefore the Prince of Heaven, and 
 chose a robber and a murderer, and an insurrec- 
 tionist, and they received the object of their 
 choice; so was it given them, for insurrections 
 and murders did not fail them till the last, when 
 their city was destroyed in the midst of murders 
 and insurrections, which they now demanded of 
 the Roman governor” (Williams on the Passion, 
 p. 215). 
 
 Now came the scourging, and the blows and 
 insults of the soldiers, who, uttering truth when 
 they thought they were only reviling, crowned 
 Him and addressed Him as King of the Jews. 
 According to St. John, Pilate now made one 
 more effort for His release. He thought that 
 the scourging might appease their rage, he saw 
 the frame of Jesus bowed and withered with all 
 that it had gone through; and, hoping that 
 this moving sight might inspire them with the 
 same pity that he felt himself, he brought the 
 Saviour forth again to them, and said, ‘ Behold 
 the Man!” Not even so was their violence 
 assuaged. He had made Himself the Son of 
 God, and must die. Pilate still sought to 
 release Jesus: but the last argument, which had 
 been in the minds of both sides all along, was 
 now openly applied to him: “If thou let this 
 man go, thou art not Caesar’s friend.” This 
 saying, which had not been uttered till the 
 vehemence of rage overcame their decent respect 
 for Pilate’s position, decided the question. He 
 delivered Jesus to be crucified (Matt. xxvii. 
 15-30; Mark xv. 6-19; Luke xxiii. 17-25; 
 John xviii. 39, 40, xix. 1-16). St. John men- 
 tions that this occurred about the sixth hour, 
 whereas the Crucifixion, according to St. Mark, 
 was accomplished at the third hour; but there 
 is every reason to think, with Greswell and 
 Wieseler, that St. John reckons from midnight, 
 and that this took place at six in the morning, 
 whilst in St. Mark the Jewish reckoning from 
 six in the morning is followed, so that the 
 Crucifixion took place at nine o’clock, the inter- 
 vening time having been spent in preparations. 
 
 Difficult, but not insuperable, chronological 
 questions arise in connexion with (a) John xiii. 1, 
 “before the Feast of the Passover;” (0) John 
 xviii. 28, “and they themselves went not into 
 the judgment-hall lest they should be defiled, 
 but that they might eat the Passover;” and 
 (c) John xix. 14, “And it was the preparation 
 of the Passover, about une sixth hour,” in all of 
 which the account of John seems dissonant with 
 that of the other Evangelists. These passages 
 are discussed in the various commentaries, but 
 nowhere more fully than in a paper by Dr. 
 Robinson (Bibliotheca Sacra, 1845, p. 405), re- 
 produced in his (English) Harmony in an 
 abridged form. 
 
 One Person alone has been calm amidst the 
 excitements of that night of horrors. On Him 
 is now laid the weight of His Cross, or at least 
 
1696 JESUS CHRIST 
 
 of the transverse beam of it; and, with this 
 pressing Him down, they proceed out of the 
 city to Golgotlia or Calvary, a place the site of 
 which is now uncertain. As He began to droop, 
 His persecutors, unwilling to defile themselves 
 with the accursed burden, lay hold of Simon of 
 Cyrene and compel him to carry the Cross after 
 Jesus. Amongst the great multitude that 
 followed, were several women, who bewailed 
 and lamented Him. He bade them not to weep 
 for Him, but for the widespread destruction of 
 their nation which should be the punishment 
 for His Death (Luke). After offering Him wine 
 and myrrh, they crucified Him between two 
 thieves. Nothing was wanting to His humilia- 
 tion; a thief had been preterred before Him, 
 and two thieves share His punishment. The 
 soldiers divided His garments and cast lots for 
 them (see Psalm xxii. 18). Pilate set over Him 
 in three languages the inscription ‘Jesus, the 
 King of the Jews.” The chief priests took 
 exception to this that it did not denounce Him 
 as falsely calling Himself by that name, but 
 Pilate refused to alter it. The passers-by and 
 the Roman soldiers would not let even the 
 minutes of deadly agony pass in peace; they 
 reviled and mocked Him. One of the two 
 thieves underwent a change of heart even on 
 the cross: he reviled at first (Matt.); and then, 
 at the sight of the constancy of Jesus, repented 
 (Luke) (Matt. xxvii.; Mark xv.; Luke xxiii. ; 
 John xix.). 
 
 In the depths of His bodily suffering, Jesus 
 calmly commended to St. John, who stood near, 
 the care of Mary His mother. “Behold thy 
 son! behold thy mother!”’ From the sixth hour 
 to the ninth there was darkness over the whole 
 land. At the ninth hour (3 P.M.) Jesus uttered 
 with a loud voice the opening words of the 
 xxii, Psalm, all the inspired words of which 
 referred to the suffering Messiah. One of those 
 present dipped a sponge in the common sour 
 wine of the soldiers, and put it on a reed to 
 moisten the Sufferer’s lips. Again -He cried 
 with a loud voice, “It is finished’ (John), 
 ‘Father, into Thy Hands I commend My Spirit ” 
 (Luke); and gave up the ghost. His words 
 upon the Cross had all of them shown how 
 truly He possessed His Soul in patience even 
 to the end of the sacrifice He was making: 
 “Father, forgive them!” was a prayer for His 
 enemies. “This day shalt thou be with Me in 
 Paradise,” was a merciful acceptance of the 
 offer of a penitent heart. ‘ Woman, behold thy 
 son,” was a sign of loving consideration, even at 
 the last, for those He had always loved. “Why 
 hast Thou forsaken Me?” expressed the fear 
 and the need of God. ‘I thirst,” the only 
 word that related to Himself, was uttered 
 because it was prophesied that they were to 
 give Him vinegar to drink. “It is finished,” 
 expresses the completion of that work which, 
 when He was twelve years old, had been pre- 
 sent to His Mind, and never absent since; and 
 “Into Thy Hands I commend My Spirit,” was 
 the last utterance of His resignation of Himself 
 to what was laid upon Him (Matt. xxvii. 31- 
 56; Mark xv. 20-41; Luke xxiii. 33-49; John 
 xix. 17-30). 
 
 On the Death of Jesus the veil which covered 
 the most Holy Place of the Temple, the place 
 of the more especial Presence of Jehovah, was 
 
 JESUS CHRIST 
 
 rent in twain, a symbol that we may now have 
 “ boldness to enter into the holiest by the Blood 
 of Jesus, by a new and living way, which He 
 hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that 
 is to say, through His flesh”? (Heb, x. 19, 20). 
 The priesthood of Christ superseded the priest- 
 hood of the Law. There was a great earth- 
 quake, Many who were dead rose from their 
 graves, although they returned to the dust 
 again after this great token of Christ’s quick- 
 ening power had been given to many (Matt.) : 
 they were “saints.” that slept—probably they, 
 having most earnestly longed for the salya- 
 tion of Christ, were the first to taste the fruits 
 of His conquest of death. The Centurion who 
 kept guard, witnessing what had taken place, 
 came to the same conclusion as Pilate and his 
 wife, “Certainly this was a righteous man;” 
 he went beyond them, “Truly this Man was 
 the Son of God” (Mark). Even the people who 
 had joined in the mocking and reviling were 
 overcome by the wonders of His Death, and 
 “smote their breasts and returned” (Luke 
 xxiii. 48). The Jews, very zealous for the 
 Sabbath in the midst of their murderous work, 
 begged Pilate that he would put an end to the 
 punishment by breaking the legs of the crimi- 
 nals (Lactant. iv. 26), that they might be taken 
 down and buried before the Sabbath, for which 
 they were preparing (Deut. xxi. 23; Joseph. 
 B. J. iv. 5, § 2). They who were to execute 
 this duty found that Jesus was dead and the 
 thieves still living; so they performed this 
 work on the latter only, that a bone of Him 
 might not be broken (Ex. xii. 46; Ps. xxxiy. 
 20). The Death of the Lord before the others 
 was, no doubt, partly the consequence of the 
 previous mental suffering which He had under- 
 gone, and partly because His Will to die 
 lessened the natural resistance of the frame to 
 dissolution. Some seek for a “mysterious 
 cause” of it, something out of the course of 
 nature; but we must beware of such theories 
 as would do away with the reality of the 
 Death, as a punishment inflicted by the hands 
 of men. Joseph of Arimathaea, a member of 
 the Council but a secret disciple of Jesus, came 
 to Pilate to beg the Body of Jesus, that he 
 might bury it. Nicodemus assisted in this 
 work of love, and they anointed the Body and 
 laid it in Joseph’s new tomb (Matt. xxvii. 50— 
 61; Mark xv. 37-47; Luke xxiii. 46-56; 
 John xix. 30-42). 
 
 Saturday the 16th of Nisan (April 8th).—Love 
 having done its part, hatred did its part also. 
 The chief priests and Pharisees, with Pilate’s 
 permission, set a watch over the tomb, “lest. 
 His disciples come by night and steal Him 
 away, and say unto the people, He is risen froma 
 the dead” (Matt. xxvii. 62-66). 
 
 Sunday the 17th of Nisan (April 9th).—The 
 Sabbath ended at six on the evening of Nisan 
 16th. Early the next morning the Resurrection 
 of Jesus took place. Although He had lain in 
 the grave for about thirty-six or forty hours, 
 yet these formed part of three days; and thus, 
 by a mode of speaking not unusual to the Jews 
 (Josephus frequently reckons years in this 
 manner, the two extreme portions of a year 
 reckoning as two years), the time of the do- 
 minion of death over Him is spoken of as three 
 days. The order of the events that follow is 
 
—_ 
 
 JESUS CHRIST 
 
 somewhat difficult to harmonise; for each 
 Evangelist selects the facts which belong to his 
 purpose. The exact hour of the Resurrection 
 is not mentioned by any of the Evangelists. But 
 from St. Mark xvi. 2 and 9 we infer that it was 
 not long before the coming of the women; and 
 from the time at which the guards went into 
 the city to give the alarm the same inference 
 arises (Matt. xxviii. 11). Of the great mystery 
 itself, the resumption of life by Him who was 
 truly dead, we see but little. “There was a 
 great earthquake, for the Angel of the Lord 
 descended from heaven, and came and rolled 
 back the stone from the door and sat upon it. 
 His countenance was like lightning, and his 
 raiment white as snow; and for fear of him the 
 keepers did shake, and became as dead men” 
 (Matt.). The women, who had stood by the 
 cross of Jesus, had prepared spices on the even- 
 ing before, perhaps to complete the embalming 
 of our Lord’s Body, already performed in haste 
 by Joseph and Nicodemus. They came very 
 early on the first day of the week to the 
 sepulchre. The names of the women are ditter- 
 ently put by the several Evangelists, but with 
 no real discrepancy. St. Matthew mentions the 
 two Marys; St. Mark adds Salome to these 
 two; St. ‘Luke has the two Marys, Joanna, and 
 ethers with them; and St. John mentions Mary 
 Magdalene only. In thus citing such names as 
 seemed good to him, each Evangelist was no 
 doubt guided by some reason. St. John, from 
 the especial share which Mary Magdalene took 
 in the testimony to the fact of the Resurrection, 
 mentions her only. The women discuss with 
 one another who should roll away the stone, 
 that they might do their pious office on the 
 Body. But when they arrive, they find the 
 stone rolled away, and Jesus no longer in the 
 sepulchre. He had risen from the dead. Mary 
 Magdalene at this point goes back in haste; and 
 at once, believing that the Body has been 
 removed by men, “tells St. Peter and St. John 
 that the Lord had been taken away. The other 
 women, however, go into the Sepulchre, and 
 they see an Angel (Matt., Mark), or two Angels 
 (Luke), in bright apparel, who declare to them 
 that the Lord is risen, and will go before the 
 disciples into Galilee. The two Angels, men- 
 tioned by St. Luke, are probably two separate 
 appearances to different members of the group; 
 for he alone mentions an indefinite number of 
 women. ‘They now leave the sepulchre, and go 
 in haste to make known the news to the 
 Apostles. As they were going, “Jesus met 
 them, saying, All hail. And they came and 
 held Him by the Feet, and worshipped Him. 
 Then said Jesus unto them, Be not afraid: go 
 tell My brethren that they go into Galilee, and 
 there shall they see Me.” The eleven do not 
 believe the account when they receive it. In 
 the meantime St. Peter and St. John came to 
 the sepulchre. They ran, in their eagerness, 
 and St. John arrived first and looked in; St. 
 Peter afterwards came up, and it is character- 
 istic that the awe which had prevented the 
 other disciple from going in appears to have 
 been unfelt by St. Peter, who entered at once, 
 
 4 Τῇ what follows much use has been made of an 
 excellent paper by Dr. Robinson (Bibliotheca Sacra, 
 1845, p. 162). 
 
 BIBLE DICT.—VOL. I. 
 
 | 
 
 | 
 
 JESUS CHRIST 1697 
 
 and found the grave-clothes lying, but not Him 
 Who had worn them. ‘his fact must have sug- 
 gested that the removal was not the work of 
 human hands, They then returned, wondering 
 at what they had seen. Mary Magdalene, how- 
 ever, remained w eeping at the tomb, and she 
 too saw the two Angels in the tomb, though St. 
 Peter and St. John “did not. ‘They address her, 
 and she answers, still, however, | without any 
 suspicion that the Lord is risen. As she turns 
 away she sees Jesus, but in the tumult of her 
 feeling does not even recognise Him at His first 
 address. But He calls her by nawe, and then 
 she joyfully recognises her Master. He says, 
 “Touch Me not, for 1 am not yet ascended to 
 My Father: but go to My brethren, and say 
 unto them, I ascend unto My Father ’and your 
 Father, and to My God and your God.” The 
 meaning of the prohibition to touch Him must 
 be sought in the state of mind of Mary, since 
 St. Thomas, for whom it was desirable as an 
 evidence of the identity of Jesus, was permitted 
 to touch Him. Hitherto she had not realized 
 the mystery of the Resurrection. She saw the 
 Lord, and would have touched His hand or His 
 garment in her joy. Our Lord’s answer means, 
 “ Death has now set a gulf between us. ‘ouch 
 not, as you once might have done, this Body, 
 which is now glorified by its conquest over 
 death, for with this Body I ascend to the 
 Father” (so LEuthymius, Theophylact, and 
 others). Space has been wanting to discuss the 
 difficulties of arrangement that attach to this 
 part of the narrative. The remainder of the 
 appearances present less matter for dispute; in 
 enumerating them’ the important passage in 
 1 Cor. xv. must be brought in. The third ap- 
 pearance of our Lord was to St. Peter (Luke, 
 Paul); the fourth to the two disciples going to 
 Emmaus in the evening (Mark, Luke); the fifth 
 in the same evening to the eleven as they sat at 
 meat (Mark, Luke, John). Al] of these occurred 
 on the first day of the week, the very day of 
 the Resurrection. Exactly a week after, He 
 appeared to the Apostles, and gave St. Thomas 
 a convincing proof of His Resurrection (John) ; 
 this was the sixth appearance. The seventh 
 was in Galilee, where seven of the Apostles 
 were assembled, some of them probably about 
 to return to their old trade of fishing (John), 
 The eighth was to the eleven (Matt.), and prob- 
 ably to five hundred brethren assembled with 
 them (Paul) on a mountain in Galilee. The 
 ninth was to St. James (Paul); and the last to 
 the Apostles at Jerusalem just before the 
 Ascension (Acts). 
 
 Whether this be the exact enumeration, 
 whether a single appearance may have been 
 quoted twice, or two distinct ones identified, it 
 is clear that for forty days the Lord appeared 
 to His disciples and to others at intervals. 
 These disciples, according to the common testi- 
 mony of all the Evangelists, were by no means 
 enthusiastic and prejudiced expectants of the 
 Resurrection. They were sober-minded men. 
 They were only too slow to apprehend the 
 nature of our Lord’s Kingdom. Almost to the 
 last they shrank from the notion of His suffer- 
 ing death, and thought that such a calamity 
 would be the absolute termination of all their 
 hopes. But from the time of the Ascension 
 they went about preaching the truth that Jesus 
 
 3 Q 
 
1698 JESUS CHRIST 
 
 was risen from the dead. Kings could not alter 
 their conviction on this point: the fear of death 
 could not hinder them from proclaiming it (see 
 Acts ii. 24, 32, iv. 8,13, iii.; x., xili.; 1 Cor. xv. 
 5; 1 Pet. i. 21). Against this event no real 
 objection has ever been brought, except that it 
 is a miracle. So far as historical testimony 
 goes, nothing is better established. 
 
 In giving His disciples their final commission, 
 the Lord said, “* All power is given unto Me in 
 heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore and teach 
 all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the 
 Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost : 
 teaching them to observe all things whatsoever 
 I have commanded you: and, lo, 1 am with you 
 alway, even unto the end of the world” (Matt. 
 xxviii. 18-20). The living energy of Christ is 
 ever present with His Church, even though He 
 has withdrawn from it His bodily Presence. 
 And the facts of the Life that has been before 
 us are the substance of the apostolic teaching 
 now as in all ages. That God and man were 
 reconciled by the mission of the Redeemer into 
 the world, and by His self-devotion to death 
 (2 Cor. v. 18; Eph. i. 10; Col. i. 20); that this 
 sacrifice has procured for man the restoration of 
 the Divine love (Rom. vy. 8, viii. 82; 1 John iv. 
 9); that we by His Incarnation become the 
 children of God, knit to Him in bonds of love, 
 instead of slaves under the bondage of the Law 
 (Rom. viii. 15, 29; Gal. iv. 1); these are the 
 common ideas of the apostolic teaching. 
 Brought into such a relation to Christ and His 
 Life, we see in all its acts and stages something 
 that belongs to and instructs us. His Birth, 
 His Baptism, Temptation, Lowliness of Life and 
 Mind, His Sufferings, Death, Burial, Resurrec- 
 tion, and Ascension, all enter into the apostolic 
 preaching, as furnishing motives, examples, and 
 analogies for our use. Hence every Christian 
 should study well this sinless Life, not in human 
 commentaries only, still less in a bare abstract 
 like the present, but in the living pages of inspira- 
 tion. Even if he began the study with a luke- 
 warm belief, he might hope, with God’s grace, 
 that the conviction would break in upon him 
 that did upon the Centurion at the cross— 
 “Truly this is the Son of God.” 
 
 CuronoLosy. — Year of the birth of Christ.— 
 It is certain that our Lord was born before the 
 death of Herod the Great. Herod died, accord- 
 ing to Josephus (Ant. xvii. 8, § 1), “having 
 reigned thirty-four years from the time that he 
 had procured Antigonus to be slain; but thirty- 
 seven from the time that he had been declared 
 king by the Romans” (see also ZB. J. i. 33, § 8). 
 His appointment as king, according to the same 
 writer (Ant. xiv. 14, § 5), coincides with the 
 184th Olympiad, and the consulship of C. 
 Domitius Calvinus and C. Asinius Pollio. It 
 appears that he was made king by the joint 
 influence of Antony and Octavius; and the 
 reconciliation of these two men took place on 
 the death of Fulvia in the year 714. Again, 
 the death of Antigonus and the siege of Jeru- 
 salem, which form the basis of calculation for 
 the thirty-four years, coincide (Joseph. Ant. xiv. 
 16, § 4) with the consulship of M. Vipsanius 
 Agrippa and L. Caninius Gallus,—that is, with 
 the year of Rome 717; and occurred in the 
 month Sivan (=June or July). From these 
 facts we are justified in placing the death of 
 
 JESUS CHRIST 
 
 Herod in A.v.c. 750. Those who place it one 
 year later overlook the mode in which Josephus 
 reckons Jewish reigns. Wieseler shows by 
 several passages that he reckons the year from 
 the month Nisan to Nisan, and that he counts the 
 fragment of a year at either extreme as one 
 complete year. In this mode, thirty-four years, 
 from June or July 717, would apply to any date 
 between the first of Nisan 750 and the first of 
 Nisan 751. And thirty-seven years from 714 
 would apply likewise to any date within the 
 same termini. Wieseler finds facts confirmatory 
 of this in the dates of the reigns of Herod 
 Antipas and Archelaus (see his Chronologische 
 Synopse, p. 55). Between these two dates 
 Josephus furnishes means for a more exact de- 
 termination. Just after Herod’s death the Pass- 
 over occurred (Nisan 15th), and upon Herod’s 
 death Archelaus caused a seven-days’ mourning 
 to be kept for him (Ant. xvii. 9, § 35 xvii. 8, 
 § 4); so that it would appear that Herod died 
 somewhat more than seven days before the 
 Passover in 750, and therefore in the first few 
 days of the month of Nisan A.u.c. 750. Now, 
 as Jesus was born before the death of Herod, it 
 follows that the Dionysian era, which corre- 
 sponds to A.U.C. 754, is at least four years too 
 late. 
 
 Many have thought that the star seen by the 
 wise men gives grounds for an exact calculation 
 of the time of our Lord’s birth. It will be 
 found, however, that this is not the case. For 
 it has first been assumed that the star was not 
 properly a star, but an astronomical conjunction 
 of known stars. Kepler finds a conjunction 
 of Jupiter and Saturn in the sign Pisces in 
 A.U.C, 747, and again in the spring of the next 
 year, with the planet Mars added ; and from this 
 he would place the birth of Jesus in 748. 
 Ideler, on the same kind of calculation, places it 
 in A.U.c. 747. But this process only proves a 
 highly improbable date, on highly improbable 
 evidence. The words of St. Matthew are ex- 
 tremely hard to reconcile with the notion of a 
 conjunction of planets; it was a star that ap- 
 peared, and it gave the Magi ocular proof of its 
 purpose by guiding them to where the young 
 child was. But a new light has been thrown on 
 the subject by the Rev. C. Pritchard, who has 
 made the calculations afresh. Ideler (Handbuch 
 d. Chronologie) asserts that there were three 
 conjunctions of Jupiter and Saturn in B.C. 7, 
 and that in the third they approached so near 
 that, “to a person with weak eyes, the one 
 planet would almost seem to come within the 
 range of the dispersed light of the other, so 
 that both might appear as one star.” Dean 
 Alford puts it much more strongly, that on 
 November 12 in that year the planets were so 
 close “that an ordinary eye would regard them 
 as one star of surpassing brightness” (Greek 
 Test. in loc.). Mr. Pritchard finds, and his cal- 
 culations have been verified and confirmed at 
 Greenwich, that this conjunction occurred not 
 on November 12 but early on December 5; and 
 that even with Ideler’s somewhat strange 
 postulate of an observer with weak eyes, the 
 planets could never have appeared as one star, 
 for they never approached each other within 
 double the apparent diameter of the moon 
 (Memoirs R. Astr. Soc. vol. xxy.). [STAR IN THE 
 East.] Most of the chronologists find an ele- 
 
JESUS CHRIST 
 
 ment of calculation in the order of Herod to 
 destroy all the children “from two years old 
 and under ” (ἀπὸ διετοῦς καὶ κατωτέρω, Matt. ii. 
 16). But the age within which he destroyed 
 would be measured rather by the extent of his 
 fears than by the accurecy of the calculation of 
 the Magi. Greswell has laboured to show that, 
 from the inclusive mode of computing years, 
 mentioned above in this article, the phrase of 
 the Evangelist would apply to all children just 
 turned one year old, which is true; but he 
 assumes that it would not apply to any that 
 were older, say to those aged a year and eleven 
 months. Herod was a cruel man, angry and 
 afraid; and it is vain to assume that he ad- 
 justed the limit of his cruelties with the nicest 
 accuracy. As a basis of calculation the visit of 
 the Magi, though very important to us in other 
 respects, must be dismissed (but see Greswell, 
 Dissertations, &c., Diss. xviii. ; Wieseler, Chron. 
 Syn. p. 57 sqq., with all the references there). 
 The census taken by Augustus Caesar, which 
 led to the journey of Mary from Nazareth just 
 before the Birth of the Lord, has also been 
 looked on as an important note of time, in 
 reference to the chronology of the life of Jesus. 
 Several difficulties have to be disposed of in 
 considering it. (i.) It is fargued that there is 
 no record in other histories of a census of the 
 whole Roman empire in the time of Augustus. 
 Gii.) Such a census, if held during the reign of 
 Herod the Great, would not have included 
 Judaea, for it was not yet a Roman province. 
 Giii.) The Roman mode of taking such a census 
 was with reference to actual residence, so that 
 
 it would not have been requisite for Joseph to- 
 
 go to Bethlehem. (iv.) The state of Mary at 
 the time would render such a journey less 
 probable. (y.) St. Luke himself seems to say 
 that this census was not actually taken until 
 ten years later (ii. 2). 
 
 To these objections, of which it need not be 
 said Strauss has made the worst, answers may 
 be given in detail, though scarcely in this place 
 with the proper completeness. (i.) “As we know 
 of the legis actiones and their abrogation, which 
 were quite as important in respect to the early 
 period of Roman history, as the census of the 
 empire was in respect to a later period, not from 
 the historical works of Livy, Dionysius, or Poly- 
 bius, but from a legal work, the Institutes of 
 Gaius ; so we should think it strange if the works 
 of Paullus and Ulpian De Censibus had come down 
 to us perfect, and no mention were made in them 
 of the census of Augustus; while it would not 
 surprise us that in the ordinary histories of the 
 time it should be passed over in silence” 
 (Huschke in Wieseler, p. 78). “If Suetonius 
 in his life [of Augustus] does not mention this 
 census, neither does Spartian in his life of 
 Hadrian devote a single syllable to the edictwn 
 perpetuum, which, in later times, has chiefly 
 adorned the name of that emperor ” (ib.), Thus 
 it seems that the arqumentui de taciturnitate is 
 very far from conclusive. The edict possibly 
 affected only the provinces, and in them was 
 not carried out at once; and in that case it 
 would attract less attention at any one parti- 
 cular moment. 
 
 In the time of Augustus all the procurators 
 of the empire were brought under his sole 
 control and supervision for the first time 
 
 JESUS CHRIST 1699 
 
 A.U.C. 731 (Dio Cass. lili. 32), This movement 
 towards centralisation renders it not improbable 
 that a general census of the empire should be 
 ordered, although it may not have been carried 
 into effect suddenly, nor intended to be so. But 
 proceedings in the way of an estimate of the 
 empire, if not an actual census, are distinctly 
 recorded to have taken place in the time of 
 Augustus. “Huic addendae sunt mensurae 
 limitum et terminorum ex libris Augusti et 
 Neronis Caesarum: sed et Balbi mensoris, qui 
 temporibus Augusti omuium provinciarum et 
 civitatum formas et mensuras compertas in 
 commentarios retulit et legem agrariam per 
 universitatem provinciarum distinxit et de- 
 claravit” (Frontinus, in the Rei Agrar. Auct. 
 of Goes, p. 109, quoted by Wieseler). This is 
 confirmed from other sources (Wieseler, pp. 81, 
 82). Augustus directed, as we learn, a brevi- 
 arium totius imperii to be made, in which- 
 according to Tacitus, “Opes publicae contine, 
 bantur, quantum civium sociorumque in armis, 
 quot classes, regna, provinciae, tributa aut vec- 
 tigalia et necessitates ac largitiones” (Tacit. 
 Annal. i, 11; Sueton. Aug. 28, 101; Dio Cass. 
 1111. 30, lvi. 33, given in Wieseler; see also 
 Ritschl, in Rhein. Mus. fiir Philol. N. S., i. 
 481). All this makes a census by order of 
 Augustus in the highest degree probable, apart 
 from St. Luke’s testimony. The time of our 
 Lord’s Birth was most propitious. Except some 
 troubles in Dacia the Roman world was at peace, 
 and Augustus was in the full enjoyment of his 
 power. But there are persons who, though 
 they would at once believe this fact on the 
 testimony of some inferior historian, added to 
 these confirmatory facts, reject it just because 
 an Evangelist has said it. 
 
 Next comes the objection (ii. and iii.), that, as 
 Judaea was not yet a Roman province, such a 
 census would not have included that country, and 
 that it was not taken from the residence of each 
 person, but from the place of his origin. It is 
 very probable that the mode of taking the census 
 would afford a clue to the origin of it. Augustus 
 was willing to include in his census all the tribu- 
 tary kingdoms, for the regna are mentioned in 
 the passage in Tacitus; but this could scarcely be 
 enforced, Perhaps Herod, desiring to gratify the 
 Emperor, and to emulate him in his love for this 
 kind of information, was ready to undertake the 
 census for Judaea; but in order that it might 
 appear to be his rather than the Emperor’s, he 
 took it in the Jewish manner rather than in the 
 Roman, in the place whence the family sprang, 
 rather than in that of actual residence. There 
 might be some hardship in this, and we might 
 wonder that a woman about to become a mother 
 should be compelled to leave her home for such 
 a purpose, if we were sure that it was not 
 voluntary.. A Jew of the house and lineage of 
 David would not willingly forego that position ; 
 and if it were necessary to assert it by going to 
 the city of David, he would probably make some 
 sacrifice to do so. Thus the objection (iv.), on 
 the ground of the state of Mary’s health, is 
 entitled to little consideration. It is said indeed 
 that “all went to be taxed, every one into his 
 own city” (Luke ii. 3); but not that the decree 
 prescribed that they should. Nor could there 
 well be any means of enforcing such a regula- 
 tion, But the principle being adopted. that 
 
 5 Q 2 
 
1700 JESUS CHRIST 
 
 Jews were to be taxed in the places to which 
 their families belonged, St. Luke tells us by 
 these words that as a matter of fact it was 
 generally followed. (v.) The objection that, 
 according to St. Luke’s own admission, the 
 census was not taken now, but when Quirinus 
 was governor of Syria, remains to be disposed 
 of. St. Luke makes two statements, that at 
 the time of our Lord’s birth (“in those days ”) 
 there was a decree for a census, and that this 
 taxing first came about, or took effect (πρώτη 
 ἐγένετο), when Cyrenius, or Quirinus, was 
 governor of Syria (Luke ii. 1, 2) [see Cyrentus]. 
 And as the two statements are quite distinct, 
 and the very form of expression calls special 
 attention to some remarkable circumstance about 
 this census, no historical inaccuracy is proved, 
 unless the statements are shown to be contra- 
 dictory, or one or other of them to be untrue. 
 That Strauss makes such a charge without 
 establishing either of these grounds, is worthy 
 of a writer so dishonest (Leben Jesu, i. ch. iv. 32). 
 Now, without going into all the theories that 
 have been proposed to explain this second verse, 
 there is no doubt that the words of St. Luke 
 can be explained in a natural manner, without 
 violence to the sense or contradiction. Herod 
 undertakes the census according to Jewish forms ; 
 but his death the same year puts an end to it, and 
 no more is heard of it: and but for its influence 
 as to the place of our Lord’s Birth it would not 
 have been recorded at all. But the Evangelist 
 knows that, as soon as a census (ἀπογραφὴ) is 
 mentioned, persons conversant with Jewish his- 
 tory will think at once of the census taken after 
 the banishment of Archelaus, or about ten years 
 later, which was avowedly a Roman census, and 
 which caused at first some resistance in conse- 
 quence (Joseph. Ant. xviii. 1, § 1). The second 
 verse therefore means— No census was actually 
 completed then, and I know that the first Roman 
 census was that which followed the banishment 
 of Archelaus; but the decree went out much 
 earlier, in the time of Herod.” That this is the 
 only possible explanation of so vexed a passage 
 cannot of course be affirmed.? But it will bear 
 this interpretation, and upon the whole evidence 
 there is no ground whatever for denying either 
 assertion of the Evangelist, or for considering 
 them irreconcilable. Many writers have con- 
 founded an obscurity with a proved inaccuracy. 
 The value of this census, as a fact in the chron- 
 ology of the life of Christ, depends on the con- 
 nexion which is sought to be established between 
 it and the insurrection which broke out under 
 Matthias and Judas, the son of Sariphaeus, in 
 the last illness of Herod (Joseph. Ant. xv. 6, § 1). 
 If the insurrection arose out of the census, a 
 
 © See a summary of the older theories in Kuinoel (in 
 Lue. ii. 2); also in Meyer (in Luc. ii. 2), who gives an 
 account of the view, espoused by many, that Quirinus 
 was now a special commissioner for this census in Syria 
 (nye. τῆς Svpias), which the Greek will not bear. But 
 if the theory of the younger Zumpt be correct, then 
 Quirinus was twice governor of Syria, and the Evangelist 
 would here refer to his former rule. The difficulty is 
 that Josephus (Ant. xviii. 1, § 1) mentions that Quirinus 
 was sent, after the banishment of Archelaus, to take a 
 census. Either Zumpt would set this authority aside, 
 or would hold that Quirinus, twice governor, twice made 
 a census; which is scarcely an easier hypothesis than 
 some others. 
 
 JESUS CHRIST 
 
 point of connexion between the sacred history 
 and that of Josephus is made out. Such a 
 connexion, however, has not been clearly made 
 out (see Wieseler, Olshausen, and others, for the 
 grounds on which it is supposed to rest). 
 
 The age of Jesus at His Baptism (Luke iii. 23) 
 affords an element of calculation. “And Jesus 
 Himself began to be about (ὡσεὶ) thirty years 
 of age.” Born in the beginning of A.uU.c. 750 
 (or the end of 749), Jesus would be thirty in 
 the beginning of A.U.c. 780 (A.D. 27). Greswell 
 is probably right in placing the Baptism of our 
 Lord in the beginning of this year, and the first 
 Passover during His ministry would be that of 
 the same year; Wieseler places the Baptism 
 later, in the spring or summer of the same year. 
 (On the sense of ἀρχόμενος, see the commenta- 
 tors.) To this first Passover after the Baptism 
 attaches a note of time which will confirm the 
 calculations already made. “Then said the 
 Jews, Forty and six years was this Temple in 
 building (φκοδομήθη), and wilt Thou rear it up 
 in three days?” There can be no doubt that 
 this refers to the rebuilding of the Temple by 
 Herod: it cannot mean the second Temple, built 
 after the Captivity, for this was finished in 
 twenty years (B.C. 535 to B.c, 515). Herod, in 
 the eighteenth year of his reign (Joseph. Ant. 
 xv. 11, § 1), began to reconstruct the Temple on 
 a larger and more splendid scale (A.U.c. 734). 
 The work was not finished till long after his 
 death, till a.u.c. 818. It is inferred from 
 Josephus (Ant. xv. 11, §§ 5, 6) that if was 
 begun in the month Cisleu, A.u.c. 734, And if 
 the Passover at which this remark was made 
 was that of a.U.c. 780, then forty-five years and 
 some months have elapsed, which, according to 
 the Jewish mode of reckoning (p. 1663), would 
 be spoken of as “ forty and six years.” 
 
 Thus the death of Herod enables us to fix a 
 boundary on one side to the calculations of our 
 Lord’s Birth. The building of the Temple, for 
 forty-six years, confirms this, and also gives a 
 boundary on the other. From the star of the 
 Magi nothing conclusive can be gathered, nor 
 from the census of Augustus. One datum re- 
 mains: the commencement of the preaching of 
 John the Baptist is connected with the fifteenth 
 year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar (Luke iii. 1). 
 The rule of Tiberius may be calculated either 
 from the beginning of his sole reign, after the 
 death of Augustus, A.U.C. 767, or from his joint 
 government with Augustus, 1.6. from the be- 
 ginning of A.u.c. 765. In the latter case the 
 fifteenth year would correspond with a.U.c. 779, 
 which goes to confirm the rest of the calculations 
 relied on in this article. : 
 
 An endeavour has been made to deduce the 
 time of the year of the Birth of Jesus from the 
 fact that Zacharias was “a priest of the course 
 of Abia” (Luke i. 5). The twenty-four courses 
 of priests served in the Temple according to a 
 regular weekly cycle, the order of which is 
 known. The date of the conception of John 
 would be about fifteen months before the birth 
 of our Lord; and if the date of the latter be 
 A.U.C. 750, then the former would fall in A.U.c, 
 748. Can it be ascertained in what part of the 
 year 748 the course of Abia would be on duty in 
 the Temple? The Talmud preserves a tradition 
 that the Temple was destroyed by Titus, A.D. 70, 
 on the ninth day of the month Ab. Josephus 
 
 —— 
 
JESUS CHRIST 
 
 mentions the date as the 10th of Ab (Bel. Jud. 
 vi. 4, §§ 5, 8). Without attempting to follow 
 the steps by which these are reconciled, it seems 
 that the “course ” of Jehoiarib had just entered 
 upon its weekly duty at the time the Temple 
 was destroyed. Wieseler, assuming that the 
 day in question would be the same as the 5th of 
 August, A.U.c. 823, reckons back the weekly 
 courses to A.U.C, 748, the course of Jehoiarib 
 being the first of all (1 Ch. xxiv. 7). “It 
 follows,” he says, “that the ministration of the 
 course of Abia, 74 years 10 months and 2 days, 
 or (veckoning 19 intercalary years) 27,335 days, 
 earlier (=162 hieratic circles and 119 days 
 earlier), fell between the 3rd and 9th of October, 
 A.U.C. 748. Reckoning from the 10th of October, 
 on which Zacharias might reach his house, and 
 allowing nine months for the pregnancy of 
 Elizabeth, to which six months are to be added 
 (Luke i. 26), we have in the whole one year and 
 three months, which gives the 10th of January 
 as the date of Christ’s birth.” Greswell, how- 
 ever, from the same starting-point, arrives at 
 the date April 5th; and when two writers so 
 laborious can thus differ in their conclusions, we 
 must rather suspect the soundness of their 
 method than their accuracy in the use of it. 
 
 Similar differences will be found amongst 
 eminent writers in every part of the chronology 
 of the Gospels. For example, the Birth of our 
 Lord is placed in B.c. 1 by Pearson and Hug; 
 B.C. 2 by Sealiger; B.C. 3 by Baronius, Calvisius, 
 Siiskind, and Paulus; B.c. 4 by Lamy, Bengel, 
 Anger, Wieseler, and Greswell; 3B.c. 5 by Ussher 
 and Petavius; B.c. 7 by Ideler and Sanclemente. 
 And whilst the calculations given above seem 
 sufficient to determine us, with Lamy, Ussher, 
 Petavius, Bengel, Wieseler, and Greswell, to the 
 close of B.c. 5, or early part of B.c. 4, let it 
 never be forgotten that there is a distinction 
 between these researches, which the Holy Spirit 
 has left obscure and doubtful, and “ the weightier 
 matters ” of the Gospel, the things which directly 
 pertain to man’s salvation. The silence of the 
 inspired writers, and sometimes the obscurity of 
 their allusions to matters of time and place, 
 have given rise to disputation. But their words 
 admit of no doubt when they tell us that Christ 
 Jesus came into the world to save sinners, and 
 that wicked hands crucified and slew Him, and 
 that we and all men must own Him as the Lord 
 and Redeemer, 
 
 Sources,—The bibliography of the subject of 
 the Life of Jesus has been most fully set out in 
 Hase, Leben Jesu, Leipsic, 1854, 4th edition. It 
 would be vain to attempt to rival that enor- 
 mous catalogue. The principal works employed 
 in the present article are the Four Gosprts, and 
 the best-known commentaries on them, including 
 those of Bengel, Wetstein, Lightfoot, De Wette, 
 Liicke, Olshausen, Stier, Alford, Williams, and 
 others; Neander, Leben Jesu (Hamburg, 1837), 
 as against Strauss, Leben Jesu (Tiibingen, 1837) ; 
 and, also consulted, Stackhouse’s History of the 
 Bible; Ewald, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, vol. 
 y., Christus (Gottingen, 1857); Baumgarten, 
 Geschichte Jesu (Brunswick, 1859); Krum- 
 macher, Der Leidende Christus (Bielefeld, 1854). 
 Upon the harmony of the Gospels, see the list of 
 works given under GOSPELS: the principal works 
 used for the present article have been, Wieseler, 
 Chronologische Synopse, &c., Hamburg, 1843; 
 
 JESUS CHRIST 1701 
 Greswell’s Harmony, Prolegomena, and Disserta- 
 tions, Oxford, v. y.; two papers by Dr. Robinson 
 in the Bibliotheca Sacra for 1845; and Clausen, 
 Tabulae Synopticae, Havniae, 1829. Special 
 works, such as Dean Trench on the Parables and 
 on the Miracles, have also been consulted; and 
 detached monographs, sermons, and essays in 
 periodicals. For the text of the Gospels, the 
 7th edition of Tischendorf’s Greek Text has been 
 employed. [We Lak 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY.—The above article was pub- 
 lished in 1863, when the literature was already 
 enormous. It was written, therefore, before the 
 appearance of Renan’s Vie de Jésus (1863), of 
 Strauss’ new and more popular work, Das Leben 
 Jesu fiir das deutsche Volk gearbeitet (1864), of 
 Schenkel’s Characterbild Jesu (1864), of Keim’s 
 Geschichte Jesu von Nazara (1867-72), of 
 Renan’s Les Lvangiles (1877), and of the count- 
 less writings which these five works have in- 
 
 spired or provoked. The best source of 
 information respecting this overwhelming 
 
 literature is the summary made by Hase in his 
 Leben Jesu (Sth ed, 1865; Eng. tr. by Clarke, 
 Boston, 1881) and in his Geschichte Jesu (1875). 
 The list of authorities in Edersheim’s Life and 
 Times of the Messiah (2nd ed. 1886) and in 
 Farrar’s Life of Christ (24th ed. 1891), with the 
 literary sketch at the end of the articles on 
 Jesus Curist in Herzog’s Real-Encykl. (2nd ed. 
 1880) and in the Encycl. Britan. (9th ed. 1881), 
 will be found useful. Schaff’s History of the 
 Church ; Apostolic Christianity, i. pp. 90-99 
 2nd ed. 1883), contains a discriminating list of 
 leading works: see also Zoeckler’s Handbuch der 
 theologischen Wissenschaften, τ. ii. pp. 184-188 
 (8rd ed. 1889). Both these notice primitive 
 sources as well as modern literature; and 
 Zoeckler adds information about medixval works 
 (for which see Rippold’s Leben Jesu im Mittel- 
 alter, Bern, 1884) and about the Reformation 
 period. For literature on the historical, chrono- 
 logical, and geographical questions which beset 
 the subject, Schiirer’s Geschichte des jiidischen 
 Volkes (1885; Eng. tr., The Jewish People in the 
 Time of Jesus Christ, Edinb. 1885-90) is indis- 
 pensable: the bibliographical information given 
 throughout the volumes is immense. See also 
 Edersheim, History of the Jewish Nation (1892). 
 
 Only a brief outline of the literature which 
 led up to the crisis provoked by Strauss, and 
 which that crisis in turn produced, will be 
 attempted here. It takes us back to the Deisti- 
 cal controversy; for which see A. S, Farrar’s 
 Bampton Lectures, 1862, esp. Lect. vi. and vii. 
 with the notes. The sceptical and sometimes 
 scurrilous rationalism of Woolston (1733), 
 Chubb (1747), and Reimarus (1768) was followed 
 by the “natural” explanations of Bahrdt 
 (1782, 1784), Venturini (1800), and Paulus 
 (1828); who were answered by Hess (1774, 
 8th ed. 1823), Reinhard (1781, 5th ed. 1830; 
 Eng. tr. 1831), Herder (1796), and Ullmann 
 (1828).  Ullmann’s Die Siindlosigheit Jesu 
 (7th ed. 1864; Eng. tr. 1870) remains one of 
 the best treatises on the subject. Schleier- 
 macher’s Vorlesungen iiber dis Leben Jesu were 
 delivered in and before 1832 at Berlin, where 
 Strauss attended them, and were published from 
 his pupils’ notes long after the author’s death 
 (1864). He maintained the sinlessness of Jesus, 
 but denied the miraculous birth. The first 
 
1τ02 
 
 Leben Jesu of Strauss (1835) was answered on 
 the Protestant side by W. Hoffmann, Harless, 
 Sack, ἄς in 1836; Tholuck, Hamb. 1837 ; 
 Neander, Hamb. 1837 (7th ed. Gotha, 1873; 
 Eng. tr. 1848); Ebrard, Frankf. 1842 (3rd ed. 
 1868; abridged Eng. tr. 1869); Lange, Heidelb. 
 1868 (still of great value; Eng. tr. 1869); &c., 
 ἄς. Roman Catholic replies by F. Baader, 1836 ; 
 Kuhn, Tiibing. 1838; Hug, Frankf. 1841 (2nd 
 ed. 1854); Sepp, Regensb. 1843 (mixed with 
 legend; 2nd ed. 1865); Bucher, Stuttg. 1859 ; 
 &c. The title of most of these works is Das 
 Leben Jesu, with or without addition. Among 
 the chief disciples of Strauss are Weisse (1838, 
 1856), Gfrérer (1838), Salvator (Paris, 1838), 
 Hennell (Researches concerning the Origin of 
 Christianity, Lond. 1838), Liitzelberger (1840), 
 
 JESUS CHRIST 
 
 Volkmar (1857), Lang (1872). Volkmar in his 
 Jesus Nazarenus (1881) has gathered together 
 all the main results of radically destructive 
 criticism. Against Strauss, Renan, Schenkel, 
 and their disciples we have, among Protestants, 
 Ewald, Gétting. 1855 (3rd ed. 1867, vol. v. of | 
 his Gesch. des Volkes Jsrael ; Eng. tr. vol. vi.); | 
 Lichtenstein, Erlang. 1856; Riggenbach, Bas. | 
 1858 (commended); Baumgarten, Braunschw. | 
 1859; Ellicott, Hulsean Lectures, 1859 (useful | 
 notes; 6th ed. 1876); Bushnell, Zhe Character | 
 of Jesus, New York, 1859; Andrews, New York, 
 1863 (best American Life; new ed. 1892); Oos- 
 terzee, Utrecht, 1863; Beyschlag, Haar, Luth- 
 ardt, Schulze, with Scherer and Coquerel, all in 
 1864; Schafl, The Person of Christ, Boston, 
 1865 (12th ed. 1882: often translated); Pres- 
 sensé, Paris, 1865; Plumptre, Boyle Lectures, 
 1866 ; Steinmeyer, Apologetische Beitrage, 1866- ! 
 73 (of some. importance); Schiekopp, 1867 | 
 (against Keim); Delitzsch, Jesus und Hillel, 1867 
 (5rd ed. 1879), Handwerkersleben zur Zeit Jesu, 
 1875 (Eng. tr. 1877), Hin Tag in Kapernaum, 
 1871; &c. Among Roman Catholics, Freppel, 
 Paris, 1863; Passaglia, Michelis, Deutinger, and 
 Haneberg, all in 1864; Dupanloup, Paris, 1870 ; 
 Bougaud, Le Christianisme et les temps présents, 
 Paris, 1871 (3rd ed. 1877); Schegg, 1874; 
 Grimm, 1876; &c. Strauss himself was one of 
 the keenest critics of Schenkel (as previously 
 of Paulus) in Die Halben und die Ganzen, Berl. 
 1865. Uhlhorn gives a popular and clear 
 account of the main features of Strauss, Renan, 
 Schenkel, Keim, Delft, and others in Das Leben 
 Jesu in seinen neueren Darstellungen, Stuttg. 
 1892. Lichtenberger supplies much informa- 
 tion about many of the writers mentioned 
 above in his /fistoire des idées religieuses en 
 Allemagne, Paris, 1873, 2nd ed. 1888; Eng. tr. 
 History of German Theology, Edinb. 1889: see 
 also Hagenbach’s Kirchengesch. des 18ten und 
 19ten Jahrh. 1856; Eng. tr. New York, 1869. 
 In England Ecce Homo, Lond. 1864 [attributed 
 to J. R. Seeley], produced a considerable literature 
 of its own. 
 
 Since 1880 works on Jesus Christ have had 
 less reference to Strauss, Reran, and the Tiibin- 
 gen School. Most of the following are positive 
 and in the main orthodox; and where no title 
 is given it may be assumed that the book isa 
 Life of Jesus. Quite the most important is that 
 of B. Weiss, Berl. 1882 (3rd ed. 1888; Eng. tr. 
 Edinb. 1883; critical and boldly constructive) ; 
 Steinmeyer, Beitriige zur Christologie, 1882 ; 
 Edersheim, Lond. 1883 (2nd ed. 1886; strong, 
 
 ‘JETHER 
 
 but not infallible, in Jewish lore; abridged by 
 Sanday, 1890); Seidel, Leipz. 1882 (popular, 
 but solid); Canus, Paris, 1883 (2nd ed. 1887; 
 Rom. Cath.); Ziindel, Jesus in Bildern aus 
 seinem Leben, Ziir. 1885; Usteri, Die Selbst- 
 bezeichnung Jesu als des Menschen Sohn, Ziir. 
 1886 (the title expresses His mission, not His 
 nature); Gess, Christi Person und Werk, 
 Bas. 1887 (important; strongly emphasises 
 the Jenosis); Friedlieb, Miinst. 1887 (Rom. 
 Cath.); Schanz, Apologie d. Christenthums, 
 Freib. 1888 (Rom. Cath.); Beyschlag, 2nd ed. 
 1888; Baldensperger, Das Selbstbewusstsein Jesu, 
 Strassb. 1888 (full as to the Messianic expecta- 
 tions of the time); Dalman, Der leidende und 
 der sterbende Messias der Synagogue, Berl. 1888 ; 
 Latham, Pastor Pastorum or the Schooling of the 
 Apostles by our Lord, Camb. 1890 (excellent) ; 
 Noesgen, Gesch. d. neutestamentlichen Offen= 
 barung, Miinch. 1891 (conservative); Didon, 
 Paris, 1891 (important ; eloquent, stately, and 
 firmly doctrinal, but not very critical); Fouard, 
 Paris, 7th ed. 1891 (more critical than Didon, 
 but inferior); Laible, Jesus Christus im Thalmud, 
 Berl. 1891 (useful collection of notices of Jesus 
 in the Talmud), For articles in magazines and 
 reviews, see Poole’s Index to Periodical Litera- 
 ture, Lond. 1883 and 1888: for literature in 
 which the Fourth Gospel is specially concerned, 
 see Watkins, Bampton Lectures, Lond. 1890, esp. 
 v. and vi.,and Sanday’s papers in the Hapositor, 
 1892. [A. P.) 
 
 JE'THER ΟΠ). 1. (1064p; Jethro.) Jethro, 
 
 the father-in-law of Moses, is so called in Ex. iy. 
 18 and the margin of A. V., though in the Heb.- 
 Sam. text and Sam. Version the reading is 110), 
 as in the Syriac and Targ. Jon., one of Kenni- 
 cott’s MSS., and a MS. of Targ. Onk., No. 16 in 
 De Rossi’s collection. 
 
 2. (Ἰεθέρ : Jether.) The firstborn of Gideon’s 
 seventy sons, who were all, with the exception 
 of Jotham, the youngest, slain at Ophrah by 
 Abimelech. At the time of his father’s victorious 
 pursuit of the Midianites and capture of their 
 kings he was still a lad on his first battle-field, 
 and feared to draw his sword at Gideon’s bidding, 
 and avenge, as the representative of the family, 
 the slaughter of his kinsmen at Tabor (Judg. 
 viii. 20), 
 
 3. (BA. Ἰεθὲρ in 1 K. 11. 5, 32; B. ᾿Ιοθόρ, 
 A. Ἰεθέρ, in 1 Ch. ii, 17; Jether.) The father 
 of Amasa, captain-general of Absalom’s army. 
 Jether is merely another form of Ithra (2 Sam. 
 xvii. 25), the latter being probably a corruption. 
 He is described in1 Ch. ii. 17 as an Ishmaelite, 
 which again is more likely to be correct than 
 the “Israelite ” of the Heb. in 2 Sam. xvii. (see 
 Driver, Notes on the Heb. Text of the BB. of 
 Samuel, in loco). Josephus calls him ᾿Ιεθάρσης 
 (Ant. vii. 10, § 1). He married Abigail, David’s 
 sister, probably during the sojourn of the family 
 of Jesse in the land of Moab, under the protection 
 of its king. 
 
 4. The son of Jada, a descendant of Hezron, 
 of the tribe of Judah (1 Ch. ii. 32). He died 
 without children, and being the eldest son the 
 succession fell to his brother’s family. 
 
 5. The son of Ezra, whose name occurs in a 
 dislocated passage in the genealogy of Judah 
 (1 Ch. iv. 17). In the LXX. the name is re- 
 peated: “and Jether begat Meon,” ὅς. By the 
 
~ 7 
 
 JETHETH 
 
 author of the Quaest. Hebr. in Par. he is said to 
 have been Aaron, Ezra being another name for 
 Amram. 
 
 6, (B. Ἰεθήρ, A. Ἰεθέρ) The chief of a 
 family of warriors of the line of Asher, and 
 father of Jephunneh (1 Ch, vii. 38), He is pro- 
 bably the same as Ithran in the preceding verse 
 (B. Θερά). One of Kennicott’s MSS. and the 
 LXX, A. had Jether in both cases. [W. A. W.] 
 
 JETHE’TH (Mn: in Gen. A. Ἰεβέρ, D*". 
 Ἰεθέρ; in Ch. B. ᾿Ιεθέτ, A. Ἰεθέθ : Jetheth), one 
 of the phylarchs (A. V. dukes”) who came of 
 Esau (Gen, xxxvi. 40; 1 Ch. i. 51), enumerated 
 separately from the genealogy of Esau’s children 
 in the earlier part of the chapter, “ according to 
 their families, after their places, by their names,” 
 and “ according to their habitations in the land 
 of their possession ” (vv. 40-3). This record of 
 the Edomite phylarchs may point specially to the 
 places and habitations, or towns, named after or 
 occupied by them; and even otherwise, we may 
 look for some trace of their names, after the 
 custom of the wandering tribes to leave such 
 footprints in the changeless desert. Identifica- 
 tions of several in the list have been proposed : 
 Jetheth, as far as the writer knows, has not been 
 yet recovered. He may perhaps be found if with 
 Gesenius (Ziesawr. s. v.) we adopt the likely 
 suggestion of Simonis, NN? = NIN, “a peg,” 
 “a tent-pin” (and metaphorically “a prince” 
 or “chief,” like the masculine form ara 
 
 a 
 
 Zech. x. 4; cp. Is. xxii. 23) = Arab. Ny 
 
 watid, ‘a peg,” which is said to be used in the 
 
 GH εὐ 
 
 like metaphorical sense. Al-Watidah, 30 οἱ 
 σ 
 
 (n. of unity of the former), is a place in Nag’d, 
 said to be in the Dahna (see IsuBAK); there is 
 also a place called Al-Watid; and Al-Watidat 
 {perhaps pl. of the first-named), which is the 
 name of mountains belonging to Bana ‘Abd- 
 Allah Ibn Ghatafan (Mardasid, 5. vv.). The 
 objection is (1) that Jetheth is a doubtful word 
 in the Hebrew text itself, as is clear from the 
 LXX. Jeber, with which might be compared 
 
 ony Jabrin, a place E. of Yemaéma; (2) Cen- 
 
 tral Arabia is a long way from the original 
 settlements of the tribes of Esau-Edom. 
 
 [E.S.P.] [C. J.B. 
 
 JETH-LAH (nom, ic. Jithlah; Σιλαθά, 
 B. Σειλαθά, A. Ἰεθλά; Jethela), one of the 
 cities of the tribe of Dan (Josh. xix. 42), named 
 with Ajalon, Elon, and Thimnathah. In the 
 Onomasticon it is mentioned, without any de- 
 scription or indication of position, as Ἰεθλάν 
 (OS? p. 269, 78). The site is not certainly 
 Known, but Conder has suggested Feit Til, 
 3 miles S.E. of Ydlo, Ajalon (PF. Mem. 
 iii. 43). Greil. IVY. ai 
 
 JE’THRO (17M, ἐσ. Jithro; Ἰοθόρ), called 
 also Jether and Hobab, the son of REUEL, was 
 priest or prince of Midian, both offices probably 
 being combined in one person. Moses spent the 
 forty years of his exile from Egypt, or part of 
 
 JETHRO 1703 
 
 Zipporah. By the advice of Jethro, Moses 
 appointed deputies to judge the congregation 
 and share the burden of government with 
 himself (Ex, xviii). On account of his local 
 knowledge he was entreated to remain with the 
 Israelites throughout their journey to Canaan ; 
 his room however was supplied by the Ark of 
 the covenant, which supernaturally indicated 
 the places for encamping (Num. x. 31,35). The 
 idea conveyed by the name of Jethro or Jether 
 is probably that of excellence; and as Hobab 
 may be connected with loving or beloved, it is 
 quite possible that both appellations were given 
 to the same person for similar reasons. That 
 the custom of having more than one name was 
 common among the Jews we see in thie case of 
 Benjamin, Benoni; Solomon, Jedidiah, &e. &c. 
 It is said in Ex. ii, 18 that the priest of 
 Midian whose daughter Moses married was 
 Reuel; afterwards, at ch. iii. 1, he is called 
 Jethro, as also in ch. xviii.; but in Num. x. 29 
 “Hobab the son of Raguel the Midianite” is 
 called Moses’ father-in-law: assuming the iden- 
 tity of Hobab and Jethro, we must suppose that 
 “ Reuel, their father,” in Ex. ii. 18, was really 
 their grandfather, and that the person who said, 
 “How is it that ye are come so soon to- 
 day ?” was the priest of v. 16: whereas, pro- 
 ceeding on the hypothesis that Jethro and 
 Hobab are not the same individual, it seems 
 ditficult to determine the relationship of Reuel, 
 Jethro, Hobab, and Moses. The hospitality, 
 freehearted and unsought, which Jethro at once 
 extended to the unknown homeless wanderer, 
 on the relation of his daughters that he had 
 watered their flock, is a picture of Eastern 
 manners no less true than lovely. We may 
 perhaps suppose that Jethro, before his ac- 
 quaintance with Moses, was not a worshipper 
 of the true God. Traces of this appear in the 
 delay which Moses had suffered to take place 
 with respect to the circumcision of his son 
 (Ex. iv. 24-26): indeed it is even possible that 
 Zipporah had afterwards been subjected to a 
 kind of divorce (Ex. xviii. 2, Mw, on 
 account of her attachment to an alien creed, but 
 that growing convictions were at work in the 
 mind of Jethro, from the circumstance of Israel’s 
 continued prosperity, till at last, acting upon 
 these, he brought back his daughter, and de- 
 clared that his impressions were confirmed, for 
 “now he knew that the Lord was greater than 
 all gods, for in the thing wherein they dealt 
 proudly He was above them:” consequently we 
 are told that ‘Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, 
 took a burnt-offering and sacrifices for God: 
 and Aaron came, and all the elders of Israel, 
 to eat bread with Moses’ father-in-law before 
 God;” as though to celebrate the event of his 
 conversion. Whether or not the account given 
 at Num. x. 29-32 refers to this same event, the 
 narrative at Ex. xviii. 27 coincides with Hobah’s 
 own words at Num. x. 30; and, comparing the 
 two, we may suppose that Moses did not prevail 
 upon his father-in-law to stay with the congre- 
 gation. Calvin (in 5 lib. Mosis Comment.) 
 understands vv. 31, 32 thus: “ Thou hast gone 
 with us hitherto, and hast been to us instead of 
 eyes ; and now what profit is it to thee if, having 
 suffered so many troubles and difficulties, thou 
 
 them, with him, and married his daughter | dost not go on with us to inherit the promised 
 
1τ04 JETUR 
 
 blessing ?” And Matthew Henry imagines that 
 Hobab complied with this invitation, and that 
 traces of the settlement of his posterity in the 
 land of Canaan are apparent at Judg. i. 16 and 
 1 Sam. xv. 6. Some, and among them Calvin, 
 take Jethro and Reuel to be identical, and call 
 Hobab the brother-in-law of Moses. The present 
 punctuation of the English Bible does not war- 
 rant this. Why, at Judg.i 16, Moses’ father-in- 
 law is called ")}} (Kenite, cp. Gen. xv. 19), or 
 why, at Num. xii. 1, Zipporah, if it be Zipporah, 
 as indeed does not seem probable, is called ΓΞ, 
 A. V. Ethiopian, is not clear. Those who see in 
 the apparent discrepancies of the existing kind 
 evidence of separate and independent narratives 
 must account for their place and connexion as 
 well as for the fact of their combination in it. 
 The Mohammedan name of Jethro is Shoaib 
 (Koran 7 and 11). There is a tale in the 
 Midrash that Jethro was a counsellor of 
 Pharaoh, who tried to dissuade him from 
 slaughtering the Israelitish children, and con- 
 sequently, on account of his clemency, was 
 forced to flee into Midian, but was rewarded by 
 becoming the father-in-law of Moses (see 
 Weil’s Biblical Legends, p. 93, note). [JETHER; 
 ἨΟΒΑΒ.7 [5.1.1 
 
 ΨΦΕΤΟΌ (2) : in Gen. B. Ἰετούρ, DE. Ἴετ- 
 rovp;in 1 Ch.i., BA. Ἰεττούρ ; in v., B. Τουραίοι, 
 A. Ἰτουραίοι : Jethur), Gen. xxv. 15; 1 Ch. i. 31, 
 ν.19. [ITuRAgEA.] 
 
 JE-U-EL. 1. Oxi; B. Ἐπιήλ, A. Ἰεήλ; 
 Jeuel.) A chief man of Judah, one of the Bene- 
 Zerah; apparently at the time of the first 
 settlement in Jerusalem (1 Ch. ix. 63; ep. 2). 
 (JEIEL. | 
 
 2. (B. Teouna, A. Ἰεονήλ; Gebel.) One of 
 the Bene-Adonikam who returned to Jerusalem 
 with Esdras (1 Esd. viii. 39). [JEIEL.] 
 
 JEU'SH (δ): Jehus, Jaus). 
 
 1. Son of Esau, by Aholibamah, the daughter 
 of Anah, the son of Zibeon the Hivite (Gen. 
 xxxvi. 5 [A. Ἰεούς, E. Ἰεσβούς7, 14 [A. Ἰεύς, 
 DE. ἵεοὐς], 18 [A. ᾿Ιεούλ, D. Ἰεουήλ, E. ᾿Ιεούς] ; 
 1 Ch. 1. 85 [BA. Ἰεούλ7). It appears from Gen. 
 xxxvi. 20-25, that Anah is a man’s name (not a 
 woman’s, as might be thought from v. 2), and, 
 by comparison with v. 2, that the Horites were 
 Hivites. Jeush was one of the Edomitish dukes 
 
 (v.18). The Kethib has repeatedly wry), Jeish. 
 
 2. (B. Ἰαούς, A. Ἰεώς.) Head of a Benjamite 
 house, which existed in David’s time, son of 
 Bilhan, son of Jediael (1 Ch. vii. 10, 11). 
 
 3. (BA. *Iéas.) A Levite, of the house of 
 Shimei, of the family of the Gershomites. He 
 and his brother Beriah were reckoned as one 
 house in the census of the Levites taken in the 
 reign of David (1 Ch. xxiii. 10, 11). 
 
 A. (B. Ἰαούθ, A. om.) Son of Rehoboam king 
 of Judah, by Abihail, the daughter of Eliab, the 
 son of Jesse (2 Ch. xi. 18, 19). [A. C. H.] 
 
 JEU'Z (AD; B. Ἰδώς, A. Ἰεούς ; Jehus), 
 head of a Benjamite house, in an obscure gene- 
 alogy (1 Ch. viii. 10), apparently son of Shaha- 
 raim and Hodesh his third wife, and born in 
 Moab. [A. C. H.] 
 
 JEW 
 
 JEW (91195; Ιουδαῖος ; Judacus, i.e. Judaean 5 
 ᾿Ιουδαΐζω, Esth. viii. 17; "Iovdatouds, 2 Mace. ii. 
 21). This name was properly applied to a 
 member of the kingdom of Judah after the 
 separation of the ten tribes. In this sense it 
 occurs twice in the Second Book of Kings (2 Ky. 
 xvi. 6, xxv. 25), and seven times in the later 
 chapters of Jeremiah (xxxii. 12, xxxiv. 9 [in 
 connexion with Hebrew], xxxviii. 19, xl. 12, xli. 
 3, xliv. 1, lii. 28). After the Return the word 
 received a larger application. Partly from the 
 predominance of the members of the old kingdom 
 of Judah among those who returned to Palestine, 
 partly from the identification of Judah with the 
 religious ideas and hopes of the people, all the 
 members of the new state were called Jews 
 (Judaeans), and the name was extended to the 
 remnants of the race scattered throughout the 
 nations (Dan. iii. 8, 12; Ezra iv. 12, 23; Neh. i. 
 2, ii. 16, v. 1, &c.; Esth. iii. 4 sq., &c. Cp. Jos. 
 Ant. xi. 5, § 7, ἐκλήθησαν δὲ τὸ ὄνομα [Ἰουδαῖοι } 
 ἐξ ἧς ἡμέρας ἀνεβῆσαν ἐκ Βαβυλῶνος ἀπὸ τῆς 
 ᾿Ιούδα φυλῆς .. .). 
 
 Under the name of “ Judaeans,” the people of 
 Israel were known to classical writers. The 
 most famous and interesting notice by a heathen 
 writer is that of Tacitus (Hist. v. 2 sq.; ep. 
 Orelli’s Maxcursus). The trait of extreme ex- 
 clusiveness with which he specially charged 
 them is noticed by many other writers (Juy- 
 Sat. xiv. 103; Diod. Sic. Hcl. 34, 1; Quint. 
 Inst. iii. 7, 51). The account of Strabo (xvi. 
 pp. 760 sq.) is more favourable (cp. Just. xxxvi. 
 2), but it was impossible that a stranger could 
 clearly understand the meaning of Judaism as « 
 disciple and preparation for a universal religion 
 (F. C. Meier, Judaica seu veterum scriptorum 
 profanorum de rebus Judaicis fragmenta, Jenae, 
 1832). 
 
 The force of the title Ιουδαῖος is seen particu- 
 larly in the Gospel of St. John. While the 
 other Evangelists scarcely ever use the word 
 except in the title “‘ King of the Jews ” (as given 
 by Gentiles),* St. John, standing within the 
 boundary of the Christian age, very rarely uses 
 any other term to describe the opponents of our 
 Lord. The name, indeed, appeared at the close 
 of the Apostle’s life to be the true antithesis to 
 Christianity, as describing the limited and 
 definite form of a national religion; but at an 
 earlier stage of the progress of the faith, it was 
 contrasted with Greek (Ἕλλην) as implying an 
 outward covenant with God (Rom. i. 16, ii. 9, 
 10; Col. iii. 11, &c.). In this sense it was of 
 wider application than Hebrew, which was the 
 correlative of Hellenist [HELLENIST ], and marked 
 a division of language subsisting within the 
 entire body, and at the same time Jess expressive 
 than Jsraclite, which brought out with especial 
 clearness the privileges and hopes of the childrem 
 of Jacob (2 Cor. xi, 22; John i. 47 ; 1 Mace. i. 
 43, 53, and often). 
 
 The history of Judaism is divided by Jost— 
 the most profound writer who has investigated 
 it—into two great eras: the first extending to 
 the close of the collections of the oral laws, 536. 
 
 a The exceptions are, Matt. xxviii. 15 (a note of the 
 Evangelist of later date than the substance of the 
 Gospel); Mark vii. 3 (a similar note); Luke vii. 3 
 xxiii. 51. 
 
JEW 
 
 B.C.—600 A.D.; the second reaching to the 
 present time. According to this view, the first 
 is the period of original development, the second 
 of formal construction; the one furnishes the 
 constituent elements, the second the varied shape 
 of the present faith. But as far as Judaism was 
 a great stage in the Divine revelation, its main 
 interest closes with the destruction of Jerusalem 
 in 70 A.D. From that date its present living 
 force was stayed, and its history is a record of 
 the human shapes in which the Divine truths 
 of earlier times were enshrined ἀπ hidden. 
 The old age (αἰὼν) passed away, and the new 
 age began when the Holy City was finally 
 wrested from its citizens and the worship of the 
 Temple closed. 
 
 Yet this shorter period from the Return to 
 the destruction of Jerusalem was pregnant with 
 great changes. Four different dynasties in 
 succession directed the energies and influenced 
 the character of the Jewish nation. The 
 dominion of Persia (536-333 B.c.), of Greece 
 (3833-167 B.c.), of the Asmonaeans (167-63 B.c.), 
 of the Herods (40 Β.6.- ΤῸ A.D.) sensibly furthered 
 in various ways the discipline of the people of 
 God, and prepared the way for a final revelation. 
 An outline of the characteristic features of the 
 several periods is given in other articles. 
 
 Briefly it may be said that the supremacy of 
 
 Persia was marked by the growth of organisa- 
 tion, order, ritual (Cyrus; DISPERSION OF THE 
 Jews], that of Greece by the spread of liberty 
 and speculation [ALEXANDER ; ALEXANDRIA ; 
 HELLENISTS], that of the Asmonaeans by the 
 strengthening of independence and faith [Mac- 
 CABEES], that of the Herods by the final separa- 
 tion of the elements of temporal and spiritual 
 dominion into antagonistic systems [HEROD]; 
 and so at length the inheritance of six centuries, 
 painfully won in times of exhaustion and perse- 
 cution and oppression, was transferred to the 
 treasury of the Christian Church. [Β. F. W.] 
 
 JEW (75), JEWS (8 11", Ch. {NTT 
 in Ezra and Dan.). Originally “ man or men of 
 Judah.” The term first makes its appearance 
 just before the Captivity of the ten tribes, and 
 then is used to denote the men of Judah who 
 held Elath, and were driven out by Rezin king 
 of Syria (2 K. xvi. 6), Elath had been taken by 
 Azariah or Uzziah, and made a colony of Judah 
 (2 K. xiv. 22). The men of Judah in prison 
 with Jeremiah (Jer. xxxii. 12) are called “ Jews’ 
 in our A. V., as are those who deserted to the 
 Chaldeans (Jer. xxxviii. 19), and the fragments 
 of the tribe which were dispersed in Moab, Edom, 
 and among the Ammonites (Jer. xl. 11). Of 
 these latter were the confederates of Ishmael 
 the son of Nethaniah, who were of the blood- 
 royal of Judah (Jer. xli. 3). ‘The fugitives in 
 Egypt (Jer. xliv. 1) belonged to the two tribes, 
 and were distinguished by the name of the more 
 important ; and the same general term is applied 
 to those who were carried captive by Nebuchad- 
 nezzar (Jer. lii. 28, 30) as well as to the remnant 
 which was left in the land (2 K. xxv. 25; Neh. 
 i. 2, ii. 16, &c.). That the term Yéhadi or 
 “Jew ” was in the latter history used of the 
 members of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin 
 without distinction is evident from the case of 
 Mordecai, who, though of the tribe of Benjamin, 
 is called a Jew (Esth. ii. 5, ἄς), while the 
 
 *Mizpah. 
 
 JEZANIAH 1705 
 
 people of the Captivity are called “ the people 
 of Mordecai ” (Esth. iii. 6). After the Captivity 
 the appellation was universally given to those 
 who returned from Babylon. [W. A. W.] 
 
 JEWEL. [PREeciovs Sronzs.} 
 
 JEWESS (Ἰουδαία; Juduer), a woman of 
 Hebrew birth, without distinction of tribe (Acts 
 xvi. 1, xxiv. 24). It is applied in the former 
 passage to Eunice the mother of Eapothy who 
 was unquestionably of Hebrew origin (cp. 2 Tim. 
 ili. 15), and in the latter to Dr usilla, the wile 
 of Felix and daughter of Herod Agrippa I. 
 
 JEWISH ΟἸουδαϊκός ; Judaicus), of or belong- 
 ing to Jews: an epithet applied to the Rabbini- 
 cal legends against which the elder Apostle 
 warns his younger brother (Tit. i. 14). 
 
 JEWRY (15 5 Ἰουδαία ; Judaea), the same 
 word elsewhere rendered Judah and Judaea. It 
 occurs but once in the O. T., Dan. v. 13, in 
 which verse the Chaldee is translated both by 
 Judah and Jewry: the A. V. retaining the 
 latter as it stands in Coverdale, Tyndale, and 
 the Geneva Bible. The variation possibly arose 
 from a too faithful imitation of the Vulz., which 
 has Juda and Judaear. Jewry comes to us 
 through the Norman-French, and is of frequent 
 occurrence in Old English. It is found besides 
 in 1 Esd. i. 32, ii. 4, iv. 49, v. 7, 8, 57, vi. 1, 
 viii. 81, ix. 3; Bel, 33; 2 Macc. x. 24; Luke 
 xxiii. 55 John vii. 1. In the N. T. the earlier 
 English Versions have generally Jewry (Juric) 
 for Judaea, 
 
 JEWS’ LANGUAGE, IN THE (n'37). 
 Literally “ Jewishly:” for the Hebrew must be 
 taken adverbially, as in the LXX. (Ἰουδαϊστὶ) 
 and Vulgate (Judaicé). The term is only used 
 of the language of the two southern tribes after 
 the Captivity of the northern kingdom (2 K. 
 xvill. 26,28; 2 Ch. xxxit. 185) Is. xxxvi. 11 13), 
 and of that spoken by the captives who returned 
 (Neh. xiii. 24). It therefore denotes as well the 
 pure Hebrew as the dialect acquired during the 
 Captivity, which was characterised by Aramaic 
 forms and idioms. Elsewhere (Is. xix. 18) in 
 the poetical language of Isaiah it is called “ the 
 lip of Canaan.” 
 
 JEWS’ RELIGION (2 Mace. viii. 1, xiv. 38; 
 Gal. i. 14, 15). 
 
 JEZANYAH ΟΠ} ΠΛ ΤΣ = Jehovah 
 hears: BS. Ἐρονίας, A. Ἰεζονίας. in Jer. xl. 8: 
 MIN; ᾿Αζαρίας in Jer. xlii. 1: Jezonias), the 
 son of Hoshaiah, the Maachathite, and one of 
 the captains of the for ces, who had escaped from 
 Jerusalem during the final attack of the be- 
 Jeaguering army of the Chaldaeans, In the 
 consequent pursuit, which resulted in the 
 capture of Zedekiah, the army was scattered 
 from him and dispersed throughout the open 
 country among the neighbouring Ammonites 
 and Moabites, watching from thence the progress 
 of events. When the Babylonians had departed, 
 Jezaniah, with the men under his command, was 
 one of the first who returned to Gedaliah at 
 In the events which followed the 
 assassination of that officer Jezaniah took a 
 prominent part. He joined Johanan in the 
 
1706 
 
 pursuit of Ishmael and his murderous associates, 
 and in the general. consternation and distrust 
 which ensued he became one of the foremost 
 advocates of the migration into Egypt, so 
 strongly opposed by Jeremiah. Indeed in their 
 interview with the prophet at the Khan of Chim- 
 ham, when words ran high, Jezaniah (there 
 called Azariah) was apparently the leader in the 
 dispute, and for once took precedence of Johanan 
 (Jer. xliii. 2). In 2 K. xxv. 23 he is called 
 Jaazaniah, in which form the name was easily 
 corrupted into Azariah. 
 
 JEZ'EBEL (38; LXX. and N. T. Ἰεζα- 
 βήλ; Joseph. ᾿Ιεζαβάλη; Jezabel: probably a 
 name, like Agnes, signifying “ chaste,” sine coitu, 
 Gesenius im voc. [see Miiller’s conjecture in 
 M.V."}), wife of Ahab, king of Israel, and 
 mother of Athaliah, queen of Judah, and Ahaziah 
 and Joram, kings of Israel.* She was a Phoe- 
 nician princess, daughter of “ Ethbaal king of 
 the Zidonians” (or Ithobal king of the Syrians 
 and Sidonians, Menander apud Joseph. Ant. viii. 
 13, § 2; c. Apion. i. 18). Her marriage with 
 Ahab was a turning point in the history of 
 Israel. Not only was the union with a 
 Canaanitish wife unprecedented in the northern 
 kingdom, but the character of the queen gave 
 additional force and significance to what might 
 else have been regarded merely as a commercial 
 and political measure, natural to a king devoted, 
 as was Ahab, to the arts of peace and the 
 splendour of regal luxury. She was a woman 
 in whom, with the reckless and licentious habits 
 of an Oriental queen, were united the sternest 
 and fiercest qualities inherent in the Phoenician 
 people. The royal family of Tyre was re- 
 markable at that time both for its religious 
 fanaticism and its savage temper. Her father 
 Ethbaal united with his royal office the priest- 
 hood of the goddess Astarte, and had come to 
 the throne by the murder of his predecessor 
 Phelles (Joseph. ὁ. Ap. i. 18). Thenext genera- 
 tion included within itself Sichaeus, or Matgenes, 
 king and priest of Baal, the murderer Pygmalion, 
 and Elisa or Dido, foundress of Carthage ({}.). 
 Of this stock came Jezebel. In her hands her 
 husband became a mere puppet (1 K. xxi. 25). 
 Even after his death, through the reigns of his 
 sons, her influence was the evil genius of the 
 dynasty. Through the marriage of her daughter 
 Athaliah with the king of Judah, it extended 
 even to the rival kingdom. The wild license of 
 her life, the magical fascination of her arts or 
 of her character, became a proverb in the 
 nation (2 Καὶ, ix. 22). Long afterwards her 
 name lived as the byword for all that was 
 execrable, and in the Apocalypse it is given to 
 a church or an individual® in Asia Minor, 
 
 JEZEBEL 
 
 * Amongst the Spanish Jews the name of Jezebel was 
 given to Isabella “ the Catholic,” in consequence of the 
 detestation in which her memory was held as their 
 persecutor (Ford’s Handbook of Spain, 2nd ed. p. 486). 
 Whether the name Isabella was originally connected 
 with that of Jezebel is doubtful. 
 
 > According to the reading of AB. and the older 
 Versions, it is τὴν γυναῖκα σοῦ, “thy wife.” In that 
 case she must be the wife of the ‘‘ Angel;” and the 
 expression would thus confirm the interpretation which 
 makes “the Angel” to be the Bishop or presiding officer 
 of the Church of Thyatira; and this woman would thus 
 
 JEZEBEL 
 
 combining in like , manner fanaticism and 
 profligacy (Rev. ii. 20). If we may trust the 
 numbers of the text, she must have married 
 Ahab before his accession. He reigned 22 years; 
 and 12 years from that time her grandson 
 Ahaziah was 21 years of age. Her daughter 
 Athaliah must have been born therefore at least 
 37 years before. 
 
 The first effect of her influence was the imme- 
 diate establishment of the Phoenician worship 
 on a grand scale in the court of Ahab. At her 
 table were supported no less than 450 prophets 
 of Baal, and 400 of Astarte (1 K. xvi. 31, 32; 
 xviii. 19). The prophets of Jehovah, who up 
 to this time had found their chief refuge in the 
 northern kingdom, were attacked by her orders 
 and put to the sword (1 K. xviii. 13; 2 K.ix. 7). 
 When at last the people, at the instigation 
 of Elijah, rose against her ministers, and 
 slaughtered them at the foot of Carmel, and 
 when Ahab was terrified into submission, she 
 alone retained her presence of mind; and when 
 she received in the palace of Jezreel the tidings 
 that her religion was all but destroyed (1 K. 
 xix. 1), her only answer was one of those fearful 
 vows which have made the leaders of Semitic 
 nations so terrible whether for good or evil—ex- 
 pressed in a message to the very man who, as it 
 might have seemed but an hour before, had her 
 life in his power :—“ As surely as thow art 
 Elijah and as J am Jezebel (LXX.), so may God 
 do to me and more also, if by this time. to- 
 morrow I make not thy life as the life of one 
 of them” (1 Καὶ. xix. 2). Elijah, who had en- 
 countered undaunted the king and the whole 
 force of the prophets of Baal, “feared ” (LXX.) 
 the wrath of the awful queen, and fled for 
 his life beyond the furthest limits of Israel 
 (1 K. xix. 3). (Enian.] 
 
 The next instance of her power is still more 
 characteristic and complete. When she found 
 her husband cast down by his disappointment at 
 being thwarted by Naboth, she took the matter 
 into her own hands, with a spirit which reminds 
 us of Clytemnestra or Lady Macbeth. “ Dost 
 thou now govern the kingdom of Israel ? (play 
 the king, ποιεῖς βασιλέα. LXX.). Arise and 
 eat bread and let thine heart be merry, and 7 
 will give thee the vineyard of Naboth the 
 Jezreelite ” (1 K. xxi. 7). She wrote a warrant 
 in Ahab’s name, and sealed it with his seal. It 
 was couched in the official language of the 
 Israelite law—a solemn fast—witnesses—a 
 charge of blasphemy—the authorized punish- 
 ment of stoning. To her, and not to Ahab, was 
 sent the announcement that the royal wishes 
 were accomplished (1 K. xxi. 14), and she bade 
 her husband go and take the vacant property; 
 and on her accordingly fell the prophet’s curse, 
 as well as on her husband (1 K. xxi. 23), 
 
 We hear no more of her for a long period. 
 But she survived Ahab by 14 years, and still, as 
 queen-mother (after the Oriental custom), was _ 
 a great personage in the court of her sons, and, _ 
 as such, became the special mark for vengeance 
 when Jehu advanced against Jezreel to over- 
 throw the dynasty of Ahab. “What peace so 
 long as the whoredoms of thy mother Jezebel 
 
 be his wife. Modern texts and critics, however, gene- 
 rally adopt the reading τὴν γυναῖκα, ‘‘the woman” (see 
 Speaker’s Comm. in loco), 
 
JEZEBEL 
 
 and her witchcrafts are so many ?” (2 K. ix. 22). 
 But in that supreme hour of her house the 
 spirit of the aged queen rose within her, equal 
 to the dreadful emergency. She was in the 
 palace, which stood by the gate of the city, 
 overlooking the approach from the east. Beneath 
 lay the open space under the city walls. She 
 determined to face the destroyer of her family, 
 whom she saw rapidly advancing in his chariot.° 
 She painted her eyelids in the Eastern fashion 
 with antimony, so as to give a darker border to 
 the eyes and make them look larger and brighter 
 (Keil), possibly in order to induce Jehu, after 
 the manner of Eastern usurpers, to take her, the 
 widow of his predecessor, for his wife,? but more 
 probably as the last act of regal splendour. She 
 tired (made good”) her head, and, looking 
 down upon him from the high latticed window 
 in the tower (Joseph. Ant. ix. 6, § 4), she met 
 him by an allusion to a former act of treason in 
 the history of her adopted country, which 
 conveys a different expression, according as we 
 take one or other of the different interpretations 
 given to it. (1) “Was there peace to Zimri, 
 who slew his ‘lord’?” as if to remind Jehu, 
 now in the fulness of his triumph, how Omri, 
 the founder of the dynasty which he was de- 
 stroying, had himself come into power as the 
 avenger of Zimri, who had murdered Baasha, 
 as he now had murdered Jehoram; or (2) a 
 direct address to Jehu, as a second Zimri: ‘Is 
 it peace?” (following up the question of her 
 son in 2 K, ix. 21). “Is it peace, O Zimri, 
 slayer of his lord ?”’ (So Keil and LXX. 7 eiph- 
 yn Ζαμβρὶ 6 φονευτὴς τοῦ κυρίου αὐτοῦ;) Or 
 (3) “ Peace to Zimri, who slew his “Ἰογὰ ᾽"-- 
 (according to Josephus, Ant. ix. 6, § 4, καλὸς 
 δοῦλος ὁ ἀποκτείνας τὸν beomotHv)—which again 
 may be taken either as an ironical welcome, or 
 (according to Ewald, iii. 166, 260) as a reminder 
 that as Zimri had spared the seraglio of Baasha, 
 so she was prepared to welcome Jehu. The 
 general character of Jezebel, and the doubt as 
 to the details of the history of Zimri, would 
 lead us rather to adopt the sterner view of her 
 speech. Jehu looked up from his chariot—and 
 his answer, again, is variously given in the 
 LXX. and in the Hebrew text. In the former 
 he exclaims, “ Who art thow?—Come down to 
 me.” In the latter, “Who is on my side, 
 who?” In either case the issue is the same. 
 Two or three eunuchs of the royal harem show 
 their faces at the windows, and at his command 
 dashed® the ancient princess down from the 
 chamber. She fell immediately in front of the 
 eonqueror’s chariot. The blood flew from her 
 mangled corpse over the palace-wall behind, and 
 over the advancing horses in front. The merci- 
 less destroyer passed on; and the last remains 
 of life were trampled out by the horses’ hoofs. 
 The body was left in that open space called in 
 modern Eastern language “the mounds,” where 
 offal is thrown from the city-walls. The dogs 
 of Eastern cities, which prowl around these 
 localities, and which the present writer met on 
 
 ¢ A graphic conception of this scene occurs in Racine’s 
 Athalie, Act 11. Se. 5. 
 ἃ According to the explanation of 5. Ephrem Cyrus 
 ad loc: a 
 εν», “dash,” as from a precipice (Ps. exli. 6). 
 sal b 
 
 JEZOAR 1707 
 
 this very spot by the modern village which 
 occupies the site of Jezreel, pounced upon this 
 unexpected prey. Nothing was left by them 
 but the hard portions of the human skeleton, 
 the skull, the hands, and the feet. Such was 
 the sight which met the eyes of the messengers 
 of Jehu, whom he had sent from his triumphal 
 banquet, struck with a momentary feeling of 
 compassion for the fall of so much greatness : 
 “Go, see now this cursed woman and bury 
 her, for she is a king’s daughter.” When he 
 heard the fate of the body, he exclaimed in 
 words which no doubt were long remembered as 
 the epitaph of the greatest and wickedest of the 
 queens of Israel: “This is the word of Jehovah, 
 which He spake by His servant Elijah the Tish- 
 bite, saying, In the portion’ of Jezreel shall 
 ‘the’ dogs eat the flesh of Jezebel; and the 
 carcase of Jezebel shall be as dung on the face 
 of the earth; so that they shall not say, This is 
 Jezebel” (2 K. ix. 36, 37). [A. P. 8.] 
 
 JEZE'LUS (Ἰεζήῆλος 3 Zecholeus). 1. The 
 same as JAWAZIEL (1 Esd. viii. 32). 
 
 2. (Jehelus.) ΦΈΠΙΕΙ,, the father of Obadiah 
 (1 Esd. viii. 35). 
 
 JE’ZER (V3$*=formation: Ἴσσααρ in Gen. 
 xlvi. 24; B. Ἰεσέρ, A. Ἰεσρί, in Num. xxvi. 49; 
 B. Ἰσσειήρ, A. Sadp, in 1 Ch. vii. 13: Jeser), the 
 third son of Naphtali, and father of the family 
 of the Jezerites, who were numbered in the 
 plains of Moab. ; 
 
 JEZ'ERITES, THE ΟΠ; B. 6 Ἰεσερεί, 
 A. 6 Ἰεσρί, F. 6 Ἰεσερί ; Jeseritae). A family of 
 the tribe of Naphtali, descendants of Jezer 
 (Num. xxvi. 49). 
 
 JEZVAH CBN = Jehovah makes to spring 
 up [MV.4]; B. ᾿Α(εά, ἐξ, ᾿Αδειά, A. ᾿Αζία; 
 Jezia), properly Yizziyyah, a descendant of 
 Parosh, and one of the laymen who, after the 
 return from Babylon, had married strange wives, 
 and at kKzra’s bidding had promised to put them 
 away (Ezra x. 25). In 1 Esd. ix. 26 he is called 
 Eddias. The Syriac of Ezra reads Jezaniah. 
 
 JEZEL (yi, Geri Sy, which is the 
 reading of some MSS.; B. Ἰωήλ, A. ᾿Αζήλ; 
 Jaziel), one of the skilled Benjamite archers 
 or slingers who joined David in his retreat at 
 Ziklag. He was probably the son of Azmaveth 
 of Bahurim, one of David’s heroes (1 Ch. xii. 3). 
 In the Syriac Jeziel is omitted, and the sons of 
 Azmaveth are there Pelet and Berachah. 
 
 JEZLY'AH (AN; B. Ζαρειά, A. Ἐ(λιά), 
 one of a long list of Benjamite heads of houses, 
 
 sons of Elpaal, who dwelt at Jerusalem (1 Ch. 
 viii. 18). (A. C. H.] 
 
 JEZO'AR qns) ; Σαάρ ; Isaar), the son of 
 Helah, one of the wives of Asher, the father or 
 
 founder of Tekoa, and posthumous son of Hezron 
 (1 Ch. iv. 7). The Qeri has IM) “ and Zohar,” 
 
 which was followed by the LXX. and by the 
 A. V. of 1611, 
 
 f nbn, *€ smooth field.” 
 
1708 JEZRAHIAH 
 
 JEZRAHVAH (AT = Jehovah shines 
 forth; om. BN*A.; Jezrdia), a Levite, the 
 ‘leader of the choristers at the solemn dedication 
 of the wall of Jerusalem under Nehemiah 
 (Neh. xii. 42). The singers had built themselves 
 villages in the environs of the city and the 
 Oasis of the Jordan, and with the minstrels 
 they gathered themselves together at the first 
 summons to keep the dedication with gladness. 
 
 JEZ'RE-EL ONvW=God will sow; B. 
 ᾿Αφραήλ, A. Ἰεφιήλ; Jezrahel), according to 
 the received text, a descendant of the father or 
 founder of Etam, of the line of Judah (1 Ch. 
 iv. 3). But as the verse now stands, we must 
 supply some such word as “ families: ” ‘these 
 (are the families of) the father of Etam.” Both 
 the LXX. and Vulg. read 1), “sons,” for "Δ ἕξ, 
 “father,” and six of Kennicott’s MSS. have the 
 same, while in two of De Rossi’s the readings 
 are combined. ‘The Syriac is singularly different 
 from all: ‘“ And these are the sons of Aminodob, 
 Achizar’el, &c., Neshmo, and Dibosh,” the last 
 clause of v. 3 being entirely omitted. But, 
 although the Syriac text of the Chronicles is so 
 corrupt as to be of little authority in this case, 
 there can be no doubt that the genealogy in 
 vv. 3, 4 is so confused as to be attended with 
 almost insuperable difficulties. 'Tremellius and 
 Junius regard Etam as the proper name of a 
 person, and Jezreel as one of his sons, while 
 Bertheau considers them both names of places. 
 The Targum on Chron. has, “ And these are the 
 Rabbis dwelling at Etam, Jezreel,” &c. Inv. 4 
 Hur is referred to as the ancestor of this branch 
 of the tribe of Judah, and therefore, if the pre- 
 sent text be adopted, we must read, “and these, 
 viz. Abi-Etam, Jezreel,” &c. But the probability 
 is that in v. 3 a clause has been omitted. 
 
 [W. A. W.] 
 
 JEZ-RE-EL (ONY: LXX. Ἰεσραέλ, *le¢- 
 pacar, Ἰεζφραήλ, Ἐσραέ; B. Ἰαζήλ, Ἰσραήλ, 
 Ἔ(ερεέλ ; A. also Ἰεζαβέλ: Jezrahel, Jezraél, 
 Jesraél: Joseph. Ἰεσράηλα, Ant. viii. 13, § 6; 
 Ἰεσράελα, Ant. ix. 6, § 43 "I¢dpa,* Ant. viii. 15, 
 δὲ 4, 6; Ἐσδρήλωμ, or "Ecdphawy, Judith i. 8, 
 ili. 9; B. Ἐσρηλών, A. Ἐσερηχῶ, Judith iv. 6; 
 Eusebius, "Eodpanad, 5. v. ᾿Ιεζραέλ [OS.2 p. 268, 
 52]; Jerome, /ezrahel[OS.? p. 165,14]; Bordeaux 
 Pilgrim [Jtin. Hierosol. p. 586], Latinized into 
 Stradela). Its modern name is Zer‘in, which is in 
 fact the same word, and which first appears in 
 William of Tyre (xxii. 26) as Gerin (Gerinum), 
 and Benjamin of Tudela as Zarzin. The history 
 of the identification of these names is well given 
 in Robinson, B. R. 1st ed. iii, 163, 165, and is 
 curious as an example of the tenacity of a local 
 tradition, in spite of the carelessness of modern 
 travellers. According to Eusebius and Jerome 
 (/. c.), it was in the great plain between Legio, 
 Lejjun, and Scythopolis, Beisén. In the Jtin. 
 4ierosol. its distance from Scythopolis is given 
 as xii. M.P. 
 
 The name is used in Josh. xvii. 16, Judg. vi. 
 33, 2 Sam. ii. 9 and (?) iv. 4, and Hos. i. 5, for 
 
 5. In Jos. Ant. vii. 13, ὁ 6, it is called Ἰεσράηλα, 
 Ἰζάρου (Havercamp., ᾿Ισαχάρου) πόλις : in viii, 13, § 7, 
 Ἰζάρου πόλις singly ; in viii. 15, §§ 4, 6, Ἴζαρα. Various 
 readings are given of Ἰεζαρά, ᾿Ακάρου, ᾿Λζάρου, ᾿Αζάρα. 
 
 JEZREEL 
 
 the valley or plain between Gilboa and Little 
 Hermon; and to this plain, in its widest extent, 
 the general form of the name Esdraelon (first 
 used in Judith i. 8) has been applied in modern 
 times. It is probably from the richness of the 
 plain that the name is derived, “‘ God soweth,” 
 “God’s sowing.” For the events connected 
 with this great battle-field of Palestine, see 
 ESDRAELON. 
 
 In its more limited sense, as applied to the 
 city, it first appears in Josh. xix. 18, where it 
 is mentioned as a city of Issachar, in the neigh- 
 bourhood of Chesulloth and Shunem; and it 
 had citizens (1 Κα. xxi. 1-3), elders, and nobles 
 of its own (1 K. xxi. 8-11, 2 K. x, 1-11). But 
 
 its historical importance dates from the reign of ~ 
 
 Ahab; who chose it for his chief residence, as 
 
 Omri had chosen Samaria, and Baasha Tirzah. 
 The situation of the modern village of Zer‘in 
 
 still remains to show the fitness of his choice. 
 
 It is on one of the gentle swells which rise out of 
 
 the fertile plain of Esdraelon; but with two 
 peculiarities which mark it out from the rest. 
 One is its strength. On the N.E. the hill pre- 
 sents a steep rocky descent of at least 100 feet 
 (Robinson, 1st ed. iii. 162; PEF. Mem. ii. 88; 
 Guérin, Samarie, i. 311 sq.). The other is its 
 central locality. It stands at the opening of the 
 middle branch of the three eastern forks of the 
 plain, and looks straight towards the wide 
 western level; thus commanding the view to- 
 wards the Jordan on the east (2 K. ix. 17), and 
 visible from Carmel on the west (1 K. xviii. 
 45, 46). 
 
 In the neighbourhood, or within the town pro- 
 bably, was a temple and grove of Astarte, with 
 an establishment of 400 priests supported by 
 Jezebel (1 K. xvi. 33; 2K. x. 11). The palace 
 of Ahab (1 K. xxi. 1, xviii. 46), probably con- 
 taining his “ivory house” (1 K. xxii. 39), was 
 
 on the eastern side of the city, forming part of 
 
 the city wall (cp. 1 K. xxi. 1; 2 K. ix. 25, 30, 
 33). The seraglio, in which Jezebel lived, was 
 on the city wall, and had a high window facing 
 eastward (2 K. ix. 30). Close by, if not forming 
 part of this seraglio (as Josephus supposes, στᾶσα 
 ἐπὶ τοῦ πύργου, Ant. ix. 6, ὃ 4), was a watch- 
 tower, well known as “the tower in Jezreel,” on 
 which a sentinel stood, to give notice of arrivals 
 from the disturbed district beyond the Jordan 
 (2 K. ix. 17). The gateway of the city on the 
 east was also the gateway of the palace (2 K. ix. 
 34). Immediately in front of the gateway, and 
 under the city wall, was an open space, such as 
 existed before the neighbouring city of Beth- 
 shan (2 Sam. xxi. 12), and is usually found by 
 the walls of Eastern cities, under the name of 
 “the mounds” (see Arabian Nights, passim), 
 whence the dogs, the scavengers of the East, 
 prowled in search of offal (2 K. ix. 25). Here 
 Jezebel met with her end (2 K. is. 35). 
 [JEZEBEL.] A little further East, but adjoining 
 to the royal domain (1 K. xxi. 1), was a smooth 
 tract of land cleared out of the uneven valley 
 (2 K. ix. 25), which belonged to Naboth, a 
 citizen of Jezreel (2 K. ix. 25), by an hereditary 
 right (1 K. xxi, 3); but the royal grounds were 
 so near that it would have been easily turned 
 into a garden of herbs for the royal use (1 K. 
 xxi. 2, cp. v. 23). Here Elijah met Ahab, Jehu, 
 and Bidkar (1 K. xxi. 17, 18); and here Jehu 
 met Joram and Ahaziah (2 K, ix. 21, 25), 
 
 he et ey». 
 
JEZREEL 
 
 {En1izaAu; Jenu.) Whether the vineyard of 
 Naboth was here or at Samaria is a doubtful 
 question. [Naxoru.] Jezreel is also mentioned 
 in 1 Sam. xxix. 11; 1K. iv. 12; 2 K. viii. 29, ix. 
 20) 15, 37; 2 Ch. xxii. 6. 
 
 Still in the same eastern direction are two 
 springs, one half a mile, the other one and a half 
 miles from the town. ‘The former, ‘din el- 
 Meiyiteh, issues from the rock, and atlords a good 
 supply of clear water. ‘The latter, ‘Ain Jalud, 
 “flows from under a sort of cavern in the wall 
 of conglomerate rock, which here forms the base 
 of Gilboa, The water is excellent ; and issuing 
 from crevices in the rocks, it spreads out at once 
 into a fine limpid pool, 40 or 50 feet in diameter, 
 full of fish” (Robinson, Bb. 2. iii. 168). The 
 ‘Ain Jalid, both from its size and situation, 
 would appear to have been the spring known as 
 “the (A. V. a) fountain which is in Jezreel ” 
 (1 Sam. xxix. 1), “e. in the valley of Jezreel (cp. 
 Josh. xvii. 6; 2 Sam. ii. 9, &c.). Perhaps also 
 the ‘Ain Jdlid was the spring (A. V. well) of 
 Manon, where Gideon encamped before his night 
 attack on the Midianites (Judg. vii. 1). 
 
 According to Josephus (Ant. viii. 15, §§ 4, 6), 
 the fountain of Jezreel, and the pool attached 
 to it, was the spot where Naboth and his sons 
 were executed, where the dogs and swine licked 
 up their blood and that. of Ahab, and where the 
 harlots bathed in the blood-stained water (LXX.). 
 But the natural inference from the present text 
 of 1 K. xxii. 58 makes the scene of these events 
 to be the pool of Samaria. [See NaBoru. | 
 
 With the fall of the house of Ahab the glory 
 of Jezreel departed. No other king is described 
 as living there, and the name was so deeply 
 associated with the family of its founder, that 
 when the Divine retribution overtook the house 
 of their destroyer, the eldest child of the pro- 
 phet Hosea, who was to be a living witness of 
 the coming vengeance, was called “ Jezreel:” 
 “for I will avenge the blood of Jezreel upon the 
 house of Jehu... and at that day I will 
 break the bow of Israel in the valley of Jezreel ; 
 -.. and great shall be the day of Jezreel” 
 (Hos. i. 4,5, 11). And then out of that day 
 and place of humiliation the name is to go back 
 to its original signification as derived from the 
 beauty and fertility of the rich plain, and to 
 become a pledge of the revived beauty and 
 richness of Israel, ‘I will ‘hear and answer’ 
 the heavens, and ‘ they will hear and answer’ 
 the earth, and the earth shall ‘hear and an- 
 swer’ the corn and the wine and the oil [of that 
 fruitful plain], and they shall ‘ hear and answer’ 
 Jezreel {that is, the seed of God], and J will 
 sow her unto me in the earth ” (Hos. ii. 22; see 
 Ewald ad loc., and Gesenius in voce Jezreel). 
 From this time the image seems to have been 
 continued as a prophetical expression for the 
 sowing the people of Israel, as it were broad- 
 cast ; as though the whole of Palestine and the 
 world were to become, in a spiritual sense, one 
 rich plain of Jezreel. ‘I will sow them among 
 the people, and they shall remember me in far 
 countries” (Zech. x. 9). “Ye shall be tilled 
 and sown, and I will multiply men upon you” 
 (Ezek. xxxvi. 9,10). “I will sow the house of 
 Israel and the house of Judah with the seed of 
 men and with the seed of beast’ (Jer. xxxi. 27). 
 Hence the consecration of the image of “sow- 
 ing,” as it appears in the N. T., Matt. xiii. 2. 
 
 JIPHTAH 1709 
 
 2. (B. Ἰαριήλ, A. Ἰεζδραὲλ in Josh. ; B. Ἰσ- 
 ραηλεῖτις, A. Εἰζραηλεῖτις :; A. ἸΙζαηλεῖτις in 
 1 Sam. xxx.).. A town in Judah, in the neigh- 
 bourhood of the southern Carmel (Josh. xv. 56). 
 Here David in his wanderings took Ahinoam 
 the Jezreelitess for his first wife (1 Sam, xxvii. 3, 
 xxx. 5). The site is unknown. 
 
 [A.P.S.] (WJ 
 
 JEZ-RE-EL Oxy; Ἰεζράελ; Jezrahel). 
 The eldest son of the Prophet Hosea (Hos, i. 4), 
 significantly so called because Jehovah said 
 to the Prophet, “ Yet a little while and I will 
 avenge the blood of Jezreel upon the house of 
 Jehu,” and “ [ will ibreak the bow of Israel in 
 
 the valley of Jezreel.” [W. A. W.] 
 
 JEZ'RE-ELITE (ONY: B. -ει-, A. -irns; 
 once 2 K, ix. 21 "I¢panalrns : Jezrahelita). An 
 inhabitant of Jezreel (1 K. xxi. 1, 4, 6, 7, 15, 
 16; 2K. ix. 21, 25). ΓΝ. A. W.] 
 
 JEZRE-ELI'TESS (ΠΝ ΡΣ τ B. Ἰσραη- 
 λεῖτις and -Airns; A. Εἰζραηλεῖτις, ᾿Ιζραηλεῖτις, 
 Ισραηλῖτις : Jezrahelitis, Jezréelites, Jezriclitis). 
 A woman of Jezreel (1 Sam. xxvii. 3, xxx. 5; 
 2 Sam. ii. 2, iii, 2; 1 Ch. iii, 1). [W. A. W.] 
 
 JIB’SAM, R. V. IB'SAM (oY); Ἰεμασάν, 
 B. Βασάν, A. ἸἸεβασάν ; Jebsem), one of the 
 sons of ‘lola the son of Issachar, who were 
 heads of their father’s house and heroes of 
 might in their generations (1 Ch. vii. 2). His 
 descendants appear to have served in David’s 
 army, and with others of the same clan mus- 
 tered to the number of upwards of 22,000. 
 
 JID'LAPH (497); Α. Ἰελδάφ, D. om.; Jed- 
 laph), a son of Nahor (Gen. xxii. 22), or a Naho- 
 rean; probably a chief and clan or tribe of the 
 Nahorites (Arameans) who were settled at Har- 
 ran (Carrhae) on the E. side of the Euphrates. 
 See Ewald, Hist. Isr. i. 287, Eng. Tr. As to the 
 meaning of the name Jidlaph, cp. the Aramaic 
 
 aN, yedlaph, stillat, ta\o, delpha, stil- 
 
 latio, with Num. xxiv. 7, whence we may infer 
 that the name signifies “ prolific.” [C. J. B.} 
 
 JIM'NA, R. V. IM’NAH (1213); Ἰαμίν, A. 
 Ἴαμείν ; Jemna), the firstborn of Asher, repre- 
 sented in the numbering on the plains of Moab 
 by his descendants the Jimnites (Num. xxvi. 
 44). He is elsewhere called in the A. V. 
 JimNAH (Gen. xlvi. 17) and Imnan {1 Ch. vii. 
 30), the Hebrew in both instances being the 
 same. 
 
 JIM’NAH, R. V. IM’NAH (ID); Ἴεμνά, 
 A. Ἰεμνά; Jamne)=Juisa=Iunau (Gen. xlvi. 
 17). 
 
 JIM’NITES, R. V. IM’NITES, THE 
 (A217, ie. the Jimnah; Sam. and one MS. 
 OT: 6 Ἰαμινί, Β. Ἰαμεινεί, A. 6 Ἰαμεινί: 
 Jemnaitae), descendants of the preceding (Num. 
 xxvi. 44). 
 
 JIPH’TAH, R. V. IPH’TAH (MMB), te. 
 Yiftach; B. omits, A. "lep@d; Jephtha), one of 
 
 the cities of Judah in the maritime lowland, or 
 Shefelah (Josh. xv. 43). It is named in the 
 
1710 JIPHTHAH-EL 
 
 same group with Mareshah, Nezib, and others. 
 Both the last-meutioned places have been dis- 
 covered, the former to the south, the latter to 
 the east of Beit Jibrin, not as we should expect 
 on the plain, but in the mountains. Here Jiph- 
 tah may some day be found, though it has not 
 yet been met with. ΡΠ] + TW] 
 JIPH’THAH-EL, R. V. IPH’TAH-EL, 
 THE VALLEY OF (NAD 14: Γαιφαήλ, 
 ἐκ Tal καὶ Φθαιήλ; A. Tat ᾿Ιεφθαήλ, ἐν Tal 
 ἸΙεφθαήλ : vallis Jephtahel), a valley which 
 served as one of the land-marks for the boun- 
 dary both of Zebulun (Josh. xix. 14) and Asher 
 (v. 21). The position of this ravine, Gaz, is not 
 known. . Robinson suggested (Later Res. p. 107) 
 that Jiphthah-el was identical with Jotapata, 
 the city which so long withstood Vespasian 
 (Joseph. B. J. iii. 7), and that they survive in 
 the modern Jefut, a village in the mountains of 
 Galilee, half-way between the Bay of Acre and 
 the Lake of Gennesareth. But this is too far 
 to the south. Conder (Hbf. p. 267) with more 
 probability identifies it with the valley running 
 from the plain of Rameh to the sea. Conder 
 has also suggested (PEF.Qy. Stat. 1883, p. 137) 
 Wady el-Kurn; but this valley lies to the 
 north of the ridge that so sharply separated 
 Upper from Lower Galilee, and possibly marked 
 the northern limit of Zebulun. [αὐ ΝΣ] 
 
 JO'AB (ANY =Jehovah-father ;"lweB ; Joab), 
 1. The eldest and most remarkable of the three 
 nephews of David, the children of Zeruiah, 
 David’s sister. ‘Their father is unknown,* but 
 seems to haye resided at Bethlehem, and to have 
 died before his sons, as we find mention of his 
 sepulchre at that place (2 Sam. 11, 32). They 
 all exhibit the activity and courage of David’s 
 constitutional character. But they never rise 
 beyond this to the nobler qualities which lift 
 him above the wild soldiers and chieftains of the 
 time. Asahel, who was cut off in his youth, 
 and seems to have been the darling of the family, 
 is only known to us from his gazelle-like agility 
 (2 Sam. ii. 18). Abishai and Joab are alike in 
 their implacable revenge. Joab, however, com- 
 bines with these ruder qualities something of 
 a more statesman-like character, which brings 
 him more nearly to a level with his youthful 
 uncle; and unquestionably gives him the second 
 place in the whole history of David’s reign. 
 
 I. He first appears after David’s accession to 
 the throne at Hebron, thus differing from his 
 brother Abishai, who was already David’s com- 
 panion during his wanderings (1 Sam. xxvi. 6). 
 He with his two brothers went out from Hebron 
 at the head of David’s “servants,” or guards, to 
 keep a watch on the movements of Abner, who 
 with a considerable force of Benjamites had 
 crossed the Jordan, and come as far as Gibeon, 
 perhaps on a pilgrimage to the sanctuary. The 
 two parties sat opposite each other, on each side 
 of the tank by that city. Abner’s challenge, to 
 which Joab assented, led to a desperate struggle 
 between twelve champions from either side. 
 {GiBEON.] The left-handed Benjamites, and the 
 right-handed men of Judah—their sword-hands 
 
 a By Josephus (Anfé. vii. 1, § 3) his name is given as 
 Suri (Ξουρί) : but this may be merely a repetition of 
 Sarouiah (Σαρουΐα). 
 
 JOAB 
 
 thus coming together—seized each his adversary 
 by the head, and the whole number fell by the 
 mutual wounds they received. 
 
 This roused the blood of the rival tribes; a 
 general encounter ensued; Abner and his com- 
 pany were defeated, and in his flight, being hard 
 pressed. by the swift-footed Asahel, he reluctantly 
 killed the unfortunate youth. The expressions’ 
 which he uses, “ Wherefore should I smite thee 
 to the ground ? how then should I hold up my 
 face to Joab thy brother?” (2 Sam. ii. 22), imply 
 that up to this time there had been a kindly, if 
 not a friendly, feeling between the two chiefs. 
 It was rudely extiuguished by this deed of blood. 
 The other soldiers of Judah, when they came up 
 to the dead body of their young leader, halted, ~ 
 struck dumb by grief. But his two brothers, 
 on seeing the corpse, only hurried on with 
 greater fury in the pursuit. At sunset the 
 Benjamite force rallied round Abner,” and he 
 then made an appeal to the generosity of Joab 
 not to push the war to extremities. Joab re- 
 luctantly consented, drew off his troops, and 
 returned, after the loss of only nineteen men, to 
 Hebron. They took the corpse of Asahel with 
 them, and on the way halted at Bethlehem in 
 the early morning, or at dead of night, to 
 inter it in their family burial-place (2 Sam. 
 ii. 32). 
 
 But Joab’s revenge on Abner was only post- 
 poned. He had been on another of these pre- 
 datory excursions from Hebron, when he was 
 informed on his return that Abner had in his 
 absence paid a visit to David, and been received 
 into favour (2 Sam. iii. 23). He broke out into 
 a violent remonstrance with the king, and then, 
 without David’s knowledge, immediately sent 
 messengers after Abner, who was overtaken by 
 them at the well of Sirah, according to Josephus 
 (Ant. vii. 1, § 5), about two miles from Hebren.° 
 Abner, with the unsuspecting generosity of 
 his noble nature, returned at once. Joab and 
 Abishai met him in the gateway of the town; 
 Joab took him aside (2 Sam. iii. 27), as if with 
 a peaceful intention, and then struck him a 
 deadly blow “under the fifth rib.” It is possible 
 that with the passion of vengeance for his 
 brother may have been mingled the fear lest 
 Abner should supplant him in the king’s favour. 
 David burst into passionate invective and im- 
 precations on Joab when he heard of the act, 
 and forced him to appear in sackcloth and torn 
 garments at the funeral (iii. 31). But it was 
 an intimation of Joab’s power which David 
 never forgot. The awe in which he stood of the 
 sons of Zeruiah cast a shade over the whole re- 
 mainder of his life (iii. 39). 
 
 II. There was now no rival left in the way 
 of Joab’s advancement, and soon the opportunity 
 occurred for his legitimate accession to the 
 highest post that David could confer. At the 
 siege of Jebus, the king offered the office of 
 chief of the army, now grown into a “host,” to 
 
 b The word describing the halt of Abner’s band, and 
 rendered ‘‘troop” in the A. V. and “band” in the R. V. 
 (2 Sam. ii. 25), is an unusual one, FIN (Aguddah), 
 
 να 
 
 elsewhere employed for a bunch or knot of hyssop. 
 
 ὁ Possibly the spring which still exists about that 
 distance out of Hebron on the left of the road going 
 northward, and bears the name of ‘Ain-Serah. The road 
 bas doubtless always followed the same track 
 
—= 
 
 JOAB 
 
 any one who would lead the forlorn hope, and 
 scale the precipice on which the besieged fortress 
 stood. With an agility equal to that of David 
 himself, or of his brother Asahel, Joab succeeded 
 in the attempt, and became in consequence com- 
 mander-in-chief—* captain of the host ”’—the 
 same oflice that Abner had held under Saul, the 
 highest in the state after the king (1 Ch. xi. 6; 
 2 Sam. viii. 16). His importance was immedi- 
 ately shown by his undertaking the fortification 
 of the conquered city, in conjunction with David 
 (1 Ch, xi. 8). 
 
 In this post he was content, and served the 
 king with undeviating fidelity. In the wide 
 range of wars which David undertook, Joab was 
 the acting general, and he therefore may be con- 
 sidered as the founder, as far as military prowess 
 was concerned, the Marlborough, the Belisarius, 
 of the Jewish empire. Abishai, his brother, 
 still accompanied him, as captain of the king’s 
 “mighty men” (1 Ch. xi. 20; 2 Sam. x. 10). 
 He had a chief armour-bearer of his own, 
 Naharai, a Beerothite (2 Sam. xxiii. 37; 1 Ch. 
 xi. 39), and ten attendants to carry his equip- 
 ment and baggage (2 Sam. xviii. 15). He had 
 the charge, formerly belonging to the king or 
 judge, of giving the signal by trumpet for 
 advance or retreat (2 Sam. xviii. 16). He was 
 called by the almost regal title of “ Lord” (2 
 Sam. xi. 11), “the prince of the king’s army” 
 (1 Ch. xxvii. 54). His usual residence (except 
 when campaigning) was in Jerusalem; hut he 
 had a house and property, with barley-fields 
 adjoining, in the country (2 Sam. xiv. 30), inthe 
 “ wilderness ” (1 K. ii. 34), probably on the N.E. 
 of Jerusalem (cp. 1 Sam. xiii. 18; Josh. viii. 15, 
 20), near an ancient sanctuary, called from its 
 nomadic village “ Baalhazor” (2 Sam. xiii. 23 ; 
 ep. with xiv. 30), where there were extensive 
 sheepwalks. It is possible that this “house of 
 Joab” may have given its name to Ataroth, 
 Beth-Joab (1 Ch. ii. 54), to distinguish it from 
 Ataroth-adar.. There were two Ataroths in the 
 tribe of Benjamin [see ATAROTH]. 
 
 1. His great war was that against Ammon, 
 which he conducted in person. It was divided 
 into three campaigns. (a) The first was against 
 the allied forces of Syria and Ammon. He 
 attacked and defeated the Syrians, whilst his 
 brother Abishai did the same for the Ammon- 
 ites. The Syrians rallied with their kindred 
 tribes from beyond the Euphrates, and were 
 finally routed by David himself. [HapDaRE- 
 ZER.| (0) The second was against Edom. The 
 decisive victory was gained by David himself in 
 the “ valley of salt,” and celebrated by a tri- 
 umphal monument (2 Sam. viii. 13). But Joab 
 had the charge of carrying out the victory, and 
 yemained for six months, extirpating the male 
 population, whom he then buried in the tombs 
 
 -of Petra (1 K. xi. 15, 16). So long was the 
 terror of his name preserved that only when the 
 
 fugitive prince of Edom, in the Egyptian court, 
 heard that “David slept with his fathers, and 
 that Joab the captain of the host was dead,” did 
 he venture to return to his own country (ib. xi. 
 21, 22). (c) The third was against the Ammon- 
 ites. They were again left to Joab (2 Sam. x. 
 
 7-19). He went against them at the beginning 
 
 of the next year “at the time when kings go 
 -out to battle”—to the siege of Rabbah. The 
 
 ,. 
 
 Ark was sent with him, and the whole army was 
 
 JOAB 1711 
 
 encamped in booths or huts round the belea- 
 guered city (2 Sam. xi. 1, 11). After a sortie ot 
 the inhabitants, which caused some loss to the 
 Jewish army, Joab took the lower city on the 
 river, and then, with true loyalty, sent to urge 
 David to come and take the citadel, “ Rabbah,” 
 lest the glory of the capture should pass from 
 the king to his general (2 Sam. xii. 26-28). 
 
 2. The services of Joab to the king were 
 not confined to these military achievements. In 
 the entangled relations which grew up in 
 David’s domestic life, he bore an important part. 
 (a) The first occasion was the unhappy corre- 
 spondence which passed between him and the king 
 during the Ammonite war respecting Uriah the 
 Hittite, which led to the treacherous sacrifice 
 of Uriah in the above-mentioned sortie (2 Sam. 
 xi. 1-25). It shows both the confidence reposed 
 by David in Joab, and Joab’s too unscrupulous 
 fidelity to David. From the possession which 
 Joab thus acquired of the terrible secret of the 
 royal household, has been dated, with some 
 probability,? his increased power over the mind 
 of the king. 
 
 (6) The next occasion on which it was dis- 
 played was in his successful endeavour to 
 reinstate Absalom in David’s favour, after the 
 murder of Amnon. It would almost seem as if 
 he had been guided by the effect produced on 
 the king by Nathan’s parable. A _ similar 
 apologue he put into the mouth of a “ wise 
 woman of Tekoah.” The exclamation of David 
 on perceiving the application intimates the high 
 opinion which he entertained of his general, ‘Is 
 not the hand of Joab in all this?” (2 Sam. xiy. 
 1-20). <A like indication is found in the con- 
 fidence of Absalom that Joab, who had thus 
 procured his return, could also go a step further 
 and demand his admission to his father’s pre- 
 sence. Joab, who evidently thought that he 
 had gained as much as could be expected (2 Sam. 
 xiv. 22), twice refused to visit the prince, but, 
 having been entrapped into an interview by a 
 stratagem of Absalom, undertook the mission, 
 and succeeded in this also (ib. xiv. 28-33). 
 
 (c) The same keen sense of his master’s 
 interests that had prompted this desire to heal 
 the breach in the royal family ruled the conduct 
 of Joab no less, when the relations of the father 
 and son were reversed by the successful revolt 
 of Absalom. His former intimacy with the 
 prince did not impair his fidelity to the king. 
 He followed him beyond the Jordan, and in the 
 final battle of Ephraim assumed the responsi- 
 bility of taking the rebel prince’s dangerous life 
 in spite of David’s injunction to spare him, and 
 when no one else had courage to act so decisive 
 a part (2 Sam. xviii. 2, 11-15). He was weil 
 aware of the terrible effect it would have on the 
 king (ib, xviii. 20), and on this account possibly 
 dissuaded his young friend Ahimaaz from bearing 
 the news ; but when the tidings had been broken, 
 he had the spirit himself to rouse David from 
 the frantic grief which would have been fatal 
 to the royal cause (2 Sam. xix. 5-7). His stern 
 resolution (as he had himself anticipated) well- 
 nigh proved fatal to his own interests. The 
 king could not forgive it, and went so far in his 
 unreasonable resentment as to transfer the com- 
 
 ἃ See Blunt’s Coincidences, ii., ch. xi. 
 
1712 JOAB 
 
 mand of the army from the too faithful Joab to 
 his other nephew Amasa, the son of Abigail, 
 who had even sided with the insurgents (2 Sam. 
 xix. 32). In like manner he returned only a 
 reproachtul answer to the vindictive loyalty of 
 Joab’s brother, Abishai (ib. 22). 
 
 (d) Nothing brings out more strongly the good 
 and bad qualities of Joab than his conduct in 
 this trying crisis of his history. On the one 
 hand, he remained still faithful to his master. 
 On the other hand, as before in the case of 
 Abner, he was determined not to lose the post 
 he so highly valued. Amasa was commander- 
 in-chief, but Joab had still his own small 
 following of attendants; and with him were 
 the mighty men commanded by his brother 
 Abishai (2 Sam. xx. 7, 10), and the body-guard 
 of the king. With tnese he went out in pur- 
 suit of the remnants of the rebellion. In the 
 heat of pursuit, he encountered his rival Amasa, 
 more leisurely engaged in the same quest. At 
 “the great stone ” in Gibeon, the cousins met. 
 Joab’s sword was attached to his girdle; by 
 design or accident it protruded from the sheath. 
 Amasa rushed into the treacherous embrace, to 
 which Joab inyited him, holding fast his sword 
 by his own right hand, whilst the protruding 
 sword in his left hand plunged into Amasa’s 
 stomach; a single blow from that practised 
 arm, as in the case of Abner, sufficed to do its 
 work. Joab and his brother hurried on to 
 discharge their commission, whilst one of his ten 
 attendants stayed by the corpse, calling on the 
 royal party to follow after Joab. But the deed 
 produced a frightful impression. The dead 
 body was lying in a pool of blood by the 
 roadside; every one halted, as they came up, 
 at the ghastly sight, till the attendant drageed 
 it out of the road, and threw a cloak over it. 
 Then, as if the spell was broken, they followed 
 Joab, now once more captain of the host (2 Sam, 
 xx, 5-13), He too, when they overtook him, 
 presented an aspect long afterwards remembered 
 with horror. The blood of Amasa had spirted 
 all over the girdle to which the sword was 
 attached, and the sandals on his feet were red 
 with the stains left by the falling corpse (1 K. 
 ii. 5). 
 
 (ὁ) But, at the moment, all were absorbed in 
 the pursuit of the rebels. Once more a proof 
 was given of the wide-spread confidence in 
 Joab’s judgment. In the besieged town of Abel- 
 Bethmaachah, far in the north, the same appeal 
 was addressed to his sense of the evils of an 
 endless civil war, that had been addressed to 
 him years before by Abner near Gibeon. He de- 
 manded only the surrender of the rebel chief, 
 and on the sight of his head thrown over the 
 wall withdrew the army and returned to Jeru- 
 salem (2 Sam. xx, 16-22). [SHEBA.] 
 
 (7) His last remonstrance with David was 
 on the announcement of the king’s desire to 
 number the people. “The king prevailed 
 against Joab ” (2 Sam. xxiv. 1-4). But Joab’s 
 scruples were so strong that he managed to 
 avoid numbering two of the tribes, Levi and 
 Ben amin (1 Ch, xxi. 6). 
 
 3. There is something mournful in the end of 
 Joab. At the close of his long life, his loyalty, 
 so long unshaken, at last wavered. Though 
 he had not turned after Absalom [or, as in LXX. 
 or Joseph. Ant. viii. 1, § 4, “ He turned not after 
 
 JOACHIM 
 
 Solomon "7, he turned after Adonijah” (1 K. 
 ii, 28). This probably filled up the measure of 
 the king’s long cherished resentment. We 
 learn from David’s last song that his powerless-. 
 ness over his courtiers was even then present to 
 his mind (2 Sam, xxiii. 6, 7), and now, on his 
 deathbed, he recalled to Solomon’s recollection 
 the two murders of Abner and Amasa (1 Ky ii. 
 
 5, 6), with an injunction not to let the aged 
 soldier escape with impunity. 
 
 The revival of the pretensions of Adonijah 
 after David’s death was sufficient to awaken the 
 suspicions of Solomon. The king deposed the 
 high-priest Abiathar, Joab’s friend and fellow- 
 conspirator—and the news of this event at once 
 alarmed Joab himself. He claimed the right of 
 sanctuary within the curtains of the sacred tent, 
 under the shelter of the altar at Gibeon, He 
 was pursued by Benaiah, who at first hesitated 
 to violate the sanctuary of the refuge; but 
 Solomon urged that the guilt of two such 
 murders overrode all such protection. With his 
 hands on the altar therefore, the grey-headed 
 warrior was slaughtered by his successor. ‘The. 
 body was carried to his house “in the wilder- 
 ness,” and there interred. He left descendants, 
 but nothing is known of them, unless it may» 
 be inferred from the double curse of David: 
 (2 Sam. iii. 29) and of Solomon (1 K. ii. 33) 
 that they seemed to dwindle away, stricken by 
 a succession of visitations—weakness, leprosy, 
 lameness, murder, starvation. His name is by 
 some supposed (in allusion to his part in 
 Adonijah’s coronation on that spot) to be pre- 
 served in the modern appellation of Enrogel, “the 
 well of Job,” corrupted from Joab, [Α΄ P. SJ 
 
 2; (AR); B. Ἰωβάβ, A. Ἰωάβ ; Joab.) Son 
 of Seraiah, and descendant of Kenaz (1 Ch. iv. 
 14). He was father, or prince, as Jarchi’ 
 explains it, of the valley of Charashim (R. Κ᾿ 
 ‘“Ge-harashim”), or “craftsmen,” so called, 
 according to the tradition quoted by Jerome 
 (Quaest. Heb. in Paral.), because the architects 
 of the Temple were selected from among his 
 sons. 
 
 3. ClwdB; Job in 1 Esd.) The head of a 
 family, not of priestly or Levitical rank, whose 
 descendants, with those of Jeshua, were the 
 most numerous of all who returned with Zerub- 
 babel (Ezra ii. 6, viii. 9; Neh. vii. 11; 1 Esd. 
 viii. 55). It is not clear whether Jeshua and 
 Joab were two prominent men among the 
 children of Pahath-Moab (A. V. and R. V.), the 
 ruler or sultan (shilton) of Moab, as the Syriac 
 render, or whether, in the registration of those 
 who returned, the descendants of Jeshua and 
 Joab were represented by the sons of Pahath-_ 
 Moab. If the latter be accepted, the verse 
 (Ezra ii. 6; Neh. vii. 11) should be rendered: 
 “the sons of Pahath-Moab, for (ἡ 6. representing) 
 the sons of Jeshua and 2040. In this case the 
 Joab of Ezra viii. 9 and 1 Esd. viii. 35 was: 
 probably a distinct personage. es 
 
 Vso, 
 
 JOA'CHAZ (B. Ἰεχονίας, A. Ἰώχας; Je) 
 chonias) = Jehoahaz (1 ἔβα. i. 34 [LXX. v. 32), 
 the son of Josiah. The LXX. and Vulgate are 
 in this case followed by St. Matthew (i. 11), or — 
 have been altered so as to agree with him. 
 
 JO'ACHIM (Ἰωακείμ; Joakim). 1. (Bar. 
 i, 3) = Jehoiakim, called also Joacim. 
 
, 
 ; 
 | 
 . 
 
 JOACIM 
 
 2. A “high-priest ” (6 ἱερεὺς) at Jerusalem 
 in the time of Baruch “the son of Chelcias,” 
 i.e. Hilkiah (Bar. i. 7). The name does not 
 occur in the list in 1 Ch. vi. 13sq. [B. FP. W.] 
 
 JO’ACIM (LXX. usually ᾿Ιωακείμ ; Joacim). 
 1. = Jehoiakim (1 Esd. i. 37, 38, 39). [Joa- 
 cui, 1.1 
 
 2. (Joachin) = Jehoiachin (1 Esd. i. 43), 
 
 3. =Joiakim, the son of Jeshua (1 Esd. v. 5). 
 He is by mistake called the son of Zerubbabel, 
 as is clear from Neh. xii. 10, 26. Burrington 
 (Geneal. i. 72) proposed to omit the words 
 Ἰωακὶμ ὃ τοῦ altogether as an interpolation. 
 
 CW. A. W.] 
 
 4. “The high-priest which was in Jeru- 
 salem” (Jud. iv. 6, 14) in the time of Judith, 
 who welcomed the heroine after the death of 
 Holofernes, in company with “the ancients of 
 the children of Israel” (ἡ γερουσία τῶν υἱῶν 
 Ἰσραήλ, xv. 8 sq.). The name occurs with the 
 various reading Lliakim, but it is impossible to 
 identify him with any historical character. No 
 such name occurs in the lists of high-priests in 
 1 Ch. vi. (Joseph. Ant. x. 8, § 6); and it is a mere 
 arbitrary conjecture to suppose that Eliakim, 
 mnentioned in 2 K. xviii. 18, was afterwards raised 
 to that dignity. Still less can be said for the 
 identification of Joacim with Hilkiah (2 K. 
 xxii, 4; “EAsaxias, Joseph. Ant. x. 4, ὃ 2; 
 Χελκίας, LXX.). The name itself (‘* The Lord 
 will set up”) is appropriate to the position 
 which the high-priest occupies in the story of 
 Judith, and the person must be regarded as a 
 necessary part of the fiction. 
 
 5. The husband of Susanna (Sus. v. 1sq.). 
 The name seems to have been chosen, as in the 
 former case, with a reference to its meaning ; 
 and it was probably for the same reason that 
 the husband of Anna, the mother of the Virgin, 
 is called Joacim in early legends (Protev. Jac. 
 
 ig ὅζο.). 
 JO-A’DANUS (Iwadavos; Joadeus), one of 
 
 the sons of Jeshua, the son of Jozadak (1 Esd. ix. 
 19). His name occupies the same position as 
 that of Gedaliah in the corresponding list in 
 Ezra x. 18, but it is uncertain how the corrup- 
 tion originated. 
 
 JO'AH (ANN: Ἰωὰχ in Isaiah ; BAY Ἰωσαφὰτ 
 in 2 K. xviii. 18; BA. Ἰωὰς in vv. 25, 37, and 
 A. Ἰωσαφὰτ in v. 18: Joahe). 1. The son of 
 Asaph, and chronicler, or keeper of the records, 
 to Hezekiah. He was one of the three chief 
 officers sent to communicate with the Assyrian 
 general at the conduit of the upper pool (ls. 
 xxxvi. 3, 11, 22), and probably belonged to the 
 tribe of Levi. 
 
 2. (BA. Ἰωάβ : Joah.) The son or grandson 
 of Zimmah, a Gershonite (1 Ch. vi. 21), and 
 apparently the same as Ethan (v. 42), unless, 
 as is not improbable, in the latter list some 
 names are supplied which are omitted in the 
 former, and vice versd. For instance, in v. 42 
 Shimei is added, and in v. 43 Libni is omitted 
 (ep. v. 20). If Joah and Ethan are identical, 
 the passage must have been early corrupted, as 
 all ancient Versions give it as it stands at 
 present, and there are no variations in the MSS. 
 
 8. (B. Ἰωάθ, A. Ἰωαά ; Joaha.) The third 
 son of Obed-edom (1 Ch, xxvi. 4), a Korhite, 
 
 BIBLE DICT.—VOL. 1. 
 
 JOANNA 1713 
 
 and one of the door-keepers appointed by David. 
 With the rest of his fumily he is characterised 
 as a man of excellence in strength for the 
 service (Ὁ, 8). They were appointed to keep 
 the southern gate of the Temple, and the house 
 of Asuppim, or “ gatherings,” which was either 
 a store-house or council-chamber in the outer 
 court (v. 15). 
 
 4, (B. om., A. Ἰωά; Joah.) A Gershonite, 
 the son of Zimmah, and father of Eden (2 Ch. 
 xxix. 12). As one of the representatives of the 
 great Levitical family to which he belonged, he 
 took a leading part in the purification of the 
 Temple in the reign of Hezekiah. In the last 
 clause of the verse the LXX. have Ἰωαχά, 
 which is the reading of both MSS. ; but there is 
 nothing to show that the same person is not in 
 both instances intended, nor any MS. authority 
 for the variant reading. 
 
 5. (B. Ἰουάχ, A. "Iwas; Joha.) The son of 
 Joahaz, and keeper of the records or annalist to 
 Josiah. Together with the chief officers of state, 
 Shaphan the scribe, and Maaseiah, the governor 
 of the city, he superintended the repair of the 
 Temple, which had been neglected during the two 
 previous reigns (2 Ch, xxxiy. 8). Josephus calls 
 him Ἰωάτης, as if he read DN. The Syriac 
 and Arabic omit the name altogether. 
 
 JOA'HAZ (INN; A. Ἰωάχαζ, B. Ἰωάχ ; 
 Joachaz), the father of Joah, the chronicler or 
 keeper of the records to king Josiah (2 Ch. xxxiy. 
 8). One of Kennicott’s MSS. reads IM&, ie. 
 Ahaz, and the margin of Bomberg’s Bible gives 
 TANT, ic. Jehoahaz. In the Syr. and Arab. 
 Versions the name is omitted. 
 
 JOA'NAN (B. Ἰωνᾶ, A. Ἰωανάν ; Jonathas) 
 = JOHANAN, the son of Eliashib (1 Esd. ix. 1). 
 
 JOAN'NA (Ἰωαννᾶς, Ἰωανάν ; Joanna), son 
 of Rhesa, according to the text of Luke iii. 27, 
 and one of the ancestors of Christ. But accord- 
 ing to the view explained in a previous article, 
 son of Zerubbabel, and the same as Hananiah in 
 1 Ch. iii, 19. [GENEAL. OF CuRIST; HANANIAH, 
 8.] ; [A. 6. H.] 
 
 JOAN'’NA (Ἰωάννα, modern form “ Joan,” 
 of the same origin as Ἰωαννᾶς, the reading of 
 most MSS.; also rendered A. V. “ Joanna,” St. 
 Luke iii. 27, and *Iwdvyns=Hebr. JEHOHANAN), 
 the name of a woman, occurring twice in Luke 
 (viii. 3, xxiv. 10), but evidently denoting the 
 same person. In the first passage she is ex- 
 pressly stated to have been “ wife of Chusu, 
 steward (ἐπίτροπος) of Herod ;” that is, Antipas, 
 tetrarch of Galilee. Prof. Blunt has observed 
 in his Coincidences, that ‘* we find here a reason 
 why Herod should say to his servants (Matt. 
 xiv. 2),‘This is John the Baptist’... because 
 his steward’s wife was a disciple of Jesus, and 
 so there would be frequent mention of Him 
 among the servants in Herod’s court” (Alford, 
 ad ioc.; ep. Luke ix. 7). Professor Blunt adds 
 the still more interesting instance of Manaen 
 (Acts xiii. 1), the tetrarch’s own “ foster- 
 brother” (σύντροφος, Blunt, p. 263, ed. 1859). 
 Another coincidence is, that our Lord’s ministry 
 was mostly confined to Galilee, the seat of 
 Herod’s jurisdiction. Farther, if we might sup- 
 pose Herod at length to have παν Chusa 
 
 SR 
 
1714 
 
 from his service, on account of Joanna’s attach- 
 ment to one already in ill odour with the higher 
 powers (see particularly Luke xiii, 31), the sup- 
 pression of her husband’s name, now no longer 
 holding a distinguished office, would be very 
 natural in the second passage. However, Joanna 
 continued faithful to our Lord throughout His 
 ministry ; and as she was one of those whose 
 circumstances permitted them to ‘ minister unto 
 Him out of their substance” during His life- 
 time, so she was one of those who brought 
 spices and ointments to embalm His Body when 
 dead. [Ε. 5. Ff] 
 
 JOAN'NAN (Ἰωαννάν, A. Ἰωάννης ; Joannes), 
 the eldest brother of Judas Maccabaeus (1 Macc. 
 ii, 2). He had the surname of Caddis, and is 
 elsewhere called John. (JOHN, 2.] 
 
 JO-ARIB (Iwapif, <A. 
 
 JOANNAN 
 
 "Iwapelu; Joarib), 
 
 chief of the first of the twenty-four courses of 
 
 priests in the reign of David, and ancestor of the 
 Maccabees (1 Mace. ii. 1). His name appears 
 also in the A. V. as Jehoiarib (1 Ch. xxiv. 7) 
 and Jarib (1 Mace. xiv. 29). Josephus retains 
 the form adopted by the LXX. (Ant. xii. 6, § 1). 
 
 JO’'ASH (Ny, the contracted form of the 
 
 name JEHOASH, in which it is frequently found; 
 "Iwas; Joas). 1. Son of Ahaziah king of Judah, 
 and the only one of his children who eseaped the 
 murderous hand of Athaliah. Jehoram having 
 himself killed all his own brethren; and all his 
 sons, except Ahaziah, having been killed by the 
 irruption of the Philistines and Arabians; and 
 all Ahaziah’s remoter relations haying been slain 
 by Jehu; and now all his sons having been put 
 to death by Athaliah (2 Ch. xxi. 4, 17; xxii. 1, 
 8-10), the house of David was reduced to the 
 lowest ebb, and Joash appears to have been the 
 only surviving descendant of Solomon. After 
 his father’s sister Jehoshabeath, the wife of 
 Jehoiada, had stolen him from among the king’s 
 sons, he was hid for six years in the chambers of 
 the Temple. In the 7th year of his age and of 
 his concealment, a successful revolution placed 
 him on the throne of his ancestors, and freed 
 the country from the tyranny and idolatries 
 of Athaliah. [JenmorapA.] For at least twenty- 
 three years, while Jehoiada lived, his reign was 
 very prosperous. Excepting that the high- 
 places were still resorted to for incense and 
 sacrifice, pure religion was restored; large con- 
 tributions were made for-the repair of the 
 Temple, which was accordingly restored; and 
 the country seems to have been free from foreign 
 invasion and domestic disturbance. But, after 
 the death of Jehoiada, Joash, who was evidently 
 of weak character, fell into the hands of bad 
 advisers, at whose suggestion he revived the 
 worship of Baal and Ashtaroth. When he was 
 rebuked for this by Zechariah, the son of Jehoiada, 
 who had probably succeeded to the high-priest- 
 hood, with base ingratitude and daring impiety 
 Joash caused him to’ be stoned to death in the 
 very court of the Lord’s House, “ between the 
 Temple and the Altar” (Matt. xxiii. 35). The 
 vengeance imprecated by the murdered high- 
 priest was not long delayed. That very year, 
 Hazael king of Syria, after a successful campaign 
 against the Philistines, came up against Jeru- 
 salem, and carried off a vast booty as the price 
 of his departure. A decisive victory, gained by 
 
 JOASH 
 
 a small band of Syrians over a great host of the 
 king of Judah, had thus placed Jerusalem at his 
 mercy. This defeat is expressly said to be a 
 judgment upon Joash for having forsaken the 
 God of his fathers. He had scarcely escaped 
 this danger, when he fell into another and a fatal 
 one. ‘Two of his servants, taking advantage of 
 his severe illness, some think of a wound received 
 in battle, conspired against him, and slew him 
 in his bed in the fortress of Millo, thus avenging 
 the innocent blood of Zechariah. He was buried 
 in the city of David, but not in the sepulchres of 
 the kings of Judah. Possibly the fact of Jehoiada 
 being buried there had something to do with 
 this exclusion. Joash’s reign lasted forty years, 
 from 837 to 798 B.c. (Riehm). He was tenth 
 king from David inclusive, reckoning the reign 
 of the usurper Athaliah. He is one of the three 
 kings (Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah) omitted by St. 
 Matthew in the genealogy of Christ. 
 With regard to the different accounts of the 
 Syrian invasion given in 2 K. and in2 Ch., which 
 have led some to imagine two distinet Syrian 
 invasions, and others to see a direct contradic- 
 tion or at least a strange incompleteness in the 
 narratives, the difficulty exists solely in the 
 minds of the critics. The narrative given aboye, 
 which is also that of Keil and E. Bertheau (Zzeg. 
 Handb, z. A. T.) as well as of Josephus, perfectly 
 
 _suits the two accounts, which are merely dif- 
 
 ferent abridgments of the one fuller account 
 contained in the original chronicles of the 
 kingdom. 
 
 It should be added that the prophet Elisha 
 flourished in Israel throughout the days of Joash ; 
 and there is some ground for concluding with 
 Winer (agreeing with Credner, Movers, Hitzig, 
 Meier, and others) that the prophet Joel also 
 prophesied in the former part of this reign. 
 (See Movers, Chronik, pp. 119-121.) 
 
 2. Son and successor of Jehoahaz on the throne 
 of Israel from B.C. 798 to 783 (Riehm), and for 
 two full years a contemporary sovereign with 
 the preceding (2 K. xiv. 1; ep. with xii. 1, xiii. 
 10). When he succeeded to the crown, the 
 kingdom was in a deplorable state from the de- 
 vastations of Hazael and Benhadad, kings of 
 Syria, of whose power at this time we had also 
 evidence in the preceding article. In spite of 
 the perseverance of Joash in the worship set up 
 by Jeroboam, God took compassion upon the 
 extreme misery of Israel, and in remembrance of 
 His covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, 
 interposed to save them from entire destruction. 
 On the occasion of a friendly visit paid by Joash 
 to Elisha on his deathbed, where he wept over his 
 face, and addressed him as ‘‘ the chariot of Israel 
 and the horsemen thereof,” the Prophet promised 
 him deliverance from the Syrian yoke in Aphek, 
 the scene of Ahab’s great victory over a former 
 Benhadad (1 K. xx. 26-30). He then bade him 
 smite upon the ground, and the king smote 
 thrice and then stayed. The Prophet rebuked 
 him for staying, and limited to three his vie- 
 tories over Syria. Accordingly Joash did beat 
 Benhadad three times on the field of battle, and 
 recovered from him the cities which Hazael had 
 taken from Jehoahaz. The other great military 
 event of Joash’s reign was his successful war 
 with Amaziah king of Judah. The grounds of 
 this war are given fully in 2 Ch. xxv. [AMA- 
 zIAH.] The hiring of 100,000 men of Israel for 
 
—— σον» 
 
 proper name. 
 
 JOASH 
 
 100 talents of silver by Amaziah is the only in- 
 stance on record of such a transaction, and 
 implies that at that time the kingdom of Israel 
 was free from all fear of the Syrians. These 
 
 “mercenary soldiers having been dismissed by 
 
 Amaziah, at the instigation of a prophet, with- 
 out being allowed to take part in the Edomitish 
 expedition, returned in great wrath to their own 
 country, and sacked and plundered the cities of 
 Judah in revenge for the slight put upon them, 
 and also to indemnify themselves for the loss of 
 their share of the plunder. It was to avenge 
 this injury that Amaziah, on his return from his 
 triumph over the Edomites, declared war against 
 Joash, in spite of the warning of the Prophet, 
 and the contemptuous dissuasion of Joash under 
 the fable of the cedar and the thistle. The 
 result was that the two armies met at Beth- 
 shemesh, that Joash was victorious, put the 
 army of Amaziah to the rout, took him prisoner, 
 brought him to Jerusalem, broke down the wall 
 of Jerusalem, all along the north side from the 
 gate of Ephraim to the corner gate, a distance of 
 400 cubits, plundered the Temple of its gold and 
 silver vessels, seized the king’s treasures, took 
 hostages, and then returned to Samaria, where 
 he died, probably not very long afterwards, and 
 was buried in the sepulchres of the kings of 
 Israel. He died in the 15th year of Amaziah 
 king of Judah, and was succeeded by his son 
 Jeroboam II. There is a discrepancy between 
 the Bible account of his character and that given 
 by Josephus. For whereas the former says of 
 him, ‘‘ He did that which was evil in the sight 
 of the Lord” (2 K. xiii. 11), the latter says that 
 he was a good man, and very different from his 
 father. Josephus probably was guided by the 
 account of Joash’s friendly intercourse with 
 Elisha, which certainly indicates some good dis- 
 position in him, although he followed the sin of 
 Jeroboam. (A. C. H.] 
 3. The father of Gideon, and a wealthy man 
 among the Abiezrites. At the time of the 
 Midianitish occupation of the country, he appears 
 to have gone so far with the tide of popular 
 opinion in favour of idolatry, that he had on his 
 own cround an altar dedicated to Baal, and an 
 Asherah. In this, however, he submitted rather 
 to the exigencies of the time, and the influence 
 of his family and neighbours, and was the first 
 to defend the daring act of his son, and protect 
 him from the vengeance of the Abiezrites, by 
 sarcasm only less severe than that which Elijah 
 employed against the priests of Baal in the 
 memorable scene on Carmel (Judg. vi. 11, 29, 30, 
 $1; vii. 14; viii. 13, 29,32). The LXX. B. puts 
 the speech in vi. 31 most inappropriately into 
 the mouth of Gideon, but this is corrected in 
 the Alex. MS. In the Vulg. the name is omitted 
 
 ‘in vi. 31 and viii. 13. 
 
 4, Apparently a younger son of Ahab, who 
 held a subordinate jurisdiction in the life- 
 time of his father, or was appointed viceroy 
 (ἄρχοντα, LXX. of 2 Ch, xviii. 25) during his 
 absence in the attack on Ramoth-Gilead (1 K. 
 xxii. 26; 2 Ch. xviii. 25). Or he may have been 
 merely a prince of the blood-royal. The Vulgate 
 calls him “the son of Amelech,” taking the 
 article as part of the noun, and the whole as a 
 Thenius suggests that he may 
 have been placed with the governor of the city 
 for the purpose of military education. 
 
 JOB 1715 
 
 5. A descendant of Shelah the son of Judah 
 (1 Ch. iv, 22). The Vulgate rendering of this 
 name by Securus, according to its etymology, as 
 well as of the other names in the same verse, is 
 very remarkable. The Hebrew tradition, quoted 
 by Jerome (Quaest. Hebr. in Paral.) and Rashi 
 (Comm. in loc.), applies it to Mahlon, the son of 
 Elimelech, who married a Moabitess, The ex- 
 pression rendered in A. V., ‘‘ who had the do- 
 minion qoua, ba‘dli) in Moab,” would, according 
 to this interpretation, signify “* who married in 
 Moab.” The same explanation is given in the 
 Targum of R. Joseph. 
 
 6. A Benjamite, son of Shemaah of Gibeah 
 (1 Ch. xii. 3). He was one of the heroes, 
 ‘“‘helpers of the battle,” who resorted to David 
 at Ziklag, and assisted him in his excursions 
 against the marauding parties to whose attacks 
 he was exposed (v. 21). He was probably with 
 David in his pursuit of the Amalekites (ep. 
 1 Ch. xii, 21 with 1 Sam. xxx. 8, where 73 
 should be “troop” in, both passages). The 
 Peshitto-Syriac, reading 132 for 23, makes him 
 the son of Ahiezer. : 
 
 7. One of the officers of David’s household, to 
 whose charge were entrusted the store-houses of 
 oil, the produce of the plantations of sycamores 
 and the olive-yards of the lowlands of Judah 
 (1 Ch. xxvii. 28). cw. A. W.] 
 
 JO’ASH (Wy, a different name from the 
 
 preceding ; Ἰωάς ; Joas), son of Becher, and head 
 of a Benjamite house, which existed in the time 
 of king David (1 Ch. vii. 8). [Ἁ- C. H.] 
 
 JO’ATHAM (Ἰωάθαμ ; Jcatham) = Jotham 
 the son of Uzziah (Matt. i. 9). 
 
 JOAZAB’'DUS (B. Κατέθζαβδος, A. καὶ 
 ᾿Ἰώ(αβδος ; Joradus)=Jozabad the Levite (1 Esd. 
 ix. 48; cp. Neh. viii. 7). 
 
 JOB (δ᾽; A. Ἰασούφ, D. -β ; Job), the third 
 son of Issachar (Gen. xlvi. 13), called in another 
 genealogy JASHUB (1 Ch. vii. 1, B. Ἰασσούρ, A. 
 *lacovB), which is the reading of the Sam. Codex 
 in Genesis, and of some MSS. of the LXX. 
 
 JOB (Heb. AYN; Greek Ἰώβ), one of the 
 
 Hagiographa, of the class of literature called 
 Khochmah, consisting of a poetical dialogue with 
 prologue and epilogue in prose. It is the only 
 specimen in Hebrew of this form of composition 
 which has been compared with Greek Tragedy,* 
 and, less correctly, with the Makamas of the 
 Arabs. In respect of the matter it has analogues 
 in the Book of Ecclesiastes and in some of the 
 Psalms, especially Pss. xxxvii., xlix., and ]xxiii. 
 1. Plan of the Book.—Job, in the Prologue, is 
 represented as a man of the highest integrity 
 and piety, and corresponding prosperity. “The 
 Satan” in the heavenly council asserts that his 
 
 a Attempts at analysing the poem in accordance with 
 dramatic terminology have been made by H. Hupfeld 
 (Deutsche Zeitschrift fiir christliche Wissenschaft und 
 christliches Leben, 1850, No. 35) and F. Delitzsch 
 (Herzog’s Encyclopddie, art. Hiob). The justice of the 
 comparison is discussed with great care by Gustav Baur 
 (Theol. Studien und Kritiken, 1856, pp. 582-652), who 
 calls it “a lyrical, or, more accurately, didactic-lyrical 
 
 poem.” 
 5 ἘΠ Ζ 
 
1716 
 
 worship is mercenary, and that he will blaspheme 
 as soon as the prosperity is withdrawn. 
 this may be put to the proof, ‘the Satan” is 
 allowed to deprive Job of all his worldly goods, 
 including his children. his trial Job undergoes 
 with resignation. “The Satan” then obtains 
 permission to attack his person, and smites him 
 with a sore disease (probably elephantiasis) from 
 head to foot. This second test Job also endures 
 at first resignedly, although his wife tempts him 
 to blaspheme. ‘Three friends then come to com- 
 fort him, and the dialogue with them occupies 
 the bulk of the Book, divided as follows :—Job’s 
 complaint (ch. iii.) ; addresses to Job by the 
 three friends, two of whom speak three times 
 and the third twice, each speech being answered 
 by Job (chs. iv.-xxvi.) ; soliloquy of Job in two 
 parts (chs. xxvi., xxvii., and chs. xxvili.—xxxi.). 
 A fifth speaker then comes forward, who delivers 
 four continuous discourses (chs. xxxil., XXXill. ; 
 ch. xxxiv.; ch. xxxv.3 chs. xxxvi., xxxvii.), and 
 is followed by the Deity “ from the whirlwind,” 
 who delivers two discourses (chs. xxxviii., 
 xxxix.; chs. xl., xli.), with brief answers from 
 Job. Ina final speech (ch. xlii. 7, 8) the Deity 
 gives a verdict on the foregoing controversy, and 
 we learn in the epilogue that Job was healed, 
 and restored to a greater prosperity than he had 
 previously possessed. 
 
 The original question therefore to which Job’s 
 sufferings were intended to give the answer is 
 left undecided, or has to be inferred by the reader 
 from the course of the dialogue; for Satan is 
 not mentioned after the Prologue.® Since in 
 xlii. 6 Job prays for forgiveness, it would seem 
 that he must in tue course of the dialogue have 
 fallen away from his sinlessness (i. 22, ii. 10); 
 and this supposition has the support of the 
 Targum (on ii, 10) and the Talmud of Babylon 
 (Baba LBathra, f. 15d). Nevertheless many 
 writers (e.g. in recent times A. Hahn, 8. Cox, 
 B. Szolt) maintain that Job endures the second 
 trial successfully to the end, whereas some (0.0. 
 J. B. Mozley) endeavour to find an intermediate 
 course. The difficulty of deciding this question 
 is partly occasioned by the uncertainty of the 
 import of the phrase 7373) in i. 11, and of the 
 degree and nature of the impiety which it 
 implies.¢ It will be assumed in the following 
 section that the first of the foregoing accounts is 
 the true one. 
 
 2. Scope and purpose.—Although the bril- 
 liancy and power of the dialogue are almost 
 universally acknowledged, much difference of 
 opinion has existed concerning the scope of the 
 whole work, which some regard as theoretical, 
 others as practical, with further differences 
 among the former concerning the theorem which 
 is proved, among the latter concerning the 
 precept which is inculcated. The literature on 
 this subject is very fully given by August Hahn, 
 Commentar iiber das Buch Hivb (1850), pp. 5-8, 
 and W. Volck, de summa sententia carminis Tobi 
 (Dorpat, 1869), to whose collections little has 
 been added of importance. It is generally 
 
 JOB 
 
 b Hoffmann (Hiob, 1899) would read in v. 21, Ὁ) 
 wh, with reference to i.7. See also T. K. Cheyne in 
 
 the Expositor for May 1891. 
 e The best discussion of this subject is in the Dutch 
 Commentary of Matthes, 2nd ed. pp. 18-21. ; 
 
 That . 
 
 JOB 
 
 agreed that the subject of the discussion is the 
 relation of suffering to sin, and the ‘question why 
 the righteous sutter. ‘Io this question some 
 suppose that no answer is given, and that the 
 author would demonstrate that the world is ποῦ 
 governed according to human ideas of justice. 
 “Tt is the discovery of the Book of Job,” says 
 Hoffmann, “that man’s suffering is greater than 
 his sin before God.” This opinion has found its 
 most eloquent exponent in J. b. Mozley (Lssays 
 Historical and Theological, ii. 164 sqq.), who 
 among other striking ideas suggests that the 
 purpose of the Book in the scheme of the Bible 
 was to prepare the Jews for a Christ who should 
 be a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief, 
 by showing that suffering need not imply sin im 
 the sufferer. Others suppose that the Book is ἃ 
 theodicy, and does attempt to justity the ways. 
 of God: in the opinion of Volek, by showing 
 that the problems of the world are insoluble 
 without a direct revelation, such as the Jews. 
 possessed ; in that of Ewald, and more recently 
 of W. H. Green (The Argument of the Book of 
 Job unfolded, New York, 1874), by pointing to 
 the doctrine of immortality ; while K. Budde and 
 Hengstenberg hold that we are to learn that the 
 purpose of Job’s suffering (and therefore of that 
 of every righteous man) was to bring to the 
 surface the sin that slumbered at the bottom of 
 his heart, that he might repent of it and be 
 forgiven. Others suppose that more than one 
 answer is offered, the work containing merely 
 pensées on the great question of suffering ; the 
 appearance of unity which it offers being due to 
 interpolation and revision (so T. Kk. Cheyne, Job 
 and Solomon, 1886). Of those who suppose the 
 Book written with a practical purpose, we may 
 notice the theory of B. Szolt, that it is to point out 
 generally the reflections from which a just man 
 should seek consolation in the time of trial ; that 
 of Ribiger (de sententia primaria libri Jobi, 1861), 
 that it teaches that real virtue should be inde- 
 pendent of circumstances; and also theories 
 which suppose the consolation contained in it is 
 addressed not to an individual but toa nation : the 
 nation allegorically personified in Job being the 
 whole nation of Israel, according to Bruno Bauer 
 (Die Religion des A, Testamentes, ii. 478); the 
 northern kingdom, according to Hermann von 
 der Hardt (1728) and Hitzig; the kingdom of 
 Judah, according to Warburton, Joannes Clericus, 
 and Bernstein; the “Servant of the Lord,” 12. 
 the pious kernel of the latter, according to 
 Seinecke (Der Grundgedanke das B. Hiob, Claus- 
 thal, 1863) and Hoekstra (Theologisch Tijd- 
 schrift for 1871, pp. 1-56 ; see on this question 
 Kuenen, Zheol. Tijd. for 1873, pp. 493-542). 
 On this subject the following suggestions may 
 be made :— 
 
 (a) If the Book of Job were, as was long 
 supposed,‘ a historical record of speeches actually 
 delivered, we should not demand from it any 
 unity of design, but at most inquire for what 
 purpose the discourses had been perpetuated. 
 Viewed as a work of art, the Book may admit of 
 similar treatment. It does not, like a Platonic 
 dialogue, work out a definition through a series 
 
 ἃ Modern representatives of this position are the Rev- 
 W. Turner, Studies Biblical and Oriental, p. 170; 
 W. H. Green, μέ supra, p. 11; and, it would seem, 
 Dr. Samuel Cox. “408 
 
JOB 
 
 of objections, but rather portrays a scene. That 
 scene is, the most perfect man on earth attlicted, 
 
 and consoled by the wisest of his contemporaries. 
 
 The hero is one who will bear affliction as well 
 as it can be borne, and the friends persons who 
 will administer the best of human comfort. 
 And because neither party understands God’s 
 counsel, Job, who has the honour of proving by 
 his conduct the sterling worth of the human 
 race and of beating down Satan under his feet, 
 summons God to trial for ill-treating him, and the 
 friends maintain that Job must be suffering for 
 some sin when in reality he is sullering because 
 he is sinless. Both parties rely for their state- 
 ments on a partial experience, grow warmer as 
 the discussion proceeds, and heap reproaches on 
 
 each other; reproaches which the reader is of 
 
 <ourse not intended to re-echo, for the poet has 
 made all the speeches refined, dignified, eloquent, 
 and impressive. The irony of this situation is 
 intended to awake in the spectator the same 
 feelings as the irony of the Greek dramas calls 
 out; and from the Greek theatre, too, can be 
 paralleled the procedure by which the characters 
 are made to leave the stage still ignorant of the 
 solution of which the spectator has from the 
 «<ommencement been in possession. The doctrine 
 which the whole scene impresses is the same as 
 that which is poetically explained in ch. xxviii. ; 
 viz., that the secret of the government of the 
 world is not to be discovered by human re- 
 search ; that God possesses the solution, but 
 what He communicates to mankind is not 
 theoretical, but a practical law for life. Only 
 what the poet of ch. xxviii. expresses in 
 aphorisms, the Book itself personifies: we see on 
 the stage human patience exhausted and human 
 wisdom baffled; and instead of a philosophical 
 contemplation of nature God is made to speak 
 (somewhat as Nature in the 3rd book of Lucretius 
 addresses mankind), asking whether the wisdom 
 and power manifest in His works are not a 
 guarantee of His justice when it is least apparent. 
 The explanation of the Prologue is not given to 
 Job, lest the reader should conclude that the 
 same explanation holds good in every case in 
 which men fail to get their deserts ; whereas 
 the author’s doctrine is rather that in every case 
 there is a ground, which human wisdom has no 
 means of fathoming, and for the discovery of 
 which submission and faith must be substituted 
 ep. Hupfeld, 7. c. p. 286, note). 
 (Ὁ) The three friends maintain the opinion 
 that suffering is the result of sin, and indeed 
 proportionate to it; and that the world is 
 morally governed in detail as well as in general. 
 They do not represent different standpoints 
 (this is stated in xlii. 7), but rather different 
 sorts of persons. If Job be a historical or semi- 
 historical personage, it is likely that his friends 
 are such also; and the poet’s purpose in bring- 
 -ing them to console Job will be similar to that 
 with which Herodotus brings Solon and Croesus 
 together. The fact that Eliphaz repeats a 
 “particular saying (iv. 17-19=xv. 15, 16) is 
 somewhat in fayour of this (Schlottmann). Or, 
 
 if all the characters be ee the fame of 
 
 99 
 
 “=, 
 
 Teman for wisdom (Jer. xlix. 7; Baruch iii. 
 23) may have been the ΠΥ ΗΣ for bringing the 
 first speaker thence ; the reason for the nation- 
 ality of the others—Bildad the Shuhite from the 
 Keturaean Shuah (Gen. xxy. 2), and Zophar the 
 
 JOB 1717 
 
 Naamathite (perhaps from Naamah in Judaea, 
 Joseph. y.41)—is less obvious.* Reuss(//tob, 1888) 
 suggests that their coming from different regions 
 symbolises the universality of the doctrine 
 which they maintain. Jt cannot be said with 
 exactitude that “ Eliphaz relies for his statements 
 on revelation, Bildad on the wisdom of the 
 ancients, Zophar on common-sense”; perhaps 
 Eliphaz is most dignified, Zophar more coarse 
 than the others (see especially K. Budde, 
 Beitrage zur Kritik des Buches Hiob, pp. 147-8). 
 By introducing three representatives of the 
 doctrine, the poet has provided variety in its 
 treatment, and has also gained time for the 
 development of Job’s character and ideas. 
 Similarly the three cycles of speeches do not 
 represent fresh stages in the argument so mucl) 
 as progressive states of mind in the speakers.® 
 In the first cycle all offer Job the prospect of a 
 bright future if he will accept his chastisement 
 and turn to God: in the second they all paint 
 vividly the fearful end of the wicked: in the 
 third Eliphaz accuses Job openly of crimes of 
 which Job afterwards solemnly declares himself 
 innocent, whereas Bildad merely makes a brief 
 reiteration of Eliphaz’s maxim; by making 
 Zophar silent the poet gives it to be understood 
 that Job has won. By the author’s making this 
 doctrine of rewards and punishments universal, 
 it is clear that no special polemic against the 
 Mosaic doctrine is intended; and indeed with 
 regard to the individual no such doctrine is 
 taught in the Old Testament." Concerning the 
 speeches themselves, the remark of Delitzsch 
 seems true, that “what the friends say con- 
 sidered in itself is true; the error lies in its 
 inadequacy and inapplicability to the case before 
 them.” And indeed, without violent rearrange- 
 ment of the text, we cannot get rid of the fact 
 that Job himself repeats some part of what they 
 have said, and that in some }laces they even 
 anticipate the Deity. 
 
 (c) The eleven discourses of Job are not pro- 
 gressive, nor do they answer directly his inter- 
 locutors’ addresses, but present the expression 
 of different emotions. ‘The elevation of Job’s 
 conception of God into a higher unity is the goal 
 of the development of the drama” (Delitzsch), 
 but a goal which is not reached till the very 
 end. Job is represented as “accusing God in 
 order that he may justify himself” (xl, 8): the 
 curses heaped on his birthday (ch. iii.), and the 
 prayer for death from the standpoint of a re- 
 
 8. If Derenbourg’s conjecture about Uz (v. infra) | be 
 correct, perhaps mw may be meant to suggest mit’, 
 “to meditate.” W. H. Green, l. c. p. 264, thinks the 
 names Ram and Buz in Elihu’s pedigree suggest a land 
 of divine intervention as opposed to the land of the 
 highest earthly wisdom. Other conjectures in Wright, 
 p. 138. 
 
 f The statements e.g. of B. Szolt (Baltimore, 1886) that 
 the first cycle deals with the particular, the second with 
 the general, and that in the first it is argued that all 
 suffering is for sin and in the second that all sin is 
 punished, are not justified by close analysis. 
 
 & Yet the view of Szolt that xxii. 5 sqq. are a supposed 
 quotation of what God would say bas much in its 
 favour. 
 
 & K. Stnder (Das Buch Hiob fiir Geistliche, Bremen, 
 1881) endeavours to prove the contrary; cp. Seinecke, 
 l.c. pp. 1-7. See on the other side, Hengstenberg 1870), 
 1026, 2%e 
 
1718 JOB 
 
 ligion in which God was the God of the living, 
 exhibit the state of mind of one who is near 
 abandoning God (Ribiger). He denies the moral 
 government of the world (ix. 22, 23); attributes 
 to God a spiteful design in creating him (x. 13); 
 summons God to judgment against Himself (xvi. 
 18, 19); complains bitterly that God does not 
 appear at his demand (xxiii. 8, 9); and, it 
 would seem, somewhat exaggerates his calamities 
 (chs. xxix., xxx.). These bitter utterances are 
 mixed with pathetic and even affectionate 
 appeals; just as his addresses to his friends are 
 composed of angry reproaches and of supplications 
 for sympathy. ‘Of this compound character is 
 the complaint of angry Job, charging the Divine 
 government of the world with injustice. He 
 sees a world in disorder, and, looking simply to 
 the responsibility of absolute power, he lays the 
 blame of it on the Divine Possessor of that power. 
 But simultaneously with this charge came a 
 recollection of God’s absolute goodness. He thus 
 alternates from anger to love, and from blame 
 to adoration ; with fiery quickness the indignant 
 complaint darts from him, and immediately he 
 is a tender suppliant, according as his idea of 
 responsible power, or according as his whole 
 religious conviction, including the belief of God’s 
 absolute goodness, is expressed ” (Mozley, Essays, 
 ii. 218). The main position of Job, however, is 
 that human justice is greater than God’s (ix. 21, 
 22): in this sense he is said to represent a school 
 (xxxv. 4 ὃ: cp. xxxiv. 8, xxii. 15). 
 
 (d) Job’s complaints culminate in xix. 6, where 
 he gives a verdict in his own case against God, 
 Whom in xiii. 22 he had formally summoned to 
 trial. This prepares the way for the Theophany, 
 the necessity of which had already been indicated 
 by Zophar (xi. 5); and that Job’s calling God to 
 judgment is the most important result of the 
 dialogue is shown by the numerous allusions to 
 it (6.5. by Elihu, xxxiii. 7, 13). The Deity, 
 however, does not appear in the Theophany, as 
 Job had desired, as an equal antagonist (xiii. 19- 
 22), in order to justify His conduct; nor, as 
 Zophar had wished, to prove to Job that his 
 punishment was not so great as he had deserved; 
 but to bring home to Job by a series of ironical 
 questions the truth that jinite power and 
 knowledge have no rights against infinite power 
 and knowledge; and that those for whom the 
 arrangement of the universe is an impenetrable 
 mystery, and who are too weak to grapple with 
 God’s creatures, must not criticise His doings or 
 array themselves against Him. Hence of the 
 two discourses put into the mouth of Jehovah 
 the first deals mainly with His wisdom, the 
 second with His power. There is psycho- 
 logical truth also in the reflection of Mozley 
 (p. 219), that as “ in very truth mere power wins 
 by subduing, and the intense consciousness that 
 some one has the absolute power to do what he 
 will with us puts us into the position of love to 
 him; making us imagine him as our benefactor 
 and friend, because we turn beforehand his 
 absolute choice of saving or destroying, into 
 the alternative most favourable to ourselves: 
 just so the power of the Almighty Maker and 
 Governor of the world impresses Job; such 
 amazing power softens him.” 
 
 In the Epilogue Jehovah fulfils the wish 
 expressed by Job in xvi. 21 that He would decide 
 between Job and God and between Job and his 
 
 JOB 
 
 friends. Both Job and they in the dialogue had 
 assumed that God is under some obligation to 
 reward a man according to his works; and Job 
 finding himself not so recompensed accuses God 
 of injustice, whereas the friends, supposing that 
 God must be just, accuse Job on no other 
 evidence than that of his sufferings of indefinite 
 crimes. The verdict in the Theophany (xlii. 7) 
 makes it clear that the latter standpoint is more 
 to be condemned than the former; and that the 
 wilful rejection of experience in favour of a 
 preconceived notion is more culpable than a 
 blasphemous conclusion arrived at in accordance 
 with a partial experience. Hence, as Job had 
 predicted (xiii. 7-11), the friends are more 
 severely rebuked than he; and the fact that 
 Job intercedes for them before his restoration 
 (xlii. 10) is a sign of his complete submission, 
 and also a convincing proof of his innocence 
 (pi exi-#1.5): 
 
 3. Authorship, time, and place of composition.* 
 —To these questions very different answers were 
 given by the early Rabbis, whose opinions are 
 recorded in the Talmud (Bab. Baba Bathra, 14— 
 16), although the favourite hypothesis ascribed 
 the Book to Moses; possibly, as Im. Deutsch 
 suggests (de Elihui sermonum origine atque 
 auctore, Breslau, 1875), because there was a 
 tradition that God revealed to Moses on Sinai 
 the reason why men were not always recom- 
 pensed according to their works (B. Berachoth, 
 7 a), and this Book seemed to deal with the 
 problem. With equal arbitrariness Heman the 
 Ezrahite, Solomon, Isaiah, Baruch, Ezra, and, 
 most recently, Jeremiah have been suggested as 
 authors. The question whether Job had any 
 existence, mythical or historical, is closely con- 
 nected with these. The LXX. translator who 
 identified him with the Idumaean king Jobab 
 (Gen. xxxvi. 53, 34), was misled by a similarity 
 of name which belongs to the Greek rather 
 than to the Hebrew form. An early critic 
 (Resh Lakesh in Baba Bathra, 1. ¢.) suggested 
 that the Book of Job was altogether a parable; 
 and some of the later Rabbis allow this to be a 
 possible view, although they do not ordinarily 
 regard it with favour. Modern writers who 
 regard Job as a purely imaginary character 
 (c.g. Reuss, Merx, Hengstenberg) insist mainly 
 on the numerical symmetry of his family, 
 possessions, and calamities, which points to the 
 efforts of the fancy; and urge against those 
 (e.g. Ewald, Renan, Schlottmann) who would 
 endeavour to sever the historical from the 
 fictitious elements in the Book, that enough is 
 not left of the former to constitute a myth, 
 much less a record. 
 
 If Job be a creation of this Book, it must be 
 earlier, and indeed much earlier, than Ezekiel, 
 who (xiv. 14) mentions Job among the three 
 perfect men, it might seem with special refer-' 
 ence to xxii. 30 and xlii. 9. If on the other 
 hand he be mythical or historical, the passage 
 of Ezekiel throws no light on this question.* 
 
 i Opinions up to 1865 are collected by Kuenen, Onder- 
 zoek, iii. 160. 
 
 k Bernstein, Veber das Alter τι. s. w. des Buches Hiob,in 
 Keil and Tzschirner’s Analekten, 1813, p. 13, suggested 
 that the passage of Ezekiel wasinterpolated. A stranger 
 conjecture is offered by Bunsen, Gott in der Geschichte, 
 i. 478. 
 
JOB 
 
 This last alternative has in its favour the fact 
 that the name 70) (although its similarity to 
 oyéb, “an enemy,” is played upon in xiii, 24 
 and elsewhere) has no etymological appropri- 
 ateness to the situation,’ whether it be inter- 
 preted from the Hebrew, “the attacked one,” or 
 from the Arabic, “ the returner,” as the Prophet 
 Mohammed seems to suggest.” It is also main- 
 tained (without due ground) that the invention 
 of character is alien from the methods of the 
 ancients, who preferred borrowing their heroes 
 from the man of current tradition. The allusions 
 to historical events which some critics (e.g. 
 Ewald, Hitzig, Wright) have endeavoured to 
 find are too vague to afford any note of time; 
 and the same must be said of the state of society 
 described (e.g. in x. 24). A terminus a quo is 
 given by the mention of the gold of Ophir 
 (xxviii. 16), with the use of Ophir as a name of 
 gold (xxii. 24), which points to some post- 
 Solomonic period; whereas ἃ terminus ad 
 
 quem is given by the use of the name Satan . 
 
 without the article in 1 Ch. xxi. 1 (circa 400 
 B.C.), Which must evidently be a later usage 
 than that with the article which appears in this 
 Book and Zechariah. In default of other 
 evidence, special attention has been paid to the 
 parallels between this Book and the rest of the 
 Old Testament.” which are very numerous. In 
 most, if not all, of these, it is uncertain whether 
 the ideas are borrowed by or from the author of 
 Job; but little force can be assigned to the ἃ 
 
 priori argument urged by Canon Cook, that if | 
 
 the author of Job be supposed in most of these 
 cases to be the borrower, his work becomes a 
 kind of cento; for in a highly artificial poem 
 of this sort (to judge from the Arabic Makamas) 
 one of the beauties would naturally consist in 
 reminiscences of the classics. Of the hemistichs 
 which are common to Job and other Books, the 
 most noticeable are (1) xii. 19=Isaiah xli. 20; 
 
 here it seems certain that Job is quoting the , 
 
 prophet, for otherwise it is difficult to under- 
 stand why the name 1)’, which is elsewhere 
 (cp. however xxviii. 28) avoided in the dialogue, 
 should be employed; and (2) Job xiv. 11, which 
 would seem to be a quotation of Isaiah xix. 5: 
 in the case of (3) Job xii. 21 and (4) Job xii. 
 24 b, it seems more probable that the writer of 
 Job quoted Ps. cvii. 40 in two separate passages, 
 than that the author of the Psalm united two 
 hemistichs of Job into a verse. It seems prob- 
 able that the author of Job had before him 
 both parts of Isaiah (cp. besides Is. lviii. 2 
 with Job xxi. 14; Is. lix. 4 with xv. 35; Is. Ix. 
 6 with xxii. 11). His relation to Jeremiah has 
 
 1 Tt is a sign of the difficulty of arriving at certainty 
 in these matters chat some writers (e.g. Bernstein, 
 Bruch, Seinecke, Hengstenberg) found an argument 
 against the historical existence of Job on the supposed 
 appropriateness of his name. 
 
 m Hahn suggests ‘‘the enemy of the gods ; ” J. Deren- 
 bourg (Revue des Etudes Juives, 1880, p. 5), “186. com- 
 plainer,” from the root 1}: Δ"; Wright (p. 134), 
 from the same root + 98 privative, ‘‘the non-exultant.”” 
 Other conjectures are collected by Carpzovius, Introd. 
 ii, 32. 
 
 n A very careful collection has been made by G. H. B. 
 Wright in the preface to his translation. They can also 
 be conveniently studied in the Hebrew Commentary of 
 B. Szolt. 
 
 JOB 1719 
 
 been much more questioned. The most im- 
 portant passage is Job iii. 3-26 compared with 
 Jer. xx. 14-18 ; whereas most critics (e.g. Renan, 
 Reuss, Volck) regard Jeremiah as the imitator, 
 it has been urged (with more reason) by Kleinert 
 (Theol. Stud. u. Krit. 1886, p. 272) and Hoffmann 
 (Ziob, 1890, p. 30) that the imaginary situation 
 is far more likely to be an imitation than the 
 real one. The other parallels with Jeremiah 
 (6... vi. 23 with Jer. xv. 21, vi. 20 with Jer. xiv. 
 3, xviii. 19 with Jer. xliy. 11), and especially 
 with the Lamentations, make it probable that 
 the author had Jeremiah before him also. Of 
 the minor Prophets he would seem to have made 
 use of Hosea (cp. xiii. 2 with Job xv. 2, xiii. 12 
 with Job xiv. 17) and Amos (ep. i. 11 with 
 Job xv. 9, according to Szolt’s explanation). 
 The question whether he employed Zechariah or 
 not is of some importance. Besides such parallels 
 as Zech. ix. 3 with Job xxvii. 16, and ix. 14 with 
 Job xx. 5, Hoffmann (/. c. pp. 31-34) points to 
 the heavenly council (Zech. i. 9, iii.15 ep. Jobi. 
 6), the person of “the Satan” (Zech. iii. 1; 
 regarded by Hoffmann as an invention of the 
 Prophet), the crown (Zech. vi. 11; Job xxxi. 
 36), and finds Zechariah everywhere original. 
 Great attention has also been paid to the 
 parallels with the Proverbs, which the author 
 of Job would seem to have possessed in their 
 existing form: thus Job xv. 7 seems definitely 
 to refer to Proy. viii. 24, the simile of vi. 3 finds 
 its explanation in a reminiscence of Proy. xxvii. 
 3, ili. 25 seems consciously modelled on Proy, x. 
 24. (The attempt of Barth [v. infra] to prove 
 that the author of Job was acquainted with the 
 “ first collection” of Proverbs [i.—xxv.], but not 
 with the second, must be regarded as unsuc- 
 cessful.) The parallels with the Psalms are 
 especially numerous, and these too the author 
 may have possessed in their present form: e.g. 
 Job x. 9 sqq. might seem to be suggested by 
 Ps. exxxvili. 8, followed by Ps. exxxix., and 
 Job xxxv. 14 to follow a worse reading of 
 Ps. xxxvii. 6. The evidence therefore of the 
 parallels would seem to be in favour of a very 
 late date, ¢.g. the Persian period to which the 
 Book is assigned by Vatke, Bruno Bauer, Cheyne, 
 Hoffmann ; the brilliancy of the language must 
 in this case be accounted for by a hypothetical 
 renaissance, or an endeavour on the part of the 
 writer to renovate the Hebrew language. Many 
 others place it. somewhat earlier, during the 
 Babylonian captivity (so Graetz, C. P. Tiele); 
 the ‘large majority of critics at some period 
 prior to Jeremiah (Renan, Ewald, Reuss, Merx, 
 Hitzig, Barth, Volck); Hahn, Schlottmann, and 
 Delitzsch, in the Solomonic age; Vaihinger 
 somewhat earlier (see F. Barth, Ueber die 
 Entstehungsseit des Buches Hiob, Jahresbe- 
 richt des Rabb. Seminars ftir das orthodoxe 
 Judenthum, Berlin, 5634; T. K. Cheyne, Job and 
 Solomon, 1886; F. Seyring, Die Abhangigheit 
 der Spriiche Salomonis Cap. i.-ix. vom Hiob, 
 Halle, 1889). 
 
 The place of composition is no less uncertain. 
 A suggestion made by Ibn Ezra (on ii. 12), which 
 however has found little favour, was that the 
 Book was atranslation: in this case there would 
 be some ground for supposing the “ land of Uz” 
 (see below) to be the country of the author as 
 well as of his hero. The descriptions of the 
 crocodile and hippopotamus (in chs. xl. and xli.), 
 
1720 JOB 
 
 supposing them to be genuine, would point to 
 Egypt (although some scholars profess to detect 
 errors in these descriptions); and Hitzig and 
 Hirzel insist that the Book has throughout an 
 Egyptian colouring, in illustration of which the 
 former points to iii. 14, 15 (according to Ewald’s 
 interpretation), vii. 12, viii. 11, ix. 11, xii. 21, 
 xiv. 11, xxviii. 10, xxix. 18, xxxi. 36, xxxix. 19. 
 A few more phrases which tell of Egypt are 
 noticed in the commentary of Canon Cook; and 
 Studer suggests that the simile of the white of 
 an egg in vi. 6 (supposing that to be the true 
 interpretation) would be more naturally drawn 
 in Egypt than in Palestine (cp. Delitzsch). Those 
 who maintain that the author was a contempo- 
 rary of Jeremiah suppose him to have fled to 
 Egypt with the other Israelites whose flight is 
 recorded by Jer. xliii.7. Much of this Egyptian 
 colouring is, however, clearly fallacious, as 
 Hengstenberg (pp. 51, 52) shows; nor are the 
 arguments by which the author is shown to 
 have lived in the South of Judaea (by Schlott- 
 mann and others) more valid. The use of the 
 Jordan in x], 23, as an example of a great river, 
 makes it more likely that the author lived in 
 Palestine; and the ἃ priori arguments urged by 
 Hengstenberg in favour of Jerusalem as the 
 place of composition have considerable force. 
 The locality of the hero, the “land of Uz,” is 
 also very doubtful. The LXX. (after xlii. 17) 
 places it on the boundaries between Idumaea and 
 Arabia; this may have been suggested by Lam. 
 iv. 21, where the daughter of Edom is described 
 as dwelling in the land of Uz. Sprenger (Das 
 Leben und die Lehre des Mohammad, iii. 205) 
 places it yet further south, near the later Jewish 
 settlement Khaibar. A tradition which can 
 be traced up to about 300 a.p. makes the land 
 of Uz part of Batanaea in the Hauran (see 
 Wetzstein in Delitzsch’s Commentary, E. 'T. ii. 
 395-447). Friedrich Delitzsch (Zeitschrift fir 
 Keilschriftforschung, ii. 87-98), on the authority 
 of cuneiform inscriptions, removes it further 
 north towards Palmyra; and also discovers 
 from inscriptions the localities of Shuah and 
 Buz. The theory of J. Derenbourg (Revue des 
 Etudes Juives, vol. i.) that YY is merely a sym- 
 bolical name, signifying the land of MSY, or 
 “the Divine counsel,’’ has much to recommend 
 it; and would agree with the opinion of Hoff- 
 mann (Hiob, p. 35), that the author may have 
 known as little as we of the locality. An old 
 opinion (Rashi) that the “land of Uz” is a 
 poetical name for Aram or Syria has still many 
 adherents. 
 
 4, Range of ideas.—The consistency which the 
 author maintains with regard to the patriarchal 
 age in which he places the story has won much 
 admiration. To this belong the age of Job 
 (xlii. 16), the nature of his wealtn (i. 5 com- 
 pared with Gen. xii. 16), the coin mentioned in 
 xlii, 21 (cp. Gen. xxxiii. 19), and the musical 
 instruments to which incidental allusion is made 
 (xxi. 12, xxx. 31, compared with Gen. iv. 21, 
 xxxi, 27). The shortness of life of which the 
 speakers sometimes complain when comparing 
 their lives with those of their ancestors (viii. 9) 
 corresponds with the diminished longevity of the 
 
 ο Gratz, Geschichte der Juden, ii. 33, supposes the 
 work to have been composed in Babylon, 
 
 JOB 
 
 later patriarchs. It is possible, as Schlottmann 
 suggests, that Job is represented as a strange 
 prince, like Abraham, living among a heathen 
 population (cp. xxix. 7); but it is more probable 
 that he is ἃ member of an aristocracy (ch. xxix.) : 
 to the oppressed and subject castes which are 
 described in chs. xxiv. and xxx. it is difficult to 
 find in the Old Testament an exact analogue. 
 The only form of idolatry alluded to is star-wor- 
 ship (xxxi. 27; xii. 6 must not be interpreted of 
 idolatry), perhaps a trait of antiquity. The 
 head of the family is represented as performing 
 priestly functions (chs. i., xlii.), modelled, it 
 would seem, on those performed by Balak, the 
 Moabite king (Derenbourg, /.c.; Wright); and 
 in the only mention that is made of priests (xii. 
 19) the context implies that prince-priests are 
 signified. The ancient Versions find an allusion 
 to concubinage in xix. 17; and polygamy would 
 seem to be referred to in xxvii. 15.? Never- 
 theless the state of things with which the 
 author is familiar is rather the advanced civilisa- 
 tion of the Solomonic or post-Solomonic age 
 (Bernstein, /.c., p. 81 sqq.): to this belong the 
 war-horse (xxxix. 18-25), the taste for the pre- 
 cious metals and precious stones (xxii. 24-26, 
 &c.), the elaborate forms of judicial procedure 
 (ix. 33, xvii. 3, 4, xxxi. 37; see especially 
 Kleinert, Das spezifisch Hebriische im Buch Hiob 
 in Theologische Stud. u. Krit. 1886, p. 274), 
 writing on stone, lead, and parchment (xix. 23, 
 xxxi. 36), sealing-clay (xxxviii. 14), glass (xxviii. 
 17). Existing literature is noticed in xxxvi. 24, 
 and perhaps xxi. 29. Wetzstein has endeavoured 
 to trace special allusions to the customs of the 
 Hauran in xxi. 32, xxiv. 5-8, 16, 24, xxx. 3-6; 
 the mention of the customs of the Israelites 
 would seem to be intentionally avoided by the 
 
 author (unless the Ssh of xix. 25 and the 
 “vows” of xxii. 27 be considered to fall under 
 this head; the Mosaic law of inheritance, 
 Num. xxxvi. 8, seems purposely contradicted in 
 xlii. 15); the existence of a written law is dimly 
 indicated in vi. 10, xxi, 14, xxiii. 12; no refer- 
 ence is made to the national history; and the 
 passages in which patriarchal history is thought 
 to be noticed (xviii. 15, the Cities of the Plain; 
 xxii. 16, the Flood; xxxi. 33, Adam) all admit 
 of other interpretations. It was owing to the 
 apparent oblivion of Israel that many writers 
 supposed the author to have been an Idumaean 
 or Arab (an idea refuted by Bernstein, J. ¢.). 
 Among the peculiar characteristics of the Book 
 should be noticed the astronomical allusions 
 (ix. 9, xxxviii. 31-33), regarded by some writers 
 as indicating Arabian authorship, which show 
 the author in possession of a somewhat fuller 
 and more developed nomenclature than appears 
 elsewhere in the Bible, and also familiar with 
 some astronomical myths,? such as are found 
 among other nations; a similar myth would 
 seem to be the destruction of Rahab and Rahab’s 
 helpers (ix. 15, xxvi. 12), and of the Leviathan 
 whom conjurers can wake up (iii. 8; cp. xxvi. 
 13); compare also the phrases xviii. 13, 14, 
 
 p That the supposed patriarchal colouring is confined 
 to details is brought out by Bruno Bauer, l. 6. p. 484, 
 and Kuenen, ἷ. c. s 
 - 4 This is emphatically denied by Hengstenberg, i. 127, 
 
 cs 
 
 *, sh reel? =— 
 
JOB 
 
 xxxiii, 22, The stores of snow and hail provided 
 against the day of war and battle (xxxix. 23) 
 belong to this class of idea. Somewhat after 
 the style ofthe Arabic poets, too, are the accu- 
 rate descriptions of the habits of the animals of 
 the desert, and of physical phenomena, in which 
 the author delights: “It would not he too much 
 to say,” writes Baur (/. c, p. 621), “ that as many 
 descriptions of nature are crowded together in 
 Job as can be found in the whole Bible.” These 
 passages are collected by G. H. Gilbert, in Zhe 
 Poetry of Job (Chicago, 1889), who has attempted 
 to analyse their beauties. The frequent refer- 
 ence to Angels deserves notice: they are called 
 the Sons of God (both in the Prologue, i. 6, and 
 in the dialogue, xxxviii. 7), Holy Ones (vy. 1, 
 xy. 15), God’s Servants (iv. 18), Angels. The 
 context in which they are mentioned would seem 
 to imply that they are co-ordinate, and in a 
 manner identified with the heavenly bodies (com- 
 pare xxy. 5 with iv. 18), Their power of media- 
 tion is especially dwelt on by Elihu in xxxiii, 23 
 (a very remarkable passage), and perhaps alluded 
 to by Eliphaz in ν. 1." Although superior to 
 mankind, their imperfections and infirmities are 
 often dwelt on. From these Angels it is (to some) 
 difficult to separate “the Satan,” whose name 
 would seem to suggest the double function of 
 “accuser” and “ wanderer;” that he in no way re- 
 presents an evil power, antagonistic to the Divine 
 power, such as appears in the Zoroastrian reli- 
 vion, is now largely affirmed; Hotfmann finds 
 the advance in the conception of his personality 
 which appears in this Book in the fact that he 
 carries out physical evil, whereas in 1 Ch. xxi. 1 
 and 1 Sam, xvi. 14-23 he only suggests moral 
 evil. This latter function would seem to be 
 indicated in ii. 2. The doctrine of a resurrection 
 is mentioned (xiv. 13-15) as a possible solution 
 of the difficulties of the moral government of the 
 world, but emphatically rejected ; it is not prob- 
 able that there is any reference to it in the Jocus 
 classicus, ch. xix. 25-28 (the literature on which 
 is collected by Stickel, de Goele commentativ, 
 Jena, 1832; Volck, 7. 6... p. 6 sqq.; and Hirzel 
 and Hitzig, ad loc.), The doctrine of “ orginal 
 sin” is not unfrequently indicated, but nowhere 
 clearly analysed. A highly advanced and spiri- 
 tual code of morals is taught by the author in 
 ch, xxxi., with a remarkable distinction between 
 “capital” offences and others (vv. 10, 28). Of 
 ἐς scepticism ” properly so called (Bruch, p. 191) 
 no accurate analysis will tind any trace (cp. 
 Kleinert, Das spezifisch Hebraische im Buch Hiob): 
 the words of Job in xlii. 2 imply that he re- 
 quired the Theophany not in order to be con- 
 vinced of God’s existence, but to receive a per- 
 sonal assurance that the world was morally 
 governed. (For an analysis of the ideas of the 
 Book of Job on God, the world, mankind, 
 morality, and the future, see Bruch, Weisheits- 
 lehre der Hebréer, 1851, pp. 199-226.) 
 
 5. Integrity.—The integrity of the Book of 
 Job, like that of other Books of the Old Testa- 
 ment, has been the subject of much discussion. 
 A large number of verses were omitted in the 
 
 τ A remarkable suggestion about this passage is made 
 by W. H. Kosters on p. 117 of his essay, Het onstaan 
 en de ontwikeling der Angelologie onder Israel (Theol. 
 Tijdschrift, x. 34-69, 113-141), to which reference may 
 generally be given. 
 
 JOB 1721 
 
 LXX, translation (δ 7 4), and Dr. Hatch (Studies 
 in Biblical Greek, p. 215 sqq.) endeayours to 
 show that these formed no part of the original 
 text, but were interpolations in the Hebrew 
 copies, The subscription after ch. xxxi., “ the 
 words of Job are ended” (if genuine), might also 
 imply that the work once ended there. Modern 
 criticism has especially attacked the following 
 portions :— 
 
 (a) The speeches of Elihu* (chs, xxxii.— 
 xxxvii.). The genuineness of these was first 
 disputed by Stuhlmann (//iob, 1804), with whom 
 Eichhorn and Bernstein (/.c. pp. 130-132) agreed, 
 and is denied by most modern critics. The 
 speeches of Elihu differ from the others (1) in 
 the length of the proems, (2) in quoting the 
 words of Job, (3) in addressing Job by name, 
 (4) in following each other continuously with- 
 out answers from Job. Moreover (5), no allu- 
 sion is made either in the prologue or epilogue 
 to “Elihu, the son of Barachel,” whose names, 
 unlike the others, follow Jewish nomenclature, 
 and whose tribe (Buz) seems suggested by that 
 of Job (Uz: see Gen. xxii. 21), while his family 
 (Ram, “the exalted”) would seem to contain 
 an allusion to xxxi. 34, and to be intended to 
 prevent any misconception arising from the name 
 Buz (‘contempt ”’?); the syntax of iii. 1 also 
 almost excludes the existence of a fourth friend. 
 Although, however, these chapters might be 
 omitted without their loss being directly felt, 
 “the whirlwind ” of xxxviii. 1 may well be the 
 whirlwind described in ch. xxxvii., and it should 
 not be argued that the opening words of the 
 Theophany (ch. xxxviii. 2), which evidently 
 refer to Job, show that another speaker cannot 
 have intervened; for the speech of Job may still 
 be uppermost in the hearer’s mind. ‘The argu- 
 ment from the language urged by many writers 
 against the speeches has been refuted by Stickel 
 (Das Buch Hiob, 1842) and K. Budde (Beitréiye 
 zur Kritik des Buches Ποῦ, p. 92 sqq.), who, by 
 a careful series of arithmetical calculations, 
 proves that the vocabulary of these discourses 
 does not differ in character from that of any 
 other portion of the Book; and, indeed, the 
 similarity of expression is so striking that many 
 who have regarded these speeches as constituting 
 no portion of the original work have supposed 
 them to be an addition by the author himself 
 (e.g. Renan, Wright); their occasional obscurity 
 and apparent incoherence may be reasonably 
 ascribed to corruptions of the text. The argu- 
 ment drawn especially by Renan, Delitzsch (in 
 Herzog’s Encyclopidie, vi. 132), and Volek (who 
 once maintained their genuineness), from the 
 want of poetical power and vigour displayed in 
 them, depends too much on personal taste to 
 have much weight in the discussion, It must 
 be added that the judgments passed on Elihu 
 both in the Christian (cp. Schlottmann, p. 53 
 544.) and in the Jewish Church (Deutsch, /. c. 
 pp. 14, 15) have been very various: while some 
 think his speeches a mere cento collected from 
 the rest of the Book, others regard him as the 
 one wise speaker on the stage; and different 
 writers have identified him with Christ and with 
 Satan (the clever essay of Voigtliinder in Keil 
 
 5 The literature on this question (down to 1873) is 
 given most fully by Immanuel Deutsch, l. c. pp. 21-23. 
 
1722 JOB 
 
 and Tzschirner’s Analekten, 1813, p. 27, in which 
 this last view is maintained, deserves notice). 
 It is now, however, generally agreed that Elihu 
 does represent a different standpoint from the 
 friends, and really provides a solution of the 
 problem which they discuss. Whereas they 
 supposed that punishment implied sin, and was 
 proportionate to the sin, he regards it as neces- 
 sary to perfection, and therefore most likely to 
 overtake the relatively most perfect. This posi- 
 tion is best explained by Hengstenberg (i. p. 8), 
 who does not differ materially from other de- 
 fenders of these speeches (Bruno Bauer, Budde, 
 Im. Deutsch, M. Bolicke, Die Elihu Reden, &c., 
 Halle, 1879; C. Claussen, Das Verhdltniss der 
 Lehre des Elihu zu derjenigen der drei Freunde 
 Hiobs, in the Zeitschr. fiir kirchliche Wissenschaft 
 und hkirchliches Leben, 1884, pp. 505-515).* This 
 doctrine of perfection by suffering, or, as Heng- 
 stenberg terms it, “the mystery of the Cross,” is 
 regarded by these writers as the true solution 
 of the problem of the Book; and they suppose 
 it to be put in the mouth of Elihu rather than 
 in that of the Deity, “ because it would not have 
 comported with the Divine dignity for the in- 
 finite God to place Himself on a level with His 
 dependent creature and enter into an argument 
 with him” (W. H. Green, /. ἃ p. 260). This 
 explanation seems unsatisfactory, because it 
 makes the speeches of the Deity superfluous; 
 and as such Hengstenberg seems to regard them 
 when he says (i. 22) that “the importance 
 of the Theophany consists in the fuct that God 
 appears, not in what He says.’ Hence Simson 
 (Zur Kritik des Buches Hiob, 1861, p. 34) and 
 others who regard the standpoint of Elihu as an 
 advance on that of the original author reject 
 the speeches on that account; and the descrip- 
 tion of them as a “ first theological criticism on 
 the contents of the Book” (T. K. Cheyne) is the 
 most probable. It should be added that the 
 doctrine of the “mystery of the Cross” is only 
 taught in certain portions of Elihu’s discourse ; 
 and the nature of the rest corresponds sufficiently 
 well with the theory that some reader, finding 
 in the Book many sayings which bordered on 
 blasphemy not sufficiently refuted by the friends, 
 nor retracted by Job in ch. xxvii., thought pro- 
 per to collect these offensive sayings, and in the 
 person of Elihu expressly to refute them. 
 
 (6) Chapters xl. 15-xli. 26 (description of the 
 hippopotamus and the crocodile). ‘The spurious- 
 ness of ch. xli. 4-26 was suggested by Stuhlmann 
 (/. c. p. 183), who made some further altera- 
 tions; Eichhorn (Hinleitung, v. 207) followed 
 him, and added xl. 15-xli. 3 to the athetesis. 
 This was approved by Ewald (Tiibinger Theol. 
 Jahrbb. 1843, p. 740 sqq.), whose grounds are 
 also stated in his Commentary (E. T. p. 318 
 sqa.), and of more modern writers by Dilimann, 
 Simson (Zur Kritik des Buches Hiob, p. 2), 
 Wright, Cheyne, and Grill. These examples 
 are thought inappropriate, because the omni- 
 potence of God in the government of the world 
 rather than His omnipotence in creation is the 
 point to be proved; and fault is found with the 
 length and minuteness of the descriptions, in 
 which the person of the Speaker is almost 
 forgotten. Some scholars have regarded the 
 
 Ὁ The view of Gritz (Geschichte der Juden, ii. 42-44) 
 is similar, but not quite identical. 
 
 JOB 
 
 animals described as fabulous. The purpose of 
 the interpolator is supposed to have been “to 
 strengthen the argument of the Deity by the 
 description of powerful creatures which indicate 
 the omnipotence of the Creator” (Grill). Bunsen, 
 Gott in der Geschichte, t. 497, arranged the pas- 
 sage as follows: xl. 15-26; xl. 1-14. 
 
 (c) Chapter xxviii. is regarded as a later ad- 
 dition by Knobel, Reuss, Cheyne, Grill, and others. 
 It gives an interesting description of mining 
 operations, which, difficult and elaborate as they 
 are, are insufficient to produce Wisdom, which 
 is only to be found with God, Who has given to 
 man no part of it but the practical rule to fear 
 Him. The chapter is isolated, and would seem 
 to contain an independent answer to the problem 
 of the Book, not different from the final answer, 
 but surprising in Job’s mouth. 
 
 (d) Chapter xxvii. 7-23. This passage is one 
 of the most difficult in the Book, for in it Job 
 would appear to adopt the standpoint which he 
 has been combating throughout. Kennicott, 
 followed by several modern critics (¢.g. Reuss, 
 Hoffmann, Cheyne), assigned this passage to 
 Zophar, who according to the traditional 
 arrangement speaks twice only; and Gratz 
 (Monatschrift, 1872, p. 246): assigns to him 
 ch. xxviii. also.’ (Bruch, Weisheitslehre der 
 Hebréer, p. 170, would transpose xxvi. 5-14 
 after xxvii. 23.) Bernstein, Wellhausen, and 
 Grill delete it, as the work of an interpolator, 
 who desired to put into Job’s mouth an 
 acknowledgment of the Divine justice. If the 
 passage be retained, the view of Hitzig and 
 others that Job is here quoting the theory of 
 his opponents seems preferable to that of Ewald 
 and Delitzsch, according to which he adopts it 
 in a modified form. 
 
 (e) The Prologue and Epilogue were obelized 
 (after a suggestion of A. Schultens) by Stuhi- 
 mann, Bernstein, De Wette, and more recently 
 by C. P. Tiele: Prof. Cheyne is inclined to 
 regard them as belonging to a prose Book of Job, 
 which the poet may have made the basis of his 
 composition. They differ from the rest of the 
 work chiefly in the use of the name Mi) for 
 
 the Deity, who is called in the Book itself by, 
 
 Tw, mx, rarely ons, and in recognising 
 ritual observances, of which the moral code of 
 ch. xxxi. takes no notice. However, without 
 the Prologue, the situation is unintelligible: 
 and it is difficult to separate the Epilogue from 
 it, although the latter has offended the taste of 
 many, and is characterised by a certain irony. 
 
 (7) The verses 38-40 of ch. xxxi. would seem 
 to be displaced, and are transposed by Delitzsch 
 and many others after vv. 8, 25 or 34. 
 
 For further «atheteses, see Grill, Zur Kritik der 
 Komposition des Buches Hiob (Tiibingen, 1890), 
 who would also omit xii. 4-xiii. 2; xxiv. 5-9, 
 14-21; xxvi. 2-xxvii. 1; xxix., xxx.) xxxljdis 
 T. K. Cheyne, Job and Solomon; and J. ἃ. 
 Hoffmann, Ποὺ (1890). The striking recon- 
 struction by Studer (Bremen, 1881) also 
 deserves notice: perhaps the most attractive 
 suggestion which it contains is that chs. xxix., 
 xxx, constituted the original Prologue. 
 
 6. The language.—The language of the Book 
 of Job is rich and classical; and the author pos- 
 sesses a peculiar felicity of expression, and, like 
 Ezekiel, delights in displaying the wealth of 
 
_ 
 
 JOB 
 
 the Hebrew language. The rhetorical devices of 
 the Arabic poets are employed, but with 
 moderation, e.g. paronomasias" (xx. 27, 28; 
 xxii, 24, 25, xxiv. 18; xxix. 43 xxxi. 33, 34), 
 attempts at rhyme (xxvii. 23 ; xxviii. 8; Xxxix. 
 3), double entendres (xxix. 18; xxx. 45 xxxi. 7, 
 with reference to Deut. xiii. 17), employment of 
 the same word in different senses (xi. 7; probably 
 xxit. 30, xxiv. 17, xxxi. 10), Much has been said 
 of the Arabisms of Job, which were noticed even 
 by Jerome (Praef. in Daniel. ), who professes to 
 interpret the Book with the aid of the Syriac 
 and Arabic (Praef. in Jobun). This “ Arabism ” 
 appears (1) inthe employment of certain Hebrew 
 roots in their Arabic senses, e.g. OY, “ to turn 
 aside,” xxiii.<9; ΟΝ, “to speak truly,” xxxiii. 
 125 xdonn, “to form companies,” xvi. 10; 
 
 123, “ tribe,” xix. 17 (Kosegarten) ; N47, “ fall, % 
 Xxxvii. 6; TON, “ business,” xx. 29, xxii. 28, &e.: 
 
 (2) in the employment of certain grammatical 
 forms which resemble the Arabic rather than the 
 
 Hebrew idiom, 6.0. IN‘), xxxiii. 21; 105, {71D — 
 
 sunilarly IPD PX, xxxv. 15 (Delitzsch), ap 
 xxi, 4, seem to follow Arabic syntax: (3) in 
 the employment of vocables existing in Arabic, 
 but not found elsewhere in Hebrew literature, 
 e.g.) DYIND, “thighs,” xl. 173; %¥3), “nets,” 
 xviii. 2; ΠΣ), “sneezing,” xli. 105 99, xxxvii. 
 11 (Delitzsch; see a list given by Béttcher, 
 Ausf. Lehrb. i. p. 16). Bernstein is right in 
 saying that these Arabisms do not differ in 
 quality from those which are to be found 
 in other Books of the Bible, and are to be 
 explained by the original aflinity of the Semitic 
 dialects and the fact that our knowledge of 
 Hebrew is fragmentary. It is by something of 
 an exaggeration therefore that Delitzsch and 
 Wetzstein speak of ‘the dialect of this Book as 
 “ Hauranitic” or ‘ Hebrew-Arabic,” and the 
 best critics have been sober in their employ- 
 ment of the Arabic vocabulary in its interpre- 
 tation. Equally important therefore are the 
 Aramaisms (most fully collected by Bernstein, 
 i. c. pp. 49-79), which some critics have 
 endeayoured, but without success, to distinguish 
 from those which are to be found in the later 
 Books of the Bible generally. It is remarkable that 
 in xviii. 20 the author desiring a synonym for wit- 
 ness (Heb. TY) borrows one from the Aramaic 
 C10Y), without accommodating it to Hebrew 
 
 vocalism., The speeches of Elihu are especially 
 
 replete with Aramaisms (e.g. xxxvi. 2, % ns 
 JINN) Wt); but attempts which have been 
 made to show that the other speakers are 
 distinguished by their dialect (see e.g. Hitzig 
 on iv. 6, viii. 8, 11, 17) are evidently fanciful. 
 A few words are explained by scholars from the 
 
 Aethiopic (e.g. MOMN, iv. 18, according to Dill- 
 mann); and besides the Egyptian words in the 
 verses noticed above, the Egyptian name for 
 “ crocodile ” seems certainly alluded to in xl. 25. 
 There remain, however, a great number of hapax 
 legomena which have not as yet been illustrated 
 from any dialect, and the meaning of which was 
 unknown to the ancient translators. Great 
 similarity has otherwise been traced between the 
 Hebrew of Job and that of the Book-of Proverbs. 
 
 ἃ Collected by Wright, pp. 32, 33. 
 
 JOB 1723 
 
 The orthography throughout shows some peculi- 
 arities, such as the omission of matres lectionis, 
 e.g. NS, i. 21; the contraction of consonantal 
 N, e.g. MON, vill. 21; interchange of δὲ and 7, 
 
 e.g. nbn, viii. 21: all of which appear also 
 in the Elihu discourses. 
 
 * Jerome states that in the original the 
 dialogue was written in “ hexameters, composed 
 of dactyls and spondees, sometimes admitting 
 other feet, not of the same syllables, but of the 
 same metrical value,” yet occasionally rhythmus 
 ipse dulcis et tinnulus fertur numeris lege metri 
 solutis; and he refers to the ordinary autho- 
 rities (Josephus, Philo, and Origen) in proof of 
 these assertions. These metres. Bickell in his 
 Carmina Hebraica has attempted to restore; a 
 somewhat more elaborate attempt has been 
 made by G. H. B. Wright (see the explanation 
 in his translation of Job, pp. 23-31), whereas 
 Prof. Briggs and Merx have attempted simpler 
 analyses. Strophic arrangements of different 
 sorts have been introduced by Késter*(1831), 
 Delitzsch, Merx (1872), and others. Sia: 
 
 7. Ancient Versions. —(a) The SEPTUAGINT 
 translation was the work of a writer well versed 
 in Greek literature; among the authors whom 
 he occasionally imitates are Homer, Aeschylus, 
 and perhaps Apollonius Rhodius and Calli- 
 machus (E. Egliin Rheinisches Museum, xii. 444— 
 448); his language, however, is not free from 
 the dialectic peculiarities of the LXX. His 
 knowledge of Hebrew (if, indeed, he had the 
 original before him) must have been very slight ; 
 and although he sometimes interprets words 
 after the Syriac (¢.g. x. 17, "133; τὴν ἔτασίν 
 pov), and perhaps the Arabic (@g. xxxix. 20, 
 JN}; στηθέων αὐτοῦ ; ep. Arab. 5; xvi. 12; 
 SDD; τῆς κόμης), his translation is for the most 
 part too free to be of any use for the criticism 
 of the text, and too ignorant to be of any help 
 in interpreting it. One trace of traditional 
 exegesis seems to be preserved in xxix. 18, 
 where for στέλεχος φοίνικος it is probable 
 that φοῖνιξ (1.6. the bird Phoenix) should be 
 read. The translator follows the method of 
 the Targums in avoiding all offensive anthropo- 
 morphisms; he makes a rhetorical addition in 
 ii. 8, and adds an epilogue which is of some 
 interest. These various characteristics make 
 the middle of the 2nd century B.c. the 
 probable date of this translation (Bickell, de 
 indole ac ratione versionis Alexandrinae in inter- 
 pretando libro Iobi, Marburg, 1862). There is 
 no doubt that the original LXX. text was much 
 shorter than that which has come down in our 
 MSS. ; it omitted of the Hebrew verses “ some- 
 times three or four, sometimes fourteen or 
 nineteen”? (Origenes, Zp. ad Africanum); the 
 whole number of the omissions being reckoned 
 by Jerome (Praef. in Jobum) at 700 or 800, by 
 Hesychius at 600. The Greek of these verses 
 was supplied by Origen from Theodotion, and 
 marked by him in the Hexapla with asterisks; 
 and they are not translated in the pre-Hexa- 
 plarian Sahidic Version, whence we learn that 
 the whole number did not exceed 400 (Dillmann, 
 Texthritisches zum Buche Hiob in Sitzungsberichte 
 der kh. p. Akademie zu Berlin, Dec. 18, 1890). 
 Bickell (pp. 48-50), who gave an enumeration 
 of them from the authorities then accessible, 
 
1131 
 
 reckoned the number at 373. An attempt is 
 made by Hatch (Zssays in Biblical Greek, pp. 220- 
 245) to show that the verses omitted by the 
 LXX. may have been later interpolations in the 
 Hebrew copies (6... xvii. 83-5 5 xxi, 28-35 5 xxiv. 
 14ς-18 4; xxviii. 13-22, the last of which is 
 quoted by Clem. Alex.); and it is certainly re- 
 markable that many of them should occur in 
 the speech of Elihu. We regard the opinion of 
 Bickell (and Dillmann, who /. ὁ. examines them 
 in detail) that these verses were omitted arbi- 
 trarily on grounds of difficulty or of taste, as 
 more probable. 
 
 Daughter Versions of the . XX.—Of these the 
 
 Sahidic (Thebaic) was made before the recension 
 of Origen; it exists in ἃ MS. in the Museum 
 3orgianum at Rome, except the last leaves, 
 which are at Naples; the first chapter was 
 published, with Latin translation, by Giovanni 
 Tortoli (Atti del iv Congresso dei Orientalisti, 
 Firenze, 1880, p. 79), who promised an edition 
 of the whole; a project achieved by A. Ciasca 
 (Sucrorum Bibliorum Fragmenta Copto-Sahidica, 
 Rome, 1885). A Memphitie Version, closely fol- 
 lowing the Alexandrian MS., was published by 
 H. Tattam (London, 1850). The critical marks 
 of Origen are preserved in the Syro-Hexaplar 
 Version (made A.D. 617), which exists in a Milan 
 MS. (edited by Middeldorpf, 1835, facsimiled by 
 Ceriani 1876). This version is carefully in- 
 vestigated by Middeldorpf, Curae Hexaplares in 
 Jobum, Breslau, 1817. The Armenian Version 
 (in its printed form) closely follows the Alex- 
 andrian MS. The Aethiopic Version is in MS. ; 
 the copy in the Bodleian Library exhibits a text 
 on the whole similar to MS. Alex., but very 
 ignorantly rendered (e.g. Βιλδὰδ 6 Σαυχίτης is 
 throughout rendered BiAdados Avxirns); not 
 unfrequently second renderings of verses are 
 introduced (according to Dillmann, Lex. Aeth. 
 col. 90, “from the Syriac and Arabic;” this 
 source however will not account for all, e.g. 
 xxxiv. 9, where }MNNY11 is rendered by his run- 
 ning): in this case the new translation regularly 
 precedes that which follows the LXX. 
 
 (0) Peshitto Syriac——An account of this ver- 
 sion, which was made directly from the Hebrew, 
 is given by Edy. Stenij (de Syriaca Lobi inter- 
 pretatione quae Peschita vocatur, Helsingfors, 
 1881), who collects (1) the various readings; 
 (2) the better readings ; (3) the variants of the 
 Hebrew text. The last are of little importance. 
 it is the basis of the Commentary of S. Ephraem. 
 
 (c) Targun.—tThe best edition is by P. de 
 Lagarde (Hagiographa Chaldaice, Leipzig, 1873). 
 There are dissertations on it by S, Cohn (1867), 
 A. Weiss (de libri Jobi paraphrasi Chaldaica, 
 Breslau, 1873), and W. Bacher (in Griitz’s 
 Monatschrift, 1871, pp. 208-223). According to 
 the last writers it is the work of a Palestinian 
 Jew of the 4th century A.D., interpolated by a 
 hand of the 8th century. Its variations from 
 the Massoretic text are very remarkable. 
 
 (α) Latin Versions.—The Old-Latin was made 
 from the Greek, and omitted the same verses. 
 Jerome is said to have translated the Book twice, 
 once from the Greek, where he marked verses 
 which he had added from the Hebrew with an 
 asterisk, verses which were wanting in the 
 Hebrew with an obelus; and a second time from 
 the Hebrew (Augustine, ed. Migne, ii. 242). The 
 former of these, however, would seem to hare 
 
 JOB 
 
 JOB 
 
 been no more than a revision of the Old-Latin; 
 and hence two MSS. of it preserve Jerome’s 
 critical marks,—Bodl. 2426, and a Cod. Maioris 
 Monasterii printed in Martianaeus’ edition of 
 S. Jerome, and thence in Sabatier’s Bibb/. Lat. 
 Versiones Antiquae, vol. i., now Turonensis 18. 
 De Lagarde (JMittheilungen, ii. 189-327) has 
 published a text of this version with the read- 
 ings of both MSS. Jerome agrees sometimes 
 with Jewish tradition (6... xxxviii. 6); his work 
 has received, not undeservedly, high praise. 
 
 (e) Arabic Versions—The Version in the Poly- 
 glott is from the Peshitto ; Tattam (/. c.) made 
 use of a MS. Version from the Coptic. ‘The same, 
 or a similar Version made from the Coptic, is 
 printed by P. de Lagarde in his Psalterium Job 
 Proverbia Arabice (Gottingen, 1876), where the 
 Polyglott Version also is reprinted. An Arabic 
 Version made from the LXX. (perhaps through 
 or with the aid of a daughter Version) was 
 described by Fleischer, ZDMG. 1864, p. 288, 
 and afterwards edited by Baudissin (Zrans/a- 
 tionis antiquae Arabicae libri Ivbi quae supersunt, 
 Lips. 1870). Arabic Versions made from the 
 Hebrew are many; that by the Gaon Saadja 
 (ob. 942) has been edited by Dr. J. Cohn (Altona, 
 1889). 
 
 8. History of Exegesis—The Book of Job must 
 have been much studied in early times, since we 
 find constant imitations of it in the “ Wisdom 
 of Ben-Sira,’’ who however makes no mention of 
 Job (just as he makes no mention of Daniel) 
 among the heroes of the world, although (accord- 
 ing to the Syriac Version of xlix. 11) he refers 
 to the passage of Ezekiel in which Job is men- 
 tioned. In the ‘*Wisdom of Solomon,” νυ. 10, 
 11 seem to be suggested by the LXX. of Job ix. 
 26, and in the “ Psalms of Solomon” parts of 
 Ps. iii. by Job iii. He is referred to in the Book 
 of Tobit, and by St. James (v. 11); the Book is 
 quoted by St. Paul (1 Cor. iii. 19 = v. 13 a) and 
 is alluded to by Christ (Matt. xxiv. 28 = xxxix. 
 30). There are copious references to it in the 
 Mishna, Talmudim, and Midrashim (collected by 
 Rabbi Israel Schwarz in the first volume of his 
 work WIN NipNn, Berlin, 1868). It is assigned 
 different places in the Canon in different lists 
 (W. H. Proby, On certain Questions connected with 
 the Book of Job, 1886, pp. 5-10; Carpzovins, 
 Introductio ad libros Biblicos Vet. Test. ii. 31): 
 being regarded by some authors as a poetical 
 book, by others as historical. The latter view 
 is thought to have been held by Josephus 
 (c. Apion. i. ο. 10), and was long maintained in 
 the Christian Church. Augustine (contra Prise. 
 et Origen. ed. Migne, viii. 676) denies that 
 the speeches of the three friends have Divine 
 authority, although “a man of discernment 
 potest ex eorum verbis aliquam sanam sententiam 
 in testimonium veritatis assumere ;” but the view 
 taken of Job was on the whole favourable ; and 
 even in the Moralia of Gregorius Magnus “the 
 tendency to minimise Job’s sin during his 
 afflictions is clearly visible” (Schlottmann, 
 Ῥ. 45). After Calvin (Sermon exxix. on Job) had 
 asserted his sin with some emphasis, Rom. Cath. 
 and especially Jesuit theologians maintained his 
 complete sinlessness ; on the other hand, Luther 
 was attacked by the Rom. Caths. for denying 
 the completely historical character of the work 
 (see Carpzovius, Zntrod. ii, p. 84); but when 
 after the initiative of Richard Simon freer ideas 
 
 i 
 
JOB 
 
 on this subject circulated among the Rom. Caths., 
 the Protestants became stricter, and Luther’s 
 utterances were explained away (Schlottmann, 
 pp- 6, 7 and 44, 45). The Book of Job was 
 violently attacked in early times by Theodore of 
 Mopsuestia (0b. 428), who regarded Job himself 
 as a historical character, viz. a pious Edomite, 
 but the author of the Book (whom he identified 
 with the LXX. translator) as a vainglorious 
 man, who, in order to parade his learning and 
 poetical skill, had fabricated the whole of the 
 Dialogue (Fritzsche, de Theod. Mopsuest. 1836, 
 pp. 60, 01). A very similar attack was made 
 onthe Book in later times by Spinoza (Zract. 
 Theol. Polit. ch. x.). 
 
 The inaceuracy of the LXX. Version impeded 
 the understanding of the Book among the Greek 
 fathers, whose comments are collected in the 
 Catena of Nicetas (London, 1637); another Catena 
 (in Latin) was published by Paulus Comitolus 
 (Leyden, 1586, and Venice, 1587). The Com- 
 mentary of Jerome, which would have been of 
 great value, is lost; that which is printed 
 among his writings is by Philippus Presbyter 
 (A.D, 455), Commentaries were also written by 
 Ambrose and Augustine. The Moralia in Jobum 
 of Gregorius Magnus (οὐ. 604) was the most 
 important of the early Latin commentaries, and 
 is commended by G. Bradley, Lectures on the 
 Book. of Job (1887); another work with the 
 same title was composed by Odo Cluniacensis 
 (10th century). The earliest Jewish exposition 
 printed is by R. Saadja Gaon (v. supra), consisting 
 of brief notes in Arabic, not free fromm scholastic- 
 ism: the commentary of his Karaite opponent, R. 
 Jephet ibn Ali, exists in MS. in English libraries. 
 Of early Rabbinical commentators, besides Rashi 
 and Ibn Ezra, R. Moses "Ὁ. Nachman (οὐ. 1270), 
 R. Levi b. Gerson (0). 1378), R. Simon b. 
 Zemach (οὗ. circa 1400; his Comm. is called 
 DSWD ANN), and R. Abraham b. Farissol 
 (born 1451) are often cited. R. Levi (Gersonides 
 or Ralbag) explained the Book philosophically, 
 as Maimonides had done (More Nebuchim, iii. 
 § 22), and as R. Jehudah b. Saadja (15th 
 century) is said to have done, Some others are 
 mentioned by Carpzov, /. c. p. 82, in the Histoire 
 Littéraire de la France, xxvii. pp: 551-6, and in 
 A. Neubauer’s Catalogue of Hebrew MSS. in the 
 Bodleian Library, col. 1052.  Schiller-Szinessy 
 (Catalogue, p. 40) praises very highly the Com- 
 mentary of R. Berachyah existing in the Cam- 
 bridge Library. The Vatican MS. 188 con- 
 tains a fragment of a Cabbalistic explanation of 
 ch, xxxviii.; fragments of an early commentary 
 have been published with very careful notes 
 by R. Gildemeister (Bruchstiiche eines Rabbini- 
 schen Hiob-Commentars, Bonn, 1874); see also 
 Frankel, Monatschrift, 1856, p. 223, and "ΝΣ 
 DMN5DnN, Vilna, 1880, p. 460. The work of 
 R. Schwarz, referred to above, embodies the 
 Commentaries of R. Isaiah of Trani, RR. Moses, 
 Daniel, and Joseph Kimchi, and R. Zechariah 
 b, Isaac of Barcelona (1160-1290). Many others 
 have been printed in the last and the present 
 centuries. The most recent Hebrew Commentary 
 (by B. Szolt, Baltimore, 1886) contains much 
 that is valuable, but entirely neglects what has 
 been done by non-Jewish scholars, This class 
 of exposition is represented in English by the 
 extensive work of H. H. Bernard (The Book 
 of Job as expounded to his Cambridge Pupils 
 
 JOBAB 1725 
 
 by H, I, B., edited by F. Chance, London, 
 1884), 
 
 More than sixty authorities, chiefly Christian 
 commentators, were employed by A. Schultens 
 (Leiden, 1737), who assigns the palm among 
 Rom. Cath. scholars to Pineda (Venice, 1608), 
 among Lutherans to Sebastian Schmid (Stras- 
 burg, 1690). His own Commentary is monu- 
 mental, not only as embodying the labours of 
 his predecessors, but as the result of profound 
 acquaintance with Semitic idioms, and charac- 
 terised throughout by sound judgment and 
 modesty. His application of Arabie to the in- 
 terpretation of Job, although excessive, is 
 moderate, if compared with the procedure of 
 scholars both before and after his time. An 
 abridged edition of his work was issued by 
 Vogel (Halle, 1769). Of Schultens’ successors 
 De Wette (in his Zntroduction) is thought to 
 have done most for the interpretation of the 
 work as a whole: for the explanation of parti- 
 cular difficulties Renan (Le Livre de Job, 1860) 
 assigns the palm to Ewald (Dichter des Alten 
 Bundes, 1836, 2nd ed. 1866; translated in the 
 Theological Translation Fund Library), while he 
 specially commends for industry the Handbuch 
 of Hirzel (Leipzig, 1839, re-edited by J. Ols- 
 hausen, afterwards by A. Dillmann, 1869). 
 The Commentary of A. Hahn (Berlin, 1850) is 
 valuable for its grammatical analysis; that of 
 Schlottmann (Berlin, 1851) chiefly for the 
 varied learning of its introduction, in which 
 parallels both to the plan and to the thought of 
 the Book of Job are collected from the sacred 
 literature of the Indo-Germanic races. The 
 Biblical Commentary of F. Delitzsch (Leipzig, 
 1864, 2nd ed. 1876, translated in Clark’s Foreign 
 Theological Library) is justly regarded as one 
 of the most successful of its author’s produc- 
 tions. Much that is original and valuable was 
 added by F. Hitzig in his Commentary (Leipzig, 
 1874). The posthumous work of E. W. Heng- 
 stenberg (Berlin, 1870-6) is controversial and 
 homiletic. The most recent German commen- 
 tary is by W. Volek in Strack and Zoéckler’s Exe- 
 getisches Handbuch (1890). The commentaries 
 of the Rom. Caths. Welte (1849) and Zschokke 
 (1882), and the translations of A. Merx (1871) 
 and J. G. Hoffmann (1890), deserve mention. 
 The most important commentary in Dutch is 
 that by J. C. Matthes (Het bock Job vertaald eu 
 verklaard, 2nd ed., Gréningen, 1876). 
 
 Of recent English works the most elaborate 
 is the unfinished Commentary of A. B, Davidson. 
 (Edinburgh, 1862); the Commentary in the 
 Speaker’s series is by Canon F. C. Cook (London, 
 1880). The work of G. H. B. Wright (Zhe Book 
 of Job: a new critically revised Translation, with 
 Essays, London, 1883) is mainly critical, that of 
 Samuel Cox (A Commentary on the Book of Job, 
 with a new Translation, London, 1880) mainly 
 homiletic. Some of the special literature has 
 been noticed in the preceding sections. 
 
 [D. S. M.} 
 
 JO'BAB. 1. (231): in Gen. A. Ἰωβάβ, 
 Ε. Ἰωβάδ ; in Ch. A. ᾿Ωράμ, B. om.: Jobab.) The 
 last of the thirteen sons of Joktan (Gen. x. 29; 
 1 Ch. i. 23) and the tribal father of a branch 
 of the Joktanide clans. His name has not 
 been discovered among the Arab names of 
 places in Southern Arabia, where he ought to 
 
1726 JOCHEBED 
 
 be found with the other sons of Joktan. 
 But Ptolemy (vi. 7, 24) mentions the Ἴωβα- 
 pirat near the Sachalitae on the S. coast of 
 ‘Arabia; and Bochart, followed by Salmasius 
 and Gesenius, suggests the reading ᾿Ιωβαβίται, 
 by the common interchange of p and B. The 
 identification is possibly correct, but it has not 
 been connected with an Arab name of a tribe or 
 place ; and Bochart’s conjecture of its being 2. q. 
 w 
 
 Arab. wl, yabab, “a desert,” from ς᾽ 
 
 though regarded as probable by Gesenius and 
 Michaelis, seems to be unworthy of acceptance. 
 Kalisch (Com. on Gen.) says that it is, “ accord- 
 ing to the etymology, a district in Arabia 
 Deserta,” in apparent ignorance of the famous 
 desert near Hadhramaut, called al-Ahkaf, of 
 proverbial terror ; and the more extensive waste 
 on the north-east of the former, called the 
 “deserted quarter,” Er-Ruba el-Khali, which is 
 impassable in the summer, and fitter to be called 
 desert Arabia than the country named deserta 
 by the Greeks. But Kautzsch definitely rejects 
 Bochart’s combination Jobabites = Jobarites 
 (Riehm, HWZB. s. v. Jobab). 
 
 2. Jobab ben Zerah, of Bozrah, the second in 
 the list of “the kings that reigned in the land 
 of Edom, before there reigned any king over the 
 children of Israel” (Gen. xxxvi. 33, 34; 1 Ch. 
 i. 44,45). [Epom.] An addition to the LXX. 
 version of the Book of Job identifies hirn with 
 Job, his father being Zerah son of Esau, and his 
 mother Bosorra (Cod. Vat.) or Bossora (Cod. 
 Al.); a name obviously derived from the Bozrah 
 of the original text. 
 
 8. Jobab, king of Madon, an ally of Jabin 
 king of Hazor, against Joshua (Josh. xi. 1). 
 
 4, Jobab, the name of two clans of Benjamin 
 (1 Ch. viii. 9, 18). [E. S. P.] (C.J. B.] 
 
 JO-CHEBED (7351 if of Hebrew origin= 
 Jehovah is gloriousness [MV.'!]; for the Egyp- 
 tian interpretation, see Nestle, Die Jsraelit. 
 Eigennamen, p. 77 54. ; "IwxaBé5; Jochabed), 
 the wife and at the same time the aunt of 
 Amram, and the mother of Moses and Aaron 
 (Ex. vi. 20). In order to avoid the apparent 
 illegality of the marriage between Amram and 
 his aunt, the LXX. and Vulg. render the word 
 dodah “ cousin” instead of “aunt” (see Knobel- 
 Dillmann in loco). But this is unnecessary : 
 the example of Abraham himself (Gen. xx. 12) 
 proves that in the pre-Mosaic age a greater 
 latitude was permitted in regard to marriage 
 than in a later age. Moreover it is expressly 
 stated elsewhere (Ex. ii. 1; Num. xxvi. 59) 
 that Jochebed was the daughter of Levi, and 
 consequently sister of Kohath, Amram’s father. 
 
 LW. L..B.]. EE.) 
 
 JO'DA (Ἰωδά; Vulg. om.)=Judah the Levite 
 (1 Esd. v. 58, see Speaker’s Comm. in loco; cp. 
 Ezra iii. 9). Some words are probably omitted. 
 The name elsewhere appears in the A. V. in the 
 forms Hodaviah (Ezra ii. 40), Hodevah (Neh. 
 vii. 43), Hodijah (Neh. x. 10), and Sudias (1 Esd. 
 v. 26). 
 
 JO'ED (Wi) = Jehovah is witness [MV."]; 
 
 ᾿Ιωάδ : Joed), a Benjamite, the son of Pedaiah 
 (Neh. xi. 7). Two of Kennicott’s MSS. read 
 
 JOEL 
 
 ri’, z.c. Joezer, and two Seen, te. Joel, con- 
 founding Joed with Joel the son of Pedaiah the 
 Manassite. ‘The Syriac must have read D7)’. 
 
 JO'EL Onis = Jehovah is God’; cp. the 
 Phoenician by) [MV.1!; see Nestle, Zsraclit. Ligen- 
 namen, p. 86]: Ἰωήλ : Joel and Johel). 1. Eldest 
 son of Samuel the prophet (1 Sam, viii. 2; 1 Ch. 
 vi. 33, xv. 17), and father of Heman the singer. 
 He and his brother Abiah were made judges in 
 Beersheba when their father was old, and no 
 longer able to go his accustomed circuit, But 
 they disgraced both their office and their 
 parentage by the corrupt way in which they 
 took bribes and perverted judgment. Their 
 grievous misconduct gave occasion for the change 
 of the constitution of Israel to a monarchy. It 
 is in the case of Joel that the singular corrup- 
 tion of the text of 1 Ch. vi. 13 (υ. 28, A. V.) has 
 taken place. Joel’s name has dropped out; and 
 Vashni, which means “and the second,” and is 
 descriptive of Abijah, has been taken for a proper 
 name. The R. V. reads the verse “ the firstborn 
 Joel, and the second Abiah.” 
 
 2. Joel in 1 Ch. vi. 36, A. V. and R. V,, is 
 replaced by Shaul inv. 24. ~ [A. C. HJ 
 
 3. One of the Minor Prophets, the son of 
 Pethuel, or, according to the LXX., Βαθουήλ. 
 Nothing further is known of his origin: the 
 statements that he was from Bethom of Reuben 
 (Pseudo-Epiphanius, De vit. Proph. xiv.), or 
 from the tribe of Zebulun, seem to be quite 
 untrustworthy. Nor again can any infor- 
 mation be gleaned from his writings as to his 
 condition of life: he speaks indeed of the priests 
 with respect (i. 9, 13; ii. 17); but this is no 
 proof that he was himself a priest or Levite, as 
 has been sometimes supposed. We must submit 
 to be ignorant of all the personal history of 
 Joel, however desirous we may be to know mure 
 of one who was by no means the least remarkable 
 of the Minor Prophets. 
 
 As to the date of his writings extreme 
 diversity of opinion still continues to exist: it 
 is a point which cannot be settled with cer- 
 tainty any more than the authorship of the 
 Epistle to the Hebrews: only probability is 
 attainable. It has been put (by Credner and 
 Movers) as early as the first years of Joash of 
 Judah (837 B.c.),* or even earlier (Bunsen); by 
 Merx it has been brought down as late as 445; 
 by others it has been placed at various inter- 
 vening dates. This uncertainty is due to the 
 fact that there is in Joel no marked allusion to 
 foreign politics, such as meets us in Isaiah; no 
 description of the social condition of the people, 
 no denunciation of national sins, which might 
 serve to fix his date: only drunkenness is men- 
 tioned. The enemies of Judah who are to be 
 punished for their oppressions are not Assyria 
 and Babylon, who came upon the scene at 
 definite, well-known times: they are Phoenicia, 
 Philistia, Egypt, and Edom, and it is difficult to 
 assign any time for the particular acts of hos- 
 tility for which they are denounced by the 
 Prophet. Our knowledge of the relations of 
 
 a As to thetchronology of the kings of Israel and 
 Judah from the time of Jehu and Athaliah, see Driver 
 Isaiah, his Life and Times, p. 13. Ussher’s chronology 
 must be given up. 
 
 _— 
 
JOEL 
 
 these peoples to Israel and Judah is probably 
 too fragmentary for us to build any safe con- 
 clusions upon it: the Prophet may be alluding 
 to acts which have not been recorded in the 
 chronicles which have descended to us. So in 
 the Psalms it is often impossible to fix upon any 
 known historical facts as the basis of the 
 Psalmist’s meaning. From the scattered notices 
 which meet us we may fairly conclude that the 
 enmity of these nations was chronic, venting 
 itself whenever an opportunity might occur. 
 The date of Joel must, it would seem, be placed 
 either early or very late. For although the 
 Prophet seems to allude to coming captivity 
 (ii. 20; iii. 1), yet there is no evidence in his 
 writings of the struggle between idolatry and 
 the worship of Jehovah which meets us in 
 Hosea, Amos, and later Prophets, and continued 
 till the Captivity, when it finally ceased. And 
 yet this very absence of pointed allusion to 
 known historical events may be of value in 
 determining the age of the Prophet. The fact 
 that we find no mention of Assyria or Babylon, 
 that no denunciation of them meets us in Joel, 
 as in Isaiah x. and xiv., would seem to show 
 that these nations had not yet appeared upon 
 the political scene. For when the Prophet 
 speaks (iii. 2) of the gathering of “all nations” 
 to Jerusalem for judgment, he does not mention 
 these overwhelming oppressors, over whose 
 downfall Isaiah exults with such patriotic 
 fervour: he mentions only the petty plunderers 
 of gold and silver and slaves. It may there- 
 fore, with some confidence, be assumed that he 
 wrote at a time when these great empires had 
 not yet come into collision with Israel and 
 Judah; that is, before the end of the 8th cen- 
 tury B.c. On the other hand, his probable 
 allusion to Jehoshaphat’s victory (2 Ch, xx.) 
 over Moab, Edom, and Ammon (iii. 2, 12) would 
 make him subsequent to that event, z.c. to the 
 middle of the 7th century ; his time may there- 
 fore fairly be sought at some period between 
 these two dates. And many allusions in his 
 Book harmonise well with this assumption. 
 The office of prophet was still highly respected 
 as ir the days of David. The nation was 
 apparently more simple in its ways than in the 
 time of Amos. The Temple was still standing, 
 and its ritual cherished. The Prophet dreads 
 lest the offerings of meal and wine should be 
 interrupted (i. 9, 15, 16; ii. 14). The old war- 
 like spirit of Deborah and Dayid seems to be 
 revived in the summons!of the Prophet (iii. 9) 
 to all the nations to come and have vengeance 
 dealt to them for the wrongs done by them 
 against the people of the Lord. The purity of 
 Joel’s style tends also in the same direction, 
 and there is no reason for supposing that this is 
 due to a careful study of literary models, as 
 has been suggested. Again, the Prophets often 
 quote one from the other, as if to carry on the 
 message entrusted to an older colleague. And 
 so we find the words of Joel iii. 16 (Heb. iy. 
 16) also occurring in Amos i, 2. Did Joel 
 quote Amos, or Amos Joel? If we may judge 
 from a comparison of the two passages, Joel 
 was the older writer: in him the words in 
 question appear from the construction to be 
 ‘part of an original passage, whereas in Amos 
 they have the look of a quotation. It seems as 
 if Amos had taken almost the concluding words 
 
 JOEL 1757 
 
 of the older Prophet’s message and placed them 
 at the head of his own Book, thus associating 
 his own ministry with that of Joel. Again, 
 Joel iii, 18 (iv. 18) seems to be a component 
 part of the same prophecy, whereas in Amos 
 ix, 13 it has the air of being an insertion. 
 Further correspondences may be found be- 
 tween Joel and other Prophets, as will be seen 
 below, but these do not show from their form 
 which are the originals and which the quo- 
 tations. 
 
 The arguments for assigning a late, post- 
 exilic, date to Joel do not on examination appear 
 to be very convincing. Thus it has been said: 
 “Joel gives no indication of political life at 
 Jerusalem. In chap. i. only elders or sheikhs 
 and priests are mentioned: not the king or 
 princes or warriors or councillors, as before the 
 Exile. The nation has only a municipal organ- 
 ization with a priestly aristocracy, as it had 
 under the Persian empire.”” It is doubtful, 
 however, whether in any one of the four 
 passages (i. 2, 145 ii. 16; iii. 1) in which Joel 
 uses the word zagén, he employs it in an 
 otticial sense. Even if he did, the term is so 
 commonly used under the kings that no argu- 
 ment can be built upon it. That the king is 
 not mentioned may be due to the fact that the 
 prophecy was possibly delivered during the 
 minority of Joash of Judah. If again the 
 Prophet had no special message for the king 
 and other officials, why was he bound to mention 
 them? Again (2): “ Joel suits best with a later 
 date, when Syrian slaves were in special request 
 in Greece.” Why so? What evidence is forth- 
 coming that the Phoenicians were not slave- 
 dealers as early as the 9th and 8th centuries 
 B.c.? They are mentioned as such in Amos i. 6 
 In Is. xi. 11 captives of Israel are to be brought 
 back from other parts and from the “ islands of 
 the sea,’ i.e. the coasts of the Mediterranean. 
 There is no reason to suppose that this trade 
 sprung up then and was not in existence 
 centuries earlier. Again (3): “Thename Javan 
 (Jonians) is not found in any part of the O. T. 
 certainly older than Ezekiel.” Even if it could 
 be proved that the genealogy in Gen. x. 4 is of 
 post-exilic origin, this would not be enough. 
 To serve as an argument for the late date of 
 Joel, it must be shown that the name “ Javan” 
 was not known in Palestine till after the Exile: 
 this cannot be proved, and is most improbable.* 
 Again (4): “ In Joel Israel has disappeared : only 
 Judah is mentioned. This is inconceivable in 
 the case of an early prophet.” Why? Earlier 
 prophets than Joel, Elijah (with one exception, 
 2 Ch. xxi. 12) and Elisha, seem to have occupied 
 themselves entirely with the affairs of Israel: 
 why should not Joel’s ministry have been 
 confined to Judah? Again (5): “The ‘daily 
 offering’ (i. 9) is cut off and its restoration 
 (ii. 14) promised. Under the monarchy it was 
 the king’s private offering; not till Ezra was it 
 the affair of the community.’ Even if these 
 statements could he proved, they would be be- 
 side the mark. Joel is not speaking exclusively 
 of the special daily offering of meal and wine 
 (Ex. xxix, 40), the minhath ha-tamidh of Neh. x. 
 
 Ὁ R. W. Smith, Encycl. Brit. (1881), s. v. Joel. 
 e The name is found in an inscription of Sargon 
 (B.C. 722-705) : Schrader, ΚΑΤ. p. 81. 
 
1728 
 
 33; Dan. viii. 11, &e. He has been describing 
 the ravages of the locusts : ‘‘ The corn is wasted : 
 the new wine is dried up,” and so there is none 
 left for a meal- and drink - offering, the in- 
 variable accompaniments of all the bloody 
 sacrifices, not of the special morning and evening 
 offerings alone. Again (6): “ Joel’s allusion to 
 the walls (ii. 7, 9) shows him to be after Ezra 
 and Nehemiah.” Were there, then, no walls to 
 Jerusalem before the Exile? Again (7): “It is 
 an assumption inconsistent with history that 
 before the prophetical conflicts of the 8th 
 century spiritual prophecy had unchallenged 
 sway, when there was no gross idolatry or 
 superstition, and when prophets like Joel were 
 in accord with the priests and held the same 
 position as they did after the Exile.” If, 
 however, as Credner suggests, Joel is to be 
 placed in the early years of Joash, when idolatry 
 had been put down (2 Ch. xxiii.) and the 
 Temple-worship restored by Jehoiada, the lan- 
 guage of the Prophet presents no difficulty. 
 Again (8): “ Joel must be a late Prophet, for he 
 has copied the assembling of the nations to 
 judgment from Zeph. iii. 8 and Ezek. xxxviii. 
 22, where the wonders of fire and blood are also 
 mentioned, and his picture of the fertility of the 
 land is taken from Amos ix. 15, &c.” But, as 
 we have seen above, the probability is that Joel 
 was the original writer whose predictions were 
 adopted by later Prophets. We shall therefore 
 not be rash in assigning Joel a date between 
 850 and 700 B.c., but his exact position is 
 difficult to settle more accurately. The early 
 reign of Joash (837-797) has been selected by 
 Credner, Movers, Hitzig, and other writers of 
 eminence as his most probable date, and there is 
 much to be said in its favour, as has been al- 
 ready remarked. By others he has been placed 
 somewhat later. ‘There being no internal 
 indication of the date of Joel, we cannot do 
 better than acquiesce in the tradition by which 
 his Book is placed next to that of Hosea, and 
 regard Joel as the Prophet of Judah during the 
 earlier part of Hosea’s office towards Israel, and 
 rather earlier than Isaiah.” ἃ 
 
 The prophecy opens with a vivid account 
 (i. 2-13) of the ruin wrought in the land by 
 drought and by the successive inroads of locusts. 
 What one flight had left another had consumed, 
 till crops and fruit-trees had alike been destroyed. 
 Four different names are employed to describe 
 the swarms of destroyers, and thus signify the 
 completeness of the havoc brought about by 
 them. But yet worse is to come. More 
 terribie ravagers (ch. ii.) are on their way. [5 it 
 another flight of locusts which is foretold in 
 this chapter, or are they human enemies? The 
 matter has been warmly disputed by successive 
 generations of commentators, and is not yet 
 settled. Perhaps it may be best to suppose that 
 the Prophet in vision sees the new enemies 
 approaching in the shape of locusts of terrible 
 size and strength, such as those described in 
 Rey. ix. Some parts of the description (6.0. ii. 7) 
 seem to necessitate this view. But that more 
 is implied than mere locusts is evident both 
 
 JOEL 
 
 4 Pusey, Minor Prophets, Ὁ. 96. 
 
 4 Credner attempted, but unsuccessfully, to show that 
 different stages in the growth of the same insect were 
 intended (Pusey, p. 97). 
 
 JOEL 
 
 from the general description and from the ex- 
 pression (ii. 17), “Give not thine heritage to 
 reproach that the heathen should rule over 
 them;”* and again (ii. 20), “1 will remove far 
 off from you the northerner.” How are we to 
 interpret this last obscure expression which has 
 been the despair of commentators? It can 
 hardly refer to locusts, as they would naturally 
 make their way from their usual breeding 
 grounds in the Arabiaa desert on the south of 
 Judah: they would not come from the north. 
 Passages in Jeremiah and Ezekiel® suggest the 
 answer. ‘The invading armies of Babylon are 
 described in them as coming from this quarter, 
 as they would naturally take the road to Judalz 
 through Northern Palestine. In the time of 
 Joel the expression would include Assyria as 
 well, the northern kingdoms of Syria and Israe} 
 being always the first to feel the attack of these 
 invaders. The precipitate retreat of Sennacherib 
 after his great losses in South Palestine (ls. 
 xxxvii. 36) illustrates the latter part of Joe 
 ii, 20. 
 
 The prophecy from ii. 18 onwards is full of 
 promises of mercy to follow upon the repentance 
 of the people. The verbs in v. 18 have been 
 taken by the R. V. and several commentators 
 in the past tense, “" Then the Lord answered and 
 said.” Indeed Merx characterises the future 
 sense as an “ exegetical monstrosity.” Never- 
 theless, as no past tense has previously occurred, 
 it seems right to take the verbs, though joined 
 with vau conversive, in a future sense, as was 
 done in the A. V." The former and the latter 
 rain shall again descend in their season, and the 
 land shall again give her increase; the heathen 
 enemies shall beremoved. But greater promises 
 follow. The Holy Spirit shall be poured forth 
 upon all flesh. Wonders shall be seen in heaven 
 and earth, ushering in the great and terrible 
 day of the Lord, in which however deliverance 
 shall be found in Mount Zion and Jerusalem, and 
 in the faithful remnant whom the Lord shall 
 call. This theme of the coming Day of Judg- 
 ment is enlarged upon in ch. iii. All nations 
 are to be summoned to the Valley of Jehosha- 
 phat, not probably the valley outside Jerusalem 
 on the east, but the scene of the victory de- 
 seribed in 2 Ch. xxi There the ancient wrongs 
 of His people will be avenged, the captives wil? 
 be restored, while their oppressors Tyre and 
 Zidon, who had sold them to foreign lands for 
 pitiful sums, shall receive a due recompense for 
 their evil deeds. The Lord will roar out of 
 Zion in His fury at the foe, but He will be the 
 hope of His people and the Strength of Israel. 
 Egypt and Edom will be desolate, while plenty 
 shall reign in Judah: the mountains shall be 
 covered with vineyards, and the hills with herds 
 of cattle; and more than this, spiritual blessings 
 
 f Some prefer to make the sense, “that the heathen 
 should jest at them.” This is doubtful, but the result 
 of the passage will be much the same. 
 
 & eg. Jer. iv. 6, Vi. 22, x. 22, &c. ; Ezek. xxvi. 7: cp. 
 Zeph. ii. 13. 
 
 h The words “ the former rain moderately ” have also: 
 been translated “ ἃ teacher of righteousness,” and applied 
 to the Messiah: but this is unlikely. 
 
 iSee JEHOSHAPHAT, VALLEY oF. The tradition 
 identifying it with the Kidron cannot be traced before 
 the 4th century A.D. 
 
JOEL 
 
 like a fertilising stream shall issue .from the 
 Temple, and water not only Judah but even the 
 arid valley of the Acacias on the further side of 
 Jordan. 
 
 If the date assigned above to Joel be correct, 
 this Prophet must have exercised considerable 
 influence upon his successors. For not only 
 thoughts which first appear in his writings are 
 taken up by them, but his very words are re- 
 produced.* Thus the nearness of the day of the 
 Lord when He shal! come for judgment, and its 
 accompanying gloom and darkness, are described 
 in Joel i, 15, ii. 1, 31, iii. 14, and again reappear 
 in_Is. xili..6; Amos v. 18, 20; Ezek. xxx. 2; 
 Ob. v.15; Zeph. i.14; Mal. iv. 5. The requital 
 of the enemy for their violence, as threatened in 
 Joel iii. 4, 19, is repeated in Obad. vv. 10, 15; 
 their cruelty in having cast lots for the captives 
 is mentioned in Joel iii. 3, and again in Obad. 
 v. 11, Nahum iii. 10; the universality of the 
 judgment to come is foretold in Joel iii, 2 
 (iv. 2), and also in Is. Ixvi. 18, Jer. xxv. 31, and 
 Zech. xiv. 1. The majestic figure of the Lord 
 protecting His people, and roaring from out of 
 Zion. as a lion roars at the sight of his enemies, 
 first. occurs in Joel iii. 16 (Heb. iv. 16), and 
 again in Amosi. 2 and Jer. xxv. 30. The doc- 
 trine that a remnant only, not all Israel, shall 
 be saved, meets us in Joel ii. 32 (iii. 5), and 
 is taken up again by Isaiah (xi. 11, &c.), 
 Jeremiah (xxxi. 7), and Micah (iv. 7, ν. 6, 7). 
 Deliverance in Mount Zion is promised in Joel 
 ii. 32 (iii, 5), and repeated in Ob. v.17. The 
 prophecy that Jerusalem is to be holy, Joel 
 111, 17 (iv. 17), and unpolluted henceforth by 
 strangers, is taken up by Is. lii. 1 and Obad. υ. 17. 
 The figure of the waters (iii. 18, Heb. iv. 18) 
 which shall flow from beneath the Temple and 
 fertilise distant lands, is reproduced with varia- 
 tions in Zech. xiv. 8, and expanded in Ezek. 
 xlyii. _Joel’s summons to the nations in 111. 10 
 (iy. 10) to beat their ploughshares into swords, 
 and their spears into pruning-hooks, is reversed 
 in Mic. iv. 3 and Is. ii. 4, and becomes a pro- 
 phecy of universal peace. The vision of plenty 
 when the mountains shall flow with new wine, 
 Joel 111. 18 (iv. 18), is repeated literally in 
 Amos ix.13. Above all, the great promise of the 
 outpouring of the Spirit upon all flesh in Joel 
 ii, 28, which is expressly quoted by St. Peter 
 in Acts ii. as fulfilled on the Day of Pentecost, 
 meets us again in Is. xliv. 3, Ezek. xxxix. 29, 
 and Zech. xii. 10. St. Paul (Rom. x. 13) notes 
 the universality of the salvation offered in Joel 
 ii, 32. Indeed it is in the N. T. even more than 
 in the Old, that these great subjects, which first 
 appear in the writings of Joel, are taken up and 
 further developed. 
 
 The style of Joel is singularly easy and grace- 
 ful. He has no ruggedness and obscurity like 
 Hosea. But yet he is full of power and at the 
 same time overflowing with tenderness. In 
 these respects he is, perhaps, surpassed by none 
 of the Prophets but Isaiah. 
 
 The literature connected with Joel is of con- 
 siderable extent. A very full list, commencing 
 from the earliest times, may be found in Wiinsche, 
 Die Weissagungen ἃ. Proph. Joel (1872), 
 
 pp. 61-64, The most noticeable works which 
 
 k e.g. “ gather blackness ’’ (Joel ii. 6) is found besides 
 only in Nahum ii. 11. 
 BIBLE DICT.—VOL, I. 
 
 JOEL 1729 
 have appeared of late bearing upon the subject 
 are those by Rosenmiiller, Scholia in V. 7. 
 (1827-36); Holzhausen, Joel (1829); Credner, 
 Joel (1831); Maurer, Commentar (1840); 
 Ewald, Die Proph. des Alten Bundes (1840-1); 
 Umbreit, Commentar (1844); Hitzig in Kurzge- 
 fasst, exeg. Handb. zum A. T., 4 Aufl. (1881), 
 and in his Propheten des A. T. (1854); Heng- 
 stenberg, Christol. d. A, 1.3 (1854), transl. in 
 Clark’s For. Theol. Libr. (1854-8); Reinke, 
 Messian. Weissag. (1859-62), vol. 33 Keil, 
 Propheten (1866) ; Reuss, Les Prophetes (1876); 
 Merx, Die Prophetie des Joel und ihre Ausleger 
 (1879); J. P. Lange, Commentar, Eng. transl. 
 ed. by Schaff, Edinb.; besides useful articles in 
 Hamburger, Real-Encyclop. (1870); Herzog, 
 RE? (1880). In England have been pub- 
 lished Henderson, Minor Prophets (1845) ; Pusey, 
 Minor Prophets (1860); Meyrick, Joel in 
 Speaker's Comm. (1876); W. L. Pearson, Joel 
 (1885); Farrar, Minor Prophets in Men of the 
 Bible Series (1890. He follows Merx) ; Driver, 
 in Introduction to the Literature of the O. T. 
 (1891). [J. W. N.] 
 
 4. Oni ; *IwhA; Joél.) The head of one of 
 the families of the Simeonites (1 Ch. iv. 35), 
 He formed part of the expedition against the 
 Hamites of Gedor in the reign of Hezekiah. 
 
 5. A descendant of Reuben. Junius and Tre- 
 mellius make him the son of Hanoch, while 
 others trace his descent through Carmi (1 Ch. 
 v. 4). The Syriac for Joel substitutes Carmi, 
 but there is reason to believe that the genealogy 
 is that of the eldest son. Burrington (Geneal. 
 i. 53) maintains that the Joel mentioned in v. 8 
 was a descendant, not of Hanoch, but one of his 
 brethren, probably Carmi, as Junius and Tre- 
 mellius print it in their genealogical table. But 
 the passage on which he relies for support (v. 7), 
 as concluding the genealogy of Hanoch, evi- 
 dently refers to Beerah, the prince of the 
 Reubenites, whom the Assyrian king carried 
 captive (see Oettli in Strack u. Zéckler’s ΚΓ. 
 Komm. in loco). There is, however, sufficient 
 similarity between Shemaiah and Shema, who 
 are both represented as sons of Joel, to render it 
 probable that the latter is the same individual 
 in both instances. Bertheau conjectures that 
 he was contemporary with David, which would 
 be approximately true if the genealogy were 
 traced in each case from father to son. 
 
 6. Chief of the Gadites, who dwelt in the land 
 of Bashan (1 Ch, v. 12). 
 
 7. (A. Ἰωήλ, B. ‘PahA; Johel.) The son of 
 Izrahiah, of the tribe of Issachar, and a chief of 
 one of “the troops of the host of the battle” 
 (R. V. “bands of the host for war”), who 
 numbered in the days of David 36,000 men 
 (1 Ch. vii. 3). Four of Kennicott’s MSS. omit 
 the words “and the sons of Izrahiah;” so that 
 Joel appears as one of the five sons of Uzzi. 
 The Syriac retains the present text, with 
 the exception of reading “four” for “five.” If 
 the number “five” be accurate, a name 
 would seem to have dropped out of the list 
 (ep. QPB.?). 
 
 8. The brother (LXX. A.; B. reads vids here 
 and in 2 Sam. J. 9.) of Nathan of Zobah (1 Ch. 
 xi. 38), and one of David’s guard. He is called 
 Igal in 2 Sam. xxiii. 36; but Kennicott con- 
 tends that in this case the latter passage is 
 
 ὅ 5 
 
1730 
 
 corrupt, though in other words it preserved the 
 true reading. 
 
 9. The chief of the Gershomites in the reign 
 of David, who sanctified themselves to bring up 
 the ark from the house of Obed-edom (1 Ch. xy. 
 711): 
 
 10. A Gershomite Levite in the reign of 
 David, son of Jehiel, a descendant of Laadan, 
 and probably the same as the preceding (1 Ch. 
 xxiii. 8; xxvi. 22). He was one of the officers 
 appointed to take charge of the treasures of the 
 Temple. 
 
 11. The son of Pedaiah, and prince. or chief 
 of the half-tribe of Manasseh, west of Jordan, in 
 the reign of David (1 Ch. xxvii. 20). 
 
 12. A Kohathite Levite in the reign of Heze- 
 kiah. He was the son of Azariah, and one of 
 the two representatives of his branch of the 
 tribe in the solemn purification by which the 
 Levites prepared themselves for the restoration 
 of the Temple (2 Ch. xxix. 12). 
 
 13. One of the sons of Nebo, who returned 
 with Ezra,and had married a foreign wife (Ezra 
 x. 43). He is called Juel in 1 Esd. ix. 35. 
 
 14, The son of Zichri, a Benjamite, placed in 
 command over those of his own tribe and the 
 tribe of Judah, who dwelt at Jerusalem after 
 the return from Babylon (Neh, xi. 9). 
 
 CW. A. W.] 
 
 JO-E'LAH (nbxvi for nbyy,?= May He 
 [God] help! BN. Ἐλιά, A. Ἰωηλά ; Joéla), son of 
 Jeroham of Gedor, who with his brother joined 
 the band of warriors who rallied round David at 
 Ziklag (1 Ch. xii. 7). 
 
 JOELAH 
 
 JO-E/ZER (WY'',? = Jehovah is aid; B. 
 *Iw(dpa, NA. Ιωζαάρ; Joezer), a Korhite, one 
 of David’s captains who fought by his side 
 while living in exile among the Philistines (1 Ch. 
 Xi1) 6}. 
 
 JOG'BEHAH (ΠΠΠ|3}" = elevated: in Num. 
 the LXX. has translated it as if from "123-- 
 ὕψωσαν αὐτάς ; in Judg. Β. Ἰεγεβάλ ; A. ἐξ ἐναν- 
 τίας Ζεβέε: Jegbaa), one of the cities on the 
 east of Jordan which were built and fortified 
 by the tribe of Gad when they took possession 
 of their territory (Num. xxxii. 35). It is there 
 mentioned between JAAZER and BETH-NIMRAH, 
 places which are probably now represented by 
 Kh. Sér on the plateau, and Tell Nimrin in the 
 Jordan valley. It is mentioned once again, 
 this time in connexion with Nobah, in the 
 account of Gideon’s pursuit of the Midianites 
 (Judg. viii. 11). They were at Karkor, and he 
 made his way from the upper part of the 
 Jordan valley at Succoth and Penuel, and 
 ““went up”—ascended from the Ghor—by the 
 way of the dwellers in. tents—the pastoral 
 people, who avoided the district of the towns— 
 to the east of Nobah and Jogbehah; making 
 his way towards the waste country in the south- 
 east. Here, according to the scanty informa- 
 tion we possess, Karkor would seem to have 
 been situated. Ewald (Gesch. ii. 504, note 4) 
 suggests el-Jubcihdt, or el-Jebeiha, a large site on 
 the plateau between ’Ammdén and es-Sdlt; and 
 this has been adopted by Conder (PEF. Mem. E. 
 Pal. p. 111). The ruins are very extensive, 
 but apparently later than the Christian era. 
 
 JOHANAN 
 
 If, however, we may infer from Num. xxxii. 35 
 that Jogbehah was between Jaazer and Beth- 
 nimrah, its site must be looked for to the west 
 of the road from the Jabbok, through Heshbon, 
 to Moab, which would in that case be the way 
 of the dwellers in tents. [α1 [W.] 
 
 - JO'GLI (103) = ewiled ; B. Ἐγλεί, A. Ἐκλί, 
 F, *Ilexai; Jogli), the father of Bukki, a chief 
 man among the Danites (Num. xxxiy. 22). 
 
 JO'HA. 1. (SN1',? a corrupt form of MN}! 
 [MV.!1]; B. Ἰωχάν, A. Ἰωαχά; Joha.) One of 
 the sons of Beriah, the Benjamite who was a 
 chief of the fathers of the dwellers in Aijalon, 
 and had put to flight the inhabitants of Gath 
 (1 Ch. viii. 16). His family may possibly have 
 founded a colony, like the Danites, within the 
 limits of another tribe, where they were exposed, 
 as the men of Ephraim had been, to the attacks 
 of the Gittites. Such border-warfare was too 
 common to render it necessary to suppose that 
 the narratives in 1 Ch. vii. 21 and viii. 13 refer 
 to the same encounter, although it is not a 
 little singular that the name Beriah occurs in 
 each. 
 
 2. (Ἰωαζαέ) The Tizite, one of David’s 
 guard (1 Ch. xi. 45). Kennicott decides that 
 he was the son of Shimri, as he is represented 
 in the A. V. and R. V., though in the margin 
 the A. V. has put “Shimrite” for “the son of 
 Shimri ” to the name of his brother Jedihel. 
 
 JOHA'NAN (]3M)'; B. Ἰωανάς, A. -ay), a 
 shortened form of Jehohanan=Jehovah hath had 
 mercy. It is the same as John. [JEHOHANAN.] 
 1. Son of Azariah [AZARIAH, 2], and grandson 
 of Ahimaaz the son of Zadok, and father of 
 Azariah, 3 (1 Ch. vi. 9, 10, A. V.). In Josephus 
 (Ant. x. 8, § 6) the name is corrupted to Jora- 
 mus, and in the Seder Olam to Joahaz. 
 latter places him in the reign of Jehoshaphat ; 
 but merely because it begins by wrongly placing 
 Zadok in the reign of Solomon. Since however 
 we know from 1 K. iv. 2, supported by 1 Ch. vi. 
 10, A. V., that Azariah the father of Johanan 
 was high-priest in Solomon’s reign, and Amariah 
 his grandson was so in Jehoshaphat’s reign, we 
 may conclude without much doubt that Joha- 
 nan’s pontificate fell in the reign of Rehoboam 
 (see Hervey’s Genealogies, §c., ch. x.). 
 
 2. (B. Ἰωανάν, A. -au.) Son of Elioenai, the 
 son of Neariah, the son of Shemaiah, in the line 
 of Zerubbabel’s heirs [SHEMAIAH], (1 Ch. iii. 
 24), [A. C. H.] 
 
 3. (Ὁ. Ἰωνά, A. Ἰωανὰν in 2 K. xxv. 23, in 
 Jer. usually Ἰωανὰν or ᾿Ιωάνναν ; Johanan.) 
 The son of Kareah, and one of the captains of 
 the scattered remnants of the army of Judah, 
 who escaped in the final attack upon Jerusalem 
 by the Chaldeans, and, after the capture of the 
 king, remained in the open country of Moab and 
 the Ammonites, watching the tide of events. 
 He was one of the first to repair to Mizpah, 
 after the withdrawal of the hostile army, and 
 tender his allegiance to the new governor ap- 
 pointed by the king of Babylon. From his 
 acquaintance with the treacherous designs of 
 Ishmael, against which Gedaliah was unhappily 
 warned in vain, it is not unreasonable to suppose 
 
 | that he may have been a companion of Ishmael 
 
 The © 
 
JOHANNES 
 
 in his exile at the court of Baalis king of the 
 Ammonites, the promoter of the plot (Jer. xl. 
 8-16). After the murder of Gedaliah, Johanan 
 was one of the foremost in the pursuit of his 
 assassin, and rescued the captives he had carried 
 off from Mizpah (Jer. xli. 11-16). Fearing the 
 vengeance of the Chaldeans for the treachery 
 of Ishmael, the captains, with Johanan at their 
 head, halted by the Khan of Chimham, on the 
 road to Egypt, with the intention of seeking 
 refuge there; and, notwithstanding the warnings 
 of Jeremiah, settled in a body at Tahpanhes. 
 They were afterwards scattered throughout the 
 country, in Migdol, Noph, and Pathros, and 
 from this time we lose sight of Johanan and his 
 fellow-captains. 
 
 4. Clwavdy.) The firstborn son of Josiah king 
 of Judah (1 Ch. iii. 15), who either died before 
 his father, or fell with him at Megiddo. Junius, 
 without any authority, identifies him with Zar- 
 aces, mentioned in 1 Esd. i. 38. 
 
 5. A valiant Benjamite, one of David’s cap- 
 tains, who joined him at Ziklag (1 Ch. xii. 4). 
 
 6. (BN. Ἰωάν, A. Ἰωνάν.) The eighth in 
 number of the lion-faced warriors of Gad, who 
 left their tribe to follow the fortunes of David, 
 and spread the terror of their arms beyond 
 Jordan in the month of its overflow (1 Ch. xii. 
 12). ] 
 
 7. AMM; B. Ἰωανής, A. -αν.) The father 
 of Azariah, an Ephraimite in the time of Ahaz 
 (2 Ch. xxviii. 12). 
 
 8. The son of Hakkatan, and chief of the 
 Bene-Azgad who returned with Ezra (Ezra viii. 
 12). He is called Johannes in 1 Esd. viii. 38. 
 
 9. (amin.) The son of Eliashib, one of the 
 
 chief Levites (Neh. xii. 23), to whose chamber 
 {or “treasury,” according to the LXX.) Ezra 
 retired to mourn over the foreign marriages 
 which the people had contracted (Ezra x. 6). 
 He is called Joanan in 1 Esd. ix. 1; and some 
 have supposed him to be the same as Jonathan, 
 descendant of another Eliashib, who was after- 
 wards high-priest (Neh. xii. 11). 
 
 10. QIMM; B Ἰωνάν, N*, CIwavdy, NoOA, 
 *Iwvaddy.) The son of Tobiah the Ammonite, 
 who had married the daughter of Meshullam 
 the priest (Neh. vi. 18). ΕΑ 
 
 JOHAN’NES (Ἰωάννης ; Joannes) = Jeho- 
 hanan son of Bebai (1 Esd. ix. 29; ep. Ezra x. 
 28). [JEHOHANAN, 4; cp. JOHANAN, 8.] 
 
 JOHN (‘Iwdvyns), in the Apocrypha. 1. The 
 father of Mattathias, and grandfather of the 
 Maccabaean family (1 Mace. ii. 1). 
 
 2. The (eldest) son of Mattathias (Ἰωαννάν), 
 surnamed Caddis (Kaddis: cp. Speaker's Comm. 
 on 1 Mace. ii. 2), who was slain by “the 
 children of Jambri” [JAmBrr] (1 Mace. ii. 2; 
 ix. 36-38). In 2 Macc. viii. 22 he is called 
 Joseph, by a common confusion of name. [Mac- 
 CABEES. } 
 
 3. The father of Eupolemus, one of the envoys 
 whom Judas Maccabaeus sent to Rome (1 Mace. 
 viii. 17; 2 Mace. iv. 11). 
 
 4. The son of Simon, the brother of Judas 
 Maccabaeus (1 Mace. xiii. 53, xvi. 1), “a valiant 
 man,” who, under the title of Johannes Hyr- 
 canus, nobly supported in after-time the glory 
 ot his house. [MAccABEES. | 
 
 JOHN 1731 
 
 5. An envoy from the Jews to Lysias (2 Mace. 
 xi. 17). [B. F. W.) 
 
 JOHN (Ἰωάννης; Cod. Bezae, *lwvdéas: 
 Joannes). 1. One of the high-priest’s family, 
 who, with Annas and Caiaphas, sat in judgment 
 upon the Apostles Peter and John for their cure 
 of the lame man and preaching in the Temple 
 (Acts iv. 6). Lightfoot identifies him with R. 
 Johanan ben Zaccai, who lived forty years 
 before the destruction of the Temple, and was 
 president of the great Synagogue after its 
 removal to Jabne, or Jamnia (Lightfoot, Cent. 
 Chor, Matth. praef. ch. 15; see also Selden, De 
 Synedriis, ii. ch. 15). The identification does 
 not appear to be recognised by Schiirer (Gesch. 
 d. Jiid. Volkes, ii, 172), Grotius merely says that 
 he was known to Rabbinical writers as “ John 
 the priest” (Comm. in Act. iv.); and he may 
 well have been one of those priests who by 
 courtesy or for merit’s sake, and as a member 
 of the high-priest’s family, was known by the 
 title of ἀρχιερεύς (Schiirer, /. c.). 
 
 2. The Hebrew name of the Evangelist St. 
 Mark,‘ who throughout the narrative of the 
 Acts is designated by the name by which he 
 was known among his countrymen (Acts xii. 12, 
 25; xiii. 5,13; xv. 37). 
 
 JOHN, THE APOSTLE (Ἰωάννης). It will be 
 convenient to divide the life which is the subject 
 of the present article into periods corresponding 
 both to the great critical epochs which separate 
 one part of it from another, and to marked 
 differences in the trustworthiness of the sources 
 from which our materials are derived. In no 
 instance, perhaps, is such a division more neces- 
 sary than in this. One portion of the Apostle’s 
 life and work stands out before us as in the 
 clearness of broad daylight. Over those which 
 precede and follow it there brood the shadows 
 of darkness and uncertainty. In the former 
 we discern only a few isolated facts, and are 
 left to inference and conjecture to bring them 
 together into something like a whole. In the 
 latter we encounter, it is true, images more 
 distinct, pictures more vivid; but with these 
 there is the doubt whether the distinctness and 
 vividness are not misleading—whether half- 
 traditional, half-mythical narrative has not taken 
 the place of history. 
 
 I. Before the call to the discipleship.—We have 
 no data for settling with any exactitude the 
 time of the Apostle’s birth. The general im- 
 pression left on us by the Gospel narrative is 
 that he was younger than the brother whose 
 name commonly precedes his (Matt. iv. 21, x. 3, 
 xvii. 1, &c.; but ep. Luke ix, 28, where the 
 order is inverted), younger than his friend St. 
 Peter, possibly also than his Master. The life 
 which was protracted to the time of Trajan 
 (Euseb. H. £. iii. 23, following Irenaeus. Sec 
 note in Wace and Schaff’s edit. im loco) can 
 hardly have begun before the year B.c, 4 of the 
 Dionysian era. The Gospels give us the name 
 of his father Zebedaeus (Matt. iv. 21) and his 
 mother Salome (Matt. xxvii. 56, compared with 
 Mark xv. 40, xvi. 1). Of the former we know 
 nothing more. The traditions of the fourth 
 century (Epiphan. iii. Haer. 78) make the latter 
 the daughter of Joseph by his first wife, and 
 consequently half-sister to our Lord. By some 
 
 55 2 
 
17352 
 
 recent critics she has been identified with the 
 sister of Mary the mother of Jesus, in John xix. 
 25 (Wieseler, Stud.. in Krit. 1840, p. 648).* 
 They lived, it may be inferred from John i. 44, 
 in or near the same town [BETHSAIDA] as those 
 who were afterwards the companions and 
 partners of their children. There on the shores 
 of the Sea of Galilee the Apostle and his brother 
 grew up. The mention of the “ hired servants ” 
 (Mark i. 20), of his mother’s “ substance ” (ἀπὸ 
 τῶν ὑπαρχόντων, Luke viii. 3), of “his own 
 house ” (τὰ ἴδια, John xix. 27), implies a position 
 removed by at least some steps from absolute 
 poverty. The fact that the Apostle was known 
 to the high-priest Caiaphas, as that knowledge 
 was hardly likely to have begun after he had 
 avowed himself tine disciple of Jesus of Nazareth, 
 suggests the probability of some early intimacy 
 between the two men or their families.» The 
 name which the parents gave to their younger 
 child was too.common to serve as the ground of 
 any special inference: but it deserves notice 
 (1) that the name appears among the kindred 
 of the high-priest Caiaphas (Acts iv. 6); (2) that 
 it was given to another priestly child, the son 
 of Zacharias (Luke i. 13), as the embodiment and 
 symbol of Messianic hopes. The frequent occur- 
 rence of the name at this period, unconnected as 
 it was with any of the great deeds of the old 
 heroic days of Israel, is indeed in itself significant 
 as a sign of that yearning and expectation which 
 then characterised, not only the more faithful 
 and devout (Luke ii. 25, 38), but the whole 
 people. The prominence given to it by the 
 wonders connected with the birth of the future 
 Baptist may have given a meaning to it for the 
 parents of the future Evangelist which it would 
 not otherwise have had. Of the character of 
 Zebedaeus we have hardly the slightest trace. 
 He interposes no refusal when his sons are 
 called to leave him (Matt. iv. 21). After this 
 he disappears from the scene of the Gospel his- 
 tory, and we are led to infer that he had died 
 before his wife followed her children in their 
 work of ministration. Her character meets us 
 as presenting the same marked features as those 
 which were conspicuous in her son. From her, 
 who followed Jesus and ministered to Him of 
 her substance (Luke viii. 3), who sought for her 
 two sons that they might sit, one on His right 
 hand, the other on His left, in His Kingdom 
 (Matt. xx. 20), he might well derive his strong 
 affections, his capacity for giving and receiving 
 love, his eagerness for the speedy manifestation 
 of the Messiah’s kingdom. The early years of 
 the Apostle we may believe to have passed under 
 this influence. He would be trained in all that 
 constituted the ordinary education of Jewish 
 boyhood. Though not taughtein the schools of 
 Jerusalem, and therefore, in later life, liable to 
 the reproach of having no recognised position as 
 
 JOHN 
 
 5 Ewald (Gesch. Israels, v. p. 171) adopts Wieseler’s 
 conjecture, and connects it with his own hypothesis 
 that the sons of Zebedee, and our Lord, as well as the 
 Baptist, were of the tribe of Levi. This conjecture is 
 also adopted by Westcott (in loco). On the other hand, 
 Neander (Pflanz. u. Leit. p. 609, 4th ed.) and Liicke 
 (Johannes, i. p. 9) reject both the tradition and the 
 conjecture. 
 
 Ὁ Ewald (J. 6.) presses this also into the service of his 
 strange hypothesis. 
 
 JOHN 
 
 a teacher, no Rabbinical education (Acts iv. 13), 
 he would yet be taught to read the Law and 
 observe its precepts, to feed on the writings of 
 the Prophets with the feeling that their accom- 
 plishment was not far off. For him too, as 
 bound by the Law, there would be, at the age 
 of thirteen, the periodical pilgrimages to Jeru- 
 salem. He would become familiar with the 
 stately worship of the Temple, with the sacrifice, 
 the incense, the Altar, and the priestly robes, 
 May we not conjecture that then the impressions 
 were first made which never afterwards wore off ὃ 
 Assuming that there is some harmony between 
 the previous training of a Prophet and the form 
 of the visions presented to him, may we not 
 recognise them in the rich liturgical imagery 
 of the Apocalypse—in that union in one won- 
 derful vision of all that was most wonderful 
 and glorious in the predictions of the older 
 Prophets ? 
 
 Concurrently with this there would be also 
 the boy’s outward life as sharing in his father’s 
 work. The great political changes which 
 agitated the whole of Palestine would in some 
 degree make themselves felt even in the village- 
 town in whichhe grew up. The Galilean fisher- 
 man must have heard, possibly with some 
 sympathy, of the efforts made (when he was too 
 young to join in them) by Judas of Gamala, as 
 the great asserter of the freedom of Israel against 
 their Roman rulers (cp. Schiirer, Gesch. d. jiid. 
 Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi, i. 406). Like 
 other Jews, he would grow up with strong and 
 bitter feelings against the neighbouring Sama- 
 ritans. Lastly, before we pass into a period of 
 greater certainty, we must not forget to take 
 into account that to this period of his life 
 belongs the commencement of that intimate 
 fellowship with Simon Bar-jonah of which we 
 afterwards find so many proofs. That friendship 
 may even then have been, in countless ways, 
 fruitful for good upon the hearts of both. 
 
 II. From the call to the discipleship to the 
 departure from Jerusalem.—The ordinary life of 
 the fisherman of the Sea of Galilee was at last 
 broken in upon by the news that a Prophet had 
 once more appeared. The voice of John the 
 Baptist was heard in the wilderness of Judaea, 
 and the publicans, peasants, soldiers, and fisher- 
 men of Galilee gathered round him. Among 
 these were the two sons of Zebedaeus and their 
 friends. With them perhaps was One Whom as 
 yet they knew not. They heard, it may be, of 
 his protests against the vices of their own ruler 
 —against the hypocrisy of Pharisees and Scribes. 
 But they heard also, it is clear, words which 
 spoke to them of their own sins—of their own 
 need of a deliverer. The words “ Behold the 
 Lamb of God Which taketh away the sin of the 
 world” (R. V.) imply that those who heard 
 them would enter into the blessedness of which 
 they spoke. Assuming that the unnamed dis- 
 ciple of John i. 37-40 was the Evangelist him- 
 self, we are led to think of that.meeting, of the 
 lengthened interview that followed it as the 
 starting-point of the entire devotion of heart 
 and soul which lasted through his whole life. 
 Then Jesus loved him as he loved all earnest 
 seekers after righteousness and truth (cp. Mark 
 x. 21). The words of that evening, though 
 unrecorded, were mighty in their effect. The 
 disciples (John apparently among them) followed 
 
JOHN 
 
 their new Teacher to Galilee (John 1. 44), were 
 with Him, as such, at the martiage-feast of Cana 
 (ii. 2), journeyed with Him to Capernaum, and 
 thence to Jerusalem (ii. 12, 22), came back 
 through Samaria (iv. 8), and then, for some 
 uncertain interval. of time, returned to their 
 former occupations. The uncertainty which 
 hangs over the narratives of Matt. iv. 18 and 
 Luke v. 1-11 (cp. the arguments for and against 
 their relating to the same events in Lampe, 
 Comment. ad Joann. p. 20) leaves us in doubt 
 whether they received a special call to become 
 “fishers of men” once only or twice. In either 
 case they gave up the employment of their life 
 and went to do a work like it, and yet unlike, 
 in God’s spiritual Kingdom. From this time 
 they take their place among the company of 
 disciples. Only here and there are there traces 
 of individual character, of special turning-points 
 in their lives. Soon they find themselves in 
 the number of the Twelve who are chosen, not 
 as disciples only, but as their Lord’s delegates— 
 representatives—Apostles. In all the lists of the 
 Twelve those four names of the sons of Jonah 
 and Zebedaeus stand foremost. They come 
 within the innermost circle of their Lord’s 
 friends, and are as the ἐκλεκτῶν ἐκλεκτότεροι. 
 The three, St. Peter, St. James, and St. John, 
 are with Him when none else are, in the chamber 
 of death (Mark v. 37), in the glory of the Trans- 
 figuration (Matt. xvii. 1), when He forewarns 
 them of the destruction of the Holy City (Mark 
 xili. 3, St. Andrew, in this instance, with them), 
 and in the agony of Gethsemane. St. Peter is 
 throughout the leader of that band; to St. John 
 belongs the yet more memorable distinction of 
 being the disciple whom Jesus loved. This love 
 is returned with a more single undivided heart 
 by him than by any other. If St. Peter is the 
 φιλόχριστος, St. John is the φιλιησοῦς (Grotius, 
 Proleyom. in Joann.). Some striking facts in- 
 dicate why this was so; what the character was 
 which was thus worthy of the love of Jesus of 
 Nazareth. They hardly sustain the popular 
 notion, fostered by the received types of Christian 
 art, of a nature gentle, yielding, feminine. The 
 name Boanerges (Mark iii. 17) implies a vehe- 
 mence, zeal, intensity, which gave to those who 
 had it the might of Sons of Thunder.* That spirit 
 broke out, once and again, when they joined 
 their mother in asking for the highest places in 
 the kingdom of their Master, and declared that 
 they were ready to face the dark terrors of the 
 cup that He drank and the baptism that He was 
 baptized with (Matt. xx, 20-24; Mark x. 35-41) 
 —when they rebuked one who cast out devils in 
 their Lord’s Name because he was not one of 
 their company (Luke ix. 42)—when they sought 
 to call down fire from heaven upon a village of 
 the Samaritans (Luke ix. 54). About this time 
 Salome, as if her husband had died, takes her 
 place among the women who followed Jesus in 
 Galilee (Luke viii. 3), ministering to Him of 
 their substance, and went up with Him in His 
 last journey to Jerusalem (Luke xxiii. 55). 
 Through her, we may well believe, St. John 
 
 ¢ The consensus of patristic interpretation sees in 
 this name the prophecy of their work as preachers of 
 the Gospel. This, however, would deprive the epithet 
 of all distinguishing force (cp. Suicer, Thesaurus, s. v. 
 βροντή ; and Lampe, i. p. 27). 
 
 JOHN 1733 
 
 first came to know that Mary Magdalene whose 
 character he depicts with such a life-like touch, 
 and that other Mary to whom he was afterwards 
 to stand in so close and special a relation. The 
 fulness of his narrative of what the Evangelists 
 omit (John xi.) leads to the conclusion that he 
 was united also by some special ties of intimacy 
 to the family of Bethany. It is not necessary 
 to dwell at length on the familiar history of the 
 Last Supper. What is characteristic is that he 
 is there, as ever,-the disciple whom Jesus loved ; 
 and, as the chosen and favoured friend, reclines 
 at table with his head upon his Master’s breast 
 (John xiii. 23), To him the eager Peter—they 
 had been sent together to prepare the supper 
 (Luke xxii. 8)—1nakes signs of impatient ques- 
 tioning that he should ask what was not likely 
 to be answered if it came from any other (John 
 xiii. 24), As they go out tothe Mount of Olives 
 the chosen three are nearest to their Master. 
 They only are within sight or hearing of the 
 conflict in Gethsemane (Matt. xxvi. 87). When 
 the betrayal is accomplished, St. Peter and St. 
 John, after the first moment of confusion, follow 
 afar off, while the others simply seek safety in 
 a hasty flight? (John xviii. 15). The personal 
 acquaintance which existed between St. John 
 and Caiaphas enabled him to gain access both 
 for himself and St. Peter, but the latter remains 
 in the porch, with the officers and servants, while 
 St. John himself apparently is admitted to the 
 council-chamber, and follows Jesus thence, even 
 to the praetorium of the Roman Procurator 
 (John xviii. 16, 19, 28). Thence, as if the 
 desire to see the end, and the love which was 
 stronger than death, sustained him through all 
 the terrors and sorrows of that day, he followed 
 —accompanied probably by his own mother, 
 Mary the mother of Jesus, and Mary Magdalene 
 —to the place of Crucifixion. The Teacher Who 
 had been to him as a brother leaves to hima 
 brother’s duty. He is to be as a son to the 
 mother who is left desolate (John xix. 26-27). 
 The Sabbath that followed was spent, it would 
 appear, in the same company. He receives St. 
 Peter, in spite of his denial, on the old terms of 
 friendship. It is to them that Mary Magdalene 
 first rus with the tidings of the emptied 
 sepulchre (John xx. 2); they are the first to go 
 together to see what the strange words: meant. 
 Not without some bearing on their respective 
 characters is the fact that St. John is the more 
 impetuous, running on most eagerly to the 
 rock-tomb ; St. Peter, the least restrained by 
 awe, the first to enter in and look (John xx. 
 4-6). For at least eight days they continued 
 in Jerusalem (John xx. 26). Then, in the in- 
 terval between the Resurrection and the Ascen- 
 sion, we find them still together on the Sea of 
 Galilee (John xxi. 1), as though they would 
 calm the eager suspense of that period of ex- 
 pectation by a return to their old calling and 
 their old familiar haunts. Here, too, there is a 
 characteristic difference. St. John is the first 
 to recognise in the dim form seen in the morn- 
 ing twilight the presence of his risen Lord; St. 
 Peter the first to plunge into the water and swim 
 
 4 A somewhat wild conjecture is found 12 writers 
 of the Western Church, Ambrose, Gregory the Great, 
 and Bede, identify the Apostle with the νεανίσκος τις 
 of Mark xiv. 51, 52 (Lampe, i. 38), 
 
1734 JOHN 
 
 towards the shore where He stood calling to 
 them (John xxi. 7). The last words of the 
 Gospel reveal to us the deep affection which 
 united the two friends. It is not enough for 
 Peter to know his own future. That at once 
 suggests the question—“ And what shall this 
 man do?” (John xxi. 21). The history of the 
 Acts shows the same union. ‘They are of course 
 together at the Ascension and on the Day of 
 Pentecost. Together they enter the Temple as 
 worshippers (Acts iii, 1) and protest against 
 the threats of the Sanhedrin (iv. 13). They 
 are fellow-workers in the first great step of the 
 Church’s expansion. The Apostle whose wrath 
 had been roused by the unbelief of the Samari- 
 tans overcomes his national exclusiveness, and 
 receives them as his brethren (viii. 14). The 
 persecution which was pushed on by Saul of 
 Tarsus did not drive him or any of the Apostles 
 from their post (viii. 1). When the persecutor 
 came back as the convert, he, it is true, did not 
 see him (Gal. i. 12), but this of course does not 
 involve the inference that he had left Jerusalem. 
 The sharper though shorter persecution which 
 followed under Herod Agrippa brought a great 
 sorrow to him in the martyrdom of his brother 
 (Acts xii. 2). His friend, St. Peter, was driven 
 to seek safety in flight. Fifteen years after St. 
 Paul’s first visit St. John was still at Jerusalem, 
 and helped to take part in the great settlement 
 of the controversy between the Jewish and the 
 Gentile Christians (Acts xv. 6). His position 
 and reputation there were those of one ranking 
 among the chief “ pillars ” of the Church (Gal. 
 ii. 9). Of the work of the Apostle during this 
 period we have hardly the slightest trace. 
 There may have been special calls to mission- 
 work like that which drew him to Samaria. 
 There may have been the work of teaching, 
 organising, exhorting the Churches of Judaea. 
 His fulfilment of the solemn charge entrusted to 
 him may have led him to a life of loving and 
 reverent thought rather than to one of conspicu- 
 ous activity. We may, at all events, feel sure that 
 it was atime in which the natural elements of 
 his character, with all their fiery energy, were 
 being purified and mellowed, rising step by step 
 to! that high serenity which we find perfected 
 in the closing portion of his life. Here too we 
 may, without much hesitation, accept the 
 traditions of the Church as recording a historic 
 fact when they ascribe to him a life of celibacy 
 (Tertull. de Monog. c. xiii). The absence of 
 his name from 1 Cor. ix. 5 tends to the same 
 conclusion. It harmonises with all we know 
 of his character to think of his heart as so 
 absorbed in the higher and diviner love that 
 there was no room left for the lower and the 
 human. 
 
 III. From his departure from Jerusalem to his 
 death —The traditions of a later age come in, 
 with more or less show ot likelihood, to fill up 
 the great gap which separates the Apostle of 
 Jerusalem from the Bishop of Ephesus. It was 
 a natural conjecture to suppose that he re- 
 mained in Judaea till the death of the Virgin 
 released him from his trust.© When this took 
 place we can only conjecture. There are no 
 
 © The hypothesis of Baronius and Tillemont, that the 
 Virgin accompanied him to Ephesus, has not even the 
 authority of tradition (Lampe, i. 51). 
 
 JOHN 
 
 signs of his being at Jerusalem at the time of 
 St. Paul’s last visit (Acts xxi.). The Pastoral 
 Epistles set aside the notion that he had come 
 to Ephesus before the work of the Apostle of 
 the Gentiles was brought to its conclusion, Out 
 of many contradictory statements, fixing his 
 departure under Claudius, or Nero, or as late 
 even as Domitian, we have hardly any data for 
 doing more than rejecting the two extremes.* 
 Nor is it certain that his work as an Apostle 
 was transferred at once from Jerusalem to 
 Ephesus. A tradition current in the time of 
 Augustine (Quaest. Evang. ii. 19), and embodied 
 in some MSS. of the N. T., represented the 
 1st Epistle of St. John as addressed to the 
 Parthians, and so far implied that his Apostolic 
 work had brought him into contact with? them. 
 When the form of the aged disciple meets us 
 again, in the twilight of the Apostolic age, we 
 are still left in great doubt as to the extent of 
 
 his work and the circumstances of his outward ἡ 
 
 life. Assuming the authorship of the Epistles 
 and the Revelation to be his, the facts which 
 the N. T. writings assert or imply are—(1) 
 that, having come to Ephesus, some persecution, 
 local or general, drove him to Patmos (Rev. i. 9) :> 
 (2) that the seven Churches, of which Asia was 
 the centre, were special objects of his solicitude 
 (Rev. i. 11); that in his work he had to en- 
 counter men who denied the truth on which his 
 faith rested (1 John iv. 1 ; 2 John v. 7), and others 
 who, witha railing and malignant temper, dis- 
 puted his authority (5 John vv. 9, 10). If to 
 this we add that he must have outlived all, or 
 nearly all, of those who had been the friends 
 and companions even of his maturer years— 
 that this lingering age gave strength to an 
 old imagination that his Lord had promised him 
 immortality (John xxi. 23)—that, as if re- 
 membering the actual words had been thus 
 perverted, the longing of his soul gathered 
 itself up in the cry, “Even so, come, Lord 
 Jesus” (Rey. xxii. 20)—that from some who 
 spoke with authority he received a solemn 
 attestation of the confidence they reposed in 
 him (John xxi. 24)—we have stated all that has 
 any claim to the character of historical truth. 
 The picture which tradition fills up for us has 
 the merit of being full and vivid, but it blends 
 together, without much regayd to harmony, 
 things probable and improbable. He is ship- 
 wrecked off Ephesus (Simeon Metaph. in vita 
 Johan. c. 2; Lampe, i. 47), and arrives there in 
 time to check the progress of the heresies which 
 sprang up after St. Paul’s departure. Then, or 
 at a later period, he numbers among his dis- 
 
 f Lampe fixes A.D. 66, when Jerusalem was besieged 
 by the Roman forces under Cestius, as the most probable 
 date. 
 
 & In the earlier tradition which made the Apostles 
 formaily partition out the world known to them, Par- 
 thia falls to the lot of Thomas, while John received 
 Proconsular Asia (Euseb. H. Ε. iii. 1. Cp. note in 
 Wace and Schaff’s edition, in loco). In one of the 
 legends connected with the Apostles’ Creed, St. Peter 
 contributes the first article, St. John the second, but 
 the tradition anpears with great variations as to time 
 and order (cp. Pseudo-August. Serm. ccxl., ccxli.). 
 
 h Here again the hypotheses of commentators range 
 from Claudius to Domitian, the consensus of patristic 
 tradition preponderating in favour of the latter. [Cp. 
 REVELATION. ] 
 
- there was a difficulty of another kind. 
 
 JOHN 
 
 ciples men like Polycarp, Papias, Ignatius 
 (Hieron. de Vir. Tilust. c. xvii.). In the perse- 
 cution under Domitian he is taken to Rome, and 
 there, by his boldness, though not by death, 
 gains the crown of martyrdom. ‘The boiling oil 
 into which he is thrown has no power to hurt 
 him (Tertull. de Praescript. c. xxxvi.).' He is 
 then sent to labour in the mines, and Patmos is 
 the place of his exile (Victorinus, in Apoc. ix. ; 
 Lampe, i. 66). The accession of Nerva frees 
 him from danger, and he returns to Ephesus. 
 There he settles the canon of the Gospel-history 
 by formally attesting the truth of the first 
 three Gospels, and writing his own to supply 
 what they left wanting (Euseb. H. 2. iii, 24). 
 The elders of the Church are gathered together, 
 and he, as by a sudden inspiration, begins with 
 the wonderful opening, “In the beginning was 
 the word ” (Hieron. de Vir. Jilust. 29). Heresies 
 continue to show themselves, but he meets them 
 with the strongest possible protest. He refuses 
 to pass under the same roof (that of the public 
 baths of Ephesus) as their fcremost leader, lest 
 the house should fall down on them and crush 
 them (Iren. iii. 3; Euseb. ἢ. Z. iii. 28, iv. 14).* 
 Through his agency the great temple of Artemis 
 is at last reft of its magnificence, and even 
 levelled with the ground (Cyril. Alex. Orat. de 
 Mar. Virg.; Nicephor. H. £. ii. 42; Lampe, 
 1. 90). He introduces and perpetuates the 
 Jewish mode of celebrating the Easter Feast 
 (Euseb. H. Ε΄. iii. 3). At Ephesus, if not before, 
 as one who was a true priest of the Lord, 
 he bears on his brow the plate of gold (πέταλον ; 
 ep. Suicer. Thes. s. v.), with the sacred name 
 engraved on it, which was the badge of the 
 Jewish pontiff (Polycrates, in Euseb. H. Z£. iii. 
 31, v. 24)! In strange contrast with this 
 ideal exaltation, a later tradition tells how the 
 old man used to find pleasure in the playfulness 
 and fondness of a favourite bird, and defended 
 himself against the charge of unworthy trifling 
 by the familiar apologue of the bow that must 
 sometimes be unbent (Cassian. Collat. xxiv. 
 
 i The scene of the supposed miracle was outside the 
 Porta Latina, and hence the Western Church commemo- 
 tates it by the special festival of “St. John Port. Latin.” 
 on May 6th. . 
 
 k Eusebius and Irenacus make Cerinthus the heretic. 
 In Epiphanius (Haer, xxx. c. 24) Ebion is the hero of 
 thestory. To modern feelings the anecdote may seem 
 at variance with the character of the Apostle of Love, 
 but it is hardly more than the development in act of the 
 principle of 2 John 10. To the mind of Epiphanius 
 Nothing less 
 than a special inspiration could account for such a 
 departure from an ascetic life as going to a bath at all. 
 
 1The story of the πέταλον is perhaps the most 
 perplexing of all the traditions as to the age of the 
 Apostles. What makes it still stranger is the appear- 
 ance of a like tradition (Hegesippus in Euseb. ΗΠ. Ε. ii. 
 23; Epiph. Haer. 78) about James the Just. Measured 
 by our notions, the statement seems altogether impro- 
 bable, and yet how can we account for its appearance 
 at so early a date? Is it possible that this was the 
 symbol that the old exclusive priesthood had passed 
 away? Or are we to suppose that a strong state- 
 Ment as to the new priesthood was misinterpreted, 
 and that rhetoric passed rapidly into legend? (Cp. 
 Neand. Pflanz. u. Leit. p. 613; Stanley, Sermons and 
 Essays on Apostolic Age, p. 283.) Ewald (1. c.) finds in 
 it an evidence in support of the hypothesis above 
 referred to. 
 
 JOHN 1735 
 
 c. 2). More true to the N. T. character of the 
 Apostle is the story, told with so much power 
 and beauty by Clement of Alexandria (Quis dives, 
 c. 42), of his special and loving interest in the 
 younger members of his flock ; of his eagerness 
 and courage in the attempt to rescue one of 
 them who had fallen into evil courses. The 
 scene of the old and loving man, standing face 
 to face with the outlaw-chief whom, in days 
 gone by, he had baptized, and winning him to 
 repentance, is one which we could gladly look 
 on as belonging to his actual life—part of a 
 story which is, in Clement’s words, οὐ μῦθος 
 ἄλλα λόγος. Not less beautiful is that other 
 scene which comes before us as the last act of 
 his life. When all capacity to work and teach 
 is gone—when there is no strength even to 
 stand—the spirit still retains its power to love, 
 and the lips are still opened to repeat, without 
 change and variation, the command which 
 summed up all his Master’s will, “ Little children, 
 love one another” (Hieron. in Gal. vi.). Other 
 stories, more apocryphal and less interesting, we 
 may pass over rapidly. That he put forth his 
 power to raise the dead to life (Euseb. H. Ε. 
 v. 18); that he drank the cup of hemlock which 
 was intended to cause his death, and suffered 
 no harm from it™ (Pseudo-August. Solilog. ; 
 Isidor. Hispal. de Morte Sanct. c. 73); that 
 when he felt his death approaching he gave 
 orders for the construction of his own sepulchre, 
 and when it was finished calmly laid himself down 
 in it and died (Augustin. Tract. in Joann. 
 exxiv.); that after his interment there were 
 strange movements in the earth that covered 
 him (ibid.); that when the tomb was subse- 
 quently opened it was found empty (Niceph. 
 H. E, ii. 42); that he was reserved to reappear 
 again in conflict with the personal Antichrist in 
 the last days (Suicer. Thes. 5. v. Ἰωάννης): 
 these traditions, for the most part, indicate 
 little else than the uncritical spirit of the age in 
 which they passed current. ‘The very time of 
 his death lies within the region of conjecture 
 rather than of history, and the dates that have 
 been assigned for it range from A.D. 89 to 
 A.D. 120 (Lampe, i. 92). 
 
 The result of all this accumulation of apocry- 
 phal materials is, from one point of view, dis- 
 appointing enough. We strain our sight in 
 vain to distinguish between the false and the 
 true—between the shadows with which the 
 gloom is peopled, and the living forms of which 
 we are in search. We find it better and more 
 satisfying to turn again, for all our conceptions 
 of the Apostle’s mind and character, to the 
 scanty records of the N. T., and the writings 
 which he himself has left. The truest thought 
 that we can attain to is still that he was “ the 
 
 m The authority of Cassian is but slender in sucha 
 case; but the story is hardly to be rejected, on ἃ priori 
 grounds, as incompatible with the dignity of an Apostle. 
 Does it not illustrate the truath— 
 
 “68 prayeth best who loveth best 
 All things both great and small” ? 
 
 » The memory of this deliverance is preserved in the 
 symbolic cup, with the serpent issuing from it, which 
 appears in the mediaeval representations of the Evan- 
 gelist. Is it possible that the symbol originated in 
 Mark x. 39, and that the legend grew out of the 
 symbol? 
 
1736 JOHN 
 
 disciple whom Jesus loved ”—6 ἐπιστήθιοε--- 
 yeturning that love with a deep, absorbing, 
 unwavering devotion.’ One aspect of that feeling 
 is seen in the zeal for his Master’s glory, the 
 burning indignation against all that seemed to 
 outrage it, which runs, with its fiery gleam, 
 through his whole life, and makes him, from 
 first to last, one of the Sons of Thunder. To 
 him, more than to any other disciple, there is 
 no neutrality between Christ and Antichrist. 
 The spirit of such a man is intolerant of com- 
 promises and concessions. The same strong 
 personal affection shows itself, in another form, 
 in the chief characteristics of his Gospel. While 
 the other Evangelists record principally the 
 discourses and parables which were spoken to 
 the multitude, he treasures up every word and 
 accent of dialogues and conversations, which 
 must have seemed to most men less conspicuous. 
 
 In the absence of any recorded narrative of his 
 work as a preacher, in the silence which he 
 appears to have kept for so many years, he 
 comes before us as one who lives in the unseen 
 eternal world, rather than in that of secular 
 or even spiritual activity. If there is less 
 apparent power to enter into the minds and 
 hearts of men of different temperament and 
 education, less ability to become all things to 
 all men than there is in St. Paul, there is a 
 perfection of another kind. The image mirrored 
 in his soul is that of the Son of Man, who is 
 also the Son of God. He is the Apostle of 
 Love, not because he starts from the easy temper 
 of a general benevolence, nor again as being of 
 a character soft, yielding, feminine, but because 
 he has grown, ever more and more, into the 
 likeness of Him Whom he loved so truly. No- 
 where is the vision of the Eternal Word, the 
 glory as of the only-begotten of the Father, so 
 unclouded: nowhere are there such distinctive 
 personal reminiscences of the Christ, κατὰ σάρκα, 
 in His most distinctively human characteristics. 
 It was this union of the two aspects of the 
 Truth which made him so truly the “ Theo- 
 logus” of the whole company of the Apostles, 
 the instinctive opponent of all forms of a 
 mystical, or logical, or docetic Gnosticism. It 
 was a true feeling which led the later inter- 
 preters of the mysterious forms of the four 
 living creatures round the throne (Rev. iv. 7)— 
 departing in this instance from the earlier 
 tradition °—to see in him the eagle that soars 
 into the highest heaven and looks upon the 
 unclouded sun. It will be well to end with 
 the noble words from the hymn of Adam of 
 St. Victor, in which that feeling is embodied :— | 
 
 * Coelum transit, veri rotam 
 Solis vidit, ibi totam 
 Mentis figens aciem ; 
 Speculator spiritalis 
 Quasi seraphim sub alis, 
 Dei vidit faciem.” P 
 
 Cp. the exhaustive Prolegomena to Lampe’s Com- 
 mentary ; Neander, Pflanz. τι. Leit. pp. 609-652 ; 
 
 ο The older interpretation made Mark answer to the 
 eagle, John to the lion (Suicer. Thes. s. v. εὐαγγελιστής). 
 
 p Another verse of this hymn, ‘Volat avis sine 
 meta,” et seq., is familiar to most students as the 
 motto prefixed by Olshausen to his commentary on St. 
 John’s Gospel. The whole hymn is to be found in 
 Ternch’s Sacred Latin Poetry, p. 71. 
 
 JOHN THE BAPTIST 
 
 Stanley, Sermons and Essays on the Apostolic 
 Age, Sermon iv., and Essays on the Traditions 
 respecting St. John; Maurice On the Gospel of 
 St. John, Sermon i.; and an interesting article 
 by Ebrard, s? v. Johannes, in Herzog’s Real- 
 Encyclopidie. [B, H. Pal 
 
 JOHN THE BAPTIST (Ἰωάννης 6 Βαπ- 
 τιστή5), a saint more signally honoured of God 
 than any other whose name is recorded in either 
 the O. or the N. T. John was of the priestly 
 race by both parents, for his father Zacharias 
 was himself a priest of the course of Abia, 
 or Abijah (1 Ch. xxiv. 10), offering incense at 
 the very time when a son was promised to 
 him; and Elizabeth was of the daughters of 
 Aaron (Luke i. 5). Both, too, were devout per- 
 sons—walking in the commandments of God, 
 and waiting for the fulfilment of His promise to 
 Israel. The divine mission of John was the 
 subject of prophecy many centuries before his 
 birth, for St. Matthew (111. 3) tells us that it 
 was John who was prefigured by Isaiah as “the 
 Voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare 
 ye the way of the Lord, make His paths 
 straight” (Is. xl. 3), while by the prophet 
 Malachi the Spirit announces more definitely, 
 “Behold, I will send My messenger, and he 
 shall prepare the way before Me” (iii.1). His 
 birth—a birth not according to the ordinary 
 laws of nature, but through the miraculous 
 interposition of Almighty power—was foretold 
 by an Angel sent from God, who announced it 
 as an occasion of joy and gladness to many— 
 and at the same time assigned to him the name 
 of John to signify either that he was to be born 
 of God’s especial favour, or, perhaps, that he was 
 to be the harbinger of grace. The Angel Gabriel 
 moreover proclaimed the character and office of 
 this wonderful child even before his conception, 
 foreteliing that he would be filled with the 
 Holy Ghost from the first moment of his exist- 
 ence, and appear as the great reformer of his 
 countrymen —another Elijah in the boldness 
 with which he would speak truth and rebuke 
 vice—but, above’ all, as the chosen forerunner 
 and herald of the long-expected Messiah. 
 
 These marvellous revelations as to the cha- 
 racter and career of the son, for whom he had 
 so long prayed in vain, were too much for the 
 faith of the aged Zacharias ; and when he sought 
 some assurance of the certainty of the promised 
 blessing, God gave it to him in a judgment—the 
 privation of speech—until the event foretold 
 should happen; a judgment intended to serve as 
 at once a token of God’s truth, and a rebuke of his 
 own incredulity. And now the Lord’s gracious 
 promise tarried not—Elizabeth, for greater pri- 
 vacy, retired into the hill-country, whither she 
 was soon afterwards followed by her kinswoman 
 Mary, who was herself the object and channel of 
 Divine grace beyond measure greater and more 
 mysterious. The two cousins, who were thus 
 honoured above all the mothers of Israel, came 
 together in an unnamed city belonging to the 
 tribe of Judah in the hilly district, south of 
 Jerusalem, of which Hebron was the centre (see 
 Speaker’s Comm. in loco); and immediately God’s 
 purpose was confirmed to them by a miraculous 
 sign; for as soon as Elizabeth heard the saluta- 
 tions of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb, 
 thus acknowledging, as it were even before birth, 
 
 - 
 
 ΜΕΝ 
 
JOHN THE BAPTIST 
 
 the Presence of his Lord (Luke i, 43,44). Three 
 months after this, and while Mary still remained 
 with her, Elizabeth was delivered of a son. The 
 birth of John preceded by six months that of 
 our blessed Lord. [Respecting this date, see 
 Jesus Curist, p. 1700.) On the eighth day the 
 child of promise was, in conformity with the 
 Law of Moses (Lev. xii. 3), brought to the priest 
 for circumcision ; and as the performance of this 
 rite was the accustomed time for naming a 
 child, the friends of the family proposed to call 
 him Zacharias after the name of his father. The 
 mother, however, required that he should be 
 called John—a decision which Zacharias, still 
 speechless, confirmed by writing on a tablet, 
 ‘his name is John.” The judgment on his want 
 of faith was then at once withdrawn, and the 
 first use which he made of his recovered speech 
 was to praise Jehovah for His faithfulness and 
 merey (Luke i. 64). God’s wonderful inter- 
 position in the birth of John had impressed the 
 minds of many with a certain solemn awe and 
 expectation (Luke iii. 15). God was surely 
 again visiting His people. His providence, so 
 long hidden, seemed once more about to mani- 
 fest itself. The child thus supernaturally born 
 must doubtless be commissioned to perform 
 some important part in the history of the chosen 
 people. Could he be the Messiah? Gould he 
 be Elijah? Was the era of their old Prophets 
 about to be restored? With such grave thoughts 
 were the minds of the people occupied, as they 
 mused on the events which had been passing 
 under their eyes, and said one to another, “ What 
 manner of child shall this be?” while Zacharias 
 himself, “filled with the Holy Ghost,” broke 
 forth in that glorious strain of praise and pro- 
 phecy so familiar to us in the morning service of 
 our Church—a strain in which it is to be ob- 
 served that the father, before speaking of his 
 own child, blesses God for remembering His 
 covenant and promise, in the redemption and 
 salvation of His people through Him, of Whom 
 his own son was the prophet and forerunner. 
 
 A single verse contains all that we know of 
 John’s history fora space of thirty years—the 
 whole period which elapsed between his birth 
 and the commencement of his public ministry : 
 “The child grew and waxed strong in the spirit, 
 and was in the deserts till the day of his show- 
 ing unto Israel ” (Luke i. 80). John, it will be 
 remembered, was ordained to be a Nazarite (see 
 Num. vi. 1-21) from his birth, for the words of 
 the Angel were, “He shall drink neither wine 
 nor strong drink” (Luke i. 15). What we are 
 to understand by this brief announcement is 
 probably this:—The chosen forerunner of the 
 Messiah and herald of His Kingdom was required 
 to forego the ordinary pleasures and indulgences 
 of the word, and live a life of the strictest self- 
 denial in retirement and solitude. It was thus 
 that the holy Nazarite, dwelling by himself in 
 the wild and thinly peopled region westward of 
 the Dead Sea, called ““ Desert” in the text, pre- 
 pared himself by self-discipline, and by constant 
 communion with God, for the wonderful office 
 to which he had been divinely called. Here 
 year after year of his stern probation passed by, 
 till at length the time for the fulfilment of his 
 mission arrived. The very appearance of the 
 holy Baptist was of itself a lesson to his country- 
 men ; his dress was that of the old prophets—a 
 
 JOHN THE BAPTIST 1737 
 
 garment woven of camel’s hair (2 Καὶ, i. 8), at- 
 tached to the body by a leathern girdle. His 
 food was such as the desert afforded—docusts 
 (Lev. xi. 22) and wild honey (Ps. Ixxxi. 16) 
 And now the long-secluded hermit came forth 
 to the discharge of his office. His supernatural 
 birth—his hard ascetic life—his reputation for 
 extraordinary sanctity—and the generally pre- 
 vailing expectation that some great one was 
 about to appear—these causes, without the aid 
 of miraculous power, for “ John did no miracle” 
 (John x. 41), were suflicient to attract to him a 
 great multitude from “ every quarter” (Matt. 
 iii. 5). Brief and startling was his first exhorta- 
 tion to them— Repent ye, for the Kingdom of 
 Heaven is at hand.” Some score verses contain 
 all that is recorded of John’s preaching, and the 
 sum of it all is repentance; not mere legal 
 ablution or expiation, but a change of heart and 
 life. Herein John, though exhibiting a marked 
 contrast tothe Scribes and Pharisees of his own 
 time, was but repeating with the stimulus of 
 a new and powerful motive the lessons which 
 had been again and again impressed upon them 
 by their ancient Prophets (cp. Is. i. 16, 17, 
 lv. 7; Jer. vii. 3-7; Ezek. xviii. 19-32, xxxvi, 
 25-27 ; Joel ii. 12, 13; Mic. vi. 8; Zech. i. 3, 4). 
 But while such was his solemn admonition to 
 the multitude at large, he adopted towards the 
 leading sects of the Jews a severer tone, de- 
 nouncing Pharisees and Sadducees alike as “a 
 generation of vipers,” and warning them of the 
 folly of trusting to external privileges as de- 
 scendants of Abraham (Luke iii. 8). Now ἃς 
 last he warns them that “the axe was laid to 
 the root of the tree’”’—that formal righteous- 
 ness would.be tolerated no longer, and that none 
 would be acknowledged for children of Abraham 
 but such as did the works of Abraham (ep. John 
 viii. 89). Such alarming declarations produced 
 their effect, and many of every class pressed 
 forward to confess their sins and to be baptized. 
 What then was the baptism which John 
 
 | administered? Not altogether a new rite, for 
 
 it was the custom of the Jews to baptize prose- 
 lytes to their religion—not an ordinance in 
 itself conveying remission of sins, but rather a 
 token and symbol of that repentance which was 
 an indispensable condition of forgiveness through 
 Him, Whom John pointed out as “the Lamb of 
 God Which taketh away the sin of the world ” 
 (R. V.). Still less did the baptism of John im- 
 part the grace of regeneration—of a new spiri- 
 tual life (Acts xix. 3,4). This was to be the 
 mysterious effect of Baptism “with the Holy 
 Ghost,” which was to be ordained by that 
 “Mightier One,” Whose coming he proclaimed. 
 The preparatory baptism of John was a visible 
 sign to the people, and a distinct acknowledg- 
 ment by them, that a hearty renunciation of 
 sin and a real amendment of life were necessary 
 for admission into the Kingdom of Heaven, which 
 the Baptist proclaimed to be at hand. But the 
 fundamental distinction between John’s baptism 
 unto repentance, and that Baptism accompanied 
 with the gift of the Holy Spirit which our Lord 
 afterwards ordained, is clearly marked by John 
 himself (Matt. iii. 11, 12). 
 
 As a preacher, John was eminently practical 
 and discriminating. Self-love and covetousness 
 were the prevalent sins of the people at large: 
 on them therefore he enjoined charity, and con- 
 
1738 
 
 sideration for others. The publicans he cautioned 
 against extortion, the soldiers against violence 
 and plunder. His answers to them are, no doubt, 
 to be regarded as instances of the appropriate 
 warning and advice which he addressed to every 
 class. 
 
 The mission of the Baptist—an extraordinary 
 one for an extraordinary purpose —was not 
 limited to those who had openly forsaken the 
 covenant of God, and so forfeited its principles. 
 It was to the whole people alike. This we 
 must infer from the baptism of one who had no 
 confession to make, and no sins to wash away. 
 Jesus Himself came from Galilee to Jordan to 
 be baptized of John, on the special ground that 
 it became Him “ to fulfil all righteousness,” and, 
 as Man, to submit to the customs and ordinances 
 which were binding upon the rest of the Jewish 
 people. John, however, naturally at first shrank 
 from offering the symbols of purity to the sinless 
 Son of God. But here a difficult question arises 
 —How is John’s acknowledgment of Jesus at 
 the moment of His presenting Himself for bap- 
 tism compatible with his subsequent assertion 
 that he knew Him not, save by the descent of 
 the Holy Spirit upon Him, which took place 
 after His baptism (see Westcott in loco)? If it 
 be difficult to imagine that the two cousins were 
 not personally acquainted with each other, it 
 must be borne in mind that their places of resi- 
 dence were at the two extremities of the country, 
 with but little means of communication between 
 them. Perhaps, too, John’s special destination 
 and mode of life may have kept him from the 
 stated festivals of his countrymen at Jerusalem. 
 It is possible therefore that the Saviour and the 
 Baptist had never before met. It was certainly 
 of the utmost importance that there should be 
 no suspicion of concert or collusion between 
 them. John, however, must assuredly have 
 been in daily expectation of Christ’s manifesta- 
 tion to Israel, and so a word or sign would have 
 sufficed to reveal to him the Person and Pre- 
 sence of our Lord, though we may well suppose 
 such a fact to be made known by a direct com- 
 munication from God, as in the case of Simeon 
 (Luke ii. 26; cp. Jackson on the Creed, Works, 
 Ox. Ed. iv. 404). At all events, it is wholly 
 inconceivable that John should have been per- 
 mitted to baptize the Son of God without 
 being enabled to distinguish Him from any 
 of the ordinary multitude. Upon the whole, 
 the true meaning of the words κἀγὼ οὐκ Hdew 
 αὔτον would seem to be as follows :—And I, even 
 I, though standing in so near a relation to Him, 
 both personally and ministerially, had no assured 
 knowledge of Him as the Messiah. I did not 
 know Him as such, and I had not authority to 
 proclaim Him as such, till I saw the predicted 
 sign in the descent of the Holy Spirit upon Him. 
 It must be borne in mind that John had no 
 means of knowing by previous announcement, 
 whether this wonderful acknowledgment of 
 the Divine Son would be vouchsafed to His 
 forerunner at His Baptism, or at any other 
 time (see Dy. Mill’s Hist. Character of St. 
 eee Gospel, and the authorities quoted by 
 
 im). 
 
 With the Baptism of Jesus John’s more especial 
 office ceased. The King had come to his Kingdom. 
 The function of the herald was discharged. It 
 was this that John had with singular humility 
 
 JOHN THE BAPTIST 
 
 JOHN THE BAPTIST 
 
 and self-renunciation announced beforehand : 
 “He must increase, but 1 must decrease.” 
 
 John, however, still continued to present him- 
 self to his countrymen in the capacity of witness 
 to Jesus. Especially did he bear testimony to 
 Him at Bethany beyond Jordan (for Bethany, 
 not Bethabara, is the reading of the best MSS.). 
 So confidently indeed did he point out the Lamb 
 of God, on Whom he had seen the Spirit alighting 
 like a dove, that two of his own disciples, St. 
 Andrew, and probably St. John, being convinced 
 by his testimony, followed Jesus as the true 
 Messiah. 
 
 From incidental notices in Scripture we learn 
 that John and his disciples continued to baptize 
 some time after our Lord entered upon His 
 ministry (see John iii. 23, iv. 1; Acts xix. 3). 
 We gather also that John instructed his disciples 
 in certain moral and religious duties, as fasting 
 (Matt. ix. 14; Luke v. 33) and prayer (Luke 
 xis iL). 
 
 But shortly after he had given his testimony 
 to the Messiah, John’s public ministry was 
 brought to a close. He had at the beginning of 
 it condemned the hypocrisy and worldliness of 
 the Pharisees and Sadducees, and he now had 
 occasion to denounce the lust of a king. In 
 daring disregard of the Divine laws, Herod 
 Antipas had taken to himself the wife cf his 
 brother Philip; and when John reproved him 
 for this, as well as for other sins (Luke iii. 19), 
 Herod cast him into prison. The place of his 
 confinement was the castle of Machaerus—a 
 fortress on the eastern shore of the Dead Sea. 
 It was here that reports reached him of the 
 miracles which our Lord was working in Judaea 
 —miracles which, doubtless, were to John’s 
 mind but the confirmation of what he expected 
 to hear as to the establishment of the Messiah’s 
 Kingdom. But if Christ’s Kingdom were indeed 
 established, it was the duty of John’s own dis- 
 ciples no less than of all others to acknowledge it. 
 They, however, would naturally cling to their 
 own master, and be slow to transfer their 
 allegiance to another. With a view therefore 
 of overcoming their scruples, John sent two of 
 them to Jesus Himself to ask the question, 
 “ Art Thou He that should come?” They were 
 answered not by words, but by a series of 
 miracles wrought before their eyes—the very 
 miracles which prophecy had specified as the 
 distinguishing credentials of the Messiah (ls. 
 xxxv. 5, lxi. 1); and while Jesus bade the two 
 messengers carry back to John as His only 
 answer the report of what they had seen and 
 heard, He took occasion to guard the multitude 
 who surrounded Him, against supposing that 
 the Baptist himself was shaken in mind, by a 
 direct appeal to their own knowledge of his life 
 and character. Well might they be appealed to 
 as witnesses that the stern prophet of the 
 wilderness was no waverer, bending to every 
 breeze, like the reeds on the banks of Jordan. 
 Proof abundant had they that John was no 
 worldling with a heart set upon rich clothing 
 and dainty fare—the luxuries of a king’s court 
 —and they must have been ready to acknow- © 
 ledge that one so inured to a life of hardness 
 and privation was not likely to be affected by 
 the ordinary terrors of a prison. But eur Lord 
 not only vindicates His forerunner from any 
 suspicion of inconstancy, He goes on to proclaim 
 
JOHN THE BAPTIST 
 
 him a prophet, and more than a prophet; nay, 
 inferior to none born of woman, though in 
 respect to spiritual privileges behind the least 
 of those who were to be born of the Spirit and 
 admitted into the fellowship of Christ’s Body 
 (Matt. xi. 11). It should be noted that the 
 expression ὁ δὲ μικρότερος, K.7.A. is understood 
 by Chrysostom, Augustin, Hilary, and some 
 modern commentators, to mean Christ Himself, 
 but this interpretation is less agreeable to the 
 spirit and tone of our Lord’s discourse. 
 
 Jesus further proceeds to declare that John 
 was, according to the true meaning of the 
 prophecy, the Elijah of the new covenant, 
 foretold by Malachi (iii. 4), The event indeed 
 proved that John was to Herod what Elijah had 
 been to Ahab, and a prison was deemed too light 
 a punishment for his boldness in asserting God’s 
 Law before the face of a king and a queen. 
 Nothing but the death of the Baptist would 
 satisfy the resentment of Herodias. Though 
 foiled once, she continued to watch her oppor- 
 tunity, which at length arrived. A court 
 festival was kept at Machaerus in honour of 
 the king’s birthday. After supper, the daughter 
 of Herodias came in and danced before the com- 
 pany, and so charmed was the king by her grace 
 that he promised with an oath to give her what- 
 soever she should ask. 
 
 Salome, prompted by her abandoned mother, 
 demanded the head of John the Baptist. The 
 promise had been given in the hearing of his 
 distinguished guests, and so Herod, though loth 
 to be made the instrument of so bloody a work, 
 gave instructions to an officer of his guard, who 
 went and executed John in the prison, and his 
 head was brought to feast the eyes of the 
 adulteress whose sins he had denounced. 
 
 Thus was John added to that glorious army 
 of martyrs who have suffered for righteousness’ 
 sake. His death is supposed to have occurred 
 just before the third Passover, in the course of 
 the Lord’s ministry. It is by Josephus (Ant. 
 xviii. 5, § 2) attributed to the jealousy with 
 which Herod regarded his growing influence 
 with the people. Herod undoubtedly looked 
 upon him as some extraordinary person, for no 
 sooner did he hear of the miracles of Jesus than, 
 though a Sadducee himself, and as such a dis- 
 believer in the Resurrection, he ascribed them 
 to John, whom he supposed to have risen from the 
 dead. Holy Scripture tells us that the body of 
 the Baptist was laid in the tomb by his disciples, 
 and Ecclesiastical history records the honours 
 which successive generations paid to his memory. 
 
 The brief history of John’s life is marked 
 throughout with the characteristic graces ot 
 self-denial, humility, and holy courage. So 
 great indeed was his abstinence that worldly 
 men considered him possessed. ‘John came 
 neither eating nor drinking, and they said he 
 hath a devil.” His humility was such that he 
 had again and again to disavow the character, 
 and decline the honours which an admiring 
 multitude almost forced upon him. To their 
 questions he answered plainly, he was not the 
 Christ, nor the Elijah of whom they were 
 thinking, nor one of their old Prophets. He 
 Was no one—a voice merely—the Voice of God 
 calling His people to repentance in preparation 
 for the coming of Him whose shoe latchet he 
 was not worthy to unloose. 
 
 ἭΝ 
 
 JOHN, GOSPEL OF 1739 
 
 For his boldness in speaking truth, he went a 
 willing victim to prison and to death. 
 
 The’student may consult the following works, 
 where he will find numerous references to 
 ancient and modern commentators :—Tillemont, 
 Hist. Eccles.; Witsius, Miscell. vol. iv.; Thomas 
 Aquinas, Catena Aurea, Oxford, 1842; Neander, 
 Life of Christ; Le Bas, Scripture Biography ; 
 Taylor, Life of Christ; Olshausen, Comm. on the 
 Gospels. [E. H—s.] 
 
 ST. JOHN, GOSPEL OF. The questions 
 which occur at the threshold. of an exami- 
 nation of any writing which has confessedly 
 come down from remote antiquity are: Who 
 is its author? How do we know this from 
 history, how from the writing itself? What 
 are the contents of the writing? Is there any- 
 thing special in their matter or their form? 
 At what date was it written, and what object 
 did the writer put before himself? Are there 
 other extant writings of the same author, or 
 other extant writings on the same subjects by 
 other authors? and, if so, how is this writing 
 related to them? Does the present copy faith- 
 fully represent the original text? These ques- 
 tions are not logically distinct, and the answers 
 to them must here and there overlap, but, as 
 applied to the present writing, they will fall 
 with sufficient accuracy into the following 
 scheme :— 
 
 I. Authorship. 
 
 (i.) Evidence of History. 
 A. The witness of the second century, 
 
 Ῥ. 1739, 
 
 B. The silence of sixteen centuries, 
 p. 1745. 
 
 C. The criticism of the present cen- 
 tury, p. 1745. 
 
 (ii.) Self-evidence of the writing. 
 A. Direct evidence, p. 1749. 
 B. Indirect inference, p. 1749. 
 
 II, Date, p. 1756. 
 
 III, Matter and Characteristics. 
 A. Purpose and scheme, p. 1756. 
 B. Relation to the Apocalypse, p. 1758. 
 C. Relation to the Johannine Epistles, 
 p. 1759. 
 D. Relation to the Synoptic Gospels, 
 p- 1760. 
 IV. The Text, p. 1762. 
 γ΄. Literature, p. 1764. 
 
 I. AUTHORSHIP. 
 (i.) Evidence of History. 
 
 A. The Second Century.—It is beyond question 
 that from the close of the third quarter of the 
 second century the Fourth Gospel was accepted 
 as the work of St. John. The evidence is cumu- 
 lative. Asia Minor and Gaul, Alexandria and 
 Carthage; Irenaeus, Clement, and Tertullian ; 
 the Peshitto Syriac and the Old Latin Versions ; 
 the Muratorian Canon (cp. Canon, p. 513),° 
 are switnesses whose evidence cannot be dis- 
 puted and whose authority cannot be gainsaid. 
 But the fact of this wide-spread testimony 
 carries with it the further fact of acceptance 
 stretching back into the earlier decades of the 
 century. 
 
 To trace the distinct lines of this earlier ac« 
 ceptance is not an easy task, inasmuch as the 
 
1740 JOHN, GOSPEL OF 
 
 extant literature is on the one hand fragmentary, 
 and on the other hand frequent reference or 
 quotation does not fall within its scope. The 
 argumentum ex silentio, precarious everywhere, 
 is powerless here; and to ask for exact quota- 
 tion, and nothing less than exact quotation, from 
 writers who habitually quoted from memory or 
 whose copies of the texts were imperfect or cor- 
 rupt or not at hand, is to prejudge the ques- 
 tion by demanding evidence which in the very 
 nature of the case cannot exist. Going backwards 
 from Irenaeus, our chief witnesses are the 
 following :— 
 
 (a.) Cetsus (cf. Keim, Celsus’ Wahres Wort ; 
 Aelteste Streitschrift, &c., Ziivich, 1873).—The 
 one work of Celsus, the Adyos ἀληθῆς, is 
 known only by the reply of Origen, Contra 
 Celsum, and Origen was himself left wholly to 
 conjecture as to the history of the author. The 
 date is A.D. 176-180 (Keim, A.D. 177 or 178). 
 Keim is at least not biassed in favour of the 
 Johannine authorship of the Gospel, but he is 
 certain that the whole standpoint of Celsus is 
 taken from St. John ( Wahres Wort, &c., 229 sq.). 
 So is his reviewer Harnack (Lvung.-Luther-Kir- 
 chenzeitung, 1873, p. 657). 
 
 (0.) CHURCHES OF VIENNE AND Lyons (Euseb. 
 Hist. Eccles. v. 1, 15).—This letter was ad- 
 dressed to the churches of Asia and Phrygia, 
 and gives an account of the suffering under 
 Marcus Aurelius in A.D. 177. It is often as- 
 signed, and perhaps rightly, to Irenaeus. It 
 mentions the Paraclete, and formally quotes 
 with almost verbal accuracy John xvi. 2. 
 
 (c.) ATHENAGORAS (Supplicat. pro Christ. and 
 De Resurr., ed. Otto, 1857) is not named by 
 Eusebius or Jerome, Photius or Suidas, but 
 there is no reason to doubt that the Apology 
 and Treatise are both genuine, and that the date 
 is ὁ. A.D. 176-7. The tenth chapter of the 
 Apology is based upon the Prologue of St. 
 John, and implies a knowledge of cap. xvii. 
 21-23. 
 
 (d.) APOLINARIS (Chron. Paschal., ed. Dindorf 
 1832, i. p. 14; Routh, Zel. Sac. i. pp. 160, 161; 
 and Lightfoot, Zssays on Supernatural Religion, 
 1889, p. 237 sq.) was Bishop of Hierapolis in 
 Phrygia (A.D. 171). Of his writings (imperfect 
 list in Euseb. Hist. Eccles. iv. 27; cp. Theodoret. 
 Haer, Fab. i. 21) only a few fragments remain. 
 They contain the following passages:—(1) ὅθεν 
 ἀσυμφωνός τε νόμῳ ἣ νόησις αὐτῶν, καὶ στασί- 
 αζειν δοκεῖ κατ᾽ αὐτοὺς τὰ εὐαγγέλια, which im- 
 plies that St. John is to be ,included among the 
 εὐαγγέλια: and (2) ὁ τὴν ἁγίαν πλευρὰν ἐκκεν- 
 τηθεὶς ὃ ἐκχέας ἐκ τῆς πλευρᾶς αὐτοῦ τὰ δύο 
 πάλιν καθάρσια ὕδωρ καὶ αἷμα" λόγον καὶ πνεῦμα, 
 which can only be explained by reference to 
 John xix. 34, 
 
 (e.) Metiro of Sardis (¢. a.D. 176, Otto, 
 Corpus Apologetarum, 1872, pp. 374-511; Routh, 
 Rel. Sac. i. 113-153; Bp. Lightfoot, Essays, 
 ut supra, p. 223 sq.) is named by Polycrates 
 (Euseb. Hist. Eccles. iii, 31, and v. 24), and his 
 fragments are of special interest as containing the 
 phrase τὰ τῆς παλαιᾶς διαθήκης βιβλία (Euseb. 
 Hist. Eccles. iv. 26), For the present purpose 
 the phrase . . . τὴν μὲν θεότητα αὐτοῦ διὰ τῶν 
 σημείων ἐν τῇ τριετίᾳ τῇ μετὰ τὺ βάπτισμα 
 (Otto, p. 416) is more important as testifying 
 in word and matter to St. John. (Cp. Irenaeus, 
 Adv. Haer, ii. 22. 
 
 JOHN, GOSPEL OF 
 
 (f.) PotycraTes of Ephesus (Euseb. Hist. 
 Eccles. y. 24) designates St. John as 6 ἐπὶ τὸ 
 στῆθος τοῦ Κυρίου ἀναπεσών, with obvious 
 reference to capp. xili. 25 and xxi. 20 of the 
 Gospel. He was bishop of Ephesus in the last 
 decade of the 2nd century. 
 
 (g-) TATIAN, fl. 150-170 (Otto, Corpus Apology. 
 vi. 1851; Euseb. Hist. Lcecles. iv. 29).—The 
 Λόγος πρὸς “EAAnvas was written soon after the 
 death of Justin (? 150). It does not perhaps 
 contain any reference to the Synoptic Gospels, 
 but the following passages taken as a whole 
 seem clearly to imply a knowledge of St. 
 John :— 
 
 Θεὸς ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ, τὴν δὲ ἀρχὴν λόγου δύναμιν 
 παρειλήφαμεν (Oratio ad Graecos, cap. 5; Otto, 
 pp. 20, 22). Cp. John i. 1 and 12. 
 
 πάντα ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ γέγονεν 
 οὐδὲ ἕν (Ad Graec. cap. xix.; Otto, p. 88). Cp. 
 John i. 3 in Westcott and Hort’s text. 
 
 καὶ τοῦτο ἔστιν ἄρα τὸ εἰρημένον * ἣ σκοτία 
 τὸ φῶς οὐ καταλαμβάνει (Ad Graec. cap. xiii. 5 
 Otto, p. 60). Cp. John i. 5. 
 
 On the romantic history of the recovery at 
 least of the substance of Tatian’s Harmony of 
 the Gospels or Diatessaron, it must suffice to 
 refer to the Bampton Lectures for 1890, pp. 
 375-387, and the authorities there quoted. In 
 the words of Dr. Adolf Harnack, no partial judge: 
 “We learn from the Diatessaron that about 
 160 A.D. our four Gospels had already taken a 
 place of prominence in the Church, and that no 
 others had done so ; that in particular the Fourth 
 Gospel had taken a fixed place alongside of the 
 three synoptics ” (Zncyc. Lrit., 1888, xxiii. 81). 
 
 (h.) VALENTINUS AND HIS SCHOOL: PTOLE- 
 MAEUS, HERACLEON, Marcus, THEODOTUS 
 (Irenaeus, Adv. Haeres. iii. 4, 3; Duncker 
 et Schneidewin, .Hippolyti Mefutatio omnium 
 Haeresium, 1859).—Valentinus came to Rome 
 under Hyginus (? 135-141), and lived on in the 
 time of Anicetus (‘sub Aniceto invaluit ”) 
 [2 154(6)-166(7)]. He was working in Alex- 
 andria before this, and his period may therefore 
 be fixed at a.pD. 130-160. Tertullian repre- 
 sents Valentinus in contrast to Marcion: *.. . 
 Neque enim si Valentinus integro instrumento 
 uti videtur, non callidiore ingenio quam Marcion 
 manus intulit veritati. Marcion enim exerte et 
 palam machaera, non stilo usus est, quoniam ad 
 materiam suam caedem scripturarum confecit : 
 Valentinus autem pepercit, quoniam non ad 
 materiam scripturas, sed materiam ad scripturas 
 excogitavit ” (De Praes. Haeret. xxxviii.). That 
 in Tertullian’s use videtur = constat, see Oehler’s 
 note in loco, and ep. especially Adv. Mare. iv. 
 2, “Lucam videtuwr Marcion elegisse quem 
 caederet.” 
 
 PTOLEMAEUS is the oldest of the disciples of 
 Valentinus, and represents with Heracleon the 
 Italian division of the school. He had himself 
 become the centre of a party (of περὶ Πτολε- 
 patov, Adv. Haer. i. Praef. 2), at the time when 
 Irenaeus was beginning his work, and this 
 necessarily leads far back into the decade 
 A.D. 170-180, and probably indicates a date 
 nearer to 160 than to 170. Of Ptolemy there 
 is an extant Epistle to Flora preserved in 
 Epiphanius, κατὰ Αἰρεσέων, cap. xxxiii. 3-7, 
 and it quotes John i. 3 with the formula Λέγει 
 
 . 6 ἀπόστολος. In the account of the Valen- 
 tinian system Irenaeus makes Ptolemy quote 
 
JOHN, GOSPEL OF 
 
 St. John: cp. ἐν τῷ εἰρηκέναι" καὶ τί εἴπω οὐκ 
 
 οἶδα (Adv. Haeres. i. ch. viii. 2) with John xii. 27 1: 
 
 and name St. John as the writer of the Gospel 
 » » » λέγει δε οὕτως" ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Adyos... 
 (Adv. Haeres. i. ch. viii. 5). The Old Latin Ver- 
 sion says at the close of this section: “et Ptole- 
 maeus quidem ita.” 
 
 HERACLEON (Hilgenfeld, Ketzergeschichte, 
 1884, pp. 60 sq., 288 sq., 464 sq. ; and especially 
 the Cambridge Zexts and Studies, vol. i. No. 4) is 
 coupled by Irenaeus (Adv, Haer. ii. ch. iv. 1) with 
 Ptolemaeus, and is called by Clement “ the most 
 esteemed representative of the school of Valen- 
 tinus” (Clem. Alex. Strom. iv.9,73). He wrote 
 a Commentary on St. John, of which large ex- 
 tracts are preserved by Origen (ep. Stieren, 
 drenaeus, i. 938-971, where they are collected 
 after Grabe and Massuet). These extracts give 
 continuous comments on passages of consider- 
 able length. It cannot be doubted that the 
 writer of the notes regarded the text as of 
 Divine authority. Origen uses of Heracleon 
 (Zoannem, tom. ii. 8) the phrase γνώριμον τὸν 
 Οὐαλεντίνου, in the sense probably of a disciple 
 or pupil. 
 
 Marcus does not add to the quotations from 
 St. John (Adv. Haeres. i. xiii—xxi.), but this 
 negative result is confirmatory of the abundant 
 positive results from his associates. The way 
 in which Irenaeus makes an elder of Asia Minor 
 speak of him tends to throw back his date—and 
 if his date, then the date of his older colleagues 
 —towards the middle of the century. 
 
 THEOopoTuUs is known from the Zacerpta 
 Theodoti and Doctrina Orientalis, which is 
 ascribed to Clement of Alexandria, and printed 
 with his works (Opp. ed. Dindorf, iii. 424 sq.). 
 The quotations from St. John are frequent. De 
 Groot counts twenty-six (Basilides, 1868, p. 102). 
 
 The facts before us then fully establish that 
 which Irenaeus asserts ... “Hi autem qui a 
 Valentino sunt, eo quod est secundum Johannem 
 [Evangelio] jplenissime utentes....” (Adv. 
 Haeres. iii, 11, 7). 
 
 Of this plenissime utentes the account of the 
 Thirty Aeons (Adv. Haeres. i. 1) is evidence. 
 This may in form be Ptolemaean rather than 
 Valentinian, but in substance the essential fac- 
 tors of the system are the master’s, not the 
 pupil’s. Ptolemaeus is the exponent of Valen- 
 tinus, and from this point of view one with 
 him. If the complex is later than the simple, 
 if development follows the germ, if the stream 
 is lower down than the spring, the Aeons of 
 the Valentinians necessarily assert at the date 
 of Valentinus the pre-existence of the Gospel 
 according to St. John. 
 
 The testimony of Hippolytus to the use of 
 the Gospel by the Vaientinians is also clear. Cp. 
 φησί,. - . Πάντες of πρὸ ἐμοῦ ἐληλυθότες 
 κλέπται καὶ λῃσταὶ εἰσί (Refut. omn. Haeres. 
 vi. 35) with John x. 8, and see the distinctively 
 Johannine 6 ἄρχων τοῦ κόσμου τούτου (John xii 
 31, xiv. 30, xvi, 11) in the Refutatio (vi. 33, 
 34). The use of φησὶν in Hippolytus may not 
 warrant the inference that he here makes 
 Valentinus a direct witness to St. John, but he 
 identifies the founder with his schoo]; and the 
 general result of the Valentinian testimony is 
 not less than proof that this Order of Gnostics 
 which flourished in the middle of the second 
 century (A.D. 130-180) accepted the authen- 
 
 JOHN, GOSPEL OF 1741 
 
 ticity of the Fourth Gospel, and felt bound to 
 harmonize their own systems with it. 
 
 (4) Basitipes, fl. in the reign of Hadrian, 
 A.D. 117-138 (Buseb. H. 1}. iv. 7; Hippolytus, 
 Refutatio, ut supra, vii. 20-27; Clem. Alex. 
 Strom. iv. §§ 83 sq.; Laxegetica printed by 
 Stieren after Massuet and Grabe, Jrenaeus, 
 pp- 901-3; Hort, art. ‘ Basilides’ in Dict. of 
 Chr. Biog. i, 271; and an article by Dr. James 
 Drummond inj Journ. of Bibl. Lit. 1892),— 
 Eusebius (/. c.) represents Agrippa Castor as 
 stating that Basilides wrote “twenty-four 
 books (βιβλία) on the Gospel (τὸ evayyéAwov),” 
 i.e. on probably the Book of the Gospels. These 
 are almost certainly the Haxegetica quoted by 
 Clement (Strom. iv. 88 sq.); for there is no 
 reason to believe that τὸ εὐαγγέλιον is here =H 
 τῶν ὑπερκοσμίων γνῶσις (Ref. Haer. vii. 27), and 
 there is no other trace of a “Gospel by 
 Basilides ” (Origen, Hom. in Luc. i.— ? another 
 name for the Lxegetica ; Ambrose, Lxp. in Luc. 
 i.), nor any trace of his use of an apocryphal 
 Gospel. There is every reason for believing 
 further that these Ezegetica form the founda- 
 tion of the exposition of doctrine by Hippolytus 
 (Ref. vii. 20-27 ut supra), and that Hippolytus 
 in contrast with Irenaeus is quoting at first 
 hand from Basilides. That Basilides is quoting 
 from St. John will not be questioned. Cp. καὶ 
 τοῦτο, φησίν, ἔστι τὸ λεγόμενον ἐν τοῖς εὐαγ- 
 γελίοις " Ἦν τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινόν, ὃ φωτίζει 
 πάντα ἄνθρωπον ἐρχόμενον εἰς τὸν κόσμον (Ref. 
 ut supra, vii. 22) with John i. 9; and ὅτι δέ, 
 φησίν, ἕκαστον ἰδίους ἔχει καιρούς, ἱκανὸς ὃ 
 σωτὴρ λέγων - Οὔπω ἥκει ἣ ὥρα μου (ἰῤϊά. vii. 
 27) with John ii. 4. The doubt as to what 
 stress can be laid upon φησὶν occurs here, as 
 in the quotations from Valentinus (supra). 
 
 The second quotation is followed in the next 
 sentence by 6 kat’ αὐτοὺς vevonuévos, which 
 may identify Basilides with his followers; but 
 in the first instance he is singled out by name 
 just before, and the sense of φησὶν is undoubted. 
 “‘Basileides, therefore, about the year 125 of 
 our era, had’ before him the Fourth Gospel.” 
 (Cp. Matthew Arnold, God and the Bible, ed. 
 1875, p. 268 sq.; Ezra Abbot, Authorship, &c. 
 p- 86; Bampton Lectures, 1890, pp. 365 sqq.). 
 
 (j.) THE ORIFNTAL GNOSTICS: THE OPHITES 
 oR NAASENI; THE PERATICI; THE SETHIANS; 
 THE GNosTic JustIN (Hippolytus, Refut. ut 
 supra, Vv. 7-9, and 12,16, 17).—Here the quota- 
 tions from St. John are both numerons and un- 
 doubted, but it is not so certain that Hippolytus 
 is describing the first representatives of these 
 early Gnostic sects. Still the evidence is at 
 least proof that, in the second half of the cen- 
 tury, these Gnostic sects also made familiar use 
 of St. John as of Divine authority. Here, 
 again, the acceptance in the second half of the 
 century necessarily leads back to acceptance at 
 an earlier date. 
 
 (k.) THE CLEMENTINES (Lagarde, Clementina, 
 1865, and Recognitiones, Syriace, 1861 ; Geisdorf, 
 Recognitiones, 1838).—These Ebionite writings, 
 falsely ascribed to Clement of Rome, exist in two 
 forms: the Homilies, extant in Greek, which has 
 been assigned by modern writers to every decade 
 of the second century; and the Recognitios,n a 
 composite, and probably later (?) work which 
 exists only in the untrustworthy translation of 
 Rufinus, and is for the present purpose therefore 
 
1742 
 
 not available. The Syriac Version is made up 
 of portions of the Recognitions and of portions 
 of the Homilies (Lagarde, Preface, 6 and 7), 
 and the older of the two extant codices is thus 
 described: ‘A oblongus, M. Brit. add. 12150, 
 scriptus Edessae a. 411;” ie. it leads back to 
 within one year of the death of Rufinus, and it 
 is itself a copy of a yet older MS. Lagarde in 
 his preface to the Clementina (p. 30) gives fif- 
 teen instances of quotation from or reference to 
 St. John; to these may be added ὕπερ ἐστὶν 
 ζῶν ὕδωρ (p. 4, 1. 26; cp. p. 117, 11)—ep. John 
 iv. 10; while some in the list should perhaps 
 be omitted, except in so far as the definite 
 quotations bring the slighter references also 
 within the range of probability. 
 
 The uncertainty is not now as to the use of 
 St. John by the Christian Judaizers, who 
 assumed the name of Clement to give authority 
 to their own hostility to St. Paul, but as to the 
 date at which such use was made. A consensus 
 of critical opinion assigns the Clementines to 
 the middle of the second century; and this 
 may perhaps be taken as the nearest approxima- 
 tion to the date which is attainable. The 
 impression which the work leaves on my own 
 mind is that in its present Roman form it 
 belongs to the end rather than the middle of 
 the century, and that it is based upon earlier 
 Eastern forms, which cannot be later and are 
 probably much earlier than the middle of the 
 century. 
 
 (1.) Marcion is to be excepted from the 
 direct witnesses to the Fourth Gospel. His 
 floruit is not later than 138-142 4.p. Mar- 
 cion’s Gospel was a mutilated St. Luke, and he 
 rejected the other Gospels (including the “ anti- 
 Jewish” St. John) on account of their Jewish 
 prejudices (Iren. Haer. iii. 12, § 12). That he 
 knew the Fourth Gospel and knew it to be 
 apostolic may be inferred from ‘Tertullian 
 (“... connititur ad destruendum statum eorum 
 evangeliorum quae propria et sub apostolorum 
 nomine eduntur, vel etiam apostolicorum, ut 
 scilicet fidem, quam illis adimit, suo conferat; ” 
 ‘‘etsi reprehensus est Petrus et Johannes et 
 Jacobus,” Adv. Mare. iv. 3; “Si scripturas 
 opinioni tuae resistentes non de industria alias 
 rejecisses, alias corrupsisses, confudisset te in 
 hae specie evangelium Joannis,’ De Carne 
 Christi, iii.). Against the argument that St. 
 John would have suited him better, and that if 
 he had known it he would have used it, see 
 Mangold in note to his edition of Bleek’s Hin- 
 leitung, 1875, p. 158 (‘¢ It was simply impossible 
 for Marcion to choose the fourth Gospel”), and 
 refs. in Ezra Abbot, Authorship, &c. p. 82 sq. 
 This is the only argument that can be based 
 upon the silence of an ayowedly eclectic writer. 
 
 Marcion is then in reality a witness for, not 
 against, the Gospel; and the witness is from 
 Rome, A.D. 140, and from Asia Minor for some 
 earlier period. 
 
 (m.) MonTANUS appeared in Phrygia about 
 A.D, 157. The terms παράκλητος, λόγος, which 
 he adopted, place him as a witness to distinct 
 Johannine phraseology, as then accepted in the 
 Church. 
 
 (n.) JustTIN Martyr (Opera, ed. Otto, 1876- 
 81; Apologiae, ed. Braunin, 1883). — The 
 writings consist of two Apologies (the first A.D. 
 145 or 146; the second, if really a separate 
 
 JOHN, GOSPEL OF 
 
 JOHN, GOSPEL OF 
 
 treatise, a year later), which were addressed to 
 the Roman Emperor and Senate; and a Dialogue 
 with Trypho, a Jew, about the same date as 
 the Second Apology (Dial. c. 120; cf. Apol. i. 
 ο. 26). For the earlier date (138 or 139) for the 
 First Apology thereis, however, the high authority 
 of Waddington (Mém. de l’ Acad. des Inser. et 
 Belles Lettres, xxvi. i. p. 264 sqq.), and Harnack 
 (Theol. Literaturzeitung, 1876, No. 1, col. 14), 
 who is able to support himself by the opinions 
 of Caspari (Quellen z. Gesch. d. Taufsymbols, 
 &c. Thi. iii. 1875), which he reviews. 
 
 In these writings Justin quotes certain 
 “‘ Memoirs ” or “ Recollections” (ἈΑπομνήμονεύ- 
 sata) of the Apostles which he himself identifies 
 with the Gospels (ἃ καλεῖται εὐαγγέλια, Apol. i. 
 66). These Memoirs by the Apostles were read 
 on the day called Sunday in the public Church 
 meetings, with the same authority as—they are 
 indeed named before—the writings of the Pro- 
 phets (Apol. i. 67). That Justin includes 
 among these Memoirs the Fourth Gospel and 
 definitely quotes from it, may now be regarded 
 as an established result of English criticism. 
 See especially the full discussion by Ezra Abbot 
 (Authorship, &c. pp. 20 sqq.), Drummond (Zheo- 
 logical Review, xii. 471-488; xiv. 155, 323; and 
 xvi. 365 sqq.), and Sanday (Gospels in the Second 
 Century, 1876, p. 287). The crucial passage is in 
 the Apology (i. 61, ed. Otto, i. 164-166): kar 
 γὰρ 6 Χριστὸς εἶπεν: ἂν μὴ ἀναγεννηθῆτε, ov 
 μὴ εἰσέλθητε εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν. ὅτι 
 δὲ καὶ ἀδύνατον εἰς τὰς μήτρας τῶν τεκουσῶν 
 τοὺς ἅπαξ γεννωμένους ἐμβῆναι, φανερὸν πᾶσίν 
 ἐστι. Cp. John iii. 3-5, 7, and Matt. xviii, 3. 
 
 ‘The connexion here between Justin and St. 
 
 John is so obvious in word and thought, that 
 men who cannot deny it and yet approach the 
 question with the ἃ priori conviction that 
 Justin cannot quote St. John, are driven to 
 the opinion that St. John is quoting Justin. 
 This is happily a case in which every man 
 can form his own opinion. Justin’s remark, 
 “that it is impossible for those who have 
 once been born to enter into the wombs of 
 those who brought them forth is manifest to 
 all,” is in itself, and in connexion with his con- 
 text, absolutely meaningless. In St. John’s 
 context where Nicodemus prefers a reductio ad 
 absurdum in order to lead the Rabbi to fuller 
 explanation, the meaning is perfectly clear. 
 There can be only one conclusion. Others lay 
 stress on the differences in expression and on 
 the fact that Justin’s text is supported by the 
 Clementine Homilies (xi. 26, ed. Lagarde, p. 117). 
 The agreement between Justin and the Clemen- 
 tines is scarcely more exact than that between 
 Justin and St. John. There is, moreover, every 
 reason to think that the author of the Clemen- 
 tines made use of Justin; and his free quotation 
 may have been in this way influenced. Both 
 need no further explanation than the habit of 
 quoting from memory, and the influence of 
 Matt. xxviii. 19 and xviii. 3, The assumption 
 of an apocryphal Gospel from which these 
 quotations are made, is justified only when 
 every other explanation fails. It cannot be 
 verified; and if it could, and if Justin quotes 
 from an X Gospel as the Gospel of the Hebrews, 
 then X must here quote from St. John; 1.0. 
 St. John is on this assumption thrown back to 
 a still earlier date. (On this text see especially, 
 
JOHN, GOSPEL OF 
 
 Supernatural Religion, ed. 7, ii. 304 sqq.; 
 Dr. Edwin Abbott, Lneye, Brit., art. “ Gospels;” 
 Dr. Ezra Abbot and Prof. Drummond uf supra). 
 
 This one passage may now be taken to be 
 conclusive as to Justin’s use of St. John, but 
 other instances are not wanting; ep. of ἄνθρωποι 
 ὑπελάμβανον αὐτὸν εἶναι τὸν Χριστόν " πρὸς obs 
 καὶ αὐτὸς ἐβόα: οὐκ εἰμὶ ὁ Χριστός, ἀλλὰ φωνὴ 
 βοῶντος " (Dial. ο. Tryph. \xxxviii.) with John 
 i. 20, 23, and iii. 28.. Negative criticism is 
 destructive not of its subject but of itself, when 
 it asks us to believe that we have here not a 
 reference to St. John but an expansion of Acts 
 xiii. 25. 
 
 Cp. τοὺς ἐκ γενετῆς mnpots (Dial. c. Tryph. 
 Ixix. and Apol. i. 60, ? πηροὺς for πονηροὺ5) with 
 John ix. 1. The Constit. Apost..(ed. Lagarde, 
 1862) have 6 ἐκ γενετῆς mnpds (v. 7,17) in a 
 context which makes the reference to St. John 
 undoubted. So have the Clementines (περὶ τοῦ 
 ἐκ γενετῆς mnpov, wt supra, xix. 22). The con- 
 text in Justin shows that πηρὸς here = τυφλός, 
 as it constantly does (Otto’s note in loco): 
 and ἐκ γενετῆς is distinctively Johannine. The 
 Synoptists have no instance of congenital 
 disease. 
 
 Cp. σάρκα καὶ αἷμα (Apol. i. 66) with John vi. 
 51-56. 
 
 Cp. 6 ἀπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ λαβὼν ἔχει 
 (Dial. ¢. Tryph. c.) with John x. 18 (ἔλαβον 
 παρὰ τοῦ πατρός μου). 
 
 Cp. Justin’s quotation of Hosea (Apol. i. 52; 
 ep. Dial. c. Tryph. xxxii., lxiv., exviii.) and John 
 xix. 37. Both have ὕψονται εἰς ὃν ἐξεκέν- 
 tnoav, Which is also the reading of Apoc. i. 7, 
 for the LXX. ἐπιβλέψονται πρός me ἀνθ᾽ ὧν 
 κατωρχήσαντο. That this reading occurs in ten 
 MSS. of the LXX., and that it is probably a 
 correction made to establish the fulfilment of 
 prophecy, does not take from the remarkable 
 coincidence. These MSS. of the LXX. may have 
 been themselves corrected from the text of 
 St. John (ep. p. 1750). 
 
 Justin contains beyond doubt the doctrine of 
 the Locos in a developed Johannine form. The 
 incarnation of the Logos (the Divine Logos) and 
 the historic person cannot have been derived 
 from any other source; and: yet σαρκοποιηθεὶς 
 occurs in this sense frequently (Apol. i. cc. 32, 
 66 (bis); Dial. cc. 45, 84, 87, 100: ef. Dial. ce. 
 48, 76). In like manner we have ἄνθρωπος 
 γενόμενος (Apol. i. cc. 5, 23 (bis), 32, 42, 50, 53, 
 63 (bis); Apol. ii. c. 13; Dial. c. Tryph. cc. 48, 
 57, 64, 67, 68 (bis), 76, 85, 100, 101, 125 (bis). 
 
 See these references and the whole relation of 
 Justin to St. John worked out by Drummond 
 and Ezra Abbot ut supra. 
 
 (0.) EPISTLE TO DioGNETUS (Otto, Zpist. ad 
 Diognetum, Gr. et Lat., ed. iii. 1879; Harnack, 
 Patr. Apost. Opp. Fase. ii., 1, 1878, p. 142 sqq.; 
 Driseke, Der Brief an Diognetos, 1881; Lightfoot, 
 Apost. Fathers, 1891, p. 484 sq.).—Our know- 
 ledge of the date of this fragment is too uncertain 
 for us to lay great stress on its evidence. If we 
 cannot with Bishop Westcott place it as early 
 as the close of the reign of Trajan (a.p. 117; 
 Canon, p. 79), everything points to a date not 
 much later. A.D. 135 (Reuss and Bunsen) or 
 A.D. 150 (Lightfoot) is certainly a wide margin. 
 Its testimony to the Fourth Gospel is un- 
 doubted. Cp. e.g. the passage οὐκ εἰσὶ δὲ ἐκ τοῦ 
 κόσμου (cap, vi.) with John xvii. 14, or cap. x. 
 
 JOHN, GOSPEL OF 1748 
 
 with John iii. 16 and 1 John iv. 19, or cap. xi. 
 with John i. 1. (See also Westcott, J. ὁ.) 
 
 (p.) Papias (Euseb. Hist. Zccles. iii. 39; 
 Iren. Adv. Haeres. v. 33, 4: ep. Lightfoot, 
 Essays on Supernatural Religion, 1889, pp. 142- 
 216, and Apost. Fathers, 1891, p. 515 sq.) 
 wrote an Laposition of Oracles of the Lord 
 (Aoylwy Κυριακῶν ἐξήγησις or ἐξηγήσεις) in 
 five Books which are lost, and known only 
 by some fragments, chiefly in Irenaeus and Eu- 
 sebius. He is described as a “ hearer of John 
 and companion of Polycarp” (Ἰωάννου μὲν 
 ἀκουστής, Πολυκάρπου δὲ ἑταῖρος γεγονώς, Iren. 
 ἰ. 6.).. Bp. Lightfoot’s remarkable investigation 
 (Essays, ut supra) places the question of the date 
 of Papias in an altogether new light;. and if we 
 assign the birth to the decade a.p. 60-70, and 
 the work to the decade A.D. 130-140, as we may 
 now with great probability, both assertions of 
 Irenaeus are placed beyond the reach of criticism, 
 and a writer who was himself a pupil of Poly- 
 carp may be accepted as a convincing witness. 
 Irenaeus may well have met this “old-time 
 man” (ἀρχαῖος ἀνὴρ he calls him /. c.), and we 
 get here, as in the case of Polycarp, a definite 
 link between the age of St. John and that of 
 Irenaeus. 
 
 Now Eusebius tells us that Papias used the 
 First Epistle of John (κέχρηται δ᾽ 6 αὐτὸς pap- 
 τυρίαις ἀπὸ τῆς ᾿Ιωάννου προτέρας ἐπιστολῆς, 
 ἰ. 0.), and it is not seriously disputed that 
 this Epistle is by the writer of the Gospel 
 (p. 1765). This fragmentary notice rises there- 
 fore to evidence of the first class. Nor is other 
 indirect testimony wanting. Papias gives a list 
 of the disciples about whose sayings he inquired, 
 “Andrew, Peter or Philip; Thomas, James, 
 John, Matthew ” (Euseb. /. c.). Andrew pre- 
 cedes Peter (John i. 44: cp. Mark i. 29); 
 Philip and Thomas are prominent disciples only 
 in St. John; the only plausible explanation of 
 the connexion of St. John and St. Matthew is 
 that both were known to be Evangelists. 
 
 (4ᾳ.) THE PrespyTeRS (Lightfoot, Lssays on 
 Supernatural Religion, and Apost. Fathers, 
 1891, p. 590 sq.)—Irenaeus in a well-known 
 passage introduces certain presbyters, and re- 
 presents them as quoting John xiv. 2: ‘Qs of 
 πρεσβύτεροι λέγουσι, τότε Kal of μὲν καταξιω- 
 θέντες τῆς ἐν οὐρανῷ διατριβῆς, ἐκεῖσε χωρή- 
 σουσιν. -. οἵ δὲ τὴν πόλιν κατοικήσουσιν " 
 καὶ διὰ τοῦτο εἰρηκέναι τὸν Κύριον, ἐν τοῖς τοῦ 
 πατρός μου μονὰς εἶναι πολλάς (Adv. Haer. v. 
 36, 1, 2; cp. the context). This extract has 
 been made familiar in late years by the attempt 
 of the author of Supernatural Religion, in 
 defiance alike of grammar and of context, to 
 represent Irenaeus as giving only the “exegesis 
 of his own day ” (Sup. Rel. ii. 328). But it is 
 beyond real question that the quotation from 
 St. John is assigned to “the Presbyters,” “ the 
 Fathers ” as we should now say of the genera- 
 tion of Irenaeus, and that these are identified 
 with the “disciples of the Apostles.” Bishop 
 Lightfoot has shown good reason for believing 
 that the quotation of Irenaeus is here made from 
 a book, and further that this book is the work of 
 Papias (Zssays, ut supra, pp. 4sq., 196 sq.). The 
 identification with Papias is accepted by scholars 
 of different schools like Harnack and Salmon 
 Cintrod., ed. 2, p. 106). If it be so, we have 
 another definite proof of the acceptance of the 
 
1744 JOHN, GOSPEL OF 
 
 Fourth Gospel by Papias, and its cogency is 
 strengthened by the indirect method by which 
 it is traced; if it be not so, we have another 
 of the school of St. John of the age of Papias 
 produced as a witness, and the evidence is 
 stronger still. 
 
 (r.) Potycarp (cp. JoHN, First EPISTLE OF). 
 —The evidence for the First Epistle is indirect 
 evidence for the Gospel. 
 
 (s.) Martyrpom OF PoLycarpP (Lightfoot, 
 Apost. Fathers, 1889, Part ii. vol. i. 646 sq.; 
 and vol. iii. 388.—Date, soon after martyrdom 
 in A.D. 155 or -6). This Letter of the Church 
 at Smyrna gives the martyr’s final prayer, 
 which contains in close contiguity the expressions 
 eis ἀνάστασιν ζωῆς αἰωνίου and ἀληθινὸς θεός 
 (cp. John vy. 29 and xvii. 33; ut supra, vol. iii. 
 p- 388). 
 
 (t.) Hermas (Zahn, Der Hirt des Hermas ; 
 Gebhardt and Harnack, Patrum Apost. Op. Fasc. 
 iii. 1877; Lightfoot, Philipp. p. 166 sq., and 
 Apost. Fathers, 1891, p. 289sq.; Salmon, Introd. 
 ed. 2, p. 571 sq.).—The questions connected with 
 the authority, text, and date of the Shepherd 
 of Hermas are too intricate to be discussed here, 
 and its influence on our present question is to 
 be felt rather than stated. It cannot well be 
 placed later than the middle of the second 
 century, and the current of best opinion seems 
 to be setting in favour of the first decade. The 
 student who will compare the following 
 passages—John iii. 5 and Sim. ix. 16, 2; John 
 1. 35 and S. ix. 15, 3; John iv. 34 (v. 36, xvii. 
 4) and S. v. 2, 4 sq. and ix. 11, 8; John iv. 38 
 and 8. v. 6, 20; John v. 31 sq. and S. v. 2, 6; 
 John viii. 34 and Vis. i. 1, 8; John x. 7, 9, and 
 ἣν ἴχ. 12, 2 sq.; John x. 12 and ΘΒ. ῚΧ ΘΙ: 6: 
 John x. 18 (xii. 49 sq., xiv. 31, xv. 10) and 
 8. v. 6, 3,4; John xi. 25 (xiv. 6) and Vis. ii. 2, 
 8; John xii. 40 and Mand. xii. 4,4; John xii. 
 49 sq. and S. v. 5, 3; John xv. i. sq. and S. 
 viii. ; John xvii. 24 (xii. 36, xiv. 3) and S. ix. 
 24, 4 (cp. Zahn, p. 467 sq., and note the refs. to 
 the First Ep.)—will probably feel the cumula- 
 tive strength of argument which compelled 
 even Keim and Wittichen and Holtzmann (who is 
 disposed to think, however, that Hermas comes 
 first) to admit the necessary connexion between 
 the Shepherd and St. John.* 
 
 (u.) IagNATIUS (Lightfoot, Apost. Fathers, 
 1889, Part. ii. vol. ii.; Zahn, Jgnatius von An- 
 tiochien, Gotha, 1873; Patr. Ap. Op. Fase. ii. 
 1876).—The middle (Vossian) Recension may 
 now be taken as established, and we have the fol- 
 lowing evidence of the acceptance of St. John in 
 the opening years of the second century :— 
 
 Compare Lphes. v. and Rom. vii. with John 
 vi. 27, 31, 33, 48, and indeed the whole passage 
 John vi. 27-59; also iv. 10, 11, and if with 
 Lightfoot we read ζῶν ἁλλόμενον, John iv. 14; 
 Ephes. vi. with John xiii. 20 ; Ephes. xvii. with 
 John xii. 3 (vid. Zahn and Lightfoot); in the 
 same chapter of Ephes, and passim, the phrase 
 
 ®Since the above was in print, the evidence of Hermas 
 has been carefully examined by Dr. Taylor in The 
 Witness of Hermas to the Four Gospels, 1892. He comes 
 to the conclusion that ‘*the evidence adduced seems to 
 justify the conclusion that the Gospel known to Hermas 
 was (so to say) a Diatessaron, having for its elements 
 the Four Gospels of to-day’ (p. 146). Cp. also note in 
 Journal of Philology, xxi. (1892),pp. 69, 70. 
 
 JOHN, GOSPEL OF 
 
 τοῦ ἄρχοντος τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου With John xii. 
 31, xiv. 30, xvi. 11; Magn. vii. “Ὥσπερ οὖν 6 
 Κύριος, κι τ. A., with John y. 19, 30, x. 30, 
 xy. 4, xvi. 15 (Zahn and Lightfoot), also eis ἕνα 
 ὄντα with John i. 1, 18, xiii. 3, ὅσο, ; Magn. viii. 
 ad fin. with John viii. 29; Rom. iii. ad fin. with 
 John vii. 7, ὅς. Philad. vii.: oldev γὰρ πόθεν 
 ἔρχεται καὶ ποῦ ὑπάγει is a definite quotation 
 from John iii. 8 (vid. Lightfoot ad loc.). 
 
 (v.) BARNABAS (Geb. and Harn. Patr. Ap. Op. 
 Fase. i, 2, 1878; Hilgenfeld, Barnabae Epistolae ; 
 Salmon, Jntrod. ed. 2, 557 sq. ; Lightfoot, Apost. 
 Fathers, 1891, p. 240 sq.).—The date cannot be 
 fixed accurately. ‘“‘Itaque intra ann. 71-132 
 epistulam delegamus ” (Geb. and Harn. J. ὁ. p. 
 Ixviii.); ‘‘ probably between A.D, 70-79 ” (Light- 
 foot, p. 241). It may then be earlier than St. 
 John, and represent the area of thought from 
 which the Fourth Gospel springs rather than the 
 Gospel itself. All that concerns us here is that, 
 if a witness at all, it is clearly a witness for the 
 reception of St. John. This appears not so 
 much from isolated passages as from the general 
 doctrinal position. We cannot say with Witti- 
 chen, that the expressions are too characteristic 
 to have any other root than that of the Gospel 
 (Gesch. Character d. Ev. Joh. 1868, p. 104); but 
 Keim’s honest avowal—it is against his own 
 position—that for this sphere of ideas there 
 isno analogy in St. Paul, nor even in the Epistle 
 to the Hebrews, but only in this Gospel (Jesus 
 of Nazara, Eng. tr. 1876, i. 194 sqq. with reff. ; 
 cp. Sanday, Gospels in Second Cent., pp. 270- 
 272), is of great weight. 
 
 (w.) CLEMENT OF ΒΟΜῈ (Lightfoot, Apost. 
 Fathers, Pt. i. 1891 ; Geb. and Harn. Pat. Ap. 
 Op. Fasc. i. 1, 1876; Salmon, Jnéred. ed. 2, 564 
 sq.).—Probable date about A.D. 95 or 96 (Light- 
 foot, @. c., i, 27 and 346 sq.); “intra ann. 
 93-97” (cp. Consensus of Opinion, Geb. and 
 Harn. pp. lix., ]x.). This is a time at which the 
 Fourth Gospel may not have been promulgated 
 or may not have reached Rome. Some interest- 
 ing parallels are noted in Geb. and Harn. Index, 
 which however go to show rather that the 
 writer is influenced by the Johannine circle of 
 thought than that he is quoting from the 
 Gospel in its final form. 
 
 (x.) THe TESTAMENT OF THE TWELVE PA- 
 TRIARCHS (Sinker, Zest. XII. Patriarch. 1869; 
 Hilgenfeld, Novum Testamentum extra Canonem, 
 1866; Schiirer, Geschichte des jiidischen Volkes, 
 1886, ii. pp. 662-669).—This work, which is 
 probably from the hands of a Jewish Christian, 
 is in the form of a legacy of pious counsels 
 from each of the sons of Jacob. Its contents 
 make it probable that it is earlier than the 
 revolt of Bar-Kochba (A.D. 135). Sinker places 
 it at the end of the first or the beginning of the 
 second century. 
 
 The following passages will show its con- 
 nexion with the phraseology of St. John:—rd 
 πνεῦμα THs ἀληθείας (Jude 20; cp. John xv. 26); 
 τὸν θεὸν τῆς εἰρήνης (Dan. v.; cp. John xvi. 33); 
 ἁμαρτίαν εἰς θάνατον (Is. vii.; ep. 1 John v. 16); 
 δώσει τοῖς ἁγίοις φαγεῖν ἐκ τοῦ ξύλου τῆς ζωῆς 
 (Ley. xviii. ; ep. Apoc. ii. 7). 
 
 (y.) THe DipacHE (Bryennios, Διδαχὴ τῶν 
 δώδεκα ἀποστόλων, kK. τ. A. Const. 18835 
 Harnack, Die Lehre der zwiélf Apostel, 1884; 
 Lightfoot, Apost. Fathers, 1891, p. 212 sq.; 
 Hitchcock and Brown, Teaching of the Twelve 
 
JOHN, GOSPEL OF 
 
 Apostles, ed. 2, 1885; Taylor, The Teaching of 
 the Twelve Apostles, 1886).—The date is too 
 uncertain to enable us to say whether it pre- 
 ceded or followed the Gospel. The limits 
 assigned by most competent critics (80-110 A.D.) 
 wou!d allow either view to be held. We have 
 no right therefore to expect definite quotation 
 or reference, but the following and other resem- 
 blances will strike the thoughtful reader of the 
 two writings. They are at least consistent with 
 the belief that the Gospel belongs to the last 
 decade of the first century. Those who place 
 the Didache in the first years of the second 
 century will regard them as strongly confirma- 
 tory of that belief. 
 
 Εὐχαριστοῦμέν σοι, πάτερ ἅγιε, ὑπὲρ τοῦ 
 ἁγίου ὀνόματός σου, οὗ κατεσκήνωσας.. 
 (cap. x. 23 ep. John i. 14, xvii. 6, 11—which is 
 the only place where πάτερ ἅγιε occurs in the 
 New Test.). 
 
 Εὐχαριστοῦμέν σοι, πάτερ ἡμῶν, ὑπὲρ τῆς 
 ἁγίας ἀμπέλου Δανεὶδ ... (cap. ix. 2; ep. 
 John xy. 1.) 
 
 ἧς ἐγνώρισας (Ibid., and cap. x. 2; ep. John 
 xxy. 15 and xvii. 26). 
 
 Cp. also Didache x. 5 with 1 John ii. 53; Did. 
 x. 6 with 1 John ii. 17; Did. xi.11 with 1 John 
 iv. 1; Did. xi.2 with 2 John 10; Did. x. 3 
 (παντοκράτορ) with the frequent usage of the 
 word in the Apocalypse (nine times—once be- 
 sides in N. T. and that from the LXX.). 
 
 B. The Silence of Sixteen Centuries.—From 
 the close of the second century to the close of 
 the eighteenth century, the Fourth Gospel has 
 been received as the work of the Apostle St. 
 John, with hardly a murmur to break the 
 harmony of all men’s assent. The so-called 
 Alogi (Epiphanius, Haer, 51, 3, 4; Philaster, 
 Haer. 60; cp. Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. iii. 11, 9) 
 are indeed often quoted as early dissentients 
 from the common belief, but their evidence in so 
 far as it is of any real value is distinctly in 
 favour of a first-century date, for they ascribe 
 the Gospel and Apocalypse to Cerinthus, a 
 contemporary of St. John (cep. Bampton Lec- 
 
 tures, 1890, pp. 123 sqq.). Nor did the Fourth |. 
 
 Gospel escape the attacks of the eighteenth- 
 century English Deists, Collins (Discourse of 
 Free-thinking, 1713) and Toland (Nazarenus, 
 1719); but these are characterized with hardly 
 too much severity by Lampe (Comment. i. 
 146): “Illa enim adeo turbida, adeo ab omni 
 yatione abhorrentia et stulta sunt, ut vel ex iis 
 ipsis patescat, quanto veritatis odio mentes 
 eorum sint excaecatae, qui telis ita stramineis 
 inconcussam populi Dei arcem se debellare posse 
 sibi persuadent.” From the intervening cen- 
 turies other objections of like weight and 
 importance may be quoted; but these are as 
 dust in the balance, and they do not sensibly 
 affect the enormous weight of evidence on the 
 other side. It is not denied by any one whose 
 opinion is worthy of serious thought, that during 
 the whole of sixteen centuries the Johannine 
 
 authorship of the Fourth Gospel was universally |. 
 
 accepted. 
 
 C. The Criticism of the Present Century.— 
 When Keim asserts that “our age has cancelled 
 the judgment of centuries” (Jesus of Nazara, 
 1873, i. 142), it must be admitted that he asserts 
 what is not indeed impossible, but what is ἃ 
 priori in the highest degree improbable, and can 
 
 BIBLE DICT.—YVOL. I, 
 
 JOHN, GOSPEL OF 1745 
 
 be accepted on nothing short of clear and rigid 
 proof. The onus probandi lies entirely with 
 “our age.” This cannot be shifted by imputa- 
 tion of prejudice or of bias, and cannot be 
 diminished by discounting the arguments of 
 so-called “* Apologists.” The judgment of cen- 
 turies can be cancelled only by new facts or 
 new and proved results from old facts, and it 
 will rightly hold the ground until it is in this 
 way dislodged, and until a new judgment more 
 in accord with all the known facts and more 
 exactly satisfying all the known conditions is 
 supplied in its place.” 
 
 The main outlines of the modern criticism of 
 the Fourth Gospel may be summarized as 
 follows. 
 
 Evanson, Edward (1731-1805), The Disson- 
 ance of the Four generally received Evangelists, 
 ὅσο, (Ipswich, 1792; ed. 2, 1805).—It has been 
 customary to trace the development of the hostile 
 criticism from this work, but it is little worthy 
 of the notice which it has attracted (B. L. 
 pp- 174-176). 
 
 Bretschneider, Karl Gottlieb (1776-1848), 
 Probabilia de Evangelii et Epistolarum Joannis 
 Apostoli indole et origine, &c. (Leipzig, 1820),— 
 This is a work of a very different spirit and of 
 very different merit. It proved the real foun- 
 dation of subsequent criticism, though Bret- 
 schneider himself withdrew his objections (B. L. 
 pp. 179-190). 
 
 Strauss, David Friedrich (1808-74), Das 
 Leben Jesu, 1835-6; ed, 2, 1837; ed. 3, 1838- 
 39; ed. 4, 1840: cp. Das Leben Jesu, fiir 
 das deutsche Volk, 1864.—The criticism of 
 Strauss on the Fourth Gospel is but part of 
 his general Mythical Theory. The legends of 
 the Old Testament which grew round the 
 Messianic idea were interpreted of the personal 
 Jesus, and the writers of the Gospels have 
 pictured Him as they thus thought Him, not 
 as He really was. The Messianic idea has 
 itself sprung from centering in an individual 
 that which is true of the race. The miraculous 
 is impossible. 
 
 From these premises the conclusion as to the 
 Gospels, and especially the Fourth Gospel, is 
 obvious. But Strauss “makes no important 
 addition either of fact or of argument to the 
 criticism. His weapons are chiefly those of 
 Bretschneider, fitted into his own system, and 
 wielded with his own peculiar force, though 
 with many vacillations (2. LZ. pp. 191-219). 
 
 Baur, F. C. (1792-1860; Johannine criticism 
 beginning with an art. in Zeller’s Theol. Jahrb. 
 1844; Avritische Untersuchungen tiber die Kan. 
 Evang. 1847, pp. 327-389).—It was with Baur 
 that negative criticism may be said to have 
 cuJminated. His fundamental idea was the 
 Hegelian trichotomy of thesis, antithesis, and 
 higher unity. The antagonisms of early Chris- 
 tianity he found fully developed in the pseudo- 
 Clementines. Working back from these, he 
 
 b As some considerable reduction in this article had 
 become necessary, and as the writer had had occasion 
 quite recently to treat at length of this historical side of 
 his subject, the sketch which follows has been unavoi:l- 
 ably restricted to little more than a bare enumeration of 
 names, reference being made for those who desire 
 fuller details to the Bampton Lectures for 1890 (here- 
 after quoted as B. L.).—Epirors. BT 
 
11:10 JOHN, GOSPEL OF 
 
 distributed the Books of the New Testament 
 over three periods: (1) to the destruction of 
 Jerusalem, A.D. 70, the documents being 1 and 
 » Cor., Gal., Rom. (the only genuine Pauline 
 Epistles), and Apocalypse, which is the work of 
 St. John, and represents an original Ebionite 
 Christianity in opposition to Paulinism. (2) A.p. 
 70-140. The documents are the Gospels of 
 Matthew and Luke, which belong to the Jewish 
 wars under Hadrian. Then come Acts and 
 Mark, the Hebrews, and the pseudo-Pauline 
 Epistles, and finally the Catholic Epistles. 
 The characteristics of this period are the 
 first steps on both sides towards moderating 
 the antagonism. The Jewish Christians aban- 
 doned the requirement of circumcision: the 
 Pauline party were interested in healing the 
 breach, and the Episties to the Ephesians and 
 Colossians were therefore invented. (3) After 
 A.D. 140 the Ebionitic and Gnostic extremes 
 were abandoned. This is marked in practice by 
 the Roman Church and their watchword “ Peter 
 and Paul,” and in idea by the Fourth Gospel. 
 The writings which date from this period are 
 the Pastoral Letters and the Johannine Gospel 
 and Epistles. The Fourth Gospel itself was 
 nothing more than a Zendenzschrift belonging 
 to somewhere about the year 170, and to Asia 
 Minor or more probably Alexandria. 
 
 The negative effect of Baur’s theory of Ten- 
 dency was the deathblow of Strauss’s theory 
 of Myth. Myth and History, simplicity and 
 forgery, ignorance and purpose, cannot be 
 made to grow together, even by the exigencies 
 of a theory. 
 
 The positive effect of Baur’s theory, or rather 
 of the attractive power of the author—and in 
 this he stands in marked contrast to Strauss— 
 was to draw to himself as centre a band of 
 writers who took their name in part from the 
 sphere of the great ‘ Meister’s” work, and 
 became known as the Tiibingen School. 
 
 Chief among these would be Schwegler 
 (Nachapost. Zeitalt. 1846); Ritschl. (Hugi. 
 Marcion’s, 1846; Entstehung d. alt-Kath. 
 Kirche, ed. 1, 1850; the author altered his 
 standpoint considerably in ed. 2, 1857); Késtlin 
 (Lehrbegriffs d. Evangeliums, 1843); Zeller, 
 joint-editor with Baur of Theol. Jahrbiicher 
 from 1848; Hilgenfeld from 1849 onwards 
 (editor of Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol. from 1859, 
 Finleitung, 1875); Volkmar (1852-1882). [On 
 this group of writers and their works, see D. L. 
 pp. 234-240.] 
 
 Never was theory more ably supported ; 
 never did theory more completely collapse, 
 through its own inherent weakness.. The 
 pillars of the theory itself proved unstable: the 
 date of the Clementines is found to be much 
 too late; the date of the Fourth Gospel is by 
 the confession of its foes much too early for the 
 requirements of Baur’s development. Fresh 
 and exact study of history has shown that there 
 was no such chasm between Ebionitism and 
 Paulinism as Baur imagined [AcTs OF THE 
 APposTLEs], and with the chasm the theory dis- 
 appears. At the time of Baur’s death (1860) 
 he had one faithful disciple, Holsten, and 
 Holsten’s position is really different (Die drei 
 urspring. Evang. 1883; Die synopt. LHvang. 
 1885; B. L. p. 243). 
 
 THE PARTITION THEORIES.—From the earliest 
 
 JOHN, GOSPEL OF 
 
 days of the negative criticism of the Fourth 
 Gospel to the present time, a line of writers 
 has existed, more or less connected with each 
 other, and more or less holding that portions 
 of the Gospel are authoritative, but that it is 
 not as a whole the work of St. John. 
 
 Weisse, C. H. (Lvangelische Geschichte, 1838; 
 Die Evangelienfrage, 1856), first gave,prominence 
 to this line of criticism. He held that the dis- 
 courses of Jesus and of John Baptist are studies 
 from the Apostle’s hand, and that after the 
 writer’s death the disciples combined these 
 studies with connecting historic matter and oral 
 teaching into the present Gospel. 
 
 Schenkel, D., began (Stud. u. Krit. 1840) by 
 developing the main ideas of Weisse, but ended 
 (Charakterbild Jesu, ed. 4, 1873) by giving up 
 
 the Johannine authorship altogether, and 
 placing the Gospel in the middle of the second 
 century. 
 
 Schweizer, A. (Zvangel. Johannes, 1841), en- 
 deavoured to show that the events which have 
 Galilee as their scene (capp. ii. 1-12, iv. 44-54, 
 vi. 1-26), and also cap. xxi., and some smaller 
 insertions (capp. 1. 21 sq., xvi. 50, xvill. 9, xix. 
 35-37), are in their present form by a later 
 hand. The Johannine ministry of Jesus was 
 limited to Judaea, but this portion is of true 
 historical character, and the discourses are 
 authoritative. The additions were later than 
 John’s death, but before the Gospel was first 
 published, 
 
 Tobler, J. R. (1867 and other dates), thought 
 that some portions of the Gospel came from 
 the Apostle himself in Aramaic, but that these 
 portions were added to and worked up by 
 Apollos (B. LZ. pp. 246-250). The place is Ephe- 
 sus, and the time the first century. 
 
 Ewald, Heinrich (1803-1875: Johanneisch. 
 Schrift. 1861, i. 1-59; Geschichte d. Volkes Israe/s 
 1868, vii. 237 sq.3 cp. B. LZ. p. 250 sq.), held 
 with characteristic freedom and characteristic 
 strength his own views of the historic value of 
 the discourses and the narratives of the miracles 
 in the Fourth Gospel; but this does not weaken 
 the force of his position as to the authorship. 
 The Apostle somewhere about the year 80 com- 
 posed his Gospel, availing himself of the hand 
 of trusted friends, who ten years later, but still 
 before the Apostle’s death, added cap. xxi. 
 Here (vv. 24, 25) another hand appears more 
 freely than in the Gospel itself, though it was 
 not whoily absent even there (cap. xix. v. 35). 
 Ewald’s views as to the authenticity of the 
 Gospel were expressed with clear emphasis 
 (Gétting. Gel. Anz., Aug. 1863, review of Renan; 
 Gratry, Jésus-Christ, p. 119; Liddon, B. L. 
 1866, ed. 13, 1889, p. 220; Westcott, Jntroduc- 
 tion to the Gospels, ed. 3, p. X.). 
 
 Hase, K. A. von (1800-1889: Geschichte Jesu, 
 1876, 1.6. an enlargement of the Leben Jesu, 
 edd, 1-5, 1829-65; Die Tiibinger Schule—Send- 
 schreiben an Baur, 1855), had been known to 
 successive generations for more than half a 
 century not only as a learned Church historian, 
 but as a defender of the Fourth Gospel in the 
 method of Schleiermacher (cp. infra, p. 1748), 
 differing from his master chiefly in that he 
 ascribed the Apocalypse also to the Apostle. 
 But in the Geschichte (pp. 50, 51) he advances, 
 not without hesitation, the opinion of his old 
 age, that the Gospel is not the immediate work 
 
JOHN, GOSPEL OF JOHN, GOSPEL OF 1747 
 
 of the Apostle. After the death of John, per- 
 haps a decade or more, the Johannine tradition 
 was written down by a gifted disciple of the 
 Apostle. The disciple has lived in the 
 thoughts of his illustrious master, and has only 
 written as he would himself haye written. 
 
 of Christ, but it is also an ideal composition, 
 and every detail of the representation has a 
 double sense. In his latest work (Das Aposto- 
 lische Zeitalter, 1886, ed, 2, 1890) Weizsiicker 
 takes the age of the Apostles properly so-called 
 to end at the year τὸ. The following thirty 
 years are the Johannine period. There was a 
 Johannine school in Ephesus. The two principal 
 works which bear the name of John probably 
 came from the school of the Apostle, but 
 leitung in das Evangelium Johannes (Denkschrift | neither is the work of John (pp. 504 sqq.). At 
 d. theologisch. Gesellschaft zu Strasburg, 1840]; } the time the Gospel was written the Apostle 
 
 Thus arose a “ Gospel according to John,” which | 
 —Die Geschichte der Heiligen Schriften, Neues | was dead, but his death had not long taken 
 
 in the next generation became a “Gospel of 
 John” (B. L. p. 252). 
 Reuss, Edouard (1804-1891: Jdeen zur Ein- 
 
 Testament, ed. 1, 1842; ed. 2, 1853; ed. 5, | place (p. 536; B. L. p. 257). 
 1874 (Eng. tr. 1884]; ed. 6, 1887 ;—WHistoire de | | Wendt, H. H. (1853 seq.), Professor in Hei- 
 la théologie chretienne au siécle apostolique, 1852 | delberg (Die Lehre Jesu, 1886, i. 215 sqq.), 
 [Eng. tr. 1872]; Zheologie Johannique in La|has in part renewed and carried to fresh 
 Bible, Nouveau Test. vi® partie, 1879). In the | issues the theories of Weisse and Schenkel. He 
 earlier works he accepts the Johannine anthor- | thinks that there is a genuine historical docu- 
 ship, but thinks that the speeches are to be | Ment issuing from John which corresponds to 
 largely traced, not with Baur to metaphysical] | the Zogia used by St. Matthew, but that it 
 conceptions, but to religious mysticism. In the | relates to only the last days of Jesus. He finds 
 later editions of the Geschichte he admits the | traces of Hebrew origin in the part which has 
 “double element,” and in the Zheéologie Johan- | this original document for a basis, and thinks 
 nique (pp: 40 sqq.) he no longer holds the direct | that the writer was an Ephesian disciple of 
 Johannineauthorship. The author distinguishes | John. (Cp. review by Holtzmann in Theolog. 
 himself from St. John in more than one passage, | Lit. Ztg. 1886, pp. 197 sqq.; B. L. p. 258.) 
 but derives his materials immediately from him Recent NeGative Criricism.— Considera- 
 (}. 1. p. 253 sq.). tions of space compel the reduction of this and 
 Renan, Ernest (1823 seq.: Vie de Jésus, | the following section to the skeleton of a 
 1863 ; ed. 17, 1882), draws a sharp distinction | bibliography. The writers are all more or less 
 between the authentic and the unauthentic | lineal descendants of the Tiibingen School, but 
 portions of the Gospel, but his principle of di- | treat the works of their predecessors with 
 vision is exactly opposed to that of those who ! freedom. ‘They fall into three main divisions— 
 preceded him. It is not the historical setting, ! German, Dutch, and English (B. L. p. 258 sqq.). 
 but the discourses, which are now questioned. | The German Negative School.—Keim, Theodor 
 The history indeed is to be preferred to that of | (1825-1878 : Geschichte Jesu von Nazara, 1867— 
 the Synoptists, but the discourses are “tirades | 71, 1, 103-172; Dritte Beard. 1875, Pp. 38 
 prétentieuses, lourdes, mal écrites.” Renan’s | sqq., 377 sqq.: ep. Hausrath, Neutestamenti. 
 view in ed. 13 and afterwards is, “The Fourth } Zeitgeschichte, 1873, iii. 565-625; 1877, iv. 376 
 Gospel is not the work of the Apostle John. It | sqq.: ep. B. L. p: 259). 
 was attributed to him by one of his disciples Holtzmann, H. J. (1832 seq.), now Professor 
 about the year 100. The discourses are almost | in Strasburg [in Schenkel’s Bibel-Lewikon, 1869- 
 wholly fictitious; but the narrative portions | 1871, art. Evangelium nach Johannes (ii. 
 contain valuable traditions, which go back in| 291 sqq.) and art. Johannes der Apostel 
 part to the Apostle John” (ed. 13, pp. x. 31.5} ii, 328 sqq.); Lehrbuch der Linleitung in 
 ep. ed. 17, 1882, pp. lviii. sqq., 477 sqq.). das Neue Testament, ed. 2, 1886, pp. 438-488 ; 
 Sabatier, L. A. (1839 seq.: Essai sur les} Die Gnosis und das Johann. Evang. 1877: ep. 
 Sources de la Vie de Jésus, les trois premiers Zeitschrift f. wissensch. Theol. 1869, pp. 62 sqq., 
 Hvangiles et le quatriéme, 1866). This little | 155 sqq., 446 sqq.; 1871, pp. 336 sqq.; 1875, 
 work, which is largely devoted to the Fourth | pp. 40 sqq.; 1877, pp. 187 sqq.: ep. B. L. 
 Gospel, was intended to support the Johannine | p. 260]. 
 authorship. But in a later article in the Zncy- Hinig, Wilhelm (Zeitschrift f. wissensch. 
 clopédie des Sciences religicuses (1880, vii. | Theol. 1871, pp. 5385 sqq.; 1883, pp. 216 sqq.; 
 181-193) M. Sabatier gives up the immediate | 1884, pp. 85 sqq.: ep. Holtzmann, H. J., Jbid. 
 authorship, and thinks the writer to be one of | 1881, pp. 257 sqq., Linleitung, ut supra, p. 451: 
 John’s disciples who has edited the Gospel history | ep. B. L. p. 261). 
 after the form known in Asia Minor. The Thoma, Albrecht (1844 seq.: Zeitschrift f. 
 Apocalypse was the work of the author himself: | wissensch. Theol. 1877, pp. 289 sqq.; 1879, 
 the Gospel is a spiritualized apocalypse written | pp. 18 sqq., 171 sqq., 273 564. ;—Die Genesis des 
 by a disciple (B. ZL. p. 256). Johannes-Lvangeliums, 1882: ep. B. L. p. 261 
 Weizsiicker, K. H. von (1822 seq.), after | sqq.). 
 several essays in the Jahrb. fiir deutsche Theol., Mangold, D. W. (1825-1890), late Professor at 
 of which he was editor (1857, pp. 154 sqq.; | Bonn, in foot-notes appended to the later editions 
 1859, pp. 685 sqq.; 1862, pp. 619 sqq.), pub- | of Bleek’s Hinleitung in das Neue Testament, 
 lished in 1864 the able Untersuchungen iiber die | ed. 4, 1886 (cp. B. L. p. 262). 
 evang. Geschichte. John is the indirect, a trusted Holtzmann, Oscar (Das Johannes-Evangelium 
 disciple of the Apostle is the direct, author; or | untersucht und erhkiirt, 1887: cp. Schiirer’s 
 it might have been composed by disciples after | review in Theologische Literaturzeitung, 1887, 
 the Apostle’s oral teaching or notes. The whole |} No. 14, and B. L. p. 262 sq.). 
 Gospel has a double character. At every point The Dutch Negative School—The modern 
 it is an historical report ef the sayings and deeds | Dutch School, which has of late big a a 
 5 
 
1748 JOHN, GOSPEL OF 
 
 prominent place in advanced criticism and sub- 
 jective theories, may for the present purpose be 
 represented by Scholten, the late Emeritus Pro- 
 fessor of Leyden. 
 
 Scholten, J. H. (1811-1885: Historisch-kri- 
 tische Inleidung in de Schriften des Niewwe Testa- 
 ments, 1853, ed. 2, and in German, 1856; 
 Schrifter van den Apostel Johannes in Bijbelsch 
 woordenboek, Amsterdam, 1855—he here takes 
 the Gospel to be Johannine ; Het Evangelie naar 
 Johannes, 1864-66—German by Lang, 1867— 
 French by Réville, in Revue de Théologie, Stras- 
 burg, 1864-66; De oudste getuigenissen, and in 
 German, Die diltesten Zeugnisse (by Manchot), 
 1867; Het Apostel Johannes in Klein-Asié, 1871, 
 and in German (Spiegel), 1872: ep. B. .7. 
 p- 263 sqq.). 
 
 The English Negative School—The chief 
 results of foreion negative criticism have been 
 adopted and presented to English readers by 
 several writers, of whom the most prominent 
 are:—Tayler, Rev. J. J. (An Attempt to ascer- 
 tain the Character of the Fourth Gospel, especially 
 in its Relation to the Three First, London, 1867 ; 
 ed. 2, 1870;—Theological Review, vol. v. 
 pp. 373-401, July 1868—review of the work 
 next mentioned: cp. B. LZ. p. 266 sq.). David- 
 son, Dr. Samuel (An Introduction to the Study of 
 the New Testament, 2 vols. 1868; ed. 2, 1882: 
 these works should be compared with the 
 earlier Introduction to the New Testament by 
 the same author, 3 vols. 1848-51, in which the 
 opposite view was maintained: cp. B. L. 
 pp- 272-285). Supernatural Religion, an anony- 
 mous work (2 vols. 1874; ed. 7, 3 vols. 1879: 
 cp. B. L. pp. 267-270). Abbott, Dr. Edwin A. 
 (art. ‘Gospels’ in Encycl. Britann, ed. 9, 1879; 
 ‘ Justin’s Use of the Fourth Gospel’ in Modern 
 Review, 1882, pp. 559-588, 716-756: cp. B. L. 
 pp. 270-272). Martineau, Dr. James (Zhe 
 Seat of Authority in Religion, 1890, pp. 189- 
 243: cp. B. L. pp. 286-292). 
 
 THE POSITIVE CRITICISM OF THIS CENTURY. 
 —A still longer succession of thinkers have been 
 led by the attack upon the Fourth Gospel to 
 examine the position of their opponents and to 
 re-examine the grounds of their own conviction, 
 and as a result of this testing process have main- 
 tained and strengthened their belief in the 
 Johannine authorship. The immediate results 
 of the work of Evanson and Bretschneider have 
 already been referred to (v. supra, p. 1745); 
 and the following names will sufficiently serve 
 to indicate the course of thought. 
 
 Schleiermacher, F. D. E. (1768-1834: Reden 
 tiber die Religion, ed. 3, 1821, ed. Schwarz, 1868, 
 pp. 227-243; Hinleitung ins Neue Testament, 
 1845, pp. 315-344; Leben Jesu, 1832, ed. 
 Riitenik, 1864: cp. B. Z. pp. 299-304). 
 
 De Wette, W. M. L. (1780-1849: Lehrbuch 
 der historisch-kritischen Einleitung in die kanoni- 
 schen Bucher des Neuen Testaments, ed. 1, 1826 ; 
 ed. 5,1848 ;—Kurzgefasstes Exeg. Handbuch zum 
 Neuen Testament: Johannes, ed. 1, 1837; ed. 3, 
 1846: cp. B. L. pp. 307-310). 
 
 Liicke, G. C. F. (1781-1855: Commentar iiber 
 die Schriften des Evangelisten Johannes, 1820; 
 ed. 2, 1833; ed. 3, part i, 1840: cp. B. LZ. 
 pp- 310-313), speaks of Schleiermacher as his 
 “spiritual father” (ed. 3, p. viii.). 
 
 Bleek, Friedrich (1795-1859), also a pupil of 
 Schleiermacher, published in 1846 Beitrage zur 
 
 JOHN, GOSPEL OF 
 
 Evangelien-Kritik. After Bleek’s death his 
 Lectures on Introduction to the New Testament 
 were edited by his son T. F. Bleek (Zinleitung 
 in das Neue Testament, ed. 1, 1860; ed. 2, 1866). 
 The later editions (ed. 4, 1886) have been edited 
 by Mangold (v. supra, p. 1747: ep. B. L. pp. 
 313-315). 
 
 Ebrard, J. H. (1818-1888), may be taken to 
 represent the school of Erlangen, where he was 
 born and where (as well as at Ziirich) he was 
 Professor, His works on this subject are Wis- 
 senschaftliche Kritik der evangelischen Ge- 
 schichte (1842; ed. 3, 1868; Eng. tr. 1863); 
 Das Evangelium Johannis und die neueste Hypo- 
 these wiber seine Enstehung, 1845; Die Offen- 
 barung Johannis (1853); Die Briefe Johannis 
 (1859; Eng. tr. 1860: cp. B. L. p. 317 sq.). 
 
 Tholuck, F, A., of Halle (1799-1877: Com- 
 mentar zum Evangel. Johannis, 1827; ed. 7, 
 1857; Eng. tr., 1836 and 1859 ;—Die Glaubwiir- 
 digheit der Evang. Geschichte, 1837-8), and 
 Hengstenberg, E. W., of Berlin (1808-1869: 
 Das Evangelium des heiligen Johannes, 3 vols. 
 1863; ed. 2, 1867; Eng. tr., 1865: ep. B. 1. 
 Ρ. 318 sq.). 
 
 Meyer, H. A. W. (1800-1873: Kritisch Exeq. 
 Handbuch: Johannes, ed. 1, 1834; ed. 5, 1869; 
 Eng. tr., 1874; ed. 7, 1886: cp. B. ZL. pp. 
 319-321). 
 
 Weiss, Bernhard, Professor at Berlin (1827 
 seq.: Der Johanneische Lehrbegriff, 1862 ; Lehr- 
 buch der biblischen Theologie des Neuen Testa- 
 ments, ed. 1, 1868; ed. 4, 1884; Eng. tr. 3 vols. 
 1885, esp. vol. ii. pp.. 311-416 ;—Das Leben 
 Jesu, 2 vols. 1882; ed. 2, 1884; Eng. tr. 3 vols, 
 1883-4, esp. vol. i. pp. 90-210;—Handbuch d. 
 Enleitung, 1886; ed. 2, 1889; Eng. tr. 2 vols. 
 1887-8 ;—WMeyer’s Evangelium des Johannes, ed. 
 6, 1880; ed. 7, 1886: cp. B. L. pp. 324-326). 
 
 Luthardt, C. E., Professor at Leipzig (1822 
 seq.: De Compositione Evangelit Joannei, 1852; 
 Das Johanneische Evangelium, 1852-3, 2 vols. ; 
 ed. 2, 1875-6; Eng. tr. 1878, 3 vols.;—Der 
 Johanneische Ursprung des vierten Hvangelium’s, 
 1874; Eng. tr., with valuable bibliographical ap- 
 pendix by Gregory, 1875;—Zvangelium nach 
 Johannes in Strack und Ziéckler’s Kurzgefasster 
 Kommentar, 1886. Editor of the Theolog. Lite- 
 raturblatt, the Evang. luth. Kirchenzeitung, and 
 the Zeitschrift fir kirchl. Wissenschaft u. Leben. 
 Cp. B. L. p. 326 sq.). 
 
 Godet, Frédéric, Professor at Neuchatel 
 (1812 seq.), published his Commentaire sur 
 ?Evangile de Saint Jean in 1863-65, 2 vols. ; 
 ed. 2, “complétement refondu,’ in 1876-7, 
 3 vols.; ed. 3, “ complétement revue,” 1881-85, 
 It has been translated into English (1877, and 
 from ed. 3, New York, 1886), German (several 
 editions), Dutch and Spanish (cp. B. L. p. 328 
 54.). 
 te above in the case of the English advocates 
 of the negative position, so now in that of the 
 upholders of the positive view, space can be 
 here found for reference only. But the results 
 of the investigations which followed, especially 
 from the publication of the work entitled Super- 
 natural Religion, will be fresh in the mind of all 
 theological readers. See Bishop Lightfoot (Con- 
 temporary Review, Jan., Aug., Oct. 1875, re- 
 published in Essays on Supernatural Religion; 
 1889; arts. in Erpositor, 1890, pp. 1-21, 81-- 
 92, 176-188); Bishop Westcott (Zhe Gospel 
 
JOHN, GOSPEL OF 
 
 accordiny to St. John, 1881; On the Cunon of the 
 New Testament, ed. 6, 1889); Dr. Salmon (//is- 
 torical Introduction to the New Testament, 1886; 
 ed. 5, 1891); Dr. Sanday (Gospels in the Second 
 Century, 1876; An Inaugural Lecture: The 
 Study of the New Testament, 1883; arts. in 
 Expositor, Nov., Dec. 1891; Jan., Mar., Apr., 
 and May 1892). 
 
 The following names may be added :—Ols- 
 hausen (Die Aechtheit der 4 canonischen Evan- 
 gelien, 1823; Nachweis der Echtheit des Neu. 
 Lest., 1832, Biblische Commentar, ed. by Ebrard 
 and Wiesinger, 1837-62; Commentary on the 
 Gospels, 1846); Thiersch (Versuch zur Her- 
 stellung des hist. Standpunkts f. die Kritik der 
 N. 1. Schriften, 1845; Linige Worte iiber die 
 Aechtheit der N. T. Schriften, 1846 ; Die Kirche 
 in apost. Zeitalter in die Entstehung der N. T. 
 Schriften, 1852); Baumgarten-Crusius (Zheo!. 
 Auslegung der Johann. Schriften, 1843, pt. ii., 
 1845, posthumous); Bunsen ( Vollstiéndiges 
 Bibelwerk, 1858); Neander (Das Leben Jesu, 
 1837; ed. 5, 1852); Andrews Norton (Genuinc- 
 ness of the Gospels, 1837-44; ed. 2, 1846); 
 Alford (Greek Zvstament, 1849-61); Words- 
 worth (Greek Testament, 1856-1860, 1872); 
 Bishop Alexander (Commentary on Epistles of 
 St. John, 1881, ed. Canon Cook; and Zpistles 
 of St. John in the Ezapositor’s Bible, 1889); 
 Maurice (Gospel of St. John, 1857); Astié 
 (Zaplication de ’ Evangile selon St. Jean, 1863- 
 1864); Tischendorf (Wann wurden unsere Lvan- 
 gelien verfasst ὁ 1865-6); Thenius (Das Lvan- 
 gelium der Evanyelien, 1865); Fisher (Super- 
 natural Origin of Christianity, 1866 ; article in 
 American edition of this Dictionary, 1868; 
 Grounds of Theistic and Christian Belief, 1885) ; 
 Uhlhorn (Vortrige...Lebens Jesu, 1866); Rig- 
 genbach (Die Zeuguisse, 1866, answer to Volk- 
 mar); De Pressensé (Jéus-Christ, 1866); Van 
 Oosterzee (Das Johannes -Lvangelium, 1867; 
 Eng. tr. 1869,—answer to Scholten); Hutton, 
 R. H. (Theological Essays, 1871; ed. 3, 1888) ; 
 Lange-Schaff (Commentary, 1872); Beyschlag 
 (Zur Johanneischen Frage, 1874-5-6; Contem- 
 porary Review, Oct. and Noy. 1877; Das Leben 
 Jesu, 1885-6); Liddon (Bampton Lectures, 1866 ; 
 ed. 13, 1889); Milligan (Contemporary Review, 
 1867-68-71; Journal of Sacred Literature, 
 1867); and esp. with Moulton (Commentary, 
 1879); Leathes ( Witness of St. John to Christ, 
 1870; Religion of the Christ, 1874); Wace (The 
 Gospei and its Witnesses, 1883) ; McClellan (four 
 Gospels, 1875); Lias (Doctrinal System of St. 
 John, 1875) ; Murphy (Scientific Bases of Faith, 
 1873); Ezra Abbot (Laternal Evidences, 1880); 
 Charteris (Canonicity, 1880); Plummer (Greek 
 Testament: St. John, 1882); Lechler (Geschichte 
 des apostolischen und nachapostolischen Zeitalters, 
 ed. 3, 1885 ; Eng. tr. 1886); Schanz (Commentar, 
 1885); Franke (Das Alte Testament bei Johannes, 
 1885); Zahn (Forschungen zur Gesch. des N. T. 
 Kanons τι. der altkirchlichen Literatur, 1881, 
 &e. ; Geschichte d. N. T. Kanons, Bd. i., 1888-9) ; 
 Reynolds (Pulpit Commentary: St. John, In- 
 trod., 1888); Abbé Fillion (Introduction géné- 
 ’ rale aux Evangiles; Sainte Bible avec Comm., 
 1889) ; Ewald, P. (Hauptproblem ἃ. Evangelien- 
 frage, 1890); Gloag, P. J. (Introd. to the Johan- 
 nine Writings, 1891). Fuller details respecting 
 these works may be found by consulting the 
 
 Index to Bampton Lectures for 1890: in the | 
 
 1749 
 
 same volume (Lect. vii. pp. 357-409) an account 
 is also given of a number of recent accessions to 
 knowledge, the general tendency of which is 
 decidedly to strengthen the evidence for the 
 Gospel. 
 
 The result of this necessarily brief examina- 
 tion of the external evidence and criticism of 
 the Fourth Gospel is that the negative criticism 
 by constant opposition weakens and destroys 
 itself, having no consistent and well-ascertained 
 results; that it is powerless when it attempts 
 the task of construction; and that on every 
 hand the evidence for connecting the Fourth 
 Gospel with the immediate circle of St. John is 
 accumulating. (But ep. B. LZ. 1890, pp. 409 
 
 sqq.) 
 
 JOHN, GOSPEL OF 
 
 (ii.) Self-evidence of the Gospel. 
 
 The writing itself furnishes to some extent 
 direct evidence and to a Jarge extent materials 
 for indirect induction, as to its authorship. 
 
 A. The divect evidence is contained in three 
 passages : chs. i, 14, xix. 35, xxi. 24, 
 
 (a.) Ch. i. 14 (compared with 1 John i. 1), 
 ἐθεασάμεθα. The usus loquendi, the tenses, the 
 context, the parallels, alike confirm the natural 
 impression that the writer is here placing him- 
 self among the immediate disciples of the Lord. 
 
 (ὦ.) Ch. xix. 85. These words assert (1) that 
 the evidence is that of an eye-witness, (2) that 
 the witness answers to the idea of what true 
 witness should be, and (3) that the eye-witness 
 knows the facts to be as they are stated to be. 
 (See on this whole subject Bleek - Mangold, 
 Einleitung, §§ 92 and 107.) ‘The force of 
 ἐκεῖνος is discussed fully by Steitz and A. Putt- 
 mann (Stud. u. Krit. 1859, pp. 497 sqq., 1860, 
 pp. 505 sqq., 1861, pp. 267 sqq.; and in Hil- 
 genfeld’s Zeitschr. fiir wissensch. Theol. 1862, 
 pp. 204 sqq.). Steitz is said to have abandoned 
 his published opinions (Grimm’s Wilke’s Clavis, 
 ed. Thayer, p. 195); but even Buttmann admits 
 that a writer who in direct speech speaks of 
 himself in the third person may use ἐκεῖνος. 
 
 (c.) Ch. xxi. 24 clearly assigns the authorship 
 of the Gospel to ‘* the beloved disciple” of v. 21, 
 and that with regard to its form as well as to 
 its material contents. He is the writer as well 
 as the witness. A comparison of this passage 
 with ch. xix. 35 shows that, while that is the 
 statement of the writer, this is the evidence of 
 others who of their personal knowledge bear 
 testimony that the witness is true. From the 
 first then this writing bore in its own substance 
 the twofold assertion of autoptic testimony, 
 both on the part of the writer and on that of 
 those who published it. 
 
 B. The indirect inference furnished by the 
 writing. 
 
 1. The Nationality of the Author —In a work 
 which looks backward so constantly to the Old 
 Testament, and of which the subject-matter is 
 so fully Jewish, it ought not to be difficult to 
 say whether the writer is dealing with it from 
 an intimate personal knowledge of Judaism past 
 and present, or from the acquired knowledge of 
 a stranger. And yet the Gospel must be studied 
 chapter by chapter and verse by verse by the 
 student who wishes to obtain a fresh impression 
 of the facts. The result of such study will, it 
 
1750 JOHN, GOSPEL OF 
 is believed, be the conviction that no one who 
 was not trained from childhood in the Jewish 
 Scriptures, customs, life, hopes, could have 
 written the Fourth Gospel. The following heads 
 of subjects are given, not as in themselves full 
 proofs, but as centres of thought around which 
 the facts which are observed in study may be 
 grouped :— 
 
 i. The Citations of the Old Testament.—The 
 student will find as he reads the Gospel that the 
 Old Testament is formally quoted sixteen times. 
 
 These quotations are not confined to any part of 
 
 the Gospel, nor to any persons. Some are in 
 the discourses of the Lord (vii. 38, viii. 17, 
 x. 34, xiii. 18, xv. 25); one is by John Baptist 
 (i. 23); one is by Galilaeans (vi. 31); some are 
 by the writer himself (ii. 17, xii. 14-15, 38, 40, 
 xix. 24, 36, 37). 
 
 For the most part they are taken from the 
 LXX. Some are quite free or reminiscences of 
 the text (i. 23, vi. 31, vii. 38, 42); some occur in 
 the Synoptic Gospels or elsewhere (i. 23, viii. 17, 
 xii. 14-15, 38, 40, xix. 24, 37), and indicate a 
 common use among the Christian brotherhood. 
 It is moreover to be borne in mind that quo- 
 tation from the Greek is natural in a Greek 
 writing which is intended for Greek readers ; 
 but there are three instances in which com- 
 petent judges find good reason for thinking that 
 the writer shows a critical knowledge of the 
 original : 
 
 Ch, vi. 45. The LXX. (15. liv. 13) connects 
 the words with the preceding verse. The quo- 
 tation takes them as complete in themselves; 
 following in this the Hebrew text. 
 
 Ch, xiii 18. Cp. Ps. xli. Cl.), 9)(10).. The 
 LXX. reading is 6 ἐσθίων ἄρτους μου ἐμε- 
 γάλυνεν ἐπ’ ἐμὲ πτερνισμόν. That of Aquil., 
 Symm., and Theodot. is κατεμεγαλύνθη μου. The 
 
 Hebrew text is apy ‘oy Sytan sond Sow. 
 The quotation has in accordance with the Hebrew 
 ἄρτον (sing.) where the LXX. has ἄρτους (plur.), 
 translates APY by the ordinary πτέρνα instead 
 
 of the exceptional πτερνισμόν, and San by 
 the quite unusual ém-aipw, which is the LXX. 
 word for NW) or O77 instead of μεγαλύνω, 
 which is the ordinary word for 2737, and is 
 here found in all the Greek Versions. The 
 English translation of the Psalm (A. V., and 
 R. V. more fully, for it omits the marginal note) 
 follows the reading of the Gospel. The Prayer 
 Book Version follows the LXX. (through the 
 Vulgate, magnificavit super me supplantationem) 
 in its rendering, “‘hath laid great wait for me.” 
 What is more remarkable, though it seems to 
 have escaped notice, is that our Lord is made to 
 use the almost technical τρώγων (cp. Matt. xxiv. 
 38, John vi. 54-58—all in our Lord’s discourses ; 
 nowhere else in N. T.) instead of the LXX. 
 ἐσθίων. 
 
 Ch. xix, 37.. Zech,. ‘xii. 10,; The L&x. 
 reads ἐπιβλέψονται πρός pe ἄνθ᾽ ὧν κατωχρή- 
 σαντο, “they shall look upon me because they 
 
 have mocked me.” The Hebrew is ὃν wa 
 IPT IWS | MN. The quotation here and in 
 Rev. i. 7 (αὐτὸν ἐξεκέντησαν) follows against all 
 Greek Versions a reading by or pbx, which 
 latter was afterwards supposed to be an anti- 
 Messianic invention of the Jews (cp. Pusey, 
 
 JOHN, GOSPEL OF 
 
 Minor Prophets in loc.; and De Rossi, Variae 
 Lectiones, iii. 217 sqq.). It also translates 
 with Rey. i. 7 19P7 correctly; but this with 
 Theodot., εἰς ὃν ἐξεκέντησαν ; Aquil. and Symm., 
 ἐξεκέντησαν, ἐπεξεκέντησαν.. The rendering of 
 the LXX. is probably a mistake arising from the 
 interchange of Ἵ and >. One of Kennicott’s 
 MSS. (355) does read 17). Jerome notes the 
 difference, and the fact that the quotation is made 
 direct from the Hebrew by one who is Hebraeus 
 ex Hebraeis (in loc. and Ep. lvii. ad Pammach.). 
 
 It is in more than one way remarkable how 
 this rendering of St. John became the recog- 
 nized method of quotation in the post-Apostolic 
 age. Thus Ignatius, Zrall. x., Smyrn. iii.; 
 Barnabas, vii. 9; Justin, Apo/. i. 53, Zrypho 
 32; Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. iv. 33, 11; Tertullian, 
 Adv. Mare. iii. 7. 
 
 The result of this examination of the citations 
 from the Old Testament seems to be that, while 
 it does not support all the statements which 
 have been based upon them, it gives full support 
 to the belief that the writer was a Jew, and 
 furnishes, at least to some extent, reason for 
 believing, and no shadow of reason for not 
 believing, that the writer was a Palestinian. 
 
 ii. Zhe Formulae of Citation—The formulae 
 with which the writer introduces his quotations 
 furnish more distinct evidence of his relation to 
 the Old Testament Scriptures than the quota- 
 tions themselves. They may be classified as 
 follows :— ᾿ 
 
 καθώς ἐστιν γεγραμμένον twice. 
 
 γεγραμμένον ἐστίν or ἐστιν γεγραμμένον with 
 ἐν τοῖς προφήταις or with ἐν τῷ νόμῳ, three 
 (four) times. 
 
 These forms are peculiar to St. John, but are 
 linked by the ἐν τῷ νόμῳ γέγραπται with the 
 regular Pauline καθὼς γέγραπται, and repre- 
 sent the Rabbinic 29ND. 
 
 καθὼς εἶπεν ἢ γραφή, ἣ γραφὴ εἶπεν (cp. v. 42), 
 which is parallel to the γραφὴ λέγει, which is 
 used also by St. Paul and represents the Rab- 
 binic NUP WON. 
 
 The use of Wa πληρωθῇ with ἣ γραφὴ κ.τ.λ. 
 may be compared with the regular formula of 
 St. Matthew, ἵνα (ὅπως) πληρωθῇ τὸ ῥηθέν K.7.A., 
 and St. James. 
 
 Isaiah is quoted as “the Prophet.” Cp. Matt. 
 frequently of Isaiah, and also of Jeremiah, 
 Daniel, Jonah: so Peter of Joel (Acts ii. 16); so 
 Acts viii. 28, 30; so Paul of Samuel (Acts xiii. 
 20) and of Isaiah (Acts xxviii. 25). 
 
 The people quote with the phrase ἡμεῖς ἠκού- 
 σαμεν ἐκ τοῦ νόμου (ch. xii. 34), using the 
 term “Law ” for the Old Test. generally, as in 
 ch. x. 34, and suggest by their words that they 
 were speaking from memory of the Synagogue 
 lessons. Just in the same way our Lord says, 
 ᾽᾿Ηκούσατε ὅτι ἐρρέθη... (Matt. v. 2). 
 
 iii. Other instances of minute knowledge of the 
 Old Testament Scriptures.—More striking than 
 the instances of direct quotation are the light 
 
 ¢ Dr. Hatch’s opinion (Zssays in Biblical Greek, 
 p- 213) that the common source was an older transla- 
 tion, and that the Jews substituted κατωχρήσαντο in the 
 LXX. for the original ἐξεκέντησαν, as adduced by Mr. 
 J. A. Cross in The Classical Review, iv. 453 sqq., is 
 characterized by Prof. T. K. Abbott as “utterly prepos- 
 terous.” See his reasons in The Classical Review, Υ. 11, 
 and Mr. Cross’s Reply, ibid. p. 142. 
 
JOHN, GOSPEL OF 
 
 and undesigned touches which occur at every 
 point in the Gospel, and give reminiscences of 
 almost every Book in the Old Testament. Of 
 Genesis and the other Books of Moses, of Samuel 
 and of Kings, of Psalms and of Proverbs, of 
 Isaiah in both parts, special knowledge will be 
 expected and will be found; of Jeremiah, of 
 Ezekiel, and of David; of Hosea, Joel, Micah, 
 Zephaniah, Zechariah, and Malachi. ‘lhe touches 
 are of persons—Abraham, Moses, Jacob, David ; 
 of history, as of the manna, the circumcision, 
 the brazen serpent, the well and the flocks 
 at Sychar; of similes, as the Bridegooom, the 
 living Water, the Shepherd, the Vine; of 
 doctrines, as Life, Light, ‘Truth, Righteousness, 
 Peace. 
 
 iv. The Relation of the great doctrinal posi- 
 tions of the Gospel to the Old Testament, and to 
 the earlier Teaching of the New Testament.—An 
 exhaustive examination of the ideas of the Fourth 
 Gospel, and a comparison of them with the ideas 
 of the Old Testament, of the Synoptic Gospels, 
 of St. Paul, St. Peter, St. James, ought to tell 
 without much room for doubt whether the writer 
 isa Jew ora Gentile. While such an examination 
 would be in this place impossible, it is specially 
 satisfactory to be able to refer to it as already 
 done. The able treatises of Weiss (Biblical 
 Theology of the New Testument, 1885, esp. vol. ii. 
 pp. 311-416) and Lechler (Apostolic and post- 
 Apostolic Times, ed. 3, 1886, esp. vol. ii. 163 sqq., 
 250 sqq.) are now easily accessible. The works 
 of Franke (Das alte Testament bei Johannes, 1885) 
 and Oscar Holtzmann (Das Johannesevangelium 
 untersucht und erklért, 1887) are from opposite 
 standpoints of great value, though Franke is 
 perhaps rather too much of an advocate. Two 
 English works on this part of the subject also 
 afford valuable guidance: Lias (Doctrinal System 
 of St. John, 1875), and the remarkable Jntro- 
 duction by Dr. Reynolds in the Pulpit Com- 
 mentary, Gospel of St. John (1888, see esp. pp. 
 ¢xxviii—cl.). 
 
 But two characteristic doctrinal positions 
 demand a brief exposition, both from their own 
 importance and as examples of the evidence 
 which is to be furnished by this method. One 
 of them, The Doctrine of the Logos,? will find 
 its more fit place of treatment in a separate 
 article [Locos]. The other is the Messianic 
 Idea. The development of this doctrine is 
 stated by the writer to be the purpose of the 
 
 Gospel, ἵνα πιστεύητε ὅτι ᾿ἸΙησοῦς ἐστὶν 6 
 Χριστὸς 6 υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ (ch. xx. 31). Accord- 
 ingly, as Weizsiicker notes, the Messianic ques- 
 tion is of all Jewish questions which are bound up 
 with the life of Jesus the one which is most fully 
 dealt with in the Fourth Gospel ( Untersuchungen, 
 1864, p. 260). It is moreover of all Jewish 
 questions just that one which forms the best 
 test of nationality and date. The destruction of 
 Jerusalem changed the whole aspect of Messianic 
 hope. If the Fourth Gospel is by St. John, the 
 
 ἃ Cp. Westcott’s St. John, pp. 14-18; Soulier, La 
 Doctrine du Logos, 1876; Siegfried, Philo v. Alez., 
 1875 ; Edersheim, art. Paizo in Dict. of Christ. Biog. ; 
 Klassen, Die alttest. Weisheit u. d. Logos, 1879; Re- 
 ville, La Doctrine du Logos, 1881; Drummond, Philo 
 Judaeus, 1888 (specially); Excursus A in Ellicott’s 
 New Testament Commentary, i. 552-554, and Bampton 
 Lectures, 1890, p. 431. 
 
 JOHN, GOSPEL OF 1751 
 
 Messianic Idea ought to be treated with the 
 intimate knowledge of a born Jew; and yet 
 the Jewish hope of a Messianic kingdom must 
 have ceased to exist for him when Jesus Christ 
 was crucified two generations ago, and the 
 national idea must have ceased to exist when 
 Jerusalem itself ceased to exist as the centre of 
 national life, and he who for a whole generation 
 had lived in a new region of life must, in 
 the blending of Judaism with Hellenism, have 
 passed far away from the streets of Jerusalem 
 or the shores of Galilee, and have found that 
 the true Messiah is indeed of the Jews but for 
 the world. This is what is ἃ priori to be 
 expected. The following passages may be 
 taken as samples of what is actually to be 
 found (ep. Franke, Das alte Testament, &c., 
 pp. 166 sqq.):— 
 
 Ch. 1, 19-28. Note the Messianic movement 
 and expectation among the Jerusalem Jews at 
 this period. John Baptist’s answer, “I am not 
 the Messias ” (v. 20), shows what the unuttered 
 question really was. “ The prophet” (v. 21, 
 cp. Deut. xviii. 15; Matt. xvi. 14, and ch. vii. 
 41, where in the same way “the prophet” is 
 distinguished from the Messias) shows a know- 
 ledge which is natural and exact. If acquired, 
 it must have been more prominent and ex- 
 plained for those who had acquired it. ‘lhe 
 Pharisees know (v. 25) that Baptism is connected 
 with the Messianic work (ep. Ezek. xxxvi. 25; 
 Zech. xiii. 1; Heb. x. 11). a 
 
 Ch. i, 41 represents Andrew as telling his 
 brother that they had found—and they had 
 therefore previously sought together—the Mes- 
 sias. The term itself in its Hebrew (Aramaic) 
 form (Μεσσίας or Μεσίας = NIU, stat. emph. 
 of ΠΩ) is found only here and in ch. iv. 25 in 
 the New Testament. 
 
 Ch. i. 45 implies that these disciples had talked 
 together of the coming Messias (cp. Deut. 
 xviii, 18). 
 
 Ch. i. 49. Nathanael represents national 
 hopes, as do the people in ch. xii. 13, which 
 had no place after the destruction of Jerusalem ; 
 but their formula “ King of Israel” exactly re- 
 
 presents the Rabbinic Sy Sy ἸΣΥΡῚ Pye) 
 
 and the Targumic NMWD xan. 
 
 Ch. i. 51 gives in sharp contrast to Nathanael’s 
 “Son of God: King of Israel,” as though at 
 once to protest against the merely national view 
 of the Messianic reign, the title which was 
 commonly used (more than seventy times) by 
 Jesus of himself, “ the Son of Man.” 
 
 Ch. vi. 14, 15. The sign, the Prophet that 
 cometh (cp. i. 21, 255 vii. 40, only in St. 
 John), the desire to make Him a king (ep. i. 49), 
 His withdrawal from those who had this desire 
 as contrasted with His statement to the woman 
 in ch, iv. 26, all is in complete harmony with 
 the current Messianic expectation. 
 
 Ch, vii. 25-31. Note the distinction between 
 Jerusalemites and provincials. Their question 
 shows how fully the expectation of the Messiah 
 had taken hold of their minds. This man does 
 not seem to them to be the Christ ; but why do 
 the rulers who have plotted to kill Him, allow 
 Him this freedom?. Have the rulers, whose 
 duty it is to decide, seen any reason to recognize 
 him? 
 
1752 JOHN, GOSPEL OF 
 
 But no! they themselves knew about this 
 man, and one of the Messianic signs was a 
 sudden appearance (cp. Heb. vii. 3, ἀγενεαλό- 
 yntos, and the Rabbinic INN DP); Dan. vii. 
 13; Mal. iii. 1; Sanh. 97a; Mid. on Cantic. ii. 
 9; Justin, c. Zryph. p. 226 B; Lightfoot, Hor. 
 Heb.; and the Commentaries ad loc.). 
 
 Note also the conviction of the multitude 
 (not, or at least not chiefly, the Jerusalemites), 
 some of whom had seen more of the signs which 
 He had wrought. Are the signs which they 
 have a right to expect as a proof of Messiah’s 
 advent (cp. the answer to John Baptist in Matt. 
 xi. 4, 5) greater than these ? 
 
 Vv. 40-42, The vague feeling of the people 
 about the Prophet and the Messias (cp. vi. 14, 
 15), while the Jerusalem officials distinguish 
 carefully the Messias, the Prophet, and Elias 
 (ch. i. 20-25). They knew that the Messias 
 should be born in Bethlehem (cp. Mic. v. 2; Is. 
 xi. 1; Jer. xxiii. 5), but are unaware of the 
 fact that Jesus was born there, and the writer 
 records the mistake as they made it. 
 
 Ch. xii. 13. Cp. ch. i. 49 and the parallels in 
 the Synoptists. St. Mark’s is the fullest form 
 of the acclamation. St. John alone has the 
 characteristic “ King of Israel.” 
 
 V. 34. Cp. ch. x. 34 and 15. ix. 7; Ps. ex. 4, 
 Ixxxix. 4 sq.3; Ezek. xxxvii. 25. A statement 
 which is quite natural from a Jew, but almost 
 inexplicable on any other theory. 
 
 Ch. xix. 14-21. The examination before Pilate 
 turns wholly on the Kingship; and the answer 
 of the chief pwests, “ We have no king but 
 Caesar,” is the surrender of the Messianic 
 lope. 
 
 he evidence then comes from every quarter, 
 and in its entirety —which can only be suggested 
 ]ere—attains a strength which can hardly be 
 resisted, that whoever wrote the Fourth Gospel 
 wrote with a complete and full knowledge 
 which would be impossible for anyone who was 
 not a born Jew. And the more this evidence 
 is examined, the more fruitful in conviction 
 does it become. Heinrich Holtzmann does not 
 believe that the writing is by St. John, but he 
 sees no reason why it should not be as easily 
 the work of a born Jew of the Dispersion as the 
 Book of Wisdom or the Epistle to the Hebrews. 
 So even Keim and Thoma, against Baur, Hilgen- 
 teld, Strauss, Scholten, Schenkel (Lin/eitung, ed. 
 2, 1886, p. 468). Oscar Holtzmann thinks that 
 the writing is later than St. John, but he is 
 convinced that the writer is a Christian Jew of 
 the Dispersion (Das Johannesevangelium, 1887, 
 p- 74), and, what is much more important, his 
 reviewer Schiirer thinks this opinion to be in 
 the highest degree probable (‘Theolog. Ltzg. 
 1887, No. 14). 
 
 In the face of these growing admissions, it 
 has come to be unnecessary to meet at any 
 length the old stock objections to the Jewish 
 authorship. They will be found set forth in 
 Davidson (Introduction, 1868, vol. ii. pp. 427 
 sqq.)- In so far as they have any force they 
 oppose the Palestinian or First Century—not 
 the Jewish—authorship (cp. infra, p. 1754). 
 
 2. Home and local surroundings of the 
 Writer.— The Gospel contains a considerable 
 number of references to places in Palestine, and 
 an examination of these should furnish evidence 
 on the question whether the writer is dealing 
 
 JOHN, GOSPEL OF 
 
 with these with the natural ease of the familiar 
 knowledge of childhood, or is writing from the 
 acguired knowledge of distance in both place 
 and time. The evidence should be the more 
 decisive, as the time of Ordnance surveys and 
 geographical societies had not yet come, and any 
 minute acquaintance with the subject would 
 suggest with strong probability that the writer 
 had direct knowledge. Once again the evidence 
 is cumulative, and is furnished throughout the 
 Gospel. The writer knows that Bethany is 
 “beyond Jordan” (ch. i. 28), and a distinct 
 place from the Bethany which is “about fifteen 
 furlongs” from Jerusalem (ch. xi. 18). Philip 
 is of Bethsaida, and this is the city of Andrew 
 and Peter (ch. i. 44); Cana is “of Galilee” 
 (chs. ii. 1, 11, iv. 46, xxi. 2; nowhere else 
 named in the Bible); Capernaum on the shores 
 ot the lake is “down” from the higher land of 
 Cana (ch. ii. 12}; Aenon is known (but known 
 to this writer only, for it is nowhere else men- 
 tioned) to be “near to Salim” (ep. Palest. 
 Explor. Fund Report, 1874, pp. 141 sq. ; 
 Picturesq. Palest. vol. ii. p. 237, and article 
 AENON in this Dictionary), and is known, as its 
 name implies, to have “much water” (ch. iii. 
 23); Sychar (Askar) is near to the well-known 
 “parcel of ground that Jacob gave to his son 
 Joseph” (ch. iv. 5), and there is no confusion 
 with Shechem ,by the writer, though there is 
 by some of his critics (Palest. Explor. Fund 
 Report, 1877, pp. 149 sq., 1876, p. 197; Ellicott’s 
 New Test. Commentary: St. John, ad loc.). He 
 knows too that “Jacob’s well was there” (v. 6) 
 and that it was “deep” (v. 11), and that Mount 
 Gerizim could be indicated (“this mountain,” 
 Ὁ. 20) by pointing toit. He alone of the New 
 Testament writers knows the Sea of Galilee 
 by its classical name of Tiberias (λίμνην Τιβε- 
 pidda, Pausanias, v. 7, 4), and he gives both 
 names in ch. y. 1 (cp. v. 23), but the later 
 name only in ch. xxi. 1. No name was after 
 the destruction of Jerusalem more sacred to 
 a Jew. 
 
 The minute knowledge of Jerusalem and the 
 Temple—a Jerusalem and a Temple, be it re- 
 membered, which the Roman armies destroyed 
 in A.D, 70—is more striking even than that of 
 the geography of Palestine. Examples of this 
 occur in the scenes in ch. ii. 13-22, which 
 imply topographical details; in ch. v. 2, 
 where the present tense indicates reminiscence 
 of the place, and the gate, the pool, the five 
 porches, the Hebrew name, all tell of personal 
 knowledge; in chs. vii. and viii., in- technical 
 knowledge of the ritual of the Temple and of 
 the Treasury, where Jesus was teaching (v. 20, 
 vide Commentaries ad loc.); in ch. ix. 7, the 
 “Pool of Siloam” and the interpretation “Sent ;” 
 in ch. x. 22, 23, where both time and place are 
 told (“ winter,” “Solomon’s cloister”); in ch. 
 xi. 18, where the distance of Bethany from 
 Jerusalem is given as the rongh estimate of a 
 man who knows the places (‘nigh unto Jeru- 
 salem—about fifteen furlongs off”); in ch. 
 xviii. 1 and 2, where the “brook Kidron,” 
 frequent in the Old Testament, occurs alone ix 
 the New; in ch. xix. 13, where ‘Gabbatha” is 
 given in the Aramaic form (NN'D 2} ?), and 
 v. 41, where the “ garden” (κῆπος, cp. ch. xviii- 
 1) is peculiar to St. John. 
 
 Nor are these more than examples of details 
 
JOHN, GOSPEL OF 
 
 which constantly occur. The impression which 
 they leave deepens with every renewal of their 
 study, until there is no room for doubting that 
 the writer of this work was a Jew of Palestine, 
 and that he was intimately acquainted with 
 Galilee, Judaea, and Jerusalem betore the occu- 
 pation by the Roman armies under Titus. 
 
 3. The’ Writer's relation to the events which 
 he narrates.—The Fourth Gospel is the pre- 
 sentation of a series of events in which a 
 number of persons, and many details of time 
 and place and circumstances, occur. It should 
 therefore furnish evidence on the question 
 whether the writer is describing that which he 
 saw and heard, or with which he was in close 
 contact, or is writing at a distance and giving 
 impressions which he had received from others. 
 The realism of an eye-witness, or one who is 
 writing from direct reports, cannot be counter- 
 feited, and the attempt always betrays itself. 
 Here, too, the evidence is cumulative, and can 
 only be estimated as a whole. The following 
 examples are meant to suggest lines-of study :-— 
 
 Ch. i. 35-51. Note (a) The marks of time: 
 “on the morrow” (vv. 35, 43); “about the 
 tenth hour” (v. 39). 
 
 (8) Personal attitude: “was standing ” 
 (υ. 35), “looked upon . . . as He walked” 
 (v. 36), “heard him speak and. . . followed” 
 (v. 37), “turned and beheld them following, 
 and saith” (v. 38), “ brought him unto Jesus. 
 Jesus looked upon him and said” (v. 42), “ was 
 minded ” (v. 43), “saw Nathanael coming” 
 (v. 47), “ Before Philip called thee, when thou 
 wast under the fig-tree, 1 saw thee” (v. 48). 
 
 (y) The actors in the scene. “John. . . and 
 two of his disciples” (v. 35). He is not “ John 
 Baptist,” but the John of this Gospel. “One of 
 the two. . . Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother” 
 (v. 40), the other being the anonymous writer ; 
 “Simon the son of John... Cephas... Peter” 
 (v. 42); “Philip . .. from Bethsaida, of the 
 city of Andrew and Peter” (v. 44); “Na- 
 thanael” (vv. 45-51, cp. ch. xxi. 2), the Bar- 
 tholomew of the Synoptists. All these are 
 living and moving characters in the incident. 
 They are all known to the writer, and by him 
 made known to us. 
 
 Ch. ix. The man born blind. Note these 
 touches of realism: “as Jesus passed by” (v. 1); 
 the disciples’ question in strict accord with 
 Jewish belief, “ this man or his parents ” (v. 2); 
 the details, ‘spat on the ground, and made clay 
 of the spittle, and anointed his eyes with the 
 clay . . . and came seeing” (vv. 6 and 7). The 
 chatter of the neighbours and the assertion of 
 the man (vv. 8-13); the appeal to the Pharisees, 
 the Sabbath, the division among them and their 
 question to the man (vv. 13-17); the appeal to 
 the parents, their difficulty and hesitancy, the 
 reason for it (vv. 18-24); the appeal to the man, 
 his blunt frankness, which is too much for their 
 subtlety, the exclusion from the synagogue 
 (vv. 25-34): it is impossible to read all this 
 without feeling that the account is necessarily 
 that of one who saw and heard. 
 
 Ch. xxi. The appearance in Galilee. Note 
 the group of the disciples: Nathanael quite in- 
 cidentally calle “of Cana in Galilee,” explain- 
 ing his position in chs. i. 45 and ii. 1; the 
 * sons of Zebedee,” occupying a position which 
 it is difficult to explain except on the supposi- 
 
 JOHN, GOSPEL OF 1753 
 
 tion that one of them is the writer (v. 2); the 
 very words of Peter, “I go a fishing,” and the 
 reply (v. 3); the touch of time, “ when day was 
 now breaking ” (γινομένη5); the standing on the 
 beach ; the ignorance of the disciples (v. 4); the 
 direct question and answer (v. 5); the “right 
 side” (v. 6); the “disciple whom Jesus loved ” 
 and Peter (v. 7); the draught of fishes, “two 
 hundred cubits” (v. 8); the “fire of charcoal ” 
 (again only in ch. xviii. 9), “and a fish laid 
 thereon, and a loaf” (v. 9); the “ great fishes, a 
 hundred and fifty and three ” (v. 11); the feeling 
 of reverence (v. 12); the threefold commission 
 to Peter, ἀγαπᾷε-φιλεῖς, ἀρνία-προβάτια, ποί- 
 μαινε-βόσκε (vv. 15-17) ; the prophecy of Peter’s 
 future (vv. 18, 19); of that of the beloved 
 disciple (vv, 20-22); the mistake and the correc- 
 tion of it (v. 23). 
 
 Here again the whole scene is pictured with 
 all the detail and life and movement which 
 belong to a contemporary record. 
 
 These three examples are taken from different 
 parts of the writing; but the whole of the 
 historical portion is written with this life-like 
 power and fulness of detail, which carries its 
 own evidence. Compare other instances in 
 ch. ii, 1-13 (the marriage at Cana), and wv. 14-16 
 (cleansing of the Temple); ch. vi. 5-14 (feeding 
 of the five thousand); ch. xi. (raising of Laza- 
 rus); ch. xii, 20-23 (the Greeks); ch. xiii. 4, 
 5, 12 (the feet washing); ch. xviii. 1-13 
 (the betrayal); chs. xviii. and xix. (details of 
 the Passion); ch. xx. 3-8 (the visit to the 
 sepulchre). 
 
 Note further the exact knowledge of the time 
 at which events took place. The knowledge of 
 the feasts and the greater divisions of time is 
 in itself much more full than in the Synoptists, 
 and this is an important consideration; but as 
 testifying to a personal witness, the smaller 
 trifling notes of time which are not worth 
 knowing, and yet, if known, are strong evidence 
 of actual memory of the events, are much more 
 important. Such are “the next day” (ch. i. 
 29, 35, 43), “the third day ” (ch. ii. 1), “after 
 two days” (ch. iv. 43), “the day following” 
 (ch. vi. 22), “two days,” “ four days” (ch. xi. 
 6, 17), “six days before,” “the next day” 
 (ch. xii. 1, 12), “the first day of the week,” 
 “the same day at evening” (ch. xx. 1, 19), 
 “about the tenth hour” (ch. i. 39), “by 
 night ” (ch. iii. 2), “about the sixth hour,” “at 
 the seventh hour” (ch. iv. 6, 52), “ when even 
 Was now come” (ch. vi. 16), “and it was 
 night” (ch. xiii. 30), “and it was early” 
 (ch. xviii. 28), ‘early, when it was yet dark” 
 (ch. xx. 1), “when the day was now breaking ” 
 (ch. xxi. 4). 
 
 The same kind of knowledge furnishing the 
 same kind of evidence occurs with regard to 
 numbers of persons or objects. In some cases 
 they are known exactly, as “two disciples” 
 (ch. 1. 35), “ six water-pots ” (ch. ii. 6), “five 
 husbands ” (ch. iv. 18), “¢ thirty and eight years ” 
 (ch. v. 5), “five loaves and two small fishes ” 
 (ch. vi. 9; also in Synoptists), “ four soldiers ” 
 (ch. xix. 23), “two hundred cubits” (ch. xxi. 
 8), “hundred and fifty and three fishes ” (ch. 
 xxi. 11). 
 
 Sometimes an approximation or rough esti- 
 mate is given, and this is in the present con- 
 nexion more important than the exact statement. 
 
1754 JOHN, GOSPEL OF 
 
 It is the man who knows the circumstances 
 who can make the guess. The water-pots con- 
 tain “two or three firkins apiece” (ch. ii. 6); 
 the disciples had rowed “about five and twenty 
 or thirty furlongs” (ch. vi. 19); Bethany is 
 “about fifteen furlongs off” (ch. xi. 18); the 
 mixture of myrrh and aloes is “ about a hundred 
 pound weight ” (ch. xix. 39); the disciples are 
 not far from land, “about two hundred fur- 
 longs” (ch. xxi. 8). 
 
 The result of this examination, if we cannot 
 deduce from it that the writer was necessarily 
 an eye-witness, is to bring him at least into 
 immediate contact with those who were. The 
 argument has sometimes been overstated (cf. 
 Westminster Review, 1890, pp. 172-182). But 
 Bishop Lightfoot’s final opinion, which records a 
 review of eighteen years, is: “ Additional study 
 has only strengthened my conviction that this 
 narrative of St. John could not have been writ- 
 ten by any one but an eye-witness ” (Laxpositor, 
 January 1890, p. 2). 
 
 The writer moves, moreover, and that with 
 the ease of familiar knowledge, in the inner 
 circle of “the disciples’” life and thought. The 
 following examples will illustrate this :— 
 
 Ch. ii. 11 (“believed on Him”), v. 22 (... 
 when therefore He was risen from the dead, His 
 disciples remembered that He had said this unto 
 them ...”’); ch. iii, 22 sqq. (knowledge of 
 what passed between John and his disciples); 
 ch. iv. 2 (correction of mistake in report: 
 “although ... but His disciples”), v. 33 (what 
 the disciples said “‘one to another”); ch. v. 6 
 (the spring of action: “when Jesus saw him 
 lying, and knew ...”); ch. vi. 5-9 (Jesus, 
 Andrew, and Philip), vv. 22-24 (intricate move- 
 ment of the boats), vv. 70, 71 (“.... one of 
 you is a devil? He spake of Judas Iscariot, 
 the son of Simon...”); ch. vii. 3 (what “ His 
 brethren” said unto Jesus); ch. ix. 2 (“His 
 disciples asked Him . . . . Jesus answered”); 
 ch. xi. 7, 8 (“... saith He to His disciples... 
 His disciples say unto Him... .”), v. 16 
 (‘Thomas therefore, who is called Didymus, 
 said unto his fellow-disciples ....”); ch. xii. 16 
 (“These things understood not the disciples at 
 the first ....”), vv. 20-22 (the Greeks and 
 Philip); ch. xiii. 6-11 (Simon Peter and the 
 feet-washing), v. 22 (“looked ...., doubting 
 of whom He spake’’), v. 28 (“no man at the 
 table knew .... Some thought....”); ch. xiv. 
 5-14 (Jesus, Thomas, Philip, the Way, and the 
 Father); ch. xvi. 17 (“ What is this that. He 
 saith unto us....?7”); ch. xviii. 2 (“for Jesus 
 ofttimes resorted thither....7); ch. xx. 9 
 (‘For as yet they knew not the Scriptures’’), 
 Ὁ. 19 (“when the doors were shut where the 
 disciples were for fear of the Jews, Jesus came”’), 
 Ὁ. 25 (Thomas Didymus: “The other disciples 
 therefore said unto him.... But he said unto 
 them”); ch. xxi., especially vv. 3-5 (the appear- 
 ance on the beach). 
 
 The writer is acquainted also with the feelings, 
 thoughts, and springs of action of Jesus Him- 
 self. See in proof of this :— 
 
 Ch. ii, 24, 25 (“ Jesus did not trust himself 
 -- ++ for He himself knew what was in man”); 
 ch. iv. 1 (“When therefore the Lord knew 
 νυν ἢ}; ch. v. 6 (Bethesda: “ When Jesus saw 
 him lying, and knew ....”); ch. vi. 6 (Philip: 
 “This He said to prove him, for He himself knew 
 
 JOHN, GOSPEL OF 
 
 what He would do”), τ. 15 (“Jesus therefore, 
 perceiving that ....”), υ. 61 (“But Jesus 
 knowing in himself”), v. 64 (For Jesus knew 
 from the beginning ....”); ch. vii. 1 (‘for He 
 would not walk in Judaea, because. ...7), 
 v. 6 (“Jesus therefore saith unto them”), ν. 10 
 (“not publicly, but as it were in secret”); 
 ch. xi. 33 (“groaned in the spirit, and was 
 troubled”), v. 54 (Jesus therefore walked no 
 more openly among the Jews”); ch. xiii. 1 
 (“ Jesus knowing that His hour was come.... 
 loved them to the uttermost ”’), v. 3 (“knowing 
 that the Father had given all things into His 
 hands....”), v. 11 (For He knew him that 
 should betray Him; therefore said He....”), 
 v. 21 (.... He was troubled in the spirit”); 
 ch. xvi. 19 (“Jesus perceived that they were 
 desirous to ask Him ....”); ch. xviii. 4 (** Jesus 
 therefore, knowing all the things that were 
 coming upon Him....”); ch. xix. 28 (“ Jesus 
 knowing that all things were now accomplished 
 3) 
 
 By a series of inductions then, each one being 
 separately based upon a series of individual 
 instances—and these, be it again noted, are but 
 examples of instances which are to be found 
 throughout the whole writing—the following 
 results are arrived at :— 
 
 (1) The writer was a Jew; (2) he was a Jew 
 acquainted with the Hebrew language; (3) he 
 was personally acquainted with the topography 
 of Palestine, and with minute details of the city 
 and temple of Jerusalem, and his knowledge was 
 therefore acquired before A.D. 70; (4) he was 
 intimately acquainted with the life of the inner 
 circle of the Apostles, and was therefore one of 
 them ; (5) he had special knowledge of the work 
 and inner life of John Baptist; (6) he had 
 special knowledge of the work and inner life of 
 Jesus. 
 
 This is one set of conditions which is asserted 
 of the writer by the writing itself. 
 
 There is another set of conditions which is 
 not less positively asserted by the writing itself, 
 and the problem of authorship requires that 
 both sets of conditions shall be satisfied. 
 
 (a) If the author is a Jew, with a full and 
 minute knowledge of Judaism, he is also a Jew 
 to whom that Judaism is a thing of the far-off 
 past, from which he has himself advanced into a 
 new region of life and thought. 
 
 See as examples of this ch. ii. 6 (“after the 
 manner of the purifying of the Jews”); ch. iv. 
 9 (“The Jews have no dealings with the Sa- 
 maritans”); ch. v. 2 (“which is called in the 
 Hebrew tongue Bethesda”); ch. xix. 41 (“the 
 manner of the Jews to bury ”). 
 
 “The Jews” (οἱ ’Iovdator) are not only spoken 
 of throughout as a body from whom the writer 
 is distinct, but they are represented as the 
 opponents of the Lord. It was “the Jews” 
 who said unto Him, “ What sign shewest Thou 
 unto us?” (ch. ii. 18); who “said unto him 
 that was cured, It is the Sabbath day,” and did 
 “persecute Jesus and sought to slay Him, be- 
 cause He had done these things on the Sabbath 
 day ” (ch. v. 10, 16); who “murmured at Him 
 because He said, I am the bread which came down 
 from heaven” (ch. vi. 41); who ask, “ Will He 
 kill himself? because He saith, Whither I go ye 
 cannot come” (ch. viii. 21); who upon two 
 occasions “took up stones to stone Him” (chs. 
 
ν 
 
 JOHN, GOSPEL OF 
 
 viii. 59, x. 31); who “said unto Him, Say we not 
 well that thou art a Samaritan and hast a devil” 
 (ch. viii. 48, 52, 57); who in the case of the 
 man who was born blind “did not beli#ve con- 
 cerning him that he had been blind,” and had 
 agreed about Jesus, “that if any man did confess 
 that He was Christ, he should be put out of the 
 synagogue ” (ch. ix. 18, 22). Joseph of Ari- 
 mathaea was “a disciple of Jesus, but secretly 
 for fear of the Jews” (ch. xix. 28), and “the 
 doors were shut when the disciples were as- 
 sembled for fear of the Jews” (ch. xx. 19). 
 -The writer thinks also of “the Passover of 
 the Jews” (chs. ii. 13, xi. 55); of the “ feast of 
 the Jews” (chs. v. 1, vi. 4, vii. 2); of a “ruler 
 of the Jews” (ch. iii. 1); of “the Jews’ pre- 
 paration day ” (παρασκευή, ch. xix. 42). 
 
 It is not surprising that many critics have 
 felt the force of this distinctness and distance 
 from Judaism so fully, that they have come to 
 the conclusion that the writer could not have 
 been himself a Jew; but these thoughts and 
 words are to be considered in connexion with those 
 which have been adduced above (p. 1749 sq.), and 
 also with such references as the following 
 (cp. Oscar Holtzmann, Das Johannesevangelium, 
 pp. 193-4) :— 
 
 The woman of Samaria asks Jesus, ‘“‘ How is it 
 that thou beinga Jew. ..?” and Jesus tells 
 her, ‘“* Ye worship ye know not what; we know 
 what we worship, for salvution is of the Jews” 
 (ch. iv. 9, 22). 
 
 Moses is recognized as the true lawgiver 
 (chs. i. 17, vii. 19), and God spake unto him 
 (ch. ix. 29). Jesus says to the Jews, “ Your 
 father Abraham rejoiced to see my day” (ch. 
 vili. 56). Isaiah “saw His glory and spake of 
 Him” (ch, xii. 41). 
 
 Nathanael is “an Israelite indeed in whom is 
 no guile”; and he uses the terms “Son of God” 
 and “King of Israel” as titles which coalesce 
 in the person of Jesus (ch. i. 47; cp. ch. xix. 
 15, 21). 
 
 (8) Anexact study of the thoughts and words 
 of the Gospel makes it necessary to believe that 
 the writer was largely influenced by the teach- 
 ing of St. Paul—unless indeed it is admitted 
 that St. Paul was acquainted with the Johan- 
 nine tradition*—and in particular that he was 
 placed in philosophical and theological circles 
 identical with or closely allied to those of the 
 Epistle to the Colossians, and to those of the 
 encyclical Asiatic letter which is known to us as 
 the Epistle to the Ephesians. The full proof of this 
 is to be found only in a complete list of parallel 
 passages and in a Greek concordance; and if we 
 bear in mind the difference of subject-matter 
 between the Gospel and these letters, it is not 
 less than full proof. In this place space cannot 
 be found for more than a general reference, and 
 the student will not need more guidance than 
 is furnished by his concordance and his com- 
 meutaries. <A specially valuable examination 
 of the relation between the Epistles to the 
 Ephesians and the Colossians will be found in 
 Heinrich Holtzmann’s Aritik der Epheser- und 
 Kolosserbriefe, 1872. The relations of both to 
 
 e Cp. P. Ewald, Das Hauptproblem der Evangelien- 
 frage, 1x90. The English reader will find Ewald’s argu- 
 ments and further references in Knowling’s Witness of 
 the Epistles, 1892, pp. 329 sqq. 
 
 JOHN, GOSPEL OF 1755 
 
 John are investigated in pp. 267-271, and 
 parallels are shown to exist between the Gospel 
 and the Colossian Epistle which must be more 
 than accidental, while in the Ephesian Epistle 
 they become even more striking. The follow- 
 ing examples are sufficient to show how real 
 
 the grounds of comparison are :— 
 
 Οὐδεὶς ἀναβέβηκεν eis 
 τὸν οὐρανὸν εἶ μὴ ὁ ἐκ τοῦ 
 οὐρανοῦ καταβάς. 
 
 John iil, 13. 
 
 Πᾶς yap ὃ φαῦλα πράσ- 
 σων μισεῖ τὸ φῶς καὶ οὐκ 
 ἔρχεται πρὸς τὸ φῶς ἵνα μὴ 
 ἐλεγχθῇ τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ, 
 
 Ὁ δὲ ποιῶν τὴν ἀλήθειαν 
 ἔρχεται πρὸς τὸ φῶς ἵνα 
 φανερωθῇ αὐτοῦ τὰ ἔργα. 
 
 John iii, 20, 21. 
 
 Περιπατεῖτε ws τὸ φῶς 
 
 ἔχετε. John xii. 85. 
 
 Td ἀνέβη τί ἐστιν εἰ μὴ 
 ὅτι καὶ κατέβη ; 
 Ὅ πὰ νὰν (ἐν 
 καταβὰς αὐτός ἐστιν 
 καὶ ὃ ἀναβὰς ὑπεράνω πάν- 
 των τῶν οὐρανῶν. 
 
 Eph. iv. 9, 10. 
 
 Μᾶλλον δὲ καὶ ἐλέγχετε 
 (i.e. the ἔργα τοῦ σκότους). 
 Τὰ δὲ πάντα ἐλεγχόμενα 
 ὑπὸ τοῦ φωτὸς φανεροῦται" 
 πᾶν γὰρ τὸ φανερούμενον 
 φῶς ἐστιν. 
 Eph. v. 11, 13. 
 
 ε , . 
 Os τέκνα φωτὸς περιπα- 
 τεῖτε. Eph. v. 8. 
 
 Cp. also John i. 5 with Eph. iv. 18, v. 8-14. 
 John i. 14 with Eph. i. 13. 
 
 John iii. 12 with Eph. i. 3, 20; ii. 6. 
 
 John iii. 13 with Eph. iv. 8-10. 
 
 John xiii. 34 with Eph. i. 15; iv. 2, 26, 32 
 
 Waele 
 
 ; 
 
 John xiv. 30 with Eph. ii. 2. 
 
 Cp. further John i. 4 and Col. 1. 15-17. 
 
 John i. 14, 16 and Col. i. 19; ii. 9, 10. 
 
 John 1. 18 and Col. i, 15. 
 
 “Light and darkness” (John generally), Col. 
 
 i. 12, 13. 
 
 John iii. 3 and Col. iii. 1, 2, 9, 10. 
 
 John vi. 32, 33 and Col. ii. 17. 
 
 John xiii. 34 and Col. iii. 13, 
 
 John xiv. 6 and Col. ii. 3. 
 
 John xviii. 37, xv, 15, xvii. 26 and Col. i. 
 
 26, 27. 
 
 See especially Oscar Holtzmann, op. cit. pp. 
 174-5, who thinks it certain that the Colossian 
 Epistle stands between St. Paul (!) and the 
 
 Fourth Gospel. 
 
 (y) A careful comparison of the Gospel with 
 
 the First Epistle of Peter brings out also points 
 of resemblance which are sufficiently striking 
 to warrant the deduction that the writings are 
 
 in some way connected with each other :— 
 
 Ot οὐκ ἐξ αἱμάτων οὐδὲ 
 ἐκ θελήματος σαρκὸς οὐδὲ 
 ἐκ θελήματος ἀνδρὸς ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ 
 θεοῦ ἐγεννήθησαν. 
 
 John i. 13. 
 
 *Eav μή τις γεννηθῇ 
 ἄνωθεν. Jobn iii. 3. 
 (See the context.) 
 
 ᾿Ιδὲ ὃ ἀμνὸς τοῦ θεοῦ. 
 John i. 29, 36. 
 
 Πρόβατα, ποιμήν, ποί- 
 μαινε τὰ πρόβατά μου. 
 John x, 2-16; xxi. 16,17. 
 
 ᾿Αναγεγεννημένοι οὐκ 
 ἐκ σπορᾶς φθαρτῆς ἀλλὰ 
 ἀφθάρτου διὰ λόγου ζῶντος 
 θεοῦ καὶ μένοντος. 
 1 Pet. i. 23. 
 
 ‘O κατὰ τὸ πολὺ αὐτοῦ 
 
 ἔλεος ἀναγεννήσας ἡμᾶς. 
 1 Pet. is 3. 
 
 (The word occurs here 
 only in the New Testa- 
 ment. Cp. Justin Martyr, 
 Apology, i. 61.) 
 
 Ὡς ἀμνοῦ ἀμώμου. 
 
 1 Pet. i. 19. 
 
 (Elsewhere in New Tes- 
 tament only in Acts viii. 
 32, in quotation from Is. 
 liii. 7.) 
 
 *Hre yap ὡς πρόβατα 
 πλανώμενοι, ἀλλὰ ἐπεστρά- 
 φητε νῦν ἐπὶ τὸν ποιμένα 
 καὶ ἐπίσκοπον τῶν ψυχῶν 
 ὑμῶν. 1 Pet. ii. 25. 
 
JOHN, GOSPEL OF 
 
 Ποιμάνατε τὸ ἐν ὑμῖν 
 ποίμνιον τοῦ θεοῦ. 
 τύποι γινόμενοι τοῦ ποιμ- 
 νίου. IS Pete 25 de 
 
 Ὃν οὐκ ἰδόντες ἀγαπᾶτε, 
 εἰς ὃν ἄρτι μὴ ὁρῶντες πισ- 
 τεύοντες δὲ . . es 
 
 1 Pet. i. 8, 
 
 Ὅτι ἑώρακάς με πεπί- 
 στευκας " μακάριοι οἱ μὴ 
 ἰδόντες καὶ πιστεύσαντες 
 
 John xx, 29. 
 
 (5) If a like process of comparison is applied 
 to the Fourth Gospel and the Epistle of James, 
 it furnishes results which, when the ethicai 
 nature of the Epistle is borne in mind, are 
 scarcely less striking :— 
 
 Cp. James i. 18 with John iii. 3 and 13; 
 James iy. 5 with John iii.5; James ii. 12 and 
 1. 25 with John viii. 31, James ii. 1 with 
 John v. 44; James v. 14 with John xv. 16, xvi. 
 23; James v. 19 with John v. 24: and see 
 especially the examination of these passages in 
 Dr. Paul Ewald’s Das Hauptproblem der Evan- 
 gelienfrage (1890). Cp. also Zeller on the 
 literary dependence of St. James upon the Apo- 
 calypse in the Zeitschrift wiss. Theol., 1863, 
 pp- 93-96 ; Hilgenfeld, Linleitung, 1875, p. 540; 
 and Holtzmann, Hinleitung, 1886, p. 510. 
 
 (e) It seems further to be clear from a study 
 of the thoughts and words of the Gospel, that 
 it is closely connected with the circles of 
 thought which had Asia Minor, and especially 
 Ephesus, for a centre. We have seen above its 
 connexion with the Asiatic Epistles of St. Paul; 
 and if we regard not so much individual ex- 
 pressions as the tone of the whole, we should 
 say that the Gospel was more like the Epistle 
 to the Hebrews than any other writing in the 
 New Testament. Tobler (cp. supra, p. 1746) has 
 founded upon this general tone of the Gospel an 
 ingenious argument that it was the work of 
 Apollos, and the general position of critics who 
 do not accept the Johannine authorship is that 
 there are so many traces of the language and 
 thought which is associated with Philo and 
 Alexandria, that it is impossible to believe that 
 the author was not a pupil of the Alexandrian 
 school. Nor is it any matter of surprise that 
 men who have directed their attention chiefly 
 to this one aspect of the question should have 
 come to this conclusion. ‘The matter of surprise 
 is that the influence of Philo should have been 
 denied. The natural impression on reading of 
 Λόγος, ἄρχων, μονογενῆς, πρωτότοκος, ζωή, 
 ἀλήθεια, φῶς, παράκλητος, πλήρωμα, is that we 
 are in contact with the περὶ χερουβὶμ and περὶ 
 koguomolas. The error here, as so often, is to 
 press part of the truth until it becomes entire 
 error; but it is also entire error to deny part of 
 the truth. Both extremes are false. The truth 
 remains as one, but as only one, of the factors of 
 cur problem, that the authorship of the Fourth 
 Gospel is to be sought upon Ephesian ground. 
 
 We have now surveyed, very cursorily indeed, 
 but with such fulness as our present scope and 
 space permit, the conditions of authorship 
 which are required by the writing before us. 
 A more complete statement of them may be 
 sought in the chief works upon the Gospel to 
 which reference is made in this article. But 
 taking only the main points as they here pre- 
 sent themselves, we have a problem which is 
 sufficiently complex. The writer must have 
 been a disciple of John Baptist ; an eye-witness 
 
 JOHN, GOSPEL OF 
 
 or in contact with those who were; one of the 
 inner group of the disciples of Jesus; a Jew by 
 birth and training; a Greek by culture and 
 surroundings at the time he wrote; a Jew with 
 a foot on each side of the great chasm which 
 was caused by the destruction of Jerusalem; « 
 Palestinian; an Ephesian; in contact with St. 
 Peter and St. James, the brother of our Lord; ἃ 
 follower of St. Paul. These are some of the 
 wards of the lock which we are asked to turn. 
 History gives its key in the person of John, the 
 son of Zebedee (cp. article Joun, THE APOSTLE), 
 whose life fulfils every condition, and turns the 
 lock. Theory has tried in vain to prove that 
 this is not the key, and has tried in vain to find © 
 another 
 
 II. DATE OF THE GOSPEL. 
 
 If the Gospel was written by John, the son of 
 Zebedee, the question of its date is reduced to 
 comparatively narrow limits. Irenaeus tells us 
 (Adv. Haer. ii. ch. xxii. 5; iii. ch. iii. 4) that St. 
 John lived to the “ time of Trajan” (A.D. 98-117. 
 Cp. article JOHN, THE APOSTLE). This means 
 that his death is to be placed early in the reign 
 of Trajan, and that the close of the first century 
 is a terminus ad quem. To fix, on the other 
 hand, a terminus a quo, is a more difficult task. 
 If the last chapter is regarded as an appendix, 
 and there seems to be every reason for suppos- 
 ing that it is so, though an appendix which was 
 absent from no published copy of the Gospel, 
 and is to be traced to the same source (vv. 24 
 and 25 are to be regarded from another point of 
 view), it follows that the Gospel is to be placed 
 at an interval of perhaps some years before the 
 close of the Apostle’s life. The general opinion 
 of the early Church pointed to A.D. 85 or 86. 
 Without fixing limits so narrow, it may be said 
 with great probability that the date is sub- 
 sequent to A.D. 80, and not much if any earlier 
 than A.D. 90. 
 
 Irenaeus asserts that “he put forth his Gospel 
 while he abode in Ephesus in Asia * (Adv. Huer. 
 iii. 1; Euseb. Hist. Eccles. v. 8), and there is no 
 sufficient reason to question this statement (ep. 
 Ellicott’s New Test. Commentary, i. pp. 376-7 
 and 551). 
 
 III. MATTER AND CUARACTERISTICS. 
 
 A. Purpose and Scheme.—The earliest external 
 statement of the origin of this Gospel which is 
 now known is probably that of the Muratorian 
 Fragment. It represents the author as being 
 entreated by his fellow-disciples and bishops, 
 and consenting, after fasting and a revelation to 
 Andrew that John should relate all things with 
 the recognition of them all (cp. Tregelles, Canon 
 Muratorianus, 1867, pp. 1-21 and 32-35). The 
 statement of Irenaeus that the purpose was to 
 meet the error of Cerinthus and the Nicolaitans 
 (Adv. Haer. iii. ch. xi.) is not inconsistent with’ 
 the statement of the Fragment, and is of special 
 interest from the writer’s immediate connexion 
 with the school of St. John. It meets us again 
 (but with the Ebionites substituted for the 
 Nicolaitans) in Tertullian (De Praesc. adv. 
 Hauer, xxxiii.), Epiphanius (Haer. li. 12), and 
 Jerome (De Vir. Jil. ix.), Eusebius represents 
 Clement of Alexandria as stating that John 
 
JOHN, GOSPEL OF 
 
 perceived that what had reference to the body 
 was sufficiently told, and that, encouraged by 
 his friends and urged by the Spirit, he Wrote a 
 spiritual Gospel (//ist. Eccles. vi. 15); and he 
 himself expands this statement into a more 
 definite expression of the complementary nature 
 of the work (op. cit. iii. 24). From the first, 
 then, the distinct but not opposed elements of 
 dogmatic teaching, polemical removal of error, 
 and historical addition to previously existing 
 records, are recognized in the purpose of the 
 Gospel. Modern writers have too frequently 
 pressed one of these elements to the exclusion 
 of others, and have sometimes with little reason 
 found more Jimited objects, as the answer to the 
 errors of Docetism (see esp. Schneckenburger, 
 Beitrige zur Hinleitung in N. T., 1832, pp. 60 
 sqq.), or to the disciples of John Baptist (cp. 
 art. Johannesjiinger, Schenkel’s Bibel-Leaicon, 
 vol. iii. pp. 324 sqq.). 
 
 The traditional view of the purpose is not 
 opposed to that which is expressed in the 
 writing itself, but it is singular that attention 
 has been so seldom directed to the definite | 
 
 i. PROLOGUE: Man and the eternity of the past (ch. i. 
 THe Worp 
 (1) was God (vv. 1-5); 
 (2) became man (vv. 6-13) ; 
 (8) revealed the Father (vv. 14-18). 
 
 ii. MANIFESTATION OF JESUS (chs. i. 19-iv. 54). 
 1. WirNEss OF THE Baptist (ch. i. 19-40). 
 
 JOHN, GOSPEL OF 1757 
 
 terms in which the object is declared by the 
 author, and in which his method of selection is 
 declared both by himself and his amanuensis or 
 editor. Some only of the many signs which 
 Jesus did are written in this book—*“ if all the 
 things which He did should be written, the 
 world itself would not contain the books ”—and 
 these are written to establish faith in the 
 Messiahship, to prove that “ Jesus is the Christ, 
 the Son of God” (chs. xx. 30, 31, and xxi. 25). 
 
 The work then is a series of chronicles rather 
 than a history, and the related events and dis- 
 courses are chosen with an express dogmatic 
 purpose which is throughout the ruling idea. 
 The life of Jesus is a revelation, accepted and 
 understood by faith, denied and rejected by un- 
 belief. The great facts of this revelation, and 
 the conflict of these opposing principles, are the 
 subjects of the writing; Ephesus, its theology, 
 philosophy, language, form necessarily the 
 framework in which these subjects are set (cp. 
 Bampton Lectures, 1890, pp. 427 sqq.). 
 
 The following outline will serve to show the 
 progress of thought :— 
 
 1~18). 
 
 2. MANIFESTATION TO INDIVIDUALS (chs. i. 41-ii. 11): 
 (1) to first disciples—witness of man (ch. i. 41-51) ; 
 (2) at Cana of Galilee—witness of nature (ch. ii. 1-11). 
 
 3. MANIFESTATION IN PUBLIC (chs. ii. 12-iv. 54): 
 (1) in Jerusalem—the Temple (ch. ii. 12-22) ; 
 
 (2) in Jerusalem—the city ; Nicodemus (chs. ii. 
 
 (3) in Judaea—the Baptist (ch. iii. 22-36) ; 
 
 23-iii. 21}; 
 
 (4) in Samaria—the woman ; the people (ch. iv. 1-42); 
 
 (5) in Galilee—the people ; the courtier (ch. iv. 
 
 43-54), 
 
 iii. THE FULLER REVELATION: GROWTH OF UNBELIEF AMONG THE JEWS (ch. v. 1-xii. 50). 
 
 1. Lire (chs. v.-vi. 71). 
 
 (1) This based upon the unity of the Son with the Father (ch. ν.). 
 (2) The Incarnation life for mankind (ch. vi.). 
 Result : On one hand, defection; on the other, fuller confession (ch. vi. 59-71). 
 
 2. Truta; Licut; Love (chs. vii. 1-x. 42). 
 Q) Truth (ch. vii.). 
 
 Result: Division among the people and in the Sanhedrin (vv. 40-52). 
 (2) Light; the man born blind (chs. viii. 12-ix. 41). 
 Result : Objections of the Pharisees; spiritual light and darkness (ch. ix. 35-41). 
 (3) Love ; the Good Shepherd ; the feast of Dedication (ch. x. 1-42). 
 Result : Charge of blasphemy ; escape beyond Jordan; many believed there (vv. 31-42), 
 3. Futter REVELATION OF Lire, TrourH, Licur, LOVE; MORE HOSTILE UNBELIEF OF THE JEWS 
 
 (chs. xi.—xii. 50). 
 Lazarus raised; the Sanhedrin; the supper 
 kingdom ; the Greeks. 
 
 at Bethany; the entry into Jerusalem; the wider 
 
 Result: Conflict throughout this section issuing in rejection by the Jews of light (ch. xii. 46), 
 
 love (47), truth (49), life (50). 
 
 ἦν. THE FULLER REVELATION: GROWTH OF FAITH AMONG THE DISCIPLES (chs. xiii. 1- 
 
 Xvii. 26). 
 1. Love IN HUMILIATION (ch. xiii. 1-34), 
 
 The feet-washing ; the interpretation of it; the betrayal. 
 2. LAST WORDS OF LOVE TO THE ΕΚΑΙΤΗΕΌΙ, (chs, xiii. 31-xvi. 33). 
 The Father’s House ; the Paraclete ; the True Vine; their relation to Himself and to the world. 
 
 _ 3. Love in THE InTERCESSORY Prayer (ch. xvii. 
 
 1-26). 
 
 vy. CLIMAX OF UNBELIEF: SURRENDER AND CRUCIFIXION (chs. xviii. 1-xix. 42). 
 1. BETRAYAL AND APPREHENSION (ch. xviii. 1-11). 
 2. TRIALS BEFORE JEWISH TRIBUNALS (vv. 12-27). 
 
 Denial by St. Peter (vv. 17, 25, 27). 
 
 3. TRIALS BEFORE THE Roman Proconstt (chs. xviii. 28-xix. 16). 
 
 4, SupMmission TO DEATH (ch. xix. 17-42). 
 
 vi. CLIMAX OF FAITH: RESURRECTION AND PROOFS (ch. xx.). 
 1. SS. PETER AND JOHN AT THE SEPULCHRE (vv. 1-10). 
 2. Mary MAGDALENE AT THE SEPULCHRE (vv. 11-18), 
 
3. Fimst APPEARANCE TO THE TEN (vv. 19-23). 
 4, APPEARANCE TO THE ELEVEN (vv. 24-29). 
 . . . to Thomas: ‘‘ My Lord and my God.” 
 
 JOHN, GOSPEL OF 
 
 5. Exp OF WRITING WHEN THIS CLIMAX IS REACHED; THE PURPOSE (vv. 30-31). 
 
 EPILOGUE: THE FUTURE (ch. xxi.). 
 1. Tue Dravcut or ΕἾΒΗΕΒ (vv. 1-8). 
 
 vii. 
 
 2. Tue BREAKFAST; THE THIRD MANIFESTATION TO THE DISCIPLES (vv. 9-14). 
 
 3. THE TEST AND THE COMMISSION (vv. 15-23). 
 St. Peter's Love and Faith. 
 
 4, ATTESTATION OF THE TRUTH OF THE GOSPEL (vv. 24, 25). 
 
 (1) by fellow-disciples (v. 24). 
 (2) by the amanuensis (v. 25). 
 
 (For details of this analysis, cp. Ellicott’s 
 New Test. Commentary, vol. i. St. John, or 
 better Luthardt’s Das Johanneische Evangelium, 
 ed. 2, 1875, upon which it is based: and for a 
 full description of the principles of arrangement, 
 ep. Hinig, Die Construction d. 4ten Ev. in Zeit- 
 schrift f. wiss. Theol. 1871, pp. 535  sqq.; 
 Beitrige z. d. 4ten Ev., ibid. 1883, pp. 216 sqq., 
 and 1884, pp. 85 sqq.; and also H. Holtzmann, 
 Ueber die Disposition d. 4ten Ev., ibid. 1881, 
 pp. 257 sqq.) 
 
 B. Relation to the Apocalypse. (Cp. art. 
 REVELATION.)—The relation of the Fourth 
 Gospel to the Apocalypse presents a problem of 
 greater difficulty. The difference in style; the 
 Hebraic cast of thought and phrase; the halting 
 Greek; the absence or infrequent use of charac- 
 teristic Johannine words, such as φῶς, σκοτία, 
 κόσμος, ζωὴ αἰώνιος, and of favourite Johannine 
 particles, as καθώς, μέν, μέντοι, πάντοτε, πώ- 
 core; the presence of expressions such as οἰκου- 
 μένη, ὑπομενή, κρατεῖν τὸ ὄνομα, παντοκράτωρ, 
 ἀρνίον ; the changed use or form of the same 
 word (as οὖν, illative only ; ἀμήν, not doubled ; 
 ἰδού, not ἴδε; Ἱερουσαλήμ, never Ἱεροσόλυμα), 
 at once strike the thoughtful reader, and Πᾶνα 
 formed one of the commonplaces of criticism 
 from the days of Dionysius of Alexandria down- 
 wards. Dionysius was not indeed wholly free 
 from interest in seeing the differences between 
 the two writings, and in excluding the Apoca- 
 lypse from the circle of Johannine writings, 
 because it differed so widely from the Fourth 
 Gospel and the Epistle, inasmuch as it also 
 differed from his own position in the Chiliastic 
 controversy (Euseb. Hist. Hecles. vii. 24, 25). 
 The writings are different; the Fourth Gospel 
 and the Epistle are by John, the son of Zebedee ; 
 therefore the Apocalypse, though it is the work 
 of some holy and inspired man, is not by John. 
 Such is the argument of the third century. 
 The writings are different; no conclusion of 
 modern criticism is more certain than this; 
 John cannot be the author of Gospel and Epistle 
 on the one hand, and of the Apocalypse on the 
 other; the Apocalypse is the best attested 
 writing of the New Testament; therefore the 
 Fourth Gospel and the Epistle are not by John. 
 Such has sometimes been the argument of the 
 nineteenth century. As a matter of fact, though 
 the evidence for the authorship of the Apoca- 
 lypse is strong, it cannot be compared with that 
 which exists for the Gospel, and is not equal to 
 that which exists for the Epistle ; much less is it 
 equal to that which results from the combined 
 and mutually supporting testimony which exists 
 for the Fourth Gospel and the Epistle considered 
 in their established unity. If we are placed in 
 this dilemma, there can be no question as to 
 which alternative we must choose, We must 
 
 accept the criticism of the third century, and 
 not that of the nineteenth. 
 
 But does the dilemma really exist? Granted 
 what we may, for the sake of brevity, call the ~ 
 distinctly Hebraic colouring of the Apocalypse 
 and the distinctly Greek colouring of the 
 Gospel, is it not possible that these colours 
 might have been, and as a matter of fact were, 
 blended in the life of one man? We have seen 
 above (p. 1750) that the Fourth Gospel itself 
 necessarily requires as a condition of authorship 
 a Hebrew of Hebrews, though it requires also 
 that this Hebraism should have been in the far 
 past, and that Judaism should, in the author’s 
 conception of tle Christ, have developed into a 
 religion of humanity. The probable chronology 
 of the life and writings of the Apostle John 
 would place the Apocalypse some thirty years 
 earlier than the Gospel, the one at the close of 
 the Hebrew, the other at the close of the Greek, 
 period of his life: the one when his thoughts 
 were wholly Hebrew, though for Greek readers 
 he endeavoured to express them in Greek; the 
 other when his thoughts and language had been 
 for a generation Greek, though he can neyer lose 
 the Shibboleths of his earlier life. 
 
 A theory of the composition of the Apocalypse 
 which has lately attracted a good deal of atten- 
 tion, chiefly perhaps because it has won. the 
 adhesion of Dr. Adolf Harnack, is based upon 
 the view that the author has worked over an 
 earlier Hebrew Apocalypse. Without entering 
 here upon a discussion which does not fall 
 within our present subject, it may be useful to 
 refer to Harnack and Von Gebhardt’s Texte und 
 Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchrist- 
 lichen Literatur, Bd. ii., Heft 3; Die Offen- 
 barung Johannis, eine Jiidische Apokalypse in 
 christlicher LBearbeitung von EF, Vischer, mit 
 einem Nachwort von Adolph Harnack, 1886, and 
 to the criticism of Schoen in his Origine de 
 !’ Apocalypse, 1887, which also contains a useful 
 account of the literature of the subject. The 
 theological reviews have naturally discussed this 
 question from both sides, and articles of special 
 interest by MM. Ménégoz, Bovon, and Bruston 
 have appeared in the Revue de Théologie de 
 Lausanne, 1888. 
 
 Without regarding Vischer’s theory as es- 
 tablished, the existence of a wide field of 
 Hebrew Apocalyptic literature, which cannot be 
 questioned, may more than explain, if any ex- 
 planation is needed, the strong Jewish colouring 
 of the New Testament Apocalypse. But, as a 
 matter of fact, the diversity of style between 
 the Fourth Gospel and the Apocalypse has by 
 many critics been made unduly prominent, and 
 the similarity of style and matter has been 
 unduly kept in the background. Here, again, 
 the eye has seen that which it looked for. Let 
 
JOHN, GOSPEL OF 
 
 it look at the Apocalypse with the view of 
 noting the resemblance between it and the 
 Gospel :— 
 
 (1 ) It will be found, on careful examination, 
 that the composition of the works as a whole is, 
 with all their many differences, on the same 
 general plan. It has often been urged that the 
 Apocalypse is arranged on a careful plan, in 
 which the numbers ten, seven, three recur, and 
 the Gospel is an even unarranged flow of narra- 
 tive. We have seen, in the analysis of the 
 Gospel (p. 1757), that it is also constructed on 
 an elaborate plan, which in its leading features 
 closely resembles that of the Apocalypse. It 
 has been often argued, indeed, that the Gospel 
 cannot be strictly historical, just because its 
 materials take the shape of an ideal composition. 
 
 (2.) The doctrinal positions are at root the 
 same, though from the very different nature of 
 the two writings this is not always apparent 
 upon the surface. This is an axiom even of the 
 Ttibingen School, for it is necessary to the 
 position that the writer of the Gospel sought to 
 use the authority of John, the author of the 
 Apocalypse, and therefore placed himself in the 
 position of the seer (cp. Baur, Christenthuwn der 
 drei ersten Jahrhunderte, p. 132; Die hanon- 
 ischen Dvangelien, p. 380°). And it has been 
 abundantly established by more than one of the 
 writers on the Theology of St. John to whom 
 reference has been already made. The question 
 is one which can be dealt with only in a 
 treatise. It will be sufficient to quote here the 
 results of a full examination which has been 
 made by Von Gebhardt in his Doctrine of the 
 Apocalypse. He deduces from a lengthy inves- 
 tigation the following result:—‘If, therefore, 
 the relation discovered by us to exist between 
 the doctrine of the two is not to remain an in- 
 soluble enigma, we must acknowledge that the 
 author of the Apocalypse is also the author of 
 the Gospel and the Epistles; and indeed, since 
 the origin of the former with the Apostle 
 John is not inconsistent, either with external 
 or internal evidence, ... that the author is 
 the Apostle John; a result which agrees with 
 tradition, and is confirmed by it, as also on its 
 own side it confirms the tradition” (Eng. Tr. 
 Ρ. 413). 
 
 (3.) The lexical and grammatical forms, in the 
 midst of variety which has been in part exag- 
 gerated and in part admits of natural explana- 
 tion, present a substantial agreement which at 
 least suggests common authorship. Dr. Weiss 
 (Finleitung, 2nd ed., 1889, pp. 466-7) gives 
 the following list of terms, apart from merely 
 insignificant words, which are common to the 
 Apocalypse and the Gospel :— 
 
 ἢ ἄμπελος, ἄνεμος μέγας, ἀρνίον, δαιμόνιον 
 (not δαίμων), δηνάριον, δόξα (δ. τ. θεοῦ, δόξαν 
 διδόναι), ἐξουσία (c. inf. ἐξ. ἔχειν), 7 ἔρημος, ἣ 
 ἡμέρα (ἐκείνη), θερισμός, θλῖψις (θλ. ἔχειν), θρίξ 
 (τρίχες), θύρα (metaph.), καλαμος, καταβολὴ 
 
 f <¢So dass die Kritik sich hier in dem eigenen Falle 
 befindet, zwei scheinbar ganz widersprechende Behaupt- 
 ungen aufstellen zu miissen, dasssder Evangelist un- 
 moglich der Apokalyptiker seyn kann, und dass der 
 Evangelist selbst nichts anders seyn will als der 
 Apokalyptiker. . . zwischen dem Evangelium und der 
 Apokalypse auch wieder eine gewisse Analogie und 
 Verwandtschaft stattfindet... .” 
 
 JOHN, GOSPEL OF 1759 
 κόσμου, κλέπτης (figuratively), κοιλία, κόπος, 
 κρῖμα, κύριε (in address), λαμπάς, λύχνος, μάννα, 
 μέρος (ἔχειν), μέτρον, μύρον, νύμφη and νυμφίος, 
 ὁδός, ὁ. gen., ὄφις, ὄψις, πηγὴ (ὕδατος) and 
 ποταμοὶ (ὕδατ. ¢.), πῆχυς, πλοῖον, ποτήριον, 
 πρόβατα, σατανᾶς, σημεῖον, σῖτος, σκεῦος, σπη- 
 λαῖον, στάδιος, στέφανος, ὕδατα, υἱὸς τ. 
 avip., φοῖνιξ, φρέαρ, φυλακή, διὰ τὸν φόβον, 
 φωνή (μεγάλη φ., ἀκούειν τῆς φ.), χιλίαρχος, 
 χόρτος, ψεῦδος, ἦλθεν ἡ ὥρα (ἐκείνη ἣ ὧρ.), 
 ἄπιστος, βαδύς, γυμνός, δικαία κρίσις, δεῦρο 
 (δεῦτε), ἐντεῦθεν and ἐκεῖθεν, ἑβραϊστί, ἐγγύς 
 (of time), θαυμαστός, ἶσος, ἐν λευκοῖς, λίθινος, 
 μέσον, μέλας, ναί, ὅσος and τοσοῦτος, πορφυ- 
 ροῦς, πτωχός, ταχύ, ἔμπροσθεν, ὀπίσω, ἐπάνω, 
 ὑποκάτω, ἁγιάζειν, ἀγοράζειν, αἴρειν λίθον, ava- 
 βαίνειν (to heaven), ἀνοίγειν, ἀπέρχεσθαι πρός, 
 ἁρπάζειν, βάπτειν, βαστάζειν, γεμίζειν τε 
 ἔκ TW, δέειν (δεδεμένος), διψᾶν, δοξάζειν (τ. 
 ὄνομα), ἐκβάλλειν ἔξω, ἐκκεντεῖν, ἐκπορεύε- 
 σθαι, ἐκχέειν, ἐλέγχειν, ἐπιτιθέναι, εἴρηκα, ἐρευ- 
 νῶν, 6 ἐρχόμενος (ἔρχου καὶ ἴδε), ἑτοιμάζειν, 
 εὐχαριστεῖν, θαυμάζειν διά, θεραπεύειν, θερίζειν, 
 ἱστάναι (ἕστηκα, ἑστώς, ἔστην), ἰσχύειν, καθῆ- 
 σθαι μὰ καθίζειν, καίεσθαι, καταβαίνειν ἐκ τ. οὐρ.; 
 καταφαγεῖν, κατηγορεῖν, κλαίειν, κοπιᾶν, 
 κράζειν, κρατεῖν, κρύπτειν ἀπό, κυκλοῦν, λα- 
 λεῖν μετά (λέγων), λαμβάνειν ἐκ, λούειν, με- 
 
 θυσθῆναι, μέλλειν, μνησθῆναι, μνημονεύειν, 
 
 ξηραίνειν, ὁδηγεῖν, παίειν, παρεῖναι, πεινᾶν, 
 J 
 
 πειράζειν, πέμπειν, περιβάλλειν, πιάζειν, 
 
 πίνειν, πίπτειν (πρὸς τ. πόδας), πνέειν, ποι- 
 μαίνειν, προσκυνεῖν, προφητεύειν, πωλεῖν, σὴ μ- 
 alvetv, σκηνοῦν, συμβουλεύειν, συνά- 
 γειν, συντρίβειν, σύρειν, σφάττειν, σφραγί- 
 ζειν, τελεῖν, τηρεῖν ἐκ, τίκτειν, τρέχειν, φαγεῖν 
 ἐκ, φέρειν (οἴσειν), φεύγειν (φεύξεσθαι) ἀπό. 
 φιλεῖν ; φοβεῖσθαι (μὴ φοβεῖσθε), φωνεῖν, φωτί- 
 ζειν, χορτάζεσθαι. 
 
 The following words are found alike in the 
 Apocalypse and the Epistle :— 
 
 εἴδωλα, σκάνδαλον, ψευδοπροφήτης, ἰσχυρός, 
 ψεύδεσθαι, ποιεῖν τ. δικαιοσύνην. 
 
 The following words are common to all the 
 Johannine writings :— 
 
 διάβολος, διδαχή, ἐντολαί, κρίσις, μαρτυρία 
 and μαρτυρεῖν, μισθός, ὄνομα (διὰ τ. ὄν.), 
 σπέρμα, χρείαν ἔχειν, ὥρα, ἀληθινός, ἄρτι, 
 ἔσχατος (of time), ὅλος, ὅμοιος (with dat.), πᾶς 
 (never ἅπας) with a following articled Participle 
 and with a following negative, ὅταν, iva μή, 
 ἐνώπιον, αἴρειν, ἀποστέλλειν, ἀρνεῖσθαι, οἶδα ποῦ 
 (πόθεν), εἰσ- and ἐξέρχεσθαι, ἥκειν, θεωρεῖν, 
 θαυμάζειν, κεῖσθαι, κλείειν, λύειν, μένειν, μισεῖν, 
 νικάν, ὁμολογεῖν, ὄψεσθαι, περιπατεῖν, πλα- 
 νᾶν, πληροῦν (πεπληρωμένος), τηρεῖν (τ. VT, 
 τ. Aoy.) ὑπάγειν, patverv, φανεροῦν, 
 χαίρειν. 
 
 Cp. especially Character of the Greek of the 
 Apocalypse, Randell, Pulpit Comm.: Revelation, 
 pp. Xxii. sqq. 
 
 C. Relation to the Johannine Episties.—The 
 general questions connected with these Epistles 
 are dealt with in separate articles (JOHN, 
 EPISTLES OF ; JOHN, First EpIsTLE GENERAL 
 OF], in which good reason is shown for believing 
 that all of them, and very strong reason is 
 shown for believing that the First Epistle in 
 particular, are to be traced to St. John. 
 
 But this seems to be the right place to 
 inquire what relation exists between the Gospel 
 and the Epistles, especially the First. 
 
1760 
 
 It can hardly be maintained seriously, though 
 efforts have been made to do so in the interests 
 of the negative criticism of the Gospel, that this 
 writing does not bear unmistakable marks of 
 unity of authorship with the Fourth Gospel. 
 Most of the Commentaries and Introductions 
 contain lists of words and phrases which, if they 
 are treated not as lists but compared with the 
 parallel passages and context, leave no room for 
 doubt. One of the best is that in De Wette’s 
 Binleitung (§ 177 a), which is itself based upon 
 the earlier lists of Eichhorn and Schultze. 
 
 Whatever, then, is the relation of time or 
 interdependence of these writings; whether the 
 Epistle is to be regarded as a pastoral letter, or 
 as being prior to, or as a postscript to the 
 Gospel—and this question, perhaps, does not 
 admit of decision, because the matter of the 
 Gospel must have been largely in oral circula- 
 tion before it was reduced to its present written 
 form—the two writings come from the same 
 hand. For our present purpose the importance 
 of this lies in the fact that the external evidence 
 for the First Epistle, especially the decisive 
 evidence of Papias and Polycarp (cp. p. 1743), 
 becomes evidence for the Fourth Gospel also. 
 
 The Second and Third Epistles (cp. p. 1766) 
 have not been universally received into the 
 Canon, but their character will account for this, 
 and there is no sufficient reason to doubt that 
 they are also writings of the Apostle. They do 
 not, however, contribute important additional 
 evidence, as the First does, in the questions 
 which concern the Gospel, and they need not 
 therefore be further dealt with here. 
 
 Ὁ. Relation to the Synoptic Gospels.—The 
 problems connected with the origin and sources 
 of the Gospels are treated as a whole in an 
 earlier article [GosPELS]; but it belongs to this 
 place to deal with some details which specially 
 concern the Fourth Gospel. The reader is at 
 once conscious as he passes from the common 
 record which is supplied by the earlier Gospels 
 to that which bears the name of St. John, that 
 he enters upon a region which in part at least 
 is new. The scene, the time, the thoughts, the 
 expressions, the persons are to a considerable 
 extent different. The divergence, when he 
 comes to examine it carefully, is not indeed quite 
 so great as appears at first sight, nor is the 
 harmony of the three quite so complete: but 
 when it is remembered, for instance, that in the 
 Fourth Gospel there is no mention of scribes or 
 publicans, of lepers or demoniacs, and that there 
 is no mention in the Synoptics of Nathanael 
 or Nicodemus or Lazarus, and only a bare 
 mention of Andrew, Philip, Thomas, and Judas 
 (not Iscariot); or how the earlier narratives all 
 circle round the Sea of Galilee, while the later 
 has its centre in Jerusalem; or how frequently 
 the discourses in the Synoptics take the form of 
 parables, while St. John gives no clear instance 
 of this form of teaching, we are justified in 
 thinking of the three earlier Gospels as pre- 
 senting together one picture of the life of Jesus 
 Christ, and of the Fourth Gospel as presenting 
 a second—a distinct if not a different—picture, 
 which is to be compared with it. 
 
 If the Gospel belongs in time to the close of 
 the first century and in place to Ephesus (cp. 
 supra, p. 1756), and if its purpose and scheme 
 is that which has been traced \above (ibid.), this 
 
 JOHN, GOSPEL OF 
 
 JOHN, GOSPEL OF 
 
 general difference of thought, language, and 
 tone is at once natural and necessary. (Cp. 
 Bampton Lectures, 1890, Lecture viii.) This 
 general difference is moreover, so far from 
 being an argument against the authenticity, 
 strong evidence in its favour. <A forger would 
 not have dared to publish a work of such strik- 
 ing independence. The limits of the present 
 article necessarily exclude any full discussion of 
 the general differences or of particular dis- 
 erepancies, real or imaginary. Both are ex- 
 amined in detail in the best modern Commen- 
 taries and Introductions. The following points 
 about which special difficulty has not un- 
 frequently been felt, demand however brief 
 notice :— 
 
 (1.) The duration of our Lord’s ministry.—The 
 alleged discrepancy is based upon the assumption, 
 for which there is no foundation in fact, that 
 the Synoptists represent the ministry of our 
 Lord as extending over one year only, while 
 St. John names at least three Passovers (chs. ii. 
 13; vi. 4; xi. 55). <A careful study of the 
 chronological limits furnished by the Synoptists 
 will show that the only necessary terminus a quo 
 is A.D. 28, “the fifteenth year of the reign of 
 Tiberius Caesar” (Luke iii. 1), and the only 
 necessary terminus ad quem is the recall of 
 Pontius Pilate in a.D. 37. Any chronology of 
 the Life of Jesus which does not extend the minis- 
 terial activity beyond the decennium A.D. 28-37 
 is therefore permitted by the Synoptists, but it 
 is significant that they give no assistance in 
 forming one. The three Passovers of the Fourth 
 Gospel imply that the ministry extended over 
 more than two years, but without any hint as 
 to how much more. Biographical details were 
 not within the scope of the Evangelists, nor 
 consistent with the method by which the 
 Gospels were committed to writing. 
 
 It is not easy, however, to resist the impres- 
 sion that the events and teaching recorded by 
 the Evangelists imply a period not less than, 
 perhaps much more than, the minimum indicated 
 in the Fourth Gospel; and attention has been 
 too seldom directed to the statement of Irenaeus 
 that our Lord’s work as a Teacher extended over 
 his fortieth year—a statement which he traces 
 through the witness of all the elders who were 
 connected with John, the disciple of the Lord, in 
 Asia to John himself (Adv. Haer. ii. ch. xxii. 3, 
 ed. Harvey, i. 330-332). This would make the 
 period of the ministry extend over ten years 
 (Luke iii. 23). 
 
 The not uncommon patristic opinion, based 
 upon an unwarranted interpretation of Isaiah 
 lvi. 2, was that the ministry extended for only 
 one year (Euseb. H. 15. iii. 24; Clem. Alex, Strom. 
 i.; Origen, Princ. 4, 5). But ep. article Jesus 
 CHRIST, supra, p. 1675; Farrar, Life of Christ, 
 vol. ii. Excursus viii.; and Browne, Ordo Sae- 
 clorum, 1844, pp. 53-94. 
 
 (2.) The scene of our Lord’s ministerial work.— 
 The work and teaching of our Lord as recorded 
 by the Synoptists has its centre in Galilee, while 
 St. John places it in Jerusalem. This can 
 create a difficulty only in the minds of those 
 who do not realize the fact that Jerusalem was 
 the centre of the life of John himself for a 
 considerable period (cp. supra, p. 1732 sq.), and 
 do not realize the fragmentary nature of all the 
 evangelic records. As the difficulty is commonly 
 
JOHN, GOSPEL OF 
 
 stated, two series of facts are moreover for- 
 gotten : 
 
 (a) The Synoptic Gospels record and imply a 
 ministry in Judaea before the final Passover: 
 ep. Luke iv. 44, eis τὰς συναγωγὰς τῆς Ἰουδαίας ; 
 Luke x. 38-41 (Martha and Mary); Matt. xxiii. 
 37, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem... . how often 
 would I have gathered thy children together” 
 (ep. Luke xiii. 31-34); Matt. xxi. 2 and xxvi. 
 18, both as involving previous minute acquaint- 
 ance with individuals and localities. 
 
 (ὁ) The Fourth Gospel records and implies a 
 ministry in Galilee: cp. chs. i. 43; iv. 3 (noting 
 πάλιν, which is omitted by good authorities, but 
 is with strong probability to be regarded as 
 part of the text); iv. 43-54; v. 1 (‘Jesus 
 went up to Jerusalem”); vi. (esp. v. 4, in- 
 dicating a passover which Jesus spent in 
 Galilee) ; vii. 1-13 (esp. Ὁ. 1, “ Jesus walked in 
 Galilee; for He would not walk in Jewry, 
 because the Jews sought to kill Him”; x. 22 
 Gmplying a return to Jerusalem); x. 40 (““ be- 
 yond Jordan into the place where John at first 
 baptized,” i.e. probably to Zellanihje, to the N. 
 of the Sea of Galilee on the E. of Jordan); xi. 
 ἘΣ 6.0 
 
 A study of the Gospels as a combined narra- 
 tive (cp. e.g. the arrangement in Tischendorf’s 
 Synopsis Lvangelica, or Wieseler’s Chronologische 
 Synopse) shows, with even our present imperfect 
 knowledge of these fragments, that they are 
 parts of a great whole. We lack the materials 
 for a complete restoration; there is sufficient 
 to show that the materials which we have are 
 the complements of each other. 
 
 (8.) Lhe Discourses of our Lord.—“Si Jésus 
 parlait comme le veut Matthieu, il n’a pu 
 parler comme le veut Jean.” In these words 
 M. Renan (Vie de Jésus, 1863, p. xxix.) gives a 
 concise statement of a difficulty which has been 
 often expressed and has been felt to be a very 
 real one. The student who reads the Sermon 
 on the Mount side by side with the Capernaum 
 sermon of the sixth chapter of St. John, or 
 
 compares the parables of the Synoptists with. 
 
 the farewell of the sixteenth and seventeenth 
 chapters of the Fourth Gospel, naturally feels 
 that there is a wide difference, and that some 
 explanation of this difference is needed. The 
 difficulty is apparently increased also by the 
 further fact that the style of our Lord’s dis- 
 courses in the Fourth Gospel, while it differs 
 from the style of the teaching in the Synoptists, 
 agrees largely with that of the narratives by 
 St. John, that of other speakers in the Gospel, 
 and that of the Johannine Epistles. But the 
 student who will carefully examine the facts 
 will find that the difficulty has been too 
 strongly stated, and that in even the small 
 portion of our Lord’s teaching which we possess 
 there is much which is common to the Synoptists 
 and the Fourth Gospel. 
 
 Full lists of parallel passages are given by 
 Godet, Commentaire sur ’EHvangile de 8. Jean, 
 ed. 3, vol. i. pp. 197 sqq., and Luthardt, Das 
 johanneische Evangelium, 1875, pt. i. pp. 243 sqq. 
 Some of these passages taken singly may not 
 prove much, but as a whole they go far to 
 ‘remove the difficulty. Three of the passages in 
 the Synoptists present the striking character- 
 istics of the Johannine discourses :-— 
 
 “At that time Jesus answered and said, I 
 
 BIBLE DICT.—VOL. 1. 
 
 JOHN, GOSPEL OF 1761 
 
 thank Thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, 
 because Thou hast hid these things from the 
 wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto 
 babes. Even so, Father; for so it seemed good 
 in Thy sight. All things are delivered unto Me 
 of My Father; and no man knoweth the Son, 
 but the Father; neither knoweth any man the 
 Father save the Son, and he to whomsoever the 
 Son will reveal Him” (Matt. xi. 25-27; ep. 
 John iii. 35 and vi. 46). 
 
 “Every plant, which My heavenly Father 
 hath not planted, shall be rooted up” (Matt. xv, 
 13; cp. John xy. 2). 
 
 “All things are delivered to Me of My 
 Father; and no man knoweth who the Son is, 
 but the Father; and who the Father is but the 
 Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal Him ” 
 (Luke x. 22). 
 
 It will be found also that a very considerable 
 proportion of the words used in the discourses 
 of our Lord, as recorded by St. John, is not found 
 in the other portions of the Johannine writings, 
 The Commentary by Dr. Reynolds, to which 
 reference has been more than once made in this 
 article, contains a fresh investigation of this 
 subject made for the author by the Rey. W. H. 
 Beckett, from which it appears, among other 
 important results, that “more than a hundred 
 and forty-five words are put by the Evangelist 
 into the lips of our Lord, but never used by 
 himself; of which thirty-eight are found in the 
 Synoptic records of our Lord’s words, and of 
 which fourteen are peculiar to the Johannine 
 writings,” and that there are “nearly five 
 hundred words (a not inconsiderable vocabulary) 
 which are used by the writer when pursuing 
 his narrative or recording the words of others, 
 not our Lord’s, or developing in hortatory form 
 his own personal conceptions of doctrine or 
 duty ” (op. cit. p. exxiii). 
 
 But when all overstatements of the case are 
 cancelled, and the residuum of facts according 
 to our present knowledge is alone left, there 
 remains a Jarge element in the Johannine pre- 
 sentation of the discourses which is widely 
 different from that of the Synoptists. The 
 following facts seem sufficient to explain it :— 
 
 (i.) The presentation in each case is a lin- 
 guistic translation. That our Lord spoke in 
 Aramaic is in a very high degree probable; that 
 there. was an original Aramaic written record 
 is far from improbable (cp. Lxpositor, 1891, 
 January, et sqq.). 
 
 (ii.) The Johannine presentation is a linguistic 
 translation into the Ephesian Greek of the last 
 decade of the first century. It is therefore 
 necessarily different (cp. Bampton Lectures, 1890, 
 Lecture viii.). 
 
 (iii.) The Johannine presentation is of dis- 
 courses spoken in Jerusalem or in the presence 
 of Jews of the educated classes. (The discourse 
 of ch. vi. is not an exception. Cp. v. 47.) 
 
 (iv.) The whole of the discourses of our Lord, 
 as now preserved, can form but a small portion 
 of His teaching. They are selections from the 
 treasures of the apostolic Church. They bear 
 necessarily the impress of the individual Church 
 and the individual writer, the divinely ordered 
 channels through which they have been handed 
 down. 
 
 (v.) St. John stood in a closeness of relation 
 to our Lord—spiritual as well as natural—after 
 
 5 U 
 
1102 JOHN, GOSPEL OF 
 
 the completion of the ministry (ch. xix. 27), as 
 well as before its commencement, which no 
 other Evangelist shared. 
 
 (vi.) St. John himself records the promise of 
 the Paraclete “to teach all things, and to bring 
 all things to remembrance whatsoever I have said 
 unto you,” and “ to guide into all the truth ” (ep. 
 Excursus D in Ellicott’s New Testament Com- 
 mentary, i. 557). 
 
 (4.) The Day of our Lord’s Death.—The dis- 
 cussion of this question belongs to the article 
 PASSOVER (q. v.). In so far as it relates to a 
 comparison of the Fourth Gospel with the 
 Synoptists, it is sufficient to remark here: 
 
 (a) That in the opinion of many scholars of 
 candour and eminence who have devoted special 
 attention to the question, there is no dis- 
 crepancy. To take one example: C. E. Caspari, 
 after a careful examination of the statements in 
 each Gospel, and of the Jewish and Christian 
 tradition, asserts, “The earliest Christian tra- 
 dition consequently taught that Jesus held the 
 supper on the 14th Nisan on the night of the 
 Thursday ; that on the same Jewish night-day 
 (but, according to Western reckoning, on the 
 Friday), at the time of slaying the Paschal lamb, 
 He was crucified ; and that on the following day 
 (Saturday) was the great Paschal festival. The 
 Christian tradition, rightly understood, teaches 
 thus—as all the Gospels, and as Jewish tra- 
 dition—that Jesus was crucified on the 14th 
 Nisan, a Friday. If afterwards, in the angry 
 Paschal controversy which ensued, another 
 opinion prevailed, this does not concern us” 
 (Chronological and Geographical Introduction to 
 the Life of Christ, pp. 216, 217). It is im- 
 possible to urge, in the presence of the solutions 
 which have been arrived at, that the question 
 is insoluble. 
 
 (>) That our present knowledge of the Pass- 
 over ritual, and of the exceptions to it at the 
 
 * time of this Passover, is too uncertain to warrant 
 
 any such deduction as that the Fourth Gospel is 
 in this respect opposed to the Synoptists. 
 
 (c) That if it were necessary to hold the 
 position that the statements are opposed, it 
 would be on every ground necessary also to 
 accept the Johannine statement. It is more- 
 over supported by St. Paul (1 Cor, v. 7 and 
 xi, 23). 
 
 (d) That if it were necessary to hold the 
 position that the statements were opposed, the 
 fact of a conflicting statement would of itself 
 furnish a strong argument in favour of apostolic 
 authorship. Who but an eye-witness would 
 venture upon such a point to correct the 
 current tradition ? 
 
 (Cp. in addition to the Commentaries and In- 
 troductions, Caspari ut supra, Eng. tr., pp. 192- 
 217; Andrews, Life of our Lord upon the Earth, 
 1863, pp. 367-397 ; Hutton, Theological Essays, 
 ed. 3, 1888, pp. 215 sqq.; Farrar, Life of Christ, 
 Excursus x.; Edersheim, Life and Times of 
 Jesus, ii. 479 sqq.£; Schiirer, De Controversiis 
 paschalibus, secundo p. Chr. nat. saeculo exortis, 
 1869; Die Passahstreitigheiten des 2. Jahr- 
 hunderts in Zeitschrift fiir die historische Theo- 
 logie, 1870, pp. 182-284. A resume of Dr. 
 
 5 It may be allowable to remark here that the view 
 ascribed to ““ Archdeacon Watkins” on Ὁ. 482 of this 
 work is not his. 
 
 JOHN, GOSPEL OF 
 
 Schtirer’s arguments is given in Luthardt, St. 
 John the Author of the Fourth Gospel, Eng. tr., 
 1875, pp. 154-165.) 
 
 LIV. THe Text. 
 
 Generally speaking, it may be said that the 
 same authorities are available for the text of 
 the Fourth Gospel as for that of the other 
 Gospels. At their head stand the great codices : 
 Sinaiticus (δὰν saec. iv.); <Alewandrinus (A, 
 saec. v.), wanting vi. 50-viii. 52; Vaticanus (B, 
 saec. iv.); Eiphraemi (C, saec. v.), important 
 fragments; Bezae (Ὁ), saec. vi.), the whole 
 except i. 16-iii. 26, a later hand supplying 
 (perhaps from the original text) xvili, 15—xx. 
 13. The Gospel is also contained in another 
 leading MS., Cod. Reyius Parisiensis (L, saec. 
 viii.). The Fourth Gospel is one of two pre- 
 served in Tischendorf’s MS. now in the Bodleian 
 (A, saec. ix.); but no portion of it is contained 
 in the recently discovered Codd. purpurei, Ros- 
 sanensis (3, saec. vi.) and Beratinus (ᾧ, saec. 
 vi.), or in the valuable fragments designated 
 RZz. The Gospel is complete in EKMSUrY 
 and (two Athos MSS. not yet collated, both 
 ascribed to saec. viii.ix.), and nearly complete 
 in FGHATL. 
 
 The following fragmentary MSS. contain por- 
 tions of St. John’s Gospel only: I! and 1" (both 
 saec. v.), O (saec. ix.), Τὸ (a Graeco-Thebaic MS. 
 attributed very doubtfully to saec. v.), W® 
 (saec, ix.). Fragments of this as well as of 
 other Gospels are found in F* (saee. vii. in.), N 
 (saec. vi. ex.), P (saec. vi.), Q (saec. v.),)T? 
 (attributed to saec. vi.), and Τὰ (attributed to 
 saec. vii.); also in TY, which is similar to, though 
 not, as was at one time thought, a part of the 
 same MS. as T*, X (saec. ix. ex.), Y (saec. vili.). 
 Of these the most important are those which 
 come under the designations I P Q T X Y, espe= 
 cially T, and in a lower measure X, which is 
 extant on a larger scale and in this Gospel not 
 unfrequently sides with the better authorities. 
 
 Minuscule, or as they are commonly called, 
 cursive MSS., contain as a rule the full Zetra- 
 evangelium, and maintain the same character 
 throughout. The writer of this is not aware 
 of a case in which the text of St. John’s Gospel 
 stands out so distinctly as that of St. Mark in 
 the cursive which is variously numbered 2° by 
 Muralt, its collator, 81 by Westcott and Hort, 
 473 by Scrivener, and 565 by Gregory (compare 
 the equally distinctive text of A in the same 
 Gospel). It is a peculiarity of the group 13- 
 69-124-346-788-826 (possibly alse of the allied 
 MS. 543," though this is not expressly stated: 
 see Gregory, Prolegomena on the MSS. in ques- 
 tion) to place the section “of the Adulteress ” 
 immediately after Luke xxi. 38. Most, if not 
 all, of these MSS. appear to have been written 
 in Calabria. Other MSS., such as 1™ 135, 237, 
 259, 301, 565, but at a more recent date and with 
 an evident consciousness of its questionable cha- 
 racter, place the section at the end of the Gospel. 
 
 For the Ante-Hieronymian or Old-Latin Ver- 
 sion the leading MSS. (abdef) are extant, 
 though with /acunae. In the second line would 
 come the MSS. designated m (extracts contained 
 in the so-called Speculum Augustini, the text of 
 
 h 543=Scrivener’s 556° 826=Scrivener’s 624; 788 is 
 not in Scrivener’s list. 
 
JOHN, GOSPEL OF 
 
 which has been identified substantially with 
 that used by the Spanish writer Priscillian, 
 $385 A.D.: see Classical Review, 1890, p. 416 sq.), 
 gr and the fragment p which contains only 
 John xi. 14-44. To the same class would belong 
 the larger fragments from Sarezzano (7), of 
 which specimens only were published by Amelli 
 in 1872. The MSS. οἷ, ἰδ are perhaps funda- 
 mentally Vulgate MSS., though containing 
 numerous Old-Latin readings. The same should 
 apparently be said of Cod. Sangermanensis (9), 
 on the testimony of Prof. S. Berger (Bulletin 
 Critique, 1891, p. 302). Of these MSS., e is the 
 nearest representative of the Cyprianic form of 
 the text current in Africa; f and q belong to 
 the type which is commonly called Italian; r 
 and the fragment p are distinctively Ivish ; but 
 there seems to be more crossing and inter- 
 mixture of types than in the other Gospels. 
 
 MSS. of Jerome’s Version exist in great 
 numbers. Special mention need, perhaps, be 
 made only of the beautiful little Stonyhurst 
 MS. (=S in Bishop Wordsworth’s edition). 
 This MS. contains only St. John’s Gospel, and 
 was found in the coffin of St. Cuthbert, who died 
 A.D. 687 (facs. in Pal. Soc. ser. i. pl. 17; West- 
 wood, Pal. Sacr. Pict. pl. 11). 
 
 Of the Zgyptian Versions the Memphitic 
 (Bahiric) is complete; the Thebaic (Sahidic) 
 has as yet been published only in fragments, 
 but materials sufficient to make up a complete 
 text are already known to exist in European 
 libraries (especially at Paris), and their publica- 
 tion is but a question of time. The third 
 Egyptian Version, called Bashmuric, is only a 
 dialectical variation of the Thebaic: as yet St. 
 John iv. 28-53 is all that has been published of 
 the Gospels. 
 
 Of the Syriac Versions, the critic has access to 
 the Peshitto and Harclean, the latter revised 
 from the older Philoxenian (508 A.D.) by 
 Thomas of Harkel in 616 a.D. For nearly the 
 whole of the N. T. the Philoxenian has been lost, 
 but Bernstein thought that he had come across 
 the traces of it in a single MS. at Rome, collations 
 of which for a few chapters of St. John are 
 given in his work De Charklensi N. T. transl. 
 Syriac. Comment. (Breslau, 1837). 
 tonian Syriac, which is considered by many 
 scholars to represent the oldest form of the 
 Syriac Version, is extant for St. John i. 1-43; 
 111. 5-viii. 19 (omitting vii. 53-viii. 11); xiv. 
 10-12, 16-19, 21--29. These portions have 
 been turned back into Greek in a trustworthy 
 manner by Baethgen, LZvangelienfragmente 
 (Leipzig, 1885), pp. 39-53. 
 
 The Aethiopic and Armenian Versions of St. 
 John’s Gospel are complete, but the printed 
 texts need revision from a wider collation of 
 MSS. The Gothic is extant for St. John i. 29; 
 111. 3-32; v. 21-23; 35-38; 45-xii. 49; xiii. 
 11-xix. 13. 
 
 The patristic evidence supplies not only 
 numerous quotations, but considerable com- 
 mentaries. Earliest of these is the Commentary 
 of the Gnostic Heracleon, the fragments of 
 which have been carefully re-edited by Mr. 
 A. E. Brooke in the Cambridge Texts and 
 Studies (1891). These fragments are preserved 
 in Origen’s great work on St. John, of which 
 large remains have come down to us. For an 
 account of this Commentary, which was written 
 
 The Cure-' 
 
 | article.) 
 
 JOHN, GOSPEL OF 1763 
 
 in part at least at Alexandria, and before the 
 year 228 A.D., see especially Dict. of Chr. Biog. 
 iv. 113 sq. The Commentary of Cyril of Alex- 
 andria (f 444 a.p.) is almost complete, and has 
 been edited as critically as the scanty MS. 
 materials admit by the late P. E. Pusey (Oxford, 
 1872), From the Antiochene school we have a 
 series of Homilies by St. Chrysostom, written 
 before 398, and also considerable fragments of a 
 Commentary by Theodore of Mopsuestia (¢ 428 
 A.D.). The Latin Church contributes the 
 Homilies of St. Augustine (c. 416 A.p.). Other 
 works are too late to be of much importance for 
 textual criticism, unless it is perhaps the 
 Catenae edited by Corderius (Antwerp, 1628) 
 and Cramer (Oxford, 1844). 
 
 The most conspicuous feature in the earlier 
 textual history of St. John’s Gospel is the group 
 of readings belonging to what is commonly 
 known as the “Western Text.” The authorities 
 for these readings are frequently headed by ND, 
 and include MSS. of the Old-Latin and the 
 Curetonian Syriac, where it is extant. The 
 Western element in δὲ is more marked in this 
 Gospel than elsewhere. Characteristic readings 
 of the broader Western type would be e.g. St. 
 John i. 4 ἐστίν, ii. 3 οἶνον οὐκ εἶχον, ὅτι συνε- 
 τελέσθη ὃ οἶνος τοῦ γάμου, iii. 25 Ἰουδαίων, 31 
 om. ἐπάνω πάντων ἐστίν, iv. 9 om. οὐ γὰρ 
 συγχρῶνται ᾿Ιουδαῖοι Σαμαρείταις. Sometimes 
 the Western group of authorities is broken up, 
 and a reading is found in one section of it but 
 not in another. Thus the famous pericope 
 adulterae (St. John vii. 53—-viii. 11) is found in 
 D e, and it was originally contained in ὃ, but it 
 is wanting in a Syr.-Cur. It seems not unlikely 
 that this section was transferred to the Canon- 
 ical Gospel from the Gospel according to the 
 Hebrews (Eus. H. Z£. iii. 39. 16). In like 
 manner the finterpolation in v. 3 (ἐκδεχομένων 
 τὴν τοῦ ὕδατος κίνησιν) was introduced before 
 the larger interpolation in the next verse 
 (ἄγγελος yap... νοσήματι). The addition at 
 the end of iii. 6 was also introduced at two stages, 
 quia (quoniam) deus spiritus est (1) et ex (de) 
 deo natus est (2). Some of these readings 
 which were originally Western found their way 
 into the later ecclesiastical text, and thence into 
 the copies which possessed the field after the 
 invention of printing: so the two larger inter- 
 polations just mentioned, and the reading (6) 
 μονογενὴΞ υἱὸς in i. 18, which there can be little 
 doubt should, in spite of its great antiquity, 
 yield to μονογενὴς θεός. (On this reading see 
 especially Dr. Hort, Two Dissertations, Camb. 
 and Lond. 1876, with which may be compared 
 on the other side Dr. Ezra Abbot, Critical 
 Essays, Boston, 1888, pp. 241-285. On the 
 text of St. John generally, besides the critical 
 editions, Dr. Westcott’s Commentary deserves to 
 be specially consulted, also the critical notes by 
 Weiss in the sixth or later editions of Meyer’s 
 Commentary. Meyer himself and Godet are not 
 trustworthy guides in textual criticism. In 
 respect to the materials of criticism, the best 
 authorities are Scrivener, Zntroduction, ed. 3, 
 Cambridge, 1883, and Gregory, Prolegomena to 
 Tischendorf, part i. 1884, part ii. 1890. Dr. 
 Gregory’s notation, which unfortunately differs 
 somewhat from Scrivener’s, for the more re- 
 cently added cursives, has been followed in this 
 [W. S—y.]] 
 5 U 2 
 
1764 JOHN, GOSPEL OF 
 
 V. LITERATURE. 
 
 The full references which have been given in 
 the course of this article make it unnecessary 
 to refer at any length to the literature of the 
 subject. To do so would indeed be in any case 
 to travel over beaten paths, for the Literature of 
 the Fourth Gospel has been exhaustively treated 
 by experts. Lampe (Commentarius analytico- 
 exegeticus, 3 vols. 4°, Basiliae, 1725-27) gives a 
 full account of the works down to his own 
 time. Liicke (cp. p. 1748) adds a short but 
 valuable literary sketch of the discussions on 
 the authenticity (ed. 3, 1840, pp. 89 sqq.). Dr. 
 C. R. Gregory, the translator of Luthardt’s δέ. 
 John the Author of the Fourth Gospel, 1875, has 
 enriched that work by an enlarged and almost 
 complete conspectus of Literature from 1792- 
 1875. Dr. Ezra Abbot (F1884) contributed not 
 only to the early literature of the subject in 
 his Authorship of the Fourth Gospel (1880), but 
 also contributed from his minute knowledge of 
 the subject to Dr. Gregory’s list which has 
 just been mentioned, and to the American 
 edition of this Dictionary. 
 
 The most recent literature is very fully given 
 in the Introductions, and specially in Bleek- 
 Mangold, Hinleitung in das Neue Test. ed. 2, 
 1886; Weiss (Bernhard), Lehrbuch der Hinleit- 
 ung in das Neue Test., ed. 2, 1889 (Eng. tr. of 
 ed. 1, 1887-8); Holtzmann (H. J.), Lehrbuch 
 d. Hist. krit. Einleitung in das Neue Test., ed. 2, 
 1886; cp. also Hand-Commentar zum Neuen 
 Test. vol. iv. 1890, p. 20. 
 
 On the present position of the ‘ Johannine 
 Question,” reference should be made to a paper 
 by Dr. Schiirer (Ueber den gegenwiirtigen Stand 
 d. Johanneischen Frage, Giessen, 1889), and 
 especially to a series of articles by Dr. Sanday 
 in the Hzpositor, 1891, Nov., Dec. ; 1892, Jan., 
 March, April, and May. 
 
 Of special Commentaries, Luthardt’s (ed. 2, 
 1875-76), Godet’s (ed. 3, 1881-85), and West- 
 cott’s reprinted from The Speaker’s Commentary 
 in 1881, have obtained an acknowledged and 
 well-known position. Of the smaller Com- 
 mentaries, that by Holtzmann referred to above 
 and that by Dr. Plummer in the Cambridge 
 Greek Testament for Schools may be specially 
 named, though written from different points of 
 view. A recent work which forms part of Zhe 
 Pulpit Commentary—The Gospel of St. John, 
 Introduction and Exposition, by Dr. Reynolds, 
 1888—is the result of much independent thought 
 and work, as well as of full knowledge of the 
 work of others. It is a very valuable contribu- 
 tion to the study of St. John’s Gospel and the 
 many connected questions, and it is much to be 
 desired that the introduction and critical notes 
 should be re-edited and published in a more con- 
 venient form. 
 
 To these and many other works the writer of 
 the present article has been under constant obli- 
 gation. One special obligation he must not 
 Jeave unnoticed. When his task was completed, 
 the space occupied, which seemed but too small 
 for the extent of the subject, was larger than 
 could be afforded for a single article. Dr.Sanday 
 generously undertook the tedious task of com- 
 pression. The reader will not need to be as- 
 sured that compression is far from being the 
 only gain which is derived from Dr. Sanday’s 
 
 JOHN, FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF 
 
 care and knowledge. He has also written the 
 section on the text in substitution for a longer 
 one. (TH. W. W.] 
 
 JOHN, ST., THE FIRST EPISTLE 
 GENERAL OF. I. Yitle.-~In the Alexandrine 
 and Vatican MSS. the heading of the Epistle is 
 only Ἰωάννου (or Ἰωάνου) a, that is, “ John’s 
 First ;” in the Sinaitic MS. the word ἐπιστόλη 
 is added, “ John’s First Epistle.” In later MSS. 
 the epithet καθολικὴ is prefixed to ἐπιστόλη, 
 and the designation of τοῦ ἁγίου ἀποστόλου or 
 τοῦ εὐαγγελιστοῦ Kal ἀποστόλου precedes or 
 follows Ἰωάννου, making the full title to be 
 “The Catholic Epistle of John the holy Apostle,” 
 or “of John the Evangelist and Apostle.” For 
 the force of the word “Catholic” in this con- 
 nexion, see JAMES, EPISTLE OF, p. 1520. Origen 
 is the first writer who applies the term Catholic 
 to St. John’s First Epistle. Whether it is an 
 Epistle in the proper sense of the word, has been 
 questioned. It does not begin or end in the 
 epistolary style. It may best be regarded as a 
 Pastoral Letter. In one late Latin MS. the title 
 is Epistola ad Sparthos, which has been regarded 
 as a misreading either for Hpistola ad Sparsos, 
 meaning the Diaspora or Dispersion, or Epjstola 
 ad Parthos. St. Augustine (Quaestionum Hvan- 
 geliorum, ii. 39) quotes 1 John iii, 2 as “ dictum 
 a Joanne in Epistola ad Parthos;” and his 
 treatises on the Epistle are headed “in Epistolam 
 Joannis ad Parthos” (toms iii. p. 1976, ed, Migne). 
 It is probable that this title came from a mis- 
 understanding of the title of some Greek MS., 
 Ἐπιστόλη Ἰωάννου τοῦ παρθένου, the name 
 πάρθενος being sometimes given to St. John. 
 And yet this explanation cannot be the right 
 one, if it be true, as Bede reports (Prol. super 
 vii. Canon. Epist.), that Athanasius regarded it 
 as addressed to the Parthians. But of this we 
 have no evidence beyond Bede’s statement. 
 
 II. Author and authenticity —The external 
 evidence is of the most satisfactory nature. 
 Eusebius places it in the list of ὁμολογούμενα or 
 “acknowledged” books (Hist. Zccl. iii. 25), and 
 we have ample proof that it was received as the 
 production of the Apostle John in the writings 
 of Polycarp (Zp. ad Philipp. ο. vii.); Papias, as 
 quoted by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. iii. 39); Irenaeus 
 (adv. Haer. iii. 18); Origen (apud Euseb. Hist. 
 Lecl. vi. 25); Clement of Alexandria (Strom. 
 lib. ii.); Tertullian (adv. Prax. c. xv.); Cyprian 
 (Zp. xxviii.): and there is no voice in antiquity 
 raised to the contrary. The Muratonian Canon 
 speaks only of two Epistles of John, but this 
 probably means our Epistle, and the Second and 
 Third Epistles reckoned together as one. The 
 Peshitto Version contains the First Epistle. 
 
 On the ground of internal evidence the 
 authenticity of the Epistle has been questioned 
 by Lange (Die Schriften des Johann. tibersetzt und 
 erklart, vol. iii.); Bretschneider (Probabilia de 
 Evang. et Epist. Joan. Ap. indole et origine); 
 Zeller (Theologische Jahrbucher for 1845). The 
 objections made by these critics are too slight 
 to be worth mentioning. On the other hand, 
 the internal evidence for-its being the work of 
 St. John from its similarity in style, language, 
 and doctrine to the Gospel, is overwhelming. 
 Macknight (Preface to First Epistle of John) has 
 drawn out a list of nineteen passages in the 
 Epistle which are so similar to an equal number 
 
JOHN, THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF 
 
 of passages in the Gospel that we cannot but 
 conclude that the two writings emanated from 
 the same mind, or that one author was a strangely 
 successful copyist both of the words and of the 
 sentiments of the other. Westcott, in like man- 
 ner, has made a list of twenty characteristic 
 words found both in the Gospel and in the Epistle, 
 and nineteen sentences in which verbal coin- 
 cidences occur. The hypothesis of conscious 
 imitation by a copyist is, in Dr. Westcott’s judg- 
 ment, excluded by the subtlety of the coinci- 
 dences, joined with differences discoverable in the 
 parallel passages of the Gospel and the Epistle, 
 the similarity of which consists not only in 
 their diction but in their thoughts (Jntro- 
 duction to the First Epistle of St. John). Sin- 
 clair presents us with twenty-three parallel 
 passages (Lilicott’s Commentary, iii. 468). Ewald 
 says that “πὸ one can fail to perceive that the 
 self-same author and Apostle must have com- 
 posed both writings” (Die Johann. Schriften, 
 i. 431). The allusion of the writer to himself 
 is such as would suit St. John the Apostle, and 
 very few but St. John (1 Ep. i. 1). 
 
 Thus we see that the high probability of the 
 authorship is established both by the internal 
 evidence and by the external evidence taken 
 apart. Unite them, and this probability rises 
 to a moral certainty. 
 
 III. Date and place——There is considerable 
 diversity of opinion as to the time at which the 
 Epistle was written. Grotius, Hammond,Witby, 
 Benson, Macknight, fix a date previous to the 
 destruction of Jerusalem, understanding (but 
 probably not correctly) the expression “It is the 
 last time” (ii. 18) to refer to the Jewish Church 
 and nation. Lardner, Whiston, Lampe, Mill, 
 Le Clerc, Basnage, Beausobre, Dupin, Davidson, 
 Sinclair, Westcott, assign it to the close of the 
 first century. This is the more probable date. 
 There are several indications of the Epistle being 
 posterior to the Gospel. “The Epistles,” says 
 Westcott, “ive later growths of common and 
 characteristic ideas” (Jntroduction). Like the 
 Gospel, it was probably written from Ephesus. 
 Grotius fixes Patmos as the place at which it 
 was written; Macknight, Judaea. But a late 
 date would involve the conclusion that it was 
 Ephesus. And this conclusion is strengthened 
 by iv. 3, which condemns the heresy of Cerin- 
 thus, whose headquarters were Asia Minor. 
 
 IV. The persons addressed. — However the 
 error as to the Parthians, above related, arose, 
 we may take it as certain that the Epistle was 
 not addressed to them. There is however a 
 somewhat widely spread Latin tradition to that 
 effect, resting on the authority of St. Augustine, 
 Vigilius of Thapsus, Cassiodorus, and Bede; and 
 it is defended by Estius. The Greek Church 
 knew no such report. Lardner is clearly right 
 when he says that the Epistle was primarily 
 meant for the Churches of Asia under St. John’s 
 inspection, to whom he had already orally de- 
 livered his doctrine (i. 3, ii. 7). 
 
 V. Contents and character.—It is a mistake to 
 regard the Epistle as primarily controversial. 
 Its main object was not to oppose the errors of 
 the Docetae (Schmidt, Bertholdt, Niemeyer), nor 
 of the Gnostics (Kleuker), nor of the Nicolaitans 
 (Macknight), nor of the Cerinthians (Michaelis), 
 nor of all of them together (Townsend), nor of 
 the Sabians (Barkey, Storr, Keil), nor of Judaizers 
 
 1765 
 
 (Loeffler, Semler), nor of apostates to Judrism 
 (Lange, Eichhorn, Hiimlein): the leading pur- 
 pose of the Apostle appears to be rather con- 
 structive than polemical. St. John is remark- 
 able beth in his history and in his writings for 
 his abhorrence of false doctrine, but he does not 
 attack error as a controversialist, He states the 
 deep truth and lays down the deep moral teach- 
 ing of Christianity, and in this way rather than 
 directly condemns heresy. In the introduction 
 (i. 1-4) the Apostle states the purpose of his 
 Epistle. It is to declare the Word of life to 
 those whom he is addressing, in order that he 
 and they might be united in true communion 
 with each other, and with God the Father, and 
 His Son Jesus Christ. He at once begins to 
 explain the nature and conditions of communion 
 with God, and, being led on from this point into 
 other topics, he twice brings himself back to the 
 same subject. The first part of the Epistle may 
 be considered to end at ii. 28. The Apostle 
 begins afresh with the doctrine of sonship or 
 communion at ii. 29, and returns to the same 
 theme at iv. 7. His lesson throughout is, that 
 the means of union with God are, on the part of 
 Christ, His atoning Blood (i. 7, ii. 2, iii. 5, iv. 
 10, 14, v. 6) and advocacy (ii. 1)—on the part 
 of man, holiness (i. 6), obedience (ii. 3), purity 
 (iii. 3), faith (iii. 23, iv. 3, v. 5), and above all 
 love (ii. 7, iii. 14, iv. 7, v. 1). St. John is 
 designated the Apostle of Love, and rightly; 
 but it should be ever remembered that his 
 doctrine of “Love” does not exclude or ignore, 
 but embraces both faith and obedience as con- 
 stituent parts of love. Indeed, St. Paul’s 
 “Faith that worketh by Love,” and St. James’s 
 “Works that are the fruit of Faith,” and St. 
 John’s “Love which springs from Faith and 
 produces Obedience,” are all one and the same 
 state of mind described according to the first, 
 third, or second stage, into which we are able 
 to analyse the complex whole. 
 
 There are two doubtful passages in this 
 Epistle: ii. 23, “but he that acknowledgeth the 
 Son hath the Father also;” and v. 7, “‘For there 
 are three that bear record in heaven, the 
 Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and 
 these three are one.” The question of their 
 authenticity is argued at length by Mill (note 
 at the end of 1 John v.) and Horne (Jntroduc- 
 tion to H. S. iv. p. 448, Lond. 1834). The first 
 of these passages is genuine. It is found in all 
 the better MSS. and was omitted by a not 
 uncommon error, the scribe’s eye passing on 
 from the first clause to the second, and con- 
 founding them together, owing to their ending 
 with the same three words, τὸν πατέρα ἔχει 
 The second is spurious. It is contained in fow 
 only of the 180 MSS. of the Epistle: the Code: 
 Guelpherbytanus of the seventeenth century, 
 the Codex Ravianus of the sixteenth century, 
 both of which are merely copies from the 
 printed text, and therefore no authorities at all; 
 the Codex Britannicus or Monfortianus of the 
 fifteenth or sixteenth century ; and the Codex 
 Ottobonianus of the fifteenth century. It is not 
 found, except by modern insertion, in the 
 Syriac Versions, in the Coptic, the Sahidic, the 
 Ethiopic, the Armenian, the Arabic, the 
 Sclavonic, nor in any ancient Version except 
 the Latin; and the best editions of even the 
 Latin Versions omitit. It was not quoted by one 
 
1106 
 
 Greek Father or writer previous to the fourteenth 
 century. It was not inserted in Erasmus’s 
 editions of the Greek Testament, published in 
 1516 and 1519, nor in that of Aldus, 1518 ; nor 
 in that of Gerbelius, 1521; nor of Cephalaeus, 
 1524; nor of Colinaeus, 1534; nor in Luther’s 
 version of 1546. It originated as a gloss or 
 mystical interpretation of the meaning of the 
 “three that bear witness,”—“ the Spirit ” being 
 supposed to represent the Father, “ the water” 
 the Holy Ghost, and “the blood ” the Son. 
 Cyprian (De Unitate Ecclesiae, v.), Facundus 
 (Pro def. tr. Cap. i. 3), Augustine (cont. Max. 
 ii, 22; De Civ. Dei, v. 11) seem to have known 
 and accepted this interpretation. The first 
 person who represents the gloss as making part 
 of the text is Vigilius of Thapsus, who lived at 
 the end of the fifth century. In the sixth 
 century it is quoted by Fulgentius as belonging 
 to the text, and its position there is defended by 
 a prologue falsely attributed to St. Jerome. 
 Hence in the seventh century it was introduced 
 by a scribe into a copy of the Old Latin text 
 that he was making, and in the ninth century 
 it found its way in like manner into the text of 
 two Codices of the Vulgate. Next it was 
 translated into Greek, first apparently in 1215, 
 as making part of the Greek version of the 
 Acts of the Council of the Lateran, and at 
 length for the first time it found its place, as 
 stated above, in the fifteenth century, in a 
 Greek Codex—the Ottobonianus, which however 
 is as much Latin as Greek, haying both the 
 Latin and the Greek text in parallel columns. 
 It never made good its entrance into more than 
 one other Greek Codex, the Montfortianus, 
 which is not above suspicion. Erasmus, attacked 
 by Stunica for omitting the passage in the 
 first two editions of his Greek Testament, 
 promised to introduce it, if ene Greek MS. con- 
 taining it could be shown him. A “Codex 
 Britannicus,” which has been identified with 
 the Codex Montfortianus, was brought to his 
 notice ; and in accordance with his promise he in- 
 serted the words in his edition of 1522, but with- 
 out any belief in their being genuine. Against 
 such an amount of external testimony no internal 
 evidence, however weighty, could be of avail. 
 For the exposition of the passage as con- 
 taining the words in question, see (as quoted by 
 Horne) Bp. Horsley’s Sermons (i. p. 193). For 
 the same passage interpreted without the dis- 
 puted words, see Sir Isaac Newton’s Hist. of 
 Two Texts (Works, v. p. 528, Lond. 1779). 
 See also Emlyn’s Enquiry, &c., Lond. 1717. 
 See further, Travis (Letters to Gibbon, Lond. 
 1785); Porson (Letters to Travis, Lond. 1790) ; 
 Bishop Marsh (Letters to Travis, Lond. 1795); 
 Michaelis (Introd. to New Test. iv. p. 412, Lond. 
 1802); Griesbach (Diatribe appended to vol. ii. 
 of Greck Test. Halae, 1806); Butler (Horae 
 Biblicae, ii. p. 245, Lond. 1807); Clarke (Succes- 
 sion, &e., i. p. 71, Lond. 1807); Bishop Burgess 
 (Vindication of 1 John v. 7, Lond. 1822 and 
 1823 ; Adnotationes Millii, &c., 1822; Letter to 
 the Clergy of St. David’s, 1825; Two Letters to 
 Mrs. Joanna Baillie, 1831, 1835), to which may 
 be added a dissertation in the Life of Bp. 
 Burgess, p. 398, Lond. 1840; Scrivener (Six 
 Lectures on the Text of the New Test. p. 201, 
 Lond. 1875); Westcott (Zhe Epistles of St. 
 John, p. 193, Lond. 1883). [F. M.] 
 
 JOHN, THE’ SECOND AND THIRD EPISTLES OF | 
 
 JOHN, ST., THE SECOND AND THIRD 
 EPISTLES OF. I. Zitle—One late cursive 
 MS. (62) entitles the Second Epistle Ἰωάννου 
 β πρὸς Πάρθους, and the Adumbrationes of 
 Clement of Alexandria describe it as “ scripta 
 ad virgines,” in continuation of the mistake 
 already pointed out. Their proper title is 
 simply ᾿Ιωάννου B, Ἰωάννου YT. 
 
 Il. Author and authenticity.—The two Epistles 
 are placed by Eusebius in the class of ayriAe- 
 γόμενα, and he appears himself to be doubtful 
 whether they were written by the Evangelist, 
 or by some other John (Hist. Eccl. iii. 25). 
 The evidence of antiquity in) their favour is not 
 very strong, but yet it is considerable. Irenaeus 
 quotes from the Second Epistle and attributes it 
 to “John, the Lord’s disciple” (Adv. Haer. i. 
 16). Clement of Alexandria speaks of the First 
 Epistle as the larger (Strom. lib. ii.); and if the 
 Adumbrationes be his, he bears direct testimony 
 to the Second Epistle (Adumbr. p. 1011, ed. 
 Potter). Origen appears to have had the same 
 doubts as Eusebius (apud Euseb. Hist. Eccl. vi. 
 25). Dionysius (apud Euseb. Hist. Eccl. vii. 25) 
 attributes them to St. John, but not without 
 hesitation. Aurelius quoted them in the 
 Council of Carthage, A.D. 256, as St. John’s 
 writing (Cyprian, Op. ii. p. 120, ed. Oberthiir). 
 Alexander of Alexandria (apud Socr. Hist. Eccl. 
 i: 6), A.D. 321, attributes the Second Epistle to 
 ‘““the Blessed John.” Ephrem Syrus recognises 
 them as canonical in the fourth century, though 
 they are not in the Peshitto Syriac Version. In 
 the fifth century they are almost universally 
 received. A homily, wrongly attributed to St. 
 Chrysostom, declares them uncanonical. 
 
 If the external testimony is not perfectly 
 decisive, the internal evidence is peculiarly 
 strong. Mill has pointed out that of the 13 
 verses which compose the Second Epistle, 8 are 
 to be found in the First Epistle. Either then 
 the Second Epistle proceeded from the same 
 author as the First, or from a conscious 
 fabricator who desired to pass off something of 
 his own as the production of the Apostle. But 
 if the latter alternative had been true, the 
 fabricator in question would assuredly haye 
 assumed the title of John the Apostle, instead 
 of merely designating himself as John the elder, 
 and he would have introduced some doctrine 
 which it would have been his object to make 
 popular. The title and contents of the Epistle 
 are strong arguments against a fabricator, 
 whereas they would account for its non-universal 
 reception in early times. And if not the work 
 of a fabricator, it must from style, diction, and 
 tone of thought, be the work of the author 
 of the First Epistle, and, we may add, of the 
 Gospel. 
 
 The reason why St. John designates himself 
 as πρεσβύτερος rather than ἀπόστολος (2 Ep. 1; 
 3 Ep. 1), is no doubt the same as that which 
 made St. Peter designate himself by the same 
 title (1 Pet. v. 1), and which caused St. James 
 and St. Jude to give themselves no other title 
 than “the servant of God and of the Lord Jesus 
 Christ ” (James i. 1); “the servant of Jesus 
 Christ and brother of James” (Jude 1). St. 
 Paul had a special object in declaring himself 
 an Apostle. Those who belonged to the original 
 Twelve had no such necessity imposed upon 
 them. With them it was a matter of in- 
 
JOHN, THE SECOND AND THIRD EPISTLES OF 
 
 difference whether they employed the name of 
 Apostle like St. Peter (1 Pet. i. 1; 2 Pet. i. 1), 
 or adopted an appellation which they shared 
 with others, like St. John and St. James and 
 St. Jude. Westcott supposes the title to 
 describe an official position in the Church of 
 Asia Minor. 
 
 Ill. Date and place-—The two shorter Epistles 
 were probably written about the same time and 
 from the same place as the First Epistle, that 
 is, from Ephesus, near the end of the first 
 century. 
 
 IV. Persons addressed.—The Second Epistle is 
 addressed ἐκλεκτῇ κυρίᾳ. This expression cannot 
 mean the Church (Jerome ; Salmon), nor a parti- 
 ewar Church (Cassiodorus), nor the elect Church 
 which comes together on Sundays (Michaelis), 
 nor the Church of Philadelphia (Whiston), nor 
 the Church of Jerusalem (Whitby). An in- 
 dividual woman who had children and a sister 
 and nieces, is clearly indicated. Whether her 
 name is given, and if so, what it is, has been 
 doubted. According to one interpretation, she 
 is “the Lady Electa;” to another, “the elect 
 Kyria ;” to a third, “the elect Lady.” The first 
 interpretation is that of Clement of Alexandria 
 (see Dict. of Christ. Biog. i. 564), Wetstein, 
 Grotius, Middleton. 
 Benson, Carpzoy, Schleusner, Heumann, Bengel, 
 Rosenmiiller, De Wette, Liicke, Neander, David- 
 son. The third is the rendering of the A. and 
 R.VV., Mill, Wall, Wolf, Le Clerc, Lardner, Beza, 
 Eichhorn, Newcome, Wakefield, Macknight. For 
 the rendering “the Lady Electa ” to be right, the 
 word κυρίᾳ must have preceded (as in modern 
 Greek) the word ἐκλεκτῇ, not followed it; and 
 further, the last verse of the Epistle in which her 
 sister is also spoken of as ἐκλεκτὴ is fatal to the 
 hypothesis. The rendering “the elect Kyria” 
 as probably wrong, because there is no article 
 before the adjective ἐκλεκτῇ. It remains that 
 the rendering of the A. and R. VV. is probably 
 right, though here too we should have expected 
 the article. Westcott considers the problem 
 of the address insoluble with our present 
 knowledge. 
 
 The Third Epistle is addressed to Gaius or 
 Caius. We have no reason for identifying him 
 with Caius of Macedonia (Acts xix. 29), or with 
 Caius of Derbe (Acts xx. 4), or with Caius of 
 Corinth (Rom. xvi. 23; 1 Cor. i. 14), or with 
 Caius bishop of Ephesus, or with Caius bishop 
 of Thessalonica, or with Caius bishop of Perga- 
 mos. He was probably a convert of St. John 
 (5 Ep. v. 4), and a layman of wealth and dis- 
 tinction (3 Ep. v. 5) in some city near Ephesus. 
 
 V. Contents and character.—The object of St. 
 John in writing the Second Epistle was to warn 
 the lady, to whom he wrote, against abetting 
 the teaching known as that of Basilides and his 
 followers, by perhaps an undue kindness dis- 
 played by her towards the preachers of the 
 false doctrine. After the introductory saluta- 
 tion, the Apostle at once urges on his corre- 
 spondent the great principle of Love, which with 
 him (as we have before seen) means right 
 affection springing from right faith and issuing 
 in right conduct. The immediate consequence 
 of the possession of this Love is the abhorrence 
 of heretical misbelief, because the latter, being 
 incompatible with right faith, is destructive of 
 
 The second is that of 
 
 1767 
 
 Love itself. This is the secret of St. John’s 
 strong denunciation of the “ deceiver” whom 
 he designates as “anti-Christ.” Love is with 
 him the essence of Christianity; but Love can 
 spring only from right faith. Wrong belief 
 therefore destroys Love and with it Christianity. 
 Therefore says he, “If there come any unto you 
 and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into 
 your house, neither bid him God speed, for he 
 that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his 
 evil deeds ” (2 Ep. 10, 11). 
 
 The Third Epistle was written for the purpose 
 of commending to the kindness and hospitality 
 of Caius some Christians who were strangers in 
 the place where he lived. It is probable that 
 these Christians carried this letter with them 
 to Caius as their introduction. It would 
 appear that the object of the travellers was to 
 preach the Gospel to the Gentiles without 
 money and without price (3 Ep. v. 7). St. 
 John had already written to the ecclesiastical 
 authorities of the place (ἔγραψα, v. 9, not 
 “scripsissem,” Vulg.); but they, at the instiga- 
 tion of Diotrephes, had refused to receive the 
 missionary brethren, and therefore the Apostle 
 now commends them to the care of a layman. 
 It is probable that Diotrephes was a leading 
 presbyter who held Judaizing views, and would 
 not give assistance to men who were going 
 about with the purpose of preaching solely 
 to the Gentiles. Whether Demetrius (v. 12) 
 was a tolerant presbyter of the same com- 
 munity, whose example St. John holds up as 
 worthy of commendation in contradistinction to 
 that of Diotrephes, or whether he was one of 
 the strangers who bore the letter, we are now 
 unable to determine, The latter supposition is 
 the more probable. 
 
 The contents of this Epistle have light 
 thrown upon them in a singularly interesting 
 manner by Zhe Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, 
 published by Bryennius at Constantinople in 
 1883. In substance this document is little 
 later than St. John’s Epistle, and we see in it 4 
 system already working, according to which 
 “apostles and prophets ” were in the habit of 
 moving from place to place, staying one or two 
 days, during which they were supported by the 
 charity of the brethren, and then moying on. 
 The following passages illustrate the condition 
 of the Church at the time of St. John’s Epistle 
 with surprising vividness:—‘“ Whoever then 
 shall come and teach you all the foregoing, 
 receive him; but if the teacher turn and 
 teach you another doctrine, so as to overthrow 
 this, you must not listen to him; but if his 
 object is to teach righteousness and knowledge 
 of the Lord, receive him as the Lord.,..Let 
 every apostle who comes to you be received as 
 the Lord; but he shall not abide more than 
 one day, and if need be, one more; but if he 
 remain three days, he is a false prophet. Let 
 the apostle who comes out receive nothing but 
 bread to last him until he reach his destination ; 
 but if he asks for money, he is a false prophet. 
 ..-If he who comes is a wayfarer, help him as 
 much as you can, but he shall not remain with 
 you more than three or four Jays, if need 
 require; and if he wishes to settle with you, if 
 he is a workman let him labour, and so let him 
 eat. ... But every true prophet who wishes to 
 
 the producing cause of Love, and therefore of | remain with you is worthy of his meat; so too 
 
1768 
 
 a true teacher, like the labourer, is also worthy 
 of his meat” (chaps. xi. xii. xiii.). It seems 
 evident that the “brethren and strangers 
 withal ” in whose behalf St. John writes, were 
 “apostles or prophets,” or as we should now 
 say evangelists, and we may conjecture that 
 Diotrephes excused his haughty rejection of 
 them on the ground that they were unworthy 
 or “ false prophets.” 
 
 Both these Epistles apply to individual cases 
 of conduct the principles which had been laid 
 down in their fulness in the First Epistle. The 
 title Catholic does not properly belong to them. 
 It became attached to them, although addressed 
 to individuals, because they were of too little 
 importance to be classed by themselves, and, so 
 far as doctrine went, were regarded as appendices 
 to the First Epistle. 
 
 VI. Bibliography.—The best English edition 
 of the Three Epistles is Westcott’s Epistles of 
 St. John, the Greek text with notes and essays 
 (Lond. 1883). This volume, supplemented by the 
 Greek Testaments of Alford, Wordsworth, and 
 Ellicott, will give the English reader all that 
 he can require for the elucidation of the text. 
 In T. & T. Clark’s series will be found transla- 
 tions of Liicke’s Commentar iiber die Briefe des 
 Evangelisten Johannis (Edinb. 1837); Ebrard’s 
 Die Briefe Johannes (Edinb. 1860); Braune’s 
 Commentary in Lange’s series, and Huther’s in 
 Mayer’s. See also F. D. Maurice’s The Epistles of 
 John: Lectures on Christian Ethics, Lond. 1867 ; 
 Salmon, Introd to N. T.4 pp. 290-295. [F. M.] 
 
 JOVADA (VI = YIN = Jehovah hath 
 known; B. "Iwadd, A. Ἰωιαδά ; Joiada), high- 
 priest after his father Eliashib, but whether in 
 the lifetime of Nehemiah is not clear, as it is 
 doubtful whether the title in Neh. xiii. 28 
 applies to him or his father. One of his sons 
 married a daughter of Sanballat the Horonite. 
 He was succeeded in the high-priesthood by his 
 son Jonathan, or Johanan (Neh. xii. 11, 22). 
 Josephus calls this Jehoiada, Judas. [A. C. H.] 
 
 JOVAKIM (Oy = Ox); BA. ἼἸωα- 
 κείμ ; Joacim), a high-priest, son of the renowned 
 Jeshua, who was joint leader with Zerubbabel 
 of the first return from Babylon. His son and 
 successor was ELIASHIB (Neh. xii. 10). In Neh. 
 xii. 12-26 is preserved a catalogue of the heads of 
 the various families of priests and Levites during 
 the high-priesthood of Joiakim. 
 
 The name is a contracted form of JEHOIAKIM. 
 
 JOI’ARIB ἘΝ ΞΞ aa; A. "Iwapetp ; 
 Joarib). 1. Clwapiu, B. ’ApéB, A. Ἰωαρείμ; 
 Joiarib.) A layman who returned from Babylon 
 with Ezra (Ezra viii. 16). 
 
 2. (Neh. xi. 10, Ἰωαρίβ, B. Ἰωρείβ, A. 
 Ἰωρίβ, N. Ἰωρείμ; in xii. 6, 19, B. omits, 
 NA. Ἰωιαρίβ ; Joarib, Joiarib.) The founder of 
 one of the courses of priests, elsewhere called in 
 full Jenorartp. His descendants after the 
 Captivity are given in Neh. xii. 6, 19, and also in 
 xi. 10; though it is possible that in this passage 
 another person is intended. 
 
 3. CIwaplB, B. Ἰωρείβ, A. ᾿Ἰωιαρίβ ; Joiarib.) 
 A Shilonite—i.e. probably a descendant of 
 SHELAH the son of Judah—named in the gene- 
 alogy of Maaseiah, the then head of the family 
 (Neh, xi. 5), 
 
 JOIADA 
 
 JOKNEAM 
 
 JOK’DE-AM (O05. — firebrand of the 
 people (?); ᾿Αρικάμ, B. Ἰαρεικάμ, A. Ἰεκδαάμ: 
 Jacadaam), a city of Judah, in the mountains 
 (Josh. xv. 56), named in the same group with 
 Maon, Carmel, and Ziph, and therefore appa- 
 rently to be looked for south of Hebron, where 
 they are situated. It has not, however, been 
 yet met with, nor was it known to Eusebius 
 
 and Jerome. [α΄ Ὁ 
 
 JO’KIM (85/1 = Jehovah establishes ; ᾿Ιωακίμ, 
 BA. Ἰωακείμ; qui stare fecit solem), one of the 
 sons of Shelah (the third according to Burring- 
 ton) the son of Judah (1 Ch. iv. 22), of whom 
 nothing further is known. It would be difficult 
 to say what gave rise to the rendering of the 
 Vulgate or the Targum on the verse. The latter 
 translates, ‘and the prophets and scribes who 
 came forth from the seed of Joshua.” The 
 reading which they had was evidently O%%, 
 
 which some Rabbinical tradition applied to 
 Joshua, and at the same time identified Joash 
 and Saraph, mentioned in the same verse, with 
 Mahlon and Chilion. Jerome quotes a Hebrew 
 legend that Jokim was Elimelech the husband 
 of Naomi, in whose days the sun stood still on 
 account of the transgressor of the Law (Quaest. 
 Heb. in Paral.). 
 
 JOKME-AM ΟΡ» =may the people rise (Ὁ): 
 in 1 K., B. Aovedu; A., united with preceding 
 word, Μεμβραδεὶ ἐκ Mady; in 1 Ch. 7 Ἰεκμαάν, 
 B. Ἰκαάμ: Jecmaan, Jecmaam), a city of 
 Ephraim, given with its suburbs to the Kohathite 
 Levites (1 Ch. vi. 68). The catalogue of the 
 towns of Ephraim in the Book of Joshua is 
 unfortunately very imperfect (see xvi.), but in 
 the parallel list of Levitical cities in Josh. xxi. 
 K1BzAIM occupies the place of Jokmeam (v. 22). 
 The situation of Jokmeam is to a certain extent 
 indicated in 1 K. iy. 12, where it is named with 
 places which we know to have been in the 
 Jordan valley at the extreme east boundary of 
 the tribe. (Here the A. V. has, probably by a 
 printer’s error, JOKNEAM.) This position is 
 further supported by that of the other Levitical 
 cities of this tribe—Shechem in the north, Beth- 
 horon in the south, and Gezer in the extreme 
 west, leaving Jokmeam to take the opposite 
 place in the east (see, however, the contrary 
 opinion of Robinson, iii. 115, note). With regard 
 to the substitution of Kibzaim—which is not 
 found again—for Jokmeam, we would only draw 
 attention to the fact of the similarity in appear- 
 ance of the two names, DYOP’ and ΝΡ. 
 Conder, adopting the view that Jokmeam is 
 Kibzaim, identifies it with Tell el-Kabus, near 
 Bethel (HbA. p. 417). [Gal Wed 
 
 JOK’NE-AM ((OY3)" [cp. Olshausen, Hdbh. 
 § 277, k, 3]: Ἰεκόμ; Ἰεκμάν, 7 Mady; A, 
 "Texovdu, Ἰεκνάμ, ἣ Ἔκνάμ : Jachanan, Jeconam, 
 Jecnam), a city of the tribe of Zebulun, allotted 
 with its suburbs to the Merarite Levites (Josh. 
 xxi. 34), but entirely omitted in the cata- 
 logue of 1 Ch. vi. (cp. v. 77). It is doubtless 
 the same place as that which is incidentally 
 named in connexion with the boundaries of the 
 tribe—“the torrent which faces Jokneam” (xix. 
 11), and as the Canaanite town, whose king was 
 killed by Joshua—* Jokneam of Carmel” (sii. 
 
JOKSHAN 
 
 22). The requirements of these passages are 
 sufficiently met by the modern site Zell Keimun, 
 an eminence which stands just below the eastern 
 termination of Carmel, with the Kishon at its 
 feet about a mile off. Dr. Robinson has shown 
 (B. R, iii. 115, note) that the modern name is 
 legitimately descended from the ancient: the 
 Cyamon® of Judith vii. 3 being a step in the 
 pedigree (see also Van de Velde, i, 331, and 
 Memoir, p. 326; Guérin, Samarie, ii. 241 sq.; 
 Sepp, Heil. Land, ii. 551), Jokneam is found 
 in the A. V. of 1 K. iv. 12, but this is un- 
 warranted by either Hebrew text, LXX. A. or 
 Vulgate (both of which have the reading Jok- 
 meam; the LXX. B. is quite corrupt), and 
 also by the requirements of the passage, as 
 stated under JOKMEAM. [6 yar 
 
 JOK-SHAN οὖ DY, trapper ;, Ἰεξάν ; «θο- 
 san), a son of Abraham by Keturah (Gen. 
 xxv. 2,3, J; 1 Ch. i. 32),'and Father of the 
 bené Yokshdn, whose main stocks were Sheba 
 and Dedan; that is, the more northern branches 
 of these two great Arabian peoples. Although 
 Keturite Arabs find no place in the lists of the 
 later Arab genealogists, yet mention is made of 
 
 a tribe Katira (\ 
 
 with the kindred tribe of G’urhum [JoKTAN], 
 in the neighbourhood of Mecca (Lbn Coteiba, 
 ed. Wiistenfeld, 14; Ritter, xii. 19; Knobel). 
 The reason why some of the tribes which 
 traced their descent from Keturah can no 
 longer be verified, is doubtless, as Dillmann 
 suggests, that they early became extinct, or 
 were absorbed into other tribal combinations. 
 So far as their names have been identified, they 
 appear to have dwelt on the western side of the 
 Arabian peninsula [ZIMRAN ; MEDAN ; MIDIAN; 
 ΞΉΗΕΒΑ ; Depan]. Jokshan, which looks like a 
 dialectical variant of Joktan,” is connected by 
 the Arab genealogists with the tribe of Yakish 
 
 (Kel) in Yemen (ZDMG. x. 51), perhaps on 
 
 account of his relation to Sheba (see Dillm. Die 
 Genesis, x. 7, xxv. 1-4). [E.S.P.J (C.J. B.] 
 
 JOK-TAN (jO??, Votan, incola ; cp. oy, 
 
 incoluit: Ἰεκτάν : Jectdn ; ᾿Ιούκτας, Jos. Ant. i. 
 6, § 4), son of Eber, and “ Father ” of thirteen ° 
 
 5), which lived along 
 
 a For the legend connecting Cyamon, Zell Keimin, 
 with Cain, see PEF. Mem. ii. 48, and Sepp, ii. 551. 
 
 b The change of letters in Yokshan and Yoktan re- 
 minds one of Sha’al and Talit (i.e. Saul). 
 
 ¢ The LXX., however, reduces them to the normal 
 number of twelve (cp. Israei, Ishmael, Edom), in Gen. 
 1. c. by omitting Obal, in Chron. by reading Κεδουρὰν 
 for Jerach-Hadoram. 
 
 The sons of Kahtan were fourteen, according to a 
 tradition preserved by Hisham ibn Muhammad ’al- 
 
 Kalbi. The same writer traces pe cy i was 
 
 Kahtan ibn ‘Abir, that is, Joktan ben ‘Eber, back to 
 Noah, through Shelah, Arphaxad, and Shem, after 
 Gen. x. 21-25. This is followed by a list of tribal 
 names, of which only Saba@ (Sheba) can be recognised 
 in the Biblical catalogue of the Bené Joktan. The 
 
 glosses appended to some of the names—e.g. Lies 
 
 gS » 9° ‘‘Saba; and he is ‘Amir,”—show that 
 
 JOKTAN 1769 
 
 peoples, whose seats lay in the south-west and 
 south of Arabia (Gen, x. 25; 1 Ch. i. 19), 
 Saadiah’s Arabic Version of the O. T. gives 
 
 Kahtan (, lhe) for Joktan; and the Arab 
 
 ΩΣ partly, no doubt, on the ground 
 of the Biblical data, reckon Kahtan-Joktan as 
 the tribal ancestor of the pure Arabian stocks, 
 as distinguished from the Ishmaelite peoples of 
 the north (Gen. xxv. 12-16), and the extinct 
 aboriginal tribes of ‘Ad, Thamiid, aud the rest. 
 The name survives as that of a small district 
 north of Nag'rdn, and as a tribal designation. 
 Niebuhr mentions also Kohtan, a town in 
 Hadhramaut. In antiquity, doubtless, it had a 
 much wider scope. 
 
 The bené Yoktan are enumerated in Gen. J. ὁ. 
 as follows: Almodad, Sheleph, Hazarmaveth, 
 Jerah, Hadoram, Uzal, Diklah, Obal, Abimael, 
 Sheba, Ophir, Havilah, Jobab. The first, which 
 has the Arabic article ’a/ prefixed, has been com- 
 pared with Amduda or Madudi, a township of 
 Hadhramaut (Wellsted ; K. Niebuhr). Dillmann 
 mentions also a personal name Mawaddad, occur- 
 ring in the Himyarite inscriptions (ZDMG. xix. 
 n. 20,4). In Jakit’s Mu‘g’am iii. 119, we find 
 the important statement that §\S,.3\ (al- 
 Maudad) and __9)\uy (Salif) were two sons of 
 Yuktan, who were both included under the 
 
 designation of _ aly, (Sulaf or Salif). As- 
 
 the same tribes were known by different designations 
 (Hisham ibn Muhammad ’al-Kalbi,; G/amharat ul- 
 nasab, B.M. MSS. add. 22376). 
 
 Another account assigned only two sons to Kahtan, 
 viz. Ya‘rub and G'urhum. From Ya‘rub’s grandson 
 Saba, 1.6. Sheba, sprang the tribes of Yaman; from 
 G’urhum, those of the Hig’az: see the references, ap. 
 Gesenius, 7hes. p. 1212. According to Ahmad ibn ‘Abd- 
 *Allah ’al-Kalkashandi, again, Kahtan had four sons, 
 G’urhum, ’as-Sulaf, Ya‘rub, and Hadhramaut. 
 
 Ibn παι ἀπ writes as follows (with express reference 
 to the Biblical account): ‘In the Torah it is stated that 
 Eber*begat two children, Peleg and Joktan. And, ac- 
 cording to the most trustworthy of the genealogists, 
 Joktan is Kahtan, the Arabs arabizing him thus. And 
 from Peleg are descended Abraham and his branches, 
 
 . . And from Joktan are derived many branches. In 
 the Torah thirteen of his children are mentioned, viz. 
 
 Almodad (the arabization of which is elas, who 
 
 is G’urhum; and Iram, who is x a> {like Hadoram] ; 
 
 and Sheleph, who is the people of as-Silfan; and Saba, 
 who is the people of Yemen of Himyar, the Tubba‘s 
 and Kahlin; and Hazarmayeth, who is Hadhramaut. 
 These are five. And there are eight others, whose 
 names we will give. These, however, being Hebrew, 
 we have not stopped to give any interpretation of them ; 
 nor is it known from what stocks they are. They are 
 Jerah, Uzal, Diklah, Obal, Abimael, Ophir, Havilah, 
 and Jobab. And according to the genealogists G’urhum 
 is of the children of Joktan, but I know not from which 
 of them. And Hisham al-Kalbi says, al-Hind and al- 
 Sind [India] are of Ophir, the son of Joktan. But God 
 knows best.” (Zarg’uman al-‘ibar, Bulak ed. ii. 1, 
 pp. 7, 8. Communicated by A. G. Ellis.) Upon the 
 whole, two things are clear: (1) that there is no uni- 
 form and independent Arab tradition about the original 
 Arabian stocks ; (2) that the Biblical account supplies 
 a credible relation of the names and situation of the 
 principal Arabian peoples contemporaneous with the 
 Ι writer. 
 
1770 JOKTAN 
 
 Salif or as-Sulaf is the name of a tribe in 
 Yaman (ZDMG. xi. 153 sqq.): ep. also Salfiyah 
 
 4 ; Ss 
 CG 5) ), a district S.W. of Sanaa (lxjvo ; Κ᾿ 
 
 Niebuhr, Knobel). Hazarmaveth is Hadhramaut, 
 
 the southern coastland, E. of Yaman; Yerah has 
 
 not been identified. Hadoram* we would equate 
 © 
 
 with the G’urhum ( >>) of the Arab genea- 
 
 logies. G’urhum may represent an original 
 Joram (O01 =O 370, 2 Sam. viii. 10; 1 Ch. 
 xviii. 10); and the phonetic changes involved in 
 the transition from Joram to G’urhum may be 
 paralleled by Jetur—G’eidar, and Abram—Abra- 
 ham. The tribes of Hadoram would thus belong 
 to the Hij’az, and their seats would be in the 
 neighbourhood of Mecca, about the middle of 
 the W. coast of Arabia. 
 
 Uzal was long since recognised in ’Azdi, the 
 old name of Sunaa, the capital of Yaman (Ges. 
 Thes.; Assemani, BO. i. 360). Diklah means 
 
 “palm,” Arab. 8a; and, as a tribal designa- 
 tion, may be compared with Banu dhi nakhlat, 
 “Sons of the owner of palm-trees,” the name of 
 
 a tribe derived from Sabé (Sheba), but of un- 
 certain filiation (al-Kalkashandi). Obal, who 
 
 is called Ebal ὦ») in Ch., and in Sam. Vulg. 
 of Gen., and by Josephus, appears as Γεμιάν in 
 LXX. of Ch., ic. possibly jy. He may be 
 the same as ‘Amilah (Sel), a son of Saba, 
 in ’al-Kalkashandi’s genealogy.¢ Abimael, or as 
 it may have been originally written Abumael, 
 ae. “Abu-Ma’il, “ father of Ma’il,” a thoroughly 
 Arabic appellation, may be the original of the 
 
 =a = Ἢ ᾿ διὰ 
 Wail Coty” son of Himyar, son of Saba, in 
 
 the same list. In a genealogy of Hadhramaut 
 we find also Wa’il ibn Katan, where Katan is 
 clearly a double of Joktan. Sheba is, of course, 
 the well-known district of Saba in Yaman. 
 Ophir has perhaps been the subject of more 
 dispute than any other name in the entire 
 list. Yet, like his brethren, Ophir must cer- 
 tainly represent a people of southern, and 
 probably south-eastern, Arabia (so Dillmann). 
 With the name of OPHIR we would compare 
 
 ‘that of Wa’il’s (Abi-mael’s) brother ’Abir Gel ἢ 
 
 *abir 3), son of Himyar, son of Saba, in ’al-Kalka- 
 shandi’s genealogy of Kaltan. The names differ 
 but slightly ; and ’Abtr descends from Saba in 
 the Arabic list, as "Ophir (old’ Afir, and possibly 
 *Abir) follows Shéba@ in the Biblical one. This 
 identification shows that the Arabian genea- 
 logists knew at least that Ophir-’ Abir, like the 
 other sons of Joktan-Kahtdn, must be sought in 
 Arabia itself, and not in Africa (Sofalah), much 
 less India (Abhird). As to HaviaH, Dillmann 
 
 4 Michaelis and Gesenius thought that the Sam. 
 DIN indicated the ᾿Αδραμῖται (Ptol. vi. 7) or Atra- 
 mitae (Plin. vi. 28), but these names belong to Hazar- 
 maveth (see Dillmann, Dict. Gen. ad loc.). 
 
 e The LXX. form of the name resembles ΡΟΣ 
 
 * Oman, the district E. of Hadhramaut, on the Persian 
 Galf, 
 
 JOKTAN 
 
 has observed that, while there must have been 
 a place so named in N. Arabia on the Persian 
 Gulf (Gen, xxv. 18; 1 Sam. xv. 73; cp. Gen. ii. 
 11), which might answer to Strabo’s Χαυλοταῖοι 
 (xvi. 4. 2), and Niebuhr’s Huwailah in Bahrein ; 
 this wide-spread stock may also have left traces 
 in the Haulda of Yaman (Niebuhr; Sprenger): 
 ep. Ptolemy’s Ὑαίλα (vi. 7,41) in South Yaman 
 (Bochart). Lastly, Jopab is a doubtful name, 
 as is indicated by the fluctuation of the LXX. 
 between Jobab, Jobad, and Oram. We may, how- 
 ever, be assured that his settlements were not 
 remote from those of his brother-tribes.* 
 Having thus gained an approximate idea of 
 the locality of the Joktanite peoples, we proceed 
 to consider the obscure statement of their 
 bounds, Gen. x. 30: “And their seat was from 
 Mésha to S&phar, (and ?) the hill-country of the 
 East.” A Hebrew writer would naturally 
 state the limits from the better known west 
 to the less known east; and this order the 
 language itself clearly implies. Mesha must, 
 therefore, have been some well-known place in 
 the western coast-land; possibly Bishah or 
 Baishah in Northern Yaman, which Edrisi calls 
 Baishat Yaktdn (so Knobel; Sprenger), hardly 
 Musa (Ptol. vi. 8) or Muza (Arrian, Pliny), 
 
 ο 
 that is, e 9° Muza‘, or ewge Mausig’, 
 
 which lie too far south. Sephar, the eastern 
 
 limit, may perhaps be Zafar (ab), on the 
 
 east coast of Hadhramaut, although there is a 
 difficulty about the letters of the Arabic name, 
 which would imply a Hebrew 15¥, while the 
 
 Heb. ID would rather imply ye Gesenius 
 
 and others make “the hill-country of the East” 
 to be the highlands of Nag’d in Central Arabia. 
 But even if the bounds of Joktan were stated 
 from east to west, as they assume, a line drawn 
 
 from Maisin ( (ey anes at the head of the 
 
 Persian Gulf, to Nag’d, does not seem a very 
 precise demarcation of tribes that inhabited the 
 western and southern coastlands of Arabia. 
 The region of the “Frankincense Mountains,” 
 between Hadhramaut and Mahrah (Ritter, xii. 
 264), suits better, as Knobel and others have 
 suggested. {C. J. B.] 
 
 The settlements of the sons of Joktan are 
 specially examined in the separate articles 
 bearing their names, and generally in ARABIA. 
 They colonised the whole of the south of the 
 peninsula, the old “Arabia Felix,” or the 
 Yemen (for this appellation had a very wide 
 significance in early times), stretching, ac- 
 cording to the Arabs (and there is in this case 
 no ground for doubting their general correct- 
 ness), to Mecca, on the north-west, and along 
 nearly the whole of the southern coast east- 
 wards, and far inland. At Mecca, tradition 
 connects the two great races of Joktan and 
 Ishmael, by the marriage of a daughter of 
 G’urhum the Joktanite with Ishmael. It is 
 
 f Possibly 37), the Yatrub (Lo 
 
 Arabian genealogists, lies concealed under the corrup- 
 tions of this name. 
 
 "Ἂ ) of the 
 
JOKTAN 
 
 necessary in mentioning this G’urhum, who is 
 called a “son” of Joktan (Kahtan), to observe 
 that “son” in these cases must be regarded 
 as signifying “ descendant” (cp. CHRONOLOGY), 
 and that many generations (though how many, 
 or in what order, is not known) are missing 
 from the existing list, between Kahtan (em- 
 bracing the most important time of the Jok- 
 tanites) and the establishment of the compara- 
 tively-modern Himyarite kingdom. From this 
 latter date, stated by Caussin, Lssai, i. 63, at 
 B.C. cir. 100, the succession of the Tubba‘s is 
 apparently preserved to us. At Mecca, the 
 tribe of G’urhum long held the office of 
 guardians of the Caaba, or temple, and the 
 sacred enclosure, until they were expelled by 
 the Ishmaelites (Kutb’ad-Din, Hist. of Mecca, 
 ed. Wiistenfeld, pp. 35 and 39 seqq.; and 
 Caussin, Pssai, i. 194). But it was at Saba, 
 the Biblical Sheba, that the kingdom of Joktan 
 attained its greatness. In the south-western 
 angle of the peninsula, San‘a (Uzal), Saba 
 (Sheba), and Hadhramaut (Hazarmaveth), all 
 closely neighbouring, formed together the prin- 
 cipal known settlements of the Joktanites. 
 Here arose the kingdom of Sheba. The domi- 
 nant tribe from remote ages was that of Saba 
 (the Sabaei of the Greeks): while the family of 
 Himyar (Homeritae) held the first place in the 
 tribe. The kingdom called that of Himyar we 
 believe to have been merely a late phase of the 
 old Sheba, dating, both in its rise and its name, 
 only shortly before our era. 
 
 Next in importance to the tribe of Saba was 
 that of Hadhramaut, which, till the fall of the 
 Himyarite power, maintained a position of 
 independence and a direct line of rulers from 
 Kahtan (Caussin, i. 135-6). Joktanite tribes 
 also passed northwards, to Hirah, in El-’Irak, 
 and to the Hauran, near Damascus. The emigra- 
 tion of these and other tribes took place on the 
 occasion of the rupture of a great dyke (the 
 Dyke of El-’Arim), above the metropolis of 
 Saba; a catastrophe that appears, from the 
 concurrent testimony ot Arab writers, to have 
 devastated a great extent of country, and de- 
 stroyed the city Ma’rib, the Maryab of the 
 inscriptions, or Saba. This event forms the 
 commencement of an era, the dates of which 
 exist in the inscriptions on the Dyke and else- 
 where. (See the extracts from El-Mas’idi and 
 other authorities, edited by Schultens; Caussin, 
 i. 84 seqq.; Ὁ. H. Miiller, Burgen, ii. 981; 
 ZDMG. xxxi. 61 sqq.; and ARABIA.) 
 
 The position which the Joktanites hold (in 
 native traditions) among the successive races 
 who are said to have inhabited the peninsula 
 has been fully stated in art. ARABIA; to which 
 the reader is referred for a sketch of the in- 
 habitants generally, their descent, history, 
 religion, and language. There are some ex- 
 isting places named after Joktan and Kahtan 
 (CAl-Idrisi, ed. Jaubert; Niebuhr, Descr. 238); 
 but there seems to be no safe ground for 
 attaching to them any special importance, or 
 
 & It is curious that the Greeks first mention the Him- 
 yarites in the expedition of Aelius Gallus, towards the 
 close of the 1st century B.c., although Himyar himself 
 lived long before; agreeing with our belief that his 
 family was important before the establishment of the 
 so-called kingdom. See Caussin, J. c. 
 
 JONADAB 1771 
 
 for supposing that the name is always ancient 
 when we remember that the whole country is 
 full of the traditions of Joktan. 
 
 (E.S.P.J) [C. J. Β.] 
 
 JOK'THE-EL ON). 1. (Ἰαχαρεήλ, B. 
 Ἰακαρεήλ, A. ᾿Ιεχθαήλ᾽; Jecthel), a city in the 
 low country of Judah (Josh. xv. 38), named 
 next to Lachish—now Tell el-Hesy, on the road 
 between Beit Jibrin and Gaza. The name does 
 not appear to have been yet discovered. 
 
 2. (Ἰεθοήλ, B. Καθοήλ, A. “lexOohA; Jecte- 
 hel.) ‘*God-subdued,” the title given by Amaziah 
 
 to the cliff when, A. V. Selah)—the stronghold 
 
 of the Edomites—after he had captured it from 
 them (2 K. xiv. 7). The parallel narrative of 
 2 Ch. xxv. 11-13 supplies fuller details. From 
 it we learn that, having beaten the Edomite 
 army with a great slaughter in the “ Valley of 
 Salt,” Amaziah took those who were not slain 
 to the cliff, and threw them headlong over it. 
 This cliff is asserted by Eusebius (8. v. πέτρα, 
 OS.? p. 279, 71) to be “a city of Edom, also called 
 by the Assyrians (Syrians) Rekem,” by which 
 there is no doubt that he intends Petra (0 5.2 
 p- 280, 94, s. v. ‘Pexéu, and the quotations in 
 Stanley’s S. δ᾽ P. p. 94, note). The title thus 
 bestowed is said to have continued “unto this 
 day.” This, Keil remarks, is a proof that the 
 history was nearly contemporary with the event, 
 because Amaziah’s conquest was lost again by 
 Ahaz less than a century afterwards (2 Ch. 
 xxvili. 17). [Ga] ΕἾΝ 
 
 JO'NA (Ἰωάνης [Westcott and Hort]; 
 Jona), the father of the Apostle St. Peter 
 (John i. 42), who is hence addressed as Simon 
 Bar-jona in Matt. xvi. 17. In the A. V. of 
 John xxi. 15-17 he is called Jonas, though 
 the Greek is "Iwayns, and the Vulg. Johannes 
 throughout. (The R. V. rendering is “son of 
 John.”) The name in either form would be 
 the equivalent of the Hebrew Johanan. 
 
 JON’ADAB. 1. (3°73), and once 27317" 
 ic. Jehonadab = Jehovah hath impelled ; Ἰων- 
 αδάβ ; Jonadad), son of Shimeah and nephew of 
 David. He is described as “‘ very subtil” 
 (σοφὸς σφόδρα; the word is that usually trans- 
 lated ‘ wise,” as in the case of Solomon, 2 Sam. 
 xiii. 3), He seems to have been one of those 
 characters who, in the midst of great or royal 
 families, pride themselves, and are renowned, 
 for being acquainted with the secrets of the 
 whole circle in which they move. His age 
 naturally made him the friend of his cousin 
 Amnon, heir to the throne (2 Sam. xiii. 3). He 
 perceived from the prince’s altered appearance 
 that there was some unknown grief—“ Why art 
 thou, the king’s son, so lean? ”—and, when he 
 had wormed it out, he gave him the fatal advice 
 for ensnaring his sister Tamar (vv. 5, 6). 
 
 Again, when, in a later stage of the same 
 tragedy, Amnon was murdered by Absalom, and 
 the exaggerated report reached David that all 
 the princes were slaughtered, Jonadab was 
 already aware of the real state of the case. He 
 was with the king, and was able at once to re- 
 assure him (2 Sam. xiii. 32, 33). 
 
 2. Jer. xxxv, 6,8, 10, 14, 16, 18, 19, in which 
 
1772 JONAH, BOOK OF 
 
 it represents sometimes the long, sometimes the 
 short Heb. form of the name. (JEHONADAB.] 
 [A. P. S.J 
 
 JONAH, BOOK OF. This small book pre- 
 sents no special difficulties in respect of its 
 vocabulary or grammar; as regards its contents, 
 it differs from other Books in the collection of 
 the twelve Minor Prophets, in being a narrative 
 of events connected with the delivery of a 
 prophecy, the substance of which is given briefly 
 and in general terms. The contents of the Book 
 are too well known to require recapitulation. 
 As to its character, and the object with which 
 it was written, very great diversity of opinion 
 exists. The bibliographical notice at the end 
 of this article shows the extent of the literature 
 connected with the subject, and will enable the 
 reader to trace this diversity of opinion in 
 detail. 
 
 According to the traditional view, held with 
 very few exceptions by all writers until the 
 beginning of last century, the Book is regarded 
 as historical, and composed either (1) by the 
 Prophet himself or (2) a later author. 
 
 Neither the name of the work, nor the use of 
 the third person with reference to Jonah, affords 
 evidence as between (1) and (2). The portraiture 
 of Jonah, who appears in an unfavourable light, 
 seems best explained by supposing that the 
 Prophet relates his own shortcomings, thereby 
 testifying his repentance. The nobler side of a 
 mixed character is thus exhibited. 
 
 The chief considerations urged in support of 
 the historical character of the Book are:— 
 
 a. There is no indication that the Book should 
 be regarded in any other light. It contains a 
 circumstantial narrative, mentioning known 
 persons and places. 
 
 b. The relations of Israel to the surrounding 
 nations before and during the time of the 
 Prophet. Ruth the Moabitess; the sojourn of 
 David’s parents in Moab; his friendly relations 
 with foreigners,—Achish, Ittai, Hiram; similar 
 examples in the case of Solomon and later kings ; 
 the connexion of Elijah and Elisha with Syria; 
 the residence of the latter in Damascus; the 
 utterances of Amos against foreign nations, are 
 evidences not only of friendly intercourse with, 
 but also of religious influence exerted by the 
 prophetic order on their heathen neighbours. 
 Such friendly relations belong to the earlier 
 history of the nation, before the days of As- 
 syrian supremacy and oppression; and subse- 
 quent misfortunes developed a feeling of mis- 
 trust and illwill towards foreigners which made 
 such relations no longer possible. Although the 
 mission of Jonah and its results are without 
 exact parallel in the O. T. Scriptures, the facts 
 noted above, and the consideration that their 
 occurrence is limited to a period which closes 
 not long after the time of Jonah, may be urged 
 in favour of its probability. 
 
 c. The mission was fitted to enforce on 
 Israel the teaching found in the prophets of 
 Jeroboam’s reign. They set forth God as the 
 righteous Judge of all nations, Who would make 
 use of the heathen for the discipline of Israel, 
 that Israel’s iniquity was great, and the punish- 
 ment thereof was impending. What more 
 appropriate enforcement of these truths than to 
 exhibit, as a model of repentance, a heathen 
 
 JONAH, BOOK OF 
 
 nation which was their counterpart in iniquity ? 
 The men of Nineveh would give form to the 
 warnings which the Prophets had expressed in 
 words, They would rescue or rise in judgment 
 against that generation, as against a later one. 
 
 d. The typical character of the narrative. 
 This must be considered in estimating its 
 probability. If under the Old Dispensation the 
 words and deeds of God’s servants point out the 
 Christ of the Gospels, we should expect to find 
 some indication of the central truth of the 
 Resurrection, and it is difficult to conceive 
 how such indication could be made, except by 
 introducing events of a most unusual and start- 
 ling character. In the N. T., the events of 
 Jonah’s life are treated as having more than a 
 mere historical interest, and the most remarkable 
 incident in it as foreshadowing that death and 
 resurrection which is the foundation of the 
 Christian faith (St. Matt. xii, 39-41; St. Luke 
 xi. 29, 30, 32). For discussion of these passages 
 cf. Speaker’s Commentary, vol. vi. pp. 577-9, 
 Introd. to Jonah; Wordsworth on St. Matt. xii. 
 40; Meyer, Comment. u.d. N. 1. (1864), τ. i. 
 Ρ. 296 sq. 
 
 We proceed to notice some of the objections 
 raised against the historical character of the 
 Book. 
 
 (a.) The lack of detail in the narrative,—e.g. 
 the place where Jonah was cast up, his journey 
 to Nineveh, return, the name of the king ; while 
 minute details are added where they seem to 
 point the moral of the story,—e.g. the conduct of 
 the sailors and of the Ninevites contrasted with 
 the behaviour of the Prophet. 
 
 (b.) The improbability of such a mission with 
 such results. The Assyrians, from their own 
 records as from Scripture, appear as idolaters, 
 trusting in their own gods, and despising those 
 of other nations. Their reception of the Prophet 
 is scarcely in harmony with their character. 
 
 (c.) Of this movement, so unusual in its 
 character and affecting all classes, no trace 
 appears either in the O. T. or other history. 
 No prophet enforces on Israel the lesson which 
 repentant Nineveh is designed to teach, and 
 those who denounce the incurable wound of the 
 bloody city pass over in silence what would 
 increase the certainty of vengeance, that though 
 a prophet had been among them, they had 
 turned back to their evil way. 
 
 (d.) The prominence of the miraculous element, 
 and especially the deliverance of the Prophet by 
 help of the great fish. 
 
 The reader will note that the paragraphs a, b, 
 c, d, and (a), (4), (c), (4), are in great measure 
 opposing opinions on the points at issue. 
 
 Aim and object of the work.—All] commentators 
 admit the didactic aim of the writer, and many 
 consider that the actions described have a 
 symbolical meaning. The questions—what does 
 the Book teach ? what does it symbolise ?—are to 
 a great extent independent of the controversy as 
 to its historical character. 
 
 The concluding verses iv. 10, 11, point out the 
 greatness of the city, the ignorance and helpless- 
 ness of those within it, as reasons for the mercy 
 shown, as recorded in iii, 10, The Prophet 
 himself acknowledges that the Divine action is 
 in accordance with His revelation of Himself, 
 and that it had prompted him to disobedience at 
 the first (iv. 2). God, slow to anger and of great, 
 
JONAH, BOOK OF 
 
 kindness, and repenting of the evil if man will 
 turn from his wickedness, is the lesson set forth 
 in the Book itself. The Prophets, especially 
 Jeremiah and Ezekiel, speak in a similar strain 
 (cp. Jer. xviii. 7, 8; xxvi. 3; Ezek. xviii. and 
 xxxiii.), and present such close parallels of 
 thought and diction that some assign the Book 
 to this period, and its authorship to one of.these 
 prophets or a contemporary. 
 
 Further, the Book shows that God’s mercy is 
 not confined to His own people,—a lesson which 
 the Jews were slow to learn, and which required 
 enforcement by means of vision, even under the 
 Christian dispensation. 
 
 In the Gospels (see passages quoted above), 
 the heathen nation repenting at the preaching 
 of Jonas is held up as a warning to non-repentant 
 Israel. A contrast is implied which is not 
 pointed out in the Book, and in respect of one 
 special sin, that of impenitence. A double 
 contrast may be noted (is it too much to say 
 that it is implied?) between the conduct of 
 Jonah and (1) the sailors, (2) the Ninevites. 
 Are we warranted in expanding the contrast 
 in detail, and considering the conduct of the 
 Prophet as an illustration of the failings of 
 Israel? Disobedient at first, angry afterwards, 
 at the mercy extended to the repentant city, 
 the Prophet is regarded by many as the repre- 
 sentative of the Hebrew people, at one time 
 evading compliance with the Divine commands, 
 at another jealous and displeased because of 
 favour showed to other nations. 
 
 And since the Prophet, in respect of the most 
 remarkable circumstance recorded of him, is 
 regarded as a type of Christ, may not other 
 details of the narrative be viewed in the same 
 light? The various attempts to interpret the 
 Book typically and allegorically suggest how 
 this portion of Scripture may be “profitable 
 for instruction,” if we cannot say that it was 
 designed to teach all that commentators have 
 put forward. Here we can only give a brief 
 sketch of each method. 
 
 J. Tarnovius (in Prophetam Jonam Com- 
 mentarius, 1622) pursues the typical treatment 
 of the narrative into the fullest detail : Jonah, in 
 his name and that of his father, in being sent to 
 the heathen as well as being a Prophet of Israel, 
 in giving himself up to secure the safety of his 
 fellow-voyagers, &c., may serve to remind us of 
 One greater than Jonah (cp. among moderns 
 Kaulen, Librum J. Proph. exposuit, Mogunt. 
 1862). 
 
 The allegorical treatment of the narrative 
 may be illustrated by Kleinert’s view. He sees 
 in Jonah the nation with a prophetic call, in 
 whom all families of the earth shall be blessed. 
 Nineveh represents the heathen world in its 
 greatness and ignorance, the object of Divine 
 compassion. Israe] seeks to evade its mission, 
 and devotes itself to worldly pursuits (Jonah 
 flees to Tarshish) ; but God punishes the nation 
 by adversity (the storm) and by a captivity 
 which threatens its very existence (Jonah 
 swallowed up by the great fish). When they 
 ery unto the Lord, He delivers them (Jonah’s 
 prayer and rescue), but their mission, still 
 unaccomplished, remains the same. Repentant 
 Nineveh shows how the Lord is found of them 
 that sought Him not, while He stretches out 
 His hands to a rebellious people. | 
 
 JONAH, BOOK OF 1773 
 
 The symbolical use’ of expressions similar 
 to those in the Book of Jonah, by other 
 writers of the O. T., may be noted, in support of 
 this method of interpretation. Action closely 
 resembling that of the Prophet is described in 
 Ps, lv. 6-8, “Oh that I had wings like a 
 dove!” (the name Jonah signifies “ dove’’); ep. 
 Ps. cxxxix. 7-10. The word “dove” is also 
 applied to Ephraim (Hos. vii. 11, xi. 11). The 
 storm and overflowing waters are common 
 symbols of God’s visitations, in the midst of 
 which He pours out upon His people the spirit 
 of deep sleep (Is. xxix. 10; the same root being 
 used as in Jonah i. 5, “ was fast asleep”). The 
 monsters of the deep—leviathan the swift ser- 
 pent, leviathan the crooked serpent, the dragon 
 that is in the sea (Is. xxvii. 1; Ps. Ixxiv. 13)— 
 are the great powers that oppress Israel.* Their 
 action is described as “ devouring ” (Jer. 1. 17); 
 and in the expressions ‘‘ he hath swallowed” me 
 up like a dragon” (Jer. li. 34), “I will bring 
 forth out of his mouth that which he hath 
 swallowed” up” (ib. 44), words used with refer- 
 ence to the most remarkable incidents recorded 
 of Jonah, are used symbolically with reference 
 to Babylon. 
 
 If this allegorical treatment of the first part 
 of the Book be accepted, it follows that the latter 
 part must also be interpreted with reference to 
 the Babylonian kingdom. The greatness of 
 Nineveh, on which emphasis is laid (i. 2: iii. 
 2, 3; iv. 11), must then be taken as indicating 
 that city which was the scene of the Captivity 
 —the great Babylon (Dan. iv. 27). Its fall had 
 been predicted: but the returned exiles wondered 
 when she would be made to drink the cup of 
 God’s fury; in their day of small things they 
 longed for the day of vengeance upon the great 
 nations. The Prophets encouraged them in their 
 hopes (Hag. ii. 7, 22; Zech. i. 15, 21), but it 
 was necessary to point out the conditional cha- 
 racter of all prophecy,—how man may make 
 even God’s Prophet seem a deceiver if he will 
 take hold of the promises held out to the peni- 
 tent. This is the situation described in the 
 latter part of the Book. But here the incident 
 of the gourd corresponds in some degree to the 
 deliverance of the Prophet in the earlier section. 
 Is this also to receive an allegorical interpreta- 
 tion? Dr. Wright (the second of whose Biblical 
 Essays is an exegetical study of the Book of 
 Jonah) suggests that the Prophet, exceeding 
 glad of the gourd (iy. 6), represents the spirit 
 in which the returned Jews welcomed the 
 restoration of the Davidic house in the person of 
 Zerubbabel. The figure had been applied to his 
 predecessor—‘ under his shadow we shall live 
 among the heathen” (Lam. iv. 20). But David’s 
 throne awaited David’s Lord,—the prince of the 
 royal line soon passed away—the gourd withered 
 as in a night. This additional exposition subjects 
 the whole narrative to a uniform treatment, by 
 filling up a gap left by former interpreters of 
 this school. 
 
 Language.—Certain words which occur only 
 in later Books are found in this Book :— 
 
 MDD (ἄπ. λεγ.), a “decked” vessel. 
 
 common word iN, “ship,” is also used. 
 δι - 
 
 The 
 
 a See, however, the notes in Cheyne’s Isaiah, vol. i. 
 p. 151. 
 b The same Heb. verb as in Jonah i. 17 (ii. 1, Heb.). 
 
1774 JONAH, BOOK OF 
 
 nbn, “sailor,” and in Ezek. xxvii. 9, 27, 29 
 only. The late Prof. Wright (Comp. Gr. of 
 Semitic Languages, p. 50) says that this word 
 
 has nothing to do with nbn, “ salt.” 
 
 bana 39, “chief of the sailors ;” San in 
 plural in Ezek. xxvii. 8, 27, 28, 29 only. 
 
 These are all nautical terms, and the Hebrew 
 vocabulary is not rich in these, nor is there 
 much, if any, opportunity for their use in 
 earlier Books. 
 
 nwyn’. The root occurs Jer. v. 28 (verb) ; 
 Cant. v.14; Ezek. xxvii. 19; Job xii.5; Ps. 
 exlvi. 43 and in one form of the numeral xi. 
 (any) Wy ‘my. For its meanings, see 
 Lex. 8. Ὁ. 
 
 D4, Hos. viii. 12 (273) and later books, 
 and Chald. 
 
 DY, “decree.” OY, Ezra and Daniel; also 
 
 the usage of 113!) (appoint), N71? (cry or preach), 
 and the form & compounded with other words, 
 
 for the relative. 
 
 With our slight knowledge of the historical 
 development of the Hebrew language and of its 
 dialectic variations, it is difficult to draw any 
 inferences from these slender data. For a fuller 
 discussion, cf. Pusey’s Jntrod. pp. 249-251, and 
 (on the other side) Friedrichsen’s Hacursus, 
 p- 179 sq. 
 
 The hymn (ch. ii.) contains many expressions 
 similar to those in the Psalms, e.g. Ps. xviii. 
 4-6, xxxi. 6, 7, 22, cxlii. 3, xlii. 7, cxx. f; Lam. 
 iii. 54, If we consider al/ these to be borrowed, 
 alate date must be assigned to it, but many 
 (and among them critics who reject the historical 
 view) consider it to be an old hymn, “a genuine 
 hymn of the Prophet Jonah.” We have here no 
 sure ground for drawing inferences as to date. 
 For fuller discussion, cp. Friedrichsen’s Hxcursus, 
 and Introd. to Jonah in Speaker’s Comm. 
 
 Between this Book and the account of the 
 prophet Elijah contained in 1 K. xvii—xix., 
 many points of resemblance have been noted. 
 In both a prophet is impatient, and God’s 
 power over His creation is employed to instruct 
 him. The verbal coincidences are also close; 
 
 the expression ΤῊ WI ns oxen is com- 
 mon to both. Cp. 1 K. xvii. 4, 9, xix. 6, 11, 
 with Jonah i. 4, 17, ii. 10, iv. 6, 7,8; and 1K. 
 xix. 4, with Jonah iii. 4, iv. 3, 5,8; 1 K. xix. 5, 
 7, 8, with Jonah i. 2, 3, iii. 2, 3. 
 
 Jonah, like Elijah, was a Prophet of the 
 northern kingdom. Are these sufficient grounds 
 for suggesting a community of origin ? 
 
 Commentators of all shades of opinion have, 
 with such few exceptions, pronounced in favour 
 of the unity of the Book, that it seems hardly 
 necessary to adduce any evidence under this 
 head. The following passages may be compared— 
 i. 2 and iii. 23; i. 3 and iii. 3; i. 10, 16, and 
 iv. 1; i. 2 and iv. 2—as showing similarity of 
 expression. We leave it to the reader to note 
 references in chs. iii. iv. to ch. i., and to draw 
 an aa! from comparing i. 10, 16, with 
 iv. 5. 
 
 For a general view of the literature connected 
 with this Book, the reader may consult:—A 
 series of articles in Zhe O. T. Student, Chicago, 
 1883-4, “Is the Book of Jonah historical?” 
 
 JONAH, BOOK OF 
 
 which contain references to the principal authors. 
 Kalisch, Bible Studies, pt. ii, with alphabetical 
 and chronological lists of authors referred to. 
 P. Friedrichsen, Avitische Uebersicht der ver- 
 schiedenen Ansichten von dem Buche Jonas, &c. 
 Leipzig, 1841 (2nd ed.). The first defends, the 
 other two reject, the historical view. Prof. 
 Driver’s Jntrod. to the O. 1. should also be 
 consulted. 
 
 An interesting list of works is contained in 
 Jonae propheticus liber expos. lit. et Bxeq. illustr. 
 a J. Bircherodio, Hafniae, 1686; and a list in 
 Rosenmiiller, Sch. in V. T. (carried up to 1826). 
 
 The following list is arranged according to 
 the standpoint of the different authors. 
 
 I. Supporters of the historical view :— 
 
 1. As regards the whole Book. J. Hooper 
 (Bp.), Sermons upon the Prophet Jonas, London, 
 1550; P. Baronis Praelec. 39 in Jonam, Lond. 
 1579; Lectures on Jonah, by J. King, Lond. 
 1594-1618; G.-Abbott (Arch. of Cant.), @Gom- 
 mentary upon Jonah, Lond. 1600, reprinted 
 Lond. 1845 (Homiletical) ; Rob. Abbott (Bp. of 
 Salisbury) on Jonah, 1609; Newcome, 1785; 
 Beard (People’s Dict. of B.); Drake, Notes on 
 Jonah and Hosea, 1853 ; Pusey, Minor Prophets ; 
 Huxtable (Speaker’s Comm.); Hiivernick, Hinlei- 
 tung i. d. A. T.3; Joh. Tarnovii in proph. J. 
 Comm., Rostoch. 1622 (the typical character of 
 the Book drawn out); Delitzsch, Baumgarten, 
 Kiiper, Niebuhr; Redford, Studies in the Book 
 of Jonah, 1883. 
 
 2. With modifications. (i.) Less, Gottingen, 
 1782 (a vessel bearing the name or sign of a fish 
 rescued Jonah); Anton in Paulus, Repertorium, 
 Jena, 1791 (a fish approached Jonah, by help of 
 which he was brought to land). (ii.) The 
 miraculous portion an addition to the original 
 story: Ammon, Erlangen, 1794; Thaddius, Bonn, 
 1786. (iii) A vision or dream is described: 
 Grimm, Diisseldorf, 1789; Sonnenmayer, in 
 Augusti’s Theol. Monatschrift, 1802. 
 
 The above are attempts to remove the mira- 
 culous element. ‘They either deal arbitrarily 
 with the narrative, or assign unusual mean- 
 ings to certain Hebrew words. For discussion 
 of these views, cp. Friedrichsen, pp. 27-35, 
 60-68. 
 
 A modification of iii. is suggested in an article 
 in the Journal of Sacred Lit., vol. viii. 1866, 
 p- 110sqq. The events related in i. 6-ii. 10 were 
 seen by Jonah in a dream. Being brought to 
 land in an unconscious state, he considered them 
 as a reality experienced by him, and so related 
 them. The same article contains a careful dis- 
 cussion as to how far the references to the nar- 
 rative in the N. T. necessarily imply its historical 
 reality. 
 
 II. Those who reject the historical view 
 (those who allow a small residuum of fact not 
 recoverable with certainty are here included) 
 maintain that the Book is— 
 
 1. A didactic narrative, containing a moral 
 lesson. 
 
 2. An allegory, in which the events are sym- 
 bolical, signifying a connected series of truths. 
 
 3. Based on a foreign myth. 
 
 1. Gi.) Miiller, Jona eine moralische Erzahlung 
 (in Paulus, Memorabilien, Leipzig, 1794): mercy 
 shown to the penitent. So Kalisch, Bible 
 Studies ; Bergmann, Jonah (e. alt. test. Parabel? 
 tibers. u. erkl, Strassburg, 1885. 
 
JONAH, BOOK OF 
 
 (ii.) Relations of Jew and Gentile: Semler 
 (“deum etiam aliis gentibus prospicere adju- 
 menta melioris et salubris cognitionis non tantum 
 Judaeos curare”’), Similarly Pareau, ascribing 
 the Book to Jonah, a parable based on real events 
 (might be classed with I. 2). Eichhorn; Mi- 
 chaelis (against Jewish pride and contempt of 
 other nations). Similarly Bihme, Bruno Bauer. 
 Nachtigal divides the Book into three, drawing 
 a lesson compounded of the two preceding views. 
 Bleek (Introd. O. 7.) considers its aim similar 
 to i. and ii. 
 
 (iii.) Special reference to the prophetic office. 
 Herder (the Prophets and their failings): so 
 Késter and (partly) Niemeyer, who giving as the 
 moral, God’s thoughts higher than man’s 
 thoughts, thinks the chief reference is to the 
 Prophets. Hezel (a warning to Prophets, but 
 with other subsidiary teaching). Hitzig (apo- 
 logetic with reference to unfulfilled prophecy). 
 Paulus, Mem., 1794 (similar, combined with i.). 
 Jiiger (Ueber den. ..Endzweck des Buch’s Jonah, 
 Tiib. 1840, reprinted from 7 ὁ. Zeitsch.), with 
 reference to Babylon. 
 
 2. (i.) Jonah a symbol of Jewish nation. 
 Meyer (with much similarity to Miiller, drawing 
 same lesson). Stiiudlin (the Prophet’s actions 
 symbolical, as in Jer. xiii. 1-11, with the lesson 
 CIR 
 
 (ii.) The whole narrative treated as an 
 allegory. Keil; Kleinert in Lange’s Bibelwerk, 
 trans. (with additions), in T. and T. Clark’s 
 Commentary, without rejecting the historical 
 character (see above for detail); J. S. Bloch, 
 Stud. z. Geschichte der Samml. d. alt. heb. 
 Interatur, Leipzig, 1875; Jonah, A Study in 
 Jewish Folklore and Religion, by T. K.; (Prof.) 
 Cheyne in Theol. Rev. vol. xiv. 1877, p. 211; 
 Biblical Essays, by C. H. H. Wright, D.D., 
 T. and T. Clark, 1886. 
 
 (iii.) The characters are intended to represent 
 the contemporaries of the author. H.v. der 
 Hardt, a picture of the times in which Jonah 
 lived, and the coming downfall of the northern 
 kingdom; but in a later work he considers the 
 times of Manasseh and Josiah are described 
 (1719-23). Krahmer: the conduct of the Jews 
 towards the Samaritans after the return from 
 captivity is reproved by this Book. A moral 
 lesson, like 1 i. and ii., and some of the details 
 borrowed from myth. 
 
 3. The influence of myth is urged by Rosen- 
 miiller; Gesenius, Hallische Literaturz., 1813; 
 Bertholdt, Krahmer, Forbiger, and Friedrichsen, 
 who refer to the legends of Hesione and An- 
 dromeda; and by F.C. Bauer, Der Proph. Jonas, 
 ein Assyr. Babyl. Symbol, in Ilgen’s Zeitsch., 
 1837, the Babylonian myth of Oannes and 
 ceremonies connected with the cult of Adonis 
 are appealed to. Some account of these and 
 similar myths may be found in Tylor, Primitive 
 Culture, i. 306, and Early History of Mankind, 
 p- 337, who points out the similarity of parts of 
 these myths to the rescue of Jonah by the fish. 
 But the common element seems limited to a sea- 
 monster and the neighbourhood of Joppa; and 
 for some details the myths may be indebted to 
 the Hebrzw. 
 
 In addition to these works, we may note 
 Jonas Illustratus, by J. Leusden, Trajecti ad 
 Rhenam, 1656, which contains the commentaries 
 of Rashi, Aben Ezra, and Kimchi, with trans- 
 
 JONAS 1775 
 
 lations and notes ; a useful help towards acquir- 
 ing some knowledge of Rabbinic Hebrew. 
 
 [A. 1. 6] 
 
 JONAH (Π)}"; Ἰωναῖ, LXX. and Matt. xii. 
 39), a prophet, son of Amittai, of Gath-hepher. 
 His name is associated (2 K. xiv. 25) with that 
 of Jeroboam, and it is probable, though not 
 certain, that he lived during the reign of that 
 king. 
 
 The passages in 2 K. x. 32, 333 xiii. 3-7, 22- 
 25; xiv. 25-27, with a few references in the 
 prophetical writings, contain all the information 
 afforded in Scripture concerning the relations of 
 the kingdom of Israel with their eastern neigh- 
 bours during the century of the house of Jehu. 
 From these brief notices we learn that the 
 Syrians (and the Ammonites) had in Jehu’s 
 reion ravaged the eastern frontier of the Israelite 
 kingdom with merciless severity (2 K. x. 32; 
 Amos i. ὃ, 13). Under his successor Jehoahaz 
 the kingdom continued in subjection. The next 
 king (Joash), encouraged and at the same time 
 admonished by the prophet Elisha (2 K. xiii. 
 14-19), recovered some of the cities which had 
 fallen into the enemy’s hand (v. 25), but the 
 complete restoration of the kingdom was effected 
 during the brilliant reign of Jeroboam IL, who 
 “restored the coast of Israel from the entering 
 of Hamath unto the sea of the plain, according 
 to the word of the Lord God of Israel, which He 
 spake by the hand of His servant Jonah.” 
 
 The promise of returning prosperity may have 
 been delivered by Jonah at any time between 
 the defeat of Jehu and the victories of Jeroboam, 
 and the writer of the narrative in 2 K. xiv. 
 25-27 may combine a prophecy of an earlier 
 period with the record of its fulfilment. 
 
 A modern critic* is of opinion that a further 
 portion of Jonah’s message is preserved in “ the 
 burden of Moab (ls. xv. xvi.), which embodies 
 the substance of an earlier prophecy.” For the 
 discussion of the hypothesis, cp. Hitzig, Der 
 Proph. J. Orakel ii. Moab, Heidelb. 1831, Der 
 Proph. Jesaja, 1833; and Cheyne’s saiah. 
 
 [A. T. C.] 
 
 JO'NAN ΟἸωνάν ; Jona), son of Eliakim, in 
 the genealogy of Christ, in the 7th generation 
 after David, i.e. about the time of king Jehoram 
 (Luke iii. 30), The name is probably only another 
 form of Johanan, which occurs so frequently in 
 this genealogy. The sequence of names, Jonan, 
 Joseph, Juda, Simeon, Levi, Matthat, is singu- 
 larly like that in vv. 26, 27, Joanna, Judah, 
 Joseph, Semei, Mattathias. [A. C. H.J 
 
 JO'NAS. 1. (B.’Iwavas, A. Ἰωνᾶς ; Llionas.) 
 This name occupies the same position in 1 Esd. ix. 
 23 as Eliezer in the corresponding list in 
 Ezra x. 23. Perhaps the corruption originated 
 
 in reading ON for andy, as appears to 
 have been the case in 1 Esd. ix. 32 (ep. Ezra x. 
 31). The former would have caught the com- 
 piler’s eye from Ezra x. 22, and the original 
 form Elionas, as it appears in the Vulg., could 
 easily have become Jonas. 
 
 a Hitzig. 
 
 b xvi. 13: “ This is the word which the Lord hath 
 spoken concerning Moab since that time.” The R. V- 
 has “ἴῃ time past.” 
 
1776 
 
 2. (Ἰωνᾶς; Jonas.) The prophet Jonah 
 (2 Esd. i. 39; Tob. xiv. 4, 8; Matt. xii. 39, 
 40, 41; xvi. 4). 
 
 8. (Ἰωάννη ὁ 
 [Jona.] 
 
 JONATHAN (ji), «Qc. Jehonathan, 
 and yn); the two forms are used almost 
 alternately : Ἰωνάθαν, Jos. ᾿Ιωνάθης : Jonathan). 
 1. The eldest son of king Sau]. The name (the 
 gift of Jehovah, corresponding to Theodorus in 
 Greek) seems to have been common at that 
 period; possibly from the example of Saul’s son 
 (see JONATHAN, the nephew of David, JONATHAN, 
 the son of Abiathar, JONATHAN, the son of 
 Shage, and NaTHAN the prophet). 
 
 He first appears some time after his father’s 
 accession (1 Sam. xiii. 2). If his younger 
 brother Ishbosheth was 40 at the time of Saul’s 
 death (2 Sam. ii. 8), Jonathan must have been 
 at least 30 when he is first mentioned. Of his 
 own family we know nothing, except the birth 
 of one son, five years before his death (2 Sam. 
 iv. 4). He was regarded in his father’s lifetime 
 as heir to thethrone. Like Saul, he was a man 
 of great strength and activity (2 Sam. i. 23), 
 of which the exploit at Michmash was a proof. 
 He was also famous for the peculiar martial 
 exercises in which his tribe excelled—archery 
 and slinging (1 Ch. xii. 2). His bow was to 
 him what the spear was to his father: “the 
 vow of Jonathan turned not back” (2 Sam. 
 i, 22). It was always with him (1 Sam. xviii. 4; 
 xx, 35). It is through his relation with David 
 that he is chiefly known to us,.probably as 
 related by his descendants at David’s court. 
 But there is a background, not so clearly given, 
 of his relation with his father. From the time 
 that he first appears he is Saul’s constant 
 companion, He was always present at his 
 father’s meals. As Abner and David seem to 
 have occupied the places afterwards called the 
 captaincies of “the host ” and “ of the guard; ” 
 so he seems to have been (as Hushai afterwards) 
 “the friend” (cp. 1 Sam. xx. 25; 2 Sam. 
 xv. 37). The whole story implies, without 
 expressing, the deep attachment of the father 
 and son. Jonathan can only go on his dangerous 
 expedition (1 Sam. xiv. 1) by concealing it from 
 Saul. Saul’s vow is confirmed, and its tragic 
 effect deepened, by his feeling for his son, 
 “though it be Jonathan my son” (7, xiv. 39). 
 “Tell me what thou hast done” (i. xiv. 43). 
 Jonathan cannot bear to believe his father’s 
 enmity to David, “My father will do nothing 
 great or small, but that he will show it to me: 
 and why should my father hide this thing from 
 me? it is not so” (1 Sam. xx. 2). To him, if 
 to any one, the wild frenzy of the king was 
 amenable—“ Saul hearkened unto the voice of 
 Jonathan” (1 Sam. xix. 6). Their mutual 
 affection was indeed interrupted by the growth 
 of Saul’s insanity. Twice the father would 
 have sacrificed the son: once in consequence of 
 his vow (1 Sam. xiv.); the second time, more 
 deliberately, on the discovery of David’s flight: 
 and on this last occasion a momentary glimpse 
 is given of some darker history. Were the 
 phrases “‘son of a perverse rebellious woman,” 
 “shame on thy mother’s nakedness” (1 Sam. 
 xx. 30, 31), mere frantic invectives? or was 
 there something in the story of Ahinoam or 
 
 JONATHAN 
 
 Johannes), John xxi, 15-17. 
 
 JONATHAN 
 
 Rizpah which we do not know? “In fierce 
 anger” Jonathan left the royal presence (i). 34). 
 But he cast his lot with his father’s decline, not 
 with his friend’s rise, and “in death they were 
 not divided” (2 Sam. i. 23; 1 Sam. xxiii. 16). 
 
 His life may be divided into two main parts. 
 
 1. The war with the Philistines; commonly 
 called, from its locality, “the war of Michmash ” 
 (1 Sam. xiii, 22, LXX.), as the last years of 
 the Peloponnesian war were called for a similar 
 reason “the war of Decelea.” In the previous 
 war with the Ammonites (1 Sam. xi. 4-15) 
 there is no mention of him; and his abrupt 
 appearance, without explanation, in xiii. 2, may 
 seem to imply that some part of the narrative 
 has been lost. 
 
 He is already of great importance in the state. 
 Of the 3000 men of whom Saul’s standing army 
 was formed (xiii. 2; xxiv. 2; xxvi, 1, 2), 1000 
 were under the command of Jonathan at Gibeah. 
 The Philistines were still in the general com- 
 mand of the country ; an officer was stationed 
 at Geba, either the same as Jonathan’s position 
 or close to it. In a sudden act of youthful 
 daring, as when Tell rose against Gesler, or 
 as in sacred history Moses rose against the 
 Egyptian, Jonathan slew this officer,* and thus 
 gave the signal for a general revolt. Saul took 
 advantage of it, and the whole population rose. 
 But it was a premature attempt. The Philis- 
 tines poured in from the plain, and the tyranny 
 became more deeply rooted than ever. [SAUL.] 
 Saul and Jonathan (with their immediate at- 
 tendants) alone had arms, amidst the general 
 weakness and ‘disarming of the people (1 Sam. 
 xiii, 22). They were encamped at Gibeah, with 
 a small body of 600 men; and as they Jooked 
 down from that height on the misfortunes 
 of their country, and of their native tribe 
 especially, they wept aloud (ἔκλαιον, LXX. ; 
 1 Sam. xiii. 16). 
 
 From this oppression, as Jonathan by his 
 former act «had been the first to provoke it, so 
 now he was the first to deliver his people. On 
 the former occasion Saul had been equally with 
 himself involved in the responsibility of the 
 deed. Saul “blew the trumpet;” Saul had 
 “smitten the officer of the Philistines” (xiii. 3, 
 4). But now it would seem that Jonathan was 
 resolved to undertake the whole risk himself. 
 “The day,” the day fixed by him (γίνεται ἢ 
 ἡμέρα, LXX.; 1 Sam. xiv. 1), approached; and 
 without communicating his project to any one, 
 except the young man whom, like all the chiefs 
 of that age, he retained as his armour-bearer, 
 he sallied forth from Gibeah to attack the 
 garrison of the Philistines stationed on the 
 other side of the steep defile of Michmash 
 (xix. 1). His words are short, but they breathe 
 exactly the ancient and peculiar spirit of the 
 Israelite warrior. ‘Come, and let us go over 
 unto the garrison of these uncircumcised; it 
 may be that Jehovah will work for us: for 
 there is no restraint to Jehovah to save by 
 many or by few.” The answer is no less 
 
 a (A, V. and R. V. ‘“garrison”) τὸν Νασείβ, LXX.; 
 1 Sam. xiii. 3, 4. See Ewald, ii. 476. Versions and 
 commentators are divided as to the meaning to be 
 assigned to Δ. See Driver, Notes on the Heb. Text 
 of the BB. of Samuel, on 1 Sam. x. 5, He prefers with 
 Klosterman the sense of pillar. 
 
JONATHAN 
 
 characteristic of the close friendship of the two 
 young men: already like to that which after- 
 wards sprang up between Jonathan and David. 
 “Do all that is in thine heart; ... behold, 7 
 am with thee: as thy heart is my heart ” (LXX. ; 
 1 Sam. xiv. 7). After the manner of the time 
 (and the more, probably, from having taken no 
 counsel of the high-priest or any prophet before 
 his departure), Jonathan proposed to draw an 
 omen for their course from the conduct of 
 the enemy. If the garrison, on seeing them, 
 gave intimations of descending upon them, they 
 would remain in the valley: if, on the other 
 hand, they raised a challenge to advance, they 
 were to accept it. The latter turned out to be 
 the case. The first appearance of the two 
 warriors from behind the rocks was taken by 
 the Philistines as a furtive apparition of ‘the 
 Hebrews coming forth out of the holes where 
 they had hid themselves;” and they were 
 welcomed with a scofling invitation (such as the 
 Jebusites afterwards offered to David), ‘Come 
 up, and we will show you a thing” (xiv. 4-12). 
 Jonathan immediately took them at their word. 
 Strong and active as he was, “strong as a lion, 
 and swift as an eagle” (2 Sam. i. 23), he was 
 fully equal to the adventure of climbing on his 
 hands and feet up the face of the cliff. When 
 he came directly in view of them, with his 
 armour-bearer behind him, they both, after the 
 manner of their tribe (1 Ch. xii. 2), dischargeda 
 flight of arrows, stones, and pebbles ἢ from their 
 bows, crossbows, and slings, with such effect 
 that twenty men fell at the first onset [Arms, 
 pp. 239, 240]. A panic seized the garrison, 
 thence spread to the camp, and thence to the 
 surrounding hordes of marauders ; an earthquake 
 combined with the terror of the moment; the 
 confusion increased; the Israelites who had been 
 taken slaves by the Philistines during the last 
 three days (LXX.) rose in mutiny : the Israelites 
 who lay hid in the numerous caverns and deep 
 holes in which the rocks of the neighbour- 
 hood abound, sprang out of their subterranean 
 dwellings. Saul and his little band had watched 
 in astonishment the wild retreat from the 
 heights of Gibeah—he now joinedin the pursuit, 
 which led him headlong after the fugitives, 
 over the rugged plateau.of Bethel, and down ° 
 the pass of Beth-horon to Ajalon (xiv. 15-31). 
 [Grpeau.] The father and son had not met on 
 that day. Saul only conjectured his son’s 
 absence from not finding him when he numbered 
 the people. Jonathan had not heard of the 
 rash curse (xiv. 24) which Saul invoked on any 
 one who ate before the evening. In the dizzi- 
 ness and darkness (Hebrew, 1 Sam., xiv. 27) 
 that came on after his desperate exertions, he 
 
 b We have taken the LXX. version of xiv. 13, 14, 
 ἐπέβλενναν. κατὰ πρόσωπον ᾿Ιωνάθαν, καὶ ἐπάταξεν αὐτοὺς 
 +.» ἐν βόλισι [καὶ ἐν πετροθόλοις, om. in BNA.) καὶ 
 κόχλαξιν τοῦ πεδίου, for “they fell before Jonathan 
 ... . Within as it were a half acre of ground, which a 
 yoke of oxen might plough.” The alteration of the 
 Hebrew necesssary to produce this reading of the LXX., 
 is given by Kennicott (Dissert. on 1 Chron. xi. p. 453 ; 
 cp. Driver, in loco, who questions the rendering 
 **pebbles”). Ewald (ii. 480) makes this last to be, 
 ** Jonathan and his friend were as a yoke of oxen 
 ploughing, and resisting the sharp ploughshares.” 
 
 e In xiv. 23, 31, the LXX. reads “ Bamoth” for 
 “ Beth-aven,” and omits “" Ajalon.” 
 
 BIBLE DICT.—VOL. I. 
 
 JONATHAN 1777 
 
 put forth the staff which apparently had (with 
 his sling and bow) been his chief weapon, and 
 tasted the honey which Jay on the ground as 
 they passed through the forest. The pursuers 
 in general were restrained even from this slight 
 indulgence by fear of the royal curse; but the 
 moment that the day, with its enforced fast, 
 was over, they flew, like Muslims at sunset 
 during the fast of Ramadan, on the captured 
 cattle ; and devoured them, even to the brutal 
 neglect of the Law which forbade the dis- 
 memberment of the fresh careases with the 
 blood. This violation of the Law Saul en- 
 deavoured to prevent and to expiate by erecting 
 a large stone, which served both as a rude table 
 and as an altar; the first altar that was raised 
 under the monarchy. It was in the dead of 
 night after this wild revel was over that he 
 proposed that the pursuit should be continued 
 till dawn; and then, when the silence of the 
 oracle of the high-priest indicated that some- 
 thing had occurred to intercept the Divine 
 favour, the lot was tried, and Jonathan ap- 
 peared as the culprit. Jephthah’s dreadful 
 sacrifice would have been repeated; but the 
 people interposed in behalf of the hero of that 
 great day ; and Jonathan was saved ἃ (xiv. 24— 
 46). } 
 
 2. This is the only great exploit of Jonathan’s 
 life. But the chief interest of his career is 
 derived from the friendship with David, which 
 began on the day of David’s return from the 
 victory over the champion of Gath, and con- 
 tinued till his death. It is the first Biblical 
 instance of a romantic friendship, such as was 
 common afterwards in Greece, and has been 
 since in Christendom; and is remarkable both 
 as giving its-sanction to these, and as filled with 
 a pathos of its own, which has been imitated, 
 but never surpassed, in modern works of fiction. 
 “The soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of 
 David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul ” 
 —* Thy love to me was wonderful, passing the 
 love of women” (1 Sam. xviii. 1; 2 Sam. i. 26). 
 Each found in each the affection that he found 
 not in his own family: no jealousy of rivalry 
 between the two, as claimants for the same 
 throne, ever interposed: “Thou shalt be king 
 in Israel, and I shall be next unto thee” 
 (1 Sam, xxiii. 17). The friendship was con- 
 firmed, after the manner of the time, by a 
 solemn compact often repeated. The first 
 was immediately on their first acquaintance. 
 Jonathan gave David as a pledge his royal 
 mantle, his sword, his girdle, and his famous 
 bow (xviii. 4). His fidelity was soon called 
 into action by the insane rage of his father 
 against David. He interceded for his life, at 
 first with success (1 Sam. xix. 1-7). Then the 
 madness returned and David fled. It was in a 
 secret interview during this flight, by the stone 
 of Ezel, that the second covenant was made 
 between the two friends, of a still more binding 
 kind, extending to their mutual posterity— 
 Jonathan laying such emphasis on this portion 
 of the compact, as almost to suggest the belief 
 
 ἃ Josephus (Ant. vi. 6, § 5) puts into Jonathan’s 
 mouth a speech of patriotic self-devotion, after the 
 manner of a Greek or Roman. Ewald (ii. 483) supposes 
 that a substitute was killed in his place. There is no 
 trace of either of these in the sacred narrative. 
 
 ΣΧ 
 
1778 
 of a slight misgiving on his part of David’s 
 future conduct in this respect. It is this inter- 
 view which brings out the character of Jonathan 
 in the liveliest colours—his little artifices—his 
 love for both his father and his friend—his 
 bitter disappointment at his father’s unmanage- 
 able fury—his familiar sport of archery. With 
 passionate embraces and tears the two friends 
 parted, to meet only once more (1 Sam. xx.). 
 That one more meeting was far away in the 
 forest of Ziph, during Saul’s pursuit of David. 
 Jonathan’s alarm for his friend’s life is now 
 changed into a confidence that he will escape: 
 “He strengthened his hand in God.” Finally, 
 and for the third time, they renewed the cove- 
 nant, and then parted for ever (1 Sam. xxiii. 
 16-18). 
 
 From this time forth we hear no more till the 
 battle of Gilboa. In that battle he fell, with 
 his two brothers and his father, and his corpse 
 shared their fate (1 Sam. xxxi. 2, 8). [SAUL.] 
 His ashes were buried first at Jabesh-Gilead 
 (do. v. 13), but afterwards removed with those of 
 his father to Zelah in Benjamin (2 Sam. xxi. 12). 
 The news of his death occasioned the celebrated 
 elegy of David, in which he, as the friend, 
 naturally occupies the chief place (2 Sam. i. 22, 
 23, 25, 26), and which seems to have been 
 sung in the education of the archers of Judah, 
 in commemoration of the one great archer, 
 Jonathan: “He bade them teach the children 
 of Judah the use of the bow” (2 Sam. i. 17, 18. 
 See Driver, Notes, &c., in loco). 
 
 He left one son, aged five years old at the 
 time of his death (2 Sam. iv. 4), to whom he 
 had probably given his original name of Merib- 
 baal, afterwards changed for Mephibosheth 
 (cp. 1 Ch. viii. 34, ix. 40). [ΜΕΡΗΙΒΟΒΗΕΤΗ. ] 
 Through him the line of descendants was con- 
 tinued down to the time of Ezra (1 Ch. ix. 40), 
 and even then their great ancestor’s archery was 
 practised amongst them. [SAUL.] 
 
 2. Gn.) Son of Shimeah, brother of 
 Jonadab, and nephew of David (2 Sam. xxi. 21; 
 1 Ch. xx. 7). He inherited the unior of civil 
 and military gifts so conspicuous in his uncle. 
 Like David, he engaged in a single combat and 
 slew a gigantic Philistine of Gath, who was 
 remarkable for an additional finger and toe on 
 each hand and foot (2 Sam. xxi. 21). Ifwe may 
 identify the Jonathan of 1 Ch. xxvii. 52 with 
 the Jonathan of this passage, where the word 
 translated “ uncle” may be “nephew,” he was 
 (like his brother Jonadab) “ wise ”—and, as such, 
 was David’s counsellor and secretary. Jerome 
 (Quaest. Heb. on 1 Sam. xvii. 12) conjectures 
 that this was Nathan the prophet, thus making 
 up the eighth son, not named in 1 Ch. ii. 13-15. 
 But this is not probable. 
 
 8, The son of Abiathar, the high-priest. He 
 is the last descendant of Eli, of whom we hear 
 anything. He appears on two occasions. 1. On 
 the day of David’s flight from Absalom, having 
 first accompanied his father Abiathar as far as 
 Olivet (2 Sam. xv. 36), he returned with him 
 to Jerusalem, and was there, with Ahimaaz the 
 son of Zadok, employed as a messenger to carry 
 back the news of Hushai’s plans to David (xvii. 
 15-21). 2. On the day of Solomon’s inaugura- 
 tion, he suddenly broke in upon the banquet of 
 Adonijah, to announce the success of the rival 
 prince (1 K. i. 42, 43). [Ὁ may be inferred from 
 
 JONATHAN 
 
 JONATHAN 
 
 Adonijah’s expression (“ Thou art a valiant man, 
 and bringest good tidings”), that he had 
 followed the policy of his father Abiathar in 
 Adonijah’s support. 
 
 On both occasions, it may be remarked that 
 he appears as the swift and trusty messenger. 
 
 4, The son of Shammah the Hararite (1 Ch. 
 xi. 34; 2 Sam. xxiii. 32; see Driver, Notes on 
 Heb. Text of BB. of Sam. in loco). He was one 
 of David’s heroes (gibborim). The LXX. makes 
 his father’s name Svla (SwAd), and applies the 
 epithet “ Ararite” (6 ᾿Αραρὶ) to Jonathan him- 
 self. ‘“ Harar” is not mentioned elsewhere as 
 a place; but it is a poetical word for “Har” 
 (mountain), and, as such, may possibly signify 
 in this passage “the mountaineer.” Another 
 officer (Ahiam) is mentioned with Jonathan, as 
 bearing the same designation (1 Ch. xi. 35), 
 
 : [Avec 
 5. (jN31".) The son, or descendant, of Ger- 
 
 shom the son of Moses, whose name in the 
 Masoretic copies is changed to Manasseh, in 
 order to screen the memory of the great law- 
 giver from the disgrace which attached to the 
 apostasy of one so closely connected with him 
 (Judg. xviii. 30). While wandering through 
 the country in search of a home, the young 
 Levite of Bethlehem-Judah came to the house 
 of Micah, the rich Ephraimite, and was by him 
 appointed to be a kind of private chaplain, and 
 to minister in the house-of gods, or sanctuary, 
 which Micah had made in imitation of that at 
 Shiloh. He was recognised by the five Danite 
 spies appointed by their tribe to search the land 
 for an inheritance, and who lodged in the house 
 of Micah on their way northwards. The favour- 
 able answer which he gave when consulted with 
 regard to the issue of their expedition probably © 
 induced them, on their march to Laish with the 
 warriors of their tribe, to turn aside again to 
 the house of Micah, and carry off the ephod 
 and teraphim, superstitiously hoping thus to 
 make success certain. Jonathan, to whose ambi- 
 
 tion they appealed, accompanied them, in spite _ 
 
 of the remonstrances of his patron; he was 
 present at the massacre of the defenceless in- 
 habitants of Laish, and in the new city which 
 rose from its ashes he was constituted priest of 
 the graven image, an office which became here- 
 ditary in his family till the Captivity. The 
 Targum of R. Joseph, on 1 Ch. xxiii. 16, identi- 
 fies him with Shebuel the son of Gershom, who 
 is there said to have repented (SIN T2Y) in 
 his old age, and to have been appointed by 
 David as chief over his treasures. All this arises 
 from a play upon the name Shebuel, from which 
 this meaning is extracted in accordance with a 
 favourite practice of the Targumist. 
 
 6. (jN31".) One of the sons of Adin (Ezra 
 
 vill. 6), whose representative Ebed returned with 
 Ezra at the head of fifty males, a number which 
 is increased to two hundred and fifty in 1 Esd. 
 viii, 32, where Jonathan is written ᾿Ιωνάθας. 
 
 7. A priest, the son of Asahel, one of the four 
 who assisted Ezra in investigating the marriages 
 with foreign women, which had been contracted 
 by the people who returned from Babylon (Ezra 
 v. 15; 1 Esd. ix. 14). 
 
 8. A priest, and one of the chiefs of the 
 fathers in the days of Joiakim, son of Jeshua. 
 He was the representative of the family of 
 Melicu (Neh. xii. 14), 
 
i 
 
 JONATHAN 
 
 9. One of the sons of Kareah, and brother of 
 Johanan (Jer. xl. 8). The LXX. in this passage 
 omits his name altogether, and in this they are 
 supported by two of Kennicott’s MSS., and the 
 parallel passage of 2 K. xxv. 23. In three others 
 of Kennicott’s it was erased, and was originally 
 omitted in three of De Rossi’s. He was one of 
 the captains of the army who had escaped from 
 Jerusalem in the final assault by the Chaldeans, 
 and, after the capture of Zedekiah at Jericho, 
 had crossed the Jordan, and remained in the 
 open country of the Ammonites till the victorious 
 army had retired with their spoils and captives. 
 He accompanied his brother Johanan and the 
 other captains, who resorted to Gedaliah at 
 Mizpah, and from that time we hear nothing 
 more of him. Hitzig decides against the LXX. 
 and the MSS. which omit the name (Der Proph. 
 Jeremias), on the ground that the very similarity 
 between Jonathan and Johanan favours the 
 belief that they were brothers. [Wise A Wiel] 
 
 10. qn} ; Ἰωνάθαν.) Son of Joiada, and 
 
 his successor in the high-priesthood. The only 
 fact connected with his pontificate recorded in 
 Scripture, is that the genealogical records of 
 the priests and Levites were kept in his day 
 (Neh. xii. 11, 22), and that the chronicles of 
 the state were continued to his time (ib. 23). 
 Jonathan (or, as he is called in Neh. xii. 22, 23, 
 John) lived, of course, long after the death of 
 Nehemiah, and in the reign of Artaxerxes Mne- 
 mon, Josephus, who also calls him John, as do 
 Eusebius® and Nicephorus likewise, relates that 
 he murdered his own brother Jesus in the 
 Temple, because Jesus was endeavouring to get 
 the high-priesthood from him through the in- 
 fluence of Bagoses the Persian general. He adds 
 that John by this misdeed brought two great 
 judgments upon the Jews: the one, that Ba- 
 goses entered into the Temple and polluted it; 
 the other, that he imposed a heavy tax of fifty 
 shekels upon every lamb offered in sacrifice, to 
 punish them for this horrible crime (A. J. xi. 
 vii. § 1). Jonathan, or John, was high-priest 
 for thirty-two years, according to Eusebius and 
 the Alexandr. Chron. (Sedd. de Success. in P. E. 
 cap. vi. vii.). Milman speaks of the murder of 
 Jesus as “the only memorable transaction in 
 the annals of Judaea from the death of Nehe- 
 miah to the time of Alexander the Great ” (ist. 
 of Jews, ii. 29). 
 
 11. Father of Zechariah, a priest who blew 
 the trumpet at the dedication of the wall (Neh. 
 xii. 35). He seems to have been of the course 
 of Shemaiah. The words “son of” seem to be 
 improperly inserted before the following name, 
 Mattaniah, as appears by comparing xi. 17. 
 
 ΓΑ. C. H.] 
 
 12. (Ἰωνάθας.) 1 Esd. viii. 32. [See No. 6.] 
 
 13. A son of Mattathias, and leader of the 
 Jews in their war of independence after the 
 death of his brother Judas Maccabaeus, B.C. 161 
 (1 Mace. ix. 19 sq.). [MaccaBEEs.] 
 
 14, A son of Absalom (1 Mace. xiii. 11), sent 
 by Simon with a force to occupy Joppa, which 
 was already in the hands of the Jews (1 Mace. 
 xii. 33), though probably held only by a weak 
 garrison. Jonathan expelled the inhabitants 
 
 96 Chron. Can. lib. poster. p. 340. But in the Ve- 
 
 monst. Evang. lib. viii., Jonathan. 
 
 JONATH ELEM RECHOKIM 1779 
 
 (robs ὄντας ἐν αὐτῇ ; ep. Jos, Ant. xiii. 6, § 3) 
 and secured the city. Jonathan was probably a 
 brother of Mattathias (2) (1 Mace, xi. 70). 
 
 15. A priest who is said to have offered up a 
 solemn prayer on the occasion of the sacrifice 
 made by Nehemiah after the recovery of the 
 sacred fire (2 Macc. i, 23 sq.: ep. Ewald, Gesch. 
 d. V. Isr.iv. 184 sq.). The narrative is interest- 
 ing, as it presents a singular example of the 
 combination of public prayer with sacrifice 
 (Grimm, ad 2 Mace. 1. ¢.). [B. F. W.] 
 
 JON’ATHAS (BA. ᾿Ιαθάν, 8. Ναθάν [v. 14]; 
 Vulg. om., Old Lat. /onathus, al. Nathan), the 
 Latin form of thecommon name Jonathan, which 
 is preserved in the E. V. of Tobit v. 13. 
 
 (B. F. W.] 
 
 JONATH ELEM RECHOKIM, or, more 
 correctly, Yonath Elem Rechdgim, occurs only 
 once in the Bible, where it forms in Hebrew 
 part of the first, or introductory, verse of 
 Ps. lvi. It would be impossible to collect’ more 
 nonsense written on three whole Psalms than 
 what has been written on these three words alone. 
 The Septuagint and Targumist agree on the 
 whole, and apply these three words to Israel 
 absent from the Temple and the Holy Land. 
 The incorrectness of this explanation is, how- 
 ever, proved not merely from the contents of 
 the Psalm, which is evidently an expression of 
 David as an individual, but also from the other 
 half of the very superscription itself. Rashi, 
 who rightly applies this Psalm to David, 
 explains Yonath Elem Rechoqgim as a dumb 
 dove far away from its country. This explana- 
 tion, though not exactly ungrammatical, is 
 inelegant, if not awkward. Ibn ’Ezra, as usual, 
 takes these three words to be “ the commence- 
 ment of a poem which along with its tune was, 
 in ancient times, well known.” He does not, 
 however, explain these three difficult words 
 themselves. His theory has been shown in the 
 articles AIJELETH SHAHAR, ALAMOTH, AL- 
 TASCHITH, &c., to be both anachronistic and 
 otherwise illogical. Qimchi half agrees with the 
 Septuagint and Targum and half with Rashi, 
 without, however, giving a satisfactory gram- 
 matical account of the three words in question. 
 The truth is, Yonath Elem Rechodgim represented 
 the music-band which played on the most 
 loudly-sounding instruments, both of wind and 
 percussion, then in existence: trumpets, cym- 
 bals, castanets, kettle-drums, &c. The players 
 on these powerful instruments were then, as now 
 and ever, for harmony’s sake, placed at some 
 distance from the other players. Now, Yonath 
 (root 73’, “to press hard”) is the feminine 
 active participle in the construct state, whilst 
 Elem cobs, “power’’), the genitive of that 
 construct state, is, as usual, used adjectively. 
 These words, together with Rechégim (“ distant 
 places ;” cf. Ps. Ixv. 6 [5]), give us the construc- 
 tion of this peculiar, but by no means incorrect 
 or even inelegant, superscription. The whole of 
 the first five words in Hebrew signifies “To the 
 director of the band which produces the most 
 powerfully sounding music from distant places.” 
 
 We may remark that the nature of the music 
 played by that band fully harmonises with the 
 contents of the Psalm which it was to accompany. 
 As in that kind of music sounds overpowei 
 
 5 X 2 
 
1780 JOPPA 
 
 sounds, but yet those apparently destructive 
 notes produce the right harmony, so in this 
 Psalm sentiments (vv. 4, 5, 8-12; E.V. 3, 4, 7- 
 11) overpower sentiments (vv. 2, 3, 6,7; E.V. 
 1, 2, 5, 6), not to destroy, but to make the 
 whole into a more perfect harmony. 
 
 [S. ν.. 5:87 
 JOP'PA (8", ic. Yajo, “beauty; ” the 
 
 A. V. follows the Greek form, except once, 
 JAPHO: Ἰόππη, LXX., N. T.; Vulg. Joppe; 
 "Idan, Joseph.—at least in the most recent 
 editions—Strabo, and others: now Ydfa or 
 Jaffa), a town on the S.W. coast of Palestine, 
 the port of Jerusalem in the days of Solomon, 
 as it has been ever since. Its etymology is 
 variously explained; some deriving it from 
 “ Japhet,” others from ‘“TIopa,” daughter of 
 Aeolus and wife of Cepheus, Andromeda’s father, 
 its reputed founder; others interpreting it “the 
 watch-tower of joy,” or “beauty,” and so forth 
 (Reland, Palest. p. 864). The fact is, that from 
 its being a seaport, it had a profane as well as 
 a sacred history. Pliny, following Mela (De situ 
 Orb. i. 12), says that it was of antediluvian 
 antiquity (WV. H. v. 14); and even Sir John 
 Maundeville, in the 14th century, bears witness 
 —though it must be confessed a clumsy one—to 
 that tradition (Z. T. p. 142). According to 
 Josephus, it originally belonged to the Phoeni- 
 cians (Ant. xiii. 15, § 4). Here, writes Strabo, 
 some say Andromeda was exposed to the whale 
 (Geog. xvi. p. 759; cp. Miiller’s Hist. Graec. 
 Fragm. vol. iv. p. 325, and his Geog. Graec. 
 Min. vol. i. p. 79), and he appeals to its elevated 
 position in behalf of those who laid the scene 
 there; though, in order to do so consistently, he 
 had already shown that it would be necessary to 
 transport Aethiopia into Phoenicia (Strab. i. 
 p. 43). However, in Pliny’s age—and Josephus 
 had just before affirmed the same (B. J. iii. 9, 
 ὃ 3)—they still showed the chains by which 
 Andromeda was bound; and not only so, but 
 M. Scaurus the younger, the same that was so 
 much employed in Judaea by Pompey (δ. J. i. 6, 
 § 2 et seq.), had the bones of the monster trans- 
 ported to Rome from Joppa—where till then 
 they had been exhibited (Mela, ibid.)—and dis- 
 played them there, during his aedileship, to the 
 public amongst other prodigies. Nor would 
 they have been uninteresting to the modern 
 geologist, if his report be correct. For they 
 measured forty feet in length; the span of the 
 ribs exceeding that of the Indian elephant; and 
 the thickness of the spine or vertebra being one 
 foot and a half (“ sesquipedalis,” ie. in circum- 
 ference—when Solinus says “ semipedalis,” he 
 means in diameter; see Plin. V. #.ix. 5 and the 
 note, Delphin ed.). Reland would trace the 
 adventures of Jonah in this legendary guise (see 
 above); but it is far more probable that it 
 symbolises the first interchange of commerce 
 between the Greeks, personified in their errant 
 hero Perseus, and the Phoenicians, whose lovely 
 —but till then unexplored—clime may be well 
 shadowed forth in the fair virgin Andromeda. 
 Perseus, in the tale, is said to have plunged his 
 dagger into the right shoulder of the monster. 
 Possibly he may have discovered or improved 
 the harbour, the roar from whose foaming reefs 
 on the north could scarcely have been surpassed 
 by the barkings of Scylla or Charybdis. Even 
 
 JOPPA 
 
 the chains shown there may have been those py 
 which his ship was attached to the shore. Rings 
 used by the Romans for mooring their vessels 
 are still to be seen near Terracina, in the S. angle 
 of the ancient port. 
 
 Returning to the province of history, we find 
 that Japho or Joppa was situated in the portion 
 of Dan (Josh. xix. 46) on the coast towards the 
 south; and on a hill so high, says Strabo, 
 that people affirmed (but incorrectly) that 
 Jerusalem was visible from its summit. Having 
 a harbour attached to it—though always, as 
 still, a dangerous one—it became the port of 
 Jerusalem, when Jerusalem became the metro- 
 polis of the kingdom of the house of David, and 
 certainly never did port and metropolis more 
 strikingly resemble each other in difficulty of 
 approach both by sea and land. Hence, except 
 in journeys to and from Jerusalem, it was not 
 much used. In St, Paul’s travels, for instance, 
 the starting points by water are, Antioch (Acts 
 xv. 39, vid Seleucia, it is presumed—xviii. 22, 
 23, was probably a land journey throughout), 
 Caesarea (ix. 30, and xxvii. 2), and once Seleucia 
 (xiii. 4, namely that at the mouth of the 
 Orontes). Also once Antioch (xiv. 25) and once 
 Tyre, as a landing place (xxi. 3). The same 
 preference for the more northern ports is obsery- 
 able in the early pilgrims, beginning with him 
 of Bordeaux. 
 
 But Joppa was the place fixed upon for the 
 cedar and pine wood, from Mount Lebanon, to 
 be landed by the servants of Hiram king of 
 Tyre; thence to be conveyed to Jerusalem, by 
 the servants of Solomon—for the erection of 
 the first “‘ house of habitation ” ever made with 
 hands for the invisible Jehovah. It was by way 
 of Joppa similarly that like materials were 
 conveyed from the same locality,*by permission 
 of Cyrus, for the rebuilding of the second Temple 
 under Zerubbabel (1 K. ν. 9; 2 Ch. ii. 16; Ezra 
 iii. 7; 1 Esd. v. 55). Here Jonah, whenever 
 and wherever he may have lived (2 K. xiv. 25 
 certainly does not clear up the first of these 
 points), “‘took ship to flee from the Presence of 
 his Maker,” and accomplished that singular 
 history, which our Lord has appropriated as a 
 type of one of the principal scenes in the great 
 Drama of His own (Jon. i. 3; Matt. xii. 40). 
 Here, lastly, on the house-top of Simon the 
 tanner, “by the sea-side” (Acts x. 5, 6, 8, 32; 
 xi. 13)—with the view therefore circumscribed 
 on the E. by the high ground on which the town 
 stood, but commanding a boundless prospect 
 over the western waters—St. Peter had his 
 “vision of tolerance” (Acts x., xi.), as it has 
 been happily designated, and went forth like a 
 second Perseus, but from the East, to emancipate, 
 from still worse thraldom, the virgin daughter 
 of the West. The Christian poet Arator has not 
 failed to discover a mystical connexion between 
 the raising to life of the aged Tabitha—the 
 occasion of St. Peter’s visit to Joppa (Acts ix. 
 36-43)—and the baptism of the first Gentile 
 household (De Act. Apost. 1. 840, ap. Migne, 
 Patrol. Curs. Compl. \xviii. 164). 
 
 These are the great Biblical events of which 
 Joppa has been the scene. In the interval that 
 elapsed between the Old and New Dispensations 
 it experienced many vicissitudes. It was visited 
 by Antiochus Epiphanes (2 Mace. iv. 21). It 
 had sided with Apollonius, and was attacked and 
 
JOPPA 
 
 captured by Jonathan Maccabaeus (1 Mace. x. 75, 
 76; cp. Joseph. Ant. xiii. 4, § 4). It witnessed 
 the meeting between the latter and Ptolemy 
 (1 Mace, xi. 6). Simon had his suspicions of 
 its inhabitants, and set a garrison there (xii. 33, 
 34), which he afterwards strengthened con- 
 
 - 
 Ih} 
 
 Π]]]}} 
 hi 
 
 i ΠΠΠ Wy (RS? 
 HAAN NT Meet 
 I} { i} 
 
 4 
 Ι HH] TA , | 
 il Wah 
 na 
 DN 
 DATTA 
 
 HN (ii 
 Ι "] 
 
 Hi Ἰ 
 ἢ 
 Hi 
 
 ih | 
 
 nT |}} 
 
 hh 
 
 Dh 3 
 
 i 
 
 i 
 NNN 
 
 tise 
 
 alleged in excuse the mischief which had been 
 done by its inhabitants to his fellow-citizens 
 (xv. 28, 35). It would appear that Judas 
 Maccabaeus had burnt their haven some time 
 back for a gross act of barbarity (2 Mace. xii. 
 3, 6,7). Tribute was subsequently exacted for 
 
 i i i! it 
 wt i | 
 
 AE 
 
 mi 
 
 JOPPA 1781 
 
 siderably (xiii. 11). But when peace was re- 
 stored, he re-established it once more as a haven 
 (xiv. 5). He likewise rebuilt the fortifications 
 (v. 34). This occupation of Joppa was one of 
 the grounds of complaint urged by Antiochus, 
 son of Demetrius, against Simon ; but the latter 
 
 Joppa 
 
 | its possession from Hyrcanus by Antiochus 
 | Sidetes (Joseph. Ant. xiii. 8, §3). By Pompey 
 | it was rebuilt, made a free city, and placed 
 | under the jurisdiction of Syria (Ant. xiv. 4, 
 § 4); but by Caesar it was not only restored to 
 the Jews, but its revenues—whether from land 
 
1782 
 
 or from export-duties—were bestowed upon the 
 second Hyrcanus and his heirs (xiv. 10, §6). When 
 Herod the Great commenced operations, it was 
 seized by him, lest he should leave a hostile 
 stronghold in his rear, when he marched upon 
 Jerusalem (xiv. 15, § 1), and Augustus confirmed 
 him in its possession (xv. 7, ὃ 3). It was after- 
 wards assigned to Archelaus, when constituted 
 ethnarch (xvii. 11, § 4), and passed with Syria 
 under Cyrenius, when Archelaus had been de- 
 posed (xvii. 13, § 5). At the commencement of 
 the Jewish war it was plundered and burnt by 
 Cestius, and the inhabitants slaughtered (2. J. 
 ii. 18, § 10); but such a nest of pirates had it 
 become, when Vespasian arrived in those parts, 
 that it underwent a second and entire destruc- 
 tion—together with the adjacent villages—at 
 his hands (iii. 9, §§ 3, 4). Thus it appears that 
 this port had already begun to be the den of 
 robbers and outcasts which it was in Strabo’s 
 time (Geog. xvi. p. 759); while the district 
 around it was so populous, that from Jamnia, 
 a neighbouring town, and its vicinity, 40,000 
 armed men could be collected (ibid.). There was 
 a vast plain near it, as we learn from Josephus 
 (Ant. xiii. 4, § 4); it lay between Jamnia and 
 Caesarea—the latter of which may be reached 
 “on the morrow ” from it (Acts x. 9 and 24)— 
 and not far from Lydda (Acts ix. 38). It gave 
 its name to the portion of the Mediterranean 
 near it, “Sea of Joppa” (Joseph. Ant, xiii. 15, 
 § 1). The people of Joppa worshipped Ceto, 
 or Derceto, a goddess, half woman, half fish, 
 who was also worshipped at Ascalon under the 
 naine Atargatis. 
 
 When Joppa first became the seat of a 
 Christian bishop, is unknown ; but the subscrip- 
 tions of its prelates are preserved in the acts of 
 various synods of the 5th and 6th centuries (Le 
 Quien, Uriens Christian. iii. 629). In the 7th 
 century Arculfus sailed from Joppa to Alexandria, 
 the very route usually taken now by those who 
 visit Jerusalem ; but he notices nothing at the 
 former place (Z.7. p. 10). Saewulf, the next who 
 set sail from Joppa, A.D. 1103, is not more explicit 
 (ibid. p. 47). Meanwhile Joppa had been taken 
 possession of by the forces of Godfrey de Bouillon 
 previously to the capture of Jerusalem. The 
 town had been deserted and was allowed to fall 
 into ruin; the Crusaders contenting themselves 
 with possession of the citadel (William of Tyre, 
 Hist. viii. 9); and it was in part assigned subse- 
 quently for the support of the Church of the 
 Resurrection (ibid. ix. 16); though there seem 
 to have been Bishops of Joppa (perhaps only 
 titular after all) between A.D. 1253 and 1363 
 (Le Quien, 1291; ep. p. 1241). Saladin, in a.d. 
 1188, destroyed its fortifications (Sanut. Secret. 
 Fid. Crucis, lib. iii. part. x. ὁ. 5); but Richard 
 of England, who was confined nere by sickness, 
 rebuilt them (ibid., and Richard of Devizes in 
 Bohn’s Ant. Lib. p. 61). Its last occupation by 
 Christians was that of St. Louis, A.p. 1253; and 
 when he came, it was still a city and governed 
 by a count. “Of the immense sums,” says 
 Joinville, “which it cost the king to enclose 
 Jaffa, it does not become me to speak; for they 
 were countless. He enclosed the town from one 
 side of the sea to the other; and there were 
 twenty-four towers, including small and great. 
 The ditches were well scoured, and kept clean, 
 both within and without. There were three 
 
 JOPPA 
 
 JORAH 
 
 gates”. .. (Chron. of Crus. p. 495, Bohn). So 
 restored it fell into the hands of the Sultans of 
 Egypt, together with the rest of Palestine, by 
 whom it was once more laid in ruins, A.D, 1267. 
 So much so, that Bertrand de la Brocquiére, 
 visiting it about the middle of the 15th century, 
 states that it then only consisted of a few tents 
 covered with reeds; having been a strong place 
 under the Christians. Guides, accredited by the 
 Sultan, here met the pilgrims and received the 
 customary tribute from them; and here the 
 papal indulgences offered to pilgrims commenced 
 (Z. T. p. 286). Finally, Jaffa fell under the 
 Turks, in whose hands it still is, exhibiting 
 the usual decrepitude of the cities possessed 
 by them, and depending on Christian com- 
 merce for its feeble existence. During the 
 period of their rule it has been three times 
 sacked—by the Arabs in 1722; by the Mame- 
 lukes in 1775; and lastly by Napoleon I. in 
 1799, upon the glories of whose early career 
 “the massacre of Jaffa” leaves a stain that can 
 never be washed out (v. Moroni, Dizion, Eccl. 
 s.v.; Murray’s Hdbk.; Guérin, Judeée, i. 1-22; 
 Sepp, Jer. und d. ἢ. L. i. 1-21; Baedeker-Socin, 
 Hdbk.). 
 
 Yafa stands on a high round hill, close to the 
 sea. The town rises in terraces from the water, 
 and is surrounded on all sides by rapidly decay- 
 ing fortifications. The port is very bad. The 
 bazaars are amongst the best in Palestine. The 
 population is about 8,000. The supposed house 
 of Simon the tanner is still shown. 
 
 The gardens of Ydafa, surrounded by stone 
 walls and cactus hedges, stretch inland about 
 
 cone and a half miles, and are over two miles in 
 
 extent north andsouth. Palms, oranges, lemons, 
 pomegranates, figs, bananas, &c., grow in pro- 
 fusion, water being found beneath the sand 
 which overlies a rich soil. The gardens are 
 skirted on the south by vineyards. 
 
 The ancient cemetery, on the N.W. side of the 
 town, was discovered in 1874+ by M. Clermont- 
 Ganneau, and numerous Greek inscriptions with 
 Jewish emblems have been found in it (PEF. 
 Mem. ii. 254-258, 275-278; Ganneau, Mission 
 en Pal, et en Phénicie). [E. 5. Ff] [W.] 
 
 JOPPA, SEA OF (Ezra iii. 7). R. V. 
 translates “to the sea, unto Joppa.” ([JOPPA.] 
 
 JOP'PE (Ἰόππη; Joppe), 1 Esd. v. 55; 
 1 Macc. x. 75, 76, xi. 6, xii. 33, xiii. 11, xiv. 
 5, 84, xv. 28,353 2 Macc. iv. 21, χὰ Σ᾽ 
 (JOPPA. | 
 
 JO'RAH (11); "Iwpd; Jora), the ancestor 
 of a family of 112 who returned from Babylon 
 with Ezra (Ezra ii, 18). In Neh. vii. 24 he 
 appears under the name HARIPH, or more 
 correctly the same family are represented as 
 the Bene-Hariph, the variation of name originat- 
 ing probably in a very slight confusion of the 
 letters which compose it. In Ezra two of De 
 Rossi’s MSS., and originally one of Kennicott’s, 
 had ΠῚ", i.e. Jodah, which is the reading of 
 the Syr. and Arab. Versions. One of Kennicott’s 
 MSS. had the original reading in Ezra altered 
 to D1), ἡ.5. Joram; and two in Neh. read 099, 
 i.e. Harim, which corresponds with ’Apelu of the 
 A. MS., and Hurom of the Syriac. In any case 
 the change or confusion of letters which might 
 
JORAI 
 
 have caused the variation of the name is so 
 slight, that it is difficult to pronounce which is 
 the true form, the corruption of Jorah into 
 Hariph being as easily conceivable as the reverse. 
 Burrington (Geneal. ii. 75) decides in favour 
 of the latter, but from a comparison of both 
 passages with Ezra x, 31 we should be inclined 
 to regard Harim (O77) as the true reading in 
 all cases. But on any supposition it is difficult 
 to account for the form Azephurith, or more 
 properly ᾿Αρσιφουρίθ, in 1 Esd. v. 16, which 
 Burrington considers as having originated in a 
 corruption of the two readings in Ezra and 
 Nehemiah, the second syllable arising from an 
 error of the transcriber in mistaking the uncial 
 E for 3. [W. A. W.] 
 
 JO'RAI ΟἿ" = ΠΡ") = Jehovah teaches 
 [MYV."']; B. Ἰωρεέ, A. *Iwpés; Jorui). One of 
 the Gadites dwelling in Gilead in Bashan, whose 
 genealogies were recorded in the reign of Jotham 
 king of Judah (1 Ch. ν. 13). Four of Kenni- 
 cott’s MSS., and the printed copy used by Luther, 
 read 1)’, 1.6. Jodai, 
 
 JO'RAM (on, and 2)’, apparently indis- 
 criminately ; Ἰωράμ; Joram). 1. Son of Ahab; 
 king of Israel (2 K. viii. 16, 25, 28, 29; ix. 14, 
 17, 21-23, 29). [JeEHORAM, 1.] 
 
 2. Son of Jehoshaphat; king of Judah (2 K. 
 viii. 21, 23, 24; 1 Ch. iii. 11; 2 Ch. xxii. 5, 7; 
 Matt. i. 8). [Jenoram, 2.] 
 
 3. A priest in the reign of Jehoshaphat, one 
 of those employed by him to teach the Law of 
 Moses through the cities of Judah (2 Ch. xvii. 8). 
 
 4, (07".) A Levite, ancestor of Shelomith 
 
 in the time of David (1 Ch. xxvi. 25). 
 
 5. (BA. *leddoupay, as if reading Hadoram with 
 1 Ch. xviii. 10.) Son of Toi, king of Hamath, 
 sent by his father to congratulate David on his 
 victories over Hadadezer (2 Sam. viii. 10). 
 [Hapora. ] 
 
 6. 1 Esd.i. 9. (Jozasap, 3.] (A. C. H.] 
 
 JOR'DAN (j77', ie. Yarden, always with 
 the definite article, [Ὁ = the Descender, ex- 
 cept Ps. xlii. 6 and Job xl. 23, from 1, Farad, 
 “to descend;” *lopddvns; Jordanis), ᾿Ιόρδανος 
 (Pausan. v. 7, § 3); in the earlier Arab 
 chronicles it is always given the name οἰ- 
 Urdunn ;* after the time of the Crusades it 
 began to be called esh-Sheriah, “the watering 
 place,” with the addition sometimes of el-Kebir, 
 “the great,” the name by which it is known 
 to the Bedawin of the present day. It is never 
 called “the river,” or “the brook,” or any other 
 name than its own, “the Jordan,” in the Bible ; 
 and Josephus only once, in describing the borders 
 of Issachar (Ant. v. 1, ὃ 22), calls it τὸν 
 ποταμόν, without any distinctive name. Jerome 
 (O82 p. 114, 26, 8. υ. Dan) derives the name from 
 Jor, which he states is equivalent to ῥεῖθρον, 
 fluvius, and Dan, the city, where one of its 
 principal sources was situated; and he says 
 (Comm. in Matt. xvi. 13), “ Jordanes oritur ad 
 radices Libani; et habet duos fontes, unum 
 nomine Jor, et alterum Dan; qui simul mixti 
 Jordanis nomen efficiunt.”” This etymology was 
 
 a El-Urdunn gave its name to the military district of 
 the Jordan. 
 
 JORDAN 1783 
 
 adopted by the earlier commentators and_pil- 
 grims (Corn. & Lap. in Deut. xxxiii. 22; Ant. 
 Mart. vii.; Arculfus, ii. 17; Wm. of Tyre, xiii, 
 18; John of Wiirzburg, xx., &c.), and is current 
 amongst the native Christians of to-day, The 
 Hebrew 11), Yarden, has however no relation 
 whatever to the name Dan, and the river was 
 called Jordan in the days of Abraham, at least 
 five centuries before the name Dan was given to 
 the city at its source. 
 
 The Jordan is not only the most important 
 river in Palestine, but one of the most remark- 
 able rivers of the world. It flows from N. to 
 S. in a deep trough, parallel to the western 
 shore of the Mediterranean, and, for more than 
 two-thirds of its course, lies below the level of 
 the sea in the deepest depression on the globe. 
 Its name is used in the Book of Job (xl. 23) as 
 the synonym of a perennial stream. But in 
 contrast to the rivers of other countries, “ the 
 Jordan, from its leaving the Sea of Galilee to its 
 end, adds hardly a single element of civilisation to 
 the long tract through which it rushes” (S. § P. 
 p- 286). It has never been navigable; it has never 
 boasted of a single town of eminence upon its 
 banks; and it flows into a sea that has never 
 known a port—has never been a highway to more 
 hospitable coasts—has never possessed a fishery. 
 Its fall from the great fountain at Zell el-Kddy, 
 Dan, to the Dead Sea, a distance of 104 miles, 
 is 1797 feet, and from this rapid descent it 
 probably derived its name, “the Descender.” It 
 is, and must always have been, “the great 
 watering-place ” of the nomad tribes, but it is 
 the river of a desert. Excepting a few oases, 
 produced by its tributary streams, and the 
 rank mass of vegetation within the narrow 
 range of its own bed (the “ pride” of Jordan, 
 Zech. ΖΦ], 3; Jer.” xii. 5, xlix. 19, 1. 44), the 
 valley through which it finds its way, in innu- 
 merable windings, is a naked desert in which, 
 for ten months of the year, every particle of 
 verdure is withered up by the intense heat. 
 Dean Stanley well observes that, “as a separa- 
 tion of Israel from the surrounding country, as 
 a boundary between the two main divisions of 
 the tribes, as an image of water in a dry and 
 thirsty soil, it played an important part; but 
 not as the scene of great events, or the seat of 
 great cities” (S. δ᾽ P., p. 287). 
 
 The earliest allusion to the Jordan in the 
 Bible is not so much to the river itself as to 
 the “plain,” or “circle,” ciccar, at the north 
 end of the Dead Sea, through which it ran, and 
 in which “the cities of the ciccar” stood before 
 their destruction. ‘Lot lifted up his eyes, and 
 beheld all the plain (ciccar) of Jordan, that it 
 was well watered everywhere... even as the 
 garden of the Lord, like the land of Egypt. 
 . . . Then Lot chose him all the plain of Jordan ; 
 and Lot journeyed east” (Gen. xiii. 10, 11); 
 that is, from the spot, between Bethel and Ai, 
 where he and Abram were then sojourning 
 (v. 3). Abram had just left Egypt (v. 1), and 
 therefore the comparison between the fertilising 
 properties of the Jordan and the Nile is very 
 apposite. How far the plain extended in length 
 
 bIn Jer. the Hebrew word *“Gaon” is wrongly 
 translated “swelling” in A. V.; in R. V. correctly 
 “* pride.” 
 
1784 JORDAN - JORDAN 
 
 | 
 
 or breadth is not said, but the same oasis is | means the floor of the Jordan valley,° and it 
 evidently referred to in Gen. xiii. 12, xix. 17, | has the same meaning in 1 K, vii. 46, 2 Ch. iy. 
 25, 28, 29; and Deut. xxxiv. 3, “the plain of | 17, where the clay ground between Succoth and 
 the valley of Jericho. . . unto Zoar.” In2Sam.| Zarthan, in which Solomon established his 
 xviii. 23 the word ciccar, “plain,” apparently | brass foundries, is said to have been in the 
 
 Banks of the Jordan near Jericho, 
 
 “plain” of Jordan.t Other words used in Jordan (Josh. xxii. 10, 11; cp. Ezek. xlvii. 8); 
 reference to parts of the Jordan valley are: | bik‘ah, “the plain” of the valley of Jericho 
 geliloth, the “borders of,” or “region about,” | (Deut. xxxiv. 3); sh’demoth, “the fields” of 
 
 © Ewald (Gesch. iii. 237) explains the word here as ἃ Jn Neh. iii. 22, xii, 28, the reference does not appear 
 meaning a manner of quick running. to be to the “ plain” of Jordan. 
 
JORDAN 
 
 Gomorrah (Deut. xxxii. 32); arboth, ‘the 
 plains ” of Moab (Num. xxii. 1, xxvi. 3, 63, xxxi. 
 ) 12, xxxili. 48-50, xxxv. 1, xxxvi. 13; Deut. 
 xxxiv. 1,8; Josh. xiii. 32), and of Jericho (Josh. 
 iv. 15, v. 10: 2K. xxv. 55, Jer. xxxix. 5, lii. 8). 
 The expression “all the region round about 
 Jordan ” (Matt. iii. 5; Luke iii. 3) appears to 
 include the wilderness of Judaea (cp. Matt. 
 iii. 1), That portion of the Jordan valley which 
 lies between the Sea of Gennesareth and the 
 Dead Sea is always called in the O. T. ha- 
 Arabah, “the desert,” A.V. “the plain.” 
 [ARABAHL.] 
 
 The Jordan, when not in flood, can be forded 
 at more than fifty places between the Sea of 
 Galilee and the Dead Sea. In flood-time it is im- 
 passable, and at other times, excepting where it 
 is fordable, it is, and always must have been, an 
 obstacle to the passage of large bodies of men 
 (1 Mace. ix. 34-48). The main lines of commu- 
 nication between Eastern and Western Palestine 
 naturally crossed by the easiest fords, and the 
 seizure of these by friend or foe, during the pro- 
 gress of hostilities, was considered of great im- 
 portance. There were fords over against Jericho, 
 to which point the men of Jericho pursued the 
 spies (Josh. ii.7); the same probably as those “ to- 
 ward Moab,”® which the Israelites seized after 
 the assassination of Eglon, and at which they 
 slaughtered the Moabites (Judg. iii. 28). These 
 fords are apparently those now known as the 
 Mukhddet Ghérdniyeh, immediately opposite 
 Tell es-Sultdn, Jericho, and perhaps also the 
 M. Hajlah, where pilgrims bathe in Jordan. 
 Higher up the river, either at the WZ. ed-Démich 
 or the M. ez-Zakkimeh, were the fords, A. V. 
 “passages,” of Jordan (Judg. xii. 5, 6), at 
 which the Ephraimites, who could not pronounce 
 the word Shibboleth, were slaughtered by 
 Jephthah and the men of Gilead. Higher up 
 again were the “waters unto Beth-barah and 
 Jordan” (R. V. “as far as Beth-barah, even 
 Jordan”), which the Ephraimites seized before 
 the flying Midianites, and where they seem to 
 have captured Oreb and Zeeb (Judg. vii, 24, 25). 
 As the Midianites fled by Abel-meholah, ‘Ain 
 el-Helceh, these “ waters ” must have been at the 
 S. end of the plain of Bethshean, and they are 
 possibly the streams running to the river below 
 M. esh-Sheradr. (BETH-BARAH.]| Higher still 
 were the fords by which the roads approaching 
 the plain of Bethshean, from the east, crossed the 
 river. It was by one of these that Judas and 
 his followers, having crossed by one of the 
 southern fords (1 Macc. ν. 24), passed over 
 Jordan, when they were retracing their steps 
 from the land of Galaad to Jerusalem (1 Mace. 
 v. 52; Joseph. Ant. xii. 8, ὃ 5); and one of them, 
 M. *Abdrah, is supposed by Major Conder to be 
 Bethabara (PEF. Mem. ii. 89). The questions 
 connected with the position of Bethabara are 
 discussed elsewhere [BETH-aBARA]; it need only 
 be observed here that if identical with Beth- 
 barah it must have been near the Κὶ, and not the 
 N. end of the plain of Bethshean. Nearer to 
 the Sea of Galilee were other fords, of which the 
 most frequented was that on the road from 
 Accho to the cities of Decapolis. 
 
 9. R. V. translates “took the fords of Jordan against 
 the Moabites.” 
 
 JORDAN 1785 
 
 The first passage of the Jordan, recorded in 
 the O. T., is that of Jacob: “ With my staff I 
 passed over this Jordan, and now I am become 
 two bands” (Gen, xxxii. 10), There is no in- 
 dication.of position, but the Patriarch perhaps 
 crossed by the same ford, M. ed-Ddmieh, by 
 which he seems to have entered the land of 
 Canaan after his parting with Esau (Gen. xxxiii. 
 16-18). David, in his campaign against the 
 Syrians (2 Sam. x. 17), crossed by one of the 
 northern fords; but subsequently, when a 
 fugitive himself, on his way to Mahanaim (xvii. 
 22), he probably gained the eastern bank by 
 the M. Ghérdniyeh. Here, “at the fords (A. V. 
 plain) of the wilderness” (xv. 28, xvii. 16), 
 David tarried until he received Zadok’s message 
 from Jerusalem; and hither Judah came to 
 reconduct him home (xix. 15). On this last 
 occasion he passed at or on the “‘ Abara ” (v. 18), 
 which the LXX. translates διάβασις (as if it were 
 a moving raft), Josephus (Ant. vii. 11, § 2) 
 γέφυρα (as if it were a bridge), A. V. and R. V. 
 ‘““a ferry boat;” and on reaching the western 
 bank he was met by Shimei (1 K. ii. 8). Some- 
 where in these parts Elijah must have smitten 
 the waters with his mantle, “so that they 
 divided hither and thither ” (2 K. ii. 8), for he 
 had just left Jericho (v. 4), and by the same 
 route that he went did Elisha probably return 
 (v. 14). Naaman, on the other hand, may be 
 supposed to have performed his ablutions (vy. 14) 
 at one of the upper fords, for Elisha was then 
 in Samaria (v. 3), and it was by these fords, 
 doubtless, that the Syrians fled when miracu- 
 lously discomfited through his instrumentality 
 (vii. 15). 
 
 One of the earliest facts mentioned in con- 
 nexion with the Jordan is its periodical over- 
 flow during the season of barley harvest. In 
 the language of the author of the Book of Joshua 
 (ii. 15), “ Jordan overflowed all his banks all 
 the time of harvest:” a “swelling” which, 
 according to the 1st Book of Chronicles (xii. 15), 
 commenced “in the first month” (i.e. about the 
 latter end of our March), drove the lion from 
 his lair in the days of Jeremiah (xii. 5, xlix. 19, 
 1, 44), and had become a proverb for abundance 
 in the days of Jesus the son of Sirach (Ecclus. 
 xxiv. 26). The context of the first of these 
 passages may suffice to determine the extent of 
 this exuberance. The meaning is clearly that 
 the channel or bed of the river became brimfull, 
 so that the level of the water and of the banks 
 was then the same. The ancient rise of the 
 river has been greatly exaggerated, so much so 
 as to have been compared to that of the Nile 
 (Reland, Palest. xl. 111). Evidently, too, there 
 is nothing extraordinary in this occurrence. All 
 rivers that are fed by melting snows are fuller 
 between March and September than between 
 September and March; but the exact time of 
 their increase varies with the time when the 
 snows melt. The Po and Adige are equally full 
 during their harvest-time with the Jordan; but 
 the snows on Lebanon melt earlier than on the 
 Alps, and harvest begins later in Italy than in the 
 Holy Land. Possibly “the basins of Hileh and 
 Tiberias” may so far act as “regulators ” upon 
 the Jordan as to delay its swelling till they 
 have been replenished. On the other hand, 
 the snows on Lebanon are certainly melting 
 fast in April. 
 
1786 JORDAN 
 
 The last feature which remains to be noticed in the Scriptural account of the Jordan is its 
 frequent mention as a boundary (Gen. 1. 10; Num. xiii. 
 29, xxxii. 5; Deut. ii. 29, iv. 21; Josh. iii. 1-17, iv. 1-23, 
 xiii. 27; 1 Sam. xiii. 7; 2 Sam. ii. 29; Is. ix. 1; Judith 
 1.9; Matt. iv. 15, 25, xix. 1; Mark iii.’ 8, sx! 1); στ 
 28, iii. 26, x. 40): “over Jordan,” “this ” and “the other 
 side,” or “beyond Jordan,” were expressions as familiar 
 to the Israelites as “ across the water,” “this” and “the 
 other side of the Channel,” are to English ears. In one 
 sense indeed—that is, in so far as it was the eastern boun- 
 dary of the land of Canaan—it was the eastern boundary 
 of the Promised Land (Num. xxxiv. 123 cp. xiii. 29). In 
 reality, it was the long serpentine vine, trailing over the 
 
 ground from N. to S8., round which the whole family of the 
 
 twelve tribes were clustered. Four-fifths of their number 
 
 fifth, or two tribes and a half, on the E. of it, with the 
 Levites in their cities equally distributed amongst both, and it 
 was theirs from its then reputed fountain-head to its exit 
 into the Dead Sea. Those who lived on the E. of it had been 
 allowed to do so on condition of assisting their brethren in 
 their conquests on the W. (Num. xxxii. 20-33); and those 
 who lived on the W. “went out as one man” when their 
 countrymen on the E. were threatened (1 Sam. xi. 6-11). 
 The great altar built by the children of Reuben, of Gad, and 
 the half-tribe of Manasseh, on the banks of the Jordan, was 
 designed as a witness of this intercommunion and mutual 
 interest (Josh. xxii. 10-29). In fact, unequal as the two 
 sections were, they were nevertheless regarded as integral 
 parts of the whole land; and thus there were three cities of 
 refuge for the manslayer appointed on the E. of the Jordan ; 
 and there were three cities, and no more, on the W.—in 
 both cases moreover equidistant one from the other (Num. 
 xxxv. 9-15; Josh. xx. 7-9; Lewis, Heb. Republ. ii. 13). 
 When these territorial divisions had been broken up in the 
 captivities of Israel and Judah, some of the “coasts beyond 
 Jordan” seem to have been retained under Judaea (Matt. 
 xix. 1). [JUDAEA.] 
 
 The contact of the Jordan with the history of the people 
 “is exceptional, not ordinary, confined to rare and remote 
 occasions, the more remarkable from their very rarity” (8. 
 and P, p. 287). The earliest instance is that in which Abram 
 and Lot looked down, from the heights between Bethel and 
 Ai, upon the deeply-sunk valley beneath them, and Lot chose 
 for himself the fertile “circle” of Jordan (Gen. xiii. 10, 11) 
 where the Canaanites had established their earliest settle- 
 ments on the east of Palestine (x. 19). It was apparently 
 in the same rich district, in ‘‘the vale of Siddim,” that the 
 five allied kings were defeated by Chedorlaomer, king of Elam 
 (xiv. 8-12); and it was at the Sidonian Laish, afterwards the 
 Israelite Dan, by one of the sources of Jordan, that ‘Abram 
 the Hebrew ” defeated the invaders and rescued his nephew 
 Lot (vv. 14-16). A few years later the catastrophe occurred 
 which overwhelmed the five cities of the “ circle” [GOMORRHA] 
 and destroyed one of the most flourishing oases of the Jordan 
 valley (xix. 1-29). 
 
 The most important events in sacred history connected 
 with the Jordan are the passage of the children of Israel and 
 the Baptism of Christ. The Israelites, on descending from the 
 eastern plateau, encamped, in the first place, “in the plains 
 of Moab, by Jordan,” from Beth-Jesimoth, ‘Ain Suweimeh, to 
 Abel-Shittim, Keferein (Num. xxxiii. 48, 49); and it was 
 only three days before the passage that they moved down 
 from the upper terraces of the valley to the banks of the 
 river (Josh. iii. 1, 2). They probably crossed the river in 
 several columns at or near the ford Ghérdniyeh, opposite 
 Jericho, but the exact spot is unknown. The passage took 
 place at the time of barley harvest, corresponding to our 
 
 δ᾽ April or May, when Jordan is in a state of flood, “ overflowing 
 
 γ esimoth Vt Nebo? # all his banks”; and the operation must have been one of 
 
 i —~paeesns} Var ἢ great magnitude, for—of the children of Reuben and of Gad, 
 Map of Jordan. and half the tribe of Manasseh only—* about forty thousand 
 
 ——- 
 
 —nine tribes and a half—dwelt on the W. of it, and one- ἡ 
 
JORDAN 
 
 prepared for war passed over before the Lord unto 
 battle ” (Josh. iv. 12, 13). The ceremonial of the 
 crossing is too well known to need recapitulation. 
 It may be observed, however, that, unlike the 
 passage of the Red Sea, where the intermediate 
 agency of a strong east wind is freely admitted 
 (Ex. xiv. 21), it is here said, in terms equally 
 explicit, that as soon as “ the feet of the priests 
 that bare the ark were dipped in the brink of 
 the water,...the waters which came down 
 from above stood, and rose up in one heap, a 
 great way off, at (or from) Adam....and 
 those which went down toward the Sea of the 
 Arabah, even the Salt Sea, were wholly cut off” 
 (Josh. iii. 15, 16, R. V.; cp. Ps. cxiv. 5). As a 
 memorial of the passage twelve stones were set 
 up in the midst of Jordan, and twelve at GILGAL, 
 where the Israelites encamped after they ‘“ came 
 up out of” the deep channel of the river. In 
 A.D. 1257, whilst the bridge, Jisr Ddmieh, was 
 being repaired, a somewhat similar stoppage 
 of the waters of the Jordan is said to have 
 occurred. Upon this occasion, a landslip, in the 
 narrow part of the valley, some miles above 
 Jisr Ddmieh (Adam), dammed up the Jordan 
 for several hours, and the bed of the river 
 below was left dry by the running off of the 
 water to the Dead Sea.‘ 
 
 The place of our Lord’s Baptism is uncertain. 
 John, who was a native of a city in the hill- 
 country of Judah (Luke i. 39), commenced 
 preaching in the wilderness of Judaea (Matt. iii. 
 1; Mark i. 3; Luke iii. 2), and in “all the 
 region round about Jordan ” (Luke iii. 8). His 
 preaching drew persons from Galilee, as far off 
 as Nazareth (Mark i. 9) and Bethsaida (John i. 
 35, 40, 44), as well as from Jerusalem, Judaea, 
 and “all the region round Jordan”’ (Matt. iii. 5 ; 
 Mark i. 5); and the preaching was followed by 
 baptism. These baptisms were apparently 
 administered at more places than one. There 
 was the place beyond Jordan, within easy reach 
 of Bethany, “where John was at the first 
 baptizing ” (John x. 40), possibly the same as 
 the place “in the wilderness ” (Mark i. 4), and 
 as “Bethabara (or Bethany) beyond Jordan,” 
 where the Baptist, having previously baptized 
 our Lord—whether there or elsewhere—bears 
 record to the descent of the Holy Ghost upon 
 Him which ensued (John i. 28-34). There was 
 the place on the lower Jordan where all “ Jeru- 
 salem and Judaea” went out to be baptized of 
 John (Matt. iii. 6; Mark i. 5). There was 
 AENON, near to Salem, where John was baptizing 
 upon another occasion, “ because there was much 
 water there” (John iii. 23); and there was 
 some place “in the land of Judaea” where our 
 Lord, or rather His disciples, baptized about the 
 same time (v. 22). 
 
 Jesus came from Galilee to be baptized, and 
 His Baptism apparently followed that of the 
 multitude from Jerusalem and Judaea (Matt. iii. 
 6,13; Mark i. 5, 9), and was distinct from it 
 (Luke iii. 21). According to St. Matthew (iii. 13; 
 iv. 1), St. Mark (i. 9, 12), and St. Luke (iv. 1), He 
 was baptized in Jordan, and immediately after- 
 wards was “led up of the Spirit into the wilderness 
 
 f A notice of this historical stoppage of the Jordan 
 has been found, in the history of Sultan Bibars, by 
 M. Clermont-Ganneau, who has communicated the above 
 particulars to the writer. 
 
 JORDAN 1787 
 
 to be tempted of the devil”; John (i. 32-34) only 
 alludes to the Baptism as having already taken 
 place. The inference from the Bible narrative 
 is that Jesus was baptized at the same place as 
 the multitude, and that that spot was not far 
 removed from the wilderness of Judaea, and 
 within easy reach of Jerusalem and all Judaea. 
 This view is supported by tradition, which, from 
 the 4th century onwards, has consistently main- 
 tained that Jesus was baptized in Jordan at a 
 point nearly opposite the Roman Jericho. The 
 Bordeaux Pilgrim, a.D. 333, places it, on the 
 east bank of the river, 5 miles from the Dead 
 Sea, and connects it with the little hill whence 
 Llijah was caught up to heaven (/tin. /ieros.). 
 Jerome alludes to the same place (Per. S. Paulae, 
 xv.), and connects it with the spot where the 
 priests that bare the Ark stood firm on dry 
 ground in the midst of Jordan (Josh. iii. 17), and 
 where Elijah and Elisha passed over Jordan on 
 dry ground (2 K.ii. 3). See also Theodosius 
 (xvii., xviii), Antoninus (ix.—xii.), Arculfus 
 (ii. 14), Willibald (Hod. xvi.), &e. This tradi- 
 tion refers to a place near usr el-Yehid 
 (Monastery of St. John); and as it agrees gene- 
 rally with the indications of the narrative, there 
 seems little reason to doubt its accuracy.® 
 Bethabara was possibly the same place as Beru- 
 Niwmeau. But if it was a ford, it must have 
 been either M. Ghérdniyeh, where the Israelites 
 crossed, and where there appears to have been a 
 ferry in David’s time (Bethany, “the house of 
 a ship”), or at the S. end of the plain of 
 Bethshean. 
 
 II. The Bible contains no information respect- 
 ing the sources of the Jordan. What Josephus 
 and others say about the Jordan may be briefly 
 told. Panium, says Josephus (i.e. the sanctuary 
 of Pan), appears to be the source of the Jordan ; 
 but in reality it has a secret passage hither 
 under ground from Phiala, as it is called, about 
 120 stadia distant from Caesarea, on the road to 
 Trachonitis, and on the right-hand side of and 
 not far from the road. Being a wheel-shaped 
 pool, it is rightly called Phiala from its ro- 
 tundity (περιφερείας); yet the water always 
 remains there up to the brim, neither subsiding 
 nor overflowing. That this is the true source 
 of the Jordan was first discovered by Philip, 
 tetrarch of Trachonitis; fur by his orders chaff 
 was cast into the water at Phiala, and it was 
 taken up at Panium. Panium was always a 
 lovely spot ; but the embellishments of Agrippa, 
 which were sumptuous, added greatly to its 
 natural charms (from B, J. i. 21, § 3, and Ant. 
 xy. 10, § 3, it appears that the temple there 
 was due to Herod the Great). It is from this 
 cave at all events that the Jordan commences 
 its ostensible course above ground; traversing 
 the marshes and fens of Semechonitis (“the 
 waters of Merom,” Baheiret el-Hileh), and then, 
 after a course of 120 stadia, passing by the town 
 Julias and intersecting the lake of Genesareth, 
 winds its way through a considerable wilderness 
 (πολλὴν ἐρημίαν) till it finds its exit in the lake 
 Asphaltites(B. J.iii. 10, $7). Elsewhere Josephus 
 somewhat modifies his assertion respecting the 
 
 & Possibly the place of Baptism was a little higher 
 up the river, at the Ghérdniyeh ford, and in this case 
 the same spot witnessed the Baptism of Christ and 
 the passage of the Israelites. 
 
1788 
 
 nature of the great plain [JERICHO]; while on 
 the physical beauties of Genesareth, the palms 
 and figs, olives and grapes, that flourished round 
 it, and the fish for which its waters were far- 
 famed, he is still more eloquent (B. /. iii. 10, § 8). 
 In the first chapter of the next book (iv. 1, § 1) 
 he notices more fountains, at a place called 
 Daphne,® which supplied water to the little 
 Jordan, under the temple of the golden calf, and 
 ran into the great Jordan (ep. Ant. i. 10, § 1; 
 v. 3,§ 1; and viii. 8, ὃ 4). While Josephus 
 dilates upon its sources, Pausanias, who had 
 visited the Jordan, dilates upon its extraordinary 
 disappearance. He cannot get over its losing 
 itself in the Dead Sea; and compares it to the 
 submarine course of the Alpheus from Greece to 
 Sicily (lib. v. 7, 4, ed. Dindorf). Pliny goes so 
 far as to say that the Jordan instinctively shrinks 
 from entering that dread lake, by which it is 
 swallowed up. On the other hand, Pliny attri- 
 butes its rise to the fountain of Paneas, from 
 which he adds Caesarea was surnamed (ZH. J. 
 v.15). Lastly, Strabo speaks of the aromatic 
 yeeds and rushes, and even balsam, that grew 
 on the shores and marshes round Genesareth ; 
 but can he be believed when he asserts that the 
 Aradians and others were in the habit of sailing 
 up Jordan with cargo? (xvi. 2,16.) It will be 
 remembered that he wrote during the first days 
 of the empire, when there were boats in abun- 
 dance upon Genesareth (John vi. 22-24). 
 
 In the Middle Ages the Jordan was supposed 
 to have two sources, Jor and Dan, which issued 
 from the foot of Libanus, and united at the base 
 of the mountains of Gilboa. Jor was the river 
 running down the valley from Bdnids, and Dan 
 was identified with the Yarmuk, and supposed 
 to run underground to a place called Medan, 
 apparently e/-Mezcirib in the Haurdn (John of 
 Wiirzburg, xxv.; Theoderich, xlv.). The first 
 attempt to explore the Jordan, in modern times, 
 was made in 1835, by Mr. Costigan, who de- 
 scended the river in a boat from the Sea of 
 Galilee to the Dead Sea and died on his return 
 to Jerusalem. In 1846 Lieut. Molyneux, R.N., 
 made the descent, and wrote a short account of 
 his voyage, but died soon after rejoining his ship 
 (Journ. R. Geog. Soc, xviii. pp. 104-130, 1848) ; 
 in 1848 Lieut. Lynch, U.S.N., under the authority 
 of the United States Government, made a com- 
 plete survey of the river and the Dead Sea 
 (Narrative and Official Report) ; and in 1872-78 
 the course of the river from Bdnids to the Dead 
 Sea and the valley lying to the west of it were 
 surveyed by Lieuts, Conder and Kitchener, R.E., 
 for the Palestine Exploration Fund (PEF. 
 Memoirs), 
 
 IN. The Jordan flows from north to south in 
 the deep trough, or fissure, parallel to the 
 Mediterranean, which extends from the foot of 
 the Taurus mountains to the Red Sea, and 
 divides, as if by a fosse, the maritime highlands 
 from those further east. In the northern and 
 higher portion of the trough are the rivers 
 Orontes and Leontes; in the central and more 
 depressed is the Jordan, which pours its waters 
 into the Dead Sea, 1292 feet below the 
 Mediterranean, and lies for more than three- 
 
 JORDAN 
 
 h Probably Dan should be read here, as there are no 
 large springs at Difneh, the ancient Daphne, about 
 14 miles below Tell el-Kaédy, Dan. 
 
 JORDAN 
 
 fourths of its course, including lakes Hiileh and 
 Tiberias, below the level of the sea; and in the 
 southern are the W. el-’Arabah and W. el- 
 *Akabah, the Gulf of ?Akabah, and the Red Sea. 
 The entire fissure from the Sea of Galilee to the 
 Gulf of ’Akabah is called in the Bible “the 
 Arabah” (A. V. “the plain”); but at present 
 that portion only which lies S. of the Dead Sea 
 is called the ’Arabah, ‘The valley to the N., a 
 broad depressed plain, shut in between two 
 ranges of mountains,—the Aulon (Αὐλὼν) of the 
 Greeks,—is known amongst the Arabs by the 
 name of e/-Ghor. 
 
 The Jordan, after the junction of its head 
 streams, expands into the Baheiret el-Hiileh. 
 Then, “after rushing down a rocky chasm for ~ 
 several miles, it again spreads out into the 
 Lake of Tiberias.” From this lake, until it 
 enters the Dead Sea, the Jordan “ flows in its 
 own well-defined and still deeper valley, winding 
 through the plain of the Ghér. Along and 
 within this deeper valley (called by the Arabs 
 the Zér), the channel of the river winds exceed- 
 ingly, and is in most parts fringed by a narrow 
 tract of verdure on each side, made up of trees, 
 bushes, reeds, and luxuriant herbage” (Robin- 
 son, Phys. Geog. of the H. L. p. 131). 
 
 The theory that the Jordan at one time ran to 
 the Gulf of ’Akabah, and that the depression of 
 its valley and the interruption of its flow were 
 due to intense volcanic activity, has been 
 entirely disproved by recent investigation. The 
 deep depression is the direct result of a fault or 
 “fissure ” of the earth’s crust, accompanied by a 
 displacement of the strata, to the extent in some 
 cases of several thousand feet. “Iam disposed 
 to think,” Prof. Hull writes, ‘that the fracture 
 of the Jordan-Arabah valley and the elevation 
 of the table-land of Edom and Moab on the east 
 were all the outcome of simultaneous operations 
 and due to similar causes, namely, the tangential 
 pressure of the earth’s crust due to contraction, 
 —the contraction being in its turn due to the 
 secular cooling of the crust.” The fracture is 
 supposed to have taken place at the close of the 
 Eocene period. * As the land area was gradually 
 rising out of the sea, the table-lands of Judaea 
 and of Arabia’ were more and more elevated, 
 while the crast feli in along the western side of 
 the Jordan-Arabah fault; and this seems to 
 have been accompanied by much crumpling and 
 fissuring of the strata” (PEF. Mem., Geology, 
 p- 108 sq.). From the time of this great 
 fracture the basin of the Dead Sea must have 
 been a salt lake dependent on evaporation to 
 remove the waters poured into it by the Jordan 
 and other streams. The level of its waters 
 must, however, have varied greatly at different 
 times, for a succession of terraces of Dead Sea 
 deposits extends around the basin of the sea and 
 far up the Jordan valley (Dawson, Eyypt and 
 Syria, pp. 106, 107; see also Lartet, Geologie de 
 la Palestine, and Hull, /. c.). The waters of the 
 Dead Sea are supposed to have reached their 
 present level at the close of the Miocene or 
 commencement of the Pliocene period (Hull, 
 Geology, p. 112), so that there cannot have been 
 any material change in the course and character 
 of the Jordan during historic times. 
 
 The Upper Jordan is formed by the junction 
 of three perennial streams having their origin in 
 
 , three large springs, near Hésbeiya, at Tell el- 
 
ἡ 4 
 
 4 
 
 if 
 
 > 
 
 JORDAN 
 
 Kady, ani at Banids. The streams are fed by 
 numberless springs and rivulets that gush forth 
 from the slopes of Anti-Lebanon, but none of 
 these are of sufficient importance to be regarded 
 as permanent sources of the Jordan. The 
 stream from the spring near Hdsbeiya (1700 
 feet), which, though not mentioned by any 
 ancient writer, is the remotest source, runs 
 down through the ravine of W. et-Zeim, and is 
 known as the Nahr Hadsbdny. About 6 miles 
 below Hasbeiya, the Hdsbdny is joined by a fine 
 stream from ’Ain Seraiyib, a large fountain at 
 the foot of Hermon; and, after a rapid descent, 
 it enters the Hileh plain, running in a deep 
 channel that it has worn for itself in the basalt. 
 After receiving the waters of the Nahr Bareighit, 
 it joins the united streams from Bdnids and Tell 
 el-Kddy. The road from Damascus, through 
 Banids, to the west crosses the river by a bridge 
 below Ghujar. 
 
 At Tell el-Kddy, DAN, one of the largest 
 springs in Palestine, bursts forth from the 
 ground (altitude 505 feet); and its waters rush 
 off a full-grown river, the Nahr Leddén, to join 
 the stream from Bdnids and form the Jordan. 
 This is clearly the Daphne of Josephus (2. J. iv. 
 1, § 1), who also calls the spring Dan (Ant. i. 
 10, § 1), and the stream 6 μικρὸς Ἰορδάνης 
 (viii. 8, § 4). 
 
 The spring at Banids is the most picturesque 
 and celebrated of all the sources of Jordan 
 (CAESAREA Purtrppr]. It is a copious fountain 
 
 (altitude 1080 feet) springing out from the 
 
 earth, in numberless rills, at the foot of a mass 
 of loose stones and rubbish, in front of a cave 
 formerly dedicated to Pan—the place called 
 Panium by Josephus. The spring, apparently, 
 once issued from the cave, which is now dry; 
 but not at all in the manner described by 
 Josephus, who speaks of a yawning chasm in the 
 cave itself, and an unfathomable depth of still 
 water of which there is no trace at present (Ant. 
 xv. 10,§ 3; B. J. i. 21, § 3). The little lake 
 Phiala, which according to Josephus was the 
 true source of the fountain at Bdnids, is now 
 called Birket er-Raém. It lies at the bottom of 
 a cup-shaped basin, is supplied by the surface 
 drainage of a small area, and has no outlet. 
 The water is stagnant and impure, and, if it had 
 a subterranean outlet, would be exhausted in a 
 few hours. The topographical features also 
 forbid any connexion with the spring at Bdnids. 
 The stream from the spring is joined by another, 
 
 coming down W. Z’adreh, at the N.W. corner of |, 
 
 Banids, and the united waters flow off as the 
 Nahr Bdnids to the Hileh plain. In the first 
 four miles of its course the stream descends at 
 the rate of 200 feet a mile, and its volume is 
 nearly equal to that of the Nahr Ledddn, which 
 it joins about 43 miles below Zell el-Kady ; 
 half a mile lower down the river is joined by 
 the Nahr Hasbany. 
 
 The Hiileh plain through which the Jordan 
 runs is covered by a very intricate system of 
 streams, some running in their natural channels, 
 others in artificial aqueducts, used for irrigating 
 the very fertile but malarious plain. A short 
 distance below the junction of the Hdsbdny the 
 river enters a dense impenetrable mass of 
 papyrus, which extends for 6 miles and is from 
 14 to 2 miles wide. Below the papyrus marsh 
 are the “ Waters of Merom,” Baheiret el-Hileh 
 
 JORDAN 1789 
 
 (alt. 7 feet), bordered by the great plain of 
 Ard el-Kheit. On issuing from the lake, the 
 Jordan flows through a narrow cultivated plain, 
 but about 2 miles below its exit it commences a 
 rapid descent, of about 60 feet a mile, over a 
 rocky bed to the Sea of Galilee. The direct dis- 
 tance between the two lakes is 10 miles, and the 
 fall 689 feet. Not quite 2 miles below Lake 
 Hileh there is a bridge called Jisr Benat Y‘akib, 
 by which the great caravan route from’ Akka to 
 Damascus crosses the river. Below δέ- 7611 the 
 Jordan runs in a tortuous course through the 
 western half of the plain el-Batiha’, and at its 
 mouth there is a bar where it can be forded. 
 Its turbid waters can be traced running far out 
 into the lake, and this has, perhaps, given rise to 
 the fable that the Jordan passed through the 
 Sea of Galilee without mingling its waters. That 
 the waters of the river do not condescend tomingle 
 in any sense with those of the lake, is as true as 
 that the Rhone and the Lake of Geneva never 
 embrace. [GENNESARET, SEA OF.] The river 
 leaves the lake, a clear gently-flowing stream, 
 close to the site of Tarichaeae. 
 
 The two principal features of Jordan are its 
 descent and its sinuosity. From its fountain- 
 heads to the point where it is lost in the acrid 
 waters of the Dead Sea, it rushes down one con- 
 tinuous inclined plane, only broken by a series of 
 rapids or precipitous falls. Between the Sea 
 of Galilee and the Dead Sea, Lieut. Lynch passed 
 down 27 rapids which he calls threatening, be- 
 sides a great many more of lesser magnitude. 
 According to the most recent surveys the dis- 
 tance between the Sea of Galilee and the Dead 
 Sea, in a direct line, is 65 miles; the depression 
 of the former below the level of the Mediter- 
 ranean is 682 feet, and that of the latter 1292 
 feet. The difference of level between the two 
 lakes is thus 610 feet, and there is a fall of 9°3 
 feet per mile. The sinuosity of the Jordan is 
 not so remarkable in the upper part of its course, 
 but, in the space of 65 miles between the two 
 lakes, it “ traverses at least 200 miles” (Lynch, 
 Narr. p. 265). “It curved and twisted north, 
 south, east, and west, turning, in the short space 
 of half an hour, to every quarter of the com- 
 pass” (p. 211). During the whole passage of 
 83 days, the time which it took Lynch’s boats to 
 reach the Dead Sea from Gennesaret, only one 
 straight reach of any length, about midway 
 between them, is noticed. The rate of stream 
 seems to have varied with its relative width and 
 depth. The greatest width mentioned was 180 
 yards, the point where it enters the Dead Sea. 
 Here it was only 3 feet deep. On the 6th day 
 the width in one place was 80 yards, and the 
 depth only ,2 feet, while the current on the 
 whole varied from 2 to 8 knots. On the 5th 
 day the width was 70 yards, with a current 
 of 2 knots, or 30 yards witha current of 6 
 knots. 
 
 The principal tributaries of Jordan between 
 the Sea of Galilee and the Dead Sea are: (1) From 
 the East. The Sheri’at el-Mandhir, Yarmik, 
 or Hieromax, which enters the Jordan about 43 
 miles below the lake. There is no allusion to 
 this river in the Bible, but it is mentioned in 
 the Mishna (Para, viii. 9) and by Pliny (1. J. 
 y. 16). It is formed by the confluence of a large 
 number of streams which rise in Jebel Hauran 
 and the eastern plateau, and amongst these is 
 
1790 JORDAN 
 
 doubtless the “brook by Raphon” (1 Mace. v. 
 37, 39, 40, 42). About 25 miles before it reaches 
 the Jordan Valley the Yarmik receives the 
 waters of the celebrated hot springs of Amatha. 
 [Gapara.] The Nahr ez-Zerka, Jabbok, which 
 rises in the plateau Εἰ. of Gilead, and enters the 
 Jordan a short distance above Jisr Démich. 
 [ApaAm; JABBOK.] The Wady Nimrin and the 
 W. Hesbén. (2.) From the West. The Nuhr 
 el-Jaliid, which flows down the valley of Jezreel, 
 and, past Bethshean, to the Gidr. The beauti- 
 ful W. Féar‘ah, which rises on the eastern 
 slopes of Ebal and enters the Jordan 43 miles 
 below Jisr Ddamieh. The streams in W. Fusdil 
 and W. el-Kelt do not reach the Jordan in 
 summer. 
 
 The bridges over the Jordan mark the points 
 at which the Roman roads crossed the river. 
 Most, if not all of them, appear to have been 
 constructed during the Roman occupation, and 
 to have been afterwards rebuilt or repaired by 
 the Arabs. They are all on important lines of 
 communication, and not far from frequented 
 fords. The bridges of el-Ghujar and Benat 
 γαλῆν above the Sea of Galilee have already 
 been noticed. At Tarichaeae, where the river 
 leaves the lake, there are the ruins of a bridge, 
 and, a little lower down, there are the remains 
 of two others, one called Jisr es-Sidd, over which 
 passed the roads connecting Tiberias, and ’Akka 
 with Gadara and the Decapolis. The next bridge, 
 nearly 6 miles below the lake, is Jisr Mujami’a, 
 which is still passable. It marks the point at which 
 the great caravan-route from Nablus and Beisdn 
 to Damascus crosses the river—a route following 
 the line of one of the most important Roman roads 
 in Palestine. The only other bridge is the Jisr 
 Démieh, nearly opposite the mouth of W. Far‘ah, 
 which, from a change in the course of the river, 
 has been left dry on the east bank. At this 
 point the great road from Neapolis and the 
 West, to Gilea:l and Bashan, crossed the river; 
 and at the present day there is a road by the 
 ed-Damieh. ford, from Nablus to es-Salt and 
 J.’ Ajliin. 
 
 Much information respecting the fords of 
 Jordan was obtained during the survey of 
 Western Palestine. It would appear (PEF. 
 Mem, ii. 79, 225, 385; iii. 170) that there are 
 fifty fords in the 42 miles above Jisr Ddmich, 
 and only five in the 23 miles below. No less 
 than twenty-six of the fords are between W. el- 
 Jélid and W. el-Mdleh, which mark the north 
 and south limits of the plain of Bethshean; and 
 this serves to explain the ease with which the 
 nomads east of Jordan made their frequent in- 
 cursions into the valley of Jezreel and the plain 
 of Esdraelon. The principal fords and their 
 possible identification with those mentioned in 
 the Bible have already been noticed. At I. el- 
 Hajlah, opposite Roman Jericho, the annual 
 bathing of the Oriental pilgrims takes place, of 
 which Dean Stanley has given a lively description 
 (S. δ᾽ P. pp. 314-16). 
 
 The Jordan Valley varies considerably in 
 width. About 7 miles above Jisr Démich, its 
 narrowest point, it is only some 3 miles wide; 
 whilst its greatest breadth, 12 miles, is at 
 Jericho, The Zér, or depressed bed, in which 
 the river winds, is in most parts a quarter of a 
 mile wide, but above the Dead Sea it opens out 
 to nearly 2 miles. It lies between “ cliffs of soft 
 
 JORDAN 
 
 marl,” from 50 ft. to 100 ft. high,! and is 
 frequently flooded during the rainy season. The 
 plain of the Gidr falls pretty evenly towards 
 the river; it is much cut up by the torrents 
 that find their way across it from the mountains 
 on either side. 
 
 The sites of the cities situated in the Ghér 
 are discussed under their respective names, and 
 the physical features of the Jordan Valley will 
 be treated more at large under the general head 
 of Palestine. The climate on the shores of the 
 Sea of Galilee is sub-tropical, and the temperature 
 increases until the maximum is reached on the 
 shores of the Dead Sea. Here frost is unknown ; 
 in the depth of winter the thermometer ranges 
 from 60° to 80°, and a night temperature of 42° 
 is quite exceptional. Jn April the thermometer 
 often registers 105° in the shade ; andin summer 
 the heat is intense. In this tropical climate the 
 corn is ripe in March, and melons ripen in winter. 
 The natural products of the Jordan Valley, “a 
 tropical oasis sunk in the temperate zone, and 
 overhung by the Alpine Hermon,” are unique. 
 The course of the river, in this most unlike the 
 Nile, hardly fertilises anything beyond its im- 
 mediate banks. But, “from its extraordinary 
 depression, whatever vegetation there is, is 
 called into almost unnatural vigour by the life- 
 giving touch of its waters” (Tristram, Jat. 
 Hist. of the Bible, p.11). In the Hileh marshes 
 the papyrus reaches a height of 16 ft. and 
 flourishes luxuriantly, and on the borders of the 
 Hiieh lake large crops of wheat, barley, maize, 
 sesame, and rice are obtained. Corn-fields wave 
 on the plain of Gennesaret ; the palm and vine, 
 fig and pomegranate, are still to be seen here 
 and there; and here is also found the thorny 
 nubk (Zizyphus spina-Christi), a tropical tree, the 
 characteristic of the whole of the lower course 
 of the river. Below the Sea of Galilee indigo is 
 grown; pink oleanders, and ἃ rose-coloured 
 species of hollyhock in great profusion, wait 
 upon every approach to a rill or spring; and 
 tamarisks of peculiar species crowd the banks of 
 Jordan. As the Dead Sea is approached “the 
 zukkum or false balm of Gilead, the osher tree 
 of Nubia and Abyssinia, the henna or camphire, 
 the Salvadora persica, and many other products 
 of the torrid zone, abound” (p. 12). The jungle 
 of the Zdér is the same throughout, consisting 
 principally of tamarisks, acacia, willow, gigantic 
 thistles 10 to 15 ft. high, and reeds; whilst cane, 
 frequently impenetrable, is ever at the water’s 
 edge. ‘Here and there,” Lynch writes, “ were 
 spots of solemn beauty. . . . The willow branches 
 were spread upon the stream-like tresses, and 
 creeping mosses and clambering weeds, with a 
 multitude of white and silvery little flowers, 
 looked out from among them.... Many is- 
 lands, some fairy-like and covered with a 
 luxuriant vegetation, others mere sandbars and 
 sedimentary deposits, intercepted the course of 
 the river, but were beautiful features in the 
 general monotony of the shores. The regular 
 and almost unvaried scene of high banks of 
 alluvial deposit and sand-hills on the one hand, 
 
 i The stoppage of the waters of the Jordan in 1257 
 was apparently due to the sliding forward of these beds 
 of marl some miles above Jisr Démieh; and the running 
 off of the waters to the Mead Sea, when the Israclites 
 crossed, may have followed a similar landslip. 
 
JORIBAS 
 
 and the low swamp-like shore covered to the 
 water’s edge with the tamarisk, the willow, and 
 the thick, high cane, would have been fatiguing 
 without the frequent occurrence of sand-banks 
 and verdant islands ” (Narr. pp. 211-215). This 
 thick jungle was formerly a covert for wild 
 beasts, from which they were dislodged by the 
 periodical overflow of the river, and the lion 
 coming up from the “pride of Jordan” is a 
 familiar figure in the Prophet Jeremiah (xlix. 19 ; 
 1, 44). The lion, though mentioned by Phocas 
 (xxiii.) and by Felix Fabri (ii. p. 27, Eng. trans.), 
 has probably long been extinct. The leopard, 
 however, still exists, and it was apparently two 
 of these animals that Molyneux mistook for 
 tigers. The fishes of the Jordan and its feeders 
 do not differ from those of the Sea of Galilee. 
 They are chiefly barbel and bream, and in every 
 permanent stream abound in amazing numbers. 
 The Jordan itself is alive with fish to its very 
 exit. The flora and fauna of the Jordan Valley, 
 and the large infusion of Ethiopian types that 
 they present, have been described by Canon 
 Tristram (PEF. Vem. Flora and Fauna of*Pal.), 
 who considers that “the unique tropical out- 
 lier of the Dead Sea basin is analogous, both in 
 its origin and in the present isolation of its 
 various assemblages of life, to the boreal out- 
 liers of our mountain-tops, and our deep-sea 
 
 bottoms.” [W.] 
 JO'RIBAS (IdépiBos; Joribus) = Janis 
 (1 Esd. viii. 44; cp. Ezra viii. 16). 
 JO'RIBUS (Ἰώριβος; Joribus) = JARIB 
 
 (1 Esd. ix. 19; ep. Ezra x, 18). 
 
 JO’RIM (Ἰωρείμ), son of Matthat, in the 
 genealogy of Christ (Luke iii. 29), in the 13th 
 generation from David inclusive; about con- 
 temporary, therefore, with Ahaz. The form of 
 the name is anomalous, and should probably be 
 either Joram or Joiarim. ΑΕ Cai) 
 
 JOR’KOAM (QUP 7"; B. ᾿Ιακλὰν and Ἴεκ- 
 Adv; A. Ἰερκαάν ; Jercaam), either a descendant 
 of Caleb the son of Hezron, through Hebron, or, 
 as Jarchi says, the name of a place in the tribe 
 of Judah, of which Raham was prince (1 Ch. 
 ii. 44). It was probably in the neighbourhood 
 of Hebron. Jerome gives it in the form Jer- 
 chaam (Quaest. Hebr. in Paral.). 
 
 JO'SABAD. 1. (12; BN. ᾿ἸἸωαζαβάβ; 
 A. Ἰωζαβάδ ; Jezabad.) Properly Jozapan, the 
 Gederathite, one of the hardy warriors of Ben- 
 jamin who left Saul to follow the fortunes of 
 David during his residence among the Philistines 
 at Ziklag (1 Ch. xii. 4). 
 
 2. (B. Ἰωσαβεές, A. Ἰωσαβδός ; Josadus) = 
 Jozabad, son of Jeshua the Levite (1 Esd. viii. 
 63; cp. Ezra viii. 33, BA. Ἰωζαβάδ). 
 
 8. (B. Ζάβδος, Α. ᾽Ωζάβαδος ; Zabdias), one of 
 the sons of Bebai(1 Esd. ix. 29). [Zappat.] 
 
 JO’'SAPHAT (Clwcapdr; Josaphat) = Jeho- 
 shaphat king of Judah (Matt. i. 8). 
 
 JOSAPH'IAS (Iwoadlas; Josaphias) = Jo- 
 SIPHIAH (1 Esd. viii. 36; cp. Ezra viii. 10). 
 
 JO'SEDEC (Iwoedéx; Josedec, Josedech), 
 1 Esd. v. 5, 48, 56, vi. 2, ix. 19; Ecclus. xlix. 
 
 JOSEPH 1791 
 
 12 = JEHOZADAK or JOZADAK, the father of 
 Jeshua, whose name also appears as JOSEDECH 
 
 (Hag. i. 1). 
 
 JO'SEDECH (P71) = Jehovah is righteous ; 
 "Iwoedéx ; Josedec). JBHOZADAK the son of 
 Seraiah (Hag. i. 12, 14, ii. 2,45 Zech. vi. 11). 
 
 JOSEPH (7D); Ἰωσήφ ; Joseph). 1. Son of 
 Jacob and Rachel. The meaning of the name Jo- 
 seph, according to Gen. xxx. 23, 24, is connected 
 with his family history.* Joseph became the 
 favourite son of his father, being the youngest 
 of all the sons of Israel born in Mesopotamia, the 
 gift late in life from the wife whom Jacob loved 
 the best. ‘Son of his old age ” and “ favourite 
 son” were names given also to Benjamin after 
 the loss of Joseph. Joseph was not only “a child 
 of sorrow,” but he became finally the deliverer 
 and the pride of his whole family, and one of 
 the most important personages in the history 
 of Israel; because it was through him that the 
 Hebrews went down into Egypt, where it was 
 decreed that they should become “a great 
 nation.” 
 
 It is easy to grasp the deeper meaning under- 
 lying the story, which teaches plainly how God 
 leads those whom He has ordained to higher 
 spheres through trouble and humiliation, that 
 He may raise them so much the higher after- 
 wards. In Christian times Joseph has been 
 regarded as a type of our Saviour, or as one 
 whose character is in many respects related to 
 His, so that the one has been compared with the 
 other. Luther says, “ As it was with Joseph and 
 his brethren, so it was with Christ and the Jews.” 
 
 The history of Joseph in the Book of Genesis 
 was compiled from two different documents, 
 now indicated by Biblical scholars as J and E. 
 They are classified in the art. GENESIS, p. 1155. 
 
 The story (Gen. xxx. 22-24) of the birth 
 of Joseph, as well as that of his life and 
 death (Gen. xxxvii—l.), is known to everyone. 
 It became a favourite subject in Eastern 
 poetry. Allah himself (Koran, ch. 12) is said 
 to relate the history of Joseph to the prophet 
 Mohammed as the “‘ most beautiful of all stories.” 
 The story of Joseph and Potiphar’s wife (Zuleikha) 
 has particularly excited the imitation of Eastern 
 poets. The poem of Yusuf and Zuleikha is the 
 last song of the Persian epic poet Firdusi, and 
 the figure of Joseph is surrounded here with 
 so much mysterious splendour that many have 
 supposed that by Zuleikha’s love for the pure 
 youth Yusuf (Joseph), the poet wished to repre- 
 sent the longing of the soul for God. Though, 
 as a whole, the history of Joseph is easily un- 
 derstood, yet it may be interesting to show 
 how faithfully it represents the circumstances of 
 time and place in which it occurred. We shall 
 
 * A double etymology is suggested in this passage. 
 According to E (v. 23) the name is from ἢΌΝ, *asaph, 
 Te 
 
 “to take away” ; according to J (v. 24), it is from ἢ", 
 
 yasaph, “to add.” The name has been compared with 
 Manetho’s Osar-sif, as though Jo, Jeho-, i.e. Jehovah, 
 had been substituted for Osar, 7.e. Osiris. I-s-p-a-l 
 occurs in the Karnak lists, and has been supposed 
 
 equivalent to Joseph-el τ... It is the name of 
 
 an old Canaanite town taken by Tutmes ΠῚ. Cp. the 
 similar Josiph-iah, Ezra viii. 10.—[C. J. B.] 
 
1792 JOSEPH 
 
 establish this in detail, but we must first point 
 out at what period the entrance of Jacob’s family 
 into Egypt took place. Ex. xii. 40 gives 430 years 
 as the time of sojourn of the Hebrews in Egypt. 
 This compels us to place the Exodus in the reign 
 of Meneptah I., the son of Rameses II., at the 
 close of the 14th century B.c. If we then 
 reckon back 430 years, it brings us to the end of 
 the Hyksos government over Egypt ; that is, if 
 we may trust to the time given on the monu- 
 ments as to the length of the different reigns. 
 If, with Lepsius, we place the Exodus in 1314 
 B.C., the entrance of the Hebrews into Goshen 
 will be in 1744 B.c., which year belongs to the 
 close of the Hyksos government, and we reach 
 the same conclusion if we take the figures lately 
 arrived at by Malker’s astronomical calculations, 
 which place the reign of Thothmes III. from 
 March 20th, 1503, to Feb. 14th, 1449. 
 
 Dr. Brugsch (Zgypt under the Pharaohs, i. 
 302, 2nd ed., P. Smith) endeavours to make the 
 famine mentioned in the tomb of a dignitary 
 named Baba, at El Kab, coincide with the one 
 which Joseph so effectually opposed, and the 
 time of Baba’s life actually concurs with that 
 of the dominion of the later Hyksos kings over 
 Lower Egypt, while the native kings who had 
 been forced back into Upper Egypt were making 
 preparations to drive the Hyksos out of the 
 country. The coincidence is not impossible, yet 
 a similar “time of distress’ is also mentioned 
 at Beni Hasan in the tomb of Ameni, who lived 
 before the time of the Hyksos (12th dynasty), 
 and we know from the later history of the 
 country that inundations either too low or too 
 high have often occasioned want and distress in 
 Egypt. It is true that the famine mentioned in 
 the tomb of Baba lasted “many years,” and 
 such a long period of distress occurs only in the 
 history of Joseph and in this inscription; it is 
 therefore tempting to consider them identical, 
 but investigators must be careful not to speak 
 of that as certain, which is only possible or 
 probable. It is not certain which Hyksos king 
 was ruling in the Valley of the Nile at the 
 time of the famine mentioned in the tomb of 
 Baba. According to most chronographers, it was 
 Apophis (Josephus), Aphobis (Jul. Africanus), 
 Aphophis (Eusebius), and in hieroglyphics, 
 Apepa—the same under whom began the ex- 
 pulsion of the Hyksos, according to a fabulous 
 story contained in the Papyrus Sallier L, 
 which says that this Apophis was in alliance 
 with the native governor of Upper Egypt, 
 Rasekenen or Sekenen-Ra; and the dignitary 
 Baba, in whose tomb is the inscription mentioning 
 the famine of many years, lived in the time of a 
 Rasekenen, and, indeed, the third with the 
 additional name Ta’a. The Byzantine chrono- 
 grapher who is known under the name of 
 Syncellus (he held the office of Syncellus in his 
 monastery) calls the Pharaoh of Joseph Apophis, 
 while the Arab tradition, in which little or no 
 reliance can be placed, calls him an Amalekite 
 of the name of Raian Ibn el-Walid. We should 
 not have mentioned him at all if Naville, 
 under the auspices of the Egypt Exploration 
 Fund, had not found in his excavations at 
 Bubastis a block with the name of Apophis, and 
 near it the lower part of a black granite statue 
 with the name Ian-Ra, or Raian, in hieroglyphics, 
 Dr. Rieu and Mr. Cope Whitehouse, relying on the 
 
 JOSEPH 
 
 certainly very surprising discovery of this name,. 
 maintain that the Arab tradition was founded on. 
 a fact. The monument with the name of Raian is 
 now in the Ghizeh Museum. We must therefore 
 leave it uncertain whether Joseph came down into 
 Egypt in the reign of Apophis, or in that of the: 
 hitherto unknown Raian. 
 
 Let us now. inquire where the son of Jacob 
 met with Pharaoh. The answer seems to be at 
 Zoan (Tanis), at Bubastis, or at Memphis. The 
 first of these three towns [ZOAN] is situated 
 in the north-east of the Delta, and is very old,. 
 as is proved by Petrie’s excavations and the 
 words of the Bible (Num. xiii. 22), where it is. 
 said to have been built seven years later than 
 Hebron. Tanis was a residence of the Hyksos 
 kings, and here Mariette found the monuments 
 called the ‘¢ Hyksos sphinxes.” Like those placed 
 by the native Egyptian kings in avenues before 
 the temples, these sphinxes are formed of the 
 human head, symbolic of intelligence, and the 
 lion’s body, symbolic of strength. While, how- 
 ever, the sphinxes of other Pharaohs possess. 
 heads of true Egyptian cast, those of the Hyksos 
 sphinxes appear to be portraits of a foreign race. 
 The faces are wider and have higher cheek-bones ; 
 the noses, which in profile seem to be slightly 
 curved, are flatter, and the corners of the 
 mouth are turned a little downwards. The face 
 seems to disappear in a head-dress resembling a 
 mane; the expression of the features, taken as 
 a whole, is much rougher and more brutal than 
 that of the true Egyptian face, which meets 
 the eyes of the spectator with a quiet peaceful 
 dignity, and often with a smile. Even those 
 unfamiliar with Egyptian art can see at a glance 
 that wehave here striking likenesses of foreigners; 
 and the same is true of other monuments which 
 have been found belonging to the Hyksos period. 
 These have been found only in the Delta, and iso- 
 lated instances in the oasis of the Feyiim, which 
 stretches into the desert in a westerly direction 
 from Memphis. Most come from Tanis, though 
 latterly many have been found by Naville at 
 Bubastis, the Pibeseth of the Bible. Tanis 
 is the Zoan of the Bible, the Egyptian ?an 
 or ¢’a, called Tanis by the Greeks and Romans. 
 This splendid residence of the Hyksos and 
 of other dynasties of Egyptian kings, the 
 city called “great” by Strabo and Stephanus 
 of Byzantium, is now a fishing village, and 
 nothing remains of its early glory except frag- 
 ments of obelisks, statues and great temple 
 buildings, and the name, which has become 
 amongst the Arabs San, or San el-Hagr. Tanis 
 was in the fourteenth nome of Lower Egypt, 
 on the branch of the river called by the same 
 name, which in early times was wide enough 
 near its mouth for naval battles to be fought 
 on its waters, as seems to be proved by the 
 inscription in the tomb of the naval commander 
 Ahmes at El Kab. The plain now is only 
 intersected by a narrow little stream, called 
 by the Arabs the Muizz canal. Tanis, which 
 was formerly a harbour for ships, is now 
 separated from the sea by a large deposit of 
 land, and little is to be seen of the wonderful 
 fertility for which the neighbourhood was famous 
 in old times. The Hyksos kings as well as the 
 Pharaohs who preceded and followed them pro- 
 vided for the irrigation of the province of Zoan, 
 and the officers who were stationed at Tanis 
 
 —— 
 
 N 
 
JOSEPH 
 
 under the Pharaoh of the Exodus (19th dy- 
 nasty) speak in their letters of the life there 
 as “sweet,” and praise the neighbourhood for 
 its fertility and for the abundance of food it 
 roduced. Whether the fortified camp of the 
 
 yksos, called Avaris by the Greeks, was at 
 Tanis or at Pelusium, we cannot here determine. 
 Anyhow, Zoan (Tanis) was one of the residences 
 of the Hyksos kings, and may have been the 
 town which gave a friendly reception to Joseph. 
 The same may be said of bubastis and of Mem- 
 phis, for On (Heliopolis), which lay close to the 
 latter town, certainly belonged to the Hyksos; 
 and as a daughter of a priest of On was chosen 
 by Pharaoh to be Joseph’s wife, we can easily 
 imagine that he was residing at Memphis at the 
 time, close to the home of this daughter of the 
 priests, instead of at Tanis, which was divided 
 from On (Heliopolis) by a wide stretch of 
 country. Yetit is curious that the pyramids, so 
 characteristic of Memphis, are never once men- 
 tioned in the story of Joseph. 
 
 The Biblical history of Joseph gives us the 
 conditions of court and state life in Egypt. 
 It seems true that this was very much the 
 same under the Hyksos kings as under the 
 native Pharaohs. Joseph could only have 
 come into Egypt during the /atter part of the 
 rule of the foreigners, after they had lived 
 some centuries in the country and conformed to 
 the Egyptian life in every respect. Τὸ which 
 nation the intruders belonged is discussed under 
 Eeyrt, p. 885, where it is shown that they 
 probably came from Mesopotamia. At first their 
 rule in Egypt must have been very severe, though 
 they may not have been guilty of the devastations 
 with which the hatred of the Egyptians charged 
 them in later times; for in many towns where 
 they ruled, we find that the monuments of their 
 predecessors have been spared,—a considerable 
 number from Tanis, Bubastis, Memphis, Helio- 
 polis, &c., having come down to us. Later the 
 conquerors assimilated themselves so entirely 
 with the conquered Egyptians that they erected 
 monuments of pure Egyptian style, and allowed 
 the priestly scholars to go on with their studies. 
 The handbook of Egyptian mathematics called 
 the Rhind Papyrus (British Museum) was written 
 under a Hyksos king, and the monuments prove 
 that Egyptian civilisation was very little influ- 
 enced by the Hyksos; for those erected shortly 
 before theirtime (12th—13th dynasties) correspond 
 in every way with those erected soon after their 
 expulsion in the beginning of the 18th dynasty, 
 the pure Hyksos being the 15th and 16th 
 dynasties. The Hyksos also used the hiero- 
 glyphic writing without alteration; and as they 
 retained everything in the higner intellectual 
 spheres, it is probable that they did the same 
 in the iower domains of material life. There 
 were native kings in Upper Egypt at the same 
 time, and it would have been strange if their 
 courts and household arrangements had been 
 essentially different in arrangement. The 
 foreigners were obliged to allow the native 
 officials free scope and to learn much from 
 them, specially with regard to the irrigation of 
 the Nile, without which the fertile valley would 
 have become a wilderness. Joseph therefore 
 found everything arranged in the Egyptian 
 manner at the court of the Hyksos king, whose 
 fayour he had won. 
 
 BIBLE DICT,—VOL. I. 
 
 JOSEPH 1798 
 
 We now pass to the details which need explana- 
 tion in the history of Joseph. In Gen. xxxvii. we 
 have, as some think, two stories woven together, 
 relating how Jacob preferred Joseph above his 
 brothers, and so excited the envy of the latter.” 
 Ch. xxxvii. 5, &c., shows how their dislike changed 
 to hatred on account of Joseph’s dreams, and 
 how, after their father had sent the “ dreamer” 
 after them, they resolved to murder him, but 
 on Reuben’s advice (xxxvii. 22) they only took 
 the coloured coat off him, and threw him into a 
 pit. This coat was, according to Josephus (Ant. 
 vii. 8, § 1), one with sleeves worn only by 
 distinguished and elderly persons. We can see 
 what is here meant by a picture with the colours 
 well preserved in Khnum-hotep’s tomb at Beni 
 Hasan, of the 12th dynasty (before the Hyksos’ 
 time); it represents the coming of thirty-seven 
 Amu (Shemites) into Egypt. The less important 
 people in this procession wear only white sleeve- 
 less coats, like shirts, which reach just over the 
 knee ; or when the upper part of the body is bare, 
 a coloured apron like a short petticoat, fastened 
 above the hips and only covering the thighs. 
 The dress of Joseph’s brothers was probably of 
 this kind. The chief in this picture, the earliest 
 representation of a Semitic family, walks in front 
 of his own people ; he is called Absoha (or Abousa) 
 and wears a coat made of brightly-coloured stuff 
 (blue, white, and red) which entirely covers the 
 upper part of his body, and reaches to his knees. 
 The right arm is bare, but the left is covered by a 
 wide sleeve as far as the elbow. Joseph’s coloured 
 coat probably resembled the dress of this chief.° 
 The pit into which the brothers threw Joseph was 
 situated near Dothain or Dothan (double well). 
 The position of this place is described under Do- 
 THAN. It must have been peculiarly interesting 
 for Dr. E. D. Clarke (Zravels, ed. 1812, Pt. ii. 
 § 1, p. 509) just at this spot to meet a caravan 
 of Ishmaelitish spice merchants, who would 
 willingly have bought another Joseph and carried 
 him with them into Egypt (Gen. xxxvii. 28). 
 These Ishmaelites are here more specifically 
 Midianites.4 That they were in alliance with 
 
 bFrom Jacob’s expression “ thy mother ” (xxxvii. 10) 
 it might*be inferred that Rachel was living (and therefore 
 Benjamin unborn) about the time that Joseph was sold. 
 If she was dead, as the continuity of the narrative 
 would suggest (xxxv. 19), ‘‘ mother” would be used in 
 a laxer sense, meaning mother of the house, Jacob’s 
 wife Leah, and this may be the best way of under- 
 standing the passage (cp. Speaker’s Comm. on xxxvii. 
 10).—EpirTors. 
 
 eAnother opinion given by Dr. Poole in the first 
 edition is that this coat was along tunic with sleeves 
 worn by youths and maidens of the richer class. Its 
 name (O°DS MIMD) seems to signify “a tunic reach- 
 ing to the extremities.” The dress of David’s daughter 
 Tamar, and of “the king’s daughters that were virgins,” 
 bears the same name in the Hebrew, rendered in A. V. 
 ‘‘garment of divers colours” (2 Sam. xiii. 18, 19). 
 There seems no reason for the LXX. rendering χιτὼν 
 ποικίλος, or the Vulgate polymita, except that it is very 
 likely that such a tunic would be ornamented with 
 coloured stripes or embroidered. Of the dress described 
 in the text there is an engraving in Brugsch’s Histoire 
 a’ Egypte, dés les premiers temps, ed. 1859, p. 63. For 
 authorities on the nature of the dress, see Speaker's 
 Comm. on Gen. xxxvii. 3, where the view given in the 
 text is preferred.—Ep1Tors. 
 
 ἃ That the two names are used interchangeably seems 
 clear from this passage; it must ee teas 
 
1194 
 
 Egypt at the time of the Hyksos (having been 
 previously at war) is proved by the inscriptions 
 lately discovered by Glaser in Arabia, and by 
 Hémel’s interpretation of those which relate to 
 Egypt. 
 
 The chief articles of trade which the Ishmael- 
 itish and Midianitish merchants brought to Egypt 
 in the time of the Pharaohs, were spices of 
 different kinds, metal work, glass beads, certain 
 woven stuffs, chariots, semi-precious stones such 
 as lapis-lazuli and malachite, and above all 
 slaves. Throughout the whole time of the 
 Khalifs slaves were the chief article of trade 
 with the caravans that came from Asia, and 
 down to the present time many white slave-girls 
 are brought to Egypt by Syrian traders. We 
 learn from several texts that slaves were brought 
 from Asia under the 12th dynasty (before the 
 arrival of the Hyksos). A very high price was 
 always paid for fine youths. For certain par- 
 ticularly noble and well-formed Circassian boys 
 ander the Mamluk Sultans, much more was paid 
 than for a fine horse. The Midianitish traders, 
 into whose hands Joseph fell when he was seven- 
 teen years of age, would be able to make great 
 profit out of him, for the twenty shekels of silver 
 [SHEKEL] which they paid for him was a very 
 low price even at that time. Slaves were 
 needed in all great houses; and the names of a 
 few which have come down to us from the time 
 of the Pharaoh of the Exodus, prove certainly 
 their Semitic origin. Besides these, the monu- 
 ments mention slaves from Syria (Charu), from 
 Canaan, and from many places in Western Asia, 
 such as Karka, Tarbasana, &c. Several of these 
 rose to high dignity at court. The usual words 
 for slave and servant are hon-u and bak-u. Their 
 value is well proved by the trouble people took 
 to catch those who escaped. A Leyden papyrus 
 tells of six who escaped from Prince Atef-amen 
 and of the search for them. 
 
 Joseph would be sold in the slave market at 
 Zoan (Tanis), Bubastis, or more probably Mem- 
 phis; he was sold to Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh, 
 captain of the quard, an Egyptian (Gen. xxxix. 1). 
 Potiphar is called “an Egyptian,” and his name is 
 astruly Egyptian as hisoffice. The name Potiphar 
 
 is rightly rendered [LETECPPH (Petephre) 
 by the Coptic translator of Genesis; it 
 must be the Hebrew form of the hieroglyphic 
 Pe-du-pa-Ra or Pe-du-Ra, which means the 
 gift of the sun-god, and corresponds with the 
 Greek Ἡλιόδωρος. Analogous forms occur with 
 the names of other gods: e.g. Pe-du-Amen 
 = gift of Amen, Pe-du-hor = gift of Horus, 
 Pe-du-Net = gift of Neith® It is gram- 
 matically right to put the masculine article 
 pa before the name of the god in Potiphar. 
 The Hebrew Version gives it as pha, and this 
 proves that the writer of Genesis heard the word 
 from a native of Lower Egypt, where the dialect 
 would change Pa-Ra into Pha-Ra or Phra, by 
 aspirating the initial p. 
 
 JOSEPH 
 
 that one of them is generic; and since the caravan was 
 from Gilead, it is reasonable to infer that the merchants 
 were more strictly Midianites, and called Ishmaelites 
 by a kind of generic use of that name.—EpirTors. 
 
 © Brugsch explains this name as Pe-du-per=the gift 
 of him who appeared. This is founded on no analogy 
 and is refuted by the Coptic translation aboye cited. 
 
 τιν 
 
 JOSEPH 
 
 The word rendered “ officer” in the A. V. and 
 R. V. is literally “eunuch,” and the LXX., 
 Vulg., and Coptic so translate it here (σπάδων, 
 eunuchus, CiO"EP). We need not be surprised 
 
 at finding eunuchs at the Egyptian court; for 
 though in Egypt monogamy was the rule for 
 private people, the Pharaoh was allowed to have 
 many concubines, besides his lawful queen, and 
 these formed a harem, just like those of the 
 Eastern courts of the present time. 
 
 With regard to the second title of Potiphar, 
 
 he was a Ὁ ΠΞΘΠ mY. The Septuagint renders 
 
 this ἀρχιμάγειρος; the Coptic &ADOCH- 
 LLAYEIPOC, which means “chief confec- 
 
 tioner.” According to the Syrian translation 
 of the Bible, the word means “ captain of the 
 body-guard.” The first part of the word, WW, 
 is, in the Egyptian language, sar, “ captain” or 
 “prince,” and the second part may be trans- 
 lated “ body-guard.” Pharaoh, like other 
 Eastern kings, possessed a body-guard. Under 
 the peaceful rule of the old Empire, the Egyptian 
 army was small, and its organisation most 
 simple. The body-guard consisted then of the 
 shes-u, or followers. [POTIPHAR. ] 
 
 Gen. xxxix.1-12. Joseph rises so high in the 
 house of his master, that Potiphar makes him his 
 servant, and sets him over his house. Servant 
 here means a free functionary, not aslave. Even 
 now in the East a slave who distinguishes him- 
 self by his good behaviour may receive his free- 
 dom and remain in his master’s house as an upper 
 and confidential servant. The mer-per or house- 
 master is often mentioned on the monuments. 
 
 As an introduction to what follows, v. 6 
 ends with these words: “And Joseph was a 
 goodly person and well favoured.” Vv. 7-23 
 treat of the story of Joseph and Potiphar’s 
 wife, which under the name of Zuleikha is a 
 favourite subject for Oriental poetry. This 
 story awakens peculiar interest from the fact 
 that there exists another, with true Egyptian 
 colouring, agreeing in its principal details with . 
 the Biblical narrative. It forms the beginning 
 of the “Story of the Two Brothers,” which was 
 written in hieratic at Thebes, about the time of 
 the Exodus. The MS. which contains it is in 
 the British Museum: it is called the Papyrus 
 WOrbiney, after the name of the lady who 
 brought it into Europe. The whole story has 
 much in common with the German tale of 
 the “Juniper Tree.”* We will give a short 
 précis of the beginning of the Papyrus d’Or- 
 biney, which corresponds very nearly with the 
 story of Joseph and Potiphar’s wife, though 
 the latter takes place in the house of a dis- 
 tinguished Egyptian officer, and the former 
 amongst simple Egyptian peasants. 
 
 “There were once two brothers, who lived 
 together in the country. The elder was called 
 
 f Several accurate translations have been produced 
 since E. de Rougé made known the substance of the 
 
 story. The original text was published by S. Birch in 
 
 his Select Papyri, 11., pp. ix.-xix., 1860. The best 
 English translation is by Le Page Renouf, in Birch 
 and Sayce’s Records of the Past, vol. ii., pp. 137-152; 
 the best French translation is by Maspero’; while literal 
 translations have been published in German by H. 
 Brugsch and G. Ebers (1868). 
 
JOSEPH 
 
 Anubis, the younger Batan; the former was 
 married, and his brother lived with him and 
 undertook all the work with the cattle and in 
 the fields for him. This was done so. excellently 
 that there was not his equal in Egypt. So they 
 all three lived together in perfect union. One 
 day, however, when the inundation had gone 
 down so that the time for ploughing had 
 come, both brothers worked busily with the 
 oxen until the seed-corn was finished; the elder 
 brother then sent the younger home to fetch 
 some more. The latter found his sister-in-law 
 plaiting her hair; and when he asked her for the 
 corn, she told him to go to the granary and take 
 as much as he needed. Batan laded himself with 
 a very heavy load of wheat and durra corn; but 
 as he came back with it on his shoulder, his 
 brother’s wife changed her voice, forgot her duty 
 to her husband, and tried to seduce him.” Then 
 he was very angry, and repulsed her in words 
 very similar to those with which Joseph ad- 
 monished his master’s wife to remember her 
 duty. We will place the two refusals side by 
 side that they may be compared. 
 
 TALE oF Two BRorHers : 
 PAPYRUS D’ORBINEY. 
 
 And hast not thou been 
 
 GEN. Xxxix. 8, 9. 
 Behold, my master wot- 
 
 teth not what is with me in 
 the house, and he hath com- 
 mitted all that he hath to 
 my hand. There is none 
 greater in this house than 
 I, neither hath he kept 
 back anything from me, 
 but thee, because thou art 
 his wife: how then can I 
 do this great wickedness, 
 
 as a mother to me, and thy 
 husband as a father? and 
 he who is my elder brother, 
 he it is who provides for 
 my living. Alas! what 
 thou sayest to me is 
 shameful. Say it not to 
 me again. But 1 will tell 
 it to no.one; I will not 
 betray it to a single person. 
 
 and sin against God? 
 
 “Therefore Batan went back to the field; but 
 the wife of the elder brother was afraid, because 
 of the request she had made to him: she therefore 
 disfigured herself, so that when her husband re- 
 turned he should believe that some one had done 
 violence to her. Towards evening he came home, 
 and when he found his wife in such a sad state, 
 he asked her what had happened. She then 
 accused Batan of having requested her to do 
 wrong, and, when she refused, of having beaten 
 her, adding that if her husband allowed his 
 younger brother to live, he would kill her as 
 soon as he found out that she had betrayed his 
 evil intentions.” How Anubis then attempted 
 to kill his younger brother, and how the latter 
 called upon the sun-god to prove his innocence, 
 &c., does not belong here. 
 
 This so much resembles our Bible narrative, 
 that many have supposed that the one was 
 borrowed from the other. E. Meyer and others 
 think that the Egyptian tale is the foundation 
 of our story, but it is much more probable that 
 the contrary is the case, or that the two are 
 entirely independent. The fact that rejected 
 love begets hatred is an experience repeated 
 amongst all nations in all circles of life, as in 
 the Greek legend of Phaedra and Hippolytus. 
 
 The picture at Beni Hasan, mentioned above, 
 explains also how Joseph could leave his coat 
 
 behind with his tempter; this garment being | 
 
 only fastened round the neck and by one sleeve. 
 Tn Gen. xxxix. 17 Potiphar’s wife assures her 
 husband that the Hebrew servant, whom he had 
 brought into the house, came in to mock her: 
 
 JOSEPH 1795 
 
 which may be an allusion to the unmanly em- 
 ployment of her husband, who was a eunuch. 
 
 Vv. 20-23. Potiphar puts Joseph into prison, 
 
 but through the Lord’s “mercy” the keeper 
 of the prison loves Joseph, and places so much 
 confidence in him, that he lets him go free 
 in the prison, with authority over the other 
 prisoners. In this “keeper of the prison,” we 
 have not, as some maintain, Potiphar, but a new 
 character introduced into the story. In Egypt, 
 where every department had /<_-uperintendent, 
 Potiphar, the overseer of the aarem, could not 
 at the same time be governor of the prison. 
 Joseph’s lovable and excellent character won for 
 him esteem and respect everywhere, even here 
 also, and for this reason, “ because the Lord was 
 with him.” 
 
 Chapter xl. follows with the interpretation 
 
 of the dreams by Joseph. Pharaoh’s “ chief 
 of the butlers” and “chief of the bakers” 
 were his fellow-prisoners, They had roused the 
 anger of the king, and the young Hebrew was 
 destined to be of service to them. We have 
 information on the monuments about both these 
 officials. The “ butler” had not only to present 
 the wine, but also to mix it before the banquets. 
 This was done during the meal, probably with 
 the help of syphons, as we see depicted on a monu- 
 ment at Thebes (Wilkinson, ii. 314 [8vo ed.]). 
 The monuments teach us that the Egyptians 
 were good vine-growers, and the classical 
 writers mention their good vintages. The cup- 
 bearer belonged to the class of the abu-u, whose 
 duty it was to seal the vessels as a safeguard 
 against poison and pollution. They are repre- 
 sented bringing in jars of wine to the king. 
 Some of these men held high offices in the State, 
 at the same time performing their court duties, 
 which brought them into close intercourse 
 with the Pharaoh. Amongst them we find 
 the overseer of the abu-uw dep-u arp-u, who 
 tasted the wines, and corresponds certainly 
 with our chief cup-bearer.6 Even amongst 
 the Greeks the Egyptians were celebrated for 
 their cookery, and so many different dishes are 
 mentioned on the monuments that the cooks 
 in the Pharaonic time must have been extra- 
 ordinarily clever. The baker was called chenti, 
 but we know of a number of these craftsmen 
 who, as specialists, were concerned only with 
 | the preparation of particular kinds of pastry: 
 Ι —thus the baker of cakes (baker of the pastry), 
 the preparer of cakes (which Maspero translates 
 “biscuits durs”), the maker of the persa-u 
 | (“ pastry ”’), and finally the maker of a kind of 
 | cake, Vairir or tairoiro (according to Maspero, 
 | galettes communes). 
 
 Each of Joseph’s companions dreamed a dream 
 | connected with his calling. The cup-bearer 
 | pressed three bunches of grapes into Pharaoh’s 
 
 cup, and gave it into his hand. This may 
 appear a surprising custom in a country where 
 wine was made in exactly the same manner as 
 now in the districts given up to vine cultivation. 
 ; The monuments show us how they picked the 
 
 & This title, as well as others, are found in the Hood 
 Papyrus (Brit. Mus.), lately edited by Maspero. In 
 this MS. people are arranged according to their various 
 offices and occupations; and though it belongs to a 
 Ε later date, yet most of those mentioned are also found in 
 ! earlier times. 
 
 See 
 
1796 JOSEPH 
 
 grapes, trod them with their feet, caused the 
 juice to run into great barrels, from which the 
 wine vessels were filled. [EGyprt, p. 866.] We 
 have already mentioned its intoxicating power ; 
 but at the same time the Egyptians used the 
 juice of grapes squeezed into water as a sort of 
 lemonade at certain feasts. The description of 
 the life of the gods corresponds with that of the 
 king and his courtiers ; and in the Horus text of 
 Edfu (Pl. xiii. 1, 3), edited by Naville, we find 
 that after Horus had killed the companions of Set 
 (Typhon), he was embraced by his father Ra; 
 the younger god then commands that the juice 
 of grapes should be squeezed into water, that 
 this drink may gladden the heart of the goddess 
 (Hathor or Astarte). We read literally: “Squeeze 
 grapes into water; what comes out of them 
 (the juice) will refresh the heart of the god- 
 dess.” From this we may take it for granted 
 that this drink was also used at court, specially 
 after great exertions. All that is necessary has 
 already been said about the “‘bake-meats” which 
 the baker carried on his head, and of which the 
 birds ate. 
 
 To the cup-bearer Joseph explained that 
 his dream signified that Pharaoh would be 
 gracious to him, and give him back his office ; 
 but on the other hand he was obliged to tell the 
 baker that Pharaoh would turn his face from 
 him, and cause him to be hanged. It was on 
 Pharaoh’s birthday that there was a feast to 
 all the servants (xl. 20-23). The cup-bearer was 
 reinstated in his office and the baker hanged. In 
 Egypt the birthday of the king was kept with 
 great rejoicings, and down to Ptolemaic times 
 it was usually the occasion for acts of mercy of 
 various kinds. On the Rosetta Stone (1. 10) we 
 read of the Aru mes netr nefr, the birthday 
 of the good god. The Septuagint rightly 
 translates our passage ἡμέρα γενέσεως, and 
 
 the Coptic is ΠΕΡΙΟΟῪ 2 RRICI 
 SRP PAW (dies natalis Pharaonis). Even 
 
 at the birth of a royal child there were great 
 festivities. In the Papyrus d’Orbiney we read 
 that when the “favourite” presented a son 
 to the king, the whole country rejoiced, and 
 his majesty solemnised a holy day. According 
 to the bilingual text of the Rosetta Stone, an 
 assembly of priests was called together in the 
 temple of Memphis on the king’s birthday, an 
 amnesty was decreed for those criminals who 
 were in prison, and freedom was given to some 
 who, in spite of some misdemeanour, had long 
 been considered by the judges as deserving of 
 pardon. In the decree of Canopus (the second 
 bilingual text found by Lepsius), we read of a 
 similar assembly of priests called together for 
 this purpose on the birthday of Ptolemy IIL. 
 (Euergetes I.). On the stele of Kuban, of the 
 time of Rameses II., the Pharaoh of the oppres- 
 sion, we read, nehm-m-pet-u hru-n mest-f: 
 “There was rejoicing in heaven on the day of 
 his (the king’s) birth.” We may be sure there 
 were also rejoicings on earth. The baker was 
 hanged. The monuments tell us that this was 
 the usual punishment of criminals condemned to 
 death. Beheading was not usual; but in the 
 lawsuit against the robbers of the royal tombs, 
 a few culprits were condemned to be impaled. 
 Gen. xli. 1, &c. Here we read of Pharaoh’s 
 dreams, and how, when no one could interpret 
 
 JOSEPH 
 
 them, the chief cup-bearer, who had forgotten 
 Joseph (xl. 23), was reminded of his own dream 
 and of the young Hebrew. Joseph, disclaiming 
 all ability in himself and attributing that to 
 God, intimating also that the dream is a revela- 
 tion by God of His purposes in regard to Egypt 
 (xli. 16, 28, 32), declares the interpretation, 
 gives good counsel at the same time, and is 
 raised to high honour. The learned men were 
 always called together when the king needed 
 advice or aninterpretation; they were generally 
 called the rech-w chet-u, 1.6. those who have 
 knowledge of things. [Macic.] Many of the 
 monuments, 6.4. the stele of the Great Sphinx 
 and the so-called dream-stele, show how much 
 importance was attached to dreams in Pharaonic 
 times, and under the Ptolemies there are several 
 papyri of the time of Ptolemy Philometor, which 
 show that hermits lived alone in the Serapeum 
 and devoted their lives to the explanation of 
 dreams. The dreams are well known. In the 
 first, the fat and lean cattle come up out of 
 the Nile: several pictures represent this, and 
 when the first were found, it was thought that 
 they were representations of Pharaoh’s dreams; 
 but this was not the case, for from the earliest 
 times, long before the Hyksos or the Hebrews 
 came into Egypt, rich landed proprietors had 
 representations of their herds in the interior of 
 their tombs, to show their descendants how great 
 were the possessions of their ancestors, 
 
 The Nile is called in Hebrew Wk, 1.6. the 
 river par excellence, corresponding with the 
 hieroglyphic aur, in old texts dur, from which 
 comes the Coptic [ἃ PO = fluvius. [Eeyrr, 
 p- 8641 The bank is called in Hebrew, as in 
 
 Egyptian, “the lips of the river.” The number 
 seven is very Egyptian, seven being a sacred, 
 
 comprehensive number, often used on similar 
 
 occasions. Many attempts have of late been 
 made to explain the importance of seven amongst 
 symbolic numbers. Three is said to stand for 
 the divinity, four for the cosmos, 3 - 4 = 7 for 
 the union of God with the world. The seven 
 planets and the seven Hathors are well known 
 in Egyptian mythology. The Hathors may be 
 cow-headed, or they may appear in the form of 
 cows, those animals being sacred to them, and 
 this explains why cows should appear to Pharaoh 
 in a dream. 
 
 In hieroglyphics the number seven is often 
 denoted by a head, on account of its seven 
 openings. In one copy of the Book of the Dead, 
 the deceased are seen cutting 2 Χ 7 ears of 
 corn in the Elysian fields. The medicinal and 
 magical writings of ancient Egypt prove also 
 the significance of the number seven. In the 
 Ebers Papyrus, when several drugs are pre- 
 scribed, seven is the number preferred, and 
 never six, eight, or nine. In Pap. Ebers (71, 
 20-7) we find seven tmm#, little fish; (70, 8), 
 seven plants of utw, herbs; (74, 14), seven apnent 
 (snakes or worms), seven aff (flies), seven aku of 
 the earth (moles ?), &c. are to be taken.; (54, 19), 
 seven heated stones must be used to turn water 
 into steam, which the sick person has to inhale 
 through a reed.® 
 
 hn In the symbolic numbers of Pythagoras, seven was 
 also the number signifying health. Till a late date 
 seven was used by preference in the magical writings - 
 
 — 
 
JOSEPH 
 
 Vv. 28-32. Joseph’s interpretation. 
 
 Vv, 33-36. His advice to Pharaoh. He should 
 choose a judicious wise man to be over the 
 land of Egypt. Further, “let him appoint over- 
 seers (R. V.) over the land, and take up the fifth 
 
 part of the land of Egypt in the seven plenteous 
 years: and let them gather all the food of those 
 good years that come, and lay up corn under the 
 hand of Pharaoh, and let them keep food in the 
 cities. And that food shall be for store to the 
 land against the seven years of famine which 
 shail be in the land of Egypt; that the land 
 perish not through the famine.” We men- 
 tioned above that this famine may be identical 
 with that famine of many years mentioned in 
 the grave of Baba at El Kab. Even. before the 
 Hyksos’ time, a low inundation was often the 
 cause of want and distress, and the governors of 
 the nomes gloried in helping their subjects and 
 saving them from distress; e.g. Ameni, in his 
 tomb at Beni Hasan, extols himself in the follow- 
 ing words :—“* There were none in distress in my 
 time, and none starving as long I lived. And 
 when the years of famine came, I ploughed all the 
 fields of the nome Mah, from the Southern to 
 the Northern boundary.‘ I nourished the in- 
 habitants, by preparing bread for it (the nome). 
 No starving ones were to be found in it, for I 
 gave to the widow, as to the lady of a husband, 
 and never did I prefer the great to the small in 
 all that I bestowed.” 
 
 Thus acted Ameni, prince of the nome, in 
 accordance with the old law and custom, still 
 preserved in many texts, to feed the hungry, 
 give drink to the thirsty, and to clothe the 
 naked. 
 
 - V. 37. These words pleased Pharaoh and his 
 servants. 
 
 V. 38. The king acknowledges that the 
 Spirit of God is in Joseph, and in v. 40 he says 
 to the wise interpreter, ‘Thou shalt be over my 
 house, and according to thy word shall all my 
 people be ruled; only in the throne will I be 
 greater than thou.” 
 
 V. 42. “ And Pharaoh took off his ring from 
 his hand, and put it upon Joseph’s hand, 
 and arrayed him in vestures of fine linen, 
 
 eg. in a Graeco-Egyptian papyrus, a twig of laurel, 
 which was needed for some magical purpose, had to have 
 seven leaves, Xc. 
 
 {**The perfectly Egyptian colour of all this part of 
 the narrative is very noticeable, and nowhere more 
 so than in the particulars of the first dream. The 
 cattle coming up from the river and feeding on the bank 
 may be seen even now, though among them the lean 
 kine predominate; and the use of one Egyptian word, 
 if not of two, in the narrative probably shows that the 
 writer knew the Egyptian language. The corn with 
 many ears on one stalk must be wheat, one kind of 
 which now grown in Egypt has this peculiarity. Another 
 point to be remarked is that Joseph shaved before he 
 went into Pharaoh’s presence, and we find from the 
 monuments that the Egyptians, except when engaged 
 in war, shaved both the head and face, the small beard 
 that was worn on the chin being probably artificial.”— 
 KR. S. P.] 
 
 i On the west and east were the Libyan desert and the 
 Arabian mountains; therefore no boundary-stones were 
 needed. 
 
 ji The supposition of Bunsen (Zyypt’s Place, iii. 334, 
 ist ed.) that this inscription refers to Joseph’s famine 
 is controverted by Brugsch (Hyypt, i. 158, 2nd ed., 
 P, Smith).—Eprrors. 
 
 JOSEPH 1797 
 
 and put a gold chain about his neck. And 
 he made him to ride in the second chariot 
 which he had; and they cried before him, 
 ‘Abrek’” (see below; A. V. and R. V. “ Bow 
 the knee”). This is entirely in accordance 
 with Egyptian customs of the time of the 
 Hebrews (after the importation of horses) and 
 later. Rings were worn by men and women 
 from the earliest times. Most of those which have 
 come down to us are seal rings, often engraved 
 with the name of the reigning king on the flat 
 underside of a scarabaeus.* Most of the rings we 
 have were taken from the fingers of mummies. 
 Some of them show very artistic work ; some 
 are of pure gold; some have scarabaei, others 
 movable plates of semi-precious stones, on which 
 the seal was engraved. A few are richly orna- 
 mented, e.g. one in the Louvre with two golden 
 horses, beautifully cut. On the king’s ring was 
 his cartouche, Κ΄ 7.9, framing his name, and 
 underneath his usual title: “ King of Lower 
 and Upper Egypt.” In Egypt, as in all Eastern 
 countries, the seal was the confirmation or 
 endorsement of a person’s will; and when he 
 delivered up his ring to any one, he gave him 
 (to use a modern expression) the power to act 
 for him with legal authority. Decrees and 
 letters were sealed; animals and bricks were 
 stamped with the name of the owner or builder. 
 Even the most sacred things in the temples were 
 sealed, and part of the ritual was the breaking of 
 the seal on the entrance of the king or high- 
 priest. Thus the “keeper of the seal” was the 
 deputy of the king, the adon, and his office is 
 called on the monuments adonnu mer chetam, 
 that of the king’s deputy and keeper of the seal. 
 
 The garment given to Joseph (vv. 41, 42) is 
 called shesh; it means fine white Egyptian 
 cotton, and the material into which it is made. 
 It therefore signifies a garment of fine white 
 texture. Although it stands for flax, there 
 were cotton as well as linen stuffs in Egypt, 
 and there was a special name for byssus, 
 pek, pek-t. The opinion expressed in the last 
 edition of Gesenius’ Heb.-Chald. Dict. is correct 
 with regard to Egyptian also: “ The words for 
 flax and cotton flow into each other.” Itis very 
 possible that the Hebrew shesh is derived from 
 the Egyptian shesh = “ the white.” In the Ebers 
 Papyrus, a queen of the 1st dynasty is called 
 shesh = “the white.” The hieroglyphic reading 
 shes signifies, according to Brugsch, a woven 
 stuff of peculiar fineness: this is translated 
 “byssus” by the bilingual texts; it was of a 
 light colour, and Brugsch considers, this shes the 
 Egyptian form of the Hebrew wy, The word 
 
 may also be connected with the Old Egyptian 
 shendi-t, shenti, the apron-garment. At the time 
 of our history, Pharaoh could not have presented 
 a greater mark of favour to any one than the 
 royal apron-garment, the shendi-t. Erman was 
 the first to teach us to distinguish the dif- 
 ferent fashions of dress of the men and women 
 of Old Egypt. Before the Hyksos’ time a certain 
 dress was authoritative for foreigners, and Joseph 
 could hardly (as has been till now asserted) 
 have been honoured with that long shirt-like 
 
 k The oldest known bears the name of Khufu (Cheops), 
 the builder of the Great Pyramid, and is in the possession 
 of Herr Platherothe at Bremen. 
 
1198 JOSEPH 
 
 garment, such as was worn by great men under 
 the New Empire; it is far more probable that 
 the royal apron is here meant, which under the 
 Old Empire was a sign of royalty, and which 
 later might only be worn by men in high office, 
 and by the confidential advisers of the Pharaoh. 
 The title “wearer of the shendi-t” is found in 
 the tombs of the Old Empire, and betokens a 
 particular honour. In the time of Joseph, the 
 costume of the highest officers of state consisted 
 of a thick under-apron, over which was worn 
 the shendi-t. The latter was made of fine 
 transparent byssus, and reached from the hips 
 to the middle of the leg, covering the lower part 
 of the body. It probably consisted of a long 
 piece of byssus wound round the body. The end 
 was drawn throvgh the girdle, which was orna- 
 mented with go:d clasps. Long garments cover- 
 ing the whole body were almost unknown at this 
 time, though we find one prince of a nome under 
 the 12th dynasty represented in one of them. 
 The white linen or cotton material of which 
 the shendi-t was made (probably the shesh ot 
 the Bible) was so thin, that though in folds it was 
 probably transparent, and therefore the under- 
 apron became a necessity. Under the Pharaohs, 
 after the expulsion of the Hyksos, the heads of 
 all the Government departments were allowed to 
 wear the shendi-t on public occasions ; later it 
 gradually lost its significance and honour. 
 
 The golden chain was such a common orna- 
 ment at the Egyptian court, that in hiero- 
 glyphics a golden necklace signifies “gold.” It 
 is written nub, = “gold.” In the pyramid time 
 the necklace was part of the dress of royal 
 personages, and was worn over the otherwise 
 bare upper part of the body. 
 
 “Pharaoh made Joseph to ride in the 
 second carriage which he had.” No horses are 
 represented on the monuments before the time 
 of the Hyksos, nor do we ever see the king ina 
 carriage, though later he seems to have gene- 
 rally used one on leaving his palace. We there- 
 fore conclude that horses and carriages were 
 introduced into the Nile valley by the Hyksos. 
 During the time of their subjection, the native 
 princes also learnt to make use of vehicles 
 drawn by horses, both in war and peace, for the 
 monuments show us the king penetrating far 
 into the interior of Asia with his chariots of 
 war, and also going for a quiet drive with his 
 family. At Tell-el-Amarna Amenophis IV. 
 (Khunaten) drives out with his daughters, and 
 in the D’Orbiney Papyrus Pharaoh and his 
 favourite wife take a drive for pleasure. The 
 king, with wreaths of flowers round his neck, 
 first leaves the palace in a carriage of silver- 
 gilt (electron), The favourite is in the next 
 carriage, of which the description is not given. 
 That of the governor was inlaid with precious 
 metals: the “second” carriage, which Joseph 
 was to use, would naturally be less beautiful 
 and costly. For an account of the Egyptian 
 chariots, see CHARIOT ; and for the horses, see 
 HORSE. 
 
 V. 43, “They cried before him JIN (Abreh), 
 and he (Pharaoh) set him over all the land 
 of Egypt.” Abrek is an old Egypto-Hebrew 
 word, and Brugsch is right when he makes it 
 correspond with the hieroglyphic word brok or 
 brek, and considers δὲ (abk) to represent the 
 Egyptian exclamation calling the people to 
 
 JOSEPH 
 
 obedience. Abrok is therefore to be translated 
 “ΒΟΥ the knee,” or better, “‘ Up, bow the knee,” 
 and expresses an act of deep submission. In 
 an instance borrowed from Diimichen’s histori- 
 cal inscriptions, it is construed with n, i.e. “ be- 
 fore,” and means, “We bow the knee before 
 (brok-n) thy double crown.” We have not yet 
 met with brok in any older text; still it cer- 
 tainly belongs to the Old Egyptian language.! 
 
 V. 44. Pharaoh said unto Joseph that without 
 him should no man lift up hand or foot in all 
 the land of Egypt; and in v. 45 he called 
 Joseph’s name Zaphenat-Pa‘neach, and “gave 
 him Asenath, the daughter of Potipherah, the 
 priest of On, for his wife.” The name which 
 Pharaoh gave to Joseph has been generally read 
 Zaphnath-paaneah, and its explanation has caused 
 great difficulty. Dr. α. Steindorff™ paraphrases 
 this group of words, Zaphenat-Pa‘ neach, and 
 shows that there is doubtless an Egyptian form, 
 written Ze-pnute-ef-anch, corresponding to the 
 Coptic XE-NMMOCTE-EY-Wip,. The 
 meaning of this name is, “‘ God speaks and he 
 lives.” Many texts give analogous names: 
 “The god Khons speaks and he lives;” “The god 
 Ptah speaks and he lives; ” “* The goddess Nut or 
 the goddess Isis speaks and he lives.” Brugsch 
 translates Zaphnath-paaneah, “Governor of the 
 Sethroitish nome ;” but his theory is refuted by 
 the above explanation of Steindortl’s, which will 
 certainly meet with universal acceptation. 
 
 Joseph received this name because the simple 
 name under which he had come as a slave to 
 Egypt was no longer befitting for him. He 
 needed a more distinguished name, more 
 pleasing to Egyptian ears, and as with him so it 
 was with many Shemites who came to Pharaoh’s 
 court. We need only mention the herald (liter- 
 ally, a speaker) Ben Mat’ana, son of Iupa-a, a 
 Shemite, who was obliged to allow himself to be 
 called at Pharaoh’s court ‘‘Rameses in the 
 Temple of δ. Change of name was also usual 
 with parvenus whom the king wished to honour. 
 The fact that names with the meaning ‘ God 
 speaks and he lives ” only began to be commonly 
 used in the time of the 22nd dynasty, causes 
 Steindorff to place at that period the last 
 redaction of the Hebrew story to which our 
 passage belongs. The names which follow 
 (Asenath and Potipherah) also belong to that 
 epoch, and it may be that the later Hebrew 
 writer added them to the original text. If the 
 Hyksos king whom Joseph served lived at Tanis, 
 it would be difficult to explain how he could 
 choose a wife for Joseph, whose father lived so 
 far away, and was a priest of the sun-god Ra, 
 for the king and his family served no god but 
 Set. If Memphis and the conditions of court 
 life under the 20th dynasty were in the mind 
 of the Hebrew writer at the conclusion of this 
 passage, then each statement is in exact agree- 
 ment, for the name Asenath is a regular change 
 of form of the Egyptian female name Nesnet, 
 meaning “ belonging to the goddess Net’ (Neith). 
 
 1 Benfey explains it by the Coptic BiOP, also 
 
 meaning ‘to prostrate;” and with the a for the Im- 
 perative and the suffix %, the second person (abrok) 
 would mean “ Prostrate thyself.” [ABRECH.] 
 
 m Zeitschrift fiir aegypt. Sprache und Alterthums. 
 kunde, 1889, p. 42. 
 
JOSEPH 
 
 Analogous names with nes = “belonging to,” 
 are very numerous; and names like Nes-Hor, 
 Nes-Hathor, Nes-Khons, Nes-Isis, appear earlier, 
 but are particularly numerous in the second 
 division of the New Empire.” 
 
 The father of Joseph’s wife was called in the 
 Hebrew Potipherah, according to the Septuagint 
 Πετεφρῆ. This Greek translation, as well as 
 
 the Coptic, reads Iletedpnx, and compels 
 us to recognise in this name, as in that of Joseph’s 
 first master, the Egyptian Pe-du-pa-Ra = “ the 
 gift of the sun-god Ra.” He was a priest of 
 On, the Greek Heliopolis, the very ancient town 
 of the sun, lying a few miles north of Cairo, on 
 the east bank of the Nile, and throughout the 
 history of ancient Egypt the centre of the sun- 
 worship. The high-priest of the highest solar 
 deity was called the Urma; he was also chief 
 prophet of the god, and under him were priests 
 of various orders, to which, under the Hyksos 
 kings, the doctors also belonged. 
 
 One of the chief tribunals of Egypt sat at 
 Heliopolis, and the “faculty of medicine” in 
 the “great halls” of this town was the most 
 ancient and most famous in the land. To 
 which order of priests in this temple and 
 college Joseph’s father-in-law belonged, we 
 know not. The great sanctuary of Ra, de- 
 seribed so fully by Strabo, has disappeared : 
 nothing remains but a sacred obelisk still 
 standing out against the sky, erected by User- 
 tesen I. (12th dynasty), before the coming of 
 the Hyksos, who spared it as well as the whole 
 temple, for we are told in a MS. on leather in 
 the Berlin Museum that the temple, which was 
 rebuilt magnificently under the 12th dynasty, 
 was still standing in the Ptolemaic time. The 
 beautiful ruins are described by Arabian writers, 
 who visited them even after the conquest of 
 Egypt by Islam. 
 
 V. 46 states that “Joseph was thirty years 
 old when he stood before Pharaoh, king of 
 Egypt.” 
 
 The end of chap. xli. relates how Joseph 
 travelled through the whole country (carrying 
 out his measures), and how everything he had 
 prophesied came to pass. First the seven years 
 of plenty, in which Joseph stored up the corn as 
 “the sand of the sea.” This is a favourite 
 simile in Old Egyptian : we have noted a number 
 of sentences similar to the following :—‘ The 
 provision is more in quantity than the sand of 
 the sea-shore” (Diimichen, TZemple Inscrip. 
 86, 5). In the years of plenty two sons were 
 born to Joseph by Asenath, v. 50, and he named 
 the first-born Manasseh [MANASSEH], and the 
 second Ephraim [EPHRAIM]. Then came the 
 years of famine, and “the dearth was in all 
 lands, but in all the land of Egypt there was 
 bread” (v. 54). This famine is spoken of as one 
 that is “‘ over all the face of the earth” (v. 56); 
 
 n The ‘*n” in names composed with nes disappears 
 in the language of other nations. The Greek Ζμῖνις 
 corresponds with the Egyptian Nes-Min. To facilitate 
 pronunciation an eis often introduced before the double 
 consonant at the beginning: thus Ζμῖνις becomes 
 Ἔσμῖνις. This 6 is rendered (V)s-net in the Hebrew 
 translation. We cannot accept Brugsch’s theory that 
 Asenath is the old female name Snat. On the other 
 hand, the laws of phonetic change are in favour of 
 our theory. 
 
 JOSEPH 1799 
 
 it therefore was not due entirely to the misfortune 
 of the low Nile. At any rate it extended over 
 Palestine, for Jacob (chap. xlii. 1, &c.) sent his 
 sons to Egypt to buy corn there. The expres- 
 sion “the face of the earth” often meant but a 
 small sphere; here probably Egypt and Western 
 Asia are spoken of, and one can easily imagine 
 climatic conditions which would be injurious to 
 the corn in those parts of the world. 
 
 The position of Joseph is one we often meet 
 with on the monuments of all ages. The pros- 
 perity of Egypt always depended on the produce 
 of her fields; and even in the time of the 
 pyramids the superintendent of the granaries 
 was one of the highest officers of state. One 
 inscription says, ‘He had the superintendence of 
 the stewards in all domains of Pharaoh, from 
 the miserable country of Cush (Ethiopia) to the 
 borders of Mesopotamia (Naharina).” Under 
 the 18th dynasty we find, that when there were 
 good harvest returns, these officials were honoured 
 by the golden necklace and other rewards. Men 
 both of the highest priestly and secular rank held 
 also this office. They were generally called 
 “superintendents of the granaries of the South 
 and of the North,” and a certain Ramen-cheper- 
 seneb called himself “the royal scribe of the 
 granaries of the North and of the South” 
 (Ledrain’s Catalogue, 1314). We know the ap- 
 pearance of the granaries, for Naville has 
 cleared out the remains of some at Tell-el- 
 Maskhutah (Pithom Succoth), and they are 
 also often represented on the monuments. They 
 were large rectangular long buildings, with no 
 decoration, built of bricks of Nile mud, with 
 slightly inclining walls and a row of windows 
 high up, to admit air. A staircase led to the 
 roof, for the openings into the rooms were at 
 the top, and the corn was shaken into them 
 from above. Near the granaries were offices for 
 the scribes and the weighing-rooms, and every 
 sack of corn which was brought in was regis- 
 tered by the clerks, who squatted on the roof. 
 Joseph’s position was more than simple overseer 
 of the granaries, as we have already seen; he 
 was ‘keeper of the seal,” and this office was 
 often connected with that of #’at or governor, 
 the chief justice who superintended the whole 
 administration of the country, and, like Joseph, 
 was called the second after the king (De Rougé, 
 Hier. Ins. 303). Even those of high rank had 
 to obey him, and he was supreme at court. 
 
 The sons of Israel then came to Egypt (alii.): 
 Benjamin only, Jacob’s favourite, the last-born 
 of Rachel, was left behind—for fear that mis- 
 chief should befall him. Joseph, the governor of 
 the land, also sold the corn, and his “brethren 
 came and bowed down themselves before him 
 with their faces to the earth” (v. 6). This sign 
 of submission was required from all who came 
 to Egypt with a petition to the king. Absoha, 
 the Semitic captain represented with his fol- 
 lowers at Beni Hasan, is only bowing low, 
 when he meets the prince of the nome Mah, 
 but he comes with gifts, not with a petition. 
 Other pictures show us Egyptian and Asiatic 
 suppliants in a position corresponding exactly © 
 with the words “ bowed down themselves before 
 him with their faces to the earth,’ for they 
 throw themselves down before him from whom 
 they hope for favours, so that their nose or 
 mouth would touch the ground. This custom 
 
1800 JOSEPH 
 
 was call2d contemptuously by the Greeks προσ- 
 κυνεῖν, and by the Egyptians senta=“ to smell 
 or kiss the earth.”) Under the Old Empire 
 a royal prince, high-priest at Memphis (Ptah- 
 shepses), counted it the highest honour to kiss 
 the king’s foot, and the stele of Entef (12th 
 dynasty) teaches us that even the great people 
 of Upper Egypt threw themselves down on the 
 ground before the #at, the highest officer in 
 Egypt. In later times, people of rank, if native 
 Egyptians, were spared this humiliation, but 
 those of lower rank and conquered princes and 
 foreigners were always compelled to “smell the 
 earth” before Pharaoh and his highest digni- 
 taries, as e.g. the conquered rebel kings before 
 Pianchi, the Ethiopian Pharaoh. 
 
 The brothers did not recognise the youth 
 now grown to manhood; he however knew 
 at once who they were, and “spake roughly 
 to them,” and accused them of having come 
 as spies “to see the nakedness of the land” 
 (v. 12). By this is surely meant the only 
 way by which Egypt could be entered by 
 enemies from the east, .6. by the Isthmus of 
 Suez. At this point fortresses had been erected 
 under the Old Empire (12th dynasty), which in 
 the time of Seti I. and Rameses II. (19th 
 dynasty) were extended into a regular line of 
 forts, called the chetam, or the key, corresponding 
 to the word Etham in the Bible.° The various 
 forts followed almost the same direction as the 
 present Suez Canal. The most important strong 
 points were chetam en T’ur, “the fortress of the 
 North,” probably the Pelusium of the Greeks 
 (called rightly by Suidas the key of Egypt, 
 N κλεῖς τῆς Αἰγύπτου), and to the South the 
 later Hero, Heroonopolis.” The latter was called 
 by the Egyptians by the sacred name of Pithom 
 (house of the god Tum), and Thekut (Heb. 
 Succoth), as Naville has shown by the Egypt 
 Exploration Fund excavations. It touched the 
 western extremity of the Red Sea, which must 
 therefore have extended much further north than 
 it does now. Here was a fortified storehouse, 
 and in Roman times a castrum, which may have 
 been close to an Egyptian entrenched camp. As 
 the lakes of Timsah and Balah were a protection 
 from invaders on this side, it was only necessary 
 to erect a few forts. One, as we find from 
 the sculptures of Seti I. on the north wall 
 of Karnak, was called Makthol, Heb. Migdol, 
 the strong castle, or fortified tower; another, 
 more to the west, is mentioned by Jer. ii. 16, 
 xlvi. 14, xliii. 7, xliv. 1, and by Ezek. xxx. 18. It 
 was called in Hebrew Tahpahnes [TAHPAHNES], 
 and in the Septuagint Taphne, Taphnai. The 
 Egyptian name was Thabne, and its position has 
 lately been approximately determined. Thus in 
 later times the eastern boundary of Egypt was 
 well: protected. Under the Hyksos, however, 
 there only existed the town fortified by them, 
 called by the Greeks Avaris, and a row of forts 
 on the isthmus, spoken of in the Travels of 
 Seneha as “ obstructions” (12th dynasty). 
 The eastern nations, if intending to conquer 
 Egypt, had, above all, to discover the weak 
 points in this line of fortifications; or, as the 
 
 ° See Ebers, Egypt and the Books of Moses, p. 78, &c. 
 » Herr M, Miiller places shwur before ¢’a7 and makes 
 it coincide with the Biblical Shur. 
 
 JOSEPH 
 
 Bible expresses it, “to spy out the nakedness 
 of the land.” 
 
 The brothers defended themselves (v. 13), 
 and began: “ Thy servants are twelve brethren.” 
 The phrase “thy servants” is quite Egyptian, 
 for, as Borchardt has lately shown, bek am is 
 to be understood as a courteous formulary for 
 “J,” or “I thy servant : " so Joseph’s brothers, 
 instead of saying “ we,” said, “thy servants.” 
 This expression is used most frequently in the 
 time of the 12th dynasty, therefore before the 
 time of the Hyksos. Also the oath “ by the 
 life of Pharaoh,” introduced by Joseph in his 
 reply, is genuinely Egyptian; even the 
 Pharaohs swore by their own names: e.g. the 
 Pharaoh Pianchi, on the stele named after him, 
 uses the expression anch-a mer-a Ra, “by my 
 life,” “by my love to Ra.” 
 
 Vv. 15, &c. Joseph explained to the brothers 
 that he intended to keep them prisoners while 
 one fetched the youngest brother. They then 
 talked to each other, and reminded each other 
 sorrowfully of the wrong they had done to 
 Joseph. They talked in their own language, 
 and did not know that the prime minister of 
 the king understood them, “ for he spake unto 
 them by an interpreter.” This shows us that 
 Egyptian was spoken at the Hyksos court, a fact 
 we have already assumed from other circum- 
 stances (see p. 1793). Interpreters were found 
 in Egypt at all times; and, indeed, under the 
 founder of the 26th dynasty (middle of 7th 
 century B.C.), when the king Psammetichus 
 relied on Greek soldiers, and when numerous 
 Greeks settled in Egypt, the interpreters, ac- 
 cording to Herodotus (ii. 154, 164), formed a 
 distinct class. In Roman times, Roman travellers 
 conversed with the Egyptians through inter- 
 preters, whose profession fell into bad repute for 
 want of truthfulness. 
 
 Vv. 24, &e., show us how Joseph, in spite of 
 his emotion, caused Simeon to be bound; the 
 others were sent away with corn and provisions, 
 while the money which they had paid was put 
 back into their sacks. The custom of using 
 coined tokens began much later than the date 
 of this story, so that money such as we use is 
 not meant here, but metal paid in the form 
 of balls or small bars, weighed in balances 
 with two scales. [WEIGHTS AND MEASURES. ] 
 That this weighed metal is meant, we see from 
 xliii. 21, “our money in full weight.” The 
 brothers laded their asses with the corn. Asses 
 were much used in Egypt as beasts of burden; 
 the camel was introduced much later, pro- 
 bably not before the time of the Ptolemies, as 
 Barth has proved. The monuments do not give 
 us a single example of the camel, though the 
 papyri of the New Empire show us that people 
 knew of them, but did not consider them suit- 
 able for use in Egypt, and the Egyptians were 
 afraid of travelling in foreign countries. 
 
 Ch. xlii. 27. One of the brothers opened his 
 sack in the mm and found his money. There 
 must have been ims in very early times in 
 those countries where numbers of people of all 
 classes flocked together to certain places of 
 pilgrimage, and remained there for several days. 
 Thousands of people assembled at Bubastis for 
 the feast of Sekhet (Pasht), or at Abydos, where 
 was the tomb of Osiris. Here, as well as at 
 Tanis and Memphis, the destination of so many 
 
δ... 
 
 JOSEPH 
 
 caravans, there must have been inns, probably 
 
 much like the Oriental hans of the present day. 
 
 The rest of the story of Joseph and his 
 brethren contains but a few points further 
 which need explanation, On the return of the 
 brothers with Benjamin, with presents from 
 their father, and with the money which had 
 been put into their sacks, Joseph ordered the 
 “yuler of his house” (xliii. 16) to “slay and 
 make ready, for these men shall dine with 
 me at noon.” Every great man had (as is said 
 above) an overseer for his house. The monu- 
 ments often show us pictures of the slaying 
 of animals. Every temple had its slaughter- 
 court, and the animals killed were generally 
 oxen and a sort of large antelope, which was 
 domesticated in old times. The animal was 
 bound and its throat cut with a flint knife, no 
 other knife being used for this purpose. The 
 blood was carefully saved, and the body cut 
 into pieces, the legs being considered the best 
 part. In private houses, oxen, calves, and tame 
 antelopes were preferred to any other kind of 
 meat, Geese and ducks were preferred to all 
 other birds. The Egyptian feasts, of which 
 many are represented in the tombs, were not 
 like ours; the guests sat on chairs in long 
 rows opposite the richly-laden sideboard, which, 
 like the tables of offerings, was always decorated 
 with flowers. Servants, with serviettes in their 
 hands, waited on the guests with dishes also 
 decked with flowers. At ordinary meals a 
 small table with a tray of food and drink was 
 placed near each person: this is also customary 
 in the East now. Under the Old Empire, the 
 guests often squatted on the ground ; in later 
 times, however, four-legged chairs were used, 
 which were often upholstered and had comfort- 
 able backs. Near these were placed jugs, from 
 which, as is now the custom in the East, water 
 was poured over the hands of those who ate: 
 the use of knives and forks was unknown. The 
 Egyptians never reciined on sofas at meals, like 
 the Greeks and Romans. There was always a 
 special dining-hall in the houses of the great. 
 In the middle stood a large table, probably of 
 stone or brick, on which dishes were placed as 
 upon our sideboards. 
 
 Ch. xliii. 21. When the brothers defended 
 themselves to the ruler of Joseph’s house 
 because of the money they had found in their 
 sacks, he encouraged them with an expression 
 used as much in Egyptian as in Hebrew; for in 
 many hieroglyphic texts we find a friendly con- 
 versation beginning with the greeting net’ her 
 ten=“‘ Peace be to you,” or “ Peace to you.” In 
 Joseph’s house the steward brought water for 
 the brothers to wash their feet ; for this Eastern 
 custom existed also in ancient Egypt, as we 
 might expect with a nation where everything, 
 even their religion, inculcated cleanliness of body. 
 According to Herod. ii. 37, the priests always 
 had to bathe twice a day and to wear sandals, 
 while people of high rank often preferred to go 
 barefoot, and had shoe-bearers to carry their 
 sandals. Unwashen feet would have soiled the 
 plaster floor of the cleanly-kept rooms, and that 
 they were much afraid of doing this is proved 
 by the fact that many mummies have the soles 
 of their feet removed that they should not soil 
 the floor of the hall of judgment in the 
 underworld. 
 
 JOSEPH 1801 
 
 Vv. 26, ἄς. Joseph received his brothers, 
 asked for news of his father, and at the sight 
 of Benjamin, his mother’s son, was so moved 
 that he was obliged to withdraw into the inner 
 chamber, in order to weep. Representations 
 and ground-plans of Egyptian houses show us 
 that this “inner chamber” would probably be 
 the sleeping room, and could only be reached by 
 passing through the court, the verandah, a 
 reception-room, the dining-hall, and a sitting- 
 room. It was usually at the back of the house, 
 and (according to the representation of Merira’s 
 house) from the dining-hall Joseph would pass 
 through the sitting-room on the right, which 
 occupied one-third of the space behind the 
 dining-hall, and enter the sleeping chamber 
 which opened into it. 
 
 When at last they sat down to table, v. 32, 
 ‘“‘ They set on for him by himself, and for them [his 
 brothers] by themselves, and for the Egyptians, 
 which did eat with him, by themselves: because 
 the Egyptians might not eat bread with the 
 Hebrews, for that is an abomination unto the 
 Egyptians.” This passage shows us how com- 
 pletely Egyptian the court of the Hyksos kings 
 had become, for the Hebrews, who were really 
 their blood relations, were considered as unclean 
 as all other foreigners. To a patriotic Egyptian 
 it was always an abomination to eat at the same 
 table with a foreigner, or to cut bread with the 
 same knife, and this abhorrence still survived 
 (according to the classical writers) long after 
 Egypt had been opened out to foreigners under 
 Psammetichus 1. (26th dynasty), and after 
 the Pharaohs had for centuries married foreign 
 princesses. From the Pianchi stele (end of 9th 
 century B.C.) we learn that the conquered rebel 
 kings might not enter the king’s palace, 
 “because (ll. 150, 151) they were unclean 
 (ama-u) and they ate fish.” ‘ Unclean” means, 
 as we see by the determinative, uncircumcised, 
 and “they ate fish” means every kind of fish, 
 not those only that were allowed to the 
 Egyptians for food. It seems to have been a 
 cause of special abhorrence to the Egyptians 
 that foreigners did not keep the laws which 
 regarded cleanliness of the body and food. 
 Besides this, foreign lands and their inhabitants 
 belonged to Set (Typhon), and everything be- 
 longing to him was despised and unclean, even 
 red-haired people, ed being his colour; the word 
 for “red” therefore signified also “‘ wicked and 
 bad.” We know nothing more of the dishes of 
 honour (v. 34) which Joseph caused to be served, 
 except that Benjamin’s share was five times as 
 much as that of any of the others. At the end 
 of the meal “they drank and were merry with 
 him.” The scenes of the Egyptian tombs show 
 that it was usual to drink freely, men and 
 women being represented as overpowered with 
 wine, probably as an evidence of the liberality of 
 the entertainer. 
 
 Ch. xliv. Joseph continued his rough treat- 
 ment of his brothers, and brought them under 
 suspicion of having stolen his own particular 
 “silver cup.” Various forms of goblets are 
 represented on the monuments, some certainly 
 made of precious metals, gold, silver, or electron. 
 The cup was found in Benjamin’s sack, and 
 Joseph immediately pronounced the sentence of 
 punishment that the boy should be left behind 
 as his slave. Then Judah, mindful of the oath 
 
1802 JOSEPH 
 
 he had sworn to Jacob, stepped forward and 
 offered himself as a slave in the place of 
 Benjamin, that he might not see the evil that 
 should come upon his father. 
 
 Ch. xlv. Joseph’s heart was overcome by these 
 words, and he made himself known to his 
 brethren. Then follows the beautiful passage 
 (vv. 3, &c.) in which he quiets the troubled 
 men, by declaring that all has happened under 
 God’s guidance. 
 
 V. 8. “So now it was not you that sent me 
 hither, but God.” Then he sent them back to 
 fetch his father, and promised that they and 
 their flocks and herds should settle near him in 
 the land of Goshen. There he would take care of 
 them, for there were yet “ five years of famine.” 
 Goshen is praised as a land of great fertility. 
 [ GOSHEN. 
 
 Vv. 16, &e. Pharaoh and his servants were 
 pleased at the arrival of Joseph’s brothers, and 
 the king assured his favourite minister that both 
 they and their father were welcome to the land 
 of Egypt. “I will give you the good of the land 
 of Egypt, and ye shail eat the fat of the land.” 
 So Joseph, as Pharaoh had commanded, gave them 
 wagons to fetch their father, their wives and 
 children, and presented them with rich presents 
 for themselves and their father, in all of which 
 Benjamin had the preference. Here one point only 
 needs notice: Jacob and his family were to be 
 brought into Egypt in Egyptian wagons. There- 
 fore in the time of the Pharaohs there were roads 
 by which people could travel from Palestine to 
 Egypt. In the present day, since the Roman 
 roads have fallen into decay, this journey can 
 only be made riding or on foot, and even to 
 drive through the Delta is impossible. In Old 
 Egypt the Egyptian war-chariots went as far 
 as the north of Syria, and we see from this 
 passage that private conveyances could be 
 driven over this district. Under Rameses III. 
 we find Asiatic tribes invading Egypt, and 
 amongst their camp-followers are ow-carts for 
 the conveyance of the wives and children. 
 These carts are really only boxes on four wheels, 
 while the baggage-wagons of the Egyptians, 
 instances of which are represented in the camp 
 of Rameses II., and the chariots for war or for 
 pleasure, were two-wheeled. For the baggage, 
 box-like tops were added to the conveyance. 
 They were drawn, not by horses but by oxen, as 
 is now the case in Ethiopia. We cannot decide 
 which sort of wagon was sent to meet Jacob. 
 
 Ch. xlvi. 1, &c. Jacob and his family went 
 down into Egypt, and the Lord promised him 
 there (v. 3) to make of him “a great nation.” 
 Then follow the names of the sons and grand- 
 children of Jacob who came with him into 
 Egypt. “All the souls of the house of Jacob 
 which came into Egypt were three score and 
 ten” (v. 27). 
 
 Ve. 28, &e. Judah was sent on before to 
 Joseph, who caused his chariot to be made 
 ready and went up to meet his father in 
 Goshen. This helps us to settle the position of 
 Goshen, which must have been between the 
 eastern boundary of the Delta, and one of the 
 king’s residences, Tanis, Bubastis, or Memphis. 
 See GOSHEN. 
 
 Ve. 29, 30. Joseph went up in his chariot 
 and met his father. 
 
 Vo. 31-34. Joseph advised his brethren to 
 
 JOSEPH 
 
 make themselves known to Pharaoh as shepherds 
 and herdsmen, so that he might allow them to 
 remain in the land of Goshen; for (υ. 34) 
 “every shepherd is an abomination unto the 
 Egyptians.” Herodotus, a good authority on all 
 he saw himself and a most careful observer 
 when in Egypt, tells us (ii. 47) of the great 
 contempt in which ali swineherds were held. 
 This is not surprising, for swine were held in 
 as much abhorrence by the Egyptians as by the 
 Jews and Mahommedans, and were kept but 
 rarely (for certain sacrifices, e.g. in Nechebt, i.e. 
 el-Kab). That shepherds were also hated, it is 
 difficult to understand, for the ram was sacred 
 in Egypt, and some Egyptians possessed large 
 flocks of sheep. But though rams and bullocks — 
 are very often represented, the sheep appears 
 very rarely, and the reason for this was pro- 
 bably religious, the sheep perhaps not being 
 wholly a clean animal, and much inferior to 
 the bullock, the favourite of the Egyptian land- 
 owner. Everything concerning the sheep was 
 undertaken (as with swine) by the shepherds. 
 On the other hand, it was the pride of the great 
 man to enumerate on the walls of his tomb the 
 number of each kind of bullock4 which he 
 possessed. Bullocks were treated with loving 
 care; they were adorned with gay cloths and 
 tassels. Their keeper is on friendly terms with 
 them, and in the Papyrus d’Orbiney the cows 
 are supposed to talk with the shepherd: they 
 tell him where the best pasture is to be found, 
 and the leading cow warns him that he is 
 pursued. 
 
 The bullocks also were treated with medicine 
 when they were ill, and were specially cared for 
 at breeding time. The chief breed in Egypt 
 was the old African zebra breed with the hump; 
 the horns grew in the form of a lyre to a 
 magnificent length: while another breed was 
 kept artificially with short horns, or with no 
 horns at all. Foreign bulls were brought into 
 the country to improve the breed, some being 
 imported under the New Empire from the Kheta 
 country ; that is, North Syria. Though the oyer- 
 seers, the stewards, the governors, and the scribes 
 of the herds were illustrious civil servants, the 
 shepherds and herdsmen were despised. Their 
 business forced them to wander about, and they 
 could not always keep out of contact with 
 unclean things; they were, therefore, abhorrent 
 to the Egyptians, with whom a settled life and 
 cleanliness were held in the highest estimation. 
 They were called sechti-w or marsh-men, and 
 at certain seasons they had to take their 
 cattle into the marshy districts, just as shep- 
 herds in the mountains at the present day take 
 them up to “the Alm.” In the marshes of 
 the Delta, where birds were snared and wild 
 animals trapped, they would probably come 
 across strangers. Instead of houses they had 
 huts, something like tents, quickly put up and 
 taken down; and of all Egyptians (as we see 
 by their pictures), they took the least pains 
 
 a A certain Sabu had 405 of one breed, 1237 of 
 another, 1300 of another; besides 1200 calves of one 
 breed, and 1138 of another ; in addition 1308 antelopes, 
 1135 gazelles, and 1244 head of a kind of antelope-goat. 
 A relation also of king Khafra Anch, whose grave is at 
 Gizeh, possessed 835 long-horned cattle, 220 without 
 horns, 974 sheep, 2235 goats, and 760 asses. 
 
JOSEPH 
 
 with their appearance. They wore a rough 
 apron of plaited grass, and shaved neither their 
 heads nor their beards. Though people avoided 
 coming in contact with the herdsmen, they 
 considered them very intelligent, just as we 
 ascrive a power of sharp observation to our 
 shepherds, who live in close intercourse with 
 nature. Joseph made use of the prejudice 
 against shepherds to settle his relatives on good 
 pasture-land beyond the cultivated and thickly 
 populated lands of the native Egyptians. 
 
 Pharaoh willingly agreed (vv. 3-6), and told 
 Joseph that if there were capable men amongst 
 them to place them as overseers over his 
 own herds, The mer or overseer is often 
 mentioned on the monuments. One was called 
 “overseer of the horn, of the leg with the cloven 
 hoof, and of the feather.” He was therefore 
 over all the cattle, the bullocks, the smaller 
 animals, and the feathered flocks. The king 
 must have possessed large herds of cattle; the 
 royal domains were not much less than those 
 belonging to the temples, and the latter owed 
 most of their possessions to the gifts of the great 
 landowners.” 
 
 Ch. xlvii. 7, &c. Jacob, who was 130 years 
 old, blessed Pharaoh, and this need not surprise 
 us when we remember the reverence the 
 Egyptians paid to old age. 
 
 Vv. 13, ἄς. The wise financier Joseph gath- 
 ered into the treasury of Pharaoh all the money 
 of the Egyptians and of the inhabitants of 
 Canaan by means of his accumulated stores 
 of food. V. 14: “And Joseph brought the 
 money into Pharavh’s house.” By this house is 
 meant the treasury, which, together with the offi- 
 
 cials attached to it, appears countless times on_ 
 
 the monuments. It is usually called per-het = 
 “the house of silver,” and the head-treasurer 
 was a high officer of state.* -His office was often 
 connected with that of the tat (see p. 1800), 
 and he had many men under him, called “the 
 stewards or clerks of the house of silver.” The 
 title of head-treasurer was given, even under 
 the Old Empire, as an honorary title to the 
 highest officers and to the royal relatives. 
 Thus, in an inscription of the 6th dynasty, 
 there is a list of the high officers of state; the 
 princes precede every one, and next come the 
 head-treasurers (the word used is in the plural, 
 though one man discharged the duties of the 
 office). There are many pictures of the treasure- 
 house, with its scales on which a large number 
 of clerks weighed and kept the register of the 
 rings and bars. Each temple also had its 
 treasure-chambers, ¢.g. those of Medinet Haboo 
 of Rameses III. On the walls are represented 
 the treasures it contained, metals of all kinds, 
 as well as precious metals, precious stones, 
 vessels of gold and silver, &c.* 
 
 The Bible tells us how the Egyptians gave all 
 their money to save themselves from starvation, 
 and how they were at last obliged to pledge 
 their cattle and their land. 
 
 r According to Erman, during thirty-one years under 
 the New Empire they received 514,968 head of cattle. 
 
 s The reading is uncertain, though the meaning is 
 quite clear. 
 
 t F. Diimichen has published drawings of the objects 
 in this treasure-house, the same of which Herodotus 
 relates his beautiful story of the ‘* Treasure-house.” 
 
 JOSEPH 1803 
 
 Vv. 20, &e.:.“ And Joseph bought all the 
 land of Egypt for Pharaoh; for the Egyptians 
 sold every man his fields because the famine 
 prevailed over them: so the land became 
 Pharaoh’s. .. Only the land of the priests 
 bought he not; for the priests had a portion 
 assigned them of Pharaoh, and did eat their 
 portion which Pharaoh gave them: wherefore 
 they sold not their lands.” Then he gave 
 the people seed for their fields, and required 
 them in return to give Pharaoh the fifth part of 
 the produce, the other four parts being their 
 own, for seed of the field, and for their food, 
 V. 26, “ And Joseph made it a law over the land 
 of Egypt unto this day, that Pharaoh should 
 have the fifth part, except the land of the priests 
 only, which became not Pharaoh’s.” ἃ 
 
 We have here a true picture of the agrarian 
 relations in the valley of the Nile after the ex- 
 pulsion of the Hyksos. Under the Old Empire, 
 as is related in the graves of that period, the 
 nobility and princes of the nomes possessed large 
 freehold estates, and in times of famine had to 
 take care of their people. Under the New Em- 
 pire, till long after the time of the Exodus, it 
 was quite different; and if we review in chrono- 
 logical order the agrarian relations of Egypt, 
 referred to on the monuments, we find that the 
 reversion to the Crown of the landed property 
 of the nobility must have occurred in the period 
 just before the expulsion of the Hyksos. In 
 Lower Egypt, also, the native Egyptian Pha~ 
 raohs, from the time of Rasekenen I. to that 
 of Ahmes, seem to have confiscated the large 
 estates, and the story of Joseph gives an interest- 
 ing account of this proceeding. It is certain 
 that under the 18th dynasty (that following the 
 Hyksos) all the land, with the exception of the 
 priests’ fields, belonged to Pharaoh, and that 
 those in possession had to pay 20 per cent. 
 of the produce (the fifth part) to the king, 
 while under the Old Empire there is no trace of 
 such a regulation; the statutwm or fixed income 
 of the priests (mentioned xlvii. 22) is also found 
 in later times. Under the Old Empire the 
 princes of the nomes presided over the colleges 
 of the priests in their small feudal states, and 
 received a fixed amount of the revenues (bread, 
 meat, and beer). This was all changed later, 
 for under the 19th and 20th dynasties the 
 priests, instead of paying out part of their 
 revenues, were continually begging, and so 
 many gifts were added to the old emoluments 
 that after the time of Rameses III. the priest- 
 hood had very large endowments (see Pap. 
 Harris, 1., Brit. Mus.), and became richer and 
 more powerful than the king himself, so that 
 under the 21st dynasty they deposed the old 
 family of Pharaohs and usurped the throne. 
 
 ἃ This transaction of Joseph and that of the Egyptian 
 king Sesostris as recorded by Herodotus (ii. 109), 
 dividing the soil of Egypt among the inhabitants on the 
 terms of an annual rent payable to the Crown, have led 
 some writers to identify Sesostris with Joseph’s Pharaoh. 
 Such an identification is extremely precarious [PHARAOH, 
 sec. 2, The Pharaoh of Joseph, p. 813 a]. But however 
 that may be, the statement of Herodotus (with which 
 may be read Diod. i. 54, Strabo xvii. p. 787) is held to 
 corroborate Gen. xlvii. 20 so far as this, that Egyptian 
 land tenure was believed in his day to have originated 
 in assignments of land by the Crown as the supreme and 
 ultimate owner of the soil.—Epirors. 
 
1804 JOSEPH 
 
 Under the Persians, 454 B.c., Herodotus ob- 
 serves (ii. 168) that the priests were exempt 
 from taxes as well as the soldiers. The revenue 
 brought in by a certain allotment of the taxes 
 agrees with the fixed income (pM) ‘in our his- 
 tory, and consisted daily of 5 minae of bread 
 (between 4 and 5 lbs.), 2 minae of beef (not 
 quite 2 lbs.), and 4 bowls of wime: money, of 
 course, is not mentioned. The account of the 
 changes which by the wisdom of Joseph were 
 so much to the advantage of the Crown pro- 
 perty, causes us to place our story towards the 
 end of the Hyksos period; for from that time 
 to the time of the Exodus, there are no his- 
 torical indications of a similar revolution in the 
 agricultural laws. 
 
 Vo. 27-31. We see how Joseph’s family 
 took firm root in the land, and multiplied 
 quickly; and how Jacob, in his 147th year, 
 feeling his end approaching, made Joseph swear 
 to him that he would not bury him in Egypt, 
 but in the burying-plave of his fathers at 
 Hebron. 
 
 Ch. xlviii. 1, &c., contains the last farewell of 
 Jacob to Joseph, and the adoption of Ephraim 
 and Manasseh, the sons of Joseph, by Jacob, 
 who received them into the number of his sons, 
 so that ‘‘as Reuben and Simeon they shall be 
 mine.” Joseph was lost to Jacob because he 
 had become an Egyptian, but by the adoption of 
 the two sons of Rachel’s firstborn the gap in 
 the brotherhood to whom God had promised the 
 land of Canaan was filled up. In spite of the 
 fact that Manasseh was the elder son, Israel 
 placed his right hand on the head of Ephraim, 
 thus giving him the privileges of the first-born. 
 
 V. 21. Jacob promised Joseph that the Lord 
 should bring his descendants back into the land 
 of his fathers. 
 
 Chap. xlix. gives the blessing of Jacob to his 
 sons [JACOB], and the repetition of his wish that 
 he should be buried in the cave of Machpelah, 
 by the side of Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and 
 Rebekah, and his own wife Leah [MacHPELAn]. 
 V.33. Jacob “ gathered up his feet into the bed, 
 and yielded up the ghost, and was gathered unto 
 his people.” 
 
 Ch. 1.1, &c. Joseph mourned for his father, 
 and commanded his servants the physicians to 
 embalm him: “And forty days were fulfilled 
 for him; for so are fulfilled the days of those 
 which are embalmed : and the Egyptians mourned 
 for him threescore and ten days” (v. 3). This 
 statement corresponds with the length of time 
 required for embalmment, according to the 
 accounts given by the classical writers and by 
 the monuments. Herodotus (ii. 86) and Dio- 
 dorus (i. 91) give us many details about em- 
 balming. [EMBALMING.] 
 
 The body of the father of Joseph, the most 
 distinguished man in Egypt, could only have 
 been embalmed in the most costly method. An 
 account of what was to be done with the body 
 of a distinguished person is found in the Rhind 
 Papyrus (Brit. Mus.). In this account the 
 various substances are enumerated which are 
 used in embalming, and seventy days are spoken 
 of as the appointed time for the embalmment 
 of a body. This is most interesting to us, as in 
 our passage the time of mourning takes exactly 
 the same length of time. In the Rhind Papyrus 
 thirty-six days are given for the first process, 
 
 JOSEPH 
 
 instead of which we find (Gen. |. 3) the round 
 number of forty. Pharaoh willingly granted 
 that Joseph should fulfil his father’s wish and 
 
 take the body to the family burial-place. The — 
 
 ae. ΥΥ.. 
 
 funeral procession was as splendid as if Jacob — 
 
 had been of royal birth, for (1. 7) there followed 
 
 all the servants of Pharaoh, the elders of his — 
 
 house, and all the elders of the land of Egypt. 
 
 V. 9. “And there went up with him both 
 chariots and horsemen: and it was a very great 
 company.” Such great funeral processions are 
 often represented in the tombs of Abd-el- 
 Kurna at Thebes; the horsemen alone are 
 wanting, and some maintain that the Egyptians 
 never used the horse for riding. This opinion, 
 
 however, is not correct; for though horses with ~ 
 
 chariots are more often represented than riding 
 horses, yet there are several pictures of Egyptians 
 riding, and the hieroglyphic texts sometimes 
 speak of horse-soldiers, e.g. an inscription at 
 Karnak, where we find “ soldiers riding on war- 
 horses,” and further on we read that they pursue 
 the enemy. The finest picture of a man riding 
 a horse without a saddle is one in the Museo 
 Civico at Bologna. A man on horseback is also 
 found carved in open work on a battle-axe of 
 the time of the expulsion of the Hyksos. Joseph 
 naturally accompanied the mortal remains of 
 his father (on the place of burial, see JACOB). 
 When he returned, his brothers (I. 15) feared 
 that he would hate them, because of the evil 
 
 they had done to him, and, throwing themselves 
 
 at his feet, they begged him to forgive them for 
 their father’s sake. Then again we see the good 
 
 and noble character of Joseph, who calms them — 
 
 with the beautiful, oft-repeated words (vv. 19 
 and 20): “Fear not: for am I in the place of 
 God? Ye thought evil against me; but God 
 meant it unto good.” 
 
 Joseph continued to live in peace with his 
 family in Egypt, and his earthly happiness was 
 great in seeing Ephraim’s descendants to the 
 third generation, that is, his great-great-grand- 
 children ; also his great-grandchildren, the 
 grandchildren of Manasseh, the children of 
 Machir. Joseph also wished to rest in the land 
 of his fathers (1. 25). This wish was fulfilled, 
 though much later, for we read (Ex. xiii. 19) 
 that Moses took the bones of Joseph with him; 
 and in Josh. xxiv. 32 we are told that the bones 
 of Joseph, which the children of Israel had 
 brought with them out of the land of Egypt, 
 were buried in Shechem, in the field which 
 Jacob bought from the sons of Hamor, the 
 father of Shechem, for one hundred pieces of 
 silver. 
 
 V. 26 tells us that Joseph was 110 years 
 old. We often find that the Egyptians prayed 
 that they might reach their 110th year, for to 
 live 110 years was the last wish to be fulfilled 
 for a happy life. In the most ancient MS. we 
 possess, the Papyrus Prisse, a life of 110 years 
 is declared to be the best, and in the Papyrus 
 Anasti IV. (T. 4, 1.4) we read: “ Fulfil 110 years 
 on the earth, whilst thy limbs are vigorous.” 
 On a granite statue at Vienna, there is a prayer 
 to the goddess Isis that she should grant life, 
 health, happiness, and a good old age in this 
 world, and also a splendid and excellent burial 
 at Heliopolis, after 110 years on earth. It is 
 written of the prophet Roma (19th dynasty) 
 that when he had lived 110 years on earth, he 
 
JOSEPH 
 
 had attained the most perfect age of mortal 
 men. ‘ God,” as he says himself, “ granted me 
 110 years of life.” Many similar passages speak 
 of 110 years as the most perfect age to be 
 desired, and therefore by the number 110 is 
 inferred an especially blessed and prosperous 
 life.’ This number 110 is certainly worthy of 
 attention, for it proves that the author of this 
 passage was perfectly conversant with Egyptian 
 matters, and that the story of Joseph’s life, as 
 it has come down to us, has in part, at least, 
 obtained its local colouring on Egyptian soil. 
 G 
 
 Joseph’s character.—-We have as full an account 
 of Joseph as of Abraham and Jacob, a fuller one 
 than of Isaac ; and if we compare their histories, 
 Joseph’s character is the least marked by wrong 
 or indecision. His first quality seems to have 
 been, the greatest resolution. He not only 
 believed faithfully, but could endure patiently, 
 and could command equally his good and evil 
 passions. Hence his strong sense of duty, his 
 zealous work, his strict justice, his clear dis- 
 crimination of good and evil. Like all men of 
 vigorous character, he loved power; but when 
 he had gained it, he used it with the greatest 
 generosity. He seems to have striven to get 
 men unconditionally in his power that he 
 might confer benefits upon them. Generosity 
 in conferring benefits as well as in forgiving 
 injuries is one of his distinguishing character- 
 istics. With this strength was united the 
 deepest tenderness. He was easily moved to 
 tears, even weeping at the first sight of his 
 brethren after they had sold him. His love for 
 his father and Benjamin was not enfeebled by 
 years of separation, nor by his great station. 
 The wise man was still the same as the true 
 youth. These great qualities explain his power 
 of governing and administering, and his extra- 
 ordinary flexibility, which enabled him to suit 
 himself to each new position in life. The last 
 characteristic to make up this great character 
 was modesty, the natural result of the others. 
 
 Joseph’s place in history.—In the history of 
 the chosen race Joseph occupies a very high 
 place as an instrument of Providence. He was 
 “sent before” his people, as he himself knew, 
 to preserve them in the terrible famine, and to 
 settle them where they could multiply and 
 prosper in the interval before the iniquity of the 
 Canaanites was full. 
 
 Joseph as a type.—In the N. T. Joseph is only 
 mentioned (Heb. xi. 21, 22). Yet the striking 
 particulars of the persecution and sale by his 
 brethren, his resisting temptation, his degrada- 
 tion and yet greater exaltation, the saving of his 
 people by his hand, and the confounding of his 
 enemies, seem to indicate that he was a type of 
 our Lord. [R. S. P.] 
 
 2. Father of Igal, who represented the tribe 
 of Issachar among the spies (Num. xiii. 7). 
 
 8. A lay Israelite of the family of Bani 
 who was compelled by Ezra to put away his 
 
 v It is not without design that the Papyrus Ebers 
 ends at the 110th page, and Aulus Gellius knew some- 
 thing of the significance of this number, for in his 
 Noctes Atticae he explains (x. 10) that the Egyptians 
 only lived 110 years, because the heart loses each year 
 seven drachms up to the age of fifty years, and then 
 two drachms yearly till the hundredth year. 
 
 1805 
 In 1 Esd. it is given 
 
 JOSEPH 
 
 foreign wife (Ezra x. 42). 
 as JOSEPHUS. 
 
 4. Representative of the priestly family of 
 Shebaniah, in the next generation after the 
 Return from Captivity (Neh. xii. 14), 
 
 5. (Ἰώσηφος.) A Jewish officer defeated by 
 Gorgias ὁ. 164 B.c. (1 Mace. ν. 8, 56, 60). 
 
 6. In 2 Mace. viii. 22, x. 19, Joseph is named 
 among the brethren of Judas Maccabaeus ap- 
 parently in place of John (Ewald, Gesch. iv. 384, 
 note; Grimm, ad 2 Mace. viii. 22). The con- 
 fusion of Ἰωάννης, Ἰωσήφ, ᾿Ιωσῆς is well seen in 
 the various readings in Matt. xiii. 55, 
 
 7. An ancestor of Judith (Jud. viii. 1). 
 
 [B. F. W.] 
 
 8. One of the ancestors of Christ (Luke iii. 
 30), son of Jonan, and the eighth generation 
 from David inclusive, about contemporary there- 
 fore with king Ahaziah. 
 
 9. Another ancestor of Christ, son of Judah 
 or Abiud, and grandson of Joanna or Hananiah 
 the son of Zerubbabel (Luke iii. 26), Alford, 
 Westcott and Hort, &c., adopt the reading 
 Josek, a mistake which seems to originate with 
 the common confusion in Heb. MSS, between 
 Ὦ and +. 
 
 10. Another, son of Mattathias, in the 
 seventh generation before Joseph the husband 
 of the Virgin. 
 
 11. Son of Heli, and reputed father of Jesus 
 Christ. The recurrence of this name in the 
 three above instances, once before and twice 
 after Zerubbabel, whereas it does not occur once 
 in St. Matthew’s genealogy, is a strong evidence 
 of the paternal descent of Joseph the son of 
 Heli, as traced by St. Luke to Nathan the son 
 of David. 
 
 All that is told us of Joseph in the N. Τὶ may 
 be summed up in a few words. He was a just 
 man, and of the house and lineage of David, and 
 was known as such by his contemporaries, who 
 called Jesus the son of David, and were disposed 
 to own Him as Messiah, as being Joseph’s son. 
 The public registers also contained his name 
 under the reckoning of the house of David 
 (John i. 45; Luke iii. 23; Matt. i. 20; Luke ii. 
 4). He lived at Nazareth in Galilee, and it is 
 probable that his family had been settled there 
 for at least two preceding generations, possibly 
 from the time of Matthat, the common grand- 
 father of Joseph and Mary, since Mary lived 
 there too (Luke i. 26, 27). He espoused Mary, 
 the daughter and heir of his uncle Jacob, and 
 before he took her home as his wife received the 
 angelic communication recorded in Matt. i. 20. 
 It must have been within a very short time of 
 his taking her to his home, that the decree went 
 forth from Augustus Caesar which obliged him 
 to leave Nazareth with his wife and go to 
 Bethlehem. He was there with Mary and her 
 first-born, when the shepherds came to see the 
 babe in the manger, and he went with them to 
 the Temple to present the infant according to 
 the Law, and there heard the prophetic words of 
 Simeon, as he held him in his arms. When the 
 wise men from the East came to Bethlehem to 
 worship Christ, Joseph was there; and he went 
 down to Egypt with the Mother and the Child 
 by night, when warned by an Angel of the danger 
 which threatened them; and on a second message 
 he returned with them to the land of Israel, 
 intending to reside at Bethlehem, the city of 
 
1806 JOSEPH 
 
 David; but being afraid of Archelaus he took 
 up his abode, as. before his marriage, at Naza- 
 reth, where he carried on his trade as a 
 carpenter. When Jesus was twelve years old, 
 Joseph and Mary took Him with them to keep 
 the Passover at Jerusalem, and when they re- 
 turned to Nazareth he continued to act as a 
 father to the child Jesus, and was reputed to be 
 so indeed. But here our knowledge of Joseph 
 ends. That he died before our Lord’s crucifixion, 
 is indeed tolerably certain, by what is related in 
 John xix. 27; and perhaps Mark vi. 3 may 
 imply that he was then dead. But where, 
 when, or how he died, we know not. What 
 was his age when he married, what children he 
 had, and who was their mother, are questions 
 on which tradition has been very busy and 
 very contradictory, and on which it affords no 
 reliable information whatever. In fact, the 
 different accounts given are not traditions, but 
 the attempts of different ages of the early 
 Church to reconcile the narrative of the 
 Gospels with their own opinions, and to give 
 support, as they thought, to the miraculous 
 conception. It is not necessary to detail or 
 examine these accounts here, as they throw 
 light rather upon the history of those opinions 
 during four or five centuries, than upon the 
 history of Joseph. But it may be well to ‘add 
 that the origin of all the earliest stories and 
 assertions of the Fathers concerning Joseph—as, 
 9.4.5. his extreme old age, his having sons by a 
 former wife, his having the custody of Mary 
 given to him by lot, and so on—is to be found in 
 the apocryphal Gospels, of which the earliest is 
 the Protevangelium of St. James, apparently 
 the work of a Christian Jew of the second 
 century, quoted by Origen, and referred to by 
 Clement of Alexandria and Justin Martyr (Tis- 
 chendorf, Proleg. xiii.). The same stories are 
 repeated in the other apocryphal Gospels (see 
 Smith and Wace, Dict. of Christian Biography, 
 s. v. “ Gospels, Apocryphal”). Themonophysite 
 Coptic Christians are said to have first assigned 
 a festival of St. Joseph in the Calender, viz. on 
 the 20th July, which is thus inscribed in a Coptic 
 almanack :—“ Requies sancti senis justi Josephi 
 fabri lignarii, Deiparae Virginis Mariae sponsi, 
 qui pater Christi vocari promeruit.” The 
 apocryphal Historia Josephi fabri lignarii (see 
 “ Gospels, Apocryphal,” p. 706), which now exists 
 in Arabic, is thought by Tischendorf to have 
 been originally written in Coptic, and the 
 festival of Joseph is supposed to have been 
 transferred to the Western Churches from the 
 East as late as the year 1399.% The above- 
 named history is acknowledged to be quite 
 fabulous, though it belongs probably to the 
 4th century. It professes to be an account 
 given by our Lord Himself to the Apostles on 
 the Mount of Olives, and placed by them in the 
 library of Jerusalem. It ascribes 111 years 
 to Joseph’s life, and makes him old and the 
 father of four sons and two daughters before 
 he espoused Mary. It is headed with this 
 sentence: “Benedictiones ejus et preces servant 
 nos omnes, Ο fratres. Amen.” The reader who 
 wishes to know the opinion of the ancients on 
 
 ® Calmet, however, places the admission of Joseph 
 into the calendar of the Western Church as early as 
 before the year 900. See ‘Tischendorf, wt sup. 
 
 JOSEPH OF ARIMATHAEA 
 
 the obscure subject of Joseph’s marriage may 
 consult Jerome’s acrimonious tract Contra Hel- 
 vidium. He will see that Jerome highly dis- 
 approves the common opinion (derived from the 
 apocryphal Gospels) of Joseph being twice 
 married, and that he claims the authority of 
 Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and 
 “many other apostolical men,” in favour of his 
 own view, that our Lord’s brethren were his 
 cousins only, or at all events against the opinion 
 of Helvidius, which had been held by Ebion, 
 Theodotus of Byzantium, and Valentine, that 
 they were the children of Joseph and Mary. 
 Those who held this opinion were called 
 Antidicomarianitae, as enemies of the Virgin. 
 (Epiphanius, Adv. Haeres. lib. iii. ὁ. ii.; Haer. 
 Ixxviii., also Haer. li. See also Pearson on the 
 Creed, art. Virgin Mary; Mill, on the Brethren 
 of the Lord; Calmet, de 85. Joseph. S. Mar. 
 Virg. conjuge ; and for an able statement of the 
 opposite view, Alford’s note on Matt. xiii. 55; 
 Winer, RWB. 5. vv. Jesus and Joseph ; and the 
 article in this Dictionary, “The Brethren of the 
 Lord.”’) [A. C. ἘΠῚ 
 
 JOSEPH OF ARIMATHAEA (Ἰωσὴφ ὃ 
 ἀπὸ ’Apimabatas), a rich and pious Israelite who 
 had the privilege of performing the last offices 
 of duty and affection to the Body of our Lord. 
 He is distinguished from other persons of the 
 same name by the addition of his birth-place 
 ARIMATHAEA, the Ramah of 1 Sam. i. 1, 19. 
 
 Joseph is denominated by St. Mark (xv. 43) 
 an honourable counsellor, by which we are pro- 
 bably to understand that he was a member of 
 the Great Council, or Sanhedrin. He is further 
 characterised as “a good man and a just” 
 (Luke xxiii. 50), one of those who, bearing in 
 their hearts the words of their old Prophets, 
 was waiting for the kingdom of God (Mark 
 xv. 43; Luke ii. 25, 38, xxiii. 51). We are 
 expressly told that he did not “consent to the 
 counsel and deed” of his colleagues in con- 
 spiring to bring about the death of Jesus; but 
 he seems to have lacked the courage to protest 
 against their judgment. At all events we know 
 that he shrank, through fear of his countrymen, 
 from professing himself openly a disciple of our 
 Lord. 
 
 The awful event, however, which crushed the 
 hopes while it excited the fears of the chosen 
 disciples, had the effect of inspiring him with a 
 boldness and confidence to which he had before 
 been a stranger. The Crucifixion seems to have 
 wrought in him the same clear conviction that 
 it wrought in the Centurion who stood by the 
 Cross; for on the very evening of that dreadful 
 day, when the triumph of the chief priests and 
 rulers seemed complete, Joseph “ went in boldly 
 unto Pilate and craved the body of Jesus.” The 
 fact is mentioned by all four Evangelists. Pilate, 
 having assured himself that the Divine Sufferer 
 was dead, consented to the request of Joseph, 
 who was thus rewarded for his faith and courage 
 by the blessed privilege of consigning to his own 
 new tomb the Body of his crucified Lord. In 
 this sacred office he was assisted by Nicodemus, 
 who, like himself, had hitherto been afraid to 
 make open profession of his faith, bit now dis- 
 
 missing his fears brought an abundant store of” 
 
 myrrh and aloes for the embalming of the Body 
 of his Lord according to the Jewish custom. 
 
JOSEPH BARSABAS 
 
 _ These two masters in Israel then, having en- 
 
 folded the sacred Body in the linen shroud which 
 Joseph had bought, consigned it to a tomb hewn 
 in a rock—a tomb where no human corpse had 
 ever yet been laid. 
 
 It is specially recorded that the tomb was in 
 a garden belonging to Joseph, and close to the 
 place of Crucifixion. 
 
 The minuteness of the narrative seems pur- 
 posely designed to take away all ground or 
 pretext for any rumour that might be spread, 
 after the Resnrrection, that it was some other, 
 not Jesus Himself, that had risen from the 
 grave. But the burial of Jesus in the new 
 private sepulchre of the rich man of Arimathaea 
 must also be regarded as the fulfilment of the 
 prophecy of Isaiah (liii. 9): according to the 
 literal rendering of Bishop Lowth, “ with the 
 rich man was His tomb ” (cp. Delitzsch* in loco. 
 The passage is much disputed ; ep. Dillmann ὅ in 
 loco). Nothing but of the merest legendary 
 character is recorded of Joseph, beyond what 
 we read in Scripture. There is a tradition, 
 surely a very improbable one, that he was of 
 the number of the seventy disciples. Another 
 (cp. Fabric. Cod. Apoc. N. 1. i. 270), whether 
 authentic or not, deserves to be mentioned as 
 generally current; namely, that Joseph being 
 sent to Great Britain by the Apostle St. Philip, 
 about the year 63, settled with his brother dis- 
 ciples at Glastonbury, in Somersetshire; and 
 there erected of wicker-twigs the first Christian 
 oratory in England, the parent of the majestic 
 abbey which was afterwards founded on the 
 same site. The local guides to this day show 
 the miraculous thorn (said to bud and blossom 
 every Christmas-day) that sprung from the staff 
 which Joseph stuck in the ground as he stopped 
 to rest himself on the hill-top (see Dugdale’s 
 Monasticon, i.1; and Hearne, Hist. and Ant. of 
 Glastonbury ; Assemann, Bibl. Orient. iii. 319). 
 
 [E. H—s.] [F.] 
 
 JO'SEPH, called BAR’SABAS, and sur- 
 named Justus; one of the two persons chosen 
 by the assembled Church (Acts i. 23) as worthy 
 to fill the place in the apostolic company from 
 which Judas had fallen. He, therefore, had 
 been a companion of the disciples all the time 
 that they followed Jesus, from His Baptism to 
 His Ascension. 
 
 Papias (ap. Euseb. H. 15. iii. 39) calls him 
 Justus Barsabas, and relates that having drunk 
 some deadly poison he, through the grace of the 
 Lord, sustained no harm. Eusebius (77. Z.i. 12) 
 states that he was one of the seventy disciples. 
 He is to be distinguished from Joses Barnabas 
 (Acts iv. 36) and from, Judas Barsabas (Acts 
 xv. 22). The signification of Barsabas is quite 
 uncertain. Lightfoot (Hor, Hebr. Acts i. 23) 
 gives five possible interpretations of it, viz. the 
 son of conversion, of quiet, of an oath, of wis- 
 dom, of the old man. He prefers the last two; 
 and suggests that Joseph Barsabas may be the 
 same as Joses the son of Alphaeus, and that 
 Judas Barsabas may be his brother the Apostle. 
 
 ΕΞ Ba) 
 
 JOSE’PHUS (Ἰώσηφος), 1 Esd. ix. 34, 
 [JosEPH, 3.] 
 
 JO'SE-S (Ἰωσής, Ἰησοῦς, Alford; Ἰωσὴ is 
 the genitive case). 
 
 JOSHUA 1807 
 
 genealogy of Christ (Luke iii, 29), 15th gene- 
 ration from David, 1.9, about the reign of 
 Manasseh. 
 
 2. One of the Lord’s brethren (Matt. xiii. 55; 
 Mark vi. 3). His name connects him with the 
 preceding. See the BRETHREN or THE LoRD 
 and James. All that appears with certainty 
 from Scripture is that his mother’s name was 
 Mary, and his brother’s James (Matt. xxvii. 56). 
 
 3. Joses BARNABAS (Acts iv. 36). [Bar- 
 NABAS, | ΓΑ. ©. ἘΠῚ] 
 
 JO'SHAH (TWD ; B. Ἰωσειά, B. Ἰωσία, 
 A. Ἰωσίας ; Josa), a prince of the house of 
 Simeon, son of Amaziah, and connected with 
 the more prosperous branch of the tribe, who, 
 in the days of Hezekiah, headed a marauding 
 expedition against the peaceable Hamite shep- 
 herds dwelling in Gedor, exterminated them, and 
 occupied their pasturage (1 Ch. iv. 34, 38-41). 
 
 JO'SHAPHAT (ΟΡ ἢ» = DEYN = Je- 
 hovah hath judged; ᾿Ιωσαφάτ, δὲ. Ἰωσαφάς ; 
 Josaphat), the Mithnite, one of David’s guard, 
 apparently selected from among the warriors 
 from the east of Jordan (1 Ch. xi. 43). Buxtorf 
 (Lea. Talm. p. 1284) gives Mathnan as the 
 Chaldee equivalent of Bashan, by which the 
 latter is always represented in the Targ. Onk. ; 
 and if this were the place which gave Joshaphat 
 his surname, he was probably a Gadite. In the 
 Syriac, Joshaphat and Uzziah (v. 44) are inter- 
 changed, and the latter appears as “Azi of 
 Anathoth.” 
 
 JOSHAVI'AH (74), of uncertain ety- 
 mology; BN. Ἰωσειά; A. Ἰωσία; Josaia), the 
 
 son of Elnaam, and one of Dayid’s guards (1 Ch. 
 xi. 46). The LXX. make him the son of Jeribai, 
 
 by reading 133 for 133. The name appears in 
 
 eight, and probably nine, different forms in the 
 MSS. collated by Kennicott. 
 
 JOSHBEKA’SHAH (NWpay: in υ. 4, B. 
 ἸΙειβασακά; A. SeBa: καιτάν ; in v. 24, B. Ba- 
 κατά, A. ἸΙεσβακατάν : Jesbacassa), head of the 
 16th course of musicians. [JESHARELAH.] He 
 belonged to the house of Heman (1 Ch. xxv. 
 4, 24). [A. C. H.] 
 
 JOSH'UA (UWI; Ἰησοῦς; Josua; i.e. 
 “whose help is Jehovah,” Gesen., or rather 
 “Jah is Salvation’; cp. Pearson, On the Creed, 
 Art. IL, p. 89, ed. 1843): on the import of his 
 name, and the change of it from Oshea or 
 Hoshea, Num. xiii. 16 = “ welfare” or “ salva- 
 tion,” see Pearson, /. c.; it appears in the 
 various forms of HosHEA, OsHEA, JEHOSHUA, 
 JesHUA, and Jesus. 1. The son of Nun, of the 
 tribe of Ephraim® (1 Ch. vii. 27). The future 
 captain of invading hosts grew up a slave in the 
 brick-fields of Egypt. Born about the time 
 when Moses fled into Midian, he was a man of 
 nearly forty years when he saw the ten plagues, 
 and shared in the hurried triumph of the 
 Exodus. The keen eye of the aged Lawgiver 
 
 ® The attempts to make Joshua an unhistorical 
 personage or a tribal-captain magnified into a leader of 
 Israel, have signally failed. These attempts are suffi- 
 ciently examined and refuted by Kittel, Geschichte ἃ, 
 
 1. Son of Eliezer, in the | Hebréer, i. pp. 247 sq., 264sq.—{F.] 
 
1808 JOSHUA 
 
 soon discerned in Hoshea those qualities which 
 might be required in a colleague or successor 
 to himself. He is mentioned first in connexion 
 with the fight against Amalek at Rephidim, 
 when he was chosen (Ex. xvii. 9) by Moses to 
 lead the Israelites. When Moses ascended 
 Mount Sinai to receive for the first time (cp. 
 Ex. xxiv. 13 and xxxiii. 11) the two Tables, 
 Joshua, who is called his minister or servant, 
 accompanied him part of the way, and was the 
 first to accost him in his descent (Ex. xxxii. 17). 
 Soon afterwards he was one of the twelve chiefs 
 who were sent (Num. xiii. 17) to explore the 
 land of Canaan, and one of the two (xiv. 6) who 
 gaye an encouraging report of their journey. 
 The forty years of wandering were almost 
 passed, and Joshua was one of the few sur- 
 vivors, when Moses, shortly before his death, 
 was directed (Num. xxvii. 18) to invest Joshua 
 solemnly and publicly with definite authority in 
 connexion with Eleazar the priest, over the 
 people. And after this was done, God Himself 
 gave Joshua a charge by the mouth of the 
 dying Lawgiver (Deut. xxxi. 14, 23). 
 
 Under the direction of God, again srenewed 
 (Josh. i. 1), Joshua, now in his eighty-fifth year 
 (Joseph. Ant. v. 1, § 29), assumed the command 
 of the people at Shittim, sent spies into Jericho, 
 erossed the Jordan, fortified a camp at Gilgal, 
 circumcised the people, kept the Passover, and 
 was visited by the Captain” of the Lord’s Host. 
 A miracle made the fall of Jericho more terrible 
 to the Canaanites. A repulse, due to the tres- 
 pass of Achan, in the first assault on Ai im- 
 pressed upon the invaders the warning that 
 they were the instruments of a holy and jealous 
 God. ΑἹ fell: and the Law was inscribed on 
 Mount Ebal, and read by their leader in the 
 presence of all] Israel. 
 
 The treaty which the fear-stricken Gibeonites 
 obtained deceitfully was generously respected by 
 Joshua. It stimulated and brought to a point 
 the hostile movements of the five confederate 
 chiefs of the Amorites. Joshua, aided by an 
 unprecedented hailstorm, and a miraculous 
 prolongation of the day, obtained a decisive 
 victory over them at Makkedah, and proceeded 
 at once to subjugate the south country as far as 
 Kadesh-barnea and Gaza. He returned to the 
 camp at Gilgal, master of half of Palestine. 
 
 In another campaign he marched to the 
 waters of Merom, where he met and overthrew 
 a confederacy of the Canaanitish chiefs in the 
 north, under Jabin king of Hazor; and in the 
 course of a protracted war he led his victorious 
 soldiers to the gates of Zidon and into the 
 valley of Lebanon under Hermon. In six years, 
 six nations with thirty-one ‘kings swelled the 
 roll of his conquests; amongst others the 
 Anakim—the old terror of Israel—are specially 
 
 b It has been questioned whether the Captain of the 
 Lord’s Host was a created being or not. Dr. W. H. 
 Mill discusses this point at full length and with great 
 learning, and decides in fayour of the former alter- 
 native (On the Historical Character of St. Luke’s 
 First Chapter, Camb., 1841, p. 92. Cp. Dillmann? on 
 Josh. v. 13,=an Angel, comparing Gen. xxxii. 2 and 
 1K. xxii. 19). But J. G. Abicht (De Duce Exercitus, 
 é&c., ap. Nov. Thes. Theolcgicophilolog. i. 503) is of 
 opinion that He was the uncreated Angel, the Son of 
 God—“ God manifested in the Person of His Word” 
 (Espin in Speaker’s Comm., in loco). 
 
 JOSHUA 
 
 recorded as destroyed everywhere except in — 
 Philistia. It must be borne in mind that the — 
 extensive conquests of Joshua were not intended 
 to achieve and did not achieve the complete 
 extirpation of the Canaanites, many of whom 
 continued to occupy isolated strongholds 
 throughout the land. 
 
 Joshua, now stricken in years, proceeded in 
 conjunction with Eleazar and tle heads of the 
 tribes, to complete the division of the conquered 
 Jand; and when all was allotted, Timnath-serah 
 in Mount Ephraim was assigned by the people 
 as Joshua’s peculiar inheritance. The Taber- 
 nacle of the congregation was established at 
 Shiloh, six cities of refuge were appointed, 
 forty-eight cities assigned to the Levites, and 
 the warriors of the trans-Jordanic tribes dis- 
 missed in peace to their homes. 
 
 After an interval of rest, Joshua.convoked an 
 assembly from all Israel. He delivered two 
 solemn addresses reminding them of the mar- 
 vellous fulfilment of God’s promises to their 
 fathers, and warning them of the conditions on 
 which their prosperity depended ; and lastly, he 
 caused them to renew their covenant with God, 
 at Shechem, a. place already famous in con- 
 nexion with Jacob (Gen. xxxv. 4) and Joseph 
 (Josh. xxiv. 32). Respecting these two closing 
 addresses of Joshua, see also JOSHUA, BOOK OF, 
 pp. 1810b, 1811 a. 
 
 He died at the age of 110 years, and was 
 buried in his own city, Timnath-serah. 
 
 Joshua’s life has been noted as one of the 
 very few which are recorded in history with 
 some fulness of detail, yet without any stain 
 upon them. In his character have been traced, 
 under an Oriental garb, such features as chiefly 
 kindled the imagination of Western chroniclers 
 and poets in the Middle Ages: the character 
 of a devout warrior, blameless and fearless, who 
 has been taught by serving as a youth how to 
 command as a man; who earns by manly 
 vigour a quiet honoured old age; who combines 
 strength with gentleness, ever looking up for 
 and obeying the Divine impulse with the 
 simplicity of a child, while he wields great 
 power and directs it calmly, and without 
 swerving, to the accomplishment of a high 
 unselfish purpose. 
 
 All that part of the Book of Joshua which 
 relates his personal history seems to be written 
 with the unconscious, vivid power of an eye- 
 witness. We are not merely taught to look with 
 a distant reverence upon the first man who bears 
 the Name which is above every name. We 
 stand by the side of one who is admitted to hear 
 the words of God, and see the vision of the 
 Almighty. The image of the armed warrior is 
 before us when in the sight of the two armies 
 he lifted up his spear over unguarded Ai. We 
 see the majestic presence which inspired all 
 Israel (iv. 14) with awe; the mild father who 
 remonstrated with Achan; the calm, dignified 
 judge who pronounced his sentence ; the devout 
 worshipper prostrating himself before the Cap- 
 tain of the Lord’s Host. We see the lonely man 
 in the height of his power, separate from those 
 about him, the last survivor, save one, of a 
 famous generation; the honoured old man of 
 many deeds and many sufferings, gathering his 
 dying energy for an attempt to bind his people 
 more closely to the service of God, whom he had 
 
JOSHUA 
 
 so long served and worshipped, and whom he 
 was ever learning to know more and more. 
 
 The great work of Joshua’s life was more ex- 
 citing but less hopeful than that of Moses. He 
 gathered the first-fruits of the autumn harvest 
 where his predecessor had sown the seed in 
 spring. It was a high and hopeful task to 
 watch beside the cradle of a mighty nation, and 
 to train its early footsteps in laws which should 
 last for centuries. And it was a fit end to a life of 
 expectation to gaze with longing eyes from Pisgah 
 upon the Land of Promise. But no such bright- 
 ness gleamed upon the calm close of Joshua’s life. 
 Solemn words, and dark with foreboding, fell 
 from him as he sat “ under the oak that was by 
 the sanctuary of the Lord in Shechem.” The 
 excitement of his battles was past ; and there had 
 grown up in the mind of the pious leader a con- 
 sciousness that it was the tendency of prosperity 
 and success to make a people wanton and 
 worldly-minded, idolaters in spirit if not in act, 
 and to alienate them from God. 
 
 Holy Scripture itself suggests (Heb. iv. 8) the 
 consideration of Joshua as a type of Christ. 
 Many of the Christian Fathers have enlarged 
 upon this view; and Bishop Pearson, who has 
 collected their opinions (Un the Creed, Art. II. 
 pp- 87-90 and 94-96, ed. 1843), points out the 
 following and many other typical resemblances : 
 —(1.) The name. common to both: (2.) Joshua 
 brings the people of God into the Land of Pro- 
 mise, and divides the land among the tribes ; 
 Jesus brings His people into the Presence of God, 
 and assigns to them their mansions: (3.) as 
 Joshua succeeded Moses and completed his work, 
 so the Gospel of Christ, succeeding the Law, 
 announced One by Whom all that, believe are 
 justified from all things from which we could 
 not be justified by the Law of Moses (Acts xiii. 
 39): (4.) as Joshua the minister of Moses re- 
 newed the rite of circumcision, so Jesus, the 
 Minister of the circumcision, brought in the 
 circumcision of the heart (Rom. ii. 29, xv. 8). 
 
 The treatment of the Canaanites by their 
 Jewish conquerors is fully discussed by Dean 
 Graves, On the,Pentateuch, Pt. 3, Lect. i. He 
 concludes that the extermination of the Canaan- 
 ites was justified by their crimes, and that the 
 employment of the Jews in such extermination 
 was quite consistent with God’s method of 
 governing the world. Prof. Fairbairn ( Typology 
 of Scripture, bk. iii. ch. 4, § 1, ed. 1854) argues 
 with great force and candour in favour of the 
 complete agreement of the principles on which 
 the war was carried on by Joshua with the 
 principles of the Christian dispensation. Cp. 
 also Mozley, Lectures on the Old Testament ; 
 Lect. iv., “ Exterminating Wars.” 
 
 Among the occurrences in the life of Joshua, 
 none has led to so much discussion as the alleged 
 prolongation of the day of the battle of Mak- 
 kedah (x. 12-14). Was it an astronomical 
 miracle by which the motion of the heavenly 
 bodies was for some hours suspended? Or, was 
 the motion of the earth on its axis temporarily 
 suspended? Or, was the miracle an optical 
 illusion? Such solutions have been accepted by 
 many (cp. Winer, HWA. and the 1st edition of this 
 work) ; but in the present day they seem to be sur- 
 rendered in fayour of the view—that the passage 
 (vv. 120, 13a) taken from a poetical book with 
 a prose reflection upon it (vv. 15), 14a) is a 
 
 BIBLE DICT.—VOL. I. 
 
 JOSHUA, THE BOOK OF _ 1809 
 
 fragment interpolated into the text, which does 
 not commit the Book of Joshua to upholding 
 that the marvel in the heavens actually took 
 place (cp. Espin in Speaker’s Comm., Add. note on 
 Josh. x. 12-15, and Dillmann? in loco, who give 
 references to the enormous literature on the 
 subject). 
 
 Procopius, who flourished in the 6th century, 
 relates (Vandal. ii. 10) that an inscription ex- 
 isted at Tingis in Mauritania, set up by Phoeni- 
 cian refugees from Canaan, and declaring in 
 the Phoenician language, “ We are they who fled 
 from the face of Joshua the robber, the son of 
 Nun.” Ewald (Gesch. Isr. ii. 297, 298) gives 
 sound reasons for forbearing to use this story as 
 authentic history (cp. also Kittel, Geschichte d. 
 Hebréer, i. p. 264,n.1). It is, however, accepted 
 by Rawlinson (Bampton Lecture for 1859, iii. 
 91); 
 
 Lightfoot (Hor. Heb. in Matt. 1. ὅ, and Chorogr. 
 Lucae praemis. iv. § 3) quotes Jewish traditions 
 to the effect that Rahab became a proselyte and 
 the wife of Joshua, and the ancestress of nine 
 prophets and priests ; also that the sepulchre of 
 Joshua was adorned with an image of the sun in 
 memory of the miracle of Ajalon. The LXX. 
 and the Arab. Vers. add to Josh. xxiv. 30 the 
 statement that in his sepulchre were deposited 
 the flint-knives which were used for the circum- 
 cision at Gilgal (Josh. v. 2). In Heb. iv. 8, the 
 A, V.“ Jesus” (see marg.) is correctly replaced 
 by “Joshua” in the R. V. and Versions pre- 
 ceding the A. V. in order to avoid confusion. 
 
 The principal occurrences in the life of Joshua 
 are reviewed by Bishop Hall in his Contempla- 
 tions on the O. T., bks 7, 8, and 9. 
 
 2. (B. “Ωσῆε, A. Ἰησοῦ ; Josue.) An inhabi- 
 tant of Bethshemesh, in whose land was the 
 stone at which the milch-kine stopped, when 
 they drew the Ark of God with the offerings of 
 the Philistines from Ekron to Bethshemesh 
 ( Sam. vi. 14, 18). 
 
 3. (Ἰησοῦς: Josue.) A governor of the city 
 who gave his name to a gate of Jerusalem (2 K. 
 xxiii. 8). 
 
 4, (Ἰεσοῦς : Jesus.) Called Jeshua in Ezra 
 and Nehemiah ; a high-priest, who returned 
 from the Captivity with Zerubbabel. For de- 
 tails see JesHua, No. 4. EW... D2. Beas teen 
 
 JOSH’UA, THE BOOK OF, so called from 
 the name of the leader, with whose public life 
 it is principally concerned, the sixth Book of 
 the O. T. Canon. Among the Jews, the Book of 
 Joshua was placed in adifferent category from 
 the Pentateuch (the “Law” ), and forms the 
 first of the group of writings called by them 
 the “Earlier Prophets” (i.e. Joshua, Judges, 
 Samuel, and Kings): but this distinction is an 
 artificial one, depending on the fact that the 
 Book could not be regarded, like the Penta- 
 teuch, as containing an authoritative rule of 
 life. Its contents, and still more (as will be 
 seen) its structure, show that it is intimately 
 connected with the Pentateuch, and describes 
 the final stage in the history of the Origines of 
 the Hebrew nation [Genzsis, ὃ 1]. It forms, 
 in fact, the concluding part of a whole, which, 
 consisting as it does of six Books, has been 
 conveniently termed by modern writers the 
 Hexateuch. 
 
 § 1. Contents—The Book of Joshua fills 
 
 524 
 
1810 JOSHUA, THE BOOK OF 
 
 naturally into two parts, the first (ch. i—xii.) 
 narrating the passage of Jordan and the con- 
 quest—so far as it was completed at the time— 
 of Canaan; the second (ch. xiii—xxiv.) describ- 
 ing the allotment of the conquered territory 
 among the Israelites, and ending with the death 
 of Joshua and of Aaron’s son Eleazar. 
 
 I. Ch. i. Joshua is encouraged by God for the 
 task imposed upon him, and receives, according to 
 the stipulation (Num. xxxii. 6-33), the promise 
 of assistance from the two-and-a-half tribes 
 whose territory had been already allotted to 
 them ou the E. of Jordan. Ch, ii. The mission 
 of the spies to Jericho, and the compact with 
 Rahab. Ch. iii.-iv. The passage of the Jordan, 
 and the erection of two monuments in com- 
 memoration of the event, consisting of two 
 cairns of stones, one set up in the bed of the 
 river itself, the other at the first camping-place 
 on the W. side, Gilgal. Gilgal, probably Tell 
 Djeldjul, in the plain midway between the 
 Jordan and Jericho, becomes henceforth the 
 head-quarters of the Israelites, till the conquest 
 is completed. Ch. vy. 1-12. Joshua circumcises 
 the people at Gilgal: after this the Passover is 
 kept there with cakes made of the produce of 
 Canaan, and the manna ceases. Ch, v. 13-vi. 
 Joshua receives instructions with reference to 
 the conquest of Jericho; the city is taken and 
 “devoted” (according to Deut. vii. 2, 25 sq.), 
 Rahab and her household being spared accord- 
 ing to the agreement made with the spies. 
 Joshua utters a curse upon any one who should 
 attempt to rebuild Jericho. Ch. vii. 1—viii. 29. 
 The Israelites advance against Ai, in the heart 
 of the land near Bethel: they are at first 
 unsuccessful in consequence of Achan’s sin, in 
 having appropriated part of the spoil “devoted ” 
 at Jericho: but afterwards, Achan’s offence 
 having been discovered and punished, they ob- 
 tain possession of Ai by means of a stratagem. 
 Ch. viii. 30-35. Joshua builds an altar on Ebal, 
 above Shechem, and fulfils the injunctions, Deut. 
 xxvii. 2-8. Ch. ix. The Gibeonites, by a strata- 
 gem which disarms the suspicions of the Israel- 
 ites, secure immunity for their lives, and are 
 permitted to retain rights as dependents, on 
 condition of their performing certain menial 
 offices for the Sanctuary. Ch. x. The conquest 
 of South Canaan: the defeat of the kings of 
 Jerusalem, Hebron, Jarmuth, Lachish, and Eglon 
 at Beth-horon, and the subsequent conquest 
 of Makkedah, Libnah, Lachish, Gezer, Eglon, 
 Hebron, and Debir: further particulars are not 
 given, but Joshua’s successes in this quarter 
 of Palestine are generalized in vv, 40-43. 
 Ch. xi, The conquest of Northern Canaan: the 
 defeat of Jabin king of Hazor and his allies at 
 the waters of Merom, followed by the capture of 
 the towns belonging to them (vv. 1-15): with 
 a review (vv. 16-23) of the entire series of 
 Joshua’s successes in the South as well as in the 
 North of Canaan. Ch. xii. A supplementary 
 list of the kings smitten by the Israelites—Sihon 
 and Og (with an account of the territory belong- 
 ing to them) on the east of Jordan, and thirty- 
 one kings slain by them under Joshua on the 
 west of Jordan (of these sixteen have not been 
 before mentioned in the Book: see § 3, note 11). 
 
 Il. Ch. xiii-xxiv.—Ch. xiii. (a) vv. 1-14. 
 Joshua is commanded to proceed with the dis- 
 tribution of the conquered territory among the 
 
 JOSHUA, THE BOOK OF 
 
 nine-and-a-half tribes, vv. 1, 7 (vv. 2-6 contain 
 a parenthetic notice of certain districts not yet 
 conquered): vv. 8-12 define anew the borders of 
 
 the Israelitish territory E. of Jordan; v. 13 states © 
 
 particulars respecting tribes not dispossessed by 
 the Israelites. (Ὁ) vv. 15-33. The borders and 
 cities of the three trans-Jordanic tribes, Reuben, 
 Gad, and the half-tribe of Manasseh. Ch. xiv. 
 Preparations for the division of the land by lot, by 
 Joshua and Eleazar (vv. 1-5). Caleb receives 
 from Joshua his portion at Hebron, in accordance 
 with the promise, Deut. i. 36 (vv. 6-15). Ch. xv. 
 The borders of the tribe of Judah, vv. 1-12, 
 followed by a notice of Caleb’s exploit against 
 Hebron, and Othniel’s conquest of Kirjath- 
 
 sepher, vv. 13-19 (vv. 14-19 almost verbally= ~ 
 
 Judg. i. 10-15), and by a list of the cities of 
 Judah, arranged by districts, vv. 20-63. Ch. 
 xvi.-xvii. The lot of the children of Joseph, i.e. 
 Ephraim and the western half of Manasseh. 
 The description is much less complete than in 
 the case of Judah, and also less clearly arranged. 
 Ch. xvi. 1-3 describes the S. border (but only this) 
 of the two tribes, regarded as a whole: ch. xvi. 5— 
 10 describes the borders of Ephraim, with a notice 
 (v. 9) of certain. cities belonging to Ephraim, but 
 situated in the territory of Manasseh, and (v. 10) 
 of the fact that Gezer continued to be inhabited 
 by Canaanites (υ. 10=Judg. i. 29: see also 
 1 K. ix. 16, 20, 21). Ch. xvii. describes the 
 borders of Manasseh, with a notice of the cities 
 belonging to it in Issachar and Asher (vv. 1-13), 
 concluding (vv. 14-18) with an account of the 
 complaint of insufficient territory made by the 
 joint tribes and of the permission given to them 
 by Joshua to extend their territory for them- 
 selves. Ch. xviii. The Israelites assemble at 
 Shiloh, and set up the Tabernacle there. At 
 Joshua’s direction, a survey (‘“ describe,” Jit. 
 “write”) of the land yet undivided is made, 
 and its distribution by lot to the seven remain- 
 ing tribes is proceeded with at Shiloh, vv. 1-10. 
 An account of the borders (vv. 11-20) and cities 
 (vv. 21-28) of Benjamin occupies the rest of 
 the chapter. Ch. xix. The cities belonging to 
 Simeon, vv. 1-9; the borders of Zebulun, vv. 
 10-16 (the list of cities is incomplete); the 
 cities and border (partly) of Jssachar, vv. 17-23 ; 
 the borders of Asher, vv. 24-31 (list of cities 
 incomplete) ; the border and cities of Naphtali, 
 vv. 32-39; the cities belonging to Dan, vv. 
 40-48; the assignment of Timnath-serah, in 
 Ephraim, to Joshua, v. 49 sq. Ch. xx. Appoint- 
 ment of the cities of refuge (in accordance with 
 Num. xxxv. 9sq. and Deut. xix. ; Deut. iv. 41-3 
 being disregarded). Ch. xxi. List of the forty- 
 eight cities, assigned in the different tribes, to 
 the tribe of Levi (in accordance with Num. xxxv. 
 1-8). Ch. xxii. Joshua dismisses the two-and- 
 a-half tribes to their homes on the east of Jordan, 
 vv. 1-8. The remonstrance addressed to them 
 by the other tribes on account of the altar 
 erected by them at the point where they crossed 
 the Jordan, and their reply to it, wv. 9-34. Ch. 
 xxiii. The first of Joshua’s two closing addresses 
 to the people, in which he exhorts the Israel- 
 ites to adhere faithfully to the principles of the 
 Deuteronomic law, and in particular to refrain 
 from all intercourse with the native inhabitants 
 of Canaan, Ch. xxiv. 1-25. The second of 
 Joshua’s closing addresses, delivered at Shechem. 
 This discourse differs in scope from that in 
 
 iat, ἢ int, 
 
JOSHUA, THE BOOK OF 
 
 ch, xxiii. : it comprises a review of the mercies 
 
 shown by God to His people from the patriarchal | 
 days, upon which is based the duty of discarding | 
 
 all false gods and serving Him alone. The people, 
 responding to Joshua’s example, pledge them- 
 selves solemnly to obey ; and a stone, in attesta- 
 tion of their act, is erected in the sanctuary at 
 Shechem, vv. 16-28 (with vv. 14, 26 cp. Gen. 
 xxxv. 2-4). The Book closes with notices of 
 the death of Joshua, and his burial at Timnath- 
 serah, v. 29 sq.; of the burial of Joseph’s bones 
 (in accordance with Gen. 1. 25; Ex. xiii. 19) at 
 Shechem, v. 32; and of the death and burial of 
 Joshua’s companion, Eleazar, v. 33 (vv. 28-31 
 recur, with slight variations, in Judg. ii. 6, 8, 9, 
 7). Chronological notes in the Book are rare 
 (iv. 19, v. 10; and incidentally, xiv. 10); and 
 the period of time embraced by it can only 
 be determined approximately. From a com- 
 parison of xiv. 10 with Deut. ii. 14, it would 
 seem that, in the view of the writer of the 
 section, xiv. 6-15, the war of conquest occupied 
 about seven years. 
 
 § 2. Composition and Authorship.—The com- 
 posite structure of the Book of Joshua discloses 
 itself unmistakably as soon as it is studied 
 with attention. Groups of passages occur in it, 
 distinguished from one another partly by mate- 
 rial differences, partly by differences of style 
 and expression, which mark them as the work of 
 different authors. Thus, one group of such 
 passages has the characteristics of the Penta- 
 teuchal source known as P (see GENESIS): 
 while another has strong affinities with Deu- 
 teronomy, esp. with ch. xxix.-xxxi.* In ch. 
 i—xii. the main narrative consists of a work, 
 itself in its turn composite, which is regarded 
 by critics as the continuation of “JE” (see 
 ibid.), though whether its component parts 
 are definitely J and E, or whether it is rather 
 the work of the writer who combined J and E 
 into a whole, and in this Book, perhaps, per- 
 mitted himself the use of other independent 
 
 § 8, Part I.: chs, i—xii. 
 
 fi. 1-9. 1. 
 
 12-24. { Ce ili. 
 ii. 10-11,2 
 P iv. 13, 
 JE { iv. 1-3. 
 tbe 
 P v: 10-12. 
 { JE 
 D2 
 P 
 { JE 
 D2 
 Ῥ 
 
 iv. 4-ἴ, 9--118, 
 
 11b, 12, 
 
 vii. 1. 
 
 v.4 13-vi. 27. vii. 2-26.5 
 
 ix. 15b, 
 
 ix. 1l-léa. 16, 
 ix. 9b-10, 
 
 | retained unaltered. 
 
 14, 
 
 JOSHUA, THE BOOK OF 1811 
 
 sources, may be an open question. In ch. xiii.- 
 xxiv., especially in the topographical descrip- 
 tions, the work of P predominates, and his dis- 
 position of material seems mostly to have been 
 The process by which the 
 Book appears to have reached its present form 
 may be indicated in outline as follows. The 
 composite work JE, just alluded to, being taken 
 as a basis, was amplified by a writer strongly 
 
 'imbued with the spirit of Deuteronomy, who 
 
 may be accordingly termed the Deuteronomic 
 Editor, and denoted by the abbreviation D?, The 
 parts due to the hand of D? are in most cases 
 readily recognizable by their strongly marked 
 style. The chief characteristic of the Deut. 
 additions is that they exhibit Joshua as the 
 fulfiller of Mosaic ordinances, especially of the 
 injunction to show no quarter to the native 
 population of Canaan, and explain how accord- 
 ingly success accompanied him, and the people 
 under his guidance took triumphant possession 
 of Canaan: see i. 1-9; iii. 7,10; iv. 14; v. 1; 
 vi. 2; vill. 1, 29 (Deut. xxi. 23), 30-35; and esp. 
 x. 40-42; xi. 12, 14, 15, 16-23; xxi. 43-45 
 (Heb. 41-43); xxiii. 3,9,14b; xxiv. 13, and the 
 addition in v.11. In point of fact, as other 
 passages of the Book, and especially Judg. i., 
 show (see § 6), the conquest was by no means 
 effected with the rapidity and completeness here 
 represented: but the writer, as it seems, gene- 
 ralizes with a free hand. Another characteristic 
 of the Deut. additions is the frequent reference 
 to the occupation of the trans-Jordanic terri- 
 
 | tory by the two-and-a-half tribes—not merely 
 | in i, 12 sq. and xxii. 1-6, but also ii. 10, ix. 10, 
 
 xii. 2-6, xiii, 8-12, xviii. 7b. The work which 
 left D”s hands was afterwards combined, by an 
 independent compiler, with the source P; and, 
 with the exception possibly of a few notes 
 which may have been added subsequently, the 
 Book of Joshua was thus produced.» The 
 accompanying tables, followed by short explana- 
 tory notes, exhibit the analysis of sources.* 
 
 The Conquest of Palestine. 
 
 iii. 24, 
 
 19, 
 
 20, } 
 
 21-24, v.1. 
 
 15-18, 
 
 viii.6 1-29. 
 
 viii.” 30-35. ix. 1-2. 
 
 17-21, 
 
 22-23, 26-278 ba, 
 
 24-25, 2108. 
 
 X. 9-11, 120-148, 15-24, 26-27, xi, 1-9. 
 
 f JE 
 { D? x. 8. 12a, 140, 25, 28-43, xi, 10-23, xii. 
 
 1 Ch, i. is in all probability based in parts (especially vv. 1, 2, 10, 11a) upon an earlier narrative (that of JE); 
 but as a whole it is the composition of D? (see § 5). 
 
 2 The Deut. style of these two verses—and of these alone in the entire chapter—is evident : see Deut. xxxi. 4 ; 
 i. 28; and esp. iv. 39: also Josh. iv. 23, v. 1, vii. 5b (all D2). V. 9 contains reminiscences from the Song in Ex. xv. 
 (vv. 16, 15). The verses afford an excellent illustration of the practice of the Hebrew historians to represent 
 historical characters as employing words and phrases familiar to themselves. (So, for instance, David in 1 K. ii. 
 
 4 See Hollenberg, Stud. und Kritiken, 1874, Ὁ. 472sqq. | manner in which they are supposed to have been com- 
 Ὁ Dillmann (less probably) holds that P was united | bined. 
 with JE before it passed into D2's hands. The differ- ¢ To avoid complication, subordinate details are not 
 ence does not affect the analysis of sources, but only the ! introduced into the tables, 
 528 
 
1812 JOSHUA, THE BOOK OF 
 
 3-4 uses the phraseology of the compiler of Kings: throughout 1 Ch. xxix. he expresses himself in the phraseology 4 
 of the author of Chronicles.) Shittim in ii. 1 as Num. xxv. 1 (JE). 
 
 3 The narrative in ch. iii.-iv. is intricate, and itis very possible that the true analysis is more complicated than 
 is allowed for in the tables. Though some of the details are, consequently, uncertain, two things, however, are 
 clear: (1) that the narrative is composite, (2) that it has been amplified in parts by a Deuteronomic hand. 
 (1) a. While iii. 17 states that the passage of Jordan is already completed, iv. 4, 5, 10b implies that the people 
 have not yet crossed: thus, if followed carefully, it will be seen that the narrative at iv. 11 is at precisely the same 
 point that was reached at iii. 17. ὃ. iv. 8 and iv. 9 describe two different ceremonies—the location of stones, taken 
 from Jordan, at Gilgal, and the erection of stones in the bed of the river itself: Ὁ. 8 however manifestly continues 
 the narrative of v. 3, while v. 9 is the sequel of vv. 4-7, which on the other hand interrupt the connexion of v. 3 
 with v. 8. 6. iii. 12 is not needed, if it and iv. 2 belong to the same narrative; it is however required for iv. 4. 
 The verses assigned to a form a continuous narrative, relating to the stones deposited at Gilgal: the narrative ὃ has 
 not been preserved in its integrity, parts having been omitted when it was combined with a. (2) The combined 
 narrative ὦ ὃ has been amplified by D2 (as the style shows) in iii. 7, iv. 14, 21-24, and probably in one or two places 
 besides, ¢.g. iii. 3, ‘the priests the Levites ” (ΟΡ. DEUTERONOMY, § 16), iii. 10b (cp. below, ᾧ 5, i.). (The letters 
 a and b have been used because it seems doubtful whether the two narratives belong to J and E respectively.) 
 
 4 In vi. 2, 27 there are indications of the hand of D?: thus with v. 2 cp. Deut. ii. 245 ch. viii. 13 i. 145 vill. 35 
 x. 7; with v. 27, ch. i. 5, ix. 9b. In the rest of the chapter it is probable that Wellh. and Dillm. are right in finding 
 traces of a double narrative, one earlier and simpler than the other, with which it is now combined; but for this 
 it must suffice to refer to Wellh. Comp. pp. 121-4, and Dillm. Comm. p. 461 sq. 
 
 5 With probably a few phrases added by D? (cp. e.g. υ. 26b with Deut. xiii. 17 [Heb. 187). 
 
 6 Likewise slightly amplified by D2, as v. 1, “ Fear not, neither be thou dismayed” (cp. Deut, i. 21, xxxi. 8; 
 ch. x. 25), ‘See, I have given,” &c. (cp. vi. 2): 2a (to yourselves), 27 (cp. Deut. ii. 35), and perhaps in one or two 
 places besides. On the rest of these verses, cp. Wellh. Comp. p. 125 sq., Dillm. p. 472 sqq. F 
 
 7 With regard to this passage, a difficulty arises on account of the position which it occupies in the Book. Ebal is 
 situated considerably to the north of Ai; and while the intervening territory remained unconquered, it is difficult to 
 understand how the Israelites could have advanced as far. One suggestion is that the verses are misplaced, and 
 should follow xi. 23: more probably the narrative of JE has not been preserved in its integrity, and the account 
 which—to judge from the analogy of ch. x. and of ch. xi.—it must once have contained respecting the conquest of 
 Central Palestine has been omitted by the compiler of the Book. On the analysis of the verses, cp. Kuenen, Theol. 
 Tijdschr. 1878, pp. 315-322. viii. 30-32 agrees with Deut. xxvii. 1-8 ; v. 33 also agrees tolerably with Deut. xi. 29, 
 xxvii. 11-13, but not completely, there being no mention of the curse. The reading of the Law, v. 34 sq., is not 
 enjoined in Deuteronomy. In v. 34 the words ‘the blessing and the curse,” which, though they seem to be 
 explanatory of “ all the words of the law,” evidently cannot be so in reality, are perhaps a later insertion, made 
 for the purpose of rectifying the apparent omission in v. 33. In v. 33 notice the Deuteronomic phrase, ‘ the priests 
 the Levites”” (DEUTERONOMY, § 16); and with v. 35b cp. Deut. xxix. 11 [Heb. 10]. 
 
 8 In v. 27 the words “for the congregation, and”’ are derived, in all probability, from the narrative of P. On 
 υ. 27bB, cp. DEUTERONOMY, § 36, No. 2. 
 
 9 The Deut, additions in x. 1-14 are similar in character to those in ch. vi., viii. TV. 12b-13a (to enemies) 
 is an excerpt from the ancient collection of national songs, called the Book of JASHAR; v. 130-148 is the comment 
 of the narrator (here, perhaps, E). In vv. 12a, 14b, notice the Deuteronomic phraseology (see p. 776, No. 20; and 
 
 below, § 5, No. 3; with NW sop, v. 12, cp. Deut. xxxi. 7). With the excerpt itself, Judg. v. 20 should be 
 compared. As regards the sequel of the battle of Beth-horon, v. 28 sqq., it is to be observed that Judg. i. 1-20 
 attributes the conquest of the South of Palestine to Judah: and Hebron and Debir are represented in Josh, xv. 14-19 
 (=Jnudg. i. 10-15) as having been taken under circumstances very different from those here presupposed. It seems 
 that D? generalizes sometimes in his descriptions; and that he here attributes to Joshua more than was actually 
 accomplished by him in person. 
 
 10 With traces of ΤΣ in vv. 2, 3, 6, 7, 8. In vv. 10-15 the consequences of the victory at the waters of Merom are 
 generalized by D? very much as those of the victory at Beth-horon are generalized in x. 28-39. Vv. 16-23 form 
 a concluding survey of the whole course of the conquest. In v. 21 f., as Dillmann remarks, what in other narratives 
 (xiv. 12; xv. 14-19=Judg. i. 10-15) is referred to Caleb and Judah, is generalized and attributed to Joshua. 
 
 11 Another generalizing review by D2, vv. 1-6 being a retrospective survey of the conquests made under Moses 
 on the E. of Jordan (based, as Hollenberg, p. 499 sq. [see § 7], shows, not on Num. xxi., &c., but on Dent. iii. 
 9-12, 14-17), vv. 7-24 containing a list of the kings defeated by Joshua in Canaan itself. Of the thirty-one (or, if 
 v. 18 be corrected after the LXX. [see QPB.3], 30) places named, sixteen (fifteen) are not mentioned elsewhere 
 among the conquests under Joshua, viz., Geder, Adullam, Beth-el, Tappuah, Hepher, Aphek of the Sharon (LXX.), 
 Taanach, Megiddo, Kedesh, Jokneam, Dor, the nations of (LXX.) Galilee, Tirzah (on Hormah and Arad, cp. 
 Judg. i. 17, Num. xxi. 1-3). 10 is probable, therefore, either that omissions have been made in the narrative of JE 
 (cp. n. 7) in the process of incorporation by D®, or that this list has been derived from an independent source. 
 
 § 4. Part 11. : ch. xiii—xsiv. 
 
 P xiii. 15-32, xiv. 1-5.? 
 Ge xiii! 1. 7 13, xiv. 6-15.3 
 D2 xiii. 2-6, 8-12, 14, 33. 
 P xv. 1-18. 20-44, 48-62, xvi. 4-8, 
 
 {5 xv. 14-19, 45-47, 63... xvid 1-3. 9-10. 
 
 Ῥ Xvii.‘la. 3-4, uf 9a, 9c, 10a, xviii. 1. 
 { ΤΕ Xvii. 1b-2, 5, (6), 8, 9b, 10b-18. xviii. 2-6. 
 6 Xviii. 11-28. xix. 1-8. 10-46, 48, 51, xx.5 1-3.* 
 
 { JE xviii. 8-10. xix. 9, 47, 49-50, 
 Da) xviii, 7. 
 
 P Xx. 6a,¢ 7-9. xxi. 1-42. (xxii. 9-34°). 
 
 JE EXiv. 1-80,7] - 32-33. 
 D2 (xx. 4-5), (6b), xxi. 43-5. xxii. 1-6, (7-8). xxiii. ails 
 
 * Except v. 3, “ (and) unawares.” + to “judgment.” 
 
JOSHUA, THE BOOK OF 1813 
 
 1 The connexion in xiii. 1-7 is imperfect. Vv. 2-6 contain an enumeration of the parts of the country still 
 unsubdued, viz. certain districts on the S.W. coast and in Lebanon ; v. 7, by the expression “ this land,” appears 
 to refer to the parts just enumerated, while the injunction for its ‘‘ division ” refers it not less plainly to the whole 
 country W. of Jordan. For a conjecture designed to explain the anomaly, see Wellh. Composition, p. 130 sq., 
 or Kuenen, The Hexateuch, ᾧ 7.27. At the beginning of v. 8 the text yields an incorrect sense, and must be in 
 some way defective: see Dillm., or @PB%, On the notice of the trans-Jordanic tribes, vv. 8-12, cp. above § 2: 
 with the notices of Levi (vv. 14, 33), ep. xviii. 7a, and see (for the expressions used) Deut. x. 9, xviii, 1b, 2. 
 
 2 This introduction to the account of the division of W. Palestine is taken (as appears both from the style and 
 from its dependence on Num. xxxiy. 13-17, xxxv. 1-8) from P. It is possible that Wellh., Kuen., and Dillm. are 
 right in supposing that xviii. 1 stood originally before xiv. 1: the mention of the assembly at Shiloh, and the 
 notice that the land ‘* was subdued before them,” are more significant as preparatory to the allotment of the entire 
 land than to that of the territory of seven tribes only. Throughout this and the following chapters the co-operation 
 of Eleazar, it may be noticed, is mentioned only in P (xiv. 1, xvii. 4, xix. 51, xxi. 1); in JE Joshua always acts 
 alone (xiv. 6, xvii. 14, xviii. 3, 8, 10, xxiv. 1). > 
 
 3 Expanded, perhaps, in parts by D*. The most characteristic allusions are to the narrative in Deut. i., not to 
 
 that in Num. xiii.-xiv.: thus v. 7, by, to spy out, to Deut. i. 24 (the words used in Num. xiii.-xiy, are 
 different); the “ servant of Jehovah,” see §5; v. 8ato Deut. i. 28 (“our brethren. . . made our heart to melt dy) 
 v. 9a to Deut. i. 36 (‘to him will I give the land whereon he hath trodden, and to his children’’); υ. 12, DIY, 
 
 to Deut. i. 28, ὩΣ) 193 (in Num. xiii. 22, 28, as ch. xy. 14, DYN 5s); v. 14b to Deut. i. 36 (** because he 
 hath gone fully after Jehovah”). See further on this section Kuenen, Theol. Tijdschr. 1877, p. 551 84.» 
 558 sq. ; Dillm. ad loc. ; or more briefly the writer’s Introduction to the Lit. of the O. T., Ὁ. 103. 
 
 4 The description of the territory of the two sons of Joseph compares unfavourably, in point of both clearness and 
 completeness, with the accounts of the territory occupied by the other tribes. The narrative of JE appears here 
 to have diverged more than usually from that of P; and in order to retain its distinctive features, the compiler, who 
 united JE with P, has sacrificed the systematic arrangement of P, and also abbreviated it more than is his usual 
 wont. Thus, though in parts P has been followed, the main description is that of JE. The narrative betrays more 
 than one mark of compilation. In JE, for instance, the lot of the two tribes sprung from Joseph is constantly 
 spoken of as one (xvi. 1, xvii. 14-18, xviii. 5): in P it is expressly defined as twofold (xvi. δ, 8, xvii. la), 
 Manasseh being named first, in agreement with xiv. 4, Gen. xlviii. 5, by the same narrator. Further, after the 
 southern border of Joseph, and that alone, has been described (xvi. 1-3), a fresh beginning is made (xvi. 4), the 
 description just given being in great part repeated (xvi. 5-8), ‘Ihe verses xvi. 4-8 contain also several expres- 
 sions characteristic of the style of P. On xvii. 1b-2, which differs in representation from P (cp. Num. xxvi. 
 28-34), see Kuenen, 7h. Tijdschr. 1877, pp. 484-488 ; or, more briefly, Dillm. p. 542. 
 
 5 In the main ch. xx. belongs manifestly to P, and presupposes P’s law of homicide in Num. xxxy. 9 8qq.; 
 
 but in certain parts—viz., v. 3, “*(and) unawares” (FYI b> 3; see Deut. iv. 42, xix. 4) ;* vv. 4-5; v. 6, from 
 **(and) until” to ‘* whence he fled;” v. 8, the words ‘at Jericho eastward ”—it exhibits points of contact with 
 Dent. It is remarkable, now, that just these passages are omitted in the LXX. It is difficult to resist the con- 
 clusion that the original text of P has been amplified by insertions from the law of homicide in Deut. (ch. xix.), 
 which had either not been made at the date of the LXX. translation, or, if made, had not yet been introduced into 
 all MSS. of the Hebrew. 
 
 6 The source of xxii. 9-34 is uncertain. In parts the section exhibits the phraseology of P, but this is not 
 traceable throughout. It seems either that a narrative of P has been combined with elements derived from another 
 source in a manner which renders a satisfactory analysis difficult, or that the whole is the work of a distinct 
 author, whose phraseology is partly that of P, but not entirely. ‘lhe source of vv. 7-8 is uncertain: notice in v. 8 
 the late, Aramaizing word "2, riches (elsewhere in the O. T. only 2 Ch. i. 11, 12, Eccles. v. 18, vi. 2; and in 
 the Aramaic of Ezra, Ezra vi. 8, vii. 26). 
 
 7 With inconsiderable additions (similar to those in ch. vi., viii.) by D?: principally in v. 1, middle clause 
 (cp. Deut. xxix. 10 [Heb. 97), v. 11, ‘the Amorite. .. the Jebusite ” (cp. Deut. vii. 1: the context relates solely 
 to the war with Jericho, with which these words do not accord), v. 13 (cp. Deut. vi. 10b, 11), v. 31 (Deut. xi. 7). 
 In v. 12 “twelve ” should certainly be read with LXX. for ‘‘ two’ (see QPB%): the mention of the ‘‘ two” kings of 
 the Amorites (i.e. Sihon and Og, on the Hast of Jordan) is here out of place: the context requires a reference to 
 some event subsequent to the capture of Jericho; and the conquest of the Eastern Amorites has been noticed already 
 inv. 8. For the grounds on which this narrative is referred to E, it must suffice to refer to Dillm. p. 583 sq. 
 
 * The preceding term “ unwittingly ” (ΠΛ), lit. im error) is the phrase of P (Num. xxxy. 11, 15; Lev. 
 iv. 2, 22, 27; Num. xv. 25, 26, and elsewhere). 
 
 § 5. The close affinities subsisting between 
 the sections which have been styled Deutero- 
 nomic and Deuteronomy may be illustrated 
 in two ways: (i.) by reference to the passages 
 identical verbally, or nearly so, with passages in 
 Deut. ; (ii.) by reference to the turns and ex- 
 pressions characteristic of Deut., which here 
 recur. Let the reader who would fully estimate 
 these affinities, underline the passages and 
 expressions referred to, supplementing them, 
 where necessary, from his own observation. 
 
 (i.) Ch. i. is constructed almost wholly of 
 phrases borrowed from Deut. Thus, ep. vv. 3-5a 
 and Deut. xi. 24, 25a; 5b, 6a and Deut. xxxi. 
 23 end, 6, 7,8 (also i. 38, iii. 28); 7b and 
 Deut. v. 52 (Heb. 29), xxix. 9 (Heb. 8); 8 (‘‘ this 
 book of the law”) and Deut. xxix. 21, xxx. 10,4 
 
 ἃ Cp. DEUTERONOMY, § 2. 
 
 xxxi. 26; 8b and Deut. xxviii. 29; 9 and Deut. 
 xxxi. 6; also i. 29, vii. 21, xx. 3 (the uncommon 
 YW); 11b and Deut. xi. 31; 15b-15 and Deut. 
 li. 18-20; 17b as v. 5; 18b as v. 6a. The 
 parallels with ii. 10, 11, as well as with some 
 other of the shorter insertions, have been 
 noticed above. In ch, 111. ep. v. 7 (‘this day 
 will I begin ”’) and Deut. ii. 25; υ. 7 Ὁ as ch. i. 5; 
 v. 10, with “the Girgashite,’ as xxiv. 11, 
 Deut. vii. 1 only; with iv. 24 ep, Deut. iii. 24, 
 ὅσο. (“mighty hand ”), xiv. 23b, xxviii. 10. In 
 ch. xxii. the Deut. phrases are evident in vv. 1-6 ; 
 in vv. 9-34 they are conspicuously absent, in 
 spite of the abundant opportunity for their 
 use, had the author been the same as before. 
 Ch. xxiii. shows throughout the hand of D? 
 (cp. ch. i.), its object apparently being to supple- 
 ment the negative exhortations to discard strange 
 gods, which D? found in E and incorporated in 
 
1814 JOSHUA, THE BOOK OF 
 
 ch. xxiv., with a definite positive injunction to 
 carry out faithfully the principles of the Deut. 
 law, and a special warning to hold no manner 
 of intercourse with the Canaanite populations. 
 Thus cp. v. 1 (so i. 13) and Deut. xii. 10b, 
 xxv. 19a; v. 2 (so viii. 34) and Deut. xxix. 10; 
 v. 3 and Deut. xxix. 2; v. 4 (cut off) and Deut. 
 xii. 29, xix. 1; v. 4basi. 4; v. 5 and Deut. vi. 
 19, ix. 4 (7/17, so used only in these pas- 
 sages); vv. 5, 13, “drive out from before you” 
 (cp. xiii. 6), and Deut. ix. 4, 5, xi. 235 v. 6 and 
 Deut. xxx. 10, ch. i. 7; v. 7 to serve and 
 bow down in parallelism, as oftenin Deut. ; v. 8 
 (“cleave”) and Deut. xxx. 20 al.; v. 9a and 
 Deut. iv. 38; v. 9b and Deut. vii. 24, xi. 25 (in 
 Josh. WOY, as x. 8, xxi. 44, varied from the 
 synon. ΝΠ of Deut.); v. 10a and Deut. 
 xxxii. 30 (the Song); v. 10b, “that fighteth for 
 you” (cp. below, ii. No. 3); v. 11 ἃ and Deut. 
 iv. 15; v. 11b, “love,” the keynote of Deut.,° 
 6.0. Xxx. 6, 16, 20, in a similar context; v. 12 
 and Deut. vii. 3; v. 13b (“until ye perish,” 
 &e.) and Deut. xxviii. 20; v. 14}, as xxi. 45; 
 v. 15 and Deut. xxviii. 63, xxix. 27; v. 16b and 
 Deut. xxix. 26, 27, xi. 17. Even where the 
 expressions used are not identical, the style and 
 spirit of this discourse are still emphatically those 
 of Deuteronomy.f 
 
 (ii.) Recurring phrases or expressions. Seve- 
 ral passages in Joshua where these occur nave 
 been quoted under DEUTERONOMY, §§ 34, 36, a 
 reference to which will make it still further 
 apparent, how completely the style of D*® was 
 moulded upon that of Deut. To the examples 
 there given may be added: 
 
 1. 7 TAY, the servant of Jehovah, of Moses: 
 Deut. xxxiv. 5;—Josh. i. 1, 13,153 viii. 31, 33; 
 Soy PIR Sats Wet hah ssiatht r/o 
 xxii. 2,4, 5 [of Joshua, xxiv. 29]. So my servant, 
 i. 2,7 (cp. Num. xii. 7, 8]; his servant, ix. 24, 
 xi. 15 (ep. Ex. xiv. 31). 
 
 2. (ponds ”%,. Jehovah your (thy) God, 
 peculiarly frequent [some 200 times] in Deut. ; 
 —Josh. i. 9, 11, 13, 15, 17; ii. 11; iii. 3, 9; 
 LVpoye COMI, 2s valle ΤΣ IX ὦ») oe Xgl Os 
 xxii. 3, 4, 5; and 13 times in ch. xxiii. Though 
 not confined to Deut. sections, the expression 
 greatly preponderates in them. 
 
 3. Coyne cond) ὮΠΌΣΓΠῚ ", Jehovah [is 
 he that] fighteth [will fight] for (Israel, you, 
 &e.): Deut. i. 30 ; ili, 22 (from Ex. xiv. 14, 25); 
 cp. xx. 4;—Josh. x. 14b, 425 xxiii. 3, 10. 
 
 4, 5 ΓΛ), to give rest to (sometimes with the 
 addition of from your enemies round about): 
 Deut. iii. 20, xii. 10, xxv. 19 ;—Josh. i. 13, 15 ; 
 xxii, 45 xxiii. 1. 
 
 5. ON, see! calling attention to some- 
 thing about to be said: Deut. i. 8, “ Sce, I have 
 given the land before you;” 21; ii. 24, “ See, I 
 have given into thy hand Sihon;” 31; iv. 5; 
 xl. 26; xxx. 18 ;—Josh. vi. 2, “ See, I have given 
 into thy hand Jericho ;” viii. 1, “ See, I have given 
 
 © See DEuTERONomy, § 34, No. 1. 
 
 f See also the passages of Josh. i., xxiii., containing 
 the same phrases as Deut., cited under DEUTERONOMY, 
 §§ 34, 36. Even with the addition of these, the literary 
 affinities between these chapters and Deut. are not 
 exhausted. 
 
 JOSHUA, THE BOOK OF 
 
 into thy hand the king of Ai:” ep. the pl. ἡδὲ , 
 
 viii. 4, 8; xxiii, 4. Occasionally elsewhere ; 
 but not with the same comparative frequency. 
 
 6. TWN, to destroy (a favourite term in 
 Deut., 28 times in the discourses) ;—Josh. ix. 24 ; 
 xi. 14, 20; xxiii. 15; xxiv. 8b [ep. Deut. ii. 12, 
 21, 22; xxxi. 3. This clause may, however, 
 belong to E; ep. the seeming allusion in Amos 
 ii. 9]. 
 
 7. ΓΙΌΣ [with the article]in the phrase “the 
 half tribe of (the) Manasseh ”: Deut. iii. 13 ;— 
 Josh. 1.125 iv. 125 xii. Gs xii 7 s)xyinees 
 xxil. 7,9, 10, 11, 21. Not elsewhere. 
 
 8. DMN, to ban or devote®: Deut. 11. 34; 
 iii. 6, and especially in the injunctions for the 
 future, vii. 2, xiii. 16, xx. 17;—frequently in 
 the summaries or retrospects of D?, Josh. ii. 10; 
 x. 1, 28, 35, 37, 39, 40; xi. 11, 12, 20, 21. In 
 vi. 18, 21, viii. 26, the term belongs no doubt 
 to the original source: cp. Ex, xxii. 20 [Heb. 
 19], Num. xxi. 2, 3—both belonging to JE; 
 and note also the subst. DM ch, vi. 17, 18, vii. 
 11-13. 
 
 9. aw ὌΝ ΘΠ Od) onda Ἢν, (until) he 
 left none remaining : Deut. iii. 3, ep. 11. 34 [Num. 
 xxi. 35] ;—Josh. viii. 22; x. 28, 30, 33, 37, 39, 
 40; xi. 8. (2K. x. 11.] Not elsewhere. 
 
 10. There was not a...which... (form of 
 sentence): Deut. ii. 36; iii. 4;—Josh. viii. 35; 
 xi. 19. 
 
 11. DD), to melt, of the heart: Deut. xx. 8 ;— 
 Josh. ii. 11; v. 1; vii. 5. (On Josh. xiv. 8, 
 based upon Deut. i. 28, cp. above ὃ 4, note 3.) 
 
 12. mowam) 53, all that breathed (lit. all 
 breath): Deut. xx. 16;—Josh. x. 40; xi. 11, 14. 
 [1 K. xv. 29; Ps. cl. 6.] Not elsewhere. 
 
 (iii.) Noticeable words and phrases not occur- 
 ring before. 
 
 1b Ona 14, mighty men of valour: i, 14 
 [in Deut. iii. 18, mM 932"); vi.2; viii. 3; x. 7. 
 [2 K. xv. 20; xxiv. 14.] 
 
 ED wl, to dry up from before 
 : ii. 103 iv. 23 bis; v. 1. 
 
 3. nonbpn DY, the people of war: viii. 1, 
 3, 11 (ON, with the art., strangely"); x. 7; xi. 7. 
 Not elsewhere, except 1 Sam. xiii. 15, LXX. 
 
 The usual expression is niondon WIN: Deut. 
 ii, 14, 16; Josh. v. 4, 6, vi. 3, x. 245 1 Sam. 
 xviii. 5, &e. 
 
 4. mDbpn, Aingdom : xiii. 12, 21, 27, 30, 31. 
 A peculiar form, possibly only an error of 
 
 transmission for nbn ; elsewhere only 1 Sam. 
 xv. 28; 2 Sam. xvi. 3; Jer. xxvi. 1; Hos. i. 4. 
 
 5. npbny, division, in the 
 
 pnpbmo.: xi. 23; xii, 7; xviii. 10. Not 
 again, except in the n. pr. 1 Sam. xxiii. 28, till 
 
 expression 
 
 & Cp. the writer’s Notes on the Hebrew Text of 
 Samuel (Oxford, 1890), on 1 Sam. xv. 33. 
 h Which is not an archaism (Keil, Hint. § 15, 1), but, 
 
 like sn ΣΝ, a common expression in prose, as 
 Judg. xviii. 2, 2 Sam. ii. 7, 2 K. ii. 16. 
 i Op. the writer’s Hebrew Tenses 3 (1892), § 190 Obs. 
 
JOSHUA, THE BOOK OF 
 
 Ezek. xlviii. 29: often in Chron., but ina special 
 application, of the courses of the priests and 
 Levites. 
 
 6. 943m, the nation, of Israel: iii. 17, iv. 1, v. 
 6, 8; "3, x. 13 (without the article), is pretty 
 clearly derived from the poem quoted. “ This 
 nation,” applied to Israel, is found occasionally 
 elsewhere ; “the nation” is very unusual, and is 
 never met with besides in prose. 
 
 7... ΒΩ WN CHO) WY NP, a man 
 stood not (shall not stand) in the face of...: 
 x. 8, xxi. 44 (Heb. 42), xxiii. 9, varied from 
 
 oo pa we ayn Nd, Deut. vii, 24, xi. 
 
 25; Josh. i. 5 (here with 1955, before). In 
 vii. 12, 13, the expression is a different one: 
 
 ΣΌΣ Dip, to rise up, subsist, endure, before (not 
 elsewhere). 
 
 8. ΟΝ Δ) S32 bon, all came to pass: xxi. 45 
 (Heb. 43), xxili, 14, 
 In x. 30, 32, 33, 37 bis, 39, there occurs an 
 
 inelegant construction, TWN 5 nNi.-.-- m3" 
 M2 (for the normal 71 WS Sons Ans 7»), 
 
 of which, however, there are two examples in 
 Deut., viz. xi. 6 (contrast Num. xvi. 32); xv. 16 
 (about six times besides in the Ὁ. T.): see the 
 writer’s Notes on Samuel, on 1 Sam. v. 10. 
 
 The attentive reader will not omit to notice 
 how frequently the expressions noted in this 
 section are found aggregated in the passages 
 attributed above to 1)". 
 
 8. 6. Thus the Book of Joshua as a whole 
 assumed its present form by a series of stages. 
 It follows that if the earliest form of the 
 traditions respecting the conquest of Palestine 
 is to be recovered, the stratum of narrative 
 containing it must be disengaged by critical 
 processes from those that have been superposed 
 upon it. The Deuteronomic elements contain 
 but little of direct historical import: in the 
 main, they either give prominence to the 
 motives and considerations by which Joshua is 
 conceived to have been actuated, or they 
 generalize and magnify the successes attributed 
 to him. These being disregarded, it appears 
 that in the first half of the Book, containing 
 details of the conquest of Palestine, the source 
 mainly followed is JE; in the second half, con- 
 taining particulars of its topographical distribu- 
 tion among the tribes, it is P. The notices of 
 the conquest belonging to P are brief and 
 fragmentary. One group of the passages as- 
 signed to JE deserves special notice, on account 
 of their affinity with the 1st chapter of Judges. 
 This chapter, describing how certain of the 
 tribes conquered, or failed to conquer, the 
 territory allotted to them, is now generally re- 
 garded by critics as having formed originally 
 part of a narrative, or survey, of the conquest 
 of Palestine in the time of Joshua; the opening 
 words, “after the death of Joshua,” being an 
 addition due to the compiler, who placed the 
 section where it now stands, as an introduction 
 to the Book of Judges.* The notices in the 
 chapter relate in many cases, it is evident, to 
 
 k Cp. the Speaker's Comm., ii. p. 123 sq. 
 
 JOSHUA, THE BOOK OF 1815 
 
 events synchronous with those recorded in the 
 Book of Joshua, rather than to what took place 
 subsequently. In some cases the same notices 
 recur, with but slight verbal variations, in both 
 Books; in other cases, notices cast in a similar 
 form are met with in both equally. In all 
 probability, Judg. i. is an extract from what 
 was once a complete summary of the conquest 
 of Canaan, of which other excerpts have been 
 preserved in the verses of Joshua referred to. 
 The notices from the two Books may be combined 
 together somewhat as follows :—a. (Judah) Judg. 
 i. 1b (from ‘‘and the children of Israel asked ”’), 
 2-7, 19, Josh. xv. 63 (nearly = Judg. i. 21); 
 Judg. i. 20, Josh. xv. 14-19 (nearly = Judg. i. 
 10-15; cp. also Josh. xiv. 13, 15); Judg. i. 
 16-18, 36.1 ὁ. (Joseph) Judg. i. 22-26, Josh. 
 xvii. 14-18. c. (the ill success of different 
 tribes) Josh. xiii. 18, Judg. i. 27-28 (nearly = 
 Josh. xvii. 12, 13 [the names of the towns are 
 not stated here in v. 12, having been given just 
 before in v. 117), 29 (Josh. xvi. 10), 30-33, 34, 
 Josh. xix. 47,5 Judg. i. 35.7 Here we have 
 in succession particulars respecting the con- 
 quests of Judah and Simeon, Caleb and Othniel, 
 the “house of Joseph,” Manasseh, Ephraim, 
 Zebulun, Asher, Naphtali, Dan. Phraseological 
 points of contact between the passages quoted 
 are: the “House of Joseph ” (Josh. xvii. 
 17, xviii. 5; Judg. i. 22, 23, 35: not com- 
 mon elsewhere); “daughters” for dependent 
 towns, Josh. xvii. 11, 16, Judg. i. 27; ‘would 
 dwell” (peculiar), Josh. xvii. 12, Judg. i. 27 Ὁ, 
 35; “became tributary,”° Josh. xvi. 10, Judg. i. 
 30, 33, 85; the form of the sentence, Josh. 
 xiii. 13, xv. 63, Judg. i. 29, 30, 31, &c.; ob- 
 serve also the allusion to the “ chariots of iron,” 
 Josh. xvii. 16, Judg. i. 19. The representation 
 is, moreover, throughout similar: the joint 
 action of the tribes up to a certain point is pre- 
 supposed, followed first by the assignation to 
 each tribe of its Jot of territory, and then the 
 conquest by the tribe of the lot thus assigned 
 to it, or, in some cases, its failure to conquer it. 
 The narrative, as we possess it, is evidently 
 incomplete. Enough of it, however, remains to 
 show how imperfectly the native inhabitants 
 had in fact been expelled, notwithstanding the 
 generalizing summaries of D? (¢.g. x. 40, xi. 16-- 
 20, xxi. 43-5). Lastly, the notice of the con- 
 quest of the land in the retrospect in ch. xxiv. 
 (E) should be alluded to (v. 11-12). This does 
 
 1 Where Amorites is very probably a textual error for 
 Edomites. Cp. Hollenberg, ZATW. 1881, p. 102 sqq. 5 
 Budde, Richter u. Samuel, p. 18 sq.; Kittel, Gesch. der 
 Hebriier, i. p. 243 (Cod. A. and other MSS. of LXX. 
 have ὁ ᾿Ιδουμαῖος after τοῦ ᾿Αμορραίου). 
 
 m ΟΡ. QPB3; and the Expositor, Jan. 1887, p. 59 sq. 
 
 n For a comparative estimate of the textual variations 
 between such of the passages as are parallel, see Budde, 
 Richter u. Samuel, 1890, p. 1 sqq. (see the references 
 on pp. 84-9), or more briefly Kittel, Gesch. der Hebréer, 
 i. p. 239sqq. Naturally, no stress is to be laid on the pre- 
 cise order in which the passages are combined; Budde 
 arranges them somewhat differently, J. c. pp. 84-9 (pre- 
 fixing also Num. xxxii. 39, 41, 42 to Josh. xiii. 13: ep. 
 ZATW. 1888, p. 148). 
 
 ο pnd ΓΛ, lit. “were for task-work :” similarly 
 
 pnd np, Josh. xvii. 13; Dd Diy, Judg. 1. 28. 
 See R. V.; and cp. Deut. xx. 11; 1 K. ix. 21, Hel.; 
 Is. xxxi. 8, Heb. 
 
1810 JOSIAH 
 
 JOSIAH 
 
 not perfectly agree with the picture in the | one years. His history is contained in 2 K. 
 
 earlier part of JE. Nothing is there said of the 
 “citizens of Jericho” who “fought against ” 
 the Israelites; nor is any express mention made 
 of “twelve” (LXX. υ. 12: § 4, note’) “kings of 
 the Amorites ” put to flight before Israel,? “ not 
 with thy sword, nor with thy bow:” on the 
 other hand, the retrospect here is silent as to 
 the series of independent efforts by which the 
 Jehovistic tradition represents the Israelites as 
 slowly and toilsomely effecting the conquest, 
 and appears (v. 18a) to treat the expulsion of 
 the native population as more complete than 
 was really the case. As ch. xxiv. is admitted 
 to belong to E, this divergence of representation 
 may be taken as an indication that the source 
 of the group of notices just referred to is J; 
 the representation of E, on the other hand, 
 approximates to that of D?. 
 
 The description of the territories of the 
 different tribes, in the second part of the Book, 
 the ‘Domesday book of Palestine,” derived 
 mainly from P, though invaluable on account of 
 
 the topographical data contained in it, refers, no | 
 
 doubt, to a later period than that of Joshua. 
 This may be inferred from the fact that the 
 country is represented as completely in the 
 possession of the Israelites. The partition of 
 the land being conceived as ideally effected by 
 Joshua, its complete distribution and occupation 
 by the tribes is here treated as his work, and as 
 accomplished in his lifetime. 
 
 The text of Joshua, though not so faulty as 
 that of Samuel or Ezekiel, is nevertheless less 
 
 pure than that of the Pentateuch appears gene- | 
 
 rally to be: the corruptions can in some cases 
 be emended by help of the ancient Versions; 
 see the study of Hollenberg mentioned in § 7, 
 and Dillmann, p. 689+sq. 
 
 § 7. Literature.—A. Knobel (in Numeri, Deut- 
 eronomium u. Josua, in the Kurzgefasstes Eacg- 
 Handb.), 1861, ed. 2 (re-written) by Aug- 
 Dillmann, 1886 (the best commentary); C. F. 
 Keil in Joswa, Richter u. Ruth, ed. 2, 1874; 
 J. Hollenberg in the Stud. u. Kritiken, 1874, 
 pp. 472-506 (on the Deut. elements of the 
 Book), and Der Charakter der Alex. Ueber- 
 setzung des B. Josua, Moers, 1876; Wellhausen 
 in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theologie, 1876-7, 
 reprinted in Die Composition des Hexateuchs, 
 u.s.w., 1889, pp. 118-136 (ep. p. 351 sq.); 
 Kuenen in the Theol. Tijdschrift, 1877, p. 
 467 sqq. (on ch. xx.), 1878, p. 315 sqq. (on 
 ch. viii. 30-35); K. Budde in the Zeitsch. fiir 
 die Alttest. Wissenschaft, 1887, p. 93 sqq.; 
 1888, p. 148 (reprinted in Richter und Samuel, 
 1890, pp. 1-83); R. Kittel, Gesch. der He- 
 brder, i. (1888), p. 238 sqq.; J. S. Black in 
 the ‘Smaller Camb. Bible for Schools,’ 1891; 
 Albers, Die Quellenberichte in Josua i—axii., Bonn, 
 1891. [S. R. D.] 
 
 JOSYAH (MUN'=Jehovah heals ΓΜΥ͂.117; 
 
 Ἰωσίας; Josias). 1. The son of Amon and 
 Jedidah, succeeded his father B.c. 641 [8]. 640], 
 in the eighth year of his age, and reigned thirty- 
 
 P Though Albers, p. 149, thinks the twelve kings in- 
 tended to be those of Jericho, Ai, Bethel (according to 
 the isolated notice in viii. 17), the five kings of the South 
 (x. 3), and the four kings of the North (xi. 1). 
 
 xxli-xxiv. 30; 2 Ch. xxxiv., xxxv.; and the 
 first twelve chapters of Jeremiah throw much 
 light upon the general character of the Jews in 
 his days. ‘ 
 
 He began in the eighth year of his reign to 
 seek the Lord; and in his twelfth year, and for 
 six years afterwards, in a personal progress 
 throughout all the land of Judah and Israel, 
 he destroyed everywhere high places, groves, 
 images, and all outward signs and relics of 
 idolatry. Those which Solomon and Ahaz had 
 built, and even Hezekiah had spared, and those 
 which Manasseh had set up more recently, now 
 
 | ceased to pollute the land of Judah; and in 
 
 Israel the purification began with Jeroboam’s 
 chapel at Bethel, in accordance with the re- 
 markable prediction of the disobedient “prephet, 
 by whom Josiah was called by name three 
 centuries before his birth (1 Κα. xiii. 2). The ~ 
 Temple was restored under a special commission ; 
 and in the course of the repairs Hilkiah the 
 priest found that book of the Law of the Lord 
 which quickened so remarkably the ardent zeal 
 of the king [see under HiLkrAn]. The special 
 commission sent forth by Jehoshaphat (2 Ch, xvii. 
 7) is a proof that even under such kings as Asa 
 and his son, the Levites were insufficient for the 
 religious instruction of the people. What then 
 must have been the amount of information 
 accessible to a generation which had grown up 
 in the reigns of Manasseh and Amon? We do 
 not know that the Law was read as a stated 
 part of any ordinary public service in the 
 Temple of Solomon (unless the injunction Deut. 
 xxxi. 10 was obeyed once in seven years), though 
 God was worshipped there with daily sacrifice, 
 psalmody, and prayer. The son of Amon began 
 when he was sixteen years old to seek in earnest 
 the God of David, and for ten years he devoted 
 all his active energies to destroying the gross 
 external memorials of idolatry throughout his 
 dominions, and to strengthening and multiplying 
 the visible signs of true religion. It is not 
 surprising that in the twenty-sixth year of his 
 age he should find the most awful words in 
 which God denounces sin come home to his 
 heart on a particular occasion with a new and 
 strange power, and that he should send to a 
 prophetess to inquire in what degree of closeness 
 those words were to be applied to himself and 
 his generation. That he had never read the 
 words is probable. But his conduct is no 
 sufficient proof that he had never heard them 
 before, or that he was not aware of the existence 
 of a “book of the Law of the Lord.” 
 
 The great day of Josiah’s life was that on 
 which he and his people, in the eighteenth year 
 of his reign, entered into a special covenant to 
 keep the Law of the Lord, and celebrated the 
 Feast of the Passover at Jerusalem with more 
 munificent offerings, better arranged services, 
 and a larger concourse of worshippers than had 
 been seen on any previous occasion, 
 
 After this, his endeavours to abolish every 
 trace of idolatry and superstition were still 
 carried on. But the time drew near which had 
 been indicated by Huldah (2 K. xxii. 20). 
 When Pharaoh-Necho went from Egypt to Car- 
 chemish to carry on his war against Assyria 
 (cp. Herodotus, ii. 159), Josiah, possibly in a 
 spirit of loyalty to the Assyrian king, to whom 
 
A 
 ca 
 id 
 be 
 
 j 
 
 i 
 
 JOSIAH 
 
 he may have been bound,* opposed his march 
 along the sea-coast. Necho reluctantly paused 
 and gave him battle in the valley of Esdraelon: 
 and the last good king of Judah was carried 
 wounded from Hadad-rimmon, to die before he 
 could arrive at Jerusalem. 
 
 He was buried with extraordinary honours ; 
 and a funeral dirge, in part composed by Jere- 
 miah, which the atfection of his subjects sought 
 to perpetuate as an annual solemnity, was 
 chanted probably at Hadad-rimmon (cp. the 
 narrative in 2 Ch. xxxv. 25 with the allu- 
 sions in Jer, xxii. 10, 18, and Zech. xii. 11, and 
 Jackson, On the Creed, bk, viii. ch. 23, p. 878). 
 The prediction of Huldah, that he should “be 
 gathered into the grave in peace,” must be 
 interpreted in accordance with the explana- 
 tion of that phrase given in Jer. xxxiv. 5 (ep. 
 Jackson, On the Creed, bk. xi. ch. 36, p. 664). 
 Josiah’s reformation and death are commented 
 on by Bishop Hall, Contemplations on the O. T., 
 bk. xx. 
 
 It was in the reign of Josiah that a nomadic 
 horde of Scythians overran Asia (Herodotus, 
 i, 104-106). A detachment of them went to- 
 wards Egypt by the way of Philistia: some- 
 where southward of Ascalon they were met by 
 messengers from Psammitichus and induced to 
 turn back. They are not mentioned in the his- 
 torical accounts of Josiah’s reign. But Ewald 
 (Die Psalmen, p. 165) conjectures that the 59th 
 Psalm was composed by king Josiah during a 
 siege of Jerusalem by these Scythians. The 
 town BETHSHAN is said to derive its Greek 
 name, Seythopolis (Reland, Pal. p. 992; Light- 
 foot, Chor. Marc. vii. § 2), from these invaders. 
 The facility with which Josiah appears to have 
 extended his authority in the land of Israel is 
 adduced as an indication that the Assyrian con- 
 querors of that land were themselves at this 
 time under the restraining fear of some enemy. 
 The prophecy of Zephaniah is considered to have 
 been written amid the terror caused by their 
 approach. The same people are described at a 
 later period by Ezekiel (xxviii.). See Ewald, 
 Gesch. Isr. iii. 689. Abarbanel (ap. Eisen- 
 menger, nt. Jud. i. 858) records an oral tradi- 
 tion of the Jews to the effect that the Ark of 
 the Covenant, which Solomon deposited in the 
 Temple (1 K, vi. 19), was removed and hidden 
 by Josiah, in expectation of the destruction of 
 the Temple; and that it will not be brought 
 again to light until the coming of Messiah. 
 
 [W.T.B.] (FJ 
 
 85. Such is at least the conjecture of Prideaux 
 (Connexion, anno 610), and of Milman (History of 
 the Jews, i. 313). But the Bible ascribes no such 
 chivalrous motive to Josiah: and it does not occur 
 to Josephus, who attributes (Ant, x. 5, § 1) Josiah’s 
 resistance merely to Fate urging him to destruction; 
 nor to the author of 1 Esd. i. 28, who describes him 
 as acting wilfully against Jeremiah’s advice; nor to 
 Ewald, who (Gesch. Isr. iii. 707) conjectures that it 
 may have been the constant aim of Josiah to restore 
 not only the ritual, but also the kingdom of David in 
 its full extent and independence, and that he attacked 
 Necho as an invader of what he considered as his 
 northern dominions. This conjecture, if equally prob- 
 able with the former, is equally without adequate 
 support in the Bible, and is somewhat derogatory to 
 the character of Josiah. Opinions still differ on this 
 point (cp. Kautzsch in Herzog’s RZ.2 s.n. ** Josia’’). 
 
 JOTHAM 1817 
 
 2. The son of Zephaniah, at whose house the 
 prophet Zechariah was commanded to assemble 
 the chief men of the Captivity, to witness the 
 solemn and symbolical crowning of Joshua the 
 high-priest (Zech. vi. 9). It has been conjec- 
 tured that Josiah was either a goldsmith, or 
 treasurer of the Temple, or one of the keepers 
 of the Temple, who received the money offered 
 by the worshippers, but nothing is known of 
 him. Possibly he was a descendant of Zephaniah, 
 the priest mentioned in Jer. xxi. 1, xxxvii. 3; 
 and if Hen in Zech. vi. 15 be a proper name, 
 which is doubtful, it probably refers to the same 
 person, elsewhere called Josiah. [W. A. W.] 
 
 JOSV’AS. 1. Clwotas; Josias.) Josiah, 
 king of Judah (1 Esd. i. 1, 7, 18,%21-23, 25, 28, 
 29, 32-34; Ecclus. xlix. 1,4; Bar. i. 8; Matt. 
 i. 10, 11). 
 
 2. (B. Ἐσίας ; A. Ἰεσσίας ; Maasias.) Je 
 shaiah, the son of Athaliah (1 Esd. viii. 33; 
 ep. Ezra viii. 7). 
 
 JOSIBI'AH (7°1W, ic. Joshibyah = Jeho- 
 vah makes a dwelling [MV."]; BA. Ἰσαβία; 
 Josabias), the father of Jehu, a Simeonite, 
 descended from that branch of the tribe of which 
 Shimei was the founder, and which afterwards 
 became most numerous (1 Ch. iv. 35). 
 
 JOSIPHI'AH (MEY = Jehovah adds; B. 
 Ἰωσεφεία, A. -dla; Josphias), the father or 
 ancestor of Shelomith, who returned with Ezra 
 (Ezra viii. 10). A word is evidently omitted in 
 the first part of the verse, and is supplied both 
 by the LXX. (A.) and the Syr., as well as by 
 the compiler of 1 Esd. viii. 36. The LXX. (A.) 
 
 ‘supplies Baavi, 1.6. 'J2, which, from its resem- 
 
 blance to the preceding word "33, might easily 
 have been omitted by a transcriber. The verse 
 would then read, “of the sons of Bani, Shelo- 
 mith the son of Josiphiah” (cp. QPB.?). In 
 the Syriac Shelomith is repeated, but this is not 
 likely to have been correct. Josiphiah is called 
 in Esdras JOSAPHIAS, 
 
 JOTAPATA. [JIPHTAH-EL.] 
 
 JOT-BAH (73) = goodness [MV."]: B. 
 Ἰεσεβάλ, A. Ἰεταχάλ; Jos. Ἰαβάτη : Jeteba), 
 the native place of Meshullemeth, the queen of 
 Manasseh, and mother of Amon king of Judah 
 (2 K. xxi. 19), The place is not elsewhere 
 named as a town of Palestine, and is generally 
 identified with Jotbath, or Jotbathah, mentioned 
 below. This there is nothing either to prove or 
 disprove. [W.] 
 
 JOT-BATH, or JOT-BA-THAH (ΠῚ): 
 Deut. x. 7, B. Ταιβίθα, A. ᾿Ιετεβάθα, F. *Ire-; 
 Num. xxxiii. 33, B. Σετεβάθα, BF. ᾿Ἐτεβάθα, 
 A. Ἰετεβαθάν), a desert station of the Israelites: 
 it is described as ‘a land of torrents of waters ;” 
 there are several confluences of Wadys on the 
 W. of the Arabah, any one of which might in 
 the rainy season answer the description, and 
 
 would agree with the general locality (see 
 Dillmann? on Num. /. c.). [Η. H.] 
 
 JO'THAM (OM1"; Ἰωάθαμ; Joatham). 1. The 
 
 youngest son of Gideon (Judg. ix. 5), who escaped 
 when his brethren, to the number of sixty-nine 
 
1818 JOZABAD 
 
 persons, were slain at Ophrah by their half- 
 brother Abimelech. When this bloody act of 
 Abimelech had secured his election as king, Jo- 
 tham, ascending Mount Gerizim, boldly uttered, 
 in the hearing of the men of Shechem, his well- 
 known warning parable of the reign of the 
 bramble, The historical character of the narra- 
 tive, impugned by Budde (Die BB. Richter und 
 Samuel, p. 118) and others, is defended by Kittel 
 (Gesch. ἃ. Hebraer, ii. 76). Nothing is known 
 of Jotham afterwards, except that he dwelt at 
 Beer. 
 
 2. The son of king Uzziah or Azariah and 
 Jerushah. After administering the kingdom for 
 some years during his father’s leprosy, he suc- 
 ceeded to the throne B.c. 758 [al. 750. The 
 Biblical and Assyrian chronologies of this reign 
 have not yet been reconciled; see p. 592], when 
 he was twenty-five years old, and reigned sixteen 
 years in Jerusalem. He was contemporary with 
 Pekah and with the Prophet Isaiah. His history 
 is contained in 2 K. xv. 32-38 and 2 Ch. xxvii., 
 and much light is thrown upon the character 
 and events of his time by such passages as Is. ii. 
 5-iii. 11, vi. He did right in the sight of the 
 Lord, and his reign was prosperous, although 
 the high-places were not removed. He built 
 the high gate of the Temple, made some additions 
 to the wall of Jerusalem, and raised fortifica- 
 tions in various parts of Judah. After a war 
 with the Ammonites, he compelled them to pay 
 him the tribute they had been accustomed to 
 pay to his father. Towards the end of his reign 
 Rezin king of Damascus, and Pekah, began to 
 assume a threatening attitude towards Judah 
 (see the article “ Jotham” in Herzog, 1 1.2, and 
 in Riehm, HW8.). (Wet ΡΒ ΠῚ] 
 
 3. A descendant of Judah, son of Jahdai 
 (1 Ch. ii. 47). 
 
 JO'ZA-BAD = Jehovah hath given. 1. (7311 ; 
 B. Ἰωζαβάθ. A. Ἰωζαβάδ ; Jozabad.) <A captair 
 of the thousands of Manasseh, who deserted to 
 David before the battle of Gilboa, and assisted 
 him in his pursuit of the marauding band of 
 Amalekites (1 Ch. xii. 20). One of Kennicott’s 
 MSS. reads 139), 1.6. Jochabar. 
 
 2. (B. Ἰωσαβαίθ, &. -βεθ, A. Ἰωζαβέδ.) A 
 hero of Manasseh, like the preceding (1 Ch. xii. 
 20). 
 
 3. (B. Ἐφαβάθ, A Ἰωζαβάθ, in 2 Ch. xxxi. 
 13.) A Levite in the reign of Hezekiah, who 
 was one of the overseers of offerings and 
 dedicated things in the Temple, under Cononiah 
 and Shimei, after the restoration of the true 
 worship. 
 
 4. (BA. Ἰωζάβαδ; Josabad.) One of the 
 princes of the Levites, who held the same office 
 as the preceding, and took part in the great 
 Passover kept at Jerusalem in the reign of 
 Josiah (2 Ch. xxxv. 9). 
 
 5. (BA. Ἰωζαβάδ.) A Levite, son of Jeshua, 
 who assisted Meremoth and Eleazar in registering 
 the number and weight of the vessels of gold 
 and silver belonging to the Temple, which they 
 brought with them from Babylon (Ezra viii. 
 33). He is called JosaBap in the parallel 
 narrative of 1 Esd. viii. 63 (v. 62, B. "IwaaBeés, 
 A. -σαβδο5), and is probably identical with 7. 
 
 6. (BA. Ἰωζαβὰδ in Ezra; B. ᾿᾽Ωκαίληδος, 
 A. ’OxelSnAos, in 1 Esd. ix. 23: Jozabed.) A 
 
 JUBILEE, THE YEAR OF 
 
 foreigner on the return from the Captivity (Ezra — 
 x. 22). He appears as OCIDELUs in the A. V. 
 of 1 Esd. 
 
 7. (Ἰωζαβάδος, Jorabdus, in 1 Esd. ix. 23; 
 ἸἸωζαβάδ, Jozabed, in Ezra x. 22.) A Levite 
 among those who returned with Ezra and had 
 married foreign wives. He is probably identical 
 
 with Jozabad the Levite, who assisted when the — : 
 
 Law was read by Ezra (Neh. viii. 7); and with 
 Jozabad, one of the heads of the Levites who 
 presided over the outer work of the Temple 
 (Neh. xi. 16). W. A. W.] 
 
 JO'ZA-CHAR (131i = Jehovah huth re- 
 
 membered ; ᾿Ιεζειρχάρ, A. Ἰωζαχάρ; Josachar), 
 the son of Shimeath the Ammonitess, and one of 
 the murderers of Joash king of Judah (2 K. xii. 
 21). The writer of the Chronicles (2 Ch. xxiv. 
 26) calls him Zabad, a clerical error for Jozachar; 
 
 the first syllable being omitted in consequence 
 
 of the final letters of the preceding word by. 
 In eighteen MSS. of Kennicott’s collation the 
 name in the Kings is T3t\’, 1.5. Jozabad, and 
 the same is the reading of thirty-two MSs. 
 collated by De Rossi. Another MS. in De 
 Rossi’s possession had 731’, 1.6. Jozachad, and 
 one collated by Kennicott Ati’, or Jozabar, 
 
 which is the reading of the Peshitto-Syriac. — 
 
 It is uncertam whether their conspiracy was 
 prompted by a personal feeling of revenge for 
 the death of Zechariah, as Josephus intimates 
 (Ant. ix. 8, § 4), or whether they were urged to 
 it by the family of Jehoiada. The care of the 
 Chronicler to show that they were of foreign 
 descent seems almost intended to disarm a 
 suspicion that the king’s assassination was an 
 act of priestly vengeance. But it is more 
 likely that the conspiracy had a different origin 
 altogether, and that the king’s murder was re- 
 garded by the Chronicler as an instance of 
 Divine retribution. On the accession of Amaziah 
 the conspirators were executed. (Ww. A. W.] 
 
 JO'ZA-DAK (δ ν᾽"; Ἰωσεδέις; Josedec), Ezxa 
 iii. 2, 8, v. 2, x. 18; Neh. xii. 26. The name 
 is a contraction of JEHOZADAK. 
 
 JU'BAL (P31; Ἰουβάλ ; Jubal), a son of 
 Lamech by Adah, and the inventor of the “ harp 
 and organ” (Gen. iv. 21; R. V. “harp and 
 pipe”). His name appears to be connected with 
 this subject, springing from the same root as 
 yobel, * jubilee ” (cp. Delitzsch [1887], Dillmann® 
 in loco). That the inventor of musical instru- 
 ments should be the brother of him who intro- 
 duced the nomad life, is strictly in accordance 
 with the experience of the world. The con- 
 nexion between music and the pastoral life is 
 indicated in the traditions of the Greeks, which 
 ascribed the invention of the pipe to Pan and of 
 the lyre to Apollo, each of them being also 
 devoted to pastoral pursuits. [W. L. Bal 
 
 JUBILEE, THE YEAR OF (92197 nav, 
 
 and simply bay; ἔτος τῆς ἀφέσεως, ἀφέσεως 
 σημασία, and ἄφεσις ; annus jubilaei, and jubi- 
 laeus; R. V. “jubile ”), the fiftieth year after 
 the succession of seven Sabbatical years (Lev. 
 xxv. 10; Ideler, Hab. ἃ. Chronik, i. 505), in 
 which all the land which had been alienated 
 
 priest of the sons of Pashur, who had married a | returned to the families of those to whom it 
 
Ἱ 
 
 JUBILEE, THE YEAR OF 
 
 had been allotted in the original distribution, 
 and all bondmen of Hebrew blood were libe- 
 rated. The relation in which it stood to the 
 
 Sabbatical year and the general directions for 
 its observance are given in Lev. xxv. 8-16 and 
 23-55." Its bearing on lands dedicated to 
 Jehovah is stated in Lev. xxvii. 16-25. There 
 is no mention of the Jubilee in the Book of 
 Deuteronomy, and the only other reference to it 
 in the Pentateuch is in the appeal of the tribe 
 of Manasseh, on account of the daughters of 
 Zelophehad (Num. xxxvi. 4). 
 
 Il. The year was inaugurated on the Day of 
 Atonement» with the blowing of trumpets° 
 throughout the land, and by a proclamation of 
 universal liberty. 
 
 1. The soil was kept under the same condition 
 of rest as had existed during the preceding 
 Sabbatical year. There was to be neither 
 ploughing, sowing, nor reaping ; but the chance 
 produce was to be left for the use of all comers. 
 [SABBATICAL YEAR. ] 
 
 2. Every Israelite returned to “his possession 
 
 a Ewald observes that vv. 17-22 in this chapter 
 should be read immediately after v. 7, since they carry 
 on the account of the Sabbatical year, and have no 
 reference to the year of Jubilee. 
 
 Ὁ It does not seem likely that the rites of solemn 
 humiliation which marked the great fast of the year 
 were disturbed. ‘he joyful sound probably burst forth 
 in the afternoon, when the high-priest had brought the 
 services of Atonement to a conclusion. The contrast 
 between the quiet of the day and the loud blast of the 
 trumpets at its close, must have rendered deeply im- 
 pressive the hallowing of the year of release from 
 poverty and bondage. 
 
 ¢ The trumpets used in the proclamation of the 
 Jubilee appear to have been curved horns, not the long 
 straight trumpets represented on the Arch of Titus, and 
 such as are represented in Egyptian sculptures and 
 paintings (Wilkinson, Anc. Egypt. i. 104 [1878]). The 
 straight trumpet was called ΠΝ ΝΠ, the other ΒΘ) ) 
 
 wie Τα τις T 
 
 and }72- The jubilee horns used in the siege of Jericho 
 are called DYO3}95 My Di (Josh. vi. 4); and, coi- 
 lectively, in the following verse, bien 1p. Gee 
 
 Keil on Josh. vi. 4.) It is not quite certain whether 
 they were the horns of oxen or formed of metal 
 (Kranold, p. 50), but the latter seems by far more prob- 
 able. Connected with the mistake as to the origin of the 
 
 word 5349 (which will be noticed below), was the notion 
 
 that they were rams’ horns. R. a ehuda, in the Mishna, 
 says that the horns of rams (DDT) were used at the 
 
 Feast of Trumpets, and those of wild goats (D‘D))') at 
 the Jubilee. But Maimonides and Bartenora say that 
 rams’ horns were used on both occasions (Rosh Hashana, 
 p. 342, edit. Suren.). Bochart and others have justly 
 objected that the horns of rams, or those of wild goats, 
 would form but sorry trumpets. [CORNET.] 
 
 It is probable that on this, as on other occasions of 
 public proclamation, the trumpets were blown by the 
 priests, in accordance with Num. x. 8 (see Kranold, 
 Comment. de Jubilaeo, p. 50; with whom agree Ewald, 
 Biihr, and most modern writers). Bahr supposes that, 
 at the proclamation of the Jubilee, the trumpets were 
 blown in all the priests’ cities and wherever a priest 
 might be living; while, on the Feast of Trumpets, they 
 were blown only in the Temple. Maimonides says that 
 every Hebrew at the Jubilee blew nine blasts, so as to 
 make the trumpet literally “‘sound throughout the land” 
 (Lev. xxv. 9). Such a usage may have existed, as a 
 mere popular expression of rejoicing, but it could have 
 been no essential part of the ceremony. 
 
 JUBILEE, THE YEAR OF 1819 
 
 ” 
 
 and to his family ;” that is, he recovered his 
 right in the land originally allotted to the 
 family of which he was a member, if he, or his 
 ancestor, had parted with it. 
 
 (a) A strict rule to prevent fraud and in- 
 justice in such transactions is laid down:—if a 
 Hebrew, urged by poverty,’ had to dispose of a 
 field, the price was determined according to the 
 time of the sale in reference to the approach of 
 the next Jubilee. The transfer was thus, not of 
 the land itself, but of the usufruct for a limited 
 time. Deduction was systematically made on 
 account of the number of Sabbatical years, 
 which would deprive the purchaser of certain 
 evops within that period.® 
 
 (6) The possession of the field could, at any 
 time, be recovered by the original proprietor, if 
 his circumstances improved, or by his next of 
 
 \\kin f ὦν), ie. one who redeems). The price to 
 
 be paid for its redemption was to be fixed ac- 
 cording to the same equitable rule as the price 
 at which it had been purchased (v. 16). 
 
 (6) Houses in walled cities 8 were not subject 
 to the law of Jubilee, but a man who sold his 
 house could redeem it at any time within a 
 full year of the time of its sale. After that 
 year, it became the absolute property of the 
 purchaser. 
 
 (d) Houses and buildings in villages, or in the 
 country, being regarded as essentially connected 
 with the cultivation of the, land, were not 
 excepted, but returned in the Jubilee with the 
 land on which they stood. 
 
 (6) The Levitical cities were not, in respect 
 to this law, reckoned with walled towns. If a 
 Levite sold the use of his house, it reverted to 
 him in the Jubilee, and he might redeem it at 
 any previous time. The lands in the suburbs of 
 the Levites’ cities could not be parted with 
 under any condition, and were not therefore 
 affected by the law of Jubilee (v. 34). 
 
 (f) If a man had sanctified a field of his 
 patrimony unto the Lord, it could be redeemed 
 at any time before the next year of Jubilee, on 
 his paying one-fifth in addition to the worth of 
 
 4 Tt would seem that the Israelites never parted with 
 their land except from the pressure of poverty. The 
 objection of Naboth to accept the offer of Ahab (1 K. 
 xxi. 1) appears to exemplify the sturdy feeling of a 
 substantial Hebrew, who would have felt it to be a 
 shame and a sin to give up any part of his patrimony— 
 “he Lord forbid it me that I should give the inhe- 
 ritance of my fathers to thee.” For another view of 
 the conduct of Naboth, see a dissertation by S. Andreas, 
 in the Critict Sacri, vol. xiii. p. 603. 
 
 e This must be the meaning of the price being cal- 
 culated on ‘the years of fruits,” nian 3 (Lev. 
 
 Xxy. 15, 16), the years of tillage, exclusive of the years 
 of rest (see Knobel-Dillmann in loco). 
 
 f Kranold observes (p. 54) that there is no record 
 of the goel ever exercising his right till after the death 
 of him who had sold the field. But the inference that 
 the goel could not previously exercise his power seems 
 to be hardly warranted, and is opposed to what is per- 
 haps the simplest interpretation of Ruth iv. 3, 4. See: 
 note ™, § V. 
 
 g A Jewish tradition, preserved by Maimonides and 
 others, states that no cities were thus reckoned, as 
 regards the Jubilee, but such as were walled in the 
 time of Joshua According td this, Jerusalem was 
 excluded. 
 
1820 JUBILEE, THE YEAR OF 
 
 the crops, rated at a stated valuation (Lev. 
 xxvii. 19). If not so redeemed, it became, at 
 the Jubilee, devoted for ever. If the man had 
 previously sold the usufruct of the field to 
 another, he lost all right to redeem it (vv. 
 20, 21). 
 
 (g) If he who had purchased the usufruct of 
 a field sanctified it, he could redeem it till the 
 next Jubilee, that is, as long as his claim lasted; 
 but it then, as justice required, returned to the 
 original proprietor (vv. 22-24). 
 
 3. All Israelites who had become bondmen, 
 either to their countrymen, or to resident 
 foreigners, were set free in the Jubilee (Lev. 
 xxv. 40, 41), when it happened to occur before 
 their seventh year of servitude, in which they 
 became free by the operation of another law 
 (Ex. xxi. 2). Those who were bound to resident 
 foreigners might redeem themselves, if they 
 obtained the means, at any time; or they might 
 be redeemed by a relation. Even the bondman 
 who had submitted to the ceremony of having 
 his ears bored (Ex. xxi. 6) had his freedom at 
 the Jubilee.” 
 
 Such was the law of the year of Jubilee, 
 as it is given in the Pentateuch. It was, of 
 course, like the law of the Sabbatical year, and 
 that of those rites of the great Festivals which 
 pertain to agriculture, delivered proleptically. 
 The same formula is used—“ When ye be come 
 into the land which I give unto you”—both in 
 Lev. xxv. 2 and Lev. xxiii. 10. 
 
 III. Josephus (Ant. iii. 12, §3) states that all 
 debts were remitted in the year of Jubilee, but 
 the Scripture speaks of the remission of debts 
 only in connexion with the Sabbatical year 
 (Deut.. xv. 1, 2). [ΒΑΒΒΑΤΙΟΑΙ, YEAR.] He 
 also describes the terms on which the holder of 
 a piece of land resigned it in the Jubilee to the 
 original proprietor. The former(hesays) produced 
 a statement of the value of the crops, and of the 
 money which he had laid out in tillage. If the 
 expenses proved to be more than the worth of 
 the produce, the balance was paid by the pro- 
 prietor before the field was restored. But if 
 the balance was on the other side, the pro- 
 prietor simply took back the field, and allowed 
 him who had held it to retain the profit. 
 
 Philo (De Septenario, chs. 13, 14, vol. v. 37, 
 edit. Tauch.) gives an account of the Jubilee 
 agreeing with that in Leviticus, and says 
 nothing of the remission of debts.! 
 
 IV. Origin of the word Jubilee.—The doubt on 
 this point appears to be a very old one. The 
 Hebrew word is treated by the LXX. in dif- 
 ferent modes. They have retained it untrans- 
 lated in Josh, vi. 8, 13 (where we find kepa- 
 τίναι τοῦ ᾿Ιωβήλ, and σάλπιγξ τοῦ ᾿Ιωβήλ). 
 In Ley. xxv. they generally render it by ἄφεσις, 
 or ἀφέσεως onudoia; but where the context 
 Suits it, by φώνη σάλπιγγος. In Ex. xix. 13 
 they have af φωναὶ καὶ ai σάλπιγγες. The 
 
 nh Maimonides says that the interval between the 
 Feast of Trumpets and the Day of Atonement, in the 
 year of Jubilee, was a time of riotous rejoicing to all 
 servants. If there is any truth in the tradition that 
 he records (which is in itself probable enough), the 
 eight days must have been a sort of Saturnalia. 
 
 * The Mishna contains nothing on the Jubilee but 
 unimportant scattered notices, though it has a consi- 
 derable treatise on the Sabbatical year (Shebiith). 
 
 JUBILEE, THE YEAR OF 
 
 Vulgate retains the original word in Lev. xxv., 
 as well as in Josh. vi. (“ buccinae quarum usus 
 est in Jubilaeo”’), and by buccina in Ex. xix. 13. 
 It seems, therefore, beyond doubt that uncer- 
 tainty respecting the word must have been felt 
 when the most ancient Versions of the Ὁ. T. 
 were made. 
 
 Nearly all of the many conjectures which 
 have been hazarded on the subject are directed 
 to explain the word exclusively in its bearing on 
 the year of Jubilee. ‘This course has been taken 
 by Josephus—éAeveplay δὲ σημαίνει τοὔνομα; 
 and by St. Jerome —Jobel est demittens aut 
 muattens, Many modern writers have exercised 
 their ingenuity in the same track. Now in 
 all such attempts at explanation there must be 
 an anachronism, as the word is used in Ex. xix: 
 13, before the institution of the Law, where it 
 can have nothing to do with the Year of Jubilee, 
 or its observances. ‘The expression there used 
 
 is Dain ἼΔΩΞ ; similar to that in Josh. vi. 
 5, ban 223 wa. The question seems 
 
 to be, can bai here mean a peculiar sound, 
 a long-drawn-out sound (Riehm), or the instru- 
 ment for producing the sound? Ewald favours 
 the latter notion, and so does Gesenius (7768. 
 sub 121, and MV.1), following the old Versions 
 (with which the A. V. agrees), though .under 
 
 2) he explains Sap as clangor. De Wette 
 inclines the same way, rendering the words in 
 Ex, xix. 13 — beim Blazen des Jobelhorns. 
 Luther translates the same words— wenn es 
 wird aber lange ténen (though he is not consis- 
 tent with himself in his rendering of Josh. vi. 
 5); Bihr renders them, cum trahetur sonus, and 
 recent critics agree with him. It would follow 
 from this view that what is meant in Joshua, 
 when the trumpet is expressly mentioned, is, 
 **When the sound called Jubilee (whatever that 
 may be) is prolonged on the horn.” 
 
 As regards the derivation of the word, it is 
 
 by some ascribed to the root D2, undavit, copiose 
 et cum quodam impetu fiuvit. Hence Kranold 
 explains ba, id quod magno strepitu fluit ; and 
 he adds, “duplex igitur in ea radice vis dis- 
 tinguitur, fluendi et sonandi altera in bya 
 (diluvium), Gen. vi. 17, altera in Say (artis 
 musicae inventor), Gen. iv. 21, conspicua.” 
 
 The meaning of Jubilee would thus seem to be, 
 a rushing, penetrating sound.* But in the 
 
 Ἐ Carpzov (App. p. 449) appears to have been the 
 first who put forth this view of the origin and mean- 
 ing of the word. The figure of the pouring along of 
 the “rich stream of music” is familiar enough in most 
 languages to recommend it as probable. But Gesenius 
 
 prefers to make a second root, 5.3", jubilare, which he 
 
 ascribes to onomatopoeia, like the Latin jubilare, and 
 the Greek ὀλολύζειν. 
 
 The notion that bis signifies a ram has some 
 interest, from its being held by the Jews so generally 
 and by the Chaldee Paraphrast; and from its having 
 
 influenced the A. V. and RK. V.in Josh. vi. to call the 
 horns on which the Jubilee was sounded, trumpets of 
 
 SS 
 
JUBILEE, THE YEAR OF 
 
 uncertaimty which, it must be allowed, exists, 
 the A. V. and R. V. have taken a safer course by 
 retaining the original word in Ley. xxv. and 
 
 _xxvii., than that which was taken by Luther, 
 
 who has rendered it by Halljahr. 
 
 V. Maimonides, and the Jewish writers in 
 general, consider that the Jubilee was observed 
 till the destruction of the first Temple. But 
 there is no direct historical notice of its obser- 
 vance on any one occasion, either in the Books 
 of the O. T., or in any other records, Passages 
 in the Prophets which can be regarded with 
 much confidence, as referring to the Jubilee in 
 any way, are Is. v. 7-10, xxxii. 7, Ixi. 1, 2; 
 Ezek. vii. 12, 13, xlvi. 16-18. After the 
 Exile the special laws of the Jubilee fell into 
 desuetude, if in matters of detail they still 
 intluenced social life (cp. Herzfeld, Gesch. d. 
 Volkes Israel, ii. 464). Some have doubted 
 whether the law of Jubilee ever came into 
 actual operation (Michaelis, Laws of Moses, art. 
 Ixxvi., and Winer, sub voce), others have con- 
 fidently denied it (Kranold, p. 80; Hupfeld, pt. 
 iii. p. 20). But Ewald and Riehm contend that 
 the institution is eminently practical in the 
 character of its details, and that the acci- 
 dental circumstance of no particular instance 
 of its observance having been recorded in the 
 Jewish history proves nothing. Besides the 
 passages to which reference has been made, 
 Ewald applies several others to the Jubilee. He 
 conceives that “the year of visitation” men- 
 tioned in Jer. xi. 23, xxiii. 12, xlviii. 44 denotes 
 the punishment of those who, in the Jubilee, 
 withheld by tyranny or fraud the possessions or 
 the liberty of the poor! From Jer. xxxii. 6-12 
 he infers that the law was restored to opera- 
 tion in the reign of Josiah™ (Alterthiimer, p. 424, 
 note 1). 
 
 vams' horns. It appears to come from the rabbinical 
 view respecting the ram which was sacrificed in the place 
 of Isaac. They said (R. Bechai in Ex. xix. ap. Kranold) 
 that after the ram was burnt, God miraculously rest red 
 the body. His muscles were deposited in the golden 
 altar; from his viscera were made the strings of David’s 
 harp; his skin became the mantie of Elijah; his left 
 horn was the trumpet of Sinai; and his right horn was 
 to sound when Messiah comes (Is. xxvii. 13). R. Akiba, 
 
 connecting this with the Jubilee, affirms that xbay is 
 
 the Arabic for a ram, and the word ba) appears to have 
 that signification in Phoenician (Ewald and Stade) and 
 in Assyrian(MV.1), Dillmann on Exod. xix. 13 accepts 
 this signification. 
 
 Other notions respecting the word may be found in 
 Kranold (p. 11 sq.). 
 
 1 The words of Isaiah (v. 7-10) may, it would seem 
 with more distinctness, be understood to the same 
 effect, as denouncing woe against those who had un- 
 righteously hindered the Jubilee from effecting its 
 object. 
 
 τὰ |s there not a difficulty in considering this passage 
 to have any bearing on the Jubilee, from its relating, 
 apparently, to a priest’s field? (See § II. 2(e).). At 
 all events, the transaction was merely the transfer of 
 land from one member of a family to another, witha 
 recognition of a preference allowed to a near relation to 
 purchase. The case mentioned in Ruth iv. 3 sq. appears 
 to go further in illustrating the Jubilee principle. 
 Naomi is about to sell a field of Elimelech’s property. 
 Boaz proposes to the next of kin to purchase it of her, 
 in order to prevent it from going out of the family, and, 
 on his refusal, takes it himself, as having the next 
 right. 
 
 JUBILEE, THE YEAR OF 1821 
 
 VI. The Jubilee is to be regarded as the outer 
 circle of that great Sabbatical system which 
 comprises within it the Sabbatical year, the 
 Sabbatical month, and the Sabbath day. 
 [Feasts.] The rest and restoration of each 
 member of the state, in his spiritual relation, 
 belongs to the weekly Sabbath and the Sab- 
 batical month, while the land had its rest and 
 relief in the Sabbatical year. But the Jubilee 
 is more immediately connected with the body 
 politic; and it was only as a member of the 
 state that each person concerned could partici- 
 pate in its provisions. It has less of a formally 
 religious aspect than either of the other Sab- 
 batical institutions, and its details were of a 
 more immediately practical character. It was 
 not distinguished by any prescribed religious 
 observance peculiar to itself, like the rites of 
 the Sabbath day and of the Sabbatical month ; 
 nor even by anything like the reading of the 
 Law in the Sabbatical year. But in the Hebrew 
 state, polity and religion were never separated, 
 nor was their essential connexion ever dropped ° 
 out of sight. Hence the year was hallowed, in 
 the strict sense of the word, by the solemn 
 blast of the Jubilee trumpets, on the same day 
 on which the sins of the people had been 
 acknowledged in the general fast, and in which 
 they had been symbolically expiated by the 
 entrance of the high-priest into the Holy of 
 Holies with the blood of the appointed victims. 
 Hence also the deeper ground of the provisions 
 of the institution is stated with marked em- 
 phasis in the Law itself. The land was to be 
 restored to the families to which it had been at 
 first allotted hy Divine direction (Josh. xiv. 2), 
 because it was the Lord’s. ‘The land shall not 
 be sold for ever: for the land is Mine; for ye 
 are strangers and sojourners with Me” (Lev. 
 xxv. 23), “I am the Lord your God which 
 brought you forth out of the land of Egypt, to 
 give you the land of Canaan, and to be your 
 God” (v. 38). The Hebrew bondman was to 
 have the privilege of claiming his liberty as a 
 right, because he could never become the pro- 
 perty of any one but Jehovah. “ For they are 
 My servants which I brought forth out of the 
 land of Egypt; they shall not be sold as bond- 
 men” (v. 42). “For unto Me the children of 
 Israel are servants, whom I brought forth out 
 of the land of Egypt ” ® (v. 55). 
 
 If regarded from an ordinary point of view, 
 the Jubilee was calculated to meet and remedy 
 those incidents which are inevitable in the 
 course of human society; to prevent the 
 accumulation of inordinate wealth in the hands 
 ot a few; and to relieve those whom misfortune 
 or fault had reduced to poverty. As far as 
 
 n The foundation of the law of Jubilee appears to be 
 so essentially connected with the children of Israel, that 
 it seems strange that Michaelis should have confidently 
 affirmed its Egyptian origin, while yet he acknowledges 
 that he can produce no specific evidence on the subject 
 (Mos. Law, art. 73). The only well-proved instance of 
 anything like it in other nations appears to be that of 
 the Dalmatians, mentioned by Strabo, lib. vii. (p. 315, 
 edit. Casaub.). He says that they redistributed their 
 land every eight years. Ewald, following the statement 
 of Plutarch, refers to the institution of Lycurgus; but 
 Mr. Grote has given another view of the matter (Zist. 
 | of Greece, ii. 530). 
 
1822 JUBILEE, THE YEAR OF 
 
 legislation could go, its provisions tended to 
 restore that equality in outward circumstances 
 which was instituted in the first settlement of the 
 land by Joshua.° But if we look upon it in its 
 more special character, as a part of the Divine 
 Law appointed for the chosen people, its prac- 
 tical bearing was to vindicate the right of each 
 Israelite to his part in the covenant which 
 Jehovah had made with his fathers respecting 
 the land of promise. The loud notes of the 
 Jubilee horns symbolised the voice of the Lord 
 proclaiming the restoration of political order, as 
 (according to Jewish tradition) the blast in the 
 Feast of Trumpets had, ten days before, com- 
 memorated the creation of the world and the 
 completion of the material kosmos. 
 
 In the incurable uncertainty respecting the 
 fact of the observance of the Jubilee, it is 
 important that we should keep in mind that 
 the record of the law, whether it was obeyed or 
 not, was, and is, a constant witness for the truth 
 _ of those great social principles on which the 
 theocracy was established.? Moreover, from the 
 allusions which are made to it by the Prophets, 
 it must have become a standing prophecy in the 
 hearts of the devout Hebrews. They who 
 waited in faith for the salvation of Israel were 
 kept in mind of that spiritual Jubilee which 
 was to come (Luke iv. 19), in which every one 
 of the spiritual seed of Abraham was to have, in 
 the sight of God, an equality which no accident 
 could ever disturb; and a glorious freedom, in 
 that liberty with which He that was to come 
 was to make him free, and which no force or 
 fraud could ever take from him. 
 
 The older monographs on the Jubilee are 
 mentioned in Winer, RWB. s. n. “ Jubeljahr,” 
 in Kranold, Commentatio de anno Hebraeorum 
 Jubileo, Géttingen, 1837, and in Bahr (Sym- 
 bolik, vol. ii. p. 572 sq.). References to 
 Ewald, Saalschiitz, Hupfeld, Wellhausen, and 
 others are given by Zickler-Orelli in Herzog, 
 RE? 5. τι. Sabbathjahr. Consult also Knobel- 
 Dillmann on Exod.—Lev./. ο..; Riehm, HW8. s. v. 
 “ Jobeljahr ;”” Hamburger, RZ. 5. v. “ Sabbath- 
 jahr.” In these two last writers difficulties 
 now obsolete (cp. also Ist ed. of this work) are 
 discussed. [s. C.] [FJ 
 
 9 A collateral result of the working of the Jubilee 
 must have been the preservation of the genealogical 
 tables, and the maintenance of the distinction of the 
 tribes. Ewald and Michaelis suppose that the tables 
 were systematically corrected and filled up at each 
 Jubilee. ‘This seems reasonable enough, in order that 
 the fresh names might be filled in, that irregularities 
 arising from the dying out of families might be rectified, 
 and that disputed claims might be, as far as possible, 
 authoritatively met. 
 
 Its effect in maintaining the distinction of the tribes 
 is illustrated in the appeal made by the tribe of 
 Manasseh in regard to the daughters of Zelophehad 
 (Num. xxxvi. 4). 
 
 As regards the reason of the exception of houses in 
 τ towns from the law of Jubilee, Bahr has observed that, 
 as they were chiefly inhabited by artificers and trades- 
 men, whose wealth did not consist in land, it was 
 reasonable that they should retain them in absolute 
 possession. It has been conjectured that many of these 
 tradesmen were foreign proselytes, who could not hold 
 property in the land which was subject to the law of 
 Jubilee, 
 
 P This view is powerfully set forth by Bahr. 
 
 a 
 
 eS 
 SS 
 
 JUDAEA 
 
 JU'CAL (23)"; Ἰωάχαλ ; Juchal), son of 
 Shelemiah (Jer, xxxviii. 1). Elsewhere called 
 JEHUCAL. 
 
 JU’DA (Clovdas, ic. Judas; Ἰούδα being 
 only the genitive case). 
 
 1. Son of Joseph in the genealogy of Christ 
 (Luke iii, 30), in the ninth generation from 
 David about the time of king Joash. 
 
 2. Son of Joanna, or Hananiah [HANANIAH, 
 8] (Luke iii. 26). He seems to be certainly the 
 same person as Abiud in Matt. i. 13. His 
 name, 1171/1}, is identical with that of TI, 
 
 only that 3N is prefixed; and when Rhesa is 
 discarded from Luke’s line, and allowance is 
 made for St. Matthew’s omission of genera- 
 tions in his genealogy, their times will agree 
 perfectly. Both may be the same as Hodaiah 
 of 1 Ch. iii, 24. See Hervey’s Genealogies, 
 p. 118 sqq. 
 
 3. One of the Lord’s brethren, enumerated 
 in Mark vi. 3. ([Joses; JosepH.] On the 
 question of his identity with Jude the brother 
 of James, one of the twelve Apostles (Luke vi. 
 16; Acts i. 13), and with the author of the 
 general Epistle, see p. 1836. In Matt. xiii. 55 
 his name is given in the A. V. as JUDAS. 
 
 4. The patriarch JupaH (Sus. v. 56; Luke 
 iii. 33; Heb. vii. 14; Rev. v. 5, vii. 5). 
 
 [A. C. H.] 
 
 JUDA, A CITY OF (Luke i. 39), ie a 
 city belonging to that tribe; αἰ. see JUTTAH. 
 
 JUDAEA or JUDEA ΟἸούδαια)θ. The 
 southern province of Western Palestine, named 
 from the returning exiles of the tribe of Judah, 
 but extending beyond the old north border of 
 the tribal possessions to include all the territory 
 of Dan, Benjamin, and the southern part of 
 Ephraim, which districts were also recolonised 
 by the exiles at the same time (Neh. Xi. 
 25-36). The A. V. in one case (Ezra y. 8) 
 renders the Aramaic 14) by Judaea, in other 
 cases by Judah (Dan. ii. 25, vi. 13) or Jewry 
 (Dan. v. 13); the term meaning generally that 
 part of the country in which the exiles had 
 settled round Jerusalem. At this time the 
 whole of Syria and Palestine formed a single 
 province (see Ezra vy. 8; Neh. xi, 3) under a 
 satrap, and is counted by Herodotus (iii. 91) as 
 the fifth out of the twenty which formed the 
 Persian Empire. Classic authors, in the time of 
 the Roman rule in Syria, use the term Judaea 
 loosely in the same manner. Strabo (xvi.) in- 
 cludes all Palestine proper, south of the Leba- 
 non—the Jews in this period having spread over 
 the whole country. The unexplained notice of 
 Judah on Jordan (Josh. xix. 34) and the reading 
 (found in A.) “ Judaea beyond Jordan” (Matt. 
 xix. 1) tempted Reland and others to extend the 
 application of the term to the regions east of 
 the river; but the translation of the first of 
 these passages, and the text, are alike perhaps 
 doubtful ; while in the second case other MSS. 
 (δ, B, C) read “and beyond Jordan,” agreeing 
 better with the parallel passage in Mark (x. 1). 
 Josephus defines Judaea ( Wars, iii. 3-5).as ex- 
 tending from the Jordan to Joppa, and from 
 Anuath and Borceos on the north, to Iarda 
 (Iapdav) on the south. The sites of the former 
 towns are now marked by the ruins of ’Aina and 
 
JUDAEA 
 
 Berkit (see Conder’s Handbook to the Bible, p.306), 
 15 Roman miles south of Shechem, or in the 
 situation in which the Onomasticon (8. v. ᾿Ανουὰ) 
 places Anua, The Iarda of Josephus is ap- 
 parently the ancient Arad (Zell ’Ardd), on the 
 border of the Beersheba deserts. The boundary 
 between Judaea and Idumaea was, however, not 
 very distinctly drawn [see Epom], since the latter 
 province was also included within the limits of 
 the Holy Land as defined in early Rabbinical 
 works, The Talmud gives other indications 
 which serve to fix the boundary between Judaea 
 and Samaria very clearly. It ran along the 
 deep gorge of Wady Deir Ballut, from Antipatris 
 to Anuath, and thence N.E., including the Acra- 
 batene toparchy (Wars, iii. 3, 4) in Judaea. 
 Antipatris was the border town on the Judaean 
 side of the frontier (Tal. Bab. Gittin, 76a) on the 
 west (Tal. Bab. Sanhed, 94)). Beth Rima (now 
 Beit Rima), Beth Laban (Lubben), and Keruthim 
 (Corea, now Keriiit) were also near the border, 
 but within Judaea (Mishnah Menakhoth, ix. 7), 
 and lay immediately south of the boundary 
 gorge. Shiloh and Patris (probably the modern 
 Budrus) were also in Judaea(Tosiphta Demai, 1); 
 and since the beacon station of Sartaba (the 
 present Kurn Sartabah) was clearly in Judaea 
 (Mishnah Rosh hash-Shanah, ii. 3), it follows 
 that the line must be carried east of Shechem, 
 to the important valley which runs down to 
 _join the Jordan just north of that mountain. 
 Three natural divisions of Judaea are men- 
 tioned in the Mishnah (Shebiith, ix. 2); namely, 
 “the mountain” or “King’s Mountain” (77 
 
 5)10N), the Shephelah or “low hills” (MODW), 
 and Daroma or “ the south” (0117). To these 
 a fourth must be added on the east; namely, 
 the Wilderness of Judaea (Matt. iii. 1), which 
 included all the non-arable deserts west of the 
 Dead Sea. This region is called the MMdbar of 
 Judah in the Old Testament (Josh. xix. 61; 
 Judg. i. 16; 1 Sam. xxiii. 14, 25); and in it were 
 the towns of Engedi, Ziph, Maon, and the “ city 
 of Salt,” probably the present Zell el-Milh, or 
 ** Hill of Salt,” west of Arad. This is still the 
 most desolate region in Western Palestine, in- 
 nabited only by small nomadic tribes, at inter- 
 vals along the plateau above the Dead Sea cliffs. 
 The term in the N. T. may perhaps include the 
 barren regions further north, where the wilder- 
 ness of Bethaven is mentioned in the O. T., below 
 Bethel on the east (Josh. xviii. 12), since 
 these desert slopes, west of the Jordan valley, 
 were also within the limits of Judaea. 
 
 The subdivision of Judaea into Toparchies is 
 noticed by Josephus (Wars, iii. 3-5) and by 
 Pliny (H. Ν. v. 14); and there were eleven of 
 these districts with capitals at Acrabatta 
 (Akrabeh), Thamna (Tibneh), Gophna (Jufna), 
 Lydda (Lud), Joppa (Yafa), Emmaus Nicopolis 
 (Amwds), Jericho (δῆλα), Herodium (Jebel 
 Fureidis), and Engedi (‘Ain Jidy), while the two 
 last regions were Idumaea and Bethleptephah 
 (perhaps Tujfih, near Hebron): this enumera- 
 tion shows that no region beyond Jordan was 
 included, 
 
 Other regions included in Judaea are men- 
 tioned in both the Talmud and the Onomasticon, 
 in addition to the natural regions already noted. 
 Daroma or the “dry” region, which stands for 
 
 the Hebrew Negeb in the Targum (Onkelos, ' 
 
 JUDAH 1823 
 
 Deut. xxxiv. 8), was subdivided into the upper 
 and the lower (Tosiphta Sanhed. 2, and Jer. and 
 Bab. Talmuds on the same Mishnah). The town 
 of Caphar Dhikrin (now Dhikrin in the north of 
 Philistia) was in Upper Daroma as well as 
 Lydda (Midrash Zkha, ii. 2), so that the plains 
 south of Jaffa are evidently intended; and the 
 region between Ekron and Jamnia still bears 
 the name of Deirdn. Lower Daroma appears to 
 have been the Negeb proper or plateau of 
 Idumaea. The plains round Gerar (Umm Jerdr) 
 were however known to these writers as Gerari- 
 tica (Tal. Jer. Shebiith, vi. 1); while the southern 
 part of Sharon, north of Jaffa, was also a region 
 in Judaea. Josephus indeed speaks of all the 
 towns (as far north as Accho) in the Sharon 
 plain as belonging to Judaea ( Wars, iii. 3-5); 
 but from the Talmudic notices it would seem 
 that north of Antipatris the maritime plain was 
 regarded as no part of the Holy Land until the 
 border of Galilee was reached (Tal. Jer. Demai, 
 ii. 2): there was certainly a mixed Jewish and 
 Samaritan population in this region, and Caesarea 
 appears not to be included in Judaea in the New 
 Testament (Acts xii. 19, xxi. 10). The Roman 
 Procurator of Judaea, however, resided during 
 part at least of the year at this maritime capital 
 instead of at Jerusalem (Antig. xvii. 13, ὃ 5; 
 xviii. 1, § 1; 2, § 1; 3, § 1) after the deposition 
 of Archelaus in 6 A.D. Judaea under the Pro- 
 curators was attached to Syria, and ruled by the 
 legate. The conquest of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. 
 by Titus was commemorated by silver and brass 
 coins (see Madden, Coins of the Jews, pp. 207- 
 229), many cf which bear the legend IVDAEA 
 CAPTA. In later Roman times Judaea was 
 approximately the Palestina Prima of the Greek 
 ecclesiastical organisation, with bishops under 
 the Patriarch of Jerusalem. The Talmudic 
 references in this article are mainly taken from 
 Neubauer’s Géographie du Talmud, 1868; but 
 when that valuable work was written, the sites 
 of many important places, such as Anuath, 
 Borceos, &c., had not been discovered. 
 [C. R. C.] 
 
 JU'DAH (A757, 16. Yehtiaa: ᾿Ιούδαν in 
 Gen. xxix. 35; A. Ἰούδα ; elsewhere Ἰούδας in 
 both MSS. and in N. T.; and so also Josephus : 
 Juda). The fourth son of Jacob and the fourth 
 of Leah, the last before the temporary cessa- 
 tion in the births of her children. His whole- 
 brothers were Reuben, Simeon, and Levi, elder 
 than himself—Issachar and Zebulun younger 
 (see xxxy. 23). The name is explained as 
 having originated in Leah’s exclamation of 
 “praise” at this fresh gift of Jehovah—She 
 said, Now will I praise (iN, dédeh) Jehovah, 
 and she called his name Yehudah” (Gen. xxix. 
 35). The same play is preserved in the bless- 
 ing of Jacob—* Judah, thou whom thy brethren 
 shall praise!” (xlix. 8). The name is not of 
 frequent occurrence in the O. T. In the 
 Apocrypha, however, it appears in the great 
 hero Judas Maccabaeus ; in the N. T. in Jude, 
 Judas Iscariot, and others. [JupA; JuDAS.] 
 
 Of the individual Judah more traits are pre- 
 served than of any other of the patriarchs with 
 the exception of Joseph. In the matter of the 
 sale of Joseph, he and Reuben stand out in 
 favourable contrast to the rest of the brothers. 
 
1824 JUDAH JUDAH 1 
 
 But for their interference he, who was “their | lead in all the affairs of the family. When a 
 brother and their flesh,” would have been cer- | second visit to Egypt for corn had become in- 
 tainly put to death. Though not the firstborn, | evitable, it was Judah who, as the mouthpiece 
 he “ prevailed above his brethren ” (1 Ch. ν. 2), | of the rest, headed the remonstrance against 
 and we find him subsequently taking a decided | the detention of Benjamin by Jacob, and finally © 
 
 jet 
 SS) 
 
 0B 
 
 SL, 
 Sta 
 WSSTNS 
 
 5 Wire 
 EMER Le WA 
 ZAG SB SU 
 SSS ΜῈ Ἔ 
 
 i) 
 
 δῇ! 
 
 Map of Judah. 
 
 SF WF 
 i AN (pel GY 
 
 ee 
 ᾿ν 
 
 3 
 
 ON 
 
 \l 
 ΕΞ. 
 τ ἠὲ 
 
 undertook to be responsible for the safety of the | scene it is Judah who unhesitatingly acknow~- 
 Jad (alii. 3-10). And when, through Joseph’s | ledges the guilt which had never been com- 
 artifice, the brothers were brought back to the | mitted, throws himself on the mercy of the 
 palace, he is again the leader and spokesman | supposed Egyptian prince, offers himself as a 
 of the band. In that thoroughly Oriental | slave, and makes that wonderful appeal to the 
 
ἂν ενέ 
 
 es 
 
 ; 
 
 feelings of their disguised brother which ren- 
 ders it impossible for Joseph any longer to 
 conceal his secret (xliv. 14, 16-34). So, too, it 
 is Judah who is sent before Jacob to smooth 
 the way for him in the land of Goshen (xlvi. 
 28). This ascendency over his brethren is 
 reflected in the last words addressed to him by 
 his father—“‘ Thou whom thy brethren shall 
 praise! thy father’s sons shall ‘bow down before 
 thee! unto him shall be the gathering of the 
 people” (Gen. xlix. 8-10). In the interesting 
 traditions of the Koran and the Midrash his 
 figure stands out in the same prominence. 
 Before Joseph his wrath is mightier and his 
 recognition heartier than the rest. It is he 
 who hastens in advance to bear to Jacob the 
 fragrant robe of Joseph (Weil’s Diblical Legends, 
 pp. 88-90). 
 _ His sons were five. .Of these three were by 
 his Canaanite wife Bath-shua; they are all 
 insignificant ; two died early, and the third, 
 SHELAH, does not come prominently forward, 
 either in his person or his family. The other 
 two, PHAREZ and ZERAH—twins—were illegi- 
 timate sons‘ by the widow of Er, the eldest of 
 the former family (Gen. xxxviii.). As is not 
 unfrequently the case, the illegitimate sons 
 surpassed the legitimate, and from Pharez, the 
 elder, were descended the royal and other 
 illustrious families of Judah. These sons were 
 born to Judah while he was living in the same 
 district of Palestine, which, centuries after, was 
 repossessed by his descendants —amongst villages 
 which retain their names unaltered in the 
 catalogues of the time of the conquest. The 
 three sons went with their father into Egypt at 
 the time of the final removal thither (Gen. xlvi. 
 12; Ex. i. 2). 
 
 When we again meet with the families of 
 Judah, they.occupy a position among the tribes 
 similar to that which their progenitor had 
 taken amongst the patriarchs. The numbers of 
 the tribe at the census at Sinai were 74,600 
 (Num. i. 26, 27), considerably in advance of any 
 of the others, the largest of which—Dan— 
 numbered 62,700. On the borders of the Pro- 
 mised Land they were 76,500 (xxvi. 22), Dan 
 being still the nearest. The chief of the tribe 
 at the former census was NAHSHON, the son of 
 Amminadab (Num. i. 7, ii. 3, vii. 12, x. 14), an 
 ancestor of David (Ruth iv. 20). Its repre- 
 sentative amongst the spies, and also among 
 those appointed to partition the Jand, was the 
 great Caleb the son of Jephunneh (Num. xiii. 
 6; xxxiv. 19). During the march through the 
 desert Judah’s place was in the van of the host, 
 on the east side of the Tabernacle, with his 
 kinsmen Issachar and+Zebulun (ii. 3-9; x. 14). 
 The traditional standard of the tribe was a 
 lion’s whelp, with the words, “Rise up, Lord, 
 and let Thine enemies be scattered!” (Targ. 
 Pseudojon. on Num. ii. 3). 
 
 During the conquest of the country the only 
 incidents specially affecting the tribe of Judah 
 are—(1) the misbehaviour of Achan, who was 
 of the great house of Zerah (Josh. vii. 1, 16- 
 18); and (2) the conquest of the mountain- 
 district of Hebron by Caleb, and of the strong 
 city Debir, in the same locality, by his nephew 
 
 JUDAH 
 
 ® The obscure and much-disputed passage in v. 10 
 will be best examined under the head SHILOH. 
 BIBLE DICT.—VOL, 1. 
 
 JUDAH 1825 
 
 and son-in-law Othniel (Josh. xiv. 6-15, xv. 
 13-19). It is the only instance given of a por- 
 tion of the country being expressly reserved for 
 the person or persons who conquered it. In 
 general the conquest seems to have been made 
 by the whole community, and the territory 
 
 | allotted afterwards, without reference to the 
 
 original conquerors of each locality. In this 
 case the high character and position of Caleb, 
 and perhaps a claim established by him at the 
 time of the visit of the spies to “the land 
 whereon his feet had trodden ” (Josh. xiv. 9; ep. 
 Num. xiv. 24), may have led to the exception. 
 
 The boundaries and contents of the territory 
 allotted to Judah are narrated at great length, 
 and with greater minuteness than the others, ins 
 Josh, xv. 1-12, 20-63. This may be due 
 either to the fact that the lists were reduced to 
 their present form at a later period, when the 
 monarchy resided with Judah, and when more 
 care would naturally be bestowed on them than 
 on those of any other tribe; or to the fact that 
 the territory was more important and more 
 thickly covered with towns and villages than 
 any other part of Palestine. The greater pro- 
 minence given to the genealogies of Judah in 
 1 Ch. ii., iii., iv. no doubt arises from the former 
 reason. However this may be, we have in the 
 records of Joshua a very full and systematic 
 description of the allotment to this tribe. The 
 north boundary—for the most part coincident 
 with the south boundary of Benjamin—began 
 at the embouchure of the Jordan, entered the 
 hills apparently at or about the present road 
 from Jericho, ran westward to En-shemesh— 
 probably the present ‘Ain Haud, below Bethany 
 —thence over the Mount of Olives to Enrogel, 
 the Fountain of the Virgin, in the Kedron valley ; 
 went along the ravine of Hinnom, under the 
 precipices of the city; climbed the hill at the 
 north end of the Vale of Rephaim, and thence 
 by the waters of Nephtoah (probably the 
 springs near Solomon’s Pools above Etam»), 
 Kirjath-Jearim (probably Kh. ’Erma), Beth- 
 shemesh (‘Ain Shems), Timnath, and Ekron to 
 Jabneel on the sea-coast. On the east the Dead 
 Sea, and on the west the Mediterranean, formed 
 the boundaries. The southern line is hard to 
 determine, since it is denoted by places many of 
 which have not been identified. It left the 
 Dead Sea at its extreme south end, and joined 
 the Mediterranean at the Wady el-Arish; but 
 between these two points it passed through 
 Maaleh Acrabbim, the Wilderness of Zin, Hez- 
 ron, Adar (R. V. Addar), Karkaa (R. V. Karka), 
 and Azmon; the Wilderness of Zin the extreme 
 south of all (Josh. xv. 1-12). This territory— 
 in average length about 45 miles, and in average 
 breadth about 50—was from a very early date 
 divided into four main regions. 
 
 (1.) THe Sourn—the undulating pasture 
 country, which intervened between the hills, the 
 proper possession of the tribe, and the deserts 
 which encompass the lower part of Palestine 
 (Josh. xv. 21; Stanley, 3... δ' P.; Palmer, Desert 
 of the Exodus). It is this which is designated as 
 the wilderness (midbar) of Judah (Judg. i. 16). 
 It contained thirty-seven cities, with their 
 dependent villages (Josh. xv. 20-32), of which 
 
 Ὁ According to another view, Nephtoah is Lifta, and 
 Kirjath-Jearim is Kuryet el-’Enab. [BENJAMIN.] 
 6A 
 
1826 JUDAH 
 
 eighteen of those farthest south were ceded to 
 Simeon (xix. 1-9). Amongst these southern 
 cities the most familiar name is Beer-sheba. 
 
 (2.) THE LowLAND (xv. 33; A. V. “ valley ”) 
 —or, to give it its own proper and constant 
 appellation, THE SHEFELAH—the broad belt or 
 strip, of low hills and undulating ground, lying 
 between the central highlands—“ the mountain ” 
 —and the Mediterranean Sea; the lower por- 
 tion of that maritime plain, which extends 
 through the whole of the seaboard of Palestine, 
 from Sidon in the north to Rhinocolura at the 
 south. This tract was the garden and the 
 granary of the tribe. In it, long before the 
 conquest of the country by Israel, the Philis- 
 tines had settled themselves, never to be com- 
 pletely dislodged (Neh. xiii. 23, 24). There, 
 planted at equal intervals along the level coast, 
 were their five chief cities, each with its circle 
 of smaller dependents, overlooking, from the 
 natural undulations of the ground, the “standing 
 corn,” “shocks,” “ vineyards and olives,’ which 
 excited the ingenuity of Samson, and are still 
 remarked by modern travellers. “They are 
 all remarkable for the beauty and profusion of 
 the gardens which surround them—the scarlet 
 blossoms of the pomegranates, the enormous 
 oranges which gild the green foliage of their 
 famous groves” (Stanley, S. δ᾽ P. p. 257), From 
 the edge of the sandy tract, which fringes the 
 immediate shore right up to the very wall of 
 the hills of Judah, stretches the immense plain 
 of corn-fields. In those rich harvests lies the 
 explanation of the constant contests between 
 Israel and the Philistines (S. ¢ P. p. 258). From 
 them were gathered the enormous cargoes of 
 wheat, which were transmitted to Phoenicia by 
 Solomon in exchange for the arts of Hiram, and 
 which in the time of the Herods still “ nou- 
 rished” the country of Tyre and Sidon (Acts xii. 
 20). There were the olive-trees, the sycamore 
 trees, and the treasures of oil, the care of which 
 was sufficient to task the energies of two of 
 Dayid’s special officers (1 Ch. xxvii. 28). The 
 nature of this locality would seem to be reflected 
 in the names of many of its towns if interpreted 
 as Hebrew words :—DILEAN=cucumbers; GE- 
 DERAH, GEDEROTH, GEDEROTHAIM, sheepfolds ; 
 ZOREAH, wasps; EN-GANNIM, spring of gardens, 
 ἄς. &e. But we have yet to learn how far 
 these names are Hebrew; and whether at best 
 they are but mere Hebrew accommodations of 
 earlier originals, and therefore not to be de- 
 pended on for their significations. The number 
 of cities in this district, without counting the 
 smaller villages connected with them, was 
 forty-two. Of these, however, many which 
 belonged to the Philistines can only have been 
 alloted to the tribe, and if taken possession of 
 by Judah were only held for a time. 
 
 What were the exact boundaries of the Shefe- 
 lah we do not know. Weareat present ignorant 
 of the principles on which the ancient Jews drew 
 their boundaries between one territory and 
 another. One thing only is certain, that cities 
 close to the sea-coast, and others, whose modern 
 representatives are found on the western slopes of 
 the central highlands, at altitudes of more than 
 1000 ft., are enumerated as in the * lowland.” 
 
 (3.) The third region of the tribe—THE 
 MounTarn, the “hill-country of Judah”— 
 
 JUDAH 
 
 and the most important of the four. Beginning 
 a few miles below Hebron, where it attains its 
 highest level, it stretches eastward to the Dead 
 Sea and westward to the Shefelah, and forms 
 an elevated district or plateau, which, though — 
 thrown into considerable undulations, yet pre- 
 serves a general level in both directions. It is 
 the southern portion of that elevated hilly dis- 
 trict of Palestine which stretches north until 
 intersected by the plain of Esdraelon, and on 
 which Hebron, Jerusalem, and Shechem are the 
 chief spots. The surface of this region, which 
 is of limestone, is monotonous enough,—round © 
 swelling hills and hollows, of somewhat bolder — 
 proportions than those immediately north of” 
 Jerusalem, which, though in early times probably — 
 covered with forests [HARETH], have now, — 
 where not cultivated, no growth larger than a 
 brushwood of dwarf-oak, arbutus, and other 
 bushes. In many places there is a good soft 
 turf, discoverable even in the autumn, and in 
 spring the hills are covered with flowers. The 
 number of towns enumerated (Josh. xv. 48-60) — 
 as belonging to this district is 38; but, if we — 
 may judge from the ruins which meet the eye 
 on every side, this must have been very far 
 below the real number: hardly a hill which 
 is not crowned by some fragments of stone 
 buildings, more or less considerable,—those 
 which are still inhabited surrounded by groves 
 of olive-trees, and enclosures of stone walls 
 protecting the vineyards. Streams there are 
 none, but wells and springs are frequent—in 
 the neighbourhood of ‘“Solomon’s Pools” at 
 Urtdés most abundant. 
 
 (4.) The fourth district is THE WILDERNESS 
 (Midbar), which here appears to signify the 
 sunken district immediately adjoining the Dead 
 Sea, and the Jeshimon, or desert tract to the 
 west,—the “ wilderness of Judah” (Judg. i. 16). 
 It contained only six cities, which must have 
 been either, like Engedi, on the slopes of the 
 cliffs overhanging the sea, or else on the lower 
 level of the shore. The “city of Salt” may 
 have been-on the salt plains, between the sea 
 and the cliffs which form the southern termina- 
 tion to the Ghér, or more probably at Tell el- 
 Milh, east of Beer-sheba. 
 
 Nine of the cities of Judah were allotted to 
 the priests (Josh. xxi. 9-19). The Levites had 
 no cities® in the tribe, and the priests had none 
 out of it. 
 
 In the partition of the territory by Joshua 
 and Eleazar (Josh. xix. 51), Judah had the first 
 allotment (xv. 1). Joshua had on his first 
 entrance into the country overrun the Shefelah, 
 destroyed some of the principal towns and killed 
 the kings (x. 28-35), and had even penetrated 
 thence into the mountains as far as Hebron and 
 Debir (vv. 36-39); but the task of really subju- 
 gating the interior was yet to be done. After 
 his death it was undertaken by Judah and 
 Simeon (Judg. i. 20). In the artificial contri- 
 vances of war they were surpassed by the 
 Canaanites; and in some places,? where the 
 
 —- 
 
 ¢ But- Bethlehem appears to have been closely con- 
 nected with them (Judg. xvii. 7, 9; xix. 1). 
 
 4 The word here (Judg. i. 19) is Hmek, entirely a 
 different word from Shefelah, and rightly rendered 
 “valley.” It is difficult, however, to fix upon any 
 
 though not the richest, was at once the largest | «yalley” in this region sufficiently important to be 
 
JUDAH 
 
 ground admitted of their iron chariots being 
 
 employed, the latter remained masters of the 
 
 field. But wherever force and vigour were in| 
 ᾿ question there the Israelites succeeded, and they | 
 
 obtained entire possession of the mountain dis- 
 trict and the great corn-growing tract of Philistia 
 (Judg. i. 18, 19). 
 changing hands as one or the other side got 
 stronger (1 Sam. iv., v., vii. 14, &ec.); but in 
 the natural fortresses of the mountains Judah 
 dwelt undisturbed throughout the troubled 
 period of the Judges. OTHNIEL was partly a 
 member of the tribe (Judg. iii, 9), and the 
 
 The latter was constantly | 
 
 JUDAH 1827 
 
 Bethlehem of which IpzAN was a native (xii. 
 8, 9) may have been Bethlehem-Judah. But 
 even if these two judges belonged to Judah, the 
 tribe itself was not molested; and with the one 
 exception mentioned in Judg. xx. 19, when they 
 were called by the Divine oracle to make the 
 attack on Gibeah, they had nothing to do during 
 the whole of that period but settle themselves 
 in their home. Not only did they take no part 
 against Sisera, but they are not even rebuked 
 for it by Deborah. 
 
 Nor were they disturbed by the incursions of 
 the Philistines during the rule of Samuel and of 
 
 Wilderness of Judah. 
 
 Saul, which were made through the territory ot 
 Dan and of Benjamin; or if we place the valley 
 of ELAH at the Wady es-Sunt, only on the out- 
 skirts of the mountains of Judah. On the last- 
 named occasion, however, we know that at least 
 one town of Judah—Bethlehem—furnished men 
 to Saul’s host. The incidents of David’s flight 
 from Saul will be found examined under the 
 heads of Davin, Saut, Maon, Hacuinan, &e. 
 The main inference deducible from these con- 
 
 alluded to. Can it be the valley of Eran, where 
 contests with the Philistines took place later? 
 
 siderations is the determined manner in which 
 the tribe keeps aloof from the rest—neither 
 offering its aid nor asking that of others. The 
 same independent mode of action characterises 
 the foundation of the monarchy after the death 
 of Saul. There was no attempt to set up a 
 rival power to Ishbosheth. The tribe had had 
 full experience of the man who had been driven 
 from the court to take shelter in the caves, 
 woods, and fastnesses of their wild hilJs; and 
 when the opportunity offered, “the men of 
 Judah came and anointed David king over the 
 house of Judah in Hebron” (2 Sam. ii. 4, 11). 
 >) 
 
1828 JUDAH UPON JORDAN 
 
 The further step by which David was invested 
 with the sovereignty of the whole nation was 
 taken by the other tribes; Judah having no 
 special part therein ; and though willing enough, 
 if occasion rendered it necessary, to act with 
 others, their conduct later, when brought into 
 collision with Ephraim on the matter of the 
 restoration of David, shows that the men of 
 Judah had preserved their independent mode of 
 action. The king was near of kin to them; and 
 therefore they, and they alone, set about bringing 
 him back. It had been their own affair, to be 
 accomplished by themselves alone, and they had 
 gone about it in that independent manner which 
 looked like ‘‘desptsing” those who believed 
 their share in David to be a far larger one 
 (2 Sam. xix. 41-43). 
 
 The same independent temper will be found to 
 characterise the tribe throughout its existence 
 as a kingdom, which is considered in the article 
 JupDAH, KINGDOM OF. 
 
 2. A Levite whose descendants, Kadmiel and 
 his sons, were very active in the work of re- 
 building the Temple after the return from 
 captivity (Ezra iii. 9). Lord Hervey has shown 
 cause for believing (Genealogies, &c., p. 119) 
 that the name is the same as HODAVIAH and 
 HopevaH. In 1 Esd. v. 58, it appears to be 
 given as JODA. 
 
 8. (In Ezra, Ἰούδας, Β. ᾿Ιοδόμ, N. Ἰεδόμ; in 
 Neh. xii. 8, N*A. Ἰωδαέ, N°*B. *Iovda; in xii. 
 36, BA. omit: Juda, Judas.) A Levite who was 
 obliged by Ezra to put away his foreign wife 
 (Ezra x. 23). Probably the same person is 
 intended in Neh. xii. 8, 36, In 1 Esd. his name 
 is given as JUDAS. 
 
 4, (ἐξ. ᾿Ιούδα, BA. ᾿Ιούδας ; Judas.) A Ben- 
 jamite, son of Senuah (Neh. xi. 9). It is worth 
 notice, in connexion with the suggestion of Lord 
 Hervey mentioned above, that in the lists of 1 Ch. 
 ix., in many points so curiously parallel to those 
 of this chapter, a Benjamite, Hodaviah, son of 
 Hassennuah, is given (v. 7; R. V.). [G.] [W.] 
 
 JUDAH UPON [R. V. AT] JORDAN, 
 the eastern termination of the boundary of 
 Naphtali (Josh. xix. 34). Von Raumer (Pal. 
 pp. 405-410) makes an elaborate attempt to 
 show that the villages of Jair are intended. 
 Keil adopts this view (Bib. Com. in loco), and 
 says that the district of Havoth-Jair is con- 
 sidered to be Judah’s, or in Judah, because Jair 
 was descended on the father’s side from Judah 
 through Hezron (1 Ch. ii. 5, 21sq.). The view 
 that the Havoth-Jair were largely colonised 
 “by Judahites,” especially perhaps that portion 
 of them nearest the Jordan, and that that part 
 of the river and its valley adjacent to these 
 settlements was spoken of as “Judah upon 
 Jordan,” or more literally “Judah of the 
 Jordan,” is suggested in the Speaker’s Comm. 
 (in loco). In connexion with this sugges- 
 tion it should be mentioned that near Bdanids 
 there is a Seiyid Huda ibn Y’akiib, which Thom- 
 son (Land and the Book, p. 254) identifies with 
 Judah upon Jordan. But the difficulty—mazi- 
 mus atque insolubilis nodus, qui plurimos inter- 
 pretes torsit—has defied every attempt; and 
 the suggestion of Ewald (Gesch. ii. 380, note) is 
 the most feasible—that the passage is corrupt, 
 and that Cinneroth or some other word originally 
 occupied the place of “to Judah.” [W.] 
 
 JUDAH, KINGDOM OF 
 JUDAH, KINGDOM OF. 
 
 disruption of Solomon’s kingdom took place at 
 Shechem, only the tribe of Judah followed the 
 house of David. But almost immediately after- 
 wards, when Rehoboam conceived the design of 
 establishing his authority over Israel by force 
 of arms, the tribe of Benjamin also is recorded 
 as obeying his summons, and contributing its 
 warriors to make up his army. Jerusalem, 
 situate within the borders of Benjamin (Josh. 
 xviii. 28, &c.), yet won from the heathen by a 
 prince of Judah, connected the frontiers of the 
 two tribes by an indissoluble political bond. By 
 the occupation of the city of David, Benjamin’s 
 former adherence to Israel (2 Sam. ii. 9) was 
 cancelled ; though at least two Benjamite towns, 
 Bethel and Jericho, were included in the northern 
 kingdom. A part, if not all, of the territory of 
 Simeon (1 Sam. xxvii. 6; 1 K. xix. 3; ep. Josh. 
 xix. 1) and of Dan (2 Ch. xi. 10; cp. Josh. xix. 
 41, 42) was recognised as belonging to Judah; 
 and in the reigns of Abijah and Asa, the southern 
 kingdom was enlarged by some additions taken 
 out of the territory of Ephraim (2 Ch. xiii, 19, 
 xy. 8, xvii. 2). After the conquest and depor- 
 tation of Israel by Assyria, the influence, and 
 perhaps the delegated jurisdiction, of the king 
 
 of Judah sometimes extended over the territory Ἷ 
 
 which formerly belonged to Israel. 
 
 2. In Edom an independent king probably re- 
 tained some fidelity to the son of Solomon, and 
 guarded for Jewish enterprise the road to the 
 maritime trade with Ophir. Philistia maintained 
 for the most part a quiet independence. Syria, 
 in the height of her brief power, pushed her con- 
 quests along the northern and eastern frontiers 
 of Judah and threatened Jerusalem; but the 
 interposition of the territory of Israel generally 
 relieved Judah from any immediate contact with 
 that dangerous neighbour, The southern border 
 of Judah, resting on the uninhabited Desert, 
 was not agitated by any turbulent stream of 
 commercial activity like that which flowed by 
 the rear of Israel, from Damascus to Tyre. And 
 thoughsome of the Egyptiankings were ambitious, 
 that ancient kingdom was far less aggressive as a 
 neighbour to Judah than Assyria was to Israel. 
 
 3. Some would find a gauge of the growth of 
 the kingdom of Judah in the progressive aug- 
 mentation of the army under successive kings. 
 In David’s time (2 Sam. xxiv. 9 and 1 Ch. xxi, 5) 
 the warriors of Judah are said to have numbered 
 at least 500,000. 
 
 1. When the 
 
 But Rehoboam brought into | 
 
 the field (1 K. xii, 21) only 180,000 men: Abijah, — 
 
 eighteen years afterwards, 400,000 (2 Ch. xiii. 
 3): Asa (2 Ch. xiv. 8), his successor, 580,000, 
 exactly equal to the sum of the armies of his 
 two predecessors : Jehoshaphat (2 Ch, xvii. 14-- 
 19), the next king, numbered his warriors in 
 five armies, the aggregate of whichis 1,160,000, 
 exactly double the army of his father, and 
 exactly equal to the sum of the armies of his 
 three predecessors. After four inglorious reigns 
 the energetic Amaziah could muster only 
 300,000 men when he set out to recover Edom. 
 His son Uzziah had a standing (2 Ch, xxvi. 11) 
 force of 307,500 fighting men. Unhappily, but 
 little accuracy can be assigned to these numbers ; 
 though the deduction is drawn that the popu- 
 lation subject to each king was about four times 
 the number of the fighting men in his dominions, 
 [ISRAEL. | 
 
Ὕ] πὰ Mo 
 
 JUDAH, KINGDOM OF 
 4, Judah had other means beside pasture and 
 
 tillage of acquiring wealth; such as her mari- 
 
 time commerce from the Red Sea and possibly 
 
 Phoenician ports, or by keeping up and de- 
 
 veloping the old trade (1 K. x. 28) with Egypt. 
 Hence her ability to accumulate wealth, which 
 supplied the Temple treasury with sufficient 
 store to invite so frequently the hand of the 
 spoiler. Egypt, Damascus, Samaria, Nineveh, 
 and Babylon, had each in succession a share of 
 the pillage. The treasury was emptied by 
 Shishak (1 K. xiv. 26), again by Asa (1 K. xv. 
 18), by Jehoash of Judah (2 K. xii, 18), by 
 Jehoash of Israel (2 K. xiv. 14), by Ahaz (2 K. 
 xvi. 8), by Hezekiah (2 K. xviii. 15), and by 
 Nebuchadnezzar (2 K. xxiv. 13). 
 
 5. The smaller kingdom of Judah possessed 
 many advantages which secured for it a longer 
 continuance than that of Israel. A frontier less 
 exposed to powerful enemies, a soil less fertile, 
 a population hardier and more united, the pos- 
 session in Jerusalem and in the Temple of a fixed 
 and venerated centre of administration and 
 religion, an hereditary aristocracy in the sacer- 
 dotal caste, an army always subordinate, a stable 
 dynasty and a succession of kings which no 
 revolution interrupted, many of them being 
 wise and good; men who strove successfully to 
 promote the moral and spiritual as well as the 
 material prosperity of their people; still more 
 than these, the devotion of the people to the 
 One True God, which if not always a pure aad 
 elevated sentiment, but disfigured by worship 
 at “high places” and altars to foreign deities 
 and by a mischievous commingling of heathen 
 and purer rites (Riehm, HWB., s.n.), was yet 
 in much a contrast to devotion inspired by the 
 worship of the calves or of Baal; and lastly the 
 popular reverence for and obedience to the Divine 
 Law, so far as they had learned it from their 
 teachers :—to these and other secondary causes 
 is to be attributed the fact that Judah survived 
 her more populous and more powerful sister 
 kingdom by 135 years; and lasted from B.c. 
 975 to B.c. 586. Cp. Kittel, Gesch. der Hebréer, 
 ii. § 64, whose opinion is preferable to that of 
 Wellhausen, Stade, and similar works referred 
 to by him; Edersheim, Bible History, vols. iii. 
 and iv. 
 
 6. The chronological succession of the kings 
 of Judah is given at the end of the article 
 IsRaEL. A detailed history of each king will 
 
 _ be found under his name. 
 
 Judah acted upon three different lines of 
 policy in succession. First, animosity against 
 Israel: secondly, resistance, generally in alliance 
 with Israel, to Damascus: thirdly, deference 
 and vassalage to Assyrian and Chaldaean kings. 
 
 (a.) The first three kings of Judah seem to 
 have cherished the hope of re-establishing their 
 authority over the Ten Tribes; for sixty years 
 there was war between them and the kings of 
 Israel. Neither the disbanding of Rehoboam’s 
 forces by the authority of Shemaiah, nor the 
 pillage of Jerusalem by the irresistible Shishak, 
 served to put an end to the fraternal hostility. 
 The victory achieved by the daring Abijah 
 brought to Judah a temporary accession of 
 territory. Asa appears to have enlarged it still 
 farther; and to have given so powerful a 
 stimulus to the migration of religious Israelites 
 to Jerusalem, that Baasha was induced to fortify 
 
 JUDAH, KINGDOM OF 1829 
 
 Ramah with the view of checking the move- 
 ment. Asa provided for the safety of his sub- 
 jects from invaders by building, like Rehoboam, 
 several fenced cities; he repelled an alarming 
 irruption of an Ethiopian horde; he hired 
 the armed intervention of Benhadad, king of 
 Damascus, against Baasha; and he discouraged 
 idolatry and enforced the worship of the true 
 God by severe penal laws. 
 
 (0.) Hanani’s remonstrance (2 Ch. xvi. 7) 
 prepares us for the reversal by Jehoshaphat of 
 the policy which Asa pursued towards Israel 
 and Damascus. A close alliance sprang up with 
 strange rapidity between Judah and Israel. 
 Yor eighty years, till the time of Amaziah, there 
 was no open war between them, and Damascus 
 appears as their chief and common enemy; 
 though it rose afterwards from its overthrow to 
 become under Rezin the ally of Pekah against 
 Ahaz. Jehoshaphat, active and prosperous, re- 
 pelled nomad invaders from the desert, curbed 
 the aggressive spirit of his nearer neighbours, 
 and made his influence felt even among the 
 Philistines and Arabians. A still more lasting 
 benefit was conferred on his kingdom by his 
 persevering efforts for the religious instruction 
 of the people, and the regular administration 
 of justice. The reign of Jehoram, the husband 
 of Athaliah—a time of bloodshed, idolatry, and 
 disaster—was cut short by disease. Ahaziah 
 was slain by Jehu. Athaliah, the granddaughter 
 of a Tyrian king, usurped the blood-stained 
 throne of David, till the followers of the ancient 
 religion put her to death, and crowned Jehoash 
 the surviving scion of the royal house. His 
 preserver, the high-priest, acquired prominent 
 personal influence for a time; but the king fell 
 into idolatry, and, failing to withstand the power 
 of Syria, was murdered by his own officers. 
 The vigorous Amaziah, flushed with the recovery 
 of Edom, provoked a war with his more power- 
 ful contemporary Jehoash, the conqueror of 
 the Syrians; and Jerusalem was entered and 
 plundered by the Israelites. But their energies 
 were sufficiently occupied in the task of com- 
 pleting the subjugation of Damascus. Under 
 Uzziah and Jotham, Judah long enjoyed political 
 and religious prosperity till the wanton Ahaz, 
 surrounded by united enemies, with whom he 
 was unable to cope, became in an evil hour the 
 tributary and vassal of Tiglath-pileser. 
 
 (c.) Already in the fatal grasp of Assyria, 
 Judah was yet spared for a chequered existence 
 of almost another century and a half after the 
 termination of the kingdom of Israel. The 
 effect of the repulse of Sennacherib and of the 
 final overthrow of the Assyrian empire, of the 
 signal religious revivals under Hezekiah and 
 Josiah respectively, was apparently done away 
 by the ignominious reign and religious reaction 
 of Manasseh, and by the lingering decay of the 
 whole people under the four feeble descendants 
 of Josiah. Provoked by their treachery and 
 imbecility, their Chaldaean masters drained in 
 successive deportations all the strength of the 
 kingdom. The consummation of the ruin came 
 upon them in the destruction of the Temple 
 by the hand of Nebuzaradan, amid the wailings 
 of prophets, and the taunts of heathen tribes 
 released at length from the yoke of David (cp. 
 Kittel, $§ 70-74). 
 
 7. The national life of the Hebrews seemed 
 
1880 JUDAH, KINGDOM OF 
 
 now extinct; but there was still, as there had 
 been all along, a spiritual life hidden within the 
 body. 
 
 lt was a time of hopeless darkness”to all but 
 those Jews who had strong faith in God, with a 
 clear and steady insight into the ways of Pro- 
 vidence as interpreted by prophecy. The time 
 of the division of the kingdoms was the golden 
 age of prophecy. In each kingdom the pro- 
 phetical office was subject to peculiar modifi- 
 cations which were required in Judah by the 
 circumstances of the priesthood, in Israel by 
 the existence of the house of Baal and the 
 altar in Bethel. If, under the shadow of the 
 Temple, there was a depth and a grasp else- 
 where unequalled, in the views of Isaiah and the 
 Prophets of Judah; if their writings touched 
 and elevated the hearts of thinking men in 
 studious retirement in the silent night-watches 
 —there was also, in the few burning words and 
 energetic deeds of the Prophets of Israel, a 
 power to tame a lawless multitude and to check 
 the high-handed tyranny and idolatry of kings. 
 The organization and moral influence of the 
 priesthood were matured in the time of David ; 
 from about that time to the building of the 
 second Temple, the influence of the Prophets 
 rose and became predominant. Some historians 
 have suspected that after the reign of Athaliah 
 the priesthood gradually acquired and retained 
 excessive and unconstitutional power in Judah. 
 The recorded facts scarcely sustain the con- 
 jecture. Had it been so, the effort of such 
 power would have been manifest in the exor- 
 bitant wealth and luxury of the priests, and in 
 the constant and cruel enforcement of penal 
 laws, like those of Asa, against irreligion. But 
 the peculiar offences of the priesthood, as wit- 
 nessed in the prophetic writings, were of another 
 kind. Ignorance of God’s word, neglect of the 
 instruction of the laity, untruthfulness, and 
 partial judgments are the offences specially 
 imputed to them, just such as might be looked 
 for where the priesthood is an hereditary caste 
 and irresponsible, but neither ambitious nor 
 powerful. When the priest either, as was the 
 case in Israel, abandoned the land, or, as in 
 Judah, ceased to be really a teacher, ceased from 
 spiritual communion with God, ceased from 
 living sympathy with man, and became the 
 mere image of an intercessor, a mechanical per- 
 former of ceremonial duties little understood 
 or heeded by himself, then the Prophet was 
 raised up to supply some of his deficiencies, 
 and to exercise his functions so far as was neces- 
 sary. Whilst the priests sink into obscurity 
 and almost disappear, except from the genea- 
 logical tables, the Prophets come forward ap- 
 pealing everywhere to the conscience of indi- 
 viduals, in Israel as wonder-workers, calling 
 together God’s chosen few out of an idolatrous 
 nation, and in Judah as teachers and seers, 
 supporting and purifying all that remained of 
 ancient piety, explaining each mysterious dis- 
 pensation of God as it was unfolded, and pro- 
 mulgating His gracious spiritual promises in all 
 their extent. The part which Isaiah, Jeremiah, 
 and other Prophets also took in preparing the 
 Jews for their captivity, requires, in order to be 
 fully appreciated, to be supplemented by a 
 review of the succeeding efforts of Ezekiel and 
 Daniel. The influence which they exercised on 
 
 JUDAS BARSABAS 
 
 the national mind was undoubted, and too 
 important to be overlooked in a sketch, however 
 brief, of the history of the kingdom of Judah, 
 even though that influence has been understood 
 
 differently by writers who have appreciated it — 
 
 otherwise than as here sketched (cp. Kittel, 
 §§ 65-74, Robertson, The Early Religion of Israel, 
 pp. 70 sq., 153 sq., on the one side; Wellhausen, 
 “Israel,” § 8, in Encycl. Brit.®, Stade, Gesch. d. 
 Volkes Israel, ixtes Buch, “ Die Prophetie u. ἃ. 
 Untergang d. Staates,’ Robertson-Smith, The 
 O. T. in the Jewish Church?, Lect. X., on the 
 other). (Ww. T. B.j> ἘΠ 
 
 JU’DAS (Ἰούδας), the Greek form of the 
 Hebrew name JupAH, occurring in the LXX. 
 and N. T. [Jupau.] 
 
 1. 1 Esd. ix. 23. (Jupau, 3.] 
 
 2. The third son of Mattathias, “ called Mac- 
 cabaeus ” (1 Mace. ii. 4). [MaccaBEEs, ] 
 
 3. The son of Calphai (Alphaeus), a Jewish 
 general under Jonathan (1 Mace. xi. 70). 
 
 4, A Jew occupying a conspicuous position at 
 Jerusalem at the time of the mission to Aristo- 
 bulus [ARISTOBULUS] and the Egyptian Jews 
 (2 Mace. i. 10). He has been identified with an 
 Essene conspicuous for his prophetic gifts (Jos. 
 Ant. xiii. 11,2; 8. J. i. 3,5) and with Judas 
 Maccabaeus (Grimm, ad Jloc.). Some again 
 suppose that he is a person otherwise unknown. 
 
 5. A son of Simon, and brother of Joannes 
 Hyrcanus (1 Mace. xvi. 2), murdered by Ptole- 
 maeus the usurper, either at the same time 
 (c. 135 8.0.) with his father (1 Mace. xvi. 15 sq.), 
 or shortly afterwards (Jos. Ant. xili, 8, 1: 
 cp. Grimm, ad Mace. 1. ¢.). 
 
 6. The patriarch JuDAH (Matt. i. 2, 3). 
 
 [B. F. W.] 
 
 7. A man residing at Damascus, in “the 
 street which is called Straight,” in whose house 
 Saul of Tarsus lodged after his miraculous con- 
 version (Acts ix. 11). The “Straight Street” 
 may be with little question identified with the 
 “Street of Bazaars,” a long, wide thoroughfare, 
 
 | penetrating from the southern gate into the 
 
 heart of the city, which, as in all the Syro-Greek 
 and Syro-Roman towns, it intersects ina straight 
 line. The so-called “ House of Judas ” is still 
 shown in an open space called “the Sheykh’s 
 Place,” a few steps out of the “Street of 
 Bazaars:” it contains a square room with a 
 stone floor, partly walled off for a tomb, shown 
 to Maundrell (Early Trav. Bohn, p. 494) as the 
 “tomb of Ananias.’”? The house is an object 
 of religious respect to Mussulman as well as 
 Christian (Stanley, S. δ᾽ P. p. 412; Conybeare 
 and Howson, i. 102; Maundrell, /. c.; Pococke, 
 
 ii. 119). (E. VJ 
 
 JU’DAS, surnamed BAR'SABAS ΟἸούδας 
 6 ἐπικαλούμενος Βαρσαβᾶς: Judas qui cog- 
 nominabatur Barsabas), a leading member of 
 the apostolic Church at Jerusalem (ἀνὴρ ἥγού- 
 μενος ἐν τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς), Acts xv. 22, and “ per- 
 haps a member of the Presbytery” (Neander, 
 Pl. § Tr. i. 123), endued with the gift of pro- 
 phecy (v. 52), chosen with Silas to accompany 
 St. Paul and St. Barnabas as delegates to the 
 Church at Antioch, to communicate the decree 
 concerning the terms of admission of the Gen- 
 tile converts, and to accredit their commission 
 
JUDAS OF GALILEE 
 
 and character by personal intercourse (v. 27). 
 After employing their .prophetical gifts for the 
 confirmation of the Syrian Christians in the 
 
 faith, Judas went back to Jerusalem, while 
 
 _ Silas either remained at Antioch (for the reading 
 _ Acts xv. 34 is uncertain; and while some MSS., 
 
 followed by the Vulgate, add μόνος ᾿Ιούδας δὲ 
 ἐπορεύθη, the best omit the verse altogether) or 
 speedily returned thither. Nothing further is 
 recorded of Judas. 
 
 The form of the name Barsabas = Son of 
 
 Sabas, has led to several conjectures: Wolf and 
 
 Grotius probably enough suppose him to have 
 been a brother of Joseph Barsabas (Acts i. 23) ; 
 while Schott (Jsagog. § 103, p. 431), taking Sabas 
 or Zabas to be an abbreviated form of Zebedee, 
 regards Judas as an elder brother of James and 
 John, and attributes to him the “ Epistle of 
 Jude.” He must not be identified, as he has 
 been by some, with the Apostle Judas Thad- 
 daeus (see p. 1837 a). ἔν: {π|] 
 
 JU’DAS OF GALILEE (Ἰούδας 6 Γαλι- 
 Aatos ; Judas Galilaeus), the leader of a popular 
 revolt “in the days of the taxing ” (1.6. the census, 
 under the prefecture of P. Sulp. Quirinus, a.p. 
 6, A.U.c. 759), referred to by Gamaliel in his 
 speech before the Sanhedrin (Acts v. 37). Ac- 
 cording to Josephus (Ant. xviii. 1, § 1), Judas 
 was a Gaulonite of the city of Gamala, a city 
 reckoned in Galilee, and hence his name of 
 Galilaean. His insurrection took its rise in 
 Judaea, and was of a theocratic character, the 
 watchword of which was “ We have no Lord nor 
 master but God.” He boldly denounced the 
 payment of tribute to Caesar, and all acknowledg- 
 ment of any foreign authority, as treason against 
 the principles of the Mosaic constitution, and 
 signifying nothing short of downright slavery. 
 His fiery eloquence and the popularity of his 
 doctrines drew vast numbers to his standard, 
 by many of whom he was regarded as the 
 Messiah (Orig. Homil. in Luc. xxy.), and the 
 country was for a time entirely given over to 
 the lawless depredations of the fierce and licen- 
 tious throng who had joined themselves to him. 
 But the might of Rome proved irresistible: 
 Judas himself perished, and his followers were 
 “dispersed,” though not entirely destroyed till 
 the final overthrow of the city and nation. 
 
 With his fellow-insurgent Sadoc, a Pharisee, 
 Judas is represented by Josephus as the founder 
 of.a fourth sect, in addition to the Pharisees, 
 Sadducees, and Essenes (Ant. xviii. 1, §§ 1, 6; 
 B. J. ii. 8, § 1). The point which appears to 
 have distinguished his followers from the Phari- 
 sees was their greater fanaticism and stubborn 
 love of freedom, leading them to despise torments, 
 or death for themselves or their friends, rather 
 than call any man master. 
 
 The Gaulonites, as his followers were called, 
 
 may be regarded as the religious ancestors of | 
 
 the Zealots (ep. the Assumptio Mosis, x. 8) and 
 Sicarii of later days, and to the influence of his 
 tenets Josephus attributes all subsequent in- 
 surrections of the Jews, and the final destruction 
 of the City and the Temple. James and John, 
 the sons of Judas, headed an unsuccessful insur- 
 rection in the procuratorship of Tiberius Alex- 
 ander, A.D. 47, by whom they were taken 
 prisoners and crucified. Twenty years later, 
 A.D. 66, their younger brother Menahem, fol- 
 
 JUDAS ISCARIOT 1831 
 
 lowing his father’s example, took the lead of a 
 band of desperadoes, who, after pillaging the 
 armoury of Herod in the fortress of Masada, 
 near the “ gardens of Engaddi,” marched to Jeru- 
 salem, occupied the city, and after a desperate 
 siege took the palace, where he immediately 
 assumed the state of a king, and committed 
 great enormities. As he was going up to the 
 Temple to worship, with great pomp, Menahem 
 was taken by the partisans of Eleazar the high- 
 priest, by whom he was tortured and put to 
 death Aug. 15, A.D. 66 (Milman, Hist. of Jews, 
 li. 152, 231; Joseph. J. ο.; Orig. in Matt. xvii. 
 § 25). References to the literature on this sub- 
 ject are given in Schiirer, Gesch. d. Jiidischen 
 Volken im Zeitalter Jesu Christi, i. pp. 406-7. 
 
 [Ε. V.] [FJ 
 
 JU’DAS ISCAR’IOT (Ἰούδας ᾿Ισκαριώτης ; 
 Judas Iscariotes). He is sometimes called “the 
 son of Simon” (John vi. 71, xiii. 2, 26), but 
 more commonly (the three Synoptic Gospels give 
 no other name) Iscariotes«(Matt. x. 4; Mark iii. 
 19; Luke vi. 16 δέ al.). In the three lists of 
 the Twelve there is added in each case the fact 
 that he was the betrayer. 
 
 The name Iscariot has received many inter- 
 pretations, more or less conjectural (see the Ist 
 ed. of this work), but it isnow universally agreed 
 that it is to be derived from Kerioth (Josh. xv. 
 25), in the tribe of Judah, the Heb. MiP WN, 
 "ISH KERIYOTH, passing into Ἰσκαριώτης in the 
 same way as 110 &/N—'Ish Tob, a man of Tob— 
 appears in Josephus (Ant. vii. 6, § 1) as Ἴστω- 
 Bos (Winer, RWB. 5. v.). In connexion with 
 this explanation may be noticed the reading in 
 John vi. 71 received by Lachmann and Tischen- 
 dorf, Westcott and Hort, Ἰσκαριώτου, which 
 makes the name of Iscariot belong to Simon, as 
 well as to Judas. Onthis hypothesis his position 
 among the Twelve, the rest of whom belonged to 
 Galilee (Acts ii. 7), would be exceptional. 
 
 Of the life of Judas, before the appearance of 
 his name in the lists of the Apostles, we know 
 absolutely nothing. It must be left to the sad 
 vision of a poet (Keble, Lyra Innocentium, ii. 13) 
 or the fantastic fables of an apocryphal Gospel 
 (Thilo, Cod. Apoc. N. 1. Evang. Infant. ο. 35) 
 to portray the infancy and youth of the traitor. 
 What that appearance implies, however, is that 
 he had previously declared himself a disciple. 
 He was drawn, as the others were, by the preach- 
 ing of the Baptist, or his ewn Messianic hopes, 
 or the “ gracious words” of the new teacher, to 
 leave his former life, and to obey the call of the 
 Prophet of Nazareth, What baser and more 
 selfish motives may have mingled even then 
 with his faith and zeal, we can only judge by 
 reasoning backward from the sequel. Gifts of 
 some kind there must have been, rendering the 
 choice of such a man not strange to others, not 
 unfit in itself, and the function which he ex- 
 ercised afterwards among the Twelve may in- 
 dicate what they were. The position of his name, 
 uniformly the last in the lists of the Apostles in 
 
 | the Synoptic Gospels, is due, it may be imagined, 
 
 to the infamy which afterwards rested on his 
 name; but, prior to that guilt, it would seem 
 
 that he took his place in the group of four 
 
 which always stand last in order, as if possess- 
 ing neither the love, nor the faith, nor the 
 
1832 JUDAS ISCARIOT 
 
 devotion which marked the sons of Zebedee and 
 the son of Jonah. 
 
 The choice was not made, we must remember, 
 without a provision of its issue. ‘Jesus knew 
 from the beginning . . .. who should betray 
 Him” (John vi. 64); and the distinctness with 
 which that Evangelist records the successive 
 stages of the guilt of Judas, and his Master’s 
 discernment of it (John xii. 45 xiii. 2, 27), 
 leaves with us the impression that he too 
 shrank instinctively (Bengel describes it as 
 “singularis antipathia,’ Gnomon N. 1. on 
 John vi. 64) from a nature so opposite to his 
 own. We can hardly expect to solve the 
 question why such a man was chosen for such 
 an office. Hither we must assume absolute 
 foreknowledge, and then content ourselves with 
 saying with Calvin that the judgments of God 
 are as a great deep, and with Ullmann (Stind- 
 losigk. Jesu, p. 97) that he was chosen that the 
 Divine purpose might be accomplished through 
 him ; or else with Neander (Leben Jesu, § 77) 
 that there was a discernment of the latent 
 
 germs of evil, such as belonged to the Son of | 
 
 Man, in His insight into the hearts of men (John 
 ii, 25; Matt. ix. 4; Mark xii. 15), yet not such 
 as to exclude emotions of sudden sorrow or 
 anger (Mark iii. 5), or astonishment (Mark vi. 
 6; Luke vii. 9), admitting the thought “ with 
 men this is impossible, but not with God.” 
 Did He in the depth of that insight, and in the 
 fulness of His compassion, seek to overcome the 
 evil which, if not conquered, would be so fatal 
 to His follower? It gives, at any rate, a new 
 meaning and force to many parts of our Lord’s 
 teaching to remember that they must have been 
 spoken in the hearing of Judas, and may have 
 been designed to make him conscious of his 
 danger. The warnings as to the impossibility 
 of a service divided between God and Mammon 
 (Matt. vi. 19-34), and the destructive power of 
 the “cares of this world, and the deceitfulness 
 of riches” (Matt. xiii, 22, 23), the pointed 
 words that spoke of the guilt of unfaithfulness 
 in the “unrighteous Mammon” (Luke xvi. 11), 
 the proverb of the camel passing through the 
 
 needle’s eye (Mark x. 25) must have fallen on | 
 
 his heart as meant specially for him. He was 
 
 among those who asked the question, Who then | 
 can be saved? (Mark x. 26). Of him, too, we | 
 
 may say, that, when he sinned, he was “ kicking 
 against the pricks,” letting slip his “ calling 
 and election,” frustrating the purpose of his 
 Master in giving him so high a work and 
 educating him for it (cp. Chrysost. Hom. on 
 Matt. xxvi. xxvii., John vi.). 
 
 The germs (see Stier’s Words of Jesus, infra) 
 of the evil, in all likelihood, unfolded themselves 
 gradually. 
 
 9,10) sheltered him from the temptation that 
 would have been most dangerous to him. The 
 new form of life, of which we find the first 
 traces in Luke viii. 3, brought that temptation 
 with it. As soon as the Twelve were recognised 
 as a body, travelling hither and thither with 
 their Master, receiving money and other offer- 
 ings, and redistributing what they received to 
 the poor, it became necessary that some one 
 should act as the steward and almoner of the 
 small society, and this fell to Judas (John xii. 
 6, xiii 29), either as having the gifts that 
 
 The rules to which the Twelve | 
 were subject in their first journey (Matt. x. | 
 
 JUDAS ISCARIOT 
 
 qualified him for it, or, as we may conjecture, | 
 from his character, because he sought it, or, as — 
 some have imagined, in rotation from time to — 
 time. The Galilaean or Judaean peasant (we — 
 have no reason for thinking that his station 
 differed from that of the other Apostles) found — 
 himself entrusted with larger sums of money 
 than before (the three hundred denarii of John 
 xii. 5 are spoken of as a sum which he might — 
 reasonably have expected), and with this there 
 came covetousness, unfaithfulness, embezzie- — 
 ment. It was impossible after this that he — 
 could feel at ease with One Who asserted so 
 clearly and sharply the laws of faithfulness, 
 duty, unselfishness; and the words of Jesus, 
 “ Have I not chosen you Twelve, and one of you 
 is a devil? ”* (John vi. 70), indicate that even 
 then, though the greed of immediate or the 
 hope of larger gain kept him from “ going — 
 back,” as others did (John vi. 66), hatred was 
 taking the place of love, and leading him on to 
 a fiendish malignity. 
 
 In what way that evil was rebuked, what 
 discipline was applied to counteract it, has been 
 hinted at above. The scene at Bethany (John 
 xii. 1-9; Matt. xxvi. 6-13; Mark xiv. 3-9) 
 showed how deeply the canker had eaten into 
 his soul. That warm outpouring of love called — 
 forth no sympathy. He himself uttered, and 
 suggested to others, the complaint that it was 
 a waste. Under the plea of caring for the poor 
 he covered his own miserable theft. 
 
 The narrative of Matt. xxvi., Mark xiv. places 
 this history in close connexion (apparently in 
 order of time) with the fact of the betrayal. 
 It leaves the motives of the betrayer open to 
 conjecture (cp. Neander, Leben Jesu, § 264). 
 The mere love of money may have been strong 
 enough to make him clutch at the bribe offered 
 him. He came, it may be, expecting moe 
 (Matt. xxvii. 15); he will take that. He had 
 lost the chance of dealing with the three 
 hundred denarii; it will be something to get 
 the thirty shekels as his own. It may have 
 been that he felt that his Master saw through 
 his hidden guilt, and that he hastened on a 
 crisis to avoid the shame of open detection. 
 Mingled with this there may have been some 
 feeling of -vindictiveness,—a vague, confused 
 desire to show that he had power to stop the 
 career of the Teacher Who had reproved him. 
 Had the words that spoke of “the burial” of 
 Jesus, and the Jukewarmness of the people, and 
 the conspiracies of the priests led him at last to 
 see that the Messianic kingdom was not as the 
 kingdoms of this world, and that his dream of 
 power and wealth to be enjoyed in it was a 
 delusion? (Ewald, Gesch. Israels, v. 441- 
 446.) There may have been the thought that, 
 after all, the betrayal could do no harm, that 
 his Master would prove His innocence, or by 
 some supernatural manifestation effect His 
 escape (Lightfoot, Hor. Heb. p. 886, in Winer, 
 and Whitby on Matt. xxvii. 4). Another 
 motive has been suggested (cp. Neander, Leben 
 Jesu, 1. c.; and Whately, Essays on Dangers to 
 Christian Faith, Discourse iii.) of an entirely 
 different kind, altering altogether the character 
 
 a Awful as the words were, however, we must re- 
 member that like words were spoken of and to Simon 
 Peter (Matt. xvi. 23). 
 
JUDAS ISCARIOT 
 
 of the act. Not the love of money, nor revenge, 
 nor fear, nor disappointment, but policy, a 
 subtle plan to force on the hour of the triumph 
 of the Messianic kingdom, the belief that for 
 this service he would receive as high a place as 
 Peter, or James, or John: this it was that made 
 him the traitor. If he could place his Master 
 in a position from which retreat would be im- 
 possible, where He would be compelled to throw 
 Himself on the people, and be raised by them 
 to the throne of His father David, then he 
 might look forward to being foremost and 
 highest in that kingdom, with all his desires 
 for wealth and power gratified to the full, 
 Ingenious as this hypothesis is, it fails for that 
 very reason.” It attributes to the Galilaean 
 peasant a subtlety in forecasting political com- 
 binations, and planning stratagems accordingly, 
 which is hardly compatible with his character 
 and learning, hardly consistent either with the 
 pettiness of the faults into which he had 
 hitherto fallen. Of the other motives that 
 have been assigned we need not care to fix on 
 any one, as that which singly led him on. 
 Crime is for the most part the result of a 
 hundred motives rushing with bewildering fury 
 through the mind of the criminal. 
 
 During the days that intervened between the 
 supper at Bethany and the Paschal or quasi-~ 
 Paschal gathering, he appeared to have con- 
 cealed his treachery. He went with the other 
 disciples to and fro from Bethany to Jerusalem, 
 and looked on the acted parable of the barren 
 and condemned tree (Mark xi. 20-24), and 
 shared the vigils in Gethsemane (John xviii. 2). 
 At the Last Supper he is present, looking 
 forward to the consummation of his guilt as 
 drawing nearer every hour. All is at first as 
 if he were still faithful. He is admitted to the 
 feast. His feet are washed, and for him there 
 are the fearful words, “‘ Ye are clean, but not all.” 
 He, it may be, receives the bread and the wine 
 which were the pledges of the new covenant.° 
 Then come the sorrowful words which showed 
 him that his design was known. “One of you 
 shall betray Me.” Others ask, in their sorrow 
 and confusion, “Is it 1?’’? He too must ask the 
 same question, lest he should seem guilty 
 (Matt. xxvi. 25). He alone hears the answer. 
 St. John only, and through him St. Peter, and 
 the traitor himself, understand the meaning of 
 the act which pointed out that he was the 
 guilty one (John xiii. 20). 8 After this there 
 
 b Cp. the remarks on this hypothesis, in which 
 Whately followed (unconsciously perhaps) in the foot- 
 steps of Paulus, in Ersch. u. Gruber’s Allgem. Encycl. 
 art. “Judas.” See Speaker’s Comm. on St. John, Addit. 
 note to xiii. 18. 
 
 ¢ The question whether Judas was a partaker of the 
 Lord’s Supper is encompassed with many difficulties, 
 both dogmatic and harmonistic. The general consensus 
 of patristic commentators gives an affirmative, that of 
 
 modern critics a negative answer (cp. Meyer, Comm. on | 
 | he would rush on into the world of the dead, and there 
 
 John xiii. 36). Bp. Westcott 1s of opinion that Judas 
 ‘was present at the distribution of the Sacramental 
 Bread, and not present at the distribution of the Sacra- 
 mental Cup” (Speaker’s Comm. on St. John, Introd. note 
 to ch. xiii.). 
 
 4 The combination of the narratives of the four Gos- 
 pels is not without grave difficulties, for which har- 
 monists and commentators may be consulted. We have 
 given that which seems the most probable result. 
 
 | 
 
 JUDAS ISCARIOT 1833 
 
 comes on him that paroxysm and insanity of 
 guilt as of one whose human soul was possessed 
 by the Spirit of Evil—“ Satan entered into 
 him ” (John xiii. 27). The words “ What thou 
 doest, do quickly,” come as a spur to drive him 
 on. ‘The other disciples see in them only a 
 command which they interpret as connected 
 with the work he had hitherto undertaken. 
 Then he completes the sin from which even 
 those words might have drawn him back. He 
 knows that garden in which his Master and his 
 companions had so often rested after the weary 
 work of the day. He comes, accompanied by a 
 band of officers and servants (John xviii. 3), 
 with the kiss which was probably the usual 
 salutation of the disciples. ‘The words of Jesus, 
 calm and gentle as they were, showed that this 
 was what embittered the treachery, and made 
 the suffering it inflicted more acute (Luke xxii. 
 48). 
 
 What followed in the confusion of that night 
 the Gospels do not record. Not many students 
 of the N. T. will follow Heumann and Arch- 
 bishop Whately (Zssays on Dangers, 1. ¢.) in 
 the hypothesis that Judas was “the other 
 disciple” that was known to the high-priest, 
 and brought Peter in (cp. Meyer on John xviii. 
 15). It is probable enough, indeed, that he 
 who had gone out with the high-priest’s officers 
 should return with them to wait the issue of 
 the trial. Then, when it was over, came the 
 reaction. The fever of the crime passed away. 
 There came back on him the recollection of the 
 sinless righteousness of the Master he had 
 wronged (Matt. xxvii. 3). He repented, and 
 his guilt and all that had tempted him to it 
 became hateful. He will get rid of the 
 accursed thing, will transfer it back again to 
 those who with it had lured him on to destruc- 
 tion. They mock and sneer at the tool whom 
 they have used, and then there comes over him 
 the horror of great darkness that precedes self- 
 murder. He has owned his sin with “an 
 exceeding bitter cry,’ but he dares not turn, 
 with any hope of pardon, to the Master Whom 
 he has betrayed. He hurls the money, which 
 the priests refused to take, into the sanctuary 
 (vats) where they were assembled. For him 
 there is no longer sacrifice or propitiation.’ He 
 is “the son of perdition” (John xvii. 12). “He 
 departed and went and hanged himself” (Matt. 
 xxvii. 5). He went “unto his own place’’& 
 (Acts i. 25). 
 
 e This passage has often been appealed to, as illustrat- 
 ing the difference between μεταμελεία and μετανοία. It 
 is questionable, however, how far the N. T. writers re- 
 cognise that distinction (ep. Grotius in loco). Still more 
 questionable is the notion above referred to, that St. 
 Matthew describes his disappointment at a result so 
 different from that on which he had reckoned. 
 
 f It is characteristic of the wide, far-reaching sym- 
 pathy of Origen, that he suggests another motive for 
 the suicide of Judas. Despairing of pardon in this life, 
 
 (γυμνῇ τῇ ψυχῇ) meet his Lord, and confess his guilt 
 and ask for pardon (Tract. in Matt. xxxv.: cp. also 
 ‘Theophanes, Hom. xxvii., in Suicer, Thes. s. v. Iovdas). 
 
 & The words ἴδιος τόπος in St. Peter’s speech convey to 
 our minds the impression of some dark region in Gehenna ; 
 or may be considered a euphemism for the condition of 
 the soul of Judas. Lightfoot and Gill (in loco) quote 
 passages from Rabbinical writers who find that meaning 
 
1884 JUDAS ISCARIOT 
 
 We have in Acts i. another account of the 
 circumstances of his death, which it is not easy 
 to harmonise with that given by St. Matthew. 
 There, in words which may have been spoken by 
 St. Peter (Meyer, following the general con- 
 sensus of interpreters), or may have been a 
 parenthetical notice inserted by St. Luke (Calvin, 
 Olshausen, and others), it is stated— : 
 
 (1) That, instead of throwing the money 
 into the Temple, he bought (ἐκτήσατο) a field 
 with it. 
 
 (2) That, instead of hanging himself, “ falling 
 headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all 
 his bowels gushed out.” 
 
 (8) That for this reason, and not because the 
 priests had bought it with the price of blood, 
 the field was called Aceldama. 
 
 It is, of course, easy to cut the knot, as Strauss 
 and De Wette have done, by assuming one or 
 both accounts to be spurious and legendary. 
 Receiving both as authentic, we are yet led to 
 the conclusion that the explanation is to be 
 found in some unknown series of facts, of which 
 we have but two fragmentary narratives (cp. 
 Beyschlag in Riehm’s HWB.s.n.). The solu- 
 tions that have been suggested by commentators 
 and harmonists are nothing more than exercises 
 of ingenuity seeking to dovetail into each other 
 portions of a dissected map which, for want of 
 missing pieces, do not fit. Edersheim, Life and 
 Times of Jesus the Messiah, ii. 573, finds no 
 real divergence between the accounts. 
 
 The life of Judas has been represented here 
 in the only light in which it is possible for us 
 to look on it, as a human life, and therefore as 
 one of temptation, struggle, freedom, responsi- 
 bility. If another mode of speaking of it 
 appears in the N. T.; if words are used which 
 imply that all happened as it had been decreed ; 
 that the guilt and the misery were parts of a 
 Divine plan (John vi. 64, xiii. 18; Acts i. 16), 
 we must yet remember that this is no single, 
 exceptional instance. All human actions are 
 dealt with in the same way. They appear at 
 one moment separate, free, uncontrolled; at 
 another they are links in a long chain of causes 
 and effects, the beginning and the end of which 
 are in the “thick darkness where God is,” or 
 determined by an inexorable necessity. No 
 adherence to a philosophical system frees men 
 altogether from inconsistency in their language. 
 In proportion as their minds are religious, and 
 not philosophical, the transitions from one to 
 the other will be frequent, abrupt, and startling, 
 
 With the exception of the stories already 
 mentioned, there are but few traditions that 
 gather round the name of Judas. It appears, 
 however, in a strange, hardly intelligible way, 
 in the history of the wilder heresies of the 
 second century. The sect of Cainites, consistent 
 in their inversion of all that Christians in 
 general believed, was reported to have honoured 
 him as the only Apostle that was in possession 
 of the true GNosIs, to have made him the object 
 of their worship, and to have had a Gospel 
 
 in the phrase, even in Gen. xxxi. 55, and Num. xxiv. 
 25. Some interpreters. reject that explanation (cp. 
 Meyer in loco), and the great Anglican divine (Ham- 
 mond, Comment.jon FN. Τ᾿ in loco) explained the sen- 
 tence, that St. Matthias should undertake the Apostolic 
 circuit which had been assigned to Judas. 
 
 JUDAS OR JUDE 
 
 bearing his name (cp. Neander, Church History, 
 ii. 153, Eng. Tr. ; Iren. adv. Haer. i. 35; Tertull. 
 de Praesc. c. 47). For the general literature 
 connected with this subject, especially for mono- 
 graphs on the motive of Judas and the manner 
 of his death, see Winer, RWB. For a full treat- 
 ment of the questions of the relation in which 
 his guilt stood to the life of Christ, cp. Stier’s 
 Words of the Lord Jesus, on the passages where 
 Judas is mentioned, and in particular vii. 40— 
 67, Eng. Tr.; .Edersheim, Life and Times of 
 Jesus the Messiah, ii. 471-475 ; Farrar, The Life 
 of Christ, pop. ed., Index, s.n. [E. H. P.] [F.} 
 
 JUDAS, or JUDE, or THADDARUS, or 
 possibly LEBBAEUS (Ἰούδας ᾿Ιακώβου, Luke 
 vi. 16, Acts i. 13; Θαδδαῖος, with v. 1. Λεββαῖος, 
 Matt. x.3, Mark ii. 18), one of the Twelve. In all 
 four lists of the Apostles he appears in the last 
 group with James of Alphaeus and Simon the 
 Zealot or the Cananaean; the fourth member of 
 the group in the Gospels being Judas Iscariot, 
 whose place is vacant in the Acts. In John xiv. 
 22 he is specially distinguished from Iscariot. 
 The usual identification of the Thaddaeus 
 (Lebbaeus) in Matt. and Mark with the Judas of 
 James in Luke and Acts may be accepted without 
 serious hesitation. It is unlikely that four lists 
 of the Twelve should agree in all other cases 
 and have a serious discrepancy here: and there 
 is nothing improbable in one of the Twelve 
 having even three names (trinomius, as Jerome 
 calls him in Comm. on Matt. x. 3); although, like 
 Simon Peter and perhaps Bartholomew, Judas of 
 James probably had only two names—Judas and 
 Thaddaeus. This traditional identification is 
 ancient ; it solves a difficulty in a simple manner ; 
 and the only objection to it is the lack of direct 
 evidence; for Syrian legends, which distinguish 
 Jude from Thaddaeus, the Apostle of Edessa, are 
 not worthy of much credit. Those who reject 
 it either resort to the far more violent hypo- 
 thesis that Thaddaeus died, or left the apostolic 
 company, and that Judas of James took his 
 place (¢.g. Schleiermacher and Ewald),—an 
 hypothesis not easy to reconcile with Luke vi. 
 16; or else suppose that primitive tradition as 
 to the names of the Twelve fluctuated (Strauss). 
 
 That the most natural translation of Ἰούδας 
 Ἰακώβου is “Judas son“of James” cannot be 
 doubted. It is true that the genitive does not 
 invariably denote the filial relationship (Moul- 
 ton’s Winer, p. 237; Winer, Bibl. Realw. ii. 57): 
 but the obvious and usual translation ought not 
 to be surrendered without clear evidence that 
 some other relationship must be meant. Among 
 the earliest Versions, the Old Latin and the 
 Memphitic reproduce the vagueness of the Greek, 
 Judas Jacobi; while the Peshitto and the 
 Thebaic give the natural rendering, “ Judas the 
 son of James.” None suggest the exceptional 
 rendering, “the brother of James.” Moreover, 
 if St. Luke had meant this, why did he not 
 bracket the two brothers as he does St. Peter and 
 St. Andrew, St. James and St. John? He might 
 easily have made the matter clear by writing 
 “ James of Alphaeus and Judas his brother,” or 
 “ James and Judas the sons of Alphaeus.” But in 
 both lists he separates James and Judas by placing 
 Simon the Zealot between them. The inference 
 is that James and Judas were not related; for 
 
 that James the father of Judas is identical with 
 
 Sd 
 
_ James of Alphaeus is most improbable. 
 _ where is any such relationship suggested; and 
 _ James was a very common name (Lightfoot, 
 
 Galatians, p. 263, 6th ed.). 
 
 _ James”; 
 
 JUDAS OR JUDE 
 No- 
 
 Among English 
 versions, Wiclif and the Rhemish follow the 
 indefiniteness of the Vulgate, “ Judas (Jude) of 
 while Tyndale, Coverdale, and Cran- 
 mer have “son”: the highly improbable 
 “brother ” comes -from Beza and the Genevan 
 Version. Luther has Sohn. The fact that in 
 the opening address of the Epistle of Jude 
 ἀδελφὸς is expressed, tells against rather than 
 for its being understood in Luke vi. 16 and Acts 
 i. 13; for, if it had been meant, it would have 
 
 _ been expressed here also. 
 
 The name Lebbaeus or Lebaeus is probably an 
 early corruption of Thaddaeus. Neither name 
 is found in N, T., excepting in Matt. x. 3 and Mark 
 ii, 18; and “the clearly defined attestation is 
 unfavourable to the genuineness of Λεββαῖος in 
 either Gospel. This name is apparently due to 
 an early attempt to bring Levi (Aevels) the 
 publican (Luke v. 27) within the Twelve, it being 
 assumed that his call was to apostleship ; just 
 as in Mark ii. 14 Aevels is changed in Western 
 texts to Ἰάκωβος because τὸν τοῦ ᾿Αλφαίου 
 follows, and it was assumed that the son of 
 Alphaeus elsewhere named as one of the Twelve 
 must be meant. The difference between the two 
 forms of the name would be inconsiderable in 
 Aramaic, Zewi and Levi or Lebi and Lebbi ; and 
 Λεββαῖος might as easily represent Lebbi as 
 Θαδδαῖος Thaddi” (Westcott and Hort, ii. Ap- 
 pendix, p. 11: ep. Origen ὁ. Celsum, τ. Ixii., 
 where Levi appears as Lebes and is not identified 
 with Matthew). If this is correct, discussions 
 as to whether Λεββαῖος means “ man of Lebba,” 
 which is supposed to have been a town of Gali- 
 lee (Baumgarten-Crusius), or “young lion” 
 (Schleusner), or “‘ dear heart ” (Jerome), are out 
 of place. Winer, Sieffert, and others would 
 identify the meaning of Lebbaeus and Thad- 
 daeus, interpreting the former as “heart” and 
 the latter as “breast,” and making both equi- 
 valent to “darling” (Herzenskind). There may 
 be something in this, if the authors of the 
 Western text were trying to express different 
 varieties inthe Aramaic. λΛεββαῖος having been 
 substituted for Θαδδαῖος in some early copies, 
 the way was prepared for the conflate reading 
 followed in all English versions previous to the 
 R. V.,* Λεββαῖος ὃ ἐπικληθεὶς Θαδδαῖος (C.? L.), 
 for which some cursives have Θαδδαῖος 6 ἐπι- 
 κληθεὶς Λεββαῖος, while some Old Latin texts 
 read Judas Zelotes. This last perhaps comes 
 from a wrong punctuation of Luke vi. 16; τὸν 
 καλούμενον Ζηλωτὴν καὶ ᾿Ιούδαν Ἰακώβου being 
 taken together as meaning “him who was called 
 Zelotes and Judas Jacobi.” A similar reading 
 appears in the Thebaic Version of John xiv. 22, 
 where “Judas the Cananaean” is substituted 
 for “ Judas not Iscariot.” Thus a fourth name 
 is added to Thaddaeus, Lebbaeus, and Judas of 
 James: and the confusion is made worse by the 
 Curetonian Syriac, which has “ Judas Thomas ” 
 or “ Judas the Twin ” for “ Judas not Iscariot.” 
 Apparently the Syriac translator understood St. 
 John to mean Thomas Didymus, and not Judas 
 of James; for in the Syrian Church Thomas 
 
 ® Excepting Wiclif and the Rhemish, which of course 
 follow the Vulgate in reading simply Thaddaeus. 
 
 | ed. Bonnet). 
 
 JUDAS OR JUDE 1835 
 
 was commonly called Judas. Thus Eusebius 
 says that ἀπέστειλεν αὐτῷ (to Abgarus) ᾿Ιούδας 
 ὁ καὶ Θωμᾶς Θαδδαῖον ἀπόστολον, ἕνα τῶν 
 ἑβδομήκοντα (H. L. τ. xiii. 10). In the Gnostic 
 Acts of Thomas this Apostle is called Judas 
 Thomas, as also in the Edessan Acts and in the’ 
 Syriac Teaching of the Apostles ; and he is made 
 the twin brother of Jesus, and so like Him that 
 one was sometimes mistaken for the other 
 (Acta Thomae, ὃ 31, p. 217 ed. Tischend., p. 23 
 Thomas or “the Twin” looks 
 like a surname, and it is not improbable that 
 his first name was Judas. But it is not at all 
 probable that St. John by “ Judas not Iscariot ” 
 means the Apostle whom he everywhere else calls 
 Thomas (xi. 16, xiv. 5, xx. 24-28, xxi. 2), ΑἹ] 
 this confusion, however, admits of ready simpli- 
 fication without the employment of rash hypo- 
 theses. Judas and Thaddaeus are two names 
 for one and the same Apostle, who was the son 
 of an otherwise unknown James. ‘ Lebbaeus” 
 is probably a corrupt reading, the result of a 
 mistaken identification of Thaddaeus with Levi 
 or substitution of Levi for Thaddaeus. ‘“ Judas 
 Zelotes” and “Judas the Cananaean” are 
 certainly corrupt readings, perhaps produced by 
 a misunderstanding of Luke vi. 16. “Judas 
 Thomas” is equally certainly a corrupt reading 
 in John xiv. 22, arising from the fact that 
 Syrian Christians called Thomas the Apostle 
 Judas. Thus all these substitutions or additions 
 may be rejected, and the three well-established 
 readings—‘“‘ Thaddaeus,” “ Judas of James,” and 
 “ Judas not Iscariot ”—retained. 
 
 The Apostle who is thus designated is little 
 more than a name to us in N. T., and traditions 
 respecting him are untrustworthy. That he 
 had some share in founding the Church of 
 Edessa, is doubtful; and perhaps there is not even 
 this element of truth in the Abgarus legend 
 (Eus. H. Ε. τ. xiii.). The Syrian Church believed 
 that he went from Edessa to preach in Phoenicia, 
 and there found a martyr’s death. In Abdias 
 the scene ‘of his preaching and martyrdom is 
 Persia. Nicephorus Callistus makes him preach 
 in Palestine, Syria, and Arabia, and then die a 
 natural death at Edessa (H. #. τι. xl.). In the 
 Apostolical Constitutions, viii. 25, 26, the regula- 
 tions about widows and exorcists are assigned to 
 “ Lebbaeus surnamed Thaddaeus ”; and the two 
 Vienna MSS. have a note stating that Thaddaeus 
 or Lebbaeus ‘was surnamed Judas the Zealot” 
 and preached in Mesopotamia. An apocryphal 
 Gospel of Thaddaeus is mentioned in connexion 
 with a synod at Rome in A.D, 494 in the time of 
 Pope Gelasius: and we have some Acta’ Thad- 
 daei, in which the letter of Abgarus differs some- 
 what from the one given by Eusebius (Tisch. 
 Acta Apost. Apocr. p. 261; Lipsius, Apoer. 
 Apostely. iii. 154-200). See Sietfert’s article 
 “ Judas Lebbaeus ” in Herzog’s Encycl. 2nd ed., 
 Mangold’s in Schenkel’s Bibel-Lex., and the 
 articles on the Legend and Festival of JUDE 
 THE APOSTLE in Smith’s Dict. of Chr. Ant., 
 and on the Docrrrina ADDAEI in the Dict. of 
 Chr. Biog. [A. P.] 
 
 Ὁ See also Wright, Apocr. Acts of the Apostles, Ὁ. 146; 
 Lipsius, Apocr. <Apostelg. i. 227; Phillips, Doctrina 
 Addaei, p. 5; Cureton, Anc. Syriac Documents, p. 30; 
 Assemani Bibl. Orient. i. 318; Ante-Nicene Library, 
 Apocr. Gospels and Acts, pp. 389, 390, 394. 
 
1836 JUDAS, THE LORD’S BROTHER 
 JUDAS, THE LORD’S BROTHER. In 
 
 Matt. xiii. 55 we read, “Is not this the carpenter’s 
 son? is not His mother called Mary? and His 
 brethren, James, and Joseph, and Simon, and 
 Judas?” ‘The parallel passage in Mark vi. 3 
 runs, “Is not this the carpenter, the son of 
 Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and 
 Judas, and Simon?” That the four brethren 
 of Christ mentioned by St. Matthew are identical 
 with the four mentioned by St. Mark, is manifest. 
 It is sometimes, however, assumed that ‘“‘ Mary 
 the mother of James and Joses” (Matt. xxvii. 
 56), “ Mary the mother of James the less and of 
 Joses ” (Mark. xv. 40), is the mother of the four 
 brethren mentioned in the first pair of passages. 
 But this is very precarious. The omission of 
 two of the four, the silence respecting any 
 relationship to the Lord, and the fact that both 
 James and Joseph were very common names, are 
 very much against the identification. More- 
 over, there is mention of the Lord’s mother in 
 close connexion with the four brethren in the 
 one case, whereas in the other case another 
 Mary is the mother of the two brothers. 
 further identification of two, or even three, of 
 the four brethren with the Apostles of the same 
 name is still more untenable. If James the 
 Lord’s brother is James the son of Alphaeus, and 
 Simon the Lord’s brother is Simon the Zealot, 
 and Judas the Lord’s brother is Judas not 
 Iscariot, then St. John could never have written 
 “even His brethren did not believe on Him” 
 (vii. 5). Moreover this theory involves two 
 sisters both bearing the name of Mary, with 
 other improbabilities. In none of the four lists 
 of the Apostles is there any hint that any one of 
 them was a brother of the Lord; and in Acts i. 
 13, 14, and 1 Cor. ix. 5, the Lord’s brethren are 
 distinguished from the Apostles. We may 
 safely conclude that the four brethren of the 
 Lord and His sisters are either the children of 
 His mother or else of some person whose name is 
 not known. In the latter case their precise 
 relationship to the Lord is uncertain. Of these 
 four, Joses or Josepk and Simon are not to be 
 identified with any other Joses and Simon; and 
 we know nothing respecting them beyond their 
 names and their relationship to Christ. Of the 
 other two, James is one of the most prominent 
 figures in the primitive Church, being overseer 
 of the mother Church of Jerusalem and the 
 writer of the Epistle which bears his name, 
 while his brother Judas or Jude is probably 
 the author of the Epistle of Jude (see next 
 article).* 
 
 Jude, like his brethren, did not at first believe 
 that Jesus was the Messiah (John vii. 5), but 
 was convinced by the Resurrection (Acts i. 14). 
 He was married (1 Cor. ix. 5), and Hegesippus 
 tells an interesting story of two of his grandsons 
 (Eus. H. £. 111. xx. 1-8). These two men were 
 taken before Domitian as of the royal family of 
 David, and therefore dangerous to the Emperor. 
 For Domitian, says Hegesippus, “ was afraid of 
 the appearance of the Christ, as was Herod.” 
 They admitted their royal descent, but stated 
 that they were humble persons, living by 
 
 5. (On the much-disputed question who were ‘the 
 brethren of the Lord,” see further the different views 
 advocated in BROTHER, p. 461, and JAMmEs, pp. 1512 seq. 
 —EpiTors.] 
 
 The | 
 
 _Christ? as his Lord.” 
 
 JUDE, EPISTLE OF 
 
 manual labour; in evidence of which they 
 showed their rough hands. When asked about 
 
 Christ’s kingdom, they said that it was a heavenly — 
 
 one, and that at the end of the world He would 
 come to judge the living and the dead. 
 Domitian dismissed them as too simple to be 
 dangerous, and forbade any further persecution 
 of the family of David. 
 Side (c. A.D. 425) states that Hegesippus gave 
 Zocer and James as the names of these two 
 grandsons of Jude (Texte und Untersuchungen, 
 v. 2, p. 169). On their return to Palestine 
 they were honoured both as confessors and as of 
 the family of the Lord, and lived until the reign 
 of Trajan (Eus. H. #. 11. xxxii, 5, 6). We 
 must suppose that, when they were taken before 
 Domitian, their father and grandfather were 
 dead, otherwise they would have been arrested 
 also. This seems to show that St. Jude died 
 before, or not long after, the accession of 
 Domitian, A.D. 81. (A. ἘΠ 
 
 JUDE, EPISTLE OF. 
 JUDE.) 
 
 There is no valid reason for doubting that 
 this Epistle was. written by the person whose 
 name it bears. Nor is there very much doubt 
 as to who this Jude or Judas is. He styles 
 himself “ servant of Jesus Christ and brother of 
 James.” If he had been an Apostle, he would 
 probably have said so. His object in mentioning 
 his brother James must have been to win the 
 attention and interest of his readers; and to 
 have mentioned that he was one of the Twelve 
 would have been a far better way of securing 
 attention. It is true that an Apostle might 
 have written, ‘ Remember ye the words which 
 have been spoken before by the Apostles of our 
 Lord Jesus Christ” (v. 17; yet cp. Ephes. iii. 
 5 and Gal. i, 19): but such a charge comes 
 much more naturally from one who is not 
 himself one of the number. The author 
 evidently wishes to speak with all possible 
 authority, and we can conjecture no reason for 
 his suppressing the fact of his being an Apostle, 
 if he had been one. We cannot, therefore, 
 identify this Jude with Judas not Iscariot (John 
 xiv. 22; Luke vi. 16; Acts i. 13). Nor can we 
 identify his brother James with James of 
 Alphaeus, or James the son of Zebedee. There 
 is no reasonable doubt that the James of whom 
 our Jude is the brother is the first president of 
 the Church of Jerusalem, the brother of the 
 Lord, and the writer of the Epistle of James 
 Jude, therefore, is also a brother of the Lord. 
 But neither he nor James claim any authority 
 in virtue of this relationship, and do not mention 
 the relationship in their Epistles, for reasons 
 which are indicated by Clement of Alexandria in 
 the Adumbrationes: “Judas, who wrote the 
 Catholic Epistle, brother of the sons of Joseph, 
 avery religious man, though he knew of his 
 relationship, did not call himself His brother. 
 But what said he? ‘ Judas, the servant of Jesus 
 That is, reverence kept 
 him silent. Jude, however, does think that his 
 close relationship to the revered James the Just 
 will win for him interest and attention; and he 
 therefore mentions the relationship. The brother 
 of James would be specially acceptable to Jewish 
 Christians, whom the writer has chiefly in mind 
 as he writes. 
 
 (See Jupas or 
 
 A'fragment of Philip of | 
 
 es ΟΝ ae νΨ 
 
 —— Δ. 
 
JUDE, EPISTLE OF 
 
 AUTHENTICITY. — The Epistles of both 
 brothers are classed by Eusebius among the 
 “disputed ” books (ἀντιλεγόμενα) of the N. T., 
 which means that some Christians had mis- 
 givings respecting them, and therefore proves 
 that these books were not admitted into the 
 N. T. without careful scrutiny. For some time 
 after these Epistles were written there were 
 Churches in the West that had never heard of 
 the Epistle of James, and Churches in the East 
 that had never heard of that of Jude. Even 
 where they were known, their claim to authority 
 was open to doubt, because they did not appear 
 to be written by Apostles. The shorter Epistle 
 was open to a further objection. ‘ Because in it 
 Jude derives a testimony from the Book of 
 Enoch, which is apocryphal, it is rejected by 
 some”* (Jerome, Catal. Ser. Eccl. iv.). The 
 strongest evidence of objection to the Epistie of 
 Jude, or of ignorance as to its existence, is 
 afforded by its absence from the Peshitto, a fact 
 which is of weight in determining the author- 
 ship. Ifthe Apostle Judas Thaddaeus were the 
 author, his connexion with Edessa would have 
 secured the inclusion of his letter in the Syriac 
 versions. Its omission is intelligible, if the 
 author was not an Apostle. The silence of 
 early writers proves very little, for the letter is 
 too short to be often quoted. Even Chrysostom, 
 who must have known it, does not quote it once 
 in all his voluminous writings. Against the 
 silence of many and the condemnation of some 
 is to be set the general acceptance in the West 
 which is shown by the Muratorian Canon: 
 Epistola sane Iude et superscriptio Johannis 
 duas in catholica habentur. Here superscriptio is 
 a blunder for superscripti, “the John mentioned 
 above,” or for superscriptae [Johannis duae], “ the 
 two above-mentioned letters of John”; and 
 almost certainly in catholica means “in the 
 Catholic Church.” But the evidence remains 
 strong whatever be the right reading. Clement 
 of Alexandria commented on it in his Hypo- 
 typoseis or Adumbrationes (Eus. H. E. VI. xiv. 1), 
 and quotes it as Scripture (Paed. It. viii. 280 ; 
 Strom. tt. ii. 515); and his disciple Origen, 
 although aware of doubts respecting it, yet 
 accepted it himself and several times quotes it.? 
 In commenting on Matt. xiii. 55 he calls it 
 “an epistle of few lines, yet full of the strong 
 words of heavenly grace.” And Didymus, 
 yet another head of the Catechetical School 
 at Alexandria, and the instructor of Jerome 
 and Rufinus, condemns those who rejected 
 the Epistle because of the passage about the 
 body of Moses, much as Jerome seems to 
 condemn those who rejected it because of the 
 quotation from the Book of Enoch. The testi- 
 mony from North Africa is also strong. Ter- 
 tullian maintains that the Book of Enoch ought 
 
 a A plerisque rejicitur. The meaning of plerisque is 
 uncertain. The classical meaning of plerique was 
 extinct, for even in Tacitus it means not “most” but 
 “‘very many” (e.g. Hist. iv. 84). Later on it came 
 to mean no more than ‘‘some.” Thus Jerome, writing 
 to Dardanus (Zp. cxxix.), says of the Epistle to the 
 Hebrews, licet plerique eam vel Barnabae vel Clementis 
 arbitrentur, where plerique =the τινὲς of Origen and 
 Eusebius (H. Ε. vi. xx. 3; xxv. 1). 
 
 Ὁ Homil. in Gen. xiii.; in Jos. vii.; in Ezech. iv. ; 
 Comment. in Mat. xiii. 
 
 JUDE, EPISTLE OF 1837 
 
 to be regarded as Scripture, among other reasons 
 because it is quoted by “the Apostle Jude” (De 
 Cult. Fem. τ. iii.); and Augustine asks, “ What 
 of Enoch the seventh from Adam? Does not 
 the canonical epistle of the Apostle Jude declare 
 that he prophesied?” (De Civ. Dei, xvi. 
 xxxviii. 1). But for the lack of testimony from 
 the East, this amount of evidence in favour of so 
 brief a document is surprising; and about the 
 year A.D. 269 we get evidence from the East. 
 Eusebius has preserved part of the letter of a 
 synod at Antioch against Paul of Samosata, and 
 the tone of the document suggests acquaintance 
 with the Epistle of Jude; e.g. “denying his God 
 [and Lord}” (cp. Jude v. 4) and “not guarding 
 the faith which he once held” (ep. Jude v. 9). 
 The quotations from Jude in Ephrem Syrus 
 (A.D, 350-373) are found only in the Greek 
 translations of*his writings, and cannot be relied 
 upon as original: but without them the Epistle 
 is sufficiently attested as of the apostolic age. 
 Renan places it as early as A.D, 543 but re- 
 gards it as an attack on St. Paul, who is one of 
 those who ‘defile the flesh, and set at nought 
 dominion, and rail at dignities.”’ In this idea he 
 is probably alone. A forger covertly attacking 
 St. Paul would have written in the name of 
 some one possessing more authority than 
 “ Judas, brother of James.” Harnack (Dis 
 NV. T. um d. Jahr. 200, p. 79) admits that Zahn 
 (Gesch. d. N. T. Kanons, i. p. 321) exaggerates 
 very little when he declares that about 
 A.D. 200 the Epistle of Jude was accepted 
 “in the Church of all lands round the Mediter- 
 ranean Sea.” Whatever misgivings existed in 
 some quarters were exceptional, and before 
 long passed away. 
 
 THE PERSONS ADDRESSED in the Epistle are 
 “those that are called, beloved in God the 
 Father, and kept for Jesus Christ”; i.e. all 
 Christians, whether Jews or Gentiles, wherever 
 they may dwell. But it is probable that the 
 writer has Jewish Christians of Palestine and 
 Syria principally in his mind. Like that of 
 St. James, the Epistle is Palestinian in origin 
 and in tone, and the writer would think chiefly 
 of the kind of Christians with whom he was 
 most familiar. 
 
 THE OccasION of the letter is plainly stated. 
 St. Jude had been intending to write an Epistle 
 “about our common salvation” (v. 3), when 
 the invasion of the Church by ungodly men pro- 
 duced a crisis which constrained him to write at 
 once an Epistle of a different character, in order 
 to denounce the authors of this trouble and put 
 others or their guard respecting them. These 
 invaders had “ crept in privily,” and had turned 
 Christian liberty into the anarchy of heathen 
 licence. Clement of Alexandria (Strom. 111. ii. 
 p- 515) thinks that St. Jude denounces pro- 
 phetically the licentious doctrine and practice of 
 Carpocrates. Some moderns suggest that the 
 writer was contemporary with Carpocrates, and 
 therefore cannot be Judas the brother of James. 
 The date of Carpocrates is uncertain, and 
 St. Jude may have known him: but there is no 
 reason for supposing that he refers to him or 
 any Antinomian teacher. These “ungodly 
 men” were not propagandists, but libertines. 
 They ‘‘denied our only Master and Lord,” not 
 by anti-Christian doctrines, but by unchris- 
 tian lives. They maintained that Christians 
 
1898 
 
 might indulge in gross sensuality; and, when 
 rebuked, they reviled those who were set over 
 them. 
 
 The ConTENTS of the Epistle exhibit a care- 
 ful plan. Introduction (1-4): Warning and 
 Denunciation: Three instances of God’s ven- 
 geance (5-7) and application to the libertines 
 (8-10); Three examples of similar wickedness 
 (11), and threefold description corresponding to 
 them (12-15, 16-18, 19): Exhortation (20-23): 
 Doxology (24, 25). The writer’s fondness for 
 triplets is remarkable. We can trace a dozen, 
 most of which can hardly be accidental. (1) 
 Judas, a servant . .. and brother. (2) Called, 
 beloved, . . . and kept. (3) Mercy and peace 
 and love. (4) Ungodly, turning . .. and 
 denying. (5) Israelites, angels, cities of the 
 plain. (6) Defile .. . set at nought ... and 
 rail, (7) Cain, Balaam, Korah. (8) These are 
 . . » These are . . . These are., (9) Who make 
 separations, sensual, having not the Spirit. (10) 
 Building up... praying ... looking for 
 mercy. (11) Have mercy ... save... have 
 mercy with fear. (12) Before all time, and 
 now, and for evermore. 
 
 The Epistle presents some special difficulties. 
 a. From v. 4 to v. 18 the resemblance to the 
 central portion of 2 Peter is such that it is 
 universally admitted that one writer must have 
 borrowed from the other. That both have 
 borrowed from a third is a possible, but much 
 less probable, alternative, and it lacks sup- 
 porters. Of late years the balance of opinion 
 has been in favour of the priority of this 
 Epistle, Spitta being a notable exception. The 
 main arguments on each side are these. For 
 the priority of Jude. (1) It is more probable 
 that most of a short document should be 
 inserted in a much longer one, than that a 
 fraction of a longer document should be made 
 the main portion of a short one. (2) It 
 is more probable that things that seemed 
 objectionable or difficult should be omitted in 
 2 Peter, than that they should be inserted in 
 Jude: e.g. “wells without water” (2 Pet. ii. 
 17) looks like a correction of the self-contra- 
 dictory “clouds without water” (Jude v. 12); 
 and without Jude v. 9 the less decided statement 
 in 2 Pet. ii. 11 is scarcely intelligible, as if the 
 writer disliked the apocryphal literature which 
 Jude uses so freely. The statements in Jude vv, 6, 
 14, 15, 28 are either omitted in 2 Peter, or put 
 in a way less likely to offend (ii. 4,11). or 
 the priority of 2 Peter. (1) If 2 Peter is 
 genuine, it is less probable that the chief of the 
 Apostles should borrow from one who was not 
 an Apostle at all, than vice versa; and if 
 2 Peter is not genuine, it is unlikely that a 
 plagiarist would discredit his forgery by incor- 
 porating what was already disliked for its use 
 of apocryphal literature. (2) The troubles 
 which 2 Peter speaks of as future (ii. 1) Jude 
 speaks of as present (v. 4); and while 2 Peter 
 says that “in the last days mockers shall come 
 with mockery, walking after their own lusts” 
 (iii. 3), Jude gives these very words as an 
 apostolic prophecy (vv. 17, 18). The telling 
 points in Jude which are not found in 2 Peter 
 lead one to think that the writer of 2 Peter had 
 not seen Jude ; but these are balanced by telling 
 points in 2 Peter which are not found in Jude. 
 
 JUDE, EPISTLE OF 
 
 The triplets, so common in Jude, .are not found 
 
 JUDE, EPISTLE OF 
 
 in 2 Peter; and it seems to be more probable 
 
 that the writer of 2 Peter has overlooked or 
 ignored them, than that St. Jude has inserted 
 them into borrowed material. 
 Jude may be regarded as the more tenable 
 hypothesis ; but certainty is unattainable. 
 
 ὃ. Another difficulty, noticed from very early 
 times, is the use which St. Jude makes of 
 apocryphal writings. He quotes the Book of 
 Enoch as if it were inspired; and in other 
 passages, without exactly quoting, he seems to 
 be under its influence. Moreover he draws a 
 portion of his material from the Assumption of 
 Moses. The Book of Enoch is composite, and 
 some of the central portion may be later than 
 the Christian era. But chapters i—xxxvi. and 
 Ixxii-cv. are undoubtedly earlier ; and it is in 
 these that the quotation and the parallels are 
 found. “Angels which kept not their own 
 principality, but left their proper habitation, 
 He hath kept in everlasting bonds under dark- 
 ness unto the judgment of the great day” 
 (Jude v. 6) is a condensation of Enoch vii.—xxi. : 
 see especially x. 6-16; xiv. 2; xxi. 3,6. The 
 expressions Δ rail at dignities ” (glories), “ wan- 
 dering stars, for whom the blackness of dark- 
 ness hath been reserved for ever,” and “ the 
 seventh from Adam” seem to have been sug- 
 gested by the Book of Enoch (vi. 4; xxvi. 2; 
 xviii. 6-16; xcii. 4), It is Origen who tells us 
 that the contest between Michael and Satan for 
 the body of Moses comes from the ᾿Ανάληψις or 
 ᾿Ανάβασις of Moses (De Princip. 11. ii. sub 
 init.), a book known to Clement of Alexandria 
 (Strom, VI. xv. p. 806), Didymus of Alexandria 
 (Gallandi Biblioth. Patr. vi. 307), Augustine 
 (Zpist. clviii. 3), and others. From the eighth 
 to the nineteenth century it disappeared. A 
 portion of it has been found in a palimpsest in 
 the Ambrosian Library at Milan, but the frag- 
 ment ends before the death of Moses. That the 
 Assumptio Moysis is earlier than the Epistle of 
 Jude is almost universally admitted, the dates 
 assigned to it varying from A.D. 4 to A.D. 70 
 (Schiirer, The Jewish People in the time of Jesus 
 Christ, Div. II. vol. iii. pp. 80-83; Herzog, 
 Plitt and Hauck, Real-Encycl. vol. xii. p. 352); 
 and we need not doubt the statements of Origen 
 and Didymus that Jude v. 9 is based upon it. 
 That St. Jude received a special revelation on 
 the subject is a violent and untenable hypo- 
 thesis. That a true tradition had survived for 
 fifteen hundred years, without leaving any 
 trace throughout the O.T., is not credible. The 
 sober conclusion is that, in illustrating his 
 denunciations, St. Jude has made use of le- 
 gendary material; and this ought not to offend 
 us. His spiritual teaching is not the less sound 
 because he has mistaken legend for history. 
 The Church, while profiting by his defence of 
 truth and holiness, has never been misled by 
 his lack of critical judgment. It has never 
 been in doubt as to the true nature of the 
 Assumption of Moses or the Book of Enoch. 
 There is an able, but unconvincing, statement 
 of the view that v. 9 comes from Zech. iii. 1-3, 
 and not from the Assumptio Moysis, in Wright’s 
 Bampton Lectures, Hodder and Stoughton, 1879, 
 pp. 53-57. The express statements of Origen 
 and Didymus, who name the book, and- of 
 Apollinaris, who says that Jude here quotes 
 from an apocryphal work, cannot lightly be set 
 
 The priority of | 
 
= 
 
 j 
 
 JUDE, EPISTLE OF 
 
 aside:° and the passage in Zechariah lacks the 
 most striking features in Jude v. 9,—‘ Michael 
 the Archangel,” and “ the body of Moses.” 
 
 The Styx of the Epistle is somewhat cum- 
 brous and harsh, as of one who does not express 
 himself with perfect ease; but it exhibits a 
 rough originality, which is less conspicuous in 
 2 Pet. ii. St. Jude writes better Greek than 
 we might have expected from a Jew of Pales- 
 tine ; but it is not so surprisingly good as that 
 of his brother St. James. Both brothers must 
 have had some special advantages in this 
 respect. 
 
 The following expressions are peculiar in the 
 N. 7. to this Epistle, and some of them are 
 rare in Greek literature: ἐπαγωνίζεσθαι (v. 3), 
 παρεισδύειν (v. 4), ἐκπορνεύειν, δεῖγμα, ὑπέχειν 
 (v. 7), φυσικῶς (υ. 10), σπιλάς, φθινοπωρινός 
 (υ. 12), ἐπαφρίζειν, πλανήτης (v. 13), γογ- 
 γυστής, μεμψίμοιρος, ἀποδιορίζειν (υ. 16), ἄπ- 
 ταιστος (v. 24), πρὸ παντὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος (v. 25). 
 The last two occur in the doxology, which from 
 a literary point of view is the finest part of the 
 Epistle and may possibly be influenced by Rom. 
 xvi. 25-27. 
 
 Here and there the Epistle appears to be 
 influenced by the language of the O. T., but 
 there is not much that can with certainty be 
 called quotation: cp. v. 9 with Dan. xii. 1 and 
 Zech. iii. 2; v.12 with Ezek. xxxiv. 8; v. 14 
 with Zech. xiv. 5 and Deut. xxiii. 2; υ. 23 with 
 Zech. iii. 2, 3. ; 
 
 There is little evidence respecting the PLACE 
 in which the letter was composed, and not very 
 much respecting the DaTE. It is possible that 
 Jude, the brother of the Lord, never travelled 
 outside Palestine, and the use of the Book of 
 Enoch and of the Assumption of Moses favours 
 Palestine, for these are of Palestinian origin. 
 It is not likely that he survived by very many 
 years the destruction of Jerusalem, if he survived 
 it at all. The testimony of Hegesippus tends to 
 show that Jude died before the reign of Domitian. 
 
 That he would have mentioned the destruc- 
 tion of Jerusalem as a signal instance of God’s 
 judgments upon sinners (vv. 5-7), if it had 
 already taken place, is by no means certain. 
 Renan’s date (circa A.D. 54) is probably too 
 early; but if 2 Peter is genuine, and if the 
 Apostle made use of Jude’s letter, and not Jude 
 of the Apostle’s letter,—then our Epistle can- 
 not be placed much later than A.D. 62. Nothing 
 can be based upon the vague expression ἐπ᾽ 
 ἐσχάτου χρόνου (v. 18), which by no means 
 proves that the writer is far removed from the 
 apostolic age. St. Jude considers the appear- 
 ance of these antichristian libertines a sign of 
 the “last time,” as St. John considers the 
 appearance of “‘many antichrists” a sign of 
 the “last hour” (1 John ii. 18); and the Evan- 
 gelist probably wrote considerably later than 
 this brother of James. But v. 3 points to a 
 late date, and v. 17 rather implies that these 
 words of the Apostles were spoken long ago. 
 Perhaps we may conjecture that Jude would 
 
 ¢ The passages will be found in full, with those from 
 Clement of Alexandria and the letter of Evodius to 
 Augustine (see above), in the Preface to Fritzsche’s 
 Libri Apocryphi Vet. Test. Graece, pp. XXXiv., XXXV.; 
 and the extant fragments of the Asswmptio Moyseos 
 will be found pp. 700-729. 
 
 JUDGES 1839 
 
 not have written at all if his brother James 
 was still alive. In this case A.D. 62 is the 
 earliest date that we can assign to the Epistle. 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY.—Considering that the Epistle 
 consists of only twenty-five verses, the amount 
 of literature respecting it is remarkable. In 
 the following list of commentaries the works 
 of those who have commented upon the whole 
 of the N. T. are not included; but in many cases 
 the writer named has taken the Epistle of Jude 
 in conjunction with one or more of the Epistles 
 of Peter and of James. The advantage of com- 
 bining either James or 2 Peter with Jude is 
 obvious. Witsius, Meletem. 1739; Hanke, 
 Lips. 1748; Schmidt, Lips. 1769; Herder, 
 Lemgo, 1775; Semler, Hal. 1784; Hasse, Jena, 
 1786; Hartmann, Céth. 1793; Morus, Leipz. 
 1794; Elias, Ultraj. 1803; Haenlein, Εἰ]. 
 1804; Laurmann, Gron. 1818; Scharling, 
 Hayniae, 1841; Stier, 1850; Rampf, 1854; 
 Gardiner, Boston, 1856; Fronmiiller in Lange, 
 1862 [Eng. Tr. New York, 1867]; Wiesinger 
 in Olshausen (Eng. Tr., T. & T. Clark, 1882]; 
 Huther in Meyer (Eng. Tr., T. & T. Clark]; 
 Schott, Erlangen, 1863 (attributes the Ep. to 
 Judas Barsabbas) ; J. C. K. Hofmann, Noérdlingen, 
 1875, and C. F. Keil, Leipz. 1885 (are among 
 the last defenders of the apostolic authorship); 
 Spitta, Halle, 1885 ; ΚΠ], Géttingen, 1887 ; Von 
 Soden, Freib. i. B., 1890; Plummer, in the Ez- 
 positor’s Bible,1891. Among these the comm. of 
 Huther and Kihl may be specially commended. 
 See also the comm. on the Catholic Epistles by 
 Augusti, Benson, Ewald, Macknight, Reuss, and 
 Welcker, with the Introduction to the Cath. Epp. 
 by Gloag, 1887. Among Introductions to the 
 N. T. (Bleek-Mangold, Hilgenfeld, Holtzmann, 
 &c.) the treatment of this Epistle in B. Weiss 
 (Eng. Tr., Hodder, 1888], and Salmon, Murray, 
 1891, should be studied. Dahl, De authent. Ep. 
 Petri post. et Judae, Rost. 1807, assigns this Ep. 
 to a presbyter named Jude; Jessien, De authent. 
 Ep. Judae, Lips. 1821, is thought to have 
 rendered the apostolic authorship untenable. 
 See also Arnaud, Essai crit. sur Vauth., Strasb. 
 1835; F. Brun, Introd. crit. a ?Ep. de Jude, 
 Strasb. 1842 ; Arnaud, Recherches crit. sur ? Ep. 
 de Jude, Paris, 1851 [Eng. Tr. in Brit. and For. 
 Ev. Rev., July 1859]; Ritschl, Abhandl. iiber 
 die Antinomisten in Stud. und Krit. 1861, i. 
 103; Guerike, Beitrdge, 1875; Sieffert in 
 Herzog’s Real-Enc. 1880; Zoeckler, Handb. d. 
 Theol. Wissensch. I. ii. 111, 1889. [A. P.] 
 
 JUDEA ([Jupana.] 
 JUDETH. 
 
 JUDGES. The administration of justice in 
 all early Eastern nations, as amongst the Arabs 
 of the desert to this day, rests with the patri- 
 archal seniors ;* the judges being the heads of 
 tribes, or of chief houses in a tribe. Such from 
 their elevated position would have the requisite 
 leisure, would be able to make their decisions 
 respected, and through the wider intercourse of 
 superior station would decide with fuller expe- 
 
 (JupiTH, 2.] 
 
 a The expression an7n’a nowy (Num. xxv. 14) 
 
 is remarkable, and seems to mean the patriarchal 
 senior of a subdivision of the tribe (cp. 1 Ch, iv. 38; 
 Judg. v. 3, 15). 
 
1840 JUDGES 
 
 rience and riper reflection. 
 of Job (xxix. 7-9) the patriarchal magnate is 
 represented as going forth “to the gate 4 
 amidst the respectful silence of elders, princes, 
 and nobles (cp. xxxii. 9), The actual chiefs of 
 individual tribes are mentioned on various 
 
 . . | 
 occasions, one as late as the time of David, as | 
 
 preserving importance in the commonwealth 
 (Num. vii. 2, 10, 11, xvii. 6, or 17 in Heb. text; 
 xxxiv. 18; Josh. xxii. 14; so perhaps Num. xvi. 
 2, xxi. 18). Whether the princes of the tribes 
 mentioned in 1 Ch. xxvii. 16, xxviii. 1, are 
 patriarchal heads, or merely chief men ap- 
 pointed by the king to govern, is not strictly 
 certain; but it would be foreign to all ancient 
 
 Eastern analogy to suppose that they forfeited | 
 
 the judicial prerogative, until reduced and | 
 
 overshadowed by the monarchy, which in 
 David’s time is contrary to the tenor of his- 
 tory. During the oppression of Egypt the 
 nascent people would necessarily have few 
 questions at law to plead; and the Egyptian 
 magistrate would take cognizance of theft, 
 violence, and other matters of police. Yet the 
 question put to Moses shows that “a prince ἢ 
 
 and “a judge ” were connected even then in the | 
 
 popular idea (Ex. ii, 14; ep. Num. xvi. 13). 
 When they emerged from this oppression into 
 
 national existence, the want of a machinery of | 
 
 judicature began to press. The patriarchal 
 seniors did not instantly assume the function, 
 having probably been depressed by bondage till 
 
 rendered unfit for it, not having become ex- | 
 perienced in such matters, nor having secured | 
 
 the confidence of their tribesmen. Perhaps for 
 these reasons Moses at first took the whole 
 burden of judicature upon himself, then at the 
 suggestion of Jethro (Ex. xviii. 14-24) insti- 
 tuted judges over numerically graduated sec- 
 tions of the people. These were chosen for 
 their moral fitness, but from Deut. i. 15, 16, 
 we may infer that they were taken from 
 amongst those to whom primogeniture would 
 have assigned it. Save in offences of public 
 magnitude, criminal cases do not appear to 
 have been distinguished from civil. The duty 
 of teaching the people the knowledge of the 
 Law which pertained to the Levites, doubtless 
 included such instruction as would assist the 
 judgment of those who were thus to decide 
 according to it. The Levites were thus the 
 ultimate sources of ordinary jurisprudence, and 
 perhaps the “teaching ” aforesaid may merely 
 mean the expounding the Law as applicable to 
 difficult cases arising in practice. Beyond this, 
 it is not possible to indicate any division of the 
 provinces of deciding on points of law as distinct 
 from points of fact. The judges mentioned as 
 standing before Joshua in the great assemblies 
 of the people must be understood as the suc- 
 cessors to those chosen by Moses, and had 
 doubtless been elected with Joshua’s sanction 
 from among the same general class of patri- 
 archal seniors (Josh. iv. 2, 4, xxii. 14, xxiv. 1). 
 The judge was reckoned a sacred person, and 
 secured even from verbal injuries. Seeking 
 a decision at law is called “inquiring of God” 
 (Ex, xviii. 15). The term “gods” is actually 
 applied to judges (Ex. xxi. 6; ep. Ps. lxxxii. 1, 
 6). The judge was told, “Thou shalt not be 
 afraid of the face of men, for the judgment is 
 God’s;” and thus whilst human instrumen- 
 
 | 
 
 JUDGES 
 
 Thus in the Book | tality was indispensable, the source of justice — 
 
 was upheld as Divine, and the purity of its 
 administration only sank with the decline of 
 religious feeling. 
 Ixxxii.,—a lofty charge addressed to all who 
 judge; cp. the qualities regarded as essential at 
 the institution of the office, Ex. xviii, 21, and 
 the strict admonition of Deut. xvi. 18-20. But 
 besides the sacred dignity thus given to the 
 only royal function, which, under the Theo- 
 cracy, lay in human hands, it was made popular 
 by being vested in those who led public feeling, 
 and its importance in the public eye appears 
 from such passages as Ps, lxix. 12 (ep. exix. 23), 
 Ixxxii., cxlviii. 11; Prov. viii. 15, xxxi. 4, 5, 23. 
 There could have been no considerable need for 
 the legal studies and expositions of the Levites 
 during the wanderings in the wilderness while 
 Moses was alive to solve all questions, and 
 while the Law which they were to expound was 
 not wholly delivered. The Levites, too, had a 
 charge of cattle to look after in that wilderness 
 like the rest, and seem to have acted also, being 
 Moses’ own tribe, as supports to his executive 
 authority. But then few of the greater en- 
 tanglements of property could arise before the 
 people were settled in their possession of 
 Canaan. Thus they were disciplined in smaller 
 matters, and, under Moses’ own eye, for greater 
 ones. When, however, the commandment, 
 “judges and officers shalt thou make thee in 
 
 all thy gates” (Deut. xvi. 18), came to be 
 
 fulfilled in Canaan, there were the following 
 sources from which those officials might be 
 supplied :—I1st, the ex-officio judges, or their 
 successors, as chosen by Moses; 2ndly, any 
 surplus left of patriarchal seniors when they 
 were taken out (as has been shown from Deut. 
 i. 15, 16) from that class; and 3rdly, the 
 Levites. On what principle the non-Levitical 
 judges were chosen after Divine superintendence 
 was interrupted at Joshua’s death is not clear. 
 A simple way would have been for the existing 
 judges in every town, &c., to choose their own 
 colleagues, as vacancies fell, from among the 
 limited number of persons who, being heads of 
 families, were competent. Generally speaking, 
 the reputation for superior wealth, as some 
 guarantee against facilities of corruption, would 
 determine the choice of a judge, and, taken in 
 connexion with personal qualities, would tend 
 to limit the choice to probably a very few 
 persons in practice. The supposition that 
 judicature will always be provided for is 
 carried through all the Books of the Law (see 
 Ex. xxi. 6, xxii. pass.; Lev. xix. 15; Num. 
 xxxv. 24; Deut. i. 16, xvi. 18, xxv. 1). And 
 all that we know of the facts of later history 
 confirms the supposition. The Hebrews were 
 sensitive as regards the administration of justice ; 
 nor is the free spirit of their early common- 
 wealth in anything more manifest than in the 
 resentment which followed the venal or partial 
 judge. The fact that justice reposed on a 
 popular basis of administration largely con- 
 
 | tributed to keep up this spirit of independence, 
 
 which is the ultimate check on all perversions 
 of the tribunal. The popular aristocracy ἢ of 
 
 b This term is used for want of a better; but as 
 regards privileges of race, the tribe of Levi and house 
 of Aaron were the only aristocracy, and these, by their 
 
 In this spirit speaks Ps. — 
 
JUDGES 
 
 heads of tribes, sections of tribes, or families, is 
 found to fall into two main orders of varying 
 nomenclature, and rose from the capite censi, or 
 mere citizens, upwards. The more common 
 name for the higher order is “ princes,” and for 
 the lower, “elders” (Judg. viii. 14; Ex. ii. 
 14; Job xxix. 7-9; Ezra x. 8). These orders 
 were the popular element of judicature. On 
 the other hand, the Levitical body was imbued 
 with a keen sense of allegiance to God as the 
 Author of Law, and to the Covenant as His 
 embodiment of it, and soon gained whatever 
 forensic experience and erudition those simple 
 times could yield; hence they brought to the 
 judicial task the legal acumen and sense of 
 general principles which complemented the 
 ruder lay element. Thus the Hebrews really 
 enjoyed much of the virtue of a system which 
 allots separate provinces to judge and jury, 
 although we cannot trace any such line of 
 separation in their functions, save in so far 
 as has been indicated above. To return to the 
 first or popular branch, there is reason to think, 
 from the general concurrence of phraseology 
 amidst much diversity, that in every city these 
 two ranks of “princes” and “elders”* had 
 their analogies, and that a variable number of 
 heads of families and groups of families, in two 
 ranks, were popularly recognised, whether with 
 or without any form of election, as charged 
 with the duty of administering justice. Suc- 
 coth* (Judg. viii. 14) may be taken as an 
 example. Evidently the ex-officio judges of 
 Moses’ choice would have left their successors 
 when the tribe of Gad, to which Succoth per- 
 tained (Josh. xiii. 27), settled in its territory 
 and towns: and what would be more simple 
 
 privation as regards holding land, were an aristocracy 
 very unlike what has usually gone by that name. 
 
 e A number of words—e.g. NY), Ἢ, TI9, and 
 “ἧς τ a7 
 (especially in the Book of Job) 3 '43—are sometimes 
 τὸ if 
 
 rendered ‘‘ prince” in the A. V.: the first most nearly 
 
 uniformly so, which seems designative of the passive 
 
 eminence of high birth or position; the next, “), 
 T 
 
 -expresses active and official authority. Yet as the 
 
 Nt’) was most likely, nay, in the earlier annals, 
 wie . 
 certain, to be the “᾽, we must be careful of excluding 
 
 = 
 
 from the person called by the one title the qualities 
 
 denoted by the other. Of the two remaining terms, 
 
 374}, expressing princely qualities, approaches most 
 tie 
 
 nearly to S93, and “1522, expressing prominence of 
 “TT ΓΝ ἡ 
 station, to “). 
 
 ἢ καὶ 
 
 ἃ The princes and elders here were together 77. The 
 subordination in numbers, of which Ten is the base of 
 Ex. xviii. and Deut. i. 16, strongly suggests that 70 + 7 
 were the actual components; although they are spoken 
 of rather as regards functions of ruling generally than 
 of judging specially, yet we need not separate the two, 
 as is clear from Deut.i.16. Such division of labour 
 assuredly found little place in primitive times. No 
 doubt these men presided ‘‘in the gate.” The number 
 of Jacob’s family (with which Succoth was traditionally 
 connected, Gen. xxxiii. 17) having been 70 on their 
 coming down into Egypt (Gen. xlvi. 27), may have been 
 the cause of this number being that of the ‘‘ elders” 
 of that place, besides the sacred character of the 
 facter 7. See also Ex. xxiv. 9. On the other hand, at 
 Ramah about 30 persons occupied a similar place in 
 popular esteem (1 Sam. ix. 22: see also v. 13 and 
 vii. 17.) 
 
 BIBLE DICT.—VOL. I. 
 
 JUDGES 1841 
 
 than that the whole number of judges in that 
 tribe should be allotted to its towns in pro- 
 portion to their size? As such judges were 
 mostly the headmen by genealogy, they would 
 fall into their natural places, and symmetry 
 would be preserved. The Levites also were 
 apportioned on the whole equally among the 
 tribes; and if they preserved their limits, there 
 were probably few parts of Palestine beyond a 
 day’s journey from a Levitical city. 
 
 One great hold which the priesthood had, in 
 their jurisdiction, upon men’s ordinary life was 
 the custody in the Sanctuary of the standard 
 weights and measures, to which, in cases of 
 dispute, reference was doubtless made. It is, 
 however, reasonable to suppose that in most 
 towns sufficiently exact models of them for all 
 ordinary questions would be kept, since to refer 
 to the Sanctuary at Shiloh, Jerusalem, &c., in 
 every case of dispute between dealers, would be 
 nugatory (Ex. xxx. 13; Num. iii. 47; Ezek. 
 xlv. 12), Above all these, the high-priest in 
 the ante-regal period was the resort in difficult 
 cases (Deut. xvii. 12), as the chief jurist of the 
 nation, and who would in case of need be perhaps 
 oracularly directed; yet we hear of none acting 
 as judge save Eli:® nor is any judicial act re- 
 corded of him; though perhaps his not re- 
 straining his sons is meant to be noticed as a 
 failure in his judicial duties. Now the judicial 
 authority of any such supreme tribunal must 
 have wholly lapsed at the time of the events 
 recorded in Judg. xix. It is also a fact of 
 some weight, negatively, that none of the 
 special deliverers called Judges was of priestly 
 lineage, or even became as much noted as 
 Deborah, a woman. This seems to show that 
 any central action of the high-priest on national 
 unity was null; and of this supremacy, had it 
 existed in force, the judicial prerogative was 
 the main element. Difficult cases would in- 
 clude cases of appeal, and we may presume 
 that, save so far as the authority of those 
 special deliverers made itself felt, there was no 
 judge in the last resort from Joshua to Samuel. 
 Indeed the current phrase of those deliverers 
 that they “ judged” Israel during their term, 
 shows which branch of their authority was most 
 in request, and the demand of the people for a 
 king was, in the first instance, that he might 
 “judge them,” rather than that he might 
 “fioht their battles” (1 Sam. viii. 5, 20). 
 
 The special Judges enumerated are fifteen in 
 number: 1. Othniel; 2. Ehud; 3. Shamgar ; 
 4, Deborah and Barak; 5. Gideon; 6. Abime- 
 lech ; 7. Tola; 8. Jair; 9. Jephthah; 10. Ibzan; 
 11. Elon; 12. Abdon; 13. Samson; 14. Eli; 
 15. Samuel. Their history is related under 
 their separate names. 
 
 e The remark in the margin of the A. V. on 1 Sam. 
 iv. 18 seems improper. It is as follows: ‘* He seems to 
 have been a judge to do justice only, and that in South- 
 west Israel.” When it was inserted (1661), the function 
 of the high-priest, as mentioned above, would seem to 
 have been overlooked. That function was certainly de- 
 signed to be general, not partial; though probably, as 
 hinted above, its execution was inadequate. 
 
 f It ought not to be forgotten that in some cases of 
 “blood”? the “congregation” themselves were to 
 “judge” (Num. xxxv. 24), and that the appeal of 
 Judg. xx. 4-7 was thus in the regular course of con- 
 stitutional law. 
 
 6B 
 
1842 JUDGES 
 
 [It is difficult to define accurately the station 
 and office of these “ special deliverers,” chiefly 
 because the intimations respecting their exploits 
 and government are not always clear. There 
 had not arisen a second legislator such as 
 Moses, nor a second leader such as Joshua, to 
 instruct and guide the people, and the period 
 proper of the Judges presents rather a reversion 
 to patriarchal and tribal government than a 
 continuation of the form of constitution pre- 
 ceding it. In Judg. ii. 11, &., the rationale of 
 their existence, their being raised up or appoint- 
 ment by the Lord in times of oppression, His 
 Presence with them, their special commission to 
 save His rebellious people time after time “ out 
 of the hand of them that spoiled them,” is given 
 in broad details, but is not applicable to all 
 Judges without distinction (¢.g. Eli and Samuel 
 were not military Judges). In general, their 
 appointment varied with the exigencies of the 
 times, and was in conformity with the choice of 
 the people, though the direct Divine appoint- 
 ments of Gideon and Samson were notable ex- 
 ceptions to the rule. Noble and magnanimous 
 men whose patriotism was inspired by religious 
 dependence upon God, however imperfect, and 
 by a desire to help their fellow-countrymen 
 rather than enrich themselves, they were not, 
 and are not represented as, perfect men. They 
 are the children of their age, and exhibit both 
 its good and its bad points. 
 
 The chronology of their respective terms 
 of office and of the period generally is beset 
 with difficulties which are now recognised as 
 insuperable. How are the blanks to be filled 
 up? What value is to be attached to the 
 frequent recurrence of round numbers (e.g. 40 
 years)? Were any of the Judges contempora- 
 neous and ruling over separate districts? These 
 are questions which have met with various 
 answers, satisfactory only to those who must at 
 all hazards find a solution. According to the 
 chronology of the Book of Judges itself, the 
 period of the Judges between Othniel and Sam- 
 son was 410 years,—a total too high to be con- 
 sistent with the period embraced in the 480 
 years of 1 K. vi. 1 or the 450 years of Acts xiii. 
 20. <A table has been printed in Kitto’s Hneycl. 
 of Bibl. Lit.3, 5. τι. “ Judges,” which gives the 
 conjecture, and systems of Josephus, Eusebius, 
 Ussher, Jackson, Russell, &c.; but the conviction 
 remains that “an exact chronology of the period is 
 unattainable” (Driver, ZOT. p. 152; cp. Budde, 
 Die BB. Richter u. Samuel, p. 135, 5. v.).—F.] 
 
 The judicial function of the priesthood, being, 
 itmay be presumed, in abeyance during the period 
 of the Judges, seems to have been merged in 
 the monarchy. The kingdom of Saul suffered too 
 severely from external foes to allow civil matters 
 much prominence. Hence of his only two re- 
 corded judicial acts, one (1 Sam. xi. 13) was the 
 mere remission of a penalty popularly demanded; 
 the other the pronouncing of a sentence (ib. xiv. 
 44, 45), which, if it was sincerely intended, was 
 overruled in turn by the right sense of the 
 people. In David’s reign it was evidently the 
 rule for the king to hear causes in person, and 
 not merely be passively, or even by deputy 
 (though this might also be included), the 
 
 & See 2 Sam. xv. 3, where the text( A. V. and R. V.) 
 gives probably a better rendering than the margin (A. V.) 
 
 JUDGES 
 
 “fountain of justice” to his people. For this 
 
 purpose perhaps it was prospectively ordained — 
 
 that the king should “ write him a copy of the 
 
 law,” and “read therein all the days of his life” _ 
 
 (Deut. xvii. 18, 19). The same class of cases 
 which were reserved for Moses would probably 
 fall to his lot; and the high-priest was of course 
 ready to assist the monarch. This is further 
 presumable from the fact that no officer ana- 
 logous to a chief justice ever appears under the 
 kings. It has been supposed that the subjection 
 of all Israel to David’s sway caused an influx of 
 such cases, and that advantage was artfully 
 taken of this by Absalom (2 Sam. xv. 1-4); but 
 the rate at which cases were disposed of can 
 hardly have been slower among the ten tribes 
 after David had become their king, than it was 
 during the previous anarchy. It is more prob- 
 able that during David’s uniformly successful 
 wars wealth and population increased rapidly, 
 and civil cases multiplied faster than the king, 
 occupied with war, could attend to them, 
 especially when the summary process customary 
 in the East is considered. Perhaps the arrange- 
 ments, mentioned in 1 Ch. xxiii. 4, xxvi. 29 (cp. 
 v. 32, “rulers” probably including judges) of 
 the 6000 Levites acting as “officers and judges,” 
 and amongst them especially “Chenaniah and 
 his sons,” with others for the trans-Jordanic 
 tribes, may have been made to meet the need of 
 suitors. In Solomon’s character, whose reign of 
 peace would surely be fertile in civil questions, 
 the “wisdom to judge” was the fitting first 
 quality (1 K. iii. 9; cp. Ps. Ixxii. 1-4). As a 
 judge Solomon shines “in all his glory” (1 K. 
 iii. 16, &c.). No criminal was too powerful for 
 his justice, as some had been for his father’s 
 (2 Sam. iii. 39; 1 Κι ii. 5, 6, 33, 34), The 
 examples of direct royal exercise of judicial 
 authority are 2 Sam. i. 15, iv. 9-12, where sex- 
 tence is summarily executed," and the supposed 
 case of 2 Sam. xiv. 1-21. The denunciation of 
 2 Sam. xii. 5, 6, is, though not formally 
 judicial, yet in the same spirit. Solomon 
 similarly proceeded in the cases of Joab and 
 Shimei (1 K. ii. 34, 46; cp. 2 K. xiv. 5,6). It 
 
 is likely that royalty in Israel was ultimately | 
 
 unfavourable to the local independence connected 
 with the judicature of the “princes” and 
 “elders” in the territory and cities of each 
 tribe. The tendency of the monarchy was 
 doubtless to centralise, and we read of large 
 numbers of king’s officers appointed to this and 
 cognate duties (1 Ch. xxiii. 4, xxvi. 29-32), If 
 the general machinery of justice had been, as is 
 reasonable to think, deranged or retarded during 
 a period of anarchy, the Levites afforded the 
 fittest materials for its reconstitution.’ Being 
 
 h The cases of Amnon and Absalom, in which no 
 notice was taken of either crime, though set down by 
 Michaelis (Laws of Moses, bk. i. art. x.) as instances of 
 justice forborne through politic consideration of the 
 criminal’s power, seem rather to be examples of mere 
 weakness, either of government or of personal character, 
 in David. His own criminality with Bathsheba it is 
 superfluous to argue, since the matter was by Divine 
 interference removed from the cognizance of human 
 law. 
 
 i From Num. iv. 3, 23, 30, it would seem that 
 after 50 years of age the Levites were excused from 
 the service of the Tabernacle. This was perhaps a 
 
 ᾿ 
 ~ 
 i 
 ; 
 
JUDGES 
 
 to some extent detached, both locally, and by 
 special duties, exemptions, &c., from the mass 
 of the population, they were more easily brought 
 to the steady routine which justice requires, 
 and, what is no less important, were, in case of 
 neglect of duty, more at the mercy of the king 
 (as shown in the case of the priests at Nob, 
 1 Sam. xxii. 17). Hence it is probable that the 
 Levites generally superseded the local elders in 
 the administration of justice. But subsequently, 
 when the Levites withdrew from the kingdom 
 of the ten tribes, judicial elders probably again 
 filled the gap. Thus they conducted the mock 
 trial of Naboth (1 K. xxi. 8-13). There is in 
 2 Ch. xix. 5, &c., a special notice of a reappoint- 
 ment of judges by Jehoshaphat and of a distinct 
 court, of appeal perhaps, at Jerusalem, com- 
 posed of Levitical and of lay elements. In the 
 same place (as also in a previous one, 1 Ch. xxvi. 
 32) occurs a mention of “the king’s matters ” 
 as a’branch of jurisprudence. The rights of 
 the prerogative having a constant tendency to 
 encroach, and needing continual regulation, these 
 may have grown probably into a department, 
 somewhat like our Exchequer. 
 
 One more change is noticeable in the pre-Baby- 
 lonian period. The “ princes” constantly appear 
 as a powerful political body, increasing in in- 
 fluence and privileges, and having a fixed centre 
 of action at Jerusalem; till, in the reign of 
 
 _ Zedekiah, they seem to exercise some of the 
 
 duties of a privy council; and especially a 
 collective jurisdiction (2 Ch. xxviii. 21; Jer. 
 xxvi. 10, 16). These “princes” are probably 
 the heads of great houses* in Judah and Ben- 
 jamin, whose fathers had once been the pillars 
 of local jurisdiction; but who, through the 
 attractions of a court, and probably also under 
 the constant alarm of hostile invasion, became 
 
 gradually residents in the capital, and formed 
 
 an oligarchy, which drew to itself, amidst the 
 growing weakness of the latter monarchy, what- 
 ever vigour was left in the state, and encroached 
 on the sovereign attribute of justice. The 
 employment in offices of trust and emolument 
 would tend also in the same way, and such chief 
 families would probably monopolise such em- 
 ployment. Hence the constant burden of the 
 prophetic strain, denouncing the neglect, the 
 perversion, the corruption, of judicial function- 
 aries (Is. i. 17, 21, v. 7, x. 2, xxviii. 7, lvi. 1, 
 jix. 4; Jer. ii. 8, v. 1, vii. 5, xxi. 12; Ezek. xxii. 
 27, xlv. 8, 9; Hos. v. 10, vii. 5, 7; Amos v. 7, 
 15, 24, vi. 12; Hab. i. 4, &.). Still, although 
 far changed from its broad and simple basis in 
 the earlier period, the administration of justica 
 had little resembling the set and rigid system 
 of the Sanhedrin of later times.! [See SaNHE- 
 
 provision meant to favour their useftlness in deciding 
 on points of law, since the maturity of a judge has 
 hardly begun at that age, and before it they would have 
 been junior to their lay coadjutors. 
 
 k That some of the heads of such. houses, however, re- 
 tained their proper sphere, seems clear from Jer. xxvi. 
 17, where “ elders of the land’”’ address an ‘‘ assembly of 
 the people.” Still, the occasion is not judicial. 
 
 1The Sanhedrin is, by a school of Judaism once 
 
 more prevalent than now, attempted to be based on 
 
 the 70 elders of Num. xi. 16, and to be traced through 
 the 0. T. history. Those 70 were chosen when judi- 
 cature had been already provided for (Ex. xviii. 25), 
 
 —eEEEE——EEEeEE_ EE Κὕυπππττ τὐττν δ 
 ee 
 
 JUDGES 1843 
 
 DRIM.|] ‘THis last change arose from the fact 
 that the patriarchal seniority, degenerate and 
 corrupted as. it became before the Captivity, 
 was by that event broken up, and a new basis of 
 judicature had to be sought for. 
 
 With regard to the forms of procedure little 
 more is known than may be gathered from the 
 two examples, Ruth iv. 2, of a civil, and 1 K. 
 xxi. 8-14, of a criminal character ;™ to which, 
 as a specimen of royal summary jurisdiction, 
 may be added the well-known “ judgment” of 
 Solomon. Boaz apparently empanels as it were 
 the first ten “elders” whom he meets “in the 
 gate,” the well-known site of the Oriental court, 
 and cites the other party by “Ho, such an one;” 
 and the people appear to be invoked as attesting 
 the legality of the proceeding. The whole 
 affair bears an extemporaneous aspect, which 
 may, however, be merely the result of the 
 terseness of the narrative. In Job ix. 19, we 
 have a wish expressed that a “time to plead” 
 might be “set” (cp. the phrase of Roman law, 
 diem dicere). In the case of the involuntary 
 homicide seeking the city of refuge, he was to 
 make out his case to the satisfaction of its 
 elders (Josh. xx. 4); and this failing, or the 
 congregation deciding against his claim to sane- 
 tuary there (though how its sense was to be 
 taken does not appear), he was not put to death 
 by act of public justice, but left to the “avenger 
 of blood” (Deut. xix. 12), The expressions 
 between “ blood and blood,” between “plea and 
 plea” (Deut. xvii. 8), indicate a presumption 
 of legal intricacy arising, the latter expression 
 seeming to imply something like what we call a 
 “ cross-suit.” We may infer from the scantiness, 
 or rather almost entire absence of direction as 
 regards forms of procedure, that the legislato 
 was content to leave them to be provided for as 
 the necessity for them arose, it being impossible 
 by any jurisprudential devices to anticipate 
 chicane. It is an interesting question how far 
 judges were allowed to receive fees of suitors ; 
 Michaelis reasonably presumes that none were 
 allowed or customary, and it seems, from the 
 ‘words of 1 Sam. xii. 3, that such transactions 
 would have been regarded as corrupt. There is 
 another question how far advocates were usual. 
 There is no reason to think that until the period 
 of Greek influence, when we meet with words 
 based on συνήγορος and παράκλητος, any pro- 
 fessed class of pleaders existed. Yet passages 
 abound in which the pleading of the cause of 
 those who are unable to plead their own, is 
 spoken of as, what it indeed was, a noble act of 
 charity ; and the expression has even (which 
 shows the popularity of the practice) become a 
 basis of figurative allusion (Job xvi. 21; Prov. 
 xxil., 28, xxiil. 11; xxx. 9.5 Τβ, ἢ ἘΣ ΟΝ 
 yxx. 13, 1. 34, li. 36). The blessedness of 
 such acts is forcibly dwelt upon in Job xxix. 
 12, 13. 
 
 There is no mention of any distinctive dress 
 or badge as pertaining to the judicial officer. A 
 staff or sceptre was the common badge of a 
 
 and their office was to assist Moses in the duty of 
 governing. But no influence of any such body is 
 traceable in later times at any crisis of history. They 
 seem in fact to have left no successors. 
 m The example of Susannah and the elders is the 
 suspicious an authority to be cited. 
 6 B2 
 
1844 JUDGES, BOOK OF 
 
 ruler or prince, and this perhaps they bore 
 (Is. xiv. 5; Amos i. 5, 8). They would perhaps, 
 when officiating, be more than usually careful 
 to comply with the regulations about dress Jaid 
 down in Num. xv. 38, 39; Deut. xxii. 12. The 
 use of the “white asses” (Judg. v. 10), by 
 those who “sit in judgment,” was perhaps a 
 convenient distinctive mark for them when 
 journeying where they would not usually be 
 personally known. [Η. H.] 
 
 JUDGES, BOOK OF (O°DSW; Kpiral; 
 Ἢ τῶν κριμάτων βίβλος, Philo, de Conf. Ling. 
 26, ed. Mang. i. 424; Liber Judicum). 
 
 I. ContENTS.—The part of the history of 
 Israel contained in this Book is of the highest 
 importance. Following on the conquest of 
 Canaan and the settlement of the tribes under 
 Joshua, it describes a transition period, in which 
 disorders, calamities, and want of union led to a 
 growing desire for a new form of government 
 promising greater unity and strength, which 
 ended in the institution of the monarchy. And, 
 apart from the lessons which it is intended to 
 teach, the narrative possesses a deep interest. 
 Owing to the character of the times, our atten- 
 tion is drawn to the part played by individual 
 rulers, of whom the greater number are pre- 
 sented to us with a distinctness, vigour, and 
 freshness not surpassed elsewhere in Scrip- 
 ture. 
 
 The Book derives its name from the Judges 
 whose history forms the greater part of it. 
 These were temporary leaders, neither inheriting 
 their office nor transmitting it. In some cases 
 —e.g. Jair, Ibzan, Elon, Abdon—they seem to have 
 only exercised the peaceful office which their 
 name implies. At least no deliverance of the 
 people is attributed to them. And in this they 
 were like Deborah, the prophetess, in the earlier 
 part of her history (iv. 4), and Eli, and Samuel’s 
 sons (1 Sam. viii. 1). But the more prominent 
 were leaders in war, retaining in the time of 
 peace the authority they had earned. For this 
 reason they are called Saviours (Neh. ix. 27: ep. 
 Judg. iii. 9), who delivered, or rather saved, the 
 children of Israel (ii. 16, 183 iii. 315 x. 1). 
 This combination of offices had been seen in 
 Moses and Joshua (ep. 2 K. xv. 5). The root of 
 their Hebrew name, Shop/et, is found in Assyrian 
 [MV."] and Phoenician, The title of Suffetes, 
 which the Carthaginians gave to their chief 
 magistrates, is well known from the Latin 
 writers (Festus—“Sufes quod velut consulare 
 imperium-apud eos est;” cp. Liv. xxviii. 37), 
 and is often found in inscriptions. But there 
 is no reason for thinking that the name any 
 more than the thing was borrowed on either 
 side. The history of six of these Judges is given 
 at more or less length, viz. Othniel, Ehud, 
 Deborah (with Barak), Gideon, Jephthah, and 
 Samson. Six others—Shamgar, Tola, Jair, Ibzan, 
 Elon, and Abdon—are noticed very briefly. It 
 has been thought that this number has been 
 purposely adopted. But the fact of their being 
 twelve is not brought forward prominently, as 
 we might expect, if an arbitrary number had 
 been chosen for reasons of symmetry. Eli and 
 Samuel judged Israel (1 Sam. iv. 18; vii. 6, 
 15, 17: ep. viii. 1-2), but their close con- 
 nexion with each other, and Samuel’s relation 
 to the kingdom of Israel, are enough to explain 
 
 JUDGES, BOOK OF 
 
 their not being included in this Book. Again 
 Jael (v. 6) is often supposed to be distinct from 
 the wife of Heber, and to have been a judge 
 otherwise unknown to us, as well as Bedan 
 (1 Sam. xii. 11). But it is at least possible that 
 the two Jaels are the same person, and Bedan 
 
 has been variously identified with Samson, — 
 
 Barak, and Abdon. If these or others have 
 
 been omitted from this Book, the reason would — 
 
 seem to be a want of records relating to 
 them. 
 
 The chief divisions are clearly marked: A, i.— 
 iii. 6; B, iii. 7—xvi. (al. A =i. 1-ii. 5; B =i. 
 6-xvi.]; C, xvii-xxi. This is true also of the 
 minor ones. 
 
 A, i.-iii. 6. This is an introduction consisting — 
 
 of two parts, i—ii. 5 and ii. 6-iii. 6. The first 
 of these contains an account of the sequel of 
 the conquest of Canaan in continuation of the 
 Book of Joshua, the cases in which the people 
 of the land retained their possessions, and the 
 rebuke which Israel received from an Angel (or 
 messenger) of the Lord who went up from 
 Gilgal to Bochim. After the death of Joshua, 
 in answer to the inquiry of the Israelites, Judah 
 is directed by the Lord to go up first against the 
 Canaanites. His victories, with the help of 
 Simeon, including the special exploits of Caleb, 
 are related in i. 3-20. But his failure in ex- 
 pelling the inhabitants of the valley (v. 19) is 
 followed by the similar case of Benjamin in 
 reference to the Jebusites of Jerusalem (v. 21). 
 One conquest of the house of Joseph is then 
 described, that of Bethel (vv. 22-26), which is 
 followed by the omissions of Manasseh, Ephraim, 
 Zebulun, Asher, Naphtali, and Dan (vv. 27-36). 
 Thus Issachar alone is not mentioned in this 
 group. Levi also is not named anywhere. The 
 rebuke of the Angel and weeping of the people 
 are found in ii. 1-5. In this part there is a 
 close indirect connexion with the Book of 
 Joshua, the statements of which are presup- 
 posed throughout. 
 
 There are some difficulties in this account. 
 There is a repetition, with a difference, in i. 10, 
 20; and there are statements in which some 
 inconsistency lies on the surface (cp. i. 8, 21; 
 i. 18, 19, iii. 3). The explanation of it lies in the 
 brevity of the narrative. And while all the 
 events are placed after the death of Joshua (i. 1), 
 some occur in earlier Books (cp. i. 17 with Num. 
 xxi. 8, Josh. xii. 14, xix. 4; 1. 20, 10-15 with 
 Josh. xv. 13-19; i. 27-28 with Josh. xvii. 
 11-13; i. 29 with Josh. xvi. 10). 
 
 The second part of the Introduction (ii. 6—iii. 
 6) begins by going back as far as the last days 
 of Joshua (ii. 6-10), being almost entirely a 
 verbatim repetition of Josh. xxiv. 28-31. It 
 forms a direct connexion of Judges with Joshua. 
 But here, too, we must distinguish two parts (ii. 
 11-19 and 20-iii. 6). In the former of these we 
 are told that Israel continued to serve the Lord 
 all the days of Joshua and the elders which 
 outlived him, but that the new generation for- 
 sook the Lord and followed other gods; that His 
 anger was hot against them, and He delivered 
 them into the hand of spoilers; nevertheless He 
 raised up Judges which delivered them, for it 
 repented Him because of their groanings; but 
 when the Judge was dead, they corrupted them- 
 selves more than their fathers. Here we have a 
 general view of the following history and the 
 
ss a τον 
 
 JUDGES, BOOK OF 
 
 key to it. And this stands in close connexion 
 with the so-called ‘ framework,” which unites 
 the greater part of the separate histories of the 
 Judges, and runs through the whole of that part 
 of the Book which is devoted to them. Not 
 only does the same mode of regarding the 
 history occur in it, but the same language. 
 
 The rest of this section (ii. 20-iii. 6) dwells 
 upon the effect of the presence of the remnant 
 of the seven nations and the Philistines ; repeats 
 the determination of the Lord not to drive them 
 out, already found in ii. 1-6; and adds other 
 reasons—the purpose of proving Israel (ii. 22-iii. 
 1, 4), and of teaching them war (iii. 2). Thus the 
 Introduction is double, the first part being 
 chiefly historical, and the second didactic, but 
 each in its own way making a fitting preparation 
 for what follows. 
 
 B, iii. 7-xvi. contains the histories of the 
 several Judges. The more important of these 
 have the same form. They contain an account 
 of the idolatry of Israel, its punishment by 
 means of a foreign oppressor for a certain num- 
 ber of years, the deliverance by a Judge, and 
 the length of time during which the land had 
 rest. ‘This is not the case with those of whom 
 there is only a short notice. Besides the length 
 of the time during which they exercised their 
 office, little is recorded beyond what was of 
 personal interest, including the place of their 
 burial. Shamgar stands by himself for the 
 scantiness of information. 
 
 The subdivisions are—(1) The oppression of 
 Israel by Cushan Rishathaim, and the deliver- 
 ance by Othniel, of the tribe of Judah (iii. 7-11). 
 (2) The oppression by Eglon, king of Moab, and 
 the deliverance by Ehud (Benjamin), iii. 12-30. 
 (3) Shamgar’s deliverance from the Philistines 
 (iii. 31); his tribe is not stated. (4) The oppres- 
 sion by Jabin, king of Canaan, and the deliver- 
 ance by Deborah (Ephraim?) and Barak (Naph- 
 tali), iv.; Deborah’sSong, v. (5) The oppression 
 
 by Midian and deliverance by Gideon (Manassech),. 
 
 vi.—viii.; the history of Abimelech, ix. (6) 
 Tola (Issachar), x. 1,2. (7) Jair the Gileadite 
 (Manasseh), x. 3-5. (8) The oppression by 
 Ammon, and the deliverance by Jephthah the 
 Gileadite (Manasseh), x. 6-xii.7. (9) Ibzan 
 (Zebulun, cp. Josh. xix. 15, or Judah), xii. 8-10. 
 (10) Elon (Zebulun), xii. 11,12. (11) Abdon 
 (Ephraim), xii. 13-15. (12) The oppression by 
 the Philistines, and the history of Samson (Dan), 
 xiii.—xvi. 
 
 C, xvii.—xxiq This part is commonly called an 
 Appendix. The time to which it belongs is 
 marked as that of the Judges, though they are 
 not mentioned in it, by being described as “the 
 days when there was no king in Israel” (xvii. 
 6; xviii. 1; xix. 1; xxi. 25). It consists of 
 two histories. The first of these (xvii.—xviii.) 
 narrates the conquest of Laish by a part of the 
 tribe of Dan, and the transference thither of 
 the idolatrous worship of Jehovah, instituted in 
 Mount Ephraim by Micah, under the charge of 
 Jonathan, the grandson of Moses. The name of 
 Manasseh, the same as that of the idolatrous 
 king of Judah, has been introduced into the 
 text to sdve the honour of Moses. But the 
 
 . memory of the substitution is preserved in many 
 
 MSS. and editions by writing the letter which 
 makes the change above the level of the rest— 
 nun suspensum. 
 
 JUDGES, BOOK OF 1845 
 
 The second (xix.—xxi.) describes the almost 
 total destruction of the tribe of Benjamin by 
 the united people of Israel, in consequence of 
 their supporting the cause of the wicked men of 
 Gibeah, and the means adopted for preventing 
 its completion. Both narratives belong to the 
 early part of the period. The mention of the 
 grandson of Moses in one case, and of Phinehas, 
 Aaron’s grandson, in the other, mark the date in 
 some degree; as well as the unanimity still 
 existing in the people, which was shown in the 
 punishment of Gibeah. Josephus therefore 
 gives the events a place at the beginning of his 
 account of the Judges. 
 
 11. AuTHORsHIP.—The authorship of the 
 Book is ascribed in the Talmud to Samuel 
 (“Scripsit librum suum et Judices et Rutham,” 
 Baba Bathra, xiv. 2); but of this there is no 
 proof. We can say for certain that the whole 
 Book, as it stands, is later than the setting up 
 of the kingdom (ep. xvii. 6, &c.); but we cannot 
 go safely beyond this. Keil and Cassel fix the 
 time of its composition to the reign of Saul. 
 Bleek ascribes it to the Jehovist in the reign of 
 David, except ii. 6-23, which he thinks much 
 later. Stade and Budde find more or less 
 ample traces of J and E in the central .portion 
 of the Book; Kuenen and Kittel dissent. 
 Ewald conceives that it forms the first part of 
 an historical work reaching to the end of 
 2 Kings, and that the final arrangement of the 
 whole must have been after the 37th year of 
 Jehoiachin’s captivity, or B.c. 562 (see 2 K. 
 xxv. 27). This view is founded on the similarity 
 of the way in which the history is regarded 
 (cp. Judg. ii. 11-19 with 2 K. xvii. 7-23); but 
 this is not conclusive. Bertheau brings it as 
 late as Ezra, whom he is inclined to regard as 
 the author; but this is not confirmed by any 
 reference in it to the Babylonian Captivity, or 
 any later event. 
 
 The inquiry as to the age of the separate 
 parts is a distinct one. It undoubtedly contains 
 some contemporary monuments, such as the 
 Song of Deborah and Jotham’s parable. But 
 there are also many parts having so distinct a 
 character in their language, containing many 
 words not found elsewhere, and so peculiar in 
 style, that there can be little doubt about their 
 having been incorporated as they came to the 
 author’s hand. This point requires more par- 
 ticular notice. In the Introduction, ch. i. seems 
 to be a document older than David. Verse 21 
 witnesses to the same state of things as xviii. 28, 
 with which compare 2 Sam. v. 6-9. Nor & 
 there any reason for referring i. 28, 30, 33, 35 
 to a time so Jate as Solomon’s (ep. 1 K. ix. 21). 
 The question arises, how are we to explain i. 20, 
 10-15, 21, 27-28, 29, which are found with 
 some differences in Josh. xv. 13-19, 63, xvii. 
 11-12, xvi. 10? Some change the name of 
 Joshua (i. 1) to that of Moses. But this makes 
 ch. i. a history of the conquest of Canaan with- 
 out any mention of Joshua. It seems more 
 likely that the passages in Joshua are anticipa- 
 tory, and borrowed at some time from Judges, 
 or from a common source. That Judges has 
 not taken them from Joshua seems to be shown 
 by the fact that the list of the tribes which did 
 not drive out the people of the land is more 
 complete in the former than in the latter. The 
 case is different with ii. 6-10 and Josh. xxiv. 
 
1846 JUDGES, BOOK OF 
 
 28-31. The new history begins with a repeti- 
 tion of the ending of the old. The relation of 
 Ezra i. 1-3 to 2 Ch. xxxvi. 22, 23 is analogous. 
 
 In the main portion of the Book (iii. 7—xvi.) 
 the account of Ehud clearly comes from near the 
 time of the events, both on account of the whole 
 look of the narrative and the obscure words 
 found in iii, 22, 23. The Song of Deborah is 
 undoubtedly contemporary with the victory it 
 celebrates. But ch.iv. is no mere echo of ch. v., 
 and must have been associated with it in early 
 times. While it passes over much which is found 
 in the Song, it tells us of the relations between 
 Sisera and Jabin, and Deborah and Barak, and 
 explains how Sisera came to flee to Jael’s tent. 
 The history of Gideon again stands out dis- 
 tinctly as derived from early sources; and it 
 reads as one whole, throughout which runs the 
 modesty and distrust of self which was com- 
 bined with his other high qualities, though it 
 has been attempted to trace the union of the 
 original narrative with another containing the 
 miraculous elements. The reality of the main 
 facts is guaranteed by Is. ix. 4, x. 26. The ac- 
 count of Abimelech in ch. ix. is an original and 
 early document, marked by the uniform use of the 
 name Jerubbaal instead of Gideon. In the same 
 way the preservation of the facts of Jephthah’s 
 history cannot be doubted. But the genuine- 
 ness of his negotiations with the Ammonites is 
 questioned on grounds of probability and on 
 account of the similarity of the passage to 
 Num. xxi. Yet to mention nothing else, xi. 24, 
 which seems at least to imply an acknowledg- 
 ment of the existence of Chemosh, has not the 
 look of an invention by a late writer. And of 
 those who maintain the legendary exaggeration 
 of the facts of Samson’s life, some at least are 
 unwilling to fix upon too late a time for the 
 adoption of the present form. As to the brief 
 histories of the Judges, we cannot be sure whether 
 the author has abridged fuller accounts of them 
 or not. 
 
 The suggestion of late origin attaches, then, 
 chiefly to the second part of the Introduction, 
 and to the kindred passages which connect the 
 longer histories. One argument is that the 
 writer speaks throughout as if Israel as a whole 
 was oppressed and delivered, while the narratives 
 show that only part of the people was affected. 
 The writer was, of course, conscious of this, 
 and designedly treated the unity of Israel 
 as existing de jure. But that feeling, which 
 was never totally absent during the disintegra- 
 tion of the nation, reappeared with strength as 
 early as Samuel’s time, and led to the establish- 
 ment of the kingdom. It is said again that the 
 language in these parts is Deuteronomic, and 
 that the peculiar mode of regarding history, in 
 which the fortunes of the nation depended on 
 the purity of its service of God, did not arise till 
 the 8th century. But, without entering on that 
 subject, may we not say, that the conception of 
 the Divine nature which Israel had at every 
 time, and without which its history is unin- 
 telligible, contained in it a belief in His jealousy 
 as well as His holiness, His power to punish and 
 His willingness to forgive? The bond which 
 unites the narratives may be of a later date 
 than their own; but how much later cannot be 
 fixed with certainty. 
 
 The histories in the third part of the Book 
 
 JUDGES, BOOK OF 
 
 (xvii.-xxi.) have no direct connexion with each — 
 other, but they are united by the common 
 reference to the times in which there was no 
 king, they are wanting in any mention of the 
 Judges, they both relate to the fortunes of a 
 Levite in connexion with a tribe of Israel 
 Their style is unusually diffuse and minute. 
 This, however, does not exclude an energetic 
 brevity in places: see xix. 30, xx. 9, xxi. 17, and 
 compare the asyndeton in xviii. 17 and xx. 43. 
 The reality of the events recorded in chs. xix.—xxi. 
 is confirmed by Hos. ix. 9, x. 9. But there is much 
 repetition, and the account goes backwards and 
 forwards, more after the manner of oral than of 
 written narrative. It is suggested that this — 
 may be accounted for by the fusion of two 
 separate descriptions of the same events, chiefly 
 distinguished by the use of the terms “ children 
 of Israel” and “men, of Israel” respectively. — 
 This is elaborately stated by Bertheau, and is not 
 improbable. And the poetical expressions which 
 occur, as well as rare words and forms, counte- 
 nance the notion that one of these documents 
 was a poem: see xix. 8, 9, 12; xx. 4, 6, 12, 34, 
 41, 38, 40, 43; xxi. 22, 24, This bears in some 
 measure on the date, for a doubling of the tra- 
 dition, it is urged, points to a high antiquity of 
 the kernel. And there are reasons for connect- 
 ing the Appendix with ch. i.: compare the pro- 
 minence of Judah (i. 2, xviii. 20), and the use of 
 peculiar expressions in i. 2, xviii. 10, 20, xx. 28 ; 
 i. 27, 35, xvii. 11, xix. 6. Still the topo- 
 graphical notices in xx. 31, xxi, 19 (mot neces- 
 sarily xxi. 12), seem added comparatively late. 
 And this perhaps is the best solution of the great 
 difficulty connected with xviii. 30. The most 
 natural explanation of “the captivity of the 
 land” refers it to the time of the Assyrians 
 (2 K. xv. 29, or xvii. 6). It is hard to suppose 
 that the going into captivity of the land was 
 involved in that of the Ark (1 Sam. iv. 11). And 
 if at that time the Philistines overran the 
 country and destroyed Shiloh, as is inferred from 
 Ps. Ixxviii. 60-64, still the people were not 
 carried away. On the other hand, the difficulty 
 of thinking that idolatry could have existed — 
 openly at Dan during the reign of the first three 
 kings is very great. To read “ark” for “land,” 
 according to Houbigant’s conjecture, requires 
 the change of only two letters in the Hebrew, 
 but it is unsupported. May it not be that the 
 words were added at some time after the cap- 
 tivity of the ten tribes by some one who con- 
 nected in spirit the later idolatry at Dan with 
 the earlier ? 
 
 These later chapters, by being placed together © 
 at the end, leave uninterrupted the central part 
 of the Book, which is mainly taken up with the 
 deliverance of Israel from foreign enemies. 
 Theodoret rightly says (Quaest. in Judic. xxvii.) 
 that this putting of the first events last was not 
 accidental. 
 
 We may speak in this connexion of the Song 
 of Deborah. The spirit which breathes through- 
 out it fixes its date. It marks, too, its author- 
 ship not only by wv. 3, 7, 9, 18, 21 (to which 
 v. 12 is no objection), but by vv. 24-30, which — 
 show the thought and feeling of a woman. 
 The best division of it, following the guidance 
 of the sense, seems the following :—I. Prelude, 
 vv. 2-3. God’s glorious help in former times, 
 vv. 4-5. The misery of the recent days, vv. 6-7 
 
τ vv. 19-22. 
 
 JUDGES, BOOK OF 
 
 The change, vv.8-11. 11, Second Prelude, v, 12. 
 The gathering of the Tribes, wv. 13-15c. The 
 defaulters, vv. 15d-18. The battle and flight, 
 III. The curse on Meroz, v. 23. 
 The blessing on Jael, v.24. Her deed, vv. 25-27. 
 The triumph over the mother and wives of 
 Sisera, vv. 28-30. Conclusion, v. 31. Another 
 more artificial division is adopted by Ewald and 
 Bertheau, consisting of a regular number of 
 strophes and subdivisions; but this symmetry is 
 gained with some sacrifice of the connexion of 
 the thought. Cassel traces a highly developed 
 and delicate alliteration. Béttcher distributes 
 the several parts among a number of dramatis 
 personae, and choruses of men and women. But 
 even the simplest arrangement gives the im- 
 pression of a cultivated state of poetry. The 
 language confirms its antiquity. It contains a 
 large number of words and senses not found 
 elsewhere, besides several rare words and forms. 
 Hence its meaning is difficult. The result of the 
 modern study of it may be seen in the rendering 
 of the Revised Version. But some uncertainty 
 still remains. The embarrassment of the ancient 
 Versions is evident. The Vulgate makes impor- 
 tant omissions in vv. 2, 29,30. The Targum of 
 Jonathan, usually a faithful representation of the 
 Hebrew, here forsakes the humbler task of trans- 
 lation, and seems impelled by enthusiasm into ex- 
 aggeration and magnifying of the Law, curiously 
 exhibiting the thought of a very different age. 
 The following passages are samples: ‘Quando 
 voluerunt filii Israel ad serviendum erroribus 
 novis, qui de proximo facti sunt, quibus non 
 studuerunt in illis patres eorum, venerunt super 
 eos gentes, et expulerunt ex urbibus eorum; et 
 cum redierunt ad faciendum legem, non prae- 
 valuerunt eis: donec fortificarentur et ascenderet 
 contra eos Zzizzara osor et tribulator in quad- 
 raginta millibus principum castrorum, in quin- 
 quaginta millibus tenentium gladios, in sexaginta 
 millibus tenentium hastas, in septuaginta milli- 
 bus tenentium clypeos, in octoginta millibus 
 sagittatorum jaculorum, praeter nongentos currus 
 ferri qui fuerunt cum eo... Dixit Deborah in 
 prophetia, Ego missa sum ad laudandos scribas 
 Israel; qui quando fuit tribulatio 1118," non 
 cessarunt ab interpretanda lege . . . Benediceris 
 a benedictione mulierum bonarum Jaghel uxor 
 Hheber Salmaei: sicut una ex mulieribus quae 
 ministrantes in domibus Scholarum benediceris. 
 Aquas petivit ab ea Zzizzara impius, lacte potavit 
 eum, ad sciendum si cogitationes super eum, in 
 phialis virorum attulit ante eum pinguedinem 
 easeorum, Bona Jaghel uxor Hheber Salmaei, 
 quae praestitit quod scriptum est in libro legis 
 Mosis; Non erit armatura viri super mulierem, 
 neque ornabitur vir ornamentis mulieris: sed 
 manum suam ad clavum tetendit, et dexteram 
 suam ad malleum.” 
 
 The historical testimony of the Song is very 
 valuable. It witnesses to the display of God’s 
 power at Sinai, and looks back to that time as a 
 glorious one. 
 felt in spite of those who to their shame have for- 
 saken the common cause; and the wars of Israel 
 are those of the Lord. Dan appears as still in 
 contact with thesea. Thereis no mention of the 
 northern settlement of the tribe, which may not 
 yet have taken place. The absence of any mention 
 of Judah, Simeon, and Levi, shows the extent 
 
 The unity of Israel is strongly’ 
 
 JUDGES, BOOK. OF 1847 
 
 ΠῚ, CuronoLoay.—The chronology is a 
 matter of disappointment. We find a number 
 of dates given with particularity, which reckoned 
 together amount to 410 years. With this the 
 450 years assigned to the period of the Judges 
 in Acts xiii. 20 agrees only if the 40 years 
 of Eli be added to the numbers in Judges. 
 This passage, however, does not come into con- 
 sideration, if the reading of the Textus Receptus 
 is given up, as is now commonly done. But 
 a difficulty is created by xi. 26, which speaks 
 of the time from the conquests of Israel on 
 the east of Jordan to the days of Jephthah as 
 300 years; and still more by 1 K. vi. 1, where 
 the whole period from the Exodus to the build- 
 ing of the Temple in the fourth year of Solomon 
 is reckoned as 480 years. Josephus holds to the 
 410 years in Judges, and arrives atthe 592 years 
 (Ant. viii. 3, 1; x. 8, 5), or 612 years (Ant. xx. 
 10), which he allows between the Exodus and the 
 building of the Temple, in a general sense only ; 
 viz., by allowing 40 years for the sojourn in the 
 wilderness, 25 for Joshua (Ant. v. 1, 29), 410 
 for the Judges, 40 for Eli, 12 for Samuel 
 (Ant. vi. 13, 5), 40 for Saul (Ant. vi. 14, 9; ep. 
 Acts xiii. 21), 403 for David=607} years. On 
 the other hand, the genuineness of 1 K. vi. 1 is 
 called in question by IKennicott (Diss. Gen. 
 80, 3) and others, but it is commonly accepted. 
 In this case the sum of the numbers in Judges 
 must be lessened. This introduces at once an 
 element of uncertainty. And several of the 
 minor periods up to the building of the Temple 
 —such as the length of the time of Joshua, the 
 interval between him and Cushan, the time of 
 Samuel and Saul—are not fixed in the Old Testa- 
 ment, the ordinary computation being grounded 
 on Josephus. Hence the different combinations 
 are conjectural, which accounts for their number 
 and variety. The length, however, commonly 
 assigned to the time of the Judges varies from 
 about 250 to 300 years. But the calculations 
 of the Bishop of Bath and Wells (ep. ‘ Introd. 
 to the Book of Judges,’ § 4, in Speaker’s Comm.), 
 based on several genealogies found in Scrip- 
 ture, diminish it to a duration of from 140 to 
 160 years. In all this uncertainty little help 
 seems obtainable from a source from which it 
 has been sought,—the inquiries into Egyptian 
 and Assyrian chronology. 
 
 IV. CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ‘l'IMEs.—It does 
 not belong to the present article to enlarge 
 on the history of the Judges, nor on their 
 separate lives and characters. But a few re- 
 marks upon points which readily suggest 
 themselves may not be out of place. The whole 
 period was one of degeneracy. The nation, 
 united in the time of Moses and Joshua by a 
 common faith and purpose, when the latter had 
 been accomplished to some extent in the incom- 
 plete conquest of Canaan, fell asunder into 
 disunion and the pursuit of separate interests. 
 No constitution had been provided by Moses. 
 The only bond which united them on the loss of 
 their great leaders was that of religion. Under 
 this influence all Israel acted together “as one 
 man” in the early part of the period (chs. xix.— 
 xxi.). But this isthe only instance. Some of the 
 tribes combined under the oppression of foreign 
 enemies, but never the whole number. Both the 
 Law and the worship of the sanctuary pass out 
 
 to which the separation of the tribes had gone. | of sight. Other recognised centres of worship 
 
1848 JUDGES, BOOK OF 
 
 appear, or are set up on private authority, as 
 by Micah in an idolatrous form, and by Gideon. 
 There is a free use of sacrifice when the occasion 
 seems to require it. But there is a complete 
 silence throughout iii. 6—xvi. about the Taber- 
 nacle, the priests, and the tribe of Levi. The 
 authorised centre had fallen into neglect and 
 powerlessness, no doubt in part by its own fault. 
 But the worship of the Tabernacle continued, 
 and at the latter part of the period reappeared 
 in something of its old importance in the days 
 of Eliand Samuel. To what this revival was 
 due, and what part Eli had taken in it, we are 
 pot told; but heand Samuel prepared the way 
 for the restoration and reforms of David’s time. 
 
 The effacement of Judah and its comrade 
 Simeon is a similar fact. In i. 2 and xx. 18 
 a certain prominence belongs to Judah. But 
 there is no trace of this later. It supplied 
 indeed the first judge, and possibly one more, 
 xii. 8; but it is not named in the Song of 
 Deborah nor elsewhere, except the passing 
 mention x. 9, and the discreditable incident 
 xy. 9-13. Perhaps the jealousy of Ephraim 
 shut it off northwards, for it is characteristic of 
 the time that that powerful tribe was not so 
 ready for action on behalf of the others, as 
 provoked by their courage which was its own 
 reproach (viii. 1-3; xii. 1-6). But the time 
 came when the tribes felt the danger of dis- 
 union. Here, too, the particular steps in the 
 national revival are not strongly marked. But 
 Israel is one again in the days of Samuel in the 
 face of the Philistine oppression, and longs for a 
 continuance of the union by having a king. 
 This time the desire is granted. Two earlier 
 attempts had failed: the first, through Gideon’s 
 loyalty to the tradition that the Lord was 
 Israel’s only king; the second, by the speedy 
 disappointment of his son Abimelech’s ambition. 
 We must remember also that we have in this 
 Book a history of wars and of a time of tur- 
 bulence and calamity. The more peaceful 
 periods are only indicated. But the Book of 
 Ruth allows us a glance into daily life and 
 domestic piety. It has a place now in the 
 Hagiographa. But it is maintained that this is 
 not its original position, and that it once 
 formed part of the Book of Judges, or stood 
 next to it, as it does in the LXX. and in our 
 Bible. But this is not certain. Still in any 
 case this is its natural place, as a third part of 
 the Appendix to the Book of Judges. 
 
 In reference to the Judges themselves, we are 
 struck by the contrast between what we expect 
 of men “raised up” by God (ii. 18; iii. 9) and 
 on whom “the Spirit of the Lord came ” (iii. 10; 
 vi. 34; xi. 295 xiii. 25; xiv. 6, 19), and parts 
 of their conduct and moral judgment. Thus 
 Ehud’s assassination of Eglon, Deborah’s ap- 
 proval of Jael’s treachery, Gideon’s sanctuary at 
 Ophrah, the terrible nature of Jephthah’s vow, 
 as well as his early mode of life and his 
 ambition, all detract from an ideal conception. 
 This is seen most of all in Samson. He is unlike 
 the other Judges in respect of his office. There 
 is no trace of his administering justice, nor did 
 he lead his countrymen in battle, in which 
 Shamgar may have resembled him. He main- 
 tained single-handed the resistance to the Philis- 
 tines. But there were other elements in his 
 
 character in addition to his sense of the work ' 
 
 JUDGES, BOOK OF 
 
 assigned him before his birth and of which his» 
 
 Nazariteship was the symbol. He showed 
 
 cunning as well as a light-heartedness that 
 
 delighted in frolic and danger. There was a 
 humour in his actions and in his speech, which 
 at times contains a play upon words and rhyme 
 (xiv. 14, 18; xv. 16). And all the occasions of 
 his conflict with the Philistines arose originally 
 out of his Jove for three women. But with all 
 this a vein of irony runs throughout his history, 
 making us feel that he is a victim of his own 
 sport, which ends tragically in his blindness and 
 death. Yet, such as he was, the space assigned 
 him in the records must agree with the impres- 
 sion which he made on his own generation. He 
 fulfilled his work, which was to “begin” the 
 deliverance of Israel (xiii. 5), by keeping before 
 men’s minds that there was one Israelite un- 
 subdued, and who employed all his resources in 
 the service of that hostility to the enemies of 
 God’s people to which he was dedicated. A call 
 to do God’s work and the gift of His help in 
 doing it do not imply now, any more than then, 
 full enlightenment and perfection. He chooses 
 His instruments out of each age, but they are 
 men of that age, and show its characteristics. 
 
 V. MobERN CRITICISM.—We may now briefly 
 notice the way in which some recent criticism 
 affects this Book. It is in part connected with 
 general views on the history of Israel and its 
 faith, which this is not the place to dis- 
 cuss. They minimize the work of Moses, 
 with whom it is assumed that trustworthy 
 history begins, and regard almost the whole of 
 the legislation found in the Pentateuch as 
 having a later date than the Babylonian exile. 
 The early history of Israel is looked on as that 
 of the slow amalgamation into one nation of 
 tribes more or less akin, the time of the Judges 
 being mainly the formative period. Even the 
 recognition of the absolute unity of God, and of 
 Jehovah as God of all the earth as well as of 
 Israel, is attributed to the work of the prophets 
 of the 8th century. Taking Wellhausen as the 
 chief exponent of these views, we will notice 
 points in the history of the Judges which he 
 presents under an unusual aspect. Ch. 1. con- 
 tains an account of the conquest of Canaan more 
 
 correct than that which is found in the Book of | 
 
 Joshua. The first of the tribes to cross the 
 Jordan were Judah, Simeon, and Levi. Their 
 attack on the Canaanites was so unsuccessful 
 that the two latter tribes were almost anni- 
 hilated and disappear from history. Judah 
 itself was so crippled that it did not recover 
 during the period of the Judges, and was forced 
 largely to incorporate the tribes of the wilder- 
 ness, the Kenite and Kenezite. The fate of 
 Simeon and Levi is the basis of Gen. xxxiv., 
 xlix, 5-7. The next and happier attempt was 
 made by Ephraim and the other tribes under the 
 leading of Joshua, though the only particular 
 event of their conquest recorded is the capture 
 of Bethel (i. 22-25). It is obvious that this 
 chapter supplies no ground for all this hypo- 
 thesis. There is no mention in it of Levi. 
 Success, not failure, is attributed to Judah and 
 Simeon. The omission of any other conquest 
 than that of Bethel is fatal. And why is 
 Joshua not named? In ch. iii, the whole 
 history of Othniel is considered to be unhis- 
 torical. Ch. v. is genuine, and v. 8 supplies a 
 
 | 
 
JUDGES, BOOK OF 
 
 correction of the high numbers assigned to the | Northern Palestine. 
 
 people of Israel in the Pentateuch; but Deborah 
 is not the author,—the speaker throughout is the 
 people of Israel: in v. 7 we should translate 
 thus, “ Until that Deborah arose.” Ch. iv. is 
 not based on original sources, but is derived 
 from ch. v. The account of Jabin, who does not 
 appear in the Song, has arisen from confounding 
 this effort of the Canaanite kings under Sisera 
 with Josh. xi. 1-15; to bring this into union 
 with the Song, Sisera is represented as captain 
 of Jabin’s host. The circumstances too of 
 Sisera’s death are misrepresented from not 
 understanding v. 25-27, Sisera was standing 
 and drinking when Jael struck him. She used 
 only one hand and one weapon: the look of a 
 second arises from the poetical parallelism. 
 There are two separate sources of the history of 
 Gideon. The first assigns him a Divine call and 
 has a supernatural colouring (vi. 1-viii. 3); in 
 the second (viii. 4-21) his real motive appears 
 in the duty of becoming an avenger of blood. 
 What is said of Jair is another form of Num. 
 xxxii, 41-2. Jephthah’s history may be de- 
 pended on, with the exception of xi. 12-28. 
 Samson’s exploits are indeed unconnected with 
 any solar myth, but the basis of fact is hard to 
 distinguish. There are strong marks of reality 
 in ch. xviixviii. The absence of any provision 
 for the Levites such as we find in the Pentateuch 
 is seen in the poverty of the grandson of Moses. 
 Chs. xix.—xxi. are a late fiction, ascribing a unity 
 of feeling and action to the tribes which could 
 not have existed at the time. Hosea ix. 9, x. 9 
 does not refer to these events, but to the 
 appointment of Saul as king. The way in which 
 these criticisms are supported is often acute, but 
 also wilful and confident. 
 
 VI. Text, &.—Some miscellaneous observa- 
 tions follow here. The most important of the 
 readings of the Qeri or of MSS., as well as of 
 the ancient Versions, are noticed in the margin 
 of the Revised Version. We may remark 
 further that some word must have dropped out 
 of the text at the beginning of xvi. 2, though 
 it is not necessary to supply anything with 
 the Qeri in xx. 13. The soundness too of 
 the text may be doubted in xx. 38; xxi. 22. 
 The reading of the LXX. in x. 12 of Midian 
 for Maon is easy, and supplies a name which 
 we look for. But the Syriac reads Ammon, 
 and the Vulgate Chanaan, which makes it 
 likely that the reading of the text, which is 
 found again in 2 Ch. xxvi. 7, is original. Of 
 conjectural emendations without ancient support 
 we may cite the proposal to read Moses for 
 Joshua, already mentioned, in i. 1; Gilboa for 
 Gilead, vii. 3; “in Arumah” for “in Tormah ” 
 (or “ privily’’), ix. 31. Ewald’s conjecture of 
 Shegal, “queen” or “consort,” for Shalal, 
 “spoil,” in v. 31 has met with great favour; 
 and in v. 26, by reading Tishlachennah (‘she 
 put it forth,” ie. her hand), a grammatical 
 difficulty is removed. 
 
 Instances of playing on words as affecting the 
 
 choice or form of them are found in x. 4; | 
 
 xvi. 16. The shortening of the relative to Shin 
 praefixum, which is frequent in the later Books, 
 occurs in v. 7, vi. 17, vii. 12, viii. 26, and is 
 allowed to be no objection to the antiquity of 
 the documents in which it is found. It has been 
 thought to be a mark of the language of 
 
 1849 
 
 The same view has been 
 taken of the use of the absolute form instead of 
 the construct in Zsedah (vii. 8) and Ophrah 
 (viii. 32). But the only certain trace of pro- 
 vincialism in the Old Testament is the habit of 
 the Ephraimites of pronouncing Shin as Samech, 
 as in the case of Shibboleth (xii. 6). 
 
 The part of Josephus parallel:with the Book 
 of Judges is Ant. vy. 2-8. Among the curiosities 
 of his account is the supplying of the name of 
 Jephthah’s burial-place, Sebea (7, 12), and of 
 Abimelech’s mother, Druma (7, 1). Can the 
 latter have arisen in any way out of Arumah 
 (ix. 41)? So, too, Samson’s mother is named 
 Zelelponi in Jewish tradition from 1 Ch. iv. 2, 3. 
 
 The character of the patristic commentaries in 
 general is that of Jerome’s often-quoted words 
 (ad Paulinum, 12), “In Judicum libro quot prin- 
 cipes populi, tot figurae sunt.” Of the more 
 modern German commentaries, Studer’s (2nd ed., 
 Bern, 1842) led the way in the freer mode of 
 treatment. He was followed by Bertheau, 
 Leipzig, 1845, 2nd ed., 1883. Besides Ewald’s 
 History of the People of Israel, the following 
 works are important:—Th. Néldeke, Die alttest. 
 Literatur, Leipzig, 1868, and his Untersuchungen 
 zur Kritik des A. Tests., Kiel, 1869; Well- 
 hausen’s edition of Bleek’s Hinleitung, Berlin, 
 1878, and his Prolegomena zur Gesch. Israel, 
 1883 (English translation, 1885, which includes 
 a reprint of his article on Israel in the Hneyel. 
 Brit. xiii.); Reuss, Die Gesch. der heiligen 
 Schriften A. Ts., Braunschweig, 1881; Riehm, 
 HW2B.s.n. “Richter” ; Budde, Die BB. Richter 
 u. Samuel, 1890; Kittel, Geschichte d. Hebréer, 
 ii. §§ 30, 33-38. Commentaries of a conservative 
 character are those of Keil, 2nd ed., Leipzig, 
 1872; Cassel, 1865; and Bachmann, as far as 
 the end of ch. v., Berlin, 1868. The first two 
 are translated into English. The more recent 
 English ones are those of Bishop Wordsworth, 
 the Bishop of Bath and Wells (Speaker’s Com- 
 mentary), Dr. Farrar (Bishop Ellicott’s), and 
 Mr. Lias in the Cambridge Series. See also 
 Driver’s LOT.‘ ch, ii. § 1. Dean Stanley gives 
 a vivid account of “ the mediaeval history of the 
 Jewish Church ” in his Lectures, xiii.—xvi. 
 
 Ewald’s version of ch. v. is found in Dei 
 Dichter des A. B., 2nd ed., 1866, i. p. 178 sqq. ; 
 Stanley’s is founded on Ewald’s first edition. 
 See also Béttcher, Die Gltesten Buhnendichtungen, 
 der Debora-Gesang und das Hohe Lied, dramatisch 
 hergestellt, Leipzig, 1850. On the character of 
 Jael’s act, see Arnold’s Sermons on the Interpre- 
 tation of Scripture, and Mozley’s Lectures on the 
 Old Testament, vi—vii.; who has also some 
 interesting remarks on the way in which Jabin 
 remains in the background and the prominence 
 of Sisera, p. 145 sqq. A list of the literature 
 on this chapter is given by Bertheau and Cassel, 
 but most fully by Bachmann. LE. R. 0.) 
 
 JUDGMENT-HALL. The word Prae- 
 torium (TIparépiov) is so translated five times 
 in' the A. V. of the N. T.; and in those five 
 passages it denotes two different places. 
 
 1. In John xviii, 28,.33, xix. 9, it is the 
 residence which Pilate occupied when he visited 
 Jerusalem; to which the Jews brought Jesus 
 from the house of Caiaphas, and within which He 
 was examined by Pilate, and scourged and 
 mocked by the soldiers, while the Jews were 
 
 JUDGMENT-HALL 
 
1850 JUDGMENT-HALL 
 
 waiting without in the neighbourhood of the 
 judgment-seat (erected on the Pavement in front 
 of the Praetorium), on which Pilate sat when 
 he pronounced the final sentence. The Latin 
 word praetorium originally signified (see Smith’s 
 Dict. of Gr. § Rom. Ant.) the general’s tent in 
 a Roman camp (Liv. xxviii. 27, &c.); and after- 
 wards it had, among other significations, that 
 of the palace in which a governor of a province 
 lived and administered justice (Cic. Verr. ii. 4, 
 § 28, &c.). The site of Pilate’s praetorium in 
 Jerusalem has given rise to much dispute, some 
 supposing it to be the palace of king Herod, 
 others the Tower of Antonia; but it has been 
 shown elsewhere that the former was probably 
 the Praetorium. [JERUSALEM, p. 1655.] Pilate 
 certainly lived there at one time (Philo, Leg. 
 in Caium, 38, 39); and it is scarcely conceivable 
 that the Roman Governor would have occupied 
 any other palace than that which, with its three 
 great towers, formed the citadel of the Upper 
 City (Jos. B. J. ii. 3, § 25 v. 5, § 8). Herod, 
 who, at the time of the trial of Christ, was at 
 Jerusalem (Luke xxiii. 7), no doubt lived in the 
 old palace of the Asmoneans, which stood above 
 the Xystus, on the E. side of the Upper City. 
 (JERUSALEM, p. 1647.] It appears from a 
 passage of Josephus (B. J. ii. 14, § 8) that 
 Gessius Florus not only resided in the palace, 
 but set up his judgment-seat in front of it. 
 Winer conjectures, with great probability, that 
 the procurator, when in Jerusalem, resided with 
 a body-guard in the palace of Herod (Jos. B. J. 
 ii. 15, § 5), while the Roman garrison occupied 
 Antonia. Just in like manner, a former palace 
 of Hiero became the praetorium, in which Verres 
 lived in Syracuse (Cic. Verr. ii. 5, § 12). 
 
 2. In Acts xxiii. 35 Herod’s judgment-hall or 
 praetorium in Caesarea was doubtless a part of 
 that magnificent range of buildings, the erection 
 of which by king Herod is described in Josephus 
 (Ant. xv. 9, ὃ 6; see also B. J. i. 21, §§ 5-8). 
 
 3. The word “ palace,” or “ Caesar’s court,” 
 in the A. V. of Philip. i. 13, is a translation of 
 the same word praetorium, The statement in 
 a later part of the same Epistle (iv. 22) would 
 seem to connect this praetorium with the 
 imperial palace at Rome; but no classical 
 authority is found for so designating the palace 
 itself. The praetorian camp, outside the 
 northern wall of Rome, was far from the 
 palace, and therefore unlikely to be the prae- 
 torium here mentioned. The opinion advocated 
 by Wieseler, by Conybeare and Howson.(Life of 
 St. Paul, ch. 26), and by Bp. Lightfoot (Comm. 
 on Philip. in loco) is adopted by the R. V. text, 
 and is to the effect that the praetorium here 
 mentioned has a personal sense and was intended 
 to describe that detachment of the Praetorian 
 Guards which was in immediate attendance 
 upon the emperor, and had barracks in Mount 
 Palatine. It will be remembered that St. Paul, 
 on his arrival at Rome (Acts xxviii. 16), was 
 delivered by the centurion into the custody of 
 the praetorian prefect. 
 
 4. The word praetorium occurs also in Matt. 
 XXvil. 27, where it is translated “ common hall” 
 or “ Governor’s House ” (marg.; R. V. “palace ”), | 
 and in Mark xv. 16. In both places it denotes 
 Pilate’s residence in Jerusalem. 
 
 5. Christian tradition, without exception, 
 places the Praetorium east of the Church of | 
 
 JUDITH, THE BOOK OF 
 
 the Holy Sepulchre. The Bordeaux Pilgrim, 
 proceeding from (modern) Sion to the Gate of 
 Neapolis (Damascus Gate), had Calvary on his 
 left hand, and, on his right, “ below in the 
 valley ” the ruins of the “ house or praetorium 
 of Pontius Pilate.” 
 of it as “a desert place.” Antoninus and 
 Theodosius identify it with a Church of 8. 
 Sophia, apparently on the site now occupied by 
 the Dome of the Rock. At a later period it 
 was placed at the Gate of Neapolis (nom. i., 
 
 Cyril (Cat, xiii. 39) speaks — 
 
 § 2). According to current tradition, it was at — 
 the N.W. corner of the Haram esh-Sherif, where — 
 
 the Turkish barracks stand. 
 
 [W. T. B.] [W.] 
 
 JUDGMENT-SEAT, the transiation in ~ 
 various places of βῆμα (e.g. Matt. xxvii. 19; 
 
 John xix. 13; Acts xviii. 12, xxv. 6; Rom. xiv. 
 10; 1 Cor. v. 10) and κριτήριον (e.g. Jas. ii. 
 6). The R. V. marg. in 1 Cor, vi. 2, 4 gives to 
 this latter word the rendering tribunal. In 
 Matt. xxvii. 19, John xix. 13, the judgment- 
 seat or tribunal on which Pilate sat, when he 
 delivered our Lord to death, was outside the 
 praetorium or judgment-hall (see preceding 
 article). This judgment-seat, we are told by 
 St. John (7. c.), stood on a place “called The 
 Pavement, but in Hebrew Gabbatha.” The 
 subject is discussed under GABBATHA. [F.] 
 
 JU’DITH. 1. (NF; Ἰουδίθ, ᾿Τουδείθ, 
 Ἰουδήθ), “the daughter of Beeri the Hittite,” 
 and wife of Esau (Gen. xxvi. 34). [AHOLIBA- 
 MAH. | 
 
 2. The heroine of the apocryphal book which — 
 
 bears her name, who appears as an ideal type otf 
 piety (Judith viii. 6), beauty (xi. 21), courage, 
 and chastity (xvi. 22 sq.). Her supposed 
 descent from Simeon (ix. 2), and the manner in 
 which she refers to his cruel deed (Gen. xxxiy. 
 25 sq.), mark the conception of the character, 
 which evidently belongs to a period of stern and 
 perilous conflict. The most unscrupulous 
 daring (xiii.) is combined with zealous ritualism 
 (xii. 1 sq.), and faith is turned to action rather 
 than to supplication (viii. 31 sq.). Clement of 
 Rome (Zp. i. 55) assigns to Judith the epithet 
 given to Jael (lovdel@ ἣ μακαρία) ; and Jerome 
 sees in her exploit the image of the victory of 
 the Church over the power of evil (Zp. lxxix. 11, 
 p- 508: “ Judith ... in typo Ecclesiae diabolum 
 capite truncavit ;” cp. Zp. xxii. 21, p. 105). 
 
 The name is properly the feminine form οὗ 
 *V11), Judaeus (cp. Jer. xxxvi. 14, 21). In the — 
 
 passage of Genesis it is generally taken as the — 
 
 correlative of Judah, i.e. “ praised.” [B. F. W.] 
 
 JU'DITH, THE BOOK OF, like that of 
 
 Tobit, belongs to the earliest specimens of 
 historical fiction. The narrative of the reign 
 of * Nebuchadnezzar king of Nineveh” (i. 1), of 
 the campaign of Holofernes, and the deliverance 
 of Bethulia, through the stratagem and courage 
 of the Jewish heroine, contains too many and 
 too serious difficulties, both historical and geo- 
 graphical, to allow of the supposition that it 
 is either literally true, or even carefully moulded 
 
 on truth. The existence of a kingdom of Nine- — 
 
 veh and the reign of a Nebuchadnezzar are in 
 themselves inconsistent with a date after the 
 Return; and an earlier date is excluded equally 
 by internal evidence and by the impossibility of 
 
 δ... 
 
 ——— “᾿ ἃ 
 
_—_ 
 
 JUDITH, THE BOOK OF 
 
 placing the events in harmonious connexion with 
 the course of Jewish history. The latter fact 
 is seen most clearly in the extreme varieties of 
 opinion among those critics who have endea- 
 voured to maintain the veracity of the story. 
 Nebuchadnezzar has been identified with Cam- 
 byses, Xerxes, Esarhaddon, Sardanapalus, Kini- 
 ladan, Merodach Baladan, Artaxerxes Ochus, 
 &c., without the slightest show of probability. 
 But, apart from this, the text evidently alludes 
 to the position of the Jews after the Exile when 
 the Temple was rebuilt (v. 18, 19; iv. 3), and 
 the hierarchical government established in place 
 of the kingdom (xv. 8, ἡ γερουσία τῶν υἱῶν 
 Ἰσραήλ: cp. iv. 4, Samaria; viii. 6, προσάβ- 
 Baroy, προυμηνίον) ; and after the Return the 
 course of authentic history absolutely excludes 
 the possibility of the occurrence of such events 
 as the book relates. This fundamental con- 
 tradiction of facts, which underlies the whole 
 narrative, renders it superfluous to examine in 
 detail the other objections which may be urged 
 against it (e.g. iv. 6, Joacim; ep. 1 Ch. vi.; 
 Joseph. Ant. x. 8, § 6 [Joacm]). These objec- 
 tions are summarised by Zéckler (in Strack u. 
 Zockler’s Kgf. Komm. “Die Apokryphen d. 
 A. ΤΙ; Das B. Judith, Kini. § 2). 
 
 2. The value of the book is not, however, 
 lessened by its fictitious character. On the 
 contrary it becomes even more valuable as ex- 
 hibiting an ideal type of heroism, which was 
 outwardly embodied in the wars of independence. 
 The self-sacrificing faith and unscrupulous 
 bravery of Judith were the qualities by which 
 the champions of Jewish freedom were then 
 enabled to overcome the power of Syria, which 
 seemed at the time scarcely less formidable than 
 the imaginary hosts of Holofernes. The peculiar 
 character of the book, which is exhibited in 
 these traits, affords the best indication of its 
 date; for it cannot be wrong to refer its origin 
 to the latter portion of the Maccabaean period, 
 which it reflects not only in its general spirit 
 but even in smaller traits (see them collected in 
 Zéckler, ὃ 3). The impious design of Nebu- 
 chadnezzar finds a parallel in the prophetic de- 
 scription of Antiochus (Dan. xi. 31 sq.), and the 
 triumphant issue of Judith’s courage must be 
 compared not with the immediate results of 
 the invasion of Apollonius (as Bertholdt, inl. p. 
 2553 sq.), but with the victory which the author 
 pictured to himself as the reward of faith. But 
 while it seems certain. that the book is to be 
 referred to the last two centuries B.c., the 
 attempts which have been made to fix its date 
 within narrower limits, either to the time of the 
 war of Alexander Jannaeus, at the close of the 
 reign of John Hyrcanus (105 B.c., Movers) or 
 of Salome-Alexandra (B.c. 79-70, Ball), or of 
 Demetrius II. (129 B.c., Ewald), rest on very 
 conjectural data. 
 (as a mere conjecture) to refer it to an earlier 
 time, c. 170 B.c., when Antiochus Epiphanes 
 made his first assault upon the Temple.* 
 
 ® The theory of Volkmar (Das vierte Buch Ezra, 
 p- 6; Theol. Jahrb. 1856-7) that the book of Judith re- 
 fers to the period of the Parthian war of Trajan, need 
 only be noticed in passing, as it assumes the spurious- 
 ness of the first epistle of Clement of Rome (ᾧ 6). Volk- 
 mar’s theory is examined by Ball, Speaker’s Comm. on 
 the Apocrypha, i. p. 244 sq., notes. 
 
 JUDITH, THE BOOK OF 1851 
 
 3. In accordance with the view which has 
 been given of the character and date of the book, 
 it is probable that the several parts may have a 
 distinct symbolic meaning. Some of the names 
 can scarcely have been chosen without regard to 
 their derivation (6... Achior = Brother of Light ; 
 Judith=Jewess ; Bethulia = myn, the virgin 
 of Jehovah), and the historical difficulties of the 
 person of Nebuchadnezzar disappear when he is 
 regarded as the Scriptural type of worldly 
 power. Luther looked upon the book as a kind 
 of Messianic prophecy (see Zéckler, ὃ 5). But 
 it is, perhaps, a mere play of fancy to allegorise 
 the whole narrative, as Grotius has done (Prol. 
 in Jud.), who interprets Judith of the Jewish 
 nation widowed of outward help, Bethulia 
 
 cay") of the Temple, Nebuchadnezzar of 
 
 the Devil, and Holofernes (WM) sadn, lictor 
 serpentis) of Antiochus, his emissary; while 
 Joacim, the high-priest, conveys, as he thinks, 
 by his name the assurance that “God will rise 
 up” to deliver His people. A similar attempt 
 at allegorising by Scholz is examined by Zéckler 
 (op. cit. § 2). 
 
 4. Two conflicting statements have been pre- 
 served as to the original language of the book. 
 Origen speaks of it together with Tobit as “ not 
 existing in Hebrew even among the Apocrypha” 
 
 It might seem more natural’ 
 
 in the Hebrew collection (Zp. ad Afric. § 13, 
 οὐδὲ γὰρ ἔχουσιν αὐτά [οἱ Ἑ βραϊοι] καὶ ἐν 
 ᾿Αποκρύφοις Ἑβραϊστί, ὡς ἀπ᾿ αὐτῶν μαθόντες 
 ἐγνώκαμεν), by which statement he seems to 
 imply that the book was originally written in 
 Greek. Jerome, on the other hand, says that 
 “among the Hebrews the book of Judith is 
 read among the Hagiographa [Apocrypha]. . . 
 and being written in the Chaldee language is 
 reckoned among the histories ” (Praef. ad Jud.). 
 The words of Origen are, however, somewhat 
 ambiguous. There is now little doubt that the 
 book was written in Palestine in Hebrew, and 
 that the Chaldee text used by St. Jerome did 
 not represent the oldest form of the narrative, 
 but was itself a free translation or adaptation of 
 the Hebrew account, which in his day was no 
 longer extant (Ball, i. 243). Some, however, 
 like Jahn (inl. ii. § 3) and Eichhorn (Zin. in αἰ. 
 Apokr. p. 327), have maintained the originality of 
 the present Greek text, on the authority of some 
 phrases which may be assigned very naturally 
 to the translator or reviser.? 
 
 5. The text exists at present in two distinct 
 recensions, the Greek (followed by the Syriac 
 and Old Latin Versions; cp. Ball, i. 242, n. 1) 
 and the Latin. The former is evidently the 
 truer representative of the original, and it 
 seems certain that the Latin was derived, in the 
 main, from the Greek by a series of succes- 
 sive alterations. Jerome confesses that his own 
 translation was free (“‘magis sensum e sensu 
 quam verbum e verbo transferens”); and pecu- 
 liarities of the language (Fritzsche, p. 122) 
 prove that he took the Old Latin as the basis 
 of his work, though he compared it with the 
 Chaldee text which was in his possession (“ sola 
 ea quae intelligentia integra in verbis Chaldaeis 
 invenire potui Latinis expressi”). The Latin 
 
 b The present Greek text clearly points to a Hebrew 
 original (Ball, i. 244. The illustration of this consti- 
 tutes an essential element in his Commentary). 
 
1852 JUEL 
 
 text contains many curious errors, which seem to 
 have arisen in the first instance from false hear- 
 ing (Bertholdt, Bini. p. 2574 sq.3 6.0. X. 9, καὶ 
 ἄρτων καθαρῶν. Vulg. et panes et caseum, i.e. 
 καὶ τυροῦ; xvi. 2, ὅτι εἰς παρεμβολὰς αὐτοῦ. 
 Vulg. qui posuit castra sua, i.e. ὁ θείς ; xvi. 17, 
 καὶ κλαύσονται ἐν αἰσθήσει. Vulg. ut urantur 
 et sentiant) ; and Jerome remarks that it had 
 been variously corrupted and interpolated before 
 his time. At present it is impossible to deter- 
 mine the authentic text. In many instances the 
 Latin is more full than the Greek (iv. 8-15, 
 νυ. 11-20, v. 22-24, vi. 15 sq., ix. 6 sq.), which 
 however contains peculiar passages (i. 13-16, vi. 
 1, &c.). Even where the two texts do not differ 
 in the details of the narrative, as is often the 
 case (e.g. 1, 3 sq., 111, 9, v. 9, vi. 13, Vii. 2 sq., 
 x. 12 sq., xv. 11, xvi. 25), they yet differ in 
 language (e.g. ch. xv., &c.) and in names (6.0. 
 viii. 1) and numbers (e.g. i. 2); and these varia- 
 tions can only be explained by going back to 
 some still more remote source (cp. Bertholdt, 
 Einl. p. 2568 sq.), which was probably an earlier 
 Greek copy.° 
 
 6. The existence of these various recensions of 
 the book is a proof of its popularity and wide 
 circulation, but the external evidence of its use 
 is very scanty. Josephus was not acquainted 
 with it, or it is likely that he would have made 
 some use of its contents, as he did of the apo- 
 cryphal additions to Esther (Jos. Ant. xi. 6, 
 § 1 sq.). The first reference to its contents 
 occurs in Clem. Rom. (Zp. i. 55), and it is quoted 
 with marked respect by Origen (Sel. in Jerem. 
 23; cp. Hom. ix. in Jud. i.), Hilary (in Psal. 
 exxy. 6), and Lucifer (De non parc. p. 955). 
 Jerome speaks of it as “‘reckoned among the 
 Sacred Scriptures by the Synod of Nice,” by 
 which he probably means that it was quoted in 
 the records of the Council, unless the text be 
 corrupt (see Ball, i. 242). It has been wrongly 
 inserted in the catalogue at the close of the 
 Apostolic Canons, against the best authority (ep. 
 Hody, De Bibl. Text. 646 a), but it obtained a 
 place in the Latin Canon at an early time (cp. 
 Hilar. Prol. in Ps. 15), which it commonly 
 maintained afterwards. [CANON.] 
 
 7. The Commentaries of Fritzsche (Kurzge- 
 fasstes Exeg. Handbuch, Leipzig, 1853) and Ball 
 (Apocrypha, edited by Dr. Wace, London, 1888) 
 contain good critical apparatus and scholarlike 
 notes. ‘The literature is collected by Zockler 
 (§ 5) and Ball (p. 260). ἔθ: Weil ee 11] 
 
 JU-EL (Ἰουνά; Johel). 1. 1 Esd. ix. 34. 
 (UrL.] 2. 1 Esd. ix. 35 (B. Οὐήλ, A. Ἰουήλ; 
 Jessei). [JOEL, 13.] 
 
 JU'LIA (lIovAla), a Christian woman at 
 Rome, probably the wife, or perhaps the sister, 
 of Philologus, in connexion with whom she is 
 saluted by St. Paul (Rom. xvi. 15). Origen 
 supposes that they were master and mistress of 
 a Christian household which included the other 
 persons mentioned in the same verse. Both 
 names point to a connexion with “the household 
 of Caesar” (see Speaker’s Comm. on Romans, in 
 loco). Ὁ ΒΓ 
 
 © Of modern Versions the English follows the Greek, 
 and that of Luther the Latin text. 
 
 JUNIPER 
 
 JU'LIUS (Ἰούλιος), the courteous centurion 
 of “ Augustus’ band,” to whose charge St. Paul — 
 
 was delivered when he was sent prisoner from 
 Caesarea to Rome (Acts xxvii. 1, 3). Augustus’ 
 band has been identified by some commentators 
 
 with the Italian band (Acts x. 1); by others, — 
 
 less probably, with the body of cavalry denomi- 
 nated Sebasteni by Josephus (Ant. xix. 9, ὃ 2, &c.), 
 It is more probable that the Augustan cohort 
 was a detachment of the Praetorian Guards 
 attached to tne person of the Roman governor at 
 Caesarea, and that this Julius may be the same 
 as Julius Priscus (Tacit. Hist. ii. 92, iv. 11), 
 sometime centurion, afterwards prefect of the 
 
 Praetorians. [W. To Bal 
 
 JU'NIA (Iovvias, ic. Juntas), a Christian 
 at Rome, mentioned by St. Paul as one of his 
 kinsfolk and fellow-prisoners, of note among the 
 Apostles, and in Christ before St. Paul (Rom. 
 xvi. 7). Origen conjectures that he was possibly 
 one of the seventy disciples. Hammond also 
 takes the name to be that of a man, Junias, 
 which would be a contraction (as Winer observes) 
 of Junilius or Junianus. Chrysostom, holding 
 the more common, but perhaps less probable, hy- 
 pothesis that the name is that of a woman, Junia, 
 remarks on it, “‘ How great is the devotion of this 
 woman, that she should be counted worthy of 
 the name of Apostle!” Nothing is known of 
 the imprisonment to which St. Paul refers: 
 Origen supposes that it is that bondage from 
 which Christ makes Christians free. [W. T. B.] 
 
 JU’NIPER. The rendering in A. V. and 
 Rk. V. (but R. V. margin broom) of the 
 Hebrew Of), rothem; ῥαθμέν, φυτόν ; juniperus ; 
 
 Arab, >y ratam ; or Moorish Bay ratamah, 
 
 whence the Spanish retama, applied to the 
 Genista, or Broom. Réthem occurs but in four 
 passages: 1 K. xix. 4,5; Job xxx. 4; Ps. cxx. 
 4, There is no question as to identification of 
 the Hebrew name with the ratam of the Arabs, 
 as shown by Celsius (Hierob. ii. 195) and Forskal 
 (Flor, Ey.-Arab. lvi.). It has nothing to do 
 with the juniper, which is expressed by TW, 
 ‘ar‘ar [see HEATH]. 
 (or Broom) genus of the family Leguminosae, 
 Retama raetam. Forsk. of botanists. It may be 
 considered the characteristic shrub ofthe desert, 
 as it is the largest, most conspicuous, and most 
 beautiful. It is as common in the dry wadys or 
 ravines as on the rocky plains, always on barren 
 ground, and rarely at a high elevation. It is 
 especially abundant in the neighbourhood of 
 Sinai and in the ravines of Petra, in company 
 with the caper or hyssop, and the savin juniper. 
 It is frequent all round the Dead Sea, and in 
 the ravines of the Jordan, and also on the barer 
 slopes of the hills of Gilead and Moab. Its 
 geographical range is from Arabia to Upper 
 Egypt and North-east Africa. Westward, in 
 the plateaux of Spain and Portugal, and in the 
 Canary Islands, it is represented by allied 
 species. Like many of its congeners, the 
 Brooms, it puts forth its blossom in the early 
 spring, before its leaves; and in the month of 
 February, the shower of delicate white and 
 purplish-pink blossoms which cover it, as with a 
 gauzy mantle light as gossamer, renders it one of 
 
 | the most graceful and beautiful of shrubs. It — 
 
 It is allied to the Genista: 
 
 EE 
 
JUPITER 
 
 attains a height of ten or twelve feet, and 
 affords a grateful though not very impervious 
 shade. It was under a rdthem bush that Elijah 
 lay down, when he fled into the wilderness, in 
 the solitary passage which connects the desert of 
 the wanderings with the subsequent history of 
 Israel. ‘ He came and sat down under a juniper 
 tree (rdthem) . .. and as he lay and slept under 
 a juniper tree (rdthem) an angel touched him” 
 (i Καὶ. xix. 45). Dean Stanley incidentally 
 mentions (S. § P, p. 80) that, in the only storm 
 of rain he ever encountered in his travels in the 
 desert, he took shelter under a “ Retem bush. ” 
 It is ruthlessly uprooted by the Arabs, who 
 collect it wherever it is tolerably abundant, for 
 the manufacture of charcoal, which is considered 
 of the finest quality, and fetches a higher price 
 in the Cairo market than any other kind. This 
 explains the allusion in Ps. exx. 4, “Sharp 
 arrows of the mighty, with coals of rdthem.” 
 The roots being of great thickness and solidity, 
 very much larger than the stem, a single bush 
 will supply no inconsiderable quantity of fuel. 
 There is more difficulty in the passage in Job in 
 which the word occurs, where the Patriarch 
 describes outcasts from Edom driven into the 
 wilderness, and in the last extremity of star- 
 vation “ cutting up mallows by the bushes, and 
 rothem roots for their meat” (ch. xxx. 4), 
 The woody root is of course uneatable, and the 
 bark of it is very bitter, but not poisonous ; 
 while the stems, leaves, and fruit are eagerly 
 sought after by goats, and in extreme cases 
 might, like many other leguminous. plants, 
 maintain human life for a time. Gesenius 
 (p. 1317, ed. 1842) suggests that the root may 
 be used here in a general sense, for the whole 
 plant; and under UY (p. 1484) adduces 
 
 various -arguments to show that the word 
 shoresh is employed sometimes to express the 
 whole product of a plant, what the root pro- 
 duces, and therefore its seeds or fruit, which 
 might be edible. One of the stations during the 
 forty years’ wandering of the Exodus was named 
 Rithmah, ὁ.6. the place of Rothem (Num. xxxiii. 
 18). (H. 5: T.] 
 
 JU’PITER (Ζεύς, LXX.). Among the chief 
 measures which Antiochus Epiphanes took for 
 the entire subversion of the Jewish faith was 
 that of dedicating the Temple at Jerusalem to 
 the service of Zeus Olympius (2 Mace. vi. 2), and 
 at the same time the rival temple on Gerizim 
 was dedicated to Zeus Xenius (Jupiter hospitalis, 
 Vulg.). The choice of the first epithet is easily 
 intelligible. The Olympian Zeus was the national 
 god of the Hellenic race (Thucyd. iii. 14), as 
 well as the supreme ruler of the heathen world, 
 and as such formed the true opposite to Jehovah, 
 Who had revealed Himself as the God of Abraham. 
 The application of the second epithet, “the God 
 of hospitality ” (cp. Grimm on 2 Mace. I. c.), is 
 more obscure. In 2 Mace. vi. 2 it is explained 
 by the clause, “as was the character of those 
 
 JUTTAH 1853 
 
 who dwelt in the place,” which may, however, 
 be an ironical comment of the writer (cp. Q. Curt. 
 iv. 5, 8), and not a sincere eulogy of the hospi- 
 tality of the Samaritans (as Ewald, Gesch. iv. 
 339 n.). Jupiter or Zeus is mentioned in one 
 passage of the N. T., on the occasion of St. Paul’s 
 visit to Lystra (Acts xiv. 12, 13), where the ex- 
 pression “ Jupiter, which was before their city,” 
 means that his temple was outside the city. 
 
 [Β. F. W.] 
 
 JU’'SHAB-HE'SED (1DN~ 2.07)"; B. Apopd- 
 σουκ, A. ᾿Ασοβαέσδ ; Josabhesed), son of Zerub- 
 babel (1 Ch. iii, 20). It does not appear why 
 the five children in this verse are separated from 
 the three in υ. 19. Bertheau and Oettli (in 
 Strack u. Zéckler’s Kyf. Komm. in loco) suggest 
 that they might be by a different mother, or 
 possibly born in Judaea after the return, whereas 
 the three others were born at Babylon. The 
 name of Jushab-hesed = Loving-kindness is re- 
 turned, taken in conjunction with that of his 
 father and brothers, is a striking expression of 
 the feelings of pious Jews at the return from 
 Captivity, and at the same time a good illustra- 
 tion of the nature of Jewish names. [A. C. H.] 
 
 JUS'TUS Ἰοῦστος). Schoettgen (Hor. 
 Hebr. in Act. Ap.) shows by quotations from 
 Rabbinical writers that this name was not 
 unusual among the Jews. 1. A surname of 
 Joseph called Barsabas (Acts i. 23). (JosEPH 
 BARSABAS, p. 1807.] 
 
 2. A Jewish proselyte at Corinth, into whose 
 house St. Paul (Acts xviii. 7) entered when he 
 left the synagogue. Such a house might well 
 be a meeting place for Hebrew and Greek (cp. 
 Speaker’s Comm. in loco). 
 
 3. A surname of Jesus, a friend of St. Paul 
 (Col. iv. 11). [Jusus, p. 1663.] [F.] 
 
 JUT'TAH (Josh. xv. 55, plene mo, 
 but xxi. 16, MB): Ἰτάν, A. Ἰεττά; Τανύ, 
 A. omits: Jota, Teta), a city in the mountain 
 region of Judah, in the neighbourhood of Maon 
 and Carmel (Josh. xv. 55). It was allotted to 
 the priests (xxi. 16), but in the catalogue of 
 1 Ch. vi. 57-59 the name has escaped. In the 
 time of Eusebius it was a large village (κώμη 
 μεγίστη), 18 M.P. southward of Eleutheropolis 
 and in Daroma (0.8.2 p. 266, 49; p. 233, 10, 
 s.v. Ἴεττάν ; Ietan). Reland (Pal. p. 870) con- 
 jectures that Juttah is the πόλις ᾿Ιούδα (Α. V. “a 
 city of Juda”) in the hill country, in which 
 Zacharias, the father of John the Baptist, resided 
 (Luke i. 39). But this, though feasible, is not 
 at present confirmed by any positive evidence, 
 
 It is now Yutta, a large village 153 miles 
 from Beit-Jibrin, Eleutheropolis, and near 
 Carmel, Kurmul, and Ziph, Tell ez-Zif. Rock- 
 hewn tombs and wine-presses are found near the 
 village. The present inhabitants are very rich 
 in flocks (PEF. Mem. iii. 310; Robinson, B. R. 
 Ist ed. ii, 195, 628). [61] [1] 
 
 END OF THE SECOND PART OF THE FIRST VOLUME. 
 
ad Pai ul 
 Bo: 
 
 LONDON: 
 PRINTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, ean 
 "STAMFORD STREET AND CHARING CROSS. 
 
 2 Swed 
 i‘ A ον } 4 
 τῇ Ὧ Pie why ΝΑ WAY εν lee 
 on δι φ ᾿ 
 7 » Δ ον: 
 
 4 ar Reon Ἂν phe 
 mae 
 
- 
 
 Ἷ 
 
 01143 2327 
 
a ACER 
 
 - παν 
 
 αν tes wae 
 
 «ἢ 
 
" 
 
 ΝΥ 
 a er ἢ 
 
 {item μεν ψεν aeaeet & 
 
 al ψ» 
 
 rye 
 
 fone 
 
 ΣΝ. 
 et ied 44: ὁ ταν ὁπ ΦιῚ 
 pea, 
 
 sew 
 
 Pimper ss AH A 
 
 vee 
 
 ΧΟΥ͂Ν 
 
 wee 
 
 reer eee 
 
 ΟΝ 
 
 ῃ 
 
 Ce eee 
 where 
 
 STR AT tke ἡ 1, 
 
 δ» 
 
 aN spew ν 
 
 ΠΟΥ 
 
 tof αν 
 ae es 
 
 Correia rr en ieee 
 ‘ 
 
 Tepe PORN Bead 
 OTe Ν 
 nt ey 
 
 ΠΥ 
 
 He 
 
 ῇ 
 ‘ 
 
 Bh ees 
 
 ' 
 4d be 
 
 Se SL Oe ΧΕ ΝΥ 
 
 toler > ὁ. 
 ΠΥ ee er 
 Wh 4 εν ὁ ἐν μεν ey 
 CC }4 γε δύνει, νι Ὁ 
 Hee nt ee 
 OR ee τὰ 
 Cee rare eae ay 
 
 CNP ee ee ge 
 ἌΧ] 
 ᾿ 
 
 ΒΥ 
 
 Μι." 
 
 Cr sneer ae Bene 
 
 ree UENO aw SM aste we ΗΝ 
 ΠΥ 
 
 CUP ee See ee 
 re eo ey “εκ εν 
 ΡΥ) 
 Fk εν ἐδ αἰ εὐ» ἂν,“ 
 δι ee te δὴν eet en et 
 HAS tte ee at , 
 NS ily 
 nee «1» ‘ 
 ΤΌ: Ce ee σ,0 4 κἐν Lad ee ραν 
 ΠΟΥ tee re ἃ ἡ ἀξ λιν Hee 
 δα ἐὰ ee ee a TY ee ibe Seg 
 wii sie veers 
 Os ag betas aes Cae) se thee 
 ' et “ἢν a tee 
 ' ote 
 
 Ae NE Hite 
 
 en a 
 
 " 
 
 rk Weenie 
 
 ree helt 
 
 1 
 
 eres 
 
 abe te 
 ἀνὰ γ᾽ 
 
 ἊΝ 
 
 ἀν 8νν εἰς εἰν 
 
 “Φις ἀνέ νειν 
 
 oh aay 
 eee 
 wey 
 
 corel 
 
 BN een 
 
 mich y,! acy 
 
 hes 
 
 OM re 
 
 avers ἀπ ον 
 rarer 
 yee 
 oe Cal a PTT Wy 
 tein κεν εν 
 
 WEES δε νος φϑενὴν ὅν 
 4 κι νῳ te 
 
 αν, 
 
 Vth y 
 
 4 
 
 7 4 
 o430 
 rer 
 + 
 
 Pe gate eh wale gy 
 A νὰ ἡ κι 
 ΣΎΝ 
 ΠΝ 
 Cee et Sr 
 
 ΟΝ 
 ὑπ κὸν κόνει 
 
 bite 
 
 pine yes 
 
 ages 
 
 Ppa tte 
 Ce ees 
 “Φ δ eet 
 sre Wp ὑδεῖνν 
 rere seer ren 
 
 Ouse? rari 
 
 ἜΝ 
 yrate 
 
 ee es 
 
 Oe Roe ren 
 sory 
 
 tHE tbe 
 ὑφ 
 
 4.5 
 αι 
 
 δε hed sey 
 ee ar a, ae 
 
 nr rey errant it 
 
 7 
 
 Art 
 ome 
 
 ᾿ 
 
 Heke 
 
 ne 
 wee 
 
 artrey 
 
 ras 
 
 rs ee Re , 14 
 
 owe 
 tebe 
 
 Caer ar arery 
 
 Η 
 
 ΟΝ 
 ee 
 VR Oe ate gy eed 
 
 Bee rere Leth 
 eee aay 
 ear τος 
 Fe bee phem dary 
 Tee dre bata gto ge 
 
 ve 
 
 Peter 
 
 Hevie bie bye ane 
 
 mr Corer arts er αι ἢ 
 λει φεῳ δεν ved νὰ νὴ 
 
 κι Φλ4 ὅν etek ty 
 
 stm ne 
 
 vibes be 
 ve las 
 
 ete te 
 Aare eee 
 Poa Pea ee Se 
 rere Wee 
 
 Peer rey aie 0 Te) 
 een ee 
 thee be 
 
 re ee 4 ἐὰν 
 POE ey 
 Fit ere heey 
 ea ἐμὰ ματι 
 + δ ΚΣ 
 τὰν 
 
 - 
 
 4 
 
 rt ae ee 
 4 eee nae 
 
 we 
 χὰ ἐξ νικ ξεν 
 ΑΝ tb wee 
 WE tere PEP ae eter Ἢ 
 ΠΥ ΥΥΥ 
 Ove 
 
 ῃ 
 
 Ἧ 
 is 
 . 
 . 
 u 
 
 ' 
 ᾿ 
 
 v 
 
 OD sb kw Plas aks 
 
 wy ky ‘ 
 Κα νε ne 4 τ 
 
 tom WEY eg aye : 
 
 Pe ae “4 
 
 “ Were wee wary ον 
 
 ob aria 
 
 bing 
 
 ‘ out 
 
 ᾿ ταν 
 
 ' ui 
 
 PROT hate a 
 
 HET Foe it eae 
 
 Ph OME Lig hha wy 
 
 We hee yg ke Ὁ 
 
 raed be Sy thes yo 
 
 10-4 TS oS ten 
 
 ΧΑ vee 
 
 . Ἐκ κα ee α 
 
 eee wr γε toe 
 
 ew tee 
 
 Corre eer 
 
 {ραν ὠρ τα 
 
 “ μι ἐν 
 
 ane dae 
 “ων νν 
 «τφέναν nee 
 
 ΠΕ τα ee 
 
 ΣΆ. 
 
 re a 
 erat 
 
 AEN bey ye bed 
 
 CLS Oa el AP ἡ τβενεν ἡ γι 
 τρέφον te te ie eed δὲ 
 
 FONE a ge 
 eet nee we ye 
 8: Ἔλεγε aa rier a 
 ΔΝ φέρεν Φ αι νιν 
 
 Pee 
 Cee era) 
 “οὐ μὰν ey 
 
 wet 
 ate 
 
 + 
 
 τὰ 
 ῃ 
 
 ΠῚ 
 
 ' 
 wr 
 ae err 
 Hees 
 ss © ow ty reer 
 Son, 44} ryan ay 
 ete tt ee dew 
 ΞΗΡᾺ, ὁ h a4 nese Peres 
 Ὁ". 
 On qin 
 Fee onde yg Se ἀν δ} “Ὁ 
 ΟΝ 
 ΠΣ ΣΥΝ 
 $1922) sara pape, spelt 
 κι τον . ‘ 
 Merry eee Cre eer ἢ 
 te “ιν ate OT cata Td pene rade tate gat ead 
 beget ET Boe ere tae Peep nace hue ae ἐξ 
 ΠΥ ΤΥ ὌΡΗ Wot ae wt 
 ΠΥ ΟΣ aa ᾿ 
 ΟΝ ΠΧ bene 
 re ee via ἮΝ ὶ we 
 te ᾿ Γ tose 
 Vie ef ᾿ 
 ἜΝ ἐν Η 
 reve boas ia) 
 κὰν 
 pL di ho 
 tae oe ἧ se ra 
 Crease aa 7 
 meee td ip thos 
 three og ‘ 
 , i 4h τ 
 Paras i are vl « «ὦ vi 
 
 ve 
 oe 
 
 Pre ἀν υγ ὅν 
 
 να 
 rat 
 
 hee tine 
 
 “αι 
 Baye ew 
 bee 
 sue 
 ὑπ νὴ, 
 bee 
 ook 
 
 ‘ 
 
 f 
 a fale ft 7 
 
 ey p 
 ΙΝ, 
 am ane ἔν. 
 “ fos on 
 Hee i 7 
 
 ΠΕ 
 Pree ere gy 
 ta